| << | Contents | >> |
Hippolytus
Introductory Notice to Hippolytus.
[4] In pseudo-Chrysost. called γλυκύτατος καὶ εὐνούστατος. See Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus, etc., p. 92.
[5] A very good representation of it may be seen in Bunsen’s Hippolytus and his Age, as a frontispiece to vol. i. London, 1852.
[6] The learned Dr. Wordsworth deals with all the difficulties of the case with judicial impartiality, but enforces his conclusions with irrefragable cogency. See also Dr. Jarvis, learned Introduction, p. 339.
[7] The valuable treatise of Dr. Bunsen must be compared with the luminous reviewal of Wordsworth, St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome, London, 1853; enlarged 1880.
[9] A Bibliographical account of all the ante-Nicene literature, from the learned pen of Dr. M. B. Riddle, will be given in the concluding volume of this series.
[10] Vol. i. pp. 415, 460, this series.
[11] See Eusebius, Hist., v. 28; also Routh, Script. Eccles. Opusc., vol. ii. pp. 153–160.
[13] In addition to Miller, the translator has made use of the Göttingen edition, by Duncker and Schneidewin, 1859; and the Abbe Cruice’s edition, Paris, 1860.
[14] An Arian bishop of the first half of the fourth century.
[15] See pp. 126–157, tom. ii., of Epiphanius’ collected works, edited by Dionysius Petavius.
[16] Those who are desirous of examining it for themselves may consult Gieseler’s paper on Hippolytus, etc., in the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1853; Hergenröther, Theologische Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1852; Bunsen’s Hippolytus and His Age; Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus; Dr. Döllinger’s Hippolytus und Kallistus: oder die Römische Kirche in der ersten Hälfte des dritten Jahrhunderts, 1853; and Cruice’s Études sur de Nouveaux Documents Historiques empruntés au livre des φιλοσοφούμενα, 1853. See also articles in the Quarterly Review, 1851; Ecclesiastic and Theologian, 1852, 1853; the Westminster Review, 1853; the Dublin Review, 1853, 1854; Le Correspondent, t. xxxi.; and the Revue des Deux Mondes, 1865.
[17] It settles the period of the composition of St. John’s Gospel only, of course, on the supposition that Hippolytus is giving a correct account as regards Basilides’ work. The mode, however, in which Hippolytus introduces the quotation, appears to place its authenticity beyond reasonable doubt. He represents Basilides (see book vii. chap. 10) as notifying his reference to St. John’s Gospel thus, “And this,” he says, “is what has been stated in the Gospels: ‘He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that cometh into the world.’” Now this is precisely the mode of reference we should expect that Basilides would employ; whereas, if Hippolytus had either fabricated the passage or adduced it from hearsay, it is almost certain he would have said “in the Gospel of St. John,” and not indefinitely “the Gospels.” And more than this, the formulary “in the Gospels,” adopted by Basilides, reads very like a recognition of an agreed collection of authorized accounts of our Lord’s life and sayings. It is also remarkable that the word “stated” (λεγόμενον) Basilides has just used in quoting (Gen. i. 3) as interchangeable with “written” (γέγραπται), the word exclusively applied to what is included within the canon of Scripture.
[18] For instance, St. Irenæus, whom Hippolytus professes to follow, Epiphanius, Theodoret, St. Augustine, etc.
[19] The translator desires to acknowledge obligations to Dr. Lottner, Professor of Sanskrit and sub-librarian in Trinity College, Dublin,—a gentleman of extensive historical erudition as well as of accurate and comprehensive scholarship.
[20] The four of the mss. of the first book extant prior to the recent discovery of seven out of the remaining nine books of The Refutation, concur in ascribing it to Origen. These inscriptions run thus: 1. “Refutation by Origen of all Heresies;” 2. “Of Origen’s Philosophumena…these are the contents;” 3. “Being estimable (Dissertations) by Origen, a man of the greatest wisdom.” The recently discovered ms. itself in the margin has the words, “Origen, and Origen’s opinion.” The title, as agreed upon by modern commentators, is: 1. “Book I. of Origen’s Refutation of all Heresies” (Wolf and Gronovius); 2. “A Refutation of all Heresies;” 3. “Origen’s Philosophumena, or the Refutation of all Heresies.” The last is Miller’s in his Oxford edition, 1851. The title might have been, “Philosophumena, and the Refutation (therefrom) of all Heresies.” There were obviously two divisions of the work: (1) A résumé of the tenets of the philosophers (books i., ii., iii., iv.), preparatory to (2) the refutation of heresies, on the ground of their derivative character from Greek and Egyptian speculation. Bunsen would denominate the work “St. Hippolytus’ (Bishop and Martyr) Refutation of all Heresies; what remains of the ten books.”
[21] Most of what follows in book i. is a compilation from ancient sources. The ablest résumé followed by Cicero in the De Nat. Deor., of the tenets of the ancient philosophers, is to be found in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The English reader is referred to the Metaphysics, book i. pp. 13–46 (Bohn’s Classical Library), also to the translator’s analysis prefixed to this work, pp. 17–25. See also Diogenes’ Lives of the Philosophers, and Tenneman’s Manual of Philosophy (translated in Bohn’s Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum; Lewes’ Biographical History of (Ancient) Philosophy; and Rev. Dr. F. D. Maurice’s History of (Ancient) Metaphysical and Moral Philosophy. The same subject is discussed in Ritter’s History of Philosophy (translated by Morrison).
[22] This word is variously given thus: Academian, Academeian, Academaic, Academe, Cademian, and Cadimian. The two last would seem to indicate the character rather than the philosophy of Pyrrho. To favour this view, the text should be altered into καὶ ἄδημος, i.e., ἀπόδημος = from home, not domestic.
[23] Some hiatus at the beginning of this sentence is apparent.
[24] An elaborate defence of this position forms the subject of Cudworth’s great work, The True Intellectual System of the Universe.
[25] This statement has been urged against Origen’s authorship, in favour of Epiphanius, who wrote an extended treatise on the Heresies, with an abridgment.
[26] That is, their esoteric mysteries, intended only for a favoured few, as contrasted with the exoteric, designed for more general diffusion.
[27] One ms. has—“the profane opinion and unreasonable attempt.”
[28] “To learn” (Roeper).
[29] “And those that are irrational animals do not attempt,” (or) “because irrational,” etc. The last is Sancroft’s reading; that in the text, Roeper’s.
[30] “Ascend up to” (Roeper).
[31] This passage is quoted by those who impugn the authorship of Origen on the ground of his never having been a bishop of the Church. It is not, however, quite certain that the words refer to the episcopal office exclusively.
[32] The common reading is in the future, but the present tense is adopted by Richter in his Critical Observations, p. 77.
[33] It might be, “any opinion that may be subservient to the subject taken in hand.” This is Cruice’s rendering in his Latin version. A different reading is, “we must not be silent as regards reasons that hold good,” or, “as regards rational distinctions,” or, “refrain from utterances through the instrument of reasoning.” The last is Roeper’s.
[34] Another reading is, “bringing into a collection.”
[35] Or, “the Spirit.”
[36] Or, “indicating a witness;” or, “having adduced testimony.”
[37] Or, “a starting-point.”
[38] Or, “devoting his attention to;” or, “having lighted upon.”
[39] The chief writers on the early heresies are: Irenæus, of the second century; Hippolytus, his pupil, of the third; Philastrius, Epiphanius, and St. Augustine, of the fourth century. The learned need scarcely be reminded of the comprehensive digest furnished by Ittigius in the preface to his dissertation on the heresies of the apostolic and post-apostolic ages. A book more within the reach of the general reader is Dr. Burton’s Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age.
Chapter I.—Thales; His Physics and Theology; Founder of Greek Astronomy.
[40] [These were: Periander of Corinth, b.c. 585; Pittacus of Mitylene, b.c. 570; Thales of Miletus, b.c. 548: Solon of Athens, b.c. 540; Chilo of Sparta, b.c. 597; Bias of Priene; Cleobulus of Lindus, b.c. 564.]
[41] Or, “motions of the stars” (Roeper).
[42] Or, “carried along” (Roeper).
[43] Or,“ that which is divine.” See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., v. pp. 461, 463 (Heinsius and Sylburgius’ ed.). Thales, on being asked, “What is God?” “That,” replied he, “which has neither beginning nor end.”
[44] Or, “see.”
[45] Or, “nature.”
[46] “And arithmetic” (added by Roeper).
[47] Or, “and he first.”
[48] Or, “physiognomy.”
[49] Or, “in conformity with his hypothesis.”
[50] Or, “the third.”
[51] Or, “an everlasting nature;” or, “having the roots of an everlasting nature in itself,” the words “as it were” being omitted in some mss.
[52] Or, “production.”
[53] It should be probably, “monad, number.” The monad was with Pythagoras, and in imitation of him with Leibnitz, the highest generalization of number, and a conception in abstraction, commensurate with what we call essence, whether of matter or spirit.
[54] Κοβισθῂ in text must be rendered “multiplied.” The formulary is self-evident: (a2)2 = a4, (a2)3 = a6, (a3)3 = a9.
[55] Or Thallis. Æthalides, a son of Hermes, was herald of the Argonauts, and said never to have forgotten anything. In this way his soul remembered its successive migrations into the bodies of Euphorbus, Hermotimus, Pyrrhus, and Pythagoras. (See Diogenes’ Lives, book viii. chap. i. sec. 4.)
[56] No name occurs more frequently in the annals of Greek literature than that of Diodorus. One, however, with the title “of Eretria,” as far as the translator knows, is mentioned only by Hippolytus; so that this is likely another Diodorus to be added to the long list already existing. It may be that Diodorus Eretriensis is the same as Diodorus Crotoniates, a Pythagorean philosopher. See Fabricius’ Biblioth. Græc., lib ii. cap. iii., lib. iii. cap. xxxi.; also Meursius’ Annotations, p. 20, on Chalcidius’ Commentary on Plato’s Timæus. The article in Smith’s Dictionary is a transcript of these.
[57] Aristoxenus is mentioned by Cicero in his Tusculan Questions, book i. chap. xviii., as having broached a theory in psychology, which may have suggested, in modern times, to David Hartley his hypothesis of sensation being the result of nerval vibrations. Cicero says of Aristoxenus, “that he was so charmed with his own harmonies, that he sought to transfer them into investigations concerning our corporeal and spiritual nature.”
[58] Zaratas is another form of the name Zoroaster.
[59] Or, “is a nature according to musical harmony” (preceding note); or, “The cosmical system is nature and a musical harmony.”
[60] Zaratas, or Zoroaster, is employed as a sort of generic denomination for philosopher by the Orientals, who, whatever portions of Asia they inhabit, mostly ascribe their speculative systems to a Zoroaster. No less than six individuals bearing this name are spoken of. Arnobius (Contr. Gentes., i. 52) mentions four—(1) a Chaldean, (2) Bactrian, (3) Pamphylian, (4) Armenian. Pliny mentions a fifth as a native of Proconnesus ( Nat. Hist.., xxx. 1), while Apuleius (Florida, ii. 15) a sixth Zoroaster, a native of Babylon, and contemporary with Pythagoras, the one evidently alluded to by Hippolytus. (See translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. ii.)
[61] Or, “that it was hot and cold,” or “hot of moist.”
[62] Or it might be rendered, “a process of arrangement.” The Abbe Cruice (in his edition of Hippolytus, Paris, 1860) suggests a different reading, which would make the words translate thus, “when the earth was an undigested and solid mass.”
[63] [See book vi. cap. xxii., infra, and note. But Clement gives another explanation. See vol. ii. p. 385, this series.]
[64] Or, “Zametus.”
[65] Or, “leading them down into cells, made them,” etc.; or, “made his disciples observe silence,” etc.
Chapter III.—Empedocles; His Twofold Cause; Tenet of Transmigration.
[66] Or, “and beast,” more in keeping with the sense of the name; or “a lamb” has been suggested in the Gottingen edition of Hippolytus.
[67] Or, “traveller into the sea;” or, “mute ones from the sea;” or, “from the sea a glittering fish.”
[68] Or, “being the instructor of this (philosopher).”
Chapter IV.—Heraclitus; His Universal Dogmatism; His Theory of Flux; Other Systems.
[69] Proclus, in his commentary on Plato’s Timæus, uses almost the same words: “but Heraclitus, in asserting his own universal knowledge, makes out all the rest of mankind ignorant.”
[70] Or, “and among these, Socrates a moral philosopher, and Aristotle a logician, originated systems.”
Chapter V.—Anaximander; His Theory of the Infinite; His Astronomic Opinions; His Physics.
[71] Or, “men.”
[72] Or, “moist.”
[73] Or, “congealed snow.”
[74] That is, Antipodes. Diogenes Laertius was of the opinion that Plato first indicated by name the Antipodes.
[75] Or, “727 times,” an improbable reading.
[76] “In moisture” is properly added, as Plutarch, in his De Placitis, v. xix., remarks that “Anaximander affirms that primary animals were produced in moisture.”
[77] This word seems requisite to the sense of the passage.
[78] b.c. 610. On Olympiads, see Jarvis, Introd., p. 21.]
[79] Or, “revolutionary motion.”
[80] Plutarch, in his De Placitis Philosophorum, attributes both opinions to Anaximenes, viz., that the sun was moved both under and around the earth.
[81] [b.c. 556.]
[82] Aristotle considers that Anaxagoras was the first to broach the existence of efficient causes in nature. He states, however, that Hermotimus received the credit of so doing at an earlier date.
[83] Or, Hegesephontus.
[84] Simplicius, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, where (book i. c. 2) Anaxagoras is spoken of, says that the latter maintained that “all things existed simultaneously—infinite things, and plurality, and diminutiveness, for even what was diminutive was infinite.” (See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, iii. 4, Macmahon’s translation, p. 93.) This explains Hippolytus’ remark, while it suggests an emendation of the text.
[85] Or, “in the Antipodes;” or, “from the snow in Æthiopia.”
[86] Or, “overpowered by the sun,” that is, whose light was lost in the superior brilliancy of the sun.
[87] Or, “were generated.”
[88] [Died b.c. 428 or 429.]
[89] [b.c. 440.]
[90] Or, “both many of the rest of the animal kingdom, and man himself.” (See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, ii. 17.)
[91] There is some confusion in the text here, but the rendering given above, though conjectural, is highly probable. One proposed emendation would make the passage run thus: “for that each body employed mind, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.”
Chapter IX.—Parmenides; His Theory of “Unity;” His Eschatology.
[92] [b.c. 500.]
[93] The next sentence is regarded by some as not genuine.
Chapter X.—Leucippus; His Atomic Theory.
[94] [b.c. 370.]
[95] Or, “when again mutually connected, that different entities were generated.” (See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, ix. 30–32.)
Chapter XI.—Democritus; His Duality of Principles; His Cosmogony.
[96] [Died in his hundred and ninth year, b.c. 361.]
[97] Or, “Audera.”
Chapter XII.—Xenophanes; His Scepticism; His Notions of God and Nature; Believes in a Flood.
[98] [Born 556 b.c.]
[99] [Incredible. Cyrus the younger, fell at Cunaxa b.c. 401. Cyrus the elder was a contemporary of Xenophanes.]
[100] Or, “anchovy.”
[101] Or,“ Melitus.”
[102] The textual reading is in the present, but obviously requires a past tense.
Chapter XIII.—Ecphantus; His Scepticism; Tenet of Infinity.
[103] Some confusion has crept into the text. The first clause of the second sentence belongs probably to the first. The sense would then run thus: “Ecphantus affirmed the impossibility of dogmatic truth, for that every one was permitted to frame definitions as he thought proper.”
[104] Or, “that there is, according to this, a multitude of defined existences, and that such is infinite.”
[105] Or, “a single power.”
[106] [So far anticipating modern science.]
Chapter XIV.—Hippo; His Duality of Principles; His Psychology.
[107] Or, “holds.”
Chapter XV.—Socrates; His Philosophy Reproduced by Plato.
[108] Or, “writing.” Still Socrates may be called the father of the Greek philosophy. “From the age of Aristotle and Plato, the rise of the several Greek sects may be estimated as so many successful or abortive efforts to carry out the principles enunciated by Socrates.”—Translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. iii. p. 45.
[109] This word signifies to take impressions from anything, which justifies the translation, historically correct, given above. Its literal import is “wipe clean,” and in this sense Hippolytus may intend to assert that Plato wholly appropriated the philosophy of Socrates. (See Diogenes Laertius, xi. 61, where the same word occurs.)
[110] De Legibus, iv. 7 (p. 109, vol. viii. ed. Bekker).
[111] Timæus, c. xvi. (p. 277, vol. vii. ed. Bekker). The passage runs thus in the original: “Gods of gods, of whom I am Creator and Father of works, which having been formed by Me, are indissoluble, through, at all events, My will.”
[112] The word is literally a cup or bowl, and, being employed by Plato in an allegorical sense, is evidently intended to signify the anima mundi (soul of the world), which constituted a sort of depository for all spiritual existences in the world.
[113] Or, “that there exists a necessity for the corruption of everything created.”
[114] Or, “are confirmed by that (philosopher Plato), because he asserts,” etc.; or, “those who assert the soul’s immortality are especially confirmed in their opinion, as many as affirm the existence of a future state of retribution.”
[115] Or, “that he changes different souls,” etc.
[116] Or, “during.”
[117] Diogenes Laertius, in describing the system of the Stoics, employs the same word in the case of their view of virtue.
[118] This is supplied from the original; the passage occurs in the Phædrus, c. lx. (p. 86, vol. i. ed. Bekker).
[119] The word Adrasteia was a name for Nemesis, and means here unalterable destiny.
[120] The passage occurs in Clilophon (p. 244, vol. vi. ed. Bekker).
[121] The text, as given by Miller, is scarcely capable of any meaning. The translation is therefore conjectural, in accordance with alterations proposed by Schneidewin.
[122] Or, “declares.”
[123] Or, “the fifth body, in which it is supposed to be, along with the other four (elements);” or, “the fifth body, which is supposed to be (composed) of the other four.”
[124] Hippolytus expresses himself in the words of Stobæus, who says (Eclog., ii. 274): “And among reputed external blessings are nobility, wealth, glory, peace, freedom, friendship.”
[125] Or, “glory, the confirmed power of friends.”
Chapter XVIII.—The Stoics; Their Superiority in Logic; Fatalists; Their Doctrine of Conflagrations.
[126] One of the mss. elucidates the simile in the text thus: “But if he is not disposed, there is absolutely a necessity for his being drawn along. And in like manner men, if they do not follow fate, seem to be free agents, though the reason of (their being) fate holds assuredly valid. If, however, they do not wish to follow, they will absolutely be coerced to enter upon what has been fore-ordained.”
[127] Or, “is immortal.” Diogenes Laertius (book vii.) notices, in his section on Zeno, as part of the Stoic doctrine, “that the soul abides after death, but that it is perishable.”
[128] Or, “through what is incorporeal;” that is, through what is void or empty space.
[129] Or, “resurrection;” or, “resistance;” that is, a resisting medium.
[130] The atomic theory is, as already mentioned by Hippolytus, of more ancient date than Epicurus’ age, being first broached by Leucippus and Democritus. This fact, however, has, as Cudworth argues, been frequently overlooked by those who trace the doctrine to no older a source than the founder of the Epicurean philosophy.
[131] Or, “that neither has He business to do, nor does He attend to any. As a consequence of which fact,” etc.
[132] “Among the Gentiles” seems a mistake. One reading proposed is, “some (intended) our sensuous passions;” or, “some understood the passions.” The words “among the Gentiles,” the French commentator, the Abbe Cruice, is of opinion, were added by Christian hands, in order to draw a contrast between the virtuous Christian and the vicious pagan.
Chapter XX.—The Academics; Difference of Opinion Among Them.
[133] See Diogenes Laertius’ Lives, x. 63 (Bohn’s Library); Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum, iv. 3.
[134] Diogenes Laertius, Lives, ix. 75; Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp., i. 188–192.
[135] This is what the Academics called “the phenomenon” (Sextus Empiricus, Pyrrh. Hyp., i. 19–22).
[136] This is a mistake in the manuscript for Ganges, according to Roeper.
[137] Or, “knowledge.” (See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., i., xv., lxxii.; Eusebius, Præparat. Evang., ix. 6.)
[138] Athenæus (Deipn., book ix.) ascribes this opinion to Plato, who, he tells us, “asserted that the soul was so constituted, that it should reject its last covering, that of vanity.”
[139] Or, “they name light their god;” or, “they celebrate in their own peculiar language God, whom they name,” etc.
[140] The text here would seem rather confused. The above translation agrees with Cruice’s and Schneidewin’s Latin version. I have doubts about its correctness, however, and would render it thus: “…enveloped in a body extrinsic to the divine essence, just as if one wore a sheepskin covering; but that his body, on being divested of this (covering), would appear visible to the naked eye.” Or, “This discourse whom they name God they affirm to be incorporeal, but enveloped in a body outside himself (or his own body) (just as if one carried a covering of sheepskin to have it seen); but having stripped off the body in which he is enveloped, that he no longer appears visible to the naked eye.” (Roeper.) I am not very confident that this exactly conveys the meaning of Roeper’s somewhat obscure Greek paraphrase.
[141] The parenthetical words Roeper considers introduced into the text from a marginal note.
Chapter XXII.—The Druids; Progenitors of Their System.
[142] Or “Zamalxis,” or “Zametris” (see Menagius on Diogenes Laertius, viii. 2).
[143] Or, “of Thracian origin.” The words are omitted in two mss.
[144] There are several verbal differences from the original in Hippolytus’ version. These may be seen on comparing it with Hesiod’s own text. The particular place which Hesiod occupies in the history of philosophy is pointed out by Aristotle in his Metaphysics. The Stagyrite detects in the Hesiodic cosmogony, in the principle of “love,” the dawn of a recognition of the necessity of an efficient cause to account for the phenomena of nature. It was Aristotle himself, however, who built up the science of causation; and in this respect humanity owes that extraordinary man a deep debt of gratitude.
[145] Or “youngest,” or “most vigorous.” This is Hesiod’s word, which signifies literally, “fittest for bearing arms” (for service, as we say).
[146] “The majority of those who first formed systems of philosophy, consider those that subsist in a form of matter, to be alone the principle of all things.”—Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book i. c. iii. p. 13 (Bohn’s ed.).
Chapter I.—System of the Astrologers; Sidereal Influence; Configuration of the Stars.
[147] Or, “interval.”
[148] Hippolytus gives the substance of Sextus Empiricus’ remarks, omitting, however, a portion of the passage followed. (See Sextus Empiricus’ Mathem., v. 44.)
[149] Or, “celestial.”
Chapter II.—Doctrines Concerning Æons; The Chaldean Astrology; Heresy Derivable from It.
[150] Or, “Celbes,” or “Ademes.” The first is the form of the name employed in book v. c, viii.; the second in book x. c. vi.
[151] This passage occurs in Sextus Empiricus.
[152] Or, “the knowledge of.”
[153] Horoscope (from ὥρα σκοπός) is the act of observing the aspect of the heavens at the moment of any particular birth. Hereby the astrologer alleged his ability of foretelling the future career of the person so born. The most important part of the sky for the astrologer’s consideration was that sign of the Zodiac which rose above the horizon at the moment of parturition. This was the “horoscope ascendant,” or “first house.” The circuit of the heavens was divided into twelve “houses,” or zodiacal signs.
[154] Or, “difference.”
[155] Or, “during.”
[156] ἀποτέξεως; some would read ἀποτάξεως.
[157] The passage is given more explicitly in Sextus Empiricus. (See Adversus Astrol., v. 53.)
[158] Sextus uses almost these words.
[159] Or “lodgment” (Sextus), or “deposition.”
[160] Or, “attendants of physicians.”
[161] Or, “make.”
[162] Or, “vanishes.”
[163] Not in Sextus Empiricus.
[164] The passage is more clearly given in Sextus.
[165] Or, “the cold atmosphere.”
[166] Or, “manifestation.”
[167] Or, “manifestation.”
[168] Or, “reasonable.”
[169] Or, “but the motion…is whirled on with velocity.”
[170] This rendering of the passage may be deduced from Sextus Empiricus.
[171] The text is corrupt, but the above seems probably the meaning, and agrees with the rendering of Schneidewin and Cruice.
[172] Or, “view.”
[173] The clepsydra, an instrument for measuring duration, was, with the sun-dial, invented by the Egyptians under the Ptolemies. It was employed not only for the measurement of time, but for making astronomic calculations. Water, as the name imports, was the fluid employed, though mercury has been likewise used. The inherent defect of an instrument of this description is mentioned by Hippolytus.
[174] Literally, “twisting, tergiversating.”
[175] This seems the meaning, as deducible from a comparison of Hippolytus with the corresponding passage in Sextus Empiricus.
[176] Omitted by Sextus.
[177] The Abbe Cruice observes, in regard of some verbal difference here in the text from that of Sextus, that the ms. of The Refutation was probably executed by one who heard the extracts from other writers read to him, and frequently mistook the sound. The transcriber of the ms. was one Michael, as we learn from a marginal note at the end.
Chapter VI.—Zodiacal Influence; Origin of Sidereal Names.
[178] This was the great doctrine of astrology, the forerunner of the science of astronomy. Astrology seems to have arisen first among the Chaldeans, out of the fundamental principle of their religion—the assimilation of the divine nature to light. This tenet introduced another, the worship of the stars, which was developed into astrology. Others suppose astrology to have been of Arabian or Egyptian origin. From some of these sources it reached the Greeks, and through them the Romans, who held the astrologic art in high repute. The art, after having become almost extinct, was revived by the Arabians at the verve of the middle ages. For the history of astrology one must consult the writings of Manilius, Julius Firmicus, and Ptolemy. Its greatest mediæval apologist is Cardan, the famous physician of Pavia (see his work, De Astron. Judic., lib. vi.–ix. tom. v. of his collected works).
[179] Sextus adds, “bright-eyed.”
[180] Hippolytus here follows Sextus.
[181] Aratus, from whom Hippolytus quotes so frequently in this chapter, was a poet and astronomer of antiquity, born at Soli in Cilicia. He afterwards became physician to Gonatus, son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, king of Macedon, at whose court he rose high into favour. The work alluded to by Hippolytus is Aratus’ Phænomena,—a versified account of the motions of the stars, and of sidereal influence over men. This work seems to have been a great favourite with scholars, if we are to judge from the many excellent annotated editions of it that have appeared. Two of these deserve notice, viz., Grotius’ Leyden edition, 1600, in Greek and Latin; and Buhle’s edition, Leipsic, 1803. See also Dionysius Petavius’ Uranologion. Aratus must always be famous, from the fact that St. Paul (Acts xiii. 28) quotes the fifth line of the Phænomena. Cicero considered Aratus a noble poet, and translated the Phænomena into Latin, a fragment of which has been preserved, and is in Grotius’ edition. Aratus has been translated into English verse, with notes by Dr. Lamb, Dean of Bristol (London: J. W. Parker, 1858).
Chapter VII.—Practical Absurdity of the Chaldaic Art; Development of the Art.
[182] The Abbe Cruice suggests “freedom from danger,” instead of “cowardice,” and translates thus: “whereby kings are slain, by having impunity promised in the predictions of these seers.”
[183] Sextus makes the number “nine thousand nine hundred and seventy and seven years.”
[184] The parenthetical words are taken from Sextus Empiricus, as introduced into his text by the Abbe Cruice. Schneidewin alludes to the passage in Sextus as proof of some confusion in Hippolytus’ text, which he thinks is signified by the transcriber in the words, “I think there is some deficiency or omissions,” which occur in the ms. of The Refutation.
[185] As regards astrological predictions, see Origen’s Comment. on Gen.; Diodorus of Tarsus, De Fato; Photii Biblioth., cod. ccxxiii.; and Bardesanis, De Legibus Nationum, in Cureton’s Spicilegium Syriacum.
[186] See Plato’s Timæus.
[187] Schneidewin, on Roeper’s suggestion, amends the passage thus, though I am not sure that I exactly render his almost unintelligible Latin version: “For as many sections as there are of each, there are educible from the monad more segments than sections; for example, if,” etc. The Abbe Cruice would seemingly adopt the following version: “For whatsoever are sections of each, now there are more segments than sections of a monad, will become; for example, if,” etc.
[188] Schneidewin, on mathematical authority, discredits the numerical calculations ascribed to Archimedes.
[189] This is manifestly erroneous; the total could only be “four myriads!”
Chapter X.—Theory of Stellar Motion and Distance in Accordance with Harmony.
