Dissertation

FATHER GOTTFRIED LUMPER'S DISSERTATION ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF SAINT HIPPOLYTUS

CHAPTER ONE. HISTORY OF THE LIFE OF SAINT HIPPOLYTUS.

ARTICLE I. DE S. HIPPOLYTI PATRIA, PRAECEPTORIBUS, LITTERARUM STUDIIS, ET TEMPORE QUO FLORUIT.

Antiquity knows of many Hippolytuses; yet more illustrious than the rest is the bishop of Portus, whom his nobility of birth, as being of the senatorial order (as Jerome is the author for) ^A, his episcopal dignity, great erudition, and the glory of his martyrdom rendered most famous to posterity. It is to be lamented that most things which pertain to the history of his life are neither sufficiently clear nor certain. What is specifically handed down by writers regarding his fatherland, his tutors, and the time during which he flourished in his genius and merits, differs among them and cannot be held as verified. There is, in the first place, a disagreement among authors as to the place from which he originated.

If we listen to Stephanus le Moyne, William Cave, and Jacques Basnage, it would have to be said that Hippolytus was an Arab by race and had a fatherland most flourishing in divine and human letters. But since they produce no monument of antiquity in confirmation of their opinion, I do not see why faith should be held in the bare assertion of such recent authors regarding a fact so remote from their own age. There are others who believe our Hippolytus to have been Roman by origin; and that opinion seems to be favored by that statement of Jerome in his letter to Magnus, calling him a Roman senator. More recently, the authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* from the Congregation of Saint-Maur refer to Hippolytus among the Gallic writers, establishing the kingdom of the Gauls as his native soil ^B. And they observe that the fact that his name is Greek, and that he wrote in Greek, and finally the dignity of the Roman senator, do not stand in the way of this opinion. Not the first and the second, since it is established that Greek proper names were not uncommon in Gaul, and that many people, born not only in Latium but also in Gaul, composed books in the Greek language. Nor finally the third; because for the Gauls, even from the time of the empire of Claudius and long before, there was access to senatorial dignity. To say nothing of the fact that the senatorial dignity of Saint Hippolytus is very doubtful, if not entirely false.

Hippolytus was a disciple of St. Irenaeus, as he himself testifies in Photius. Hence, Palladius and Cyril of Scythopolis are to be interpreted more mildly, for they handed down that he was a companion of the Apostles. For [if] he lived under the Emperor Alexander, who began to reign in the year of Christ ^C... Hippolytus also and Apollonius [were] Roman senators; when it is evident from the Catalogue that it was said of Apollonius only; nay, when not only are some in doubt about Hippolytus, but also about Apollonius himself, [whether] he was ever a senator, or whether Jerome exaggerated it from Eusebius by his own ingenuity. ^D

^A 222, that he lived is made certain by his Paschal Canon. That Hippolytus made great progress in every branch of knowledge under so great a teacher, the monuments of his doctrine clearly prove; so that for this reason he is rightly called by the most eloquent man, Jerome (11), and even by Anastasius (12) a most sacred and great doctor, and a faithful witness of the truth, and by another ancient writer (13) a "most sweet and most benign doctor of the Church, yλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος" [most sweet and most favorable]. To these, as St. Jerome (14) testifies, he added not only great power in speaking under the discipline of St. Irenaeus, but also an immense knowledge of philosophy and profane sciences; for in that age, as no one is unaware, men of the highest standing in the Church did not by any means treat of this kind of erudition as unworthy of a true theologian. But as for sacred letters, the huge number of the writings he had labored upon in this field abundantly confirms how excellently versed he was in them. Moreover, the diverse works which he had composed for discovering and determining the day of Easter clearly demonstrate that he perfectly understood the science of chronology (15).

Aubertus Miraeus (16) reports that our Hippolytus was among the disciples of Clement of Alexandria, and Baronius (17) says that he read that he was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria and that, upon his persuasion, he betook himself to Rome. But they do not add upon what authority they rely in handing this down. The most learned George Bull has gone even further, who did not doubt to write (18): That the ancient ecclesiastical writers have handed down with great consensus that Hippolytus was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. But since he cites no locations from the ancients, the authority of Photius is stronger for us, who testifies to a single teacher—namely, St. Irenaeus.

When we also read in the same Photius that St. Hippolytus was an intimate of Origen, this seems capable of being confirmed by the suffrages of others. For Jerome (19) and Nicephorus (20) write that Hippolytus delivered a sacred oration on the praises of Jesus Christ with Origen present. The former adds that Ambrose had urged Origen to the interpretation of the sacred books in emulation of Hippolytus, who had already earned merit by his published commentaries on the divine ^B Scriptures. However, Henry Valesius (21) and Peter Daniel Huetius (22) warn that Jerome had not understood the words of Eusebius quite correctly, and that the word ἐκείνου, which in that author pertains to time, he had mistakenly applied to Hippolytus. But the most learned Stephanus le Moyne (23) observes that it could indeed be referred even to Hippolytus, and whether it be referred to the time, it should be understood that Origen at that time, in imitation of Hippolytus—of whom Eusebius had spoken before—had also prepared and adorned commentaries on the sacred Scripture. One must also listen to the most recent author, who treats of this matter as follows (24): Everything persuades us that what the ancients handed down concerning Origen's emulation, at the urging of Ambrose, who proposed the studies of Hippolytus to him, is true… Moreover, the consensus of both can be strengthened when Origen, arriving in Rome, during the pontificate of Zephyrinus, around the year 220, not only listened to Hippolytus speaking in private, but also in public, and Hippolytus himself left a testimony of this matter in the oration which he held on the praise of our Lord, and which he called prosomilian [an address]. For no one claims that this happened in the East, which is by no means necessary, although it could have happened, since Hippolytus sought Alexandria, and returning from there brought an epistle to the Romans from Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. Nor indeed is there any reason for us to fabricate another Hippolytus, at which time our Portuensis could return to Alexandria, where he seems to have been educated as a youth, judging by the Paschal Canon, whose methodology the Alexandrians claimed for themselves.

Regarding the time when Hippolytus flourished, the opinions of authors are likewise discordant. Eusebius, Jerome, Syncellus, and others refer him to the reign of Alexander Severus, who began to reign in the year of our Savior 222. In the Life of Euthymius, it is said that he was ancient and intimately acquainted with the apostles themselves, and the same is held of him in the Life of St. Saba by Cyril of Scythopolis, which, as ^C we observed a little higher up, cannot be understood simply. For he was far removed from the age of the apostles themselves. Stephanus le Moyne, loc. cit., thinks that Hippolytus reached the time of Philip the Arab, who attained the imperial dignity in the year of Christ 254; if we admit this, we must say he was of a very advanced age. Nor does his martyrdom aptly fit the times of Philip, as will be clear from what is to be handed down a little later. It is beyond doubt that he lived and wrote while Alexander Severus was emperor; but the reckoning of the time cannot be accurately defined.

ARTICLE II. OF THE EPISCOPAL SEE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS

Eusebius (25) and St. Jerome (26) assert that our St. Hippolytus was distinguished by the episcopal character: but his ^D is altogether uncertain.

^A Or should we rather consider him a bishop of the Gentiles, a title by which we know well his colleague Caius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, was graced? It is worth our while to go through the individual points which most learned men have devised upon this matter after weeding through the ancient books.

Eusebius of Caesarea writes as follows concerning the episcopate of St. Hippolytus (27): "At the same time, many ecclesiastical men flourished, excellent in doctrine... Among these was Beryllus, bishop of the Bostreni in Arabia, who, besides epistles and lucubrations, also left behind various monuments of an elegant mind. Similarly, Hippolytus, bishop of another church." But Saint Jerome seems to have searched for the seat of his episcopate and failed to find it, as he intimates in his work *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, chapter 61, in these words: "Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (for, indeed, I have not been able to learn the name of the city)." Theodoret, however, who adduces many things from him, calls him bishop and martyr (28); but he does not add of what city he was bishop.

The first was Pope Gelasius I, or rather Gelasius of Cyzicus, as Bellarmine and other learned men prefer (both flourished in the fifth century), in a short work on the two natures in Christ against Nestorius and Eutyches, who placed the see of our Hippolytus under the Arabian metropolis (29). But this opinion rests upon no other foundation than a perverse interpretation of the Eusebian passage by Rufinus. For Rufinus translates: "Among others there was also Beryllus, chief of writers, who also himself left behind various short works. This man was bishop at Bostra, the greatest city of Arabia. ^C Nevertheless, there was also Hippolytus, who also himself left behind some writings, a bishop." Yet the Greek words of Eusebius mean nothing other than that Beryllus was bishop of the Bostreni in Arabia, and similarly that Hippolytus was bishop of another church. "Likewise also Hippolytus, he too presiding over another church." Behold, how this first and most ancient opinion is shaken by Eusebius himself, upon whose authority it was believed to be supported?

Zonaras and Nicephorus (30), whom most of the more recent writers follow, write that he was bishop of Portus Romanus. Leontius Byzantinus (31) relates that he held the office of bishop at Rome. The Magdeburg Centuriators call him the prelate of Ostia (32). Some desire that St. Hippolytus was bishop of Portus, that is, of Adanensis in Arabia, and this indeed has seemed so to some, so that they have now ^A persuaded themselves that they could attain the matter with more accurate knowledge. For Stephanus le Moyne (33) opines that Hippolytus held the episcopate of Portus Romanus, a most celebrated emporium in Arabia, also called Adena, and much frequented by Roman merchants; an opinion which has commended itself also to other most learned men, and among these, William Cave, Casimir Oudin, and Ell. Dupin (34). Furthermore, the most erudite Joseph Simonius Assemani, a Maronite, subscribes to this opinion, while in volume III of his *Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana*, part 1, chapter 7, page 15, after enumerating certain lucubrations of our holy martyr, he notes thus in the margins: "Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus—not at the mouths of the Tiber, but of the emporium most celebrated in Arabia by this name, as Stephanus le Moyne conjectures." Recent Christian Arabs call him bishop of Rome (35). But this conjecture of Moyne is more ingenious than likely. For indeed it is read nowhere that that Portus Romanus was graced with an episcopal see in the first centuries. If, however, St. Hippolytus was ever bishop of the city of Adana, it will certainly seem strange to all that Eusebius, a neighbor of Arabia, and St. Jerome, long occupied at Rome and in the East, did not know the episcopal chair of this holy man, or the most celebrated emporium of Arabia, which was commonly frequented by the Romans. Therefore, we are surrounded on all sides by shadows, which we cannot dissipate without a clearer light, and so we proceed to relate the opinions of others. ^C

Tillemont observes (36) that a conjecture not to be despised is that which says that Hippolytus presided over sacred matters in some small city whose name might be less known, but that he was claimed as bishop of Portus Romanus because at that place a martyr of this name was celebrated, perhaps brought there from the East, whom in the intervening time they confused with the great Hippolytus, bishop and martyr. The most learned Ceillier subscribes to this conjecture with both hands (37). ^D The Bollandists conjecture thus concerning the see of Hippolytus M.: "It is established from the ancient Martyrologies (they say) (38) that St. Hippolytus suffered martyrdom on this day (August 22) or the following at Portus Romanus. Furthermore, it is clear from Eusebius and other ancient writers that this martyr was endowed with episcopal dignity. Finally, St. Jerome in his work *De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, chapter 61, testifies that St. Hippolytus had a homily

^A on the praise of the Lord Savior, in which he signifies that he is speaking in the church in the presence of Origen. Hence, he seems to have been a bishop in the East, and perhaps in Arabia, to which Origen was summoned around the year 217, as we read in Eusebius, *H. E.*, book VI, chapter 19. With these things thus posited, could not St. Hippolytus, an Arab bishop, have easily come to Rome to visit the tombs of the apostles and other martyrs, to be seized by the heathens at the Roman Port, and to be put to death by martyrdom there? What if the populace, ignorant of the specific cathedra of this martyr, called this foreign bishop "Portuensis" [of Portus] from the place of his martyrdom, and this popular error passed on to some later writers, or rather, that that appellation gave occasion to posterity to assert an episcopal see of this martyr at Portus? Whatever the case concerning this conjecture of ours, which we would gladly abandon for more certain arguments from anyone, we place the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus at the Roman Port, in agreement with both ancient and more recent Martyrologies... Furthermore, they add that they not unwillingly admit the Eastern and Western episcopate of this holy martyr, along with Baronius and Ughelli (39), and acknowledge this latest system as a mere conjecture.

The authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* believe that the martyr St. Hippolytus had no fixed see, but, just like his companion Gaius, was a bishop of the nations (40). They reason as follows: Since Eusebius calls Hippolytus the bishop of some other church, albeit an indefinite one, we willingly believe that he did not have a fixed see, but should be considered, like his fellow student Gaius, a bishop of the nations. This opinion seems to us truly most simple and beyond controversy, and it accords perfectly with the history of our saint. For with this posited, we are no longer anxious in explaining why St. Hippolytus appeared now in the East, now in the West, as is evident from the few of his deeds that have reached our notice. That he lived in the East leaves no room for doubt, because he himself asserts in his works that Origen was among his audience, which certainly could not have happened in the West. Nor can it be called into doubt that, after he left the Church of Lyons, he sojourned in the West. An argument for confirming this, greater than any exception, is that he follows the custom of the Latins in the calculation of times, neglecting that of the Alexandrians, which all Orientals used.

From all these opinions or conjectures departs a man of far greater learning, Christoph Augu- ^B stus Heumann, and he uses a new method, for this matter is difficult to explain. Surely this learned man, even though all antiquity is repugnant, relying and trusting upon the various meanings of a single word, attempts to prove in a dissertation published at Göttingen in 1738 (41) that Hippolytus was indeed a bishop, but not an ecclesiastical one, but a civil one. To this opinion he summons a few passages from Greek and Latin writers, from which he gathers that there were sometimes men in civil offices who were called bishops; and that this name was attributed above all to guards of the maritime coast and even of the ports: so that consequently our Hippolytus, perhaps Roman by birth, should be considered a bishop of the Roman port in that sense. Indeed, if you listen to the critic, even the marble statue itself, placed for Hippolytus by his relatives and exhumed from the ruins of the Roman port in 1551, confirms such an opinion; since it, he says, bears no mark of ecclesiastical dignity. Splendid indeed. But now, if it pleases the gods, we know that Hippolytus must be counted among the Church Fathers who flourished in the beginning of the third century; a man not unlike Pliny (42), who, like him, was a prefect of the port of Misenum, a bishop indeed, but a civil one; an inspector, curator, and superintendent, I say, of the maritime coast. Assuredly our Hippolytus was a man of great dignity in the city of Rome, eminent in honors as well as in wealth, and prefect of the Roman port; so that, while he was duly performing that office, he revealed the most sublime mysteries of the Christian religion; he discoursed about theology and the incarnation, about God and the resurrection of the flesh; he published commentaries on almost every sacred page of both Testaments; he wrote on apostolic traditions; he labored on a demonstration of the times of Pascha; he sharpened his style against Jews, heathens, and heretics; who, furthermore, often held sermons to the people on divine matters; but most especially (43) on the praise of the Lord Savior, in which, in the presence of Origen, he signifies that he is speaking in the church; to whom, in the end, not only was a marble statue placed, but a statue sitting on a cathedra; by which, no doubt, his episcopal dignity was ecclesiastical, not civil, and his office of speaking to the people of God in the Church was attested to posterity. What could be more absurd to say? Hence the clarity of Schroeckhius (44), who thinks this conjecture of Heumann, though quite ingeniously devised and adorned, is hardly plausible.

In our age, a Roman editor has attempted to demonstrate from the *Tetrapla* of Origen, according to the Septuagint of Daniel, that St. Hippolytus not only existed as bishop of the Roman Port, but that his diocese also extended to that part of the city of Rome which is the region

beyond the Tiber, and had even included the Tiber Island itself.

^A But as for us, following the opinions of many learned men concerning the title of Hippolytus, in which he is called bishop of Rome, as he is frequently termed by the Greeks, it appeared more probable that this could be said because he himself, having been ordained bishop of the Gentiles in the city of Rome, was a bishop in the city of Rome, whence it became widely believed that he was bishop of Rome, which is incorrect. Caius the presbyter lived in the age of Hippolytus, and he too was the bishop of the Gentiles in Rome, as will appear below, dismissing the correction of Jo. Alb. Fabricius, who substituted "Gentiles" for "Athenae" without any right or necessity; and likewise also the correction of Jac. Basnage who, speaking of Hippolytus, says: This rite, he says, is plainly new, nor does it even reflect the pristine antiquity of which we speak; certainly because some bishops were present to assist the concerns of the Roman pontiffs. However, Christophorus Aug. Heumann wandered much further ^B who acknowledged Hippolytus only as a civil bishop, or a curator and inspector of the maritime coast, so that for the most valiant martyr, whether living or dead, he might have business with those who wished to err. Therefore, since the City flourished at that time with an innumerable crowd of people, and consequently the number of Christians grew daily, the Roman pontiffs employed most chosen and most learned men as assistants, whom they might use in the administration of the Church, and whom they wished to be in the rank of bishops. The care of the Portus Church, entrusted to Hippolytus, succeeds this, for which Church let no one oppose the silence or ignorance of Eusebius of Caesarea and St. Jerome so as to establish the chair of Hippolytus at the Port in Arabia. For both writers could more easily remain silent about the Roman Port, which was far removed, than about the Port of Arabia, which they had nearer to them. And to omit other things, the statue of Hippolytus is a singular witness that he is not presented as the bishop of Arabia, but of this vicinity; for on account of the paschal cycle there was no need for a statue, for which a marble tablet would have sufficed. Moreover, the Cycle itself demonstrates much more manifestly that the author lived not in the East, but in these very regions of ours. For it is entirely adapted to the use of the Latins; and it is so alien from the custom of the Orientals that it could not be understood by the most learned men who were contemporaries of Hippolytus and flourished in the East. S. Anatolius of Laodicea himself, most famous for this same study, says (47): Hippolytus, he says, composed a cycle of 16 years with certain unknown courses of the moon. But others have claimed the seat of Hippolytus more clearly, especially Constantinus Ruggerius ^C V. C. (48), whose 80 pages written on this subject we have examined, and which he has recently learnedly completed in a dissertation, which we have known to have been illustrated by notes and brought into our own time.

