unitin
ममता

THE TRAVELLER'S LIBRARY,
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
IN COURSE OF PUBLICATION IN VOLUMES AT HALF-A-CROWN
AND IN PARTS PRICE ONE SHILLING EACH :
Oomprising books of valuable mformation and acknowledged merit, in a form
adapted for reading while Travelling, and also of a character that will render them
worthy of preservation.
1837
VOL. 1. MA
... 2/6
ARTES
SCIENTIA
II.
OF THE
LIBRARY VERITAS
ONE, 2/6
.... 2/6
III. LA
IV. PE
.... 2/6
2/6
E PLURIBUS UNUM
VI. MA
2/6
VII. 11
VIII. TU
... 2/6
IX W1
TUE BÜR
2/6
X MI
SUD
2/6
XI. JE
s!
SI QUAERIS PENINSULAM AMOENAME
CIRCUMSPICE
2/6
2/6
XII. TA
X111. HU
XIV. SI
XV. AI
.... 24
2/6
XVI. Ou
XVII. M
XVIII. I
2/6
.. 2/6
XIX. JE
... 2/6
XX HC
.... 9/6
XXI. TE
TION, 2/8
XXII. MEMOIR of DUKE OF WELLINGTON and LIFE of MARSHAL TURENNE, 2/6
XXII. TURKEY and CHRISTENDOM & KANKE'S FERDINAND and MAXIMILIAN 2/6
XXIV. FERGUSON'S SWISS MEN and SWISS MOUNTAINS and
2/6
BARROW'S CONTINENTAL TOUR.
XXV. SOUVESTRE'S WORKING MAN'S CONFESSIONS and
2
ATTIC PHILOSOPHER in PARIS...
2/6
XXVI. MACAULAY's ESSAYS on LORD BYRON and the COMIC DRAMATISTS
and his SPEECHES on PARLIAMENTARY REFORM (1831-32).... 2/6
XXVII. SHIRLEY BROOKS'S RUSSIANS of the SOUTH and Dr.
Dr.
2/6
KEMP'S INDICATIONS of INSTINCT......
XXVIII. LANMAN'S ADVENTURES in the WILDS of NORTH AMERICA
2/6
London: LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, and LONGMANS:
LIBRARY
MERSITY OT PICOLGA
BER)
OF THE
NO

S. HIPPOLYTUS
Episcopus Portus Urbis Romae.
344
HIPPOLYTUS AND HIS AGE;
OR,
THE BEGINNINGS AND PROSPECTS
OF
CHRISTIANITY.
BY
CHRISTIAN CHARLES JOSIAS BUNSEN,
D.D., D.C.L, D. PH.
SECOND EDITION.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
HIPPOLYTUS AND THE TEACHERS OF THE APOSTOLICAL AGE.
LONDON:
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, AND LONGMANS.
1854.
BR
165
;B943
1854
LONDON:
A, and G. A. SPOTTISWOODE,
New-street-Square.
LIBRI
caras
SIIFOEMICILIO
OF TIE
ری)
DEDICATED
Reclaas s-26-37 MITT
TO
J U L I U S
H A RE,
AS A
MONUMENT OF A LIFELONG FRIENDSHIP.
A 2
UNSER WEG GEHT ÜBER GRÄBER WENN WIR AUF DIE ERDE SCHAUN,
UNSER WEG GEHT UNTER STERNEN BLICKEN WIR ZU HIMMELS AUN:
VIELE SIND HINWEGGESCHIEDEN UNS AUS DER GELIEBTEN ZAHL,
THEURE TODTE FRÜHER ZEITEN DECKET MANCHES ALTE MAL.
LASS DEN BLICK UNS DENN AUFRICHTEN WO UNS WINKT DIE EWIGKEIT
LEBEN WIR DOCH SCHON IM EWGEN MITTEN IN DER IRDSCHEN ZEIT,
WENN WIR SINNEN, WENN WIR LIEBEN, WENN ANBETEND WIR VERGEHN
IM GEDANKEN DIESER SCHÖPFUNG, IN DES GEISTES HEILGEM WEHN.
DENEN IST ES NUR VERSCHLOSSEN DIE UM LOHN DAS GUTE THUN,
DIE MIT EWGEN QUALEN SCHRECKEN SEELE DIE IN GOTT WILL RUHN:
BLINDE SIND SIE DIE VOM ZWIELICHT WANDERN IN DIE DUNKELHEIT,
KEHREND GEISTES EWIG WALTEN IN ENDLOSE ZEITLICHKEIT.
FREUND, IM EWGEN LASS UNS LEBEN, ZU DEN GEISTERN SCHAUN EMPOR:
DORT IN GOTTES EIGNEM LICHTE STRAHLT UNS DER HEROEN CHOR,
DIE IN ENGEN ERDEN-SCHRANKEN HIER GEKÄMPFT MIT GOTTES MUTH,
FÜR DER MENSCHHEIT EWGE SACHE HINGEOPFERT GUT UND BLUT.
WAS BEGEISTERT SIE ERSTREBET GLÄNZET ALS IHR EWGES DORT,
LEUCHTET UNGETRÜBT VON SCHWÄCHEN DURCH DER ZEITEN NEBEL FORT:
DURCHGEBROCHEN SIND DIE BANDE DORT DER ARMEN KNECHTSGESTALT,
SELGE GEISTER REDEN ZU UNS MIT DES GEISTES VOLLGEWALT.
PREFACE.
“ HIPPOLYTUS and his Age” appears before the English public
in another, and, I hope, an improved form.
I was so deeply impressed with the necessity of obliging my
readers to consider the subject I had to treat of, from all sides
and in all its bearings, that I resolved on no account to di-
vide into separate works the antiquarian, philosophical or theo-
logical, and historical researches into which both the subject
itself, and the present state of our knowledge of the first three
Christian centuries compelled me to enter. Nor am I sorry to
have persisted in this resolution. But, by following out this
plan, I could not prevent the work from wearing a somewhat
clumsy and motley appearance, although it did not contain ex-
traneous matter, and although its component parts had an
intrinsic unity; it seemed prolix, although its real defect was,
that it did not sufficiently develop the different elements it
embraced.
The problem, as I conceived it, was, first, to reproduce the
character of one of the leading men of ancient Christianity,
and the Christian life of his age ; and, secondly, to make that
character and life reflect their light upon the later history of
the Church in general and our own times in particular. This
was both a historical and a philosophical problem of a very
intricate nature in itself, and it required many antiquarian and
philological researches. I had to address myself to the Christian
public at large, and yet was obliged to dive into the recesses of
ancient and modern thought and research, and to enter into
details which superficial readers are apt to think not only useless
and inaccessible to themselves, but of no real interest or im-
portance to anybody else.
The book has been read, however, and the edition disposed of
in six months. My first duty, therefore, is to express my gra-
A 3
vi
PREFACE.
titude both for the encouraging interest taken in it by the public
and for the instruction derived from many of my reviewers.
.
Most of them have treated my work with seriousness, many
with fairness, some with indulgence, if not with partiality.
My readers have borne with an apparent want of form and
homogeneousness, giving me credit for honest and deliberate
convictions, for earnestness of purpose, and for a certain acquaint-
ance with the subject. They have remembered, in fairness, that
we cannot hope to succeed in reconstructing the monuments of
primitive Christianity and the records of early Christian life,
without clearing the ground, and here and there digging down
to the foundations. They have felt that this could not be done
without removing the erroneous superstructures which fifteen
centuries have raised on foundations of their own, with their
systems and terminologies, and doctrines and articles, and pre-
judices and delusions. All this not only required much patience,
but also a certain co-operating sympathy on the part of the
public. Such readers and sympathizers I have found among
the Christian public of England and Scotland. It is out of
gratitude to them that I have spared no trouble in making the
historical composition as homogeneous as possible, and present-
ing my readers with as popular a representation of Hippolytus
and his age as lies in my power. I have, at the same time, en-
deavoured to render the collateral researches as complete as the
subject requires.
For this purpose, I have first reduced Hippolytus and his
age to two historical pictures, in two volumes. That of the
hero of the work himself is entirely new. I have placed the
portrait of the Bishop of Portus in its proper frame. He is
here considered as one of those Christian teachers, governors,
and thinkers who made Christianity what it became as a social
system, and as one of thought and ethics; a noble chain, of
which St. Peter and St. Paul are the first links, and Hippolytus
and Origen the last. In this manner, the age of Hippolytus had
already been treated in the third volume of the first edition.
I had there shown that his time was the last stage of that
wonderful life of the Christian congregations, which regenerated
the world in the midst of persecutions and of general decay
and destruction. This picture forms the second volume of the
PREFACE.
vii
new edition. The first volume gives the picture of Hippo-
lytus among the series of the leading men of the first seven
generations of Christians, as the second presents that of his
age, and, generally, of the ancient Church, in its discipline
and constitution, its worship, and social relations. This second
volume concludes with the fiction of the “Apology of Hip-
polytus," as the uniting picture. Such a fiction appeared to me
the only means of presenting our hero in action together with
his age, and of bringing him and the whole real life of ancient
Christendom nearer to our own times and our own hearts.
In the picture of Hippolytus, I have therefore not only
delineated succinctly his two great contemporaries in the East,
Clement of Alexandria and Origen, and his teacher Irenæus,
but also those leading men who may be called the heroes and
representatives of the preceding generations. Among these, I
have drawn more in detail the portraits of those who have been
most neglected or most misunderstood. Of the Epistles of
Ignatius, the first Bishop of Antioch, I have given the entire
text in a faithful translation. As Hippolytus was almost a
mythical person before the publication of his principal work in
1851, so Ignatius, previously to Cureton's discovery in 1845, was
only known in the impostor's garb. Let the Christian public
now judge for themselves whether these epistles are genuine or
not, and whether they are entire or only incoherent extracts
from those which hitherto bore his name. If they require
additional proof to confirm them in the impression of their
authenticity and entireness, let them compare these racy and
pregnant parting words of a dying martyr with the twaddle of
the seven epistles. In a similar way, I have given the entire
Epistle to Diognetus, that patristic gem of unique originality,
and have drawn a full picture of the first Christian philoso-
phers and critics, Basilides, Valentinus, and Marcion.
As to Hippolytus himself, I have of course exhibited here
that solemn Confession of Faith which we may consider as his
sacred legacy to posterity, and which in its essential parts is
ever fresh and living, because it has the life of Christ in it.
This picture closes with a prospective view of Christian
divinity. I have added in an Appendix, the essays contained
A4
viii
PREFACE.
in the second volume of the first edition which refer to Hip-
polytus personally; and the Letters to Archdeacon Hare, or the
critical inquiry into the authorship of the Refutation, and into
the life and writings of its author.
In a similar manner, I have appended, in the second volume,
to that picture of the social life of the ancient Christians, and
to its reflex upon our age, such Essays in the former second
volume as refer less to Hippolytus personally than to the
ancient Church in general.
I hope that this treatment of the subject, imperfect and
unequal as it must be, justifies the words of the title: "The
Beginnings and Prospects of Christianity.” But it is impossible
to conceal from oneself that pictures of bygone historical cha-
racters and ages cannot prove all they assert and represent.
Such compositions are buildings erected upon a substruction,
both philosophical and philological, to which a few detached
essays and notes cannot do justice.
The present volumes, therefore, appear flanked by two other
works. The first presents in two parts a key to the philoso-
phical, historical, and theological views which pervade “Hippo-
lytus and his Age." It bears the title : “ Sketch of the
Philosoplıy of Language and of Religion, or the Beginnings
and Prospects of the Human Race." This sketch comprises the
Aphorisms of the second volume of the first edition, better
digested and worked out so as to form an integral part of a
philosophical glance at the primordial history of our race with
regard to the principle of development and of progress.
The second substruction, the philological, is also presented
as a separate work, and forms three volumes. The remains of
ante-Nicene documents constitute three sections, none of which
have hitherto been given in a complete and satisfactory manner :
the literary remains, the constitutional documents, and the
liturgical records. Of these, the third section was critically
almost a blank before the publication of my Reliquiæ Liturgicæ.
I have had nothing to add to those liturgical texts; but I have
this time printed in extenso the passages of the Syrian Jacobite
liturgy which correspond with the Greek text, whereas, in the
first edition, I only indicated that they were identical. But
PREFACE.
ix
I have prefixed to those texts the Elementa Liturgica, popu-
larly exhibited in my "Book of the Church." These elements
are the following three :
First, the Lord's Prayer as liturgically used, and as recorded
in the ancient MSS. of the New Testament, and in the Fathers.
Secondly, the various baptismal formularies, commonly called
the Apostles' Creed, to which are added the Nicene and Con-
stantinopolitan Creeds, which at a later period came gradually
into liturgical use.
Thirdly, the primitive psalmody. I give first the so-called
three Canticles of Mary, Zacharias, and Simeon, printed as
Hebrew Psalms in hemistichs, as they are composed and in-
tended to be used : then the Hymns of the ancient Greek Church.
To these I have added, as an appendix, the Te Deum laudamus,
the truly original and poetical reproduction and amplification
of the Greek morning hymn; a German composition of the
fifth century; the only Latin psalm and the only liturgical
composition of the Western Church which has obtained uni-
versal adoption.
This forms the third volume of my Analecta Ante-Nicæna
- the liturgical – which I may now consider as complete.
As to the second, or constitutional section, I had inserted
in the first edition only the Canons of the Apostles, in their
Greek and Latin texts. These I reproduce in the second volume
of the Analecta.
In the first volume, printed in 1851, I had subjected the
Apostolical Constitutions to a critical analysis (now the intro-
duction to this volume of the Analecta) which led me to the con-
clusion that our present text is the hierarchical enlargement of a
much simpler and shorter text. I further found, by that critical
process, that the first six books must have formed a separate
collection ; and the seventh and eighth two others equally dis-
tinct from that and from each other. In April 1852, I was
informed by my learned friend Professor Roestell at Marburg,
of the existence of a Syrian MS. at Paris, analyzed by Bickell,
and by him believed to contain extracts from the first six
books. As the table of contents, however, showed a remark-
able coincidence with the result of my process of purely in-
X
PREFACE.
ternal criticism, I ventured to assert that the Syrian text would
prove to be the primitive text in question. What was then a
conjecture, is now a fact. Dr. Paul Boetticher has, at my
request, copied the whole Syrian text, and collated it critically
with the Greek. Consequently, I have the gratification of pre-
senting, in the second volume of the Analecta, the Apostolical
Constitutions, for the first time, in a trustworthy text and in a
more respectable form. As to the first six books, the Latin
introduction of Dr. Boetticher proves them to be the real
Didascalia of the Apostles. In order to render the origin of
our present text self-evident, it is first printed as a whole, but
so that the passages not warranted by the Syrian are marked
by a smaller type. After this tedious, but necessary, process,
the genuine text of the Didascalia is given as one book, which
is nothing but the former text without the interpolations.
Whole chapters, or the greater part of them, disappear, but
the context becomes clearer by their omission, and the whole
composition regains to a certain degree its primitive character.
This section of the ante-Nicene remains may, therefore, be
called something entirely new. I might have easily completed
these constitutional records by reprinting the Canonical Epistles,
and the Minutes and Articles of the Synods of the third century,
which are given in Routh's Reliquiæ mixed up with the literary
· remains of that age. But I do not wish to interfere with this
excellent work, and to increase the volume beyond its present
bulk.
Guided by the same principle, I have also given such por-
tions of the literary remains as was absolutely necessary, either
from their being unpublished or not published in a separate
form, or from their requiring, with reference to my present
edition of “Hippolytus and his Age," a more accurate and
critical edition than we hitherto possessed. These texts form
the first volume, of the contents of which I will give a succinct
account.
I prefix to the ecclesiastical remains themselves two bibli-
cal Prolegomena; christological extracts from the New Testa-
ment; and the text of a genuine Apostolic epistle, now merged
in a later production.
The ancient Fathers, as well as their opponents, after the
PREFACE, .
xi
earlier part of the second century, frequently refer to certain
passages concerning the person of Christ and his relation to God
and Man. They read these passages on the whole as our ancient
Greek texts and translations exhibit them, but differing here
and there from the vulgar text of the New Testament introduced
by Stephen and the Elzevirs. I have, therefore, collected
together these sacred passages, according to Lachmann's text
and authorities, in the order assigned to the books of the New
Testament in the Greek manuscripts. Such a review of the
authoritative texts respecting Christ, which contain the fun-
damental doctrine of all Christian divinity, of the Father,
Son, and Spirit, might, I thought, be found useful by many
of my readers.
The second part of the Prolegomena exhibits the text of the
short letter of St. Peter's mentioned by him, in that epistle
which we call his first, as having been sent through Sylvanus to
the same congregations of Christians.
The literary texts of the second century open with the Epis-
tles of Ignatius, of which I have given the English versions in
“ Hippolytus.” They are followed by all the fragments contained
in the so-called Philosophumena of the Fathers of Gnosticism,
the first witnesses of the Gospel of St. John-- Basilides and
Valentinus. To these are added the fragment of Marcion, with
which is connected the authentic Epistle to Diognetus, at all
events belonging to the earlier part of the second century. In
this place I had hoped to insert an entirely unpublished text.
The Libyan manuscripts contain an Apology of Melito, who
must be the Bishop of Sardes who, about the year 169, pre-
sented to Marcus Aurelius the Philosopher a defence of Chris-
tianity. It appears entire, and therefore ought to contain the
fragments quoted by Eusebius, but does not do so. It bears
moreover, the stamp of a late and confused composition. For
these reasons I have abstained from giving it a place among the
genuine texts. A fragment of Hegesippus, the contemporary
of Melito, which has been overlooked, terminates the series of
the second century. It is known as the Fragmentum Murato-
rianum, and enumerates with authority the books of the New
Testament which were considered as canonical by the great
Churches, and particularly by that of Rome. I give the text,
xii
PREFACE.
:
founded upon a most accurate transcript of the original manu-.
script, and hope to have made a not entirely unsuccessful attempt
at solving two hitherto unfathomed problems which it presents.
Two relics of the third century conclude the Analecta. The
first is the most considerable composition of my collection
Clement of Alexandria's - Sketches," or Hypotyposes. This eso-
teric book, the great effort of his life, is generally supposed to
have perished with the exception of a few incoherent fragments;
but I hope to show that a great part of the first book, and a con-
siderable portion of the other seven books, still exist; and that
we are able to reconstruct the whole plan of this very pro-
found, learned, and sound manual of the Christian divinity of
the Fathers, a work coeval with the youth, and perhaps with
the earlier writings, of Hippolytus in the West.
The second is the Confession of Faith of Hippolytus, the real
gem of his writings.
Bernaysii Epistola Critica” concludes this volume of the
Analecta. I have been rejoiced, and not surprised, to find it
generally appreciated. That eminent scholar has, at my re-
quest, bestowed his acute criticism upon some of the most
difficult and corrupt passages of the Theodotian extracts in the
Hypotyposes, which nobody had previously attempted to amend,
as indeed the whole treatise has scarcely been of any use for
the history of the Church, on account of its real or supposed
obscurity. In his “ Epistola Critica altera,” with which the
volume concludes, he will discuss some of the most difficult of
these, and at the same time offer some remarks
upon
the
way
in which Dr. Wordsworth has lately treated some Heraclitean
fragments.
So much as to the present arrangement of my work. I will
only add, that two more such volumes would have rendered the
collection of the literary remains of the ante-Nicene Fathers so
far complete as to embrace all that is contained in Grabe's
Spicilegium, in Routh's Reliquiæ, and in Hefele's and Jacob-
son's Patres Apostolici, that is to say, all except Justin
(and Pseudo-Justinus), Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hip-
polytus, and Origen. The main desideratum, however, is a
complete corpus of the ante-Nicene Greek authors, Origen
excepted, of whom the recent edition by Lommatzsch is suffi-
PREFACE, .
xiii
cient for the scholar. We have excellent materials for con-
structing a good critical text of these authors, but nothing
more; and I must confess that Otto's text of Justin appears to
me a retrograde step: it is far less readable than the emendations
of the greatest critics, Stephen, Sylburg, Pearson, and Mark-
land, had made it. With a revised Latin translation of these
Greek texts, and the necessary notes in the judicious manner
of Didot's classics, eight volumes would comprise what is now
dispersed, in an incomplete and undigested shape, through thrice
that number of folios, quartos, and octavos. It is to be la-
mented that few persons can afford to purchase and to read the
real Fathers and true records of Christianity.
My answers to such special criticisms on my “ Hippolytus” as
appear to me worth noticing (disregarding, therefore, all that is
personal) will be found in their proper places. They apply
almost exclusively to philological or historical assertions in my
Letters to Archdeacon Hare. The only one of general interest
is the controversy respecting the author of the book from Mount
Athos, and on the life and writings of Hippolytus. I thought
the authorship of this recently discovered Treatise on Church
History resulted so evidently and so cogently from the unmis-
takable words of the writer about his own person and position,
and from a concurrence of independent arguments, that it
would be perfectly useless to sum up the evidence at the end
of those letters. I have now done so in this volume.
I am still at a loss to conceive how a learned and independent
thinker can seriously maintain that the book is the production
of Caius the Roman presbyter: for that is avowedly the alter-
native. The proposition to attribute it to Tertullian, who neither
wrote Greek nor was a member of the episcopal government of
Rome, or to a person like him, who may have written Greek,
and of whom we know nothing, must, I presume, be considered
as what it is ---a thesis to be maintained in a public disputation
at the Sorbonne. * The young clerical writer I refer to is
* See the Examen du Livre des Philosophumena: Thèse présentée à la
Faculté des Lettres de Paris, par l'Abbé P. J. Jallabert. Paris, 1853, 8vo.
xiy
PREFACE.
evidently an aspiring scholar, whose efforts to revive among
his brethren a critical patristic knowledge deserve every encou-
ragement, and have my warm sympathy. I hail this symptom of
a revival of Greek patristic studies in France, and offer my
sincere wish that the Roman Catholic clergy in France may
emulate the candid spirit as well as learning of the illustrious
Dean of the Sorbonne, and of the eminent French laity in gene-
ral, who are so successfully trying to restore, in all branches
of philology, the ancient glory of the Stephens and Scaligers,
and to repair the loss France and Europe have suffered by the
death of Sylvestre de Sacy and of Letronne. But, as a serious
opinion, the authorship of Tertullian cannot be maintained,
any more than that of Origen. There remains, then, Caius the
presbyter. Two decisive facts which lie on the surface of the
controversy prevent the historian from entertaining such a sup-
position.
The first is, that the author says, in the prooemium to his work,
that he had undertaken to write the book as being a bishop; for
no scholar can doubt that this is the meaning of the passage. But
Caius was a presbyter. The second fact is, that our author
says he has written another book of which he gives us the title.
Now the identical title of this book is found on the episcopal
chair of the statue dug out of the ruins of the ancient sanctuary
of Hippolytus. As no writer has hitherto doubted this statue
to be genuine and to represent Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus,
how can we help believing Hippolytus and his statue, rather
than Professor Baur and his system, which appears so imposing
to my philosophical critic in the Westminster Review ? In
questions like these, which are involved in great obscurity,
it seems to me the duty of criticism to start from unequivocal
and decisive facts; and to endeavour to explain, as far as it
can, doubtful or apparently contradictory circumstances, rather
than to overlook facts of such magnitude, and to exalt into
reality conjectures and gratuitous doubts which leave such facts
unnoticed.
I have no doubt whatever that the overwhelming consent of
the scholars of Europe and America will soon render it unne
cessary to say a word more on this topic.
PREFACE.
XY
I never indulged so sanguine a hope as regards the infinitely
more important questions which the subject led me to raise,
and forced me as an honest inquirer to discuss. I had, how-
ever, taken care to treat them simply as historical questions, to
be decided by evidence according to the general principles of
historical criticism. I had hoped they would have been met on
this ground, openly and fairly; and so indeed they have been by
many of my reviewers.
I cannot say the same, however, of the work which a learned
dignitary of the Church of England, the Rev. Dr. Christopher
Wordsworth, author of a controversial essay upon Ignatius,
in opposition to Cureton, and of some Lectures on the Canon
of Scripture and on the Apocalypse, has written expressly
on this subject. He published,
He published, a few months since, a book
called “St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome,” in which he
is pleased to ignore all that I had said about Hippolytus, as
Bishop of Portus, as author of the book recently discovered, and
about his life and writings in general, whenever he repeats what
I had already said in 1851, while he delights in mentioning
my name, whenever he finds fault with anything that I have
asserted. Such a mode of proceeding is not usually thought
courteous; Niebuhr, somewhere, calls a similar proceeding dis-
honest; I will only say that it has surprised me in a man of
the character and standing of Dr. Wordsworth: for I cannot
help being reminded by it of a method I have had occasion to
observe in another country as the practice of a certain society.
When they wish to communicate a piece of knowledge due to
one whose name they would rather have ignored, they give what
can no longer be withheld in an expurgated form, and without
the slightest reference to the author. I am afraid something
like this is also the reason why the learned Canon speaks with
such emphasis and pomp of an antiquarian treatise written by
a Roman priest about a hundred years ago; a book which he
says I had not mentioned, although it had settled the question
about Hippolytus for ever. This is the treatise of an Abbate
Ruggieri, published by command, in order to trumpet forth
the antiquity of the see of Portus, the cardinalitian title of his
patron. His problem was, to claim for that See the great
xvi
PREFACE,
master and doctor, and to clear him of the suspicion of heresy
created by some expressions of Prudentius. The second point
was easy enough ; but the first had its peculiar difficulties ; for
the historical character of the account of the Bishop of Portus
had to be vindicated, without touching the dangerous subject of
the three Hippolytuses into whom the Romish Church has
multiplied the single Hippolytus of Portus, in consequence of
the natural mythological process which creates all legends, and
of which in this case the evidence is fully on record, and pal-
pable even for ordinary readers. Of course the Abbate Ruggieri,
in his text, devoutly acquiesces in the three canonized Hip-
polytuses, and only in a note (to p. 14.) gives vent to his own
honest doubts respecting this blunder and imposture. But the
Canon of Westminster praises the poor Abbate for the ability
with which he has maintained the tradition of Holy Church
(note to p. 110.). This only shows that the Canon does not
know or ignores the first principles of historical criticism, as
soon, as there is a tradition to maintain. But why does he
enlarge gratuitously upon an uncritical assumption, and found
à whole argument upon a myth, as if it were a solid fact?
“ Another eminent person,” he says (p. 111.), “bearing the
name of Hippolytus, was known as an adherent of Novatian,
and he was also a martyr; and the narrative of Prudentius
concerning the manner of the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus,
Bishop of Portus, is at variance with the other records of that
event." These "records" are the various confused legends which
I have exposed, and which indeed expose themselves: as to
the other Hippolytus,” he has no more historical reality than
the third. Hence the assent of the Canon of Westminster to
the forced decision of the Roman priest seems to me no
reason why we should exalt his treatise into a great historical
work. The Abbate had of course read his Prudentius and
his Liber Pontificalis, knew something about the mediæval
antiquities of Rome, and even a little Greek. If I had ever
heard of his existence, I should have read his book, as I did
that equally learned and equally absurd and uncritical work
of his countryman, the writer of the "Martyrdom of Hip-
PREFACE.
xvii
polytus.”*
But now that I have read it, I find it con-
tains nothing new, not even one single new mediæval or local
document, and no criticism beyond that concerning the ridi-
culous aspersion of Novatianism, which of course the Abbate
proves satisfactorily to be incompatible with the martyrdom in
the year of the death of Alexander Severus. As to the statue
of Hippolytus, it is really ridiculous to quote Ruggieri on a
subject treated by Scaliger and Ideler.
I must here say one word about a third attempt to depreciate
my “Hippolytus." It is amusing to see how Dr. Wordsworth
shelters himself from my assertions as to the succession and
chronology of the earlier Bishops of Rome, which he has not
the courage to attack, behind Jaffe's Regesta, or “ Records of
the Popes, from the Eleventh Century downwards." The
English reader would naturally suppose that Jaffe, who is con-
stantly quoted by him for the chronology of the second and
third centuries, had made some deep researches respecting the
earlier Bishops of Rome in the big quarto he has compiled
about those mediæval acts of the Popes. But Jaffe does not
even pretend to have made any investigations respecting the
earlier bishops: he merely gives the list of the earlier Popes
as they are generally printed. Dr. Wordsworth might as well
have quoted the list prefixed to the official almanac of the
Church of Rome: indeed, according to his views, this would
have been safer; for that list certainly has the authority of
the most legitimate bishop in Christendom in its favour, and
is supported by many learned researches, from Baronius down
to his great favourite Abbate Ruggieri and his like.
So much for the general character of Dr. Wordsworth's book.
I will now say a few words respecting the verbal criticisms it
contains on the text of Hippolytus, and respecting the con-
jectures offered in it for the correction of some of the corrupt
passages in the manuscript. Here, I confess, I have been sadly
disappointed. I had expected much on this score from the
* I am glad to learn, from the Edinburgh reviewer, that this folio has
come to light at the British Museum, where it could not be found when I
asked for it.
VOL, I.
a
xviii
PREFACE.
elegant scholar whom we have all admired in his “ Attica,"
and in later works on classical subjects, as well as in occasional
emendations of the text of the Fathers. I had been delighted
by these ; and I seize this opportunity of expressing my gra-
titude for being relieved from two monsters which disfigured
a beautiful passage in the Epistle of the Roman Clement,
where (as the manuscript has it) we read, among the examples
of Christian fortitude, “ Married women, Danaids, and Dirkes,"
and where, if we adopt Dr. Wordsworth's elegant emenda-
tion, we have “Married women, young women, and slave
girls."* But, the Attic Muses, offended by the faithlessness of
their favourite, have abandoned him, frightened away by the
monkish phantom which Dr. Wordsworth has now embraced,
and for which he claims their divine support. I shall leave the
Editor of the fragments of Heraclitus to point out, in his
“ Epistola Critica altera," the sins committed in the attempts
upon the thoughts and sayings of that great and profound
writer, In what falls to the share of Hippolytus, Photius, and
the whole field of ecclesiastical literature, I am worry to say,
I have found very little to adopt of his criticisms; and, some
merely technical and self-evident corrections excepted, I have
not been able to adopt any of his emendations, which, indeed,
seem to me made this time "invita Minerva.” However, such
of these critical remarks as come in my way in the course of
the reprint of the Letters to Archdeacon Hare, I have not
failed to consider, in notes, leaving the decision to the judg-
ment of the scholars of Europe, and in particular to the
critical editors of Hippolytus at Goettingen.
Having said thus much on this point, I proceed to examine
those portions of Dr. Wordsworth's criticism which refer to
the great historical questions raised in my discussion respecting
the views of the ancient Fathers on the authority of the Church
and the Scriptures, and respecting the relation of those Fathers
and their Churches to the system which began with Constantine
at Byzantium and Nicæa, and which has lately found so many
admirers among the clergy, and sundry ladies and gentlemen
instead of γυναίκες, Δαναΐδες και Δίρκαι, read: γυναίκες, νεανίδες,
παιδίσκαι. .
PREFACE.
xix
in this country. I think these questions may be reduced to
the following three :-
First Question,
Does the ancient Church acknowledge or not the paramount
authority of Scripture, and maintain or not that the Scriptures
ought to be interpreted according to the principles of philolo-
gical criticism, and their contents judged according to the
general rules of evidence ?
I have maintained that it does, and that therefore it stands in
this great question on the same ground as the Churches of the
Reformation, in opposition not only to Rome and Byzantium,
but to every other historical or imaginary system of hierarchical
authority, which is Popery.
Second Question.
Do, according to the doctrine of the ante-Nicene Fathers and
the usages of ancient Christendom, the clergy constitute the
Christian Church, or is the Church essentially the totality of
the believers ?
I affirm the latter, and thus add, here also, the testimony of
the ancient Church to the authority of Christ and his Apostles,
and to the dictates of reason and conscience.
Third Question.
Is the doctrinal system of the ante-Nicene Church irrecon-
cilable with the letter and authority of the formularies of the
Constantinian and in general of the Byzantine councils, and
with the mediæval systems built upon them?
I
say
that it is irreconcilable with that letter and that au-
thority, as much as these are with the Bible and common sense:
and I add, it would be fully as irreconcilable with the Byzantine
and Roman Churches if Arianism had prevailed.
These are three historical questions, and as such I have
answered them. My answers are based upon facts, and there-
fore upon evidence; but I have thrown out hints to show that
what is thus made out to be an historical fact, is supported by
a 2
XX
PREFACE.
the teaching of the Gospel and the Epistles in their speculative
passages, and by an independent philosophical development of
the same truths: for I consider those truths eternal, not made
by Scripture, but declared, manifested, revealed, and that to
reason.
I cannot conceal from myself, or from my readers, that Dr.
Wordsworth does not concur with me on any one of these three
questions, because the system which he thinks he is wedded to,
and from which I wish to see him delivered, is irreconcilable
with the answers I have given. I can only explain it from
a systematic opposition to what I must call the Protestant prin-
ciple, that he has gone out of his way not only to object to
points of biblical and historical criticism which I had touched
upon in my “Hippolytus,” but even to insinuate that my theo-
logical opinions are not orthodox, and ought to be viewed
with suspicion. As to a real serious discussion he has never
even entered into it, except on one point touching the last of
my three questions. I shall not follow him in this method, but
look all his objections or insinuations in the face, and discuss
them without any reserve to the uninitiated, whom, in the spirit
of that system, I take to be the whole civilised world, the clergy
excepted. In doing so, I shall show, to every impartial and
critical reader, that those objections and insinuations are not
only groundless, but a manifest proof of the untenable nature
of the mediæval system, with which I should be sorry to identify
permanently the author of “ Attica” and a Canon of West-
minster.
Entering then on the controverted points regarding the first
question, I will begin with Dr. Wordsworth's attack upon my
view respecting the age of the Apocalypse. He believes it to
be a work of the Apostle St. John, and so do I. He believes
it to be prophetical, and so do I. But he finds fault with me
for having said (what I cannot deny) that the Apocalypse, if
you ask the book itself, tells a scholar that it was written in the
latter part of the year 68. He asserts, this is assuming that
Irenæus was wrong by about thirty years in his computation.
Now let us first see what the book itself says. To proceed
in this way would be considered a simple duty if the author
PREFACE.
xxi
and critic were heathens, but not to do so appears most dis-
respectful when the author is an Apostle, and irreverent when
the critic is a Christian. What does the venerable author of
the vision say? In chap. xi. the Temple of Jerusalem and the
Holy City are assumed to be standing, but doomed to material
destruction. The book then would appear to have been written
before the destruction of Jerusalem, that is to say, before
September 70. Those who cannot conscientiously take Apo-
stolic words in a non-natural sense, must see whether this
natural inference runs counter to the passage which announces
itself as a key to the mystery ; I mean chap. xvii. 7–10. Here
we read, in the authorized Version : “ Wherefore didst thou
marvel ? I will tell thee the mystery.
The seven heads are
seven mountains on which the woman sitteth. And there are
seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet
come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is
of the seven, and goeth into perdition.” As the city designated
is allowed to be Imperial Rome, the kings (if you ask the
book) must be her Emperors, and they must be counted from
Augustus, he being the first Imperator. The first five were,
Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero. Therefore the
words, “ The fifth is fallen," imply that Nero was dead when
the vision took place: the one who is reigning must then be
Galba; and the other who “is not yet come and is to remain a
short time” will be Otho. This, at least, is the most natural
combination. There is, however, another, which has been
adopted by Bleek and other eminent critics, and which at
all events merits attention. Nero was killed on the 9th of
June in the year 68 of our era; and Otho raised the stan-
dard of rebellion against the legitimate emperor, Galba, in
January 69. Those critics, therefore, think the vision did
not take into account the short reign of Galba, and the
usurping authority of Otho and Vitellius, but passed on from
Nero to Vespasian. On that supposition the sixth would be
the father of Titus, and he who is to come, but not to remain
a long time, Titus himself.
Then Domitian comes in, very
naturally, as the ideal Nero, who is to return for the destruction
a 3
xxii
PREFACE.
of Rome and for his own perdition. This interpretation does
not imply a later date of the vision: it extends only its pro-
phetical horizon to the time between January 70, when Vespasian
accepted the purple, and the 18th of September in that year,
the day on which Jerusalem was taken. This interpretation
might explain not only that legend, but also the tradition which
connects the Apocalypse with Domitian: it may be preferred
to that which I have adopted, if this should be thought to
create serious difficulties, which I however do not believe.
But, with this shade of difference, all philological commentaries
of note agree about the interpretation of that passage.
So, then, says the book. Now let us hear, with all re-
spect, what Irenæus says. “St. Irenæus,” says the Canon (in
his note to p. 51.), “who had seen Polycarp, the scholar of
St. John, asserts (v. 30.) that the revelation was seen by St.
John at the end of the reign of Domitian (who reigned till
96). Yet M. Bunsen declares: “At all events, the book itself
plainly says the contrary.
The horizon of the vision is the
latter half of the year 68:' that is to say, St. Irenæus made
a mistake of about thirty years concerning what he says took
place almost in his own age.” I am and was perfectly aware
that Irenæus in his early youth saw Polycarp at Smyrna, who
remembered having seen St. John, and heard him speak of
his gospel. But it does not follow that, when Irenæus places
the vision in the last years of Domitian, he knew more than
what the book itself tells us in the opening (i. 9.) —that it took
place in the island of Patmos. Even that the Apostle was
there under Domitian does not follow at all from that passage:
indeed (as Lücke, in the introduction to his Commentary, has
amply shown) there is no valid evidence whatever for the exile
of St. John under that emperor. Others report that Domitian
had summoned him to Rome. Origen refers us, in proof of the
exile under Domitian, to the passage in St. John. The tradition,
therefore, about the exile to Patmos under Domitian, has no
solid foundation, but is a conjecture, and evidently in contra-
diction with a rational interpretation of the book itself. I
cannot enter here into the further proof that this groundless
assumption renders the interpretation of the Apocalypse im-
PREFACE.
xxiii
possible;. nor is that argument very powerful in the eyes of
those who delight in what they call mysteries, which in fact
are their own crotchets, fancies, and unscrupulous assumptions.
I will only mention one circumstance which is irreconcilable
with that theory. If St. John wrote the Apocalypse about 96,
as Dr. Wordsworth asserts, no scholar can seriously believe that
he wrote in that same year, or the next (for he died in 98), the
gospel, the Hellenistic Greek of which is as different from the
barbarous idiom of the Apocalypse, as any Greek text can be.
The theory of two secretaries, one Hebraizing, the other a
Hellenist, cannot account for such an unparalleled contrast in
two almost contemporaneous writings of the same man.
Unless, therefore, we are to suppose that the revealing angel
was pleased to speak such ungrammatical and unheavenly Greek,
we must look for some other way to explain a fact which
cannot be denied. Dr. Wordsworth, indeed, offers us a phrase
to settle this question. I find it in his “Harmony of the
Apocalypse" (1852, p. 5.) in the following words: “All the
books of Scripture are from one mind and hand.” But here
again our critical conscience interferes : for it shows us, by the
side of evident signs of one and the same spirit, a most decided
difference of hands; and we must claim for this conscience of
ours fully as much respect as he and his clerical friends claim
for theirs. At least, it appears that we take a little more
pains to ascertain the truth than they do. Dr. Wordsworth
evidently supposes that it is the aim and end of German philo-
logy to render the text of the Scriptures (or at least of the New
Testament, for he evidently does not know Hebrew) doubtful,
and to substitute conjectures for authorized readings; whereas
exactly the contrary is the case. Now, he acknowledges the
vulgar text of the Apocalypse, in particular, to be untenable.
So far so good. But then we cannot well understand why,
under this conviction, he should, in his two volumes on that
book, first give the text of Scholz, based on those modern
manuscripts which swarm with arbitrary changes and pretended
emendations unwarranted by tradition, unless it be to make it
serve as a foil to his second better text.
Still less can we
understand how, as a scholar, professing so much respect for
a 4
Χxiv
PREFACE.
the ancient Church, he should be satisfied with taking this better
text from Tischendorf, who has so often changed it against
the most ancient authorities. But what we think quite un-
pardonable, is, that in those two volumes he never mentions
even the name of Lachmann, from whom Tischendorf bor-
rowed his principle without understanding it, and thus spoilt
the traditional text of the ancient Fathers by his arbitrary
alterations. This appears to be in the same spirit as the
Canon's ignoring the very names of Lücke, Ewald, de Wette,
and Neander, who have entered most profoundly into the cha-
racter and ideas of the book, and brought to bear upon it a
learning and a temperate judgment generally acknowledged in
Europe. Now, either Dr. Wordsworth has not read what these
authors have done for the text and its interpretation, and, if so,
he has treated his subject far too carelessly; or, having read them,
he affects to ignore them, and then his case is still worse.
So much for the Apocalypse. Let us now see whether the
rational method of appealing to evidence, beginning with that
of the Bible itself, is at fault respecting the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and whether we or the Anglo-Catholics are the true
interpreters and historians of the ancient Church. Let us hear
the learned Canon's own words :
“In the same oracular tone, M. Bunsen pronounces that the
Romans knew better than anybody, 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 committed that Church (Iren. iii. 3.), is not to be
regarded as a regular bishop, does not appear." I am sorry to
see that Dr. Wordsworth does not know that Linus and Ana-
cletus, according to the registers of the Church of Rome,
were co-bishops of the Church: an arrangement which does
not shock me at all, but which certainly does not constitute
what the later Church system calls a regular episcopal go-
vernment. The writer continues : “As to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, St. Clement imitates it.” Now I cannot see why
Clement could not imitate it just as well if it was written
by somebody else, and not by St. Paul ; for instance, if it was
written by Apollos, Paul's friend and co-Apostle, the Alex-
PREFACE..
XXV
andrian. Rather may we say, if the epistle had been St. Paul's,
Clement would have quoted it, and not freely imitated it.
Canonical Scripture he quotes as it stands. So that whatever
there may be of force in that observation, is against the author-
ship of St. Paul. Besides, if the epistle had been considered
by the Church of Rome as Pauline, it would of course have
formed part of her Canon ; now we know positively it did not
even in the second and third centuries: how, then, should it
have done so in Clement's time? Lastly, if we ask Scripture
itself (which Dr. Wordsworth does not approve), it tells me
exactly what it told Origen, that whoever knows Greek must
see it is not written by St. Paul. What the book
What the book says further
against that supposition, is briefly stated in the first volume of
the Analecta under the article “ Hegesippus."
But here we
must examine Dr. Wordsworth's argument; I again quote his
words: “It is probable," he continues, “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.” My readers
will be startled to see that Dr. Wordsworth considers as an
argument, what in reality is nothing but an evasion of argu-
ment. The question is, whether the epistle was at this early
period, what certainly it was not in the next century, part of
the Canon of the New Testament in the Roman Church? Now,
what does Dr. Wordsworth offer as proof of so improbable an
assertion? The probability that the Romans knew it! I think,
after his complaint of my oracular tone, we might have ex-
pected something more definite. He quotes, in support of
that lame probability, the verse in the Second Epistle of St.
Peter which says: “Even as our beloved brother Paul also,
according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto
you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things.”
These expressions are so vague, that almost all the Epistles
of St. Paul have been ransacked to find out what they mean.
As to the authorship of that epistle, I must have touched a
sore point; because the learned Canon here becomes uncivil.
I did not think I was saying anything new or offensive, in simply
stating the fact, that the Second Epistle of St. Peter is unknown
to the ancient Churches. The Canon, who complains of my
xxvi
PREFACE.
oracular tone, after quoting this sentence exclaims (p. 184. n.):
“ This is not true!” And what is his authority for this curt
denial? That Origen, in a text which we know only in a Latin
translation or extract, says: “Petrus duabus epistolarum per-
sonat tubis : " Peter trumpets forth in two epistles. Such a
rhetorical phrase, assuming even that it is not mutilated, proves
nothing. Thus St. Jerome says: “St. Peter wrote two epistles.
What can be clearer, so it would appear, than that St. Jerome
knew or believed that the so-called Second Epistle was written
by him? But what does he add immediately after these words?
“But most of the Catholic writers and Churches) say that the
Second Epistle is not his." The same is the case with Origen.
In speaking of two Epistles of St. Peter, Origen, as well as St.
Jerome, employs the general, vulgar denomination. Why should
they not? The epistle bears Peter's name: letit be called Peter's,
whoever wrote it. So Hegesippus says: “We receive (read in
our Churches) two Apocalypses, that of John, and that of
Peter: only," he adds, "some do not think that of Peter to be
genuine." Yet it was called Peter's Apocalypse. When
treating the subject of the Canon, Origen, however, most dis-
tinctly says that the first, and the first alone, was considered
canonical, as Dr. Wordsworth might have remembered even
from Eusebius. The facts of the case are simply these. There
is no author of the first three centuries, who does name it as a
canonical book. There is not one who speaks of the canonical
“Catholic Epistles,” who does not exclude it. Now the exclu-
sion of the Second and Third Epistles of St. John in such pas-
sages, does not prove that they were considered spurious: for the
term Catholic or Universal Epistles, that is to say, addressed to
all Churches, excludes letters to individuals, whether genuine or
not. But, applied to the Second Epistle of St. Peter, such an
exclusion must designate it as spurious. Even Didymus, a
sainted scholar of the fourth century, knows that the epistle
had been "falsata," forged or falsified; in which latter sense the
word conveys a correct statement of the case. But Clemens of
Alexandria, in his Commentary, which was to embrace all the
canonical books, both of the Old and New Testament, has it
not, although he has that of Jude. The Canon of the prin-
PREFAOE.
xxvii
cipal Churchss of Christendom, and in particular of that of
Rome, about 175, represented by the Fragmentum Murato-
rianum, has it not. The Syrian Church never had it in her
official authentic translation. Thus I have positive proofs that
the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome did not reckon
it canonical; and to this must be added the absence of evidence
that any other Church did so, and the unanimous opinion of
the writers of the second and third centuries. But perhaps
Dr. Wordsworth has thrown some new light on this point, in
his Lectures on the Canon, which he may fairly suppose us to
have read. On referring to them, I find in the Seventh Lecture
(p. 198.) that, after having uttered the sublime sentence, “ The
inspiration of the Epistles of St. Paul is attested by Christ him-
self through St. Peter” (namely, by the verse of the Second
Epistle of St. Peter already referred to), he merely cites in a
note the passage about St. Peter's trumpeting forth in two
Epistles, and another (from the genuine part of the Epistle) in
a Latin text contained in Origen's Fourth Homily on Leviticus,
and there he leaves the question as if there were nothing else to
be said on the subject. Having thus settled the matter to his
own satisfaction, he adds in conclusion: “Whatever may be
alleged concerning the canonical authority of the Epistle, it
was doubtless written by St. Peter.” Without being super-
cilious, a thinking reader might wish to know something about
the canonical authority of this epistle ; i. e. whether the ancient
Church, which knew of its existence at an early period, did
believe it to be written by St. Peter. Now, for such an inqui-
sitive reader, there is another note saying, “ See this question
considered below, p. 285.” On turning to that page we read,
“ The proof of the genuineness of the Second Epistle of St.
Peter has been given on a former occasion.” Thus Dr. Words-
worth evidently considers the repetition of an assertion of his
sufficient proof of its truth; and this act leaves so profound an
impression upon his mind that, on the strength of it, he meets
the opposite opinion with the more short than modest declara-
tion: “ This is not true:" and he concludes his declamation
with the following words (p. 184.): “ Since the author of that
epistle claims to be St. Peter himself, and since the Church
xxviii
PREFACE.
receives the epistle as his, M. Bunsen, in so doing, has ventured
on an act of irreverence and injustice. He has suborned St.
Hippolytus as an accuser of the Christian Church, and charges
her through him with reading as canonical Scripture a work
composed by an impostor.” Now really I doubt whether this
be the way to maintain the old system of mediæval interpre-
tation of the Bible: it would be better simply to say (as the
Pope does), “Our ritual books have this epistle as St. Peter's,
and therefore it must and shall be St. Peter's, and there is an
end of it."
The yoke of authority is unnecessarily aggravated by such
reasoning as that which the learned Canon brings forward.
Where excommunication and the stake are inadmissible, the
cause to be served by such divinity is better upheld by enter-
ing into no discussion, but declaring oneself, or " the Catholic
Church," infallible.
I am afraid the fixed idea that he is somehow backed by
such an authority as not only makes law but also fixes truth,
has betrayed my Reverend opponent into expressions and
assertions which he will hereafter regret, and against which at
all events he must allow me to enter a protest. I must, besides,
do so in my own defence. For the Canon asks me (p. 183.),
with the confidence of having convicted me of ignorance,
whether I have read Bentley's letter on the subject of the
three witnesses, 1 John v. 7, 8. (Correspondence, ii. 52.). Now,
I can tell him that I had read more than that as to Bentley's
criticism on the text of the New Testament, perhaps before
the Canon left College, and I have rendered account of it in
my dedication of the Ignatian Letters to Lachmann, who
executed Bentley's idea of the restoration of the old tradi-
tional text. I might, in turn, ask him whether he ever read
Porson's elaborate treatise on the subject. But, if he were not
himself the editor of Bentley's Correspondence, I would ask
him whether he ever read Bentley's letter itself? He certainly
cannot have understood it; or he must have strangely mis-
interpreted my allusion : how otherwise could he have quoted
Bentley against me? What does this great critic say to his cor-
respondent, who trembled for the verse on the three witnesses ?
PREFACE.
xxix
1
“ You see that, in my proposed work, the fate of that verse will
be a mere question of fact
if the fourth century knew
that text, let it come in, in God's name.” Well, but the fourth
century knew it as little as the second and third, for the
simple reason that it was not then written, but only "foisted
in” at a considerably later period; and nobody knew this
better than Bentley, as Dr. Wordsworth might have seen
(as I have done, to my great satisfaction), under Bentley's
own hand, in his manuscript relics in Trinity College. Of
course, Bentley is quite right in adding that this changes nothing
in our belief in the Trinity. Indeed, how should it? The
verse had not made its appearance when the councils shaped
those creeds, and prepared those formularies, in the letter of
which Dr. Wordsworth not only believes, but wants us all to
believe, unless we choose to be heretics or arrogant critics.
To Bentley's words, therefore, I sincerely assent. But “foisted
in” the verse must have been by one who thought it useful to
have a direct mention in Scripture of the three persons," and,
not finding it, inserted one himself in a rather awkward and
audacious manner. Or does Dr. Wordsworth think that verse
dropped from heaven, as Abubeker knew the Koran did? No an-
cient Greek manuscript has it; no ancient version either; and no
Father knows it. St. Jerome's version has it not, although the
legitimate authority of the Western Church has put it in; nor
does his Commentary acknowledge it, any more than that of
Clement of Alexandria. It was the simple instinct of truth
and honesty which made both Luther and Cranmer reject it,
Luther with an anathema for him who would ever venture to in-
sert that "putid” verse again. I am sorry that it crept into
our authorized versions early in the seventeenth century, in
Germany, however, with brackets, but I cannot on that account
falsify the facts. I have here passed entirely over all internal
evidence, because I wish to remain strictly on historical ground.
Besides I remember to have read, in more than one English
theological work, that the internal evidence is so much in favour
of that verse that the passage has no sense without it!
So much as a specimen of the Canon's attacks upon my
method of humbly consulting in philological and historical
XXX
PREFACE.
matters the Bible itself, rather than tradition, which he is so
anxious to uphold, and which he handles as uncritically as if it
were the Bible itself. I do not think this specimen proves
much for the merits and success of his method: but, to return
to my historical thesis, I am sure this was not the method of the
ancient Church. Who then better respects that ancient Church,
the Canon or I ?
I now proceed to criticisms referring to the second and third
of my questions, and directed against my answer to them.
These questions are, whether, in the opinion of the ante-Nicene
fathers, the Church is the whole body of believers, or whether
the clergy alone constitutes the Church; and whether the doc-
trinal system of the ante-Constantinian Church was that of
the councils of the Byzantine Church? For, in the criticism
of Dr. Wordsworth which I shall have to answer, these two
questions are often blended together.
Both questions may, indeed, be reduced to the one : whether
the ancient hurch was rational or irrational? Now, that
primitive Christianity was rational in the highest sense of the
word, and that Christianity is indeed the only rational, and
therefore the true, religion, and the religion of mankind, is
what I have always maintained in my “ Hippolytus” and
elsewhere. For Christ is taken by all believers to be the
divine image and incarnation of the Eternal Word, which is
identical with Reason; and man is equally believed by all
Christians to be made after God's image, which implies identity
of reason, with the difference of the finite and the infinite.
This, and nothing less, is the assumption of my book, and, as
I believe I have shown, was, on the whole, the belief of the
primitive Church, in opposition to later irrationalism and su-
perstition as well as to scepticism and infidelity. That the
Fathers intended to base their theology upon this Scriptural
rationality, I believe I have proved historically. It will appear
very singular, in a future age, that there were in the nine-
teenth century so many people calling themselves Scriptural
Christians, and even learned teachers, who prided themselves
on the irrationality of their system. The explanation is to be
found, however, easily enough without entering into the dark
PREFACE,
xxxi
region of personal motives. Leaving out the power of words,
and the charm of inveterate prejudices created by habit, we
have only to consider what degraded views are prevalent in our
time respecting reason, and how prone the human mind is to
feel more religious reverence for that with which it connects no
idea whatever, than for that which can be brought into a logical
and moral connection with itself. Besides, in our own days, ,
false reason, which makes self the centre, has been so perversely
appealed to and so mischievously misused by men deifying
their passions and considering all moral restraints as unworthy
fetters, that poor humanity was scarcely ever in greater
danger of mistrusting that divine light in reason and con-
science, to which in the end all appeal, even the Popes and
the Jesuits. I deeply lament, but I do not wonder, that men
of serious thought and much learning in our days should repeat
that hollow and unchristian saying, that the reason of fallen
man is and remains blind to spiritual truth, although it is
made responsible for moral actions, and although it finds out
God's secret laws in the movements of the celestial bodies.
Reason and conscience are one and the same. Scripture says
that the natural (the selfish) man knows nothing about divine
things : but selfishness, which makes the individual and his will
the centre, instead of God and the divine will, is an ethical
defect, condemned by reason no less than by conscience. Those
men forget that the Holy Spirit promised to every believer,
and who is to lead him into all truth, "searcheth all things in
the believers), yea, the deep things (the depths) of God.” It
was in this faith, living in Christian souls, but which appears to
have become so scarce among those who now teach Christianity,
that the most pious men of the Apostolical age, in the widest
sense of the word, endeavoured to understand Christian truth.
I believe I have proved historically that this Apostolical
Christianity, which, right or wrong, was rational, had no pre-
tension to set up as doctrinal tests the speculative opinions of
schools, and make them take the place of Scripture on the one
side, and of the conscience of mankind on the other. Least of
all can they be quoted for such ecclesiastical tests as prove to
be neither founded in Scripture nor admissible on philosophical
xxxii
PREFACE.
principles, and, at the best, are very imperfect representations
of some element of Christian truth.
This argumentation has surprised several and proved highly
distasteful to some of my critics ; but none of them, not even
Dr. Wordsworth, has attempted to controvert the great fact
upon which it is based. The primitive Church is indeed a
stumbling-block, both for those who have made their religion a
Council or Article-Religion, and for those who hold cheap all
Church history, as useless by the side of the Bible.
If Dr. Wordsworth holds this to be heresy, and begins to
debate with me, he must give facts and arguments to prove
authority, not authority to support authority. But, I am
afraid, he is still less aware of this necessity on theological
than on philological grounds. For, when expounding his the-
ory about the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, he says
(p. 192.):
“How, then, was it to be determined what the true doctrine
of Scripture is? By the aid of sound reason, disciplined and
informed by learning, and exercised with caution, industry, and
humility, and enlightened by divine grace, given to earnest
prayer, and controlled and regulated by the judgment and
guidance of the Church universal, to whom Christ has promised
his presence, and the light of the Holy Spirit, to guide her
into all truth."
I suppose this is very fine; but, looking (as I must) for argu-
ment, I can see nothing in these words which is like it. What
here is taken for granted, is nothing less than that the decisions
of packed Councils of Bishops (excluding those who differed
from them in opinion as inadmissible heretics) are to be con-
sidered not only as the absolute law, but also as exclusive ex-
ponents of the faith of Christ, not merely for the loyal subjects
of the court of Byzantium at that date, but also for us, in spite
of our Reformation and our free and universal use of the Bible.
According to this assumption, any good Christian may study
and think, and pray most earnestly; but, as to the true doctrine
of Scripture, such a council or semblance of a self-constituted
majority can alone determine it; and Dr. Wordsworth knows
it has done so; and they who resist it stand on the feeble ground
PREFACE.
xxxiii
of private judgment and individual opinion. What follows in
the book proves that I do not misrepresent Dr. Wordsworth.
“ Whatever, therefore, has been received by the Church
universal, as the true exposition of Scripture, that is the true
sense of Scripture. And the true sense of Scripture, that, and
that alone, is Scripture.” Was there ever so naïve a begging
of the question? The Councils (or a pseudonymous theologian
of the school of the majority, as in the case of the so-called
Athanasian Symbol) have made certain creeds; and the Church
of Rome has given them to us (unfortunately the most ancient
of them, that of Nicæa, with an interpolation); and we have in
them (as Dr. Wordsworth asserts) the true sense of Scripture.
The argument therefore runs thus. We ask in the name of
truth, with deep earnestness and for our own conscience' sake :
What is the authority for the truth of the Creeds?
Answer: Scripture.
And what is the authority for this being Scripture ?
Answer: The Church,
And where is the authoritative decision of the Church to be
found?
Answer: In the Councils who made, and in the episcopal
articles which adopted them.
And what more is Scripture?
Answer: Nothing at all.
Can any one, using the ordinary means of reasoning, deny
that this is identical with saying, Scripture in itself is nothing:
Councils make it Scripture: Scripture so stamped, so inter-
preted, is authoritative Scripture: the rest is of no authority ?
But see how the Canon exults in his great paralogism, and
how triumphantly he turns round in his vicious circle. He
continues: -“ And since the Creeds have been so received,
we believe them to contain the true faith as propounded in
Scripture."
As far as this is Dr. Wordsworth's personal confession of
faith, I have nothing to say to it; but where is the argument
against us, who really acknowledge the supreme authority of
the Bible, and find that the ancient Fathers did exactly the
same? There is a historical point at issue. Let us then see
b
VOL. I.
xxxiv
PREFACE.
how the Canon meets the argument, or rather the facts brought
forward in my Hippolytus on this point.
“Suppose,” he adds, “St. Hippolytus and other ancient
writers had exaggerated a truth, or spoken unguardedly; what
is all this to us? what is it to the question before us? They
received the Holy Scriptures. They received them as the rule
of faith. They received therefore all that is in the Scriptures."
(So far so good. But he proceeds :) “ They received all that
the Church universal, the Body and Spouse of Christ, to whom
He has committed the Scriptures, and whom He has commis-
sioned to guard and interpret them, could show to be in those
Scriptures. They received therefore by implication and by
anticipation, the three Creeds, promulgated lawfully and gene-
rally received by the Church.”
This is truly distressing. I am afraid I must call it frivolous,
if I am not to call it puerile. The question is not an antiqua-
rian one, but touches the inmost truth of Christianity, and the
vital question of our age. It signifies little what he or I may
think about Portus and Ostia ; or about an iota more or less in
the text. But it signifies much whether the world shall main-
tain or regain its confidence in religious truth, in honest his-
torical truth, and that truth the truth of Christ. Nor is this
a point involved in theological subtleties. The Athanasian Creed
may or may not be full of philosophical absurdities; that is not
here the question at issue between us. I say it is not conform-
able with Scripture; and if he does not trust his reason and
conscience enough to trust Scripture, I further maintain that
the ancient Fathers had a faith irreconcilable with those formu-
laries. He denies that; but he must not be so angry with me
for discussing points, which he says have long been settled by
legitimate authority, as to forget that reasoning commits even a
Canon to bringing arguments. He evidently ought to make good
his authority by history, and especially by Scripture, which is
God's own history. But what does he do? He props hierarchy
upon hierarchy, authority upon authority. This is against all
statics, moral as well as physical.
My readers have seen how unsuccessful Dr. Wordsworth has
been in his polemics against my critical assertions, respecting
PREFACE,
XXXV
9
some books or passages of Scripture. Perhaps he felt this
himself; for he shifts even the philological questions to the
theological ground. In answer to my assertion that the sacred
text has been disfigured by interpolations, and obscured by
untenable interpretations into the bargain, he contents himself
with saying that I “have brought heavy charges against the
text of Holy Writ.”
It is an old trick to say that whoever attacks the privileged,
authorised, or vulgar reading or interpretation, attacks Scrip-
ture. My learned antagonist adds to this disreputable trick a
new charm, by asserting that I have done so "in vague and dark
generalities, to overcome the ignorant, and alarm the credulous.”
In order to counteract what he thinks so dangerous an attempt,
and to protect the youth of England against such dangerous
assertions, he does not scruple to put me, for such criticism, on
the same line with the infidels and freethinkers of the last
century. For, in his note to this passage, he says-
“M. Bunsen's general insinuation of 'supposititious verses
and dishonest readings,' and consequently of uncertainty in the
sacred text, is a repetition of the charge made by Antony Col-
lins in another form against the integrity of the text of the
Gospels, as altered, “ Tamquam ab Idiotis Evangelistis compo-
sita,' which was so triumphantly refuted by Bentley.” (p. 183.)
There is not the slightest vagueness in my allegations. I
have repeatedly declared, that I refer simply to Lachmann's
text, as faithfully representing that which the Fathers of the
third and fourth centuries read.
But I am loth to continue a controversy with a person who
has yet to learn that a historical discussion, carried on in the
face of a public wishing for truth, requires, on a theological
subject as well as on any other, historical evidence to establish
the facts, and philosophical arguments to apply them to
thought and to systematic doctrine. I will conclude, therefore,
with a specimen of the want of each, in order to show the
utter recklessness of Dr. Wordsworth's historical and philoso-
phical criticism.
He is very reluctant to allow that Callistus, the swindler
and convict, is Bishop Callistus. Some of his friends (one in an
b 2
xxxvi
PREFACE.
obscurantistic review, and another in an unfinished Romanist
article in the Morning Chronicle) had taken a bolder course
than my moderate and learned Dublin reviewer, and had thought
what ought not to be, cannot have been, and must have been
invented. Here, then, was a terrible dilemma for them; for if
Hippolytus has not told the truth, that saint is a wilful wicked
slanderer: for, as a member of the episcopal government of
Rome, he must needs have known it. Some, therefore, thought
that the whole ninth book was not genuine; and Dr. Words-
worth seems to have some sympathy with this supposition.
However, on the whole, he bravely sets down Callistus as a
swindler; but he thinks he was not really a bishop. Hippo-
lytus, according to Dr. Wordsworth, belonged to that severe
school, which held that a heretical bishop ceases to be a bishop,
and thus loses the privilege of knowing and making truth. I
had thought that Hippolytus, although acknowledging Callistus
as legitimate Bishop of Rome, exposed his previous life, because
he knew him to be a self-seeking, wicked, lying man.
But Dr.
Wordsworth thinks he would not have done so, had he really
regarded Callistus as the legitimate bishop. I hope we are not
to suppose that it would be right to call a swindler an honest
man, and a convict a person of unblemished character, if he was
a legitimate bishop: that is to say, one who had not said or
written anything heterodox.
At all events I protest against Hippolytus having said or
thought so immoral a thing. What proof does the Canon bring
forward that he did? Here is his argument. Hippolytus says of
Zephyrinus, that “ he was an ignorant man and greedy of gain,
who thought he administered the Church."
Dr. Wordsworth, “ Hippolytus does not call him a bishop, nor
does he call Callistus so; but says, that he only imagined him-
self to be a bishop; for Hippolytus was convinced that Callistus
held a very wrong theory concerning the Trinity.” Now, I can-
not help declaring that this is the worst kind of morbid senti-
mentality. It is a perversion of historical truth. Hippolytus
felt as an honest man; he despised Zephyrinus, and thought
him incapable of governing his Church, because he was "igno-
rant and greedy of gain.” An ignorant and selfish man could
Look," says
PREFACE.
xxxvii
not (he thought) in reality conduct an episcopal government.
He was a bad bishop, though canonically he was a good bishop.
As for Callistus, Hippolytus begins his biography by saying,
p. 284. 77.-" He was versed in wickedness, and adroit in se-
duction.” After adverting to his erroneous theological systems,
it is expressly for his corrupting immorality that he condemns
him. (299. 60—71.) And the Introduction to the eighth book
of the Apostolical Constitutions, justly ascribed in its substance to
Hippolytus, sets down this very doctrine, both for a bishop and
a king. “They lose,” he says, “by ignorance or wickedness, the
grace given to them by God, as well as Balaam lost that of a
prophet, and Caiaphas that of a high priest.” My first edition
gave the reader this extract in English: this time he may read
the saint's remarkable profession of political and ecclesiastical
faith, also in Greek. (Anal. iii. 374.) So much for Dr. Words-
worth's historical criticism on theological grounds.
As to Dr. Wordsworth's doctrinal theology, I will select a
point which touches one of the Shibboleths of that mediæval
school of theologians, who are always talking of the ancient
Apostolic and Catholic Church, and have not even learned to
understand the elements of historical criticism.
When Hippolytus has completed his toilsome task of thread-
ing the labyrinth of heresies, he opens his tenth book by say-
ing that he “ will crown his work by a demonstration of the
truth.” And then, after a short review of the various heresies
he had refuted, and a reference to what he had explained in
other works respecting the higher antiquity of Jewish wisdom,
he makes that solemn declaration concerning Christian truth
which I have presumed to call his Confession of Faith. In fact,
Hippolytus himself prefaces it by solemnly appealing to his
own earnest endeavour, and that of other friends of God, to
know the truth, and to practise it in godliness (p. 333. 55–59.);
and he follows it up by a fervent exhortation to all nations of
the world to learn the saving truths of God in Christ.
To call this, however, Hippolytus's Confession of Faith, is, it
seems, the mistake of a layman. Dr. Wordsworth is indignant
at the idea of Hippolytus's having “manifested the saving mys-
teries of Christian doctrine to idolaters, to the non-initiated." It
b 3
Xxxviii
PREFACE.
race.
was for the initiated that the Teacher of the nations reserved
such mysteries; compare it only (he says) with his Epiphany
Sermon, and see how differently he speaks when addressing those
who were to be initiated by baptism. “There he quotes Scrip-
ture twenty times, here not once."*
But really, if this is not the Confession of Faith of Hip-
polytus, it seems to me worse than an empty declamation; it is
a piece of deceit. For he himself calls it “ a demonstration of
the truth : " its tone is most solemn from beginning to end, and
elevated beyond any thing we have from his pen. It certainly
is not addressed to boys and girls on the eve of their baptism.
It is adressed to nobody less than the whole civilized world,
to all men yearning for truth, as far as they are able to read
Greek. It is addressed to the cultivated portion of the human
It is so addressed at the end of a theological and philo-
sophical discussion of all points of Christian doctrine, worship,
rites, and discipline, which evidently was the great work of his
life. Finally the subjects treated in the Address are the most
sublime Christian truths: God, the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit; the Soul, its free moral agency, and its immortality.
It comprises all the points included in what was expressly
called Christian theology and doctrine by the ancient Church.
But enough! I refer my readers to those solemn words them-
selves, that they may judge whether I am wrong in calling it
Hippolytus's Confession of Faith.
Instead of arguing any longer against a system which mistakes
antiquarian quibbles for historical investigation, purely verbal
criticism for historical philology, and the assertion of authority for
theological argument, I will conclude with Dr. Wordsworth's own
words. I have given his note of triumph respecting the three
* By the by, the Canon blames me for having called that sermon, a bap-
tismal sermon. I had done so because it treats of Christ's baptism and of
the baptism of Christians: but I did so incorrectly, says the learned Canon.
My misnomer is in his eyes a very natural mistake for a German Pro-
testant layman, who, not understanding the doctrine of Baptismal Regenera.
tion (that is to say, the Pope's and Dr. Wordsworth’s), as he tells me in his
notes to the ninth book (p. 300, n.), cannot even understand the Greek of
another passage.
PREFACE.
xxxix
Creeds, promulgated lawfully and generally received by the
Church: that is to say, first, the interpolated baptismal formulary
of the ancient Roman Church, called the Apostles' Creed, exactly
as Canons and Constitutions are called Apostolical; secondly,
the Nicene interpolated and mixed with the Constantinopolitan
Creed; and thirdly, the Athanasian Creed, a pseudonymous
composition forged by an African impostor of the fifth centu-
ry, and never promulgated by any oecumenic council. Now
after this exclamation, and after having congratulated his
Church for having the Scriptures and Catholic teaching, the
learned author thus concludes his dissertation (p. 194.):
“We have the Creeds. We do not see any new sun, or any
single new ray of the sun in them. But by their means we see
the orb of divine light shining more brightly. By means of the
Creed, the Church universal-acting under the governance of her
Divine Head, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has
rendered a greater service to the whole world than that which,
in that celebrated speech, the noblest orator of antiquity said
had been effected by one of his decrees for his own state. The
Church, by means of the Creeds, has made the dangers of
heresy, which from time to time have hung over her, to pass
away - like a cloud !"
I now turn to my readers, and ask them whether they think
a system can be true which must be defended by such assertions
and propped by such declamations? which makes one of the most
learned, acute, and ingenious men of his party bring forward such
flimsy, not to say, frivolous and absurd things, on so serious and
profound a subject, and that aggressively and on ground chosen
by himself?
I think this reflection must lead the distinguished author,
and all those among his party who allow themselves to look at
the foundations of their system, and to inquire after the truth of
their assumptions, to a most serious consideration. Will they
permit me to make an appeal to their own conscience, not in any
14
xl
PREFACE.
spirit of controversy, least of all a theological one, but in the
conviction that there is truth in what I have to say to them?
I begin with saying that I am most ready to give many noble
minds among that party full credit for the sincerity of their
wish to secure the foundations of their national Church by
placing them beyond the reach of subjective arbitrary opinion.
But I think they are not aware that their system places them
beyond the reach both of reason and of conscience by placing them
out of the pale of honest historical belief and conscientious
philosophical assent., In order to maintain the authority of the
Church by that system, they have sapped its only two founda-
tions: the paramount authority of its Code, Scripture; and the
infallibility of its Judge, the common conscience of mankind,
manifested by the free assent of thinking, conscientious, virtuous
men. They have forgotten that nothing creates so much in-
fidelity as the attempt to make people believe what is unreason-
able, and that nothing breeds so much dissent as the assumption
of an external authority incompatible with the very principle
both of Scripture and of the Church of England.
The ancient creeds from beginning to end, like all human
formularies respecting eternal truth, are only defensible if assent
to them is demanded, with the saving clause--" as far as they
agree with Scripture;" which is equivalent to saying,
as they agree with reason and conscience.” If they do agree,
that clause is not nugatory, and can be adopted bonâ fide; if it
is felt to be nugatory, those formularies are condemned by
divine law. Unfortunately they have always been urged upon
mankind in an inverse ratio to the belief attached to them by the
great mass of sincere and enlightened Christians. The conse-
quence has been that these truths have become falsehoods, and
that they have produced and are producing, first, discord in-
stead of concord, blood instead of peace, and finally, infidelity
instead of faith. I ought not to say finally: no, in our days
they have produced in the higher classes -as in France--hy-
pocrisy and fanaticism out of a philosophical unbelief in his-
torical Christianity. And do not we, who take our stand upon
those Protestant principles, endanger the faith of mankind in
this critical age of old Europe ?
as far
PREFACE.
xli
I know very well that it is the fear of this which keeps many
an honest and noble mind in bondage. But fear is not of faith,
but of unbelief. Certainly, if. Christianity is not divinely true-
if it is only a godly legend-it is much better not to reason upon
it, and not to discuss either its historical or its philosophical
basis, but submit to the necessity of an infallible Church for
the people.
An ingenious French philosopher has recently
found for himself the formulary for this wretched compromise
between Christianity and Reason: “ when I enter into the
sanctuary I bow down and worship.” Does he indeed worship?
and what? Will any one of those noble minds whom I now
address take this stand, and confess that he clings to priestly
authority (and, therefore, consistently to the Pope) because he
doubts of there being any objective truth? Will he think it is
enough to put clerical commission against clerical commission,
the authority of bishops against the authority of the Pope?
Will he not see that, on the contrary, he is lost as soon as he
does so?
My own conviction is, that, if a people of professing Chris-
tians believed only the fundamental, eternal truth, manifested
throughout by Scripture, if they believed in the Bible as
being the true mirror of universal history (Weltspiegel) as
Goethe calls it, that is to say, as being a mirror of the eternal
laws of the moral government of the world, centring in Christ
and in the rule of truth and justice on this our earth which
he announced, not only they, but the whole world by their
influence, would be saved. And I add, that if they seriously
tried to build upon that faith (as they must, if that faith be
sincere) a Christian life in themselves, and, so far as they can,
around themselves, in those relations in which God has placed
them ; they would no more allow themselves to be separated by
what are now called the controverted points in the sacerdotal
sense, than astronomers quarrel about the meaning of the blue
or green colour of certain remote fixed stars, or about the best
reduction of the imaginary curves of the Ptolemaic theory to
the real orbits of the solar system.
The great fact is, that less faith is not demanded in this cri-
tical moment, but more ; faith in the very essence and reality
xlii
'PREFACE.
it up
of religion, and in the moral government of the world. This
faith is the foundation of the assent to any theological formula,
past, present, and future; and without that faith, and that act
of faith, without that solemn pledge of the aspiring soul, there
is no reality in any such formula, no power in any authority,
no truth in any system. And the nations throughout the
world long after such a delivery from fraud and imagination,
and are yearning after sincere and real Christianity.
It was an instinct of life, not of death, it was an act of faith,
not of infidelity, which produced the great movement of the
critical and philosophical schools of Germany in the second half
of the last century; and it is the same instinct that still keeps
The hopes of the human race do not depend upon its
being carried out systematically, but upon its being applied,
realised, and by such realisation enabled to become complete
and perfect.
No wise man will undertake a colossal building without having
laid solid foundations, nor begin it until he has found the
ground upon which it stands as firm as the rock itself. But
neither will he lay such foundations without intending to erect
that building. If he does, he loses nothing less than the life
given him for that purpose.
That system is therefore essentially and necessarily recon-
structive, disposed and enabled to use the materials of former
buildings as far as they are sound. It is not a question of
curiosity or antiquarianism; it is one of necessity; it touches the
existence of our age, of our civilisation, of our liberties, and, as
soon as the question about truth or falsehood is once mooted, of
our conscience, and therefore of our eternal salvation.
If therefore some of our opponents say that we attack or reject
Scripture, and that we do not believe in what they call the
inspiration of Scripture, we reply that we endeavour to rescue
the divine authority of the Bible from the unworthy fetters in
which their system has bound it, and inspiration from the mate-
rialistic and degrading views, both impious and impotent, which
that system has engendered. We certainly do think it better
and more respectful to inquire of Scripture itself than of syna-
gogues or councils, and to take as guides of our faith, the reason
PREFACE.
xliii
and conscience of mankind, rather than ancient articles and
rubrics, whether they be made by clergymen or by princes. А.
most dangerous attempt, we repeat it, this would be, if Scripture
were not true; a criminal folly, if Christianity were a delusion.
But we believe that Scripture and Christianity are true; and we
have a witness within us, speaking through our conscience and
reason, and telling us that they are divinely and therefore
imperishably true. We speak out of that faith in Scripture and
Christianity, not judging our opponents, but rather fearing that
the strongest prop of the adverse position is based upon scep-
ticism and an unbelief, if not in religion altogether, at least in
historical Christianity.
This is the question at issue; and it is desirable that it should
be answered by argument, before it is decided by events, per-
haps amidst the ruins of Europe. Jerusalem fell, not Babylon
alone, when it imagined itself most firm and safe. It is indeed
unworthy of the principles we profess as Christians, and of the
critical age of the world in which we live, to recur to the
hackneyed trick, that he who attacks the ordinances of man in
religion, attacks the Word of God. To confound the two is the
primitive heresy of Judaism and the most noxious part of
Popery. Those who wish to reform the old system, do not
raise their voice as enemies of religion; and it is not fair and
right that we should appear before the public apologetically, and
as if we had to defend and exculpate ourselves for our writings
and opinions. We stand up with a conscientious conviction and
some knowledge of the subject, as those who conscientiously
perform a sacred public duty which is grievously neglected. We
do not think the letter of the old system simply absurd and un-
true, but mischievous and pernicious; and we foresee that its
baneful consequences will ere long become manifest by decisive
events and catastrophes. We do not appeal either to the power
of the State, or to the passions of deluded multitudes. We shall
not defend Christianity by the special pleading of the advocates
of a lost cause. We claim no authority; but neither do we ac-
knowledge any, save only that divine one upon earth-God's own
Reason manifested in man, and the Spirit of God speaking har-
moniously in the universal conscience of mankind and in its
xliv
PREFACE.
records, of which Scripture is the first and the holiest. Detest-
ing and deploring the mania of destruction which the hollowness
and the oppression and fraud of the old system have called forth,
we are anxious to preserve what stands, and to reconstruct what
has fallen under its own weight. We set to work in order to
try whether we can aid in restoring the tottering building of
the Church, before despair and violence, God's avenging angels
upon earth, shall do the work of destruction. For we know
from the manifest signs of the times, considered in the unfailing
light of the Gospel, that the hour of destruction is approach-
ing, and that when it comes, such convulsions will ensue, that
the confusion of tongues after the fall of the Tower of Babel
may be called only their foreshadowing. For the signs of the
“ last times” of the present order of things multiply around
us whilst we are writing, both in old Europe and in the young
trans-Atlantic Republic, the mother of Mormonism.
But leaving the events to come in the hands of Him who
“ holds the watch in midnight's hour," we hope, humbly and
firmly, to go on, not weakening but strengthening the para-
mount authority of Scripture, by which all Protestant Churches
stand or fall, because no Christian Church is possible without
it.
We are no less anxious to restore the realisation of Scrip-
ture, which is the Christian Church all over the earth; for we
find the faith in that Church extinct in the minds of the immense
majority of the nations who outwardly profess it. The Roman
Catholic churches are undermined and destroyed by atheism
and scepticism, and the Protestant Churches are either paralysed
by Jewish formalism, or dissolved by heathenish self-worship,
and by isolation: these symptoms cannot disappear, unless
the causes in which they have originated are removed - op-
pression and conventionalism.
We are sure of being victorious in the present European
world, or in the next. We have full confidence that what we
have to say is fit to strengthen faith ; and we feel called upon to
do so in faith. For it is our first principle to believe (what few
understand and fewer believe) in the literal truth of that inspired
and inspiring saying of the beloved Apostle (1 John, v. 6. 8,
9.) which the clerical party have so miserably corrupted by
their infallible bad tact, if not by their instinctive wish to render
PREFACE.
xly
"
obscure and unintelligible what is transparent and intellectual.
“ This Jesus, is He that came by water and blood, Jesus the
Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood ; and it
is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water
and the blood : and these three agree in one.”
These words,
however interpreted in detail, say exactly what we believe
that the historical evidence and the internal evidence agree and
unite in one, but that the internal evidence is the greater
of the two. The evidence of the conscience is higher and
more powerful than the historical evidence, although this is
an evidence centring in the manifestation of God in Christ's
life from his baptism to his death. The evidence through the
Spirit is God's own evidence, that by which he is continually
testifying of his Son in the hearts of believers.
66 If we re-
ceive the witness of men, the witness of God (the indirect or
historical, and the direct, by the Spirit) is greater: for this is the
witness of God, (namely) that he hath testified (the fact that he
has given evidence in both ways) of his Son. He that believeth
on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (that of the
Spirit, presupposing the historical): he that believeth not God,
hath made him a liar, because he believeth not the witness that
God gave of his Son." No sound faith without belief, no
saving belief without faith, which is essentially a vow and pledge,
a spring of divine life, bursting out into unselfish actions, the
only truly good works.
For this truth Christ died: but the believing human race is
destined to live for it, to realise it in this world of ours; and
our age must do so or perish.
We are neither iconoclasts nor enthusiasts, although we break
the idols, and believe in the Spirit. We think those who dream
of a Christianity without a bonâ fide historical foundation, are,
at best, amiable sentimentalists and poor scholars. We de-
mand a large basis for the Christian community and for our-
selves. We are for Union, and neither for new Sectarianism nor
for the revival of the theological systems of the seventeenth
century. We may live in peace with any of them, if “the saving
clause " be preserved. But when we find the Sanctuary invaded,
as Christ did almost two thousand years ago, we are called upon
xlvi
PREFACE.
to take up the scourge in his name, little caring whether we strike
Sadducees and their mammon, or Pharisees and their forms.
We desire to scour the porch of the Sanctuary, and to raise
the divine image upon the altar, surrounding it with the eternal
ideals of humanity, which are enshrined in the heart and con-
science of mankind. But we know that this is impossible,
unless that divine image be so far cleared of the false restora-
tions of the Judaizers, and the fantastic arabesques of the
Heathenizers, that every body may see they do not belong to it,
and ought not to be worshipped.
This is not my own personal conviction alone, but that of
thousands of serious men in all nations and countries. Those
who wish to know what is the first and last word of this faith,
may find something in my Sketches of the Philosophy of Re-
ligion, which will appear at the same time with these volumes.
As to modern German criticism, I have, wherever it appeared
necessary, pointed out the position I take up myself, with regard
to Reuss, Hilgenfeld, and Ritschl, three men whose last books I
consider as the best exponents of the reformed Tubingen school.
I have found no occasion to refer to Ebrard, Baumgarten, and
Lange's works on the earliest history of the Church. These
younger representatives of the other extreme school have thrown
aside all rules of philological and historical criticism in favour of
an unsound mysticism, and Hengstenberg himself has gone to
the utmost extreme of mystical misinterpretation in his com-
mentary on the Song of Solomon, while by his persecuting
exclusivism he is trying to establish what I must consider to be
anti-Protestant principles. As to the three distinguished and
aspiring critics I have mentioned, it would be unfair to confound
their researches with the anti-historical, imaginary, and destruc-
tive criticism of Baur, Strauss, Schwegler, and Zeller. The
noble representatives of that critical school to which Niebuhr
and Lachmann, Schleiermacher and Neander belonged, Lücke
and Ewald, Bleek and Dorner, Umbreit and Ullman, Hundes-
hagen and Hagenbach, and others, they are too well known
to require any special mention here.
Carltor. Terrace, October 8. 1853.
xlvii
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE
IN
APRIL, 1854.
DURING the six months elapsed since the preceding. Preface
was concluded, this book and the collateral philological works,
or the three volumes of the Analecta, have been carried
through the press, and the two volumes of the philosophy of
language and religion almost entirely absolved, as far as I am
concerned in them.
I have, on the whole, kept to the detailed plan given in
the preceding sheets; and I am going to render account of
the few particular points in which I have gone beyond what
I had announced. In the first of these two volumes, I have
thought it my duty to take notice of some recent German
criticisms respecting Ignatius. I have done this in the form
of an appendix to the article of the Martyr of Antioch, and to
the translation of his genuine letters. I have further extended
my picture of the Shepherd of Hermas to a complete analysis of
that work, in order to enable my readers to judge for themselves
of the character of a book which exercised so unparalleled an
authority in the early Church, and which certainly does not seem
to me to have been done justice to, either as fiction or philosophy.
In the second volume of Hippolytus and his Age, I have
thought it my duty freely to criticize the two dark points of
Protestant society, — the Prussian Law of Divorce, and the Law
of Slavery in some of the States of the American Union.
Respecting the first volume of the Analecta I have felt
obliged to extend my critical collection so far beyond what
I had promised as to render the work of Hippolytus, if not
useless, at least not indispensable, for my critical readers.
xlviii
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
Unless they have a peculiar philological interest in the Refuta-
tion, they will now find united in that volume, and in the
Letters to Archdeacon Hare, all that is of historical interest in
the text of that book, and besides some interesting fragments
of the works of the same author. This has added not incon-
siderably to my critical labours; but it has, I hope, made the
Analecta much more useful to the public than it would have been
without them.
I am every day more confirmed in the conviction that the great
object of all who mean well to theological learning must be to
render the sources of knowledge more accessible to the students
and to all thinking Christians who are able to read these texts.
The sources of knowledge are not of a great bulk; but they are
obstructed and overwhelmed by later superstructions. While
they are far from being as complete as they might be, we are in
danger of seeing them become either unintelligible by such un-
critical, barbarous editions as most of those published by and for
the Gallican clergy, or as inaccessible to students by expensive
editions with cumbrous commentaries and endless dissertations,
as they were four centuries ago by being buried in oblivion or
lying under the dust of the conventual libraries.
The first conditions of such a regeneration of fruitful,
because general, philological and historical researches on the
patristic field, is however as serious and honest discussion con-
ducted on the generally adopted principles of historical criticism
without the admixture of extraneous views. I cannot there-
fore conclude this preface without bringing before the public
the merits, and saying something of the spirit, of the only
important work of my numerous antagonists, -I mean that
of the learned and acute ultramontane writer the Rev. J.
Döllinger, Professor of the University of Munich.* The
Refutation of all the heresies (he says) certainly is a genuine
work, and if it is absurd to doubt with an English critic the
authenticity of the Ninth Book which treats of Callistus, it is
equally absurd, as to its author, to attribute the Refutation to
Origen, as Le Normant has recently done, and not less to say
Hippolytus und Kallistus, oder die römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte
des dritten Jahrhunderts, von J. Döllinger. Regensburg, 1853.
*
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
xlix
that Caius tie Presbyter could have written it, as some German
and English critics maintain. It must (he continues) have been
written by a member of the Church of Rome, and by a Bishop;
for the author himself says he was a Bishop, and this man
can be nobody but Hippolytus. There exists only one his-
torical Hippolytus–Saint Hippolytus the Presbyter, who was
banished to Sardinia with Pontianus the Bishop of Rome,
in the year 235, whose remains were deposited at a very early
period in the catacombs on the Tiburtine road. All other Saint
Hippolytuses, he proves, are mythical persons, in spite of the
old Roman calendars of Saints, in spite of all the Martyrologies,
and in spite of the united authority of Baronius, of de Magistris,
and of Dr. Wordsworth. Our book, he concludes, completes
the proof that this our only Hippolytus had nothing whatever to
do with Arabia or with the East in general.
My readers see that Professor Döllinger refutes all my
other opponents, and confirms ail the essential results of my
researches. I most sincerely acknowledge that he does so with
real learning and much judgment, and particularly with a tho-
rough knowledge of the ecclesiastical law and the traditions
and legends of the Roman Church. But, I repeat, his con-
clusions as to the authority of the book and as to the connection
of Hippolytus with the Church of Rome are identical with mine.
Nor do his arguments differ from mine in any essential points.
Now the very contrary of this fact would appear to be the
case to all those who read his book without knowing mine.
Not only is my name only mentioned when he differs from me,
but the whole book is so strangely constructed that a simple
reader must receive the impression that the Rev. J. Döllinger
has annihilated every proposition contained in " Hippolytus and
his Age," of which, by the by, he leaves the last two volumes
(this Book of the Church and the Liturgies) quite untouched.
As this is the striking and, in fact, most amusing characteristic
of Döllinger's composition, I will not deprive my readers of the
instructive gratification of having some samples of his work.
The book begins with a pompous announcement that I have
entirely failed in making out my case, -that Photius knew the
Refutation. He adopts the solution, proposed already in 1851
VOL. I.
с
1
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
by Jacobi, and brought to the notice of my readers by the
Postscript to my Letters. Now I received Jacobi's Essay only
after these letters were printed (and had it not before me when
I wrote them, as Döllinger suggests), and I have no hesitation in
saying that the solution proposed by him is the most natural.
Hippolytus himself declares in the Procemium to the Refuta-
tion, that he had treated the subject formerly in exposing the
sophisms and the fraud of the Heresiarchs in a less detailed
manner. Why should the Treatise, or Syntagma, as Photius
calls it, against thirty-two heresies, not be this same work
alluded to by Hippolytus? There are difficulties in maintain-
ing that the book read by Photius and our Refutation are
identical ; but certainly it is neither an absurdity nor sophistry
to show that those difficulties are not insurmountable. If the
answers proposed by me are not conclusive for proving the
identity, they certainly are so for demonstrating the two points
really at issue. First, that the thirty-two heresies, from the
Dositheans to Noëtus and the Noëtians, cannot be referred to
any other ancient author on the Heresies, and that the points
of coincidence between that treatise and the Refutation are
undeniable, and prove not only the author to be the same, but
also the two books essentially identical, only that the first was
less detailed, and probably had no Philosophumena prefixed to
the Theologumena or the analysis of the heresies themselves.
Nobody adopts this view more fully than Professor Döllinger:
nobody holds cheaper than he the various attempts made by
some English critics to father the very inconvenient Refutation
upon Caius, or Origen, or Tertullian, or the ignorant author of
the Appendix to Tertullian's “ Prescriptions against the Here-
tics." But, for reasons best known to himself, he takes care
not to mention this point to his readers. I have answered in the
Notes to the reprint of my Letters the single objections and
attacks he brings forward on this occasion. But, supposing he
was right in all, what argument is there against my assertion of
the authorship of Hippolytus ?
Certainly, one great discovery Professor Döllinger has made,
and that a very startling one.
Undoubtedly, he says, the only one historical Hippolytus,
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
li
was a Bis'nop. But how could Bunsen maintain he was á Bishop
of Portus ? Hippolytus was Bishop of Rome, the antipope of
Callistus himself. There is no doubt about it; every body says
so, and Hippolytus himself firmly believed it. Indeed, he
almost says so openly: but Bunsen has not seen it, in his
infatuation of making Hippolytus Bishop of Portus.
Here, then, we have Professor Döllinger on his own self-
chosen ground. His method and his historical tact will best be
judged froin this central point of his researches. He could have
done his task, which was to annihilate “Hippolytus and His
Age” for those who do not read my book (since honoured with
a place in the Pope's Index by the side of Macaulay's History),
without venturing upon so dangerous ground. Is it a gratuitous
enterprise? Is it one of despair, or of over-confidence ? Let
my readers judge for themselves. Here are his arguments.
First of all, he says, Hippolytus cannot have been Bishop of
Portus. 66 What was Portus?” he asks. “Nothing but the
harbour of Rome, a miserable borough of Ostia, of an ancient
corporation which had its Bishop. How could then that harbour-
place have a Bishop of its own? Indeed,” he continues, " I meet
with no trace of a Bishop of Portus before 314. In that year
certainly we find him at the Council of Arles (Concil. Gall. I.
p. 106.); but his name comes after all the Bishops of Cities
(civitates), with this humble designation, ' Gregorius Episcopus,
de loco qui est in Portu Romæ.' Now, mark,” he says,
was a Council held at Rome in 313, by Melchiades, at which, be-
sides three Gallic bishops, there were fifteen from Italy, most of
them from the immediate neighbourhood of Rome (Optatus De
Schism. Donat. p. 23.)—and lo! no Bishop of Portus among
them. The Bishopric of Portus, therefore, most probably was
founded in 313 or 314."
It is scarcely necessary to show up the sophistry of this argu-
mentation. The absence of a Bishop on one occasion may be
explained by many other reasons than that assumed here; there
is neither the Bishop of Tusculum nor of Tibur mentioned
among them. What Döllinger overlooks in his zeal is that the
difficulty he finds in admitting an early, primitive, cardinalitian
bishopric at Portus becomes an impossibility in the later cen-
-
- there
c2
lii
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
turies. There certainly was a Bishop at Portus in the fourth
century, and he appears as one of the seven suburban bishops
of Rome, by the side of the Bishop of Ostia, and with equal
rights as all the others in the eighth century, and continues so
up to this day, when Portus is merely a name. But how could
such a bishopric have been founded in the fourth century, and
received such privileges in times of utter decay, both of Ostia
and Portus? --and in an age when a bishopric had for a long
time ceased to be identical with a township even of the smallest
description? In order to explain the existence of such a bishop
of Portus with such rights, we should be obliged to suppose that
it was of high antiquity, even if we had no proofs for it. *
But where are the difficulties to admit that Hippolytus was
what he is called, Bishop of Portus, and that this bishopric was
one primitively connected with Rome ?
Roman topography evidently is not the strong side of Pro-
fessor Döllinger, otherwise he would not have said that Ostia
was, and remained, Rome's harbour-town after Trajan had
conducted an arm of the Tiber to the place of the present
Fiumicino, and founded there the harbour. He admits that
this assumption is contrary to the generally received opinion,
but he overlooks that it is impossible. According to the testi-
mony of the excavations, and the existing ruins of the Isola
Sacra and of Fiumicino, and of the ancient harbour of Portus
itself (absurdly called by some “Harbour of Ostia"), that river
formed in the age of Hippolytus an almost equilateral triangle,
the basis along the shore measuring two miles, and each of the
two branches, from the point of bifurcation, the same. These
are exactly the measures given by Procopius, who commanded
at Rome under Justinian, when Totila besieged it. The left
outlet was marked by Ostia, the other by Portus: the field
between was not covered with buildings (as Döllinger must
assume, if Portus was the suburb of Ostia), but an open place,
then famous for its fragrant roses, as now for its buffaloes and
* It may be stated as an additional proof, that in the Canon of the
Ambrosian Liturgy Hippolytus is named immediately after Sixtus and
Laurentius: and (as Döll. says, p. 38.) that Xystus and Hippolytus occur
frequently together on monuments of ancient christian art.
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE,
liii
solitude. Moreover, Ostia had ceased to be the harbour, for
the simple reason that the left mouth of the Tiber was so much
obstructed by the sand, that the mightiest emperors despaired
of carrying into effect the bold project of Julius Cæsar of keep-
ing it open. Indeed, Rutilius Rufus, who, under Honorius, ,
describes this coast, so well known to him, says expressly, what
is a self-evident consequence of what we have just stated, that
the ships coming by the sea could not at all ascend the Tiber by
the Ostian branch:
« Lævus inaccessis fluvius vitatur arenis."
Procopius, indeed, says the same; for having called both arms
“capable of bearing ships," he takes care to mention “ that only
on the right branch were there along the Via Portuensis arrange-
ments for towing the vessels up to town by oxen: which implies
that the Ostian branch could only bear light boats. At his
time, Ostia itself was an open borough, and Portus had a wall.
But whether a “civitas” (or corporate city) or an open
borough, Portus was nothing less than the harbour, the only
harbour, of the metropolis of the world, and therefore could
not be, what Döllinger presumes to make it, a miserable suburb,
inhabited by sailors and porters. Undoubtedly we should take
it for granted that there were sailors and porters without the
authority of some inscriptions which happen to mention them.
But the harbour of Rome must have had also large establish-
ments of storehouses and wharfs, and, indeed, the ruins of them
have been found, and are in part visible at this day. There
must have also resided, besides the many workmen employed
in the landing, loading, unloading, transshipping, and transport-
ing, a considerable number of mercantile men of Europe, Asia,
and Africa, from all cities and nations connected with the
Mediterranean. I had ventured to suggest that this very cir-
cumstance seemed to me best to explain the peculiar designation
of Hippolytus as “ Bishop of the Gentiles," and his addressing
both in the Peroration of our great work and in the " Address
to the Gentiles" all those nations as his readers or hearers.
Thus much for the assertion that there was not and could not
be a bishop of Portus in the age of Hippolytus, called (as I
liv
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
shall show still further) by all authorities who give the name
of his parish (which means diocese) Bishop of Portus.
But (continues our controversialist) Hippolytus certainly
could not be Bishop of Portus, for he is called a Roman
Presbyter, and, as the Refutation shows, lived at Rome. How
could he have united Portus and Rome, Bishopric and
Presbytery? Moreover (he goes on to say) what had the
Bishop of Portus to do with the administration of the Church
of Rome? Here the learned Canonist overshoots his mark:
for he cannot and will not deny that there were already at that
time, and particularly at Rome, germs of the metropolitan
system, which imposed upon the neighbouring bishops the duty
to consult their metropolitan on all important occasions, and
which,' very naturally, gave him, at least on extraordinary
occasions, a right to sit in the Council or Presbytery of that
metropolitan Church. In this quality, episcopal members of the
Roman Presbytery might be called inaccurately, but not falsely,
Roman Presbyters.
There is, consequently, no reason whatever why Hippolytus
should not have been Bishop of Portus. But now comes the
decisive argument: he could not be Bishop of Portus, because
he was Bishop of Rome, the anti-pope of Callistus. And this
(concludes Döllinger) is the whole story of Callistus and
Hippolytus.
Certainly, if true, this is a great discovery, and deserves the
greatest attention of the learned world. Whata complication, and
what an unforeseen solution ? An anti-pope more, one opposed
to a sainted pope, and he himself a Saint in the West and in
the East; and this Saint no less than Saint Hippolytus!
And what a novelty! Jerome could or would not make out
what Eusebius had left undefined, -namely, where Hippolytus
had been Bishop: how inconceivable, if Hippolytus had been
Bishop of Rome! And Photius! what a treat it would have
been for him ! The proposition is, therefore, certainly a
startling one. Nobody ever has dreamt of it, and if it can be
proved that even Hippolytus was ignorant of it, the knowledge
of this fact will ever remain Professor Döllinger's own exclusive
invention and property.
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
ly
Let us see, however, how he proves his assertion. He
cannot expect us to take, as a serious proof the circumstance,
that some Byzantine writers, from the sixth century downwards,
instead of calling him, as others among them do, “ Bishop of the
Harbour of Rome," designate him as " Bishop of Rome.” The
most learned among the writers whom he quotes as evidence for
this designation-Syncellus-in another passage (which I had
not failed to quote) gives him, in the Chronography, his full
title; when he comes to speak of him and his writings at his
proper place, under Callistus and Alexander Severus, he calls
him “ Bishop of Portus, near Rome.” Döllinger does not say
a word about this fact; while he quotes numbers of Byzantine
writers of the tenth and eleventh century, and anonymous
writers of Catenæ, on a point of Christian and Italian antiquity;
and the inaccurate expressions of these men are to prove that the
Saint of the beginning of the third century was a Bishop of
Rome. It does not strike my opponent that such of these late
writers as were chroniclers do not make the slightest mention
of Hippolytus in their lists of the Popes.
Feeling the inefficiency of this splendid array of mediæval
Byzantine evidence in favour of the Roman episcopacy of
Hippolytus, Döllinger enters into a most elaborate and learned
accumulation of legendary criticism, which, indeed, if he was not
so learned a man and a priest, one might be tempted to call a
manoeuvre, for what is vulgarly called “raising the dust.”
“ Hippolytus” (this is the sum and substance of his reason-
ing), the only true, historical Hippolytus, the Roman, the
Bishop, disappears in the sixth century; that is to say, the Pro-
fessor makes him vanish, because about that time there
originated a legend connecting a General Hippolytus with
Laurentius, the Roman protomartyr (p. 31.), who is reported
in that legend to have lived under Decius (instead of under
Valerian), and to have converted that general, in whose custody
he was given, and his family, consisting of nineteen persons.
The consequence was (says the legend, the summary of which I
have given in my Letters, from the Roman Breviary), that
General Hippolytus was bound to the feet of wild horses, and
thus killed, after his nurse Concordia had suffered martyrdom by
lyi
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
flagellation. It is very true, says our critic, none of the an-
cient writers who treat of the protomartyr know anything about
General Hippolytus and his nurse, and the Acta S. Laurentii
are a fiction (p. 32.): but the legends and liturgies of the Ro-
man Church, in particular, go on mentioning Hippolytus and
Laurentius together, although the oldest Roman missal itself
connects Hippolytus and Pontianus, which is quite in harmony
with the historical account. Now, out of all this confusion,
so acute a critic ought simply to have drawn the conclusion, that
as the remains both of Hippolytus and Laurentius were de-
posited in the Ager Veranus, on the Tiburtine road, in face of
the wall and gate of Rome, and as both were connected with
the Church of Rome, the framers of these legends worked a
mythical history out of those elements. The Laurentian convert
Hippolytus is the child of this fiction; Laurentius, as the
true historical Roman martyr, takes the lead in the legend,
as his Church does on the cemetery. It is indeed remark-
able, that, although younger than Hippolytus, Laurentius is
always placed as protomartyr of that Church, by the side of
Stephen the protomartyr of Jerusalem. But Portus was not
Rome, and Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus.
This, however, to my sincere regret, is not the way in
which my opponent argues. “ Mark," says he,“ there is a
golden grain of truth hidden in the legend of Saint Aurea
or Chryse. In one of the texts of this legend used by the
Bollandists, it is . Hippolytus, also called Nonnus,' who buries
her, and he is called 'Episcopus Portuensis,' (p. 47.). Now
the chronographer of the year 354 (the author of the most
ancient list of the Bishops of Rome) gives among other ac-
counts of the depositions of remains of martyrs, under the
5th of Sept.: 'Aconti, in Porto, et Nonni, et Herculani, et
Taurini' (p. 45.). These very names are joined together in
another martyrologium (p. 46. 50.). Moreover, in some Greek
Acts, Hippolytus is also styled Presbyter (p. 50.). Now
Nonnus is not a title, as Bunsen supposes, but a name; Nonnus
is Nonus, which is a Roman name, like Decimus: the Greeks
took up that name, and so it comes that we read (in some very
late writers) that Hippolytus was also called Nonnus.”
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
lvii
So we are to believe that it was by such miserable legends
the most learned Byzantines were led astray, in spite of
the correct statements of the author of the Chronicon Pas-
chale and of Syncellus, who call our Hippolytus Bishop of
Portus (p. 73.).
The true tradition, according to which he
was Bishop of Rome, must, says Döllinger, be very old,
because some monophysite writers give him that title. Now,
,
their separation from the Church took place towards the
middle of the fifth century; they certainly would not have
adopted a tradition from catholic writers: they must, therefore,
have had it from a very early authority. Why should they not
have learned it from Hippolytus, who in one of his lost writings
may have said it (p. 95.). Does he not, indeed (asks Döllinger),
almost openly say so much in that well-known passage of the
tenth book, “Callistus believed he was the Bishop of the
Catholic Church?” These words would admit the only possible
interpretation, if even they were not preceded by the sentence
that Callistus had obtained the aim of his ambition, which, of
course, was to be elected Bishop of Rome : a fact which, indeed,
cannot be contested.
Is this serious ? Hippolytus may have been a candidate for the
bishopric, he, at all events, must have lamented that unfortunate
choice; but where does he even say a word that he himself was
Bishop of Rome? Does not, on the contrary, his whole account
prove he was not? The forms of the election of a Bishop of
Rome, whether the bishops of the neighbouring country-towns
had a right of voting in it or not, were perfectly settled and
solemn. The election might be contested and tempestuous,
but the result was unequivocal. No mistake was possible: one
candidate or the other was obliged to give it up. One hundred
years after Hippolytus, 127 corpses of Christians were found
killed by the opposite party near a Basilica; the slaughter went
on a whole week: but Ursicinus gave it up, and Damasus
became Bishop. To constitute an anti-pope, it was necessary
to have two election-meetings, one excommunicating or dis-
persing the other. But whoever could dream of such a scene
under Alexander Severus ? Professor Döllinger, however, main-
tains it; and the only argument of his which cannot be refuted
d
Very sold
VOL. I.
lyiii
POSTSCRIPT TO PREFACE.
is, that Hippolytus may have said so in one of his lost works!
In leaving him to his farther lucubrations on the most fruitless
of all inquiries, the most infelicitous of all conjectures, and the
most incredible of all assertions, I will conclude by telling him,
that if he asserts towards the close of his book, I had said of
the Catholic Church exactly what Runge and Doviat had said, I
cannot help thinking he knows very well that what makes my
Hippolytus so distasteful to his friends is exactly that I do not
say what those two men have said, but bring facts which cannot
be so easily ignored, and arguments which cannot be entirely
passed over in silence.
BUNSEN.
Carlton Terrace, 8th April, 1854.
ANALYTICAL TABLE
OF
THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
Page
PREFACE
I
THE SEVEN GENERATIONS OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE AND THEIR
REPRESENTATIVES.
Introduction (A. D. 29 to 264)
3
1
9
15
-
THE FIRST GENERATION, OR TAE AGE OF ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL
(29 to 65).
First Section : St. James and St. Peter (29–52):
I. The Pentecost Miracle
II. The Council at Jerusalem
Second Section: St. James, St. Peter and St. Paul (53–65):
I. St. James and his Epistle
II. St. Peter and his two Epistles
III. St. Paul
IV. The Catechetical Accounts, the Canonical Writings, and the
Constitutional Character
19
24
26
28
THE SECOND GENERATION, OR THE JOHANNEAN AGE.
(From 66 to 100.- Linus and Cletus. Clemens. Evaristus.)
1. Apollos and the Epistle to the Hebrews (66--69)
II. The first three Gospels (71–80)
III. Clemens of Rome and his Epistle to the Corinthians (78—86)
IV. St. John and his Gospel (90-96)
Appendix : The Epistle of Barnabas
33
35
46
48
53
THE THIRD GENERATION, OR THE AGE OF IGNATIUS AND BASILIDES.
(From 108 to 128.-- Alexander. Xystus. Telesphorus.)
General Situation of the Christian mind in this Age, its Difficulties
and Problems
A. Problem of the Trinity
B. Problem of the origin of Evil
N
61
78
83
1x
CONTENTS OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
I. Ignatius of Antioch
Three Epistles of Ignatius
II. The Basilides
Page
88
92
104
1
The FOURTH GENERATION, OR THE AGE OF VALENTINUS AND MARCION,
AND THE AUTHOR OF THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS, POLYCARP OF
SMYRNA AND JUSTIN MARTYR.
(From 129 to 162.--Hyginus. Pius. Anicetus.)
The Framework and general internal Elements of the Age: the
Ebionites and Nazarenes, and the Clementine Fictions
I. Valentinus
II. Marcion
III. The Epistle to Diognetus
I.V. Hermas' Shepherd
V. Justin Martyr
VI. Polycarp of Smyrna
The FIFTH GENERATION, OR THE AGE OF PANTÆNUS AND CLEMENS,
OF IRENÆUS, AND OF VICTOR AND TERTULLIAN.
(From 163 to 198 —— Soter. Eleutherus. Victor.)
The Spirit of the Age. The Montanists.
Introduction
I. Pantænus and Clemens, or Teaching of Alexandria
II. Irenæus
III. Victor of Rome and Tertullian of Carthage
125
135
163
170
182
217
223
U
U
231
235
246
251
THE SIXTH GENERATION, OR THE AGE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
(From 199 to 230. — Zephyrinus. Callistus. Urbanus.)
Hippolytus
265
THE SEVENTH GENERATION, OR THE AGE OF ORIGEN.
(From 231 to 254.—Pontianus. Anterus. Fabianus. Cornelius.
Lucius.)
Origen -
CONCLUSION : Retrospective and Prospective View
279
303
APPENDIX.
PART I. THE FIVE LETTERS TO ARCADEACON HARE on the Refutation
of all Heresies and the Life and Writings of Hippolytus
Bishop of Portus
309
Part II. Essays referring to the Doctrine of Hippolytus
493
(See the detailed Analysis of both prefixed to the respective texts.)
THE
SEVEN GENERATIONS OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE,
AND
ITS REPRESENTATIVES.
VOL. I.
B
INTRODUCTION.
With Constantine (A. D. 313) and the Council of Nicæa (A. D.
325) begins the second great period of Christianity, as regards
both its government and its teaching; a period full of thought
and of learning, but still more of conventionalism and innova-
tion, both as to doctrine and worship-one far richer in despotism
and persecution than in freedom and charity. The twelve cen-
turies it comprises appear, from the ground of universal history,
more like a series of phantastic dreams, than a healthy state of
creative wakefulness; more like an eclipse broken by passing
flashes of light, than a period of light only transiently obscured.
It is now somewhat more than 300 years since the Germanic
nations, awakened from the dreams of their childhood and
having outgrown their Romanic apprenticeship, began to throw
off the fetters of traditionalism and hierarchism. We are not,
however, yet quite delivered from them; the curse of conven-
tionalism still bears heavily upon us.
The second great period is not immediately connected with
the Apostolic age. It is separated from it by two generations
of transition, comprising a period of about seventy years, from
A. D. 255 to A. D. 324. This intermediate age of enthusiasm
combined with scholasticism, of a mixed spirit of liberty and of
bondage, is above all one of confusion. Ennobled as it is by its
heroic martyrs and its flocks of intrepid confessors, men, women,
and children, it is overshadowed by the gradual darkening of
evangelical facts and of the Apostolic spirit, as much as by the
declining intellect of effete nations and by imperial despotism.
B 2
4
INTRODUCTION.
Congregational action is thrown into the background, as well
as the free thought of philosophical teachers.
Their places
are occupied by sacerdotally ruling bishops, on the one
hand, who usurp the right of government and administration;
and, on the other, by schools glorying in contradictions which
defy solution, adding (by way of explanation) new puzzles to
old ones, and proposing, as terms of peace, fresh topics of con-
troversy. The object of their Christian meditations is no
longer the historical Christ of the Apostles, or the pure
Christian idea of the individual relation of man to his God and
Saviour. Their belief consists rather in new formularies com-
pounded of both elements, and spoiling both; the tendency being
thus to make them tests of that only true and living faith, whose
centre is the historical Christ, and whose rule is conscience.
This new aspect of things is first observed about the time of the
death of Origen (A. D. 254), who, faithful to his predecessor and
teacher, Clemens of Alexandria, had made a last attempt to
preserve liberty of thought, along with a rational belief in
historical facts, based upon the criticism of the sacred records.
Origen had failed in his gigantic efforts ; he died of a broken
heart rather than of the wounds inflicted by his heathen
torturers. His followers (and there were few who persevered in
the struggle) retained only his mystical scholasticism, with-
out possessing either his genius or learning, his great and
wide heart or his free truth-seeking spirit. More and more
the teachers becarne bishops, and the bishops absolute governors,
the majority of whom strove to establish as law their specula-
tions upon Christianity.
But in the 222 years which elapsed between St. Peter and
the death of Origen (that is to say, from the feast of Pentecost
A. D. 29, to A. D. 254), another course of development took
place, running through seven generations, the epochs of which
are visibly marked by their succession. The first two of
these generations are represented by the Apostles and their
immediate disciples. These disciples and their followers and
opponents rule the next two generations, and these first four
ages form the groundwork upon which individual life is based
in the last three. Separating the immediate disciples of the
INTRODUCTION.
5
They feel
Apostles from the Apostles themselves, we have five genera-
tions of apostolical men; eminent, enlightened, and studious
minds, some of them endowed with administrative power,
others with intellectual gifts, and all of them conspicuous for
their earnest Christian life, spent in the midst of Christian
congregations, and not merely in the schools.
that they have not the calling of the Apostles, except in so
far as their minds are equally drawn towards Christ and the
Father manifested in Him through the Spirit. It is their vocation
to preserve for the new age of the world, represented by the
Christian congregations, what apostles and apostolic men had
transmitted in the Scriptures concerning Christ, and what the
Spirit had taught them of Christ in their own hearts. Christ
was to all of them the Divine source of this mighty stream,
which was overflooding and sinking the old world, and raising and
maintaining a new one. He alone was the living centre of
all heavenly life, uniting each believer individually with God.
And thus it was with their brethren in the congregations. In
the midst of a sinking age, and with a feeling that human
society, that is, the civilised world around them, was doomed to
perish, they were building up the new world by laying fresh living
foundations of society. Half consciously, half unconsciously,
they built up that new world, while most of them were look-
ing for the end of the present one. Free among slaves, many of
them slaves themselves, virtuous among universal vice, chaste in
the midst of privileged impurity, they remodelled the earth by
living for heaven. They emancipated themselves and mankind,
not by exciting revolutions, but by the open avowal of a moral
conviction in behalf of which they were ready to die. The imper-
fect but childlike picture of their life, a popular production of
the second century, the Book of the Church, as we have called it,
or the traditional code of their individual, domestic, congrega-
tional and social life, as well as of their new spiritual worship, is
in spite of its poverty of form the noblest monument of the age,
as exhibiting the world-transforming elements which were then
at work.
This co-operation of the people in the congregations of the
apostolic age with their leaders, may be considered as the most
B 3
6
INTRODUCTION.
important and remarkable fact, and as constituting the greatest
blessing of that age. It was this actual harmony in antagonisms
which made the conflicting elements among themselves and among
their leading men work powerfully together towards develop-
ment and not for destruction.
For discordant elements were not wanting among the leaders.
In that seven-fold succession of leading men we find more or
less, a mixture of the two elements of all intellectual and
ethical life. Some of them possessed pre-eminently the gift of
government; while by their side are found, often opposed to
them, others whose sphere lay principally in the domain of
thought. The first clung more to the historical Christ, and the
traditions of the Church; the second rather fixed their eyes on
the ideal Christ, the ever-living embodiment of the Eternal
Word, and listened more intently to the inward voice of the
Spirit, speaking through reason and controlled by conscience.
Such contrasts can only be made to work for good (as they are
divinely designed to do) when there is a great common object, and
a free community to work it with ; a community in behalf of
which the members, and above all, the leaders, are ready to live
and die. These Christians belonged to no nation and to no
state; but their fatherland in heaven was to them a reality,
and the love of the brethren, in truth and not in words, made
the Christian congregation the foreshadowing of a Christian
commonwealth, and a model for all ages to come.
of the apostles above all, which establishes the great truth, that
healthiness of life, individual and collective, consists, not in
uniformity nor in sameness, but in the harmony of conflicting
elements, in the union of theory and practice, of knowledge and
action. The leaders evinced not only by their teaching, but also
by their lives, that there is no real standard and test of member-
ship in Christ's Church, but truthfulness and sincere, self-
sacrificing charity.
This applies more especially to the three great heroes
among them, St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. John, the immortal
types of the whole development of Christianity during nearly
It is the age
2000 years.
1
THE
FIRST GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL.
5
FROM THE YEAR 29 TO THE YEAR 6:
(XVIth year of TIBERIUS to XIth of Nero.)
B4
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
53.
XIII.
29. TIBERIUS. XVI. First Pentecost, second June.
32.
XIX. First deacons.
33.
ХХ. .
35.
First .
XXII.S
36.
XXIII. Conversion of Paul.
40. CAIUS. IV. Paulus and Barnabas at Antioch.
42. CLAUDIUS. II. Predicted famine. Epistle of St. James.
43-45. III—y. James, John's brother, put to death, Peter, in prison, delivered.
End of first part of Acts.
46-49. VI-IX. First missionary journey of Paul, with Barnabas and Marcus :
returns to Antioch.
52.
XII. Council at Jerusalem.
Second missionary journey of Paul, with Silas and (from Lystra)
Timothy. Philippi. Athens. Corinth.
54.
XIV. Paul at Corinth sends two Epistles to the Thessalonians.
55. NERO. 1. Third missionary journey (Galatia). "Three months' stay at
Ephesus.
56.
II. 7 Stay at Ephesus. Epistle to the Galatians. First Epistle to the
57.
III. Corinthians, from Macedonia.
58.
IV. Stay at Corinth. Epistle to the Romans: goes to Jerusalem,
imprisoned, brought to Cæsarea.
60.
VI. Transported to Rome.
61.
VII. SImprisonment at Rome. Epistle to the Colossians : to the Ephe-
sians (circular): to Philemon: to the Philippians. James stoned
at Jerusalem. End of Acts.
63.
IX. Paul, liberated, goes to Ephesus, where he leaves Timothy: by
Miletus to Macedonia. First Epistle to Timothy. To Corinth:
thence to Spain (Clemens). Epistle to Titus.
Peter's Epistle (short one, by Silvanus): longer Epistle from
neighbourhood of Babylon.
Paul's second imprisonment at Rome.
64.
Second Epistle to Timothy.
65.
at
Peter crucified
62.
VIII.
X.
X.
Paul beheaded } at Rome.
FIRST SECTION.
ST. JAMES AND ST. PETER. 29-52.
I.
THE PENTECOST MIRACLE.
THE Pentecost of the 29th year of our era, the 16th year of Ti-
berius, witnessed the greatest miracle of the Church ; because it
was deeply symbolical and typical of the wonderful religions deve-
lopment of ages to come, both in respect to the connexion of
the soul with its Creator, and to the nature and form of all the
social and political relations of mankind. In the event of Pen-
tecost, not only the first legislation of mankind, founded upon
the permanent law of the conscience, became a reality, but the
whole distinguishing character of the eighteen centuries which
separate us from that event was typified and foreshadowed. In
what did that miracle consist? One hundred and twenty persons,
not only Galileans, as they were naturally supposed to be, but
believers from various parts assembled together on that fes-
tive day, expecting the end of the world. Suddenly, during a
violent storm of wind, accompanied by lightning, the persons so
assembled felt moved apparently to praise God, not in the
formularies of their sacred language, but in the profane suunds
of their heathenish mother-tongues, of which the Greek was fore-
most, as the Spirit gave them utterance. What more portentous
and deeply significant sign could there be, that religion was
henceforth to cease to be an external or sacerdotal and cere-
monial worship? At that moment, and with that sound, the
true temple of God opened. This was in reality the temple
which Christ had said He could raise on the ruins of the old,
The house of Levitical worship, with all its sanctity, and the
10
THE FIRST GENERATION.
proud temples of the Hellenic world, with all their ideals of
beauty, were doomed to perish; and they did both perish, but
after a severe and bloody struggle. That world-rending and
world-renewing power, centring in spiritual faith and brotherly
love, manifested itself by unanimous but dissonant praise of
God, by inspired prayer in the mother tongue.
The speakers themselves were overpowered by the sudden wind
and scintillating flashes of the electric fluid (v. 3.), while those
who gathered round and listened to them were no less awe-
struck by hearing the praises of God and wonderful things
uttered in their own tongues which they little expected to hear
from Galileans (v. 4-8.). The speakers at first made convulsive
sounds, but soon recovered their equilibrium; not like those
who, in the time of St. Paul, after having lost, in the midst of
the divine service, the power of articulation, were unable to
express their emotions, otherwise than by sounds of the brute
creation, extorted by their overpowering sensations. Nor,
according to St. Luke's account, were the pious hearers overcome
to such an extent as some later learned interpreters appear to
have been. They did not regard the screams which had been
uttered at the first moment, but listened to what they heard
spoken in their own tongue. If this be a rationalistic explana-,
tion, it is that of St. Peter. Where does that Apostle state
that he and his friends received the power of speaking languages
not their own, or that the utterance of convulsive sounds was
a proof of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, and of the
Spirit of God having come down upon the believers in the
Galilean? No Apostle, no Apologetic writer, no Father from
Clemens to Origen, ever dropped any such hint. With true
prophetic spirit St. Peter applied to this event what had been
foretold of the Spirit of God, which was to come in the last
days, and to be recognised by the outpouring of intelligence and
wisdom over the unlearned men and women even of the lowest
classes. Or did he claim credit for the truth of his statement, be-
cause they had heard Aramæan, as if it were Greek or Latin or a
barbarian tongue, or because they understood sounds which had
no meaning ? No! he tells them a story as simple as it is true,
the great event of his days and of all days, the glorification of
God through Christ, not as an external fact, but as a divine
THE PENTECOST MIRACLE.
11
principle of life in mankind. He tells them that what they
had heard, each in his own native tongue, referred to a fact of
which all present were witnesses, he and his friends being sober
people, and of sound mind; and he concludes by saying that
they themselves are called upon to partake of this miracu-
lous blessing, for their own salvation's sake. And how was this
to be done? By speaking or understanding foreign tongues,
or inarticulate sounds ? No! by looking up to God through
Christ's holy life and example, by acknowledging their own
sinfulness with a sincere aspiring faith, and by accepting the
symbol of immersion, instituted by the Baptist and elevated by
Jesus into that of regeneration : by a solemn pledge to live
henceforth to God's glory and the good of mankind, and by
loving all men as their brethren. This indeed they did, by
associating themselves together with prayer and thanksgiving
and common meals, by leading reformed lives, and by having
all their earthly goods as much as possible in common.* On
that day, accordingly, not only the Christian Church was born,
but also the Christian State.
This is the miracle of Pentecost, and one of the greatest events
in the world's history. It is the inauguration of the era of the
Spirit, by the sanctification of its primitive work, language; it is
the hallowing of social life by real brotherhood; it is the ini-
tiation of true worship by individual inspiration and childlike
thankfulness. As it was the fulfilment of a prophecy uttered by
Joel in the midst of a great public calamity, at the beginning
of the divided Jewish kingdom; so was it the fore-shadowing
of that ever great and glorious event, when, fifteen centuries
later, the noblest nations made their vulgar tongues, the Ger-
manic, Romanic, and Slavonic, sacred languages embodying im-
mortal thought; so that the congregations no longer praised God
and Christ and the Spirit in the dead languages of their priest-
hood, but in the living accents learned from their mothers' lips.
* The true reading of the 47th verse is : ‘0 dè Kúplos apogetidel toÙS OwSouévous
καθ' ημέραν επί το αυτό.
. " And the Lord daily joined together such as were
saved (by this their act of faith, by that faith in Christ which prompted them
to reform themselves, and confess Jesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah).”
See Lachmann, and compare Winer, $ 17, 3. As to apogéri@ei, see v. 41.
12
THE FIRST GENERATION.
Then also immortal psalms and hymns and deep-spirited prayers
were uttered by great and small. Then the bonds of servitude
were broken by the freeing Spirit of the Gospel, and the King-
dom of God upon earth entered upon a new era under the banner
of Faith, of individual self-responsibility, of mutual trust, and
of that civil and religious liberty for which mankind has
been created. Have not our mother-tongues been hallowed by
that great act, more even than the already declining languages of
Palestine and Syria, of Greece and of Rome? Is not that work
always going on, now indeed more than ever, all over the globe ?
Cannot we quote, pointing to millions upon millions, to our
Scribes and Pharisees and Infidels, as Christ did to those of the
temple, those words of the Psalmist : “Out of the mouths of
babes and sucklings Thou hast perfected praise ? "
The account, as transmitted to us, says essentially this,
neither more nor less. Its author was not an eye-witness ;
he wrote nearly half a century after the event, at a time when
the merely convulsive tongue-speaking had obscured the fact of
the first inspired speaking in the mother-tongue. It is not a
myth, however, as both the Rabbis of our day and the disciples
of the school of Baur represent it: it is a fact, a great event,
and a much greater miracle of the Spirit than either of those
extreme parties have considered it.*
* The strongest philological proof of the truth of my interpretation, is the
circumstance of St. Luke in the two other passages, where the speaking with
tongues is mentioned as a sign of the outpouring of the Spirit, most distinctly
characterising the phenomenon as including intelligible, inspired (prophesy-
ing) speaking in the praise of God. So also when Peter addressed Cornelius
and the friends assembled in his house, before they were baptized (x. 44-47.),
and (xix. 6.) when Paul prayed over the catechumens who had only received
the baptism of John. Paul also considers the true speaking with tongues to
be that in which the convulsive sounds are followed by intelligible words of
the Spirit (1 Cor xiv. 5.), however involuntarily and unconsciously they may
be uttered. There is nothing in the ante-Nicene Fathers to favour the view
of a magic influence, either on the speakers or on the hearers. But this
spiritless and absurd interpretation is coeval with the time of Nicene Chris-
tianity. The Fathers of the age of the Councils, and all who follow them
down to the present day, interpret the miracle of the Spirit without the
Spirit: namely, as signifying that the Apostles or hearers understood lan-
guages without having learned them. Hugo Grotius hints at the true
THE PENTECOST MIRACLE.
13
The convulsive utterance was, as St. Paul felt it to be, a
nervous affection to be endured but not to be encouraged, and
not a healthy manifestation of the spirit of Christianity destined
to be permanent. The ecstatic state in all its forms (however wil-
fully ignored by some, and insidiously or foolishly misinterpreted
by others) is not a sound exponent of the religion of the
Spirit. John Wesley knew this full well, when he checked the
convulsive movements which showed themselves at the beginning
of his preaching, by the united power of buckets of cold water
and the softening influence of spiritual prayer. Not so, unfor-
tunately, the amiable but weak-minded Irving, who saw in those
sounds the sign of a new outpouring of the Spirit, whereas
interpretation in the beautiful passage: "Poena linguarum dispersit homines,
donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum recollegit." Herder, however,
was the first who had the courage to reopen the way to the right explanation,
in his spirited essay of 1794 on the gift of languages. I do not see that
Baur (1830) bas contributed much to the understanding of the event
by interpreting the speaking with tongues to mean speaking in other,
new languages of the Spirit (Mark, xvi. 7.). What these were, he is unable
to explain, but he excludes the inarticulate speaking which we find in the
Corinthian congregation. Nor is Bleek's interpretation satisfactory (1829)
- acceded to by Baur in 1838,--that those ecstatic persons in Jerusalem
used unusual, highly poetical words. No, the Spirit never manifested itself
in high-flown language and quaint antiquarian phrases. Inspiration is the
predominant element of the saint, and childlike simplicity its criterion.
The correct view is that taken by Neander (1832) in his beautiful first
chapter of the History of the Churches planted by the Apostles, although
he evidently had not a clear conception of the act itself which he thus
defines : “ a delivery, not generally intelligible, proceeding from an ecstatic
state, and consisting in a higher flight of speech.” But he afterwards
characterises it, as a state in which the consciousness of God (Gottesbewusst-
sein) was predominant, and the consciousness of the world (Weltbewusstsein)
entirely thrown into the background. A cursory examination of all the
modern interpretations may be seen in De Wette's Commentary. As to the
catalogue of nations, I neither agree with Schneckenburger that the sixteen
names he here enumerates are an allusion to Noah's sixteen grandsons :
nor, with De Wette and many others, that it is a mere rhetorical flourish
without meaning. There is no repetition in the enumeration. It is true
that the Cretan Jews spoke Greek as well as the Alexandrian, Cyrenaic,
and Ionian Jews; but they certainly did not speak the same dialect, any
more than did the Galilean and the Jew of Jerusalem. What they heard
was the dialect, not the abstract common language.
14
THE FIRST GENERATION.
it was merely the symptom of the finite mind breaking down
when for the first time facing the Infinite, and sinking under
that by which, through a healthy reaction, it ought to rise.
By this weakness Irving encouraged the delusions which are
floating about in this apocalyptic age, scandals to the by-
standers, stumbling blocks to morbid understandings and weak
frames, and levers for the newfangled hierarchists of the nine-
teenth century in Europe and America, who think they can
catch the Spirit in their cobwebs of beggarly hierarchical and
liturgical formularies. The Spirit is indeed abroad and
pervades our mystical atmosphere, having abandoned worn-out
establishments and effete corporations : but such men as these
will not seize, their formularies will not conjure it.
THĖ COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
15
II.
THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
The pregnant event of the first Pentecost is one of the greatest
miracles in universal history. So is the first Christian council
which followed that event after three and twenty years.
The faith, inaugurated by the Spirit, and tested by self-sacrifice,
love and brotherly trust, overcame prejudices and passions, even
those which separated the Jews of Palestine from the Hellenic
Jews spread over Asia and Europe. These Hellenists, indeed,
soon became the more flourishing branch. The deacons were not
only destined for them, but also chosen from among them.
It was a Hellenistic Jew who became the proto-martyr. The
dispersion of his friends was followed by other converted Jews.
Thus the new faith went forth from Palestine, five or six
years after the first Pentecost.
We soon find an influential congregation at Antioch, the
metropolis of Asia. Here Saul, now Paul, arose, after long
silence and meditation, as the teacher of the saving truth of Him
whom he had never seen in the flesh.
Were the converted heathens to keep the law ? were they to
be circumcised? might they dine together and intermarry?
what was to become of the children? These and similar ques-
tions were differently answered at Jerusalem and at Antioch.
Peter stood between James and Paul; but he wavered and re-
lapsed at times into Judaic scruples and prejudices.
Hence arose the idea of a mission of some of the brethren at
Antioch to those at Jerusalem, in the year 52. Warm discus-
sions ensued, of which the second chapter of the Epistle to
the Galatians gives us a more faithful picture than the modified
account of St. Luke, in the 15th chapter of the Acts; for both
undoubtedly speak of the same event. Meetings of the congre-
gation and of the governing committee composed of the
Apostles and elders (or elder brethren), took place, till at last
16
THE FIRST GENERATION,
that same Spirit, which had loosened the tongues on the day of
Pentecost, united the hearts of the whole Christian people
solemnly assembled. There was no majority, but unanimity,
which is the seal of the Spirit. Peter and his influential friends,
among whom Silas or Silvanus was the most remarkable, were in
favour of the concessions demanded; and the spirit of charity
and brotherhood broke through the bondage of forms, and over-
came the scruples of James, the Lord's brother, the type and
leader of the strict Judaic party. A message of love was given
to Barnabas and Paul; and a letter was carried by Silvanus
and Jude, written probably •by Silvanus. This letter is au-
thentic, and the doubts of the Tübingen school are nothing but
the reflex of their own imaginations. We give the document,
which was early misunderstood and in consequence partially
adulterated and obscured, as the ancient Church read it.
6. The Apostles and elder Brethren into the Brethren which
are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia,
Greeting.
“ Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out
from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls,
to whom we gave no such commandment; it seemed good unto
us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto
you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have
hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
We have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, who shall also tell
you the same things by word of mouth. For it seemed good to
the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than
these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from for-
nication; from which, if ye keep yourselves, ye will do well.
Fare
ye well.” (Acts, xv. 23.-29.)
We have only to compare the words, “it seemed good
to the Holy Ghost and to us," with those of verse 22.,
“then pleased it” (in the Greek text the word is the same as
in the other passage) “ the Apostles and Elders with the whole
Church," to see that the organ of the Holy Ghost, identified
THE COUNCIL AT JERUSALEM.
17
with it as His manifestation, is the assembly of the faithful,
including the Apostles and Elders. As to the letter itself, it
was written by them, but in conformity with the decree of the
popular meeting. There is no authority for the common read-
ing of the superscription of this letter, “ The Apostles and
Elders and Brethren," which evidently rests upon a misunder-
standing of the transaction.
The expression of the Holy Ghost, then, was the verdict of
the universal conscience, and the result of a free discussion,
in which the Apostles and Elders who had called the meeting
of the brethren, took the lead. This congregational authority
embodied the verdict in a letter, which received the sanction of
the Christian people, and was sent to the brethren of Antioch
who, proceeding in the same way, received this decision as just
and equitable, and conformed to it. We have here, therefore, the
two coefficients of the Church ; a people or congregation, and its
Christian government: the first, sovereign as to acts of legisla-
tion, the second, rulers with free agency and personal conscience.
The people, after mature deliberation on the part of the Apostles
and Elders, pronounced by their vote the verdict of the universal
conscience; the Apostles and Elders carried it out in their own
name, as being the expression of their own free and personal
conviction. Our view of the judgment of the Church being the
organ of the universal conscience lias, therefore, the authority
of Scripture and the sanction of the Church of the Apostles,
in its first historical document. Both as to its form and
contents we must look, above all, to the spirit. Let those
who are anxious to adhere to the letter, rather than the
spirit of these forms of primitive Christianity, test the
truth of their unenlightened zeal, by adopting the same
principle of liberality as to the community of goods. But as
to the spirit, we think the council of Jerusalem is to be con-
sidered as the supreme law for the government and legislature
of the Church. Any good that may be done, or has been
done, by sacerdotal synods or episcopal councils, by pontifical
decrees, or by edicts of princes and their military or consisto-
rial officers, must be considered as done under the necessity
VOL. I.
с
18
THE FIRST GENERATION.
of dictatorial action, and therefore as a provisional and very
questionable form. It cannot indeed sanction formularies and
confessions of faith, but requires that sanction from the con-
science of mankind. To say the truth, the good done under
any of these forms is not great as compared with the evil
inherent in them. Nothing is more childish than to confound
what has been done or is doing by great and moral nations, 'in
spite of certain forms and ordinances, with what has been done
in consequence of them.
19
SECOND SECTION.
ST. JAMES, ST. PETER, AND ST. PAUL. 53-65.
I.
ST. JAMES AND HIS EPISTLE.
The spiritual movement of the new world centred, for the first
twenty-four years, in Jerusalem; and its two prominent indi-
vidualities were St. James and St. Peter. The former continued
there till he was stoned by the Jews, about the year 62; the latter
had left Jerusalem before that time, in order to preach the
Gospel to the Jews out of Palestine ; and his Epistle proves him
to have been, at the time of St. James's martyrdom, in or about
Babylon, then as well as subsequently one of the central resi-
dences of the Jews.
James had been an unbeliever, like the other sons of Mary,
when about the middle of September in the year 28 of our era,
or the year 781 of Rome, Jesus undertook his solitary journey
to Jerusalem, leaving his home never to return to it. This is
stated by St. John (vii. 5.); and there is good evidence that
his conversion took place after the resurrection, owing to a
vision which he had of Christ. He became a believer, but
remained a national Jew. In his eyes Peter went too far in
his concessions to the Gentile believers; but the spirit of the
Gospel which was in him, and the spirit of Christ which
reigned in the congregation, together with Peter's mediating
influence, overruled his objections. He did not, however, change
his practice, but continued always to keep the law, and was a
constant attendant in the Temple, according to the trustworthy
account of Hegesippus. He also supposed the Syrian Chris-
tians to attend regularly to the public reading (and therefore
20
THE FIRST ĠENERATION.
the observance) of the Thorah ; for this seems to be the sense of
the concluding words of his speech, as we read it in the Acts.
Neither did James ever consider Christianity as anything
more than the moral regeneration of Judaism, or that Christ
had done anything more than establish the true righteousness
or justification demanded by the law. Real justice and
practical charity to the brethren, true humility and thank-
fulness to God, no longer under the servitude of ordinances,
but under the perfect law of liberty (i. 25.): these were in
his eyes the substance of the message which Christ brought to
man from God. The whole Epistle is based upon ethical,
social Jewish principles, purified and exalted by Christ. It is
in its details a touchingly pious application of the moral pre-
cepts of the Sermon on the Mount, and of similar sayings and
precepts of Christ. All allusions in the Epistle, not borrowed
from the Old Testament, and from the ethical Apocryphal
books of the Palestinian and Alexandrian Jews, Jesus the son
of Sirach, and Wisdom, are taken from the sayings of our Lord,
as we find them (in substance, not literally) in the first or Pales-
tinian Gospel. There is, however, something behind, which is
generally overlooked---namely that Christ has more in store for
mankind; that we are to await his return, which, from the signs of
the times (v. 7-11.), may shortly be expected. All this leads to
the conclusion that the Epistle represents the first phasis of Chris-
tianity, not only in its idea, but also in its historical develop-
ment. With this also corresponds the name given by the writer
to those whom he addresses. Believers are, in his eyes, the
true Israel, “the dispersed Twelve Tribes.” For such must be
the meaning of the heading of his Epistle. The historical twelve
tribes had long ceased to exist. This letter, lastly, speaks with the
authority of a teaching believer, not with that of one of the twelve
disciples and witnesses. As to originality, the Epistle bears só
entirely the stamp of all we know of St. James of Jerusalem,
that the evidence in its favour, although not so decisive as that
of St. Peter's Epistle, must be considered as satisfactory. I con-
ceive that the doubts thrown upon it were not as to whether it
was written by St. James, but whether an Epistle of his was to
be placed, as equal in authority, by the side of those of Peter,
John, and Paul. This certainly was the case as to the Epistle
ST. JAMES AND HIS EPISTLE.
21
of James the brother of Jude. James's authorship becomes still
clearer when we examine the state of Christian development,
not only as to doctrine, but congregational life generally, which
that Epistle exhibits. This was evidently the primitive state.
The congregations to whom the Epistle is addressed, are treated
as if they were all Jews; but still Jews of the dispersion,
most likely those of Antioch and other Syrian congregations;
in short, the same as those to whom the letter of the Apostolic
council was directed. We nowhere hear of merely Jewish con-
gregations in those countries: but the Gentile believers appear
only as proselytes; and the question with him simply was
whether, if uncircumcised, they would be considered as more
than proselytes of the gate and God-fearing believers, associated
with the real Jews in a foreign country, without ceremonial
obligations. Such a state became solemnly recognised upon the
affirmation of that principle by the council, and it formed
therefore a marked epoch in the life of James. The Epistle
must consequently be posterior, but apparently not much
posterior, to the year 52. The return of Christ is expected,
but no allusion is made to the impending destruction of
Jerusalem. The obscure expression in v. 5., “Ye (the rich)
have lived in pleasure on the earth and been wanton; you
have nourished your hearts [as] in a day of slaughter” (where
the 56
as ” is not in the Greek) seems to allude to an historical
This can scarcely be any other than the great slaughter
of the Jews in Seleucia and throughout Babylonia, which
happened in the year 42, and in which Josephus relates that
above 80,000 Jews were slain. I think it most likely there-
fore, that the Epistle was written not long after that awful
event, and that Silvanus, who most probably acted as secretary
of the council in 52, and who certainly acted as Peter's
secretary in 62, was also the writer of James's Epistle. Dis-
carding the Mahommedan idea, that an inspired man writes
in an unknown tongue and in a style not his own, we must
advert to the difficulty how James, the Palestinian Jew, could
write a Hellenistic letter so like that of Peter. His making use
of that language was very natural, as appears from the resolution
of the president of the council; and that Silas uttered the pious
event.
3
22
THE FIRST GENERATION.
thoughts he was charged to express, in his own style, whether
he wrote for James or for Peter, is the only natural assumption,
and perfectly compatible with a faithful execution of that charge.
I cannot see, in the passage about Faith and Righteousness,
that the writer intended to attack St. Paul's use of the two words.
The simple state of the case, as it presents itself to my mind, is
this. The two words were, in a Jewish sense, the most natural
exponents, the one of an external profession of belief, the other
of the strict observance of the law; sin was unlawfulness,
because the law was the expression of God's will. By justifying
works, James did not understand Jewish external legality, but the
observance of the moral law of inward justice and liberty, and he
opposed this righteousness to the mere nominal profession com-
monly called faith. It was Paul who'stamped faith with its pe-
culiarly Christian signification, which has become doctrinal, and
which in its philosophical sense is essentially the living belief
in the moral responsibility of the individual, above all external
observances and actions. This use of the word harmonizes with
the spirit of the first three Gospels, but it is there always con-
nected with faith in the person of Christ, not in the Gospel; St.
John alone uses faith in the latter meaning (1 John, v. 4.). James's
terminology, therefore, is the primitive, historical, nationally
Jewish one. But he is so far from opposing the higher use
of it, that his ethical view, when rightly understood, is the only
one compatible with the principle which made Paul insist upon
the higher, and which is in truth the Abrahamitic sense of that
word. James attacks the ordinary popular use; which is ad-
ditional proof of his Epistle being earlier than those of Paul.
It has been argued that in its arrangement it presents
no connection, but consists of mere separate exhortations
loosely strung together. This I think an unfounded reproach,
except as regards the beginning of the eloquent passage re-
specting the dangerous power of the tongue (iii. 1.), which runs
thus: “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall
receive the greater condemnation ; for in many things we offend
all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect
man, and able also to bridle the whole body.” No ingenuity
can give a satisfactory explanation of the first sentence; besides,
not being good Greek in whatever sense the words are taken, it
ST. JAMES AND HIS EPISTLE.
23
is impossible to see what the admonition not to strive after being
teachers in the congregation has to do with the warning against
giving the tongue licence in evil speaking. I think, therefore,
that this is one of the few corrupt old readings in the New
Testament. Lachmann (who, here, as everywhere else, gives
the traditional text) was of the same opinion, and communicated
to me, as early as 1844, a very ingenious conjecture respecting
the original reading. According to him, with a very slight
change of letters, the passage would run: “Do not become
intractable mules, but let yourselves be bridled and guided,
and in particular, your tongue, the most difficult thing to
bridle." (ver. 2, 3. : compare Ps. xxxii. 9.) By a still slighter
change, the sense would be: “Do not become much talking
teachers." *
S.V.,
* Lachmann's emendation is : M IILAOI AYEKOAOI yivɛook, instead of
Μή πολλοί διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. Πώλος is used by the Septuagint in the sense
of a young ass or young mule. Avokolos is intractable, wild; and applies,
therefore, particularly well to these animals. My own conjecture is this : My)
πο ΛΥΛΑΛΟΙ διδάσκαλοι γίνεσθε. The Πολυλογία is already severely censured,
as leading necessarily to sin, in Prov. x, 19. 'Ek modvloyias oủk ÉKOEVEN
αμαρτίαν. The word πολύλαλος itself occurs in that sense in some passages of
the Septuagint, as corresponding with the Hebrew D'??? 3). See Schleusner
who quotes the version of Symmachus in Job, xi. 2., and the Compluten-
sian editions in Sir. xxi, 25. I prefer this emendation, first, because it
makes the connection of our text with the second and third verse, and with
the whole eloquent passage respecting the tongue more clear. Secondly,
because this sentence connects the third chapter with the second. The
second is principally directed against the nominal profession of Christianity,
in the spirit of Pharisaism. “So speak ye (oőrws Xalɛīte), and so do,” says
ver. 12.; and ver. 14.: “What doth it profit though a man say he hath faith, ,
and have not works ? " This argument is concluded by the words of the
verse immediately preceding ours (ii. 26.), “ For as the body without the
spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also ;” that is to say: as the life
of the body is shown by the actions of the breath of life within him, thus
practical Christianity is the test of its external profession. Now according
to my emendation, our verse (iii. 1.) links this argumentation very clearly
with the new paragraph (iii. 1-12.) by warning against much doctrinal
talking in general. This idea is again taken up after that eloquent passage
by verse 13.: “Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you, let
him show by good conduct his works, with meekness of wisdom." As the
text stands there is no connection, either with what precedes, or with what
follows.
C4
24
THE FIRST GENERATION.
II.
ST. PETER AND HIS TWO EPISTLES.
PETER was the man of government and of practical mediation,
as Paul was the man of thought and spiritual faith. Peter was
the link between the Judaists and Hellenists.
His great Epistle was, according to the most probable calcu-
lation, written in 62, only three years before his death. - He
was then in or near Babylon. That circumstance alone (as I
remember to have heard first from Niebuhr) explains the
order in which the encyclical letter is to be transmitted : it gives
us an eastern starting point, and excludes a western. In
this Epistle (v. 12.) he says he wrote to the same congregations
a short letter, which is thus qualified: "Exhorting and testifying
that this is the true grace of God wherein you stand.” Now,
the congregations in those parts were founded by Paul, and the
meaning of these words therefore is, to certify that the doctrine
preached by Paul is the truth, whatever zealots may say. Sil-
vanus, who (as the words seem to indicate) not only brought the
letter, but had probably written the minute in Greek, since
the year 53, the year after the council at Jerusalem where he
acted as secretary, had been the constant companion of Paul in
Asia Minor. Being from thenceforth a friend of Peter, it is very
natural that he should go to him (then residing near Babylon)
and solicit him to address such a letter to those congregations,
as an antidote against the Judaizers, who misused his name in
order to trouble their consciences and disturb their
That short letter, I believe, is still in existence. If we read,
without any preconceived opinion, the first section of what is now
called the Second Epistle of Peter (i. 1-11.), we find not only
the same diction as in the first, but the very same exhorta-
tion, which was required, together with Silvanus's verbal ex-
planations, to confirm those Christians in their faith, just as
1
peace.
'ST. PETER AND HIS TWO EPISTLES.
25
the words in the longer epistle indicate. Moreover, that
section concludes (v. 11.) with the very same words, " of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ," which precede, in the conclu-
sion of our present Epistle, the doxology, “To Him be glory
both now and for ever. Amen.” This doxology I believe to
have been the conclusion of the short letter of Peter, referred
to in his longer epistle *; the text of which is subjoined.
The Shorter Epistle of St. Peter.
“Simon Peter, a servant and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, to
them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the
righteousness (justifying grace) of our God and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ : grace and peace be multiplied unto you through
the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, according as His
Divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto
life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath
called us by His own glory and, yirtue : whereby are given unto
us exceeding great and precious promises, that by these ye
might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the
corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this,
giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue
knowledge ; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance
patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly
kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these
things be in you and abound, they make you to be neither
barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot
see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his
old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to
make your calling and election sure by your good works : for
if
ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for ‘so an entrance
shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting
kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be
glory, both now and for ever. Amen."
* In this longer Epistle, ovykinpovouo. (iii. 7.), the constant reading of all
ancient manuscripts, arbitrarily changed into ovykinpovópois, is merely
ovykinpovóuq, which has been misunderstood.
26
THE FIRST GENERATION.
III.
ST. PAUI.
WHILE Peter preached the gospel in Asia, James remained
with that branch of the Christian Church which was not destined
to flourish ; but he was among his own people, and he was the
man fitted, both by birth and by character, for that sphere.
His death took place eight years before the extinction of the
Jewish nation.
But more than twenty years before that period a much
greater man had risen at Antioch, the Apostle of the Gentiles.
He had taught first in Antioch, afterwards all over the world,
speaking and writing to the Gentiles as a Hellenistic Jew, but
never giving up his love to his people, nor his hope for Israel.
All his Epistles were written between 54 and 65. They
clearly present to us two great periods in his Christian develop-
ment, the distinction between which it is as uncritical to deny,
as it is to question the identity of their authorship, and to fail
to perceive the germs of the second in the first. All the elements
of the second, indeed, are contained in the first; and the first and
last Epistles bear the stamp of that same strongly-marked and
almost unique individuality. The Epistles to the - Ephesians,
Colossians, and Philippians preach " Christ in us," as those to
the Thessalonians, Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans preach
“ Christ for us." This is the natural history of faith in every
individual and in the world. Critics agree in assigning to the
less Jewish Epistles a later date; and I think the arrangement
proposed and carried out in Neander's well-connected historical
demonstration by far the most probable. He places the three
most spiritual Epistles in the time of Paul's captivity at Rome;
and assigns also to the same period the Pastoral Epistles or the
letters to Timothy and Titus.
As to the genuineness of these doubts have been raised, which I
think can now be removed by a more advanced insight into the
development of the organisation of the earliest Christian com-
munities at the end of the first century, which would be the
earliest possible date if they were not Pauline. I have en-
1
ST. PAUL.
27
deavoured in my Ignatian Letters to prove that the Christian
constitution was in that age much more advanced than that
contemplated in the Epistles ; that the stage of development
described in them had disappeared at the close of the first century.
Some German critics have a peculiar idiosyncrasy which leads
them to disbelieve the second captivity of Paul. Yet it appears
to me very arbitrary to deny a fact for which we have the explicit
evidence of Paul's disciple and companion, Clemens, the first
historical bishop of Rome. In his Epistle to the Corinthians
(written, as we shall presently see, before the Gospel of St.
John, between 78 and 86) Clemens describes (chapter v.), as
warning examples, the sufferings which in the latter years had
been inflicted upon the Apostles themselves by jealousy or party
spirit (as we should say) and envy: “Peter suffered through unjust
jealousy, not one or two but many hardships; and having thus
given his testimony (as martyr), went to the place of glory due
to him. Through jealousy Paul obtained the prize of patience:
seven times he wore bonds, was exiled, stoned, became a
preacher in the East and in the West, and gained the noble
honour of his faith, after having travelled through the whole
world and come to the extremity of the West, and after having
given his testimony under three emperors.* Thus at last he was
delivered from this world, and went to the holy place, having be-
come the greatest example of patience.” Paul suffered mar-
tyrdom, not earlier at all events than Peter, and after he had
journeyed into the extreme west, which certainly cannot mean
Rome.
* The MS. reads én tov niyovuévwv. 'Hyoúuevou can only mean Em-
perors. It would be inadmissible in the imperial times to render the word
by Consuls: and to suppose, as some have done, that it is in allusion to the
two Prefecti Prætorio established by Nero after 63, is still more so. The idea
of it being an allusion to the two all-powerful men, Tigellius and Sabinus,
prefects in the last year of Nero (67 to 68, and therefore after the death
of Paul), is an ingenious conjecture of Pearson's, but inapplicable to this
passage.
The notion that Nero and Helius his favourite were alluded to, as
Greswell maintains, is simply absurd. Now, taking riyoúpevol in its only
legitimate sense, Clemens must have had in view a certain number of
Emperors; and Paul indeed suffered persecution under Caius, Claudius,
and Nero: the word tpūv therefore is required by the sense; the only
numeral for which twv could well be mistaken. We, therefore, read trì
τριών ηγουμένων, instead of επί των ηγουμένων.
28
THE FIRST GENERATION.
IV.
THE CATECHETICAL ACCOUNTS OF THE APOSTOLIC MISSIONARIES CON-
CERNING THE LIFE OF CHRIST ; THE CANONICAL WRITINGS AND
CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTER OF THIS PERIOD.
As regards the state of the evangelistic (missionary) reports re-
specting "the good message,” it does not seem to admit of
reasonable doubt that some portions of the records of the Life and
Sayings of Christ collected in our first three Gospels, were
consigned to writing during this period: some may even have
been so in the first section of it. Among'such Memoirs of this
period relating to the public life of Christ, the most considerable
continuous piece is the Itinerary, peculiar to St. Luke (ix. 51. to
xviii. 14.), although it is a collection of sayings (logia or oracles)
of Christ, during different, but consecutive journeys, not a chro-
nological Memoir, as is his Itinerary of St. Paul's travels during
which he was his companion.
Of the persons who committed these accounts to writing we
know nothing. In the age we are now considering, Mark and
Luke lived as missionaries employed and instructed by the
Apostles, but they did not then compose the Gospels bearing their
We shall see forthwith that in this age the historical
account must have been given to the catechumens orally,
according to some general heads. Nobody was anxious to
have a written biography of Him whose return was daily
expected. As to the first Gospel, it stands upon the very
same ground of catechetical, unchronological, cyclical tradi-
tion as the second and third do; and if, as I have no doubt,
John wrote the fourth, the first Gospel cannot have been writ-
ten by a co-apostle and fellow eyewitness. We must, there-
fore, suppose that the Matthew, whose name it bears, was, like
Mark and Luke, one of those younger men who had not seen
Christ; and indeed the fragment of Hegesippus seems to say
what the Gospel itself obliges us to assume. Paul himself had
names.
