ON ST. HIPPOLYTUS, BISHOP AND MARTYR,
AT PORTO NEAR ROME,
ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF THE THIRD CENTURY.
HISTORICAL-CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
Hippolytus, bishop and M., at Porto near Rome (S.)
BHL Number: 3963
BY G. C.
§ I. The distinction of this Saint from other martyrs of the same name, and his cult from the ancient Martyrologies.
Besides various Hippolytuses, of whom only the name or the martyrdom is known, our Bolland on the XXX day of January briefly illustrated the Acts of St. Hippolytus, priest of Antioch, The distinction of this martyr from others of the same name who, being for a while deceived by the schism of Novatus, but corrected by the working of Christ's grace, returned to the unity of the Church, for which and in which he afterwards accomplished an illustrious martyrdom, as is read in Usuard and in the Roman Martyrology. In our Work on the XIII day of August the Acts of another St. Hippolytus were published, whom on the same day the Roman Martyrology from Usuard thus announces: At Rome, of blessed Hippolytus the martyr, who for the glory of his confession under the emperor Valerian, after other torments, his feet being bound to the necks of untamed horses, was cruelly dragged through thistles and briars, and, his whole body being torn, gave up his spirit. Finally another martyr of the same name is commemorated today in the praised Roman Martyrology in these words: At Porto near Rome, of St. Hippolytus the bishop, most illustrious in learning, who under the emperor Alexander, for his glorious confession of the faith, with hands and feet bound was cast headlong into a deep pit full of water, and received the palm of martyrdom; whose body was buried by the Christians at the same place. From the place, the time, and the other circumstances of the matter, these three martyrs of the same name appear to be different from one another.
[2] Whence Ruinart, among the Genuine Acts of the Martyrs, page 155 of the Paris edition, in the preliminary Admonition to the martyrdom of the other St. Hippolytus, thus distinguishes our present one from the others: with Ruinart But although we here vindicate Prudentius from error, we do not deny that there were also other Hippolytuses besides this one, whom the Church acknowledges and celebrates. Illustrious among them is the great Hippolytus the martyr, whose works Eusebius enumerates in book VI of the History, chapter XXII, and whom before, in chapter XX, he had called προεστώς, bishop or head of some church. Of the same Hippolytus and of his works you have more in Jerome in the Catalogue, where he says that he was bishop of a see unknown to himself. Gelasius in the book On the two Natures calls him metropolitan of Arabia; others everywhere say that he was bishop of Porto. So Photius relates that he was a disciple of St. Irenaeus, but others of Clement of Alexandria. Of him also Epiphanius makes mention in Heresy thirty-one, and nearly all other ecclesiastical writers: whose feast the common Martyrologies keep on the XXII or XXIII day of the month of August, and whose martyrdom they refer to the times of Alexander Severus.
[3] against Tillemont Nevertheless Tillemont in volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, pages 242 and 675, accuses the most eminent Baronius as though he had wrongly placed the great St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, on the XXII day,
and had confused him with another martyr of the same name. Then he contends that at Antioch St. Hippolytus the prelate should be announced on the XXIX of January, on which day he is celebrated by the Greeks. Nay, he readily grants that perhaps this Saint is repeated on the following day in the Martyrologies, and that he is one and the same martyr who is honored on the XXIX day and is announced on the following day in the Hieronymian Martyrology. We admit without difficulty that St. Hippolytus the prelate is celebrated on the XXIX of January by the Greeks and on the XXII of August by the Latins: for Tillemont knows by his very experience in handling history that very often the same Saint is announced on different days among the Greeks and the Latins. But we shall with difficulty admit that St. Hippolytus the bishop, who is recorded in the Martyrologies on the XXIX of January and the XXII of August, is the same as the martyr of the same name who is commemorated on the XXX day of January in the same ecclesiastical calendars: for the latter was only a priest of Antioch, who had for a while adhered to the Novatian schism and afterwards had come to his senses, as Ado, Usuard, and Prudentius himself testify. But this stain, however sufficiently washed away by penance and blood, is nowhere attributed to our holy prelate.