And as for those things which we could have brought forward, we have found them exposed in the same place, so that only a few remain which might settle the controversy concerning the many Hippolyti. There were two Hippolyti most famous for their anniversary cult in Rome: the first was a soldier, whose celebrated monument was joined to the church of St. Lawrence in the Agro Verano. The church records show his name on the Ides of August. Prudentius also shows it (49): If I remember well, most beautiful Rome honors this one on the Ides of the month of August. That the rest which Prudentius himself says he sings according to the credibility of a painting cannot be taken historically concerning only one Hippolytus, the venerable cardinal Baronius admonished, and it is a wonder that students of criticism later took the license of the painter for truth, or certainly did not wish to recognize the error which could arise when that was viewed, so that three Hippolyti might coalesce into one. The feast day of the other Hippolytus, who is the Portuensian, is recited variously: the 11th of the Kalends of September, or the day after, or the Nones of September, and by the Greeks the 4th or 5th of the Kalends of February. He is sometimes found called Nonnus for the sake of honor, according to ancient custom, whence some act of Nonnus, Bishop of Edessa, was attributed in a later age (50) to Hippolytus the Portuensian. Anastasius reported (51) that the body of Hippolytus was preserved in the Roman Port until the beginning of the 9th century. The same bountiful pontiff (Leo III) made two stauracius vestments in the basilica of Blessed Hippolytus the martyr in the city of Portus, one for his body, and the other for the high altar. But at the end of the same century, when Formosus was not yet supreme pontiff, but Bishop of Portus, the body of Hippolytus ^D with others was translated to the Tiber Island, which a contemporary inscription teaches (52):

HIC. REQUIESCUNT. CORPORA SCOR. MARTYRV. YPPOLITI. TAVRINI. HERCVLANI. ATQ. IOANNIS. CALIBITIS FORMOSYS. EPS CONDIDIT.

Since, therefore, we do not doubt that Hippolytus was the bishop of the Roman Port, we will more easily obtain that the Portuensian bishop for some time included in his diocese the region of the city beyond the Tiber, and the Tiber Island itself, whether because that part outside the city walls was considered defined by the river, or, as is certain, by the distinguished humanity of the Roman pontiffs, by which they also subsequently obtained some things beyond the ornaments of the Church which pertain to the empire, such as that of taking the inheritances of those who had died intestate. There are still extant for this matter the diplomas of Benedict VIII, in the year 1019; of John XIX, in the year 1026, and of Leo IX (53), who Jo-

^A asserted in that very Lateran Council—in which the Roman pontiff’s definitive judgment was subsequently pronounced—the most ancient dignity of his church for the bishop of Portus, and especially the temple of S. Adalbert on the Tiberina island, which at that time was called Lycaonia, against the opposition of Crescentius, bishop of Silva Candida. When, moreover, "suburbicarian bishops" are sometimes named "bishops of the City," no one fails to see how much more easily that title would have adhered to the bishops of Portus Romanus, who possessed such great authority across the Tiber (54). Therefore, we understand from where the custom is to be derived by which the bishops of Portus and Silva Candida used to receive certain gifts annually in the Vatican temple, which anyone would recognize from the monuments of the basilica recently made public. For this reason, it also happened that Formosus, while yet bishop of Portus—at a time when barbarians were plundering everything and the inhabitants, for fear of the Saracens, had deserted Portus Romanus—carried away the body of Hippolytus with others from Portus Romanus, where it had been buried, to a place as far as possible from his own see, namely to the Tiberina island, where we read that the bishop of Portus had his residence in the church of S. Ioannes inter duos pontes (55). That this is also detected in the aforementioned epigraph, which Formosus inscribed on the casket of sacred relics, is shown by the fact that it exhibits the names of Hippolytus, Taurinus, and Herculianus, which are read in the very old Liberian Calendar in this formula: *Non. Sept. Aconti in Porto, et Nonni, et Herculani, et Taurini*. We have shown that Hippolytus was called *Nonnus* as a mark of honor, just as an author of his own age, sufficiently qualified, says: "We call our elders *Nonnos* out of reverence; for paternal reverence is understood" (56). The Italians retain this when they call their grandfathers [by a cognate], and the Greeks signified nearly the same when they called Hippolytus *palaios* [the ancient]. Sometimes it is offered as *Nunus*, just as on old marble (57):

DONATA NUNO SUO TERTULLO CUM FILIA IN PACE.

Thus, the derivation invented by Le Moyne ^B is not only false—for he explains the son *Nonnus* as if [it were related to the word for son] (58), while it is contrary to the truth—but we also do not dwell on the derivations of Salmasius, who deduces them from *monos*, or those of others, since we are inquiring about usage and not origin. Let us therefore grant to the Greek writers that, since the Roman pontiffs wished to honor Hippolytus of Portus and his successors with certain distinguished ornaments, they did not name the see of Hippolytus after Portus, but after the City itself, as our epigraph, placed before this commentary, exhibits. Nor is it permissible to think this is more recent, with Scaliger, but rather that it is most ancient, and from the age of Eusebius of Caesarea, so that if Hippolytus were already being called bishop of Rome by the Greeks, it is not surprising that a very learned man, since he knew perfectly well that Hippolytus was not the Roman pontiff, wrote *heteras pou Ekklesias*, "of another church," which Jerome interpreted more clearly: "for I could not know the name of the city." But that Jerome, having stayed in Rome for a long time, could not be ignorant of the see of Hippolytus—this ignorance is *too* much exaggerated—we have already used [as an argument] because Jerome stayed longer in the Orient than in Rome.

So far the distinguished Mr. Simon de Magistris.

ARTICLE III. ON THE MARTYRDOM OF S. HIPPOLYTUS, ETC.

Being destitute of a wealth of documents concerning the deeds performed by our S. Hippolytus in his episcopate, we can report nothing at all in detail. But what we possess remaining from his works is sufficient to persuade us that he spent all his time during his episcopate in instructing the faithful and in defending the orthodox truth against whatever heresies might arise.

Jerome (59), Gelasius (60), Theodoret (61) and others in the list of martyrs inscribe Hippolytus; wherefore it is read in the Roman Martyrology (62) that under the Emperor Alexander, on account of a glorious confession of faith, he was thrown into a deep pit filled with water, his hands and feet tied, and died, ^C to whom Baronius adds other companions in martyrdom from the Acts of S. Aurea (63). It can scarcely be doubted, however, that the Acts of both Hippolytus and S. Aurea must be reckoned among the apocrypha, inasmuch as, as the same Baronius says, they are full of errors and in many places need restoration (64). That he attained the crown of martyrdom under the persecution of Maximinus or Decius is rendered probable by the fact that in the first year of the Emperor Alexander he published his *Canon of the Times* and the Paschal cycle, to which he added other minor works, as is evident from the catalog of his works.

Moreover, those things which writers report about the time of his martyrdom are diverse and uncertain. Some refer it to the year of Christ 230. But this does not please more rigorous critics, because in the Roman Martyrology the martyrdom of S. Hippolytus is placed under the rule of Alexander Severus, since at that time there was no persecution, but rather the emperor himself favored the Christians. Whence Ruinart in his *Preface to the Sincere Acts of the Martyrs*, page xlviii, proposes the same puzzle, and as best he can tries to discuss it in this way: "No one can deny that Alexander, the successor of Heliogabalus, favored the Christians, unless he wishes to reject all ancient writers." Whence it is a wonder that so many martyrs are reckoned by some to have suffered under his rule. Is this to be referred to the prefects, who they say were most cruel under his rule? ^D

I think it must not be simply affirmed; I admit, however, that the things narrated concerning his martyrdom, for the most part, are uncertain and shrouded in darkness.

Some things were sung by Prudentius concerning the martyr Hippolytus, which, if they could be applied to Hippolytus the bishop, would be more certain than the Acts. Ruinart (71) finds our Hippolytus, that is, the bishop, in the hymn of Prudentius (72), says Basnage (73). If he had attentively read Ruinart’s warning in the verses of Prudentius, he would have learned that the opposite was taught by him; for Ruinart notes in the same place that the Hippolytus celebrated by Prudentius must be distinguished from the other, of whom we are treating, and whose works Eusebius and Jerome mention; nay, rather, that three martyrs of the same name should be distinguished, whom Baronius and others have reported to have been confused into one by the authors of the Martyrologies. And indeed, the Hippolytus praised by Prudentius, who suffered martyrdom at the Roman Portus at the mouth of the Tiber, as is commonly believed, is completely different from ours. For this one was a bishop of an uncertain see, whereas that one was a presbyter of the Roman Church, and was at one time addicted to the opinions of Novatus, and was famous only for the crown of his martyrdom; but our own is most celebrated not only for his martyrdom, but also for his erudition and his writings. Finally, the former, according to Prudentius, perished torn by raging horses; whereas our own, if the Martyrologies are to be believed, died by being cast into a pit.

Hence, some writers, because of Emperor Alexander’s favor toward Christians, prefer to place the martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus under Alexander’s successor, Maximinus; among these, Dodwell refers his martyrdom to the year 235 (65). But although under Emperor Maximinus we have a cruel persecution against the Christians, which especially looked to their leaders—of which type our holy martyr also was—we nevertheless do not dare to decisively set the martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus under the reign of Maximinus, because of his own letter, which was written to a certain queen, and from which Theodoret (66) alleged some fragments. Baronius (67) thinks this queen was Mammaea, the mother of Emperor Alexander, who was somewhat favorable to the Christians. In truth, in the year of Christ 1551, a Paschal Cycle was found in the Ager Veranus, on the side of which, among other of Saint Hippolytus’s lucubrations, the *Exhortation to Severina* is noted. Whence Tillemont (68) suspects that by this Severina is indicated Severa, the wife of Emperor Philip, who is reported to have been a Christian, and to whom the most learned Origen also sent letters. If that suspicion of Tillemont be true, undoubtedly the martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus must be deferred to the year of Christ 250, or to the persecution of Emperor Decius. To confirm this suspicion, there is added the testimony of Saint Epiphanius, who, in heresy 37, or 57, writes thus against the Noetians: *After him another certain heretic, by the name of Noetus, emerged; and not many years ago, but nearly one hundred and thirty years before these, namely, before the saint composed this work of his.* Now, Saint Epiphanius wrote that work against heresies about the year 375, and thus, counting backward, the Noetian heresy arose under Emperor Philip, as Tillemont affirms (69). Since, therefore, Saint Hippolytus appears to have attacked this Noetian heresy as recently arisen, as is shown in the same Tillemont (l.c.), in that hypothesis his martyrdom cannot be placed before the persecution of Emperor Decius. These arguments of Tillemont, however, are not altogether certain, inasmuch as they are denied by others.

Nor are the things that are added concerning the place of the martyrdom fortified by such authority that faith ought to be held in them. Indeed, since Eusebius and Jerome are silent about this martyrdom, Christoph Heumann (70) thinks that Hippolytus is falsely added to those who shed their blood for the cause of Christ, and by that means confirmed the truth of the Christian religion. Which if—

CONCERNING THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF SAINT HIPPOLYTUS

Theodoret compares this holy doctor to a flowing fountain, while in dialogue 3, or volume IV of his works, page 154 and following, he adduces his testimony and that of other holy Fathers against heretics in this way: *Let your ears therefore be opened, and receive the streams of the spiritual fountains, of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and martyr from the epistle to the Smyrnaeans... of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the third book against heresies... of Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from the epistle to a certain queen.* Saint Chrysostom, or rather another ancient author under his name, attributes to Saint Hippolytus an excellent talent and most sweet eloquence, and does not hesitate to compare him with Saint Ignatius M. and Saint Dionysius of Corinth or Alexandria (74). Saint Anastasius, a confessor of the seventh century, decorates the same with the title of a great and most holy doctor, a faithful witness of the truth, and an organ of the Holy Spirit (75). Leontius of Byzantium lists our holy doctor among the most illustrious Fathers of the Church, who flourished from the birth of the Savior up to the reign of Constantine the Great (76).

CHAPTER II. ON THE GENUINE WRITINGS OF SAINT HIPPOLYTUS.

ARTICLE I. DE CATALOGO LIBRORUM IN HIPPOLYTI STATUA SCULPTO.

Since the catalogue of Hippolytus' books, which is inscribed upon the statue erected only in the sixth century, possesses some authority, even if not great, it is necessary, before we begin to inquire into the writings of our author, to restore the mangled text of that catalogue. ^A

In the first four lines, it is sufficiently evident that some letters have been worn away. Thus, in the first line, one reads ΛΜΟΥΣ. Scaliger believes these letters to be the remnants of the word ψαλμούς (“psalms”), which should be joined with the letters read in the following line, ΝΙΑΣ; however, Scaliger thinks that after changing the letters to ΝΟΙΑΣ, these last are syllables of the word μετανοίας, so that they are to be understood as ψαλμοὶ μετανοίας (penitential psalms). This conjecture, which has been refuted for very weighty reasons by Stephanus Moynius, is shown to be entirely false also from the fact that in the following third line, our author’s commentary on the psalms is noted, and the word μετανοίας, since it contains only nine letters, does not seem to have filled the entire line. For in each line there are found approximately sixteen letters. Stephanus himself conjectured that one should read εἰς πρωτοπλάστους καὶ περὶ κοσμογονίας or ζωογονίας. This conjecture is not without all probability; for it is certain that our author wrote on the Hexaemeron and on what comes after the Hexaemeron; but I shall omit [the discussion] regarding the number of letters and the particle καὶ. It strikes me as strange, however, that the reverse is not written, so that the whole title would read περὶ κοσμογονίας, εἰς πρωτοπλάστους. It is difficult, since there exist so many books of Hippolytus, and the sculptor assigned to the books obscure and new titles (e.g., ἐγγαστρίμυθον), to demonstrate with sufficient clarity which books are to be understood. Therefore, I leave the matter in suspense; contending only for this one thing, that by those letters were signified commentaries on the Holy Scriptures; ^B for it appears that when those were finished, dogmatic and apologetic books were finally lauded.

ΛΜΟΥΣ. That these letters are the remnants of the word ψαλμούς, I do not doubt, for Jerome testifies that our author wrote on them. Therefore, looking to the space of the line to be filled with letters, I think one should read τὰ εἰς τοὺς ψαλμούς.

ΓΑΣΤΡΙΜΥΘΟΝ. Scaliger rightly saw that it should be read ἐγγαστρίμυθον. Since Jerome in the catalogue of our author’s books praises a book on Saul and the Pythoness, Stephanus with just right contends that the little book inscribed with this title referred to that Pythoness who is narrated, by order of King Saul, to have called up the soul of Samuel from Orcus (1 Sam. ch. 28).

Πρὸς Σεβηρεῖναν. Stephanus conjectured ΣΕΒΗΡΑΝ ΑΥ, and believes this epistle was given to Severa, the wife of Philip the Arab.

ᾨδαὶ εἰς πάσας γραφάς. It seems strange that our author is said to have had homilies on the whole of Holy Scripture or on each of its books. Therefore, Stephanus conjectured ᾠδαὶ εἰς πάσας αἱρέσεις. ^C This Cave criticizes, thinking that in that way squares can be changed into circles most easily. It cannot be denied, however, that there is such a similarity between the letters of each word that the one who first published the catalogue, with the letters on the statue worn away, misled by error, could easily exchange those words. In place of ᾠδαὶ εἰς, the same Stephanus wishes to read πρὸς πάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις. This is indeed most sagacious; we, however, leave the matter in suspense, since it is not permitted for us to inspect the statue itself and the catalogue inscribed upon it.

That we may understand clearly that the catalogue inscribed on the statue is mangled and corrupt, it is pleasing to compare it with the catalogues of our author’s books which we find in Eusebius and Jerome.

ARTICLE II.

ON THE BOOK OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS ENTITLED: DEMONSTRATION CONCERNING CHRIST AND ANTICHRIST.

Hippolytus wrote many things, as noted by Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, and others. Some of these have reached us; yet for the most part, owing to the injury of time, we now lack them; or only fragments remain, which are found both in published books and in manuscript codices. There are also not a few which indeed bear the name of Hippolytus; but the nature of these is such that learned men have correctly judged that they were not composed by Hippolytus, and should be counted among doubtful and supposititious books.

And first, the place among the complete or more extensive works of St. Hippolytus is held by the *Demonstration concerning Christ and Antichrist*, which Jerome, Andrew of Caesarea, Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus, and Photius mention; the passages concerning these, C. V. Gallandius ^A has placed before the Hippolytean writings among the testimonies of the ancients; so that one must wonder at the confidence of Basnage, who, disregarding the faith of ancient writers, and contrary to the calculation of all learned men, calls the author of this *Demonstration* a fictitious Hippolytus. Would that he had read and weighed the sincere judgment of the first editor, who certainly could not justly have been suspicious of himself. Thus, therefore, Gudius writes:

"We have gladly taken care to add the testimony of Photius ^A; so that if the simplicity of the thoughts and the speech itself in this little work should offend the reader, he might have no doubt on that account regarding its authenticity. Photius attaches to our little book, as a notable mark, 'the simplicity of the thoughts.' And indeed, whatever he attributed to Hippolytus corresponds wonderfully."

Having said these things concerning the integrity of the work, Gudius proceeds, and discusses its title in these words: "But the inscription which the same Photius preserved must not be omitted: *On Christ and Antichrist*. Both the Remensian and Ebroicensian codices, from which the work was copied, [have it] similarly: *On our Saviour Jesus Christ, and on the Antichrist*. I, however, have departed [from this usage] for weighty reasons. For I ought not, once my conscience was convinced, to propagate the error and ignorance of the copyists superstitiously. Hippolytus will declare the reason for the necessary change, whose words are: 'But since now the time presses us toward those things which have been proposed to us as a subject, since those things which we have urged in the beginning to the glory of God are sufficient, it is right that we, approaching the divine Scriptures themselves, should see from them who and what is the coming of the Antichrist.' What now is more evident, than that those things which he had said concerning Christ do not pertain to the argument? He testifies most plainly that he professes nothing except the demonstration of the Antichrist. Let us rather believe the author ^B than Photius, whose stupidity ^C...

^A regarding the manuscripts was a snare to him. The error in this title is older than eight hundred years. But we are not moved by the antiquity of the error. For against Photius we oppose Jerome, a witness far superior in reliability and age, whose authority I always value greatly. He, moreover, commended the treatise on the Antichrist. This should have been noted in passing, lest anyone suspect us of encroaching upon manuscripts with youthful rashness. So far Gudius, whose opinion, however, is less approved by Combefis (91); and for that reason, along with Fabricius (92) and Gallandius (93), we also follow him. For as Combefis notes, since Hippolytus promises that he will speak of the revelation of Christ’s advent, of heaven, and of the kingdom of the saints with Christ, and since he opposes the Antichrist to Christ throughout the tractate—it is not so poorly denoted, whether by Hippolytus or by anyone else: *Concerning Christ and Antichrist*. This is also represented by those sources following the Photian manuscript, from which the edition of Gudius was derived: to which, therefore, I have preferred to adhere rather than defer to his change. I would not readily say that Jerome (whose authority I myself also value greatly) contradicts Photius, because in enumerating many works of Hippolytus, he merely spoke of the *On the Antichrist*. Indeed, he did not deny the mention of Christ, but wrote the summary thus, whereby the treatise might be better known; Photius reviewed the entire title from the manuscript. Then, the whole treatise pertains to warning the faithful against the Antichrist through the demonstration from the Scriptures, and to joining one to Christ, and to revealing the difference between the two to him at the end; for he does not exclude Christ, lest he himself seem a part of the argument, and the genuine and proper end of the treatise, not merely external to it.

