On the Doctrine of Saint Hippolytus

to have composed a *Chronicon*; something therefore must be sought which can be attributed to him. Immediately there offers itself the *Chronicon* of Hippolytus of Thebes; and for that reason it was falsely ascribed to our holy bishop and martyr; afterwards it is discovered that this cannot be his; and finally it occurred to others to adjudge it to Julius Africanus. ^A This is Jacob Basnage’s view. We, with the other Basnage, namely Samuel, believe that the *Chronicon* published by Henricus Canisius, professor of Sacred Canons at Ingolstadt, is far different from that which is claimed in marble for Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus Romanus. For in it are found the names of Constantine the Great, Eusebius, Arius, Basil the Great, and indeed Metaphrastes as well.

§ III. *Fragments from the Arabic Catena are not by St. Hippolytus.* Albert Fabricius, in the later volume of the *Works of St. Hippolytus*, caused to be printed fragments, or excerpts, from a manuscript Arabic *Catena* concerning the Pentateuch, transcribed in Syriac letters from a codex in the Bodleian Library, first edited with the version of John Gagnier. The name of St. Hippolytus occurs among the names of other holy Fathers of the third, fourth, and fifth centuries in these excerpts, and our Hippolytus has commented upon about forty passages in this work. The first passage where the name of Hippolytus occurs is in Genesis, ch. 6, 17. ^B But these Hippolytean excerpts of Fabricius are known to be supposititious. For there the spurious Hippolytus is everywhere called an "Expositor of the Targum," but never a bishop or a martyr; whereas the other Fathers appearing there are designated by their proper character: namely, St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria; St. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea; St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, etc. Moreover, the interpretations of this "Targumist" Hippolytus for the most part smack of rabbinical ineptitudes, clearly unworthy of so great a Father as the true Hippolytus is held to have been, especially in the explanation of the Sacred Scriptures.

§ IV. *Writings attributed to St. Hippolytus by the Ethiopians and Chaldeans.* Finally, we pass over in silence the lucubrations attributed to St. Hippolytus by the Syro-Chaldeans, which are in the Clementine-Vatican Oriental Library, volume III, part 1, page 15, where the most learned Assemani, from the Syriac catalog of Ebed Jesu, Bishop of Soba, renders certain book titles into Latin in these words: *St. Hippolytus, martyr and bishop, composed a book concerning the dispensation, and an exposition of Daniel the less and of Susanna, and chapters against Caius, and an Apology for the Apocalypse and Gospel of John the apostle and evangelist.* The Arabs also attribute to St. Hippolytus thirty-eight canons of ecclesiastical discipline, as the praised Assemani testifies in the same place in these words: *Macarius, priest and monk of the monastery of St. Macarius, collected thirty-eight Arabic canons under his name, and inserted them into the first tome of the Canons of the Alexandrian Church, in an Arabic codex written in the year of Christ 1372.* John Michael Wansleben, the Dominican, in the *History of the Alexandrian Church*, part v, ch. 3, or page 280 and following, published these thirty-eight canons under the name of "Abulides" in French, and in the same place in the margin warns the reader that he could not even conjecture who this Abulides might have been. Truly, Job Ludolf, in his *History of Ethiopia*, page 335 and following, has translated the same canons of St. Hippolytus into Latin, and there teaches Wansleben that Hippolytus is called "Abulides" by the Ethiopians, and finally, after exhibiting these thirty-eight canons, he adds these words: *"On account of these canons, Hippolytus is called a doctor of the Church by the Ethiopians; and he is called Pope of Rome, both by them and by the remaining Orientals, although he is nevertheless not found in the Catalog of the pontiffs."* However, he is found in the *Synaxaria* of the Greeks on January 30, which is February 5 among the Ethiopians. Moreover, the first to publish the chapters of these canons in French was Jo. Michael Wansleben in the book *On the Alexandrian Church*, Paris 1677, in-12. In Latin, Job Ludolf in his *Commentary on Ethiopian history*, Frankfurt 1691, fol., page 333, and most recently Will. Whiston in volume III of the work which he inscribed *Primitive Christianity Revived* and published in English in London 1711, 8°, page 543. The same also annotated the passages of the *Apostolic Constitutions* treating the same subjects. Finally, Fabricius, at the end of his preface, no. 22, to volume I of the *Works of Hippolytus*, added them, to be inserted elsewhere below, page 261.

OF THE DOCTRINE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

^A were designated by the name of prophets, were instruments through whom the Word announced the divine will to men: "For these Fathers," says Saint Hippolytus, "fitted with the Spirit of prophecy, and deservedly honored by the Word Himself—by whom indeed they held the Word, ever-united in themselves, like a plectrum—through His nod and breathing, the prophets announced what God willed. For they did not speak from their own ability, nor were they preaching those things which came from their own minds; but, having first been duly imbued with wisdom by the deity of the Word, they were thereafter properly tutored through visions of what was to come; and at last, with a sure certainty of things, they said and preached those things which were manifested to them solely by the divine deity, but were hidden from the rest. For by what reason would he be called a prophet, unless he foresaw future things by the Spirit? Hence, prophets were fittingly called 'seers' from the beginning." He also adds, that the Word compelled these holy writers to speak through the Holy Spirit; that the Word was present in them, that He had spoken in them, announcing His future incarnation: "He Himself, however," he speaks in this place of the Son of God, "gave both the Law and the prophets; and by giving it, He compelled them to speak through the Holy Spirit, that, receiving the inspiration of the Paternal power, they might announce the counsel and will of the Father. In them, therefore, the Word was present, speaking of Himself. For already He was His own herald, and was showing that it would come to pass that the Word would appear ^B to men." Can anything be said more effectively on behalf of the inspiration of the divine books? And who, after these things, will dare to enter into a dispute about the nature of this inspiration, namely, whether it is immediate or only mediate? Writers filled with the Spirit of prophecy: writers who are as it were instruments, through whom the Word announces the divine will; writers not speaking from themselves, but from divine wisdom and inspiration; writers, in a word, whom the Word compels to speak through the Holy Spirit—have they spoken otherwise than as divinely inspired by a revelation of precisely such a kind and by an immediate inspiration? Let all controversy therefore cease concerning this truth, which is established with the greatest clarity in the more remote antiquity.

God is One and Triune, to be acknowledged and worshipped from the Holy Scriptures. Sacred Scripture is not to be expounded according to one's own whim.

Finally, this holy Father teaches that we are not to be instructed about the unity of God and His Trinity, or about how one is to serve Him and exercise piety toward Him, from any other source than from the sacred scriptures. He adds regarding the sacred scriptures that they are not to be interpreted according to one's own judgment. Enclosed here are his golden sentiments on this matter: "There is one God, whom we do not acknowledge from any other source, brothers, than from the holy Scriptures. For just as if anyone wished to practice the wisdom of this world, he could not achieve this unless he read the dogmas of the philosophers; so, whoever among us wishes to practice piety toward God, let us not learn from any other source than from the divine Scriptures. Whatever, therefore, the holy Scriptures preach, let us know; and whatever they teach, let us understand; and as the Father wills to be believed, so let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, so let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be gifted, so let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own judgment, nor offering force to those things which were given by Him; but as He Himself willed to teach through the holy Scriptures, so let us understand."

How Saint Hippolytus cites Scripture

Furthermore, Saint Hippolytus generally cites the sentiments of the Scriptures according to the version of the Septuagint Interpreters. Yet, sometimes, he nevertheless recurs to the versions adorned by Aquila and Symmachus ^C based on the Hebrew exemplar.

Saint Hippolytus divides all of sacred Scripture into Νόμον, Προφήτας, Εὐαγγέλια, Ἀποστόλους, into the Law, the Prophets, the Gospels, and the Apostles. For thus he speaks in the book *On Antichrist*: "Therefore, they (the Israelites) have fallen through everything, and have wandered, they who existed in no way in agreement with the truth; neither in the Law, because they transgressed it; nor in the Prophets, because they also killed the prophets; nor in the voice of the Gospels, because they also crucified the Savior Himself; nor by believing the Apostles, because they also persecuted them; everywhere weaving snares for the truth, and being its betrayers, led more by hatred of God than devoted by any love for Him."

This ancient saintly Father attributes the Book of Wisdom to Solomon, discoursing thus: "And where is that most copious wisdom (of Solomon)? Where are those mysteries? Where are the books? For only Proverbs, and Wisdom, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs exist."

He cites the Book of Tobit once; he acknowledges the history of Susannah and Bel as an authentic fragment, and furthermore reports that the Jews suppressed ^D this chapter of Daniel as being offensive to them, and as being one in which the great wickedness of those whom they held as judges in Babylon is exposed.

^A He appeals to the books of the Maccabees, and adduces one passage from the first and second book of Maccabees. Furthermore, as regards the passage of the author of the first book of Maccabees, to which Saint Hippolytus seems to have looked, and which Combefis vigorously maintains against Gudius, it is best to consult the Syrian Annals of Frölich, which are truly golden, as well as the vindication of those same annals, in which the most learned author defends that same passage—as he does the rest—excellently against Wernsdorff, who, following Gudius, had in vain attempted to challenge the canonical authority of the books of Maccabees.

Regarding the deutero-canonical books of the New Testament.—Saint Hippolytus is a weighty witness to the Gospel and the Apocalypse of Saint John, which books he defended in a singular Apology from the attacks often made against them in his time by the Alogi; he also explained the Apocalypse in a Commentary. What he thought about the other books of the New Testament, which are free from contradiction, is unknown, except that he recognized the second Epistle of Peter in some place, while he denied that the Epistle to the Hebrews was Paul's, following the example, of course, of Saint Irenaeus, his master.

While the holy Father discourses on David, he hands down that his psalms are the work of the Holy Spirit. It is also probable that this holy bishop believed that the prophet Daniel was sanctified in his mother's womb. Finally, it is worthy of observation that Saint Hippolytus, in alleging passages from the Epistles of the Divine Paul, very often used an appellative name, saying, "The Apostle says," ^B instead of "Holy Paul says." Moreover, on two occasions he cites a passage under the name of a prophet, which, however, is nowhere found in Holy Scripture.

ARTICLE II. ON TRADITION.

Beyond the authority of the divine books, Saint Hippolytus also receives and venerates the traditions of the apostles. For by the authority of the apostolic traditions he confirmed the articles of the Christian faith, and this same tradition our ancient writer used not without great utility against heretics, especially Noetus, to show that the Word of God descended from the heavens into the Virgin's womb, and was made flesh from her, a human soul having been assumed, sin alone excepted. "Let us believe, therefore, brothers," he says, "according to the tradition of the apostles, κατὰ τὴν παράδοσιν τῶν ἀποστόλων, that the Word of God descended from heaven into the holy Virgin Mary." In the beginning of his tract against the heresy of Noetus, this holy bishop writes thus in favor of tradition: "We truly know one God; we know Christ."

We understand the Son, who suffered as He suffered; who died as He died; who was raised on the third day and sits at the right hand of the Father, and who shall come to judge the living and the dead." And these things we say, which we have learned. How could this holy Father have spoken more clearly for the assertion of the tradition of the apostles? To this is added the fact that he wrote an entire treatise ^A *On the Tradition of the Apostles*. Following the example of the apostle Paul, who exhorted Timothy to guard the deposit and to commend those things which he had heard from him through many exhortations to faithful men, in like manner he is found to be instructing his Theophilus in the tradition.

ARTICLE III. ON THE MYSTERY OF THE MOST HOLY TRINITY. Unity of nature and distinction of Persons.

Saint Hippolytus speaks with the utmost gravity regarding the mystery of the most holy Trinity, and openly declares the faith concerning the unity of nature and the distinction of Persons. Thus, he says in his tract ^B *Against Noetus* (32): "The Word was with God, and the Word was God. What then? Will someone say that John speaks of two Gods? I will not say two Gods, but one. But two Persons; the third economy, the grace of the Holy Spirit." He calls the Holy Spirit grace in this passage, because that divine Spirit is the source of all gifts which God bestows upon men. "The Father indeed is one" (continues St. Hippolytus), "but the Persons are two, because there is the Son; the third, however, is the Holy Spirit. The Father commands, the Word performs; but the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed." The economy of consent is reduced to one God; for there is one God who commands, the Father; who obeys, the Son; who teaches knowledge, the Holy Spirit.