THE CANONICAL WRITINGS OF THIS AGE.
29
only seen Him in a trance, and in the spirit; and James
had known Him his whole life, without recognising the Messiah
in the brother, and without listening to Him and following Him
and His teaching. Apollos again, a highly enlightened converted
Alexandrian Jew, who in this period enjoyed almost equal au-
thority with Peter and Paul as a teacher, and who, as we shall
see in the beginning of the next age, is the probable author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, had never seen Jesus.
As to the History of the Apostles and of the first con-
gregations of Christians, the contemporary account of St.
Luke begins with the thirteenth chapter, as remarked above.
This second part of the Acts contains the Memoir of an eye-
witness and companion of Paul on most of his missionary
journeys; and that eyewitness is Luke, the writer of the first
part, which forms the foundation of the recital. There is no
greater proof of the unhistorical spirit of the Tübingen school
than their denying this fact and its consequences, and that,
too, after Paley's masterly exposition. Nobody but Luke or
Timothy could have written it; and, independently of the uni-
versal evidence, the internal probability is in favour of Luke.
As to the Christian congregations of this period, their mem-
bers were in the first instance mostly of the lower classes,
working men, slaves, or freedmen. Soon, however, Christianity
gained proselytes among the rich and the higher classes, at least
out of Palestine, particularly among the women. Each
gation was called originally by the same name as their place of
worship, a synagogue, of which “congregation” is the Latin
translation. Afterwards the Hellenistic expression “popular
meeting,” “Ecclesia," became prevalent; the late appellation,
taken from the name of the place of worship (Kyriake, the
house of the Lord), has caused this word to be translated
Church, Kirk, Kirche. The Hebrew and Hellenic names have
in common the idea of a congregation of people.
Each Church was independent of the others; they were
governed by leaders, called by the translated Hebrew name
Presbyters, that is to say, Elders, or by the Hellenic name
Bishops, Episcopi, that is, Superintendents or Overseers, In-
spectors. The Apostles acted as the general visitors and advisers
Each congre-
30
"THE FIRST GENERATION,
of these congregations; but they did not interfere with their
legislative autonomy any more than did the Elders or Bishops.
In all cases the Ecclesia was autonomic, sovereign; the Apostles
themselves took their place in these assemblies. That autonomy
did not produce separation, because the Christian congregations
had the spirit of Christ in them. The practice at Jerusalem of a
community of goods was, naturally, soon abandoned, because
it would have led, if farther developed, to mischievous results.
“ Pray and work” was the watchword. But the principle of
brotherhood remained: the whole fabric of the growing com-
munity was based upon mutual brotherly aid and assistance,
proceeding from a spirit of thankful love to God. Thus, serving
charity, the Diaconia, became the substitute for police and
military command, and foreshadowed the immense, unparalleled
change which the social state of the world was destined to undergo.
In this manner, under such leaders, and with such an organi-
sation, a chain was formed almost imperceptibly, through all the
provinces of the Roman Empire, of secretly worshipping, self-
supporting, independent, but sincerely attached societies, which
gradually disconnected themselves from the Synagogue, hold-
ing no communion with the Temple or such magicians and
philosophers as attempted to make “religious capital” of Christ,
and, if possible, to supplant him.
The first link of that chain was in Jerusalem, from whence it
extended itself to Antioch and Babylonia, and from Syria to
every part of Asia Minor, as well as Egypt; and having reached
Europe, by way of Macedonia, Achaia, and the isles of the Ægean
Sea, it embraced the metropolis of the ancient world a few years
before the two princes of the Apostles perished there in the
Neronian persecutions of the year 65 of our era.
THE
SECOND GENERATION,
OR
THE JOHANNEAN AGE.
FROM THE YEAR 66, TO THE YEAR 99.
(XIIth year of NERO to IIIrd of TRAJAN.)
LINUS AND CLETUS. CLEMENS. EVARISTUS.
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS
66. NERO. XII, Linus and Cletus jointly at the head of the Roman congregation.
67.
XIII. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Alexandrians).
68. GALBA.
69. OTHO, VITEL.
70. VESPASIAN. 1. Jerusalem taken, 18th Sept.
71.
11. Linus . Cletus continues his office.
78.
IX. Cletus *.
79.
x. Clemens, Bishop.
80. TITUS. 1. Clemens, second year.
82. DUMITIAN.
fourth year. Polycars born. Persecutions.
83–86. II-V.
fifth to eighth year. His Epistle to the Corinthians.
87.
VI.
ninth and last year.
88.
VII. Evaristus, Bishop of Rome.
96.
xv. Cerinth in Alexandria.
97. NERVA. The Gospel of St. John, and the First Epistle written.
98. TRAJAN. 1. St. John dies at Ephesus.
99.
100.
III. Evaristus 4. Elchasai (in Parthia) teaches a general remission of
sins. (Hippol.)
I.
I.
II.
33
ST. JOHN THE APOSTLE, AND CLEMENS OF ROME.
66-100.
I.
APOLLOS AND THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.
Soon after the martyrdom of the two great Apostles, the apos-
tolic circle was disturbed by persecution: among others, Timothy
was cast into prison, as we learn from the Epistle to the He-
brews. We shall give in the Analecta, where we treat of Hege-
sippus and the Fragmentum Muratorianum, a succinct view of
the reasons which make it highly probable that “ the friend of
Paul,” who according to all ancient authorities wrote that Epistle
was Apollos, and that it was addressed to the preeminently
Jewish church of Alexandria, his native place, to which he
expresses the hope of being soon restored (xiii. 19.). The ruling
party in Alexandria was a Judaizing one, and of the most dan-
gerous character. By a tendency very much like that of Philo
they endeavoured to spiritualize the Mosaic ordinances. Such
a system leaves no place for Christ, scarcely any indeed for the
fundamental idea of his life and teaching, universal redemption.
Apollos foresaw and pointed out that such a system - which,
indeed, is that of the Judaizers of all times-must lead, if not
to an avowed, at least, to a virtual relapse into Judaism. The
scope of the Epistle, therefore, is to a certain extent, the same as
that of Paul to the Galatians: but as the heresy to be combated
had taken a more speculative and spiritualizing character, so the
controversy was carried on in a different manner, and one in-
deed for which Apollos (Apollonius) was eminently qualified.
He is characterized by St. Luke (Acts, xviii. 25.), as “an eloquent
man, and mighty in the Scriptures," and Paul himself considered
him as his own and Peter's equal. But the predominance of
VOL. I.
D
34
THE SECOND GENERATION.
the Judaizing party seems to have thrown Apollos into the
background; and this probably is the reason why several of the
churches did not incorporate his letter among their collection of
the apostolical writings. As to the later Church of Alexandria,
she very naturally exerted her authority in causing the Epistle
to be recognized, not only as canonical, but as written by St. Paul
himself. Barnabas retained his standing in that Church with
which an ancient tradition connects him: the very early
Epistle to which his name is absurdly attached certainly belongs
to the Alexandrian sphere; but Apollos disappears altogether.
Had Barnabas been the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
as Tertullian supposed, his authorship could not have been
easily forgotten : nor have we any right to expect to find in
Barnabas, from whom Paul separated early and for ever (Acts,
xv. 30.), so Pauline a turn of mind as in Apollos, who was his
fellow labourer, and whom he places on an equal footing with
himself and with Peter.
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
35
II.
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
The first Decennium after the destruction of Jerusalem gave
birth to the three Gospels which bear the names of Matthew,
Mark, and Luke. The hypothesis of a primitive Gospel,
various Aramæan and Greek texts which they were sup-
posed to have had before them, has fallen to the ground,
owing to the artificial nature of the system itself, by which
Eichhorn and Bishop Marsh were obliged to maintain it, and
the inextricable difficulties into which such an assumption
necessarily leads the enquirer, without, after all, solving the real
problems and critical difficulties which our three Gospels
present. The assumption is certainly in itself very tempting,
but it cannot be denied that it is a very bold and rather
gratuitous one. No mention is anywhere made of such a
protevangelium, which could scarcely have been and remained
anonymous, or have been entirely superseded afterwards by these
three compositions. Again, when could it have been composed ?
Not, certainly, in the time of the Apostles, that is to say,
before 65: for though eye-witnesses might have ventured to
give an unchronological account of events they had seen, they
could not propose an arrangement seemingly chronological, but
in reality irreconcileable with the chronological order. Such,
however, is the relation which the first Gospel, as well as the
two others, and the chronological groundwork common to
them all, bear to that of St. John, the undoubted author
of the fourth. The same considerations must also convince
us, that such a primitive Gospel could not have been written
contemporaneously with the other three. Mark and Luke, if they
were the authors of the second and third, cannot have written
their accounts later than the period between 70 and 80. The
age required it: they were themselves at that time men advanced
in years, and at the head of the missionary body of the Apostolic
D 2
36
THE SECOND GENERATION.
circle. Moreover, their friend, Bishop Clemens, who died in 86,
possessed Evangelical accounts agreeing essentially with ours,
and in particular with that of St. Matthew. This must therefore
be presumed to be at least as ancient as the two which follow it,
and to have been received by the congregations earlier than
they were. Of these arguments I think the first the strongest.
If we consider the whole question from a historical point of
view, we shall see the necessity that such accounts as ours
should have been written in the first ten years after the de-
struction of Jerusalem. When it had fallen, and the prospect
of a further continuation of the life of this world opened upon
the Christian congregations, they found themselves thrown
more than ever upon the person and life of Christ. Both the
older members who had never seen Him, and the catechumens,
as well as the heathens throughout the empire, eagerly inquired
after the particulars of the life and sayings of the Author of
their faith. All the active and influential members of the
body of the Apostles, including St. Paul, were dead, with the
exception of St. John, who, after his banishment at Patmos, had
settled at Ephesus. There existed, however, Apostolic men
among the missionaries who had lived more or less with the
Apostles. Such men were very naturally requested to connect
into one narrative sayings of Christ, and anecdotic accounts of
His life, which had been committed to memory or writing during
the course of the First Generation. St. Mark was one of these.
Now was his Gospel copied by Matthew and Luke, or can the
undeniable harmony in the groundwork of their records be ex-
plained by the shape which the oral catechetical account of
Christ's life had gradually assumed? The unfortunate notion
that the Gospel of Mark is an epitome made from those of
Matthew and Luke, with neither of which it agrees, has been
repudiated by critics of the first order, such as Schleiermacher,
Thirlwall, and Lachmann, and has, indeed, nothing to recom-
mend it to any critic.* But I confess I see no proof that
* I regret that Reuss should have countenanced this miserable hypothesis
in his recent work : Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Tes-
taments,” 1853, § 178., a work which forms an epoch, as being the first which,
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
37
Matthew or Luke had Mark's Gospel before them: if they had,
why did they make use of him so unequally, and deviate from
him so frequently?
Being thus thrown back upon the assumption of an oral
tradition, we soon discover that it never could have been so
disorganized as to lose its historical character; for we can
restore its general frame or outline from the three. Gospels
before us.
It consisted of the five following great sections,
each of which comprised various heads or chapters :
1. How Christ was announced and baptized by John the
Baptist.
II. How Christ, after his temptation, taught in his Galilean
neighbourhood, performing miracles, and healing the sick.
III. How Christ resolved to go to Jerusalem, and how He
journeyed through various districts beyond those round the
Lake of Gennezareth.
IV. How Christ entered Jerusalem, and taught in the Holy
City, announcing the end of all things.
V. How He was apprehended two days before Easter, was
judged and condemned ; how He died on the cross, but rose
again the third day, and appeared to his disciples until He was
taken up to the Father.
The second, third, and fourth sections, in particular, consist of
a considerable number of subdivisions, which are common to all
the Gospels, although not always in the same sequence. The
sayings and anecdotes which they contain, are in most cases
almost literally identical: not so the sentences or words which
connect them. Those, especially, which connect one section
or chapter with another, bear the marks of individual authorship.
All this is explained by assuming that there existed conven-
tionally an oral catechetical tradition, preserved in the circle of
emerging out of the imperfect form of an introduction, treats the subject in
a historical manner and with true learning and criticism. He abandons, in-
deed, virtually such a supposition in the notes to the paragraph quoted, as
well as the still more unfortunate conjecture that our gospel of St. Mark
is not an original but an interpolation : a conjecture which is one of the
inventions of the Tübingen school, based upon a gratuitous interpretation
of the passage in Papias.
D 3
38
THE SECOND GENERATION.
the Apostolical missionaries, and parallel with it written me-
moirs, consisting partly of detached sayings of Christ, brought
together in one way or another, partly of more or less connected
anecdotes of his life. These two elements are the two equally
primitive sources of our three Gospels.
The whole framework of that catechetical tradition is now
represented to us, with very few, but unmistakeable, signs of
authorship, in the Gospel of St. Mark. St. Luke, on the con-
trary, exhibits more authorship than either of the other two
Gospels as to the facts. Matthew's authorship is exhibited in
the sayings.
Before we proceed to examine the origin and history of
the Gospel of St. Matthew, we are anxious that our readers
should consider with us the real nature of catechetical tradition,
and the dangerous stage at which it had arrived when the
Apostles were gone, and Jerusalem was destroyed.
The arrangement itself of which we have here given the out-
lines recommended itself by its simplicity. For catechetical
purposes, it was by far the most convenient, and it ensured
at the same time the historical character. The catechetical
form omitted such details of external events as would have com-
plicated the instruction. But what would have been the result
of such an arrangement if the course of oral traditions
had not been stopped in time? It is essential to consider the
difference between such traditions and individual authorship.
Any one may add to traditions, even when committed to writing,
may rearrange and alter the connection of their separate parts,
without being chargeable with corrupting a text. For catechetical
purposes, indeed, in the living narrative this must have occurred
every day. But the account when once stamped with individual
authorship, is sacred: it can only be altered by an imposture,
which will easily betray itself by its style and character, or by
comparison with other copies, bearing the same author's name,
or by both. The congregations will cling to the unaltered copies
of the author. Now this stamp of authorship is most evident
in Luke's Gospel: it is also discernible by the unity of style and
by some individual traits in that of Mark : but where does it
appear in Matthew ? Evidently in the connecting together of
THE FIRST TEREE GOSPELS.
39
detached sayings of Christ, as such, according to the analogy of
their contents, stripped altogether of the garb of anecdote, if
they possessed it. These strings of pearls form the peculiar
charm and truly popular element in the Gospel of St. Matthew.
But the formation of them is neither historical, as will appear
from a comparison with Luke and Mark, nor merely traditional:
for the traditions about Christ's sayings are most strictly
anecdotic. It must, therefore, be the work of a missionary,
one of the apostolic circle, a Jew of Palestine or Syria ; for the
book is generally admitted to have been written in modern
Hebrew or Syriac.
Now is not this the most natural interpretation of the passage
in Papias, the enquiring bishop of Hierapolis, who lived about
the year 128, which has created so much discussion ? His words
are : “Matthew composed the words (Logia) of our Lord.” If,
as Schleiermacher thinks, this means that Matthew wrote merely
the sayings, not the events, not the life of Christ, 'how could
Eusebius quote it as evidence respecting the first of our Gospels?
He ought, in that case, to have said that, according to Papias,
Matthew was not the author of the Gospel, as the Church in
his time generally assumed, but merely the compiler of certain
speeches. But the words of Papias themselves prove that he
meant to speak of an entire account of Christ's life, such as we
find in our first Gospel. Our interpretation, therefore, is the
most natural, and explains the general tradition. We find in
our text four of these main compositions, of which that of the
Sermon on the Mount (ch. v., vi., vii.) is by far the most im-
portant. This Sermon is not mentioned at all in St. Mark,
but is given in St. Luke in a form which bears substantially
the character of an historical speech. Into this framework
Matthew placed the analogous sayings of Christ respecting the
Law and the Commandments, where a contrast is made between
outward righteousness and real piety. Such sayings were found
enshrined in anecdotes or transmitted singly by themselves.
It is remarkable, however, that the sayings in Matthew's Sermon
on the Mount belong exclusively, or almost exclusively, to the
first period of Christ's teaching. There is a much smaller but
kindred collection of ethic sayings, in the form of a speech, in
D4
0
THE SECOND GENERATION.
ch. xviii., which belongs, on the contrary, to the second, or later
period of Christ's teaching. In like manner we find two com-
posed speeches about the Pharisees and Scribes, one of the
earlier (part of ch. xii.), and one of the later (ch. xxiii.) period.
In these two pairs of compositions, Matthew gave to Christendom,
as it were, Christ's own code of ethics. Guided by the same
view he compiled in the form of speeches many dispersed sayings
of Christ; for instance, one respecting his instructions to the
Twelve, two about the Pharisees and Scribes (ch. xii. 22. and
ch. xviii.), one of parables on the Kingdom of Heaven (ch. xiii.),
and one on the end of all things (ch. xxiv., xxv.). All these are
inserted into the framework which the cyclical account of oral
tradition offered. A comparison between the single sayings of
which these speeches are respectively composed, and Mark and
Luke, can leave no doubt about the fact of Matthew having
performed his task subsequently to the anecdotie delivery of
those words in verbal tradition, in so far as they were not
originally detached sayings. But, such a comparison will also
prove that there are enshrined in this collection many noble
sayings of Christ not found in any anecdotic garb, either in
Mark or Luke, and that they are consequently detached
sayings. Who, if he considers their sublime simplicity, will
deny that this task was performed under the guidance of the
Spirit of Christ, and in the true primitive, apostolie spirit? But
the essential identity between most of the sayings connected
together as parts of a speech, and those contained in anecdotes
preserved by Luke, is direct proof of their substantial authen-
ticity.
The view here propounded is conformable with the gospel
texts, with the general laws of the development of tradition, and
with the unsophisticated interpretation of the evidence before us.
Upon any other hypothesis, a great part of this evidence must
either be interpreted in a non-natural sense, or rejected alto-
gether; and even then the theory cannot be made good from
the Gospels themselves. Great abuse has been made by the
Tübingen school of the undeniable fact, that the most ancient
writers, from Clemens to Justin (80 to 150), quote the texts of
our first Gospel, each different from the others, and all of them
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
- 41
often, as 1o the letter, different from our canonical Greek text.
They forget that the same author quotes the same text differently
in different passages, and that the Fathers often quote from
memory what we now call the Scripture of the New Testament.
But above all, they overlook the remarkable fact, that most of
the
passages quoted by all these writers are such as imply that the
text was that of St. Matthew; I mean, the sayings of Christ,
as grouped together by the author of our first Gospel. Here
is a proof that Matthew's act of authorship, which fixed the
Aramæan tradition, or at least settled it within certain limits,
was anterior to Clemens, or to the ninth decennium of the
first century. This agrees also most perfectly with our
general assumption that the years immediately following the
destruction of Jerusalem gave birth to our three gospels.
St. Matthew's being placed the first would lead us to suppose
that this apostolical missionary, who bore the same name as is
given to Levi the publican among the Twelve, commenced
that individual recension of the evangelical tradition which
prevented its degenerating into legend.
But, on the other hand, we must not overlook the real dif-
ferences which those early quotations manifest. All of them, of
course, are Greek. Now, what says Papias in the above-cited
passage ? "Every one,” these are his words, "interpreted Mat-
thew's Aramæan Gospel" (that is to say, translated it into
Greek), “ as well as he could.” So even this Gospel, thus in-
dividualized and fixed, took provincially a different form as to the
letter, but within those narrow limits. We know, moreover,
that at the end of the fourth century there existed among the
Aramæan Gospels in Palestine a considerable discrepancy at the
beginning. Jerome saw a variety of these texts, some with, some
without, the first two chapters. One of them, that of the or-
thodox Nazarenes, the “Gospel according to the Hebrews," he
copied and translated. He describes it as being on the whole
identical with our text, but as containing the story about the
woman taken in adultery, to which Papias alludes as being found
in some texts. It is well known that this interesting anecdote,
instead of being incorporated into St. Matthew's Gospel, was,
unfortunately, foisted most awkwardly into St. John's, contrary
42
THE SECOND GENERATION.
to the evidence of Papias, the quotations of the earliest Fathers,
and the most ancient of our manuscripts, namely, that of the
Vatican.
If Lardner's views, and those of the Harmonists of the seven-
teenth century, are untenable in the face of these and many
other collateral facts, recent theories and doubts respecting the
vagueness and lateness of the present text of our first Gospel
are not less uncritical, and some of them more worthy of the
school of Voltaire than of that of Tübingen. The hints now
thrown out here and there respecting the supposed difference
in the old Syrian text, discovered and prepared for publication
by Cureton, and in particular of our Greek version of St.
Matthew, are most ridiculous. The difference which really
exists is restricted to various readings of one and the same text.
The special importance of this, by far the most ancient Aramæan
text in existence, is, that, as modern Chaldee and Syrian differ
from each other, orthographically rather than dialectically, the
text of the Libyan manuscript must be regarded in the light of
a transcript, rather than as a translation of the original of our
canonical Matthew. Coming as it does from Syria, it, on the
contrary, confirms most strikingly the authenticity of our text.
We may, moreover, hope to gather some useful hints as to some
difficult passages, from a text containing the original word which
the translators had before them, and which must sometimes be
understood and rendered differently. Discrepancies and ob-
scurities do exist: the question is not to invent or deny, but to
explain them.
The Syrian text will shortly be published, with a comparison
between it and that of our manuscripts. As to the others, our
readers may without any trouble satisfy themselves in a few hours
as to the real bearing of the differences between the present text
and that which was read in this and the following age, by a
perusal of Anger's recently published Synopsis of the Gospels.
I cannot help regretting that in this work the traditional text
has not had justice done it, owing to the learned Editor not
adhering strictly to Lachmann's great principle of restoration.
Respecting the text of the three Gospels, and particularly that
of St. Matthew, as it was read by ancient ecclesiastical writers
THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.
43
of the second century (including Hippolytus, and the passages
extracted by him), there is not a single various reading which
justifies the assumption of the Tübingen school, as to general
vagueness in the text, and the existence of a great number of
gospels. These variations, on the contrary, when taken together,
and compared with what all the writers have in common, con-
demn such an hypothesis as untenable.*
* My readers will not expect from me a more detailed exposition of the
theory here presented, as I have already announced that the whole question
will be discussed in a work which I hope to publish at no distant period. I will
only add that I have drawn up a Synopsis, in which St. Mark takes the lead
of the three, as St. John does of all four. The fact that this can be
carried out without any difficulty is the best proof that St. Mark's Gospel is
not an extract from the other two Whoever wishes to see the system of the
original Gospel (Ur-Evangelium), and the theories resulting from it down
to 1825, examined in the light of a truly historical criticism, should read
the introduction to the English translation of Schleiermacher's “Critical
Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke," from the pen of the great historian of
Greece, the Bishop of St. David's. The whole history of the opinions enter-
tained upon this subject is given in a compendious but historical manner,
with full reference to everything written upon it, in the latest work of Reuss,
which has been quoted above.
44
THE SECOND GENERATION,
III.
CLEMENS OF ROME AND HIS EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.
THERE lived in this second age a disciple of Paul, a true Roman,
the successor of him and Peter, who not only was the first Bishop
of that metropolis in the sense of the Fathers, but who during his
life exercised considerable influence as a historical personage over
the West, and after his death as a mythical name over the East-
Clemens of Rome. He had neither the spirit of an Apostle,
nor the vocation of an Evangelist, nor the speculative aspirations
of the beloved disciple, of whom he was the practical comple-
ment--the man of government, the Peter of the West, a
Gentile Roman, the disciple of Paul, the friend and admirer
of Apollos. Linus and Cletus (Anacletus is a mythical person-
age originating in a blunder) had divided between them the
charge of the Roman congregation ; the one, the Pauline, taking
that of the Gentile Christians; the other, the Petrine, that of
the Jewish portion of the congregation. The Petrine survived
his colleague, and became, from 71 to 77, Bishop of the whole
Church. Clemens, his successor, a Roman, but writing in
Greek, the prevailing language of his congregation, as did his
successors during two hundred years, was Bishop of the city of
Rome from 78 to 86, or from the 9th year of Vespasian to the
5th of Domitian.* His Epistle to the Corinthian presbytery
and people must therefore have been written during this period,
and consequently be anterior to the fourth Gospel. Clemens,
the prosaic Roman, was a man of good and deep practical sense, a
pious Christian, full of divine wisdom, who had studied his Greek
Bible and read some of the classics, but feeble in his criticism and
weak in his learned arguments. Mosheim and Neander think
* This chronology which I shall establish in my Table destroys Hilgen-
feld's assumption that the latter might be as late as 94.
CLEMENS OF ROME AND HIS EPISTLE.
45
some passa ges in this Epistle* interpolated, because, from their
mythical tendency, they are unworthy of a disciple of the
Apostles. This is begging the question, and mere fancy.
The importance of the Epistle is great historically, constitu-
tionally, and doctrinally.
As to the first point, it is a partial completion of the account
in the Acts. This book, which was composed about ten years
before the Epistle of Clemens, had never been completed, the
author having evidently been prevented from writing the third
part of his Memoir from the year 63 downwards. From Clemens,
who was the best authority, we learn something about the last
exploits of Paul, and of his and Peter's martyrdom at Rome.
As to the constitutional point, the Roman Bishop considered
episcopacy as an open and a simply constitutional question. He
advised the Presbyters of Corinth to stand by the Apostolic prin-
ciple, that Presbyters are for life, not to be wantonly deposed by
the congregation. It never occurred to him to exhort them
to change their constitution into episcopacy. As a good
Roman, Clemens did not believe that the end of the world was
near: he thought it necessary rather to preserve the new life
which had been given to the world, as long as it should last.
This was to be done, according to his reasonable view, principally
by two great institutions : a wise ecclesiastical constitution, based
upon Christian liberty, and Catholic communion among the
Churches. The constitution of every Church (town congrega-
tion) was to be based upon the two apostolical principles; the
sovereignty of the congregation and the sacredness of the
apostolical office, upon Christian liberty and goodly order.
Catholic communion was to be cherished by one Church
taking the advice of another, and giving such advice in the
* I have analysed the Epistle in my Ignatian Letters, to show its unity,
and rejoice to see that this argument has now been carried out triumphantly
by Hilgenfeld (Apostolische Väter).
† Hilgenfeld in his text (p. 71., compare p. 77.) maintains absolutely the
same; but in discussing my conjecture (étquovijv, instead of śnivouny, which
is not Greek in the sense of that very erudite and rare word, ¿nivouiv), he
contradicts himself, and forgets the very point at issue, by saying: “Die
Lebenslänglichkeit versteht sich wohl von selbst, es handelt sich nur um die
Wiederbesetzung nach dem Tode."
46
THE SECOND GENERATION.
spirit of charity and Christian frankness, leaving the decision
to each separate Church as being an independent, self-respon-
sible body politic, in the Christian sense. There is inspiration
and prophecy in all this.
In a doctrinal point of view, the Christology of Clemens is
highly important; for it is that of the disciple of the two Apostles,
of a man who presided over the Church of Rome, and wrote as
being already Bishop before the fourth Gospel was written. It
is preposterous to ask him after the three Persons of the Pseudo-
Athanasian Creed; but it is ridiculous to make him, as Baur has
done, an Ebionite. Such an idea is precluded by what he says,
as a true disciple of St. Paul and the friend of the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, respecting the atonement.
demption of mankind was achieved by Christ's self-devoted death
for us according to God's eternal decree of grace (ch. xxi. 49.).
The Holy Spirit of God, by which Christ also spoke to mankind
by the Prophets, appeared in Him in the flesh : He appeared in
humility, as a servant, not in divine majesty, although He might
have done so (ch. xvi.). Christ therefore, in the Spirit, existed
before all creation, because He is the consciousness of God
in Himself and in the creation. As Jesus of Nazareth He is
the servant of God.* This is a view of God, and of Christ, and
The re-
* The celebrated passage in ch. ii. “ Tois épodious toŰ JEOÛ” (the means of
sustenance for our spiritual pilgrimage and service, as soldiers of Christ)
αρκούμενοι, και προσέχοντες τους λόγους αυτού επιμελώς εστερνισμένοι ήτε (εν)
τοίς σπλάγχνοις, και τα παθήματα αυτού ήν προ οφθαλμών υμών does not
make Clemens a Patripassian. It may be, as Dorner judiciously observes
(i. 139.) a less accurate way of using the pronoun, of which, indeed, we
ind another example in ch. XXXvi. “ Διά τούτου (Ιησού Χριστου) ατενίζομεν
εις τα ύψη των ουρανών· διά τούτου ένοπτριζόμεθα την άμωμον και υπερτάτην
õulv aŭtoở. Where aútoũ stands for Jaoû, as Dorrer remarks, Christ being
the åravyaoua tñs meyalogúvns (980ű), as He is called in the same sentence,
or the eixwv, ch. xxxiii., both in strict adhesion to the Epistle to the
Hebrews. It is strange enough that Hilgenfeld should have understood
that passage in ch. ii. differently. As to a similar expression in Pseudo-Ig-
natius ad Rom. ch. vi., see my text of that Epistle, p. 107. Dorner should
not have spoken doubtingly (p. 142.) about the sense of the passage, ch. xxvii.
'Έν λόγω της μεγαλοσύνης αυτού συνεστήσατο τα πάντα, και εν λόγω δύναται
aúrd karaorpédal. It certainly does not relate to Christ's pre-existence.
Λόγος is not used here in the Johannean sense of ο Λόγος.
CLEMENS OF ROME AND HIS EPISTLE.
47
of mankind, which flows naturally out of the doctrine of the
Apostles : we shall find it developed in a popular form, and
with a certain tendency towards self-righteousness, about sixty
years later, by another Roman, brother of another bishop of
Rome, in a book which was considered, even by the Council of
Nicæa, almost as an inspired mirror of orthodoxy, and which
is indeed the great exponent of the religious mind of the second
century.
48
THE SECOND GENERATION.
IV.
ST. JOHN AND HIS GOSPEL.
St. John, the mysterious apostle of love, appears as the lead-
ing personage at the beginning and close of this period. In the
year 68, after the death of Nero, when the fulfilment of ancient
and modern prophecies was drawing near, and the spiritual
atmosphere was charged with the elements of the approaching
catastrophe, John saw and wrote down, or dictated, his vision of
the imminent destruction of Jerusalem, and of the approaching
end of the city of the Seven Hills. I have shown in my Preface,
that this is the epoch of the Apocalypse, and shall only treat
here of the Gospel.
In the inonth of September of the year 70, the Holy of
Holies of the Jewish dispensation was despoiled and buried
beneath its ruins. Jerusalem and Jewish nationality ceased to
exist. This awful event roused the Christian congregations
all over Asia, Africa, and Europe, from a slumbering ex-
pectation of the end of all things. It became clear to them
that God's work on earth was to be carried on by Christ's
followers. And great was the work doing and to be done.
Man as man was to become a temple of God, sacred as such,
whether he was a slave or a king: he was to be self-respon-
sible, whether layman or teacher; he was to be in imme-
diate connection with Christ and the Father, whether illiterate
or learned. Then the new structure of family life was forming
upon the Christian principle: the relation of husband and wife
was to be sanctified by the equal Christian position of the
woman, and the duty of moral education. A hard problem for
flesh and blood! but had it not appeared so to the Apostles
themselves before Christ's Spirit came upon them? Parents
were to respect their children as co-heirs of the kingdom of God,
and children to love their parents for God's sake, and to respect
ST. JOHN AND HIS GOSPEL.
49
them, as such, not less, but more. This world-renewing spirit
could not stop short with the family relations: its work became
social, in spite of aristocratic pride, of mammon and of state-law,
of philosophers and national economists. Masters also and slaves
learned to recognise their mutual positions as brethren: the
Christian slave might remain a slave, but he ceased to be without
a body and soul of his own. Finally, each member of the con-
gregation was bound to assist every other, as a brother; and the
congregations all over the earth were to feel themselves united
by the Spirit as one body of redeemed men, Jews and Gentiles,
Greeks and Barbarians. Many of them continued during this
period to be ruled by Elders, called also Overseers (Bishops): in
part of Asia Minor and at Rome, the people confided the direc-
tion to one chosen individual, while they retained the supreme
legislative right of making regulations. Thus, while in the
dignity of Bishop man again is truly honoured, because trusted
and freely obeyed, the universal Christian conscience sways
supreme, as in the time of the Apostles : more so, indeed, inas-
much as the Apostles were chosen by Christ, founded the con-
gregations, and stood above local governments; whereas the
Bishops were chosen by the people themselves, and possessed
only local, and that a limited authority.
But what is the Christian view of the state? To the Chris-
tian the state is a punishment, to be borne with patience : it
belongs to this earth, and is doomed to perish with it. The
Christian honours the Emperor as Christ did Tiberius, and re-
spects his representatives as Christ did Pontius Pilate. Caiaphas
is no more: his last successor lies buried under the ruins of the
Temple. Nero, too, is gone: is he really (as the general pro-
phecy and belief goes) to return from the East and destroy the
new Babylon, the guilty queen of this doomed world ? Such
were the rumours which, together with many strange doctrines
and speculations, Jewish and Gentile, pervaded the Christian
world. As Peter had to combat Simon the Samaritan, and Paul
the Jewish Gnostics, with their genealogies of angels and aeons
(1 Tim. iv. 7., Tit. iii.), so John had to warn them against
Cerinthus. He, also a Jewish Gnostic of Alexandria (Neander,
i. 683–690), who speculated deeply on the nature of the cos-
VOL. I.
50
THE SECOND GENERATION.
mogonic process, concluded from the suffering and death of Jesus
that the Christ had departed from him; and in respect to the
kingdom of God, which was to come, indulged in images of
chiliastic happiness, which remind us of the Bacchic mysteries,
and border upon Mohammedan sensualism.
Almost a century has passed away since Christ was born :
the aged disciple still lives: is he (as was believed) really not to
die before the Lord returns ? or is he to fall asleep, like all the
other Apostles and eyewitnesses ?
All is dark and dreary upon earth; there is no light even for
the believer but in Heaven; no abode for the faith but in the
Jerusalem above. Thither the Church is to be elevated. The
kingdoms of this world are to become the kingdoms of the
Lord; but before that can come to pass, the world must perish.
And perish it will : Christ has announced it. When? Nobody
knows.
Such was the temper, such were the doubts, fears, and ex-
pectations of the latter part of this second age of the Apostles,
in which St. John at Ephesus wrote his Gospel and his great
Epistle. They both breathe the spirit of his last and constantly
repeated injunction and message to his congregation : “Chil-
dren, love one another!' As in the life and writings of Paul
so in those of St. John we clearly discern two periods. In the
Apocalypse we see his ardent mind subject to prophetic ecstasies,
in his Gospel and Epistle we behold the calm teacher, the
Apostle of love. This difference is independent of another cir-
cumstance which may help to explain the contrast as to lan-
guage. I mean the difference between a Jewish secretary who
may have acted the part of amanuensis in committing the vision
to writing, and whose style would naturally be hebraizing and
barbarous, and the men of Asia Minor, the Bishops and Elders
of the Greek cities, who (as we shall see presently) edited his
Gospel in good Hellenistic Greek. We trace the same amanu-
ensis in the Epistles which date from the latter portion of his
life. According to a uniform tradition, St. John died at Ephesus,
in the year 98 or 99, the last of Nerva's, or the first of Trajan's
reign.
The fourth Gospel decidedly belongs to the last decennium of
the first Christian century. There is an ancient tradition trace-
ST. JOHN AND HIS GOSPEL.
51
able to Hegesippus, the first Christian historian, who, after
making diligent researches in Asia and Europe, wrote about the
year 175 or 180, that St. John, who was the only survivor of the
Apostles, consented at the request of some fellow-disciples,
(Andrew, Peter's brother, being mentioned by name), and that
of the neighbouring Bishops and Elders of Asia, to write what
he had seen.
The same tradition also states that all these re-
cognised or confirmed it (" recognoscentibus cunctis"), which
implies them to have been the editors.
The Gospel itself, indeed, contains plainly enough this
confirmatory evidence of the editors. They it was who after
St. John's death added the 21st chapter, at the end of which
they address themselves to the reader in the words of v. 24.
“ This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote
these things: and we know that his testimony is true.” The
Apostle speaks of himself in the third person, when addressing
the reader, as he does towards the very end (xix. 35.): “ And
he that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.”
In order to understand the arrangement of this Gospel, we
must recall to our minds the position in which John stood
to the catechetical tradition, and to the faith of the congregations,
when he undertook to write down what he had seen.
At that time a generation had passed away since the destruc-
tion of Jerusalem, and two generations had succeeded each
other since the beginning of the catechetical teaching about
Christ all over the world. This account originally contained the
five great chapters: How Jesus was baptized by John ; How
He preached and worked miracles in Galilee; How He travelled
about, going towards Jerusalem; How He preached at Jerusalem;
How He suffered and died there, and rose on the third day. By far
the greater part of these five chapters is anecdotical: that is to
say, consists of Jesus' doings and sayings loosely strung together,
and capable therefore of gradual addition and enlargement.
These accounts were historical, but could not, and never were
originally intended to be considered as chronological. The
sentences which connect them, being the work of the individual
compiler, evidently form no part of the primitive tradition.
E 2
52
THE SECOND GENERATION.
Christ left Galilee very soon after his baptism, and re-
mained about a year in Judæa, till he heard of the Baptist's
death. This was the occasion of his visiting Jerusalem for the
first time, to which he afterwards twice returned. In the mean-
time he had made a longer stay in Galilee, and travelled about
the country in various directions. Circumstances such as these
were unimportant to the catechumens, who of course could only
wish to have analogous sayings put together, and the whole
framework as simple as possible. This course John could not
adopt and sanction: but he must have been very reluctant
to oppose it, and thereby disturb the popular account which
was written down and circulated throughout the Christian
world. He accordingly resolved to sketch the true chronological
framework as lightly as possible, and to expatiate only on such
points as bore upon the great theme of the prologue. This is
the key to the right criticism of his whole Gospel.
The second age closes the period of the Apostles, and includes
the life of the first of the Fathers.
Then follow five generations of Apostolic Fathers, who form
the age of the primitive Church which had not seen Christ in
the flesh. All these five generations are closely linked with
the Apostles, and the first two consist of their disciples, their
followers and opponents. Ignatius, with Basilides the repre-
sentative of the third age, was, according to date and tradi-
tion, a disciple of St. John. Polycarp of Smyrna, who, with
Justin the Martyr, represents the Church of the fourth age,
as Valentinus and Marcion represent the Gnostics, lad likewise
heard St. John and been taught by him. Polycarp had been seen
and listened to in his earliest youth by Irenæus, who, with
Victor of Rome and Pantænus and Clemens of Alexandria,
represents the fifth age. Irenæus became the teacher of Hip-
polytus, the representative of the sixth. Origen, who repre-
sents the seventh generation, was disciple of Clemens and knew
Pantænus and Hippolytus.
Before proceeding to the delineation of the leading men of the
third generation, we must endeavour to solve the problem pre-
sented by a curious pseudonymous monument of the second age.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
53
APPENDIX.
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
THE Epistle of Barnabas is obviously one of an early Christian
teacher, but not the Epistle of Barnabas, the Levite, of Cyprus, the
friend and assistant of Paul in his first missionary travels. He
expressly calls himself a teacher, not an Apostle (c. i. and viii.) *, and
he associates himself moreover with the Gentile Christians, in opposi-
tion to the Jews, thereby stamping himself as a Gentile Christian.
“Let us not run to their (the Jews') law, as if we were proselytes
(c. iii. end). The Epistle, therefore, was written by a Gentile, and
addressed to Gentile Christians. Had he not said so, indeed, his
gross ignorance of Jewish ordinances and customs would abundantly
prove it; nor could the Barnabas of the Acts be so ignorant of the
customs of the Syrians as to say that they all practised circumcision
(c. ix.). Hilgenfeld, in his excellent critical Essay upon the Epistle, has
developed this point triumphantly both against Hefele t, who assumes
it to have been addressed to Hellenistic Jews, and against Schenkel,
who imagined that the chapters vii.-xii. and xv., xvi., were foisted
into a genuine letter of Barnabas. This also explains the reason why
the Epistle was not considered canonical, as one written by Barnabas
would have been. Whence, then, did this very remarkable Alex-
andrian production acquire that title, and obtain such authority,
that Clemens of Alexandria quotes it as the Epistle of the Apostolic
man, or the Apostle, Barnabas ? Celsus, indeed, about the middle
of the second century, takes advantage of the strange expression
in ch. v.
“that Jesus chose for himself as Apostles the most lawless
of men," in order to inveigh against Christianity upon the ground
of their own books. I have shown in my. Preface, in treating of
the second Epistle of St. Peter, that expressions such as this of
Clemens merely meant that the book went by such a name. The
* The words οι απόστολοι have been left out in the passage, ch. 8. Ο μόσχος
ούτός έστιν ο Ιησούς: οι προσφέροντες άνδρες αμαρτωλοί... οι δε ραντίζοντες
παϊδες οι απόστολοι, ευαγγελιζόμενοι ημίν την άφεσιν των αμαρτιών ..., οίς
έδωκε του ευαγγελίου την εξουσίαν, ούσι δεκαδύο.
† Hilgenfeld, Die Apostolischen Väter, 1853.
E 3
54
THE SECOND GENERATION,
estimation in which it was held at a very early date, is, in my opinion,
easily explained, by its high antiquity, its ethical depth and simplicity,
and, if I may so term it, its anti-Judaistic spirituality. I have no
hesitation in saying that I think the Epistle as old as that of Cle-
mens to the Corinthians, and consequently anterior by about fifteen
years to the Gospel of St. John. The author was in prison, and hoped
to be liberated; in the meantime he was comforted by the attachment
of his flock or pupils (ch. i.). The time was one of persecution, the
days were very evil, and the Adversary (the Devil) had power over
this world (ch. ii.). Antichrist was very fast approaching (ch. iv.).
“The day is near in which every thing shall perish, together with the
Evil One. The lord is near, and his reward” (ch. iii.). Jerusalem
had been destroyed not long before; “ you have seen those great signs
and marvels among the Jewish people” (ch. iv.). In consequence of
their warring, the temple had been destroyed by their enemies: the
servants of these enemies (the Christians who quietly submit to their
rulers in this world) will build it up again (the spiritual temple, the
Church, as he himself explains it). All these are indications of the real
horizon of the times; we have to decide between the persecution in the
earlier years of Domitian (72—86), and that of Trajan. The re-
ference, however, to the destruction of Jerusalem having been witnessed
by his readers, the expectation of Antichrist, the forerunner of Christ,
and the question, whether the Gentile Christians should allow them-
selves to be considered by the Jews as Proselytes to the law, preclude
me from thinking of Trajan's time. It bears, on the contrary, the
undoubted stamp of the beginning of the reign of Domitian.
As regards its ethical depth and simplicity and its spirituality, the
following passages will satisfy my readers on that head. He begins
with teaching (ch. ii.) that the Jewish sacrifices had been abolished,
in order that “the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ which is without
the yoke of necessity, may have the self-sacrifice of man." Inward
purity is required, not conformity with outer ordinances. The whole
time of our life and faith will avail us nothing, if we do not hate that
which is evil, and the temptations which will come upon us; as the
Son of God says: "Let us resist all iniquity and hate it." Christ's spirit
(he continues ch. v.) pervades all the prophets; indeed, they speak out
of the spirit that comes from Him, who is the Lord of the Heavens,
to whom God spake before the world was constituted, “Let us make
man in our likeness.” But He veiled His godlike nature, appeared as
man, and underwent death, displaying His divine power not by
wonderful works and signs, but by apparent acts of humiliation, such as
*
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
55
living with sinners, choosing His Apostles from among the most lawless
of men, and dying the most ignominious death ; thereby freely fulfilling
God's commission (évrolny) and the prophecies about Himself.*
We read in (ch. vi.): “ The Lord saith, See I will make the last as the
first,” an unwritten traditional saying of Christ, intimating that the
second creation will be as wonderful as the first; such at least is the
sense in which our author understood it. “Now see how we have
been new formd, as he says in another prophet (Ezek. 11.), I will
take the stony heart out of their flesh (meaning those who have
been foreseen by the Holy Spirit), and will give them a heart of
* This is the meaning of that very difficult and corrupt passage in the
Epistle, chap. v. in the midst of which our Greek text begins. We give the
leading passages with our corrections. “Propter hoc Dominus sustinuit
(ÜTTÉUELVE) tradere corpus suum in exterminium, ut remissione peccatorum
sanctificemur, quod est sparsione sanguinis illius. . . . . Et ad hoc (eis ToĪTO)
Dominus, sustinuit pati pro animâ nostrâ, cum sit orbis terrarum Dominus,
cui dixit die (1. Deus) ante constitutionem mundi: 'Faciamus hominem ad
imaginem et similitudinem nostrum.' Quomodo ergo sustinuit cum ab
hominibus hoc pateretur discite. Prophetæ ab ipso habentes donum pro-
phetaverunt, ille autem, ut vacuam faceret mortem et de mortuis resurrec-
tionem ostenderet quia in carne oportebat eum adparere sustinuit (sc. mortem
pati) ut promissum parentibus redderet, et ipse sibi [lva Tò matpáolv énny-
γελμένον αποδώση και αυτός εαυτώ] τον λαόν τον καινον ετοιμάζων επιδείξη, επί
γής ών ότι την ανάστασιν αυτός ποιήσας (ΜS. κρίνει. Πέρας γέ τοι) κρινεί πέρατα
αυτής. Διδάσκων τον Ισραήλ και τηλικαύτα τέρατα και σημεία ποιών εκήρυξε
και υπερηγάπησεν αυτόν (1. έκρυψε και ουκ εφανέρωσεν εαυτόν). "Οτε δε τους ιδίους
αποστόλους, μέλλοντας κηρύσσειν το ευαγγέλιον αυτού, εξελέξατο, όντας υπέρ πάσαν
αμαρτίαν άνομωτέρους, ίνα δείξω ότι ουκ ήλθε καλέσαι δικαίους αλλά αμαρτωλούς
εις μετάνοιαν, τότε εφανέρωσεν εαυτόν υιον θεού είναι.” Πέρας γέ τοι is in this
epistle always followed by léyet as introducing a concluding scriptural
passage after others quoted by him (c. ix. init. C. Xv., bis). IIépas can never
mean any thing but “lastly,” not “further," as the commentators say.
Besides, neither the one particle nor the other will do here. Hilgenfeld has
misunderstood the whole passage, when he thinks it alludes to miracles and
preachings of Christ before the election of the Apostles, consequently to a
Gospel account which made the Sermon on the Mount prior to that act. The
great corruption of the text of our MS. may be seen by the quotations
which follow in the same chapter : Λέγει γαρ ο θεός την πηγήν της σαρκός αυτού
őri és aútūv, which the old Latin translation renders : “plaga corporis illius
omnes sanati sumus : the text of Isaiah. 53, 5. Tŷ anyū tñs capros aútoû
Trávtes iáðnuev, a loose quotation combined with a reference to 1 Pet. 2, 24.
In the above sentence, the old interpreter is as unintelligible as the Greek,
which proves the corruption to be ancient or twofold.
E 4
56
THE SECOND GENERATION.
flesh: that is to say, He was to be manifested in the flesh, and dwell
in us. For a holy temple, brethren, is to the Lord the dwelling-place
of our heart.” This same spiritual idea is developed in the beautiful
conclusion of the first, or argumentative, part of the Epistle (ch. xvi).
He had said that the temple of Jerusalem being destroyed, it would
be rebuilt by the Christians; and then adds that he will teach how it
is to be built again in the Lord's name. “Before we believed God, the
dwelling-place of our heart was corrupt and powerless, as indeed a
temple built by hands; because it was full of idolatry, and was a
house of demons, by doing what was contrary to God. But the
temple will be built in the name of the Lord: be careful, that the
House of the Lord be honourably built. Learn how. Having re-
ceived absolution of our sins, and believing in the name of the Lord,
we have become new, having been built anew from the beginning.
Therefore in our dwelling-place God dwells truly in us. How ? By His
word of faith, the calling of His promise, the wisdom of His judgments,
the precepts of His teaching, He Himself prophesying in us, He Himself
dwelling in us. To us, who were enslaved to death, He opens the
doors of the temple, which is the mouth, gives us repentance, and in-
troduces us into the incorruptible temple. He who longs after
salvation does not look to man (who preaches the Gospel to him), but
to Him who lives in him and speaks in him; and he is astounded at
never having either heard such words from the mouth of man, or
himself wished to hear them. This is the spiritual temple built
up to the Lord.” Frequently as he indulges in allegorical interpre-
tations of the Old Testament, which he calls the science or Gnosis
(ch. vi.), he abstains from all systems of metaphysics, and is free
from the pernicious dualism of the Gnostics.
The whole Epistle points to that dark period of the Church of
Alexandria in which the Judaizing party had the upperhand. Apollos
had attacked that spirit, about fifteen or twenty years before; but,
even after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (which was soon
followed by the pillage and desecration of that of Leontopolis), it was
still powerful enough to adhere to Jewish ordinances to such an extent,
as to treat the Gentile Christians as proselytes of the Gate. Barnabas
may have preached after Apollos, in the same sense, to the Alex-
andrians; indeed he, as well as Mark, his relation, is traditionally
connected with Alexandria. A Gentile teacher, the author of the
Epistle, preached and wrote in the spirit of Barnabas, and so the
false tradition arose that it was written by Barnabas.
Of course, Barnabas does not quote the Gospel of St. Jolin; but he
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS.
57
does quote the Lord's words," as "written down." The Latin text has
(ch. iv.) “sicut scriptum est: multi vocati, pauci electi” (Matth. xx.
16.). It appears highly uncritical to strike out, as Credner does, these
words, which are required by the sense, or to suppose, as Hilgenfeld
does, that they are an inaccurate rendering of the lost Greek, “the
Lord says." The Latin interpreter evidently understood very little
Greek, but where the words are so easy he could not make a mistake.
It would be still more uncritical to say that the author had before him,
when makirg his quotations, our text of St. Matthew: there is no one
passage literally the same; but the fact is that he quotes nothing
which is not found in St. Matthew (if anywhere), and two of the
passages cited are neither in Mark nor Luke, and only in Matthew.
It is probable therefore that he had before him one of the texts of
the Palestinian Gospel, which had already at that time been
stamped as St. Matthew's, owing to the ethical arrangement of the
sayings of Christ, particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. His de-
signating (ch. XV.--end) the Lord's day as that of His resurrection and
ascension is perfectly compatible with the closing verses of our first
Gospel. We shall have to develope this point more fully in the intro-
duction to the next age.
Several Churches admitted this letter into their collection, and read
it. Clemens of Alexandria must have found it in high estimation
there, or he would not have commented upon it in his Hypotyposes,
as he did upon the apostolical writings. This was a homage paid to
Alexandrian customs and feelings.
THE
THIRD GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF IGNATIUS AND BASILIDES.
FROM THE YEAR 100 TO THE YEAR 127.
(IVth year of TRAJAN LO XIth of HADRIAN.)
ALEXANDER. XYSTUS. TELESPHORUS.
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
101. TRAJAN. IV. Alexander succeeds Evaristus. The Communion becomes at
Rome, under Alexander, a strictly liturgical act.
104.
VII. Average time for the appendix to the shorter Epistle of Peter.
105.
VIII. End of first Christian century, according to the correct chro-
nology.
106.
IX. Sixth year of Alexander. *
107.
x. First year of Xystus. Eusebius's false date for the martyrdom
of Ignatius.
110.
XIII. Pliny the younger, Prefect of Bithynia and Pontus. Trajan's
Edict: Christianity declared a religio illicita.
111.
XIV., Seventh year of Xystus. The Sanctus used at Rome before the
to
free Prayer of Thanksgiving (Consecration) which closes
114.
with the words of Institution.
115.
XVIII. Earthquake at Alexandria. Ignatius sent to Rome to fight
with the wild beasts.
116,
XIX. Last year.
117. HADRIAN. 1. Last year of Xystus.
118.
II. First year of Telesphorus. Under him the Gloria in excelsis
was first used as the Communion hymn in the nocturnal
Christmas Service, and afterwards generally.
124.
VIII. Hadrian's journey through Greece. The addresses of Qua-
dratus and Aristides.
127.
XI. Last year of Telesphorus.
to
}
XVII.
61
INTRODUCTION.
The general Situation of the Christian mind in this Age, its
Difficulties and Problems.
As to the external framework of this epoch, it begins with
the first year of the Roman Bishop Alexander, the successor of
Evaristus, who had succeeded Clemens in 87, the sixth year of
Domitian. This starting point corresponds with the second or
third year after the death of the Apostle St. John, who left this
world, according to universal tradition, either under Nerva (97),
or in the first year of Trajan (98). The epoch ends with the
year 127, which is the last year of the episcopate of Telesphorus,
the predecessor of Hyginus. Telesphorus, in 117, or the first
year of Hadrian, succeeded Xystus (107–116), the successor of
Alexander. We have thus rather curtailed the duration of this
period, which we might otherwise have commenced a year or
two earlier, and ended a year or two later; because already in
this age we have no safe chronological guide except the suc-
cession of the Roman Bishops. From the time of Hyginus,
with whom the next generation will commence, the Roman
Church becomes, moreover, the central point of ecclesiastical
history, and her Bishops are frequently referred to by con-
temporaneous or later writers, in order to fix the chronology of
an important event.
For details we refer to the Synopsis.
The last of the Apostles was gone: Christianity entered
upon an epoch of immense importance for mankind, but one also
which presented to the believers a world of problems, embar-
rassments, and complications. The capital and other towns of
the Roman empire, were rapidly filling with Christian congre-
gations, formed and organised by the Apostles and their dis-
62
THE THIRD GENERATION,
ciples. The Christian had become an object of judicial and
administrative persecution: Christianity now began to be
even an object of inquiry among the wise and the powerful.
Already Domitian had for a time been disturbed by the univer-
sally spreading rumour, mentioned by Suetonius and Tacitus, that
out of Palestine, and from among Christ's people, would come
the future masters of the world. He ordered that the surviving
members of the family of Joseph and Mary should be summoned
and examined personally; and, as a good Roman, he was satisfied
on being informed that they were hard-working, poor, and illite-
rate peasants, who had no idea of becoming princes or emperors.
We shall see that in the very beginning of the next generation,
emperors and their preceptors asked deeper questions as to
Christianity than the son of Vespasian. But even in the earlier
part of our age, Trajan and Pliny paid more serious attention
to the point, than Domitian and his prefects: the police and
criminal judges had begun to meddle with this illicit religion.
The questions proposed by inquiring minds in this and the
two following ages, were more particularly these: — Who was
Jesus of Nazareth? Who is Christ? What was his religion? Is
not the whole a fallacy and a failure? Jesus has disappeared and
not returned as his disciples expected he would; how can one be-
lieve in their religion? What is, according to the belief of the
Christians, to become of them and of the world? The answers
the inquirers received might not appear to them satisfactory:
particularly when the Apologists entered into learned argu-
ments: as to the evangelical accounts, who would read such
a strange story in such bad Greek? There was, however,
an undeniable element of life in the Christian congregations.
The fall of Jerusalem had annihilated Jewish nationality :
it had only strengthened the bond of union among those
who had been supposed to be a Jewish sect. That event
had, indeed, given them the consciousness of a rational,
not vicarious and ritual, worship, independent of the Temple.
The people had no longer to wait in outer halls; they entered at
once into what the Gentiles called the innermost—the sanctuary
The Christians themselves knew of no sanctuary but that
within themselves: of no temple but of that built up in their
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND,
63
hearts in the act of common prayer and Christian life : of no
God, but of Him " whom they carried in their bosom," as the
old saying of Ignatius the Theophorus has it: of no sacrifice but
that of their own thankful heart: of no mediating sacerdotal
cast or order: indeed, of nothing and no one between God and
themselves, except the Saviour, whose Spirit, as they felt, was
with and in them. The more of them were killed, the more
numerous they became; their holy life, truthfulness, mutual
brotherly love, and dignified courage in death, made converts of
the bravest men even of their gaolers. The mothers and
sisters clung to the pure and dignified words of womanhood
and marriage. The poor grasped at what they wanted, asso-
ciation and brotherhood.
What, then, did the Christians know of Christ and of His
Apostles, and their doctrine?
As to Christ himself, they knew rather less than more about
Him than we do. Undoubtedly there was a living, unwritten
tradition floating about: we know all its elements, but not as
children of tradition, listening to some secret priestly knowledge,
but as men of conscientious research. There were current sayings
of Christ not contained in the Gospels: one of which (“It is
more blessed to give than to receive,” Acts xx. 35.) is recorded
by St. Paul. A few more, some of which appear genuine,
some tainted with Gnostic mysticism, are quoted as authentic
by the Fathers. There are certainly some remarkable sentences
among them; the following for instance, “ Lo, I shall make the
last things like the first” (which cannot have been derived from
the sayings of Christ, in St. Matth. xix. 30. xx. 16., Luke xiii. 30).
6. Those who desire to see me, and to partake of my kingdom,
must find me after afflictions and suffering.” Another saying
runs thus: “I have been weak on account of the weak, and I
have hungered on account of the hungry, and I have thirsted
on account of the thirsty. If you have not kept what is
little, who will give you what is great ? For I say unto you,
he that is faithful in that which is least, is also faithful
in much.” (Compare Luke xvi. 10.) The same Bishop,
Clemens, Paul's disciple, a Roman, and certainly no Gnostic,
by whom this is quoted, gives also the following: "When the
64
THE THIRD GENERATION.
Lord was asked by some one, when His kingdom was to come,
He said, When the two things shall be one, and the within
shall be the without, and that which is male shall be with the
female, neither male nor female."" Clemens of Alexandria found
two cognate sayings in the Gospel “ according to the Egyptians
(another form of the first or Palestinian Gospel): “I am come
to dissolve the works of the female; and in answer to Salome's
question, How long mankind are to suffer death? the reply, “ As
long as women bring forth.” The same Father and Justin Martyr
report the following saying: “In what things I find you, in the
same shall I also judge you.” Clemens of Alexandria read in
the Gospel “ according to the Hebrews”: “He who has been
resting will be king, and he who has been king will go to
rest." *
I have collected all these unwritten sayings in the Prolego-
mena of the Analecta.
There were in circulation, besides, fabulous amplifications of
some of Christ's parables, particularly of those respecting
the nature of the kingdom of Heaven, and the abundance of
all things in that happy state to come which awaited the be-
lievers as certainly as destruction and death would come upon
this globe and its unbelieving inhabitants. Papias, Bishop of
Hierapolis in Phrygia in the last years of this, or the earliest of
the next age, collected a considerable number of such sayings or
legends from surviving “Elders,” that is to say, from men of the
first two generations, who had seen Christ or (as the term was
afterwards used) His Apostles; most of them, therefore, men of
our age. Some of these legends we know from Irenæus. They
consisted partly of poetical embellishments of historical accounts,
partly of silly misunderstandings of parabolical spiritual sayings.
Out of them, and out of the never-sleeping power of fiction,
grew,
in the course of this century the few truly ancient among the
pseudo-Gospels; legendary novels, perhaps originally intended to
be received as such. None of them ever enjoyed any authority;
* I have translated it as if the reading were ANANAYEAS instead of
OAYMACAC, “ he who has been wondering.” The sense is, he who has been
made to rest (stopped in his efforts by men) shall be king, &c.
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
65
the sound sense of the congregations rejected them. Nothing,
therefore, can be riore absurd than that trite sophism of the
Romanists of our days (borrowed imprudently from the Vol-
tairians), that we know only through the Church (that is to say,
through their priesthood) that our Gospels are genuine. If
that were the case, it would be a sad comfort for Christian
believers, and a condemnation of Christianity itself, historically
and spiritually. But the fact is, that if our Gospels did not
contain sufficient direct external and internal evidence to satisfy
the inquiring mind, the pseudo-Gospels would, by the law of
contrast, serve as a foil.
As to our Gospels, the Churches at that time possessed
neither a greater nor less number than we do. The real
critical question respecting this age is, how far the text of our
canonical books was fixed during its course.
And here I must
repeat, either there exists no objective historical criticism what-
ever, or the Christians had at that time essentially the same text
of all of them. Three men, disciples of the Apostles, had im-
pressed upon the current catechetical tradition the stamp of in-
dividual editorship, and of respectable and respected authorship.
I must again call the attention of my readers to this point.
To add to the stock of traditional instruction, accompanied
always by the living word, particularly as regarded the sayings
of Christ, which were originally in a great measure left to per-
sonal teaching, was a natural right, and one that was freely
exercised. But to add to a book bearing the stamp and
name of Apostolical men, would have been a forgery un-
worthy of a believer, and repudiated by the Churches, which
considered themselves more and more as one body.
one hody. After
John, the favourite Apostle, had written his Gospel, the cyclus
was concluded for ever. He was gone, as the writers of the
first three had gone before him. Papias could collect some
anecdotes and detached sayings, the test of the authenticity of
which every reasonable man would feel, as they themselves did,
must be found in the four Gospels.
Now these Gospels were thus written down as individual
compositions, exhibiting the “joyful intelligence.” The name
of “ the Scripture” was, however, still reserved to the Old
VOL. I.
F
66
THE THIRD GENERATION.
Testament by orthodox Christians, that is to say, by those
who saw in the Law a preparation for the Gospel, and who
did not discard the whole Jewish dispensation as the work
of the demiurgic or worldly principle.
The Epistles which the Apostles themselves, assisted by
their friends, had addressed to the Christian congregations,
enjoyed among all Christians the highest authority after the
Lord's own words. The proofs of this origin and authority are
unexceptional ; and while the Tübingen school cannot establish
their contrary doctrine without denying facts to suit subjective
feeling, misnamed historical criticism, we have nothing to re-
ject or to alter, and the new facts which have lately come to
our knowledge strengthen the historical conclusions.
As to the first Gospel, I have already observed that there
is not a single quotation made by the Fathers or their oppo-
nents from those parts of catechetical tradition which have
received a new form by Matthew, which does not presuppose
his great work, that is to say, the collection and stringing
together of analogous sayings, as an integral part of the mis-
sionary account of Christ's life. Besides, with the exception
of some stray traditional sayings, whatever they quote as
Gospel statement is found in our St. Matthew.
The only
reasonable conclusion then is, that they had his work before
them. With the exception therefore of the Greek wording,
that is to say, translation, and of some details in the account of
the earlier portions of the history of Christ anterior to and
including His Baptism, those written texts of St. Matthew's
Gospel must have coincided with our own.
As to the texts of our second and third Gospels, they never
underwent any variation of note. The beginning of that of
St. Mark may have been read, in this age, without the two
quotations (ver. 2. and 3.) which render the period so involved
that before Lachmann the first words were taken as the title.
Owing to a very strange accident, as it appears, the end of it
was lost at a very early date, and a more ample conclusion
substituted (xvi. 9—20.) The evidence of the ancient Fathers
removes all doubt as to this fact, quite irrespectively of the
undeniable difference of style. No trace has been left of the
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
67
original text, the loss of which it was intended to supply.
To suppose that Mark's report and consequently ancient tra-
dition could have stopped at verse 15., is too absurd to be
seriously discussed. Assuredly, no account of the resurrection
could close with the words: “And they (the women) went out
quickly, and filed from the sepulchre : for they trembled and
were amazed: neither said they anything to any man: for
they were afraid.” The whole history of the resurrection
hinges upon their giving to the Apostles the first intelli-
gence, but in consequence of an apparition of the Lord Him-
self. This, therefore, must have been stated by Mark. Now,
as Matthew agrees almost literally with him in what imme-
diately precedes, Mark must have had the words which we
read in Matthew, verses 16. and 17., about Christ's apparition
and command. With this the old traditional account of Christ's
terrestrial life may have stopped: hence a new era begins,
the definitive end of which, Christ's glorious return as judge
of the world, was long daily expected. Consequently the real
end of the Gospel of Mark most probably ran thus (see
Matthew, xxviii. 16, 17.): “And as they went, behold Jesus
met them, saying, All Hail. And they came and held him
by the feet and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them,
Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee,
and there shall they see me. Then the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed
them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but
some doubted." The words which now follow in St. Matthew
(verse 18.), “ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," are not
the conclusion of what precedes, but the introduction to another
saying of Christ with which our first Gospel terminates, “ Go
ye, therefore, and teach all nations,” &c. (ver. 19, 20.).
The conclusion of Mark was evidently not a definitive one.
Now, as the evangelical account respecting Christ had already
received in our period a farther development through Matthew
and Luke, and St. John's Gospel had appeared, it was very
natural that, instead of appending to Mark the last two verses
of Matthew, the whole account was, in the course of this or the
F 2
68
THE THIRD GENERATION.
next age, recast by a composition which aimed at establishing
a sort of harmony between those two Evangelists and St. John.
But, however it may be explained, our present text is not
found in two of the three oldest manuscripts, that of the
Vatican and the Paris palimpsest. As a traditional text, it has,
nevertheless, been retained by Lachmann, although he agrees
with Tischendorf in believing it spurious.
As to St. Luke's Gospel, it forms a standing chapter of the
Tübingen novel to maintain that its original text is lost, and
its author doubtful. Hahn has proved (what indeed ought
never to have been doubted) that Marcion had before him
essentially the same text of Luke which we possess, and pur-
posely mutilated it in order to make it harmonize with the
Gnostic system he had adopted. Their delusions on this score
are the necessary corollary of their unfortunate supposition that
the Gospel of St. John was written by an impostor about the
year 150. It is natural that if, in a historical series, a principal
limb be put out of joint, all the others must be disjointed equally.
Thus they have been driven to the conclusion that one half of
the books of the New Testament are spurious, and all those of
the most ancient Fathers. The same happened to Harduin as
to the Latin classics. The exceptionally genuine “ Pliny”
of the school of Baur is the Apocalypse; and their key to the
mysteries of History are the novels and legends of the Cle-
mentines. These aberrations, which are not endorsed with the
name of any classical scholar of first-rate eminence, and have
against them not only every other theological critic from Bleek
to Ewald, as well as Neander the historian, but also the im-
mortal names of classical scholars and historians, such as Niebuhr,
Schleiermacher, and Lachmann, are kept up by professorial
dictatorship against real criticism, which is nothing but the
common sense of the world. Though they are now fast losing
their power over the German mind, being no longer a substi-
tute for political excitement, it is still necessary to bring them
before the tribunal of common sense in Europe and America as
a timely warning. This is so particularly in the case of the
fable of Marcion's own Gospel. The perusal of Hahn's useful
work, and still more the patient reading of Epiphanius and
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
69
Tertullian, will convey to every critical scholar, not blinded
by the all-derang.ng, fundamental assumption of that school,
the full conviction that Marcion's mutilations themselves are
the best evidence in favour of the text he had before him.
This, however, does not alter the fact that some of Marcion's
various readings were genuine, or at least traditional, and known
in the age now under discussion. They deserve the greatest
attention: for our knowledge of manuscripts of the second
century mainly depends upon Origen, and he, the first critical
observer and reporter of the biblical texts, knew of no manu-
scripts older than about fifty years before his time (the age of
Irenæus), as Lachmann has judiciously observed.
The same must be maintained as to the text of the Acts
of the Apostles. This book, the incomplete continuation, not
the intended close, of St. Luke's account, was then read by
the Christians exactly as we have it, perhaps with the omission
of one or two marginal glosses. They possessed also the same
text of St. John's Gospel, in support of which we can now
quote not only Valentinus, but also Basilides, from original
writings of twenty or thirty years before the epoch of the
Tübingen fiction. Such facts can only be slighted by those who
are wedded to a system irreconcilable with history, and to a
chronology which is an insult to all records !
As to the Epistolary collection, its two component parts
undoubtedly existed : “ the Catholic Epistles," and "the
Apostle.” The first, however, comprized at that time only
such of the Apostolic Epistles as were congregational ad-
dresses : that is to say, the Epistle of St. James; the longer
Epistle of St. Peter (the genuine shorter one seems not to
have become known till later as part of the spurious one),
and the first Epistle of St. John. His second and third were
known, but not classed with the others for regular reading
during the service, as being short, occasional private notes.
“ The Apostle” contained, on the same principle, Paul's nine
Epistles to the Seven Churches. Not that any one imagined the
Pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus, and the Epistle to Phi-
lemon, to be spurious: but, as being private letters, although
some of them possessed ecclesiastical interest, they might be
F 3
70
THE THIRD GENERATION.
added or omitted in the Church-books, according to the peculiar
custom.
Apollos's address to the Alexandrinian Church was slowly
making its way into the “ Apostle," as an Appendix, for reasons
explained above.
Finally, as to the Apocalyptic books, St. John's Revelation
was a floating element; not as being of doubtful authenticity,
but as not being considered by all as adapted for didactic read-
ing during the service. Peter's Apocalypse is a forgery of this
age: for it was, in the middle of the second century, read in
most Churches, although with dissentient voices.
But, besides these Apostolic works, which are found in the
Communion service as being authentic accounts of Christ's life
and doctrine, many edifying writings of Apostolic men were read
in congregational meetings. Such was the Epistle of Clemens
to the Corinthians, anterior to St. John's Gospel by about
seventeen years: such was, forty years after St. John, the
“Shepherd," written by the brother of Bishop Pius, about 140.
It is clear, that in this state of the Evangelical and Apostolic
accounts, the great requisite would have been a critical sifting
of books and texts : but where was the man who could under-
take that? The Churches were independent of each other, and
adhered to their own tradition : besides, the Church had to
fight for its very existence, and many still expected the im-
mediate end of the world. As to the history of the Apostles,
the ruling Petrine or Judaic party had no desire to continue the
work of St. Luke, which might easily have been done in this
generation. A fraction of them, on the contrary, at a very
early period, and probably in this age, adopted that anti-historical
tendency which, if it had prevailed, would have given us, as
sacred books - perhaps as the sacred books — the Apostolical
Constitutions and the novel of the Clementines, both which we
now possess only in a garbled form.
Such were some of the difficulties respecting the historical
element of Christianity. Behind them, in second line, stood
those which referred to the interpretation of the original
“Scripture,” the canonical books of the Jews, adopted by
the Christians as the Old Testament, but explained in a manner
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
71
which did not satisfy the Jews, and which shocked or puzzled
the inquiring Hellenic mind. How were they to be explained?
According to the Hebrew text and Jewish tradition, or ac-
cording to one of the different texts of the Septuagint? And
whether literally or allegorically? What could the converted
Gentiles do with Jewish ritualism and external history ? Christ
certainly was the fulfilment of the Law and of the Prophets, in
a spiritual and, consequently, in a rational sense : but what
was that sense ?
These difficulties were great: but what were they when
compared with the puzzles and problems presented by the ideal
or philosophical element of Christianity?
The ancient Christians were not so lost to all religious
sincerity and thought as to overlook or deny this philosophical
element as an integral part of Christianity. In this respect they
differed widely from those who, at the present day, under the
mask of “Evangelical” zeal, sap the deepest, because the eternal,
foundations of Christian revelation with the united energy of
ignorance and Pharisaical bigotry, and who persecute all intel-
lectual Christian divinity as rank heresy. These same persons,
however, exhibit in their very accusations, and in their own writ-
ings, with piteous self-complacency, the grossest materialism
in philosophy which the Christian world has ever witnessed.
The ancient Christians could not help remarking, that Christ
never ceased to warn the Jews against the insufficiency of the
historical element. He had told them plainly that it was a
vain imagination of theirs to find eternal life in the letter of
the Scripture (St. John, v. 39.) and in the ordinances founded
upon the Law, and in such Messianic expectations as their Pha-
risaical blindness had built up upon their materialistic interpre-
tation of the Prophets. He had told them with equal plainness,
that Christ, as David's son, could no more redeem them from
their misery than Jesus of Nazareth could, as such. Only the
Son of Man, the Man who was at the same time conscious of
being the Son of God, could realize the Father's eternal decree
of redemption; and God's Spirit alone could explain what none
but the Father and the Son knew, and he to whom God would
reveal it—that knowledge of God and of His Christ which is
F 4
72
THE THIRD GENERATION.
eternal life in the midst of time, and in spite of all the limitations
and imperfections of human nature.
What is Man? What is God? What is their eternal (sub-
stantial) relation to each other? The first question already
startled Nicodemus, when Christ spoke of the new birth to be
produced by the Spirit in every man who is to be saved. And still
this was only " terrestrial "-- it only considered man upon this
earth, in his disguise. What could Christ say to those who did
not even understand this psychological element, of “heavenly
things," of God's own eternal nature and the infinite self-mani-
festation of the conscious spirit?
6 And then, what is the world?” asked the inquirer:
6 God's
own creation, you simple Christians say. Do you believe it is
God's will that is done in this world of ours? You know the con-
trary: you pray for the Kingdom of God, but you are obliged to
throw the fulfilment of your prayer into another world, another
existence, in order not to appear as impostors or dupes. How,
then, can you maintain that Christ has taught this visible world
to be the creation of the good, the loving God, whose eternal
Word and own Son was manifested in Jesus of Nazareth? This
world, which is a continual warfare of elements and creatures
against each other, a world of death and destruction, must rather
be the work of another power: the Creator, the Demiurg, cannot
be the Father of Christ and of Christians. He, and not the
Father, may have been the author of the Mosaic Law with all its
outward ordinances, not freeing but enslaving the immortal
Spirit, the Soul, God's own image. We are prepared to believe
in the Gospel, and we cling to St. John's doctrine. But the
few words above cited rest upon a hidden speculative sub-
struction which we must try to lay open, in order to show
that our faith and our reason can go together. In the mean
time we shall pray and sing psalms with you, and hear, and
speak, and worship in common with you, if you will let us.”
Thus reasoned those philosophical minds who believed, or
were ready to believe, the whole of the Gospel. But there were
others who spoke as sceptics. They said, “ We can see nothing
of a change having taken place in the world through Chris-
tianity. On the contrary, the political and social state of the
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
73
world appears to get worse and worse. Can and will 'Trajan or
Hadrian make it better? May not Nero, or, at least Neroni-
anism, return to-raorrow in a worse form even than it did in
Domitian? And even under Trajan are you better off? Does
your God protect you from tortures and ignominious death?
Have you not, as it were, the hatred and curse of the human
race upon you? Great problems are to be solved according to
your own teaching: and can you do this, barbarians who cannot
even write a page of decent Greek, and who know little, if any-
thing, of science ?"
“ Indeed," said others, still more sceptical, “ are you not
worse than the Jews, who at least kept their superstitions to
themselves, whereas you intrude them upon the civilized world ?
Great fanatics, and still greater rogues, we always held the
Jews to be; but then they were a nation. They had a country,
a temple, and a monotheism more easily understood than yours.
What are you? Not a nation, and still intermeddling with all :
not a state, but undermining the religion of the empire, that
symbol of thought and of victory, sanctified by art. You preach
a new world to come, and do not hold an honourable place in
that in which we live at present, and, according to our philo-
sophers and all appearances, shall have to live for ages and
ages."
Whoever has read Celsus and Origen, and the earlier apolo-
getic writers, knows that what I have here condensed in a few
words is not an imaginary picture, but a faint outline of the
innumerable struggles which harassed men's thoughts in the
doubts and scoffs and objections which filled volumes, and per-
vaded the whole mind of the second century. The elements
of these struggles existed already in the age before us.
Under such circumstances there were two ways open: that
of practical, and that of theoretical or speculative Christianity.
Why did not all serious Christians pursue the former ?
There was the element of life, Christian sociality, so to speak,
or socialism in the proper sense of the word. There was in the
Christian congregations a society of bondmen, freedmen, and
free and noble men and women, all united by their faith and
by their mutual confidence. They were all free, because they
74
THE THIRD GENERATION.
felt freed from their sins. They felt free within to act accord-
ing to the dictates of their conscience struggling for the Divine
life in them: free without; for they were ready to die rather
than to worship idols and utter a lie on the most sacred sub-
ject of truth. And in these congregations a noble and power-
ful mind found ample opportunity of employing the greatest
gifts ; for as such they considered what the world calls
talents. They might comfort the afflicted, instruct the igno-
rant, preach to the faithful, receive new light in the solemn
moments of adoration, when all felt as one soul and one body
in Christ, and when the spirit of the worshipping congregation
flashed through every mind, opening up new views even to the
most enlightened. Here all human wisdom appeared as nothing,
charity and humility as all in all.
In these congregations there were also to be attained the
noble offices of Deacon and of Elders. The one was a mi-
nistry ennobled by its object and by the freedom with which it
was undertaken: to serve was to reign with God. The office
of one of the Elders or Overseers also was the free mark of
the confidence and respect of the congregation, often of the
Apostolic man who for the first time had organized it. The
highest honour, finally, was to be chosen the Overseer or
ruling Elder. This Episcopate itself was a unique phenome-
non in the world: it conferred a power to rule, but under
the sacred code of Christ and the Apostles, under the control
of the board of Elders, which the Bishop was bound to con-
sult in important emergencies and in his judicial acts, and
under that of the congregation, which possessed the supreme
legislative power. There was a kingship, such as the Germans,
not yet Christians, had formed among themselves nationally:
a governing headship, leaving to the individual the liberty to
act according to his conscience, and still subjecting him to a
sovereign common law, under which his own was the first right,
but not the only one. He governed in serving the whole of
which he was only a part, and of which Christ was the Spirit.
To choose this way was evidently the right resolution. That
a great portion of the leading men did choose it was the salva-
tion of the Church. Not that the Christian world was saved
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
75
because the congregations followed the leading men, their
governors. It is much more correct to say that Christianity
was saved because the leading men clung to the practical con-
gregational life of the brethren, serving instead of lording it
over them, and, likewise, because both clergy and laymen re-
cognized the paramount authority of Scripture, and believed in
the unerring guidance of the Spirit in adopting or rejecting
regulations for the government or the worship of the congre-
gation.
Why, then, did not all the eminent men of that age, who
were sincere Christians, follow this practical line? Why did
they indulge in abstruse speculations? Why did they scru-
tinize the secret things of God?
First, because the one tendency is as innate in man, and as
necessary for the harmonious life of the individual and of
society, as the other. Secondly, because Christ had proposed
those probleins to men, and even challenged them to occupy
their minds with these heavenly subjects. Moreover, both the
Jewish and Hellenic mind had for several centuries been per-
plexed, and was at that time even more than ever perplexed,
by the great problem of the world and of man. Further,
Paul and John, and even James and Peter, far from avoiding
those questions, had spoken of them as of a reality, and had
left elements of a positive teaching about them. The highest
words had been pronounced and brought home to every man's
conscience: God and World, Man and Mankind, Responsibility
and Eternal Life. Finally, they had been defined, not by a
system, but by the life and consciousness of Jesus the Christ;
this life had been represented as the substantial realization of
God's own nature and the source of life eternal. The Hellenic
and Hellenized mind, particularly in Alexandria, was anxiously
engaged in finding a bridge between two things which evi-
dently had to be brought into contact with each other : the
historical faith in Christ, and all the facts of the world's his-
tory centring in him, on the one side; and philosophical truth,
not merely ethical, but metaphysical also, on the other. The
last word of the last Apostle, the Gospel of St. John, connects,
in Hellenic terms, the great phenomenon of the world with the
76
THE THIRD GENERATION.
1
philosophy of Plato and Philo. The Logos did not grow out
of the Old Testament and out of Jewish ordinances and specu-
lations. “ Let us seize this philosophical element, and throw
Judaism to the winds !” cried some.
Those who said so were
not pagan philosophers wishing to make capital out of Christi-
anity. They received the Scriptures, professed Christ, wor-
shipped and lived as Christians; but combined with a burning
anti-Judaism, so enticing for many a Gentile believer, a wild
metaphysical tendency, mixed up with Asiatic dualism.
The congregational leaders themselves, the Fathers, entered
into the speculations which now sprung up, partly apologe-
tically, and with a view to guide them, and partly from sharing
many of those speculative opinions. Thus a confusion arose
between the three elements, the strictly metaphysical, the an-
thropological, and the historical, which led the Gnostics into
extravagant dreams, and which, in the time of Hippolytus, had
already brought the Fathers into exegetical difficulties and
logical perplexities. But the problems themselves were not
imaginary: they have the highest reality as well as the highest
authority.
Might it not be possible, under the pure light of the Gospel
and with the assistance of more methodical historical analysis,
to reduce to plain simple language these problems of the second
and third centuries? Would it not be worth while thus to
obtain a safe standard for judging the permanent value and
due authority of the formularies by which the Councils en-
deavoured to fix the truth of the ontological problems, and the
Schoolmen of the Reformation that of the anthropological ? For
both these formularies now present themselves again, under
hierarchical colours, before the world, claiming Divine authority.
The plan I propose seems, at all events, more worthy of our
age than to ignore or scoff those problems, which all those do
who connect no idea with them, but allow them only the magic
power of a curse for him who questions that authority.
The problems alluded to are, in the main, two: the one ap-
parently only metaphysical and ontological; the other, on the
surface, only ethical. But, on closer inspection, the one appears
most intimately connected with ethical Christianity; the other,
SITUATION OF THE CHRISTIAN MIND.
77
the ethical, links itself irresistibly with the metaphysical domain
in which the former moves.
The first problem is the connexion between God and Man;
the relation of Christ to Father, and to the Believers.
The other has reference to sin and justification : it attempts
to understand the origin of the evil which is in the world, and
the purposes of God to free man and the world from it.
Eighteen centuries have a long history to tell about both,
in different terms, but still always ask the same questions;
and there is through every age, more or less, a response to
both in every soul which, aspiring above the necessity of its
existence, ascends to its source, the First Cause and Thought of
the Universe.
I endeavoured, in the first edition of this work, to ex-
hibit in a few aphorisms what I consider the thread which
may lead us, not into this historical labyrinth, but out of it.
For reasons explained in the Preface, I have omitted them
in this picture of the life of ante-Nicene Christianity, and have
treated the subject more in detail in a separate work, destined
to give, as it were, the philosophical key to that historical
picture. I shall, therefore, endeavour here to condense in as
few words as possible what I consider as the real philosophical
and Christian value of the metaphysical terms of scholastic
speculation, particularly the words Father, Son, and Spirit,
Evil and Redemption. I shall do so the rather, because the
recent distinguished historian of Christian philosophy, Heinrich
Ritter (fifth and sixth volumes of his “General History of
Philosophy”), has, in his Introduction, left the first and princi-
pal question at issue almost untouched; I mean, what Christ
and his Apostles really did or did not teach upon these points.
78
THE THIRD GENERATION.
A. The Problem of the Trinity.
All speculations respecting the manifestations of the Infinite
in the Finite must fail and lead to glaring contradictions, unless
the facts be well established and the investigation conducted
according to the laws of historical evidence. Speculation can
no more supply historical evidence than it can produce facts.
The world of thought presents notions, abstract ideas, not
history; if it attempt to transform such notions into reality,
the result will be unauthorized mythology, a morbid mixture
of facts and ideas, arbitrarily connected. The historical phe-
nomena, again, cannot be transformed into abstract notions
without losing their reality. Whatever names philosophers
and poets may invent, there are but two great realities before
our eyes; the individual man consisting of a body and a soul,
and mankind as the organic chain composed of those original
and immortal individualities. But reflection on these reali-
ties leads us with necessity to a First Will and Cause. There is
only one God; man and the universe, and, consequently,
man and humanity, are his finite realization. A mixture of
facts transformed into ideas, and of ideas transformed into facts,
may be poetry; but it is neither history nor philosophy, and
it becomes involved in all that is unreal as soon as it attempts
to represent reality. Such a mixture may serve as a temporary
vehicle for combining great historical phenomena and pregnant
ideal thought; but it loses that partial truth as soon as the
symbol is identified with the substance, as soon as the finite
manifestations are identified with the infinite idea. No religious
speculation can overstep these boundaries, without falling into
contradictions which are ill-concealed under the name of
mysteries. The real mysteries of our existence are three-
God, Man, Humanity. As to God, the starting-point and end
of all speculation, He can, considered in Himself, only be con-
templated as the Eternal Thought and Will of all Existence;
and, therefore, simply as the living Infinite. In this sphere we
may express Aristotle's profound remark that Eternal Reason
PROBLEM OF THE TRINITY.
79
can think only Reason itself; in this manner God is by His
eternal Will making Himself, His existence, the object of His
thought. Or, to speak in Platonic terms, with St. John:--
Reason (Logos) is Divinity itself (“ the Word was God "):
which logically implies that, in infinite consciousness, existence
and thought are one. We are thus led to the contemplation
of the Divine triad:
EXISTENCE,
THOUGHT,
CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE.
So much as to the contemplation of God, considered in Him-
self. We do not enter into the method and limitation of such
contemplation ; but no intellectual man will deny that it is,
and remains, and always must have been, in deep minds and
serious ages, the first legitimate object of man's thought. Now
if, looking upon the universe, we consider philosophically the
Godhead as the creative power, which is the next object of
contemplation, or the demiurgic or cosmogonic sphere, we are
led to that line of development of thought in space and time
which is very currently and significantly expressed as Father
(Creator) and Son (Creation), and which, followed out logically,
leads to the formula -
FATHER.
(Infinite.)
Son.
(Finite.)
SPIRIT.
(Conscious Unity of both.)
If, finally, we contemplate the relation in which the two great
visible manifestations of the Spirit, the individual man and
Humanity, stand to God, we may consider God either as
the Eternal Thought, or as Cause of Creation, and we come
necessarily to the following juxtaposition :
God, the infinite Being :
the Creator, the FATHER.
Son, the infinite Thought:
the individual MAN.
SPIRIT, the consciousness of both :
HUMANITY.
The two formulas are identical, if we waive the considera
tion of the difference between the Infinite and Finite: they
are contradictory if we contemplate this difference. It is clear
that we must get into logical absurdities, whether we deny this
triad absolutely, or whether we confound the three spheres ;
80
THE THIRD GENERATION.
the metaphysical and the cosmogonic among themselves, and
both with the anthropological. This, therefore, must also be
our leading principle, when we apply our formula to Christ, The
Man by eminence, and to the Church, as redeemed Humanity.
We there have the following parallelisms :-
GOD,
GOD,
GOD,
absolutely.
as
as
Θεός. .
Existence objectivized by
Thought.
Λόγος as Θεός. .
Son as Christ,
conscious Unity of
Both.
Θεός Λόγος. .
Spirit as Church.
HUMANITY.
Father.
FATHER.
MAN
Here we find that Christ in His own person, and by the ele-
ment of life He called into action, becomes, as it were, a bridge
between the absolute infinite God and mankind.
The individuality of Christ evidently was considered by Him-
self and His Apostles as an entirely human individuality, subject,
therefore, to all the Divine laws of human nature, from genera-
tion to death, considering actual sin, not as the substance, but
only as the accident, of that nature. But it is also clear that He
considered Himself, in an eminent sense, as the Son of the
Father: and that St. John believed and knew that Jesus was
not only the Messiah, or Christ, or the chosen Man, God's
Messenger and Prophet, but also the living manifestation of
God Himself as eternal Reason (Logos). He therefore con-
sidered him neither an Angel nor Spirit, nor a mere prophet:
not a special intellectual or moral manifestation, but the mani-
festation of God.
Here two great dangers beset the path of believers as soon
as they began to think and to unite facts which they believed
on good evidence, and ideas which their reasoning powers
presented to them with convincing force.
They might lose sight of the laws of historical man born of a
woman, confounding his sphere and nature with that of which
he is the manifestation. This is the mythical element in its
proper sense ; true in the idea, but imperfectly expressed, and
therefore not true in the letter but in the spirit.
PROBLEM OF THE TRINITY.
81
$
They might confound the first and the second spheres, and
place God the Absolute at the head of the line of temporal
development, thus confounding in their conclusions God the
absolute Being, the Unconditioned, and God the Creator of
the world and Father of man.
In both cases the result must be a logical contradiction.
And such it has been. This fact must be stated for the honour
of truth. Yet to negative the whole contemplation would have
corrupted the very essence of Christianity. If Christ's nature
be not identical with the Divine nature, but only similar to it,
there is an end of the Christian religion. For religion rests, under
whatever form, upon the assumption that Divine and human
reason are identical, only with the difference between the Infinite
and the Finite. This may be expressed imperfectly, but it
must not be negatived. The appearance of such a negation
killed Arianism as much as the imperfections of its own positive
theory, which would have made of the history of Christ a my-
thological fiction, and would have led to hero worship, demon-
ology, or any idolatrous worship. The dry Unitarianism of
the eighteenth century is the first real negation, and has proved
itself to be as incapable of explaining the history of Christ as the
intellectual mystery of man and mankind. As religion, it can-
not pretend to more than a latitudinarian Mohammedanism,
or, at most, to a denationalized Judaism ; in short, to modern
deism, taking Christ as a moral model. Such, however, is not
the Unitarianism of some of the present leaders of that denomi-
nation in England. Negation, then, of the problem being
suicidal, let it be well considered that the most absolute form
of negation is to declare the problem incompatible with reason.
The evil lies very deep. The Church history of the fourth, ,
fifth, and sixth centuries resolves itself into two tragedies. In
the fourth century one party among the clergy appeared to
negative the problem, and the other solved it illogically and
unhistorically. The latter view having triumphed by a perse-
cuting and often unscrupulous majority, the victorious hierarchi-
cal party canonized, in the course of the two next blood-stained
centuries, the confession of its intellectual bankruptcy into a
confession of faith, and made submission to it the condition of
VOL. I.
G
82
THE THIRD GENERATION.
churchmanship and the badge eternal salvation. The Ger-
manic nations received this sad heirloom unwillingly, and spi-
ritualized it nobly. The Churches of the Reformation accepted
the legacy with a saving clause, its two principles.
But, however this be, the legacy is not that of the ante-
Nicene Church, least of all of its first ages.
It stood faithfully
upon those two indestructible pillars, Scripture and Reason: the
one as the mirror of God's good-will towards mankind and of
the destinies of the human race, and the other as response to
the highest object of thought, the Divine and human nature.
It did not set up speculative formularies as tests. It was free
from that mixture of facts and speculative thought which con-
stitutes the false groundwork and original sin of scholastic
divinity, both in the Greek and Roman and in the Protestant
National Churches; and from that irrationalism which has killed
spiritual Christianity in the bud, and produced or favoured,
by the worst kind of negation, indifference, ignorance, infi-
delity, immorality, servitude, destruction, despair.
What is true of the first is true of the other speculative
problems of the age. Whoever ignores or does not under-
stand and appreciate their nature will, as a thinker and a
historian, understand no more of Christ and early Christianity
than of the present yearnings of the human mind. As to the
idolizers of those formularies of Councils or Synods, they seem
to me to show a gross ignorance of primitive Church History,
as much scepticism as Voltaire and his friends, and infinitely
more than many amongst the eminent and serious thinkers of
that age who negatived Christianity historically, often repro-
ducing it philosophically. As to those who, knowing better,
have not the wish to know and the courage to speak the truth,
their faith or their philosophy is worth nothing, if it does not
move, yea force, them to face Scripture and Reason, or what-
ever they may like to call that one Divine voice within us,
which is the conscious and intelligent response of the soul to
the history of mankind, and the truthful reflection of its
mirror, the Bible.
PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL, ETC.
83
B. The Problem of the Origin of Evil, of Sin, of Justification,
and nf the Destinies of Mankind.
The second problem, which presented itself to the minds of
serious Christians at the beginning of the third Christian age,
or of the second century, was this. Does there exist, as mankind
feels impelled to believe, a Divine Providence? Here it is es-
sential not to forget how deeply the state of the world had
affected the speculative mind. The philosopher felt himself
oppressed and crushed by the weight of the present. How,
millions asked, can the dreadful state of the world be recon-
ciled with the belief of the Fathers in a moral government of
the world and in Divine avenging justice ?
Plato and, to a certain extent, Aristotle had given to the
Greeks and Romans the means and the inclination of solving
the philosophical part of the first problem ; and the contact of
Judaism and Hellenism at Alexandria impelled the naturally
contemplative minds of the Jews to combine for its solution
Hellenic ingenuity with the wisdom and sacred traditions of
their nation, and even of the Egyptians.
But as to the second problem, it was brought before the
philosophical mind first of all by the awakened consciousness of
sin. As soon as the Jewish idea of justification by mere pro-
fession of the Law, and by the accomplishment of external ordi-
nances, was found to be a delusion, and Hellenic polytheism
with its accompanying fables and levity and impurity worse
than the Jewish superstition, the Christian idea of redemption
arose in its Divine splendour through the preaching of the
Gospel. Christ's doctrine, life, and death awakened in man the
deadened or obdurated feeling of moral self-responsibility, and
of a hidden Divine power in himself to act according to the
inner law of the conscience, neither losing sight of his inces-
sant shortcomings nor of the direct and indissoluble union
between God and his soul. Paul's wrestling with the external
formalities and pride of the Jews had led him to stamp the
word Faith with the seal of the Gospel, and use it in a sense
which speaks to all men's conscience, and which found a
G 2
84
THE THIRD GENERATION.
response in every breast and in every tongue, above all among
the Hellenic nations. For the preaching of this real life-
restoring faith met the universal feeling that no outward
action or work can help man, but only the inward disposition
of the mind (“ Gesinnung "). It is this disposition of the will
which of itself produces good actions, and which makes actions
good. Good works presuppose a mind steadfastly looking upon
the eternal Good, and never losing sight of the wickedness and
wretchedness of selfish enslaved will. St. John, in preaching
of thankful love to God and charity towards man as brethren,
had completed these Divine ethics. But, at the same time,
thinking and serious Christians found much to puzzle them,
both in these ethics and in their own heart.
First came the philosophical difficulties. What is the origin
of evil? Why did Adam fall, and the law of sin remain in
his children? What is to become of poor ignorant people
falling into perdition for not having known God? Is there no
salvation for the immortal soul hereafter? The passages in
Scripture are obscure: much depends upon the general view
taken by the meditating divine of the nature of God and
human destinies. As soon as that question is raised (and it was
raised at that time by philosophizing minds, both Jews and
Gentiles, and even Christians themselves), we find the same
antagonisms appear which in the fifth century are repre-
sented by St. Augustine and Pelagius; in the sixteenth, by
Luther and Calvin ; in the seventeenth, by Arminius and
Jansenius. The antagonistic views have each of them its good
side: their fault lies in a one-sided conclusion, which loses
sight of the collateral principle; and their curse is the attempt
at making a matter of faith out of what is a dogma of the
school of the age, past or present. The struggles and debates
of the first half of the second century are not inferior in depth
to any of those of subsequent epochs; but the state of the
Christian mind appears in that age very superior. Great freedom
is allowed, so long as the parties move on Christian ground, and
appeal from those antagonisms to Scripture as their code and to
the universal conscience as their judge. That this freedom
was not maintained, that this principle was not carried out as
PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL, ETC.
85
,
it ought to have been, was the tragedy of that century and of
Christianity. This catastrophe was the result partly of hierar-
chical bigotry, partly of the calamity of the time. There is
only one way of giving its proper place to speculation in Chris-
tianity individually, by a Christian life of moral earnestness and
self-sacrificing love, and socially by a sound public life. Now,
such an honest public life was not possible: as we now say,
because the ancient world did no longer, or did not as yet, possess
a fresh popular element for forming a nation; or, as the Chris-
tians then said, because the world was to perish. This deep
tragedy rendered a perfect solution impossible.
The speculative reflection was, secondly, supported by the
contemplation of the realities of life. The Christian was
puzzled, as soon as he could not conceal from himself that the
destruction of the world was indefinitely postponed. What an
accumulation of sin, of crime, of misery! If the devil governs
the world, why does God not give it over to perdition? And
if it is not to perish, why does God not take up the govern-
ment, and establish His kingdom of justice and peace at this
late hour? And this brings us to the consideration of the
second element which was at work in directing and formulizing
those inner reflections of the Gnostic philosopher, the hopeless
complication of the world, which neither Stoics nor Epicureans
had succeeded in solving. The moral bankruptcy of both was
undeniable, even in the eyes of the heathen. Cato had com-
mitted suicide; the last words of Brutus are said to have
been " What is virtue?” To deny the existence of evil
seemed to the wise man a mockery. Yet men could not make
up their minds to endeavour to laugh it away by enjoying
the pleasures and luxuries of life. Conscience and reason
among both Gentiles and Christians could not help asking - If
there be a God, where is He in this world of evil and misery?
Where is the Divine moral government, if all the hopes of man-
kind are blasted, and liberty and virtue are trodden down as
crime? Luxurious dynasties have been devouring Asia and
Egypt, and imperial and pretorian Rome is now crushing all
the remains of national life by a well-calculated machinery
of military despotism and of centralizing police. This despo-
G 3
86
THE THIRD GENERATION.
tism, since the time of Nero, had weighed, to a certain degree
systematically, and with special force, upon the Christians.
Not that the regular despotism of youthful imperialism could
be compared, except as a playful kitten may be compared to a
grown-up tiger, with the machinery of modern military govern-
ments. The forms and even the action of municipal life
existed unimpaired, and Nero and Domitian were ill served out
of Rome, having neither railways nor telegraphs. But it was
bad enough for the times, and hard enough for the sons of
those who had saved and freed and civilized Europe with their
blood and self-denying virtues. As to Christians, even the
mildest among them could not help considering the principles
of such government as the working of the devil. God permitted
it for the punishment of the wickedness of the world : it was
the sign of the approaching extermination of the present race
of man, when those who here cendemned to temporary flames
the living bodies of Christians would be cast into eternal fire.
Their prayers for the emperors were curses for their reign, race,
and empire. Thy kingdom come" had the same meaning.
The matchless personality of Christ settled the first of those
speculative problems for the believer. His Divine nature, mani
fested in suffering humanity, substituted a living individual for
the abstract metaphysical notion of the Platonic or Stoic philo-
sopher, which warmed no heart, and exercised no influence upon
any human will. This Divine image banished from the mind the
deceits of sorcery; that is to say, the delusions produced by
the bewildering effects of the hidden power of human will over
the minds and bodies of other individuals. It rendered to the
mind the consciousness of the power of the will of Divine love
St. John's Prologue did not originate, it settled, the
Logos question, which was agitated by the disciples of Plato
and Philo, and by several mystical Jewish sects. It settled it,
not by discussing their speculations, nor by anticipating those
of Basilides and Valentinus, but by the simple juxtaposition
of God's eternal love and Christ's life and self-sacrificing death.
Since Christ's appearance, the Logos was no longer, even to
one who believed only what the first three Gospels declared
of Christ's life and sayings, an abstract idea, as it was even to
Philo, lying as a deadweight or incubus upon the realities of
in man.
PROBLEM OF THE ORIGIN OF EVIL, ETC.
87
life. The Logos was indissolubly connected with the individual:
it bore the perfect type both of the Godhead, loving sinful and
ungrateful man, and of humanity rising to Divine majesty under
the weight of the deepest humiliation, and manifesting god-
like love under the pangs of death.
But Christ had opened by his life and teaching a prospect
also for the satisfactory solution of the second question. No-
body, not even the Apostles, so far as their writings allow us to
judge of their progress, was able to elevate himself to the
height of Christ's great prophetic mind and words so as to be-
lieve that the kingdom of God, announced by Christ as near at
hand, could appear upon this wretched and sinful earth without
the previous physical destruction of our globe. The world, as
it existed, was believed to be about to perish by fire, as a
former one had perished by water, in consequence of a similar
state of general depravity. It seemed, indeed, to grow daily
more wicked, and daily running more headlong into perdition.
Christ was soon to come back to judge the living and the dead,
and to raise up a new state of things out of its smouldering
ruins -- out of the dry bones which the grave and death should
surrender. In the mean time, “Blessed are they who die in the
Lord !” The Lord is coming (Maranatha), and blessed be God
that human life is short, and that the end of this cruel world is
at hand! Such a solution satisfied the general class of be-
lievers and the leading practical men among their governors.
But it satisfied neither the mystical Jew, nor the speculative
mind of Christian Egypt, nor the wild imagination of Syria and
Asia Minor - a mind having a tinge of Hellenism without its
sobriety, of Hellenic idealism without its moderation, and of
Christianity without its practical spirit and social tendency.
We can scarcely doubt that the Simon Magus of the Acts con-
nected some speculative ideas with his impure Christianity: his
disciple, the Hellenic or Hellenistic Menander, certainly did;
so did Cerinthus, as we have seen; and so did the Ophites, as
we shall see when treating of Basilides.
But we will commence the picture of the two leading men of
this age with the representative of the ecclesiastical or general
congregational (catholic) life, Ignatius of Antioch.
G4
88
THE THIRD GENERATION.
I.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH.
THERE lived in the latter part of the first century a freedman
called Ignatius, whose name must be connected with that of the
old Roman family of the Egnatii. As to the precise date of his
martyrdom, it is nowhere positively stated. The Canon of
Eusebius places it in the year 107 or 108 (Trajan 10, 11.), evi-
dently for no other reason than that such a year suited the
catalogue of Antiochene bishops he had before him ; a list
which, in this epoch, has no chronological value. Syncellus says
nothing, and the “ Chronicon Paschale” speaks of the martyr-
dom only accidentally. When, under the head of the first year
of Trajan, the martyrdom of Simon, Bishop of Jerusalem, is
mentioned, that chronicle adds, in a similar manner, “Ignatius
of Antioch suffered martyrdom at Rome." The spurious Acts
of Ignatius have the ninth year of Trajan in the Greek, and the
fourth in the Latin text. Here Pearson has shown the right
way for historical criticism, which Ussher had failed to find,
and which Grabe could not discern.* The Acts connect the
martyrdom on the one side with the victory over the Daci, on
the other with Trajan's stay at Antioch, Now, the first Dacian
war took place in 101, or the fourth year of Trajan; he received
the name of Dacicus in the following year. The second Dacian
war does not extend (see the proofs in Ekhel) beyond the year
105, and the Roman colonists were sent thither in 106. The
Parthian war begins in the spring of 114 (seventeenth year).
Trajan passed the winter of 115 at Antioch, and set out for the
Armenian campaign, which is mentioned in the Acts to mark
the time, in the spring of 115 (eighteenth year). It was in the
beginning of that eventful year that Trajan was in danger of
* Pearson's excellent discussion of this subject was found among his
papers, and is printed in Jacobson's “Fathers.” Critical readers will com-
pare with that dissertation Ekhel's documents and arguments, Doctr. Vett.
Num. tom. vi. p. 414–438., and Niebubr's observations on the chronology of
the Dacian war in his article on the Arch of Constantine in the “ Beschrei.
bung Roms," vol. III. i. pp. 314-318.
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH.
89
perishing in that dreadful earthquake which destroyed a great
part of Antioch. This is sufficient to prove that no emenda-
tions (which Grabe tried), and no imaginary late Dacian war
(Ussher's expedient), can mend the matter. The Acts are an
unhistorical and forged document. It would, therefore, be in
the highest degree uncritical to place the transportation of
Ignatius to Rome in 115 because the Acts give us his conver-
sation with Trajan at Antioch, which could only take place at
that period. But there appear to me to be other, and good
reasons, for assuming for it the year 115, and none for placing
it between 106 and 108. On the contrary, this and any earlier
period is historically highly improbable, not to say impossible.
There must have been some very urgent reason to cause Igna-
tius to be conveyed from Antioch to the amphitheatre at Rome,
and that because he was a Christian bishop. Trajan speaks
of the Christians, in his Rescript to Pliny, as if the whole
question was new to him, and that rescript is of the year 110,
as Pearson has most learnedly proved. The great disaster
which befel the metropolis of the East in the first months of
the year 115, must, according to the temper of the times, have
created a great ebullition of popular feeling against the Chris-
tians, as similar events regularly did under the Antonines and
later. One can, besides, understand that the emperor, being
on the spot, should order Ignatius to be made an example of;
not, however, at Antioch, where it might have excited a bloody
tumult, but at Rome. Trajan himself, with imperial power,
satisfied the popular voice and his own laws by condemning
Ignatius to death ; but, as a wise sovereign, he prevented the
inischief his execution in the amphitheatre of Antioch might
have occasioned.
For these reasons I think the transportation, and conse-
quently (according to our view of the case) the martyrdom of
Ignatius, is an event of the year 115, or the eighteenth year of
Trajan. As he died Bishop of the metropolis of the East, and,
after the destruction of the Church of St. James at Jerusalem,
the most ancient Church in Christendom, and as he was evi-
dently a man of great renown in the Christian world when he
wrote his farewell Epistles, the tradition that he was a disciple,
90
THE THIRD GENERATION.
if not of Paul, at least of St. John, would seem to be correct.
He is said to have organized the worship of his Church liturgi-
cally, and his Epistles prove him to have been an ardent pro-
moter of episcopal government, as the only means, in those
times, of giving or preserving unity and peace in every city,
and keeping up brotherly relations between the different
Churches.
Ignatius was no hierarch for all this. What is Episcopacy?
In its essential character nothing more or less than the first
office in the Church, one which gave a personal, governing
power, with constitutional limitations; an executive power,
controlled by the elders and the people, which with the
Bishop formed the congregation of the faithful. This Epis-
copacy was an offspring of trust, founded upon mutual con-
fidence; and in that sense we cannot help seeing in the in-
stitution, which is cognate with primitive Germanic Kingship,
a providential improvement of the Presbyterian form of govern-
ment. This, however, was the primitive one: the administra-
tion of the Church was in the hands of a board or committee
whose members sat, as long as they were able and worthy, for
life, according to that arrangement left by the Apostles, to
which the Roman Clemens referred the Corinthians.
The immortal Epistles and name of Ignatius are, however,
principally wound up with his death, he having been trans-
ported to Rome to be thrown before the wild beasts in the
Colosseum, where he died, seeking, rather than fearing,
martyrdom. There is no better reason for doubting this fact
than the authenticity of his three letters, as preserved and
read in the national Syrian Church. All three are farewell
letters, the parting words of a martyr. The first of these is
addressed to a young man, already Bishop of Smyrna, to
Polycarp, who, more than half a century later, followed his
paternal friend as a steady and determined martyr. The
second is addressed to the Ephesians, who had sent their
bishop, Onesimus, to greet Ignatius on the way: the third to
the Romans, who seem to have been disposed to use their
influence to save him from the cruel death which awaited him.
No description of the character of the writer, or of the nature
IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH,
91
to us.
of his Christianity, can give so clear a view of the close of this
age as the text of those precious letters themselves conveys
And still this text is less known than all the legends
and controversies about him and the Epistles forged and re-
forged under his name! We, therefore, subjoin the letters
themselves, in a faithful English translation; the original Greek
stands at the head of the patristic texts, in the first volume
of our “ Analecta.” A detailed analysis of the character, life,
and doctrine of this great man will be found in my “ Ignatian
Letters."
There certainly is in Ignatius a morbid element. He looks for-
ward to his death, neither like Socrates nor like St. Paul. When
near the imperial city, the destined place of his martyrdom, his
feelings are roused to the pitch of enthusiasm, and his mind
does not show that sublime self-possession and serenity which
the words of the Apostle breathe in a similar position (2 Tim.
iv. 6—8.): “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my
departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have
finished my course, I have kept the faith : henceforth there is
laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the
righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me
only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." Ignatius
indulged in what appear to have been visionary speculations, which
he withholds from the Romans, for whom he thinks they are
too sublime and too difficult to understand. But this intellectual
weakness is not a moral one. He knows full well that all his
speculations and all his burning zeal cannot make him worthy
to be called a disciple and follower of Christ. He feels that
his duty is now a steadfast confession of his faith, not by
words, but by deed, and that deed is to die.
The Epistle to the Ephesians exhibits the mind of Ignatius
at its culminating point. The conclusion is the most prophetic
and sublime expression of the wonderful change which Christ's
appearance worked in this world, by substituting the con-
sciousness of the free action of the Spirit, and of moral respon-
sibility, for the fear of the hidden powers of nature.
92
THE THIRD GENERATION.
THE THREE EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS.
A.
The Epistle to Polycarp.
IGNATIUS (who also is Theophoros] to Polycarp, overseer of the
Smyrneans, who rather is overseen by God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ, much greeting.
I. Heartily welcoming thy mind, which in God is founded as upon
an immoveable rock, I praise God the more abundantly for having
been accounted worthy to behold thy unblameable countenance, of
which
may I have to rejoice in God! I beseech thee by the grace
with which thou art clothed, that thou add to thy course and exhort
all men to be saved. Make thy office to be respected with all
diligence both of body and spirit. Be careful for unanimity, than
which there is nothing more excellent. Bear all men even as the
Lord beareth thee. Have patience with all in love even as thou
doest. Be instant in prayer. Ask for more understanding than thou
hast. Watch, for thou hast already a spirit that sleepeth not. Speak
to every one according to the manner in which God speaketh.
Bear the infirmities of all men like a perfect athlete; for where there
is much labour, much also is the gain. If thou love the good dis-
ciples only, thou hast no grace; rather subdue by meekness those
who are evil. All wounds are not healed by one salve. Allay
paroxysm by embrocation. Be wise as the serpent in everything,
and harmless as the dove. For this reason art thou both of flesh and
of spirit, that thou mayest be persuasive as to those things which
appear to thee before thy face, and mayest ask for the things
invisible that they may be revealed to thee, in order that thou mayest
be deficient in nothing and mayest abound in all gifts; which it is
time thou shouldest pray for, as the pilot for the wind and as he who
is tossed by the tempest for the harbour, that thou mayest attain God.
Be vigilant as God's athlete. The meed is incorruptibility and life
eternal, of which things thou also art persuaded. In everything I
pledge for thy soul myself and my bonds, which thou hast loved.
Let not those confound thee who, appearing worthy of truth, teach
strange doctrines. Stand in the truth like an anvil which is struck,
for it becomes a great athlete to be struck and to conquer. More
EPISTLES OF ST, IGNATIUS.
93
especially on God's account it behoveth us to endure everything,
that He also may endure us. Be careful more than thou art. Be
discerning of the times. Expect Him who is above times, him to
whom there are no times, him who is unseen, him who for our sakes
became seen, him who is impalpable, him who is without suffering,
him who for our sakes suffered, him who for our sakes endured every-
thing in every form. .
II. Let not the widows be neglected; after our Lord be thou their
guardian. Let nothing be done without thy will, neither do thou
anything without the will of God; nor indeed doest thou. Stand
well. Let the meetings be more frequent; seek to know every man
personally. Despise not the slaves, male and female, neither let
them be puffed up; but as for the glory of God let them work more,
that they may be meet for that more excellent liberty which is of
God. Let them not desire to be redeemed from the common stock,
that they may not be found the slaves of lust. Fly the coquetting
women, but the more hold converse with the aged matrons. Say to
my sisters that they love the Lord, and that they be content with
their husbands in body and in spirit. Likewise charge my brothers
in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they love their wives as
the Lord his church. If a man be able to continue in chastity of
body for the honour of our Lord, let him continue without boasting; if
he boast, he is lost: if he have made it known to anybody except the
bishop, he is gone into perdition. It is becoming to men and women
who marry, that they be married by the counsel of the bishop, that
the marriage may be made according to the Lord and not according
to lust. Let everything be done for the honour of God.
III. Keep ye to the bishop, that God also may keep to you. I pledge
my soul for those who are subject to the bishop and the presbyters
and deacons: may my portion with God be with them! Labour
together, struggle together, run together, suffer together, go to sleep
together, rise together as God's stewards and intimate friends and
ministers. Please him under whom you serve, from whom you also
receive the wages. Let no man of you be found a deserter. Let
your baptism be to you as armour, and faith as a helmet, and love as
a spear, and patience as a panoply. Let your credit be your good
works, that ye may get paid out what is worthy of you. Have
patience in meekness as God has with you. May I have to rejoice in
you at all times! The Christian has not power over himself, but is
in the service of God. I salute him who is deemed worthy to go to
Antioch in my stead, as I charged thee.
94
THE THIRD GENERATION.
B.
The Epistle to the Ephesians.
IGNATIUS (who also is Theophoros] to the church which is blessed in
the greatness and fulness of the Father, to her who is pre-ordained
before the world to be for ever unto lasting and unchangeable glory,
perfected and elected in a true purpose in the will of the Father of
Jesus Christ our God; to the most blissworthy church which is in
Ephesus, all bail in Jesus Christ in pure joy!
I. Since I have received in God that much-loved manifestation
which you have rightmindedly made according to the faith and love
in Jesus Christ our Saviour, because, as those who imitate God, you
have been excited in your blood fully to accomplish the God-like
work ; for when you had heard that I was bound and prevented from
visiting you on account of our common name and hope, trusting in
your prayer (to obtain) to be thrown among the beasts at Rome, in
order that by achieving this I might be enabled to be a disciple of
God, you have made haste to see me: since, therefore, I have in
the name of God received the visit of all of you in the person of
one, nay, who in unspeakable love is your bishop- and I pray in
Jesus Christ that you may love him and that you may all be like
him, for blessed is he who has vouchsafed you to be worthy of having
such a bishop:— since, then, love does not allow me to be silent
towards you, on this account I have chosen to exhort you to conforin
to the will of God. For when no lust worketh in you with power to
torment you, ye live according to God. Your offscouring is also your
sanctification, O Ephesians ! * ye of that church which is renowned in
the world! Carnal men cannot do spiritual things, nor spiritual men
carnal things; just as faith cannot do the things of unbelief, nor
unbelief those of faith. But even the works you do according to the
flesh are spiritual works; for you do all in Jesus Christ, prepared as
you are for the building of God the Father, carried up to the height
through the engine of Jesus Christ which is the cross, using the
Holy Spirit as the rope, while Faith is the pulley and Love the way
carrying up to God.
* IIepirknua vuwy kai üyvioua vuūv: "Even your offscouring (the tempta-
tions of the flesh) are your lustration ;" that is to say, become to you a means
of sanctification ; for having been overcome they are made subservient to the
spirit, for spiritual purposes, under the spirit stronger and purer.
EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS.
95
II. As to other men, pray for them — for there is a hope of their
repenting - that they may be partakers of God. Give them oppor-
tunity of becoming your disciples even by your works. Against
their lofty words put humility, and against their blaspheming meek-
ness in constant prayers, against their seduction firmness in the faith,
against their violence mildness; not striving to imitate them. But
by meekness let us strive to be imitators of the Lord, than whom who
was ever more wronged? or deprived ? or depressed ? For it is not a
question of promise, but whether one be found in the strength of
faith even unto the end. Rather than to speak and to be nothing, it
is better to be silent and to be something, in order that one may
work by what one speaks, and may be known by what one is silent
about.
III. My spirit boweth down before the cross, which is a scandal to
the unbelieving, but to us salvation and life eternal. There were
hidden from the Prince of this world the virginity of Mary, and the
birth and death of the Lord ; three shouting mysteries were operated
in God's quietness. From the appearance of the star and the
manifestation thereby of the Son, every magic power disappeared,
and every bond was dissolved, and the old kingdom and the ignorance
of wickedness perished. From that time everything was put in com-
motion, because the dissolution of death was meditated, and what
was ordained with God took its beginning.
96
THE THIRD GENERATION
C.
The Epistle to the Romans.
IGNATIUS [who also is Theophoros] to the church which has found
mercy by the greatness of the Father most High; to her who presides
in dignity over the country of the Romans, to her who is worthy of
God and is worthy of her honourable position, worthy of being called
blessed, worthy of praise and worthy that her prayer be heard, who
excelleth before all in love and hath Christ for her law blamelessly,
much greeting!
1. Having long since prayed to God, that I might be worthy to
see your God-worthy faces, I now hope that I shall salute you being
bound in Jesus Christ, if it be God's will that I should be deemed
worthy of God to the end. For the beginning has been well disposed,
if I attain to receive without hindrance my portion at last by suf-
fering. For I am fearful of your love, lest it should injure me. For
to you it is easy to do whatsoever you please; but for me, it is dif-
ficult that I should attain God, if indeed you do not spare me.
For
I shall not have such opportunity to attain God; nor will ye, if ye
now be silent, ever have the benefit of a better work. If ye keep
silence about me, I shall become God's speech; but if ye
love
my body,
I shall be again an echo of myself. Do not try to give me anything
better than this, that I should be sacrificed to God whilst the altar is
prepared, that ye, becoming a loving choir, may praise the Father in
Christ Jesus that he deemed the bishop worthy to be God's, when
he called him from the rising of the sun to the setting. It is good
that I should set from the world to God, that I may rise into Him.
Ye have never envied any man. Ye have taught others. Only
pray for strength from within and from without, that I may not only
speak, but also may will; that I may not be called only a Christian,
but also may be found to be one: for if I am found to be, I am also
fit to be called, faithful even when not appearing in the world.
Nothing, indeed, that is only appearing is good : for Christianity is
not a work of persuasion, but of highmindedness, when hated by the
world,
II. I write to the churches, and I declare to all, that willingly I
die for God, if it be that you hinder me not. I beg of you, do not
become to me an unseasonable love. Let me be of the beasts, by
whose means I am enabled to obtain God. I am God's wheat, and by
the teeth of the beasts am I ground, that I may be found God's pure
EPISTLES OF ST. IGNATIUS.
97
bread. Rather entreat kindly the beasts that they may be a grave
for me, and may leave nothing of my body: that not even when I am
fallen asleep, I may be a burden upon any man.
Then I shall be
in truth a disciple of Jesus Christ, when the world seeth not even my
body. Supplicate our Lord for me, that by these instruments I may
be found a sacrifice to God. I am not commanding you like Peter
and Paul: they were Apostles, I am a condemned convict; they were
free, I am hitherto a slave. But if I suffer, I am a freedman of Jesus
Christ; and I shall rise from the dead, in Him, a free man.
III. And now, since I am in bonds, I learn to desire nothing.
From Syria to Rome I am cast among beasts, by sea and by land, by
night and by day; since I am bound between ten leopards, who get
worse when I do good to them. But by their ill-treatment I am
furthered in my apprenticeship: still by that I am not justified. May
I have to rejoice of the beasts prepared for me! and I pray that they
may be found ready for me, and I will kindly entreat them quickly to
devour me, and not, as they have done to some, being afraid of them,
to keep from touching me. And should they not be willing, I will
force them.
IV. Pardon me: what is expedient for me, I know myself. Let
nothing envy me, neither things visible nor invisible, that I may
attain Jesus Christ. Fire and the cross, scattering of the bones and
the
array of the beasts, the mutilation of the limbs and the grinding
of the whole body-hard torments of the Devil!-let them come upon
me, if only I may attain Jesus Christ. The pains of child-birth
await me: my love is crucified, and there is no fire in me to love
matter. I do not desire the food of corruption nor the desires of this
world. The bread of God I seek, which is the body of Christ; and
as drink I seek His blood, which is love incorruptible.
V. My spirit saluteth you, and the love of the churches which have
received me as for the name of Jesus Christ. For also those who
are not bodily near to the road accompanied me in every city. And
now that I am near to Rome, I meditate many things in God; but I
moderate myself, that I may not perish through boasting : for now it
is becoming in me that I should fear the more abundantly, and should
not look to those that puff me up. For those who say to me “Martyr,”
scourge me: it is true that I desire to suffer, but I do not know if I
be worthy. For my zeal is not apparent to many, but it wars within
. I want, therefore, meekness; because by that the Prince of this
world is made powerless. I am able to write to you heavenly things;
but I fear lest I should do you harm (pardon me), that, not being able
me.
VOL, I.
H
98
THE THIRD GENERATION.
to take it in, you might be choked. For even I, for being in bonds
and able to know heavenly things, and the places of angels and the
station of powers and the things visible and invisible, am for all that
not a disciple: for I lack much of being perfected for God. Farewell
to the end, in the patience of Jesus Christ !
1 i
CRITICAL APPENDIX.
The Ignatian Question.
As to the authenticity of the Syrian recension, I have shown, in the
Preface to the fourth volume of the first edition of “Hippolytus and
his Age” (now reprinted at the end of the second), that the gratuitous
fiction of a heterodox monk (whom the Rev. Dr. Wordsworth has dis-
covered), or as Licentiate Uhlhorn of Göttingen * proposes, of an
ascetic monk, who made certain incoherent extracts from the genuine
Seven Epistles (out of sheer heterodoxy, or for his own edification),
must, at all events, be abandoned. Neither heterodoxy nor asceticism
explains anything, and both suppositions are contrary to very positive
facts. Not only have we now in the British Museum, instead of one,
two complete sets of “The Three Epistles of St. Ignatius," but
Colonel Rawlinson has seen at Bagdad the same Three Epistles
annexed to the manuscript of a Syrian New Testament; treated
therefore as an acknowledged, nay, almost canonical, text of the
Syrian Church. The illustrious decipherer of the cuneiform inscrip-
tions has since confirmed this fact in one of his letters to me, and
he hopes to be able to secure the manuscript for Europe. Uhlhorn
thinks the argument of Cureton and myself, which is derived from
the subscription of the one Syrian MS., “ The Three Epistles of St.
Ignatius," not a stringent one, because the sense of the Semitic
article is doubtful; but he does not reflect that, if there be an ambi-
guity, the sense must be decided by the context. Common sense
ought to have told him that nobody would say
" Here end Three
Epistles,” if he knew there were others. The inscription, therefore,
can only mean that the Syrian Church recognised, as Ignatian,
the Three Epistles, in this text, and no more : but, what is still better,
* Uhlhorn, Verhältniss der kürzeren griechischen Recension (A) der
Ignatianischen Briefe zur Syrischen (S). In Niedner's Zeitschrift für
historische Theologie, xv. p. 368. and p. 247. 341.
CRITICAL APPENDIX: THE IGNATIAN QUESTION.
99
the other manuscript says so expressly, by closing the text of the
three letters thus: “Here endeth what is of Ignatius.”
These being the facts, what shall we say of such puerile criticism
as that of Uhlhorn? (p. 10.): “The MS. is of the sixth century. At
that time the (Greek text of the) Seven Epistles existed; the Syrian
copyist, therefore, either did not know their existence, or he used
criticism (that is to say, mutilated the text): either of these assump-
tions places him in a doubtful position.” First, there is no such
dilemma: the copyist knew only three Epistles. Secondly, what
were these three? The same which his own Church, the Church
of Antioch, knew, the authority of which he naturally followed,
and not that of a foreign Church.
That same text, then, is found in another manuscript, and even as
a sacred text of that Syrian Church, appended to the canonical books.
In following her, the writer did what the copyist of the Syrian Con-
stitutions did; and both acted most wisely. They preferred copying
what they had every reason to believe to be true, and took no notice
of what Greek interpolators had made out of the genuine Letters.
It is a fact proved by Cureton that no original genuine Syrian
author quotes any text not found in the Syrian text of the three
Epistles : as, indeed, no ante-Nicene author does. Both, moreover,
quote the texts acknowledged by the Syrian Church. Is it good
criticism to pass by such facts and arguments ? Who can doubt
that the Syrians must have had a translation of the relics of their
Apostolic Patriarch? From the earliest times it was their jewel.
How is it that the Greek text is unknown to the Church most
interested in the glory of Ignatius ?
It is true all this is not learned; it does not rest upon the inter-
pretation (or misinterpretation) of doubtful texts ; it is not a corollary
of a metaphysical formula: it is only common sense. Any good
scholar can find it out: any man of common sense can understand it.
I, for my part, confess that I have lived too long in England not to
think that common sense is a good argument even for learned men,
and that the public have a right to exact from them a certain
respect for it. For this reason, also, I cannot submit, as far as my
conscientious opinion is concerned, to any common sense criticism
being put down by dictatorial assertions, even though they come from
a really learned and acute writer like Dr. Hilgenfeld. To my great
astonishment I find that this critic objects to the conclusion I have
drawn, together with Dallié and others, from what is called the last
chapter of the Epistle of Polycarp. My readers may remember that
F2
100
THE THIRD GENERATION.
r
the Apostolic Father is made in that passage to inquire after Ignatius
(whom he before had classed among the celebrated Martyrs of the
Church!) “ et de his qui cum eo sunt.” I know as well as they that
this may be the translation of the original Greek, "oi uer' avrov,"
" those with him :" but I should like to ask those critics whether
they can produce a single passage where such a phrase is used about
persons who are departed, and who, therefore, if with him, are only
with him in the grave. My Greek masters and common logic tell
me it cannot have been used in that sense ; for a good Greek phrase
never implies an absurdity. Indeed, it is only used about living
men. Consequently, that chapter is spurious; and what it states
about the many Ignatian Epistles, and about those who were with him,
is no evidence in favour of the Seven (or rather Eleven) Epistles of
the Martyr of Antioch, but an imposition convicting its author of
complicity in the Ignatian fraud.
Facts, however, find no greater favour with certain people than
common sense. . The proofs brought forward, with as much modesty
as learning, by Dr. Weiss of the University of Königsberg, the
learned reviewer of Petermann's edition of the Armenian version of
the Seven Epistles *, that the greater part of the facts alleged by
Uhlhorn do not exist, some of them being gratuitous, some impossible
assumptions, have found so little grace with Dr. Hilgenfeld that he
does not scruple to say, in his recent work on the Apostolic Fathers,
that this refutation, taken from the Syrian (and Dr. Weiss has given
specimens of his being a Syrian scholar), is the best justification of
Uhlhorn, who is not known to the world either as a Syrian scholar
or as a critical scholar at all.f A few words will show the justice
of this dictatorial verdict. Uhlhorn's famous monk is said to have
made extracts from the complete text, for his own edification, and
therefore to have left out, as far as he could, whatever related to
the reverence inculcated in the Seven Epistles towards the Divine
authority of the bishop. Had he thought these passages not very
edifying, I think we should not quarrel much with his taste. But
why (asks Weiss) did he not leave out the whole Epistle to Polycarp,
which is throughout an Episcopal instruction, and in which the
* In Reuter's Repertorium, vol. lxxviii. part 2. p. 98. sqq.
† As to his accurate Greek scholarship, Hilgenfeld himself quotes the
following specimen (p. 190. note). Dr. Uhlhorn (p. 32, 33.) translates in
the passage of the Ignatian Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. iii.), Nūv yap dexriy
έχω του μαθητεύεσθαι, και προσλαλώ υμίν ώς συνδιδασκαλίταις μου, the last
words thus: “As to my fellow-disciples (wie zu meinen Mitschülern).” This
certainly.is on a title for speaking so slightingly of Dr. Weiss's criticism.
CRITICAL APPENDIX: THE IGNATIAN QUESTION.
101
I
duties towards the Bishop are distinctly mentioned ?* Uhlhorn has
thought fit to meet his argument by asserting he could not well leave
out that passage without destroying the context. Now, Weiss might
have ridiculed the whole argument, as being in contradiction to the
general assumption of the Monkists, that the man who made the
extracts cared little or nothing for the context, and only picked
out what he thought edifying. But he simply observes that the
assumed fact does not exist. The passage might, with the greatest
ease, have been left out, as a glance at chapters v. and vi. will
show. Nor are the expressions of the genuine text identical with
the obnoxious passages peculiar to the Greek text. The argument
of Uhlhorn is that of Baur, ex ungue leonem. “ Once give Divine
authority to the Bishop, and the whole system is there.” But Weiss
has very rightly observed, first, that, in the Epistle to Polycarp, obe-
dience to Bishop, Elders, and Deacons is enjoined; in the others the
Deacons are left out, and the Elders alone named with the Bishop :
and secondly, that the Syrian Ignatius exhorts the Bishop to do
nothing without God's advice; as a counterpart of the admonition that
nothing should be done without his, the Bishop's, advice. This, Weiss
modestly submits, seems to imply that obedience to the Bishop was
fr like the love he desires the flocks should show him, and not irre-
spective of the nature of his behests. He therefore submits that the
idiomatic expression of Ignatius, in his letter to Polycarp, “Keep
ye to the Bishop, that God may keep to you,” should be interpreted
in that sense, cum grano salis. The Greek text, on the contrary,
makes out that his authority rests upon Divine ordination, and that
he who does not submit to the Bishop is cut off from the Church :
the Bishop is the vicegerent of God and Christ, as the Presbyters
were of the Apostles. This doctrine is inculcated ad nauseam.
Weiss might have added, that the interpolations of the Apostolic
Constitutions, which now are revealed by the Syrian text, and on
record, prove that all this was part and parcel of a system. The
hierarchical party already, towards the end of the second century,
made the most of the captivating idea of the Catholic Church which
originated about the middle of that century. They used it as a basis
for the doctrine of spiritual absolutism, and foisted the doctrine
into all the documents, fathering their unholy tenets upon the ancient
Bishops with the same zeal and impudence as in later times the
Papists did in their Decretals, the foundation of the Canon law,
which is, according to Dr. Pusey and Father Newman and their
* In Reuter's Repertorium, vol. lxxviii. part 2. p. 169. sqq.
3
102
THE THIRD GENERATION,
friends, the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England, and indeed
the only prop of their system.
But he does not fail to observe that the undeniable reference to
sects which no more existed in 115 when Ignatius died, than they
did in 97 when St. John wrote his Gospel, betrays the age and the
motive of these doctrinal, as well as hierarchical interpolations.
Instead of following Dr. Weiss in his triumphant demonstra-
tion that the Syrian text contains, in almost all cases where there are
various readings, that which appears to be more original *, I shall
conclude these critical remarks with a few words respecting Baur.
He has shown superior judgment in not venturing to defend any
longer the philological argument. “There are,” he says, in his recent
work, “ three opinions; that of those who maintain the Syrian text
to be genuine, of those who believe in the authenticity of the Greek
text, and of those who believe neither to be genuine. This last
is my own. There are arguments in favour of the first and second
opinions; but the question must at last be decided by the general view
adopted of the character of the age.” Against this we demur. We
think the question stands, first of all, upon philological grounds, and
then upon chronological. Certainly, if St. John's Gospel (as Baur
still maintains) was written by a clever impostor, therefore about the
middle of the second century, and the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephe-
sians by another impostor only ten or fifteen years earlier, no text
can be genuine which refers or alludes to either. Away then with
Ignatian Epistles, Syrian or Greek! woe upon the extracts from
Basilides! woe upon those from Valentinus! woe upon those of
Heracleon! woe upon whoever ventures to quote, twenty or fifty
years before Baur has made out they were written, the one pro-
scribed half of the canonical books !
* There is only one point on which I must differ from him. The Syrian
text renders the tapošvouoi in the Epistle to Polycarp (ch. ii.) by a word
(derived from the root gzar) which would signify abscissiones. Cureton,
therefore, thought that the translator found in his Greek manuscript
napá&voua. Uhlhorn defends the Syrian reading; but it appears to me, that
as the Syrian translation of the New Testament gives in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, x. 24., for tapočvojós, the word gurógo, from the root gar, and
as the letters Sain and Resh may be mistaken for one another, the true
reading of the passage is gurógo, as conjectured by Petermann, or guroyo
(from garah). The sense of either form is excitamentum (Job, xxxi. 34.,
Prov. xxiv. 6.): gar, garah means excitare (Acts, xiv. 2.; compare xxi.
· 17.). This is exactly the meaning of započúverv, napo&vouós. As to the
Syrian translation of čußpoxai, it means embrocations, “ liniments,” and
is, therefore, also quite in keeping with the simile.
CRITICAL APPENDIX: THE IGNATIAN QUESTION.
103
I deeply regret that Hilgenfeld, in dealing with Ignatius, has re-
lapsed into the unhistorical and unchronological subjective criticism
of this school. He first rejects the Syrian text, because Uhlhorn and
Petermann have proved that it exhibits extracts, and then goes
through the Seven Epistles, and at great length shows that they refer
to a time posterior to Ignatius. Thus we have no genuine Ignatian
text, because the Seven Epistles are certainly not genuine. Had
he begun with this argument, the spuriousness of the Seven Epistles,
and then bestowed an impartial criticism upon the Syrian, so
wantonly rejected, he would have arrived at the same result as
ourselves. Both Hilgenfeld and Baur, however, offer fresh proof of
my assertion, that the Greek text of Ignatius has no defenders
among men of critical reputation and skill. Of the two Romanist
writers who defend its authenticity, Hefele gives no reasons, and
Denzinger's are as bad as those of Dr. Wordsworth. This does not sur-
prise me; for no good reason can be advanced in behalf of what they
have to defend. “Roma locuta est.” “Pearson (who did not know
the Syrian text) has said so;" consequently the Seven Epistles are
genuine. Let them be so for them: but they should not attempt
to defend them by argument. The worst of all however, I must
confess, is that based upon the Armenian text, which, by a mon-
strous paralogism, is dignified into being the original of the Syrian
text. A text which exhibits, not only the Seven mentioned by Euse-
bius, but even the other long-rejected Epistles (including the most
absurd of all, the correspondence with a Cilician Mary),—such a text, I
say, is assumed to be the original from which the Syrians (who always
translated from the Greek, and never from the Armenian) made
extracts (avowedly containing all the passages quoted as Ignatian by
the ancient Fathers); and this too done by the Church of Antioch,
Ignatius' own Church, which must have kept from the earliest times,
and indeed did read, the Epistles of their great patriarch with a
respect second only to the canonical books to which they have been
found appended!
Every one who considers for a moment the nature of such criti-
cism, will agree with me that there is no hope of mankind being
delivered from hierarchical impositions, theological delusions and
quibbles, until the Christian nations begin to interest themselves in
such topics. Then classical scholars will take those sacred texts in
hand, and plead the cause of truth and common sense before the
Christian public at large; and truth will reign supreme even in
Church history, and common sense even in theology.
H4
104
THE THIRD GENERATION.
II.
BASILIDES.
We have already stated, on different occasions, that Gnosticism
within the Christian congregations was coëval with Peter and
Paul; that Simon the Samaritan was a historical personage
and a Gnostic philosopher; that Cerinthus was opposed by
the Apostle John; and that Hippolytus gives us an account
of various Christian or Christianizing sects which preceded
Basilides and Valentinus. As, however, it is impossible
with our present knowledge, to ascertain whether the works
of these ancient sects, quoted by Hippolytus, were really
anterior to the systems of those great men, I abstain from
introducing their primitive records, as documentary evidence in
my picture of this age and in the " Analecta.”
Their general principles, however, must not be entirely
passed over in silence. The most positive and remarkable
among them are the Ophites, or, in the equivalent Hebrew
name, Naassînes (from nakash, the serpent). This sect, whose
origin is as ancient as the Pauline age, undoubtedly believed (as
is proved by the extracts. given from their writings by Hippo-
lytus, even if they be of a later age and fashioned after Basilides
and Valentinus) that in Jesus of Nazareth the Logos had be-
come incarnate. But they connected this belief so intimately
with their own speculative theory as to the first moving cos-
mogonical principle of nature and history, which they called
(in allusion to the old sacred symbol of the Jews) the Serpent,
that they necessarily transformed Christianity into a vehicle
for propagating their fantastical, pantheistic system. They were
not, however, devoid of profound and extensive ideas. If the
Logos, they said, be really the first principle, it must have been
worshipped and glorified, as the manifestation of the Godhead
and the means of approaching God, in the mysteries of all the
great nations of antiquity, from the Babylonians and Assyrians
down to the Greeks, as well as by the inspired Hellenic poets
like Pindar. Starting from this idea, they adopted a half-
cabalistic, half-gnostic misinterpretation and mystification of
THE OPHITES.
105
or the 66
all mysteries and orgies, as well as of the simple language
of Scripture, and particularly of the divinely childlike words of
the prologue of St. John's Gospel. Not satisfied with the
plain and eminently ethical and practical words of Christ, which
they knew from the Palestinian Gospel, they interpolated
them with mystical sayings, unknown to general tradition,
though found at a very early date in provincial and sectarian
forms of that Gospel, such as the “ Gospel of the Egyptians,"
Gospel of Thomas," quotations from which occur in
Hippolytus and elsewhere. They possessed also sacred books
of their own, partly didactic, and partly liturgical. The fol-
lowing passage in Hippolytus will convey an idea of their
contents, and is directly suited to our present purpose.
Naassînes,” he says (Cod. f. 27.), “honour the Father of all ·
other things, their Logos, as Man and Son of Man.”*
They worshipped what they called the Logos, as Hippolytus
afterwards explicitly states (Cod. f. 32.): “ This Man is man
and woman, and is called by them, Adamas." This name,
which means the Unconquerable, was probably selected by
them in allusion to the Hebrew Adam, but is not derived
from it.
They had many high-flown hymns, of which the following
given by Hippolytus, may serve as a slight specimen :-
66 The
60 thou citizen of Heaven !
Thou much-praised man!
From thee comes Father,
Through thee comes Mother,
Those two immortal names,
The parents of the Æons."
These verses, however, no more prove them to have con-
sidered the ideal man literally as man-woman, than what follows
* For the restoration of this whole passage, see Bernaysii Ep. Crit. pp 8, 9.
I read the first sentence, however, as it stands in the MS. with one correc-
tion only--that of mapa into matépa, which is Bernays' emendation:
Ούτοι των άλλων απάντων πατέρα τον αυτών Λόγον τιμώσιν άνθρωπος και υιόν
ávopórov. Bernays reads : tab ajrý doyun, which seems to me not only to be
unnecessary, but also contrary to the meaning of the author.
106
THE THIRD GENERATION.
proves that they regarded him as threefold in person (a
Geryon, as Hippolytus says). These are the words :-
One part of him is mental (Thought, Spirit), another
psychical (subjective, the sensualized Soul), the third earthy
(the material, merely sensuous).
The report of Hippolytus proceeds thus:-
“They think that to know him is the beginning of the power of
knowing God. It is thus expressed: --
The beginning of perfection is the knowledge of Man; but
the knowledge of God is absolute perfection."
Again :
All this, the mental, and the psychical, and the earthy,
were united, and came down, into one Man, Jesus, born of
Mary.
1
And again :
These three men together spoke through Jesus identically
as one, from their own substances (each according to liis pe-
culiar nature) to their own people. Jesus spoke spiritually
to the men of the Spirit, parabolically to the sensuous, literally
to the materialists.
“For they have, in their system, three kinds: the angelic, the
psychical, and the earthy; and they distinguish three Churches
(orders of believing men), which they call the Chosen, the Called, the
Captive."
Although all that follows respecting the details of the Ophite
system, when they endeavoured to explain allegorically what
had no charm for them in its simple historical shape, is
thoroughly fantastical and unsound, there is undeniably a
real and deep meaning in the above distinction. Whoever
has waded through the labyrinth of theological metaphysics of
the following centuries will feel that much absurdity and much
persecution would have been spared if that distinction had
been attended to. As to the Ophites themselves, they lost,
by their allegorizing, the benefit of what was true in their
system, In attempting to carry out the rational and Chris-
tian idea that there was divine, spiritual, universal truth in all
BASILIDES.
107
the sacred parts of ancient religion and religious philosophy, they
only proved that an allegorical interpretation is capable of spoil-
ing the symbolical and poetical as well as the historical element
in religious institutions. They corrupted the beautiful ethi-
cal simplicity of Judaism and Christianity, and destroyed the
practical charm of Hellenism. But justice requires us not to
forget that, when the Catholics learnt from the Gnostics to
philosophize, they indulged in that allegorical folly as freely as
the Ophites. And have not our modern Gnostics, to a certain
degree, tried to do the same in the full sunshine of philological
criticism? But as to philosophical depth and earnest specu-
lation, there was much more in those Gnostics than good
Hippolytus would allow or could understand. They un-
doubtedly touched also in their speculations upon the second
problem of those ages, by ascribing the origin of evil to the
Creator of the visible world, or the Demiurg. This doctrine is
explicitly mentioned as that of the kindred sect of the Peratai.
Such was the state of Gnosticism when a great man arose
Basilides, a native Jew, trained in the school of Menander, and
probably also born in Syria, though he settled at an early
period in Egypt. He must have been born in the first century;
for his followers asserted, what is not contradicted, that he owed
his Christian instruction to Glaucias, an interpreter of the
Apostle Paul. His contemporary, like him a disciple of Me-
nander, Saturninus, or in the Syrian form Saturnilus, remained
in Antioch, and wrote an exposition of his master's system.
The synchronism, therefore, is as follows:
30_65: Peter and Paul — Simon.
66—98 : St. John and Clemens-Menander at Antioch, and
Glaucias.
99—130: Ignatius-Saturnilus at Antioch, and Basilides at
Alexandria.
Basilides is the first Gnostic teacher who has left an indivi-
dual, personal stamp upon the age. He was a decided Christian,
and commented upon the meaning of the Prologue of St. John's
108
THE THIRD GENERATION.
Gospel as part of the Christian Scriptures. Although, accord-
ing to Baur, Strauss, and Schwegler, that Gospel was written
a whole generation later than Basilides, I shall at the end of
this chapter show how entirely Baur has failed in evading my
argument, and I will only observe here, that Basilides was per-
haps not even the first Gnostic who commented upon St. John.
Certainly, the writers of those Ophite books were acquainted
with that Gospel and attempted to gnosticize it. Of the system
of Basilides, as known before the work of Hippolytus was
discovered, Neander has given, in the second edition of his
“ Church History” (i. 690—719.), a clear and honest exposi-
tion, to which I must refer my learned readers. Nothing that
was written about Basilides, before Neander, is worth reading.
As to what we have learned from Hippolytus, Jacobi, in his
excellent Latin essay, has pointed out the general bearing of his
extracts upon the controverted points, and Baur, in his recent
work, has followed in that line.
My method will be a different one. I shall attempt first of
all to bring the man himself in his individual earnestness and
depth before my readers, and then examine his speculative
system in its relation to the realities before us, divesting it of
all that is fantastical and unphilosophical. I think the frag-
ments of Basilides preserved or extracted by Hippolytus, and
critically reprinted by me in the “ Analecta,” are the only safe
basis for such a reconstruction both of the character of the man
and of the system.
1. Basilides: the Man, and his Ethical Christianity.
Basilides must be carefully kept distinct from his school.
His personal erudition is unquestionable. He had studied
Plato deeply. A comparison with his son Isidorus, who had
little erudition, and no criticism whatever, shows that Basilides
was the master mind. His other disciples added richly to his
fantastical constructions without either his learning or his genius.
Isidorus admitted the authority of the lost apocryphal books of
the Alexandrian Jews, and evidently knew nothing of Plato
and Aristotle except through the medium of late writers and
BASILIDES.
109
supposititious books. All that is great in the Basilidian sys-
tem was the originality of thought and the moral earnestness of
its founder. His seet was doomed to perish, and did perish
by not attending humbly to Scripture, and by separating them-
selves from the congregational life of simple, Scriptural Chris-
tians. Isidorus may, however, be considered as expressing, in
his ethical views, the teaching of his father. Hippolytus men-
tions him with Basilides, as his true son and disciple. I shall,
therefore, treat the ethical sayings of Isidorus as a faithful ex-
ponent of the thoughts of the father.
Basilides himself was not an anti-congregational proud
Gnostic, but a pious Christian, who worshipped with his con-
gregation, and connected his spiritual life in all humility with
that of all the other Christian brethren. He does not divide
the Christians into two separate classes, the knowing (Gnostics)
and the believers. He most earnestly advises the speculative
Christian, when he finds himself under heavy temptations, to go
to a brother and confess his sins, asking him for absolution.
For that is the sense of the words: “Let him [the Christian
in temptation] say, I have entered the sanctuary; evil cannot
touch me; give me thy blessing, and lay thy hands upon my
head: and he will experience comfort, spiritually and bodily.”
Basilides valued prayer addressed to God in order to obtain
something from Him, but he considered it as a lower degree of
worship than the prayer of thanksgiving for God's mercies.
Faith (Pistis), not knowledge (Gnosis), was in his eyes the highest.
He considered the spiritual world as one whole, but constituted
in different degrees. Faith and election of each nature (he
said) correspond with the different degrees of the spiritual
world, and are conformable to the primitive election made before
the world.
Neander observes that Basilides' definition of faith, the con-
senting disposition of the soul towards the invisible, very much
resembles that of Hugo a Sancto Victore. It certainly reminds
us of the beautiful passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 1.) :
• Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.” Hope and faith exist in every soul, accord-
ing to Basilides, always in a corresponding degree. Faith con-
110
THE THIRD GENERATION,
nects the soul with the higher world, and in proportion as faith
is more exalted, the conviction increases in the soul that what
we now hold in faith we shall really possess in that world.
“ The gift of every one's faith” (these are his words) " is com-
mensurate with his hope." This faith is an operative one: it
produces, by the overruling Divine power, the effective will
to do good. “Let one will," says Isidorus, " to practise what
is good, and he will attain it." But he connects that faith
with love: fear of punishment does not eradicate from the
soul the inclination to sin. We find the same moral earnest-
ness and depth when he speaks of his belief in Providence, or
in the moral order of the world. “There is one world," he
says, "and that world is one temple of God.” This evidently
expresses the thought that there is one Divine law of truth and
justice in nature and history, leading us to the knowledge of
the only Holy God. "I will rather say anything," he some-
where exclaimed, “than say, there is evil in the Divine fore-
knowledge."
What was it, then, that caused such a mind to lose itself in
wild cosmogonic dreams, substituting speculations for biblical
facts and speculative superstitions for the simple faith of the
Gospel? What especially drove him to fatalism ? Decidedly
not a sentimental horror of the sufferings he experienced or
observed in the life of other men. It is true, he thought all
suffering an evil, and considered it as a punishment for sin
committed by the soul in this life or in a former state of
existence. He would not even except Jesus of Nazareth from
that sentence, although he believed and confessed that the
Spirit of God had united Itself to him at his baptism ; nor
did he see in the bitterest sufferings of that holiest of men
any injustice.
For Jesus, he said, being conscious that
he was God's chosen organ for the holiest of purposes,
and that he suffered for a cause the triumph of which he
foresaw, his suffering was so much lightened that he was as
one who did not suffer at all. The necessity of such suffering,
however, arises from the nature of the worldly or demiurgic
principle, the ruling Prince or Regent (Archon) of this world :
he executes God's decree in a harsh and cruel manner as long as
3
7
BASILIDES.
111
his reign continues. He it was who imposed the law upon the
Jews. Basilides carried out this doctrine with the greatest
earnestness, combining it with a system of metempsychoses in
the Egyptian sense. All nature is, according to him, striving
after a higher development.
To a philosopher who tries to understand man, as a living
individual, in all points, the question then arises, How could a
mind like that of Basilides thus swerve both from Scripture and
that reason which is controlled by conscience through a Chris-
tian life? I confess that the answer generally given is to me
not satisfactory. It is said that all this was a consequence of the
dualism from which he is supposed to have started, or of the
mixture of the first principles of existence which, according to
Neander, he placed at the head of his system. In the first place,
according to the terms in which that answer is generally
couched, it is decidedly false. But, even if understood in the
more refined shape in which Neander puts it, I cannot help
asking, Why could not so earnest a Christian philosopher
overcome that dualism or that mixture, when he found the
God of love revealed in the Gospels, and especially in that of
St. John ?
I believe the real historical truth to be this. In the first
place, Basilides did not propose his speculative system as a
doctrine collateral to and of equal dignity with the Gospel,
but as a consistent development of thought soaring to the origin
of the moral order of things in which man is placed by the
Gospel. In the second place, Basilides was not an impassible,
speculative machine.
man suffering like others
from the desperate state of the world. He saw before and
around him so much wickedness and injustice that he could
not help taking it into account when philosophizing. He was
resolved not to renounce his firm belief in Providence; but
he did not see how he could keep it, unless he clung to the
old philosophy of Egypt and Asia, that evil triumphs in this
world of ours. Nor could he disentangle himself entirely from
the false method and the delusions of Simonism, or of what
Menander had made out of it in Antioch, where he received
his first impressions. The system which placed the present
He was
1
а.
112
THE THIRD GENERATION.
world under the spirit of evil was in the mind of Basilides not
a gratuitous assumption, it was the result of the corruption
of the ancient world which, more or less, weighed upon all men of
that age. The injustice of a tyrannical government necessarily
destroys religious belief in God's providence, however kings,
as they have done in all times, may support religious esta-
blishments and erect gorgeous temples for their god or gods.
In short, Basilides endangered both his faith and common
sense by three errors. He did not found his historical belief
upon the living historical Christ, as the Bible represents Him,
and upon the eternal love of God manifested in Him; he did not
base his philosophy upon the universal conscience and reason of
mankind; and finally, he was not satisfied with the realization of
Christianity as the nature of his age permitted it. Despairing
of the historical living reality manifested in that individual and
in the biblical history of mankind, he gave imaginary life to
abstractions as if they had a real development. Thus he spoiled
both thought and history. He strove earnestly to be a Chris-
tian, and he wished his hearers to be Christians; but the
wild speculations in which he now found himself entangled,
unsupported, as they were, by the facts either of nature or of
history, and unwarranted by reason and conscience, by Scrip-
ture or Christian experience, carried him away from practical
Christianity, and made his followers become fantastical Basi-
lidians instead of congregational Christians. But many of his
faults and defects were those of his time, and took only another
less fantastical form in the Church. In the hands of the Church
also Christ soon became a spectre, when her leading men
began to think, and attempted to connect thought with his-
tory and tradition. I cannot find that they showed much
more respect for the eternal laws of the two elements, facts and
thought, phenomena and ideas. On the contrary, history shows
that they counted as a triumph what was only the proof of
their failure, calling their own nonsense the holy mysteries of
the religion of Christ, in order to make them believed.
Basilidianism was doomed to perish in all the absurdities which
Basilides had fantastically suspended round his leading idea of
a Theodicea, or justification of God's ways with the individual
BASILIDES.
113
man and with humanity. But he must be judged by himself;
and before we condemn him as a fatalist, or excuse our igno-
rance by setting him down as a madman, let us not forget the
tragic times in which he lived, or the good which he did by
stirring up thought and clinging to the intellectual elements of
Scripture. Let us not forget that he philosophized upon the
basis of the words of the Apostle respecting the eternal Reason
as manifested in Jesus the Christ.