[190] The Abbe Cruice thinks that the word should be “tones,” supporting his emendation on the authority of Pliny, who states that Pythagoras called the distance of the Moon from the Earth a tone, deriving the term from musical science (see Pliny’s Hist. Nat., ii. 20).
[191] These numerical speculations are treated of by Archimedes in his work On the Number of the Sand, in which he maintains the possibility of counting the sands, even on the supposition of the world’s being much larger than it is (see Archimedes, τὰ μεχρὶ νῦν σωζόμενα ἅπαντα, Treatise ψαμμίτης, p. 120, ed. Eustoc. Ascalon., Basil, 1544).
[192] Colarbasus is afterwards mentioned in company with Marcus the heretic, at the beginning and end of book vi. of The Refutation.
[193] This word (σχεδιάζουσι), more than once used by Hippolytus, is applied to anything done offhand, e.g., an extempore speech. It therefore might be made to designate immaturity of opinion. Σχεδία means something hastily put together, viz., a raft; σχέδιος, sudden.
[194] Schneidewin suggests ὅμως instead of οἱμοίως. The word (ἐρανισάμενοι) translated “appropriating” is derived from ἔρανος, which signifies a meal to which those who partake of it have each contributed some dish (pic-nic). The term, therefore, is an expressive one for Hippolytus’ purpose.
[195] προγνωστικοὺς. Some would read πρὸς γνωστικοὺς.
[196] Some propose δόξης, “opinion.” Hippolytus, however, used the word ῥίζης (translated “school”) in a similar way at the end of chap. i. of book iv. “Novelty” is read instead of “knavery;” and for ἀναπλέου, “full,” is proposed (1) ἀναπλέοντας, (a) ἀναπτεροῦντας.
[197] The subject of the numerical system employed by the Gnostics, and their occult mysteries, is treated of by the learned Kircher, Œdipi Ægypt., tom. ii. part i., de Cabalâ Hebræorum; also in his Arithmolog. in the book De Arithmomantia Gnosticor., cap. viii., de Cabalâ Pythagoreâ. See also Mersennes, Comment. on Genes.
[198] This subject is examined by Cornelius Agrippa in his celebrated work, De vanitate et incertitudine Scientiarum, chap. xi., De Sorte Pythagoricâ. Terentius Maurus has also a versified work on Letters and Syllables and Metres, in which he alludes to similar interpretations educible from the names Hector and Patroclus.
[199] That is, the division by nine.
[200] That is, calculated according to the rule of a division by seven.
[201] We should expect rather five instead of 9, if the division be by nine.
[202] There is some confusion in the text. Miller conjectures that the reading should be: “As, for instance, the name Patroclus has the letter o occurring twice in it, they therefore take it into calculation once.” Schneidewin suggests that the form of the name may be Papatroclus.
[203] Miller says there is an error in the calculation here.
[204] This is as near the sense of the passage as a translation in some respects conjectural can make it.
[205] The word θέλειν occurs in this sentence, but is obviously superfluous.
[206] In the margin of the ms. is the note, “Opinion of the Metopiscopists.”
[207] These words are out of place. See next note.
[208] There is evidently some displacement of words here. Miller and Schneidewin suggest: “There are some who ascribe to the influence of the stars the natures of men: since, in computing the births of individuals, they thus express themselves as if they were moulding the species of men.” The Abbe Cruice would leave the text as it is, altering only τυποῦντες ἰδέας into τύπων τε ἰδέας.
[209] Literally, “jumping;” others read “blackish,” or “expressive” (literally, “talking”). The vulgar reading, ὑπὸ ἄλλοις, is evidently untenable.
[210] Or “cowardly,” or “cowards at heart;” or some read, χαροποιοὶ, i.e., “causative of gladness.”
[211] Or, “diseased with unnatural lust,” i.e., νοσοῦντες for νοοῦντες.
[212] Or, κατ᾽ ἔπος, “verbally rejecting anything.”
Chapter XVI.—Type of Those Born Under Taurus.
[213] Or better, “weak in the limbs.”
[214] Or, “short.”
Chapter XVII.—Type of Those Born Under Gemini.
[215] Or, “parts.”
[216] Some read καλῶ γεγεννημένων, or καλῶ τετεννημένων.
[217] Or, “they are given to hoarding, they have possessions.”
[218] This is an amended reading of the text, which is obviously confused. The correction necessary is introduced lower down in the ms., which makes the same characteristic be twice mentioned. The Abbe Cruice, however, accounts for such a twofold mention, on the ground that the whole subject is treated by Hippolytus in such a way as to expose the absurdities of the astrologic predictions. He therefore quotes the opinions of various astrologers, in order to expose the diversities of opinion existing among them.
Chapter XVIII.—Type of Those Born Under Cancer.
[219] Manilius maintains that persons born under Cancer are of an avaricious and usurious disposition. (See Astronom., iv. 5.)
Chapter XIX.—Type of Those Born Under Leo.
[220] Or, “having the upper parts larger than the lower.”
[221] Some read αναλοι.
[222] Schneidewin conjectures ἀσυνήθεις, i.e., inexperienced.
[223] Or, “succour.”
Chapter XX.—Type of Those Born Under Virgo.
[224] Or, “straight, compact.”
[225] Miller gives an additional sentence: “They are of equal measurement at the (same) age, and possess a body perfect and erect.”
[226] Or, “careful observers.”
Chapter XXI.—Type of Those Born Under Libra.
[227] Or, “speaking falsehoods, they will be believed.”
[228] The parenthetical words are obviously an interpolation.
[229] Or, “spies.”
Chapter XXIV.—Type of Those Born Under Capricorn.
[230] Or, “body.”
Chapter XXV.—Type of Those Born Under Aquarius.
[231] Literally “moist,” or “difficult;” or, the Abbe Cruice suggests, “fortuitous.”
[232] Or, “pragmatic, mild, not violent.”
Chapter XXVIII.—System of the Magicians; Incantations of Demons; Secret Magical Rites.
[233] Hippolytus, having exposed the system of sidereal influence over men, proceeds to detail the magical rites and operations of the sorcerers. This arrangement is in conformity with the technical divisions of astrology into (1) judiciary, (2) natural. The former related to the prediction of future events, and the latter of the phenomena of nature, being thus akin to the art of magic.
[234] The text here and at the end of the last chapter is somewhat imperfect.
[235] Or “cushion” (Cruice), or “couch,” or “a recess.”
[236] Or “goes up,” or “commences,” or “enters in before the others, bearing the oblation” (Cruice).
[237] Or, “deride.”
[238] The Abbe Cruice considers that this passage, as attributing all this jugglery to the artifice of sorcerers, militates against the authorship of Origen, who ascribes (Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, lib. iii. p. 144, ed. Benedict.) the same results not to the frauds of magicians, but to demons.
[239] Or, “denominated.”
[240] Or, “rises up.”
[241] On the margin of the ms., we find the words, “concerning coals,” “concerning magical signs,” “concerning sheep.”
Chapter XXX.—Self-Slaughter of Sheep.
[242] Or, παραδοθεὶς, “he delivers it a sword, and departs.”
Chapter XXXI.—Method of Poisoning Goats.
[243] Or, “close up.”
[244] The words “death of a goat” occur on the margin of the ms.
[245] A similar statement is made, on the authority of Alcmæon, by Aristotle in his Histor. Animal., i. 2.
[246] Μαννῇ is the word in the text. But manna in the ordinary acceptation of the term can scarcely be intended. Pliny, however, mentions it as a proper name of grains of incense and resin. The Abbe Cruice suggests the very probable emendation of μάλθῃ, which signifies a mixture of wax and resin for caulking ships.
Chapter XXXII.—Imitations of Thunder, and Other Illusions.
[247] δίαυλον in the text has been altered into κελανὸν. The translator has followed the latter.
[248] Or “indissoluble,” or “inseparable.”
Chapter XXXIII.—The Burning Æsculapius; Tricks with Fire.
[249] Marsilius Ficinus (in his Commentary on Plotinus, p. 504 et seq., vol. ii. Creuzer’s edition), who here discusses the subject of demons and magical art, mentions, on the authority of Porphyry, that sorcerers had the power of evoking demons, and that a magician, in the presence of many, had shown to Plotinus his guardian demon (angel). This constitutes the Goetic department of magic.
[250] Or, “full of pitch.”
[251] Μυρσίνῃ. This word is evidently not the right one, for we have (σμύρνῃ) myrrh mentioned. Perhaps the word μάλθῃ, suggested in a previous passage, is the one employed here likewise.
[252] Or, “makes speedy preparation;” or, “resorts to the contrivance of.”
[253] The words in italics are added by the Abbe Cruice. There is obviously some hiatus in the original.
[254] Or, “the refuse of.”
Chapter XXXIV.—The Illusion of the Sealed Letters; Object in Detailing These Juggleries.
[255] In the margin of the ms. occur the words, “concerning the breaking of the seals.”
[256] Or, “exposed their method of proceeding in accordance with the system of Gnosticism.” Schneidewin, following C. Fr. Hermann, is of opinion that what follows is taken from Celsus’ work on magic, to which Origen alludes in the Contra Celsum, lib. i. p. 53 (Spencer’s edition). Lucian (the well-known satirist), in his Alexander, or Pseudomantis, gives an account of the jugglery of these magicians. See note, chap. xlii. of this book.
[257] Or, “ground”—φορυκτῆς, (al.) φορυτῆς, (al.) φρυκτῆς, (al.) φρικτῆς.
[258] Or, “insert.”
[259] Or “taught,” or “adduced,” or “delivered.”
[260] This sentence is obviously out of place, and should properly come in probably before the words, “These contrivances, however, I hesitated to narrate,” etc., a few lines above in this chapter. The Abbe Cruice conjectures that it may have been written on the margin by some reader acquainted with chemistry, and that afterwards it found its way into the text.
[261] Some read φανερὸν for παρὸν.
[262] What cyanus was is not exactly known. It was employed in the Homeric age for the adornment of implements of war. Whatever the nature of the substance be, it was of a dark-blue colour. Some suppose it to have been blue steel, other, blue copper. Theophrastus’ account of it makes it a stone like a dark sapphire.
[263] Or, “with the head downwards.”
[264] There is some hiatus here.
[265] Or, “memory.”
Chapter XXXVII.—Illusive Appearance of the Moon.
[266] Or, “suspending a drum, etc., covered with,” etc.; or “frequently placing on an elevated position a drum.” For πόῤῥωθεν, which is not here easy of explanation, some read τορνωθὲν, others πορπωθὲν, i.e., fastened with buckles; others, πόῤῥω τεθὲν.
[267] Schneidewin, but not the Abbe Cruice, thinks there is a hiatus here.
[268] There are different readings: (1) ἐτυμολογικῆς; (2) ἔτι ὁλοκλήρου; (3) ὑαλουργικῆς, i.e., composed of glass. (See next note.)
[269] The Abbe Cruice properly remarks that this has no meaning here. He would read ὑαλώδεσι τόποις, or by means of glass images.
Chapter XXXIX.—Imitation of an Earthquake.
[270] There is a hiatus here.
Chapter XLI.—Making a Skull Speak.
[271] The Abbe Cruice suggests ἐπίπλεον βώλου, which he thinks corresponds with the material of which the pyramid mentioned in a previous chapter was composed. He, however, makes no attempt at translating ἐπίπλεον. Does he mean that the skull was filled with clay? His emendation is forced.
[272] Or, “rubbings of” (Cruice).
[273] Or, “they say.”
[274] Some similar juggleries are mentioned by Lucian in his Alexander, or Pseudomantis, xxxii. 26,—a work of a kindred nature to Celsus’ Treatise on Magic (the latter alluded to by Origen, Contr. Cels., lib. i. p. 53, ed. Spenc.), and dedicated by Lucian to Celsius.
Chapter XLII.—The Fraud of the Foregoing Practices; Their Connection with Heresy.
[275] The word magic, or magician, at its origin, had no sinister meaning, as being the science professed by the Magi, who were an exclusive religious sect of great antiquity in Persia, universally venerated for their mathematical skill and erudition generally. It was persons who practised wicked arts, and assumed the name of Magi, that brought the term into disrepute. The origin of magic has been ascribed to Zoroaster, and once devised, it made rapid progress; because, as Pliny reminds us, it includes three systems of the greatest influence among men—(1) the art of medicine, (2) religion, (3) divination. This corresponds with Agrippa’s division of magic into (1) natural, (2) celestial, (3) ceremonial, or superstitious. This last has been also called “goetic” (full of imposture), and relates to the invocation of devils. This originated probably in Egypt, and quickly spread all over the world.
[276] Or, “topic discussed;” or, “not leave any place (subterfuge) for these,” etc.
[277] Or “you will suppose.”
[278] See Aristotle’s Metaphysics, book i.; Cicero, De Naturâ Deorum, book i. (both translated in Bohn’s Classical Library); and Plutarch, De Placitis Philosophorum. lib. i.
[279] The mention of the Persians, Babylonians, and Egyptians shows the subject-matter of the lost books to have been concerning the speculative systems of these nations.
[280] This rendering follows Miller’s text. Schneidewin thinks there is a hiatus, which the Abbe Cruice fills up, the latter translating the passage without an interrogation: “The Egyptians, who think themselves more ancient than all, have formed their ideas of the power of the Deity by calculations and computing,” etc.
[281] Or, “meditation on the divine nature,” or “godlike reflection.”
[282] The ms. has “says he.”
[283] The Abbe Cruice suggests the elimination of 9, on account of its being a divisible number.
[284] Miller considers some reference here to the six days’ creation (Hexaëmeron), on account of the word φυσικωτέρα, i.e., more natural. The Abbe Cruice considers that there is an allusion to an astronomic instrument used for exhibiting harmonic combinations; see Ptolem., Harmon., i. 2. Bunsen reads τοῦ ἑξακύκλου ὑλικοῦ.
[285] The text is obviously corrupt. As given by Schneidewin, it might be rendered thus: “These deriving from the monad a numerical symbol, a virtue, have progressed up to the elements.” He makes no attempt at a Latin version. The Abbe Cruice would suggest the introduction of the word προστεθεῖσαν, on account of the statement already made, that “the monad, superadded into itself, produces a duad.”
[286] There is a hiatus here. Hippolytus has said nothing concerning enneads.
Chapter XLIV.—Egyptian Theory of Nature; Their Amulets.
[287] Or, “names have been allocated,” or “distributed.”
[288] Miller thinks it should be “even number” (περιττόν). The Abbe Cruice would retain “uneven” (ἀπερίζυγον), on the ground that the duad being a περίζυξ ἀριθμὸς, the monad will be ἀπεριζυγος.
[289] Servius on the Eclogues of Virgil (viii. 75) and Pliny (Hist. Nat., xxxviii. 2) make similar statements.
[290] This is Miller and Schneidewin’s emendation for “uneven” in the ms.
[291] Arat., Phænom., v. 19 et seq.
Chapter XLVII.—Opinions of the Heretics Borrowed from Aratus.
[292] Ibid., v. 45, 46.
[293] This refers to Job i. 7, but is at once recognised as not a correct quotation.
[294] Arat., Phænom., v. 61.
[295] Arat., Phænom., v. 63 et seq.
[296] Arat., Phænom., v. 70.
[297] “Pierced it through,” i.e., bored the holes for the strings, or, in other words, constructed the instrument. The Latin version in Buhle’s edition of Aratus is ad cunam (cunabulam) compegit, i.e., he fastened the strings into the shell of the tortoise near his bed. The tortoise is mentioned by Aratus in the first part of the line, which fact removes the obscurity of the passage as quoted by Hippolytus. The general tradition corresponds with this, in representing Mercury on the shores of the Nile forming a lyre out of a dried tortoise. The word translated bed might be also rendered fan, which was used as a cradle, its size and construction being suitable. [See note, p. 46, infra.]
[298] Arat., Phænom., v. 268.
[299] Or, “son of” (see Arat., Phænom., v. 70).
[300] The Abbe Cruice considers that these interpretations, as well as what follows, are taken not from a Greek writer, but a Jewish heretic. No Greek, he supposes, would write, as is stated lower down, that the Greeks were a Phœnician colony. The Jewish heresies were impregnated by these silly doctrines about the stars (see Epiphan., Adv. Hæres., lib. i. De Pharisæis).
[301] Reference is here made to Matt. vii. 14.
[302] Arat., Phænom., v. 44.
[303] Herod., Hist., i. 1.
[304] Or, “for creation is the Logos” (see Arat., Phænom., v. 332 et seq.).
[305] Arat., Phænom., v. 179.
Chapter XLIX.—Symbol of the Creature; And of Spirit; And of the Different Orders of Animals.
[306] i.e., literally a sea-monster (Cicero’s Pistrix); Arat., Phænom., v. 353 et seq.
[307] πρὸς αὐτοῖς ἤδη τοῖς τέρμασι γενόμενον τοῦ βίου. Some read τοῖς σπέρμασι, which yields no intelligible meaning.
[308] Sextus Empiricus, adv. Geom., 29 et seq. (See book vi. chap. xviii. of The Refutation.)
[309] The observations following have already been made in book i. of The Refutation.
[310] Some read ἄρσις.
[311] The Abbe Cruice refers to Censorinus (De Die Natali, cap. vii. et xiv.), who mentions that two numbers were held in veneration, the seventh (hebdomad) and ninth (ennead). The former was of use in curing corporeal disease, and ascribed to Apollo; the latter healed the diseases of the mind, and was attributed to the Muses.
[312] At foot of ms. occur the words, “Fourth Book of Philosophumena.”
[313] [Consult Bunsen, vol. i. p. 35, always interesting and ingeniously critical; nobody should neglect his work. But for a judicial mind, compare Dr. Wordsworth, p. 182.]
[314] The ms. employs the form Sithians, which is obviously not the correct one.
[315] This term κλεψίλογος is frequently applied by Hippolytus to the heretics.
[316] Miller has ἀποκαλύψας for παραλείψας. This, however, can bear no intelligible meaning, except we add some other word, as thus: “not even have I failed to disclose.” Schneidewin’s correction of ἀποκαλύψας into παραλείψας is obviously an improvement.
[317] Μεταλαβόντες; some read μετασχόντες, which it is presumed might be rendered, “sharing in the opinions which gave occasion to these heterodox doctrines.”
[318] i.e., ὄφις. This term has created the title “Ophites,” which may be regarded as the generic denomination for all the advocates of this phase of Gnosticism.
[319] The heresy of the Naasseni is adverted to by the other leading writers on heresy in the early age of the Church. See St. Irenæus, i. 34; Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 28 (p. 291 et seq. ed. Spenc.); Tertullian, Præscr., c. 47; Theodoret, Hæretic. Fabul., i. 14; Epiphanius, Advers. Hæreses., xxv. and xxxvii.; St. Augustine, De Hæres., xvii.; Jerome, Comment. Epist. ad Galat., lib. ii. The Abbe Cruice reminds his readers that the Naasseni carried their doctrines into India, and refers to the Asiatic Researches (vol. x. p. 39).
[320] The Hebrew word is נָחָשׁ (nachash).
[321] παρὰ τὸν αὐτῶν λόγον. Bernaysius suggests for these words, πατέρα τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ. Schneidewin regards the emendation as an error, and Bunsen partly so. The latter would read, πατέρα τὸν αὐτῶν Λόγον, i.e., “The Naasseni honour the Father of all existent things, the Logos, as man and the Son of Man.”
[322] See Irenæus, Hær., i. 1.
[323] Geryon (see note, chap. iii.) is afterwards mentioned as a synonyme with Jordan, i.e., “flowing from earth” (γῆ ῥύων).
[324] γνῶσις,—a term often alluded to by St. John, and which gives its name “Gnosticism” to the various forms of the Ophitic heresy. The aphorism in the text is one that embodies a grand principle which lies at the root of all correct philosophy. In this and other instances it will be found that the system, however wild and incoherent in its theology, of the Naaseni and of some of the other Gnostic sects, was one which was constructed by a subtle analysis of thought, and by observation of nature.
[325] The Abbe Cruice remarks on this passage, that, as the statement here as regards Jesus Christ does not correspond with Origen’s remarks on the opinions of the Naasseni in reference to our Lord, the Philosophumena cannot be the work of Origen.
[326] The Abbe Cruice observes that we have here another proof that the Philosophumena is not the work of Origen, who in his Contra Celsum mentions Mariamne, but professes not to have met with any of his followers (see Contr. Cels., lib. v. p. 272, ed. Spenc.). This confirms the opinion mostly entertained of Origen, that neither the bent of his mind nor the direction of his studies justify the supposition that he would write a detailed history of heresy.
[328] Or ἀδιάφορον, equivocal.
[329] This has been by the best critics regarded as a fragment of a hymn of Pindar’s on Jupiter Ammon. Schneidewin furnishes a restored poetic version of it by Bergk. This hymn, we believe, first suggested to M. Miller an idea of the possible value and importance of the ms. of The Refutation brought by Minöides Mynas from Greece.
[330] The usual form is Alalcomenes. He was a Bœoian Autocthon.
[331] Or, “Iannes.” The Abbe Cruice refers to Berosus, Chald. Hist., pp. 48, 49, and to his own dissertation (Paris, 1844) on the authority to be attached to Josephus, as regards the writers adduced by him in his treatise Contr. Apion.
[332] The Rabbins, probably deriving their notions from the Chaldeans, entertained the most exaggerated ideas respecting the perfection of Adam. Thus Gerson, in his Commentary on Abarbanel, says that “Adam was endued with the very perfection of wisdom, and was chief of philosophers, that he was an immediate disciple of the Deity, also a physician and astrologer, and the originator of all the arts and sciences.” This spirit of exaggeration passed from the Jews to the Christians (see Clementine Homilies, ii.). Aquinas (Sum. Theol., pars i. 94) says of Adam, “Since the first man was appointed perfect, he ought to have possessed a knowledge of everything capable of being ascertained by natural means.”
[333] Or, “vanquishing him” (Roeper).
[334] This is known to us only by some ancient quotations. The Naasseni had another work of repute among them, the “Gospel according to Thomas.” Bunsen conjectures that the two “Gospels” may be the same.
[335] αὐτογενοῦς. Miller has αὐτοῦ γένους, which Bunsen rejects in favour of the reading “self-begotten.”
[336] Schneidewin considers that there have been left out in the ms. the words “or Attis” after Endymion. Attis is subsequently mentioned with some degree of particularity.
[337] Or, “creation.”
[338] Or, “Apis.” See Diodorus Siculus, iii. 58, 59. Pausanias, vii. 20, writes the word Attes. See also Minucius Felix, Octav., cap. xxi.
[339] Or, “forbidden.”
[340] Gal. iii. 28, and Clement’s Epist. ad Rom., ii. 12. [This is the apocryphal Clement reserved for vol. viii. of this series. See also same text, Ignatius, vol. i. p. 81.]
[341] See 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi 15.
[343] ἀλάλῳ; some read ἄλλῳ.
[345] These words do not occur in the “Gospel of Thomas concerning the Saviour’s infancy,” as given by Fabricius and Thilo.
[346] The Abbe Cruice mentions the following works as of authority among the Naasseni, and from whence they derived their system: The Gospel of Perfection, Gospel of Eve, The Questions of Mary, Concerning the Offspring of Mary, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel according to (1) Thomas, (2) the Egyptians. (See Epiphanius, Hæres., c. xxvi., and Origen, Contr. Cels., vi. 30, p. 296, ed. Spenc.) These heretics likewise make use of the Old Testament, St. John’s Gospel, and some of the Pauline epistles.
[347] Miller refers to Littré, Traduct. des Œuvres d’Hippocrate, t. i. p. 396.
[348] See Herodotus, ii. 2, 5.
[349] See Origen, Contr. Cels., v. 38 (p. 257, ed. Spenc.).
[350] Or, “brilliant.”
[351] Or, “untraceable.”
[352] Prov. xxiv. 16; Luke xvii. 4.
[353] Or, “spirit.”
[354] See Epiphanius, Hæres., xxvi. 8.
[355] Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.
[357] Miller has οὐδεὶς. See Plutarch, De Isid. et Osirid., c. li. p. 371.
[358] Or, εἰσόδου, i.e., entrance.
[360] Odyssey, xxiv. 1.
[361] Empedocles, v. 390, Stein.
[362] Esaldaius, Miller (see Origen, Const. Cels., v. 76, p. 297, ed. Spenc.).
[363] Odyssey, xxiv. 2.
[366] See Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, c. xxxiv.
[368] Odyssey, xxiv. 5.
[369] Ibid., xxiv. 6 et seq.
[370] Ps. cxviii. 22; Isa. xxviii. 16.
[372] Iliad, iv. 350, ἕρκος ὀδόντων:—
“What word hath ’scaped the ivory guard that should
Have fenced it in.”
[374] Odyssey, xxiv. 9.
[375] Iliad, v. 246, xxiv. 201.
[376] Ps. lxxxii. 6; Luke vi. 35; John x. 34.
[378] Philo Judæus adopts the same imagery (see his De Agricult., lib. i.).
[381] Or, “empty.”
[382] The Abbe Cruice considers that this is taken from verses of Ezekiel, founding his opinion on fragments of these verses to be found in Eusebius’ Præparat. Evang., ix. 38.
[383] Iliad, xv. 189.
[385] The commentators refer to Isa. xxviii. 10. Epiphanius,Hæres., xxv., mentions these expressions, but assigns them a different meaning. Saulasau is tribulation,Caulacau hope, and Zeesar “hope, as yet, little.” [See my note on Irenæus, p. 350, this series, and see Elucidation II.]
[388] Taken from Anacreon.
[390] Matt. xiii. 33-34; Luke xvii. 21.
[391] John vi. 53; Mark x. 38.
[393] ἀποτεταγμένου: some read ἀποτεταμένου.
[395] Ps. xxii. 20-21; xxxv. 17.
[396] Isa. xli. 8; xliii. 1-2.
[400] This is a quotation from the Septuagint, Job 41.8. The reference to the authorized (English) version would be xli. 8.
[402] John x. 9; Matt. vii. 13.
[403] [A strange amplifying of the word, which is now claimed exclusively for one. Elucidation III.]
[412] The word translated “revenues” and “ends” is the same—τέλη
[413] Τῶν ὅλων: some read τῶν ὠνίων
[415] Matt. xiii. 3-9; Mark iv. 3-9; Luke viii. 5-8.
[417] Or, “genera.”
[418] ὐπὸ: Miller reads ἀπὸ
[419] Matt. iii. 10; Luke iii. 9.
[420] κάτω: some read κάρπου
[422] Odyssey, iv. 384.
[423] πιπράσκεται; literally, bought and sold, i.e., ruined.
[424] λέγει: some read ἀμέλει, i.e., doubtless, of course.
[425] Isa. liv. 1; Gal. iv. 27.
[426] ἔκλαιε: this is in the margin; ἔλαβε is in the ms. The marginal reading is the proper correction of that of the ms.
[427] Jer. xxxi. 15; Matt. ii. 18.
[429] [The Phrygian Atys (see cap. iv. infra), whose history should have saved Origen from an imitation of heathenism.]
[430] παρῃτημένος: some read ἀπηρτισμένος, i.e., perfecting.
[431] These verses have been ascribed to Parmenides.
[432] Or, “receive.”
[437] ἐξ ἧς or ἑξῆς, i.e., next.
[438] Matt. xiii. 31-32; Mark iv. 31-32; Luke xiii. 19.
[440] The passage following obviously was in verse originally. It has been restored to its poetic form by Schneidewin.
[444] Or, “they say.”
[447] κερκίς. This word literally means the rod; or, in later times, the comb fixed into the ἱστός (i.e., the upright loom), for the purpose of driving the threads of the woof home, thus making the web even and close. It is, among other significations, applied to bones in the leg or arm. Cruice and Schneidewin translate κερκίς by spina, a rendering adopted above. The allusion is made again in chap. xii. and chap. xvi. In the last passage, κέντρον (spur) is used instead of κερκίς
Chapter V.—Explanation of the System of the Naasseni Taken from One of Their Hymns.
[452] The text of this hymn is very corrupt. The Abbe Cruice explains the connection of the hymn with the foregoing exposition, and considers it to have a reference to the Metempsychosis, which forms part of the system of the Naasseni. [Bunsen, i. 36.]
[453] Or, “nimble.”
Chapter VII.—The System of the Peratæ; Their Tritheism; Explanation of the Incarnation.
[454] Something is wanting after Περατική in the text. Miller supplies the deficiency, and his conjecture is adopted above. Literally, it should be rendered—“the Peratic heresy, the blasphemy of which (heretics),” etc.