Nor should these words concern anyone: "the Son who obeys," as if they were to damage the perfect consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; for, as Father Ceillier wisely remarks (33), the Fathers of the second and third centuries used these forms of speech without any offense; St. Irenaeus ^C used this phrase without any scruple (34); and even though these formulas of speech might seem to favor the Arian heresy, nevertheless they occur even after the Council of Nicaea in the Fathers, as can be seen in St. Basil (35), St. Athanasius (36), and Marius Victorinus (37). Indeed, according to the style of the ancient theologians, these phrases, "to command and to obey," when the discourse is about the divine Persons, do not signify that one commands the other in the way a master commands his servant; but they designate merely the harmony of will in the Father and the Son; not otherwise than if someone were to say that, when the Father had determined to create the world through His Word, He did not do it without the will of His Word (38), which is one and the same substance with Him; as we have already said in another place, and as will now be explained more fully.

"The Father," continues St. Hippolytus, "is over all, the Son is through all, the Holy Spirit is in all" (39). We cannot understand the one God otherwise, unless ^D we understand the three Persons, and the unity of God in them; because it is of one and the same virtue and power to be over all, and through all, and in all; and according to the order of the confession of the holy Trinity, he attributes the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit; because He is the third Person according to the order of confession, as the ancient theologians speak.

^A Indeed, the Jews glorified the Father, but they did not give thanks; for they did not recognize the Son. The disciples recognized the Son, but not in the Holy Spirit; therefore, they denied [Him]. Knowing, therefore, the economy of the Father and the will of the Father—that the Father does not wish to be glorified otherwise than this—when He arose, He delivered this to the disciples: “Go,” He says, “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He taught here that whoever omits one of these has not perfectly glorified God. For through this Trinity, that is, through the Trinity, the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Holy Spirit made manifest. It is necessary, therefore, says this holy bishop, that ^B even if he is unwilling, he must confess the Father, God Almighty, and Christ Jesus, the Son of God, God made man—to whom the Father subjects all things except Himself and the Holy Spirit—and that these are truly three. But if he wishes to know how one God is demonstrated, let him know that there is one virtue or power of Him.

The third degree is spoken of; it can also be called the third disposition, or economy. The incarnation is designated less accurately in the Latin translation by the name of “economy,” in these words which are read in chapter 3: “For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not thereby deny the economy.” For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not immediately deny the economy (that is, the incarnation). Saint Hippolytus considers not the incarnation, but the number and the disposition of the Trinity in this place, and in many others.

ARTICLE IV. CONCERNING THE DIVINITY OF THE SON AND THE CONSUBSTANTIALITY OF THE WORD.

Divinity of the Son. — With equal precision, this holy bishop and martyr speaks about the divinity and consubstantiality of the Word in particular; and from this, countless testimonies are drawn that are able to stop the mouths of the Arians and Socinians. Take now the more notable ones. In the book *Against Noetus*, he expressly professes the divinity of Christ, while to that passage of the Apostle (Rom. IX, 5: “Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ according to the flesh,” etc.), he speaks as follows: “He beautifully narrates, and explains clearly, the mystery of truth. He who is over all things is God (for thus he dares to say: ‘All things have been delivered to me by the Father’). He who is God over all, blessed, has been begotten; and being made man, He is God for the ages.” And again, a little further below: “It is necessary, therefore, that even if he is unwilling, he must confess God Almighty, and Christ Jesus, the Son of God, God made man… and the Holy Spirit; and that these are truly three.”

Truly, ^C no one in these times of ours could speak more accurately about the mystery of the most holy Trinity than Saint Hippolytus spoke, who flourished in the third century of the Church. This adorable mystery is truly treated with clarity when it is said that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and nevertheless, that there is one only God, because these three Persons, although they are truly distinct from one another, are one and the same virtue or power, and therefore one and the same God. By this one most beautiful testimony of Saint Hippolytus, both the impiety of Arius and that of Sabellius are overthrown. They are three Persons, but they are one God: behold the whole mystery of the most holy Trinity. Moreover, the learned Maranus, noting that he had said long before, in chapter 8, that there is one God according to virtue, or according to the divine essence, which is one completely in three Persons; but that according to the economy three Persons are shown: he understands, therefore, as Tertullian does, by the name of economy, “the number and the disposition of the Trinity.” However, in this place he calls the grace of the Holy Spirit the “third economy”; but in the same sense as Tertullian, who calls the Holy Spirit the “third degree.” For degree, ^D form, species, disposition, or economy mean the same thing in Tertullian. Wherefore, if the Holy Spirit… of which the learned have taught. Fr. Turrianus on this place.

(40) [See Note] (41) Hippolyt., loc. cit., num 8. (42) Prudent. Maranus, *De divinitate J. C.*, lib. IV, p. 457. (43) Tertull., *adv. Praxeam*, cap. 5. (44) Lib. *Contra Noet.*, num. 6. (45) He and the following are explained in a wonderful manner, and are strenuously defended against Jurieu by the most learned Bossuet, bishop of Meaux, in the *Avertissements*, vi, § 68, *Sur les lettres de Jurieu*. Works, vol. IV, p. 373 et seq. The learned Bossuet says, indeed, that Saint Hippolytus not only declares himself clearly in the Catholic sense but also supplies the method by which other similar testimonies of the Holy Fathers, which appear more obscure, are clearly explained. For since he says in the cited place: “The Word, while He had within Himself, and was invisible to the created world, emitting the prior voice and light from light, He was begotten…”

…” ^A a martyr, which, as we showed above, Athenagoras also taught. And yet, the very words of the cited passage indeed encourage us to interpret Hippolytus in this sense; but his other writings compel us clearly to this, in which he declares the co-eternal existence of the Son with the Father in words described as if by a ray of the sun.

This passage of blessed Hippolytus is abused by Sandius 50; while he attempts to show from it that our holy bishop taught that the Son began to exist a little before the world was created. But the most learned Bullus 51 excellently defends the same passage from the interpretations of Sandius, arguing thus: “I acknowledge indeed that here, by Hippolytus, a certain generation is attributed to the Word or Son of God, by which He immediately preceded the creation of the world. But I altogether deny that Hippolytus is speaking here of generation properly so called, which would be the production of the Word, or by which the Word Himself, when He did not exist before, began to exist. The whole discourse of Hippolytus recoils against this fiction. For he teaches that God was from eternity so ‘alone’ that in the meantime he affirms that He was ‘many.’ How? Because, namely, God the Father was never without Reason (τῷ Λόγῳ) and Wisdom, that is, without the Son and the Holy Spirit; therefore, not without counsel, since He had both as His counselors. I do not doubt that this is the genuine sense of these words of Hippolytus: ‘Nothing was beside Him; He Himself alone, was many.’ For He was not without Reason (Hippolytus had undoubtedly written in Greek τῷ Λόγῳ), without Wisdom, without counsel. For Hippolytus confessed God to be one and many, that is, trine; one in essence, trine in Persons—the very title of this homily declares it. Moreover, Hippolytus called the third hypostasis of the divinity by the name of Wisdom, following the example of Irenaeus, whose disciple he is said to have been, and according to the custom of those times. Then Hippolytus says that God begat the Word, which He had from eternity within Himself. How? ‘He showed Him,’ he says, ‘at times determined with Himself: He brought Him forth as Lord to the creature: He made Him visible to the world, [who was] finally known to Himself alone.’ Therefore the generation of which Hippolytus speaks is not the production of the Word, but the showing forth, the bringing forth, and the manifestation of Him who is co-existent from eternity with the Father, which matter has respect toward created things.” So that the most blessed man truly willed ^B to show more clearly than light that this second generation of the Word is nothing other than his external manifestation; or an operation toward the outside, as the Schoolmen say.

(48-49) Thus spoke those before the Nicene Fathers, besides our Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, as noted by the most learned Grabius on Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 23. To these add Methodius in the homily on Simeon and Anna, p. 152: “The light is true from true light, God is true from true God.” Athanasius later said “lamp from lamp.” Vol. I, p. 881, Leipzig edition.

^B ...[text continues] ^C ...[text continues] ^D ...But much more brilliant testimonies to the perfect and true divinity in the Son, and His Person distinct from the Father, Saint Hippolytus gave in his essays *Against Beron and Helix*, in Anastasius. In which he accurately distinguishes twofold nature in Christ; and demonstrates that it is clearly the same divine nature which is in the Father. For he says that the Word of God was changed by nothing, for that very reason, that He donned flesh; “nor in any respect whatever, in which He is the same as the Father, was He made the same as the flesh on account of the emptying [kenosis]. But of what sort He was without flesh, so He remained outside every circumscription 52.” Again: “He says that that God is at once infinite, and a circumscribed human, and is understood to have the substance of both perfectly perfect 53.” What could be a clearer proclamation of the supreme and absolute divinity in Christ? For he declares that He is this infinite God, and immense, and immutable, and entirely the same as the Father, as far as nature is concerned, since He is His Son, and therefore distinct in reality. Finally: “Divinity (he says from Anastasius’ version), as it was before the incarnation, and is after the incarnation according to nature, is infinite, incomprehensible, impassible, incomparable (or rather, unalterable), inconvertible, in itself powerful, and to say it in total, subsisting substantial alone the good of infinite power 54.” Could anyone, even in this age, set forth more learnedly, more expressly, and more significantly the divinity of the Son, and the distinction of the Persons, than that ancient writer did, before the Nicene assembly had explained a clear opinion on that matter? Consistent with these are the testimonies of the remaining fragments (which are eight in all) said concerning Christ God, and the Son of God, which it would be long to transcribe. As when in the second He is named *ho tōn holōn Theos*, “God of the universe,” and in the sixth there is attributed to Him “imprincipality, unbegottenness, infinity, eternity, incomprehensibility,” and whatever theologically the richest reason contemplates according to the magnitude of these in the Deity, as Anastasius translated barbarously.

^A Among Theodoret’s writings (55) we also read these words of St. Hippolytus, from his discourse on Helcana and Anna, when he speaks of that which Mary carried in her womb: “The Word of God, the firstborn, descended from heaven to you, and man the firstborn was fashioned in the womb; so that the firstborn Word of God might be shown united to the firstborn man.” How great the force of these words is, he will better judge who has weighed the power of these names, “Word” and “firstborn.” For Hippolytus understood the “Word” to be that of which John speaks at the beginning of his Gospel. But this Word “was God, and was with God in the beginning,” and “through him all things were made.” Therefore, it was not created, nor made through another Word, as the Arians later fabricated, by the very fact that he is called firstborn. To this the same Hippolytus, in another book, calls Christ *Kyrios anamartētos*, that is, sinless; a property which belongs only to true and uncreated Divinity.

Other sufficiently clear testimonies for the divinity of Christ by Hippolytus are held among many of his sayings cited by Theodoret in *Dialogue 2*, tom. IV, p. 88, and in act V of the Lateran Council under Martin I, in the year 649, tom. X of the Councils, ed. Mansi, p. 1079. Also worthy of note are the words of the same Hippolytus from the interpretation of Psalm 11, brought forward by Theodoret (56). He called Christ God in his discourse on Helcana and Anna (57).

He also ascribed the attribute of divine omnipresence to Christ in his treatise on *Pascha*, from which these words are cited in the Council’s tome, col. 1087: “He was whole in all things and everywhere, yet filling all things; he was made naked for all airy principalities, and he cries out to pass the cup, so that he might show truly that he was also man.” Note also the expression, as Grabius aptly observes here, “and man”; because he possessed another nature besides, and was God.

Other words of the same Hippolytus also follow from his commentary on Genesis. And although that commentary has indeed perished, some of its fragments have been saved in the *Catenae*, as they are commonly called, of the Fathers on the book said to be by Moses; of which some were once communicated to the most learned J. Mill, and now to the illustrious Grabius. But among these, on Chapter XLIX, verse 22, *son of Joseph, a growing son*, the following words are held: ^B “Since the only-begotten Word of God, existing as God from God (observe the phrasing of the Nicene Council itself, just as above, ‘light from light’), emptied himself according to the Scriptures, lowering himself of his own accord into that which he was not, and put on this lowly flesh, and appeared in the form of a servant, being made obedient to God and the Father even unto death, he is read to have been on that account furthermore superexalted; and as if not having this properly on account of human nature, he received a name above every name (3), according to the words of blessed Paul, yet by the truth of the matter; the thing itself, however, was not a gift of those things which from the beginning he did not naturally have (the matter is far otherwise); but rather it should be thought of as a return, and a recourse to that which from the beginning essentially and inseparably was in him.”