The holy Father committed this work to writing, having been requested by a certain Theophilus, with whom he had previously spoken on the same subject; and for that reason, he dedicates his book to him, whom he calls his dearest brother. In it, however, in the judgment of Photius, as we just heard, the simplicity and antiquity of the senses are preserved; the style of speaking, indeed, is clear and perspicuous in the first place, and no less appropriate for interpretation. Moreover, the epoch of this book is altogether uncertain, nor can it be gathered from the adjuncts at what time the holy Father composed this treatise.

Analysis of this treatise.

Saint Hippolytus composed the book *On the Antichrist* on the occasion of a conversation he had with a certain Theophilus (94), to whom he dedicated it, and whom he calls his dearest brother. He warns Theophilus in the first place not to participate in his writings with those who are infidels, ^C who blaspheme what they are ignorant of, but with the faithful who live in holiness, justice, and the fear of God (95). But before Saint Hippolytus proceeds to the treatise *On the Antichrist*, he first proposes two other questions for himself to resolve: namely, how the Word of God manifested Himself to the prophets before the incarnation? and then how the same Word of God was made a servant of God through the incarnation? He resolves the first question by drawing a comparison from a musical instrument, and says that the prophets are like the strings, and the Word is like a plectrum, by whose motion and impulse they announced to other men things unknown to the prophet (96). As for the second question, Saint Hippolytus answers Theophilus: Because the Word displays His mercy, and that He is by no means a respecter of persons, through all the saints, illuminating them and composing them like a skilled physician toward those things which conduce to our salvation, since He is not ignorant of human infirmity. And indeed, He strives to teach the ignorant; but he converts the erring to his true way. And indeed, He is easily found by those who seek in faith; but to those who desire to knock at the door with clean eyes and a pure heart, He opens immediately. For He rejects none of his servants as unworthy of divine mysteries. He does not value the rich man more than the poor, nor does He despise the poor man for his poverty. He does not reproach the barbarian, nor does he cast away the eunuch as if he were not a man. He does not hate the woman because of the disobedience of her first origin, nor does He disturb the man because of the guilt of transgression; but He wishes for all, and desires to save all. He wishes to present all as sons of God, and calls all the saints into one perfect man; for there is also one Son of God, by whose gift we also, having obtained regeneration through the Holy Spirit, desire all to meet in one perfect and heavenly man (97). Afterwards, he explains in a few words how the Word of God, although a most pure spirit, was incarnate in the womb of the Virgin; and he concludes that the Word was united to our mortal flesh, that He might render our body incorruptible, and save man who had been lost. He adds some things concerning the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thinks he finds some likeness of it in the art of the weaver (98).

These things being premised, he begins the treatise *On the Antichrist*, ^D concerning which he shows from the Scriptures, and attempts to resolve the following questions: Namely, who and of what nature is the advent of the Antichrist, at what age and time that wicked one shall be revealed; whence, and from what tribe, what is his name, how he shall lead the people into error, and what tribulation he shall also inflict upon the saints (99). Then he explains...

^A the visions of Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel in this manner: "Since, therefore, things spoken in such mysterious sense seem to some difficult to grasp, we shall hide nothing, so that those who are endowed with a sound mind may understand. For by saying 'a lioness ascending from the sea,' he signified the kingdom of the Babylonians in the world, which was the golden head of this image. And when he says: 'Its wings as eagles,' it is because King Nebuchadnezzar was exalted and puffed up against God. While he says: 'Its wings were plucked,' it is because his glory was taken away; for he was cast out of his kingdom. By saying: 'A man’s heart was given to it, and it stood upon the feet of a man,' [it means] that he was brought to repentance, acknowledging himself to be a man, and he gave glory to God. After the lioness, therefore, he saw a second animal similar to a bear, which are the Persians... By saying 'three ribs (or rows) in its mouth,' he signified three nations: the Persians, the Medes, and the Babylonians; and this he shows by the silver joined to the gold in the image. There follows a third beast, a leopard, namely the Greeks; for after the Persians, Alexander the Macedonian took possession of affairs, having defeated Darius, who is shown in the image by the appearance of bronze. By saying 'four wings of a bird,' he taught most clearly how the empire of Alexander was divided; for by saying 'four heads,' he recorded the four kings who arose from him; for Alexander, dying, divided his solid empire into four parts. Then he says: 'The fourth beast, terrible and astonishing, its teeth of iron and its claws of bronze.' Who are these, if not the Romans, [the empire] which is of iron, which stands even now, and the empire remains; for its legs are of iron; for after these, what else of the image remains, O most beloved, except the traces of the feet, and in which a part is iron, but part is earthen, with the species mixed together? By the claws of the feet, he designated in a mysterious sense that the kings would have their origin from it, as Daniel says: 'I was thinking about the beast, and behold ten horns behind it, among which another little one will arise, and it will pluck out three horns that were before it.' By which nothing else is pointed out than the Antichrist, who himself also will stir up the kingdom of the Jews: the three horns plucked out by him denote three kings, of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, whom he will kill in the line of battle."

Almost in the same way, Saint Hippolytus interprets the dream of Nebuchadnezzar concerning the huge and tall statue which Daniel described. The golden head, he says, of the statue, the lioness, were the Babylonians; the shoulders and arms of silver, the bear, the Persians and Medes; the belly and thighs of bronze, the leopard, the Greeks who ^B took possession of affairs under Alexander; the legs of iron, the beast, astonishing and terrible, the Romans, who now possess affairs; the traces of the feet, the clay and the iron, and from these [will come] the horns, which are the future kingdoms and empires; another little horn growing up, which is numbered among them, the Antichrist; the stone striking and shattering the image, which filled the earth and brings judgment upon the world, is Christ.

Furthermore, Saint Hippolytus, after he had noted the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (chap. I, v. 7), and the prophecy of Daniel concerning the image, or statue, explained before, and also another prophecy of Isaiah (chap. XLVII, v. 1 et seq.) as having been fulfilled for the most part, [and] from the Apocalypse of Saint John (chapters XVII and XVIII), describes in detail the damnation of the Antichrist, which chapters this holy Hippolytus relates at length, and at last adds: "It has been most clearly declared in these testimonies, detail by detail, concerning the judgment of the torments which, in the last times, are to be visited upon that injury [caused] by the tyrants who shall be then."

Afterward the holy Father describes how the Antichrist will exhibit himself as God ^C and will gather the people unto himself, and how he will persecute the Church. Finally, he decrees the death of the Antichrist after a thousand two hundred and sixty days of his reign. Moreover, when these things are completed, he teaches that there will be the consumption of the whole world, the final judgment, and the kingdom of the heavens.

Finally, Saint Hippolytus concludes his demonstration with the following: "I have expounded these things to you in brief, Theophilus, drawn from the divine Scriptures, so that, by keeping the faith, and considering what is written and looking ahead to the future, you may keep yourself unoffended toward God and men, expecting the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, in which the saints being raised up will rejoice with them, glorifying the Father; to Him be glory forever and ever. Amen."

ARTICLE III.

SAINT HIPPOLYTUS' TREATISE ON THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.

The demonstration concerning Christ and Antichrist is followed by the treatise on Susanna, published in Greek and Latin by Combefis, and from there transferred by Fabricius into his own edition; the Latin version, however, is repeated in the *Bibliotheca SS. Patrum Lugdunensi*. No one may rightly doubt the integrity of this treatise, where he compares it with the preceding chapter; for in both he will easily recognize an equal method of interpreting the Scriptures. To these is added the testimony of George Syncellus, who seems to have read a work of this kind. For thus he writes: "But the holy Hippolytus in his writing on Susanna and Daniel [says that] Joachim, son of Joakim, by another name Jechonias, when he had reigned three years after his father, was carried away to Babylon with the rest; and Daniel, indeed, along with three youths, [were] companions of this captivity; but him..."

Susanna he calls the spouse: and it is not alien to the truth, or [alien] to the sentiment.

But that we may be more fully instructed concerning this matter, let us hear the illustrious editor thus speaking: «That which," he says, "I present as Hippolytus’ work on the history of Susanna (perhaps not quite entire, but such as the author of the ^A Royal Catena on Scripture inserted, with the license of such catenae, as if by choice into his exposition) appears to be the very thing that Jerome inscribed concerning Daniel, and which Photius joins to another of his lucubrations, *On Antichrist*. By a simple allegory, he thus adopts Susanna as a type of the Church, so that he energetically reveals the state of the Church of his time and incidentally some ecclesiastical rites: concerning the anointing of baptism, concerning its solemn rite at Easter, on which occasion especially Jews and pagans used to rage against the Church; which, perhaps, they deemed more troublesome to happen to new Christians than to those who were already ancient. Thus we often see in the Acts of the martyrs, [that those] who have recently crossed over to the camp of Christ, and revere the works of the martyrs, are called to punishments; whereas there were innumerable other Christians, who were spared and who could hardly remain hidden from the judges. For outside the Diocletian persecution at Rome, hardly ever was it raged so universally against Christians—who were then more numerous and made up a people, and [constituted] a Church—so that the very multitude itself was sought as a victim for the one, as it were, raging sword.» Thus Combefisius.

This brief commentary explains the history of Susanna allegorically. St. Hippolytus says that Susanna ^C bore the figure of the Church; Joachim, however, her husband, [the figure] of Christ. The garden or orchard is the calling of the saints, who have been planted in the Church like fruit-bearing trees. Babylon is the world. The two elders are known to represent two peoples, who did not cease to lay snares for the Church; namely, Jews and gentiles. But why is the history of Susanna related at the end of the book of Daniel, when it is a known and attested fact that it occurred before all other things reported by the prophet? St. Hippolytus responds: that it is so arranged according to the customs of the sacred writers, that they hand down not a few things recorded in the monuments of letters in an inverted order. For even in the prophets we find some visions written down earlier, and others related afterwards, which [nevertheless] in the first ^D [order of time] were taking place. This, indeed, was done by a special divine power and counsel of the Spirit, lest the devil should understand what had been said in parables by the prophets, and again lay snares to destroy man once more. This sentiment comes very close to that which St. Jerome attributes to the divine Ignatius, as to why the Blessed Virgin Mary was betrothed to St. Joseph.

Moreover, this little work contains nothing unworthy of the divine Hippolytus; even the very time when it had been composed accords very beautifully with the century of this holy Father. For we see Jews and gentiles, as this author noted, conspiring against the Church, accusing Christians that they act against the decrees of the Cæsars, and on that account [they were] brought to the tribunals and condemned to death; these adjuncts of persecution are to be observed at the beginning and middle of the third century. Finally, the authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* perceive that it is probable that this small exposition was a homily delivered by Hippolytus to the people.

ARTICLE IV.

OF THE TREATISE WHICH IS INSCRIBED «DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THE JEWS.»

The Demonstration against the Jews, which follows in the third place, is thought to be designated in the Hippolytan stone table, where in the first line these letters appear: IOYC; that is, as it seemed to some, *Apodexis pros tous Ioudaious*. Various conjectures of learned men have been set forth by the honorable Fabricius, vol. I of his Works, p. 80. However that may be regarding the inscription on the tablet, nothing occurs in the little work that is unworthy of Hippolytus, nothing that does not agree with his age. Furthermore, the book of Wisdom is praised everywhere by the author under the name of Solomon, which indeed befits a disciple of Irenæus, as has been noted by learned men. Added to this is the authority of an old codex, from which Franciscus Turrianus adorned his version. Hence Basnage, who rejects the two preceding writings of Hippolytus as fictitious, and also deems this one to be supposititious to Hippolytus, is by no means to be heard. But let us dismiss the supercilious censor, and let him grow wise for himself alone; who, indeed, does not bring forth even one word by which he might at least signify why he feels so. The version of Turrianus was first edited by Possevin, then by ^D Imbonatus; finally by Fabricius in the former Hippolytan...

volume; who later, having obtained a copy of the Vatican codex, which V. C. Montfaucon shared with him, published the work in a later edition in Greek and Latin, as translated by the same Turrianus. The same illustrious editor suspects that the aforementioned Demonstration against the Jews is a section of the commentaries of St. Hippolytus on the Psalms, since it is, as it were, a paraphrase of Psalm LXVIII, according to the Hebrews LXIX, in which the passion to be inflicted upon Christ by the Jews is foretold by David the royal psalmist.

ARTICLE V. ON THE BOOK AGAINST THE GREEKS, OR AGAINST PLATO ON THE CAUSE OF THE UNIVERSE.

In the fourth place, a remarkable fragment occurs to be noted from the book against the Greeks, which is inscribed *Against Plato, on the cause of the universe*; which, indeed, you may see mentioned in the stone list: πρὸς Ἕλληνας καὶ πρὸς Πλάτωνα, ἢ καὶ περὶ τοῦ παντός. More on this, learnedly, is by Fabricius (22). Two excerpts of this Hippolytan writing, and indeed more emended than those already edited, exist in the Damascene Parallels of the Rochefoucauld collection, pages 755 and 789, with which the illustrious Gallandius therefore compared the published Fabrician edition.

^A I do not purposely refute those who attribute this treatise to Gaius, Justin, Irenæus, Origen, and Meletius. It is better for us that in the very ancient stone inscription, which still exists, the book *πρὸς Πλάτωνα, ἢ περὶ τοῦ παντός*, *Against Plato, or on the universe*, is listed among the works of Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, so that we need not seek another parent for it. It must surely have happened that the librarian, when he read in the codex he had before his eyes only the first Greek letters of the name Hippolytus, "Iππo, with the others deleted or suppressed by abbreviation, henceforth supposed it to have been written 'Iωσήππου (25), whence he attributed the work to Josephus. Furthermore, that the author did not defend the opinions of Plato, but rather attacked them, and that therefore it should be read (in the Parallels and in the inscription of the work) *κατὰ Πλάτωνος*, and not *κατὰ Πλάτωνα*, learned men have already observed. And certainly in these fragments, the fables and trifles of the Platonic philosophers concerning the underworld are purposely refuted and exploded, and in their place are substituted those things which the Christian faith teaches, if you remove a few things which deviate from the common doctrine of Catholics. Photius observes that this work was ^B distributed into two parts, *ἐν δυσὶ λογιδίοις*; indeed, that in some codices it even had such an inscription: *περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας*, *of the cause of the universe*, and in others *περὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς οὐσίας*, *of the substance of the universe*. You may see more in the same Photius. So far the illustrious editor.

Since, however, various opinions of both the ancients and the moderns are circulated concerning the author of this work, it is pleasing to bring forward the judgment of Lequien; whose opinion, as a most learned man, we willingly embrace. Thus, therefore, he writes (23): "Another excerpt of this lucubration, *Περὶ τοῦ παντός*, *On the universe*, is had in these Rochefoucauld Parallels, letter a, title 71, where it is attributed to Meletius of Antioch. Photius (24) narrates that this same work was assigned to saints Justin, Irenæus, and Gaius, a presbyter of the Roman Church. I judge that it is most certainly established that it is not the fruit of Josephus, because both these fragments—nay, the whole fragment which Hoeschelius in his notes on Photius published in Greek, and Stephen Le Moyne published in Greek and Latin among ^C *Varia sacra*—proclaim a Christian, not a Jewish, author. For it teaches that Christ is God the Word, nay, God made man, *Θεὸν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα*. It uses, moreover, Evangelical expressions and ideas. For thus it speaks of God the Word made flesh: *Τούτῳ ὁ Πατὴρ πᾶσαν κρίσιν δέδωκε*, "To Him the Father gave all judgment": just as, indeed, he had read in John v, 22: "For neither does the Father judge anyone, but has given all judgment to the Son." And likewise, where he says: *Χάος γὰρ βαθὺ καὶ μέγα ἀνὰ μέσον ἐστήρικται, ὥστε μὴ δίκαιον συμπαθήσαντα προσδέξασθαι, μήτε ἄδικον τολμήσαντα διελθεῖν.* "For a deep and great chaos is fixed between both, so that neither may the just receive them with an affection of pity, nor may the unjust dare to cross..." ^D ; what else does this mean, except what the Lord had pronounced in Luke xvi, 26: *And in all these things between us and you chaos magnum firmatum est, ἑστήρικται, ut hi, qui volunt hinc transire ad vos, non possint, neque inde huc transmeare*?

Nor is it right to omit here a passage from the same work *On the cause of the universe*, which does not exist in that fragment which survives today. Joannes Philoponus preserved it for us, although he himself, as also Joannes Zonaras (26), wrongly, as we have seen, ascribe it to Josephus. It is of this kind (27): *Τὸ οὖν, γενηθήτω στερέωμα ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ ὕδατος, οὐ μεταξὺ λέγει τοῦ κάτω ὕδατος τὴν τοῦ στερεώματος γενέσθαι φύσιν, ὡς Ἰώσηπος ὁ Ἑβραῖος ἐν τῷ Περὶ τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίας συγγράμματι βούλεται, εἰς τρία, λέγων, διῃρῆσθαι τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ μὲν τρίτον αὐτοῦ εἰς γένεσιν συμπαγῆναι τοῦ στερεώματος, τὸ δὲ τρίτον ἐναπομεῖναι κάτω, τὸ δὲ λοιπὸν τρίτον ἐν τοῖς νώτοις εἰς ὕψος συνανακουφισθῆναι τῷ στερεώματι.* That is: "That therefore, 'Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water,' does not argue the nature of the firmament to exist in the midst of this inferior water, as Josephus the Hebrew wishes in the book which he wrote *On the cause of the universe*, saying that water is tripartite, and that indeed a third part of it coalesced into the generation of the firmament; the other third part remained below; finally, the remaining third..."

^A part was raised into the firmament by rarefaction. » However, those who believe that in this Hippolytean work against the Greeks and Plato he refers to the greatest teacher seem to have hit the mark, when he says (28): Miltiades also wrote an excellent volume against the Gentiles. Hippolytus, too, and Apollonius, a senator of the city of Rome, composed their own treatises. The holy Father was indeed imbued with these men, who were by far the most learned of that age, and who strove to overturn the tenets of the heathens with their writings; I mean Clement of Alexandria, his companion Gaius, a presbyter of the Roman Church, and others.

ARTICLE VI. TRACTATE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS AGAINST NOETUS.

§ I. The Tractate against Noetus is the genuine offspring of St. Hippolytus.

The fifth place is occupied by a truly remarkable lucubration against the heresy of Noetus. That Hippolytus wrote against all heresies is attested by Eusebius (29) and Jerome (30); but Photius, who is found to have read this work, informs us (31) that Hippolytus's book against heresies had been written in thirty-two parts; where the holy Father, starting from the Dositheans, ended with Noetus; who indeed began to come forward during the reign of Alexander around the year 230, so that, consequently, what remains of that work must be the last part. For the sake of establishing its integrity, it is above all worth observing that St. Gelasius transcribed a remarkable and sufficiently lengthy passage from it, to whom, on account of this brevity, a work of this kind is called "Memorial of Heresies." For thus he, reviewing the testimonies of the ancients concerning the two natures in Christ (32): Among those of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr of the metropolis of Arabia, in the Memorial of Heresies: « Here advancing into the world, he appeared as God and man, » etc. Which very words, with ^B few changes, occur in St. Hippolytus, chapter 18. What if even Sandius himself, having rejected the remaining Hippolytean works as spurious, deems this one alone to be genuine against the heresy of Noetus (53)?