[455] Most of what is mentioned by Hippolytus concerning this sect is new, as the chief writers on the early heresies are comparatively silent concerning the Peratæ; indeed, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius completely so. Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., vii.; (vol. ii. p. 555), mentions the Peratics, and Theodoret more fully than the rest speaks of them (Hæret. fabul., i. 17). Theodoret, however, as the Abbe Cruice thinks, has appropriated his remarks from Hippolytus.
[456] προεχεστέρα or προσεχεστέρα, contiguous. This is Miller’s reading, but is devoid of sense. Προεχεστέρα, adopted by Schneidewin and Cruice, might bear the meaning of the expression par excellence.
[457] γεγεννημένων: Miller reads γεγεννημένον, agreeing with πλῆθος. Bernays, in his Epistola Critica addressed to Bunsen, proposes the former reading.
[458] εἰδικοῦ: some read ἰδικοῦ. This term, adopted from the Platonic philosophy, is translated specialis by logicians, and transcendentalis by metaphysicians. It expresses the pre-existent form in the divine mind, according to which material objects were fashioned. The term seems out of place as used by the Peratics to denominate a corruptible and perishing world. We should rather expect ὐλικοῦ, i.e., material. (See Aristotle’s masterly exposition of the subject of the εἶδος and ὕλη in his Metaphysics book vi., and p. 64 of the analysis prefixed to the translation in Bohn’s Library.)
[459] πρώτης or πρὸ τῆς, “antecedent to the segment.”
[460] σωματικῶς, i.e., substantially. See Col. i. 19; ii. 9.
[461] ἀφίεται: some read ἀφιει, i.e., dismisses; some ἀφιεῖ εἰκῆ, i.e., heedlessly casts off. Hippolytus, in his Summary of the Peratic Heresy in book x., has αφιεται εἰκῆ, which Cruice translates temere absolvuntur. Schneidewin has in the same passage ἀφίεται merely, and translates it abjiciuntur. In both places Bernays suggests ὀφιοειδῆ, i.e., those of the nature of the Serpent.
[462] Or, “is part of the moon.”
[463] Some omissions here are supplied from Sextus Empiricus.
[464] Or, “produces alterations and causes turnings.”
[465] Celbes, as observed in a former note, has two other forms in The Refutation, viz., Acembes and Ademes. He is called Carystius, and the other founder of the heresy Peraticus. As the latter term is frequently used to designate Eubœa, i.e., the country beyond (πέραν) the continent, it is inferred that Carystius has a similar import. This would seem placed beyond conjecture by a passage (Strom., vii. vol. ii. p. 555) in Clemens Alexandrinus, already alluded to, who says that some heresies, e.g., those of the Marcionites and Basilidians, derived their denomination from the names, whereas others from the country, of their founders. As an instance of the latter, he mentions the Peratics (see note 4, p. 62, [and note 6, p. 58]).
[466] Some deficiencies in the text are filled up from Sextus Empiricus.
[467] Or, “celestial.”
[468] This expression άλλὰ γάρ requires to have the ellipsis supplied as above. It may be freely rendered “nay more.” Miller reads ῞Αλλη γάρ, i.e. “There is some other difference,” etc.; but this does not agree with Sextus Empiricus.
[469] Or, “sympathy:” συμπάθεια is, however, properly altered into ἀσυμπάθεια on the authority of Sextus.
[470] i.e., “Rulers of localities and suburbans.”
[471] The Peratic heresy both Hippolytus and Theodoret state to have originated from Euphrates. Origen, on the other hand, states (Contr. Cels., vi. 28, [vol. iv. p. 586]) that Euphrates was founder of the Ophites. The inference from this is, that Origen was not author of The Refutation.
Chapter IX.—System of the Peratæ Explained Out of One of Their Own Books.
[472] Hippolytus at the end of this chapter mentions the title of one of their books, Οἱ προάστειοι ἕως αἰθέρος, “The Suburbans up to the Air.” Bunsen suggests Περάται ἕως αἰθέρος, “The Transcendental Etherians.” (See note 1 supra.)
[473] The Abbe Cruice considers that the following system of cosmogony is translated into Greek from some Chaldaic or Syriac work. He recognises in it likewise a Jewish element, to be accounted for from the fact that the Jews during the Babylonish captivity imbibed the principles of the Oriental philosophy. What, therefore, is given by Hippolytus may have a Judaistic origin.
[474] Schneidewin considers the text here corrupt.
[475] The Abbe Cruice observes that the reference here is to the second book of the law (Ex. xv. 27), where mention is made of the twelve fountains of Elim. The Hebrew word (עין) stands for both an eye and a fountain. Hence the error by the Greek translator.
[476] i.e., a poetic expression, as Cruice remarks, for closing the seal. (See Job ix. 7.)
[477] Schneidewin refers us to a passage from Berosus, who affirms that this person was styled Thalatta by the Greeks, Thalath by the Chaldeans; another denomination being Omorka, or Omoroka, or Marcaia. The Abbe Cruice, however, sets little value on these names, which, following the judgment of Scaliger, he pronounces spurious. It is unnecessary to remind scholars that the authenticity of Berosus has collapsed under the attacks of modern criticism.
[478] Miller suggests Νεφέλη, Cruice Nebo.
[479] Cruice thinks this may be a figure of the year and of twelve months.
[480] Miller has Κόρην.
[481] Or, “air.”
[482] Miller reads Μυγδώνη, others Μυγδόνη.
[483] Miller has ᾽Απραξία.
[484] Miller suggests Βουζύγης.
[485] Miller reads Φλέγων.
[486] γινομένων; some read κινουμένων, i.e., have different motions.
[487] κέντροις: Schneidewin suggests κέντρων.
[488] See Oracula Sibyllina Fragm., ii. ver. 1.
[489] περασαι; hence their name Peratics, i.e., Transcendentalists. Bunsen considers, however, that such a derivation as this was not the true one (see note 1, p. 60), but merely an after-thought. The title of one of the Peratic treatises, as altered by Bunsen from Οἱ προάστειοι ἕως αιθέρος into Οἱ Περάται ἕως αἰθέρος, i.e., “the Transcendental Etherians,” would agree with their subsequent assumption of this title. [Bunsen, i. p. 37.]
[490] Ex. iv. 2-4, 17; vii. 9-13.
[491] Or, “they say.”
[499] The Abbe Cruise thinks that Hippolytus is here quoting from the Gospel of Eve (see Epiph., Hær., xxvi. 2).
[500] ἄκρᾳ: this is a conjectural reading instead of ἀρχῇ.
[501] Aratus, Phænom., v. 62.
[502] Ibid., v. 46.
Chapter XII.—Compendious Statement of the Doctrines of the Peratæ.
[507] There is a hiatus here. Miller, who also suggests διαφέρει instead of μεταφέρει supplies the deficiency as translated above. The Abbe Cruice fills up the hiatus by words taken from a somewhat similar passage in the third chapter of book viii., but the obscurity still remains. Miller thinks there is a reference to Isa. vi. 10.
[508] This theory has been previously alluded to by Hippolytus in the last chapter of book iv.
[509] καμαρίου: some would read μακαρίου [“the dome of thought, the palace of the soul”].
Chapter XIII.—The Peratic Heresy Not Generally Known.
[510] παντάπασι: some read πάντα πᾶσι. Cruice suggests πᾶσιν ἐπιτιθειμένην, i.e., one that plots against all.
[511] This is the form in which the name occurs in Hippolytus, but the correct one is Sethians. As regards this sect, see Irenæus, Contr. Hæres., i. 30; Tertullian, Præscript., c. lxvii.; Theodoret, Hæret. Fabul., i. 14; Epiphanius, Advers. Hæres., c. xxviii., xxxvii., and xxxix.; Augustine, De Hæret., c. xix.; Josephus, Antiq. Judaic., i. 2; Suidas on the word “Seth.”
[512] For δυνάμεις …λογιζέσθω, Bernays reads δυνάται…λογίζεσθαι: “While these make (such) assertions, he is able to calculate,” etc.
[513] Or, “form of a seal.”
[514] Or, “production.”
[515] This is Cruice’s mode of supplying the hiatus. Miller has “man or ox.”
[516] Or, “concealed.”
[517] ἅλας τῶν γενομένων: Miller reads ἀλάλων
[518] The hiatus, as filled up by Miller, is adopted above. The Abbe Cruice suggests the following emendation: “For there has been intermingled a certain very diminutive spark from the light (subsisting) along with the supernal fragrance, from the spirit producing, like a ray, composition in things dissolved, and dissolution in things compounded.”
[520] βρόμῳ: some read βρασμῷ, i.e., agitation, literally a boiling up.
[521] σκοτεινῷ: some read σκολῷ (which is of similar import), crooked, i.e., involved, obscure.
[522] Or, “the light.”
[523] A hiatus occurs here. The deficiency is supplied by Cruice from previous statements of Hippolytus, and is adopted above.
[524] Or, “strong.”
[525] This passage is obscure. The translation above follows Schneidewin and Cruice. Miller’s text would seem capable of this meaning: “The wind, simultaneously fierce and formidable, is whirled along like a trailing serpent supplied with wings.” His text is, τῷ σύρματι ὄφει παραπλήσιος πτέρωτος, but suggests πτερωτῷ· ὡς ἀπὸ
[526] Schneidewin has a full stop after “wind,” and begins the next sentence with θηρίου (beast).
[529] Miller would read μετὰ τὰ…ἐξελθὼν, “after the foul mysteries of the womb he went forth,” etc.
[530] John iv. 7-14. For πιεῖν some read ποιεῖν, “a course which he must pursue who,” etc.
[531] προστάται. This is a military expression applied to those placed in the foremost ranks of a battalion of soldiers; but it was also employed in civil affairs, to designate, for instance at Athens, those who protected the μέτοικοι (aliens), and others without the rights of citizenship. Προστάτης was the Roman Patronus.
[532] Or, “their own peculiar.”
[533] It is written Cham in the text.
[536] Ex. xx. 13-15; Deut. v. 17-19.
[537] ὑπὸ, Miller.
[538] These belong to the legendary period of Greek philosophy. Musæus flourished among the Athenians, Linus among the Thebans, and Orpheus among the Thracians. They weaved their physical theories into crude theological systems, which subsequently suggested the cosmogony and theogony of Hesiod. See the translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. ii. pp. 33, 34.
[539] ὀυφαλος: some read with greater probability φαλλὸς, which means the figure, generally wooden, of a membrum virile. This harmonizes with what Hippolytus has already mentioned respecting Osiris. A figure of this description was carried in solemn procession in the orgies of Bacchus as a symbol of the generative power of nature. The worship of the Lingam among the Hindoos is of the same description.
[540] ἁρμονία (Schneidewin). Cruise reads ἀνδρεία (manliness), which agrees with φαλλὸς (see preceding note). For φαλλὸς Schneidewin reads ὀμφαλός (navel).
[541] “Of Achaia” (Meinekius, Vindic. Strab., p. 242).
[542] The reading in Miller is obviously incorrect, viz., λεγομένη μεγαληγορία, for which he suggests μεγάλη ἑορτή. Several other emendations have been proposed, but they scarcely differ from the rendering given above, which is coincident with what may be learned of these mysteries from other sources.
[543] πρὸς, or it might be rendered “respecting.” A reference, however, to the catalogue of Empedocles’ works, given by Fabricius (t. v. p. 160), shows that for πρὸς we should read εις.
[544] πλείοσι: Miller would read πυλεῶσι. i.e., gateways.
[545] Or πετρωτὸς, intended for πετρώδης, “made of stone.” [A winged phallus was worn by the women of Pompeii as an ornament, for which Christian women substituted a cross. See vol. iii., this series, p. 104.]
[546] κυανοειδῆ: some read κυνοειδῆ, i.e., like a dog.
[547] Some read Persephone (Proserpine) Phlya.
[548] For “phaos ruentes” some read “Phanes rueis,” which is the expression found in the Orphic hymn (see Cruice’s note).
[549] Iliad, xv. 189. (See the passage from Hesiod given at the end of book i. of The Refutation.)
[550] Iliad, xv. 36–38 (Lord Derby’s translation); Odyssey, v. 185–187.
[551] Miller reasonably proposes for τῷ νοΐ the reading στοιχείο ν, “which affirms water to be a formidable element.”
[552] ὕδωρ μεμιγμένον οἴνῳ διακρίνει: Miller’s text is ὕδωρ μεμιγμένον αἰνωδία κρήνη, which is obviously corrupt. His emendation of the passage may be translated thus: “And now some one observes water from a wayside fountain, mixed, so they say; and even though all things be intermingled, a separation is effected.”
[554] κέντρῳ. In other passages the word κερκίς is used, i.e., the backbone.
[555] Or, “power.”
[556] Or, “Ama.”
[557] Herodotus, vi. 119.
Chapter XVIII.—The System of Justinus Antiscriptural and Essentially Pagan.
[558] What Hippolytus here states respecting Justinus is quite new. No mention occurs of this heretic in ecclesiastical history. It is evident, however, that, like Simon Magus, he was contemporary with St. Peter and St. Paul. Justinus, however, and the Ophitic sect to which he belonged, are assigned by Hippolytus and Irenæus a prior position as regards the order of their appearance to the system of Simon, or its offshoot Valentinianism. The Ophites engrafted Phrygian Judaism, and the Valentinians Gentilism, upon Christianity; the former not rejecting the speculations and mysteries of Asiatic paganism, and the latter availing themselves of the cabalistic corruptions of Judaism. The Judaistic element soon became prominent in successive phases of Valentinianism, which produced a fusion of the sects of the old Gnostics and of Simon. Hippolytus, however, now places the Ophitic sect before us prior to its amalgamation with Valentinianism. Here, for the first time, we have an authentic delineation of the primitive Ophites. This is of great value. [See Irenæus, vol. i., this series, p. 354; also Bunsen (on Baur), vol. i. p. 42.]
Chapter XIX.—The Justinian Heresy Unfolded in the “Book of Baruch.”
[560] Isa. lxiv. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[561] Ps. cx. 4; Heb. vii. 21.
[562] Or, “the rest of the Mysteries.”
Chapter XX.—The Cosmogony of Justinus an Allegorical Explanation of Herodotus’ Legend of Hercules.
[563] Herodotus, iv. 8–10.
[564] Erytheia (Eretheia) was the island which Geryon inhabited. Miller’s text has ᾽Ερυθᾶς (i.e., sc. Θαλάσσης), “the Red Sea.” This, however, is a mistake.
[565] Some read τὸν νοῦν, which has been properly altered into τὸ νῦν, as translated above.
[566] Or, “mother.”
[567] και ἄγνωστος, “and unknown,” is added in Cruice’s and Schneidewin’s text, as this word occurs in Hippolytus’ epitome of Justinus’ heresy in book x. of The Refutation.
[568] δίγνωμος: some read ἀγνώμων, i.e., devoid of judgment.
[569] εὐνήν: some read εὔνοιαν, i.e., goodwill, but this seems pleonastic where φιλίας precedes.
[570] See Rev. iii. 14. [Bunsen, i. 39.]
[571] Or, “Babelachamos,” or “Babel, Achamos.”
[572] Or, “Kaviathan.”
[574] Or, “this one.”
[576] ἐν αὐτῇ: some read ἐν ἀρχῇ, i.e., in the beginning.
[577] σατραπικήν. The common reading ἀστραπικήν is obviously corrupt.
[578] Or, “mixture.”
[579] κάτω: some read κατώγη, i.e., κατώγαιος, earthly; some κατωφερὴς, with a downward tendency.
[582] Isa. lxiv. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[584] Or, “the heavens.”
[585] ἀνθρώποις πᾶσιν. ᾽Ελθὼν. Some read: ἀνθρώποις. Πάλιν ἐλθὼν.
[587] Or, “in heaven.”
[589] Or, “in heaven.”
[590] These words are superfluous here, and are repeated from the preceding sentence by mistake.
[591] ψυχῆς: some read εὐχῆς, i.e., prayer.
[592] Miller conjectures that the parenthetical words should be added to the text.
[594] ἐντεῦθεν: this word stands at the end of the last chapter in the text of Miller, who suspects that there is here some hiatus. In this opinion the Abbe Cruice concurs. Schneidewin, however, transfers ἐντεῦθεν to the beginning of this chapter as above.
[595] παρὰ τῶ ἀγαθῷ: or rather, we should expect, into a knowledge of the Good One.
[596] Ps. cx. 4; Heb. vii. 21.
[597] ουὐτως: some read οὗτος.
[599] λουτρὸν: the ecclesiastical use of this word makes it stand for baptism.
[603] ἐντυχὼν: some read εὐτυχῶν, i.e., one who is fortunate enough to meet with the book.
[604] Literally “ought, according to his Hercules, by imitating,” etc.
[605] ἀμάραν. This word means a trench or channel in a field, for the purpose either of irrigation or drainage. Schneidewin and Cruice render it by the Latin Sentinam, an expression applied, for example, to bilge water.
Chapter XXIII.—Subsequent Heresies Deducible from the System of Justinus.
[606] ἐκρηθείη, i.e., ἐκριθείη: some read ἐκκριθείη, which might be rendered, “even though, (for the purpose of holding these heretics up to public shame,) there should be made a selection only,” etc.
Chapter I.—The Ophites the Progenitors of Subsequent Heresies.
[607] [Presuming that all who are disposed to study this work will turn to Dr. Bunsen’s first volume (Hippol.), I have not thought it wise to load these pages with references to his interesting reviewal.]
[608] κατὰ τελείωσιν τῶν χρόνων. This is Bunsen’s emendation. The textual reading is μείωσιν.
[609] ἑκουσίως: Bunsen suggests ἀνοσίως, i.e., profanely.
[610] See Irenæus, Hæres., i. 19, 20; Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlvi.; Epiphanius, Hæres., xxi.; Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 1; St. Augustine, De Hæres., 1. See the apology of Justin Martyr (vol. i., this series, p. 171), who says, “There was a Samaritan, Simon, a native of the village called Gitto, who, in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty acts of magic, by virtue of the art of the devils operating in him.” Simon’s history and opinions are treated of largely in the Recognitions of Clement. See vol. iii. of the Edinburgh series, pp. 156–271; [vol. viii. of this series].
[611] In book iv. of The Refutation.
Chapter III.—Story of Apsethus the Libyan.
[613] Miller refers us to Apostolius’ Proverb., s.v. ψαφῶν. Schneidewin remarks that Maximus Tyrius relates almost a similar story concerning one Psapho, a Libyan, in his Dissert. (xxxv.), and that Apostolius extracted this account and inserted it in his Cent., xviii. p. 730, ed. Leutsch, mentioning at the same time a similar narrative from Ælian’s Hist., xiv. 30. See Justin., xxi. 4, and Pliny, Nat. Hist., viii. 16.
[614] The text here is corrupt. The above is Miller’s emendation. Cruice’s reading may thus be rendered: “So that far sooner we may compare him unto the Libyan, who was a mere man, and not the true God.”
[616] The Abbe Cruice considers that Theodoret has made use of this passage. (See Hæret. Fab., i. 1.)
[617] Or, τὸν ἀόρατον, the invisible one.
[619] Matt. iii. 12; Luke iii. 17.
Chapter V.—Simon Appeals to Scripture in Support of His System.
Chapter VI.—Simon’s System Expounded in the Work, Great Announcement; Follows Empedocles.
[621] Emped., ed. Karst. v. 324.
Chapter VII.—Simon’s System of a Threefold Emanation by Pairs.
[622] νώματος αἶσαν: Miller has γνώμην ἴσην, which yields but little sense.
[623] These powers are thus arranged:
A. Mind and Intelligence: termed also,—1. Heaven and Earth.
B. Voice and Name: termed also,—2. Sun and Moon.
C. Ratiocination and Reflection: termed also,—3. Air and Water.
[626] “Brooded over” (see Gen. i. 2).
[630] χωρίον (i.e., locality) is the reading in Miller, which Cruice ingeniously alters into χόριον, the caul in which the fœtus is enclosed, which is called the “after-birth.”
[632] This rendering follows Cruice, who has succeeded in clearing away the obscurity of the passage as given in Miller.
Chapter X.—Simon’s Explanation of the First Two Books of Moses.
[633] Odyssey, x. 304 et seq. [See Butcher and Lang, p. 163.]
Chapter XI.—Simon’s Explanation of the Three Last Books of the Pentateuch.
[635] Matt. iii. 10; Luke iii. 9.
Chapter XII.—Fire a Primal Principle, According to Simon.
[636] In the Recognitions of Clement we have this passage: “He (Simon) wishes himself to be believed to be an exalted power, which is above God the Creator, and to be thought to be the Christ, and to be called the standing one” (Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinburgh, vol. iii. p. 196).
[637] The expression stans (standing) was used by the scholastics as applicable to the divine nature. Interpreted in this manner, the words in the text would be equivalent with “which was, and is, and is to come” (Rev. i. 8). The Recognitions of Clement explain the term thus: “He (Simon) uses this name as implying that he can never be dissolved, asserting that his flesh is so compacted by the power of his divinity, that it can endure to eternity. Hence, therefore, he is called the standing one, as though he cannot fall by any corruption” (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. iii. p. 196). [To be found in vol. viii. of this series, with the other apocryphal Clementines.]
[639] Homer, for instance (See Epiphanius, Hæres., xxi. 3).
[640] μιαρὸς, Bunsen’s emendation for ψυχρὸς, the reading in Miller and Schneidewin. Some read ψυδρὸς, i.e., lying; others ψευδόχριστος, i.e., counterfeit Christ. Cruice considers Bunsen’s emendation unnecessary, as ψυχρὸς may be translated “absurd fellow.” The word, literally meaning cold, is applied in a derived sense to persons who were heartless,—an import suitable to Hippolytus’ meaning.
[641] [See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 348, and Bunsen’s ideas, p. 50 of his first volume.]
[642] This rendering is according to Bunsen’s emendation of the text.
[643] Cruice omits the word δεδοκηκέναι, which seems an interpolation. The above rendering adopts the proposed emendation.
[644] Bunsen thinks that there is an allusion here to the conversation of our Lord with the woman of Samaria, and if so, that Menander, a disciple of Simon, and not Simon himself, was the author of The Great Announcement, as the heretic did not outlive St. Peter and Paul, and therefore died before the period at which St. John’s Gospel was written.
[645] Miller reads φύσιν, which makes no sense. The rendering above follows Bunsen’s emendation of the text. [Here it is equally interesting to the student of our author or of Irenæus to turn to Bunsen (p. 51), and to observe his parallels.]
[646] The Abbe Cruice considers that the statements made by Origen (Contr. Celsum, lib. i. p. 44, ed. Spenc.), respecting the followers of Simon in respect of number, militates against Origen’s authorship of The Refutation.
[647] This rendering follows the text of Schneidewin and Cruice. The Clementine Recognitions (Ante-Nicene Library, ed. Edinb., vol. iii. p. 273) represent Simon Magus as leaving for Rome, and St. Peter resolving to follow him thither. Miller’s text is different and as emended by him, Hippolytus’ account would harmonize with that given in the Acts. Miller’s text may be thus translated: “And having been laid under a curse, as has been written in the Acts, he subsequently disapproved of his practices, and made an attempt to journey as far as Rome, but he fell in with the apostles,” etc. The text of Cruice and Schneidewin seems less forced: while the statement itself—a new witness to this controverted point in ecclesiastical history concerning St. Peter—corroborates Hippolytus’ authorship of The Refutation.
[648] Justin Martyr mentions, as an instance of the estimation in which Simon Magus was held among his followers, that a statue was erected to him at Rome. Bunsen considers that the rejection of this fable of Justin Martyr’s, points to the author of The Refutation being a Roman, who would therefore, as he shows himself in the case of the statue, be better informed than the Eastern writer of any event occurring in the capital of the West. [Bunsen’s magisterial decision (p. 53) is very amusingly characteristic.] Hippolytus’ silence is a presumption against the existence of such a statue, though it is very possible he might omit to mention it, supposing it to be at Rome. At all events, the very precise statement of Justin Martyr ought not to be rejected on slight or conjectural grounds. [See vol. i., this series, pp. 171 ,172, 182, 187, and 193. But our author relies on Irenæus, same vol., p. 348. Why reject positive testimony?]
Chapter XVI.—Heresy of Valentinus; Derived from Plato and Pythagoras.
[649] Valentinus came from Alexandria to Rome during the pontificate of Hyginus, and established a school there. His desire seems to have been to remain in communion with Rome, which he did for many years, as Tertullian informs us. Epiphanius, however, tells that Valentinus, towards the end of his life, when living in Cyprus, separated entirely from the Church. Irenæus, book i.; Tertullian on Valentinus, and chap. xxx. of his Præscript.; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., iv. 13, vi. 6; Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 7; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxi.; St. Augustine, Hær., xi.; Philastrius, Hist. Hærs., c. viii.; Photius, Biblioth., cap. ccxxx.; Clemens Alexandrinus’ Epitome of Theodotus (pp. 789–809, ed. Sylburg). The title is, ᾽Εκ τῶν Θεοδότου καὶ τῆς ἀνατολικῆς καλουμένης διδασκαλίας, κατὰ τοὺς Οὐαλεντίνου χρόνους ἐπιτομαὶ. See likewise Neander’s Church History, vol. ii. Bohn’s edition.
[650] These opinions are mostly given in extracts from Valentinus’ work Sophia, a book of great repute among Gnostics, and not named by Hippolytus, probably as being so well known at the time. The Gospel of Truth, mentioned by Irenæus as used among the Valentinians, is not, however, considered to be from the pen of Valentinus. In the extracts given by Hippolytus from Valentinus, it is important (as in the case of Basilides: see translator’s introduction) to find that he quotes St. John’s Gospel, and St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. The latter had been pronounced by the Tübingen school as belonging to the period of the Montanistic disputes in the middle of the second century, that is, somewhere about 25–30 years after Valentinus.
Chapter XVII.—Origin of the Greek Philosophy.
[651] See Timæus, c. vii. ed. Bekker.
[652] Or, “Solomon,” evidently a mistake.
Chapter XVIII.—Pythagoras’ System of Numbers.
[653] Miller would read for προστιθέμενον, νομιστέον or νομίζει.
[654] Respecting these lines, Miller refers us to Fabricius, in Sextum Empiricum, p. 332.
[655] The Abbe Cruice adduces a passage from Suidas (on the word ἀριθμός) which contains a similar statement to that furnished by Hippolytus.
Chapter XIX.—Pythagoras’ Duality of Substances; His “Categories.”
Chapter XX.—Pythagoras’ Cosmogony; Similar to that of Empedocles.
[657] Or, συνάγει, leads together.
[658] The Abbe Cruice considers that the writer of The Refutation did not agree with Pythagoras’ opinion regarding the soul,—a fact that negatives the authorship of Origen, who assented to the Pythagorean psychology. The question concerning the pre-existence of the soul is stated in a passage often quoted, viz., St. Jerome’s Letter to Marcellina (Ep. 82).
Chapter XXI.—Other Opinions of Pythagoras.
[659] Cruice thinks that the following words are taken from Heraclitus, and refers to Plutarch, De Exilio, c. xi.
[660] Phædo, vol. i. p. 89, ed. Bekker.
Chapter XXII.—The “Sayings” Of Pythagoras.
[661] These sayings (Symbola Pythagorica) have been collected by, amongst others, Thomas Stanley, and more recently by Gaspar Orellius. The meaning and the form of the proverbs given by Hippolytus do not always correspond with, e.g., Jamblichus (the biographer of Pythagoras), Porphyry, and Plutarch. The curious reader can see the Proverbs, in all their variety of readings and explanations, in the edition of L. Gyraldus.
[662] This has been explained by Erasmus as a precept enjoining habits of tidiness and modesty.
[663] Miller’s text here yields a different but not very intelligible meaning.
[664] Horace quotes this proverb (2 Serm., iii. 274) with a somewhat different meaning. Porphyry considers it a precept against irreverent language towards the Deity, the fire being a symbol—for instance, the vestal fire—of the everlasting nature of God. Σκάλευε in Hippolytus is also read, e.g., by Basil, ζαίνοντες, that is, cleaving. This alludes to some ancient game in which fire was struck at and severed.
[665] Σάρον. This word also signifies “sweepings” or “refuse.” Some say it means a Chaldean or Babylonian measure. The meaning would then be: Neglect not giving good measure, i.e., practise fair dealing. This agrees with another form of the proverb, reading ζυγόν for σάρον—that is, overlook not the balance or scales.
[666] Another meaning assigned to this proverb is, “Labour to no purpose.” The palm, it is alleged, when it grows of itself, produces fruit, but sterility ensues upon transplantation. The proverb is also said to mean: Avoid what may seem agreeable, but really is injurious. This alludes to the quality of the wine (see Xenophon’s Anab., ii.), which, pleasant in appearance, produced severe headache in those partaking of it.