And a little later on these words, *blessings of father and mother*, he comments as follows (58): “Clearly and manifestly, that generation of the Only-begotten which is from God and the Father is also indicated, as well as that which was made through the holy Virgin, according to which he is believed to have been seen as man. For the Son of God and the Father, existing naturally and truly, endured for our sake that birth which was through the Virgin and the womb, and sucked the breasts. For he was not man putatively, as it seems to some, but the same appeared truly as what we are, we who follow the laws of nature; and he used nourishment, although he himself gave life to the world.”

To all these authoritative decrees can be added two other passages from the writings of St. Hippolytus, which so expressly demonstrate the divinity of the Son of God, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his consubstantiality and coeternity with the Father, that nothing more could be desired. In his treatise *Against Noetus*, on these words of the Gospel, “I and the Father are one” (4), he openly declares the Father and Son to be one and the same, because “they have one and the same power and virtue (59)”; ^C and in his treatise *Against the Jews* he likewise expressly says that Christ is the true ^D mediator of God and men, so that he might receive an earnest from both, that he may appear as mediator of two natures.

(59) “But if Noetus should say: He said himself, ‘I and the Father are one’; let him pay attention as to his mind and understand, that he did not say: ‘I and the Father am one’; but ‘we are one.’ For that (we are) is not said of one person; but he spoke thus, because he demonstrated two Persons, yet one power, or virtue. For one is the mind of the Father, the Boy (the Son)... Hence to Philip: ‘Philip, he who sees me, sees the Father’ (John 14:9); that is, if you have seen me, through me you can know the Father. For through the image, which is similar, the Father can be easily known.” S. Hippolyt., *Contra Noet.*, c. 7.

^A And in the Commentary on Genesis, already praised, he holds almost the same thing regarding the coeternity of the Son. Thus, he who, as man, had undergone danger, is affirmed to have been saved by the Father, although in his own nature he exists as God, *κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχων Θεός* [God existing according to nature], and maintains the entire visible creation itself in a good state... for he was always in divine glory, who before every age and time, and before the foundations of the world were laid, coexists with his own Father, *τῷ ἰδίῳ συνυπάρχων γεννήτορι* [coexisting with his own begetter] (62). Certainly, I do not see by what means the Arians, who still survive, can evade the force of these authorities. For who would not recognize as true God, as consubstantial with the Father, him who was from eternity in God the Father; whom the Father sent forth, as “light from light,” as “a ray from the sun,” as “water from a fountain” (63); him who has the same virtue and power with the Father; who is the same God as the Creator of the universe; who in his own Person displays the power of the Father; who is God and Lord of all; who is the true image of the Father; in whom and through whom the Father manifests himself; him, finally, who is infinite, incomprehensible, omnipotent, subsisting and acting by himself, and is perfect God, just as he is perfect man? If the Arian impiety persists against these things, firm and consistent with itself, it will never be able to be overthrown by any other means.

There remains, however, one passage, clearly eminent, which it is a religious duty not to pass over. It stands thus: “What sort of Son, therefore, did God send through the flesh, if not the Word, whom he called Son from the beginning specifically because it was to be that he would take a birth? And when he is called Son, he takes a common name of love toward men. For the Word by himself and without flesh was not the perfect Son, although he was the Word, the Only-begotten. Nor could the flesh by itself subsist without the Word, because it subsisted in the Word. Thus, therefore, one perfect Son of God was manifested (64).”

The most learned Maran brilliantly illustrates and strenuously defends this passage, which the Unitarians abuse the most and by which they greatly exalt themselves, in these words: “It seems,” he says, “that the holy martyr spoke thus for two main reasons (65): 1. Because the Word, although he was the perfect Son of God before the incarnation, as is evident from the passage itself, where Hippolytus calls him the Only-begotten, and from many others in which he explicitly discourses concerning his generation; he was not yet the Son of man. He himself provides this interpretation. For he observes that the Word was called the Son of man before the incarnation; ^B whence he concludes that he was not the perfect Son, since he was not yet man. For in these words: ‘He called him Son from the beginning, he takes a common name of love toward men; he is clearly designated the Son of man.’ And this can be confirmed from chapter 4, where Hippolytus speaks thus: ‘For the Word was flesh, he was Spirit, he was Power. He took upon himself a common name and one in use among men, called from the beginning Son of man on account of the future, although he was not yet man, as Daniel testifies, saying: I saw, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like the son of man was coming*.’ When Noetus hunted for metaphors in the word ‘Son,’ and maintained that the Father and the Son were one and the same Person; the disputation undertaken against this heretic required that Hippolytus pretend that the Word, before the incarnation, was not metaphorically, but truly called the Son of man on account of the future generation from the Virgin, and yet that he was not perfectly the Son, because he was not yet born of the Virgin.

“2. Hippolytus considers not only the Word in Christ, but also the body and the soul; and he judges the Word united to the flesh to be one and perfect Son of God; so that Christ is Son of God not only insofar as he is the Word, but also insofar as he is God and man. Just as, therefore, flesh without the Word cannot be the Son of God; so the Word without flesh, while it was indeed the perfect Word and the Only-begotten, ^C yet that one perfect Son, consisting of the Word, body, and soul, he was not. To this pertains what he says in chapter 4: ‘There is, therefore, flesh, which was offered by the Word of the Father, as is a gift; flesh, I say, which is from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin, through which the perfect Son of God was shown.’ To the same sentiment must be accepted what is read in the genuine book *De Antichristo*, chapter 3: *Αὐτὸς πάλιν ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ παῖς, ὁ πάλαι μὲν λόγος*. ‘He himself again is the Son of God, who was previously the Word.’”

Thus far the learned man. And Gregory Bull, writing against Zwicker, the author of *Irenici Irenicorum*, defends the same passage no less solidly in these words (66): “Hippolytus did not so rave as to say (what an anonymous writer wished to say he had said) that anything of intrinsic perfection was in reality added to the Word or Only-begotten from the assumption of the flesh; rather, he explicitly taught the contrary. For first he clearly says that our Lord was the perfect Word and the Only-begotten before the incarnation. Then he clearly teaches, the Word ^D being…

^A from the Father, just as light from light and water from a fountain, and a ray from the sun, and he expressly excepts the Son from the number of things made by God, declaring Him alone to be begotten from God the Father himself: which things entirely conspire with the Nicene faith and confession.

Nor should it be an offense to anyone that Hippolytus in the same place calls the Father the "whole," but the Son "a power from the whole." For the Father is rightly called the "whole," because He is the ^B fountain of divinity. Indeed, the divinity which is in the Son and in the Holy Spirit is the Father’s, because it is derived from the Father. Likewise, those things which the sophist presently brings forward from the same book of Hippolytus, namely these, are strictly Catholic ^C: "The Father commands, the Word performs; but the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed. The economy of agreement is reduced to one God. For there is one God who commands, the Father; who obeys, the Son; who teaches knowledge, the Holy Spirit. The Father who is over all, the Son through all, the Holy Spirit in all." Here, clearly, St. Hippolytus openly teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and attributes to each Person of the Trinity omnipresence and a divine power which pervades all things. As for his saying that the Father commands and the Son obeys, in this he has other orthodox Fathers consistent with him and speaking similarly, not only those before Nicaea, but also those who flourished after the Nicene council... And that he further says the Father is properly "over all," this is to be referred entirely to that ^D pre-eminence of the Father, in that He is Father, which all Catholics acknowledge.

ARTICLE V. ON THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND HIS PERSONAL PROPERTIES.

As regards the Holy Spirit, the same holy bishop and martyr declares with every possible precision that this divine Spirit is the third Person of the most holy Trinity, as we have already seen above. The same author assumes that the three divine Persons are one and the same God; for he says that these three Persons have one and the same power, one and the same virtue: therefore he assumes the Holy Spirit to be God and to be consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Moreover, he clearly reveals his mind on this article when he says that this agreement of the three divine Persons is reduced to one God: "The economy of agreement is reduced to one God. For there is one God," he adds.

^A the one who commands is the Father; the one who obeys is the Son; the one who teaches understanding is the Holy Spirit. "We cannot understand one God in any other way, unless we truly believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Spirit: for by this Trinity the Father is glorified." St. Hippolytus further says that we worship the Holy Spirit (72): "We worship the Holy Spirit." He attributes the same glory and the same power to Him as to the Son, whose Spirit He is: "To Him (Christ) is glory and power together with his holy, good, and life-giving Spirit (73)." Therefore, it is certain and established, according to the doctrine of St. Hippolytus, that the Holy Spirit is God, just as the Father is God, and the Son is God, and that He is truly consubstantial with them.

Personal properties of the Holy Spirit. — St. Hippolytus enumerates the personal properties of the Holy Spirit in this way (74): "This is the Spirit who from the beginning was carried over the waters, through whom the world is moved, created nature subsists, and all things receive life: who worked in the prophets and descended upon Christ. This is the Spirit given to the apostles in the form of tongues of fire; of Him Gabriel said to the Virgin: The Holy Spirit will come upon thee, etc. Through this Spirit, Peter uttered that blessed confession: Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; through this Spirit, the rock of the Church is strengthened. Finally, through this Spirit, joined with the water (of baptism), man is regenerated and vivified, passes from servitude into liberty, from tyranny to the kingdom, from corruption to incorruptibility." These are the most notable points which occur in divine Hippolytus regarding the three divine Persons.

ARTICLE VI. ON THE MYSTERY OF THE INCARNATION AND THE DISTINCTION OF THE TWO NATURES IN CHRIST.

Only the Son incarnate. — Our holy bishop of Portus expounds no less clearly the most holy mystery of the incarnation, and professes that in our Lord Jesus Christ there are two entirely distinct natures, namely, the divine and the human. And first, St. Hippolytus teaches that neither the Father nor the Spirit took on human flesh, but the Word of God (75): "For he who was sent," he says, "is none other than the Word." This divine Word descended into the holy Virgin Mary (76), and was incarnate from her, having taken on a human soul, "becoming all things that man is, except sin (77)." This Word of God was called the Son of God from the beginning, because He was to be born among men in time: "For the Word was not the perfect Son by Himself and without flesh, although He was the perfect Word, the Only-Begotten (78)." This is to say, He did not attain the perfect quality of the Son until the union of the two natures, through which He became both the Son of God and the Son of man simultaneously.

The union of the two natures of Christ in one sole person. — The divine Word, the first-begotten of God, united with the first-begotten of the Virgin, is true God and true man, perfect God and perfect man. ^B "He is Himself totally God, and the same one totally man, totally God by nature, and the same one totally man. In His deity, therefore, He acts through His own most holy flesh, yet the nature of the flesh is not the existence of it; in His humanity, however, He suffers the indulgence of the deity, yet the nature of the deity is not the existence of it. Nothing divine acts nakedly without the body, nothing human exists deprived of the divinity; He preserves for Himself a mode immutable according to both, through which He acted in both in a becoming manner, to the approbation of the perfect and true inhumanation of Himself, which has nothing of wickedness (79)."

This was indeed done without any mutation of this or that nature: "Having the heavenly, which was the Father's, as the Word; but the earthly, as from the old Adam, incarnate through the Virgin. Thus... God appeared in a body (80). The Savior was born of her (Mary) without confusion, God and man, ἀσυγχύτως Θεὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος." These last formulas of speech were excerpted from a certain fragment of a Commentary which St. Hippolytus wrote on Proverbs; for there, explaining these words of chapter 9: "Wisdom hath built her a house... she hath mingled," ^C there is present the Word, through whom He made all things; whom in later times, as we said above, the Father sent for the salvation of men. This was predicted by the law and the prophets as to come into the world. As therefore it was predicted, so He made Himself present and manifest, born as a new man from the Virgin and the Holy Spirit, having the heavenly, which was the Father's, as the Word; but the earthly, as from the old Adam, incarnate through the Virgin. Thus, having gone forth into the world, God appeared in a body, Θεὸς ἐν σώματι, having gone forth as perfect man, τέλειος ἄνθρωπος. For He was not made man by fiction or mutation, but truly: Οὐ γὰρ κατὰ φαντασίαν ἢ τροπὴν, ἀληθῶς γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος. ^D

ἄνθρωπος. ^A Likewise, he interprets the same thing regarding the two natures of Jesus Christ, understanding by wine the divine nature; but by water, the human nature. 81 "He mixed wine in His cup," says he, "uniting in the Virgin His divinity with flesh, as wine, pure and unadulterated; or, as he also says elsewhere 82: 'By mingling our mortal body with His power.'"