However, Gerard Vossius of Tongeren brought this excellent commentary to light among the Miscellanies of some Greek and Latin holy Fathers, at the end of the Works of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus (Mainz edition, 1604, 4to), from the Latin version of Franciscus Turrianus, with the observations of the same interpreter also appended on pages 58-71. Thence, the edition was repeated in the Bibliotheca Patrum of Cologne 1618, Paris 1644, and Lyon 1677, as well as in the Morellian Supplement, volume I, page 620. Finally, it was published in Greek by Fabricius from a Vatican manuscript, which he reported was received from that most excellent man, Montfaucon. Cardinal William Sirletus discovered a copy of another Greek manuscript in the most ancient monastery of St. Basil, and mentions it in the epistle prefixed to the Liturgy of St. Mark the Evangelist (34). Moreover, the inscription of the work according to Turrianus reads thus: *Homily on the Triune and One God, and on the mystery of the Incarnation against the heresy of Noetus.* But in the Vatican codex it is of this kind: Ομιλία Ἱππολύτου εἰς τὴν αἵρεσιν Νοήτου τινός. For in it indeed the holy Father addresses the faithful from time to time, as is wont to happen in homilies. But it is sufficiently clear that the ancients used the same method in other writings as well, as the lauded Fabricius observes.

§ II. Analysis of this tractate.

Noetus, according to St. Hippolytus, was a Smyrnean by birth (35). This heretic said that Christ was the same as the Father, and that the Father himself was begotten and suffered... he claimed to be Moses and that his brother was Aaron. When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him and examined him before the Church; he, however, denied at first that he thought so; but later, hiding behind certain things, and having gathered others who were in the same error, he wanted to defend his dogma openly; the presbyters, having summoned him again, refuted him; but he resisted, saying, "What evil then do I do if I honor Christ?" To this the presbyters ^C answered: "We also truly know one God, we know Christ, we know that the Son suffered even as he suffered, died even as he died, and was raised on the third day and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead (36); and we say these things which we have learned." Then they ejected him, thus convicted, from the Church, he who came in such pride that he undertook to teach.

Before St. Hippolytus demonstrates the distinction of the Persons in the unity of the divine nature in the most holy Trinity, he first proposes the arguments of Noetus against the Trinity, or the distinction of the divine Persons, and dissolves them by interpreting the true sense of the Holy Scriptures, which the Noetians abused or whose text they maliciously truncated. Having refuted the arguments of Noetus, St. Hippolytus sets out to demonstrate the Trinity and the distinction of the divine Persons from the holy Scriptures themselves, and in the first place he notes (37) that there is one God, whom we do not acknowledge from anywhere else than from the holy Scriptures... "Whatever therefore the holy Scriptures preach, let us know; and whatever they teach, let us acknowledge; and as the Father wills to be believed, let us so believe; and ^D

as the Son wills to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as the Father wills the Holy Spirit to be given, let us receive Him; not according to our own will, nor according to our own sense, nor imposing force upon those things which have been given by Him, but as He Himself has willed to teach through the Holy Scriptures, so let us understand."

After these things, he discourses concerning the eternal generation and consubstantiality of the Son, and the incarnation of the Word. He teaches that only the Word is incarnate, and that He is the same as the Son of God, and he proves this even from the Apocalypse, which he praises under the name of the evangelist John. He declares that not the Father, but the Son alone was incarnate, and warns that curiosity is to be avoided in searching into mysteries. Finally, he hands down that two natures and two operations are to be professed in Christ, and concludes his tractate with a doxology. Furthermore, it is to be observed that, as the learned Tillemont notes, Epiphanius in heresy 57, which is that of the Noetians, repeats many things word for word from Hippolytus, although he is not named, for the refutation of those heretics; and, in the judgment of Ceillier, it is also probable that Epiphanius borrowed from this fragment of Hippolytus that historical passage concerning the excommunication of Noetus. Finally, this fragment of Hippolytus, against Dupin who denies it, is excellently vindicated by the authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France*.

ARTICLE VII. ON THE TRACTATE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS CONCERNING THEOLOGY AND THE INCARNATION AGAINST BERON AND HELIX.

§ 1. By whom the eight excerpts from the sermon on theology and the incarnation were preserved for us.

^BAnastasius, presbyter and apocrisiarius of the Roman Church, about the middle of the seventh century, testifies that when he was staying at Constantinople, there was brought to him a book of St. Hippolytus, bishop of Porto Romano and martyr, in which he anticipates and refutes the heresy of the Monothelites; and since he wished to transcribe it entirely, he was barely able to extract more than eight passages or testimonies from it, due to the malice of the Monothelites, who tore the same book from his hands. These eight fragments from the sermon *On Theology and the Incarnation against Beron and Helix* have been preserved for us.

Those who have treated these matters, indeed, are: Nicephorus of Constantinople in the *Antirrhetici* against the Iconoclasts, and in truth Anastasius the apocrisiarius in his *Collectanea* rendered them into Latin. Henry Canisius first published them from the version of Turrianus. Next, Sirmond added the Greek from the same codex of Turrianus to the Anastasian version. Combefis also edited them in the first volume of the Works of St. Maximus, both in Greek and Latin, and he also revised the version of Anastasius. Fabricius subsequently transferred the same into his edition of Hippolytus. After this, Basnage took the Greek from the edition of Combefis, and attached the version of Turrianus to the first volume of the *Thesaurus Canisianus*; at the end of which, furthermore, he added the observations of the most distinguished Claude Capperonnier on the version of Anastasius collated with the Greek. Instructed by these aids, the learned Gallandi prepared his edition; he submitted the observations of previous editors, nor did he omit the notes which the learned editor of the Sirmondian collection brought to the margin; he added the Combefisian revision to the version of the Anastasian testimonies of Hippolytus, and appended the entire observations of Capperonnier.

^C There is certainly no cause for one to be able to rightly doubt the integrity of these works. For in these fragments there is nothing to be read that does not specifically befit Hippolytus; indeed, whether you consider the argument or the method of disputation, you would find all things almost identical to the preceding opusculum against Noetus; so that, consequently, the most learned men, Bullus in particular, Tillemont, and others, deservedly vindicate fragments of this kind for Hippolytus.

But the most learned man, Ellies Dupin, doubts whether those excerpts have St. Hippolytus as their author; however, Natalis Alexander, Petavius, Sandius, and Basnage attempt to prove that the book *On Theology and the Incarnation* is not a genuine work of St. Hippolytus. Let us hear Natalis Alexander himself discoursing against these excerpts: "The book *On Theology and the Incarnation against the heretics Beron and Helix*... does not appear to be of St. Hippolytus, whose name it bears. For neither do the ancients mention it, nor does it agree with the times of Hippolytus. For it refutes the error of Apollinaris and Eutyches concerning the mutation of divinity... ^D into flesh, or of flesh into God... in their dogmatizing... This book, having been brought to us at Byzantium before we had suffered, when we wished to transcribe it entirely, the adversaries, suddenly insisting according to their custom, seized it in the manner of robbers, and we were not able to take from it more than these eight testimonies."

^A of deity into flesh, or of flesh into deity (as is evident from those words in chapter 4): "What essence," he says, "will it have, in their opinion, having become man, with the deity changed into flesh? And what will God have, with the flesh changed into deity?" For the mutation of two natures into one another is the destruction of both. Nor does this book appear to have been written only after the heresies of Apollinaris and Eutyches had already arisen, but even after the heresy of the Monothelites had spread. For in it, the greater part is devoted to proving that there are two operations in Christ; otherwise, a confusion of the natures would follow. Thus, chapter 5 has it: "The flesh, taken by the Word, has one and the same operation as the deity, on account of the assumption; truly, the deity has the same passion as the flesh, on account of the emptying; thus they impart mutation simultaneously, and mixture and confusion, and the conversion of both natures into themselves." For if the assumed flesh has the same operation as the deity, it is clear that it has become God by nature and possesses all things with which God is naturally understood; and if the emptied deity undergoes the same passion as the flesh, it is clear that it has become flesh by nature and possesses all things with which flesh can naturally be known. For those things which among themselves are of the same operation, and efficacy, and cognition, and suffer the same thing in every way, admit of no difference of nature. And chapter 6: "He who attributes the same operation to the diverse natures of Christ introduces a confusion of the natures at the same time, and a division of the persons; since the natural essence of the natures has been completely abolished by the mutation of the properties." And chapter 7: "The Creator of all things, from the holy Virgin Mary in a pure conception, without mutation, substantially uniting an intelligent soul with a sentient body, became man, by nature alien to sin, God the Word, the same God entire, the same man entire, working divinely indeed through the holy flesh, things which by nature were not of the flesh; and humanly through the human, things which by nature were not of the deity; suffering by the support of the deity, working nothing divine naked of the body, and nothing human void of the deity; preserving for himself a new manner by which he worked both, namely the divine and the human, so that in neither nature would a mutation occur." Certainly, since these things directly attack the error of the Monothelites, who fight for a single will in Christ, it is very likely that that book was not composed before the seventh century, in which the Monothelites arose. ^D ‹ Then, if it had existed at the time of the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret would undoubtedly have brought forward those testimonies ^A against the Eutychians in the three dialogues which he composed against them, especially since he enumerates other places from the works of Hippolytus—namely, from the oration on the distribution of talents, from the epistle to a certain queen, and from the sermon on Helcanah and Hannah, which are less splendid and eloquent than those we have just cited. The most diligent writer would certainly not have omitted testimonies drawn from the book *On Theology and the Incarnation*, which aim so directly at his goal and are so fitting for his argument, if a book of this kind had existed in the nature of things. Finally, of the heretics Bero and Helix, against whom it is reported to have been published, there is no memory in all of antiquity. So far, the learned man. Nor is the response of Canisius and Possevinus valid—namely, that the error concerning the mutation of deity into humanity, or of humanity into deity, is older than Eutyches and Apollinaris, since Saint Justin mentions it in his *Exposition of the Faith*, and therefore, the book in question should not be adjudged away from Saint Hippolytus because it refutes their error. For Natalis responds immediately that the *Exposition of the Faith* is not a genuine work of Saint Justin M., and therefore the response of Canisius and Possevinus vanishes into thin air.

§ II. The arguments of Natalis Alexander are answered, and this short work is vindicated for Hippolytus.

Verily, these arguments of Natalis for adjudging the tractate away from St. Hippolytus, in whose possession it has been for more than a thousand years, are not sufficiently grave. First, it seems remarkable to us why a Catholic author of the first three centuries cannot be able to profess and defend the same things which have always been believed in and by the Church, both before and after the arisen heresies. We indeed admit that those Fathers who lived after the errors arose, which they also opposed, usually expressed themselves more accurately regarding the truths brought into controversy than those who wrote before the arisen contentions. But from that it should by no means be immediately concluded that the formulas of speech which were used after the origin of some heresy could not have been used at least by some before the beginnings of that heresy. Certainly, St. Athanasius, who had written long before the heresy of the Monothelites, the Nestorians, and the Eutychians, nonetheless explains the mystery of the Incarnation in such a way that all the errors of these heretics are equally impugned and slaughtered. For he professes two wills (55) and two natures in Jesus Christ without confusion or mixture.

^A or change; and he frequently honors the blessed Virgin Mary with the title of Mother of God (56). Tertullian, much older than Athanasius and Basil, asserts the distinction of the two natures and the unity of the one Person in Christ Jesus as clearly as if he had already descended into the fray with the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches. "God," he says (57), "neither ceases to be, nor can he be anything else. But the Word is God; and the Word of the Lord remains forever, persisting, that is, in his own form. If he does not undergo transfiguration, it follows that he is understood to have been made flesh, while he becomes in the flesh, and is manifested, and is seen, and is handled through the flesh; for other things also demand to be received in this way. For if the Word, by transfiguration and change of substance, has been made flesh, Jesus will now be one substance out of two—a certain mixture of flesh and spirit—and a third thing is produced. Therefore, Jesus will not be God, for the Word, who became flesh, ceased to be; nor will he be flesh, that is, man; for he is not properly flesh, who was the Word; thus he is neither from both; he is something far different, a third thing, than either. But we find him straightforwardly set forth as both God and man, the very psalm suggesting it: 'For God was born man in her...' We see a twofold condition, not confused, but joined in one person: God and Man, Jesus. And so the property of each substance is safe, so that the Spirit performed his things in him, that is, virtues and works and signs, and the flesh carried out its own passions, hungering under the devil, etc." Origen in his books against Celsus, and St. Gregory Nazianzen in his letters to Cledonius, reject no less clearly the errors later disseminated by Nestorius and Eutyches. And to which of the critics has it ever occurred to raise a contention about the writings of these great men for this reason, because they had expressed themselves in the same way and had condemned errors which arose long after them so clearly and perspicuously? Certainly, Canisius and Possevinus were mistaken in that they attributed the ^B *Exposition of the Faith* to St. Justin Martyr; yet it is most evident from the places of Athanasius and Tertullian cited above that the error concerning the commixture of natures in Christ is older than Apollinaris and Eutyches, and that it was even impugned by the doctors of the Church who preceded Hippolytus. Indeed, Tertullian, in his aforementioned book, expresses his mind in Latin regarding the two natures in Christ in the same way that St. Hippolytus does in Greek in his fragments; and nothing more expressive or effective has ever been said against the heresy of Eutyches, besides those sententious statements of Tertullian. Who, however, would not consider him a remarkable sophist who would conclude from this that the book *Against Praxeas* is not by Tertullian, but by an author who wrote only after Eutyches? But, surely, as in the world, so in the Church the same story always recurs, and what a later age calls "new heresies" are in reality only ancient errors renovated and revoked from Orcus.

Nor should it seem strange to us if, in such a multitude of works written by St. Hippolytus, one or two escaped the diligence of the indefatigable Theodoret. Truly, this author makes no mention of the book on the Antichrist, although that treatise contains more definitive places than other books of St. Hippolytus from which he brings forward testimonies. Will anyone for that reason affirm that that treatise is not by this holy martyr? Added to this is the fact that Basnage himself, as the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maur well observe (58), confesses (59) that Theodoret brings forward other testimonies from the works of St. Hippolytus that have some similarity with those under discussion here. Which confession of Basnage is sufficient for us not to adjudge these eight excerpts away from him.

Then, if Beron and Helix (60) were not known in the third century, much less will they be known to subsequent centuries. And how many heretics, or even entire sects, were there of whom we have gained knowledge from often but a single book? But I hear someone saying that Beron and Helix are fictitious names. Yet, in the time of Anastasius the presbyter, that is, about the middle of the seventh century (if this writer died in the year 666), no one doubted that those ^C heretics existed in the third century. And the author who refuted them states clearly (61) that Beron did not so recently abandon the sect of the Valentinians; and I truly doubt much, with the learned Tillemont (62), whether it can be shown that the heresy of the Valentinians lasted until the seventh century, when Natalis Alexander thinks the treatise against Beron and Helix was composed. For the sect of the Valentinians, according to Gregory Nazianzen (63), was already, as it were, extinct before the end of the century. Yet, as the most diligent Tillemont notes (64), tiny remnants of it were still found in the times of St. Nilus (65) and Theodoret (66).

Nothing, therefore, prevents us from adjudging these eight fragments to St. Hippolytus. We must ^D read them.

the industry of Anastasius, the apocrisiarius of the Roman Pontiff, who rescued them from the shipwreck in which the rest of the work perished. This illustrious confessor and athlete for the faith regarding the two ^A wills, in opposition to the Monothelites—when he was already on the point of transcribing this entire treatise of St. Hippolytus—was attacked by the envy of the enemies of the truth, and could extract nothing more than these eight passages. Truly, if we did not accept these excerpts as part of the work of Hippolytus, we would be doing an injury to this most learned man; especially since there is no positive reason by which the authority of a writer so worthy of veneration might be diminished, such as is Anastasius, who had the entire work in his hands.

§ III. Analysis of these excerpts. The beginning of this treatise according to Anastasius Bibliothecarius is as follows: "Holy, holy, holy Lord ^B Sabaoth," the seraphim crying with incessant voice glorify God.

Beron and his followers admitted a confusion of the two natures in Christ, and recognized but one operation in Him. They believed the divinity to be passible, and that the humanity was capable of those same operations which belonged to the Word alone. This opinion led them to defend that the Word was made man by a mutation of His divinity into human nature, and that man was made God by a mutation of human nature into divinity. To refute this impiety, St. Hippolytus: 1° teaches that the divine Word (67), by assuming flesh and human nature, suffered no mutation in His divinity; 2° establishes that there are two natures in Christ (68), divine and human, unconfused, and two operations and wills; 3° explains how God operates through ^C the flesh (69); 4° from the two natures in Christ, he further proves the properties and distinct operations (70); 5° demonstrates against Beron and his followers that there is one person in Christ (71); then he shows that flesh cannot be changed into divine nature, and that the human operation is distinct from the divine (72). Finally, from these things the holy Father concludes thus (73): Piously, therefore, does the believer confess that because of our salvation, and so that He might bind the universality to immutability, the Creator of all things, from the most holy ever-Virgin Mary, through an inviolable conception, without change, substantiating for Himself an intellectual soul with a sensitive body, was made man by nature, a stranger to malice; the whole God Himself, the whole man the same Himself; whole God equally by nature, and man the same Himself. While God by His own most holy flesh, not by an existing nature of flesh, operates, and by humanity, not by an existing nature of divinity. Nothing divine operates naked of the body, nothing human, the same Himself likewise, being devoid of divinity, bearing for Himself a mode according to each—immutable, through which He operated both in a becoming manner, to the approbation of the perfect and true, having nothing of the wickedness of His incarnation. And so Beron, thus comporting himself, as I have said, by a monad of operation confusing the divinity of Christ and the humanity naturally at once, and dividing them personally, destroys the life, ignorant that the same identical operation is significant of the connatural identity of connatural persons.

ARTICLE VIII. ST. HIPPOLYTUS'S TREATISE ON CHARISMS, AND HOMILY ON THE THEOPHANY. § I. St. Hippolytus's treatise On Charisms.