[667] “Eat not from a stool.” This proverb is also differently read and interpreted. Another form is, “Eat not from a chariot,” of which the import is variously given, as, Do not tamper with your health, because food swallowed in haste, as it must be when one is driving a team of horses, cannot be salutary or nutritive; or, Do not be careless, because one should attend to the business in hand; if that be guiding a chariot, one should not at the same time try to eat his meals.
[668] The word “entire” Plutarch adds to this proverb. Its ancient form would seem to inculcate patience and courtesy, as if one should not, when at meals, snap at food before others. As read in Plutarch, it has been also interpreted as a precept to avoid creating dissension, the unbroken bread being a symbol of unity. It has likewise been explained as an injunction against greediness. The loaf was marked by two intersecting lines into four parts, and one was not to devour all of these. (See Horace, 1 Epist., xvii. 49.)
[669] This is the generally received import of the proverb. Ancient writers, however, put forward other meanings, connected chiefly with certain effects of beans, e.g., disturbing the mind, and producing melancholy, which Pythagoras is said to have noticed. Horace had no such idea concerning beans (see 2 Serm, vi. 63), but evidently alludes to a belief of the magi that disembodied spirits resided in beans. (See Lucian, Micyll.; Plutarch, Περὶ Παίδ. ᾽Αγωγ. 17; Aulus Gellius, iv. 11; and Guigniaut’s Cruiser’s Symbolik, i. 160.) [See p. 12 supra, and compare vol. ii., this series, p. 383, and Elucidation III. p. 403.]
Chapter XXIII.—Pythagoras’ Astronomic System.
[670] The text seems doubtful. Some would read, “The sun is (to be compared with) soul, and the moon with body.”
[671] Or, “completes the great year of the world” (see book iv. chap. vii. of The Refutation).
[672] Valentinus’ system, if purged of the glosses put upon it by his disciples, appears to have been constructed out of a grand conception of Deity, and evidences much power of abstraction. Between the essence of God, dwelling in the midst of isolation prior to an exercise of the creative energy, and the material worlds, Valentinus interposes an ideal world. Through the latter, the soul—of a kindred nature—is enabled to mount up to God. This is the import of the terms Bythus (depth) and Sige (silence, i.e., solitariness) afterwards used.
[673] κυρία: instead of this has been suggested the reading καὶ ῥιζα, i.e., “which is both the root,” etc.
[674] In all this Valentinus intends to delineate the progress from absolute to phenomenal being. There are three developments in this transition. Absolute being (Bythus and Sige) is the same as the eternal thought and consciousness of God’s own essence. Here we have the primary emanation, viz., Nous, i.e., Mind (called also Monogenes, only-begotten), and Aletheia, i.e., Truth. Next comes the ideal manifestation through the Logos, i.e., Word (obviously borrowed from the prologue to St. John’s Gospel), and Zoe, i.e., Life (taken from the same source). We have then the passage from the ideal to the actual in Anthropos, i.e., Man, and Ecclesia, i.e., Church. These last are the phenomenal manifestations of the divine mind.
[675] τέλειος: Bunsen would read τέλος, which Cruice objects to on account of the word τελειότερος occurring in the next sentence.
[676] This follows the text as emended by Bernays.
[677] The number properly should be thirty, as there were two tetrads: (1) Bythus, Sige, Nous, and Aletheia; (2) Logos, Zoe, Ecclesia, and Anthropos. Some, as we learn from Hippolytus, made up the number to thirty, by the addition of Christ and the Holy Ghost,—a fact which Bunsen thinks conclusively proves that the alleged generation of Æons was a subsequent addition to Valentinus’ system.
[678] There is some confusion in Hippolytus’ text, which is, however, removeable by a reference to Irenæus (i. 1).
[679] We subjoin the meanings of these names:—
Ten Æons from Nous and Aletheia, (or) Logos and Zoe, viz.:—
A. Bythus = Profundity.
B. Mixis = Mixture.
C. Ageratos = Ever-young.
D. Henosis = Unification.
E. Autophyes = Self-grown.
F. Hedone = Voluptuousness.
G. Acinetus = Motionless.
H. Syncrasis = Composition.
I. Monogenes = Only-begotten.
J. Macaria = Blessedness.
[680] The following are the meanings of these names:—
Twelve Æons from Anthropos and Ecclesia, (or) Logos and Zoe:—
A. Paracletus = Comforter.
B. Pistis = Faith.
C. Patricus = Paternal.
D. Elpis = Hope.
E. Metricus = Temperate.
F. Agape = Love.
G. Æinous = Ever-thinking.
H. Synesis = Intelligence.
I. Ecclesiasticus = Ecclesiastical.
J. Makariotes = Felicity.
K. Theletus = Volition.
L. Sophia = Wisdom.
[681] [Rev. ii. 24. It belongs to the “depths of Satan” to create mythologies that caricature the Divine mysteries. Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 11.]
[682] This Sophia was, so to speak, the bridge which spanned the abyss between God and Reality. Under an aspect of this kind Solomon (Prov. viii.) views Wisdom; and Valentinus introduces it into his system, according to the old Judaistic interpretation of Sophia, as the instrument for God’s creative energy. But Sophia thought to pass beyond her function as the connecting link between limited and illimitable existence, by an attempt to evolve the infinite from herself. She fails, and an abortive image of the true Wisdom is procreated, while Sophia herself sinks into this nether world.
[683] Miller’s text has, “a well-formed and properly-digested substance.” This reading is, however, obviously wrong, as is proved by a reference to what Epiphanius states (Hær., xxxi.) concerning Valentinus.
Chapter XXVI.—Valentinus’ Explanation of the Existence of Christ and the Spirit.
[684] Or, “Metagogeus”(see Irenæus, i. 1, 2, iii. 1).
[685] Bunsen corrects the passage, “So that she should not be inferior to any of the Æons, or unequal (in power) to any (of them).”
Chapter XXVII.—Valentinus’ Explanation of the Existence of Jesus; Power of Jesus Over Humanity.
[686] ἐνότητος: Miller has νεότητος, i.e., youth. The former is the emendation of Bernays.
[687] This is Bunsen’s text, ὑποστάτους. Duncker reads ὑποστατικὰς, hypostatic.
[688] Some read οὐσίαν (see Theodoret, Hær., c. vii.).
[689] ἐπιστροφὴν; or it may be rendered “solicitude.” Literally, it means a turning towards, as in this instance, for the purpose of prayer (see Irenæus, i. 5).
[690] Valentinus denominates what is psychical (natural) right, and what is material or pathematic left (see Irenæus, i. 5).
[691] Cruice renders the passage thus: “which is denominated right, or Demiurge, while fear it is that accomplishes this transformation.” The Demiurge is of course called “right,” as being the power of the psychical essence (see Clemens Alexandrinus, Hypot. excerpta e Theod., c. 43).
[692] Ps. cxi. 10; Prov. i. 7; ix. 10.
[693] Schneidewin fills up the hiatus thus: “Place of Mediation.” The above translation adopts the emendation of Cruice (see Irenæus, i. 5).
[694] Dan. vii. 9, 13, 22.
[695] Deut. ix. 3; Ps. l. 3; Heb. xii. 29.
[697] See Epistle of Barnabas, chap. xv. vol. i. p. 146, and Ignatius’ Letter to the Magnesians, chap. ix. p. 63, this series.
Chapter XXVIII.—The Valentinian Origin of the Creation.
[698] The opening sentence in this chapter is confused in Miller’s text. The sense, however, as given above, is deducible from a reference to a corresponding passage in Irenæus (i. 5).
[699] Deut. iv. 35; Isa. xlv. 5, 14, 18, 21, 22.
Chapter XXIX.—The Other Valentinian Emanations in Conformity with the Pythagorean System of Numbers.
[700] These words are a line out of Pythagoras’ Golden Verses:—
Πηγή τις ἀενάου φύσεως ῥιζώματ᾽ ἔχουσα—(48).
[701] The Abbe Cruise thinks that a comparison of this passage with the corresponding one in Irenæus suggests the addition of οἱ δορυφόροι after Λόγος, i.e., the Logos and his satellites. [Vol. i. p. 381, this series.]
[703] Or, “subterranean” (Cruice).
[704] Epiphanius, Hær., xxxi. sec. 7.
[707] Epiphanius, Hær., xxxi. 22.
[713] Axionicus is mentioned by Tertullian only (see Tertullian, Contr. Valent., c. iv; [vol. iii. p. 505, this series]).
[714] Bardesianes (or Ardesianes, as Miller’s text has it) is evidently the same with Bardesanes, mentioned by Eusebius and St. Jerome.
Chapter XXXI.—Further Doctrines of Valentinus Respecting the Æons; Reasons for the Incarnation.
[715] κατηχήθη. Miller’s text has κατήχθη, which is properly corrected by Bunsen into the word as translated above.
[717] Or, “the multitudes.”
Chapter XXXII.—Valentinus Convicted of Plagiarisms from Plato.
[718] Cruice thinks that the following extract from Plato’s epistles has been added by a second hand. [Cf. vol. iii. p. 181, this series.]
[719] There are some verbal diversities between the texts of Plato and Hippolytus, which a reference will show (see Plat., Epist., t. ix. p. 76, ed. Bekker).
[720] Some forty lines that follow in Plato’s letter are omitted here.
[721] Here likewise there is another deficiency as compared with the original letter.
[722] Miller’s text is, καὶ πᾶσι γῆν, etc. In the German and French edition of Hippolytus we have, instead of this, καὶ Προαρχὴν. The latter word is introduced on the authority of Epiphanius and Theodoret. Bernays proposes Σιγὴν, and Scott Πλάστην. The Abbe Cruice considers Πλάστην an incongruous word as applied to the creation of spiritual beings.
[723] The word “limit” occurs twice in this sentence, and Bunsen alters the second into “Pleroma,” so that the words may be rendered thus: “Valentinus supposes to be second all the Æons that are within the Pleroma.”
[724] This is a Gnostic hymn, and is arranged metrically by Cruice, of which the following is a translation:—
All things whirled on by spirit I see,
Flesh from soul depending,
And soul from air forth flashing,
And air from æther hanging,
And fruits from Bythus streaming,
And from womb the infant growing.
[725] The text here is corrupt, but the above rendering follows the Abbe Cruice’s version. Bunsen’s emendation would, however, seem untenable.
Chapter XXXIII.—Secundus’ System of Æons; Epiphanes; Ptolemæus.
[726] Concerning Secundus and Epiphanes, see Irenæus, i. 11; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 5–9; Epiphanius, xxxii. 1, 3, 4; Tertullian, Adv. Valent., c. xxxviii.; and St. Augustine, Hær., xi. Hippolytus, in his remarks on Secundus and Epiphanes, borrows from St. Irenæus.
[727] Concerning Ptolemæus, see Irenæus, i. 12; Tertullian, De Præscript., c. xlix.; and Advers. Valent., c. viii.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxiii. 3–7; and Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 8.
Chapter XXXIV.—System of Marcus; A Mere Impostor; His Wicked Devices Upon the Eucharistic Cup.
[728] Concerning Marcus, see Irenæus, i. 12–18; Tertullian, Præscript., c. l.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxxiv.; Theodoret, Hæret. Fab., i. 9; St. Augustine, Hær., c. xiv.; and St. Jerome’s 29th Epistle.
[729] ἐνεργῶν: Bunsen reads δρῶν, which has the same meaning. Cruice reads αἰωρῶν, but makes no attempt at translation. Miller’s reading is δώρων, which is obviously corrupt, but for which δόλων has been suggested, and with good show of reason.
[730] [The lost book upon the Witch of Endor, possibly. “Against the Magi” is the title of the text, and is taken to refer to book iv. cap. xxviii. p. 35, supra: the more probable opinion.
Chapter XXXV.—Further Acts of Jugglery on the Part of Marcus.
[731] Or, “had given thanks.”
[732] ἀναλυομένου: some read ἀναδυομένου, which is obviously untenable.
[733] [Here was an awful travesty of the heresy of a later day which introduced “the miracle of Bolsena” and the Corpus-Christi celebration. See Robertson, Hist., vol. iii. p. 604.]
Chapter XXXVI.—The Heretical Practices of the Marcites in Regard of Baptism.
[734] [Bunsen (vol. i. p 72–75) makes useful comments.]
[735] Hippolytus has already employed this word, ἁδρομέστερον, in the Proœmium. It literally means, of strong or compact parts. Hippolytus, however, uses it in contrast to the expression λεπτομέρης, in reference to his Summary of Heresies. Bunsen thinks that Hippolytus means to say that Irenæus expressed himself rather too strongly, and that the Marcosians, on meeting with Irenæus’ assertions, indignantly repudiated them. Dr. Wordsworth translates ἁδρομερῶς (in the Proœmium), “with rude generality,”—a rendering scarcely in keeping with the passage above.
[736] The largest extract from Irenæus is that which follows—the explanation of the heresy of Marcus. From this to the end of book vi. occurs in Irenæus likewise. Hippolytus’ text does not always accurately correspond with that of his master. The divergence, however, is inconsiderable, and may sometimes be traceable to the error of the transcriber.
[737] Hippolytus uses two words to signify letters, στοιχεῖον and γράμμα. The former strictly means an articulate sound as the basis of language or of written words, and the latter the sound itself when represented by a particular symbol or sign.
[738] [Rev. iii. 14. A name of Christ. This word is travestied as the name Logos also, most profanely.]
Chapter XXXVIII.—Marcus’ System of Letters.
[739] This is Duncker’s emendation, suggested by Irenæus’ text. Miller reads τὸν τόπον, which yields scarcely any meaning.
Chapter XXXIX.—The Quaternion Exhibits “Truth.”
[740] Hippolytus’ text has been here corrected from that of Irenæus.
[741] This is a correction from Progenitor, on the authority of Irenæus and Epiphanius.
[742] Προπάτορα: Irenæus reads Πατρόδορα, which is adopted by Schneidewin, and translated patrium.
Chapter XL.—The Name of Christ Jesus.
[743] The reading is doubtful. The translator adopts Scott’s emendation.
[744] [See note 1, p. 94 supra, on “Amen.” Comp. Irenæus, vol. i. p. 393, this series. This name of Jesus does, indeed, run through all Scripture, in verbal and other forms; Gen. xlix. 18 and in Joshua, as a foreshadowing.]
[745] Irenæus has “known.”
Chapter XLI.—Marcus’ Mystic Interpretation of the Alphabet.
[746] εἰκονικὰς. This is Irenæus’ reading. Miller has εἰκόνας (representations).
[747] ἀπόῤῥοιαν: some read ἀπορίαν, which is obviously erroneous.
[748] ὑπ᾽ αὐτὰ: Irenæus reads ὑπέρ αὐτὴν, and Massuet ὑπένερθεν.
[749] The deficiency consisted in there not being three ogdoads. The sum total was twenty-four, but there was only one ogdoad—Logos and Zoe. The other two—Pater and Aletheia, and Anthropos and Ecclesia—had one above and one below an ogdoad.
[750] τῶν ὀκτὼ has been substituted for τῷ νοητῷ, an obviously corrupt reading. The correction is supplied by Irenæus.
Chapter XLII.—His System Applied to Explain Our Lord’s Life and Death.
[751] Or, “economy.”
[752] Christ went up with the three apostles, and was therefore the fourth Himself; by the presence of Moses and Elias, He became the sixth: Matt. xvii. 1; Mark ix. 2.
[753] The Greek word for dove is περίστερα, the letters of which represent 801, as may be seen thus:—
π = 80
ε = 5
ρ = 100
ι = 10
σ = 200
τ = 300
ε = 5
ρ = 100
α = 1
___
[754] γράμματα: some read πράγματα.
Chapter XLIII—Letters, Symbols of the Heavens.
[755] Supplied from Irenæus.
[756] This should be altered into Hebdomad if we follow Irenæus.
[757] τάδε διακονεῖ. This is the text of Irenæus, and corrects the common reading, τὰ δἰ εἰκόνων.
[758] φθέγγεται (Irenæus). The common reading is φαίνεται.
[759] μέσου: in Irenæus we have μέρους.
[760] Irenæus has the sentence thus: “so also the soul in babes, lamenting and bewailing Marcus, glorifies him.”
[763] Hippolytus here omits some passages which are to be found in Irenæus.
This, therefore, is equipollent with Alpha and Omega, as α is equal to 1, and ω to 800. [Stuff! Bunsen, very naturally, exclaims.]
Chapter XLIV.—Respecting the Generation of the Twenty-Four Letters.
[764] Literally, “being twice two:” some for οὖσαι read οὐσίαι. Irenæus has ἐπὶ δύο οὖσαι, i.e., “which being (added) into two.”
[765] Hippolytus has only the word “twenty-four,” to which Schneidewin supplies “letters,” and Irenæus “forms,” as given above. Hippolytus likewise omits the word “produced,” which Irenæus supplies. The text of the latter is τὰς εἰκοσιτέσσαρας ἀπεκύσαν μορφάς.
[766] Irenæus adds, “which being added together, I mean the twice five and twice seven, complete the number of the twenty-four (forms).”
[767] The parenthetical words had fallen into a wrong part of the sentence, and are placed here by Schneidewin.
[768] This is a correction for “expressed” from Irenæus. Marcus observes the distinction afterwards.
[769] κατὰ ἓν γραμμάτων. The ms.. has ἐγγραμάτων. Irenæus omits these words.
[770] This entire sentence is wanting in Irenæus.
[771] Corrected from Chri, which is in the ms.
[772] Irenæus has the passage thus: “And for this reason He says that He is Alpha and Omega, that He may manifest the dove, inasmuch as this bird (symbolically) involves this number (801).” See a previous note in chap. xlii. p. 95, supra.
Chapter XLV.—Why Jesus is Called Alpha.
[773] Part of this sentence is supplied from Irenæus.
[774] Hippolytus here omits the following sentence found in Irenæus: “And again thus—of the first quarternion, when added into itself, in accordance with a progression of number, appeared the number ten, and so forth.”
Chapter XLVI.—Marcus’ Account of the Birth and Life of Our Lord.
[776] Or, “of the Son,” an obvious mistake.
[777] Irenæus has, “And the Virgin exhibited the place of Ecclesia.”
[778] Irenæus adds, “whom the Father of the universe selected, for passage through the womb, by means of the Logos, for recognition of Himself.”
[779] Cruice thinks that for stars we should read “numbers,” but gives no explanation of the meaning of μετέωρα. This word, as applied to numbers, might refer to “the astrological phenomena” deducible by means of numerical calculations.
[780] A comparison of Hippolytus with Irenæus, as regards what follows, manifests many omissions in the former.
[781] Following Irenæus, the passage would be rendered thus: “And therefore, on account of its having the remarkable (letter) concomitant with it, they style the dodecade a remarkable passion.” Massuet, in his Annotations on Irenæus, gives the following explanation of the above statement, which is made by Hippolytus likewise. From the twelfth number, by once abstracting the remarkable (number), which does not come into the order and number of the letters, eleven letters remain. Hence in the dodecade, the πάθος, or what elsewhere the heretics call the “Hysterema,” is a defect of one letter. And this is a symbol of the defect or suffering which, upon the withdrawal of one Æon, happened unto the last dodecade of Æons.
[782] Hippolytus’ statement is less copious and less clear than that of Irenæus, who explains the defect of the letter to be symbolical of an apostasy of one of the Æons, and that this one was a female.
[784] Marcus’ explanation of this, as furnished by Irenæus, is more copious than Hippolytus’.
[785] The allusion here seems to be to the habit among the ancients of employing the fingers for counting, those of the left hand being used for all numbers under 100, and those of the right for the numbers above it. To this custom the poet Juvenal alludes, when he says of Nestor:—
Atque suos jam dextera computat annos.
That is, that he was one hundred years old.
Chapter XLVIII.—Their Cosmogony Framed According to These Mystic Doctrines of Letters.
[786] Or, “sketched out” (Irenæus).
[787] Or, “radiant.”
[788] Or, “measured.”
[789] Massuet gives the following explanation: The sun each day describes a circle which is divided into twelve parts of 30 degrees each, and consists of 360 degrees. And as for each of the hours, where days and nights are equal, 15 degrees are allowed, it follows that in two hours, that is, in the twelfth part of a day, the sun completes a progress of 30 degrees.
[790] Or, “of the same substance.”
Chapter XLIX.—The Work of the Demiurge Perishable.
[791] Or, “blamelessness.”
Chapter L.—Marcus and Colarbasus Refuted by Irenæus.
[792] Or, “strange.”
[793] [The Apostle John delights to call himself a presbyter, and St. Peter claims to be co-presbyter with the elders whom he exhorts. The Johannean school of primitive theologians seem to love this expression pre-eminently. It was almost as little specific in the primitive age as that of pastor or minister in our own.]
[794] [Here our author’s theory concerning the origin of heresy in heathen philosophy begins to be elaborated.]
[795] Satronilus (Miller).
[796] Or, “in no respect formed his system from the Scriptures, but from the tenets propounded by the Egyptians.”
[797] Cruice would prefer, “from the Gnostics,” on account of Cerinthus being coupled with the Gnostics and Ebionæans by Hippolytus, when he afterwards indicates the source from which Theodotus derived his heretical notions of Christ.
[798] Miller has “Sacerdon.”
[799] The word μόνος occurs in Miller’s text, but ought obviously to be expunged. It has probably, as Cruice conjectures, crept into the ms. from the termination of γενόμενος. Duncker suggests ὁμοίως.
[800] This rendering would ascribe Pantheism to Apelles. The passage might also be construed, “supposed there to exist an essence (that formed the basis) of the universe.”
[801] A hiatus here has given rise to conjecture. Cruice suggests χορός (band) instead of ὄρος.
[802] Or, “practices of the monsters,” or “inhospitable beasts.” Abbe Cruice suggests παροξέων, and Roeper ἐμπλάστων.
[803] Literally, the (accursed) tree.
Chapter II.—The System of Basilides Derived from Aristotle.
[804] What Hippolytus now states in regard of the opinions of Basilides, is quite new (compare Irenæus, i. 24; Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., iii. and vii.; Tertullian, Præscript., xlvi.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxiv.; Theodoret, i. 4; Eusebius, Ecclesiast. Hist., iv. 7; and Philastrius, c. xxxii.). Abbe Cruice refers us to Basilidis philosophi Gnostici Sententiæ, by Jacobi (Berlin, 1852), and to Das Basilidianische System, etc., by Ulhorn (Gottingen, 1855).
Chapter III.—Sketch of Aristotle’s Philosophy.
[805] Or, “dispositions.”
Chapter IV.—Aristotle’s General Idea.
[806] Compare Porphyry’s Isagoge, c. ii., and Aristotle’s Categ., c. v.
Chapter VI.—Substance, According to Aristotle; The Predicates.
[807] Aristotle’s Categ., c. v.
[808] Or, “is sufficient.”
[809] Or, “the question is discussed.”
[810] [This word, not yet technical, as with us, is thus noted as curious. Of its force see Professor Caird, Encyc. Britannic., sub voce “Metaphysic.”]
[811] See Aristotle, De Anim., ii. 1.
[812] Literally, “out of tune.”
[813] These works must be among Aristotle’s lost writings (see Fabricius’ Bibl. Græc., t. iii. pp. 232, 404). We have no work of Aristotle’s expressly treating “of God.” However, the Stagyrite’s theology, such as it is, is unfolded in his Metaphysics. See Macmahon’s analysis prefixed to his translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Bohn’s Classical Library.
[814] Aristotle composed three treatises on ethical subjects: (1) Ethics to Nicomachus; (2) Great Morals; (3) Morals to Eudemus.
[815] Miller erroneously reads “Matthew.”
[816] (See Bunsen, i. v. 86. A fabulous reference may convey a truth. This implies that Matthias was supposed to have preached and left results of his teachings.]
Chapter IX.—Basilides Adopts the Aristotelian Doctrine of “Nonentity.”
[817] This emendation is made by Abbe Cruice. The ms. has “incomposite,” an obviously untenable reading.
Chapter X.—Origin of the World; Basilides’ Account of the “Sonship.”
[818] Or, “of what sort of material substance,” etc.
[820] Or, “being declared.”
[821] John i. 9. [See translator’s important note (1), p. 7, supra.]
[822] Literally, “throbbed.”
[823] Odyssey, vii. 36.
[824] See Plato, vol. i. p. 75 et seq., ed. Bekker. Miller has “Phædo;” an obvious mistake.
[825] [Foretaste of Cent. IV.] Miller’s text has, instead of τοῦ οὐκ ὄντος (non-existent), οικοῦντος (who dwells above).
Chapter XI.—The “Great Archon” Of Basilides.
[827] Or, “unspeakable power.”
[828] Or, “was produced unto.”
Chapter XII.—Basilides Adopts the “Entelecheia” Of Aristotle.
[829] Miller’s text has “the soul,” which Duncker and Cruice properly correct into “body.”
[830] Μεγαλειότητος, a correction from μεγάλης.
[831] A correction from “Arrhetus.”
[832] This passage is very obscure, and is variously rendered by the commentators. The above translation follows Schneidewin’s version, which yields a tolerably clear meaning.
Chapter XIII.—Further Explanation of the “Sonship.”
[837] Or, “seen merely.”
[841] κατ᾽ αὐτους. Ulhorn fills up the ellipsis thus: “And in reference to these localities of the Archons,” etc.
[842] This is a more correct form than that occasionally given, viz., Abraxas. See Beausobre, Hist. Manich., lib. ii. p. 51.
[846] Miller’s text has “judgment,” which yields no meaning. Roeper suggests “Ogdoad.”
[848] Or, “their own peculiar locality” (Bunsen).
[849] This word is added by Bunsen.
[852] See Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom., ii. p. 375, ed. Sylburg. [Comp. cap. viii. vol. ii. p. 355, this series.]
[853] Bernays and Bunsen read τὸν Περίπατον, which Abbe Cruice and Duncker consider erroneous, referring us to Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 7.
Chapter XVI.—The System of Saturnilus.
[854] See [vol. i. p. 348, this series, where it is Saturninus]; Irenæus, i. 24; [vol. iii., this series, p. 649]; Tertullian, Præscript. xlvi.; Epiphanius, Hær., xxiii.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 3; St. Augustine, Hær., iii. Eusebius styles this heretic Saturninus.
[855] Epiphanius makes Basilides and Saturnilus belong to the same school.
[856] φαεινῆς: Miller reads φωνῆς.
[858] Miller reads “the Father.”
[859] Or, “world-making.”
[860] See [vol. i. p. 352, this series]; Irenæus i. 27; [vol. iii., this series especially p. 257], Tertullian, Adv. Marc., and Præscript., xxx.; Epiphanius, Hær., xlii.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 24; Eusebius., Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13, 16; and St. Augustine, Hær., xxii.
[861] Or, “quarrelsome,” or, “frantic.”
[862] Hippolytus’ discussion respecting the heresy of Marcion is chiefly interesting from the light which it throws on the philosophy of Empedocles.
[863] These are lines 55–57 in Karsten’s edition of a collection of the Empedoclean verses.
[864] These are lines 110, 111, in Stein’s edition of Empedocles.
[865] Lines 360–362 (ed. Karst.).
[866] Line 7 (Karsten), 381 (Stein).
[867] Line 4 (Karsten), 372, 373 (Stein).
[868] Line 5 (Karsten), 374 (Stein).
[869] Line 6 (Karsten), 375, 376 (Stein).
[870] Lines 16–19 (Karsten), 377–380(Stein).
[871] Lines 1, 2 (Karsten), 369, 370 (Stein).
[872] The text of these verses, as given by Hippolytus, is obviously corrupt, and therefore obscure. Schneidewin has furnished an emended copy of them (Philol., vi. 166), which the translator has mostly adopted. (See Stein’s edition of the Empedoclean Verses, line 222 et seq.)
Chapter XVIII.—Source of Marcionism; Empedocles Reasserted as the Suggester of the Heresy.
[873] ὁ κολοβοδάκτυλος. Bunsen [more suo, vol. i., p. 89] considers this a corrupt reading, and suggests καλῶν λόγων διδάσκαλος, i.e., “a teacher of good words,” i.e., an evangelist, which word, as just used, he does not wish to repeat. The Abbe Cruice denies the necessity for any such emendation, and refers us to an article in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (Cambridge, March, 1855), the writer of which maintains, on the authority of St. Jerome, that St. Mark had amputated his thumb, in order that he might be considered disqualified for the priesthood.
[875] What Hippolytus communicates concerning Prepon is quite new. The only writer who mentions him is Theodoret (Hær. Fab., i. 25), in his article on Apelles.