[4] is proved, Besides, against Tillemont the Greeks themselves fight, whom he alleges for his opinion: for in the Basilian Menology, which was written in the tenth century, on the XXIX day they call this St. Hippolytus papa, that is bishop, and they mention blessed Chrysa, that is St. Aurea, and finally conclude their eulogy with these words: Hippolytus the papa, moved by so great a slaughter of Christians and kindled with divine zeal, accused the tyrant more severely to his face; and he, seized with ungovernable rage, caused the Papa and his company, priests, deacons, and the Bishop, first most bitterly tortured, to be cast into the sea with very heavy stones bound to their hands and feet. Other Greeks on the XXX day of January sing thus of him in verse: Ἱππόλυτον πόντου τριακοστῇ ἐκτάνε ῥεῦμα. That is: The thirtieth sank Hippolytus beneath the flood of the sea. Who does not see from this that the Greeks here designate St. Hippolytus the bishop, who in our Acts related above is said to have buried St. Aurea, and afterwards to have reproached the tyrant with his cruelty, and at last to have been drowned? Wherefore we desire to learn from Tillemont on what day among the Greeks and Latins that St. Hippolytus is honored whom he calls a doctor of the Church, bishop, and martyr, and what Saint of the same name is announced among the ancient Martyrologists on the XXII or XXIII of August at Porto near Rome. Who and where that Roman port may be will be discussed afterwards. Meanwhile let us see how that renowned martyr is celebrated also among other nations, so that from this too our opinion may receive some strength.
[5] In the sacred calendars of the Ethiopian church, which Job Ludolf published at Frankfurt on the Main in the year 1681, and from the sacred calendars of the Ethiopians on the V day of the month Yakatit, that is our XXX of January, Hippolytus is announced; and on the following day the emergence of the body of Hippolytus from the sea is recalled; upon which announcements the editor on page 430 notes the following: Hippolytus Abulides is called by the Ethiopians the Roman Pope, as we have indicated in the Commentaries, number XXX, §103, where we have also enumerated his canons. By the Greeks and Russians he is commemorated on this very day, which for them is the thirtieth of January, together with many other holy companions; and he is called Πάπα Ῥώμης, Papa of the city of Rome, in their Synaxaries. He is said to have suffered under Claudius — not that stepfather and predecessor of Nero, because at that time the persecution of Christians had not yet begun, but the successor of Gallienus, about the year of Christ CCLXVII, who was a strenuous soldier but a most hostile enemy of the Christians. That he was bishop of Porto near Rome the most learned Father Papebroch judges in his notes on the metrical January of the Greeks on the said thirtieth day, and he promises an illustration of that history on the XXII day of August, on which he is honored by the Latins. A miracle concerning him the panegyrist relates (this is an Ethiopian poet, as will presently be understood) — that his body, although with a stone hung from its feet, floated upon the sea and could not be sunk, as is related on this and the following day.
[6] Besides, Ludolf sent to Papebroch a twofold hymn in verse, and of the Copts, which the Ethiopian poet proposes to be recited on the V and VI day of the month Yakatit, or with us the XXX and XXXI of January. We transcribe both, rendered into Latin by the same Ludolf, without any division of meter, and we set forth one from the fourth Ode of the fifth day in this manner: Salutation to you, Hippolytus, our father, who were worthy to be called doctor, priest of the world. When your body floated unharmed upon the deep, it covered with shame and mockery those persecutors of the tyrant who cast you in, binding a stone to your foot. But the other, from the first Ode of the sixth day, runs thus: I give salutation to the emergence of his body from the sea, although a heavy stone had been bound to his feet, O Hippolytus the doctor. May he bring me a blessing from the monastery of Gerizan, as a ship brings the stuff of riches and splendor. In the Coptic Martyrology, which we keep in manuscript from the translation of Simon Moses the Maronite, like things are read concerning the floating body of St. Hippolytus, and there that martyr is given the title of Roman Pope. If the Ethiopians and others understand by the name of Roman Pope the supreme hierarch of the Catholic Church, they doubtless are deceived along with the Greeks, since St. Hippolytus was never supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church. But some soften this title and explain it in another sense, as we shall see below.