Not only from the authority of the marble monument, but also from the testimony of manuscript codices, the Viennese or Vindobonensian, and the Oxonian, the *Περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις*, *De charismatibus apostolica traditio*, is referred to St. Hippolytus by learned men, Pearson (74) and Fabricius (75), together with some others, which, indeed, had already been edited long ago in the eighth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, which, since they are compiled from various monuments of the second and third centuries, we are accustomed to call the Clementine or Apostolic, yet appeared in public without the name of St. Hippolytus. But because in the Caesarean Vindobonensian manuscript codex, and in the other Oxonian one, in which the name of Hippolytus is expressed, certain things are read differently than in the common books of the *Constitutions*, Albert Fabricius conceded to them a place among the works of St. Hippolytus from the Latin version of Guil. Ernesti Grabe, which version John Cotelerius also adorned. This treatise, however, deals with the charisms of the Holy Spirit, to which then some other things from the said eighth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions* are subjoined. ^D Moreover, the Maurist Fathers observe (76) that St. Hippolytus in the treatise *On Charisms* perhaps looked toward chapter XII of the Apostle Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in which various gifts of the Holy Spirit are commemorated as having been given for the ministry of the Church. And from this the most learned Scaliger concludes that our St. Hippolytus did not write commentaries on the entire books of Holy Scripture, but only on selected passages. The most wise Tillemont joins the title of this work with the title of the book following it on the mentioned marble monument, which he transposes in such a way that he places the later one in the first position and the former in the last, and makes one single title out of two, to which he attributes this meaning: *Apostolic tradition on charisms, likely for the refutation of the Montanists* (77). These titles thus joined have...

indeed a very apt signification for resolving many knotty problems, provided that this conjecture of Tillemont's were as certain as it is ingenious. The order ^A, however, which we observe in that table does not seem to admit that transposition. After the title of the treatise *On Charisms*, we immediately read the following in the cited stone monument: *Apostolike paradosis*, apostolic tradition. This question—which book this title denotes—has drawn the minds of scholars into various opinions. We have just set forth Tillemont's opinion. Scaliger (78) thinks that our Hippolytus treated the same subject under this title, which St. Irenaeus handled only briefly in the third book *Against Heresies*, chapters 2 and 3. Le Moyne does not disagree with this opinion, while he judges that this work discusses apostolic doctrine or tradition; which he gathers from the fact that in the time of St. Hippolytus, various works of this kind existed, and many were still being composed. For since heretics—these are the words of the most learned Le Moyne (79)—boasted of many things, which they pushed upon everyone as if drawn from the apostles, the orthodox, in order to be able to block the path to this spreading evil and to prevent the simple and the more uneducated ^B from being swayed and seduced by the appearance of apostolic doctrine, represented the true and genuine series of apostolic tradition, lest a deception be cast upon others by the splendid authority of the apostles, and they be deluded by them. Hence the tradition of the apostles was truly represented by Irenaeus in book III, chapters 3, 4, etc. For since the Valentinians and Gnostics sold many figments and delusions as things to be believed, as if they had been announced and derived by the apostles themselves; Irenaeus insists upon the true tradition and doctrine of the apostles, which he contends must be sought and derived from the bishops who are successors of the apostles, and from the Churches where the disciples of the apostles taught. And first he urges the tradition of the Roman Church, where Clement presided; the Smyrnæan, where Polycarp taught; the Ephesian, where the apostle John had preached and promoted the Gospel for so many years and with such great fruit. Thus, a little after Irenaeus, Hippolytus also wrote his *Paradosis apostolike*, ^C in order to refute the delusions and dreams of the heretics, and to oppose the perpetual doctrine of the apostles—surviving and sincere in the flourishing Churches—against all these delusions and errors... Hence also the *Paradosis apostolike* adorned by Hippolytus, that is, a narrative of the dogmas which the apostles had handed down to their successors, to be handed down and communicated to posterity, until the final fates of the world. Thus far the most learned Le Moyne.

Others have opined that by the treatise announced under the title *Apostolic Tradition*, one could understand the *Didaskalia*, or doctrine of Saint Hippolytus, which exists in the Bodleian Library among the Baroccian codices, number 26 and 185, written by hand, as attested by Pearson (80) and Grabe (81), and in the Greek manuscript at Lambeck (82) it bears this title: *Diataxeis ton hagion apostolon dia Hippolytou* (Orders of the holy apostles through Hippolytus). Pearson and Dodwell assert that this ^D work of Hippolytus, as to its greater part, was already published in the eighth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, although some things are sometimes read differently, as Grabe warned, who promised on page 286 of that *Spicilegium Patrum* of the third century that he would insert it (83). But to tell the truth, whatever the praised critics could discuss to provide us with some idea of what was contained in this work of St. Hippolytus, it in no way exceeds the sphere of mere conjectures; nor does that argument, taken from both the Viennese and Oxonian manuscripts, seem sufficiently effective to us, namely that in both MSS the eighth book of the *Apostolic Constitutions* bears the name of St. Hippolytus prefixed to it under this title: *Didaskalia ton hagion apostolon peri charismaton*. For scholars generally believe that the work of the *Constitutions* proceeded from a later hand and from an author of the fourth century.

§ II. On the sermon of St. Hippolytus on the Holy Theophany.

The homily on the Theophany, or on the baptism of Christ the Savior, the illustrious Holstenius wanted to publish, according to Lambeck in volume I of the *Bibliotheca Vindobonensis*, page 141. And Ittigius notes that the same homily was in the hands of Christian Daumius in his dissertation *De Natalitii Christi festo*, page 395, after the appendix to the dissertation *De hæresiarchis*. Thomas Gale also had it, according to Cave (84). It begins: *Panta men kala kai kala lian*. Albert Fabricius received the same homily, described from the codex of Thomas Gale in Greek, from Wolf, and inserted it into the collection of the works of St. Hippolytus. That it is to be ascribed to this holy martyr can be proved almost from the title alone; this conjecture, since it does not offer complete certainty, is left to the further critical judgment of scholars. Truly, it contains nothing incongruous for St. Hippolytus, and it demonstrates the presence of God our Savior through His incarnation, especially manifested in His baptism by the voice of the Father descended from heaven.

The most learned Maurists (85) observe that this homily was delivered by St. Hippolytus before Gentiles. It treats in detail of the baptism of Jesus Christ, and its effects relative particularly to men. The author directs his speech now to one person alone, now to many. Nothing could be resolved; but Albert Fabricius, having obtained the same matched against the already mentioned MS books, turned it over to Grabe, who also endowed it with a Latin version, and inserted it into volume I of the works of Hippolytus.

^A nor is there anything in this discourse, whether of doctrine or of age, that is inconsistent and found in the blessed Hippolytus; on the contrary, if you look at the style, or the manner of speech employed in other opuscula, which are indubitably his, we observe the very same in this homily. Moreover, the most learned Remigius Ceillier notes that the praised homily is refined, edifying, worthy of a holy bishop, and also sufficiently elaborate, and far more polished than the homilies of the ancients generally are.

Furthermore, the Maurists add that some learned men have supposed the praised homily to be the same one which St. Jerome designated among the works of the divine Hippolytus under this title: namely, *Homily on the Praise of the Savior*. However, in the aforementioned homily, that which the learned Jerome adds—namely, that our saint delivered it in the presence of Origen—is not read. We admit, indeed, that to resolve this difficulty, some contend that this fact, reported by the learned Jerome, is a mere error arising from a misunderstood chapter 25 of the sixth book of Eusebius, and one which the most illustrious men Huet and Valesius have refuted. But this is not to be held as certain as is advertised. For Jerome does not speak here according to Eusebius. He himself discourses about books read by himself; wherefore it is more likely that this homily, praised by the holy doctor, has perished along with many others of the same author, as we shall teach a little further below.

ARTICLE IX. OF THE PASCHAL CANON OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

§ I. The Paschal Canon or Cycle of St. Hippolytus, discovered intact in the year 1551.

We review at the very end the Paschal Canon, or Paschal Cycle, composed by St. Hippolytus, of which Anatolius of Laodicea, Eusebius, and St. Jerome make mention, illustrated in Greek and Latin by the most erudite interpreter Francisco Blanchinius, and with the notes of Aegidius Bucherius and other most learned men, although, because of its excellence and integrity, it should have been placed in the first rank among the Hippolytean monuments. This Canon had perished along with the other monuments of the same Hippolytus, and nothing of it survived except the name; when lo, by the goodness of God, and to the great joy of all the learned, as Baronius, Scaliger, and Gruter testify, in the year ^B of the Lord 1551, from the *Ager Veranus* not far from the church of St. Laurence outside the Walls, an ancient marble statue turned up, excavated from the ruins of the monument of Hippolytus, seated on a throne, inscribed on both sides with Greek letters. The letters on the two side-panels of the throne displayed paschal cycles of sixteen years; the fourteenth-day cycles on the right, the Paschal Dominical cycles on the left, covering a period of one hundred and twelve years in total, in which periodic cycle of years Hippolytus believed the same festivals to return in a circle. The name of Hippolytus was not indeed expressed, but it was easily revealed by the very method of the sixteen-year cycle, and by the lemma of the books which the right side-panel contained; for Eusebius, Jerome, and others make Hippolytus, the bishop, the author of them all. To Marcellus Cervinus, then a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, and afterward Pope of the same name (the Second), so illustrious and so rare a monument of the primitive Church seemed most worthy of being carried off to Rome from there and being stored in the Vatican Library; Gruter then edited it in Greek, as it was, with its ancient inscriptions; Scaliger also illustrated it with notes. "I," says Bucherius, "have decided to show here in a few words that it is faithfully rendered into Latin, not so much to explain it anew, as to show it conformable to the paschal reasons of our Victorius and the early Latins." Thus far the most learned Aegidius Bucherius.

But that these two sixteen-year canons were carved on the same stone throne, no one single reason persuades us, as the V.C. Joannes Vignolius correctly noted. "Above all," he says, "which is believed to be his statue; for us to think it was set up to him while he was still alive, the humble condition of the Christians of that age, and the sanctity of the man himself, does not seem to allow at all." And then the titles of his books, which exist on the margin of the throne; these appear to have been added by someone else only after his death, so that they might redound to his own honor and praise. Since this is so, I judge it quite probable that something had been committed in the same canon which is in no way to be ascribed to the holy Hippolytus. Some very learned men have already noted things which argue partly the unskillfulness of the sculptor, and partly the carelessness of another. As for the rest, the Hippolytean canon, after Joseph Scaliger, Dionysius Petavius, and Aegidius Bucherius, other more recent men, and most of all the ^C V.C. Franciscus ^D

^A Blanchini, have illustrated it brilliantly. So much for the learned Vignolius.

The occasion for writing the Canon or Paschal Cycle, in the judgment of Basnage, with whom Remi Ceillier agrees, was provided to St. Hippolytus by the controversy between the Churches concerning the day of celebrating Easter, which was long agitated in that age, because the Asians celebrated it according to the Jewish custom on the fourteenth moon of the month, on whatever day of the week it might fall; whereas the Latin Church, with all the other Churches, held a fixed Lord's Day.

^B But our Maurists well observe that this sixteen-year cycle constitutes a part of two or three other short works of St. Hippolytus on Easter, of which there will be mention a little further down. From the words of Eusebius which follow: *At the same time, Hippolytus, among many other monuments of his genius, composed a book on Easter; in which, describing the series of times, exhibiting a certain Paschal canon through a circuit of sixteen years, he defines the calculation of times in the first year of the Emperor Alexander*; as the most learned Fabricius has already gathered, it is apparent from this that this Canon was a conclusion to the work *On Easter*, in which Hippolytus had digested the times up to the first year of Alexander Severus, from which the Canon begins. This same cycle of St. Hippolytus, as St. Jerome testifies, provided Eusebius the occasion for compiling another of nineteen years. Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, who had seen this same Hippolytean cycle, confesses that St. Hippolytus did not hand down certain rules for ^C determining Easter. St. Isidore of Seville says that our St. Hippolytus was the first who compiled a Paschal cycle; and, in the judgment of Tillemont, the most wise and tireless searcher of antiquity, the Hippolytean cycle is held to be the most ancient of all.

§ II. Analysis of the Paschal Cycle of St. Hippolytus

The Paschal cycle of St. Hippolytus is divided into two parts. In the first part, St. Hippolytus designates on which days of the months of March and April the fourteenth moon might occur; the revolution of sixteen years, multiplied sevenfold, determines the feast of Easter for one hundred and twelve years, that is, from the first year of Alexander Severus, which corresponds to the year 222 of Jesus Christ, up to the year 333. From the title prefixed to the beginning of the Paschal Cycle, the beginning of the reign of Alexander Severus in the year 222 is placed beyond the uncertainty of doubt, by which most powerful argument the chronology of Baronius and Onuphrius is refuted and corrected. The former connects the first year of Alexander with the year of the Lord 224, the latter with 223. But now, in the first year of the Emperor Alexander, the thirteenth of April fell on a Saturday, according to the test of the Hippolytean Canon, which Saturday we seek in vain in the year 223 or 224. The Ides of April fall on a Sunday in the year 223, because the Dominical letter is E and the solar epact is 3; but in the year 224, which is a bissextile year, the Ides of April pertain to Tuesday, by the command of the Dominical letters D and C, and solar epacts 4, ^D of the reign of Alexander, the fourteenth moon occurred on a Saturday, which was the Ides of April, that is, the thirteenth of the month of April. Now, however, it is certain that the Ides of April, or the thirteenth of this month, did not fall on a Saturday except in the years 216, 222, and 231. It is thus worthy of note in this inscription: 1° that St. Hippolytus begins the first year of the reign of Alexander after the first feast of Easter; 2° that in this year the month of April was intercalary; 3° that the Paschal fast had its end on the Sunday of Easter; 4° that the Paschal cycle of St. Hippolytus is not entirely his own invention, but that it follows a practice already established before him.

In the second part, he indicates the days on which Easter is to be celebrated. This feast is always noted on a Sunday. When the fourteenth moon falls on a Saturday, Easter is not to be celebrated on the following Sunday, which is the fifteenth of the moon, but it must be transferred to the Sunday after this, that is, to the twenty-second day of the moon. The reason for this practice

is that St. Hippolytus, just like the Latins, did not wish for Easter to be celebrated on the day upon which our Lord was crucified. The Alexandrian Christians followed a different calculation, for they celebrated Easter from the fifteenth day of the moon, whereas ^A according to the cycle of St. Hippolytus and Victorius, it was to be celebrated only from the sixteenth. It is to be noted, moreover, that according to this same cycle, Easter could be celebrated on any Sunday from the thirteenth of the Kalends of April, or the twentieth of March, up to the eleventh of the Kalends of May, or the twentieth of April. From this it is gathered that St. Hippolytus compared the equinox, or the entry of the sun into Aries, not with the twenty-first of March, as the Nicene Fathers did, nor with the twenty-second, as they generally attribute to Anatolius, but with the fifteenth of March, according to the opinion of some ancient and famous astrologers, especially Meton and Eudoxus, who, more than 400 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, had fixed the vernal equinox to the fifteenth of March. Josephus, their historian, implies that the Jews agreed with them. Therefore, it is true that neither the ancient Jews nor the Christians during the first two centuries knew the astronomical day of the equinox, nor did they certainly observe it with such scrupulousness; for, having no leisure for such intricacies, and scarcely a respite from so many persecutions, they did not look for, nor care for, anything beyond what they saw used by the Synagogue, nor did they interpret the month of new things, mentioned only in Scripture, in a sense other than that of the Jews. Nor must it be omitted here that, although Hippolytus advances the beginning by two days, he does not exceed the limit of the paschal interval established by the Synod of Caesarea. For that synod concluded the ^B *resurrectory* Easter, or paschal Sundays, through 31 days from the eleventh of the Kalends of April, or the twenty-first of March, to the eleventh of the Kalends of May, or the twenty-first of April inclusive; Hippolytus extends it by 35 days in total, from the thirteenth of the Kalends of April, or March twentieth, to the eleventh of the Kalends of May.

§ III. Note for more easily understanding the paschal Canon of St. Hippolytus.

NOTE I. The paschal Canon of St. Hippolytus can scarcely serve present-day uses for finding the true day of Easter, since, only after accurate astronomical observations, the equinox, the cycles of the sun and moon, the epacts, and the Dominical letters have been duly determined, and the Gregorian correction of the Calendar has been made, modern paschal tables differ not a little from this Canon. Yet, because this Canon, inasmuch as it is the first and most ancient in the Church, is a venerable monument of antiquity, and its explanation according to the mind of St. Hippolytus is difficult to know, since, even as was said, the treatise which he himself wrote on it has been lost; therefore many learned men, such as Scaliger, Petavius, Bucherius, Vignolius, le Moynius, and Blanchinius, labored in explaining it, whose writings and notes Albert Fabricius inserted into his collection of the works of Saint Hippolytus. For our purpose, however, it will suffice to note here those things which can be gathered from the cited authors for the correct understanding of this Canon.

NOTE II. The previous table, therefore, shows paschal full moons, starting from the year of Christ 222, which, as Vignolius demonstrates in his dissertation *On the First Year of the Reign of Severus Alexander*, and Valsecchius and Philippus a Turre also demonstrate, is the first year of the Emperor Severus Alexander. 2° The letters of the alphabet denote the series of the week on which the said full moon falls. For example, in the year of Christ 222, the paschal full moon occurred on the Ides of April, and the letter G appended indicates that it fell on a Saturday. 3° In the first column, traversing downwards, sixteen years follow, starting from the year 222, designated by numbers, and similarly in the remaining six columns, which constitute seven ogdoadecaeterides, or cycles of sixteen years, amounting to 112 years. 4° After the first cycle of sixteen years, the full moon falls on the very same day, namely the Ides of April, according to the hypothesis of St. Hippolytus, but not on the same weekday; rather, it occurs one weekday earlier. For example, in the first cycle of sixteen years, the full moon occurs in G, that is, on a Saturday; in the second cycle of sixteen years, it will be in F, that is, on a Friday; in the third, in E, or Thursday, and so on; but after the seven cycles of sixteen years, or 112 years, have been completed, it will return to the same day and the same weekday. 5° By the terms Esdras, Genesis Christi, Ezechias, etc., according to Blanchinius, the principal Easters are designated, which Holy Scripture mentions, namely in Exodus XII. The first Easter, on the fourth of the Nones of April, or according to Daniel, on the Nones of April. The second in the desert, Num. IX. The third under Joshua, or Jesus, Jos. III, the twelfth of the Kalends of April. Likewise the Easter under Ezechias, II Paralip. XXX; under Josias, IV Kings XXIII; under Esdras, I Esdras VI. Likewise in Genesis, and the Passion of Christ. But those words, *according to Daniel*, signify a different chronology of these Easters, since from the book of Daniel and the weeks thereof, counted in various ways, chronologists gather an epoch of the former age, from the building of the temple to its restoration by Cyrus, that is slightly different.

NOTE III. The other table shows paschal Sundays.

for seventeen years, beginning from the year of Christ 222, in the same manner as the paschal full moons are arranged in the previous table; where, however, it is to be noted that if the full moon should fall on a Saturday, the following Sunday is not paschal, as the Alexandrians observed, but according to the usage of the Latins, Easter was formerly celebrated on the next Sunday following it. Thus, for example, in the year 222, the full moon fell on the Ides of April, a Saturday; the paschal Sunday was not the 18th of the Kalends of May, according to the custom of the Alexandrians, but according to that of the Latins, the 11th of the Kalends of May. In the year 223, the full moon was on the 4th of the Nones of April, a Wednesday; the paschal Sunday was the 7th of the Ides of April. Likewise in the second column, or second period of seventeen years, or the year of Christ 258, the full moon was on the Ides of April, a Friday, and the paschal Sunday was the 15th of the Kalends of May; and so forth successively through the remaining periods of seventeen years, at the conclusion of which the full moon returns to the same day of the first period, and the day of the week, and consequently the paschal Sunday also recurs on the same day. And this appears to be the system of the paschal Canon of St. Hippolytus. More may be seen in the cited authors.