[876] Schneidewin gives a restored version of these lines. They are found (at lines 338–341) in Stein’s edition of the Empedoclean Verses.
[877] Tertullian combats these heretical notions in his De Carne Christi [vol. viii. p. 521, this series].
[879] Matt. xix. 17; Mark x. 18; Luke xviii. 19.
[880] See [vol. i. p. 350] Irenæus, i. 25; [vol. iii. p. 203] Tertullian, De Anima, c. xxiii.–xxv., and Præscript., c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 7, Epiphanius, Hær., xxvii. sec. 2; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 5; and St. Augustine, Hær., c. vii. The entire of this article is taken from Irenæus, and equally coincides with the account given of Carpocrates by Epiphanius.
[881] Or, “came.”
[882] Literally, “cauterize.”
[883] Epiphanius alludes in the same manner to these images.
Chapter XXI.—The System of Cerinthus Concerning Christ.
[884] See [vol. i. pp. 351, 415] Irenæus, i. 26, iii. 2, 3; [vol. iii. p. 651] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 28, vii. 25; Epiphanius, Hær., xxviii.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 3; St. Augustine, Hær., c. viii.; and St. Jerome, Ep., lxxxix. We have here, as in the preceding articles, Irenæus in the Greek, as Hippolytus’ text corresponds with the Latin version of this portion of Irenæus’ work.
[886] Or, “paternal.”
Chapter XXII.—Doctrine of the Ebionæans.
[887] See [vol. i. p. 352] Irenæus, i. 26; [vol. iii. p. 651] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlviii.; [vol. iv. p. 429, this series] Origen, Contr. Cels. ii. 1; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 27; Epiphanius, Hær., xxx.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 2. Hippolytus is indebted in this article partly to Irenæus, and partly to original sources.
[888] Or, “that the Christ of God was named Jesus” (Bunsen).
Chapter XXIII.—The Heresy of Theodotus.
[889] See [vol. iii. p. 654, “two Theodoti”] Tertullian, Præscript., c. liii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast, v. 27; Epiphanius, Hær., liv.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have been greatly indebted to Theodotus, whose system he has explained and commented upon.
Chapter XXIV.—The Melchisedecians; The Nicolaitans.
[890] Concerning the younger Theodotus, see [vol. iii. p. 654] Tertullian, Præscript., c. liii.; Epiphanius, Hær., lv.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 6.
[891] Or, “in reference to” (Bunsen).
[892] Or, “have been adduced” (Miller).
[893] See [ut supra] Irenæus, i. 26; [ut supra] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xlv.; Epiphanius, Hær., c. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 29; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 15; and St. Augustine, Hær., c. v. [But see Clement, vol. ii. p. 373, this series.]
[894] [He understands that the seven (Acts vi. 5) were deacons. Bunsen, i. p. 97.]
[895] Or, “knowledge.” Bunsen suggests βρώσεως, as translated above.
Chapter XXV.—The Heresy of Cerdon.
[897] Irenæus, i. 27; Eusebius (who here gives Irenæus’ Greek), Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 2; Epiphanius, c. xli.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 24; and Philastrius, c. xliv.
[898] Hippolytus follows Irenæus but introduces some alterations.
[899] ᾽Αντιθέσεις. This is the emendation proposed by the Abbe Cruice. The textual reading is ἀντιπαραθέσεις (comparisons).
[900] See [ut supra, p. 353], Tertullian, Præscript., c. li., and Epiphanius, Hær., c. xliii.
Chapter XXVI.—The Doctrines of Apelles; Philumene, His Prophetess.
[901] See [vol. iii. p. 257] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xxx.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13; Epiphanius, Hær., c. xliv.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 25; and St. Augustine, Hær., c. xxiv.
[902] φανερώσεσι. Miller’s text reads φανερῶς, the error of which is obvious from Tertullian’s Præscript., c. xxx. Cruice considers the word to signify the title of a work written by Apelles.
[903] Much that we have in this book is quite new. Hippolytus derives his article on Tatian, and in a measure that on the Encratites, from Irenæus. The rest is probably from original sources.
[904] Or, “Noimus.”
[905] [Note the honour uniformly rendered to the Holy Scriptures by the Fathers.]
Chapter I.—Heresies Hitherto Refuted; Opinions of the Docetæ.
[906] Matt. vii. 3-4; Luke vi. 41-42.
[907] See [vol. i. p. 526] Irenæus v. 1; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., v. 12; and [vol. ii. p. 398, and Elucidation XIV. p. 407] Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom., iii.), who informs us that Julius Cassianus—a pupil of Valentinus—was founder of the Docetic heresy.
[908] Miller’s text reads ταπεινὸν (lowly), but this is obviously untenable. Duncker alters it into ἄπειρον (infinite), and joins ταπεινὸν with the word following. He renders the passage thus: “but infinite in power—a lowly magnitude.” Cruice strikes out the word ταπεινὸν, and renders the passage thus: “but infinite in power, a magnitude incalculable in bulk.” The above rendering seems to convey Hippolytus’ meaning.
[909] Or,“ the Lord came in search of fruit” (Roeper). The reading followed in the translation agrees with the scriptural account; see Luke xiii. 7.
[910] Matt. xxi. 19-20; Mark xi. 13-14, 20, 21.
[912] Matt. xiii. 3-8; Mark iv. 3-8; Luke viii. 5-8.
[913] The word Mary seems interpolated. Miller’s text reads it after ἐν μεσότητι. The passage would then be rendered thus: “that is, Him who through the intervention of Mary (has been born into the world) the Saviour of all.”
[914] Τὸ ἀσφαλὲς: Cruice reads, on the authority of Bernays, ἀφελὲς, i.e., the simplicity.
[918] The Docetæ here attempted to substantiate their system from Scripture by a play upon words.
[919] The Greek word for soul is derived from the same root as that for refrigeration.
[920] These words are spoken of the wife of Job, as the feminine form, πλανῆτις and λάτρις, proves. They have been added from apocryphal sources to the Greek version (ii. 9), but are absent from the English translation. The passage stands thus: καὶ ἐγὼ πλανῆτις καὶ λάτρις τόπον ἐκ τόπου περιερχομένη καὶ οἰκίαν ἐξ οἰκίας. The Abbe Cruice refers to St. Chrysostom’s Hom. de Statuis [vol. ii. p. 139, opp. ed. Migne, not textually quoted.]
[922] Or, “a fleshly membrane.”
[923] Miller reads, “of the third Æon.”
[924] The Abbe Cruice considers that the mention of the period of our Lord’s birth has accidentally dropt out of the ms. here. See book vii. chap. xix.
[925] Col. ii. 11, 14, 15.
[927] Miller’s text has “type.”
Chapter V.—Monoïmus; Man the Universe, According to Monoïmus; His System of the Monad.
[928] What is given here by Hippolytus respecting Monoïmus is quite new. The only writer that mentions him is Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 18. [See Bunsen, vol. i. p. 103.]
[929] Iliad, xiv. 201, 246.
[930] Or, “kinglessly,” which has no meaning here. Miller therefore alters ἀβασιλεύτως into ἀβουλήτως.
[931] An allusion is evidently made to the opening chapter of St. John’s Gospel. Monoïmus, like Basilides, seems to have formed his system from the prologue to the fourth Gospel.
Chapter VI.—Monoïmus’ “Iota;” His Notion of the “Son of Man.”
[932] The iota with a little mark placed above, signifies ten; thus, ι = 10.
Chapter VII.—Monoïmus on the Sabbath; Allegorizes the Rod of Moses; Notion Concerning the Decalogue.
[935] The plagues, being transformations, were no doubt considered symbols of creation, in accordance with the view of the ancient philosophers, that creation itself brought nothing into existence, but simply altered the disposition of already existing elements. [Gen. i. 2. See Dr. Chalmers’ Astronomical Discourses.]
[936] It is very much after this allegorical mode that Philo Judæus interprets the Mosaic law and history.
[937] [Exod. 12.17; 1 Cor. 5. 7,8.]
[939] Literally, “nobly born.”
[940] See [vol. i. pp. 353, 457. But see his works, vol. ii. p. 61, this series]; Irenæus, i. 28; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 16, v. 13; Epiphanius, Hær., xlvi.; Jerome, Vir. Illustr., c. xxix.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 20.
[941] See [vol. iii. p. 257, also p. 477] Tertullian, Præscript., c. xxx.; [vol. iv. p. 245, this series] Origen, Περὶ ἀρχ., i. 2; Eusebius, De Præp., vii. 8, 9; St. Augustine, Hær., lix.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., i. 19; and Philastrius, Hær., lv.
[942] Literally, “unadorned.”
Chapter XI.—The Quartodecimans.
[944] They were therefore called “Quartodecimans.” (See Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. c. xxii. xxv.; Epiphanius, Hær., l.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., iii. 4.)
[945] [Bunsen, i. p. 105.] The chapter on the Quartodecimans agrees with the arguments which, we are informed in an extract from Hippolytus’ Chronicon Paschale, as preserved in a quotation by Bishop Peter of Alexandria, were employed in his Treatise against all Heresies. This would seem irrefragable proof of the authorship of the Refutation of all Heresies.
[947] [He regards the Christian Paschal as authorized. 1 Cor. v. 7, 8.]
Chapter XII.—The Montanists; Priscilla and Maximilla Their Prophetesses; Some of Them Noetians.
[948] These heretics had several denominations: (1) Phrygians and Cataphrygians, from Phrygia; (2) Pepuzians, from a village in Phrygia of this name; (3) Priscillianists; (4) Quintillists. See Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 27, v. 16, 18; Epiphanius, Hær., xlviii.; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., iii. 2; Philastrius, xlix.; and St. Augustine, Hær., xxvi. [The “Tertullianists” were a class by themselves, which is a fact going far to encourage the idea that they did not share the worst of these delusions.]
[949] Bunsen thinks that Hippolytus is rather meagre in his details of the heresy of the Phrygians or Montanists, but considers this, with other instances, a proof that parts of The Refutation are only abstracts of more extended accounts.
Chapter XIII.—The Doctrines of the Encratites.
[950] [See my Introductory Note to Hermas, vol. ii. p. 5, this series.]
[952] [This, Tertullian should have learned. How happily Keble, in his Christian Year, gives it in sacred verse:—
“We need not bid, for cloister’d cell,
Our neighbour and our work farewell,
Nor strive to wind ourselves too high
For sinful man beneath the sky:
“The trivial round, the common task,
Would furnish all we ought to ask;
Room to deny ourselves; a road
To bring us daily nearer God.”]
[953] Those did homage to Cain.
[954] The Ophites are not considered, as Hippolytus has already devoted so much of his work to the Naasseni. The former denomination is derived from the Greek, and the latter from the Hebrew, and both signify worshippers of the serpent.
[955] Hippolytus seemingly makes this a synonyme with Ophites. Perhaps it is connected with the Hebrew word נָחָשׁ
[956] Or, “fruitless;” or “unmeaning.”
Chapter I.—An Account of Contemporaneous Heresy.
[957] [Elucidation IV.]
[958] [1 Cor. xi. 19. These terrible confusions were thus foretold. Note the remarkable feeling, the impassioned tone, of the Apostle’s warning in Acts xx. 28-31.]
[959] [The Philosophumena, therefore, responds to the Apostle’s warnings. Col. ii. 8; 1 Tim. vi. 20; Gal. iv. 3, 9; Col. ii. 20.]
[960] See Fragments of Hippolytus’ Works (p. 235 et seq.), edited by Fabricius; Theodoret, Hær. Fab., iii. 3; Epiphanius, Hær., lvii.; and Philastrius, Hæret., liv. Theodoret mentions Epigonus and Cleomenes, and his account is obviously adopted by Hippolytus.
[961] [See Tatian, vol. ii. p. 66, this series.]
[962] [See note 2, cap. iii. infra., and Elucidation V.]
[963] [See Elucidation VI.]
[964] [See Elucidation VI.]
[965] [Note the emphasis and repeated statement with which our author dwells on this painful charge.]
[966] [Elucidation VI.]
[967] 2 Pet. ii. 22. [See book x. cap xxiii., p. 148, infra.]
Chapter III.—Noetianism an Offshoot from the Heraclitic Philosophy.
[968] [῾Ο Σκοτεινός, because he maintained the darkest system of sensual philosophy that ever shed night over the human intellect.—T. Lewis in Plato against the Atheists, p. 156; Elucidation VII.]
[969] [Note the use of this phrase, “imagine themselves, etc.,” as a specialty of our author’s style. See cap. ii. supra; Elucidation VIII.]
[970] [Note the use of this phrase, “imagine themselves, etc.,” as a specialty of our author’s style. See cap. ii. supra; Elucidation VIII.]
Chapter IV.—An Account of the System of Heraclitus.
[971] This addition seems necessary from Stobæus’ account of Heraclitus. (See Eclog. Phys., i. 47, where we have Heraclitus affirming that “unity is from plurality, and plurality from unity;” or, in other words, “that all things are one.”)
[972] Dr. Wordsworth for δίκαιον suggests εἰκαῖον, i.e., “but that the Deity is by chance.” There is some difficulty in arriving at the correct text, and consequently at the meaning of Hippolytus’ extracts from Heraclitus. The Heraclitean philosophy is explained by Stobæus, already mentioned. See likewise Bernays’ “Critical Epistle” in Bunsen’s Analect. Ante-Nicæn. (vol. iii. p. 331 et seq. of Hippolytus and his Age), and Schleiermacher in Museum der Alterthumswissenschaft, t. i. p. 408 et seq.
[973] παλίντροπος. Miller suggests παλίντονος, the word used by Plutarch (De Isid. et Osirid., p. 369, ed. Xyland) in recounting Heraclitus’ opinion. Παλίντονος, referring to the shape of the bow, means “reflex” or “unstrung,” or it may signify “clanging,” that is, as a consequence of its being well bent back to wing a shaft.
[974] Compare Aristotle’s Rhet., iii. 5, and Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math., lib. vii. p. 152, ed. Aurel, 1621.
[975] See Lucian, Vit. Auct., vol. i. p. 554, ed. Hemsterh.
[976] This word seems necessary, see Plutarch, De Procreat. animæ, c. xxvii.
[977] This is a well-known anecdote in the life of Homer. See Coleridge’s Greek Poets—Homer. [The unsavoury story is decently given by Henry Nelson Coleridge in this work, republished. Boston: James Munroe & Co., 1842.]
[978] See Theogon., v. 123 et seq., v. 748 et seq.
[979] Γναφέων: some read γναφείῳ, i.e., a fuller’s soap. The proper reading, however, is probably γνάφω, i.e., a carder’s comb. Dr. Wordsworth’s text has γραφέων and ἐν τῷ γραφείῳ, and he translates the passage thus: “The path,” says he, “of the lines of the machine called the screw is both straight and crooked, and the revolution in the graving-tool is both straight and crooked.”
[980] See Diogenes, Laertius, ix. 8.
[981] Plato, Clemens Alexandrinus, [vol. ii. p. 384, this series], and Sextus Empiricus notice this doctrine of Heraclitus.
[982] ᾽Ενθάδε ἔοντας: some read, ἔνθα θεὸν δεῖ, i.e., “God must arise and become the guardian,” etc. The rendering in the text is adopted by Bernays and Bunsen.
[983] Or, “as commingled kinds of incense each with different names, but denominated,” etc.
[984] Dr. Wordsworth reads ὃ νομίζεται, and translates the passage thus: “But they undergo changes, as perfumes do, when whatever is thought agreeable to any individual is mingled with them.”
[985] Hippolytus repeats this opinion in his summary in book x. (See Theodoret, Hær. Fab., iii. 3.)
[986] [Elucidation IX.]
[987] [Elucidation X.]
[988] The ms. reads καθ᾽ ἡδίαν, obviously corrupt. Dr. Wordsworth suggests κατ᾽ ιδιαν, i.e., “he, under pretext of arguing with them, deluded them.”
[989] It is to be noticed how the plural number is observed in this account, as keeping before the reader’s mind the episcopal office of him who was thus exercising high ecclesiastical authority. [Elucidation XI.]
[990] It is to be noticed how the plural number is observed in this account, as keeping before the reader’s mind the episcopal office of him who was thus exercising high ecclesiastical authority. [Elucidation XI.]
[991] Or, “with violence.”
[992] Hippolytus is obviously sneering at the martyrdom of Callistus, who did not in reality suffer or die for the truth. Nay, his condemnation before Fuscianus enabled Callistus to succeed entirely in his plans for worldly advancement. [The martyrdom of Callistus, so ludicrous in the eyes of our author, is doctrine in the Roman system. This heretic figures as a saint, and has his festival on the 14th of October. Maxima veneratione colitur, says the Roman Breviary.]
[993] The Latin name is written by Hippolytus in Greek letters, and means “the public fish-market.” The Piscina, one of the fourteen quarters of Rome, was the resort of money-dealers.
[994] The Pistrinum was the domestic treadmill of the Roman slaveholders.
[995] [An instance illustrative of the touching sense of moral obligation given in 2 Kings vi. 5.]
[996] See Josephus, Antiq., xix. 10.
[997] The air of Sardinia was unwholesome, if not pestilential; and for this reason, no doubt, it was selected as a place of exile for martyrs. Hippolytus himself, along with the Roman bishop Pontianus, was banished thither. See Introductory Notice.
[998] Marcia’s connection with the emperor would not seem very consistent with the Christian character which Hippolytus gives her. Dr. Wordsworth supposes that Hippolytus speaks ironically in the case of Marcia, as well as of Hyacinthus and Carpophorus. [I do not see the evidence of this. Poor Marcia, afterwards poisoned by the wretch who degraded, was a heathen who under a little light was awakening to some sense of duty, like the woman of Samaria,John iv. 19.]
[999] [Note this expression in contrast with subsequent claims to be the “Universal Bishop.”]
[1000] See Dio Cassius, lxxii. 4. [See vol. ii. p. 604, this series.]
[1001] Or, “a presbyter, though an eunuch,” thus indicating the decay of ecclesiastical discipline.
[1002] Or, “that Marcia had been brought up by him.” [See what Bunsen has to say (vol. i. pp. 126, 127, and note) upon this subject, about which we know very little.]
[1003] The cemetery of Callistus was situated in the Via Appia. [The catacombs near the Church of St. Sebastian still bear the name of this unhappy man, and give incidental corroboration to the incident.]
[1004] [Here Wordsworth’s note is valuable, p. 80. Callistus had doubtless sent letters to announce his consecration to other bishops, as was customary, and had received answers demanding proofs of his orthodoxy. See my note on the intercommunion of primitive bishops, vol. ii. p. 12, note 9; also on the Provincial System, vol. iv. pp. 111, 114. Also Cyprian, this vol. passim.]
[1005] εὐθέως μηδὲν. Scott reads εὐθέος μηδὲν. Dr. Wordsworth translates the words thus: “having no rectitude of mind.”
[1007] [Here is a very early precedent for the Taxa Pœnitentiaria, of which see Bramhall, vol. i. pp. 56, 180; ii. pp. 445, 446].
[1008] [Elucidation XII.]
[1010] [Elucidation XIII. And on marriage of the clergy, vol. iv. p. 49, this series.]
[1013] This passage, of which there are different readings, has been variously interpreted. The rendering followed above does probably less violence to the text than others proposed. The variety of meaning generally turns on the word ἐναξία in Miller’s text. Bunsen alters it into ἐν ἀξίᾳ…ἡλικίᾳ, i.e., were inflamed at a proper age. Dr. Wordsworth reads ἡλικιώτῃ…ἀναξίῳ, i.e., an unworthy comrade. Roeper reads ἡλικίᾳ…ἀναξίου, i.e., in the bloom of youth were enamoured with one undeserving of their choice.
[1014] Dr. Wordsworth places περιδεσμεῖσθαι in the first sentence, and translates thus: “women began to venture to bandage themselves with ligaments to produce abortion, and to deal with drugs in order to destroy what was conceived.”
[1015] [The prescience of Hermas and Clement is here illustrated. See vol. ii. pp. 9, 32, 279, 597, etc.]
[1016] [Elucidation XIV.]
[1017] [Bunsen, i. 115. Elucidation XV.]
Chapter VIII.—Sect of the Elchasaites; Hippolytus’ Opposition to It.
[1018] See Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., vi. 38; Epiphanius, Hær, xix.; and Theodoret, Hær. Fab., ii. 7.
[1019] For πλανηθῆναι Dr. Wordsworth reads πλατυνθῆναι, i.e., did not suffer the heresy to spread wide.
Chapter X.—Elchasai’s Mode of Administering Baptism; Formularies.
[1020] Roeper reads τέκνῳ, i.e., if any one is guilty of an unnatural crime.
[1021] [Concerning angels of repentance, etc., see Hermas, vol. ii. pp. 19, 24, 26.]
Chapter XI.—Precepts of Elchasai.
[1022] Miller suggests the singular number (δυνάμεως).
Chapter XII.—The Heresy of the Elchasaites a Derivative One.
Chapter XIII.—The Jewish Sects.
[1024] Or, “nation.”
[1025] See Josephus, De Bell. Judaic. ii. 8, from whom Hippolytus seems to have taken his account of the Jewish sects, except, as Schneidewin remarks, we suppose some other writer whom Josephus and Hippolytus themselves followed. The Abbe Cruice thinks that the author followed by Hippolytus was not Josephus, but a Christian writer of the first century, who derived his materials from the Jewish historian. Hippolytus’ text sometimes varies from the text of Josephus, as well as of Porphyry, who has taken excerpts from Josephus work.
[1026] Or “choice.”
Chapter XVI.—The Tenets of the Esseni Continued.
[1027] [The Essenes practised many pious and edifying rites; and this became Christian usage, after our Lord’s example. Matt. xiv. 19; 1 Tim. iv. 3-5.]
Chapter XX.—The Tenets of the Esseni Concluded.
[1028] [Query, unnecessarily? This seems the sense required.]
[1029] [Deut. xxiii. 13. The very dogs scratch earth upon their ordure; and this ordinance of decency is in exquisite consistency with the modesty of nature, against which Christians should never offend.]
Chapter XXI.—Different Sects of the Esseni.
[1030] [This zeal for the letter of the Second Commandment was not shared by our Lord (Matt. xxii. 20).]
Chapter XXII.—Belief of the Esseni in the Resurrection; Their System a Suggestive One.
[1031] [Important corroborations of Justin and other Fathers, vol. i. p. 286; ii. p. 338, also 81, 117, 148.]
[1032] Thus Plato’s “Laws” present many parallels to the writings of Moses. Some have supposed that Plato became acquainted with the Pentateuch through the medium of an ancient Greek version extant prior to that of the Septuagint.
Chapter XXV.—The Jewish Religion.
[1033] Or, “the law not of yesterday,” οὑ νεωστὶ τὸν νόμον. Cruice reads θεόκτιστον, as rendered above.
[1034] [This word is an index of authenticity. See on the “Little Labyrinth,” Bunsen, i. p. 243, and Wordsworth, pp. 100, 161, and his references to Routh, Lardner, etc.]
Chapter II.—Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers.
[1035] Hippolytus in what follows is indebted to Sextus Empiricus.—Adv. Phys., x.
[1036] See Karst., Fragm., viii. 45.
Chapter III.—Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers Continued.
[1037] Iliad, xiv. 201.
[1038] Ibid., vii. 99.
[1039] See Karst., Fragm., ix. p. 46.
[1040] Fabricius, in his Commentary on Sextus Empiricus, considers that this is a quotation from the Hymns of Euripides.
[1041] V. 55–57, ed. Karst.
[1042] V. 106, 107, ed. Karst.
[1043] [See De Legibus, lib. x., and note xii. p. 119, Tayler Lewis’ Plato against the Atheists.]
[1044] Cruice supplies from Theodoret: “and the second which is good is self-begotten, and the third is generated.”
[1046] ἀφίεται εἰκῇ: Bernays proposes ὀφιοειδῆ, i.e., being of the form of the serpent.
[1047] The commentators refer us to Ps. xxix. 3.
[1049] This section differs considerably from what Hippolytus has already stated concerning Valentinus. [“Sige,” vol. i. p. 62, note 5.]
[1050] The allusion here is to the shamelessness of the Cynics in regard to sexual intercourse.
Chapter XV.—Marcion and Cerdo.
[1051] The account here given of Cerdon and Marcion does not accurately correspond with that already furnished by Hippolytus of these heretics.
[1053] Or, “the Son;” or, “the Son of Mary” (Cruice).
[1054] [Vol. iii. p. 654, this series, where it should have been noted that the Appendix to Tertullian is supposed by Waterland to be “little else but an extract from Hippolytus.” He pronounces it “ancient and of good value.” See Wordsworth’s remarks on the biblidarion, p. 59.]
Chapter XXI.—The Phrygians or Montanists.
[1055] The ms. has the obviously corrupt reading παραδόσεις, which Duncker alters into παραδόξους (strange).
Chapter XXIII.—Noetus and Callistus.
[1056] Cruice suggests the addition of the words “and death,” in order to correspond with the remainder of the sentence. The punctuation followed above is conjectural, but gives substantially the meaning of the text as settled by Duncker.
[1057] σταυρούμενον. The ms. reads κρατούμενον, which would mean seized or vanquished. The former yields no meaning, and the latter conveys an erroneous conception regarding the Blessed Lord, who, in yielding to suffering and death, showed Himself more than conqueror of both (John x. 17, 18).
[1058] Cruice considers that Theodoret has taken his account (Hær. Fab., i. 19) from this tenth book of The Refutation.
Chapter XXVI.—Jewish Chronology.
[1059] There is here a hiatus, which Abbe Cruice thinks is caused by those portions of the ms. being lost, in which Hippolytus furnishes his Summary of the Jewish Sects. The object of introducing these genealogical and ethnic remarks might at first seem irrelevant; but they are intended to be subservient to Hippolytus’ Demonstration of the Truth, by proving the superior antiquity, as coming down from Abraham, of revelation above all pagan philosophy. [See cap. xxvii. infra.] Abbe Cruice refers us to his work (pp. 72–77), Études sur de Nouveaux Documents Historiques empruntés à L’Ouvrage des φιλοσοφουμενα, Paris, 1853.
[1060] [Vol. ii. p. 306, this series.]
[1061] That is, Kohath (see Gen. xlvi. 11).
[1062] That is, Tera (see Gen. xi. 26).
[1064] [Possibly a physical catastrophe. Gen. x. 25, and 1 Chron. i. 19.]
[1065] The system of seventy-two nations here adopted by Hippolytus is that advanced by Jewish writers generally, and has been probably deduced from the tenth chapter of Genesis. Another historian of the heresies of the Church adopts it—Epiphanius. A chronographer, however, contemporary with Hippolytus—Julius Africanus—discarded this number, as is proved by the fragments of his work preserved by Eusebius and Syncellus.
[1066] The allusion here made constitutes a strong reason for ascribing The Refutation to Hippolytus, the author of which here states that he had written a Chronicle. But the fragment in our text corresponds with a Latin translation of a Chronicon given by Fabricius, and bearing the name of Hippolytus. The terms in which Hippolytus delivers himself above imply that he was the inventor of a chronological system, thus harmonizing with the fact that the Paschal Cycle, though ever so faulty, was selected out of all his writings for being inscribed on Hippolytus’ statue, dug up on the road to Tivoli a.d. 1551, in the vicinity of Rome, near the Church of St. Lorenzo. [This modest note is of no slight importance to the case, as elucidated by Bunsen and Wordsworth.]
[1067] [Hippolytus does not call in the Greek fables to support the biblical story; he dismisses them with indifference. Yet the universality of such traditions is unaccountable save as derived from the history of Noah.
[1068] Cruice has 435 years.
[1069] [That such relics were exhibited need not be doubted if the account of Berosus is credited. We may doubt as to their genuineness, of course.]
Chapter XXVII.—Jewish Chronology Continued.
[1070] [See note 4, p. 148, supra.]
[1071] [The only son of Ham who did not go to Africa, vol. iii. p. 3.]
[1072] [The fable of Iapetus cannot be explained away as a corroboration of the biblical narrative. Hor., Od., i. 3, 27.]
[1073] [Here the Edinburgh has “nature.” The context seems to require the more comprehensive word “Truth.”]
Chapter XXVIII.—The Doctrine of the Truth.
[1074] The margin of the ms. has the words “Origen and Origen’s opinion.” This seemed to confirm the criticism which ascribes The Refutation to Origin. But even supposing Origen not the author, the copyer of the ms. might have written Origen’s name on the margin, as indicating the transcriber’s opinion concerning the coincidence of creed between Origen and the author of The Refutation. The fact, however, is that the doctrine of eternal punishment, asserted in the concluding chapter of The Refutation, was actually controverted by Origen. See translator’s Introductory Notice. [See also Wordsworth (a lucid exposition), p. 20, etc., and infra, cap. xxix. note 5.]