This fact has, besides, a direct bearing upon biblical criticism,
and gives a peculiar interest to the extracts from Basilides which
we find in Hippolytus. It rests upon good evidence that
Basilides was a noted heresiarch at Alexandria under Hadrian,
and that he was older than Valentinus. That he directed
his speculations to the words of the Prologue, and con-
sequently found the whole Gospel of St. John generally ac-
knowledged as authority like the catechetical Gospels, nobody
had questioned before Baur and Strauss; and I cannot help
thinking that both these critics and those who have followed
them will, on further consideration, admit that those large ex-
tracts from the work of Basilides given by Hippolytus remove
all doubt on that head. In order to see the weakness of the
argu-
ments by which Baur and his friends have endeavoured to evade
the force of this fact, it is only necessary to refer to the text, as
given in the "Analecta." They urge that no conclusion can be
drawn from the quotations, because Hippolytus introduces his
extracts with the following words: — “ Basilides, and Isidorus
the true son and disciple of Basilides, say that Matthæus (Mat-
thias) had communicated to them sacred doctrines, which he
had learnt from our Saviour's sacred teaching. Let us then
see how manifestly Basilides, as well as Isidorus and their
whole set, give the lie not only to Matthæus (Matthias), but
also to him who was his Saviour." In order to understand
this sentence well, let us first look at that which precedes it:
" If then it shall be found that Basilides introduces not only
the sense but the very words of the doctrines of Aristotle into
our evangelical and saving teaching, what have we to do but
to restore what is stolen, showing to his disciples that, as they
are pagans, Christ can be of no use to them?”
VOL. I.
I
114
THE THIRD GENERATION.
It is Basilides personally who is to be examined, and it is
his disciples who are to be shown up as having lost Christ's
saving doctrine. Nobody denies that Basilides left behind him
a work or works which contained an exposition of his system,
and that his disciples referred to these works as authoritative.
Now, if they themselves could not be refuted except by refer-
ence to Basilides, how could Hippolytus argue against Basilides
himself from any extracts except such as were taken from
Basilides' own writings?
This is indeed most distinctly stated by him in the introduc-
tion with which the seventh book opens. The words are these :
-“After the exposition contained in the first six books, it
now appears to me right not to pass over the system of Basilides,
who teaches the doctrines of Aristotle the Stagirite, not those
of Christ.” It is clear that, in describing Basilides out of his
own work or works, he intended to give an insight into the
doctrine of the Basilidians, all of whom, and in particular his
son Isidorus, referred their wisdom to their master. Now, of
what use could it be to quote any of his followers against him?
They were to be judged by him whom they followed; but as
to Basilides himself, of whom he treats, he could not be con-
victed of error by what the Basilidians down to the time of Hip-
polytus or of Irenæus might have written and believed. That
Hippolytus did not intend to quote anything here but the
words of Basilides, is also proved by the way in which all the quo-
tations without exception are introduced : “He says." Whom
can this “ He” mean in this context, after all which had gone
before, but Basilides? Lastly, this assumption is the only one
which agrees with the character of the extracts themselves.
They exhibit to us the leading sentences of an original and
comprehensive speculative and theological system. Now these
leading points in the system of Basilides must have been laid
down by Basilides himself: and this argument is independent
of what was required at this place for the refutation of his
theories. These points are not only delivered here as the
authoritative thought and teaching of Basilides, but they
could not be anything else, for they constitute the very foun-
dation of the system. His followers undoubtedly modified
BASILIDES.
115
and enlarged some secondary points of the system ; but here
we have (and, for the first time, explicitly) the groundwork
itself brought forward as an argument against Basilides and
Basilidians.
Moreover, in one passage Hippolytus himself draws the dis-
tinction between the fundamental doctrine of Basilides himself,
and the amplifications of the system, points of minor impor-
tance introduced by his disciples or contained in works of
Basilides. Hippolytus says (ch. xxvi. p. 240.):—"All who
are in the Hebdomas having been enlightened, and the good
tidings having been preached to them, nothing remained but
to enlighten also the shapelessness amongst us.” This sentence
is broken off in the middle by Hippolytus observing, in a
lengthened parenthesis, that the Basilidians had invented end-
less Creations, Principles, and Powers, and the 365 Heavens
governed by Abrasax, whence the 365 days of the solar year
are obtained.
All this can lead the historian but to one conclusion, namely,
that our extracts refer to Basilides himself; and, consequently,
that he was acquainted with and quoted the fourth Gospel as
we do.
It may be very inconvenient to some of the admirers of
Strauss's system in Germany and England to be obliged to
admit that Basilides, before the year 120, commented on St.
John's Gospel, which was not written as the novel has it) till
about the year 150 of our era. But if there be such a thing
as historical evidence, it is here before us; and I cannot
help thinking that men like Baur and Zeller will come to the
same conclusion. One of my reviewers, and a very kind and
philosophical one, asks me what interest I attach to this ques-
tion? I answer: first of all, that of historical truth and re-
spect for evidence. But I hope he will allow me to add, that
I should be sorry not to see him coming also to the conclusion,
that St. John's Gospel is not a fiction, but the true account
of Christ's beloved disciple, and that if it be not, there would
be no historical Christ, and consequently no Christian Church,
that is to say, no social Christianity. It is a point not to be
taken up lightly.
I 2
116
THE THIRD GENERATION.
2. The Speculative System of Basilides.
Basilides, then, being neither a heathen, nor a demoniac, nor
a myth, but a real individual, and a Christian of ethical earnest-
ness my readers will, perhaps, like to have an idea of his meta-
physical system, with particular reference to the information
derived from Hippolytus. Instead of giving in this place a
translation of the extracts made by Hippolytus, which are
printed in the first volume of the “ Analecta," I think it
will be better to direct attention to the answers which
those fragments furnish if we question them in our present
philosophical language, respecting the eternal problems of all
thinking ages. They will be found of interest, I trust, not
only for the philosophy of primitive Christianity, but also for
that of the universal history of mankind.
We must begin by avowing that we had previously known very
little as to what Basilides really thought, and that most of the
charges against him now turn out to be the effect of party spirit
and ignorance. He never wrote a false Gospel; the “Evangelion'
he composed, in twenty-four books, was in the form of a speculative
commentary, his own theosophic exposition. Hippolytus says,
that he meant by “ Evangelion" the gradual manifestation of the
Divine principle of life among the Æons and in the universe.
As regards Christian doctrine destined for the use of mankind,
he believed that God created the world and continued to
be its supreme ruler, the destinies of man being the decrees
of an eternally good Providence. He believed that Jesus was
the Christ and the incarnate manifestation of the Eternal Word,
although he seems not to have thought that St. Luke's ac-
count of the Incarnation implied a preternatural procreation.
He believed the soul to be immortal, although he did not un-
derstand the words of Christ in their literal sense as to the
resurrection of the body. All this agrees perfectly with what
we know respecting his practical Christianity. As to his dis-
ciples, they had no scruple about buying and eating meat
offered to idols, but they abhorred heathen worship and all acts
of idolatry.
SPECULATIVE SYSTEM OF BASILIDES.
117
Basilides attempted to systematize the Prologue, and thereby
fell into the error of hypostatizing psychological thought and
treating logical abstractions as Divine history. Hippolytus has
ingeniously pointed out that some of his fictions are mere
hypostatized Aristotelian terms. In the same manner, Christian
ideas and facts are mixed up in this system with Oriental or
individual imaginations, and with the weakest portion of antique
science, natural philosophy. Thus the whole speculation is
absorbed into a mythological process. This process, however,
starts from a very profound idea. It exhibits the eternal work
of creation as a process of the Divine mind, whose reflex is the
human mind. And in this system of evolution there appears
a nucleus of deeply Christian thought, and a sound basis of
Christian philosophy, in many respects superior to the Jewish
and Judaical Gnosticism which preceded it and even to the
later Catholic scholasticism. Basilides came to a breach with
the history of the world in breaking with the Old Testament,
but he extended the views of Christian philosophers for ever
beyond the pale of Judaism and Semitism.
Christ is, in the history of mankind, not only the centre of
the intellectual history of mankind, but also the author of a
new view of its philosophy, and St. John is the.principal prophet
of His Divine philosophy of Man. But Basilides was the
first historical individual who, as a philosopher, endeavoured
to apply Christ's view of the destinies of humanity and of the
connexion between God and man to the general spiritual
history of Man. We learn from the quotations in Hip-
polytus (vii. 25. p. 238.) that he considered the history of
mankind as one great manifestation of the progressive Divine
principle, but distinguished in it three epochs: the age before
the Law, the age of the Jewish dispensation, and the Christian
age, then only just commenced. As to the Law, he taught
with St. Paul, that it impressed mankind with the idea of
sin, but that it was not the expression of God's own nature.
God Himself, His inmost Being and Substance, were only
manifested in Christ, not as the continuation of Judaism, but
as a new principle, Judaism having by no means been the
manifestation of the First Cause of the universe.
I 3
1-18
THE THIRD GENERATION.
To understand the fundamental view of Basilides as to the
three ages of the world, we must enter into the elements of his
metaphysical system.
All evolution (he taught) commenced by the working of the
ineffable, absolute, Divine mind upon matter. His eternal
thought is the origin of all created things. The first creation
was merely intellectual. The Powers (Dynameis) proceeding
from him were, according to Irenæus *, Spirit (Nus), from
whom sprung Reason (Logos), and from Reason, Thought
(Phronesis), from whom came both Wisdom and Power (Sophia
and Dynamis). From these, according to Irenæus, came the
first (highest) angels, and they began to create the universe,
the first Heaven; and thus came forth, altogether, 365 series
of angels, creating a corresponding number of Heavens, be-
neath all of which is our earth, the Kosmos. All this is
merely the mythological form of psychologic speculation, based
upon the simple words of the Prologue, and coupled with the
imaginary astronomy of the ancient world.
It is stated in our extracts that the words, “Let there be
light,” produced the germ or seed of the world, “ which," adds
Basilides, “ is the light that cometh into the world” (John, i.).
The beauty of Divine goodness attracts the element of life in
matter: this Divine element Basilides calls the Sonship. There
are three classes of Sonship. The most refined element flies
by its own nature up to the ineffable Father: the second Son-
ship uses the Holy Spirit as a wing, but rises by its assistance
to the paternal glory, from whence the Holy Spirit, being
repulsed by the Ineffable (and attracted by matter), sinks into
an intermediate state, below the Ineffable (purely intellectual),
but still above this earth (the mere psychical, or animal). The
essence of the life of this earth is concentrated in the Demi-
urgos, or Spirit of the material World, whose Son (conscious
realization) is much more elevated than himself.
terial world, in its brute resistance, in its blind hostility, to the
Divine formative and limiting power, is the evil principle.
This ma-
* I. 23. Compare Clem. Strom. iv. 539., Theodoret. Hæret. i. 4., Epiphan.
Hæres. xxiv. I.
SPECULATIVE SYSTEM OF BASILIDES.
119
This was the ruling idea in the first as to those three ages of
the world. The Prince of this World was blind, and had made
it in perfect ignorance of the higher purposes it was to subserve.
But his Son, whom he placed at his right hand,--the conscious,
intellectual principle of the material world, the natural principle,
—was capable of manifestation to the human mind. It was
he who spoke to Moses, distinctly stating (Exodus, iii. 6.)
that the name of the real God had not been revealed to the
Fathers. The Demiurgos, or Prince of this World, was the
author of the Law; it was his Son who spoke by the prophets
who preceded Christ, both among the Jews and Gentiles. This
Son was infinitely higher and greater than that of the un-
conscious creation, and was the real moving principle of that
period (pp. 235, 236.); but far from being the expression of
the true God - the first cause of all creation - Divine Provi-
dence. It is the psychical, not the spiritual, principle which
manifests itself in the second age, as it was the purely ma-
terial one which predominated in the first. It follows from
this exposition, that Basilides understood the biblical account
of the Fall of our first parents as not belonging to the ter-
restrial history of the soul and to the real existence of man.
Jesus of Nazareth opened the third age. He was naturally
procreated by Joseph, like any other man; but God's own
substance was mixed up with his soul in the act of generation.
Such is evidently the meaning of Basilides, although Jacobi
asserts that our extracts are a refutation of the accusation of
Epiphanius on this point. Basilides, in quoting the words of
the Gospel of St. Luke (p. 241.): “ The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow
thee,” interprets them as referring to the Divine Spirit passing
through the intermediate spheres, and to the Power on High.
But all this does not, by any means, exclude the paternity of
Joseph. On the contrary, it appears that this paternity was
maintained by Basilides, from what Hippolytus proceeds to say
(pp. 243. 270.): “ As to all that follows in the life of Christ,
the doctrine of Basilides is the same as we find in the Gospels."
This appears to say that, as to the first point, Basilides did not
adopt the Catholic interpretation. It was his speculation which
I 4
120
THE THIRD GENERATION.
elevated his views of Christ above that of the Ebionites, and
this speculation had a Scriptural foundation. Basilides added,
that the life of Christ was the beginning of a progressive
shaping and forming of the individual souls of believers, as
thoughts of God, out of the shapeless form of unconscious
material or psychical existence. The children of God, who,
according to St. Paul, are the first-born of creation, are
spiritually minded Christians. But St. Paul teaches, and
Basilides adopts this view in a cosmical sense, that the whole
creation is groaning after redemption. This is the process,
according to Basilides, not only of history, but of the whole
creation itself. The history of mankind is the type of the
evolution of creation.
At the bottom of tliis whole process lies the unfathomable
Providence of God, which can never commit any injustice,
however appearances may be against this assumption. God is
essentially good and just. Bodily suffering is punishment, even
to the holy; but the consciousness of virtue and of the Divine
cause of the Spirit compensates them for the pain, and makes
it scarcely perceptible. By a similar compensation, the lower
creation, not yet ripe for redemption, is kept in absolute igno-
rance of the higher; for otherwise it would not only be tortured
without hope, but would perish. For what exists perishes by
attempting to overstep the bounds of its existence.
In calling all bodily suffering a punishment for sin, Basilides,
not guided by a strict philosophical method, oversteps the
boundaries of speculation, and, at the same time, obscures the
truth of his idea by a wrong conception of the tragedy of
human history.
We must not, however, forget that Basilides is not only the
first of all Christians, but also of all philosophers, who viewed
the history of mankind in the light of a progressive evolution,
and attempted to understand it as being founded upon the
eternal laws of Divine development.
There are many very deep truths involved in the mythological
process of the evolution of the Powers (the “ Potenzen ” of
Schelling), the whole extent of which we learn, for the first
time, from Hippolytus. Such appears to me to be the idea
BASILIDES, PHILOSOPHY AND CHURCH.
121
that the philosophical expression of the Sonship is the Divine
conscious principle embodied in matter. According to Basi-
lides, this principle is animated by the individual life of the
soul, and thus benefited by it, but it also benefits the soul,
because the soul receives by the organic life a greater power
of action upon the outer world.
Those who desire to enter more deeply into the decipher-
ing of this hieroglyphic may do so for themselves by study-
ing the text, now rescued from oblivion and rendered more
intelligible in our “ Analecta." But, I think, we have said
enough, following Neander, and still more the new and genuine
materials preserved by the “Refutation” of Hippolytus, in
order to regain for the history of Christianity and of the
human mind, a real, eminent man, an active spirit in the age
which succeeded that of St. John, and the first who applied
thought systematically to the historical revelation centring in
Christ.
A breach began to show itself in this age between Philo-
sophy and Church. Both were one-sided, and bore in them-
selves the germ of death. Philosopliy did not sufficiently respect
the ethical and practical element of Christianity, nor the Church
the claims of thought and speculation.
What was worse,
neither respected reality and its laws: they made cheap of the
laws of creation, as manifested in the universe and in man, and
slighted and violated the laws of a historical interpretation of the
Bible. As to this interpretation, Gnosticism foisted its specu-
lative assumptions upon the simple words of Scripture and of
the Gospel and Epistles, whereas the Church showed a leaning
to relapse into Judaism by explaining spiritual and intellectual
passages
according to the letter, that letter being often arbitrarily
and falsely interpreted. This Judaism soon made itself per-
ceptible in the constitution as well as in the worship, and the
breach alluded to widened in the next age, in spite of serious
efforts of eminent men to repair it.
What saved Christianity and the world was the practical ethic
and public life developed by the free congregations of the
believers. The revolting persecutions of imperial despotism
and the odious yexations of the spy system gave publicity
122
THE THIRD GENERATION.
to those elements of life, and heightened their effect upon
mankind.
Paganism had entered, at the close of this period, upon a
new fashion. Eclecticism in religion succeeded eclecticism in
philosophy. Foreign worships were sought after more greedily
than before. Hadrian made Egyptian mysteries fashionable
together with Egyptian art, laughing himself with his com-
panions at all religions and their priests and divinities. But
while the philosophical and religious mind of the Greek and
Roman world in the higher classes continued to ignore or scorn
Christianity, men were driven, by an inward impulse, to a more
serious consideration of the very problems which Christianity
solved. This showed itself already in the next age.
THE
FOURTH GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF VALENTINUS AND MARCION, AND THE AUTHOR
OF THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS,
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA AND JUSTIN MARTYR.
FROM THE YEAR 129 TO THE YEAR 162.
(XIIIth year of HADRIAN to IInd of MARCUS AURELIUS.)
HYGINUS. PIUS. ANICETUS.
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
130.
XV.
II.
129. HADRIAN. XIII. Hyginus (129—132) succeeds Telesphorus
XIV., Valentinus and Cerdo live at Rome.
131.
Time of organization as to degrees of clerical offices.
132.
XVI. Ælia Capitolina colonized. Marcion comes to Rome, probably
during the vacation of the Roman See.
133.
XVII. Pius (133—150) Bishop of Rome. Hadrian at Alexandria.
134-137. XVIII—XXI. Marcion in the course of these four years quarrels with and
(Jewish war.)
finally separates from the Church of Rome, preaches Cer-
(Bar-kochba sub- donism, and begins to be considered as a heresiarch. His first
dued; Jerusalem work, a letter, considered Catholic. The Epistle to Diognetus,
demolished.)
end of 135, or beginning of 136.
138.
XXII. Hadrian adopts T. Aurelius Antoninus, who adopts L. Com-
modus Verus and M. Annius Verus (Marcus Aurelius).
ANTON. Pius. 1. Hadrian dies 10th July at Baiæ, and is succeeded by T. Aur.
Anton. Pius. Popular tumults against the Christians in the
beginning of the reign, in consequence of famine and other
public calamities. Edict and severe measures in the pro-
vinces against the Christians.
139.
Justin presents his “Greater Apology" in the earlier part of
(M. Aurelius Cæsar, this year: the "Lesser Apology” soon afterwards.
8 years old.) The time of the “ Shepherd," written by Hermas, the brother
of Bishop Pius.
Time of Heracleon's Commentary upon St. John's Gospel.
141-150.
Time of further organization of the hierarchy and of ecclesi-
astical law. Easter fixed on Sunday, in the West.
151.
XIV. Anicetus (151–162) Bishop of Rome.
Time of gradual settlement of the canonical books of N. T.
Greek text of Matthew definitively constituted.
152-156. XV-XIX. Polycarp comes to Rome.
The members of the clergy cease to wear long hair.
Eleutherus, Deacon under Anicetus.
157.
XX. First Montanistic movements.
Marcellina forms a party at Rome about this time.
158.
XVI, Earliest possible time for the book of Celsus against Chris-
tianity, and of Melito's work on the celebration of Easter:
disputes upon the subject at Laodicea.
161.
XXIV. M. Antoninus Pius dies.
M. AUR. PH.
162,
II. Anicetus * in the twelfth year of his pontificate.
140.
IV-XIII.
I.
125
INTRODUCTION.
The Framework and general internal Elements of the Age: the
Ebionites and Nazarenes and the Clementine Fictions.
1. Framework and Elements.
The fourth age exhibits a wide development of Christianity,
both as an association and as a system of worship and social
ethics. The Christians felt themselves more and more a uni-
versal society of mankind, irrespective of nationality. They
were spread even beyond the limits of the Roman Empire, over
the whole earth, and the Gentile element took more decidedly
the lead when the cruelties of Barkochba towards the Christians,
and the final destruction of Jerusalem after this last Jewish
insurrection, had made the breach between Judaism and Chris-
tianity final. Christian worship having already, in the pre-
ceding generation, obtained its distinctive character by the
sacrifice of praise becoming its centre, and by the connexion of
this act with the meal of thanksgiving, it received in this age
its definitive type, distinct from all temple worship and Levi-
tical atonement.
We find, in this pregnant period, the two antagonistic powers
of Gnosticism and Catholicism strongly developed. The first
is represented by the two most gifted individuals of the age -
Valentinus and Marcion, who, though united in one cause,
were individually as different to each other as they were na-
tionally. Valentinus brought Christian philosophy to Rome,
where Marcion also arrived, about the same time, as a young
man. The system of Valentinus, on the whole, stands on the
same basis as that of Basilides; indeed, as the extracts in
Hippolytus” prove, the two systems can only be understood
as a development of the same basis of Menander, the historical
founder of speculative Simonism at the Gnostic school of
Antioch. But although likewise a native of Egypt, from the
126
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
!
Arsenoïte nome, or the Fayoom, Valentinus is much more
Hellenic and Occidental, and his speculation is divested of the
inherent fatalism of the Basilidian; it is more purely Platonic,
and not only more ethical, but also more positively Christian.
For it is Valentinus who made the Redemption the centre of a
grand view of universal history and of individual Christianity.
Marcion of Sinope in Pontus is the man of energetic action;
whereas Valentinus has more the contemplative mind of the
schoolman.
Rome became the residence of these two great men; and
their Catholic cotemporaries, Polycarp and Justin Martyr,
were also intimately connected with the metropolis of the
world. The Christian congregation there was a highly influ-
ential one, although the great Roman families kept aloof.
Having occupied already, since the time of Clemens, an eminent
place in the thinking world from the political importance of the
metropolis, Christian Rome became, from the first year of
Hyginus with which our age commences, also the centre of
Christian philosophy and doctrine. As soon as they wished to
make these speculations act upon practical Christianity, they
went to the metropolis to establish their influence.
After the death of Hadrian (July, 138) a new line of policy
towards Christianity began, and Justin presented his “ Apology"
in the first year of the reign of Antoninus Pius, the seventh year
of Bishop Pius, who succeeded Hyginus in 132 or 133, and
died after a pontificate of eighteen years in 150, the twelfth
year of the Elder Antoninus. During his pontificate, and
probably in 139, Hermas, the brother of Pius, wrote the Chris-
tian novel of ancient Christianity, the “Shepherd.” In the
second or third year of Anicetus, the successor of Pius, Polycarp
of Smyrna came to Rome. Anicetus governed the Church of
Rome from the fourteenth year of Antoninus Pius to the se-
cond year of Marcus Aurelius (151—162), and with his death
this generation closes.
Such is the outward framework of our generation. Great
were the woes, and noble were the struggles, of the Christians
of this age: great also were the efforts of Christian minds to
connect thought and learning with faith, to discover the sense
EBIONITES AND NAZARENES.
127
of Scripture, and understand the words of Christ and the teach-
ing of the Apostles, by observation of man and the study of
his history. The idea of a Christian literature began in this
period. The means at their disposal for attaining these ends
were certainly inadequate. But the Christians entered cou-
rageously both into the domain of speculation and history,
from feeling the necessity of giving to the rising generation
safe and spiritual books, and of defending Christianity by
apologetic expositions of the faith and life of believers, addressed
to the emperors or the leading men about them.
But the struggle with Roman intolerance and Stoical self-
sufficiency was not the severest they had to sustain. Other
forces were at work against them, and deeper systems stirred
up the religious and thoughtful mind of the times. It was, in
particular, the old Oriental dualism, that child both of a deep
sense of the curse of sin and of the wickedness and oppression
of the ruling powers on earth, which now tried to establish
itself as a Christian element.
the 66
2. The Ebionites and Nazarenes, and the Clementine Fictions.
In addition to the anti-Christian element in speculation,
which had been sown by the Gnostic school of Antioch, and
propagated by that of Alexandria, there were internal divisions
between the Jewish Christians of Palestine, Syria, and Asia
Minor, on the one side, and the Hellenic and Hellenistic
Christians in Europe, on the other. And here we encounter,
in the first place, the Judaizing Christian party, the Ebionites --
poor brethren " ---- in their most orthodox sections called
the Nazarenes.
They have produced neither a genuine author nor a genuine
work: they begin with Jewish separatism, and end with fictions.
It does not, therefore, fall within the plan of this sketch to enter
into a critical examination of their floating tenets. I shall con-
tent myself here with expressing my dissent from Neander in his
exposition of the doctrine of the Ebionites, which I consider as
one of the least successful portions of his admirable “ Church
History.” In particular, I do not discover that the question
128
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
about Christ's natural or preternatural procreation was one of
the fundamental points upon which Jewish Christians differed
among themselves. It was, on the contrary, not only an open
question among them, but did not even appear to men like
Justin Martyr a ground of separation from those who could not
find any such doctrine in St. Matthew or St. Luke. It is a
perfectly gratuitous assumption on the part of Neander, that
the admission of the paternity of Joseph implies the rejection
of Luke and the first two chapters of Matthew. The Ebionites,
I think, agreed in admitting that paternity, as well as the more
ancient portions of the “ Clementines," in which no other view is
ever contemplated: Adam alone was not generated by the seed
of man, according to a passage quoted by Neander himself.
The question at issue, on the contrary, seems to me to have
been the very primitive one: whether Christ abrogated the
Law, even for Jewish believers? The strict Ebionites, who
denied this, may perhaps have commonly understood in the
sense of Jewish legality the high and unique perfection which
they ascribe to Him, and by which He fulfilled all righteous-
Others attempted to spiritualize the Law into its Abraha-
mitic simplicity: the fiction of Adam, the first-born, as having
been the great prophet of God, Christ being the restorer of his
pure doctrine, and some dreams about angels, were the highest
flight their speculation attempted. But, whatever form it as-
sumed, this party never could contemplate Christ as the Saviour.
The idea of redemption was as foreign to them as to the Unitarians
of the eighteenth century, who could not understand that placing
redemption abstractedly in the eternal decree of God does not bring
the world nearer to God, nor Christ to them. The gulf between
God and his creation, that great stumbling-block of all Semitic
nations, prevented the Ebionites from embracing the true idea
of Christianity. As God had sent Moses, or Moses and the
prophets, so at last He sent Christ to teach mankind His Will,
by obedience to which they will be saved. With the wall of
separation between God and man, there remained also the wall
of an external Law for man. It is almost immaterial whether
this be the law of circumcision, or any other ordinance, ritual, or
work, on which the union with God, "justification," is to depend.
ness.
EBIONITES AND NAZARENES.
129
As Paul's doctrine consequently was unpalatable to all the
Ebionites, and he himself an object of detestation to many,
they magnified Peter, only regretting his weakness in not
having thrown off the man of Tarsus.
When this party with its Semitic Gospel and worship ex-
tended itself beyond Palestine, it began to argue in Hellenistic
Greek, abominating alike St. Paul and Alexandrian Gnosticism.
No doubt, they found many adherents among the Hellenists.
But as they had lost their historical and national footing by the
destruction of Jerusalem, so their last stronghold was demolished
by the building of Ælia Capitolina ; " a providential event," says
Sulpicius Severus, “ because almost all Christians believed in
Christ under the form of the Law."
The Jews had no independent philosophical basis for their
speculation even when they had reached the highest point of
their national existence. Their lot being cast among Hellenic
minds, they began, as they have since continued, to build up
systems upon an untenable foundation, and produced a chaos,
suspended in the lurid atmosphere of Rabbinism between the
earth of history and the heaven of dialectic speculation.
Instead of sifting facts, they involved everything in fraud --
instead of systematizing thouglit, they buried whatever they
had of it under heaps of rubbish inaccessible even to themselves,
and a nuisance to the rest of the world.
The Ebionites separated themselves from mankind in general,
professing belief in Him the central idea of whose life was
humanity. The history of the Gospel they accepted ran counter
to their prejudices, as does the subsequent history of the world.
They rejected Paul's Epistles and the Apostolic history con-
nected with them, and were the first, at the very beginning of
the present age, if not at the close of the third, to set up in
opposition to him "The Preaching of Peter" (Prædicatio Petri),
a fiction which gave them an opportunity of making Peter dispute
with Simon Magus and some other Jewish and Gentile heretics.
This book met with great sympathy, although not as much as the
more eschatological Apocalypse of Peter, which probably came
from a less polluted source. " The Preaching of Peter” was after-
wards extended into a regular novel, and a very ingenious one.
VOL. I.
K
130
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
The “ Itinerary of Peter” was perhaps the nucleus of the Cle-
mentine fictions which appeared in the course of this age,
about the middle of the second century. Clemens, the Bishop
of Rome, was chosen as the decoy-duck of the Gentiles, and
made the hero of the story, as being a supposed disciple of
Peter, whom he meets during that Apostle's travels, being him-
self in search after truth. Of course, both Clemens and Peter
are transformed into purely fictitious personages. We are
acquainted with two distinct forms of this novel, in the shape
of Homilies, the Greek text of which is preserved, and as
Recognitions, of which we have only the Latin translation, or
rather abbreviation and expurgation, by Rufinus. It is difficult
to fix the origin and centre of a lie, and impossible to discover
the history of a progressive fraud and fiction. A cautious
critic will take care, at all events, not to base any argument
upon incomplete documents.
An independent text rescued
from the Libyan desert, which combines a part of the Homilies
with a portion of the Recognitions, remains still to be published
and examined.*
* The manuscript in question is in the Catalogue of the British Museum,
Cod. 12,150, written in three columns on each page, and bears the respectable
date of A. D. 411, in which it was written at Edessa. Its title is simply
“ Clemens.” According to Dr. Boetticher's communications, the order of
the MS., written in three columns, is the following:
The pages from 1 C to 52 B contain the first book of Clemens: this is
the title in the subscription, fol. 52. This First Book corresponds
with Recognition i. i-iv. 1. down to the word denunciavimus.
What follows,
From 52 B to 56 B, is marked in the superscription the Third Book against
the Gentiles, and corresponds with the Tenth Homily in Greek.
From 56 B to 62 D is called in the superscription the Fourth Book=Homil.
xi.
From 62 B to 67 F bears the superscription, Tà Łv Tpetrólel tñs porvirns. It
comprises first=Recognit. vii. ch. i. to beginning of 37. Then follows
xilith Homily from Chap. xx, to the end. (The Metrodora of the
Greek text is constantly called, or simply inscribed, Mattudia.)
From 67 F to 71 F, “ XIV;" viz. the xiyth Homily. This closes the whole
work, for the subscription in the last page is this : “ The writing of
the Book Clemens is ended."
EBIONITES AND NAZARENES.
131
Under these circumstances, it appeared to me that I was justi-
fied in saying, in the first edition of “ Hippolytus," that the
problem was not yet ripe for solution. For this reason, neither
the solid researches of Schliemann, nor the acute speculations
of Ritschl, nor the most recent criticism of Hilgenfeld, seem to
me to have produced a satisfactory result. I am far from censur-
ing persons who have bestowed so much learning and acumen
upon a work of this character; but I enter my most solemn
protest against the attempt made by Baur and Schwegler to
subvert history by means of a novel - the canonical writings
by the Clementine fiction. Yet Schwegler particularly, in
his “Post-apostolical Age,” has made the “ Clementines” act a
conspicuous part in a romance which Baur maintains in his
comprehensive work on “ Das Cristenthum der drei ersten
Jahrhundert " which appeared at the end of 1853 and may
be considered as a compendious statement of the result of
his researches. That novel (for such it is) runs somewhat in
the following tenour.
Paul, having written his five Epistles, died, and was soon over-
powered by the Petrine party. Different diplomatic attempts
were made in the first half of the second century to bring the
From these dates I have constructed the following Table, which gives a
comparative view of the Syrian and our two texts :
Syrus.
I.
Recognitiones.
I. II. III. (IVA).
Homiliæ.
(Cf. I. II. III., probably beginning of IV.)
Hom. (IV). V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. are
therefore omitted.
X.
XI.
XII.
III.
IV.
Tripo-
litana
VII. 1-37a.
XIII. 20 to the end.
Hom. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII.
XIX. XX. are therefore wanting.
XIV.
The whole appears to me to be a text which has already past through
many changes : it may, however, be superior to the two others. We may
soon hope to see the Syriac text published and commented upon through
the exertions of the indefatigable and conscientious Rev. W. Cureton.
K 2
132
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
two parties into harmony: the Epistle to the Hebrews is
one; the Gospel of St. Luke, written to counteract the
Jewish tendency of Matthew, another; and the Acts, a third
party-work in the Pauline interest: the “Clementines” sup-
ported the opposite side. Both parties forged or adulterated
as many documents as they possibly could. We are in-
debted to one of these forgeries for the Epistles to the
Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and a part of the Epistle
to the Romans. The Gnostics, who continued what Paul
had begun, at last gained the upper hand over the Ebionite
Petrines, and it was thought expedient by the Catholics to
bring out a last concluding novel, under the venerable name of
John the son of Zebedee, who was said to have lived at
Ephesus down to the very end of the first century. This
novel appeared as the Gospel of St. John about the middle
of the second century, with a view to producing a general
union, and building up the Catholic Church by the combination
of a tame Gnosticism applied to a mythicized Christ. The
writer exhibited considerable genius in counterfeiting John
of the Apocalypse: the effect was striking. About the same
tiine, that noted emissary of the Jewish party, Hegesippus,
whom they had sent all over the world to collect materials
in their favour and compose a history of the Church in the
hierarchical Petrine sense, went so far as to represent the
Apostle St. Paul as the first of the Gnostic heretics.
* This last monstrous fable is most broadly and confidently stated, even in
Baur's work of last month, p. 77.ff. Here is the document brought forward in
its support. My readers will find in Routh's Reliquiæ, i. 219., a report of an
early Byzantine writer preserved by Photius, in which Hegesippus is stated
to have said in the fifth (last) book of his Memoirs, in reference to the words
(slightly altered) which are quoted by St. Paul (1 Cor. ii. 9.) out of an
apocryphal book of the time much valued by the Jews: "Eye hath not seen
nor ear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive the
good things which God hath prepared for the just” (instead of: the things
prepared for those who love him.) Now what are the words of
Hegesippus ? “ Those who say these things belie the divine Scriptures and
our Lord, who says, Blessed are your eyes which see, and your ears which
hear” (Matt. xiii. 16.). Here he does not blame St. Paul, who quotes that
verse differently, but those who say so. Who they are he clearly indicates
EBIONITES AND NAZARENES.
133
What would be said of such an hypothesis as that the sons
of Charlemagne, being anxious to answer the false state-
by the quotation ; namely, those Gnostics who boasted of being “the just”
and of knowing things never heard before, consequently such as were not
even said or taught by Christ. So, indeed, we find these words used in the
extracts from Theodotus made by Clemens (ch. xii.). This is a fair specimen
of the philological and historical criticism of the Tübingen school. I will add
a second: also from that same recent and comprehensive exposition of the
Tübingen system. Baur mentions (p. 69.), as one of the glaring proofs that
the first Gospel is a judaizing falsification of Christ's words (as well as Luke
an artfully arranged Gospel in the Pauline sense), the following “ fact": -
“ The Gospel called after Luke does not contain that saying about the
fulfilment of the Law, and its lasting validity (Matt. v. 18.), which is so cha-
racteristic of the Gospel of Matthew. What this Gospel says respecting the
indissolubility of even the smallest parts of the Law, Luke's Gospel says, ac-
cording to the original reading (Luke, xvi. 17.), of the words of Jesus. He
puts explicitly into the mouth of Jesus the assertion, that the Mosaic Law has
already come to its end with the preaching of John the Baptist, and that since,
in opposition to the Law, the announcement of the kingdom of God has begun
(ver. 16.).” In a note on these words, Baur says: “I adhere, with Hilgen-
feld, to the reading των λόγων μου” (instead of του νόμου). My readers will
find no trace of that " original reading," either in Lachmann's great edition,
or in Tischendorf, or elsewhere. All the manuscripts, versions, and quota-
tions, have the same text as in St. Matthew : “not a tittle of the Law.”
But Anger gives the clue to the understanding of the oracle. Tertul-
lian (Adv. Marcion, iv. 33.) says, evidently as part of his own argumen-
tation, not as a quotation from Marcion : “ Transeat igitur cælum et terra
citius, sicut et lex et prophetæ, quam unus apex verborum Domini.” Thus
Ritschl, himself once Baur's disciple, (Die Altkath. Kirche, p. 42.) interprets
the passage, whereas Hahn thought Tertullian alluded to a reading of
Marcion's, in the passage alluded to: ως και ο νόμος και οι προφήται. There
is evidently no quotation : had Marcion, however, thus quoted the Gospel
of St. Luke, it would clearly be one of his numberless systematic perversions
of the traditional text; for that passage must have been an eyesore to him.
I challenge any classical English scholar to name one single specimen of
fair and critical interpretation by that school in any one of the texts which
can be questioned. The wbole novel is built upon such misinterpre-
tations and conjectures, as might be called ingenious if they were not op-
posed by positive realities, philological or historical or both. The ignoring of
such dictatorial assertions, such unwarrantable suspicions thrown out against
the most simple-minded men and writers (as has been done by many scholars
who could not persuade themselves that German professors should so entirely
forget common sense and classical criticism), is construed by these persons
into acquiescence, or taken as a confession of inability to answer the late
K 3
134
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
ments contained in the “Gesta Francorum" about their great
father, employed some ready penman to write under the
name of Eginhard a Life of the Emperor, that is to say, the
history of the mythicized Charlemagne, to please both critics
and believers ? And yet the only difference between the auda-
city of palming off such a fiction and the Tübingen novel would
be this, that the interval between Eginhard and the. “ Gesta
Francorum” is considerably greater than that between John
and his supposed counterfeit: a circumstance which alters
nothing as to the main point at issue.
The Ebionite records are fictitious and fraudulent throughout.
It is true that the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles are
also dressed up in the form of fiction. But then they possess
a nucleus of real life, and portray the usages and customs of
the Christian congregations; whereas the Clementines are based
throughout upon wilful fraud, like a hundred other Jewish
impostures, from Aristobulus down to the book of Sohar.
profound researches (which are always those of the same school, one en-
dorsing the other), or it is set down as wilful ignorance. In saying this, with
a conscientious conviction, and after a patient perusal of their principal
compositions, I fulfil a more agreeable duty in adding, as to the recent
work of Baur, that it is written, as to religion in general, in a highly
ethica spirit, and that it is full of ingenious philosophical remarks.
VALENTINUS.
135
I.
VALENTINUS.
VALENTINUS came to Rome during the pontificate of Hyginus
(129—132), and there formed a school which endeavoured to
remain in communion with the Roman Church. He left behind
him the reputation of a man of the highest genius, and not a
whisper was ever heard against his Christian character. Jerome
speaks of him with great respect. His influence was almost as
lasting in the West as in the East. The work of Hippolytus
has added considerably to our knowledge of his speculative
system. This was hitherto principally based upon the
account given by Irenæus, and the uncritical and confused
exposition of Epiphanius. That purest mine of Valentinian
speculation, the extracts made from Valentinian text-books
by Clemens of Alexandria, has hitherto been little explored
on account of the obscurity with which it is surrounded.
In spite of these difficulties, some eminent German philosophers
and historians have disinterred the treasure of thought hidden
in their mystical terminologies and left untouched by the earliest
historians of Christianity.
Neander was the first to restore that system to historical life,
and the speculative genius of Baur has done much towards bring-
ing the ideas of Valentinus into closer connexion with those of
the present day. Rossel, a disciple and friend of Neander, who
died young, has left behind him what may be called a living
reproduction of that wonderful combination of fancy and phi-
losophy. His picture of the system is a masterpiece of com-
position. As the small volume which contains it * is little
* Herrmann Rossel, Theologische Schriften : eingeführt von A. Neander.
Berlin, 1847. 2 vols.' The picture in question is found in vol. ii, pp. 250
-264.
K 4
136
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
once
known to the literary world, I think it will be a real service to
my readers to make this portrait of the Valentinian system, as
far as it can be gathered from Clemens, Irenæus, and Epi-
phanius, the basis of what may now be considered as the phi-
losophical Christianity of Valentinus himself and of the strictest
members of his school. Although I am far from asserting that
Hippolytus gives us the very words of Valentinus when quoting
his system, he enables us nevertheless in various places to dis-
tinguish, better than we could before, the master's original
conceptions and the developments or caricatures added by his
followers. When these differ, for instance, in the genealogy
of the Æons, we may be sure that the master had said nothing
positive about them.
I have therefore to call the attention of my readers parti-
cularly to those points, and in general to the essential
differences between the accounts hitherto known and that of
Hippolytus. They will thus be enabled to
see at
what we owe to Hippolytus, and, instead of being bewildered
by the dazzling fictions of his school, to seize the funda-
mental ideas, which become perfectly transparent as soon as the
key is found. As to the details, I must refer the learned
reader to the text of Valentinus contained in the extracts of
Hippolytus, and to the text-book of Theodotus and the oldest
and strictest Valentinians, preserved by Clemens. I give
them both in the “ Analecta :" the first immediately after
the extracts from Basilides, and the other as part of the
“Hypotyposes” of Clemens of Alexandria. If these are presented
here for the first time in a readable form, the world is indebted
for it in a great measure to the assistance I have received
in this arduous undertaking from Dr. Jacob Bernays. Flis
classical translation is the best commentary upon them, and
his second critical epistle explains some of the most difficult
passages.
But the leading ideas of Valentinus may easily be under-
stood by any Christian who has ever connected a serious
thought with the most intellectual portions of the New
Testament, especially with the Prologue of St. John's Gospel,
VALENTINUS.
137
and with St. Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, and
Philippians. As to St. John, Valentinus has. dramatized the
Divine Epos of the Logos. As to St. Paul, he has first de-
veloped into a speculative system, in which much is borrowed
from the Platonic "Timæus," those instructive rather than syste-
matic sayings of the Apostle of the Gentiles respecting Christ
and the Church. He has, besides, brought prominently for-
ward and systematized the speculative meaning of those
hypostatizing expressions of Jewish tradition for the elements of
the invisible world, to which St. Paul occasionally refers as the
Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, and Powers (Col. i. 16.,
Eph. i. 21.). Finally, he has attached to his view of the ideal
world and the ideal essences of God's substance the word Æon
or Æons, which, in the New Testament (as it did originally in
Hebrew), signifies world and worlds. Thus the essential part
of his system is a spiritual cosmogony, a Christian parallel to
the theogony of Hesiod; one, therefore, the key to which,
in so far as it is not altogether fanciful in its details, every
thinking mind possesses in itself — for it is the drama of the
human mind which is acted in the world of spirits.
God in Himself is the eternal Thought of His own Essence,
which is the eternal cause and essence of the Creation : between
this eternal Thought and the manifestation in the material
world, we must place a world of ideas. The soul becomes
aware of the reality of this ideal world as soon as it perceives
that the understanding of the things around it proceeds by
the formation of notions (Begriffe), and the scale of species and
kinds, and a chain of cause and effect, and that this process im-
plies, as it were, a genealogy of ideas which at last rise up to
that of the Essence and of the Deity. Such a genealogy Va-
lentinus presents to us in his own way, which is, however, a
speculatively systematized expression of deep speculative truths
delivered in Scripture, as it were, occasionally and historically.
The highest sphere of manifestation is the following.
The Ineffable Father and the six principles of Life, in three
pairs (Syzygies): three male (formative), and three female (sub-
stantial).
138
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
The Abyss in Silence.
1
Truth.
Mind
the Only-born
(Nous)
Word
(Logos)
(Aletheia)
1
Life
(Zoe)
Man
(Anthropos)
Church
(Ekklesia).
As the Father is never called an Æon, and has no female
element combined with Him to form a Syzygia, this table can
never be made into an Ogdoad or circle of Eight: it is, on the
contrary, in the mind of Valentinus (as in that of Basilides) the
ineffable Hebdomad, or the primordial Seven of the Divine
evolution. Although we do not find it so called here, still the
Hebdomad is mentioned, in opposition to the Ogdoad, in the
sphere of the material world. Sophia is, with the three pairs of
Æons, the creative Divine source of the sensual and material
world, whose own principle, the Demiurg, serves, without
knowing it, her will, and fulfils the eternal decree of the
Supreme God, of whose existence he was unaware.
With this sacred number, even, Valentinus must have directly
connected the Sophia, or the Upper (heavenly) Wisdom, the
youngest of all Æons. We are expressly told, that the Nether
Wisdom forms the Ogdoad in her sphere. Valentinus says, in
our extracts (ch. 34. p. 87.): “That which was made after the
image of that higher and primitive world of eternal ideas.”
(Valentinus in Hippolytus, Refut. vi. ch. 33. p. 87.)
As to the ten and twelve Æons, whose procreation was the
sacrifice of praise made by the first and second, or by the second
and third, pair of the primitive Æons, they appear to me only
stopgaps, inserted, for one bad reason or another, either as an
astrological dream or a psychological fancy, to complete the
number of thirty Æons. There being only twenty-eight
Æons after all (6+10+12), some persons, most unphiloso-
phically, have added Bythos and Sige to make up the requi-
VALENTINUS.
139
site number of thirty. We now learn from Hippolytus that
others, in order to avoid this absurdity, added Christ and the
Holy Ghost in order to make up the thirty. All this proves
that this development could never have formed part of the
system of Valentinus himself. Indeed, the insignificant and
incoherent names of these ten and twelve Æons betray them
to be a later interpolation. But there is one direct and explicit
proof of their spurious origin. The male partner of Sophia is
called Monogenes, the Only-begotten, which is, according to all
reason and authority, the exclusive epithet of the Nûs, God's
first-born principle of all creation.
No one can avoid seeing, what indeed Theodotus expressly
states in the explanation of St. John, i. (in Clemens's “Hypoty-
poses," ch. i.), that the Word and the Life (Logos and Zoë) are
taken from the Prologue, and the Nûs (or Divine Reason)
inserted as a specific representative of the highest sphere of
manifestation, God's self-manifestation :
GOD.
Absolute Being
MIND.
The Eternal Thought :
the Only-begotten.
TRUTH.
The Consciousness
of both.
For the Logos thus remains the demiurgic sphere, or the finite,
mundane evolution in its most ideal form:
GOD.
The uncreated Creator.
THE WORD.
The idea of God's
finite manifestation.
LIFE.
The principle of
finite existence.
Then follows the third, or historical sphere, in its ideal factors :
GOD.
MAN.
(Individual.)
CHURCH.
(Humanity.)
Thus the bridge was formed from God to reality. From
ideal man and ideal humanity to man and mankind on earth,
the way is paved by God concentrating all in Wisdom. This
Sophia is the old Semitic expression for God's creative working
(Proverbs, vii.): but she is made a most essential and indispens-
140
TIIE FOURTH GENERATION.
able part of the great drama of the world's history which now
commences. The real substance of Sophía is, as we shall see,
the spiritual Psyche, that Psyche whose history is popularly told
in the Thessalian myth of Apuleius.
Sophia, then, as the Divine idea of the human soul, possesses
in herself the inherent power of not stopping at any created
thing, not even the highest Æon (idea or quality of God), but of
penetrating into God's own nature and eternal decrees. With
that Divine power within her she is liable to the temptation of
trying to accomplish what is impossible, the reproduction of
that reality which it is only given to her to approach finitely
by connecting finite reality with infinite thought. Thus, by
attempting to overstep the limits of the finite, she fails, and,
instead of bringing forth a thought of eternal reality, produces
an abortion, the place of which is not the Fulness, but its
opposite, the Emptiness (Kenôma). Sophia herself loses her
place in the blessed choir of the Eternities. She is driven into
despair, when God manifests His eternal thought of redemption.
In order to comfort the Sophia and to shape and fashion her
abortive produce, He permits his Only-begotten Mind to
produce with his partner Truth two Æons :
Christ, the male element; and
The Holy Ghost, the female element.
He causes, moreover, the production of the Æon of Limi-
tation (Horos), who is the mediator between the finite and the
infinite world. Horos brings the bewildered Sophia to her
senses; and Christ with the Holy Spirit shapes and fashions
the Nether Sophia, so that she is not inferior to any one of the
blessed choir of the Æons.
The fallen Sophia remains in the nether world, and Christ
and the Holy Ghost return to the choir of the Æons. But
now the Æons, being in blessed harmony, out of thankfulness
produce a common fruit, which is therefore so called (Karpos) ;
also the Saviour (Soter); and, according to Hippolytus, Christ
Jesus, the great High-priest. He appears to the Nether Sophia,
VALENTINUS.
141
and comforts her for the loss of Christ and the Holy Ghost;
and she, being absorbed in the love of his Divine mildness and
meekness, becomes his spouse.
He cannot, however, and must not, remove altogether the
sufferings which she endures. These were four:-
Fear- Affliction- Anguish-Supplication. Christ separated
these elements from each other and from Sophia, and made
them the elements, not only of the visible world which was to
be created, as well as of that of the demons connected with
it, but also of the regeneration and rehabilitation of Sophia
herself. The first three passions become the elements of the
world.
The fear of Sophia becomes the psychical or sensual element;
its image and power is the Demiurg, Creator and Lord of this
world: under him are the psychical, sensual(animal) souls of men.
The affliction of Sophia becomes the hylic (inaterial) element,
the ruling power over which is the Devil: under him are
placed the souls of the wicked.
The anguish of Sophia becomes the element of the demons,
whose image is Beelzebul.
So there remained only the fourth element, which was the
supplication and prayer of Sophia. This the Saviour made
“the way to repentance.” The souls which thus possess, in the
consciousness of their sins, the power of turning towards God
in faith and prayer, are the spiritual souls, the only souls which
are in themselves immortal: the psychical may, however, ac-
quire eternal life, if they develop the germ that is in them: the
wicked perish all together. Christians are the spiritual element
of mankind; Jews, the psychical; idolators, the hylic or material.
The Demiurg, or God of the psychical element (and of the
Jews), reigned a long time : it was he who spoke by the pro-
plets. These, however, often followed the inspiration of Sophia,
who influenced the Demiurg without his perceiving it, as he
had no idea of the existence of the power above him.
When the appointed time came that the veil was to be re-
moved from the children of the Psychical Principle, Jesus was
born of the Virgin Mary, with the peculiar influence of the
142
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
Holy Spirit upon the substance of his being. Thus Jesus
became the heavenly Logos for the Ogdoad of the lower world,
of which the Nether Sophia was the Divine principle.
By Jesus and his Church the pneumatic, restoring principle
became operative among the children of men. But the eternal
decree of God also operates upon the Hebdomad, or the seven
powers of the material world. The Demiurg at length under-
stands that there is a God above him, and that he is doing his
work without knowing it.
Thus the work of universal redemption is going on to the
ever-increasing glory of the ineffable and unfathomable Father,
and the ever-increasing blessedness of the souls.
1
This is the sketch of the leading ideas of Valentinus, ac-
cording to the new texts extracted by Hippolytus.
I now proceed to give Rossel's picture of the Valentinian
system, with my own notes, referring to these extracts.
THE SYSTEM OF VALEYTINUS.
143
The System of Valentinus, the Gnostic. A Picture.
Before all beginning, there throned above in unseen, un-
speakable heights, the original Essence, the Forefather, Bythos;
that is, the Divine Abyss, never growing old, ever youthful,
exalted above all being. Round about him was great Stillness
and deep Silence. And the Silence that surrounded him
(Sigê) was yoked to him in an equally everlasting union as
his Ennoia, the thought of himself, by which, while enjoying
his own Godhead, he rests within himself.* This Sigé is also
called Charis (that is, Grace), inasmuch as she is the Mother of
all created being, the dispenser of Divine life. For after that
the Unfathomable had for endless ages dwelt by himself, in
his own Sigê, the thought arose within him of making being
spring out of himself, and of pouring forth the fulness of his
own boundless and unfathomable Essence by fashioning it into
limited, restricted life.t Therefore, with his spouse he begat
Nús, the Mind and the source of all Reason, the Only-
begotten, the Father of all things. This Monogenes, being
in all points like unto him that begat him, is alone able to com-
prehend his father's Boundlessness; and as he thus knows
truth and possesses it as his own, there is joined to him
Aletheia (Truth) as his female companion, who, together with
him, sprung from the Divine Abyss. $ In him alone Divine
* According to Hippolytus (vi. 29. 30.), the strict Valentinians did not
allow that Sigê was to be reckoned as Syzygos, but they maintained that
Bythos alone procreated the Æons. And this appears to have been the
doctrine of Valentinus.
† “There was nothing at all procreated, but the unprocreated Father
alone was, having no space, no time, no counsellor, no substance which can
be imagined in any way; but he was alone, solitary (as they say), and re-
posing in himself alone. But having the generating power, he bethought
himself of procreating and bringing forth the most beautiful and most per-
fect which he had in himself. For he was wholly love, but love is not love
if there be not that which is beloved.” (Ch. 29.)
I “He therefore Himself, the Father, brought forth and procreated
Understanding and Truth; and this Dyas became the principle, and the
beginning and mother, of all the Æons in the Plerôma (Fulness).”
144
TIIE FOURTA GENERATION.
essence and knowledge of God is given to all those who
have come into being after him, inasmuch as they are like-
nesses of himself, even as he is the image of the Highest.
Now, as the Incomprehensibleness of God becomes compre-
hensible in him, and as this is his Essence to be the limiting
forin of the boundless, in him alone all other being will be
found to exist, and he alone is the principle and original beget-
ting form of everything that has life. But since the Hidden
One, He that is without beginning, was without him and wrapt
up in his Silence alone, self-sufficient and happy in the incompre-
hensibility of his Essence, manifest only to itself, the whole
fulness of the abyss is not poured out in Monogenes: the
Inexhaustible remains unexhausted, the undermost depth is
covered by Silence.
Now, Bythos and Sige, Nûs and Aletheia, these are the
first and original Tetrad of Divine Æons (Eternities), the under-
most root of the Universe. For Mind came to see that he was
brought forth by Bythos as the first-fruits of other Essences,
and with his spouse begat Logos and Zoë (Word and Life): in
Logos the fructifying Understanding came to be the manifested,
begotten Word, in Zoë Truth gained living essence; so that
stability and living power in all that were born after, derive their
origin from these two, and they are called their originating and
fashioning power. Logos, again, with his Zoë begat Anthropos
and Ecclesia (Man and Congregation, Church); and thus the first
original Ogdoad is closed, the source and origin of the whole
world of Spirits that sprung from her. For this last Tetrad,
being created to the praise of the Highest, desired to honour the
Father with their own power, and so they in pairs brought forth
the Decad and Dodecad of the after-burn Æons.
The ten
* It follows from Hippolytus (c. 30, 31.) that, there existed the most
different opinions among the disciples about the pairs which procreated these
ten and twelve Æons. Valentinus himself, consequently, cannot have treated
this point very seriously. It results, besides, from these extracts, that the
bringing forth of these Æons, as far as the first and second pairs, Nûs and
Aletheia, Logos and Zoë, were concerned, presupposes, as already existing,
that succession of the first three pairs of Æons, from Nûs to Anthropos;
or, in other words, that these three evolutions were assumed by Valentinus
to be connected with each other without any intervening idea.
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
145
branches of Logos and Zoë are thus named :- Bythios and
Mixis (the Abyss-like and the Mixture); Agerātos and Henosis
(the Never-aging and Oneness); Autóphyes and Hêdone (He
who has life in himself and Pleasure); Alinetos and Synkrisis
(the Immovable and the Entwining); Monogenes and Makaria
(the Only-begotten and Happiness). The following are the twelve
that sprung from Anthropos and Ekklesia--Paraclētos and Pistis
(the Comforter and Faith); Patrikos and Elpis (the Fatherly and
Hope); Metrikos and Agapē (the Motherly and Love, Charity)
Aeinoús and Synesis (the Ever-thinking and the Understanding);
Ekklesiastikos and Makariotes (the Ecclesiastic and Eternal Hap-
piness); Thelētos and Sophia (Will and Wisdom). These are the
thirty eternally happy, never-aging Æons: this is the invisible
Fulness (the Plerôma), enveloped in brightness and silence, the
kingdom of integration and perfection, of fulfilment and fulness.
Absorbed in his Sigê, as the other half of his Essence and its
perfecting conclusion, Bythos sits enthroned incomprehensible
above the kingdom of gods, in male and female satisfaction.
Just as Sigê is united to him as his spouse, so also that which
has sprung from Sigê is associated with him as his bride, to
supply all deficiency; and he waters his Plerôma with fructify-
ing power, and flows through it with its inexhaustible, life-
giving Divinity. And as he is called not only Vast Eternity,
based on itself, but also the youthful, bridal Æon; Divine life,
equal with his own, streams from out of his depths to the Æons
begotten in his likeness: twin-born pairs, mutually perfected in
each other, they find again the happily united essence of the
Father in the entwined duality of their own being.
The dispensing mediator in this community of Essence with
the Father is his only-begotten Nús, from whose image and
power the remaining Eternities have sprung. He alone be-
holds and fathoms the Hidden One, rejoicing in immeasurable
plenty. In his delight he thought of revealing the Father to
the other ons also; how that he was great and exalted, ,
without beginning or end, not comprehensible to sense
thought: but Sigé (Silence) held him back, according to the
counsel of Bythos, because they were all, of their own accord,
to arrive at the consciousness of the Divinity of the Father,
or
VOL. I.
L
146
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
and to long after it. Thus while the Only-begotten is happy in
contemplation, the later-born series of Æons are pervaded by an
instinctive desire full of quiet sorrow after him who begat them,
a dumb longing to behold the eternal, hidden root of their
being. This instinctive aspiring desire, which draws the pairs
of Æons with ever-increased longing towards the Father, is
met by another movement, coming from above and tending
downwards, which drives them ever farther away: for, in the
same proportion as they recede farther and farther away from
their origin, by reason of the lower grade of their birth, their
sensation of the Divine power of life which is in them grows
weaker. But the more they feel the creative source of the
Father to dry up within them, and to bubble up in less steady
aspirations, so much the more impetuously are they driven
upwards by the longing which is in them. Thus these two
antagonistic powers, growing in the same measure, are equalized
in each grade of the series of Æons, and in this their proportion
there is given, on the one hand, the respective relation which
each pair bears to their common origin, and on the other hand
the bond is knitted which unites the whole Plerôma together,
with the begetting Bythos. Now, that which in Monogenes is but
beginning, and, owing to his most intimate communion with
Bythos, is continually vanishing in blessed contemplation; that
is, the repelling, refusing power and the longing upward desire;
this must be found existing in its fullest measure in the last and
weakest Æon, who concludes the choir of the God-revealing
powers. In him is repeated most forcibly that general state of
tension which constitutes the order of Pleróma and its con-
nexion with Bythos: the unity of the whole is intrusted to
his keeping. But Sophia, the youngest Æon, did not preserve
the balance of the upholding powers. Despising the measure
of her portion of life's fulness, and the companionship of
Thelētos, her mate, she broke through the limits of the couple
(Syzygia) in her unbounded passion for Bythos, and under the
plea of love endeavoured madly to enter into the depths of
the Divine Abyss. Like Monogenes, she wished to be happy in
the enjoyment of the Unfathomable; she desired to embrace the
Immeasurable. But she succumbed to the greatness of her
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
147
undertaking. As she toiled upwards to the source whence she
sprang, and extended her arms towards the Incomprehensible,
she fainted from the enormity of her labour and the deadly
sweetness of her torments. Destroyed by love and anxiety,
and a gnawing desire after his inexpressible loveliness, as she
was expanding herself beyond her power, her senses left her,
and, from her giddy height, she, in her foolhardiness, sank into
unfathomable depths. But little more, and she would have
been engulphed and absorbed into the bottomless origin of all
things. Then, fortunately for her, she met in the Essence of
God with the firm power of Limitation or Finiteness (Horos).
Repelled by his barrier, she wandered about, sick and uncer-
tain, out of God and the kingdom of Æons, sorrowing for the
eternal Father, whom she never had possessed, and now had
entirely lost, constantly devoured by a longing after him; and
this longing within her began to move and assumed a living form,
and she brought forth a fruit of her pains (Sophia Achamoth, the
Wisdom of Below*), the incorporation of her longing and anxious
affection after the Immeasurable. But because this affection
had been directed towards that which was without limit, and
had remained unsatisfied, that which was born of her was also
without form, and became a weak, helpless woman. And this
woman, the abortion of the lowest of all the Æons, that is, of
the fallen Wisdom of Above (Ano Sophia), is the Queen of the
whole visible world.
When Sophia saw that her temerity had come to so sad an
end, she was seized with terror, and endeavoured to retrace her
steps as a penitent; but her powers failing her, she prostrated
herself before her eternal father and begged for mercy : the
other Eternities (or Spiritualities), sympathetically affected by
the fall of Sophia, seconded her prayer; above all, Nús inter-
ceded for her with much entreaty. The Highest inclined to
his children, and sent forth from himself Horos, that saving
power (the God of Limitation), who is also called Horothétes
* Eopía 'Axauce is a conventional signification of the wisdom from below,
Achamoth being the Aramæan word for wisdom, the Hebrew khokmah.
This is one of the many proofs of the Jewish and Syrian origin of the Gnostic
systems.
L 2
148
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
(he who sets to everything its measure and its goal), and Ly-
trótes, or Carpistes (the Emancipator), and Stauros (the For-
tifier), and Metagogeus (the Restorer); for by preserving every-
thing created within the course and measure of its inborn
nature, bringing back with gentle guidance those who have
turned aside, and inclosing and keeping all firm by bounds
which restrain without force, he becomes the God of Freedom,
the spirit who gently overpowers, redeems, and liberates what
he catches in his soft meshes. As the watchful Preserver,
he
points to the creative, establishing power; for which cause he
is also the offspring of the latter, and her purest image, in a state
of self-sufficient androgyny, not needing any other companion-
ship. But whilst in the Abyss of Divine Depth, every separation
and boundary vanishes, Horos is opposed to the infinity of
Bythos, and by the power of setting bounds he is himself
the principle of finiteness.
Now, this stay and watchman of the universe had compassion
on disturbed, restless Sophia. He brought her, the erring one,
back again into her settled form and constitution, and restored
her to her companion. But he drove Achamoth out of the
kingdom of pure Fulness (Plerôma) into Emptiness (Kenôma),
the dark spot of nothingness; and he drew between them a
strict line of demarcation.
Thus the unity of the heaven of gods was again restored.
In order to perfect and preserve it for ever, Monogenes, accord-
ing to the forethought of the Hidden Father, that in time to
come the Æon world might be preserved from a similar mishap,
brought forth another, and this the last, pair (Syzygia), Christos
(the male), and the Holy Spirit (the female power), the Divinities
of peaceful, restored Plerôma. Christos announced the nature
of companionship, how in it the fullest measure of blessedness
as bestowed upon two is fulfilled, and how this companionship
is the source of all satisfaction and can never be dissolved; and,
on the other hand, how Bythos, exalted far above meditation
and thought, must ever remain hidden from comprehension,
with the exception of that which he himself vouchsafes to re-
veal through Monogenes in the god-filled Sgzygies. For he
thought that Monogenes (God's comprehensiblenes itself) is
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
149
the first that can be comprehended of God. He further con-
sidered that the comprehensibleness of God -- for this is the
mystery of that which was not begotten and without beginning,
and also of the creature which has come into being—is for the
Æons the cause of their own formation and comprehension, of
their birth from a bottomless death into independent personal
existence; and that, on the other hand, the incomprehensible-
ness of God is the cause of their eternal, inexhaustible essence.
Thereupon the softening power of the Holy Spirit made all
Æons like each other, and taught them to offer thanksgiving,
and breathed into them the true god-inspiring peace. Thus,
then, were they intimately united in brotherly bonds, each one
resembling the other in mind and looks, in alternate entwining
of beautifully harmonized choirs, each uniting himself to all
the rest, and, thus enriched, turning back again to himself.
Now that the disruption of the Fulness (Plerôma) was thus
restored to peace, the congregation of the blessed Divine beings
assembled together and lifted up a joyful hymn of praise to the
honour of him who begat them: and he inclined with favour
to the joyful song which his sons and daughters sang to him.
And, in order to celebrate in a worthy manner this favour, they
all gathered together with one consent, and each Æon took the
best that he possessed, and with these they formed a happy
image, to be the praise of the heavenly Father, the bright Star
of the worid of gods, the beautiful Jesus, who is also called
Saviour (Soter), and Christos, and Logos *, and the Whole, be-
cause he bears within him the flower of everything; and they
surrounded him with ministering angels to be his companions.
Whilst in the kingdom of glory and fulness they were cele-
brating in this way the recovery of peace, the offspring of
Sophia lay shapeless and neglected outside in dark solitude.
But Christos had pity on the forlorn, and, descending from the
reign of light together with Horos (Limitation), he made the
latter shape her body into the image and form of the Æons
from whom she had sprung, and himself engrafted into her
* According to Hippolytus, this ideal Christ Jesus is also called Logos,
but distinct from the Logos of the inmost Divine sphere, called the heavenly
Logos.
L 3
150
THE FOURTE GENERATION.
soul a heavenly spark, a seed of longing after the worlds above,
and then returned upwards into the Fulness with his glory.
Sophia awoke from her powerless state of insensibility with a
faint perception of immortality in her nostrils, and stretched
out her arms with longing after the light, which was disappear-
ing farther and farther and threatened to go out altogether.
She strove to enter into the Fulness, but here she met with the
firm boundary which Horos draws around the world of gods.
As she was in vain endeavouring to break through this, she
fell back again into loneliness and darkness, given up as a
prey to her wild passions and the torments of despair. Sunk
in obtuse ignorance about every higher object, she could not
but feel sorrow for her lost home, which she was no longer able
to reach. Now she would smile at the remembrance of hea-
venly glory; now terror would seize her at the idea that even
life might desert her, together with the last glimmer of light;
then again she would turn with trustful prayer to the Maker
and Preserver of her being. And these passions which raged
in her soul, became the principle of the world of the senses,
the origin of nether things. From out of her sorrowful mo-
tions there arose Matter, that is, heavy slothful substance;
from her conversion sprang the airy Soul, looking upwards.
Thus all that lives here is formed of grief, pang, and longing :
the anxiety of Nether Wisdom (Achamoth) is the life of the
creature. Terror and stupefaction hardened into solid rock,
consternation became a firm mass, the sea and the waters are
the tears which she wept in her loneliness; but when a ray of
the Fulness fell into her soul, then her traits were transfigured,
and from out of her smile there bloomed forth the light.* On
* All this metamorphosis of the fallen Sophia is related in our extracts
(c. 32.) in a much simpler manner, without the poetical arabesques of rocks,
and tears, and sighs. But, besides, a totally distinct doctrine is laid down,
which I have explained in the general outlines drawn as introduction
to this picture. The three passions of Sophia --- Fear, Grief, Anguish --
became the principles of the visible creation, the psychical substance, the
material, and that of the Demons: three spheres, represented by their Images
or Rulers: the Demiurg, the Devil, and Beelzebul. Sophia being separated
from these three elements, her fourth emotion, Supplication, was turned into
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
151
hearing her prayer, Christos a second time took pity upon her
anxiety, and sent down the Saviour (Soter), that he might now
fully shape her spirit into consciousness, and deliver her from
her wild commotions. Now, as he with his heavenly company
approached her, she was dazzled by the unwonted splendour,
and bashfully enveloped herself in her veil; but as she became
aware of his mild ways and the fulness of his gifts, she went to
meet him, full of comfort, and said: “Be welcome, O Lord!”
And when her mind and spirit had been enlightened by him,
she was inflamed with love to the angels who were around him,
and conceived, lost as she was in the Divine sight, germs of the
Fulness, the seeds of the pure Spirit in the world of the senses.
When the Saviour had left the now freed Achamoth, she created,
for the formation of the thus separated world-matter, De-
miurgos, the God of the Visible Universe, the ruler and father of
all creatures, not merely of those who possess the same essence as
himself, the sensual (psychic), who are also called his right-
hand sons, and of those who have sprung from coarse matter,
the material (hylic) natures, who are at his left. But first he
formed the ministering powers of heavenly angels and arch-
angels, and the evil spirit of the earth, the Cosmokrator (the
Ruler of this World). Then he built up the edifice of the
world by separating and mixing the elements, and founding
the earth beneath, and above it forming seven heavens, in the
highest of which he established his own throne. However
diversely the elements may have their origin in the different
passions of Achamoth, they are one and all, earth, water, air,
pervaded and inwardly consumed by the element of fire; that is,
the flight and estrangement from God, as it bursts into flame.
Yet it was not really Demiurgos who wrought all this, but
Achamoth in him; for she in the depth of her mind conceived
the plan which, having by stealth been instilled into him, he
executed in matter. He built the earth, he spread out the
heavens; and yet he understood neither heaven nor earth. He
formed man, and put a soul into him; and yet he knew not
the Repentance of Faith, and this became the principle of the souls of
spiritual men, which alone are Divine, and therefore eternal.
L 4
152
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
man: for even his own origin, the great mother of himself and
of the universe, was hidden from him. For, as a limited psychic
being, he was shut out from that which was spiritual; and so,
doing and performing everything by his own independent will,
as he imagined, without let or hindrance, according to his own
pleasure, he considered himself to be Everything, and to be
the true, one God; in which belief he spake through the
mouth of the prophets : "I am Jehovah, and beside me there
is none other.” But in man there was planted the slumbering
consciousness of the highest good; man partook of a hidden
life, which sprang not from the narrow sphere of Demiurgos,
but which, once begun, was to raise him up far above the God
of this visible order of the world, his supposed Creator, and,
not rightfully, his Master.
For when Demiurgos created man in the third of the seven
heavens gorerned by those spiritual princes, he formed the
body of ethereal substance, and breathed into him the breath
of his own soul. But from above Achamoth, unseen, scattered
into the Creator's breath sparks of light, coming from the world
of gods, so that the princes and their chief saw with astonish-
ment the beautiful form, as if that Anthropos (Man) himself,
he, the Divine original Man himself, were issuing forth. Terri-
fied at the work of their own hands, they were overcome by the
foreboding of a higher power. That which they were unable to
comprehend or to worship, they could only fear and strive to
destroy. Demiurgos therefore oppressed Man and put him
under the law of bondage, so that he might not taste of the
fruit of knowledge, which was growing in the third heaven;
and when Adam, incited by Achamoth, transgressed the law,
the spirits of the stars hurled him from the heavens, down upon
this earth, and for punishment clothed him in the skins of
beasts, that is, in this coarse earthly body which man has in
common with the beasts of the field. Thus, there were united
in Adam the three elements, dark Matter (Hyle), light Spirit
(Pneuma), and the mixture of the two, the Soul (Psyche); but
in the three sons of Adam, the patriarchs of three races of men,
these three elements were at once disjoined. The wild material
man (the hylic) is subjected and related to the evil Prince of this
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
153
World, for the rebellious, dull, sulky soul of the world ani-
mates him; the sensual (psychic) man is minded after the
image of Demiurgos; but the spiritual man (the pneumatic)
bears within him the image of one higher, unobserved by the
obtuse Creator of the world. Through the indestructible nature
of his spirit he is raised far above all danger and destruction, by
the same inborn necessity whereby the earthly (material) man
is subject to it; while the psychic creature, placed indiscrimi-
nately midway between Matter and Spirit, may, according to
pleasure, turn towards the one or the other, either towards
destruction or towards salvation. From that inward spiritual
seed, bursting asunder the outer covering of coarse matter and
soul, there springs up to the spiritual man, of its own accord,
eternal blessedness, which is the sure fruit of the spirit. What-
ever he may engage in or do, however he may give himself up
to error or lust, this cannot destroy in him the indestructible
seed of the spirit; for it is as little exposed to the rust of perdi-
tion as gold, even in a filthy pool, ceases to be pure and un-
adulterated. Law and works, and external forms, are all put
under his power : the world is his: everything is permitted to
him: he is an ocean of liberty and power : he breaks through
all snares, bursts the rocks asunder, pervades what is solid with
his soft, secret, irresistible power: all bounds break down
behind him, and whatsoever opposes him crumbles spiritless to
pieces : all the powers of coercion are sent forth to seize him,
but they are caught by him: death, who consumes everything,
has rushed onward to his destruction; he receives death within
himself, and so extinguishes death in himself: freely, lightly,
painlessly he rises above the enticing allurements of this world,
by his inborn, never-failing, victorious power, and in serene
conquering brightness. Nor has he entered into the order of
nether things with any other intent than to allow the slumber-
ing germ of the Fulness to sprout unfettered within itself, and
thus to raise with himself the psychic man, as much as possible,
by the attractive power of his superior nature : he is the salt of
the earth and the light of the world, in that he pervades the
psychic creature, and lifts up the covering of darkness. What
before the spiritual man vanishes into nothing has for the
154
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
psychic man real existence, and is a living power with Divine
thoughts. Those nonentities, such as law, limitations, habits,
offences, stumbling-blocks, outward wonders, and external forms,
exist as realities for him : his soul, sprung from this earth,
created by terror, is obliged to conform to the discipline and
rules of this world, in order that, with fear and trembling, by
the works of the law, she may earn a subordinate blessedness.
Finally, these three races of men answer to the three religious
communities, that is, Heathenism, Judaism, and Christianity;
and to the three powers that are set over them, the Kosmokrator,
the Creator of the world (Demiurgos), and Sophia : it is she
who represents the place of order in the upper, ideal world. .
Now even Demiurgos finds himself in some unaccountable
manner influenced by that secret power of coercion which the
spiritual men exercised over the characters of the middle order;
so that, setting aside his own sons, he chooses his favourites
from those men of the spirit, and makes them kings and priests
on the earth. Even the prophets, through whose voice he
speaks to his own and gives them laws, and promises them the
earthly, theocratic Messiah, the Man Jesus, even these he
chooses from this race. But when now they prophesy, their
own spirit presses them to say more than in the narrow view of
the God of the Jews they should say. Now their unseen
mother suggests to them words of a higher meaning, pro-
phecies concerning a heavenly Redeemer: Demiurgos hears
these, wondering indeed whence they come; but, because he
cannot comprehend them, he supposes them to have arisen from
some misunderstanding on the part of dull and slow mankind.
It is not till Messiah appears that the bandage drops from his eyes.
For when the time was come for the redemption of the sensual
(psychic) race of man, that is, when the germs of the Fulness
had sprouted and the last covering was to burst asunder, Demiur-
gos prepared for the promised Messiah a sensual soul, clothed
in a more refined, ethereal body of light, even hereby carrying
out the intentions of Achamoth, as if they proceeded from his
own will: for she (the Nether Sophia) was making the demi-
urgic life, which was just rising into being, to drink out of the
fulness of the spirit. Thus did Jesus descend into the Virgin's
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
155
womb in order to be born without spot, yet without in any way
having had communion with the maternal body. Then Acha- .
moth turned to the higher spheres, and from the opening Ful-
ness the heavenly Saviour (Soter) descended as a dove, and at
the time of baptism in the river Jordan entered into the man
Jesus. Then for the first time, when the most glorious of the
Æons had been united to the form of a man, the Creator of
the world understood that he was not the true God, and heard
with astonishment of Bythos and of the Fulness, and of his own
mother, who now appeared to him in visible form. But never-
theless he received this information with delight; for thus the
weight of governing the world, which he no longer felt able to
bear, was taken off his shoulders, and with entire consciousness
he adapted himself to the higher order of things, and remained
simply the superintendent of the earthly course of this world.
He is that Simeon who held the babe Jesus in his arms, and
now enters into peace : he is that Centurion who says to
the Lord: “I also am a man under authority," who thought
himself unworthy that the Lord "should enter under his
roof,” and whose servant was healed. For not only to the
spiritual race of men, but also to the sensual (psychic) race, and
more particularly to Demiurgos, their Father, Soter becomes
a Saviour, just as he has put on and ennobled in himself not
only the spiritual but also the sensual nature. But it is not by
means of suffering and death, which cannot touch an Æon, it
is not by works and deeds, which are beneath his Godhead-
it is only by emancipating from its dark covering, through
preaching and doctrine, the consciousness of that inner nature
which, free in itself, feels at home in what is Divine, and by
fanning into a bright flame, through his own immediate pre-
sence, the glowing though hidden spark, that Soter accom-
plishes the great work of salvation. Therefore, at the con-
clusion of his labours in teaching and instructing, and before
the Crucifixion, he leaves the demiurgic Messiah, whom he had
entered at his temple when he was in the beginning of his work.
It is the sensual (psychic) Saviour only who dies on the Cross, and
even he without suffering; only as a memorial and representation
of the emancipation of the Upper Wisdom from her boundless
156
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
desire which took place before the world was, by means of the
God of the true and eternal form of every existing thing.
This god is also worshipped as Stauros (the Fixation, also the
Cross), under the image of the Cross.
The appearance of Soter has opened the great conclusion of
the drama of this world. When all the seeds which have
fallen from the Fulness in small and weak grains, and have been
scattered along the surface of this world, have sprouted and
been fully matured, then the ripe fruit will be gathered and
laid up in garners, but the unprofitable chaff and stubble will
be burned with fire. All spiritual natures, and such of the
sensual natures as have turned to what is good, will enter into
eternal blessedness; the material natures sink back into the
spiritless, unclean'mass out of which they were formed. Then
the inwardly burning fire of estrangement from God breaks out
on all the ends of the world and consumes matter, till it dis-
solves into nothing and the flame is quenched by the ex-
tinguished mass. Then the souls of this universe who are
saved, with Demiurgos at their head, fly from the burning of
the world into the higher places above, and take possession of
the middle kingdom, the place of their destination, from which
Sophia Achamoth (the Nether Wisdom) departs: and above
Demiurgos and his heavens the spiritual natures rise into the
Fulness. The demiurgic powers would indeed arrest them
in their upward flight, and keep them back within the narrow
psychic (sensual) circle, but they utter the secret watchword,
and, thus becoming invisible, escape from the demolished
boundary, in order to be received into the pure world of gods,
there to be united in eternal companionships with those
angels of Soter who, as guardian spirits, watched over their
temporal life on earth. And as for her, the great sufferer,
the god-like, believing, though discarded, woman, she is at the
goal and conclusion of her labours: her warfare is at an end
(p. 264.); the full splendour of the Plerôma now begins. Sur-
rounded by her immortal sons she is given in marriage to Soter,
the most beautiful of all the god-like forms, her Lord and
Redeemer, to be his eternal, blessed companion. Then the con-
nubial pairs (Syzygies) of Æons and of ministering angels sur-
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
157
round the heavenly pair: the whole Plerôma is as a beautifully
adorned bridechamber, wherein all are rejoicing. But above
this blessed kingdom of gods, above the heaven of the righteous
made perfect, above the perishing kingdom of the night, the
silent Father, incomprehensible in his essence, sits as before,
enthroned in everlasting satisfaction, which is for ever flowing
to him with living power from endless depths.
This is the cosmogonic system or the Christian theogony of
the Valentinians, and out of it we can easily restore the ori-
ginal thought of Valentinus himself, which certainly is simple,
spiritual, and philosophical. Now this system might have been
much less fanciful, the method much less mythological,
but it would have been equally pernicious, if considered
as Christian doctrine and a substitute for the Bible and
faith. It might satisfy the minds of some who were per-
plexed by the speculations of the age, and might serve intel-
lectually as a bridge towards Christ and the redemption through
Him: and such, undoubtedly, was the intention of that great
man, Valentinus, himself. But the system created, necessarily,
a general agitation in the Christian world, because it attacked
the Old Testament (which was the Scripture of the primitive
Church) and interfered with the historical realities of Chris-
tianity. It mystified both the Prologue of St. John and St. Paul,
making any sober interpretation of these sources of Christian
knowledge impossible. The Petrine school detested it for its
anti-Judaic tendency, while the disciples of Paul equally ab-
horred it on account of the wrong bias it gave to the doctrine
of their master. Finally, its own adherents made it objection-
able by the very fact of their attributing to it doctrinal autho-
rity. The historian, however, has to judge the man and his
system according to their intrinsic merits, and, above all,
therefore, to ascertain the facts.
What were the views of Valentinus, divested of their
imagery and allegories, in regard to Jesus of Nazareth ? This we
proceed to inquire without noticing, at present, the philosophical
method of that Gnostic Bunyan's “ Pilgrim's Progress.”
158
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
In respect to the procreation and bodily conformation of
Jesus, we learn from Hippolytus that the disciples of Valen-
tinus were divided into two schools, the Eastern and the Italic.
His own interpretation of the words of the angel in St. Luke
is as follows (c. 35.): “ The Most High is the Demiurg, who
formed Adam and all his children; but Jesus, the New Man,
was formed by the Holy Ghost, that is to say, by the Holy
Spirit, which is the Divine Wisdom (Sophia), and by the
Demiurg. He, the Demiurg, organized the formation and con-
stitution of His body, but the Holy Ghost provided the sub-
stance ; thus the heavenly Logos was generated by the Ogdoas
through Mary." By such phrases as these the plain question was
left unanswered. For as the working of the Demiurg does not
preclude human paternity in the ordinary man, so the conjoint
working of the spirit of this world and of the Spirit of God
does not logically exclude Josepli's paternity. The Italic school,
indeed, taught that the body of Christ was a sensual (psy-
chical) one, and that the Spirit descended upon Him only
at His baptism: it was this spiritual principle, the Logos
of the heavenly mother, the Sophia, which spiritualized the
body during His life, and which afterwards raised it from the
dead. This, they said, was the sense of the words of St.
Paul (Rom. viii. 11.): “He that raised up Christ from the
dead, shall also quicken your mortal bodies ; ” to which they
annexed in explanation : “ the psychical bodies." The Oriental
school, however, maintained that Christ's body was spiritual
from His birth, which, indeed, must have been the real meaning
of their master. For he seems to have held, according to other
accounts, as, indeed, many of the Fathers held, that Christ's
body was from the first the same as it was after the Resurrec-
tion. It appears that Valentinus, as well as Basilides, was not
satisfied with the Ebionite view as to the person of Christ, be-
cause it excluded the view of Christ as the Redeemer; but they did
not on that account favour the opposite view, which they thought
evidently materialistic and not borne out by Scripture. Their
own hypothesis is, indeed, an approximation to the anti-Ebionite
view, but it borders also upon Docetism, or the negation of
the reality of the bodily appearance of Christ, although so
absurd a supposition never crossed their minds.
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
159
Valentinus believed only the souls of spiritual men immortal,
as redeemed by Christ. They would receive spiritual bodies,
as would the psychical souls who had striven after righteous-
ness by good works : all others would perish, like the matter
with which they had identified themselves, and return to the
demiurgic or demiatory world, “dust to dust.”
It is obvious that, while thus endeavouring to steer clear of the
literal Jewish interpretation of the words of Christ and of His
Apostles respecting spiritual things, Valentinus fell into a
system of fables which was neither good philosophy nor good
theology, and led him farther away from the faith of Scripture
than the one which he was combating. It is not, however,
to be laid to his charge that his followers elevated his specu-
lations into a revelation.
Neither is the “Gospel of Truth," which the Valentinians are
said by Irenæus to have used, but of which we have no particulars,
to be attributed to him. Valentinus himself, as we learn from the
extracts in Hippolytus, quotes St. Luke and St. John precisely as
the Catholic Fathers do. His text of the Palestinian or Syrian
Gospel may have differed from our St. Matthew's more or less
than those texts quoted in the works of all the Catholic Fathers,
from Clemens of Rome down to Justin. No charge is laid against
him of making false quotations of Scripture either by Hippo-
lytus or elsewhere. Nobody attributes to him the “Gospel of
Truth” of the Valentinians except the author of that wretched
account of the heresies appended to the more recent manu-
scripts of Tertullian's work “De Præscriptionibus Hæretico-
rum.” I am, therefore, the more surprised to find in a book which
in other respects displays much learning and ingenuity, and to
which I have often referred (Reuss, “ Geschichte der heiligen
Schriften des N. T.," $ 292 N.), the following passage :-" The
· Evangelium Veritatis' of Valentinus shows by its title and
by the implied antagonism what authority he attributed to the
other Gospels.” Such a tone seems to me unworthy of the
historical criticism adopted by that writer, and is in direct
opposition to his own statements in another part of the same
book ($ 245. n.). Valentinus evidently used our Gospels, espe-
cially the first and third. Many years after he had formed
160
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
:
1
his system he lived in communion with the Church of Rome,
as we learn from Tertullian. Epiphanius relates, that it was
only in the latter portion of his life, which he spent at Cyprus,
that he separated himself entirely from the Church. It is
true that his quotations from the Old Testament prove him not
to have been always very accurate ; he unwarrantably jumbles
together various passages in order to suit his own system. No-
body, however, for this reason doubts that he had before him
the same texts which we read: why should similar inaccuracies
in his quotations from the New Testament lead to another
conclusion ? Among the Epistles of St. Paul he quotes the
Epistle to the Ephesians (ch. 34.), which, according to the
Tübingen novel, was written about the middle of the second
century, in the Montanistic controversies, that is to say, a
generation after Valentinus.*
His views of the Law were certainly tinged with very strong
anti-Judaism: but as to the prophets and inspiration they are
as true as they are sublime (Neander, i. 736.). In the writings
of the prophets, among whom he places Moses, he distinguishes
four elements: first, the purely human; secondly, the power
of foreseeing events, even those which referred to the Messiah,
though nevertheless enveloped in temporal Jewish ideas ; thirdly,
the true ideas of the higher nature of Messiah's kingdom which
their own spiritual nature suggested to them ; finally, such
truths relative to the Divine economy of the universe as the
celestial Sophia revealed to them.
The people of God Valentinus considered to be scattered
over the whole world, and he believed there had been spiri-
tual men also among the Gentiles. The fragment of a homily
preserved by Clemens (Strom. vi. 641.) says: “Much of
what is written in the books of the Gentiles is also found in the
Church of God: what is common to both is the word from the
heart, the law written in the heart. Such are the people of
the Beloved,---beloved by Him, and loving Him.”
Humanity was, in the eyes of Valentinus, the full manifesta-
tion of God, and Redemption the centre of human history.
* Schwegler, Nachapostol. Zeitalter, ii. 291. 331.
THE SYSTEM OF VALENTINUS.
161
The death of the psychical Messiah on the Cross took place
for the benefit of the lower creation, while the self-devotion of
the Saviour (Soter) consisted in redeeming the Sophia (the
soul of the spiritual man), by purifying her from the hetero-
geneous elements, and restoring her perishable, shapeless exist-
ence to Divine limitation (Neander, i. 743.). All that exists
in the universe is to be elevated to the perfect, the spiritual.
Spiritual men are to work out this final triumph of God.
“ You," so Valentinus addresses them (Clem. Strom. iv. 509.),
“are immortal from the beginning, children of eternal life;
you resolved to partake of death by self-sacrifice, in order to
swallow up and annihilate it. For by preparing the disso.
lution of this world of matter, you yourselves not being dis-
solved, you become the masters of creation and of all that is
corruptible.”
This self-devoting life of spiritual men is accompanied by a
worship founded upon the knowledge that what they believe is
true in itself; and this, according to his doctrine (Neand. i. 746.),
is their “reasonable service." The sanctifying influence of the
Spirit purifies the heart, and imparts holiness. For until that
sanctifying grace comes to man, his heart is the abode of evil de-
mons, his passions and self-will; and this sanctifying power comes
from Christ only by inward communion with the Redeemer.
There is "the only Good One,” Valentinus says (Clement.
Strom. ii. 409.), “and He is present in the manifestation of His
Son. Through Him alone the heart can be made pure, every
evil spirit having been cast out of it. For there are many
spirits dwelling in it who will not allow it to be purified : each
of these does its own work, often insulting it with inproper
desires and lusts. It seems to me that the heart is somewhat in
the condition of a public inn; for like that it is rushed into and
trampled about, and often filled with filth by the disorderly per-
sons who live in it, and who take no care of the place, which is
strange to them. In the same way, the heart is unclean, being the
dwelling-place of demons, as long as it is not touched by Him
who careth for it (the eternal Providence of God). But when
the Father, who alone is good, takes care of it, it is sanctified
and becomes resplendent with light. And thus he is called
VOL. I.
M
16.2
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
blessed who has such a heart, because he shall see God (Matt.
v. 8.).” This passage proves that Valentinus used a text of the
Palestinian Gospel essentially the same as St. Matthew's, for
the saying of Christ here alluded to is found only in his
Gospel.
Matrimony he regarded as a sacred symbol of the union of
the Divine and human natures, the prototype of which was the
progress of spiritual manifestation of God by pairs (Syzygiæ),
representing the generative and receptive principle.
The Valentinians, as a sect, were doomed to perish, as the
Basilidians were, because they placed their own wisdom on the
same level with the Gospel, and their own speculations
above Christian life, which is the social life of Christian
congregations as they are. But Valentinus was one of the
most elevated, and, as far as we can judge, the most noble
and religious, minds in Christian antiquity; and, after all
the pains that have been taken to pervert his doctrines
and destroy his books, the philosophical historian of mankind
will find in what remains of them the germs of a great portion of
ancient and modern Christian philosophy and wisdom. In
judging such a man, the historical muse must say what Schiller
says of the dramatic:
66 Sie sieht den Menschen in des Lebens Drang,
Und wälzt die grossre Hälfte seiner Schuld
Den unglückseligen Gestirnen zu.”
)
MARCION.
163
11.
MARCION.
IF Basilides represents the Syrian mysticism, tinged with
Greek and Egyptian learning, and Valentinus the Hellenic
speculation orientalized at Alexandria, Marcion of Sinope,
the wealthy shipwright, son of a bishop, is the man of antique
energy of character. His mind appears in the darker hue of the
men of Pontus and Phrygia, but also as purified by Christian
education and life. His enemies have succeeded in involving
his personal history in so much obscurity that we can only
appeal to the silence of Tertullian, and the character of severe
asceticism so generally attributed to him, to reject at once the
ill-natured story circulated by Epiphanius, an uncritical, pre-
judiced, and late writer, who says he was excommunicated
by his venerable father for having seduced a young woman.
According to the general testimony of all the writers who men-
tion him, he came to Rome under Hyginus; which statement
probably refers to the last of the four years during which Hyginus
was bishop (129–132), inasmuch as Valentinus and Cerdo are
reported to have arrived at Rome before him, and they are also
said to have gone there during that episcopate. What renders
this supposition almost a certainty is an anecdote preserved by
Epiphanius, which is very characteristic of Marcion, and not
likely to have been invented by the party hostile to him at
Rome. He states that he went to the “Old Men,” that is
to the “ Elders,” the Presbyters, and claimed the “ Proe-
dria,” the Chair; which simply means that he was a
didate for the episcopal office, after the death of Hyginus
in 132, the year in, or after, which he arrived at Rome. Sup-
posing he was not a total stranger at Rome, but known
as an eminently gifted man and zealous Christian, there is
nothing improbable in the fact of the Pontic visitor having so
presented himself. He had, as we learn from Tertullian, placed
can.
M2
164
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
It is a sup-
his whole fortune, or, at all events, a very considerable sum, at
the disposal of the Christian congregation at Rome, and he
was undoubtedly acknowledged to be one of the eminent men
of the day, and was himself conscious of being so.
position irreconcileable with the documents of history, that at
that time a bishop must be necessarily a member of the governing
board of parish priests in the city, or one of the country clergy-
men of a little neighbouring town, called Chorepiscopus. Even
at the present day, the Pope may be a layman when elected, and
a stranger to Rome. The members of the Presbytery, however,
declined to elect him, and possibly even to accept him as a can-
didate. This decision was come to in consequence of an ex-
amination which the bold man of Sinope underwent as to his
faith; perhaps also (although that is not at all proved), on account
of the connexion with his father's Church, from which he is said
not to have brought the ordinary commendatory letters. It is
clear from Tertullian's statement, that he could not at that time
be charged with any heresies, but his retort upon his questioners
speaks volumes as to what occurred at the examination and
was passing in Marcion's own mind. “Let me now ask you
a question,” he is stated to have said to the Roman Presbyters.
" What is the meaning of the saying of our Lord's, No one
puts new wine into old skins'?”
The answer is not given, nor is it required. This question
contains the whole soul of Marcion and explains the tragedy
of his life. It must have convinced the Roman Presbyters
that he was not their man, and it ought to have convinced
Marcion that he had henceforth nothing but enmity to expect
from the governors of that Church. It had already flashed upon
his mind, as we shall see clearly when we advance twenty or
thirty years later, that the great question of the age and of
the world was this: whether Christianity was a reformed
Judaism, or something distinct from it? If distinct, what be-
comes of the Law ? This is the knot which had been cut asunder
by St. Paul, the question which St. Peter wished to keep
open, and which St. John had endeavoured to solve for ever by
summoning it before the tribunal of eternal Love. But St. John,
like his fellow-apostles, had left this troubled world apparently
MARCION
165
in the state he found it. I say apparently, for the destruction of
Jerusalem had not produced any generally perceived consequences.
Neither the Gentile religion nor the Roman empire had come
to an end, together with this whole world, as had been devoutly
hoped, by a general sudden judgment of God upon its wicked-
ness and tyranny. The flocks of the despised Brethren had been,
however, though working by instinct and in silence, successfully
occupied during a whole generation in producing a new hu-
manitarian commonwealth, with a worship of its own, not the
Levitical one, although the completion of it, and with a con-
stitution, not the Jewish nor that of the Gentile states. This
constitutional order was to be respected; this worship was the
sacred act of the congregation, as well as a blessing to each indi-
vidual soul. But was this to be a new Law ? Was the justi-
fying righteousness in the eyes of God (and therefore in the
conscience of man) to be acquired by observing the one and
attending at the other? Were even good works, acts of charity
among the brethren, to be looked upon as a pledge of this
blessed peace of the conscience ? No! says St. Paul, over and
over again. Yes! answered the Judaizers, even at that time,
whether circumcised or not: exactly as they do now. Most
of the people in authority, the practical men, joined in the cry;
some because they had no idea of Christianity except that it
was a reformed Judaism, others because they did not see that
there was anything at stake beyond a simple question of obe-
dience. Was not order well maintained in the congregation ?
Did not Christian matrimony and domestic discipline already
occupy a distinguished place in the world, were they not highly
esteemed both by Jews and Gentiles? Was there no advan-
tage in the fellowship of Christians all over the world? And
as to their worship, could anything be more simple, more spi-
ritual in its character, more intimately connected with the
voice of conscience and self-examination before the Almighty
and with all the aspirations of a believing Christian heart?
What danger could there be in sanctifying this new “Politeia”
or “ State” of the Christians, and in asserting that the indi-
vidual is saved by adhering to it? The good souls who cherished
such thoughts did so from mere shallowness of intellect. They
M 3
166
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
meant well, but they did much mischief. It was men of a
kindred spirit who, in the sixteenth century, joined the enemies
of the Gospel, and worked, without being aware of it, for the
reactionists and Jesuits of the seventeenth. They acted with
the same blindness as their followers do in the nineteenth, who,
while making an expiring effort for a lost cause, and speaking
enthusiastically of an inner life long extinct in the hearts of
the nations in which they attempt to rekindle it, do what they
can to make a lie truth, and sell the liberty of their nation.
Marcion sided with the opposite party, and was, indeed, an
adherent of the extreme Pauline school. St. Peter had, as it
were, taken possession of the actual world much more than that
excellent, but, as compared with St. Paul, intellectually narrow-
minded, Apostle had ever intended. St. John preached to a
world in the wilderness, as his great namesake had done to the
Jews. He was destined to take up his abode for centuries to
come with the meek and peaceful, who looking up to Christ
and through His self-sacrificing redeeming love rising to the
Father, followed their individual calling upon earth with the
same simplicity, whether as cobblers in a hut, or as stewards
in the palace of an emperor. To them alone the controversy
between Faith and Law, Christian life and external works,
was indifferent, and scarcely intelligible.
But in the world below, in the sphere of Roman citizenship,
in the midst of the new municipal life, and the heat of scho-
lastic controversy, it was very different. Marcion thought it
right to fight the foe upon this field, before Judaism should
succeed in crushing infant Christianity. It is generally admitted
that his practical tendencies were not biassed by any specula-
tive system. Speculation always sat very loosely upon him, even
after he had adopted Cerdo's Valentinianism. He was averse to
any allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and insisted
so strictly upon the literal sense, that is to say, the unhistorical
sense of the dead letter, that he could not see the unity of spirit
in the Old and New Testaments. He was not, like the Valen-
tinians, a schoolman. He addressed himself to the people, and en-
deavoured to found, not a school, but congregations. His lectures
were sermons, homilies, sometimes beginning with the address,
MARCION.
167
* Fellow-hated and Fellow-sufferers !". Such a man could only
go his own way: he could not follow that of any speculative
school. That the Jewish law was the manifestation of the ex-
ternal principle, and therefore, as soon as it claimed supreme
power, of the evil principle, was but a slight exaggeration of
what St. Paul could not forbear from writing to the wretched
Galatians. He afterwards stated, in order, as he thought, to
make himself more intelligible, that it was the revelation of
the Demiurge, the Prince of this world, whom Christ came to
annihilate.
The truthful and thoughtful researches of Neander have made
it perfectly clear that the current views of Marcion's doctrine,
as gathered from Mosheim and Fleury, are erroneous through-
out. There is a perfect agreement between the Life of Marcion
written in the fifth century, in part from a work of his own, by
the Armenian bishop Esnig, and the unfortunately very brief
fragment of Marcion himself, preserved by Hippolytus. By
combining these two with each other and with the well-
known, but insufficient and distorted accounts in Irenæus, Ter-
tullian, and Epiphanius, we may reduce to a few plain words
the last results of a critical investigation, as far as we have at
present materials for doing so.
The person and character of Christ are not to be explained by
any historical preparation for his coming, or by any national pro-
phecy or expectation of the Jews. He was, and is, and will remain
God's own manifestation-the manifestation of eternal Divine love
--and, therefore (so concluded Marcion), he appeared atonce, with-
out intermediate causes. Marcion accepted St. Luke's account
of the words of the angel to Mary (obviously without thinking
it excluded the paternity of Joseph), as he did the account of
his holy youth and manhood. But, he said, this was Jesus of
Nazareth : the Christ (Messiah) is nothing but the Jewish
idiosyncrastic expression for the Spirit of God.
This Spirit,
the manifestation and very substance of the Logos, came upon
Jesus when he took the pledge in Jordan and was immersed
in water by the Baptist. Thus Marcion was led to say that,
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, the Spirit of God descended
upon this earth ; not God Himself, as even Neander and Hahn
M 4
168
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
make Tertullian say, owing to a false reading, but the “Soter,
the “ Saviour,"
And how did He save mankind ? By Divine, gratuitous,
spontaneous love, expecting no reward, but knowing that thus
alone He could destroy the cruel Demiurge, the god of the
Jews, the Prince of this world, who knows no higher motive
than reward, and who could only be humbled and crushed by
Christ's self-sacrificing love. His love redeemed mankind; that
is to say, it has the power of freeing them from selfishness, the
root of all sin and estrangement from God.
It was on account of this all-pervading view of the high and
matchless character of Christ, that Marcion said in his later school-
phraseology, as is stated in the fragment preserved by Hippo-
lytus, that Christ was “the middle between the Good and the
Evil.” He is apart from the Evil, which is the Demiurge, the
tyrant of the souls of men, but also apart from the Good, “ be-
cause there is only One good, that is God," as Jesus himself said.
The sense of which is: the Saviour's redeeming work would have
been impossible, if His life and death had not been the product
of His own free-will. What makes Him the Redeemer, as
contradistinguished from Socrates and any other man, is His
free resolution to do good to ungrateful men bound by the
power of the cruel Demiurge, and to seal His godly life of sacri-
fice by His death, with the consciousness of this divine object.
Marcion, probably induced by what St. Paul said in his Cir-
cular Letter which we call the Epistle to the Ephesians, accepted
the tradition of the Church respecting Christ's having gone
down to the spirits of the departed to deliver them; but
whom? Not (teaches Marcion) those of the Jews, wrapped up
in their own self-righteousness; but those of the Gentiles,
who had lived in faith.
The souls thus saved by Christ are no longer subject to judg-
ment, which is only prepared for the deluded slaves of the Prince
of this World. Already in this life they are united to God, free
from the bonds of matter, and in peace.
A time will come
when a kingdom of Heaven shall be established on earth.
Such was Marcion. Irenæus (III. 3.) relates (compare
Euseb. iv. 14.), that Polycarp, when in Rome about the
1
DIARCION.
169
year 153, having been accosted by Marcion with these words,
“Know us!” replied in these hard words: “Yes, I know thee as
the first-born of Satan." History, however, which has access
to the remains of them both, will not use such language re-
specting him.
Tertullian states that he died reconciled to
the Church. We know nothing to the contrary, except that
the tale is, in its literal sense, highly improbable. The Mar-
cionites denied it. The Catholics persecuted his memory as
that of their worst enemy.
Marcionism was doomed to perish by the two inherent
errors and heresies of the system: the breaking with the
history of the world, in placing itself in contradiction both
with the past and with the present. In the past, it saw
the principle of evil in that which was the preparation for
the Gospel; in the present, it laid the hand of destruction
both on the historical records of Christ and His Apostles, and
on the life of practical Christianity in the congregations. The
Marcionites preferred Marcion to the Apostle, and the school
to the Christian commonwealth. We can even say: Marcion
himself broke with Scripture and with the Church; only let
us not be misunderstood. He might have attacked ever so
strongly the Rabbinical interpretations of Scripture and the
Judaic spirit of those who governed in many of the Churches;
and he might still have become a true Reformer, if he had only
respected Scripture, common sense, and plain practical Chris-
tianity. There is much in Marcion which might have made
him the precursor of the Reformers, but he took a course
widely different from theirs. He laid violent hands on the
Bible and rebelled against God's own history of mankind.
The strength of the Reformers consisted in this, that while
pointing to the inward disposition and not to outward works,
they gave paramount authority to the Bible, as the work of one
Spirit. They had however the advantage that they spoke to
Christian peoples in which was the germ of reformed social, and
political life. They roused nations destined to break the
despotism of popes, bishops, and priests, a system not allowing
action to the people, whom it was invented to enslave, and
whom it has succeeded in crippling or crushing.
170
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
III.
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
WHEN Marcion was a young man, says Tertullian, he wrote a
Letter which the Catholics approved, and the Marcionites re-
cognized as containing the germ of his doctrine. This Letter
is lost. But we possess a considerable part of another Letter,
which must have been written in the year 134 or 135, because
it alludes to a warfare between the Jews and Christians, which
can only mean the cruelties of Barkochba against the Christian
Jews of Palestine, in the rebellion under Hadrian. It was ad-
dressed to Diognetus, which was the name of that great and vir-
tuous man who may even already, at that time, have been superin-
tending the philosophical education of the young Marcus Aurelius.
This noble youth was only adopted in the year 138, and named
Cæsar by Marcus Antoninus in 139, when he was in his eighteenth
year. At that time, Fronto was appointed his tutor, but it ap-
pears, from the language which the imperial philosopher uses in
speaking of Diognetus, that he considered him as the man who, at
an early period, had formed his mind. There exists, at all events,
no chronological difficulty in placing the document we are con-
sidering in the year 135, which is certainly the latest year in which
it can have been written by Marcion, as 134 would have been the
earliest; for it was between 136 and 138, that Marcion separated
from the Church of Rome, and set up a school and congregation
of his own.
These are the results of a special research into the
chronology of that time, and the Life of Marcion, which will
soon be published in German.
Certainly, place, time, and political conjunctures all concur to
favour the supposition that Marcion wrote that Letter in the
year 135. The question then arises, Are the style and contents
equally favourable to this hypothesis ?
Marcion was one of the most eminent men of his age, and
the Letter to Diognetus is indisputably, after Scripture, the
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
171
finest monument we know of sound Christian feeling, noble
courage, and manly eloquence. It is a defence of the Christian
faith and life, or rather an answer to the three following
important queries put to the author by the philosopher :
What is the real distinction in the "new doctrine," as com-
pared with the Hellenic religions and with Judaism?
What is the motive which induces the Christians to love
each other, and to die for their faith?
And how is it to be accounted for, that this religion, if it be
the true one, came so late into the world ?
Nobody will deny that these were the most profound ques-
tions which engaged the attention of inquiring minds at that
time. Indeed, in a certain sense, they continue to be so still.
But we have shown above, that the inquiring mind of the
Greeks and Romans turned itself most particularly to these
questions in the fourth Christian generation. Nor, indeed, will
any one assert that (as far as our text goes) these queries were
ever answered in a more interesting and awful period of Chris-
tianity than the one before us. The Roman emperors, from
Nero to Hadrian, had condemned Christians to the stake and
to the wild beasts. They were hated and persecuted both by
Jews and Gentiles: by the former as apostates, by the latter as
an intruding Jewish sect; by the one as idolaters, by the other as
Atheists; by the Jews as destroyers of the only true religion,
by the Hellenes as builders up of a new Jewish superstition.
All the observations which are made in this Letter about the
pure
life of the Christians, as contradistinguisied both from
Jews and Gentiles, and still appealing to the common conscience
of mankind, are classical, striking, touching, and sublime, beyond
anything .we meet with in any of the other Fathers. How
then is it to be explained that none of the Christian writers,
apologists, or historians, not even the learned Eusebius, who
is always so happy when he can cite a Christian writer compe-
tent to construct a Greek period, quotes no one single sentence
out of it? Its authenticity has never been doubted, nor, conse-
quently, its date. The fact of our possessing it (although in a
fragmentary state) is sufficient proof of its not having perished
unnoticed.
172
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
There must, therefore, have been some other reason for its
not having been mentioned. It must have been wilfully ig-
nored. But for what reason ? Certainly not on account of
the contents, as far as we can judge from the fragment. It
must have been, then, on account of the author 66 in odium
auctoris," as the condemnatory phrase of the Inquisition runs,
in cases of such indispensable and wickedly honest books as
Stephen's “ Thesaurus.”
There is nothing in the Epistle to Diognetus which might
not have been written by Marcion ; but there is much in it
which, as far as history goes, nobody could have written except
young Marcion, or his unknown foster-brother in soul. No
Father known to us ever spoke in such terms of the Jews,
and of that Jewish life and worship which we find prescribed
and sanctioned by the Mosaic Law, as the author of that
Epistle. One step farther, and we jump from extreme Pauli-
nism to Antinomianism, from young to old Marcion.
Christ, his person, his life, his death, are the main points
in that fragment; and such was, and always remained, that of
Marcion's life and doctrine.
I believe that Epistle, therefore, to be Marcion's. Let any
one who does not choose to adopt this opinion show good rea-
sons for a better. I will not lose my time by proving over
and over again that it is not and cannot be Justin's.
Instead of that, I will gratify my readers with an intelligible
and critical translation of the Epistle itself, which is un-
doubtedly an authentic document, written at Rome, by a warm
and enlightened Christian, in the year 135. It is addressed to
Diognetus, most probably to the same whom Marcus Aurelius
in his golden “Memoirs ” calls his second parent;- that Pla-
tonic Stoic, who, as it became a true Hellenic mind, infused
into the soul of the imperial Roman nobleman a respect for
mankind, and taught him to love thought and wisdom more
than race-horses and a luxurious table, although he could not
cure him of the superstitious element which his mother had,
in his infancy, infused into his mind. Such a man is most likely
to have asked these questions; and it may, for more than one
reason, have been worth while to answer them as satisfactorily
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
173
and incontrovertibly as possible. Marcus Aurelius himself may
have taken notice of it. One can easily understand that it should
have no more converted him than the Gospel and Epistles
might have done. The celebrated passage in his Memoirs, where
he expresses very strongly his dislike of what he calls the thea-
trical manner in which the Christians showed a constancy which
he rather thinks to be obstinacy and unreasonable enthusiasm,
shows the irreconcileable antagonism of his views and those put
forward in our Letter. So aggressive and cutting a composition
could no more make him love the Christians and convert him
to Christianity than his dry stoicism and effete pagan wor-
ship could revive the ancient world.
174
TIIE FOURTII GENERATION.
The Epistle to Diognetus.*
I. I PERCEIVE, most excellent Diognetus, that thou art most desirous
to know with regard to the religion of the Christians (concerning whom
thou hast already made inquiries with much accuracy and diligence),
what god it is, whom they can so trust in, and so worship as to be
able to think little of the world and to despise death, and yet how
they neither hold to those gods which are esteemed among the
Greeks, nor observe the superstition of the Jews; also how it is
that they have such great love one to another; and, lastly, why this
new mind or fashion [of religion] has entered into our life now, and
not before. I do therefore willingly comply with thy anxious desire,
and I pray that God, who alone vouchsafes to us the power of speak-
ing and of hearing, will grant to me so to speak that thou mayest
be enabled to become a better man through hearing; and to thee,
that thou mayest so hear as not to make me regret having spoken.
II. Well, then, purify thyself from all the thoughts which have
before had dominion over thy understanding, and put away from
thee those habits which are leading thee astray, and become, as if
from the very beginning, a new man, since thou art to be, with thine
own full concurrence, a hearer of new doctrine : and consider, not
with thine eyes only, but with thy understanding, of what substance,
or of what form, those consist whom ye say and believe to be
gods. Is not one god of stone, like unto that which we tread upon ?
and another of brass, no better than those utensils which are made
of brass for our use ? and another of wood, already rotten? and
* Analysis of the Epistle:-
Introduction. The questions of Diognetus
I. The Heathen-world: the variety of their idols
.
§ 1
§ 2
II. The Jews { their foolish rites, customs, and ceremonies
s
§ 3
§ 4
§ 5
§ 6
§ 7
their habits and condition
III. The Christians they are the soul of the world
their religion not of man, but of God
The wretched state of the world before the Son of God came
IV.
Reasons why He came so late
Conclusion. Exhortation to Dingnetus to become a Christian
D
1
§ 8
§ 9
§ 10
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
175
another of silver, requiring a man to guard it, lest it be stolen ?
and another of iron, corroded by rust ? and another of burnt clay,
not at all more comely than the earthen vessel used for our lowest
necessities ? Are they not all made of matter which decays? Are
they not formed by the aid of iron and fire ? Was it not a stone-
mason who made the one, a worker in brass the other, a silversmith
the third, and a potter the last? Before they received their re-
spective shapes from the skill of those artificers, was not each left to
the mercies of the workman to transform it as he liked ? Could not
the same utensils which are now formed of the same material be
made like unto these idols, if they came into the hands of those
artificers ? Again, could not these very idols, before which ye now
bow down, be made by men into utensils like unto the rest ? ' Are
they not all deaf? and blind ? and lifeless ? without sensation ?
without motion ? all alike liable to decay? all perishable ?
And
these ye call gods; these ye serve; to these ye bow down; and,
in short, you treat them like the Gods themselves ! For this cause do
ye hate the Christians, because they do not hold these to be gods.
And yet do not ye yourselves, who think to praise them and wor-
ship them [as gods], despise them much more than they do? Do
ye not mock and insult them far more, by leaving the gods of stone
and burnt clay, whom ye worship, without any protection, and by
shutting up those made of silver and gold during the night, and by
day placing guards over them lest they be stolen ? And as for the
honours which ye heap upon them, they are rather punishments to
them, if they have sense : and if they are without sensation, you
put them to shame for being so, by worshipping them with bloody
sacrifices and the steam of fat. Would any of you bear with this?
would any one allow this to be done to himself? Why, no human
being would willingly suffer such punishment; for he possesses the
power of sensation and the faculty of reasoning: but stone can well
bear it, for it is without feeling. Thus, then, ye clearly prove your
gods to be without sensation.
As regards the point that Christians will not serve such gods,
I might say a great deal more: but if any one does not con-
sider what I have said to be sufficiently conclusive, I think it super-
fluous to say more, but I believe the next point which thou art most
desirous to know, is why Christians do not worship God in the same
manner as the Jews.
III. Now, so far as the Jews abstain from the kind of worship of
which I have just spoken, and think it right to worship One God
176
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
as the Creator of all things, they do wisely: but so far as they offer
Him worship in the same manner as those of whom I have just
spoken, they fail in this worship. For to pretend to give to God,
as if He stood in need of anything, those things which the Greeks,
as a proof of their folly, offer to idols who can neither feel nor
hear, the Jews ought by rights rather to look upon it as folly, not
as a religious act. For He who made Heaven and Earth and all
things that are therein, and who supplies all of us with everything
that we need, cannot Himself require what He vouchsafes to give to
them, who vainly conceive themselves to be the givers. But those
who think to make sacrifices to God by means of blood and fat and
burnt offerings, and with such sacrifices to reverence Him, do not
seem to me to differ in any way from those who show the same
respect to things which are deaf, these things not being able to
enjoy the honour, and they themselves appearing as men who give
to One who needeth nothing.
IV. But, indeed, I do not suppose that thou wishest to hear from
me concerning their shyness about food, and their superstitious
observance of the Sabbath, and of their boastful pride about cir-
cumcision, and of their pretences about fasting and the new moon:
all this is most ridiculous, and not worth speaking of. For, is it not
like the work of a drunken man to receive some of those things
which God has created for the use of men, as being created good, and
to reject others as being useless and superfluous ? And to make God
a liar, as if He forbade to do good on the Sabbath-day, is not that
impious ? And to swagger about the removing some part of the
flesh, as if it were a witness of their election, and as if they thereby
were above measure beloved of God, is not this worthy of derision ?
And to be anxiously watching for the stars and the moon in order to
make observations of months and days, and so to accommodate the
dispensations of God and the changes of the seasons to their own
desires, and make some into occasions of feasting, and others. of
mourning, who would not consider this to be a sign of folly, rather
than religion?
I think, then, that thou hast received sufficient proof why the
Christians rightly abstain both from that system of absurdity and
imposture which is common to Jews and. Greeks, and from the
meddling and arrogant spirit of the former.
But as regards the
mystery of their own religion, do not expect to learn that from
man.
y. Christians are not distinguished from the rest of mankind
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
177
1
either by their country, or by their language, or by their habits.
For they do not dwell in cities of their own; they do not speak any
strange dialect; they do not live in any peculiar manner. Nor, in-
deed, hath this, their doctrine, been arrived at through the imagina-
tion and forethought of meddlesome men; nor do they put forward
any mere human opinion, as some do. But living in Greek or Bar-
barian cities, as hath fallen to the lot of each, and following the
habits of the country in dress and food, and the other modes of life,
they present a marvellous and confessedly strange condition of their
own polity. They dwell in their own fatherlands, but as strangers.
They take part in everything as citizens, and they have to bear
everything as if they were foreigners. Every foreign country is
their fatherland, and every fatherland is a foreign country to them.
Like all the rest they marry and they beget children, but they do
not cast off their children. They make their table common to all,
but not their bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after
the flesh. They pass their time on Earth, but their citizenship is in
Heaven. They obey the established laws, and by their own lives
gain a victory over the laws. They love all, and yet are perse-
cuted by all. They are taken no notice of, and they are condemned:
they are put to death, and they come to life again: they are poor
themselves, and yet make many rich *: they lack everything, and
yet they abound in all things: they are put to shame, and yet they
glory in their shame : they are evil spoken of, and yet they are
justified: they are reviled, and they bless †: they are insulted, and
they show honour: they do good, and yet they are punished as evil-
doers: they rejoice in punishment, as being thereby quickened : the
Jews make war upon them as upon foreigners, and the Greeks perse-
cute them: and yet they that hate them can give no reason for their
enmity.
VI. In short, what the soul is in the body, Christians are in the
world. The soul is spread through all the members of the body,
and so are Christians through all the cities of the world. Now the
soul liveth in the body, yet is she not of the body : and so do
Christians live in the world, yet are not of the world. The in-
visible soul is preserved in a visible body: and so Christians are
known to be in the world, but their religion remaineth unseen.
The flesh hateth the soul, and warreth against her, without receiving
any injury; for the soul preventeth her from indulging in pleasures;
* See 2 Cor. vi. 10.
f 1 Cor. iv. 12.
VOL. I.
N
178
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
so the world hateth Christians, yet is no way injured ; for they are
opposed to pleasures. The soul loveth the flesh and its members
that hate. her: and so do Christians love those who hate them. The
soul is shut in by the body, yet she upholdeth the body: and so are
Christians kept, as it were, in prison by the world, yet they uphold
the world. The undying soul dwelleth in a mortal tabernacle: and
so do Christians dwell by the side of that which is perishable, while
they wait for immortality in Heaven. The soul is made better the
more she is maltreated by the withholding of food and drink: and
Christians the more they suffer punishment, the more do they from
day to day increase in number.
Such is the place which God hath assigned to them, and woe to
them if they fly from it.
VII. For, as I said before, theirs is no earthly invention handed
down to them, nor is that a mortal doctrine, which they hold worthy
of being so diligently preserved ; nor is it a dispensation of human
mysteries, which is entrusted to them: but God, the Ruler and
Creator of all things, the Invisible, hath Himself from Heaven
planted in men the truth and the holy incomprehensible Word, and
hath established Him in their hearts. He sent Him, not (as one
might suppose) as a servant, or as an angel, or as a ruler, or as one
engaged in earthly affairs, or as one entrusted with the care of things
in Heaven; but God sent the very Artificer and Creator of the Uni-
verse—Him, by whom He made the Heavens, by whom He enclosed
the sea within its due bounds-Him, whose mysterious laws are
faithfully kept by all the starry signs-Him, from whom the sun
hath received the measures of his daily course, duly to keep them
Him, at whose command the moon shineth in the night-
Him, whom the stars obey, as they follow the moon in her course
Him, by whom all things have been set in order and defined and
placed in subjection, the heavens and the things that are in the
heavens, the earth and the things that are in the earth, the sea and
everything that is in the sea, fire, air, deep, things above, things
below, things between. This is He, whom God sent unto them.
Was it, as some one among men might suppose, to tyrannise over
and to terrify mankind ? No, indeed; but in mercy and gentleness,
as a King would send his son, so He sent Him as a King: He sent
Him as God; He sent Him as man to men; He sent Him to save; to
persuade, not to force them; for violence is no attribute of God :
He sent Him as wishing to call, not to persecute: He sent Him in
love, not for judgment; for He will send Him to judge, and who
will then be able to stand in the day of His coming ?
*
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS.
179
*
*
[Dost thou not see] how Christians are cast before wild beasts that
they may deny the Lord, and yet they are not overcome? Dost
thou not observe, how that as more of them are afflicted with pun-
ishments, so their number is increased by others? These do not
appear like the deeds of men: this is the power of God: these are
the signs of His coming.
VIII. For what man, in short, did not disbelieve in God, until
He came? Or wilt thou receive the empty and frivolous doctrines
of those, so called, worthy men, the philosophers ? For some of
these say that God is fire; call that God, to which they are them-
selves hastening: others say that He is water; and others again
make Him to be some one of those very elements which He Himself
hath created. And yet if any one of these doctrines is to be re-
ceived, one might prove everything else created equally to be God.
But these doctrines are the prodigious lies and impostures of those
who are no better than jugglers: for no man ever saw or knew
God: He revealed Himself; and through faith He revealed Himself,
by which alone it is possible to see God.
For God, the Lord and Ruler of the Universe, who made all
things, and set them in order, showed Himself not only loving to
man, but also long-suffering. For He was ever such, and is, and
will be: kind, and good, and passionless, and true: and He alone is
good: and He conceived in His mind a great and unspeakable
thought, which He communicated to His Son. Now, as long as He
kept back His wise counsel and preserved it as a mystery, He ap-
peared not to care or think about us. But when He revealed it
unto us through His beloved Son, and made manifest those things
which had been prepared from the beginning, He put everything at
the same time within our reach, both to partake of His benefits, and
to see and understand that which no one among us ever could have
looked for. Now, when He had by Himself, together with His Son,
set everything in order (IX.), He left us during the time past to be
carried about, as we willed, by our unruly impulses, led away, as we
were, by pleasures and desires: not in any way as if He took delight
in our sins, but as One who bore with them; nor as One who ap-
proved of that season of unrighteousness, but as One who was
fashioning the time of righteousness: so that having by our own
works in former times proved ourselves unworthy of life, we might
now, through the goodness of God, be made worthy of it; and as
N2
180
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
we had shown our inability to enter into the kingdom of God by our
own strength, we might be enabled so to do by the power of God.
But when the measure of our own unrighteousness was filled up,
and it had been fully shown that punishment and death awaited it
as its reward, and the time came which God had fore-ordained to
show forth His own goodness and power (Oh! the exceeding love
of God for man!), He did not hate us, or cast us off, or remember
the evil against us, but He bore long with us and suffered us, and
out of pity took our offences upon Him: He Himself gave up His own
Son as a ransom for us, the Holy for transgressors— Him that was
without evil for sinners--the Just for the unjust-the Imperishable
for perishable men the Immortal for mortals. For what else,
but His righteousness, could have been a covering for our sins ? In
whom else could we, the sinners and the ungodly, have been justified
but in the Son of God above? Oh! the sweet change! Oh! the
unsearchable dispensation! Oh! the unlooked-for benefits! to cover
the transgressions of many through one righteous Man, and by the
righteousness of one to justify many sinners! Having then proved
to us, in former times, how impossible it was for our nature to attain
unto life, and having now, in the present time, shown forth the
Saviour as able to save even that which seemed impossible, He
desires us, from both these considerations, to trust in His goodness
to look upon Him as our Guardian, our Father, our Teacher,
our Counsellor, our Physician,.our Understanding, our Light, our
Honour, our Glory, our Strength, our Life; and not to take thought
for raiment and food.*
X. Mayest thou desire this faith, and first acquire the knowledge
of the Father : for God loved men, and for their sake He created
the world to them He made all things subject that are therein-
to them He gave reason and understanding - to them alone He gave
permission to look up to Him them He formed after His own
image—to them He sent His only begotten Sop-to them He hath
promised the Kingdom in Heaven, which He will also give to those
who love Him. And when thou hast acquired this knowledge, with
what joy shalt thou be filled! or how wilt thou love Him, who hath first
so greatly loved thee! But when thou lovest Him, thou wilt become
a follower of His goodness. And marvel not at this, that a man
may become a follower of God. He can if he will. For happiness
consisteth not in lording it over our neighbours, or in desiring to
1
* Matt. vi. 25-28.
THE EPISTLE TO DIOGNETUS,
181
have more than the weaker brethren, or in being rich and op-
pressing the poor : nor can man, in so doing, be a follower of God;
for they are entirely foreign to His majesty. But whosoever
beareth the burden of his neighbour -- whosoever is ready to do
good with that wherein he aboundeth, to another who is in want
whosoever, by distributing to the needy the things which he hath
received from God, becometh a God to those who receive them
this man is a follower of God. Then shalt thou behold, though
thou be living on earth, that God reigneth in Heaven; then shalt
thou begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love
and admire those who are suffering punishment because they will
not deny God; then shalt thou condemn the impostures and errors
of the world, when thou hast known how to live truly in Heaven
when thou canst despise that which appeareth to be death here-
when thou dreadest that which really is death, a death which is kept
in store for those who will be condemned to that eternal fire, which
will torment them, whom it receiveth, unto the end. Then shalt
thou admire those who can bear patiently the [torments of] earthly
fire, and bless them when thou thyself hast tasted that fire.
**
*
N 3
132
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
III.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD,
OR
THE BOOK OF THE SHEPHERD.
“ HERMAS' Shepherd,” or “ The Book of the Shepherd,” or
“ The Shepherd;" —such is the title of a book which the
churches of Greece continued to read during their public wor-
ship up to the time of Jerome; a work which Irenæus quotes as
the “Scripture” (or “ The Book”); out of which Clemens of
Alexandria introduces a passage as “divinely expressed," and
which Origen confesses that he believes to be “divinely in-
spired.” As it can be proved that this book was written at
Rome, as late as the earlier part of the age of which we are
treating, by the brother of a Roman bishop, it must have struck
the Gentile Christian mind as a product of inspiration from its
first appearance. For we find already, forty years after that date,
a protest against its being considered and used as a part of cano-
nical Scripture, although it ought to be honoured as a pious and
important work for private reading. 66 The Shepherd ” is, in-
deed, one of those books which, like the “Divina Commedia,"
and Bunyan's “ Pilgrim's Progress, captivate the mind by the
united power of thought and fiction, both drawn from the
genuine depths of the human soul.
This book contains a Revelation, apparently made to a
Roman Christian, Hermas, a name familiar to all Christians
as being mentioned by St. Paul (Rom. xvi.). This Revelation
dwells on the things of the invisible world; it introduces visions,
in which the Holy Spirit appears as the Son of God, the
Church as a divine matron the first of God's works, and a
guardian angel as the teacher of the penitent. But what these are
made to say, finds a response in the longings of the human soul,
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
183
and concerns the trials of a Christian heart in every age. All its
lofty visions terminate in tangible, practical precepts for a
truly Christian life. Such a life had its peculiar trials at that
early stage of Christianity. We have seen what was the condi-
tion of the Christian churchman in this age and in that which
preceded it, and how he must often have felt anxious and un-
happy, if he had a reflective mind. Yet life, after all, was to be
endured as it was; temptations and sin were to be encountered.
Could outward discipline give the strength required for that
struggle ? Could the prescribed penance restore the fallen ?
Was forgiveness of sins after baptism certain? Was a re-ad-
mission to Church communion in some cases possible? “ The
Shepherd” contemplates all these difficulties, and answers all
these doubts in a childlike and yet mysterious and authoritative
manner. Such a book was exactly the composition suited to the
great mass of the Gentile Christians in that dreamy age. All
wanted a revelation respecting Christ's predictions. Again,
Christian parents were anxiously looking out for a Christian
literature. What Greek or Latin author should fathers and
mothers put into the hands of their children, without bring-
ing them into contact with Heathenism or Gentile impurity ?
“ The Shepherd " satisfied the taste of the times for apocalyptic
manifestations; it was calculated to excite feelings of awe and
piety in every reader, and to form and strengthen principles of
sanctity in young minds; and all this on evangelical and apo-
stolical ground, on a truly scriptural basis. The book certainly
does not possess, what a learned English divine considers as the
criterion of a treatise destined to reveal to the initiated the
mysteries of faith; namely, a great quantity of quotations from
Scripture. Our book, called by the Fathers “ The Scripture,
does not quote Scripture, although many passages in it allude
to the Gospel, and though it is, from beginning to end, based
upon the great truths proclaimed in our canonical Scripture.
I confess I cannot help believing that this method fully
satisfied its contemporaries, and indeed the most enlightened
Christians of the following centuries. Perhaps even they
thought it to be the peculiar charm of the book, that it was
not a sermon stuffed with quotations from the Scriptures, but
N 4
184
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
rather one that gave evidence of the influence and power of the
same Spirit which had presided at their composition, and that it
was inspired by the contemplation of the great individual centre
of all Scripture. Such a composition “ The Shepherd ” really
is; and it has further the merit of brevity, which is more than
can be said of all sermons.
Now, as to its origin, a learned historian of the succeeding age
(about 170), Hegesippus, says positively, in the “Fragmentum
Muratorianum,""** The Book of the Shepherd' has been written
quite recently, in our days, by Hermas, brother of Pius, when this
bishop occupied the episcopal chair.” Nobody has shown better
than Hilgenfeld, the last critical examiner of this remarkable
composition, that it bears on its very face the marks of the earlier
part of the second century; and he thinks it ought to be attributed
to the period under Hadrian,--therefore between 117 and 138.
This result is embarrassing to him, because, according to the
vulgar chronology of the Roman Bishops, the pontificate of
Pius begins only in 142; but this difficulty happens to be
only a proof of his acute criticism, for, as my Tables will show,
the real time of that pontificate runs from 132 or 133 to 157.
But I hope to show from the book itself, that it was written in
139 or 140, in the first years of Antoninus Pius.
With regard to its contents and bearings, instead of arguing
from single passages, which every party quotes and interprets for
its own purposes, I shall give the whole tenor of the work in a
faithful outline. Such a reasoning analysis will give the best
picture of the age, and will best explain how a book, written at
that time, could obtain such high authority in the Church.
I do not think that the fable itself, the tale of the imaginary
Hermas, the author's namesake, has ever been well told.
The book itself does not give a good exposition of cir-
cumstances which the readers of the time could much better
guess at than we can. Besides, there is scarcely any book
of Christian antiquity which has been so badly treated by
time and by editors, as “ The Shepherd.” We possess it only
in a rather barbarous Latin translation, and all our five manu-
scripts represent but one original. In the three Paris manu-
scripts, the Latin of the translation is corrected, which is also
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
185
the case, although in a far less degree, in one of the two
English copies, that of the Bodleian Library. The MS. at Lam-
beth Palace is the only one which is free from a manifest inter-
polation common to all the others. Now, none of these manu-
scripts has a division into books and chapters; they only mark
new paragraphs by great initials. Out of these, the first editor
(Faber Stapulensis, a Parisian, in 1513) made an arbitrary di-
vision into chapters, which destroys the beautiful transparency
of the composition, cutting asunder what is united, and making
the book appear clumsy and full of contradictions. I have pre-
pared a new edition upon the Lambeth codex, only correcting
the numberless blunders in it from the other manuscripts.
The best text hitherto given is that which is found in the first
volume of Russell's Apostolical Fathers (London, 1746). It
gives the Greek fragments textually, some of which only are
found quoted by Hefele.
THE FIRST BOOK.
Introduction and Vision: Despair and Doubt.
THERE lived at Rome (such is the tale of our Shepherd) a
Christian man of the name of Hermas, the friend of Paul. Indeed,
it is highly probable that the brother of Bishop Pius thought
of this his apostolical namesake; for not only is Rome his resi-
dence, and Clemens his bishop, but the whole age is supposed to
be that of a recrudescence of persecution. Such an age happened
to be that of Clemens, under Domitian ; and such evidently
was the writer's own age.
This Hermas was not one of the Elders of the Roman con-
gregation. He kept a mercantile house in town, and possessed
a villa not far distant from Rome, near the Campanian road.
His wife must have been a Gentile, and is confessed to have
had an evil-speaking tongue : his sons were wicked, and finally
ruined their father. Our hero himself was evidently an active
member of the congregation, for he is employed expressly
to address it, as, in that period, any believer might do, during
the public worship. But, at the same time, he seems to have
186
TEE FOURTH GENERATION.
neglected his family, and not taken all the pains he ought to
instruct and confirm them in Christian faith and good habits.
He was an outwardly righteous man, of unblemished reputation;
but, when brought to a consciousness of his sins, he confesses that
in his dealings he had scarcely ever spoken a word of truth, but
rather endeavoured to take his customers in, exactly as, accord-
ing to Ovid, Gentile Roman shopkeepers used to do, after the
fashion of their patron, shrewd Mercury.
His father had a handsome slave girl, a playfellow, it appears,
of Hermas, who, however, was sold, when still a child, to another
master at Rome. He renewed his acquaintance with her when
he met her by chance, and liked her as a sister, which clearly in-
dicates that she was a Christian, a circumstance which, besides, the
continuation of the story places beyond all doubt. Once, when
taking a solitary walk along the Tiber, probably thinking of his
comfortless home, he saw her struggling in the water. She had
been bathing in one of the bathing-houses on the banks of the
river, and must have slipped into the water. There is here an
evident chasm in the text, from which we only perceive that
dragged her out of the river*," and saved her life. This
event left an impression upon him which he could not over-
come.
Struck by her charms and the beauty of her soul, the
thought entered his mind, how happy a man would be who pos-
sessed such an angel as a wife ; but not a word or a gesture
ever betrayed his feelings, which never went beyond that
thought. But when taking a walk one day, thinking of "the
beauty of God's creature," he went to sleep, and fell into
a trance. The spirit carried him to a place very much like that
where Dante awakened for the first time to a consciousness of
his sins. “It was a place," he says, “ where nobody could walk,
a place with rocks, surrounded by abysses, and rendered besides
he 66
eam in
* The words are “Exacto autem tempore aliquo, lavari ...
flumine Tiberi vidi, et porrexi ei manum, et eduxi eam e flumine.” Now,
promiscuous bathing of men and women in the public baths was a horror
even to the Gentiles : bathing of women in the Tiber likewise. But, to
suppose that Christian women bathed there, is too absurd for a fiction, and
that a respectable Christian man gave her the hand, when she stepped out of
the bath, is absolutely impossible.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
187
***
inaccessible by waters.' He then came into a plain, and here
he fell upon his knees, and began to pray, confessing his sins to
God. All at once that beautiful maiden, evidently having been
removed by a sudden death, appeared to him as a spirit, and
called out to him, “ Hermas, all hail !” He having exclaimed,
full of surprise, “Lady, what art thou doing here?” she replied,
“I have been called home to bring thy sins before the Lord.”
Lady,"
” he said, " thou accusest me: have I ever offended
thee, by word or gesture ?” She then, softly smiling t, made
him sensible of the sin of concupiscence, and of the nature of
evil thoughts, as signs of a want of faith in God, and of hope in
things eternal. Upon this, heaven closed, and he was left alone
in great distress. And, lo! a chair, as of wool, white like
snow, appeared to him; and an aged matron came, splendidly
arrayed, and sat down on the chair, and said, “ Hermas, all
hail !” And he having returned the salutation, communicated
to her, at her request, his extreme sorrow for having been thus
accused by the maiden. And the aged matron said, " There
may have been concupiscence, which ought to be far from a
tried spirit, particularly from one who has shown himself full of
continence and simplicity of mind. But the wrath of God is upon
thee much more on account of the sins of thy house, and thy
neglect in exhorting thy wife and sons. Now be of good cheer;
they will be converted if admonished by thee, and she will be-
come to thee a Christian wife (a sister).” Whereupon she read
a book to him, containing an awful commination against the
wicked; but concluding with words as full of comfort as of
majesty.
ty. And with a cheerful voice she took leave of him, dis-
appearing eastward, whither the chair also had been removed,
and said, “ Be of good courage, Hermas."
* Compare the beginning of the Inferno :
66 Mi ritrovai in una selva oscura
Che la diritta via era smarrita.
Abi quanto a dir qual era è cosa dura
Questa selva selvaggia ed aspra e forte
Che nel pensier rinuova la paura.
Tanto è amara che poco più è morte."
† “Surridens,” exactly as Beatrice is said by Dante to speak “sorridendo.*
So, Paradiso, canto 11. 24, 25.
188
THE FOURTE GENERATION.
A year after, when Hermas, finding himself in similar medi-
tations at the same place, fell upon his knees, thanking God
for having shown him his former sins, there appeared to him the
aged matron again, now, however, looking cheerful. She ad-
dressed him standing, and gave him the book in which she was
reading, that he might copy it. He did so, though without
making out the sense. A fortnight after, the meaning was re-
vealed to him, and he found it to contain an instruction how
to reprove and admonish his house. 66 All believers," said
the book, " who repent from their heart, and reform their
ways, will be saved, and they will receive such support from
God's presence that they would be unable to deny God in
the persecutions and tribulations which are coming on, should
they ever be tempted to do so." When she disappeared, an
angelic youth explained to him, that “ she was not, as he had
supposed, the Sibyl, but the Church ; that is to say, the Spirit
of the Communion of God's Elect from the beginning of the
world. She appeared in the shape of an aged matron, be-
cause she is the first of God's creatures, and on her account the
world was created.” We will anticipate here the explanation
that this matron is not a hierarchical figure: it is God's Spirit
of Humanity, as far as mankind lives in God and does God's
work, which is personified in her.
After some time, she appeared to him in his house, and
ordered him to make two copies of our book -- one for Clemens, ,
the bishop, who would send it to the foreign Churches; the
other for Grapte (the presbytera or matron), who would teach
and admonish accordingly the widows and orphans. As for the
Elders of the Church, Hermas himself is to announce the reve-
lation to them in person.
Here ends the first part of the Introduction to the Book of
the Shepherd. The three apparitions of the Church are pre-
paratory to the Vision of the heavenly organization of the
Elect, and of the divine destiny of the Kingdom of God upon
earth. This vision itself takes place after Hermas has been in
a state of longing after further revelations, in the silence of the
night, at a lonely place in the country. The matron this time sits
down on a simple bench (subsellium), and he is requested to
take his place at her left side. There he beholds a great tower,
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
189
which is being built upon the waters out of splendid square
blocks. The six first-created angels of God are constructing it
with the help of many thousand people. He learns that this
is the Church of God, or the Communion of all believers; a
sanctuary which is building up in this world during what re-
mains of time. Some explanations are given him respecting the
angels, and spirits, and men, and the corner-stones, and those
which are rejected ; and a prospect is held out of further
enlightenment.
Twenty days after, when he was in a lonely place, thanking
God for having deigned to reveal unto him His mysteries, he
heard a voice saying, “ Do not doubt, Hermas!” Soon after a
great fierce monster moved towards him, intercepting his way ;
it was a hundred feet long, and out of its mouth came forth
fiery locusts. Hermas, mindful of what he had heard, took
courage and encountered the beast, which, as he approached,
laid itself quietly down, and let him pass over it.
Who is not
reminded of the three fierce animals who assailed Dante when
he for the first time awakened to a serious repentance? Here
Sin is represented under the image of one monster - in the
Divina Commedia of three; but the idea is the same. So is it
with the delivery from this enemy.* No sooner had he effected
this perilous passage, than the Spirit of the Church greeted him
again, appearing no longer aged, but as a bridal virgin, in
radiant beauty. “ Thou hast conquered,” she said, “because
thou hast, with a pure heart, laid before the Lord thy loneliness
זיג
* Inferno I. 34 and following. The leopard (Lust) bars the way at
first against him :
“E non mi sì partia dinanzi al volto :
Anz' impediva tanto il mi cammino
Che i' fui per ritornar più volte volto.
Next comes the second ruling sin of selfish man (Pride), the lion :
“ Questi parea che contra me venisse
Con la test' alta e con rabbiosa fame,
Sì che parea che l' aer ne tremesse."
At last, the vice of the aged man appears (Avarice), the never satiated, the
wolf:
Questa mi porse tanto di gravezza
Con la paura ch' uscia di sua vista
Ch' i' perdei la speranza dell'altezza."
190
THE FOURTH GENERATION
and care, firmly believing that thou canst not be saved but
by His great and majestic name. Therefore the Lord has sent
his angel, who rules over that wild beast." *
After some explanations of the vision, she disappears, and
Hermas turns back, fearing a new attack of the monster, the
fierce animal. Here closes the introductory part, or the
first book, which is called that of the Visions. The whole is
an apocalyptical, epicized expression of the first stage of the
mind awakening from the torpor of moral indifference, and
wavering between faith and fear. But it is essential to observe,
that the man whose soul is in that unconverted torpid state is
an outward churchman, living in external righteousness, fasting,
and performing all the acts of outward discipline. All this, how-
ever, exists in him without a real conversion, and, therefore, in-
stead of giving him peace, makes him sensible of an inward
contradiction. Hermas is an outward churchman, bowed down
by the outward church life. Not a word can be understood of
what follows, unless we attend to this circumstance. It is the
conversion of a believer. In the same state was Dante when
the spiritual light began to dawn upon him about 1300. So was
Tauler, when he, the great and far-famed preacher, was converted
by the “Friend of God," Nicolaus of Basel, the obscure layman
and secret Vaudois, in the year 1340.
.
The second Book comprises what is now called, by the fancy
of the editors, the second and the third Books, or the Book of
Mandates and that of Similitudes. But Mandates and Simili-
tudes form one indivisible book, which that angelic youth, the
Guardian Angel of Hermas, now dictates to him. This angel
appears first in the garb of a shepherd; and then manifests
himself as the Angel of Penitence. By this penitence is to
be understood, not. penance or the outward acknowledgment
of sin committed, but the penitent and faithful renewal of
the heart, and the acknowledgment of individual self-responsi-
bility. The Angel communicates to Hermas that he is to
* “Propter hoc nisit Dominus angelum suum qui est super bestiam
(vulgo bestias) cui nomen est Hegria" (i. e. Agria, the fierce). The genuine
Greek word is preserved in the passage immediately following: éxpeútcode
την ενέργειας του αγρίου, εάν η καρδία υμών γένηται καθαρά και άμωμος.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
191
behold again what he has beheld before, and have it more
clearly explained to him; and this revelation he will have to
add to his book. We have, therefore, a tripartite composition,
organized in beautiful simplicity. The first Book, which ends
with the revelation of the Church of God on earth, represents the
dark state of the soul, her first awakening, and the glimpse she
catches of the glory of the divine life in God, living between
fear and joy. The second Book (the Mandates and the first
chapter of what is now called the Similitudes, in our editions,
ch. ii–viii.) brings before us the state of penitence in which
man is disposed to listen to the moral precepts of Christianity,
which he never understood properly before, and regulate his life
accordingly, with the feeling of moral responsibility. The third
Book (from the ninth chapter of the Similitudes to the end)
represents the perfect vision of the blessed life of the soul in
communion with God and all good spirits, and of the eternal
laws of that Kingdom of God upon earth, which is shortly to
replace the present wicked world by a better. This, then, is the
state of perfect Faith, the fruit of the regeneration of the soul.
This psychological ascent, this progress of the soul in her
life's struggle, is the basis of the three “ Cantiche” of the
Divina Commedia, as well as of the Pilgrim's Progress, and of
our Shepherd. Dante did not know Hermas, nor Bunyan
Dante, but they all three knew Christ. We now proceed to the
analysis of the second Book.
THE SECOND BOOK.
Penitence.
Like the first, the second book of the Shepherd consists of two
parts -- the Mandates and the Similitudes. The Mandates are
twelve, the Similitudes six. The Mandates represent the
new law of the spirit, the moral precepts of Christianity, applied
to the individual life of a Gentile Christian ; and the Simili-
tudes introduce us to the understanding of the spiritual order
of the world, as foreshadowed in God's nature around us.
We shall give them both in a condensed form, but the prin-
cipal parts as nearly as possible in the words of the book.
192
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
The TWELVE MANDATES given to Hermas by the Angel of
Penitence.
I. First of all, believe that there is One God, who hath created
and ordered all things, and hath brought into being all things
from that which is not: One God who comprehendeth all, who
alone is incomprehensible. Believe in Him, and fear Him,
and in fearing Him show abstinence.
II. Live in simplicity and innocence. Be as infant children,
not knowing wickedness. Speak ill of no one, and delight
not in hearing any one speaking evil. In this simplicity and
sanctity, in which all is smooth and cheerful, give to all who
are in want; those who do not deserve it, will have to render
account to God, not thou. Keep this commandment, and have
a clean heart.
III. Love truth, that the Spirit of God may dwell in thee;
those who lie, deny God, having become, by receiving the
spirit of truth, dwelling places of the truthful spirit.
IV. Preserve purity, and let no thought enter into thy heart
after the wife of another, or any uncleanness; if married, avoid
divorce.
V. Preserve equanimity and patience; by them thou wilt
gain the mastery over all evil actions, and do all righteousness;
wrathfulness pollutes the Holy Spirit which dwelleth in thee.*
The dwelling of the two spirits in the same man leadeth to his
destruction.
VI. Put thy trust in righteousness and justice. Trust not
at all unto what is unjust. Keep to the straight way of justice,
and leave the tortuous path of unrighteousness. The good
angel in man is mild, bashful and strong, and inspires just and
pure thoughts; the evil angel is the contrary, and inspires evil
thoughts and desires.
VII. Fear the Lord, and not the Devil. If thou keepest
God's commandments, thou wilt be strong in all thy doings and
actions, and thy doing will be irreproachable. As to the Devil, ,
he hath no power, and fleeth away before believing man.
και το πνεύμα το άγιον μη μιαινόμενον υπό της οξυχολίας, instead of
μούμενον. So, shortly afterwards : η οξυχολία την μακροθυμίαν" μιαίνει.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
193
VIII. Abstain from all wickedness, and practise every virtue.
Abhor drunkenness, lawlessness, luxury in eating, a proud and
overbearing spirit, slander and hypocrisy, vindictiveness, and
every blasphemy, and avoid all works which flow from them.
On the contrary, practise faith, fear of the Lord, concord,
charity, words of righteousness, truth, patience, and conse-
quently serve the widow, take care of needy orphans, redeem
from want the servants of God, be hospitable, and the like, and
thou wilt live unto God.
IX. Banish all wavering, and throw thyself upon the Lord.
Do not admit the doubt, that thy prayers cannot be heard
on account of thy many sins. Turn thyself to the Lord with
all thy heart, and ask of Him unhesitatingly, trusting to His
mercy, and thou wilt receive all thou askest, in His own time.
X. Banish all sadness, and put on cheerfulness. Sadness is
the sister of doubtfulness and of wrathfulness, for the Spirit of
God which is given unto the flesh, does not suffer sadness.
Cheerfulness ever finds grace before the Lord, for the cheerful
heart always turns towards the Father in heaven, and does
good, but the doubting heart takes refuge with the erring
Spirit, the false prophet.
XI. Trust the Spirit which cometh from God and hath power.
Do not trust the empty Spirit of the earth, who is from the
Devil, and in whom there is no faith nor any power to raise the
soul, no more than stone or water thrown up from the earth
can reach heaven.
*
* The passage of the next chapter, which, if it was genuine, would neces-
sarily come in here: “Spiritus omnium hominum terrestris est et levis .
Non convenit hæc facere Dei prophetam " is, at all events, a gloss; if
not, the whole Similitude is an interpolation, which, I think, is most
probable. That the gloss, added loosely in the margin, crept only at a
late period, into the text, is doubly proved. The Lambeth MS. has it not,
and the others which exhibit it, have it in the wrong place. It evidently was
put in here, after the Montanist delusions had arisen. But also the beginning
of the Similitude about the Spirit of the Earth, looks to me more than sus-
picious. I believe it to have been inserted in that time: for a similitude
is certainly out of place here among the Mandates. As to the precept
itself, it may appear to interrupt here the order discernible in the rest, and
its natural place might seem to be immediately after the eighth command-
VOL. I.
0
194
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
XII. Banish every evil desire, and put on the good and holy
desire. The good desire maketh thee hate the evil desire, which
is fierce and consumeth, and giveth over to death the man who
falleth into it. Evil desire is that of the flesh, as avarice,
luxury, ambition. Work righteousness, and love truth, and live
in the fear of the Lord, and in Faith and Charity.
The twelve precepts are concluded by a general address, of
which the following is an abstract* :-
These are the twelve Commandments: do thou walk in
them, and admonish thy hearers to walk in the same, that their
penitence may become pure for all the remaining days of their
life. He who hath the Lord in his heart, hath the power to
keep all these Commandments, and the Devil will flee away from
him. The Lord alone can save and destroy; for to God you
must live already in this world, and, therefore, consider your-
selves as being only pilgrims in this strange city which is far
from that to which you are bound. Do not, therefore, desire
the riches of this world, or the wife of thy neighbour, but only
the work of thy salvation, and thou wilt be saved.
THE SIX SIMILITUDES.
These six Similitudes are all taken from nature, and following
the traces of Parables of Christ, introduce Hermas, by way of
completing his moral education, into the system of nature as
being the symbol of the life of the Spirit. The scene of all these
ment. If more closely considered, however, it will be found to grow naturally
out of the conclusion of the tenth, where the false Prophet is mentioned.
* This address is now miserably cut in two, the first part forming the
conclusion of the second book of our editions, and the rest beginning with
« Et dixit mihi," having been called the first chapter of the Third Book.
The ancient MSS. know nothing of this absurdity. The present second
chapter of Book II. is the well marked commencement of the second part
of the Second Book of Hermas, the Similitudes.
† Lib. III. Similitudines, ch. ii.--viii. As they begin now with the
second chapter of the Third Book, the first Similitude is called “the second
Similitude." We shall find a similar thoughtlessness in chapter vii., which is
made the “ eighth Similitude," containing no similitude whatever.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
195
Parables is in the open air, in a cultivated country. In the first
three, Hermas is represented as meditating upon one of the
phenomena of nature, and, at his desire, the Angel explains to
him the symbolical meaning of what he observes, or is told to
observe. But the three last Similitudes are complete Parables :
a deep spiritual truth of the invisible world is taught by a fic-
tion, the elements of which, however, are all borrowed from
nature.
FIRST SIMILITUDE.
The Elm and the Vine, or the Rich and the Poor in this World.
The elm and the vine are a similitude of the mutual support
which the rich and the poor are intended to give to each other.
The vine brings forth fruit, the elm does not: but the vine
would not bring forth much and good fruit, if it were not
supported by the elm. Thus the rich man is poor before the
Lord, distracted as he is by his wealth, and his prayer is little
and powerless. The prayer of the poor man is powerful before
the Lord, and thus the rich man is benefited by the prayers of the
poor, whom he supports, and who feel thankful towards him.
SECOND SIMILITUDE.
The Leafless Trees, or the Righteous and Unrighteous in this
World.
In the winter, the trees are alike leafless and lifeless: thus the
righteous and the unrighteous are alike in this winter of earthly
existence; their difference, therefore, cannot be judged from
their appearance.
THIRD SIMILITUDE.
The Trees in Summer, or the Soul in the next World.
In the summer, some trees have leaves and bring forth fruit:
others are withered. The world to come is the world's summer,
when the just will show their fruit, and those who are immersed
in a variety of worldly business will remain withered and
lifeless.
02
196
THE FOURTII GENERATION.
What follows we will relate in the form of the original, re-
taining the whole of its substance, but abridging it: where we
give quotations we shall mark them as such.
THE FIRST PARABLE. (Fourth Similitude.)
The Lord of the Vineyard, and the Son and Servant of God.