CHAPTER III. ON THE FRAGMENTS OF THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS AND ON THOSE WHICH ARE LOST. ARTICLE 1. ON THE COMMENTARIES OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS ON THE BOOKS OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT. § 1. Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Genesis and on the Hexaemeron.

The number of the writings of St. Hippolytus that survive is ^A small, if you compare it with those which we count among the lost. This loss, which is felt more through the collection of titles presented below, and the succinct narration which we shall offer after the ancients concerning all the commentaries of the holy man which are today desired, seems truly stupendous. There is almost no part of Scripture on which he did not exercise his genius for the sake of explaining it or untangling the difficulties therein, and he also labored much on other most grave matters of religion and the Church. Let us begin the count:

Eusebius and St. Jerome inform us that St. Hippolytus wrote a commentary on the Hexaemeron, or a treatise on the six days of the creation of the world. The renowned Le Moyne pretends this work to be the first among those which are designated in the Greek table, with the statue of our saint dug up from the earth and containing the titles of many others of his writings; and he suspects the final syllables of the words 1OYC and NIAC, from which Scaliger and Bucherius construct ψαλμοὺς μετανοίας, "penitential psalms," to be the remains of the words εἰς πρωτοπλάστους, and περὶ κοσμογονίας, or ζωογονίας, which designate the labors of Hippolytus εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἐξαήμερον, καὶ εἰς τὴν ἐξαήμερον. According to this interpretation of Le Moyne, St. Hippolytus had written commentaries on the first and second chapters of Genesis, or on the Hexaemeron, and of those things which God founded in the six days, and of those which pertained properly to man and his placement in paradise; or, to speak briefly, according to Le Moyne, he had written a commentary on the state of the first parents, on the creation of the world, and on living things. But, although this opinion is more ingenious and more natural than that of Scaliger ^B concerning the penitential psalms, it must be admitted that neither is more certain. For both depend solely upon imagination; and indeed, a third person, who might wish to indulge his own ingenuity here, could elicit still another idea, which perhaps might approach closer to the truth. And indeed, the conjectures of learned men like Thomas Gale and Edward Bernard, who divine from the remains of the letters 1OYC the word Ἰουδαίους, so that the entire sense would be "Demonstration against the Jews," do not displease many scholars. But however these things may be, it is nonetheless true that St. Hippolytus composed a Hexaemeron. St. John Damascene preserved for us in his "Parallels" a certain fragment of this writing, which encompasses a refutation of those who placed the terrestrial paradise in heaven, and from there inferred that it was one of the creatures of this universe. Moreover, St. Ambrose also ^C does not find the other part pleasing. For it is truly probable that the genuine titles of the works of Hippolytus were inscribed upon the marble statue. But that Hippolytus assigned these titles to his own works, which Le Moyne adduced, is not clear, nor does it even appear credible.

St. John Damascene preserved... fragment... which encompasses a refutation of those... ^D and clearly St. Ambrose also, in his own time, utilized a portion of this same Hexaemeron, as we shall show later.

^A Moreover, it should be observed that St. Hippolytus in his commentary on Genesis interprets almost everything allegorically. However, he does not so fix his mind on finding truths of the New Testament within the figures of the Old Testament that he does not also sometimes strive to illustrate the literal sense. In many places of the Scriptures, he employed versions adorned by Aquila and Symmachus (29). Fabricius unearthed these fragments of the *Commentary on Genesis*, which he edited, from a collection of 88 Fathers on Genesis, a collection that is preserved in a manuscript in the Imperial Library of Vienna in Austria.

^B § II. St. Hippolytus’ Commentary on Exodus. St. Jerome also attributes to St. Hippolytus a *Commentary on Exodus* (30), which Eusebius perhaps designated in a general way when he affirmed, as we stated a little while ago, that our saint had also commented on those things which follow after the six days in the books of Moses (31). St. Jerome saw this commentary; and therefore we cannot doubt its former existence. The learned Le Moyne (32) indeed seems to call this into doubt, while he claims without foundation that St. Jerome deduced the *Commentary on Exodus* only from poorly understood words of Eusebius. For this man (Eusebius), Le Moyne adds, after he designated the Hexaemeron, says that St. Hippolytus wrote also on what follows the six days, εἰς τὰ μετὰ τὴν ἑξαήμερον: by which words, Le Moyne continues, are noted the state of the first-created, their dwelling, temptation, fall, and various things that seem to pertain to Adam, Eve, paradise, the serpent, the trees of life and knowledge, and other things joined to these. But this learned author did not sufficiently notice that St. Jerome does not speak according to Eusebius, but with the books themselves, which he names, having been unrolled: "From which," he says (33), "I found these, in the Hexaemeron, and in Exodus." This is manifest in itself and suffers no difficulty. Moreover, we have nothing more of the *Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Exodus* today. It is indeed often cited in the Arabic commentary on the Pentateuch (34) inserted into the collection of the works of divine Hippolytus (35). But it is completely probable that the author of this ^C commentary [used] the name of St. Hippolytus, St. Balaam in this way: "From the *Blessings of Balaam* of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr." It seems this is an error of the scribes, and it should be read "Abraam" [Abraham], conformably to the Greek text: Ἐκ τῶν εὐλογιῶν τοῦ Ἀβραάμ. Tom. II Opp. Hippolyt. pag. 45.

of Basilius, Epiphanius, and other Fathers, whom he cites here, he merely borrowed them so that he might give his work some dignity which it did not have in itself.

Nor are there lacking arguments for attributing to St. Hippolytus some small work or commentary on certain passages of the first book of Kings, in which there is discourse concerning Elkanah the father and Anna the mother of Samuel. Theodoret in his *Dialogues* preserved for us certain passages of this writing, which are referred to by Fabricius in the edition of the works of our Saint. ^B

§ III. Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Saul and the Pythoness.

The same St. Hippolytus composed also another small work on other passages of this same Book of Scripture, which concern Saul and the Pythoness. It has been observed, however, by learned men that Hippolytus rarely undertook to interpret an entire book of Scripture, but rather a selected subject, just as is invincibly confirmed from what has already been said above and what is yet to be said. The commentary on Saul and the Pythoness is noted by Jerome among the other works of our holy doctor.

Learned men also agree that the aforementioned commentary of Hippolytus is designated in the Greek tablet by this word ITAC TPIMYOON, out of which they wish to compose ΕΓΓΑΣΤΡΙΜΥΘΟΝ, which is the name the Septuagint Interpreters gave to the Pythoness in Endor, who, being questioned by Saul, by her arts and sorceries, aroused the shade ^C of Samuel. It seems to us to be placed beyond any risk of doubt that the treatise of St. Hippolytus concerned this Pythoness rather than the one of whom mention is made in the Acts, chapter XVI; although Scaliger thought the latter should be understood.

§ IV. Commentary on the Psalms.

St. Jerome, pursuing the catalog of the works of St. Hippolytus, records also a *Commentary on the Psalms*. The illustrious Le Moyne asserts that Eusebius also ascribed this commentary to St. Hippolytus. But there is no trace of this, whether in the Eusebian text or in his version. It is, however, beyond controversy that on the Greek tablet these syllables AAMOYC, ^D and the final syllables of the word TAAMOYC, be the original title *εἰς τοὺς Ψαλμούς*. From the manner of speaking of St. Jerome, it seems probable that he understood a commentary on the entire Psalter; for he says: "Hippolytus... wrote some commentaries on the Scriptures, from which I found these: on the Hexaemeron... on the Psalms." Wherefore Scaliger and Le Moyne in no way doubt that our St. Hippolytus put his work into explaining the Psalms. Le Moyne further adds that this can be concluded more certainly than certain from a *Catena on the Psalms*, which is preserved in an Ms. codex in the Medicean library of Florence. Theodoret also exhibits two fragments from it, the first from the *Commentaries on Psalm II*, the second from the *Commentaries on Psalm XXIII*, or XXIV. By the testimony of Albert Fabricius, a commentary of Hippolytus on *Psalm IX* is also held among the Mss. of the Bodleian Library. Thomas Gale testified that he had the hypothesis or preface of this work in manuscript. Alexander Morus also had it, who cites it in his notes to the New Testament, on Hebrews X, 5. Stephanus Le Moyne and Alexander Morus were the first to produce this argument of Hippolytus prefixed to his explanation of the Psalms, but less complete and less corrected, whereas Fabricius and Gallandius gave it more corrected from the Mss. of the famous Thomas Gale. In the judgment of the most learned Ceillier, the *Demonstration against the Jews*, edited in Latin by Turrianus and in Greek by Fabricius, appears to be a corollary of the *Commentary of St. Hippolytus on the Psalms*; for, properly speaking, that demonstration is nothing but a paraphrase of the sixty-eighth Psalm. Nor is any judgment here observed of any work performed expressly for that purpose. But by the occasion on which the author proves the truth of the Christian religion against the Jews, he was naturally drawn to explain the words of this Psalm to the Jews; and for that reason, according to all likelihood, certain copyists wrote on this fragment the title *On the Demonstration against the Jews*. Nevertheless, some learned men, as Ceillier continues, having the persuasion that St. Hippolytus elaborated an entire treatise against the Jews, believed that it was designated on the stone tablet of his works by these four Greek letters IOYC, which they thought were the last of the word *Ἰουδαίους*.

Ἰουδαίους*. But this conjecture is destitute of any foundation. And it is therefore more prudent to confess one's ignorance regarding the relation of these four letters, than to wish to divine it in so obscure a matter. Thus far the eminent Remigius Ceillier.

§ V. The Commentary on the seven Penitential Psalms is not by St. Hippolytus.

Besides this Commentary on all the Psalms, the most learned Joseph Scaliger ascribes in addition, to this same holy Hippolytus of ours, a separate Commentary on the seven Penitential Psalms. But since that learned man relies only upon the interpretation of the two syllables of the words IOYC and NIAC, which are rather far-fetched from the Greek tablet, we cannot stand by his opinion. Since Scaliger himself recognized well that his reading of *μετανοίας*, "of penance," was quite forced, and by no means common; hence he even blames the sculptor and argues that a mistake was committed when he placed NIAC instead of NOIAC. Furthermore, there is no similarity at all, as the eminent Le Moyne sagely observes, because, although the Greek tablet designates the third line for the Psalms quite clearly, the first line points to another work on the Psalms in that same tablet. For it is added later (these are the words of the eminent Le Moyne), that St. Hippolytus wrote on the Psalms; which sufficiently hints that IOYC NIAC are not the remnants of the words *ψαλμοὺς μετανοίας*. Otherwise, in a brief list, it would be noted that Hippolytus had written on the Psalms; first on the penitential Psalms, then on all the Psalms; which was never observed by any of the ancients who made mention of Hippolytus. But that which completely overturns Scaliger’s conjecture is that, in the time of St. Hippolytus, there was as yet no mention of "penitential Psalms." So that he could not have prepared a peculiar commentary on those particular Psalms which are today called "penitential," and among the ancients there is no memory whatsoever of *ψαλμῶν τῆς μετανοίας*. These are the words of the eminent Le Moyne.

^{A B C}

D

§ VI. Commentary of St. Hippolytus on the Canticles.

Eusebius and Jerome still recount among the works of St. Hippolytus the Commentary on the Canticle of Canticles, which Theodoret also cites in the dialogue inscribed *Eranistes*. This commentary was still possessed in the seventh century, since Anastasius Sinaita had read it. The same Anastasius preserves for us a sufficiently considerable passage of it; which Fabricius and Gallandi render in Greek and Latin among the works of St. Hippolytus. In this fragment, the holy Father acknowledges the book of Wisdom as written by Solomon, just as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticle of Canticles. He also says that Solomon, by saying "Canticle of Canticles," wished to signify that he had comprised in this one [book] that which was contained in three thousand odes or canticles. On this occasion also, while St. Hippolytus undertakes to explain what Scripture reports concerning the selection of all the writings of Solomon made by the friends of King Hezekiah, he testifies that those wise men selected only those things from the writings of Solomon which would serve for the edification of the Church. But the books of Solomon, the Parables and the Canticles, in which he had written of the nature of plants and every kind of animal, terrestrial, winged, and aquatic, and of the curing of diseases, Hezekiah abolished or completely suppressed, because the crude and poorly instructed people could have sought from them cures for diseases and would neglect to seek their healing from God. Suidas in *'Ezekias*, Syncellus, and others report the same things, which were likely drawn from our holy Hippolytus.

§ VII. Commentaries of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.

The divine Jerome also asserts that he saw a Commentary of our saint on the Proverbs of Solomon. Suidas also confirms the same. Albert Fabricius, from a Catena of Greek Fathers, inserted five Latin passages of this Commentary into the edition of the works of St. Hippolytus, just as the eminent Gallandi did. In these, the title of the book of Proverbs and the eleventh or twelfth verse of the first chapter are explained. Furthermore, the same eminent editor, Albert Fabricius, appended a fragment of this Commentary even more worthy of note, which he transcribed in Greek from the Turin codex 82, containing various excerpts of ancient writers, [provided by] the honorable Matthew Pfaff. In this, St. Hippolytus magnificently illustrates these words of the first verse of chapter IX of the Proverbs: "Wisdom hath built herself a house." Jerome also remembers, and from him Honorius, a Commentary on the Ecclesiastes, fragments of which are said to exist in the Bodleian library on Ecclesiastes XI, 24, just as that of Proverbs IX: "Wisdom hath built herself a house." It is also reported that a manuscript is preserved in the Vindobonensian (Vienna) library of the most august emperor, containing the commentaries of St. Hippolytus on the books of Solomon.

^A § VIII. Commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel. It is handed down by Jerome (62) and Nicephorus (63) that Hippolytus the martyr wrote on Isaiah, just as I omit the Greek interpreter of Jerome and more recent writers—Latin, Honorius, Freculphus, and others—who transcribe his catalog. From this commentary on Isaiah, or perhaps from select passages of Isaiah, I think were taken—as the illustrious Fabricius (64) says—the accounts that Michael Glycas reports in his *Annals*, page 194, concerning the degrees on the sundial of Hezekiah (65), or Ezechias, taken from Hippolytus. In the Greek manuscript codex 195 of the Coislinian library (which was formerly the Seguierian), as testified by the most illustrious Montfaucon (p. 245), there exists a fragment of Hippolytus—who is there, as is customary among Greek writers, called Bishop of Rome—regarding Hezekiah, which begins: "And when Hezekiah fell ill," and *Against Fate*. Albertus Fabricius included this in Greek and Latin in volume II of the *Works of St. Hippolytus* on page 81, as did Gallandius in volume II of the *Bibliotheca Patrum*, page 489. It is exactly the same as what is reported by Glycas. This commentary concerns the miraculous healing of King Hezekiah and the retrogradation of the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, mentioned in Isaiah, chapter XXXVIII, verse 5. He calls the prophet Isaiah an angel, and teaches that not only the sun but also the moon went backward, as a sign of the king's imminent healing; and that this day consisted of 32 hours. He further adds that Merodach, the Chaldean king of the Babylonians, who was very skilled in the art of astrology and measured the course of the stars accurately, was first struck by this prodigy; and, once the cause was learned, sent a letter and gifts to Hezekiah. Theodoret also cites certain passages of St. Hippolytus from his sermon on the exordium of Isaiah (66). That Hippolytus wrote on Jeremiah is not, as far as I know, reported by any of the ancients. For the passages attributed to him in the *Catena of Greek Fathers* on Jeremiah chapter XVII, 11, are taken from the book *On the Antichrist*, chapter 55.

Eusebius speaks of *Commentaries of St. Hippolytus* on certain chapters of Ezekiel (67). Georgius Syncellus reports the same matter, but in a slightly different manner. He says that Hippolytus wrote commentaries on many passages of the prophets, but specifically on Ezekiel and Daniel (68). It is strange that in the *Catena of Greek Fathers* on Ezekiel, from which Villalpandus gave excerpts, no mention of Hippolytus occurs. But it is even more strange that learned men, who say that a commentary of St. Hippolytus on the dimension of the temple of Solomon (69) exists in the Bodleian library, have neglected to bring it to light until now. ^B Hippolytus labored most carefully in explaining Daniel. St. Jerome (70) notes his commentary on Daniel in a general way. Photius, who had read the same commentary, weighs its individual chapters and says (71): Even if St. Hippolytus does not explain the interpretation of Daniel word for word, he does not, however, pass over the meaning, if I may so say. Furthermore, Photius continues, he pursues it in the old manner, not having been examined as accurately as were those that came later. Although it is not fair that an account of them be demanded. For it is not right to exact an accounting of those things that have passed from those who have laid the foundations for considering any subject, but rather to favor the effort itself, ^C as much as they may have advanced in the comprehension of the things contemplated. However, he thinks it should be counted as a fault in him that he dared to determine the end of the world in this treatise. For Photius proceeds: As for the coming of Antichrist, to which the visible consummation of this world is also joined, since the Savior did not reveal it even to his disciples when they asked him, to have it brought forward and circumscribed by Hippolytus to five hundred years from Christ—as if, with six thousand years having then elapsed from the first constitution of the world, its dissolution were imminent—this is a sign of a mind more ardent than it should have been, and this assertion argues for human ignorance rather than celestial inspiration.

Photius testifies elsewhere that while the commentaries of Theodoret on Daniel excel the exposition of Hippolytus in many respects, and differ in many, they nevertheless agree in some (72). St. Jerome, writing on Daniel, reports the sentiments of St. Hippolytus regarding the seventy weeks of Daniel, but rejects them, as they are irreconcilable with the chronology and history of the Persians and Macedonians. These are his words (73): Hippolytus surmised regarding the same seventy weeks as follows. He calculates seven weeks before the return of the people, and sixty-two after the return, up to the birth of Christ: the times of which do not at all agree, since two hundred and thirty years are calculated for the kingdom of the Persians, and three hundred for the Macedonians, and after them thirty years up to the birth of the Lord; that is, from the beginning of Cyrus, king of the Persians, up to the advent of the Savior, five hundred and sixty years. He also places the final week at the consummation of the world, which he divides into the times of Elijah and the Antichrist, so that in the three and a half years of the final week the knowledge of God may be confirmed, of which it is spoken (Dan. IX, 27): He shall confirm...

the covenant with many for one week; and in the other three years under the Antichrist the sacrifice and oblation shall fail; but upon the arrival of Christ, who destroys the wicked one by the breath of his mouth, the desolation shall continue until the consummation and the end. And in truth, St. Hippolytus seems to compress the time which elapsed from the first year of Cyrus and the return from captivity until the Nativity, and too greatly to separate the end of the prophecy from the remaining prediction. For he begins his calculation of the seventy weeks from the fiftieth year before the end of the captivity; and from those he computes sixty-two after the return of the Jews to their own country, up to the birth of Jesus Christ, and he relegates the absolution or completion to take place immediately before the consummation of the world.