[1075] ὀροφήν (Scott). The ms. has μορφήν.
[1076] Here we have another reference intimately bearing on the authorship of The Refutation. What follows corresponds with a fragment having a similar title to that stated above, first published by Le Moyne, and inserted in Fabricius (i. pp. 220–222) as the work of Hippolytus. Photius mentions this work, and gives an extract from it corresponding with what is furnished by Hippolytus. Photius, however, mentions that the book On the Substance of the Universe was said to be written by Josephus, but discovers in marginal notes the ascription of it to Caius. But Caius cannot be the writer, since Photius states that the author of The Labyrinth affirmed that he had written On the Substance of the Universe. Now Hippolytus informs us that he is author of The Labyrinth. Hippolytus thus refers to three of his works in The Refutation: (1) ἕτεραι βίβλοι, i.e., on Chronology; (2) Concerning the Substance of the Universe; (3) Little Labyrinth. Except Hippolytus and Photius refer to different works in speaking of The Labyrinth, the foregoing settles the question of the authorship of The Refutation. [See the case of Caius stated, Wordsworth, cap. iv. p. 27, etc.]
Chapter XXIX.—The Doctrine of the Truth Continued.
[1077] [Elucidation XVI.]
[1078] This passage is differently rendered, according as we read φωνὴ with Bunsen, or φωνὴν with Dr. Wordsworth. The latter also alters the reading of the ms. (at the end of the next sentence), ἀπετελεῖτο ἀρέκων Θεῷ, into ἀπετελεῖ τὸ ἄρεσκον, “he carried into effect what was pleasing to the Deity.”
[1079] Dr. Wordsworth suggests for γενέσει, ἐπιγενέσει, i.e., a continuous series of procreation.
[1080] See Origen, in Joann., tom. ii. sec. 8.
[1081] [Rather, His will.]
[1082] Compare Origen, in Joann., sec. 2, where we have a similar opinion stated. A certain parallel in this and other portions of Hippolytus’ concluding remarks, induces the transcriber, no doubt, to write “Origen’s opinion” in the margin.
[1083] Matt. xxv. 21, 23; Luke xvi. 10-12. [Also 2 Pet. i. 4, one of the king-texts of the inspired oracles.]
[1084] [Nicene doctrine, ruling out all conditions of time from the idea of the generation of the Logos.]
[1085] αὐτεξούσιος. Hippolytus here follows his master Irenæus (Hær., iv. 9), and in doing so enunciates an opinion, and uses an expression adopted universally by patristic writers, up to the period of St. Augustine. This great philosopher and divine, however, shook the entire fabric of existing theology respecting the will, and started difficulties, speculative ones at least, which admit of no solution short of the annihilation of finite thought and volition. See translator’s Treatise on Metaphysics, chap. x. [Also compare Irenæus, vol. i. p. 518, and Clement, vol. ii. pp. 319 passim to 525; also vol. iii. 301, and vol. iv. Tertullian and Origen. See Indexes on Free-will.]
[1086] Dr. Wordsworth translates the passage thus: “Endued with free will, but not dominant; having reason, but not able to govern,” etc.
[1087] [One of the most pithy of all statements as to the origin of subjective evil, i.e., evil in humanity.]
[1088] See Origen, in Joann., tom. ii. sec. 7.
[1090] Ps. cx. 3; 2 Pet. i. 18-19.
[1091] In making the Logos a living principle in the prophets, and as speaking through them to the Church of God in all ages, Hippolytus agrees with Origen. This constitutes another reason for the marginal note “Origen’s opinion,” already mentioned. (See Origen, Περὶ ᾽Αρχῶν, i. 1.)
[1092] Hippolytus expresses similar opinions respecting the economy of the prophets, in his work, De Antichristo, sec. 2.
[1093] Hippolytus here compares the ancient prophets with the oracles of the Gentiles. The heathen seers did not give forth their vaticinations spontaneously, but furnished responses to those only who made inquiries after them, says Dr. Wordsworth.
[1094] πεφυρακότα. This is the reading adopted by Cruice and Wordsworth. The translator has followed Cruice’s rendering, refinxisse, while Dr. Wordsworth construes the word “fashioned.” The latter is more literal, as φυράω means to knead, though the sense imparted to it by Cruice would seem more coincident with the scriptural account (1 Cor. v. 7; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15). Bunsen does not alter πεφορηκότα, the reading of the ms., and translates it, “to have put on the old man through a new formation.” Sauppe reads πεφυρηκότα. See Hippolytus, De Antichristo, sec. 26, in Danielem (p. 205, Mai); and Irenæus, v. 6.
[1095] [See Irenæus (a very beautiful passage), vol. i. p. 391.]
[1096] [See vol. iv. pp. 255 and 383.]
[1097] This is the reading adopted by Cruice and Bunsen. Dr. Wordsworth translates the passage thus: “acknowledging thyself a man of like nature with Christ, and thou also waiting for the appearance of what thou gavest Him.” The source of consolation to man which Hippolytus, according to Dr. Wordsworth, is here anxious to indicate, is the glorification of human nature in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. Wordsworth therefore objects to Bunsen’s rendering, as it gives to the passage a meaning different from this.
Chapter XXX.—The Author’s Concluding Address.
[1098] [The translator’s excessive interpolations sometimes needlessly dilute the terse characteristics of the author. Thus, with confusing brackets, the Edinburgh reads: “who so often lead your armies to victory.” This is not Hippolytus, and, in such instances, I feel bound to reduce a plethoric text.]
[1099] [Here the practical idea of the Philosophumena comes out; and compare vol. iv. pp. 469 and 570.]
[1100] Dr. Wordsworth justifies Hippolytus’ use of the pagan word “Tartarus,” by citing the passage (2 Pet. ii. 4), “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness (σειραῖς ζόφου ταρταρώσας), to be reserved unto judgment,” etc. [Elucidation XVII. and vol. iv. 140.]
[1101] Schneidewin suggests a comparison of this passage with Hippolytus’ fragment, Against Plato, concerning the Cause of the Universe (p. 220, ed. Fabricii; p. 68, ed. de Lagarde).
[1102] The different renderings of this passage, according to different readings, are as follow: “And the worm the scum of the body, turning to the Body that foamed it forth as to that which nourisheth it” (Wordsworth). “The worm which winds itself without rest round the mouldering body, to feed upon it” (Bunsen and Scott). “The worm wriggling as over the filth of the (putrescent) flesh towards the exhaling body” (Roeper). “The worm turning itself towards the substance of the body, towards, (I say,) the exhalations of the decaying frame, as to food” (Schneidewin). The words chiefly altered are: ἀπουσίαν, into (1) ἐπ᾽ οὐσίαν, (2) ἐπ᾽ ἀλουσίᾳ (3) ἀπαύστως; and ἐπιστρεφόμενον into (1) ἐπιστρέφον, (2) ἐπὶ τροφήν.
[1103] [This startling expression is justified by such texts as 2 Pet. 1.4; John 17.22-23; Rev. 3.21. Thus, Christ overrules the Tempter (Gen. iii. 5), and gives more than was offered by the “Father of Lies.”]
[1104] [Compare John 10.34; Rev. 5.10. Kings of the earth may be called “gods,” in a sense; ergo, etc.]
[1105] Bunsen translates thus: “Doubt not that you will exist again,” a rendering which Dr. Wordsworth controverts in favour of the one adopted above.
[1106] Bunsen translates thus: “For Christ is He whom the God of all has ordered to wash away the sins,” etc. Dr. Wordsworth severely censures this rendering in a lengthened note.
[1107] πτωχευει. Bunsen translates, “for God acts the beggar towards thee,” which is literal, though rather unintelligible. Dr. Wordsworth renders the word thus: “God has a longing for thee.”
[1108] Hippolytus, by his argument, recognises the duty not merely of overthrowing error but substantiating truth, or in other words, the negative and positive aspect of theology. His brief statement (chap. xxviii.–xxx.) in the latter department, along with being eminently reflective, constitutes a noble specimen of patristic eloquence. [This is most just: and it must be observed, that having summed up his argument against the heresies derived from carnal and inferior sources, and shown the primal truth, he advances (in chap. xxviii.) to the Nicene position, and proves himself one of the witnesses on whose traditive testimony that sublime formulary was given to the whole Church as the κτῆμα ἐς ἀεὶ of Christendom,—a formal countersign of apostolic doctrine.]
[1109] I venture to state this to encourage young students to keep pen in hand in all their researches, and always to make notes.
III. (The Phrygians call Papa, p. 54.)
[1110] Pompey and others were called imperatores before the Cæsars, but who includes them with the Roman emperors?
[1111] How St. Peter would regard it, see 1 Pet. v. 1-3. I am sorry to find Dr. Schaff, in his useful compilation, History of the Christian Church, vol. ii. p 166, dropping into the old ruts of fable, after sufficiently proving just before, what I have maintained. He speaks of “the insignificance of the first Popes,”—meaning the early Bishops of Rome, men who minded their own business, but could not have been “insignificant” had they even imagined themselves “Popes.”
[1112] See Bossuet, passim, and all the Gallican doctors down to our own times. In England the “supremacy” was never acknowledged, nor in France, until now.
IV. (Contemporaneous heresy, p. 125.)
[1113] See his Hippol., vol. i. pp. 209, 311.
[1114] See vol. ii. p. 298, this series.
[1115] p. 207.
[1116] Vol. iv. p 114, Elucidation II., this series.
[1117] Even Quinet notes this. See his Ultramontanism, p. 40, ed. 1845.
[1118] Bunsen gives it as the thirty-fifth, vol. i. p. 311.
[1119] Of which we shall learn in vol. viii., this series.
[1120] See Bingham, book ix. cap. i. sec. 9.
V. (Affairs of the Church, p. 125.)
[1121] Wordsworth, chap. viii. p. 93.
VI. (We offered them opposition, p. 125.)
[1122] See vol. i. pp. 415, 460, this series.
VII. (Heraclitus the Obscure, p. 126.)
[1123] Introduction to Greek Classics, p. 228.
IX. (The episcopal throne, p. 128.)
[1124] See vol. ii. p. 12, also iv. 210.
[1125] See Treatise on the Lapsed, infra.
XI. (All consented—we did not, p. 128.)
[1126] Ver. 17.
XII. (Our condemnatory sentence, p. 131.)
[1127] See p. v. supra.
XIV. (Attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church, p. 131.)
[1130] Bunsen, p. 134; Theodor., tom. iv. pt. i. p. 343, ed. Hal. 1772.
[1131] St. Hippol., p. 315.
[1132] ταρταρώσας,2 Pet. ii. 4. A sufficient answer to Dr. Bunsen, vol. iv. p. 33, who says this Epistle was not known to the primitive Church.
[1133] See Speaker’s Comm., ad loc.
XVIII. (For Christ is the God, p. 153.)
[1134] St. Hippol., p. 301, with original text.
[1135] Vol. i. p. 141, etc.
[1136] A translation of Quinet, on Ultramontanism, appeared in London in a semi-infidel series, 1845.
[1137] See pp. 40, 47.
On the Hexaëmeron, Or Six Days’ Work.
[1138] In John Damasc., Sacr. Parall., Works, ii. p. 787. That Hippolytus wrote on the Hexaëmeron is noticed by Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., vi. 22, and by Jerome, Syncellus, Honorius, etc.
[1139] These fragments are excerpts from a Commentary on Genesis, compiled from eighty-eight fathers, which is extant in manuscript in the Vienna library. They are found also in a Catena on Matthew, issued at Leipsic in 1772.
[1140] i.e., νυχθήμερον.
[1141] This must refer, I suppose, to the words, “And it was so.”
[1142] μὴ ἐκζέσῃς.
[1143] μὴ περισσευῃς.
[1144] “My” (μου) is wanting in Origen’s Hexapla.
[1145] οὐκ ἔσῇ περισσότερος.
[1146] [He makes the curse of Reuben applicable to the Church’s truth and purity.]
[1147] ἐξαιρέσεως αὐτῶν, “of set purpose.”
[1150] After “this” (τοῦτο) the word “blood” (τὸ αἷμα) seems to have been dropped.
[1153] [By the sin of Annas and Caiaphas, with others, the tribe of Levi became formally subject to this curse again, and with Simeon (absorbed into Judah) inherited it. But compare Acts iv. 36 and vi. 7.]
[1155] τὰ μυστήρια.
[1158] [In thus spiritualizing, the Fathers do not deny a literal sense also, as in “Aser,” p. 166, infra; only they think that geography, history, etc., should pay tribute to a higher meaning.]
[1161] κατὰ πόδας, “quickly,” “following close.”
[1163] [An important hint that by “heel,” in Gen. iii. 15, the “foot” is understood, by rhetorical figure.]
[1165] Gen. iii 15. [The rhetoric here puts the heel for the foot to emphasize the other part of the prophecy, i.e., the wounded heel coming down on the biter’s head.]
[1166] περιμένει τὸν ζῶντα.
[1170] στέλεχος ἀνειμένον.
[1176] The text is τοῦτο πάντως κατάγεται ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ὑπειλημμένον.
[1177] This passage, down to the word “inseparably,” was transcribed by Isaac Vossius at Rome, and first edited by Grabe in the Annotations to Bull’s Defens. fid. Nic., p. 103.
[1178] “God of God,” Θεὸς ὑπάρχων ἐκ Θεοῦ. Hippolytus uses here the exact phrase of the Nicene Council. So, too, in his Contra Noetum, chap. x., he has the exact phrase, “light of light” (φῶς ἐκ φωτός). [See my concluding remarks (note 9) on the last chapters of the Philosophumena, p. 153, supra.]
[1179] The words from “and appeared” down to “so hereafter” are given by Grebe, but omitted in Fabricius.
[1181] οἰκονομικῶς.
[1183] ζηλωτός.
[1186] ὁ ἔσχατος. Several manuscripts and versions and Fathers read ἔσχατος with Hippolytus instead of πρῶτος. Jerome in loc. remarks on the fact, and observes that with that reading the interpretation would be quite intelligible; the sense then being, that “the Jews understand the truth indeed, but evade it, and refuse to acknowledge what they perceive.” Wetstein, in his New Test., i. p. 467, also cites this reading, and adds the conjecture, that “some, remembering what is said in Matt. xx. 16, viz., ‘the last shall be first,’ thought that the ‘publican’ would be called more properly ‘the last,’ and that then some one carried out this emendation so far as to transpose the replies too.”
[1189] Grabe adduces another fragment of the comments of Hippolytus on this passage, found in some leaves deciphered at Rome. It is to this effect: Plainly and evidently the generation of the Only-begotten, which is at once from God the Father, and through the holy Virgin, is signified, even as He is believed and manifested to be a man. For being by nature and in truth the Son of God the Father, on our account He submitted to birth by woman and the womb, and sucked the breast. For He did not, as some fancy, become man only in appearance, but He manifested Himself as in reality that which we are who follow the laws of nature, and supported Himself by food, though Himself giving life to the world.
II. From the Commentary of the Holy Hippolytus of Rome Upon Genesis.
[1190] From the Second Book of the Res Sacræ of Leontius and Joannes, in Mai, Script. vet., vii. p. 84.
III. Quoted in Jerome, Epist. 36, ad Damasum, Num. xviii. (from Galland).
[1191] Jerome introduces this citation from the Commentary of Hippolytus on Genesis in these terms: “Since, then, we promised to add what that (concerning Isaac and Rebecca, Gen. xxvii.) signifies figuratively, we may adduce the words of the martyr Hippolytus, with whom our Victorinus very much agrees: not that he has made out everything quite fully, but that he may give the reader the means for a broader understanding of the passage.”
On Numbers. By the Holy Bishop and Martyr Hippolytus, from Balaam’s Blessings.
[1196] In Leontius Byzant., book i. Against Nestorius and Eutyches (from Galland). The same fragment is found in Mai, Script. vet., vii. p. 134. [Galiand was a French Orientalist, a.d. 1646–1715.]
[1198] This word “man” agrees ill, not only with the text in Galatians, but even with the meaning of the writer here; for he is treating, not of a mediator between “two” men, but between “God and men.”—Migne.
[1200] A fragment from the tractate of Hippolytus, On the Sorceress (ventriloquist), or On Saul and the Witch, 1 Sam. xxviii. From the Vatican ms. cccxxx, in Allat., De Engastr., edited by Simon, in the Acts of the Martyrs of Ostia, p. 160, Rome, 1795.
[1201] [Rather “god,” the plural of excellence, Elohim.]
[1202] [This passage is the scandal of commentators. As I read it, the Lord interfered, surprising the woman and horrifying her. The soul of the prophet came back from Sheol, and prophesied by the power of God. Our author misunderstands the Hebrew plural.]
On the Psalms. The Argument Prefixed by Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, to His Exposition of the Psalms.
[1203] From Gallandi.
[1204] [i.e., Samuel prepares for the Christian era, introducing the “schools of the prophets,” and the synagogue service, which God raised up David to complete, by furnishing the Psalter. Compare Acts iii. 24, where Samuel’s position in the “goodly fellowship” is marked. See Payne Smith’s Prophecy a Preparation for Christ.]
OnPsalm II. From the Exposition of the Second Psalm, by the Holy Bishop Hippolytus.
[1205] i.e., in our version the third. From Theodoret, Dialogue Second, entitled ᾽Ασύγχυτος, p. 167.
[1206] Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.
On Psalm XXIII. Or XXIV. From the Commentary by the Same, on Ps. xxiii.
[1208] Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.
On Psalm CIX. Or CX. From the Commentary by the Same on the Great Song.
[1210] Theodoret, in his Second Dialogue.
[1211] Bandini, Catalog. Codd. Græc. Biblioth. Mediceo-Laurent., i. p. 91.
[1215] Theodoret also, following Hippolytus, understood by “evil angels” here, not “demons,” but the ministers of temporal punishment. See on Ps. lxxviii. 54, and on Jer. xlix. 14. So, too, others, as may be seen in Poli Synops., ii. col. 1113.
On Proverbs. From the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs.
[1217] Mai, Bibliotheca nova Patrum, vii. ii. 71, Rome, 1854.
[1227] This is the Septuagint translation of Prov. 27.16.
[1231] Prov. vii. 22. The Hebrew word, rendered “straightway” in our version, is translated κεπφωθείς in the Septuagint, i.e., “ensnared like a cepphus.” [Quasi agnus lasciviens, according to the Vulgate.]
[1232] [If the “cemphus” of the text equals “cepphus” of note, then “cepphus” equals “cebus” or “cepus,” which equals κῆβος, a sort of monkey. The “Kophim” of 1 Kings x. 22 seems to supply the root of the word. The κέπφος, however, is said to be a sea-bird “driven about by every wind,” so that it is equal to a fool. So used by Aristophanes.]
[1234] ταμεῖα, “magazines.”
[1238] ὡς αὐτοζωή.
[1242] Other reading (φθόνος) ="envy.”
[1243] [The place of torment (2 Pet. ii. 4). Vol. iv. 140.]
[1244] [Sheol, rather,—the receptacle of departed spirits. See vol. iii. pp. 59 and 595; also vol. iv. p. 194.]
[1249] [The Authorized Version reads very differently; but our author follows the Sept., with which agrees the Vulgate.]
[1250] The reference probably is to Zech. vi. 12, where the word is rendered “Branch.” The word in the text is ἀνατολή.
[1254] χοιρογρύλλοι, i.e., “grunting hogs.”
[1255] ἀσκαλαβώτης, i.e., a “lizard.”
[1256] Prov. xxx. 29, etc. [As in Vulgate.]
[1257] Prov. xxx. 29, etc. [As in Vulgate.]
[1258] Cf.Prov. 27.22, the Septuagint rendering being: “Though thou shouldest disgrace and scourge a fool in the midst of the council, thou wilt not strip him of his folly.” [What version did our author use?]
[1259] Cf.Prov. 27.22, the Septuagint rendering being: “Though thou shouldest disgrace and scourge a fool in the midst of the council, thou wilt not strip him of his folly.” [What version did our author use?]
[1261] Literally, “grunting hogs.”
[1262] Prov. 30.21, etc. [As to version, see Burgon, Lett. from Rome, p. 34.]
Another Fragment. St. Hippolytus on Prov. ix. 1, “Wisdom Hath Builded Her House.”
[1263] From Gallandi.
[1264] [I omit here the suffix “Pope of Rome,” for obvious reasons. He was papa of Portus at a time when all bishops were so called but this is a misleading absurdity, borrowed from the Galland ms., where it could hardly have been placed earlier. A mere mediæval blunder.]
[1266] i.e., Solomon.
[1267] Other reading, “hewn out.”
[1269] Ps. xliv. 2; Rom. viii. 36.
[1270] Simon de Magistris, in his Acta Martyr. Ostiens., p. 274 adduces the following fragment in Latin and Syriac, from a Vatican codex, and prefaces it with these words: Hippolytus wrote on the Song of Solomon, and showed that thus early did God the Word seek His pleasure in the Church gathered from among the Gentiles, and especially in His most holy mother the Virgin; and thus the Syrians, who boasted that the Virgin was born among them, translated the Commentary of Hippolytus at a very early period from the Greek into their own tongue, of which some fragments still remain,—as, for example, one to this effect on the above words.
[1272] ἀδιάκριτοι, “mixed,” or “dark.”
[1274] In Gallandi, from Anastasius Sinaita, quæst. 41, p. 320.
[1275] In Gallandi, from a codex of the Coislin Library, Num. 193, fol. 36.
I. Hippolytus, (Bishop) of Rome on Hezekiah.
[1276] [Here we have the blunder (noted supra, p. 175) repeated as to Rome, which must be here taken as meaning the Roman Province, not the See. The word “Bishop,” which avoids the ambiguity above noted, I have therefore put into parenthesis.]
[1277] Isa. xxxviii. 5, 7, 8.
II. From the Discourse of St. Hippolytus on the beginning of Isaiah.
[1279] [Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.]
[1280] The text is evidently corrupt: Κύριον δὲ τὸν Λόγον, νεφέλην δὲ κούφην τὸ καθαρώτατον σκῆνος, etc. The reference must be to Isa. 19.1.
[1281] Hippolytus wrote on Isaiah with the view of making the most of the favourable disposition entertained by the Emperor Alexander Severus towards the Christians, and particularly on that part where the retrogression of the sun is recorded as a sign of an extension of life to Hezekiah.
[1282] That Hippolytus wrote on Jeremiah is recorded, so far as I know, by none of the ancients; for the quotation given in the Catena of Greek fathers on Jer. xvii. 11 is taken from his book On Antichrist, chap. lv. Rufinus mentions that Hippolytus wrote on a certain part of the prophet Ezekiel, viz., on those chapters which contain the description of the temple of Jerusalem; and of that commentary the following fragments are preserved.—De Magistris.
[1283] διόροφον.
[1284] 2 Chron. iii. 1, 3, 4.
I. Preface by the most holy Hippolytus, (Bishop) of Rome.
[1285] Simon de Magistris, Daniel secundum Septuaginta, from the Codex Chisianus, Rome, 1772; and Mai, Script. vet. collectio nova, i. iii. ed. 1831, pp. 29–56.
[1286] Shallum. See 1 Chron. iii. 15.
[1288] 2 Kings xxv. 27. Note the confusion between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in what follows.
[1289] i.e., Jehoiachin.
[1290] Others τριμήνιον = three months.
[1291] ἀρχιμάγειρος, “chief cook.”
[1292] Jer. xxii. 24, etc.
[1294] The same method of explaining the two visions is also adopted by Jacobus Nisibenus, serm. v., and by his illustrious disciple Ephraem Syrus on Dan. vii. 4. [Let me again refer to Dr. Pusey’s work on Daniel, as invaluable in this connection. The comments of our author on this book and on “the Antichrist,” infra, deserve special attention, as from a disciple of the disciples of St. John himself.]
[1296] [True in a.d. 1885. A very pregnant testimony to our own times.]
[1297] This is what Photius condemned in Hippolytus. Irenæus, however, held the same opinion (book v. c. 28 and 29). The same view is expressed yet earlier in the Epistle of Barnabas (sec. 15). It was an opinion adopted from the rabbis.
[1302] Migne thinks we should read διακόσια τριάκοντα, i.e., 230, as it is also in Julius Africanus, who was contemporary with Hippolytus. As to the duration of the Greek empire, Hippolytus and Africanus make it both 300 years, if we follow Jerome’s version of the latter in his comment on Dan. ix. 24. Eusebius makes it seventy years longer in his Demonstr. Evang., viii. 2.
[1303] Literally, “a man of desires.” [Our author plays on this word, as if the desire of knowledge were referred to. Our Authorized Version is better, and the rendering might be “a man of loves.”]
[1309] Isa. lxi. 1; Luke iv. 18.
[1315] Cf.Matt. x. 27.
[1316] In the text, the word ἕως, “until,” is introduced, which seems spurious.
[1317] βαδδίν.
[1318] In the text, μυστηρίων (of “mysteries”), for which μυστηριωδῶς or μυστικῶς, “mystically,” is proposed.
[1319] The Latin translation renders: His body was perfect.
[1320] “Thares” (Θαρσείς) in Hippolytus. The Septuagint gives Θαρσίς as the translation of the Hebrew תַּרְשִׁישׁ, rendered in our version as “beryl” (Dan. x. 6).
[1323] Ex. xxxii. 4; xxxiii. 3.
[1324] φορολόγον.
[1325] 1 Macc. ii. 33.
[1327] He seems to refer to Cleopatra, wife and niece of Physco. For Lathyrus was sometimes called Philometor in ridicule (ἐπὶ χλευασμᾷ), as Pausanias says in the Attica.
[1328] He refers to Alexander I. king of Syria, of whom we read in 1 Macc. x. He pretended to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and even gained a decree of the senate of Rome in his favour as such. Yet he was a person of unknown origin, as indeed he acknowledged himself in his choice of the designation Theopator. Livy calls him “a man unknown, and of uncertain parentage” (homo ignotus et incertæ stirpis). So Hippolytus calls him here, “a certain Alexander” (τινα). He had also other surnames, e.g., Euergetes, Balas, etc.
[1329] For “Antiochus” in the text, read “Demetrius.”
[1332] Girdle.
[1334] The text gives ὁ ἀντικείμενος, which is corrupt.
[1335] Mai, Script. vet. collectio nova, i. p. iii. pp. 29–56.
[1337] This book is not now extant, the first ten alone having reached our time.
[1338] [The minchah, that is.]
[1340] The verses are numbered according to the Greek translation, which incorporates the apocryphal “song of the three holy children.”
[1342] “By the most holy Hippolytus, (bishop) of Rome: The Exact Account of the Times,” etc. From Gallandi. This fragment seems to have belonged to the beginning or introduction to the commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel.
IV. Other Fragments on Daniel.
[1343] In Anastasius Sinaita, quæst. xlviii. p. 327.
V. On the Song of the Three Children.
[1345] From the Catena Patrum in Psalmos et Cantica, vol. iii. ed. Corderianæ, pp. 951, ad v. 87.
[1346] This apocryphal story of Susannah is found in the Greek texts of the LXX. and Theodotion, in the old Latin and Vulgate, and in the Syriac and Arabic versions. But there is no evidence that it ever formed part of the Hebrew, or of the original Syriac text. It is generally placed at the beginning of the book, as in the Greek mss. and the old Latin, but is also sometimes set at the end, as in the Vulgate, ed. Compl.
[1350] Prov. i. 32; in our version given as, “The prosperity of fools shall destroy them.”
[1353] That is, Daniel, present in the spirit of prophecy.—Combef.
[1355] Tobit iii. 17.
[1357] Cotelerius reads ὅλος instead of ὁ λόγος, and so = and He is Himself the whole or universal eye.
[1358] De Magistris, Acta Martyrum Ostiens., p. 405.
[1359] He is giving his opinion on the ἐπιούσιον, i.e., the “daily bread.”
[1360] Mai, Script. vet. collectio nova, vol. ix. p. 645, Rome, 1837.
[1361] οἱ συκοφάνται.
[1362] Pearson On the Creed, art. iv. p. 355.
Doubtful Fragments on the Pentateuch.
[1363] These are edited in Arabic and Latin by Fabricius, Opp. Hippol., ii. 33. That these are spurious is now generally agreed. The translation is from the Latin version, which alone is given by Migne.
[1364] See Tsemach David, and Maimon. Præfat. ad Seder Zeraim, in Pocockii Porta Moses, p. 36.