Proprieties and distinct operations of the two natures in Jesus Christ. — Furthermore, it would be a vain scruple to opine that the Eutychian heresy is designated by this word *mixes* (*µíξας*); for besides the very plain testimonies cited above, we can equally bring forward numberless others in this place which render him immune from all suspicion of error regarding this article. For in the treatise *Against Noetus*, he attributes the specific properties and operations to the two natures of Christ, and indeed in these words 83: "Thus, therefore, He who is demonstrated to be God does not refuse His humanity, when... He sleeps upon a pillow, He who possesses a sleepless nature as God... when He is scorned by Herod, He who is about to judge the whole earth... and is mocked by soldiers, He to whom stand the thousands of thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand angels." In the treatise *Against Beron*, he expressly teaches that the mystery of the incarnation demonstrates two perfect substances, divine and human 84: "For the mystery of the divine incarnation... is a demonstration of perfect deity and full humanity;" and that He preserved each nature, with its *proprietates* (properties) and natural operations, without any ^B change: "always remaining according to each of His own, fixed and unchangeable, according to which He performed, both divinely and humanly; preserving perfection, according to every manner of each one, naturally unchangeable to Himself;" and thus the divine Word performed miracles, but the flesh suffered 85: "By His divine Deity indeed... working; by His humanity, humanly."

The unity of the person in Jesus Christ. — For He Himself is perfect God, and perfect man; He, as the Word of God, possessed a divine nature, but as the son of Adam, He possessed a human nature: "God is incarnate, God is enfleshed;" and He Himself is the same who was born... "God and man: the same is He who is scorned by Herod, and adored by the angels;" who "works divinely and humanly," who "dies, and remains alive." How can these things be reconciled with the distinction of natures? Hear the same divine Hippolytus explaining this very beautifully 89: "Always remaining according to each of His own, fixed and unchangeable, according to which He performed both divinely and humanly..." And elsewhere: "Preserving for Himself the manner, according to both, unchangeable, through which He worked both things in a fitting manner 90." From all these things which we have just brought forward regarding the incarnation, it must be inferred that the divine Hippolytus in his writings manifestly condemns the three primary heresies that arose after his death: namely, the Eutychians, the Monothelites, and the Nestorians: the first, indeed, while he asserts two distinct natures in Christ; the second, while he admits two wills in the same Christ, and two operations, which are proper to the two natures; and finally the third, while he defends the unity of the person in Christ.

In His humanity, our Savior hungered and thirsted; and in His divinity, at one and the same time, He was adored by the angels 86: "It is easy to recognize His human nature, when He hungers and thirsts... But His divine nature is not obscurely discerned, when He is adored by the angels." In a word, these operations are so distinct, according to Blessed Hippolytus 87, that the Word, "having nothing of the divine ^C wanting in the body, put on holy flesh from the holy Virgin, weaving for Himself a garment, as it were, as a bridegroom on the gallows of the cross; so that, truly, by uniting our mortal body to His power, and mixing the corruptible with the incorruptible, the weak with the strong, He might provide salvation to man who had perished." He performed things, having nothing human by His divinity. But although He died as a man, yet according to the nature of His divinity, He remained alive 88. You see, therefore, formal natures of Christ, distinct, and their distinct operations asserted in Saint Hippolytus. It remains to demonstrate that this ancient Father of the Church recognized one person in Christ, and one principle of all operations which befit both natures.

This, indeed, will most evidently consist to anyone, even those lightly attending to the texts we brought forward above, so that we might prove the distinction of the two natures asserted by Saint Hippolytus; for it will be clearly manifest from them that although the distinction of the two natures is perspicuously asserted, nevertheless only one person is maintained in Christ.

The scope of the incarnation. — The end and purpose of the incarnation was the salvation of men.

^A Since the Word descended from heaven in order that He might save Adam, who had fallen, and bestow immortality upon those who should believe in His name... nor could flesh subsist by itself without the Word; because it had its subsistence in the Word, τὴν σύστασιν. The Word having been incarnate and having become man, the Father was in the Son, and the Son in the Father... not through a fiction, but truly He was made man. ^B This incarnation was accomplished in the womb of the Virgin, the Holy Spirit working; and it is an error to imagine that the Word took flesh from elsewhere than from the bosom of the Virgin, or that He drew this flesh from heaven; since before the incarnation He held no body, and was pure spirit. The prophets, indeed, also called the Son of God the Son of Man, but by anticipation, that is to say, because of His future incarnation: "He was called from the beginning the Son of Man, on account of what was to come, although He was not yet man." And elsewhere: "What sort of Son, therefore, did God send through the flesh, if not the Word, whom He called Son from the beginning, because it was to come to pass that He would receive birth? And when He is called Son, He takes the common name of love toward men."

Christ, from the seed of David, wishes to save all true God. — Furthermore, from the doctrine of holy Hippolytus, we gather that God wishes to save all men, ^C that our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and coeternal with the Father, that He is in the Father, and the Father in Christ; that the Father gave all power to Him, and constituted Him judge and king of all creatures in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld; that the will of the Father is Christ Himself. But while he speaks concerning the temporal birth of the Son, the holy bishop of Portus comes under suspicion, as if he had wished to deny that Christ the Son of God descended from David, and was made from his seed; for he says: "The prophet called Him a lion's whelp, who was made from Judah and David according to the flesh, not indeed made from the seed of David, but who is conceived of the Holy Spirit, and would proceed from a holy seed from the earth." But, as Tillemont most excellently ^D notes, from those things which follow immediately, anyone can perceive that the holy Father acknowledges Jesus Christ to be offspring from the Davidic line; yet in such a way that he denies that He was born of that Davidic seed in the vulgar manner ^A in which other men are, since He was conceived of the Holy Spirit, and proceeded from a holy seed from the earth.

ARTICLE VII. ON THE VIRGINITY AND MATERNITY OF THE BLESSED MARY

Although holy Hippolytus nowhere honors the most blessed Virgin Mary with the title of Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), nevertheless he uses such forms of speech throughout, from which it is clearer than the meridian light that the holy bishop believed the blessed Virgin to be the Mother of God, and venerated her as such. For he professes in clear words that Mary both conceived and bore the Word of God in her womb, the Savior born from her, and without confusion God and man; and that Jesus Christ is true God and man.

The same holy Father also excellently commends the perpetual virginity of the most ^B blessed Virgin Mary, when he writes thus: "The Creator of all things, from the most holy ever-Virgin Mary, through an inviolable conception without change of substance, housing for Himself an intellectual soul with a sensitive body, was made man by nature." Moreover, the singular piety of St. Hippolytus toward the Mother of God, which fell to him by a certain hereditary right, and which was propagated from the apostle John to Polycarp, from Polycarp to Irenæus, from Irenæus to Hippolytus, and others, appears from these same illustrious words of his: "At which time the Savior, arriving from the Virgin (an ark gilded with pure gold, within indeed by the Word, outside by the Word [and] the Holy Spirit), brought His own body into the world; so that the truth was demonstrated, ^C and the ark was manifested." Comparable things, moreover, from the writings of Hippolytus on Psalm 22, Theodoret has preserved, *Dialog*. 1, p. 36, in the Sirmondian edition, vol. IV: "But moreover the ark [was made] of woods that would not rot; of earthly things, however, [because] He was born man among men, that He might Himself reform Adam; of the underworld, however, because He was reckoned among the dead, preaching to the souls of the holy ones, in death a victor over death."

^A For his tabernacle, void of putrefaction and corruption, was signified by this, in that it produced no rot of sin... But the Lord was a stranger to sin, and was clothed within and without with the most pure gold of the Word of God, like wood not subject to decay, according to His human nature, that is, of the Virgin and the Holy Spirit. St. John Damascene has almost the same thing from St. Irenaeus against the Jacobites.

ARTICLE VIII. ON BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST.

*The Effect of Baptism.* — The holy martyr and bishop Hippolytus, in his writings, made mention of two sacraments only, namely Baptism and the Eucharist; but he nowhere expressly excluded the others from the number of the sacraments. He teaches, however, that through the sacrament of Baptism we obtain immortality and spiritual life, that we are liberated from the servitude and captivity of the demon, and that we put on the adoption of the sons of God. "The Father of immortality, therefore," he says, "sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to men, to wash them with water and the Spirit, and to regenerate them to the incorruptibility of soul and body; He breathed into us the spirit of life, and clothed us in an incorruptible armor. If, therefore, man is made immortal, he shall also be God. And if indeed by water and the Holy Spirit he becomes God through the regeneration of the font, he shall be found, even after the resurrection from the dead, to be a joint heir of Christ. Therefore, with the voice of a herald, I proclaim: Come, all tribes of the nations, to the immortality of Baptism: I signify to you, who still dwell in the gloom of ignorance, the glad tidings of life; come from servitude into liberty, from tyranny to a kingdom, from corruption to incorruptibility." And how, he says, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Spirit. This is the water joined with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, the earth is made fertile, and, to comprehend all in a brief statement, by which man, generated, is vivified, by which Christ was baptized, and into which the Holy Spirit descended in the form of a dove. "Approach, therefore, and be regenerated, O man, to the adoption of the sons of God." And how? He says: "If you have not committed adultery nor murder, nor worshipped idols — that is, if you have put aside the habit and affection for these things, and other crimes that impede the fruit of Baptism; if you are not overcome by passion, if you do not allow," ^B that the affection of pride should dominate you; if you wipe away the filth of impurity, and cast off the burden of sin from yourself; if you lay aside the armor of the devil, and put on the breastplate of faith. As Isaiah says, ch. 1: 'Wash yourselves, come and seek judgment, deliver the oppressed, judge for the orphan, defend the widow, and come, and let us reason, says the Lord. And if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow; and if they be red as crimson, I will make them white like wool. And when you are willing to hear my voice, you shall eat the good things of the land.' You see, beloved, how the prophet predicted the purgative power of baptism; for he who descends with faith into this laver of regeneration renounces evil, and devotes himself to Christ. He denies the enemy, and confesses Christ to be God; he casts off servitude, and puts on adoption; he returns from baptism splendid, shining like the sun with the rays of justice. What is more, he returns a Son of God and heir of Christ."

*The Fruits of Christ’s Baptism.* — He enumerates a little above the fruits of the baptism of our Saviour Jesus Christ in this way: "You see, beloved, how many and how great blessings we would have lost if the Lord had yielded to the admonition of John, and had not received Baptism. For the heavens were closed before this, the region above was inaccessible... But immediately the heavens themselves were opened. Reconciliation was made between the visible and the invisible, the heavenly orders were filled with joy, the infirmities of Satan on earth were healed, hidden things were made manifest, those that were in the number of the enemies were returned as friends."

^C *The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist.* — "Our bread is our Lord Jesus Christ." The Eucharist, as St. Hippolytus teaches, is the sacrament by which Jesus Christ has given us His divine flesh and His venerable blood to be eaten and drunk for the remission of sins. Behold an open testimony of this ancient doctor, by which the real presence of Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist is invincibly demonstrated against the Calvinists. To this also pertain those things which we read in fragments of his Commentary on Genesis regarding those words of Scripture: "His bread is fat, and he shall give delicacies to princes." ^D "We interpret this as a figure of our calling," says St. Hippolytus; "for what is fat is also rich. But what bread is richer than ours? For our bread is the Lord, as He Himself says: 'I am the bread of life.'"

'" ^A And who else will give food to the princes than our Lord Jesus Christ? Not only to those who believe from the Gentiles, but also to those from the circumcision who hold rank in the faith, that is to say, to the fathers and patriarchs, and prophets, and to all who believe in His name and passion.