One day I was sitting on a mountain, rendering thanks to God
for all that he had done to me, and keeping my prescribed weekly
fast-day, and the guardian Angel appeared and said: -" This
is not such fasting as pleases God: the true fast is abstinence
from evil desires and doings, and serving God in a pure mind
according to His Commandments. Doing this, thou mayest feed
upon water and bread and herbs: but what thou hast thus
saved, give to the widow and orphan, and to the poor. Then
thy sacrifice will be acceptable to the Lord, and thou and thy
house will be heard in your prayers.” [Having said so much, the
Angel lays before Hermas the following Parable] : -- A man who
had an estate and many servants, planted a vineyard, which, on
going abroad, he left to the most faithful of his many servants,
leaving him the order to bind the vines to the sticks, and pro-
mising him his liberty if he found it done. But the faithful
servant did much more: he dug the vineyard afresh, and weeded
it, in consequence of which the vines grew much finer. When
the lord of the vineyard returned, he was so much pleased by
what he saw, that he said to his son and heir, and to the friends
of the same: “I will make him co-heir with my son;" of which
resolution the son and his friends highly approved. After this,
the lord made a great meal, and sent many dishes to that ser-
vant, who took out of them what was sufficient, giving the rest
to his fellow servants. ' Upon which the lord declared his reso-
lution to make that servant co-heir with his own son.. Thus
(said the Angel), if thou first keepest the precepts of the Lord,
and then addest fasting to it, particularly if thou doest so in
the sense in which I have explained it to thee, thou wilt be
happy and rejoice. The lord's son (says the Angel in explana-
tion) is the Holy Spirit; his companions are the six first created
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
197
Spirits: the faithful servant is Christ, the Son of God, in His
servile
appearance as Man, fulfilling not only all external
righteousness, but becoming the Saviour of his brethren, root-
ing out their sins and imparting to them the Divine gifts
which he had received. This human body in which the Holy
Spirit has resided, is raised to coequal Divine dignity, for the
Lord sees his own Son, the eternal image of Himself, in that
body. Thus, also, every believing man and faithful servant of
God receives that higher intellect, that Holy Spirit which will
lead him into the understanding of the word of God.
We shall enter soon more deeply into the speculative intui-
tion veiled in this Parable. We only wished here to represent
the clear ethical sense in the very words of the book. The
moral comment upon the Parable concludes thus :
Keep this thy body clean and pure, in order that the Spirit
who will dwell in thee may give witness to Him, and be judged
to have been with thee. Do not abuse this body for some lust,
imagining that it is to perish. For, if thou contaminatest thy
body, thou wilt at the same time contaminate the Holy Spirit;
and if thou hast contaminated the Holy Spirit thou wilt not
live. Body and Spirit are consorts, and the one is not con-
taminated without the other: keep both clean, and thou wilt
live unto God.”
68
THE SECOND PARABLE. (Fifth Similitude.)
The Two Shepherds, the Merry and the Austere.
I sat at home, and in meditating on the precepts given me, I
said to myself, “If I walk in these Commandments I shall be
happy; and whoever walks in them will live unto God. Then
the Angel appeared, and said, “ Banish thy doubts: in these
precepts thou wilt receive strength; and, if thou sinnest not in
future, this will take away much of thy former sins. Let us go
into the field, and I will show thee two shepherds.” And he
showed me first a merry youth, dressed in a costly saffron-co-
loured robe, who was running about among his sheep, which all
were giving themselves up to mirth and pleasure; some of them
03
198
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
rest.
were even leaping about exultingly. “ This angel," he said, “ is
the angel of every evil desire, such as sensuality, avarice, false-
hood, violence: he deceives the souls : those who give up them-
selves to him, and separate themselves entirely from God, even
denying and blaspheming him, are given over to death; their
life is death. Those who do not exult in their lust have in
them still a hope of repentance.”
Advancing a little farther, I saw another shepherd, of an
austere and fierce appearance, clothed in a white goat's skin,
carrying a knotty stick, and striking terror with his look. This
shepherd took away from the other shepherd's flock those sheep
which did not exult, and threw them into a place full of thorns,
among which he drove them about without leaving them any
“ Who is that merciless shepherd ?” asked I, full of
terror. “ This,” he answered, “is the angel of punishment;
one of the righteous angels. He plunges the men who have
forsaken God, into many tribulations, giving them over to want,
illness, inconsistency, injury, and insults from others. They
prosper in nothing, although they try and undertake many
things, without, however, patiently subinitting to God with a
pure heart. Their sufferings appear to them as a year for every
hour of lust; for lust has no memory, but punishment has a
long memory. Only when they do real penitence, they learn
to understand the cause why they did not prosper all the time;
and then they gave thanks to God for having been given over
to me, the Angel of Penitence."
* When, after some days, I met the Shepherd in the field, I
said to him: “ Lord, let that angel of punishment go out of
my house, for he afflicts me sorely: why should I suffer so
much ? I do not think I have deserved that."
house has," answered the angel," and thou must suffer for it, for
thou hast neglected thy wife and children ; they are now doing
penitence, and thou and they must be tried, and have much
patience. But remain only humble, and I shall mitigate the
severity of that angel."
66 But thy
* This conclusion of the fifth Similitude (ch. vi.) is made into a new Simi-
litude (vii.), although it contains no similitude whatever : all this simply
because the MSS. have a great initial.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
199
The THIRD PARABLE. (Sixth Similitude.)
The Willow and its ever-renewed Branches.
The Angel showed me a willow, covering fields and mountains,
under the shadow of which gathered all who were called in the
name of the Lord. By the side of this willow, stood a most
majestic and radiant angel of God. He cut off branches from
this willow and handed them to the congregated people. When
he had done, and all had received a small green bough, the tree
appeared as perfect as before. And lo! they all returned and
presented their boughs. These exhibited a ninefold gradation,
from those which were entirely withered and rotten to those
which had still a little green at the top. But beyond the ninth
class there were three higher : one who brought back their
branches quite green, as the angel had delivered them, the next
whose branches had, besides, young shoots; lastly, those who
had green branches, with shoots and with fruits. These last
were dressed in white garments, and crowned with palms: and
thus they went into the Tower. The next received also the
white garment, and a seal was put upon them, and thus they
entered the Tower. Those who had green boughs, only re-
ceived the white garment. The rest, divided into the nine
classes, were delivered over to the angel of penitence, and the
great Angel said: “Those who might have passed by thee, not
deserving it, shall be tried by me upon the altar.” The Shepherd
hereupon planted the branches and watered them abundantly,
and then said, “ Now let us go: we shall return in a few days
and visit them, for He who created this tree willeth that all
should live who have received of its branches."
The Angel then gave me the explanation of the similitude.
• The all-covering willow is the universal Law of God, and by
it, the Son of God is preached in all corners of the earth. The
people standing around and listening are those who have heard
this preaching and believed. The majestic angel is Michael,
who is set over them. The branches are the Law given to the
individual souls. All who have not satisfied the Law are under
my guidance, in order to do penitence. Those who are crowned,
have overcome the devil, having endured death on account of
04
200
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
the Law: those without fruits, are those who have only suffered
afflictions for the same, but never denied the Holy Law.
Those with simply green boughs have lived in righteousness
and a pure mind, keeping the Mandates of God.
After some days, he bade me gird myself with a clean sack-
cloth, and ordered all those of the nine classes to come and
show their boughs. And it was found that, with the exception
of those whose boughs had been quite withered and decayed,
many of them had improved their branches, some very greatly:
the best had even young shoots and fruits.
Why, then, asked I, have not all repented, and thus obtained
salvation? Upon which the Angel answered, The Lord gives
repentance to all, of whom he knew that they would be of
pure
mind and serve him with their inmost heart; but repentance
is denied to those who return to the Lord with a false heart.
Such are those who deny the Lord's holy name and betray the
Church (first class): they are dead unto God, there is no life
in them, for they lose life, together with the power of repent-
ance.
Next to them come those who seduce the servants of
God by false doctrines, and do not let them return to do
penitence (second class): these, however, may still repent,
and they sit on the outer wall of the Tower, some climb even
up to the Tower. The next (third) order are those who doubt;
they are neither alive nor dead. Then follow the evil-speakers,
detractors, even the quarrelsome, the envious: next to them are
those (the fourth and fifth) who always have been faithful and
good, but have a strife among themselves about pre-eminence
and rank: foolish men who do not know that spiritual life
consists in keeping the precepts of the Lord, not in holding pre-
eminence and rank. Through patience and humility of soul men
will gain life : by seditions and contempt of the Law they will
gain death. Then come (the sixth and seventh) those who,
being entangled in the affairs of this world, are half-alive, half-
dead. Their worldly business leads them to deny the Lord, and
lose their life. They are followed by those (the eighth) who
have been faithful, but wishing to make themselves a name
among
the Gentiles, begin to strive after high things, and delight
in conversing with the Gentiles, and so become proud and vain.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
201
They do much mischief, and end in despair or plant schism. Next
to them are the ninth and last class) those who have allowed
empty pleasure and petty thoughts to sully their otherwise
good life, and expose themselves to doubts and dissensions.
I hope (said I) that those who have seen and heard all this,
will together repent, and thus partake of the salvation through
the Son of God. To which I received the following answer:
“ All who have repented with their whole heart and cleansed
themselves from all unrighteousness, and not added to their
former sins, will be delivered from them and live unto God, if
they doubt not. But those who have added to their sins, and
lived in the lusts of this world, will condemn themselves to
death. Walk thou in these commandments and thou wilt live,
and so will all who do likewise. What remains I shall show
unto thee in a few days.”
This is the conclusion of the second book.*
The third and last book consists of the same Vision of the
Tower of the Church, now shown by the Spirit of God Him-
self, and fully explained by the guardian angel (Simil. IX.):
then follows a short conclusion of the whole (Simil. X.).
THE THIRD BOOK.
The Holy Communion of the Elect, or the Initiation into the greater
Mysteries of Faith.
AFTER I had written down the Mandates and Similitudes of
the Angel, he came and took me to the top of a mountain of
Arcadia, and said: “I will now show and explain unto thee
fully what that Spirit showed thee who appeared to thee
under the figure of the Church. That Spirit is the Son of
God. Thou couldst not at that time bear His sight. Now I
will announce to thee His own explanation. Thou hast been
* End of chapter (Similitude) viii. The next book is now called Simili-
tude ix, and x.
202
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
а
rest.
well shown the building of the Tower, but as by a virgin.
Now thou shalt see all." Upon which he showed me
vast plain, surrounded by twelve mountains, all differing in
colour and aspect. In the midst of the plain, there rose a
resplendent square rock, high above the mountains, and so
immense that it might contain all. It appeared old, having
a door, recently cut into it, and resplendent above all the
Twelve virgins stood around the door, four of whom
stood at the four corners thereof. They wore linen garments,
two and two corresponding to each other: they were girded, and
held their right arms up, as ready for work; all were of a cheer-
ful aspect. These twelve virgins then I saw standing on the
ground. Looking up, I beheld the venerable figures of six men
of high stature, all alike, who had called unto them a multitude
of strong and tall men. These six ordered that on that rock a
tower should be built, and the men made themselves ready for
the work. They were ordered to bring out of the deep, ten
square blocks without a flaw, and the virgins received these
blocks and handed them through the door to the builders, taking
care that the strongest of them were placed as corner-stones.
Soon they were all placed around the entrance. Next, five-
and-twenty stones were fetched out of the deep, and set in
their places: then five-and-thirty, at last, forty. These hundred
stones, together with the first ten, formed the foundations of
the tower. After this there was a pause. Then the six men
ordered the multitude to bring stones out of the twelve
mountains around. They were of different colours, and as soon
as they were placed in the tower by the virgins, they became
brighter; and the same change took place now among the first
stones. But some of the stones the men themselves laid with-
out passing them through the hands of the virgins; and these
stones did not change their natural colour. This gave the
tower a motley appearance, and therefore the six men ordered
those stones to be taken out, and none to be put in henceforth
by the men themselves, who were to lay them down on the
ground to be put into their places by the virgins, in order that
useless work might be avoided. Thus the tower was con-
structed, but before it was finished, the six men ordered a pause
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
203
to be made, and the building to be suspended a little while to
await the arrival of the Lord, who should soon come, to survey
and prove the whole. The twelve virgins remained on the spot.
And, lo! there soon appeared a great multitude of men, and
in the midst of them, surrounded by the six men, a high
majestic figure, who reached above the tower itself; the former
builders gathered round him, and many more men of splendid
dignity. The virgins now approached the High One, to embrace
Him, and followed Him. But He went about testing every one
of the stones: some, as He touched them with His rod, became
black; some showed defects and fissures; others burst into pieces;
some looked neither black nor white; some became rough, and
did not square with the others; the greater part showed splits.
All these were removed and replaced by others, which however
were no longer to be fetched out of the mountains, but dug out of
a neighbouring field. Many fair stones were found there; and
those which were square were put into the place of those which
had been removed, the others were thrown into the interior of
the structure to form a mass, surrounded and maintained by the
square ones. As for the rejected stones, they were given to the
shepherd to fashion them, throwing away those which proved
good for nothing. The High One then departed from the tower
with His host, leaving it in the custody of the virgins. After
three days, the Shepherd began his work; the black stones had re-
mained as they were, and had to be removed. The others formed
eight classes, each having some defects, but only the black
stones were rejected. The white stones, when found square and
entire, were placed by the virgins outside. Out of those which
were round, and required much cutting to be squared, some
were selected for that purpose, the others were put aside to
wait and see, whether they could be used in the finishing of the
tower, for which not much was now wanting.
At this moment, twelve beautiful women were called, dressed
in black garments, not girded, their shoulders uncovered, their
hair loose. They were bidden to carry away the rejected stones
and bring them back to their respective mountains, which they
did with great alacrity. But the Shepherd went around the
tower with Hermas, and delighted in seeing it now in perfect
204
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
í
We sat up
seen
beauty. The place around the tower was now levelled, and
the virgins swept away every incumbrance and uncleanness.
“ Nothing is now required but the consummation of the build-
ing when the Lord comes," said the Shepherd, and left me alone
with the virgins. I was first shy, but the virgins came up to
me, saluted me tenderly as brother, and invited me to stay
with them the night, as a brother with his sisters.
the night singing hymns, and rejoicing in our hearts. The
Shepherd returned the next morning, delighted to see me
happy in that company, and now began to explain to me the
whole.
“ The rock and the door is the Son of God. The rock is
old, because the Son of God is anterior to all creatures, and
was in the counsel of the Father respecting their creation. But
the door is new, because he appeared only in the last days for
the salvation of the elect. Nobody enters into the kingdom of
God except by the name of His Son, and therefore all stones
were rejected which did not enter through this door. The Son
of God Himself is that high majestic man whom thou hast n;
He is the first of the angels of God: next to Him are the six
whom thou hast seen around Him.
66 The Tower itself is the Church; the virgins are holy spirits,
the powers of the Son of God. Whoever takes only the name
of the Son of God, and not His powers, and their robes, which
are their names (qualities), cannot enter the kingdom of God.
Such are the rejected stones. Those who really have believed,
are also endowed with this one spirit, and form one body. But
having once entered, they must beware of those beautiful women,
otherwise they will be thrown out, and can only re-enter, if
they repent sincerely. And hearing this, I returned thanks to
the Lord, that He had sent His angel of penitence for all on
whom His name had been invoked, and that He has renewed
our failing spirits, and restored us to the hope of salvation."
“ But why does not the Son of God sustain His believers ?"
6. He does support them,” answered the Shepherd, reproving me
for my silly questions; “ He is their moving power; if only
they do not deny His name."
The names of the twelve virgins (six pairs) and of the twelve
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
205
women are these. First, the four (cardinal) virtues, which are
the corner-stones :
Faith.
Abstinence.
5 Strength.
| Patience.
Faithlessness.
| Intemperance.
s Unbelief.
| Lust.
Then the remaining four pairs :
ſ Simplicity.
Innocence.
Chastity.
Cheerfulness.
Truth.
| Intelligence.
s Concord.
Charity.
{
s Sadness.
Malice.
s Voluptuousness.
Wrathfulness.
Lie.
Folly.
r Conceit.
| Hatred.
{ Folly.
As for the stones taken out of the deep, the ten placed as
the foundation are the first age of the world (the antediluvian
patriarchs); the following twenty-five are the just men (after
the Deluge, before the Law); the thirty-five are God's prophets
and ministers : the forty are the apostles and teachers who
preached Christ. These forty came up with the others after
that they had given to the latter the seal of Christ, without
which they could not be saved.
The twelve mountains are the twelve nations of the earth,
to which the Gospel has been preached.* It is unnecessary to
enter here into the details of the allegory of the twelve moun-
tains, which clearly are the representatives of the differences
of circumstance and temperament which constitute the natural
elements in the composition of the Church. These differences
are, in the whole, the same as those which were enumerated
above, respecting the twelve different holders of the branches.
* Sim. ix. 17.: “Hi duodecim montes, quos vides, duodecim sunt gentes
quæ totum obtinent orbem. Prædicatus est ergo in eis Filius Dei per eos,
quos ipse ad illos misit. . . . Duodecim nationes sunt et sicut eos montes
vidisti varios, ita et hæ gentes."
206
THE FOURTH GENERATION,
Here already we must direct the reader's attention to the evi-
dence, contained in this part of the work, that a persecution was
just now beginning, for it speaks of the Christians being brought
up and examined before the authorities, many denying out of
weakness, with their lips, not with their hearts, while others
become traitors, and give themselves over to the evil spirit. The
first year of Antoninus Pius (139) is as clearly as possible written
on these pages. Thus the Angel says (ch.26.): “ Those will re-
ceive repentance who have not denied out of their inmost hearts;
but if one has denied the name of God out of his inmost heart,
I do not know whether he can obtain life. And, therefore, I
say, if in these days one has denied, let him turn and repent;
for it is impossible that one who now denies his Lord, should
hereafter be saved; those who did so in former ages (in times of
old, olim) may have repentance kept in store for them.” This
refers, according to the fiction, to Domitian's persecution, which
took place in Hermas' lifetime, as the earlier means literally that
of Nero, in which Peter and Paul fell as victims. But in reality
the first persecution of Antoninus is alluded to, those decrees
of which Justin complains, whose apology was presented in
that year. The next chapter (28) is still more explicit. “Who-
ever," says the Angel, “have, when questioned concerning their
faith, confessed it without hesitation, and suffered death with a
resolute heart, are more honoured before God than those who
deliberated in their hearts whether they should confess or
deny, and then suffered death at last; for such hesitation is as
wicked as if a slave should deny his master. You, therefore,
who have such thoughts, take care that you keep not this
doubting mind: die for God's sake, and think yourselves
blessed for doing so: to you is committed a great work, you
obtain life and are delivered from the burden of your sins.”
He then most touchingly admonishes all Christians who have
received the seal, to be simple and guileless as children (ch. 31.).
" It is beautiful to put on simplicity and innocence, and to be
like infants who do not know the wickedness which destroys
the life of man. Forget all offences committed against man,
and be as of one Spirit.” After this general admonition, he
turns to the bishops and governors, and warns them (ch. 31.),
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
207
as the shepherds of the congregations, not to forsake their
flocks. “ If the shepherds themselves desert their post, what
will they answer to the Lord about the sheep? Will they
perhaps say, the sheep had offended them? That will not be
believed: for it is impossible that a shepherd should suffer in-
jury from the sheep: his punishment will be only aggravated by
such a lie. I, myself, the Angel of Penitence, am a shepherd,
and am under strict obligation to render account of you."
This admonition forms part of the touching address of the
Shepherd to all Christians, the conclusion of tlie book which
Hermas is ordered to write down. “ Mind, therefore, your sal-
vation (he says, ch. 32. 36.) in the time that the building of the
tower is going on.
The Lord dwells in men who love peace,
for true peace is dear to him, and far removed from the quarrel-
some and wicked. Render to Him the Spirit in the soundness
in which you received it. Whoever now repents truly will
receive pardon for his former sins."
THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOOK.
After I had written this book, that great Angel (the Holy
Spirit), who had given me over to the Shepherd, came to me
into the house where I was (where the twelve Christian virtues
were staying), and sat down: the Shepherd stood at his right
hand. “I know thou hast not done, nor wilt thou, anything
contrary to the order : that Angel, powerful and honoured before
God, has reported well of thee. Announce, now, these words
to the others who have repented, or may hereafter repent, that
they may be minded as thou art, and that he may report to me
concerning them, and I to the Lord." "I will do so," I answered;
" and I hope that all who love the great things of God, and have
sinned, will repent and regain life.” “Let that be thy ministry,"
he said: “ those who do the mandates of this Angel will have
life and great honour, here and with the Lord. These virgins
will help thee to execute the mandates; for, without them,
no man can do so. Cleanse thy house ; they dwell only in a
clean house, being themselves clean, and chaste, and indus-
208
THE FOURTH GENERATION. .
trious.” And again he gave me over to the Angel and to the
virgins, and they were delighted to hear that they were not to
depart from my house.
And then the great Angel said, “ Command all, that if they see
a brother in need they help him; for a man in need is like one
in bonds, and may fall into despair : he. who does not help him
becomes guilty of his blood. Remember that the consumma-
tion of the tower has been delayed on your account, that you
may soon repent and not be shut out."
He then rose, and took with him the Shepherd and the
virgins, saying to me that he would send them back to my
house.
I think the simple and unadorned beauty of the conception
of this allegorical tale requires no comment. On a closer in-
spection, even the parts which at first sight may appear capri-
cious or obscure, become transparent. The poem ends with the
picture of the blessedness of the soul living in God, and loving
Him as the highest good: it is the life of him who keeps the
words of Christ. “ My Father will love him, and we will come
unto him, and make our abode with him." - John xiv. 23. He
is enlightened by God himself, and blessed in that light; but
a wakeful conscience and discipline are always needful to
him as long as he lives in this body. Then the vision closes
not that Hermas, in his state of impenitence, had not had
curiosity to know more; on the contrary, he confesses himself,
in the first book, that being still unconverted, he had asked the
Spirit, then appearing to him as the figure of the Church,
what would be the destiny of those who have been rejected,
and who have not done penitence in their lifetime, and, there-
fore, are rejected from the number of the Elect who are joined
as living members to the Church? They may repent, is the
answer, in an inferior place, out of which they will only be de-
livered by a true repentance for their former sins.* But, when
* This seems to be the real meaning of the much disputed passage, Visio
ii. c. 7.: “Ego vero quum adhuc essem improbus, interrogavi illam (the
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
209
admitted to the vision after his conversion*, he is told to dismiss
useless curiosity, and to be satisfied to understand what he sees
before him.
Instead of prying into what is hidden from man, he is
brought to perceive the uninterrupted progress of the divine
principle in history. All the epochs of the human mind form
part of the new temple raised by the Spirit of Christ. The first
epoch is that of the primitive world (the ten stones); the second
is formed by the just men of the present world before the Law;
then follow the Law and its Prophets; the forty heroes of the
Gospel-Apostles and Teachers --complete the number of the
hundred stones since the Flood.+ In the same sense, — namely,
as a prophetic view of the progress of the divine life in the
world, we can easily explain the allegory of the twelve moun-
tains, out of which, as quarries, the stones are first taken for the
tower. The Gospel was first announced to the Jews and to the
civilized and hellenized nations of Asia and Europe, which
formed the Roman empire. They are the eminences all over
the earth. But when the stones taken from them, are found
to be defective, the Elect are taken out of the plain, from
which those twelve mountains rose -- the plain representing the
barbarous nations, such as the Celts and Germans. The con-
version of the latter could scarcely be said to have begun at
Church under the form of an aged woman): "an iis omnibus lapidibus, qui
projecti sunt, nec conveniebant in structuram turris, an est poenitentia et habe-
bunt locum in turre hac ?' 'Habent, inquit, poenitentiam, sed in hac turre
non possunt convenire; alio autem loco ponentur multo inferiore ; et hoc,
quum cruciati fuerint, et impleverint dies peccatorum suorum.
Et propter
hoc transferentur, quoniam perceperunt verbum justum. Et tunc illis
continget transferri de pænis, si ascenderint in corda ipsorum opera, quæ
operati sunt scelesta. Quodsi non ascenderint in corda ipsorum, non erunt
salvi, propter duritiam cordis sui.'”
* Lib. iii. Simil. ix. 2. (Beginning of the third book.)
† As to these forty, it is remarkable that the names of pious men men-
tioned in the New Testament, besides the twelve Apostles and Paul, amount
to about that number. The number thirty-five is nearly that of the authors
of the canonical books of the Old Testament, added to those of the pious
men mentioned in them; as twenty-five is nearly that of the names of
the just between Noah and Moses.
VOL. I.
P
210
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
the end of Hadrian's reign; but the prophetic eye of Hermas
discovers that many pious souls and splendid spirits are about to
come forward from among them, and that, through these, the
tower will be completed. This completion will take place soon,
hoped Hermas; for he and the whole ancient Christian world
never had any hope for the political recovery of the period in
which they lived. They seem to have looked forward to a speedy
end of that world as a justification of Christ's words, and as a
comfort to themselves in their tribulations.
But Hermas was not only the prophet of the pangs and anxi-
eties, and of the longings and hopes of his age; he was, and
remained also for centuries, the most popular and generally
acknowledged organ of its faith. The compositions of men,
like Ignatius and Polycarp, Clemens and Justin Martyr,
treated only occasionally of the mysteries of faith, that is
to say, the communion of man with God through Christ, and
their treatises were read only partially. The later Fathers
were considered as learned expositors and apologists of doctrine,
but the Shepherd was “the Book," Hermas the prophet of
the Christian faith. Even at the Council of Nicæa, both
parties appealed to him as to the right interpretation of the
passages of Scripture respecting Christ and the Spirit. His
Christology, therefore, deserves in this respect more attention
than that of any other ancient writer since the days of the
Apostles; and it may, at all events, safely be said, that what-
ever be his doctrine, it cannot be heterodox in the sense of
ancient Christianity.
In our days, Bauer has endeavoured to represent the author
of the Shepherd as an Ebionite. Dorner has proved that it is
necessary to strike out or forget most unequivocal passages in
order to justify this assertion. We have, however, followed
another method to arrive at the real view of Hermas, and to
enable our readers to judge for themselves from the general
picture we have given of his tale. They will now easily be
able to understand what we shall quote of his sayings respect-
ing this important point.
The unity of God is the most fully developed point of his
whole system. This article of the faith stands alone and un-
IIERMAS' SHEPHERD.
211
1
developed at the head of the Twelve Mandates, for the relation
of God to the Spirit of God and to the Sonship in Jesus is only
brought forward after Hermas is a sincerely repentant Chris-
tian, ready to do God's will. The manifestation of God's nature
is intelligible and credible only to him who ceases to resist the
will of God in him. The key to all Christology and Pneuma-
tology is, according to the “ Shepherd," a Christian life; the
beginning of which is the man's vow to live according to God's
will, believing in the power of the divine element in himself to
overcome all selfishness. Or, in other words, the mystery of
God's nature is contained in the atonement; and the mystery
of the atonement is contained in the belief in moral responsi-
bility,—in the power of the will, united with God, to overcome
what is ungodly.
The Similitudes prepare the way to our understanding this
mystery ; but it is not until the third book that we find the solu-
tion of the mystery. There " the Son of God” is declared to be
“ anterior to any creature, and as having been with the Father
when He took counsel with Himself about the creation of the
world. The Son of God is from eternity the rock upon which
faith is built, and will be, at the end of time, the door for all
who, at the consummation of the world, shall enter the kingdom
of God.” (Simil. ix. 12.)
This « Son of God” is distinguished as " the Holy Ghost,"
" the First created,” from the Man Jesus, who is “the Servant
of God" (Simil. v. 6.). The Holy Spirit lived in him, and
it was in consequence of his holy life and death that “ the
Servant of God” was made partaker of God's nature. So,
to a certain degree, is every faithful believer. But that holy
Servant of God, the Man Jesus, is most unequivocally and
emphatically called, in that same passage, “the Son of God.”
The Son of God is the Holy Ghost; and that Servant is the
Son of God.* This is neither a logical contradiction, nor heresy,
* This most remarkable and most difficult passage, the conjectural explana-
tion of which has been attempted by almost every commentator upon the Shep-
herd (Grabe, Semler, and Hefele in particular), runs thus according to my
interpretation. After having said in Ch. V., in explanation of the developed
P2
212
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
if we look rather to St. John than to the formularies of the
“Three Persons." The terminology is rather that of Paul than
of John, but not in contradiction with the latter. The ex-
position contained in the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians,
and Philippians allows more easily the representation of elect
humanity as the imperfect (female) but substantially identical
parable of the lord of the vineyard, his son and heir, and the faithful servant,
“Filius autem Spiritus Sanctus est. Servus vero ille Filius Dei est. Vinea
autem populus est quem servat ipse," he comes to the question : “ Quare
autem Dominus in consilio adhibuerit Filium de hæreditate et bonos angelos ?
Quia nuntium audit illum, Spiritum Sanctum, qui creatus est omnium primus,
de corpore in quo habitavit. Deus collocavit enim eum, intellectum scilicet, in
corpore, ut ei videbatur. Hoc ergo corpus, in quod inductus est Spiritus
Sanctus, servivit illi Spiritui, recte in modestia ambulans et caste, neque
omnino maculavit Spiritum illum. Quum igitur corpus illud paruisset omni
tempore Spiritui Sancto, recteque et caste laborasset cum eo, nec succu-
buisset in omni tempore; fatigatum corpus illud serviliter conversatum
est, sed fortiter cum Spiritu Sancto comprobatum Deo receptum est.
Placuit igitur Deo hujusmodi potens cursus qui maculatus non esset in
terra, possidens in se Spiritum Sanctum. In consilium ergo vocavit Filium
et bonos nuntios, ut et huic, scilicet corpori, quod servivit Spiritui Sancto
sine querela, locus aliquis consistendi daretur, ne videretur mercedem
servitutis suæ perdidisse. Accipiet enim mercedem omne corpus purum
ac sine macula repertum, in quo constitutus fuerit Spiritus Sanctus.” The
vulgar reading of the first sentence is this: “ Quia nuntius audit illum
Spiritum Sanctum qui infusus est omnium primus (al. primo) in corpore
in quo habitaret Deus. Collocavit enim eum intellectus in corpore, ut ei
videbatur.” I change less in the reconstruction of this sentence than
any
of
my predecessors. The Dresden MS. (with others) gives me creatus instead of
infusus, and habitavit instead of habitaret. The only words corrected by
conjecture are nuntium instead of nuntius, and de corpore instead of in
corpore. Besides, I think we must begin the next sentence with Deus, in-
stead of putting the full stop after this word. The intellectus then, of
course, becomes intellectum : the scilicet is found in two MSS., and in an
abbreviated form (S., which can mean no other word) also in the Dresden
MS. The sense which results from the thus reconstituted text is very
clear, and is in perfect accordance with the other Christological passages of
the book. The question is not: Who is the Holy Spirit? That point has
been answered. But now the question arises : Why did the Lord take this
Son into his counsel about the heirship? The answer is, because that Son
(the Holy Spirit), which God places in such a body as He pleases, had con-
stantly dwelt in the body of Jesus, that faithful steward or servant of God,
and it is therefore natural that the Lord should hear him about this body.
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
213
form of the Spirit of God. On this representation Hermas
lays great stress, and probably this is why their terminology
was preferred by him. The difference established by him
between the Eternal Spirit and the Man Jesus, is, that the
one is the infinite consciousness of God of Himself and of the
world; and the other, the identical image of that consciousness,
under the limitations of the finite within the bonds of humanity.
Reducing this view to the Johannean terminology, as we under-
stand it, we may say, that the Logos, in the transcendental (in-
finite) sphere, and the Logos in the demiurgic (finite) sphere, are
united in this identification of the Holy Spirit (the Wisdom of
the Proverbs) with the ideal Son of God. But it must not be
overlooked that the first, exclusively metaphysical, view is kept
in the background, which the demiurgic sphere is more de-
veloped. The Holy Spirit is the “ first created : He is
superior to the “ six first created," the Protoktistoi of the
earliest schools of Antioch and Alexandria, the six divine
ideas which are to form the passage from the eternal thought
to its finite realization ; the Spirit of God is an angel or a
manifestation of God, but of his very substance. All this is
sheer heresy and nonsense, if reduced either to the Athanasian
or the Arian system.
God sees and hears the Holy Spirit in the Man Jesus.
God hears that same Spirit respecting every one who with a
pure heart believes in the eternal redemption of mankind,
so as to feel in himself the duty and the strength to live
according to the dictates of his conscience, and not for selfish
purposes.
Christian faith consists in this effectual belief in
moral responsibility, and in the eternal decree of redemption
from lust and selfishness which was realized by Christ's life,
and consummated by His death. Christ alone is the Redeemer,
that is to say, He realized that eternal decree of love in time:
God, in Him and through Him, liberated mankind from the
bonds of selfishness, which the Jews could not break through
on account of the insufficiency of any act of the Law, nor the
Gentiles on account of their deification of created nature, and,
therefore, of natural lust and impulse. Redemption or atone-
ment is subjectively the liberation from these bonds, by the
P 3
214
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
internal change which substitutes the will to do what is good
for the impulse of doing what appears pleasurable or useful to
self.
Thus Hermas unites indissolubly the Sonship of the Believer
with the Sonship of Christ, as indeed Scripture appears to do,
and considers Jesus of Nazareth, Christ, as united with God
by that Spirit which is from all eternity with God, and which,
as the prologue says, is God.
Christology and Anthropology are thus inseparably united.
Thus far Scripture, Reason, Conscience all go along with
Hermas.
His vulnerable point is in the details of his ethical system,
where the principle of self-righteousness by works appears
so prominently as to obscure the very principles before laid
down.
The great leading ethical idea of The Shepherd may be said
to be this : Life is a reality, so is the body: we are responsible
for what we do with it, for it is to be the temple of the Holy
Spirit which is indwelling in every real servant of God. It is
impossible to have a pure mind and live in impurity. The
Divine principle of life alone gives the strength to lead a holy
life fearlessly. It is God who gives the victory. The Devil
alone has fear: but his fear is powerless : “Do not fear him
then, and he will flee from thee.” (Mand. xii.)
All which, applied to the ruling view of life among Greeks
and Romans, means: Do not abandon yourself, like the Epi-
cureans, to sensuality, which is the idolatry of the flesh; nor,
like the Stoics, to insensibility, which is its negation : you can
conquer lust and all selfishness by looking up to God, and you
are bound to do so, for the body and the whole material world
is to be the instrument and means of Divine life.
As to social and public life, Hermas, like all the Fathers,
acknowledges only one sphere, as worthy of active membership,
namely, the Church, the Congregation. In that Church there are
Bishops (Episcopi, including the Elders) appointed for govern-
ment and order, and Teachers (Doctores), and Deacons (Ministri),
but the people of God are the real body of the Holy Ghost, in
so far as they are living members; just as penance is right,
HERMAS' SHEPHERD.
215
but does not supply the place of repentance; so likewise,
outward Churchmanship is right, but does not supply the place
of the communion of the Holy Spirit. The Church, when she
appears as an aged woman with all the signs of senility, as the
type of a state of doubt and unbelief, sits upon the Episcopal
Cathedra, because every “infirm man sits upon a chair on
account of and as a support of his infirmity.” The second
state, that of the acknowledgment of sinfulness, is represented
by her appearing already younger, and looking cheerful (in
the second vision): but when she appears in her full beauty,
she represents the soul which has been inwardly renovated by
the Holy Spirit, and then she sits not upon the Cathedra, but
upon a bench (subsellium), which (not being raised upon steps)
is (she says) the stronger position. “The Spirit of the Earth
șits upon the chair ; the people of God on Benches. Those
who strife after preferment and high dignity in the congre-
gation, ought to repent. (Simil. viii. 7.) As for worship, it
consists in prayer, and the inspired address of the true prophet
is the sign of the Spirit. It is the “Spirit of the Earth’
which speaks in the congregation when and what it likes; the
true servant of God speaks to the congregation when he must,
when and what God in him wills him to speak. Baptism is
" the sea," instead of circumcision, but only by the renewal of
the Spirit: the Apostles go down into the water with the
catechumen, the old man, who is spiritually dead; he rises
with them as having in him the germ of new life. All this
is said in evident allusion to John iii. (Simil. ix. 16.). It
not to be understood literally as a descensus ad inferos, either
of Christ, or of the Apostles.
P4
216
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
.
V.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
With Hermas, the author is entirely eclipsed by his work; we
know nothing about him except his name and his relation to
Bishop Pius. The Shepherd is like an immortal popular poem
in which an unknown genius is merged and immortalised. The
person of Hermas is marked in history by that apocalyptic tale
and its popular influence alone. The case is widely different
with the two other apostolic Churchmen who lived in this age :
Justin Martyr and Polycarp of Smyrna. They stand out as
the striking characters of their age, who came forward in the
struggle of Christianity with the world, and risked their lives
for their faith and for the liberties of mankind. Justin is
besides one of the most eminent Christian philosophers, a
decidedly speculative thinker, and a good hellenistic writer.
It was in the year 110 of our era, that Trajan replied to the
humane questions addressed to him by the younger Pliny, then
Proconsul of Pontus and Bithynia, by an intolerant edict which
declared Christianity to be an "illicit" religion. Any person who
upon being summoned before the highest criminal court, and
having undergone a strict examination, pertinaciously and delibe-
rately refused to sacrifice to the gods, and avowed himself to be
a Christian, was to be put to death. Hadrian, however, in 124
or 125, threw a shield around the Christians by an edict which
threatened the "delatores" with the severest penalties, and put
a stop to the atrocious system carried on by those wretches
who extorted money from them under threats of denunciation,
Such was the legal position of the Christians, when, in the
earlier part of the second year of Antoninus Pius (139), before
Marcus Aurelius received the title of Cæsar, an intrepid
Christian layman, once a Platonic philosopher,--Justinus, from
the colony of Flavia Neapolis (near old Sichem) in Samaria,
JUSTIN MARTYR.
217
presented his longer Apology to the Emperor and the Senate.
Shortly afterwards he presented the shorter Apology in which
he refers to the former. From ancient and modern researches
into these two Apologies the following chronology seems to
result. No reasonable doubt can be entertained as to the
genuineness of the Dialogue with the Jew Tryphon, which is
supposed by Justin to have been held in the year after the
close of the Jewish war (136). For these reasons, we shall
consider his doctrine immediately after the Epistle to Dio-
gnetus and the works of Hermas. In the beginning of his
Dialogue with Tryphon, the philosopher of Nablous, or New
Sichem, gives us probably the most important part of the
history of his life. The majestic figure of the old believer, who
gently exhorts the young aspiring philosopher to inquire into
the saving truths of Christianity, is most likely his own master;
as Semisch has given good grounds for believing. Justin, more-
over, had evidently many dealings and discussions with the
Ebionites and with unconverted Jews. On the other hand, he
had to combat Gnosticism, and especially Marcion, of whom
he complains so bitterly at the end of his longer Apology.
As to his position in the Christian Church, he neither accepted
any municipal honour (such as Eldership), nor did he occupy
the Chair (Proedria) as Bishop, but made himself useful by
speaking and writing in defence of Christianity, whenever occa-
sion offered, travelling about and holding disputations. He
is said to have died a martyr under Marcus Aurelius.
Such is the framework of the life of this remarkable man,
whom even the Byzantines called “the Great,” and “the
Wonderful."*
His best epitaph may be said to be the noble
* The authority of Ruinart is not sufficiently high to justify Otto and
Semisch in accepting as “ of undoubted genuineness” the legend entitled
“ The Martyrdom of Justin." We are now sufficiently acquainted with the
forms of Roman trial and with Roman topography, to see that it is the wretched
lucubration of some monk. As to the editions of Justin, that of the Bene-
dictines (by Maranus) exhibits, like most of their Greek Fathers, a complete
and well-arranged, but critically imperfect text, compiled by well-informed
persons, who were neither first-rate Greek scholars, nor always willing or
competent to be critics. Otto's edition (1847-1849) is in its whole arrange-
218
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
words about Truth which are quoted from one of his lost
writings.
“ There is Truth, and nothing is stronger than 'Truth.” *
“ To do well, ye men, I think, means nothing but to live
conformably to truth: but to live well, or to live according to
truth, is impossible without understanding the nature of things.” †
This is the spirit of the man, who, addressing the Emperor
Antoninus and his Senate, says: “I do not intend to flatter
you; you may kill, but you cannot hurt me.
I do not exactly know how such principles can be recon-
ciled with the views of certain modern Divines, who think that
the Fathers, when solemnly speaking the truth on the most
sacred subjects, never disclosed their true faith to idolaters.
Justin, at all events, expressly disclaims this questionable
mode of proceeding, for he adds, that it is his purpose to
explain to the Emperor and the Senate what they probably
would consider as an absurdity; and that his statement cannot
be made clear or intelligible except by a mystery which he is
about to explain to them (ch. 13.).
He says this with reference to a point, which was the centre
of his own theology as well as that of the other ancient
Fathers, namely, his Christology. The doctrine respecting Christ
forms, with them all, a part of the belief in Father, Son, and
Spirit. Justin must be classed among the monarchists and
subordinatarians; that is to say, he puts above all other doctrines
that of the Unity of God, which, as we have seen, all the ancient
Fathers do. He is also a strong maintainer of the universality
of the eternal Word of God. This Word spoke, according to
him (Apol. c. 5.), through Socrates, who refuted idol worship;
men like him and Heraclitus, were Christians, as well as Abra-
ham and Elijah. But it was among the Barbarians, the Jews,
ment much superior; but the text does not do full justice to the admirable
labours of such men as Stephen and Sylburg, Grabe and Thirlby, Markland,
Pearson and Davis. We must never forget that we have only one manu-
script, twice copied, and a very indifferent one, as will appear from a com-
parison of the passages which have been preserved by Eusebius.
* Fragm. x. ap. Otto. Preserved by Joannes Damasc.
† Fragm. xix. Quoted by Joannes Damascenus, as from his “ Apology."
JUSTIN MARTYR.
219
}
that this Word became Man, in Jesus Christ. « We, the
Christians," he adds, " who believe in Him, are atheists, as
regards those demons, but not as regards the only true God,
the Father of justice, and temperance, and of the other
virtues. Him, with the Son, who came from Him and taught
us, and that prophetic Spirit, who is the chief over the other
good angels who follow Him and are made like unto Him, we
venerate and worship, honouring Him rationally and in truth."*
That such is the meaning of this passage, which has been
miserably disfigured into a doctrine of angel-worship, results
froin two entirely parallel declarations of Justin respecting this
foundation-stone of the Christian faith. The first is that
sublime passage in the 13th chapter, in which the Father, Son,
and Spirit are marked as the first, second and third objects
of veneration and worship. The Father, the eternal, ever un-
changeable, Creator of the universe, is the object of the solemn
thanksgiving (Eucharistia) at the sacred meal in the Christian
worship, and this passage gives us the most ancient account of
the contents of that thanksgiving, of which indeed we find the
development in all the liturgies of the ancient Church.t
* The only MS. on which our text rests, reads this passage (Apol. Maj.,
c. 6.), 'Αλλ' εκείνον τε και τον παρ' αυτού υιόν ελθόντα και διδάξαντα ημάς ταύτα
και τον των άλλων επομένων και εξομοιουμένων αγαθών αγγέλων στρατόν,
πνεύμα τε το προφητικόν σεβόμεθα και προσκυνούμεν λόγω και αληθεία τιμώντες.
I read: και τον των άλλων .... αγγέλων στρατηγόν, πνεύμα γε το προφ.
The Holy Spirit is here, as in Hermas, the leader of the spirits, of which
six constitute the πρωτόκτιστοι, or first created.
* Cap. 13. "Αθεοι μεν ως ούκ εσμεν τον δημιουργών τούδε του παντός σεζόμενοι
ανενδεή αιμάτων και σπονδών και θυμιαμάτων ως εδιδάχθημεν λέγοντες, λόγω ευχής
και ευχαριστιάς εφ' οίς προσφερόμεθα πάσιν όση δύναμις αινούντες, μόνην αξίαν
αυτού τιμήν ταύτην παραλαβόντες το τα υπ' εκείνου εις διατροφήν γενόμενα ου
πυρί δαπανών, αλλ' εαυτούς και τοϊς δεομένους προσφέρειν, εκείνη δε ευχαρί-
στους όντας διά λόγον πομπας και ύμνους πέμπειν υπέρ τε του γεγονέναι και των
εις ευρωστίαν πόρων, πάντων ποιητών και γενητών (ν. πόρων πάντων, ποιοητή-
των μεν γενών, which gives no sense whatever) και μεταβολών ωρών, και του
πάλιν εν αφθαρσία γενέσθαι δια πίστιν την εν αυτώ αιτήσεις πέμποντες – τίς
σωφρονών ουχ ομολογήσει ; Τον διδάσκαλόν τε τούτων γενόμενον ημϊν και εις
τούτο γεννηθέντα, Ιησούν Χριστόν, τον σταυρωθέντα επί Ποντίου Πιλάτου, του
γενομένου εν Ιουδαία επί χρόνοις Τιβερίου Καίσαρος επιτρόπου, τον (with Otto,
ν. αυτού) του όντως θεου μαθόντες και εν δευτέρα τάξει έχοντες, πνεύμα τε
220
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
" What man in his senses will refuse to admit that we are
no atheists, seeing that we worship the Creator of this universe;
declaring indeed, as we have been taught, that He does not
require sacrifices and libations and incense, but praising Him, as
well as we are able, by the word of prayer and thanksgiving at
every one of our meals ; considering it to be the only worthy
mode of honouring Him, not to consume by fire what has been
given to us by Him for our nourishment, but to set it before
ourselves and those who are in want? But we do send up to
Him, by words, solemn prayers and hymns, to express our thanks
for our creation and for what He has prepared for the pre-
servation of our health; for all that He has made and created,
and for the changes of the seasons; and to Him we send prayers,
through the faith in Him, that we may rise again unto an
incorruptible life. We shall prove to you that we act ration-
ally in honouring, in the second place, Him, whom we have
learned to be the Son of the true God, Him, who has become
our teacher of these things, and who has been procreated for this
purpose, ---Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
Governor of Judæa under the Emperor Tiberius; and in hon-
ouring, in the third rank, the prophetic Spirit. For they accuse
us of madness in that we give the second place after the un-
changeable and eternal God, the Creator of the universe, to a
crucified man, as they say in deep ignorance of the mystery
connected therewith, a mystery of which we exhort you to hear
our explanation." This explanation is that the Word of God
has become man in Jesus of Nazareth, as is said in the
passage above. Jesus has not this or that gift of the Spirit,
but the Spirit of God itself. Concerning the nature of this God
in Christ, Justin says (ch. 63.): "The Logos of God is His Son ;
it was this Logos who appeared as an angel, and manifested
Himself in fire to Moses, and spoke to him; not God himself,
the Creator of the universe. The Son of God is Himself God,
προφητικόν έν τρίτη τάξει ότι μετά λόγου τιμώμεν αποδείξομεν. 'Ενταύθα γαρ
μανίαν ημών καταφαίνονται, δευτέραν χώραν μετά τον άτρεπτoν και αεί όντα θεον
και γεννήτορα των απάντων ανθρώπω σταυρωθέντι διδόναι ημάς λέγοντες, αγνο-
ούντες το εν τούτο μυστήριον, η προσέχειν υμάς εξηγουμένων ημών προτρεπόμεθα.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
221
as being the Logos and Firstborn of God.” “ This Logos
(ch. '12.) is the most royal and just Lord, after God who has
created Him." In all this it is apparent that Justin mixes
together the self-consciousness of God of Himself, and the
consciousness of God as Creator. He has not sufficient specu-
lative power to develope in his system the highest metaphysical
elements contained in the Prologue,- those relating to the
Absolute; but what he says of the Logos not only does not
exclude this element, but, in fact, presupposes it, by implying
the pre-existence of the Logos and through him of Christ.
This pre-existing Logos, God's first thought of the creation,
who was procreated by God before the world, is the Son of
God) in the proper sense of the word. He is God's Name,
for God in himself cannot be named. Christ is, through the
indwelling' Logos which is the eternal Divine Reason, himself
that Reason, and the proof of this is that Christ's Spirit
has the power of making men godlike. Dorner very appro-
priately proves that this is Justin's doctrine by that bold ex-
pression in the Dialogue with Tryphon †: [As all Jews are
Israelites from their common Father Jacob,] 66 thus we are
*
* Dorner has collected all the passages, p. 423. See Apol. I. 23. 32. ;
II. 6. c. Tryph. 138. It will be well however to compare Semisch : Justin
der Märtyrer, II. p. 278. The principal and most difficult passage is that
in the Minor Apology, ch. 6: "Όνομα δε τώ πάντων πατρί θείον, αγεννήτω όντι,
ουκ έστιν, ο δε υιός εκείνου, ο μόνος λεγόμενος κυρίως υιός, ο λόγος προ
των ποιημάτων και συνών και γεννώμενος ότε την αρχήν δι' αυτού πάντα έκτισε
και εκόσμησε, Χριστός μεν κατα το και χρίσαι (with Scaliger, instead of το
κέχρισθαι, which is passive only) και κοσμήσαι τα πάντα δι' αυτού τον θεόν
λέγεται Ιησούς δε και ανθρώπου και σωτήρος όνομα και σημασίαν έχει.
The Logos was with God (ovvóv), as God's own consciousness of Himself;
but by the thought of creation, He received a separate existence before the
universe was created. So far it is true to say, that Justin agrees with
Tertullian, saying “ Fuit autem tempus, cum ... filius non fuit." "Ore
must not be changed into ότι. The difference between the λόγος ενδιάθετος
(immanent in God) and Xóyos toppopisos (manifested in Time) is implied
by this passage. So far, therefore, as the Logos has been generated by an
act of the will of God, the Son is subordinated to the Father. But this is as
little Arianism as positive Athanasianism. The equality of substance is
always implied by the old Fathers.
† C. Tryph. c. 87. Compare c. 113. 115. Apol. I. 23. Dorner I. p. 417.
222
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
called and indeed are, the true children of him by whom we
have been generated into the Divine substance; by Christ the
God we are deigned to be called Gods."
To Justin the idea of Redemption is the key to this whole
question. Through sin, mankind is subject to the curse, sepa-
rated from God: Jesus, that is to say, the Logos in him, came
to reunite man to God, to make man at one with God, accord-
ing to God's eternal decree of redemption ; and He effected this
atonement through His life and through His death, by which
He gave spiritual immortality to mortal man. This is the
mystery of God's decrees, the mystery of the cross. The Logos
could do this only by assuming human nature, which has in
itself the principle of death. * Thus Justin interprets the
doctrine of Paul, as developed in the Epistle to the Galatians,
in such a manner as to exclude the materialistic view of
modern Predestinarianism. The existence of sin, which man
finds in himself, is the basis of his system t. By that great
act of His life and death Christ manifested the Logos and God
Himself.
With regard to the procreation of Christ, it suffices to refer
to his saying, that a virgin conceived by the word of the angel,
as the virginal Eve by the word of the serpent ļ, to prove that
he took the words of Scripture rather in a spiritual sense, and
had no definite theory on this point, in the sense of the later
Church. His great object is always to show that there was a
unity of person in Jesus the Christ, and that the very Logos
who dwelt in him, suffered the pangs of death, as a real man.
* Fragm. de Resurr., c. I., compared with that given in Grabe's Spicileg.
II. 172. Dorner, p. 118, 119.
† We recommend to our readers on this subject the profound and beauti-
fully written work of Julius Müller, “Die Christliche Lehre von der Sünde,"
now faithfully translated into English by William Pulsford. (Edinb. 1852,
2 vols. 8vo.)
I Cap. Tryph. 138.
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
223
VI.
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
We conclude the series of Apostolical Fathers, in the stricter
sense of the word, with a man who was personally connected with
St. John, the Evangelist, and who, having been already a Bishop
when Ignatius suffered martyrdom, appeared at the centre of
lesiastical life, in the metropolis of the world, towards the
very end of the age we are considering. There is nothing in
history more fully authenticated than the leading facts of his
life. The account of his martyrdom is contained in a Letter
of the Church of Smyrna to that of Philomelium in Phrygia,
"and to all congregations of the holy and universal Church."
Irenæus caused a copy to be made for him of this document,
and Eusebius quotes the greater part of it textually. It bears
also in itself all the marks of authenticity, and whoever has a
heart for what is great and noble, and does really understand this
story, will feel with Scaliger, when he says, that one can never
weary of reading it, and that he had never read it without being
touched to tears and transported as it were out of himself. It
is not only the most ancient, but also the finest of all the genuine
acts of the martyrs.* Equally authentic (with the exception of
6 Then
* An absurd corruption of the text (ch. 16.): teñade te plotepà kai
πλήθος αίματος, instead of εξήλθε περί στερνα, as Ruinart has most happily
conjectured, has given to the Romanists a miracle, and to Milton offence.
When the flames surrounded bim in a wide circle without touching him, the
executioner was ordered to stab him with the sword, which he did.
came out round the chest even a great body of blood, so that the fire (near
him) was put out, and that the people wondered at such a great difference
between the unbelievers and the elect.” The Gentile mob was astonished
that so very aged a man, who had just confessed himself to be almost ninety
years old, could still have so much blood in him. Wordsworth proposes
Tepi otúpara, “ upon the haft,” which is ingenious, but I prefer Ruinart's
easier and more natural conjecture.
224
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
the concluding chapter) is Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians,
which is the only address of this kind preserved to us, of all
that he is said to have written. And yet this man, whose his-
tory was held to be authentic by critics like Scaliger and
Basnage, and I may add by Niebuhr, has been dragged by the
Tübingen School into the whirlpool of mythicism, by a process
which, I confess here, as I have done in my Ignatian Letters,
appears to me utterly contrary to all principles of historical
criticism, though it has been carried out with great ingenuity
and learning
Polycarp is, in fact, to be made out a mythical personage,
because the Tübingen School, whose weakest side is chronology,
do not think it possible that one and the same man should have
heard St. John, and should have suffered martyrdom about 160.
Yet with regard to the former fact, Irenæus learnt it from
Polycarp himself, and reminds Florinus of that time in his
famous Letter; and as to the date of the martyrdom, I must
even, on chronological grounds, side with Basnage, and place
it at its latest term, 169. And still, not only is there no con-
tradiction nor even improbability in this, but, on the contrary,
we have Polycarp's own words as to the age at which he died,
and therefore can make out the year of his birth. Being com-
manded to deny Christ, he said: “ how should I deny Him,
whom I have now served eighty-six years ?” I believe we
ought to take this in the sense : “ having served him in a
life of eighty-six years.” This gives us the year eighty-three
of our era for Polycarp's birth.
I lay before my readers the chronological table of Polycarp's
life, referring them for all details, in part to my Ignatian
Letters, published in 1847*, in part to the Chronological Tables,
which will soon be published. With regard to the date of the
martyrdom of Ignatius, which I formerly placed in 107, I refer
to what has been said in the chapter on the Patriarch of Antioch,
proving that it should be more probably referred to the 18th
year of Trajan.
*
Compare 11. Send-
VII. Sendschreiben, p. 195 ff. and p. 228 ff.
schreiben, p. 23 ff.
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
225
Domitian I., Clemens V.
Trajan XVIII., Xustus VIII.
83. 1. Polycarp, born
115. 32. Bishop when Ignatius wrote
his Epistle to him on his
way to Rome
152. 69. Visits Rome to confer with
Anicetus about the cele
bration of Easter
169. 86. Dies as martyr in Smyrna
Antonin. Pius XV. Anicetus II.
M. Aurel. IX., Soter VII.
As to the time when he addressed his Epistle to the Philip-
pians, we only learn from chapter 7. that he exhorts them to
show Christian firmness, “as not only those blessed men,
Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus had done, but also others of
their own Church, who had suffered death with their Lord.”
In my Letters on Ignatius, I have treated fully of the purport
and spirit of this Epistle of Polycarp.† My readers will scarcely
want me to prove, that the beautiful words recommending to the
Philippians—"Faith, who is the mother of us all, Hope follow-
ing, with Love to God and Christ and our neighbour taking the
lead," are not the sly formula of a calculating impostor who took
the name of Polycarp in order to establish a “via media” be-
tween the disciples of Paul and Peter; or that the writer need
not have been an Ebionite, because he used the word æon in the
phrase, “ the present world,” and because he warns his readers
(as evidently only an enraged Ebionite could do) seven times
against avarice, which, according to the Apostle and to Poly-
carp, is the root of all sin and idolatry. Nor shall I lose a
word on Schwegler's grand argument against the authenticity
of the Epistle, that its author speaks of “the Word which has
been delivered from the beginning”: an evident allusion to the
Gospel of John, which was written about 150 (says the Tübin-
“ Et de ipso
* I must repeat here what I have said in my postscript to Ignatius,
that it is a miserable subterfuge of Hefele and others to say, that the ex-
pression in the last chapter, edited by the Ignatian impostor
Ignatio, et de his qui cum eo sunt, quod certius agnoveritis significate”
does not refer to Ignatius as still alive, on his way to Rome, because it is
only the translation of the Greek οι μετ' αυτού. -Let them show that this
phrase is used of men who are dead.
† vir. Sendschreiben, p. 201 ff.
VOL. I.
226
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
.
gen school), whereas (says Schwegler without assigning any rea-
son whatever), our Epistle is of the year in which Ignatius
suffered martyrdom. But I mention these arguments simply
because there are manifest signs, that the Tübingen myth, ex-
ploded in Germany, appears imposing to some people in Eng-
land, or at least to those who have not read them.
Schwegler is not more fortunate than his master Baur, in
treating of the early history of the Christian ecclesiastical con-
stitution. He does not see that the Philippians whom Polycarp is
addressing, are Presbyterians, and that the Bishop of Smyrna does
not in any of his manifold exhortations admonish them to become
Episcopalians. But he perceives in the whole Epistle “ a hie-
rarchical tendency.” Is this perhaps thought to be borne out by
his exhorting the young men of the congregation “to be sub-
ject to the Elders and Deacons, as to God and Christ” (ch. 5.) ?
What a pity he does not mention the Bishop, for then Schweg-
ler would call the charge fully proved. Or is it borne out by
Polycarp's saying that whoever denies Christ to have been a
real man (not an apparition, as some Gnostics did), is Anti-
christ, and that he who denies the Resurrection and the Judg-
ment, is “the Firstborn of Satan" (ch. 6.), which last words he
is reported to have used towards Marcion, and therefore could
not use them in his Epistle, which, says Schwegler, was written
so long before as the year that Ignatius died.
On the contrary, this Epistle is important, just because it
shows us how devoid the great influence of the Bishops of the
time was of all hierarchical spirit. There is no assumption of
power, but there is great moral earnestness, warmed by un-
bounded charity, based upon faith. There is the weight of one
of the last, if not the last, who had seen one of the Apostles,
and had heard the Gospel from his lips, and who had devoted
his life to the flock over which he had been placed.
All that he says of the collateral ideas of Sacrifice and
Church is of the same character. 66 Ye are the altar of God"
(ch. iv.), he exclaims to the Christians of Philippi : “therefore
the sacrifice of the Christians is that of a thankful heart through
Christ, and not a symbolical or superstitious external act. Do
not treat,” he says, "your erring brother Presbyter Valens and
POLYCARP OF SMYRNA.
227
his wife, who have failed," probably embezzled money entrusted
to them, “as if they were enemies: call them back to you as
suffering and erring members in order that you may save your
entire body (the whole congregation); for so doing you build
up yourselves.” (ch. xi.)*
Those who think the illustrious disciple of St. John ought
to have more “esprit," or more speculative wisdom, betray a
strange misconception of the true nature of human greatness,
and especially of what made the apostolical men and congrega-
tions the immortal heroes of mankind. Let us honour him, as
his congregation did. Their account concludes by saying that
when they gathered the ashes of the martyr, the Jews thought
they did so in order to make them an object of worship, but
" the Jews did not know that we can never either forsake
Christ, who died for the salvation of the whole world of the
redeemed, nor yet worship another. Him we do worship, as
being the Son of God; but the martyrs we love worthily, as
being Christ's disciples and followers.”
What we know of the formularies of his faith respecting the
Father, Son, and Spirit, is derived from the concluding words
of his Epistle (ch. xii.) and his last prayer, when he was bound
to the stake.
The first runs thus:
“ May God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and He
Himself, our eternal High Priest, the Son of God, Jesus Christ,
build you up in faith, and truth, and in every meekness, and
without wrathfulness, and in patience and forbearance, and
patience and chastity; and give you a lot and portion among
His saints, and to us also with you, and to all under heaven
who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father
who raised Him from the dead."
* What follows (ch. xii.) is avowedly unintelligible
“ Confido enim vos
bene exercitatos esse in sacris literis, et nihil vos latet; mihi autem non con-
cessum est modo. Ut his Scripturis dictum est: ‘Irascimini et nolite peccare'
(Ps. iv. 4.); et “Sol non occidat super iracundiam vestram.'” (Eph. iv. 26.)
Codex Laurent. reads, “ Mihi autem non est concessum modo uti his Scrip-
turis,” equally unintelligible. I read, “ Irasci autem nobis concessum est,
modo ut in Scripturis," &c.
Q2
228
THE FOURTH GENERATION.
The second is reported thus (ch. xiv.):
And he lifted up his eyes and said: “O Lord, God Almighty,
Father of Thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, through
whom we have received the knowledge of Thee, O God of the
angels, and of all the heavenly powers, and of the whole crea-
tion, and of the whole generation of the just who live before
Thee : I bless Thee, that Thou hast thought me worthy of
this day and of this hour, that I might take my portion in
the number of Thy witnesses, in the cup of Thy Christ, in
order to rise into life everlasting of soul and body, in the in-
corruptibility of the Holy Spirit. May I be numbered among
them before Thee this day, as a full and acceptable sacrifice, as
Thou hast ordained and manifested before, and fulfilled, 0 Thou
unerring and true God. For all this, therefore, I praise Thee,
I bless Thee, I magnify Thee, with the eternal and heavenly
Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son: with whom be honour, to Thee
and to the Holy Ghost, now and to all future ages, Amen."
THE
FIFTH GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF PANTÆNUS AND CLEMENS, OF IRENÆUS,
AND OF VICTOR AND TERTULLIAN.
FROM THE YEAR 163 TO THE YEAR 198.
(IIIrd year of M. AURELIUS to VIth of SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS.)
M. Aurelius.- Commodus.-- Ælius Pertinax.— Septimius Severus.
SOTER. ELEUTHERUS. VICTOR.
Q3
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
VIII.
169,
IX.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XVI.
163. M. AURELIUS. III. 1. Soter succeeds Anicetus (9 years).
167.
VII. 5. About this time the Montanist movement in Phrygia began.
(Euseb. v. 3.)
168.
6. Martyrs at Lyons.
7. Polycarp's martyrdom at Smyrna.
170. (Luc. VER. †) x. 8. Earliest time for Pantænus as catechetical teacher at Alex-
andria.
171.
9. Melito writes on the Paschal question.
172.
1. Eleutherus, who had been deacon under Anicetus, succeeds
Soter (15 years).
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth.
173.
2. About this time Eleutherus is reported to have sent mis-
sionaries to Britain, in consequence of a letter of King
Lucius (Tertullian adv. Jud. 7., writing under Zephyrinus,
says that the recesses of Britain are now opened by Chris-
tianity).
177.
6. The martyrs of Lyons and Vienne.
Irenæus, as Presbyter, sent to Eleutherus. Becomes Bishop
(177—202).
180. M. AUK. COM. I. 9. Hegesippus writes, about this time, his five books of eccle-
siastical history.
185.
VI. 14. Origenes born at Alexandria.
187.
1. Victor succeeds Eleutherus (12 years).
190.
Demetrius becomes Bishop of Alexandria.
Clemens succeeds Pantænus, who goes to India.
192. COMMODUS XIII. 6. Victor and the Paschal controversy with the Christians in
Asia Minor, in this or one of the next years.
After Commodus's death, troubles moved in Alexandria
against the Christians— martyrs.
193. ÆL. PERTINAX. I. 7. Theodotus, the Byzantian, teaching at Rome, expelled from
(SEPT. SEVER.) the Roman Church by Victor.
194-198. II. VI. 7--12. Irenæus at Rome.
Noetus teaches in Smyrna,
Tertullian writes his first works. (His earlier period till
202).
VIII.
XI.
231
INTRODUCTION.
The second generation ended with John the Evangelist: the
fourth terminates with the last of the disciples of the Apostles,-
Polycarp, the pupil of St. John. His death falls, as we have
shown, in the sixth year of the fifth generation, 169 of our era.
His last public act, his visit to Rome, took place towards the
close of the preceding age.
The close of the fourth generation, like that of the second,
marks a great epoch. With the second, ceases the production of
books which were declared canonical and serve as a norm for the
Christian Faith, namely, those containing the life of Christ and
the writings of the Apostles and their companions. With the
fourth, ends the epoch of the ecclesiastical works, which were
also read in the churches during worship. These two classes
were in the fourth age, to some extent, still mixed up together,
on account of the latter being read thus solemnly during the
public service, by the side of our Scripture, as pious works, and
being even sometimes called Scriptures of the New Covenant.
The essential ground of that definitive division of the two
classes, upon which our Canon (Rule) of the New Testament
reposes, is, first of all, the difference of the subject they treat.
Only Apostles and Apostolic Evangelists could treat with
authority of the Life of Christ, the public course of which they
had witnessed themselves, or learned from witnesses. They
alone, called and trained by Him, could have a mission to apply
the doctrine they had received from Christ, to the wants of the
nascent congregations. They did this, more or less, with that
universal spirit of Christ, which considers every age and want
and contingency in its human, and therefore catholic, character.
In the same measure as they did this, they manifested the spirit
Q4
232
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
of Christ, and proved themselves, therefore, to be inspired.
The evidence of this inspiration lies in their spiritual (not
literal) harmony, and in the response they find through all ages
in every soul anxious for its salvation. Thus there is a canon
within the canon, as Luther, in his day, distinctly saw. The
canonical books form a whole by the unity of their sublime
subject, and of the spirit in which that subject is treated; but
their relative importance and authority as a rule of faith, must
necessarily depend upon the more or less direct and complete
manner in which they handle the highest questions of fact or
doctrine. Thus, the Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians did
not become canonical, because its peculiar importance is only
special; where it touches on general topics of the first order, it
has only a subordinate character, standing upon the Apostolic
basis without any striking originality. The ecclesiastical writings
took, or preserved, or lost their place, in proportion as they
kept within the rule or type of the Apostolic writings. This
was the ground of the reverence in which, above all, Hermas
and the Book of the Church or the Constitutions of the
Apostles were held.
Apostolical tradition and teaching being thus at an end, the
spirit which was in Christianity moved the eminent men of this
generation and of the two following, to sift the subject matter
before them.
This work was attempted by Hegesippus with respect to
the outward history of the Church, of which a most important
part was the separation of the canonical books from the eccle-
siastical, and of the genuine and orthodox from those which
were forged, and more or less tainted with Ebionitism or
Gnosticism. I give, in the first volume of the Analecta, a
fragment of this very section of his work, known as the Frag-
mentum Muratorianum. The history of the single Churches,
Hegesippus attached, as far as he could, to the series or suc-
cession of the Bishops, as representatives of the faith and
doctrine of the Churches over which they presided, adding
what he knew of their individual belief and teaching. The
History of the Church of Rome he carried as far as Anicetus
(151-162), which probably means to the end of that bishop's
INTRODUCTION.
233
pontificate. He mentions, however, as his contemporaries, the
two succeeding bishops, Soter and Eleutherus, and he evidently
wrote his great historical work in five books, during the ponti-
ficate of the latter (173-186). * We may therefore suppose
that he brought the history down to about the year 160, and
incidentally mentioned the dates of the time during which, in
his travels, he had compiled the materials of his invaluable work.
Thus what Papias had begun in the third century, with regard
to the tradition respecting Christ, was completed on a larger
scale by Hegesippus, as a continuation of the Acts of the
Apostles.
A more difficult, and not less important task for Hegesippus,
was the exegetical and philosophical research. The first point
was the weaker of the two in that age. Scarcely any one of the
eminent men who might have become good scholars, understood
Hebrew; none had a clear idea of the laws of interpretation, and
the limits between exegesis and speculation, fact and idea.
Thus all, more or less, fell into the abyss of allegorical mys-
ticism, which is a declaration of exegetical bankruptcy, with a
certain amount of intellectual capital to be spent in making it
good. In philosophy, the ethical element remained predomi-
nant; but the speculative element acquired a solid logical basis
through the labours of Pantanus, and gained much from the
Gnostics. But that spirit of practical, and therefore true
Christianity, which pervaded the congregations of Christendom,
prompted the leading men among the Catholics to reject un-
compromisingly the Gnostic Dualism, and preserved them from
losing sight of the limits set to all speculation on Father, Sun,
* This seems to me to be the sense of the celebrated passage of Hegesippus,
which was already misunderstood by Eusebius (iv. 2.), and has given
rise to so many conjectures and interpretations. Euseb. iv. 22.: Levóuevos
δε έν Ρώμη, διαδοχήν εποιησάμην μέχρις 'Ανικήτου, ου διάκονος ήν Ελεύθερος
και παρα 'Ανικήτου διαδέχεται Σωτήρ, μεθ' όν 'Ελεύθερος. Εν εκάστη δε διαδοχή
και εν εκάστη πόλει ούτως έχει ως ο Νόμος κηρύττει και οι Προφήται και ο Κύριος.
All this neither requires nor admits of any emendation. Prof. Dietrich has
also ascertained for me the not unimportant fact that the old Syrian trans-
lation found in one of the Libyan MSS. of the British Museum confirms our
Greek text.
234
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
and Spirit, by the two great divinely given facts of the history
of Christ, as manifesting the Son, and the life and organiza-
tion of the congregations, as realising the Spirit. These two
facts can also be expressed thus : the true humanity as exhi-
bited in Christ individually, and as mirrored in the congrega-
tions collectively, by individuals pledging themselves to act
upon the principle of individual responsibility.
These were the problems of the fifth, sixth, and seventh
generations. All three rested equally upon that basis and sub-
struction of the first four. We should therefore, were it only
for this reason, have to treat these three last generations differ-
ently from those which preceded them. But, besides, the history
and the ideas of the leading men, in the period on which we are
now entering, are much better and more generally known.
Finally, we have to consider all that remains with a strict refer-
ence to Hippolytus. Having reconstructed the basis upon which
he stands together with his elder and younger contemporaries,
we have now to place upon that pedestal his individual figure,
surrounded, as in bas-relief, by the outlines of the thoughts and
doings of the coeval writers and governors of the Church. Hip-
polytus is connected with all these three remaining ages, and
may almost be said to stand in the centre of this period. He was
the disciple and hearer of Irenæus, and the elder contemporary
of Origen: he was personally acquainted with the latter great
luminary, and very likely also with Clemens of Alexandria. Of
the last great teacher, we might equally well treat in the next
age, during the first half of which he certainly continued to flou-
rish. But we prefer taking him with Irenæus into the present
age, because his teaching is intimately connected with that of
Pantænus, who belongs exclusively to this generation, and be-
cause we can thus group all our figures round our hero in a
more effectual manner. For the same reason we shall begin
with the Alexandrian divines, and end with the leading men of
the western Church, in Rome and Africa.
PANTÆNUS AND CLEMENS.
235
I.
PANTÆNUS AND CLEMENS, OR THE TEACHING OF ALEXANDRIA.
I. PANTÆNUS.
NEANDER assumes rightly, that Pantænus was that man
among the teachers of Clemens enumerated in the first book
of his Stromateis, whom he designates as “the deepest Gnostic,"
that is, in his language, the deepest philosophical Christian, the
man who best understood and practised Scripture. But Neander
thinks that this assumption rests upon the evidence of Euse-
bius, who only relates that Clemens himself called him so
in his Hypotyposes. All that he says besides of him, is that
Pantænus filled at Alexandria the office of Catechetes, that is
to say, of an expounder of Scripture to studious Catechumens
and students of divinity. But Valesius has already observed,
that we still possess in the Excerpts of Theodotus, which
form part of the Hypotyposes, the name of Pantænus, who is
there mentioned as “our Pantænus," and whose exegetical
opinions are quoted. Moreover, Pantænus is mentioned by
Origen and by Bishop Alexander, as their teacher at Alexandria.
(Euseb. vi. 14. 19. cf. v. 10, 11.)
Pantanus was, according to our accounts, a Stoic of a
platonic turn of mind, trained in Aristotelian logic. He was
a native of Sicily. Before he settled in Alexandria as teacher of
Scriptural Divinity (Euseb. v. 10.), he went out as a missionary
to preach the Gospel in India, which means, or includes, South
Arabia. There he found already Christian Jews, who, according
to the tradition, had received their faith from the teaching of
the Apostle Bartholomew. That these converts were Jews,
is proved by their possessing the first Gospel in Hebrew, that
is to say, Chaldee. His teaching was by word of nouth, but
it appears that he wrote down notes for his hearers, of which
some at least must have been published. At all events we
236
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
may safely attribute to him, what Clemens quotes in his Hypo-
typoses as the opinion of “the Presbyter," which, under these
circumstances, can be no other than Pantænus, and which cer-
tainly bears the character of an earnest Christian, who had
come to the faith through the training of Greek philosophy.
II. CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA.
CLEMENS, called Clemens of Alexandria, was a native of
Athens, who, after many travels in search of learning, finally
settled at Alexandria, where he found the best and wisest man
he had ever met with. He seems to have succeeded his master,
as catechetical teacher of Divinity, about the beginning of the
episcopate of Demetrius (190). He occupied that place till
about the year 202, when, in consequence of the persecutions
in the tenth year of Severus, he left Alexandria. In this town
there had been already Christian martyrs, during the troubles
which had occurred after the death of Commodus, and the enmity
of the Jews was only surpassed by the hatred of the Greek po-
pulation. The catechetical lectures naturally ceased. Reinkens
has proved satisfactorily that Clemens never returned thither.
The greater part of his activity as a teacher falls in the last
decennium of the second century; and as his books are avow-
edly written after the death of Commodus (192), so they seem
to have been all connected with his teaching, and therefore,
according to all probability, belong to the last years of our
period. We find him still alive in 213, when Bishop Alexander
of Jerusalem gave him letters of recommendation to the Bishop
and Congregation of Antioch.
Clemens is to be considered the continuation of Pantænus,
apparently with a higher flight of Christian speculation, greater
imagination, and more historical research, than were possessed
by the converted Stoic philosopher. He is the first specimen
of a truly Hellenic mind, early imbued with all that was noble
and great in the productions of the Greek genius, but devoting
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA,
237
all to the glorification of the eternal Word of God. This he
believed to have become incarnate in the person of Christ,
after having manifested itself in the teachings and life of all
wise and holy men, Pythagoras and Heraclitus, as well as Moses
and Jeremiah. In his sublime view of revelation, Clemens may
be said never to have been excelled. Origen was more learned
and acute, but also more fanciful. Herder's is perhaps the
mind which comes nearest to that of Clemens : but the atmo-
sphere of the eighteenth century made that wonderful German
genius more peripheric than the Athenian settled at Alexandria
in the second century. The mind of Clemens was bent upon
the union of Science and Faith, of Thought and of Life, of
speculation and of historical revelation. He was anxious to
convince the Gentiles that the God of the Jews was not the
Demiurge, the God of this world, and that their history was a
true manifestation of the God of all mankind, not of the Jews
only; and the Jews that the wisdom of the Gentiles was not the
inspiration of devils, but the work of the same all-pervading
Spirit of God. He saw that it was this blasphemy of the
narrow-minded Pharisees among the Jews and judaizing Chris-
tians which drove the Gnostics into the opposite extreme; and
hence true Christian charity and love of mankind as God's un-
divided family, moved Clemens to concentrate all his powers
upon this idea, and devote his whole life to its realisation.
This great object of his life led to his becoming the first
Christian philosopher of the history of mankind. He believed
in a universal plan of a Divine education of the human race,
and tried to demonstrate it both speculatively and historically.
The very nature of such a problem raised him above the views
of Plato and Aristotle with regard to the human race. We have
already seen how this same idea of Christ which inspired the
Apostle Paul, had, half a century before Clemens, developed
itself in a poetical form in the profound and imaginative mind of
Hermas.
This is the grand position occupied by Clemens the Alex-
andrian in the history of the Church and of mankind, and the
key to his doctrine about God and His Word, Christ and His
Spirit, God and Man.
238
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
He developed his ideas systematically, in a course of spirited
and profound works, addressed successively to the inquiring
but unbelieving Gentile (in the Protreptikos), to the aspiring
catechumen (in the Pædagogos), to the tried and advancing
Christian (in the Stromateis, or Coloured Carpets), and, finally,
to the well prepared theological student in the Hypotyposes,
or Sketches). The last two are of course his most important
productions; the one ethical and the other speculative.
I have, in the Analecta, endeavoured to reconstruct the Hy-
potyposes from the not inconsiderable remains of it which we
possess, and from what Clemens himself says in the Stromateis
of the plan he had formed of the great work of his life. Who-
ever enters into the idea of this bold conception of the Alex-
andrian, and reads those precious monuments, both of thought
and research, as far as they have escaped the destruction that
befel the work as a whole (a destruction caused even more by
the ill-will of the partisans of Council-religion than by the
neglect of simple ignorance), will agree with me if I say that
this work, as it was the first Corpus theologicum, so it has never
been surpassed in the ancient Church.
The general introduction to this astonishing work was cut
off at an early date, being pronounced to be not only danger-
ous but blasphemous by the great Byzantine hierarchist. We
probably owe it only to the respect inspired by Clemens' useful
Aristotelian treatise on the principles of logic, as the formal
principles of knowledge in the highest sense, that a grand thought
has been preserved which occurs in the beginning of that trea-
tise, showing the noble mind of the author and the high scope
of the work. “It is not true," he says*, " that philosophy
necessarily leads men to unbelief and doubt: it is only the
personal ambition and empty love of dispute among the modern
philosophers which has ended in these.” And soon afterwards:
66 The most ancient philosophers were not led to doubt and
despair: how should we, who keep to that really true philosophy
(Christianity), and whom the Bible expressly bids to seek in
* See Analecta Ante-Nicæna, vol. i. p.
169.
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA,
239
order that we may find; .. saying, "Seek and ye shall find,
knock and it shall be opened unto you, ask and it shall be
given you?' That reasoning, therefore, which institutes an
inquiry by means of queries and answers, knocks at the door
of truth, in conformity with the phænomena, and when that
which obstructs the search is cleared away, a scientific insight
is acquired by the mind. To those, I think, who knock thus,
that which is sought for is opened, and to those who thus put
questions to the Scriptures, is granted by God that to which
they aspire, namely, the gift of that knowledge which comes
from God, and which in reality beams forth, in a rational man-
ner, through the logical inquiry. It is impossible to find without
having sought, or to seek without investigating thoroughly, or
to investigate thoroughly without opening and unfolding, bring-
ing clearly to light that which is sought for; nor again, having
gone through the whole investigation, to fail of gaining finally
the prize, which is the scientific knowledge of what in reality
is. No: he who has sought may find, and whoever is not
fancying that he knows already, may seek. Then, carried
on by the mind's longing to find what is good, he seeks meekly,
without love of strife and without ambition, asking and answer-
ing, and besides considering that itself which is treated. For
it is fit that we conduct our inquiries, strictly adhering not only
to the Divine writings, but also to the common mode of rea-
soning, so that our discussions should be conducted within the
limits of usefulness. It is a different place and a different
crowd which awaits the tumultuous people and the vain dis-
putations of the agora. He who loves and knows truth must
be peaceful, and in his inquiries proceed through the medium
of conclusive scientific proofs to rational knowledge (Gnosis)
without self-love, but loving truth.”
These noble remains of the Introduction to the Principles of
Logical Reasoning, are a fair specimen of the style of the
Hypotyposes, and would suffice to prove the error into which
Reinkens in his learned monography has fallen, respecting the
real meaning of the Gnosis of Clemens. It is clear, as Neander
has proved by the most decisive passages, that Clemens believed
240
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
in the possibility of obtaining a convincing knowledge of
Christianity (Gnosis) by a scientific divinity, based equally
upon the laws of the human mind and upon the Bible; or
upon the inward and outward evidences. Such a knowledge,
Clemens maintains, gives to simple faith (Pistis) the support
of an internal understanding of the revealed truth; not by a
mystical process, or by a mere assent of the moral conscious-
ness to practical Christianity, but by an inquiry conducted upon
the general principles of reasoning and criticism.
Summing up all his expressions on this subject, it will
perhaps be the most concise and adequate formula to say, that
the test of Christianity is the union of a Christian life, founded
upon faith, with a knowledge the objects of which are capable
of philosophical (speculative as well as philological) demon-
stration. This is exactly what we found the author of the
Epistle to Diognetus saying: “There is no perfect Christian
life without knowledge, no knowledge without a truly Christian
life: the heart is the seat of the true science of Christianity.”
The first part of the noble work devoted to realise so grand
an undertaking, was an introduction into the principles of
evidence and reasoning. The introduction which we have
translated is followed in that great doctrinal work by a dia-
lectical essay, undoubtedly after the manner of Pantænus ;-_an
abstract from Aristotle and the Peripatetic school, with some
admixture of Stoic opinions.
Then followed (still in the first book of the Hypotyposes)
the metaphysical demonstration of the first principles and
causes. Here he developed that doctrine concerning the Logos,
which, to the council-ridden formalist Patriarch Photius, in
the tenth century, appeared mad and blasphemous. Those who
can read St. John's Prologue and St. Paul's Epistles without
being fettered by Athanasian (and pseudo-Athanasian) formu-
laries, and who recollect what "the inspired” Shepherd and
Justin taught, will, far from being shocked, acknowledge and
venerate in that maligned passage, isolated as it stands and
unsupported by the context, the fundamental doctrine of Chris-
tianity, expressed by a man who was at all events much nearer
the true method of divinity than were the men of the councils.
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA.
241
- The
Here is the accusation of Photius and the proof he
duces *::-
“ Clemens proves in his fantastic manner, that there are
two Logoi of the Father, the lesser of whom had appeared
to the Father, or rather not even He, for he says:
Son, also, is called Logos, with the same name which the
Logos of the Father bears. But it is not this Logos which
became incarnate. Nor, indeed, is it the Father's Logos, but a
power of God, as it were an emanation of the Logos Himself,
which, having become mind (Nús), pervades the hearts of men.'"
Now I maintain that this is a true quotation from Clemens.
It is fully explained, as it appears to me, not only by cog-
nate, although less dogmatic passages in the Stromateis, but
also by what Clemens gives as his own, in the remains
of the Hypotyposes, namely, in the metaphysical criticism of
Theodotus, which formed a part of them. The text itself,
as I have printed it in my restoration of the Hypotyposes,
is proof that we can safely distinguish in these extracts
between the rejected and the adopted opinions of Theodo-
tus, which Dorner (I. 445. iv.) says we cannot. This acute
theologian thinks that Photius refers to the extracts from
Theodotus, as being (what indeed they are) parts of the Hypo-
typoses, and that what he quotes are the views of Theodotus
and not of Clemens. Now to this I must demur. First, the
words here quoted are avowedly not found in our Excerpta.
As to the meaning, the words may express the mind of
Theodotus, but at all events they express that of Clemens,
which Dorner will not allow.
In order to prove my case, I shall first restore that passage
(which undoubtedly is meant to be, and is, a verbal extract) to
the sense which it must have borne in the context, according to
the strict terms of Clemens' Christology, and according to
Photius' own preceding explanation. I believe we may ex-
press its meaning thus: The Logos, properly speaking, is iden-
tical with God: it is God's own consciousness of His eternal
Being. If, therefore, the Son is called the Logos, it must be
* Analecta, vol i. p. 165.
VOL. I.
R
242
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
understood that the image or resplendence of that properly
so-called Logos, became incarnate in Him. For the Logos
itself, or God as immanent Divine Mind, can no more become
connected with what is finite, than God as Substance can. God,
in his immanent substance, is unapproachable, incomprehensible,
not connected with matter. But, as the Logos is the cause of
God's manifestation in the creation, this Logos of the finiteness,
or the Divine principle in the world, became incarnate in Jesus
Christ, the Saviour: it appeared in and through the Man
Jesus to mankind. In like manner it is not the Logos of the
Father (the immanent Godhead, as Mind) but a Power of God,
as it were an emanation of that Logos itself, which pervades
the hearts of men, and manifested itself in the wise and
pious men of God in the Old Testament, and even among the
Gentiles. It follows, then, that the Divine Spirit in Christ
is the same as that in holy men; only in Him it is in its
totality, substantially, personally: that is to say, Jesus the
Man, the human person, is entirely united and one with
that Spirit, whereas, even in the most enlightened prophets,
it only manifested itself partially, by qualities and not as
substance.
It is possible that Clemens called the consciousness of God
Himself “ the Father's own Word” (Tarpikós), and the conscious-
ness of God in the world, “ the Fatherly Word” (Tratpãos),
and thus constituted the following difference as to the three
spheres:
The Father's own Word is and remains immanent, for it is
infinite.
The Fatherly Word, or the divine element in the world,
became indentified, personally, with Jesus.
The Word, as the Spirit of God working in man, mani-
fests itself in holy men, who being true believers in Christ,
receive through the agency of that Spirit, the rational un-
derstanding of what they previously believed to be true,
although they did not understand it.
Clemens, therefore, might very well say in the Stromateis
(v. 1.), that in Jesus had appeared the Logos, not a part of the
Logos, but the whole, that Word of God which is not bound
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA,
243
to space and time; a passage with which Dorner compares the
parallel ones, i. 13. vii. 2.
Well also might he say, as we read (Strom. v. 3.) in one
of the passages quoted by Dorner, that the Logos, or Christ,
generated Himself into the flesh, that He might become visible.
It is nothing but a bold carrying out of the same simile, when
Clemens says in the celebrated passage of the Protreptikos*:
"The Logos took the mask of man, and having shaped to Himself
the flesh, acted the redeeming drama of humanity;". or, as we
should say, He clothed Himself in human nature, to fight victo-
riously through that struggle of life, which was to redeem
mankind.
There is no Doketism in this : Christ was a real Man, and
the incarnation remained in Humanity, as the continued work
of the divinization of mankind. The flesh is of God, the
evil is not in the flesh, but in man's self-will; the flesh is not
to be destroyed, but to be elevated into immortal life, as the
willing servant (organ) of the soul. In Christ, this took place in
perfection: it was his ethic perfectness which made all the affec-
tions of the body subservient to the Spirit. Still the bonds of
the flesh veiled, more than they revealed, the divine Logos.
(Strom. vii. 2.)
The Athenian Athenagoras had very likely been the connect-
ing link between Justin, his master, and Clemens, who may
have been his disciple: he certainly was the countryman and
elder contemporary of Clemens. Both took their stand upon
the Philonic or Platonic speculation, which makes the mind
(Nûs) arise in divine self-contemplation out of the unap-
proachable, absolute Substance (the On).
Clemens saw, that if speculation suffers itself to confound
the metaphysical sphere with the physical, it is impossible for
it to preserve both its own sacredness and the purity of the
historical sphere. The incarnation of the Word supposes the
* Cap. Χ. (end.) Ο Λόγος ,.. το ανθρώπου προσωπείον αναλαβών και σάρκα
(so I read with Dorner, instead of σαρκί) αναπλασάμενος, το σωτήριον δράμα
tñs åv pwTONTOG Útekpiveto. To understand this bold figure we must, with
Dorner, compare Strom. vii. 11.: αμέμφως τοίνυν υποκρινόμενος το δράμα του
βίου (ο γνωστικός) όπερ αν ο θεός αγωνίσασθαι παράσχη.
R 2
244
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
1
thought to have descended from the transcendental into the
creative region of divine self-consciousness. Not that he
fancied it to be a different principle, but his interpretation of
the Prologue is simply this: The Word became incarnate,
became Man in Jesus: this, however, is not an action of the
Divinity considered in itself, but in its creative thought,
an action identical with that of redemption, or with the return
of all that is created to the divine source from whence it sprang.
That same creative power, which became one with the Man
Jesus, is the divine principle which pervades all human hearts,
which man may stifle, but can no more destroy than produce.
Reducing all these passages to the terminology of modern
speculation and to Scriptural language, we have the following
scale of Divine manifestations :
GOD the All-being,
FATHER.
Sphere of the Divine Mind.
GOD the All-Reason,
Logos.
The Consciousness
of this Divine unity,
GOD as SPIRIT.
r а.
Sphere of God in Nature (the unconscious Universe).
GOD, the Cause
The LOGOS,
The SPIRIT,
of all Being,
as the Soul or Reason as the Consciousness
FATHER.
of the world,
of the unity of
the Son
Being and Reason.
Sphere of God in the Mind (the conscious Universe, Man).
The FATHER.
The SON,
The SPIRIT
JESUS, the CHRIST, as the unity of (infinite)
as the incarnate demiurgic Divine and (finite)
Word.
human mind.
GOD.
Sphere of God and Man in History.
MAN
MANKIND
(the Son).
(the finite SPIRIT).
The weak side of Clemens, and of the Alexandrian school in
general—as, it is, to a certain degree, that of the whole ancient
Church is the want of respect shown for the reality of God's
own world and history in their systems of Christology, as well
as of Psychology. Clemens' philosophy was not doketic (he
did not doubt the reality of Christ's body), but it was fantastic,
CLEMENS OF ALEXANDRIA.
245
almost as much so as that of Valentinus. He scorns the idea of
Christ having eaten because He wanted food: “ he did so,” says
he (Strom. vi. 9.), “only that His disciples might not doubt
the reality of His body.” A pious and reverent writer, who
says this of Him who cried on the cross : “I thirst,” must have
very little regard for reality.
This appears most glaringly in his interpretation. Invalu-
able as are even the poor remains of the exegetical portion
of the Hypotyposes, for the sake of the historical information
they furnish, and the means they afford of seeing through the
shallowness of many assertions of the later Fathers, respecting
the authorship of the books of the New Testament and the
formation of the Canon, they are, for the most part, utterly
worthless in their exegesis. Clemens did not give a continuous
commentary on the books of Scripture, but only illustrated such
passages as seemed to him to offer materials for that allegorical
and mystical mode of interpretation, by which one learns any-
thing but what the words really mean, and the sentiment which
the author himself intended to convey to his readers.
As before observed, this phenomenon must in some degree,
particularly in the case of the Old Testament, be attributed
to the want of a correct, or more often of any, knowledge
of Hebrew. But Origen was well acquainted with Hebrew,
and his commentaries are fuller of allegorical misinterpretations
than those of any other ecclesiastical writer. The ultimate
cause of the fact is to be found in the despair into which the
human mind had sunk with regard to the world of reality.
A profound respect for the piety and holiness of Clemens is
as universal in the ancient Church as for his learning and
eloquence. I rejoice to find that Reinkens, a Roman Catholic,
expresses his regret, not to say indignation, that this holy
man and writer, the object of the unmixed admiration of
the ancient Church, should have been struck out of the cata-
logue of Saints, by Benedict XIV. It is uncertain whether
this was done simply because Baronius had omitted him in his
Martyrologium, or because Pope Gelasius called some of his
writings (probably from sheer ignorance) apocryphal, or upon
grounds similar to those of the Byzantine Pope Photius,
R 3
246
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
II.
IRENÆUS.
The immortal Apostle of the Gauls, who in his earliest youth
had sat at the feet of Polycarp, at Smyrna, started from the
school of Asia Minor, which counted amongst its bishops the
courageous, eloquent, and spirited Melito of Sardes, and
Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. But the true model and
prototype of Irenæus, was Polycarp. Irenæus possessed the apos-
tolical patience as well as the fiery zeal of the man who, like St.
John himself, would on no account hold communion with such
as doubted Christ's having come in the flesh. But above all,
he had, in common with them both, the love of God in his
heart, and the conviction that God is love, and that love is the
cause of this world.
It was during a great crisis that Providence brought this
gem of Asia into the West. After Pothinus, Bishop of
Lyons and Vienne, had, in 177, earned the crown of martyr-
dom at the head of his flock, Irenæus, who had shortly
before been sent as bearer of a conciliatory letter from the
Church of Smyrna to Bishop Eleutherus of Rome, was appointed
to the vacant bishopric. He learned Celtic in order to preach
the Gospel to the barbarians in their own language, and rejoiced
in beholding the progress of the same good work in which he
was engaged, in the parts of Germany bordering on Gaul. In
his Greek writings, he portrays (for that age, in good Greek)
the heresies of the day, in particular those of the Valentinian
Gnostics; and he inspired the young men who gathered round
him to hear his instructive lectures, with a thirst for Christian
knowledge, and a zeal which led them to devote their lives to
the people. Hippolytus was one of these young men, and his
greatest work was an improved reproduction and spirited con-
tinuation of the History of Heresy, given in those lectures, and
preserved to us in the chief book of Irenæus - The Refuta-
1
IRENÆUS.
247
.
tion of the Gnostic Systems, in five Books. Not only so, but
the traces of Irenæus's influence are everywhere visible in
Hippolytus, as the Hellenic stamp impressed upon the Latinized
and Romanized Greek,
Irenæus always endeavours to place himself upon the ground
of Scripture, the centre and norm of apostolic tradition, and
adopts a Johannean theology, directed by sound practical sense.
Although very forbearing towards the Montanists, whom he
always wished to consider as Catholics, he abhors the Dualism
of the Gnostics, which erected an impassable barrier between
them and the universal Church, as it did between faith and
knowledge, historical and practical Christianity.
His interpretation of Scriptural thought is certainly not as
profound as that of the Alexandrians in the field of spe-
culation, but ethically it is equally deep, and infinitely
more sober as to the treatment of the letter. Irenæus, as
Neander has well observed (i. 1172.), was so far from taking the
Muhammedan view of inspired letters and points, that he
directed his particular attention to the peculiar style of St.
Paul. But with regard to the Old Testament, he did not
choose to follow the Hebrew Christians, by him first called
Ebionites, in their efforts to discover the primitive sense of
passages referring to the Messiah (as Is. vii.).
In treating of the highest object of Christian speculation,
the nature of the Deity, Irenæus appealed (like Heinrich Jacobi)
to the religious feeling in the heart of man. “We can say nothing
of God," are his words, " except in similitudes, into which the
worshipping soul puts what is beyond words.” * Dorner, in
his admirable article on Irenæus, has endeavoured (i. 465. 496.)
to connect the speculations of our author with the scaffolding of
the later Trinitarian system, but in this he appears to me to have
“signally failed. Irenæus takes his stand on the same basis as
Hermas and Clemens, although he proposes his own solution of
the difficulties created by the Gnostics. Among these attempts
of his, not the most successful is the one where he tries to iden-
* i. 26.
“Quæ autem sunt prophetica curiosius exponere nituntur.”
Curiosius is, as Neander (i. 601.) observes, the Greek Tepiepyotépws.
R 4
248
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
tify the Son with the Logos. The Divine Word is certainly, in
his view, above all, the reflex of the Divine Mind in itself, and this
reflex is the first creative cause: it is Word and Mind at the same
time (ii. 46.). The Son is a hypostatic word, not a phrase nor a
creature, but identical with God.
The Spirit is God's eternal
wisdom (the Sophia of the Old Testament) in the world. Son
and Spirit are not qualities (virtutes) of God. But it cannot
be said that Irenæus proves the identity of Christ with the
Logos, beyond that of man with God, except in the point of
ethical perfection. Nor does his speculative method prevent
him from confounding the highest metaphysical with the demi-
urgic sphere. Both the Son and Spirit are the “ hands of the
Father" (v. 1.5,6.), with this difference, that the Son expresses
the eternal Love resting in itself, as does the Spirit in so far as
it imprints itself upon the world.* It is therefore impossible
to interpret otherwise the expression of an old Presbyter about
the degrees of enlightenment of the children of God, “ they
ascend from the Spirit to the Son, and from the Son to the
Father," which Irenæus adopts (v. 36. compare iv. 37.). The
gradation is, God in the World, God in Christ, God in Himself.
The Son is manifested substantially in Christ, for God can only
be known by God. In man also there is this Divine principle,
and Irenæus has no hesitation in saying, “ The glory of man is
God, but the receptacle of God's working and of all His
wisdom and virtue, is man.” ut
The eternal decree of redemption is, to Irenæus, throughout,
an act of God's love. The atonement is, according to him, a sa-
tisfaction paid, not to God, but to the devil, under whose power
the human mind and body were lying. But the devil himself
only serves God's purpose, for nothing can resist to the last the
Almighty power of divine love, which works not by constraint
(the devil's way) but by persuasion. Christ gave His soul
and body to save ours, which had fallen under the power of the
üi. 40., compared with iv. 17. 37. 50. Dorner, p. 467. N.
† iii. 22. I agree with Grabe in changing “ operationes ” which cannot
be construed, into “ operationis” which is the translation of švépyala.
v. 1, i. Neand. i. 1094. 1106. ff.
IRENÆUS.
249
devil: Hé raised the soul to God, and enabled her to make the
body an instrument of divine life.
Through the holiness of his own life, Christ is the mani,
festation of God's holiness. By His holy example he made men
like to the invisible God.* He abrogated the law given to
servants, which claimed external obedience to the command-
ments, and by his freeing Word taught a free purification of the
soul, and through it, of the body. The free obedience of the
mind is the greater for its being free. To follow the Saviour is
to partake of salvation, to follow the light is to partake of the
light. t
As to any magical power existing in the rites of baptism and
communion, even the greatest formalists have not endeavoured
to prove any such thing from Clemens. I have shown else-
where how unfortunate the attempts have been to prove transub-
stantiation or any like superstition from Irenæus. # On baptism,
it may here suffice to quote his beautiful remark (iii. 17.): “Our
bodies have received through baptism, our souls through the
Spirit, that communion with the imperishable Being.
As regards his views of the history of mankind, Irenæus
believed in the millennium, as a progressive preparation for the
pious. His leading idea, therefore, is that fundamental prin-
ciple of Christianity, that even on this earth the good is to
triumph at last.
In speaking of the government of the Church, he nowhere
lays stress on Episcopacy, as a divine institution, but he makes
the liberty and independence of every Church (including a city,
with its surrounding villages), the fundamental principle of the
constitution. Nothing is more striking than his Letter to the
Roman Bishop Victor on the Paschal controversy, which has
* iii. 20. (22.) 18. (20.). Neand. i. 1107.
† iv. 13, 14. Neand. i. 1113.
Dorner (p. 496. iv.) well observes, that not only the Pfaffian Fragment
but also iii. 19., iv. 37. 74., exclude the Mediæval doctrine completed by the
Council of Trent, and that Calvin's theory finds no support either in Irenæus.
But I regret that Dorner should have saddled something like the Lutheran
communicatio idiomatum, as applied to the communion, upon the apostle of
the Gauls.
250
THE FIFTE GENERATION.
been preserved to us by Eusebius.* He agreed with Victor
in thinking it more expedient to celebrate Easter on the first
Sunday after the vernal full-moon, but he censures severely
Victor's despotic conduct in breaking off communion with the
Churches of Asia Minor, because they adhered to the 15th day of
Nisan, whether it was Sunday or not; for the tradition of one
Church he held to be as good as that of another. " Christ's
Apostles," he says in this or in a similar letter, “have ordained
that nobody shall disturb men's consciences with regard to such
things. It is not right to tear asunder the bonds of Christian
communion on account of festivals and seasons, knowing already
from the prophets that festivals and fasts celebrated in hatred
and discord do not please God."
Irenæus defended these principles in person, although un-
successfully. He went to Rome between the years 195 and 197,
and was kindly received by Victor. This is the last intelligence
we have of his life.
* H, E. V. 24.
VICTOR OF ROME.
251
III.
VICTOR OF ROME AND TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
THERE canaot be a greater contrast than that presented by
the two fathers of the profoundest school of divinity, Pantænus
and Clemens of the Alexandrian Church, and the two most
eminent of their contemporaries in the Latin Church, Victor of
Rome and Tertullian of Carthage. Victor was the first bishop
who used the influence of the Church of Rome over the West
in an authoritative manner, and Tertullian, the Carthaginian
presbyter, was the first great ecclesiastical writer of the Latin
Church. The leading men of Alexandria were, the one a con-
verted Sicilian philosopher, illustrious as a teacher of catechu-
mens, and in his earlier years a zealous missionary in India;
the other an Athenian, a presbyter like his master Pantænus,
whom he succeeded at the school of Alexandria. The first two,
representing the Western Church, exhibit a leading bishop
and a converted lawyer, both having the character of men of
business, the latter, even in his speculations, always adhering
to the historical and ethical element.
I. VICTOR, BISHOP OF ROME
UNDER COMMODUS AND SEVERUS. (187–198.)
VICTOR, as already stated, is the first Roman Bishop who
exerted, to the utmost of his power, an authority over other
Churches, which had naturally, since the day of Clemens, grown
out of the position of Rome, as the metropolis of the world.
Moreover the generous charity of the Roman Christiansis praised
by Ignatius as being of world-wide notoriety; and not only had
the two great Apostles, Peter and Paul, suffered martyrdom
there, according to a perfectly well founded tradition, but the
252
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
practical good sense and the instinct and art of government,
which have always distinguished the Romans, were not wanting
in the bishops and leaders of the congregation of that metropolis.
Although neither eminent in learning or intellect, without even
one great name in this department since Clemens, the Roman
bishops were certainly second to none as courageous and
faithful defenders of their trust.
The idea of the Catholic or universal Church, was, to a certain
degree, coeval with the origin of Christianity. But the growing
concentration of the executive power in the hands of bishops,
and the political unity of the Roman empire, gave it a hier-
archical form, and the Church of Rome very naturally pro-
fited by it above all others. The Churches of Antioch and
Alexandria, in all probability, contained a larger number of
members than that of Rome, where the nobility kept aloof,
even in the time of Theodosius. But every part of the world
had, somehow or other, business at Rome; to Rome lay the
appeal from all other tribunals; redress against the cruelty, or
injustice, or extortion of governors and prefects, could only be
had at Rome; if a defence of Christianity was to be made, it
was to be made before the Emperor and the Senate. Under
Hadrian and the two Antonines, this had frequently been
done.
The discovery of the lost book of Hippolytus has led us
into some details as to the Christian influence which might be
exercised at court, and of which Victor availed himself.
Commodus had a mistress, Marcia, the wife of the captain
of the Imperial Guards, who was a god-fearing woman; that
is to say, a catechumen, not yet received as a member of the
Church, but in connection with it. We have mentioned else-
where* how Victor obtained, through her influence, a free pardon
for the Christians who had been sent to the mines of Sardinia.
The account of Hippolytus represents Victor in the light of a wise
and good man.
His hierarchical and Roman character displays
itself in the imperious manner in which he resolved to cut the
knot respecting the time of celebrating Easter. It appeared to
* Third Letter to Archdeacon Hare.
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
253
Irenæus, as well as to. Polycrates the bishop of Ephesus, an
unwarrantable stretch of power, and a proceeding dangerous to.
the liberty of the Christian Churches, that Victor should break
off Christian intercommunion with the Churches of Asia Minor
for not assenting to his proposal, that Easter should always
be celebrated on a Sunday. They were right in this respect,
and had a just presentiment of the evils of the centralizing des-
potism which awaited the Church Universal; but it must be con-
fessed that Victor had common sense on his side in the view he
took of the matter, and that he carried it out with a decided
majority in his favour. Still all this was merely an act of
moral, not of legal authority. There existed no patriarchal
right of the Bishop of Rome over the suburbicarian Churches,
not even in the sense of the smallest extension (to a circle of a
hundred miles, “intra centesimum lapidem"). The Roman
Church was the Church of Rome, and neither the Latin, nor
even the Italic Church. Rome was the metropolis of the
Campagna of Rome, the bishops of the surrounding cities of
Tibur, Præneste, Tusculum, Ostia, and some others, having
borne that relation to the Bishop of Rome which we call in the
present day that of suffragan bishops to their metropolitan.
Victor used his authority also with regard to doctrinal points.
He deprived Theodotus, the Byzantine, who taught at Rome,
of his membership, and he opposed Montanism. The Gnostic
system without dualism, as propounded by Theodotus, undoubt-
edly appeared to him as dangerous as Valentinianism, - more
dangerous indeed, because more insinuating. Nor could the
visionary and enthusiastic element in the school of the Phrygian
magnetiser appear sound to such a man.
In all these points Victor put his impress upon his own age
and all succeeding ages.
II. QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS.
TERTULLIAN, the eloquent and high-minded rhetor, and famous
Roman lawyer, a native of Carthage, and son of a Roman officer,
254
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
must certainly be considered as a contemporary both of Irenæus
(whom he mentions) and of Clemens of Alexandria. The
chronology of his life and writings has hitherto been enveloped
in great uncertainty. Neander's researches, admirably con-
densed in the second edition of his “ Antignosticus, or Spirit of
Tertullian” (1849), have laid the foundation for such a chrono-
logy, by establishing more firmly the principle according to which
such of Tertullian's books as were written after he became a
Montanist may be distinguished from those of his earlier period.
The new insight into the history of the Church of Rome, which
is furnished by the work of Hippolytus, enables us, if I am not
mistaken, to fix the age of the great Carthaginian with still more
precision than has been done by Neander, and to show the con-
nexion between his writings and the parties and controversies
in the Western Church, and particularly with the history of
the Church of Rome, the only one which possesses a chrono-
logy of this period. *
We know, from Jerome and Eusebius, and his own writings,
that Tertullian, born a Gentile, and having risen to celebrity
as a rhetor and lawyert, became a Presbyter (evidently
of Carthage), and as such sided with the Montanists against
their opponents. This decisive step coincides with the great
and systematic persecution of Severus, which did not begin
till the eleventh year of the reign of that emperor, or the year
202 of our era. Our reason for taking this period as that of
the turning-point in the life and tendencies of Tertullian is the
following. All the works which can be directly proved to be
* I learn from Döllinger (p. 44.) that Uhlhorn has published, in 1852, a
dissertation, under the title : “Fundamenta Chronologiæ Tertullianeæ,"
which I have no means of procuring at this moment. From the specimens
Döllinger gives from it, I am, however, inclined to agree with him that,
after Neander's last work of 1849, it does not answer its rather pre-
sumptuous title. The books De Monogamia, De Jejuniis, and De Pudicitia,
are, according to this work, to belong to the earlier period (for the first he
proposes 205), because in his riper years Tertullian would not have written
so sharply and vehemently. I must certainly call this, with Döllinger,
“entirely subjective criticism."
f I firmly believe that the Fragments in the Pandects bearing his name
are from the juristic writings of our Tertullian.
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
255
Montanistic point towards that period, and all that can be proved
to belong to the latter part of the reign of Severus and to that
of Caracalla, bear the Montanistic stamp. Those again which
are evidently written by Tertullian the Catholic, either contain
allusions to the period anterior to the decree of Severus, which
prohibited a delapse from the national religion to Christianity
as well as to Judaism, or they at all events suit that period
perfectly.
By arranging his writings according to these principles, we
can also trace a line of development running through them
all, and show a connexion between them and the course of his
life. When, in his riper years, Tertullian went over to the
friends of Montanus, he chose, whenever he was called upon
to defend his party, such subjects as insured his being read
by all Latin Christians --- polemical works against the Gnostics.
Amongst the works of his former period, the exhortation to
the martyrs in his native land ("Ad Martyres ?) holds the first
place. The bloody strife of Severus with Pescennius Niger and
Albinus (193—196) was still fresh in the minds of all, with all its
horrors, and all its crimes and baseness. The spirited books
“ De Spectaculis," “ De Idololatria," and the “ Apologeticus
(c. iv. 39.), bear more or less positive marks of the same period.
The last, a magnificent work, was at a later period re-cast into
the work, “ Ad Nationes libri duo.” The profound Essay “De
Testimonio animæ” refers to the Apologeticus, but exhibts the
same character. Of the polemical works, only that “De Præ-
scriptione adversus Hæreticos” belongs to this period. If we add
to these books the admirable ethical treatises, “De Oratione,"
“ De Patientia," “ De Baptismo; " " De Pænitentia," “Ad
Uxorem, » « De Cultu Feminarum,” we may say that the period
before 202 or thereabouts, in short his younger and Catholic
period, is the finer part of his life and writings.
The books of the Montanist period are however not merely
very powerful, but full also of fine and sublime Christian spirit
and piety. Of these the work “De Pallio," the defence of the
philosopher's costume, as one to be worn instead of a toga, by
Christian men of his own class, belongs to the year 207 or 208,
because there is an allusion (c. 2.) to the "three Emperors,
256
THE FIFTH GENERATION,
Severus, Geta, Caracalla; and the book to the cruel Governor
of Carthage, “ Ad Scapulam," alludes to Caracalla. This period,
and precisely 207, the fifteenth year of Severus, is expressly
mentioned as that in which he wrote the great work “ Adversus
Marcionem” (i. 15.) We enumerate the others only as
belonging generally to this second, or Montanistic, period of
Tertullian's life :
De Corona Militis.
De Fuga in Persecutione.
Contra Gnosticos Scorpiace.
Adversus Praxeam (under Zephyrinus, c. 1.).
De Exhortatione Castitatis.
De Monogamia.
De Pudicitia (under Zephyrinus, c. 1. 13.).
De Jejuniis.
De Virginibus velandis.
Adversus Hermogenem.
De Anima.
De Carne Christi,
De Resurrectione Carnis.
Adversus Valentinianos.
Adversus Judæos (c. I. viii., the rest not genuine).
We are therefore justified in placing him in the fifth genera-
tion, although he continued to live and to write in the next age,
that of Hippolytus.
The writings of the later period of course possess at the pre-
sent time a double interest for us, as throwing light upon the
historical facts revealed by Hippolytus, and receiving light from
his writings. There can scarcely be any longer any doubt, as it
seems to me, that the Roman bishop alluded to in the two books,
“ De Pudicitia,” and “ Adversus Praxeam," is the same Zephy-
rinus spoken of by Hippolytus. The celebrated passage in the
first of these works (c. 1.) against the Roman bishop, who had
rather imperiously declared himself against the rigorous system
of the Montanists in refusing absolution to the fallen, agrees
most curiously with the account of Hippolytus. “I hear,” says
the fiery Carthaginian presbyter, " that an edict has been
published, and that a peremptory one.
The Pontifex Max-
imus, the bishop of bishops, declares:
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
257
"I forgive the sins of adultery and fornication to those who
have done penitence.''
This was exactly what, according to Hippolytus, began under
Zephyrinus, and was carried still farther by Callistus, his
favourite and adviser, and afterwards his successor.
The second passage, which occurs in the book against
Praxeas, a Confessor of Asia Minor, who had violently opposed
Montanism, points to the same pontificate. According to
Tertullian, the Bishop of Rome, before whom Praxeas accused
the Montanists, had at first been favourably inclined to them,
but Praxeas had brought him round to the opposite view by
pointing to the course which had been adopted by his pre-
decessors.” According to our assumption, these would be
Eleutherus and Victor, and might even include Soter, the
predecessor of Eleutherus : for it is certain that Montanism,
having first shown itself in Phrygia under Soter, excited a
great ferment under his two successors.
We can understand how Zephyrinus, with his theological
tendency towards a moderate Patripassianism, in the Noëtian
sense, should not have been disinclined to keep on friendly
terms with the Montanists. But no course of conduct could
be more adverse to the character of Victor, even if we overlook
the difficulty of finding more than one predecessor of his, to
whose proceedings Praxeas would have appealed as a pre-
cedent.
We have entered into some detail on this point, not only
because it helps to confirm our general chronology of the
writings of Tertullian, but also because the subject is inti-
mately connected with Hippolytus and the researches and
controversies to which his great work has given rise.
We will now attempt to sketch the outline of the views held
by one of the most original and powerful writers of the Western
Church.
The authority of Scripture he regards as paramount. Tradi-
tion, however, that is to say, the ecclesiastical customs and
liturgical usages of the universal Church, is to him a subsidiary,
and, with respect to the meaning of Scripture, supplementary
VOL. I.
S
258
.
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
authority; in fact, what reason and precedent are in juris-
prudence by the side of, and subordinate to, positive law. *
Reason is to him the substance and essence of the soul, as
it is of God. He calls the inward evidence for the truth of
Christianity, “the witness of the naturally Christian soul." +
“ The soul divines what is divine,” he says somewhere else. I
6. What is divine and not rational ?"S" he says in another pas-
sage. And again, “ There is no precept of God which is not
rational.”|| Reason (which we should call Rationalism) is
therefore a necessary ingredient of Christian faith, but it must
be used within the “Regula fidei," the rule of faith, which
he regards as the revelation made to us in Scripture respecting
the Father, Son, and Spirit. I
In the doctrine which he builds up on these foundations,
Tertullian certainly offers a decided contrast to Clemens of
Alexandria ; his prototype is Irenæus, with whom he often
agrees literally in his Christology. But it is the more remark-
able that with this antagonistic realism Tertullian also moves
within the sphere of the Apostolic speculation, which we
have hitherto found to be common to the four successive
generations already considered.
We begin with a beautiful passage from what is in this respect
his most important work, his book against Praxeas, the Patri-
passian opponent of Montanism at Rome under Zephyrinus.
“ Before all” (he says, c. 5.) “ was God, alone, to Himself World
and Space and All Alone, because nothing existed out of
Him (in external actuality): however, not alone even then,
because He had with Him that Reason which He had in Him-
self. For God is a rational Being (rationalis); Reason is in
Him primordially, and, therefore, All is of Him. This Reason
2
* See the remarkable development in the book De Corona Milit. cap
iii. 4.
† Apol. c. 7.: “Testimonium Animæ naturaliter Christianæ.”
| De Testimonio Animæ, c. 1.
§ “ Quid enim divinum non rationale ? "-Fuga in Persecut. c. 4.
11 “Nil Deus non ratione præcipit.”—Contra Gn. Scorp.
De Præscript. adv. Hæreticos, c. 12.
| Dorner, i. 477. 490.
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
259
is His intelligence (sensus), the Greeks call it Logos, which is
generally, but not quite appropriately, translated Speech.'”
He then proceeds to argue thus: “To speak accurately, one
cannot say that the Word was with God in the beginning,
Reason being necessarily older in God than the Word, for
the Word consists through Reason; it has Reason in it as its
substance, and is itself the manifestation of Reason."
It cannot be denied, as Dorner justly observes upon this
line of argument (p. 579.), that Reason is in Tertullian's eyes
a substantial thing (although spiritual, still a Body, as God
Himself).
“ However” (Tertullian continues), “ the Word, although
not yet issued forth, was in God, with Reason and in Reason.
Consider thyself an image of God. The same process goes
on within thee: whenever thou conversest in thyself by reason,
does not every thought or perception turn in thee into the
word? and this word is Reason itself. Thou canst not help
speaking within thyself; and thus thy word becomes to thee
one speaking with thee, one in whom that same reason is
which enables thee to speak when thou speakest. Thus there
is in thee, as it were, a second, another one, the word by
which thou speakest thinking, and thinkest speaking. Thus
God, quietly thinking and organizing by his Reason, made
Reason word, putting it into motion by speaking."
Every one not entirely unacquainted with modern German
speculation will be surprised to find how near Tertullian came
to the formulas we have considered above and elsewhere. But
he never dwells sufficiently long in this highest sphere, being
always in haste to proceed to the idea of the Universe, or the
demiurgic sphere.
He was far from entertaining the heathenish idea, that the
world is the Son of God: God's Son is that Thought by which
He makes Himself objective to Himself. But there is no hypo-
static Sonship in this immanent eternal Divine Being. The
eternal Son has only an ideal existence in God. He is an idea
of God, as well as the idea of the Universe; but it follows from
those principles, as understood by Tertullian, that this idea of
the world, when it becomes real, will have the Word as its
S2
260
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
head--the Logos as the chief of mankind; in view of Him the
first man was created. The realisation of the Word, as Man, is
the culminating point of a course of development which forms
the Universal History. What he calls the generation of the
Son takes place in that eternal self-contemplation of God, not
in the historical incarnation in Jesus. One may say, that the
Sonship is, to Tertullian, God in His relation to the world
God in His mundane activity that element in God which
is turned to finiteness.
Of course, he could not overlook the fact, that in the act by
which God makes Himself objective, or by the Sonship, the
union between the absolutely Infinite and the Idea of Finiteness
is implied, and so the unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. There
are, indeed, many passages which prove that he was perfectly
aware of this truth; but it may easily be understood that, in ap-
plying this idea to the historical Christ Jesus, and to the reality
of the world in which he lived, he found more stumbling-blocks
than he could master. Like the other Fathers, he wanted
method, a respect for the divine laws of history, and a hope for
the regeneration of the world. This is the pathological part of
his Christology; and we, therefore, abstain from entering into
its details. The simplest expression of his Christology is, that
man, consisting of body and of soul (the rational soul being
the animating principle of the body), Christ's rational human
soul was the mediating element between his body and the
Logos.
As to the relation of the Father to the Son, I will only quote
a striking remark of his: "I call the ray, sun; but not the
sun, ray: and so I call the Son, God; but not God, the Son."
This passage occurs in his work against Praxeas (c. 13.), whose
Patripassianism was as uncongenial to him as the man himself.
In the eyes of the later Western Church, Tertullian was, there-
fore, either unintelligible or not strictly orthodox. For, while
the speculation of the Eastern Church, as long as it had
any, centred round the Triad, so, in the Western, the pre-
dominance of the unity, or the absolute monotheistic feeling,
threw the so-called Subordinatianism, or the notion of the
$on holding an inferior position to the Father, into the back-
TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE.
261
ground; and all speculations which did not square with this
principle were set aside.
Tertullian's strength lies in his ethical warmth, and in the
sublimity of his moral view of Christianity. According to
him Divine life manifests itself in man, not alone. as Reason,
but also as Holiness. The divine ethical element is im-
perishable in man, although more or less obscured in every
individual. The understanding of divine truth proceeds from
the will, the disposition to believe it; and little faith shows
itself in little understanding.
While on this subject, I will offer a few words upon a point
already adverted to; namely, Tertullian's philosophy of the
history of mankind and of religious liberty.
In his general view of the history of mankind, we find him
very much behind his Alexandrian contemporaries. He seems
to have had no feeling of admiration for sublime characters
in the Gentile world, such as Socrates. His expressions about
his so-called Dæmont are distressing. But he always keeps
a firm hold of the fundamental idea that man possesses free
“ This alone,” he says, " is his own; the good is not
his, but God's." “ Every man," he says, “partakes of Adam's
fall, which is merely his having chosen his own rather than the
divine decision; for as his soul comes from Adam's, so does
his sin.I But in this also he must be like Adam, that he acts
with free will, otherwise there would be no responsibility.”
Hence his objections to the baptism of young children, from
their inability to feel the immense responsibility they incur by
taking the baptismal pledge.
His detestation of the iniquity and corruption in the whole
social system of the Roman world was so intense, that, being
himself a married man, he confesses that he does not see how
Christian parents can wish to leave children behind them.
“ The joy of having children is the bitterest of joys," he says.
6. What can we wish better for them than we wish for ourselves
will.
* “Non intelligentis quia non credentis. Nos porro quantula fide sumus,
tantulo et intellectu possumus æstimare.”—De Baptismo, c. 10.
+ In his book De Anima (cb. 39.). See Neander's text, p. 362.
1 “ Tradux animæ, tradux peccati.” Thence Traducianism,
s 3
262
THE FIFTH GENERATION.
*
- to be taken to the Lord, out of this wicked, persecuting
world !”
In the midst, however, of this deadly struggle, he exhorts
the brethren to vindicate the liberty of conscience, the natural
right of every man. “ Man is nobody's but God's," says he, in
his book against the Gnostics.f And, when writing to Scapula,
the persecuting governor, he pronounces these noble words: —
“ It is the right of man, and in the natural power of every one,
to worship what he thinks ought to be worshipped. There
is nothing of religion in religious constraint: religion must be
adopted freely, not by force.”I
“We have a liberty for which we know how to die," he ex-
claims to the persecuting Gentile world g, in allusion to the re-
ligious liberty which they claimed, as being men created in the
image of God. To serve that world in a political capacity, by
entering into public life, is not the Christian's part, according to
Tertullian :-- Nothing is more strange to us than the com-
monwealth : we acknowledge one commonwealth, the world.” ||
This was the meet reward for the persecution of the Roman
world, which died of Christianity, because it did not think it
could exist without persecuting Christianity.
Such is, in all critical ages, the last result of civil and re-
ligious oppression. " That which killeth, maketh alive;" but it
never gives new life to that government, that state, that society,
or that age of the world, which persecutes conscience and stifles
free thought.
* Ad Uxor. i. 9.: “ Adjiciunt quidem sibi homines caussas nuptiarum
de sollicitudine posteritatis et liberorum amarissima voluptate. Sed id
quoque penes nos odiosum est. Num quid gestiamus liberos gerere, quos
cum habemus, præmittere optamus, respectu scilicet imminentium angus-
tiarum, cupidi et ipsi iniquissimo isto seculo eximi, et recipi ad Dominum,
quod etiam apostolo votum fuit?"
† “ Solius Dei homo.”—Adv. Gnostic. Scorp. c. 14.
I “Humani juris et naturalis potestatis est unicuique quod putaverit
colere, nec alii obest aut prodest alterius religio. Sed nec religionis est
cogere religionem, quæ sponte suscipi debeat, non vi.”—Ad Scapulam, c. 2.
Ad Nation. i. 4.:“ Ipsam libertatem pro qua mori novimus."
0
Nobis nulla magis res aliena quam publica : unam omnium rem-
publicam agnoscimus mundum."
TIE
SIXTH GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
FROM THE YEAR 199 TO THE YEAR 230.
(VIIth year of SEPTIMIUS SEVERUS to the end of ALEXANDER SEVERUS.)
Septim. Severus
Caracalla
Elagabalus
Alex. Sev.
ZEPHYRINUS. CALLISTUS. URBANUS.
$ 4
•
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
207.
199. SEVERUS. VII. 1. Zephyrinus suceeeds Victor (19 years).
The end of the second century after Christ (203 or 204 of our
era) approaches, a certain Judas predicts the coming of
Antichrist.
Epigonus, the disciple of Noetus, teaches at Rome.
202.
X. 4. Severus suppresses the Jewish movements in Judea. He
pro-
hibits the Gentiles from becoming Christians or Jews.
Great persecutions in Alexandria and elsewhere.
Irenæus. Clemens expelled from Alexandria. Tertullian
turns Montanist.
XV.. 9. He writes his books against Marcion.
211. CARACALLA. I. 13. Origen at Rome, 25 or 26 years of age. .
213.
III. 15. Clemens at Jerusalem.
217. ELAGABALUS. 1. 19. Origen, 30 years old, leaves Alexandria,
218.
II. 19. Zephyrinus.
Under his pontificate the direct oblation of the people ceases
at Rome: the Deacons or Sub-deacons alone bring the
gifts to the altar, and give the piece of consecrated bread
(corona) to the people (Lib. Pont.).
Under him Praxeas comes to Rome, and Cleomenes, the dis-
ciple of Epigonus, teaches the Noetian doctrine there. Under
him, Hippolytus takes an active part in the management
of the Church of Rome, probably as Bishop of Portus,
and as such, a member of the Presbytery.
219.
1. Callistus succeeds Zephyrinus (4 years).
222. ALEX. Sey. I. 1. Callistus.
Under him, three epochs of fasting appointed in the Church
of Rome, in the 4th, 7th, and 10th month (Lib. Pont.)
Great theological struggle at Rome. Callistas heading a
Noetian party. Hippolytus opposing him.
Hippolytus's Chronicon ends with the first year of Alexander
Severus: bis Paschal Cycle begins with the same.
223.
1. Urbanus succeeds Callistas (8 years).
228
VII. 6. Origen is ordained priest at Cæsarea : expelled by Demetrius :
writes the fifth book of his Commentary upon St. John:
stays with Firmilianus: writes the Hexapla.
230.
IX. 8. Urbanus.*
II.
HIPPOLYTUS.
SINCE the time when, under Domitian, Clemens wrote his
Epistle to the Corinthians, there had been no Roman bishop who
is named in ecclesiastical literature down to the generation on
which we are now entering. The Shepherd of Hermas, written
by the brother of Bishop Pius, who lived under Antoninus, and
possibly at Rome itself, is the only specimen of literature con-
nected with Rome down to the end of the second century.
The Christian congregation at Rome, to use the words of Dean
Milman, in his recent classical work, “ The Latin Church," was
during that period, at least in point of literature, rather a Greek
colony at Rome than a representative of the Latin metropolis
of the world. Even the two literary productions we have
named possessed no great influence or authority there. The
Epistle of Clemens was read at Corinth in the religious meet-
ings of the congregation, even in the time of Constantine, and
the Shepherd of Hermas was regarded as Scripture throughout
the Grecian world; but we never find it mentioned at Rome.
The air of that city was not congenial to speculative Christianity
under any form : the thinkers it produced were apt to merge
the ideal in the historical factor, and thus, in their conscious-
ness, the Logos was merged in the Son. The past was to the
Roman Christians a piece of antiquity, and the future only an
object of useless speculation or wild imagination; but they turned
their attention, above all others, to the present state and govern-
ment of the Christian commonwealth, of which the metropolis
was the natural centre. To give practical advice to the
brethren in the provinces when they were in difficulties, to
supply them with ample pecuniary assistance, and help them by
their influence at the palace, was their peculiar office, and it
constituted their peculiar strength and privilege. We have seen
how Victor used this influence, with some incipient tendencies
266
THE SIXTH GENERATION.
to autocracy, indeed - but still upon the whole, in a reasonable
and right direction; and we have also seen how two persons,
who differed greatly from each other (Irenæus and Tertullian),
combated this novel authority as threatening the independence
of Christendom. We know that, towards the end of the next
generation, the African Churches, a Latin colony of Rome,
although maintaining their internal independence, clung more
and more to their metropolis; and that Cyprian went farther
than Irenæus in acknowledging the qualified supremacy of
Rome.
As to the internal history of the Church of Rome itself, from
Victor to Cornelius, we have hitherto known scarcely anything
positive, except mere names. The genius of Neander and
Dorner divined, that during this interval there must have been a
theological struggle, if not a change of system ; but the facts
were wanting to give to their divinations a substantiated form.
The great work of Hippolytus, and the person itself of this
remarkable man, by whom Caius, the Roman Presbyter, his
contemporary, is entirely thrown into the shade, have opened up
such a wide field of facts and information on these two subjects,
that it is not to be wondered at if those who are pledged by
their vows or their tendencies to a system irreconcilable with
those facts and repugnant to that information, are doing all
they can to shut up altogether the prospect offered to our eyes.
They will, however, not succeed in their efforts, as long as
there is a spirit of research and a love of historical truth left in
Europe and America.
Referring my readers for all particulars to the Letters reprinted,
with notes, at the end of this volume, and to the Preface of this
month (April, 1854) prefixed to it, I shall here only draw the
general outlines of a picture-first, of the state of doctrine and
government in the Church at Rome in the time of Hippolytus;
secondly, of the general position which he occupied in that
Church ; and, finally, of his distinguishing characteristics as a
man and an author.
Rome and Alexandria, as shown in my
6 Letters on
Ignatius” (v. p. 112. ff.), had in common with each other a
peculiar organization, which produced a peculiar development
HIPPOLYTUS.
267
1
of that primitive metropolitan system. This is alluded to in
the 35th of the Apostolical Canons (Analecta, ii. p. 16.).
According to this Canon the bishops of a tribe or district
were to consider him who was the first among them as their
head, and to do nothing important without him, as he again was
to act under their advice. The presbytery of Alexandria and
Rome had, however, a sort of parochial organization of their
own, with extensive privileges. Curiously enough, we know,
in some respects, more of the constitution of the Alexandrian
than of the Roman Church. At Alexandria not only was
the right of electing the bishop exclusively vested in the pres-
bytery of the town, but even that of ordaining the bishop
elect of this parochially organized body. With regard to
Rome, in the eighth century (the date of the earliest records
referring to this subject), we find the bishops of the cities
of Tibur, Præneste, Tusculum, and Ostia, and of Portus, the
borough which constituted the harbour of Rome, in exclusive
possession of the right of ordaining the bishop of the metro-
polis. We know moreover that they had a share in his election,
and even in great emergencies in the administration and legisla-
tion of his see. It is difficult for the historian to imagine that
places, which, in the eighth century, were sunk into insignifi-
cance, should have recently acquired a right, not then in ac-
cordance with the spirit of the constitution, but, on the contrary,
opposed to it. We may, on the contrary, easily imagine that
at a time when every city, and even several boroughs, formed
a bishopric, with or without villages around them, and had their
presbytery or council of elders, and when even every small village
which could not afford such a council, was governed by a single
clergyman, called a country bishop (Chorepiscopus), the subur-
ban bishops should have certain rights, on the ground of their
vicinity to, and intimate connection with, the metropolis of the
empire. Once in possession of such rights, we can understand
that they should have kept them when the metropolitan system
had developed itself throughout the whole Christian world, and
when the Bishop of Rome, already called Pope, was the acknow-
ledged metropolitan of Italy, Africa, Sicily, and all the pro-
vinces belonging to that administrative and political portion of
268
THE SIXTH GENERATION,
But we
the empire. Nor are there any but imaginary difficulties in
the practical working of such a system in the second and third
century. Rome was within reach of all those places in half a
day's journey, from fourteen to twenty-four miles. The elec-
tion of a bishop took place under ordinary circumstances, upon
an average once in eight or ten years. Internal dissensions or
great local troubles necessarily called forth the active Christian
and episcopal sympathy of those bishops, and if, as the canon
indicates, and the facts suggest, their presence even was re-
quired, such visits to Rome could no more encroach upon their
administration at home, than the duty imposed upon them
according to the clear words of the canon, of not acting, in im-
portant matters, without the concurrence of their chief bishop.
are not even left to conjecture on this subject.
Within sixteen years after the death of Hippolytus we have the
first official record of the mode in which the legislation and
administration of the Church of Rome was managed in ex-
traordinary circumstances.
In the letter of Bishop Cornelius, generally called the
sixth *, he says: “When the whole proceeding had been
related to me, I resolved to convene the presbytery (placuit
contrahi presbyterium). There were also present in the council
the same five bishops who were present to-day. My object was,
that, after mature deliberation, the conduct to be observed
towards those persons might be determined by unanimous con-
sent. In order to enable thee to understand the feeling and
advice of every single one, it was resolved to make minutes
for thy use; they are subjoined to this letter. When this
had been transacted, Maximus, Urbanus, Sidonius, and many
brethren who had joined them, came into the presbytery, suppli-
cating that the past might be entirely forgotten.”
Not only the place where the episcopal council is held, is
called presbyterium, but also (and that is the original significa-
tion, 1 Tim. iv. 14.) the men composing this ruling council.
There were present, at the two sittings alluded to, besides the
* Cypriani, Epp. xlvi. ; Cornelii, vi. See Coustance Pontif. Epp., ed.
Schoenemann, p. 99. seq. Compare Ep. lv. and Euseb. vi. 43.
HIPPOLYTUS.
269
faithful presbyters of Rome, five bishops, who were consequently
members of the presbytery.
Let us see who these five bishops were. Most probably the
bishops of Ostia, Tibur, Præneste or of one of the neighbour-
ing places, and why not the successor of Hippolytus, as Bishop
of Portus, which, though not an old corporate and fortified
town (civitas), was nevertheless, as the adjoining harbour of
Rome, a place of great importance.
It would indeed be
absurd to suppose that foreign bishops who happened to be at
Rome were admitted to the council on great occasions, and
that the suburban bishops had no regular place in the same
council, as members with certain rights.
This being the most natural solution of the circumstance of
Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, being also designated presbyter,
I think it unnecessary to recur to the explanation of Presbyter
in the sense in which Hippolytus calls his own teacher, Irenæus,
the well-known Bishop of Lyons, by that title (Refut. vi. 42.
55. See Analecta, i.). However it may be explained, what
Hippolytus said of his master might be said by later writers of
Hippolytus himself, whom one of the Byzantines elevates into
a man who had known the Apostles. But I think that the
constitution of the Church of Rome explains the expression
of Presbyter very satisfactorily. The constitution under Cor-
nelius must have prevailed not only in the time of Hippolytus,
but long before.
The presbyters of the different parishes of Rome who formed
the council of the Bishop of Rome in ordinary circumstances,
were called, as a corporate body, the Presbytery, as is proved by
the very words of the letter of Cornelius. The suburban bishops
were therefore members of the presbytery, and, as such, might be
called, less accurately, presbyters (of the Church of Rome).
The members of the presbyteries of Carthage and of Rome are
called by Cyprian, in more than one passage of his Letters,
fellow-presbyters (“compresbyteri") of himself or of Cornelius.
This designation though not accurate, is still unmistakeable.
No difficulty therefore is created by Hippolytus calling
himself in the emphatic Procemium to the Refutation, given
textually in the Analecta) a bishop, in which capacity he is
270
THE SIXTH GENERATION.
represented in his statue, being seated on the cathedra, and
by his being also called in a chronicle of the Church of Rome
of the fourth century, by the side of “ Pontianus the Bishop,"
Hippolytus the Presbyter.”
The earlier writings of this remarkable man evidently belong
to the reign of Severus. In one of them there seems to be an
allusion to the anxiety which the Christians felt from rumours
of the immediate coming of Antichrist, when, during that reign,
the close of the second century after the traditional (and true)
date of the nativity of Christ was approaching.
But the Refutation certainly is the depository, not only of
the historical learning and theological and philosophical
ness of the author, but also of the most important and diffi-
cult period of his life.
After Victor's death, Zephyrinus deviated from the ordinary
practice of Roman rules in abstaining from speculative dis-
cussions. Gnosticism, as Dualism, had been entirely de-
feated by the Catholics; even in its expurgated form, as
Theodotianism, it had been rejected by Victor. But the Greek
Christians continued nevertheless to make the Logos-doctrine,
and the speculations necessarily connected with it, the ob-
ject of their teaching. Irenæus had done so: the Montanist
movement also drew the Christian mind powerfully towards the
higher regions of speculation, and forced even the practical
Tertullian into metaphysical abstractions. The great point
was, whether the preeminently monotheistic view which had
always distinguished the Roman Church, although certainly
not in an Ebionitic sense, might not be harmlessly connected
with some speculations respecting Christ's divine nature.
Instead, however, of discussing the doctrinal differences
between Hippolytus and Callistus in theological terms, I beg
to refer my readers to the discussion upon it contained in my
Letters to Archdeacon Hare, and to the Essays, and shall simply
consider the question here in its bearing upon the philosophy
of history.
The whole dispute, both as regards doctrine and discipline, is
a fragment out of a great tragical complication. In the great
controversy respecting the nature of God, the Father, the Son,
1
HIPPOLYTUS.
271
A
the Spirit, the Logos, the Christ, Jesus, the problem of giving
to the historical and philosophical factors their due position
was too mighty to be solved by that age. It was its glory to
have attempted such a solution, but it was its tragedy that it
made its own premature, imperfect conclusions the pivot and
badge of Churchmanship. Whichever way the great minds
of the third century turned, they necessarily involved them-
selves in logical or philological difficulties and contradictions.
The Roman Church was the very type of practical, historical
Occidentalism, as opposed to the intellectual, metaphysical
East. Zephyrinus and Callistus were the first who tried to
theorize, which obliged them fall back again upon Greek
writers. Hippolytus represented the Greek element in the
west, and he placed the Johannean doctrine of the Logos at
the head of a system which so far necessarily subordinated the
Logos to the Father, as being the offspring of an act of divine
will. Callistus insisted so strongly upon the unity of nature in
the Father and Son, that he incurred the blame of having said
that the Father was crucified as Son.
The same tragical complication must be acknowledged in
the dispute respecting discipline. The system of Zephyrinus
was certainly the more practical, and, as Döllinger has conclu-
sively demonstrated, consisted essentially in the admission to the
Church by re-baptism of those who had been heretics and as
such had committed carnal mortal sins, a mitigation of the
rigour of penitence afterwards extended by Callistus to the si-
milar admission of those who had committed other mortal sins.
The one system might here and there lead to the sanction of
immorality, the other to pharisaical rigorism.
The assumption of spiritual power, which belongs only to God
and the conscience, and the exercise of social and civil power
by a hierarchy, which absorbed the rights of the congregation,
were the two fundamental errors which led to the whole tragical
complication both as regards doctrine and discipline.
As a writer Hippolytus possesses neither the elegance of
Origen nor the brilliant originality of Tertullian. His best style
comes nearer to that of Clemens of Alexandria, but, unfortu-
nately, he generally writes either in a very high-flown rhetorical
272
THE SIXTH GENERATION.
style or in none at all. This is particularly the case with the
Refutation. His Greek, therefore, is not only tainted with La-
tinisms, but often (unless some of the worse passages are mere
loose extracts) without any style in the construction and con-
nection of the sentences.
These defects of style are very naturally the reflex of the
defects of his intellect and character. His reasoning powers
cannot be measured with the three men of genius among his
contemporaries whom we have mentioned above.
But it would be decidedly unjust to judge him either by his
philological and metaphysical writings, or by his disputes with
Callistus.
To appreciate Hippolytus, to understand the epithets of “most
sweet” and “most benevolent,” applied to him by a contempo-
rary of Chrysostom, and of “most eloquent,” which is Jerome's
expression; in short, to understand the unbounded admiration,
and almost apostolic nimbus which surrounds his name in
later ages, we must leave this sad scene of controversy, and
contemplate him as the serene, platonic thinker, with his wide
heart for the universality of God's love to mankind in Christ,
and with his glowing love of liberty, and of the free agency of
man, as being the specific organ of the divine Spirit, and the
only one congenial to the very nature of God.
These are the really distinguishing features in his character.
We find them particularly developed in the Confession of
Faith, which forms the elaborate peroration-to the great work
of his life. I have given the Greek text in the Analecta, the
literal English translation in the Letters to Archdeacon Hare,
appended to this Volume.
The next passage which illustrates those characteristic features
in the mind of Hippolytus, is contained in the conclusion of the
fragment of his “ Address to the Gentiles” (entitled also “ On
the Substance of the Universe") which is preserved to us, and
of which I have given the text in my Analecta, for the first
time corrected and completed from the Oxford Manuscript.
The following passage is taken from this fragment.
After describing the state of things which awaits the righteous
in a future world (negatively of course, by showing what draw-
HIPPOLYTUS.
273
backs and inconveniences they will not be exposed to), he con-
cludes with the following words : “ The full number of the
righteous remains undiminished with the righteous Angels
and Spirits of God, and with his Logos. Thus the band of
the righteous, both men and women, remains, ever young
and incorruptible, praising God who hath brought them to
this by laws and ordinances, given to them for their life-time.
With them also the whole creation will sing unceasingly, being
glorified by its change from corruption to incorruption, and by
the cleansing of the Spirit; nor will it be held in bondage by
the chains of necessity; but, being made free, it will sing a willing
hymn to its Maker, together with all the Angels, and Spirits,
and men, who have been freed from all bondage. If then, O
ye Greeks, ye will hearken to these words, and leave off the
vanity of your earthly wisdoth, begetting words only, and
will not let your minds go astray, by spending your time in
mere disputes about words, but will lend your ears to the God-
inspired prophets, who are the interpreters of God and the
Logos, and so believe in God, ye also will become partakers
of these things, and ye will receive the good things to come,
and behold the path leading up to the boundless heaven and
the kingdom above. For God will then make manifest, what
here He hath concealed * those things which eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into the heart of man,
which God hath prepared for them that love Him." To Him be
glory and power for ever and ever. Amen."
His conviction that God works alone by the agency of the
free Spirit, and that therefore all exercise of authority is subordi-
nate, in His eyes, to the fulfilment of the duties connected
with it, made Hippolytus speak with a noble frankness of the
regal as well as episcopal authority. In the fragment of his
work on the gifts of the Spirit in the Church (Charismata),
which is preserved substantially in the introduction to the
eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, a passage occurs
to which I have already referred in my Letters to Hare.
According to the text as now printed in the second volume
of the Analecta, it stands thus:
Let, therefore, no man among you be puffed up against his
VOL. I.
T
274
THE SIXTH GENERATION.
brother, even though he be a Prophet or a worker of miracles;
for if it were granted to us that there should be no more un-
belief, the whole power of working miracles would become
unnecessary. For to be a godly man proceeds from the good
disposition of any one, but to perform miracles from the power
of Him who worketh mightily in us : of these two points, the
one regards our ownselves, the other God, who worketh in us,
on account of the reasons we have mentioned before. There-
fore, let neither the king despise the commanders under him,
nor rulers their subjects. For if there be none to be ruled over,
there is no need of rulers: and if there be no commanders, the
kingdom cannot stand. But neither let a bishop set himself up
above the deacons and presbyters, nor indeed the presbyters
above the people: for the existence of the whole community
rests on reciprocity. For the bishop and presbyters are priests
to some, and the laity are laity to some. * Now to be a Christian
is in our own power; but to be an apostle, or a bishop, or any-
thing else, is not so; but it appertains to God, who giveth us
His gifts.
“ So much then about those who are thought worthy of gifts
and offices. But this we add to what we have said: not every
one who prophesies is sanctified, nor every one who casts out
evil spirits holy. For even Balaam, the son of Beor, the sooth-
sayer, prophesied, though he was a godless man; and so did
Caiaphas, the High priest falsely so called. For many things
the devil himself foretells, and the evil spirits who surround
him. Yet do they not possess, for all that, a spark of godliness;
for they are oppressed by ignorance, through their own wilful
wickedness. It is clear, therefore, that the ungodly, even
though they prophesy, do not by their prophesying hide their
own ungodliness, nor will they + who cast out evil spirits be
made holy by the removal of them for they deceive one
another, even as those who, for the sake of laughter, make
* This is the way in which I still continue to read the passage, substi-
tuting τινων for τίνων- ό τε γαρ επίσκοπος και οι πρεσβύτεροί τινων εισίν ιερείς,
και οι λαϊκοί τινων εισι λαϊκοί. .
+ It is quite evident that daiuoves is an interpolation. I read ovdè oi
δαίμονας ελαύνοντες κ τ. λ.
HIPPOLYTUS.
275
childish play, and so destroy those who hold fast to them.
But neither is an ungodly king any longer a king, but a
tyrant; nor is a bishop oppressed by ignorance or by evil
inclinations any longer a bishop, but he is one, falsely so called,
chosen by men and not by God, even as Ananjah and Samajah
in Israel. .... It follows, therefore, that the bishops and pres-
byters, falsely so called, will not escape the judgment of God.
For it is said to them, 'Ye are the priests who speak evil of
My name : I will give you up to slaughter, even as Zedekiah
and Achiab (Ahab), whom the King of Babylon roasted in
the fire*,' as saith the prophet Jeremiah. But we say this,
not as in any way despising the true prophecies; for we know
that these are being wrought mightily by them that are holy,
through the inspiration of God; but in opposition to the daring
of proud, boastful men; and we may add † that God deprives
such of His grace: for "God resisteth the proud, and giveth
grace to the humble.'” I
This noble character and warm heart, combined with a rare
knowledge and able use of speculative as well as moral Grecian
philosophy, an enlightened and effectual zeal for infusing the
hellenic element of thought and intellectual liberty into the
Western Church, and that conscientious struggle for truth,
against falsehood and violence, which was crowned by martyr-
dom ; these are the eminent qualities which made Hippolytus
dear to his congregation and to the Churches of the East and
West, and which ensure to the author of the Refutation an
honourable place among the good men and the leading minds
of ancient Christendom.
+
* See Jerem. xxix. 22.
† The Greek text has kal npootilévtes. Either kai must be left out, or
else we must read, with the MSS., o pooridxuev.
I i Pet. v. 5.
T 2
THE
SEVENTH GENERATION,
OR
THE AGE OF ORIGEN.
FROM THE YEAR 231 TO THE YEAR 254.
(Xth year of ALEXANDER SEVERUS to IInd of VALERIANUS.)
Alex. Severus
- Maximinus Gordianus — Philippus Arabs — Decius
Gallus Valerianus.
PONTIANUS. ANTERUS. FABIANUS. CORNELIUS. LUCIUS.
CHRONOLOGICAL SYNOPSIS.
X
19;} 2. Origen returns to Cæsarea after the death of Gordianus.
III.
231. ALEX. Sey.
1. Pontianus succeeds Urbanus (five years). Demetrius
succeeded by Heraclas.
235.
XIV. End of Latin translation of the “Chronicon” of Hippolytus.
MAXIMINUS. I. Hippolytus, after the death of Alexander Severus, banished
with Pontianus to Sardinia.
5. Pontianus. * Hippolytus returns to Portus (?), and dies a
martyr. Anterus, Roman Bishop, dies after one month.
237.
III. 1. Fabianus succeeds (fourteen years).
238.
GORDIANUS. I.
244. PHILIP. ARABS. I. 8. Fabianus.
245.
II. 9. His Homilies written down. The Epistle of Jul. Africanus
to Origen in Nicomedia.
246.
10. Heraclas. Dionysius succeeds him.
247.
IV. 11. Origen (sixty years old) writes his books against Celsus.
Commentaries upon St. Matthew and Prophets. Epistles
to Emperor and the Empress Severa; also to Fabianus
and other Bishops.
249. PAIL. AR.
13.
DECIUS.
14. The Edict of Decius against Christianity. Fabianus dies a
martyr.
251.
GALLUS and 1. Cornelius succeeds Fabianas (two years).
HOSTIL.
252. GALLUS.
2. Origen at Athens. Commentary upon Ezekiel and the
Song of Solomon. Cornelius dies, a martyr (?).
253,
1. Lucius succeeds Cornelius.
VALERIANUS.
254.
II. 2. Origen dies.
250.
II.
III.
I.
II.
III.
:
I.
ORIGEN
ORIGEN, born at Alexandria in the year 185, the son of the
cultivated and pious Leonides, was, like the friend of his
youth, Alexander, afterwards Bishop of Jerusalem, the pupil
certainly of Clemens, and perhaps of Pantænus. He was
sixteen years of age when the persecution of Septimius
Severus claimed its victims at Alexandria in 201. Leonides
died the death of a martyr: his wife prevented the ardent youth
from offering himself to share his father's fate, by hiding his
clothes ; but he wrote to his father not to waver out of anxiety
for his family. Thrown upon his own resources when not yet
seventeen years of age, Origen almost immediately became the
centre and guide of the many inquirers who gathered together
at Alexandria. It was at this date that he converted Heraclas,
afterwards Bishop of Alexandria; and, at eighteen years of
age, he was appointed by Demetrius a catechetes, or teacher
in the Church. But, at the same time, he became the object
of hatred to the fanatical mob, by his zeal in comforting the
Christians, when thrown into prison or conducted to the
scaffold. He was often hunted by the mob, but rescued by his
loving disciples, or by his own undaunted courage and presence
of mind. One day, when seized and placed at the entrance of
the Temple of Serapis to distribute palm-twigs to those who
entered, he accepted the office, but handed the palms with the
words :-" Take this palm ; not in the name of the idol, but in
the name of Jesus Christ." The office of catechetes was gra-
tuitous: in order to live, he sold the only treasure he possessed
besides the Bible - his classical library, which he did for a
pension of four oboli (about fivepence-halfpenny) a day. It
was in this position that a glowing enthusiasm, and the literal
interpretation of the words of Christ in Matt. xix. 12., led him
into an aberration, which in later years he strongly condemned,
T 4
280
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
but which was, at all events, inspired by the purest moral
motives. *
His office obliged him to pay more attention than he had
done before to the Greek philosophers; and, in company
with his own pupil, Heraclas, he attended the lectures of the
celebrated professor of philosophy, Ammonius Saccas, the
founder of Neo-platonism t, and teacher of Plotinus.
He was twenty-six or twenty-eight years of age, when, under
Zephyrinus (about 211 or 213), he visited Rome, where, ac-
cording to a credible tradition, he heard Hippolytus preaching
one of his homilies : a form of instruction afterwards so suc-
cessfully used by Origen in delivering short commentaries
on the books of Scripture. In visiting the eminent men of
Greece, Palestine, and Cappadocia, he conversed also with he-
retical teachers, thinking, as he says, that religious conviction,
when grounded upon free inquiry and impartial examination,
stands firmer than when it rests upon a servile obedience to the
tyranny of the multitude. I Origen was not shaken in his !
Christian faith; but he acquired by these studies that patient
love of truth, and that mildness towards men of different
opinions, which distinguish him from most theologians ancient
or modern. His influence in Alexandria and elsewhere was
only strengthened by his liberal and courageous spirit. He
converted many Gnostics; and, amongst others, that good lay-
man, Ambrosius (afterwards a deacon), whom he delivered from
his Gnostic taskmasters, and who remained through life his ad-
mirer and generous supporter. It was in this period of his life,
that Origen took up the study of Hebrew, by which he was
enabled to become the first founder of a philological criticism of
Scripture, and to master for the Church much of the traditional
Rabbinical knowledge of Hebrew: a gigantic effort, in which
he scarcely has had a successor among the Greek and Latin
Fathers besides St. Jerome, who, however, infinitely surpassed
him.
Heraclas having relieved him of the burden of the prepara-
Baur's doubts as to the fact are ridiculous, in the face of the testimony
of Eusebius. Neander, i. 1202. ff.
Neander:p. 1205.
Ibid. p. 1207.
ORIGEN.
281
tory catechetical school, Origen gained leisure to prepare lec-
tures on Greek philosophy, such as Clemens had delivered as
introductory to the philosophical knowledge (gnosis) of the
Christian religion. We still possess the testimony of one of
his devoted hearers, St. Gregory Thaumaturgos, to the circum-
stance that Origen's method taught them, above all, the art of
learning to discover truth for themselves.
Hitherto Origen had not published his commentaries. Am-
brosius paid numerous secretaries and copyists, to enable him
to do so, that he might combat the Valentinian writers, whose
books seduced many; amongst others, Heraclian. His great
speculative work on the “ First Principles” was published by
his over-zealous admirer against his will. In a letter to Bishop
Fabianus of Rome, written late in life, about 245, Origen ex-
presses his regret at not having expressed more cautiously
some of the opinions delivered in that work. At the age
of forty-one (about the year 226), after having toiled so
many years at Alexandria, Origen undertook, with the per-
mission of his bishop, who gave him commendatory letters, a
journey to Greece, and thence to Palestine. Here the great
teacher was ordained Presbyter at Cæsarea, under the auspices
of Bishop Alexander, of Jerusalem.
