Ruggero's Dissertation on the See of Hippolytus at Portus

CONSTANTINI RUGGERII DE PORTUENSI S. HIPPOLYTI EPISCOPI ET MARTYRIS SEDE DISSERTATIO POSTHUMA

Ab Achille Ruschio, of the diocese of Porto, completed and augmented with annotations. Rome, 1771, printed at the expense of Generoso Salomoni, by the authority of the superiors. (Lumper, *Hist. critic. Patrum*, vol. VIII, p. 317).

TO CLEMENT XIV, SUPREME PONTIFF, MASTER, PASTOR, RECTOR, GUARDIAN OF THE CHRISTIAN ORBIS, AND PROPAGATOR OF RELIGION, RESTORER OF PEACE, PROTECTOR AND VINDICATOR OF THE HONOR AND VENERATION OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD, ACHILLES RUSCHIUS DEDICATES THIS WORK, THE TREATISE OF CONSTANTINO RUGGERI ON THE SEE OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND MARTYR OF PORTO, AUGMENTED BY HIMSELF WITH ADDITIONS AND ANNOTATIONS.

I rejoiced greatly, Supreme Pontiff Clement, when I finally found the treatise of Constantino Ruggeri on the See of St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr of Porto, which I had long avidly sought; and as soon as I realized that it would not be displeasing to you, if a work produced by such an extraordinary man—whom you had once favored with your protection—were to be inscribed to your most august name, augmented by me with the addition of important documents and my own annotations, I deemed that I should strive and exert myself with all the genius I possessed, and with even more labor than I possessed, so that nothing in it might appear inaccurate, or less earnest, or unworthy of your majesty. I foresaw that not I alone—who know myself all too well—but anyone, however outstanding they might be in doctrine, learning, and the praise of eloquence, would be taking on a task full of difficulty when determining to bring forth into the light anything worthy of you: you, I say, who by your counsel, wisdom, gravity, constancy, greatness of soul, virtue, and your strenuous, illustrious, and successful administration of affairs, have gained so much esteem and merit that you have been established by the instinct and breath of God, and by the consensus of the Fathers, the applause of princes, and the joy of all orders of men, as the master, pastor, and rector of the Christian world. But when I considered whose treatise this was, and concerning what subject, and to whom I was to offer it, I did not think I should lose heart. For when I saw that this work of a most learned man—who was dear to you while he lived—which deals entirely with establishing the see of Porto in the face of the empty fallacies of hypercritical men, and with restoring the cult of that illustrious bishop and martyr of the third century, a cult which had been neglected through the injury of time, in the very diocese he ruled; when I saw, I say, that this work ought to be presented to you as to the guardian and propagator of the orthodox religion, even to the Medes and Persians and barbarian nations; to you, the restorer of peace, the protector and vindicator of the honor and veneration of the servants of God, my most beneficent Prince, I did not doubt that you, who are accustomed to receive everyone kindly and gently, would also benignly embrace me, who am subject to you not only for the sake of faith, but also for the sake of my country, and who am dedicating to you my own labors along with the work of an excellent man. Therefore, casting myself at the feet of your Holiness, I offer and consecrate to you, Supreme Pontiff Clement, the treatise of Constantino Ruggeri on the See of St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr of Porto, illustrated with a new accession of documents and my own annotations, fully trusting that you will cherish and defend both it and its editor under your patronage.

ACHILLES RUSCHIUS TO THE READER, GREETINGS.

When I was thinking of composing a treatise from the historical documents and testimonies of ancient writers, which I had long since studiously collected, whereby I might easily demonstrate—and I was not lacking in confidence—that the most valiant and famous martyr of the third century after Christ, Hippolytus, had held the dignity of bishop in the Church of Porto, it was opportunely announced to me that, even if it had not been published or perfected, a great part had been drafted and started to be printed by Constantino Ruggeri, a man of keen mind and outstanding in the praise of piety, among whom [there is] one who above all others excels, who now for the great good of the Christian public sits in the chair of Peter and rules and moderates the universal Church, Clement XIV, Supreme Pontiff, whom may God Almighty keep safe and sound for a long time.

and with an abundance and wealth of erudition, most renowned, a dissertation on the Portuense see of Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr [(64)]. When I understood this, I thought that no care, study, or diligence should be omitted, and no delay should be interposed, before I tracked it down, wherever it might at last be found; for I clearly foresaw that anyone who had flourished with such clarity, expert knowledge of affairs, and industry would have been much more successful in that class of subject than I could possibly have been. And since, through inquiry, I had discovered that Stephanus Gallius—a man of singular learning and constant fidelity in the cultivation of friendships—had obtained all the writings of Ruggerius, whom he had held dear above all for his virtue and had assisted in all things, I, for my part, visited him eagerly as soon as I could, and begged him most earnestly that he would not be troubled, out of his own kindness, to give me the dissertation itself, if it had indeed reached his hands along with the rest of Ruggerius's works. To this end, I also used as an intermediary and patron the most eminent prelate Joseph Garampius, secretary for secret letters to Pope Clement XIV, and a man who has highly deserved of the public literary establishment, to whom, for the outstanding benefits bestowed upon me from my boyhood to this present time, I can scarcely conceive how much I owe, and indeed can barely express it in words. Having achieved my wish, I applied all my care and study to the work of perusing it. And since I had discovered it to be even much more excellent than I had supposed, I judged it to be preferred to any other labor of mine, and that I must apply diligent effort so that it might be brought to light as soon as possible. But in order that it might come forth perfect and, as they say, complete in all its parts, I deemed it should be divided into two sections, of which the first should consist of the testimonies of ancient writers pertaining to Saint Hippolytus and his see, while the other should encompass the responses to the arguments of our adversaries; then, to this second part, I added what was wanting; from there, I visited the locations of the writers whose authority Ruggerius had used to protect himself, and I compared the words, and accurately—as was proper, and as the reasoning seemed to demand—I transcribed them; finally, that no one might desire anything else beyond this, I added annotations by which the facts constituted by him might be confirmed more and more.

Accept now, in brief, the causes that impelled Ruggerius to write. Petrus Ottobonus [(65)], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and Bishop of Porto, intending to restore the cult of his predecessor and martyr, had asked of the Fathers to whom the care of judging and establishing sacred rites is entrusted, that a proper office for Saint Hippolytus be recited, and that divine service be performed annually in his memory in the diocese of Porto under the rite, as they say, of the first class. Now, there were those who denied that his requests could be satisfied, because the see of Saint Hippolytus at Porto was being contested due to the great disagreement of certain recent writers. At that time, Ruggerius was in charge of the Ottobonian Library. The most eminent cardinal gave him the mandate to weigh the various and mutually conflicting opinions on this matter, and, relying on the authority of ancient monuments, to demonstrate what, in the end, was the tradition of the Roman Church concerning the see of Saint Hippolytus. Ruggerius, being obedient to the command, in the first place collected all the testimonies of our ancestors on that same subject that he could find; then, he refuted the conjectures of Tillemont and others who had agreed with him concerning an Eastern cathedra of the holy martyr; and next, he rejected the speculation of Stephanus Le Moyne, who relegated the same holy martyr to the Homerites of Arabia. Whether this dissertation of Ruggerius was offered to the Sacred Congregation of Rites or not, I confess I do not know. This I do know: after Cardinal Petrus Ottobonus had passed away, Ruggerius intended to dedicate it, increased by some appendices, to Benedict XIV, the Supreme Pontiff [(66)] of immortal memory, in the year 1741, in which year indeed he began to print it with type [(67)]; but, hindered by the lack of household means, he could not complete the work he had begun. Although it can hardly be said how much most learned men valued it for its truth, the gravity of its judgments, and the force of the language in which it had been written. Benedict XIV himself, to the highest praise of Ruggerius [(68)], ordered these things to be committed to the monuments of letters: "While we write these things, there is being published at Rome the learned *Dissertation on the Portuense see of Saint Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr*, in which..." [alt-version omitted]

Dedication and preface to the reader

The most clear man in life, Joannes Christophorus Amadutius, whom Ruggerius also used to frequent familiarly, wrote a commentary most diligently and prefixed it to the learned work whose title is: *Leges novellæ V anecdotæ imperatorum Theodosii Junioris et Valentiani III, etc.*, page lxxvii, edited at Rome in the year 1767. In it, all things that can in some way pertain to the studies, customs, works, and other things of such a great man are accurately and diligently enumerated; to which we refer the reader, lest this be a redundant task.

[(64)] Not only did Ruggerius write a dissertation on the see of Saint Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, but he also left behind very many most excellent monuments of his talent, which are enumerated with the highest diligence by the same Amadutius in the same commentary.

[(65)] Petrus, Cardinal Ottobonus, having been gifted with the miter of the Church of Porto, immediately, out of the greatness of his spirit and religion, turned his whole self to adorning and augmenting that same see with exceptional and huge benefits. Therefore, he restored sacred buildings, which were soiled by the excessive squalor of antiquity, to a more ample and elegant form, and with other monuments of piety and munificence, he attempted to remedy the losses of that most ancient see. But among the other troubles of the Church of Porto, most of all that which troubled the mind of the most eminent man was the memory of the great bishop and martyr Hippolytus being obliterated in those very shores, which he himself had illustrated with his own blood. Wherefore he gave effort to restoring the debt of cult to him, not only in the Church of Porto but also in the city itself, which is endowed with his sacred remains, with the most beautiful confession built from the foundations in his honor and dedicated to God in the Laurentian basilica of Saint Damasus, in which his outstanding monument was placed, marked by the faith of the Vatican archetype and distinguished by the paschal cycles.

[(66)] Through many clear significations, Benedict XIV, Supreme Pontiff, shows how much he valued Ruggerius and his work, which he certainly used for a long time, as can be known from those things which are referred to by the same Amadutius; and I myself, in the manuscript Registers of letters and of the Bullarium of the same pontiff, which are now preserved in the Vatican archive, have observed it. Regarding other men excelling in erudition, among whom Ruggerius carried the greatest weight in the estimation of learning, the reader should consult Amadutius, loc. cit., § 9.

[(67)] The work had progressed to 80 pages, of which Amadutius has these things, loc. cit., § 3: "The *Dissertation* on Saint Hippolytus had indeed begun to be printed at the Vatican press of the Salvioni, and it had already progressed as far as page 80; but the scarcity of money, by which scholars are, by some bad fate, for the most part urged, caused the work to be interrupted, and indeed all care regarding it vanished, so that all the printed pages which had remained with the printer were sold off at a truly vile price to those who are accustomed every year to provide artificial fires at the Mole of Hadrian for the solemnity of Saint Peter. But at least five copies of these kinds of printed pages are preserved at Rome by different friends of Ruggerius, one of which is also with me, and it is furnished besides with marginal annotations written by hand, which he himself had granted to me when I asked for it."

[(68)] Benedict XIV Lambertini, *On the Beatification and Canonization of the Blessed*, book 1, chap. 4, n. 10, page 32, in volume 1 of his Works, edited in the year 1747.

whereby it is proven that the bishop of Porto, whom Prudentius praised in most elegant verse, was the bishop of that city near Rome. Domenico Giorgi, a most illustrious man, writing from his private study to this same pontiff in his notes to the Martyrology of Ado—notes that are distinguished by their notable learning—writes the following regarding the same dissertation: "But we also await an erudite commentary concerning Saint Hippolytus of Porto from our friend Constantino Ruggeri, in which many things concerning Hippolytus will be clarified." Thomas Maria Mamachi, of the Dominican family, most famous for the books he has published, and with whom Ruggeri shared some things concerning Saint Hippolytus, left these words written in *Origines et antiquitates Christianae*: "Meanwhile, I advise that it has been discussed most accurately by Constantino Ruggeri, a most learned man and my friend, regarding the episcopate of Hippolytus and the origins of the Christian religion in that province, in a most weighty dissertation on Saint Hippolytus... When we read this dissertation, we admired the talent and the incredible diligence and skill of the man in antiquarian matters. And it would truly be desirable that it be published shortly." He repeats this same thing elsewhere in these words: "But that Hippolytus was the bishop of the Roman port, and that he is the same person whom Eusebius, Jerome, and Prudentius mention, is clearly demonstrated by Constantino Ruggeri, a most learned man, in his dissertation on the see of Saint Hippolytus of Porto, which, as I hope, will at last eventually be published." Moved by these reasons, I have set aside all concern for writing a treatise on the see of Saint Hippolytus; and I have instead made this dissertation public, as it is the work of a man preeminent in his knowledge of ecclesiastical affairs and in his learning; by it, Saint Hippolytus is restored to our Church of Porto, the question regarding his episcopal chair is resolved, and the memory of such a great bishop and martyr, who is rightly and deservedly reckoned among the more outstanding Fathers of the third century, is revived and spread.

DISSERTATION ON THE SEE OF SAINT HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTO. PART ONE. TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS CONCERNING SAINT HIPPOLYTUS AND HIS SEE.

1. Eusebius and Jerome were ignorant of the see of Hippolytus. ^A Of the ancient writers who mention Saint Hippolytus, the bishop and martyr, the first of all to occur is Eusebius of Caesarea, the bishop in Palestine, who in book vi, chapter 20 of his *History*, listed him among the ecclesiastical men who flourished at the beginning of the third century, and whose letters he testifies to having read in the library of Aelia, which was built by Bishop Alexander. Soon, in chapter 22, while enumerating the most noble monuments of the genius that Hippolytus published for the public good of the Catholic faith, he remained completely silent about the name of the see over which he himself presided; for this reason, learned men believe that it was entirely unknown to him, chiefly for the reason that, when he designates it, he uses only the following words after having spoken about Beryllus, the bishop of the Bostrenes in Arabia: "In the same way," he says, "is Hippolytus, who is himself an overseer of another Church." Following Eusebius are Saint Epiphanius, Theodoret, and finally Saint Jerome, who in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men* frankly admits that he could not know where in the world Hippolytus was bishop: "Hippolytus," he says, "was the bishop of a certain Church, for I could not know the name of the city." ^B

II. Saint Jerome calls Saint Hippolytus and Saint Apollonius Roman senators. But in the letter which he wrote to Magnus, some years after the publication of the *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*, the holy doctor gifted Saint Hippolytus with the conspicuous title of Roman senator. "Hippolytus," he says, "and Apollonius, were senators of the Roman city who composed their own treatises." These things indeed openly demonstrate that the senatorial dignity of Hippolytus first became known to Saint Jerome after the publication of the *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*; for he had not called him a senator, nor indeed even a martyr, in that work;

^A even though in the epistle to Damasus, written many years before the *Catalogue* (76), and in the preface to his *Exposition on Matthew*, he had adorned our Hippolytus with the title of martyr alone. Photius followed Jerome in some measure in this matter, for although he mentions our Hippolytus in two places, in one of them he distinguished him with neither the title of martyr nor bishop; yet in the other he most explicitly called him both bishop and martyr (78). If, therefore, Hippolytus was a Roman senator, we judge that it can be correctly inferred he lived in the West, not in the East, and consequently obtained an episcopal see in the West.

III. Marianus Victorius contends that it was not Hippolytus, but Apollonius, who was a senator.

We know that very learned men, among whom is Marianus Victorius of Rieti, a most accurate editor of the Works of St. Jerome, judge that this passage of Jerome was corrupted by the negligence of scribes; and for this reason he concludes that the senatorial dignity should be attributed not to Hippolytus, but to Apollonius, producing as witnesses ancient codices of this matter in which it is read: "Hippolytus and Apollonius, senators of the city of Rome" (79). The most learned monk Remi Ceillier followed Victorius in his *History of Sacred and Ecclesiastical Authors* (80), on the argument most especially that St. Jerome nowhere calls St. Hippolytus a senator in the aforementioned *Catalogue*. But if credence were to be given to Ceillier in this matter, we could likewise deny his martyrdom by the same species of argument, since Jerome did not designate our Hippolytus by the name of martyr in the *Catalogue*. Therefore, since the ancient codices and old editions, which Martianaeus (81) followed in his edition of the works of St. Jerome, testify that Hippolytus and Apollonius were senators, and St. Jerome wrote this epistle, as we have said, some years after the publication of the *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*; we can indeed rightly conjecture that ^B the doctor himself—while he was writing the same *Catalogue*—was entirely unaware of the senatorial dignity of Hippolytus.

IV. The opinion of Scaliger and Le Moyne concerning the senatorial dignity of Apollonius is rejected.

Joseph Scaliger (82), in his annotations on the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, and after him, Stephanus le Moyne (83) and Antonius Pagi (84) the elder, write that St. Jerome, against the testimony of all the ancients, called Apollonius a senator of the city of Rome, relying on the argument most especially that Eusebius was unaware of this dignity of Apollonius. Wherefore they accuse Rufinus of ignorance, as if he himself had corrupted the true meaning of the Eusebian context through a perverse interpretation. "For Apollonius," says Le Moyne, "was condemned to death by Perennis the praetorian prefect, to whom no right and authority over the senators pertained." But Pagi persuaded himself that St. Jerome "had exaggerated this from Eusebius by his own ingenuity." However, the arguments of learned men of this sort do not deter us from believing that Hippolytus and Apollonius were senators. For from the fact that Eusebius was unaware of the senatorial dignity of Hippolytus and Apollonius, who will ever affirm that St. Jerome, who flourished not many years after Eusebius, could not have had any knowledge of this matter? This seems to us entirely false; for Jerome dwelt longer in Rome, where Apollonius consummated his martyrdom, as even Le Moyne himself admits elsewhere; and therefore the holy doctor could perhaps have deduced these very things, which Eusebius omitted, either from the genuine *Acts* of the martyr Apollonius, which were mentioned by Eusebius, or from other monuments that then remained and were perhaps unknown to Eusebius (85). Nor will anyone be able to doubt, with Scaliger and Le Moyne, that the same holy doctor was deceived by the corrupted version of Rufinus. For, as the most learned Tillemont (86) sagaciously observes in his usual manner, St. Jerome ^C wrote the *Catalogue of Illustrious Men* ^D while the epistle to Magnus was written some years later. But from whence could Jerome and Rufinus have known about this martyr, if not from Eusebius? In the epistle to Magnus the orator of the city of Rome: "Hippolytus also, and Apollonius, senators of the city of Rome, composed their own proper works." This Hippolytus, a senator of the city of Rome, could be as unknown to Jerome as the book of Apollonius, which never existed. These things, as I said, are derived from a perverse interpretation of the Eusebian passage, while they take *apologian* for a "book of apology." Nor do I doubt that Jerome, when he was writing those things, did not have the Greek copy of Eusebius in his hands, but the Latin interpretation by Rufinus.

Nor, finally, do Moyne and Scaliger inflict a light injury upon a doctor who is most skilled in both Greek and Hebrew, while they surmise that he drew these things which he handed down concerning Apollonius from no other source than the aforementioned version of Rufinus; for what need did Jerome himself have of that, who was so well versed in Greek letters? Finally, as the most learned monk Theodoric Ruinart notes, all the old Martyrologies favor St. Jerome, which on the 18th of April, on which they celebrate the feast day of Saint Apollonius, explicitly call him a senator. ^A

V. *St. Apollonius was not condemned by Perennis the prefect, but by the senate with a capital sentence.*

As regards the capital sentence by which Apollonius was condemned, Eusebius testifies that this was promulgated not by Perennis the prefect, but by the senate, the words of whom the same Moyne copied a little above; wherefore we marvel greatly that a learned man, in a way forgetting himself, should have asserted such absurd things. Perennis, the praetorian prefect, pronounced the sentence of capital punishment not upon Apollonius, but upon the most wicked informer who betrayed that Apollonius was a Christian (whom Saint Jerome writes was the martyr's own slave named Severus). Behold the words of Eusebius himself: "But the wretch," he says, "having undertaken an untimely accusation (namely, a slave), when by imperial edict the capital penalty was established against those who reported such things, he was immediately executed with his legs broken, Perennis the judge pronouncing a sentence of this kind against him." But Apollonius, as we have said, was condemned to a capital sentence not by Perennis, but by the senate, which Eusebius clearly teaches in these words: "But the martyr, most acceptable to God, the judge entreating him much and earnestly that he might speak of his faith before the senate, when he had testified to the reason for his faith before all with a most eloquent apology." ^B

The senate immediately condemned him to capital punishment by sentence. [A... B?] ^C Therefore, rightfully and deservedly, Henry Valesius in his notes to this passage of Eusebius excellently defends the senatorial dignity of Apollonius, for the reason that he himself was ordered by Perennis the prefect to render an account of his faith before the senate. Tillemont and Remigius Ceillier subscribe to Valesius. ^B

VI. *It is shown that the praetorian prefects sometimes even judged senators.*

Nor do the arguments of Scaliger and Moyne allow us to go over to the contrary opinion, inasmuch as they are easily refuted by the facts. For they say that the praetorian prefect, who at that time was chosen from the equestrian order, could in no way be present at the judgments of senators: yet Perennis, the praetorian prefect, was present when the investigation concerning Apollonius was held in the senate, and interrogated the most holy martyr of Christ before the tribunal concerning the faith of his religion: therefore, Apollonius is by no means to be erased from the list of senators. We indeed confess with the learned men Panciroli and Gothofredus that praetorian prefects, as men of the equestrian order, could not rightfully have any power over senators before Alexander; but because of the most corrupt morals of certain Emperors, who, ensnared by the allurements of vices, and unmindful of the empire as well as of decency, entrusted the administration of the republic to the praetorian prefects, the most observant witnesses of those times write that the matter happened otherwise: Tacitus, Lampridius, Dio, Herodianus, Spartianus, and others, from whose monuments we openly gather that the praetorian prefects not only judged the cases of senators before Alexander, but, what is greatest, existed as if they were the arbiters of the Roman empire. Perennis the praetorian prefect, whom Scaliger denies could have been present at the judgments of senators as a man of the equestrian order, took up the reins of the vast empire while Commodus was indulging in luxury, by the testimony of Lampridius, who graphically describes the matter so unbecoming to the Emperor in these words: Perennis ^{C D}

^A possessed foreknowledge of Commodus’s spirit, he discovered how he might be powerful; for he persuaded Commodus that he should occupy himself with pleasures, while he himself would attend to the cares of state, a course which Commodus gladly accepted. And a little later: “Yet at that time Perennis claimed everything for himself; whom he wished, he killed; he despoiled many; he subverted all laws.” Dio and Herodian agree with Lampridius, and from this we may argue how deep the roots of the power of Perennis had struck in the Roman Empire. But, lest there should remain any doubt for anyone that Perennis exercised capital judgments even upon senators themselves, let us transcribe here the most luminous testimony of Herodian, from which it is clear not only that Perennis held full jurisdiction over the chief senators, who, having formed a conspiracy, intended to remove Commodus from the way, but also, which is most of all to be wondered at, that he punished with the penalty of death Commodus’s own sister, who was privy to such a crime. “But when Perennis was diligently pursuing his investigations,” says Herodian, “the sister of Commodus herself, and all the conspirators, and others besides who were touched by any suspicion whatsoever, were put to death.” Spartianus in *Severus*, as Tillemont observed, testifies that men of senatorial rank were judged by the praetorian prefects. For Severus, “who requested and received the broad purple stripe from the divine Marcus,” and who presided over very many provinces, in Silicia, as if he had consulted either prophets or Chaldeans about the empire, was accused before the praetorian prefects, to whom he had been given to be heard, and, as Commodus was already falling into hatred, he was acquitted, while his accuser was sent to the cross. ^B Explicable, therefore, by these most clear examples, it is openly manifest that Perennis and the other praetorian prefects under Commodus possessed full power over the senators; wherefore Scaliger, and after him Moynius and Pagius, attempted in vain to brand Rufinus with the marks of ignorance and St. Jerome with those of credulity, since Apollonius could have been a senator of the city, even though Perennis, the prefect of the praetorian guard, was present at his judgment in the senate, which is impossible and thoroughly incongruous to learned men, as has been falsely seen.

VII. Prudentius praised Hippolytus of Portus in a most elegant poem, concerning whom, however, the learned hold various opinions.

Prudentius, who flourished under Theodosius the Younger, in his book *Περὶ Στεφάνων* (On the Crowns), Hymn 11, celebrated the martyr Hippolytus of Portus in his poems, whose cemetery in the Ager Veranus was held in the highest veneration in his age by Romans and foreigners alike. But of so many Hippolyti, whom we see inscribed in the sacred fasti of the Church, who that man may have been whom Prudentius praised in this excellent poem has been a subject of keen dispute until now by later writers of great name. For some, whose line is led by the greatest father of the *Ecclesiastical Annals*, Baronius, charge Prudentius with a fault, in that he confused three Hippolyti into one: namely, our bishop, the soldier who suffered under Valerian, and finally Hippolytus, the presbyter of Antioch, formerly a disciple of Novatus and later a glorious martyr of Christ under Decius. ^C Others, however, among whom are Theodoric Ruinart, Sebastian Tillemont, Remigius Ceillier, and others, hold a directly contrary opinion, and endeavor to vindicate Prudentius from this fault of confusion, saying that the only Hippolytus praised by him was a presbyter who, once snared in the nets of the Novatian sect, later repudiated their heresy and attained the glorious palm of martyrdom in the Roman harbor. Finally, Fronto Ducaeus held a middle opinion between them, in that he judged Hippolytus the Bishop of Portus to be the one praised by Prudentius in this poem, whom he reported as having been captured by the errors of Novatus and soon freed before the crown of martyrdom. But by what reasons the opinions of these great men are supported, we must first investigate, and at last what, after so many and such great men, is to be decided regarding this matter. ^D

VIII. Baronius teaches that three Hippolyti were confused into one by Prudentius.

Baronius, supported solely by the aid of the ancient Martyrologies, in which he observed the three Hippolyti enumerated above described, affixed the mark of confusion upon Prudentius^A. Ado, Usuardus, Notkerus, and Wandelbertus write that the priest at Antioch on the third of the Kalends of February, the soldier as a companion of St. Lawrence on the Ides of August, and the bishop of Portus on the tenth of the Kalends of September were crowned with martyrdom. To these plainly agree other most ancient tables of the Church published after the death of Baronius by Rosweydus, Dacherius, and Florentinus, in which on each of these days the martyr from Antioch on the third of the Kalends of February, the soldier as a companion of St. Lawrence on the Ides of August, and the bishop of Portus on the tenth of the Kalends of September are written to have been crowned with martyrdom. ^B Indeed, the old Roman Martyrology, desired by Cardinal Baronius, in which on the third of the Kalends of February is found: "At Antioch the passion of St. Hippolytus," and on the Ides of August: "At Rome, of the martyr Hippolytus with his family, and St. Concordia his nurse," and on the tenth of the Kalends of September on the same page: "At Rome, of Hippolytus, Quiriacus, and Archillaus."

The most ancient Martyrology attributed to St. Jerome, which he found in the codex of the monastery of Corbie, and on page 3, on the third of the Kalends of February, has: "At Antioch the passion of Saint Hippolytus martyr"; on the Ides of August: "At Rome the birthday of the holy martyr Hippolytus, Pontianus the bishop, Cornelius, Cassianus, Calestus with their companions." And on the tenth of the Kalends of September: "At Portus of the city of Rome, the birthday of St. Hippolytus, who is called Nunnus, with his companions." ^C The same author published in the same volume the Gellone Martyrology, or that of Saint William of the Desert, a very ancient one written around the year 804. In it, on page 27, we have on the third of the Kalends of February: "At Antioch of Hippolytus," and on the Ides of August, page 33: "At Rome of the martyr Hippolytus." But on the tenth of the Kalends of September, nothing is found concerning St. Hippolytus the bishop. And in the same volume is contained an ancient Calendar written likely in the year 826, which on the Ides of August shows: "Natalis of St. Hippolytus"; as can be seen on page 66.

Francis Maria Florentinus published with the praise of all learned men a more ancient Martyrology of the Western Church, enriched with most learned observations; in it, on the third of the Kalends of February, page 290 of the Lucca edition of 1668, we read: "At Antioch the passion of Saint Epolitus," and on page 750, on the Ides of August: "At Rome the birthday of the martyr St. Ypolitus, Pontianus the bishop, Lucianus, Cornelius, Cassianus, Calestus, with their companions." ^D And on page 770, on the tenth of the Kalends of September: "And at Portus (sic) of the city of Rome the birthday of St. Yppolytus, who is called Nunnus, with his companions." In very many other ecclesiastical tables the names of these Hippolyti are referred to. Mention of the Antiochene is also found in the Martyrology of the Queen of Sweden, and the Ottobonian, in which, according to Dominicus Georgius in his notes to the Martyrology of Ado for the thirtieth day of January, page 72, is added: "Martyris"; in the Richenoviense, where exists: "At Antioch of Yppolytus, and of others."

Augustanum and Labbeanum have: "At Antioch the passion of Ippolytus." Antuerpiense, third of the Kalends of February: "At Antioch the passion of Ippolytus." Martyrologium Epternacense: "At Antioch the passion of Ippolytus." Riccardianum ms.: "At Antioch the passion of Saint Hippolytus." Augustanum of Solerius: "Ant. Ypolyti." Antissiodorense of Martene: "At Antioch of Yppolytus." Morbacense: "At Antioch of Yppolytus"; in Edmund Martene, *Thesaurus novus anecdotorum*, volume III, published at Paris in the year 1717, page 1565, and the Corbeiense in the same Martene, same volume, page 1573: "At Antioch the passion of St. Ypolitus (sic) martyr"; and many other things, which it would be long to enumerate, and which can be read in Alexander Politi in his Commentaries on the Roman Martyrology for the 30th of January, page 497, edition of Florence 1751, where many things are discussed about the Hippolyti and about our bishop of Portus. Concerning St. Hippolytus the soldier, crowned with the palm of martyrdom on the 10th of August, he has mention...

in the Martyrologies published by Dacherius and Florentinus—although it is not on the tenth of the Kalends of September, but rather on the fourth of the Kalends of February that Florentinus himself conjectures it should be written—, even though in these same Martyrologies, the memory of the Hippolytus of Portus is clearly present on the tenth and twelfth of the Kalends of September. Nor are there lacking various Acts of the soldier Hippolytus, though they are filled with countless errors, which for that reason did not please the most eminent Baronius. ^B These are contained first in the Acts of St. Lawrence published by Surius, and others are found described separately from them; and finally, certain other very brief Acts of the soldier Hippolytus were inserted into the breviaries of later centuries. Copies of these Acts, which are quite old, are provided to us by the Vatican, Lateran, Ottobonian, and Vallicellian codices. But since these have flowed from the same source as the Acts of St. Lawrence, which the great men Baronius, Cardinal Henricus Norisius, and the Bollandist associates have rightly repudiated, no one can fail to see that no greater trust is to be placed in them than in the Acts of St. Lawrence. The deeds of Bishop Hippolytus are contained in the Acts of St. Aureas, which the Vallicellian and Lateran codices provide to us. Some principal Acts of Bishop Hippolytus also survive in the Vatican codex, which Baronius rightly showed were ^C collected in summary from the aforementioned Acts of St. Aureas.

IX. Various Hippolyti are discerned from ancient Martyrologies.

We see other Hippolyti, besides the aforementioned ones, described in the ancient records of the Church, which, through the outstanding diligence of learned men after the death of Baronius, were brought into public use for the study of sacred letters. Besides the Martyrologies we have described above, the old small Roman Martyrology on the tenth of the Kalends of September has: "At Rome, Hippolytus, Quiriacus, and Archelaus," whom Ado and Usuardus call: "In Portus Romanus." The Martyrology of the Queen of Sweden mentions this on the day before this date with these words: "At Portus Romanus, the birthday of St. Hippolytus." In the ^D Martyrology published by the same Florentinus on the fifth of the Kalends of February, we read on page 289: "In Tuscany, of Constantine, of Epolitus bishop, of the ancients." Here, states Florentinus himself, it is a question of Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, which Bollandus also admits in his (omitted items), although he thought his memory should rather be celebrated on the twelfth of August, in accordance with the Roman Martyrology.

In the Martyrology attributed to St. Jerome, published by d'Acherius himself in volume II of his *Spicilegium*, page 3, it is also read on the fifth of the Kalends of February: "In Tursia, of Constantius, of Hippolytus, of the ancients"; and also in the Gellone manuscript in the same d'Acherius, volume II, p. 27, on the fourth of the Kalends of February: "Of Paul, of Victor, of Hippolytus, of Honoratus, of Constantius." On this same day, the twenty-ninth of January, the Epternach Martyrology records: "In Tuscany, of Constantine, and elsewhere of Hippolytus, Bishop." The Corbie manuscript: "In Tursia, of Constantius, of Hippolytus, Bishop, of the ancients." The Martyrology of the Queen of Sweden: "And elsewhere, of Hippolytus, Bishop, of the ancients." The Gallican Martyrology of Martène: "In Tuscany, of Constantius, of Hippolytus, bishop." There are many other Martyrologies besides, to use the words of the quoted Politus on the thirtieth of January, page 504: "Which on that very day, the fourth of the Kalends of February, present nakedly the name of Hippolytus."

^A We see inscribed in the fasti of the Church, Prudentius, concerning whom we now treat, as whose deeds someone might easily suspect, with that greatest founder of the Annals, had been fused into one—if there were such a great power in monuments of this kind that all things contained in them had to be immediately approved by the undoubted suffrages of learned men. If these things were indeed settled, we would deem it a sin to deflect even the least bit from the opinion of Baronius, since Ado, Usuardus, and Notker clearly attribute to those three Hippolyti the things which Prudentius claimed only for his own Hippolytus. For the Christian poet writes that he was a presbyter once addicted to the Novatian schism, and afterwards the head of the Portuensian people, and that he died a martyr, torn apart by horses in the Roman port, and that his holy relics were translated into the city and buried by the faithful in the Veranian field.

All men see that the individual things of these accounts agree with the individual Hippolyti of the ancient Martyrologies. For all of them, with Notker, describe the presbyter who suffered at Antioch, who was a Novatian, in nearly these words: "At Antioch, the passion of Saint Hippolytus, who, having been for a little while deceived by the schism of Novatus, was corrected by the grace of Christ and returned to the charity of the Church, for which and in which he consummated an illustrious martyrdom." ^B St. Bede, with the Martyrologies just now reviewed and the Mozarabic Breviary, testifies to Hippolytus the soldier, torn apart by horses, in this manner: "At Rome, of Saint Hippolytus, who, in the time of Decius, being bound by the feet to the necks of wild horses, thus dragged through thorns and briars, gave up his spirit."

However, those ancient writers of ecclesiastical registers designate the Bishop only by the title of Bishop. Yet, in the Roman Martyrology, this eulogy of him, described from the Acts of Saint Aurea, is read: "In the Roman port, of Hippolytus the Bishop, most clear in learning, who under Emperor Alexander, on account of a renowned confession of faith, with hands and feet bound, was cast into a deep pit full of water and received the palm of martyrdom; whose body was buried by the Christians at the same place." ^C And so, from these arguments, ^D just as many and the same named martyrs are written in the most ancient Antuerpian, Corbeian, and our own martyrologies. Therefore, the lacuna in the latter must be corrected, and one must read: "At Rome in the cemetery of Hippolytus." The cemetery of Saint Hippolytus was in the Veranian field on the Via Tiburtina, the same as, or near, the cemetery of Saint Cyriaca, which the *Liber Pontificalis* in the Life of Hadrian I designates thus: "At the same time, he also renewed the cemetery of the Blessed Hippolytus near Saint Lawrence, which had withered away from ancient times; in like manner, he similarly restored the church of the Blessed martyr of Christ, Stephen, situated near the aforementioned cemetery of Saint Hippolytus."

^A With these arguments the great Baronius confirmed his opinion, by which he showed that Prudentius laboured under the fault of confusion in this matter, due to an old painting placed upon his tomb, to which he testifies he learned from the hands of men: Raising his face to heaven, there stood before it Contrasted in the colors of the paint, the image of the martyr. And after a few things intervened: The painting relates history: which, handed down in books, Shows the true faith of ancient time. It is evident, therefore, that Prudentius wrote the deeds of the martyrs whom he praised most accurately. For this reason, Ruinart confesses that he recognizes no other Hippolytus in this hymn of Prudentius than the most celebrated martyr of Portus, to whom he believes all these things, which are reported by the author, most excellently apply. Those who followed the opinion of Ruinart, as we have said, were Ceillier and Tillemont. But since it had by no means escaped the notice of that exceedingly learned man that Prudentius clearly attributed the office of bishop, in reality and in name, to his Hippolytus in these verses: Proceeding with the love of his own people, with many accompanying him, Consulted as to which sect might be better. ^B And a little later: As he was traversing these things, suddenly before the tribunal The elder is presented, bound in chains. Youths crowded around him, clamouring with a shout, That he was the head of the Christian people. If the head were quickly extinguished, all the hearts of the common folk Would of their own accord be consecrated to the Roman gods; in order to ward off the force of an argument of this nature—by which, once posited, his most powerful conjecture concerning Hippolytus the presbyter would utterly collapse—he took refuge in Sozomen, and claimed that by his testimony these things, which refer to Hippolytus the bishop, could also be consistent with a presbyter. For he writes in the first book of his Ecclesiastical History that a principal custom had obtained in the Alexandrian Church, such that under one bishop, who presides over all, the presbyters separately held churches and gathered the people accustomed to convene at them; which custom the most learned man believed it was not impossible had also flourished in the Church of Portus. And therefore he judged that our Hippolytus had had some part of the people committed to his care in that same Church, by the very same right, no doubt, by which in these our times parish priests [lead] the populace. Bearing the skin torn into minute points; Innumerable boys around—pitiable to see!— Were piercing his limbs with small styli: Whence they had written down the scholarly murmur, Running over the wax of the notebooks. The sacristan, being consulted, says: "What you behold, guest, Is not an empty or old woman's fable. The painting relates history," etc.

We see them presiding separately over their own; and [the Church] relies on the example of the Roman Church, which has maintained the very same custom and practice, such that individual presbyters are set over individual titles. With these arguments, indeed, the most learned man fortified this sort of conjecture, which he was the first to devise, and which has recently found distinguished defenders, namely John Baptist Solerius and John Pinius. The former of these thinks that the Hippolytus mentioned by Prudentius is the same one whom the ancient Martyrologies record as having suffered at Antioch, and whom the ancient catalogs of Roman pontiffs—the Bucherian and the Henschenian (46)—show to have been relegated to Sardinia with the supreme pontiff St. Pontianus. Dodwell (47) also surmised this before him. He believes, however, that Hippolytus, the bishop, suffered at Antioch according to the conjectures of Tillemont, whose arguments Solerius himself copied out, without mentioning his name (48). The other, however, namely Pinius (49), thinks that he has added the greatest weight to the opinion of Ruinart, having brought forward a specific conjecture by which he suspects that the Hippolytus of Prudentius was not buried in the Verano field, as learned men have hitherto believed, but on the Via Ostiensis. And he affirms that this can be deduced from the Bucherian Calendar and from the following poems of Prudentius: ^A

*The body of Hippolytus is committed to the covered places,* *Where the table dedicated to God is placed near.* *That table, the giver of the sacrament, and the same,* *The faithful guardian of its own martyr, placed nearby,* *Keeps the bones in the tomb for the hope of the eternal judge,* *The same feeds the dwellers of the Tiber with holy feasts.* *Wonderful is the piety of the place, etc.*

But whether these most learned men have judged rightly or wrongly concerning our Hippolytus, we shall discuss at greater length in its proper place.

§ XI. Fronto le Duc believed that Hippolytus, the bishop of Portus praised by Prudentius, had favored the Novatians before his martyrdom.

We have discovered that the opinion of Fronto le Duc, which we reviewed in the third place above, was completely unknown to so many and such great writers who have hitherto curiously and diligently disputed concerning the see of our Hippolytus. The distinguished man set forth this view quite concisely in two places, in those notes with which he illustrated the Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus. Nicephorus narrates in Book IV, chapter 31 (50), that our Hippolytus wrote certain things which are not free from reproach, by which, having subsequently attained martyrdom, he washed away every stain of ignorance. To these words of Nicephorus, Fronto appended this little note: "His (namely Hippolytus') passion was pursued by Prudentius ^A in a longer hymn. Finally, as Nicephorus teaches us in Book VI, chapter 5 (51), a decree was made in a council summoned at Rome by the order of the supreme pontiff St. Cornelius, that Novatian, together with those bishops and the rest who had subscribed to that insane madness, should be proscribed from the assembly of the faithful and the Church... But the lapsed brethren who were repenting were to be admitted kindly and treated humanely." Fronto referred these words of Nicephorus to Bishop Hippolytus, whom he believed, on the testimony of Prudentius, to have been stained by the Novatian error and subsequently to have repented. "Hippolytus, he says, the bishop and martyr of Portus, when he was being led away to punishment, as it is in Prudentius, ^B Replied: 'Flee, O miserable ones, the execrable Novatian schisms; restore yourselves to the catholic peoples. Let one faith flourish, which was founded in the ancient temple: Which Paul holds, and which the chair of Peter holds. It is a sorrow to have taught what I taught; I witness the venerable martyr, whom I thought was absent from the worship of God.'" "A notable example of retraction, or revocation." Thus far Fronto, whose arguments we shall discuss below.