The Eucharist is the body of Christ and a pure and unbloody sacrifice. This body and venerable blood are offered daily upon our altars in memory of the first supper. "Which," says St. Hippolytus, "are performed and sanctified daily at the hidden and divine table, in memory of that first divine and hidden supper, which must never cease to be recalled to mind." In the work which is inscribed *The Apostolic Tradition concerning Charisms*, he calls the Eucharist a pure and unbloody sacrifice to be offered exclusively by bishops and priests. Hear his words: "The Only-Begotten, Christ, being the first High Priest by nature, did not seize honor for Himself, but was appointed by the Father; who, having become man for our sake, and offering a spiritual sacrifice to God the Father Himself before His passion, appointed us alone to do this, although others like us who believed in Him were also with us; yet, not as soon as someone believed was he straightway constituted a priest, or did he obtain the pontifical dignity. But after His assumption, we, according to His same appointment, offering the pure and unbloody sacrifice, have chosen bishops and priests and deacons to the number of seven. Of these ^B (seven) one was Stephen, the blessed martyr... Nowhere is it seen that there was any use for them (Stephen) which did not befit the office of a deacon; not that he offered the sacrifice, or laid hands on anyone, but that he kept the order of a deacon to the end." We have taken these things from the *Apostolic Tradition*, which is commonly ascribed to our St. Hippolytus.

ARTICLE IX. ON THE NATURE OF ANGELS AND SOULS, THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD, THE LAST JUDGMENT, THE REWARD AND PUNISHMENT OF THE GOOD AND THE WICKED, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD.

State of men after the resurrection. Angels and souls are immortal and incorruptible. St. Hippolytus depicts the state of men after the resurrection thus: "Men will be in the resurrection," says St. Hippolytus, "like the angels of God, indeed free from corruption, immortal, and not accustomed to lose anything by any decay; for the immortal nature does not generate, nor is it generated, nor does it grow, nor sleep, nor hunger, nor thirst, nor become fatigued, nor suffer, ^A nor die, nor is it pierced by nails and lance, nor does it sweat, nor shed blood." Such are the natures of which angels consist, and souls released from bodily bonds; for both these natures are of another kind, and different from the creatures of this world which fall under our sight and are subject to corruption.

From these it is most clearly inferred that the divine Hippolytus acknowledged the soul to be immortal by its own nature; and angels to be pure spiritual substances, and entirely separated from matter: which two essential truths are indeed involved in some obscurity in almost all the holy writers who flourished before him.

General Resurrection. This venerable Father clearly asserts also the immortality of the soul, while he proves the general resurrection against Plato, discoursing in this way: "In which all souls are contained, until the time which God has determined, when He will bring about the resurrection of all, not by thrusting souls from one body into another, but by raising again the same bodies. Seeing these things dissolved, if you deny the faith, O Greeks, learn not to be incredulous. For since you believe the soul is made and created immortal by God according to the opinion of Plato, in time; you ought not disbelieve that God is powerful, taking that which is composed and made from the same elements, to restore it to life, and to make it immortal: for the latter will not be called impossible to God, while the former is possible. We, therefore, believe that the body will rise again. For if it is corrupted, it is not altogether lost; for the earth, receiving its remains, guards them, and they bloom again having become like a seed, and being entangled and immersed in the fatness of the earth; and indeed the grain is sown naked, but at the command of God the Creator it rises blooming, clothed and glorious, not until it dies, is dissolved, and is mingled with the earth. So that we do not believe in the resurrection of our bodies in vain. For even though the body is dissolved for a time, on account of the first transgression committed from the beginning; it is consigned as into the furnace of the earth, to be reformed again at some time, not such as it is now, but to rise again pure, and no longer subject to corruption. ^D And to every body its own soul will be restored; and clothed in it, it will not waste away with grief, but will rejoice with it, pure, inhabiting the pure. To which, now in the world, having become a just companion, and having no one to ensnare it in anything, it will be caught up and received with all joy. But the unjust will assume unchanged... [index: entries preserved]

bodies, not freed from affections and diseases, nor will they receive them glorified, but rather in those [states] in which they finished their life—in diseases—and such as they lived in their unbelief, such surely will they be judged. From these things it is gathered that our holy bishop taught, in conformity with Holy Scripture, that each one is to rise again with his own body; that the bodies of the just will be glorious, impassible, and free from corruption, and will enjoy eternal blessedness together with the soul; but on the contrary, that the bodies of the impious will not be changed, and will be subject to the same diseases and infirmities to which they were subject in this age, and having been corrupted, but boiling and seething with relentless pain from the body—for them, sleep will not bring cessation and rest, nor will night soothe and soften their pains, nor will death dissolve their torments. The exhortation of kinsmen or intercessors will not help them; for the just will no longer be seen by them, and they are not worthy of the memory of them. For only the just will be mindful of the works of the just, through which they arrived at the heavenly kingdom, in which there is neither sleep, nor pain, nor corruption, nor anxiety, nor night, nor day measured by time, nor the sun—by some necessity—driving its course in the circle of the heaven, nor the moon’s waning and waxing, which induces changes of the seasons and makes the earth damp. No burning sun, no revolving Bear, no rising of Orion, no myriad errors of the stars, no impassable earth, no hall of paradise difficult to find, no vexing roar of the sea, will hinder them: for to the just even it is passable, even should it not be deprived of moisture. Heaven will not be inaccessible to men, and the way by which one might ascend and climb will not be such that it cannot be found. No earth will be rude and uncultivated, creating labor and trouble for men, but will spontaneously produce fruits for cultivation and adornment. No repeated generations of wild beasts, nor the boiling and seething substance of other animals [will exist]; for men do not then beget again, but the number of the just remains without ceasing with the just angels and the spirits. Comply with these words, and believing those things, O men, you will be companions of the just, and you will obtain the future good things, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor have they entered into the heart of man, which God has prepared for those who love Him. ^A

The same body will rise again. — In the Epistle to Severina, this holy Father teaches, leaning on the authority of S. Paul, that the same body will rise again. "Therefore," he (Paul) calls him (Christ) the firstfruits of those who sleep (1 Cor. xv, 20), and the firstborn from the dead, who rising again and wishing to show that this same body was resuscitated which had also died, calling Thomas to him, the disciples doubting, said: "Draw near, touch, and see, for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me having." The same (Paul), in the same Epistle, calling him the firstfruits, offered testimony to our assertion that the Savior resuscitated the flesh assumed from the same mass, making it the firstfruits of the flesh of the just, that all believers, through the confidence of this Resurrected One, might look toward the future resurrection. ^B

The extreme judgment. — S. Hippolytus treats of the extreme judgment in his book *On Antichrist*, as well as in the treatise *Against Plato*. In the latter, he writes concerning it: "That all, whether just or unjust, will be led before God the Word: for the Father has given all judgment to him, and he, fulfilling the will of the Father, will come as judge; he, I say, whom we call Christ: for Minos or Rhadamanthus are not judges, as you Gentiles think; but he whom God and the Father glorified, of whom we have spoken elsewhere in detail for the favor of those who seek the truth; he himself, exercising the just judgment of the Father upon all, will order what is equitable and just, to each according to his works: at whose judgment all will be made to stand—men, angels (demons)—and with one mind they will emit the voice: Just is your judgment." ^C

The reward of the good and the punishment of the wicked. — The equity of this voice, S. Hippolytus continues, appears in the retribution of both, when to the well-doing eternal enjoyment is justly provided, but to those who are desirous of evil, eternal punishment is distributed and expended. And for them awaits the inextinguishable fire, and which will never end, and the undying worm of fire, and not... ^D

In the book *On Antichrist*, number 63, S. Hippolytus proves from the Scripture of the New and Old Testament the general resurrection, and the rewards and punishments of men. In number 64, he speaks thus concerning the destruction of the world: "With these things, therefore, about to be... and now that the consummation of the whole world is approaching, what is left but that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, God, appear in the heavens, in whom we have hoped? Who will bring conflagration and just judgment upon all who have not believed in him."

ARTICLE X. ON THE ANTICHRIST.

Origin of the Antichrist. His name. — For the crowning of this head, we shall bring forward certain passages of the divine Hippolytus concerning the Antichrist. The holy bishop teaches that this scoundrel is to be born from the tribe of Dan (21), and strives to confirm his opinion by the authority...

of the Scriptures, and especially of Genesis ch. XLIX, v. 17, and Jeremiah ch. VIII, v. 16. But this opinion can be offered at most as a simple conjecture; for to have recounted it is to have refuted it, as anyone will readily discern if he is willing to weigh even slightly those two scriptural testimonies upon which his opinion, such as it is, entirely rests. Regarding the name of the Antichrist, the opinion held by Saint Hippolytus is that it is signified by those words of the Apocalypse (22): *And his number is six hundred sixty-six*; and although the holy bishop does not dare to define what name might emerge from this number, he nonetheless conjectures (23), following St. Irenaeus, that this impostor should perhaps be called by this name: Titan, or Evanthas, or Latinus; which conjecture, indeed, is as futile as the former.

The Time of the Antichrist.

Enoch and Elias.

All this concern for the time of the Antichrist, as well as for that of the coming of Christ for judgment, is to be entirely avoided, because Providence has not willed that mortals should know these things. One should see St. Chrysostom, *Homily 2 against the Jews*, and Jerome on *Daniel* IX, and others in the same place.

The Characters of the Antichrist.

But in this way, that seducer will be able to be distinguished from the true Christ: he will be a political tyrant, who will punish with every kind of torture (29) those who refuse to follow his doctrine; furthermore, he will attempt to allure with false promises; through the greatest arrogance, he will seek divine honors (30): whom the Lord will finally humble, and will inflict the penalty owed to such excessive pride. Jesus Christ will exterminate him with the spirit of his mouth (31); and thereafter will come to judge all men. These are the more notable things which I have been able to discover in the divine Hippolytus regarding dogma.

CHAPTER II. MORAL AND DISCIPLINARY OBSERVATIONS. ARTICLE I. CERTAIN MORAL POINTS.

The truths of religion must be taught cautiously and with fear. ^A Our holy bishop, at the beginning of his treatise *On Antichrist*, provides a lesson highly necessary for those to whom God has granted the character and gift of teaching others. The lesson established therein is this (32): that the truths of religion should not be easily imparted to those who are prone and disposed to abuse them, but only to pious men who live in the fear of God, in holiness and justice. They themselves, who teach, must teach with fear, nor should they speak of celestial matters unless charity urges them; hence the Apostle of the Gentiles himself spoke of the mysteries of faith with fear and caution; because, since at that time not all men believed, nor had the faith shone forth to the whole world, he lacked no just cause for fear that these mysteries might become known to the unworthy and to those highly disposed to contempt; and therefore he commends again and again to his disciple Timothy that he should not hand down the truths he had already received, except to pious and religious men who might be able to teach the same truths to others. When, therefore, the blessed Apostle—adds St. Hippolytus—handed these down cautiously and with fear, seeing indeed in the spirit that the faith is not in everyone, how much greater will the danger be for us if we have rashly and without reason handed down the divine oracles to profane and unworthy men! This most necessary part of morals is confirmed by the doctrine and practice of all the great men who have flourished in the Church. It is furthermore to be observed that from the cited words of St. Hippolytus, an unassailable argument is deduced in favor of the discipline of the arcana, which was holily guarded in the first centuries of the Church. ^B Our heretics of this age, as well as many who live wickedly among Catholics, should attend to these things.

When it is a matter of mysteries, one must not inquire too curiously. Nor is that which the same St. Hippolytus teaches in another place of less utility (34): namely, that when it is a matter of mysteries, one must not inquire too curiously. Let us bring forward an example excerpted from the same, which is concerning the generation of the Word: "But someone will say to me (the words are of St. Hippolytus): How was the Word begotten? How do you seek an explanation of this mystery, you who cannot perfectly express the mode of human generation? Is it not enough for you to know that God created the world, unless you dare to inquire how He created it? Is it not enough for you to know that the Son of God appeared to you for your salvation, if indeed you believe it; but do you besides curiously inquire how He was begotten according to the spirit? Yet it was entrusted to no more than two (Matthew and Luke) to recount His generation according to the flesh: and do you dare to scrutinize the generation according to the spirit? Which generation the Father keeps to Himself, intending to reveal it then to the saints, who will be worthy to see His face." Be satisfied that it was said by Christ: *That which is born of the spirit, is spirit* (John III, 6). Let these testimonies suffice for the faithful who are studious of the truth; for the unfaithful believe nothing.

