Book VII. (Cont.)

Chap. XVII. – Marcion; His Dualism; Derives His System from Empedocles; Sketch of the Doctrine of Empedocles.

But Marcion,51 a native of Pontus, far more frantic than these (heretics), omitting the majority of the tenets of the greater number (of speculators), (and) advancing into a doctrine still more unabashed, supposed (the existence of) two originating causes of the universe, alleging one of them to be a certain good (principle), but the other an evil one. And himself imagining that he was introducing some novel (opinion), founded a school full of folly, and attended by men of a sensual mode of life, inasmuch as he himself was one of lustful propensities.52 This (heretic) having thought that the multitude would forget that he did not happen to be a disciple of Christ, but of Empedocles,53 who was far anterior to himself, framed and formed the same opinions, – namely, that there are two causes of the universe, discord and friendship. For what does Empedocles say respecting the plan of the world? Even though we have previously spoken (on this subject), yet even now also, for the purpose, at all events, of comparing the heresy of this plagiarist (with its source), we shall not be silent.

This (philosopher) affirms that all the elements out of which the world consists and derives its being, are six: two of them material, (viz.,) earth and water; and two of them instruments by which material objects are arranged and altered, (viz.,) fire and air; and two of them, by means of the instruments, operating upon matter and fashioning it, viz., discord and friendship. (Empedocles) expresses himself somehow thus: – 

“The four roots of all things hear thou first:

Brilliant Jove, and life-giving Juno and Aidoneus,

And Nestis, who with tears bedews the mortal font.”54

Jupiter is fire, and life-giving Juno earth, which produces fruits for the support of existence; and Aidoneus air, because although through him we behold all things, yet himself alone we do not see. But Nestis is water, for this is a sole vehicle of (food), and thus becomes a cause of sustenance to all those that are being nourished; (but) this of itself is not able to afford nutriment to those that are being nourished. For if it did possess the power of affording nutriment, animal life, he says, could never be destroyed by famine, inasmuch as water is always superabundant in the world. For this reason he denominates Nestis water, because, (though indirectly) being a cause of nutriment, it is not (of itself) competent to afford nutriment to those things that are being nourished. These, therefore – to delineate them as by way of outline – are the principles that comprise (Empedocles’) entire theory of the world: (viz.,) water and earth, out of which (proceed) generated entities; fire and spirit, (which are) instruments and efficient (causes), but discord and friendship, which are (principles) artistically fabricating (the universe). And friendship is a certain peace, and unanimity, and love, whose entire effort is, that there should be one finished and complete world. Discord, however, invariably separates that one (world), and subdivides it, or makes many things out of one. Therefore discord is of the entire creation a cause which he styles “oulomenon,” that is, destructive. For it is the concern of this (discord), that throughout every age the creation itself should continue to preserve its existing condition. And ruinous discord has been (thus) a fabricator and an efficient cause of the production of all generated entities; whereas friendship (is the cause) of the eduction, and alteration, and restoration of existing things into one system. And in regard of these (causes), Empedocles asserts that they are two immortal and unbegotten principles, and such as have not as yet received an originating cause of existence. (Empedocles) somewhere or other (expresses himself) in the following manner: – 

“For if both once it was, and will be; never, I think,

Will be the age eternal void of both of these.”55

(But) what are these (two)? Discord and Friendship; for they did not begin to come into being, but pre-existed and always will exist, because, from the fact of their being unbegotten, they are not able to undergo corruption. But fire, (and water,) and earth, and air, are (entities) that perish and revive. For when these generated (bodies), by reason of Discord, cease to exist, Friendship, laying hold on them, brings them forward, and attaches and associates them herself with the universe. (And this takes place) in order that the Universe may continue one, being always ordered by Friendship in a manner one and the same, and with (uninterrupted) uniformity.

When, however, Friendship makes unity out of plurality, and associates with unity separated entities, Discord, again, forcibly severs them from unity, and makes them many, that is, fire, water, earth, air, (as well as) the animals and plants produced from these, and whatever portions of the world we observe. And in regard of the form of the world, what sort it is, (as) arranged by Friendship, (Empedocles) expresses himself in the following terms: – 

“For not from back two arms arise,

Not feet, not nimble knees, not genital groin,

But a globe it was, and equal to itself it is.”56

An operation of this description Friendship maintains, and makes (one) most beautiful form of the world out of plurality. Discord, however, the cause of the arrangement of each of the parts (of the universe), forcibly severs and makes many things out of that one (form). And this is what Empedocles affirms respecting his own generation: – 

“Of these I also am from God a wandering exile.”57

That is, (Empedocles) denominates as God the unity and unification of that (one form) in which (the world) existed antecedent to the separation and production (introduced) by Discord among the majority of those things (that subsisted) in accordance with the disposition (effected) by Discord. For Empedocles affirms Discord to be a furious, and perturbed, and unstable Demiurge, (thus) denominating Discord the creator of the world. For this constitutes the condemnation and necessity of souls which Discord forcibly severs from unity, and (which it) fashions and operates upon, (according to Empedocles,) who expresses himself after some such mode as, the following: – 

“Who perjury piles on sin,

While demons gain a life prolonged;”58

meaning by demons long-lived souls, because they are immortal, and live for lengthened ages: – 

“For thrice ten thousand years banished from bliss;”59

denominating as blissful, those that have been collected by Friendship from the majority of entities into the process of unification (arising out) of the intelligible world. He asserts that those are exiles, and that

“In lapse of time all sorts of mortal men are born,

Changing the irksome ways of life”60

He asserts the irksome ways to be the alterations and transfigurations of souls into (successive) bodies. This is what he says: – 

“Changing the irksome ways of life.”

For souls “change,” body after body being altered, and punished by Discord, and not permitted to continue in the one (frame), but that the souls are involved in all descriptions of punishment by Discord being changed from body to body. He says: – 

“Ethereal force to ocean drives the souls,

And ocean spurts them forth on earth’s expanse,

And earth on beams of blazing sun, who flings

(The souls) on aether’s depths, and each from each

(A spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn.”61

This is the punishment which the Demiurge inflicts, just as some brazier moulding (a piece of) iron, and dipping it successively from fire into water. For fire is the aether whence the Demiurge transfers the souls into the sea; and land is the earth: whence he uses the words, from water into earth, and from earth into air. This is what (Empedocles) says: – 

“And earth on beams

Of blazing sun, who flings (the souls)

On aether’s depths, and each from each

A (spirit) takes, and all with hatred burn.”

The souls, then, thus detested, and tormented, and punished in this world, are, according to Empedocles, collected by Friendship as being a certain good (power), and (one) that pities the groaning of these, and the disorderly and wicked device of furious Discord. And (likewise Friendship is) eager, and toils to lead forth little by little the souls from the world, and to domesticate them with unity, in order that all things, being conducted by herself, may attain unto unification. Therefore on account of such an arrangement on the part of destructive Discord of this divided world, Empedocles admonishes his disciples to abstain from all sorts of animal food. For he asserts that the bodies of animals are such as feed on the habitations of punished souls. And he teaches those who are hearers of such doctrines (as his), to refrain from intercourse with women. (And he issues this precept) in order that (his disciples) may not co-operate with and assist those works which Discord fabricates, always dissolving and forcibly severing the work of Friendship. Empedocles asserts that this is the greatest law of the management of the universe, expressing himself somehow thus: – 

“There’s something swayed by Fate, the ancient,

Endless law of gods, and sealed by potent oaths.”62

He thus calls Fate the alteration from unity into plurality, according to Discord, and from plurality into unity, according to Friendship. And, as I stated, (Empedocles asserts) that there are four perishable gods, (viz.,) fire, water, earth, (and) air. (He maintains,) however, that there are two (gods) which are immortal, unbegotten, (and) continually hostile one to the other, (namely) Discord and Friendship. And (he asserts) that Discord always is guilty of injustice and covetousness, and forcible abduction of the things of Friendship, and of appropriation of them to itself. (He alleges,) however, that Friendship, inasmuch as it is always and invariably a certain good (power), and intent on union, recalls and brings towards (itself), and reduces to unity, the parts of the universe that have been forcibly severed, and tormented, and punished in the creation by the Demiurge. Some such system of philosophy as the foregoing is advanced for us by Empedocles concerning the generation of the world, and its destruction, and its constitution, as one consisting of what is good and bad. And he says that there is likewise a certain third power which is cognised by intellect, and that this can be understood from these, (viz., Discord and Friendship,) expressing himself somehow thus: – 

“For if, ‘neath hearts of oak, these truths you fix,

And view them kindly in meditations pure,

Each one of these, in lapse of time, will haunt you,

And many others, sprung of these, descend.

For into every habit these will grow, as Nature prompts;

But if for other things you sigh, which, countless, linger

Undisguised ‘mid men, and blunt the edge of care,

As years roll on they’ll leave you fleetly,

Since they yearn to reach their own beloved race;

For know that all possess perception and a share of mind.”63

Chap. XVIII. – Source of Marcionism; Empedocles Reasserted as the Suggester of the Heresy.

When, therefore, Marcion or some one of his hounds barks against the Demiurge, and adduces reasons from a comparison of what is good and bad, we ought to say to them, that neither Paul the apostle nor Mark, he of the maimed finger,64 announced such (tenets). For none of these (doctrines) has been written in the Gospel according to Mark. But (the real author of the system) is Empedocles, son of Meto, a native of Agrigentum. And (Marcion) despoiled this (philosopher), and imagined that up to the present would pass undetected his transference, under the same expressions, of the arrangement of his entire heresy from Sicily into the evangelical narratives. For bear with me, O Marcion: as you have instituted a comparison of what is good and evil, I also to-day will institute a comparison following up your own tenets, as you suppose them to be. You affirm that the Demiurge of the world is evil – why not hide your countenance in shame, (as thus) teaching to the Church the doctrines of Empedocles? You say that there is a good Deity who destroys the works of the Demiurge: then do not you plainly preach to your pupils, as the good Deity, the Friendship of Empedocles. You forbid marriage, the procreation of children, (and) the abstaining from meats which God has created for participation by the faithful, and those that know the truth. (1Ti_4:3) (Thinkest thou, then,) that thou canst escape detection, (while thus) enjoining the purificatory rites of Empedocles? For in point of fact you follow in every respect this (philosopher of paganism), while you instruct your own disciples to refuse meats, in order not to eat any body (that might be) a remnant of a soul which has been punished by the Demiurge. You dissolve marriages that have been cemented by the Deity. And here again you conform to the tenets of Empedocles, in order that for you the work of Friendship may be perpetuated as one (and) indivisible. For, according to Empedocles, matrimony separates unity, and makes (out of it) plurality, as we have proved.

Chap. XIX. – The Heresy of Prepon; Follows Empedocles; Marcion Rejects the Generation of the Saviour.

The principal heresy of Marcion, and (the one of his) which is most free from admixture (with other heresies), is that which has its system formed out of the theory concerning the good and bad (God). Now this, it has been manifested by us, belongs to Empedocles. But since at present, in our times, a certain follower of Marcion, (namely) Prepon, an Assyrian,65 has endeavoured to introduce something more novel, and has given an account of his heresy in a work inscribed to Bardesanes, an Armenian, neither of this will I be silent. In alleging that what is just constitutes a third principle, and that it is placed intermediate between what is good and bad, Prepon of course is not able to avoid (the imputation of inculcating) the opinion of Empedocles. For Empedocles asserts that the world is managed by wicked Discord, and that the other (world) which (is managed) by Friendship, is cognisable by intellect. And (he asserts) that these are the two different principles of good and evil, and that intermediate between these diverse principles is impartial reason, in accordance with which are united the things that have been separated by Discord, (and which,) in accordance with the influence of Friendship, are accommodated to unity. The impartial reason itself, that which is an auxiliary to Friendship, Empedocles denominates “Musa.” And he himself likewise entreats her to assist him, and expresses himself somehow thus: – 

“For if on fleeting mortals, deathless Muse,

Thy care it be that thoughts our mind engross,

Calliope, again befriend my present prayer,

As I disclose a pure account of happy gods.”66

Marcion, adopting these sentiments, rejected altogether the generation of our Saviour. He considered it to be absurd that tinder the (category of a) creature fashioned by destructive Discord should have been the Logos that was an auxiliary to Friendship – that is, the Good Deity. (His doctrine,) however, was that, independent of birth, (the Logos) Himself descended from above in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, and that, as being intermediate between the good and bad Deity, He proceeded to give instruction in the synagogues. For if He67 is a Mediator, He has been, he says, liberated from the entire nature of the Evil Deity. Now, as he affirms, the Demiurge is evil, and his works. For this reason, he affirms, Jesus came down unbegotten, in order that He might be liberated from all (admixture of) evil. And He has, he says, been liberated from the nature of the Good One likewise, in order that He may be a Mediator, as Paul states, (Gal_3:19) and as Himself acknowledges: “Why call ye me good? there is one good,” (Mat_19:17; Mar_10:18; Luk_18:19) These, then, are the opinions of Marcion, by means of which he made many his dupes, employing the conclusions of Empedocles. And he transferred the philosophy invented by that (ancient speculator) into his own system of thought, and (out of Empedocles) constructed his (own) impious heresy. But I consider that this has been sufficiently refuted by us, and that I have not omitted any opinion of those who purloin their opinions from the Greeks, and act despitefully towards the disciples of Christ, as if they had become teachers to them of these (tenets). But since it seems that we have sufficiently explained the doctrines of this (heretic), let us see what Carpocrates says.

Chap. XX. – The Heresy of Carpocrates; Wicked Doctrines Concerning Jesus Christ; Practise Magical Arts; Adopt a Metempsychosis.

Carpocrates68 affirms that the world and the things in it were made by angels, far inferior to the unbegotten Father; and that Jesus was generated of Joseph, and that, having been born similar to (other) men, He was more just than the rest (of the human race). And (Carpocrates asserts) that the soul (of Jesus), inasmuch as it was made vigorous and undefiled, remembered the things seen by it in its converse with the unbegotten God. And (Carpocrates maintains) that on this account there was sent down upon (Jesus) by that (God) a power, in order that through it He might be enabled to escape the world-making (angels). And (he says) that this power, having passed through all, and having obtained liberty in all, again ascended69 to God (Himself). And (he alleges) that in the same condition with (the soul of Jesus are all the souls) that embrace similar objects of desire with the (power just alluded to). And they assert that the soul of Jesus, (though,) according to law, it was disciplined in Jewish customs, (in reality) despised them. And (he says) that on this account (Jesus) received powers whereby, He rendered null and void the passions incidental to men for their punishment. And (he argues), therefore, that the (soul), which, similarly with that soul of Christ, is able to despise the world-making Archons, receives in like man-her power for the performance of similar acts. Wherefore, also, (according to Carpocrates, there are persons who) have attained unto such a degree of pride as to affirm some of themselves to be equal to Jesus Himself, whereas others among them to be even still more powerful. But (they also contend) that some enjoy an excellence above the disciples of that (Redeemer), for instance Peter and Paul, and the rest of the Apostles, and that these are in no respect inferior to Jesus. And (Carpocrates asserts) that the souls of these have originated from that supernal power, and that consequently they, as equally despising the world-making (angels), have been deemed worthy of the same power, and (of the privilege) to ascend to the same (place). If, however, any one would despise earthly concerns more than did that (Saviour, Carpocrates says) that such a one world he able to become superior to (Jesus, The followers of this heretic) practise their magical arts and incantations, and spells and voluptuous feasts. And (they are in the habit of invoking the aid of) subordinate demons and dream-senders, and (of resorting to) the rest of the tricks (of sorcery), alleging that they possess power for now acquiring sway over the Archons and makers of this world, nay, even over all the works that are in it.

(Now these heretics) have themselves been sent forth by Satan, for the purpose of slandering before the Gentiles the divine name of the Church. (And the devil’s object is,) that men hearing, now after one fashion and now after another, the doctrines of those (heretics), and thinking that all of us are people of the same stamp, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth, or that they also, looking, (without abjuring,) upon all the tenets of those (heretics), may speak hurtfully of us. (The followers of Carpocrates) allege that the souls are transferred from body to body, so far as that they may fill up (the measure of) all their sins. When, however, not one (of these sins) is left, (the Carpocratians affirm that the soul) is then emancipated, and departs unto that God above of the world-making angels, and that in this way all souls will be saved. If, however, some (souls), during the presence of the soul in the body for one life, may by anticipation become involved in the full measure of transgressions, they, (according to these heretics,) no longer undergo metempsychosis. (Souls of this sort,) however, on paying off at once all trespasses, will, (the Carpocratians say,) be emancipated from dwelling any more in a body. Certain, likewise, of these (heretics) brand70 their own disciples in the back parts of the lobe of the right ear. And they make counterfeit images of Christ, alleging that these were in existence at the time (during which our Lord was on earth, and that they were fashioned) by Pilate.71

Chap. XXI. – The System of Cerinthus Concerning Christ.

But a certain Cerinthus,72 himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, (Act_17:23) and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual,73 remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

Chap. XXII. – Doctrine of the Ebionaeans.

The Ebionaeans,74 however, acknowledge that the world was made by Him Who is in reality God, but they propound legends concerning the Christ similarly with Cerinthus and Carpocrates. They live conformably to the customs of the Jews, alleging that they are justified, according to the law, and saying that Jesus was justified by fulfilling the law. And therefore it was, (according to the Ebionaeans,) that (the Saviour) was named (the) Christ of God and Jesus,75 since not one of the rest (of mankind) had observed completely the law. For if even any other had fulfilled the commandments (contained) in the law, he would have been that Christ. And the (Ebionaeans allege) that they themselves also, when in like manner they fulfil (the law), are able to become Christs; for they assert that our Lord Himself was a man in a like sense with all (the rest of the human family).

Chap. XXIII. – The Heresy of Theodotus.

But there was a certain Theodotus,76 a native of Byzantium, who introduced a novel heresy. He announces tenets concerning the originating cause of the universe, which are partly in keeping with the doctrines of the true Church, in so far as he acknowledges that all things were created by God. Forcibly appropriating, however, (his notions of) Christ from the school of the Gnostics, and of Cerinthus and Ebion, he alleges that (our Lord) appeared in some such manner as I shall now describe. (According to this, Theodotus maintains) that Jesus was a (mere) man, born of a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, and that after he had lived promiscuously with all men, and had become pre-eminently religious, he subsequently at his baptism in Jordan received Christ, who came from above and descended (upon him) in form of a dove. And this was the reason, (according to Theodotus,) why (miraculous) powers did not operate within him prior to the manifestation in him of that Spirit which descended, (and) which proclaims him to be the Christ. But (among the followers of Theodotus) some are disposed (to think) that never was this man made God, (even) at the descent of the Spirit; whereas others (maintain that he was made God) after the resurrection from the dead.

Chap. XXIV. – The Melchisedecians; the Nicolaitans.

While, however, different questions have arisen among them, a certain (heretic), who himself also was styled Theodotus, and who was by trade a banker,77 attempted to establish (the doctrine), that a certain Melchisedec constitutes the greatest power, and that this one is greater than Christ. And they allege that Christ happens to be according to the likeness (of this Melchisedec). And they themselves, similarly with those who have been previously spoken of as adherents of Theodotus, assert that Jesus is a (mere) man, and that, in conformity with the same account (already given), Christ descended upon him.

There are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these (heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn in regard of78 the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from the Greeks, must stand convicted79 (of these charges). But Nicolaus80 has been a cause of the wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were chosen) for the diaconate,81 was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food.82 And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols. (Rev_2:6)

Chap. XXV. – The Heresy of Cerdon.

But one Cerdon83 himself also, taking occasion in like manner from these (heretics) and Simon, affirms that the God preached by Moses and the prophets was not Father of Jesus Christ. For (he contends) that this (Father) had been known, whereas that the Father of Christ84 was unknown, and that the former was just, but the latter good. And Marcion corroborated the tenet of this (heretic) in the work which he attempted to write, and which he styled Antitheses.85 And he was in the habit, (in this book,) of uttering whatever slanders suggested themselves to his mind against the Creator of the universe. In a similar manner likewise (acted) Lucian,86 the disciple of this (heretic).

Chap. XXVI. – The Doctrines of Apelles; Philumene, His Prophetess.

But Apelles,87 sprung from these, thus expresses himself, (saying) that there is a certain good Deity, as also Marcion supposed, and that he who created all things is just. Now he, (according to Apelles,) was the Demiurge of generated entities. And (this heretic also main-rains) that there is a third (Deity), the one who was in the habit of speaking to Moses, and that this (god) was of a fiery nature, and that there was another fourth god, a cause of evils. But these he denominates angels. He utters, however, slanders against law and prophets, by alleging that the things that have been written are (of) human (origin), and are false. And (Apelles) selects from the Gospels or (from the writings of) the Apostle (Paul) whatever pleases himself, But he devotes himself to the discourses of a certain Philumene as to the revelations88 of a prophetess. He affirms, however, that Christ descended from the power above; that is, from the good (Deity), and that he is the son of that good (Deity). And (he asserts that Jesus) was not born of a virgin, and that when he did appear he was not devoid of flesh. (He maintains,) however, that (Christ) formed his booty by taking portions of it from the substance of the universe: that is, hot and cold, and moist and dry. And (he says that Christ), on receiving in this body cosmical powers, lived for the time he did in (this) world. But (he held that Jesus) was subsequently crucified by the Jews, and expired, and that, being raised Up after three days, he appeared to his disciples. And (the Saviour) showed them, (so Apelles taught,) the prints of the nails and (the wound) in his side, desirous of persuading them that he was in truth no phantom, but was present in the flesh. After, says (Apelles), he had shown them his flesh, (the Saviour) restored it to earth, from which substance it was (derived. And this he did because) he coveted nothing that belonged to another. (Though indeed Jesus) might use for the time being (what belonged to another), he yet in due course rendered to each (of the elements) what peculiarly belonged to them. And so it was, that after he had once more loosed the chains of his body, he gave back heat to what is hot, cold to what is cold, moisture to what is moist, (and) dryness to what is dry. And in this condition (our Lord) departed to the good Father, leaving the seed of life in the world for those who through his disciples should believe in him.

It appears to us that these (tenets) have been sufficiently explained. Since, however, we have determined to leave unrefuted not one of those opinions that have been advanced by any (of the heretics), let us see what (system) also has been invented by the Docetae. 

FOOTNOTES

51 See Irenaeus, i. 27; Tertullian, Adv. Marc., and Praescript., xxx.; Epiphanius, Haer., xlii.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 24; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13, 16; and St. Augustine, Haer., xxii.

52 Or, “quarrelsome,” or “frantic.”

53 Hippolytus’ discussion respecting the heresy of Marcion is chiefly interesting from the light which it throws on the philosophy of Empedocles.

54 These are lines 55-57 in Karsten’s edition of a collection of the Empedoclean verses.

55 These are lines 110, 111, in Stein’s edition of Empedocles.

56 Lines 360-362 (ed. Karst.).

57 Line 7 (Karsten), 381 (Stein).

58 Line 4 (Karsten), 372, 373 (Stein).

59 Line 5 (Karsten), 374 (Stein).

60 Line 6 (Karsten), 375 (Stein).

61 Line 16-19 (Karsten), 377-380 (Stein).

62 Line 1, 2 (Karsten), 370 (Stein).

63 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.)

64 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 Cruise 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 has amputated his thumb, in order that he might be disqualified for the priesthood.

65 What Hippolytus communicates concerning Prepon is quite new. The only writer who mentions him is Theodoret (Haer. Fab., i. 25). in his article on Apelles.

66 Schneidewin gives a restored version of these lines. They are found (at lines 338-341) in Stein’s edition of the Empedoclean Verses.

67 Tertullian combats these heretical notions in his De Carne Christi [vol. 3. p. 521, this series].

68 See Irenaeus, i. 25; Tertullian, De Anima, c. xxiii.-xxv., and Praescript., c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 7, Epiphanius, Haer., xxvii. sec. 2; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 5; and St. Augustine, Haer., c. vii. The entire of this article is taken from Irenaeus, and equally coincides with the account given of Carpocrates by Epiphanius.

69 Or, “came.”

70 Literally, “cauterize.”

71 Epiphanius alludes in the same manner to these images.

72 See Irenaeus, i. 26, iii. 2, 3; Tertullian, Praescript. c. xlviii.; Eusebius, Hist Ecclesiast., iii. 28, vii 25; Epiphanius, Haer. xviii. Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 3, St. Augustine, Haer., c. viii.; and St. Jerome, Ep. lxxxix. We have here, as in the preceding articles, Irenaeus in the Greek, as Hippolytus’ text corresponds with the Latin version of this portion of Irenaeus’ work.

73 Or, “paternal.”

74 See Irenaeus, i. 26; Tertullian, Praescript., c. xlviii.; Origen, Contr. Cels., ii. 1; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 27; Epiphanius, Haer., xxx., and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 2. Hippolytus is indebted in this article partly to Irenaeus, and partly to original sources.

75 Or, “that the Christ of God was named Jesus” (Bunsen).

76 See Tertullian, Praescript., c. liii.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast, v. 27; Epiphanius, Haer., liv.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus seems to have been greatly indebted to Theodotus, whose system he has explained and commented upon.

77 Concerning the younger Theodotus, see [vol. 3. p. 654] Tertullian, Praescript., c. liii.; Epiphanius, Haer., lv.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., ii. 6.

78 Or, “in reference to” (Bunsen).

79 Or, “have been adduced” (Miller).

80 See Irenaeus, i. 26; [ut supra] Tertullian, Praescript., c. xlv.; Epiphanius, Haer., c. xxv.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iii. 29; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 15; and St. Augustine, Haer. c. v. [But see Clement, vol. 2. p. 373, this series.]

81 [He understands that the seven (Act_6:5) were deacons. Bunsen, i. p. 97.]

82 Or, “knowledge.” Bunsen suggests βρώσεως, as translated above.

83 Irenaeus, i. 27; Eusebius (who here gives Irenaeus’ Greek), Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 2; Epiphanius, c. xli.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 24; and Philastrius, c. xliv.

84 Hippolytus follows Irenaeus, but introduces some alterations.

85 Ἀντιθέσεις. This is the emendation proposed by the Abbe Cruice. The textual reading is ἀντιπαραθέσεις (comparisons).

86 See [ut supra, p. 353] Tertullian, Praescript., c. li.; and Epiphanius, Haer., c. xliii.

87 See Tertullian, Praescript., c. xxx.; Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. 13; Epiphanius, Haer., c. xliv.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 25; and St. Augustine, Haer. c. xxiv.

88 φανερώσεσι. Miller’s text reads φανερῶς, the error of which is obvious from Tertullian’s Praescript., c. xxx. Cruice considers the word to signify the title of a work written by Apelles.

Book VIII.1

Contents.

The following are the contents of the eighth book of the Refutation of all Heresies: – 

What are the opinions of the Docetae, and that they have formed the doctrines which they assert from natural philosophy.

How Monoïmus2 trifles, devoting his attention to poets, and geometricians, and arithmeticians.

How (the system of) Tatian has arisen from the opinions of Valentinus and Marcion, and how this heretic (from this source) has formed his own doctrines. Hermogenes, however, availed himself of the tenets of Socrates, not those of Christ.

How those err who contend for keeping Easter on the fourteenth day.

What the error is of the Phrygians, who suppose that Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, are prophets.

What the conceit is of the Encratites, and that their opinions have been formed not from the Holy Scriptures,3 but from themselves, and the Gymnosophists among the Indians.

Chap. I. – Heresies Hitherto Refuted; Opinions of the Docetae.

Since the great body of (the heretics) do not employ the counsel of the Lord, by having the beam in the eye, (Mat_7:3, Mat_7:4; Luk_6:41, Luk_6:42) and announce that they see when in reality labouring under blindness, it seems to us expedient in no wise to be silent concerning the tenets of these. Our object is, that by the refutation accomplished by us, the (heretics), being of themselves ashamed, may be brought to know how the Saviour has advised (men) first to take away the beam, then to behold clearly the mote that is in thy brother’s eye. Having therefore adequately and sufficiently explained the doctrines of the majority (of the heretics) in the seven books before this, we shall not now be silent as regards the (heterodox) opinions that follow (from these). We shall by this means exhibit the abundance of the grace of the Holy Spirit; and we shall refute those (who suppose) that they have acquired stedfastness of doctrine, when it is only in appearance. Now these have styled themselves Docetae,4 and propound the following opinions: – 

(The Docetae maintain) that God is the primal (Being), as it were a seed of a fig-tree, which is altogether very diminutive in size, but infinite in power. (This seed constitutes, according to the Docetae,) a lowly magnitude, incalculable in multitude,5 (and) labouring under no deficiency as regards generation. (This seed is) a refuge for the terror-stricken, a shelter of the naked, a veil for modesty, (and) the sought-for produce, to which He came in search (for fruit), he says, three times,6 and did not discover (any). Wherefore, he says, He cursed the fig-tree, (Mat_21:19, Mat_21:20; Mar_11:13, Mar_11:14, Mar_11:20, Mar_11:21) because He did not find upon it that sweet fruit – the sought-for produce. And inasmuch as the Deity is, according to them to express myself briefly – of this description and so great, that is, small and minute, the world, as it seems to them, was made in some such manner as the following: When the branches of the fig-tree became tender, leaves budded (first), as one may (generally) see, and next in succession the fruit. Now, in this (fruit) is preserved treasured the infinite and incalculable seed of the fig-tree. We think, therefore, (say the Docetae,) that there are three (parts) which are primarily produced by the seed of the fig-tree, (viz.,) stem, which constitutes the fig-tree, leaves, and fruit – the fig itself, as we have previously declared. In this manner, the (Docetic) affirms, have been produced three Aeons, which are principles from the primal originating cause of the universe. And Moses has not been silent on this point, when he says, that there are three words of God, “darkness, gloom, tempest, and added no more.” (Deu_5:22) For the (Docetic) says, God has made no addition to the three Aeons; but these, in every respect, have been sufficient for (the exigencies of) those who have been begotten and are sufficient. God Himself, however, remains with Himself, far separated from the three Aeons. When each of these Aeons had obtained an originating cause of generation, he grew, as has been declared, by little and little, and (by degrees) was magnified, and (ultimately) became perfect. But they think that that is perfect which is reckoned at ten. When, therefore, the Aeons had become equal in number and in perfection, they were, as (the Docetae) are of opinion, constituted thirty Aeons in all, while each of them attains full perfection in a decade. And the three are mutually distinct, and hold one (degree of) honour relatively to one another, differing in position merely, because one of them is first, and the other second, and the other of these third. Position, however, afforded them diversity of power. For he who has obtained a position nearest to the primal Deity – who is, as it were, a seed – possessed a more productive power than the rest, inasmuch as he himself who is the immeasurable one, measured himself tenfold in bulk. He, however, who in position is second to the primal Deity, has, inasmuch as he is the incomprehensible one, comprehended himself sixfold. But he who is now third in position is conveyed to an infinite distance, in consequence of the dilatation of his brethren. (And when this third Aeon) had thrice realized himself in thought, he encircled himself with, as it were, some eternal chain of union.