XII. The opinion of Baronius is weighed.

The great disagreements among the highest men concerning the Hippolytus of Prudentius now provide us with no light harvest of doubts, by which the truth of the matter, which we strive to attain with all our strength, is shrouded in a dense veil of darkness. But, as our opinion holds, we have discovered that this matter, beset by such great difficulties, is not such that, with the matter sedulously weighed, we may not immediately see a very clear light shining upon us, albeit we are occupied with a most obscure question. For it is agreed that all of the learned men, whose opinions could cause us no little trouble in this matter, have only tasted of the subject with their lips; and we observe that nothing new has been devised by them—beyond those moments of reasoning which Ruinart was the first of all to devise in order to defend Prudentius as laboring under the fault of confusion—which would force us, albeit unwillingly, to remain forever in his opinion. Wherefore, if we shall demonstrate that the opinion of the same Ruinart collapses upon the very testimonies of the ancients upon which it relies, nothing will remain for us to prevent us from seeing most patently, from the poems of Prudentius himself, that the great Hippolytus, ^C bishop and martyr, is to be adjudicated to the Church of Portus. This is a fact which we have seen first occurred to the great author of the Annals more than one hundred and fifty years ago; but since the great man was overwhelmed by the immense weight of the ecclesiastical ^D Annals, his opinion on this question, with that which he could, of select entries

of arguments, he was unable to fortify, so that all avenues of doubt might be closed to those who, in the future, might have preferred to think quite differently from him about the same matter. For, we must frankly admit, Ruinart and Tillemont have rightly, in our judgment, demonstrated that the pure and sincere testimonies of the ancient Martyrologies—which, when the holy martyrs of Christ are discussed elsewhere, we do not deny to possess great authority—are not to be preferred in this matter to Prudentius, a most ancient and eloquent writer. Therefore, we believe that we must pursue an entirely different path, by which the clearest light of truth may be brought to bear, as far as we are able, upon this highly intricate question.

[XIII] Ruinart’s conjecture, and the foundations upon which it rests, are demonstrated.

Ruinart, therefore, as we hinted above, cast the foundations of his conjecture upon no other ancient monuments than the testimony of Sozomen alone. "These," he says (52) (namely, the poems of Prudentius reviewed above), "refer to Hippolytus the bishop; but what prevents a presbyter from having had some portion of the people committed to his care? Such are those today whom we call parish priests or curates. Sozomen reports," etc. We shall soon provide his words. "Dionysius Petavius," continues Ruinart, "teaches that this was the custom at Rome. See the notes of Valesius to this passage of Sozomen, and the preliminary Commentary of Dom J. Mabillon on the Roman Order, ch. 3." Yet, with the pardon of such a great man, many things, and indeed the most weighty ones, prevent us from embracing his opinion. Or rather, to express it better, the same Petavius and Valesius, whom the most distinguished man calls backers of his conjecture, compel us to think entirely differently from him. Sozomen relates (lib. 1, cap. 15) that Arius sent envoys to the bishops Paulinus of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, asking them to permit him (53), together with his own, to gather the people attached to them in the Church, holding the same rank from which they had shortly before been deposed. He soon adds: "For the ancient custom, which even now prevails at Alexandria, is that under one bishop, who presides over all, the presbyters should hold churches separately, and gather the people in them." Epiphanius (54) teaches the same while writing against the Arians, when he related that Arius, their progenitor, "had obtained one of the aforementioned churches, namely the Baucalean." For, as many Catholic churches as there are in Alexandria, they are subject to one archbishop, and each has its own presbyter assigned to it, who administers ecclesiastical duties to those who live around those churches, and the conventicles of villages or *laurae*, as they are commonly called by the Alexandrians. Furthermore, Epiphanius (55) enumerates these churches in turn: namely, the church of Dionysius, those of Theonas, Pierius, Serapion, Persea, Dizye, Mendidius, Annianus, Baucalis, and others whose names he omits.

[XIV] Ruinart’s arguments are refuted.

These ancient testimonies, therefore, gave the most illustrious Ruinart the opportunity to conjecture that the Portuense Church, in the manner of the Alexandrian, had various titles committed to the care of presbyters, one of which he believed our Hippolytus to have held, as is very manifest from his words just cited. But the most learned man is far deceived in his opinion; for Dionysius Petavius and Henricus Valesius, in the very notes which the illustrious man believed to make for his own case, teach that this custom, which Epiphanius and Sozomen report to have flourished at Alexandria, prevailed only in very great cities at that time. And, to begin with Petavius, he explained his opinion on this matter in these words (56): "You may conjecture that this was a singular custom at Alexandria at that time, or at least one used only in a few churches, from the fact that (Epiphanius) makes such express mention of a custom of this kind as being peculiar to the Alexandrian Church, namely, that there were many titles in the same city, to each of which was assigned its own presbyter, who would perform ecclesiastical functions there." And after a little he adds this: "I do not doubt that there were many titles within the city walls only in the major cities, since they could not be contained within the same precincts and meet there; and thus presbyters were imposed upon individual churches. But in smaller and less frequented towns there existed only one church, into which all flowed, such as were the cities of Cyprus. Whence, what was accepted at Alexandria, Epiphanius noted as foreign and unusual to his own people." With these also agree those things which he has a little later (57), when he discoursed on the antiquity of chorepiscopi. "And these," says he, "so accurate an observation by Epiphanius concerning the multiple churches of the Alexandrian Church demonstrates that the matter was neither used nor accepted elsewhere generally, nor in former times." Nor is it any wonder if Epiphanius noted this custom of the Alexandrian Church so accurately; for in the island of Cyprus, where he held the episcopate himself, sometimes even villages, as Sozomen reports (58), had their own consecrated bishops in his time. Nor does Valesius (59) dissent even in the least from Petavius. Rather, he believes this custom to have been so peculiar to the Alexandrian Church, that—num ips...

he admits, though perhaps wrongly—it might have been accepted in the Roman Church, the mother and head, at least in the times of Pope Innocent I. He says: "He teaches that it was a peculiar custom of the Alexandrian Church of that time that each of the churches or titles established in that city had its own assigned priest, as Epiphanius also teaches in the *Heresy of the Arians*, etc." Regarding this passage, Dionysius Petavius observes that the same custom was also in use at Rome, in which city the priests, distributed among various titles, each governed his own flock separately, etc. The very learned Valesius himself proceeds to show that Petavius wrongly deduced this distribution of priests among titles from the epistle of Saint Innocent to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio; since he argues that nothing else can be gathered from it than that the Roman priests, who communicated daily with the Supreme Pontiff, received the leaven, that is, the most holy eucharistic bread, from him on the Lord's Day, so that they would not appear separated from his communion on that day. However, he believed that Innocent's words do not at all indicate that they were fixed separately in charge of their own titles; a point which he felt could more certainly be gleaned from Saint Athanasius, who says that the Roman synod, by which he himself was received into communion and pronounced innocent, was convened in the church where the priest Biton, or Viton, held gatherings; and in his notes to the epistle of Saint Cornelius to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, whose fragments Eusebius preserved (60), he ^B showed that forty-six titles of priests committed to the care of Rome at that time, namely 165 years before Saint Innocent, had existed, and he cited the excellent testimony of Optatus of Milevis (61), by which it is clear that the aforementioned titles survived even into the age of Diocletian, and he excellently defended the views of the great Baronius (62) against the shamelessness of Blondel who was barking against him; the fraudulent laziness of which Blondel in this matter was wonderfully exposed by John Pearson (63). Therefore, this primary opinion of that learned man, which Petavius professed, has been embraced by the illustrious men, John Cardinal Bona (64) and Jean Mabillon, who published more emended versions in his *Preliminary Commentary to the Roman Order* (65) the names of the thirty titles that exist in the subscriptions of the Roman Council under Symmachus, corrected according to the faith of the most ancient Vallicellian codex; and the same has been argued regarding the division of titles in these early times at Rome by Ludovicus Thomassinus (66), Petrus Coustantius (67), and the most erudite Nicolaus Antonellus in his dissertation on the titles which Saint Evaristus distributed to the Roman priests (68). Indeed, all these views of great men crush the most impudent stubbornness of Rudolph Hospinian (69), who did not hesitate to place in jeopardy the most remote antiquity of the Roman titles by those dark patches which the great man Antonius Magliabechius (70) rightly ridicules. Concerning the Alexandrian titles truly, of which Saint Epiphanius makes mention, the man of immense erudition Christianus Lupus has ^C discoursed most learnedly in his proemial dissertation, *on the passage from the epistle of Pope Innocent to Decentius, chapter 5, which reads thus:* "As for the leaven, which we send out through the titles on the Lord's Day, you have wanted to consult us superfluously: since all our churches are established within the city; whose priests, because they cannot meet with us on that day on account of the flock committed to them, receive the leaven prepared by us through acolytes, so that they may not judge themselves separated from our communion, especially on that day." But to me, this passage seems rather to prove the contrary. For Innocent says that the priests attached themselves to him on the other days of the week, and met with him, and communicated; but on the Lord's Days they gathered the flock, and received the leaven from the bishop, so that they would not appear on that day separated from the communion of their bishop. Therefore, the Roman priests were not attached to their own titles in the age of Innocent, but were sent to govern them on the Lord's Day. Nor was it necessary that one and the same man be sent to the same church always, but the bishop chose whom he wished at his own discretion. Therefore, it could more correctly be proven from Athanasius in *Second Apology against the Arians*; where, dealing with the Roman synod, by which he had been received into communion and declared innocent, he says it was celebrated in the church in which the priest Biton gathered the flock: for thus I interpret those words: "Ἔνθα Βίτων ὁ πρεσβύτερος συνήγεν."

συνήγεν." This matter may be consulted in the introductory dissertation, if it pleases the reader.

Valesius, therefore, and Petavius, whom ^A Ruinart cites in his support, demonstrate that only the greatest cities, namely Rome and Alexandria, originally possessed distinct titles, which priests obtained separately from the bishop. For in these cities, because the bishop alone could not suffice on account of the excessive multitude of inhabitants, priests were called to share in the pastoral care, and churches were assigned to them specifically, so that the faithful might be more conveniently imbued with divine mysteries and refreshed by the sacred assembly. The smaller cities, however, which in those most difficult times of the Christian commonwealth did not possess such an abundance of the faithful, were ruled under the authority of the bishop alone, by priests and deacons acting as ministers. Hence it is that, as the most learned Thomassinus says, “[In the] common [practice], the bishop alone baptized, the bishop alone reconciled penitents, the bishop alone offered [the sacrifice], unless he substituted one of the priests in his place and ordered him to offer.” Therefore, even in the very largest cities there was only one church, one baptismal font... and hence also one altar at which the offering was made. If, therefore, in the most ancient discipline of the Church, such priests were not ^B assigned separately from the bishop to their own titles even in the major cities, who could ever agree with Ruinart, who believed that Hippolytus in the Portuese Church—which no sensible person would consider equal to the major ones—had a portion of the people entrusted to his care? But if even in his own age, in which the Christian commonwealth was flourishing greatly, Epiphanius and Theodoret noted such a custom of the Alexandrian Church as a thing then unusual, what are we to think of those ancient times of our Hippolytus, in which we know that, owing to the cruelty of tyrants, the affairs of our ancestors were quite straitened and afflicted? We admit, indeed, that the Roman Portus was splendid and highly noble among the Italian cities, and was endowed with no mean frequency of peoples who, from the most noble empire of the whole world, while the Roman empire still stood, flocked there from every side, and we believe that not a few Christians, having perhaps arrived there from even the most remote provinces, dwelt there. Yet, when compared with the Roman and Alexandrian ^C churches—which Theodoret calls the great city and populous—no sensible person will compare it, so as to affirm in Ruinart’s favor that many ecclesiastical titles, or parishes, existed there on their example. For it is most certain that other cities, which yielded in no way to Portus in ^D the extent of their circuit and the frequency of their population, nay rather far surpassed it, had no titles entrusted to the care of priests at that time. Thus Nicomedia, the most opulent city of the East, although in this age it had many priests, yet possessed only one church, namely, a parochial one, situated in a high place, which Lactantius narrates was utterly destroyed by the command of Diocletian. Nor do the most ancient and genuine Acts of the holy Martyrs and the statutes of the councils of that age, all of which the most learned Thomassinus collected when he discoursed most eruditely in the usual manner concerning parishes, dissent. We do not deny, however, that even in these first times there existed in one and the same city many churches, which our ancestors called martyria, or memories of martyrs, oratories, and cemeteries, the names of which, collected from every side, learned men have drawn forth from the deeper treasury of sacred erudition: Francis Maria Florentinus, John Cardinal Bona, John Ciampinius, Tillemont, and John Grancolas; yet churches of this kind are not to be compared with those former ones of which we have hitherto argued. For although priests were also established in them, yet they were not permitted in them to gather the people, nor to perform all those things which we know the titular priests of the Roman and Alexandrian Church were permitted to do in their own churches by the permission of the bishop. For that same man notes that they were clearly distinct from them...

^A in their own churches, [and] supported by the testimony of St. Innocent I, who attests in his letter to Decentius that the presbyters of the cemeteries were entirely distinct from the titular or city ones. The most learned Lupus (83) subscribes to Mabillon, testifying that such churches, even in larger cities, were moderated not by the help of presbyters, but by the care of the bishop alone. "There were many," he says, "churches even in other larger cities; this is not to be doubted. But in them, it seems, it was not the presbyters, but the bishop alone who formerly taught, either through various successive days, or certainly not unless he himself was present and ordered the presbyter [to do so]." He seems to have overseen all those churches immediately and alone. These things being posited, we trust that the conjecture of the most learned Ruinart has completely vanished; since it is established that only the greatest cities were divided into many titles committed to the care of presbyters, while learned men—Petavius, Thomassin, Lupus, and even Tillemont himself (84), who approved of Ruinart’s opinion—teach that smaller cities had only one titular church, as we might call it, in those early times, who would ever contend that our Hippolytus held some special title in the Portuensian Church, when only one title existed therein, as it was a minor city, [provided that] the primitive discipline of our ancestors warns us?

Sublatis, therefore, such great and numerous sources of doubt flowing from the mere conjecture of the most learned Ruinart, we deem that nothing remains for us, whereby we should not believe that that Portuensian Hippolytus, whom Prudentius praised in most elegant verse, was not a titular presbyter of that city, but a bishop. And indeed, the poems of the most pious poet, as Baronius already noted, graphically place before our eyes the episcopal dignity of Hippolytus:

When now the victor was being snatched by the mad enemy, With exulting soul, the victor went to death, With many accompanying him for love of his people, Consulting which sect might be better. ^B

And following that: While he was skipping about, suddenly before the tribunal The elder is offered, wrapped in bonds. The young men gathered around were shouting with a clamor That he himself was the head for the Christ-following peoples.

If we compare these words of Prudentius a little with that ancient discipline of our Fathers, there will be no place for doubting that we should discern the same great Hippolytus, the Portuensian bishop designated by Prudentius, with the most eminent founder of the Annals. For who in the first times of the Church gathered and taught the people? Who was commonly held as the head of the faithful of Christ? Who was for the most part marked by the most venerable names of "elder" and "priest" by the most ancient writers? Was it the bishop or the presbyter? That it was the bishop who performed such holy duties and was designated by these principal names by our ancestors in those early times, is attested by the ancient Fathers, whose decisions, gathered into one, often appear in the excellent ^C works of great men (85), by which they defended with highest praise the episcopal dignity—even at the very beginnings of the Lutheran impiety—against the insane insolence of the Presbyterians. For it would be a monster [of a thought] if we were to believe that Hippolytus the presbyter existed as the head of the Portuensian people; since the most ancient monuments of the Fathers and Councils teach with miraculous consensus that presbyters could neither offer, nor sacrifice, nor celebrate masses without a bishop; especially indeed St. Ignatius the martyr (86), who, inspired by the divine Spirit, warns the faithful everywhere not to do anything without the bishop, but to follow him as a father.

But perhaps someone will say that presbyters taught the people, gathered the people, and were sometimes designated by the names of "priest" and "elder" in that age. We admit that all these things were permitted even to presbyters, yet by the permission of the bishop, whom Christ the Lord constituted as the prince and moderator of the people committed to him. We admit that the names of "elder" and "priest" were sometimes attributed to them in that age, just as it is established (86*) that the name of "prelate" was not once bestowed upon the bishops themselves by the ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin. Nor do we deny that presbyters also taught the people publicly, but with the consent of the bishop; indeed, that even laymen, who are barred from this duty, sometimes performed it, the monuments of the ancients attest. However, it is known to those who are well versed in the history of Origen (87) that this did not lack reprimand. Therefore, at that time, presbyters performed such sacred duties always by the permission of the bishop, and indeed not all of them indiscriminately; for we note that from among them, only the principal ones were selected by the bishops, whom from the duty of teaching enjoined upon them, ^D

^A our ancestors called *didaskalous* or teachers. Since, therefore, delegated—if we may use that term—by right to these offices, which we have just described, were occupied by the presbyters in the first times of the Church, who would ever contend that Hippolytus the presbyter, whom Prudentius says taught the people, stood as the head of the Portuensian flock?

But someone will perhaps imagine that our Hippolytus was not addressed by Prudentius with the glorious title of "head of the people" with the intention of indicating that he was a titular or simple presbyter in the Portuensian Church, but rather that he wished to signify that, as one dwelling in a smaller city—which in the first times of the Church perhaps could be without a bishop—he administered the Portuensian Church in the place of a bishop, having been given the power to do so by the Roman pontiff. This could be supported by the excellent testimony of St. Epiphanius, who, writing against the Arians, warns that for the forefathers of our age, the presbyters, bishops were not given to all cities due to the scarcity of those primitive times, but presbyters were substituted in the place of bishops. In other cities, however, when conversely there was a lack of presbyters, a single bishop was appointed, who, with a deacon ministering, presided over the Christian flock. ^B To these could also be added those very well-known testimonies of St. Athanasius concerning the villages of the Mareotis, which, since they had no bishops, were ruled by the help of presbyters alone, over whom the Alexandrian bishop held authority.

Hence we are permitted to ask: if it were allowed, could our Hippolytus, by the same right by which those presbyters at that time governed their own churches, have presided over the Portuensian [church], or perhaps have administered that same Portuensian Church as a chorepiscopus, whom the ancient canons of the Church testify were accustomed to be appointed in small cities, and even in villages and towns? If these things are posited, then both Prudentius would be free from any mark of confusion, and the conjecture of the most learned Ruinart would remain sound and secure. However, there is no such strength in arguments of this kind that it cannot be easily shaken. For, setting aside those things which learned men—Petavius, Thomassinus, Christianus Lupus, Beveregius, and others—have argued sharply among themselves concerning the right of presbyters and chorepiscopi of this sort, let it suffice to have warned that it may not undeservedly be called into doubt whether those things which Prudentius sang concerning Hippolytus can rightly be attributed to the same chorepiscopi, and especially whether they should be said to have existed as the heads of the Christian flock in the language of the primitive Fathers, since the most ancient canons of the Church commanded them to be subject to the bishop of a neighboring city. Having repeated these things, we set them aside, and another most powerful reason is available to us by which an argument of this kind entirely vanishes in our case. The most ancient ecclesiastical polity of the suburbicarian province provides this to us, in which, as the most learned Dominicus Georgi ^C aptly warns, bishops were generally [appointed] by the Roman pontiffs, and were so thick, as it were, that they touched one another, but also in towns of almost no dignity, bishops were appointed... perhaps those will marvel at this to whom the ancient discipline of the Church regarding the appointment of bishops in each of the cities—which, in the peace of the Church... ^D

^A had been established by the Roman pontiffs even in the more humble towns—is of use, because they made use of their work and counsel in the councils that were often held in Rome for the purpose of stabilizing matters of faith and ecclesiastical discipline. Wherefore there remains no doubt that, even at this very remote age, almost all the cities of Latium and the suburbicarian Tuscany had their own bishops, since we read in the synodal record, first published by Johannes Pappus, that quite a few bishops were present at those very extreme straits of the primitive Church in the provincial synods that were held at Rome. For he mentions that under Telesphorus (97) a synod of twelve bishops was collected against Theodorus Coriarius; under Anicetus another of ten bishops; under Victor fourteen (98); under Cornelius eighteen (99), whose names Eusebius reads at the end of the epistle of Saint Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch (1). Saint Cyprian (2) and St. Pacian of Barcelona (3) testify that Cornelius was indeed consecrated at Rome through the intervention of very many bishops. These bishops could surely come to Rome from nowhere else than from the nearby cities of the suburbicarian province, especially in those times when the savage ^B tyranny of the barbarians was raging far and wide against the Christians. Finally, the antiquity of the Italian bishoprics is most clearly revealed by those numerous ordinations of bishops which we read to have been performed in the first centuries of the Church by the Roman pontiffs in the Book of Pontiffs (4), who, although, according to the most ancient custom of the Roman Church, they were not rarely assigned to nations and provinces, as Photius testifies concerning Caius (5), nevertheless that a great many of them were set over Italian sees is openly demonstrated by the infinite number of Italian bishops. It is therefore evident that presbyters were not in any way set over the cities of the suburbicarian province in the first times of the Church, since each one then had its own bishop; but to suspect that Portuensis among the rest, a most ancient and noble see, was deprived of a bishop in the age of Hippolytus and moderated only by the aid of presbyters or chorepiscopi would be the height of madness, since Gregory, bishop of Portuensis, signed the Council of Arles, which was held in the year of Christ 314, that is, a little after peace was returned to the Church (6).

XV. The conjecture of Tillemont regarding Hippolytus, presbyter of the Roman Church, is refuted.

By these arguments, indeed, one refutes the conjecture of Tillemont... ^C ...he counts the number of bishops who, coming together to the city of Rome, condemned the madness of Novatus, adding also their names and the Church which each governed. (Epist. 55 to Antonianus the brother). ^D In epistle 3 to Symphorianus, which exists in vol. I of the *Great Collection of Spanish Councils* edited by Cardinal Joseph Saenz de Aguirre, Joseph Catalani, Rome, year 1753, n. 50, page 327: "Cornelius, now bishop of Rome, having been made by sixteen bishops, had received the place of the vacant chair." ...two ordinations, fifteen bishops, eighteen presbyters, page 7, vol. I, edition of Rome, year 1718, by the work and study of Francesco Bianchini. Thus likewise in the *Life of St. Clement*: "He performed two ordinations during the month of December, ten presbyters, eleven deacons, ^D fifteen bishops for diverse places (page 8)." St. Anacletus ordained bishops for diverse places to the number of six (page 9). St. Evaristus five (page 10). St. Alexander also five (page same). St. Sixtus four (page 11). St. Hyginus seven (page 15). St. Anicetus nine (page same 13). St. Pius twelve (page 14). St. Soter eleven (page 15). St. Eleutherius fifteen (page same). St. Victor twelve (page 16). St. Zephyrinus eight (page 17). St. Callixtus also eight (page 18). St. Urban likewise eight (page 19). St. Anterus one (page 19). St. Pontianus six (page 20). St. Fabian eleven (page 21). St. Cornelius seven (page 22). St. Lucius finally (to pass over others, who, elected in the year 255, a few years after the death of our Hippolytus), ordained bishops for diverse places to the number of three (page 24). ...in the Council of Arles I, held in the cause of Caecilian and the Donatists, in the consulship of Volusianus and Annianus, signed among other bishops: "Gregory, bishop from the place which is in Portu Roma; Epictetus, bishop from Centumcellae; Leontius and Mercurius, presbyters from Ostia." See Lucentius in vol. I of the *Italia sacra* of Ferdinand Ughelli, pages 111 and 112, Venetian edition of the year 1717.

that he could not have presided over the Portuensian Church as chorepiscopus, is most manifestly proven. But if anyone would rather agree with Tillemont, Adrien Baillet, Claude Fleury, and Rémi Ceillier, who—although they agree plainly with Ruinart regarding Hippolytus the presbyter—nonetheless believed him to be a presbyter not of Portus, but of the Roman Church; that person should surely know that such a conjecture is far too distant from the genuine mind of that most pious poet. For Prudentius says that his Hippolytus had a flock in Roman Portus, and introduces him addressing it there in the above-praised verses:

*Flee, O miserable ones, the execrable schisms of Novatus; restore yourselves to the catholic peoples, etc.*

Wherefore, we judge it not worth the effort to linger longer in refuting a conjecture of this kind; for the words of Prudentius alone burn upon it the mark of falsehood sufficiently and more. For who will ever think that a presbyter of the Roman Church, with his entire flock entrusted to him, migrated at that time from the City to Portus? Who will dream that Hippolytus, a presbyter of the Roman Church, existed as the head of the Christian faithful at Rome under the Supreme Pontiff, the father and prince of all Christians? Nor is it of any use to object that Prudentius assigned such most holy names to his Hippolytus as if spoken by the mouths of Gentiles; for the pagans themselves knew well the hierarchical orders of the Christians, as is evident from that well-known rescript of the Emperor Aurelian, which Eusebius praises, and from the edicts of Maximin, Valerian, and Diocletian, by which they ordered that bishops, presbyters, and deacons be punished with the sword. And therefore, if Hippolytus had not truly existed as the head of the Portuensian flock, the pagans would certainly never have honored him with such a title. ^A

Finally, the very ancient custom of the Romans—of whose provinces criminals outside the boundaries of the cities were subjected to extreme punishment—can be of no benefit to Tillemont, so that one might argue from it that Hippolytus, a Roman presbyter as they say, was for this reason led outside the City and was crowned with martyrdom in Roman Portus. For, as the most learned Valois has excellently warned us, it must not be said that such a custom was always observed in the same way with regard to the holy martyrs of Christ, such that they were always savagely treated outside the boundaries of the City in the case of these holiest of heroes. Wherefore, Valesius rightly advises that consideration must be given to both the time when they suffered and the tortures to which they were subjected, so that the places of their passion may be safely distinguished. For those who, by the judgment of the praetors, were punished by the sword, or were crucified, or condemned to the fire, or finally were stoned to death, they truly did obtain the crown of martyrdom outside the walls of the City, just as (to be silent about the rest) St. Cyprian was beheaded in the field of Sextus outside the walls of Carthage ^B, and the martyrs of Lyons perished at Athanacus, and St. Polycarp was consumed by fire outside the boundaries of Smyrna. But those who were condemned to the beasts, or were torn apart by any other torture of this kind, these usually finished their martyrdom in the middle of cities with the whole populace watching in the amphitheaters, on the very birthdays of the Caesars. Finally, it is established that those who were set upon by the sudden fury of the mob and the magistrates were not rarely slaughtered within the cities themselves, just as the Nicomedian martyrs, whom Diocletian ordered to be burned in his presence, as Lactantius testifies. ^C Of these latter, indeed, was Hippolytus, whom the sudden fury of the governor and the mob [seized]… ^D

That Hippolytus was crowned with martyrdom at Portus Romanus, Prudentius testifies in most elegant verses:

When he had turned the people from the path on the left, He showed them to follow where the right path calls; And he, who was once the author of error, himself became A guide to the right way, having spurned its windings; He is set before the insane ruler, who was then vexing The worshippers of Christ through the people of the Tiber. For on that day, Rome had withdrawn, in order to shake The suburban peoples with pestilence: Not content to dye the ground with the constant slaughter Of the righteous within the high walls of Rome. When the Janiculum was already soaked, and the fora, the rostra, the Suburra, He beheld it flowing with a flood of blood; He had brought his rage to the shore of the Tyrrhenian coast, And to those places which the sea-faring Portus holds near.

Since, therefore, Prudentius says that his Hippolytus was not taken from the City, but was seized at Portus Romanus while he was addressing the people, no one fails to see that he had his people not in the City but at Portus, and that he bravely met his end there, or in its vicinity, in that horrific manner of martyrdom. For if Hippolytus had ever been a presbyter of the Roman Church, by what right could he have taught the people in the Portuan Church, which we believe to have had its own bishop at that time; since everyone knows that by the sanction of the ancient canons of the Church, foreign presbyters were forbidden to perform anything pertaining to the Church in a foreign parish? Finally, since St. Cyprian, St. Cornelius, and St. Pacianus of Barcelona—from whose writings we must extract the history of the Novatian schism—make no mention of a presbyter of the Roman Church named Hippolytus, no small suspicion arises that this primary opinion of learned men regarding Hippolytus suffers greatly from the error of falsehood. For if they say that their Hippolytus returned to the Church at the very beginning of the Novatians, that is, in the year of Christ 252, and if all who abjured the Novatian schism, especially in those times, are most accurately named by the aforementioned Fathers—namely the bishop who anointed Novatian, the presbyter Maximus, and the confessors Urbanus, Sidonius, Celerinus, and Macarius—then it would appear logically to follow that Hippolytus should have remembered those whom they say abandoned Novatian at the same time. But it is evident from the epistle of St. Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, ^A which learned men teach was written during the course of the year 251, that Hippolytus had not yet come to his senses by the end of that year; for in it the Supreme Pontiff explicitly testifies that the blessed martyr Moses, who had recently been adorned with an excellent and admirable martyrdom at Rome, had separated himself—together with five presbyters who were his accomplices in crime—from the society and communion of Novatian ^B. Moses was crowned with martyrdom toward the end of the year 251, and St. Cornelius issued the aforementioned epistle shortly after his passion. At about the same time, the same Supreme Pontiff informed St. Cyprian by letter about the presbyters and confessors who had returned to the Church; and at the end of this year, Cyprian congratulated Cornelius on such a happy event and praised the presbyter Maximus and his fellow confessors; yet he mentions Hippolytus nowhere. Meanwhile, after Decius perished in Abruzzia in Moesia, ^C peace was restored to the Church; and at the beginning of the following year, Cyprian wrote most kind letters to the same presbyter Maximus and his companions, in which he congratulated them on their recent return to the Church; later, in the month of February, he wrote another brilliant epistle to Antonianus, in which, describing the affairs of the Novatians most accurately, he indicates not obscurely that those five presbyters had remained in schism until that time; wherefore, if Hippolytus had been one of them, he would have to be described as still remaining in schism. With the passing of June, Gallus, while the plague was raging, incited a persecution against the Christians—which we know not why Dodwell and Pagi say was very brief, ^D since we know it lasted for almost an entire year. For it was stirred up at the end of June of this year during the reign of Stephen, and was extinguished after the death of Gallus, that is, in the month of May of the following year. This Hippolytus could indeed have been crowned with martyrdom in this year; but that we should believe this is openly discouraged by the epistle of Cyprian to Cornelius, since he was still among the living, and, having had foresight of his audacity and fury, separated from his communion the one presbyter, who had likewise broken away with him from the body of the Church.

Rome, ^A while he was living in exile at Centumcellae, congratulates Cornelius upon the restoration of those who had made a glorious confession, following their fall, and discourses thus concerning the perfidy of Novatian: "For he does not seek those whom he has already subdued, nor does he strive to overturn those whom he has already made his own. As an enemy and foe of the Church, he despises and passes by those whom he has alienated from the Church and led forth as captives and prisoners." From which words we think it sufficiently evident that the followers of Novatus were still serving in his camp; for there is no one who does not know that by the name of the lapsed, St. Cyprian did not at all designate those who had returned to the Church after the schism, but rather those who had offered incense. Now St. Cyprian wrote this in the month of August of that year; wherefore this Hippolytus would have had to suffer martyrdom at the same time that Cyprian was writing these things. But since St. Cornelius was sent into exile in the month of July, and news of this matter did not arrive so quickly to St. Cyprian, who was living in Africa—nay, since it is evident from the very context of the letter that St. Cornelius, while he was writing, had already endured the hardships of exile for many days—it must be rightly thought that this letter was written by St. Cyprian toward the end of August, ^B by whom perhaps St. Cornelius had been made aware of his exile a little earlier; for which reason the martyrdom of this Hippolytus would have to be placed within these straits of time, since Prudentius says he suffered on the Ides of August. But these things which St. Cyprian indicates not obscurely in the letter which he wrote in the month of December to St. Lucius the pontiff, the successor of St. Cornelius, render this narrative not a little suspect, namely, that the Novatians lived quietly and tranquilly, and were not, even then, while he was writing, exposed to the hardships of persecution. "For," he says, "the adversary of Christ does not pursue and attack, except the camps and soldiers of Christ; he despises and passes by the heretics, once they are prostrate and have made themselves his own." Consequently, Lambertus, and after him Pagius and Tillemont, from these and from those things which the holy doctor discoursed upon a little above concerning this persecution, note that it was decreed by the special providence of God against the Catholics alone, in order to confound the heretics. Hence, we can scarcely believe that Hippolytus himself, a presbyter of the Roman Church, as they say, who was addicted to the parts of Novatus, was extinguished by this persecution. ^C For Prudentius says that at one and the same moment he renounced the schism and underwent martyrdom. Therefore, at the very beginning of the persecution, it would have been necessary for Hippolytus to follow the dogmas of Novatian; but if that is true, Hippolytus certainly could not have returned to the Church at the very moment of his martyrdom, but would have to be said to have renounced Novatus's schism long before his martyrdom; for if Hippolytus had favored the Novatians while he was staying in the City, the pagans would never have condemned him, being such as had incited the persecution, as we have said, only against the Catholics; nay, that this very persecution was stirred up by the machinations of Novatian, so that he might take St. Cornelius, his rival, out of the way, has been suspected by Bencinus on no light grounds of reasoning from the *Liber Pontificalis*. This indeed seems to us not at all unlikely, since Novatian, as St. Pacianus clearly warns, never underwent martyrdom, although his followers have published certain *Acts* to the public which claim that Novatian died a martyr. These have been rightly rejected by St. Eulogius of Alexandria, who flourished in the sixth century of Christ. To these can be added the very clear testimony of a most ancient writer who, at this same time, sharply attacked the madness of the Novatians in that remarkable little work which Bellarmine included among the doubtful works of St. Cyprian, and which Pamelius, Gravius, and others did not hesitate to attribute to the same St. Cyprian; in which, while he lashes out at that wicked severity of the schismatics who denied communion to the fallen brethren, he accuses them of ^D evident madness...

^A in that those who had fallen shamefully in the Decian persecution, in their second contest under Gallus offered an extraordinary testimony of faith and virtue. "For it is not," he says (48), "a matter of doubt or uncertainty for any of us, most beloved brethren, that those who were wounded in the first battle—that is, the Decian persecution—have afterwards, that is, in the second struggle, persevered so bravely that, despising the edicts of secular princes, they held to this invincible truth: that they did not fear, following the example of the Good Shepherd, to surrender their own souls and shed their blood, nor did they refuse any cruelty of the raging tyrant." These most excellent words of our anonymous author indicate that only those had perished in this Gallic persecution who, driven by the fear of torments under Decius, had basely denied Christ and defiled themselves with the impious sacrifices of the pagans. But the most eloquent writer does not say a word about the Novatians returning to the Church; indeed, he very often introduces them as being still stubbornly fixed in their errors (49).

The weight of this writer’s authority is worthy of note, as those keenest of critics of ancient literature, Erasmus of Rotterdam and Andreas Rivetus (50), confess that they found nothing in him that could in the least diminish his antiquity; and thus Erasmus at one time suspected that St. Cornelius was the author of this little work, but later changed his opinion, asserting that it could even be attributed to St. Cyprian. Tillemont (51), however, believed it to be the work of some African, since it seems to him that this schismatic ^B must have considered this to be the case, because in these words: "Let those most perverse Novatians, or now those few most unhappy ones, answer these things (52)." Yet our opinion, which the words of the writer themselves seem to indicate, is that these things were not written in Africa, but in the heart of Rome. For it is certain that the author of the second persecution, which he praises, was present and knew well the martyrs who suffered in it. Therefore, we suspect and Tillemont (53) conjectured that this anonymous little work was written before the Valerian persecution, and shortly before the year 255. We also judge that the age and value of this little work can be easily determined from the things it most clearly discusses regarding the glorious martyrdom of St. Cornelius, while the author reproaches the Novatians: "They did not hesitate," he says, "following the example of the Good Shepherd, to surrender their own souls and shed their blood," for which reason Tillemont (54) correctly points him out as the designated pontiff. If John Pearson (55) had seriously considered these things, he would certainly not have passed so unfair a judgment on the glorious martyrdom of Cornelius; since St. Cyprian (56) calls him a blessed martyr, and says he shed his blood, and our anonymous author says the same, as does St. Jerome (58), and finally the most ancient book of the Sacraments (59) celebrates St. Cornelius everywhere as a martyr, we do not know why Pearson, ^C relying solely on the testimony of Bucherius (60), placed him in exile in the year 252, p. 30, § 13: "In the month of September, the pontiff Cornelius died at Centumcellae on the 14th day. The place where he died is indicated to us by the most ancient catalog, the author of which says of Cornelius: 'After these things, he accepted his repose in glory at Centumcellae.' Gallus had relegated the same Cornelius to Centumcellae, a very pleasant place, as Pliny attests... We agree therefore with the author of the most ancient catalog, who narrates that he accepted his repose at Centumcellae, and indeed in that same year."

(56) In the words of Cyprian in ep. 61, to Lucius, p. 272: "Whence the sudden persecution may have arisen there, whence the secular power may have suddenly burst forth against the Church of Christ and Cornelius the blessed martyr, and you all."

(58) In *Life of St. Paul the Hermit*, n. 2, p. 3, in vol. II of the works, edition of Vallarsius, Verona, year 1735: "Under Decius and Valerian, at which time Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian at Carthage paid the debt of martyrdom with their happy blood, a savage storm devastated many churches in Egypt and the Thebaid."

(59) The Leonine Sacramentary, in Lodovico Antonio Muratori, *Liturgia Romana vetus*, vol. I, p. 404, Venetian edition, year 1748: the 18th of the Kalends of October contains some orations in which St. Cornelius is always distinguished by the title of martyr, just as also in the Preface of the Mass, in these words, p. 405: "It is truly fitting, etc., and to preach Thy virtue in the holy martyrs Cornelius and also Cyprian, whom Thou didst crown on the same day, though in different times consistent, with the confession of Thy name, feeding the sacred flocks in different parts of the world with the divine bread, and crowning them with the confession of Thy name." Three other orations are present in the Gelasian Sacramentary in the same volume 1, p. 668, in which the title of martyr is also attributed to Cornelius.

(60) By Godefrid Henschenius and Daniel...

Papebrochius in the Acts of the Saints of the month of April, vol. I, p. 25, Venice edition of 1737: "Cornelius... after this was expelled to Centumcellae, where he received his rest with glory." ^A Pagius (61) immediately embraced Pearson's opinion, and subsequently Tillemont (62) and Pagius the Younger (63); Ceillier, however, believed that Saint Cornelius the martyr died solely on the testimony of Jerome (64). Wherefore, to return to our anonymous writer, it might truly seem strange that an African writer should have so accurately and exotically praised the martyrdom of Saint Cornelius and his companions, and the very persecution of Gallus, which, as Pagius (65) testifies, did not afflict the African faithful. Nor is it strange that a Roman writer should seem to make mention of the schismatic Felicissimus; for Saint Cyprian (66) had already exposed the frauds of that most wicked man through letters to Saint Cornelius and his clergy the previous year; and the same writer could even recognize him by sight, from the fact that in the month of June of this year, when the schismatic man had come to Rome surrounded by a band and a faction of desperate men, Saint Cornelius (67) drove him from the Church with full vigor. But since in previous years the most learned monk Prudentius Maranus (68), who described the Life of Saint Cyprian and prefixed it to his Works, recognized by the labors of Baluze, has most evidently shown that this persecution of Gallus also raged in the African Churches, ^B and the very learned Pamelius saw that these words of the anonymous writer, "and the sacrament of Baptism, which, provided for the salvation of the human race, he shows through his own mouth is to be celebrated by the Church alone in a heavenly manner (69)," savored of the African doctrine concerning Baptism, from which the Roman Church has always abhorred; the African is therefore to be called the author of this little work. But these things being dismissed, let our discourse turn again to our Hippolytus, whom we believe we have not obscurely proven, from the things which we have disputed up to this point, could not have suffered martyrdom in the persecution of Decius or of Gallus, as learned men have believed until now. Bailett and Ceillier say that he suffered under Decius on the Ides of August in the year of Christ 252; but Decius had already been destroyed in the month of November of the previous year, as we have said, ^C and had been such; and therefore nine months intervened between the death of Decius and the martyrdom of Hippolytus. Nor could this Hippolytus, whom they suspect to have been one of those five presbyters who joined themselves to Novatian, be crowned with martyrdom in the previous year while Decius was still alive; for the letter of Saint Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch clearly warns us that those presbyters still remained in schism in the month of November of that same year; and the most eloquent testimonies of Saint Cyprian and of a very ancient anonymous writer prevent us from believing that Hippolytus himself suffered under Gallus, from which it appears that the persecution was stirred up only against the Catholics; which Tillemont (70), having noticed, believed, as he says, that Hippolytus, a presbyter of the Roman Church, suffered in this very persecution, but that the schism had been abjured by him the previous year; which, however, by a twofold moment of reason, is shown to be false; first, because Prudentius says that Hippolytus abjured the schism and underwent martyrdom at one and the same time; second, because it is most clearly established from the letter of Saint Cornelius, which was written toward the end of that same year, that those five presbyters, who had conspired with Novatian in schism against him, had not yet recovered their senses. Wherefore, if Hippolytus was one of them, he must be said to have remained in schism for this whole year.