As in that day a Presbyter still meant a man who held
the office of one of the elders of a given Church (which might
be connected with a local parochial charge), that ordination
made Origen, the Catechetes of Alexandria, an Elder of the
Church of Jerusalem, and not of his own Church of Alexandria.
This Church might even declare such an unauthorised, although
not illegal act, to be a virtual separation from his Church and de-
prive him of his professorship in consequence. Such, indeed,
was the opinion of the Egyptian Bishops and Elders, whom
Demetrius, now his enemy, first consulted about this affair.
But the hierarchical party, whose views were already tending
to absolutism, went farther. Origen was declared not to be a
lawful Presbyter. This declaration had certainly a support in
the letter of the ancient canon, excluding those who had com-
mitted self-mutilation ; but the application of this canon* to so
* See Canon. App. xvii. Analecta, vol. i.
282
THE SEVENTE GENERATION.
peculiar a case belonged to the Church which had ordained,
not to that which had deprived him. Most of the Churches,
however (that of Rome in particular), adhered to the decision
of the Alexandrian hierarch, and declared Origen's ordination
void. He offered no opposition; but quietly left Alexandria,
in 230*, never to return. Before his departure, however, in
the midst of the storm raging against him, he finished the fifth
volume of his Commentary on the Gospel of St. John.
But the hatred of Demetrius was not allayed by the peaceable
conduct of Origen. He induced a numerous Synod of Egyptian
Bishops to condemn, as heretical, many of the positions con-
tained in the book on the “ First Principles, and in particular,
as it appears, Origen's opinion respecting the universality of
final salvation. This opinion he had certainly stated so as even
to hold out a prospect of the conversion of Satan himself by
the irresistible power of the love of the Almighty. He had
offered this as a philosophical opinion on a point not deter-
mined by the clear teaching of Scripture. The arguments he
adduces are in general those of nearly all the Ante-Nicene
Fathers before him. But hierarchs never have believed their
own absolutism safe unless based upon fear — the principle of
action for all despots, as Montesquieu has well shown; and in
every age their view naturally finds support from all unbelievers
and materialists, baptised or unbaptised. For, since to them the
Christian religion has no basis in reason, it must not lose the only
hold it can have upon the mind of the multitude (and therefore
the only excuse its existence offers to the enlightened), namely,
the terrors of an indefinite, and thus, to their apprehensions,
infinite and eternal punishment, which has vengeance and not
amendment for its end. " Away with Origen! What is to
become of virtue, and heaven, and-clerical power, if the fear of
eternal punishment is not to be for ever kept before men's eyes
prop
of human and divine authority ?” So thought De-
metrius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 230. All the arts of clerical
persecution were used against the pious and courageous Pres-
byter. At Rome, as well as elsewhere, false protocols of a
as the
* Neander, p. 1217.
ORIGEN.
283
disputation of his with the Gnostics were brought forward
against him; and he was condemned by the successor of Callistus,
“not,” as says St. Jerome, who was no friend to his theology,
“ on account of novelty of doctrine — not for heresy — but
because they could not bear the glory of his learning and
eloquence.” Still it appears as if the absolutistic tendency
had had a still greater share in procuring his condemnation
than mere personal jealousy, although the latter certainly co-
operated. The Bishops of Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia, and
Greece, however, supported the persecuted man.
Origen expresses himself very mildly in speaking of the in-
justice of the sentence pronounced upon him.
.
He thus writes to his friend : “ We must rather pity than
hate them, rather pray for them than curse them; for we are
created to bless, not to curse." His whole life testifies to the
sincerity of this sentiment. He continued his laborious task
without even making any angry allusion to his persecutors.
Except that, in his Commentary upon the words of St. Paul,
1 Cor. i. 25., he exclaims: “The foolishness of God!' how
I should be accused by the cavillers, in spite of all that I had
said well, if I had only pronounced these words !”
Our period opens for Origen in 231, with the demise of his
persecutor, Bishop Demetrius, who was followed by Heraclas,
Origen's pupil. He was not, however, recalled to Alexandria,
the spirit of the clergy being evidently against him. In 238, the
persecutions of the cruel barbarian Maximinus threw many of
his friends in Palestine into prison, generally the presage of death
by torture. It was at this conjuncture that Origen wrote his
powerful address on Martyrdom, exhorting Ambrosius and
his wife Tatiana to constancy in their faith in this extreme
trial. He begins with refuting all the sophistries invented by
their enemies for weak-minded Christians, and then applies the
doctrine of salvation to the supreme duty of confessing the
truth, and of acting up to that confession unto death. This
was the victory over the tyranny under which empires and
nations had fallen; for it restored to man the consciousness of
his duty and power. He is far from approving the desire of
martyrdom; but, when called upon to confess, we ought to drink
284
THE SEVENTH GENERATION,
the cup offered. " The divine Word,” he says, “has left to
us that peace which He left to His Apostles; but it interposes
the word betwixt the image of the earthly and of the heavenly
mind in us.
He now wants to take to Himself our heavenly
man, tặat we may come to that state where there is no longer
a division between what is godly and ungodly."
Origen now went to his theological friend, Bp. Firmilianus,
in Cappadocia: a Christian virgin, Juliana, concealed him for
two years in her house. Here he wrote his laborious work the
Hexapla, or the collation of the different Greek versions of
the Old Testament, with each other and the Hebrew text.
The death of Maximinus in 238 put an end to the perse-
cution, and Origen returned to his occupations at Cæsarea.
Summoned to Greece by the confidence of the Churches,
he paid a visit to Ambrosius, at Nicomedia. Evidently his
spirits were already broken. He is almost shocked by Julius
Africanus, the chronographer, then a venerable old man, point-
ing out to him that the legend of Susannah, given by the
Alexandrian version, was spurious, and formed no part of the
Daniel of the Hebrew Canon. He defends the authority of
the book, saying that one could scarcely suppose God would
not have taken care that no such spurious book should have
been delivered to the Church. Great danger might arise from
such scepticism ! Origen was then only 54 years of age.*
His commentaries on Ezekiel and Canticles, written at
Athens, whither he went from Nicomedia, likewise exhibit a
decided decay in his critical powers.
In 244 Philippus Arabs ascended the throne, with whose
family Origen carried on a correspondence.
In his reign
Origen, now above sixty, wrote his book “ Against Celsus,”
- a most learned apology for Christianity against one of its
acutest and bitterest enemies—and the “ Commentaries upon
St. Matthew." Having been consulted by the Arabian Bishops
(Beryllus of Bostra had consulted him before) on the ques-
tion whether the soul slept and rose with the body, he decided,
* Redepenning places the correspondence with Julius Africanus in 245,
or the sixtieth year of his age.
ORIGEN.
285
on cogent grounds, against this old Jewish opinion. He did
not, however, propose that the Synod should condemn those
who believed otherwise, but he conversed with them, and tried
to convince them of their error. Origen had the satisfaction
of seeing that when Heraclas died in 247, Dionysius, another
pupil of his, was elected his successor. The same Dionysius
had succeeded Heraclas in the professorship of Divinity.
Already in 250 the first general systematic persecution of the
Christians commenced, in consequence of the crushing edict of
Decius. The illustrious defender of the Christian faith acted
up to his own exhortations: he was thrown into prison, and
subjected to the most exquisite torments. In the midst of
them he dictated letters full of consolation, comforting the
brethren. After every kind of torture had been tried in vain,
he was at last released, but died a few years afterwards in 254,
in the seventieth year of his age. His sepulchre at Tyre was
shown even in the Middle Ages. His disciples and admirers
all over the Christian globe were his living monument. Origen
was not tall, but had a frame of colossal strength (owing to which
and his endurance of labour he was called Adamantios, the man
of steel). His appearance, however, was highly attractive, beam-
ing as his face is said to have been with kindness and that
majesty which comes from sanctity of mind combined with
intelligence.
The contemplation of the struggle and tragedy of his life is
as elevating as it is touching. In its general features it is the
struggle and tragedy of his age. It is, besides, the close of a
great period of the history of Christianity and of the civiliza-
tion of mankind. With Origen closes apostolical Christianity as
to its liberty of mind amidst tyranny and bloody persecution :
his efforts are the last attempt made to combine thought and
tradition, and avert a confusion which he saw to be impending.
Indeed they are the last efforts of ancient Christianity to treat
spiritual concerns and traditions as intellectual, and as belonging
to the inalienable domain of Reason, under the guidance of
faith, and with the pledge of individual self-responsibility. Soon
after his time, a systematic persecution, an inflamed enthusiasm,
and hierarchical pretension conspired to trouble the serenity of
286
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
the mind which such contemplations required. When those
persecutions merged into favour, protection gave power and pri-
vilege, and engendered internal persecution. Christian divinity
as well as Christian society were drawn into the vortex of Byzan-
tine tyranny and corruption, and conventionalism and forma-
lism seized and gradually benumbed the members of the visible
body of Christ. Origen's death is the real end of free Chris-
tianity, and, in particular, of free, intellectual theology.
We now proceed to an outline of his own views of Christian
doctrine and life, laying before our readers, out of his voluminous
works, such thoughts and facts as will enable them to enquire
and judge by themselves.
We commence with a sketch of his Christology, and of some
points connected therewith. It is very desirable that the
four principal works of Origen, which might be compressed into
two volumes, should soon be printed separately. They are the
following:- First, the book on the First Principles, or funda-
mental truths of religion, a general view of Christian doctrine,
biblical and philosophical. Then the two essays On Prayer
and On Martyrdom, showing how we have to appropriate to our
own soul the salvation offered to us. The treatise On Prayer
considers this with regard to the life with God, or the adora-
tion ; that On Martyrdom with regard to our converse with the
world, teaching that we must confess the truth unto death.
The fourth principal work is the Defence of Christianity
against its fiercest adversary, Celsus, the heathen philosopher,
who wrote in the time of Marcus Aurelius. * The first of
* Of the book IIepi Tūv ápxwv, we have the excellent edition of that
truly learned and judicious biographer of Origen, Redepenning. The essay
TI£p £ůxñs, from the only manuscript (which exists in England), has been
the object of the critical care of Bentley, and is one of the soberest and
most perfect works of that immortal master of criticism, and of an anony-
mous English scholar, worthy to glean after such a man. The text of the
book Tepi uaptvpías is very readable, and as for the books Contra Celsum,
which exist only in the Latin translation of Rufinus (and here and there
also in that of Jerome), much has been done by Jachmann and Bindemann
(1842), besides Redepenning and Lommatzsch.
ORIGEN.
287
these, that on the First Principles, belongs probably to the
end of the first period of his life; the other three certainly
all were composed in the age we are now considering, the
Seventh Christian Generation. The two ethical essays were
written in the time of the persecution of Maximinus, about
236: the eighth book against Celsus about 244. As to the
first, it is nothing less than a speculative theological discussion
of the fundamental truths of Christianity, concerning God, the
Father, Son, and Spirit, Free Will, Immortality, Eternity,
Eternal Life. The principles here laid down in a concise form,
and with great boldness, are in themselves the foundation of all
later doctrinal Divinity, and, however impugned or ignored,
misunderstood or condemned, stand erect, after sixteen hundred
years, in their substantial parts amongst the scattered ruins of
the systems of the later Greek, or Latin, or reformed Churches,
the speculative parts of which systems were more or less all
developed out of those principles, even where they differ most
widely from Origen.
But what deserves still greater attention, is his wise method,
so soon abandoned by the teachers and leaders of the Church,
of stating clearly, in the first place, what are the points on
which the Scripture, the only foundation of our faith, de-
livers to us a definite, clear doctrine. The book begins with a
summary of these articles, which is as it were the condensed
expression of what we have hitherto met with among the
Fathers of the second and third centuries. On other points he
states his speculative opinion, which he wishes to be considered
only as such ; for these are subjects, he considers, on which we
may differ philosophically, and on account of which we ought not
to separate from each other as Christians. All such opinions
however must be held in agreement with those great funda-
mental truths which are the rule (canon) of our faith, and must
like them be based upon Scripture. Christ is the truth : but
Christ, as the Word of God, spoke also in Moses and the Pro-
phets. This Word is understood by that Faith of which the
Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. xi.) speaks. This truth of Chris-
tian faith has been taught in the Christian congregations in
uninterrupted succession from the time of the Apostles, and
288
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
forms the ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition (ch. 4.). It
may be reduced to the following points (ch. 4-—9.):-
I. “ There is one God who created and ordered all things :
He made the universe, which had no existence before. This
God was from the beginning the God of all just and holy
men, from Adam to Moses and the Prophets: the same who,
according to his promise, sent our Lord Jesus Christ, that He
should first call Israel, and when the people of Israel proved
faithless, then the Gentiles likewise. This just and good God,
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, inspired Moses and the
Prophets: He is the God of the Apostles and of the whole
Old and New Testament.
II. “ Jesus Christ, who appeared on earth, was generated by
the Father before all creatures. Having ministered to the
Father in all His behests,--for through Him all things are
made,'-he emptied' himself (Philipp. ii. 7.) in the last times,
and became incarnate man, being God, and having become man,
remained what he was, God. He took a body, like our own,
differing only in that it was procreated by the Holy Ghost and
a virgin. This Jesus Christ was born and suffered agony and
death, not through an apparition, but in his own person : in
this his own reality he rose from the dead, and, having con-
versed with his disciples after his resurrection, was received up
into heaven
III. “ The Holy Spirit is in honour and dignity associated
with the Father and the Son. It has not been clearly revealed
whether he was procreated or not procreated, or whether he was
or was not the Son of God. These are questions to be inquired
into, as far as we can, from Holy Writ, and by intelligent re-
search. But it is clearly the doctrine of the Church that the
same Spirit has inspired every holy man, or Prophet, or
Apostle, and that there is not one Spirit who inspired the men
of God in ancient times, and another who inspired those who
lived in the time of Christ's advent.
IV. “ The soul, having a substance and life of her own, will
receive her reward according to her merits, either obtaining
the inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, or being delivered
over to eternal fire and torments: there will also be a time
ORIGEN.
289
A
1
when the dead shall rise, and that body which here is sown in
corruption will rise in incorruption, and what is sown in
dishonour will rise in glory.'
V. “Every rational soul has the power of free will. She has
also to strive against the devil and his angels and the hostile
powers, because they seek to load her with sins. But, if living
rightly and advisedly, we are not subject to necessity, and
cannot be absolutely forced to do evil or good, against our
will. There are also angels of God, and powers created to
minister to man and further the work of his salvation.
VI. - This world was created and began to exist at a given
time, and is hereafter to be dissolved on account of its cor-
ruption.
VII. “Finally, the Scriptures were written by the Spirit
of God, and possess not only the sense which is manifest, but
also another latent meaning: for what is written are the formulas
of certain intellectual mysteries, and the images of things
divine ; the spiritual law, however, is only intelligible to those
to whom the grace of the Spirit is given.”
This is what we may call Origen's representation of the con-
fession of faith common to all Christian Churches, so far as it was
known and understood by him. A comparison of this short ab-
stract with the other writings of Origen proves that, in its essential
points, it was truly the constant faith and doctrine of Origen.
According to him, all Christian speculation must repose upon
this doctrinal basis of Scriptural truth, as interpreted by the
common consent of all those who have received the Gospel
message. But our reason finds itself impelled to ask various
questions on topics lying beyond these boundaries : as for in-
stance, what is the nature of the Holy Spirit ? Is he the Son of
God (as Hermas had positively assumed), or not? What is the
nature of the soul ? Does it take its substance from the human
seed, or has it another origin? and if so, is that origin procreated
or not? or does it come into the body from without? What
are the devil and the evil angels, and what is their mode of
existence? Is the common opinion well-founded that they are
apostate and fallen angels? What are the good angels, and
VOL, I.
U
290
.
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
when were they created ? In this universe, are the sun and
moon and stars living beings?
The succeeding chapters treat more particularly of the follow-
ing subjects:
I. On God. God is a Spirit, a simple (monas) intellectual
being, an indivisible mind, the source of all intellectual nature
(ch. i. 6.). There is in man, besides the senses for the outward
world, an intellectual, immortal sense, and by this God is
beholden.
In his other writings, Origen has thus explained his specula-
tive ideas of the creation. The spiritual creation is eternal.
Matter is nothing but the limitation of existence, which is
necessary to the creature.* The spiritual creation is above all
time, without beginning and without endt; it is the will of
God acting upon the divine nature, a world of ideas, an infinite
evolution, forming itself (as Plato has said) according to the
eternity of the divine existence.
The omnipotence of God is not an arbitrary power, but
determined by his eternal nature, as being infinitely good and
wise.
The rational beings created by God are not infinite in num-
ber, but present a great variety by reason of the changes to
which they are subject in consequence of their possessing
power of free will.
II. Of the Logos and of Christ. -- The communication of
divine life to any spirit proceeds from the Logos of God, who
is the manifestation of God's glory in its totality, not divided
as in other beings. As there is one self-existent God, so there
is only one divine or absolute Reason. I All truth therefore is
objective, that is to say, is founded upon that primitive one
Reason in God. Wisdom is the development of the Truth.
The substance of that truth has been working in man from the
beginning : "None of us," says Origen (Against Celsus) " is so
stupid as to believe that the substance of truth did not exist
before Christ's appearance on earth.” § This divine principle
the
* Neander, p. 1075.
+ Ibid. p. 979.
1 Ιbid. p. 1011., αυτόθεος and αυτολόγος are his expressions.
p.
1012.
§ Ibid.
ORIGEN.
291
which dwelt in Jesus of Nazareth is eternal. This is that
wisdom of which Solomon speaks *, which God created before
all worlds : it is also called Only Begotten and First Begotten.
It is not an abstraction, but a hypostatic (personal) power,
which makes man wise. God is, through it, eternally the
Father, without a beginning, and all created things have their
being, and are as it were pre-formed in His eternal Son. The
human principle is Jesus Christ.
We find the same principles likewise maintained and carried
out in the other works of Origen. The belief in Christ on
account of his miracles (he says in his Commentary on St.
John †) is the lowest degree of faith ; which, on the contrary,
ought to be founded on the conviction of the truth of his
doctrines. The whole historical account of Christ's life is only
intended to be a step to the knowledge of the Logos, who spoke
through him. The Christ in the form of a servant is the pre-
paration for Christ glorified, as the Logos is to lead us to the
Father, whose substance is immensely higher than that of the
Logos, and belongs to Him alone. The temporal: (historical)
Gospel is to lead to the eternal (spiritual) Gospel. I This eternal
Gospel (the inward manifestation of the Logos in holy men)
was already known to some minds before Christ; and, on the
other hand, many Christians never rise to the knowledge of it,
This knowledge, however, of the Logos, is not of a theoretical
kind, but the fruit of holy life connected with thought. But
there is one Christ for the simplest and for the most enlightened
Christians: Christ is, in a much higher sense than St. Paul, “all
things to all men.” He does not allow that the words of Paul,
" to know only Christ and him crucified,” apply to spiritual
Christians, in the sense that there is no higher view of
Christ. But he also says g : “ Even when we have arrived at
the highest intuition of the Logos, we certainly shall not forget
* He means that apocryphal Book of Wisdom which formed a part of
the Alexandrian Canon of the Old Testament.
† Neander, p. 940.
| Comment. on St. Matthew. Neander, p. 942.
§ Comment. on St. John ii. 4. Neander, p 951.
U 2
292
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
Christ's dying for us, because it is to this that we owe our in-
troduction into the higher life.”
III. Of the Holy Spirit. -"All truth respecting the Father
is known through the revelation of the Son in the Spirit (cap.
iii. sect. 4.). The work of the Father and of the Son is in every
created thing, that of the Holy Spirit only in those who have
been converted to the ways of Christ and remain with God
(sect. 6.). The work of sanctification is an ever advancing
process; man is never safe without a longing for further pro-
gress in divine blessedness."
He treats of these and other speculative subjects, as for
instance the nature of the soul and the world, in the first and
second books. The restoration of all things had been taught
by him at the end of the first, as he says in the beginning of
the second. There also he treats again, and more profoundly,
of the union of the divine and human nature in Christ, and says
(cap. vi. sect. 2.): 6. When thus we see in Him what does not
differ at all from human frailty, and again things so divine that
they belong only to that first and ineffable nature of the God-
head, the human mind is lost in admiration. If he perceives
God, he sees the man: if he thinks him a man, he sees him
return from the dead with the spoils of death." And after
having given his own mode of explaining the mystery of the
incarnation, he concludes the chapter with these remarkable
words : “ If anybody shall find anything better, and prove what
he says by clearer arguments from Scripture, let his views be
received in preference to mine." He expresses the same sen-
timent still more strongly in a later passage of the book (ch. iii.
sect. 4.), where he treats of the soul.
His own explanations may be compressed in the following
words (see ch. 5.): Christ had a reasonable soul, capable of
doing good and evil, of a like nature to that of every other man,
but his soul voluntarily followed after righteousness with such
boundless love and nnfaltering constancy, that what was first
free will became by habit nature.
IV. Of the Spirit. - He defines in the following (seventh)
chapter of the second hook the progress of its operations,
by showing how that which was the privilege of a few became
ORIGEN.
293
through Christ the property of all believing men. Christ is
called the Paraclete (1 John, ii.) as interceder, the Spirit as
comforter, giving consolation to the believing soul in opening
the sense of spiritual knowledge (gnôsis).
V. Of Redemption.---Like all the Fathers before him, Justin
(to a certain degree) excepted, Origen had no idea of the atone-
ment in the sense of the Anselmo-Calvinistic theory of satisfac-
tion given by the death of Jesus to the Divine justice. On the
contrary, Irenæus, as well as Marcion and Clemens, considered
that the only satisfaction that could come in question must be
a satisfaction rendered to the Devil or the Demiurge, God
(says Irenæus) would not use violence like the devil, even in
saving man, but, as it behoves God, save him by kindness,
working with persuasion on his soul. The author of the
Epistle to Diognetus says still better: God's eternal love has
saved us by sending the Son, the holy, sinless one, whose
righteousness covers our sins.* The centre of Origen’s peculiar
view is to be found in the intuition which he had of the eternal
laws of the moral government of the world. Its aim and end
is to break the power of evil, which came into the world by
man's misuse of his free will, but, according to the laws of
that moral government, merely to realise the triumph of
good. That great victory over the power of evil can be
obtained only through the free sacrifice of the perfectly
holy man, which was fulfilled in Jesus. This, he says, is the
universal belief of mankind, only that we find it connected with
superstition and error. “ It was certainly not to God," he
says, " that Christ gave his soul a ransom (Matt. xx. 28.), but
to the Devil, who had usurped the power over the heart of man.”
Christ died because he would, and when he would, not com-
pelled by any force or necessity. The redemption wrought by
Christ is appropriated through inward sanctification, by keep-
ing the pledge taken in baptism, to fight under Christ's banner
against the evil one, and by ever-renewed repentance and faith.
This is the true union with Christ, and through him with God,
not the partaking of the Lord's Supper, which is only the
* See Neander's beautiful exposition, pp. 1104 — 1121,
U 3
294
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
symbol of the eating of the bread of life. The sacramental
bread is the same as all other earthly bread.
VI. Of Free Will.—. In this work and elsewhere Origen may
be said to have confessed his failure in solving the secret of
free will and grace, of liberty and necessity, when he supposed
that the human soul contracted certain good or evil qualities in
a former existence. Thus the Son of God (the Logos) selected
for Jesus, as he said in the Fourth Book of the Principles,
a soul which chose the good before it knew the evil. This is
merely putting off the problem, not solving it. It is a falling
off from what he had stated before, that it was by doing the
Father's will that Jesus attained to such a perfection of holiness
that what he had freely and lovingly elected turned into
nature. The reason is that here, as on some other points,
Origen was already trammelled by vulgar opinions, which,
though founded in error, obtained general assent.
VII. Of the Consummation of all Things (Eschatology).-We
may sum up Origen's opinions respecting the end of the world,
by referring to his fundamental principle, that finally, at the
end of time, God will be all in all; not by the destruction of
the creature, but by its gradual elevation into His divine being.
This is life eternal, according to Christ's own teaching.
VIII. Of the Inspiration of the Scriptures.--Origen assumed
a threefold sense of Scripture, corresponding to the three kinds
of men — the carnal, or purely historical; the psychical, or
moral interpretation; and the spiritual, or speculative sense.
IX. Of the Christian Soul and Life. -- Origen's anthro-
pology was intimately connected with his ontological system.
All men, according to him, have fallen, because they have used
their free will for selfish purposes, and thus become connected
with matter, which is limitation. The higher intelligences are
those which now animate the great celestial bodies, being filled
with love and longing after the general restoration. Of men,
some are spiritual, some psychical, some material, or carnal. All,
however, have in them some spark of the divine essence ; and are
made subservient to the realisation of the great divine plan of
* Neander, p. 956.
ORIGEN.
295
the Universe, which tends to general restoration. We under-
stand this plan but very imperfectly, because we perceive only
a very limited part of its realisation.*
There was a first man, historically ; but what is told as a his-
tory of the fall upon this earth of ours belongs to the history of
the spiritual world, and in this sphere Adam is primitive hu- .
manity, and nothing else. f All souls were originally alike;
but, having free will, prepared for themselves a different ma-
terial existence in the material world: they, however do not
fall into animal bodies.
The Spirit in man (his spiritual element) is that which
counteracts the downward selfish tendencies of the Psyche, and
is the organ of communication with God. Of this communi-
cation, prayer is the highest type. It is the immediate ex-
pression of the Christian's life with God. We have already
observed above, that one of his finest and deepest works is de-
voted to a philosophical inquiry into the nature of Prayer.
Origen taught, that as the Son is inferior to the Father, as
touching the substance of his Being (although he has a personal
existence of his own), he cannot be the object of adoration or
address, considered absolutely, but only in reference to the
Father. This I believe to be the shortest and most intelligible
formula for his theory. I Christ,” he says, “is, to all
Christians, the way, the truth, and the life : it is through Him,
as the mirror, that Paul, and Peter, and all those who are like
them, beheld God.” Before His coming, men knew only the
Creator and Ruler of the world. Christ taught them of the
Father, made them children of God through the spirit of
adoption, and taught them to pray to Him as their Heavenly
Father. Christ, therefore, in saying “One only is good,"
teaches us, as it were, to pray not to him who was
dained by the Father to be our high priest and advocate, but
to the Father through this high priest and advocate, who has
been tempted like us, yet, by the grace of God, remained
without sin.
or-
+ Neander, p.1080.
* Homil. iv., in Jes. $ 1. Neander, p. 1078. ff.
I See on this difficult subject Neander, i. 1017. ff.
§ De Orat. c. xv.
U 4
296
TIE SEVENTH GENERATION,
as
But, as in thought, so in prayer and worship, the psychical
man does not see God but in Christ; and, therefore, makes
Christ the object of prayer. It is, however, the aim of Christian
life to ascend to the spiritual element, which is the higher and,
as it were, superhuman part in man. It speaks to man
conscience, warning, judging, and punishing; and as the con-
sciousness of God, which points to the cause of the Universe as
the Centre of all spiritual life and the Source of Law. Moreover,
this spirit alone is immortal ; and, in the moment of death, it
leaves the souls which have during life rebelled against it,
i istead of allowing it to rule over them. The others must pass
through many purifying stages of existence, as the human souls
have done already who are now living on this earth. But the
divine element will triumph at last, as a consequence of the
irresistible
power of God, who is Love.
The real mainspring of evil lies in self; and as the psychical
man is the man “ of self-interest well understood,” he is, in a
certain sense, farther from the divine life and from redemption
than the carnal man, whose very sins make it more easy to
bring him to repentance, and thence to salvation.* No man is
constrained to be subjectively evil : he may be saved by ex-
ercising his free will, and ceasing to oppose himself to the
will of God.
It was through the ever faithful obedience of the soul of
Jesus to the Spirit within Him, which was the Logos itself,
that she became entirely one with the Logos, was made Divine. I
Through that divinizing spirit the Psyche becomes again
Mind (Nûs). To attain, as nearly as possible, to that state, is
the highest scope of Christian life. As to Jesus himself, it is
not clear whether Origen carried out consistently in his own
mind the idea, stated above, that by the holiness of his earthly
life his soul became divinized, or whether Origen mythically re-
ferred this act of Christ's God-devoted soul to a former exist-
ence. But it is essential to bear always in mind, that Origen
did not consider the Psyche of Christ as absorbed by the Spirit,
* Neander, p. 1085.
$ Ibid., p. 1099. ft.
† Ibid., p. 1086.
| Ibid., p. 1097.
ORIGEN.
297
but as continuing in its free action. What he had in his mind
was nearly the same as was taught a thousand years after him
by the German School of the “Friends of God” (Eckart,
Tauler, and the anonymous author of the German Theology)
with the clearness and simplicity of a spiritual gospel.
The same may be said with perfect truth of Origen's sublime
and pious, but not always philosophical theory of prayer. His
system was not sufficiently profound, nor his mind sufficiently
free, to solve the apparently, for him, insoluble problem of
reconciling man's free determination with the eternal Providence
of God. As Redepenning very profoundly observes, “ He keeps
to the Divine objective element, without which all theoretic
religion falls to the ground, and the door is opened to a bottom-
less pantheism, in which the soul, imagined to be all in all,
ends in losing herself.” But those wonderful men of the
fourteenth century knew and taught the true solution, though
hitherto they have scarcely found any followers, with the
exception of Luther.
Origen's theory of prayer is intimately connected with his
view of sanctification and holiness. It is that of the apostolic
time, as preserved in the East, which Irenæus and Cyprian in
vain strove to reintroduce into the Western Church, and the
prophet of which is Tertullian, in his book on Prayer. Ac-
cording to Origen, it is the Divine Word or the Spirit of God,
in us, which really prays, and this, the only real, prayer is always
heard, because, in following the aspirations of the Word in us,
the soul, thus exercising her highest act of free will by freely
giving herself up to God, necessarily tends towards God, as the
Highest Good, and falls in with his eternal decree of love.
Prayer is the hymn of creation of the universe : the Sun and
Moon and all the Stars as well as Christ and the Holy Spirit and
all blessed Spirits, praise God, which is the privilege of all
rational beings. To man it is what Clemens has called it, “ the
converse of the soul with God." The whole life of the believer
may
be said to be one connected great prayer. Prayer in the
highest sense is always connected with thanksgiving, and there-
fore with the recollection of Christ our Redeemer, who is our
298
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
.
High Priest; and it is addressed, not to Christ, but to God
himself His Father and our Father.*
The Lord's Prayer is the treasure of godliness: the large
and deep explanation he gives of itf, is the finest part of the
book, and has never been surpassed, unless, perhaps, in Luther's
celebrated “ Auslegung."
As to public worship, Origen recommends it as having a
peculiar blessing from the communion of those who worship in
the spirit, in the presence of the Lord and the holy angels,
and," as I think,” he adds, "also of the spirits of the departed.”#
But without inward devotion it may, on the contrary, be hurt-
ful. In this public worship, Origen evidently represents prayer,
in the highest sense, as adoration, the most sublime part.
is true,” says Origen (Against Celsus 8), “we have no temples,
no altars, no images; but the true temple of God is in the
highest sense Christ, God's mirror in human nature; then also in
all the faithful who have Christ's spirit: their souls are living
statues, with which no Jupiter of Phidias can be compared.”
And in the same bookll, “ All who can say, in truth, we have
risen with Christ and have been seated with him in the kingdom
of heaven, live always in the Pentecostal days” (the fifty days
66 It
* Orig. de Orat. C. xv. et xx.
+ C. xxii. xxx. p. 170. - 273. ed. Lommatzsch (vol. xvii.)
| De Orat. c. xxxi. ; p. 283. ed. Lommat. I must not pass over in silence
that the otherwise very learned English editor of this treatise (Reading)
indulges a mere fancy in supposing that Origen's suggestion as to the
most natural arrangement of our private prayers (c. xxxiii.), has any
reference to the order of the liturgical service. I can now speak of
this confidently, as I have restored the order of the Alexandrian service at
and before the time of Origen. The order of a devotional exercise which
Origen suggests refers to his exposition of the different elements of prayer.
He proposes an introduction (as it were a præfatio), and a conclusion in the
ordinary ancient form of the Doxology (Praise to God through Christ in the
Holy Spirit). In this frame he places three heads : first, thanksgiving
(vxaploria) : secondly, confession of our faults and sins (ópodoyia): thirdly,
prayer for our own wants and those of all and about our families, and beloved.
Redepenning (ii. 54.) has inadvertently assented to Rue's approval of Read-
ing's inadmissible explanation.
& L. viii. 17. Neander, p. 497.
|| De Orat. c. 12. Neander, p. 491. Compare Redepenning's beautiful
exposition, vol. ii. pp. 31–48.
ORIGEN.
299
from Easter to Pentecost).* Baptism and Communion are sym-
bols of inward things in man's mind, and
have no saving effect
in themselves, as we have seen above in speaking of redemption.
As to externals (posture, place, time), he recommends them to
be treated as such.t
Origen's anthropology and ethic philosophy was not confined
to the contemplation of the divine principle in prayer and wor-
ship, nor to speculative thought: he preached, as he lived, the
undaunted manifestation of that divine principle, in confessing
the truth, and dying for it, if required.
This is the subject of the collateral and contemporary work
of his, on Martyrdom.
If we look back to the causes of this mixture of truth and
error, of real philosophy and of fancy and delusion, we shall
find them to arise principally from two circumstances.
The first is the want of respect for reality. As all know-
ledge of reality, so also interpretation rests upon this
basis. We can no more interpret the Bible, the mirror of
God's ways in the history of mankind, than the book' of God
in nature, which is the creation, without respecting the laws of
their existence, which God's ideas impressed upon Man and
Nature. All things have in them one and the same Divine
law, but according to their specific and generic nature. The
species and kinds which we find in them are God's own first
law in them, God's thought of them. Now, Origen has little
respect for this historical interpretation of facts, still less for that
of thoughts, and none at all for that of their union. In his
eager-
ness to express this feeling of the harmony which they display
through their partaking of the Divine nature, he steps over
the limits and boundaries of reason, which are God's own
laws imprinted in the finite. What he does with a mind full
of thought, most of his theological successors, in explaining the
Bible and the Creation, have done without any but conventional
notions.
And what is the deeper cause of this? The despair of that
real world in which the Christians lived !
* L. viii. c. 22.
+ C. 34.
· 300
THE SEVENTH GENERATION.
And this brings us to the second cause : the want of a
Christian commonwealth. This alone would have been the
proper receptacle and embodiment of those thoughts of Christ,
which, regenerating and reconstructive in themselves, became
at that time corrosive and destructive elements, because they
could not be realised, and which by their, however imperfect,
application to society, satisfy the human intellect and heart,
and produce and preserve that balance of the mind, and that
harmony of its powers, which alone constitutes its healthiness.
Those who followed Origen were thus one-sided without
philosophical ideas, as Origen and his best contemporaries
were with ideas. Thus they fell into servitude, and prepared
an intellectual and spiritual bondage of the Christian world,
which could not be broken till after a lapse of more than a
thousand years. It is against this slavery that wise and good
men are struggling now, while fools and rogues rivet their chains
by attempting to break them by violence and revolution, and
to emancipate the bestial element in order to make it do the
work of the Spirit.
What this means I explain fully in my Sketch of the Philo-
sophy of Religion.
It will be sufficient here to state, in a few concluding words,
the grand general results of the history and philosophy of pri-
mitive Christianity, of which we have endeavoured to lay
before our readers the principal facts in the form of a picture
of the leading men who flourished during the first seven gene-
rations of the Christian Church, and of the ideas which swayed
the Christian mind in that momentous period.
CONCLUSION.
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW.
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE
VIEW.
CHRISTIANITY is a history and a philosophy. This it has, to a
certain degree, in common with all religions, and, in particular,
with those founded upon written records. But the peculiarity
of Christianity is, that it alone possesses a true historical basis,
whose character is neither mythical nor doubtful, but at once
spotless and universal; and a true philosophical basis, the
principles of which are identical with the intuitions of Reason
and Conscience, to which they perpetually appeal, above all
ritual or constitutional authorities or usages.
The historical basis of Christianity is the life of Christ and
the teaching of His Apostles, as contained in Scripture.
The life of Christ does not simply exhibit to us the most
sublime moral teaching, but all His works and precepts centre
in that which constitutes Him, on the one side, the Son of God
in an unparalleled sense, and, on the other, the brother and
ensample of all mankind. Christ is the Son of God by the con-
stant presence of the Divine Spirit, and by that conscious self-
sacrifice of which His whole life formed one act and His death
was the seal. Christ is the Son of Man - not a Jew, not a
Gentile, but a Man— the eternal model of Humanity. These
two views are inseparably united; for Jesus is the Son of Man,
as being an infallible mirror of that divine love which created
the world, and which presides over the destinies of mankind.
His whole earthly existence being thus one expression of unity
with the Divine Will, His individuality is at once strictly his-
304
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW.
torical and eternally ideal; and such is the character which He
has imprinted upon the religion taught by His disciples.
It was this individuality of Christ which gradually enlightened
and inspired the Apostles when left to themselves. They un-
derstood comparatively little of Christ's teaching while He
was yet among them; but, according to His promise, they were
« led into all truth,” when, under the guidance of that Spirit
which came from Him, they began to apply Christ's religion to
all mankind. The teaching of St. James and St. Peter, of
St. Paul and St. John, agree in substance, while they each
present a strongly marked and, so to speak, a typical indi-
viduality, foreshadowing the elements to be afterwards de-
veloped in the Christian Church during the course of the
eighteen centuries already past, and those which are yet to
come.
Divine revelation is therefore eminently, and in the highest
sense, a history, a sacred history, a history of God in Man,
based upon universal principles. But as the History of which
Christ is the centre is the key to the whole history of man-
kind, so the complete understanding and application of this
Sacred History rest upon the belief that there exists a moral
government of the world as a universal Law, upon which the
progress and prospects of mankind depend. The progress of
the understanding of Christianity as a history is therefore in-
dissolubly connected with the progress of that fundamental
belief, and upon the understanding of the laws of gravitation
which prevail in the intellectual world. Sound religious faith
cannot exist without a sober, reasonable belief in the truth of
certain historical facts; but it can no more rest exclusively upon
a history than it can upon a myth or a legend. It would,
however, be a great mistake to suppose that Christianity
rested ultimately upon a philosophical system.
Even the speculative element which it contains takes an his-
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW,
305
torical form. It does not present itself as an abstract system,
but as a divine evolution, centering in the consciousness which
Christ had of Himself and of His union with the Father and
with His brethren. Speculation therefore can no more absorb
this individual consciousness than its historical expression can
supply the place of systematic dialectic reasoning, which must
vary according to the horizon of the speculative mind and
the general method of reasoning.
The philosophy of Christianity is divine because it descends
to the very depths of the longings and instincts of the pious
soul, while it rises to the loftiest flight of aspiration and con-
scious thought of which the contemplative spirit of man is
capable. And it does so precisely because it is independent
of national and conventional interests and peculiarities, and
of the dialectic forms of a particular age. It enlightens the
philosopher because it offers a Life, and not a System. For it
centres in the highest instinct of humanity, which assumes
as a postulate that there exist a real and eternal union of the
Soul with God, and a moral government of the world, which
tends towards progressive good as a consequence of the very
nature of God, which is Love.
Reason is summoned by Christ and His Apostles to apply her
powers even to the investigation of the divine nature, of which
the human mind is the finite mirror and evolution ; but all her
operations are so intimately connected with the dictates of
Conscience, that they cannot be understood, still less exert
an active, freeing, regenerating influence, without the recog-
nition of the law of conscience. This again requires a con-
stant recollection of the contrast existing between the ethic
ideal, which uncompromising conscience demands, and the
shortcomings and failings of human nature, struggling between
Self and God.
Christianity therefore is the realization of all foreshadowings
VOL. I.
X
306
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW.
in nature and history, and the consummation of all religious
symbols, both Jewish and Gentile. This is true, especially as
to Sacrifice, which is the fundamental mystery of all religion,
whether considered as worship or as life.
The self-devoting life, and the holy and conscious death of
Christ for mankind, in unity with the Father's will, is the first
realization of the great Sacrifice of mankind. In like manner
the Life of Christians, individually and socially, is the ever-
continuing Sacrifice of Thanksgiving, that is to say, of self-
devotion from gratitude to God, the Creator, Redeemer, and
Sanctifier, through Christ.
All the intellectual mysteries of Christianity are the mys-
teries of the individual soul awakening to the consciousness
of her eternal glory, and of humanity rising to that of its des-
tiny. All its symbols and mysteries are not only capable
of a rational and philosophical explanation, but they require
it. The key, however, to their inward effective understanding
is in the conscience; and, therefore, in the acknowledgment
of moral self-responsibility, and in a holy life, according to
the example of Christ.
Christianity further teaches distinctly that this law of indi-
vidual life is the law of the universe -- the principle of the in-
tellectual and moral Kosmos.
The history of mankind is the development of a divine plan
of progress from instinct to reason, from impulse to conscious
principles, which is all summed up in the expression -- transi-
tion from physical necessity to moral freedom, from unconscious
nature to conscious spirit in nature. The kingdoms of the
prince of this world are to become the kingdoms of God;
brute force and blind necessity are to vanish in the liberty
of the children of God; and the state as well as the family,
mankind as well as the individual, are to be made conformable
to this law of the universe, revealed in the Gospel, and realized,
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW.
307
although imperfectly, in the history of the Christian world and
of society.
The basis of Christianity is therefore indestructible, in spite
of the frailty of some of its accidental supports, and the imper-
fection of its superstructure.
So also the unity of the Church, which is the unity of the
human race, is indestructible, in spite of aberrations, mistakes
and misdoings, and indeed by means of them.
This character of Christianity, grand from its simplicity as
well as depth, is the pervading spirit of all the leading minds
from St. Peter to Origen, and the connecting link between the
seven generations of apostolical Christianity.
A twofold despotism and the great social and political re-
volution in the European world successively interfered to pre-
vent the organic development of this spirit. The theological
system built up since is conventional: it is based upon misin-
terpretation and upon Council formularies, which were a wall
between the theologian and Scripture as well as reason.
These
formularies of the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries,
are the confession of a failure, and have made the most
sublime part of our theology conventional and hollow.
As regards those Churches which insist upon hierarchical
tradition, both as to dogma and authority, they acknowledge, and
cannot help acknowledging, the paramount authority of the first
links in the chain of that historical development whicht hey call
tradition. The undeniable facts of that age accordingly witness
against them as much as they do in favour of free Christianity.
The liberty which the early Christians enjoyed even in a
sinking and decrepit age, has by the restoration of the principle
of civil liberty and religious toleration become an inalienable
possession for us and for the living Christianity of future ages.
Humanity may live upon truth in forms into which error has
crept, but never upon demonstrable falsehoods and deceptions.
X2
308
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE VIEW.
Christianity sprung up and flourished under a despotic govern-
ment, but it cannot thrive under false professions. All theo-
logical formularies, posterior to the age of free Scriptural
development, must therefore, even in the eyes of those who
take their stand upon a tradition which is neither Scripture
nor history, be considered as secondary and provisional, requiring
new Scriptural investigation and philosophical discussion. We
may understand these later formularies as being apologetic
measures against those who attacked, or seemed to the major-
ity of the clergy to attack, the principles of the faith of the
Apostolical age - a faith which certainly is based upon the
two indestructible pillars of Christianity, Scripture and con-
scientious Reason. This liberty being conceded, those formu-
laries may be tolerated.
be tolerated. But they are as intolerable as a rule
of faith, as they are irreconcilable with ancient Christianity.
That Apostolical Christianity, however, and therefore all
future Christianity, is absolutely irreconcilable with an hierarchi-
cal despotism which arrogates to itself the right of interpreting
as well as applying Scriptural tradition. Such a despotism
weakens and gradually destroys, in individuals as well as
nations, that which is the foundation of Christianity -- moral
responsibility and belief in truth.
In professedly Christian states, Christianity is for the same
reason irreconcilable with any system of government, whether
despotic or republican, which, either by its principles or actions,
impairs the basis of all religious belief, the faith in moral
responsibility and in a divine moral order of the world.
Christianity is a consuming fire not only to the individuals
who profess it, but also to the nations and governments which
make it their standard : more conspicuously so indeed to the
latter, because their judgment takes place upon this earth.
APPENDIX.
PART I.
THE FIVE LETTERS TO ARCHDEACON HARE,
ON
THE AUTHORSHIP, CONTENTS, AND BEARING OF THE WORK
LATELY PUBLISHED AS ORIGEN'S PHILOSOPHUMENA,
OR, REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES,
WITH NOTES.
x 3
)
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION. *
The book which I venture to present to the Public, has grown out
of letters, written to an English friend, on a subject of common in-
terest: and I must plead this circumstance as my apology for undertaking
a task so hazardous as the composition of a work in English must always
be for a foreigner.
The subject itself requires no apology, nor does it need any recom-
mendation, in the eyes of a Public alive to whatever is connected
with Christianity. A few words only of introduction, on the history, pur-
port, and bearing of the patristic relic which is the immediate object of this
inquiry may be desirable in this place.
Some months ago, a curious problem was presented to the Christian
world, by the publication of an important work, long lost, treating on the
primitive doctrinal history of the Church.t The book is evidently au-
thentic, and was written under Alexander Severus, or about the year 225
of our era.
I believe it can be proved by unanswerable arguments, that
its author is not Origen, but an illustrious and influential member of the
Church of Rome itself, in short, no less a personage than St. Hippolytus.
This circumstance does not diminish, but enhances, the value of this re-
covered relic of antiquity. For Hippolytus, as a disciple of Irenæus, and
being about twenty years older than Origen, must have enjoyed, on many
important points, still more than he did, the living tradition of the Apostolic
age: his name and character are not involved in any reproach or sus-
picion of heresy, as those of the great Alexandrian doctor unfortunately
are: and further, as a member of the Roman Presbytery, he could speak
with the highest authority on the affairs of the Church of Rome. Through
Hippolytus and his Age; or, the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of
Rome under Commodus and Alexander Severus: and Ancient and Modern Chris-
tianity and Divinity compared. By Christian Charles Josias Bunsen, D. C. L. In
Two 'Volumes. Vol. I. The Critical Inquiry: in Five Letters to Archdeacon
Hare. With the Effigy of Hippolytus. London : Longinan, Brown, Green, and
Longmans. 1852.
* 'Ωριγένους Φιλοσοφούμενα ή κατά πασών αιρέσεων έλεγχος. Origenis Philoso-
phumena sive omnium hæresium refutatio. E codice Parisino nunc primum ed.
Emmanuel Miller.” Oxonii e Typographeo Academico, 1851.
The title which I propose is this:
Του αγίου Ιππολύτου Επισκόπου και. Μάρτυρος Κατα πασών αιρέσεων έλεγχος των
déka B.6iwy tà owcóueva. Sancti Hippolyti Episcopi et Martyris Omnium Hære-
sium Refutatio : Librorum decem quæ supersunt.
X 4
iy
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
his master Irenæus, the Apostle of the Gauls, and disciple of Polycarp of
Ephesus who had caught the words of the Apostle of Love from St. John's
own lips, Hippolytus received the traditions and doctrine of the Apostolic
age from an unsuspected source, while, as a Roman, he recollects, and
describes from his personal knowledge, the secret history of the Church
of Rome under Commodus. In his riper years, he had witnessed suc-
cessively the important administration of two Roman bishops: the
one, Zephyrinus, who succeeded Victor, contemporary of Irenæus ; the
other, Callistus, who occupied the see of Rome during a great crisis of
that Church in doctrine and discipline, and whose life and character are
here for the first time disclosed.
The book gives authentic information on the earliest history of Chris-
tianity, and precisely on those most important points of which bitherto
we have known very little authentically. It contains extracts from at
least fifteen lost works of the Gnostic, Ebionitic, and mixed heretical
schools and parties of the earliest times of Christianity. These extracts
begin with the account of heresies which existed in the age of St. Peter
and St. Paul, and consequently preceded the Gospel of St. John. They
go down, in an uninterrupted line, to the first quarter of the third century.
We have here, amongst others, quotations from the Gospel of St. John
by Basilides, who flourished in the beginning of the reign of Hadrian,
or about the year 117; furnishing a conclusive answer to the unfortunate
hypothesis of Strauss, and the whole school of Tubingen, that the fourth
Gospel was written about the year 165 or 170. Many other points of
almost equal importance are settled for ever by these extracts, at least
for the critical historian.
The conclusion of the work is not less interesting and important. It
contains the solemn confession of faith of the learned and pious author
himself, who represents the doctrine of the Catholic Church, exactly one
hundred years before the Council of Nice, in the very age of transition
from the Apostolic consciousness to the Ecclesiastical system.
The five letters to Archdeacon Hare apply the principles of historical
criticisin to the questions of the authenticity, the authorship, and the con-
tents of the book, and form the first volume of the present work.
The Second Volume treats of a higher subject - the philosophical
history of the Christian Church. I have condensed the matter into
aphorisms and fragments, which, I trust, include the most essential points.
The Restoration of the Creed, the Liturgy, the Doctrine and the Consti-
tution of the Anti-Nicene Church, form the Third Volume.
Neander was the first to give us a history of the Church as the history
of the Christian religion, and not simply as that of the ecclesiastical
system; of Christian life, and not of doctrine only; of Christian thought,
and not merely of scholastic formularies. But he has not given us a
philosophical history in the highest sense ; nor have his followers or his
antagonists. A philosophical history of Christianity must rest upon a
double basis: a critical history of the life of Christ, and a general system
of the philosophy of religion. The first has been attempted by Strauss,
but has confessedly failed: not only because he gives up the problem
itself, but also because both the origin of the evangelical accounts and the
primitive history of Christianity would be more inexplicable, if we were
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
V
to adopt his hypothesis, than any one could have supposed them to
be before. The other, a general system of the philosophy of religion,
has not hitherto been even attempted. Yet this latter is as necessary as
the former. The Christian must know as a fact of real bistory, illustrated
by real philosophy, what Jesus of Nazareth thought both of himself and
of his personal divine mission, and what was the extent of that holy work
for which he lived and died, but which he left as a progressive act of the
divine regeneration of mankind, to be carried out by the Spirit of God
among his believers. ' Nobody can philosophically appreciate what has
been done in these eighteen hundred years for the realization of this
divine idea, unless he is able to measure it by the standard placed by
Christ himself before his followers. But the faithful and thinking
Christian, in the second place, must not be ignorant of the laws and prin-
ciples according to which a religious idea, as such, develops itself in
history. He knows, as a believer, that his religion is the true one; but
he will not lose sight of the important circumstance, that the elements
which act in true religion are not exempt from the general principles of
evolution inherent in the nature of those elements. The antagonisms
contained in them are capable of receiving their solution; the defects
growing out of the natural development may be corrected; but the history
of the Christian religion shows, that neither its rites, nor its records, nor
its forms of government, are exempted from general laws, as to their
origin, their interpretation and application, and their progress and
decay. This is no longer a question of theory or of probability, but a
matter of fact and of history. Nearly two thousand years of evolution
are before us : we are fully able to go through the accounts: if any
priest, or any body of priests or doctors, pretend to infallibility or the
exclusive right of judging, we shall not lose our time in disputing their
authority, but point to the sum total, and to all the great items which
throughout these eighteen hundred years cry out against such unholy
pretensions. Any flaw in the account proves the pretender to infallibility
to be mistaken, and sets him down, if he continue to claim that authority,
as a tyrant or an impostor, or both. The divine nature of Christianity
is not established by the absence of those agencies which ordi-
narily contribute to the development of human institutions ; indeed, if it
did, Christ and Christianity would not be an object of history, but a
fable: it is proved by the renovating 'power of the Spirit in the living
conscience of believers. It is the unity of the working of this Spirit
which in the whole course of development forms the real, the only true,
unity and uninterrupted continuity of the Church. Neglect this, and
you have to choose between superstition and infidelity; and in either case
you give up religion.
I have, therefore, thought it right to begin the Second Volume by such
philosophical aphorisms on the general principles of the history of
religion, and on the leading features in the history of Christianity, as
bear directly upon the subject. I have then discussed the principal
historical points in the life of the ancient Church, in the hope of making
the knowledge of Hippolytus and of his age practically useful for the
understanding both of primitive Christianity and of our own time. In-
stead of examining Hippolytus and his age by any later standard, and
vi
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
instead of reducing the inquiry to the absurd question : Was Hippolytus
a Roman Catholic, or a Protestant? I have endeavoured to bring the
reader into the very heart of the life and consciousness of the ancient
Church, and, if I am not strangely mistaken, by this very process also
to the centre of the real controversies of our own age. What is the
authority of Scripture ? What is Apostolic Tradition? What are the
Church and her Sacrifice ? What were the idea and practice of the
ancient Church respecting the Sacraments ? What, finally, is the origin
of our Canon Law? We have now materials enough to answer these
questions in such a way as not to ground our conviction upon this or that
passage, which may be controverted, but upon the undeniable existence
of a general consciousness of the ancient Church. Take away ignorance,
misunderstandings, and forgeries, and the naked truth remains : not a
spectre, thank God ! carefully to be veiled, but an image of divine beauty,
radiant th eternal truth. Break down the barriers which separate us from
the communion of the primitive Church -- I mean, free yourself from
the letter of later formularies, canons, and conventional abstractions
and you move unshackled in the open ocean of faith ; you hold fellowship
with the spirits of all the heroes of Christian antiquity, and you are able
to trace the stream of unity as it rolls uninterruptedly through eighteen
centuries, in spite of rocks and quicksands.
For all these questions Hippolytus and his works are of primary im-
portance : indeed a book of his, the genuine text of which unfortunately
is lost, gives us, in the extracts and fragments we possess, the key
to the origin of the so called Apostolical Constitutions and Canons, and
enables us, more than anything else, to restore the whole of the Law of
the ancient Church.
After having established that the real Apostolic Tradition exists, and
that it is neither a secret, nor identical with what is now appealed to as
Tradition, but the very contrary to it, I have examined its three branches.
These are : first, the tradition about the Number and Authors of the
canonical books of the New Testament, according to the ancient Church;
then the tradition as to Liturgical theory and practice, particularly as to
the Christian Sacrifice and the Eucharist; lastly, the tradition about
Ecclesiastical law and custom. For all these three points the age of
Hippolytus is of decisive importance; and he himself, as well as his great
master, a leading witness.
The aphorisms and fragments relative to these subjects are partly
new, partly of older date. The general introductory aphorisms are
based, as to the system of a philosophy of the history of mankind, upon a
German Essay composed by me in January 1816, as the result of my
studies and meditations on that subject; and upon an Introduction to the
Philosophy of Universal History, written last year; neither of which have
yet been published. The aphorisms on the origin and epochs of the
Christian sacrifice were written in December 1822, and early in 1823, as
the summing up and conclusion of a series of researches made on this
sacred subject from 1817 to 1822. The extract from a letter dated
Christmas 1829, addressed to a late friend, Dr. Frederic Nott, prebendary
of Winchester, on the nature of the Christian sacrifice, has been known
for many years to several of my English friends in manuscript copies,
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION:
vii
new
+
and was to have been published by Dr. Arnold as an appendix to
volume of sermons, which his premature death unhappily prevented him
from compiling. I give these Essays exactly as they were written at the
time: not only because they are documentary evidence of the consistency
and continuity of my views on all those points, but also because I believe
they have not become antiquated from having been kept back some-
thing like twice nine years.
In the Third Volume I have given, first, the texts of the Creed, Li-
turgy, and Ordinances; in short, the Book of Common Prayer of the
third century, and its Ecclesiastical Code: both with the necessary ex-
planations. I feel myself entirely incompetent to exhibit a complete
picture of the agė. I can' understand that age only as one scene in a
great drama, which begins with the first Christian Pentecost, and the first
act of which closes with the death of Origen. This drama is a fragment,
and it rests upon the divine centre of humanity, the life of Jesus of
Nazareth. I shall admire the courage of the man who undertakes now to
give such a historical and philosophical picture of Hippolytus and his
age; but I do not aspire to the honour of attempting it.
Still, all antiquarian researches ought to terminate in history or poetry;
and all past ages ought to be made true mirrors for ourselves; parti-
cularly in matters which have a lasting interest for us and for all mankind.
I consider him a coward, or an unthinking being, who does not ask him-
self two questions in a case like this, where the subject is one of absorbing
interest. These questions are: What should we ay of that age of Chris-
tianity, if we saw it with our own eyes ? and what would Hippolytus say of
our own age, if it should be brought before his vision ?
No answer to such questions can be given without some degree of
fiction. Most of the speeches in the ancient historians are fictions even
, as to their contents, all as to the form. The necessity of this lies in the
'very nature of the problem. You want to give to your reader the picture
of an age by the words of one of its historical personages. But that man,
when he really spoke, spoke to his age. He did not say what everybody
then knew : and that is exactly what you want to tell. The same applies
with still greater force to his writings, if he were an author. Distant
.ages are, even to very learned men, a sealed book, until these two
questions be asked.
These considerations must form the excuse for what I have felt myself
compelled to attempt. I have written, as the last part of this Philoso-
phical Inquiry, an imaginary Apology of Hippolytus. It rests upon the
fiction, that he came to England in order to complain of the author-
ship of the lately discovered book having been taken from him, and that
· he claims to be recognized as what he really was, bishop of the Harbour
of Rome, and member of the governing presbytery of the metropolis ;
and, above all, as a thinking Christian and an orthodox divine, in an age
which had still uncorrupted traditions, and whose heroes and innumerable
martyrs lived and died for Christianity. I suppose Hippolytus to make
this defence of himself before a distinguished English assembly, after
some months of interviews and theological discussions with learned
divines. In carrying out this fiction, I have endeavoured to follow, as
closely as possible, the form of the Platonic Apology of Socrates, and
1
viii
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
humbly to imitate that mixture of irony and ethical earnestness which is
inseparable from the name of Socrates. I know full well that Hippolytus
was not Socrates, and still less do I pretend to be his Plato. But I have
attempted to give something of his character as a thinker and as an
author. As such he exhibits, predominantly, a Roman oratorical style of
the declining age, and betrays perhaps, here and there, a senile prolixity;
but there is in him a true element of dialectical reasoning, which shows
the Greek blood in his veins. I have endeavoured to represent the Roman
element in the introductory part of my Apology, and the Greek in the
rest. The form of the composition is that of a vision: its practical pur-
pose is to be a mirror to our own age.
Respecting the execution of this attempt, I must, of course, claim the
highest degree of indulgence as to the form ; but no just and intelligent
critic will have to blame me for the want of a conscientious wish to be
historically true and perfectly impartial. I feel sure, I am still less liable
to the reproach of having treated intricate and sacred questions with
levity, or of having intended to mix myself up with national and personal
questions, and with the controversies of the day in this country. Nothing
is further from my mind and from my position. I felt myself compelled
to bear on this occasion testimony to what I am convinced is the truth :
let it be read and judged as such. Neither can it be said with justice
that I have endeavoured to insinuate my own religious convictions, or
philosophical opinions, under the cover of Hippolytus. What I think
and believe personally on the subjects here treated, I have stated with
Christian frankness, partly in my “ Constitution of the Church of the
Future,” and in my “Epistles on Ignatius,” and partly in the Aphorisms
and Fragments which precede the Apology. Some further elucidations
of several difficult points in the history of the second century, to which I
have alluded in this book, will appear next year, in one German volume.
If God grant health and leisure, a Synoptical text of the Four Gospels,"
• Critical Reconstruction of the chronological order of the Evan-
gelical Accounts” (both ready for the press), will be followed by a
of Jesus.” This is the work which for twenty years I have considered
as the final object of my thoughts and researches, if I should be found
worthy to realize the idea which I have conceived of this sublime problem.
But, as author of the Apology, I am only responsible for letting Hippo-
lytus speak according to his known opinions and principles, as to his own
time;
and in character, although with a poetical license, as to ours.
I have honestly endeavoured to do both: it is not for me to judge how
far I may have succeeded. What, however, I confidently hope to have
established by holding up such a mirror to this age is, the wholesome
truth that the age of Hippolytus was not shackled by those conven-
tionalities and prejudices, and not burdened with those ordinances of man
preposterously canonized and intended to be made into civil law; shackles
which at present impede the march of Christianity, not only in the
Roman and Greek Churches, but also among Evangelical Christians.
Whatever apology may be adduced in favour of such later contriv-
ances and arrangements, they must not claim Apostolic origin and
authority, if the work of Hippolytus be genuine : and this is a proof in
itself, even for Protestants, that they are not Scriptural.
and a
66 Life
PRETACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
ix
If I have not entirely failed in my efforts to elicit truth out of the
records of thought, and out of the annals of history, which are now
opened to us for the first time, I owe it to the resources of thought and
learning which I have found in the standard works of modern German
divinity and philology, and which I have endeavoured to apply to this
subject. Deeply impressed as I am with my own unworthiness to represent
either, I still trust to have, by this process, and by the very important
contents of the newly discovered book, sufficiently shown the real nature
and superiority of the German method of inquiry, and the satisfactory
results already obtained. Now, if this be the case, I believe also that I
have enabled every thinking reader to judge for himself whether there is
much wisdom in ignoring, and whether there be not great injustice and
presumption in calumniating, the Evangelical Churches of Germany, and
in vilifying Germany and German divinity. I frankly own, that I have
considered it my duty to avail myself of a subject entirely new and fresh,
and one belonging to the neutral domain of ancient ecclesiastical history,
and of a problem which is placed at the same time before all Christian
natons, in order to test the real result and worth of what each of them
has hitherto done in that field of thought and research. The proofs which
I have given of what has been achieved already, in this respect, by the
critical and historical school of Germany, will, I trust, at all events
rescue, in the eyes of intelligent and fair judges, from unqualified and
unworthy insinuations and suspicions, a nation and a Church from which
not only the fathers of the English Church received the Reformation, but
which in the last hundred years have shown a self-sacrificing zeal for
Christian truth and doctrine, and fought (alas ! only too long single-
handed) the good fight for intellectual and spiritual Christianity, against
the overwhelming indifference of this sceptical and materialistic age. Thus
much every body may easily know, and ought to have learned, if he pro-
nounce upon German theology ; that so arduous a task has not been
undertaken by the noblest and purest minds of a great, although re-
ligiously divided and politically torn, nation, out of levity, or for the
purpose of showing ingenuity and learning, much less out of hatred to
Christianity; and that it has not been supported, and in its principle
accepted, by the people at large, out of infidelity and irreligion. The
revilers of German divinity might also know, and ought to appreciate, the
fact, that the defects and dangers of German Church life are chiefly
attributable to the political misfortunes and sufferings of Germany, not
to the individual or national want of religious spirit. The history of
nearly a century proves that this attempt to place Christianity upon a
more solid and a really tenable basis has been undertaken from a courage-
ous love of truth, and that it has been carried out with sacrifices greater
than any class of individuals or any nation ever made to that holy belief,
that there must be truth in history as well as in reason and conscience,
and that this truth exists in Christ and in Christianity. And this faith
is so general, and has ever been so powerful in my Fatherland, that I
boldly appeal to the impartial judgment of the world and to the infallible
verdict of history, in expressing my conviction, that there exists at
present in no country so much inward, true, sincere, religious feeling
and faith in Christ and Christianity, and so much hope for a better future
X.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
as to religion, as in Germany, and in Protestant Germany in particular.
Liberty is inseparable from abuse, and therefore from scandal: the poli-
tical history of the politically freest nation in the world is the best proof
of that. But men and Christians ought not to be frightened by such
abuse and such scandal, into a betrayal of the sacred cause of liberty or
of truth.
I have spoken, and I speak, freely on this subject. First of all, I do
so as a Christian, who feels, and has long time felt, the critical state of
Christianity in this distracted and yet nobly struggling age. I have
further done so as a son of my Fatherland, who feels bound to vindicate
the honour of his country among a nation he respects. I lastly have done
so as a grateful guest of England. I have wished to vindicate before
Germany and the Continent the character of the great body of English
Protestants, as not being a party to those absurd and malicious calumnies.
I know, from an experience which is deeply engraven in my inmost heart,
the spirit of fairness and justice which distinguishes the nation among
whom I have now lived almost twelve years. The slanderers and revilers
of German religion and divinity do not speak the voice of the Protestant
clergy, much less of the Christian people, of England. The attacks upon
Germany issue from two parties. One of them is an extreme fraction of
the evangelical class in the Church of England and in some dissenting
bodies, a fraction which, unconscious of its origin, has become first in-
different, then hostile, to all free thought and all critical learning.
This, however, is owing to accidental, and I hope transitory circumstances;
and especially to that unfortunate isolation from the religious life of the rest
of the world, and of Germany in particular, in which English Protestants
have lived these last two hundred years, with the single exception of John
Wesley. But, principally and systematically, these attacks upon Ger-
many come from a party which either has joined, or ought, if consistent,
to join, the Church of Rome; a party, in which, whatever the individual
earnestness and personal piety of many of its members may be, all
Christian ideas are absorbed in sacerdotal formalism unsupported by cor-
responding doctrine, and by catholic hierarchical pretensions unfounded
in themselves, and placed in flagrant contradiction to the records of the
Church of England, as well as the feelings of the people. Those who
once were their leaders now preach that historical Christianity must be
given up as a fable, if an infallible authority be not acknowledged de-
claring it to be true. All these are necessarily the bitter enemies and
detractors of German divinity; which makes inward religion, and not the
form of Church government, the principal object, and which establishes
its history upon a rational basis, according to the general rules of evidence
The leading men of that school know full well why they revile German
Protestantism and German philosophy and doctrine. They know instinc-
tively that their efforts to restore exclusive sacerdotal authority upon a
system of superstition, delusion, and ignorance, will be vain, as long as
there exists a nation bent, above all things, upon conscientious investiga-
tion of Christian truth, both by free thought and unshackled research
a nation which of all tyrannies hates none more than that of priestcraft,
and of all liberties loves none so well and so uncompromisingly as that of
the intellect. But the Christian public in England is not represented by
;
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.
xi
that party. This great body is neither unwilling to extend the hand of
brotherhood to the Evangelical Churches of the Continent, nor ashamed
of the name of Protestants. Nor do I think that history will acknowledge
as legitimate the authority of such men to lay down the law in divinity
and in religion. I at least do not see how such an authority can be founded
upon what they have achieved in Christian research or thought, or in the
learned interpretation of Scripture, or in the field of missionary labour,
or in other great national works, or finally in the free domain of science
and literature. I do not believe therefore, that by their achievements
they have acquired such titles as are valid and available in the common
conscience of mankind, to brand with indiscriminate condemnation, as
infidel rationalism, the whole theology of Germany, and to vilify the
most learned and profound Church of Christendom in the present day;
unless they mean to claim as their titles the irrationality of their own
system, and that absence of charity in which they glory when speaking
of the Protestant divines of Germany, and of the Protestant Churches
of the Continent.
Hastings, Sept. 7. 1851.
The statue of Hippolytus, that precious monument of the fourth
century, of which I had already pointed out the importance in the
Description of Rome” (vol. ii. B. p. 329. N.), and which is frequently
mentioned in the present Volume (pp. 13. 210. 223.), has never yet been
well drawn and engraved. Few persons even may have seen that bar-
barous representation which Fabricius exhibits in his edition of the works
of Hippolytus. I therefore thought it right that the historical restoration
of Hippolytus should be accompanied with a worthy faithful copy of his
statue. Mr. Gruner's lithograph, prefixed to the present Volume, faith-
fully reproduces a classical drawing made from the original. The statue
is above life size, and represents the bishop very characteristically in the
Greek pallium, with the Roman toga slung over it. If it does not give
an individual likeness of Hippolytus, at all events it presents to us the
effigy of a Christian bishop of the Apostolic age, and may, in every
respect, be called unique in the history of ancient Christian religion
and art.
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
FIRST LETTER.
PROOF THAT OUR WORK IS OF UNDOUBTED AUTHENTICITY; BUT THAT
IT IS NOT THE WORK OF ORIGIN, NOR OF Caius PRESBYTER; BUT
OF HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP OF PORTUS NEAR Ostia, PRESBYTER OF
THE ROMAN CHURCH, AND MARTYR.
Page
Importance of the publication of the Work in the Year of the Exhibi-
tion of all Nations
329
Judgment on German theology. Danger of the indifference for
critical researches
330
Faith and inquiry (Niebuhr's belief)
330
Proof that the work is neither of Origen nor of Caius. No ancient
author names such a work of Origen
332
The author must have been a bishop, at or near Rome
333
Proof that it is the work of Hippolytus. A work of the same title is
mentioned as the writing of Hippolytus by Eusebius, Jerome,
Epiphanius, Peter bishop of Alexandria
334
Character of the edition of M. Miller
335
SECOND LETTER.
THE PLAN OF THE WORK, AND THE CONTENTS OF ITS PRINCIPAL
PART, “ THE EXPOSITION OF THE HERESIES," ARE DIRECT PROOFS
OF THE IDENTITY OF OUR BOOK WITH THAT READ AND DESCRIBED
BY PHOTIUS AS A WORK OF BISHOP HIPPOLYTUS WITH THE SAME
TITLE,
Photius mentions the work of Hippolytus against all heresies, giving
particulars about it which agree entirely with that before us 337
Irenæus referred to by Photius, and in our work
339
Photius says, Hippolytus begins with the Dositheans : how to be
explained ?
340
Our work ends with the Noetians, and so Photius says
- 310
The number of the heresies enumerated (32) is the same
340
The relation of our work to that of Irenæus corresponds with the
account of Photius
341
Originality of our work in method and contents
343
VOL. I.
Y
1
xiy
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS,
Contents of Book V.
Page
I. The Naassêni or Ophites. The name explained
345
Their principles (Logos=Adamas), apocryphal tradition, Gospels
used by them. Their birthplace, Phrygia. Mystical hymn be-
longing to the age of Antoninus Pius
346
II. The Peratae or Peratics founded by Euphrates
346
Name explained. Their system
- 247
Their sacred book, Οι προάστειοι έως αιθέρος
- 347
III. The Sethiani (from Sng). Their sacred book, lapámpaois Ene,
their system
347
IV. Justinus. Wrote the “Book of Baruch.” System of his fol-
lowers. Amen, Achamoth
347
Relation of these (older) sects to the
(later) Ophites of Irenæus 348
The allusion in the First Epistle to Timothy relates to these sects 348
The scheme of the late origin of the Gospel of St. John destroyed
by these accounts
348
Contents of Book VI.
V. Simon the Gittean. Fables about his meeting with Peter • 350
Books on his doctrine (Meydan årófaois). His system
· 350
His cosmogonic system. His tale about Helen
· 351
Simon did not identify himself with God
352
Hippolytus' account compared with that of Irenæus
353
Hippolytus avoids the mistake of Irenæus and Tertullian about the
inscription, Semoni Sanco
354
Simon is not a mythical person
354
When the “Great Announcement must have been written (per-
haps by Menander)
355
Allusion to St. John's Gospel (?), and quotation of St. Paul's First
Epistle to the Corinthians
355
Bearing of these new facts upon the prologue of St. John's Gospel 355
Importance of the Sigê in the system of Simon, for the Ignatian
controversy (Epistle to the Magnesians, p. 8.). Pearson's
mistake
356
VI. Valentinus. Extracts from his own works (the Sophia"?) 358
System of Valentinus and the Valentinians
359
The two schools: ανατολική (cf. διδασκαλία ανατολική in Clemens)
and ιταλική. 'Αξιόνικος and 'Αρδεσιάνης
360
VII. Secundus, extracted from Irenæus
360
VIII. Epiphanes, extracted from Irenæus
- 361
Defective character of our text proved
362
IX. Ptolemæus reproduced after Irenæus
363
Proof that an article on Colarbasus must have been written by
Hippolytus, but has been omitted by the copyist
364
X. Colarbasus and the Colarbasians. The article of Irenæus 365
XI. Marcus and the Marcosians. The account of Irenæus very much
abridged. Hippolytus' own declaration on his relation to Irenæus 366
Hippolytus' delicacy in treating the Gnostic errors
367
Contents of Book VII.
XII. Basilides and his son Isidorus. Original article
Character of the system
368
- 368
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
XV
Page
Quotations of Basilides. Importance of those from the Gospel of
St. John
369
XIII. Saturnilus, copied from Irenæus
- 369
XIV. Marcion. Original article. His system derived from Empe-
docles
• 369
XV. Prepon. His book (rò dikalov) and idea of Christ
- 370
XVI. Carpocrates. Curious relation of the two texts, from Irenæus
and Hippolytus, given in juxtaposition
370
Perversion of the doctrine of metempsychosis
373
XVII. Cerinthus, The account of him compared with that of
Irenæus
373
Bearing of this article on the controversy about the age of St.
John's Gospel, and the Gnostic theories
374
XVIII. The Ebionites. Relation of this article to that of Irenæus . 375
XIX. Theodotus of Byzantium
• 375
XX. Theodotus the Trapezite, father of the Melchisedekites-
• 375
Relation of the Theodotians to the Ebionites
- 376
Defective state of our manuscript in this article
. 376
Age of Theodotus
·
377
XXI. Nicolaus, father of the Nicolaites. Theodoret and Stephanus
Gobarus refer to this article
. 377
XXII. Cerdo. Compared with the article of Irenæus
- 378
XXIII. Apelles. The clairvoyante Philumena
- 379
Contents of Book VIII.
XXIV. The Docete,
. .
The name attached to a particular sect.
Curious extracts
380
XXV. Monoimus the Arab. Epistles to Theophrastus. His system 380
XXVI. Tatian. Compared with the article of Irenæus
- 381
XXVII. Hermogenes -
381
XXVIII. The Quartodecimani. Only an abstract of the text of
Hippolytus. The quotation of Peter of Alexandria corresponds
to the original text, as can be proved by our text
382
XXIX. The Montanists, púyes. Our text is also here likely to be
defective
384
XXX. The Encratites
. 385
Contents of Book IX.
XXXI. The Noetians. A mistake of Theodoret rectified by Hip-
polytus. Origin of the name of Callistians. Fragments of Hera-
clitus
386
Juxtaposition of Noetus' and Callistus' systems
· 386
Relation of this article to Hippolytus' homily on Noetus
388
Chronological mistake of Epiphanius about Noetus' age
· 388
XXXII. The Elchasaites. Alcibiades of Apamea. Elchasai. Their
fabulous book. Their Christology and second baptism -
388
389
Conclusive comparison of our work with Photius' account
Y 2
xvi
· ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
THIRD LETTER.
THE GOVERNMENT AND CONDITION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME
UNDER ZEPHYRINUS AND CALLISTUS (190—222), ACCORDING TO
ST. HIPPOLYTUS, MEMBER OF THE ROMAN PRESBYTERY AND
BISHOP OF PORTUS.
Page
Hippolytus' account of Callistus, bishop of Rome
390
Callistus' fraud, attempted escape, punishment, and liberation by
Hyacinthus, Marcia's eunuch
391
Callistus, favourite of Zephyrinus, and at last bishop of Rome 392
his relation to Sabellius and Noetus, and quarrel with Hip-
polytus and his party
393
his practical views
· 394
Critical remarks on the account of Hippolytus
· 395
Mistake of the editor about the chronology of the life of Callistus . 396
FOURTH LETTER.?
races
HIPPOLYTUS' Own CONFESSION (THE TENTI BOOK).
Moderation in the judgment on the Greek philosophers
397
Proof of Hippolytus' authorship by comparison of his chronological
system with that adopted in the “Chronicle," founded on the 72
398
Critical remarks on the condition of the manuscript
399
First part of the Confession of Hippolytus “On the one eternal God” 400
The authorship of the work “On the Substance of the Universe,"
decided
400
Mistake of Photius, who supposes the author of that work to be
Josephus
401
Hippolytus proved to be the author of the “Little Labyrinth
402
Genuine character of Le Moyne's fragment of the work “ On the
Universe"
402
Second part of the Confession of Hippolytus, " The Doctrine of the
Logos"
403
Analysis of this part
405
The working of the Spirit of God not limited to the holy men of the
Old Testament
· 405
The validity of the Law founded on man's nature
406
Hippolytus' opinion about the character of the Prophets, compared
with an expression of Frederick Schlegel's
406
Apologetical character of the speculations of the Fathers
407
Difference of Hippolytus' interpretation of the Bible from the
method of modern orthodox school
407
Traditional interpretation, and its danger
408
Truly conservative and catholic character of Christianity rightly
understood
409
Providential history and development of Christianity
411
Limited truth of all Confessions of Faith
412
Conclusion of Hippolytus' Confession of Faith. Address to all men
to fulfil their divine destiny
413
The end of the book is wanting
414
The second fragment, supposed to conclude the “Epistle to Dio.
gnetus," may be the wanting conclusion of our book
414
0
O
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
xvii
Page
Translation of that fragment
415
416
Reasons for ascribing it to Hippolytus
The so-called pantheistic colour of some expressions in his Confes-
416
sion, common to all the Fathers of the first four centuries
FIFTH LETTER.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS, AND THE THEOLOGICAL AND
ECCLESIASTICAL CHARACTER OF HIS AGE.
The most important evidence of Hippolytus' authorshi depending
on the much doubted circumstance that he was a Roman
Le Moyne's conjecture that Portus Romanus was Aden in Arabia 418
Tillemont Le Nain's and Ruinart's opinions
418
Cave's uncritical article about Hippolytus
- 419
Inquiry upon the historical evidences
419
Eusebius
419
Jerome
420
The “ Chronicon Paschale vel Alexandrinum
420
Anastasius, Nicephorus, Syncellus, Nicephorus son of Callistus 420
The barbarous title in the Bibl. Patr.) in the quotation of Pope
Gelasius, a mere conjecture of a late copyist
421
The circumstance of Hippolytus' having been at the same time
bishop of Portus and Roman presbyter, explained
422
The seven suburban bishops, among whom there is the "Episcopus
Portuensis,” still to be recognised in the modern constitution of
the Roman Church
423
Monumental relics in Porto, and testimony of the statue of Hip-
polytus
423
Prudentius' description of the locality. Character of the Pashal
Cycle
423
Age of Hippolytus (beginning of the third century) -
424
Time and place of his martyrdom. Comparison of the accounts in
different texts of the “Liber Pontificalis"
424
The historical truth in Prudentius' account examined
426
The importance of Portus
427
The picture of Hippolytus' martyrdom on the wall of his sanctuary- 427
Hippolytus' supposed Novatianism, how to be explained
428
Reconciliation of his transportation with the account of his bloody
martyrdom -
429
Age of Hippolytus' statue, the most ancient Christian portrait of a
historical person
430
Imperfect character of Hippolytus' Paschal table
430
The Works under the name of Hippolytus examined.
Editions of Hippolytus' works. Angelo Mai's fragments of
Hippolytus
43
Fabulous character of the anonymous work of the “Episcopus
Cyrenensis"
· 431
A. Hippolytus' Polemical Works.
I. “ Refutation of all the Heresies." The philosophical studies of
the author
432
Comparative table of the 32 heresies in the “Refutation,” ac-
cording to Book V.-IX., with those in Book X.
433
O
Y 3
xviii
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
Genealogical and chronological table of the 32 heresies
· 434
The method of the arrangement explained
437
Idea of a new edition of Hippolytus' works
438
II. “The Little Labyrinth," or Treatise against the heresy of Artemo 439
The novel of the Tubingen school built on the fragments of this
book
440
The fact sought, postulated by Neander, is given us in the
• Refutation
441
The struggle against Gnosticism presupposed by the formula of
Callistus
441
The succession of the three works: “ The Little Labyrinth," the
“Cause of the Universe," and the “Refutation of all Heresies" 441
III.“ Against Noetus.” The book is a homily. The allusion to the
injustice of Callistus in calling our author a Ditheist
442
Juxtaposition of the Confession in our work, and the homily IIpòs
Νοητόν .
443
Dorner's article on the Noetian heresy
· 447
IV. “Against Vero"
448
The German method, as it appears in Dorner's book, compared
with the method of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries 448
Analogy of the treatise against Vero and the “ Refutation" 149
This book was written after the “Refutation"
449
V. “Demonstrative address to the Jews"
· 449
Character of this treatise. Translation
450
VI. “ Address to the Hellenes," etc.
- 150
Description of Hades
450
VII. Special polemical writings against heretics
451
-
!
B. Doctrinal Writings.
I. " On Antichrist
452
Example of his interpretation of the Apocalypse
453
The time when Hippolytus wrote this book
454
II., III., IV. “On the Gifts of the Holy Spirit,” “ On God, and on
the Resurrection of the Flesh,' " On Good and the Origin of
Evil" -
454
V. “Hortatory Sermon to Severina"
454
VI. Doctrinal festal Homilies
455
U
-
C. Historical Works.
I. The (Book or Books of the) Chronicles
455
Importance of the catalogue of the Roman bishops given by Hip-
polytus, as followed by the subsequent chronographers - 455
Original character of the work differing from the Latin text 456
II. “ Demonstration of the Time of Easter according to the Table” - 456
D. Exegetical Works.
I. On all the Holy Scriptures
II. On the historical works of the Old Testament
- 456
- 457
ANALYTICAL TABLE OF CONTENTS.
xix
III. On the Psalms and songs of the Old Testament -
Historical and philological views of Hippolytus on the Psalms
IV., V. On the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. On the Prophets
VI. On the New Testament
Page
- 457
458
· 458
459
Restoration of the catalogue of Hippolytus' writings on bis Cathedra 452
The Lists of Eusebius, Jerome, and Nicephorus, compared
461
The List on the Cathedra compared with the Authors and our Frag-
ments
461
-
Character of Hippolytus and his Time.
Dorner's exposition of the leading philosophers of that age
462
G. A. Meier on the place of Hippolytus in the development of the
doctrine of the Trinity
463
Great difference of Origen's doctrine from that of the author of the
" Refutation”
464
Reason of the “Philosophumena” having been ascribed to Origen - 465
Difference of the doctrine of Hippolytus from those of our creeds 466
General importance of the “Refutation” in the controversy about
St. John's Gospel
467
Historical sketch of the development of Church-government in the
age of Hippolytus
468
Increasing authority of the Bishop.
469
Constitution of the Roman Church in that time
470
The system of discipline about the marriage of Presbyters
• 470
Hippolytus' character as a writer
- 471
Hippolytus the first preacher of note in the Church of Rome 472
Historical view on the Fathers of the Church
473
Importance of the researches on the Fathers
474
Hippolytus' moral character
- 475
The object of “Hippolytus' Apology” explained
- 476
-
U
POSTSCRIPT.
Remarks on two articles in the " Quarterly Review” and the
* Ecclesiastic"
477
SECOND POSTSCRIPT.
Remarks on Professor Jacobi's articles in the “ Deutsche Zeitschrift
für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches Leben
472
APPENDIX.
THE FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS COLLECTED BY ANGELO MAI
483
Y 4
FIRST LETTER
PROOF THAT OUR WORK IS OF UNDOUBTED AUTHENTICITY; BUT THAT IT IS
NOT THE WORK OF ORIGEN NOR OF CAIUS PRESBYTER, BUT OF HIPPOLYTUS,
BISHOP OF PORTUS NEAR OSTIA, PRESBYTER OF THE ROMAN CHURCH, AND
MARTYR.
Carlton Terrace, June 13, 1851.
MY DEAREST FRIEND,
This year is indeed an auspicious one, and full of noble emula-
tion and friendly cooperation, both among nations and individuals.
Instead of destructive wars, bitter jealousy, and sullen isolation, it has
given us the Crystal Palace, the Exhibition of the Industry of all Nations,
and a peaceful concourse and good understanding among jurors and
visitors from all countries. Moreover, it promises to impart a fresh
impulse to historical and philosophical literature and inquiry; for within
the last few weeks one of the most valuable monuments of early Christi-
anity has been restored to us by a discovery, which, if I am not greatly
mistaken, is the most important made upon that ground for a century,
not excepting the rescue of the Syrian manuscripts from the Libyan
Desert. A lost work, in ten books, on the internal history of Christianity
in the first and second centuries, written undoubtedly by an eminent
author at the beginning of the third, has just been published.
How many people will smile at this juxtaposition! Some, perhaps,
because they consider the Temple of Industry as a Pandemonium, or, if
they use elegant language, a box of Pandora. But few of this class care
for books at all; and since the first of May they are ashamed to utter
their evil bodings. There are very many, however, to whom such a com-
parison will seem to smell strongly of learned pedantry. They fancy, the
less we know of early ecclesiastical history, the better for us and our
children. Now, among these, some are mere barbarians, others obscu-
rantists by profession; and I disdain to speak to you of either of these
classes. But, unfortunately, there are also timid persons among this
multitude, — people afraid to think, and who ask, with Pilate, “What is
truth ?” As they never have seriously attempted to find out truth (being
prevented either by prejudice and superstition, or by the love of power or
of money), they despair of uniting reason and faith, knowledge and peace
of mind. The child of this unballowed fear is pernicious ignorance. I
call it pernicious, because knowledge is not less necessary from being less
sought after, and because a real knowledge of Christianity, of which that
of its earliest history is an integral branch, was never more needed than
now, when indifference and ignorance threaten us with all the evils which
are foolishly apprehended from inquiry and knowledge. It seems to me,
therefore, that all we, who profess a faith in the human mind, and in the
330
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.”
ON THE
<
scarce,
truth of Christianity, should not shrink from declaring our conviction of
the importance of discoveries on the field of early ecclesiastical history.
Facts on this vast field are the more valuable, because they are so very
I do not think that I exaggerate the importance of our lately
discovered work, if I say that it doubles all we really and authentically
knew on this subject.
This is the motive which induces me to address these pages, destined
for publicity, to you, my dearest friend, together with whom, for near
twenty years, I have had the happiness of thinking and inquiring, and in
whose love of truth I have found no less comfort than in your erudition
and critical judgment.
I say then confidently, that I consider it an auspicious event, worthy to
be registered in the annals of this remarkable year, that the book I allude
to has been published during its course. I cannot help thinking it
providential, that a work which throws so much light on the bistory of
Christianity, from the time of the Apostles to the beginning of the third
century, and especially on the internal history of the Church of Rome,
should have been brought out at this moment. For this is a time when
many feel disheartened, not only by the progress of Popery among the
clergy of the Church of England, but also by what they hear of German
rationalism. The informants of these good people must have very vague
notions, and very little (if any) knowledge of the theological literature of
Germany: else how could they confound in one condemnation the most
different principles and researches, Strauss and his opponents, those
who attack the authenticity of the Gospels, and those who defend them
with an earnestness of thought, of learning, and of faith, which, if the
accusers of German theology possess, they effectually conceal ? Thus it
comes, that many are frightened by the very name of critical researches
into the origin of Christianity and of Christian doctrine. They hear
so much of the abuse made of the critical researches and hypercritical
scepticism against received opinions, accompanied, as usual, by a
most uncritical credulity of the critics in their own assertions, that
they entirely overlook how others seem to be bent more than ever on
stopping and suppressing, or at least discrediting, all inquiry into the
origin and history of what they would impose upon us and the generations
to come, not only as undoubted historical truth, but even as articles of
faith, and, if possible, as the law of the land. Now I consider this
despondency a want of faith, and this obscurantism the worst of all
persecutions, if it could be practically carried out, and the most dangerous
fuel for revolutions, even if only attempted. I deem the pompously
demanded divorce between reason and faith, rational conviction and
religious belief, altogether unholy; and I have no hesitation in calling all
views low, which are derived from the idolatry of the form or of the dead
and killing letter; however that principle of separation may be called
holy, and these views high. I am sure we do not want less inquiry to
renew Christian faith, but more. I also believe, with Niebuhr, that
Providence always furnishes every generation with the necessary means of
arriving at the truth, and at the solution of its doubts; and as there is no
reasonable and tenable faith which is not founded upon rational historical
belief, I cannot help thinking it of importance, that we have just now so
AUTHOR AND AUTHENTICITY.
331
unexpectedly got our knowledge of facts respecting early Christianity
doubled.
And is there not something striking, and congenial to the character of
the year 1851, in the history of the discovery? A French scholar and
a statesman of high merit, M. Villemain, sent a Greek to Mount Athos
to look out for new treasures in the domain of Greek literature. The
fruits of this mission were deposited, in 1842, in the great national
library, already possessed of so many treasures. Among them was a
manuscript of no great antiquity, written in the fourteenth century, not
on parchment, but on cotton paper; and it was registered as a book “ On
all Heresies,” without any indication of its author or age. The modern
date of the manuscript, its anonymousness, and probably, above all, this
awful title, deterred the scrutinising eyes of the learned of all nations who
glanced over it. It fell to the lot of a distinguished Greek scholar and
writer on literature, a functionary of that great institution, M. Emmanuel
Miller, to bring forward the hidden treasure. He was first struck by
some precious fragments of Pindar, and of an unknown lyric poet, quoted
by the anonymous writer : he transcribed and communicated them, in
1846, to his literary friends in Germany, who, highly appreciating their
value, restored the text, and urged him to publish the whole work,
It appears that during this time M. Miller had looked deeper into the
book itself: for in 1850 he offered it to the University Press at Oxford as
a work of undoubted authenticity, and as a lost treatise of Origen
Against all the Heresies." The learned men presiding over that noble
institution determined to print, and have just published it, thus giving
the sanction of their authority, if not to the authorship, at least to the
genuineness of the work. They have done in this case what they did for
Wyttenbach's “ Plutarch,” for Creuzer's “ Plotinus," and for Bekker's
“ Greek Orators.” And they deserve the more credit for their liberality
in the present case, since the name of Origen is almost branded in the
opinion of all who have never read his works, who, I am afraid, are the
majority even in learned bodies. Am I not right, therefore, in saying
that the publication of this work is congenial to the character of 1851, by
showing the good results of international communication and friendly co-
operation ? The book was discovered by a Greek sent from Paris, and
has been most creditably edited by a French scholar, and very liberally
printed by an English university Press. The publication has been ac-
complished by a combination of different nations, and could scarcely at
this time have been brought about otherwise.
I could not help dwelling for a moment on those circumstances, before
entering on the real object of these letters, which I will now do without
further preface, after stating how I have become acquainted with the work
in question.
Dr. Tregelles, to whom I hope we shall soon be indebted for the most
authentic Greek text of the New Testament, informed me last week of
the appearance of the work, and gladdened my heart by his account of the
warmth with which the almost centenary veteran among living authors on
the early monuments of Christianity, the venerable Dr. Routh, had im-
mediately studied the book, and acknowledged its importance. I pro-
cured a copy in consequence, and perused it as soon as I could; and I
332
ON THE 5 REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
а.
have already arrived at conclusions, which seem to me so evident, that I
feel no hesitation in expressing them to you at once.
I maintain:
First, that the work before us is genuine, but not by Origen.
Secondly, that it is the work of Hippolytus, a person much celebrated,
but very little known.
Thirdly, that this celebrated father and martyr, Hippolytus, was
presbyter of the Church of Rome, and bishop of the harbour of Rome,
Portus, but neither an Arab, nor an Arabian bishop, as Dutchmen and
some Frenchmen imagined he might, and Cave said he must, have
been.
Fourthly, that this book is full of valuable authentic extracts from lost
writers.
Leaving the discussion of the third and fourth points for future letters,
I shall limit myself in this to establishing the proof of the first two points,
as far as this can be done without examining the arrangement and the
contents of the work in detail.
I maintain, then, that our treatise is an authentic work of the earliest
part of the third century, but not by Origen.
The arguments which prove this are both negative and positive. No
ancient author names or quotes, among the numerous works of Origen,
any “ Against all Heresies,” or any “Refutation of all Heresies," which
is the undoubted title of the book now published. Miller is indeed right
in saying, that the seven books contained in the Paris manuscript, from
the fourth to the tenth, are the continuation and end of the same work, of
which the “Philosophumena," printed among Origen's works, form the
first book. The author says so himself in more than one passage. In
fact, that first book bears the same title, “ A Refutation of all Heresies ;'*
and the title Philosophumena, which we find besides in some manuscripts,
is therefore only a special name given to the first four books. For these,
as we see now, contained an exposition of the systems of the ancient, and
in particular of the Greek, philosophers, preparatory to the refutation of
the heresies, which occupies the six latter books. That special title
recurs in our manuscript at the end of the fourth book, to signify that the
first part of the work terminates here.t
It is also right to add that our manuscripts of this first book attribute
* So the author calls in the beginning of the sixth book that which precedes it:
66 The Fifth of the Refutations of the Heresies.” (See below in the Second Letter,
beginning of the analysis of the Sixth Book.)—1854.
* It follows that the remaining six books formed in the same manner the second
part, and that both might be copied separately. Indeed, it is absurd to call the
second part, or even the whole, Philosophumena, and there is no warrant for the
statement that the author himself called the first part by that title. In order to
satisfy myself fully on this subject, I have applied to the learned and courteous
editor himself, and from his answer, which is before me, it would appear that the
fifth book (the first of the Refutations of the Heresies) is called “ The Fifth of the
Refutations,” (Bubalov E Toû kard Taowv aipéo ewy AéYXou, as superscription, in red
letters (rubrica, fol. 26.); and then follows, in black letters, as heading of the con-
tents, 'Ev tŤ TÉMTTņ Toû kata nagwv aipéo eWV Aéyxov. In fol. 109, v. the super-
scription of the ninth book is written in black, thus: Dinoopovuévwv O. The first
is evidently the mor eaccurate short title; the other merely conventional. -— 1854.
AUTHOR AND AUTHENTICITY.
333
the work to Origen, and that a marginal rubric in our Paris manuscript
calls the concluding confession of faith that of Origen. But I agree
entirely with Christian Wolf, Le Moyne, Fabricius, the Benedictine
editor, and the recent learned biographer of Origen, Professor Rede-
penning, that the introduction with which the first book begins proves the
contrary. The author says that he has undertaken the work as an act of
official daty, incumbent upon him both as a bishop and a teacher. Now
Origen can never have said this of himself: yet no other interpretation
can be affixed to the following words :-.“ No other person will refute the
heretics, except the Holy Spirit delivered to the Church, which the
Apostles possessed first, and which they imparted to those who had
embraced the true faith. Now we, being successors of the Apostles,
and endued with the same grace, both of high-priesthood and of teaching,
and being accounted guardians of the Church, will not shut our eyes, no
keep from declaring the true doctrine." Interpreting these words in the
sense of the writers of the first three centuries, I am quite sure Hippo-
lytus did not attach to the title of high-priesthood any Pagan or Jewish
sense, but simply meant the office of a Christian bishop. But a bishop he
must have been, who used that word to describe his office and its respon-
sibility.
But if these words prove our author to have been a bishop when he
wrote the work, the ninth book gives still clearer evidence that at that
time he resided at or near Rome, and was a member, and an eminent one,
of the Roman presbytery. Even they who know no more of the primitive
ecclesiastical polity than what they may have learned from Bingham and
Mosheim, must be aware that the six bishops of the towns and districts in
the immediate neighbourhood of Rome formed, even in the second cen-
tury, part of what was then called the Church of Rome. † They were
integral portions of her presbytery and took part in the election of her
bishop, and in the important functions of ecclesiastical discipline and ad.
ministration. One of those suburban bishops was the bishop of Portus,
the new harbour of the Tiber, opposite to Ostia, formed by Trajan.
Hippolytus, in almost all the ancient accounts respecting him, bears the
title of Episcopus Portuensis : and we shall see later that there never was
any other tradition about him. I will only say here, that his celebrated
statue in the Vatican Library, found in the year 1551, in the very ancient
cemetery near Rome, described (about the year 400) by Prudentius as the
place of the burial of Hippolytus, the bishop of Portus near Ostia, is suf-
ficient to prove him to have been that bishop: for he is represented
sitting on the episcopal chair or cathedra, and the Paschal cycle inscribed
on the chair is a Western Roman one.
But the book before us does not speak less clearly upon this subject.
Without entering here into the detail of the curious contents of the ninth
book, I will only refer to the numerous passages in it where the author
speaks of himself, in the singular, as of an influential and active member
* I refer my readers to the first volume of my Analecta, where they will find the
Greek text of the whole Proæmium.- 1854.
† As not only such men, but even scholars have called this point into question,
I have touched upon it in the new preface and in the picture of Hippolytus. (Sixth
Generation.) - 1854.
T
1
334
ON THE « REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
of the Roman clergy; and he uses the word “we” in acts of ecclesiastical
authority exercised by the clergy as a body. * Now though Origen paid
a short visit to Rome about that time, when he was very young, he could
never have acted that part or used that language, being simply a visitor
from an Eastern church, if he had been at Rome under Callistus, which
he was not.
Our first argument evidently excludes Caius, as much as the second
does any one who was not a Roman clergyman at the time. That learned
presbyter of the Church of Rome was indeed, like Hippolytus, a disciple
of Irenæus ; and another work of our author, and one which decides the
authorship of a third, was ascribed in early times to Caius. But never
was any work on the general history of heresies said to have been written
by this Roman presbyter.
Now an ordinary reader, finding so considerable a work assigned con-
fidently to Origen, might suppose that some book under that title was
really ascribed to the learned Alexandrian by some at least of the many
ancient writers who treat of his literary achievements : yet there is not
the slightest record that Origen ever wrote a work under any like title
But perhaps it may be the same with Hippolytus, whose station and
history seem alone to agree with our book ? On the contrary, a book of
exactly the same title is ascribed almost universally to him, the Roman
presbyter, and bishop of Portus near Ostia.
Eusebius (H. E. 22.), speaking of Hippolytus, the celebrated author of
the “ Chronological Annals, which go down to the first year of Alexander
Severus” (222), and of the “ Paschal Cycle," which begins from the first
year of that reign, mentions, amongst his works, that “ Against all the
Heresies” (iepos táoas tag aipéosuc). Jerome does the same, which must
be considered in this case as an independent testimony; for he gives the
titles of some works not mentioned by Eusebius. Epiphanius (Hær. xi.
C. 33.) cites the name of Hippolytus, with those of Clemens of Alexandria
and of Irenæus, as the principal authors who had refuted the Valentinian
heresies, the treatise on which occupies so prominent a part in the book
before us.t
Finally, the editor of the Chronicon Paschale, of the seventh century,
* ix. 7. (p. 279.), Zephyrinus and Callistus patronised the heresy of the Noetians :
καίτοι ημών μηδέποτε συγχωρησάντων, αλλά πλειστάκις αντικαθεστώτων προς αυτούς
και διαλεξάντων και άκοντας βιασαμένων την αληθείαν ομολογείν. The same official
and authoritative position of the author appears in the passage, ix, 11. (p. 285.),
where he says of Sabellius : έν γάρ τώ υφ' ημών παραινείσθαι ουκ έσκληρύνετο· ηνίκα
δε συν τω Καλλίστη εμόναζεν (who was then bishop of Rome) υπ' αυτού ανεσείετο.
Compare also the following passages: ix, 12. (p. 289,) he speaks of Callistus as
fearing the author personally : dedock's fué. He must therefore have had an influ-
ential and an authoritative position. But the decisive passage is the following.
Of some persons excluded from the Roman Church, he says : KANTOL Tîs ékkın.
σίας υφ' ημών γενόμενοι (p. 290.) Now only tlie decree of the presbytery of the
Roman Church could expel from its communion; and none but a member of the
Roman presbytery could speak thus. The author consequently must have be-
longed to it, or he is a swaggerer.
f I am indebted to Prof. Döllinger (p. 90. 97.) for a more correct wording of
this piece of evidence. I had assumed that the quotation from Hippolytus formed
part of Bishop Peter's letter. This, however, is not the case.
The letter ter-
minates p. 97, Dind, oi tap 'EBpaious copol. The Chronicle itself extends to the
y ear, 628.-1854.
1854.
AUTHOR AND AUTHENTICITY.
335
quotes in the introduction to his compilation (completed by Mai's disco-
veries), after the letter of Peter, bishop of Alexandria (who suffered
martyrdom in 311), on the Paschal time, and another of Athanasius on
the same subject, a passage from the work “ of Hippolytus, the witness
of the truth, the bishop of Portus near Rome, Against all the Heresies
(Tpos náras tris aipégais ouvrayua),” about the heresy of the Quartodecimani;
and I shail prove in my next letter, that this passage must have existed
in our work,* but that our present text gives us only an extract in this as
in several other places.
We may sum up the arguments brought forward bitherto in a few
words. The book cannot have been written by Origen, nor even by
Caius the presbyter, for it is written by a bishop: besides nobody ever
attributed either to the Alexandrian or to the Roman Presbyter a book
with a like title. On the other hand, such a book is ascribed by the
highest authorities to Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, presbyter of the
Church of Rome, who lived and wrote about 220, as the “ Paschal Cycle”
and his statue expressly state.
The name of Origen in a marginal rubric cannot avail against such
negative and positive evidence. Origen's name was also prefixed to the
first book of the Philosophumena, of which our work is evidently the
continuation. That book was indeed printed on the faith of manuscripts,
under Origen's name, and placed among his works, but it was also gene-
rally, and for very cogent reasons, pronounced not to be his.
But perhaps there may be some argument in store which we have not
yet touched upon. Ay, there is; and it is a piece of evidence wbich, even
if it stood alone, would put an end to all controversy on the authorship of
our work. For we have an authentic and specific description of the
contents of the work of Hippolytus “ Against all Heresies ;” and this
description tallies so exactly with the book before us, that it cannot have
been given of any other. I mean the account which the patriarch Photius
has noted down of the contents of this work in the journal of his reading,
known as
Photii Bibliotheca." The object of my second letter being to
go through the whole account of the heresies, in order to prove this, I
shall open it with Photius' own words.
But I cannot conclude this letter without expressing my gratitude and
respect for the learned editor. His plan at first was to give the text
exactly as it stood; finding this impossible, in consequence of the innu-
merable blunders in the manuscript, he has received such corrections
into the text as, on the whole, could scarcely be doubtful, reserving for
the notes his further suggestions for rendering the text intelligible, which
it very often is not. He has used so much moderation in both respects,
that a great part of the text is still scarcely intelligible, or at least very
corrupt. I hope to prove this, and to contribute my might toward render-
ing it less obscure. But I trust it will not be forgotten that the principle
adopted by the editor is a right one for a first edition ; and that we owe
the advantage of having, not only a thoroughly accurate, and on the
* Unless the Súvtayua here named is the first treatise against the heresies written
by Hippolytus, as he says in the Proæmium (see Anal. i.). See note to second
letter as to the article of Photius, and the new preface. — 1854.
336
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
whole a readable text, to the sagacity and good scholarship of him, who,
having to wade through shoals of blunders, and to point out chasms,
omissions, and other corruptions in every page, contented himself with
correcting those errors and defects with a sparing hand, reserving the rest
for a more complete edition, to be published at Paris. I beg besides to
say, that those who have never perused manuscripts should consider that,
if we read the ancient classical authors with so much ease, we have been
enabled to do so by a similar process of progressive criticism carried on
through ages.
Having but little time to spare from the fifth and last book of my
Egypt” for this sudden digression to the second Christian century,
you may be sure of having the end of my correspondence in a few weeks,
and my next letter in a few days.
Ever yours faithfully,
BUNSEN.
LETTER SECOND.
THE PLAN OF THE WORK, AND THE CONTENTS OF ITS PRINCIPAL PART,
" TAC EXPOSITION OF THE HERESIES, ARE DIRECT PROOFS OF THE
IDENTITY OF OUR BOOK WITH THAT READ AND DESCRIBED BY PHOTIUS
AS A WORK OF BISHOP HIPPOLYTUS WITH THE SAME TITLE.
Carlton Terrace, June 20. 1851.
MY DEAREST FRIEND,
The account given by Photius, the learned patriarch of Con-
stantinople, runs thus * :
“A little book of Hippolytus' was read. Hippolytus was a disciple of
Irenæus. It is a treatise on thirty-two heresies, beginning with the
DOSITHEANS, and going down to Noetus and the NOETIANS. He says
that Irenæus entered into a refutation of them in his Lectures, and that
he, Hippolytus, made a synopsis of these, and thus composed this book.
The style of the book is clear, and rather stately, but not turgid, though
it does not come up to Attic speech. He says some things which are not
quite correct; for instance, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is not by
the Apostle Paul. He is reported to have addressed the congregation, in
imitation of Origen, with whom he lived on familiar terms, and of whose
learned works he was a great admirer.”
Then follows a long account of what Hippolytus had done, to encourage
the writing and secure the publication and preservation of Origen's
works.f But all this, if we look a little closer, turns out to be a blunder.
Eusebius, immediately after his short notice of Hippolytus and his works,
mentioned this in reference, not to Hippolytus, but to that good and zea-
lous layman, Ambrosius, whom Origen himself calls his taskmaster, who
made him write. Jerome had taken the first false step, by interpreting the
first two words of Eusebius' account, “From that time 1. Ambrosius,"
as if they signified In imitation of him (Hippolytus) Ambro-
sius, &c.
So much for the last part of the patriarch's account. We can dispose
almost as easily of the statement which precedes this in Photius. It is at
all events taken from Jerome, who, among the works of Hippolytus,
mentions a homily on the praise of our Lord and Saviour, in which Hip-
polytus signifies, " that he preached it in the Church in the presence of
* Photii Bibliotheca, c. cxxi.
† See the text in the Analecta prefixed to the Proce.nium of Hippolyti Refuta:
tio.—1854.
$ ékeivov. Euseb. H. E. vi. 23.
VOL. I.
Z
338
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
Origen." This can only mean, if the text is correct, that the sermon was
preached when Origen was present, that is to say, when the Alexandrian
doctor was at Rome. Photius, perhaps, read differently* : at all events,
it matters not to us whether Jerome misunderstood a Greek text or the
patriarch a Latin one: both blundered.
But the remainder of Photius' account of the book, which is assuredly
the same with ours, must be his own, and written as his impression on
reading Hippolytus' work, and of the discussion about it with his council. I
I was struck, at first, þy-the expression " a little book” (B16Miðáplov), for
a work in ten books, of which seven and a half fill about 300 octavo pages.
But it is to be considered, that he takes no notice of the “ Philosophu-
mena ;" and the rest, the account of the heresies (v. -- x.), occupies in
our MS. less than 200 pages. Such a book is not too large to be called
B.6.dupov. || Hence, as evidently he had only this second part before him,
* Instead of rapóvros, poróvtos ; or præeunte instead of præsente; and then it
would mean that Hippolytus had preached, like Origen, learned sermons, worth
publishing; for this, we know, had never been done at Rome before Hippolytus.
† The whole account of Photius is full of blunders. Origen visited Rome
under Zephyrinus, in 211, when he was in his twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh year.
How can any writer or record of the time have reported that Hippolytus, who at
that time was already a distinguished writer, and at the end of the second century, had
imitated Origen, whose homilies, as far as they were taken down in writing, belong to
the latest period of his long life, and who certainly could not deliver any homily to
a congregation before he was ordained, that is to say, before the year 228 ?-1854.
# I must preface the argumentation which follows by observing, that all diffi-
culties may be set aside if one will assume that Photius had before him, not our
book, but the Treatise which he had written before on the same subject, and to
which he refers in the Proæmium to the Refutation, This assumption has been
brought forward very ably by Duncker, Wordsworth, and Döllinger. I am the
less disposed to oppose it, because it removes many difficulties, while the argument
remains the same. If Photius speaks of the short treatise, his evidence is fully as
good for ours, for Hippolytus says himself he wrote such a one, naturally, therefore,
without the learned apparatus of the Philosophumena, or the first four books. The
same may be said of the quotation from the Chronicon Paschale, which we cannot show
in our manuscript. Indeed, the author gives to the work of Hippolytus the same
title as Photius, Zúvtayna, and not "EleYxos. As we do not possess the former treatise,
and as our own text gives us (as we shall see) more than one reason for suspecting
its completeness, it is impossible to decide the question. I will only observe that the
argument drawn from the word Bibridáplov is very weak. Montfaucon says, in his
great work, the Palæographia (p. 25.): “ Bibxiov et diminutive Blenáplov (which is
only another form for Blbaidáplov), quod tamen postremum vocabulum pro libris satis
amplæ molis usurpatum occurrit.“ Indeed we find in that same work (p. 75.) a Codex
called by that name, containing miscellaneous astronomical treatises, and this MS.
must have consisted of more than 345 folia (our last six books contain 100). Pho-
tius himself used the word when speaking (Cod. 186.) of Conon's Narrations, or Fifty
Accounts of Mythical and Historical Events, which, according to the abstract
Photius has given, must have been a book of no inconsiderable extent. So much
for the learning of the philological objection against the assumption that Photius
in our article might have spoken of the book we have before us, It must not be
forgotten, either, that, as I maintain our text not to be complete, that of Photius
may have been so still less. -- 1854.
§ In the Paris MS., which is in quarto, books v.—x. occupy less than 200 pages
(fol. 26', to fol. 1245.: there may be two or three pages wanting at the end).
ll I have left out in reprinting this an ill-chosen example from Phot. Cod. 126.,
where the epistles of Clemens and Polycarp are mentioned as contained in a volume
termed by him B16Aidápiov : for although we do not possess the first epistle of
TÄE ACCOUNT OF PHOTIUS.
339
that expression has nothing surprising in it. It must be confessed,
indeed, that our manuscript has no passage quoting the Epistle to the
Hebrews; but the quotation may have occurred in an introduction,
where the author probably spoke of the relation of his work to that of
Irenæus. Such a general introduction seems to be wanting. The
“Philosophumena" in our manuscripts begin rather abruptly with an
introduction, which may have been a special one for that first section of
the work. But the passage alluded to may also have occurred in the lost
second, or third, or at the beginning of the fourth book. We learn from
the introduction to the “Philosophumena,” that they treated, first, of
the main systems of Greek philosophy; and the account of these forms
our first book, with an appendix respecting the Brachmans (in which
Megasthenes’ Mandanis is named, but written Dandamis), the Druids,
and Hesiod. Besides, the author says he had in that section given an
account of the mystical and the astrological systems; and we see, from
other passages, that he had referred, not only to the Greek writers, but
also to the Chaldæan, Assyrian, and Egyptian. Now, what we read of
the fourth book treats exclusively of the mathematical and astrological
theories: it is therefore clear that the second and third must have been
exclusively or principally devoted to an exposition of the mystical systems
of antiquity. Here our author had ample opportunities for quoting the
Hebrews, as a corrective of mystic writers respecting sacrifices, rites, and
mysteries. Or that passage may also have occurred at the end, where our
manuscript is defective.
But who can say that this censure may not refer to some other work
of Hippolytus, and apply to the author, not to our book ? What follows
immediately certainly does. At all events, I have no doubt about the
fact, that Hippolytus expressed himself in that way respecting the
Epistle to the Hebrews, and therefore incorrectly in the eyes of the
patriarch. He could no more have ascribed it to the apostle Paul,
than did any one of his contemporaries in the Western Church, or even
any Alexandrian writer openly, before Dionysius, about the year 250.
The Romans knew better than anybody, from their first regular bishop,
Clemens, that it was not St. Paul's.
The rest of the account given by Photius is positive and accurate
enough to prove that we have the work he speaks of before us, Ere I
enter into a detailed proof of this assertion, I will briefly state the three
leading points of my argument.
First : Our author follows the arrangement stated by Photius. He
begins with the old Judaizing sects, which were not connected with
Valentinus, as, according to the general tradition of antiquity, Simon
This is the characteristic difference between him and Irenæus.
That pious and learned bishop of the Gauls, having to deal principally
with the Valentinians of his time, his immediate adversaries, gradually
ascends to Valentinus personally, and lastly to Simon and the Simonians,
whom he considers as the root of the Gnostic system with which he had to
contend. Hippolytus adopted the reverse method, the truly historical
Clemens entire, it is not likely that much of it is wanting. But as Döllinger and
some English critics have made much of this mistake, I beg to refer to the pre-
ceding note to show that it is of no import whaterer. -1854,
was.
z 2
340
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
one. "The second book of this section (book vi.) begins with Simon, the
arch-sectary, and then proceeds to Valentinus. According to the same
principle, the first (book v.) treats of those primitive sects of Jewish
Christians, who, having set forth their speculative and cabalistic dreams
about the Old Testament and the Jewish rites, connected Jesus of
Nazareth, as the Christ, both with Judaic symbols and cosmogonic
theories, whereas those known in later times as the Gnostics (a name first
adopted, according to Hippolytus, by these Judaizing sects) started from
Gentile and anti-Judaic views.
Photius evidently found these Judaic sects, as we do in our book, at
the head of his treatise; but he expresses himself inaccurately. Instead
of calling them Ophites, as he might have done, or Naassenes, which
signifies the same in Hebrew, or Justinians, he designates them as Dosi-
theans, a sect not mentioned in our book at all. But the name represents
those earliest Judaizing schools : so the author of the Appendix to Ter-
tullian's book, “De Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum,” begins the list of
heretics with Dositheus. This is not correct; for Dositheus was not a
Christian at all, but lived before Christ, and founded a mystic sect
among the Samaritans. The last of the heresies treated by Hippolytus
in the work read by Photius was that of the Noetians : and so, in fact, it
is in our book.
Secondly : Our work, like that read by Photius, contains the enumera-
tion and refutation of just thirty-two heresies, a number corresponding
neither with the enumeration of Irenæus, nor with that given by Epipha-
niusi, or by any other known writer.ş
* Epiphan. Hæres iv. Samarit. p. 30. sq. Neander, K. G. i. 784. Anm. Dorner,
Person Christi, p. 144. See particularly A. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatho-
lischen Kirche (Bonn, 1850), p. 161.
f I repeat that this difficulty disappears if we suppose Phctius to be speaking of
the shorter treatise. As to Dositheus, as the starting point, if we consider that
Dositheus died after Christ, and that the Dositheans (which Photius alone mentions,
and not their author) were co-existing with Apostolic Christianity, the Ophites, as
the oldest sect of Jewish Christians, may easily have come to be looked upon as an
offspring or branch of that Jewish sect, for they are distinguished from Simonians,
and from Gentile Gnostics. Now, with regard to the conclusion of the list of heresies,
I do not see why we may not consider the article upon the Noetians to have been
the last, including the Callistians; for Photius says, the book concluded with
Noetus and the Noetians. The few words relating to the Elchasaites may have
been overlooked altogether, or else looked upon as an appendix. Döllinger's
scruples about the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, mentioned at the conclusion of our
book, if they are serious, will not weigh much with my readers. How absurd to
suppose Photius could have characterized the series of heresies in our work, as we
read it, thus: the author begins with the Dositheans and concludes with the
Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes !--1854.
* Hæresis xiv.
§ One of my reviewers, who betrays more anger than judgment, has, seriously as
it appears, coine forward, with the ingenious conjecture that the real book which
Photius read in the genuine work of Hippolytus, was that of the ignorant writer
whose superficial account of the heresies is appended to Tertullian's work, De
Præscriptionibus Hæreticorum, or the work from which this ignorant writer ex-
tracted his meagre notice. One of the most esteemed and learned works of
antiquity is to be identified with one of the most miserable compilations! What a want
of respect for the public, and what a state of mind does such a conjecture betray
THE ACCOUNT OF PHOTIUS.
341
Thirdly : Photius tells us that his author gives his work as based upon
that of Irenæus, and as being an extract from his “ Lectures.” Now I
shall soon show you whole articles copied from Irenæus, which contain
all his facts, leaving out his declamations and prolix refutations. Of
course Photius does not say that Hippolytus gave nothing but such an
extract. He evidently could only copy such articles as Irenæus had
written ; certainly not the account of the Noetians, and others later than
Irenæus, But, if Hippolytus' work was only an epitome from Irenæus,
with a continuation to his own times, Photius would not have spoken with
such regard of it; nor would later writers, who knew Irenæus full well,
have called it an indispensable book. Now what is the real relation of those
Irenæan articles to the original ? Our author takes, in the articles copied
from Irenæus, the historical facts, generally word for word. Then, leaving
out the rest, he gives in many cases very important additions, in the most
authentic form, by extracts from the works of the heresiarchs. Besides,
he has several articles which are entirely his own. To these necessarily
belong all those on heresies more recent than Irenæus, and generally on
all which his great master had omitted. But, in the next place, Hippoly-
tus has also some elaborate articles of his own on authors treated by
Irenæus, about whom Hippolytus had made “more accurate researches,"
as he says himself *
himself*, and as his works prove. With respect to all these
articles, we may say that, as far as the facts are concerned, and, therefore,
the extracts from the heretical works, our book is a very conscientious
critical enlargement of Irenæus. For, if we look to the facts given by
that father, and pass by his theological refutations, we are reduced,
almost exclusively, to the first book of the five against heresies; and in
this far the greater portion is taken up by his own reasoning. We may
therefore say, that Hippolytus' work is both an enlargement and an im-
provement of the first book of Irenæus, and still adopt Photius' assertion,
that the author gives it as a synopsis made from Irenæus. Indeed, a
passage of our book refers to Irenæus for that very purpose.*
Learned men could indulge in such a supposition before the work of Hippolytus,
or, at least, one of his works on the subject, was known. But now the case is very
different. Döllinger lays great stress on the point that the epitome alluded to
does not call Dositheus a Christian heretic, but a Jewish one. But I have simply
stated the fact that, after having announced to Christian readers a list of heretics, he
mentions in the first place Dositheus, as Hippolytus concludes with the Essenes.-
1854.
* åkpıbéotepovéget áoas, p. 203., speaking of Marcosians.
# I have commented upon this passage below (under X.), in examining the article
upon Marcus the Valentinian, at the beginning and end of which is found the
reference to the works of Irenæus (vi. 44, 55.). If Photius had not in his mind this
very part of the Refutation, in which indeed Irenæus is mentioned, not once, but
twice, it bears at least fully out what he says. I think it, therefore, worth while to
examine the passage more minutely, in order to show that the solution I have given in
the article upon Marcus, upon the incontestable general sense of a corrupt passage, is
unassailable by honest criticism, but.capable of restoration, only in the sense
assumed by me. As to the text of the whole concluding chapter of the sixth book
in which this passage occurs, I have given it in my Analecta. Where our author
begins to treat of Marcus (ch. 39. p. 200.), he refers to a former exposure he had made
(undoubtedly in his Syntagma) of the fraudulent tricks practised by him and similar
impostors. “I had found out,” he says, “even their last secret word (the unspeakable),
not
Z 3
342
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
Nor does the improvement consist only in those incomparably more
copious and authentic extracts, but also in the chronological, or rather
genealogical, account of the heresies, which he has substituted for
Irenæus' arrangement.
but refrained from divulging it.” “When even,” he continues, ch. 42., “the blessed
presbyter Irenæus, having argued with considerable freedom against this system, had
explained such absolutions, and formularies of Redemption, stating their doings rather
strongly, some of the sect, having met with these statements” (I read ols ÈUTUXOVTES,
instead of oi évtUXOUTES), “denied their having been taught such things, doing
honour to what they have learned, namely always to deny. It has therefore been my
care to search with greater accuracy and to find out minutely, both what they receive
in the first absolution, which they call by this name, and what in the second, which
they call the Redemption. Not even their unspeakable mystery has remained unex-
plored to us. But we will forgive that to Valentinus and his school.” The mean-
ing of all this is, that he knows all the horrors and obscenities which Irenæus had
touched upon, and even the secret word which is said by the Bishop to the initiated
generally in the hour of death : he foregoes dwelling upon such abominations, which
they themselves meet by a simple denial. My scope is not such an exposure” (he
says, end. of ch. 41), “but to demonstrate whence they have taken their first philo-
sophical principles, starting from which they have established their doctrine." He
alludes by these words to his preceding argumentation (ch. 21–27.) that the specu-
lative elements of the Valentinian system are to be found in Pythagoras.
And now follows the largest transcription from the text of Irenæus which is found
in the whole book. It forms the fifteenth part of the whole book, for it occupies in
the Paris edition fully seventeen pages,
almost one third of the sixth book,—'and
contains five entire chapters of the first book of Irenæus (x.-—-xiv.), quite textually
(with remarkable various readings), whereas generally (and in the beginning of this
very article) he extracts the text of Irenæus freely. After that insertion, Hippolytus
hastens to the conclusion of the sixth book and says: “This is what the Valentinians
say of creation and of the universe, always inventing one thing vainer than another,
and thinking to have been very successful if one startles the people by new inven-
tions of this sort. And out of the scriptures, having gratuitously interpreted all so
as to agree with those numbers of which I have spoken, they accuse Moses and the
Prophets, by pretending that they have expressed (by such numbers) the measures
(size) of the Æons.” The Greek text of our manuscript then continues thus: “ A
παρατιθέναι μοι ουκ έδοξεν, όντα φλυαρά και ασύστατα, ήδη του μακαρίου πρεσβυ-
τέρου Ειρηναίου δεινώς και πεπονημένως τα δόγματα αυτών διελέγξαντος, παρ' ου και
αυτών έφευρήματα επιδεικνύντες αυτούς Πυθαγορείου φιλοσοφίας και αστρολόγων περιεργίας
ταύτα σφετερισταμένους εγκαλείν Χριστώ ώς ταύτα παραδεδωκέναι.” And then he
concludes the book, in order to treat in the next of Basilides.
The sentence I have transcribed in Greek evidently cannot be construed. It is also
clear that the correction offered by the learned editor, to read, kal oºk aùt wv
έφευρήματα επιδεικνύντος, αλλ' εκ Πυθαγ., does not help us out of our difficulties.
For ŠtidelKVÚvtos would imply that it had been Irenæus who had demonstrated that
the Valentinians had borrowed their speculative principles from Pythagoras and the
old astrologers; and this is exactly what Irenæus has not done, and what Hippolytus
had proposed to do, and has achieved with much erudition and ability. 'ETIDELKVÚVTES,
therefore, is sound, and must have the verbum finitum to which it refers. Here two
ways are open to us. We
may read at the end of the sentence instead of Tapadedw-
κέναι, which evidently is corrupt, παραδεδώκαμεν; the construction would then run
thus: παρ' ού (Ειρηναίου) και αυτών έφευρήματα .... ως ταύτα παραδεδώκαμεν.
The sense would be: We have taken from him what we have laid before our readers,
respecting their inventions, namely, the exposition of the system, literally copied
from Irenæus. But the whole sentence is very lame; we are therefore led to sup-
pose that the verbum finitum has been left out (here, as in many other cascs) by
our copyist, and that Hippolytus wrote: Παρ' ου και αυτών έφευρήματα μετειλή-
φαμεν, επιδεικνύντες αυτούς .... εγκαλείν Χριστώ ώς ταύτα παραδεδωκότι. The
sentence then runs very smoothly, “from whom we have also transcribed their inven-
tions, showing, besides that which they have stolen from Pythagorean philosophy and
GENERAL PLAN OF THE REFUTATION.
343
There is also a great improvement in another essential point: Hippoly-
tus' account of the heresies is preceded by a lucid and learned review of
the systems of physical philosophy, principally those of the Greeks, but
also of the Egyptians and Assyrians. In this first treatise he has
collected what best proves the great argument which is entirely peculiar
to him and characteristic of our work. Hippolytus says he will show
that whatever is given by the heretics as Christian speculation, and even
doctrine, is borrowed, in its first principles, from those older systems, and
in particular from the Greeks; only with this difference, that the Greeks
have the merit of invention, and of having expressed everything much
better. He applies the same argument of want of originality to the
mysteries and orgies which those heretics wanted to introduce into the
Christian world, and which he endeavours to show to be a reproduction
of those of Paganism. If, then, proceeds his argument, their first prin-
ciples are not their own, how can they claim credit for them as inventors ?
and how can they father them upon Christ and the Apostles ? That
point once established, says Hippolytus, it is unnecessary to enter into
any detailed refutation of those heretical principles. This very sensible
idea is such a favourite with him, that most of the articles which are his
own are preceded by, or interwoven with, a recapitulation of those specu-
lative principles of the philosophers, which bear specially on the heresy
he is to explain and refute. It is true that this method of reducing the
heretical systems to Pythagorean, or Platonic, or Aristotelian specula-
lations, is sometimes not quite conclusive, and may be termed fanciful.
Indeed, the whole refutation is not always satisfactory, and the whole idea
is not original. Pantænus, the founder of the Catechetic school of
Alexandria, himself originally a thorough Academic philosopher, had first
recommended and applied that method, as we know from Clemens, his
disciple. Irenæus had taken this hint, or at least thrown out the idea
the fancy of astrologers, they accuse Christ of having taught the same.” But in either
case, so much is clear, that Hippolytus has made in this passage a very natural ac-
knowledgment of his having transcribed, literally, from Irenæus, the whole exposition
of the system of Marcus, one third almost of one of the largest of his ten books.
This transcription, distinct from his introductory notions respecting Marcus and
his tricks, and from his ordinary extracts in general, would otherwise be downright
plagiarism. So much for justifying and strengthening what I have asserted here
and below, that Hippolytus himself speaks of having made use of the work of his
We get, of course, rid of this difficulty, if we assume that the article of
Photius does not concern our book at all, but only the former Treatise, or Syntagma,
on the heresies. But the critical question about the meaning of our passage remains
the same, and none of my objectors has touched it.
It is scarcely necessary to add a word respecting the philological exception which
Döllinger takes to my interpretation. He says, Hippolytus having used, in speaking
of himself, the singular immediately before, and repeating it very soon afterwards,
we cannot suppose that he would have used the plural between the two. And
still Hippolytus does so in many places. I will only take the conclusion of the
first book : Τάς μέν ούν ... δόξας έκανώς εκτεθείσθαι νομίζω ... Δοκώ δε πρότερον
έκθεμένους τα μυστικά ... είπείν • έπειτα ακολούθως τα [υπ'] αυτών αδρανή δόγματα
φανερώσωμεν. The fifth book begins thus : Πάνυ νομίζω τα δόξαντα... εκτεθείσθαι
Περιλείπεται τοίνυν επί των αιρέσεων έλεγχον ορμάν-τούτου χάριν... εκτεθείμεθα.
Döllinger, besides (as well as an English critic, whose fanaticism and personal violence
precludes my answering him, while his observations themselves contain little worth
notice), is unable to construe the passage, or to explain away the words trap' oŮ, relat-
ing to Irenæus. --- 1854.
master.
ጊ Z4
344
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
that it was useful to trare many of the speculative opinions of the heresi.
archs to the doctrine of the ancient schools of Greek philosophy. The
nineteenth chapter of the second book proves this. But this chapter goes
through the argument in a very hurried and confused manner : sufficiently
to give him the merit of having inspired the first four books of our work,
but not at all to make the author his transcriber. Hippolytus carried out
accurately, by recurring to the sources, what his master had sketched out
roughly, and he treated methodically what Irenæus had touched upon in-
cidentally. He worked out the argument as completely as he could, and
made his succinct but coherent review of ancient philosophumena an
integral part of the work, placing it judiciously at the head. Thus
understood, the comparison of that chapter of Irenæus with our first four
books leads to a striking confirmation of Photius' account, and furnishes
us, moreover, with a proof of the originality of the book and of the
independent researches of its author.
These, then, are the three points I hope to prove satisfactorily, and of
these three the third is the most important, and irresistibly conclusive.
I do not see how I can go through this argument conscientiously, with-
out a complete enumeration of the thirty-two articles in question, with
reference to these points, and especially to the third. This letter will
therefore necessarily be a long one. I shall endeavour to keep strictly to
the subject. If I allow myself to call your attention here and there to
some of the special results, in showing how the new facts which we learn
from our author bear directly upon the critical controversies of our day,
the interest attaching to the subject will be my excuse. But I beg you
not to consider this as an attempt to exhaust the new materials for thought
and investigation now open to us, which, for many years to come, will
occupy the thoughtful scholars who care for truth and Christianity, but
merely as the hints of one who is among the foremost to travel through
these records, and, as he passes on in haste, cannot see the gold of truth
and knowledge lying on the surface, or glittering amid the stones and
rubbish, without telling you of it.
If I am not mistaken, this auspiciously discovered book will oblige all
who think it their duty to speak or write on the doctrinal history of the
earliest Church, to give up the method followed almost without exception,
from the fourth and fifth century down to the eighteenth, and first com-
bated by Basnage, and above all by Mosheim. I do not know, whether in
reading the ancient and modern accounts of heretics you have had the
same impression; but I confess I have always felt a doubt who were the
greatest fools, they who invented and believed such absurd and wicked
imaginations and conceits, or they who seriously refuted them, or finally,
they who took all this for a piece of history. For certainly all those
representations of heresies from the fourth to the eighteenth century have
led, and needs must lead, to a conclusion much like that of the Pharisee
in the temple, which may be worded thus: “God, I thank thee that I am
not as one of those monsters, sinners, sons of Belial, nor condemned to
dispute with them, but that I am a good (Catholic or Protestant) Chris-
tian.” Or in a strain like this: “but that I am a philosopher, knowing,
as a reasonable theist, that all this is stuff of the dark ages,' most pro-
bably not true, but at all events of no interest for our enlightened and
BOOK V, 1.
345
THE NAASSÊNIOR OPHITES.
advancing age, in which I have the (well deserved) privilege to live." I
can well understand how that good, pious, and learned divine of the last
century, Gottfried Arnold, at Halle, tried his hand at the ancient heresies,
in order to find out whether at the bottom of all that absurdity there had
not been some thought, and in all that apparently wilful wickedness some
honest and respectable conviction, and above all, how we knew that those
people really said all the absurdity and impiety which are laid to their
charge. There is a decided reaction in Arnold ; and I consider it as one
of the triumphs of modern criticism, that we have got over this mere re-
action of an ingenuous mind, as well as over that dry, unhistorical (and, I
must add, generally uncritical, and always prejudiced) way of treating the
theological systems of the first three centuries, not judging them by what
they are in themselves, but simply by what they are, or may be supposed
to be, with reference to certain terms, formulas, and theories of later ages.
These formularies may be true ; but they are at all events not those of
the first ages; and the metaphysical distinctions they proceed upon are
not revealed facts, but conventional philosophy.
All I can say is, that if you have a similar feeling on this subject, you
will hail with me this recently discovered work as standing upon a very
different ground. Our good father of the Church is of very strict ortho-
doxy, and does not always use very mild language towards those who
taught different speculative and exegetical theories in his time, two suc-
cessive Roman bishops not excepted. But he does so in self-defence, as
he himself says, and with the unmistakable accent of Christian conviction
and charity. He does not disdain to look for thought in the midst of
apparent absurdity, for honest purpose even amongst those whom he
combats. Moreover, he thinks philosophical controversies cannot be
understood without an adequate philosophy: thought, he supposes, right
or wrong, can only be appreciated by thought. He therefore deems it
well to ask the question, whether the theories, logical, metaphysical, or
physical, discussed among Christians upon Christian grounds, were not
discussed before by Hellens and barbarians under the form of pure
reasoning; and he comes to the conclusion that very often they were so.
He further proceeds upon the assumption that he and we shall better
understand the heresies, if we examine them as they followed each other,
instead of going backward. Above all, he thinks it fair to let even a heretic
speak for himself, and not in broken sentences (by which method you may
make any one say pretty much what you like), but in long, coherent,
distinct passages. This method certainly proves itself very valuable for
the knowledge of facts; and besides it saves us much weariness, --which if
any one does not know, I would beg him to read through Epiphanius, and
he will know it for life.
Let us see now, whether these advantages do not show themselves in
the very first book on heresies, the fifth of the work.
BOOK V.
This book treats first of the Ophites or Worshippers of the Serpent, as
the symbol of the moving principle of the universe.
I. The NAASSÊNI or OPHITES, from nakhash, the Hebrew word for a
serpent. (30 pages, 94—123.)
346.
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
They, and their cognate sects, called themselves Gnostics, as being the
only persons who knew the “depths” (p. 94.) ; but they received, like
the others, the name of Naassêni or Ophites, because they said the
Serpent was the real God, to whom every temple was consecrated, as
representing the first generative substance, the moist element, corre-
sponding to Thales' water (p. 119. sqq.). They also called the first prin-
ciple Logos, the “ Man from above,” Adamas, whom they glorified in
their hymns (p. 95. cf. 122.). He, like everything, consists of three prin-
ciples, spiritual, psychical, and material, which elements all coalesced in
Jesus, the son of Mary James, our Lord's brother, had delivered the
whole system to Mariamne. They used as their Gospel that known to us,
by some ancient quotations, as the Gospel according to the Egyptians *
(p. 98.); and another (if it was not substantially the same), called the
Gospel according to Thomas (p. 101.). They also make use of the Gospel
of St. John, and of the Epistles of St. Paul, as well as of the Old Testa-
ment. Their reasonings seem principally founded upon speculative ideas
of Philo's school t , which they attempted to support either by the most
unscrupulous misinterpretation of Scripture or by dark ancient rites and
mysteries. The birthplace of this sect is evidently Phrygia, the fruitful
soil of all orgiastic extravagances: for to the language, rites, and
mysteries of this country everything is reduced in the last instance. A
beautiful mystical hymn, by which the public celebration of the mysteries
was opened in the theatre in honour of Attis, is given in this place.
Schneidewin thinks it belongs to the age and style of Mysomedes, who
flourished under Antoninus Pius. ]
As to their rites, they seem to have been truly Phrygian, that is,
orgiastic, wild, and connected with phallic symbolism. They did not
adopt the mutilation of their priests, but forbade marriage (p. 119.).
II. Next come the PERATÆ or PERATICS (pp. 123–138.), founded by
Euphrates, called ó IIeparirós, which name Clemens Alexandrinus rightly
understood as indicating their country. Your remark in our conversation
on the subject has led me to connect this name with the description of his
companion, Ademes ||, as the Carystian. This makes him a Eubean ;
and as Eubea is called so frequently ij népav, the country beyond the
channel, Peratæ inay be taken for a general designation of the school,
from the native country of their founders or leading authors. This is not
in contradiction to the fact that a cognate sect became decidedly a
Phrygian one. The name of Euphrates was known before from Origen;
* A nylov of Christ, written in this Gospel, is alluded to in one of their books
(p. 99.): omov oủk čotiv oudè Jau oudè đpoev. Pseudo-Clem. Rom. Ep. ii. $ 12.:
όταν έσται τα δύο εν, και το έξω ώς το έσω, και το άρσεν της θηλείας, ούτε άρσεν ούτε
Inau. Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. iii. p. 465. (See Analecta, 1. — 1854).
† To this class belongs the question (p. 98.), Whether the soul is ék TOÚ a pobytos
or εκ του αυτογενούς (the text has εκ του αυτού γένους, which gives no sense; the use
of αυτογενής by our author is proved by 124, 27, 43.) ή εκ του εκκεχυμένου χάους.
# Philologus, iii. 246.
Š I have pointed out in my picture of the third age in what relation the system
of the Ophites seems to have stood to Basilides and Valentinus.
| Theodoret also calls him Ademes: in our text the name is written in another
passage Kelbes, and in a third Akembes.
BOOK V. 2. THE PERATÆ. 3. SETHIANI. 4. JUSTINUS. 347
bút so little did we know of himself, that Neander thinks he may have
lived before Christ. *
We have here a mixed sect, which, starting from general Oriental and
Jewish speculations, and local mysticism and orgies, adopted Christianity
in their own way as an order of the initiated. Their whole system is
decidedly fatalistic and astrological ; and it would seem that they in-
terpreted their name, Peratai, with reference to the Greek arépav, trans,
or repãv, transire, saying that by their gnosis they alone of mankind
should pass through destruction and get beyond it, a derivation, which
proves only that they did not like the true one (p. 131.). Their sacred
book too had a mystical title not easily explained. † (pp. 130, 131. 49.).
Neander's doubt, whether Euphrates did not live before Christ, is de.
cidedly solved by the extracts here given : for Christ is evidently an
integral element in their wild physical speculation; and they quote the
Gospels and St. Paul as well as the Old Testament. The worship of the
Serpent as the first moving principle (p. 135.), and the triplicity of the
first cause, seem to have been their leading doctrines. The Demiurg, or
creator of the visible world, is the evil principle (p. 136.). I
III. The SETHIANI (pp. 138–148.), from Seth, Eno, constantly, but
falsely, written in the text Sidlavoí. Their sacred book was called
Ilapá ppaois Eno, from the name of the old patriarch (p. 147. sq.), who was
ever among the Jews the symbol of mystical and lying tradition, to which
the famous columns of Seth also belong. They worshipped the Serpent
and the Logos (pp. 142, 143.), made use of Orphic theology, and of the
mysteries of Eleusis &, and believed themselves, like all Gnostics, the
only elect and the only knowing (p. 146.).
IV. JUSTinus, not of course the martyr, but the Gnostic (pp. 148–159.),
who wrote the “Book of Baruch " for his sect (p. 149.). - He regarded
Jesus as the son of Mary and Joseph (p. 156.). His followers had other
sacred books. They also adopted three causes or first principles (p. 150.),
and had genealogies of angels, springing from Elohim and Edem (Eden),
the female principle. Amongst their names we meet Amen, which may
explain Apoc. iii. 14.: and the well-known Achamoth of the Irenæan
Ophites (i. 30, 31.). Elohim sends Baruch to Jesus, when he was twelve
years of age, in the time of Herod, watching sheep. He brought him the
* Kirchengeschichte, i. 771.
f Oi npoko TELO Éws ailépos, “ the Suburbans up to the Ether,” is evidently corrupt.
Perhaps the title was: Ilepárai éws aidépos, “the Transcendental Etherians.”—1854.
# The important part of this mysticism is, that it proves the antiquity of Jewish-
Christian speculations respecting the Logos, as the divine principle of movement or
development; speculations kindred to, but independent of Philo. I deny that there
is any good reason whatever for seeing in the Logos of the Prologue a reference to
the Valentinian Logos: I consider it, on the contrary, as proved convincingly, that
even the earliest Valentinian speculations presupposed the Prologue as their foun.
dation and authority. But if this topsy-turvy theory of the anti-historical specula-
tive school wanted a new confutation, this report of Hippolytus respecting the
Peratai, the authenticity of which cannot be denied, is as irreconcilable with it as
the passages in Basilides and Valentinus referring to St. John.-—1854.
$. p. 144.. where, instead of ueyannyopía (for which the editor proposes meyaan
εορτή), I read μεγάλα όργια ; and p. 145. 21., Φλιασίας όργια instead of φλοιαϊς ιονόρ-
για, M. Miller conjectures συνόργια or όργια.
348
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
was.
message of the true God, and encouraged him to announce it to mankind.
Jesus answered, “Lord, I will do all.” The Serpent becoming wroth at
this, brought about his death on the cross (p. 156. sq.). The followers of
this sect took a frightful oath when initiated.
Of all this we knew next to nothing hitherto. It is now clear that we
have to deal with sects which were coeval with Peter and Paul, as Simon
But they started from foreign Judaism, mixed up with the pan
theistic mysticism of Asia Minor. Hereby they were also opposed to the
Valentinians, who started from Gentile ground; although, being Christians,
they could not help drawing Judaism into the sphere of their speculations.
Our author, as we shall see presently, derives the Valentinian principles
from Simon, and brings Cerinthus, who also belongs to the first century,
into connection with them. But he distinguishes the Ophites entirely
from all these, and places them at the head of the whole list, which, he
repeatedly says, indicates the order they appeared in. Irenæus represents
the Ophites expressly as predecessors of Valentinianism: but the schools
he enumerates are evidently mixed up with this system. Nothing is more
natural. The first outburst of Gnosticism sprang from a mixture of
Christianity with Phrygian Judaism, imbued generally with Gentile
speculations, orgies and mysteries. The Jewish element was considered
as the least important. But, after Valentinus had taken upon himself to
solve that great problem of the world's history, Judaism, by interpreting
it as the working of the Demiurg, or the mundane evil principle, those
Gnostics appropriated many of the leading speculations and fictions of
Valentinianism. Thus we can explain the representation, which Irenæus,
in the last two chapters of his first book, gives of the Ophitic systems.
We have now, for the first time, the pure, primitive Ophites before us.
And are they really unknown to us? I hope, on the contrary, my dear
friend, you will agree with me, that most probably we have here the very
heretics to whom the Apostle alludes in the fourth chapter of his First
Epistle to Timothy. The “endless genealogies” (i. 4.) must be ex-
plained, as many have suggested, of the cosmological genealogies of
æons or angels. Here we have them, in the very words of the most
ancient sects. All that has been said against the Pauline origin of that
Epistle, and of the Pastoral Letters in general, on the score of the allu-
sions to heretics of a later date, thus falls entirely to the ground. I
believe I have proved in my “Letters on Ignatius,” that the development
of the constitutions of the Church, and the history of the organization of
the congregations, leads irresistibly to the same result. The state of the
Churches at the end of the first century was decidedly different from that
exhibited in the Pastoral Epistles.
But do you not see, that the whole scheme of the late origin of the
Gospel of St. John falls also to the ground, if our book is authentic, as
* It does, of course, not follow, from what I have said here in the text, that the
books themselves, from which Hippolytus made his extracts, were as old as the
origin of those sects. On the contrary, I doubt this; they appear to me to have been
written after Valentinus, when those sects assimilated their dreams or speculations to
the system of this superior mind. But the original groundwork of their system is
discernible enough. The symbol of the Serpent, as representing the ever-moving and
'entwining principle of finiteness is no more Valentinian than it is Mosaic.-1854.
BOOK V.
349
GENERAL RESULT.
undoubtedly it is, and if our author deserves credit for the arrangement
of his historical account, and justly claims authority for his extracts from
the sacred books of those Phrygian-Jewish fathers of Gnosticism? The
Ophites all know the Logos, and all worship the Serpent as his symbol,
or that of the Demiurg opposed to him : for on that point there seems to
have been a difference among them. They refer, however, not to the
Logos of Philo, but to the Logos personified in man, and identified with
Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Mary. The only admissible alternative,
therefore, seems to me to be this. When St. John, towards the end of
the first century, wrote down his evidence respecting Jesus the Christ,
and placed at the head of his exposition those simple and grand words on
the Logos, he either referred to sects who had abused the speculations
about the Logos, as God's thought of himself, or he did not. If he did,
as it seems to me impossible to doubt, he cannot have had in mind so
much the philosophical followers of Philo, who abhorred the very idea of
the personal union of the Logos with Man, as the Christian heretics who
perverted this idea in one way or another. This being the case, I main-
tain that he had before him the very sects which we have now become
acquainted with from their own writings, the very titles of which we did
not know hitherto. At all events, then, what the Apostle says is not the
Christian and popular expression of a speculative system of Valentinianism,
but the simple statement of the fact, that the Logos is neither an abstract
notion, nor an angel, nor an aon (if that word existed as a term), but
that He is one with the Man Jesus, the Christ.
That this reasoning is sound, the progress of our researches will easily
prove. For even in the second stage of Gnosticism, the Gentile one, we
find the very words of St. John evidently alluded to, twenty or thirty
years before the middle of the second century, when, according to the
most unhappy of all philological conjectures, and the most untrue of all
historical views, the system of Strauss and Baur, that Gospel was coin-
posed, in order to transfuse a tame Gnosticism into the Church.
In declaring myself so strongly against Baur's historical hypothesis, I
think it is only fair to add, that no one has done more for the speculative
comprehension of the Gnostic systems than this eminent writer, of whose
researches concerning that part of the history of philosophy those only
can speak without respect, who have never read them or who are incapable
of understanding them. The facts now before us show, that many of his
acute illustrations of the very difficult and abstruse concluding chapters of
Irenæus' first book, and especially his treatise on the Ophites (Gnosis,
pp. 171–207.), are wonderfully confirmed by the work before us. It is
unnecessary to say, that Neander's representation of those systems in the
second edition of his “Ecclesiastical History"* gains many a confirma-
tion from our pages. But I beg to refer the reader especially to some
hints which Dorner gives in his marvellous work on the “History of the
Doctrine about the Person of Christt; and to A. Ritschl, “On the
Origin of the ancient Catholic Church," a book full of independent
research.
* Kirchengeschichte, 2d edition, i. 764–774.
+ 2d edition, pp. 297. 355. note 196., p. 365. note 207,
350
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIEŠ.
BOOK VI.
Simon, Valentinus, and the Valentinians. 62 pages, pp. 161--222.,
with
copious extracts.
The author at the beginning repeats that he intends to enumerate the
heresies in succession.*
V. SIMON of Gitta in Samaria (pp. 161--177.; compare the Gittean,
iv. pp. 51–90.; Irenæus, i. 23. & 3.). — The story of Peter's meeting him
at Rome, where he died, is told here in a new form. Şimon caused
himself to be buried alive, promising to rise like Christ (p. 170.). This
myth is just worth as much as any other about Simon's death: the utter
diversity of the stories, and the fabulous nature of the whole, prove
this.
But how can men of sense conclude from this, that Simon must have
been altogether a mythical person, and that we can have no writings
belonging to his immediate disciples, who wrote down his (true or
supposed) system?
There were such works.Ť As the principal book on Simon's doctrine,
our author mentions the “Great Announcement, or Revelation” (Meyáin
årógaois) (pp. 165—168.), –a Gnostic work, full of Pagan fables,
decidedly anti-Judaic and antinomian, favouring impurity. The Simonians
had mysteries bearing the same character (p. 175.). The Valentinians
took their start from these tenets ; although nobody will believe that
the “Great Announcement,” in which some verses of Empedocles are
quoted, was Simon's work, any more than that the books of the St.
Simonian sect of our days are by St. Simon. Still Simon appears through
out, not as a mere impostor, but as a man combining with Christianity
certain metaphysical tenets, which were formed by his immediate followers
into a system, based, like that of all the Gnostics, upon the assumption of
the evil principle as one of the primary acting causes of the universe.
The “ • Great Announcement,” bearing Simon's name, represents there-
fore the system of the Simonians in the first generation after him. The
root of all existence (says this book, p. 163.) is infinite, and abides in man,
who serves as its dwelling-house. It is of a double nature, latent and
manifest: the first comprehends all that can be thought. The word of
God lives in man. From that original root, the hidden principle, spring
three pairs of manifestations :
Mind and Thought (νούς και επίνοια);
Voice and Name (φωνή και όνομα);
Reasoning and Reflection (λογισμός και ενθύμησις).
The infinite power (fúvauis) is in all these six roots, but potentially, not
* The first period is to be corrected thus : “Όσα μεν ούν έδόκει τους από του όφεως
τας αρχάς παρειληφόσι, και κατά τελείωσιν (t. κατά μείωσιν) των χρόνων είς φανερών
τας δόξας ανοσίως (t. εκουσίως) προενεγκαμένοις (t. προσεν.) εν τη προ ταύτης βίβλω
ούση πέμπτη του Ελέγχου (t. τους ελέγχους) των αιρέσεων εξεθέμην. As to the story
of Apsethos the Libyan, and his parro's (p. 161.), the editor refers to Apostolius
Prov, v. Vapôv. Almost the same story is told of Hanno the Carthaginian, Ælian.
Var. Hist. xiv. 30. Compare Justin. xxi. 4.; Plin. H. N. viii. 16.
† Compare on this point Grabe, Spicileg. Patrum, i. 308–310.
BOOK VI.
351
5. SIMON THE GITTEAN.
aetually (ovvápel oủk įvepycią, comp. p. 171.). In order not to perish, the
infinite power must be typified, imaged (ibarkoviskolai); otherwise it becomes
extinct: whereas, if thus actuated, it loses nothing by this manifesta-
tion. By a progressive manifestation, those six roots become three other
ov%uylai, or pairs :
Heaven and Earth ;
Sun and Moon;
Air and Water.
The infinite power working in all of them is called by a compound name :
He who stands, has stood, will stand (ó otÙS, ò oras, ó otnoóuevos); a term
dimly alluded to in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, which
say, that Simon called himself Stans (the standing)*, and reminding us
of Apocalypse, i. 8. Simon considered himself as in a special manner the
manifestation of this infinite power (p. 175.): but we have already seen
that this was, according to him, the general attribute of man when he had
attained to knowledge, with a difference only in degree.
The author endeavoured to explain by his theory the six days of the
creation, and to build upon it a whole cosmogonic system (pp. 166–174.),
for which he quotes the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and the Prophets. He
also pretended to find proofs of his speculative system in St. Paul's writ-
ings, of which he quotes the First Epistle to the Corinthians. He tries
likewise to show that the Greek mythology points to a similar theory.
And here his mysterious Helen becomes the prominent figure. Helen is
to him the successive incarnations of Beauty, dazzling the powers
(orváuers) that work on the earth. Every body knows the story that
Simon carried about a woman, whom he said to be the newly embodied
Helen of Troy. He had bought her, a forlorn slave, at Tyre, and said
(or is reported to have said, for we have no extracts to vouch for this),
that she was human nature redeemed by him. But what our book seems
to prove (in spite of the confusion between reports, anecdotes, and extracts)
is, that he called the ideal Helen, not his paramour, the “forlorn sheep,
and that he placed her in connection with the daughter of the Canaanitish
woman, whom Christ healed in passing by Tyre (Matt. xv.). It may be
true, that Simon said he was his Helen's Saviour, and that he himself had
come to Tyre to loosen her from her fetters, he himself being " the power
over all.”+ It may be also true, that the Simonians worshipped two
images, said to represent Simon and Helen, under the likeness of Jore
and Minerva, and called them “ Lord” and “ Lady” (kúpioc, kupia); but
our author himself is candid enough to add, they excluded from their sect
any one who called those persons by the names of Simon and Helen
(p. 176.). They considered it therefore clearly as a calumny. It may
even be true, that the conduct of Simon and Helen was the cause or pre-
* Ritschl. p. 161.
+ Compare Acts viii. 10.: Ouris eaTuv % Suvauts Toũ Đeos 7 Ey4A7. The history
of this Helen of Simon is told by Irenæus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and
Theodoret. In the text of the latter it is only necessary to read étaipav instead of
éTépay, to understand the sense. In Hippolytus' text I read (p. 175. 14 ) 'O Sè
μιαρός, ερασθείς του γυναίου, instead of o δε ψυχρός ερασθείς του γ., which gives
no senise whatever.