Christian Charity. Figures of the Church. The charity of Jesus Christ is the soul of the Church, and is as it were the bond by which the faithful are united. Through this charity, just as through faith, the Church receives Baptism: "The Church through faith... and charity in God, receives the laver of regeneration (35)." Those who, after receiving Baptism, transgress the commandments of God, or renounce the Christian religion, bring eternal death upon their own souls. Sin is the death of the soul, says this holy Father (36), especially adultery; for because the soul is coupled to Christ, it is, by departure from the faith, delivered unto everlasting death, ^C to provide assurance of which fact the law has also imposed the penalty of death for the violation of the bond of bodily marriages and for perverse nuptials. In St. Hippolytus, various comparisons and similitudes regarding the Church appear; primarily, he compares her to a ship tossed by the waves of the sea, which nevertheless does not perish in shipwreck, ^D because it is steered by Christ. Behold the elegant description of this comparison adorned by Hippolytus (37): "The wings of ships are the churches, the sea is the world, in which the Church is tossed by waves, and yet does not perish in shipwreck, inasmuch as she has with her Christ, the skillful pilot; she truly bears even in the midst…

How one ought to read and understand the divine Scriptures. Those who devote their efforts to the reading of the sacred Scriptures ought to have two things before their eyes. First, from these sacred books they ought to extract the method of knowing God and serving Him, since these things can be drawn only from these fountains; second, they ought to strive in this above all else, that they might perceive the true sense of the same Scriptures, and abhor every interpretation fabricated at one's own whim, or one that is conformable to our own particular spirit and to our own passions, in a word, they must bring no force to the Scriptures: "Not according to our own will, nor according to our own opinion, nor forcing them into things which are given by us; but as He Himself (God) willed to teach through the holy Scriptures, so let us understand (33)."

^A a trophy erected against death, which is to say, it carries the Lord’s cross with it. For its prow is the East, its stern the West, its hold the South; the two rudders are the Testaments; the ropes stretched around are the charity of Christ, which binds the Church together; the flax which it carries is the laver of regeneration (38), which renews the faithful. In place of the winds, that Spirit from the heavens is present, by whom the faithful are sealed to God; it has likewise companions and iron anchors, namely the holy commandments of Christ, which possess the very robustness of iron; and even sailors standing at the right and left after the manner of the holy angels, by whose help the Church is fortified. The ladder in it, which leads up to the mast, is an image of the saving passion of Christ, drawing the faithful so that they may ascend into the heavens. The signs raised on high above the mast are the array of prophets, martyrs, and apostles resting in the kingdom of Christ. ^B It is gathered from these final words, as the venerable Ceillier well observes (39), that our holy bishop followed the opinion commonly received by the ancients, that the prophets, apostles, and martyrs obtained eternal happiness in the heavens.

*The Church as a woman clothed with the sun.*—Shortly after, he brings forward another likeness concerning the Church, when he comments upon those words of the Apocalypse, ch. XII, 1-6: *And I saw a great and wonderful sign, a woman clothed with the sun, etc.*, upon which he comments thus (40): "John most clearly signified the Church as a woman clothed with the sun, dressed in the Paternal Word, which shines more brightly than the sun. By saying 'the moon under her feet,' he shows her adorned after the manner of the moon with heavenly charity. But his saying 'on her head a crown of twelve stars' designates the twelve apostles, through whom the Church was founded. 'And being with child, she cried, travailing, and was in pain to be delivered'; because the Church never ceases to bring forth from her heart the Word, who suffers persecution in the world at the hands of the faithless. 'And she brought forth,' he says, 'a man-child, who was to rule all nations'; namely the Church, while she brings forth Christ ^C of God, the male and perfect offspring, who is preached as God and man, always teaches all nations. Furthermore, by saying 'her son was caught up to God, and to his throne,' he signifies that the king who is always born from her is heavenly, not earthly." The same Holy Father, in his very brief treatise *On Susanna*, also shows in many ways that Susanna bore the figure of the Church. Indeed, in his work *On the Apostolic Tradition*, he teaches in number 19, in Galland’s *Bibliotheca Patrum*, tome II, column 507, what:

ARTICLE II. DISCIPLINARY OBSERVATIONS.

*The time predetermined for receiving Baptism.*—Regarding discipline, these things are to be observed in St. Hippolytus: first, that the solemnity of Easter was the time predetermined for administering and receiving Baptism. For the holy bishop, commenting on the words "While they observed the appropriate day" (41), says: "For what day indeed, unless the day of Easter, through which the laver is prepared for those burning in the orchard?"

*Dispositions for Baptism.*—But this ancient Father commemorates the dispositions in the same place, when he continues thus: ^D "Susanna washing is presented as a bride pure to God with only two maids. For when the Church desires to receive the laver according to custom, she necessarily has two handmaids as companions; for the Church receives the laver, having confessed it through faith in Christ and through charity in God." Hence faith and charity are the companions of Baptism.

*Oil and anointing in Baptism.*—In the same place, St. Hippolytus lists oil and anointing among the rites customarily used in conferring Baptism. For he writes on verse 17 of Daniel: "And he said to the maids: Bring me oil: hence faith and charity prepare the oil and the cleansing agents for those washing. But what are the cleansing agents, if not the commands of the Word? And what is the oil, if not the power of the Holy Spirit? With which the faithful are anointed after the laver as with an ointment. All these things were signified for our sake through the blessed Susanna: so that we who believe in God, might not think those things which are done in the present time in the Church are new and foreign."

*The time for celebrating the Paschal solemnity.*—Secondly, this ancient Father of the Church teaches that the solemnity of Easter should be celebrated on the Sunday after the fourteenth moon of March, unless the fourteenth moon should fall on the day of the Sabbath; in which case, according to him, the festival day of Easter ought not to be celebrated on the following Sunday, but transferred to another subsequent Sunday, lest this festival day be celebrated on the same day on which our Lord Jesus Christ died (42).

Thirdly, he teaches that the Lenten fast should be broken on Easter Sunday: "But it is necessary to break the fast when Sunday arrives (43)."

CHAPTER III. JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE GENIUS, ERUDITION, AND STYLE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS, CONCERNING HIS ERRORS, AND THE EDITIONS OF HIS WORKS. ARTICLE I. CONCERNING THE GENIUS, ERUDITION, AND STYLE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

^A The judgment of the Maurists concerning the genius, erudition, etc., of St. Hippolytus. The learned authors of the *Histoire littéraire de la France* pronounce as follows concerning the genius and erudition of the holy Hippolytus of Portus (44): “Since holy Hippolytus, as we have shown, wrote so many works, we have no doubt that he was a man of great erudition. Why, indeed? Because we believe that we have not yet arrived at the knowledge of all the works that flowed from his pen, and much less that we have noted them all individually. This much, at least, is certain: that there was no species of ecclesiastical erudition at that time of which he did not leave something in writing; so much so that, with the best right, holy Hippolytus should be presented by us in this place as an interpreter of sacred letters, a canonist, a theologian, a controversialist, a historian, a chronologist, an orator, and a Christian poet.” Holy Jerome (45) also does not hesitate to include our saint among those Fathers of the Church “who, to such an extent (these are the words of that greatest teacher) repair their books with the doctrines and maxims of philosophers, that you know not what you ought to admire most in them: the erudition of the age or the knowledge of the Scriptures.”

That there is a very great consensus between the doctrine of our holy Hippolytus and that of his teacher, the divine Irenaeus, the diligent reader will easily perceive from those things which we have argued above concerning the remainder of his works. However, the cause of this consensus is by no means to be attributed solely to his discipleship; but it must above all be credited to that supreme solicitude which he employed for fear of changing even the slightest thing that he had received from his predecessors (46).

As St. Irenaeus defended the divinity of the eternal Word so validly and invincibly that very few holy Fathers posterior to the Council of Nicaea have spoken more worthily concerning this mystery of religion, so almost all the surviving writings of St. Hippolytus are woven with texts by which this doctrine is most clearly established. From this, one may judge ^A the magnitude of the injury which Sandius (47) inflicted upon our saint when he accused him of having held a contrary opinion. But the illustrious Bull (48) defended him from this false accusation so fully and copiously that no difficulty remains in this matter.

^B Furthermore, holy Hippolytus followed the doctrine of his teacher in establishing the immortality of souls and the resurrection of corpses. These two truths of the Christian religion were most fiercely attacked in his age. He even overturned the opinion concerning metempsychosis and defended the authority of the Apocalypse as a genuine writing of the evangelist John. For he even went so far as to embrace that opinion, which is attributed to holy Irenaeus regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews—namely, that it is not by the divine Paul—although he did accept that same Epistle as sacred Scripture. In addition to this, it is likely that the bishop of Portus at least in part acceded to the opinion of the divine Irenaeus concerning the state of souls after death and the duration of the world, which both maintained would be after the completion of six thousand years.

But he excelled his teacher in the tireless study of interpreting holy Scripture, and he made it clear that he considered the understanding of the sacred books to be a matter of the highest importance for keeping religion safe and sound. This glory is owed to our holy Hippolytus: that he held first place among the holy Fathers who commented on many books of holy Scripture; and that he himself was an incitement and an example to the great Origen for undertaking labor so profitable to the Church. It must also be admitted that, with the exception of Origen, none of the holy Fathers devoted more labor to the allegorical sense than St. Hippolytus. We are indeed convinced of this fact by the remains of his commentaries on sacred letters. Photius (49) also observes that he brought forward opinions that were less exact according to the file of truth; but Photius understands this regarding that diligence and care which, for the first time, became known and observed long after the age in which our saint wrote.

^D The reading of the interpretation of Daniel by Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, which, even though he does not explain it to the letter, yet—if I may say so—he does not pass over the sense. Moreover, he follows the old manner in many things, not as they were more accurately threshed out afterwards. Although it is not equitable for their reason to be demanded. For it is not right to keep asking for the reasoning of those who laid the foundations for some matter regarding things that they passed over; but rather to favor the effort itself, however much they may have progressed in the comprehension of the things being contemplated.

^A Regarding the style of Saint Hippolytus: So far as concerns the form of Saint Hippolytus’s speaking and writing, it bears all the markers of the lovable simplicity of the early centuries. Nonetheless, despite this, the divine Jerome ascribes to our saint a great power of eloquence; since eloquence is highly compatible with the simplicity we have observed in his writings. For that man is truly eloquent—even when he employs a simple style—who discourses aptly and appositely for the purpose of persuasion; and he is able to persuade who employs arguments most suited to moving and calming the emotions.

His style was, besides, grave, clear, polished, and concise; it was not at all entangled in useless matters, and was highly conformable to the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. But it lacks the wit and grace of Attic elegance. Furthermore, the rules conducive to the elegance of discourse were sometimes neglected by him. These things, regarding the character, talent, erudition, and style of Saint Hippolytus, have been pronounced by the most illustrious men of the Congregation of Saint Maur.

^B The assessment of Ceillier regarding the talent, erudition, and style of Saint Hippolytus. The assessment of the most learned Ceillier does not differ from the judgment of these men; in his view, our saint Hippolytus possessed a distinguished talent, was gentle, and altogether abhorred satire. He thinks coherently, uses a natural manner of speaking, and reasons soundly. In his expositions on Holy Scripture, he clings more to the spirit than to the letter. Yet his allegories are charming and, for the most part, sufficiently apposite. But in truth, his exposition of the literal sense sometimes did not succeed quite as happily. His manner of discourse is clear, grave, and succinct; and although his speech does not possess all the graces of the Attic style, his style is nonetheless ornate, noble, fluid, and pleasant ^C.

Furthermore, both our Maurists and Remigius Ceillier, in judging the talent, style, and erudition of Saint Hippolytus, have followed most of all the very learned Photius, whose censure Dupin relates in its entirety in his *Bibliotheca*, speaking thus: "Photius had read the book of Hippolytus against the heretics, and here is what he thinks of it: ‘I have read a booklet against 32 heresies by Hippolytus, a hearer of Irenaeus; it begins from the Dositheans and proceeds as far as Noetus and the Noetians. He reports that all these heresies had been refuted by Irenaeus, and that he himself had collected nothing in that booklet other than the reasonings and arguments of that Father.’ His discourse is perspicuous and grave, and ^D contains nothing that is vain, although the graces of the Attic style are missing from it. He does not put forth false things, and in the first place he does not state that Paul is the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews..." Elsewhere, in the same author (Photius), there is mention of certain commentaries of Hippolytus on Daniel: "Even if he does not explain the prophet according to the letter," says Photius, "he nonetheless commits no error of sense, explaining things in the manner of the ancients, though not as accurately as they have been explained therefrom; but he is not on that account worthy of critical censure, because it is not equitable to demand of those who lay the foundations of science that they omit nothing; on the contrary, they are worthy of praise because they were the first to reveal and discover things."