XVI. The opinion of Fronto Ducaeus is exploded. Rejecting therefore the conjectures of Ruinart and Tillemont, nothing remains for us that would prevent us from believing that the Hippolytus so famous in the poems of Prudentius was the prelate of the most ancient see of Portus. ^D That, indeed, after Baronius, Fronto Ducaeus (71) rightly conjectured in our judgment. Yet the opinion of the most illustrious man sins in this, that he considered that only one Hippolytus was praised by Prudentius, namely, the great bishop and martyr, and for that reason he supposed him to be tainted by the Novatian schism, even though all antiquity cries out against it. In this matter, Joannes Langus (72) of Erfurt, the first editor of the History of Nicephorus, led the way for Fronto, who, when he had added those notes to the soon-to-be-praised citations, and number 19: "But neither did that (persecution) rage in Africa."

^A The most learned Joseph Blanchinus edited these, but Philip Labbeus nevertheless taught that this Hippolytus was the same as ours, and warned that the words of Palladius and Cyril should be interpreted in a benign sense, namely, that the same men did not believe that Hippolytus lived in the age of the apostles, but maintained it was known to apostolic men. John Baptist Cotelerius approves this emendation of Labbeus, although he agrees entirely with him concerning a single Hippolytus, yet he accuses Cyril and Palladius of negligence as far as his age is concerned. Tillemont interprets the words of Palladius and Cyril in the sense that they denote the apostolic, that is, the Roman bishop. For Syncellus bestowed the name "apostle" upon Hippolytus, whom he had elsewhere called by the form of speech customary to the Greeks, the Roman bishop, namely, of the Roman province. We judge this conjecture of Tillemont to be preferred over the rest, if it could certainly be established to us that the Greeks sometimes applied the name "apostle" to Roman pontiffs in that sense in which writers of the middle and late Latinity bestowed upon them the title of "apostolic lord." ^B But since a man of immense erudition, Caspar Barthius, who discoursed most accurately on the custom of the "apostolic" title, by which Roman pontiffs were distinguished for the sake of dignity in middle and late times, mentions none of the Greeks who used this name in this sense, nor have John Caspar Suicerus or Carolus Du Cange brought forth anything new after his researches, ^C whose book Palladius cites in the *Lausiac History*, chap. 148, who wrote that a certain virgin, fortified by the sign of the cross, escaped unharmed from the brothel to which she had been forced.

Although a view of this kind might not be able to rely on weak arguments, since both the reasoning of the times and certain not obscure testimonies of the ancients seem to confirm it; yet if the matter is examined more attentively for a little while, we hope that it will be such that the reader will notice how quickly it collapses with no small weight of reasons. As far as the age of Hippolytus is concerned, the opinion of the ancients and the moderns is not one. Palladius and Cyril of Scythopolis say that a certain Hippolytus flourished in the times of the apostles, ^D and for this reason, Antonio Possevin and the very great man Leo Allatius, in the description of the Chisian codex, believed him to be different from ours.

^A Indeed, we can scarcely believe this, from the fact that questions regarding this matter first arose under Victor, nor do we know of anything written by Hippolytus concerning these same things before the age of the Emperor Alexander, since he began his Paschal Cycle in the second year of that emperor’s reign, which remains even now on his magnificent monument. Therefore, the age in which Hippolytus lived is correctly designated by Eusebius, who does not obscurely indicate that he flourished during the times of Alexander. But learned men also disagree among themselves as to who his teachers were. Photius declares Hippolytus to be a disciple of Irenaeus. Baronius, Possevin, Bull, and others say he was a hearer of Clement of Alexandria, but have no support from the ancients; wherefore we believe we must stand by the words of Photius. If, therefore, Hippolytus was a disciple of Irenaeus, he could have survived into the times of the Novatians. For Irenaeus, while still a boy in Smyrna, had Saint Polycarp as a teacher, whom we know was crowned with martyrdom in the year 169, or, as is more agreeable to more recent writers, 166. René Massuet believes Irenaeus was then thirteen years of age, Tillemont thirteen or fourteen, and Dodwell twenty or twenty-five, whose opinion however is deservedly refuted, as it ^B shows truly that he was a man; yet, mindful of why he was sent, he performs the dispensation for which he was sent; and he cries out: Father, not my will; and: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

^A Irenaeus obtained the palm of martyrdom in the year of Christ 203, and thus Hippolytus could have reached the times of the Novatians, since between the martyrdom of Polycarp and the Novatians, who first arose in the year of Christ 251, there were only 85 years, which do not exceed the common lifespan of two men. However, the disagreements of learned men concerning the martyrdom of Hippolytus hinder this conjecture not a little. The Acts of him mentioned above, whose words the Greeks have inserted into their Menologies, recount that he was drowned in the sea under Claudius. But these are to be relegated to pious fables; for there is no one who does not know that no persecution against the Christians was stirred up under the two Claudii; although the former expelled the Jews and Christians from the City, and under the latter, indeed, martyrs are said to have suffered. Baronius barely suspects that he suffered under Alexander; Tillemont and Ceillier judged that Hippolytus died a martyr under Decius, for the reason that, as Photius bears witness, that work which he wrote against heresies, having commenced from the Dositheans, extended to the Noetians, whose beginnings, according to the calculation of St. Epiphanius, must be referred to the year of Christ 245. ^B To these must be added that letter which Theodoret records that Hippolytus wrote to a certain queen, whose name, namely, Severina, is indicated by the most ancient list of his works carved onto his own marble monument. Learned men have hitherto believed that by this name Julia Mammaea, or Severa Otacilia, the wife of Philip the father, was designated. But in previous years, James Basnage, seized we know not by what frenzy, took her to be Zenobia, that most famous queen of the Palmyrenes.

^A for, in this epistle, he calls upon Hippolytus, having no testimony, or rather, acting against the faith of the most ancient list, which he himself declares he wishes to follow perpetually as the safest rule in distinguishing the genuine works of Hippolytus. Hippolytus, therefore, could have survived to the times of the Novatians. Yet that he favored the Novatians, Saint Cornelius would not obscurely indicate [(21)] in his epistle to Fabius of Antioch, in which he narrates that three bishops ordained Novatian, one of whom he writes had abjured the schism and returned to the Catholic communion, and someone might perhaps be able to have no light suspicion that this was our Hippolytus. But since Saint Cornelius says that those bishops were summoned by the machination of the Novatians from a small and most vile part of Italy and from the more lowly towns, and calls them men who were clearly rude and simple, there should therefore be no room for such a conjecture, since these things could in no way fit our Hippolytus. For Hippolytus held the episcopate in the most noble province of Italy and in a most famous city, and his outstanding writings attest that he flourished with such great praise for learning and wisdom that Theodoret [(22)] counted Hippolytus among the spiritual fountains from which the light of evangelical truth has flowed most abundantly. Finally, if Hippolytus had ever favored the Novatians and had afterwards repented, he would have been immediately cast down from the episcopal order and received only into lay communion, according to the most rigid discipline of that age, which Saint Cornelius places before our eyes [(23)], who in the same epistle testifies that the bishop who anointed Novatian, moved by the prayers of the people, was granted only lay communion, to which Saint Cyprian also agrees [(24)], who accepted presbyters who had lapsed and subsequently repented only into lay communion. Nevertheless, the most severe discipline of this age seemed perhaps to savor of too much rigour to the Nicene Fathers; for they strove to mitigate it somewhat by an issued canon [(25)], in which for bishops returning from the Novatian sect to the Church, an episcopal or chorepiscopal ^B office was left; wherefore the bishop, whom Saint Cornelius says returned to the unity of the Church, must be confirmed to be entirely different from our Hippolytus. Regarding him, however, as to who he was, there is not one opinion among the learned. Henry Valesius [(26)] conjectured that it was Trophimus. Tillemont [(27)] and Peter Coustant [(28)] do not subscribe to Valesius, because Trophimus was deposed from the episcopal rank for the crime of idolatry—not because he adhered to the Novatians—and was received only into lay communion. The Acts, which bear the title of Novatian’s confession, report [(29)] that Marcellus and Alexander, bishops of Aquileia, and Agamemnon, bishop of Tibur, lived with Novatian in one and the same room built by them, after he had ordained them. Tillemont, however, rightly holds the faith of these Acts in suspicion [(30)]: first, because it is repugnant to reason that two bishops should have existed in one and the same city; second, because Saint Cornelius says that those bishops were summoned from one and the same, and that a most obscure, part of Italy, which no one anywhere will understand of the Aquileian and Tiburtine bishops, who were separated by such an interval of lands and held the most famous sees of Italy. Concerning this matter, the most excellent man Joannes Bernardus de Rubeis [(31)] should also be consulted in his *Monuments of the Church of Aquileia*, in which he rightly deleted these fictitious bishops from the sacred diptychs of that most ancient Church. Nor can these words of Nicephorus [(32)], to which he himself added a second note, be of any use to the opinion of Fronto: "Certain writings of his (namely, Hippolytus), although they are not without reproach, the martyrdom afterwards completed for Christ’s name wiped away and cleansed the stain of his ignorance." For the errors which Photius notes in the writings of Hippolytus have nothing in common with the dreams of the Novatians, but entirely savor of the spirit of certain ancient Fathers, whom it is most well known to all the learned to have occasionally dictated similar things [(33)]. The same Photius writes that errors of this kind existed in the book *Against Heresies* [(34)], which, given to Noetus, is more frequently cited in the cited edition, page 241 and following. ^{C D}

447 ^A ...testifies that he was brought up only by the Christians. The frequently cited author Photius also notes that other things were less correctly expounded by Hippolytus himself in his interpretation of Daniel, and especially concerning the advent of the Antichrist, which the holy bishop maintained would come five hundred years after Christ and would exterminate very many kings; S. Irenaeus, Victorinus, Lactantius, and others among the most ancient Fathers, whom Anselm Tultius (55), the most accurate editor of the Works of S. Cyril of Jerusalem, praises, also stumbled upon this same pitfall. Since, therefore, Nicephorus derived the opinion he expresses about his writings from nowhere else, as we suspect, than from the *Bibliotheca* of Photius, we openly conclude that no reason is provided to us by Nicephorus for us to believe that Hippolytus ever approved of the tenets of the Novatians. Finally, if the times of Hippolytus and the Novatians are weighed carefully for a little while, in our judgment, no room for doubt will remain that we can safely defend this most holy Father of the Church from any suspicion of the Novatian heresy, along with Ceillier (36), who furthermore defends our Hippolytus from any suspicion of Novatianism, even by this strongest argument: that if he had ever adhered to the Novatians, the schismatics would surely not have kept silent about it; rather, they would have displayed such a great man as a patron of their sect to the Catholics.

XVII. Prudentius is shown to have conflated three Hippolyti into one.

Thus far we have seen that the principal opinions of great men, by which they have endeavored to assign the Hippolytus praised by Prudentius to the presbyterate of the Portuensian or Roman Church, and to strike him from the sacred album of the bishops of Porto, have, if our opinion does not deceive us, completely collapsed, since both the context of the times and the most holy discipline of our ancestors could show that this presbyter Hippolytus could not have had a place either in the Roman or in the Portuensian Church. ^B By the same token, we said that that peculiar conjecture of Joannes Langus and Fronto Ducaeus about Hippolytus, by which they say that the most eloquent and holy Father of the Church served in the camp of the Novatians, must be rejected; for besides the silence of all ancient writers about the Novatianism of Hippolytus, his own age cannot in any way be joined to the times of the Novatians. Nor did his doctrine have anything in common with the dreams of the schismatics. Wherefore, since Prudentius in his hymn praises Hippolytus the presbyter as a Novatian, and clearly attributes to him the roles of both bishop and presbyter at one and the same time, no one does not see that the great Baronius expressed a not inequitable opinion about him, when he noted that three Hippolyti were conflated by the same man into this one in the poem. For although ancient and modern writers with one voice commend the exquisite diligence of the most pious poet, nevertheless, since it is established that his other poems are also sprinkled with such flaws, it is worth concluding that he, while he sang the praises of his Hippolytus, suffered something human and labored under the same vice of confusion as in another of his hymns, in which he confuses S. Cyprian, that most celebrated and well-known Father of the Church (37), with Cyprian of Antioch, whom Ado, Usuardus, Notkerus, and others report to have been a magician, and whose confession of faith is generally read at the end of the Works of S. Cyprian (38), and whose Acts the most learned monk Edmundus Martene (39) published some years ago. The same Prudentius said that S. Sixtus, the Roman pontiff, was fixed to a cross (40), whom we know by the most lucid testimony of S. Cyprian (41) was executed by the sword. These things having been premised, therefore, it should be a wonder to no one that the greatest parent of ecclesiastical history... [to the next page]

mark of confusion, and that men of no obscure name, such as Laurentius de la Barre, Caspar Sagittarius, Joannes Bollandus, Stephanus le Moyne, Stephanus Cammulhardus, Christophorus Cellarius, and finally Jacobus Basnagius, should have followed his opinion on this matter; each of whom demonstrates with admirable consensus that the three Hippolyti were confused into one by Prudentius. And in truth, since the holy Church of God has recorded in her fasti three more celebrated Hippolyti from among the various ones she honors—namely the soldier, companion of St. Lawrence; the presbyter of Antioch; and our own bishop—and since it is agreed that these were granted extraordinary veneration among almost all peoples, it was not difficult for Prudentius, an outsider, to fuse these three Hippolyti into one based on the common narratives of the Romans.

That Hippolytus the soldier, companion of St. Lawrence, was most celebrated in the holy Church of God is easily gathered from the fact that not only did the most ancient writers and all the existing martyrologies remember him, but also his memory occurs most frequently in the most ancient liturgies, prayers, and other monuments of the Church of this martyr. Among the ancients who praised Hippolytus the soldier, the first to be considered are two most ancient anonymous authors, both of whom, having pursued the praises of St. Lawrence, were unwilling to release Hippolytus, first his guard and later his companion in martyrdom, unlauded. The older of these is to be considered the one whose sermon, in the earlier editions of works of St. Augustine, bore the name of that great Father, whom subsequently Bernardus Vindingius, an Augustinian theologian, judged not to be Augustine’s on account of the diversity of style. Following Vindingius’s judgment were the most learned monks of the Congregation of St. Maur, who edited the works of St. Augustine most accurately, while placing this sermon in the appendix to volume V. But more recently Joannes Pinius seems to have reproved their decision in these words: "Although it had not lacked wisdom to the palate of so many learned men, and had remained untouched for so many centuries, yet because it did not suit the taste of one sole critical censor, in the new edition of the works of that holy Father published by the Benedictine monks, it is now for the first time placed in the appendix of volume V." Whoever the author of this sermon may be, it is uncertain; it is certainly most ancient, and we derive from it most ancient testimony concerning Hippolytus, the companion of St. Lawrence. For in it, the anonymous author says that St. Lawrence was under the guard of Hippolytus, and that he miraculously converted Hippolytus to the faith of Christ, and he asserts that the Christian Lawrence in turn made Hippolytus, his guard, [a Christian]. ^B Another anonymous author teaches us similar things about Hippolytus, whose homily in praise of St. Lawrence, distinguished by the name of St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, was first published by Theophilus Raynaudus, who drew it from a manuscript codex of Nicolaus Faber. However, the most accurate anonymous editors, who published his works at Paris in the year 1684, judged this to be unworthy of St. Fulgentius, and placed it for the first time in the appendix along with the other 79 (homilies) described by Theophilus from the same codex, and their counsel on this matter was approved by Guilielmus Cave, Dupinius, Tillemontius, and Casimirus Oudinus. Although a homily of this kind cannot be attributed to Fulgentius, it can nevertheless not only be recognized as the fruit of an ancient writer by its style, which conveys no small antiquity; it is also apparent from the principal cited passages of holy Scripture, which were excerpted not from the vulgate of St. Jerome, but from some other old version of the Bibles, as will be clear to anyone from a diligent collation of them. But leaving these things aside, let us return to Hippolytus the soldier, of whom our anonymous author says this: "He himself (namely St. Lawrence) is also placed in the cooling... ^C pious, in sermon 316, concerning St. Lawrence, where these things are read: 'With what eulogy should I praise you, Lawrence? You, who, having been placed in the very battle of confession, while you still acted under the guard of Hippolytus, always showing the power of the Lord, made the cross of Christ over the eyes of the blind, you were illuminating the blind, and you were miraculously converting Hippolytus to the faith of Christ.'" ^D

'" ^A And again: "Those rules of the flaming gridiron were the pen of the martyr writing his testament, with which pens he threatened hell to the impious judge, and a crown was being written for Hippolytus, who followed." To these two anonymous accounts should be added Gregory of Tours, who, praising the martyrs who suffered in what he believed to be the Decian persecution, writes that Sixtus, bishop of the Roman Church, and Laurentius the archdeacon, and Hippolytus were brought to completion through martyrdom for their confession of the Lord’s name. Gregory was followed by writers of ecclesiastical history of the middle and lower ages, Ordericus Vitalis, the Saxon chronicler, the anonymous author of Reichersperg, the author of the Chronicle of St. Aegidius, and many others, whose testimonies we judge it superfluous to recount here.

Among the ancient books of the Sacraments that mention the soldier Hippolytus, there first appears the most ancient Gothic Missal edited by those great men, Joseph Cardinal Thomasius and Jean Mabillon, in which the feast of Hippolytus is marked on the Ides of August, and in the immolation of the mass this eulogy of him is held: "It is truly meet and just, O almighty eternal God, who, while the blessed Hippolytus was still occupied ^B with tyrannical services, suddenly made him the companion of Laurentius. Who, kindled with spiritual fervor, while before the power of the Lord he was truthfully confessing the only-begotten Son, he is subjected to punishments, bound in chains, fixed with hinges, and torn apart by the ferocity of horses; and having obtained the palm of martyrdom, he is crowned with eternal life with his recruiter and teacher Laurentius." Added to the Gothic Missal should be the most ancient Mozarabic liturgy, which, although it may not have its own proper mass for Hippolytus, nevertheless in the immolation of the mass of S. Laurentius, it is asserted that "Hippolytus had kept S. Laurentius in military custody, and soon, having put aside the ferocity of his spirit, having become milder to follow Christ, by order of the tyrant, he is first stretched out, torn with iron hooks, and then attached to the feet of wilder horses he is said to be dragged through out-of-the-way places." The same things concerning Hippolytus are held in the most ancient book of sacred prayers, which reaches the highest degree of the Mozarabic ^C rite, which the most learned man Joseph Blanchinus committed to the press. Likewise, an ancient Order of the mass, which Pamelius gave under the name of Ambrose, proclaims Hippolytus a "leader of soldiers, whom it declares to have been handed over to the custody of blessed Laurentius, not as a persecutor, but as a follower," and whom also the genuine canon of the Ambrosian mass recognizes as the companion of Laurentius, in which Hippolytus, by the testimony of Pierre le Brun, is commemorated there immediately after Laurentius. The ancient Prefaces also, throughout the cycle of the year, which Pamelius edited, celebrate Hippolytus and his companions, and the ancients testify that this one is by no means different from our own.

To Hippolytus we ask that he intercede for us... (in that place, Mabillon thinks a writer of old has omitted something), grant us all things prosperous through the Lord, etc. Collect for peace: "May your remedies, O Lord, give health, may the blessed martyr Hippolytus, we ask, praying for us, be heard in abundance. Through the Lord, etc." ^D

^A martyrologies attest, which recount that Hippolytus was the companion of Laurentius together with Concordia the nurse, who is well-known to have been invoked in the most ancient Anglican litanies (70), and that he suffered along with eighteen members of his household. In the most ancient Mozarabic Breviary (71), published by the order of the immortal man Cardinal John Ximenes, there is a long hymn in which Hippolytus is explicitly called the leader of a belligerent host, the guardian of S. Laurentius, and his companion in martyrdom. The extreme antiquity of this hymn is most clearly shown by a very ancient codex (72) of the most serene Queen of Sweden, copied nine hundred years ago, in which we find it described. Liturgies of subsequent times, by which it is clear that various Western Churches honored Hippolytus as a soldier, are noted by Cornelius Schulting (73) and Edmund Martene (74), and we have found another, not seen by them, in a Vatican manuscript codex (75), written, as it seems, in the era of Alexander III. Others also exist in the ancient missals of various nations, both published and in manuscript, many of which are preserved in the most renowned libraries of the City, namely the Vatican, the Barberini, and others.

That Hippolytus was invoked as the companion of Laurentius in the public prayers of the Church, which we call litanies, is testified to by those most ancient litanies which the most learned editor of them, John Mabillon (76), writes were in use in the age of Charlemagne; for in them it is read: "S. Laurentius, S. Apollie." In the same way, Hippolytus is seen joined to S. Laurentius in other very ancient litanies, which Stephen Baluze (77) published from the prayer book of Charles the Bald, King of the Franks. Consonant with these also are the ancient litanies of Paris, Bobbio, Fleury, and Toulouse, edited by the illustrious men John Mabillon (78), Ludovico Muratori (79), Edmund Martene (80), and John Morin (81), in the latter of which ^B our Hippolytus is invoked in these words: "S. Hippolyte, soldier and martyr of Christ, with your companions, pray for us." To these must be added other ancient litanies of certain key churches, namely the Bolognese, redolent of the antiquity of four hundred years, which Benedict XIV, the Supreme Pontiff, published in the appendix to the second part of the fourth book of his most absolute work *On the Beatification of the Servants of God and the Canonization of the Blessed* (82). Following these are the Lycian (83), Salzburg (84), Olomouc (85), Augsburg (86), Bamberg (87), Speyer (88), Besançon (89), Lausanne, Geneva, Mainz (90), and not a few others, from which it is clear that Hippolytus, as the companion and soldier of Laurentius, was invoked everywhere among the nations in ancient times.

Monuments of ecclesiastical antiquity which survive also demonstrate that our ancestors honored Hippolytus as the companion of Laurentius. For in the most ancient paintings, executed in mosaics in the sixth century of Christ, which exist in Rome in the basilica of S. Laurentius in Agro Verano, and at Ravenna in the church of S. Apollinaris Nuovo, Hippolytus is seen depicted with Laurentius (91). However, far excelling such paintings in both antiquity and value are certain glasses of the ancient Christians, adorned with various images of saints depicted in gold, the fragments of which, having survived the ages, engraved with the effigy and name of Hippolytus, signify that his great veneration among our ancestors had already spread in those ancient times. The first of these, discovered in the cemetery of Priscilla in the previous century, was published by Aringhi (92), and it exhibits the holy martyrs of Christ Peter, Paul, Sixtus, Laurentius, Cyprian, and EPOLY- ^C TUS painted in a circle. Another, found in the cemetery of Callixtus, was published by Boldetti (93), and is in verses of a litany composed in elegiac meter from a very old pontifical codex, or Roman rite, of the Wertin monastery in the diocese of Münster, in which: "May Hippolytus, Vitus, Laurentius, and Modestus, and pious Chrysogonus, aid us by showing mercy."

^A from whose foundation the illustrious martyrs Vincentius, Agnes, and [Hippolytus] are seen depicted in paint. A third [fragment], taken from the museum of Victor, was most kindly communicated to us by the most learned knight Franciscus Victorius, who has earned high merit in literary matters; in this fragment of a cup, Hippolytus, Timotheus, and the most blessed prince of the apostles are seen embossed in gold. That a church was dedicated in Rome to this Hippolytus in the Ager Veranus, near the basilica of St. Laurentius, is attested by the anonymous author of the *Description of the Regions of the City*, published by Mabillon, who, along the Via Tiburtina as far as St. Vitus, lists the church of St. Hippolytus on the left and the church of St. Laurentius on the right. William of Malmesbury, who testifies that it still survived in his own time, notes this in the most glowing terms: "And not far from there (namely from the basilica of St. Laurentius) is the basilica of St. Hippolytus, where he himself rests with his family, that is to say, eighteen, and there rest the blessed Tryphonia, wife of Decius, and her daughter Cyrilla, and her nurse Concordia." ^B From this basilica, St. Gregory the Great took oil of St. Hippolytus and sent it to Queen Theodelinda, as is evident from the *Index of the Oils of the Holy Martyrs* who rested in Rome, which Mabillon first published, and which the very learned Ludovico Antonio Muratori later reprinted, illustrated by an excellent disquisition, in which the oils of St. Sixtus, St. Laurentius, and St. Hippolytus are clearly recorded.

The vestiges of this church, already collapsed due to great age, are told by Joannes Severanus to have survived in his own time in the gardens of the monastery of St. Laurentius. Nicolaus Signorilis, scribe of the S.P.Q.R., mentions another church of St. Hippolytus in the City in his manuscript book *On the Antiquity and Wonders of the City*, which he dedicated to the supreme pontiff Martin V; and Octavius Pancirollus and Floravantes Martinellus testify that it was situated in the region of Trivium, and the latter also affirms that there existed in Rome, at the roots of the Quirinal, another small chapel dedicated to God under the name of Hippolytus. ^C But it is known to no one that not only Rome, the mistress of nations, had churches dedicated to God adorned with the name of Hippolytus, but that almost the whole of Italy, Gaul, and Germany uniquely honored his memory by constructing temples. The *Chronicon Farfense* mentions the monastery of St. Hippolytus in the territory of Fermo; Ambrosius Camaldulensis praised the Faventine monastery of St. Hippolytus, formerly Cistercian, now Camaldolese, regarding which one should consult Ferdinando Ughelli. Mention is made of the church of St. Hippolytus in the diocese of Veroli in a diploma of Alexander III for the monastery of Casamari, cited by Gaspar Jongelinus and Filippo Rondinini. Joannes Mabillon and ^D Christophorus Gewoldus, Petrus Lamius, and others record the churches in Gaul and Germany dedicated to God under the name of Hippolytus, and the monasteries named after him.

The most learned men, Mabillon ^A and Michel Félibien, teach that the body of Hippolytus was first translated from Rome to Alsace by Abbot Fulrad under Pippin, and from there to the Parisian monastery of St. Denis under Louis the Pious. Henricus Meibomius published the Acts of these translations; trusting in these, the authors of the Colbertine and Parisian Breviaries, in the lessons for St. Hippolytus, whom the holy Church venerates on the Ides of August, recorded that his body now rests in the aforementioned monastery of St. Denis—although other authors of more recent Gallican Church Breviaries strangely disagree among themselves regarding this Hippolytus, and the most learned monks themselves do not dare to openly affirm it. But since the most ancient Indiculus of sacred oils testifies that the body of Hippolytus existed in Rome in the age of Gregory the Great, and in the time of William of Malmesbury, namely five hundred years after Fulrad, it still rested in Rome in his own church, and was found in the early sixteenth century in the Verana basilica of St. Lawrence, as Aringhius testifies, we judge that this Hippolytus, whose body we know was translated to Alsace by Fulrad at the end of the eighth century, was entirely different from the Hippolytus who was the companion of the soldier Lawrence. Nor ^B do those most ancient Acts of the translation, which we have praised up to this point, disagree; for in the same there is no mention of Hippolytus the companion of Lawrence, but only the relics of the martyrs Vitus, Hippolytus, and Alexander are mentioned, which Fulrad brought from the City to Gaul. To these must be added the diploma, or decree, of Charles the Bald, found in Mabillon, for the confirmation of the partition of the monks of St. Denis, issued in the year of Christ 862, in which he recites the SS. bodies that were resting in the aforementioned monastery. In celebrations of the saints, he says, whose bodies are buried in this place, that is, of Dionysius, St. Hippolytus, St. Innocent and St. Cacuphas, etc. This is finally confirmed by Abbot Fulrad himself, who brought the sacred remains of Hippolytus from the City to Gaul: for in his Testament, which Mabillon published, while mentioning this Hippolytus, whose cell, in which he had buried his body, he left to the St. Denis monastery, he has his name alone. "Similarly," he says, "and another cell, which is called Audaldo-Villare, where St. Hippolytus reposes." It is clear, therefore, from such monuments that the bodies of these martyrs were indeed exhumed from the most celebrated cemeteries of the City, but that the relics of this Hippolytus had nothing in common with Hippolytus the companion of Lawrence. We believe that this can very easily be persuaded to anyone, for the most principal reason that the Parisian monks could never prove the identity of their Hippolytus, as the schools say, clearly and distinctly; since it is certain that other Hippolytuses, besides the soldier and the one brought by Fulrad into Gaul, rested in the same sand-pits of the holy City. His Acts, which Baronius published from a most ancient codex, state that the martyr Hippolytus, a Roman citizen, was buried with his companions on the Appian Way. Pope Zacharias bestowed the remains of a certain St. Hippolytus upon Adalbert and Ogarius, or Ottacarus, sprung from the royal blood of the Bavarian princes, which those most pious princes buried most honorably in a most noble monastery built in that part of Austria which was called Noricum Ripense, as Petrus Lambecius and Jo. Mabillon ^C recount most accurately. ^D

Also, Jo. Bollandus attests that a martyr was translated in the year 1650 from the city of Cambrai; and ancient monuments found in Rome with their ashes supply us with the names of other Hippolyti, which we have deemed worth the effort to present once again to the eyes of our readers, as published by Aringhius, Boldetti, and Vignoli:

REFRIGERI. TIBI DOMNUS IPOLITUS SID. YPOLITUS ANIMA DULCIS IN PACE D. M. YPOLITUS Q. V. ANN. XIII. M. VIII. D. P. V. KAL. SEC.

Aringhius has also published the epitaph of a Christian woman named Hippolyte:

HIPPOLYTE. HIC. POSITA. EST. Q. V. A. LII. ET DIES V.

Furthermore, the learned Octavianus Gentilius, a patrician of Septempeda, most kindly communicated to us an ancient inscription of SS. Hippolytus and Justin, together with their sacred remains, found in the church of the once not-ignoble monastery of St. Lawrence de Doliolo at Septempeda in Picenum. He had it most diligently copied from a leaden autograph, and we present it here to the eyes of our readers:

HIC REQ VIESC VNT CO RPORA S CURVM I POLYTI E T IVSTIN I.

From these many and significant testimonies of ancient writers and monuments of the most remote antiquity, we trust that we have clearly and distinctly proven that the soldier Hippolytus existed as a companion of Lawrence, and that his sacred relics are preserved in the City. Yet a few small matters remain to be discussed so that we may root out all reasons for doubt, lest some peevish critic arise who, ignoring the many arguments with which we have almost burdened the reader, might cast at us the silence of certain ancient Fathers concerning Hippolytus ^A as a grave objection. We admit, indeed, that the most famous Fathers of the Church—namely, Ambrose, Augustine, Prudentius, Peter Chrysologus, Leo, and Maximus of Turin—who adorned the martyr Lawrence with distinguished encomia and graphically described his glorious struggle, make no mention of the soldier Hippolytus, his companion. Nevertheless, since such silence possesses only the weight of a merely negative argument, no sensible person will deem it preferable to those venerable monuments of sacred antiquity which we have reviewed thus far. And surely, if so much authority resided in this argument that, setting aside so many excellent testimonies of the ancients, Hippolytus, the companion of Lawrence, ought to be erased from the sacred register of martyrs on its strength alone, then we should truly have to bring St. Lawrence, his teacher, into almost the same peril. For St. Cyprian, who, as everyone knows, described the martyrdom of the most blessed pontiff Xistus, writes that he was put to death in the cemetery with only Quartus, and he names neither Lawrence, nor Hippolytus, nor the other martyrs whom we know followed the most holy pontiff in the struggle of martyrdom. Truly, in such a crowd of critics as our age and the previous one have produced, we find no one who has dared to cast doubt upon this most renowned martyr of Christ because of this very flimsy type of argument, except for Jo. Tellum, who, seized by a certain blind frenzy, has not feared to call into doubt the things narrated about the martyrdom of St. Lawrence and Hippolytus, as if they lacked an author more worthy of trust than the common Martyrologies. We suspect that Henry Dodwell was inflamed with the same madness as Tellum; for while he enumerates the martyrs who suffered under Valerian, he names Xistus but keeps silent altogether about Lawrence. But no one will deny that Tellum has merely trifled. For who would assume that the deeds of a most celebrated martyr rest solely on the testimony of Ado and other martyrologists? Will not those excellent testimonies of the Fathers, which we praised above, vindicate the illustrious hero of Christ from the insane inventions of Tellum? And as for those most ancient Martyrologies of all nations, which preceded Ado by a long interval of centuries, does not the Oxford critic ^D of the precipitate…

point of view, in declaring that they stand in need of correction, confirm himself as a defendant of judgment in this matter? That same opinion regarding these was held by the great Noris, which was afterward kindly received by Pagi, Tillemont, and recently by the Bollandist associates. From these points, therefore, which we have discussed thus far on behalf of St. Lawrence against Tellum, we judge it to be sufficiently established that Hippolytus, the soldier and his disciple, had no reason to fear those hollow censures of pseudo-critics, which rely merely on the argument of denial; especially when the aforementioned monuments of Christian antiquity, and indeed the consensus of the Christian world, pronounce him entirely absolved of such ambiguities. For we gather openly from the sacred fasts and liturgies of those nations—Greeks, Africans, all the Churches of the West, and even the Northern Danes—that Hippolytus was venerated as a companion of St. Lawrence. ^B Now let our discourse turn to Hippolytus the presbyter, whose deeds, mixed in with the affairs of Hippolytus the soldier and Hippolytus the bishop, Prudentius sang, and which Baronius proved in the second place. That the memory of this Hippolytus was most celebrated in the Church of Antioch, the most ancient Martyrologies bearing the name of Jerome attest, as we have said; the admirable antiquity of these is sufficiently demonstrated by so many very old copies, which the most learned men Francesco Maria Fiorentini, Luitprand, and others enumerate individually.

Dacherius (54), Edmundus Martène (55), and Agister, whose glosses Weitzius edited (58). Secondly, the most accurate of all, Jo. Bapt. Solerius (56), in the preface to the new edition of the Usuardine Martyrology, and others. That this Hippolytus was a presbyter of the Church of Antioch and was stained by the Novatian heresy, and that, having subsequently abjured it, he completed a glorious martyrdom for Christ, is taught by Notker, Ado, and Usuard, whose testimonies we have cited above. As for the conjectures of Tillemont and Solerius, by which they wished to transfer this Hippolytus, as they say, from a presbyter of the Church of Antioch to Rome, we trust that we have already refuted them above in number 15.

XVIII. The conjecture of Joannes Pinius regarding the tomb of Hippolytus is refuted.

^A That Hippolytus existed as a bishop and martyr, there is no one who does not know, and that he was praised by Prudentius, we think is sufficiently established from the things we have said thus far. Therefore, that the most excellent poet, while he sang of his deeds, suffered something human, was taught by Baronius, whose opinion we noted above that many and such great men have approved. Nor will the very recent conjecture of Jo. Pinius (57) ever impel us to go to the contrary view, for after he defended Hippolytus the soldier, companion of Lawrence, in an outstanding way, he also took up the patronage of Prudentius, and asserted that he was entirely immune from any fault of confusion. For he himself, recognizing two Hippolytuses, says that the soldier, companion of Lawrence, was buried in the Veranian field; ^B but the presbyter praised by Prudentius [was buried] toward the Tiberine tract of the city, or on the Ostian Way. "The place of burial of our Saint Hippolytus," he says, "therefore appears to be far different from the place of the crypt into which the namesake martyr is said to have been translated according to Prudentius, of which place, although we do not read its site designated by him, we suspect from these words of the same poet that it existed somewhere toward the Tiberine tract of the city:"

*By such things the body of Hippolytus is consigned to those coverings,* *Where the altar dedicated to God is placed nearby.* *That table, giver of the sacrament, and the same,* *Placed as a faithful guardian of its martyr,* *Preserves the bones in the sepulcher for the hope of the eternal judge,* *And the same feeds the dwellers by the Tiber with holy feasts.*

But the most learned man is greatly mistaken in his opinion. First, indeed, that word "Tibricolas" [dwellers by the Tiber], on which the whole strength of his conjecture depends, designates the inhabitants of the whole city, not those of the Tiberine region, as the most ancient interpreter of Prudentius, Iso, rightly taught us. ^C And indeed, the poems of Prudentius recently brought forth describe the interior little shrine of the cemetery and the altar built over the body of Hippolytus, but by no means the site of that cemetery, which it is certain that Prudentius designated in the following poems:

*Not far from the extreme end, cultivated by the rampart of the pomœrium,* *The crypt lies open with darksome pits.*

And with a few words interposed:

*Although uncertain recesses weave hither and thither* *In narrow paths under shady porticoes;* *Yet, excavated under the hollow bowels of the mountain,* *Light penetrates through the frequent arched ceiling.* *Thus it is given to enjoy the splendor of the absent sun* *Through the underground [passages] and with the eyes.*

That the Veranian cemetery of Blessed Hippolytus was described by Prudentius with these poems was taught first of all by Georg. Fabricius (59), when he says: "He understands the Veranian crypt on the Tiburtine Way, which he describes." Fabricius was followed by most learned men, and those most skilled in the sacred antiquities of the City, Baronius (60), Bosius (61), Severanus (62), Aringhius (63), and Boldetti (64), who recite these same poems of Prudentius while they describe the Veranian cemetery of Blessed Hippolytus. And surely, since Prudentius affirms that that place is not far from the pomœria of the city and is situated on a mountain, all these things agree primarily with the Veranian field: for the Veranian field is indeed situated not far from the pomœria of the city and on a mountain, as everyone knows. ^D But it is by no means contiguous to the Ostian Way, which rather inclines toward the plain, which Galla Placidia once adorned with the tomb of Blessed Lawrence. Wherefore, in a very ancient epigram instituted by her, these things are read in Gruter (65), who first published it from an ancient codex of the Palatine library:

*The erased plain lay open, cut away under the mountain,* *And the ruin is threatening with a heavy mass.*

Finally, Prudentius describes in the same hymn a certain magnificent temple near the cemetery of Hippolytus with these poems:

*But it stands next to another [temple], which at that time, with such great frequency,* *Approaches with kingly worship;* *Lofty with sublime and proud walls,* *Powerful in majesty and opulent in gifts.* *A double row of columns holds up the ceiling of the roof,* *Placed under gilded beams, etc.*

We truly think that with these poems Prudentius praised the Veranian basilica of Saint Lawrence, and not the church of Hippolytus himself, just as Henricus Valesius (66), a man who deserved very well of sacred letters, believed. For he [did] not [believe it to be] next to, but above that cemetery of his.

^A It is buried in his cemetery, and we know that it was in no way polluted by such magnificence. Furthermore, we know that the basilica of St. Lawrence, most splendidly erected by Constantine the Great, was located next to the cemetery of St. Hippolytus, and was supported by a double row of columns, so that the poems of Prudentius brought up just now apply to it perfectly. Joannes Ciampinus (67) has wonderfully illustrated the ancient ground plan of the Laurentian basilica, which the reader may consult if he likes. Finally, there is the most brilliant testimony of Anastasius the Librarian, praised by Aringhius (68), who, in recounting that the cemetery of Hippolytus was restored by Pope Adrian I, has this to say: "At the same time, he renovated from the foundations the cemetery of the blessed martyr Hippolytus, next to St. Lawrence, which had withered away from ancient times." In the same way, he likewise restored the church of the blessed martyr of Christ, Stephen, located next to the aforementioned cemetery of St. Hippolytus. It is therefore evident that the cemetery of St. Hippolytus described by Prudentius was located not on the Via Ostiensis, as Pinius wanted, but on the Via Tiburtina, and next to the basilica of St. Lawrence in the Ager Veranus. For this reason, we think that his own conjecture concerning the different tomb of the soldier Hippolytus and of the presbyter Hippolytus—as he himself says—by means of which he attempted to erase the note of confusion branded upon Prudentius, has completely vanished.

XIX. Hippolytus the Bishop buried in the Ager Veranus

The place is chosen by measuring the tomb; they leave Ostia, Rome pleases them, which holds the sacred ashes.

Nor can anyone accuse Prudentius of being guilty of falsehood in this matter; for in this same tomb of Hippolytus, which we have said existed on the Via Tiburtina and in the Ager Veranus, Paulus Manutius (71), son of Aldus, Baronius (72), and many others testify that that remarkable monument of such a great martyr was discovered in the year 1551. Because this was subsequently brought into the Vatican Library, under the care of Marcello Cervini, Cardinal Librarian of the Holy Roman Church, a man of immortal memory, it provided a most abundant harvest for learned men to discuss, namely Scaliger, Aegidius Bucherius, Norisius, Francesco Blanchini, Vignolius, and others, whose writings have long been handled by the hands of learned men. Since these things are so, we believe that we have made the greatest summary of the work with this one argument. Prudentius describes the sacred ashes of the martyr Hippolytus as being brought from Portus into the City, and buried in his cemetery in the Ager Veranus. Among the ruins of this cemetery, the most ancient monument of that very Hippolytus was dug up, whom the Roman Church, by the most constant tradition of so many centuries, has acknowledged as the Bishop of Portus. Who, therefore, will believe hereafter that Prudentius celebrated the praises not of Hippolytus the bishop and martyr, but of a presbyter of Portus or of Rome? And indeed, so great was the authority of this monument among Jac. Basnage (73) that he did not doubt to assert, and rightly so, that our Hippolytus died among the Italians and was buried in the Ager Veranus, in these very clear words: "Meanwhile," he says, "this inscription persuades us that Hippolytus died among the Italians, and perhaps was buried in the Ager Veranus." If, therefore, Hippolytus finished his last day among us, and if his sacred remains were deposited in the Ager Veranus, why should this Hippolytus, whom Prudentius writes was buried in the same place and existed as the head of Christians in the Church of Portus, be called not a bishop, but a presbyter?