[7] and from other ancient Martyrologies Probably therefore, on account of the kindred circumstances of the history, we judge that this our St. Hippolytus is one and the same who is announced by some Martyrologists on the XXII day of August and is referred by others to the following day. In the Usuardine supplements the annual memory of St. Hippolytus the martyr is celebrated on this day at Rome or in the port of the city of Rome. But Usuard himself on the XXIII day of August has this in his Martyrology: In the port of the city of Rome (Ado reads at Porto near Rome), of the holy Hippolytus, Quiriacus, and Archilaus. But the Hieronymian Martyrology of Florentini on the same XXIII day of August places these two companions of St. Hippolytus elsewhere, as is clear from this twofold and distinct announcement: At Porto of the city of Rome, the birthday of St. Hippolytus, who is called Nonnus, with his companions. At Ostia, the birthday of the holy Quiriacus and Arcilaus. Whatever may be the case concerning the companions of this holy martyr, that on both days the same St. Hippolytus is commemorated we gather from the supplements of the Martyrology of Bede or Florus, which we prefixed to the second volume of March: for in them on the XXII day of August is announced the festival of St. Hippolytus in the port; but on the following day is there celebrated in the port of the city of Rome the birthday of St. Hippolytus, who is called Nonus*. What this name Nonus, or rather Nonnus, may mean will afterwards be explained.
[8] his lawful cult is shown. Further, on account of that indiscriminate announcement of the same St. Hippolytus, a free choice seems to have been left to us to discuss the Acts of that martyr on this day or the following as we pleased. But in this matter we have followed the Roman Martyrology after our custom. Moreover these ancient Martyrologies render sufficient testimony to the immemorial cult of our martyr, which nevertheless can be confirmed from the church which was once built in his honor, and of which Anastasius the Librarian in the Life of Leo III, Pontiff, in Fabrot's edition, page 130, thus makes mention: And the same kindly Pontiff made in the basilica of blessed Hippolytus the martyr in the city of Porto two vestments of stauracin, one over his body, and the other on the high altar. But what the state of that church was in the age of Baronius, that most eminent writer himself indicates in his Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 229, number 6, in these few words: There still stands and is visited the once famous memorial, that well or deep pit full of water in which St. Hippolytus received the crown of martyrdom; but now, through the frequent incursions of pirates, its church being ruined, it appears ignoble. We do not only lament the ruin of this church, but we also grieve that most of the deeds of that most celebrated man are unknown to us: for his Acts, which we have in hand, are so confused and corrupt that they scarcely deserve any credit, as will presently be shown from their beginning.
Annotations* read Portu.
§ II. The interpolated Acts of the same Saint, the probable age in which he flourished, but the uncertain time of his martyrdom.
On account of the gross anachronism of the Acts, We keep two copies of the Acts, of which the longer we once excerpted at Rome from the collection of Father Gallonio, volume F, whose opening runs thus: After the passing of the most blessed Pelagia, who, living for many years in a certain cave of Mount Olivet, was thought to be a man (for she had been a most wicked harlot), blessed Hippolytus, who is also called Nonus, by whose preaching Alexandria had been converted, desiring to visit the thresholds of the Apostles, went to Rome. He most carefully sought out the sepulchres of the Saints in whatever places or cemeteries he might find them, and there, rendering worthy praises to the Lord, persisted in prayers day and night. Then the unskilled writer of the Acts relates at length various things which St. Hippolytus did and wrote under the reign of Alexander Severus. Finally the same author affirms that he underwent martyrdom under Claudius, the successor of the emperor Alexander. But, to pass over here other historical errors, who will ever reconcile the times of Alexander and Claudius, who reigned in the third century, with the age of St. Nonnus the bishop, who in the fifth century converted Pelagia the harlot and brought her back to good fruit?