Chap. II. – Docetic Notion of the Incarnation; Their Doctrines of Aeons; Their Account of Creation; Their Notion of a Fiery God.

And these (heretics) suppose that this is what is spoken by the Saviour: “A sower went forth to sow; and that which fell on the fair and good ground produced, some a hundred-fold, and some sixty-fold, and some thirty-fold.” (Mat_13:3-8; Mar_4:3-8; Luk_8:5-8) And for this reason, the (Docetic) says, (that the Saviour) has spoken the words, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,” because these (truths) are not altogether rumours. All these Aeons, both the three and all those infinite (Aeons which proceed) from these indefinitely, are hermaphrodite Aeons. All these, then, after they had been increased and magnified, and had sprung from that one primary seed, (were actuated by a spirit) of concord and union, and they all coalesced into one Aeon. And in this manner they begot of a single virgin, Mary,7 a joint offspring, who is a Mediator, (that is,) the Saviour of all who are in the (covenant of) mediation. (And this Saviour is,) in every respect, coequal in power with the seed of the fig-tree, with the exception that he was generated. Whereas that primary seed, from whence the fig-tree sprung, is unbegotten. When, therefore, those three Aeons were adorned with all virtue and with all sanctity, so these teachers suppose, as well as that only begotten child – for he alone was begotten by those infinite Aeons from three immediately concerned in his birth, for three immeasurable Aeons being unanimous procreated him; – (after, I say, the Aeons and only Son were thus adorned,) the entire nature, which is cognised by intellect, was fashioned free from deficiency. Now, all those intelligible and eternal (entities) constituted light. Light, however, was not devoid of form, nor inoperative, nor in want, as it were, of the assistance of any (other power). But (light) proportionately with the multitude of those infinite (Aeons) indefinitely (generated) in conformity with the exemplar of the fig-tree, possesses in itself infinite species of various animals indigenous to that quarter of creation, and it shone down upon the underlying chaos. And when this (chaos) was simultaneously illuminated, and had form imparted to it by those diversified species from above, it derived (thereby) solidity, and acquired all those supernal species from the third Aeon, who had made himself threefold.

This third Aeon, however, beholding all his own distinctive attributes laid hold on collectively by the underlying darkness (which was) beneath, and not being ignorant of the power of darkness, and at the same time of the security8 and profusion of light, did not allow his brilliant attributes (which he derived) from above for any length of time to be snatched away by the darkness beneath. But (he acted in quite a contrary manner), for he subjected (darkness) to the Aeons. After, then, he had formed the firmament over the nether world, “he both divided the darkness from the light, and called the light which was above the firmament day, and the darkness he called night.” (Gen_1:1-31: 4, 5, 7) When all the infinite species, then, as I have said, of the third Aeon were intercepted in this the lowest darkness, the figure also of the Aeon himself, such as he has been described, was impressed (upon them) along with the rest (of his attributes). (Now this figure is) a life-giving fire, which is generated from light, from whence the Great Archon originated. And respecting this (Archon) Moses observes: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen_1:1) Moses mentions (Exo_3:2) this fiery God as having spoken from the bush,9 (batos,) that is, from the darkish air. For the whole of the atmosphere that underlies the darkness is (batos, i.e.,) a medium for the transmission of light. Now Moses has employed, says (the Docetic), the expression batos, because all the species of light pass down from above by means of their having the atmosphere as a medium (batos) of transmission. And in no less degree is capable of being recognised the Word of Jehovah addressed to us from the bush (batos, i.e., an atmospheric medium); for voice, as significant (in language) of a meaning, is a reverberation of air, and without this (atmosphere) human speech is incapable of being recognised. And not only the Word (of Jehovah addressed) to us from the bush (batos), that is, the air, legislates and is a fellow-citizen with (us); but (it does more than this), for both odours and colours manifest to us, through the medium of air, their own (peculiar) qualities.

Chap. III. – Christ Undoes the Work of the Demiurge; Docetic Account of the Baptism and Death of Jesus; Why He Lived for Thirty Years on Earth.

This fiery deity, then, after he became fire from light, proceeded to create the world in the manner which Moses describes. He himself, however, as devoid of subsistence, employs the darkness as (his) substance, and perpetually insults those eternal attributes of light which, (being) from above, had been laid hold on by (the darkness) beneath. Up to the time, therefore, of the appearance of the Saviour, there prevailed, by reason of the Deity of fiery light, (that is,) the Demiurge, a certain extensive delusion of souls. For the species are styled souls, because they are refrigerations10 from the (Aeons) above, and continue in darkness. But when (the souls) are altered from bodies to bodies, they remain under the guardianship of the Demiurge. And that these things are so, says (the Docetic), it is possible also to perceive from Job, when he uses the following words: “And I am a wanderer, changing both place after place, and house after house.”11 And (we may learn, according to the Docetae, the same) from the expressions of the Saviour, “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias that was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” (Mat_11:14, Mat_11:15) But by the instrumentality of the Saviour this transference of souls from body to body was made to cease, and faith is preached for remission of sins. After some such manner, that only begotten Son, when He gazes upon the forms of the supernal Aeons, which were transferred from above into darkish bodies, coming down, wished to descend and deliver them. When (the Son), however, became aware that the Aeons, those (that subsist) collectively, are unable to behold the Pleroma of all the Aeons, but that in a state of consternation they fear lest they may undergo corruption as being themselves perishable, and that they are overwhelmed by the magnitude and splendour of power; – (when the Son, I say, perceived this,) He contracted Himself – as it were a very great flash in a very small body, nay, rather as a ray of vision condensed beneath the eyelids, and (in this condition) He advances forth as far as heaven and the effulgent stars. And in this quarter of creation He again collects himself beneath the lids of vision according as He wishes it. Now the light of vision accomplishes the same effect; for though it is everywhere, and (renders visible) all things, it is yet imperceptible to us. We, however, merely see lids of vision, while corners (of the eye), a tissue which is broad, tortuous,12 (and) exceedingly fibrous, a membrane of the cornea; and underneath this, the pupil, which is shaped as a berry, is net-like and round. (And we observe) whatever other membranes there are that belong to the light of the eye, and enveloped in which it lies concealed.

Thus, says (the Docetic), the only-begotten (and) eternal Child from above arrayed Himself in a form to correspond with each individual Aeon of the three Aeons;13 and while he was within the triacontad of Aeons, He entered into this world14 just as we have described Him, unnoticed, unknown, obscure, and disbelieved. In order, therefore, say the Docetae, that He may be clad in the darkness that is prevalent in more distant quarters of creation – (now by darkness he means) flesh – an angel journeyed with Him from above, and announced the glad tidings to Mary, says (the Docetic), as it has been written. And the (child) from her was born, as it has been written. And He who came from above put on that which was born; and so did He all things, as it has been written (of Him) in the Gospels. He washed in Jordan, and when He was baptized He received a figure and a seal in the water of (another spiritual booty beside) the body born of the Virgin. (And the object of this was,) when the Archon condemned his own peculiar figment (of flesh) to death, (that is,) to the cross, that that soul which had been nourished in the body (born of the Virgin) might strip off that body and nail it to the (accursed) tree. (In this way the soul) would triumph by means of this (body) over principalities and powers, (Col_2:11, Col_2:14, Col_2:15) and would not be found naked, but would, instead of that flesh, assume the (other) body, which had been represented in the water when he was being baptized. This is, says (the Docetic), what the Saviour affirms: “Except a man be born of water and spirit, be will not enter into the kingdom of heaven, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh.” (Joh_3:5, Joh_3:6) From the thirty Aeons, therefore, (the Son) assumed thirty forms. And for this reason that eternal One existed for thirty years on the earth, because each Aeon was in a peculiar manner manifested during (his own) year. And the souls are all those forms that have been laid hold on by each of the thirty Aeons; and each of these is so constituted as to discern Jesus, who is of a nature (similar to their own). (And it was the nature of this Jesus) which that only-begotten and eternal One assumed from everlasting places. These (places), however, are diverse. Consequently, a proportionate number of heresies, with the utmost emulation, seek Jesus. Now all these heresies have their own peculiar Jesus; but he is seen differently according as the place15 is different towards which, he says, each soul is borne and hastens. (Now each soul) supposes that (the Jesus seen from its particular place) is alone that (Jesus) who is its own peculiar kinsman and fellow-citizen. And on first beholding (this Jesus, that soul) recognises Him as its own peculiar brother, but the rest as bastards. Those, then, that derive their nature from the places below, are not able to see the forms of the Saviour which are above them. Those, however, he says, who are from above, from the intermediate decade and the most excellent ogdoad – whence, say (the Docetae), we are – have themselves known not in part, but entirely, Jesus the Saviour. And those, who are from above, are alone perfect, but all the rest are only partially so.

Chap. IV. – Docetic Doctrine Derived from the Greek Sophists.

These (statements), therefore, I consider sufficient to properly-constituted minds for the purpose of attaining unto a knowledge of the complicated and unstable heresy of the Docetae. (But) those who have propounded attempted arguments about inaccessible and incomprehensible Matter, have styled themselves Docetae. Now, we consider that some of these are acting foolishly, we will not say in appearance, but in reality. At all events, we have proved that a beam from such matter is carried in the eye, if by any means they may be enabled to perceive it. If, however, they do not (discern it, our object is) that they should not make others blind. But the fact is, that the sophists of the Greeks in ancient times have previously devised, in many particulars, the doctrines of these (Docetae), as it is possible for my readers (who take the trouble) to ascertain. These, then, are the opinions propounded by the Docetae. As to what likewise, however, are the tenets of Monoïmus, we shall not be silent.

Chap. V. – Monoïmus; Man the Universe, According to Monoïmus; His System of the Monad.

Monoïmus16 the Arabian was far removed from the glory of the high-sounding poet. (For Monoïmus) supposes that there is some such man as the poet (calls) Oceanus, expressing himself somehow thus: – 

“Oceanus, source of gods and source of men.”17

Changing these (sentiments) into other words, Monoïmus says that man is the universe. Now the universe is the originating cause of all things, unbegotten, incorruptible, (and) eternal. And (he says) that the son of (the) man previously spoken of is begotten, and subject to passion, (and) that he is generated independently of time. (as well as) undesignedly,18 (and) without being predestined. For such, he says, is the power of that man. And he being thus constituted in power, (Monoïmus alleges) that the son was born quicker than thought and volition. And this, he says, is what has been spoken in the Scriptures, “He was, and was generated.”19 And the meaning of this is: Man was, and his son was generated; just as one may say, Fire was, and, independently of time, and undesignedly, and without being predestined, light was generated simultaneously with the existence of the fire. And this man constitutes a single monad, which is uncompounded and indivisible, (and yet at the same time) compounded (and) divisible. (And this monad is) in all respects friendly (and) in all respects peaceful, in all respects quarrelsome (and) in all respects contentious with itself, dissimilar (and) similar. (This monad is likewise,) as it were, a certain musical harmony, which comprises all things in itself, as many as one may express and may omit when not considering; and it manifests all things, and generates all things. This (is) Mother, this (is) Father – two immortal names. As an illustration, however, consider, he says, as a greatest image of the perfect man, the one jot – that one tittle. And this one tittle is an uncompounded, simple, and pure monad, which derives its composition from nothing at all. (And yet this tittle is likewise) compounded, multiform, branching into many sections, and consisting of many parts. That one indivisible tittle is, he says, one tittle of the (letter) iota, with many faces, and innumerable eyes, and countless names, and this (tittle) is an image of that perfect invisible man.

Chap. VI. – Monoïmus’ “Iota;” His Notion Of The “Son Of Man.”

The monad, (that is,) the one tittle, is20 therefore, he says, also a decade. For by the actual power of this one tittle, are produced duad, and triad, and tetrad, and pentad, and hexad, and heptad, and ogdoad, and ennead, up to ten. For these numbers, he says, are capable of many divisions, and they reside in that simple and uncompounded single tittle of the iota. And this is what has been declared: “It pleased (God) that all fulness should dwell in the Son of man bodily.” (Col_1:19) For such compositions of numbers out of the simple and uncompounded one tittle of the iota become, he says, corporeal realities. The Son of man, therefore, he says, has been generated from the perfect man, whom no one knew; every creature who is ignorant of the Son, however, forms an idea of Him as the offspring of a woman. And certain very obscure rays of this Son which approach this world, check and control alteration (and) generation. And the beauty of that Son of man is up to the present incomprehensible to all men, as many as are deceived in reference to the offspring of the woman. Therefore nothing, he says, of the things that are in our quarter of creation has been produced by that man, nor will aught (of these) ever be (generated from him). All things, however, have been produced, not from the entirety, but from some part of that Son of man. For he says the Son of man is a jot in one tittle, which proceeds from above, is full, and completely replenishes all (rays flowing down from above). And it comprises in itself whatever things the man also possesses (who is) the Father of the Son of man.

Chap. VII. – Monoïmus on the Sabbath; Allegorizes the Rod of Moses; Notion Concerning the Decalogue.

The world, then, as Moses says, was made in six days, that is, by six powers, which (are inherent) in the one tittle of the iota. (But) the seventh (day, which is) a rest and Sabbath, has been produced from the Hebdomad, which is over earth, and water, and fire, and air. And from these (elements) the world has been formed by the one tittle. For cubes, and octahedrons, and pyramids, and all figures similar to these, out of which consist fire, air, water, (and) earth, have arisen from numbers which are comprehended in that simple tittle of the iota. And this (tittle) constitutes a perfect son of a perfect man. When, therefore, he says, Moses mentions that the rod was changeably brandished for the (introduction of the) plagues throughout Egypt (Exo_7:1-25, Exo_8:1-32) – now these plagues, he says, are allegorically expressed symbols of the creation21 – he did not (as a symbol) for more plagues than ten shape the rod. Now this (rod) constitutes one tittle of the iota, and is (both) twofold (and) various. This succession of ten plagues is, he says, the mundane creation. For all things, by being stricken, bring forth and bear fruit, just like vines. Man, he says, bursts forth, and is forcibly separated from man by being severed by a certain stroke. (And this takes place) in order that (man) may be generated, and may declare the law which Moses ordained, who received (it) from God. Conformably22 with that one tittle, the law constitutes the series of the ten commandments which expresses allegorically the divine mysteries of (those) precepts. For, he says, all knowledge of the universe is contained in what relates to the succession of the ten plagues and the series of the ten commandments. And no one is acquainted with this (knowledge) who is (of the number) of those that are deceived concerning the offspring of the woman. If, however, you say that the Pentateuch constitutes the entire law, it is from the Pentad which is comprehended in the one tittle. But the entire is for those who have not been altogether perfected in understanding a mystery, a new and not antiquated feast, legal, (and) everlasting, a passover of the Lord God kept unto our generations, by those who are able to discern (this mystery), at the commencement of the fourteenth day, which is the beginning of a decade from which, he says, they reckon. For the monad, as far as fourteen, is the summary of that one (tittle) of the perfect number. For one, two, three, four, become ten; and this is the one tittle. But from fourteen until one-and-twenty, he asserts that there is an Hebdomad which inheres in the one tittle of the world, and constitutes an unleavened creature in all these. For in what respect, he says, would the one tittle require any substance such as leaven (derived) from without for the Lord’s Passover, the eternal feast, which is given for generation upon generation? [Exo_12:17. Compare 1Co_5:7, 1Co_5:8] For the entire world and all causes of creation constitute a passover, (i.e.,) a feast of the Lord. For God rejoices in the conversion of the creation, and this is accomplished by ten strokes of the one tittle. And this (tittle) is Moses’ rod, which was given by God into the hand of Moses. And with this (rod Moses) smites the Egyptians, for the purpose of altering bodies, – as, for instance, water into blood; and the rest of (material) things similarly with these, – (as, for example,) the locusts, which is a symbol of grass. And by this he means the alteration of the elements into flesh; “for all flesh,” he says, “is grass.” (Isa_40:6) These men, nevertheless receive even the entire law after some such manner; adopting very probably, as I think, the opinions of those of the Greeks who affirm that there are Substance, and Quality, and Quantity, and Relation, and Place, and Time, and Position, and Action, and Possession, and Passion.

Chap. VIII. – Monoïmus Explains His Opinions in a Letter to Theophrastus; Where to Find God; His System Derived from Pythagoras.

Monoïmus himself, accordingly, in his letter to Theophrastus, expressly makes the following statement: “Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from (out of) thyself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates (unto Himself) all things in thee, and says, ‘My God (is) my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.’ And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred, and involuntary wakefulness, and involuntary drowsiness, and involuntary anger, and involuntary affection; and if,” he says, “you accurately investigate these (points), you will discover (God) Himself, unity and plurality, in thyself, according to that tittle, and that He finds the outlet (for Deity) to be from thyself.” Those (heretics), then, (have made) these (statements). But we are under no necessity of comparing such (doctrines) with what have previously been subjects of meditation on the part of the Greeks, inasmuch as the assertions advanced by these (heretics) evidently derive their origin from geometrical and arithmetical art. The disciples, however, of Pythagoras, expounded this (art) after a more excellent method,23 as our readers may ascertain by consulting those passages (of our work) in which we have previously furnished expositions of the entire wisdom of the Greeks. But since the heresy of Monoïmus has been sufficiently refuted, let us see what are the fictitious doctrines which the rest also (of these heretics) devise, in their desire to set up for themselves an empty name.

Chap. IX. – Tatian.

Tatian,24 however, although being himself a disciple of Justinus the Martyr, did not entertain similar opinions with his master. But he attempted (to establish) certain novel (tenets), and affirmed that there existed certain invisible Aeons. And he framed a legendary account (of them), similarly to those (spoken of) by Valentinus. And similarly with Marcion, he asserts that marriage is destruction. But he alleges that Adam is not saved on account of his having been the author of disobedience. And so far for the doctrines of Tatian.

Chap. X. – Hermogenes; Adopts the Socratic Philosophy; His Notion Concerning the Birth and Body of Our Lord.

But a certain Hermogenes,25 himself also imagining that he propounded some novel opinion, said that God made all things out of coeval and ungenerated matter. For that it was impossible that God could make generated things out of things that are not. And that God is always Lord, and always Creator, and matter always a subservient (substance), and that which is assuming phases of being – not, however, the whole of it. For when it was being continually moved in a rude and disorderly manner, He reduced (matter) into order by the following expedient. As He gazed (upon matter) in a seething condition, like (the contents of) a pot when a fire is burning underneath, He effected a partial separation. And taking one portion from the whole, He subdued it, but another He allowed to be whirled in a disorderly manner. And he asserts that what was (thus) subdued is the world, but that another portion remains wild, and is denominated chaotic26 matter. He asserts that this constitutes the substance of all things, as if introducing a novel tenet for his disciples. He does not, however, reflect that this happens to be the Socratic discourse, which (indeed) is worked out more elaborately by Plato than by Hermogenes. He acknowledges, however, that Christ is the Son of the God who created all things; and along with (this admission), he confesses that he was born of a virgin and of (the) Spirit, according to the voice of the Gospels. And (Hermogenes maintains that Christ), after His passion, was raised up in a body, and that He appeared to His disciples, and that as He went up into heaven He left His body in the sun, but that He Himself proceeded on to the Father. Now (Hermogenes) resorts to testimony, thinking to support himself by what is spoken, (viz.) what the Psalmist David says: “In the sun he hath placed his tabernacle, and himself (is) as a bridegroom coming forth from his nuptial chamber, (and) he will rejoice as a giant to run his course.” (Psa_19:4, Psa_19:5) These, then, are the opinions which also Hermogenes attempted to establish.

Chap. XI. – The Quartodecimans.

And certain other (heretics), contentious by nature, (and) wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more (than usually) quarrelsome, combine (in maintaining) that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day27 of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur. (But in this) they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not so keep (the commandment) as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment was made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover.28 And this (paschal sacrifice, in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter (merely). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: “For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.” (Gal_5:3) In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles.29

Chap. XII. – The Montanists; Priscilla and Maximilla Their Prophetesses; Some of Them Noetians.

But there are others who themselves are even more heretical in nature (than the foregoing), and are Phrygians30 by birth. These have been rendered victims of error from being previously captivated by (two) wretched women, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they supposed (to be) prophetesses. And they assert that into these the Paraclete Spirit had departed; and antecedently to them, they in like manner consider Montanus as a prophet. And being in possession of an infinite number of their books, (the Phrygians) are overrun with delusion; and they do not judge whatever statements are made by them, according to (the criterion of) reason; nor do they give heed unto those who are competent to decide; but they are heedlessly swept onwards, by the reliance which they place on these (impostors). And they allege that they have learned something more through these, than from law, and prophets, and the Gospels. But they magnify these wretched women above the Apostles and every gift of Grace, so that some of them presume to assert that there is in them a something superior to Christ. These acknowledge God to be the Father of the universe, and Creator of all things, similarly with the Church, and (receive) as many things as the Gospel testifies concerning Christ. They introduce, however, the novelties of fasts,31 and feasts, and meals of parched food, and repasts of radishes, alleging that they have been instructed by women. And some of these assent to the heresy of the Noetians, and affirm that the Father himself is the Son, and that this (one) came under generation, and suffering, and death. Concerning these I shall again offer an explanation, after a more minute manner; for the heresy of these has been an occasion of evils to many. We therefore are of opinion, that the statements made concerning these (heretics) are sufficient when we shall have briefly proved to all that the majority of their books are silly, and their attempts (at reasoning) weak, and worthy of no consideration. But it is not necessary for those who possess a sound mind to pay attention (either to their volumes or their arguments).

Chap. XIII. – The Doctrines of the Encratites.32

Others, however, styling themselves Encratites, acknowledge some things concerning God and Christ in like manner with the Church. In respect, however, of their mode of life, they pass their days inflated with pride. They suppose, that by meats they magnify themselves, while abstaining from animal food, (and) being water-drinkers, and forbidding to marry, and devoting themselves during the remainder of life to habits of asceticism. But persons of this description are estimated Cynics rather than Christians, inasmuch as they do not attend unto the words spoken against them through the Apostle Paul. Now he, predicting the novelties that were to be hereafter introduced ineffectually by certain (heretics), made a statement thus: “The Spirit speaketh expressly, In the latter times certain will depart from sound doctrine, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, uttering falsehoods in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by the faithful, and those who know the truth; because every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (1Ti_4:1-5) This voice, then, of the blessed Paul, is sufficient for the refutation of those who live in this manner, and plume themselves on being just;33 (and) for the purpose of proving that also, this (tenet of the Encratites) constitutes a heresy. But even though there have been denominated certain other heresies – I mean those of the Cainites,34 Ophites,35 or Noachites,36 and of others of this description – I have not deemed it requisite to explain the things said or done by these, test on this account they may consider themselves somebody, or deserving of consideration. Since, however, the statements concerning these appear to be sufficient, let us pass on to the cause of evils to all, (viz.,) the heresy of the Noetians. Now, after we have laid bare the root of this (heresy), and stigmatized openly the venom, as it were, lurking within it, let us seek to deter from an error of this description those who have been impelled into it by a violent spirit, as it were by a swollen torrent. 

FOOTNOTES

1 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 Irenaeus. The rest is probably from original sources.

2 Or, “Noimus.”

3 [Note the honour uniformly rendered to the Holy Scriptures by the Fathers.]

4 See Irenaeus, v. 1; Theodoret. Haer. Fab., v. 12; and [vol. 2. 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.

5 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.

6 Or, “the Lord came in search of fruit” (Roeper). The reading followed in the translation agrees with the scriptural account; see Luk_13:7.

7 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.”

8 To ἀσφαλὲς: Cruice reads, on the authority of Bernays, ἀφελὲς, i.e., the simplicity.

9 The Docetae here attempted to substantiate their system from Scripture by a play upon words.

10 The Greek word for soul is derived from the same root as that for refrigeration.

11 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 (Job_2:9, LXX), but are absent from the English translation. The passage reads thus: καὶ ἐγὼ πλανῆτις καὶ λάτρις τόπον ἐκ τόπου περιερχομένη καὶ οἰκίας. The Abbe Cruice refers to St. Chrysostom’s Hom. de Statuis [vol. ii. p. 139, opp. ed. Migne, not exactly quoted.]

12 Or, “a fleshy membrane.”

13 Miller reads, “of the third Aeon.”14 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 vi. chap. xix.

15 Miller’s text has “type.”

16 What is given here by Hippolytus respecting Mondoïmus is quite new. The only writer that mentions his is Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 18. [See Bunsen, vol. i. p. 103.]

17 Iliad, xiv. 201, 246.

18 Or, “kinglessly,” which has no meaning here. Miller therefore alters ἀβασιλεύτως into ἀβουλήτως.

19 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.

20 The iota with a little mark placed above, signifies ten; thus i = 10

21 The plagues, being transformations, were no doubt considered symbols of creation, in accordance with the view of the ancient philosophers, that the creation itself brought nothing into existence, but simply altered the disposition of already existing elements. [Gen_1:2. See Dr. Chalmers’ Astronomical Discourses.]

22 It is very much after this allegorical mode that Philo Judaeus interprets the Mosaic law and history.

23 Literally, “nobly born.”

24 See [vol. 1. p. 457. But see his works, vol. 2. p. 61, this series.] Irenaeus, i. 28; Eusebius, Hist Ecclesiast., iv. 16, v. 13; Epiphanius. Haer,, xlvi.; Jerome, Vir. Illustr., c. xxix.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 20.

25 See [vol. 3., p. 477] Tertullian, Praescript., c. xxx.; Origen, Περὶ ἀρχ, i. 2; Eusebius, De Praep., vii. 8, 9; St. Augustine, Haer., lix.; Theodoret, Haer. Fab., i. 19; and Philastrius, Haer., lv.

26 Literally, “unadorned.”

27 They were therefore called “Quartodecimans.” (See Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., v. c. xxii. xxv.; Epiphanius. Haer., l.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., iii. 4.

28 [Bunsen, i. p. 105.] The chapter on Quartodecimans agrees with the arguments which, we are informed in a 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.

29 [He regards the Christian Paschal as authorized. 1Co_5:7, 1Co_5:8]

30 These heretics had several denominations: (1) Phygians and Cataphrygians, from Phrygia; (2) Pepuzians, from a village in Phrygia of the same name; (3) Priscillianists; (4) Quintillists. See Eusebius, Hist. Ecclesiast., iv. 27, v. 16, 18; Epiphanius. Haer,, xlviii.; and Theodoret, Haer. Fab., iii. 2; Philastrius, xlix.; and St. Augustine, Haer., 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.]

31 Bunsen thinks that Hippolytus is rather meager 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.

32 [See my Introductory Note to Hermas, vol. 2. p. 5, this series.]

33 [This Tertullian should have learned. How happily Keble, in his Christian Year, gives it is sacred verse: – 

“We need not bid, for cloister’d cell,

Our neighbor 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.”

34 Those did homage to Cain.

35 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.

36 Hippolytus seemingly makes this a synonyme with Ophites. Perhaps it is connected to the Hebrew word נָחָשׁ.

Book IX. (Cont.)

Chap. XXI. – Different Sects of the Esseni.

The Essenes have, however, in the lapse of time, undergone divisions, and they do not preserve their system of training after a similar manner, inasmuch as they have been split up into four parties. For some of them discipline themselves above the requisite rules of the order, so that even they would not handle a current coin of the country, saying that they ought not either to carry, or behold, or fashion an image:58 wherefore no one of those goes into a city, lest (by so doing) he should enter through a gate at which statues are erected, regarding it a violation of law to pass beneath images. But the adherents of another party, if they happen to hear any one maintaining a discussion concerning God and His laws – supposing such to be an uncircumcised person, they will closely watch him and when they meet a person of this description in any place alone, they will threaten to slay him if he refuses to undergo the rite of circumcision. Now, if the latter does not wish to comply with this request, an Essene spares not, but even slaughters. And it is from this occurrence that they have received their appellation, being denominated (by some) Zelotae, but by others Sicarii. And the adherents of another party call no one Lord except the Deity, even though one should put them to the torture, or even kill them. But there are others of a later period, who have to such an extent declined from the discipline (of the order), that, as far as those are concerned who continue in the primitive customs, they would not even touch these. And if they happen to come in contact with them, they immediately resort to ablution, as if they had touched one belonging to an alien tribe. But here also there are very many of them of so great longevity, as even to live longer than a hundred years. They assert, therefore, that a cause of this arises from their extreme devotion to religion, and their condemnation of all excess in regard of what is served up (as food), and from their being temperate and incapable of anger. And so it is that they despise death, rejoicing when they can finish their course with a good conscience. If, however, any one would even put to the torture persons of this description, in order to induce any amongst them either to speak evil of the law, or eat what is offered in sacrifice to an idol, he will not effect his purpose; for one of this party submits to death and endures torment rather than violate his conscience.

Chap. XXII. – Belief of the Esseni in the Resurrection; Their System a Suggestive One.