^C Baronius, the father of ecclesiastical history, therefore with full right declared that Prudentius had merged three Hippolyti into one; nor will the contrary opinions of great men ever be able to weaken his judgment in the slightest. We suspect, however, that such a confusion, as far as concerns Hippolytus the bishop and Hippolytus the soldier, arose mostly from the fact that both shared a similar kind of martyrdom and a common tomb, although the previously praised Acts of St. Aurea think otherwise, as do the Menologies and Menaea of the Greeks (69) and Copts, the latter of which the most learned Nicholas Antonellus, whom we name again for the sake of honor, shared with us very kindly. For Prudentius indeed testifies most clearly in these poems (70) that Hippolytus the bishop was torn apart by horses and his sacred remains were transferred by the faithful from Portus Romanus into the City:

The same Prudentius in the Passion of Hippolytus writes as follows regarding the temple of St. Hippolytus: "The row of columns," etc.

XX. The author of the book *De duabus in Christo naturis* calls Hippolytus the metropolitan of Arabia

Truly, the author of the book *De duabus naturis in Christo*, whom some recent writers—mostly heterodox—attribute to Pope St. Gelasius, professed a different opinion concerning the see of our Hippolytus. This writer, therefore, whoever he may be, deceived by a corrupted version of Eusebius, as the cited Joannes Bapt. Cotelerius warns, finished the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus. To these we add that from the ruins of the ancient memory of Hippolytus in the Ager Veranus, there was dug up an ancient marble statue of the same Hippolytus sitting on a throne, on which are inscribed all around in Greek letters the paschal cycles of sixteen years; this, having been brought from there to Rome, was placed in the Vatican Library through the work of the most illustrious and most reverend Lord Marcello Cervini, then cardinal, and later Roman pontiff.

^A Jacobus Sirmondus clearly writes that St. Hippolytus was bishop of Portus; while in this epistle he exhibits certain fragments of a sermon by St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus, against Bero and Helix, which he had transcribed from a Constantinopolitan codex. "Furthermore," he says, "unless for the present, together with this letter of mine to you, who are honorable to God, and through you to that most holy and orthodox Church which is there, I should have a roll containing testimonies from the sayings of St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus and martyr of Christ our God; so that through them you might also know how harmoniously, along with all the other holy Fathers, he firmly preaches the two natures and operations of our Savior Jesus Christ." The title of the sermon in the Constantinopolitan codex was: τοῦ ἁγίου Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Πόρτου, ἡμῶν τοῦ λιμένος Ῥώμης, καὶ μάρτυρος τῆς ἀληθείας. This is: "St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, that is, the port of Rome, and martyr of the truth." These fragments of Hippolytus were edited in Latin only by Canisius from the interpretation of Franciscus Turrianus in his *Antiquae Lectiones*, to which subsequently the Greek context was added from Sirmondus in the new edition of the Canisian work, which was produced under the care of Jacobus Basnagius at Amsterdam in the year 1725.

XXI. The testimony of Eustratius of Constantinople concerning the see of St. Hippolytus.

Eustratius, a presbyter of Constantinople, a writer of these times, in the booklet against the Psychopannychytes, which the great man Leo Allatius brought to light, lists St. Hippolytus among the Roman bishops, as Leontius had written, in these words: "But Hippolytus, martyr and bishop of Rome, says these things in the second sermon on Daniel."

XXII. The testimonies of Germanus of Constantinople and Georgius Syncellus concerning the see of Hippolytus.

At the beginning of the eighth century, St. Germanus of Constantinople, in his *Ecclesiastical History*, and [Georgius Syncellus]...

^B ...polytus not as bishop of Portus, as Prudentius, but as metropolitan of Arabia, and therefore in the testimonies of the Fathers, which he gathered against the Eutychians at the end of his work, he recites a fragment: "Of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr of the metropolis of the Arabs in the *Memory of Heresies*." We shall treat more fully of this uncertain testimony of the author in the second part of this dissertation; and there we shall strive to show how far those wander who, by a single testimony of this writing—which they attribute somewhat insecurely to Gelasius the Roman pontiff—contend to attribute an Arabian episcopate to St. Hippolytus.

The aforementioned author of the little book, uncertain as he is, is not subscribed to by Leontius of Constantinople, who, at the end of the sixth century, published a certain book *De Sectis*, in which he explicitly calls St. Hippolytus a Roman, that is, a bishop of the Roman province. Indeed, while in the aforementioned work he enumerates ecclesiastical writers who flourished from the birth of Christ up to the Emperor Constantine the Great, he names Clement and Hippolytus as Roman bishops. "Moreover, in those times which are counted from the birth of Christ up to the reign of Constantine, these teachers and Fathers existed: that Ignatius Theophorus, Irenaeus, Justin the philosopher and martyr, Clement, and Hippolytus, bishops of Rome."

^C Anastasius Sinaita, a contemporary of Leontius, in the *Odegos*, which Jacobus Gretserus edited, follows the footsteps of Leontius while he distinguished St. Hippolytus with the title of bishop of Rome. This author, on p. 356, transcribes a fragment of the sermon of Hippolytus himself in this way: Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης ἐκ τοῦ περὶ ἀναστάσεως καὶ ἀφθαρσίας λόγου. "Of Hippolytus, bishop of Rome, in the sermon on resurrection and incorruption."

Anastasius, apocrisiarius of the Roman Church, who flourished in the seventh century, in a letter to Theodosius, a presbyter of Gangra, which was first published...

^D ...by Jo. Albertus Fabricius, *St. Hippolytus' Works*, vol. I, p. 225, Hamburg 1716. This Leontius, whether by origin or by office a Byzantine, was first an advocate, then, having left secular affairs, was a monk in the monastery of the Laura in Palestine. He flourished in 590. He published among other things the book *De Sectis*, distributed into ten actions. It exists in Greek-Latin together with other small works, edited by Leunclavius at Basel in 1588, in octavo; and in the *Auctarium of the Bibliothèque des Pères*, Paris 1624, vol. I, p. 433. See more on the same Leontius in Guillaume Cave, *Scriptores Ecclesiastici* *Historia Literaria*, in the Eutychian century, vol. I, p. 545, Oxford 1740; and Casimir Oudin, *Commentary on the Ancient Writers of the Church*, vol. I, 6th century, p. 1462, Leipzig 1722; Du Pin, *Eccl. Hist.*, vol. V, p. 60; Canisius, *Antiquae Lectiones*, vol. I, p. 527 et seqq., Amsterdam 1725; Jacobus Basnagius in the same Canisius, loc. cit., p. 531; and finally Fabricius, *Bibl. Graec.*, lib. 5, cap. 11, vol. VII, p. 451, Hamburg 1727.

^A mystica theoria, teaching that the coming of Christ will be at the six-thousand-five-hundredth year, praises as authors of the same opinion St. Hippolytus of Rome and Cyril: "This also," he says, "Hippolytus of Rome and St. Cyril say in their discourses on the Antichrist." That is: "This Hippolytus of Rome and St. Cyril say in their sermons concerning the Antichrist."

In this same century George Syncellus, in his Chronographia, at the year of Christ 215, calls Hippolytus the bishop of Portus near Rome: "Hippolytus, the holy philosopher, Bishop of Portus, which is near Rome." And elsewhere, relating that Christ our Lord was born on the 25th of December, in the 43rd year of the reign of Augustus Caesar, under the consulship of Sulpicius Camerinus and Poppaeus Sabinus, he affirms that he writes these things not from his own mind, but by the authority of the blessed apostle and archbishop Hippolytus... of Rome: "These things," he says, "we have not gathered from ourselves, but from the traditions of the blessed apostle and archbishop... of Rome, Hippolytus, and of the holy martyr, and of Annianus the most religious monk, who most studiously arranged the eleven-year paschal cycle illustrated with scholia," etc. In this context of Syncellus, Jacobus Goar noted this lacuna, and writes in his notes that it should be supplemented from Nicephorus. But what need is there of Nicephorus, when Syncellus himself elsewhere, as we have seen, expressly calls St. Hippolytus the bishop of Portus near Rome? Indeed, that the same St. Hippolytus was sometimes distinguished by the Greeks with the name of Archbishop of Rome is evident from codex 274 of the Ottobonian library, in which is contained his sermon *Against Noetus*, which Francescus Turrianus translated into Latin, and which Gerardus Vossius, Archdeacon of Tongres, published at the end of the Works of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, Mainz, 1604, and which Albertus Fabricius of Hamburg later first brought to light in Greek in volume II of the works of St. Hippolytus, which he published in two folio volumes in the years 1716 and 1717. The title, therefore, of this sermon in the Ottobonian codex reads as follows: "Homily of Hippolytus, Archbishop of Rome and martyr, on the heresy of a certain Noetus."

XXIII. The author of the *Chronicon Paschale* calls Hippolytus the bishop of Portus Romanus.

The author of the *Chronicon Paschale*, or the Alexandrian Chronicle, followed Syncellus, who believed Hippolytus was the bishop of Portus. "Hippolytus," he says, "that martyr of piety, who was bishop of the place called Portus near Rome."

XXIV. St. John Damascene calls Hippolytus a Roman bishop.

In that same eighth century, St. John Damascene, in his *Eclogae*, which Stephanus le Moyne saw in manuscript in Paris in the library of the Jesuit college of Clermont, and which Michael Lequien, a theologian of the Order of Preachers who was very well-versed in Oriental languages, later published with the rest of the works of Damascene, bestowed upon our Hippolytus the name of Roman bishop. For he inscribed two fragments of his in that place, distinguished by this title: "Of Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome."

XXV. The testimony of John Zonaras and Nicephorus Callistus regarding the see of Hippolytus of Portus.

John Zonaras, a writer of the twelfth century, in his Annals, while enumerating men illustrious for both sanctity and learning in the third century, lists Hippolytus as bishop of Portus; and he adorns him with a distinguished encomium. "Under Urban," he says (90), "who governed the bishopric of the city of Rome, Hippolytus also flourished, a most holy man and a most wise bishop, called of Portus near Rome, who also wrote many works and commented on diverse parts of Holy Scripture." ^A

Finally, Nicephorus Callistus, relating that there were very many who flourished in the third century with the highest praise for eloquence and erudition, and who opposed heresies with published writings, praises Beryllus and Hippolytus, bishop of Portus (91); among whom also is Beryllus, who was at Bostra of the Arabs, and who left behind him elegant and useful writings, and Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus. And before this, he had testified (92) that he himself flourished in the times of Severus: "In the times of Severus, Hippolytus was even made bishop of Portus Romanus." ^B

XXVI. The Syrians and Arabs call Saint Hippolytus the Roman bishop.

Furthermore, the Syrians, along with the more recent Arabs, teach that Saint Hippolytus was the Roman bishop; among whom is the holy bishop of Misr in an oration against the Phantastics held in the year of Christ 1102 at Alexandria, in which, showing from the testimonies of Holy Scripture and the Fathers that the doctrine of the Church has always been that God the Word assumed human nature from the blessed Virgin, similar to us in all things, sin excepted, he praises very many of the holy Fathers, among whom are Hippolytus and Paul, Roman pontiffs. This oration was translated into Latin and published by the man most skilled in Oriental languages and sacred letters, Eusebius Renaudot (93). ^C The Jacobite patriarchs of Alexandria, in the very beginnings of their dignity, would profess a formula of faith, which the Greeks called their *homologia*, in which were inscribed the names of the Fathers whose books were accepted or rejected by them, among whom stands Hippolytus of Rome, according to the testamony of the most learned Joseph Simonius Assemani (94), who also, among other monuments of Oriental literature which he carried from the East to Rome, brought an Arabic collection of canons (95), described for the use of the Alexandrian Church by Macarius, priest and monk of the monastery of Saint Macarius the Great in the Scetensian desert, in the year of Christ 1372, in which 38 supposititious canons are attributed to Hippolytus, Papa Romanus. Johann Michael Wansleben bestowed this kind of canon upon the French version, and Job Ludolf translated their chapters from French into the Latin language (96). ^D

^A who also testifies that our Hippolytus is ‹called by the name of Pope of Rome by the Copts as well as by the rest of the Orientals.› XXVII. Testimonies concerning the see of St. Hippolytus, taken from ancient Martyrologies, Catenae, and inscriptions of ancient codices.

There remain other testimonies of the ancients to be added to the above, taken from ancient Martyrologies, Catenae, and the inscriptions of old codices, the antiquity and excellence of all of which the learned all know. But since nothing certain regarding their age could be established by us, we have therefore deemed it best to recount everything here at the end of this first part of the dissertation.

The very ancient Martyrology designated by the name of St. Jerome, which the illustrious men Lucas Dacherius and Franciscus Maria Florentinus edited, exhibits the natal day of our St. Hippolytus in this manner: ‹On the 19th before the Kalends of February, in Tuscia, at Constantius’s, the feast of Hippolytus, bishop of the ancients.› We do not believe this can be any other Hippolytus than ours; for it is most well known that the Roman Portus belonged to the borders of ancient Tuscia, since it lies across the Tiber, whose bank was the ancient boundary of Etruria. That epithet "of the ancients," as Tillemont nicely notes, indicates nothing other than that Hippolytus was from the more ancient [bishops], that is, from the bishops of the first three centuries of the early Church. The very old Martyrology which is preserved in the Ottobonian library calls St. Hippolytus "Nonnus": ‹In Tuscia, of the blessed martyr Hippolytus, who is called Nonnus.› This word, indeed, is to be accepted in the same sense as the previous one regarding the "ancients." For Nonnus, as Du Cange proves with many examples in his admirable Glossary, denotes an elder or someone more ancient. Thus, St. Hippolytus is called Bishop Nonnus because he was one of the ancient bishops and flourished in the third century of the Church. ^B And therefore those are deceived who judge that this name was wrongly imposed upon our Hippolytus, on the grounds that *Nonnus* designates only a monk, which cannot be said of Hippolytus of Portus; regarding this word, one should also consult Daniel Heinsius in his *Exercitations on the New Testament*, and Ludovico Muratori.

The Greek Catena which exists in the Imperial Library at Vienna, according to Fabricius, exhibits very many fragments of Hippolytus, Roman bishop and martyr. The Coislinianus codex, no. 193, fol. 36, contains a fragment with this distinguished name: Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης περὶ Ἑζεκίου—*of Hippolytus, bishop of Rome, on Hezekiah*. A Greek Catena from the Escorial, mentioned by Barovetius in his *Catalog*, and the Catena of the Royal Library of Paris, from which Combefis edited a fragment of a sermon of St. Hippolytus on Susanna and Daniel, the Corderian Catena, many Vatican manuscripts, and finally the manuscript codex of the Englishman Thomas Gale at Fabricius’s, most constantly adorn St. Hippolytus with this eulogy: Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης, that is: ‹of Hippolytus, bishop of Rome,› namely, as we shall show in the second part of the dissertation, of the suburbicarian province. Thus, in a very ancient codex of the Gospels in the Ottobonian library, and in another at the Turin library, which Christophorus Matthæus Pfaffius communicated to Fabricius, we read the title: Ἱππολύτου πάπα Ῥώμης, ‹of Hippolytus, Pope of Rome.›

^C It is clear, therefore, how many and which testimonies of the ancients support the opinion of those who write that St. Hippolytus held the see in the Church of Portus, and how infirm, on the contrary, is the opinion of those who, relying on a purely negative argument or very slight conjectures, attempt with wide-open mouths to rob him of his primary and greatest glory. How futile and how incongruous such a kind of argument is, regarding the disposition of Daniel, and on p. 278: Τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Ῥώμης—‹of the most holy Hippolytus, bishop of Rome.›

as the most learned prelate Justus Fontaninus has taught us. ^A The entire force and weight of this argument in our matter vanishes completely if we are willing to carefully weigh the most eloquent testimonies of Prudentius, Leontius, Anastasius, and others who flourished from the fourth century of the Church down to Nicephorus, a writer of the twelfth century: who with one accord testify that the great Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, was either the pastor of the Church of Portus or was Roman, that is, a bishop of the Roman province.

If to these we add the greatest argument of the cathedra of such a great martyr having been discovered in the same cemetery in which his sacred remains rested in the age of Prudentius, we trust that we have completed this task for all sensible people. ^B Wherefore it is no wonder if the most learned men among the moderns—Baronius, Bellarmine, Aegidius Bucherius, James Ussher, who calls the Roman Portus, both because of other matters and afterwards because of the Portuensian episcopacy of Hippolytus, most celebrated—William Beveridge, Henry Dodwell, John Bull, John Baptist Cotelier, John Liron, and not a few others, among whom specifically Leo Allatius, John Pearson, Cassinus, Du Cange, and other men outstanding in erudition, whom it would be long to enumerate, having spurned this futile argument of the adversaries, maintain and defend that St. Hippolytus was bishop of Portus.

PART TWO

I. The opinion of Tillemont and Ceillier, who deny that St. Hippolytus was bishop of Portus, is set forth.

The most luminous testimonies of the ancient writers, which we have reviewed until now, and which brilliantly reveal to us the most constant Oriental tradition concerning the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus, ^C were not able to compel the most learned men Sebastian Tillemont and Remigius Ceillier to refrain from departing into the contrary opinion and judging the see of the holy martyr to be still unknown to us. For, firmly relying on the silence of Eusebius and the words of St. Jerome, and having rejected the testimonies of later writers, they are not ashamed to spurn the principal glory of the Portuensian Church as a putrid fiction; for they cannot persuade themselves that the see of St. Hippolytus was known to Leontius, George Syncellus, and other writers of a later age, since Eusebius kept silent about it, and St. Jerome, who was long at Rome and who was thoroughly acquainted with Roman affairs, ingenuously confessed that he had not been able to discover the see of Hippolytus.

However, the principal opinion of Tillemont was rejected a few years ago by the learned monk John Liron in a certain peculiar dissertation, by which he proved that Hippolytus had presided in the Church at Portus near Rome. This, long ago, out of his kindness, the most learned man Justus Fontaninus, Archbishop of Ancyra, who is well known to the republic of letters through his published books, communicated to us. In it, Tillemont...

clearly indicated that he was a presbyter of the Roman Church and ordained a bishop of the Gentiles. Here are the very words of Photius himself, rendered into Latin: "I found it noted that this work (De universo) is not by Josephus, but by a certain Caius, a presbyter active in Rome, whom they also make the author of the *Labyrinth*; whose dialogue is also against a certain Proculus, a defender of the Montanist heresy." And a little later: "They affirm that this Caius was a presbyter of the Roman Church under the pontiffs Victor and Zephyrinus, and was ordained bishop of the Gentiles." ^A Lironus wonderfully recalled to the scales the opinion of Tillemont, which was fortified by the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome alone, and solidly proved that more recent writers could have known certain peculiar bits of information about ancient matters, of which the more ancient writers were totally ignorant. For we see that old codices were sometimes adorned with brief notes, from which many things have been revealed even in these later times to the republic of letters, which were entirely hidden from the most accurate writers, Eusebius, St. Jerome, and others. The most learned monk proves this opinion of his with not a few examples, the chief of which we think it worth the work to transcribe here, and to add others in their entirety.

II. Recent writers discovered many things which were unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome. ^B Eusebius, and St. Jerome, who is most expert in Roman affairs, as Lironus himself says, did not know that Caius, a celebrated ecclesiastical writer, had been with St. Irenaeus, and had been a presbyter of the Roman Church, and was ordained bishop of the Gentiles. But we have learned all these things from two most excellent notes, one of which Ussher first published at the end of the letter of the Smyrnacan Church, and the other Photius; and although he flourished four hundred and more years after Eusebius and St. Jerome, Tillemont agreed with it most willingly, and after him Ceillier, who object to us, searching for the see of Hippolytus, the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome. These things indeed rest solely on the testimony of Photius, which he himself learned from nowhere else than from a certain note attached to an ancient codex which he used at that time, which ^C had by some good fortune preserved the indices of such great matters intact. No less, among the ancients, the tradition passed down that the 84th letter of St. Basil to Medicinus was not by St. Basil, but by Gregory of Nyssen, and what is more noteworthy, clearly indicated the man as a Roman presbyter, then as bishop of the Gentiles and doctor of the Church. These things indeed were unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome, and would have been hidden from us as well, had not ancient codices, transcribed from even older ones, preserved the indices of such great matters by some good fortune.

^A Indeed, letter 74 of St. Basil himself, written to Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other ancient writers, was sent solely [to them], but not issued [publicly] (31). Jacques Combefis (32) deduced this very full information from notes of this kind, which he chanced upon in certain ancient codices and published for the general use of scholars.

III. Let this opinion be reinforced by various examples of the matter. Who among the ancients taught that the most excellent poems of Sedulius, which for a long time lay unarranged among loose papers, had been organized in better order and brought to light by Turcius Rufus Asterius? Surely these would have remained hidden from most learned men, had not an ancient note, found in three of the oldest Sedulian codices, revealed this peculiar and hidden information. Jacques Sirmond was the first of all to publish it from the Rheims codex, then James Ussher from the English codex (33), and finally, we ourselves found it in a more corrected state in a very ancient Sedulian codex of the Ottobonian library, written around the ninth century, in which, after the letter to Macedonius—which Christopher Cellarius published a few years ago in his edition of Prudentius, complete and corrected—the following is noted: "Sedulius left this work dispersed among his papers, which was collected, gathered, and published with every elegance ^B by Turcius Rufus Asterius, acting as vice-consul and patrician" (34); immediately there follows the epigram:

Most holy in merits, the sayings of a truthful poet Which were composed without the vice of fiction. Which true faith lacks, and the grace of holy Christ Through whom the just Sedulius speaks such things, Command me to remember always your Asterius, By whose help and care these were published for the people. Which, though they be celebrated by the highest pride throughout the ages, Yet they have more of merit if they flourish on your lips.

At the end of the poem the following lines are contained, which Mabillon also published (35): "Here begins the art of the poet Sedulius, who, first a layman in Italy, learned philosophy, afterwards with other types of meters taught heroic meter under the consulship of Macedonius, and in Achaia wrote his books in the time of the emperors Theodosius the younger, son of Arcadius, and Valentinian, son of Constantius. Peace."

IV. Tillemont's argument, drawn from the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome against the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus, concludes nothing. See, therefore, how the writers of later ages obtained certain peculiar items of information which were completely unknown to ^C Eusebius, St. Jerome, and other ancient writers; and therefore everyone sees how dangerous this kind of argument is at times: Eusebius and St. Jerome did not know in what part of the world St. Hippolytus was bishop; therefore, Leontius, Anastasius, and other later [writers] could not have known his episcopal see. If this kind of argument were indeed to be judged by the more correct rules of sound criticism, we would surely have to give up our hands as defeated to Henry Dodwell (36), that most bitter enemy of the holy martyrs of Christ, to whom the silence of Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and other ancient writers—which he believed to be of the greatest significance—supplied the momentum of reasoning to strike St. Irenæus, that most celebrated prelate of the Lyonnais and teacher of our Hippolytus, from the illustrious album of martyrs with impunity. But this excessive confidence of Dodwell, not to say temerity, was checked by most firm and certain arguments by the most learned monk René Massuet (37), whose words, as they wonderfully illustrate our own subject, we shall not regret to transcribe here. "Truly," he says, "to return to Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Theodoret, and the others whom Dodwell cites in defense of his cause; they indeed never call Irenæus a martyr, but nothing more can be concluded from their silence at most, except that the Acts of his martyrdom did not reach their knowledge, or that they were unaware that he was a martyr. But to deny confidently that a martyr existed from the fact that the Acts of some Western martyr did not reach the knowledge of Tertullian, Eusebius, Epiphanius, and other certain Oriental writers, seems completely alien to reason." And, after a few words interposed: "But to strike more closely at the throat of the cause: Eusebius, whose silence Dodwell pushes so hard, mentions Hippolytus more than once, weaves a catalogue of his works, calls him a bishop, [but] never a martyr. Yet that he ended his life in martyrdom must be most certain even to Dodwell himself; for in those very passages where he brings forward Theodoret against the martyrdom of Irenæus, he is called a martyr." If, therefore, ^D the silence of Eusebius, which Tillemont and Ceillier hold against us, is in no way strong enough to strip our Hippolytus of the venerable title of martyr, then the Portuensian see itself—strengthened by so many excellent testimonies of ancient writers—will surely not vanish anywhere, even if Eusebius remains silent on it. But why should we call upon Massuet, when Tillemont himself...

having changed his opinion ^A, has more than once hesitated to reject the same kind of argument by which he attempted to overthrow the see of Hippolytus at Portus: first, when he defended the senatorial dignity of St. Apollonius—secured only by the testimony of Jerome—against Scaliger; and subsequently, when he defended St. Jerome against the censure of Henri de Valois and Pierre Daniel Huet? For, when the holy Doctor wrote in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men* that Ambrose had provided the inspiration for Origen, by the example of Hippolytus, to illuminate the sacred codes of both Testaments with most learned commentaries, and when the authors mentioned above asserted that St. Jerome handed these things down to posterity, having been deceived by a poorly understood passage of Eusebius, Tillemont himself, in order to counter an argument of this kind, replied that St. Jerome had read not a few books of which knowledge has reached us very little, through the help of which, in particular, those things which had escaped Eusebius could safely have become known to him. If, therefore, Tillemont does not forbid us to place complete trust in St. Jerome when he narrates matters that were absolutely unknown to Eusebius, why does he pronounce that the testimonies of Leontius and Anastasius—which present St. Hippolytus as bishop of Portus of the Romans—should be relegated among old wives' tales in our case? Especially since he himself has not dared to reject the testimony of a later writer ^B who, first of all, revealed to us the name of that see, which St. Alexander of Cappadocia held before he was raised to the Jerusalem cathedra, a fact that was entirely unknown to all the ancients.

V. Some works of St. Hippolytus were unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome, which were known to Leontius and Anastasius.

Tillemont can certainly, in our judgment, convince no one of this, since Leontius himself and Anastasius were able to obtain the see of St. Hippolytus at Portus from incorrupt monuments of antiquity unknown to Eusebius and to St. Jerome himself, in almost the same manner in which they found the sermons of the same holy bishop on the *Blessings of Abraham*, and on *Theology and the Incarnation against Beron and Helix*, which were unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome. Nor should this be a wonder to anyone; for Eusebius and St. Jerome candidly confess that they could not find all the writings of our Hippolytus. Since these things are so, we certainly do not see how such great weight of reason flows from the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome that it might completely overwhelm and uproot the most explicit testimonies of Leontius and Anastasius. Let no one object to us that the small works of Hippolytus mentioned by Leontius and Anastasius are called into doubt by certain scholars, and that they are even pushed out from the genuine catalogue of that great Father's works by not-slight arguments, since Tillemont and Jacob ^C Chen, in Fabricius’s *Works of St. Hippolytus* (Vol. II, p. 45), doubt them. The title of this work is: *Of Saint Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, from the Blessings of Abraham*. There, Fabricius himself aptly notes that in the Latin edition, the work is attributed to the *Blessings of Balaam*, erroneously indeed, as he himself opines. ^D

^A Basnage, Dupin, and others—although they hesitate concerning the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus—we believe that this hesitation ought to be completely removed, inasmuch as it rests, as we have so often said, solely upon the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome; whoever wishes to trace its origin from the very beginning will easily be able to recognize that this is of no great moment in our matter. We think it has derived from no other source than the carelessness of the ancient librarians, who, in transcribing the titles of our St. Hippolytus and other ancient Fathers, not infrequently omitted certain major titles themselves. Hence, in the most ancient codices of the most celebrated libraries, we find St. Hippolytus designated now as bishop and martyr, now as bishop only, now as martyr, and finally now by the name of Hippolytus alone, with the name of the see which he occupied always being silent—a name which many other, and indeed very ancient, codices reveal. To this conjecture of ours, St. Jerome and Photius add momentum of the greatest weight; the former of whom, when he mentions St. Irenaeus and our St. Hippolytus in the *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*, names them as bishops, nowhere as martyrs, although elsewhere he has distinguished the same men with the conspicuous title of martyr as well. Photius, in codex cxxi, when reviewing certain minor works of St. Hippolytus himself, altogether omitted the titles of bishop and martyr due to him. But when in codex ccn he reports the interpretation of Daniel adorned by him, he does not omit explicitly calling him both bishop and martyr. And we judge that such diverse forms of writing have flowed from no other source than the various inscriptions of the codices which Eusebius, St. Jerome, and Photius used. Therefore, with so many and so great doubts of learned men removed, we believe that the hesitation ^B of learned men concerning the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus ought to be completely swept away.

VI. The most ancient argument for the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus is derived from the titles and notes of his own works.

Therefore, the most ancient fragments, distinguished by the complete titles of our Hippolytus, not only safely reveal to us his Portuensian see—unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome—but also most evidently demonstrate the common tradition of the Greeks regarding this same matter, not indeed arisen recently, but propagated far and wide by them long before the age of Leontius and Anastasius. ^C The fragments brought forward by Anastasius breathe such antiquity that it should be a doubt to no one that they were inscribed long before the age of Anastasius. Beron and Helix, whose heresy is so sharply refuted in these writings, were scarcely known in the third century; wherefore no one would ever imagine that their sectaries persisted into the seventh century, in which Anastasius flourished, and that they were refuted by this excellent discourse. These fragments, marked with the complete titles of our Hippolytus, not only safely reveal to us his Portuensian see—unknown to Eusebius and St. Jerome—but also most evidently demonstrate the common tradition of the Greeks regarding this same matter, not indeed risen recently, but propagated far and wide by them long before the age of Leontius and Anastasius. By these arguments, indeed, every opposition of this kind is answered in that place by Canisius as well.

^A From the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome, which has caused so much confusion, our Hippolytus, on the evidence of so many excellentUMENTS, is rightly and safely to be called Bishop of Portus henceforth, and is to be restored to the Church of Portus, as it were by a right of postliminium, and with the support of certain notes from very ancient codices—a right from which Tillemont and others, based on some conjectures resting solely on the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome, had undeservedly removed him.

The excellence of notes of this kind from the examples soon to be recounted can be easily grasped by anyone; nor can we believe that any doubt regarding their authenticity could arise in anyone’s mind, as if they were fictitious and savored of the dreams of copyists. For ancient copyists, enticed by the hope of greater gain, sometimes forged such things, by the aid of which they might make their books more precious and sell them for a higher price. Therefore, they adorned certain most putrid inventions—which perhaps they could not have so easily disposed of to a buyer—with the names of holy men, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, and other great men, so as to deceive inexperienced buyers. But the see of St. Hippolytus, whether it were Portus or Arabia, could not make a codex more precious, and therefore, since they transcribed the works of the same bishop from more ancient codices, it must be admitted that they transcribed the notes placed by the ancients in the margins or the titles most faithfully (56). Finally, the brevity and simplicity of these same notes remove any suspicion of falsehood, because they contain neither empty circumlocutions of words nor are they concerned with prodigies or incredible things, as is the custom in the Acts of the Saints edited by Metaphrastes, which all learned men rightly reject. In our notes, it is held only, for example, of which Church Gaius was a priest or bishop; in what year Agobard ^B of Lyons was born; at what time he came from the Spains into Gallia Narbonensis, and finally when he was ordained bishop. All these things regarding Agobard, some of which were passed over in silence by Ado of Vienne at the year 810 (58), Hugo of Flavigny at the year 821 (59), and the author of the Chronicle of St. Benignus of Dijon at the year 840 (and therefore entirely unknown to Papire Masson (60) and Étienne Baluze (61), the editors of Agobard), were brought forth many years ago by that most diligent investigator of ancient monuments, Jean Mabillon (62), from a very ancient codex of Bede’s *De temporibus*, which once belonged to the library of Lyon, which was miserably consumed by fire, from whose flames it was snatched and came into the hands of Jean Bosch, and was afterwards transferred to the Vallicellana library. In this most excellent codex, as is supposed, the following are noted in Agobard’s own hand: “779: In this year I was born. 782: In this year I came from the Spains into Gallia Narbonensis. 792: In this year Lugdunum first by the Goths... 804: I, unworthy, received the blessing.” Subsequently by another hand, as it appears: “816: This one holds the chair in the eighth year. 840: In this year the holy memory Agobard, Bishop of Lyon, died on the 6th of the Ides of June (63).” This most excellent monument of antiquity, which was published by the kindness of such a great man, taught us all these things which our ancestors were completely ignorant of. The aforementioned author of the *Chronicle of ^C St. Benignus of Dijon (64) and the *Martyrology of the Church of Lyon*, which exhibits the memory of the holy man on this very day, report Agobard’s death in this same year and on this same day. The rest, so that we may not be too long-winded, we leave for the study of those interested in Gallic antiquities.

VII. Such notes were by no means fabricated by copyists, but were appended by the authors themselves, or by their friends, or by their disciples, or at least by learned men. Therefore, the brief notes which were appended in the ancient codices of the library. [index: entries preserved]

^A In the very same codex, between the year of Christ 773 and 774, in the twelfth indiction, these things are read: "In this indiction the Franks came into Italy." That the Franks had crossed into Italy in that same year under the leadership of Charles the Great, the ancient writers Eginhard (70), the Chronicon Augiense (71), and the very brief chronicle of the monastery of St. Gall (72), published by Baluze (73), bear witness. Eusebius, in book III, chapter 24, *On the Life of Constantine the Great*, wrote (74) that he wished to collect all the laws and epistles of that same Constantine, given by the emperor himself, which pertained to the Catholic faith, into a separate volume; whether he himself had performed this has long remained unknown to learned men, and they would have remained completely ignorant of it, had not Henri de Valois published an ancient note from the Medicean codex, from which it is openly gathered that Eusebius had indeed collated the codex of the epistles of Constantine the Great mentioned above (75). From these things, therefore, which we have discussed perhaps too extensively regarding the ancient notes sometimes existing in old codices, we persuade ourselves that we have sufficiently and more than sufficiently proven that the same notes are not to be reckoned among the dreams and deceits of ancient librarians. For the previous examples teach us openly that they were appended sometimes by the authors themselves in their own codices, or by their disciples who knew the deeds of their master well, or at least by learned and expert men; who, although they were later in age than the writers themselves, yet, having been taught by the best monuments, if they ever noted anything on the margins of their codices, they handed down to posterity not old wives’ tales, but things clearly known to them as certain, which indeed has become clearer to us as those things which are recounted in these same notes are found ^B to agree precisely with the incorrupt monuments of antiquity.

In the most ancient codex of the Ottobonian library, in which are contained very many orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, after the oration on the holy Lights, the following note is held in the margin: Οὗτος δογματικὸς ἐῤῥέθη ἐν Κωνσταντινουπόλει, “This (namely, the sermon) dogmatic was delivered in Constantinople,” which is also read in the following oration on Pentecost. That Saint Gregory had delivered these orations in Constantinople is taught by Tillemont from ancient monuments (65).

In the Casanatensian codex (66), transcribed eight hundred years ago in Lombardic letters, in which is contained the genuine cycle of Bede, which, as the great Noris has taught (67), is carried forward from the year of Christ 532 until the year 1063, many things worthy of knowledge are noted for almost every year, of which it is not against our pleasure to relate some here. First, therefore, these things are held: “The first cycle of Dionysius from year 6 of the prince Justinian, who reigned 38 years,” all of which things are completely in agreement with truth; for the same Noris (68) has proven with many testimonies of the ancients that Dionysius Exiguus commenced his Paschal cycle from the 6th year of the Emperor Justinian, which falls in the year 532, and the same most eminent author demonstrates elsewhere at length (69) that the same emperor reigned for 38 years, not 40, as some have wrongly written.

^A We observe that they agree perfectly. Therefore, it should not be believed that Leontius, Anastasius, and other Greeks, who called Hippolytus the Bishop of Portus, spoke rashly; rather, they were instructed by ancient records or the genuine titles of his works, and have handed this down most constantly to posterity for fourteen hundred years and more. For this reason, we believe that we have satisfied Tillemont and Ceillier, who reject the testimonies of Leontius, Anastasius, and the other Greeks thereafter as insufficiently firm, on this one point of reasoning: that they could by no means have known those things of which Eusebius and St. Jerome were ignorant. That this is entirely false is a matter which can be most evident to anyone, not only from those things we have already said, but also from the case of Athenagoras, concerning whom St. Jerome did not say a single word in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*. This very fact was also believed by those most learned men who object to us the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome; for, as we showed above, they borrowed some things from sources known to them, which were completely hidden from Eusebius and St. Jerome themselves. Therefore, Tillemont and Ceillier attempt to reject the most ancient tradition of the Church of Portus without just cause, since it is well supported by the best testimonies of the ancients, whose force simple conjectures will be utterly unable to diminish in the slightest.

VIII. Why St. Hippolytus is designated by some Greek writers by the name of Roman Bishop or Pope, is examined.

Someone will perhaps object that Leontius, Germanus, and other Greek writers—whose testimonies we cited in the first part of this dissertation—called St. Hippolytus not the Bishop of Portus, but of the city of Rome, and indeed even Pope. To these, however, we must reply that St. Hippolytus was called ^B by the Greeks by the name of Roman Bishop, for the reason that he held the episcopal see in the Roman province—that is, the "suburbicarian" [see]—which was called "Rome" by them themselves, and its bishops were called by the Greeks *τῶν Ῥώμης* or *οἱ κατὰ Ῥώμην*, "near Rome" or "belonging to Rome." "Thus," says Stephen Le Moyne, "Rome is taken for the province and the Roman eparchy." In the Synod of Sardica, an epistle was given to the Church of Alexandria, in which it is said: *Ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος συναχθεῖσα ἀπὸ Ῥώμης... καὶ Ἰταλίας*: "The holy synod gathered from the city of Rome and Italy"; where "Rome" is used for the Roman province, and "Italy" for the diocese of Milan. So also in the letter of Aurelian concerning the business of Paul of Samosata: "The emperor Aurelian, having been petitioned, judged this matter most correctly, ordering that the house be handed over to those to whom the bishops of Rome, the prelates of the Italian Christian religion, should write." ^C For this reason, we are greatly surprised that the most learned man, Jacques Combesis, declares himself to be in doubt whether these Greek words, *Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπος*, "Bishop of Rome," are to be understood in the sense we just mentioned, because they do not seem to savor of such antiquity as being contemporaneous with St. Hippolytus. But what could be brought forward in this matter as more ancient than the letter of Emperor Aurelian and the Synod of Sardica? Yet what the mind of the Greeks was, when they designated St. Hippolytus by the name of "Roman Bishop," is most learnedly evident from Syncellus, Anastasius the Apocrisiarius, and Nicephorus, whose testimonies were cited elsewhere. How broadly the name of the Roman province was accepted even in the age of Pope Alexander III can be clearly evident to anyone inspecting the subscriptions of the Lateran Council, first edited by Luc d'Achery.

Nor are there lacking examples among the Latins, from ^D which it is evident to anyone.

that the suburbicarian bishops were called Roman bishops; whom Pope Nicholas II, in the decree on the election of the Roman pontiff issued in the Roman synod (82) of the year 1059, also names "cardinal bishops." In the list: Tanus, Paulinus of Tunis, Gulfranus of Sutri, Guilelmus of Lucca, Petrus of Luni, Rufinus of Assisi, Raimerus of Castello, Rasisericus of Spoleto, Offreductus of Gubbio, Aloderius of Cagli, Guisso of Urbino, Nicolaus of Simphronius, Jacobus of Senigallia, Acceptabilis of Camerino, Jordanus of Umbriatico, Petrus of Fermo, Rainaldus of Jesi, Gentilis of Osimo, Mimaldus of Fano, Jochelius of Rimini, Petrus of Pesaro, Julius of Florence, Lamfractus of Fiesole, Tedbaldus of Piacenza, Stephanus of Monopoli, Anselmus of Metenn, Radulphus of Mels, of St. Mark. A council of this kind was held in the Lateran in the year 1179.

(82) There exists in the Roman Council the decree on the election of the Roman pontiff in volume XII of the *Concilia*, Venice edition 1750, p. 50, in which these things are read: "Let the cardinal bishops, together with the religious clergy and the Catholic laity, even if they are few, obtain the right of authority to elect a pontiff of the Apostolic See, where it shall seem fitting." To this decree subscribed Bonifacius of Albano, Ubertus of Silva Candida, Petrus bishop of Ostia, and others to the number of 76. In the Vatican codex number 1984, subscriptions of this kind of bishops exist, edited by Labbe p. 51, in which the suburbicarian bishops are called Roman bishops—"Bonifacius, by the grace of God, bishop of Albano, Ubertus, bishop of the holy church of Silva Candida, Petrus, bishop of Ostia, Petrus, bishop of Labico." Roman bishops of this kind subscribed together with Johannes, bishop of Porto. This same decree is also contained in the *Chronicon Farfense* published by Muratori, tom. II, part II, *Rerum Italicarum Scriptores*, page 645, Milan edition 1726. In which we read these subscriptions on page 646: "Nicolaus, bishop of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church, to this decree promulgated by us as is read above, I have subscribed; and 5 Roman bishops, that is, Bonifacius of Albano, Umbertus of Silva Candida, Petrus of Ostia, Petrus of Labico, and Johannes of Porto; and 4 cardinals: Johannes of the title of St. Mark, Leo of the title of St. Lawrence in Damaso, Guido of St. Mary across the Tiber, Desiderius of St. Cecilia; and 3 deacons, Martius, Crescentius, Amantius, etc." Where Bishop Johannes of Porto is listed among the Roman bishops.