[10] Nevertheless St. Peter Damian, more accustomed to the exercise of virtues than to the sifting of chronological subtleties, into which St. Peter Damian also fell, fell into the same gross anachronism, when in his ninth Letter to Nicholas II, Pontiff, among other things he wrote thus: Blessed Nonnus also the martyr, who is likewise Hippolytus, comes to mind as not to be passed over in our remembrance; who indeed, after he had converted thirty thousand Saracens to the faith of Christ by his most effectual preaching, after he had also called blessed Pelagia from the brothels to the chastity of the Church, and after at last he had brightly expounded several books of holy commentaries, finally left his bishopric, departed from the parts of Antioch, whence he was sprung, and sought the borders of Rome. And when blessed Aurea at the city of Ostia, a stone being bound to her neck, had completed her martyrdom in the waves of the sea, blessed Nonnus with pious devotion gathered up her holy body and buried it with all diligence: whom presently that same persecutor, who was called Ulpius, ordered to be plunged into a pit full of water beside the channel of the Tiber; whose body afterwards, his triumphal martyrdom being completed, Christian devotion buried in the city which is called Porto. Straightway there was heard a voice as of infants, crying "Thanks be to God" for nearly an hour. He therefore who merited such a close of life plainly showed that in leaving his bishopric he incurred no offense before God. Hence it becomes manifest that the Acts of St. Hippolytus were even in the time of St. Peter Damian so confused and corrupt that scarcely can those things be safely admitted which in them are perhaps related truly.
[11] Besides, we have another copy of the Acts, which comes from volume VII of the manuscript Baronian Collection, folio 149, nor do we sufficiently trust their compendium, and appears to be abridged from the longer Acts mentioned above. We shall here set it forth entire for the curious reader, since it is short and comprises everything summarily, in these words: Blessed Hippolytus, who is also called Nonnus, by whose preaching Alexandria had been converted, desiring to visit the thresholds of the Apostles, went to Rome. He most carefully sought out the sepulchres of the Saints wherever he could find them in places or cemeteries, and there, rendering worthy praises to God, persisted in prayers day and night. But afterwards, hastening to the port of the Tiberine city, by the revealing grace of the Holy Spirit he preached the word of life, with tokens of miracles, to whomever he could. At length, after he had published many commentaries on the divine Books, and had buried the blessed virgin Aurea, who suffered for Christ, when he reproved Ulpius Romulus, vicar of the city of Rome, because he was cruelly condemning the Christians, by command of the aforesaid vicar, with hands and feet bound, he is cast headlong into a pit full of water, and thus with the triumph of martyrdom went to Christ.
[12] which is here set forth. Then there was heard as it were a voice of infants saying, "Thanks be to God." Which voice being heard, Ulpius Romulus said: "Now the magic arts are laid open. Do you not hear the consolations of demons?" But the most precious soul of the martyr, with such a voice of praise, penetrated the heavens. Whence there is no doubt that angelic consolations of fellowship were present there. But the Christians by night secretly raised his body from the well, and with hymns and praises and all veneration buried it in that same place, not far from that pit, about sixty feet more or less, in an island which has the sea on one side and is girt on two sides by the parting of the channel of the Tiber, on the twenty-second day of the month of August; where daily benefits are granted to Christians, and the fruits of the holy martyr's prayers abound even to the present day. You see that in this compendium of the Acts St. Hippolytus is likewise called Nonnus. But the most eminent Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 229, number 7, and in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology on the V day of August, warns that by that word only a monk is signified. Perhaps St. Hippolytus was so surnamed because he had formerly led a solitary life. Whatever may be the case concerning that surname of our holy martyr, he cannot be confused with St. Nonnus who converted Pelagia the harlot.
[13] The learned disagree about the time, In this synopsis of the Acts too the time is not expressed in which St. Hippolytus lived, although in the longer Acts he is said to have flourished under Alexander Severus and to have undergone martyrdom under Claudius II, emperor, who first in the year of Christ 268 succeeded in the place of Gallienus. As regards his date, Eusebius of Caesarea in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22, relates that he was famous under the emperor Alexander. Wherefore Palladius in the Lausiac History, chapter 148, and Cyril in the Life of St. Euthymius must be suitably explained or altogether rejected, who seem to call this St. Hippolytus one known or familiar to the Apostles, although our Possevino judges that this should be attributed to another Hippolytus. Cotelier in volume 2 of the Monuments of the Greek Church in his notes on the Life of St. Euthymius, columns 639 and 640, thinks that our St. Hippolytus is there designated, and therefore that expression of Cyril is there called by him a great hyperbole. Photius in the Bibliotheca, chapter 121, testifies that he had read a little book of that Hippolytus who was the disciple of Irenaeus, in which he attacks certain heresies. Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 229, number 4, and le Mire in his Scholia on the Catalogue of St. Jerome on Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 61, assert that the same St. Hippolytus was a disciple of St. Clement of Alexandria. This opinion of Photius and others agrees well enough with the date of our Saint, even though we have not found it in more ancient writers. Now let us see whether we can from any quarter probably draw out the time of his martyrdom, of which the ancient authors have made no distinct mention.