352
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
text of those scandalous orgies of the sect, of which our author gives us
such shocking details. Indeed, it seems impossible to doubt, from the
extracts here exhibited (p. 175.), that some of them (in his time) blas-
phemously and satanically abused the most sacred formularies of the
ancient liturgy of the communion to designate and sanctify their horrible
impurities*, justifying their conduct by saying, they were redeemed,
washed, emancipated, free, saved, not by their works, but by grace. But
all this does not prove in any way that Simon said of himself, or that the
Simonians said, he, Simon, had appeared to the Jews as the Son, to the
Samaritans as the Father, and to the Gentiles as the Holy Spirit. For
the account of our author, though confused,—the quotations from the
“Great Announcement” being here interrupted by the traditional story of
Simon and Helen, and the scandals connected with it,-clearly proves that
those words referred to Jesus, and not to Simon. For, after the exposition
of the immoral principles of the Simonians, the extracts begin (p. 175. 24.)
with sentences evidently relating to the life of Jesus. Having redeemed
Helen, he thus vouchsafed salvation to mankind through his own intelli-
gence (or by means of the knowledge he gave them of themselves). For
the "angels having administered the world badly, in consequence of their
love of power, Jesus came (Simon said) for the work of restoration, having
been transformed, and made like to the principalities and powers, and to
the angels. He thus appeared as a man, not being such, and seemed to
suffer in Judea, although he did not really sufferf, but was manifested to
the Jews as the Son, in Samaria as the Father, among the other nations
as the Holy Spirit. He allows men to call him by whichever name they
please."}
Now, how could Simon say of himself that he had suffered death in
Judea ? The whole account, therefore, refers to Jesus, and gives, origin-
ally at least, Simon's doctrine on the appearance, life, and sufferings of
Christ. Thus that mysterious saying about the Son, Father, and
Spirit, becomes intelligible. Jesus did call himself the Son in Judea.
To the Samaritans he manifested the Father; and indeed in the words
spoken to the Samaritan woman (St. John, iv. 21–23.), Jesus refers
them to the Father, and the worship of the Father, and nothing is said
about the Son. It is also quite intelligible how Simon could say,
that Jesus appeared among the Gentiles as the Holy Spirit; for it was
under the authority of the Holy Spirit, poured out upon them, and com-
municated by them, that the Apostles preached Jesus among the
Gentiles.
* Ταύτην είναι λέγοντες την τελείαν αγάπην, και το «“Αγιος άγιος” (or άγιον αγίων)
και «'Αλλήλους αγιάζετε” (now unintelligibly printed και το άγιος αγίων ... λλη . ος
αγιασθήσεται). These horrors reappear almost literally in the account of the
“ Infamies des Couvens,” authentically detailed in the protocols of Ricci's visitation
of the Tuscan convents, under Archduke Leopold, published by De Potter. It is
not irrelevant to add, that the Bernese Protestant fanatics, whom I saw in 1841 in
prison after their just condemnation, perverted in a similar way the sublimest pas-
sages of Scripture in their impure orgies, and had a printed liturgy composed for
this purpose.
+ Και παθείν εν τη Ιουδαία δεδοκηκέναι μη πεπονθότα : the text is now deformed by
haring rai before dedornkéval. There can be no doubt as to the sense, and I think
none either as to the reading. (Scott has adopted the same correction.--1854).
Baur, Die Christliche Gnosis, p. 305.
BOOK VI.
353
5. SIMON THE GITTEAN.
Of this I feel quite sure. But I confess I cannot understand the
meaning of the “ lost sheep,” an evident allusion to the Parable, in con-
nection with Helen, except by assuming that Simon combined the account
of the Canaanitish woman with his allegory of Humanity suffering in the
form of Helen under the fetters of her mundane existence. The mother
crying out for help for her daughter possessed by the evil spirit
(daquoviſerai, Matt. xv. 22.), the Apostles requesting Jesus to redeem her
(átólvoov avrhv, v. 23.), and his first saying that he was sent to the
lost sheep” (rà apóbara tà årodwóra, v. 24.) of Israel, were allegorized
by Simon, as alluding to human nature in this life, and to the work of
redemption (Xútpwors, pp. 174. 12., 175. 25), and then mythicized by
reference to Helen of Troy, Helen of the mysteries, Helen of Stesichorus,
and finally Helen at Tyre, first healed by Jesus, and later found in
another shape by Simon, who became her Deliverer.
I may, therefore, state this as the result of our criticism on this passage.
There is a confusion in Hippolytus' account; but we can make out the
truth, if we examine his words with care; whereas Irenæus, whom
Eusebius and Theodoret have merely transcribed, gave the whole story
in such a mutilated shape, that he rendered it very questionable as a fact,
and made a correct explanation impossible.
On the whole, it is very interesting to compare our article with the cor-
responding chapters in Irenæus (i. 20, 21.). Such a comparişon will leave
no doubt as to the relation which our work bears to his, and as to the
character of both writers. Hippolytus' account of facts is not only fuller
and more explicit, but also more authentic; for he gives us extracts and
on the whole copious ones.
Moreover, the accurate comparison of the text of the two authors is
interesting, as proving, first, that Irenæus also had the “Great Announce-
ment” before him, although he does not quote it. Several passages given
in both as representing Simon's doctrine are literally the same, or almost
In the second place such a critical comparison will sometimes assist
us in restoring the original Greek text of Irenæus, and oftener in render-
ing the very corrupt text of our author intelligible. I will illustrate this
by placing in juxtaposition the text of the following two passages.
(Iren, i. 20., and Hippolytus, vi. pp. 175, 176. 43–47.)
SO.
IRENEUS.
HIPPOLYTUS.
Secundum enim ipsius gratiam Κατα γαρ την αυτού χάριν σώζεσθαι
salvari homines, sed non secundum | αυτούς φάσκουσι. Μηδέν (1. μηδένα)
operas justas. Nec enim esse | γαρ είναι αίτιον δίκης εί πράξει τις και
naturaliter operationes justas, sed κως (1. τι κακόν): ου γάρ έστι φύσει
ex accidente : quemadmodum posu- kards (l. ou yáp łoti tl¢. Kakòv)
erunt, qui mundum fecerunt angeli, álli. Jécelº žbevto yup (pnoiv) oi äy-
per hujusmodi precepta in servitu- | γελοι οι τόν κόσμον ποιήσαντες όσα
tem deducentes homines. Qua- | εβούλοντο' διά των τοιούτων λόγων δου-
propter et solvi mundum et liberari λούν νομίζοντες τους αυτών ακούοντας.
eos qui sunt ejus ab imperio eorum | Φύσιν δε αύθις λέγουσι τον κοσμον επί
qui mundum fecerunt repromisit. λυτρώσει των ιδίων ανθρώπων. .
The last words in Hippolytus baffle all interpretation. But you will imme-
VOL. I.
A A
354
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIÉS.
diately alter with me ØYCIN into AYCEIN, and, having done so, you will
have not only the true text of Hippolytus, but also the original Greek of
Irenæus, because the sentence is evidently the same. As to the words ab
imperio eorum qui mundum fecerunt, they are either added by way of
explanation, or they are the translation of words omitted in our Greek
text.
But undoubtedly the latter is the more probable. As to our work, the
whole extract is confused, whether it be the fault of Hippolytus abbreviat-
ing Irenæus, or that of a later transcriber who abbreviated the text of
Hippolytus. We shall meet with unmistakeable instances of both.*
At all events, this passage, like many others, bears out my argument
respecting the relation between the two works and authors. To touch
upon another argument, which I can only do justice to in my concluding
letter, does it not strike you as one of the many internal proofs of the
book's being written by a Roman, that our author abstains from repeating
Justin the Martyr's fable ? I mean the story, not disdained by Irenæus,
and maintained by Tertullian, of the statue erected to Simon at Rome, the
words Semoni Sanco having been unfortunately mistaken by that Eastern
philosopher for Simoni Sancto. Hippolytus, as a Roman, knew better,
and was honest enough to write accordingly.
If, from the new facts we have before us, we look back to the present
state of the discussions respecting this darkest of all points in early eccle-
siastical history, we find that they militate, in many respects, against the
hypotheses of the modern Tübingen school,- Baur, Strauss, Schwegler,
and others. First of all, I cannot consent to regard Simon himself as
merely a mythical person, the mythological fiction of one of the great
family of the sun, moon, and stars, and his Helen as Selene or Luna.
Her bearing that name in the “ Clementine Homilies,” proves only that
she was called so in the later stages of the Simonian heresy; which agrees
with the whole character of the ingenious, but rather prolix novel, told in
the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. Simon of Gitta, the sorcerer
of the Acts, appears to us, in what we hear of him from Hippolytus, as a
real man, a sorcerer and magnetizer of a very questionable moral cha-
racter, but who, according to the testimony of the old fathers, was wor.
shipped in Samaria as a prophet, and as the incarnation of the highest
power, and who, for a time, startled the Romans, whether at Rome or in
Asia is not certain. He was, further, a heretical Christian; he perverted
the Gospel and the Jewish Scriptures; but he accepted them as reve-
lations. Neander, therefore, has been wrong in striking him out of the
list of heretics, as a person who had nothing to do with Christianity.
Undoubtedly, like all the leading men of the Jewish and Pagan party of
the time, who endeavoured to frame Christ and Christianity according to
their philosophy, he had a speculative system of his own; but in this spe-
culative system Christianity was not an accidental ingredient. On the
contrary, Christ and the Gospels and their preaching gave the impulse to
the speculations embodied under Simon's name, and Christ's person
formed the centre of them. Simon himself, I believe, no more wrote a
* I restore the text thus : λύσειν δε αυτόν (instead of αύθις), viz. Ιησούν, or
Eluwva: as in the first sentence,
BOOK VI.
355
GENERAL RESULT.
speculative book, than Pythagoras or Socrates did; but, as we know that
Menander, his disciple, and the leader of his school, who lived and taught
at Antioch, was a writer, and inculcated the Simonian doctrine, it seems
to me reasonable to assume, that the “Great Announcement,” or Pro-
nunciamiento” of the Simonians, although bearing Simon's name, was
written by Menander, or at least by some cotemporary of his. For this
book appears throughout as the representative of Simon's own opinions,
and is mixed up with his life. Now, as Simon, the master, belonged to
the Petrine and Pauline age, Menander and his book must belong to that
of St. John, or to the time between the years 70 and 100; and it would be
absurd to suppose, that a book written in Simon's own name, or at least
generally considered as the representation of his personal system, should
be later than Menander's exposition of the principles of that sect. Shortly,
Menander's doctrinal work must have been this very “ Announcement.
Assuming this, what do we find in this book respecting the Gospel of
St. John ? I confess, the fourth chapter of this Gospel seems to me to
be alluded to by the expression, that Jesus appeared to the Samaritans as
the Father. If this supposition is correct, it would be a direct proof of
the undoubted fact, that the book was not Simon's; for Simon cannot be
supposed to have lived to the end of the first century, when the Gospel of
St. John was written. Indeed, the uniform tradition is, that Paul and
Peter outlived Simon; who must therefore have died before. the year 65.*
If it be assumed that there was no allusion to the fourth Gospel in the
“Great Announcement,” this may be said to be in keeping with the pre-
tension that it was Simon's book. A Pauline epistle (the first to the
Corinthians), certainly is quoted in the extracts (p. 167. 10.). This is
very natural, for the same reason: a book purporting to be written by
Simon might very well quote an epistle of St. Paul, although not a
Gospel written between 90 and 100.
I must, on this occasion, return for a moment to the bearing of these
new facts upon the prologue of St. John's Gospel. Whatever may be
thought of the influence of Philonian speculations upon the evangelical
doctrine concerning the Logos, and upon the wording of that apostolic
prologue, I feel sure that the heretical speculations about the Logos could
never have arisen but through the powerful effect produced in the Eastern
world, from the centres of Jerusalem and of Antioch, by the unparalleled
personality and history of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. The Logos, as
God's eternal thought or consciousness of Himself, before all time, was
known well enough to the Alexandrian Jews, even at the time of Christ's
birth, as Philo's writings prove. But that the Logos was embodied in a
real man, and had become personal, this, and this alone, was the all-per-
vading intellectual leaven which produced that wonderful fermentation in
the Eastern world, and this fermentation became in the schools of the
Gnostics an entirely cosmogonical and mythological process, through a
constant and progressive hypostasis or personification of abstract notions,
* It is quite clear that those who will not admit that allusion, can draw no conse-
quences from this passage against the early existence of the fourth Gospel, because
we have not the whole “ Announcement” before us. The Gospel may have been not
only alluded to, but even quoted, frequently.-1854.
AA 2
356
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
or, as it were, by a constant transformation of abstract neuters into
mythological masculines.
This mythological process was the natural produce of the two elements
alluded to. The one was the personality of Christ, and the other was the
idea of the Logos, elevated into a moving principle, identified with the
human mind. All mythology arose in a similar way, although we, being
ignorant of the historical ingredient now, generally are not able to
analyse the whole, and show in detail what portions are historical, and
what ideal. But in this case we are enabled to prove what the historical
element is, and show that it did not grow out of a myth but might, by
connection with speculative ideas give rise to a myth. This purity of the
historical element forms one of the distinguishing features of Christi-
anity, as basis of a great civilisation.
The discovery of Hippolytus' work throws also a new light upon an
obscure point of the Ignatian controversy. We certainly must ascribe
to pure Simonism, that is, to the Simonian heresy unmixed with Valen-
tinianism, the system of Gnostic evolutions, of which Sigê, Silence, is a
primitive element. For in the extracts from the “Great Announcement'
we find the following words, evidently the beginning of a solemn address
and recapitulation (p. 173. 2.) :-" To you then I say what I say, and
write what I write. The writing is this. There are two offshoots accom-
panying all the æons, having neither beginning nor end, from one root,
which is power (potentia), Sigê (Silence), invisible, incomprehensible.
Of these two suckers, the one appears above, and this is the Great
Power, the Mind of the Universe, directing all things, male: the other
appears below, the Great Thought (érrivota), female, producing all things.
Hence, being thus ranged one against the other, they form a syzygia
(a pair, copula), and make manifest the intermediate interval, the incom-
prehensible air, having neither beginning nor limit; and in this air is the
Father, supporting all things, and nourishing that which has a beginning
and end. He is He who stands, who has stood, and who will stand, being
the inale and female power, according to the infinite pre-existing power,
which has neither beginning nor end, being in solitude (uovoriti). For
the Thought, which was in solitude, coming forth from thence, became
two. And He was one; for having the thought within himself, he was
alone, not however the first, though pre-existing ; but, being manifested
by himself, he became the second. But neither was he called the Father,
before she, the Thought, called him father.”
This is not Valentinianism; but there is the principle of the pre-existing
supreme power, Silence; the Word or the Thought had not yet ap-
peared.
Now, what follows from this ? That Ignatius, who certainly may have
read the “Great Announcement” as well as he read St. John, might
have alluded to it in a letter to the Magnesians, if he ever wrote it. If,
therefore, the text of the Seven Letters is (as I believe, with the most
eminent critics of our age, that it is) the work of an impostor, who wrote
after Ignatius' death under his name, corrupting the genuine Three
Letters, it is very natural that he should make Ignatius allude to a term
which he may have known, but which certainly became much more
powerful by Valentinus. But such a mention can no more prove, against
BOOK VI.
357
RESULT FOR IGNATIAN EPISTLES.
good evidence to the contrary, that Ignatius did write that letter, than the
allusion contained in it to the early Judaizing Sabbatarians and Docetæ
does. I have, in my “Letters on Ignatius,"* assumed these two heresies.
as possibly older than Ignatius' death ; and I now believe also that the
term of Sigê may be so.
If any further proof were required of Pearson's explanation of the
Sigê in the “ Epistle to the Magnesians” (p. 8.) being untenable, this
passage would suffice. Feeling the difficulty about the Sigê as a Valen-
tinian term, Pearson resolved to deny altogether that Ignatius alluded to
that term in this passage. According to him, the words, “the Eternal
Word, not proceeding from Silence,” mean that the Word which is
eternal, did not appear (as the human word does) after there had been
silence before. This is the argument of a special pleader, not of a his-
torical critic, and it is as flimsy as it is unnecessary. The Sigê is the
Sigê. She is preceding, not appearing. It is the Logos who appears;
and according to the doctrine of Valentinus (which perhaps was founded
upon a term of the Simonian school, stamped by Menander), this ap-
pearance of the Eternal Word proceeded from the Eternal Silence, that
mysterious companion (quality) of the Ineffable, of the Eternal Thought,
silentiously wrapped up in itself through eternities before the word of
creation began to be spoken.
There is perhaps even a proof in our fragments that the Ignatian forger
knew the “Great Announcement." In the 11th chapter of that fictitious
epistle, “ Letter to the Trallians,” the passage about Sigê, which I have
just quoted from Simon's " Great Apophasis," seems to be alluded to by
the words “offshoots” and “root,” there used, with an apparent allusion
to the heretical terminology, in an ironical sense. †
P. 68.
+ Having touched upon the Ignatian controversy, I take this opportunity of saying
a word to a learned author who lately has treated this question in the “ Quarterly
Review." He says that I seem to have miscalculated the effect of my arguments in
favour of Cureton's Syriac text; for Baur says, in his essay upon the subject, that he
believes neither in the authority of the one text nor in that of the other. I confess,
the argument seems to me rather blunt, having no argumentative edge in it at all.
At all events, I beg to observe to that critic, that I have not written and published
my Ignatian researches, any more than others, in order to produce an effect upon
this or that person, but to satisfy my own mind, by expressing a conscientious con-
viction on a point on which I thought I had something to say.
I confess, the arguments which that critic brings forward against Cureton's text
(since found in a second Syriac manuscript), and against Cureton's arguments, seem
to me to savour much of a preconceived opinion respecting the case itself, or to
betray an overrated feeling of the vocation of the critic to question Cureton's com-
petency to judge of this question. But what shall I say of Professor Petermann,
who has published an Armenian translation of the Seven Letters, which, if the
Syriac text of the three letters is genuine, are as regards these three an interpolation,
and a forgery as regards the remaining four ? Now, it seems to me a simple truism
unworthy of a serious writer, to say that if the Greek text of the Seven Epistles
is genuine, the translation of the same is genuine also. This is begging the question
It is quite a secondary question, whether (as is the most natural supposi-
tion, confirmed by all the other Armenian translations of the works of the Greek
fathers) this translation has been made from the Greek original, or from a Syriac
translation. But it appears to me scarcely serious to say : there are the Seven
Letters in Armenian, and I maintain they prove that Cureton's text is an incoin-
at issue.
A A 3
358
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
If the article on Simon is quite original, containing authentic extracts
wholly wanting in Irenæus and elsewhere, and giving us an entirely new
view of the history and character of the Simonian school, the next article
is no less so.
VI. VALENTINUS (pp. 177–198.). -After an introductory dissertation
on those leading principles of the Pythagorean and Platonic philosophy,
from which Valentinus is stated to have borrowed his speculative ideas
(pp. 177--183.), our author gives us copious extracts from Valentinus'
own work or works, and such as enable us for the first time to know what
dogmas he laid down on the principal speculative questions. Most pro-
bably all these extracts have been taken from Valentinus' great doctrinal
work, the 66
Sophia,” which our author does not name, supposing his
readers to know it, as indeed it had the admiration as well as the male-
diction of the later fathers, of Jerome in particular. Of this work we do
not know a single sentence with certainty; as Irenæus, and those who
followed and copied him, not only never clearly distinguish between that
which belongs to Valentinus personally, and that which belongs to his
followers, but scarcely give any genuine extract (karà dégiv, literally) at
all. Great, therefore, were my hopes, in 1842, that the ancient Coptic
manuscript of the British Museum, inscribed Sophia, might be a trans-
lation, or at least an extract, from that lost text-book of Gnosticism ; but
unfortunately the accurate and trust-worthy labours of that patient and
conscientious Coptic scholar, Dr. Schwarze, so early taken away from us,
have proved to me (for I have seen and perused his manuscript, which I
hope will soon appear) *, that this Coptic treatise is a most worthless (I
trust, purely Coptic) offshoot of the Marcosian heresy, of the latest and
most stupid mysticism about letters, sounds, and words.
plete extract, because I think I have found some Syriac idioms in the Armenian
text! Well, if that is not a joke, it simply proves, according to ordinary logic,
that the Seven Letters must have once been translated into Syriac. But how can
it prove that the Greek original of this supposed Syriac version is the genuine text,
and not an interpolated and partially forged one? The Seven Letters and the
forged text go together: either there have been no interpolation and forgery at all,
or the Seven Letters, neither more nor less (at that time), were the produce of this
imposition. I take it for granted, Professor Petermann is a good Armenian
scholar: I confess I thought he had still to prove that he possessed critical judg-
ment; and now I fear his Ignatian production fully proves that he possesses none.
There is absolutely no argument in all that he has said.
I developed this addition in 1854, in the preface to the fourth volume of the
first edition, now reprinted at the end of my second volume, and in the picture of
Ignatius drawn in this first volume, to which is appended a review of the most
recent objections started against the genuiness of the Three Epistles by the com-
bined efforts of Romanist writers, defending the Seven, of those of the school of
Baur believing either text to be spurious. As to that remarkable passage of the
“ Great Announcement,” which I have just given, I now consider it as a distinct
proof that the Simonians used the Sigê as a term, as early as Menander or the age
of St. John. Let my readers compare that exposition with the exposition of the
systena of Valentinus as I have given it in my picture of this great Gnostic, and they
will see that Sigê is not brought in extraneously : the philosophical construction of
the whole in the “Great Announcement” is original, and differs essentially from
the Valentinian. This confirms the conclusion drawn in the text from the Epistle
to the Trallians.
* It has since appeared, but without any critical explanation.—1854,
BOOK VI.
359
6. VALENTINUS.
Irenæus treats of Valentinus personally, only in the first paragraph of
the eleventh chapter of his first book. According to his exposition, Va-
lentinus began his system by establishing a nameless dyad, or double
principle, of which the one was called the Unspeakable, the other Silence
(Sigê); out of this primitive dyad, he said, another dyad sprang, of
whom he called the one the Father, the other Truth. This tetrad pro-
duced first the Logos and Life (Zoé, a feminine), and then Man and the
Church (Ecclesia, the people elect, the saved human race). Thus he
arrived at the first ogdoad,
In a like manner the common Valentinian system (i. & 1.) proceeds. It
begins with “the æon who was before,” who was called the Forefather
(Propator), and the Abyss (Bythos), invisible, inaccessible, eternal, and
for many æons in deep solitude. With him co-existed Thought (Ennoia),
also called Charis or Grace, Sigê or Silence. These generated the Mind
(Nous), who, being inferior to none but to the Father, was called the
Only begotten (Monogenes), and the Father, and the Beginning (Arché,
principle) of all. With him was procreated Truth. ... No æon knew
the Father except the only begotten Son. (2.)
Hippolytus, in his fourteen pages about Valentinus, gives us full eight
(pp. 186–194.) of Valentinus' own words; and these eight pages are not
detached sentences, picked out in the ordinary inquisitorial way, to prove
what you want the heretic to have said, but connected passagės, if not in
fact one uninterrupted passage. These extracts contain the proof of what
Valentinus' own cosmogonic system was, and show the exact truth of what
Hippolytus premises in a few words, as the substance of Valentinus' own
system, which as to this point he identifies with that of Heracleon,
Ptolemæus, and other strict followers.* Hippolytus' words are:- -“The
beginning of all is to them the Monad, unbegotten, incorruptible, above
all conception and comprehension, generative, and the cause of the origin
(genesis) of all. This monad is called the Father. But these systems
differ greatly: some keep to this first principle alone, retaining the
Pythagorean doctrine in its purity; others think it necessary to add a
female principle, in order to arrive at the procreation of the Universe; and
this they call the Syzygos or Consort." The exposition of the strict
Pythagorean system is this :-"Originally nothing existed but the Father,
unbegotten, without place or time, without counsellor or any being that
can be subject to perception. He was alone, solitary, as they say, and
reposing alone in himself. But, being generative, and not loving his
solitary existence, he willed that what was the most beautiful and perfect
in him should produce and bring fourth. For (says Valentinus) he was
all. Love (Agapê); and Love is not Love, unless there is something
Beloved.” The Father himself, therefore (continues the extract), brought
forth and procreated, as he was alone, Mind (Nous) and Truth, that is, a
dyad, which is the Sovereign and Mother of all the æons within the
Pleróma (the Plenitude) which they reckon up.
And then follows the well-known system of progressive evolutions.
I must refrain from entering into this further exposition, which will
* Compare, about Ptolemæus, our article IX.; and about him and Heracleon,
Iren. ii. 4. Epiph. Hær. xv.
Α Α 4
À A 4
360
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
1
soon be made the subject of deep inquiries and discussions, both specula-
tive and doctrinal. All I wish to state is, that the method of our work is
better, and the research deeper, than that of Irenæus, and the whole
exposition our only authentic one, as far as Valentinus himself and his
stricter followers are concerned.*
But I must direct your attention to a historical point mentioned by
Hippolytus at the end of his exposition, respecting the divisions of the
Valentinian school. The controverted question being whether the body
of Jesus was psychic or spiritual (pneumatic), the Occidental school took
the first view, the Oriental school ('Avatoliki) Sidaoralia) the second.
The authors of the first were “of Italy;” and among them Heracleon
and Ptolemæus were conspicuous. Of those of the Oriental school he
mentions Axionikos and Ardesianes, of whom the former is entirely
unknown; the latter may be the same as Bardesianes the Armenian,
mentioned in a later passage (p. 253.), and then that Valentinian writer
lived as late as 172; for Bardesianes the Armenian must mean Bardesanes
of Edessa, which lies near the frontier of Armenia. This piece of infor-
mation respecting the two schools, throw slight on one of the most obscure
points of the doctrine and writings of Clement of Alexandria. I mean
his “Extracts from Theodotus, or the Oriental School ;” a most important
chapter, which, in my unpublished “Restoration of the Eight Books of
the Hypotyposes of Clemens ” (of which the first book is hidden under a
false title), I believe I have proved, forms an integral part of those esoteric
lectures, which are the deepest and most instructive work of the great
Alexandrian teacher.
I must now proceed, without further investigation of Valentinus'
speculations, with the text of our thirty-two heresies.
If the two articles on Simon and Valentinus are original, when compared
with Irenæus, the whole reinainder of the sixth book (pp. 198—222.) is
almost entirely copied or extracted from the first book of his master. It
is not the less curious for that; and, as far as my immediate argument
goes, it is more important even than those original articles. For it proves
most palpably, that our author extracted Irenæus ; and this is exactly
what Photius says, that Hippolytus himself had stated he did in his work
against all the heresies. Who, then, will believe that we read here the
book of another author of that time, who had written a book (never
mentioned) of the same title ? and who can doubt that we have the work
of Hippolytus before us ?
VII. SECUNDUS. — Five lines only (p. 198.), and these almost literally
copied from Irenæus, i. 5. § 2., with the sole addition, that he was a
cotemporary of Ptolernæus. Here are the two texts :-
IRENÆUS.
HIPPOLYTUS.
Σεκούνδος
Σεκούνδος μέν τις κατά το αυτό άμα
τω Πτολεμαίω γενόμενος. ούτος λέγει Τε-
λέγει είναι την πρώτην Ογδοάδα Τετράδα τράδα είναι δεξιάν και Τετράδα αριστεράν,
* I have now given the whole text in the Analecta, and a comprehensive picture
of the character and system of that great man, at the head of the Fourth Age.—1854.
+ The restored text of the extracts from Theodotus is now exhibited in the
Analecta, as part of the fragments of the Hypoty poses of Clemens: -1854.
BOOK VI.
361
7. SECUNDUS.
8. EPIPHANES.
-δεξιάν και Τετράδα αριστεραν, ούτως πα- και Φώς και Σκότος και την αποστάσαν
ραδιδούς καλείσθαι, την μεν μίαν Φώς, δε και ύστερήσασαν δύναμιν ουκ από των
την δε άλλην Σκότος την δε αποστάσάν τρίακοντα Αιώνων λέγει γεγενήσθαι, άλλα
τε και ύστερήσασαν δύναμιν μή είναι από από των καρπών αυτών.
των τριάκοντα Αιώνων αλλά... (Latin
text: sed.a fructibus eorum.)
We have here an extract, in which the omission of the words την πρώτην
'Ογδοάδα is no improvement.
VIII. EPIPHANES.-Nine lines, copied in the same manner from what
follows in Irenæus, after the words on Secundus. The beginning of the
first sentence is mutilated in the Greek and in the Latin interpretation as
well as in our manuscript, the well known proper name of this Gnostic
has been taken for an adjective.*
IREN AUs (i. 5. 3 2.).
HIPPOLYTυς (198. 98.-199. 8.).
"Αλλος
(Latin text: Alius "Αλλος δέ τις Επιφανής διδάσκαλος
vero quidam qui et clarus est ma- αυτών ούτως λεγει:
gister ipsorum) εις υψηλότερον και
γνωστικώτερον επεκτεινόμενος την πρώ-
την Τετράδα .... ούτως έστι τις προ "Ην η πρώτη αρχή άνεννόητος, άρρητός
πάντων προαρχή προανεννοήτος, άρ- τε και ανωνόμαστος, ήν μονότητα καλεί
ρητός τε και άνονόμαστος, ήν εγώ μονό- ταύτη [δε συνυπάρχειν δύναμιν, ήν ονο-
τητα αριθμώ. ταύτη τη μονότητι συνυ- μάζει ενό[τητα]. Αύτη η ενότης ήτε
* I am truly obliged to one of my reviewers for having called my attention to
the fact, that the editors of Irenæus, and in particular Grabe, had not overlooked
this fact as I had inadvertently said in the first edition. I seize the same opportunity
of observing that Pearson's proposed restoration of the Greek text of Irenæus is no
more confirmed by Hippolytus than by the Latin interpreter. The simple restora-
tion seems to me to be: "Αλλος δέ τις 8 και Επιφανής διδάσκαλος αυτών.-1854.
Döllinger cannot believe yet that this article treats of Epiphanes. If this doubt
is to have the effect to demolish my proposal as to making out the XXXII. heresies,
it is of no effect, as XXXII may be easily counted without Epiphanes. But that our
Epiphanes is, however, the same whom we know from Clemens and Theodoretus
to have been a disciple, and even the son, of Carpocrates, is not only in itself the
only reasonable assumption, but I believe results directly from the short but
striking characteristic, given of him by Tertullian in his treatise against the Valen-
tinians. I read this very obscure passage (c. 37.) thus: “ Accipe alia ingenia. Cu-
curbitinum insignioris apud eos magistri, qui et pontificali sua auctoritate in hunc
modum censuit — C. 38. Humanior jam Secundus, ut brevior !” He announces
some new Valentinian authors. Of these, the second is Secundus, and none other
follows. Now, the first is Epiphanes whom Tertullian already found written in his
manuscript of Irenæus as an adjective, of which he made the best Latin possible,
by putting it into a comparative. The preceding word, which in the MSS. is
Cicuria Enniana, or Currucæ Enniani, must be Cucurbitinum; for Epiphanes made
use of the word cucurbita to designate one of his fictions (Iren. i. 5. p. 32. Gr.).
Leopold came near the sense by proposing “cucurbitina," but the word applies
only to the system of Epiphanes. What Tertullian says of his pontifical dignity,
corresponds with what Clemens relates, that he lived only seventeen years, but that
his memory was greatly celebrated by his Cephalonian countrymen, as that of a
god, in a temple dedicated to him.—1854,
† These words are left as they were printed by Miller. The MS. reads: Taúrn
δε ήν μονότατα (after which there is a lacuna) ειν δύναμιν, I now propose to
restore the text thus: Ταύτη δε τη μονότητι λέγει συνυπάρχειν δύναμιν.-1854.
1
362
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
πάρχει δύναμις, ήν και αυτην ονομάζω μονότης προκαντο μη πρoέμεναι άρ-
ενότητα, αύτη ή ενότης, ή τε μονότης, χήν επί πάντων νοητών αγέννητόν τε
το έν. ούσαι προήκαντο μη πρoέμεναι άρ- και αόρατον, ήν μονάδα καλεί. Ταύτη
χήν επί πάντων νοητήν, αγέννητόν τε τη δυνάμει συνυπάρχει δύναμις ομοού-
και αόρατον, ήν άρχήν ο λόγος μονάδα σιος αυτή (t. αυτη ονομ.) ήν ονομάζω το
καλεί. ταύτη δε μονάδα συνυπάρχει δύ- έν. Αύται αι τέσσαρες δυνάμεις προή-
ναμις ομοούσιος αυτή, ήν και αυτήν ονο- καντο τας λοιπές των αιώνων προβολάς.
μάζω το έν, αύται αι δυνάμεις, ή τε μο-
νότης και ενότης, μονάς τε και το εν
προήκαντο τας λοιπές προβολής των
αιώνων.
(Here follow declamations.)
(Left out by Hippolytus.)
Then the text proceeds in both as follows:
IREN Eυς (1. 5. 3.).
HIPPOLYTυς (199. 8-16).
*Αλλοι δε πάλιν αυτών την πρώτην "Αλλοι δη πάλιν αυτών την πρώτην
και αρχέγονον (Lat. archegonum) "Όγ- και αρχαιόγονον (1. αρχέγονον) 'Ογδο-
δοάδα τούτοις τοις ονόμασι κεκλήκασι ; άδα τούτοις τοϊς ονόμασιν εκάλεσαν
πρώτον προαρχήν, έπειτα ανεννόητον,
την δε τρίτην άρρητον, και την τετάρτης
αόρατον και εκ μέν της πρώτης προ- τετάρτην αόρατον. Και εκ μέν της
αρχής προβεβλήσθαι πρώτη και πέμπτη πρώτης προαρχής προβεβλήσθαι πρώτα
αρχήν, εκ δε (της αρχής) της ανεννοή- και πέμπτω τόπω αρχήν εκ δε της
του δευτέρω και έκτω τόπω ακατάληπ-άνεννοήτου, δευτέρα και έκτω [τόπιω],
τον εκ δε της άρρήτου τρίτο και εβδόμη ακατάληπτον εκ δε της αρρήτου, τρίτη
τόπω άνονόμαστον, εκ δε της αοράτου και εβδόμω τόπω, ανωνόμαστον· έκ δε
αγέννητον, πλήρωμα της πρώτης Ογδο- της αοράτου, αγέννητον πλήρωμα της
άδος. ταύτας βούλονται τις δυνάμεις πρώτης 'Ογδοάδος. Ταύτας βούλονται
προϋπάρχειν του Βυθού και της Σιγής, τας δυνάμεις προϋπάρχειν τού Βυθού και
ένα τελείων τελειότεροι φανώσιν όντες της Σιγής (ε. γής).
και Γνωστικών γνωστικώτεροι προς ούς
δικαίως άν τις επιφωνήσειεν· ώ ληρο»
λόγοι σοφισται!
Και γάρ περί αυτού του Βυθού πολλαι "Αλλοι δε περί αυτού του Βυθού αδια-
και διάφοροι γνώμαι παρ' αυτούς οι μεν φόρως κινούμενοι, οι μεν αυτόν άζυγος
γάρ αυτόν άζυγον λέγουσι, μήτε άρρενα λέγουσι, μήτε άρρενα μήτε θήλυν.
μήτε θήλειαν μήτε όλως όντα τι άλλοι
δε άρρενόθηλυν αυτόν λέγουσιν είναι, έρ-
μαφροδίτου φύσιν αυτώ περιάπτοντες. άλλοι δε την Σιγήν θήλειαν αυτό συμ-
Σιγήν δε πάλιν άλλοι συνευνέτιν αυτώ παρείναι και είναι ταύτην πρώτην συ-
προσάπτουσιν, ίνα γένηται πρώτη συ- ζυγίαν.
ζυγία.
This extract is of great interest for judging of the character of our
text. It is quite clear that between the words εκάλεσαν and τετάρτην αό-
ρατον the words in Ireneus' text from κεκλήκασι το αόρατον have been left
out, but scarcely by Hippolytus ; for the text as it stands gives no sense.
BOOK VÍ. 9. PTOLEMÆUS.
363
He
may have marked them in his autograph for the copyist thus, εκάλεσαν
•. τετάρτην αόρατον' or they may simply have been omitted by careless
extracting of a copyist. We shall soon see that we have, at all events
not everywhere, the complete text of our author. *
IX. PTOLEMÆUS (pp. 199. 20., 200. 36.). - An article on Ptolemæus
follows also here in Irenæus. Hippolytus extracted or rather reproduced
it, as far as it contains facts :
IRENEUs (i. 6. 1.).
HIPPOLYTUS.
Hi vero qui sunt circa Ptolemæum Οι δε περί τον Πτολεμαίον δύο συ-
scientiores, duas conjuges habere eum ζύγους αυτόν έχειν λέγουσιν, ας και δια-
[Bython] dicunt, quas et disposi- θέσεις καλούσι "Εννοιαν και θέλησιν.
tiones vocant, Enneam et Thelesin. Πρώτον γάρ ενενοήθη τι προβαλείν, ώς
Πρώτον γαρ ενενοήθη προβαλείν (sicut φασιν, έπειτα ηθέλησε. Διό και των δύο
dicunt), είτα ηθέλησε· διο και των δύο τούτων διαθέσεων και δυνάμεων, της δε
διαθέσεων τούτων, ή και δυνάμεων, της έννοίας και της θελήσεως, ώσπερ κρα
'Εννοίας και της θελήσεως ώστε συγκρα- θεισών είς άλλήλας, η προβολή του τε
θεισών είς άλλήλας, τη προβολή του Μο- μονογενούς και της αληθείας κατά συν
νογενούς και της Αληθείας κατά συζυγίαν ζυγίαν εγένετο, ώς τινας τύπους και εί-
εγένετο· ούς τινας τύπους και εικόνας κόνας των δύο διαθέσεων του πατρός
των δύο διαθέσεων του Πατρός προελ- διελθείν εκ των αοράτων ορατάς, του
θεϊν, των αοράτων ορατας, του μεν θε- μεν θελήματος τον νούν, της δε εννοίας
λήματος την Αλήθειας, της δέ 'Εννοίας την αλήθειαν, και διά τούτο του επιγεν-
τον Νούν, και διά τούτου του θελήματος, νητου θελήματος, και αρρενικός της δε
δ μεν άρρην εικών της αγεννήτου έννοίας αγεννήτου έννοίας και θήλυς επί το θέλημα
γέγονεν, ο δε θήλυς του θελήματος το ώσπερ δύναμις εγένετο της έννοίας. 'Εν-
θέλημα τοίνυν δύναμις εγένετο της Εν- νοείν μεν γάρ αεί η έννοια την προβολήν,
νοίας ένενόει μέν γάρ ή 'Εννοία την ου μέντοι γε προβάλλειν αυτήν κατ' αυτήν
προβολήν ου μέν τοι προβαλείν αυτή (1. καθ' εαυτήν) ήδύνατο, αλλά ενενο»
καθ' εαυτήν εδύνατο α ενενόει. ότε δε η είτο. "Οτε δε ή του θελήματος δύναμις
του θελήματος δύναμις επεγένετο, τότε ο[επεγένετο] τότε [ο] ενενοείτο προβάλ-
ενενόει προέβαλε.
λει. ή
1
nor
* It is clear that Hippolytus did not know more of those “others,” that is to
say, other Valentinians, than what he found in Irenæus. Our historical criticism
must, therefore, be based exclusively upon the original writer. It is impossible
to say whether he had one subdivided school, or two or three different Valentinian
schools in view. We certainly, however, may say that Hippolytus, if he counted
his heretics, did not give a number to these, because he had no name for any of
them. The only conjecture one can make, seems to be that Irenæus alluded
in the sentence to those who made the Bythos a being neither male
female. This coincides with what Irenæus says of the peculiarity of the system
of Heracleon, who had the true Valentinian Ogdoads, and the thirty pairs of Æons.
"Ανθρωπον δε και αυτός φάσκει είναι τον άνω των όλων Πατέρα δν και Βυθον προσηγό-
ρευσε, βούλεται δε αυτόν και αυτός λέγειν μήτε άρρεν μήτε θήλυ, εν αυτώ δε είναι
την τών όλων μητέρα, ήν και Σίγην ονομάζει και Αλήθειαν.-1854.
† Hippolytus names Ptolemæus at the end of the Philosophumena (iv. 12.).
He there ridicules a Ptolemæus, as one who had measured the distances of the
planets (μετρητής instead of μηριμνητής). That the Valentinians measured the Eons,
is mentioned by him (vi. 55.).
.
364
TAE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES. .
This * article is followed in Irenæus, after some of his wonted excla.
mations, by a succinct mention of the heresy of the Colarbasians, which
name is preserved by Epiphanius (Hær. xv.), in giving the Greek text.
Now I can easily prove that an article on Colarbasus (for thus he writes
the name), must have followed in our author too. Not only does the
* In what follows, I maintain the principal point, that there must have been an
article on Colarbasus in our book. I have to add, as additional proof, the remark-
able passage at the end of the Philosophumena (iv. 13.), immediately after the words
just quoted about Ptolemæus, the passage runs thus:--TOÚTOLS &v Mépel TLO XOVTES
τινές ως μέγαλα κρίναντες και λόγου άξια νομίσαντες αιώνας (cod. et ed. αιρέσεις)
αμέτρους και απείρους συνεστήσαντο. "Ων είς μέν Κολάρβασος, δς διά μέτρων και
αριθμών εκτίθεσθαι θεοσέβειαν επιχειρεί, και έτεροι δε ομοίως ους επιδείξομεν, επεί τα περί
αυτών άρξώμεθα λέγειν. .
Döllinger inakes Colarbasus the master of Marcus. This is simply a mistake.
But I am indebted to Döllinger's criticism for the fact that Colarbasus was earlier
than Marcus. I had taken him to be the disciple of Marcus; on the authority of
Epiphanius (Hæres. xv. 1.). My reasons, however, for changing my opinion, are
not those of Döllinger. Döllinger is decidedly wrong in finding an argument for
his own assumption in Iren. i. c. x. Gr. (c. xiv. Mass.). According to him,
Marcus was made to say he was the only disciple of Colarbasus who carried out his
ideas. The passage does not say a word about it. My readers may see this proved
in my Analecta (Hippol. Iren. ii.); where I compare that text with the corresponding
one in the Refutation (vi. 42.). Irenæus says that Marcus founded his system
upon a vision he had of Sigê — the primitive maternal principle-- who appeared to
him was to her only born Son.” It is not only unfounded to say that Marcus was
the disciple of Colarbasus, but it is even contrary to the only good evidence which
exists for assuming that he was later than Colarbasus or Colorbasus. This is the
obscure passage of Tertullian ( Adv. Valentinianos, c. 4. ), in which Döllinger adopts,
evidently with Rigaltius, the conjecture of Latinus Latinius of Viterbo. Semler
rejected it, and Leopold even makes no mention of it: indeed those conjectures of
Latinus are deservedly not in good odour with philologers. The passage runs thus
in Semler's and Leopold's editions (Valentinus) «ad expugnandam conversus
veritatem, et cujusdam veteris opinionis semini nactus Colobroso viam delineavit.”
As this gives evidently no sense, Leopold proposes to read :-“ semina nactus
colubrosam viam delineavit.” The mixture of two images, however (semina and
via) is not like Tertullian's terseness. But, moreover, he carries out the idea
of road through the whole passage, which I give here textually after Leopold :-
“ Eam postmodum Ptolemæus intravit (S. instravit) nominibus et numeris æonum
distinctis in personales substantias, sed extra Deum determinatas, quas Valentinus
in ipsa summa divinitate ut sensus et affectus et motus incluserat. Deduxit et
Heracleon inde tramites quosdam, et Secundus et magus Marcus. Multa circum
imagines legis Theotimus (Theodotus ?) operatus est. Ita nusquam jam Valentinus
et tamen Valentiniani qui per Valentinum. Solus ad hodiernum Antiochiæ
Axionicus memoriam Valentini integra custodia regularum ejus consolatur.”
He therefore either does not speak of Colorbasus at all, or he does so in the unin-
telligible conclusion of the sentence respecting Valentinus. This he does indeed if we
read with Latinus :- “ et cujusdam veteris opinionis semitam nactus Colorbaso (Colo-
barso) viam delineavit.”
Valentinus found an old track, and traced a road for Colorbasus.
Ptolemæus paved this road.
Heracleon conducted footpaths from it.
These are the reasons why I believe Colarbasus to have been the immediate
successor of Valentinus, and place him chronologically before Ptolemæus and Hera-
cleon.
I have therefore left out in the text what I said in favour of the contrary
opinion, and have given the article on Colarbasus, which I suppose to have been
left out in our text at this place, as the tenth, and that on Marcus as the eleventh.
:
BOOK VI.
10. COLARBASUS AND THE COLARBASIANS. 365
index of the chapters, prefixed to this sixth book as to all the others,
mention Colarbasus with Marcus, as treated of in the fifth chapter (the
authors just named, Secundus, Ptolemæus, Heracleon, forming the fourth);
but our author himself concludes this sixth book with the following words:
“I believe I have now sufficiently exhibited their worthless doctrines,
and clearly shown whose disciples they are. Marcus as well as Colar-
basus, who followed Valentinus as heads of his school.” But not one
word does he say, according to our text, of Colarbasus, the immediate
successor of Valentinus, and predecessor of Marcus. Nor can it be
maintained that he meant to say those two taught exactly the same doc-
trine, and therefore that, having treated largely on Marcus, he had also
said enough of Colarbasus. We know the contrary : Colarbasus gave a
new turn to Valentianism: Marcus became the head of the Marcoseans.
Nothing remains, therefore, but to say, that Hippolytus did insert an
article on Colarbasus, and that here too we have only an extract of his
original text, and a very careless one. The question is simply, whether
that article was placed before or after Marcus.
X. COLARBASUs and the COLARBAŞIANS.— The author concludes this
sixth book with that reference to the treatise of Irenæus, on the absurdities
of other gnostic teachers, which contains one of the proofs that our book
is substantially the work of Hippolytus as read by Photius. The Greek
text of Irenæus (i. 6. & 2.) ran thus, according to Epiphanius (i. tom. 3.
xxxv.) and the Latin translation :
» this may
sense.
* I have examined that conclusion philologically in a note, when discussing
the passage of Photius in the Second Letter, and given the whole text in the
Analecta. (Hippolytus, II.).—1854.
That the article concerns Colarbasus personally, and his school, has been called
in doubt by Döllinger without any reason. , The next chapter is incribed in the
Latin manuscript of Irenæus : “Quæ est Colabarsorum doctrina:
be right or wrong, but it contains different opinions of the Valentinians respect-
ing the Redeemer, as what precedes concerns the Æons. But that the last of
these articles on the first principles 'treats of Colarbasus and his sect, and must
have had originally that inscription which now is placed over the article on the
Redeemer, from the point of view of the Valentinians, or of some Valentinians,
is apparent from the analogy of the preceding articles on Epiphanes and Ptole-
mæus, and from the circumstance that the whole article otherwise would have no
Added to this, we have the authority of Epiphanius, on a matter of fact,
not of opinion, and finally that of Tertullian. Chapter 38. of his treatise against
the Valentinians is a spirited, ainplified, but faithful translation of the rords of
Irenæus; and, therefore, also of great importance for the right interpretation of the
whole article. It runs thus :
" Quanto meliores, qui totum hoc tædium de medio amoliti, nullum Æonem
voluerunt alium ex alio per gradus vere Gemonios structum, sed mappa, quod
aiunt, missa, semel octojugem istam ex Patre et Ennæa ejus exclusam.
Ex ipso
denique ejus motu nomina gerunt. Cum (inquiunt) cogitavit proferre hoc, Pater
dictus est. Cum protulit quia vera protulit, hic (1. hoc) Veritas appellata est.
Cum semetipsum voluit probari, hoc Homo pronuntiatus est. Quos autem præ-
cogitavit, cum protulit tunc Ecclesia nuncupata est. Sonuit Homo Sermonem, et
hic est primogenitus filius, et Sermoni accessit vita, et Ogdoas prima conclusa est.”
The Latin text has been in the beginning obscured by the omission of the title,
or at least of the subject of the article, and by the misinterpretation of the second
sentence.
The emendations I have proposed are based upon these assumptions.
366
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES,
IRENÆl interpres Latinus.
IRENÆUS apud Epiphanium.
Qui autem prudentiores putantur [Οι δε περί τον Κολάρξασον φρονιμώ-
illorum esse, primam Octonationem, τερα δοκούντες είναι] την πρώτην 'Ογ-
non gradatim, alterum ab altero δοάδα, ού καθ' υπόβασιν άλλον υπό άλ-
Eonem emissum dicunt, sed simul λου [αιώνα προβαλείσθαι φασι]. 'Αλλ'
et in unum Eonum emissionem a oμού και εις άπαξ την τών εξ αιώνων
Propatore et Ennea ejus, cum προβολήν υπό του Προπάτορος και Έν»
crearentur, ipsi se obstetricasse νοίας αυτού τετέχθαι, ως αυτός μαιωσά-
affirmant. Et jam non ex Logo et μενος διαβεβαιούται, και ουκέτι εκ λόγου
Zoe Anthropon et Ecclesiam, sed και ζωής άνθρωπος και εκκλησίαν, ή
ex Anthropo et Ecclesia Logon et | (Ep. και) εξ ανθρώπου, ως οι άλλοι, και
Zoen dicunt generatos, in hunc mo- εκκλησίας λόγον και ζωήν φασι τετέχθαι
dum, dicentes : Quando cogitavit αυτός και οι αυτού· αλλά ετέρω τρόπο
aliquid emittere Propator, hoc Pater τούτο λέγουσιν, ότε (Ep. ότι) όπερ ενενό-
vocatus est, at ubi que emisit vera ησε (Ep. –θη) προβαλείν και Προπάτωρ,
fuerunt, hoc Alethia vocatum est. τούτο πατηρ εκλήθη. έπει δε ό προε-
Cum autem voluit semet ipsum βάλεν (Ep. προεβάλετο) αλήθεια ήν,
ostendere, hoc Anthropos dictus est. τούτο αλήθεια ωνομάσθη. ότε ούν ήθε-
Quos autem precogitaverat post- λησεν επιδείξαι εαυτόν (Εp. αυτόν)
eaquam emisit, hoc Ecclesia vocata τούτο άνθρωπος ελέχθη, ους δε προελο-
est. Locutus est Anthropos Logon, γίσατο ότε προέβαλε, τούτο εκκλησία ωνο-
hic est primogenitus Filius. Subse- μάσθη. [και] ελάλησε ο άνθρωπος τον
quitur autem Logon Zoe, et sic λόγον ούτός (Ep. και δ) εστιν ο πρωτό-
prima Octonatio completa est. τοκος υιός. επακολουθεί δε τώ λόγω και η
ζωή. και ούτως πρώτη 'Ογδοάς συνετε-
λέσθη.
Hippolytus' article may have been shorter, but substantiully it will have
been the same. His extracts must at all events have stopped here: what
follows in Irenæus ( 7.) bears in the Latin text the title, “On the
Doctrine of the Colarbasians," but treats in a more general sense of the
Valentinian doctrine respecting the Saviour (Σωτήρ). Some of the tenets
here mentioned are incompatible with Colarbasus' system, especially the
account of the ten æons,
a number abhorrent from it.
XI. MARCUS, and his followers the MARCOSIANS. This article is re-
markable for our argument on the relation which Hippolytus' work bears
to Irenæus, in a peculiar way. Our last articles were almost copies: here
we have an extract very much abridged. To explain the nature of this
extract, I must first state that Irenæus has devoted to this sect nine entire
chapters (i. 13—21.), in about ninety folio pages. This long treatise
consists of two distinct parts, quotations from the works of Marcus or of
the Marcosians and dissertations or declamations against them. Now, if
The sense thus obtained is clear. Father and Truth differ as the Subject and
Object; Man and Church as the Real and the Ideal. Word and Life are im-
plied in God's idea of Man (and Humanity). My Picture of Valentinus shows
that this absence of mythological details and images which afterwards obscured the
philosophical ideas of Valentinus, points to the first period of the system, the
representative of which is indeed Colarbasus, as I have observed in the preceding
note,-1854.
BOOK VI. 11. MARCUS AND THE MARCOSIANS.
367
Hippolytus gives the first substantially, and omits the others entirely, he
not only acts as a sensible author, but does exactly what he did in the
articles I have this moment laid before you. That is also what Photius
says Hippolytus declared he meant to do. But I can now show you that
our author says so himself. For having gone through the extracts from
Irenæus, and added his own researches and his criticism upon Irenæus,
he concludes the sixth book by saying that the Valentinians had always
gone on glorying in their inventions, the more absurd they were; and
that, having « made out every thing from the Scriptures in accordance
with the numbers set forth (the cabalistic numbers), they charged Moses
and the prophets with those inventions, pretending that these speak alle-
gorically about the measures of the æons. Now, I have not thought fit
to give an account of such senseless and incoherent things, the blessed
presbyter Irenæus having refuted their doctrines already with great skill
and pains. I have taken from him the account of their inventions, having
shown before that they have stolen them from the Pythagorean philosophy
and the subtleties of the astrologers, and then fathered them upon Christ.” *
Then follows the concluding sentence given above, in which he says he
had explained the systems of Marcus and Colarbasus.
Could we ever have expected to find such an explicit proof that the
book now discovered is the same which Photius read, and which bore the
title of Hippolytus' work mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome ?
Hippolytus' account of Marcus is this: -- Marcus, he says, was simply
a magician, or, to speak plainly, a trickster and conjuror, using also what
we call animal magnetism. Hippolytus had exposed and explained some
of his tricks in the book " Against the Magi" (Katà tô Máywv). The
impostor used these tricks in the very consecration of the communion.
In speaking of these exposures, Hippolytus says, he had not divulged the
last secret word, which was to give the key to all, but which was only
pronounced to very eminent personages, or in the hour of death. “I
have kept silence on this point,” says Hippolytus, p. 202., “that nobody
may believe I intend to deal maliciously with them : that is not at all our
aim, but only to show whence they have taken their opinions. That
blessed eldert, Irenæus, has spoken out more openly in a general manner
about these doings of theirs. Some have denied having received that
word; they are always taught to deny it. We have therefore made it our
object to inquire more accurately, and to find out more minutely, what is
delivered to them in the first bath (baptism), and what in the second,
which they call the redemption, or absolution (apolytrôsis); and we have
penetrated even into their secret. But this indulgence shall be shown to
Valentinus and his school.” A sentiment of delicacy, of which there are
few instances in his predecessors (among whom is Irenæus, who protests
that he does not believe what is told of the impurities of the Valentinians),
and none in his followers.
The text goes on exposing (pp. 203—–221.), almost entirely in the
)
author's own words, the absurdity and fallacy of Marcus' mystic play with
the twenty-four letters of the alphabet. You will not expect me to discuss
* This passage is very corrupt in our text. (See in my long Note to the
Second Letter the philological discussion on this text.-—1854.)
† apeObútepos, in its eminent sense, as a person who had been acquainted with
the witnesses who had seen Christ.
368
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
this stuff illing eighteen pages. But it is well to observe, that this
authentic exposition is a new proof of Hippolytus' authorship, and that
his work is sometimes an extract, sometimes an enlargement, of Irenæus,
in the way in which I have endeavoured to establish this already.
If we look back over this sixth book, we find it, I think, as interesting
for its contents in its first portions, as for the evidence of its authorship
in the latter.
BOOK VII.
(Pp. 223-260., 38 pages.)
Having established, I believe on sufficient grounds, the authorship and
character of our work, I shall now content myself with presenting a list
of the sects, adding a few remarks by way of appendix.
XII. BASILIDES and his son Isidorus (pp. 225-244.). — This, again,
is an original article by Hippolytus, and treated according to his own
method. Having premised a recapitulation of the Aristotelian principle,
on which, according to him, Basilides founded his philosophical system,
just as Valentinus did upon Pythagoras and Plato (pp. 225 - 229.), he
gives an authentic account of Basilides' opinions, from his own works
and those of his son (pp. 230 — 244.). Compared with this treatise,
Irenæus chapter (i. 23.) appears very meagre, incomplete, and incorrect.
According to Hippolytus, Basilides was certainly an Egyptian (pp. 244.).
This settles more than one much-disputed and not unimportant
question.
This sect used pretended secret doctrines ( Xóyou) of St. Matthias, un-
doubtedly the same which Clemens Alexandrinus and Eusibius mention.*
The whole exposition of Basilides' system seems to me strikingly to con-
firm Neander's elaborate and beautiful account of itt, and also some
acute observations of that accurate and truly critical historian, Gieseler.
The noble character of Basilides' ethical view of the world, which both
have so clearly developed, is now authentically established by the hitherto
unknown metaphysical substruction of the whole system disclosed to us
* Clem. Strom. ii. 380. iii. 43 b. vii p. 765.; Euseb, H. E. iii. 25. See Grabe,
Spicilegium, i. p. 117. sq. He guessed acutely that it was a Basilidian apo-
cryphal book, which indeed Clemens asserts. The editor ought not to have changed
here (230. 10. and 230. 83.) Mardiov into Matbalov. I would correct the corrupt .
text (λόγον εν ώς ίδιον ούτοι και καινόν τινα και των Ματθίου λόγων κρύφιόν τινα ενδια-
σαφούσιν) thus : λόγον ον ώς ίδιον ούτοι και καινόν τινα εκ των Ματθίου λόγων κρυφίων
(or αποκρύφων) τινών διασαφούσιν. These λόγοι of Matthias are called (230. 83.)
róyou åtókpupou. They were, probably, not an apocryphal gospel, but a mystical
and philosophical doctrine ; perhaps the tapadóceis or traditions which went under
his name (Grabe, i. 1.). The gospel of the school was the Nazarean one which
Jerome translated into Latin, an enlargement upon the groundwork of our first
Gospel.
† Kirchengeschichte, i. 691-713. I wonder that Neander should have been
at a loss how to correct the passage in a Latin text of the fourth century, giving an
account of Basilides' system (p. 693. iv. 3.): “ Per parvulam divitis et pauperis
naturam sine radice
indicat." We must plainly read: “ Per parabolam
divitis et pauperis, naturam sine radice
indicat.”
BOOK VII.
369
13. SATURNILUS.
14. MARCION.
in well connected extracts, which occupy nine tenths of the article, or about
twelve pages. The keystone of the whole system of the metaphysical
ogdoad and hebdomad is in the words (pp. 235, 236.): -"Everything
has a tendency from below upward, from what is worse to what is better ;
and nothing in the better is too immovable to descend."* Among the
Pauline epistles quoted is that to the Ephesians. But Basilides not only
quotes (besides St. Luke's second chapter) the Gospel of St. Johnt; it
is also evident that his whole metaphysical development, is an attempt to
connect a cosmogonic system with St. John's prologue, and with the per-
son of Christ. Now, these extracts are undoubtedly older than Hera-
cleon's commentary on St. John (which itself is already incompatible with
Strauss' and Baur's hypothesis about the origin of the fourth Gospel),
and belong to the time between 120 and 130. I
XIII. SATURNÎLUS & (Saturninus, Iren. i. c. 24.), -cotemporary with
Basilides, lived at Antioch in Syria, and taught a doctrine like
Menander's, who evidently is mentioned here incidentally. Irenæus
treated of Saturninus before Basilides. Hippolytus inverts the order ;
probably he thought it better to place Basilides, as the head of a new
school, before his cotemporary. But the article itself (pp. 244, 245.) is
copied from Irenæus.||
XIV. MARCION, from Pontus. - This is, again, an original article
(pp. 246—253.), but not so important as those on Valentinus and
Basilides. After a few remarks on Marcion, extracted from Irenæus
(i. 29.), as to the sense, our author gives an Empedoclean dissertation,
interesting for the criticism on the works of that poetical philosopher,
and containing some new verses. Hippolytus, of course, according to bis
favourite idea, endeavours to refer Marcion's tenets, as far as they are
truly philosophical, to Empedocles ; for which, although it is in some
respects a fanciful notion, he urges that Marcion often copied him
literally avrais déçeci, . 252. 19.). He then gives a short but original
* This must be the sense of the words : ETEÚDEL Trávta kétw ev õvw and TÔv xel-
ρόνων επί τα κρείττονα" ουδέν δε ούτως ανόητόν εστι των τοίς κρείττοσιν, ίνα μή κατέλθη
κάτω. I read: ουδέν δε ούτως ακίνητόν έστιν εν τοις κρείττοσιν, etc.
+ pp. 232. 64., 242. 55.
| The text is full of corruptions and difficulties. Page 234. 12. I read to
αρρήτων άρρητότερον instead of το άρρητον, άρρητότερον. The writing 'Alpagát,
p. 240. 95., may be more correct than 'Aßpáčas The unintelligible sentence, p,
232. 40–46., has been thus restored by Dr. Bernays, whose attention I had
called to this work on account of the Heraclitean fragments: Πάντα ούν, όσα εστιν
είπείν και έτι μη ευρόντα παραλιπείν, το μέλλοντι (t. όσα το μέλλοντι) κόσμο γενέσθαι
από του σπέρματος έμελλεν αρμόζειν αναγκαίως (t. αναγκαίοις) καιροίς ιδίοις κατά
προσθήκην αυξανομένω (t. αυξανομένου), ως υπό τηλικούτου και τοιούτου Θεού, όποιον
ουκ ειπείν ουδε νοήσει (t. ου νοήσαι) δυνατή γέγονε χωρήσαι ή κτίσις, αεί (t. και)
ενυπήρχε τεθησαυρισμένα τα σπέρματι. Αρμόζειν is of course intransitive.
§ Saturnîlus is the Syrian form, that language not allowing the repetition of the
same consonant. —1854,
| Neander Kircheng. i. 784.
Pray correct the words in p. 252., where after mention of Paul the apostle
Mark the evangelist is called Mápkos 8 kolobodáktulos (Mark the stump-finger).
But the true text may easily be restored if we consider the whole passage. 'ETTELDSV
ούν Μαρκίων και των εκείνου κυνών τις υλακτη κατά του δημιουργού τους έκ της
αντιπαραθέσεως αγαθού και καλού προφέρων λόγους, δεί αυτοίς λέγειν ότι τούτους ούτε
VOL. I.
B B
370
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
account of a development of Marcion's doctrine for the worse. He calls
the systems which rest simply upon the antagonism or duellism of good
and evil, “the first and purest heresy of Marcion” (253. 39.), in con-
tradistinction to the system of Prepon, of whom the next article treats.
XV. PREPon the Assyrian, a Marcionist, or follower of Marcion, and
who lived in Hippolytus' time. We hitherto knew nothing beyond his
name, which Theodoret (i. 25.) mentions, with other followers of Marcion,
in his article on Apelles. We now learn that Prepon the Marcionist*
had written a book addressed to Bardesianes the Armenian (p. 253.), in
which he set up a third first principle, Justice (rò dikalov), in the Jewish
sense of righteousness, or conformity with the law, as the middle between
good and evil. It is evident from what follows, that Marcion in his later
writings adopted this view. For Hippolytus returns to Marcion, and
gives us his celebrated startling saying, “that the Savour came down
without birth in the fifteenth year of Tiberius," with the addition:
being the mean (uécov) between good and evil.” To explain this ex-
pression Marcion's words are quoted:- “If he is the mean (jegórns),
he is delivered from the nature of evil. But evil is the Demiurg and his
creatures. For this very reason, Jesus descended without being born
(àyévntos), that he might be free from all evil. But he is also free from
the nature of good, in order to be the mean' (uscórns), as Paul says,
and as he (Jesus) himself declares, in the words: Why do you call me
good ?' One is good.”
At this point, the pure Gnostic school being exhausted, Hippolytus
passes through Carpocrates and Cerinthus to the Ebionite heresies. He
states that these two schools stand in opposition to each other (p. 257.67.).
Carpocrates' place is well chosen; for he partakes of both systems.
XVI. CARPOCRATES (pp. 255, 256., compared with Iren. i. 24.). — This
article is from beginning to end extracted from Irenæus, but with curious
omissions. The relation of the two accounts to each other presents so
many interesting points, both for the criticism of the Carpocratian system,
and for that of our work and its author, that I must give the two texts
again in juxtaposition :
IRENÆUS (i. 24.).
HIPPOLYTUS (pp. 255, 256.).
Carpocrates autem et qui ab eo, Καρποκράτης τον μεν κόσμον και τα
mundum et ea quae in eo sunt, ab εν αυτώ υπό αγγέλων πολύ υποβεβηκότων
Angelis multo inferioribus ingenito του αγενήτου Πατρός γεγενήσθαι λέγει,
Patre factum esse dicunt. Jesum | τον δε Ιησούν εξ Ιωσηφ γεγενήσθαι, και
autem eJoseph natum, et qui similis | όμοιον τούς ανθρώποις γεγονότα, δικαιό-
Παύλος και απόστολος ούτε Μάρκος ο καλών λόγων διδάσκαλος ανήγγειλαν. Τούτων γάρ
ουδέν εν τω κατά Μάρκον ευαγγελία γέγραπται. He calls Mark the teacher of good
words (doctrines), instead of the “evangelist” (which means the same), in order to
avoid repetition, and perhaps also for the sake of the play upon the word nóyou.
There are worse corruptions in our text than this. "(I adopt without hesitation the
emendation of Scott :- 6 CÓAoulos dT00T0Aoo.—1854.)
* Mapkiwviorns Tís, IIpétwv 'Ag cópios. The text has (to my surprise, without
any remark) the nonsense, Μαρκίων, νηστίς τις Πρ. Ασ. Μαρκιονίστης is the usual
word for Marcionist.
1
και
BOOK VII.
15. PREPON.
16. CARPOCRATES.
371
reliquis hominibus fuerit, distasse aτερον των λοιπών γενέσθαι, την δε ψυχήν
reliquis secundum id, quod anima- αυτού εύτονον και καθαράν γεγονυΐαν,
ejus frma et munda cum esset, com- διαμνημονεύσαι τα ορατά μεν αυτή εν τη
memorata fuerit que visa essent μετά του αγενήτου θεού περιφορά, και
sibi in ea circumlatione, quae fuisset δια τούτο υπ' εκείνου αυτό καταπεμ-
ingenito Deo : et propter hoc ab eo φθήναι δύναμιν, όπως τους κοσμοποιούς
missam esse ei virtutem, uti mundi εκφυγείν δι' αυτής δυνηθή ην και διά
fabricatores efugere posset, et per πάντων χωρήσασαν εν πάσι τε ελευθερω-
omnes transgressa, et in omnibus €είσαν, εληλυθέναι προς αυτόν, τα όμοια
liberata, ascenderet ad Deum, et eas, αυτής ασπαζομένην. Την δε του Ιησού
que similia ei amplecterentur, simi- λέγουσι ψυχήν εννόμως ήσκημένην εν
liter. Jesu autem dicunt animam Ιουδαϊκούς 2θεσι καταφρονήσαι αυτών,
in Judaeorum consuetudine nutritam και δια τούτο δυνάμεις επιτετελεκέναι, δι'
contempsisse eos, et propter hoc ών κατήργησε τα επί κολάσει πάθη προσ-
virtutes accepisse, per quas evacuavit όντα τούς ανθρώποις. Την ούν ομοίως
que fuerunt in penis passiones, εκείνη τη του Χριστού ψυχή δυναμένην
que inerant hominibus. Ea igitur, καταφρονήσαι των κοσμοποιών άρχοντων,
que similiter atque illa Jesu anima, ομοίως λαμβάνειν δύναμιν προς το πράξαι
potest contemnere mundi fabricatores τα όμοια· διό και εις τούτο το τύφος κα-
archontas, similiter accipere virtutes τεληλύθασιν, ώστε αυτούς μέν ομοίως
ad operandum similia. Quapropter αυτό είναι λέγουσι το Ίησού, τους δε
et ad tantum elationis provecti sunt, και έτι δυνατωτέρους, τινάς δε και δια-
ut quidam quidem similes se esse | φορωτέρους των εκείνου μαθητών, οίον
dicant Jesu, quidam autem adhuc et Πέτρου και Παύλου και των λοιπών απο-
secundum aliquid illo fortiores, qui στόλων» τούτους δε κατα μηδένα απο-
sunt distantes amplius quam illius λείπεσθαι του Ιησού. Τας δε ψυχάς
discipuli, ut puta quam Petrus et αυτών εκ της υπερκειμένης εξουσίας πα-
Paulus et reliqui Apostoli :' hosρούσας, και διά τούτο ώσαύτως κατα-
autum in nullo deminorari a Jesu. φρονείν των κοσμοποιών δια [το] της
Animas enim ipsorum ex eadem (αύτης ήξιώσθαι δυνάμεως, και αύθις εις
circumlatione devenientes, et ideo το αυτό χωρήσαι. Ει δέ τις εκείνου πλέον
similiter contemnentes mundi fabri- καταφρονήσειεν των ενταύθα, δύνασθα
catores, eadem dignas habitas esse διαφορώτερον αυτού υπάρχειν. Τέχνας
virtute, et rursus in idem abire. Si oύν μαγικές εξεργαζόμενοι και επαοιδας,
quis autem plus quam ille contem- 1 φίλτρα τε και χαριτήσια, παρέδρους τε
pserit ea que sunt hic, posse melio- και ονειροπόμπους και τα λοιπα κακουρ-
rem quam illum esse. Artes enim γήματα, φάσκοντες εξουσίαν έχεις προς
magicas operantur et ipsi et incanta- το κυριεύειν ήδη των αρχόντων και ποιη-
tiones, philtra quoque et charitesia, των τούδε του κόσμου, ου μην αλλά και
et paredros et oniropompos, et reli- των εν αυτώ ποιημάτων απάντων· οί-
quas malignationes, dicentes se τινες και αυτοί είς διαβολήν του θείου
potestatem habere ad dominandum της Εκκλησίας ονόματος προς τα έθνη
jam principibus et fabricatoribus υπό του Σατανά προεβλήθησαν, ίνα κατ'
hujus mundi : non solum autem, sed | άλλον και άλλον τρόπον τα εκείνων ακού-
et his omnibus, quae in eo sunt facta. οντες άνθρωποι, και δοκούντες ημάς άν.
Qui et ipsi ad detractionem divini τας τοιούτους υπάρχειν, αποστρέφωσι τας
Ecclesiae nominis, quemadmodum et ακοάς αυτών από του της αληθείας κη-
gentes, a Satana preinissi sint, uti ρύγματος [ή και] βλέποντες τα εκείνων
secundum alium et alium modum, άπαντα, ημάς βλασφημώσιν (t. βλασφη-
que sunt illorum audientes homines, μούσιν).
Β. και 2
372
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
et putantes omnes nos tales esse,
avertant aures suas a præconio veri-
tatis : aut et videntes quæ sunt
illorum, omnes nos blasphement, in
nullo eis communicantes, neque in
doctrina, neque in moribus, neque
in quotidiana conversatione. Sed
vitam quidem luxuriosam, senten-
tiam autem impiam ad velamen
malitiæ ipsorum nomine abutuntur,
quorum judicium justum est, re-
cipientium dignam suis operibus a
Deo retributionem. Et in tantum
insania effrænati sunt, uti et omnia
quæcunque sunt irreligiosa et impia,
in potestate habere operari se dicant.
Sola enim humana opinione negotia
mala et bona dicunt. Et utique Εις τοσούτον δε μετενσωματούσθαι φά-
secundum transmigrationes in cor- σκουσι τας ψυχάς, όσον πάντα τα αμαρ-
pora oportere in omni vita, et inτήματα πληρώσωσιν· όταν δε μηδέν
omni actu feri animas (si non λείπη, τότε ελευθερωθείσαν απαλλαγήναι
preoccupans quis in uno adventu προς εκείνον τον υπεράνω των κοσμο-
omnia agat semel ac pariter, que ποιών αγγέλων Θεόν, και ούτως σωθή-
non tantum dicere et audire non est σεσθαι πάσας τας ψυχάς. . Εί τινες δε
fas nobis, sed ne quidem in mentis φθάσασαι εν μιά παρουσία ανεμίγησαν
conceptionen venire, nec credere si (t. åvapıyñvai) táoaig ápapriaic, oủkéti
apud homines conversantes in his μετενσωματούνται, αλλά πάντα ομού
que sunt secundum nos civitates, αποδούσαι τα οφλήματα ελευθερωθήσον-
tale aliquid agitatur), uti, secundum rai toŰ unrétı yevéolai év cúpati.
quod scripta eorum dicunt, in omni
usu vitæ factæ animæ ipsorum,
exeuntes in nihilo adhuc minus
habeant.
Ad operandum autem in eo, ne
forte propterea quod deest libertati
aliqua res, cogantur iterum mitti in
corpus, propter hoc dicunt Jesum
hanc dixisse parabolam: Cum es
cum adversario tuo in via, da
operam, ut libereris ab eo, etc. etc.
Alii vero ex ipsis signant, cauteri- Τούτων τινές και καυτηριάζουσι τους
antes suos discipulos in posterioribus ιδίους μαθητές εν τοϊς οπίσω μέρεσι του
partibus extantiæ dextre auris. λοβού του δεξιού ωτός.
Unde et Marcellina, quæ Romam
sub Aniceto venit, cum esset hujus
doctrinæ, multos extermininavit.
Gnosticos se autem vocant: etiam
Και εικόνας δε κατασκευ-
imagines quasdam quidem depictas, άζουσι τού Χριστού λέγοντες υπό Πι-
quasdam autem et de reliqua materia λάτου τω καιρώ εκείνη γενέσθαι.
BOOK VII.
373
17. CERINTHUS.
cum
fabricatas habent, dicentes formam
Christi factam a Pilato, illo in tem-
pore quo fuit Jesus cum hominibus.
Et has coronart, et proponunt eas
imaginibus mundi philoso-
phorum, videlicet cum imagine Py-
thagoræ, et Platonis et Aristotelis et
reliquorunı ; et reliquam observa-
tionem circa eas similiter ut Gentes
faciunt.
It proves also
This long passage is very instructive. It proves that we have more
facts, but fewer words, in Hippolytus than in Irenæus.
that, even in those articles which Hippolytus took principally from
Irenæus, he went to the fountain-head, and completed or rectified the
extracts he had found in his predecessor's work. Of this we have a very
striking instance in the passage about the Carpocratian doctrine of the
metempsychosis. The words in Irenæus alluding to this doctrine, and
beginning “Ad operandum autem in eo, ne forte
cogantur iterum mitti in corpus," &c., are entirely unintelligible; so in
fact is the long confused period which precedes it. Hippolytus felt this,
and introduced instead of it, not a sentence (I believe) of the Carpocra-
tion text-book, but undoubtedly the substance of what he found in it,
which Irenæus had garbled. The period which begins that passage,
“ Εις τοσούτον δε μετενσωματούσθαι
ελευθερωθήσονται του μηκέτι
yevéolai év ouuari," renders what follows perfectly intelligible.
As to this wicked perversion of the ancient doctrine of the metem-
psychosis, I can only say that, if it is taken from a work of Carpocrates
himself (to whom we have no right to impute such gross immorality), it
expresses only that part of his doctrine in which he represented the tragic
destiny of the souls living under the thraldorn of the Demiurg, and
driven by him into sin through all the stages of that existence, which,
according to the “ancient" doctrine of the East (against which Æschylus
and the truly religious Hellenic mind rebelled), was a curse in itself.
XVII. CERINTHUS, "educated in the science of the Egyptians"
(p. 256. twelve lines : to be compared with x. 21. and Iren. i. 25.).—I
give the two passages in juxtaposition, because we are led by this method
to some corrections of our text:-
IRENÆUS.
HIPPOLYTUS.
Et Cerinthus autem quidam in Κήρινθος δέ τις [και] αυτός Αίγυ-
Asia, non a primo Deo factum esse | πτίων παιδεία ασκηθείς έλεγεν, ουχ υπό
mundum docuit, sed a virtute quadam του πρώτου [θεού] γεγονέναι τόν κόσμον,
valde separata, et distante ab ea αλλ' υπό δυνάμεως τινός κεχωρισμένης
principalitate que est super universa, της υπέρ τα όλα εξουσίας, και αγνοούσης
et ignorante eum qui est super omnia | τον υπέρ πάντα θεόν. τον δε Ιησούν
Deum. Jesum autem subjecit, non uméDeto ur) ék taptévov yeyevñolai, ye-
ex virgine natum (impossibile enim | γονέναι δε αυτόν εξ Ιωσήφ και Μαρίας
hoc ei visum est) ; fuisse autem eum viòv (t. olov), ouoiws Tois doctrois ünaolv:
Joseph et Marie flium, similiter ut | ανθρώπους, και δικαιότερον γεγονέναι και
в в 3
374
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
;
reliqui ormnes homines, et plus σοφώτερον. Και μετά το βάπτισμα κατ-
potuisse justitia et prudentia et ελθείν εις αυτόν [έκ]* της υπέρ τα όλα
sapientia ab omnibus. Εt post ba- αυθεντίας τον Χριστόν, εν είδει περιστε-
ptismum descendisse in eum, ab ea Τράς. Και τότε κηρύξαι τον άγνωστον
principalitate que est super omnia, (t. γνωστόν) Πατέρα, και δυνάμεις επι-
Christum figura columbe ; et tunc τελέσαι" προς δε το τέλει, αποπτηναι
annunciasse incognitum Patrem, et (t. αποστήναι) τον Χριστόν από του
virtutes perfecisse; in fine autem 'Ιησού (t. Χριστού), και τον Ιησούν πε-
revolasse iterum Christum de Jesu, πoνθέναι και έγηγέρθαι, τον δε Χριστον
et Jesum passum esse et resur- απαθή διαμεμενηκέναι πνευματικών (t.
rexisse : Christum autem impas. Tarpikov) unápxovta.
sibilem perseverasse,
existentem
spiritalem.
On this occasion I will offer an observation to you, my dear friend,
which forces itself upon me more and more in considering the bearing of
this newly discovered work on the present controversy about the age of
the Gospel of St. John, and consequently on the whole history of the
hundred years, from 70 to 170. We have seen that Hippolytus not only
undertook, but really carried out, with no little labour, and with the
resources which Rome alone and a life of inquiry there could offer, a
critical review of the doctrinal history of the Church, from its earliest
age down to his own time. He dug into the depths of the first here-
tical speculations, which had remained historically an enigma to Irenæus
he inquired, in particular, into the historical and chronological order of
these heresies, being the first chronographer of the West, and gave, in all
points where we can follow him, the most authentic reports we possess.
Now, when such a man transcribes an important article from Irenæus,
like that respecting Cerinthus, without addition or modification, his tran-
script must be taken as a solemn seal put to its truth. How, then, can
we treat as mythical the common traditions respecting Cerinthus, whom
Hippolytus also places at the head of the Ebionitic view ? And if we can-
not do this, how can we doubt that Cerinthus lived in the time of St.
John, and that the prologue and other important passages of the fourth
Gospel refer, not to late systems of the second century, but to early
theories of Gnosticism and Ebionitism in the first ? Doubtless the Gospel
does refer to theories and speculations respecting the person of Jesus
of Nazareth, but to those which sprang up immediately after the
destruction of Jerusalem. That event, the shock of which had an echo
through the inhabited globe, roused the infant Christian world from slum-
bering drearns about future destinies in an unknown state, to the conscious-
ness of a world-conquering divine vocation upon this earth, and to
prophetic visions of new kingdoms and new nations directed by Christ's
spirit. It brought on a crystallization of the floating elements of Chris-
tian worship and of corporative organization; and it roused all the depths
of the human intellect to solve the great enigmas of the connection
between the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth and the origin and
nature of the human race, of the relation between history and the divine
idea, between inward and outward revelation and inspiration. How can
any one wonder that those theories sprang up as early as we are told ?
* See x. 21. p. 628, 91 M.
BOOK VII. 18. EBIONITES.--20. THEODOTUS TRAP
.375
We know now more than ever authentically, that they did; and we can
understand this phenomenon, if we consider those circumstances, and the
great fermentation into which the decay of Judaism and of Paganism had,
for a century or two, thrown the human race.
XVIII. The EBIONITES ('E6wvaloi), who acknowledge the true God
as the Creator, but adopt Cerinthus' and Carpocrates' fables about Christ.
They live as Jews, and say, that, like Jesus himself, they are justified by
the law. Jesus fulfilled the law, which none before him had done, and
thus became the Christ; if any had done so before Him, he would have
been the Christ. This short article is partly taken from Irenæus, partly
original. It is well to compare the two texts, in order to observe the
manner in which Hippolytus has on the one hand abridged Irenæus'
account, and on the other enlarged it from the original records.
IRENÆUS (i. 26.).
HIPPOLYTUS (p. 257.).
Qui autem dicuntur Ebionæi, con- 'Εβιωναίοι δε ομολογούσι τον κόσμον
sentiunt quidem mundum a Deo υπό του όντως θεού γεγονέναι τα δε
factum ; ea autem quae sunt erga περί τον Χριστόν ομοίως τω Κηρίνθω
Dominum similiter (text: non simi- kai Kaprokpátel uvetovoiv, "Έθεσιν
liter), ut Cerinthus et Carpocrates | 'Ιουδαϊκούς ζώσι, κατά νόμον φάσκοντες
opinantur.
δικαιούσθαι, και τον Ιησούν.λέγοντες δε-
Solo autem eo quod est secundum δικαιώσθαι ποιήσαντα τον νόμον. διο και
Matthaeum Evangelio utuntur, et Χριστόν τον (t. αυτόν) του θεού ωνο-
Apostolun Paulum recusant, apo-μάσθαι Ιησούν (t. και Ιησούν), επει
statam eum legis dicentes. Quæ au- undels Twv [rpo aŭroớ] ÉTÉdegɛ Tòv
tem sunt prophetica, curiosius ex- νόμον' ει γαρ και έτερός τις πεποιήκει
ponere nituntur: ; et circumcidun- τα εν νόμω προστεταγμένα, ήν αν εκεί-
tur ac perseverant in his consuetu-νος Χριστός. Δύνασθαι δε και εαυτούς
dinibus, quae sunt secundum legem, ομοίως ποιήσαντας Χριστους γενέσθαι
et Judaico charactere vitae, uti et και γαρ και αυτόν ομοίως άνθρωπος είναι
Hierosolymam adorent, quasi domus Tãou Néyovoiv.
sit Deo.
XIX: THEODOTUS of Byzantium (also called the Tanner), an entirely
new article, as well as the following. - Theodotus acknowledged Jesus as
ithe son of Mary the Virgin, but as having received the spirit at his baptism,
in consequence of his most holy and devout life. Some only of his followers
say, that Jesus became God after his resurrection.*
XX. THEODOTUS the Trapezite, or Banker, father of the Melchisedekites,
was originally a simple follower of the first Theodotus; he became the
head of a peculiar system, in consequence of disputes among the Theodo-
tians. It is not stated on what passage of Scripture Theodotus Junior
based his theory of Jesus' relation to Melchisedek, — whether on
the. historical account in Genesis, or on Psalm cx., or on this Psalm
and the Epistle to the Hebrews. But I have no doubt he referred to the
fourth verse of the Psalm: “Thou art a priest for ever after the order
* On this great man, from whom Clemens adopted so much, see my sketch in the
Fifth age, and the text of his Manual of Theology as excerpted and commented upon
by Clemens of Alexandria, in the First Volume of the “ Analecta.”_1854,
в в 4
376
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
of Melchisedek ;” and one can easily understand, that a Gnostic philoso-
pher of the Oriental Valentinian school might endeavour from this verse
to establish the theory, that Melchisedek was the highest power (dúvajic),
and Christ, being of his order, only his image (eikuv): which latter word
was one of the technical terms of the school, as the extracts from Theo-
dotus in Clemens' " Hypotyposes” prove. Epiphanius (Hær. 54, 55,)
also connects this sect with the Theodotians, as a division or branch of
them; and Theodoret (ii. 5, 6.) calls their founder another Theodotus, as
our author does.
Our article adds, that Christ (being himself only an image of Melchi-
sedek) descended upon Jesus, whom this sect also considered simply as a
man.
I think we may guess from this last doctrine of the Theodotians and
Melchisedekites, why Hippolytus, who follows the genealogical order of
the heresies rather than the strictly chronological, placed Cerinthus with
the later Ebionites, or the more modern Judaizing Gnostic school, between
Valentinus, Basilides, and Marcion on the one side, and the Theodotians
on the other. These latter heretics had either openly adopted part of the
Cerinthian and Ebionitic system; or at least their speculations developed
some of the germs contained in them; perhaps also the later Ebionite
writers had tried to support their doctrines by the profound speculations
of Valentinus.
This is the general import of the articles on the Theodotians. But that
on the younger Theodotus and the Melchisedekites is besides very impor-
tant for understanding the character of our manuscript. All that is said
of them is comprised in eight lines (p. 258. 1. 79-86.). Not a word of
refutation is there, in a work which was to leave no heresy unanswered.
This is much less than what either Epiphanius or Theodoret relate of
them; and now mark this circumstance. Theodoret's account is taken
from a work written purposely against this sect, under the title of the
“Little Labyrinth,” which, I can show you good evidence for believing,
was a work of our Hippolytus himself. How, then, is it to be explained,
that his article is so meagre, in a work which was to leave nothing un-
stated, nothing without refutation ? One cannot say that Hippolytus
thought a sufficient refutation was contained in the first part of his work,
on the speculative systems of the Gentiles; for he does not refer to it.
That we have here only a hurried extract is proved by the sentence
immediately following the eight lines descriptive of the Melchisedekite
opinions. This sentence cannot be construed ; and what it seems to say,
" that there were different opinions held by the Gnostics, and that the
author did not think it worth while to discuss their foolish and godless
doctrines," is wholly inappropriate in itself, and in this place, and has no
connection with what follows : “ Nicolaus was the cause of much of the
evil of this sect (which ?); and then Cerdo took his start from them
(from whom ?), and from Simon." It is evident, that as all this cannot
refer to the Gnostics generally, it must refer to those here treated of, the
Theodotians. To explain this by saying that there is a defect in our
manuscript, caused by the carelessness of the copyist, seems to me to be
highly improbable. I therefore consider this passage as one of the many
proofs that we possess a part of the seventh book only in an extract,
made in a hurried manner. The original text must have contained, in
ܪ
BOOK VII.
377
21. NICOLAUS.
this article, much respecting the Theodotians, left out in our extract, and
must have comprised the refutation of their system, concluding with a
sentence the beginning of which we have. Nicolaus was mentioned after
this exposition as one who had deserted the true faith, and whose disciples
were condemned by St. John in his Apocalypse, as guilty of impurity and
communion with idolaters. Lastly, it was stated that Cerdo started from
the Valentinian school.
I have endeavoured to resconstruct the meaning of the text only so far
as is necessary to restore sense to our extract. I believe that such was
the general connection of the context: but what I insist upon is, prin-
cipally, that in our text whole sentences (not a few words merely) are
either wanting entirely, or are extracted carelessly. *
I cannot leave Theodotus without calling your attention for a moment
to the bearing of this passage upon the Ignatian question. In the longer
version of the interpolated Ignatian Epistles (in that to the Trallians) †,
Theodotus' name is mentioned. The chronological place of Theodotus
hangs upon two concurring circumstances. First, we learn credibly from
Epiphanius that his doctrine was condemned by Victor (188—198); and,
secondly, we know that Clemens of Alexandria, in his doctrinal book, the
Hypotyposes” (about 210), gave certain extracts from some Theodotian
writing, with his own observations and occasional refutations. The title
of this work of Clemens runs thus: “Extracts from Theodotus and from
the so-called Oriental school ('Avaroluri diðaokalia) about the time of
Valentinus."| The last words eridently do not refer to Theodotus, who is
credibly reported to have been excommunicated by Victor (187—198),
but designate the Valentinian authors of the Oriental school as having
been contemporaries of their great master. §
XXI. NICOLAUS, the father of the Nicolaitans. — Hippolytus takes him
to be the Nicolaus of the Acts, one of the seven deacons. You know that
this has been from a very early period a much-disputed point. But it is
remarkable that Theodoret expressly names “ Hippolytus the Bishop and
* The text now runs thus after the meagre account of the Melchisedekites :-
Γνωστικών δε διάφοροι γνώμαι, ων ουκ άξιον καταριθμείν τας φλυάρους δόξας εκρίνα -
μεν ούσας πολλάς αλόγους τε και βλασφημίας γεμούσας, ών πάνυ σεμνότερον περί το
θείον οι φιλοσοφήσαντες αφ’ Ελλήνων ήνέχθησαν. Πολλής δε αυτών συστάσεως κακών
αίτιος γεγένηται Νικόλαος, είς των επτά εις διοακνίαν υπό των αποστόλων κατασταθείς,
ος αποστάς της κατ' ευθείαν διδασκαλίας, εδίδασκεν αδιαφορίαν βίου τε και γνώσεως,
ου τους μαθητές ενυβρίζοντας το άγιον Πνεύμα διά της Αποκαλύψεως Ιωάννης ήλεγχε
πορνεύοντας και είδωλόθυτα έσθίοντας. I would restore the sense of the beginning
of this passage thus : -Περί δε το θείον διάφοροι τούτων των Γνωστικών αι γνώμαι
The remainder may perhaps be healed by simply reading προς το θείον οι φιλοσ. .
instead of Tepl To Selov. The sense is :-“The Greek philosophers have approached
the Deity with much more reverence.” Compare p. 4. I. 81 88: Τα δόξαντα τοις
“Ελλήνων φιλοσόφους όντα τούτων παλαιότερα και προς το θείον σεμνότερα. As to the
following period, I read : Πολλής δέ αύτοϊς συστάσεως, κακών αίτιος γεγένηται
Νικόλαος, etc. Σύστασις is to be taken in the sense of συνάθροισμα.
† Cureton, Corpus Ignatianum.
# In what follows about the chronology of Theodotus, I have left out what further
researches have led me to modify.-1854.
§ See the Notice prefixed to the edition of the Clementis Excerpta ex Thecdoto
in the First Volume of the Analecta, and the Picture of the elder Theodotus in the
first part of this Volume.--1854.
378
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
Martyr," with Irenæus and, Origen, as the writers who maintained that
the Nicolaus of the Acts was guilty of the scandalous hèresy of the Nico-
laitans; and we know from Photius, (i. 232.) that Stephanus Gobarus,
the Monophysite, named Hippolytus and Epiphanius (who must have
copied Hippolytus) as the authors who held that opinion. If the author-
ship of Hippolytus were not so well established, this double evidence
might be quoted as a testimony in its favour.
The substance of Irenæus' and Hippolytus' articles is the same, as the
following comparison shows: -
IRENÆUS adv. Hær. i. 27.
HIPPOLYTυς (p. 258. 90.).
Nicolaitæ autem magistrum qui- Πολλοϊς δ' αυ τών συστάσεως κακών
dem habent Nicolaum, unum ex VΙΙ. αίτιος γεγένηται Νικόλαος, είς των επτα
qui primi ad Diaconiam ab Apostolis εις διακονίαν υπό των αποστόλων κατα-
ordinati sunt : qui indiscrete vivant. σταθείς, δς αποστας της κατ' ευθείαν δι-
Plenissime autem per Joannis δασκαλίας, εδίδασκεν αδιαφορίαν βίου τε
Apocalypsin manifestantur qui sint, και βρώσεως" ου τους μαθητές ενυβρί-
nullam differentiam esse docentes |ζοντας το άγιον Πνεύμα διά της Αποκά-
in mechando et idolothyton edere. λύψεως Ιωάννης ήλεγχε πορνεύοντας
Quapropter dixit et de iis sermo : και είδωλόθυτα έσθίοντας.
"Sed hoc habes quod odisti opera
Nicolaitarum, quae et ego odi.” [The text has βίου τε και γνώσεως,
which is an absurdity. βρώσις is an
allusion to βρώσις των ειδωλοθύτων (1 Cor.
viii. 5.), as βίος is to πορνεία.]
XXII. Cerdo derived his system, according to Hippolytus,
«« from
these” (by which he means probably, not the Nicolaitans, but the
Gnostics), “ and from Simon.” The God of Moses and the prophets
was, according to him, different from the Father of Jesus Christ, who
was the hidden and the good God, whereas the God of the Old Testament
was the manifest and the strictly just God; an idea which (as our author
says) Marcion adopted, and strengthened by his great work, as did like-
wise Lucianus, his disciple. (Epiph. Hær. 23, 24.) The last words are
our author's own: the former part of the article (five lines) is copied
literally from Irenæus (i. 28.): finally, the words respecting Marcion are
identical as to their meaning with those which open Irenæus' article upon
him (i. 29.). The following juxtaposition shows this still clearer :
IRENÆUS adv. Hær. i. 28.
HIPPOLYT US (p. 259. 1.).
Et Cerdon autem quidem ab iis Κέρδων δέ τις και αυτός αφορμές
qui sunt erga Simonem occasionem ομοίως παρά τούτων λαβών και Σίμωνος,
accipiens, cum venisset Romam sub
Hygino, qui nonum locum Episco-
patus per successionem ab Apostolis
habuit, docuit eum qui a Lege et
λέγει τον υπό
Prophetis annuntiatus sit Deus, non Μωσέως και προφητών θεόν κεκηρυ-
esse Patrem Domini nostri Christi γμένον μή είναι πατέρα Ιησού Χριστού.
Jesu. Hunc enim cognosci, illum Τούτον μεν γαρ εγνώσθαι, τον δε του
autem ignorari : et alterum quidem | Χριστού πατέρα είναι άγνωστον» και
justum, alterum autem bonum esse. τον μεν είναι δίκαιον, τον δε αγαθόν.
BOOK VII.
379
22. CERDO.
23. APELLES.
i. 29. Succedens autem ei Mar- Τούτου δε το δόγμα εκράτυνε Μαρκίων,
cion Ponticus, adampliavit doctri- τάς τε Αντιπαραθέσεις * επιχειρήσας, και
nam, impudorate blasphemans eum όσα αυτό έδοξεν εις τον των απάντων
qui a Lege et Prophetis annunciatus | δημιουργόν δυσφημήσας.
est Deus, malorum factorem, et
bellorum concupiscentem, et incon-
stantem quoque sententia, et con-
trarium sibi ipsum dicens.
Irenæus treats of Marcion after Cerdo. Our author has anticipated the
article upon Marcion, when speaking of the leading heresiarchs of
Gnosticism, and evidently mentions Marcion and his disciple Lucianus
here, merely as a transition to a junior teacher of the same school of
whom Irenæus does not speak at all; perhaps because he was posterior
to him,
XXIII. APELLES “derived from these” (Cerdo, Marcion, Lucianus).
- He advanced further in the same direction, setting up, besides the
just Demiurg, the fiery God (núpivos), who spoke to Mosest, and, as
a fourth, the author of evil. All these three were to him angels. Of the
Gospels, and St. Paul's Epistles, he picked out what he liked. He at-
tributed the authority of prophecies to the sayings of a clairvoyante
woman of his sect, Philumena.
This account of Apelles seems in some respects severer than that which
Rhodon, Tatian's disciple, and an opponent of the Marcionites, gave of
him in a fragment preserved by Eusebius (H. E. v. 13.), and written
about twenty-five years before our author's time. According to Rhodon,
Apelles acknowledged only one first principle. Hippolytus says that his
system on this subject agreed with that of Marcion. The clairvoyante
Philumena is also mentioned by Rhodon.
The author here concludes his seventh book, in order to pass to the
Docete. We have therefore in the seventh book, first, Basilides and
Saturnîlus as the elder contemporaries of Valentinus, then Marcion as a
younger contemporary. Carpocrates and Cerinthus were the transition to
the Ebionites. After these he continues the line of the Gnostics: the
two Theodotuses and the School of Marcion (Prepon and Apelles). There
is not a very strict order observable in the book, but some of the articles
we evidently possess only in the shape of hasty abstracts.
* I take 'Aytinapadéo els to be the more accurate title of the celebrated work
of Marcion which Tertullian calls Antithesis, or to be the designation of a part
of it.
+ Compare also Deuteron. iv. 24. We have seen that Simon Magus founded
his doctrine upon this passage, taking it (as Valentinus also did, p. 191. 10.) in the
same sense as implying that the name of God was Fire (X). I learn from
Colonel Rawlinson that the Babylonian name of God in the cuneiform inscriptions
19 jav) is really Fire.
380
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
BOOK VIII.
(Pp. 261–277., 17 pages only.)
The eighth book contains seven articles, of which only one, that about
Tatian, is copied from Irenæus : another, equally short, agrees with the
corresponding article of Irenæus, as to the sense, that on the Encratites :
the other five are entirely new, and not touched upon by Irenæus, and
refer, in some places, to opinions more recent than his work on the here-
sies. One article (about Monoïmus the Arab) gives us an almost entirely
unknown system. The whole book is very short, containing only seven-
teen pages. This can scarcely be accounted for, except by assuming that
we do not possess the entire text, but only an abstract, and that abstract
not very carefully made.
XXIV. The DOCETÆ. This name, used very vaguely and indefinitely
by other authors, from Sarapion (Euseb. vi. 12.) down to Jerome and
Theodoret (Divin. Script. c. 12. Opp. iv. 1142.), is here attached to a
particular sect which itself assumed it (p. 262. 28.). This remarkable
article takes up seven pages of the seventeen, and is full of curious extracts
from their text-book (pp. 263 -- 268.), with much new matter. They had
a speculative system, based upon the numbers from one to ten, like the
Egyptian, treated by our author in his fourth book (pp. 77-79.).* The
Docetian christology is not only very original, but also clearly shows the
age to which they belong. They presuppose the whole Valentinian school.
Some light may be thown by help of this article upon the fragments of
the Gospel called after St. Peter.
XXV. MONOÏMUS, an Arab, author of an epistle to Theophrastus
(p. 272.), a man entirely unknown hitherto, with the exception of two
lines in Theodoret (Hær. 98.).- In the four pages and a half which Hip-
polytus has upon him, four are literal extracts from him. He said ac-
cording to Hippolytus : Man was the universe (ävtputov sivat tò fãy)
and the principle of all things(àpxń Twv 'wv). The system is a genuine
* In this most curious article respecting the ancient Egyptian metaphysics of
numbers, it is impossible not to be reminded of the Chinese system delivered in the
Y-king. There is in it a sentence perfectly unintelligible as it stands now. After
the author has explained how, by repetition of itself, the monad generates the dyad,
triad, tetrad, and finally the decad, he continues (p. 78. 3.): Tŵs dè povádos kata Thu
αδιαίρετον σύγκρισιν συγγενείς αριθμοί παραλαμβάνονται γ, ε, ζ, θ' (3, 5, 7, 9). Έστι
δε και ετέρου αριθμού συγγένεια προς την μονάδα, φυσικωτέρα κατά την του εξακύκλου
έλικος πραγματείαν, της δυάδος κατά την άρτιον θέσιν των αριθμών και διαίρεσιν. The
editor proposes to correct : της εξακ. έλ. I read: τήν του εξακύκλου ελικοί
πραγματείαν, ή της δυάδος, &c. These words allude to the divine Hexaemeron, or
the six days of the creation; and I believe their sense is this: the dyad is more phi.
losophical as respects the treatment of the six days of the creation of the materia
universe. For, without starting from the dyad, and proceeding by a dyadic pro-
gression (2+2+2), a philosopher endeavouring to explain the account of the six
days of the material creation, cannot arrive at six, nor show how six proceeds fron
two by three (6=3 x 2). If our fragments of Hippolytus' commentary on the
Hexaemeron were not so very meagre, we should be able probably to prove thi:
explanation by the method employed by him.
BOOK VIII.
24. THE DOCETE. - 27. HERMOGENES. 381
Oriental mixture of Gnostic speculation, proceeding by progressive
evolutions of the monad. But it is mixed up with a mythical application
of the Pythagorean speculations respecting numbers, and, as Hippolytus
says (p. 272.), of the Aristotelian categories. In the extracts we find the
Pentateuch and the Epistle to the Colossians quoted, with every word
perverted from its natural sense to fit the speculative dreams of the author,
His ethical system seems a bold carrying out of the first sentence men-
tioned above: “Desisting from seeking God, nature, and what belongs
to them, seek thou thyself from thyself, and say—'My God is my mind,
my thought, my soul, my body ;' and thou wilt find thyself in thyself, as
the one and the whole."
ΧΧVΙ. ΤΑΤΙΑΝ, the disciple of Justin Martyr. - On his opinions we
have only five lines (p. 273. 52–56.), copied almost literally from Irenæus
(i. 31.), after his Introduction (i. 30.) had been given in a more concise
form. The following comparison of those five lines shows the identity,
and gives sense to a corrupt passage in our text:-
IREN ZEUS (i. 31.).
HIPPOLYTUS.
(Τατιανός) Ιουστίνου ακροατής γε- Τατιανός δε και αυτός γενόμενος μα-
γονώς εφόσον μέν συνήν εκείνω ουδέν θητης Ιουστίνου του μάρτυρας, ουκ
εξέφηνε τοιούτον: μετά δε την εκείνου όμοια τη διδασκάλο εφρόνησεν, αλλά
μαρτυρίας αποστές της εκκλησίας οιή- καινά τινα επιχειρήσας έφη
ματι διδασκάλου επαρθείς, και τυφωθείς
ως διαφέρων των λοίπων, ίδιον χαρακ-
τήρα διδασκαλείου συνεστήσατο, αιώνας
τινας αοράτους ομοίως τους από Ουα- αιώνάς τινας παρά τους (1. αοράτους)
λεντίνου μυθολογήσας τον γάμον τε ομοίως τοϊς από Ουαλεντίνου μυθολογή-
φθοράν και πορνείαν παραπλησίως Μαρ- σασι (Ι. μυθολογήσας). Γάμον δε φθοράν
κίωνι και Σατορνίνω αναγορεύσας τη είναι παραπλησίως Μαρκίωνι λέγει. Τον
δε τού 'Αδάμ σωτηρία παρ' εαυτού την άν- δε 'Αδάμ φάσκει μή σώζεσθαι, διά το άρ-
τιλογίαν (t. αιτιολογίαν) ποιησάμενος. χηγόν παρακοής γεγονέναι.
XXVII. HERMOGENES : only one page: yet containing much to il-
lustrate what we know about the Carthaginian painter from his contem-
porary countryman and adversary, Tertullian (Adv. Hermogenem), and
from Theodoret (i. 19.). - He said, God had made all from Matter coeval
with himself, and not begotten: God overruled her, and produced order
out of her confusion ; but still there remained a disorderly residue (äroo-
uoc). What is original in this, observes Hippolytus, has been much
better said by Plato, in a myth related by Socrates. As to Christ, Her-
mogenes acknowledged him as the son of the Virgin, and believed in
his resurrection : he had ascended to the heavens, and left his body in
the sun: an idea which he fantastically supported by the words of Ps. xix.
4., as Clemens in his “Hypotyposes” also expressly states this to have
been the interpretation given by Hermogenes (Eclogæ prophet. (56.).
Neander, whose article on Hermogenes' system is admirable in every
respect (i. 973—978.), did not, probably, think of that passage in Clemens,
when he gave the same explanation as his guess (i. 978. n. i.).
382
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
XXVIII. The QUARTODECIMANI, or those who about the middle and
latter part of the second century insisted upon celebrating Easter always
on the fourteenth day of the first moon after the vernal equinox, without
any reference to the day of the week. -> This original, but short, article
becomes in some respects the most important of the whole, as far as the
identity of our book with that read by Photius, is concerned. * The
words quoted from it are not found in our text. At first sight the case is
rather startling. For it appears that, if we admit the authenticity of the
quotation, we must give up the identity of our work with that quoted.
But I maintain that, in spite of appearances, this very quotation is a
proof of the identity of the work. For I can show that we have in our
book all but the literal text quoted by the Chronicon Paschale ; and that
this passage may be a new proof, that in many articles of the sixth,
seventh, and eighth books in particular, we have an abstract only of the
text of Hippolytus. This opinion became probable to me from the in-
complete state of some other articles. But here we can demonstrate that
there exists a want of connection in the argument; and what is wanted
to restore sense to the text, and connection to the argument, is exactly
what is auspiciously supplied by the quotation.
As this passage is of such importance, I must first give you the whole
article as it now stands, and then bishop Peter of Alexandria's quo-
tation :
“ Some others, contentious in their nature, simpletons in knowledge,
pugnacious in disposition, maintain that it is necessary to keep Easter on
the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the command of the
law, on whatever day it falls, apprehensive of what is written in the law,
that cursed shall he be who does not keep it as it is ordered ;' not
heeding that the law was given to the Jews, who were to kill the true
passorer, that which is gone forth to the nations, and is understood † by
faith, not kept now by the letter. Attending to this one injunction, they
lose sight of what the Apostle saith (Gal. v. 3.): 'I testify to every one
who is circumcised, that he is a debtor to the whole law. In other points
these people agree with everything which has been delivered to the Church
by the Apostles."
The text of the quotation of the Chronicle runs thus :
Hippolytus, the witness of religion, who was bishop of the so-called
Portus, near Rome, has written literally thus in his “Treatise against all
the Heresies : '—' I therefore see that there is a contentiousness in this
affair. For he (the adversary, the Quartodeciman) says thus: “Christ
* The difficulty disappears, by assuming as I do with Duncker, that the compiler
of the “Chronicle” had before him, as well as Photius, the former “Syntagma against
the Heresies," and not the greater work of Hippolytus, the “Refutation.”—1854.
* Το είς έθνη χωρησαν και πίστει νοούμενον ου γράμματι νύν τηρούμενον. I had
translated this, “ is received by faith ;" but I think the more literal translation is
not so likely to lead to the same mistake as my excellent German translator has
committed by rendering it: “in Glauben allein empfangen.” Döllinger (p. 19.)
has been pleased to burden me with it, as if I had intended to make out Hippolytus
to have been a follower of Zwingli. He quotes in other places the original English
edition, the only one for which, in doubtful cases, I am responsible ; but on this
occasion he happens not to mention it.-—1854.
BOOK VIII.
383
28. THE QUARTODECIMANI.
celebrated the passover on that very day, and suffered (the next day): I
therefore must also do as the Lord did.” But he is wrong from not
knowing that, when Christ suffered, he did not eat the passover according
to the law. For he was the passover which had been foretold, and which
was accomplished on the day appointed.'”
There is no mistaking the sense of this passage, or of another from
Hippolytus' “ Treatise on the Passover," which Peter subjoins. Hippo-
lytus and Peter both maintained that the Quartodecimans were wrong
from the very beginning ; for Christ himself did not eat the passover on
the day appointed by the law, for the simple reason that, according to the
true historical account of St. John and the tradition of the fathers,
Christ suffered death on the fourteenth day of the month, and therefore
had eaten the paschal lamb, but not on the appointed day. The law of
Moses therefore held good for the proper time only, until Christ's death:
and this was right: for then the symbol ceased; the true paschal lamb
had been offered, and on the very day on which the eating of the lamb
was to take place according to the law.
We have therefore two arguments; the one which we read now in our
text, and that quoted by Peter. The one contents itself with simply
flinging back upon the Quartodecimans the letter of the law which they
quote, proving that, if they will stick to that letter, they must keep every
tittle of the law, in spite of their being Christians. This is a most sound
and apostolical argument, which, by the by, may well be used in our days
against many divergent Judaizing heresies around us. But certainly by
itself it hardly meets the question. The poor Quartodecimans, assailed
by this argument, would say: “ All very well, if you prove to us that
what we do is wrong. But the simple fact, that we are not bound to keep
the whole law, does not prove that we are wrong because we do keep it
in this point as our Fathers did. We do not condemn you, why will you
not let us celebrate the eating of the paschal lamb as we are accustomed
to do, and as the law certainly prescribes it should be done ? This na-
tural reply would then call forth the second argument:- Well, then,
you are wrong on this particular point: Christ's own conduct proves that
this law ceased to be binding when he was to die: at that time he did not
eat the symbolical passover; for he was himself the real passover. And
therefore on the day, on the evening of which the Jews eat their pass-
over, he expired.” To this of course would be added the explanation,
that there was no irregularity in this proceeding of Christ, but, on the
contrary, a fulfilment of the law: the reality appearing, the shadow
ceased.
Our text has only the first argument explicitly; but the second is di-
* This counter argument, may also be stated thus :- The fixed point is not the
eating of the paschal lamb, for Christ himself did not eat it on the appointed day,
but on his resurrection. This great event took place on the first day in the Jewish
week (our Sunday), after the equinoctial full-moon. The day preceding the Sab-
hath (the day of preparation or Parasceue (feria sexta, our Friday), was that of
Christ's death : this therefore will remain the proper day for the remembrance of his
death, hy which he became that real Lamb, of which the legal paschal lamb was
only the foreshadowing; the day before that of Parasceue (feria quinta) is the day
of the institution of the Lord's Supper. -1854.
384
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
rectly alluded to in a sentence, which concludes with a phrase quite in the
character of our book and author, and is an imitation of the striking
passage in the First Epistle to Timothy (iii. 16.): -“He who was manifest
in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the
Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” Now, we
must recollect, that Hippolytus is here on his own ground, that he had
argued this point for many years, more than any of his contemporaries,
and that he is the great authority of his time on the subject, at least for
the West. Of all the disputes in the world, Hippolytus had not taken so
much trouble with any as about this. His Paschal Cycle is represented
as his most glorious monument and relic, on the cathedra on which his
statue is seated, erected to him probably within a century after his death;
and his celebrated “ Treatise on the Passover” is quoted on that monu-
ment, and referred to by his learned Alexandrian brother, about seventy
years later. How, then, can we believe Hippolytus to have treated this ar-
gument so negligently and meagerly in a book on which he had spent so
much time and inquiry, as he continually says? We can show, therefore,
not only that our book contains the sense of the article which the Pascal
Chronicle quoted from Hyppolytus' treatise “i Against all the Heresies;
but also that what we read in it is nothing but an abstract, carelessly
made, from the original work. Compare the words at the beginning of
our article, "Ετεροι δέ τινες φιλόνεικοι τήν φύσιν, ιδιώται την γνώσιν, and the
words of Peter's quotation, 'Opū uèv oủv öti oldoveikias tó épyov. These
words of the quotation must not be taken as corresponding to the passage
in which that contentiousness (pilovɛlkia) is said to be characteristic of the
sect. But they may refer to that passage with which our article begins,
and which consequently must have immediately preceded the words
quoted by bishop Peter : “ I therefore see that there is contentiousness in
the affair." We are thus led to the same conclusion to which we came in
the seventh book : our MS. has not a lacuna in this place; but in this
article, as probably in many other passages where the text is not clear
and where something seems wanting, we have only an abridgment from
Hippolytus' original work, and that a very stupid and careless one. I
have already observed, how short the present book is, and how meagre
certain articles are in the sixth book, and still more in the seventh.
Thus what might appear at first sight a stumbling-block, turns out to be a
curious and striking proof of Hippolytus' authorship. We can prove his
authorship by this quotation of a passage, which, though not found in our
text, is necessary to make the argument clear and of any force. We have
the same argument, the same meaning, although not the same words. *
XXIX. The MONTANISTS (Epiph. H. 28.; Theodoret, iii. 3.), or, as
they are called here, the Phrygians (Apóyes).—They referred their origin
to a person of the name of Montanus, and were deceived by two women,
their prophetesses (clairvoyantes †), Priscilla and Maximilla, who, they
* The argument remains essentially the same if we assume that the Chronicler
did not quote from our book, but from the shorter treatise. The analogy of the
passage of our text with that quotation points to an identity of the author.—1854.
+ That the whole was an ordinary magnetic process seems to me proved by
Montanus' own words about himself (Epiph. Hær. 28. § 4. p. 405.): “Lo the
BOOK VIII. 29. MONTANISTS.
385
30. ENCRATITES.
pretended, saw certain matters, through the Paraclete in them (tó
lapaklýtov a vevua), better than Christ himself. Some of them, he adds,
partake of the heresy of the Noetians, and maintain that the Father him-
self has become subject to being born, to suffering and to death. It is to
be remarked, that Hippolytus says nothing of the scandalous mysteries
and abominable child-sacrifices with which Epiphanius charges some of
this sect. Theodoret adds, with reference to this charge, that others call
it a calumny; which most probably it was, although Phrygia seems
always to have been the country of orgiastic mysteries and insane
abominations.
Hippolytus may not have known this charge, or not thought it worth
while expressly to contradict it. But the whole article is very meagre, and, if
not an abstract, might certainly be called a proof that he forgot what he
had promised to do, if at the end he did not congratulate himself on hav-
ing fulfilled his promise. Our article passes in silence over the assertions
of the Montanists respecting the Spirit and the sacraments, and over their
prohibition of second marriages, mentioning, as their errors, only their
new-fangled feasts and festivals, and the injunctions of those women
respecting the eating of dry things and of radishes, and then self-compla-
cently winds up this meagre account of 22 lines, not containing one word
of quotation from their text-books, with these words : “I think I have
said enough about them, having briefly shown to all, that their many
prating books and pretensions are weak, unworthy of regard, and such as
no man of a sound mind ought to attend to.”
It may be said that Hippolytus expresses his intention to write more in
detail about them on a future occasion : but as he mentions the eating of
radishes, he may be supposed to have at least slightly touched upon the
more important points.
XXX. The ENCRATITES, heretical in their precepts forbidding animal
food, enjoining water-drinking, prohibiting marriage, and prescribing
fasts fitter for Cynics than for Christians, as our author says. He opposes to
them the wise words of “the blessed Apostle Paul” (1 Timothy, iv. 5.), as
a sufficient refutation, and then concludes the book with the general
observation, that he thought it advisable not to say a word about the
Caïnites*, Ophites, or Noachites, because otherwise some might think
them worthy of attention.t All that remains for him to examine is the
heresies of his own time.
This is the subject of the next book. As I shall have to treat the
historical part of this book, so far as it throws a new light upon the
history of the bishops of Rome at that time, in my next letter, and the
doctrinal part in the following, I shall here only give very briefly the
contents of the ninth book, so far as it relates to those two heresies.
man is like a lyre; and I play upon him (literally, fly about) like the plectrum.
The man sleeps, and I am awake. Lo, it is the Lord who entrances (& Korhoas)
the hearts of men, and gives hearts to men,
* See below my note to the end of the article on the polemical writings of
Hippolytus.—1854.
+ p. 277. 49-53. I read: ίνα μή καν εν τούτω τινες (t. τινας) αυτους λόγου
(t. ή λόγου) αξίους ηγωνται (cod. ήγίωμαι. Ed. αυτους ... ήγώνται). .
VOL. I.
Сс
386
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
BOOK IX.
The Noetians, afterwards also called the Callistians (292.), and the
Elchasaites ; with an appendix, respecting the three principal sects of the
Jews-the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes. (p. 279——309.): 31 pages.
XXXI. The NOETIANS. - We learn here many things entirely unknown
hitherto. First, the real genealogy of the sect. Our Church historians
had hitherto believed *, on the faith of Theodoret (iii. 3.), that Noetus of
Smyrna only renewed the opinions of 'Epigonus and Cleomenes, two
heretics of whom we knew nothing. Perhaps the less clear words of our
author, in the epitome at the end of his work, may be the source of the
whole mistake. At all events we now know the truth. Theodoret's
words are only a blunder or a misinterpretation. In our passage, Noetus
is said to have bused his doctrine upon that of Heraclitus; and it is then
added, that it was the deacon Epigonus (was Noetus a bishop ?), his dis-
ciple, who first spread Noetus' doctrine at Rome. He again had a dis-
ciple, Cleomenes, a stranger to the Church by his life and manners, who
did much harm, being favoured by Zephyrinus and Callistus. The
Noetian doctrine therefore is not, as Neander supposes, older than
Noetus, the man of Smyrna, who, according to what we learn from Hip-
polytus, must have taught before the year 200, probably about 190.
Secondly: we learn that the name of Callistians, given to that sect, which
name we knew hitherto only from Theodoret's mentioning it without any
further explanation, is derived from no less a personage than Callistus,
bishop of Rome under Caracalla and Heliogabalus from 219 to 222, the
successor of Zephyrinus, bishop from 200 to 218, and predecessor of
Urbanus, who was bishop from 223 to 230.
Thirdly: we get from our book a new, important fragment of Hera-
clitus, and much new evidence about his system. Our author, applying
his constant method to Noetus, prores first, that logically he stands upon
Heraclitus' saying (like that of Hegel), " that every thing is also its
own contrary." In order to substantiate this, he not only refers briefly
to what he had said of Heraclitus in his second book, but brings new
passages and arguments to bear upon this question: which renders these
pages (282, 283.) very important for the history of ancient philosophy.
After this prefatory refutation, Hippolytus gives us the systems both of
Noetus himself (p. 284.) and of Callistus (p. 289.) mainly in their own
words. I think it will illustrate these two heresies to place them in juxta-
position :
2
as
The system of NOETUS ex-
pounded by Cleomenes and his The system of CALLISTUS.
School.
66 When the Father was not yet " The same Logos is the Son, the
generated, he was justly called same the Father, so called by name,
* Neander, Kircheng. i. 1006. Anm. Theodoret says that Cleomenes was the
teacher of Noetus: this is evidently a mistake of the compiler. He was the disciple
of the successor of Noetus.
BOOK IX.
387
31. NOETIANS.
Father. But when he was pleased but one undivided Spirit. The
to suffer birth, he became, when en- Father is not one being, the Son
gendered, bimself the Son of him- another, but one and the same : and
self, not of any one else.” He all is full of the divine Spirit, the
pretends that “the Father and Son things above and the things below;
are one and the same, being so called, and the Spirit that became flesh in
not as proceeding one out of the the Virgin is not different from
other, but himself from himself. the Father, but one and the same.
He was called Father and Son ac- This is the meaning of the words :
cording to the difference of times ; Dost thou not believe that I am in
but He is one, He who appeared and the Father, and the Father in me?'
endured to be born of a Virgin, and For what is seen, which is Man, is
conversed among men as a Man, the Son ; but the Spirit that dwells
confessing himself to those who in the Son is the Father : for I will
saw him, to be the Son, by reason not say there are two Gods, the
of his birth, yet not concealing from Father and the Son, but One. The
those who were able to understand Father, who was in the Son, took
it, that he was the Father.” (284.) flesh and made it God, uniting it to
himself, and made it One. The
Father and Son was therefore the
name of one God; and this one
person (apóownov) cannot be two:
the Father consequently suffered
with the Son."
The Noetians further say (p. 283.), “ There is one and the same God,
the Creator (Demiurg) and Father of all."
In this exposition Hippolytus supposes every one to know, that Noetus
calls the Father and the Son one and the same being (pp. 285, 287.). But
as to Callistus, he gives a personal, and as it were historical, explanation,
in which he tries to show that Callistus invented a new form of the heresy
for two reasons. First, he was obliged to make good his strong word
against Hippolytus and his friends among the Roman presbytery, “You
are Ditheoi (ditheists),” men who set up two Gods, and thus destroy the
unity of God. Secondly, Sabellius, who appears here in his first stage,
urged him from his point of view to take such a course. Hippolytus'
severest censure on Callistus' doctrine is that it was the offspring of an
insincere man, opposed to truth and actuated by bad motives. Callistus
(says Hippolytus, in reference to the expressions, that the “ Father
suffered with the Son ") wishes to avoid saying that the Father suffered,
and that there is only one person, hoping thus to escape the blasphemy
against the Father.† “That foolish, shifting fellow, who, inventing
* 289. 7. έφευρεν αίρεσιν τoιάνδε λέγων τον λόγον αυτόν είναι υιον, αυτόν και
πατέρα ονόματι μεν καλούμενον, εν δε όντα πνεύμα αδιαίρετον. The text has εν δε
Ov Tò mv. ad. What follows shows that this correction is no less certain than easy.
The learned editor thinks the passage is unintelligible, because mutilated : I
think it simply corrupted.
* p. 289. ου γαρ θέλει λέγειν τον πατέρα πεπονθέναι και εν είναι πρόσωπον ούτω
πως ελπίζων) εκφυγείν τήν εις τον πατέρα βλασφημίαν. The words between
brackets, or some to the same purport, must be inserted to fill up the chasm, the
existence of which has not been overlooked by the learned editor,
Cc2
388
THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES.
blasphemies above and below, in order to speak against the truth, is 'not
ashamed to fall sometimes into the doctrine of Sabellius, sometimes into
that of Theodotus." It is evident, therefore, that he finds in Callistianism
the heresy of the Theodotians as well as something of Sabellianism.
I shall treat, in my fifth letter, of all the genuine and spurious writings
which bear Hippolytus' name. But I must beg you here to compare this
exposition and refutation of the system of Noetus' with the “Homily of
Hippolytus about the heresy of a certain Noetus.” Montfaucon found
the Greek text of this special treatise, and sent it to Fabricius, who
published it in the second volume of his learned, but very confused and
ill-digested edition of Hippolytus (pp. 5—20.), having given the Latin
text in the first volume (p. 235. sqq.). It appears to me impossible not
to see that the author is the same, but that the homily never formed
part of the work on all the heresies. Its method and tone are those of a
sermon, not of a historian writing on doctrinal controversies.
You will observe finally, that when Epiphanius says Noetus lived about
130 years before the year in which he himself wrote (375 P.c.), or about
the year 245, he is monstrously inaccurate in this as in many other points
of ancient ecclesiastical history and chronology. The groundlessly
suspected statement, that Noetus was condemned (or censured) by a
Roman Synod under Victor (188—198), is, on the other hand, no way
improbable, so far at least as that Noetus, according to the authentic
account before us, must have promulgated his doctrine in the last decad
of the second century. Through the support his doctrine gained at Rome,
it spread over the whole world, as Hippolytus says (p. 292.).
XXXII. The ELCHASAITES. This article is almost entirely new.
What was known about the name of the book or the author, was very
little and confused. A Syrian, Alcibiades of Apamea, we hear from
Hippolytus, a deceitful and senseless man, who (says our author) thought
hirnself a still greater conjuror than Callistus, came to Rome, bringing
with him a sacred book. The story about this fabulous book is, that a
just man, Elchasai ('Hixaoal), had got it from the Parthians and given it
to a certain Sobai. It had been inspired by an angel, of whose dimensions
it will suffice here to say, that his footsteps measured in length fifteen
miles (breadth and height being in proportion); which beats the seven-
league-boots man of the old story hollow. By this book a new remission
of all sins was announced to mankind, in the third year of Trajan, which
is, curiously enough, the year 100 of our era, or three or four years before
the real end of the first Christian century, according to the correct (and
then probably known) era from the birth of Christ. Those who had fallen
into all vice, and even into the most beastly crimes and sins, were to be
admitted to a new baptism for the remission of their sins. He endea-
voured to attach this system of his to Callistianism. “We (says Hippoly-
tus) resisted this unholy attempt, and will now unveil the whole heresy."
As a bait, Alcibiades prescribed to his converts to be circumcised, and
to live according to the law. Christ had been born a man like other men ;
there had been other Christs before him, and there would still be others.
He used mathematical and astrological formulas, borrowed from the
Pythagoreans, and employed charms and incantations against demoniacs,
dogbitten persons and other sick. The second baptism took place in the
BOOK IX,
389
32. ELCHASAITES.
name of the “Great God ;” and he who was to receive it was made to
call as witnesses the seven angels : heaven, water, the holy spirits, the
angels of prayer, oil, salt, and earth. Hippolytus gives the very words of
these truly juggling Oriental impostures (pp. 294, 295.).
And here I am at the end of my second letter, which has grown a good
deal longer than I expected. Looking back to the three points I under-
took to prove, I believe I have established them pretty satisfactorily. For
I have shown thirty-two heresies contained in this work. I have also
shown that this account begins with the earliest Judaizing Gnostics (the
Naassenes and their followers), by Photius incorrectly designated as
Dositheans, who were a Judaic sect, and not heretics, but who, as fathers
of that oldest class of Christian heretics, are also alluded to in the beginning
of the treatise on heresies appended to Tertullian's book, “ De Præscrip-
tionibus Hæreticorum.” Our work, therefore, begins, in fact, as Photius
says: so too does it end. Photius states, that the last of the thirty-two
heresies refuted by Hippolytus was that of the Noetians : we have found
this to be the thirty-first. But our author evidently treats the Elchasaite
heresy, which, according to our method of counting the articles in our
work, is the thirty-second, as a short appendix to the Noetian school.
Indeed Alcibiades of Apamea, who taught that heresy at Rome under the
episcopate, and as it were the patronage, of Callistus, was intimately
connected with the Noetian school.*
No one who is acquainted with Irenæus, and the other authors on the
heresies, will pretend that this coincidence can be accidental. †
I have, moreover, given many proofs during the examination of these
thirty-two heresies, that what Photius states (from Hippolytus' own words)
as to the relation of this treatise to that of Irenæus, is fully borne out by
our text. But I have neither done with my argument, nor with the
subjèct.
In my next letter I shall have to examine our author's account of his
own position at Rome, and his relations to the Roman bishops of his
time. I promise it shall be short; and I hope it will not be without
interest.
Ever your faithful Friend,
BUNSEN.
* The words of the text to which I refer (B. ix. p. 292) are these: Hippolytus
having exposed the pretended revelations spread at Rome by Alcibiades, who
preached Elchasai, goes on to say: Ταύτα δε ετόλμησε τεχνάσαι τα πανουργήματα από
του προειρημένου δόγματος αφορμήν λαβών, ου παρεστήσατο (1. προεστήσατο) Κάλλιστος.
At all events, if Döllinger uses this circumstance as an argument against me, I
have only to repeat that the circumstance is irrelevant to the question of authorship.
The article of Photius proves as much for the authorship of Hippolytus, if he had read
only his first smaller treatise, as if he had had our work before him
of It is too absurd in itself to suppose that the work read by Photius was the
prototype of that miserable treatise unworthily attached (even against the best
MSS.) to the book of Tertullian's De Præscript. Heret. But besides, it requires
more than our ingenuity to make it contain thirty-two heresies instead of
twenty-eight, and to make a list beginning with Simon and ending with Praxeas
(the 28th) go from the Dositheans to the Noetians. Besides this list, however,
we have only those of Theodoret and Epiphanius; and who would assert that
either of them applies to the number of Photius ?-1854.
с с 3
1854,
THE GOVERNMENT AND CONDITION OF THE CHURCH OF ROME UNDER ZEPHY-
BER OF THE ROMAN PRESBYTERY AND BISHOP OF PORTUS.
important for the knowledge of the government of the Church at that
LETTER III.
RINUS AND CALLISTUS (199-222), ACCORDING TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS, MEM-
Carlton Terrace, June 23, 1851.
MY DEAREST FRIEND,
I HAVE left out in my extracts from the ninth book what may appear
to most readers, if not the most important, certainly either the most
amusing or the most painful part of Hippolytus' work, the history of the
bishops of Rome in his time.
I have done so for two reasons. One is, that this matter has nothing to
do, either with the special argument of my second letter, or with the
merit or demerit of the theological views. For we must judge Noetianism
independently of the question whether Callistus, the bishop of Rome, who
supported it, deserved to be declared a saint of the Roman Church, or
was a rogue and convict, as his brother bishop, a member of his presby-
tery, says of him. I should be very sorry to be instrumental in degrad-
ing our good bishop Hippolytus' grave work into a chronique scandaleuse of
the Church of Rome. In uncovering the scandals of that Church, the
historian must not forget what the pages of history relate of those, of
Byzantine court orthodoxy, or of Frank and French royal proselytism.
It would be unjust to visit the inherent vices of all churches, from the
management of which the people are excluded, upon Rome alone, merely
because, out of a number of instances, this story, belonging to an age
of bigotry and general decay, has just now by chance been revealed
to us.
My second reason is, that the whole account deserves a historical and
philosophical consideration by itself. It is a piece of history highly
time, and for understanding the spirit of the age. I shall therefore devote
the present letter to a historical elucidation of the matter, reducing the
fervent language of our author to a calm relation of the tale he has to
tell, and attempting an impartial review of the proceedings he mentions.
It cannot be denied, that our good father, when he comes to this point,
raises the tone of his voice to the pitch of indignant anger.
We know that in the latter years of the reign of the unworthy son of
the philosophical and virtuous but inefficient emperor Marcus Aurelius,
Commodus, his mistress Marcia played a conspicuous part in the history
of the palace. She married, as a matter of course it would appear, the
captain of the guards, and was believed to exercise a great influence on
THE ROMAN CHURCH.
391
ܪ
the emperor. When his brutal temper became unbearable, she was privy
to the conspiracy which put him to death by poison and suffocation.
Of this Marcia we knew already, from Dion, that she was very kind to
the Christians. We learn now from Hippolytus, that she was Godloving
(ølółeos), that is to say, that she had been converted to the Christian
faith. +
The part she acts in the life of Callistus is peculiarly interesting.
There was under Commodus, when Victor was bishop of Rome, a good
Christian soul called Carpophorus, who had a Christian slave, of the name
of Callistus. To help him on, he gave him the administration of a bank,
which he kept in that celebrated quarter of Rome called the Piscina
publica. Many brethren and widows trusted their money to this bank,
having great faith in the Christian character of Carpophorus. But
Callistus turned out a rogue: he made away with the sums intrusted to
him; and when the depositors wanted their money, it was gone. Their
complaints came before Carpophorus; he asked for the accounts ; and
when the fraud could no longer be concealed, Callistus made his escape.
He ran down to the harbour, Portus, some twenty miles from Rome,
found a ship ready to start, and embarked. Carpophorus was not slow to
follow him, and found the ship moored in the middle of the harbour. He
took a boat to claim the criminal. Callistus, seeing no escape, threw
himself into the sea, and was with difficulty saved, and delivered up to his
master, who, taking the matter into his own hands, gave him the domestic
treadmill of the Roman slave-holders, the pistrinum. Some time passed,
and, as is wont to happen (say Hippolytus), some brethren came to
Carpophorus, and said he ought to give poor Callistus a fair chance of
regaining his character, or at least his money. He pretended he had
money outstanding, and that, if he could only go about, he should recover
Well,” said good Carpophorus, “lét him go and try what he can
recover: I do not care much for my own money, but I mind that of the
poor widows."
So Callistus went out on a Sabbath (Saturday), pretend-
ing he had to recover some money from the Jews, but in fact having
resolved to do something desperate, which might put an end to his life, or
give a turn to his case. He went into a synagogue and raised a great riot
there, saying he was a Christian, and interrupting their service. The
Jews were of course enraged at this insult, fell upon him, beat him, and
then carried him before Fuscianus, the prefect of Rome. When this
judge, a very severe man, was hearing the cause, somebody recognised
Callistus, and ran to tell Carpophorus what was going on. Carpophorus
went immediately to the court, and said: “ This fellow is no Christian,
but wants to get rid of his life, having robbed me of much money, as I
will prove." The Jews, thinking this was a Christian stratagem to save
Callistus, insisted upon having him punished for disturbing them in the
lawful exercise of their worship. Fuscianus, therefore, sentenced him to
it., 68
* Her marriage with the captain, when she was the emperor's mistress, is awk.
ward. The legal concubine of an unbeliever was not excluded by the canons of
the time from the communion of the Church, as long as she kept only to the man
she lived with. (It is however to be observed, that she may have been simply a
catechumen, a God-fearing woman, who, as an inquirer after truth, and on account of
her influential position, might be treated with some regard. —1854.)
CC4
392
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
be scourged, and then transported to the unwholesome parts of Sardinia,
so fatal to life in summer (Strabo, v. 2. & 7, 8.).
Some time after, says Hippolytus, Marcia, wishing to do a good work,
sent for bishop Victor and asked what Christians had been transported to
Sardinia ; adding, she would beg the emperor' to release them. The
bishop made out a list of them ; but being a judicious and righteous man,
omitted the name of Callistus, knowing the offence he had committed.
Marcia obtained the letter of pardon ; and Hyacinthus, a eunuch (of
the service of the palace undoubtedly), and a presbyter (of the Church),
was despatched to the governor of the island to claim and bring back the
martyrs. Hyacinthus delivered his list: and Callistus finding his name
was not upon it, began to lament and entreat, and at last moved Hya-
cinthus to demand his liberation also. Here the text is somewhat obscure;
but thus much is clear, that his liberation was obtained by bringing the
name of Marcia into play. *
When Callistus made his appearance, Victor was very much vexed; the
scandal had not been forgotten, and Carpophorus (his lawful master) was
still alive. So he sent him off to Antium (Porto d'Anzo), and gave him a
certain sum a month. Whether it was here Callistus fell in with Zephy.
rinus, or at Rome itself, no sooner was Carpophorus dead, than Zephy-
rinus, now become bishop of Rome, made him his coadjutor to keep his
clergy in order, and gave himself up to him so entirely, that Callistus did
with him what he liked. Unfortunately, says Hippolytus, Zephyrinus
was not only very stupid and ignorant, but, loving money very much,
took bribes. Things went on in this way until Zephyrinus died, when
Callistus was elected to the eminent post he had coveted all the time.
* ο δε (Callistus) γονυπετών και δακρύων ικέτευε και αυτός τυχεϊν απολύσεως.
Δυσωπηθείς ούν και Υάκινθος άξιοι τον επίτροπον φάσκων θρέψαι είναι Μαρικίας τασσόμενος
αυτό το ακίνδυνον. . “Ο δε πεισθείς απέλυσε και τον Κάλλιστον, The learned editor
says:- “ In Apétal vocabulum latere videtur significans negligentiam (un oubli.)”
But who can construe the rest of the phrase ? I believe, first, that what the dis-
trest eunuch said was not true (páo kwv); and, secondly, that it was something
which must have given the governor a reasonable assurance for his own safety.
Proceeding upon this supposition, I am led to think our author wrote: åĚLO TÓv
επίτροπον απολύειν' φάσκων εαυτώ μέν τούτο επιτρέψαι Μαρκίαν το τασσόμενον,
αυτώ δε είναι ακίνδυνον. . The sense would be: “ The eunuch asked the governor
to set Callistus free; saying, Marcia gave him full power (left it to his discretion),
and there could be no danger for him (the governor,) in the affair." 'Arolveiv
was left out at all events. Επιτρέψαι is used in the sense of giving authority
to decide, to arbitrate: the dative of the person can scarcely have been left
out, although the accusative is left out in Attic writers.
The rest supposes
only a confusion and subsequent transposition of the words. (Scott has ex-
plained satisfactorily θρέψας as identical with τροφεύς, like και τρέσας; Words-
worth adopts this interpretation, and quotes for it the inscription on a cippus,
commented upon by Schaefer (ad Gregor. Cor. p. 614), where we read Speyas
αυτών, instead of τροφέα αυτών. He finds to difficulty in translating άξιοι τον
επίτροπος, « desires the governor to set him free ” and τασσόμενος αυτώ το ακίνδυνον
(“promising him indemnity”). Such a facility in translating dispenses certainly
with many difficulties. I would now propose to read άξιοι τον επίτροπον απολύειν,
φάσκων θρέψας είναι Μαρκίας ταξoμένης (or πραξoμένης) αυτό το ακίνδυνον. He said
he was the foster-father (he could say no more) of Marcia, who would by her
influence obtain for him “impunity,” or “keep him harmless. ” The participle
must refer to Marcia, otherwise there would be a conjunctive particle before it (as
Tacobuevos k.7.1.), even in so loose a style as we have in this narrative.--18 54.)
THE ROMAN CHURCH.
393
He became bishop * of Rome, and the theological disputes in that Church
began to be envenonied.
Noetus' sect was already spreading in Rome. Sabellius was a rising
man, and began his speculations. Hippolytus gives us clearly to under-
stand that, backed by others of the presbytery, he had already remon-
strated against some of Sabellius' speculations on the Trinity in the time
of Zephyrinus. “Now," he adds (p. 285.), Sabellius was softened by
these our remonstrances : but, when he was alone with Callistus (who
then protected and favoured the Noetian Theological College established
at Rome, and at that time presided over by Cleomenes, the disciple of
Noetus' ancient deacon or minister), “Callistus excited him to turn
towards the system of Cleomenes, pretending that they agreed. He did
not, however, side openly with Sabellius, but in private told each party,
that he was favourable to their views, setting them as much as he could
against each other.” † Now Sabellius, says Hippolytus, did not at that
time see through the roguery of Callistus; but he afterwards knew it.
For, when Callistus had been made bishop of Rome, he threw off
Sabellius as not orthodox. “He did so," continues Hippolytus, “because
* Callistus is the only authentic name of this pope, the successor of Zephyrinus.
Not only all ancient authors, but also the “ Catalogus Liberianus,” the only ancient
and authentic list of the early Roman bishops, compiled in 352, spell his name as
the Greek etymology (Kállotos, Formosissimus) requires. In my restoration of
the chronology of the early Roman bishops, which I intend to publish with some
other collateral records and inquiries respecting the history of the second century,
I have shown that the namie Calixtus appears first in a list of the eleventh century;
Calistus formed the transition.
f I have rendered the sense. The monstrous text reads thus (p. 285.):-Aůrds
τα αμφότερα μέρη ύστερον κερκωπείοις λόγοις προς εαυτού φιλίαν κατασκευάζων και
τοις μεν αλήθειαν λέγων όμοια φρονούσί ποτε καθ' ηδίαν τα όμοια φρονείν, ,
ηπάτα πάλιν δ' αύτοΐς τα Σαβελλίου ομοίως. The learned editor proposes: :
λέγων τα όμοια φρονείν ηπάτα πάλιν δ' αύτοϊς φρονούσί ποτε κατ' ιδίαν τα Σαβ., which
does not seem to me very clear. I think that the first ouoca is not genuine, and
that néywv, which precedes it, ought to be placed after poveiv. The text would then
read thus: και τοις μεν αλήθειαν φρονούσί ποτε κατ' ιδίαν τα όμοια φρονείν λέγων
ήπάτα: πάλιν δ' αυ τοίς τα Σαβελλίου ομοίως. . (Dr. Wordsworth adopts the last
correction αν τοϊς, and changes καθ' ηδίαν into κατ' ιδέαν, sub specie vel colore similia
sentiendi, and leaving the rest as it stands, finds no difficulty in thus rendering the
whole passage: “at one time speaking true doctrine to the one party who held
“ like sentiments (to the truth), he, under pretence of agreeing with them,
“ deluded them; and, at another time, speaking with similar language (of du-
“ plicity) to those who held the doctrines of Sabellius.” The words added to give a
semblance of sense are very awkwardly inserted, and my readers may judge by
themselves, whether, with all that, the translation gives any clear sense. Döllinger
(p. 224, N.) rejects it also, and adopting the correction kat' idéav, explains the
sense thus: in private conversation he spoke to those who were addicted to the
truth (to the opinion of Hippolytus) as if he held the same opinion: but then he
also spoke to them in the sense of the doctrine of Sabellius, whom he goaded on,
whereas he might have set him right, αν και αυτόν εξέστησε δυνάμενος (instead of
duváuevov) Katopooûv. But Hippolytus says clearly in the beginning of the sentence,
that he deceived both parties with deceitful words. The two phrases - Kal Tois
μεν and, máu 8 autoes (as the MS. has it)-must, therefore, necessarily
refer to “tà åupótepa népn” and not, as Döllinger wishes to explain it, to one
and the same party.
The whole sentence (which Döllinger does not presume to
construe) is as lame in argument as it is in style, and does not say what it ought to
say.--1854.)
394
ON THE “REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ܪ
he was afraid of me, and thought he might in this manner wash off the
accusation which lay against him before the Church, showing himself not
to be heterodox.” But now the question arose how he could set himself
right with Hippolytus and his party. For they, under Zephyrinus, had
resisted Sabellius, then favoured by the episcopal influence; and Callistus,
having at that time the bishop and most of the presbyters with him
(p. 285. 1.), had insulted Hippolytus and his friends by saying to them in
the open presbytery, " You are ditheists." Now Callistus, says Hip-
polytus, thought he must make good those insulting words; and therefore,
instead of giving honour to the truth, and saying, “ As Sabellius is
wrong, you are right,” he gave the Noetian heresy that turn, the formula
of which I have placed opposite to that of Noetus (or Cleomenes)
himself. He established a school, in which that doctrine was taught, as
Hippolytus says, in opposition to the Church.
But he did worse as to practical Christianity, adds our father. To the
satisfaction of a great many who for misconduct had been removed from
the communion of the Church, and now flocked to that school, he set up
the doctrine “ that he forgave the sins of all.” In order to screen
himself, he further laid down the principle: “If a bishop commits a sin,
be it even a sin unto death, he must not be deposed (or obliged to abdicate)
for all that.”
This was a bold measure. For at that time, although the congregational
rights of the laity had been suppressed, except in their sanction to the
election of a bishop, the presbytery still claimed, and more or less main-
tained, a supreme judicial power in matters of faith and discipline.
Now what was the consequence ? Bishops, presbyters, and deacons,
were received into orders, after having been married twice, or even thrice.
Even he who married, when already in orders, might do so undisturbed.
“Did not our Saviour say, Let the tares grow with the wheat ? Were
there not unclean beasts in the Ark ? Such, therefore, must also be in
the Church.” These and like scriptural arguments were brought forward
by Callistus. No wonder his party increased wonderfully. He particu-
larly favoured single ladies of rank, who wished to have a substitute for a
husband in the humble form of a slave, or of a low-born freeman, and
who might prefer having no children, so as not to displease their relations :
for these would not be so severe if their large property remained in the
family.* In short, Callistus must have preached, according to Hippolytus,
something like Molière's Tartuffe :
« Il y a avec le ciel des accommodemens.”
Such was Callistus' conduct according to Hippolytus; his school was
* The Greek text, with some emendations, runs thus (p. 291.):--Aid kal
πληθύνονται, γαυριώμενοι επί όχλοις, διά τας ηδονάς &ς ου συνεχώρησεν ο Χριστός· ου
καταφρονήσαντες ουδένα (ουδέν) αμαρτείν κωλύουσι, φάσκοντες αυτόν (cod. αυτώ)
αφιέναι τοίς ευδοκούσι· και γαρ και γυναιξίν εν αξία επέτρεψεν, ει άνανδροι είεν και
ηλικία γε εκκαίoιντο, τηρείν εαυτών αξίαν ήν μή βούλoιντο καθαιρείν. (cod.
και γάρ και γυναιξίν επέτρεψεν, ει άνανδροι ελεν και ηλικία τε τε καίoντα έναξία ή
εαυτων αξίαν ήν μή βούλoιντο καθαίρειν.) Διά τούτο νομίμως γαμηθήναι έχει ένα όν αν
αιρήσωνται σύγκριτον, είτε οικέτην είτε ελεύθερον, και τούτον κρίνειν αντί ανδρός μη
THE ROMAN CHURCH.
395
still flourishing, and its followers and abettors were called, from their .
founder, Callistians.
This is the substance of Hippolytus' account. In fact, we find the name
of Callistians mentioned by Theodoret, under the head of the Noetians.
Leaving Callistus personally to the judgment of God, I will only suggest
two observations. In the first place we must not forget, in judging of the
system here represented under such high colours, that Hippolytus and his
minority belonged to a very strict party, who, like the old Jansenists,
may have excluded many a truly penitent sinner from the communion of
the Church, not considering how many must always be retained in a
community, even with the severest discipline, whose hypocrisy is worse
than the open sins of many. The system of censorial discipline adopted
by the earliest Christians changed its character necessarily, when exercised
by a sacerdotal caste, governing large congregations, nay, whole popula-
tions, and became full of inextricable difficulties, and inward contradictions.
Such being the case, the Roman Church has, on the whole, always inclined
to a moderate exercise of the power of punishment and exclusion, keeping
in mind rather the practical view of a government, than the theoretical
one of a moral censorship. The strife between Romanism and Montanism
is in this respect the same in substance as that between Jesuitism and
Jansenism; and Hippolytus in general takes the line of the Montanists,
although he condemned their doctrinal system. This applies to both the
points of discipline touched upon in this remarkable book, the indul.
gence shown to laymen who had sinned against morality, and the treatment
of the sins of presbyters, who had offended against that limited celibacy
of the clergy which then obtained in the West, as it still does in the East.
The system was wrong in itself, like that of all priest-churches. Do what
you will, you cannot obtain a clear and truly Christian solution. The
more honest the system is, the less practical it will prove: the more
practical it is, the more it will weaken the voice of conscience and the less
will it educate individuals, men and women, or whole nations to moral
self-responsibility.
Taking the early priest-churches as they are, history must judge
individuals, during the struggle of the two contending parties, rather by
their lives than by their systems.
I am
νόμω γεγαμημένην. "Ένθεν ήρξαντο επιχειρείν πισται λεγόμεναι άτοκίοις φαρμάκοις
και το περιδεσμείσθαι (cod. άτοκία περιδεσμείσθαι και φαρμάκοις) προς το τα συλλαμ-
βανόμενα καταβάλλειν, διά το μήτε εκ δούλου βούλεσθαι έχειν τέκνον μήτε εξ ευτελούς,
διά την συγγένειας και υπέρογκον ουσίαν. .
This note to the first edition was simply intended to make a wholly unintelligible
text so far intelligible as to bear out the meaning I had given to the whole.
happy to find that Dr. Wordsworth has made this passage the subject of an
elaborate, and, I think, on the whole, a successful emendation. He reads: páOKOVTES
αυτόν αφιέναι τοίς ευδοκούσι. Και γαρ και γυναιξίν επέτρεψεν ει άνανδροι είεν και
ηλικίωτη καίoιντο αναξίω, ή εαυτών άξίαν μή βούλoιντο καθαίρειν (sic), διά τούτο
νομίμως γαμηθήναι εκείνω αν όν αιρήσονται σύγκοιτον - For he also permitted
“ women, if they had no husband, and were enamoured of a comrade unworthy of
“ themselves, or did not wish to degrade their own dignity, therefore they might
“ lawfully marry any one whom they chose as a consort. Adopting this on the
whole, I read the passage now thus : φάσκοντες αυτούς αφιέναι τοίς ευδοκούσι.
και γαρ και γυναιξίν επέτρεψεν ει άνανδροι είεν και ηλικία γε εκκαίoιντο (ανάξιαι
αί εαυτών αξίαν μή βούλoιντο καθαιρείν !) διά τούτο κ.τ.λ.-1854.
396
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
;
I must, to a certain degree, say the same as to the second, the doctrina
point. According to Hippolytus, Callistus was not only the moral, but
also the doctrinal corrupter of his Church and age. We shall have to
consider this point in the next letter; but I must here express my convic-
tion that the difficulties of the case are essentially the same. Good and
wise men might adopt --and could scarcely help adopting, according to
their temper and education -- opposite views, and might condemn each
other most uncharitably (and most unphilosophically); but impartial
history must give its due share to the tragical complications of the times.
Before I conclude this letter, I must advert to a double mistake into
which the learned editor has fallen respecting the history of Fuscianus'
judgment upon Callistus.* First, he takes this to have been the martyrdom
of Callistus, meaning his death, thus identifying that scene therewith;
although it is quite clear from Hippolytus' account, that his condemnation
to Sardinia, so far from causing his death, on the contrary made his
fortune. He returned from that island to Rome, and became the friend
of the bishop, and finally his successor. The ground of M. Miller's
mistake seems to have been, that our author prefaces his account of
Callistus' proceedings by the ironical phrase (p. 285. 8.): “He became a
martyr (fuaptúpnoe) under Fuscianus, then prefect of Rome and the
manner of his martyrdom (uaptupia) was the following.” Then follows
Callistus' swindling conduct, as the slave of Carpophorus, his deportation
and return.
Indeed, his condemnation would have been a martyrdom, which, in
Greek, means testimony, if in any way it had been connected with the
confession of his faith as a Christian before the penal judge: for our
story is one of the proofs that the penal laws against Christianity as an
unlawful religion were not abolished under Commodus, as some have
supposed. There were in Sardinia other Christians condemned on that
score; and they are called “martyrs ” by our author (p. 288. 1.71 — 78.).
Callistus, however, was not condemned for his profession of Christianity,
but for swindling, and for the violent disturbance of the Jewish worship.
This mistake has led M. Miller into another. Proceeding upon his
erroneous interpretation of Callistus' martyrdom, he thinks himself
entitled to fix the year 222 (that of Callistus' death) as that of Fuscianus'
præfectura urbis. Now this is a mistake, independently of its being based
upon an erroneous supposition. Fuscianus' dignity of Prefect of Rome
belongs to the reign of Commodus (180—192), as does the history of
Callistus and Marcia. He was consul for the second time in 188, the
ninth year of Commodus, and first of Victor, and was followed in the
prefecture by Ælius Pertinax, at all events before 193; for in that year
Pertinax became emperor.
That office must therefore have been in
Fuscianus' hands in the reign of Commodus, and probably soon after 188.
Corsini's conjecture, that he was prefect about 1787, is therefore only a
few years too early, as our author's account proves.
I remain, my dear Friend,
Yours ever faithfully,
BUNSEN.
* Preface, p. ix.
† De Præfect. Ur!-is, Pis. 1763. p. 87.
FOURTH LETTER,
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION (THE TENTH BOOK).
Carlton Terrace, 25 June, 1851.
MY DEAREST FRIEND,
HIPPOLYTUS cannot have rejoiced more on arriving at the end of
his account of all the heresies, absurdities, and impurities, which he had
to go through in his arduous task, than I do at being able to-day to
conduct you to the holy and wise man's own Confession of Faith.
In the tenth book (pp. 310-331.) he first recapitulates the contents of
the preceding nine. And it may be worth noticing here, that he does not
exactly follow the order of the heresies observed in the work itself. This
may certainly be accidental; it may be a mere piece of negligence. But
it may also be, that in this abridged account we have that rather super-
ficial notice, which, he says in the introduction to the first book, he had
written at an earlier time, about these heresies. However this be, there
is one interesting fact resulting from the epitome with certainty. This
abridged catalogue of the heresies occupies seventeen pages of our
text, while the account itself fills 215. But some articles are scarcely
shorter than the corresponding ones in that exposition; a want of pro-
portion which points to the fact we have been led to by our examination
of the preceding books, that in parts of our present text we have only an
abstract of the “ Refutation of all the Heresies."