Now the doctrine of the resurrection has also derived support among these; for they acknowledge both that the flesh will rise again, and that it will be immortal, in the same manner as the soul is already imperishable. And they maintain that the soul, when separated in the present life, (departs) into one place, which is well ventilated and lightsome, where, they say, it rests until judgment. And this locality the Greeks were acquainted with by hearsay, and called it “Isles of the Blessed.” And there are other tenets of these which many of the Greeks have appropriated, and thus have from time to time formed their own opinions.59 For the disciplinary system in regard of the Divinity, according to these (Jewish sects), is of greater antiquity than that of all nations. And so it is that the proof is at hand, that all those (Greeks) who ventured to make assertions concerning God, or concerning the creation of existing things, derived their principles from no other source than from Jewish legislation. And among these may be particularized Pythagoras especially, and the Stoics, who derived (their systems) while resident among the Egyptians, by having become disciples of these Jews.60 Now they affirm that there will be both a judgment and a conflagration of the universe, and that the wicked will be eternally punished. And among them is cultivated the practice of prophecy, and the prediction of future events.

Chap. XXIII. – Another Sect of the Esseni: the Pharisees.

There is then another order of the Essenes who use the same customs and prescribed method of living with the foregoing sects, but make an alteration from these in one respect, viz., marriage. Now they maintain that those who have abrogated matrimony commit some terrible offence, which is for the destruction of life, and that they ought not to cut off the succession of children; for, that if all entertained this opinion, the entire race of men would easily be exterminated. However, they make a trial of their betrothed women for a period of three years; and when they have been three times purified, with a view of proving their ability of bringing forth children, so then they wed. They do not, however, cohabit with pregnant women, evincing that they marry not from sensual motives, but from the advantage of children. And the women likewise undergo ablution in a similar manner (with their husbands), and are themselves also arrayed in a linen garment, after the mode in which the men are with their girdles. These things, then, are the statements which I have to make respecting the Esseni.

But there are also others who themselves practise the Jewish customs; and these, both in respect of caste and in respect of the laws, are called Pharisees. Now the greatest part of these is to be found in every locality, inasmuch as, though all are styled Jews, yet, on account of the peculiarity of the opinions advanced by them, they have been denominated by titles proper to each. These, then, firmly hold the ancient tradition, and continue to pursue in a disputative spirit a close investigation into the things regarded according to the Law as clean and not clean. And they interpret the regulations of the Law, and put forward teachers, whom they qualify for giving instruction in such things. These Pharisees affirm the existence of fate, and that some things are in our power, whereas others are under the control of destiny. In this way they maintain that some actions depend upon ourselves, whereas others upon fate. But (they assert) that God is a cause of all things, and that nothing is managed or happens without His will. These likewise acknowledge that there is a resurrection of flesh, and that soul is immortal, and that there will be a judgment and conflagration, and that the righteous will be imperishable, but that the wicked will endure everlasting punishment in unqenchable fire.

Chap. XXIV. – The Sadducees.

These, then, are the opinions even of the Pharisees. The Sadducees, however, are for abolishing fate, and they acknowledge that God does nothing that is wicked, nor exercises providence over (earthly concerns); but they contend that the choice between good and evil lies within the power of men. And they deny that there is a resurrection not only of flesh, but also they suppose that the soul does not continue after death. The soul they consider nothing but mere vitality, and that it is on account of this that man has been created. However, (they maintain) that the notion of the resurrection has been fully realized by the single circumstance, that we close our days after having left children upon earth. But (they still insist) that after death one expects to suffer nothing, either bad or good; for that there will be a dissolution both of soul and body, and that man passes into non-existence, similarly also with the material of the animal creation. But as regards whatever wickedness a man may have committed in life, provided he may have been reconciled to the injured party, he has been a gainer (by transgression), inasmuch as he has escaped the punishment (that otherwise would have been inflicted) by men. And whatever acquisitions a man may have made, and (in whatever respect), by becoming wealthy, he may have acquired distinction, he has so far been a gainer. But (they abide by their assertion), that God has no solicitude about the concerns of an individual here. And while the Pharisees are full of mutual affection, the Sadducees, on the other hand, are actuated by self-love. This sect had its stronghold especially in the region around Samaria. And these also adhere to the customs of the law, saying that one ought so to live, that he may conduct himself virtuously, and leave children behind him on earth. They do not, however, devote attention to prophets, but neither do they to any other sages, except to the law of Moses only, in regard of which, however, they frame no interpretations. These, then, are the opinions which also the Sadducees choose to teach. 

Chap. XXV. – The Jewish Religion.

Since, therefore, we have explained even the diversities among the Jews, it seems expedient likewise not to pass over in silence the system of their religion. The doctrine, therefore, among all Jews on the subject of religion is fourfold-theological, natural, moral, and ceremonial. And they affirm that there is one God, and that He is Creator and Lord of the universe: that He has formed all these glorious works which had no previous existence; and this, too, not out of any coeval substance that lay ready at hand, but His Will – the efficient cause – was to create, and He did create. And (they maintain) that there are angels, and that these have been brought into being for ministering unto the creation; but also that there is a sovereign Spirit that always continues beside God, for glory and praise. And that all things in the creation are endued with sensation, and that there is nothing inanimate. And they earnestly aim at serious habits and a temperate life, as one may ascertain from their laws. Now these matters have long ago been strictly defined by those who in ancient times have received the divinely-appointed law;61 so that the reader will find himself astonished at the amount of temperance, and of diligence, lavished on customs legally enacted in reference to man. The ceremonial service, however, which has been adapted to divine worship in a manner befitting the dignity of religion, has been practised amongst them with the highest degree of elaboration. The superiority of their ritualism it is easy for those who wish it to ascertain, provided they read the book which furnishes information on these points. They will thus perceive how that with solemnity and sanctity the Jewish priests offer unto God the first-fruits of the gifts bestowed by Him for the rise and enjoyment of men; how they fulfil their ministrations with regularity and stedfastness, in obedience to His commandments. There are, however, some (liturgical usages adopted) by these, which the Sadducees refuse to recognise, for they are not disposed to acquiesce in the existence of angels or spirits.

Still all parties alike expect Messiah, inasmuch as the Law certainly, and the prophets, preached beforehand that He was about to be present on earth. Inasmuch, however, as the Jews were not cognizant of the period of His advent, there remains the supposition that the declarations (of Scripture) concerning His coming have not been fulfilled. And so it is, that up to this day they continue in anticipation of the future coming of the Christ, – from the fact of their not discerning Him when He was present in the world. And (yet there can be little doubt but) that, on beholding the signs of the times of His having been already amongst us, the Jews are troubled; and that they are ashamed to confess that He has come, since they have with their own hands put Him to death, because they were stung with indignation in being convicted by Himself of not having obeyed the laws. And they affirm that He who was thus sent forth by God is not this Christ (whom they are looking for); but they confess that another Messiah will come, who as yet has no existence; and that he will usher in some of the signs which the law and the prophets have shown beforehand, whereas, regarding the rest (of these indications), they suppose that they have fallen into error. For they say that his generation will be from the stock of David, but not from a virgin and the Holy Spirit, but from a woman and a man, according as it is a rule for all to be procreated from seed. And they allege that this Messiah will be King over them, – a warlike and powerful individual, who, after having gathered together the entire people of the Jews, and having done battle with all the nations, will restore for them Jerusalem the royal city. And into this city He will collect together the entire Hebrew race, and bring it back once more into the ancient customs, that it may fulfil the regal and sacerdotal functions, and dwell in confidence for periods of time of sufficient duration. After this repose, it is their opinion that war would next be waged against them after being thus congregated; that in this conflict Christ would fall by the edge of the sword; and that, after no long time, would next succeed the termination and conflagration of the universe; and that in this way their opinions concerning the resurrection would receive completion, and a recompense be rendered to each man according to his works.

Chap. XXVI. – Conclusion to the Work Explained.

It now seems to us that the tenets of both all the Greeks and barbarians have been sufficiently explained by us, and that nothing has remained unrefuted either of the points about which philosophy has been busied, or of the allegations advanced by the heretics. And from these very explanations the condemnation of the heretics is obvious, for having either purloined their doctrines, or derived contributions to them from some of those tenets elaborately worked out by the Greeks, and for having advanced (these opinions) as if they originated from God. Since, therefore, we have hurriedly passed through all the systems of these, and with much labour have, in the nine books, proclaimed all their opinions, and have left behind us for all men a small viaticum in life, and to those who are our contemporaries have afforded a desire of learning (with) great joy and delight, we have considered it reasonable, as a crowning stroke to the entire work, to introduce the discourse (already mentioned) concerning the truth, and to furnish our delineation of this in one book, namely the tenth. Our object is, that the reader, not only when made acquainted with the overthrow of those who have presumed to establish heresies, may regard with scorn their idle fancies, but also, when brought to know the power of the truth, may be placed in the way of salvation, by reposing that faith in God which He so worthily deserves.

FOOTNOTES

58 [The zeal for the letter of the Second Commandment was not shared by our Lord (Mat_22:20).]

59 [Important corroborations of Justin and other fathers, vol. i. p. 286; ii. p. 338, also 81, 117, 148.]

60 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.

61 Or, “the law not of yesterday,” οὐ νεωστὶ τὸν νόμον. Cruise reads θεόκτιστον, as rendered above.

Book X.

Contents.

The following are the contents of the tenth book of the Refutation of all Heresies: – 

An Epitome of all Philosophers.

An Epitome of all Heresies.

And, in conclusion to all, what the Doctrine of the Truth is.

Chap. I. – Recapitulation.

After we have, not with violence, burst through the labyrinth1 of heresies, but have unravelled (their intricacies) through a refutation merely, or, in other words, by the force of truth, we approach the demonstration of the truth itself. For then the artificial sophisms of error will be exposed in all their inconsistency, when we shall succeed in establishing whence it is that the definition of the truth has been derived. The truth has not taken its principles from the wisdom of the Greeks, nor borrowed its doctrines, as secret mysteries, from the tenets of the Egyptians, which, albeit silly, are regarded amongst them with religious veneration as worthy of reliance. Nor has it been formed out of the fallacies which enunciate the incoherent (conclusions arrived at through the) curiosity of the Chaldeans. Nor does the truth owe its existence to astonishment, through the operations of demons, for the irrational frenzy of the Babylonians. But its definition is constituted after the manner in which every true definition is, viz., as simple and unadorned. A definition such as this, provided it is made manifest, will of itself refute error. And although we have very frequently propounded demonstrations, and with sufficient fulness elucidated for those willing (to learn) the rule of the truth; yet even now, after having discussed all the opinions put forward by the Greeks and heretics, we have decided it not to be, at all events, unreasonable to introduce, as a sort of finishing stroke to the (nine) books preceding, this demonstration throughout the tenth book.

Chap. II. – Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers.

Having, therefore, embraced (a consideration of) the tenets of all the wise men among the Greeks in four books, and the doctrines propounded by the heresiarchs in five, we shall now exhibit the doctrine concerning the truth in one, having first presented in a summary the suppositions entertained severally by all. For the dogmatists of the Greeks, dividing philosophy into three parts, in this manner devised from time to time their speculative systems;2 some denominating their system Natural, and others Moral, but others Dialectical Philosophy. And the ancient thinkers who called their science Natural Philosophy, were those mentioned in book i. And the account which they furnished was after this mode: Some of them derived all things from one, whereas others from more things than one. And of those who derived all things from one, some derived them from what was devoid of quality, whereas others from what was endued with quality. And among those who derived all things from quality, some derived them from fire, and some from air, and some from water, and some from earth. And among those who derived the universe from more things than one, some derived it from numerable, but others from infinite quantities. And among those who derived all things from numerable quantities, some derived them from two, and others from four, and others from five, and others from six. And among those who derived the universe from infinite quantities, some derived entities from things similar to those generated, whereas others from things dissimilar. And among these some derived entities from things incapable of, whereas others from things capable of, passion. From a body devoid of quality and endued with unity, the Stoics, then, accounted for the generation of the universe. For, according to them, matter devoid of quality, and in all its parts susceptible of change, constitutes an originating principle of the universe. For, when an alteration of this ensues, there is generated fire, air, water, earth. The followers, however, of Hippasus, and Anaximander, and Thales the Milesian, are disposed to think that all things have been generated from one (an entity), endued with quality. Hippasus of Metapontum and Heraclitus the Ephesian declared the origin of things to be from fire, whereas Anaximander from air, but Thales from water, and Xenophanes from earth. “For from earth,” says he, “are all things, and all things terminate in the earth.”3

Chap. III. – Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers Continued.

But among those who derive all entities from more things than one, and from numerable quantities, the poet Homer asserts that the universe consists of two substances, namely earth and water; at one time expressing himself thus: – 

“The source of gods was Sea and Mother Earth.”4

And on another occasion thus: – 

“But indeed ye all might become water and earth.”5

And Xenophanes of Colophon seems to coincide with him, for he says: – 

“We all are sprung from water and from earth.”6

Euripides, however, (derives the universe) from earth and air, as one may ascertain from the following assertion of his: – 

“Mother of all, air and earth, I sing.”7

But Empedocles derives the universe from four principles, expressing himself thus: – 

“Four roots of all things hear thou first:

Brilliant Jove, and life-giving Juno and Aidoneus,

And Nestis, that with tears bedews the Mortal Font.”8

Ocellus, however, the Lucanian, and Aristotle, derive the universe from five principles; for, along with the four elements, they have assumed the existence of a fifth, and (that this is) a body with a circular motion; and they say that from this, things celestial have their being. But the disciples of Empedocles supposed the generation of the universe to have proceeded from six principles. For in the passage where he says, “Four roots of all things hear thou first,” he produces generation out of four principles. When, however, he subjoins, – 

“Ruinous Strife apart from these, equal in every point,

And with them Friendship equal in length and breadth,”9 – 

he also delivers six principles of the universe, four of them material – earth, water, fire, and air; but two of them formative – Friendship and Discord. The followers, however, of Anaxagoras of Clazomenae, and of Democritus, and of Epicurus, and multitudes of others, have given it as their opinion that the generation of the universe proceeds from infinite numbers of atoms; and we have previously made partial mention of these philosophers. But Anaxagoras derives the universe from things similar to those that are being produced; whereas the followers of Democritus and Epicurus derived the universe from things both dissimilar (to the entities produced), and devoid of passion, that is, from atoms. But the followers of Heraclides of Pontus, and of Asclepiades, derived the universe from things dissimilar (to the entities produced), and capable of passion, as if from incongruous corpuscles. But the disciples of Plato affirm that these entities are from three principles – God, and Matter, and Exemplar. He divides matter, however, into four principles – fire, water, earth, and air. And (he says) that God is the Creator of this (matter), and that Mind is its exemplar.10

Chap. IV. – Summary of the Opinions of Philosophers Continued.

Persuaded, then, that the principle of physiology is confessedly discovered to be encumbered with difficulties for all these philosophers, we ourselves also shall fearlessly declare concerning the examples of the truth, as to how they are, and as we have felt confident that they are. But we shall previously furnish an explanation, in the way of epitome, of the tenets of the heresiarchs, in order that, by our having set before our readers the tenets of all made well known by this (plan of treatment), we may exhibit the truth in a plain and familiar (form).

Chap. V. – The Naasseni.

But since it so appears expedient, let us begin first from the public worshippers of the serpent. The Naasseni call the first principle of the universe a Man, and that the same also is a Son of Man; and they divide this man into three portions. For they say one part of him is rational, and another psychical, but a third earthly. And they style him Adamas, and suppose that the knowledge appertaining to him is the originating cause of the capacity of knowing God. And the Naassene asserts that all these rational, and psychical, and earthly qualities have retired into Jesus, and that through Him these three substances simultaneously have spoken unto the three genera of the universe. These allege that there are three kinds of existence – angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that there are three churches – angelic, psychical, and earthly; and that the names for these are – chosen, called, and captive. These are the heads of doctrine advanced by them, as far as one may briefly comprehend them. They affirm that James, the brother of the Lord, delivered these tenets to Mariamne, by such a statement belying both.

Chap. VI. – The Peratae.

The Peratae, however, viz., Ademes the Carystian, and Euphrates the Peratic, say that there is some one world, – this is the denomination they use, – and affirming that it is divided into three parts. But of the threefold division, according to them, there is one principle, just like an immense fountain, capable of being by reason divided into infinite segments. And the first segment, and the one of more proximity, according to them, is the triad, and is called a perfect good, and a paternal magnitude. But the second portion of the triad is a certain multitude of, as it were, infinite powers. The third part, however, is formal. And the first is unbegotten;11 whence they expressly affirm that there are three Gods, three Logoi, three minds, (and) three men. For when the division has been accomplished, to each part of the world they assign both Gods, and Logoi, and men, and the rest. But from above, from uncreatedness and the first segment of the world, when afterwards the world had attained to its consummation, the Peratic affirms that there came down, in the times of Herod, a certain man with a threefold nature, and a threefold body, and a threefold power, named Christ, and that He possesses from the three parts of the world in Himself all the concretions and capacities of the world. And they are disposed to think that this is what has been declared, “in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col_2:9) And they assert that from the two worlds situated above – namely, both the unbegotten one and self-begotten one – there were borne down into this world in which we are, germs of all sorts of powers. And (they say) that Christ came down from above from uncreatedness, in order that, by His descent, all things that have been divided into three parts may be saved. For, says the Peratic, the things that have been borne down from above will ascend through Him; and the things that have plotted against those that have been borne down are heedlessly rejected,12 and sent away to be punished. And the Peratic states that there are two parts which are saved – that is, those that are situated above – by having been separated from corruption, and that the third is destroyed, which he calls a formal world. These also are the tenets of the Peratae.

Chap. VII. – The Sethians.

But to the Sethians it seems that there exist three principles, which have been precisely defined. And each of the principles is fitted by nature for being able to be generated, as in a human soul every art whatsoever is developed which is capable of being learned. The result is the same as when a child, by being long conversant with a musical instrument, becomes a musician; or with geometry a geometrician, or with any other art, with a similar result. And the essences of the principles, the Sethians say, are light and darkness. And in the midst of these is pure spirit; and the spirit, they say, is that which is placed intermediate between darkness, which is below, and light, which is above. It is not spirit, as a current of wind or a certain gentle breeze which may be felt, but just as if some fragrance of ointment or incense made out of a refined mixture, – a power diffusing itself by some impulse of fragrance which is inconceivable and superior to what one can express. Since, therefore, the light is above and the darkness below, and the spirit is intermediate between these, the light, also, as a ray of sun, shines from above on the underlying darkness. And the fragrance of the spirit is wafted onwards, occupying an intermediate position, and proceeds forth, just as is diffused the odour of incense-offerings (laid) upon the fire. Now the power of the things divided threefold being of this description, the power simultaneously of the spirit and of the light is below, in the darkness that is situated beneath. The darkness, however, they say, is a horrible water, into which the light along with the spirit is absorbed, and thus translated into a nature of this description. The darkness being then endued with intelligence, and knowing that when the light has been removed from it the darkness continues desolate, devoid of radiance and splendour, power and efficiency, as well as impotent, (therefore,) by every effort of reflection and of reason, this makes an exertion to comprise in itself brilliancy, and a scintillation of light, along with the fragrance of the spirit. And of this they introduce the following image, expressing themselves thus: Just as the pupil of the eye appears dark beneath the underlying humours, but is illuminated by the spirit, so the darkness earnestly strives after the spirit, and has with itself all the powers which wish to retire and return. Now these are indefinitely infinite, from which, when commingled, all things are figured and generated like seals. For just as a seal, when brought into contact with wax, produces a figure, (and yet the seal) itself remains of itself what it was, so also the powers, by coming into communion (one with the other), form all the infinite kinds of animals. The Sethians assert that, therefore, from the primary concourse of the three principles was generated an image of the great seal, namely heaven and earth, having a form like a womb, possessing a navel in the midst. And so that the rest of the figures of all things were, like heaven and earth, fashioned similar to a womb.

And the Sethians say that from the water was produced a first-begotten principle, namely a vehement and boisterous wind, and that it is a cause of all generation, which creates a sort of heat and motion in the world from the motion of the waters. And they maintain that this wind is fashioned like the hissing of a serpent into a perfect image. And on this the world gazes and hurries into generation, being inflamed as a womb; and from thence they are disposed to think that the generation of the universe has arisen. And they say that this wind constitutes a spirit, and that a perfect God has arisen from the fragrance of the waters, and that of the spirit, and from the brilliant light. And they affirm that mind exists after the mode of generation from a female – (meaning by mind) the supernal spark – and that, having been mingled beneath with the compounds of body, it earnestly desires to flee away, that escaping it may depart and not find dissolution on account of the deficiency in the waters. Wherefore it is in the habit of crying aloud from the mixture of the waters, according to the Psalmist, as they say, “For the entire anxiety of the light above is, that it may deliver the spark which is below from the Father beneath,” (the commentators refer us to Psa_29:3) that is, from wind. And the Father creates heat and disturbance, and produces for Himself a Son, namely mind, which, as they allege, is not the peculiar offspring of Himself. And these heretics affirm that the Son, on beholding the perfect Logos of the supernal light, underwent a transformation, and in the shape of a serpent entered into a womb, in order that he might be able to recover that Mind which is the scintillation from the light. And that this is what has been declared, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant.” (Phi_2:6, Phi_2:7) And the wretched and baneful Sethians are disposed to think that this constitutes the servile form alluded to by the Apostle. These, then, are the assertions which likewise these Sethians advance.

Chap. VIII. – Simon Magus.

But that very sapient fellow Simon makes his statement thus, that there is an indefinite power, and that this is the root of the universe. And this indefinite power, he says, which is fire, is in itself not anything which is simple, as the gross bulk of speculators maintain, when they assert that there are four incomposite elements, and have supposed fire, as one of these, to be uncompounded. Simon, on the other hand, alleges that the nature of fire is twofold; and one portion of this twofold (nature) he calls a something secret, and another (a something) manifest. And he asserts that the secret is concealed in the manifest parts of the fire, and that the manifest parts of the fire have been produced from the secret. And he says that all the parts of the fire, visible and invisible, have been supposed to be in possession of a capacity of perception. The world, therefore, he says, that is begotten, has been produced from the unbegotten fire. And it commenced, he says, to exist thus: The Unbegotten One took six primal roots of the principle of generation from the principle of that fire. For he maintains that these roots have been generated in pairs from the fire; and these he denominates Mind and Intelligence, Voice and Name, Ratiocination and Reflection. And he asserts that in the six roots, at the same time, resides the indefinite power, which he affirms to be Him that stood, stands, and will stand. And when this one has been formed into a figure, He will, according to this heretic, exist in the six powers substantially and potentially. And He will be in magnitude and perfection one and the same with that unbegotten and indefinite power, possessing no attribute in any respect more deficient than that unbegotten, and unalterable, and indefinite power. If, however, He who stood, stands, and will stand, continues to exist only potentially in the six powers, and has not assumed any definite figure, He becomes, says Simon, utterly evanescent, and perishes. And this takes place in the same manner as the grammatical or geometrical capacity, which, though it has been implanted in man’s soul, suffers extinction when it does not obtain (the assistance of) a master of either of these arts, who would indoctrinate that soul into its principles. Now Simon affirms that he himself is He who stood, stands, and will stand, and that He is a power that is above all things. So far, then, for the opinions of Simon likewise. 

Chap. IX. – Valentinus.

Valentinus,13 however, and the adherents of this school, though they agree in asserting that the originating principle of the universe is the Father, still they are impelled into the adoption of a contrary opinion respecting Him. For some of them maintain that (the Father) is solitary and generative; whereas others hold the impossibility, (in His as in other cases,) of procreation without a female. They therefore add Sige as the spouse of this Father, and style the Father Himself Bythus. From this Father and His spouse some allege that there have been six projections, – viz., Nous and Aletheia, Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia, – and that this constitutes the procreative Ogdoad. And the Valentinians maintain that those are the first projections which have taken place within the limit, and have been again denominated “those within the Pleroma;” and the second are “those without the Pleroma”; and the third, “those without the Limit.” Now the generation of these constitutes the Hysterema Acamoth. And he asserts that what has been generated from an Aeon, that exists in the Hysterema and has been projected (beyond the Limit), is the Creator. But Valentinus is not disposed to affirm what is thus generated to be primal Deity, but speaks in detractive terms both of Him and the things made by Him. And (he asserts) that Christ came down from within the Pleroma for the salvation of the spirit who had erred. This spirit, (according to the Valentinians,) resides in our inner man; and they say that this inner man obtains salvation on account of this indwelling spirit. Valentinus, however, (to uphold the doctrine,) determines that the flesh is not saved, and styles it “a leathern tunic,” and the perishable portion of man. I have (already) declared these tenets in the way of an epitome, inasmuch as in their systems there exists enlarged matter for discussion, and a variety of opinions. In this manner, then, it seems proper also to the school of Valentinus to propound their opinions.

Chap. X. – Basilides.

But Basilides also himself affirms that there is a non-existent God, who, being non-existent, has made the non-existent world, that has been formed out of things that are not, by casting down a certain seed, as it were a grain of mustard-seed, having in itself stem, leaves, branches, and fruit. Or this seed is as a peacock’s egg, comprising in itself the varied multitude of colours. And this, say the Basilidians, constitutes the seed of the world, from which all things have been produced. For they maintain that it comprises in itself all things, as it were those that as yet are non-existent, and which it has been predetermined to be brought into existence by the non-existent Deity. There was, then, he says, in the seed itself a threefold Sonship, in all respects of the same substance with the nonexistent God, which has been begotten from things that are not. And of this Sonship, divided into three parts, one portion of it was refined, and another gross, and another requiring purification. The refined portion, when first the earliest putting down of the seed was accomplished by the non-existent God, immediately burst forth, and ascended upwards, and proceeded towards the non-existent Deity. For every nature yearns after that God on account of the excess of His beauty, but different (creatures desire Him) from different causes. The more gross portion, however, still continues in the seed; and inasmuch as it is a certain imitative nature, it was not able to soar upwards, for it was more gross than the subtle part. The more gross portion, however, equipped itself with the Holy Spirit, as it were with wings; for the Sonship, thus arrayed, shows kindness to this Spirit, and in turn receives kindness. The third Sonship, however, requires purification, and therefore this continued in the conglomeration of all germs, and this displays and receives kindness. And (Basilides asserts) that there is something which is called “world,” and something else (which is called) supra-mundane; for entities are distributed by him into two primary divisions. And what is intermediate between these he calls “Conterminous Holy Spirit,” and (this Spirit) has in itself the fragrance of the Sonship.

From the conglomeration of all germs of the cosmical seed burnt forth and was begotten the Great Archon, the head of the world, an Aeon of inexpressible beauty and size. This (Archon) having raised Himself as far as the firmament, supposed that there was not another above Himself. And accordingly He became more brilliant and powerful than all the underlying Aeons, with the exception of the Sonship that had been left beneath, but which He was not aware was more wise than Himself. This one having His attention turned to the creation of the world, first begat a son unto Himself, superior to Himself; and this son He caused to sit on His own right hand, and this these Basilidians allege is the Ogdoad. The Great Archon Himself, then, produces the entire celestial creation. And other Archon ascended from (the conglomeration of) all the germs, who was greater than all the underlying Aeons, except the Sonship that had been left behind, yet far inferior to the former one. And they style this second Archon a Hebdomad. He is Maker, and Creator, and Controller of all things that are beneath Him, and this Archon produced for Himself a Son more prudent and wiser than Himself. Now they assert that all these things exist according to the predetermination of that non-existent God, and that there exist also worlds and intervals that are infinite. And the Basilidians affirm that upon Jesus, who was born of Mary, came the power of the Gospel, which descended and illuminated the Son both of the Ogdoad and of the Hebdomad. And this took place for the purpose of enlightening and distinguishing from the different orders of beings, and purifying the Sonship that had been left behind for conferring benefits on souls, and the receiving benefits in turn. And they say that themselves are sons, who are in the world for this cause, that by teaching they may purify souls, and along with the Sonship may ascend to the Father above, from whom proceeded the first Sonship. And they allege that the world endures until the period when all souls may have repaired thither along with the Sonship. These, however, are the opinions which Basilides, who detailed them as prodigies, is not ashamed to advance.

Chap. XI. – Justinus.

But Justinus also himself attempted to establish similar opinions with these, and expresses himself thus: That there are three unbegotten principles of the universe, two males and one female. And of the males one principle is denominated “Good.” Now this alone is called after this mode, and is endued with a foreknowledge of the universe. And the other is Father of all generated entities, and is devoid of foreknowledge, and unknown, and invisible, and is called Elohim. The female principle is devoid of foreknowledge, passionate, with two minds, and with two booties, as we have minutely detailed in the previous discourses concerning this heretic’s system. This female principle, in her upper parts, as far as the groin, is, the Justinians say, a virgin, whereas from the groin downwards a snake. And such is denominated Edem and Israel. This heretic alleges that these are the principles of the universe, from which all things have been produced. And he asserts that Elohim, without foreknowledge, passed into inordinate desire for the half virgin, and that having had intercourse with her, he begot twelve angels; and the names of these he states to be those already given. And of these the paternal ones are connected with the father, and the maternal with the mother. And Justinus maintains that these are (the trees of Paradise), concerning which Moses has spoken in an allegorical sense the things written in the law. And Justinus affirms that all things were made by Elohim and Edem. And (he says) that animals, with a the rest of the creatures of this kind, are from the a part resembling a beast, whereas man from the parts above the groin. And Edem (is supposed by Justinus) to have deposited in man himself the soul, which was her own power, (but Elohim the spirit.) And Justinus alleges that this Elohim, after having learned his origin, ascended to the Good Being, and deserted Edem. And this heretic asserts that Edem, enraged on account of such (treatment), concocted all this plot against the spirit of Elohim which he deposited in man. And (Justinus informs us) that for this reason the Father sent Baruch, and issued directions to the prophets, in order that the spirit of Elohim might be delivered, and that all might be seduced away from Edem. But (this heretic) alleges that even Hercules was a prophet, and that he was worsted by Omphale, that is, by Babel; and the Justinians call the latter Venus. And (they say) that afterwards, in the days of Herod, Jesus was born son of Mary and Joseph, to whom he alleges Baruch had spoken. And (Justinus asserts) that Edem plotted against this (Jesus), but could not deceive him; and for this reason, that she caused him to be crucified. And the spirit of Jesus, (says Justinus,) ascended to the Good Being. And (the Justinians maintain) that the spirits of all who thus obey those silly and futile discourses will be saved, and that the body and soul of Edem have been left behind. But the foolish Justinus calls this (Edem) Earth.