(83) In *Itiner. Ital.*, p. 145, § 10, tom. I of Muratori, in the French edition cited in Paris, 1724: "Dodo, bishop of the holy Roman Church, gave five pounds for affairs after death, that is, the church of St. Mary with the Cassian estate itself. Done in the month of October, in the times of Benedict VIII." After these accounts, Mabillon himself continues: "In another diploma they are called Roman bishops." Dodo, just mentioned, seems to have been the bishop of Sabina, omitted by Ughelli. P. Faustus Antonius Marroni, cleric of the Regular Clerics of the Pious Schools, in his *Commentary on the Church and Bishops of Sabina*, p. 29, Rome edition 1758, removes this Dodo from the number of the bishops of Sabina, and suspects that he belongs rather to the church of Narni. Be that as it may, our opinion acquires strength, since the church of Narni also exists in the suburbicarian province.

(84) Mabillon, loc. cit., when he deals with the church of Blessed Mary of the Chapel across the Tiber, once called St. Mary "ad Pineam"; it is not tedious to record here the description made by him: "In the year of the Lord 1090, indiction XIII, in the month of March, on the 25th day, this church of St. Mary, which is called 'ad Pineam', was dedicated by the bishops of the city, that is, V. [Ubaldus] of Sabina and Johannes of Tusculum, in the time of the Lord Pope Urban II, in which are the relics from the garments of the holy Virgin Mary, or: of the Apostle Peter, of Pope Cornelius, of Pope Callistus, of Pope Felix, of the martyr Hippolytus, of the martyr Anastasius, of Melixus, of the martyr Marmenia. Grant life after death, O redeeming Christ, to Damasus." The bishop of Sabina mentioned in the inscription was called Ubaldus, concerning whom one must read Ughelli, *Italia Sacra*, vol. I, p. 560, Venice edition 1717. He subscribed to the bull of Urban II in favor of the monastery of Cava in the year 1092, in the 4th year of his pontificate. One must also read for this matter the same Faustus Antonius Marroni, *Commentary on the Church and Bishops of Sabina*, p. 41. There are many other documents in which the suburbicarian prelates are named Roman bishops; however, it has seemed good to add some principal ones to these. Ughelli, tom. V *Italia Sacra*, p. 50, brings forward the document of the consecration of the patriarchal temple of Aquileia by the patriarch Poppo, who had built it, accomplished in the year 1031, which is displayed at the southern door of the same church, in which two cardinals assisting are called Roman bishops: "1031, indiction XIV, 13th of July. I, Poppo, patriarch of this church of Aquileia, together with two Roman cardinal bishops and 12 co-bishops, with Pope Johannes XIX presiding, and Emperor Conrad Augustus, have consecrated this temple in honor of St. Mary, Mother of God, and of the holy martyrs Hermachus and Fortunatus, etc." Poppo himself donated many things to this Temple for the institution of fifty priests, who would perform divine services in it, as appears from the instrument of donation described by the same Ughelli, p. 51, which donation he commemorates that he made also from the counsel of two Roman pontiffs, that is, bishops, in these words: "To whom (to the fifty brothers) and by the counsel, will, and advocacy of the honorable man Valpertus of the same church, as well as by the counsel of two Roman pontiffs, Johannes and Dodo, and at the same time of the remaining co-bishops, namely, Robert of Concordia... I have granted certain things from the goods of the same church..." And in the end: "Done in the same church in the year of the Lord's Incarnation 1031... With two Roman pontiffs residing, together with other bishops and clerics, etc." Johannes and Dodo were cardinals, as is evident from their subscriptions at the end of the aforesaid donation, related in Ughelli, p. 53: "I, Poppo, patriarch of the holy church of Aquileia, have subscribed with my own hand. I, Johannes, cardinal bishop of the Roman Church, have subscribed. I, Dodo, likewise, cardinal bishop of the S.R.C., have subscribed, etc." Regarding all these, one must see Johannes Franciscus Bernardus Maria de Rubeis, *Monumenta Ecclesie Aquileiensis*, cap. 55, p. 513 et seqq., Strasbourg edition 1740. Nevertheless, we have a significant document for our opinion in Book V of Liutprand, who flourished around the year 946, *On the Affairs of Emperors and Kings*, cap. 6, p. 115, Antwerp edition 1640, who, dealing with the synod held by the order of Otto I against Johannes XII, reports that this was convened at the request of the Roman bishops also: "After three days, at the request of the Roman bishops as well as the people, a great gathering was held in the church of St. Peter, and the archbishops sat with the emperor." Likewise, cap. 7, p. 116: "The Roman pontiffs and cardinal priests and deacons are mentioned along with the entire populace," just as also in cap. 9, p. 118, in a letter given to the same Pope Johannes by the same emperor.

^A And the Vatican [manuscript] 1451, not the Roman pontiff, but the bishop of any city whatsoever, as everyone knows. For the name of Pope was common to all bishops of the Christian world before the eleventh century, as learned men note—Ruinart (85), Ludovicus Thomassinus (86), and, to pass over very many others, the continuators of Bolland in their learned (87) dissertation, which they composed concerning the name of Pope in the Life of St. Heraclas. ^B

(87) [This exists in] the tome of the Acta Sanctorum for June, in the *Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, parergon 11, page 22, Venice edition of 1744, where many things are learnedly contained regarding the origin and notion of the name "Pope." Among the various origins of this name that are brought forward, that one pleases us most which was approved by Cardinal Baronius in his notes for the tenth day of January, page 21 of the cited edition, and by others—namely, that such a word is to be derived from the Greek *Papas*, that is, Father, and not, to pass over other etymologies of no consequence, from the two words *Pa-Pa*, namely Father of Fathers; from the fact that, as Baronius himself rightly observes in the same place, Hormisdas in the synodal letter of the provincial council of Epirus is called both Father of Fathers and Pope: "The Synod of ancient Epirus, Johannes, Matthæus, Constantinus, etc., to our lord, in all things most holy and most blessed Father of Fathers, Comminister, and prince of bishops, Pope Hormisdas." One must see what Johannes Baptista Solerius noted on this matter in the cited *Chronological History of the Patriarchs of Alexandria*, no. 153, p. 25, who likewise observes most beautifully in no. 154, p. 26, that this name passed from the Greeks to the Latins, and indeed rightly and deservedly this title pertains to the Supreme Pontiff, who, to use the words of the same Solerius, no. 156, "is the Father of the faithful not by nature or by birth, but by age and admonition, by authority and by doctrine." Hence, as Baronius says in the cited place, "when in future times the common custom had prevailed that the name of Pope should be attributed only to the Roman pontiff, and schismatics claimed it for themselves in their proud arrogance to the hatred of the same Roman prelate, and presumed other things not granted; Gregory VII, Pope in the year of Christ the Lord 1073, and in the third year of his own pontificate, on the sixth of the Kalends of March, indiction XIII, held a synod at Rome against the schismatics, where he decreed among many other things that the name of Pope should be unique in the whole Christian world, nor should it be permitted for anyone to call themselves or another by that name." These things are in the *Register of the Letters of Gregory VII*, which is preserved in the Vatican library, where the canons of that synod are found written. The Greeks observe this very thing, so that by the name of Pope they understand the Roman pontiff, as appears from the writings of Nicetas Choniates. ^C Such a name of Pope in the most ancient times was used not only for venerable clergy, as Baronius instructs us in the cited place, and Rigaltius in his observations on St. Cyprian in the previously cited no. 153 of Solerius; but also presbyters, hieromonks, and rectors of parishes were called by it, as Du Cange notes in his *Glossarium* under the word *Papa*, and it is related by the same Du Cange, loc. cit., that the African martyr Mammarius was called by this name in his Acts: "There is one who may answer for us, Mammarius our Pope." Johannes Pearsonius, in his *Vindication of the Epistles of St. Ignatius*, part 1, cap. 11, p. 330, in the first tome of the Holy Fathers who flourished in apostolic times, and Du Cange, loc. cit., hand down that by the name of Pope the patriarch of Alexandria alone among the Eastern prelates of the Church was called in later times. Countless documents of antiquity warn us that this name was appropriate for bishops in the earliest times. The Roman clergy, writing to the Carthaginian [church] concerning the death of St. Cyprian, says these things, in epistle 8, according to the order of Fell, more frequently ^D

^A subject to the patriarchs of Alexandria. Hence also Prudentius names Pope Valerian of Caesaraugusta, to whom he dedicated a most elegant hymn about St. Hippolytus, in these verses: I saw the dew-dropping summits of the Saxons, most excellent Pope, And the purple marks placed upon the thorn-bushes. Finally, the most holy pontiff Gregory VII, by an issued constitution, rightfully reserved such a title only for the Roman pontiff.

IX. The opinion of Stephanus le Moyne regarding the Roman episcopate of St. Hippolytus is weighed.

However, Stephanus le Moyne (88) is not satisfied with these things, but confesses that it seems probable to him that St. Hippolytus could have been the bishop of Rome himself, by the most well-known example of Linus, Cletus, and Clement, whom some ^B maintain obtained the episcopate at one and the same time. But he who, a little above, instructed us so egregiously that St. Hippolytus was called a Roman bishop by the ancients because he obtained the episcopate in the Roman province—and he proved this with many examples taken from ecclesiastical antiquity, the principal ones of which we ourselves have already transcribed above—ought by no means to have assented to this pure and empty conjecture, since among the ancients there is found a profound silence regarding so great a matter. Which, indeed, could never have happened if St. Hippolytus had ascended the most august chair of Blessed Peter. Nor can the example of Linus, Cletus, and Clement aid this conjecture of le Moyne in any way; for great writers such as Baronius (89), Pagius (90), and Tillemont (91), relying on the testimonies of ancient authors—namely, St. Irenaeus (92), St. Epiphanius (93), and others—^C have added the title of universal to the name of Pope: thus, John VIII is called universal Pope in the Synod of Pavia in the year 876, vol. II of the Capitularies, col. 237 and 239. The same supreme pontiff is addressed as a co-angelic pope in the Roman Synod of the year 877, ibid. p. 255.

(88) Cited edit. Amsterdam, year 1700, p. 179: "We say that the blessed Pope Cyprian has withdrawn from the subdeacon Clement." Regarding which words Rigaltius writes on the same page: "The Romans do not begrudge the bishop of Carthage being so addressed: but neither does Tertullian call the Roman pontiff otherwise in his book *De Praescriptione haereticorum* and in his book *De pudicitia*. These were, at that time, common titles for the Roman pontiff along with the bishops of most other cities. Hence also in the title of epistle 30, page 209, these words are read: 'To Pope Cyprian, the priests and deacons residing at Rome send greetings.' As also in the title of epistle 35, p. 218. We know that bishops were frequently called by the name of 'Pope' among other ancient Fathers of the Church. Thus in St. Jerome, book II *against Rufinus*, Oper. S. Hier. vol. II, p. 545, no. 16 of the Vallarsi edit. of the year 1735: 'You also write that I indicated in letters that Pope Theophilus recently issued an exposition of the faith, which has not yet reached you,' and a little after: 'You who say that you follow the opinion of Pope Theophilus in all things'; and then, after a few words are interposed, he names Pope Epiphanius; there also exist epistles 86 and 88 of the same holy doctor addressed to the most blessed Pope Theophilus, Oper. vol. 1, p. 531 and 532 of the same Vallarsi edit. 1754, in the latter of which, p. 533, these words are held: 'Strive, therefore, most loving and most blessed Pope, and on every occasion write to the Western bishops, that they may not cease to cut down, with a sickle, the sharp evil growths, as you yourself signify.' In which also Anastasius, the supreme Pontiff, is called 'Pope' on the same page. Likewise in epistles 102 and 103, vol. 1, p. 626 and following, addressed to the holy and most blessed Pope Augustine, these things are found: 'Remember me, holy and venerable Pope, and [greet] our holy and venerable brother Pope Alypius, that you may salute [him] out of my regard, I implore... may Christ our God and almighty Lord protect you, a pillar and mindful of me, truly holy and to be respected Pope.' Innumerable are other examples of this kind in the same St. Jerome, which are omitted deliberately, lest we be too long on a matter already explored: countless are also those in St. Augustine in epistles 13, 18, 222, 256, and others, whom Joachim Vadianus praises in his book *De status primativae Ecclesiae* at the end, Bignonius in his notes to book 1 of Marculfus, and Savaro on Sidonius, book 1, epistle 6. In the series of the bishops of Metz written under Charlemagne, Chrodegang is adorned with the name of Pope: The noble Pope Chrodegang is held in all things. See more in du Cange loc. cit.; Theophilus Raynaud Oper. vol. X, in the *Onomasticon pontificium*, under the word 'Papa'; Macrius in his *Hierolexicon* under the same word, and others who have discoursed abundantly on this name. Hence, as du Cange says loc. cit., 'since that nomenclature was common, it happened that the Roman ^D suppose. But he who a little above instructed us so egregiously that St. Hippolytus was called Roman bishop by the ancients because he obtained the episcopate in the Roman province, and proved this by many examples taken from ecclesiastical antiquity—of which the principal ones we ourselves have already transcribed above—ought by no means to have assented to this pure and empty conjecture, since among the ancients there is found a profound silence regarding so great a matter. Which indeed could never have happened if St. Hippolytus had ascended the most august chair of Blessed Peter. Nor can the example of Linus, Cletus, and Clement aid this conjecture of le Moyne in any way; for great writers such as Baronius (89), Pagius (90), and Tillemont (91), relying on the testimonies of ancient authors—namely, St. Irenaeus (92), St. Epiphanius (93), and others—contend...

(89) To the year of Christ 69, no. 41, p. 646, same cited edit., where he brings forward many testimonies of the holy Fathers for the same argument. (90) *Breviarium historicum chronologico-criticum*, where he treats of these pontiffs p. 5 et seqq., vol. 1 of the Lucca edit. of the year 1729. (91) *Mémoires, etc.*, vol. 2, in Saint Clement, Pope, p. 152 et seqq., and note 1, on Saint Clement, Pope, p. 545 et seqq. (92) Book III *Adversus haereses*, ch. 3, p. 202 of the Oxford edit. cited in the year 1702: "The blessed apostles, therefore, founding and instructing the Church, handed over to Linus the episcopate to administer the Church. Paul mentions this Linus in those which are his Epistles to Timothy. Now Anacletus succeeds him, and in the third place from the apostles, Clement receives the episcopate, who saw the apostles and conferred with them." See what is noted on this passage by John Ernest Grabe. (93) *Adversus haereses* book I, vol. 1, heresy 27, n. 6, p. 107, of the cited Paris edit.: "For in Rome, Peter and Paul, the apostles, were first of all, and likewise bishops. Then Linus, then Cletus. After him, Clement, a contemporary of Peter and Paul, whom Paul mentions in writing to the Romans." And a little after: "But however that may have been, the succession of the Roman pontiffs is this: Peter, and Paul, Linus, and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, who was enumerated by me a little before in the order of the bishops."

^A they hold most steadfastly, that after Saint Peter came Linus, after Linus Anacletus, and after Anacletus Clement, in the succession of the supreme apostolate. John Albert Fabricius sets out this passage of Moyne in the book entitled *Salutaris lux Evangelii*, edited by himself (94), in which he spreads abroad with appropriate learning the beginnings of the Christian faith among all nations; he adds the testimony of Moyne himself, in order to prove that two bishops governed one and the same Church at the same time. But these Presbyterian mazes have already been refuted a hundred times over by most distinguished men among our own, and by very many among the Anglicans, among whom are Thomas Dison, Henry Hammond, and John Pearson, who excel greatly in the praise of deeper learning and the sharpness of their intellect. Finally, James Basnage tears down this primary dream of Moyne in his *Animadversions on the Life and Writings of St. Hippolytus* (95).

X. The conjecture of Tillemont, by which it is argued that Saint Hippolytus suffered at Antioch and was a bishop in neighboring Syria, is refuted.

Tillemont (96) seems to lean toward the opinion that Saint Hippolytus attained the glorious palm of martyrdom at Antioch; and he therefore thinks that he obtained a bishopric in some city near Syria. He attempts to bolster this conjecture with a diligent inspection of ancient Martyrologies; but with an altogether futile effort. For the most ancient martyrology, to be preferred above any other, which Dacherius edited, expressly states: "In Tuscany, Saint Hippolytus, bishop." Another martyrology of the Ottobonian library, in which few names of saints occur on any given day, agrees with this. From such Martyrologies it is therefore certain that Saint Hippolytus did not suffer at Antioch, nor in Syria, but in Tuscany. Nor let Tillemont add that an error and confusion have crept into this Martyrology, because other Martyrologies celebrate on this same day an Antiochene presbyter who was a disciple of Novatus, while the Greeks report that Saint Hippolytus was Pope at Rome; and hence it should be believed that the Hippolytus who suffered at Antioch was not a presbyter, but a bishop, not in Rome, as the Greeks have it, but in Syria. For we answer these things with the most learned Ruinart (97), that the ancient ones, which preceded Ado, and some of those which were written after the time of Ado, show only the name of Hippolytus on the 30th day of January; whereby it happens that there remains no room for these ^B conjectures and emendations of Tillemont. The reading of the most ancient Dacherian Martyrology and the very old Ottobonian one is confirmed by so many ancient writers, whom we reviewed in the earlier part of this dissertation, from which we openly conclude that Saint Hippolytus existed as Bishop of Portus Romanus, which pertained to the borders of ancient Tuscany.

XI. The opinion of Bigne regarding the two Hippolytuses is rejected.

Finally, Margarin de la Bigne (98) himself also concocted two Hippolytuses: one, to be sure, a Greek, of whom there exist most clear monuments edited by him and others; the other, him of Portus, whom the Roman Church venerates; "If I may be permitted," he says, "let there be two Hippolytuses, the Latin one, that former Bishop of Portus, and the Greek one, the author of this discourse." He brings forward the primary reason for this peculiar opinion in these words: "It is not so likely that an Italian bishop wrote in Greek, or was united with Origen by such close intimacy." But de la Bigne has indulged this very light conjecture too much. Wherefore, Leo Allatius rightly and deservedly rejected this surmise of his in his description of the Ghisiani codex, which, as we have said elsewhere, the most learned Joseph Blanchini edited in his *Vindiciae sacrorum codicum* in these words (99): "But de la Bigne is mistaken in this his opinion; I could enumerate many Italians who were most versed in Greek, not only in understanding it but also in writing it; to say nothing of others, Aelianus, born at Praeneste, was so proficient in Greek discourse that he deserved to be called the 'Attic Bee' by the Greeks themselves." The most learned editors of the Lyons edition of the *Bibliotheca Patrum* subscribe to Allatius, and write that de la Bigne erred; "for Saint Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, was a Greek, and wrote in Greek."

^A And for that reason we greatly wonder that a man otherwise most learned, relying on such futile arguments, has invented two Hippolytuses; for that which pertains to that great intimacy which, according to Photius himself (1), he believes our Hippolytus to have had with Origen, this vanishes in an easy manner. For Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenaeus, and who for that reason spent the better part of his life in the West, could by no means have been so closely associated with Origen, who remained until his death first at Alexandria, then at Caesarea, Cappadocia, Tyre, and other places in the East (2). Hence, with excellent right, certain most learned men, among whom is Sebastian Tillemont (3), take issue with the lapse of Photius, who, deceived by the faulty Greek version of the Hieronymian *Catalogue* prepared by Sophronius, declared that our Hippolytus used Origen most familiarly and supplied him with seven or more secretaries; whereas these things should be attributed entirely not to Hippolytus, but to Ambrose (4), the most munificent Maecenas of Origen. Finally, learned men, and especially Tillemont himself (5), teach that Photius was sometimes prone to errors of this sort, having been the first to uncover his prochronism regarding the age of St. Pantaenus, whom Photius himself falsely believed to have been a disciple of the apostles. Finally, what Bigne might ^B wonder, [is] that the Italian bishop having written in Greek, that this should not stand in the way of our Portuensian Hippolytus's episcopal see, since St. Clement I, Pope of Rome, wrote a most luminous epistle in Greek (6), and St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, wrote his great work against heresies and not a few other things in the Attic tongue. Nor has it occurred to anyone hitherto, so far as we know, in such a crowd of writers, to contradict the sees of the Roman St. Clement and the Lyonese St. Irenaeus, merely because they wrote in Greek, except for Halloix (7), who, indulging in futile conjectures, believed that St. Irenaeus had been the prelate of the Thyatireni in Lycia.

XII. The opinion of Stephanus le Moyne regarding the Arabian see of St. Hippolytus is set forth.

Stephanus le Moyne, cited more often, at the end of the previous century edited a certain collection of ancient Fathers, entitled *Varia sacra*, at Leyden in the year 1685, in two volumes in-4, in one of which, on page 53, he published a fragment of a sermon of St. Hippolytus against the Greeks, or against Plato, *On the Cause of the Universe*. Having seized this occasion in the *Prolegomena*, filled with every kind of erudition, he institutes a dissertation concerning St. Hippolytus, in which he discourses more extensively upon his see, his writings, and his deeds (8). He writes, therefore, first of all, that he was an Arab by race, and conjectures that he was a bishop at the Roman Port in Arabia. ^C For Philostorgius [says] in book III, chapter 4: "(Theophilus) built a church where the Roman emporium was, situated outward toward the Ocean; they call the town Aden, where it is the custom for those who happen to come from the Romans to put in." Nicephorus has the same thing, but he drew it from Philostorgius. This Roman emporium is called by Ptolemy *emporium Arabias*, in book VI and book VII: "Because it was the most noble of all Arabia, and there Greeks, Romans, [and] Egyptians, through the Red Sea from the Clisma Port, or by pedestrian journey from Coptos to Berenice, having finally passed by all that sea, outside [the strait of] Babelmandel, and the jaws of the Arabian gulf, put in at the Roman Port situated in the Ocean. It is called by others Aden, as is evident from Uranius in Stephanus. Which name remains surviving even now, and is attributed to the region of Arabia Felix, where there is that Roman Port which is called by Arrian, if I am not mistaken, Arabia Felix in the *Periplus of the Red Sea*, and by others Adana." Concerning the kingdom of Adana, see Marco Polo the Venetian, book II, chapter 46; Alfraganus, *On the Elements of Astronomy*, chapter 9: "The first climate passes through the land of Jeman, where the cities are famous: Dafara, Oman, Hadramuta, Aden." ^D Scherif Elidris, in his *Geography*, which is wrongly called the *Nubian*, climate 1, part vi: "Aden is a small city, but famous, because it is the port of both seas, and from it ships depart for Sinde, India, and the Sinae, and Chinese vessels are brought to it; whence it is evident that it was the most noble port of Arabia, and because of its location more frequented by both Easterners and Westerners than any other. Therefore it was called the Port, the Emporium of Arabia, or rather Arabia Felix, as is evident from the *Periplus* of Arrian, because it was the most pleasant place of all Arabia Felix and the most noble compendium of that most blessed region." And on page 50 he repeats these things: "Not the Ostian Port at the mouths of the Tiber, but the Roman Port in Arabia, where Hippolytus is recorded to have lived for a long time; and indeed if he had been bishop of the Ostian Port, and had been consumed by martyrdom there, that monument consecrated to his memory, that marble cathedral statue inscribed on both sides with Greek letters, [dating] from the past century out of ruins which...

(though without any testimony of the ancients), [some suggest] he was born in a village of Arabia Petraea in the diocese of Bostra, that he lived a long time at Bostra, which was the metropolis of that same Arabia, and that he existed as the bishop of Portus Romanus in Arabia Felix. This new opinion of a learned man concerning an Arabic episcopacy of St. Hippolytus has been accepted by not a few who are eminent for their literary fame among the heterodox, namely William Cave (9), Frederick Spanheim (10), Samuel Basnage (11), and most recently Albert Fabricius of Hamburg (12). But how far this divine guess of Stephen le Moyne is from the truth, will easily be apparent to anyone from the things that are soon to be said.

XIII. The foundations of this opinion are indicated, and the author of the little treatise, which bears the name of Pope St. Gelasius I, is investigated.

Le Moyne attempts to bolster his divination with two testimonies of the ancients (13), one of which he takes from a certain writing, *On the two natures in Christ*, which bears the name of Pope Gelasius I, the other from Philostorgius.

^A As regards the first, there is a famous controversy among the learned as to who the Gelasius may have been, the author of the little treatise which we praised a moment ago (14). Some attribute it to the first Roman pontiff Gelasius, others to Gelasius of Cyzicus, and some adjudicate it to Gelasius of Caesarea. The great father of the ecclesiastical annals, Baronius (15), with the immense erudition in which he abounded, most diligently recalled this matter to the rules of sounder criticism, and showed by very great arguments that the Roman pontiff Gelasius was not the author of this little treatise. For Gennadius writes (16) that Pope Gelasius published a great and distinguished volume against the Eutychians; to which Anastasius the Librarian seems to agree (17), who refers to a work of this kind as 'books' in a clear manner. No one will judge that these words of Gennadius, who had read the genuine work of Gelasius, could designate the little treatise we now possess, for when Gennadius calls it a great and distinguished volume, and since he himself used words of this kind very sparingly, no one fails to see that it cannot be appropriate to a little work of such small bulk. That this was in fact ^B conjectured by the most learned man, Stephen le Moyne, who spoke copiously about Hippolytus and his writings in the Prolegomena and notes to the *Varia sacra*, and besides Tillemont and Cave, he is to be consulted on this. ^C Which was brought forth from that place, having been placed and set up by his followers in the episcopal see which Hippolytus had occupied; namely, within the territory and precincts of the Portus Ostiensis. But now it has been discovered at the Laurentian church near the City, by which it seems clear to me that the Romans claimed him, that he acted chiefly at Rome, [and] there applied himself keenly and strenuously to propagating the Gospel and extinguishing the venom and poison of heresies, [and] that he was the ruler of no neighboring episcopal see; and if he was held to be the bishop of Portus, it was not Portus in Latium and the Roman diocese, but that he was recognized and reputed as the bishop of Portus Romanus in Arabia. Thus he.

(9) In the frequently cited *Historia litteraria*, p. 102: "We can rightly conclude with the learned Le Moyne that Hippolytus was the bishop of Portus Romanus, a most famous emporium in Arabia, also called Aden, and much frequented by Roman merchants." But these things must be explained a little more clearly and explicitly. Aden was a city situated on the Red Sea... That Hippolytus as bishop of Portus Romanus had his see in this city, we have no doubt. Whence Pope Gelasius writes that he was the bishop of the metropolis of Arabia... from this *Portus Romanus* was born the vulgar fable that Hippolytus was bishop of *Portus Romanus* at the mouth of the Tiber, at the sixteenth milestone from the City. See also Oudin, cited vol. I, p. 221.

(10) *Epitome isagogica ad histor. ecclesiast.*, p. 101, tom. I, published at Leiden in the year 1689.

(11) *Annales politico-ecclesiastici*, for the year 222, tom. II, p. 288, no. 7, published at Rotterdam in the year 1706: "To which Church he (Hippolytus) was prefect, Eusebius does not say, and Jerome professes that it is unknown to him... however, we deduce the conjecture that he performed the office of bishop in the East from Jerome... He wrote a homily on the praise of the Lord Savior in which he signifies that it was spoken in the church while Origen was present. Origen seems to have heard him speaking when he was staying in Arabia, to which he had betaken himself two or three times... Therefore the mind inclines toward the idea that Hippolytus obtained the episcopacy in Arabia, not in Italy, since Origen did not hear the Portuensian Church, so that he might be a listener of Hippolytus... much is commended with a show of probability by the most learned conjecture of Le Moyne, etc."

(12) *Biblioth. graec.*, lib. V, cap. 1, p. 205, tom. V: "Bishop of Portus Romanus, not Ostiensis in Italy, but of the emporium famous in Arabia by this name."

(13) Le Moyne as yet claims that the episcopacy of St. Hippolytus is unknown, and writes as follows: "Which can be confirmed by the testimony of Pope Gelasius himself of Rome, who occupied the Roman see in the same century or shortly after the death of Jerome. He indeed in the book *On the two natures in Christ* cites Hippolytus as bishop of the metropolis of Arabia in the *Memoria haereseon*." This should not have rendered this little work suspect to the most eminent cardinal, as if it were not the work of Pope Gelasius, who, says the cardinal, could not have been ignorant that Hippolytus was a Roman bishop, and not an Arabian metropolitan. But Jerome was ignorant of this in Rome itself 50 years before Gelasius; why then should Gelasius also not have been ignorant of the same? Certainly, that work should not for that reason have come under suspicion. Nor is it the offspring of Gennadius, nor of Gelasius of Caesarea, nor of Gelasius of Cyzicus, but of Pope Gelasius of Rome. Which was finally confirmed by their calculation against the three most eminent cardinals Baronius, Bellarmine, and Perron by Sirmond, Petavius, Chifletius, Labbeus, and other men adorned and distinguished by literary praises.

(14) Exists as a book in *Antidoto adversus haereses*, Basel 1528, fol., and with other writings of the ancients *De duabus naturis et una persona in Christo*, Zurich 1571, fol.; finally in *Bibliotheca Patrum*, vol. VIII, p. 699.

(15) For the year of Christ 496, no. 1 et seqq., tom. VIII of the *Annales*, p. 595 of the cited edition.

(16) *Libro de viris illustribus*, cap. 94, in tom. II of the edition of Vallarsi, p. 987: "Gelasius, bishop of the city of Rome, wrote against Eutyches and Nestorius a great and distinguished volume, and treatises of diverse Scriptures and sacraments in refined style, and he wrote letters against Peter and Acacius, which are held today in the Catholic Church. He also wrote hymns in the likeness of Ambrose. He died under Anastasius Augustus."

(17) In *Vita S. Gelasii* tom. III, published at Rome from the Vatican press in the year 1728: "He wrote treatises and hymns, as did the blessed bishop Ambrose, and books against Eutyches and Nestorius, which are kept today in the library and in the archive of the Church."

^A This is more clearly shown by the fact that the works of Antiochus the bishop [(18)] against avarice, and of Theophilus of Alexandria [(19)] against Origen, are called a "great volume" by him. Moreover, he distinguished the history of Sulpicius Severus [(20)], along with the rest of his works, under the title of "little work"; that this history is three times larger than the aforementioned booklet will be easily evident to anyone examining it. [(21)] Added to this is the fact that the testimony of Gennadius regarding Gelasius is missing in the most ancient Vatican codex, which the most learned prefect of the Vatican library, Laurentius Zaccagnus, acquired for it. The most wise Lucas Holstenius, who saw it in the library of the regular clerics of S. Andrea della Valle, praised this codex and rightly called it most ancient; for there, at one time, Cicero's orations against Verres had been written in square and truly Roman letters, which were later erased and scraped away, and the Catalogue of S. Jerome and Gennadius was inscribed over them again in uncial, but more recent, letters. ^B By a second argument, Baronius [(22)] proves that many things are found in this booklet which it is nearly impossible were written by Pope S. Gelasius, and he observes that Eusebius of Caesarea is honored in the same booklet with many praises; it is certain that he was an Arian, yet his works are rejected by this same Gelasius from the number of books of the apocrypha, and that only Greek Fathers are praised, while Ambrose, Jerome, and others among the Latins are passed over in silence. Truly, Jacob Sirmond [(23)], Philippe Labbe [(24)], and Antoine Pagi [(25)] the elder believe S. Gelasius to be the author of such a booklet, not only because it is inscribed in the most ancient codices among his undoubted epistles, and ^A S. Fulgentius, who flourished a few years after Gelasius, took from this booklet three pieces of testimony as if from Pope Gelasius, which he cited in the book *On the 5 Questions* before Ferrandus the deacon, ch. 18; but also because he is praised by Pope John II in a letter to Avienus [(26)] and the other senators. But the great Baronius appears not obscurely to have countered these arguments of Sirmond; although he himself could not see the testimony of Ferrandus, whose Works Francis Chiflet published many years after the death of Baronius. Therefore, the most eminent cardinal observes that some things were forged by imposters and attributed to Pope S. Gelasius in the same century in which he himself died and Fulgentius flourished. As an excellent witness for his opinion, he cites Cassiodorus, who explicitly writes that certain annotations on the epistles of the divine Paul, in which traces of the Pelagian dogma remained, had been falsely attributed to Pope S. Gelasius [(27)]. "I found," he says, "in the thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, annotations written at the very beginning of my reading, which were held in such high regard in everyone's hands that they claimed they were written by the study of the most learned man, the holy Pope Gelasius of the city of Rome, which is what those who wish to defend corrupt things by the authority of a glorious name are accustomed to do. ^C But to us, from previous readings upon diligent re-tractions, it became clear that the diction was indeed very subtle and brief, but that the poisons of the Pelagian error were sown therein." Therefore, in the age of Cassiodorus, who wrote these things around the year 556 [(28)], works falsely attributed to Pope Gelasius were already beginning to circulate long before, which were held by most learned men as true and genuine; and thus it will seem to some not improbable that S. Fulgentius and others ^D affirmed, yet among the many assertions of the holy orthodox Fathers he places after the great Athanasius and before Gregory Nazianzen, Eusebius of Caesarea, already condemned by all long ago as the standard-bearer of the Arians, and he brings forward his three sentences taken from diverse places: how unworthy these are of Pope Gelasius, everyone sees; and how alien that author is to any Latin writer, since in such a matter he relies solely upon the authority of the Greeks, with barely two Latins out of many brought in as testimony. But know how contrarily these things agree with that Gelasius reviewed by Photius, while he himself in the said work about the Council of Nicaea greatly praises the same Eusebius of Caesarea, and adorns him with titles worthy of a great orthodox man, and wishes him to be exempt from every suspicion of Arian heresy, while he did not fear to affirm that he never consented to Arius. One should read Bellarmine *On ecclesiastical writers*, regarding S. Pope Gelasius in vol. VII of the Works of the cited edition, p. 187.

^A entirely denies that S. Hippolytus presided over the Portuensis Church, since at the close of the fifth century this was completely unknown at Rome. However, since it cannot be safely affirmed that S. Pope Gelasius was the author of this little book, we seek in vain in this same work for the tradition of the Roman Church regarding the see of S. Hippolytus.

XIV. Heterodox believers ill-advisedly attempt to oppose the mystery of transubstantiation with the testimony of the little book on the two natures. For this reason, we are also puzzled that certain heterodox writers, who are proficient in the true rules of criticism (as they say), and while neglecting the testimonies of so many ancient Fathers, try to deduce from this writing of doubtful authenticity that S. Pope Gelasius had this little work at hand when he was writing of the most august sacrament of the Eucharist. Others, however, who contend that Pope Gelasius is the author of such a work, judge that these things could not be written about S. Fulgentius without injustice, since it seems difficult to them that so great a man could have been so shamefully deluded as to be unable to distinguish the genuine work of Gelasius from a supposititious one, while he recited in the cited book three very lucid testimonies taken from it. Nor, they say, should it be a wonder to anyone if S. Pope Gelasius gathered many testimonies from the works of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he himself had nevertheless rejected among the apocrypha in the decree on books to be received and not to be received; for, as the most learned prelate Justus Fontaninus taught in his work ^B *On the antiquities of Orta* (30), S. Gelasius did not brand those books as apocryphal with the aim of warning Catholic men not to place any faith in them because they were teeming with heresies, but rather to deny them canonical authority only. Antoine Arnauld, in that excellent work against Claude of Charenton and the other Calvinists, written so clearly on behalf of the sacrosanct sacrament of the Eucharist, professes a middle opinion, namely that this little work, which remains today, is a fragment of a great work of S. Pope Gelasius against Eutyches (31). But however the matter stands, we leave this question to be discussed by more learned men. Let it suffice for us to have proved that it is still uncertain whether S. Pope Gelasius was the author of this little book, so that that work should not be accepted by us as his genuine and great volume on the two natures in Christ against Eutyches. Consequently, the argument of the most learned Tillemont (32) utterly collapses, who, from this opinion of Pope Gelasius—as he himself believed—concerning the see of S. Hippolytus, even if it is very far from the truth, ^C denied that he had taught transubstantiation; since in his genuine letters that remain, the same Supreme Pontiff taught concerning transubstantiation what the most ancient Fathers Origen, Irenaeus, Cyprian, and others delivered (33), whose most lucid testimonies are recited in more than one place by the illustrious monk Remigius Ceillier (34). Furthermore, from the very words of the cited little work, which heretics object to us with great clamor, nothing can be deduced that favors the opinion of the heterodox; for those words: "The certain sacraments which we take are a divine thing of the body and blood of Christ, because of which, and by the same, we are made partakers of the divine nature, and yet it does not cease to be the substance or nature of bread and wine (35)"; are not to be taken, as Albert Claude (36), and recently William Cave (37), and other heterodox writers who are called sacramentarians interpret them, as if Gelasius, or whoever may be the author of this little work, believed that the true substance of bread remains in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist after consecration. For those terms *ousias* and *physeōs* among the Greeks, and substance and nature among

^A Latin authors have taught a hundred times over that terms were used promiscuously for species or accidents, as have great men such as Baronius, Arnaldus, Bellarminus, and most recently the most learned in Oriental languages, Michael Lequien, a distinguished theologian of the Order of Preachers. Indeed, as the great father of ecclesiastical annals wisely observes, the ancient Fathers used such terms at that time in good faith and promiscuously; for, as the heretics had not yet arisen, a more secure simplicity prevailed. But when the malice of the heretics supervened and attempted to deceive the minds of the simple with subtle sophistries, it became necessary to devise certain terms—namely, for accidents or species— which would most openly overthrow the trifles and cavils of the heretics. In like manner, recent heterodox writers, neglecting the most ancient Fathers, from whom the sacrosanct Eucharist is most clearly called the flesh of the Word of God and the body of the Lord, undeservedly object to us the Epistle to Caesarius the Monk attributed to St. John Chrysostom, and St. Gelasius’s *De duabus naturis* as weak testimonies, when so many most eloquent Fathers of the primitive Church and of later times have acknowledged the true transubstantiation of the ecclesiastical bread and have spoken most clearly of it in nearly numberless places. That anyone would object to these with the putrid scraps of writers adorned with the great names of Chrysostom and Gelasius, contrary to the more correct rules of criticism which they teach, is plain for all to see. For who could persuade himself that Chrysostom, who so ingenuously confessed the miraculous transubstantiation of the eucharistic bread in so many and such significant places, has now changed his opinion to favor the dreams of the heterodox? Or that St. Gelasius, the Roman Pontiff, who in his letter to the bishops of Dardania, as Baronius notes, calls the most august sacrament of the Eucharist "the bread which descended from heaven," now contradicts himself and could write that the natural substance of bread remains in the most sacred mystery of Christ’s body after the words of consecration? We must therefore ingenuously admit, with the most learned Lequien, that the Epistle to Caesarius the Monk is by no means the genuine product of the great Chrysostom, but a putrid figment concocted by an ignorant scoundrel after the rise of the Nestorian heresy—or rather, after the Council of Chalcedon—and that the opuscule *De duabus naturis* is by no means to be numbered among the undoubted works of Pope St. Gelasius, ^B since it in no way agrees with the true nature of the terms as they are used by St. Gelasius himself. Indeed, he provides the answer himself, when he refutes the Eutychians for their folly in denying that there can be two or three natures. "What of the fact that they themselves, while saying there is one nature in the Lord Jesus Christ, are nevertheless convicted of claiming the name of nature? Is it permitted to name one nature, and will it not be lawful to call two or more the nature of other things? Who would not laugh at such things, and view them as childish ravings?" If, therefore, St. Gelasius believed there could be multiple natures of one thing, everyone sees that he understood "nature" to mean "species" or "accidents"; otherwise, if he had spoken of substance, he would have affirmed that the nature of things is not multiple, but unique. For the substance of the body, according to the outstanding philosophers, is one, but accidents or species are very many.