[1365] Heliopolis of Syria.
[1366] What follows was thus expressed probably in Syriac in some Syriac version.
[1367] Cavernam thesaurorum. [Song of Sol. 4.6, i.e., Paradise.]
[1368] Cavernam thesaurorum. [Song of Sol. 4.6, i.e., Paradise.]
[1369] Crepitacula.
[1372] Gordyæum.
[1373] See Fuller, Misc. Sacr., i. 4; and Bochart, Phaleg., p. 22.
[1374] [See p. 149, note 10, supra.]
Section X. On Deut. xxxiii. II
[1375] That is the name the Mohammedans give to their Traditions.
[1376] Simon de Magistris, Acta Martyrum Ostiensium, Append., p. 439.
I. The Argument of the Exposition of the Psalms by Hippolytus, (Bishop) of Rome.
[1377] That is an attempt to express in Greek letters the Hebrew title, viz., סֵפֶר תְּהִלָּס = Book of Praises
[1378] [See vol. iii. pp. 94, 103.]
[1379] Luke vii. 41. [Dan. viii. 13, (Margin.) “Palmoni,” etc.]
[1381] i.e., in our version the 101st.
[1382] [See learned remarks of Pusey, p. 27 of his Lectures on Daniel.]
[1383] Isa. liii. 9. [Vol. i. cap. iv. p. 50.]
[1385] The Greek is: ὄντων ψαλμῶν, καὶ οὐσῶν ᾠδῶν, καὶ ψαλμῶν ᾠδῆς, καὶ ᾠδῶν ψαλμοῦ.
[1386] Ecclesiasticus 1.26.
[1387] [Our author throws no great light on this vexed word, but the article Selah in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible is truly valuable.]
Other Fragments on the Psalms. II. On Psalm xxxi. 22. Of the Triumph of the Christian Faith.
[1388] De Magistris, Acta Martyrum Ostien., p. 256.
[1389] The allusion probably is to the seat of imperial power itself.
[1390] He is addressing his amanuensis, a man not without learning, as it seems. Hippolytus dictates these words.
XI. On the Words in Psalm cxxvii. 7: “On the Wrath of Mine Enemies.” Etc.
[1391] To his amanuensis.
Treatise on Christ and Antichrist.
[1393] Gallandi, Bibl. vet. Patr., ii. p. 417, Venice, 1765.
[1394] Perhaps the same Theophilus whom Methodius, a contemporary of Hippolytus, addresses as Epiphanius. [See vol. vi., this series.] From this introduction, too, it is clear that they are in error who take this book to be a homily. (Fabricius.)
[1395] In the text the reading is τῶν ὄντων, for which τῶν ὤτων = of the ears, is proposed by some, and ἀνθρώπων = of men, by others. In the manuscripts the abbreviation ανων is often found for ἀνθρώπων.
[1396] In the text we find ὡς πίων καθαρὰ γῆ, for which grammar requires ὡς πίονι καθαρᾷ γῇ. Combefisius proposes ὡσπερ οὖν καθαρᾷ γῆ = as in clean ground. Others would read ὡς πυρόν, etc., = like a grain in clean ground.
[1398] This reading, παρακλήσεων for μαρτύρων (= witnesses), which is peculiar to Hippolytus alone, is all the more remarkable as so thoroughly suiting Paul’s meaning in the passage.
[1401] The text reads ἅτινα = which. Gudius proposes τινά = some.
[1402] The plectrum was the instrument with which the lyre was struck. The text is in confusion here. Combefisius corrects it, as we render it, ὀργάνων δίκην ἡνωμένον ἔχοντες ἐν ἑαυτοῖς.
[1404] The text reads μὴ πλανῶ (= that I may not deceive). Some propose ὡς πλάνοι = as deceivers.
[1405] This is according to the emendation of Combefisius. [And note this primitive theory of inspiration as illustrating the words, “who spake by the prophets,” in the Nicene Symbol.]
[1407] In the text it is προκείμενα (= things before us or proposed to us), for which Combefisius proposes, as in our rendering, προειρημένα.
[1408] The original is ἀκινδυνον.
[1409] Isa. xlii. 1; Matt. xii. 18. The text is αὐτὸς πάλιν ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ παῖς. See Macarius, Divinitas D. N. S. C., book iv. ch. xiii. p. 460, and Grabe on Bull’s Defens. Fid. Nic., p. 101.
[1410] Reading αὐτούς for αὐτόν.
[1413] The text has ὤν = being, for which read ἦν = was.
[1414] μίξας. Thomassin, De Incarnatione Verbi, iii. 5, cites the most distinguished of the Greek and Latin Fathers, who taught that a mingling (commistio), without confusion indeed, but yet most thorough, of the two natures, is the bond and nexus of the personal unity.
[1415] [This analogy of weaving is powerfully employed by Gray (“Weave the warp, and weave the woof,” etc.). See his Pindaric ode, The Bard.]
[1416] Rev. v. 5; [also Gen. xlix. 8. See below, 7, 8].
[1422] The text has τούτου—προερχομένου, for which we read, with Combefisius, προερχόμενον.
[1428] The text gives simply, τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου, etc., = the paternal voice of the Holy Ghost, etc. As this would seem to represent the Holy Ghost as the Father of Christ, Combefisius proposes, as in our rendering, κατὰ τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου, etc. The wine, therefore, is taken as a figure of His deity, and the garment as a figure of His humanity; and the sense would be, that He has the latter imbued with the former in a way peculiar to Himself—even as the voice at the Jordan declared Him to be the Father’s Son, not His Son by adoption, but His own Son, anointed as man with divinity itself.
[1429] The nations are compared to a robe about Christ, as something foreign to Himself, and deriving all their gifts from Him.
[1431] [See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 559. Dan’s name is excepted in Rev. vii., and this was always assigned as the reason. The learned Calmet (sub voce Dan) makes a prudent reflection on this idea. The history given in Judg. xviii. is more to the purpose.]
[1436] Perhaps from an apocryphal book, as also below in ch. liv.
[1438] ἐπισπουδαστής.
[1439] κατακάλυμμα; other reading, κατάλειμμα = remains.
[1440] Lit., that risest early.
[1441] The text gives ἐπαγωγῇ. Combefisius prefers ἀπαγωγῇ = trial.
[1443] i.e., according to the reading, ἐμπορίᾳ. The text is ἐμπειρίᾳ = experience.
[1444] There is another reading, λιμοὺς (= famines) τῶν ἐθνῶν.
[1447] Combefisius adds, “between the teeth of it; and they said thus to it, Arise, devour much flesh.”
[1448] Combefisius inserted these words, because he thought that they must have been in the vision, as they occur subsequently in the explanation of the vision (v. 19).
[1452] See Curtius, x. 10. That Alexander himself divided his kingdom is asserted by Josephus Gorionides (iii.) and Cyril of Jerusalem (Catech., 4, De Sacra Scriptura) and others.
[1453] For ὅμως = nevertheless, Gudius suggests ὠμός = savage.
[1460] [Deserving of especial note. Who could have foreseen the universal spirit of democracy in this century save by the light of this prophecy? Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 1-3.]
[1461] ὀφθαλμοφανῶς.
[1463] For ὑπὸ πολλῶν Combefisius has ὑπὸ λαῶν = by peoples.
[1467] For πλάσας Gudius proposes ἁγιάσας (sanctified) or καλέσας (called).
[1471] For ἀναξύρισον others read ἀνακάλυψαι = uncover.
[1473] [Note this token, that, with all his prudence, he identifies “Babylon” with Rome.]
[1474] “Stones,” rather.
[1475] τὰ ἀκάθαρτα, for the received ἀκαθαρτότητος.
[1476] καὶ παρέσται, for the received καίπερ ἐστί.
[1477] καί, for the received ἐπί.
[1478] ἰσχυρᾷ for ἐν ἰσχύϊ.
[1479] ἐκολλήθησαν, for the received ἠκολούθησαν.
[1480] ἀγοράσει, for the received ἀγοράζει.
[1481] ἄμωμον, omitted in the received text.
[1482] καὶ τράγους, omitted in the received text.
[1483] ἀπώλετο, for the received ἀπῆλθεν.
[1484] πλουτίσαντες, for the received πλουτήσαντες.
[1485] πιότητος, for the received τιμιότητος.
[1486] καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι, which the received omits.
[1488] διαθήσει = will make; others, δυναμώσει = will confirm.
[1494] It was a common opinion among the Greeks, that the Baptist was Christ’s forerunner also among the dead. See Leo Allatius, De libris Eccles. Græcorum, p. 303.
[1495] Or it may be, “Malachi, even the messenger.” ᾽Αγγέλου is the reading restored by Combefisius instead of ᾽Αγγαίου. The words of the angel in Luke i. 17 (“and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just”) are thus inserted in the citation from Malachi; and to that Hippolytus may refer in the addition “and the angel.” Or perhaps, as Combefisius rather thinks, the addition simply refers to the meaning of the name Malachi, viz., messenger.
[1501] The text is simply καὶ τὸν μετ᾽ αὐτόν = the false prophet after him. Gudius and Combefisius propose as above, καὶ αὐτόν τε καὶ τὸν μετ᾽ αὐτόν, or μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ = him and the false prophet with him.
[1502] πυρεῖα = censers, incense-pans, or sacrificial tripods. This offering of incense was a test very commonly proposed by the pagans to those whose religion they suspected.
[1503] [Not referred to as Scripture, but as authentic history.]
[1504] ὅσον μόνον ὑπονοῆσαι.
[1505] ἰσόψηφα.
[1506] Τειτάν. Hippolytus here follows his master Irenæus, who in his Contra Hæres., v. 30, § 3, has the words,“ Titan…et antiquum et fide dignum et regale…nomen” = Titan…both an ancient and good and royal…name. [See this series, vol. i. p. 559.]
[1507] Εὐάνθας, mentioned also by Irenæus in the passage already referred to.
[1508] προέφθημεν, the reading proposed by Fabricius instead of προέφημεν.
[1509] ποιήσει, Combef. ἐποίησε.
[1510] [Let us imitate the wisdom of our author, whose modest commentary upon his master Irenæus cannot be too much applauded. The mystery, however, does seem to turn upon something in the Latin race and its destiny.]
[1518] Quoted already in chap. xv. as from one of the prophets.
[1520] Reading ἀπεφήνατο for ἀπεκρίνατο.
[1524] Mic. v. 5. The Septuagint reads αὐτῇ = And (he) shall be the peace to it. Hippolytus follows the Hebrew, but makes the pronoun feminine, αὕτη referring to the peace. Again Hippolytus reads ὄρη = mountains, where the Septuagint has χώραν = land, and where the Hebrew word = fortresses or palaces. [He must mean that “the Assyrian” = Antichrist. “The peace” is attributable only to the “Prince of peace.” So the Fathers generally.]
[1526] οὐαὶ γῆς πλοίων πτέρυγες.
[1527] μετέωρον.
[1529] Wordsworth, reading ὡς ἱστὸν for ὡς τὸν, would add, like a mast. See his Commentary on Acts xxvii. 40.
[1530] κύτος, a conjecture of Combefisius for κύκλον.
[1531] λίνον, proposed by the same for πλοῖον, boat.
[1532] ψηφαροι, a term of doubtful meaning. May it refer to the καρχήσια?
[1533] The text reads here αἰνούμενοι, for which αἱρούμενοι is proposed, or better, ἠωρούμενοι.
[1534] Rev. xii. 1-6, etc.
[1535] τὸν Λόγον τὸν Πατρῷον.
[1536] γεννῶσα ἐκ καρδίας.
[1539] [Concerning Antichrist, two advents, etc., see vol. iv. p. 219, this series.]
[1541] Matt. xxiv. 15-22; Mark xiii. 14-20; Luke xxi. 20-23.
[1542] Dan. xi. 31; xii. 11-12. The Hebrew has 1,335 as the number in the second verse.
[1543] Hippolytus reads here ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς instead of ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, and makes the pronoun therefore refer to the coming.
[1549] The word πτῶμα, used in the Greek as = carcase, is thus interpreted by Hippolytus as = fall, which is its literal sense.
[1557] Eph. v. 14. Epiphanius and others suppose that the words thus cited by Paul are taken from the apocryphal writings of Jeremiah: others that they are a free version of Isa. lx. 1. [But their metrical form justifies the criticism that they are a quotation from a hymn of the Church, based, very likely, on the passage from Isaiah.]
[1564] [The immense value of these quotations, authenticating the Revelations and other Scriptures, must be apparent. Is not this treatise a voice to our own times of vast significance?]
Expository Treatise Against the Jews.
[1566] Ps. lxix. 1 ff.
[1568] οἰκονομικῶς. [The Fathers find Christ everywhere in Scripture, and often understand the expressions of David to be those of our Lord’s humanity, by economy.]
[1571] The text is οὕτως, for which read perhaps ὅτε = when.
[1573] Wisd. ii. 1, 12, 13.
[1574] Wisd. ii. 15, 16.
[1575] Wisd. ii. 14, 16, 17, 20. [The argument is ad hominem. The Jews valued this book, but did not account it to be Scripture; yet this quotation is a very remarkable comment on what ancient Jews understood concerning the Just One. Comp. Acts iii. 14; vii. 52; and xxii. 14.]
[1577] Wisd. v. 1-9.
[1578] (Compare Justin, vol. i. p. 194; Clement, vol. ii. pp 334–343; Tertullian, vol. iii. p. 151; Origen, vol. iv. p. 402, etc.; and Cyprian, vol. v., this series.]
Against Plato, on the Cause of the Universe.
[1579] Gallandi, Vet. Patr., ii. 451. Two fragments of this discourse are extant also in the Parallela Damascenica Rupefucaldina, pp. 755, 789. [Compare Justin, vol. i. p. 273; Tatian, ii. 65; Athenagoras, 130, and Clement passim; vol. iii. Tertullian, 129; Origen, iv. p. 412. This is a fragment from Hippol. Against the Greeks.
[1580] The reading in the text is ὁπερὶ δαιμόνων τόπος; others read λόγος for τόπος = thus far the discussion on demons.
[1581] ἀκατασκεύαστος.
[1582] Or it may be “seasonable,” προσκαροίυς.
[1583] τρόπων. There is another reading, τόπων = of the places.
[1584] Hades, in the view of the ancients, was the general receptacle of souls after their separation from the body, where the good abode happily in a place of light (φωτεινῷ), and the evil all in a place of darkness (σκοτιωτέρῳ). See Colomesii Κειμήλια litteraria, 28, and Suicer on ᾅδης. Hence Abraham’s bosom and paradise were placed in Hades. See Olympiodorus on Eccles., iii. p. 264. The Macedonians, on the authority of Hugo Broughton, praying in the Lord’s words, “Our Father who art in Hades” (Πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν ᾆδῃ) (Fabricius). [Hippolytus is singular in assigning the ultimate receptacle of lost spirits to this Hades. But compare vol. iii. p. 428, and vol. iv. pp. 293, 495, 541, etc.]
[1585] Cf. Constitut. Apostol., viii. 41.
[1586] [They do not pass into an intermediate purgatory, nor require prayers for “the repose of their souls.”]
[1587] τρίβολος. [Also the Pindaric citation in my note, vol. i. 74.]
[1588] In the Parallela is inserted here the word ἐπιγελῶντες, deriding them.
[1589] γέεννα.
[1590] According to the reading in Parallela, which inserts ξανθὴν = red.
[1591] The text reads καὶ οὗ, and where. But in Parallela it is καὶ οὗτοι = and these see, etc. In the same we find ὡς μήτε for καὶ τοὺς δικαίους.
[1592] [It would be hard to frame a system of belief concerning the state of the dead more entirely exclusive of purgatory, i e., a place where the souls of the faithful are detained till (by Masses and the like) they are relieved and admitted to glory, before the resurrection. See vol. iii. p. 706.]
[1593] μετενσωματῶν, in opposition to the dogma of metempsychosis.
[1594] In the Timæus.
[1595] The first of the two fragments in the Parallela ends here.
[1596] [The text Eccles. xi. 3 may be accommodated to this truth, but seems to have no force as proof.]
[1597] The second fragment extant in the Parallela begins here.
[1599] [It is not the unrighteous, be it remembered, who go to “purgatory,” according to the Trent theology, but only true Christians, dying in full communion with the Church. Hippolytus is here speaking of the ultimate doom of the wicked, but bears in mind the imagery of Luke xvi. 24 and the appeal to Abraham.]
[1600] The second fragment in the Parallela ends here.
[1601] ἐκβρασσομένη.
Against the Heresy of One Noetus.
[1603] Gallandi, p. 454.
[1604] That Noetus was a native of Smyrna is mentioned also by Theodoret, book iii. Hæret Fab., c. iii., and Damascenus, sec. lvii. (who is accustomed to follow Epiphanius); and yet in Epiphanius, Hæres., 57, we read that Noetus was an Asian of the city of Ephesus (᾽Ασιανον τῆς ᾽Εφέσου πόλεως). (Fabricius.)
[1605] Epiphanius says that Noetus made his heresy public about 130 years before his time (οὐ πρὸ ἐτῶν πλειόνων ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πρὸ χρόνου τῶν τουτων ἑκατὸν τριάκοντα, πλείω ἢ ἐλάσσω); and as Epiphanius wrote in the year 375, that would make the date of Noetus about 245. He says also that Noetus died soon after (ἔναγχος), along with his brother. (Fabricius.)
[1606] So also Epiphanius and Damascenus. But Philastrius, Heresy, 53, puts Elijah for Aaron: hic etiam dicebat se Moysem esse, et fratrem suum Eliam prophetam.
[1607] Epiphanius remarks that they were but ten in number.
[1608] The following words are the words of the Symbolum, as it is extant in Irenæus, i. 10, etc., and iii. 4; and in Tertullian, Contra Praxeam, ch. ii., and De Præscript., ch. xiii., and De virginibus velandis, ch. i. [See vol. iii., this series.]
[1609] Ex. iii. 6 and xx. 3.
[1611] Baruch iii. 35-38. [Based on Prov. viii., but so remarkable that Grotius presumptuously declared it an interpolation. It reflects canonical Scripture, but has no canonical value otherwise.]
[1614] καὶ αὐτοις μονοκῶλα χρώμενοι, etc. The word μονοκῶλα appears to be used adverbially, instead of μονοκώλως and μονοτύπως, which are the terms employed by Epiphanius (p. 481). The meaning is, that the Noetians, in explaining the words of Scripture concerning Christ, looked only to one side of the question—namely, to the divine nature; just as Theodotus, on his part going to the opposite extreme, kept by the human nature exclusively, and held that Christ was a mere man. Besides others, the presbyter Timotheus, in Cotelerii Monument., vol. iii. p. 389, mentions Theodotus in these terms: “They say that this Theodotus was the leader and father of the heresy of the Samosatan, having first alleged that Christ was a mere man.” [See vol. iii, p. 654, this series.]
[1618] [Bull, Opp., v. pp. 367, 734, 740–743, 753–756.]
[1620] Turrian has the following note: “The Word of God constituted (operatum est) one Son to God; i.e., the Word of God effected, that He who was the one Son of God was also one Son of man, because as His hypostasis He assumed the flesh. For thus was the Word made flesh.”
[1624] Baruch iii. 36, etc.
[1626] The word Israel is explained by Philo, De præmiis et pœnis, p. 710, and elsewhere, as = a man seeing God, ὁρῶν Θεόν, i.e., אִִיש ואה אל. So also in the Constitutiones Apostol., vii. 37, viii. 15; Eusebius, Præparat., xi. 6, p. 519, and in many others. To the same class may be referred those who make Israel = ὁρατικὸς ανὴρ καὶ θεωρητικὸς, a man apt to see and speculate, as Eusebius, Præparat., p. 310, or = νοῦς ὁρῶν Θεόν, as Optatus in the end of the second book; Didymus in Jerome, and Jerome himself in various passages; Maximus, i. p. 284; Olympiodorus on Ecclesiastes, ch. i.; Leontius, De Sectis, p. 392; Theophanes, Ceram. homil., iv. p. 22, etc. Justin Martyr, Dialog. cum Tryph. [see vol. i. pp. 226, 262], adduces another etymology, ἄνθρωπος νικῶν δύναμιν.
[1627] Hippolytus reads διηγήσατο for ἐξηγήσατο.
[1633] Matt. xi. 27. [Compare John v. 22.]
[1634] [Strictly scriptural as to the humanity of Messiah, Heb. i. 9.]
[1639] ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ—ἕν ἐσμεν, not ἕν εἰμι.
[1640] ἐσμὲν.
[1641] δύναμιν.
[1643] ἢτῇ δυνάμει καὶ τῇ διαθέσει τῆς ὁμοφρονίας ἓν γινόμεθα.
[1646] John v. 30; vi. 29; viii. 16, 18, etc.
[1648] δύναμις.
[1649] There is perhaps a play on the words here—Νόητος μὴ νοῶν.
[1650] i.e., the other thirty-one heresies, which Hippolytus had already attacked. From these words it is apparent also that this treatise was the closing portion of a book against the heresies (Fabricius).
[1651] [This emphatic testimony of our author to the sufficiency of the Scriptures is entirely in keeping with the entire system of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. Note our teeming indexes of Scripture texts.]
[1652] See, on this passage, Bull’s Defens. Fid. Nic., sec. iii. cap. viii. § 2, p. 219.
[1653] πολὺς ἦν.
[1654] ἄλογος, ἄσοφος, ἀδύνατος, ἀβούλευτος.
[1655] On these words see Bossuet’s explanation and defence, Avertiss., vi. § 68, sur les lettres de M. Jurieu.
[1656] ἀρχηγόν, καὶ σύμβουλον, καὶ ἐργάτην.
[1657] The “begetting” of which Hippolytus speaks here is not the generation, properly so called, but that manifestation and bringing forth of the Word co-existing from eternity with the Father, which referred to the creation of the world. So at least Bull and Bossuet, as cited above; also Maranus, De Divinit. J. C., lib. iv. cap. xiii. § 3, p. 458.
[1658] φως ἐκ φωτός. This phrase, adopted by the Nicene Fathers, occurs before their time not only here, but also in Justin Martyr, Tatian, and Athenagoras, as is noticed by Grabe, ad Irenæum, lib. ii. c. xxiii. Methodius also, in his Homily on Simeon and Anna, p. 152, has the expression, σὺ εἶ φῶς ἀληθινὸν ἐκ φωτὸς ἀληθινοῦ Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. Athanasius himself also uses the phrase λύχνον ἐκ λύχνου, vol. i. p. 881, ed. Lips. [Illustrating my remarks (p. v. of this volume), in the preface, as to the study of Nicene theology in Ante-Nicene authors.]
[1659] νοῦν.
[1660] Justin Martyr also says that the Son is ἕτερόν τι, something other, from the Father; and Tertullian affirms, Filium et Patrem esse aluid ab alio, with the same intent as Hippolytus here, viz., to express the distinction of persons. [See vol. i. pp. 170, 216, 263, and vol. iii. p. 604.]
[1661] ἐκ τοῦ παντός.
[1662] Or reason.
[1663] παῖς.
[1665] John i. 1-3. Hippolytus evidently puts the full stop at the οὐδὲ εν, attaching the ο γέγονεν to the following. So also Irenæus, Clemens Alex., Origen, Theophilus of Antioch, and Eusebius, in several places; so, too, of the Latin Fathers—Tertullian, Lactantius, Victorinus, Augustine; and long after these, Honorius Augustodunensis, in his De imagine Mundi. This punctuation was also adopted by the heretics Valentinus, Heracleon, Theodotus, and the Macedonians and Eunomians; and hence it is rejected by Epiphanius, ii. p. 80, and Chrysostom. (Fabricius.)
[1668] ὑποστήματι, foundation. Victor reads ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει, in the substance, nature; Symmachus has ἐν τῇ ὁμιλίᾳ, in the fellowship.
[1671] τὸ θέλημα. Many of the patristic theologians called the Son the Father’s βούλησις or θέλημα. See the passages in Petavius, De S. S. Trinitate, lib. vi. c. 8, § 21, and vii. 12, § 12. [Dubious.]
[1672] From this passage it is clear that Hippolytus taught the doctrine of one God alone and three Persons. A little before, in the eighth chapter, he said that there is one God, according to substance or divine essence, which one substance is in three Persons; and that, according to disposition or economy, there are three Persons manifested. By the term economy, therefore, he understands, with Tertullian, adversus Praxeam. ch. iii., the number and disposition of the Trinity (numerum et dispositionem Trinitatis). Here he also calls the grace of the Holy Spirit the third economy, but in the same way as Tertullian, who calls the Holy Spirit the third grade (tertium gradum). For the terms gradus, forma, species, dispositio, andœconimia mean the same in Tertullian. (Maranus.) [Another proof that the Nicene Creed was a compilation from Ante-Nicene theologians.]
[1673] οἰκονομία συμφωνίας συνάγεται εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, perhaps = "the" economy as being one of harmony, leads to one God.
[1674] This mode of speaking of the Father’s commanding, and the Son’s obeying, was used without any offence, not only by Irenæus, Hippolytus, Origen, and others before the Council of Nicæa, but also after that council by the keenest opponents of the Arian heresy—Athanasius, Basil, Marius Victorinus, Hilary, Prosper, and others. See Petavius, De Trin., i. 7, § 7; and Bull, Defens Fid. Nic., pp. 138, 164, 167, 170. (Fabricius.)
[1675] συνέτιζον.
[1676] Referring probably to Eph. iv. 6.
[1677] The Christian doctrine, Maranus remarks, could not be set forth more accurately; for he contends not only that the number of Persons in no manner detracts from the unity of God, but that the unity of God itself can neither consist nor be adored without this number of Persons.
[1678] This is said probably with reference to Peter’s denial.
[1680] Τριαδος. [See Theophilus, vol. ii. p. 101, note.]
[1681] ἀλλ᾽ ἄλλως ἀλληγορεῖ. The words in Italics are given only in the Latin. They may have dropped from the Greek text. At any rate, some such addition seems necessary for the sense.
[1683] Mic. ii. 7, 8. δόξαν: In the present text of the Septuagint it is δοράν, skin.
[1684] Hippolytus omits the words διὰ τῆς σαρκός and καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, and reads φανερωθῇ for πληρωθῇ.
[1685] ὅν Υἱὸν προσηγόρευε διὰ τὸ μέλλειν αὐτὸν γενέσθαι.
[1686] Hippolytus thus gives more definite expression to this temporality of the Sonship, as Dorner remarks, than even Tertullian. See Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ (T. & T. Clark), div. i. vol. ii. p. 88, etc. [Pearson On the Creed, art. ii. p. 199 et seqq. The patristic citations are sufficient, and Hippolytus may be harmonized with them.]
[1687] τὴν σύστασιν.
[1688] “Σύστασις,” says Dorner, “be it observed, is not yet equivalent to personality. The sense is, it had its subsistence in the Logos; He was the connective and vehicular force. This is thoroughly unobjectionable. He does not thus necessarily pronounce the humanity of Christ impersonal; although in view of what has preceded, and what remains to be adduced, there can be no doubt [?] that Hippolytus would have defended the impersonality, had the question been agitated at the period at which he lived.” See Dorner, as above, i. 95. [But compare Burton, Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, etc., pp. 60–87, where Tertullian and Hippolytus speak for themselves. Note also what he says of the latter, and his variations of expression, p. 87.]
[1690] Reading ἐξῆλθον. The Latin interpreter seems to read ἐξελθόν = what is this that came forth.
[1691] πνεῦμα. The divine in Christ is thus designated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers generally. See Grotius on Mark ii. 8; and for a full history of the term in this use, Dorner’s Person of Christ, i. p. 390, etc. (Clark).
[1692] την περὶ τοῦτον οἰκονομιαν.
[1693] τὴν τοῦ δημιουργήσαντος ἔμπειρον καὶ ἀνεκδιήγητου τέχνην.
[1694] i.e., Matthew and Luke in their Gospels.
[1697] [A noble aphorism. See Shedd, Hist. of Theol., i. pp. 300, 301, and tribute to Pearson, p. 319, note. The loving spirit of Auberlen, on the defeat of rationalism, may be noted with profit in his Divine Revelations, translation, Clark’s ed., 1867.]
[1699] μακάριοι.
[1700] κατὰ φαντασίαν ἢ τροπήν.
[1701] [The sublimity of this concluding chapter marks our author’s place among the most eloquent of Ante-Nicene Fathers.]