Chap. XII. – The Docetae.

Now the Docetae advance assertions of this description: that the primal Deity is as a seed of the fig-tree; and that from this proceeded three Aeons as the stem, and the leaves and the fruit; and that these projected thirty Aeons, each (of them) ten; and that they were all united in decades, but differed only in positions, as some were before others. And (the Docetae assert) that infinite Aeons were indefinitely projected, and that all these were hermaphrodites. And (they say) that these Aeons formed a design of simultaneously going together into one Aeon, and that from this the intermediate Aeon and from the Virgin Mary they begot a Saviour of all. And this Redeemer was like in every respect to the first seed of the fig-tree, but inferior in this respect, from the fact of His having been begotten; for the seed whence the fig-tree springs is unbegotten. This, then, was the great light of the Aeons – it was entirely radiance – which receives no adornment, and comprises in itself the forms of all animals. And the Docetae maintain that this light, on proceeding into the underlying chaos, afforded a cause (of existence) to the things that were produced, and those actually existing, and that on coming down from above it impressed on chaos beneath the forms of everlasting species. For the third Aeon, which had tripled itself, when he perceives that all his characteristic attributes were forcibly drawn off into the nether darkness, and not being ignorant both of the terror of darkness and the simplicity of light, proceeded to create heaven; and after having rendered firm what intervened, He separated the darkness from the light. As all the species of the third Aeon were, he says, overcome by the darkness, the figure even of this Aeon became a living fire, having been generated by light. And from this (source), they allege, was generated the Great Archon, regarding whom Moses converses, saying that He is a fiery Deity and Demiurge, who also continually alters the forms of all (Aeons) into bodies. And the (Docetae) allege that these are the souls for whose sake the Saviour was begotten, and that He points out the way through which the souls will escape that are (now) overpowered (by darkness). And (the Docetae maintain) that Jesus arrayed Himself in that only-begotten power, and that for this reason He could not be seen by any, on account of the excessive magnitude of His glory. And they say that all the occurrences took place with Him as it has been written in the Gospels.

Chap. XIII. – Monoïmus.

But the followers of Monoïmus the Arabian assert that the originating principle of the universe is a primal man and son of man; and that, as Moses states, the things that have been produced were produced not by the primal man, but by the Son of that primal man, yet not by the entire Son, but by part of Him. And (Monoïmus asserts) that the Son of man is iota, which stands for ten, the principal number in which is (inherent) the subsistence of all number (in general, and) through which every number (in particular) consists, as well as the generation of the universe, fire, air, water, and earth. But inasmuch as this is one iota and one tittle, and what is perfect (emanates) from what is perfect, or, in other words, a tittle flows down from above, containing all things in itself; (therefore,) whatsoever things also the man possesses, the Father of the Son of man possesses likewise. Moses, therefore, says that the world was made in six days, that is, by six powers, out of which the world was made by the one tittle. For cubes, and octahedrons, and pyramids, and all figures similar to these, having equal superficies, out of which consist fire, air, water, and earth, have been produced from numbers comprehended in that simple tittle of the iota, which is Son of man. When, therefore, says (Monoïmus), Moses mentions the rod’s being brandished for the purpose of bringing the plagues upon Egypt, he alludes allegorically to the (alterations of the) world of iota; nor did he frame more than ten plagues. If, however, says he, you wish to become acquainted with the universe, search within yourself who is it that says, “My soul, my flesh, and my mind,” and who is it that appropriates each one thing unto himself, as another (would do) for himself. Understand that this is a perfect one arising from (one that is) perfect, and that he considers as his own all so-called nonentities and all entities. These, then, are the opinions of Monoïmus also.

Chap. XIV. – Tatian.

Tatian, however, similarly with Valentinus and the others, says that there are certain invisible Aeons, and that by some one of these the world below has been created, and the things existing in it. And he habituates himself to a very cynical14 mode of life, and almost in nothing differs from Marcion, as appertaining both to his slanders, and the regulations enacted concerning marriage.

Chap. XV. – Marcion and Cerdo.

But Marcion, of Pontus, and Cerdon,15 his preceptor, themselves also lay down that there are three principles of the universe – good, just, and matter. Some disciples, however, of these add a fourth, saying, good, just, evil, and matter. But they all affirm that the good (Being) has made nothing at all, though some denominate the just one likewise evil, whereas others that his only title is that of just. And they allege that (the just Being) made all things out of subjacent matter, for that he made them not well, but irrationally. For it is requisite that the things made should be similar to the maker; wherefore also they thus employ the evangelical parables, saying, “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,” (Mat_7:18) and the rest of the passage. Now Marcion alleges that the conceptions badly devised by the (just one) himself constituted the allusion in this passage. And (he says) that Christ is the Son of the good Being, and was sent for the salvation of souls by him whom he styles the inner than. And he asserts that he appeared as a man though not being a man, and as incarnate though not being incarnate. And he maintains that his manifestation was only fantastic, and that he underwent neither generation nor passion except in appearance. And he will not allow that flesh rises again; but in affirming marriage to be destruction, he leads his disciples towards a very cynical life. And by these means he imagines that he annoys the Creator, if he should abstain from the things that are made or appointed by Him. 

Chap. XVI. – Apelles.

But Apelles, a disciple of this heretic, was displeased at the statements advanced by his preceptor, as we have previously declared, and by another theory supposed that there are four gods. And the first of these he alleges to be the “Good Being,” whom the prophets did not know, and Christ to be His Son. And the second God, he affirms to be the Creator of the universe, and Him he does not wish to be a God. And the third God, he states to be the fiery one that was manifested; and the fourth to be an evil one. And Apelles calls these angels; and by adding (to their number) Christ likewise, he will assert Him to be a fifth God. But this heretic is in the habit of devoting his attention to a book which he calls “Revelations” of a certain Philumene, whom he considers a prophetess. And he affirms that Christ did not receive his flesh from the Virgin, but from the adjacent substance of the world. In this manner he composed his treatises against the law and the prophets, and attempts to abolish them as if they had spoken falsehoods, and had not known God. And Apelles, similarly with Marcion, affirms that the different sorts of flesh are destroyed.

Chap. XVII. – Cerinthus.

Cerinthus, however, himself having been trained in Egypt, determined that the world was not made by the first God, but by a certain angelic power. And this power was far separated and distant from that sovereignty which is above the entire circle of existence, and it knows not the God (that is) above all things. And he says that Jesus was not born of a virgin, but that He sprang from Joseph and Mary as their son, similar to the rest of men; and that He excelled in justice, and prudence, and understanding above all the rest of mankind. And Cerinthus maintains that, after Jesus’ baptism, Christ came down in the form of a dove upon Him from the sovereignty that is above the whole circle of existence, and that then He proceeded to preach the unknown Father, and to work miracles. And he asserts that, at the conclusion of the passion, Christ flew away from Jesus,16 but that Jesus suffered, and that Christ remained incapable of suffering, being a spirit of the Lord.

Chap. XVIII. – The Ebionaeans.

But the Ebionaeans assert that the world is made by the true God, and they speak of Christ in a similar manner with Cerinthus. They live, however, in all respects according to the law of Moses, alleging that they are thus justified.

Chap. XIX. – Theodotus.17

But Theodotus of Byzantium introduced a heresy of the following description, alleging that all things were created by the true God; whereas that Christ, he states, in a manner similar to that advocated by the Gnostics already mentioned, made His appearance according to some mode of this description. And Theodotus affirms that Christ is a man of a kindred nature with all men, but that He surpasses them in this respect, that, according to the counsel of God, He had been born of a virgin, and the Holy Ghost had overshadowed His mother. This heretic, however, maintained that Jesus had not assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin, but that afterwards Christ descended upon Jesus at His baptism in form of a dove. And from this circumstance, the followers of Theodotus affirm that at first miraculous powers did not acquire operating energy in the Saviour Himself. Theodotus, however, determines to deny the divinity of Christ. Now, opinions of this description were advanced by Theodotus.

Chap. XX. – Melchisedecians.

And others also make all their assertions similarly with those which have been already specified, introducing one only alteration, viz., in respect of regarding Melchisedec as a certain power. But they allege that Melchisedec himself is superior to all powers; and according to his image, they are desirous of maintaining that Christ likewise is generated.

Chap. XXI. – The Phrygians or Montanists.

The Phrygians, however, derive the principles of their heresy from a certain Montanus, and Priscilla, and Maximilla, and regard these wretched women as prophetesses, and Montanus as a prophet. In respect, however, of what appertains to the origin and creation of the universe, the Phrygians are supposed to express themselves correctly; while in the tenets which they enunciate respecting Christ, they have not irrelevantly formed their opinions. But they are seduced into error in common with the heretics previously alluded to, and devote their attention to the discourses of these above the Gospels, thus laying down regulations concerning novel and strange fasts.18

Chap. XXII. – The Phrygians or Montanists Continued.

But others of them, being attached to the heresy of the Noetians, entertain similar opinions to those relating to the silly women of the Phrygians, and to Montanus. As regards, however, the truths appertaining to the Father of the entire of existing things, they are guilty of blasphemy, because they assert that He is Son and Father, visible and invisible, begotten and unbegotten, mortal and immortal. These have taken occasion from a certain Noetus to put forward their heresy.

Chap. XXIII. – Noetus and Callistus.

But in like manner, also, Noetus, being by birth a native of Smyrna, and a fellow addicted to reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced (among us) this heresy which originated from one Epigonus. It reached Rome, and was adopted by Cleomenes, and so has continued to this day among his successors. Noetus asserts that there is one Father and God of the universe, and that He made all things, and was imperceptible to those that exist when He might so desire. Noetus maintained that the Father then appeared when He wished; and He is invisible when He is not seen, but visible when He is seen. And this heretic also alleges that the Father is unbegotten when He is not generated, but begotten when He is born of a virgin; as also that He is not subject to suffering, and is immortal when He does not suffer or die. When, however, His passion19 came upon Him, Noetus allows that the Father suffers and dies. And the Noetians suppose that this Father Himself is called Son, (and vice versa,) in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.

Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already carefully explained the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced likewise a heresy, and derived its starting-points from these Noetians, – namely, so far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son, yet that in substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity, is, he says, not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity; therefore this one person, (according to Callistus,) is divided nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified20 is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into the opinion of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine. These, then, are the opinions of Callistus.

Chap. XXIV. – Hermogenes.

But one Hermogenes himself also being desirous of saying something, asserted that God made all things out of matter coeval with Himself, and subject to His design. For Hermogenes21 held it to be an impossibility that God should make the things that were made, except out of existent things.

Chap. XXV. – The Elchasaites.

But certain others, introducing as it were some novel tenet, appropriated parts of their system from all heresies, and procured a strange volume, which bore on the title page the name of one Elchasai. These, in like manner, acknowledge that the principles of the universe were originated by the Deity. They do not, however, confess that there is but one Christ, but that there is one that is superior to the rest, and that He is transfused into many bodies frequently, and was now in Jesus. And, in like manner, these heretics maintain that at one time Christ was begotten of God, and at another time became the Spirit, and at another time was born of a virgin, and at another time not so. And they affirm that likewise this Jesus afterwards was continually being transfused into bodies, and was manifested in many (different bodies) at different times. And they resort to incantations and baptisms in their confession of elements. And they occupy themselves with bustling activity in regard of astrological and mathematical science, and of the arts of sorcery. But also they allege themselves to have powers of prescience.

Chap. XXVI. – Jewish Chronology.

… From Haran, a city of Mesopotamia, (Abraham, by the command)22 of God, transfers his residence into the country which is now called Palestine and Judea, but then the region of Canaan. Now, concerning this territory, we have in part, but still not negligently, rendered an account in other discourses. From the circumstance, then, (of this migration) is traceable the beginning of an increase (of population) in Judea, which obtained its name from Judah, fourth son of Jacob, whose name was also called Israel, from the fact that a race of kings would be descended from him. [vol. 2. p. 306, this series] Abraham removes from Mesopotamia (when 75 years old, and) when 100 years old he begat Isaac. But Isaac, when 60 years of age, begat Jacob. And Jacob, when 86 years old, begat Levi; and Levi, at 40 years of age, begat Caath;23 and Caath was four years of age when he went down with Jacob into Egypt. Therefore the entire period during which Abraham sojourned, and the entire family descended from him by Isaac, in the country then called Canaanitis, was 215 years. But the father of this Abraham is Thare, 24 and of this Thare the father is Nachor, and of this Nachor the father is Serag, and of this Serag the father is Reu, and of this Reu the father is Peleg, and of this Peleg (Gen_11:16) the father is Heber. And so it comes to pass that the Jews are denominated by the name of Hebrews. In the time of Phaleg,25 however, arose the dispersion of nations. Now these nations were 72,26 corresponding with the number of Abraham’s children. And the names of these nations we have likewise set down in other books, not even omitting this point in its own proper place. And the reason of our particularity is our desire to manifest to those who are of a studious disposition the love which we cherish towards the Divinity, and the indubitable knowledge respecting the Truth, which in the course of our labours27 we have acquired possession of. But of this Heber the father is Salah; and of this Salah the father is Caïnan; and of this Caïnan the father is Arphaxad, whose father is Shem; and of this Shem the father is Noah. And in Noah’s time there occurred a flood throughout the entire world, which neither Egyptians, nor Chaldeans, nor Greeks recollect; for the inundations which took place in the age of Ogyges and Deucalion prevailed only in the localities where these dwelt.28 There are, then, in the case of these (patriarchs – that is, from Noah to Heber inclusive) – 5 generations, and 495 years.29 This Noah, inasmuch as he was a most religious and God-loving man, alone, with wife and children, and the three wives of these, escaped the flood that ensued. And he owed his preservation to an ark; and both the dimensions and relics of this ark are, as we have explained, shown to this day in the mountains called Ararat, which are situated in the direction of the country of the Adiabeni.30 It is then possible for those who are disposed to investigate the subject industriously, to perceive how clearly has been demonstrated the existence of a nation of worshippers of the true God, more ancient than all the Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks. What necessity, however, is there at present to specify those who, anterior to Noah, were both devout men, and permitted to hold converse with the true God, inasmuch as, so far as the subject taken in hand is concerned, this testimony in regard of the antiquity of the people of God is sufficient?

Chap. XXVII. – Jewish Chronology Continued.

But since it does not seem irrational to prove that these nations that had their attention engrossed with the speculations of philosophy are of more modern date than those that had habitually worshipped the true God, [seenote 22, p. 148, supra.] it is reasonable that we should state both whence the family of these latter originated; and that when they took up their abode in these countries, they did not receive a name from the actual localities, but claimed for themselves names from those who were primarily born, and had inhabited these. Noah had three sons – Shem, Ham, and Japheth. From these the entire family of man was multiplied, and every quarter of the earth owes its inhabitants in the first instance to these. For the word of God to them prevailed, when the Lord said, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” So great efficacy had that one word that from the three sons of Noah are begotten in the family 72 children, – (viz.,) from Shem, 25; from Japheth, 15; and from Ham, 32. Unto Ham, however, these 32 children are born in accordance with previous declarations. And among Ham’s children are: Canaan,31 from whom came the Canaanites; Mizraim, from whom the Egyptians; Cush, from whom the Ethiopians; and Phut, from whom the Libyans. These, according to the language prevalent among them, are up to the present day styled by the appellation of their ancestors; nay, even in the Greek tongue they are called by the names by which they have been now denominated. But even supposing that neither these localities had been previously inhabited, nor that it could be proved that a race of men from the beginning existed there, nevertheless these sons of Noah, a worshipper of God, are quite sufficient to prove the point at issue. For it is evident that Noah himself must have been a disciple of devout people, for which reason he escaped the tremendous, though transient, threat of water.

How, then, should not the worshippers of the true God be of greater antiquity than all Chaldeans, Egyptians, and Greeks, for we must bear in mind that the father of these Gentiles was born from this Japheth,32 and received the name Javan, and became the progenitor of Greeks and Ionians? Now, if the nations that devoted themselves to questions concerning philosophy are shown to belong to a period altogether more recent than the race of the worshippers of God as well as the time of the deluge, how would not the nations of the barbarians, and as many tribes as in the world are known and unknown, appear to belong to a more modern epoch than these? Therefore ye Greeks, Egyptians, Chaldeans, and the entire race of men, become adepts in this doctrine, and learn from us, who are the friends of God, what the nature of God is, and what His well-arranged creation. And we have cultivated this system, not expressing ourselves in mere pompous language, but executing our treatises in terms that prove our knowledge of truth and our practice of good sense, our object being the demonstration of His Truth.33

Chap. XXVIII. – The Doctrine of the Truth.

The first and only (one God),34 both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy35 of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them. For He is fully acquainted with whatever is about to take place, for foreknowledge also is present to Him. The different principles, however, of what will come into existence, He first fabricated, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, from which diverse elements He proceeded to form His own creation. And some objects He formed of one essence, but others He compounded from two, and others from three, and others from four. And those formed of one substance were immortal, for in their case dissolution does not follow, for what is one will never be dissolved. Those, on the other hand, which are formed out of two, or three, or four substances, are dissoluble; wherefore also are they named mortal. For this has been denominated death; namely, the dissolution of substances connected. I now therefore think that I have sufficiently answered those endued with a sound mind, who, if they are desirous of additional instruction, and are disposed accurately to investigate the substances of these things, and the causes of the entire creation, will become acquainted with these points should they peruse a work of ours comprised (under the title), Concerning the Substance of the Universe.36 I consider, however, that at present it is enough to elucidate those causes of which the Greeks, not being aware, glorified, in pompous phraseology, the parts of creation, while they remained ignorant of the Creator. And from these the heresiarchs have taken occasion, and have transformed the statements previously made by those Greeks into similar doctrines, and thus have framed ridiculous heresies.

FOOTNOTES

1 [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.]

2 Hippolytus in what follows is indebted to Sextus Empiricus. – Adv. Phys., x.

3 See Karst., Fragm., viii. 45.

4 Iliad, xiv. 201.

5 Iliad, vii. 99.

6 See Karst., Fragm., ix. p. 46.

7 Fabricus, in his Commentary on Sextus Empiricus, considers that this is a quotation from the Hymns of Euripedes.

8 V. 55-57, ed. Karst.

9 V. 106, 107, ed. Karst.

10 [See De Legibus, lib. x., and note xii. p. 119, Tayler Lewis’ Plato against Atheists.]

11 Cruice supplies from Theodoret: “and the second which is good is self-begotten, and the third is generated.”

12 ἀφίεται εἰκῇ; Bernays proposes ὸφιοειδῆ; i.e., being of the form of the serpent.

13 This section differs considerably from what Hippolytus has already stated concerning Valentinus. [“Sige,” vol. 1. p. 62, note 18.]

14 The allusion here is to the shamelessness of the Cynics in regard to sexual intercourse.

15 The account here given of Cerdon and Marcion does not accurately correspond with that already furnished by Hippolytus of these heretics.

16 Or, “the Son;” or, “the Son of Mary” (Cruice).

17 [Vol. 3. 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.]

18 The ms. has the obviously corrupt reading παραδόσεις, which Duncker alters into παραδόχους (strange).

19 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.

20 σταυρούμενον. The manuscript 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 (Joh_10:17-18).

21 Cruice considers that Theodoret has taken his account (Haer. Fab., i. 19) from this tenth book of The Refutation.

22 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), Etudes sur de Nouveaux Documents Historiques empruntés à L’Ouvrage des φιλοσοφουμενα, Paris, 1853.

23 That is, Kohath (see Gen_46:11).

24 That is, Tera (see Gen_11:26).

25 [Possibly a physical catastrophe. Gen_10:25, and 1Ch_1:19.]

26 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 works preserved by Eusebius and Syncellus.

27 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 Fabricus, 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.]

28 [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.]

29 Cruice has 435 years.

30 [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.]

31 [The only son of Ham who did not go to Africa, vol. iii. p. 3.]

32 [The fable of Iapetus cannot be explained away as corroboration of the Biblical narrative. Hor., Od., i. 3, 27.]

33 [Here the Edinburgh has “nature.” The context seems to require the more comprehensive word “Truth.”]

34 The margin of the ms. has the words “Origen and Origen’s opinion.” This seems to confirm the criticism which ascribes The Refutation to Origen. 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 36.]

35 ὀροφήν (Scott). The ms. has μορφήν.

36 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 Fabricus (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 the 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.]

Book X. (Cont.)

Chap. XXIX. – The Doctrine of the Truth Continued.

Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. [Elucidation XVI.] The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously37 with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitor’s first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. And so it was, that when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed each object of creation, thus pleasing God. And some things which multiply by generation38 He formed male and female; but whatsoever beings were designed for service and ministration He made either male, or not requiring females, or neither male nor female. For even the primary substances of these, which were formed out of nonentities, viz., fire and spirit, water and earth, are neither male nor female; nor could male or female proceed from any one of these, were it not that God, who is the source of all authority, wished that the Logos might render assistance39 in accomplishing a production of this kind. I confess that angels are of fire, and I maintain that female spirits are not present with them. And I am of opinion that sun and moon and stars, in like manner, are produced from fire and spirit, and are neither male nor female. And the will of the Creator is, that swimming and winged animals are from water, male and female. For so God, whose will it was, ordered that there should exist a moist substance, endued with productive power. And in like manner God commanded, that from earth should arise reptiles and beasts, as well males and females of all sorts of animals; for so the nature of the things produced admitted. For as many things as He willed, God made from time to time. These things He created through the Logos, it not being possible for things to be generated otherwise than as they were produced. But when, according as He willed, He also formed (objects), He called them by names, and thus notified His creative effort.40 And making these, He formed the ruler of all, and fashioned him out of all composite substances.41 The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel, – be not deceived, – but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou hast the example of the Logos. His will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee, and resist not now, in order that, being found faithful in that which is small, you may be enabled to have entrusted to you also that which is great.(Mat_25:21, Mat_25:23; Luk_16:10, Luk_16:11, Luk_16:12. [Also 2Pe_1:4, one of the king-texts of the inspired oracles.])

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.42 Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it. But God, who created it, did not, nor does not, make evil. He makes what is glorious and excellent; for He who makes it is good. Now man, that was brought into existence, was a creature endued with a capacity of self-determination,43 yet not possessing a sovereign intellect,44 nor holding sway over all things by reflection, and authority, and power, but a slave to his passions, and comprising all sorts of contrarieties in himself. But man, from the fact of his possessing a capacity of self-determination, brings forth what is evil,45 that is, accidentally; which evil is not consummated except you actually commit some piece of wickedness. For it is in regard of our desiring anything that is wicked, or our meditating upon it, that what is evil is so denominated. Evil had no existence from the beginning, but came into being subsequently.46 Since man has free will, a law has been defined for his guidance by the Deity, not without answering a good purpose. For if man did not possess the power to will and not to will, why should a law be established? For a law will not be laid down for an animal devoid of reason, but a bridle and a whip; (Psa_32:9) whereas to man has been given a precept and penalty to perform, or for not carrying into execution what has been enjoined. For man thus constituted has a law been enacted by just men in primitive ages. Nearer our own day was there established a law, full of gravity and justice, by Moses, to whom allusion has been already made, a devout man, and one beloved of God.

Now the Logos of God controls all these; the first begotten Child of the Father, the voice of the Dawn antecedent to the Morning Star. (Psa_110:3; 2Pe_1:18, 2Pe_1:19) Afterwards just men were born, friends of God; and these have been styled prophets,47 on account of their foreshowing future events. And the word of prophecy48 was committed unto them, not for one age only; but also the utterances of events predicted throughout all generations, were vouchsafed in perfect clearness. And this, too, not at the time merely when seers furnished a reply to those present;49 but also events that would happen throughout all ages, have been manifested beforehand; because, in speaking of incidents gone by, the prophets brought them back to the recollection of humanity; whereas, in showing forth present occurrences, they endeavoured to persuade men not to be remiss; while, by foretelling future events, they have rendered each one of us terrified on beholding events that had been predicted long before, and on expecting likewise those events predicted as still future. Such is our faith, O all ye men, – ours, I say, who are not persuaded by empty expressions, nor caught away by sudden impulses of the heart, nor beguiled by the plausibility of eloquent discourses, yet who do not refuse to obey words that have been uttered by divine power. And these injunctions has God given to the Word. But the Word, by declaring them, promulgated the divine commandments, thereby turning man from disobedience, not bringing him into servitude by force of necessity, but summoning him to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity.

This Logos the Father in the latter days sent forth, no longer to speak by a prophet, and not wishing that the Word, being obscurely proclaimed, should be made the subject of mere conjecture, but that He should be manifested, so that we could see Him with our own eyes. This Logos, I say, the Father sent forth, in order that the world, on beholding Him, might reverence Him who was delivering precepts not by the person of prophets, nor terrifying the soul by an angel, but who was Himself – He that had spoken – corporally present amongst us. This Logos we know to have received a body from a virgin, and to have remodelled the old man50 by a new creation. And we believe the Logos to have passed through every period in this life, in order that He Himself might serve as a law for every age, [See Irenaeus (a very beautiful passage), vol. 1. p. 391, sec. 4.] and that, by being present (amongst) us, He might exhibit His own manhood as an aim for all men. And that by Himself in Person He might prove that God made nothing evil, and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both. [See vol. 4. pp. 255 (sec. 8) and 383] This Man we know to have been made out of the compound of our humanity. For if He were not of the same nature with ourselves, in vain does He ordain that we should imitate the Teacher. For if that Man happened to be of a different substance from us, why does He lay injunctions similar to those He has received on myself, who am born weak; and how is this the act of one that is good and just? In order, however, that He might not be supposed to be different from us, He even underwent toil, and was willing to endure hunger, and did not refuse to feel thirst, and sunk into the quietude of slumber. He did not protest against His Passion, but became obedient unto death, and manifested His resurrection. Now in all these acts He offered up, as the first-fruits, His own manhood, in order that thou, when thou art in tribulation, mayest not be disheartened, but, confessing thyself to be a man (of like nature with the Redeemer), mayest dwell in expectation of also receiving what the Father has granted unto this Son.51

Chap. XXX. – The Author’s Concluding Address.

Such is the true doctrine in regard of the divine nature, O ye men, Greeks and Barbarians, Chaldeans and Assyrians, Egyptians and Libyans, Indians and Ethiopians, Celts, and ye Latins, who lead armies, and all ye that inhabit Europe, and Asia, and Libya.52 And to you I am become an adviser, inasmuch as I am a disciple of the benevolent Logos, and hence humane, in order that you may hasten and by us may be taught who the true God is, and what is His well-ordered creation. Do not devote your attention to the fallacies of artificial discourses, nor the vain promises of plagiarizing heretics,53 but to the venerable simplicity of unassuming truth. And by means of this knowledge you shall escape the approaching threat of the fire of judgment, and the rayless scenery of gloomy Tartarus,54 where never shines a beam from the irradiating voice of the Word!

You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s55 eternal lake of fire and the eye ever fixed in menacing glare of fallen angels chained in Tartarus as punishment for their sins; and you shall escape the worm that ceaselessly coils for food around the body whose scum56 has bred it. Now such (torments) as these shall thou avoid by being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God:57 for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality.58 This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace59 with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings,60 rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shall resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shall have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine61 perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!62

FOOTNOTES

37 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 ἀπέσκων Θεῷ, into ἀπετελεῖ τὸ ἄρεσκον, “he carried into effect what was pleasing to the Deity.”

38 Dr. Wordsworth suggest for γενέσει, ἐπιγενέσει, i.e., a continuous series of procreation.

39 See Origen, in Joann., tom. ii. sec. 8.

40 [Rather, His will.]

41 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.

42 [Nicene doctrine, ruling out all conditions of time from the idea of the generation of the Logos.]

43 αὐτεξούσιος. Hippolytus here follows his master Irenaeus (Haer., 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 Irenaeus, vol. 1. p. 518, and Clement, vol. 2. pp. 319 passim to 525; also vol. 3. p. 301, and vol. 4. Tertull. and Origen. See Indexes on Free-will.]

44 Dr. Wordsworth translates the passage thus: “Endued with free will, but not dominant; having reason, but not able to govern,” etc.

45 [One of the most pithy of all statements as to the origin of subjective evil, i.e., evil in humanity.]

46 See Origen, in Joann., tom. ii. sec. 7.

47 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 Ἀρχῶν, i. 1.)

48 Hippolytus expresses similar opinions respecting the economy of the prophets, in his work, de Antichristo, sec. 2.

49 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.

50 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 (1Co_5:7; 2Co_5:17; Gal_6:15). 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 Christo, sec. 26, in Danielem, (p. 205, Mai); and Irenaeus, v. 6.

51 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.

52 [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.]

53 [Here the practical idea of the Philosophumena comes out; and compare vol. 4. pp. 469 and 570.]

54 Dr. Wordsworth justifies Hippolytus’ use of the pagan word “Tartarus,” by citing the passage (2Pe_2:4), “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. 4. p. 140, beginning line 375.]

55 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).

56 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.

57 [This startling expression is justified by such texts as 2Pe_1:4 compared with Joh_17:22, Joh_17:23, and Rev_3:21. Thus Christ overrules the Tempter (Gen_3:5), and gives more than was offered by the “Father of Lies.”]

58 [Compare Joh_10:34 with Rev_5:10. Kings of the earth may be called “gods,” in a sense: ergo, etc.]

59 Bunsen translates thus: “Doubt not that you will ever exist again,” – a rendering which Dr. Wordsworth controverts in favour of the one adopted above.

60 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.

61 πτωχευει. Bunsen translates, “for God acts the beggar for thee,” which is literal, though rather unintelligible. Dr. Wordsworth renders the word thus: “God has a longing for thee.”

62 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 in 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 ἀεὶof Christendom, – a formal countersign of apostolic doctrine.]

Elucidations.

I.