XV. The opinion of the same author of the uncertain book regarding the Arabian see of St. Hippolytus is evaluated.

But enough of this; let us now return to St. Hippolytus, whom Stephanus Lemoyne, relying on the testimony of this opuscule, conjectures to have been an Arabian bishop. Behold the words of the ancient writer himself in the aforementioned opuscule: "St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, of the metropolis of the Arabs, in the *Memoria haeresum*." Let the reader therefore weigh whether this testimony, in which, as Tillemont rightly warned, the laws of grammar are lacking, should be preferred to the many most eloquent testimonies of Prudentius, Leontius, Anastasius, and others, who for nearly fifteen hundred years have most constantly taught that St. Hippolytus was a Roman or the bishop of Portus Romanus. Are we to believe that all these most learned men were shamefully hallucinating, and that only the author of the oft-mentioned book was more blessed and fortunate than all of them, in that to him alone it was given to discover the true see of St. Hippolytus, unknown to others? But from those learned men who, neglecting so many ancient testimonies, give full credence to this opuscule, we ask: what is the meaning of this mode of expression, "Bishop and martyr of the metropolis of the Arabs"? Perhaps that the metropolis of Arabia was the homeland of Hippolytus? If the author understands this, we will more willingly believe it; although no ^C evidence whatsoever shows the author to be of proven faith, and sentences are found in it which dissent from the doctrine of that same holy Father. ^D

Nor can it be of any assistance for someone to defend the view that St. Hippolytus was an Arab, on the grounds that some of his minor works are found written in the Arabic and Syriac languages, and that Abedjesu, the bishop of Sobah, enumerates certain writings of St. Hippolytus in his own Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Books; for that bishop of Sobah enumerates in that same Catalogue other writers who were neither Syrians nor Arabs, but Greeks or Latins, such as St. Damasus and others who are contained in that same Catalogue. There exist in the Clementine-Vatican Library of Joseph Simonius Assemani certain Syriac and Arabic codices in which these works are attributed to St. Hippolytus; there are thirty-eight Arabic Canons, just as there also exists in Greek a homily by the same St. Hippolytus *On the Antichrist*, ^B and on the second coming of Christ, and on the end of the world. Finally, there exist some Syriac fragments *On the Four Animals*, *On Jeremiah*, *On the Song of Songs*, and *On those five that Matthew omitted in the genealogy of Christ*. But from these we judge that nothing else can be gathered than that these works—along with others of Greek or Latin Fathers, concerning which Abedjesu speaks—were translated from Greek or Latin into the Syriac idiom, just as we can state with certainty regarding St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil the Great, some of whose writings exist in Syriac in certain libraries.

If, however, from the words cited above, "of the bishops and martyrs of the metropolis of the Arabs," anyone should think to deduce that St. Hippolytus obtained the glorious palm of martyrdom in some metropolis of Arabia, he would be talking pure nonsense. For Prudentius is a witness, as the saying goes, above all exception, that St. Hippolytus was brought before an insane ruler at the time when he was afflicting the Ostian Christians along the Tiber men; for on that day he had withdrawn from Rome, that he might strike the suburban people with the plague. And after a few lines: He had brought his rage to the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea, and to whatever places the sea-borne harbor holds near.

Nor is the most ancient calendar, which the Roman Church used under Liberius, at odds with Prudentius, when it assigns the feast of St. Hippolytus on the Ides of August with these words: "Of Hippolytus in the Tiburtine [cemetery], and of Pontianus in that of Calixtus"; for those words "in the Tiburtine" and "in the Calixtus" designate the cemeteries in which the bodies of the holy martyrs rested, and we have shown above that the cemetery of Hippolytus was situated on the Via Tiburtina. The most ancient Martyrology edited by Dacherius agrees with this same Prudentius with these words: "In Tuscany, of St. Hippolytus, bishop, among the ancient saints." Finally, the Roman-Ottobonian Martyrology agrees, and another cited by Fabricius, which testifies that our St. Hippolytus perished in the Roman Port for the faith of Christ.

Finally, if from the previously cited words of the tract *On the Two Natures* ascribed to St. Gelasius, anyone should wish to believe that St. Hippolytus was the metropolitan of Arabia, it is necessary for him to demonstrate to us which was this metropolis of Arabia that Hippolytus could have presided over. For from the ancient monuments that survive, it is certain that no ecclesiastical metropolis could have existed in Arabia during the age of Hippolytus, except for Bostra. Petra, indeed, the civil metropolis of the Nabataean Arabs, which gave the name to Arabia Petraea, was raised to the status of an ecclesiastical metropolis after the Council of Chalcedon.

EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH

^A

OF OUR HOLY FATHER GREGORY, BISHOP OF NEOCAESAREA IN PONTUS, THE THAUMATURGE, AN EXPOSITION OF THE FAITH WHICH HE RECEIVED THROUGH REVELATION FROM THE BLESSED JOHN THE EVANGELIST, THROUGH THE MEDIATION OF THE VIRGIN MARY, MOTHER OF GOD.

(Translated by Rufinus)

One God, the Father of the living Word, of the subsisting wisdom, and of his power and eternal character: the perfect begetter of the perfect, the Father of the only-begotten Son. One Lord, alone from alone, God from God: the character and image of the Godhead, the active Word, the wisdom containing the structure of the universe, and the power producing all creation; true Son of the true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal, and eternal of eternal. And one Holy Spirit, having his existence from God, and appearing through the Son—that is, to mankind—the image of the Son, perfect of the perfect; the life-giving Source of the living, the holy fount; holiness itself, the giver of sanctification; in whom is manifested God the Father, who is over all and in all, and God the Son, who is through all. A perfect Trinity, not divided or alienated in glory, eternity, or sovereignty. Therefore, there is nothing created or servile in the Trinity; nothing superinduced, as if it had not existed before and entered later. Thus, the Father was never without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit; but the same Trinity is immutable and unalterable forever.

^A XVIII. The conjecture of Stephan le Moyne regarding the see of St. Hippolytus in the Portus Romanus of the Homerites, taken from the history of Philostorgius, is rejected.

Now let us come to the conjecture of Stephan le Moyne, who contends that St. Hippolytus was bishop not of the Portus of Rome, but of the Portus Romanus in Arabia. He takes the primary foundation of his opinion from Philostorgius, who, in describing the embassy sent by Constantius Augustus to the Indians so as to convert them to the faith of Christ, narrates that Theophilus the Indian, the head of this embassy, had first visited the regions of the Sabaeans, or Homerites, and subsequently had betaken himself to the Auxumitae, peoples of inner African Ethiopia. The Homerites are peoples of Arabia Felix who inhabit the outermost coast of the Erythraean Sea, which distinguishes that region from India; having resided among them for some time, Theophilus initiated the leader of the tribe into the sacred rites of the Christians, who, later prompted by the miraculous works of the Arian Theophilus (if it pleases God), raised at his own expense from their foundations three churches in as many of the most celebrated cities of his kingdom; one in the metropolis itself of the whole tribe, Tapharon; ^B the second, *ἐν ᾧ τὸ ΡΩΜΑΙΩΝ ΕΜΠΟΡΙΟΝ ἐτύγχανεν, ἔξω πρὸς τὸν Ὠκεανὸν τετραμμένον. Καλοῦσι δὲ τὸ χωρίον Ἀδάνην ἔνθα καὶ τοὺς ἐκ Ρωμαίων ἀφικνουμένους ἔθος ἦν καθορμίζεσθαι*—that is: "Where the Roman Emporium was situated, extending outward toward the Ocean; they call the town Adane, where it was the custom for those arriving from the Romans to cast anchor." The third church he built in another part of the region, where there is a Persian emporium in the mouth of the Persian Sea, which is situated there.

Moynius, therefore, persuades himself that St. Hippolytus was an Arabian bishop by the following type of argumentation: Gelasius calls St. Hippolytus a metropolitan of Arabia; Philostorgius teaches us that in Arabia a certain city existed honored with the name Portus Romanus; what remains, then, but to believe that all the writers who wrote that St. Hippolytus was bishop of the Portus Romanus did not wish to designate the Port of the city of Rome on the shores of the Tyrrhenian Sea, but the Portus Romanus situated in Arabia Felix? And so that he might render his own opinion more probable, he weaves together the insignia and praises of this Arabian Port, highly commending the convenience of the site ^C and the frequency of the merchants. But how far from the truth that man—otherwise of highest erudition—wanders, it is our intention to demonstrate at some length. As concerns the testimony of Gelasius, whom he himself believed to be the author of the treatise *De duabus naturis* so often mentioned, we persuade ourselves that it has been proven by us above that Moynius and the others who abuse this testimony have spoken in vain, and that from it an infirm argument is deduced against our position regarding the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea. It remains, therefore, that we say something about the authority of Philostorgius and his testimony.

We certainly confess that the light of the Gospel in the most ancient ages of the Church was diffused far and wide among all peoples alike through the care of apostolic men; and therefore we believe that there existed hardly any part of the known world and of that frequented by Roman commerce into which the light of the Gospel had not penetrated even in the first times of the Church. We have an excellent witness to so admirable a fact in Arnobius, in whose age the Christian religion had already reached the Seres, Persians, and Medes, ^D Asia, Syria, Arabia, Egypt, Achaia, Macedonia, Epirus, and all the islands and provinces which the rising and setting sun illuminates. Consenting with Arnobius are Tertullian and other writers of those and later times, whose most luminous testimonies on this matter have been gathered together into one by Johannes Albertus Fabricius in the book with the title, *Salutaris lux Evangelii* [The Salutary Light of the Gospel] rising over the whole world through divine grace, etc., in which are recorded many testimonies of ancient Christian Fathers concerning the propagation of the Gospel.

The account of the origins of religion among all peoples is spread abroad with the greatest erudition. ^A However, the consideration of episcopal sees must not be the same; for since the apostolic men followed the polity of the Roman Empire most especially in founding churches, it came to pass that in the first centuries, among barbarian peoples living outside the limits of the Roman empire, although not a few Christians lived among them, no episcopal sees existed there. Thus, for Carmania 75, Bactriana 76, and other Oriental regions, which the Romans had not yet subdued with victorious arms, the most ancient ecclesiastical records show no bishops in these early centuries. But why should we repeat the histories of the most remote and barbarian peoples, when even Gaul itself, most illustrious for so many distinguished Roman triumphs, victories, and their long-lasting empire, counted very few bishops in the age of St. Irenaeus? Peace being later restored to the Church, the Christian religion, which had already been gradually promulgated for some time, was widely and openly diffused among all peoples. Thus, Ethiopia, at the beginning of the fourth century, acknowledged Christ along with its kings, with the help of Frumentius and Aedesius 77. And St. Jerome received the choirs of monks daily from India, Persia, and Ethiopia; and in his own age the Armenian had laid down his quiver, the Huns were learning the Psalter, the frosts of Scythia were warming with the heat of faith, and the red and yellow army of the Getae carried about the tents of the churches, just as he himself left in writing 78. Arabia, however, one of the vastest provinces of the whole world, which was divided by ancient geographers into three parts—namely, Petraea, Deserta, and Felix—did not worship Christ and have bishops at one and the same time. That part of the province 79 which was subject to the Roman empire was the first of all to embrace the faith of Christ; therefore, it is clear from ancient ecclesiastical records in Carolus a S. Paulo 80 that quite a few episcopal sees existed there; and it would have had more, had not Petra, the most noble civil metropolis of that province, been—as we have said—joined with certain sees of the third Palestine 81. The history of Arabia Deserta in these times is very obscure, nor do we see other peoples of it mentioned by ancient authors besides the Homadae, Scenitae, Saracens, and a few others, among whom whether bishops existed, or when they began to exist, is entirely unknown to us. The first bishop of the Saracens is held to be Moses, who flourished about the year of Christ 377 82.

^B XIX. *Moynius believed that the see of St. Hippolytus was in a part of Arabia Felix.*

Arabia Felix excels the other parts of that province both in the number of peoples and cities and in the frequency of its commerce. In this region, Moynius believed that St. Hippolytus held a bishopric. Some report that St. Thomas was the herald of the Gospel there; Moynius 83 and St. Paul ad-

^C [...] of which we have described some of the names in the note above. ⟨75⟩ Regarding the Church of Carmania, Lequien writes, often cited, vol. II, *Orient. Christ.*, p. 1156, Paris ed. 1740: "Carman, or Carmania, is a province adjacent to Persia towards the south with a primary city of the same name, which is the fourth bishopric under the metropolitan of Persia; but I have found no prelate for it." ⟨76⟩ Regarding this bishopric, Carolus a S. Paulo has in *Geograph. sacr.*, p. 310: "Alypius, the prelate of the Bactrians, is in the Council of Chalcedon from Bactra, as I believe, formerly called Zariaspa, the head and royal city of the Bactrian region. Ptolom. lib. vi, cap. 11." Michael Lequien in his *Oriens Christianus*, vol. III, p. 762, after reporting some things about the episcopal see of this Church, which was also called Metrocomia, enumerates its bishops, namely Alypius, who sat among the bishops of Palestine at the second Council of Ephesus in the year 449, and in the Acts of this council read at the Council of Chalcedon is named Αλύπιος Βάκτρων: Gregory, who in the synodical letters of John, prelate of Jerusalem, against Severus, the invader of the Antiochene see, and other enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, subscribed at the beginning of the reign of Justin in the year 518; Barachus, who sat in the year 532, and Antonius, who watched over the government of the Church of the Bactrians in the year 649. ⟨77⟩ See Michael Lequien, vol. II, *Oriens Christianus*, on the Alexandrian patriarchate, no. 48, p. 365 ff., and p. 642, where he deals with the Church of Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, and p. 643 ff., in which he enumerates its bishops, who are called Axamites. ⟨78⟩ Epist. to Laeta, which is no. 108 in the edition of Dominicus Vallarsius, vol. I of the Works of St. Jerome, p. 671, Verona ed. of the year 1754, cited more often. ⟨79⟩ Namely Petra, which, to use the words of Carolus a S. Paulo, *Geogr. sacr.*, p. 276, "alone obeyed the Romans, and was bordered on the north by Syria Salutaris and Egypt, on the south by the Red Sea and Arabia Felix, and on the east by Arabia Deserta." ⟨80⟩ *Geograph. sacr.*, p. 295: namely Bostra, Adra, Medava, Gerasa, Nibe, Philadelphia, Esbus, Neapolis, Philippopolis, Constantine, Dionysias, Maximianopolis, Avara, Elana, Zerabena, Erra, Anitha, Parembola. The same Carolus a S. Paulo is to be read, who enumerates some of the bishops of these Churches, on the cited page and following, and those things which are noted there by Lucas Holstenius. Lequien, cited above, discourses excellently on some of the bishops of these Churches, where he deals with the province of Arabia, *Orient. Christianus*, vol. II, p. 854 ff. ⟨81⟩ William of Tyre, lib. XIV, *De bello sacro*, cap. 14, says that the province of Arabia was torn away from the Oriental diocese and added to Palestine by the Emperor Justinian at the time of the fifth general council, with the consent of Pope Vigilius. By Carolus a S. Paulo, *Geograph. sacr.*, p. 307, the churches of the third Palestine are enumerated, namely Petra, the metropolis, Augustopolis, Arindela, Arad, Ariopolis, Eluza, Zoara, Sodoma, Phenon, Pharan, Aila. The notes of Lucas Holstenius on the bishops of these Churches are also to be read. ⟨82⟩ Where Lequien, vol. II, cited, p. 851, explicitly deals with the Saracens who subjected themselves to Christian laws and enumerates Moses and Eustathius as bishops of the Saracens. That Moses was the first bishop of the Saracens is clear both from those things narrated in Socrates, *Hist. ecclesiastica*, lib. v, cap. 36, p. 258, Cambridge ed. cited, where the notes of Valesius are to be read, and also from what is written in Sozomen, *Hist.* lib. vi, cap. 38, p. 275, cited ed. ⟨83⟩ In *Diatrib. de S. Hippolyti*, p. 24, ed.

where he speaks of Portus and Arabia, he writes thus: “Indeed, the Port itself was frequented by all. And the Apostle Paul perhaps preached the Gospel there. The Apostle Thomas, before he penetrated to the further Indians, is also said to have stayed there, and to have happily shared the riches and pearls of the Gospel with these merchants of all nations.” ^A If, then, the Christian religion first became known to the Homerites in the middle of the fourth century, and temples dedicated to the true God began to exist among them, why does Moin place Saint Hippolytus among the bishops of the Homerites? We judge that Saint Hippolytus was crowned with martyrdom in the year of Christ 252; but when the Homerites, as Philostorgius (whose testimony Moin uses) warns us, were converted to Christ in the age of Constantius—that is, between the year 341 and 346—it rightly appears that these things cannot in any way be reconciled; for a space of one hundred years intervenes between the martyrdom of Saint Hippolytus and the conversion of the Homerites. Nor let anyone object to us that Philostorgius meant that Theophilus preached the Arian heresy to the Homerites who were already orthodox; for if there had been Christians there at that time, Philostorgius would certainly have named them, in the same way that he most openly testified that, after the Gentiles, not a few Jews also inhabited that same region. Therefore, Moin’s prophecy, by the very testimony of Philostorgius upon which he primarily relied, completely collapses and vanishes. Nevertheless, Moin himself, although he had found in Philostorgius an excellent patron for his opinion, could not have failed to notice that he ought not to infringe, even in the slightest, upon the most ancient tradition regarding the See of Hippolytus at Portus; for the great father of the *Ecclesiastical Annals*, and after him James Gothofred, deservedly hold the word of that most impure man under suspicion; while Philostorgius himself, as attested by Photius, who read his *History* very attentively and reduced it to a compendium, ^B relates things almost contrary to all ecclesiastical historians, extolling those whom he knew to be infected with Arianism, and pouring insults upon the orthodox; so that this work of his appears not so much to be a history as a panegyric of heretics, filled with nothing but raw vice; among whom specifically, as is reported, Bartholomew, one of the twelve apostles, had once preached, and had left behind the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew characters, which is indeed said to have been preserved up to the aforementioned times. ^{C D}

^A Photius, however, no one will judge to have held an unjust opinion concerning the History of Philostorgius, since these very things which Philostorgius handed down to posterity regarding the legation of Theophilus the Indian seem to abound with lies. For, in the first place, no one among the approved writers of ecclesiastical history, except for Nicephorus—who borrowed these things from Philostorgius none too cautiously—has ever told similar tales about Theophilus, that coryphaeus of the Arians ^B. Secondly, the legation of Theophilus to the Auxumites greatly suffers from the vice of falsehood; for the Auxumites had no need of this preaching by Theophilus, because a few years earlier, namely around the year 327, the most holy brothers Frumentius and Ædesius had led them to the worship of the true God, a fact which cannot be denied; for we have the best witnesses in St. Athanasius and Rufinus. Therefore, in all these things which the God-detested Philostorgius relates about Theophilus the Indian, faith must be placed very cautiously.

XX. It is inquired at what time episcopal sees were instituted among the Homerites.

As to the time when episcopal sees were first established in the region of the Homerites, it is clearly uncertain. It seems, however, more probable that they were instituted there quite late, and, which is most lamentable, that they completely vanished again within a short interval of years. St. Gregentius, ^C who flourished in the sixth century, in a certain disputation with a Jew—which Gulonius published somewhat erroneously, and which exists in a more correct form in two codices, one in the Ottobonian Library and the other in the Imperial Library of Vienna, according to Lambecius—is called the bishop of the city of the Tapharenses, which, according to the testimony of Philostorgius, was the metropolis of the Homerites. But the most learned Pagius rightly holds this disputation to be suspect. The credibility of the Menæa is also doubtful. According to John of Asia, as recorded by Assemanus, another bishop was substituted for Gregentius. Metaphrastes, in his Acts of St. Arethas the Martyr, writes that a bishop (namely Gregentius) was ordained by the Patriarch of Alexandria, as Lambecius believes, and was sent to the Homerites. The same Metaphrastes, according to Assemanus, praises a certain Paul as bishop of the Nagranites; ^D but the testimony of this writer can be... [alt-version omitted] [skip notes omitted]

held of little value by great men. Procopius (3) writes that Paul or Zoilus, an orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, ordained a certain bishop for the Homerites, whom they, infected by the Nestorian heresy, refused to receive, and therefore he died at Alexandria. ^A And such was the unhappy lot of the episcopal sees among the Homerites, which, having been instituted there late, ceased to exist quickly. The envious enemy of the human race deceived those most unhappy peoples with the ancestral superstitions of the Sabaeans and Koresebitarians; that these had spread far and wide and for a long time across almost all of Arabia, the frequently cited Joseph Simon Assemanus (4) has proven from the monuments of Arab writers, to say nothing of Abraham Ecchellensis and John Henry Hottinger. Therefore, the unhappy remnants of the Christian faithful—if such ever existed among them after so many disasters—miserably fell into the errors of the heterodox. Finally, it is certain that they gave the name of idolatry to the most impudent Mahomet before he had deceived those most wretched peoples with the foolish blandishments of his sect, and that he dedicated that temple of Mecca, most famous among the Muslims, to the gods of the gentiles is known to all; which indeed sets before our eyes the most unhappy state of the Christians in Arabia Felix at that time. But if Le Moyne had carefully observed these things before he had put forth that new conjecture of his concerning the see of St. Hippolytus, in our judgment, he would never have approved it; for it was shown above that the beginnings of the Christian religion among the Homerites, even if they could in some way be traced back to St. Thomas, whom we know preached the Gospel of Christ to the Indians (5), no one will deny that the greatest increase of the faith and the new conversion of the Homerites occurred a full century after St. Hippolytus, if one trusts Philostorgius. But no bishops are found among the Homerites during these times, who yet are mentioned as having existed in following centuries; to say nothing of those bishops whom Metaphrastes enumerates in the Acts of the Saints (6), whose credibility, however, is held in the highest doubt among the learned.

^A XXI. The Portus Romanus and the Emporium Romanum are to be distinguished from one another, although they are taken as one and the same by Le Moyne.

There remains another argument of Stephen Le Moyne (7) drawn from the same Philostorgius, upon which no small weight of his opinion depends. Philostorgius writes that one of the cities of the Homerites, situated in the region of Adanen, was a Roman Emporium. For this reason, Le Moyne persuades himself that St. Hippolytus was able to be bishop of this city, in which the Roman Emporium was situated, and that he can thus reconcile all the Greek writers, who wrote that the same man was bishop of the Portus Romanus, with St. Gelasius, who attributes an Arabian see to him. But before this learned man entered into this reconciliation of ancient writers who contradict one another, it was necessary to persuade the reader that between these terms, *Portus Romanus* and *Emporium Romanum*, there is no difference. To us, however, it is most fully persuaded that the meaning of these same terms is entirely different; for the ancient writers clearly testify that no Portus Romanus, concerning which this discussion is held, existed except for the one at Ostia, built by Claudius; whereas ancient geographers record that the *emporia* of the Romans were very many throughout the Roman world and among barbarian nations situated beyond the limits of the Roman empire. Therefore, the Portus Romanus so often mentioned by ancient writers denotes the most famous naval station of the city of Rome, restored by Nero, which the Greeks themselves indicated by the Latin word Πόρτον, as the genuine Acts of St. Ignatius (8), Syncellus, the title of the Constantinopolitan codex which Anastasius Apocrisiarius praises, the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, Zonaras, and others (9) seem to us to indicate sufficiently and more than sufficiently. Indeed, Procopius describes the Latin term set out in Greek letters, and lest the Greeks, perhaps ignorant of the Latin tongue, should be unaware of the proper meaning of this word, he added these words, λιμένος 'Ρώμης, which sound in Latin, "Port of Rome"; τὴν λιμένα, ὃν δὴ Πόρτον Ῥωμαῖοι καλοῦσι, "the naval station, which the Romans call Portus" (10). In the title of the aforementioned Constantinopolitan codex [the term is used]. John of Asia, in his History—which is found in the Chronicle of Patriarch Dionysius, excerpts of which were edited by Assemanus himself in *Biblioth. Oriental.* vol. I, p. 359, where in *notes*, no. 1, he observes that by the name of Indians were understood not only the Indians properly so-called, who are this side of or beyond the Ganges, but also the Ethiopians and the Homerites—attributes the name of India to the region of the Homerites, as is clear from Stephen *De urbibus*, and from Theophanes for the year of the Incarnation 563, and from Theophylact, book III, c. 9. See Pagi for the years 327, 522, 571, and 572.

^A Portus, that is to say the harbor of Rome, is the title given to S. Hippolytus. The genuine Acts of S. Ignatius designate "the Port," noting that S. Ignatius himself had traveled from "what is called the Port," so that he might go to Rome, where he was destined to receive the palm of a glorious struggle. In this matter, Dio is to be preferred to all others; he describes most accurately the Roman harbor built by Claudius, which he himself calls by the Greek name *limēn*, and writes clearly that it is called Portus Ostiensis by the Latins, because it was constructed at the mouths of the Tiber.

For this same reason, Charles du Fresne, in the preface to his *Chronicon paschale*, considers S. Hippolytus to have been bishop of Portus, since he is called Bishop of Portus by certain ancient writers, without any word added. By this name no other city can be correctly designated except Portus Romanus, as is evident from the testimonies cited above and from a remarkable inscription which Jacob Spon transcribed and published in Aix-en-Provence in the house of Peiresc. It is clear, therefore, that Moyne, deceived by this homonymy of terms, attempted in vain to assign S. Hippolytus falsely to the Homaritae. For the word *emporium*, as everyone knows, signifies nothing other than a place where merchants convene, where established trading posts exist, which we Italians call *scale*; Pliny, however, calls it a market forum, and Scylax of Charianda, in his *Periplus*, rightly distinguishes an *emporium* from a port, when he mentions in Cilicia *emporion Alanē, kai limēn*, the trading post of Alane, or, as Salmasius preferred, Adane, and the port. The *emporium* was also a Spanish city situated beyond the Pillars of Hercules in the region of the Iberians, and founded by the Massilian colonists, of which ^B the same Scylax makes mention in his *Periplus*.

There are certain laws, as Jacob Gothofredus notes, which Roman emperors prescribed for their merchants residing among barbarian nations, which it was a sin to bypass. Hence it happens that the places where markets were held in accordance with these laws were called "Emporia of the Romans." There exists in the Justinian Code a title concerning commerce and merchants, in which, in the fourth law, it is forbidden by the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius for any goods to be sold outside those places designated for markets, which were undoubtedly called *emporia*: "It is in no way fitting for merchants, whether subject to our empire or to the king of the Persians, to hold markets beyond those places where, in time of treaty, it has been agreed with the aforementioned nation, lest they spy upon the secrets of a foreign kingdom, which is not fitting. Therefore, let no one henceforth subject to our empire dare to travel beyond Nisibis, Callinicus, and Artaxata for the purpose of buying or selling goods, nor consider exchanging merchandise with the Persian outside the aforementioned cities, with the knowledge of both contracting parties; and any goods that have been sold, or purchased, outside these places shall be forfeited to our sacred treasury, and besides the loss of these items and their value, that which has been counted or exchanged, they shall be subject to the penalty of perpetual exile."

If anyone wishes to know which were the Roman and barbarian *emporia* in the East, let him read Arrian’s *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*, which is now held in volume one of the *Minor Geographers*, edited by John Hudson at Oxford in the year 1698. That city, which constitutes the Roman *Emporium* situated in the region of the Homaritae, was called Arabia by ancient and accurate geographers, Ptolemy and Arrian, as Luke Holstenius, a man most learned in ancient geography, long ago noted in the margin of Ptolemy.

^C That city which acts as the Roman *Emporium* in the region of the Homaritae was called Arabia by the ancient and accurate geographers, Ptolemy and Arrian, as Luke Holstenius, a man most learned in ancient geography, long ago noted in the margin of Ptolemy.

^A cupatam, which is now called Aden, which Abulfeda mentions in his *Description of Arabia*, and in our own times is an emporium distinguished by the merchants of the Arabs and the Indians.

Peter Daniel Huet, in his booklet *De veterum mercatorum commerciis et navigationibus* (pp. 332, 333, 334, Paris edition, 1716), writes that Gaius Caesar, the son of Augustus, devastated the emporium of Arabia Felix. But that otherwise learned man seems to us to have wandered completely from the truth in this matter; for, as Henry Dodwell excellently observes in his fourth dissertation on the author of the *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea* (edited in vol. I of Hudson’s *Geographiae minoris*, Oxford, 1698, § 2 et seqq., p. 86), the author of the *Periplus of the Erythraean Sea*, whom they attribute to Arrian, and from whom Huet learned these things, flourished under the emperors Marcus and Verus; and therefore these words of the same Arrian in the *Periplus* (vol. I, *Geogr. min.*, p. 15): "But indeed, shortly before our times, Caesar destroyed it," do not fit the age of Augustus, since one hundred and sixty years intervene between Augustus and Verus. Furthermore, Pliny (*Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 28), as the same Dodwell observes, and before him the very great man Henry Noris (*Cenotaph. Pisan.*, diss. 2, ch. 12, p. 380, vol. II of his Works, Verona edition, 1729), has these words: "Gaius Caesar, the son of Augustus, merely caught sight of Arabia"; from which it is most clearly evident that Gaius Caesar refrained entirely from bringing the tumults and calamities of war upon Arabia. Propertius also in some measure agrees with Pliny in those most elegant verses (bk. II, el. 10, vv. 15, 16): India yields its neck to your triumph, Augustus, And the house of untouched Arabia trembles before you, And Horace, the prince of lyric poets: Wealthier than the untouched Treasures of the Arabs.

To these we can add two other testimonies of the ancients, from which it is most evident that neither Gaius Caesar, nor Aelius Gallus, who was the first to bring the arms of the Roman people into Arabia Felix, ever touched the region of the Homerites, in which we know this emporium to have been situated. Strabo, the prince of ancient geographers, in his *Geography* (bk. XVI, where he treats of Arabia, p. 1126 et seqq., Amsterdam edition, 1707), composed a most accurate commentary on this journey, which, if we examine it most diligently, will openly reveal that the Romans, deceived by Syllaeus, the most wicked procurator of the Nabataeans, went no further than Marsyaba, a city of the Rhamanitae, which was two days' journey away from the spice-bearing region of the Homerites and Sabaeans (*loc. cit.*, p. 1128). Pliny subscribes to Strabo (bk. VI, ch. 28 and 29), from which we deduce that Aelius Gallus never arrived in the region of the Homerites but sent scouts into their province, from whom he learned many things, which he describes. Finally, Dio Cassius, who flourished under Commodus, Pertinax, and other emperors down to the times of Alexander, son of Mammaea, in describing this expedition of the Romans into Arabia Felix, testifies that they arrived as far as the city of the Athrullae (bk. LI, *Roman History*, on Caesar Augustus, num. 9, p. 729 of the cited Hamburg edition, 1750, vol. I), which, according to Strabo (*loc. cit.*, p. 1128), was situated further away from the region of the Homerites than Marsyaba, the metropolis of the Rhamanitae; for Aelius Gallus first captured Athrulla and secured it with a garrison, as Strabo himself (*loc. cit.*) bears witness, and afterwards proceeded to Marsyaba, which was only two days' journey from the spice-bearing region. But in this matter, Strabo is to be preferred to Dio, inasmuch as he learned these things from Aelius Gallus, the leader of the Arabian expedition, whose friend he was, as he himself confesses in the cited book XVI, page 1170; therefore, the furthest point of the Roman journey in this province was not Athrulla, but Marsyaba.

^B But the words of Dio are to be weighed with diligent observation, for he lived many years after Trajan, and after he had narrated the malaise and inconveniences of this expedition to which the Romans were exposed, he adds these words: "These were the first, and, in my opinion, the only ones of the Romans to advance so far in that war in Arabia. For they had arrived as far as the Athrullae (or Athlulorum), which is a distinguished city." From these words we gather not obscurely that the other view of Dodwell, who believed that the emporium of Arabia Felix was devastated by Trajan, is to be treated with great caution, although he rests it primarily on the argument that Trajan, as Sextus Rufus and Paul the Deacon testify, established a fleet in the Red Sea, which, says Dodwell, could never have happened unless Trajan had occupied both shores of the sea; and therefore he persuades himself that at this time the Romans could have pillaged this most famous emporium. But we, believing it more consonant to right reason, think that Trajan did not establish a fleet in that tract of the Red Sea which it is agreed the ancients sometimes called the Indian (Sea), but in the gulf of the same sea which we call the Arabian, and which also most ancient writers called the Red (Sea). For this gulf was closest to the Roman provinces, namely Egypt and Arabia Petraea, the latter of which Trajan added to the empire of the sovereign city of the nations; and therefore, so that no opportunity for rebellion might be at hand for the barbarians, he wished to fortify the shores of this province not only with land troops but also with a maritime fleet, in order to prohibit them entirely from summoning external aid. Indeed, Leucecome, or the "White Village," was the final limit of the Roman empire in Arabia in the age of Arrian, so that a centurion with an army was sent there for the sake of both guard duty and for receiving the fourth part of the merchandise that was imported. ^C But Arrian himself affirms that the region of the Sabaeans and Homerites was by no means subject to the Romans in his own age; since he says that Charibael, the dynast of these regions, was merely a friend of the Roman emperors in these words, rendered into Latin: "Following this (namely, the region of Marpharis) at a distance of a nine days' journey is the metropolis of Aphar, in which Charibael, the legitimate king of the Homerites and of those who are neighbors to them, the Sabaeans, keeps his seat and home; he is a friend of our emperors, to whom he sends frequent embassies and gifts." Therefore, the words of Arrian praised above cannot be reconciled with the destruction of the most noble emporium attributed to Trajan; but to which of the Roman emperors it should be ascribed is unknown to us, although Herodian (bk. III, *History*, collected in the edition of Friedrich Sylburg, Frankfurt, 1590) writes that Septimius Severus, after crossing the Interamnan region and the territory of the Adiabeni, also made an excursion into Arabia Felix; and Zosimus, in his *History* (p. 637 of the same collection), seems in some way to agree with Herodian, who recorded for memory that all of Arabia was devastated by Severus. But the words of Herodian are to be interpreted from Dio, who (bk. LXXV, p. 1256 of the cited edition), when he says that those Arabs conquered by Severus were by no means the inhabitants of Arabia Felix, but merely "Arabs," and lists them with the Osroeni and Adiabeni in these words: "Severus... led an army against the barbarians, the Osroeni, the Adiabeni, and the Arabs," ^D reveals to us in some way that Severus never subdued Arabia Felix, but rather (Arabia) Petraea and the part of the Arabian desert near the Osroeni and Adiabeni. The words of Zosimus are also to be gifted with this interpretation, since he himself calls them "scenite Arabs" (*loc. cit.*). Spartianus in *Severus* (p. 71 of the collection)

^A of the historical Augustan writers, edited by Claudius Salmasius, Paris, 1620, writes that the Arabs were accepted into surrender by Severus, and the Adiabeni were even forced to pay tribute. But it is very clearly established that Arabia Felix was never reduced by the Romans into a province; for the Arabia of the Romans had the same boundaries that the ancient geographers attribute to Arabia Petraea, namely, the Euphrates to the north, the mountains of Babylonia to the east, Arabia Felix to the south, and Judea to the west. See Panciroli, *Notitia dignitatum imperii Orientis*, cap. 147. But let us return to Trajan, who, after he had conquered Ctesiphon, the most famous city of Assyria, went further than other emperors out of a desire to see barbarian regions, exceeding the limits of the Roman empire; and he would have betaken himself into India like a new Alexander, had he not been deterred by his now advancing age and completely abandoned the plan for this expedition. But Trajan's journey, however long, was still undertaken only through those regions which were a long distance from the province of the Homerites. For Trajan, as Dion testifies (book LXVIII on Trajan, no. 28, p. 1145), after he took Ctesiphon, decided to cross the Red Sea—that is, the Persian Gulf—for, as Gisbert Cuper also notes, the ancients sometimes called the Persian Gulf by the name of the Red Sea, just as Christoph Cellarius also noted in his *Ancient Geography*, book I, cap. 14, p. 600, edition of Leipzig, 1782, vol. II: "The emperor also occupied without any effort the island of Mesene on the Tigris, in which Atambilus reigned, and subsequently those who inhabited the city called Spasini Vallum received him in a friendly manner." At length he came to the Ocean, but could not proceed further into the Erythraean Gulf; for while he was sailing toward the Ocean and thinking of his return, the tribes he had previously conquered revolted, and therefore he had to return to Ctesiphon as quickly as possible, and the plan for a longer voyage vanished entirely. From this account by Dion, therefore, which he set forth so accurately regarding Trajan's voyage, it seems difficult to us to deduce that Trajan reached that Erythraean gulf which washes the shores where the Arabia Emporium was; since he himself, following the river Tigris, which discharges into the Persian Gulf, did not proceed further into the Ocean; for he was quickly compelled to return into the province to subdue the rebelling peoples; wherefore we are firmly convinced that the Romans never reached these extreme shores of the Homerites with victorious arms at that time.

As for later times, the often cited Simon Assemani, in *Dissertatio IV ad Chronicon Orientale*, § 9, p. 255, and § 28, p. 264—to pass over other authors—writes that Roman trade with the Homerites lasted from the year of Christ 354, in which Constantius sent an embassy to them, until the year 520, in the reign of Justin, in which Roman merchants were killed by order of Damianos or Dimion, king of the Homerites, after their property had been plundered. From these things, therefore, which we have recounted at length, it appears that in the age of St. Hippolytus the region of the Homerites had not yet submitted to the Romans, and therefore a Roman Emporium did not exist there at that time. Thus it happens that the whole of Le Moyne's conjecture collapses completely.

XXII. St. Peter Damian confused St. Hippolytus of Portus with Nonnus, bishop of Edessa.

After St. Gelasius and Philostorgius, Stephanus le Moyne (23) does not hesitate ^B to assert St. Peter Damian as a patron of his conjecture; for St. Damian, writing to the Roman pontiff Nicholas II (24), if the ancient writers had called this city Portus Romanus, which is called [A-µὴν] in Greek, or if they had called St. Hippolytus a bishop of some emporium, and not of Portus Romanus, we would certainly not think that Le Moyne had spoken nonsense; but since he tries to persuade us that St. Hippolytus held his episcopal see in the furthest part of Arabia Felix, based only on the argument that a Roman emporium existed there, we think he taught in vain in every way. For we are not looking here for Roman emporia—it is established that there were many of these in the whole world accessible to Roman merchants—but for the Portus Romanus, which was situated not far from the City, was unique, and in which all the ancients with one voice agree that St. Hippolytus presided; and if faith were to be placed in Le Moyne in this matter, not only the Arabs, but the Persians, Ethiopians, and others, where there were Roman emporia, could claim St. Hippolytus as their own bishop without injury by the same kind of argument.

^A And the acts of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, briefly narrating, report that St. Hippolytus, after he had converted thirty thousand Saracens to Christ, and had recalled the blessed Pelagia from the brothels to the chastity of the Church, and had lucidly explained the books of the holy expositions, finally left the bishopric from the parts of Antioch, whence he was originally, and having repaired to Rome, finished his martyrdom at Portus Romanus. But Moiny himself, who deems the most ancient writers Leontius, Anastasius, Germanus of Constantinople, and others, who believed St. Hippolytus to be bishop of Portus Romanus, not worthy of any faith, because Eusebius and St. Jerome were ignorant of his see, now objects to us with the utmost injustice this testimony of St. Peter Damian, who lived in the eleventh century, in which the knowledge of ancient things among our people had nearly collapsed entirely; especially since St. Damian himself not only in this narration, which he instituted concerning the deeds of St. Hippolytus, in which he wrongly confused our St. Hippolytus with Nonnus of Edessa, as Moiny himself admits, but in other matters, especially in narrating the deeds of St. Peter Urseolus, who flourished five and fifty years before him, has often suffered something human, as the cited Justus Fontaninus most patently shows. We believe, therefore, that the conversion of the Saracens, which St. Damian attributes to our St. Hippolytus, ought to be adjudged to Nonnus of Edessa—Lequien thinks it was derived from *scharac* and not from *sarac*—and that it was scarcely known to us in the age of Hippolytus; although in the age of Ptolemy *Saracene*, a narrower part of Petraean Arabia, was in existence.

^B ...some say that the Saracens first became known to the whole world in the fifth century, when, having crossed their ancestral borders, they betook themselves marauding into Palestine in that age, the region of which having been occupied by tyranny, their power thence grew from such small beginnings that they held sway far and wide in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Hence it happened that in a later age the name Saracens designated any Scenite Arabs whatsoever, and wherever they were situated; and therefore Ammianus Marcellinus in book xiv writes that the race of Saracens begins from the Assyrians and extends to the cataracts of the Nile and the borders of the Blemmyes. In a very late age, however, the name Saracens was so widely accepted that the writers of those times bestowed this appellation on all idolaters and Mahometans whatsoever. Nonnus of Edessa, therefore, could have baptized such a great number of Saracens in Palestine or in Osroene, the metropolis of which province he himself ruled, in that age in which their number was certainly very great. Secondly, all the ancients write that Pelagia returned to a good way of life at the exhortation of Nonnus of Edessa, not of Hippolytus of Portus. Thirdly, Arabia Felix never obeyed the Antiochene patriarch, but the Alexandrian, who, by the testimony of Procopius, sent a bishop to the Homerites. But since Edessa, the most noble and most ancient metropolis of the province of Osroene (not of Phoenicia-on-Lebanon, as Harduin erroneously wrote ^C ...but that he was from *scharac*, he has stolen, in that he inhabits the parts of the Orient, in which sense the Hebrews were called Orientals. One must also read du Fresne in his Glossary under the word *Saraceni*, where he reports many things concerning a name of this kind), and had departed, he reached Roman borders. When blessed Aurea had finished her martyrdom near the city of Ostia, with a stone tied to her neck, in the marine waves, the blessed Nonnus collected the holy corpse with pious devotion and buried it with all diligence. Whom immediately the same persecutor, who was called Vulpius, commanded to be submerged along the Tiber's bed into a pit full of water, whose body, after the triumphal martyrdom was finished, Christian devotion buried in the city which is called Portus. Immediately a voice was heard as if of infants crying for nearly an hour: *Thanks be to God*. He, therefore, who merited such a conclusion of life, it became clearly evident that, because he departed from the bishopric, he did not incur offense before God.