What appears to me most remarkable in the short sketch of the philo-
sophical systems, which precedes that of the heresies, is the moderation
of Hippolytus' final judgment on the Greek philosophers. He does not
assert that there was no truth in them: he contents himself with saying
that their speculations on physical philosophy had not led to any satis-
factory results (p. 314. 91.). His meaning is, that those systems prove
the impossibility of founding theology and ethics upon physical speculations,
and that these speculations had led the Greeks to forget God, the Creator,
in nature, his creatures. This is what he states explicitly in the remark-
able conclusion of the first book (p. 32, 92—98.).
With page 331. 3. ends the 132nd sheet of our precious manuscript;
and one or two sheets are undoubtedly wanting, which must have been
the beginning of a demonstration, very naturally brought forward in this
place, to prove that the wisdom of the Greeks, the Chaldæans, and the
Egyptians, could not boast of an antiquity like that of the people of God.
The two pages preserved to us of this demonstration contain little that
can now be of interest. But, if I am not mistaken, they give us a new
proof, should any be wanted, that Hippolytus wrote the work before us;
and this is a point which it is my duty to clear up. Our fragment begins
>>
398
ON THE “ REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.'
with Abraham's migration to Mesopotamia and thence to Palestine,--a
subject, the author says, " which he had treated carefully in other works.”
Now I believe we have an ancient Latin translation of the very treatise
or treatises to which he refers. In Fabricius' edition of Hippolytus'
works (i. 49–89.), we find a Latin translation (belonging to the time of
Charlemagne) of a Chronicle” bearing the name of St. Hippolytus,
edited first by Canisius, and then by Labbé. There is every reason to
believe this to be the very " Chronicle” mentioned by Eusebius, which,
he says, went down to the first year of Alexander Severus. This “Chro-
ticle,” towards the end, has a list of the Roman emperors, terminating
with him. It does, indeed, give the duration of his reign; but this may
have been added in the copies, as that of the reign under which such
books were written was generally left open by the author, and after-
wards filled up. In fact (as we shall see in the next letter), Hippolytus
may have brought down his “ Chronicle," before he died, to the year
of Alexander; for (as we shall see) he outlived him, at least some months.
Unfortunately the manuscript which contains that catalogue is incom-
plete : otherwise, as the title promises, we should also have a list of the
Roman bishops carried down by our learned author to Callistus, or to his
successor, Urbanus. This bishop governed the Roman Church under
Alexander Severus; and his successor, Pontianus, was transported to
Sardinia with Hippolytus in the first year of Maximin, soon after Alex-
ander's death, and, probably falling a sacrifice to the pestilential air of
the island, died there soon afterwards, under the same consuls.
Now, in this “ Chronicle," we find an enumeration of the ancient di-
visions of nations and languages built upon the system that all the
nations sprung from Noah were seventy-two.* Jewish ingenuity had got
this number, probably before the age of Christ, out of the enumeration of
the different nations in the tenth chapter of Genesis. Seventy or seventy-
two was the number of the nations and of their Gods. Epiphanius adopts
also the system of seventy-two nations. But the cotemporary of Hippo-
lytus, Julius Africanus, who brought down his chronography to the fifth
year of Heliogabalus, or to the year 221, that which precedes the first of
the reign of Alexander Severus, did not adopt this system, according to
the copious fragments and accounts which Eusebius, Syncellus, and
others have given of his work. Now the same system, which we find
established in Hippolytus' “ Chronicle,” is evidently alluded to in our
fragment, in a passage miserably lacerated, but which may easily be re-
stored by the help of the biblical record, and of sect. v. of the Latin text
of the “ Chronicle,” † to which book our author refers for the names of
the seventy-two nations. The identity of the systems in the two works
is also proved by another point. Our author counts 215 years from
Abraham to Jacob's migration into Egypt: the Latin “ Chronicle” equally
p. 50. l. 1. sectio ii. : “Erant autem quæ confusæ sunt linguæ LxxII., et qui
turrem ædificabant erant gentes LxxII., quæ etiam in linguis super faciem totius
terræ divisæ sunt."
ť p. 52. 1. 1., of the seventy-two, twenty-five belong to Shem's progeny. After
these enumerations, it is added again, “Omnes autem de tribus filiis Noe sunt LxxII.
+ p. 331., ήσαν δε ούτοι οβ' (72) έθνη, ών και τα ανόματα εκτεθείμεθα εν ετέραις
βίβλοις.
.
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
399
follows the Septuagint; for it counts 430 years for the time from Abraham
to the Exodus. * Our author evidently placed the dispersion of the
nations under Peleg, Heber's son, and, having arrived at Heber, men-
tioned the scheme of the seventy-two nations. This is the key to the
restoration of the text, as I give it below, putting in brackets the words
inserted by me.† It is characteristic of our author, that, on this oc-
casion, speaking of having enumerated those seventy-two nations, he
adds, that he had done so, wishing to show to those who were desirous to
learn, “the affection we bear to the Divine Revelation, and also the un-
questionable knowledge which we have acquired with much labour re-
specting the truth.” These are the words of the inventor of a system.
The end of all his demonstration is to prove (p. 332.) that the people
of God are more ancient than the Chaldæans, the Egyptians, and the
Hellenes. 6. Therefore,” he says, " it being useless to go beyond Noah,
I will give the division of those seventy-two races.” Here we find that
twenty-five sprang from Shem, and fifteen from Japhet, as is stated in
the “ Chronicle"; and we also learn the number (thirty-two) derived
from Ham, which is left out in our present Latin text.
Hippolytus then, according to our present text, continues thus (p. 333.
fol. 137. end) :-
“ Now having seized this doctrine” (the knowledge of things divine
possessed by the fathers of the people of God), " disciples, the Hellenes,
Egyptians, and Chaldæans, and the whole human race, what the divine
nature or the divine being)..." Here our sheet ends, and, at present,
our manuscript too. We have to thank M. Miller for having placed
fol. 133. after fol. 137. This transposition undoubtedly restores the true
order: for this sheet 133. gives us the immediate continuation of the
sentence with which fol. 137. terminates. Still I thought it important to
know exactly where the new page begins in the MS. As the editor only
marks the line, and not the word, with which the new leaf opens, I was
left to guess which are the first words in fol. 133. But I have since
learned through the kindness of Professor Gebser of Königsberg, whose
attention I directed to this circumstance, as he was going to Paris, that
fol. 137. (and at present the manuscript) terminates thus:
και πάν γένος ανθρώπων τί το θείον
Professor Gebser observes that after felov there is now a full stop, but
added by another hand. I
p. 53. 1. penult.
† After he had spoken of Abraham, he says (p. 337.): Tútov dè gylvetal (mathp]
Θάρρα· τούτου Ναχώρ, τούτου Σερούρ [τούτου Ραγαύ, τούτου Φαλέκ, τούτου Εβερή
όθεν και το Εβραίους καλείσθαι τους Ιουδαίους επί δε του Φαλέκ εγένετο η των εθνών
διασπορά] ήσαν δε ούτοι οβ' έθνη, etc. Cf. Jul. Africani Fragmentum ix. in Routh,
Reliquiæ Sacr. ii.
# The whole passage, now printed all in one, is thus to be restored: - Toúrou
τοίνυν του λόγου κρατήσαντες μάθετε (t. μαθηται), “Ελληνες, Αιγύπτιοι, Χαλδαίοι και
παν γένος ανθρώπων, τί το θείον και η τούτου εύτακτος δημιουργία, παρ' ημών των
φίλων του Θεού, και μη κομπολόγως τούτο ήσκηκότων, αλλ' η αληθείας γνώσει και
ασκήσει σωφροσύνης είς απόδειξιν αυτού λόγους ποιουμένων. . The construction and
sense of these words become thus very easy and clear: “ Ye nations therefore come
to us, and learn what God is, and his well ordered creation, from us, the friends
of God.”
F.
244.
400
REFITATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
The words tí tò Ježov are evidently connected with the first words of:
sheet 133.: can i Tource cũraoToc Nautolphia. The author himself has
joined these words in p. 338. 97.: τίς και όντως Θεός και η τούτου εύτακτος
onulovpyía. Only the verb is wanting, and this want is supplied by your
excellent conjecture of μάθετε for μαθηταί. The period thus restored is
the introduction to the declaration of the truth, which was the principal
object of the tenth book, as he says at the beginning of it.
This most important conclusion of the work consists of three distinct
parts:-
First, the doctrine of the One God, the eternal cause of all things.
Secondly, the doctrine of the Logos, begotten by the One all-pervading
God, who, being penetrated with the will of the Father that the world
should exist, made all things; and who was lastly sent to speak to
man, not through the prophets, but himself, and to appeal to man as
endowed with a free will, the abuse of which alone had produced evil.
Thirdly, the conclusion of the whole in an address to all nations by the
author, speaking as a disciple and minister of the Logos, and encou-
raging his brethren to have faith in their high destiny and divine
nature. (The end is wanting.)
I.
Hippolytus' Declaration on the One Eternal God. (p. 334.)
“The One God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all
had nothing coeval with him, no infinite chaos, no measureless water or
solid earth, no thick air, or hot fire, or spirit (itveữua), nor the blue form
of the great heaven. But He was One, alone by Himself, who, willing it,
called into being what had no being before (εποίησε τα όντα ουκ όντα πρό-
Tepov), except when He willed to call it into being, having full knowledge
of what was to be; for He has foreknowledge also. And He created
first different elements of the things which were to be, fire and air, water
and earth; out of which different elements he made his own creation,
some being of one substance (uovoovoia), some compounded of two, some
of three, some of four. And those which were of one are immortal; for
they do not admit of dissolution. For what is simply one, cannot be dis-
solved; but that which consists of two or three or four elements is dis-
soluble, and therefore is also called mortal. For what is called death is
the dissolution of that which has been compounded.”
For the ulterior discussion of this subject, the author refers to a special
work of his, “On the Substance of the Universe” (Trepi tñs ToŨ Tavtos
ovoias); and this again is a point of much interest for our inquiry, and, if
I am not mistaken, leads us to a curious discovery.
You are aware that in a manuscript published by Le Moyne, and then
inserted in Fabricius' edition of Hippolytus (i. 220_222.), there is the
*
* I have received the fragment into my Analecta (vol. i. under Hippolytus, iv.)
and restored the text with the help of the Bodleian manuscript, the only one now
existing (that of Hæschel having disappeared), but never yet collated, except for
the concluding part, which is peculiar to it.- 1854.
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
401
66 The
end of a homily or treatise addressed to the Hellenes, and inscribed thus :
“St. Hippolytus, from his Address to the Hellenes, which bears the title
(Address) against Plato, about the cause of the Universe." * This title is
so like that of a treatise mentioned on the statue of Hippolytus in the
Vatican, “ To the Hellenes and to Plato,' or also · About the Universe,"t
that scarcely a doubt could remain of the identity, even if Photius did not
expressly name all the three titles mentioned here as given to one and the
same book. For he says, (c. 48.), " The book 'On the Universe,' which
in other copies is inscribed, 'On the Cause of the Universe,' in others,
'On the Substance of the Universe.'” I
What is still more remarkable, in his account of the book he gives us
the contents of the very chapter to which Hippolytus here refers.
book consists (he says) of two sections. The author shows in them that
Plato contradicts himself; and he proves that Alcinous (the celebrated
Platonic writer, who lived, probably, in the beginning of the second
century) had spoken irrationally and falsely about the Soul, and Matter,
and the Resurrection. He then brings in his own opinions on these topics,
and shows that the people of the Jews is much more ancient than that of
the Hellenes. According to his opinion, man consists of fire and earth and
water, and besides, of the spirit ( 7 vellua), which he also calls soul (yuxń).
As to the spirit, these are his own words :
“Taking of this (the spirit) the principal part, He (God) formed it
together with the body, and prepared for it a passage through every limb
and joint. Now this spirit, plastically connected with the body, and all-
pervading, is fashioned (TETÚTWTAI) in the same shape (idee) as the visible
body, but its essence is rather cold in comparison with the three of which
the body consists.”
You here see the exact and literal doctrine of the four elements,
of which the spirit is one, carried out speculatively, in the form of a
Christian physical philosophy. Besides, you see that the theory of the
higher antiquity of Jewish wisdom had been treated here in the same
manner as in the fragment preceding the Declaration of Faith in our work.
I dare say it was this that made some wiseacre of the Byzantine age
ascribe the book to Josephus, under which name the patriarch himself
read it without any doubts on his mind the first time, as he tells us.
Hear what he has further to say on this book :
“ After having gone
through these physiological discussions, not où ávažíwc) unworthily of
the Jewish physiology and of his learning, the author treats also sum-
marily of cosmogony. As to Christ, our true God, he speaks theologi-
cally, very much as we do; nay, he pronounces the very name of Christ,
and describes without fault his unspeakable generation from the Father.”
Poor Hippolytus! A patriarch of New Rome, in the ninth century, the
most learned man of his age, has become so hardened in his formularies,
that he takes a work of yours for that of a Jew, who, he seems to think,
did honour to the philosophy of his nation ; and then he wonders how, with
* Του αγίου Ιππολύτου εκ του προς Έλληνας λόγου, του επιγεγραμμένου κατά
Πλάτωνα (read Πλάτωνος) περί της του παντός αιτίας,
* Προς Ελληνας και προς Πλάτωνα ή και περί του παντός.
+ Περί του παντός, και εν άλλοις ανέγνων επιγραφόμενον Περί της του παντός αιτίας, εν
άλλοις δε Περί της του παντός ουσίας. .
VOL. I.
D D
402
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.”
ON THE
all that, you could speak almost of Christ as if you were a Christian! What
you, a learned and pious doctor and bishop of the Catholic Church,
you, the worthy disciple of Irenæus, whose master had seen St. John the
Apostle, --said at the end of the second and beginning of the third cen-
tury, is, in its best parts, deemed by the Byzantine just Christian enough
for a clever Jew who had heard of Christ ! Can any man pronounce a
severer judgment upon the conventional superstructure raised by the ages
intervening between Hippolytus and Photius ?
Still, being an honest plodding man, Photius adds, first, that some had
their doubts about the authorship of Josephus; and he confesses there
might be something in this, although the man wrote well enough for
Josephus. He then says: “I find that in the marginal notes the author
is called Caius, the Roman presbyter, who wrote a book against Proclus
the Montanist.” All he can tell us positively is this: “ The author of the
book, called “The Labyrinth,' says at the end of it, that he is also the
author of the book 'On the Substance of the Universe.'
Hence, if we have Hippolytus' evidence for his having written this last
book, we know, through Photius' unwilling, or at least involuntary,
witness, that he is also the author of the 66 Labyrinth, or the “ Little
Labyrinth,” of which we have some fragments preserved by Eusebius,
directed against Theodotus and his followers among the Noetians, and
professing to be written under Zephyrinus “in our own time.” Who-
ever reads those fragments *, and compares them with our book and the
fragments just mentioned, will have no doubt respecting the authorship:
they are by one and the same man, as Photius learned from the author
himself. The author of the book “On the Universe" (Caius, according
to Photius' opinion) was elected a bishop of the Gentiles." These
words, absurd as they may appear, will prove to be a historical allusion to
the position which Hippolytus occupied in the Church, and in particular
at Portus. They also receive a striking explanation from what our
author, in the concluding section of his Declaration, says of himself, as we
shall see presently.
Having gained this fixed point, I have no hesitation in saying that Le
Moyne's much discussed fragment of the work “On the Universe” is
genuine. In order to understand it, we must consider that it is the
end, either of the whole, or of the first of the two books of which that
treatise, as we have seen, consisted. Having treated of cosmogony and
of the Logos, the author came to the eschatological part, and opposed to
Plato's myth in the Gorgias something of the same nature, only that it is
based upon Judaic and Christian apocalyptic fictions, of which that under
Peter's name was very popular at Rome. I have no doubt that Hippolytus
did not give his description of Hades as a revelation, but as a Christian
picture.
To prove the identity of the authorship I will show, in a note to the
passage on the eternal punishment of the bodies of the wicked, that
a sentence, utterly unintelligible as the text stands now, can easily be
restored from the corresponding passage in that treatise. With an
experienced critic, this alone settles the question.
* Routh, Reliquiæ Sacr. ii. p. 129. sqq. (See now in the First Volume of the
Analecta.—1854.)
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
403
II.
The second part of Hippolytus' Confession of Faith.
The Doctrine of the Logos.
“Now this sole one and universal God, first by his cogitation begets the
Word (Logos), not the word in the sense of speech, but as the indwelling
reason of the universe. Him alone he begat out of the substance * : for
that which was was the Father himself: the being born of whom was the
cause of all beings. The Word was in him, bearing the will of him who
had begotten him, being not unacquainted with the thoughts of the
Father. For when he came forth from him who begat him, being his
first-begotten speech, he had in himself the ideas conceived by the Father.
When, therefore, the Father commanded that the world should be, the
Logos accomplished it in detail, pleasing God. Now what was to
multiply by generation, he made male and female: but that which was to
serve and minister, he made either male, not wanting the female, or
neither male nor female. For the first elements of these, which sprang
from that which was not, fire and spirit, water and earth, are neither male
nor female ; nor could male and female come out of any of them, except
as far as the commanding God willed that the Logos should accomplish
it. I acknowledge that the angels are of fire ; and they, I say, have no
females. In like manner the sun and moon and stars, I conceive, are of
fire and spirit, and are neither male nor female; but from water have
come swimming and flying animals, male and female : for so God ordered
it, willing that the moist element should be generative. In like manner
out of the earth came creeping things and beasts, and males and females
of all sorts of animals : for this the nature of created things admitted of.
For whatever He willed, God made. These things He made by the Logos,
nor could they be otherwise than as they were made. But when He had
made them as He willed, He called by name him whom he appointed
after these as the lord of the whole, him whom He created a compound of
all the elements. He did not intend to make him a god, and fail to do so,
or an angel (be not misled !), but a man. If He had willed to make thee
a god, He could have done so; for thou hast the image of the Logos: but
willing to make thee a man, a man He made thee. But if thou wouldst
become a god, be obedient to Him who made thee, and transgress not
now, in order that, having been found faithful in small things, thou mayst
be trusted with great things.
“The Word of Him is alone of Him : wherefore he is God, being the
substance of God. But the world is of nothing; therefore not God: it is
also subject to dissolution, when He willeth who created it. But God the
creator did not make evil. He made nothing which was not beautiful and
good : for the Maker is good. But the man who was made was a free-
willed creature, not possessing a ruling understanding, not governing all
things by thought and authority and power, but servile and having all
sorts of contraries in him. He, from being freewilled, generates evil,
:
* I had rectified already, in the German edition, the translation of this passage,
which in the first English stood thus : “ Him alone of all things he begat.”.
1854,
DD 2
404
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
7
which become so by accident, being nothing if thou dost it not: for it is
called evil from being willed and thought to be so; not being such from the
beginning, but an afterbirth. Man being thus freewilled, a law was laid
down by God; not without need. For if man had not the power to will
and not to will, why should a law have been established ? For a law will
not be laid down for an irrational being, but a bridle and a whip; but for
man, a command and a penalty, to do, or for not doing, what is ordered.
For him law was established by just men of yore. In times nearer to us,
a law was laid down full of gravity and justice, by the forementioned
Moses, a devout and Godloving man. But all these things are overruled
by the Word of God, the only-begotten child of the Father, the light-
bringing voice anterior to the morning star. Afterwards there were just
men, friends of God; these were called Prophets, because they foretold
the future These had not the word (understanding) of one time only;
but the voices of the events foretold through all ages showed themselves
to them intelligibly. They foretold the future, not then alone when they
gave answer to those who were present, but through all ages : because,
in speaking of things past, they reminded humanity of them; in explain-
ing the present, they persuaded men not to be careless; by foretelling
the future, they rendered every one alarmed, seeing things predicted
long beforehand, and looking forward to the future.
Such, O ye men, is our faith, the faith of men who are not persuaded
by vain sayings, who are not carried away by the impulses of our own
hearts, nor seduced by the persuasiveness of eloquent speeches, but who
are not disobedient to words spoken by divine power.
“ These things God gave in charge to the Word. And the Word spake
and uttered them, bringing man back by these very works from disobedi-
ence, not enslaving him through the force of necessity, but calling him
to liberty of his own free accord. This Word the Father sent in after
times, no longer to speak through a prophet: not wishing that he should
be guessed at from obscure announcements, but should be made manifest
to sight. Him, I say, he sent, that the world, seeing him, might revere
him, not commanding them in the person of prophets, nor frightening
the soul by an angel, but himself present and speaking to them. Him
we have known to have taken his body from a virgin, and to have put on
an old man through a new formation, having past in his life through
every age, that he might become a law for every age, and might by his
presence exhibit his own humanity as an aim for all men ; and might
prove by the same, that God has made nothing evil; and that man is
freewilled, having the power both of willing and not willing, being able
to do either. Him we know to have been a man of our own composition.
For if he had not been of the same nature, in vain would he ordain that
we are to imitate our master. For if that man were of another substance,
how can he order me, who am born weak, to do like him ? and how is he
good and righteous ? But that he might not be deemed other than we,
he bore toil, and vouchsafed to hunger, and did not refuse to thirst, and
rested in sleep, and did not resist suffering, and became obedient to death,
and manifested his resurrection, offering up his own humanity in all this,
as the first fruits, that thou, when thou art suffering, mayst not despair,
but, acknowledging thyself a man, mayst thyself expect what the Father
granted to him."
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
405
1
This then is, as it were, the second article of our author's creed, or
rather his philosophical commentary on the prologue of the Gospel of St.
John. I shall have to prove, with respect to this part, that it agrees with
the system of Hippolytus, as we find it expressed in his other genuine
writings; and, over and above this, I shall prove that it is entirely dif-
ferent from the system of him to whom the marginal note in our manu-
script attributes the work now recovered. But I can do neither the one
nor the other satisfactorily, without a collateral examination of Hippo-
lytus' other works; and this will be the object of my next and concluding
letter.
I must, therefore, confine myself here to a short analysis of the
contents, as a preparatory step to the further inquiry.
This passage contains the author's theory on the Logos; which is
interrupted in the middle by that on the origin of evil. The insertion of
this second discussion is not very skilful : still the two points are inti-
mately connected with each other, and with the whole theory of the
creation, as they were also regarded in the various Gnostic systems. If
God created evil, how can we combine this with the doctrine of the
eternal divine Word, as being the full expression of God's nature and
will ? How can we avoid placing evil either in the Father, or in the
Logos ? Unquestionably (thinks our author) it must not be placed in
either. His way to escape from the difficulty is this :— Evil exists only
by accident, not originally. It exists, because man, being endowed with
reason and with free will, necessarily had the power of doing what was
forbidden; and evil came from his abuse of this liberty of action, ich
however was necessary for his being God's representative on earth, and
destined to be elevated to the divine nature.
Having thus cleared the field for the eternal action of the Logos, he
goes on defining it more accurately, evidently following closely the pro-
logue. The Logos is to our author, as to the fathers of the second cen-
tury, God's eternal consciousness of himself, or the objectiveness of his
substance, which is reason and truth. He is therefore the Logos, in the
twofold sense of the Greek word; as speech (Wóyos=iwrn), that is to say,
the objective manifestation of God, and as reason (lóyos=loycouós), or
God's essential consciousness. The Father, by the act of self-conscious-
ness, generates the Logos; and, strictly speaking, the Logos, as the
inward Word of God, inspires all the holy men who are called to become
the teachers of mankind, and especially, though not exclusively, inspired
Moses and the prophets.
Here it is clear how strongly our author is intent upon inculcating
three very important truths. First, that the working of the Spirit of
God,- for that, according to our author's more simple theory, is the
working of the Logos before the Incarnation,-is not limited to the holy
men of the Old Testament. He claims (as we have seen) for them the
priority, but not the exclusive possession, of the Divine Spirit, although
he does not expressly say, what Origen says most positively, that those
persons must be of a very rude mind (áypoīkoi), who would deny that the
Spirit of God was working in the virtuous and holy men of the Gentiles,
such as Socrates. Such being our author's opinion, it is also evident
(and this is the second point) that the divine validity of the Law is not
"
DD 3
406
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
founded on the external authority which imposed it, and on the curses
attached to its non-performance, but on its inward correspondence with
the will of God, and therefore with man's nature, reason.
" Man,” says
our author, " is a rational being, and can only be brought to obedience
by his free consent, founded upon conviction.” Hippolytus, therefore, is
not only a Rationalist, but, what is much stronger, he makes God himself
the first Rationalist, as infusing his divine reason into the Logos, and
through him into man. The obligation to obey the written Law, being
thus founded upon its conformity to reason (divine and human, which
are taken by our author to be one in essence), must therefore clearly
cease, when something better and more perfect appears. Thus by this
second proposition, no less than by the first, be prepares the way for his
doctrine of the Incarnation.
The third proposition is no less remarkable; it is this:--The prophets
are indeed called prophets from foretelling future events; and he en-
larges upon this point more than upon the collateral endowments of the
prophetic mind, because it had been denied by the Gnostics. But this is
by no means the exclusive vocation of the prophets. God's eternal reason
spoke through them quite as much in what they pronounced on the past,
and on the events they themselves lived to see. He characterises their
oracles on things past by saying, that they were to preserve great events
in the memory of mankind. This cannot mean that they were merely to
give chronological dates. The sense is, that they were to remind the
human race of certain special facts as integral parts of the divine plan of
the universal history of mankind, this history being the divine deve-
lopment and realisation in time of what was divinely beheld before all
time in the Word. It is this prophetic treatment of the past, that ele-
vates Joel, the oldest, and Jeremiah the latest, of the prophets of the
independent Jewish state, above the kindred characters in the Hellenic
world, such as Homer is compared with Joel, and Demosthenes com-
pared with Jeremiah, more than any prediction of external future events
can ever do. Indeed, their predictions treat outward events only as hie.
roglyphics of events in the kingdom of truth. It is the low, materialist,
unbelieving, Jewish view, patched up in the seventeenth century by
scholastics who were neither scholars nor independent philosophers, and
held sacred by men destitute. and afraid of the light and liberty of evan-
gelical truth, -- it is only this degraded and impotent view, along with
great ignorance and an irrational system of interpretation, that could lose
sight of the divine character of the prophets in their elevated, comforting,
and faithful survey of the past or future destinies of mankind, as being
one family in God, realising here upon earth, individually and nationally,
the decrees of his eternal wisdom and love. In short, our author says in
his language, what Frederic Schlegel said, when he designated the true
historian as a prophet with his face turned backward.
They were also inspired, says our author, when they spoke of the
persons and events of their own time, “ exhorting men not to abandon
themselves to negligence and levity (ui) pabvueīv).” It does not require
much of a philosophical mind to perceive, that to recognise the men and
events of one's time as what they really are, and what they signify, and
thus to put the seal of history upon them (what the mystics call the sig-
HIPPOLYTUS OWN CONFESSION.
407
natura), is as much an evidence of the knowledge of the future as any
prediction, and as much a proof of an inspired insight into the past as
any prophetic interpretation of the figures of men and events of bygone
times. It follows, from this our author's view, that even those pre-
dictions were not an evidence, much less the highest, of inspired know-
ledge, so far as they simply foretold external facts. Hippolytus, like all
ancient writers, believed undoubtedly that such foretelling power had also
been displayed by other persons, and even by false prophets, but that the
true prophets foresaw, in an event of which they spoke as coming, an
integral part of the development of the kingdom of truth, justice, and
blessedness, which is to be manifested among mankind, and by men, and
therefore upon this earth.
Having thus explained his general view of the law and of the prophets,
he passes to the second portion of his doctrine of the Logos,
his being
embodied in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the true and real man. It
seems to me clear, that, in this section as well as in the first, our author
intends to speak as popularly as he can, and to avoid as much as possible
bringing forward his own speculative system. The fathers of that age
evidently considered their speculations in the main as merely apologetic.
They refuted, by reference to Scripture and constant tradition, the objec-
tions of unbelievers and the errors of the heretical philosophers. They
deemed a doctrine heretical, either when it directly denied some facts
related by the sacred records, or when it destroyed the meaning or
authority of Scripture, and led to consequences incompatible with those
first principles of Christianity engraved on the reason and conscience,
which, consciously or unconsciously, are always appealed to as the highest
and conclusive evidence. If, in doing so, they felt called upon to offer a
solution of those philosophical or historical puzzles and riddles, which
had (in most cases) given rise to the systems they opposed, they did this
apologetically, in self-defence. But they by no means agreed in these
attempts: nor did they assume, at that time, any authority for their
system, but offered it, with as good arguments as they could urge, for a
respectful and thoughtful examination, as not being in contradiction to
the sacred records and the dictates of conscience and reason. We must
therefore beware of supposing that, because our author does not enter
into the well-known doctrinal controversies of his time, he had not his
own opinions on the subjects of them. If we find them recorded in other
writings of his, we have merely to prove that they are compatible with
the view here so plainly stated, and that they rest, upon the same
grounds.
Having said thus much, I will now pass to the third and concluding
part of our author's Confession of Faith, after I have given utterance to
some reflections which this tenth book has awakened in my mind.
It is clear that the parts of the Confession of Faith hitherto examined
are a philosophical explanation of the prologue of St. John's Gospel.
Now, while it seems to me that this commentary is as intelligible as the
text (although not so full), I have the feeling that many of my readers,
divines themselves, will rather think I ought to say that the commentary
is no less unintelligible than the text. These persons ought to be aware,
that, in saying (or thinking) so, they place themselves on the side of the
DD4
408
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
infidels; for what is not intelligible is either untrue or useless; and no
infidel ever said more against Christianity. I know full well that some
will filing back this insinuation as an insult, and answer the attack by
protesting their orthodoxy. I also know that they are ready to test this
orthodoxy by an unqualified submission, either to the word of God, or to
the orthodox formularies of the Ecumenic Councils, at least to those of
the fourth and fifth centuries. But they must not take it ill if I reply,
that in saying this they do not answer my argument, or extricate them-
selves out of their difficulties. For, if they fall back upon the word of
God, they show very little respect for it by setting down its most sublime
and important declarations as unintelligible to the human reason, which
accepts the Scriptures as containing revelations of truth respecting divine
things. It appears to me that divines, who profess a faith in something
not intelligible, must have still less respect for the sacred records than
the dissentients whose doctrines they most abhor. There is scarcely a
more ungrammatical and false interpretation, than the old. Unitarian
translation of the last words of the first verse of the prologue, “ And the
Word was a God;" but at least this shows an endeavour to bring words
which relate to the very substance of reason, into accordance with reason,
as they conceived it; and they ought to have been met on this ground.
As to a comparison of the apostles of this dry Protestant orthodoxy with
the eminent leaders of the Gnostics in this respect, it would be ridi-
culous. Those men showed themselves full of intellectual and moral
Christian earnestness in their speculations respecting this very prologue ;
whereas, if one reads all that the old Protestant schools have said on it
during these 250 years, there is scarcely anything, philosophically speak-
ing, but chaff to be found in it. The text is explained by theological
terms and formularies, which at least must be taken to be conventional,
till they are shown to be the necessary and only possible deductions from
the sacred text. Now this has never been proved ; and I have no hesita-
tion in saying, that no honest and intelligent criticism can prove them
to be sufficiently warranted, biblically or philosophically, for exclusive
acceptance: nor are they strictly reconcilable with the true, genuine, un-
interpolated writings of the fathers of the first, second, and third centuries.
I speak advisedly; for I have read these writings with a sincere desire to
understand and appreciate them; and, in judging them, I use nothing
but the liberty, or rather I exercise the duty, of a Protestant Christian
searching for truth. Those orthodox divines forget, what our excellent
friend Maurice has, for many years, endeavoured, it appears in vain, to
impress upon them, that revelation reveals truth, but does not make
truth, — that truth must be true in itself. Now, if true in itself, in its
substance, not through any outward authority, revealed truth must be
intelligible to reason. For reason is of the Divine substance, the image
and reflection of the eternal, Divine reason, and therefore able to discover
(as it is acknowledged to have done) the laws of the movements of the
celestial bodies in space, and (as it must be allowed to have done to a
certain degree) the laws of the human mind moving in time.
The same answer I must return to those who, seeing these difficulties,
and despairing both of human reason and of the Scriptures, fly, in their
materialist faithlessness, which makes them rebel against the God within
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
409
them and in the Scriptures, to the external authority of a set of priests
claiming infallible authority for their decrees, - I care little whether
from Rome, or from any other place. My first argument against their
absurd sophism is this : Either Christianity is true; or it is not true.
The Scriptures either contain the word of God to mankind; or they do
not contain it. Christ either spoke the truth; or he did not speak it.
Now if Christianity be not true (and the deepest scepticism stares at me
in many of their writings), what authority in the world can make it true?
But if it be true (as of course they ought to assume), it is true, because
true in itself, and wants no authority whatever to make it true. But that
is not all I have to say to them on this point. If what the Church asserts
of Christ and Christinity is divinely true, and therefore true by its own
divine substance, it is essential that this should not be conceived to be
true through an authority placed between Scripture and the conscience.
No divine authority is given to any set of men to make truth for man-
kind. The supreme judge is the Spirit of the Church, that is to say,
in the universal body of men professing Christ. The universal conscience
is God's highest interpreter. If Christ speaks truth, his words must
speak to the human reason and conscience, whenever and wherever they
are preached : let them, therefore, be preached. If the Gospels contain
inspired wisdom, they must themselves inspire with heavenly thoughts
the conscientious inquirer and the serious thinker: let them, therefore,
freely be made the object of inquiry and of thought. Scripture, to be
believed true with a full conviction, must be at one with reason: let it,
therefore, be treated rationally. By taking this course we shall not lose
strength; but we shall gain a strength which no Church ever had. There
is strength in Christian discipline, if freely accepted by those who are to
submit to it: there is strength in spiritual authority, if freely acknow-
ledged by those who care for Christ: there is strength unto death in the
enthusiasm of an unenlightened people, if sincere, and connected with
lofty moral ideas. But there is no strength to be compared with that of
a faith which identifies moral and intellectual conviction with religious
belief, with that of an authority instituted by such a faith, and of a
Christian life based upon it, and striving to Christianise this world of
ours, for which Christianity was proclaimed. Let those who are sincere,
but timid, look into their conscience: and ask themselves whether their
timidity proceeds from faith, or whether it does not rather betray a want
of faith. Europe is in a critical state, politically, ecclesiastically, socially.
Where is the power able to reclaim a world, which, if it be faithless, is
become so under untenable and ineffective ordinances ? which, if it is in
a state of confusion, has become confused by those who have spiritụally
guided it ? Armies may subdue liberty ; but armies cannot conquer
ideas : much less can Jesuits and Jesuitical principles restore religion,
or superstition revive faith. I deny the prevalence of a destructive and
irreligious spirit in the hearts of the immense majority of the people. I
believe that the world wants not less, but more religion. But, however
this be, I am firmly convinced that God governs the world, and that He
governs it by the eternal ideas of truth and justice engraved on our con-
science and reason, and I am sure that nations, who have conquered, or
are conquering, civil liberty for themselves, will sooner or later as
410
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
certainly demand liberty of religious thought, and that those whose fathers
have victoriously acquired religious liberty, will not fail to demand civil
and political liberty also. With these ideas, and with the present irre-
sistible power of communicating ideas, what can save us except religion,
and therefore Christianity? But then it must be a Christianity based
upon that which is eternally God's own, and is as indestructible and as
invincible as He is himself: it must be based upon Reason and Conscience.
I mean reason spontaneously embracing the faith in Christ, and Christian
faith feeling itself at one with reason and with the history of the world.
Civilised Europe, as it is at present, will fall; or it will be pacified by
this liberty, this reason, this faith. To prove that the cause of Protest-
antism in the nineteenth century is identical with the cause of Chris-
tianity, it is only necessary to attend to this fact ; that they both must
sink and fall, until they stand upon this indestructible ground, which, in
my inmost conviction, is the real, genuine, original ground upon which
Christ placed it. Let us, then, give up all notions of finding any other
basis, all attempts to prop up faith by effete forms and outward things :
let us cease to combat reason, whenever it contradicts conventional forms
and formularies. We must take the ground pointed out by the Gospel,
as well as by the history of Christianity. We may then hope to realise
what Christ died for, to see the Church fulfil the high destinies of
Christianity, and God's will manifested by Christ to mankind, so as to
make the kingdoms of this earth the kingdoms of the Most High. I am
aware, my dear friend, that all this is only true of the true religion : no-
body but a fanatic or an idiot can apply this test to any other. But here
my dilemma returns: either Christianity is that true religion; or on
what plea do you reason with us on Christianity, and lay down the law, as
being infallible like God?
Taking this high ground, I hope I am truly thankful to find that there
is visible and traceable in the history of Christianity the overruling power
of the Divine Spirit. This spirit I believe to be infused into the uni-
versality of the human conscience, which is identical with the God-
fearing and God-loving reason, and which answers in those sublime
regions to what in things connected with the visible world is called com-
This divine power of reason and conscience I find to have
been so great, that it has overruled all the imperfections and errors both
of ancient and modern communities and formularies. Any Protestant
Christian, who, taking a Christian view of the world's history, and leading
a Christian life, goes rationally and conscientiously through the history
of Christianity, can feel himself in perfect communion with the Churches
of the East and West, and see the working of the Spirit in scholastic, and
even in Tridentine definitions, if he will only interpret the Scriptures
honestly and according to the general rules of interpretation ; if he take
the writings of the fathers according to the spirit, as a limited part of the
development of Christianity, and judge their speculations, not as aggres-
sive dogmatism, but as philosophical explanations given in self-defence;
and finally, if he consider the decrees and formularies of those Churches,
not in the light of his own system, but as they were understood by the
members of those Churches. I confess, that, as I prefer St. John's and
St. Paul's speculative doctrines infinitely to those of the fathers of the
mon sense.
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
411
second and third centuries, so I prefer theirs considerably to the formulary
of Nice, with the letter of which I cannot conscientiously find that they
agree. Allowing this, I must see, in all the following definitions of the
Councils, an element of imperfection, of defect, of error, which develops
itself necessarily in the same ratio as the development goes on; just as
the element of truth, which I find by the side of it, must manifest itself
more and more, in the same degree as the true orginal groundwork is
more consistently maintained against destructive efforts.
And going
patiently along with men like Neander and Dorner, through all the dark
and darkening ages from the fourth to the seventhºcentury, I arrive at
the conclusion respecting the formularies concerning the divine and
human nature and will, that even the later Councils would have been
decidedly wrong, if they had laid down the contrary of what they main-
tain, which would have been what the heretics either said, or were (some-
times with evident injustice) supposed to have said. If there is any mani-
fest proof of a divine ordinance of human destinies, it is the history of
the Church. There were certainly many circumstances which wonderfully
facilitated the spreading and the maintenance of Christianity. The ancient
nationalities were worn out. Judaism had merged into Rabbinism ; and
the destruction of Jerusalem had extinguished the sanctuary, with which,
since Ezra, the faith of the Jews had been identified. Heathenism had
also lost its national basis and local faith: the unbelief of the Romans
was grosser than that of the Greeks; so was their remaining superstition.
The human mind was yearning after some high and restoring union and
fusion of the different nationalities ; and the idea of a common humanity
and a common truth, born out of Christianity, was the fulfilment of the
world's deepest longings. But then look at the difficulties. First, there
was the decaying civilisation of an effete world ; and on the other side the
barbarism of a fresh and noble, but wholly undeveloped conquering race.
There was no nation, no national life, the only sound supporters of a pure
and hallowing religion: there was a general decay in literature, in learn-
ing, in philosophy: there was a universal despair as to the destinies of
mankind. The world seemed to be actually governed, not by God, but
by the devil. Then look to the inward difficulties.
There was a very
imperfect representation of the Christian Church in all the Councils, to
begin with that of Nice,--a system excluding any action of the laity, which
means the Christian people, and representing only a part even of the
clergy. Then there were all the intrigues of Byzantine emperors and
empresses, imperial aide-de-camps, and palace eunuchs. There were the
passions and ambition of an uncontrolled clergy. There was the odium
theologicum of the doctors. Finally, there was the rage of the ruling
powers of the age for realising Christianity, not in social institutions, not
in the duties and works of love, but almost exclusively in hierarchical
discipline, and for making the sole test of communion with Christ and
God consist in certain speculative formularies, which necessarily brought
their antagonist principles, and therefore schism and persecution along
with them. This rage was intimately connected with the despair of the
human mind, and with the death of all nations, and of all national life.
Debarred from such an existence, -the end for which man was created
(because the only means of realising God's purpose with the world),-
412
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
having no fatherland to cling to, no national institutions to defend, all the
leading Christian minds were seized with the appalling idea, that this
world was drawing to its end, and shared, so far, the despairing feelings
of the rest of mankind. They looked to another world with faith; but
they did not feel a vocation to make this world itself, with its social and
national institutions, the object of their Christian thoughts and efforts.
Now the great miracle of the history of the last fifteen hundred years is,
that the world was renewed notwithstanding all this, and that the funda-
mental records and ideas of Christianity have been saved, and, although
very imperfectly, developed, and preserved for future development, in the
whole of Christendom as it exists at present in the East and the West.
Against the pretension of those formularies to be rules of faith, I must
move the saving clause of quatenus concordant, and that in a twofold
manner. I must limit my assent to their clear concordance, not only
with Scripture (which is the great Protestant principle), but also with the
earlier fathers and decrees : for, in the sense of the ancient Churches, it is
this continuity which gives them a claim to supreme authority, and invests
them with the infallibility of the Church. Now this continuity, whatever
be its value, does not exist, as to what the ancient Churches say or are
supposed to say, except partially and imperfectly. Therefore, beginning
from the formulary of Nice, all confessions of faith stand doubly upon
sufferance, so soon as they aspire to supreme authority.
That limited truth which they possess is all they ought to aspire to, not
only because they are merely true in a limited sense, but also because an
unlimited authority attributed to them crushes the very element of life in
them. I defy those who claim more, to show one any author of our time,
whether Catholic or Protestant, who, being wedded to the letter of any
formulary, has gone through this research, philosophically and historically,
and has not evidently betrayed facts and reason, or been brought either
to open scepticism, or else to that dry and unproductive outward formalism,
which is only another form of scepticism. No Protestant in particular
will ever arrive at that satisfactory result, which the history of the Church
and of the world presents to me, and feel his mind settled both as a
philosopher and a Christian, who takes his stand on the confused and
idealess formalism of that age of despair and hypocrisy, the second part
of the seventeenth, and the first part of the eighteenth century. If he
can read the old fathers critically, and will be consistent, he will arrive at
open unbelief. Let no one search, unless he be prepared to take the high
ground of Christian life and liberty, and to apply historical criticism to
the facts, and independent speculation to the ideas, of Christianity. But
above all let him be honest and true. Whoever makes a bargain with his
reason and conscience, will bruise and twist them, and lose all power of
conviction and of faith. This is true, not only individually, but also
nationally.
As to those who love servitude, and fancy they can avert scepticism by
authority, and to those who show their Christian charity by priestly ana-
themas, their learning by ignoring facts, and their wisdom by superseding
Christian wisdom with arbitrary decisions and dictates, let me say to them
with Christian frankness, what Hippolytus says to the Quartodecimans.
If they will take the formularies of the Councils and of the Church as a
HIPPOLYTUS OWN CONFESSION.
413
law binding upon them, let them show reason why they do not take them
all, not only all the formularies, past, present, and future, but also the
other ordinances which the same Councils, with the same authority, have
laid upon mankind. Hippolytus' argument holds good against them : if
they are bound by any part of the law, as such, they are bound by the
whole. As to ourselves, my dearest friend, let us thank God that we are
not thus bound; and let us live, and, if necessary, die, for the precious
liberty of the children of God!
III.
Conclusion. Address to all Men to fulfil their divine Destiny.
“Such is the true doctrine about the Deity, O ye men, Hellenes and
Barbarians, Chaldæans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians
and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye captains, the Latins*, and all ye who dwell
in Europe, Asia, and Libya, to whom I am become a counsellor, being a
benevolent disciple of the benevolent Logos, in order that, flocking to us,
ye may be taught by us, who is the true God, and what is well-ordered
workmanship, and may not attend to the sophisms of artful reasonings,
nor to the vain promises of delusive heretics, but to the grave simplicity
of unadorned truth. By this knowledge ye will escape the approaching
threat of the fire of judgment, and the dark lightless eye of Tartarus,
never illumined by the voice of the Logos, and the ebullitions of the over-
flowing lake of hellish fire, and the ever fixed, threatening eye of the
avenging angels of Tartarus, and the worm which winds itself without
rest round the foaming body to feed upon it. This thou wilt escape,
having been taught to know the true God; and thou wilt have an
immortal body, together with an imperishable soul, and wilt receive the
kingdom of Heaven : having lived on earth, and having known the
heavenly King, thou wilt be a companion of God, and a fellow-heir with
Christ, not subject to lust, or passions, or sickness. For thou hast
become God. For whatever hardships thou hadst to suffer when a man,
He gave them to thee because thou wast a man; but that which is proper
to God, God has declared that he will give thee because thou art deified,
being born again an immortal. This is the meaning of Know thyself, to
know God who has made thee. For to know oneself becomes him wbo is
called by God, to be known by him.
“ Therefore, O men, persist not in your enmity; and doubt not that you
will exist again. For Christ is he, whom the God of all has ordered to
wash away the sins of mankind, renewing the old man, having called him
his image from the beginning typically, showing forth his love to thee.
If thou art obedient to his solemn behests, and becomest a good follower
of him who is good, thou wilt become like him, honoured by him. For
* This is a piece of learning and a speech of his own. For in the “ Chronicle"
Hippolytus says (sect. ii. p. 50.), " Romani qui et Latini.” Perhaps he had an
apocalyptical reason for this, considering · Latinus, as Irenæus did, to be the word
signified by the secret number 666, as denoting the pagan Roman power.
Indeed I find he adopts this interpretation from his master in his treatise about
Antichrist (Opp. i. p. 25.).
414
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
God acts the beggar towards thee, and having made thee God to his
glory."
Now before I say a word on this third part of the exposition of the true
faith by Hippolytus, let me request you to direct your attention to the
state of our manuscript.
You will have perceived that our text ends abruptly, in the midst of a
sentence, with rather startling words : “God acts the beggar towards
thee, and having made thee God to his glory'
Certainly the book did not end here, nor with this period. So solemn
an address could never come to a close without the doxology, which
terminates the “ Treatise on the Universe” (Opp. i. 222.). How then
can a book of such length and labour, the work of his life, have ended
without it? But, moreover, must it not have had a solemn conclusion,
worthy of what precedes ? The whole winding up, the real conclusion, is
wanting. We have, at the utmost, come to the closing sentence of what
I have called the third article of the author's Confession of Faith: no
further, if so far.
Herein I am sure, my dear friend, you go along with me. But will
you not think me too bold, or too fanciful, if I assert, that Providence has
most probably preserved for us the real conclusion ? and that the chasm,
between the end of our text and the beginning of the fragment I allude to,
is perhaps not very great ?
I am sure you will at least listen patiently to my reasons for what
appears so strange a conjecture.
You recollect the very beautiful and justly admired second fragment,
which in our editions of Justin's works is given as the end of that patristic
gem, the “ Epistle to Diognetus.” This epistle is certainly the work of a
cotemporary of Justin the martyr: and Hefele has very properly received
it into his collection of the Apostolic Fathers. You will also be aware,
that, though the second fragment appears as the conclusion of that epistle
in the only MS. we possess, most critics have believed it to be the end of
some lost work of antiquity. The manuscript says itself, the original
which the scribe copied had here a chasm (éykoní). How many words or
sheets had fallen out, he evidently did not know. I cannot here state all
the reasons which have induced me to believe that this fragment does not
belong to the letter to Diognetus. In the edition which I have prepared
of this relic, I believe I have proved that the letter to Diognetus is
the lost early letter of Marcion, of which Tertullian speaks as
being Catholic, but that we possess only the first half of it, and that
the second fragment, that which has an end, but no beginning, must
be by another author. That letter is addressed to a Gentile who had
put some curious philosophical questions to the writer respecting
Christianity and the Christians: and it is evidently written imme-
diately after the great Jewish rebellion under Hadrian. Indeed it is
highly probable that the Diognetus addressed in that letter is no other
* Our learned editor assures us that what follow next are astrological absurdities.
These absurdities, we must suppose, occupy the whole of folio 136., for it is only
on folio 137. that the passage about the antiquity of Jewislı wisdom begins, which
the editor has judiciously inserted in its proper place, after 132.
HIPPOLYTUS' OwŅ CONFESSION.
415
than Diognetus the philosopher, the tutor of Marcus Aurelius, of whom
that good emperor speaks so feelingly and gratefully in his memoirs.
The second fragment on the other hand addresses, not one, but many:
the author speaks as a teacher of the Gentiles, being himself a disciple of
the man-loving Word. He speaks of his great labour and knowledge, which
out of love he had communicated to his fellow-creatures: and he expresses
his firm belief, that the Word will settle all difficulties about "times,” and
that the Lord's Passover will progress in order. He then concludes with
a solemn doxology.
But bear his own words : *
"I do not preach strange things; nor am I irrationally zealous; but,
having been a disciple of the Apostles, I am become a teacher of the
Gentiles, imparting that which has been delivered to the worthy disciples
of truth. For how should he who has been rightly taught, and been
beloved by the Word, not strive to learn clearly what the Word has
manifested to His disciples ? For to them the word revealed himself when
He appeared, speaking openly, not recognised by the unbelieving, but
published by his disciples, who, having been accounted faithful by Him,
understood the mysteries of the Father. For this reason the Father sent
the Word, that he might appear to the world ; and He, though rejected
by the Jewish people, was preached by the apostles, and believed in by
the nations. This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as
new and is found to be old, and who, ever young, is begotten in the
hearts of believers. This is He who has ever been, and to-day is
accounted a Son, by whom the Church is enriched, and that simple grace
is made abounding in the believers, which vouchsafes understanding,
which manifests the mysteries of God, which announces the times, which
rejoices over the faithful, which is given to those who seek it, who do not
break their sworn faith, nor overstep the boundaries set by their fathers.
Then the fear of the law is sung, and the grace of the prophets is under-
stood, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the
Apostles is preserved, and the Church leaps for joy. If thou dost not
grieve this grace, thou wilt come to know that which the Word preaches,
by those whom He chooses, when He will. For whatever we are moved,
by the will of the Word commanding us, to announce to you, with labour
and out of love, we become to you messengers of the things which have
been revealed to us. If you read and hear these things with diligence,
you will know what God vouchsafes to those who rightly love him, and
you will become a paradise of delight, raising in yourselves a tree all
fruitful and flourishing, adorned with manifold fruits. For in this garden
are planted the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life. But it is not the
tree of knowledge that kills : it is disobedience that kills. For it is not
written without a meaning, that God in the beginning planted the tree of
knowledge and the tree of life in the midst of Paradise, typifying the life
through knowledge. Our first parents, not using that knowledge rightly,
through the seductions of the serpent, have been deprived (of life). For
* In the first edition of these Letters I had printed also the Greek text,
which I have now given in the First Volume of the Analecta, and therefore omit
here. — 1854.
416
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
there is neither life without knowledge ; nor is there abiding knowledge
without true life; wherefore they were planted beside each other. And
because the Apostle saw this power, and wished to blame knowledge when
applied to life, without the command of truth, he says: “Knowledge
puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” For he who imagines that he knows
any thing, without that true knowledge, which receives witness from the
life, is ignorant, and is seduced by the serpent, not having loved to live.
But he who has learned knowledge with fear, and seeks life, plants in
hope, waiting for the fruit. May, therefore, thy heart be knowledge, and
may true wisdom be vouchsafed to thee as life! If thou bearest the tree
of that wisdom, and lovest its fruit, thou wilt ever eat that which abounds
before God, which the serpent does not touch ; and Eve will not come
near to seduce thee; nor will she be defiled, but will be trusted as a
virgin, And salvation is made manifest, and the Apostles have got
understanding, and the Lord's Passover advances, and His flocks are
gathered in, and all that is not well ordered is harmonised, and to teach
the faithful is the delight of the Word, by whom praise is given to the
Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever : Amen.”
I will sum up my argument in a few words.
We want an end for our great work in ten books, a winding-up worthy
of the grand subject, of the author's high standing and pretensions, and
with the solemnity of a concluding address. Now we find such a conclud-
ng fragment, which wants a beginning and an author. Whether we con-
sider its contents, or its style, if it is not, it might very well be, the
close of our work.
The author of the fragment takes the same ground as ours. He calls
himself a disciple of the Logos, and a teacher of the Gentiles; so does
Hippolytus. He preaches the Logos as the all-inspiring principle ; so
does Hippolytus. He attributes this Spirit to the Church, that is to say, to
the community of the faithful disciples of the apostles : so does Hippolytus.
The working of that Spirit, infused into the community of Christians,
will lead to harmony and concord respecting faith, worship, times of
festivals. All this is just what Hippolytus lived and wrote for, as our
next letter will prove still more closely, which will also afford us ample
opportunity of showing in detail the unity, not of doctrine only, but also
of style and language, between our book and the fragment.
Now, before I proceed to this last inquiry, shall I, my dear friend I
believe I must-say something in defence of our author, to those who
may be inclined to fly off directly, and to despair of his orthodoxy, or to
deny the authenticity of our book, on account of certain expressions, in
the third and concluding part of his Confession of Faith, which to some
people in our time may sound as pantheistic, if not atheistic ? It appears
to me that the orthodoxy of such people respecting the Spirit is as idealess
and dead as respecting the Logos and the Son. They have just as much
cause for being alarmed by this third article on account of what they call
Pantheism, as by the second on account of a supposed incorrect Trini-
tarianism. If they will read any philosophical father of the first centuries,
even Athanasius himself, they will be shocked by expressions respecting
the nature and intelligence of man very much like these ; expressions cer-
HIPPOLYTUS' OWN CONFESSION.
417
tainly abhorrent from the terminology of Paley and Burnet, as much as
from the language of the Roman Catechism, but not at all, that I can see,
from the words of St. Paul and St. John, nay of Christ himself. What
can they find stronger than St. Paul's saying, “In Him we live, and
move, and have our being," or than Christ's repeated declarations re-
specting the identity of the human and Divine nature ? Before they
identify Christianity with a bare theism, let them look at what it has pro-
duced among those who know nothing better; a maimed Judaic Moham.
medanism, a system impotent to connect God with his own manifestation,
a system which gives us an extramundane God, with a godless world and
nature, which leaves man, God's image, in a position irreconcilable with
Christ's moșt solemn words and promises, and which degrades Revelation
itself to an outward communication, which, as one of their apostles said,
might (for aught he could see) have been vouchsafed just as well to a dog, if
it had so pleased God. So much for theism and the theistical criticism upon
our author's concluding sentences. As to the authenticity of such expres-
sions, we shall presently have more of Hippolytus' pantheism, if pantheism
it be. In the mean time I remain,
Your faithful friend,
BUNSEN.
VOL. I.
E E
418
FIFTH LETTER.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS, AND THE THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIAS-
TICAL CHARACTER' OF HIS AGE.
Carlton Terrace, 27th June, 1851.
MY DEAR FRIEND,
I am sure you have been wondering why, in proving that Origen is
not the author of our work, I have not availed myself of an argument
which has forced itself upon us in almost every section of this remarkable
document -- I mean the impossibility that sach a book should have been
written at Alexandria, or by an Alexandrian ischolar..whor had merely
passed a short time at Rome, as a visitor in the time of Zephyrinus. How
could Origen, irr his' literaiseclusion, have known all that passed many
years later ip the bosom of the College of Cardinals, or the Roman pres.
bytery, as it was then called ? all the ecclesiastical coteries and chit-chat of
Rome? How should he know, or what would he care, that such and such
a Christian banker in Victor's time, who was dead when young'Origen
came to Rome, lived in the quarter called Piscina publica ? How could
he know what Alcibiades the Assyrian talked at Rome under Callistus
about the Elchasaite impostures ? or so many other things and facts with
which his genuine writings show no acquaintance ?
I can assure you, that I feel the force of this argument very strongly.
I even hope to extend it much further, and to establish in this letter that,
above all, Origen never could have written the Confession of Faith which
we have just read; for the simple reason that his own Confession of Faith
is based upon a different system, and bears a decidedly different character,
even in language, style, and in its theological terms. In short, I am con-
vinced that every thing in our book points, not only to the West, but to
Rome itself, and that, if the ancient authorities did not tell us that Hip-
polytus wrote a book with the same identical title, and if we did not learn
from Photius that it contained exactly what we have found in all its details,
we must have come to the conclusion that Hippolytus wrote it, -supposing
it granted that Hippolytus was a Roman.
But this is precisely the point which I am obliged to prove first. Every-
body had indeed thought so, till, in the seventeenth century, the French
ecclesiastical writer, Le Moyne, not knowing how to reconcile earlier and
later titles given to Hippolytus in the traditions about his martyrdom, took
up the unfortunate notion that the Portus Romanus (or rather Portus
urbis Romæ mentioned as his bishopric, was the Portus Romanus (or
Romanorum) in Arabia, now called Aden. Did not Eusebius mention
Hippolytus along with Beryllus of Bostra, which is in Arabia ? Tillemont
Le Nain felt himself in a similar embarrassment, but was content to say
that the title of Bishop of Portus might be an invention. The only
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
419
reason he gave for this sweeping sentence was, that there is a great con-
fusion about the said Hippolytus, and that wise men of his Church found
that, to do justice to all the traditions, two Hippolytuses were not enough,
and that there must have been three. On the other hand,:good honest
Ruinart declared very judiciously he saw. no necessityreither for two or
for three ; and although there were ind genuine 56 Acta Martyriil of Hip-
polytus, bishop of Póttus, near:Ostia, whosé: death Prudentius had sung,
his celebrated hymrt upon this martyr was as good as other'" Acts.”
Unhappily this did noť satisfy Cave, the canon of Windsor, when in
his elaborate literary ecclesiastical history, he came to treat of Hippo-
lytus, in a very learned, but infelicitous and uncritical article. Questioning
many points which are well established, and-rejecting the very best
evidence (as Dodwell is so apt to do), he not only embraces Le Moyne's
opinion, but goes so far as to say that there are only two points on which
he has no doubt: first, that Hippolytus was a bishop in Arabia ; and,
secondly, that he was a native of that country. Yet it is not difficult to
show that Le Moyne's conjecture as to the first point is not only ground-
less, but involves impossibilities, and that the second assumption is
purely gratuitous, and contradicted by the most positive evidence.
Leaving the dead to bury their dead, and the critics of that school to
explain misunderstandings and fables as they likę, I will. place the whole
inquiry upon the solid basis of authentic facts and clear evidence,
Eusebius (H: Ecci: vi. 26!), having arrived at the times of Zephyrinus,
or the beginning of the third century, sãys, that at that period flourished
some distinguished ecclesiastical authors; and he then names Beryllus
of Bostra in Arabia, and Hippolytus,' who also was the chief of some
other church,” which may designate a single town, as well as a whole
diocese in the common sense.
You see immediately how slender the ground would be for making
Hippolytus an Arabian bishop, because he lived at the same time with,
and is here mentioned immediately after, Beryllus, who was å bishop in
that country! Supposing we knew nothing about Kis native country, and
were to be guided by' probabilities, it must appear the most unlikely thing
in the world, "that two out of the three ntost prominent ecclesiastical
authors in Christendont át a given periodi (Cans the presbyter is the
third), should both be bishops in Arabia. Nor is it difficult to explain
how it happened that, if-(as we shall' seepresently) - Hippolytus was
bishop of the Hårbour of Rome, Eusebius should either not know, or not
understand it. First, Eusebius was .entirely a man of the East; and his
literary knowledge of the Western Church in the second and third cen-
turies is notoriously most defective. In the second place, the title of
Bishop of the Harbour of Rome must have appeared rather apocryphal to
an Eastern writer in Constantine's time, who knew something of the
power and influence of “the bishop of old Rome.” He had before him a
correct list of those bishops of Rome; and no Hippolytus was among
them: and what could a separate bishop of the “ Harbour of Rome"
mean?
I have no doubt, Eusebius found in his authorities about Hippo-
lytus, —for I do not suspect him of having read his works, -- what we
find, that he was a bishop of that harbour; but he thought it a mistake, a
blunder, a false writing, and therefore expressed himself guardedly.
E E 2
420
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
66
But is it not strange, that Jerome, in his short treatise on the illus-
trious ecclesiastical writers in early times, should repeat these very words
of Eusebius, adding, “the name of the town (of which Hippolytus was
bishop) I could not learn”? This may sound as a very high authority
in the ears of those who have never read Jerome's historical writings cri.
tically, in particular that treatise of his, which, on the whole, is little
more than an extract from Eusebius, just as his “ Chronicle" is a trans-
lation from that of Eusebius. Jerome was not a man of research: as a
good Roman (although by birth a Dalmatian), he made inquiries only for
immediate practical purposes; and, as a very pugnacious and not very
good-humoured theological writer, he cared little for such historical in-
formation about old times as he did not particularly like. The doctrines
of the fathers of the second and early part of the third century were not
to his taste: but he takes care not to attack them: on the contrary, he
defends and uses them against the heretics of his time, and against his
opponents. I have no doubt, he could easily have found out what place
Eusebius meant, as Hippolytus' diocese and residence ; for in this article
he quotes some works of Hippolytus, not mentioned by Eusebius. But
why should he take the trouble? Hippolytus' violent attack upon Cal-
listus, as not only a liar and a scoundrel, but as a heretic, was a disa-
greeable subject. The phrase above quoted means therefore simply, Non
mi ricordo.
At all events, it is clear that neither in Eusebius, nor in Jerome, is
there the slightest indication of their having taken Hippolytus for an
Arab and an Arabian bishop. They say they do not know where he was
bishop; but that a bishop he was, and a very eminent ecclesiastical writer
of his time.
Of the Byzantine writers, beginning with the seventh century, we have
the following evidence as to Hippolytus having been Bishop of Portus,
the Harbour of Rome. The Chronicon Paschale, which, among other
quotations of undoubted authenticity, as that from the treatise of the
learned Alexandrian bishop Peter (who suffered martyrdom about 311).
respecting the celebration of Easter, and that from Athanasius, also gives
quotations from Hippolytus, as we have shown, from our own book
(p. 107.).* Hippolytus is here designated “ Bishop of the so-called
Portus, near Rome."
Anastasius, the Roman presbyter (about the year 650), the learned
chronicler of his Church, and who knew and used the old fathers, calls
Hippolytus the bishop of Portus, that is, of the Harbour of Rome"
(Fabr. i. 213.). Nicephorus the Constantinopolitan (about 830), in his
“ Chronography,” calls him “a Roman historiographer,” evidently with
allusion to our work. The learned Syncellus (about 880), mentions Hip-
polytus in his “ Chronicle," at the proper place, under Callistus (p. 358.),
and calls him most correctly “ Saint Hippolytus, the philosoper, bishop
of Portus, which is near Rome.” The Byzantine historiographer, Nice-
phorus, son of Callistus (about the year 1320), who treats very accurately
of Hippolytus, calls him "a Roman bishop," which, though inaccurate,
* Or from the first less comprehensive Treatise, Hippolytus wrote on the same
subject.--1854.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
421
is easily reducible to the exact truth, and to his usual designation among
the later Greek writers, who also give him the epithet of Papa (which
means bishop), or Nonnus (which signifies the same, or an abbot).
Against all this evidence is to be put a barbarous title, placed over a
quotation from Hippolytus, ascribed to pope Gelasius, in a collection of
testimonies about the two natures in Christ. † The passage quoted is
indeed found in Hippolytus' treatise against the heresy of Noetus;
and
pope Gelasius (about 492) may have quoted it. But the title which this
quotation bears in the MS. is evidently not by Gelasius, but by a bar-
barous hand, as the wording shows :-“ Hippolyti episcopi et martyris
Arabum metropolis in Memoria hæresium.” There is neither grammar
nor sense in these words. $ The passage is not in “Memoria hæresium,"
Döllinger pretends that Nonnus cannot signify Bishop, and says it occurs
first in Jerome, who uses it as synonymous with “chaste.” The fact is, that Jerome
in his spirited letter to Eustochium (xxii. 16.) speaks of the pretended holiness of
some females who were called “ Castæ et Nonnæ;" which, on the contrary, proves
that the two words do not mean the same. Indeed, how should they ? Nonnus, Nonna,
comes from Návvos; várvos, vávun, uncle, aunt; and its Italian form (nonno, nonna,)
is used to designate grandfather and grandmother. It appears even to occur in
an ancient inscription, in the sense of nurse (nutrix). The leading idea is a
reverential expression for an elder relative. The rule of St. Benedict, therefore,
enjoins to the younger brethren to call their “ Priores ” “ Nonnos quod intelligitur
paterna reverentia." Ducange gives more examples of this use throughout the
latter centuries, in this sense and in the later one, as equivalent with Dominus,
“ Lord.” It does, therefore, not signify specially an Abbott, as Ducange also
expressly observes; but it is given to an Abbott, and it may have been given to
a Bishop of the apostolical age. The upshot of the whole, therefore, is this:
Hippolytus became early, among Byzantine writers, a mythical person, a man of
the apostolical age, an eloquent and religious writer, a martyr, a first bishop “of
the Harbour of Rome," then, shorter and more poetical, “ of Rome.' What
should they call such a man more naturally than what we call him, “a Father?"
for both Papa and Nonnus mean essentially this. As to the marvellous Döl-
lingerian myth of Hippolytus, the Antipope of Calistus, I have given a full
account of this unexpected discovery in the Appendix to my Picture of Hip-
polytus. - 1854.
† Bibl. Patr. tom. viii. ed. Lugdun.; Fabricii Hippol. i. 225.
# Döllinger thinks the barbarous separation of “ episcopi” and “ Arabum me-
tropolis” is not too bad Latin for a pope of the end of the fifth century : I confess
what I have read of him in Mansi makes me still believe that he wrote a well
stylicised Latin, rhetorical, but not at all barbarous. But the best is that Döl-
linger finds in these words an argument against my assumption of Hippolytus
þaving been Bishop of Portus, but not at all against his own, that he was Bishop
of Rome. Galasius, then, according to him, might ignore that Hippolytus
was one of his predecessors; but if he had been Bishop of Portus, how could he
have helped knowing it? The Bostra blunder, arising from the accidental juxta-
position in Eusebius of Hippolytus and Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra in Arabia,
goes on in the East by the side of another blunder which originally was nothing
but an inaccurate designation given to Hippolytus by calling him Bishop of Rome
instead of Bishop of the Harbour. This disjunction we find in the following au-
thors (Döll. p. 91. sq.):
1. Presbyter Eustratius of Constantinople, in 582, a man of no eminent authority,
quotes a passage out of the Book on Daniel by Hippolytus, the Martyr, and
Bishop of Rome (Fabric. Hipp. ii, 32.)
2. Leontius of Constantinople, and Anastasius Sinaita, of the beginning of the
seventh century.
3. Germanus of Constantinople, beginning of the eighth,
Е Е 3
422
46
ON THE. REFUTATION OF ALL.HERESIES.
which ought to mean our great work : but as it exists in the special trea-
tise' against Noetus, we may suppose that this was the work which the
barbarous copyist found mentioned. “ Arabum metropolis” is an unfor-
tunate basis to build a conjecture upon; for it originated, like many
others, in a misinterpretation of the passage in Eusebius' “ Ecclesiastical
History,” which we have already examined.
I may therefore safely sum up the evidence by saying, no ancient
author makes Hippolytus an Arabian bishop; and all who name any
place of his residence make him a Roman, bishop of the Harbour of
Rome called Portus, opposite to Ostia.
It requires a special knowledge of the confusion which began in the
latter part of the seventeenth century, and of the ignorance which prevails
in many places at present respecting the earliest history of Episcopacy,
and of the Church of Rome in particular, to understand how there can be
anything surprising in the circumstance, that a Roman clergyman under
Severus and Alexander could be called a presbyter, as a member of the
clergy of the city of Rome, and could at the same time have the charge of
the Church at Portus, for which there was no other title than the old one
of bishop. For such was the title of every man who “presided over the
congregation” in any city,—at Ostia, at Tusculum, in the other suburban
cities. And what is rather curious, these cities have bishops now, as mem-
bers of the presbytery of the city of Rome, with the body of certain presby-
ters and deacons of which they form the governing clerical board of the
Church of Rome. The relation of those suburban bishops to the bishop
of Rome must, in a certain degree, have been analogous to that which, in
later times, existed between the suffragan bishops and the metropolitan;
but we know nothing whatever of the particulars. That a place like
Portus must have had its own bishop, cannot of course be doubted, as
even much smaller towns had their bishop: their city was called their
diocese, or their parecia, and the members of their congregation or church
their plebs ; from which word, in later times, was derived the Italian
word pievano, or parish priest. But in those times there existed no
paræciæ in the sense of parishes, which is a corruption of that word
There can therefore be no difficulty on this point; and he who wishes to
know more of it need only read his Bingham, and the authorities there
collected. * The city of Rome made an exception as to parishes : for, as
4. John of Damascus in his Eclogæ (about 730).
5. Georgius Syncellus (end of ninth century), in his Chronicon, when treating
of the year of the birth of our Lord (p. 315 P.), names, among other writers,
“ the blessed Apostle and Archbishop of Rome Hippolytus, and sainted
Martyr.”
We have seen above, that, in its proper place, Hippolytus is designated by him as
« Bishop of Portus, which is near Rome.” Here, then, we have the direct proof in
favour of our explanation: one and the same writer calls him. Bishop of Portus,
near Rome, and in a rhetorical passage he calls him Archbishop of Rome, which
is still less inaccurate than the name of Apostle. Nor does Syncellus (or indeed
any one else) give his name in the list of the Popes of Rome, although he
does give the name of Antipopes. Such being the nature of the evidence, of
what use can it be to quote seriously later Byzantine writers who go on in that
strain ?
I say nothing of the utter absurdity of that hypothesis itself. - 1854. .
Origg. Eccl. lib. II. C. xii. t. i. p. 171. sqq. First Carthaginian Council (of
HIPPOLYTUS LIFE AND WRITINGS.
423
it was not thoûght convenient to have two bishops in the same town
(although Linus and Cletus had been co-bishops, according to the best
authorities), there were fixed local centres from the earliest times for the
Caristian work and administration; and I have proved elsewhere that
they were connected with the Regionarian divisions of the city. After
Constantine these divisions had their churches, called Tituli or Cardines :
from which latter term the title Cardinalis for a parish priest is derived,
a word which we know from the time of Gregory the First, about 600.
That these primitive parish priests formed the governing clerical body of
Rome, together with the Regionarian deacons, established for the service
of the Christian poor and widows, is generally acknowledged: and there
can scarcely be a doubt that the suburban bishops were connected with
that body as assistants of the metropolitan. We know their modern con-
stitution (since the eleventh century) *, by which the seven suburban
bishops were declared the regular assistants of the pope, as “ Cardinales
Episcopi,” a constitution unintelligible, if it did not rest upon their pri-
mitive connection with Rome; for Ostia and Portus were at that time
miserable places, and had been so for centuries. This accounts also for
the maintenance of the title of Bishop of Portus (Episcopus Portuensis),
which is always given to one of the most eminent ecclesiastics of Rome.
Now this title, Episcopus Portuensis, is that given to Hippolytús by the
most ancient authorities, including Prudentius, as we shall see. The
basilica of Saint Hippolytus at Portus is mentioned, as an object of soli-
citude and respect, in the lives of Leo III. and Leo IV.,.who; in the
eighth and ninth centuries, restored and adorned it. T: There is still the
episcopal palace in the Porto of this day;: ạnd a tower néár Fiumicino, on
the spot where the branch of the Tiber is traversed, is called Torre di
Sant' Ippolito.
His statue gives him the same title. This monument, I have said else-
where, cannot: have been érected on the spot:where it was found before
the time of Constántine; who; as well as Galla Placidia, under Theodosius
the Great, erected sanctuaries and buildings in thế old Christian cemetery
on the Via Tiburtina, in a spot called Ager .-Veranus. I But certainly it
could not be later than the sixth century, 'from the form of the letters in the
inscription. Now this monument was found, as I have started already in
the first letter, just 300 years:ago, in the spot which Prudentius has so
graphically described in his '(x1.) hymn on Saint Hippolytus; a hymn
256), Can. 117.: “ Petilianus episcopus dixit, in una plebe Januarii collegæ nostri
præsentis, in una dioecesi, quatuor sint constituti contra ipsum.” In the third
Carthaginian Council (397): “plebes . . quæ episcopum nunquam habuerunt
accipiunt rectores, hoc est, episcopos.” Nicephorus, v. 15., of Hippolytus :
ετέρας παροικίας προεστώς, instead of the εκκλησίας of Eusebius.
* Van Espen, Jus Eccles. Univ. t. i. tit. 22. § 14.
of Liber Pontificalis, in Vita Leonis III. : « Leo III. fecit in basilica beati
Hippolyti martyris in civitate Portuensi vestes," etc. In Vita Leonis IV.: " Leo
IV. in ecclesia beati Hippolyti martyris quæ ponitur in insula Portuensi," etc.
# But it certainly may have been erected originally elsewhere, at Portus itself
most likely, in his life-time, during the exile, or immediately after his death.
Winkelmann thinks it worthy of the age of Alexander Severus. Döllinger makes
besides the very judicious observation, that as the Paschal Cycle goes only from
222 to 333, it is not likely that it should have been erected at a later period.
E E 4
424
ON THE “ REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.' "
written in the time of Theodosius and Honorius, and of which I shall
presently say more. It is here only necessary to mention, that Prudentius
calls his residence “ Portus, at the mouth of the Tiber.” The statue
found in that place represents a Christian bishop sitting on his cathedra.
He is identified as Hippolytus, first, by the representation of the Paschal
Cycle, beginning with Alexander Severus, mentioned as his invention by
Eusebius, and by almost all the authors who speak of him ; and, secondly,
by the titles of many of the works which the same authors ascribe to him.
Ideler f, with his usual good sense and judgment, says, the paschal table
there represented necessarily implies that Hippolytus was a man of the
West, and not an Arab; for it is entirely different from the Alexandrian
Paschal Cycle used in the East. Besides, the two Latin letters, SS (that
is, Bissextus), used in the midst of a Greek inscription, prove the man a
Latin. I We may therefore say that this statue, found in the very same
ancient Christian cemetery, which was visited and described under Theo-
dosius as the place of rest of Hippolytus, the martyr and bishop, if it
represents Hippolytus, as every body agrees, represents a Latin, and
therefore the man of the Harbour of Rome.
As to the age of Hippolytus, there are one uniform tradition and one
uniform testimony. He is reported to have lived under bishop Zephy-
rinus and Alexander Severus, at the beginning of the third century: his
statue confirms this; and in the ten books which we have examined, he
calls “his own tine” the period from the end of Victor till after Callistus'
death (ix. 1.). This book was evidently written after Callistus' death,
which took place in 222, and therefore in the first year of Alexander
Severus. In this book he quotes several other writings of his ; he
speaks of long and renewed researches; he appears during that whole
period as a man of weight in the presbytery. All these circumstances, as
well as the distance from Victor's death (198, the sixth year of Septimius
Severus) to that of Callistus (about 222), which he speaks of as a cotem-
porary, prove that that our book was written by an old man. The time
of Commodus (188 to 192) is familiar to him, with all particulars of the
palace and of the presbytery.
It remains to be examined, when and where he suffered martyrdom.
The chroniclers who mention his martyrdom place it under Alexander
Severus. This, speaking literally, must be erroneous; for the Christians
were singularly favoured and prosperous under that emperor. But in the
very year of the death of Alexander Severus (235), the persecution of
Maximin the Thracian began; and the authentic lists of bishops of the
Church of Rome, written under Liberius, state that, under the consuls of
that year, Severus and Quintianus, bishop Pontianus and “ Hippolytus
the presbyter” were transported to Sardinia, the unwholesome island.”
* I never thought I should be compelled to insist on this point. But some of
my critics having passed over this circumstance with an ease not justified certainly
by erudition. I challenge any one to give an instance of any ecclesiastic, except a
bishop, ever having sat on a cathedra, that is to say, a raised arm-chair, such as there
are still found in the ancient Egyptian Basilicas at Rome. A cathedra is for an
ecclesiastic in the ancient Church fully as much an indication of the episcopal
dignity as now the mitre and the crosier or ring. - 1854.
† Handbuch der Chronologie, ii. 213. sqq.
I See Franz, Elementa Epigra phices Græcæ, p. 351.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
425
As this point is of great importance for the historical criticism of the
account given by Prudentius respecting the martyrdom of Hippolytus, I
will insert below the original text of the “ Catalogus Liberianus,” com-
pared with the most authentic (not yet published) text of the “Liber
Pontificalis," from the Neapolitan MS. discovered by Pertz, -a specimen
of the criticism on the most ancient annals of the Church of Rome, which
I have prepared. I add the corresponding two most authentic texts of
the second recension, the “Catalogus Felicianus," and the Veronese text
of the “ Catalogus Paulinus."
It is scarcely doubtful that this presbyter is our celebrated author.
For, as we have seen, every one of the six or seven suburban bishops was
member of the presbytery of the Church of Rome, and therefore, in a
very succinct, summary list, such as that catalogue is, might be called å
presbyter. Besides, after Maximin's persecution, there is none before
that of Decius in 250, in which nobody says that Hippolytus suffered ;
nor do any of his writings point to the time after Alexander Severus.
We may therefore set it down as a well attested fact, that Hippolytus
suffered martyrdom under Maximin, in the first year of his reign, 236 of
our era, or at all events before its close in 238. It is not surprising that
we hear no further particulars about Hippolytus, if he died in that perse-
cution : for we have scarcely any details about it.
.
* Catalogus Liberianus, sect. iv. Liber Pontificalis, cod. Neapol. sect. vii.
PONTIANUS, annis quinque, mensibus PONTIANUS sedit an. viii, menses v.
duobus, diebus septem. Fuit temporibus dies ii. fuit autem temporibus Alexandria
Alexandri a consulatu Pompeiani et consulatu Pompeiani et Peliniani
Peligniani. Eo tempore Nepotianus in eandem insulam defunctus est iii. kal.
(1. Pontianus) episcopus et Hippolytus Novembris et in ejus locum ordinatus est
presbyter exules sunt deportati in insulam Antheros xi, kal. Decemb. Qui etiam
nocivam Sardiniam Severo et Quintiano sepultus est in cymiterio Calisti via
consulibus. In eadem insula discinctus Appia et cessavit episcopatum d. x.
est iv. kalendas Octobris,. et loco ejus
ordinatus est Anteros xi. kalendas De-
cembris consulibus suprascriptis.
Catalogus Felicianus, sect. vi. Catalogus Paulinus, cod. Veron. sect. viii.
PONTIANUS, natione Romanus ex patre PONTIANUS, natione Romanus, patre
Calpurnio, sedit an. viii. mens. v. dies ii. Calpurnio, sedit annos v. menses ii. dies
Martyrio coronatur temporibus Alexan- xxii. Martyrio coronatur. Hic fuit
dri (sedit) a consulatu Pompeiani et temporibus Alexandri a consulatu Pom-
Peliniani. Eodem tempore Pontianus pejani et Peliniani. Eo tempore Ponti-
episcopus et Hippolytus presbyter exilio anus episcopus et Hippolytus presbyter
sunt deputati ab Alexandro in Sardi- exilio sunt deportati ab Alexandro in
niam insulam Bucinam, Severo et Quin- Sardiniam insulam Bucinam, Severo et
tiano consulibus. In eadem insula ma- Quintiano consulibus: ibique maceratus
ceratus et afflictus fustibus, defunctus fustibus, defunctus est vi. kal. Novem-
est iii. kal. Nov. Hic fecit ordina- bris. Hic fecit ordinationes ii. presby-
tiones duas, presbyteros v. diaconos teros vi. diaconos v. episcopos vii. quem
v. episcopos per loca vi. Quem B. beatus Fabianus adduxit et sepelivit in
Fabianus adduxit navigio et sepelivit coemeterio Catacumbarum. Cessavit
in coemeterio Calisti via Appia, die episcopatus dies x.
depositionis ejus ix. kal. Decembris.
(On the expression Cemeterium Catacum-
barum, instead of Cæmeterium Calisti, compare
Roestell's remarks in the Beschreibung der
Stadt Rom, tom. i. p. 374.)
426
ON THE “REFUTATION OF ALL. HERESIES.”
Starting from this safe ground which we have gained, we can easily
separate the historical from the mythical part of Prudentius' account of
Hippolytus' martyrdom.
Prudentius found his “Memoria," or chapel, in the catacombs of an
ancient cemetery. 'He calls the place (213, 214.) a spacious cavern
(specus), although too small for the people who on the festal day of the
place came to visit it:
“ Angustum tantis illud specus esse catervis
Haud dubium est, ampla fauce licet pateat.”
an
There can be no doubt about the site ; for he says that by the side of this
underground sanctuary was the great church in honour of Rome's proto-
martyr, S. Laurentius (215. sqq.), of which he gives a description, and
accurate and historical one, as my article on this basilica in the
“ Description of Rome” has shown.* I have proved there that what he
Saw is the splendid church which now takes the place of the apsis, and
belongs to the fourth 'century. By the side of this basilica the ruins of a
church of St. Hippolytus were still visible in the seventeenth century.
On this spot the episcopal monument of Hippolytus was found in 1551.
I have proved in the " Description of Rome” that this was the place of
the old Christian catacombs, called “ in Agro Verano,” a locality on the
ancient Tiburtine road. That Hippolytus' remains were deposited here,
is áttested by an authority greater, as well as more ancient, than that of
the Spanish poet. The “Calendarium Liberianum," of the year 352, has
the following article on the anniversary festival of St. Hippolytus :
IDIB. AUG. HIPPOLYTI IN VIA TIBURTINA.
This indeed is the only authentic day connected with the history and
memory of Hippolytus. Prudentius also says:
« Si bene commemini, colit hunc pulcherrima Roma
Idibus Augusti, mensis ut ipsa vocat."
We are therefore on historical ground, as far as the, locality goes,
where the remains of Hippolytus were deposited. But Prudentius also
knows, that his residence was at the mouth of the Tiber, and at Portus
(now Porto) itself:
“ Tyrrheni ad litoris oram,
Quæque loca æquoreus proxima Portus habet.”
He further knows that he had a flock, and therefore was at the head of an
independent congregation or church, wbich, at that time, as we have seen,
always had a bishop as rector. Speaking of the venerable martyr, he
says :
Plebis amore suæ multis comitantibus ibat."
We have already seen that plebs is the term of the age for the people
of a city, forming a diocese, and having a bishop at their head.
* Beschreibung der Stadt Rom, vol. ii. p. 329. sq., iii. C. p. 312—327. (Church
of S. Lorenzo fuori le mura.)
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
427
That Portus became a bishopric; distinct from the neighbouring and
almost adjacent one of Ostia, mày easily be accounted for by its im-
portance and peculiar character, as being, since Trajan's time at least, the
real harbour of Rone, and the place of abode for all the foreigners whom
commerce and trade brought across the sea to the banks of the Tiber.
But there are, certainly, circumstances which we must regard as a
poetical amplification of popular tales. As mythical we must consider
the very rhetorical and far-fetched story, that the wicked prefect, hearing
his name was Hippolytus, ordered him to be torn in pieces by horses,
as Hippolytus was of old ; which does not prevent the cruel heathens
around from stabbing him into the bargain. Still such was the accredited
legend even in the time of Theodosius. Prudentius found it painted on the
wall of the sanctuary of Hippolytus, by the side of the basilica of St.
Laurentius. Indeed it is quite clear that his rhetorical account is taken
from this remarkable picture, which at all events represented the saint's
body as carried away by furious horses, and the remains collected by the
faithful. (123—174.)
130
140
Exemplar sceleris paries habet illitus, in quo
Multicolor fucus digerit omne nefas.
Picta super tumulum species liquidis viget umbris,
Effigians tracti membra cruenta viri.
Rorantes saxorum apices vidi, optime Papa,
Purpureasque notas vepribus impositas.
Docta manus virides imitando effingere dumos
Luserat e minio russeolam saniem.
Cernere erat, ruptis compagibus ordine nullo
Membra per incertos sparsa jacere situs.
Addiderat caros, gressu lacrymisque sequentes,
Devia qua fractum semita monstrat iter,
Mærore attoniti, atque oculis rimantibus ibant :
Implebantque sinus visceribus laceris.
Ille caput niveum complectituri ac reverendam
Canitiem molli confovet in gremio.
Hic humeros, truncasque manus, et brachia, et ulnas,
Et genua, et crurum fragmina nuda legit.
Palliolis etiam bibulæ siccantur arenæ,
Ne quis in infecto pulvere ros maneat.
Si quis et in sudibus recalenti aspergine sanguis
Insidet, hunc omnem spongia pressa rapit.
Nec jam densa sacro quidquam de corpore silva
Obtinet, aut plenis fraudat ab exsequiis.
Cumque recensitis constaret partibus ille
Corporis integri qui fuerat numerus :
Nec purgata aliquid deberent avia toto
Ex homine, extersis frondibus et scopulis :
Metando eligitur tumulo locus: Ostia linquunt:
Roma placet, sanctos quæ teneat cineres.
Haud procul extremo culta ad pomoria vallo
Mersa latebrosis crypta patet foveis.
Hujus in occultum gradibus via prona reflexis
Ire per anfractus luce latente docet.
Primas namque fores summo tenus intrat hiatu,
Illustratque dies limina vestibuli.
Inde ubi progressu facili nigrescere visa est
Nox obscura, loci per specus ambiguum ;
150
160
428
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
66
Occurrunt cæsis immissa foramina tectis,
Quæ jaciant claros antra super radios.
Quamlibet ancipites texant hinc inde recessus
Arta sub umbrosis atria porticibus:
Attamen excisi subter cava viscera montis
Crebra terebrato fornice lux penetrat.
Sic datur absentis per subterranea solis
Cernere fulgorem, luminibusque frui.
Talibus Hippolyti corpus mandatur opertis,
Propter ubi apposita est ara dicata Deo.
170
Illa sacramenti donatrix mensa, eademque
Custos fida sui martyris apposita,
Servat ad æterni spem Judicis ossa sepulcro ;
Pascit item sanctis Tibricolas dapibus.
Besides that picture, Prudentius found a tradition, according to which
the venerable martyr had at one time followed a doctrine disapproved by
the bishop of Rome, but died professing the Catholic truth and his attach-
ment to the Cathedra Petri. This account must have been true, so far at
least as the first part is concerned; but it certainly is inaccurate. The in-
dication of the time is not correct, although it points clearly enough to
the historical truth. The poet says:
Invenio Hippolytum, qui quondam schisma Novati
Presbyter attigerat, nostra sequenda negans.
Now Hippolytus is never brought into contact with Novatianism; and
even when he wrote that book, in which he refers to many other preceding
works, Novatus was not above the horizon. Hippolytus' historical horizon
closes with the Callistian branch of Noetianism. Novatus' heresy can-
not be placed earlier than 245; the year which Epiphanius, in a very loose
manner, gives as that of Noetus and Noetianism, directly against all his-
torical evidence. But Novatianism, which followed upon Noetianism had
the same rigorous tendency (though more strongly brought out), which was
advocated and urged against Noetianism by Hippolytus. In speaking some-
what inaccurately of Hippolytus' controversy with the Bishop of Rome, one
might designate hirn as a friend of Novatianism. Of course Callistus rose,
with the reaction of the Church against this heresy; and blame remained
attached to the previous opinions of the martyr. In the course of the
fourth century, those petty school-quarrels lost their interest, and those
unedifying family scandals were studiously covered with a veil. Who
would speak, at Rome, of Callistians? and how few, out of Rome, knew
that nickname ? What is, therefore, more natural than that Prudentius
(or the popular tradition before him) should make the violent opposer of
a bishop of Rome, who would not act upon the rigour lately exacted by
Novatus, a cotemporary and friend of this heretic ?
But if it is contrary to the rules of sound criticism to maintain the exact
historical truth of such details, in an account by a Spanish poet, like Pru-
dentius, it would be still more uncritical to consider, for that reason, the
whole account as mythical, in spite of such historical evidence in its favour.
The story could never have orignated, unless there was historical truth at
the bottom: who otherwise, under Theodosius, would relate so disagreeable
a fact ? especially when recommending the saint (as Prudentius does) to
the devotion and invocation of his orthodox diocesan, Valerian, bishop of
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
429
Cæsaraugusta (Saragoza), a historical person, known to have sat in a
Spanish council in 381 ? Besides we now know there was good reason
for the Roman hierarcy to disavow the doctrines professed by Hippolytus
in his dispute with the bishop of Rome, and at the same time to connect
his heterodoxy with Novatianism, rather than with a system once patron-
ized by two successive bishops.
Thus, by separating the two elements in Prudentius' account, we find
every statement cleared up as to Hippolytus' country and station. As to
the time of his martydom, the question is, whether and how we can re-
concile the fact of his transportation to Sardinia, at the very beginning of
the reign of Maximin, with the account of his bloody martydom. Maximin
seems to have intended to remove from Rome all the friends of Alexander,
whose household consisted in great part of Christians. This having been
accomplished by the banishment of the bishop of Rome and of Hippolytus,
it is not likely that he should afterwards have added the sentence of death
to that of deportation. Besides if there is any truth in the story which
Prudentius, in the reign of Theodosius, found painted on the wall of
the chapel erected over by the side of the tomb of Hippolytus in the
catacombs, Portus, not Sardinia, must have been the scene of his martyr-
dom. Now it is very difficult to believe, that this account is without
any foundation, as the person and his place of abode are so entirely his-
torical But I do not see why Hippolytus may not have been permitted
to return, after the death of Pontianus in September, 236, and then, con-
tinuing his zealous activity at Portus and at Rome, have been sentenced
to death for new offences. In this way there is no contradiction between
the two stories ; and the origin of the representation on the wall of his
chapel, at farthest about 150 years later, is accounted for. Nobody re-
ports that Hippolytus suffered martyrdom under Decius (249 — 251),
which in itself would be most improbable, as we have not the slightest
trace of his having lived till that time. As to the story of the martyrs at
the mouth of the Tiger under Glaudius Gothicus (268 - 270), the date
is as mythical for a man who calls the end of the second century his own
time, as the whole nature of those fabulous “ Acts,” which were published
at Rome towards the end of the last century, in a work of which I
shall soon have to speak.*
The next question is the date of the removal of the remains of Hippo-
lytus to that ancient Christian cemetery, near the resting-place of the
Western protomartyr, St. Laurence, where Prudentius saw his sanctuary.
Now if that removal took place (as is very probable) in the time of
Constantine, we may safely affirm that about the same period, certainly
not much later, the statue was erected to him, which we now admire in
the Vatican Library. It may be still earlier ; it cannot be later than the
sixth century t. This statue therefore is older than the famous bronze
statue of St. Peter, in the basilica of St. Peter's at Rome, which
ܪ
* Ideler, Handbuch, ii. p. 214. no. 4. The title of the work is, “ Acta Mar-
tyrum ad Ostia Tiberina sub Claudio Gothico, ex MS. codice regiæ bibliothecæ
Taurinensis.” Romæ, 1795, fol.
f I have, in a preceding note, expressly said that there is no reason to prevent its
having been erected at Portus during his own life-time or immediately afterwards
and the statue bears, as Winkelmann says, the character of that time. - 1854.
430
ON THE « REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. "
is a Byzantine work of the: sixth century, and" necessarily an entirely
ideal statue. Thus, in the statue of Hippolytus, we have the most-ancient
-Christian portrait of a historical person, a very respectable work of
ancient art, and a venerable Christian monument, representing the most
eminent.writer of the Roman Church, in his time. But it also preserves
two valuable records of antiquity, - the Paschal Cycle, and a list of
the martyr's writings; bothi engraved on the episcopal chair on which
Hippolytus'is séated.
As to the Paschal table, I must refer to Ideler's excellent and con-
clusive examination * for the proofs of its being a very imperfect
contrivance. Although calculated for a period of 112 years (7 times 16),
it is so faulty, that it must have been abandoned very soon. This
imperfection is not surprising at Rome. At the time when the Greeks
understood the art of making very accurate sundials, and even astrono-
mical calculations, the Romans very confidently (and, I doubt not, very
pompously) erected their trophy, the Syracusan dial, upon the Comitium,
without the slightest notion that the united omnipotence of the senate and
people of Rome could not make a dial transplanted to another meridian
do its duty.. If then, in the age of Alexander Severus, amidst the gradual
decay of science and literature and art, which stares us in the face at
every step in that period, Hippolytus tried courageously, but failed, we
can only say that (in spite of his Greek ancestors, and his character as an
apostle of the Gentiles), he was a true Roman.
So much for the Easter table of Hippolytus. But we have more to say
about his writings. We have to examine the list on the monument, along
with the catalogue which ancient writers give of his works, and with the
quotations occurring in the “ Catenæ Patrum” and similar Greek com-
pilations. We have besides to inquire, how far we find in them the spirit
and language of Hippolytus, the presbyter of the Roman Church, the
bishop of the Roman harbour at Portus, the martyr under Maximin, and
the writer of the work “ On all the Heresies," now before us. In doing
So, I hope I shall be able to vindicate the genuineness of some of the
works of Hippolytus already known, as well as to give additionala proofs
of his having beenathe author of the book on the heresieş: o I hope also
to gather some characteristic features for the pitture of his character and
of his age, which is to conclude mys letter:
I shall divide the works of: Hippolylus into four classes, - polemical,
doctrinal, chronological, exegeticals My quotations will refer to the two
folio volumes of Fabricius (Hamburg, 1716.), the only edition of this
neglected author to be had single. Gallandi's edition, in the second
volume of his “Bibliotheca Patrum” (Venet: 1760, fol. tom. ii: p. xliv- ,
xlix. and 411–530.), is a better arranged reprint of Fabricius' most clumsy
and ill-digested book, and contains occasionally the correction of a
misprint, and even one new fragment, but no, collation of manuscripts,
and no original criticism worth naming. It is, like the rest of the work,
a compilation, in the conventional marner of the seventeenth century,-
great in small things, tolerable in those points which are of some relative
importance, perfectly insufficient, and often decidedly absurd in the most
important. Since Gallandi, nothing has been done for the text of Hip-
* Handbuch, ii. p. 222, sq.
HIPPOLYTUS'. LIEE AND WRITINGS.
431
polytus as a whole. Interesting new 'materials, however, have been
.collected by the iüdefatigable Cardinal Angelo Mai, to whom the literary
world owes a lasting gratitude. As these new.fragments are dispersed in
the volumes of the vast Collectio Vaticana, I shall treat of them in an
Appendix-· Buti:I have here to mention some 'fragments contained in a
book which I was unable to find in the British Museum, and the know-
ledge of wbich. I owe; like that of so many other rare works, to your
incomparable library, my dearest friend : I mean the “ Acta Martyrum
sub Claudio Gothico” (Rom. 1795, fol.).
The anonymous author (Episcopus Cyrenensis, a bishop in partibus
infidelium, and, according to Mai, Monsignore de Magistris) takes these
“ Acta Martyrum," of course, to be genuine, although they had long been
condemned by all critics of note; and consequently he assumes Hippolytus
to have suffered martyrdom about 265 or
268., „But this is the most venial
of his fancies. He invents a whole life of St. Hippolytus, based upon
conjectures which have not the 'slightest founrtation, criticising Cave and
even French: writers all: the time with considerable learning for their
uncritical assertions and suppositions, But the most shameless part of
this fiction is, that he regularly quotes parts of the text of Epiphanius, as
the words of Hippolytus, assuming that he copied Hippolytus literally in
his article on Marcion (Hær. xlii.), and in all those about heresies on
which Hippolytus had written or might have written. This book is a
good specimen of that monstrous sort of lying literature, where truth in
trodden under foot, in order to enthrone old fictions and impostures,
aggravated and multiplied. It is in a laborious and learned manner,
what those works on the life of St. Philumena are in an humbler way. In
them, as you know, a life is constructed out of the inscriptions on three
bricks, exhibiting her name, with the palm-twig and the anchor, those
well-known Christian symbols. Christian remains were found in my time
in the catacombs at Rome, with a vial, containing what is called blood,
but what in fact is the deposit of the wine used at the communion, in a
loculus or excavation, the mouth of which was shut up by those three
bricks. These remains having been said and attested to work miracles,
books were written (I possess two) relating that Philumena, now the
favourite female saint of the South of Europe, then the daughter of a king
of Greece in the time of Maxentius, was taken prisoner with her father
after his defeat by the Roman emperor near the shore of the Adriatic.
Maxentius (the story goes on) proposed to marry her, being enraptureď
by her beauty, but, when she refused him, ordered her to be drowned with
an anchor tied to her body. So much for the name and the anchor. The
anchor having, of course, done its duty, by swimming upon the surface of
the sea like a cork, the tyrant ordered the saint to be beheaded, which was
done accordingly: thereupon ḥer remains were deposited in the catacombs,
after some drops of her blood had been preserved in the vial. Here you
have the utmost made of three bricks and a vial.
This is a brutish kind of imposture, amid the noonlight of publicity in
Europe: but have we not had just as impudent lies in France under
Charles X. (remember the letter of the Virgin Mary to the French
nation); and are we not sure of having others of the same sort before the
end of 1852? Now the method of the anonymous bishop, the author of
432
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
your book, is not substantially different, and indeed only an exaggeration
of that employed in the great reactionary assault of false learning upon
such truth as is thought dangerous. It is even more dishonest : for it
induces the reader, for a while at least, to believe that there is some
reason for what is assumed; whereas there is none, no more than for the
story concocted out of the three bricks.
I beg your pardon, my dear friend, for this digression ; but it is really
time that we should guard aganst a new rococo edition of this hypocritical
method of mixing up history and fable, issuing from Paris, in which the
old fable reappears, seasoned with romantic poetry and some speculative
phrases stolen from Görres, the father of these hybrid compositions which
defy truth and confound the conscience. And where are the learned men
among the clergy of France, who can moderate and repress such
attempts ? Where is a Ruinart ? Where is a Bossuet ? And Letronne
is dead !
To return to the new materials which this bishop in partibus infidelium
has been brought together, be refers to his schede for more than he
communicates; and much of that may be a mere fiction : but he gives
(p. xliv. ex cod. MSS.) a different recension of the passage in the book
on Antichrist respecting Dan. vii. 7. (the kingdom of iron), and a more
complete Greek text of the commentary on the Psalms. I shall note
in the proper places whatever I think worthy of remark in this folio
of 500 pages.
A.
HIPPOLYTUS POLEMICAL WORKS
Ι. Κατά πασών αιρέσεων έλεγχος.
Against all the Heresies ; or, Refutation of all the Heresies
Ten books : of which the first four give an outline of those speculative
systems of the old philosophers, from which the heretics of the first and
second centuries had mostly taken their speculative ideas ; principally,
therefore, of the writings on physical philosophy, and whatever refers to
cosmogonic constructions. Of these four books we already possessed the
first among Origen's works; and we find that a great part of the fourth,
with the middle of which our manuscript begins, is extracted from Sextus
Empiricus' work against the mathematical (or dogmatical) philosophers.
Sextus Empiricus was an older cotemporary of Hippolytus, and wrote
under Commodus. As he was a Gentile writer, Hippolytus took out
what he could use, in order to give the Christian reader the requisite
materials without the necessity of recurring to a heathen writer. The
first book is not extracted from any work that we know. Diogenes of
Laerte's book cannot have been published till after Hippolytus' death.
At all events, the extracts which Hippolytus gives in the course of the
later books, as well as in the first, from the works of the Greek philo-
sophers, leave no doubt as to his having studied ancient philosophy at its
These first four books were probably distinguished afterwards
sources,
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
433
*
from the rest as “ The Philosophumena," a name Hippolytus gives him-
self to that introductory part. In judging of the title of the whole
work, we must not forget that pois in good Greek is the proper term for
a philosophical school. The tenth book might seem to contain, in the form
of an epitome, the earlier, succinct treatise of Hippolytus on the same
subject, to which he alludes in the first. †
We have established that the book treats, as Photius says, of exactly
thirty-two heresies; and we have also shown that the method of enu-
merating them was not so much simply chronological, as genealogical.
Having gone through all the details of each article, which have any
bearing on this subject, I will now render the truth of my assertions
evident by two tables. The first will exhibit a summary view of the
series of heresies contained in the “Great Refutation,” compared with
that in the tenth book; the second table will show their genealogical and
chronological order.
I.
COMPARATIVE TABLE OF THE THIRTY-TWO HERESIES IN THE
66 REFU-
TATION, ACCORDING TO Books V. To IX., WITH THOSE IN THE TENTH
BOOK.
Books V. to IX,
Book X.
I. Naassenes : p. 314, 1–15.
A. The Sects of the Ophites.
Book V.
I. Naussénes (Ophites) calling them-
selves Gnostics : pp. 94—123.
II. Peratæ (Eubeans ? Transcen-
dentals? or Hebrews — from
Heber?): pp. 123-138.
III. Sethians : pp. 138-147.
IV. Justinians (froin Justinus the
Gnostic): pp. 148-159
II. Peratæ: pp. 315. 16–316. 48.
III. Sethians : pp. 316. 49—318. 20.
B. Simon and Valentinus, and the
dualistic Valentinians.
Book VI.
V. Simon. the Gittean : pp. 161
IV. Simon: pp. 318. 21-319. 50.
176.
V. Valentinus and his school: pp. 319.
51-320. 73.
VI. Valentinus : pp. 177-198.
VII. Secundus : p. 198, 8 lines, Iren.
VIII. Epiphanes:
pp.
198-199. 9
lines, Iren. Other Valentinians,
8 lines, Iren.
IX. Ptolemæus: p. 199. 16 lines, Iren.
X. Colarbasus (left out in our text).
XI. Múrcus : pp. 200–221. Iren.
* The passage in which this designation (the only one that ought to be used) of
the word Philosophumena occurs, is Refut. vi. 8.: 'AM' ei kal mpótepov čKKELTAL Úp'
ημών εν τοις Φιλοσοφουμένοις η δόξα Ηρακλείτου, αλλά γε δοκεί προσαναπαραχθήναι
και νυν. . The passage referred to by Hippolytus is in the first book of the Philoso-
phumena (p. 10. Mill.).--1854.
ť I give up this conjecture, as it is so much more probable that the succinct
treatise was a separate Syntagma.-1854.
VOL. I.
TF
434
ON THE "REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES. "
Basilides and the Basilidian Gnos-
tics, Marcion and the Marcionists,
the Ebionites, Theodotians, and
Nicolaites.
Book VII.
XII. Basilides : pp. 225-244. (His! VI. Basilides : pp. 320. 74-322. 33.
son Isidorus: p. 230.) VII. Justinus: pp. 322. 34 — 324. 33.
XIII. Saturnilus :, pp. 244.246.
Iren.
XIV. Marcion, pp. 246-253,
XV. Prepon: p. 253.
XVI. Carpocrates: pp. 255-256.
Iren.
XVII Cerinthus : pp. 256, 257. Iren.
XVIII. The Elionites: p. 257. 11 lines,
Iren.
XIX. Theodotus of Byzantium: pp.
257, 258.
XX. a. Theodotus the Trapezite.
b. Theodotus the Melchisedenite :
p. 258. 8 lines.
XXI. Nicolaus and the Nicolaitans :
p. 258. 8 lines, Iren.
XXII, Cerdo : p. 259. 8 lines, Iren.
XXIII. Apelles : pp. 259, 260.
D. The Doceta, Monoimus, the Monta-
nists, and their cotemporaries.
Book VIII.
VIII. The Docetæ: pp. 324. 75-
325. 11.
IX. Monoinus : pp. 325. 12--326.
38.
}
p. 276.
XXIV. The Doceta : pp. 261-268. X. Tatianus: p. 326. 39-44.
XXV. Monoimus: pp. 269–273.
XI. Cerdo
pp. 326. 45
XXVI. Tatian: p. 273. 4 lines, Iren. XII. Marcion.
327. 66.
XXVII. Hermogenes : pp. 273, 274. XIII. Apelles : pp. 327. 67-81.
XXVIII. The Quartodecimans: pp. 274, XIV. Cerinthus: pp. 327. 82-328
275. 15 lines,
96,
XXIX. The Montanists: pp. 275, XV, The Ebionites: p. 328. 98-1.
276. 27 lines.
XVI. Theodotus of Byzantium: p.
XXX. The Encratites :
.
328. 2—-13.
Iren.
XVII. The Melchisedekites : pp. 328.
14-329. 18.
E. The Noetians and Elchasaites: Ap- XVIII. The Montanists (Phrygians):
pendix about the Jewish Sects.
p. 329. 19-33.
Book IX.
XIX. The Noetians. (Callistians): pp.
XXXI. The Noetians (Callistians):
329. 34-330. 60.
pp. 279-292.
XX. Hermogenes :. p. 330. 61-64.
XXXII. The Elchasaites: pp. 292- XXI. The Elchasaites : pp. 330. 65
-331. 78.
296.
AND
OF
THE
II.
GENEALOGICAL CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
THIRTY-TWO
HERESIES.
I shall give the chronological and synchronistic dates according to my
« Chronological Tables from St. Peter to Origen.” I have divided these
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
435
tables into epochs according to the ages succeeding each other in the
series of the seven generations of men, which occupy the time from St.
Peter to the death of Origen: a period of 225 years (from Pentecost 29 of
our era, to 254), which in fact represents seven ages, or seven genera-
tions of mankind. I have chosen this form of marking the epochs for
two reasons. First, I believe that, by a universal law, all religions
develope themselves primarily according to the succession of individual
lives, both in the traditions respecting facts, and in the form of the ideas
connected with them. In the second place, I find that, in the history of
Christianity, this development by natural ages extends to seven genera-
tions, taking a generation, in the ordinary acceptation of the word, to
denote a space of about the third part of a century. I consider this
division therefore as the most natural, and the leading individualities of
each age as the safest landmarks for the history of that first great period
of our ecclesiastical history. Down to the death of Origen, there is a
inarked epoch in every generation. After that time an entirely new law
of development begins, no longer according to the leading individualities,
but according to that development, of which the elements are the masses,
and the aqjes periods of national life.
The epochs or ages, according to my tables, are the following: -
The first age. (29 to 65: The age of St. Peter and St. Paul, 29 to 70; or from
Nero.)
Peter and James to Peter and Paul: from the
first Pentecost to the death of the two leading
apostles (65), and the destruction of Jerusalem
(70).
The second age. (66 to 100: The age of St. John and of Clemens, from 71 to 100:
Domitian.)
the last apostle (198) and the first historical bishop
(Clemens, from 78 to 86, or to the 5th year of Do-
mitian).
The third age. (101 to 128: The age of Ignatius and Basilides : Ignatius under
Trajan and Hadrian.) Trajan (t108): and the first apologists and Ba.
silides under Hadrian. Growing consciousness of
the Christian sacrifice as the act of redeemed hu-
manity, and growing idea of episcopacy as the re-
presentation of the free individual conscience, by
the side of the collective conscience of the elders
and of that of the congregation.
The fourth age. (129 to 162: The age of Polycarp and Justin, and of Valentinus and
Hadrian and Antoninus Marcion. Settling of the Canon. Gnostic phi-
Pius.)
losophy, and Christian literature. Hyginus (138—
131) and Pius (132—149).
The fifth age. (163 to 198 : The uge of Irenæus, Victor, and Tertullian, in the West,
Marcus Aurelius, Com- and of Theodotus, Pantænus and Clemens, in the East;
modus, Elagabalus and or the end of dualism, and the beginning of Catholic
Septim, Severus.)
science, Anicetus (152–163), Soter (164--187),
Victor (188—198). Montanism begins about 157.
The sixth age. (199 to 230: The age of Hippolytus, or triumph of Catholic science
Severus, Caracalla, and and the hierarclıy. Hippolytus' earlier writings.
Alexander Severus.) Zephyrinus (200-218), Callistus (219-222),
and Urbanus (223—230).
The seventh age. (231 to The age of Origen, or last attempt to reconcile scrip-
254: Maxininus, Gor-, tural Catholic science and the ecclesiastical system.
dianus, Philippus Arabs, Hippolytus' later writings. Pontianus (231--235).
Decius, Gallus, Valeri- Fabianus (236 -- 250), and Cornelius (251-253).
anus.)
FF 2
436
ON THE "REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
According to this frame the thirty-two heresies range thus in the
history of the Church :
THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY.
THE SECTS AND THEIR WORKS.
Section I. Gnostic Sects.
The Ophites. I.-IV.
Origin in the Johannean age, before the
The Gospel of St James-- Psalms - Gospel of St. John was written be-
Προάστειον -- Paraphrasis Seth Ba- tween 70 and 99.
ruch.
Simon and his school (Menander). V. Simon belongs to the first age (27 to
“Η μεγάλη απόφασις.
65).
Menander taught his doctrine at An-
tioch, in the second age.
Valentinus. VI. Extracts (from the Valentinus taught towards the end of the
Sophia ?)
third, Ignatian, and the first part of
the fourth, his own age.
The School of Valentinus, with the ex-
ception of Theodotus: or the dualistic
Valentinians.
Secundus. VII.
Epiphanes. VIII.
Ptolemæus. IX.
Valentinians of the fourth and fifth, or
Colarbasus.
X.
Irenæan age. (157--187.)
Marcus XI.
The Basilidian School
Basilides. XII. Extracts.
Isidorus, Basilides' son. XII.
Saturnilus. XIII.
Basilides taught in the third, Ignatian,
age, about 120 or 130.
Saturnilus in the same, and in the fourth,
or Valentinian age. .
The Marcionites.
Marcion. XIV. 'AvTitrapadégels.
Marcion at Rome; fourth age, about
130 to 150.
Prepon; fifth age, about 160. .
Prepon. XIV.
The Sects which acknowledged one God
Section II. Ebionitic and mixed
and Creator of all, but maintained that
Sects,
Jesus had been a simple man.
A. Ebionitic Sects.
The Carpocratians. XVI.
Cerinthus. XVII.
The second or Johannean age, as to the
The Ebionites. XVIII.
beginning of these sects.
B. Mixed Sects of Gnostic and Ebionitic
principles.
Theodotus and the Theodotians. XIX. Theodotus of Byzantium, in the fifth, or
XX.
Irenæan age. (Victor.)
These Sects were influenced by Nicolaus,
father of the
Nicolaites. XXI.
Cerdo. XXII.
Cerdo taught at Rome about 132 (fourth
age), and had influence
Apelles. XXIII. Extracts.
Apelles, disciple of Marcion, fifth, or
Lienæan age.
upon Marcion.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
437
The Docetæ. XXIV. Extracts.
Monoimus. XXV. Ep. ad Theo-
phrast.
The fifth, or Irenæan age.
Tatian. XXVI.
Hermogenes. XXVII. Extracts.
Sects orthodox both as to God and to
Christ, but with sorre error in other
points.
Section III. Ecclesiastical Sects.
The Quartodecimans. XXVIII,
The Montanists. XXIX.
The Encratites. XXX
The Noetians (Callistians). XXXI. The Noetians, fifth age, the Callistians,
Extracts.
The Elchasaites. XXXII. Extracts. | The Elchasaites, the sixth age.
The fifth age.
sixth age.
It results from this list, that the work proceeds on the whole chronolo-
gically; but that Hippolytus has combined this method with the genea-
logical. He gives first the Gnostic, and then the Ebionitic systems,
which indeed is the only reasonable division of the old sects. The third
section comprises the sects, orthodox both as to the Father and the Son.
In each of these sections the order is chronological. Thus Hippolytus
takes first all the Ophitic sects, then Simonism, then Valentinus and all
purely dualistic Valentinians. Having gone through all of them, he takes
up Basilides, an author rather older than Valentinus, but whose disciples
were much influenced by Valentinianism. After having treated of the
Basilidians, he proceeds to Marcion, whose system partakes somewhat of
both Valentinus and Basilides. One would have supposed that the article
on Cerdo, who taught at Rome before Marcion, would have preceded, and
that on Apelles, Marcion's disciple, would have immediately followed
that on his master. Indeed, this is the arrangement chosen in the tenth
book: its having been abandoned for that in our “ Great Refutation,”
proves that the author must have had systematic reasons for the change.
The article on Cerdo, according to the chronological principle, precedes
that on Apelles : but both are discussed only after all the Ebionitic
systems have been treated. This seems to me a ground to assume, that
there was a mixture of Ebiopitism in these two Marcionites, as one of
whom Cerdo may be considered, on account of his connection with
Marcion, the man of his age. This brings us to the twenty-third heresy.
From xxiv. to XXVII. we have sects which evidently were tainted with
Valentinianism, but started from points different from Valentinus and
from each other. They seem to be in the right chronological order rela-
tively to one another.
The third class of the sects which rose before Hippolytus' time, were
three immediately preceding him. The Montanists are the second of the
three: their beginning cannot be placed earlier than 157, nor later than
167: they belong, therefore, to the fifth or Victorian age; and we have
no reason to doubt that the two others did so likewise.
Then came the sects of his time, that is to say, of the sixth age in their
chronological order. For the Elchasaites appeared only (at least on the
Roman horizon) after Callistus, as bishop, had established the school of
Noetus as his own.
438
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
In these thirty-two articles we have extracts from fifteen works at
least, of which seven have titles: all unknown. The tenth book is that
earlier succinct treatise which is mentioned in the first book. It com-
prises twenty-one heresies: the beginning and end are the same as in
our work.
Dr. Bernays, of the University of Bonn, the ornament of the philolo-
gical school of Ritschl, at my desire, in a critical letter addressed to me,
has treated this point, together with others, which his profound know-
ledge of Heraclitus and of the ancient writers, and his ingenious sagacity
generally, have suggested to him. I am sure when you read it you will
be delighted with the critical talent and judgment displayed in this Epi-
stola Critica.
Before I proceed to the review of the other polemical writings of Hip-
polytus, let me recapitulate the titles of his own writings, to which he
refers in the course of the “ Refutation."
1. Other books (ëtepau Bitloc) of a chronographic nature; for in them
he had given the names of the seventy-two nations (Efvn): x. 30. p. 331,
2. Περί της του παντός ουσίας : Χ. 32. p. 334.
3. Μικρός λαβύρινθος. .
I have treated of the last two in my preceding letters, and shall return
to all three in this review of his works.
The result, then, of an impartial criticism of the works attributed to
Hippolytus seems to be; that, with the exception of the apocryphal works,
recognised as such by the fathers of historical criticism in the last cen-
turies, all the others are of undoubted genuineness. They unite external
and internal evidence in a greater degree than most of the writings of the
earlier fathers. The external evidence of the writers on ecclesiastical
history is in many cases supported by a record engraved upon an official
monument, representing Hippolytus seated as a bishop upon his cathedra.
The internal is an unmistakable identity of style and of thought in all,
and in many of them a striking reference to the age in which the author
lived. Even the smaller fragments receive a new light and a fresh
interest from the discovery of the “Great Refutation ;” and this work
again could be proved to be by Hippolytus, from the many points of coin-
cidence in its style and contents with his other writings and fragments;
if it did not carry sufficient proofs of its authenticity in itself.
I shall take this opportunity of submitting to you a few observations
on the idea of a new edition of the works of Hippolytus, which is now
become indispensable.
The edition of Fabricius, reproduced with slight variations by Gallandi,
is not only incomplete, but ill digested and scarce. The text of the
“Refutation” is scarcely readable, and, in all respects, in its first child-
hood. Until corrected by an able scholar of the critical school, the
fragments contained in it will be unintelligible for the greater part, as
were those restored by Schneidewin and Boeckh. I have before me
emendations by Dr. Bernays, which prove to me not only that they can
be restored, but that there are other ancient fragments not found out by
the editor.
The edition which ought now to be prepared should consist of two
volumes. The first would contain the text of the “ Refutation," esta-
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
439
blished upon a collation of the Paris manuscript; the second would unite
all the other works, with the spurious ones as an appendix.
The materials for this second volume are principally in the noble
libraries of Paris, Rome, and Turin. We owe to the learned editor of
the “Refutation,” M. E. Miller, the long wished for “Catalogue of the
Escurial Manuscripts ;” I am afraid that they will not help us much.*
Let us hope, my dear friend, that the generosity and zeal of the Cla-
rendon Press will not allow this opportunity to pass for superseding the
edition of 1851 by a more complete one next year.
I have established above, upon the evidence of Photius, and of Hippo-
lytus himself, that the aụthor of the treatise on the “Cause of the Uni-
verse” is also the author of the book called “ The Little Labyrinth." I
shall now proceed to a more accurate examination of this book, of which
we have important fragments.
ΙΙ. Ο μικρός Λαβύρινθος Or, Κατά της Αρτέμωνος αιρέσεως λόγος.
The Little Labyrinth ; or, Treatise aguinst the Heresy of Artemo.
The second title is given by Photius (c. 48.), who believes Caius the
presbyter to be the author, and evidently takes it to be a different work
from the “Little Labyrinth.” But, as the subject of the “ Little La-
byrinth” is stated by all the authors to be the refutation of this very sect,
and since Eusebius (H. E. v. 28.) quotes passages from it as against that
heresy, it is clear that both are titles of one and the same work. Eusebius
evidently did not know the author. The book appeared after the “ Trea-
tise on the Cause of the Universe," for the authorship of this book was
recognised in the “ Little Labyrinth," as Photius relates. $ The doubts
respecting the author of this treatise, and the obscurity in which Hippo-
lytus' life and writings were purposely involved, explain the confusion.
* The “ Catalogue des Manuscrits Grecs de la Bibliothèque de l'Escurial, par
E. Miller” (Par. 1848, 8vo.), contains the following indications respecting Hip-
polytus :-
P. 315. Cod. 169.: Hippolyte sur la fin du monde.
466. Cod. 511. fol. 145 - 158.: Hippolyte περί της συντελείας του κόσμου,
publié par Fabricius.
474. Cod. 524. fol. 85-·-89.: Homélie sur la fin du monde et sur l'Anti-
christe, par St. Hippolyte.
523. Marcellini vel Hippolyti sive potius incerti Epitome temporum ab
orbe condito usque ad annum vicesimum Heraclii imperatoris cum cona
sulatibus et indictionibus et aliis cognitione dignis.
361. Cod. 445. : Extrait de la Chronique d'Hippolyte sur la Vierge Marie.
[See p. 495. cod. 570.]
404. Cod. 504. No. 7.: Extrait théologique tiré des Pères tel que Diodore,
Hippolyte, Severin, etc.
491. Cod. 564. fol. 90, 91.: Extrait de la Chronique de St. Hippolyte incip.
Ιάκωβος ο γενόμενος.
492. Cod. 564, fol. 206-215.: Extrait de la Chronique de St. Hippolyte le
Thébain sur les disciples du Seigneur.
495. Cod. 570. fol. 127–132.: Extrait de la Chronique de St. Hippolyte sur
la Vierge. Fabric. B. G. vii. 187.
513. Titulus catena in Proverbia Salomonis, Proverbiorum liber et in eum
catenæ sanctorum patrum Basilii, Hippolyti papæ Romani, Origenis, etc.
f I have in this sentence corrected a mistake respecting the relative age of these
two works-1854.
FF 4
440
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.”
ON THE
1
Routh (Reliq. Sacr. ii. 129-134. 141-157.), has, with his usual judg-
ment and learning, illustrated the three fragments which Eusebius has
given us, and is evidently inclined to pronounce it a work of Hippolytas.*
Those fragments concern the heresy of the school of the first and second
Theodotus at Rome. As writers of that sect, besides Theodotus- un-
doubtedly the elder, or great Theodotus--they name Asclepiades, Hermo-
philus, and Apollonides. The name of Artemo does not occur in those
fragments. It is true, Eusebius says, the book was written against the
Artemonic heresy; but this does not prove that Artemo lived and taught
at Rome in the time of Alexander Severus. In the first of these fragments
Hippolytus treats of the assertion of the Theodotians, that Zephyrinus
had adulterated the doctrine of the Church of Rome. To this he replies,
first, that Scripture, the primitive Christian psalms and hymns, and the
ecclesiastical writers, from Clemens the Roman to Irenæus, were wit-
nesses against them: and secondly, that, if Victor, as they asserted, had
maintained the true doctrine, he was the bishop who had excluded Theo-
dotus, the father and chief of their sect, and that he had done so for his
having taught that Christ was a simple man. He confirms this assertion
in the second fragment, by the history of Natalius (perhaps the Cæcilius
Natalis in the dialogue of Minucius Felix), " who became a public con-
fessor of the truth (ópoloyńīnsnot long ago, indeed in our own time.”
Asclepiades and the second Theodotus, both disciples of the elder Theo-
dotus, seduced him to become their bishop, with a salary of 150 denarii
(71. 10s.) a month. Now what happened ? Something, says the author,
which might have made an impression even on Sodom and Gomorrah.
Angels of the Lord came one night and beat him, rather unmercifully;
which so affected him, that he ran in sackcloth and ashes to Zephyrinus,
and on his knees besought, not only the bishop, but the clergy and laity,
displaying the stripes of the lashes, to show him mercy and forgiveness.
He was received with some difficulty into the Church.
In the third fragment the author says, these heretics were given to
speculation, and studied geometry much, admiring Euclid, Aristotle, and
Theophrastus, and almost worshipping Galen, who died only about the
jear 200 ; but made light of the Scriptures, declaring some of them to be
spurious, and changing or, as they said, correcting the text of others
without the authority of ancient manuscripts : he adds, that some even
rejected the Old Testament altogether.
This statement has been made by the Tubingen school the basis of what
I must call a novel. The church of Rome is said to have ignored the
Gospel of St. John, and repudiated the doctrine of the Logos, till the end of
Victor's episcopate (198 after Christ); an incredible assertion, which they
endeavoured to strengthen by the gratuitous, and utterly untenable propo-
sition, or rather fiction, that the primitive Roman congregation consisted
almost exclusively of Jewish and Judaising Christians.
Neander has refuted this assertion, and shown how little the fragments
of the “Little Labyrinth” warrant the system built upon them. But he
admits that there is something to be explained, that some fact is re-
ferred to not known to us, and which must have happened under Zephy-
rinus. (Kircheng. i. 997.)
* I have given the text in the Analecta 1. in its place.-1854.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
441
This a bright example, how the finding out of what we do not know is
the first step to the discovery of the truth.
The explanation of that unintelligible assertion is now before us: for
we know the fact implied in the account.
Zephyrinus found in his Church, as the prevalent doctrinal tendency,
that Monotheism which we call Monarchianism. The distinction between
the Father and the Son was very marked, the monotheistic principle
being concentrated in the Father. The Eastern distinctions between the
Word and the Son, and between Jesus and the Christ, were rather kept
in the background as useless or dangerous. But as Rome could not cease
to be the centre of the world, so it became that of Christendom. All new
theories were sooner or later discussed there by their authors, or by a dis-
ciple; and generally they were repudiated and rejected, as they seemed
to endanger the general ecclesiastical system. It was therefore really an
important change, when Zephyrinus inclined to the Noetian speculations,
which we know he did at the instigation of Callistus. We see also that
the author of the “ Labyrinth” does not contradict the assertion of the
Theodotians. In this respect he turns the tables upon them, by asking how
Victor could have favoured them, if he expelled Theodotus from the
Roman congregation.
Thus the unknown fact implied in the accounts, and which Neander
sought after, is given to us, and the whole most satisfactorily explained.
But, my dearest friend, may we not say also we have here another proof
of the hollowness of the Tubingen novel? The formula of Callistus is
sufficient to prove this. It is, as we have seen, essentially that of Noetus:
and the system of Noetus presupposes the whole development of the
struggle against Gnosticism, which began before the death of St. John,
and was afterwards carried on by the Catholic Church under the banner
of the doctrine of the Logos. All that there is of truth and reality in the
account of the struggle between Judaising Petrinism and rationalising
Paulinism, was well established by the great critical school in which
Schleiermacher and Neander, Nitzsch and Rothe, are so eminent: what
has been added by the new school has no truth in it. It runs against the
first principles of historical criticism, both as to chronology and as to in-
ternal considerations.
As to the authorship of this remarkable work, the author of our great
work on the heresies says that he is the writer of the “ Treatise on the
Universe.” This also settles the question respecting the relative dates of
the “Little Labyrinth” and the “Refutation.” The three works were
written in the following succession :
First, the treatise on the “Cause of the Universe,"i to which the author
of the “ Labyrinth” as well as of the “Refutation ” refers as his :
Secondly, the “ Little Labyrinth," the author of which said that he
wrote the “ Cause of the Universe":
Thirdly, the “Refutation” itself, which we know to be the work of
Hippolytus, and in which the authorship of the “ Cause of the Universe"
is acknowledged.
Now the writer of the “ Little Labyrinth” speaks of the times of Zephy-
rinus as of his own, only just past. It must therefore have been written
either under Callistus, or Urbanus, the bishop in the time of Alexander
442
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.'
ON THE
Severus. The first is evidently impossible, if one considers the author's
position in regard to Callistus; nor would he have spoken of Zephyrinus
as not long ago.” Everything, therefore, induces us to believe that
the “Little Labyrinth” was written under Urbanus (223 — 230). For
the “Refutation" must have been composed after Callistus, because he
is treated as one belonging to history (see in particular ch. x.), but
certainly still under Alexander Severus, after whose death in 235 Hip-
polytus was immediately banished. The title is strangely supposed to
refer to the entangling of the heretics by reasoning: it evidently alludes
to their errors, which entangle the mind of the simple Christian, and out of
which a sound refutation disentangles him. Thus our author says in the
opening of the tenth book: “The labyrinth of the heresies has not been
broken through by force, but opened solely by argumentation through the
power of truth."**
III. IIpòs Nontóv.
Against Noctus.
The Greek text is printed, in the edition of Fabricius, t. ii. p. 5. sqq.,
from a Vatican manuscript (compare i. p. 233.). In this MS. the work bears
the title (evidently framed by a copyist): Ouidia 'It Tolórov eis tiiv aipoiv
NontoŨ TIVÓS. And the Latin translation of Turrianus is inscribed : “Homilia
de Deo trino et uno, et de mysterio incarnationis, contra hæresin Noeti.”
Both are evidently later designations. But the book is a homily, or a
sermon, whether really preached, or written in that form. The conjecture
of Fabricius, that it was a part of the lost work on the heresies, is now
untenable. But I hope to show that the Confession of Faith contained in
this treatise is so like the one with which our work concludes, that the
juxtaposition of the two would by itself prove the identity of the author.
I give this juxtaposition without any other comment. The parallelism of
both is naturally limited to what I have called the first and second articles
of Hippolytus' Confession: for the treatise against Noetus was particularly
directed to the point of the Incarnation (the second article): and we must
not forget that the conclusion of the book on all the heresies is principally
intended to excite men to become godly and godlike.
The exposition of those two articles comprises half of the whole homily
(ch. 9. to the end). It is impossible not to recognise in the preacher the
same author who wrote our work. Of course the style is more rhetorical,
the exposition broader, and the whole is directed against one point, the
Noetian heresy; whereas the writer of our work had to compress his
thoughts on the subject into as few words as possible, and had to direct
his energy towards encouraging men to accept the divine wisdom and love
offered to them in Christ, and to become like God, as Jesus had been.
"There is even, if I am not mistaken, in a passage of our homily, a de-
cided allusion to the injustice of Zephyrinus and Callistus, of having called
him publicly a ditheist. Treating of the relation of the Logos to the
Father, according to St. John's first verse, the author says (ch. 14.):
* Τον λαβύρινθον των αιρέσεων ού βία διαρρήξαντες, αλλά μόνο ελέγχω αληθείας
δυνάμει διαλύσαντες. .
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
443
εί
If then the Word is with God, being God, why then (some one might
say) dost thou speak of two Gods ? As to myself, I do not speak of two
Gods, but merely of One: only I establish two persons (πρόσωπα), and as
the third (not person, but simply number three), the Incarnation (oiko-
νομία), the grace of the Holy Spirit.”
I will merely add that the very introduction of both the Confessions of
Faith is strikingly alike:
Against all the Heresies : beginning of
Against Noetus, i. 8.
book x,
Τον λαβύρινθον των αιρέσεων ού βία
διαρρήξαντες αλλά μόνο ελέγχω, αλη- 'Επειδή ούν ήδη και ο Νοητος ανατέ-
θείας δυνάμει διαλύσαντες, πρόσιμεν τραπται, έλθωμεν έπί τήν της
έπί τήν της αληθείας απόδειξιν· αληθείας απόδειξιν, ίνα συστήσω-
τότε γάρ της πλάνης έντεχνα σοφίσματα μεν την αληθείαν.
ασύστατα φανερωθήσεται έπει και της αλη-
Θείας όρος επιδειχθή, etc.
I will now give the text, omitting what is not essential, and premising
only that I do not think there is more than one interpolation in the text of
the treatise against Noetus. I mean the passage in chap. 14., where the
introduction of the Holy Spirit not only disturbs the whole connection of
ideas, but puts Hippolytus in opposition with himself, by making him call
the Holy Spirit the third person (πρόσωπον). I have therefore marked
these words as spurious, by placing them between asterisks.
Refutation.
Against Noetus,
X. 32. θεός είς και πρώτος και μόνος (c. 9.) Είς Θεός, δν ούκ άλλοθεν επι-
και απάντων ποιητής και κύριος, σύγ- γινώσκομεν, αδελφοί, ή, (εκ) των αγίων
χρονον έσχεν ουδέν, ου χάος άπειρον, γραφών
ούχ ύδωρ αμέτρητον ή γήν στερράν, ουκ
αέρα πύκνον, ου πύρ θερμον, ου πνεύμα
λεπτον, ουκ ουρανού μεγάλου κυανέαν
μορφήν άλλ' ήν εις μόνος εαυτό, δς
θελήσας έποίησε τα όντα ούις όντα πρό-
τερον, πλήν ότε ήβέλησε ποιεϊν ως έμπει-
ρος ών των εσομένων.
33. Ούτος ούν μόνος και κατά πάντων (c. 10.) θεός μόνος υπάρχων και
θεος, Λόγον πρώτον εννοηθείς απογεννα μηδέν έχων εαυτο σύγχρονον, εξουλήθη
ου λόγον, ώς φωνήν, άλλ' ενδιάθετος του κόσμον κτίσαι. Ο κόσμον εννοηθείς, θε-
παντος λογισμόν. Τούτον μόνον εξ όν-λήσας τε και φθεγξάμενος εποίησεν, και
των εγέννα το γαρ δν αυτός ο Πατήρ παραυτίκα παρέστη το γενόμενον ως
ή», εξ ου το γεννηθήναι αίτιον τοϊς γι- ήθέλησεν, αυταρκές ούν ημίν έστι μόνον
* The expression oikovoula is difficult to translate. See the passages in Suicer.
He gives an instance of oikovoula applying specifically to the manifestation of the
Holy Spirit. It here applies equally to the Incarnation of the Eternal Word in
Christ, and to the action of the Holy Spirit upon the believers, in the Church.
The fundamental idea of oíkovoula is always the divine dispensation of God's saving
grace amongst mankind.--1854.
-και
444
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON TIE
25
νομένοις. Λόγος ήν εν αυτώ φέρων το είδέναι ότι συγχρόνον θεού ουδέν πλήν
θέλειν τού γεγεννηκότος, ούκ άπειρος της αυτός ήν, αυτός και μόνος ών πολύς ήν,
του Πατρός εννοίας άμα γαρ τω εκ του ούτε γαρ άλογος ούτε άσοφος, ούτε αδύ-
γεννήσαντος προελθεϊν, πρωτότοκος τού- νατος, ούτε άβούλευτος ήν, πάντα και ήν
του γενόμενος φωνή (t. φωνήν)*, έχει εν αυτώ, αυτός και ήν το πάν, ότε ήθε-
έν εαυτω τας εν τω πατρικό εννοηθείσας λησεν, καθώς ήθέλησεν, έδειξε τον Λόγον
ιδέας, όθεν κελεύοντος Πατρός γίνεσθαι αυτού καιρούς ώρισμένους παρ' αυτώ, δι'
κόσμον το κατά έν • Λόγος απετελείτο του τα πάντα εποίησεν.
αρέσκων θεών
"Οσα ήθέλησεν, επoίει ο Θεός.
"Οτε μεν θέλει ποιεί, ότε δε ενθυμείται
τελεί, ότε δε φθέγγεται δεικνύει, ότε
πλάσσει σοφίζεται, πάντα γαρ τα γενό-
μενα δια λόγου και σοφίας τεχνάζεται,
λογω μεν κτίζων, σοφία δε κοσμών. Έποί-
ησεν ούν ως ηθέλησεν, θεός γαρ ήν ...
Τούτου ο Λόγος μόνος εξ αυτού• διο Τών δε γινομένων αρχηγών και σύμ-
και θεός, ουσία υπάρχων θεού. Ο δε βουλος και εργάτην εγέννα Λόγον, δν
κόσμος εξ ουδενός· διό ού θεός ούτος Λόγον έχων εν εαυτώ αόρατόν τε όντα
επιδέχεται και λύσιν, ότε βούλεται και το κτιζομένω κόσμω ορατών ποιεί, προ-
κτίσας.
τέραν φωνήν φθεγγόμενος, και φώς εκ
φωτός γεννών, προήκεν τη κτίσει Κύριον,
τον ίδιον νούν, αυτό μόνο πρότερον δρα-
τον υπάρχοντα τω δε γινομένω κόσμο
αόρατον όντα, ορατον ποιεί, όπως διά
του φανήναι ιδών ο κόσμος σωθήναι δυ-
νηθή (11.) και ούτως παρίστατο αυτο
έτερος. "Ετερον δε λέγων ου δύο θεούς
λέγω, αλλ' ώς φώς έκ φωτος, ή ως ύδωρ
εκ πηγής, ή ώς ακτίνα από ηλίου. Δύ-
ναμις γαρ μία ή εκ του παντος, το δε
πάν Πατήρ, εξ ου δύναμις Λόγος. ούτος
δε Νούς, δς προβας εν κόσμω εδείκνυτο
παίς θεού. Πάντα τοίνυν δι' αυτού,
αυτός δε μόνος έκ Πατρός.
Νόμος ωρίσθη δια δικαίων ανδρών επά- Ούτος δέ έδωκεν νόμον και προφήτας,
νωθεν. "Εγγιον ημών δια του προειρη- και δούς διά πνεύματος αγίου ηνάγκασεν
μένου Μωϋσέως, ανδρος ευλαβούς και τούτους φθέγξασθαι, όπως της πατρώας
θεοφιλούς, νόμος ορίζετο πλήρης σεμνό- δυνάμεως την αποπνοίαν λαβόντες την
ηητος και δικαιοσύνης. Τα δή πάντα βουλήν και το θέλημα του Πατρός κα-
διοικεί ο λόγος ο θεούς και πρωτόγονος ταγγείλωσιν.
Πατρός παίς, η προ εωσφόρου φωσφόρος (12.) 'Εν τούτοις τοίνυν πολιτευό-
φωνή. "Έπειτα δίκαιοι άνδρες γεγένηνται μενος ο λογος έφθέγγετο περί εαυτού,
φίλοι θεού· ούτοι προφήται κέκληνται ήδη γαρ αυτος εαυτού κήρυξ εγένετο,
δια το προβαίνειν τα μέλλοντα. δεικνύων μέλλοντα Λόγον φαίνεσθαι εν
ανθρώποις.
και
* The parallel passages in the treatise against Noetus confirm this emen-
dation. That own and mpwrótokos belong together, may be seen from the parallel
words (chap. x.), προτέραν φωνήν φθεγγόμενος. But there is also a parallel expres-
sion in the Refutation itself (x. 33. p. 336.), ο Λόγος και Θεού και πρωτόγονος πατρός παίς,
η προ εωσφόρου φωσφόρος φωνή.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
445
עע
(14.) Ει δε ούν ο Λόγος προς τον
θεόν, θεός ών, τί ούν (φήσειεν άν τις)
δύο λέγεις θεούς (t. oύν φήσειεν άν τις
δύο λέγειν θεούς); δύο μεν ουκ έρω
θεούς άλλ' ή ένα, πρόσωπα δε δύο, οικο-
νομίαν δε τρίτην, την χάριν του αγίου
Πνεύματος. Πατήρ μεν γαρ είς, πρόσ-
ωπα δε δύο, ότι και ο Υιός: * το δε τρί-
τον το άγιον Πνεύμα.* Πατήρ εντέλ.
λεται, Λόγος αποτελεί, Yίος δε δείκνυται
δι' ού Πατήρ πιστεύεται. Οικονομίας
συμφωνία συνάγεται εις ένα θεόν, είς γάρ
έστιν ο Θεός. Ο γαρ κελεύων Πατήρ,
ο δε υπακούων Υιος, το δε συνετίζον άγιον
Πνεύμα. ο ών Πατήρ επί πάντων, ο
δε Υιος δια πάντων, το δε άγιον Πνεύμα
εν πάσιν. "Αλλως τε ένα θεόν νομίσαι
μη δυνάμεθα, εαν μη όντως Πατρί και
Υιώ και αγίω Πνεύματι πιστεύσωμεν.
Ιουδαίοι μέν γαρέ δόξασαν Πατέρα, αλλ'
ουκ ηυχαρίστησαν, Υιόν γαρ ουκ επέ-
γνωσαν. Μαθηται επέγνωσαν Υιον, αλλ'
ουκ εν Πνεύματι αγίω, δι' ο και ήρνή-
σαντο.
He then quotes different passages;
amongst others John xvi. 28:
Λέγει γάρ ούτως 'Εγώ έκ τού Πατρός
εξήλθον, και ήκω. Τί δέ έστιν το εξήλθον
εκ του Πατρός, αλλ' ή ο Λόγος; Τί δε
το εξ αυτού γεννηθέν, αλλ' ή Πνεύμα,
τουτέστιν ο Λόγος ;
“Ο δε Λόγος έφθέγγετο, δι' αυτών (17.) Πιστεύσωμεν ούν, μακάριοι άδελ-
των λόγων (t. λέγων δι' αυτών) επι- φοί, κατά την παράδοσια των Αποστόλων,
στρέφων τον άνθρωπον εκ παρακοής, ου ότι θεός λόγος απ' ουρανών κατήλθεν
βία ανάγκης δουλαγωγών, αλλ' επ' ελευ- εις την αγίαν παρθένου Μαρίαν, ίνα σαρ-
θερία εκουσίω, προαιρέσει καλών. Τούτον κωθείς εξ αυτής, λαβών δε και ψυχήν την
τον Λόγον εν υστέροις [καιρούς] απέ- ανθρωπίνην, λογικήν δε λέγω, γεγονός
στελλεν ο Πατήρ ουκέτι διά προφήτου πάντα όσα εστίν άνθρωπος, εκτός αμαρ-
λαλείν, ου σκοτεινώς κηρυσσόμενον υπο- τίας, σώση τον πεπτωκότα, και αφθαρσίαν
νοείσθαι θέλων, αλλ' αυτοψει φανερω- ανθρώποις παράσχη τοϊς πιστεύουσιν εις
θήναι τούτον τον λόγον [απέστελλεν1 το όνομα αυτού. 'Εν πάσιν ούν αποδέ-
(t. τούτον λέγων), ένα κόσμος δρών δυσ- δεικται ημίν της αληθείας λόγος, ότι είς
ωπηθή ουκ εντελλόμενον διά προσώπου εστίν ο Πατήρ, ού πάρεστι Λόγος, δι' ου
προφητών, ουδε δι' αγγέλου φοβούντα τα πάντα εποίησεν. όν υστέροις καιρούς,
ψυχήν, αλλ' αυτόν παρόντα τον λελαλη- καθώς είπαμεν ανωτέρω, απέστειλεν ο
κότα.
Πατήρ προς σωτηρίαν ανθρώπων. Ού-
Τούτον έγνωμεν εκ παρθένου σώματος δια νόμου και προφητών εκηρύχθη
άνειληφότα και τον παλαιόν άνθρωπον παρεσόμενος εις τον κόσμον .. Ούτος
διά καινής πλάσεως πεφορηκότα, εν βίω προελθών εις κόσμον θεός εν σώματι έφα-
δια πάσης ηλικίας εληλυθότα, ίνα πάση νερώθη, άνθρωπος τέλειος προελθών ου
446.
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
ηλικία αυτός νόμος γενηθή και σκοπόν γάρ κατά φαντασίαν ή τροπήν, αλλ' αλη-
τον ίδιον άνθρωπον πάσιν ανθρώποις θώς γενόμενος άνθρωπος.
επιδείξη παρών *, και δι' αυτού ελέγξη
ότι μηδέν εποίησεν ο θεός πονηρόν, ...
"Ινα δε μή έτερος παρ' ημάς νομιστή, (18.) Ούτως ούν και τα ανθρώπινα
και κάματον υπέμεινε, και πεινήν ήθε- εαυτού ουκ άπαναίνεται ενδεικνύμενος
λησε, και διψήν ουκ ηρνήσατο, και ύπνωθεός ών, ότε πεινα και κοπιά, και καμνών
ηρέμησε, και πάθει ουκ άντείπε, και θα- διψά, και δειλιών φεύγει, και προσευχό-
νάτω υπήκουσε, και ανάστασιν εφανέ-μενος λυπείται, και επί προσκεφάλαιον
ρωσεν, απαρξάμενος εν πάσι τούτοις τον καθεύδει ο άυπνον έχων την φύσιν ως
ίδιον άνθρωπον, ίνα συ πάσχων μη αυ- θεός, και ποτηρίου πάθος παραιτείται και
μης, άλλ' άνθρωπον σεαυτόν ομολογών, διά τούτο παραγεγονώς εν κόσμω, και
προσδοκάς (t. προσδοκών) και συ και τούτο αγωνιών ίδρoϊ, και υπ’ αγγέλου ενδυνα-
Πατήρ παρέσχεν (t. τούτω παρέσχες). μούται και ενδυναμών τους εις αυτόν πι-
στεύοντας και θανάτου καταφρονείν έργω
διδάξας και υπο Ιούδα παραδίδοται και
γινώσκων τον Ιούδαν τίς έστιν και ατι-
μάζεται υπο Καιάφα, και πρότερον υπ'
αυτού ιερατευόμενος ως Θεός και υπό
“Ηρώδου εξουθενείται ο μέλλων κρίναι
πάσαν την γην, και μαστίζεται υπο Πι-
λάτου και τας ασθενείας ημών αναδεξά-
μενος και υπό στρατιωτών παίζεται η
παρεστήκουσι χίλιαι χιλιάδες και μυρίαι
μυριάδες αγγέλων και αρχαγγέλων" και
υπο Ιουδαίων ξύλω προσπήγνυται, ο
πήξας ως καμάραν τον ουρανόν και
προς Πατέρα βοών παρατίθεται το πνεύμα
ο αχώριστος του Πατρός και κλίνων
κεφαλήν εκπνεί ο είπας, εξουσίαν έχω
θείναι την ψυχήν μου, και εξουσίαν έχω
πάλιν λαβείν αυτήν. "Οτι δε ουκ εκυρι-
εύετο υπο θανάτου, ως ζωή, είπεν: Εγώ
απ' έμαυτού τίθημι αυτήν και πλευράς
λόγχη νύσσεται, και την ζωήν πάσιν χαρι-
ζόμενος και σίνδονι ελισσόμενος εν μνη-
μείω τίθεται και τους νεκρούς εγείρων και
τριήμερος υπο ΙΙατρός άνίσταται, αυτός
ών η ανάστασις και η ζωή.
This last antithesis of the evidence of the human and of the divine
* Our author has in these words imitated the beautiful passage in Irenæus, ii.
39. (ed. Potter, p. 161.): “Ideo per omnem venit ætatem, et infantibus infans
factus, sanctificans infantes : in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam habentes
ætatem, simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus, et justitiæ et subjectionis : in
juvenibus juvenis, exemplum juvenibus fiens, et sanctificans Domino. Sic et senior
in senioribus, ut sit perfectus magister in omnibus, non solum secundum expositionem
veritatis, sed et secundum ætatem, sanctificans simul et seniores, exemplum ipsis
quoque fiens.” But Hippolytus has kept clear from the hasty conclusion at which
Irenæus arrives, that Jesus must have lived to his fiftieth year.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
447
nature in Christ's life was manifestly a favourite theme with Hippolytus :
for we shall find it in a third undoubtedly genuine writing of his.
Taking the whole together, I maintain that only one and the same
author could, in two writings, having a different character and aim,
express himself so similarly as to observe throughout the same succession
of thoughts in the argument and the exposition. This will become still
more evident, if we consider the way in which the same subject is treated
by Origen. The only writer who agrees with the view of Hippolytus on
the relation of the Logos to the Son, and of both to the Father and to the
Spirit, is Tertullian : but nobody could attribute our work, or that against
Noetus, to him. As regards the countryman and cotemporary of Hippo-
lytus, Caius the presbyter, we have no authority for ascribing to him
either of these writings, or any doctrinal and speculative treatise whatever.
His fragments indicate a mind more directed to philological and historical
criticism : of polemical writings by him we know only one, that against
the Montanists. Both Hippolytus and Caius being disciples of Irenæus,
and both being members of the Church of Rome, it might be supposed
that their theological systems would be much alike: but their tendencies
and their points of view were evidently very different.
Origen and Hippolytus, on the other hand, have many points in
common as doctrinal writers. They both had a decided speculative bent;
both searched deeply in the Scriptures; and both had a fanciful turn in
speculating, as well as in interpreting. Having said thus much, I will
add, that there were no two writers more different, nor two systems more
divergent, at that time, in the Catholic Church. But I must refrain here
from entering into this discussion, because its proper place will come
when we have finished our rapid critical review of the remaining writings
and fragments of Hippolytus.
If any one wishes to see the philosophical arguments in the homily
against Noetus fully and lucidly discussed, I would refer him to Dorner's
article on the Noetian heresy, in his “ History of the Doctrine respecting
the Person of Christ," j. 532-536. Dorner is the only one of our critical
school who has done justice to Hippolytus generally, and in particular to
this homily, and to the book we shall next have to speak of. And I
believe the greatest triumph of Dorner's criticism on the Noetian heresy
and on our homily to be, that it has anticipated the clearer and more
scientific exposition of the doctrines of Hippolytus, which has now come
to light with our work. There is nothing essential to be added from this
to the picture he has drawn from his incomplete materials.
As to the relative date of the two writings, I conceive that our work is
decidedly a later, as well as a more solid, production. The object of the
treatise is Noetus himself, which must at least mean the earliest form of
Noetianism : the book against the heresies treats of the last stage of
Noetianism under Callistus, as head of the school. I believe the reverse
to be the case respecting the following polemical work,
448
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
IV. Κατά Βήρωνος και ηλικιωτών τινών* αιρετικών περί
Jeonovias (kal opkógew). (Fabric. i. 225.)
Against Vero and some cotemporary Heretics about Theology (and
the Incarnation).
I believe the original title to have been Λόγος θεολογίας, οι περί θεολογίας :
for thus it is quoted in the Lateran Council of 649. (Consultatio Va. See
Fabric. ii. 45.)
The external evidence for the genuineness of the eight extracts pre-
served to us is very great, that of Anastasius the Roman presbyter, a
very learned man, who was himself present at the Lateran Council in
649. And I have no hesitation in adding, the internal is fully equal to
it. † Sand having expressed his doubts about the authenticity, Bull
defended it with his usual learning: so did C. A. Salig. $ In our times
Haenell & has attacked the genuineness of these extracts of Anastasius
with some ingenuity : but Dorner's refutation || is so complete, and the
style of the philosophical passages is so like what we find in the newly
discovered work, that it seems unnecessary to say a word here about it.
In referring to Dorner's great work, I think it right to say, that, although
it is his individual merit to have rescued Hippolytus from the neglect
into which his writings had fallen, in consequence of the doubts spread
respecting his person, the method of his admirable work must be con-
sidered as merely a fair specimen of the German school. I mean first
his historical method, that of interpreting every passage in connection
with the whole range of the author's ideas, and every writer as a portion
of his age, to be understood from the language and ideas of his time.
The isolated discussion of single passages is equally inadequate to give
the reader a certainty as to their sense, or a clear image of the writer and
of the age in which he lived and wrote. Dorner's book must also be cun-
sidered as a specimen of the German method, in the speculative spirit
which distinguishes it from similar inquiries in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. Without being at home in the region of specula-
tion, and conversant with the method of speculative philosophy, nobody
can understand the metaphysical controversies of that time, or do justice
to the writers of the first three centuries. Nay, nobody can understand
the first three verses of St. John's Gospel, without being at home in those
regions of thought, to which the questions respecting the Logos belong.
I hope I may say so without any disrespect to that truly learned and
* MS. : kal 'HAKOS TV aip. Cod. Colbert. : kal Halkt@ros twv aip. Fabric. :
και ηλικιωτών αιρ. The passage, p. 225., Βήρων γάρ τις εναγχος μεθ' ετέρων τινών,
την Βαλεντίνου φαντασίαν αφέντες χείρονι κακή κατεπάρησαν λέγοντες.
is con-
clusive for the emendation. Comp. Bibl. Pat. Max. iii. 261.
This work began
with an allusion to the liturgical cherubic hymn :“Αγιος, άγιος, άγιος, Κύριος Σαβαώθ
άσιγήτω φωνή βοώντα Σεραφίμ (t. τα Σερ.) τον Θεόν δοξάζουσι.
† The only interpolation is the title given to the Virgin Mary (fr. viii. : Fabr. i.
230.), εκ της παναγίας αειπαρθένου Μαρίας, the Shiboleth of the fifth century.
But such an insertion of "the full title” by the copyist proves nothing against the
authenticity of the work.