(Who first propounded these heresies)

Hippolytus seems to me to have felt the perils to the pure Gospel of many admissions made by Clement and other Alexandrian doctors as to the merits of some of the philosophers of the Gentiles. Very gently, but with prescient genius, he adopts this plan of tracing the origin and all the force of heresies to “philosophy falsely so called.” The existence of this “cloud of locusts” is (1) evidence of the antagonism of Satan; (2) of the prophetic spirit of the apostles; (3) of the tremendous ferment produced by the Gospel leaven as soon as it was hid in the “three measures of meal” by “the Elect Lady,” the Ecclesia Dei; (4) of the fidelity of the witnesses, – that grand, heroic glory of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, – who never suffered these heresies to be mistaken for the faith, or to corrupt the Scriptures; and (5) finally of the power of the Holy Spirit, who gave them victory over errors, and enabled them to define truth in all the crystalline beauty of that “Mountain of Light,” that true Koh-i-noor, the Nicene Symbol. Thus, also, Christ’s promises were fulfilled.

II.

(Caulacau)

See Irenaeus, p. 350, sec. 5, vol. 1., this series, where I have explained this jargon of heresy. But I think it worth while to make use here of two notes on the subject, which I made in 1845,1 with little foresight of these tasks in 1885.

Fleury (tom. ii.) makes this statement: “Les Nicolaites donnaient une infinite de noms barbares aux princes et aux puissances qu’ils mettaient en chaque ciel. Ils en nommaient un caulaucauch, abusant d’un passage d’Isaie, ou se lisent ces mots hebreux: cau-la-cau, cau-la-cau, pour representer l’insolence avec laquelle les impies se moquaient du prophete, en repetant plusieurs fois quelques-unes de ses paroles.” Compare Guerricus, thus: “Vox illa taedii et des-perationis, quae apud Isaiam (Isa_28:13) legitur, quia, viz., moram faciente Domino, frequentibus nuntiis ejus increduli et illusores insultare videntur: manda remanda,” etc. See the spurious Bernardina, “de Adventu Dom., serm. i.,” S. Bernard., opp. Paris (ed. Mabillon), vol. ii. P. 1799.

III.

(The Phrygians call Papa)

Hippolytus had little idea, when he wrote this, what the word Papa was destined to signify in mediaeval Rome. The Abba of Holy Writ has its equivalent in many Oriental languages, as well as in the Greek and Latin, through which it has passed into all the dialects of Europe. It was originally given to all presbyters, as implied in their name of elders, and was a title of humility when it became peculiar to the bishops, as (1Pe_5:3) non Domini sed patres. St. Paul (1Co_4:15) shows that “in Christ” – that is, under Him – we may have such “fathers ;” and thus, while he indicates the true sense of the precept, he leads us to recognise a prophetic force and admonition in our Saviour’s words (Mat_23:1-39), “Call no man your father upon the earth.” Thus interpreted, these words seem to be a warning against the sense to which this name, Papa, became, long afterwards, restricted, in Western Europe: Notre St. Pere, le Pape, as they say in France. This was done by the decree of the ambitious Hildebrand, Gregory VII. (who died A.D. 1085), when, in a synod held at Rome, he defined that “the title Pope should be peculiar to one only in the Christian world.” The Easterns, of course, never paid any respect to this novelty and dictation, and to this day their patriarchs are popes; and not only so, for the parish priests of the Greek churches are called by the same name. I was once cordially invited to take a repast “with the pope,” on visiting a Greek church on the shores of the Adriatic. It is said, however, that a distinction is made between the words papas and papas; the latter being peculiar to inferiors, according to the refinements of Goar, a Western critic. Valeat quantum. But I must here note, that as “words are things,” and as infinite damage has been done to history and to Christian truth by tolerating this empiricism of Rome, I have restored scientific accuracy, in this series, whenever reference is made to the primitive bishops of Rome, who were no more “Popes” than Cincinnatus was an emperor. It is time that theological science should accept, like other sciences, the language of truth and the terminology of demonstrated fact. The early bishops of Rome were geographically important, and were honoured as sitting in the only apostolic see of the West; but they were almost inconsiderable in the structural work of the Ante-Nicene ages, and have left no appreciable impress on its theology. After the Council of Nice they were recognised as patriarchs, though equals among brethren, and nothing more, The ambition of Boniface III. led him to name himself “universal bishop. This was at first a mere name “of intolerable pride,” as his predecessor Gregory had called it, but Nicholas I. (A.D. 858) tried to make it real, and, by means of the false decretals, created himself the first “Pope” in the modern sense, imposing his despotism on the West, and identifying it with the polity of Western churches, which alone submitted to it. Thus, it was never Catholic, and came into existence only by nullifying the Nicene Constitutions, and breaking away from Catholic communion with the parent churches of the East. Compare Casaubon (Exercit., xiv. p. 280, etc.) in his comments on Baronius. I have thus stated with scientific precision what all candid critics and historians, even the Gallicans included, enable us to prove. Why, then, keep up the language of fiction and imposture,2 so confusing to young students? I believe the youthful Oxonians whom our modern Tertullian carried with him into the papal schism, could never have been made dupes but for the persistent empiricism of orthodox writers who practically adopt in words what they refute in argument, calling all bishops of Rome “Popes,” and even including St. Peter’s blessed name in this fallacious designation.3 In this series I adhere to the logic of facts, calling (1) all the bishops of Rome from Linus to Sylvester simply bishops; and (2) all their successors to Nicholas I. “patriarchs” under the Nicene Constitutions, which they professed to honour, though, after Gregory the Great, they were ever vying with Constantinople to make themselves greater. (3) Nicholas, who trampled on the Nicene Constitutions, and made the false decretals the canon law of the Western churches, was therefore the first “Pope” who answers to the Tridentine definitions. Even these, however, were never able to make dogmatic4 the claim of “supremacy,” which was first done by Pius IX. in our days. A canonical Primacy is one thing: a self-asserted Supremacy is quite another, as the French doctors have abundantly demonstrated.

IV.

(Contemporaneous heresy)

Here begins that “duplicating of our knowledge” of primitive Rome of which Bunsen speaks so justly A thorough mastery of this book will prepare us to understand the great Cyprian in all his relations with the Roman Province, and not less to comprehend the affairs of Novatian.

Bunsen, with all respect, does not comprehend the primitive system, and reads it backward, from the modern system, which travesties antiquity even in its apparent conformities. These conformities are only the borrowing of old names for new contrivances. Thus, he reads the cardinals of the eleventh century into the simple presbytery of comprovincial bishops of the third century,5 just as he elsewhere lugs in the Ave Maria of modern Italy to expound the Evening Hymn to the Trinity. [see vol. 2. p. 298, this series] In a professed Romanist, like De Maistre, this would be resented as jugglery. But let us come to facts. Bunsen’s preliminary remarks6 are excellent. But when he comes to note an “exceptional system” in the Roman “presbytery,” he certainly confuses all things. Let us recur to Tertullian. [vol. 4. p. 114, Elucidation II., this series.] See how much was already established in his day, which the Council of Nicaea recognised a century later as (τὰ ἀρκαῖα ἔθη) old primitive institutions. In all things the Greek churches were the exemplar and the model for other churches to follow. “Throughout the provinces of Greece,” he says, “there are held, in definite localities, those councils,” etc. “If we also, in our diverse provinces, observe,” etc. Now, these councils, or “meetings,” in spite of the emperors or the senate who issued mandates against them, as appears from the same passage, were, in the Roman Province, made up of the comprovincial bishops: and their gatherings seem to have been called “the Roman presbytery;” for, as is evident, the bishops and elders were alike called “presbyters,” the word being as common to both orders as the word pastors or clergymen in our days. According to the thirty-fourth of the “Canons Apostolical,” as Bunsen remarks, “the bishops of the suburban towns, including Portus, also formed at that time an integral part of the Roman presbytery.” This word also refers to all the presbyters of the diocese of Rome itself; and I doubt not originally the laity had their place, as they did in Carthage: “the apostles, elders, and brethren” being the formula of Scripture; or, “with the whole Church,” which includes them, – omni plebe adstante.7 Now, all this accounts, as Bunsen justly observes, for the fact that one of the “presbytery” should be thus repeatedly called presbyter and “at the same time have the charge of the church at Portus, for which (office) there was no other title than the old one of bishop; for such was the title of every man who presided over the congregation in any city, – at Ostia, at Tusculum, or in the other suburban cities.

Now let us turn to the thirty-fourth8 “Apostolical Canon” (so called), and note as follows: “It is necessary that the bishops of every nation should know who is chief among them, and should recognise him as their head by doing nothing of great moment without his consent; and that each of them should do such things only as pertain to his own parish and the districts under him. And neither let him do any thing without the consent of all, for thus shall there be unity of heart, and thus shall God be glorified through our Lord Jesus Christ.” I do not pause to expound this word parish, for I am elucidating Hippolytus by Bunsen’s aid, and do not intend to interpolate my own theory of the primitive episcopate.

Let the “Apostolical Constitutions” go for what they are worth:9 I refer to them only under lead of Dr. Bunsen. But now turn to the Nicene Council (Canon VI.) as follows: “Let the ancient customs prevail in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these provinces, since the like is customary in Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges.” Here the Province of Rome is recognised as an ancient institution, while its jurisdiction and privileges are equalized with those of other churches. Now, Rufinus, interpreting this canon, says it means, “the ancient custom of Alexandria and Rome shall still be observed; that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches.” Bunsen refers us to Bingham, and from him we learn that the suburbicary region, as known to the Roman magistrates, included only “a hundred miles about Rome.”10 This seems to have been canonically extended even to Sicily on the south, but certainly not to Milan on the north. Suffice it, Hippolytus was one of those suburbicarian bishops who sat in the Provincial Council of Rome; without consent of which the Bishop of Rome could not, canonically, do anything of importance, as the canon above cited ordains. Such are the facts necessary to a comprehension of conflicts excited by “the contemporaneous heresy,” here noted.

V.

(Affairs of the Church)

“Zephyrinus imagines that he administers the affairs of the Church – an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man.” This word imagines is common with Hippolytus in like cases, and Dr. Wordsworth gives an ingenious explanation of this usage. But it seems to me to be based upon the relations of Hippolytus as one of the synod or “presbytery,” without consent of which the bishop could do nothing important. Zephyrinus, on the contrary, imagined himself competent to decide as to the orthodoxy of a tenet or of a teacher, without his comprovincials. This, too, relieves our author from the charge of egotism when he exults in the defeat of such a bishop.11 He says, it is true, “Callistus threw off Sabellius through fear of me,” and we may readily believe that; but he certainly means to give honour to others in the Province when he says,” We resisted Zephyrinus and Callistus;” “We nearly converted Sabellius;” “All were carried away by the hypocrisy of Callistus, except ourselves.” This man cried out to his episcopal brethren, “Ye are Ditheists,” apparently in open council. His council prevailed over him by the wise leadership of Hippolytus, however; and he says of the two guilty bishops, “Never, at any time, have we been guilty of collusion with them.” They only imagined, therefore, that they were managing the “affairs of the Church.” The fidelity of their comprovincials preserved the faith of the Apostles in apostolic Rome.

VI.

(We offered them opposition)

Here we see that Hippolytus had no idea of the sense some put upon the convenire of his master Irenaeus. [see vol. 1. pp. 415, 460, this series] It was not “necessary” for them to conform their doctrines to that of the Bishop of Rome, evidently; nor to “the Church of Rome” as represented by him. To the church which presided over a province, indeed, recourse was to be had by all belonging to that province; but it is our author’s grateful testimony, that to the council of comprovincials, and not to any one bishop therein, Rome owed its own adhesion to orthodoxy at this crisis.

All this illustrates the position of Tertullian, who never thinks of ascribing to Rome any other jurisdiction than that belonging to other provinces. As seats of testimony, the apostolic sees, indeed, are all to be honoured. “In Greece, go to Corinth; in Asia Minor, to Ephesus; if you are adjacent to Italy, you have Rome; whence also (an apostolic) authority is at hand for us in Africa.” Such is his view of “contemporaneous affairs.”

VII.

(Heraclitus the Obscure)

“Well might he weep,” says Tayler Lewis, “as Lucian represents him, over his overflowing universe of perishing phenomena, where nothing stood; … nothing was fixed, but, as in a mixture, all things were confounded.” He was “the weeping philosopher.”

Here let me add Henry Nelson Coleridge’s remarks on the Greek seed-plot of those philosophies which were begotten of the Egyptian mysteries, and which our author regards as, in turn, engendering “all heresies,” when once their leaders felt, like Simon Magus, a power in the Gospel of which they were jealous, and of which they wished to make use without submitting to its yoke. “Bishop Warburton,” says Henry Nelson Coleridge, “discovered, perhaps, more ingenuity than sound judgment in his views of the nature of the Greek mysteries; entertaining a general opinion that their ultimate object was to teach the initiated a pure theism, and to inculcate the certainty and the importance of a future state of rewards and punishments. I am led by the arguments of Villoison and Ste. Croix to doubt the accuracy of this.” In short, he supposes a “pure pantheism,” or Spinosism, the substance of their teaching.12

VIII.

(Imagine themselves to be disciples of Christ)

This and the foregoing chapter offer us a most overwhelming testimony to the independence of councils. In the late “Council of Sacristans” at the Vatican, where truth perished, Pius IX. refused to all the bishops of what he accounted “the Catholic universe” what the seven suburbicarian bishops were able to enforce as a right, in the primitive age, against two successive Bishops of Rome, who were patrons of heresy. These heretical prelates persisted; but the Province remained in communion with the other apostolic provinces, while rejecting all communion with them. All this will help us in studying Cyprian’s treatise On Unity, and it justifies his own conduct.

IX.

(The episcopal throne)

The simple primitive cathedra, [see vol. 2. p. 12, also 4. 210] of which we may learn something from the statue of Hippolytus, was, no doubt, “a throne” in the eyes of an ambitious man. Callistus is here charged, by one who knew him and his history, with obtaining this position by knavish words and practices. The question may well arise, in our Christian love for antiquity, How could such things be, even in the age of martyrdoms? Let us recollect, that under the good Bishop Pius, when his brother wrote the Hermas, the peril of wealth and love of money began to be imminent at Rome. Tertullian testifies to the lax discipline of that see when he was there. Minucius Felix lets us into the impressions made by the Roman Christians upon surrounding heathen: they were a set of conies burrowing in the earth; a “light-shunning people,” lurking in the catacombs. And yet, while this fact shows plainly that good men were not ambitious to come forth from these places of exile and suffering, and expose themselves needlessly to death, it leads us to comprehend how ambitious men, studiosi novarum rerum, could remain above ground, conforming very little to the discipline of Christ, making friends with the world, and yet using their nominal religion on the principle that “gain is godliness.” There were some wealthy Christians; there were others, like Marcia in the palace, sufficiently awakened to perceive their own wickedness, and anxious to do favours to the persecuted flock, by way, perhaps, of compounding for sins not renounced. And when we come to the Epistles of Cyprian,13 we shall see what opportunities were given to desperate men to make themselves a sort of brokers to the Christian community; for selfish ends helping them in times of peril, and rendering themselves, to the less conscientious, a medium for keeping on good terms with the magistrates. Such a character was Callistus, one of “the grievous wolves” foreseen by St. Paul when he exhorted his brethren night and day, with tears, to beware of them. How he made himself Bishop of Rome, the holy Hippolytus sufficiently explains.

X.

(Unskilled in ecclesiastical definitions)

It has been sufficiently demonstrated by the learned Dollinger, than whom a more competent and qualified witness could not be named, that the late pontiff, Pius IX., was in this respect, as a bishop, very much like Callistus. Moreover, his chief adviser and prime minister, Antonelli, was notoriously Callistus over again; standing towards him in the same relations which Callistus bore to Zephyrinus. Yet, by the bull Ineffabilis, that pontiff has retrospectively clothed the definitions of Zephyrinus and Callistus with infallibility; thus making himself also a partaker in their heresies, and exposing himself to the anathemas with which the Catholic councils overwhelmed his predecessor Honorius and others. That at such a crisis the testimony of Hippolytus should come to light, and supply a reductio ad absurdum to the late papal definitions, may well excite such a recognition of divine providence as Dr. Bunsen repeatedly suggests.

XI.

(All consented – we did not)

The Edinburgh editor supposes that the use of the plural we, in this place, is the official plural of a bishop. It has been already explained, however, that he is speaking of the provincial bishops with whom he withstood Callistus when the plebs were carried away by his hypocrisy. In England, bishops in certain cases, are a “corporation sole;” and, as such, the plural is legal phraseology. All bishops, however, use the plural in certain documents, as identifying themselves with the universal episcopate, on the Cyprianic principle – Episcopatus unus est, etc.

In Act_5:13 is a passage which may be somewhat explained, perhaps, by this: “All consented … we did not.” The plebs joined themselves to the apostles; “but of the rest durst no man join himself to them: howbeit, the plebs magnified them, and believers were added,” etc. “The rest” (τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν) here means the priests, the Pharisees, and Sadducees, the classes who were not the plebs, as appears by what immediately follows. (Act_5:17)

XII.

(Our condemnatory sentence)

Again: Hippolytus refers to the action of the suburbicarian bishops in provincial council. And here is the place to express dissatisfaction with the apologetic tone of some writers, who seem to think Hippolytus too severe, etc. As if, in dealing with such “wolves in sheep’s clothing,” this faithful leader could show himself a true shepherd without emphasis and words of abhorrence. Hippolytus has left to the Church the impress of his character (see p. 5, supra) as “superlatively sweet and amiable.” Such was St. John, the beloved disciple; but he was not less a “son of thunder.” Our Divine Master was “the Lamb,” and “the Lion;” the author of the Beatitudes, and the author of those terrific woes; the “meek and gentle friend of publicans and sinners,” and the “lash of small cords” upon the backs of those who made His Father’s house a “den of thieves.” Such was Chrysostom, such was Athanasius, such was St. Paul, and such have ever been the noblest of mankind; tender and considerate, gentle and full of compassion; but not less resolute, in the crises of history, in withstanding iniquity in the persons of arch-enemies of truth, and setting the brand upon their foreheads. Good men, who hate strife, and love study and quiet, and to be friendly with others; men who never permit themselves to indulge a personal enmity, or to resent a personal affront; men who forgive injuries to the last farthing when they only are concerned, – may yet crucify their natures in withstanding evil when they are protecting Christ’s flock, or fulfilling the command to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.” What the Christian Church owes to the loving spirit of Hippolytus in the awful emergencies of his times, protecting the poor sheep, and grappling with wolves for their sake, the Last Day will fully declare. But let us who know nothing of such warfare concede nothing, in judging of his spirit, to the spirit of our unbelieving age, which has no censures except for the defenders of truth: – 

“Eternal smiles its emptiness betray,

As shallow streams run dimpling all the way.”

Bon Dieu, bon diable, as the French say, is the creed of the times. Every one who insults the faith of Christians, who betrays truths he was sworn to defend, who washes his hands but then gives Christ over to be crucified, must be treated with especial favour. Christ is good: so is Pilate; and Judas must not be censured. My soul be with Hippolytus when the gear Judge holds his assize. His eulogy is in the psalm: (Psa_106:30-31) “Then stood up Phinehas, and executed judgment: and so the plague was stayed. And that was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations, for evermore.”

XIII.

(As if he had not sinned)

There is an ambiguity in the facts as given in the Edinburgh edition, of which it is hard to relieve the text. The word καθίστασθαι is rendered to retain (their places) in the first instance, as if the case were all one with the second instance, where μένειν is justly rendered to continue. The second case seems, then, to cover all the ground. What need to speak of men “twice or thrice married,” if a man once married, after ordination is not to be retained? The word retained is questionable in the first instance; and I have adopted Wordsworth’s reading, to be enrolled, which is doubtless the sense.

This statement of our author lends apparent countenance to the antiquity of the “Apostolic Constitutions,” so called. Perhaps Hippolytus really supposed them to be apostolic. By Canon XVII. of that collection, a man twice married, after baptism cannot be “on the sacerdotal list at all.” By Canon XXVI., an unmarried person once admitted to the clergy cannot be permitted to marry. These are the two cases referred to by our author. In the Greek churches this rule holds to this day; and the Council of Nice refused to prohibit the married clergy to live in that holy estate, while allowing the traditional discipline which Hippolytus had in view in speaking of a violation of the twenty-sixth traditional canon as a sin. As Bingham has remarked, however, canons of discipline may be relaxed when not resting on fundamental and scriptural laws.

XIV.

(Attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church)

The Callistians, it seems, became a heretical sect, and yet presumed to call themselves a “Catholic Church.” Yet this sect, while Callistus lived, was in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. Such communion, then, was no test of Catholicity. Observe the enormous crimes of which this lawless one was guilty; he seems to antedate the age of Theodora’s popes and Marozia’s, and what Hippolytus would have said of them is not doubtful. It is remarkable that he employed St. Paul’s expression, however, ὁ ἄνομος, (2Th_2:8) “that wicked” or that “lawless one,” seeing, in such a bishop, what St. Gregory did in another, – “a forerunner of the Antichrist.”

XV.

(Callistians)

Bunsen remarks that Theodoret speaks of this sect14 under the head of the “Noetians.” Wordsworth quotes as follows: “Callistus took the lead in propagating this heresy after Noetus, and devised certain additions to the impiety of the doctrine.” In other words, he was not merely a heretic, but himself a heresiarch. He gives the whole passage textually,15 and institutes interesting parallelisms between the Philosophumena and Theodoret, who used our author, and boldly borrowed from him. 

XVI.

(The cause of all things)

When one looks at the infinite variety of opinions, phrases, ideas, and the like, with which the heresies of three centuries threatened to obscure, defile, and destroy the revelations of Holy Scripture, who can but wonder at the miracle of orthodoxy? Note with what fidelity the good fight of faith was maintained, the depositum preserved, and the Gospel epitomized at last in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan definitions, which Professor Shedd, as I have previously noted, declares to be the accepted confession of all the reformed, reputed orthodox, as well as of Greeks and Latins. Let us not be surprised, that, during these conflicts, truth on such mysterious subjects was reflected from good men’s minds with slight variations of expression. Rather behold the miracle of their essential agreement, and of their entire harmony in the Great Symbol, universally accepted as the testimony of the Ante-Nicene witnesses. The Word was Himself the cause of all created things; Himself increate; His eternal generation implied in the eternity of His existence and His distinct personality.

XVII.

(Tartarus)

I am a little surprised at the innocent statement of the learned translator, that “Dr. Wordsworth justifies Hippolytus’ use of this word.” It must have occurred to every student of the Greek Testament that St. Peter justifies this use in the passage quoted by Wordsworth, which one would think must be self-suggested to any theologian reading our author’s text. In short, Hippolytus quotes the second Epistle of St. Peter16 when he uses this otherwise startling word. Josephus also employs it;17 it was familiar to the Jews, and the apostle had no scruple in adopting a word which proves the Gentile world acquainted with a Gehenna as well as a Sheol.

XVIII.

(For Christ is the God)

Dr. Wordsworth justly censures Bunsen for his rendering of this passage,18 also for manufacturing for Hippolytus a “Confession of Faith” out of his tenth book. (vol. i. p. 141. etc.) I must refer the student to that all-important chapter in Dr. Wordsworth’s work (cap. xi.) on the “Development of Christian Doctrine.” It is masterly, as against Dr. Newman, as well; and the respectful justice which he renders at the same time to Dr. Bunsen is worthy of all admiration. Let it be noted, that, while one must be surprised by the ready command of literary and theological materials which the learned doctor and chevalier brings into instantaneous use for his work, it is hardly less surprising, in spite of all that, that he was willing to throw off his theories and strictures, without any delay, during the confusions of that memorable year 1851, when I had the honour of meeting him among London notabilities. He says to his “dearest friend, Archdeacon Hare, … Dr. Tregelles informed me last week of the appearance of the work (of Hippolytus).… I procured a copy in consequence, and perused it as soon as I could; and I have already arrived at conclusions which seem to me so evident that I feel no hesitation in expressing them to you at once.” These conclusions were creditable to his acumen and learning in general; eminently so. But the theories he had so hastily conceived, in other particulars, crop out in so many crudities of theological caprice, that nobody should try to study his theoretical opinions without the aid of that calm reviewal they have received from Dr. Wordsworth’s ripe and sober scholarship and well-balanced intellect.

General Note.

I avail myself of a little spare space to add, from Michelet’s friend, E. Quinet,19 the passage to which I have made a reference on p. 156. Let me say, however, that Quinet and Michelet are specimens of that intellectual revolt against Roman dogma which is all but universal in Europe in our day, and of which the history of M. Renan is a melancholy exposition. To Quinet, with all his faults, belongs the credit of having more thoroughly understood than any theological writer the absolute revolution created by the Council of Trent; and he justly remarks that the Jesuits showed their address “in making this revolution, without anywhere speaking of it.” Hence a dull world has not observed it. Contrasting this pseudo-council with the free councils of antiquity, M. Quinet says: “The Council of Trent has not its roots in all nations; it does not assemble about it the representatives of all nations … omni plebe adstante, according to the ancient formula. … The East and the North are, almost equally, wanting; and this is why the king of France refused it the title of a council.” He quotes noble passages from Bossuet.20

FOOTNOTES

1 I venture to state this to encourage young students to keep pen in hand in all their researches, and always to make notes.

2 Pompey and others were called imperatores before the Caesars; but who includes them with the Roman emperors?

3 How St. Peter would regard it, see 1Pe_5:1-3. 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.”

4 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.

5 See his Hippol., vol. i. pp. 209, 311.

6 p. 207.

7 Even Quinet notes this. See his Ultramontanism, p. 40, ed. 1845.

8 Bunsen gives it as the thirty-fifth, vol. i. p. 311.

9 Of which we shall learn in vol. viii., this series.

10 See Bingham, book ix. cap. i. sec. 9.

11 Wordsworth, chap. viii. p. 93.

12 Introduction to Greek Classics, p. 228.

13 See Treatise on the Lapsed, infra.

14 Bunsen, p. 134; Theodor., tom. iv. pt. i. p. 343, ed. Hal. 1772.

15 St. Hippol., p. 315.

16 ταρταρώσας, 2Pe_2:4. A sufficient answer to Dr. Bunsen, vol. iv. p. 33, who says this epistle was not known to the primitive Church.

17 See Speaker’s Comm., ad loc.

18 St. Hippol., p. 301, with original text.

19 A translation of Quinet, on Ultramontanism, appeared in London in a semi-infidel series, 1845.

20 See pp. 40, 47.

Part I. – Exegetical.

Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture.

On the Hexaëmeron,1 or Six Days’ Work.

Now these things we are under the necessity of setting forth at length, in order to disprove the supposition of others. For some choose to maintain that paradise is in heaven, and forms no part of the system of creation. But since we see with our eyes the rivers that go forth from it which are open, indeed, even in our day, to the inspection of any who choose, let every one conclude from this that it did not belong to heaven, but was in reality planted in the created system. And, in truth, it is a locality in the east, and a place select.

On Genesis

I.2

Gen_1:5. And it was evening, and it was morning, one day.

Hippolytus. He did not say3 “night and day,” but “one day,” with reference to the name of the light. He did not say the “first day;” for if he had said the “first” day, he would also have had to say that the “second” day was made. But it was right to speak not of the “first day,” but of “one day,” in order that by saying “one,” he might show that it returns on its orbit and, while it remains one, makes up the week.

Gen_1:6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the water.

Hippolytus. On the first day God made what He made out of nothing. But on the other days He did not make out of nothing, but out of what He had made on the first day, by moulding it according to His pleasure.

Gen_1:6, Gen_1:7. And let it divide between water and water: and it was so. And God made the firmament; and God divided between the water which was under the firmament, and the water above the firmament: and it was so.

Hippolytus. As the excessive volume of water bore along over the face of the earth, the earth was by reason thereof “invisible” and “formless.” When the Lord of all designed to make the invisible visible, He fixed then a third part of the waters in the midst; and another third part He set by itself on high, raising it together with the firmament by His own power; and the remaining third He left beneath, for the use and benefit of men. Now at4 this point we have an asterisk. The words are found in the Hebrew, but do not occur in the Septuagint.

Gen_3:8. And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden at even.

Hippolytus. Rather they discerned the approach of the Lord by a certain breeze. As soon, therefore, as they had sinned, God appeared to them, producing consciousness of their sin, and calling them to repentance.

Gen_49:3. Reuben, my first-born, thou art my strength, and the first of my children; hard to bear with, and hard and self-willed: thou hast waxed wanton as water; boil not over.5 

Aquila. Reuben, my first-born, thou art my strength, and the sum of my sorrow: excelling in dignity and excelling in might: thou hast been insensate as water; excel not.6

Symmachus. Reuben, my first-born, and beginning of my7 pain: above measure grasping, and above measure hot as water, thou shalt not more excel.8

Hippolytus. For there was a great display of strength made by God in behalf of His first-born people from Egypt. For in very many ways was the land of the Egyptians chastised. That first people of the circumcision is meant by “my strength, and the first of my children:” even as God gave the promise to Abraham and to his seed. But “hard to bear with,” because the people hardened itself against the obedience of God. And “hard, self-willed,” because it was not only hard against the obedience of God, but also self-willed so as to set upon the Lord. “Thou hast waxed wanton,” because in the instance of our Lord Jesus Christ the people waxed wanton against the Father. But “boil not over,” says the Spirit, by way of comfort, that it might not, by boiling utterly over, be spilt abroad, – giving it hope of salvation. For what has boiled over and been spilt is lost.

Gen_49:4. For thou wentest up to thy father’s bed.

Hippolytus. First he mentions the event, – that in the last days the people will assault the bed of the Father, that is, the bride,9 the Church, with intent to corrupt her; which thing, indeed, it does even at this present day, assaulting her by blasphemies.

Gen_49:5. Simeon and Levi, brethren.

Hippolytus. Since from Simeon sprang the scribes, and from Levi the priests. For the scribes and priests fulfilled iniquity10 of their own choice, and with one mind they slew the Lord.

Gen_49:5. Simeon and Levi, brethren, fulfilled iniquity of their own choice. Into their counsel let not my soul enter, and in their assembly let not my heart contend; for in their anger they slew men, and in their passion they houghed a bull.