[1702] The following passage agrees almost word for word with what is cited as from the Memoria hæresium of Hippolytus by Gelasius, in the De duabus naturis Christi, vol. viii. Bibl. Patr., edit. Lugd. p. 704. [Compare St. Ignatius, vol. i. cap. vii. p. 52, this series; and for the crucial point (γεννητὸς καὶ ἀγέννητος) see Jacobson, ii. p. 278.]
[1703] Or, by deed, ἔργῳ.
[1704] ἱερατευόμενος, referring to John xi. 51, 52.
[1708] Matt. xvii. 5. [It may be convenient for some to turn to the Oxford translation of Bishop Bull’s Defensio, part i. pp. 193–216, where Tertullian and Hippolytus are nobly vindicated on Nicene grounds. The notes are also valuable.]
[1709] Matt. xxvii. 29. στεφανοῦται κατὰ διαβόλου, [i.e., with thorns].
[1710] [Hippolytus confirms Tertullian’s testimony. Compare vol. iii. pp. 35 and 58.]
[1711] κατὰ στοιχεῖον. The Latin title in the version of Anastasius renders it “ex sermone qui est per elementum.”
[1712] περὶ θεολογίας.
[1713] For ῞Ηλικοςthe Codex Regius et Colbertinus of Nicephorus prefers “῝Ηλικίωνος. Fabricius conjectures that we should read ηλικιωτῶ αἱρετικῶν, so that the title would be, Against Beron and his fellow-heretics. [N.B. Beron = "Vero".]
[1714] αὐτῷ τῷ…Θεῷ.
[1715] τοῖς ἕκαστα φυσικοις διεξαγόμενα νόμοις. Anastasius makes it naturalibus producta legibus; Capperonnier, suis quæque legibus temperata vel ordinata.
[1716] τροπὴ γὰρ τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπείρου, κινεῖσθαι μὴ πεφυκότος, ἡ κίνησις; or may the sense be, “for a change in that which is in its nature infinite would just be the moving of that which is incapable of movement?”
[1717] μηδ᾽ ἑνὶ παντελῶς ὃ ταυτόν ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ γενόμενος ταυτὸν τῇ σαρκὶ διὰ τὴν κένωσιν. Thus in effect Combefisius, correcting the Latin version of Anastasius. Baunius adopts the reading in the Greek Codex Nicephori, viz., ἕνωσιν for κένωσιν, and renders it, “In nothing was the Word, who is the same with the Father, made the same with the flesh through the union:” nulla re Verbum quod idem est cum Patre factum est idem cum carne propter unionem.
[1718] δίχα σαρκὸς, i.e., what He was before assuming the flesh, that He continued to be in Himself, viz., independent of limitation.
[1719] θεϊκῶς.
[1720] Or existence, ὕπαρξιν. Anastasius makes it substantia.
[1721] οὐσίαν.
[1722] ἐνεργείας.
[1723] φυσικῆς ἰδιότητος.
[1724] κατὰ σύγκρισιν. Migne follows Capperonnier in taking σύγκρισις in this passage to mean not “comparison” or “relation,” but “commixture,” the “concretion and commixture” of the divine and human, which was the error of Apollinaris and Eutyches in their doctrine of the incarnation, and which had been already refuted by Tertullian, Contra Praxeam, c. xxvii.
[1725] Or, “for that would be to speak of the same being as greater and less than Himself.”
[1726] υποστασιν.
[1727] αὐτοσθενές.
[1728] σωτήριον σάρκωσιν.
[1729] οὐδ᾽ ὥσπερ τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος οὕτω καὶ αὐτῆς φυσικῶς ἐκφυομένην.
[1731] σωματώσεως.
[1732] Referring probably to Eph. i. 10.
[1733] ὑπεράπειρος.
[1734] αὐτουργῶν.
[1735] λόγος.
[1736] The text is, διὰ τῶν ἀνομοίων μὲν ύπάρχοντα. Anastasius reads μὴ for μέν.
[1737] σωματώσεως.
[1738] τῆς ὅλης θεότητος.
[1739] συνέφυ.
[1740] Κατὰ σύλληψιν πάντα περιγράφουσαν νοῦν.
[1741] οὔτε μὴν εἰς τ᾽ αὐτὸν αὐτῷ φέρεσθαι φύσεώς ποτε καὶ φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας, ἕως ἂν ἑκάτερον τῆς ἰδίας ἐντὸς μένει φυσικῆς ἀτρεψίας. Το φέρεσθαι we supply again πέφυκε.
[1742] οὐσίαν.
[1743] The sense is extremely doubtful here. The text runs thus: ὁμοφυῶν γὰρ μόνων ἡ ταυτουργός ἐστι κίνησις σημαίνουσα τὴν οὐσίαν, ἧς φυσικὴ καθέστηκε δύναμις, ἑτεροφυοῦς ἰδιότητος οὐσίας εἶναι κατ᾽ οὐδένα λόγον, ἢ γενέσθαι δίχα τροπῆς δυναμένην. Anastasius renders it: Connaturalium enim tantum per se operans est motus, manifestans substantiam, cujus naturalem constat esse virtutem: diversæ naturæ proprietatis substantia nulla naturæ esse vel fieri sine convertibilitate valente.
[1744] διττὴν καὶ διαφορὰν ἔχον διέγνωσται τὴν ἐν πᾶσι φυσικὴν θεωρίαν.
[1745] The text goes, ἕως ἂν οὐχ, which is adopted by Combefisius. But Capperonnier and Migne read οὖν for οὐχ, as we have rendered it.
[1746] Change, κίνησις.
[1747] μένει ἀνέκπτωτος.
[1748] γενέσθαι ταυτουργὸν τῇ θεότητι.
[1749] ταυτοπαθῆ τῇ σαρκί.
[1750] κένωσιν.
[1751] σύγχυσιν.
[1752] ὁμοεργῆ.
[1753] συγκεχυμένων. [Vol. iii. p. 623].
[1754] δυάς.
[1755] προσώπων.
[1756] τετράς, i.e., instead of Trinity [the Τριὰς].
[1757] μετάπτωσις. [Compare the Athanasian Confession].
[1758] ἵσον ἑαυτῷ καὶ ταυτόν.
[1759] ἀκατάλληλον.
[1760] τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως οὐσιώδη λόγον.
[1761] ταυτουργίαν.
[1762] διαίρεσιν προσωπικήν.
[1763] ὑπάρξεως.
[1764] ἱδιωμάτων.
[1765] φυσικῆς ἔξω γεγονὼς ἰσότητος καὶ ταυτόητος.
[1766] ἰδίωμα.
[1767] ἑτεροφανοῦς οὐσίας.
[1768] δημιουργόν.
[1769] ἐνουσιώσας.
[1770] Or sensitive, αἰσθητικοῦ.
[1771] ἀνοχῇ πάσχων θεότητος.
[1772] γυμνὸν σώματος.
[1773] ἄμοιρον δράσας θεότητος.
[1774] καινοπρεπῆ τρόπον.
[1775] τὸ κατ᾽ ἄμφω φυσικῶς ἀναλλοίωτον.
[1776] εἰς πίστωσιν.
[1777] ἐνανθρωπήσεως. [See Athanasian Creed, in Dutch Hymnal.]
[1778] μηδὲν ἐχούσης φαυλότητος.
[1779] ἐνεργείας μονάδι.
[1780] ταυτουργίαν.
[1781] μόνης τῆς τῶν ὁμοφυῶν προσώπων ὁμοφυοῦς ταυτότητος.
The Discourse on the Holy Theophany.
[1782] δίσκου.
[1783] σεληνιακοῦ στοιχείου.
[1784] πολυπηγήτου τῶν ἄστρων μουσίου.
[1785] φύσεως.
[1786] στοιχεῖα.
[1787] Ps. cxlviii. 4. [Pindar (῞Αριστον μὲν ὕδωρ, Olymp., i. 1), is expounded and then transcended.]
[1788] ἀξιοπιστίαν.
[1794] Economically.
[1800] οὐ παρθενίαν ἐστείρωσα. So Gregory Thaumaturgus, Sancta Theophania, p. 106, edit. Vossii: “Thou, when born of the Virgin Mary,…didst not loose her virginity; but didst preserve it, and gifted her with the name of mother.”
[1805] παράπτω.
[1806] It was a common opinion among the ancient theologians that the devil was ignorant of the mystery of the economy, founding on such passages as Matt. iv. 3, 1 Cor. ii. 8. (Fabricius.) [See Ignatius, vol. i. p. 57, this series.]
[1807] γυμνός.
[1808] ἀπροστάτευτος.
[1810] ἀκανόνιστα δογματίζεις.
[1815] φῶς ἄϋλον γεννᾷ φῶς ἀπρόσιτον. The Son is called “Light of Light” in the Discourse against Noetus, ch. x. [See p. 227 supra.] In φῶς ἀπρόσιτον the reference is to 1 Tim. vi. 16.
[1816] ἐπεφάνη οὐκ ἐφάνη. See Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. p. 97 (Clark).
[1818] Luke ix. 5. [Compare the Paradoxes, attributed to Bacon, in his Works, vol. xiv. p. 143; also the Appendix, pp. 139–142.]
[1819] ῥαπιζόμενος, referring to the slap in the process of manumitting slaves.
[1821] Matt. xxvi. 67. [From which proceeds His Church.]
[1822] That is, the sin introduced by Eve, who was formed by God out of Adam’s side. (Fabricius.)
[1823] ἔσται καὶ Θεός, referring probably to 2 Pet. i. 4, ἵνα διὰ τούτων γένησθε θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως, “that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature.” [See vol. iii. p. 317, note 11. Tertullian anticipates the language of the “Athanasian Confession,”—“taking the manhood into God;” applicable, through Christ, to our redeemed humanity. Eph. ii. 6; Rev. iii. 21.]
[1824] κολυμβήθρας.
[1835] τέκνον.
[1837] This seems to refer to what the poets sing as to the sun rising out of the waves of ocean. (Fabricius.) [Note, this is not said of such as Simon Magus, but of one who puts off the bondage, i.e., of corruption. Our author’s perorations are habitually sublime.]
I. From the Discourse of Hippolytus, Bishop of Rome, on the Resurrection and Incorruption.
[1838] From a Discourse on the Resurrection, in Anastasius Sinaita, Hodegus, p. 350. This treatise is mentioned in the list of his works given on the statue, and also by Jerome, Sophronius, Nicephorus, Honorius, etc.
[1840] ἀρευσίᾳ.
[1841] γεννᾶται.
II. From the Discourse of St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, on the Divine Nature.
[1842] From the Discourse on the Theology or the Doctrine of Christ’s Divine Nature, extant in the Acts of the Lateran Council, under Martinus 1., ann. 649, secret. v. p. 287, vol. vii. edit. Veneto-Labb.
[1843] περὶ θεολογίας.
[1844] οὐ τὸ μὴ θέλειν.
[1845] τρεπτοῦ καὶ προαιρετοῦ.
III. St. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, in his Homily on the Paschal Supper.
[1846] From a Homily on the Lord’s Paschal Supper, ibid., p. 293.
[1847] ὅλος.
[1848] καὶ ἄνθρωπος, also man. See Grabe, Bull’s Defens. Fid. Nic., p. 103.
[1851] From a Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. In Theodoret, Dial. I., bearing the title “Unchangeable” (ἄτρεπτος); Works, vol. iv. p. 36.
[1852] From the same Discourse. From Theodoret’s Second Dialogue, bearing the title “Unmixed,” ἀσύγχυτος; Works, vol. iv. p. 88.
[1854] [Man’s nature was never before in heaven. John iii. 13; Acts ii. 34.]
[1855] From an Oration on “The Lord is my Shepherd.” In Theodoret, Dial. I. p. 36.
[1857] From a Discourse on the “Great Song” [i.e., Ps. xc. See Bunsen, i. p. 285. Some suppose it Ps. cxix.] In Theodoret, Dial. II. pp. 88, 89.
[1858] τὸν κάτω εἰς τὰ ἄνω. [See p. 238, note 17, supra.]
[1859] From a Discourse on the beginning of Isaiah. In Theodoret, Dial. I. p. 36.
[1860] From a second Oration on Daniel. In the tractate of Eustratius, a presbyter of the Church of Constantinople, “Against those who allege that souls, as soon as they are released from the body, cease to act,” ch. xix., as edited by Allatius in his work on the Continuous Harmony of the Western and the Eastern Church on the Dogma of Purgatory, p. 492. [Conf. Macaire, Theol. Orthod., ii. p. 725.]
[1861] [Nothing of this in the hymn: hence my brackets.]
[1862] From an Oration on the Distribution of Talents. In Theodoret, Dial. II. p. 88.
[1863] From a Discourse on “The two Robbers.” In Theodoret’s Third Dialogue, bearing the title “Impassible” (ἀπαθὴς), p. 156.
Fragments from Other Writings of Hippolytus.
[1864] Preserved by the author of the Chronicon Paschale, ex ed. Cangii, p. 6.
[1865] i.e., the opponent of Hippolytus, one of the forerunners of the Quartodecimans.
[1866] [For pro & con see Speaker’s Com., note to Matt. xxvi.]
III. Hippolytus, Bishop and Martyr, in a letter to a certain queen.
[1868] From a Letter of Hippolytus to a certain queen. In Theodoret’s Dial. II., bearing the title “Unmixed” (ἀσύγχυτος), and Dial. III., entitled “Impassible” (ἀπαθης) [pp. 238–239 supra].
[1869] On the question as to who this queen was, see Stephen le Moyne, in notes to the Varia Sacra, pp. 1103, 1112. In the marble monument mention is made of a letter of Hippolytus to Severina. [Bunsen decides that she was only a princess, a daughter of Alexander Severus. See his Hippolytus, i. p. 276.]
[1872] John xx. 27; Luke xxiv. 39.
The story of a maiden of Corinth, and a certain Magistrianus.
[1873] Extract in Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, chap. cxlviii.; Gallandi, Biblioth., ii. 513.
[1874] Nicephorus also mentions her in his Hist. Eccl., vii. 13.
[1875] [On the morality of this, see vol. ii. pp. 538, 556.]
[1876] From the same, chap. cxlix.
[1877] Nicephorus gives this story also, Hist. Eccl., vii. 13.
[1878] This discourse seems to have been a homily addressed to the people. Fabricius, Works of Hippolytus, vol. ii.
[1879] ἐπιφοιτήσεως.
[1880] γεγονότα. Codex Baroccianus gives εὑρηκότα.
[1881] ὅθεν καί, etc.
[1882] Others, τοῦ υἰοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, of the Son of God.
[1883] θεοτόκου. [The epithet applied to the Blessed Virgin by the “Council of Ephesus,” against Nestorius, a.d. 431. Elucidation, p. 259.] This is one of those terms which some allege not to have been yet in use in the time of Hippolytus. But, as Migne observes, if there were no other argument than this against the genuineness of this discourse, this would not avail much, as the term is certainly used by Origen, Methodius, and Dionysius Alex., who were nearly coeval with Hippolytus.
[1884] ἀπ᾽ αἰώνων.
[1885] βλέποντες.
[1889] κατηγκονδυλίσετε in the text, for which read κατεκονδυλίσατε.
[1891] Manuscript E gives the better reading, λόγον ἅπαντα τοῖς τῶν προφητῶν ῥήμασι, “our whole argument on the words of the prophets.”
[1892] εἰ οὐκ ἐδόθη. Manuscript B omits εἰ = and it was not put into their mouth.
[1893] The text reads ἡγίασαν. Manuscript B reads ἤγγισαν. Migne suggests ἤγειραν.
[1894] ἐξ ὁράσεως.
[1896] For τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἀναστροφήν, Codex B reads διαστροφὴν καὶ φθοράν.
[1897] For ἀνυπότακτον διάθεσιν, Codex B reads ἀταξίαν = unruliness, and adds, καὶ γονεῖς τὰ τέκνα μισήσουσι, καὶ τέκνα τοῖς γονεῦσιν ἐπιβάλλονται χεῖρας, “and parents shall hate their children and children lay hands on their parents.”
[1898] For εἰς τοὺς δούλους απάνθρωποι αὐθεντήσονται, Codex B reads, πρὸς τοὺς δούλους ἀπανθρωπίαν κτησονται.
[1899] For ἐχθροῦ, Codex B reads, διαβόλου, the devil.
[1900] This does not agree with the age of Hippolytus.
[1901] περὶ ἀνθρώπων, which is the reading of Codex B, instead of ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων.
[1902] ἄμετροι, the reading of Codex B instead of ἄνεμοι.
[1903] The text is, ἀπὸ ψυχῶν καὶ ἀπωλείας ἀνθρώπων. We may suggest some such correction as ἀποψυχόντων κατ᾽ ἀπωλείας ἀνθρωπων ="men’s hearts failing them concerning the destruction.”
[1904] διάφοροι. Better with B, ἀδιάφοροι = promiscuous, without distinction, and so perhaps continuous or unseasonable.
[1907] θεηγόροι. Codex B gives θεολόγοι.
[1910] θεολόγος.
[1915] οἱ ἀφόβως ἑαυτοὺς ποιμαίνοντες, instead of the received οἱ ἀποδιορίζοντες ἑαυτούς.
[1920] Unchangeable, ἀπαράτροπον.
[1922] These words, καὶ οἱ ὄνυχες αὐτοῦ χαλκοῖ, are strange both to the Greek and the Hebrew text of Daniel.
[1924] See Hippolytus on Antichrist, ch. xxiv. p. 209, supra.
[1925] πᾶσι τοῖς πέρασιν.
[1926] βλαστοῦ
[1927] σκύμνος.
[1928] ἄρχων.
[1929] ἡγουμενος.
[1930] ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν.
[1931] τὰ ἀποκείμενα.
[1932] καὶ αὐτὸς προσδοκία.
[1935] πτερνίσας.
[1936] After Irenæus, book v. ch. xxx. [vol. i. p. 559, this series], many of the ancients express this opinion. See too Bellarmine, De Pontifice Rom., iii. 12.
[1937] διάβολος.
[1939] φωνὴν ὀξύτητος. There is another reading, σπουδήν = haste.
[1940] χρεμετισμοῦ. [Conf. p. 207, supra.]
[1943] Or, the theologian. The Apocalypse (Rev. 11.3) mentions only two witnesses, who are understood by the ancients in general as Enoch and Elias. The author of the Chronicon Paschale, p. 21, on Enoch, says: “This is he who, along with Elias, is to withstand Antichrist in the last days, and to confute his deceit, according to the tradition of the Church.” This addition as to the return of John the Evangelist is somewhat more uncommon. And yet Ephraem of Antioch, in Photius, cod. ccxxix., states that this too is supported by ancient, ecclesiastical tradition, Christ’s saying in John xxi. 22 being understood to that effect. See also Hippolytus, De Antichristo, ch. l. p. 213, supra.—Migne. [Enoch and Elias are not dead. But see Heb. ix. 27.]
[1944] Dan. ix. 27. ( Note our author’s adoption of the plan of a year for a day, Ezek. iv. 6. See Pusey, Daniel, p. 165.]
[1946] Rev. 11.6; 1 Kings 17.1;Rev. 11.6; 1 Kings 17.1; Ecclesiasticus 48.3.
[1947] παρὰ τοῦ διαβόλου. [That is, by the devil.]
[1948] ἀναφανέν. But Cod. B reads ἀναφυέν.
[1949] ἀνομίας. Cod. B gives ἀπωλείας, perdition; and for μέλλει = is to, it reads θέλει = wishes. [2 Thess. ii. 3, 4–8.]
[1950] Cod. B gives ἀειπαρθένου, ever-virgin.
[1951] ἐν πλάνῃ. Cod. B reads ἀκριβῶς, exactly. Many of the ancients hold that Antichrist will be a demon in human figure. See Augustine, Sulpicius Severus, in Dialogue II., and Philippus Dioptra, iii. 11, etc.
[1952] φανταστικὴν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ οὐσίαν.
[1953] Organ, ὄργανον.
[1954] Cod. B reads τὴν θεοτόκον ἔγνωμεν σαρκικῶς καὶ ἀπλανῶς, instead of the text, σαρκοφόρον ἀπλανῶς, etc. [Conf. vol. iii. p. 523.]
[1955] Ex. xxxiv. 19; Num. viii. 16; Luke ii. 23.
[1956] οὐ μὴν οὐδαμῶς.
[1959] Dan. ix. 27. [The ἀνομία which more and more prevails in our age in all nations, makes all this very significant to us, of “the last days.”]
[1961] ἐν τῇ γραφῇ.
[1962] ἀρνοῦμαι. But the letters of the word ἀρνοῦμαι in their numerical value will not give the number 666 unless it is written ἀρνοῦμε. See Haymo on the Apocalypse, book iv.
[1963] The text is in confusion: ἐπειδὴ καὶ πρώην διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀντίδικος ἐχθρὸς, ἢ γοῦν τῶν εἰδωλολατρῶν, τοῖς μάρτυσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ προέτρεπον οἱ ἄνομοι, etc.
[1964] ἀντίδικος. In B, πλάνος = deceiver.
[1965] B reads τόν κόσμον, the world.
[1966] B reads ὀδύνης, pain.
[1967] [Note this. The faithful are to have the Holy Scriptures in their hand. But this has been condemned by repeated bulls and anathemas of Roman pontiffs; e.g., by Clement XI., a.d. 1713; and no Bible in the vulgar tongue ever appeared in Rome till a.d. 1870, on the overthrow of the papal kingdom.]
[1968] [Deut. xxviii. 66, 67.]
[1969] [The reference is to Mal. i. 11, and incense is expounded spiritually by the Ante-Nicene Fathers generally. See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 574, Tertullian, iii. p. 346 and passim.]
[1971] [The public reading of Scripture-lessons is implied, Acts xv. 21. See Hooker, Eccl. Pol., book v. cap. xix.]
[1972] παθῶν. B reads παγίδων, snares.
[1973] R reads δαιμόνων, demons.
[1974] ἐπιφάνεια.
[1976] See Jo. Voss, Theses Theolog., p. 228. [And compare, concerning Constantine’s vision, Robertson and his notes, Hist., vol. i. p. 186, and Newman’s characteristic argument in his Essay on Miracles, prefixed to the third volume of his Fleury, pp. 133–143.]
[1979] πολλοί, for the received οἱ νεκροί.
[1987] διέφθειραν. B reads ἔκραξαν.
[1990] The text gives ἐνθυμηθεῖ τε, for which B reads ἐνθυμεῖται.
[1995] Zech. xii. 10; John xix. 37.
[1997] [All this is in the manner of Hippolytus; and here is a striking testimony to a daily Eucharist, if this be genuine.]
[1998] κεκαλλώπισται. [Isa. xxxiii. 17.]
[1999] δέσποτα.
[2000] φοβερέ.
[2001] ἀθάνατε.
[2002] φιλάνθρώπε.
[2003] Matt. xxv. 37, etc.
[2004] συνάναρχος.
[2005] Esdr. iii. 8.
[2007] δημιουργήσας.
[2010] Isa. lxiv. 4; 1 Cor. ii. 9.
[2011] συμπέρασμα.
[2012] Tossings, μετεωρισμούς. [“Tossings,” etc. Does it refer to the somersaults of harlequins?]
[2018] [Here follows the text, Rev. 2.10, transposed above.]
Hippolytus on the Twelve Apostles:
[2019] Or Albanum.
[2020] [The general tradition is, that he was flayed alive, and then crucified.]
[2021] [See Scrivener, Introduction, p. 282, note 1, and Lardner, Credib., ii. 494, etc.]
[2022] Μάργοις. Combefisius proposes Μάρδοις. Jerome has “Magis.”
[2023] The text is ἐλακήδη ἐλογχιάσθη, ἐλακήδη being probably for ἐλάτῃ.
[2024] Καλαμήνῃ. Steph. le Moyne reads Καραμήνῃ.
[2025] Αἰδεσινοῖς.
[2026] ὁ Κανανίτης.
The same Hippolytus on the Seventy Apostles.
[2027] In the Codex Baroccian. 206. This is found also, along with the former piece, On the Twelve Apostles, in two codices of the Coislinian or Seguierian Library, as Montfaucon states in his recension of the Greek manuscripts of that library. He mentions also a third codex of Hippolytus, On the Twelve Apostles. [Probably spurious, but yet antique.]
[2028] ἀδελφόθεος.
[2029] ἐξελθών.
[2030] The text is, οὖτοι οἱ Β᾽ τῶν ό τυγχανόντων διασκορπισθέντων. It may be meant for, “these two of the seventy were scattered,” etc.
[2032] εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, perhaps = write of that Gospel, as the Latin version puts it. [But St. Mark’s body is said to be in Venice.]
[2033] Magus.
[2034] Rom. xvi. 14, Πατρόβας.
[2035] In the manuscript there is a lacuna here.
Heads of the Canons of Abulide or Hippolytus, Which are used by the Æthiopian Christians.
[2036] These were first published in French by Jo. Michael Wanslebius in his book De Ecclesia Alexandrina, Paris, 1677, p. 12; then in Latin, by Job Ludolfus, in his Commentar. ad historiam Æthiopicam, Frankfort, 1691, p. 333; and by William Whiston, in vol. iii. of his Primitive Christianity Revived, published in English at London, 1711, p. 543. He has also noted the passages in the Constitutions Apostolicæ, treating the same matters.
[2037] Constit. Apostol., lib. vi. ch. 11, etc.
[2038] Lib. vii. ch. 41.
[2039] Lib. vii. ch. 4, 5, 10. [The service of the faithful, Missa Fidelium, not the modern Mass. See Bingham, book xv. The Missa was an innocent word for the dismission of those not about to receive the Communion. See Guettée, Exposition, etc., p. 433.]
[2040] Lib. viii. ch. 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 45.
[2041] Lib. viii. ch. 21, 22.
[2042] Lib. viii. ch. 1, 2.
[2043] Lib. viii. ch. 46, 32.
[2044] Lib. viii. ch. 46, 32.
[2045] Studia.
[2046] Lib. viii. ch. 46, 32.
[2047] Wanting.
[2048] Lib. viii. ch. 32.
[2049] Lib. viii. ch. 32.
[2050] Lib. viii. ch. 32.
[2051] Lib. viii. ch. 32.
[2052] Lib. ii. ch. 57.
[2053] Lib. v. ch. 6.
[2054] Lib. v. ch. 13, 15.
[2055] Lib. ii. ch. 36.
[2056] Lib. v. ch. 15, etc.
[2057] Lib. vii. ch. 39, 40, 41.
[2058] Lib. iv. ch. 2.
[2059] Lib. iii. ch. 19, viii. ch. 34.
[2060] Lib. viii. ch. 32.
[2061] Lib. ii. ch. 59.
[2062] Wanting.
[2063] Wanting,
[2064] Lib. vii. ch. 39, etc.
[2065] Lib. viii. ch. 28.
[2066] Lib. iii. ch. 6, 7, 13.
[2067] Lib iv. ch. 14, viii. ch. 41–44.
[2068] i.e., laymen.
[2069] Lib. ii. ch. 57.
[2070] Wanting.
[2071] Or offerings. Lib. ii. ch. 25.
[2072] [Synaxis. Elucidation II.]
[2073] Lib. vii. ch. 29, viii. 30, 31. (See the whole history of ecclesiastical antiquity, on this point, in the learned work of Wharton B. Marriott, Vestiarium Christianum, London, Rivingtons, 1868.]
[2074] Lib. viii. ch. 12, v. ch. 19.
Canons of the Church of Alexandria. Wrongly ascribed to Hippolytus.
[2075] De Magistris, Acta Martyrum ad Ostia Tiberina, Rome, 1795, fol. Append., p. 478. [Bunsen, vol. ii. p. 302.]
[2076] [Ad proferendum sancte. A very primitive token.]
[2077] [Note this mild excommunication of primitive ages.]
[2078] Ordinatio missæ. [Missa. See note 6, p, 256, supra.]
[2079] Connection, textum.
[2080] Sanctuary [Guettée, p. 424. Within the chancel-rails.]
[2081] [Bells first used in the fourth century by Paulinus in Campania.]
[2082] And of the preparing a table for the poor.
[2083] [A very strange title in many respects. But see p. 239, supra.]
[2084] Leighton, Works, edited by West, of Nairn, vol. vi. p. 243, note. London, Longmans, 1870.
[2085] 1 Cor. xi. 29-34. Chrysostom evidently has in view the apostle’s argument, based on the Communion as a Synaxis, and not on its hierurgic aspects.
[2086] Mendham’s Literary Policy of the Church of Rome (passim), and also the old work of James, On the Corruption of Scripture, Councils, and Fathers, a new edition. London: Parker, 1843.
Search Comments
This page has been visited 0196 times.
| << | Contents | >> |
10 per page