[14] The more severe critics are not pleased that in the Roman Martyrology the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus is placed under the reign of Alexander Severus, in which this holy prelate underwent martyrdom, since there was then no persecution — nay, the emperor himself favored the Christians. Whence Ruinart in the Preface to the Genuine Acts of the Martyrs, page XLVIII, sets forth the same scruple, and tries in some way to sift it in this manner: That Alexander, the successor of Heliogabalus, favored the Christians no one can deny, unless he wishes to reject all the ancient writers. Whence it is strange that so many martyrs are reckoned by some as having suffered under his reign. Is this to be referred to the prefects, whom they say to have been most savage under his reign? Or must it perhaps be said that some martyrs who suffered under the persecution of Severus are incautiously transferred to the times of Alexander, because he too was called Severus? But Pope Callistus, who ceased to live in his reign, is reckoned among the martyrs in the Bucherian Kalendar. But our St. Hippolytus could not have obtained the laurel of martyrdom under the emperor Severus, since the latter died in the year of Christ 211, and he began his Paschal cycle from the year of Christ 222, as will afterwards be said.
[15] The most eminent Baronius does not think so much of the Acts as to attach the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus to the times of Claudius II on account of their authority, as on this day in his notes to the Roman Martyrology he warns in the following words: since some place it under the emperor Alexander, There are extant Acts of Hippolytus and his companions, in which those things must be corrected which are said of Claudius: for that he flourished under the emperor Alexander the same authors as above testify. As for what besides is written in them concerning Ulpius, we think that Ulpian should be restored for Ulpius: for he, administering the city prefecture under Alexander, exacted the most dreadful punishments from the Christians. The praised most eminent writer in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 225, number 1 and following, proves that under the reign of Alexander Severus, among other Roman jurists, Ulpian above all was most hostile to the Christians.
[16] Some writers, on account of the favor of the emperor Alexander toward the Christians, would prefer to place the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus under Alexander's successor Maximinus, others under his successor Maximinus, of whom Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 28, writes thus: Meanwhile, the emperor Alexander being slain, who had reigned thirteen years, in his place succeeds Maximinus; who, kindled with heavy hatred against the household of Alexander, in which were very many Christians, stirred up a persecution and ordered that only the prelates of the churches, as being the authors of the evangelical preaching, be put to death. Add that under the reign of this Maximinus there is found a consul Ulpius, as Censorinus, a contemporary author, testifies in his little work On the Birthday, chapter 21, in our copy page 38, in these words: According to which reckoning, unless I am mistaken, this year, of which the consulate of Ulpius and Pontianus is as it were the index and title, is the one thousand and fourteenth from the first Olympiad — reckoning only from the summer days on which the Olympic contest is celebrated — but from the founding of Rome the nine hundred and ninety-first. Chronologists dispute into what year of Christ this computation falls; concerning which our Petavius in the Doctrine of Times, book 9, chapter 42, may be consulted: for it is enough for us that this consulate fell within the reign of Maximinus.
[17] may place it; Further, Onofrio Panvinio in his Commentary on the second book of the Fasti, in our copy page 258, judges that this consul was M. Ulpius Crinitus, who again afterwards held the consulate under the emperor Valerian. But in our Acts (these however have little or almost no authority) the judge of St. Hippolytus is called Ulpius Romulus, and is said to have been vicar of the city of Rome. Although therefore under the emperor Maximinus we have a persecution against the Christians, which chiefly concerned their prelates, such as our holy martyr also was, and although we find a consul Ulpius, yet on account of the discrepancy of surname and of office we do not dare confidently to attach his martyrdom to this consulate of Ulpius.