Hippolytus. This he says regarding the conspiracy into which they were to enter against the Lord. And that he means this conspiracy, is evident to us. For the blessed David sings, “Rulers have taken counsel together against the Lord,” (Psa_2:2) and so forth. And of this conspiracy the Spirit prophesied, saying, “Let not my soul contend,” desiring to draw them off, if possible, so that that future crime might not happen through them. “They slew men, and houghed the bull;” by the “strong bull” he means Christ. And “they houghed,” since, when He was suspended on the tree, they pierced through His sinews. Again, “in their anger they houghed a bull.” And mark the nicety of the expression: for “they slew men, and houghed a bull.” For they killed the saints, and they remain dead, awaiting the time of the resurrection. But as a young bull, so to speak, when houghed, sinks down to the ground, such was Christ in submitting voluntarily to the death of the flesh; but He was not overcome of death. But though as man He became one of the dead, He remained alive in the nature of divinity. For Christ is the bull, – an animal, above all, strong and neat and devoted to sacred use. And the Son is Lord of all power, who did no sin, but rather offered Himself for us, a savour of a sweet smell to His God and Father. Therefore let those hear who houghed this august bull: “Cursed be their anger, for it was stubborn; and their wrath, for it was hardened.” (Gen_49:7) But this people of the Jews dared to boast of houghing the bull: “Our hands shed this.”11 For this is nothing different, I think, from the word of folly: “His blood” (be upon us), and so forth. (Mat_27:25) Moses recalls (Deu_33:8) the curse against Levi, or, rather converts it into a blessing, on account of the subsequent zeal of the tribe, and of Phinehas in particular, in behalf of God. But that against Simeon he did not recall. Wherefore it also was fulfilled in deed.12 For Simeon did not obtain an inheritance like the other tribes, for he dwelt in the midst of Judah. Yet his tribe was preserved, although it was small in numbers. [Luk_2:25]

Gen_49:11. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt to the choice vine, – the tendril of the vine, – he will wash his garment in wine, and his clothes in the blood of the grape.

Hippolytus. By the “foal” he means the calling of the Gentiles; by the other, that of the circumcision: “one ass,” moreover, that is to signify that the two colts are of one faith; in other words, the two callings. And one colt is bound to the “vine,” and the other to the “vine tendril,” which means that the Church of the Gentiles is bound to the Lord, but he who is of the circumcision to the oldness of the law. “He will wash his garment in wine;” that is, by the Holy Spirit and the word of truth, he will cleanse the flesh, which is meant by the garment. And “in the blood of the grape,” trodden and giving forth blood, which means the flesh of the Lord, he cleanses the whole calling of the Gentiles.

Gen_49:12-15. His eyes are gladsome with wine, and his teeth white as milk. Zabulun shall dwell by the sea, and he shall be by a haven of ships, and he shall extend to Sidon. Issachar desired the good part, resting in the midst of the lots. And seeing that rest was good, and that the land was fat, he set his shoulder to toil, and became a husbandman.

Hippolytus. That is, his eyes are brilliant as with the word of truth; for they regard all who believe upon him. And his teeth are white as milk; – that denotes the luminous power of his words: for this reason he calls them white, and compares them to milk, as that which nourishes the flesh and the soul. And Zabulun is, by interpretation, “fragrance” and “blessing.”

Then, after something from Cyril: – 

Hippolytus. Again, I think, it mystically signifies the13 sacraments of the New Testament of our Saviour; and the words, “his teeth are white as milk,” denote the excellency and purity of the sacramental food. And again, these words, “his teeth are white as milk,” we take in the sense that His words give light to those who believe on Him.

And in saying, moreover, that Zabulun will dwell by the sea, he speaks prophetically of his territory as bordering on the sea, and of Israel as mingling with the Gentiles, the two nations being brought as it were into one flock. And this is manifest in the Gospel. “The land of Zabulun, and the land of Nephthalim,” etc. And you will mark more fully the richness of his lot as having both inland territory and seaboard.

“And he is by a haven of ships;” that is, as in a safe anchorage, referring to Christ, the anchor of hope. And this denotes the calling of the Gentiles – that the grace of Christ shall go forth to the whole earth and sea. For he says, “And (he is) by a haven of ships, and shall extend as far as Sidon.” And that this is said prophetically of the Church of the Gentiles, is made apparent to us in the Gospel: “The land of Zabulun, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light.” (Mat_4:15, Mat_4:16) In saying, then, that he, namely Zabulun, would inhabit a territory bordering on the sea, he plainly confirmed that, just as if he had said that in the future Israel would mingle with the Gentiles, the two peoples being brought together into one fold and under the hand of one chief Shepherd, the good (Shepherd) by nature, that is, Christ. In blessing him Moses said, “Zabulun shall rejoice.” (Deu_33:18) And Moses prophesies, that in the allocation of the land he should have abundance ministered of the good things both of land and sea, under the hand of One. “By a haven of ships;” that is, as in an anchorage that proves safe, referring to Christ, the anchor of hope. For by His grace he shall come forth out of many a tempest, and shall be brought hereafter to land, like ships secure in harbours. Besides, he said that “he extends as far even as Sidon,” indicating, as it seems, that so complete a unity will be effected in the spirit’s course between the two peoples, that those of the blood of Israel shall occupy those very cities which once were exceeding guilty in the sight of God.14

After something from Cyril: – 

Hippolytus. And “that the land was fat;” that is, the flesh of our Lord: “fat,” that is, “rich;” for it flows with honey and milk. The parts of the land are marked off for an inheritance and possession to him – that means the doctrine of the Lord. For this is a pleasant rest, as He says Himself: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,” (Mat_11:28) etc. For they who keep the commandments, and do not disclaim the ordinances of the law, enjoy rest both in them and in the doctrine of our Lord; and that is the meaning of “in the midst of the lots.” As the Lord says, “I am not come to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them.” (Mat_5:17) For even our Lord, in the fact that He keeps the commandments, does not destroy the law and the prophets, but fulfils them, as He says in the Gospels. “He set his shoulder to toil, and became a husbandman.” This the apostles did. Having received power from God, and having set themselves to labour, they became husbandmen of the Lord, cultivating the earth – that is, the human race – with the preaching of our Lord.

Gen_49:16-20. Dan shall judge his people, as himself also one tribe in Israel. And let Dan become a serpent by the way, lying on the path, stinging the horse’s heel; and the horseman shall fall backward, waiting for the salvation of the Lord. Gad – a robber’s troop shall rob him; and he shall spoil it15 at the heels. Aser – his bread shall be fat, and he shall furnish dainties to princes. 

After something from Cyril, Apollinaris, and Diodorus: – 

Hippolytus. The Lord is represented to us as a horseman; and the “heel” points us to the “last times.” And His “falling” denotes His death; as it is written in the Gospel: “Behold, this (child) is set for the fall and rising again of many.” (Luk_2:34) We take the “robber” to be the traitor. Nor was there any other traitor to the Lord save the (Jewish) people. “Shall rob him,” i.e., shall plot against him. At the heels: that refers to the help of the Lord against those who lie in wait against Him. And again, the words “at the heels” denote that the Lord will take vengeance swiftly. He shall be well armed in the foot16 (heel), and shall overtake and rob the robber’s troop.

Aquila. “Girded, he shall gird himself;” that means that as a man of arms and war he shall arm himself. “And he shall be armed in the heel:” he means this rather, that Gad shall follow behind his brethren in arms. For though his lot was beyond Jordan, yet they (the men of that tribe) were enjoined to follow their brethren in arms until they too got their lots. Or perhaps he meant this, that Gad’s tribesmen were to live in the mummer of robbers, and that he was to take up a confederacy of freebooters, which is just a “robber’s troop,” and to follow them, practising piracy, which is robbery, along with them.

Whereas, on the abolition of the shadow in the law, and the introduction of the worship in spirit and truth, the world had need of greater light, at last, with this object, the inspired disciples were called, and put in possession of the lot of the teachers of the law. For thus did God speak with regard to the mother of the Jews – that is to say, Jerusalem – by the voice of the Psalmist: “Instead of thy fathers were thy sons;” (Psa_44:17; Psa_45:16, LXX) that is, to those called thy sons was given the position of fathers. And with regard to our Lord Jesus Christ in particular: “Thou wilt appoint them rulers over all the earth.” Yet presently their authority will not be by any means void of trouble to them. Nay rather, they were to experience unnumbered ills and they were to be in perplexity; and the course of their apostleship they were by no means to find free of peril, as he intimated indeed by way of an example, when he said, “Let (Dan) be,” meaning by that, that there shall be a multitude of persecutors in Dan like a “serpent lying by the way on the path, stinging the horse’s heel,” i.e., giving fierce and dangerous bites; for the bites of snakes are generally very dangerous. And they were “in the heel” in particular, for “he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen_3:15)17 And some did persecute the holy apostles in this way even to the death of the flesh. And thus we may say that their position was something like that when a horse stumbles and flings out his heels. For in such a case the horseman will be thrown, and, falling to the ground, I suppose, he waits18 thus for some one alive. And thus, too, the inspired apostles survive and wait for the time of their redemption, when they shall be called into a kingdom which cannot be moved, when Christ addresses them with the word, “Come, ye blessed of my Father,’ (Mat_25:34) etc.

And again, if any one will take the words as meaning, not that there will be some lying in wait against Dan like serpents, but that this Dan himself lies in wait against others, we may say that those meant thereby are the scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites who, while in possession of the power of judgment and instruction among the people, fastened like snakes upon Christ, and strove impiously to compass His fall, vexing Him with their stings as He held on in His lofty and gentle course. But if that horseman did indeed fall, He fell at least of His own will, voluntarily enduring the death of the flesh. And, moreover, it was destined that He should come to life again, having the Father as His helper and conductor. For the Son, being the power of God the Father, endued the temple of His own body again with life. Thus is He said to have been saved by the Father, as He stood in peril as a man, though by nature He is God, and Himself maintains the whole creation, visible and invisible, in a state of well-being. In this sense, also, the inspired Paul says of Him: “Though He was i crucified in weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God.” (2Co_13:4)

Aser obtained the parts about Ptolemais and Sidon. Wherefore he says, “His bread shall be fat, and he shall furnish dainties to princes.” This we take to be a figure of our calling; for “fat” means “rich.” And whose bread is rich, if not ours? For the Lord is out bread, as He says Himself: “I am the bread of life.” (Joh_6:35) And who else will furnish dainties to princes but our Lord Jesus Christ? – not only to the believing among the Gentiles, but also to those of the circumcision, who are first in the faith, to wit, to the fathers, and the patriarchs, and the prophets, and to all who believe in His name and passion.

Gen_49:21-26. Nephthalim is a slender19 think, showing beauty in the shoot. Joseph is a goodly son; my goodly, envied son; my youngest son. Turn back to me. Against him the archers took counsel together, and reviled him, and pressed him sore. And their bows were broken with might, and the sinews of the arms of their hands were relaxed by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob. Thence is he who strengthened Israel from the God of thy father. And my God helped thee, and blessed thee with the blessing of heaven above, and with the blessing of the earth which possesseth all things, with the blessing of the breasts and womb, with the blessing of thy father and thy mother. It prevailed above the blessings of abiding mountains, and above the blessings of everlasting hills; which (blessings) shall be upon the head of Joseph, and upon the temples of his brothers, whose chief he was.

Hippolytus. Who is the son goodly and envied, even to this day, but our Lord Jesus Christ? An object of envy is He indeed to those who choose to hate Him, yet He is not by any means to be overcome. For though He endured the cross, yet as God He returned to life, having trampled upon death, as His God and Father addresses Him, and says, “Sit Thou at my right hand.” (Psa_110:1) And that even those are brought to nought who strive with the utmost possible madness against Him, he has taught us, when he says, “Against Him the archers took counsel together, and reviled Him.” For the “archers” – that is, the leaders of the people – did convene their assemblies, and take bitter counsel. “But their bows were broken, and the sinews of their arms were relaxed, by the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,” that is to say, by God the Father, who is the Lord of power, who also made His Son blessed in heaven and on earth. And he (Naphtali) is adopted as a figure of things pertaining to us, as the Gospel shows: “The land of Zabulun, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan,” (Mat_4:15) etc.; and, “To them that sat in darkness light has arisen.” (Mat_4:17) And what other light was this but the calling of the Gentiles, which is the trunk, i.e., the tree of the Lord, in whom engrafted it bears fruit? And the word, “giving increase of beauty in the case of the shoot,” expresses the excellency of our calling. And if the words, “giving increase of beauty in the case of the shoot,” are understood, as perhaps they may, with reference to its, the clause is still quite intelligible. For, by progressing in virtue, and attaining to better things, “reaching forth to those things which are before,” (Phi_3:15) according to the word of the blessed Paul, we rise ever to the higher beauty. I mean, however, of course, spiritual beauty, so that to us too it may be said hereafter, “The King greatly desired thy beauty.” (Psa_45:11)

After something from Apollinaris: – 

Hippolytus. The word of prophecy passes again to Immanuel Himself. For, in my opinion, what is intended by it is just what has been already stated in the words, “giving increase of beauty in the case of the shoot.” For he means that He increased and grew up into that which He had been from the beginning, and indicates the return to the glory which He had by nature.20 This, if we apprehend it correctly, is (we should say) just “restored” to Him. For21 as the only begotten Word of God, being God of God,22 emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures, humbling Himself of His own will to that which He was not before, and took unto Himself this vile flesh, and appeared23 in the “form of a servant,” and “became obedient to God the Father, even unto death,” so hereafter He is said to be “highly exalted;” and as if well-nigh He had it not by reason of His humanity, and as if it were in the way of grace, He “receives the name which is above every name,” (Phi_2:7-9) according to the word of the blessed Paul. But the matter, in truth, was not a “giving,” as for the first time, of what He had not by nature; far otherwise. But rather we must understand a return and restoration to that which existed in Him at the beginning, essentially and inseparably. And it is for this reason that, when He had assumed, by divine arrangement,24 the lowly estate of humanity, He said, “Father, glorify me with the glory which I had,” (Joh_17:5) etc. For He who was co-existent with His Father before all time, and before the foundation of the world, always had the glory proper to Godhead. “He” too may very well be understood as the “youngest (son).” For He appeared in the last times, after the i glorious and honourable company of the holy prophets, and simply once, after all those who, previous to the time of His sojourn, were reckoned in the number of sons by reason of excellence. That Immanuel, however, was an” object of envy,”25 is a somewhat doubtful phrase. Yet He is an “object of envy” or “emulation” to the saints, who aspire to follow His footsteps, and conform themselves to His divine beauty, and make Him the pattern of their conduct, and win thereby their highest glory. And again, He is an “object of envy” in another sense, – an “object of ill-will,” namely, to those who are declared not to love Him. I refer to the leading parties among the Jews, – the scribes, in sooth, and the Pharisees, – who travailed with bitter envy against Him, and made the glory of which He could not be spoiled the ground of their slander, and assailed Him in many ways. For Christ indeed raised the dead to life again, when they already stank and were corrupt; and He displayed other signs of divinity. And these should have filled them with wonder, and have made them ready to believe, and to doubt no longer. Yet this was not the case with them; but they were consumed with ill-will, and nursed its bitter pangs in their mind.

After something from Cyril: – 

Hippolytus. Who else is this than as is shown us by the apostle, “the second man, the Lord from heaven?” (1Co_15:47) And in the Gospel, (Mat_21:31) He said that he who did the will of the Father was “the last.”26 And by the words, “Turn back to me,” is meant His ascension to His Father in heaven after His passion. And in the phrase, “Against Him they took counsel together, and reviled Him,” who are intended but just the people in their opposition to our Lord? And as to the words, “they pressed Him sore,” who pressed Him, and to this day still press Him sore? Those – these “archers,” namely – who think to contend against the Lord. But though they prevailed to put Him to death, yet “their bows were broken with might.” This plainly means, that “after the resurrection” their bows were broken with might. And those intended are the leaders of the people, who set themselves in array against Him, and, as it were, sharpened the points of their weapons. But they failed to transfix Him, though they did what was unlawful, and dared to assail Him even in the manner of wild beasts.

“Thou didst prevail above the blessings of abiding mountains.” By “eternal and abiding mountains and everlasting hills,” he means the saints, because they are lifted above the earth, and make no account of the things that perish, but seek the things that are above, and aspire earnestly to rise to the highest virtues. After the glory of Christ, therefore, are those of the Fathers who were most illustrious, and reached the greatest elevation in virtue. These, however, were but servants; but the Lord, the Son, supplied them with the means by which they became illustrious. Wherefore also they acknowledge (the truth of this word), “Out of His fulness have all we received.” (Joh_1:16)

“And my God helped thee.” This indicates clearly that the aid and support of the Son came from no one else but our God and Father in heaven. And by the word “my God,” is meant that the Spirit speaks by Jacob. (Gen_48:3, Gen_48:4)

Eusebius. “The sinews of the arms.” He could not say, of “the hands” or “shoulders;” but since the broad central parts of the bow are termed “arms,” he says appropriately “arms.”

Hippolytus. “Blessings of the breasts and womb.” By this is meant that the true blessing from heaven is the Spirit descending through the Word upon flesh. And by “breasts and womb” he means the blessings of the Virgin. And by that of “thy father and thy mother,”27 he means also the blessing of the Father which we have received in the Church through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Gen_49:27. “Benjamin is a ravening wolf; in the morning he shall devour still, and till evening he apportions food.”

Hippolytus. This thoroughly suits Paul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin. For when he was young, he was a ravening wolf; but when he believed, he “apportioned” food. This also is shown us by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that the tribe of Benjamin is among the first persecutors, which is the sense of “in the morning.” For Saul, who was of the tribe of Benjamin, persecuted David, who was appointed to be a type of the Lord.

II.

From the Commentary of the holy Hippolytus of Rome upon Genesis.28

Gen_2:7. “And God formed man of the dust of the ground.” And what does this import? Are we to say, according to the opinion of some, that there were three men made, one spiritual, one animal, and one earthy? Not such is the case, but the whole narrative is of one man. For the word, “Let us make,” is about the man that was to be; and then comes the word, “God made man of the dust of the ground,” so that the narrative is of one and the same man. For then He says, “Let him be made,” and now He “makes him,” and the narrative tells “how” He makes him.

III.

Quoted in Jerome, epist. 36, ad Damasum, Num_18:1-32 (from Galland).

29Isaac conveys a figure of God the Father; Rebecca of the Holy Spirit; Esau of the first people and the devil; Jacob of the Church, or of Christ. That Isaac was old, points to the end of the world; that his eyes were dim, denotes that faith had perished from the world, and that the light of religion was neglected before him; that the elder son is called, expresses the Jews’ possession of the law; that the father loves his meat and venison, denotes the saving of men from error, whom ever), righteous man seeks to gain (lit. hunt for) by doctrine. The word of God here is the promise anew of the blessing and the hope of a kingdom to come, in which the saints shall reign with Christ, and keep the true Sabbath. Rebecca is full of the Holy Spirit, as understanding the word which she heard before she gave birth, “For the elder shall serve the younger.” (Gen_25:23) As a figure of the Holy Spirit, moreover, she cares for Jacob in preference. She says to her younger son, “Go to the flock and fetch me two kids,” (Gen_27:9) prefiguring the Saviour’s advent in the flesh to work a mighty deliverance for them who were held liable to the punishment of sin; for indeed in all the Scriptures kids are taken for emblems of sinners. His being charged to bring “two,” denotes the reception of two peoples: by the “tender and good,” are meant teachable and innocent souls. The robe or raiment of Esau denotes the faith and Scriptures of the Hebrews, with which the people of the Gentiles were endowed. The skins which were put upon his arms are the sins of both peoples, which Christ, when His hands were stretched forth on the cross, fastened to it along with Himself. In that Isaac asks of Jacob why he came so soon, (Gen_27:20) we take him as admiring the quick faith of them that believe. That savoury meats are offered, denotes an offering pleasing to God, the salvation of sinners. After the eating follows the blessing, and he delights in his smell. He announces with clear voice the perfection of the resurrection and the kingdom, and also how his brethren who believe in Israel adore him and serve him. Because iniquity is opposed to righteousness, Esau is excited to strife, and meditates death deceitfully, saying in his heart, “Let the days of the mourning for my father come on, and I will slay my brother Jacob.” (Gen_27:21) The devil, who previously exhibited the fratricidal Jews by anticipation in Cain, makes the most manifest disclosure of them now in Esau, showing also the time of the murder: “let the days,” says he, “of the mourning for my father come on, that I may slay my brother.” Wherefore Rebecca – that is, patience – told her husband of the brother’s plot: who, summoning Jacob, bade him go to Mesopotamia and thence take a wife of the family of Laban the Syrian, his mother’s brother. As therefore Jacob, to escape his brother’s evil designs, proceeds to Mesopotamia, so Christ, too, constrained by the unbelief of the Jews, goes into Galilee, to take from thence to Himself a bride from the Gentiles, His Church.

On Numbers.

By the holy bishop and martyr Hippolytus, from Balaam’s Blessings.30

Now, in order that He might be shown to have together in Himself at once the nature of God and that of man, – as the apostle, too, says: “Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1Ti_2:5) Now a mediator is not of one man,31 but two,” (Gal_3:20) – it was therefore necessary that Christ, in becoming the Mediator between God and men, should receive from both an earnest of some kind, that He might appear as the Mediator between two distinct persons.

On Kings.32

The question is raised, whether Samuel rose by the hand of the sorceress or not. And if, indeed, we were to allow that he did rise, we should be propounding what is false. For how could a demon call back the soul, I say not of a righteous man merely, but of any one whatever, when it had gone, and was tarrying one knew not where? But he says, how then was the woman dismayed, and how did she see in an extraordinary way men ascending? For if her vision had not been of an extraordinary kind, she would not have said, “I see gods33 ascending out of the earth.” She invoked one, and how did there ascend many? What then? Shall we say that the souls of all who appeared ascended, and those, too, not invoked by the woman;34 or that what was seen was merely phantasms of them? Even this, however, will not suffice. How, he urges further, did Saul recognise (what appeared), and do obeisance? Well, Saul did not actually see, but only, on being told by the woman that the figure of one of those who ascended was the figure he desired, and taking it to be Samuel, he consulted it as such, and did it obeisance. And it could be no difficult matter for the demon to conjure up the form of Samuel, as it was known to him. How then, says he, did he foretell the calamities that were to befall Saul and Jonathan at the same time? He did foretell indeed the end of the war, and how Saul would be overcome, drawing that as an inference from the wrath of God against him. Just as a physician, who has no exact knowledge of the science, might yet, seeing a patient past cure, tell of his death, though he made an error as to the hour, so, too, the demon, knowing the wrath of God by Saul’s deeds, and by this very attempt to consult the sorceress, foretells his defeat land his death at the same time, though in error as to the day of his death.

On the Psalms.

The argument prefixed by Hippolytus, bishop of Rome, to his Exposition of the Psalms.35

The book of Psalms contains new doctrine after the law of Moses. And after the writing of Moses, it is the second book of doctrine. Now, after the death of Moses and Joshua, and after the judges, arose David, who was deemed worthy of bearing the name of father of the Saviour himself; and he first gave to the Hebrews a new style of psalmody, by which he abrogates the ordinances established by Moses with respect to sacrifices, and introduces the new hymn and a new style of jubilant praise in the worship of God; and throughout his whole ministry he teaches very many other things that went beyond the law of Moses.36

On Psa_2:1-12.37

From the exposition of the second Psalm, by the holy bishop Hippolytus.

When he came into the world, He was manifested as God and man. And it is easy to perceive the man in Him, when He hungers and shows exhaustion, and is weary and athirst, and withdraws in fear, and is in prayer and in grief, and sleeps on a boat’s pillow, and entreats the removal of the cup of suffering, and sweats in an agony, and is strengthened by an angel, and betrayed by a Judas, and mocked by Caiaphas, and set at nought by Herod, and scourged by Pilate, and derided by the soldiers, and nailed to the tree by the Jews, and with a cry commits His spirit to His Father, and drops His head and gives up the ghost, and has His side pierced with a spear, and is wrapped in linen and laid in a tomb, and is raised by the Father on the third day. And the divine in Him, on the other hand, is equally manifest, when He is worshipped by angels, and seen by shepherds, and waited for by Simeon, and testified of by Anna, and inquired after by wise men, and pointed out by a star, and at a marriage makes wine of water, and chides the sea when tossed by the violence of winds, and walks upon the deep, and makes one see who was blind from birth, and raises Lazarus when dead for four days, and works many wonders, and forgives sins, and grants power to His disciples.

On Psalm 22 or Psa_23:1-6.

From the Commentary by the holy bishop and martyr Hippolytus, on “The Lord is my Shepherd.”38

And, moreover, the ark made of imperishable wood was the Saviour Himself. For by this was signified the imperishable and incorruptible tabernacle of (the Lord) Himself, which gendered no corruption of sin. For the sinner, indeed, makes this confession: “My wounds stank, and were corrupt, because of my foolishness.” (Psa_38:6) But the Lord was without sin, made of imperishable wood, as regards His humanity; that is, of the virgin and the Holy Ghost inwardly, and outwardly of the word of God, like an ark overlaid with purest gold.

On Psalm 23 or Psa_24:1-10.

From the Commentary by the same, on Psalms 23, LXX.39

He comes to the heavenly gates: angels accompany Him: and the gates of heaven were closed. For He has not yet ascended into heaven. Now first does He appear to the powers of heaven as flesh ascending. Therefore to these powers it is said by the angels, who are the couriers of the Saviour and Lord: “Lift up your gates, ye princes; and be lifted up, ye everlasting doors: and the King of glory shall come in. (Psa_24:7)

On Psalm 109 or Psa_110:1-7.

From the Commentary by the same on the great Song.40

Psa_110:1. He who delivered from the lowest hell the man first made of earth, when lost and bound by the chains of death; He who came down from above, and exalted earth-born man on high; He who is become the preacher of the Gospel to the dead, the redeemer of souls, and the resurrection of the buried; – He became the helper of man in his defeat, and appeared in his likeness, the first-born Word, and took upon Himself the first Adam in the Virgin; and though spiritual Himself, He made acquaintance with the earthy in the womb; though Himself the ever-living One, He made acquaintance with the dead in transgressions; Himself the heavenly One, He bore the terrestrial on high; Himself of lofty extraction, He chose, by His own subjection, to set the slave free; and making man, who turns to dust, and forms food for the serpent, unconquerable as adamant, and that, too, when hung upon the tree, He declared him lord over his victor, and is thus Himself proved conqueror by the tree. 

Psa_110:2. Those, indeed, who do not acknowledge the incarnate Son of God now, shall have to acknowledge Him as Judge, when He who is now despised in His inglorious body, comes in His glory.

Psa_110:3. And when the apostles came to the sepulchre on the third day, they did not find the body of Jesus; just as the children of Israel went up the mount to seek the tomb of Moses, and did not find it.

On Psalm 77 or Psa_78:1-72.41

Psa_78:45. He sent the dog-fly among them, and consumed them; and the frog, and destroyed them.

Psa_78:46. He gave also their fruits to the mildew, and their labours to the locust.

Psa_78:47. He destroyed their vine with hail, and their sycamines with frost.

Now, just as, in consequence of an irregular mode of living, a deadly bilious humour may be formed in the inwards, which the physician by his art may bring on to be a sick-vomiting, without being himself chargeable with producing the sick humour in the man’s body; for excess in diet was what produced it, while the physician’s science only made it show itself; so, although it may be said that the painful retribution that falls upon those who are by choice wicked comes from God, it would be only in accordance with right reason, to think that ills of that kind find both their beginnings and their causes in ourselves. For to one who lives without sin there is no darkness, no worm, no hell (Gehenna), no fire, nor any other of these words or things of terror; just as the plagues of Egypt were not for the Hebrews, – those fine lice annoying with invisible bites, the dog-fly fastening on the body with its painful sting, the hurricanes from heaven falling upon them with hailstones, the husbandman’s labours devoured by the locusts, the darkened sky, and the rest. It is God’s counsel, indeed, to tend the true vine, and to destroy the Egyptian, while sparing those who are to “eat the grape of gall, and drink the deadly venom of asps.” (Deu_32:33) And the sycamine of Egypt is utterly destroyed; not, however, that one which Zaccheus climbed that he might be able to see my Lord. And the fruits of Egypt are wasted, that is, the works of the flesh, but not the fruit of the Spirit, love, joy, and peace. (Gal_5:22)

Psa_78:48. He gave up their cattle also to the hail, and their substance to the fire.

Symmachus renders it: “Who gave up their cattle to the plague, and their possessions to birds.” For, having met an overwhelming overthrow, they became a prey for carnivorous birds, But, according to the Seventy, the sense is not that the hail destroyed their cattle, and the fire the rest of their substance, but that hail, falling in an extraordinary manner along with fire, destroyed utterly their vines and sycamines first of all, which were entirely unable to stand out against the first attack; then the cattle which grazed on the plains; and then every herb and tree, which the fire accompanying the hail consumed; and the affair was altogether portentous, as fire ran with the water, and was commingled with it. “For fire ran in the hail,” he says; and it was thus hail, and fire burning in the hail. David also calls the cattle and the fruit of the trees “substance,” or “riches.” And it should be observed that, though the hail is recorded to have destroyed every herb and every tree, yet there were left some which the locust, as it came upon them after the fiery hail, consumed; of which it is said, that it eats up every herb, and all the fruit of the trees which the hail left behind it. Now, in a spiritual sense, there are some sheep belonging to Christ, and others belonging to the Egyptians. Those, however, which once belonged to others may become His, as the sheep of Laban became Jacob’s; and contrariwise. Whichever of the sheep, moreover, Jacob rejected, he made over to Esau. Beware, then, lest, being found in the flock of Jesus, you be set apart when gifts are sent to Esau, and be given over to Esau as reprobate and unworthy of the spiritual Jacob. The single-minded are the sheep of Christ, and these God saves according to the word: “O Lord, Thou preservest man and beast.” (Psa_36:6) They who in their folly attach themselves to godless doctrine, are the sheep of the Egyptians, and these, too, are destroyed by the hail. And whatsoever the Egyptians possess is given over to the fire, but Abraham’s substance is given to Isaac.