Moreover, that Hippolytus erred when he wished to define the time of the end of the world and the coming of the Antichrist—which Jesus willed to be hidden from the apostles, even when they pressed him insistently—he says, "He fixed it at 500 years after Christ, as if the world were not to last more than six millennia: this is too subtle." His method of writing is clear and polished, and apt for commentary, even though it departs from the laws and purity of the Attic style. There also exists his own homily *On Christ and Antichrist*, in which, although he maintains the same manner of writing, it is nonetheless simpler and smells more of antiquity. From these passages of Photius, not only the subject matter of the works of Hippolytus which he had read becomes known, but also the style and character of that author." Thus far, the very learned Ellies Dupin.

ARTICLE II. PECULIAR OPINIONS AND ERRORS OF S. HIPPOLYTUS.

Whether S. Hippolytus understood the devil to be typified by the Antichrist, and understood him to be the serpent? As regards the peculiar opinions and errors of this holy bishop, besides what was stated above concerning the Antichrist, it must equally be observed here that this ancient Father, in the book *On Christ and Antichrist*, n. 14, while commenting on that passage of Genesis 49:17, "Let Dan be a serpent, sitting on the earth, biting the horse’s heel," writes by way of inquiry: "Who then is the serpent, if not the Antichrist, that seducer who is mentioned in Genesis, who seduced Eve and supplanted Adam?" If Hippolytus intends that the Antichrist is that very serpent who seduced and supplanted our first parents in paradise, and in person—as if he who appeared and spoke in that form is he who is to work all those great things which are told of the Antichrist, and who is truly the devil himself, or, as Hippolytus calls him, the son of the devil, not only by imitation but also by nature; that is to say, one of the most wicked of demons, even if perhaps not the prince of them all—

...is to be heard in this manner, Saint Hippolytus, who draws the completion of the seventy weeks of Daniel to the second coming of Christ and to the Antichrist; whereas the remaining Fathers of the Church and interpreters of Scripture prefer to have them look toward the first coming of Christ, and the punishment of his death, and the destruction of Jerusalem under the Roman leader Titus: when the temple was burned, the victim and libation ceased, the place being desolate where alone it was permitted to offer them.

^A For, as that learned critic egregiously adds, those who, as the very first, attempted to explain and unfold the mysteries and hidden things of the Scriptures, ought not to be vituperated if they did not penetrate everything; nay, on the contrary, their zeal ought to be commended, however little they may have succeeded in the exposition of those things which they undertook to expound.

Error of St. Hippolytus concerning the seventy weeks of Daniel to be fulfilled first at the advent of the Antichrist. — We hinted already above that this ancient Father did not attain the true meaning of the seventy weeks which are spoken of in the prophet Daniel, and that he extends the term of those same weeks too far; which error is certainly excusable, even because of the reason just brought forward. But another error of the same belongs to it that cannot be excused with equal facility, namely, when he asserts that the time of the Babylonian captivity was four hundred and thirty years (57), when nevertheless Scripture says it was only seventy years; as may be seen in the prophet Jeremiah, chap. xxv, v. 9 and 11. ^B cepts, and by way of eminence the devil: nothing ecclesiastical is it, but wholly abhorrent from the faith, whether it be understood that it is the soul of the Antichrist, or another person for him. The faith recognizes that the spirits of men are a different kind of spirit from the substances which God created outside of bodies; nor does sacred doctrine admit that, outside the divine Persons, whose power is infinite, one can be a person different from himself, or be united to him hypostatically. That the Antichrist is so breathed upon by the spirit of the demon that he represents him in all his own, and seems like that other ancient serpent, the deceiver of the world himself, just as he was to the first parents, does not disagree with the words and meaning of Paul: and rightly did Hippolytus feel this, if he intended it, even if he spoke rather simply: and not by an improbable conjecture does he show the Antichrist, designated by the type of the serpent lying in wait in this way, by James. The Greek words are: ὄφις ἐφ᾽ ὁδοῦ, ἐγκαθήμενος ἐπὶ τρίβου. Nor perhaps would Hippolytus have written it otherwise. The author of the supposititious piece *On Antichrist and the Consummation of the World* cannot be cleared of the charge of having thought the Antichrist to be a demon by nature, who dragged the true Hippolytus into that sense: but this does not harm Hippolytus, as he can be explained in a later true sense.

Of the state of souls after the present life. — It is to be observed, secondly, according to saint Hippolytus (55), that there is held to be a certain subterranean place into which all men withdraw after this present life; that this place is coeval with the world, and comprises three different abodes. The first, which he calls the bosom of Abraham, is assigned to the just; the second retains sinners, who suffer there temporal punishments owed to their evil works; the third is formed by a certain lake of eternal fire, which, according to St. Hippolytus, no one as yet has entered; for this punishment, as he says, is reserved for the times of the final judgment. Then the unjust, he says, shall be adjudged to eternal punishment; but the just shall reign forever; for this author equally teaches that eternal glory is reserved for the just after the universal resurrection, even if after death they enjoy the greatest tranquility in the contemplation of visible goods, and in the hope of eventually enjoying celestial goods. Moreover, saint Hippolytus opines that in that subterranean place angels are present who preside over the souls detained there, some of whom ought to accompany the just in that place; others, however, to inflict the deserved punishments upon the unjust. These opinions are more bold than is proper; nay, some of them do not escape the mark of error: but let us acknowledge with Photius (56) that these errors, and others which can be detected in the works of the same author, taste of the character of the first centuries of the Church; and therefore, by equal right, for this one cause this great man cannot be condemned. ^D

ARTICLE III. REVIEW OF THE EDITIONS OF THE WORKS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS.

Before the beginning of the present century, no one among men of learning undertook that labor and study—which nevertheless was expended with much praise on so many other writers of times and merits far inferior—to collect, as far as could be found, the works of the disciple of St. Irenæus, and of a doctor of such antiquity and such authority, to wit, the holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr of Portus, and to publish the collection.

The first who descended into that thought, and attempted a task hitherto neglected, was the most illustrious man Joannes Millius, who undertook to adorn it, and could have adorned it egregiously, had he not been snatched away to human affairs before the final hand was applied. Indeed, all hope was not believed to have been buried with the body of Millius, since Joannes Guilielmus Janus, a professor of the academy of Witteberg, had obtained a thick volume of his animadversions on the writings of St. Hippolytus, and was rumored to be laboring at collecting, polishing, and publishing the Hippolytean writings. But in vain did the cultivators of ecclesiastical antiquity expect this treasure from the same.

Graeco-Latin Edition of Fabricius. — In the meantime, the most celebrated Fabricius, doctor and professor of Holy Theology in the gymnasium of Hamburg, already having the learned world obligated to him for so many egregious works, [undertook to gather into one body the monuments] of Hippolytus, of whose person and writings he most diligently discoursed in his most widespread reading in the fifth book, chapter 1, § 25 of his *Bibliotheca Graeca*, and [to collect] whatever remains.

^A Since he had been prompted—not yet knowing what outcome the plan of the renowned Janus would have in publishing the works of the divine Hippolytus—to bring to light, with splendid illustration, those things that had not yet succumbed to the injury of time, the praised Albertus Fabricius of Hamburg published the works of Hippolytus in two volumes in smaller folio, the first of which saw the light of day in 1716, and the second in 1718.

In the former volume he gathered whatever he could find of this Hippolytus. In the first place appears the book *On Antichrist*, the Combefisian edition of which he revised according to the first Parisian Gudiana edition of 1661, and he also made several corrections. Added to each page are the annotations of Combefis; likewise those which Gudius had added in his own hand to his own edition, not omitting those which Tanaquillus Faber had inserted in his own critical Epistles. Fabricius himself frequently added his own observations, and also joined the testimonies of the ancients regarding that book. There follows the *Paschal Canon*, found on the already-mentioned marble statue unearthed at the city of Rome, in Greek and Latin, along with those things which not only Joseph Scaliger, Dionysius Petavius, Ægidius Bucherius, and J. Dominicus Cassinus wrote concerning this Canon, but also those things which Stephanus le Moyne, Thomas Gale, Edward Bernard, and William Cave wrote concerning the Catalogue of the writings of Hippolytus inscribed on the same statue, with the statue itself added, represented in three copper plates. ^B And since Hippolytus composed, besides the *Paschal Canon*, a *Demonstration of the Times of the Pasch* and a *Chronicle*, the testimonies of the ancients, in which mention is made of one of these three, are exhibited in conjunction with the ancient Latin version of the *Chronicle*, which the most learned men, on the basis of many judgments, attributed to Hippolytus. To these he has joined the entire dissertation of Francis Blanchini *On the Paschal Canon of Hippolytus*, published at Rome in 1703, and the discussions with which Virginius Valsechius, Philippus de la Turre, and Joan. Vignolius contended among themselves concerning the first year of the reign of Severus Alexander, mentioned on the marble chair of Hippolytus. Furthermore, the writings or fragments of Hippolytus here are: the *Demonstration against the Jews* from the Latin version of Francis Turrianus, which Fabricius suspects to be a portion of the *Commentaries of Hippolytus on the Psalms*; fragments from the book against the Greeks, which is entitled: *Against Plato on the Cause of the Universe*; from the work *Against Heresies*, in which more copious items are presented here, namely those *Against Beron*, preserved by Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus and Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and *Against Noetus* in Latin only; likewise the *Περὶ χαρισμάτων ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις*, and the *Homily on the Most Holy Theophany*, first published from the manuscript codex of Thomas Gale, with brief notes of Fabricius interspersed; and finally fragments from the *Commentaries of Hippolytus on various books of Scripture*, and from his *Homilies*. The appended appendix comprises doubtful and supposititious writings, the book *On the Consummation of the World*; *On the Twelve Apostles*, where each of them preached, and where he was perfected—which Fabricius had already published alone in the year 1714, together with those three books *On the Life of Moses*, illustrated by Gaulminus’ commentary, page 508, but now crowded with the most ample annotations of Francis Combefis. Likewise *On the Seventy Apostles*, and what could be found from the writings of Hippolytus the younger, the Theban. ^C Contained in the latter volume of these works are: Hippolytus' *Demonstration against the Jews*, and the same author's *Against the Heresy of Noetus*, both now edited for the first time in Greek from the Vatican manuscript codex, with the same version by Turrianus, and with the same notes which are found inserted in volume I, pages 228 and 235. Fragments from the *Commentaries on Genesis*, also published in Greek and Latin for the first time from the *Catena of Greek Fathers* 88 of the Vienna library, which contain annotations on Genesis I, 5, 6; III, 8; XLIX, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 16. Certain other fragments, such as that on Hezekiah, in Isaiah XXXVIII, 5, from the Coislin codex 193. A passage from the second sermon of Hippolytus *On Daniel*, cited by Eustratius, chapter 19, *against the Psychopannychites*, and some things in Renaudot’s *History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, page 360, ascribed to Hippolytus, which however the preface teaches to be rather the work of Julius Romanus. Commentaries on Genesis VII, 6; VIII, 1, and Deuteronomy XXXIII, 1, from the Arabic *Pentateuch* of the Bodleian library, which the illustrious Gaguier translated into Latin after extracting them from there: in these, however, nothing corresponds to the Greek *Commentaries of Hippolytus on Genesis*. Some passages in Leontius of Byzantium’s book I *Against Nestorius*, and in the Lateran Council of the year 649, pages 281 and 287, derived from Hippolytus. Annotations of learned men concerning Hippolytus, specifically from Samuel Petit’s *Eclogae Chronologicae*, book III, chapter 2, on the *heckaidecaeteris*, and from Georgius Bullius’ *Defense of the Nicene Faith*, section II, chapter 8, and section III, chapter 8, concerning the doctrine of Hippolytus, together with the annotations of J. Ern. Grabe pertaining to the same. Finally, to these is subjoined a fragment of Hippolytus the younger, the Theban, from the *Chronicle commentary* published by Henry Canisius in volume III of the *Lectiones Antiquae*. ^D But since all these do not fill more than 62 pages, to construct a proper volume an appendix is added, comprising a *Spicilegium of the Fathers of the 2nd Century*, and the *Commentaries of Chalcidius on Plato’s Timaeus*, emended and illustrated with notes. In that *Spicilegium* occur: 1° Fragments of Irenaeus recently edited by the illustrious Christoph. Matth. Pfaff; 2° Fragments of Clement of Alexandria, which in the Oxford edition are read only in Greek; also others cited from Clement of Alexandria by Macarius Chrysocephalus, Anastasius Sinaita, Nicephorus CP., and John Damascene; 3° Methodius Eubulius’ *Banquet of the Ten Virgins*, edited by Leo Allatius and Petrus Possinus, and also inserted into Combefis' *Auctuarium of the Library of the Fathers*, together with Leo Allatius' dissertation *On the Methodii*; 4° Claudius Salmasius’ *Commentary on Arnobius*, begun and edited from the Gudian copy; 5° *Acts of Archelaus*, bishop of Mesopotamia, with Manes, from the edition of Laur. Alexandri Zaccagnii, to which are subjoined

the ^A *capita* [chapter headings] of the same sacred book; 7° *Acts of the Passion of St. Pamphilus the Martyr*, from the books of Eusebius of Caesarea concerning his Life, with notes by Papebroch; 8° *Exposition of the Faith* by Gregory Thaumaturgus.