[18] although perhaps, for the reasons here alleged, Nay, we do not even dare confidently to place the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus under the reign of Maximinus, on account of his letter which was written to a certain queen, and from which Theodoret in Dialogue 2 and 3, or volume 4 of his Works, pages 88 and 155, has alleged some fragments. Baronius in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 229, number 10, thinks that this queen was Mamaea, mother of the emperor Alexander, who in some way favored the Christians. But in the year of Christ 1551 there was found in the Veranian field a Paschal cycle, of which we shall treat afterwards, and on whose side, among other lucubrations of St. Hippolytus, is noted an Exhortation to Severina. Whence Tillemont in volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 243, suspects that by this Severina is indicated Severa, wife of the emperor Philip, who is reported to have been a Christian, and to whom the most learned Origen also sent letters. If that suspicion of Tillemont be true, doubtless the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus must be deferred to the year of Christ 250, or to the persecution of the emperor Decius.
[19] it must be deferred to the persecution of Decius. To confirm this suspicion there comes the testimony of St. Epiphanius, who in Heresy 37, or 57, against the Noetians writes thus: After him there came forth another heretic, Noetus by name; and that not many years ago, but about a hundred and thirty years before this — namely before the Saint composed this work of his. But St. Epiphanius wrote that work against the heresies about the year 357, and so, reckoning backward, the Noetian heresy arose under the emperor Philip, as Tillemont in volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 242, affirms. Since therefore St. Hippolytus seems to have attacked this heresy of Noetus when it had recently arisen, as is shown in the same Tillemont on the page just cited, on that hypothesis his martyrdom cannot be placed before the persecution of the emperor Decius. These arguments of Tillemont, however, are not altogether certain, since they are denied by others. On account of these difficulties, entangled on every side, which the learned reader perceives, at the beginning of this Commentary we have noted in the margin, in a certain broad way, the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus about the middle of the third century.
§ III. The uncertain see of this holy bishop and martyr.
Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History, book 6, chapter 20, writes thus of the bishopric of St. Hippolytus: At the same time many ecclesiastical men excelling in learning flourished … Among these was Beryllus, bishop of the Bostrans in Arabia, who besides letters and lucubrations left also various monuments of an elegant wit. Likewise also Hippolytus, bishop of some other church. Although Eusebius and Jerome are ignorant of this Saint's see, But St. Jerome seems to have investigated the place of his bishopric and not to have found it, as he intimates in the work On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 61, in these words: Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (for I have not been able to learn the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of the Pasch and canons of the times, etc. Aubert le Mire in his notes on this text of St. Jerome asserts that he was bishop of Porto near Rome, and in this matter followed
the opinion of the most eminent Baronius and of others, whom we shall enumerate below.
[21] Pope Gelasius I, or rather Gelasius of Cyzicus, yet Gelasius places it as Bellarmine and other learned men prefer (both flourished in the fifth century), in the little work On the Two Natures in Christ against Nestorius and Eutyches, which was published in the Cologne Library of the Fathers, volume 5, part 3, there on page 671 brings forward the testimony of Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, of the metropolis of the Arabs, against those heretics. From these words of Gelasius, expressed in another character, Tillemont in volume 3 of the Ecclesiastical Memoirs, page 239, concludes most positively that our St. Hippolytus is called by Gelasius the metropolitan prelate of the Arabs. But afterwards, on page 672 of the same volume, upon that hypothesis he argues speciously against Gelasius, whom he feigns or supposes to be his adversary, in nearly this manner: "Bostra," he says, "was at that time probably the only metropolis of Arabia; but from the aforesaid testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea it is established that St. Hippolytus was not then prelate of the Bostrans, but bishop of some other church; therefore he cannot truly be called by Gelasius metropolitan of the Arabs." We can grant this whole syllogism of Tillemont without cost, as will be evident from what is to be said below.