^D ...Peter Damian adds that the penitent Hippolytus converted Pelagia, and led her from the most disgraceful behavior and prostitution to a better way of life and the most chaste life; here the times can suitably be desired. For Pelagia lived as a penitent and recluse in Jerusalem under Theodosius the Younger, which can in no way be adapted to the age of Hippolytus. And it seems here that Peter Damian confused Hippolytus with Nonnus, the bishop of Edessa, and took one for the other... so that Peter Damian appears to have been deceived, who attributes to Hippolytus, Nonnus of Portus, the bishop, the amendment and penance of Pelagia.

This name "Nonnus," which, as we have said, denotes a bishop of the primitive Church, perhaps led St. Damian into error, while he confused Saint Hippolytus, Bishop Nonnus, with Nonnus of Edessa, who flourished three full centuries after St. Hippolytus. Therefore, whether the testimony of St. Peter Damian should be preferred to so many clear ancient writers, we leave to learned men to judge.

XXIII. Origen was able to hear St. Hippolytus speaking in the Roman Port.

Someone will finally object that St. Hippolytus was a bishop not in the West but in the East, because Origen, who lived in the East, heard St. Hippolytus speaking. Halloix, the defender of Origen, conjectures that St. Hippolytus was heard by him in Arabia, led by the reason that Origen, in the year of Christ 217, as Tillemont favored, migrated to Arabia, having been summoned by the prefect of the province. But this conjecture of Halloix pleases Tillemont little. It is altogether certain that Origen betook himself to Rome; wherefore, if it was permitted for Halloix to assert by pure conjecture that a homily of St. Hippolytus was heard by Origen in Arabia, it will be permitted for us too—who have proven by the testimonies of the ancients that St. Hippolytus held the bishopric of the Roman Port not in the East, but in the West—to affirm that Hippolytus spoke either in Rome or in the Portuese church, with Origen present.

^C XXIV. The marble monument of St. Hippolytus, placed by ancient Christian faithful in the Ager Veranus near his cemetery, wondrously proves the ancient tradition of the Portuese Church.

Finally, to some, the Portuese episcopate of St. Hippolytus is less pleasing, because his monument... [For instance, the one] which lies within the diocese of the Antiochene patriarchate, and in the other, which Fabricius commends. But if it were situated [there], and since St. Damian writes that Hippolytus had abandoned the bishopric in the Antiochene parts, no one fails to see that these things cannot apply to Hippolytus—as they suppose—as bishop of Arabia Felix, whose diocese was subject to the Alexandrian patriarchate, but that they ought rather to be attributed to Nonnus of Edessa, who was subject to the Antiochene patriarch. In sum, St. Peter Damian borrowed all these things which he has concerning St. Hippolytus from the Acts of St. Aurea, which did not please the immortal man, Caesar Cardinal Baronius; nor was the great man without merit in having held the credibility of these Acts suspect; for they themselves, as Tillemont rightly warned, teem with marvelous fables and labor under the greatest confusion of times; for which reason we think they are hardly to be trusted. The same are now extant in two sufficiently ancient codices, the first of which is found in the Lateran archives (according to the Aringhi index), the other in the Vallicellian library. Papebroch, as Fabricius witnesses, writes that he found more sincere Acts of St. Aurea, in which St. Hippolytus is called the metropolitan of the Arabs, and Cyriacus the Portuese bishop. If the most learned Bollandist associates publish such Acts, we shall see in what they differ from the Vallicellian and Lateran ones. To us, however, it is most fully persuaded that the authority of these Acts is not to be preferred before so many ancient writers. For if these Acts were more sincere, they would not have called St. Hippolytus an Arabian metropolitan, nor Cyriacus a Portuese [bishop], but the Bishop of Ostia. Nor is it a wonder if St. Peter Damian distinguished St. Hippolytus by the name of Nonnus; for he himself could have learned this either from the Acts of St. Aurea or from ancient Martyrologies, in which St. Hippolytus is designated by this name, especially in the very ancient Lombard [manuscript] of the Ottobonian library.

^A nor was it placed and located in the Portuensian church, over which he himself presided, by those who revere him, but in the Ager Veranus. If there were any reason for this matter, Hippolytus should be called not Portuensian, but Tiburtine bishop, as Scaliger has said. But it is so far from being the case that an argument of this kind has the least power to weaken our position, that it rather confirms to the highest degree the old tradition of the Roman Church concerning the Portuensian see of St. Hippolytus. For that noble monument of so great a martyr was placed and discovered in the Ager Veranus, because in that same place the relics of the holy martyr, as Prudentius has taught us, were buried by Christians in a cemetery, which was afterward dedicated to God together with a chapel in the name of St. Hippolytus (45); in which place, since God, the Best and Greatest, deigned to work very many miracles through the prayers of such a martyr (46), Romans and foreigners venerated the tomb of the holy martyr with great frequency; whence Prudentius, who was in Rome and saw the multitude of peoples with his own eyes, writes these things (47):

They run together to greet him, every youth adores, They go and return until the setting of the sun. Love of religion gathers together into an army Peoples both Latin and foreign, mixed together.

And after a few lines, describing how the feast day of St. Hippolytus was accustomed to be celebrated on the Ides of August, he says (48):

The august city vomits out and pours forth its citizens, And the patricians with equal ambition; The plebeian phalanx mingles with equal shields, Distinction of the nobles, with faith rushing forward; Nor less does the bright line from the Alban gates Unfold itself, and is led in long ranks. The din of various ways exults here and there, The native comes, and the Picene, the plebs, and the Etruscan. The fierce inhabitant of Samnium meets [there], and the high Campanian from Capua, and now the Nolan is present. Each one, happy with his spouse and with sweet Pledges, is eager to hasten the rapid journey; The open fields barely hold the joys of the peoples; And the dense throng clings in the large spaces. That the cavern is narrow for such great crowds There is no doubt, although it lies open with a wide mouth.

When, therefore, the marble chair of St. Hippolytus was dug up among the ruins of this cemetery, no one fails to see that Scaliger and others, deceived by a futile conjecture, and what is worse, that they falsely deny that he sat either in a Portuensian or in any other church of the West, with Moyne and others. The ancient faithful of Christ therefore placed a monument distinguished by the name of St. Hippolytus in the Ager Veranus, adjacent to the Via Tiburtina, not because he was bishop of Tibur, but because the most precious pledges of so great a martyr, translated from the Roman Portus, were buried in that place. Wherefore, besides this most noble monument of his, lesser small images of relief work detected there have also been in the memory of our fathers, the copies of which, as we have observed elsewhere, Aringhius supplies to us. Therefore, the monument of St. Hippolytus ^B found in the Ager Veranus can never weaken the opinion of so many writers concerning the Portuensian see; rather, it is itself supported by this wonderful testimony, since that monument, which no one has ever dared to deny belongs to St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, was dug up near the cemetery where we know for certain the relics of St. Hippolytus, translated from the Roman Portus, were deposited by the faithful of Christ.

XXV. Moyne wrongly denied that the antiquity of the Portuensian Church was equal to the age of St. Hippolytus.

Now it remains that we should briefly touch upon some things concerning the antiquity of the Portuensian Church, lest anyone object to us along with Moyne that St. Hippolytus could not have been bishop of the same see, because the Portuensian see appears to have been instituted in a later age, rather than in the most ancient times of the holy martyr. But if it happens that we prove to him that the Portuensian Church had its own bishops in the most ancient times, Moyne himself will yield, and will restore to the Portuensian Church St. Hippolytus, whom he long strove to attribute to the Homerites. Behold the words of Moyne himself (49): "I frankly profess, however, that I would easily admit with many, that Hippolytus is called a Roman bishop, because Portus was in the Roman diocese, if it were established that Portus was a bishopric in the time of Hippolytus, and that the same things were permitted to the Portuensian bishop which were permitted in later times to him in the order of cardinals, in the ordination and consecration of the Roman pontiff, and in the sacred [duties] ^C where the altar dedicated to God is placed. That table, the dispenser of the sacrament, and likewise ^D the faithful guardian of its martyr, placed there, preserves the bones in the sepulcher for the hope of the eternal judge, and feeds the inhabitants of the Tiber with holy feasts."

[Regarding] the abundance of miracles worked by God at the tumor of St. Hippolytus, [it] is also described by Prudentius himself, *loc. cit.*, verse 175: Wonderful is the piety of the place, and the altar prompt for those who pray; The hope of men helps with calm prosperity. Here, sick in the corruption of both mind and body, As often as I lay in prayer, I merited help. That I rejoice at the return, that it is permitted to embrace thee, venerable priest, I write what I know I owe to these same things, to Hippolytus: to whom Christ, God, Granted the power to grant whatever anyone might ask.

^A For the performance of certain duties in various chapels and basilicas of Rome. But these things are of a later age, nor can the bishopric of Portus commend itself by such antiquity. Moyne could easily have inspected the antiquity of the Portuensian bishopric if he had consulted for a while the very well-known volume of *Sacred Geography* produced by Charles of St. Paul, and had not preferred to rely solely on the testimony of Ughelli, who nevertheless began the series of bishops of Portus at no very late date. Charles of St. Paul praises Gregory, who attended and subscribed to the first Council of Arles; Ughelli adds Romanus, who lived around the year of the Lord 570, and subsequently both are followed by Petrus, Castus, and others. That the Roman pontiff is consecrated by the bishop of Portus is a matter not so recent; for from the *Diurnum Romanorum pontificum*, which its editor, Joannes Garnerius, writes was collected after the year 685, it is evident that even at that time this custom had become established, that the bishop of Portus should attend the consecration of the Roman pontiff. But if we examine the matter itself diligently, no one will doubt that the origins of this rite in the Roman Church are most ancient, since Pope St. Cornelius, in Eusebius, calls the ordination of Novatian "an empty sort of laying on of hands," for the reason that, as Henri de Valois says, it had been performed by bishops of another province, not by those who had the right to consecrate the Roman pontiff. Hence it appears by how immense an interval of antiquity the churches of the Portuensians surpass the Homaerite churches; for which reason it is to be reckoned among the most ancient sees of all Italy. ^B No one will doubt it. Moyne, in order not to speak rashly, has dared to call its antiquity into doubt too confidently; and since Gregory, its bishop, attended the Council of Arles, certainly a few years after peace was restored to the Catholic Church, we judge that there remains no room for doubt but that we must believe the beginnings of the Portuensian bishopric to be traced back to Hippolytus, and that other bishops after him held the Portuensian Church up to Gregory, across an interval of fifty years, whose names have perished through the injury of time.

XXVI. Moyne's divination regarding the ancient unhealthiness of the Roman air of Portus is rejected.

Let not Moyne arise in the place just cited, objecting that the Roman Portus, exposed to inclement air, always supported very few inhabitants. "The Portus of Ostia was built by Claudius, repaired by Trajan, exposed to heavy and inclement air, and supported very few natives and inhabitants." For the inclemency of the air, which now spreads far and wide throughout the Roman countryside on account of the neglect of its cultivation, was unheard of by the Romans and foreigners in the age of St. Hippolytus. Minucius Felix, a contemporary of St. Hippolytus, retired to Ostia during the time of the vintage for leisure with Octavius and Caecilius Natalis, and he commends that place highly for the healthiness and mildness of its air. Behold the words of such a writer: "I resolved to go to Ostia, a very pleasant city, because it was a mild and suitable cure for drying the humors of my body from the sea baths," and after a few words ^C interposed: [alt-version omitted] The antiquity of the Portuensian Church is also confirmed by the fact that even in the earliest times Christians existed in the Roman Portus, some of whom attained the palm of martyrdom, who are described in the *Roman Martyrology*. Under the Emperor Trajan, we read in the *Roman Martyrology* on July 26 that the martyr Hyacinth died in the Roman Portus, concerning whom Usuardus, Ado, the *Fuldensian Martyrology*, and other more recent authors also treat. One should see Giorgi in his notes to the *Martyrology of Ado* on July 26, p. 355; Tillemont, vol. II, p. 573; and the Bollandist associates on July 26, *Acta Sanctorum* of the month of July, vol. VI, p. 303, Venice edition of the year 1749. The same *Roman Martyrology* reports fifty soldier martyrs killed in the persecution of Valerian in the Roman Portus on July 8, and on the 15th of the same month the birthday of the holy martyrs Eutropius, Zosima, and the sisters Bonosa is described in the same Roman Portus. Likewise, on August 22, the memory of the holy martyrs Martialis, Saturninus, Epictetus, Maprilis, and Felix with their companions is held in the same Roman Portus. On the second of March, we find the holy martyrs Paul, Heraclius, Secundilla, and Januarius noted in the Roman Portus; on May 24, St. Vincent the martyr; and finally, on the fifth of September, St. Herculanus the martyr. Concerning all of these, one should read Bede, Usuardus, Ado, and others, as well as Baronius in his notes to the *Martyrology*, Dominicus Giorgi in his notes to the *Martyrology of Ado*, Sollerius in his annotations to the *Martyrology of Usuardus*, and the Bollandist associates on the days reviewed above.

^A Added to these are the things which learned men have handed down concerning such colleges of the ancients. To these must also be joined the *caudicarii* (boatmen) and the *saccarii* (bag-carriers) of the Port of Rome, who are mentioned in the *Theodosian Code*. Jacob Gothofredus rightly notes that these bodies were numerous, for they transported the grain supply and other goods destined for the uses of the City in sacks and smaller vessels. The same *Theodosian Code* also provides us with the principal magistrates assigned to the Roman Port, in which the title *De patronis horreorum Portuensium* (Concerning the patrons of the Portuensian warehouses) exists, who presided over the grain supply; ancient inscriptions also exhibit the procurators of the Ostian Port; and we read of the priests consigned to the cult of Serapis in the above-praised inscription cited by Sponius, the genuine reading of which some undeservedly call into question, who assume that for "Portu," "Ponto" should be read, for which indeed there is no moment of reason that might persuade learned men that Sponius's primary reading should be changed. For, as Jacob Gronovius aptly observes, a temple of Serapis did not only exist among the Sinopenses in Pontus, but also not far from the Roman Port, just as we deduce from Minucius, who records a statue of Serapis not far from Ostia.

^B Minucius himself testifies in the same place that, having reached the seashore, he caught sight of the statue: "Caecilius, having noticed the statue of Serapis, as the superstitious vulgar are accustomed to do, moved his hand to his mouth and pressed a kiss to his lips." Having thus weighed these excellent words of Minucius, who could ever rightly doubt the salubriousness of the Roman Port, adjacent to Ostia? Wherefore, Jacob Gronovius rightly and deservedly rebukes the most glaring mistake of Moynius in his notes to this passage of Minucius with these words: "But when we perceive Ostia so described by the author that he not only considered it most pleasant but also commended it, both for its sea baths and for its breeze, I am compelled to admit here that I do not know if his reasoning was consistent in our formerly most learned Le Moyne, when, in the *Prolegomena to the Varia sacra*, p. 20, he wrote: 'The Ostian Port was built by Claudius, repaired by Trajan, subject to a heavy and inclement climate, and always nourished very few natives and inhabitants.' I believe Ostia was more frequented, yet neither Procopius nor others belittle Ostia or the Port in this way." Such is Gronovius. But if anyone wished to inquire into the matter more deeply and to investigate the origin of the inclement climate from which the Roman countryside now suffers, let him read, if he pleases, the learned booklet of Johannes Baptista Donius, *De insalubritate agri Romani* (On the Unhealthiness of the Roman Countryside), and the disquisition of the most wise man, Ferdinand Cardinal Nuptius, *De Romani agri cultura restituenda* (On Restoring Roman Agriculture). But that very few mortals inhabited the Roman Port at that time, Moynius will be able to prove to no one; for who could persuade himself that the most celebrated port in the world, to which it was necessary for merchandise—which was being brought together to Rome, the mistress of nations, from the whole world—to arrive, was so destitute of inhabitants that one must believe it nourished only a very few mortals? ^C If we consult ancient stones for a moment, an not insignificant number of men emerges immediately who were destined only for the public uses of the Roman Port, whose bodies or colleges are often mentioned in the same monuments, namely, the builders, timber-merchants, iron-smiths, record-keepers, surveyors, ship-wrights, and others, whose number it is permissible to gather from them.

St. Jerome, in his letter to Pammachius, mentions a *xenodochium* (guest-house) built by this most noble man in the Roman Port. St. Ambrose names the *operas Portuenses* (Port workers), and Philostorgius, speaking of Alaric, who conquered the Roman Port and the Portuensian city itself in a dire siege, says this: "He, however, immediately occupied the Port. But this is the greatest naval base of the city of Rome, consisting of three harbors, and extended to the size of a small city." Procopius, who participated in the Gothic War and perhaps visited the Roman Port in person, most clearly testifies that the city was founded by the Romans near the same place: "Beyond that mouth, on the bank of the Tiber, the Romans of old founded a city, which is surrounded by very strong walls, and from the port is called Portus. That this city mentioned by Procopius existed even in the lowest times..."

it is evident. ^A But if in these most unfortunate times, when, with the barbarians invading, the very mistress of nations was compelled to submit to the bonds of foul servitude, Portus Romanus was enumerated among the most strongly fortified cities, what must be judged concerning its prosperity and the density of its inhabitants under the Gordians and the other Augusti, in whose age Saint Hippolytus flourished, while Roman affairs still remained intact? From all of which it is most openly evident that Moynius wrote incorrectly that Portus Romanus had not yet been adorned with an episcopal see in the age of Saint Hippolytus, because very few mortals could remain there on account of the unhealthiness of the air.

XXVII. The birth day of Saint Hippolytus, what it may have been among the ancients, is examined.

But before we make an end of this dissertation, ^B we deem it best to investigate the annual day which the ancient faithful of Christ wished to be sacred to so great a martyr. Indeed, if we consult the most ancient monuments of the Western Churches after Prudentius, which preceded the Martyrologies, we immediately perceive that the memorial of the great Hippolytus was inscribed in the sacred registers of the Church on the Ides of August. Prudentius, who, while he was staying in Rome, was present at the solemnity of blessed Hippolytus, which the Romans were celebrating in his cemetery, writes that the same was fixed on the Ides of August:

If I well remember, most beautiful Rome honors him on the Ides of August, as it itself calls it.

Not only the most ancient Calendar and other monuments of antiquity, which we praised in the first part of the dissertation, agree with Prudentius, but also the Roman Calendar published by J. Fronton, by all of whom the memorial of the martyr Saint Hippolytus is fixed on the Ides of August. Likewise, in the most ancient book of Sacraments of the Roman Church, which the very wise man, most beneficial to the republic of letters, edited, we find the same. ^C And in the Gregorian Sacramentary, which that same venerable man had reviewed, emended, and would have published in print—had not an untimely death prevented the excellent plan of so great a man—an exemplar of a most ancient codex transcribed in the age of Charlemagne, which is now preserved in the Ottobonian library, he also records the memorial of the great Hippolytus on the Ides of August. To these two incorrupt monuments of venerable antiquity we can add a third, namely the most ancient book of Sacraments which Joseph Blanchini edited in his Prolegomena to Anastasius the Librarian. In this, too, the memorial of the great Hippolytus is fixed on the Ides of August.

But the Greeks honor Saint Hippolytus as a Pope of Rome on the third of the Kalends of February, as is evident from their Menology and the Synaxaries—two of which, being very brief, exhibit most ancient codices of the holy Gospels from that same Ottobonian library—and indeed, even from the Latin most ancient Martyrology which Lucas Dacherius edited, which agrees with the Greeks, while it mentions Saint Hippolytus as bishop of the ancients on the fourth of the Kalends of February in Tuscany. But the Martyrologies of Ado, Usuardus, Notcherius, and Bede follow the ancient custom of the Latin Church, while they recite the feast of Saint Hippolytus on the Ides of August. Wherefore we judge that the testimony of Prudentius in this matter is to be preferred to the Greek Menologies and Synaxaries. Nor let anyone wonder that in the Roman Martyrology edited by the incomparable man Caesar Cardinal Baronius, mention is made of Saint Hippolytus not on the Ides of August, but on the eleventh of the Kalends of September; but that on the Ides of August, the feast day of Saint Hippolytus the soldier, ^D who suffered for Christ "under the Emperor Decius, the prefect Valerian," to use the words of Ado, and who was a companion of blessed Lawrence, as we gather from the most ancient Gothic Missal, is celebrated. For this confusion of birth days could not have arisen from elsewhere than from the particular customs of some church; which, on the proper day of the holy martyrs, even with three prayers, has the Nativity of the holy martyrs Hippolytus and Pontianus on the Ides of August, and various orations are described with the following preface: "It is truly worthy, etc. For to you, O Lord, a festive solemnity is held, a day is celebrated as sacred, which the blood of your martyr Hippolytus, poured forth in testimony of your truth, has marked with the magnificent honor of your name. Through, etc."

unable to commemorate the annual solemnity ^A because of some principal hero of that Church, whose memory happened to be celebrated on the same day on which the feast of St. Hippolytus occurred, it was necessary to transfer it to following days or even months; and therefore, since the principal records of that Church had crept into some codex of the universal martyrology, from which other copies were subsequently transcribed, we opine that this discrepancy of feast days arose therefrom. In the most ancient Calendar of the Roman Church, completed in the times of Liberius (76), the "deposition of Felix in Callistus" is marked on the Kalends of January. In another Roman Calendar, that of Fronto, this same deposition is described on the fourteenth day of January (77). There is only one mention of St. Agnes in the Liberian [calendar]: "on the twelfth day before the Kalends of February, [the feast of] Agnes in Nomentana" (78); in Fronto, on this same day (79), and on the twenty-eighth of January, the "Nativity of St. Agnes" is held. Likewise, the memory of our St. Hippolytus is celebrated in the Greek Synaxaries and in the Dacherian Martyrology on January 28. In the Roman Martyrology it is on August 22; in another very ancient one of the Ottobonian library, and in another in Fabricius, on the twenty-third of the same month (80). Finally, another in the same Fabricius recites the feast of St. Hippolytus on the third day before the Ides of September (81). Therefore, it is no wonder if, in these our times, the nativity of St. Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus, is, as it were, torn from its own proper seat and celebrated on the eleventh day before the Kalends of September; and the feast of St. Hippolytus is held on the Ides of August, who in the Roman Breviary is said to be baptized, [and] in the Gothic Missal, his companion; in the manuscript Breviaries of the Ottobonian library, and in the Mozarabic Breviary (82), he is reported to have suffered under the Emperor Decius and the prefect Valerian, and to have been buried in the Praetorian field. Which discrepancies, indeed, all serve to confirm, not slightly, our opinion concerning the changed feast of St. Hippolytus.

XXVIII. On the 22nd of August, the feast day of St. Hippolytus, bishop, is currently celebrated by the Church and in the diocese of Portus.

But lest anyone charge us with wishing to innovate against the inveterate custom of the Roman Church, which the entire West now embraces, we do not doubt that the annual solemnity of St. Hippolytus can now be observed on the same day as it is held in the Roman Martyrology. We have noted these things only to show that the cult ^B of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, was most ancient in both the Latin and the Greek Church, since his mention is found in the earliest records of all Churches on the Ides of August. Wherefore, with the most learned man Ruinart (85), it must be confessed that a double Hippolytus was celebrated by the ancients on this day, the 13th of August: one mentioned by Prudentius; the other, however, the companion ^C of the Blessed Laurence, to whom some things from the Acts of the former were attributed. Moreover, as the same most illustrious monk observes, the more ancient Calendars—that of Liberius, namely, and the Carthaginian—agree with the Roman Martyrology which is attributed to St. Jerome. The Gelasian (84) and Gregorian (85) Sacramentaries, on this very day, the Ides of August, as we said above, celebrate the martyr Hippolytus, or, as the ancients commonly write, Yppolytus, without any mention of companions, or any special note that might designate him as the companion of St. Laurence, or as another person.

Near the end of the page, the text [as cited in our notes] contains the following: ^D “Grant us, O almighty God, that the venerable solemnity of your blessed martyr Hippolytus may increase both our devotion and our salvation. Through the same Christ, etc.”

SUPER OBLATA. “Look, O Lord, upon the offerings of your people, on the votive festival of the saints, and may the testimony of your truth profit us unto salvation. Through the Lord, etc.”

AD COMPLENDUM. “May the communion of your sacraments, O Lord, save us and confirm us in the light of your truth. Through the Lord, etc.” In the Leonine Sacramentary, edited by the same Muratori, the nativity of the holy martyrs Hippolytus and Pontianus is also held on the Ides of August, and in the prayers there is no mention of the companions of Hippolytus, nor in the preface, in which only these things are held:

^A tuensem [Portuensem] bishop and martyr described in the poems of Prudentius, and remembered in these most ancient monuments of the Catholic Church (86).

From these things, therefore, which thus far in the two parts of our dissertation have been treated, no one fails to see that the memory of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, flourished in the Roman Portus. That a temple had been erected in the same Roman Portus in honor of the same bishop is entirely certain from the most ancient monuments, which still existed in the time of Pope St. Leo III, who ascended the chair of Peter in the year 795, to whom the pontiff gave two vestments of *Stauraci* as a gift, according to the testimony of Anastasius the Librarian in the *Life* of the same Leo III, tome I, edited by Bianchini in the year 1718, Rome, page 288: "The same bountiful pontiff also made for the basilica of Blessed Hippolytus the martyr in the city of Portus two vestments of *Stauraci*, one for his body and the other for the high altar." Pope St. Leo IV also, having been declared supreme pontiff in the year 847, heaped other gifts upon the church of St. Hippolytus, which had been built on the Portuense island, as the same Anastasius writes, in the same place, page 383 of the cited edition: "He offered also in the church of Blessed Hippolytus the martyr, which is situated on the Portuense island, which is called Arsis, a vestment of *fundatum* [silk fabric], having *gammadias* woven of silver, one [such], and four veils of *fundatum*." The supreme pontiff also fortified the city of Portus, and received into it fugitive Corsicans, until they should be obedient and faithful in all things to the prelates of the Holy See and to the Roman people, ^B to use the words of Anastasius, loc. cit., page 385. We know that this church, though restored many times by the bishops of Portus, still exists. In more recent times, mention is made of it in the episcopal visitations which are kept in the diocesan archives of Castrum Novum, located in our country. It is our intention to note some of those which we have examined with our own eyes, in which are described the oratories of the saints Hippolytus, Blasius, and the most holy Crucifix outside of the city of Portus: namely, that of Marcus Antonius Tomati, formerly bishop of Bitectum and apostolic visitor of Portus in the year 1661, page 230; of Cardinal Martius Ginetti, bishop of Portus, in the year 1667, page 7; of Nicholas, Cardinal Ludovisi, in the year 1682, page 214; in which it is stated that Cardinal Barberini restored this rural house of God of St. Hippolytus, and there is mention of the well of St. Hippolytus, of which Baronius had already made mention in his notes to the *Roman Martyrology* on the 22nd day of August, with these words: "The memory of St. Hippolytus, bishop, still flourishes in the Roman Portus, and there is seen that deep pit filled with water, into which he was cast and finished his martyrdom." There exist the visitations of Alderanus, Cardinal Cybo, of the year 1683, page 95, and of the same cardinal in the year 1687, page 190; of Petrus, Cardinal Ottoboni, in the year 1689, page 53; of Flavius, Cardinal Chigi, in the year 1691, page 847; of Jacobus, Cardinal Fransoni, in the year 1696, page 421; and, to pass over others more recent and those of our own times, [that of] Pope Clement XI in the year 1703, through Marcus Battaglinus, Bishop of Nuceria, page 116, in all of which the church of St. Hippolytus near the city of Portus is described.

In the city and the whole diocese of Portus, the feast of St. Hippolytus is celebrated on the 22nd of August with the office and Mass of the Common of one martyr under the double rite, by virtue of the following decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which we have brought forth from the registers of the year 1676, folio 34, of the same Sacred Congregation: "Our Most Holy Lord, Pope Clement X, at the pious petitions of the most eminent and most reverend lord Uldericus, Cardinal Carpinei, Bishop of Portus, and Prefect of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, kindly granted that hereafter, in the aforementioned diocese of Portus, the feast of St. Hippolytus the martyr, first bishop of Portus, may be celebrated every year on the 22nd day of August, with the office and Mass of the Common of one martyr under the double rite, by all of the clergy, both secular and regular, of either sex respectively, who are bound to the divine office, notwithstanding anything to the contrary. Given on this 6th day of May, 1676." ^C Hence, Fr. Joannes Antonius, Cardinal Guadagni, Bishop of Portus and S. Rufina, to whom my fellow citizens admit they owe much for the benefits conferred upon our country, took care on the 26th day of September in the year 1756 that a decree of this kind should be fully observed, having also proposed an edict printed in type, which is of the following tenor:

DECREE

A century ago, Flavius, Cardinal Chigi, our bishop, submitted to the examination of the Sacred Congregation of Rites the proper lessons of the second nocturn compiled concerning St. Hippolytus, which are also kept in the diocesan archives; and which were then redacted into another form by Cardinal Fransoni, Bishop of Portus, and handed over to Cardinal Colloredo for revision; yet, perhaps due to the death of the same cardinals, no further request was restored in the same Sacred Congregation regarding these. Certainly, it would be desirable that some Bishop of Portus should report the proper lessons concerning so great a prelate, approved by the same Sacred Congregation, to increase daily the cult of that most celebrated bishop and martyr in our diocese; especially since St. Hippolytus is the patron of the diocese of Portus, and for this very reason the church of St. Hippolytus is found named in some monuments as the bishopric of Portus, ^D especially in the bull of Pope Gregory IX, dated at Rieti on the 4th of the Nones of August in the year 1236, by which he confirmed all the privileges and rights granted by the Roman pontiffs Benedict, Leo, and John to the Bishops of Portus, to the Roman Bishop of Portus, cited in Ughelli, tome I, page 131, in the *Italia Sacra* (cited edition), with these words: "But the quality of the time and the proximity of places induced Pope Calixtus of happy memory, our predecessor, as we have examined in his privilege, to unite the churches of Portus of the blessed martyr Hippolytus, and of the holy martyrs Rufina and Secunda in Sylva Candida, and to decree that they should be joined under the governance of one prelate for all time."

We have treated ^A of the great Bishop and martyr Hippolytus more fully than was strictly necessary, and we are convinced that we have sufficiently proven to ourselves that he held his episcopate not in the East, as Tillemont thought, nor in Arabia Felix, as Stephano le Moyne surmised, but in Portus Romanus near the City. And therefore, no one will dispute that he must be placed in the series of the bishops of Portus. For ten and more writers of certain age have handed this down to us; among them stand out Prudentius, Leontius, Anastasius the Librarian, Syncellus, and others, whose testimonies we gathered in the first part of our dissertation. Nor are the inscriptions and notes of ancient codices lacking, nor the testimonies of Catenae and Martyrologies, from which we most steadfastly prove that St. Hippolytus was Bishop of Portus. No sensible person will deny that all these things must be preferred to the silence of Eusebius and St. Jerome concerning the see of St. Hippolytus. For the aforementioned writers, who lived after Eusebius and St. Jerome, did not state these things rashly, but all these things derived from the genuine titles of the works of the same St. Hippolytus and from ancient notes placed in the codices, one of which Marianus Victorius had read in a Sorbonne codex, ^B or from the sincere Acts of the holy martyr, which perished due to the injury of time, as we have attempted to prove with the learned monk Joannes Lyronius by more than one example. Furthermore, St. Jerome himself—who in his frequently praised *Catalogue* passes over the extraordinary glory of his martyrdom in silence—attributes it elsewhere specifically to St. Hippolytus. This, indeed, wondrously supports our opinion. Moreover, we have shown the conjecture of Stephano le Moyne to be altogether improbable by bringing forward several points of reasoning, and from the testimony of Philostorgius himself we have deduced by certain arguments that the light of the Gospel had penetrated the furthest shores of the Homerites, where the Roman Emporium was situated, a hundred years after St. Hippolytus, and that episcopal sees began there nearly three hundred years later. Wherefore nothing remains, except that we defend the most ancient tradition of the Roman Church regarding the see of St. Hippolytus of Portus, relying upon the best arguments, and that we most securely pronounce that the bishop of Portus, the most celebrated martyr of Christ, St. Hippolytus, truly existed.

(87) Thus the same Marianus Victorius, in his *de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, under "Hippolytus," testifies regarding those words of St. Jerome—"I could not learn the name of the city"—in this way: "Hippolytus was bishop of Portus; this I read in an ancient manuscript codex at the Sorbonne," *Works of St. Jerome*, vol. 1, p. 568, in the edition of the same Marianus Victorius, Paris, 1579, printed by Sebastian Nivelle at the Sign of the Storks, via Jacoba. As a finishing touch, it is pleasing to add also what Francis Combefis writes in his *Novum Auctarium Bibliothecae Graecorum Patrum*, p. 63 (cited in the Paris edition of 1672), who not only places trust in Marianus Victorius, but wondrously confirms what others have related of us: "That (Hippolytus) was indeed bishop of Portus, and thus a Roman prelate, that is to say, a suffragan of the Roman metropolis, as they say, and a comprovincial, beyond that which was the proper Roman diocese, in which the Roman pontiff created bishops by special right; who for this reason are named by some as Roman bishops, being distinct from the Gauls, Spaniards, and others in any province who are accustomed to be ordained by metropolitan right, according to the disposition of the Nicaean Canons; the Greeks indicate this, as they cite it: and so the author Marianus Victor testifies to have read in the ancient codex of the Sorbonne."

LATIN ACTS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTO

([De MAGISTRIS], *Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina sub Claudio Gothico*, Rome, 1795, in-fol., Append., p. 459. From the Vallicellian codex no. VII, fol. 252. The editor notes that these Acts, already published in the *Acta SS. Bolland.* for August 22, were not evaluated according to their merit, when it is clear that they are older than the translation of the body of Hippolytus and thus belong to the 9th century.)

Blessed Ypolitus, who is also called Nonus, whose preaching had converted Alexandria, desiring to visit the thresholds of the apostles, came to Rome. He searched most curiously for the sepulchers of the saints wherever he could find them in places or in cemeteries, and there, offering worthy praises to God, he persisted in prayers day and night. But afterwards, hastening to the Port of the Tiberian city, with the grace of the Holy Spirit revealing the Word...

of the life which he could, with proofs of miracles, he preached. Finally, when he had published many commentaries on the divine books, and had buried the blessed virgin Aurea, who had suffered for Christ, when he rebuked Ulpius Romulus, the vicar of the city of Rome, because he was cruelly condemning the Christians, by the command of the selfsame vicar, with his hands and feet bound, he was cast into a pit full of water, and thus passed to Christ with the triumph of martyrdom. Then was heard what seemed like the voice of infants saying: Thanks be to God. Upon hearing this voice, Ulpius Romulus said: Now the magic arts are revealed; do you not hear the consolations ^A of the demons? But with this voice of praise, the soul of the most holy martyr pierced the heavens, whence it is not to be doubted that the comforts of the angels were present to him there. The Christians, however, took up his body from the pit by night, secretly, and with hymns and praises, and with all veneration, buried him in the same place, not far from the pit itself, but about sixty feet away, on an island which has the sea on one side and is girded on the other by a division of the bed of the Tiber, on the twenty-second day of the month of August. Where even daily the benefits of Christ are granted, and the fruits of the prayers of the holy martyr abound even to the present day.

GREEK ACTS OF ST. HIPPOLYTUS OF PORTO

NOTICE

Who the author of the Acts we submit below may have been cannot be determined so easily; this is a state of affairs that occurs in most of the sincere Acts of the martyrs, for even as their reliability is certain, their authors are uncertain. But if the Roman Church, and likewise the adjacent and suburban Church of Ostia, followed the custom, some notary or another member of the clergy collected these Acts. For we are not of those who could despise the authority of the Pontifical book, while it narrates that this task was imposed upon notaries by Pope St. Clement, that they should diligently search out the Acts of the martyrs.... That other Churches also, and especially the Carthaginian, followed this custom, the ancients have handed down, and so the Church of Ostia had a Roman model to follow. Since, however, the writer of the Ostian Acts dwells more upon one virgin, Chryse, and her procurator, Sabinianus, than upon the other martyrs, one would not rashly conjecture that the same writer should be counted among her household. Finally, in these Acts two presbyters are mentioned, Eusebius and Concordius, of whom the first is mentioned honorifically as *makarios*, blessed, while the other is introduced as if unknown, *tis Kordios tounoma*, one named Cordius. If anyone wishes to see in him who speaks thus modestly of himself the writer of the deed, we shall not object; both, however, expended no small labor in the burying of the martyrs. But whoever the writer may have been, he was a contemporary of those times: for he has nothing concerning the martyrdom of Censorinus, although he begins with him and narrates his exile and bonds; to whom he would plainly not have denied a crown if he had indeed died before his writing, or even in prison. The Greeks, however, teach us not only that Censorinus was a martyr, but also by what manner of death he obtained the palm. Since that is entirely lacking in our Acts, it is a testament that they were written before the martyr offered his head to be cut off. Therefore, the silence of this martyrdom, so far from weakening the credibility of the Acts (as it seemed to a very sharp man), serves rather to confirm their antiquity.

But it is not wrongly doubted whether these Acts were first published in the Greek or Latin language: for in the Latin city it is easy to suspect that they were composed in the native tongue, due to the native simplicity which they exhibit in their style. Nevertheless, the Latin author, although he may be held to be very ancient and a contemporary of the martyrs themselves, shows himself to be so much a follower of the Greek text that sometimes he does not even understand it; just as the Greek, where it says at the beginning concerning the martyr Censorinus: *He did not withdraw from the sight of the emperor Claudius, but if he saw any of the Christians being dragged to death, or being led off to the public prison, he would secretly strengthen them, and as much as he could afford, he provided food for those who were in prison*: the Latin rendered this: *He, not receding from before the face of Claudius, but if he had seen any of the Christians being dragged to death, or to public custody, he secretly comforted, and as much as he could, bestowed food in the prisons, ministered to them both in bonds and in custodies. But she [the woman] not receding from before the face of Claudius, and also another, as much as he [could]; and finally he ministered in bonds and custodies*, smack more of an interpreter attempting to render the Greek word-for-word than of an author using his own native language. Similar are the things that pertain to the sentence of Claudius: *And immediately he commanded him to be carried off through the army to the city of Ostia*: and the interpreter rendered it with sufficient ease: *And he ordered him to be held in custody at Ostia on account of the fellowship of the soldiery.* Further, certain librarians said "consulare" for what is "consulere"; and thence "consulatio" and "consolatio" crept in for "consultatio".

". ^A of the vicar Ulpius Romulus against the martyr Sabinianus: Τοῦτον ἐν ῥοπῇ καταλύσω, which he paraphrased as: "In a moment I shall break him or tear him apart"; where, by explaining the one word καταλύσω with two, he quite plainly shows himself to be acting as an interpreter. We have not, however, noted these things rashly, because very learned men have hesitated regarding the similar Acts, and have been unwilling to declare which context, the Latin or the Greek, ought to be held as prior. Some have indeed been more inclined toward the Greek archetypes, a position others have impugned: yet even the latter have judged the Acts of the SS. Nicander and Marcian to have been written first in Greek, even though they are presented only in Latin in the sincere collection of the Acts, and the arguments here do not so certainly prove this to be the work of an interpreter as do those which are present in the Acts of the Ostian Martyrs. For those of St. Nicander do not smell of either interpretation, so that the text of both could be seen as *αὐτοφυής* (genuine), or as having been translated from the writing of the other language.