Psa_78:49. He discharged upon them the wrath of His anger; – anger, and wrath, and tribulation, a visitation by evil angels.

Under anger, wrath, and tribulation, he intended bitter punishments; for God is without passion. And by anger you will understand the lesser penalties, and by wrath the greater, and by tribulation the greatest.42 The angels also are called evil, not because they are so in their nature, or by their own will, but because they have this office, and are appointed to produce pains and sufferings, – being so called, therefore, with reference to the disposition of those who endure such things; just as the day of judgment is called the evil day, as being laden with miseries and pains for sinners. To the same effect is the word of Isaiah, “I, the Lord, make peace, and create evil;” (Isa_45:7) meaning by that, I maintain peace, and permit war.

FOOTNOTES

1 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.

2 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.

3 i.e., νυχθήμερον.

4 This must refer, I suppose, to the words, “And it was so.”

5 μὴ ἐκζέσῃς.

6 μὴ περισσευῃς.

7 “My” (μου) is wanting in Origen’s Hexapla.

8 οὐκ ἔσῃ περισσότερος.

9 [He makes the curse of Reuben applicable to all who corrupt the Church’s truth and purity.]

10 ἐξαιρέσεως αὐτῶν, “of set purpose.”

11 After “this” (τοῦτο) the word “blood” (τὸ αἷμα) seems to have been dropped.

12 [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 Act_4:36 and Act_6:7.]

13 τὰ μυστήρια.

14 [In thus spiritualizing, the Fathers do not deny a literal sense also, as in “Aser,” p. 166, infra; only they link that geography, history, etc., should pay tribute to a higher meaning.]

15 κατὰ πόδας, “quickly,” “following close.”

16 [An important hint that by “heel,” in Gen_3:15, the “foot” is understood, by rhetorical figure.]

17 [The rhetoric here puts the heel for the foot to emphasize the other part of the prophesy, i.e., the wounded heel coming down on the biter’s head.]

18 περιμένει τὸν ζῶντα.

19 στέλεχος ἀνειμένον.

20 The text is τοῦτο πάντως κατάγεται ὀρθῶς ἔχειν ὑπειλημμένον.

21 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.

22 “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 62) on the last chapters of the Philosophumena, p. 153, supra.]

23 The words from “and appeared” down to “so hereafter” are given by Grabe, but omitted in Fabricus.

24 οἰκονομικῶς.

25 ζηλωτός.

26 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 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 Mat_20:16, viz., ‘the last shall be first,’ and that then some one carried out this emendation so far as to transpose the replies too.”

27 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.

28 From the Second Book of the Res Sacrae of Leontius and Joannes, in Mai, Script. vet., vii. p. 84.

29 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_27:1-46) 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.”

30 In Leontius Byzant., book i. Against Nestorus and Eutyches (from Galland). The same fragment is found in Mai, Script. vet., vii. p. 134. [Galland was a French Orientalist, A.D. 1646-1715.]

31 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 a mediator between “two” men, but between “god and men.” – Migne.

32 A fragment from the tractate of Hippolytus, On the Sorceress (ventriloquist), or On Saul and the Witch, 1Sa_28:1-25. From the Vatican ms. cccxxx. in Allat., De Engastr., edited by Simon, in the Acts of the Martyrs of Ostia, p. 160, Rome, 1795.

33 [Rather “god,” the plural of excellence, Elohim.]

34 [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.]

35 From Gallandi.

36 [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 Act_3:24, where Samuel’s position in the “goodly fellowship” is marked. See Payne Smith’s Prophesy a Preparation for Christ.]

37 i.e., in our version the third. From Theodoret, Dialogue Second, entitled Ἀσύγχυτος, p. 167.

38 Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.

39 Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.

40 Theodoret, in his Second Dialogue.

41 Bandini, Catalog. Codd. Graec. Biblioth. Mediceo-Laurent., i. p. 91.

42 Theodoret also, following Hippolytus, understood by “evil angels” here, not “demons,” but the ministers of temporal punishment. See on Psa_78:54, and or Jer_49:14. So, too, others, as may be seen in Poli Synops., ii. col. 1113.

Part I. – Exegetical. (Cont.)

Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture. (Cont.)

On Proverbs.

From the Commentary of St. Hippolytus on Proverbs.43

Proverbs, therefore, are words of exhortation serviceable for the whole path of life; for to those who seek their way to God, these serve as guides and signs to revive them when wearied with the length of the road. These, moreover, are the proverbs of “Solomon,” that is to say, the “peacemaker,” who, in truth, is Christ the Saviour. And since we understand the words of the Lord without offence, as being the words of the Lord, that no one may mislead us by likeness of name, he tells us who wrote these things, and of what people he was king, in order that the credit of the speaker may make the discourse acceptable and the hearers attentive; for they are the words of that Solomon to whom the Lord said: “I will give thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there has been none like thee upon the earth, and after thee there shall not arise any like unto thee,” (1Ki_3:12) and as follows in what is written of him. Now he was the wise son of a wise father; wherefore there is added the name of David, by whom Solomon was begotten. From a child he was instructed in the sacred Scriptures, and obtained his dominion not by lot, nor by force, but by the judgment of the Spirit and the decree of God.

“To know wisdom and instruction.” He who knows the wisdom of God, receives from Him also instruction, and learns by it the mysteries of the Word; and they who know the true heavenly wisdom will easily understand the words of these mysteries. Wherefore he says: “To understand the difficulties of words;” (Pro_1:3) for things spoken in strange language by the Holy Spirit become intelligible to those who have their hearts right with God.

(Pro_1:11) These things he understands of the people of the Jews, and their guilt in the blood of Christ; for they thought that He had His conversation (citizenship) on earth only.

(Pro_3:35) They will not simply obtain, but inherit. The wicked, again, even though they are exalted, are exalted only so as to have greater dishonour. For as one does not honour an ugly and misshapen fellow, if he exalts him, but only dishonours him the more, by making his shame manifest to a larger number; so also God exalts the wicked, in order that He may make their disgrace patent. For Pharaoh was exalted, but only to have the world as his accuser.

(Pro_4:2) It must be noted, that he names the law a good gift, on account of the man who takes gifts into his bosom unrighteously. And he forsakes the law who transgresses it; the law, namely, of which he speaks, or which he has kept.

(Pro_4:8) And what is meant by “exalt (fortify) her?” Surround her with holy thoughts; for you have need of large defence, since there are many things to imperil such a possession. But if it is in our power to fortify her, and if there are virtues in our power which exalt the knowledge of God, these will be her bulwarks, – as, for example, practice, study, and the whole chain of other virtues; and the man who observes these, honours wisdom; and the reward is, to be exalted to be with her, and to be embraced by her in the chamber of heaven.

(Pro_4:14) The heterodox are the “wicked,” and the transgressors of the law are “evil men,” whose “ways” – that is to say, their deeds – he bids us not enter.

(Pro_4:25) He “looks right on” who has thoughts free of passion; and he has true judgments, who is not in a state of excitement about external appearances. When he says, “Let thine eyes look right on,” he means the vision of the soul; and when he gives the exhortation, “Eat honey, my son, that it may be sweet to thy palate,” he uses “honey” figuratively, meaning divine doctrine, which restores the spiritual knowledge of the soul. But wisdom embraces the soul also; for, says he, “love her, that she may embrace thee.” And the soul, by her embrace being made one with wisdom, is filled with holiness and purity. Yea more, the fragrant ointments of Christ are laid hold of by the soul’s sense of smell.

(Pro_4:27) Virtue occupies the middle position; whence also he says, that manly courage is the mean between boldness and cowardice. And now he mentions the “right,” not meaning thereby things which are right by nature, such as the virtues, but things which seem to thee to be right on account of their pleasures. Now pleasures are not simply sensual enjoyments, but also riches and luxury. And the “left” indicates envy, robberies, and the like. For “Boreas,” says he, “is a bitter wind, and yet is called by name right.” (Pro_27:16, LXX) For, symbolically, under Boreas he designates the wicked devil by whom every flame of evil is kindled in the earth. And this has the name “right,” because an angel is called by a right (propitious) name. Do thou, says he, turn aside from evil, and God will take care of thine end; for He will go before thee, scattering thine enemies, that thou mayest go in peace.

(Pro_5:19) He shows also, by the mention of the creature (the hind), the purity of that pleasure; and by the roe he intimates the quick responsive affection of the wife. And whereas he knows many things to excite, he secures them against these, and puts upon them the indissoluble bond of affection, setting constancy before them. And as for the rest, wisdom, figuratively speaking, like a stag, can repel and crush the snaky doctrines of the heterodox. Let her therefore, says he, be with thee, like a roe, to keep all virtue fresh. And whereas a wife and wisdom are not in this respect the same, let her rather lead thee; for thus thou shalt conceive good thoughts.

(Pro_6:27) That thou mayest not say, What harm is there in the eyes, when there is no necessity that he should be perverted who looks? he shows thee that desire is a fire, and the flesh is like a garment. The latter is an easy prey, and the former is a tyrant. And when anything harmful is not only taken within, but also held fast, it will not go forth again until it has made an exit for itself. For he who looks upon a woman, even though he escape the temptation, does not come away pure of all lust. And why should one have trouble, if he can be chaste and free of trouble? See what Job says: “I made a covenant with mine eyes, that I should not think of another’s wife.” (Job_31:1) Thus well does he know the power of abuse. And Paul for this reason kept “under his body, and brought it into subjection.” And, figuratively speaking, he keeps a fire in his breast who permits an impure thought to dwell in his heart. And he walks upon coals who, by sinning in act, destroys his own soul.

The “cemphus”44 is a kind of wild sea-bird, which has so immoderate an impulse to sexual enjoyment, that its eyes seem to fill with blood in coition; and it often blindly falls into snares, or into the hands of men.45 To this, therefore, he compares the man who gives himself up to the harlot on account of his immoderate lust; or else on account of the insensate folly of the creature, for he, too, pursues his object like one senseless. And they say that this bird is so much pleased with foam, that if one should hold foam in his hand as he sails, it will sit upon his hand. And it also brings forth with pain.

(Pro_7:26) You have seen her mischief. Wait not to admit the rising of lust; for her death is everlasting. And for the rest, by her words, her arguments in sooth, she wounds, and by her sins she kills those who yield to her. For many are the forms of wickedness that lead the foolish down to hell. And the chambers46 of death mean either its depths or its treasure. How, then, is escape possible?

(Pro_9:1) He intends the new Jerusalem, or the sanctified flesh. By the seven pillars he means the sevenfold unity of the Holy Spirit resting upon it; as Isaiah testifies, saying, “She has slain” her “victims.”

(Pro_9:12) Observe that the wise man must be useful to many; so that he who is useful only to himself cannot be wise. For great is the condemnation of wisdom if she reserves her power simply for the one possessing her. But as poison is not injurious to another body, but only to that one which takes it, so also the man who turns out wicked will injure himself, and not another. For no man of real virtue is injured by a wicked man.

(Pro_11:30) The fruit of righteousness and the tree of life is Christ. He alone, as man, fulfilled all righteousness. And with His own underived life47 He has brought forth the fruits of knowledge and virtue like a tree, whereof they that eat shall receive eternal life, and shall enjoy the tree of life in paradise, with Adam and all the righteous. But the souls of the unrighteous meet an untimely expulsion from the presence of God, by whom they shall be left to remain in the flame of torment.

(Pro_12:2) Not from men, but with the Lord, will he obtain favour.

(Pro_17:27) He asks of wisdom, who seeks to know what is the will of God. And he will show himself prudent who is sparing of his words on that which he has come to learn. If one inquires about wisdom, desiring to learn something about wisdom, while another asks nothing of wisdom, as not only wishing to learn nothing about wisdom himself, but even keeping back his neighbours from so doing, the former certainly is deemed to be more prudent than the latter.

(Pro_30:15) As to the horse-leech. There were three daughters fondly loved by sin – fornication, murder,48 and idolatry. These three did not satisfy her, for she is not to be satisfied. In destroying man by these actions, sin never varies, but only grows continually. For the fourth, he continues, is never content to say “enough,” meaning that it is universal lust. In naming the “fourth,” he intends lust in the universal. For as the body is one, and yet has many members; so also sin, being one, contains within it many various lusts by which it lays its snares for men. Wherefore, in order to teach us this, he uses the examples of Sheol (Hades), and the love of women, and hell49 (Tartarus), and the earth that is not filled with water. And water and fire, indeed, will never say, “It is enough.” And the grave50 (Hades) in no wise ceases to receive the souls of unrighteous men; nor does the love of sin, in the instance of the love of women, cease to be given to fornication, and it becomes the betrayer of the soul. And as Tartarus, which is situated in a doleful and dark locality, is not touched by a ray of light, so is every one who is the slave of sin in all the passions of the flesh Like the earth not filled with water he is never able to come to confession, and to the laver of regeneration, and like water and fire, never says, “It is enough.”

(Pro_30:19) For as a serpent cannot mark its track upon a rock, so the devil could not find sin in the body of Christ. For the Lord says, “Behold, the prince of this world cometh, and will find nothing in me.” (Joh_14:30) – For as a ship, sailing in the sea, leaves no traces of her way behind her, so neither does the Church, which is situate in the world as in a sea, leave her hope upon the earth, because she has her life reserved in heaven; and as she holds her way here only for a short time, it is not possible to trace out her course. – As the Church does not leave her hope behind in the world, her hope in the incarnation of Christ which bears us all good, she did not leave the track of death in Hades. – Of whom but of Him who is born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin? – who, in renewing the perfect man in the world, works miracles, beginning from the baptism of John, as the Evangelist also testifies: And Jesus was then beginning to be about thirty years of age. This, then, was the youthful and blooming period of the age of Him who, in journeying among the cities and districts, healed the diseases and infirmities of men.

(Pro_30:17) “The eye that mocketh at his father, and dishonours the old age of his mother.” That is to say, one that blasphemes God and despises the mother of Christ, the wisdom of God, – his eyes may ravens from the caves tear out, i.e., him may unclean and wicked spirits deprive of the clear eye of gladness; and may the young eagles devour him: and such shall be trodden under the feet of the saints.

(Pro_30:18-19) “There be three things which I cannot understand, and the fourth I know not: the tracks of an eagle flying,” i.e., Christ’s ascension; “and the ways of a serpent upon a rock,” i.e., that the devil did not find a trace of sin in the body of Christ; “and the ways of a ship crossing the sea,” i.e., the ways of the Church, which is in this life as in a sea, and which is directed by her hope in Christ through the cross; “and the ways of a man in youth,”51 – the ways of Him, namely, who is born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin. For behold, says the Scripture, a man whose name is the Rising.52

(Pro_30:20) “Such is the way of an adulterous woman, who, when she has done the deed of sin, wipeth herself, and will say that no wickedness has been done.” Such is the conduct of the Church that believes on Christ, when, after committing fornication with idols, she renounces these and the devil, and is cleansed of her sins and receives forgiveness, and then asserts that she has done no wickedness.

(Pro_30:21-23) “By three things the earth is moved,” viz., by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “And the fourth it cannot bear,” viz., the last appearing of Christ. “When a servant reigneth:” Israel was a slave in Egypt, and in the land of promise became a ruler. “And a fool when he is filled with meat:” i.e., getting the land in possession readily, and eating its fruit, and being filled, it (the people) kicked. “And a handmaid when she casts out her mistress:” i.e., the synagogue which took the life of the Lord, and crucified the flesh of Christ.

(Pro_30:24-28) “There be four things which are least upon the earth, and these are wiser than the wise: The ants have no strength, yet they prepare their meat in the summer.” And in like manner, the Gentiles by faith in Christ prepare for themselves eternal life through good works. “And the conies,53 a feeble folk, have made their houses in the rocks.” The Gentiles, that is to say, are built upon Christ, the spiritual rock, which is become the head of the corner. “The spider,54 that supports itself upon its hands, and is easily caught, dwells in the strongholds of kings.” That is, the thief with his hands extended (on the cross), rests on the cross of Christ and dwells n Paradise, the stronghold of the three Kings – Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

“The locust has no king, and yet marches out in array as by one command.” The Gentiles had no king, for they were ruled by sin; but now, believing God, they engage in the heavenly warfare.

(Pro_30:29, etc.) “There be three things which go well, and the fourth which is comely in going;” that is, the angels in heaven, the saints upon earth, and the souls of the righteous under the earth. And the fourth, viz. God, the Word Incarnate, passed in honour through the Virgin’s womb; and creating our Adam anew, he passed through the gates of heaven, and became the first-fruits of the resurrection and of the ascension for all.

“The whelp of the lion is stronger than the beasts:” i.e., Christ as prophesied of by Jacob in the person of Judah. “A cock walking with high spirit among his dames:” such was Paul, when preaching boldly among the churches the word of the Christ of God. “A goat heading the herd:” such is He who was offered for the sins of the world. “And a king speaking among the people:” so Christ reigns over the nations, and speaks by prophets and apostles the word of truth.

55That is one confirmed in wickedness.55 The apostle, too, says, “Them that sin, rebuke before all;” (1Ti_5:20) that is to say, all but reprobate. Who are meant by the “conies,”56 but we ourselves, who once were like hogs, walking in all the filthiness of the world; but now, believing in Christ, we build our houses upon the holy flesh of Christ as upon a rock?

(Pro_30:21, etc)57 The shaking (of the earth) signifies the change of things upon earth. – Sin, then, which in its own nature is a slave, has reigned in the mortal body of men: once, indeed, at the time of the flood; and again in the time of the Sodomites, who, not satisfied with what the land yielded, offered violence to strangers; and a third time in the case of hateful Egypt, which, though it obtained in Joseph a man who distributed food to all, that they might not perish of famine, yet did not take well with his prosperity, but persecuted the children of Israel. “The handmaid casting out her mistress:” i.e., the Church of the Gentiles, which, though itself a slave and a stranger to the promises, cast out the free-born and lordly synagogue, and became the wife and bride of Christ. By Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the whole earth is moved. The “fourth it cannot bear:” for He came first by lawgivers, and secondly by prophets, and thirdly by the Gospel, manifesting Himself openly; and in the fourth instance He shall come as the Judge of the living and the dead, whose glory the whole creation will not be able to endure.

Another Fragment.58

St. Hippolytus59 on Pro_9:1, “Wisdom hath builded her house.”

Christ, he means, the wisdom and power of God the Father, hath builded His house, i.e., His nature in the flesh derived from the Virgin, even as he (John) hath said beforetime, “The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” (Joh_1:14) As likewise the wise prophet60 testifies: Wisdom that was before the world, and is the source of life, the infinite “Wisdom of God, hath builded her house” by a mother who knew no man, – to wit, as He assumed the temple of the body. “And hath raised61 her seven pillars;” that is, the fragrant grace of the all-holy Spirit, as Isaiah says: “And the seven spirits of God shall rest upon Him,” (Isa_11:2) But others say that the seven pillars are the seven divine orders which sustain the creation by His holy and inspired teaching; to wit, me prophets, the apostles, the martyrs, the hierarchs, the hermits, the saints, and the righteous. And the phrase, “She hath killed her beasts,” denotes the prophets and martyrs who in every city and country are slain like sheep every day by the unbelieving, in behalf of the truth, and cry aloud, “For thy sake we are killed all the day long, we were counted as sheep for the slaughter.” (Psa_44:2; Rom_8:36) And again, “She hath mingled her wine” in the bowl, by which is meant, that the Saviour, uniting his Godhead, like pure wine, with the flesh in the Virgin, was born of her at once God and man without confusion of the one in the other. “And she hath furnished her table:” that denotes the promised knowledge of the Holy Trinity; it also refers to His honoured and undefiled body and blood, which day by day are administered and offered sacrificially at the spiritual divine table, as a memorial of that first and ever-memorable table of the spiritual divine supper. And again, “She hath sent forth her servants:” Wisdom, that is to say, has done so – Christ, to wit – summoning them with lofty announcement. “Whoso is simple, Let him turn to me,” she says, alluding manifestly to the holy apostles, who traversed the whole world, and called the nations to the knowledge of Him in truth, with their lofty and divine preaching. And again, “And to those that want understanding she said” – that is, to those who have not yet obtained the power of the Holy Ghost – ”Come, eat of my bread, and drink of the wine which I have mingled for you;” by which is meant, that He gave His divine flesh and honoured blood to us, to eat and to drink it for the remission of sins.

On the Song of Songs.62

1. Arise, O north wind, and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out (Son_4:16). As Joseph was delighted with these spices, he is designated the King’s son by God; as the Virgin Mary was anointed with them, she conceived the Word: then new secrets, and new truth, and a new kingdom, and also great and inexplicable mysteries, are made manifest.

2. And where is all this rich knowledge? and where are these mysteries? and where are the books? For the only ones extant are Proverbs, and Wisdom, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. What then? Does the Scripture speak falsely? God forbid. But the matter of his writings was various, as is shown in the phrase “Song of Songs;” for that indicates that in this one book he digested the contents of the 5,000 songs. (1Ki_4:32) In the days moreover of Hezekiah, there were some of the books selected for use, and others set aside. Whence the Scripture says, “These are the mixed63 Proverbs of Solomon, which the friends of Hezekiah the king copied out.” (Pro_25:1) And whence did they take them, but out of the books containing the 3,000 parables and the 5,000 songs? Out of these, then, the wise friends of Hezekiah took those portions which bore upon the edification of the Church. And the books of Solomon on the “Parables” and “Songs,” in which he wrote of the physiology of plants, and all kinds of animals belonging to the dry land, and the air, and the sea, and of the cures of disease, Hezekiah did away with, because the people looked to these for the remedies for their diseases, and neglected to seek their healing from God.64

On the Prophet Isaiah.

I.65

Hippolytus, (Bishop) of Rome on Hezekiah.66

When Hezekiah, king of Judah, was still sick and weeping, there came an angel, and said to him: “I have seen thy tears, and I have heard thy voice. Behold, I add unto thy time fifteen years. And this shall be a sign to thee from the Lord: Behold, I turn back the shadow of the degrees of the house of thy father, by which the sun has gone down, the ten degrees by which the shadow has gone down,” (Isa_38:5, Isa_38:7, Isa_38:8) so that day be a day of thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course to the tenth hour, it returned again. And again, when Joshua the son of Nun was fighting against the Amorites, when the sun was now inclining to its setting, and the battle was being pressed closely, Joshua, being anxious lest the heathen host should escape on the descent of night, cried out, saying, “Sun, stand thou still in Gibeon; and thou moon, in the valley of Ajalon,” (Jos_10:12) until I vanquish this people. And the sun stood still, and the moon, in their places, so that day was one of twenty-four hours. And in the time of Hezekiah the moon also turned back along with the sun, that there might be no collision between the two elemental bodies, by their bearing against each other in defiance of law. And Merodach the Chaldean, king of Babylon, being struck with amazement at that time – for he studied the science of astrology, and measured the courses of these bodies carefully – on learning the cause, sent a letter and gifts to Hezekiah, just as also the wise men from the east did to Christ.

II.

From the Discourse of St. Hippolytus on the beginning of Isaiah.67

Under Egypt he meant the world, and under things made with hands its idolatry, and under the shaking its subversion and dissolution.68 And the Lord, the Word, he represented as upon a light cloud, referring to that most pure tabernacle, in which setting up His throne, our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world to shake error.

III.

We find in the commentaries, written by our predecessors, that day had thirty-two hours. For when the sun had run its course, and reached the tenth hour, and the shadow had gone down by the ten degrees in the house of the temple, the sun turned back again by the ten degrees, according to the word of the Lord, and there were thus twenty hours. And again, the sun accomplished its own proper course, according to the common law, and reached its setting. And thus there were thirty-two hours.69

On Jeremiah and Ezekiel.70

What were the dimensions, then, of the temple of Solomon? Its length was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty. And it was not turned to the east, that the worshippers might not worship the rising sun, but the Lord of the sun. And let no one marvel if, when the Scripture gives the length at forty cubits, I have said sixty. For a little after it mentions the other twenty, in describing the holy of holies, which it also names Dabir. Thus the holy place was forty cubits, and the holy of holies other twenty. And Josephus says that the temple had two storeys,71 and that the whole height was one hundred and twenty cubits. For so also the book of Chronicles indicates, saying, “And Solomon began to build the house of God. In length its first measure was sixty cubits, and its breadth twenty cubits, and its height one hundred and twenty; and he overlaid it within with pure gold.” (2Ch_3:1, 2Ch_3:3, 2Ch_3:4)

On Daniel.

I.

Preface by the most holy Hippolytus, (Bishop) of Rome.72

As I wish to give an accurate account of the times of the captivity of the children of Israel in Babylon, and to discuss the prophecies contained in the visions of the blessed Daniel, (as well as) his manner of life from his boyhood in Babylon, I too shall proceed to bear my testimony to that holy and righteous man, a prophet and witness of Christ, who not only declared the visions of Nebuchadnezzar the king in those times, but also trained youths of like mind with himself, and raised up faithful witnesses in the world. He is horn, then, in the time of the prophetic ministry of the blessed Jeremiah, and in the reign of Jehoiakim or Eliakim. Along with the other captives, he is carried off a prisoner to Babylon. Now there are born to the blessed Josiah these five sons – Jehoahaz, Eliakim, Johanan, Zedekiah, or Jeconiah, and Sadum.73 And on his father’s death, Jehoahaz is anointed as king by the people at the age of twenty-three years. Against him comes up Pharaoh-Necho, in the third month of his reign; and he takes him (Jehoahaz) prisoner, and carries him into Egypt, and imposes tribute on the land to the extent of one hundred talents of silver and ten talents of gold. And in his stead he sets up his brother Eliakim as king over the land, whose name also he changed to Jehoiakim, and who was then eleven years old. Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, (2Ki_24:10) and carries him off prisoner to Babylon, taking with him also some of the vessels of the house in Jerusalem. Thrown into prison as a friend of Pharaoh, and as one set up by him over the kingdom, (2Ki_25:27)74 he is released at length in the thirty-seventh year by Evil-Merodach king of Babylon; and he cut his hair short, and was counsellor to him, and ate at his table until the day that he died. On his removal, his son Jehoiakim75 reigns three years.76 And against him came up Nebuchadnezzar, and transports him and ten thousand of the men of his people to Babylon, and sets up in his stead his father’s brother, whose name he changed also to Zedekiah; and after making agreement with him by oath and treaty, he returns to Babylon. This (Zedekiah), after a reign of eleven years, revolted from him and went over to Pharaoh king of Egypt. And in the tenth year Nebuchadnezzar came against him from (he land of the Chaldeans, and surrounded the city with a stockade, and environed it all round, and completely shut it up. In this way the larger number of them perished by famine, and others perished by the sword, and some were taken prisoners, and the city was burned with fire, and the temple and the wall were destroyed. And the army of the Chaldeans seized all the treasure that was found in the house of the Lord, and all the vessels of gold and silver; and all the brass, Nebuzaradan, chief of the slaughterers,77 stripped off, and carried it to Babylon. And the army of the Chaldeans pursued Zedekiah himself as he fled by night along with seven hundred men, and surprised him in Jericho, and brought him to the king of Babylon at Reblatha. And the king pronounced judgment upon him in wrath, because he had violated the oath of the Lord, and the agreement he had made with him; and he slew his sons before his face, and put out Zedekiah’s eyes. And he cast him into chains of iron, and carried him to Babylon; and there he remained grinding at the mill until the day of his death. And when he died, they took his body and cast it behind the wall of Nineveh. In his case is fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah, saying, “(As) I live, saith the Lord, though Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim king of Judah should become the signet upon my right hand, yet will I pluck thee thence; and I will give thee into the hands of them that seek thy life, of them whose face thou fearest, even into the hands of the Chaldeans. And I will cast thee out, and thy mother that bare thee, into a country where thou wast not born; and there ye shall die. But to the land which they desire in their souls, I will not send thee back. Dishonoured is Jeconias, like an unserviceable vessel, of which there is no use, since he is cast out and expelled into a land which he knew not. O earth, hear the word of the Lord. Write this man, a man excommunicate; for no man of his seed shall prosper (grow up), sitting upon the throne of David, ruling any more in Judah.” (Jer_22:24, etc.) Thus the captivity in Babylon befell them after the exodus from Egypt. When the whole people, then, was transported, and the city made desolate, and the sanctuary destroyed, that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which He spake by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah, saying, “The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years;” (Jer_25:11) then we find that the blessed Daniel prophesied in Babylon, and appeared as the vindicator of Susanna.

FOOTNOTES

43 Mai, Bibliotheca nova Patrum, vii. ii. 71, Rome, 1854.

44 Pro_7:22. The Hebrew word, rendered “straightaway” in our version, is translated κεπφωθείς in the Septuagint, i.e., “ensnared like a cepphus.” [Quasi agnus lasciviens, according to the Vulgate.]

45 [If the “cemphus” of the text equals “cepphus” of note, then “oepphus” equals “cebus” or “cepus,” which equals κῆβος, a sort of monkey. The “Kophim” of 1Ki_10:22 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.]

46 ταμεῖα, “magazines.”

47 ὡς αὐτοζωή.

48 Other reading (φθόνος) = “envy.”

49 [The place of torment (2Pe_2:4). Vol. 4. p. 140, beginning line 375.]

50 [Sheol, rather, – the receptacle of departed spirits. See vol. 3. pp. 59 and 595; also vol. 4. p. 194.]

51 [The Authorized Version reads very differently; but out author follows the Sept., with which agrees the Vulgate.]

52 The reference probably is to Zec_6:12, where the word is rendered “Branch.” The word in the text is ἀνατολή.

53 χοιρογρύλλοι, i.e., “grunting hogs.”

54 ἀσκαλαβώτης, i.e., a “lizard.”

55 Cf. Pro_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 folly.” [What version did our author use?]

56 Literally, “grunting hogs.”

57 [As to version, see Burgon, Lett. from Rome, p. 34.]

58 From Gallandi.

59 [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 mediaeval blunder.]

60 i.e., Solomon.

61 Other reading, “hewn out.”

62 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.

63 ἀδιάκριτοι, “mixed,” or “dark.”

64 In Gallandi, from Anastasius Sinaita, quaest. 41, p. 320.

65 In Gallandi, from a codex of the Coislin Library, Num. 193, fol. 36.

66 [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 in parentheses.]