[22] Lastly Tillemont doubts of the genuine reading of Gelasius, under an Arabian metropolis, and on the slightest little reason suspects that the words of the metropolis of the Arabs were thrust into the text of Gelasius by some interpolator. But let us hear what is the foundation of this suspicion. The syntax or sentence of Gelasius is not intelligible or complete, says Tillemont, unless for Arabum metropolis we read Arabum metropolitani. But what if the word metropolis be put in the genitive case, so that it signify that St. Hippolytus was a bishop under the metropolis or metropolitan prelate of the Arabs? If we had the Greek text of Gelasius, perhaps in it the Greek genitive metropoleos would be expressed. Certainly nothing compels us to understand the Arabian bishopric of St. Hippolytus of the metropolis of the Arabs itself, since under that metropolis he might have been the bishop of some more obscure city which Eusebius and Jerome did not know. With this explanation of ours agree certain things which we shall now set before the curious reader.
[23] Some will have it that St. Hippolytus was bishop of Portus or Adane in Arabia, and perhaps in the city of Adane, which does not seem altogether improbable. At least the most learned Joseph Simon Assemani the Maronite agrees with this conjecture, when in volume 3 of the Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, part 1, chapter 7, page 15, after enumerating certain lucubrations of our holy martyr, he thus advises in his notes: Hippolytus, bishop of Portus Romanus — not at the mouths of the Tiber, but of a famous mart of this name in Arabia, as Stephen le Moyne conjectures. The more recent Arab Christians call him ABULIDES, BISHOP OF ROME (the words here expressed in capitals are recited there in Arabic). He flourished about the year of Christ CCXX. Concerning the bishoprics of Arabia one may consult Charles of St. Paul in the Geographia sacra, page 295 and following, where he also mentions the metropolis of Bostra.
[24] which was once called the Roman port. In the preceding number we said that St. Hippolytus was perhaps bishop of Portus or Adane, because this Roman port or Roman mart in Arabia appears to be called Adane and commonly Aden. Indeed Philostorgius in the Ecclesiastical History, book 3, chapter 4, relates how a prince of the Arabs was converted to the Christian faith and built in his dominion three churches, concerning which he has the following: And of those churches he built one indeed in the metropolis of the whole nation, which they call Taphar; but another in that place in which was the Roman mart, looking toward the outer ocean: and this place is called Adane, at which all who come from the Roman dominion are accustomed to put in. Finally he built a third church in another part of the region, where is the famous Persian mart, situated at the mouth of the Persian sea, which is there. If, however, St. Hippolytus was ever bishop of the city of Adane, it will surely seem strange to all that Eusebius, a neighbor of Arabia, and St. Jerome, who lived long at Rome and in the East, should not have known the episcopal see of this holy man, or the most celebrated mart of Arabia, which was everywhere frequented by the Romans. Therefore we are on every side wrapped in darkness, which without a clearer light we cannot dispel; and so we proceed to report the opinions of others.
[25] Certain Greeks call him a Roman bishop; Leontius of Byzantium at the end of the sixth century published a little work On the Sects of the Heretics, where in the Basel Greek-Latin edition of the year 1578, in our copy page 431, Clement and Hippolytus, bishops of Rome, are reckoned by him among other assailants of heresies. But just as it is certain that Clement presided over the Catholic Church, so also it is established that no Hippolytus can be numbered among the Roman Pontiffs. Nevertheless George Syncellus calls him not merely bishop but even archbishop of Rome, when in his Chronography, published at Paris in Greek and Latin in the year 1652, page 315, he mentions the Paschal cycle of the blessed apostle, archbishop, and martyr in the Roman territory, Hippolytus — in Greek τοῦ μακαρίου ἀποστόλου καὶ ἀρχιεπισκόπου … Ῥώμης Ἱππολύτου, καὶ ἱερομάρτυρος. But by the same chronographer afterwards, on page 358 of the praised edition, he is called Hippolytus the sacred philosopher, bishop of Porto near Rome, excelling in Christian philosophy — in Greek Ἱππόλυτος ἱερὸς φιλόσοφος, ἐπίσκοπος Πόρτου τοῦ κατὰ τὴν Ῥώμην, σφόδρα διαπρεπῶς ἤνθει ἐν τῇ κατὰ Χριστὸν φιλοσοφίᾳ. Nay, in the Menaea of the Greeks on the XXX day of January St. Hippolytus is named Πάπα Ῥώμης, that is, Papa of Rome or Roman Papa.