^B And indeed, in the Ostian Acts, no one will look for refinement of style; rather, one will be surprised that certain words are proposed in the Greek context that appear hardly anywhere else, whether compound words like καταπρόσωπον, "to one's face," or obscure ones like ἀρμεντάριον, "the rack"; which a very learned man translated with hesitation, he who rendered into Latin the epistle of Theodore, Bishop of Iconium, concerning the martyrdom of SS. Cyricus and Julitta. For that: *Ὁ δικαστὴς κελεύει ἀρμενταρίῳ ἀναρτηθεῖσαν αὐτὴν εὐτόνως ξέεσθαι*, he translated: "The judge orders her, having been suspended on the wood or rack, to be flayed strongly." But it appears the old translator thought "Armentarius" was the proper name of the torturer: "The Præses, indignant, ordered her to be flayed by Armentarius." Our own translator, however, however unlearned, did not hesitate at all at that word. For that: *Θυμωθεὶς Ῥώμυλος ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἀρμενταρίῳ ἀναρτηθῆναι*, he translated: "Romulus, in a rage, ordered him to be raised on the rack." ^C An old glossary explains *armentarium* as *ξῦλον ἀρμεντάριον, ὁπλισμός*, "armetarium-wood," "armature." Thus, the stake seems to be indicated by the name "armetarium-wood," which wood was then used for the rack, with the letter 'n' inserted, as in other cases; for the Greeks hardly have their own word which corresponds to the Latin *equuleus* if it is taken as an instrument of torture. Fl. Josephus, when he said *ἀρθρέμβολα* regarding the Maccabees, designated the rack, and likewise Nazianzen when he speaks of this same history of the Maccabees. But *ἀρθρέμβολα* are called as such, *ὄργανα βαλλόμενα εἰς τὰ ἄρθρα*, "instruments which are cast upon the joints," as Hesychius says, or *παρὰ τὸ ἐξαρθροῦν τὸν ἐμβαλλόμενον*, "from the fact that it dislocates (*exarthroun*) the one who is cast into it," which others among the Greeks have noted. Therefore, *ἀρθρέμβολα* and *ἀρμητάρια* can be held as synonyms, especially if the latter is derived from *ἀρω* or *ἀρτάω*, namely "to fit" and "to suspend," whence the Greeks and Latins both have not a few words. Among the Egyptians, indeed, *ἑρμητάριον* ("hermetarium") was said for "ermetarium," either because they referred everything to Hermes, or from the trunks which they called "Hermas," or by an easy mutation through which the later Greeks said also *ἑρμάρια* instead of *ἀρμάρια*, which in Latin are *armaria* (cupboards). Hence, there occurs in St. Athanasius: *ἐποίησαν ἐπὶ τῶν καλουμένων ἑρμηταρίων κρεμασθῆναι*, "they ordered them to be suspended on the so-called hermetaria." ^D We owe it to these Acts of the Ostian martyrs that they enrich the Greek lexicons, since they use various words for designating the rack besides our own, which first occurs in these Acts, and then in other, far later, Acts of SS. Cyricus and Julitta.

Now, an opinion which has settled even in the minds of the learned must be removed, namely that the Acts of the Ostian martyrs could not have been written in Greek in a Latin suburbicarian city: for this was the most powerful reason why they have been held in no account until now. And it is not only to be repeated that the first institution of the Romans took its beginning from Greek letters, and with the suffrage of the learned, since they had their national affairs written in the Greek language by many historians; we shall bring forward only one point, that Augustus, in his leisure, ordered by a proposed law that the Romans should use the Greek habit and language, and the Greeks the Roman. Which law Tiberius did not wish to have a place in the senate and in public acts; yet it is agreed that he observed it privately, even writing poems in Greek. I do not know, however, whether Claudius condemned illustrious Greeks, though they were ignorant of Latin, by the same law: he himself, indeed, wrote not a few things in Greek. Certainly, the Greeks sinned against that law of Augustus more easily than the Latins, to whom a poet-censor reproachfully applied the custom of "Grecizing" to such a degree that he even noted it in little women: "Everything in Greek, when it is more shameful for our own not to know Latin."

Adrian was clearly called "Graeculus" ("the little Greek") as a nickname, and M. Aurelius commented on his own life only in Greek. Severus himself, although an African and more addicted to the Latin language, is said to have progressed very much in Greek letters: and that he might please his wife Julia Domna, he established an academy in the palace for Greeks, or those speaking Greek; among whom Aelian, a man of Praeneste, expressed Attic elegance. Hitherto, jurisprudence alone seemed to have preserved the ancient dignity of the Roman language, since Alexander Severus, because of his inclination toward Greek letters—about which we shall discourse in its proper place—paved the way for jurists, who, from the school of Papinian and Ulpian, also did not hesitate to write in Greek. Claudius Gothicus himself, after Aureolus was killed near Milan, in order to raise a monument to his victory rather than to the tyrant, used not the Latin language but the Greek. For there still exists, inscribed on that monument, an elegant epigram, which an old poet expressed from the Greek into Latin—some say clumsily, others not unintelligently. Finally, countless stones inscribed in Greek, unearthed in Rome and its vicinity, testify to this very thing; especially those which, although conceived in Latin, were nevertheless carved in Greek letters: such as the epitaph of Severa M., which we print again below. For if it were not in the common use of the Greek language just as in the Latin, that would never have been done, which bilingual inscriptions demonstrate more manifestly. But Christians adhered the more to the Greek language because they used sacred books written in Greek, namely the New Testament, and the Old according to the version of the LXX Interpreters. Hence, from the Gospel of Mark (which Jerome and Augustine recount to have been written in the Greek language at Rome, although others dissent), to the last writer of the first century, unless they were Africans, all published their works in Greek; for the Africans

they were quite delighted with Latin letters. Nevertheless, Tertullian himself, wishing his book *De velandis virginibus* to be read by all, published it first in Greek, then also in Latin, with his own name affixed, which in other works he for the most part omitted (12). The Roman pontiffs, moreover, followed the example of Peter, who wrote his Epistles in Greek: for neither did Clement use another language, or in the two epistles which finally appeared in Syriac in this century; for whoever reads them will easily discern that they were translated from the Greek. That the Acts of the Ostian martyrs were written in Greek in the third century contains nothing new or unusual that could diminish their credibility. If, however, anyone preferred to recover those same Acts from the very extensive collection of Eusebius of Caesarea, he would still admit them to be sincere; and he would prize them all the more because, with the treasure lost, these have come down to us like relics through the midst of the waves. For there is no suspicion regarding the Metaphrast, from whom Allatius—while searching for Acts that were entirely interpolated, or as he himself judges, polished—does not list our own; the style certainly differs too much from that Metaphrast. ^A Nevertheless, that the Acts of the martyrs of Ostia might proceed without any offense, we have distinguished the preface from the actual acts: for in the more sincere Acts of the Martyrs there frequently occurs some preface, where the narrative becomes more illustrious and prolix. The Acts of the martyr Procopius, which Henry Valesius published for the public, being shorter, grew twice as large with the addition of the eulogy of his life. It is discovered that the Acts of the martyrdom of Philip, bishop of Heraclea, originally had a preface at the beginning: "Therefore, the blessed deacon Philip first," and what follows. The Acts of Tarachus and his companions in the Greek context lack the epistle which in Latin codices is prefixed in place of a preface. Our own Acts also in the manuscripts of Saint Maximinus at Trier are fuller and adorned with a longer preface. "But from this," says the eminent critic while discussing these kinds of additions (13), "the authority of the Acts themselves is in no way diminished." And indeed, although we have the Acts of the martyrdom of Cyprian of Carthage, and even the proconsular ones themselves, deacon Pontius exhibited them far more prolixly in his little book, or "egregious volume," as Jerome speaks. Therefore, additions and prefaces are deservedly held in great esteem, especially those which proceed from contemporary writers. Indeed, there are some things inserted by scribes during transcription, so that the martyrs might be named not without praise, but the persecutors with execration—whom they called impious and iniquitous, while calling the others blessed and holy. That the Latin version later added these terms of its own accord to the Greek Acts of Ostia is testified by the fact that they are missing in the Greek; and it likewise exhibits the primitive doxology at the end, which excludes the Greek as being of a later age; and thus we have distinguished these additions one by one. And these advantages indeed we have received from our Latin Acts of the martyrs; but that disadvantage is true, that they are devoid of some chronological notes, and those very necessary ones, which have been preserved in the Greek context. For the bodies of the martyrs who were the first of all to suffer, after they had been thrown into the sea, are said to have been recovered and deposited for the most part on the sixth day before the Ides of August, and others on the fourth day after. But on the fifth day after this, Saint Chryse was brought forth again and plunged into the sea with a great stone; her body, having been found by Hippolytus of Porto when it was cast upon the shore, was committed to burial on the 19th of the Kalends of September. But now it is read as the 15th of the Kalends (which error is easily corrected in the Greek by reading *enneakaideka*, where by a slip of the tachygrapher *ennea* is held): for truly five days are counted up to the 19th of the Kalends of September, the day on which Saint Chryse suffered; but her body was deposited by Hippolytus of Porto on the following day, namely the 16th of the Kalends. Had learned men noticed these things in the Greek context, they would never have disparaged the Acts, as if they were narrating contradictions; for Hippolytus, who also fell as a martyr on the 13th of the Kalends of September, could not have committed the body of the blessed Chryse to burial on the 9th of the Kalends of September. Now, however, everything is straightforward based on the reckoning of the days, which was carefully noted in the Greek Acts, by which their value is certainly increased: for the Latin interpreter has nothing about the fourth day after the 6th of the Ides of August, the day before the blessed Chryse was condemned; so that, with the error demonstrated, its credibility remains with the Acts of the Ostian Martyrs. The Acts of the Ostian martyrs were provided to us by the Royal Turin codex, the description of which was published by the most excellent authors of the catalogue of the Royal Library of Turin, vol. 1, p. 218–222.

MARTYRDOM OF THE HOLY CYRIACUS, HIPPOLYTUS, MAXIMUS, CHRYSE AND THE OTHERS

PROOEMIUM.

I. ^B In the days of Claudius (the unlawful) emperor, with the vicar Ulpius Romulus present, a great persecution arose against the Christians. Therefore, a certain man named C...

Censorinus, a leader of the magistracy, who was a Christian in secret, one who feared God. He did not withdraw from the sight of the emperor Claudius; but if he saw any Christians being dragged to execution or led away to the public prison, he would secretly strengthen them, and as far as he was able, he would provide supplies to those suffering in prison and in chains, even though he served them through his spoken exhortations. When the (most unholy) Caesar Claudius heard of this, he was enraged and ordered him to be seized and brought before him. And when he stood before him, the emperor spoke to him in this manner: "Are you that man, the worshiper of the gods, who has always spoken of our authority? Behold, our clemency has never rejected anyone who serves it, but we, steering the state, achieve success by our constant devotion to their cult." ^B Then Censorinus answered and said: "I bear witness to my Lord Jesus Christ, because He is the true God, who was crucified and buried and rose again on the third day, as those who crucified Him beheld. And He, after He rose, appearing to His holy disciples, ascended into heaven as they watched. In our own times, He deigned to come from the Father into the womb of a Virgin; and He indeed deigned to descend to earth in such a way that He did not leave heaven." Then the enraged (most unholy) Claudius said: "You are mad, Censorinus," and he immediately ordered him to be taken by the soldiers to the city of Ostia, and to be kept there in the prison. Then, in that very place, not far from the city of Rome, but about fifteen miles away, being held in guard and chains, he sent up praises to God day and night.

II.

^A She was accustomed to spend her time on her own estate. Every day, by night and by day, she would come to the holy Censurinus, bringing him all his provisions. She would even wash his chains with her own hands and cleanse his eyes and his face. Now there were also in the same place the most holy Maximus the presbyter and Archelaus the deacon, who would daily offer sacrifices to God there with hymns and praises. Moreover, the blessed Maximus the presbyter exercised such miracles in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that whenever anyone entered in to the blessed Censurinus, his chains on his hands and feet were immediately loosened. Then the blessed Maximus the presbyter, opening his mouth, began to say to the guards: “Brothers, abandon the demons and their varied idols; and recognize our Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal king, who was before the ages and is, and who is to come to judge the living and the dead, and this world by fire. For our age is passing away, and heaven and earth shall pass away; but our Lord Jesus Christ is always, and shall be the same.” The guards said to the blessed Maximus the presbyter: “And what shall we do regarding this thing which you preach, ^B and which we have recognized through what was spoken by you, and through the miracles being done in his name, for it is by his power, and by your prayers, that the chains are loosed?” The blessed Maximus the presbyter answered them and said: “Let each one of you be baptized and believe in Christ the Son of God, and abandon the vain idols, and repent; for in your ignorance you have blasphemed his name, for which reason you have tormented the saints.” Then with one accord all of them—Felix, Maximus, Taurinus, Herculanus, Novinus, Historacinus, Menna, Commodius, Hermis, Maurus, Eusebius, Rusticus, Monaxius, Amandinus, Olympius, Eipros, and Theodorus, ^C the tribunes—all seventeen threw themselves at the feet of the blessed Maximus in order to be baptized; and soon, according to the custom, they were baptized and received the grace of Christ. Then the holy bishop Quiriacus, anointing them with the chrism of Christ, signed them with the words of the faith.

^C ...that it was thought to concern the note inscribed on the forehead of St. Aurea, in vol. IV, Aug. 24, p. 757. Hence we know that Aurea was so openly devoted to the Christian religion that she would often provoke the hatred of the pagans; for they were not anxious about the law of retaliation, who had the designated martyr as a pledge of their own inscription. The knowledge of inscriptions was proper to the urban prefect. Cassiod. Var. VI, 15: *You render judgment in the place of the office, and that which is the greatest sign of trust, life is committed to you in the inscriptions, which among mortals is held to be precious.*

^D Quiriacus occurs. Maron., *De ep. Ost.*, p. 9. In the Greeks it is Cyriacus, whom these our Acts testify was crowned by martyrdom; and his natal day is noted in the *Martyrology of Rome* on Sept. 11.

...followed. The suburban estate served you for a monastery, and the land was chosen for solitude: and you lived there for so much time that, from the imitation of you and the conversion of many, we rejoiced that Rome had been made Jerusalem. S. Hier., *ep. 16, to Principia*.

...that they were accustomed to serve the martyrs is not strange, since they rendered the same to guests. See Sozom. *H. E.*, I, 1, 11.

...is clearly accepted, than Suicerus, as far as he could, suppressed the proper meaning of this word. But the testimonies which he produces are more recent than our Acts; so that the most ancient usage of this word may appear from them. That S. Maximus offered the unbloody sacrifice with hymns and praises, that seems to be attributed to the antiquity of the Acts, before a certain order of liturgy had been decreed; or to the time of persecution, at which time E. Bona teaches that the liturgy was shorter. The hymn indeed can be understood as the angelic one: *Gloria in excelsis*; but the praises or *ainoi* are the three final Psalms, which by the Greeks are called *ainoi*.

...is from the guard of St. Peter serving toward his death by Herod Agrippa, yet nothing similar was supplied in history. But now it is ready in an equal number of soldiers, and with an equal outcome for them, although a happier one. For when Herod had sought him and had not found him, after an inquiry was made concerning the guards, he ordered them to be led away, Acts XII, 19. But our martyrs died. Therefore to the four quaternions of soldiers who were guarding the prince of the apostles correspond our soldiers, who are numbered sixteen, the guards of Censorinus. They were guarding in groups of four for each watch of the night, in the Roman manner, which Herod imitated. For from individual centuries, four foot soldiers keep watch at night. Modest., *De vocab. rei milit.*, in *Script. rei milit.*, vol. I, p. 359.

^A Culianus, Neberius, Storacinus, Menas, Comodius, Hermes, Maurus, Eusebius, Rusticius, Monacrius, Amandinus, Olympius, Cyprius, and Theodore the tribune cast themselves together at the feet of the most blessed Maximus the presbyter, beseeching that they might be deemed worthy of holy baptism. He, having straightway performed all things according to the accustomed rite, and while the blessed Chryse adorned them with robes and provided food for their sustenance, baptized them all in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Having seen this, they finally received the grace of God Almighty. When night arrived, the most blessed bishop Cyriacus, having anointed them with the chrism of Christ, sealed them, and having catechized them with the words of the faith, he sealed them.

III. There was in that same place a tanner, whose son ^B had died at that very hour. As the blessed Cyriacus and Maximus, with the blessed Chryse—but also the holy soldiers of Christ—were passing by, the tanner was lamenting the death of his son. Then the most blessed Maximus the presbyter said to the tanner: "Believe in our Lord Jesus Christ before us all, and you shall live and receive your son back." With tears, the man said: "In whom shall I believe? In him whom I have blasphemed from my youth until now?" Maximus said: "Repent of what you have done, for our God is a God of those who repent, not rendering unto us according to our sins, but acting according to His great mercy." The tanner said: "Then baptize me in His name, that I may believe." Then he was baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. And having become a Christian, after he had received the seal of Christ, rejoicing and exulting, he led them to his son. When the most blessed Maximus the presbyter saw him, he said with tears: "Lord Jesus Christ, who didst deign to take on the form of a servant, that Thou mightest redeem us from the servitude of the devil, look upon the works of Thy hands, that he may recognize Thee as his creator and maker." Then the most blessed bishop Cyriacus said: "Lord, in Thy name we bend our knees." And as they prayed at length, the most blessed Cyriacus said again: "Lord Jesus Christ, who, by Thy immeasurable mercy and the salvation of men, ^C Lord, who didst deign to raise Lazarus who was already decaying, and didst restore the only son of the widow, show Thy mercy upon this Thy servant, that he may know Thee as the living and true God, our creator in his regeneration; for Thou reignest for ever and ever." And when all had answered "Amen," he who was dead came to life and began to speak, saying: "I saw the Lord Jesus Christ leading me from darkness to light." Then he catechized him; and when he had been baptized and had received the sign of the cross, ^D

^A which the blessed Chryse had also received, he called his name Faustinus, being about twelve years of age. At that same time, it was reported to the (lawless) Emperor Claudius that the boy who had died had risen from the dead through the prayer of the blessed men; and Claudius said, "This is nothing but magic art." And he commanded that the Vicar of the city of Rome be summoned, named Ulpius Romulus, to whom he gave charge, saying: "The sacrilegious Chryse, who has obscured the lineage of her royal authority and desires to live always with practicing magicians, bind with diverse punishments until, having been persuaded, she worships the gods and goddesses. And if she is persuaded, she shall live; then also let the writ issued against her be erased. But if any others are found with her as participants, they shall be tortured."

ACTA

1. Ulpius Romulus, the Vicar, having come to the city of Ostia, commanded that all the saints be imprisoned. But at dawn, rising, he commanded that the blessed Chryse be brought before him, to whom he spoke somewhat as follows: "O, the madness of the magic art that flourishes in you, ^B that you should destroy the royal glory and darken your own bright lineage!" But the blessed Chryse, answering, said to him: "Rather, I have darkened the demons, ^C those who deceive you, and have abandoned the vain and man-made idols, and I have known the one living and true God, and God Jesus Christ the Son

of his, ^A who shall come to judge the living and the dead, and your father the devil, together with the (lawless) Emperor Claudius, he will condemn into darkness." The vicar Ulpius Romulus said: "She is deceived by the craft of magic." And he says to her: "Relinquish, then, these vanities, and provide for your own nobility." ^B But the blessed Aura blew (31) upon his face, saying: "Wretched man, if you had seen the Creator God of heaven and earth, you would not offer blasphemy from your mouth." Thereupon the vicar, angered, ordered her to be suspended upon the rack (32). And while she was being stretched by the cords, she began with eagerness and a most beautiful face to say: "I thank you, Lord Jesus Christ, who have deemed me worthy to be lifted up from the abyss unto the heavenly heights." To whom the vicar said: "We shall see if your Christ comes to deliver you." The blessed Aura answered and said: "I indeed am not worthy, but He who has deemed me worthy to be delivered from the darkness of this world is powerful enough to destroy both you and your (lawless) Claudius." And while she was saying these things, suddenly the rack was broken, and, having been taken down from there, she stood healthy. The (lawless) Romulus therefore ordered her to be struck with clubs, under the voice of the herald saying: "Let the sacrilegious Aura, who has blasphemed the goddesses and loathed the empire of the governor of our freedom, Claudius, be beaten." The holy virgin was crying out, saying: "Blessed are you, Lord Jesus Christ, whom I already behold." Romulus the vicar said: "Apply burning torches to her sides." As they brought the torches to her, rejoicing with a clear voice and a most beautiful face, she said to the (most impious) Romulus: "O most unfortunate man, is there no shame in you to look upon members of the body of her who bore you, whom you have set before your eyes?" Ulpius Romulus said to her: "Your misfortune will accomplish these things, you who have abandoned our immortal gods and the imperial authority, and have coveted to be defiled by magic arts." Then, appearing from the earth (33) to be half-burned, he ordered her to be shut up in prison.

^B And he ordered the blessed men to be brought in, Maxim the presbyter and Archelaus the deacon, and says to them: "Why is it that through you the names of the greatest gods are blasphemed? And..."

do you lead men astray so that they may not believe in them?" The blessed Maxim the presbyter answered and said: "We do not lead men astray, but rather through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we redeem all from the error of idols." Then ^A the lawless Romulus, being enraged, said: "These men are indeed worthy of death." And he ordered the blessed deacon Archelaus to be led to the arched chamber in front of the theater, and there to endure capital punishment; and he was beheaded in that very place. And he ordered the blessed Maxim to be cast into the jail. Then the blessed Eusebius the presbyter collected the body of the blessed Archelaus by night and buried it in the field. Further, the soldiers who had believed in Christ through the blessed Maxim were also perfected by the same death. ^B And hearing these things, the lawless Romulus ordered that the holy martyrs, Maxim the presbyter and Cyriacus the bishop, having been beheaded in the jail, should have their bodies cast into the sea. The blessed Eusebius the presbyter, having found these things, collected them carefully and buried them near the seashore, in the field near the city of Ostia. And he also deposited them very close to it in a crypt, on the sixth day before the Ides of August, on the Ostian Way. He also hid Taurinus and Herculanus at the Port of Rome. After four days, he found the bodies of the other saints lying on the seashore, and he deposited the blessed tribune Theodore in the vaulted chamber. Together he collected all the others, and deposited them near the bodies of the holy co-martyrs Cyriacus and Maxim.

III.

[alt-version omitted]

Probus said: "And [he restrained] their spirits [from] the sacrilege of those who had decided to obey the royal decrees." Anastasia replied: "Exhausted by pains, I even kissed their feet, lest at any time they should yield, compelled by pain. For as long as I had a large sum of gold, I spent it on their needs. Now, however, having distributed everything, I have made my soul ready for the passion; judging it just that I should in some way overtake those who have abandoned me." Probus said: "Since the gods have not permitted you, a sacrilegious woman, to be hidden any longer, they themselves have made it so that you would be unmasked by your own mouth." Anastasia said: "I have been incited by zeal for them in whom the word of my Lord Jesus Christ is fulfilled, which says: 'The first shall be last and the last first.' For whoever were later than I in the faith have become my superiors, attaining the palm of martyrdom..." Probus said: "In... a woman, and as far as a noble one appears, you seem to me to... Anastasia said: "If I were to glory in corruption, I would not have said: 'I am Christ's handmaid,' but I would have said: 'I am Praetextatus's daughter.'" Hearing this, Probus...

^A Romulus said: "You shall soon see your Christ, if you do not sacrifice to the immortal gods." The holy Chryse said to him: "You have spoken well, wretched man, even if only once have you brought forth the truth from your mouth, by saying that unless I sacrifice to the demons, I shall see my Christ." Then the most impious Romulus, angered because he had been defeated by her words, ordered her jaws to be shattered with stones. The holy Chryse cried out with a loud voice, saying: "Glory to you, my Lord Jesus Christ, that you have counted me worthy to be reckoned among your servants and handmaidens." ^B The most impious Romulus says to her: "Now take thought for your lineage, and having worshipped our gods, sacrifice to them, and take yourself a husband according to your station." To which, the bold holy virgin, crying out with a clear voice, said: "I already have as my husband the Creator of heaven and earth, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, whom you do not know, but rather you know the demons, who have filled your heart with maddened fury." At that very hour, the lawless Romulus, enraged, ordered his servants to beat her with leaden whips. But she, being beaten in many ways, was strengthened all the more. He ordered again that a great stone be bound about her neck, and that she thus be cast into the sea. Her holy body drifted to the shore, which the most blessed Nonnus, also renamed Hippolytus, gathered and buried in her own plot of land, where she had lived, outside the walls of the city of Ostia, on the twenty-fourth day before the Kalends of September.

^D IV. Then the lawless vicar apprehended a certain Sabinianus, an overseer of that place, and began to inquire of him concerning the assets of the blessed Chryse, saying: "The sacrilegious Chryse, who by her magical arts chose to die rather than live with us, always had you as a companion. Hasten to reveal her treasure or ornaments before our eyes, and sacrifice to the gods, and live, and humble yourself according to the commands of the emperors." Sabinianus said: "I have always been taught humility by the holy virgin Chryse, who also taught me to confess one God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. For you must know that gold or silver or pearls we do not possess, except for the Lord Jesus Christ." The most impious Romulus said to him: "Help yourself, and return the hidden treasures to the emperors, and sacrifice to the gods, and depart from this false insanity." Sabinianus said: "I worship." Anastasia said: "I have always worshipped my father's gods and goddesses, and had I not worshipped them well, I would not today be going forth to the confession of the holy name of Christ." Probus said: "And if you worshipped them, why did you forsake your worship?" Anastasia said: "I have not forsaken it, nor do I forsake it." Probus said: "Therefore you worship the gods and goddesses of your father?" Anastasia said: "I worship them to such an extent that I freed them from all injury. For when spiders covered them and birds defiled them with dung, I freed them and, smelting them down, converted them into money." Probus said: "My ears cannot even hear of this sacrilege." Then the blessed Anastasia, laughing, said: "I marvel at your prudence, if you fear that it is sacrilege to break stones, to set them on fire, or to melt bronze; surely if you think any divinity lies hidden in these vain images, give me leave to overturn them, and by overturning them, I shall suffer something at their hands." The rest is missing.

^A and restore the hidden treasures to the emperors, and sacrifice to the gods. Sabinianus said: "I am not worthy that I should ever obtain anything for my sins, but as much as my Lord and God, having inclined [to me], shall deem me worthy to be granted; thus I believe. Know this for certain, that I have no temporal gold, nor do I have the will to bend my knee to idols." As the blessed Sabinianus was saying these things and others like them, the (lawless) Romulus ordered his attendants to crush his neck with leaden spheres.

V. Hearing this, the most blessed Hippolytus the presbyter (41), having approached, stood before Romulus, and said with a clear voice: "O miserable man, if you knew Christ, the Son of God, you would not have thus tortured the necks of his holy ones, that they might be humbled before your vain idols; but you would rather have humbled yourself before the Creator and Artificer of all things, and His servants; and not have bowed down to vain, deaf, and inanimate stones." Hearing these things, the (most impious) Romulus was greatly enraged and ordered him, bound by his feet and hands, to be cast into a pit. Therefore, while the blessed Hippolytus was being submerged in the wall (42), into the pit of Portus, which is called Portus, a voice was suddenly heard for the space of one hour ^B as of children saying thanksgiving to God; and in the midst of saying these things, he yielded his spirit to the Lord, on the eve of the Kalends of September. Then the (lawless) Romulus said: "This is recognized to be the madness of magic art."

VI. Then with fury, he began to shout and say: "This Sabinianus was caught by his magic art through avarice and the love of money. In a moment I shall destroy him from this mad path of his, unless he is humbled and sacrifices to our greatest gods." Saying these things and the like, he ordered him to be beaten with clubs (to be struck) at the proclamation of the herald saying: "Restore the treasures to our emperors, and be humbled before the all-powerful gods, by whom our whole commonwealth is governed." But the blessed Sabinianus, opening his mouth, said: "I give thanks to you, my Lord Jesus Christ, who have deemed me worthy to be numbered among your servants." And as he was beaten for a long time, his face remained firm and cheerful. Then the (most impious) Romulus, being enraged, ordered him to be suspended on the rack (43); and while he was being torn by cords, and the voice of the herald was ^C exclaiming, he said nothing else but: "I give thanks to my Lord Jesus Christ." The vicar said to those standing by him: "This man is insane, and is unconcerned about his magic counsels." And he ordered him to be burned with flames.

(41) This age designates Hippolytus, not a grade, just as he was called Nonnus a little before. So the Greeks have understood this place, for whom Hippolytus was never a presbyter, but bishop of Portus Romanus: the Latin interpreter also rendered it "Blessed Hippolytus the elder."

(42) The place is corrupt and must be restored, from the *tyche* into the pit of Portus, of the place called Portus: and we have rendered this reading in Latin below in the recent version which we provide at the end of the volume.

Addenda we provide. (43) Concerning the *armentarium*, the rack, we have discussed in the preface, which word is more easily misunderstood in a maritime city, because the *armena* (sails) of ships were so called; but he who would ascend the top of a ship, in the Rhodian law it is noted: at times also *ap-* was an instrument. And if we should bring it forth with the Egyptians, it was a rock either standing out or lying hidden in the sea, or even a marble pillar in ports: finally, it was ballast. ^D

And as the flames were being applied to the sides of the holy ^A Sabinianus, Romulus (that most lawless man) began to shout and say to him, "Wretch, consider yourself, and give back the treasures which we learned are hidden with you." But the blessed Sabinianus, the martyr of Christ, was thanking the Lord, saying, "Lord my God, receive my spirit from me." And having said this, he gave up his spirit in peace, whose body, he ordered, should be cast into a well. At the same time, therefore, a certain presbyter named Cordius came by night, took up the body from the well, and laid it to rest with the holy Chryse one day before the five Kalends of February, by the grace and mercies and love for mankind of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father together with the holy Spirit be glory, power, honor and worship now and always unto the ages of ages.

TESTIMONIA VETERUM CONCERNING SAINT HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND MARTYR

I. Saint Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in the preface to his Paschal Canon, in Aegedius Bucherius, *De doctrina temporum*, p. 439.

For even in ancient exemplars, that is, in Hebrew and Greek volumes, we find computed not only the course of the moon, but also the movements of the sun, and the individual and most minute moments of the hours, which we shall bring forth at their proper time when the argument demands it. From these, Hippolytus composed a sixteen-year cycle with certain unknown courses of the moon. Others computed a twenty-five year cycle, others a thirty year cycle, and some a ninety-four year cycle, yet never arrived at the true method of computing Easter. But the elders ^B (I speak of Isidore, Jerome, and Clement) understood different principles for the months on account of the diversity of languages; yet they agreed upon one and the same most certain method for Easter, with the day and the moon and the time coinciding, with the highest veneration for the Lord’s Resurrection. But Origenes, most learned of all and most perspicacious in compiling calculations (inasmuch as he was called the "coppersmith"), published a most lucid book Concerning Easter.

II. Eusebius, *Eccl. Hist.*, book VI, chap. 20, translated by H. Valesius.

At this same time, many ecclesiastical men excelling in doctrine were flourishing: whose epistles, which they wrote to one another, it is still easy to find preserved until the present day. For they are extant even in our own age in the library of the city of Aelia, having been constructed by Alexander, bishop of the Church there... Among these was Beryllus, bishop of the Bostrenes in Arabia, who left behind besides epistles and lucubrations, various ^C works of elegant learning.

RUFINUS’ TRANSLATION

At the same time (during the reign of Geta, Macrinus, etc.) there flourished many most eloquent men in the Churches, whose epistles, which they sent to one another, we found in the library of Jerusalem, preserved down to our own time—which had been constructed by that most learned man of whom we spoke above, Alexander, the bishop of that place... Among the others was Beryllus, eminent among writers, who himself also left behind diverse little works. He was bishop at Bostra, the greatest city of Arabia. There was nevertheless also Hippolytus, who himself also left behind1 certain writings, a bishop.

Idem ibid., Book VI, ch. 22

Idem in the Chronicle to the year 2243

III.

St. Jerome, book "De viris illustribus", ch. 61, with the ancient Greek interpreter

Interpretation of Rufinus

^A plius, notaries and their expenses, and a number of copyists, and, what is more, demanding work from him with insupportable zeal each day. Hence, in one letter, Origen calls him ^B a slave-driver (ἐργοδιώκτη).

IV.

Andreas Caesariensis on the Apocalypse, ch. xiii, 1, p. 70.

Some understand this beast to be a certain power secondary to Satan, ruling over the remaining demons; but the one coming up out of the earth after it, they understand to be the Antichrist himself. But to the holy men, Methodius and Hippolytus and others, the present beast is interpreted as the Antichrist [himself], as one who is to come out of the turbulent and wave-tossed sea of this life. The ten horns together with the diadems, and the seven heads, signify the union of the devil with him [the Antichrist] (for these things which belong to him were interpreted above), and the division of the earthly kingdom into ten at the end, and the heptadic kingdom corresponding to this world, measured out in seven days, and divided into seven successions, as will be mentioned in the following. ^B Space-measured, and distributed again into seven successions; as will be explained more fully in what follows. Some understand by this beast a certain power inferior in strength and wickedness to Satan, but eminent beyond the rest of the demons in both respects; but by the beast that emerges a little later from the earth, they understand Antichrist himself. But the holy men, Methodius and Hippolytus, and other ancients, have interpreted the present passage concerning Antichrist himself; as one who is about to come forth from the turbulent and most wave-tossed sea of this life. But the ten horns adorned with as many diadems, and the seven heads, they wish to denote that familiarity which will exist between him and the devil (for it was indicated that this would be present to him even before), and the division of the earthly kingdom into ten parts; and that the kingdom is furthermore adapted to the seven-fold course of this world, distributed into seven days.

Idem on the Apocalypse, xiii, 18, p. 75.

The accuracy of the number ^C, just like the rest of the things written concerning him, time and experience will reveal to those who are sober-minded. For if it were necessary, as some of the teachers say, for such a name to be known clearly, he who saw it would have revealed it. But divine grace did not see fit that the name of the destroyer should be written in the holy book. As an exercise, however, it is possible, according to the blessed Hippolytus and others, to find many names containing this number, both common and proper nouns. Proper nouns, for instance: Lampetes, Teitan (from "to stretch"), according to Hippolytus, Lateinos, and likewise [with a diphthong] Benediktos; which is interpreted as the blessed one or the praiseworthy one, perhaps in imitation of the truly blessed Christ our God. Common nouns, [such as]: Bad guide, Ancient slanderer, Truly harmful, Unjust lamb; by which, from the contraries, he who is opposed to the deceit will be called, setting his own glory in shame.

Idem on the Apocalypse, xvii, 10, p. 101.

The blessed Hippolytus understood the five kings that had fallen from the seven as these ages: of which five had passed away, and the sixth was standing, in which the Apostle saw these things; and the seventh, the one after the 6,000 years, had not yet come, but when he does come, he must remain for a short time. And these things are thus [those]. But if, as the [blessed] Irenaeus says, just as seven days were created, so also there are seven heavens, and seven angels superior to the rest, and if we say it seems acceptable to the hearers that there are also seven kingdoms ^D Blessed Hippolytus accepted the seven kings who had fallen from the seven as ages: of which five have already passed; the sixth, in which the Apostle saw these things, is still running; the seventh, however, as he opines, will at last reveal himself after six thousand years have elapsed; and when he has revealed himself, he will last but a short time. And these things are indeed in that manner according to him. Perhaps, as is the opinion of B. Irenaeus, just as seven days were created, and seven heavens, and seven angels superior to the rest; so from the very beginning even to the end of the age, seven kingdoms, more renowned than the rest, without absurdity.

^A be the renowned [kingdoms] from the beginning until now, of which five have already fallen; and the sixth, under which the Apocalypse was seen, is this one standing in old Rome; and the seventh has not yet come, which is that in new [Rome].

V.

Cyrillus Scythopolitanus in the Life of St. Euthymius the Abbot; in Analecta Graeca edited by the monks of the B.B., p. 82.

VI.

Leontius Byzantinus in his reading III, On Sects, p. 430.

VII.

St. Isidore of Seville, book VI of the Origines, chap. 16, p. 77.

VIII.

St. Germanus, Archbishop of Constantinople, in his Mystical Contemplation, in the Auctarium of Ducaeus, vol. II, p. 148.

IX.

St. John Damascene in Sacra Parallela, vol. II, p. 781, edition of Lequien.

X.

St. Nicephorus of Constantinople in his Chronographia, p. 401, Paris edition, 319 Venetian edition, interpreted by Anastasius the Librarian in his Ecclesiastical History.

[XI. S. Ado Viennensis in Chronico, ad ann. 220.] Hippolytus the bishop, the author of many small works, wrote a Canon of times, and carried it down to this point (to the times of Alexander Severus).

[XII. Photius Biblioth., cod. cxxi.] The little book of Hippolytus, who was a disciple of Irenaeus, was read. This volume is against thirty-two heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Noetus and the Noetians. He says that he undertook the refutation of these from the discourses of Irenaeus, and he relates that he has summarized them in this book. The diction is perspicuous and somewhat grave, and not redundant, although he does not care much for the rules of Atticism ^A. It contains other things that are less accurate, such as the fact that he denies that the Apostle Paul was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. It is said that he also gave homilies to the people in imitation of Origen, whose intimate friend and great admirer of his discourses he was, so much so that he urged him to write commentaries on the holy Scriptures, and provided him with seven shorthand writers and as many calligraphers, and he was also the provider of the expenses required for these ^B. And when he provided them for him, he urged him to work without delay; whence Origen, in one of his letters, calls him his "impeller." But he himself is also said to have written very many things.

[Idem ibid. cod. ccii.] The interpretation of Daniel by Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, was read. Although he does not explain it word for word, he does not skip over the meaning, so to speak. Moreover, he relates many things in the ancient style, not as they were more carefully examined afterwards. Although it is not fair to demand an account of those, for it is not right to demand from those who have laid the foundations for considering a matter an account of what they passed over; but rather, one should favor the attempt itself, however far they may have progressed in the comprehension of the things contemplated ^C. However, that he should fix and circumscribe the arrival of the Antichrist, to which the consummation of this visible world is also joined—a thing which the Savior did not manifest even to the disciples when they asked—to five hundred years after Christ, as if the six thousand years from the first foundation of the world were then completed and its dissolution were at hand; this is of a mind more ardent than was proper, and this assertion proves human ignorance rather than heavenly inspiration. His style of speaking is for the most part clear and perspicuous, and appropriate for interpretation, even if he does not entirely reject the Attic laws ^D.

Another book of his was read at the same time, concerning Christ and

Antichrist, in which the same form of expression is preserved, as well as the simplicity and antiquity of the thoughts.

XIII. Suidas in the Lexicon.

Hippolytus. He wrote a commentary on the prophecies of Daniel, and on the Proverbs of Solomon.

XIV. Georgius Syncellus in Chronogr., ad ann. 215, pag. 358.

Hippolytus, the holy philosopher, bishop of Portus Romanus, eminent in Christian philosophy, was celebrated for many books written for the salvation of men. For, having published works on the six days of creation, and on those things which followed those first six days, and on the prophecies of the chief prophets, especially Ezechiel and Daniel, as well as on the Canticles, and ^B various other old and new Scriptures, he expounded in his commentaries—specifically on the Revelation of John the Theologian in Patmos, against Marcion and the other heresies—the sixteen-year Paschal rule, fixed to the first year of Alexander [son] of Mammaea; and, to conclude in a word, irrigating the Church with the living fountains of the divine oracles, he was finally crowned with the wreath of martyrdom. Taking occasion from his writings, the unfortunate Origen illustrated his own works on many of the Scriptures, with Ambrosius inciting him to this, and abundantly providing for the necessary expenses, and supplying seven shorthand writers who relieved one another as he dictated, and expert calligraphers, along with girls skilled in the same art of writing, and Ambrosius liberally supplying everything that could stimulate the mind to write.

Idem ibid.

These things we have not collected by our own efforts, but from the monuments/traditions of the blessed apostle and ^C archbishop of Portus Romanus and holy martyr Hippolytus, and of Anianus the most religious monk, who most studiously arranged the sixteen-year Paschal cycle illustrated with precise scholia, and of Maximus the most holy monk, the great philosopher, confessor, and great doctor of the Church. ^D

XV. John Zonaras in the Annals, Vol. I, p. 626 Paris ed., 468 Venice ed.

Under Urban, bishop of the city of Rome, there also flourished Hippolytus, a most holy and learned man, bishop of Portus Romanus, who wrote many commentaries upon the divine Scripture.

XVI. Nicephorus Callistus Ecclesiastical History Book IV, chapter 31.

In the times of Severus, Hippolytus also, bishop of Portus Romanus, flourished: who, along with many other things

^A composed with prudence and learning, also wrote a book on the Pasch, in which, by setting forth a description of the times and, as it were, a beginning of the annals, and by proposing a rule of sixteen years concerning the Pasch, he traces the reckoning of time down to the first year of Alexander. The catalogue of his books is as follows: A book on the Hexaemeron, and another on what follows the Hexaemeron; a Refutatory work against Marcion; on the Song of Songs; on parts of Ezekiel; on the Pasch; a work against all heresies, most exceedingly useful; on the coming of the Antichrist; on the Resurrection; and many others; on Zechariah; on the Psalms; on Isaiah; on Daniel; on the Apocalypse; on the Proverbs; on Saul and the Pythoness; on the Praises of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which he delivered a discourse in the presence of Origen. Furthermore, although certain of his writings do not lack censure, yet since he was later perfected by martyrdom for the name of Christ, he wiped away and cleansed the stain of his error. Hence they say that Origen took ^B his beginning in writing commentaries upon the divine Scriptures. Such, then, are the accounts concerning Hippolytus.

XVII. An Anonymous Author in a Sermon on the Pseudo-prophets. In the Appendix to Vol. VIII of the Works of S. John Chrysostom, p. 79, B., in the most recent Paris edition.

Where is Evodius, the sweet odor of the Church, and the successor and imitator of the holy apostles? Where is Ignatius, the dwelling-place of God? Where is Dionysius, the bird of heaven? Where is Hippolytus, the most sweet and kind?

XVIII. An Author of a Chain of Greek Fathers on Jeremiah XVII, 11, Vol. II of the Ghislerian edition, p. 449.

(11) Of holy Hippolytus. Not in vain did the prophet utter the word, etc.