67 [Theodoret, in his First Dialogue.]

68 The text is evidently corrupt: Κύριον δὲ τὸν Λόγον, νεφέλην δὲ κούφην τὸ καθαρώτατον σκῆνος, etc. The reference must be to Isa_19:1.

69 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.

70 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_17:11 is taken from his book On Antichrist, p. 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.

71 διόροφον.

72 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.

73 Shallum. See 1Ch_3:15.

74 Note the confusion between Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin in what follows.

75 i.e., Jehoiachin.

76 Others τριμήνιον = three months.

77 ἀρχιμάγειρος, “chief cook.”

Part I. – Exegetical. (Cont.)

Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture. (Cont.)

On Proverbs.

II.

The interpretation by Hippolytus, (bishop) of Rome, of the visions of Daniel and Nebuchadnezzar, taken in conjunction.78

1. In speaking of a “lioness from the sea,” (Dan_7:1-28) he meant the rising of the kingdom of Babylon, and that this was the “golden head of the image.” And in speaking of its “eagle wings,” be meant that king Nebuchadnezzar was exalted and that his glory was lifted up against God. Then he says “its wings were plucked off,” i.e., that his glory was destroyed; for he was driven out of his kingdom. And the words, “A man’s heart was given it, and it was made stand upon the feet of a man,” mean that he came to himself again, and recognised that he was but a man, and gave the glory to God. Then after the lioness he sees a second beast, “like a bear,” which signified the Persians. For after the Babylonians the Persians obtained the power. And in saying that “it had three ribs in its mouth,” he pointed to the three nations, Persians, Medes, and Babylonians, which were expressed in the image by the silver after the gold. Then comes the third beast, “a leopard,” which means the Greeks; for after the Persians, Alexander of Macedon had the power, when Darius was overthrown, which was also indicated by the brass in the image. And in saying that the beast “had four wings of a fowl, and four heads,” he showed most clearly how the kingdom of Alexander was parted into four divisions. For in speaking of four heads, he meant the four kings that arose out of it. For Alexander, when dying, divided his kingdom into four parts. Then he says, “The fourth beast (was) dreadful and terrible: it had iron teeth, and claws of brass.” Who, then, are meant by this but the Romans, whose kingdom, the kingdom that still stands, is expressed by the iron? “for,” says he, “its legs are of iron.”

2. After this, then, what remains, beloved, but the toes of the feet of the image, in which “part shall be of iron and part of clay mixed together?” By the toes of the feet he meant, mystically, the ten kings that rise out of that kingdom. As Daniel says, “I considered the beast; and, lo, (there were) ten horns behind, among which shall come up another little horn springing from them;” by which none other is meant than the antichrist that is to rise; and he shall set up the kingdom of Judah. And in saying that “three horns” were “plucked up by the roots” by this one, he indicates the three kings of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, whom this one will slay in the array of war. And when he has conquered all, he will prove himself a terrible and savage tyrant, and will cause tribulation and persecution to the saints, exalting himself against them. And after him, it remains that “the stone” shall come from heaven which “smote the image” and shivered it, and subverted all the kingdoms, and gave the kingdom to the saints of the Most High. This “became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.”

3. As these things, then, are destined to come to pass, and as the toes of the image turn out to be democracies,79 and the ten horns of the beast are distributed among ten kings, let us look at what is before us more carefully, and scan it, as it were, with open eye. The “golden head of the image” is identical with the “lioness,” by which the Babylonians were represented. “The golden shoulders and the arms of silver” are the same with the “bear,” by which the Persians and Medes are meant. “The belly and thighs of brass” are the “leopard,” by which the Greeks who ruled from Alexander onwards are intended. The “legs of iron” are the “dreadful and terrible beast,” by which the Romans who hold the empire now are meant. The “toes of clay and iron” are the “ten horns” which are to be. The “one other little horn springing up in their midst” is the “antichrist.” The stone that “smites the image and breaks it in pieces,” and that filled the whole earth, is Christ, who comes from heaven and brings judgment on the world.

4. But that we may not leave our subject at this point undemonstrated, we are obliged to discuss the matter of the times, of which a man should not speak hastily, because they are a light to him. For as the times are noted from the foundation of the world, and reckoned from Adam, they set clearly before us the matter with which our inquiry deals. For the first appearance of our Lord in the flesh took place in Bethlehem, under Augustus, in the year 5500; and He suffered in the thirty-third year. And 6,000 years must needs be accomplished, in order that the Sabbath may come, the rest, the holy day “on which God rested from all His works.”80 For the Sabbath is the type and emblem of the future kingdom of the saints, when they “shall reign with Christ,” when He comes from heaven, as John says in his Apocalypse: for “a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.” (Psa_90:4) Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled. And they are not yet fulfilled, as John says: “five are fallen; one is,” that is, the sixth; “the other is not yet come.” (Rev_17:10)

5. In mentioning the “other,” moreover, he specifies the seventh, in which there is rest. But some one may be ready to say, How will you prove to me that the Saviour was born in the year 5500? Learn that easily, O man; for the things that took place of old in the wilderness, under Moses, in the case of the tabernacle, were constituted types and emblems of spiritual mysteries, in order that, when the truth came in Christ in these last days, you might be able to perceive that these things were fulfilled. For He says to him, “And thou shalt make the ark of imperishable wood, and shalt overlay it with pure gold within and without; and thou shalt make the length of it two cubits and a half, and the breadth thereof one cubit and a half, and a cubit and a half the height;” (Exo_25:10) which measures, when summed up together, make five cubits and a half, so that the 5500 years might be signified thereby.

6. At that time, then, the Saviour appeared and showed His own body to the world, (born) of the Virgin, who was the “ark overlaid with pure gold,” with the Word within and the Holy Spirit without; so that the truth is demonstrated, and the “ark” made manifest. From the birth of Christ, then, we must reckon the 500 years that remain to make up the 6000, and thus the end shall be. And that the Saviour appeared in the world, bearing the imperishable ark, His own body, at a time which was the fifth and half, John declares: “Now it was the sixth hour,” (Joh_19:14) he says, intimating by that, one-half of the day. But a day with the Lord is 10000 years; and the half of that, therefore, is 500 years. For it was not meet that He should appear earlier, for the burden of the law still endured, nor yet when the sixth day was fulfilled (for the baptism is changed), but on the fifth and half, in order that in the remaining half time the gospel might be preached to the whole world, and that when the sixth day was completed He might end the present life.

7. Since, then, the Persians held the mastery for 330 years,81 and after them the Greeks, who were yet more glorious, held it for 300 years, of necessity the fourth beast, as being strong and mightier than all that were before it, will reign 500 years. When the times are fulfilled, and the ten horns spring from the beast in the last (times), then Antichrist will appear among them. When he makes war against the saints, and persecutes them, then may we expect the manifestation of the Lord from heaven.

8. The prophet having thus instructed us with all exactness as to the certainty of the things that are to be, broke off from his present subject, and passed again to the kingdom of the Persians and Greeks, recounting to us another vision which took place, and was fulfilled in its proper time; in order that, by establishing our belief in this, he might be able to present us to God as readier believers in the things that are to be. Accordingly, what he had narrated in the first vision, he again recounts in detail for the edification of the faithful. For by the “ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward,” he means Darius, the king of the Persians, who overcame all the nations; “for,” says he, “these beasts shall not stand before him.” And by the “he-goat that came from the west,” he means Alexander the Macedonian, the king of the Greeks; and in that he “came against that very ram, and was moved with choler, and smote him upon the face, and shivered him, and cast him upon the ground, and stamped upon him,” this expresses just what has happened.

9. For Alexander waged war against Darius, and overcame him, and made himself master of the whole sovereignty, after routing and destroying his camp. Then, after the exaltation of the he-goat, his horn – the great one, namely – was broken; and there arose four horns under it, toward the four winds of heaven. For, when Alexander had made himself master of all the land of Persia, and had reduced its people into subjection, he thereupon died, after dividing his kingdom into four principalities, as has been shown above. And from that time “one horn was exalted, and waxed great, even to the power of heaven; and by him the sacrifice,” he says, “was disturbed, and righteousness cast down to the ground.”

10. For Antiochus arose, surnamed Epiphanes, who was of the line of Alexander. And after he had reigned in Syria, and brought under him all Egypt, he went up to Jerusalem, and entered the sanctuary, and seized all the treasures in the house of the Lord, and the golden candlestick, and the table, and the altar, and made a great slaughter in the land; even as it is written: “And the sanctuary shall be trodden under foot, unto evening and unto morning, a thousand and three hundred days.” For it happened that the sanctuary remained desolate during that period, three years and a half, that the thousand and three hundred days might be fulfilled; until Judas Maccabaeus arose after the death of his father Matthias, and withstood him, and destroyed the encampment of Antiochus, and delivered the city, and recovered the sanctuary, and restored it in strict accordance with the law.

11. Since, then, the angel Gabriel also recounted these things to the prophet, as they have been understood by us, as they have also taken place, and as they have been all clearly described in the books of the Maccabees, let us see further what he says on the other weeks. For when he read the book of Jeremiah the prophet, in which it was written that the sanctuary would be desolate seventy years, he made confession with fastings and supplications, and prayed that the people might return sooner from their captivity to the city Jerusalem. Thus, then, he speaks in his account: “In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, who was king over the realm of the Chaldeans, I Daniel understood in the books the number of the years, as the word of the Lord had come to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishment of the desolation of Jerusalem in seventy years,” etc.

12. After his confession and supplication, the angel says to him, “Thou art a man82 greatly beloved:” for thou desirest to see things of which thou shalt be informed by me; and in their own time these things will be fulfilled; and he touched me, saying, “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon the holy city, to seal up sins and to blot out transgressions, and to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy; and thou shalt know and understand, that from the going forth of words for the answer, and for the building of Jerusalem, unto Christ the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.”

13. Having mentioned therefore seventy weeks, and having divided them into two parts, in order that what was spoken by him to the prophet might be better understood, he proceeds thus, “Unto Christ the Prince shall be seven weeks,” which make forty-nine years. It was in the twenty-first year that Daniel saw these things in Babylon. Hence, the forty-nine years added to the twenty-one, make up the seventy years, of which the blessed Jeremiah spake: “The sanctuary shall be desolate seventy years from the captivity that befell them under Nebuchadnezzar; and after these things the people will return, and sacrifice and offering will be presented, when Christ is their Prince.” (Jer_25:11)

14. Now of what Christ does he speak, but of Jesus the son of Josedech, who returned at that time along with the people, and offered sacrifice according to the law, in the seventieth year, when the sanctuary was built? For all the kings and priests were styled Christs, because they were anointed with the holy oil, which Moses of old prepared. These, then, bore the name of the Lord in their own persons, showing aforetime the type, and presenting the image until the perfect King and Priest appeared from heaven, who alone did the will of the Father; as also it is written in Kings: “And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do all things according to my heart.” (1Sa_2:35)

15. In order, then, to show the time when He is to come whom the blessed Daniel desired to see, he says, “And after seven weeks there are other threescore and two weeks,” which period embraces the space of 434 years. For after the return of the people from Babylon under the leadership of Jesus the son of Josedech, and Ezra the scribe, and Zerubbabel the son of Salathiel, of the tribe of David, there were 434 years unto the coming of Christ, in order that the Priest of priests might be manifested in the world, and that He who taketh away the sins of the world might be evidently set forth, as John speaks concerning Him: “Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world!” (Joh_1:29) And in like manner Gabriel says: “To blot out transgressions, and make reconciliation for sins.” But who has blotted out our transgressions? Paul the apostle teaches us, saying, “He is our peace who made both one;” (Eph_2:14) and then, “Blotting out the handwriting of sins that was against us.” (Col_2:14)

16. That transgressions, therefore, are blotted out, and that reconciliation is made for sins, is shown by this. But who are they who have reconciliation made for their sins, but they who believe on His name, and propitiate His countenance by good works? And that after the return of the people from Babylon there was a space of 434 years, until the time of the birth of Christ, may be easily understood. For, since the first covenant was given to the children of Israel after a period of 434 years, it follows that the second covenant also should be defined by the same space of time, in order that it might be expected by the people and easily recognised by the faithful.

17. And for this reason Gabriel says: “And to anoint the Most Holy.” And the Most Holy is none else but the Son of God alone, who, when He came and manifested Himself, said to them, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed me;” (Isa_61:1; Luk_4:18) and so forth. Whosoever, therefore, believed on the heavenly Priest, were cleansed by that same Priest, and their sins were blotted out. And whosoever believed not on Him, despising Him as a man, had their sins sealed, as those which could not be taken away; whence the angel, foreseeing that not all should believe on Him, said, “To finish sins, and to seal up sins.” For as many as continued to disbelieve Him, even to the end, had their sins not finished, but sealed to be kept for judgment. But as many as will believe on Him as One able to remit sins, have their sins blotted out. Wherefore he says: “And to seal up vision and prophet.”

18. For when He came who is the fulfilling of the law and of the prophets (for the law and the prophets were till John), it was necessary that the things spoken by them should be confirmed (sealed), in order that at the coming of the Lord all things loosed should be brought to light, and that things bound of old should now be loosed by Him, as the Lord said Himself to the rulers of the people, when they were indignant at the cure on the Sabbath-day: “Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? and ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound these eighteen years, be loosed on the Sabbath-day?” (Luk_13:15, Luk_13:16) Whomsoever, therefore, Satan bound in chains, these did the Lord on His coming loose from the bonds of death, having bound our strong adversary and delivered humanity. As also Isaiah says: “Then will He say to those in chains, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves.” (Isa_49:9)

19. And that the things spoken of old by the law and the prophets were all sealed, and that they were unknown to men, Isaiah declares when he says: “And they will deliver the book that is sealed to one that is learned, and will say to him, Read this; and he will say, I cannot read it, for it is sealed.” (Isa_29:11) It was meet and necessary that the things spoken of old by the prophets should be sealed to the unbelieving Pharisees, who thought that they understood the letter of the law, and be opened to the believing. The things, therefore, which of old were sealed, are now by the grace of God the Lord all open to the saints.

20. For He was Himself the perfect Seal, and the Church is the key: “He who openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth,” (Rev_3:7) as John says. And again, the same says: “And I saw, on the right hand of Him that sat on the throne, a book written within and without, sealed with seven seals; and I saw an angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?” and so forth. “And I beheld in the midst of the throne, and of the four beasts, a Lamb standing slain, having seven horns, and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And He came and took the book out of the right hand of Him that sat upon the throne. And when He had taken the book, the four beasts and four-and-twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having harps and golden vials full of incense, which is the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood.” (Rev_5:1-14) He took the book, therefore, and loosed it, in order that the things spoken concerning Him of old in secret, might now be proclaimed with boldness upon the house-tops. (cf. Mat_10:27)

21. For this reason, then, the angel says to Daniel, “Seal the words, for the vision is until the end of the time.” But to Christ it was not said “seal,” but “loose” the things bound of old; in order that, by His grace, we might know the will of the Father, and believe upon Him whom He has sent for the salvation of men, Jesus our Lord. He says, therefore, “They shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall;” which in reality took place. For the people returned and built the city, and the temple, and the wall round about. Then he says: “After threescore and two weeks the times will be fulfilled, and one week will make a covenant with many; and in the midst (half) of the week sacrifice and oblation will be removed, and in the temple will be the abomination of desolations.”

22. For when the threescore and two weeks are fulfilled, and Christ is come, and the Gospel is preached in every place, the times being then accomplished, there will remain only one week, the last, in which Elias will appear, and Enoch, and in the midst of it the abomination of desolation will be manifested,83 viz., Antichrist, announcing desolation to the world. And when he comes, the sacrifice and oblation will be removed, which now are offered to God in every place by the nations. These things being thus recounted, the prophet again describes another vision to us. For he had no other care save to be accurately instructed in all things that are to be, and to prove himself an instructor in such.

23. He says then: “In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a word was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was Belshazzar; and the word was true, and great power and understanding were given him in the vision. In those days I Daniel was mourning three weeks of days. I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till three weeks of days were fulfilled. On the fourth day of the first month I humbled myself,” says he, “one and twenty days,” praying to the living God, and asking of Him the revelation of the mystery. And the Father in truth heard me, and sent His own Word, to show what should happen by Him. And that took place, indeed, by the great river. For it was meet that the Son should be manifested there, where also He was to remove sins.

24. “And I lifted up mine eyes,” he says, “and, behold, a man clothed in linen.”84 In the first vision he says, “Behold, the angel Gabriel (was) sent.” Here, however, it is not so; but he sees the Lord, not yet indeed as perfect man, but with the appearance and form of man, as he says: “And, behold, a man clothed in linen.” For in being clothed in a various-coloured coat, he indicated mystically85 the variety of the graces of our calling. For the priestly coat was made up of different colours, as various nations waited for Christ’s coming, in order that we might be made up (as one body) of many colours. “And his loins were girded with the gold of Ophaz.”

25. Now the word “Ophaz,” which is a word transferred from Hebrew to Greek, denotes pure gold. With a pure girdle, therefore, he was girded round the loins. For the Word was to bear us all, binding us like a girdle round His body, in His own love. The complete body was His,86 but we are members in His body, united together, and sustained by the Word Himself. “And his body was like Tharses.”87 Now “Tharses,” by interpretation, is “Ethiopians.” For that it would be difficult to recognise Him, the prophet had thus already announced beforehand, intimating that He would be manifested in the flesh in the world, but that many would find it difficult to recognise Him. “And his face as lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire;” for it was meet that the fiery and judicial power of the Word should be signified aforetime, in the exercise of which He will cause the fire (of His judgment) to light with justice upon the impious, and consume them.

26. He added also these words: “And his arms and his feet like polished brass;” to denote the first calling of men, and the second calling like unto it, viz. of the Gentiles. (Isa_1:26) “For the last shall be as the first; for I will set thy rulers as at the beginning, and thy leaders as before. And His voice was as the voice of a great multitude.” (Rev_19:6) For all we who believe on Him in these days utter things oracular, as speaking by His mouth the things appointed by Him.

27. And after a little He says to him: “Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? And now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia. But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael your prince, and I left him there. For from the day that thou didst give thy countenance to be afflicted before the Lord thy God, thy prayer was heard, and I was sent to fight with the prince of Persia:” for a certain counsel was formed not to send the people away: “that therefore thy prayer might be speedily granted, I withstood him, and left Michael there.” 

28. And who was he that spake, but the angel who was given to the people, as he says in the law of Moses: “I will not go with you, because the people is stiff-necked; but my angel shall go before along with you?” (Exo_32:4, Exo_33:3) This (angel) withstood Moses at the inn, when he was bringing the child uncircumcised into Egypt. For it was not allowed Moses, who was the elder (or legate) and mediator of the law, and who proclaimed the covenant of the fathers, to introduce a child uncircumcised, lest he should be deemed a false prophet and deceiver by the people. “And now,” says he, “will I show the truth to thee.” Could the Truth have shown anything else but the truth?

29. He says therefore to him: “Behold, there shall stand up three kings in Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all; and when he has got possession of his riches, he shall stand up against all the realms of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, and shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will; and when his kingdom stands, it shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven.” These things we have already discussed above, when we discoursed upon the four beasts. But since Scripture now again sets them forth explicitly, we must also discourse upon them a second time, that we may not leave Scripture unused and unexplained.

30. “There shall stand up yet three kings,” he says, “in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all.” This has been fulfilled. For after Cyrus arose Darius, and then Artaxerxes. These were the three kings; (and) the Scripture is fulfilled. “And the fourth shall be far richer than they all.” Who is that but Darius, who reigned and made himself glorious, – who was rich, and assailed all the realms of Greece? Against him rose Alexander of Macedon, who destroyed his kingdom; and after he had reduced the Persians, his own kingdom was divided toward the four winds of heaven. For Alexander at his death divided his kingdom into four principalities. “And a king shall stand up, and shall enter into the fortress of the king of Egypt.”

31. For Antiochus became king of Syria. He held the sovereignty in the 107th year of the kingdom of the Greeks. And in those same times indeed he made war against Ptolemy king of Egypt, and conquered him, and won the power. On returning from Egypt he went up to Jerusalem, in the 103d year, and carrying off with him all the treasures of the Lord’s house, he marched to Antioch. And after two years of days the king sent his raiser of taxes88 into the cities of Judea, to compel the Jews to forsake the laws of their fathers, and submit to the decrees of the king. And he came, and tried to compel them, saying, “Come forth, and do the commandment of the king, and ye shall live.”

32. But they said, “We will not come forth: neither will we do the king’s commandment; we will die in our innocency: and he slew of them a thousand souls.” (1 Maccabees 2:33) The things, therefore, which were spoken to the blessed Daniel are fulfilled: “And my servants shall be afflicted, and shall fall by famine, and by sword, and by captivity.” (Dan_11:33) Daniel, however, adds: “And they shall be holpen with a little help.” For at that time Matthias arose, and Judas Maccabaeus, and helped them, and delivered them from the hand of the Greeks.

33. That therefore was fulfilled which was spoken in the Scripture. He proceeds then thus: “And the (king’s) daughter of the South shall come to the king of the North to make an agreement with him; and the arms of him that bringeth her shall not stand; and she, too, shall be smitten, and shall fall, and he that bringeth her.” For this was a certain Ptolemais89 queen of Egypt. At that time indeed she went forth with her two sons, Ptolemy and Philometor, to make an agreement with Antiochus king of Syria; and when she came to Scythopolis, she was slain there. For he who brought her betrayed her. At that same time, the two brothers made war against each other, and Philometor was slain, and Ptolemy gained the power.

34. War, then, was again made by Ptolemy against Antiochus, (and) Antiochus met him. For thus saith the Scripture: “And the king of the South shall stand up against the king of the North, and her seed shall stand up against him.” And what seed but Ptolemy, who made war with Antiochus? And Antiochus having gone forth against him, and having failed to overcome him, had to flee, and returned to Antioch, and collected a larger host. Ptolemy accordingly took his whole equipment, and carried it into Egypt. And the Scripture is fulfilled, as Daniel says: And he shall carry off into Egypt their gods, and their cast-works, and all their precious (vessels of) gold.

35. And after these things Antiochus went forth a second time to make war against him, and overcome Ptolemy. And after these events Antiochus commenced hostilities again against the children of Israel, and despatched one Nicanor with a large army to subdue the Jews, at the time when Judas, after the death of Matthias, ruled the people; and so forth, as is written in the Maccabees. These events having taken place, the Scripture says again: “And there shall stand up another king, and he shall prevail upon the earth; and the king of the South shall stand up, and he shall obtain his daughter to wife.”

36. For it happened that there arose a certain Alexander,90 son of Philip. He withstood Antiochus91 at that time, and made war upon him, and cut him off, and gained possession of the kingdom. Then he sent to Ptolemy king of Egypt, saying, Give me thy daughter Cleopatra to wife. And he gave her to Alexander to wife. And thus the Scripture is fulfilled, when it says: “And he shall obtain his daughter to wife.” And it says further: “And he shall corrupt her, and she shall not be his wife.” This also has been truly fulfilled. For after Ptolemy had given him his daughter, he returned, and saw the mighty and glorious kingdom of Alexander. And coveting its possession, he spoke falsely to Alexander, as the Scripture says: “And the two kings shall speak lies at (one) table.” And, in sooth, Ptolemy betook himself to Egypt, and collected a great army, and attacked the city at the time when Alexander had marched into Cilicia.

37. Ptolemy then invaded the country, and established garrisons throughout the cities; and on making himself master of Judea, set out for his daughter, and sent letters to Demetrius in the islands, saying, Come and meet me here, and I will give thee nay daughter Cleopatra to wife, for Alexander has sought to kill me. Demetrius came accordingly, and Ptolemy received him, and gave him her who had been destined i for Alexander. Thus is fulfilled that which is written: “And he shall corrupt her, and she shall not be his wife.” Alexander was slain. Then Ptolemy wore two crowns, that of Syria and that of Egypt, and died the third day after he had assumed them. Thus is fulfilled that which is written in Scripture: “And they shall not give him the glory of the kingdom.” For he died, and received not honour from all as king.

38. The prophet then, after thus recounting the things which have taken place already, and been fulfilled in their times, declares yet another mystery to us, while he points out the last times. For he says: “And there shall rise up another shameless king; and he shall exalt himself above every god, and shall magnify himself, and shall speak marvellous things, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished;” and so forth. “And these shall escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief (or principality) of the children of Ammon. And he shall stretch forth his hand upon the land; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. And he shall have power over the secret treasures of gold and silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt and of the Libyans, and the Ethiopians in their strongholds.”

39. Thus, then, does the prophet set forth these things concerning the Antichrist, who shall be shameless, a war-maker, and despot, who, exalting himself above all kings and above every god, shall build the city of Jerusalem, and restore the sanctuary. Him the impious will worship as God, and will bend to him the knee, thinking him to be the Christ. He shall cut off the two witnesses and forerunners of Christ, who proclaim His glorious kingdom from heaven, as it is said: “And I will give (power) unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” (Rev_11:3) As also it was announced to Daniel: “And one week shall confirm a covenant with many; and in the midst of the week it shall be that the sacrifice and oblation shall be removed” – that the one week might be shown to be divided into two. The two witnesses, then, shall preach three years and a half; and Antichrist shall make war upon the saints during the test of the week, and desolate the world, that what is written may be fulfilled: “And they shall make the abomination of desolation for a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

40. Daniel has spoken, therefore, of two abominations; the one of destruction, and the other of desolation. What is that of destruction, but that which Antiochus established there at the time? And what is that of desolation, but that which shall be universal when Antichrist comes? “And there shall escape out of his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Anamon.” For these are they who ally themselves with him on account of their kinship, and first address him as king. Those of Edom are the sons of Esau, who inhabit Mount Seir. And Moab and Ammon are they who are descended from his two daughters, as Isaiah also says: “And they shall fly (extend themselves) in the ships of strangers, and they shall also plunder the sea; and those from the east, and from the west, and the north, shall give them honour: and the children of Ammon shall first obey them.” (Isa_11:14) He shall be proclaimed king by them, and shall be magnified by all, and shall prove himself an abomination of desolation to the world, and shall reign for a thousand two hundred and ninety days. “Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days;” for when the abomination cometh and makes war upon the saints, whosoever shall survive his days, and reach the forty-five days, while the other period of fifty days advances, to him the kingdom of heaven comes. Antichrist, indeed, enters even into part of the fifty days, but the saints shall inherit the kingdom along with Christ.

41. These things being thus narrated, Daniel proceeds: “And, behold, there stood two men, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side; and they made answer to the man that stood upon the bank of the river, and said to him, How long shall it be to the end of these wonderful words which thou hast spoken? And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was upon the water of the river; and he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and they shall know all these things when the dispersion is accomplished,”

42. Who, then, were the two men who stood on the bank of the river, but the law and the prophets? And who was he who stood upon the water, but He concerning whom they prophesied of old, who in the last times was to be borne witness to by the Father at the Jordan, and to be declared to the people boldly by John, “who wore the casty92 of the scribe about his loins, and was clothed with a linen coat of various colours?” These, therefore, interrogate Him, knowing that to Him were given all government and power, in order to learn accurately of Him when He will bring the judgment on the world, and when the things spoken by Him will be fulfilled. And He, desiring by all means to convince them, lifted His right hand and His left hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth for ever. Who is He that swore, and by whom sware He? Manifestly the Son by the Father, saying, The Father liveth for ever, but in a time, and times, and an half, when the dispersion is accomplished, they shall know all these things.

43. By the stretching forth of His two hands He signified His passion; and by mentioning “a time, and times, and an half, when the dispersion is accomplished,” He indicated the three years and a half of Antichrist. For by “a time” He means a year, and by “times” two years, and by an “half time” half a year. These are the thousand two hundred and ninety days of which Daniel prophesied for the finishing of the passion, and the accomplishment of the dispersion when Antichrist comes. In those days they shall know all these things. And from the time of the removal of the continuous sacrifice there are also reckoned one thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Then) iniquity shall abound, as the Lord also says: “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” (Mat_24:12)

44. And that divisions will arise when the falling away takes place, is without doubt. And when divisions arise, love is chilled. The words, “Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days,” have also their value, as the Lord said: “But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.” Wherefore let us by no means admit the falling away, lest iniquity abound, and the abomination of desolation – that is, the adversary – overtake us. And He said to him, “unto evening” – that is, unto the consummation” and morning.” What is “morning?” The day of resurrection. For that is the beginning of another age, as the morning is the beginning of the day. And the thousand and four hundred days are the light of the world. For on the appearing of the light in the world (as He says, “I am the light of the world”), the sanctuary shall be purged, as he said,93 (of) the adversary. For it cannot by any means be purged but by his destruction.

FOOTNOTES

78 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_7:4. [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.]

79 [True in A.D. 1885. A very pregnant testimony to our own times.]

80 This is what Photius condemned in Hippolytus. Irenaeus, 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.

81 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_9:24. Eusebius makes it seventy years longer in his Demonstr. Evang., viii. 2.

82 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.”]

83 In the text, the word ἕως, “until,” which seems spurious.

84 βαδδίν.

85 In the text, μυστηρίων (of “mysteries”), for which μυστηριωδῶς or μυστικῶς, “mystically,” is proposed.

86 The Latin translation renders: His body was perfect.

87 “Tharses” (Θαρσεῖς) in Hippolytus. The Septuagint gives Θαρσίς as the translation of the Hebrew תַּרְשִׁישׁ, rendered in our version as “beryl” (Dan_10:6).

88 φορολόγον.

89 He seems to refer to Cleopatra, wife and niece of Physco. For Lathyrus was sometimes called Philometor in ridicule (ἐπὶ χλευασμῷ), as Pausanias says in the Attica.

90 He refers to Alexander I. king of Syria, of whom we read in 1 Maccabees 10. He pretends 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 incertae stirpis). So Hippolytus calls him here, “a certain Alexander” (τινα). He had also other surnames, e.g., Euergetes, Balas, etc.

91 For “Antiochus” in the test, read “Demetrius.”

92 Girdle.

93 The text gives ὁ ἀντικείμενος, which is corrupt.