^B Oecumenius, in his prologue to the Apocalypse, also praises Hippolytus’s exposition on Daniel. In the Catena of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms and the canticles of sacred Scripture there is found a fragment of St. Hippolytus on the Canticle of the three Hebrew children in the furnace of fire, which canticle constitutes a part of chapter three of Daniel. Concerning the same chapter, Eustratius, a Constantinopolitan presbyter of the seventh century, refers to a brief fragment on another passage of the same canticle of the three children, and at the same time he testifies that he drew it from the second oration, or treatise, of St. Hippolytus on Daniel. After Fabricius, Gallandius also brings forward another fragment of our saint on the same prophet from Anastasius Sinaita. But since that same passage of St. Hippolytus is read with the same words in his treatise on the Antichrist at numbers 26 and 43, it is deservedly doubted from which of these works Anastasius Sinaita took it.

A little earlier we discussed the brief treatise of St. Hippolytus on the history of Susanna, which perhaps was part of a great work or Commentary on Daniel. Here we only add that Hebed Jesu testifies in number 16 of his Catalogue that among the Chaldeans there is also carried an exposition of Hippolytus on the minor Daniel and Susanna. After this brief commentary, in the ^C Bibliotheca Patrum follows a Latin fragment of another work of Hippolytus, the title of which is: *Of the most holy bishop of Rome*. Fabricius and Gallandius have edited this fragment in Greek and Latin. It is, however, the beginning or prelude of a certain author who promised to write about the time of the Babylonian captivity and at the same time to provide a commentary on the prophet Daniel. And all these things fit Hippolytus very well. Also the most learned Tillemont judges this fragment to be sufficiently conformable to the censure which Photius left us regarding our saint's commentary on Daniel. Dupin, on the contrary, thinks that neither this fragment nor the brief exposition of the history of Susanna befits the age and character of the divine Hippolytus. But whoever is willing to take upon himself the labor of comparing this last fragment with another slightly longer one on Isaac and Rebecca, related by St. Jerome, will certainly discover an absolute conformity in both genius and style.

The most learned Joannes Mabillon, in his *Itinere Italico*, page 94, reports that in the Chigi Library at Rome there exists an outstanding Greek manuscript, written at least eight hundred years ago, containing the four greater prophets, as well as a brief commentary on the dream of Nabuchodonosor, composed by St. Hippolytus, martyr and bishop of Rome (who is called bishop of Rome because he was ordained bishop of the Gentiles at Rome, and afterwards was prefect of the Portuense Church). In this explanation there occur many things which are also found concerning the same vision in St. Hippolytus’s treatise *On the Antichrist*, from which they seem to be excerpts; yet certain special things appear which are not read in the cited treatise. This interpretation was edited from the Chigi manuscript in Rome in the year 1772, and then in Göttingen in the year 1774, in Greek and Latin with Daniel according to the Septuagint. Georgius Syncellus furthermore alleges a certain passage of St. Hippolytus on the same prophet Daniel, but only indeterminately.

St. Jerome also ascribes a commentary on Zacharias to St. Hippolytus; but he has preserved nothing of it for us. ^D Writing, however, the greatest doctor on Zacharias, and speaking on that occasion of this commentary and others of Origen and Didymus, he observes that all of these spent more effort in eliciting the allegorical sense than the literal and historical. These were the works of D. Hippolytus prepared for the illustration of the Old Testament.

^A § IX. Commentaries of St. Hippolytus on the New Testament, namely on St. Matthew, Luke, etc.

As for his writings on the New Testament, Eusebius does not record even one; St. Jerome, however, makes mention only of his commentary on the Apocalypse, while he is cataloguing the works of St. Hippolytus in his treatise *De viris illustribus* (88). But it is probable that at that time St. Jerome had not yet seen the writings of St. Hippolytus on St. Matthew, concerning which he made mention in a later work (89). Theodoret also cites treatises or sermons of St. Hippolytus *On the Distribution of the Talents* and *On the Two Thieves* (90). Hence, learned men believe it probable (91) that our saint wrote commentaries on at least certain parts of the Gospel of St. Matthew, and without doubt on certain passages of the Gospel of St. Luke, in which the story of the two thieves is narrated more fully. Although this term, *logous*, could denote homilies in Theodoret, nevertheless St. Jerome includes among his commentaries on Holy Scripture some of these *logoi* or sermons cited by Theodoret (92). In the Greek *Catena Patrum* on Luke, there is also found an occasional passage from St. Hippolytus (93).

X. Commentaries of St. Hippolytus on the Gospel of John and the Apocalypse.

In the Greek table, which has often been mentioned as excavated along with the Paschal Cycle, it is clearly noted that St. Hippolytus wrote on the Gospel according to St. John and on the Apocalypse: *Hyper tou kata Ioannen Euangeliou kai Apokalypseos*. St. Jerome confirms the same thing regarding the Apocalypse (94). It is known to all what manner and magnitude of controversy was stirred up concerning these books at the end of the second and beginning of the third century, not only on account of Cerinthus, but also when Artemon and those like him denied the divinity of Jesus Christ; and when they strove to snatch away the weapons by which the orthodox asserted it, those profane men first attacked the Gospel of John and his Apocalypse. And since they could not respond to the various passages taken from the Gospel and the Apocalypse to confirm the divinity of the Word, and perceived that the words of the evangelist and apostle so constrained them that by no artifice nor by any perverse interpretations could their force be turned aside; they believed they would be safe from heresy, and that ^B their heresy would be considered settled, by denying the authority of the Gospel, and of the Apocalypse, and of the Epistles of St. John. The heretics did this with such impudence, and with such hatred for the divinity of the Word, that among the orthodox there arose very many who eagerly prepared the defenses of the wounded divinity of Christ, and asserted the Gospel, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse to be of John the evangelist; among whom St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, St. Melito of Sardis, and St. Hippolytus stood out. These things the illustrious Le Moyne (95), who then concludes that this is the reason why it is said here (i.e. of Hippolytus) that he wrote on the Gospel and the Apocalypse, so that he might persuade and confirm that those works were by the same author. But whoever might wish to pretend—as Basnage wisely observes (96)—that our holy Hippolytus spent effort on writing on this book for this reason, he would truly be guessing. Scaliger, however, seems to have been of this opinion (97), while he writes that the work of St. Hippolytus on the Apocalypse was nothing other than an apology for defending its authority against the Alogi. Ebed-Jesu (98) indeed testifies, just as Basnage (99) and Fabricius (1) report, that the Chaldeans show an *Apology* by St. Hippolytus for the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. John. But what faith, I ask, should be placed in the testimony of a rabbi? In the Bodleian library, among the Huntington books, there exists in Arabic an inquiry into the Apocalypse from Severus, Hippolytus, and others, which the learned will perhaps owe to the most excellent man John Gagnier, once translated into Latin, writes the illustrious Fabricius (2). But as far as I know, it has not yet seen the light of day. For the rest, by "commentaries on the Apocalypse," which are also mentioned by Sixtus Senensis, Rivet (3) understands the book *On the Antichrist*. Fabricius took care to have printed a not insignificant fragment, in which St. Hippolytus explains these words of the ninth chapter of Proverbs: *Wisdom hath built herself a house*; and he persuaded himself that these were written by Hippolytus on a certain passage of John the Evangelist rather than on the passages of Proverbs, though he may have commented on these as well (4). Furthermore, in the table of the works of St. Hippolytus, it is read that our Hippolytus wrote Odes and Poems on all the books of Holy Scripture (5). ^D

ARTICLE II. ON OTHER FRAGMENTS AND LOST WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

§ I. Two other small works of St. Hippolytus on Easter. ^A Besides the Paschal Cycle, of which we spoke a little above, Eusebius and St. Jerome (6) ascribe two other small works to St. Hippolytus on the same subject. Just as these writers clearly distinguish them from one another, so we too must distinguish them after them. In the first of these works, St. Hippolytus constructs a chronology which he brings down to the first year of the reign of Alexander Severus, that is, up to the year 222 of the Christian era. According to Eusebius, he decided to describe in it the series of times, while always keeping in mind the matter of Easter for the purpose of finding the determined time, namely, when it ought to be celebrated. And for this reason, in the same work, he proposed a cycle of sixteen years. This Chronology is perhaps that writing which is denoted in the Greek table by these terms: Ἀπόδειξις χρόνων τοῦ Πάσχα, *Demonstration of the Paschal Times*. The most learned Tillemont (8), distinguishing this Chronology from another writing on the same subject to which he gave the name *Chronicle*, says that St. Hippolytus indicates in this work the Easter dates according to the rules of his cycle; he adds also that our saint placed at the end a table of days on which he believed Easter should be celebrated in the future, for a definite number of years. ^B Perhaps St. Jerome (9) wished to point to this very thing with the following words: *He wrote the account of Easter and the canons of the times* (i.e., Hippolytus); and so this complete work likely contained the work on Easter. After Eusebius and St. Jerome have spoken of the labor of St. Hippolytus in arranging the calculation of times in relation to Easter, and have listed the titles of many other works of our saint, they still observe another writing of his on Easter; but is this the same as the *Chronicle*, which Tillemont distinguishes from the *Chronology*? Or rather, is it some moral treatise on Easter? Since history provides nothing peculiar to us on this, it cannot be determined. This alone we know, that a council celebrated in the Lateran in the year 649 alleges a certain passage from a homily of St. Hippolytus on the Lord's Easter (10).

§ II. Treatise of St. Hippolytus on the Resurrection. [B (cont'd)] St. Jerome (11), setting out an enumeration of the writings of St. Hippolytus, ascribes to him a book *On the Resurrection*. This small work is found noted in the Greek table under this title, from which richer information can be drawn: Περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ σαρκὸς ἀναστάσεως, *On God and the Resurrection of the Flesh*. Fabricius (12) and Gallandius report a fragment of St. Hippolytus on this subject, which they took from Anastasius Sinaita, who cited it under this title: *On the Resurrection and Incorruption* (13). ^C The illustrious Le Moyne (14) at first believed this treatise *On God and the Resurrection of the Flesh* to have been composed against Beryllus and the Arabs, led by that very uncertain opinion that our saint served as a bishop in Arabia and lived there for a long time. But a little later (15), having changed his opinion, he judged that by the treatise of Hippolytus Περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ ἀναστάσεως σαρκός, one must understand his work *Against Marcion*. Scaliger, on the other hand, opines that by this work is indicated the book *On the Two Natures of Christ*, which Theodoret (16) asserts was written by Hippolytus. But we do not see clearly enough by what connection the opinion of Scaliger and the title of this work, of which we are speaking, are held together. It seems to us more likely that the illustrious Basnage confused the mentioned work with another one *On the Incarnation*.

§ III. Treatise against all heresies. ^D Eusebius (17) and Jerome (18) testify that St. Hippolytus wrote a treatise *against all heresies*, that is, without doubt, as our Maurists observe (19), against all the heresies that emerged from Orcus from the time of St. Irenaeus down to his own age. This work is found cited under the name of St. Hippolytus by many other ancient authors (20), and it existed still in the age of Photius, who is found to have read it. For he delivered his judgment on it in his usual manner with these words (21): *The book of Hippolytus was read, who was a disciple of Irenaeus. This volume is against thirty-two heresies, making a beginning from the Dositheans, and concluding with Noetus and the Noetians.*

^A He says that he undertook the refutation of these from the sermons of Irenaeus, whose summary he reports he has included in this book. The diction is clear and concise, nor is it redundant, although he does not pay much attention to the rules of Atticism. It contains matters that are—in some places—less accurate, such as his denial that Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is also no room for doubt that the *Memory of Heresies* by St. Hippolytus, from which Pope Gelasius cites two passages or fragments, is the same little work as the *Treatise against all Heresies*. As for this treatise, nothing exists today besides these two fragments. But in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* there appears a certain writing under the name of St. Hippolytus with this title: *Homily on the One and Triune God, and on the Mystery of the Incarnation, against the Heresy of Noetus*. Learned men who have examined this writing with greater critical rigor are entirely persuaded that it should be considered a fragment of a longer work, and the final part of Hippolytus’s treatise against heresies. It is no objection, says the eminent Fabricius, that the author sometimes addresses the faithful, as is wont to be done in homilies; for it is traditional for the ancients to do this in their writings as well, and to address their readers. The *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, which is commonly called the Paschal Chronicle, cites a certain passage from St. Hippolytus’s work against all heresies, in which he asserts that Christ did not celebrate the legal Passover in the last year of his life. The same Chronicle reports yet another passage of this holy bishop and martyr from his first book *On the Passover*, by which he intended to show that Christ did not eat the paschal lamb on the eve of his death. You have both of these in Fabricius and Gallandi.

It is indeed likely that St. Hippolytus, in this general refutation of heresies, refuted the false dogmas of the Valentinians with an admirable faculty, as Epiphanius reports. To this we also refer what Theodoret and a certain ancient author (Stephen Gobar), cited by Photius, have handed down concerning the writings of St. Hippolytus against the Nicolaitans and Montanists. Hebed-Jesu, in his *Catalogue of Chaldean Books*, makes mention of St. Hippolytus against Caius, a heretic, namely the one of whom Irenaeus speaks in Book 1, Chapter 35. It is by no means necessary that we posit that Hippolytus wrote special treatises against the Nicolaitans, Montanists, Valentinians, and Caians; it suffices that he refuted all of these in his general treatise against all heresies.

§ IV. Hippolytus’s Book against Marcion

That St. Hippolytus also wrote specifically against Marcion is testified by Jerome, from whom it does not appear sufficiently certain whether he opposed to Marcion a book *On the Resurrection*. Nicephorus calls it *Antirrhetic against Marcion*, but he does not mention a book *On the Resurrection*, just as neither does Syncellus, page 558, having testified that Hippolytus wrote against Marcion and the other heresies. ^B It seems to Tillemont that there was also a volume opposed to Marcion, which Hippolytus had written *On the Good, and Whence is Evil*, as Eusebius mentions. Among those who, according to Theodoret, confuted Marcion in the best and most sophisticated manner, our Hippolytus is also celebrated.

Scaliger determined that the work *On the Good, and Whence is Evil*, noted in the list, was written against the presbyter Florinus, a contemporary of those times, who made God the author of evil; he was refuted for this by the eminent Le Moyne, who attempted to prove that this book of our Hippolytus was written not against Florinus, but against the Cerdonians, Marcionites, Hermogenians, and others, who posited various principles and admitted one author of good and another of evil. ^C For Florinus admitted one God and one principle; but he did not shrink from attributing both good and evil to Him. Other heretics, however, recognized various principles, so that they could thus attribute to each of them those things which they judged to be more appropriate and consistent: one good, the author and fountain of all good; another just, rigid, implacable, the creator of the universe; a third an eternal matter, or a God ruling over matter, from whence all evils crept into the world. Our Maurists, however, well observe that these opinions of Scaliger, Le Moyne, and Tillemont do not exceed the sphere of conjecture, ^D and that it is only certain that among the eighteen articles which Stephen Gobar proposed for examination, one occurs in which that author inquires what was the opinion of St. Hippolytus regarding the heresy of the Montanists: "What did the blessed Hippolytus think regarding the heresy of the Montanists?" From which it is permissible to conjecture that the Montanists were impugned by St. Hippolytus.

^A succeed, and that this alone is absolutely certain, that the lucubrations against Marcion, and *On Good, and whence comes evil*, ought to be regarded as two distinct works, partly because of their different titles, and partly also supported by the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome, and by the Greek table itself. The same Greek table exhibits to us the following title of the works of Hippolytus: *Chronicon* against the Gentiles, and against Plato, or *On the Universe*. We discussed the treatise of St. Hippolytus *Against Plato*, or *On the Universe*, a little earlier in article 4, chapter 2. It is to be noted here only that the most learned Scaliger, along with certain others, thought that this title should be divided and that several different works ought to be gathered from it. ^B But to others it seems far more probable that this title designates only one work of St. Hippolytus, in which our holy martyr and bishop, following the custom of his own age, undertook to refute the falsely vaunted antiquity of the pagans, and Plato’s specious dogmas regarding the eternity of the world.

ARTICLE III. ON THE HOMILIES AND EPISTLES OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS. § 1. Homilies.

Besides the homily of St. Hippolytus *On the Theophany*, about which we discoursed above, it is reported that our saint composed other sermons as well, namely, a sermon *On the Resurrection* and [on] incorruption, *On Theology*, that is, on the Deity, *On the Lord’s Day of Pascha*, [and] *On Elkanah and Anna the mother of Samuel*. ^C From two brief fragments of this sermon, which Theodoret reports and preserved, we understand that St. Hippolytus had as his purpose in this sermon to show that Christ was descended from David and at the same time was King and Priest, and the Word of God truly incarnate in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary. An oration on that text, "The Lord feedeth me," is mentioned by the same Theodoret in *Dialogue 1*, page 36. A little earlier, we have already reported the sermons of St. Hippolytus *On the Great Song of Songs*, *On the beginning of the prophecy of Isaiah*, two homilies *On the prophet Daniel*, *On the distribution of talents*, [and] *On the two thieves*. And in that same place we observed that these homilies were perhaps a certain part of this holy Father’s Commentaries on the Song of Songs, on Isaiah, and on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

Testified by divine Jerome, St. Hippolytus delivered a homily in the church in praise of our Savior Jesus Christ, with Origen himself present among the listeners. And *prosomilian* [a homily side-by-side] (these are the words of divine Jerome) *on the praise of the Lord Savior, in which he signifies that he is speaking in the church with Origen present.* But today nothing more of this homily remains.

To this place we also refer St. Hippolytus’ *Protrepticon pros Seberainan*, an *Exhortation to Severina*. But as to who that Severina is, to whom Hippolytus wrote the exhortation, learned men diverge in their opinions. Scaliger says: "He had written an epistle to a certain queen, as Theodoret reports." I do not assert that this is Severina, who is called queen to him, but neither would I contend [it] if someone should think so. Le Moyne considers that we should understand Severa Augusta, the wife of Philip the Emperor, whom Origen also addressed with letters, and therefore it should be read *Protreptikos pros Seberanan*, *Protreptic to Severa Au[gusta]*, that is, Augusta, and not *Seberainan*, Severina. From Theodoret, indeed, we hear that Hippolytus wrote to a certain queen. But regarding us, says the illustrious Samuel...

