The Refutation of All Heresies (Philosophumena)

VI. (We offered them opposition, p. 125.) Here we see that Hippolytus had no idea of the sense some put upon the convenire of his master Irenæus. 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, p. 126.)

"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. VIII. (Imagine themselves to be disciples of Christ, p. 126.)

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, p. 128.)

The simple primitive cathedra, 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, 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, p. 128.) It has been sufficiently demonstrated by the learned Döllinger, 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, p. 128.)

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 Acts v. 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" (ton de loipon) here means the priests, the Pharisees, and Sadducees, the classes who were not the plebs, as appears by what immediately follows. XII. (Our condemnatory sentence, p. 131.)

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 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 great Judge holds his assize. His eulogy is in the psalm: "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, p. 131.)

There is an ambiguity in the facts as given in the Edinburgh edition, of which it is hard to relieve the text. The word kathistasthai is rendered to retain (their places) in the first instance, as if the case were all one with the second instance, where menein 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, p. 131.)

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, ho anomos, "that wicked" or that "lawless one," seeing, in such a bishop, what St. Gregory did in another, - "a forerunner of the Antichrist." XV. (Callistians, p. 131.) Bunsen remarks that Theodoret speaks of this sect 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, and institutes interesting parallelisms between the Philosophumena and Theodoret, who used our author, and boldly borrowed from him. XVI. (The cause of all things, p. 150.)

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 Nicæno-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, p. 153.)

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. Peter (ii. 4) when he uses this otherwise startling word. Josephus also employs it; 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, p. 153.)

Dr. Wordsworth justly censures Bunsen for his rendering of this passage, also for manufacturing for Hippolytus a "Confession of Faith" out of his tenth book. 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.

I avail myself of a little spare space to add, from Michelet's friend, E. Quinet, 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.

Those, then, who suppose that they prophesy by means of calculations and numbers, and elements and names, constitute the origin of their attempted system to be as follows. They affirm that there is a root of each of the numbers; in the case of thousands, so many monads as there are thousands: for example, the root of six thousand, six monads; of seven thousand, seven monads; of eight thousand, eight monads; and in the case of the rest, in like manner, according to the same (proportion). And in the case of hundreds, as many hundreds as there are, so many monads are the root of them: for instance, of seven hundred there are seven hundreds; the root of these is seven monads: of six hundred, six hundreds; the root of these, six monads. And it is similar respecting decades: for of eighty (the root is) eight monads; and of sixty, six monads; of forty, four monads; of ten, one monad. And in the case of monads, the monads themselves are a root: for instance, of nine, nine; of eight, eight; of seven, seven. In this way, also, ought we therefore to act in the case of the elements (of words), for each letter has been arranged according to a certain number: for instance, the letter n according to fifty monads; but of fifty monads five is the root, and the root of the letter n is (therefore) five. Grant that from some name we take certain roots of it.

For instance, (from) the name Agamemnon, there is of the a, one monad; and of the g, three monads; and of the other a, one monad; of the m, four monads; of the e, five monads; of the m, four monads; of the n, five monads; of the (long) o, eight monads; of the n, five monads; which, brought together into one series, will be 1, 3, 1, 4, 5, 4, 5, 8, 5; and these added together make up 36 monads. Again, they take the roots of these, and they become three in the case of the number thirty, but actually six in the case of the number six. The three and the six, then, added together, constitute nine; but the root of nine is nine: therefore the name Agamemnon terminates in the root nine.

Let us do the same with another name - Hector. The name (H)ector has five letters - e, and k, and t, and o, and r. The roots of these are 5, 2, 3, 8, 1; and these added together make up 19 monads. Again, of the ten the root is one; and of the nine, nine; which added together make up ten: the root of ten is a monad. The name Hector, therefore, when made the subject of computation, has formed a root, namely a monad. It would, however, be easier to conduct the calculation thus: Divide the ascertained roots from the letters - as now in the case of the name Hector we have found nineteen monads - into nine, and treat what remains over as roots. For example, if I divide 19 into 9, the remainder is 1, for 9 times 2 are 18, and there is a remaining monad: for if I subtract 18 from 19, there is a remaining monad; so that the root of the name Hector will be a monad. Again, of the name Patroclus these numbers are roots: 8, 1, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 7, 2; added together, they make up 34 monads. And of these the remainder is 7 monads: of the 30, 3; and of the 4, 4. Seven monads, therefore, are the root of the name Patroclus.

Those, then, that conduct their calculations according to the rule of the number nine, take the ninth part of the aggregate number of roots, and define what is left over as the sum of the roots. They, on the other hand, (who conduct their calculations) according to the rule of the number seven, take the seventh (part of the aggregate number of roots); for example, in the case of the name Patroclus, the aggregate in the matter of roots is 34 monads. This divided into seven parts makes four, which (multiplied into each other) are 28. There are six remaining monads; (so that a person using this method) says, according to the rule of the number seven, that six monads are the root of the name Patroclus. If, however, it be 43, (six) taken seven times, he says, are 42, for seven times six are 42, and one is the remainder. A monad, therefore, is the root of the number 43, according to the rule of the number seven. But one ought to observe if the assumed number, when divided, has no remainder; for example, if from any name, after having added together the roots, I find, to give an instance, 36 monads. But the number 36 divided into nine makes exactly 4 enneads; for nine times 4 are 36, and nothing is over. It is evident, then, that the actual root is 9. And again, dividing the number forty-five, we find nine and nothing over - for nine times five are forty-five, and nothing remains;

(wherefore) in the case of such they assert the root itself to be nine. And as regards the number seven, the case is similar: if, for example we divide 28 into 7, we have nothing over; for seven times four are 28, and nothing remains; (wherefore) they say that seven is the root. But when one computes names, and finds the same letter occurring twice, he calculates it once; for instance, the name Patroclus has the pa twice, and the o twice: they therefore calculate the a once and the o once. According to this, then, the roots will be 8, 1, 3, 1, 7, 2, 3, 2, and added together they make 27 monads; and the root of the name will be, according to the rule of the number nine, nine itself, but according to the rule of the number seven, six.