*Judgment of Ceillier on this edition.*—Moreover, as the most illustrious Remi Ceillier observes (58), the praised edition of the works of Hippolytus by Fabricius does not seem to us sufficiently exact. For the very learned editor observed neither the order of time nor of contents accurately in reviewing his writings; and it is likely that he had them printed just as he received them and as they fell into his hands. However, this praise is due the distinguished Fabricius, that he labored not unsuccessfully in gathering a wealth of fragments of the writings of this Father, which lay scattered in the works of ancient authors, in the Acts of Councils, and in the corners of the libraries of Paris, Germany, and Britain: that he translated some of them from Greek into Latin, and illustrated them with very many observations, most appropriate both for clarifying the text and for elucidating the heads of doctrine which at first glance might render readers perplexed.

*Other editions of certain minor works of St. Hippolytus. Edition of the Paschal Cycle.*—Furthermore, the distinguished and learned J. Guil. Janus, professor of history at the academy of Wittenberg, gave hope of a new edition of the works of St. Hippolytus, in whose hands were the Millian papers, which, since they comprise some things still unpublished, as well as other things edited from a copy of only one manuscript, collated with several manuscripts of better quality, will show them in many parts more emended, with those things which are openly attributed to Hippolytus separated or at least distinguished; he also promised that he would provide new versions of certain ones according to a report in the *Leipzig Acta Eruditorum* of 1718, page 444. But he did not fulfill his promise. Before Fabricius had collected the writings of St. Hippolytus into one body, certain of them were already seen printed separately. Thus, the *Paschal Cycle* appears printed in Greek in the work which the distinguished Scaliger composed, *On the Emendation of Time*, 1583, Paris, in folio; in Leiden, 1598; at Cologne or Geneva, 1629. The distinguished Gruter published the same *Paschal Cycle* in Greek in the collection of *Inscriptions* issued at Heidelberg in 1600, and reprinted at Amsterdam in 1707. It appeared in Latin, translated by P. Bucherius, in the year 1634, in folio, at Antwerp, with a commentary and the testimonies of the ancients regarding St. Hippolytus in the same Bucherius’s *Doctrine of Time*. Francesco Blanchini later inserted this Cycle into his dissertations *On the Julian Calendar and Cycle*, printed at Rome in 1703.

Theotokos, and finally the homily on the Holy Theophany. ^A Likewise, the tractate *Against the Heresy of Noetus* was first published in folio, and reprinted at Geneva in 1613, at Rouen in 1653, and in the fifth volume of the *Antiquae lectiones* by Canisius at Ingolstadt in 1604, in quarto. Then, along with his own translation, Stephanus le Moyne published it in *Varia sacra*, p. 53, at Leiden in 1685 and 1694, in quarto. J. Albertus Fabricius also included it, with the same interpretation, in the appendix to the works of Josephus the Jew, at Leipzig in 1691, in folio.

Editions of the *Tractate against the Heresy of Noetus*, and *against Bero and Helix*.—The fragment *On the One and Triune God*, and on the mystery of the Incarnation against the heresy of Noetus, published under the name of a homily, was issued in Latin by Gerardus Vossius of Tongeren, from his own translation, at the end of Gregory Thaumaturgus at Mainz in 1604, in quarto, with notes also added from pages 58-68. For what reason this tractate was not reprinted here with the works of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus at Paris in 1622, we do not know. ^B However, in the year 1618, it appeared in the *Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis* without notes, and in 1677 at Lyon, in volume III, and in the *Supplementum Morellianum* (Paris, 1639, volume I, p. 620). Eight fragments on theology and the incarnation against the heretics Bero and Helix were published in Latin from the translation of Turrianus in the fifth volume of Canisius, in folio. These fragments, with the same translation, were reprinted in the *Bibliothecae SS. Patrum* of Cologne, Lyon, and Paris in 1654. These same fragments were long ago translated into Latin by Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, and published by Sirmondus in the *Collectanea* of Anastasius the Librarian at Paris in 1620, in octavo, with the addition of the Greek text from the codex of Turrianus. Thus, they are read both in Greek and Latin in volume III of the *Works of Sirmondus* (Paris, 1696, in folio, page 583). Combefis also published them in Greek and Latin at the beginning of the first volume of the *Works of Saint Maximus*, and he also revised the version of Anastasius. Fabricius subsequently transferred these into his own *Hippolytus*. Afterwards, Basnage took the Greek text from the edition of Combefis and added it to the version of Turrianus in the first volume of the *Thesaurus Canisianus*; at the end of which, moreover, the distinguished Claudius Capperonnierius added academic observations on the version of Anastasius, matched with the Greek, in the year 1725, at Amsterdam in folio.

CONCERNING THE ANONYMOUS AUTHOR OF THE CHRONICLE WRITTEN UNDER ALEXANDER SEVERUS

Among the works of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, which we have discussed thus far, certain learned men have thought that there should be included that anonymous Chronicle which, it is discovered, flourished under the final times of the emperor Alexander Severus, contemporary with Africanus, around the year of Christ 236. This opinion ^C the distinguished Du Cange has embraced above others (59). But Pearson (60) and Dodwell (61) have disagreed; the latter concluded that the anonymous author, of whom we are speaking, wrote a few years after Hippolytus, whereas that holy martyr and bishop is known to have begun his Cycle in the first year of the same Alexander Severus. However, he says, our anonymous author has many things which seem to agree with the chronological hypotheses of Hippolytus observed in his Paschal Canon, and on account of which it is reasonable to suspect that the anonymous author was indebted to Hippolytus. The opinions of these learned men, indeed, compel us in particular to accept what the illustrious prelate Franciscus Blanchinius (62) has argued quite brilliantly on this matter. He speaks thus: • We were saddened that that book had perished, in which Hippolytus had arranged a demonstration of the times of Pascha, just as in a table. For that work, had it reached us complete, ought to be held as the most precious of all after the holy scriptures. Since before Hippolytus no one had arranged the sacred annals into a certain series, nor reduced them to the norm of a cycle: which he performed for the writers of the Christians first. ^D The most learned lord Du Cange occurred to our distress in his last edition of the *Paschal Chronicle*; where, when he had discussed at length, with the greater solidity which he possesses, and with erudition in every branch of letters, regarding the Canon of Hippolytus and his *Commentary on Pascha*, he seemed to give us some hope of finding the Hippolytan book in that ancient codex, which Canisius in the *Antiquae lectiones*, volume III, and Labbe in the first *Bibliotheca manuscriptorum* had brought to light for the public good. But he himself, the distinguished man, also prepared a third edition of the same little work, no. IV in the *Selecta* for illustrating the Chronicle, which he was preparing: the title of which, in the index placed before the *Selecta*, when he was rendering it from ancient membranes on page 403, he commended thus: "IV. The Book of Generation from Adam to the order, which (sic) are contained in this book." A work which, in his preface, we considered could be ascribed to Hippolytus of Portus: recognized from the edition of Henricus Canisius, and Philip Labbe, according to the faith of the codex of the college of the Society of Jesus at Paris. And behold, in the preface, there is much on the searching out of conjectures, whence it should be attributed above others to Hippolytus the martyr, whom he assumes to have been the bishop of Portus from the seven suburbicarian sees. Verily, if this marble Canon is to be referred to Hippolytus the bishop and martyr, as it is referred by the suffrage of all doctors and indeed of Du Cange himself; I am confident that I shall demonstrate that that Canisian codex does not pertain to the same Hippolytus.

^A nor to the Labbean [codex], which is otherwise respectable: but rather that it should be referred to that Hero, the Christian philosopher and martyr, whom he himself suspects—from the Greek inscription in Spon, sect. x, no. 22—was called from being a curator of the temple of Serapis at Portus Romanus to the faith of Christ during the reign of Emperor Severus Alexander, and was thus a contemporary of Hippolytus; and he shows from the testimonies of the ancients that he wrote about the times and that, as a neophyte, he completed his martyrdom. I therefore accede to the opinion which the same praised author subjoined in the second place in his preface, saying that the book is to be adjudged either to Bishop Hippolytus or to a contemporary author who lived under Augustus Alexander. It is better to transcribe his words from no. 18 of the preface:

«Moreover, this is nearly twin to the Chronicle of Hippolytus, of which we are treating, unless it be that very Chronicle which Henry Canisius published in Vol. III of *Antiq. lection.*, and Philippe Labbe in Vol. I of *Nova Bibliotheca* from a manuscript codex of the Paris College of the Society of Jesus, under this title: *On the divisions and generations of nations.* This Chronicle is carried up to the thirteenth year of Alexander Severus, the last year of his reign, during which the author implies more than once that he lived. In the preface, he says he will describe: ‹the division of nations, and the enumerated generation of patriarchs, also the times of habitation, and the engagements of wars, and the times of the judges, who were born and under which kings, and what captivities of the people there were, and to which judges they occurred, ^C and who were the priests, and at what times they lived, and what division and what destruction took place, and in what manner the generation of the seed of Israel from the Fathers was completed in Christ, and how many and how great are the years numbered from the creation of the world unto this day.› Subjoined to the preface is an index, of which the 6th chapter is read as written in these words: ‹A declaration of the Passover, and who kept it when, from the times of Moses unto this day.› These things indeed refer to what is held in that section where the Passover, subsequently celebrated by the Jews, is treated. Then it is added: ‹But from the generation of Christ, thirty years later, when the Lord suffered, He celebrated the Passover. For He Himself was the true Passover. From the Passion ^D of the Lord up to the XIII year of the empire of Caesar Alexander, 206 years, the Passover was kept, which is observed by us in commemoration of our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, all the years from Adam up to this day become 5738.› If anyone should like to compare what I have brought forward here exactly with those things which we have touched upon regarding the Chronicle of Hippolytus; he will perhaps not find it difficult to concede that it is the very same Chronicle, to which he has prefixed or subjoined, in the section on the Paschal feast of which we spoke, a canon or rule for finding it; according to which he wished the reader to calculate past and future years."

Truly, one argues correctly from these two numbers: the years from the Passion of the Lord to the XIII year of Severus Alexander, and also from the one which he [the author] attributed to the Incarnation of the Lord, thirty-one years before the Passion, according to the opinion of the ancients. Moreover, to add the remaining epochs listed in the marble Canon, I shall concede that most of them agree with the numbers of the Labbean and Canisian codices. But since the remaining ones differ from them—and especially that which defines the interval between two Passovers, of the Exodus and of Hezekiah—it is evidently shown that the marble Chronicle of Hippolytus is distinct from the writing contemporary to it, which disagrees in its calculations. But since it is certain that the numbers of Hippolytus come so close to the opinions of more learned chronologers, as was shown above by comparison; whereas, on the contrary, the computation of the anonymous author is manifestly faulty, especially in defining the interval from the Passover of Joshua to the Passover of Hezekiah; I consider it worthwhile to present the reasoning of Hippolytus as it survives in this monument, so that this most ancient of all paschal chronologies—a witness to the greatest skill of Hippolytus—might redound to the commendation of the wisdom of the Fathers, who, being closest to the Apostles and to apostolic men, illustrated the first centuries of the Church not only by blood shed for Christ, but also by most illustrious writings.

(See the Paschal canon of St. Hippolytus below.) *ED. PATR.*