Basnage, that bold critique which changes ancient inscriptions without any compelling necessity does not please us. Hippolytus’s marble possesses *Severinam*, not *Severam*. But Severa, not Severina, was Philip’s wife. Nor is there any trace upon the marble from which we might conclude that Severina was adorned with the Augustan dignity, a fact which, however, would not have been consigned to oblivion. It is also uncertain whether Hippolytus extended his years as far as the reign of Philip. Furthermore, our Maurists add that, even though Theodoret cites a letter written by Hippolytus to a certain queen, it does not follow from this that the letter meant is the one that was inscribed to Severina. For our holy bishop wrote letters to many persons, whether queens or others. Indeed, among his writings, which the holy bishop Alexander of Jerusalem had collected with untiring care to enrich his library, there is mention of letters of St. Hippolytus, gathered as if into a bundle. Add the fact that there is no argument from which it might be gathered that our saint extended his life beyond the reign of Severus Alexander. Therefore, the illustrious Cave says: If it seems too harsh to extend the age of Hippolytus that far, this letter can not unfittingly be referred to the sister of Severus Alexander, or someone from his family. The most learned Jacob Basnage, who undertook to explain this difficulty more fully, was far from solving it; rather, he increased it when he asserted that he had directed the letter we are discussing to Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. Which opinion, in truth, not only relies on no argument but also lacks any semblance of probability. For in order for it to have a show of probability, it would be necessary for St. Hippolytus, a disciple of St. Irenaeus who died in the year 202, to have extended his life well into the reign of the Emperor Aurelian—that is, the year 270—at which time, indeed, Zenobia began to reign. Moreover, it would have to be supposed either that Zenobia also bore the name Severina, or that the inscription which calls her by this name should be rejected entirely as false.

The father of the Annals, Caesar Baronius, believes that Julia Mamaea should be understood. These are the opinions ^B of learned men concerning the inscription of this letter. As for the rest, from this letter, which likewise has not survived to our age, two fragments have been preserved for us by Theodoret in his second and third dialogues, to be read in Gallandi.

§ II. On the letters of St. Hippolytus.

Eusebius testifies that he read many of St. Hippolytus’s letters in the library established there by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem. But besides that one noted in the list as addressed to Severina, and praised by Theodoret as having been written to a certain queen—of which we spoke a little earlier—there is deep silence among ancient writers ^C regarding the rest. Fabricius refers to a certain passage from a synodal letter of John of Antioch to Menas of Alexandria, written in the year of Christ 968, where a letter of St. Hippolytus to St. Dionysius, bishop of Cyprus, is cited; from which John of Antioch brings forward a passage to prove a single nature in Christ after the incarnation. But John of Antioch is a man of little authority for establishing belief; nor are there wanting arguments from which it becomes credible that John himself is the author and compiler of this letter and the passage in which the Eutychian heresy is openly contained. For besides the fact that a bishop of Cyprus named Dionysius is nowhere to be found in the age of St. Hippolytus, the doctrine alleged from this letter is also found to be diametrically opposed to the sentiments of this holy martyr. For in many places in his works—to be brought forward a little further down—he clearly acknowledges two natures in Jesus Christ after the incarnation. What of the fact that the bad faith of John of Antioch is made manifest from that same passage, while he alleges a passage from the letter of St. Athanasius to the emperor Jovian, which nevertheless is found nowhere in Athanasius? Is this fact not ^D a sign of the same [bad faith] in his alleging other passages from the holy ancient Fathers, whose works have perished? We have decided that it is worth the effort to bring forward here in their entirety three of his passages, whether the ones attributed to our divine Hippolytus by John of Antioch are worthy of this great bishop, or whether they were rather fabricated by a sectary of the Eutychian heresy. St. Hippolytus, Roman bishop, in his treatise *Against those who impugn the incarnation of the Word of God for his consubstantiality with the Father*, says: "When the Virgo gave birth to his body, she also gave birth to the Word, and therefore she is the Theotokos; the Jews also, when they crucified the body, crucified God the Word; nor is there any distinction between the Word and the body of man in the holy Scriptures, but he is one nature, one person, one suppositum, one operation; the Word God, the Word man, just as he was." Likewise in the treatise *On the union of Christ’s body and his divinity*, he professes that "he who was created is uncreated by the union; and he who is uncreated becomes created by the same union, since one nature consists of those two complete parts." The same also says in the letter to Dionysius, bishop of Cyprus: "While they confess two natures, they are forced to adore one, and the other they do not adore; in him who is divine they are baptized, in him who is man they are not baptized. Furthermore, when we are baptized in the name of Christ, we confess one nature, divinity impassible, and body passible, so that our baptism may be to God, and in the death of the Lord." John of Antioch, *Synodal Epistle to Menas*, in Eusebius Renaudot, *History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, p. 360.

[Note: regarding the text starting with "torem in qua dicit Athanasius...", this follows the citation in the original text as a continuation of the scholarly investigation into spurious attributions.] ...the one in which Athanasius says: "It is necessary to say and confess one nature and one person of the incarnate Word, who being made man, the humanity [per...

must those lost works render it suspect? ^A Likewise, the monuments of antiquity do not provide sufficient light for us, from which it might be certainly gathered whether Saint Hippolytus wrote *On the Odd Number* as a dedicated work, or whether he discussed it as it were in passing while treating another subject. Be that as it may, Saint Jerome lists our holy bishop and martyr among the proponents of the odd number in this manner: "Now I must enumerate those ecclesiastical writers who have disputed regarding the odd number: Clement, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, Eusebius, Didymus, and of our own writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary (68)."

Leontius Byzantinus (69) cites under the name of S. Hippolytus a treatise *On the Blessings of Balaam* (70). But this author is so unreliable in reporting the testimonies of the ancients that he deserves little faith. Nevertheless, it could have happened that Saint Hippolytus, according to his custom for the material or argument of one of his treatises or homilies, chose these blessings, from which Leontius excerpted what he cited.

Finally, Palladius in his *Lausiac History*, chap. 148, reports from Saint Hippolytus—whom he calls a contemporary of the Apostles—a narrative concerning a certain Corinthian virgin, who was handed over by a pagan judge to a brothel to be defiled, whom a young Christian named Magistrianus, pretending that he wished to consort with her unchastely, liberated from the brothel by changing clothes and by a pious fraud from all corruption; but on the following day, the matter being known, Magistrianus was condemned to the beasts by the judge and was crowned with martyrdom. Nicephorus (H. E. lib. VII, cap. 13) also mentions this virgin, but briefly; nor does he state anywhere that she was a Corinthian; the same Nicephorus pursues the same story about Magistrianus: you may read both narratives printed in Fabricius (71) and Gallandius (72).

CHAPTER IV. DE OPERIBUS S. HIPPOLYTO SUPPOSITIS.

ARTICLE I. ON THE WORK FALSELY ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS ‹ ON THE CONSUMMATION OF THE WORLD, ON THE ANTICHRIST, AND ON THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST ›.

Here we do not wish to repeat what we discussed a little above concerning the two treatises and the letter under the name of S. Hippolytus cited by John of Antioch; ^D but we begin our critical examination of the works incorrectly attributed to him immediately with that work whose title is: *On the Consummation of the World, on Antichrist, and on the Second Coming of Christ*.

^A This treatise under the name of Hippolytus was first brought to light in Greek and Latin at Paris in the year 1557 by Joannes Picus, with the aforementioned title, which exists at the beginning of the Greek manuscript from Venice from which the learned editor received his copy. This treatise was later inserted into the twelfth volume of the later edition of the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of Paris. Picus's Latin version was also reprinted at Cologne in 1563, in octavo, by Maternus Cholinus, and at the end of Justin Martyr at Paris in 1575. It appears in the *Bibliotheca Patrum* of any edition; also in Greek and Latin in the *Auctuarium Bibliothecæ Patrum* edited by Ducaeus at Paris in 1624, volume II. It was translated into French by Nicolaus le Clerc at Paris in 1566 and 1579. Furthermore, the same treatise is printed at the end of the first volume of the works of our saint, as edited by Fabricius. ^B The most learned Tillemont observes that many learned men from the beginning accepted this little book as a genuine work, who nevertheless could not restrain themselves from condemning what is read in it, namely that the Apostle John is not yet dead, which indeed also seems little worthy of such a doctor of the Church, and one so famous, who lived in the third century and who even clearly testified to the contrary in his genuine book *On Antichrist*. Wherefore even before that true treatise *On Antichrist* had been discovered, not a few rejected it as false and supposititious, and thought it to be the work of a much later writer. Among these, leading the way is Andreas Rivetus, who judges the little book as follows: "A tiny pamphlet, of almost no value, and of not even greater credibility. That the author was unlettered and unlearned is apparent both from the very style of the Greek, which is for the most part puerile, and from the truth and weight of the subject matter. He begins the first sentence of the book with 'for' (*gar*), which not even a boy in school would do. It contains many empty conjectures about the birth and life of Antichrist, ^C affirming that he will be endowed with a human figure, whom Paul calls the man of sin. He fabricates that John, who wrote the book of the Apocalypse, will come again with Elijah and Enoch to refute Antichrist, 'to which opinion,' says Possevinus, 'one must not assent.' He foolishly uses the Apocalypse of John in place of Daniel. He affirms that the souls of men have existed for ages, which was the invention of the Origenists: and there are other frequent dreamings and deliriums of his, upon weighing which we cannot be brought to believe that this little book is by that ancient bishop, etc." Thus far Rivetus. Ellies Dupin, supporting Rivetus, uses almost the same reasons. But it has also been observed by Combefis in the Greek *Catena Patrum* on Jeremiah that certain words are cited from Hippolytus which are found in the Gudianus Hippolytus, but not in this one by Picus. In the judgment of the same Combefis, that work which had heretofore burdened the shelves under the name of Hippolytus *On Antichrist* is a monument of a later Greece, and is utterly worthless, reflecting nothing of the sincerity of that age, or the vein of a theologian of great simplicity, and one sufficiently versed in the Scriptures; whose parent was persuaded of this by the very fact that it was common among the ancients that Hippolytus had written *On Antichrist*. It is truly a wonder that, with so many and so great moments of reason standing against the authenticity of this writing, the very learned Natalis Alexander should have attempted to defend and maintain it as a genuine work of St. Hippolytus.

ARTICLE II.

ON THE COMMENTARY ON THE APOCALYPSE, THE TREATISE ON THE TWELVE APOSTLES, AND ANOTHER ON THE SEVENTY DISCIPLES, FALSELY ASCRIBED TO OUR ST. HYPPOLYTUS.

§ 1. On the commentary on the Apocalypse falsely attributed to St. Hippolytus.

Sixtus Senensis wrote that it was found… ^D consummation of the world, no. 21), in which he is refuted of falsity by Scripture (Apoc. 11:13); he claims that Antichrist is a demon appearing under a human guise, in which he contradicts both Paul (2 Thess. 2) and Hippolytus himself in his book *On Antichrist*, nos. 5 and 6, who establish that Antichrist is a true man. Those things also which he writes about monks, no. 7, and about the use of incense in churches, no. 34, clearly show that the author is later than the third century, in which the monastic state had not yet been known, nor was the use of incense established, except for the burial of the dead, as we learn from the treatises of Tertullian, *De spectaculis* c. 11, *De corona* c. 10, *Apologeticum* c. 30 and 42.

^A Some commentaries on the Apocalypse, attributed to Hippolytus, appeared years ago at Basel, regarding which there is doubt due to their lack of erudition and poor style. The most learned Rivetus (85) conjectures that this *Commentary on the Apocalypse* is perhaps not a different work from that which Picot or Picus published in Greek and Latin under the title: *On the Consummation of the World and on the Antichrist*. "I do not know," says this critic, "if it is the same book about which Sixtus Senensis wrote in book I... whether it be the same or another, the reason for doubting is the same."

§ II. *A treatise on the Twelve Apostles, falsely attributed to Hippolytus.*

Under the name of St. Hippolytus, in the *Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis* (86) and in Combefis’s *Auctuarium novissimum Bibliothecae Patrum*, there appears a very short treatise *On the Twelve Apostles*, where each of them preached and where they met their end. The same treatise under the name of the same holy Father is found also among the Greek manuscripts of the Coislinian library (87); and it has been printed in Greek and Latin at the end of the first volume of the Works of St. Hippolytus (88). Moreover, learned men observe that the aforementioned treatise is cited under our saint’s name by Cedrenus (89) and Michael Glycas (90). But the authority of these two Greeks is not so great that we ought to give credence to their mere assertion. Indeed, Combefis himself admits he has nothing to prove this treatise is by St. Hippolytus, except for the trustworthiness of the Royal manuscript from which he transcribed it. Added to this is the fact that it includes many fictions of modern Greeks concerning the death of the apostles, such as, in the judgment of Dupin (91), the following: that Andrew died while attached to an olive tree; that the relics of John were not found in his tomb; that Bartholomew was fixed to a cross head-down; that Matthew preached among the Parthians; that Thomas delivered sermons to the Magi and was pierced through with a fir spear in four places at Salamis; that Thaddeus preached in Mesopotamia; ^B and that the apostle Simon succeeded St. James in the episcopal see of Jerusalem; all of which are taken from the fictions of later Greeks, such as Sophronius and others.

§ III. *A treatise on the LXX Disciples, falsely attributed to Hippolytus.*

Another short work under the name of the same Hippolytus, *On the LXX Disciples*, or as the inscription suggests, *On the LXX Apostles of Jesus Christ*, was also printed from the Baroccian codex 206, although it contains no mention of the apostles among the many. This very small work is nothing but a catalog rashly pieced together concerning the seventy disciples and their principal characteristics, most of which are fabricated from fantasy and also falsely attributed to names; hence it in no way deserves to bear the name of our holy Hippolytus. Thus, for example, many persons are listed here among the disciples of the Lord, who nevertheless were only converted to the faith after the preaching of the Apostle Paul, and consequently can never be counted among the disciples of the Savior. Then the author relates that St. Mark and St. Luke were of the number of those disciples who, concerning the saying of Jesus Christ: "Unless one eats my flesh and drinks my blood, he is not worthy of me," felt scandal and separated themselves from the company of the Savior; but that later the former, moved by Peter, and the latter by the persuasion of Paul, returned to Christ and finished their lives in martyrdom. He also says that St. Clement was bishop of Sardinia, and that Crescens was bishop of Chalcedonia in Gaul. He also postulates two different Barnabas-es; one he imagines as bishop of Milan, the other of Heraclea. Moreover, learned men observe that this small work largely agrees with the pseudo-Dorotheus and is likely identical to it (92). But as for what Baronius has on the LXX disciples in the *Roman Martyrology* for April 9th, and in his *Annals* for the year of Christ 44, no. 58, and year 58, no. 56, citing this little book of Hippolytus—which Sirletus had in Greek—it seems to Fabricius (93) that these were taken from the *Chronicle of Hippolytus the Theban*. Indeed, this very small book exists with the previous writing *On the Twelve Apostles* under the name of Hippolytus in two codices of the Coislinian or Seguierian library, as the learned Montfaucon testifies in his review of the Greek manuscripts of that library. Fabricius inserted the same treatise in volume I of the Works of St. Hippolytus, page 41 of the appendix, in Greek and Latin.

ARTICLE III. OF OTHER WORKS FALSELY ASCRIBED TO ST. HIPPOLYTUS. § 1. The Genealogy of SS. Mary and Joseph, a supposititious work.

Nicephorus Callistus (94) quotes from St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, a fairly long fragment concerning the genealogy of St. Joseph and the most blessed Virgin (95). But there is no doubt that this historian was hallucinating, taking St. Hippolytus the Martyr to be ^D Hippolytus the Theban.

^A It is manifest that the author of this fragment did not live before the eleventh century; nor is there any danger of error here, since he frequently cites the writer Metaphrastes, who belongs to the eleventh century.

II. The Chronicle imputed to St. Hippolytus.

The first part of another Chronicle is also ascribed to our saint, Hippolytus, which was published by Canisius (4), reprinted with somewhat more accuracy by Fabricius (5), and later edited completely by Jacques Basnage. This Chronicle continues up to the time of Charlemagne. However, we are dealing here only with its first part, in which some slight differences are observed between the editions of Basnage and Fabricius. Scholars agree that it was composed under the empire of Alexander Severus; although, to tell the truth, it is far more certain that it was not completed until the reign of his successor, Maximinus I: since, according to Fabricius’s copy, the entire period of Alexander Severus’s reign is defined by these limits (6): "Alexander, thirteen years, nine days." Now, this terminal point leads us up to the year 235 inclusive, beyond which it is not certain that St. Hippolytus lived. Nor do we perceive from any other source by what right or foundation this earlier part of the Chronicle can be attributed ^B to him. It is true, as we learn from Eusebius and St. Jerome, that our Hippolytus composed a Chronicle, but it was related to the date of Pascha. There is no doubt, however, that that one is not this one, which is the subject of current controversy; nor is there observed here the slightest mention of any work of that kind. It is also true that the table which includes several titles of the works of St. Hippolytus ascribes to him chronicles against the Greeks and against Plato; but the Chronicle which is the object of this controversy has nothing from which one might conclude that it is the very same work. It is therefore most probable, and much easier to believe, if we say with Basnage (7) that this earlier part of the Chronicle pertains to Julius Africanus, who flourished under the empire of Alexander. This is how all the knots of these difficulties can be resolved. Everyone generally knows ^C that our saint, Hippolytus, in the supplement to *Bibl. PP. Paris.* 1639, by Morell, tom. II, p. 806, and tom. XV of the *Bibl. PP. Lugdun.*, p. 240; likewise Canisius, tom. II *Lect. antiq.*, in the year 1602, p. 579, from two codices with this title: *Historical chronological collection from an anonymous author, who lived under the emperor Alexander Severus, collected by a certain Gaul in the times of Charlemagne.* It begins: *First book of generations.* Canisius adds in the margin: "In the lesser manuscript codex, for in the greater manuscript the entire first book is missing, there was no other title prefixed to this book besides this one." Then the same Chronicle was edited, somewhat more emended (though it itself in places, especially with proper names, is in need of correction) and expanded with a chapter on the emperors, ^D by Phil. Labbe, S.J., Paris 1657, folio, tom. I of the *Bibliotheca nova ms.*, p. 298, from another manuscript codex of the Jesuit College of Clermont in Paris, with this title: *Chronology of an anonymous author, who is said to have lived under the emperor Alexander in the year of Christ 236, a small book or chronicle concerning the divisions and generations of the nations.* Du Cange followed the Labbean edition in the appendix to the *Chronicon paschale*, Paris 1688, folio, p. 413.

The fragment from the Chronicle of Hippolytus the Theban exists, published by Joannes Sambucus at Padua in 1556, in Latin in octavo, by the press of Gratiosus Perchacinus under the title *Small book on the birth and kinship of the Virgin Mary*, and it is kept as a manuscript in the Imperial Library, but it is extremely brief (3). A longer version exists in the *Lectiones antiquae* of Henricus Canisius, tom. III, p. 35, in Greek and Latin. Not a few writers, who, bearing the name of Hippolytus, did not sufficiently distinguish the persons, nor the times in which they lived, attributed this fragment to our saint, Hippolytus the bishop and martyr; having the firmest persuasion that these Chronicles are the ones designated in the list of the Greek table. Meanwhile, however, this error is so great that it is self-evident, and it is truly to be wondered at that it was not detected immediately. It is manifest...