Hippolytus

Footnotes

^[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.

^[1089] Ps. xxxii. 9.

^[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.]

10 per page

Search Comments

This page has been visited 0196 times.

Contents