De Eutychianismo ante Eutych. 1723.
De Hippolyto Episcopo. 1828.
ll pp. 536–548,
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
449
acute divine, Bishop Bull: but certainly he was no speculative philo-
sopher ; nor is his method a truly historical one. He often makes asser-
tions also which have no foundation ; as, for instance, that. Hippolytus
was a disciple of Clemens of Alexandria. Bull asserts, that all ancient
authors say so, whereas nobody says so. Bossuet has praised and thanked
him for his book: I do not think he would have done so, had bishop Bull
adopted a truly historical and philosophical method. Referring therefore
entirely to Dorner's representation of the real state and of all the depths
of the controversy, I wish only to call your attention to a striking passage
in the isolated fragment of the treatise against Vero, in the “ Acts of the
Lateran Council.” . It says, “ God has the power of willing, not of not-
willing: for that would belong to a changeable and a choosing being. It is
God's eternal will that establishes what is called into being ; and the same
will preserves what has been called into being.' This is nothing but the
ontological substruction of the theory about man's free will, which we
meet with in the second article of our author's Confession of Faith.
You will also observe a striking internal analogy between the polemics
of the treatise against the confusion (rúykpious) of substances, and the
argument against Callistus' quasi-Patripassianism.
Certainly the treatise in question seems to have been the most meta-
physical production of Hippolytus, to judge from the extracts; I also
believe it to be one of his latest. His expressions about Vero f show that
he was a contemporary: probably he lived under Alexander Severus;
and his school only became known to Hippolytus after he had written his
work against all the heresies, For there is not a word about this heresy
in our book; yet, to judge from the author's constant practice, he would
at least have referred to this treatise, if it had existed when he wrote his
summary. Nor can I believe it to have formed part of our great work in
its completeness : it is much too detailed for our composition,
V. Προς Ιουδαίους, or 'Αποδεικτική πρός Ιουδαίους.
Demonstrative Address to the Jews.
(Fabr. ii. p. 2–5. Cf. i. 218. sq.)
Our fragment of the Greek text of this work, from a Vatican manuscript
communicated to Fabricius by Montfaucon, exhibits to us the fragment of
a regular treatise, although in the form of a Homily. This was probably
the first work mentioned on the cathedra of Hippolytus, as we shall see
presently. The author quotes (c. ix.) the Book of Wisdom (20, ía) as a
prophetic work of Solomon ; which is a novelty, as the ancient fathers
gave the name of Sophia to the Proverbs ; and which proves that he had
not the slightest notion of the characteristics of the style and ideas of
Solomon's age. I cannot say much more for his Davidic interpretation of
* Fabric. ii. 45.: Το θέλειν έχει ο Θεός, ου το μη θέλειν. Τρεπτόν γάρ τούτο και
προαιρετόν· αϊδίω γαρ θελήματι Θεού έπεται τα γινόμενα και και γενόμενα μένει σωζόμενα.
† Beron must, from the analogy of Balentirus, represent the Latin Vero, which we
know as a name by a Christian inscription (Boldetti, Osserv. ii. 13. p. 487.),
“ Aurelius Berun." The writing Badevtivos is that of the MS., not of Hippolytus.
Thus in our own MS., the Ebionites are called in one passage, 'E6.Writol, in another
Ευιαιωναίοι. .
VOL. I.
GG
450
ON THE “ REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
>
the 69th Psalm, of which Calvin had a very correct idea*, when he said,
that it represented the lot of the just and the faithful.
The anonymous author of the “ Acta Martyrum" gives, in appendix III.
(pp. 449_488.), the text of an old Latin translation of a considerable
part of the fragment preserved to us in Greek. He had discovered it
among the spurious works ascribed to Cyprian. The title is “Demon-
stratio adversus Judæos.” It begins exactly with the first words of our
Greek fragment, which cannot have been the opening of the address, but
was probably the beginning of the peroration. The Greek text forms the
first two chapters of this very remarkable fragment. What follows
(ch. 3–7. pp. 452.b.-458.) is far more interesting than the part preserved
in the Greek text. The author no longer appeals to sacred texts of their
prophets : he speaks to their hearts, he appeals to the Spirit in them.
“The eye of the mind,” he says, “is the Spirit ; through Him things
spiritual are seen: if, therefore, you are spiritual, you understand heavenly
things. For like knows (understands) what is like to it.” These words
may be considered as the theme of the whole. Hence we see that we have
not an attack upon the Jews in this treatise, but an address to them, an
appeal to their conscience and intellect. The character of the treatise is
that of an eloquent writer, who had studied Plato, and who had not only
a deep Christian intelligence, but also a heart full of Christ, and of love
to his brethren.
VI. Προς "Ελληνας λόγος, or κατά Πλάτωνος: or Περί της του
παντός αιτίας (or ουσίας), or Περί του παντός.
Address to the Hellenes, or to Plato : or On the Cause (or substance)
of the Universe, or On the Universe.f
(Fabr. i. p. 220. sqq.)
On the title and the authorship of this treatise, mentioned also on the
cathedra, I have said enough in my fourth letter (p. 400—403.).
the most remarkable part of the concluding fragment preserved to us is
the graphic description of Hades. Hippolytus had no more authority or
materials for writing this as a piece of revelation or divine history than
we have: as to materials, he may perhaps have used the Apocalypse of
Peter. But he evidently intends, in this piece of rhetorical description,
to emulate the celebrated myth, which in the Gorgias we find placed in
the mouth of Socrates, respecting the judgment and the state of the soul
after death. Nor do I think, that it ever entered the mind of Hippolytus
to attribute any authority to his rhapsody. But in process of time sonie
of his phrases got into the liturgies of both Churches, and were then
canonized by those who canonized liturgies and rubrics. Hippolytus
To me
* Hengstenberg's Psalmen, Ps. lxix.
† Now printed in the Analecta with the new fragment furnished by the Cod.
Baroccianus.--1854.
1 Take this instance: Μία εις τούτο το χωρίον κάθοδος, ου τη πύλη έφεστώτα
αρχάγγελον άμα στρατια επιστεύσαμεν» ήν πύλην διελθόντες οι καταγόμενοι υπό τών επί
τας ψυχάς τεταγμένων αγγέλων ου μιά οδώ πορεύονται· αλλ' οι μεν δίκαιοι εις δεξιά φωτα-
γυγούμενοι και υπό τών έφεστώτων κατά τόπον αγγέλων υμνούμενοι άγονται εις χωρίον
Owreivóv. Then follows about the bosom of Abraham, &c. Compare with this the
liturgical prayer in the Apostolic Constit. viii. 41. : 'Ayyénous evyeveîs tapáotnoov
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
451
dreamt of no such thing: for the Gentile tales he substituted a Christian
tale, founded on some symbolical expressions in the parables and the
Apocalypse, or on certain phrases in some apocryphal work, availing
himself also judiciously of a beautiful line in Pindar or in Plato. Why
should he not do so ? Was it his fault that later dark ages misunderstood
such innocent poetry?
Jerome quotes this work, as “Contra Gentes” (Ep. Lxx. ad Magnum),
Gallandi (in the Preface, t. ii. p. xlvii.) gives a fragment overlooked by
Fabricius. It has been preserved by Philoponus (De Mundi Creat. iii. 16.).
It is curious enough, as a new proof how much Hippolytus was bent upon
physical philosophy.*
As this work is quoted in the treatise on the Heresies, so he quotes in
it (p. 222.) earlier doctrinal works, where he had treated more accurately
on the person of Christ.
The concluding doxology is simple and apostolic.t
VII. Special polemical Writings against Heretics.
In the introduction to the article against Marcus, Hippolytus refers to a
book of his against the Sorcerers. One might suppose at first sight, that
the exposure of the scandalous juggling tricks which some heretics
practised in the East, and even in the West, was contained in a special
work. But he only alludes to the fourth book of our 66 Refutation." I
will only say here, that those tricks certainly were not of Christian inven-
tion, but practised, not only by the Egyptians, but also by the Greeks.
This is proved among other things by the remarkable treatise on Pneu-
matics by Hero of Alexandria, critically edited and strikingly illustrated
this very year by Mr. Bennet Woodcroft, Professor of Machinery in the
London University College. Some of the very ingenious mechanical
tricks here explained refer to altars and temples, and can scarcely have
been invented for private amusement.||
αυτό και ατάταξον εαυτόν εν τω κολπώ των πατριαρχών. Similar phrases are found
very earlyin the formularies of the Greek and Western Churches.
* Το ούν, Γενηθήτω στερέωμα εν μέσω ύδατος, ου μεταξύ λέγει του κάτω ύδατος την
του στερεώματος γενέσθαι φύσιν, ως Ιώσηπος και Εβραίος εν τω περί του παντός αιτίας
συγγράμματι βούλεται εις τρία, λέγων, διηρήσθαι το ύδωρ, και το μέν τρίτον αυτού εις
γένεσιν συμπαγήναι του στερεώματος: το δε τριτον εναπομείναι κάτω το δε λοιπόν τρίτον
εν τοις νοτίοις εις ύψος συνανακουφισθήναι τα στερεώματι. , Εν τοις νοτίοις means
in the rainy austral regions. The text has: ¿v Toîs várols, which is unintelligible.
Gallandi of course takes care not to touch this nonsense at all. He translates,
“ per rarefactionem una cum firmamento elevatum,” instead of “ in regionibus
pluviosis in altitudinem firmamenti tollitur.”
t. όσα ο Θεός ετοίμασε τους αγαπώσιν αυτόν αυτώ ή δόξα και το κράτος εις τους
αιώνας των αιώνων. Αμήν.
+ IV. p. 200. 50.: Τα δε δυνάμενα τούτο παρασχεϊν φάρμακα εν τη κατά μάγων βίβλο
προείπομεν εκθέμενοι. . 201. 66.: Και τούτου (Μάρκου) την τέχνην ομοίως εν τη
Te poeipnuévn Bierw [edéueba. Indeed we read the passage, iv. p. 66. 7. Compare
75. 49.
§ The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria. Translated by Mr. J. G. Greenwood,
and edited by Bennet Woodcroft, 1851. He places Hero about 150 B, C. : at all
events he cannot be later than about a hundred years before our era.
| Thus: f. i. 11. Libations on an altar produced by fire; ii. 21. A sacrificial
vessel, which flows only when money is introduced; ii. 17. Sounds produced on the
opening of a temple door.
GG 2
452
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
We have indeed the titles of other polemical writings of Hippolytus
against heretical teachers and sects, but without quotations froin them,
and therefore are unable to say whether they formed part of the general
against the Heresies, now recovered, or were independent special
treatises or homilies. At all events they prove that Hippolytus was
considered as the great controversial writer and defender of the Catholic
faith in the Western Church of his time. Thus Hippolytus Προς Νικολαΐτας
(Fabric. i. p. 223.) is quoted, without any further indication of the
contents. Our article on this sect is meagre enough to render it probable
that its author wrote a fuller one on the subject : only he does not refer
to it. This may be considered as an additional proof, that the article is
amongst those of which we possess only an extract. Besides, I believe
his special treatises were all directed against errors prevalent in his
own time.
He might therefore easily write such a treatise against Marcion. Hip-
polytus IIpos Mapkiwva is cited by Jerome and by Nicephorus (Fabric. i. p.
222.). The latter calls it a controversial writing (ůvtióİNTIKÒV apòs Mapki-
wva). As he does not notice that “ On Good, and the Origin of Evil,"
mentioned on the cathedra, this may perhaps be the same. Syncellus
says, Hippolytus wrote against Marcion and the other heretics, which also
seems to point to a particular treatise.
In Hebed Jesu's catalogue of Chaldee divinity books (Fabr. i. p. 222.),
a treatise of Hippolytus against Caius is mentioned. Fabricius conjec-
tures that this must have been a writing against the Caïanites (Kaiavüv)
mentioned by some texts.*
B.
DOCTRINAL WRITINGS.
Under this head I range such theological works as have no polemical
titles, or contain, so far as our fragments go, no controversial reasoning.
I. Περί Αντιχρίστου.
Against Antichrist.
The existence of such a treatise by Hippolytus was known from the
ancient authors, who give us a list of his works,—especially from Jerome.
* See my Note at the end of the eighth book of Hippolytus, where our MS.
reads quite correctly, Kaïvãv (lib. viii. c. 20. p. 277.). As to Fabricius, I had said
that I adopted his conjecture : I have given it up since, because wherever Caianites
occurs, Caïnites is the true reading (Iran. i. c. 35., Epiph. Haer. xviii., Theodor.
i. 15. coinpared with c. 1.), as the reference to Cain as one of the reprobates proves.
Döllinger (c. 15.) is quite right in saying that there exists no heretical Caius. It
does not follow hence that Hippolytus wrote a book against his cotemporary (and
copresbyter at Rome?) Caius; for the existence of that book rests upon the sole
authority of Hebed Jesu. It is, however, not impossible that in his treatise on the
Apocalypse he defended this book against Caius who impugned its authenticity.
Besides, if he had written a book against the Cainites, the only sect which could be
thought of if Caius were a corruption, he would probably have mentioned it when
he apologises for not entering into the discussion of their tenets.--1854.
HIPPOLYTUS LIFE AND WRITINGS.
453
But a work in the form of a homily, published in 1556 by a Parisian canon,
Johannes Picus, in Greek and Latin, proved soon to be one of the many
forgeries which owe their origin to the fourth or fifth century; and, with
the exception of Baronius, no man of note was taken in by it.* The
genuine work of Hippolytus was first edited in the year 1661, from two
French manuscripts, by Marquard Gudius, a young divine of Holstein.
Combefisius in 1672 added a Latin translation (Fabr. i. p. 4. sqq.). It is
addressed to a friend and brother, Theophilus, and bears the character-
istics of Hippolytus' stylet, but, compared with his other writings, would
seem to show a more youthful and timid mind. Still he, refers in this
treatise to what he had said before in other writings respecting the person
of Christ. This composition is of no more value as interpretation, than
any of its successors in the apocalyptic way down to our days. His cal-
culations, based upon Daniel and the Apocalypse, are quite as absurd as
those which we have been doomed to see printed (and praised and be-
lieved) in our days. He makes out that Antichrist will come 500 years
after Christ, from the tribe of Dan, and rebuild the Jewish temple at
Jerusalem. He quotes some apocryphal works, besides the canonical
writings, and, above all, the Apocalypse, which, on this occasion, he ex-
pressly declares to be by St. John. But, with all these faults, there are
some luminous thoughts in the book. What an intelligence is there in
his interpretation of the woman in the Apocalypse with the twelve stars,
standing upon the moon (chap. xii. 1. sqq.), compared with that given by
the medieval fathers, who see in her the Virgin Mary! and what deep
theology, compared with the commentators of the old Protestant school!
Hippolytus says (p. 30.): “ The woman is the Church; the twelve stars
are the Twelve Apostles, her founders; and the child she brings forth is
Christ, whom she continually gives birth to.” It is remarkable, that this
last idea is expressed in almost the same words, only more concisely, in
the fragment which I believe to be the conclusion of our work. I
Some writers have conceived, that Hippolytus alludes, in his interpreta-
tions of the ten horns of the fourth beast in Daniel, to some great con-
vulsion of the empire in his time; but this opinion seems to me entirely
unfounded. All I can find in those passages, as indicative of the time in
which they were written (§ 28, 29.), is the existence of a very strong,
iron, military government; and this seems to point to the time when the
power of Septimius Severus was firmly established, after fierce contests
and sanguinary battles. The rest relates to things to come, to the last
age of the world, which he thought about three centuries distant,
* Fabric. Append. ad I. i. p. 2. sqq.
+ Compare p. 4., Τούτο σοι εφόδιον εν τω νύν βίω ακίνδυνον ήτω, with the same
expression in the Procem. adv. Hær.; p.5. : Ipókeltai tớ Mèv Néyouti to årivdurov
ÉTELTEîv, with Adv. Hær. ix. p. 288. 82.; ib.: 'O TOû Ⓡéou mois instead of vīds, of
Christ, in the 10th book, and elsewhere in other writings of Hippolytus. The
exclamation un Tavā, ix. p. 336. 18., occurs p. 5. The expression tà toû róyou
uvothpla, and the Doxology, are found in the concluding fragment of the " Epistle
to Diognetus,” which I have claimed for Hippolytus.
Η 'Εν γαστρί έχουσα κράζει, ότι ου παύσεται η εκκλησία γεννώσα έκ καρδίας
τον Λόγον, τον εν κόσμω υπ’ απίστων διωκόμενον. 'Επουράνιός έστι βασιλεύς
και ουκ επίγειος και δι' αυτής αεί γεννώμενος. The words in the fragment, printed as the
conclusion of the “ Epistle to: Diognetus,” are: Ở TÁVTOTE Véos ¿v åyiwv kapdiais
γεννώμενος. .
GG 3
454
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
66
As we possess this treatise complete, we may assert positively that Hip-
polytus has not pointed by a single word in it to the time when he wrote
it. This much only may be conjectured, that it must have been written
after the tenth year of Septimius Severus. This was the year in which,
according to the interpretation of Judas, the world was to perish ; and
we learn from Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 7.) that Judas' prophecy spread a
great terror among the Christians, their minds being powerfully seized
by the foreboding of imminent persecutions. Now this fright must have
ceased when Hippolytus wrote ; for there is not an allusion to it from
beginning to end.
II. Περί χαρισμάτων αποστολική παράδοσις.
The Apostolic Tradition respecting the Gifts of the Holy Spirit
(on the cathedra).
I hope to prove in another place that this book is not entirely lost, but
preserved in two corrupted extracts; in some Ethiopic Canons, and in the
older text of a part of the eighth book of the Apostolical Constitutions.
The saying of Jerome (Ep. 28. ad Lucin. Fabr. i. p. 259.), that Hippolytus
had written on the questions whether Christians ought to fast on the
Sabbath, and communicate every day, refers to this book of his.*
III. Περί Θεού και σαρκός αναστάσεως.
On God, and on the Resurrection of the Flesh.
The title of a lost doctrinal work, named on the cathedra.
IV. Περί τάγαθού και πόθεν το κακόν.
On Good and the Origin of Evil.
Likewise on the cathedra : perhaps a work against Marcion.
V. Προτρεπτικός προς Σεβηρεϊναν.
Hortatory Sermon to Severina.
Likewise on the cathedra. This is undoubtedly the letter which,
Theo-
doret says, Hippolytus addressed to a certain princess (Baridida). This is
not an expression for the empress (Sebaste); nor is Severina the name of
an empress of his time.†
Of this epistle Theodoret has preserved two fragments (Fabr. i. p. 92*.),
both on Christ's resurrection, as a commentary upon 1 Cor. xv. 20. 23.
The phraseology is strikingly analogous to a passage in the “Confession
of Faith.”!
* See Introduction to the Apostolical Canons and Constitutions, printed at the
end of the Analecta, and Dr. Boetticher's Preface to the Constitutions, and the text
of the eighth book itself._1854.
† I had added the conjecture that she was a daughter of Alexander Severus.
Döllinger's supposition that it was Julia Aquilia Severa, second wife of Elagabalus
(Ekhel, Doctr. Num. vii. 20.), is certainly the true one: we know of no daughter of
Severus, and he married only in 229.--1854.
Η «Ως εκ του αυτού φυράματος σάρκα λαβών : compare with x. 338. 78., ίσμεν του
καθ' ημάς φυράματος γεγονότα. Again, απαρχήν ποιούμενος της των δικαίων σαρκός:
compared with απαρξάμενος εν πάσι τούτοις τον ίδιον άνθρωπον (ib. i. 86.).
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
455
66 The
VI. Doctrinal festal Homilies.
To the same class of purely doctrinal works seem also to belong the
festul sermons quoted by different authors, such as
1. Λόγος εις τα άγια θεοφάνεια, A (baptismal) Sermon on Epiphany.
(Fabr. i. p. 261.) The text was given by Fabricius from a MS. in the
library of Thomas Gale, sent to him from England. Many of its thoughts
and expressions remind us of our work. Thus (c. vii. p. 263.),
beloved generates love, and the immaterial light the inaccessible light,"
and “ Christ has become manifest, his appearance was not a semblance”
(é nepávn, oủk épávn). This phrase expresses most happily the controversy
with the Gnostics. The startling, seemingly pantheistic expressions in
the last article of Hippolytus' “ Confession” have here their full match in
the words (p. 264. c. viii.), “ If, then, man has become immortal, he will
also be God."* The saying (p. 264.), “that the Holy Spirit is the water
which waters Paradise," reminds us of the mystic expression, in what, I
believe, formed the conclusion of our work, the fragment commonly as-
signed to the "Epistle to Diognetus,” where the heart of the faithful is
taken as the field in which the two trees of Paradise grow.
2. A similar homily of Hippolytus on Easter, was known (els tò tráoxa
ténynois. Fabr. i. p. 281.). The “ Acts of the Lateran Council of 640"
quote a passage from it (Fabr. ii. p. 45.).
3. The same is probably the case with the Sermons on the Distribution
of the Talents, and on the Two Thieves (Fabr. i. p. 281.).
4. Perhaps, also, the two beautiful anecdotes of the Corinthian. Virgin,
and of the youth Palladius, were related in one of these homilies,
(Fabr. i. p. 283. sq.)
C.
HISTORICAL WORKS.
Ι. Χρονικών.
(Cathedra.) The (Book, or Books of the) Chronicles.
About the same time with Julius Africanus, or twenty years later at the
utmost, Hippolytus undertook a chronographic work. Eusebius mentions
it. According to his rather confused account, it went down to the first
year of Alexander Severus. Hippolytus refers to this work in the tenth
book, on which occasion I spoke on its subject, as it is preserved in a
Latin translation of the time of Charlemagne. (Fabr. i. 46–59.) Dod-
well conjectures, that the Byzantine monk, Anianus (under Theodosius),
had used Hippolytus' chronography for his chronology of the Roman
bishops down to Pontianus, and that Maximus the Confessor having
copied him, Syncellus adopted this list. All this is mere conjecture,
though Syncellus' chronology of the early Roman bishops certainly
differs from that of Eusebius. I believe that a fresh and impartial
* Ει ούν αθάνατος γέγονεν ο άνθρωπος, έσται και Θεός.
G G4
456
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.”
ON THE
examination of the unsettled question respecting the history and the suc-
cession of the Roman bishops before Sylvester, and more particularly
before Cornelius, will prove that the catalogue of the Roman bishops
given by Hippolytus (which, as is credibly recorded, formed part of his
" Chronicle,”) made an epoch in this matter. The catalogue of Hip-
polytus must. originally have ended with Callistus; for the end of Cal-
listus coincides with the accession of Alexander Severus, with the first
year of whom his list of emperors concluded. But it may in subsequent
editions have been carried down to Pontianus, with whom Hippolytus was
transported to Sardinia. Now it can scarcely be accidental that the most
ancient list which has come down to us, of the year 354, the “ Catalogus
Liberianus,” also called "Bucherianus," has an unmistakeable line of
demarcation at the beginning of Pontianus. The method adopted down to
Urbanus, the predecessor of Pontianus, differs decidedly from that em-
ployed subsequently. My belief therefore is, that this first part is extracted
from the work of Hippolytus. I have further proofs of this assertion in my
possession; and I shall give account of them whenever I publish my
“Restoration of the Succession of the Roman bishops before the time of
Cornelius" (written in 1847): a question now of particular importance,
in consequence of the abuse made by Schwegler, and others of the Tubin-
gen school, of the present uncertainty of some dates. It must be con-
fessed, that, having been treated uncritically by Baronius, and not
settled by Pagi, this question has been involved in confusion by
Dodwell and Vignolles. I have endeavoured to establish a safer method
of inquiry, with the help of new documents, and I hope that my investi-
gation, as it has been impartial, has not been altogether unsuccessful : I
am sure it entirely demolishes the fabulous chronology of Tubingen.*
But our Latin text seems to be only an abstract or an introduction.
Hippolytus' original work must have been more like a chronological
carion, with historical notes. We have a fragment of the Greek text of
this nature (Fabr. App. p. 41.) quoted by Cedrenus, and relating that,
under Nero, John the apostle was recalled from Patmos to Ephesus.
The “Chronicle” of Hippolytus became, like the Apostolic Tradition,
a fruitful source of forgeries. To these belong: " The Holy Hippolytus
on the Twelve Apostles, ” “On the Seventy Disciples, with their
Names.” (See, on both, Fabr. i. p. 53. sqq.) I regard the “Chronicle of
Hippolytus the Theban,” and that personage himself, as merely part of
those forgeries. (Fabr, append. to vol. i. pp. 43—50.)
ΙΙ.'Απόδειξις χρόνων του πάσχα κατά τα έν πίνακι. .
Demonstration of the Time of Easter according to the T'able.
This is the title of Hippolytus' book on the celebration of Easter men-
tioned on the cathedra.
* Mommsen, in his excellent critical “ Essay on the Chronography of the year
354” (1850), has perfectly established the truth of Ducange's conjecture, that
this list of the Roman bishops is taken from the work of Hippolytus (pp. 594—598.
673-644.).
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
457
D.
EXEGETICAL WORKS.
Ι. ('Ωδαί) Εις πάσας τας γραφάς.
On all the Holy Scriptures (Cathedra).
We read now údaí, songs, connected with what follows, which is absurd.
For Hippolytus wrote commentaries on the Scriptures, in the forms of
ho'milies, but not of odes or bymns. But údai may be taken by itself, and
there is nothing more to be said about them, for none are preserved or
quoted. If not, we must suppose that the stone-mason engraved údaí,
instead of an abbreviation of Gurdial, for which word there is no place. *
There are besides mentioned on the cathedra the following exegetical
works, to which we shall have to refer in their proper places :
(Ainynais) Eis valuots: evidently commentaries on the Psalms; - (lis
Trv) 'EyyaoTpiyvcov : On the Witch of Endor ;-and 'TrĖP TOû kard 'Iwáv.
νην Ευαγγελίου και Αποκαλύψεως : On the Gospel according to John, and
the Apocalypse. This title seems to indicate, that the book was written as
an explanation of the origin and date, perhaps in defence against an
attack, or in rectification of a vulgar error.
II. On the Historical Works of the Old Testament.
As to the extent of the exegetical compositions of Hippolytus, the
ncient authors declare, that Hippolytus wrote commentaries on most
works of the Old, and on some of the New, Testament,
On the Hexaemeron, or the Six Days of the Creation. Extracts in
Jerome, Ep. cxxv. ad Damasum (Fabr. i. p. 266.).; J. Damascen.
Parall. opp. ii. 787. (Fabr. i. p. 7.)
On the Pentateuch. Extracts in Fabr. ii. p. 22. sqq.
On the Prophets ; in particular on Ezekiel and Daniel.
On the Book of Samuel. Fragment Eis tov’Elkávav kai īriv "Avvav (Fabr. i.
p. 267.). Eis Tijvěyyaotpiuvtov (Cathedra. Jerome: De Saule et Pytho-
nissa. Fabric. 1. 1.).
On the Book of Kings; the history of Hezekiah's miracle, which he
explains by imagining a parallel to the Amphitryonic night, --a day of
thirty-two hours instead of twenty-four (Greek text. Fabr. ii. p. 31.).
III. On the Psalms and the Songs of the Old Testament.
The first work mentioned of this class is that on the Psalms. Nice-
phorus quotes the divynois sis toùs faluous (Fabr. i. p. 267.). He has
preserved the beginning of the work. Theodoret quotes a passage from
it (Fabr. i. p. 268.), graphically describing the sigos both of true humanity
and of true divinity in the history of Christ's life, exactly like the passage
(although differing in words) in the work against Noetus, on which I have
commented above.
Here also we owe to the Roman prelate a considerable addition to the
* I have modified here the original sentence, which substituted Guirlar for ådai.
The common interpretation, wộal eis ráoas T. yp., is and remains untenable. - 1854,
458
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
fragments printed by Fabricius and Gallandi. He has given in the
appendix (11. 439–448.), the complete text of the introduction to the
commentary, of which we had only the first period. This text is found
according to him in two manuscripts, one in the library of the Minerva at
Rome (Casanatensis, O. I. a.), and the other the Vatican codex (1759).
In the latter the text is mutilated at the beginning.
The fragment bears the title: Ιππολύτου του Επισκόπου Ρώμης Υπόθεσις
dinyhoews eis tous Vahuoús. It is of great interest, for various reasons.
First, for the knowledge of Hippolytus' real style. We discover here the
clear and lucid method of discussion, and the easy exposition of the
subject, which we generally find in Hippolytus, wherever the text is not
corrupted. It treats on the authors of the Psalms, their relative age, and
original division, the mode of performance, and the difference between
Psalms, and Songs or Odes (wdai). According to him the Psalter con-
tains both Psalms, performed by the musical instrument (nabla, the psal-
terium) alone, and Odes, where the voice answered the instrument.
Both kinds were mixed, so that we have Psalms of Odes, and Odes of
Psalms. This, of course, is a mistake: but Hippolytus is right in distin-
guishing the two leading elements in the sacred lyrics; the Psalm, which
is the Semitic element, advancing by hemistichs, of which the second is,
as it were, the echo of the first; and the Hymn, or the Japhetic element,
then existing only in the imperfect Greek form, as an Ode, but which a
hundred years later developed itself into the Latin Hymn, through
Ambrose, at Milan.
The most remarkable passage is the following ; because it shows how
far the fathers were from that superstition which seems to have crept into
the minds even of some learned and eminent men in this country, who
write on the Psalms as if it were part and parcel of orthodoxy to believe
that all of them are by David, and that they were composed by him (or at
the utmost by him and his friends) for the use of the congregation, as an
official hymn-book; whereas such an opinion is nothing but a proof of
ignorance, and, in divines, of a contempt for truth and learning.
The words are these :--- After having said, that the Jews called the
Psalter Sephra Thelim (Sepher Tehillim, the Book of Songs), without
any name of an author, Hippolytus adds: “ The reason thereof is this,
that the compositions were not written by one; but Esdras collected those
of several authors, as the traditions inform us, in the time after the Cap-
tivity when he united the Psalms of different writers, or rather Songs in
general (^óyovc); for they are not all Psalms. In consequence, some of
them have the name of David prefixed to them, some that of Solomon,
others that of Asaph. There are also some by Jeduthun ('I&cdoúu), and
besides some by the sons of Korah, also by Moses. Now the compositions
of all these men collected together will not be called the Psalms of David
alone by any one who understands the matter."
The text is very readable: in the first period some inaccuracies in our
ordinary text are corrected.
His description of the nabla as having the sounding-brass above, is the
source of St. Augustin's account (Winer, R. L. ii. 125.).
Connected with this commentary on the Psalms, was that on the Songs
of the Old Testament. Nicephorus quotes the commentary upon the
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
459
äquata," in the plural. Eusebius, in his list, mentions that on the Song,
of Solomon (of which we have a fragment, Fabr. i. p. 278.). This there-
fore was only a part.
One of the other Canticles was the μεγάλη ωδή. .
which, our prelate justly observes (Acta Mart. p. 101.), cannot mean, as
Fabricius supposes, the 119th Psalm, but is the proper term for the Song
of Moses. The fragment quoted by Theodoret (Fabr. 269.) belongs there-
fore to this work, and not to that on the Psalms.
IV. On the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
On the Proverbs. (Fabr. i. p. 269., and Mai, Collectio Vatic. ii. 223., who
gives the Greek text of a fragment known substantially in a Latin
translation.) There is also a fragment of Hippolytus on Proverbs i. 9.
in Fabr. i. p. 282., misplaced by the editor.
On Ecclesiastes. Fabr, i. p. 270.
V. On the Prophets.
On the Prophet Isaiah. Fabr. i. p.
271.
On the Prophet Ezekiel. Fabr. i. p. 271. (named by Syncellus, p. 358.)
On the Prophet Daniel. Fabr. i. p. 271. (named by Theodoret, and by
Photius, c. 203.). Jerome says, Hippolytus' historical explanation of
the seventy weeks did not tally with history and chronology. Fabr, i.
p. 272. We have a genuine fragment of this explanation in Fabr. i.
p. 278. on Daniel's Life and Time.
On the Prophet Zechariah. Fabr. i. p. 279.
VI. On the New Testament.
As to the New Testament, we have mention of a Commentary on St.
Matthew, and on the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John.*
No doubt, the greater number of the fragments of these exegetical
works preserved to us are childish. What other word shall I use for such
interpretations as that “Isaac bears the image of God the Father; Re-
becca of the Holy Spirit ; Esau of the devil; Jacob of the Church and of
Christ ?” That Jacob grew old, means the consummation of the world.
Rebecca, that is to say, Patience, gave intelligence to Isaac of the
brothers' dispositions. These are some specimens given by Jerome.
But I do not believe that in these fragments we have a fair specimen of
the value of the works as a whole. We see now, by the new fragments
published in the "Acta Martyrum,” that the quotations do not give the
most sensible part, the historical illustrations, and the truly philosophical,
* The Syriac MSS. discovered in the Libyan Desert and explored by Cureton
contain, as my excellent friend has kindly communicated to me, quotations (of slight
importance) from the following works of Hippolytus:
Apostolical Collections.' '" Commentary on Daniel.” Commentary, on the
Psalms.” “ Sermon on the Resurrection.” Sermon on the Epiphany."
The only interesting article is the first. It may be the genuine text of what we
knew only as a forgery, under the title of the “ Eighth Book of the Apostolic
Constitutions," and then perhaps only a part of the book mentioned on the cathedra,
that is, the “ Apostolical Tradition on the Giſts of the Holy Spirit.
460
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
though perhaps incorrectly expressed thoughts. Still even our old frag-
ments, in the midst of fanciful allegories, show a deep mind and a free
and honest inquirer.
I will here insert a restoration of the catalogue of Hippolytus' writings
on his cathedra, to show that it is far from giving a complete list of them.
I am enabled, through Dr. Brunn, of the Archæological Institute at Rome,
to give the text more correctly than that printed by Gruter and Fabricius.
The corners of the back of the cathedra are edged off, so as to form two
planes of breadth sufficient for eighteen letters. The list is on one of
these planes; and there never was an inscription on the other.
Προς τούς ΙουδαϊOYC
περί της κοσμογοNIAC
διήγησις εις ΨΑΛΜΟΥ
είς την έγΓΑCΤΡΙΜΥΘΟΝ
ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩ
ANHN (sic)
ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΑΠΟ
ΚΑΛΥΨΕΩC
ΠΕΡΙ ΧΑΡΙCΜΑΤΩΝ
ΑποCΤΟΛΙΚΗ ΠΑΡΑΔΟ
CIC
ΧΡΟΝΙΚΩΝ
ΠΡΟ ΕΛΛΗΝΑ
ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟC ΠΑΤΩΝΑ (sic)
Η ΚΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΤΩ
ПРОТРЕПТІкос пPOccЕ
BHPEINAN
ΑΠΟΔΕΙΞIC ΧΡΟΝΩΝ
ΤΟΥ ΠΑCXA
ΚΑΤΑ (τα) ΕΝ ΤΩ ΠΙΝΑΚΙ
ωΔΑIC (1. ωδαι εις) ΠACAC TACPA
ΦΑ
ΠΕΡΙ ΘΥ ΚΑΙ CAPKOc
ANACTACEΩC
ΠΕΡΙ ΤΑΓΑΘΟΥ ΚΑΙ
ποθΕΝ (το) KAKON.
The work on the heresies, quoted by almost all the authors, is not in
this list; nor are other works equally well attested. It may have been
intended to give the titles of only some of Hippolytus' books. If the
statue is of his life-time, it may be anterior to his writing that work. If
the statue was originally erected where it was found it wants no further
explanation why, in the time of Constantine or Theodosius that work was
not selected among those commemorated on a statue.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
461
I will conclude this review of the works of Hippolytus with two tables
of the lists exhibited by Eusebius, Jerome, and Nicephorus, comparing
them first among themselves, and then with that on the cathedra. I give
first that of Eusebius : whatever Nicephorus has, is marked with an
asterisk : the order is the same: the few words added by Nicephorus are
also marked. Then follow, in the same column, those works which Nice-
phorus gives besides ; they are one and all taken from Jerome, whose list
I give in the second column, marking with Italics what he has in common
with Eusebius. The list of Syncellus forms the third column.
The result is simply this : Jerome has copied Eusebius, but added some
more titles of exegetical works; for that was the strong side in his erudi-
tion. Nicephorus has copied both. Syncellus has evidently made an
extract from the older authors. Finally, the list on the cathedra is not
intended to give all the works of Hippolytus, but only a selection, those
most approved.
Ι.
!
THE LISTS OF EUSEBIUS, JEROME, AND NICEPHORUS COMPARED.
EUSEB, vi. 22.
HIERONYMUS. .
SYNCELLUS.
(Niceph. Hist. Ecc. iv. 31.) De viris illustr. c. 61. Ad annum 215, p. 358.
*Το περί του Πάσχα σύγ- Rationein Pasche tempor.
γραμμα.
umque canones usque ad
1. a. Alex Imp. sedecim
annorum circuitus.
*Εις την εξαήμερον.
In Heraemeron.
Εις την εξαήμερον.
*Εις τα μετά την εξαήμερον. In Exodum. En Canticum Eis τα μετά την εξαήμερον.
Canticorum. In Genesin. Eίς πολλά των προφητών
* Προς Μαρκίωνα
In Zachariam. De Psal- μάλιστα είς Ιεζεκιήλ
(Niceph. 'Αντιρρητικόν
mis. . In Esaiam. . De
και Δανιήλ.
προς Μαρκίωνα.)
Daniele. . De Apoca- Εις τα άσματα.
lypsi. De Proverbiis. Eίς πολλάς παντοίας πα-
* Εις το'Ασμα.
De Ecclesiaste. De Saul λαιάς και νέας γραφάς, εν
* Εις μέρη του Ιεζεκιήλ. et Pythonissa.
αλς και την εν Πάτμο του
θεολόγου Αποκάλυψιν.
De Antichristo.
De Resurrectione. .
Contra Murcionem.
* Περί του Πάσχα
De Pascha.
* Προς απάσας τας αιρέ- ADVERSUS OMNES Η ERESEs. Προς Μαρκίωνα και τας
λοιπας αιρέσεις.
(Niceph. βιωφελέστα-
τον.).
Προσομιλίαν de laude Do- Τον εξκαιδέκατον έτηρικόν
«πλείστά τα άλλα παρά πολο mini Salvatoris in qua του Πάσχα κανόνα.
λοίς αν εύροις σωζόμενα.” præsente Origene se lo-
qui in ecclesia significat.
OELS.
Nicephorus adds to the Eusebian list the following works:
Περί της παρουσίας του Αντιχριστού.
Περί αναστάσεως και άλλα πλείστα εις Ζαχαρίας περί Ψαλμών· είς
τον 'Εσαΐαν εις τον Δανιήλ: περί Αποκαλύψεως: περί παροιμιών:
περί Σαούλ και Πυθώνος» περί επαίνων του Κυρίου ημών Ιησού
Χριστού• εν οίς παρόντος 'Ωριγένους ώμίλησεν.
462
ON THE 66 REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
II.
THE LIST ON THE CATHEDRA, COMPARED WITH THE AUTHORS AND OUR
FRAGMENTS.
Προς τους Ιουδαίους.
Fragment.
Περί της κοσμογονίας. .
? In Hexaemeron. E. H. S. Fr.
Διήγησις εις Ψαλμούς. .
Euseb. Hieron. Fragments.
Είς την έγγαστρίμυθον. .
Hieron. (De Saul et Pythonissa.)
“Υπέρ του κατά Ιωάννην ευαγγελίου και | Hieron.
αποκαλύψεως. .
Περί χαρισμάτων αποστολική παράδοσις. Referred to by Jerome.
Χρονικών.
Euseb. Latin translation.
Προς Ελληνας, και προς Πλάτωνα ή και Fragment.
περί του παντός. .
Προτρεπτικός προς Σεβηρείναν. .
Fragments.
Απόδειξις χρόνων του Πάσχα. .
Euseb. Hieron,
'Ωδαί.
Syncel. Hieron.
Εις πασάς τας γράφας.
Περί Θεού και σαρκός αναστάσεως. .
Περί του αγαθού και ποθεν το κακόν. , (? Euseb. and Hieron. Adv. Marcionem.)
Having thus briefly laid before you all the materials necessary for judg-
ing of the authenticity of the traditions respecting the life, the age, and
the writings of Hippolytus, I will endeavour to draw the outlines of a pic-
ture of his character and of that of his time.
I begin with his doctrinal works as the most important: and I believe I
cannot introduce this delicate subject better than by giving a translation of
the passage in Dorner's work on the Person of Christ *, in which this phi-
losophical divine sums up his exposition of the systems of the leading
Christian philosophers of that age, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen,
respecting the Logos and the Sonship.
“If we cast a glance upon the development of the ecclesiastical dogma
at this remarkable stage (the middle of the third century), and upon the
three principal characters who appear on the side of the Church, we fin
that since the end of the second century it was generally understood that
one could not stop at the literal sense of the Logos. For otherwise the
distinct hypostasis (personification) of the Logos would not be firmly
established, as God himself is Reason (Logos). From this time forth,
after the precedent of Tertullian, the watchword becomes the Son. It
is now said by Hippolytus, that the Son is out of the Logos, that the
Logos is the spiritual substance of God, or the Father himself, and that,
so far from being the Son himself, the Logos logically precedes the Son:
a proposition which is still further developed by Origen. A large part of
the first volume of Origen's Commentaries on St. John,' where he
represents the åpxń of St. John (in which the Logos was uovoyevís, or the
Son) as the divine copia, that is, the voūs or lóyos of God himself, out of
* Vol. i. p. 693.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
463
which the Son is said to be and to proceed, is intended to carry out the
same idea.
Thus, by the word “Son,' a greater distinction was made
between the substance and the personality of the second hypostasis; and
under the term “Sonship’ was understood originally (by Tertullian and
Hippolytus) not the substance, but only the personality of the Son. It
followed of itself, that while and because the substance of the second
hypostasis is eternal, the personality was not regarded as eternal. The
temporal distinction (diremption) was also intended to assist the perception
and the fixation of the difference between the eternal substance, which is
not yet distinct from the Father, and the personality. Tertullian, for
instance, in his clumsy method of reasoning, was not able to master this
difference, except by fixing it temporally. Doubtless the new watchword
'the Son’ was also a temptation to consider the Sonship as not eternal :
at least it may readily be understood, that Clemens of Alexandria and
Irenæus (with the latter of whoin the critical treatment of the dogma of
the Logos begins), as they dwelt chiefly on the word Logos, must have
found it easier and more indispensable to assert the eternity of the
Divine wisdom and Reason (that is, of the Son, in their sense), than those
who started from the word Son. As it lay very near to this latter view,
to mix up the Son with finiteness, a combination which brought Tertul-
lian to the verge of Patripassianism, and also placed him in contradiction
to himself, since the Son was to spring out of the eternal substance of
God, Hippolytus endeavoured to remove this difficulty, by strictly distin-
guishing God, as the only Infinite, the Super-infinite One, from the
world; but by his determinism the world, and even the humanity of
Christ, were divested of personality; and he is obliged to subject the
hypostatic existence of the Son to the omnipotent will of God. It is
true, that he turns his glance back from the personality of the Son,
which comes forth a little later, to His eternal substance; and he tries to
draw lines of connection between the two, speaking of the eternal pre-
destination of the personality of the Son. But the Son, it is manifest, is
only placed hereby in still more dependence on the omnipotent will of
God, and he considers that eternal substance merely as belonging to the
Father, and as communicated by him, in accordance with his will and
decree, to his hypostatic Son. Origen is the first who rose decidedly
above this difficulty. He discerned the contradiction lying in the supposi-
tion of a hypostasis, which does not come forth till afterwards, and yet
possesses the eternal divine substance, and is asserted not to be a crea-
ture. Hence he tries to reconcile the eternity of the divine substance,
and the genesis of the personality of the Son, by the dogma of the eternal,
that is, of the eternally proceeding generation of the Son by the Father.
But while his predecessors had said much of the will of the Father, so as
to place the Son on a level with the creatures, in a manner contrary to their
purpose, Origen, in whose system the will acts such an important part,
has not been quite able to avoid this; only he has represented the Son as
the hypostatic will of the Father, which proceeded out of His Wisdom or
Spirit (volls= lóyos). In this way Origen brings the dogmas of Tertul-
lian and Hippolytus, in concordance with the eternal generation of the
Son, to a conclusion. But, in doing so, he places himself at the same time
in a strong realistic opposition to the men of the second century, who had
464
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
regarded the Son more ideally as the Divine Reason and Wisdom, or at
the utmost as the Divine Purpose, which of itself is creative."
As to the place which Hippolytus occupies in the development of the
doctrine of the Trinity, the following passage of G. A. Meier's work
on that doctrine (1844) shows the stage at which that inquiry has at
present arrived. His statement is based upon the passages of the treatise
against Noetus, which I have given above, and agrees in many points with
Haenell's monography on Hippolytus (1838). His words (p. 88. sq.)are:
“The coming forth of the Logos at the creation was commonly repre-
sented, not as his birth, but as his manifestation ; and the dispensation by
which this difference was brought out, coincides with the incarnation of
the Logos; and here the triple distinction takes the place of the unity of the
divine power. This view is still more confirmed by the fact that Hippo-
lytus decidedly ascribes no personality to the Holy Spirit. He has no fear,
that the charge of Tritheism should be brought against him, and only
thinks it necessary to say, that he does not preach two Gods. In this he
seems to come near to Noetus; yet there is still between them a decided
difference. Noetus makes the divinity of the Father dwell in Christ, so
that the infinite becomes finite, while the appearance passes by without a
lasting existence: this does not establish any real difference in God him-
self. Hippolytus on the contrary, with his ecclesiastical tendency, makes
the Incarnation the foundation for a real impersonation of the Logos, who
in this divine and human personality, as God and Lord of the Church, is
taken up into heaven, so that together with him flesh itself (that is, with
a rational human soul) enters therein. The doctrine of the Trinity runs
with him thus : In the beginning God was alone, he himself being every-
thing, but not as mere void being ; for he was never without reason,
wisdom, and power. This reason that rested in Him, the universe locked
up as it were in Him its ideal existence, came forth reality the moment He
willed it. God manifests the Logos; and everything is formed by thought
and wisdom, the first being the creating, the latter the regulating power. The
manifestation of the Logos therefore is only his showing forth in the dis-
tinct forms and relations of the real world, wherein Hippolytus does not
find a personification of the Logos, which indeed is not contained in them.
The Logos merely unveils those relations, and at the same time gives
their rules in the Law : he makes the prophets speak by the Holy Ghost,
which he gives to them, and becomes the Son by the Incarnation, being
only the Reason of God.
Hippolytus stands nearer to the doctrine of the Logos than Ter-
tullian: it is not unknown to him, but interwoven with his system ; yet he
belongs to the authors of the ecclesiastical school. If we look merely
at his words, we might be inclined to class him with Beryllus and Sabel-
lius; but his tendency is different. Hippolytus is advancing towards the
personality of the three subjects, which the others knowingly deny: in
assuming the eternal personality of the Son for the future, he is forced to
acknowledge it in the past: whereas Beryllus and Sabellius are proceeding
towards the notion of an indifferent change of being.”
Origen, as I have said above, was, according to these statements, the
last person of that age to write the Confession of Faith which we find at
the end of the work against all the heresies. I do not see how this can be
contested, upon a general survey of systems and terminologies of that
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
465
time, as we know them now through the researches of the men whose
opinions I have given, and through those of Baur, of Neander, and of
Redepenning. Still, as our work has been published under the name of
Origen, I will give the text of that striking passage of the real Origen,
which treats on the relation of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, to show
the difference between the two authors both in thought and style. Origen*,
in his commentary on the third verse of St. John's Gospel, in order to
prove that the Holy Spirit is a creature of the Logos, but as much the
third hypostasis of the Trinity as the Son is the second, speaks thus :
“I think that he who says that the Holy Spirit is made, and who allows
that “every thing was made by Him,' must necessarily subscribe to the
opinion, that the Holy Spirit was made by the Logos, the Logos being
anterior to the Spirit. We who are sure that there are three hypostases,
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and who hold that both are
generated of the Sather, this being the more religious and the true opinion,
allow that, of all things which have come into existence through the
Word, the Holy Spirit is by far the most worthy of honour, and the first
in order of those things which have been made by the Father through
Christ. And perhaps this is the reason why He is not called a Son of God,
as the only-begotten Son alone was by nature the Son from the beginning;
and it would appear that the Holy Spirit needed him, the Son ministering
to his hypostasis, not only as regards his actual existence, but also as re-
gards his being wise, reasonable, and just.”
And again, in another passage:
“The power of the Father is greater than that of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost. That of the Son is greater than that of the Holy Ghost :
and again the power of the Holy Ghost surpasses that of all other holy
things."
These passages require no commentary to make them bear upon our
argument. But I must repeat, the difference is so great, that whoever
considers the whole of Origen's system, and places it in connection (as
he ought to do with the terminology and method employed by Origen's
master, Clemens of Alexandria, and by the founder of the Alexandrian
school, Pantænus, will be puzzled to understand how the “ Confession of
Faith" could ever have been ascribed to Origen. That the ancient
copyist marked it in the margin as Origen's, is explained by the difference
between its terminology, and that of the formularies of the Councils and
of the Byzantine divines. Whatever of this sort seemed strange, mystical,
* Οpp. iv. 60. : Oιμαι γαρ ότι το μεν φάσκοντι γενητόν το πνεύμα το άγιον είναι,
και προϊεμένω το « πάντα δι' αυτού εγένετο,” αναγκαίον παραδέξασθαι, ότι το άγιον
πνεύμα διά του λόγου εγένετο, πρεσβυτέρου παρ' αυτό του λόγου τυγχάνοντος. Ημείς
τρεις υποστάσεις πειθόμενοι νυγχάνειν, τον πατέρα και τον υιόν και το άγιον πνεύμα, και
αγέννητον μηδέν έτερον του πατρός είναι πιστεύοντες, ώς ευσεβέστερον και αληθές, προ-
σιέμεθα το, παντων δια του λόγου γινομένων, το άγιον πνεύμα παντων είναι τιμιώτερον,
και τάξει πάντων [1. πρώτοντων υπό του πατρός δια Χριστού γεγενημένων. Και τάχα
αύτη εστίν η αιτία του μη και αυτό υιών χρηματίζειν του θεού, μόνου του μονογενούς
φύσει υιού αρχηθεν τυγχάνοντος, ου χρήζειν έoικε το άγιον πνεύμα, διακονούντος αυτού
τη υποστάσει, ου μόνον εις το είναι, αλλά και σοφόν είναι, και λογικόν και δίκαιον κ.τ.λ.
With this passage Gieseler judiciously compares that from the book De Princip. i.
3. 5. : Μείζων η δύναμις του πατρός παρά τον υιόν και το πνεύμα το άγιον, πλείων δε η
του υιού παρά το πνεύμα το άγιον, και πάλιν διαφέρουσα μάλλον του αγίου πνεύματος ή
δύναμις παρά τα άλλα άγια. .
VOL. I.
H H
466
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
suspicious, was ascribed in early times to Origen, by some out of igno-
rance, by others out of malice. Indeed, this is the reason why the whole
work was ascribed to Origen in the East, and so far from being translated
into Latin, like other works, was scarcely mentioned, much less quoted,
by the later fathers of the Roman Church.
There is the same difference between a philosophical dialogue of Plato
and a corresponding one of Cicero, as between our two writers, Hip-
polytus the Roman, and his perhaps somewhat younger cotemporary,
Origen the Alexandrian. And this comparison holds good in many
respects. If Origen is no Plato, Hippolytus is no Cicero. But Hip-
polytus, although intimately connected with Greek literature and philo-
sophy, and evidently endeavouring to unite as much as possible the East
and the West, is to all intents and purposes, in his theological speculations,
a man of the Western Church, a Latin and a Roman. There are certainly
many points of agreement between him and Origen, over and above the
Catholic tendency of both, as defenders of the Catholic Church against
the heretical schools. They were both learned and pious men ; they
both enjoyed a classical and philosophical education ; they were both argu-
mentative, and sometimes sophistical, and both imaginative and somewhat
fanciful, In their theological writings more particularly they were both ad-
dicted to allegorical and mystical interpretations. But the mysticism of
Hippolytus is very different from that of Origen. He indulges in allegorical
fancies, as his exegetical writings show, certainly as much as any writer, who
was not a Jew, and much more so than Origen, who was a far deeper theolo-
gian, a more acute reasoner, and a more accurate scholar. On looking
closer, we find his allegorical interpretations are all of an ethical, that is,
of a simply moral and often of a sentimental character ; whereas the alle-
gorical imaginations of Origen are metaphysical, and, however fanciful,
have always a deep thought in them. Their speculations reproduce the
difference between the old Roman and old Greek mythology: the Latin
element in these primitive creations is, comparatively speaking, very
poor as to ontological ideas, but very rich in everything that relates to
the thoughts, the actions, and the sufferings of man.
With regard to the doctrines of Hippolytus, the documents speak for
themselves. I doubt not that some people will think it their duty to prove
that Hippolytus had the correct doctrine respecting the Athanasian defi-
nition of the three persons. It is true, he says the contrary; but that
does not signify with the doctors of the old school. The divines of the
seventeenth century harp jesuitically upon one half of Jerome's words
about certain expressions of the old fathers: either they have erred, or
"minus caute locuti sunt." Those men say only: “ the holy fathers ex-
press themselves at times somewhat incautiously.” Poor old men ! They
could not speak so clearly as we have learned to do since! All this is
delusion for those who believe it: but what is it in the mouths of those
who teach it? The grave point in this matter is, that such equivocations
have so much shattered the faith of thoughtful laymen, that, in pro-
portion as they demand implicit submission, the belief in the whole system
of the ancient Church, and in Christianity itself, has vanished from the
minds of men, and from national literature. I say with Meier*, and with
ܪ
* Die Lehre von der Trinität.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
467
almost all German writers of note, that the doctrine of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost is the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, and that with-
out it Christianity, as a theological and as a philosophical system, cannot
rank much above Rabbinism and Mohammedanism. The definitions of
the ancient Church are good, so far as they are meant to exclude un-
christian or illogical imaginations, whether really or supposed to be
against the historical and philosophical groundwork of the Christian
faith. But they are imperfect, and have been foisted into Scripture and
into the early fathers by means of supposititious words and verses in the
New Testament, by forgeries in patristic literature, and by dishonest
or untenable readings and interpretations in both. Hippolytus, besides,
was a moderate man: he might have said on some points, Credibile licet
ineptum : he would never have exclaimed with Tertullian, Credibile qui a
ineptum.
I believe I have given materials for a faithful picture of Hippolytus ;
and I have shown that all we know of him, from the great work now dis-
covered, is in perfect harmony with what we read of him in other acknow-
ledged writings of his. But the greatest test, and, I think, the greatest
result, of our assertion, that the “Refutation of all the Heresies” was
written by Hippolytus, is its bearing on one of the most contested points
in the history of that time, and one of the principal arguments of the
Tubingen school respecting the late origin of the Gospel of St. John.
We have seen what a peculiar position Theodotus held in the develop-
ment of Christian doctrine about the middle of the third century. He
divested his speculations entirely of the dualism of Gnosticism, the bane of
Christianity. God, and God alone, was the creator and ruler of the universe.
As to the question of Christ, he accepted the preternatural procrea-
tion of Jesus, but maintained that the Christ united himself with Jesus
when the Spirit descended upon Him in baptism. I hope to show, in
another place, how Clemens of Alexandria in the East, and, thirty years
later, Hippolytus in the West (and in part Irenæus, his master), tried to
bring this system nearer to the Catholic doctrine, and thus to effect a
union between the historical Christ of the Church and the ideal Christ of
the philosophers: for that seems to me to be their relative position.
Hippolytus found very little learning in the Roman Church, and still less
spirit of speculation. They had been Monarchianists from the time of
Clemens, who was their first regular bishop, before the fourth Gospel was
written by St. John. There can be no reasonable doubt that the Roman
Church, as it adopted that Gospel, accepted the doctrine of the Logos.
But it is clear that this might be done without following the East in all
the metaphysical distinctions between the Logos, as the ideal self-con-
sciousness of God, and his embodiment in Jesus of Nazareth as a
historical person and true man; and without entering into that hybrid
question, mixed up of historical evidence and speculative reasoning,
whether and how far the idea of a hypostatic Son was to be placed
between that Logos and the historical Jesus. In a word, the Roman
doctrine was that of St. John's prologue ; but it was built upon the sub-
struction of a conception.of Christ, in which the historical and realistic
element prevailed over the idealistic. The doctrine, in the Roman Church,
was only subsidiary to government and discipline. That Church partook
Η Η 2
468
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
both of St. Peter and of St. Paul, but with a decided preponderance of the
Petrine spirit. The predominant function of their Christ was that of the
eternal highpriesthood. The metaphysical germs deposited in St. Paul's
epistles, particularly in those to the Ephesians and Colossians, had not
fructified in that Church. When the doctrine of the Sonship had been
developed to such a point, that it was necessary to come to more accurate
definitions respecting the Father and Son, the Monarchianist view
prevailed.
Now I do not believe that Zephyrinus, any more than Noetus himself,
thought that, in adopting a system which, if consistently carried out,
must have led to simple Patripassianism, he made any notable change in
the system of the Church. He might say, like Noetus, he only intended
to honour Christ. He said certainly (as we know from Hippolytus) that
those who opposed him "acknowledged two Gods," if, in acknowledging
Christ to be God, they did not allow God to be Christ. But certainly the
position which Zephyrinus and Callistus took and maintained in this
respect for almost a quarter of a century (twenty-three years), was a
turning-point in the doctrinal position of Rome.
The position of Hippolytus in this respect has its key in his great work,
but its further explanation in the “ Little Labyrinth." Both works ex-
plain each other, as the works of the same person alone can do.
So much on the doctrinal character of Hippolytus and of his writings.
As to the fanciful interpretations, both of Hippolytus and of Origen,
they differ in one point favourably from many orthodox interpretations in
modern times. There is almost always either some learning, or a philo-
sophical thought, a Christian idea, at the bottom. It is true, the con-
junction of that idea with the text is generally childish, arbitrary, and
sometimes absurd. But in the last 250 years we have had many quite as
arbitrary, and even as absurd interpretations, without the slightest chance
of any philosophical or even Christian idea, beyond homely moralisms
and truisms.
We observe the same characteristic features in the importance which
Hippolytus attaches to the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline among
the clergy. His severity in this respect, compared with the conduct of
Callistus, is individual; but this is only a difference in degree. His ec-
clesiastical polity may be termed Presbyterianism, as asserting the right,
which the presbyters, as a body, claimed against the bishops, in matters
of general interest, at least as far as a full veto. To understand this
polity, we must recollect that Presbyterianism had already earned its well-
deserved reward for having cooperated with Episcopalianism in excluding
the laity more and more from the legislation and administration of the
Church; a tendency and a success of which I have traced the different
phases in the East and West during the second century in my
6 Letters
on Ignatius.” The clergy had obtained the government of the Church :
with regard to the election of bishops (and of the bishop of Rome more
particularly), the primitive right of the laity was preserved in name only,
but in practice was either a consent by acclarnation, or a tumultuous veto.
There was no municipal organization of parishes and dioceses for that
purpose: indeed the organization of masses solely for the purposes of
election, without other rights, is a delusion or a deception in every polity
whether civil or ecclesiastical.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
469
Things had much changed, in this respect also, at Rome during the
four generations which separated Clemens, the first regular Roman
bishop, from Callistus. When, about twenty years before the Gospel of
St. John was written, the Corinthians thought fit to supersede some
elderly presbyters by new ones, notwithstanding their protests that they
held their office for life by apostolic institution, Clemens of Rome, in a
very sensible letter, contented himself with advising them to let that
order of things remain, and to respect the well-founded right of those
venerable elders. The Philippians appear to have continued to live
under the same aristocratic constitution about the middle of the second
century, when Polycarp addressed his epistle to them. But in the latter
part of that century almost the whole Christian world adopted the Epis-
copalian system. This system must be considered in its idea, on the
whole, as the prototype of the Germanic constitutional monarchy; for
both suppose, by the side of a collegiate and a popular power, the right of
a governing individual, entitled and qualified to oppose his free veto in
legislative decisions, at least so far as to secure his not being forced to
act against his conscience. It is no less true that the adoption of this
system saved Christianity at the time from the greatest perils, than that
its degeneracy crippled the energies of the Church. The balance of power
was soon overthrown. Of the three constitutional elements, two were
clerical, and the third had neither a congregational nor a synodical or-
ganization. In consequence, the whole power fell into the hands of the
clergy. The presbyters became priests; the office of administrative elders
was merged in that of liturgic presbyters; and the ministers of Christ
and of the Church (ékkinoia) began to appear as sacrificial mediators. The
bishops drew the great prizes in the lottery, and the bishop of Rome the
greatest. I think I have fully established these points, and other colla-
teral ones, in my“ Letters on Ignatius.” But our information as to the
details of this process in the diocese of Rome was very scanty. We gain
very valuable additions on this point from our work.
In the time of Callistus the power of the bishop of Rome was already
more absolute than constitutional. Although the bishop's office was of
course elective, the clergy in ordinary times had it altogether in their
hands; and although legislation was, as far as the form went, vested in a
collegiate body — in the presbytery, or the body of presbyters, presided
over by the bishop, -and the judicial power entirely so, the real govern-
ment of the Church was in the hands of the bishop. According to Hip-
polytus, Callistus asserted that a bishop could never be deposed by the
presbytery, or obliged to abdicate, even though he committed a sin unto
death. Hippolytus mentions this as a proof of a theory of Church-go-
vernment, which he deemed neither constitutional nor tending to improve
public or private morals. All weighty affairs evidently passed still
through the presbytery. We have, in Cornelius' letter about Novatian,
the official list of the clergy of the city of Rome (Euseb. H. E. vi. 43.).
This letter being of the year 250, the presbytery can scarcely have dif-
fered, in its principal features, from that of which Hippolytus was a
member some twenty years earlier. There were under Cornelius at Rome
forty-two priests and seven deacons. The number of the latter is that of
the ecclesiastical regions, as I have shown in the “Description of Rome.”
II H 3
470
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.”
ON THE
The number of the presbyters undoubtedly indicates the number of the
Cbristian meeting-houses in the city. Optatus Milevitanus, fifty years
later, under Diocletian, gives their number as forty and upwards. These
persons, therefore, formed the presbytery. According to the thirty-fifth
Apostolical Canon, the bishops of the suburban towns, including Portus,
also formed at that time an integral part of the Roman presbytery, called
in later times the College of Cardinals. I believe I have, moreover, ren-
dered it more than probable above, that the origin of that institution can
only be explained by the position which those cities, and Portus in parti-
cular, occupied in the second and third centuries. That body consisted
then of the parish priests of Rome, and of the suburban bishops, exactly
as the College of Cardinals does now; only that the deacons of the
Roman Church had probably a more subordinate position at that time
than that of their nominal successors, the Cardinal Deacons. Indeed this
Presbyterian form was still existing at the end of the sixteenth century,
when pope Sixtus V. found it convenient to divide the College into
boards (called Congregations), without any but a consulting vote.
The system of government in the year 220 was naturally only one of
transition, particularly at Rome. Practice and theory differed. But the
issue could not be doubtful, so long as the political state of the world was
not changed, a fresh race introduced, and the national element raised in
independent and intelligent Christian states.
The system of discipline in the Church of Rome as to the marriage of
presbyters was very much like that which now prevails in the Greek
Church. The evangelical liberty confirmed by the example of the apostles,
and that of many illustrious bishops in the second century, had gradually
been infringed. There was, in conformity with Canons 17-19, no vow
of celibacy: but it was not thought conformable with St. Paul's saying,
“A presbyter should be the husband of one wife,” that a presbyter who
lost his wife should marry again so long as he kept his office. From this
the inference was drawn, that he who had a second or a third wife, ought
not, strictly speaking, to be made a presbyter. The next step was, that
he who had been ordained presbyter when unmarried, should not marry
during that office. It was on this point more particularly that Hippolytus
was at issue with bishop Callistus, who made no difficulty in ordaining,
as presbyters, men who had a second or a third wife, or in allowing
unmarried presbyters to marry and keep their office. We see that in
this respect also the age of Hippolytus was one of transition. There
were different ways before the Church, She might have struck out some
middle course between the two systems of Callistus and Hippolytus, and
then would probably have come to something like the system of the
Greek Church in Russia, where a parish priest must be a married man,
having his first wife ; so much so, that at her death he is expected to
retire and go into a convent, the place out of which bishops are generally
taken. The majority of the bishops, assembled at Nice in 325, first (as
Socrates says in his “Ecclesiastical History") introduced a new law,
forbidding bishops, priests, and deacons, who were married men, to keep
their office, unless they would give up married life. This regulation soon
grew into a general custom, notwithstanding the strong Christian and
moral opposition of the venerable bishop Paphnutius, and became the basis
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
471
of still greater encroachments in later times, in spite of the moral reluct-
ance of the Germanic nations.
In the time of Hippolytus the ecclesiastical office was so far from
giving an indelible character, that neither a presbyter nor a bishop would
have been prevented from quitting his office, and marrying like any other
Christian. That whole theory of the canonists is of a later date. The
learned Christian kept his pallium, the philosopher's cloak, when he
accepted an office in the Church, which might be that of an episcopos, as
well as of a presbyter. He kept the old pallium, when he retired from
the office.
Such, I think, were on the whole the opinions of Hippolytus, as our
lately discovered book and his other writings clearly show. Such was
his social position as a bishop, and as a member of the Roman presbytery :
and such was the Christian and clerical world in which he occupied so
conspicuous a place.
We know so little of the particulars of his life, that we must form our
ideas of his character chiefly from his writings, and from the high repute
and authority attached to his name both in the Western and the Eastern
Church. An anonymous Greek cotemporary of Chrysostom calls him,
the most sweet and most benevolent (ydukútatoç kai eivoúotatos): Jerome,
66 vir disertissimus."
If I were to sum up his character as a writer in a few words, I should
say that Hippolytus was not an original writer, but a well-read and judi-
cious compiler. He delighted in transferring useful facts from older
authors into his own books, and in introducing Greek ideas into the Latin
church. Thus he dealt with Irenæus and Josephus. I suspect he has
done the same with Hegesippus, in the historical account of the lives of
the Apostles and of the Apostolic age, which is quoted as by Hippolytus,
and which, I have endeavoured to show, formed part of his “ Chronicle."
This point seems to me more particularly proved by some coincidences in
the opinions of Hippolytus with the "Fragmentum Muratorianum," a
fragment, however, ill translated, of the historical work of Hegesippus,
written about 165. How great the merit of Hippolytus is in transcribing
whole passages from the writings of the ancient heretics, instead of giving
us merely garbled extracts from them, we have seen through the whole of
our inquiry in the second letter. But there is another circumstance
which should not be passed over in silence. From the very dawn of Ca.
tholic literature, beginning with Hermas, the Shepherd, - that good but
not very attractive novel, which, Niebuhr used to say, he pitied the Athe-
nian Christians for being obliged to hear read in their meetings, it had
been the object of the Christian writers to render the Greek and Roman
mind, by degrees, independent of the writings of the heathen philosophers,
and to create a Catholic literature and library, more particularly for the
use of children and of catechumens. It was therefore very natural for
Hippolytus to transfer all he wanted from Sextus Empiricus to his own
books. To quote Gentile writers for good things taken from them was
not required by Catholic honesty. They were considered fair game, and
plundered. So was Josephus falsified, before Eusebius' time; so were
the Greek fathers by their later epitomizers and translators, St. Ambrose
and Cassiodorus.
ин 4
472
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
But with all this, Hippolytus was far the most gifted and diligent en-
quirer in the Western Church of his time. A worthy disciple of Irenæus,
he surpassed the Apostle of the Gauls in method and in knowledge, and
did much to diffuse through the Western Church that light which the
Greek Irenæus had kindled in the unphilosophical West. I am inclined
to believe that the influence of Hippolytus in this respect was very great.
His having been a Roman by birth, or at least from his youth up a
member of the Roman Church, contributed much to this influence. Rome
was, and continued, not only the mistress of the world, but also the centre
of communication between the East and the West. Every aspiring talent in
the Church, every new doctrine striving after notoriety, thronged to Rome.
Christian Rome preserved the instinctive talent for government and order,
as well as the inferiority in science and in intellectuality, which are peculiar
to the Roman mind compared with the Greek. The education of Hippo-
lytus, under Irenæus, brought him into contact with the Greek mind : he
may even bave known Origen; and he had certainly read Clemens of
Alexandria, although it is a fable, whether invented or picked up some-
where by Cave, that he was his disciple. His residence at Portus, then the
harbour of the civilised world, and rendered undoubtedly, like Alexandria,
agreeable to the visitors by temples erected for all foreign religions and
forms of worship, must, with such preparations and such talents and zeal,
have contributed as much to increase his knowledge as his influence. He
there became the “Bishop of the Nations,” as he was, most probably,
called in his lifetime. For that this title is mentioned by Photius as
given to Caius the presbyter, is, as we have seen, only a consequence of
his having taken Caius to be the author of the treatise about the “ Cause
of the Universe.” What he knew was, that this author was made a
bishop of the Gentiles. Consequently, this was a title given to Hippo-
lytus. As to the extent of his reading and study, it is certainly far
beyond that of a thoroughbred native Roman. His knowledge extended
to mathematics, physical science, and astronomy. It is true, that his
Paschal cycle of 112 (7x16) years is very incorrect; but he was the first
person who gave any to the Western Church. He inquired into physical
problems and mechanical contrivances, to discover and unmask the
gabblers and jugglers of the age. His knowledge of Greek literature
and philosophy was far greater than that of Irenæus, or of any of his
Western cotemporaries, the African Tertullian not excepted. In short,
Hippolytus followed up at Rome the Alexandrian doctrine and position
of Pantænus and Clemens, and was the predecessor of Origen, whom he
certainly did not equal in learning, depth, and speculative power, any
more than in his somewhat Oriental eccentricity.
There is one peculiar feature in Hippolytus, which we must not over-
look, if we wish to understand the place he occupied in his age. He was
the first preacher of note whom the Church of Rome ever produced.
There were no homilies by a bishop of the Church of Rome known before
those of Leo the Great, who mounted the episcopal cathedra in the year
440. This is a curious, but indisputable fact. Clemens, the only learned
Roman bishop of the old time, wrote an epistle, but no homily: which
perhaps was the reason why so many homilies were forged under his
Caius and Hippolytus are the first ecclesiastical authors men-
name.
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
473
tioned as Romans: and of these two Caius the presbyter wrote polemical
and critical treatises, but no homilies. This is what Sozomen says, in
that at first sight startling passage of his “Ecclesiastical History
(vii. 19.), published a few years before Leo became bishop of Rome. His
words are: “In the city of Rome no bishop, nor any body else, has
preached.” Now there can be no doubt that, during all that period at
Rome, as in all other churches, the Gospel, when read to the people in
their parish churches, was explained to them. But these were popular
expositions, not works of science and eloquence, like those of the Eastern
fathers and bishops ; and therefore they were never published. Hippo-
lytus made an exception to this: the ancient writers quote a number of
his homilies: the homiletic address seems even to have been his favourite
form of treating exegetical and polemical subjects. But in all this he
merely followed Origen, whose exegetical works are in part, as we know,
in the form of short essays or meditations on a text, concluding with the
doxology. In popularising Greek thought and science at Rome, Hippo-
lytus elevated the Roman parish sermon to a learned homily; and this is
perhaps the real purport of the story, that he preached a sermon in the
presence of Origen. It is natural that in Sozomen's time the history of
Hippolytus, veiled and smothered at Rome, was not much known in the
East: but it is surprising that Neander does not even name Hippolytus,
when he speaks of the distinguished writers of the early Roman Church.
He names only Caius, and the very doubtful Novatian (i. 1176.). It
must be by an oversight that he regrets the loss of Hippolytus' homily on
the festival of the Theophany, which is extant and printed in the edition
of Fabricius (i. 261–264.), and of undoubted authenticity. But the
sermon which, Jerome says, he preached before Origen, he calls a
sermon in praise of the Saviour; and we have no reason to believe that
it was this.
His life, as well as his writings, shows a man of stronger feelings than
Origen had, but, like him, honest, and a man of rigorous morals. He
lived a laborious life for his fellow-creatures, both as a student and
teacher, and as a practical man. He became a martyr for his faith, and
possibly for his honesty; and, dying for his faith, he died for the religion
of the spirit, and for the liberty of conscience, and the future freedom of
mankind. For that was the great struggle of those times. Peace be with
his memory, and honour to his virtue and piety !
I consider the picture I have endeavoured to draw of Hippolytus to be
historically true, and borne out by incontrovertible facts; and I believe
that, on the whole, my judgment as to the value of his writings will be
found impartial But I cannot conceal from myself, that I see little
prospect of having my portrait as well understood and as much liked as I
wish.
I am fully aware that some persons will think, I have not treated
Hippolytus with the respect due to a sainted father of the Latin Church,
For to certain persons every such father speaks with a share of the
collective infallibility of a synodical clergy; and these patristic idolaters
are strongly inclined to impose such an authority upon us in matters of
fact, no less than in metaphysical formularies. We are to submit to
those fathers, if they assert something as a historical fact, which we have
474
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES."
ON THE
very good reasons for not giving credit to, or which we know to be un-
true; and as to metaphysical theories, we are to receive their opinions
with the greater respect, the more they are contrary to the reasoning
power to which they appeal. When these theologians, unworthy of the
name of Protestants, of thinkers, and of historians, speak of the para-
mount weight of their concordant interpretations, they ignore, or do not
know, that, on all questions of Scriptural and primitive Christianity
which are now doubtful to us, the ancient writers were in as much un-
certainty as we are. The writers of the fourth century generally con-
tradict those of the second, who were in part witnesses, or reported
credible evidence and plausible traditions; whereas those later fathers
were only critics, and most of them very indifferent and biassed ones.
For they often proceed from systems, historical and doctrinal, which
strongly impair their qualifications for being judges, and still more show
their unfitness for being set up as infallible models of criticism. If then
to criticize the fathers is to show them disrespect, these later fathers have
themselves shown it to their predecessors. The much trumpeted saying,
“ Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,” is a silly truism in the
sense of those idolaters of the letter, and, if taken in the sense in which it
is true, destroys their system and their authority.
To criticisms or contradictions from this quarter I am resolved not to
answer a word, either as regards historical points or speculative ones : for
these persons do not go by facts, but by system ; they do not appeal to
truth, but to authority; and they reason as if they had searched for truth
only to betray it when found. They give no argument, or none worth a
serious refutation : and no argument shall they ever have from me.
There is a second class of persons, who may wish to judge Hippolytus
freely and fairly; but who, I am afraid, do not sufficiently regard the
immediate object of the researches of the fathers, and forget that history
and historical truth are at issue with our historical faith in the funda-
mental notions of early Christianity. Of these, I am afraid, many will
blame me for having made too much of the writings of Hippolytus, and
will maintain that I have overrated the value and importance of his histo-
rical writings. Some may even imagine they are saying something, if
they render men like Hippolytus and Irenæus ridiculous. It is true, that
Gibbon likes sometimes to ridicule men of this sort in his, on the whole,
admirable and wonderful work. But this is the tribute he paid to an
idealess and conceited age ; and they who think they must either adopt
this view, or follow the superstitious line, are not aware that in so doing
they are the representatives of a defunct period, and of a bankrupt
system of the philosophy of history. They are men of the past; and
their general view of literature, poetry, and philosophy, is nothing but
the caput mortuum of a so-called philosophy, centring in blind self-suf-
ficiency. The age which produced it knew how to deny and to destroy,
but never even tried to produce and to rebuild; it attacked falsehood,
without giving truth; and it brought forth no other final result than a
judicially blind reaction, and produced in poor worried humanity a morbid
tendency to seek refuge and salvation in exploded superstitions, and in
hollow and impotent formularies of the past. I have always thought, that
they have little sense of the future, who cannot look upon the past except
HIPPOLYTUS' LIFE AND WRITINGS.
475
1
through the coloured spectacles of their own conceit, or that of their age
But, as I have already hinted at the beginning of my letters, seeing that
there are on that side not only men who think little of the wisdom of the
old fathers, and much of that of their own party, but also men really
anxious for truth, although not sufficiently acquainted with facts, nor con-
versant with critical inquiry, still less with the method of intellectual spe-
culation, I am desirous to find a way to their minds and hearts, in order
to prove to them, that there may be much excellence in individuals, and
great value in their testimony, in spite of errors and blunders belonging
to their age, which appear to us ridiculous, if not offensive. Historical
criticism is neither a party question, nor the business of dilettanti : it re-
quires the earnestness and the conscientiousness of a judge. I know
very well that Hippolytus has not treated bishop Callistus much more
courteously than Luther did Henry VIII. ; and I think, there is in Hip-
polytus' controversy against Callistus, the appearance of the odium theo-
logicum, and personal bitterness and irritation, which is certainly not
conformable with the ideal of a “perfect Christian temper.” But what
has that, after all, to do with his truth, and with his facts ? It must make
the historian cautious not to take his judgment in this matter as unbiassed
and impartial; but it is mere sentimentality or hypocrisy to determine by
this standard the judgment upon the great question at issue. And this I
conceive simply to be, - whether the man was good and honest (humanly
speaking), or a fool and rogue. No man is both; and every historical
character is either the one or the other. I do not know what are consi-
dered the ingredients in a canonized martyr, a sainted ecclesiastical writer
and bishop. But I confess that, if moral indignation against wickedness
and falsehood is not one, I must look for bright patterns of what is good
and great among the classical heathens, or among common Christians.
As to my own taste, since nothing human is perfect, I prefer good, strong
indignation infinitely to an impotent indifference, and to mawkish hypo-
crisy. The man who will not attack a falsehood, will not defend truth;
and he who dares not call a knave a knave (whether he be his bishop or
brother-bishop or not), will not treat tyranny as tyranny, when the cause
of Christian truth is attacked by force. Yet it was for doing this that the
martyrs died, from Hippolytus to Ridley. Nor do I see how any man
can speak too strongly, when he is defending truth against wickedness.
This was not the view of the middle ages: Thomas Aquinas was not
deemed less wise or less holy by Dante and others of his worshippers, for
having intimated clearly enough what he thought of tyrants like Charles
of Anjou.
But he ought not to have been so personal against Callistus.”
" And how do you know,” I should answer to such an assertion,
was personal feeling, personal bitterness, personal obstinacy, that made
Hippolytus so indignant ? and that it was not the love of truth, and of
the Christian people, and of his own Church, that made him write the
ecclesiastical memoirs of the Roman presbytery of that time ?” Respect
for authority is something; but respect for truth is more. Socrates (to
judge from similar expressions of his) would not have thought that Hip-
polytus possessed the highest Attic grace in exposing the wickedness of
Callistus; but he might have said, that, for a man imbued with Judaic
66 that it
476
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.
ON THE
barbarism, he expressed himself tolerably well, and that, on the whole, he
gave him the impression of a Godfearing man, wishing to do good to his
fellow-believers and fellow-men.
Considering all these difficulties with which the subject is beset, I
should find myself very much embarrassed if I were to close my re-
searches at this stage of my inquiry. Whatever I may have done in these
letters to show the importance of the discovery, and to vindicate the cha-
racter of Hippolytus where I think him right, I am sure few will take the
trouble to go through the details; and, if I were to stop here, I should
certainly not do what I ought at least to attempt, in behalf of an author,
whose historical worth I have undertaken to represent, and whom there-
fore I must bring in contact with our own times.
In another place I have rendered account of what I intend to say from
a more general point of view, and justified the fiction to which I have
been obliged to have recourse. I have endeavoured to let Hippolytus
speak for himself, as he would if, hearing that his principal work had
been stolen from him, and printed at Oxford under the name of Origen,
he had come to England to plead his cause before the English public ge-
nerally. He might then, I think, supposing him to write, not in his
stately way, but indulging here and there a little in his innocent humour,
address his critics and judges in this country in something like the Speech
which I put into his mouth.
The final object of all historical criticism is to make a historical cha-
racter of a long past age become to us a living, and as it were a speaking,
image. But in a case like ours, the hero of our critical inquiry and his
age must also become a mirror to us and to our age. We must see how
we should have appeared to them. We have the same faith in common,
although our language, and our rites, and our formularies, and our go-
vernment differ widely. We must translate their language into ours;
and then we may confidently hope to see in them a faithful mirror of our
own condition, of our advantages and hopes, our defects and dangers.
This is the problem. He must speak to us, as he was, and felt, and
thought: and I must make him speak thus in a language which is neither
his nor, mine. I cannot hope to succeed as I wish in such an attempt:
but I may hope to give you, and other English friends of Hippolytus,
some materials for doing better what I have attempted, in despair of
being able to draw a perfect historical picture of him and his age.
My last request to you therefore, my dearest friend, is, that you will
read whatever I have further to say, with the same kindness which you
have shown to these letters.
And now there remains for me only one task more; and that is the
most agreeable to me. I have to thank you, my dear friend, not only for
the highly instructive attention you have so kindly bestowed upon the
letters I have had the happiness to write to you, but for having moreover
dedicated a loving godfather's care to my poor naked child. Your in-
valuable library has furnished me with indispensable books, for which I
had looked in vain in the British Museum. Your erudition and sagacity
have still more effectually assisted me in many difficult points of so com-
plicated a research, which I am obliged to carry on hurriedly, in the midst
of a London season, and that of the Exhibition. But, above all, by your
kind sympathy you have encouraged me to render my researches as com-
OPINIONS IN
477
ECCLESIASTIC."
plete as I can, and the expression of my own personal convictions as
explicit as the occasion seems to require. For all this kindness, accept,
my dearest friend, the sincere thanks of
Yours ever faithfully,
BUNSEN.
POSTSCRIPT.
Carlton Terrace, July 26, 1851.
Having carried my letters, this day, so far through the press, that I
have been able to submit the printed sheets of the whole to you, I think
it right to add a few words on two able articles upon the same subject,
which have appeared since I wrote my letters; one in the last number of
the “Quarterly Review," and the other in the June and July numbers of
the “Ecclesiastic." The ingenious and elegant author of the former
article has waived the question of the Origenian or non-Origenian author-
ship, and limited himself to consider the work as an undoubtedly authentic
and highly interesting specimen of the historical and ecclesiastical litera-
ture of the beginning of the third century. This article is well calculated
to excite the attention of the public; and the metrical versions of the beau-
tiful lyrical fragments betoken a consummate scholar and an elegant poet.
The writer of the article in the “ Ecclesiastic" has gone into the ques-
tion of the authorship with learning and acuteness. Convinced of the
genuineness of the work, he is equally convinced that Origen cannot have
written it, and that it must have been written at Rome: he thinks that
Caius the presbyter is the author. But the main part of his discussion is
directed to the first point, that the book is not and cannot be Origen's ;
and he has brought forward many excellent arguments to prove this. He
shows that Origen, knowing what his writings indicate he did about the
Ebionites, could not have repeated the common opinion as to their origin
and tenets, which our author relates, following Irenæus (2d Art. p. 50.).
He also observes very ingeniously, that, if Origen had known what our
book states respecting the cropping of the ears employed by the Carpo-
cratians, he would not have had recourse to the unfortunate conjecture by
which he tries to throw suspicion on some remarks of Celsus against the
Christians on this score (ib. p. 51.). Nor can one escape this difficulty
by saying that our work was written in the early part of his life, before
his book against Celsus, in which the expressions just alluded to occur.
For our learned author proves, that, if our work was by Origen, it must
have been written at a very late period. We know from Eusebius (vii.
38.) that Origen became acquainted with the Ebionites and wrote against
them towards the close of his life (therefore at least 30 years after his
short stay at Rome), and when the sect was expiring. The author of our
work, on the contrary, knew and opposed them at Rome, when they were
influential and strong.
All this is in confirmation of the negative part of my argument, that
the book was not written by Origen. But I have mainly followed out the
positive argument, that it was written at Rome, and by Hippolytus. The
author of the articles agrees with me, as far as Origen is concerned. He
478
REFUTATION OF ALL AERESIES.”
ON THE
is moreover fully convinced that the book points to Rome, and to a dis-
ciple of Irenæus.* I cannot help flattering myself that a further con-
sideration of this matter by so competent a judge and so accurate a
scholar, will lead him to an equal certainty as to the other point, -that
our work was not written by Caius, to whom nobody attributes such a
work, but by Hippolytus, whose volume with the same title, arrangement,
and contents, Photius had before him. As to the unfortunate hypothesis
that Origen wrote the work against the heresies, the writer of those
articles makes the acute remark, that the view of the author of the treatise
on the Universe (who must be the same with the author of our book),
respecting the immutability of the state of the wicked after death, is in-
compatible with Origen's notions on the subject.
By the side of such criticism, I can only attribute it to an oversight of
the moment, that the writer, in animadverting on the blunder made by
the editor respecting the martyrdom of Callistus under Fuscianus, in-
dulges in the equally incredible supposition (p. 59.), that Hippolytus
speaks of two different persons, both bearing the name of Callistus, - the
man scourged under Fuscianus about the year 190, and the successor of
Zephyrinus, whom Callistus did actually succeed in the year 217. The
whole account given by Hippolytus centres so entirely in the circumstance
that Callistus, the swindler, became first as we should say, Cardinal-Vicar,
and then Pope, that it is needless to quote the passages in which the
author says, that the same Callistus, of whom he had been speaking all
the time, obtained, after the death of Zephyrinus, what he had been hunt-
ing for all his life, and was made bishop of Rome. I cannot but agree
with him that it would have been better, that the University of Oxford
should not have had the appearance of sanctioning such a mistake as the
attributing of this work to Origen. But I do not see how the University
can fairly be made responsible for this false title. As to the directors of
the Clarendon Press, I entertain a hope, and beg to express it with sincere
respect, that, even if the venerable Dean of Christchurch, Dr. Gaisford,
to whom ecclesiastical as well as classical philology already owes so much,
should not feel himself moved to present us with a new edition, that noble
institution will not hold itself pledged to the opinion of the learned editor,
if he should persevere in that opinion. I trust that they will be glad to
* I am happy to mention, with respect to this point, a very acute observation
made by the learned writer of these articles. Having observed the relation of the
19th chapter of the 2d book of Irenæus to the “ Philosophumena :' (I am afraid,
without doing justice to the immense improvement on Irenæus by our author, both
in research and in method), he remarks that our author has almost copied from
Irenæus the following passage found in that chapter:
Quæ apud omnes qui Deum ignorant et que dicuntur philosophi sunt dicta,
hæc congregant et quasi centonem ex multis pessimis panniculis consarcientes," &c.
The corresponding passage of our book is found in the beginning of the fifth book
(p. 24. 26.): 'Αφ' ών τας αφορμές μετασχόντες οι αιρεσιάρχαι, δίκην παλαιογράφων συγ-
καττύσαντες προς τον ίδιον νούν τα των παλαίων σφάλματα ως καινα παρέθεσαν τοις πλα-
νασθαι δυναμένοις. As to the supposition that Clemens of Alexandria copied a passage
(Strom. vii. end, p. 700. Gr.) from Irenæus (v. 8.), I cannot help thinking that the
writer has mentioned this groundless conjecture merely to show that he was aware of it,
not that he himself shares the absurd opinion that Clemens copied, or could have
copied, Irenæus. Two authors of the same time may hit, independently of each
other, on an absurd interpretation, as well as on a reasonable one.
PROFESSOR JACOBI'S OPINION.
479
become instrumental in placing a new critical edition soon before the
public, not only of this misnamed book, but of all the works of Hippolytus,
among which, I trust, will be included the “Little Labyrinth," and the
" Treatise on the Substance of the Universe.” Thus the University, and
the literary world, and Saint Hippolytus himself, will receive the best
satisfaction for the printing of his most instructive work at the Oxford
University Press under a false title.
B.
SECOND POSTSCRIPT.
Carlton Terrace, 24th August.
Whilst finally revising these sheets for the press, I have received from
Germany a series of five articles on our book, inserted in some late num-
bers (21st June to 19th July) of the Berlin weekly ecclesiastical periodi-
cal, “Deutsche Zeitschrift für christliche Wissenschaft und christliches
Leben.” They are written by Professor Jacobi, a disciple and follower
of Neander, know by his “Handbook of the History of the Church.” I
am happy to see that the learned writer has come to the same results as
far as Origen is concerned. He says it is impossible to ascribe to him
the authorship of the work published at Oxford. His arguments are, that
nobody ever attributed a work with this title or contents to Origen ; that,
if he had executed his purpose of treating on the heresies and on the
ancient philosophical doctrines, he would have done it in a very different
manner; that the style of our work is as unlike that of Origen, as the
whole method and view of the inquiry, and that this is true in the most
eminent degree of the Confession of Faith. In going through the last
argument, the author, I believe, has misunderstood the text, in making
our author say, man had no mind or intellect (voữ). There are indeed
in our text some words which at first sight imply such an absurdity ; but,
as we have seen, this appearance is founded upon an untenable reading.
Professor Jacobi also admits, that the writer must have lived a con-
siderable time at Rome, and names Caius and Hippolytus as the most
probable authors. But Caius (according to him) cannot be the author of
the work, if Eusebius' account of him is true : in particular, he could not
ascribe the Apocalypse to St. John.
Why then, asks Professor Jacobi, should not the book be the work of
Hippolytus of Portus, whose death is described by Prudentius, and on
whose statue the titles of many of those writings are engraved, which
antiquity quotes as works of Hippolytus, and of which we possess fray-
ments ? He inclines to think with Gieseler (and Kimmel) that this Hip-
polytus had been brought up at Antioch or Alexandria. He doubts
whether Portus can at that time have had a bishop; whereas I think, if it
had not had one at that time, when a town was synonymous with a diocese,
it would never have had any. It would have been made a part of Ostia,
whose suburb it may almost be said to have formed: whereas down to the
present moment both titles are kept up as distinct, from time immemorial.
As to the assertion of Prudentius, that Hippolytus had been a Novatian
at an earlier period, he thinks this must be understood of the earliest part
of Novatianism, although he allows that our book makes no mention
480
REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES.'
ON THE
whatever either of Novatus or of Novatianism. After having rejected
the absurd ideá, that Novatian himself might be the author, he asks
whether the work named on the cathedra, Ipòs "Elinvas, which he trans-
lates “ Against the Hellenes,” might not mean our work ? As to the
book on Antichrist, he thinks ch. xlix. points to the time of Gallienus,
whereas Hippolytus must have died before Gallienus (261), and before
the persecution of Valerian (257). What startles him chiefly is, that the
quotation in the letter of bishop Peter of Alexandria about the Quarto-
decimans is not found in our book.
As to the epoch in which it was written, he fixes the time between 225
and 250.
Finally, the author gives his remarks on the importance of our work.
Besides the advantage, that it enriches our knowledge of the internal his-
tory of the ancient Church, Professor Jacobi, faithful to the views of his
great master, calls the attention of the reader principally to two points.
The one is, that the extracts from Basilides and other ancient authors
prove that the fourth Gospel was commented upon early under Hadrian
The second, that the circumstance of Zephyrinus and Callistus having
inclined towards the Patripassian views, affords us the unknown fact re-
specting a change which took place in the doctrine of the Church of Rome
under Zephyrinus. Professor Jacobi is led by these two facts to the same
conclusion, to which I have come at the same time, independently of him,
--that the whole historical scheme of the Tubingen school about the late
origin of the fourth Gospel, the Ebionitism of the Roman Church before
Zephyrinus, and the decisive influence of Montanism upon her dogmatical
development, is now proved to be erroneous, as it always appeared to
Neander, whose views are confirmed in their essential points. As to the
nature of the controversy with Callistus, the following words (p. 234.)
seem to me to state the case in a concise and striking manner:
“ The stricter doctrine of subordination, on which our anthor insists,
did not satisfy Callistus, whose mind was directed with predilection to the
Unity of the Father and the Son. Even a representation, which goes so
much beyond Ebionitism and Artemonitism, appeared too poor to Callistus
and the Roman congregation. Our author, in his turn, identifies Callis-
tus more than is just with the Patripassians, in like manner as in later
times the Homoûsion and Sabellianism were confounded. How remark-
able, that thus, at the beginning of the second century, we meet within
the Roman congregation the same antagonism, in which, at a later period
(260), we find Dionysius the bishop of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria
engaged ! Callistus, as we learn now, had already excommunicated
Sabellius, then living at Rome: and him Dionysius of Alexandria also
combats. On the other side, Callistus followed with a decided step the
tendency towards the Homoûsion, in opposition to the old theory of the
subordination of the Logos. We therefore see that the development of
the Trinitarian doctrine did not take place at Rome so peaceably as was
supposed hitherto. But it is remarkable, that, as that Church never al-
lowed the Ebionite theory to predominate, so in the time of the Roman
Dionysius it had already within its own limits gone through that struggle,
which was soon to shake the entire Church to its foundation, and it had,
at an early period, taken the course which may be designated as the
PROFESSOR JACOBI'S OPINION.
481
Trinitarian, by upholding the Homoûsion against Subordinationism, but
to the exclusion of Sabellianism."
The points of difference between Professor Jacobi and myself are there-
fore of minor importance, whereas we agree on all the essential ones :
and we have arrived at our conclusions without knowing of each other.
I flatter myself I have removed the difficulties which led that learned
man still to entertain doubts as to the authorship and life of Hippolytus.
At the same time that I received from Germany these articles of Pro-
fessor Jacobi, I learned by an article of Professor Schneidewin in the last
number of his “ Philologus," on the fragments of Empedocles contained
in our work, that the friend of that eminent critic, Dr. Duncker, of the
University of Göttingen, is prepared to prove that our book is not the
work of Origen, but of Hippolytus. If further intelligence respecting
the researches in Germany on our subjects reach me in time, I will give
a report of them.* In the mean time; the hitherto identical result of all
inquiries, perfectly independent of each other, seems to augur well for
the course I have taken.
* Nov. 17. The “Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen" of this quarter contains, in Nos.
152–155., an article on the Oxford publication, written by Dr. Duncker. The
author, after having given a detailed account of the contents, declares briefly that
Hippolytus must be the author, and promises to prove this assertion in the new
edition of the work which he and Professor Schneidewin are preparing. Professor
Lommatzsch and Doctor Thiersch are come to the same conclusion.- Postscript,
12th June, 1854. I just learn that the new edition of the “ Refutation” is already in
the press.
VOL. I.
II
APPENDIX
THE FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS COLLEOTED BY
CARDINAL MAI.
(See page 431.)
CARDINAL MAI has had the good sense to adorn the first volume of his “ Scriptorum
Veterum nova Collectio” (Rom. 1825, 4to) with the statue of Hippolytus (p. v.),
and to explain (p. xxxv.) the incorrect Greek expression, “ Bishop of Rome,” in the
superscription of those extracts, by the circumstance that he was bishop of the
harbour of Rome, which they mistook for Rome itself. In the second part of the
same volume he gives, in a Catena about Daniel (p. 161-222.), such fragments of
the book of Hippolytus on this subject as were hitherto inedited. There are in the
Catenæ, extracted in the continuation of this colossal work, fragments of other
works, mostly exegetical, of Hippolytus. Of all these I give here a list which I
believe to be complete, and the text itself wherever they appear to me to be of im-
portance on account of their contents. They are the following :
Page
169, v. 3. 5.
170. v. 10. 14.
172. v. 29.
173, v. 31, ai nuokparlal al Mémovo ai glyverbal, &c.; to be compared with the cor-
responding passage in the book on the Antichrist.
175. y. 33, 34.
177. v, 13.
178. v. 46.: where Mai calls the attention of the reader to the fact, that the Com-
mentary of Hippolytus was in the form of a homily; a direct confirmation of
what I have generally observed on this subject. Compare also Mai's note, p. 184.
179. v. 48. 49. and 1.
180. v. 7.
181. v. 16. 19.
184. v. 3.
189. v. 93. Compare Mai's note 3.
199. y. 1, 2, 3.
200. v. 4. 5 (ter). He quotes here the “preceding book” (section), dy tñ tpd
ταύτης βίβλω. .
201, v. 6.
202. v. 6, 7.
209. v. 7.
204. v. 8.
205. v. 18. Here occurs a phrase which is very significant for the Christology of
Hippolytus. In explanation of the remarkable expression of Daniel, “ the
Old of the days," Hippolytus observes: Παλαιόν μεν ουν ημερών ουχ έτερον
λέγει αλλ' ή τον απάντων κύριον και Θεόν και δεσπότην, τον και αυτού του Χριστού
(sc. deotátny). God, therefore, is named here the Lord and God and Master
of all, “ also of Christ himself.” This is a new illustration of the sense and
true reading of the difficult, but important, passage at the end of the “ Refuta-
tion," whicb I have discussed in note to p. 392. Analecta, vol. i.
205. v. 14. (bis). Both passages are too important for the Christology of Hippolytus
not to be given here textually.
II 2
484
FRAGMENTS OF HIPPOLYTUS
Page
“Η εξουσία αυτού εξουσία αιώνιος: “Ιππολύτου. Το ούν ιδίω υιώ ο πατήρ πάντα
υποτάξας τάτε εν τοις ουρανούς και τα επί της γης, διά πάντων απέδειξεν αυτόν
πρωτότοκον εν πάσι γενόμενον πρωτότοκον εκ Θεού, ίνα μετά του πατέρος υιός
Θεού ών αποδειχθή πρό αγγέλων, ίνα και αγγέλων κύριος φανή: πρωτότοκον εκ
παρθένου, ίνα τον πρωτόπλαστον 'Αδάμ εν αυτώ αναπλάσσων δειχθη: πρωτότοκον εκ
νεκρών, ίνα απαρχή της ημετέρας αναστάσεως αυτός γενηθή.
“Ητις ου παραλεύσεται: “Ιππολύτου. Την εξουσίαν πάσαν την παρά του πατρός
δεδομένην τώ υιώ υπέδειξεν, δς επουρανίων και επιγείων και καταχθονίων βασιλεύς και
κριτής πάντων αποδεδεικται» επουρανίων μέν, ότι λόγος εκ καρδίας πατρός προ πάντων
γεγενημένος ήν επιγείων δε, ότι άνθρωπος έν ανθρώποις εγεννήθη, αναπλάσσων δι'
αυτού τον 'Αδάμ: καταχθονίων δε, ότι και εν νεκρούς καταλογίσθη, ευαγγελιζόμενος
ταις των αγίων ψυχαίς, διά θανάτου θάνατον νικών. The conclusion of the first
passage, ίνα απαρχή της ημετέρας αναστάσεως αυτός γενηθή (that he might be-
come the first-fruits of our resurrection), illustrates and confirms what has been
said p. 276. note. The remarkable expression in the second passage, ότι λόγος
έκ καρδίας πατρός προ πάντων γεγενημένος ήν, comes in support of what has been
said in note to p. 453. to show the affinity of the concluding fragment of our
text of the “ Letter to Diognetus” with peculiar and favourite expressions of
Hippolytus.
206. V, 18. On the glory of the second coming of Christ : Μηκέτι δι' είδους ώς εν
δράσει βλεπόμενος, μήτε εν στύλω νεφέλης έπι κορυφής όρους αποκαλυπτόμενος
(allusions to the vision of the three disciples on Mount Tabor, or the trans-
figuration).
206. V. 19. On the fourth monarchy, or that of the Romans; the corresponding
passage in the book on the Antichrist is identical with this commentary.
207. ν. 22. 25.
211. v. 21.
214. ν. 6, 7. The second passage is interesting as to the sense Hippolytus attached
to the external communion with the Church : Tots γαρ αγίοις φοβουμένοις
αυτόν αυτοίς μόνοις εαυτόν αποκαλύπτει: ει γάρ τις δοκεί και εν εκκλησία νύν πολι.
τεύεσθαι, φόβον δε Θεού μή εξει, ουδέν τούτον ώφελή ή προς τους αγίους σύνοδος.
215. ν. 12, 13. 16. On the expression τα άνω κάτω, compare Refutation,” p.
435. 25.
216. V, 18.
219. ν. 1. On the great persecution of the Christians which will take place in the
last days, according to the Apocalypse.
220. V. 2, 3. 7. 9. In the explanation of v. 3. Hippolytus quotes the passage of
St. Matthew, xiii. 43. omitting the article before ήλιος: Τότε οι δίκαιοι εκλάμ.
ψουσιν ώς ήλιος.
221. V. 11.
223. Appendix II. The fragment of the commentary of Hippolytus on the Pro-
verbs, which we hitherto knew only in the Latin translation. (Fabric, i. p.
269. : compare the Various Readings in Gallandi.)
Part III. 75. Του αγίου Ιππολύτου Ρώμης έκ τής εις την Γένεσιν πραγματείας : taken
out of Leontius, “i Rerum sacrarum Liber.” (See Mai, vol. vii. p. 84. col. 2.)
Remarkable is the expression in the beginning of the explanation of the words:
και έπλασεν ο Θεός τον άνθρωπος χούν από της γης: 'Αρα μή κατά την τινών υπό-
νοιαν τρεις ανθρώπους λέγομεν γεγονέναι, ένα πνευματικών και ένα ψυχικών και ένα
χοϊκόν; ουχ ούτως έχει, αλλά περί ενός ανθρώπου ή πάσα διήγησις. This betrays
the man who inquired into the most ancient heresies; we find that doctrine in
the system of the Naassenes. (Refut. Hæres. p. 95. 50.) Mai, in his note to
this extract, refers to fragments of Hippolytus in a Catena published " ante hos
annos,” in Leipsig, which I confess to have no knowledge of.
Vol. VI, 239. Scholia in Esaiam, from a MS. of the tenth century : Toù årıw-
τάτου Ιππολύτου επισκόπου Ρώμης. Ευρίσκομεν εν τοις υπομνηματισμούς τους υπό
των πρεσβυτέρων αναγεγραμμένοις, γεγενήσθαι την ημέραν εκείνην ωρών λβ'. του γαρ
ηλίου διαδραμόντος, και επί την δεκάτην ώραν φθάσαντος, και της σκιάς τους δέκα.
αναβαθμούς του οίκου 1ου ναού κατελθούσης, ανεστρεψε πάλιν ο ήλιος τους δέκα
COLLECTED BY CARDINAL MAI.
485
Page
αναβαθμούς εις τα οπίσω, κατά το ρήμα κυρίου, και εγένοντο ώραι κ' • και πάλιν τον
ίδιον δρόμον, κατά την ιδίαν τάξιν κυκλώσας ο ήλιος επορεύθη εις δυσμάς: εγένοντο
ούν ώραι λβ'.
Vol. VΙΙ. 14. Δια τούτο πυλωροι ιδόντες σε έπτηξαν, και συνετρίβησαν, πύλαι χαλκαι
και μοχλοί σιδηροί συνεθλάσθησαν, &c. The superscription is Ιππολύτου επι-
σκόπου Ρώμης και μάρτυρος.
In the same anonymous collection :
68. col. 2. Του αγίου Ιππολύτου. 'Ενέργεια φυσική της νοεράς έστι ψυχής η κατά
φύσιν αυτής αυτοκίνητος και πρώτη δύναμις, ήγουν και αεικίνητος λόγος φυσικώς
αυτής πηγαζόμενος (perhaps : εξ αυτής πηγαζόμενος).
134. col. 1. Taken out of Leontius, « Contra Monophysitas.” Του αγίου Ιππολύτου
εκ των Ευλογιών του Βαλαάμ. “Ινα δειχθή το συναμφότερον έχων εν εαυτώ την τε
του θείου ουσίαν και την εξ ανθρώπων: language analogous to that in the treatise
agains Noetus. The passage may be out of the commentary on 4 Mos. 23. 5.
16., 24. 4. ; but more probably there existed a peculiar treatise or homily on
that favourite subject of ancient tradition and speculation, the prophecy of
Balaam.
Vol. IX. 620—720. Nicetæ catena in Lucam.
645. c. ii. V. 7.
650. ν. 22.
732. c. Χxiii. V. 33. Διά τούτο πυλωροί άδου ιδόντες αυτόν έπτηξαν, και πύλαι χαλκαι
και μοχλοί σιδηροί συνετρίβησαν. These words remind us of the rhetorical
description of Hades, in the fragment of the treatise Περί της του παντός ουσίας
which I have illustrated in the text. We find the very same passage of Hip-
polytus quoted in an anonymous collection of sayings of the holy fathers on
the incarnation.
II 3
INDEX
TO
LETTERS TO ARCHDEACON HARE.
p. 345.
388.
Adamas, in the system of the Naassêni, BAPTISM, second, of the Elclasaites,
Ademes, companion of Euphrates, the Baronius treats the chronology uncriti-
Peratic, 346.
cally, 456.
Aden in Arabia, supposed to be the re- Baruch, book of, written by Justinus, the
sidence of Hippolytus, 418.
Gnostic, 347.
Ager Veranus, locality of the old cata- Basilica of St. Hippolytus at Portus,
combs, 426.
423.
Alcibiades of Apamea spreads the doctrine Basilides, the Gnostic, 368,
of the Elchasaites, 388.
Basnage combats the old method in
Allegories of Origen and Hippolytus treating the heresies, 344.
compared, 446.
Baur's views on the Ophites confirmed,
Ambrosius, called by Origen his task- 349.
master, 337.
Bishop of the Nations, title of Hip-
Amen, in the system of Justinus, the polytus, 472.
Gnostic, 347.
Bishops, suburban, in their relation
'Ανατολική διδασκαλία, Oriental school of to the Church of Rome, 422.
the Valentinians, 360.
Brachmans, treated in the introduction
Anastasius, on Hippolytus, 420.
to the “ Refutation,” 339.
Anniversary festival of St. Hippolytus, Bull, bishop, his historical inethod, 449.
426.
Prof. Jacobi's opinion about its age, CAIANites, against the; a work of Hip-
480,
polytus, 452.
Apelles, the Gnostic, 379.
Caius, Roman presbyter, not the author
Apocalypse of St. Peter, probably used by of the “ Refutatio1!,” 334. 447. 479.
Hippolytus, 450.
Callistus, bishop of Rome, 386. 391.
Apocalypse of St John, cited as the 478.
work of the apostle by Hippolytus, 453. Callistians, name of the Noetians, 386.
'Απόφασις, μεγάλη, Great Announce. Cardinales episcopi, their origin, 423. 474.
ment, text-book of the Simonians, Carpocrates, 370.
350.
Carpophorus, master of Callistus, 391.
Apostolical Canons on the Roman pres- Carystian, epithet of the founder of the
.bytery, 469.
Peratic sect, 346.
Apostolic Tradition about the gifts of the Cassiodorus, epitomizer of the Greek
Holy Spirit, a work of Hippolytus, fathers, 471.
454,
Catalogue of Hippolytus' writings on
Ardesianes (probably Bardesanes) of the the statue restored, 160.
Oriental school of Valentinianism, 360. Catalogus Liberianus, its character, 456.
Arnold, Gottfried, of Halle, his reac- Catalogus Liberianus, Felicianus, Pau-
tion in treating the heresies, 345. linus, on the transportation of Punti-
Attis, mystical hymn to, 346.
anus, and Hippolytus, 425.
Axionikos, follower of the Oriental school Cave, his confused article about Hippoly.
of Valentinianism, 360.
tus, 419,
II 4
488
INDEX TO THE LETTERS
Celibacy, origin of, 470.
Druids, treated in the introduction to the
Cerdo, the Gnostic, 376.
“ Refutation," 339.
Cerinthus, the historical truth of the tra- Duncker, Dr., his opinion about the author
ditions about him, 373.
of the “ Refutation,” 481.
Character indelebilis, theory of, its late
origin, '470.
EASTER, demonstration of the time, a work
Chronicles, the ; a work of Hippolytus, of Hippolytus, 456.
455.
Ebionites, the, 375.
Chronicon Paschale of Hippolytus, 420. Ecclesiastes, on; the work of Hippoly-
Chronological systeins of Hippolytus, tus, 458.
founded on the seventy-two races, 398. Edem, the female principle in the system
Chronology of the life of Hippolytus, of Justinus, the Gnostic, 347.
424. 441.449.
Elchasai, the fabulous book supposed to
of the Roman bishops, 455.
be received by him, 388.
Church government, development of, Elchasaites, the, 388.
468.
Elements, doctrine about the, of Hip-
Clemens of Alexandria treats the system polytus, 400.
of Theodotus, 467.
Empedocles, his system treated by Hip-
Clemens of Rome, his epistle in relation polytus as the basis of Marcion's
to Church Government, 469.
doctrine, 369.
does not attribute the Epistle to the Encratites, the, 385.
Hebrews to St. Paul, 339.
Epigonus, disciple (not predecessor) of
Clementine Homilies (and Recognitions) Noetus, 386.
on Simon, 350.
Epiphanes, the Gnostic, 361.
Colarbasus, the article on this Gnostic Epiphanius, his testimony on the “ Refu-
omitted in our text, 364, 565.
tation,” 334.
Confession of Faith of Hippolytus com- Episcopalian system, how adopted, 469.
pared with the work against Noetus, Episcopus Cyrenensis on Hippolytus, 441.
443.
Epistles of St. Paul, used by the Naas-
its conclusion wanting, 400. 414. sêni, 346.
Corinthians, St. Paul's Epistle to the, Esdras' collection of the Psalms, treated
quoted in the extracts from the “Great by Hippolytus, 458.
Announceinent,' 355.
Euphrates, called o Tlepatikos, founder of
Cornelius, his statement of the number of a Gnostic sect, 346.
the Roman clergy, 469.
Eusebius, 419. 458.
his list of the works of Hippolytus,
DANIEL, Hippolytus' interpretation of his article on Hippolytus, 419.
this book, 453.
on the prophecy of Judas, 454.
David, bis relation to the Psalms ex- Evil, origin of, after Hippolytus' doc-
plained by Hippolytus, 458.
trine, 405.
Aldeot (Ditheists), Hippolytus and his Exegetical works of Hippolytus, 456.
party nained so by Callistus, 387.
Dioguetus, Epistle to; on the second FABRICIUS does not acknowledge the
fragment attributed to this epistle, Philosophuinena the work of
Origen, 333.
Discipline, the system of, altered by de his edition of Hippolytus, 430.
grees, 394. 470.
Forged works under Hippolytus' name,
ecclesiastical, relaxed by Callistus 456.
393.
Formularies of faith, their relative truth,
Docetuc, the, 380.
412.
Doctrinal wiitings of Hippolytus, 452. Fragmentum Muratorianum, 471.
Dodwell, his conjecture on Hippolytus' | Fuscianus, the prefect of Rome, sentences
chronography, 455.
Callistus to be transported, 391.
Dorner, his exposition of the systems of
the leading fathers of Hippolytus' age, Galandi's edition of Hippolytus, 430.
462.
Gelasius, pope, his quotation of Hippo-
Dositheans, meaning of the name in lytus, 421.
Photius' account, 340. 389.
German rationalism, judgment on, 330.
461.
as
414.
1
TO ARCHDEACON HARE,
489
German method of theological inquiry, | Jacobi, Professor, his review of the work
448.
of Hippolytus, 479.
Gibbon, 474.
Jerome, his testimony on our work, 334.
God, on, and the Resurrection of the mentions a homily of Hippolytus,
Flesh; a work of Hippolytus, 454. 337.
Good, on, and the Origin of Evil ; a work his blunder in the account of
of Hippolytus, 454.
Origen, 337.
Gospel of St. John, used by the Naassêni, first list of the works of Hippoly-
346.
tus, 460.
the idea of its late origin destroyed on the sermon preached by Hip-
by our work, 374.
polytus before Origen, 473.
quoted by Basilides, 368.
Jews, Address to the; a work of Hip-
Gospel according to the Egyptians, and polytus, 449.
according to Thomas, adopted by the Josephus supposed to be the author of a
Naassêni, 346.
work of Hippolytus, by Photius, 401.
Gudius, Marquard, editor of Hippolytus' , extracted by Hippolytus, 471.
work against Antichrist, 453.
Judas, prophecy of, 454.
Justice (το δίκαιον) set up by Prepon as
Hades, described by Hippolytus, 450. third principle, 370.
Hebed Jesu's catalogue, 452.
Justinus, the Gnostic, 347.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, quoted in the
“ Refutation ” as not written by St. | LABYRINTH, Little; a work of Hippoly-
Paul, 337. 339.
tus, 402, 439.
Hegesippus, probably extracted by Hip- Law, the, founded on its inward corre-
polytus, 471.
spondence with man and nature, 405.
Helen, in Simon's system, 351.
Liber Pontificalis on the transportation
Hellenes, Address to the. See Substance of Pontianus and Hippolytus, 425.
of the Universe, &c.
List of the works of Hippolytus compared,
Heracleon, follower of the Occidental 461.
school of Valentinianism, 360.
Logos, in the system of the Naassêni, 346.
Heraclitus, fragment of, 386.
in St. John's Gospel. His histori-
Heresies, against all the, analysis of the cal relation, 349.
book, 432.
in Hippolytus' Confession, 403.
Hermas, 471.
in the doctrine of the Roman
Hermogenes, the Gnostic, 381.
Church, 467.
Hesiod, treated in the introduction of the
• Refutation,” 339.
MAGI, book against the, by Hippolytus,
Hyacinthus, eunuch of the palace, delivers
Callistus, 392.
Mai, Angelo, his collection of Hippolytus'
History of the Church, providential fragments, 431. 483.
character in its development, 411. Mandanis, miswritten Dandamis, 339.
Historical works of Hippolytus, 455. Marcia, mistress of Commodus, recalls
Homilies, doctrinal festal, of Hippolytus, Callistus from his exile, 390.
455, 456.
Marcion, the Gnostic, 369.
Marcion, Against ; a work of Hippo-
IDELER on the Paschal Cycle of Hippo- lytus, 452.
lytus, 424,
Marcus, the Gnostic, and the Marcosians,
Ignatius, Epistles of, illustrated by the 366.
system of the Simonians, 356.
Mariamne, said to have received the
Irenæus follows different arrangement system of the Naassêni from St. James,
from the “ Refutation,” 339.
brother of our Lord, 346.
less authentic in his account of Marriage of presbyters, 395. 470.
Simon than Hippolytus, 348.
Martyrdom of Callistus, error of M. Mil-
Ignatius, letters on, 468.
ler about it, 396.
Isidorus, son of Basilides, the Gnostic, 368. of Hippolytus, 425. 429.
Matthias, St., Doctrines (abyol) used by
JAMES, Sr. brother of our Lord, said to the Basilidians, 368.
have delivered the system of the Maximilla, the Montanist prophetess,
Naassêni, 346.
384.
367.
490
INDEX TO THE LETTERS
Meier, G. A., on Hippolytus' doctrine of Origen, his view on the Trinity, 464.
the Trinity, 463.
difference of his doctrine from that
Melchisedekites, the, 375.
of the author of the “ Refutation," 478.
Mégov, signification of this term in Mar-
cion's system, 370.
Pagi, on the chronology of the Roman
Metempsychosis, doctrine of, 373.
bishops, 456.
Mommsen's chronological essay, 456. Pantænus applies first the comparison of
Monarchianism in the Roman Church, heresy with the systems of Greek phi.
467.
losophy, 343.
Monoimus, the Arab Gnostic, 380. Pantheism, supposed, in Hippolytus'
Montanists, the ( púyes), 384.
Confession, 417.
Moses, Song of, treated by Hippolytus, Paphnutius, bishop, opposes himself to the
458.
law on celibacy, 470.
Mosheim combats the old method in Paroecia, sense of this word in the early
treating the heresies, 344.
times, 422.
Moyne, Le, does not acknowledge the Paschal Cycle, the, on the statue of Hip-
Philosophumena as a work of Origen, polytus, 333. 424. 430. 472.
333.
Passover, treatise on the, quotation of
his conjecture about the residence this writing of Hippolytus, 883.
of Hippolytus, 418.
Pearson, bis explanation in Ignatius'
epistle to the Magnesians reproved,
NAASSÊNI (Ophites), name, system, tra-
357.
dition, 345.
Peratæ or Peratics, a Gnostic
Gnostic sect,
Natalius, history of his conversion from 346.
Artemonism, 440.
Peter, bishop of Alexandria, his quotation
Neander, his doubt on the age of Euphra. of the article on the Quartodecimani,
tes solved, 347.
335. 382.
New Testament, Hippolytus' writings on Petermann, Professor, his Armenian trans-
the, 459.
lation of the Epistles of Ignatius, 357.
Nicephorus (the Constantinopolitan), his Philoponus has preserved a fragment of
list of the works of Hippolytus, 461. Hippolytus, 451.
--, on Hippolytus, 420.
Philosophy, Greek, Hippolytus' mode-
Nicephorus, son of Callistus, on Hippo- ration in his judgment about, 397.
lytus, 420.
physical, in Hippolytus' work, 451.
Nicolaus, the father of the Nicolaitans, Philumena, the clairvoyante, 379.
377.
Philumend, St., invented history of, 431.
Niebuhr's opinion on the means for find- Photius, his account of Hippolytus' work,
ing truth, 330.
On the substance of the Universe, 401.
on the ſlojuhu of Hermas, 471.
his account of the “ Refutation "in
Noetianism, the Montanists partly ac-
his “ Bibliotheca,” 335. sqq.
cused of, 385.
Phrygia, birthplace of the Naassêni, 346.
Noetians, the, 386. 393.
Pindar, fragments of, in our work, 331..
Noetus, Against; a work of Hippolytus, Plebs, sense of the word in the early time,
442.
422.
Novatianism, the supposed, of Hippolytus, Pneumatics, by the Hero of Alexandria,
428.
451.
Polemical works of Hippolytus, 432.
OCCIDENTAL school of the Valentinians, Polycarp, his epistle in relation to Church
360,
government, 469.
Old Testament, works of Hippolytus on Pontianus, transported with Hippolytus,
the historical books of the, 457.
424.
Ophites, the, represented as the eldest Portus, harbour of Rome, the residence
Gnostics, 348.
of Hippolytus, 333. 419. 427.
Optatus of Mileve on the number of the bishop of, member of the Roman
Roman Clergy, 469.
presbytery, 470.
Origen, internal evidence against his au- | Preaching in Rome, early character of,
thorship of the “ Refutation," 418.
473.
compared with Hippolytus, 447. Prepon, the Assyrian, Marcionist, 370.
466.
Presbyterianism of Hippolytus, 468.
>
TO ARCEDEACON HARE.
491
Priscilla, the Montanist prophetess, 384. Simon Magus, the Gittean, 350.
TIpodoTELOL Éws aidépos, title of the sacred Sobai, supposed to have received the
book of the Peratics, 347.
fabulous book of the Elchasaites from
Prophets, Hippolytus on the, 406.
Elchasai, 388.
Protestant orthodoxy, sterility and con- Socrates, his ecclesiastical history, 470.
ventional character of, 408.
Solomon, Song of, treated by Hippoly-
Proverbs, on the ; a work of Hippolytus, tus, 458.
458.
Sophia, probable extracts from this doc-
Prudentius, his description of the burial- trinal work of Valentinus in the
place of Hippolytus, 333.
“ Refutation," 358.
on Hippolytus' martyrdom, 425.
the Coptic manuscript under this
Psalms and songs of the Old Testament, name, 358.
work of Hippolytus on the, 457. Sozomen's ecclesiastical history, 472.
Ptolemæus, the Gnostic, 363.
Spirit, Holy, not limited in its working
follower of the Occidental school to the holy men of the Old Testament,
of Valentinianism, 360.
405.
Pythagorean philosophy, its connection Stans, the Standing, epithet of Simon, 351.
with the Valentinian system according Statue of Hippolytus, 333. 424. 429.
to Hippolytus' opinion, 358.
Substance of the Universe, on the; a work
of Hippolytus, 400. 450.
QUARTODECIMANI, the article on them ex- Syncellus cites Hippolytus' polemical
tracted in our text of the “ Refutation," works, 452.
335. 382,
his chronology of the Roman
bishops, 455.
REDEPENNING does not acknowledge the his list of the works of Hippolytus,
Philosophumena as the work of Origen, 461.
333.
Systems, ecclesiastical, relative dignity
Reviews of the work of Hippolytus, 477, of, 409.
479.
Roman Church, its constitution at the TABLE, comparative, of the thirty-two
time of Hippolytus, 469.
heresies according to book v.-ix. and
presbytery, its relation to the sub- book X., 433.
urban bishops, 333.
; chronological and genealogical, of
Rome, the residence of Hippolytus, 418. the thirty-two heresies, 434.
its importance in the Christian Tatian, disciple of Justin Martyr, 381.
time, 472.
Tertullian, his views on the Trinity, 447.
Ruinart, his judicious opinion concerning Thales, his first element, the water,
Hippolytus,-419.
adopted by the Naassêni, 346.
Theodoret, his error about the history of
SABELLIUS, his relation to Callistus, Noetianism, 386.
381. 393.
quotes a fragment of Hippolytus,
Saturnílus, the Gnostic, 369.
458.
Schlegel, Frederic, harmonizing with Theodotus, of Byzantium, 375.
Hippolytus, 406.
Theodotus, the Trapezite, 375.
Schneidewin on the hymn to Attis, 346.
his importance in the history of
Secundus, the Gnostic, 360.
Gnosticism, 467.
Semon Sancus, the confusion of Irenæus extracts from his writings by Cle-
about this statue not followed by ment of Alexandria, 360. 377.
Hippolytus, 354.
Theophrastus, Epistle to, written by
Serpent, worshipped by the Naassêni, 347. Monoimus, 380.
worshipped by the Sethiani, 347. Tillemont le Nain, his opinion on Hip-
Sethiani, a Gnostic sect, 347.
polytus, 418.
Severina, hortatory sermon to; a work of Timothy, First Epistle to, proof of its
Hippolytus, 454.
authenticity, 348.
Sextus Empiricus, extracted by Hippo- Trinity, doctrine of, its importance, 465.
lytus, 471.
Tubingen, school of, their fancies about
Sigê, the, in the Epistles of Ignatius, the early age of the Church destroyed
illustrated from the Simonian system, by the “ Refutation,” 354. 440.
356.
their confused chronology, 456.
492 INDEX TO THE LETTERS TO ARCHDEACON HARE.
UNIVERSE, on the: Works of Hippolytus, Villemain, M., his merits about the re-
400.402. 450.
covered work of Hippolytus, 331.
VALENTINUS, 358.
Vero, Against; a work of Hippolytus,
WOLF, Christian, does not acknowledge
the Philosophumena as the work of
448.
Origen, 333.
Victor, bishop of Rome, sent Callistus to
Antium, 392.
, related to have condemned Theo- ZEPHYRINUS, bishop of Rome, favours.
dotus, 377.
Callistus, 392.
related to have censured Noetus, his relation to Noetianism, 468.
888.
>
APPENDIX.
PART II.
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS.
REGARDING
THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
(Reprinted from the Second Volume of “ Hippolytus and his Age,")
First Edition.
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
REGARDING THB
DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
I.
EXAMINATION OF HIPPOLYTUS UPON THE TRIDENTINE DECREES, UPON
THE PROTESTANT ARTICLES AND SYSTEMS, AND THE PRINCIPLES OF A
BETTER METHOD.
ALTHOUGH a truly philosophical view of the age of Hippolytus, as to its
religious ideas, doctrines, and practices, may not admit of the method of
examining such an age by later formulas, and of judging it according to
its supposed agreement or disagreement with later decrees, we cannot
entirely omit such a comparative view in this place.
Strange, indeed, would the reply of Hippolytus sound both to Catholics
and Protestants, if he were to be catechized by either. Awkward would
be the answers, and perhaps more embarrassing his retorting replies and
queries, had he to pass an examination upon the Roman or Heidelberg
Catechism, the Augsburg Confession, or the Thirty-nine Articles.
He certainly would not say that he was a Papist. He has nothing to
say as to the divine right of the bishop of Rome to decide all doctrinal
questions in the Universal Church, and to govern Christendom as an
autocrat, whether it be by his own decisions, or by his privilege of con-
firming or annulling, interpreting or executing, the decrees of Councils.
The Roman Church, in which Hippolytus lived and acted so conspicuous
a part, was to him—the Church of Rome, He even places that Church
in distinct opposition to “the Catholic Church,” in his great work, where
he speaks of the teaching of Callistus, and of the school set up and pa-
tronized by him at Rome.* Hippolytus, as a Roman, knew the immense
influence of that Church; but, as a man who had studied under Irenæus,
the uncompromising opposer of Victor's pretensions, and as the historian
of doctrinal Christianity, he also knew that this influence was a moral
not a legal one, and that it was controlled and resisted.
The gradually
growing moral supremacy in the West originated in the political position
of Rome as the centre of the world, and in the instinctive talent of go-
Supra, p. 393.
496
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
*
vernment for which the Romans never ceased to be distinguished. But
the legality of that supremacy was not recognized even at Milan, much
less at Alexandria and Antioch, nor subsequently at Byzantium. Even
in the West it was controlled by the free agency and self-responsibility of
the influential Churches of Christendom. Hippolytus himself, as bishop
of Portus, was one of the moons in the planetary system of Rome, and a
member of her Presbytery; but in his own town, he would not have
allowed the agents of Callistus to teach, or even himself to preach.
There was no great fear, however, of any attempt at preaching in the
place of Hippolytus. In his time, as we have seen, and even two hundred
years after him, Rome had no preacher whose homilies were worth no-
ticing or copying for general use. Theological science was born in the
East, established in Alexandria, the Athens of the later Hellenic and early
Christian era, and was transplanted from Asia Minor to the West by
Irenæus, the apostle of the Gauls. Hippolytus had become a philosopher
and a historian, precisely because he either was not a native of Rome, or
had been Hellenized by his education and foreign travel. He wrote in
Greek ; but not merely as our fathers wrote in Latin, as the medium of
learned intercommunion. Greek was the living organ of international
intercourse at Rome, and the common language of the Hellenistic Jews,
understood even by most of those who came from Palestine. Thus, at
Rome, Greek was both the natural organ of Christian communication,
and the most appropriate language for writing a book to be perused by
all reading Christians. If Hippolytus ever preached any of his published
homilies, he must have done so in Greek; for we possess many of them,
all of which are in that language. We know nothing of the liturgical
language of the Roman Church at that time, except the creed ; nor,
indeed, down to the age of Leo the Great, in the middle of the fifth century.
We know, however, that baptismal creed to have been written either
exclusively in Greek, or with the Latin text by its side. Even in the
seventh century it was delivered to the Anglo-Saxon scion in the Greek
words, written with the Anglo-Saxon alphabet, accompanied by a verna-
cular translation. We know further that the Christian congregation at
Rome from the beginning consisted of Greek converts who were the
bankers, secretaries, tutors and preceptors, valets and agents of the
Romans; and of Jews, who spoke Greek as they now generally speak
German. These elements were united by sacred records written in Greek,
and were governed mostly by members of Greek descent.
names of the bishops before Urbanus (the successor of Callistus) are
Greek, with the solitary exceptions of Clement and Victor. Of these
even Clement wrote Greek in the name of the Romans, as St. Paul wrote
Greek to the Romans; and Victor wrote in the same language, as did
Cornelius a whole century later. The real Latin Church was the African,
consisting of colonized Romans, who used a Latin version of the New
Testament. The noble families of Rome remained unconverted, even
under Theodosius the Great, as is evinced by the complaints of Pru-
dentius, who wrote more than 150 years after Hippolytus. If, therefore,
The very
Supra, p. 472.
REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
497
Greek was at that time the ecclesiastical, and perhaps the liturgical, lan-
guage of the Church of Rome, it was not because Greek was a sacred
tongue, unknown to the people, but because the majority understood it
better, or as well as that of Latium.
To sum up what has been said, Hippolytus knew of no title to su-
premacy on the part of the Church of Rome, even in Italy; nor of a
sacred language used by the Church in preference to the vernacular.
Neither, as has been shown*, did he know anything of the celibacy of
the clergy; or that the Church of Christ was a Levitical Priest-Church,
and her ministers a mediatorial body. He must have abhorred the very
idea of this, as much as did his teacher Irenæus, and all his cotemporaries.
The Church was to them the Christian people, the Ecclesia in the Greek
sense: the bishops had the primary duty of bearing witness of that Spirit
which the Apostles received, and which continued in that community, as
is stated in the preamble of the “ Philosophumena." It is clear from his
strictures on the tyranny of Callistus, that Hippolytus did not attribute
that Spirit as an exclusive privilege to the Roman bishop, and therefore to
no one else.
Hippolytus, therefore, was certainly no Papist. Nor was he a Nicæan
divine, much less an Athanasian. I have proved by irrefragable docu-
ments that it would not be honest to say merely that he did not use the
same formulas : every fair critic must allow that Hippolytus' own
formulas do not agree with the creeds of the Councils, but move in a
different circle of ideas. All that is capable of proof is, that he would no
more have maintained or supported an Arian creed, than he would have
wished to see the exclusive and conventional language in which those
formulas are couched, proclaimed as an article of belief.
As regards the Sacraments, he had not the slightest idea of the juxta-
position of Baptism and Communion, from any connexion in their sacra-
mental character, excepting in so far as they both hold the first rank
among the sacred acts of the Church and signs of her life. Magic infant
baptism, or the doctrine that the effects ascribed by the Apostles to the
solemn profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, and to its ex-
ternal seal by the Jewish rite of immersion, were to follow the baptismal
of infants, was still more alien to his Christianity. He scarcely knew
anything of Pedobaptism : his baptismal sermon, although highly mys-
tical, contemplates exclusively the baptism of adult catechumens; even no
allusion is made to any other.
At all events, therefore, Hippolytus could not have subscribed the
formula of the Catechismus Romanus, or any one like it. As to certain
Anglican views of baptism, which some now endeavour to constitute the
badge of communion with Christ, and which are held up as the bulwark
of the Church of England, so little would Hippolytus acknowledge them
as Apostolic doctrine and practice, that it would be difficult for him even
to understand the arguments brought against them, so far as they also are
generally based upon the notion, that Pedobaptism is of Apostolic use, and
must therefore be defended by Protestants as Scriptural. If he were to
be excommunicated for such an opinion by Romanizing priests, he might
* Supra, p. 470.
K K
VOL. I.
498
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
point to the last chapter but one of the “Pensées of Pascal, which
speaks honestly, although timidly, the language of the ancient Church,
and goes almost the length of saying that infant baptism, without the subse-
quent confirmatory act of Lutheran Confirmation, would scarcely constitute
a valid baptism.
We possess no treatise of Hippolytus upon the Eucharist, and only a
single passage alluding to it. It will therefore, in this place, be better to
refer, for the interpretation of that passage, to what we know from other
sources as to the view of the ancient Church, which will be the object of
some of the following fragments.
Vossius has interrogated Hippolytus whether he taught the orthodox
doctrine of original sin; and extorts an affirmative answer from his
treatise against Noetus, by an interpretation which he would never have
admitted in classical philology. But this does not prove that Hippolytus
would have been a Pelagian. He would have raised many a previous
question both against St. Augustin and Pelagius; and finally have
entrenched himself in his strong position -- the doctrine of the free agency
of the human will. He would have thought Luther's theory a quaint
expression of a truth which he fully acknowledged; but, as to Calvin's
Predestination, he would have abhorred it, without thinking less highly of
God's inscrutable councils.
On the whole, if Hippolytus was no Papist, his divinity cannot be re-
duced to our Protestant formulas without losing all its native sense and
beauty. There is nothing in his work which would contradict the general
principles, and the polemic or negative portions of Evangelical doctrine.
But as to the positive expressions, he would not understand much of them.
For, to speak frankly, they either move unconsciously within the conven-
tional circle of councilism, ritualism, and scholasticism, all of which were
equally unknown to him ; or they owe their prominence to the necessity
of opposing certain tenets, or the practices connected with them, in which
case the paramount authority attributed to certain Evangelical formulas
would be scarcely intelligible to the ancient Church, which knew nothing
of such tenets and practices. Hippolytus would be unable to see the
necessity of opposing so absolutely the doctrine of Justification to that of
Sanctification, except temporarily, for disciplinary reasons, as an antidote
against the conventional doctrine and pernicious practice of meritorious
works. The concluding words of the solemn exhortation at the end of
his great work enjoin the duty of being inspired by the contemplation of
the eternal love of God, and the divine beauty of his holiness, and of
leading a godlike, holy life, in perpetual thankfulness and perfect humility.
But supposing the point at issue had been explained to him, he would
certainly have sided with the doctrine of saving faith in the Pauline sense,
against that of meritorious works.
I will not, however, here proceed further in this uncongenial way of
catechising. The absurdity of this whole method of understanding and
judging the system of thought and doctrine of a Christian in the second
and third centuries, by the conformity or non-conformity of his formulas
with our own, must be self-evident. It may enable you to write, with
more or less success, a very learned chapter of apologetic divinity, and
discuss plausibly this or that passage of his writings, but you will never
REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
499
find out the real truth ; you are out of the centre of the man and of his
age. You will, on the contrary, scarcely make a philosophical Christian
believe that you are yourself in earnest about discovering it. It is a
method wholly unworthy of our age, and ought to be buried in oblivion
with all the perversities, hypocrisies, and falsifications of the seventeenth
.century
I have attempted, in the first volume *, and in the preceding section of
the present one, to sketch out the general principles according to which I
think that the spirit of an age should be investigated and brought before
the eyes of the reader. According to those principles, I shall now
endeavour to make a clear statement of the views which Hippolytus, in
his own peculiar and individual way, and as a representative of his age,
entertained upon the great general objects of Christian philosophy and
polity: as to God and the Creation, the person of Christ and the Re-
demption, the Spirit and His manifestation among the faithful. The
conclusion of the great work of Hippolytus, now recovered, furnishes a
complete answer to these questions, and I have endeavoured to explain
its meaning fully in the fourth of my Letters. f The most advisable
plan, then, to be followed by the philosophical historian, seems to me
that of trying to understand those realities which formed the basis of
Christian thought at the time. And this will only be possible by con-
necting them with ideas, and distinguishing them by words which are
intelligible to ourselves.
These realities may be divided into two classes. The first will com-
prise the regulations or customs respecting the canonical books of the
New Testament, or the so-called Canon, the notions respecting Apostolic
Tradition, and the paramount authority of Scripture. The second class
will contain those elements of the life and consciousness of the Church
which have determined the formation of its worship and of its con-
stitution.
If we consider any of these leading ideas, and the prevailing customary
or written regulations of the Church, we find in each of them three ele-
ments : divine authority, apostolical explanation, living consciousness of
their truth. The divine authority is a precept of Christ (Wóyos, or Nóylov,
Kupiov). The teaching is that of Apostolic men, warranted by a ca-
nonical writing if touching doctrine, that is to say, the knowledge of
Father, Son, and Spirit, or by tradition if concerning question of di-
cipline. The consciousness of truth is the spirit which is in the Christian
congregation, or the living authority of the Church. These three ele-
ments were believed and assumed to be in perfect harmony. All precepts
which are perpetually binding, all truths which are fundamental, proceed
from Christ personally; but they are recorded as such by the Apostles,
or by Apostolic men, their disciples, friends, and followers, and thus
come to the congregations of Christians spread over the globe. Each of
them has the Spirit promised by Christ, that is, enlightened conscientious
reason, and possesses the power, by common deliberation, to carry on
and regulate the life of the Church, as emergencies may require. There
must be this undying Spirit and power in the Church, or the promises of
* Supra, p. 473.
+ Supra, p. 400. to 417.
KK 2
500
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
Christ and the third article of Faith are nullified ; but the power must be
exercised with due regard to Apostolic and general liberty.
We shall therefore consider, in the next two chapters, the notions of
Hippolytus and of his age, respecting Canon, Tradition, and Inspiration.
II.
THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE CHURCH OF ROME IN THE
TIME OF HIPPOLYTUS.
THE German critical school has brought to light within the last seventy
years so many new points of inquiry, which had been either neglected, or
incompletely or uncritically treated, by the old school, that a part of the
present generation of German critics seems in danger, as the German
phrase runs, of not seeing the wood for the trees. This applies particu-
larly to the history of the Canon. The systems of Lardner, and men like
Lardner, were built upon the worst parts of Eusebius' history, and the
conventional sayings of Jerome. Their view centres in the unhistorical
and unreasonable assumption, that every canonical book must be sup-
posed to be written by an Apostolic authority. This gratuitous and
untraditional assumption was supported by as much false evidence as the
forged works of the second and third centuries could afford, by the dis-
tortion of the best and most primitive traditions, and by the total neglect
of trustworthy and important assertions of the parties condemned by the
Church. It was not difficult to demolish such a system, of which Lardner
is the most respectable representative, and to establish the basis of a
critical and truly honest one. But, in recent times, the wish to say some-
thing new, and the want of real critical judgment in many theological
writers, who never would have been listened to if the subject had been
one of classical philology, appear to have made some people lose sight of
the whole in the midst of so many details and conjectures and hair-
splittings. Some even seem to have raised a cloud of learned or specula-
tive dust, under pretence of discovering some hidden ground of truth,
but in reality to blind the eyes of the reader. In classical philology nine
tenths of the unfortunate, spiritless, and sometimes absurd hypotheses of
theological writers, would not have been allowed to take root, scarcely to
make their appearance, without being immediately demolished. In judg-
ing of much that has been said upon the Canon, by those modes of
historical criticism upon which Niebuhr has acted in ancient history, I
must confess that it seems to me absurd to maintain that the text of the
sacred books was uncertain throughout the whole second century, merely
because the Greek text of the first, the Palestinian, and therefore
originally the Aramaic Gospel, contained certain differences in details,
which are attributable partly to the translator, and partly to the difference
in the Aramaic original which he had before him. For the hypothesis
about Marcion having, in the middle of the second century, used a more
authentic and unmutilated text of the third Gospel, is not more tenable
REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
501
than that which refers the origin of the fourth to about the end of the
same century.
The dreams of the old school, down to Mill and Griesbach, of an in-
finite variety of readings (about thirty thousand !) in the New Testament,
begin to disappear before the irresistible critical method of Lachmann.
The evidence of Irenæus in this respect is now very strongly confirmed
by that of Hippolytus, whose quotations, numerous as they are, have
been hitherto entirely neglected, even by the great critic just named.
They are considerably increased by the recently discovered work. It
contains quotations from many of the canonical books, particularly from
the Pauline Epistles. These quotations, in a new edition of the works of
Hippolytus, must be carefully and critically compared with the passages
of the New Testament so abundantly quoted in his other writings. The
investigation of fresh manuscripts, and a fresh collation of those already
examined, are most essential for this purpose.
As to the Canon itself which Hippolytus had before him, it evidently
is the same as that which we find in the “Fragmentum Muriatorianum,
as I have restored it in the Analecta.
The whole Canon of Hippolytus, and of the Church of his time, may
therefore be reconstructed thus. It contained :
The Four Gospels, as we have them. Rome used the Greek text; the
ante-Hieronymian Latin version is of African origin, as Wiseman and
Lachmann have proved. It is not certain whether the opinion that the
first Gospel was written by the Apostle St. Matthew was already autho-
ritatively established, as it was undoubtedly at that time believed in
Alexandria. (Euseb. H. E., vi. 25.)
2. The Acts, as a work of St. Luke.
3. The Pauline Epistles to seven distinct Churches : nine epistles as we
read them; although perhaps not in the same order.
4. The four Pastoral Letters : to Philemon and Titus, and the two
addressed to Timothy.
5. The six Catholic (or general) Epistles. The Epistle of St. James.
The Epistle of St. Peter (our first). The three Epistles of St. John.
The Epistle of St. Jude.
6. The Epistle to the Hebrews, as written by a friend of St. Paul, who
can scarcely have been any other person than Apollos, the intimate and
highly honoured friend of that Apostle, and the enlightened and influ-
ential cooperator with him and St. Peter. He was an Alexandrian, and,
if the Epistle be addressed to a local congregation (of which the fact of
his expressing a hope of being soon restored to them would be sufficient
proof), it must have been written to the earliest Jewish Christian con-
gregation at Alexandria, which had been tempted to Judaize by some
Philonian symbolists, who endeavoured to evangelize the Law and Chris-
tianize Judaism, without Christ and his Gospel. The age of the Epistle
is the second year after the martyrdom of St. Paul, or the year 67, when
Timothy had just been released from prison.
7. The Apocalypse of St. John, as a very early work of the Apostle.
It is by no means certain, though still assumed by Hengstenberg in his
recent “ Commentary,” that the Church of Rome supposed it to be written
during the Apostle's exile under Domitian. At all events the book itself
502
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
plainly says the contrary. The horizon of the vision is the latter half of
the year 68; that anxious period when Galba had assumed the imperial
dignity on the death of Nero. The strife between Otho and Vitellius
broke out in the beginning of 69, and ended with Otho's defeat in April.
This is the time expressed in ch. xvii. 8. and the following verses : The
beast which was and is not, and shall ascend from the bottomless pit and
go into perdition." “ Five kings had fallen" (xvii. 10, 11., namely, Au-
gustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero), “one is” (Galba), “ another
is not yet come, and when he cometh he must continue a short time.
And the beast which was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the
seven, and goeth” (as seems to have been generally believed at that
time) “ into perdition.” As to the other beast (xiii. 11-18.), we have
already seen that our author, as well as Irenæus, interpreted the number
666 as Latinus, the word used by Hippolytus in his “ Chronicle” in the
sense of Romanus. But here again the Apocalypse tells its own story
differently. For this other beast is certainly not the idolatrous Roman
power, but the power which makes the people worship the Roman beast
(ver. 14.). It performs miracles, and it causes the saints to be killed who
will not worship the Roman beast (ver. 15.), and finally it excludes from
the traffic those who have not its sign on their forehead (ver. 16, 17.).
These three qualities agree with none but the false brethren, and in par-
ticular designate the hostile Jewish delatores, who persecuted the Chris-
tians in the affairs and intercourse of common life, and excited against
them the cruelty or avarice of the heathen authorities. Personified in an
individual, these combined qualities of traitor and seducer constitute the
false Prophet (xx. 10.). And who is the type and father of all false
prophets but Balaam, the son of Peor, the sorcerer, whose name had
already become symbolical in that sense ? He is even mentioned as such
in this book. St. John (Rev. ii. 14, 15.), when speaking of the Nicolai-
tanes, and the doctrine of Balaam at Pergamus (meaning undoubtedly
one and the same person, for Nicolas is the Greek translation of Balaam),
says of him: “Who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the
children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit for-
nication.” Now the name and designation of Balaam, in this passage,
give, according to the numerical value of the letters of the Hebrew
alphabet, the number 666. This interpretation, first hit upon by Züllig
(1835-1840), is therefore the only one which agrees with the book itself,
and appears more than probable. Against all the others, from the La-
tinus of Irenæus and Hippolytus down to the “Reformed British Par-
liament,” the jocose interpretation of Father Newman this year, there are
objections insuperable, philological or historical, many of which can only
be considered by serious critics as more or less ingenious or absurd jeux
d'esprit.
REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
503
III.
THE VIEWS OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH AS TO SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION.
The expressions of Hippolytus on the paramount authority of Scripture
in all matters of faith and doctrine are as strong as those of the Re-
formers. In my parallelism of the doctrine of the treatise against
Noetus and of the “Refutation" I have given the beginning of the
classical passage on this point. * I subjoin it here complete. It runs
thus, in the ninth chapter of that treatise:
" There is one God, my
brethren, and him we know only by the Holy Scriptures. For in so like
manner as he who wishes to learn the wisdom of this world cannot, ac-
complish it without studying the doctrines of the philosophers, so all
those who wish to practise divine wisdom will not learn it from any other
source than from the Word of God. Let us therefore see what the Holy
Scriptures pronounce, let us understand what they teach, and let us be-
lieve as the Father wishes to be believed, and praise the Son as he wishes
to be praised, and accept the Holy Spirit as He wishes to be given.
Not according to our own will, nor according to our own reason, nor
forcing what God has given, but let us see all this as He has willed to
show it by the Holy Scriptures."
By Holy Scriptures Hippolytus understands, as his quotations prove,
the Old and the New Testaments. As to the first, he uses the Canon of
the Septuagint; as to the second, he quotes no books except those which
we know from cotemporary documents to have enjoyed canonical autho-
rity in the Church of Rome, as will be explained in detail in the following
chapter.
For these works Hippolytus claims inspiration ; that is to say, for their
authors, as men who wrote, moved by the Spirit of God. This inspira-
tion was also attributed, as far as the object required it, to such pious
men as had lived in the Apostolic age, or early in the second century,
and had written on Christian life and hope, partly in their own names,
as Clement of Rome, partly under assumed names, even that of an
Apostle. Indeed, the inspiration was the working of the Holy Spirit,
which had been promised to the whole Church and to every believer. But
there was a broad distinction made between the works of those pious men
and the canonical books; among which they were not numbered, because
they neither contained authenticated narratives of the life of Christ, as
did those which the Evangelists or Apostolic missionaries had composed
before St. John wrote his Apostolic account himself, nor Apostolic
teaching, as did the Epistles of the Apostles of Christ. Having, there-
fore, neither authentic words of the Lord to report, nor the vocation, as
some of the Apostles and the brother of Jesus had, to address the nascent
Christian congregations on the saving faith of Christ, nor, finally, any
acknowledged and warranted vision to relate, their writings could never
become a part of the general Canon of the New Testament. For the
question of reception into this Canon was decided not less by the con-
tents and objects than by the authoritative character of the writer.
Nevertheless several of them were read, even in the time of Hippolytus,
* Supra, p. 443. Fabric. ii. 12.
504
HISTORICAL FRAGMENTS
in some Churches; as, for instance, the so-called Apocalypse, or Vision,
of St. Peter, was read as a holy book in the Church of Rome itself.
Others were read in less solemn meetings of the Christians, and, in
particular, recommended for perusal to the catechumens preparing for
baptism.
Now all these books were believed by the ancient Church to be written
under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the principal founda-
tion of the faith of the ancient Church in inspiration was the belief that
one and the same Spirit was given to the Church, of which the Apostles
were the first witnesses, and who were called upon in a most special
manner to give evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of the Son of
God. The degree of inspiration was supposed to be analogous to the
vocation, and commensurate with the subject of which the Spirit of God
moved them to treat. Hermas," says an author older than Irenæus,
probably Hegesippus, a Christian Jew, who composed the first ecclesias-
tical memoirs, and wrote at Rome, “Hermas, is a book which must be
read, but it never can be made the subject of public reading to the con-
gregation in the Church, neither as one of the Prophets, nor as one of the
Apostles.” There were some Churches which did read it; but our
author does not approve of such a practice, nor did the Church of Rome.
Thus the ancient Church assumed a difference in the degree of inspira-
tion, and believed it to be commensurate with the internal Christian
importance of the work entrusted to the writer, and with the evidence as
to the authenticity of its origin. Whatever came from Apostles was
called Apostolic Tradition (παράδοσης των αποστόλων, αποστολική παράδοσις).
By these words Hippolytus designates the passages of the New Testament
which he has quoted, besides some of the Old, as bearing upon the ques-
tion. As to the received canonical books, the ancient Church may be
said, in the phraseology of a later date, to have recognised a canon in the
canon, according to the relative importance of the matter treated of, and
the personal authority of the sacred writer. The Theopneusty, or theory
of Inspiration, of Gaussen, would have appeared to Hippolytus a dan
gerous Jewish superstition.
The philosophy of all this may be summed up in something like the
following considerations.
Scripture was considered by the ancient Church, as it is by us, the
only source of our knowledge of the sàving divine truth. But Scripture
was constituted as canonical by the Church. The decision of the Church
was founded on good evidence, which we have sufficient materials to
examine and appreciate. An impartial examination shows that where we
have uncertainties and doubts, the ancient Church had them likewise,
and that the ancient traditional evidence is not only in itself better than
the systematical opinions of the men of the fourth century, but also in
agreement with the result of sober and independent criticism.
The consciousness which the ancient Church possessed in the second
century, of the difference between canonical and other ancient and pious
Christian productions, was the first manifestation of the agency of the
divine Spirit.
Neither singly nor collectively did this body of Sacred Books from a
new law, or a system of doctrine or philosophy. It was essentially a His-
REGARDING THE DOCTRINE OF HIPPOLYTUS.
505
tory; and that proves the divine character of Christianity, and constitutes
the supreme authority of the Christian records in the history of the world.
It was a history, first of Christ's teaching, and living, and dying; then a
history of the teaching and life of the Apostles, concluding at the end of
St. Paul's biennial imprisonment in Rome; lastly, a history of the com-
munion of life between the Apostles and the congregations of the faithful,
or their disciples and messengers. The Apocalypse of St. John is also a
history of what passed in the mind of the Apostle, when he beheld in a
vision the future in the reflection of the past and present.
This first produce of the consciousness of the Church was therefore
evidently an act which showed the prevailing power of the Spirit. Scrip-
ture contains in itself internal evidence of its narrating a true history,
which embodies the true view of the relation of God to man: but Scrip-
ture cannot constitute the Canon: the Canon constitutes Scripture as the
sacred code of Christianity, and this act of the Church is founded upon
the evidence of Christian men and congregations.
Here one cannot help remarking a one-sidedness on the part of the
Protestant divines of the sixteenth, and particularly of the seventeenth,
centuries, which has been and continues to be the cause of endless con-
fusion, and lamentable untruth and ignorance. The narrative of the his-
tory of the Word of God in his humanity, and in this world, and the
records of its teachings, and warnings and promises, were mistaken for
the Word of God itself in its proper sense. By this mistake the faith in
the real Word of God, which is the only immutable and eternal standard
of truth, and which has its response in the Spirit within, was obscured,
and is obscured to this day; and its only recipients, Reason and Con-
science, have been and are violated, to the sad confusion of Christ's
Church.
END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.
VOL. I.
І. І.
LONDON :
A. arid G, A, SPOTTISWOODE,
New-street-Square,