[26] which phrase of theirs Combefis Combefis in the Latest Supplement to the Library of the Greek Fathers, page 63, tries to explain this phrase of the Greeks in these words: That Hippolytus is everywhere called by the Greeks bishop Ῥώμης, and sometimes Πόρτου Ῥώμης, is quite ambiguous, in what sense it was written by them. That he was a Roman prelate, or ever sat at Rome (that is, presided over the Apostolic See of elder Rome), there is no trace. That he was made bishop of Porto, and thus a Roman prelate — namely a suffragan, as they call it, and comprovincial of the Roman metropolis properly so called, beyond which was the proper Roman diocese in which the Roman Pontiff created bishops by a peculiar right (who therefore by some are called Roman bishops, as distinguished from the Gauls, Spaniards, and others accustomed to be ordained in any province by metropolitan right, according to the disposition of the Nicene canons) — this the Greeks signify when they so cite him; and that so he read, Marianus Victorius is authority, in an ancient codex of the Sorbonne. This bishopric of his, however, Jerome did not know, although he lived long at Rome and was a strenuous investigator of ecclesiastical matters there.
[27] Whether by that phrase he is bishop of Rome to the Greeks, or Roman in the Latest Supplement to the Greek Fathers in the sense in which they likewise call Cassian a Roman (Ῥωμαῖον, as if they said a Latin), because, leaving Syria, he settled in the West and in the peculiar dominion of the Roman Pontiff, or in his patriarchate — whereas the Greeks now call themselves Ῥωμαίους from the younger Rome, and scarcely otherwise than ὑβριστικῶς (by way of insult), in a schismatic spirit, name the Latins. That, as I learned from a most friendly man, learned, mitred, and among mitred fathers a most splendid radiance of our France by the light of his holiness, and one most happily dispelling in her the darkness of the innovators by his rays, and compelling them to the one truly holy Catholic and Apostolic Church chiefly by those very weights of her holiness and discipline — that those are called Roman bishops who, as it were to lighten the burden of the Roman prelate himself, celebrate in the City in his stead, being specially chosen for that office, among whom he himself reckoned himself: whether this be of such antiquity that from it Hippolytus could be styled by the Greeks bishop Ῥώμης, or even whether they had so clearly understood that rite of the Roman Church, obscure enough even to us Latins, I do not know. Thus far that Dominican writer, who sets forth his meaning in a construction of sentences not sufficiently clear.
[28] More clearly and better does a certain anonymous critic excuse this manner of speaking among the Greeks, and a certain anonymous critic who published at Paris in the year 1717 various dissertations on ecclesiastical and profane antiquity, and entitled his little work in French Critical Amenities: for he in book 1, Dissertation 12, asserts that a like phrase was used by the Latins themselves to designate the comprovincial bishops of the Roman Pontiff, and proves his opinion solidly enough from the Italian Journey of Mabillon, which in volume 1 of the Museum Italicum, part 1, page 146 and following, presents this inscription: In the year MXC, Indiction XIII, in the month of March, on the XXV day, this church of St. Mary, which is called ad Pineam, was dedicated by the bishops of the City, that is by V. of Sabina and John of Tusculum, in the time of the lord Pope Urban II, in which are relics, etc.
[29] Then the most learned Mabillon observes upon this inscription the following: explain in this sense, In this inscription it is worth noting that the bishops of Sabina and Tusculum are called bishops of the City (a name therefore which was common to the suffragans of the Roman Pontiff). Hence may be explained what we read in the charter book of Farfa, namely that "Dodo, bishop of the holy Roman church, gave five pounds for goods after death, that is, the church of St. Mary with the very farmstead of Cassianus. Enacted in the month of October, in the times of Benedict VIII." In another diploma those suffragans are called Roman bishops. The Dodo just praised seems to have been bishop of Sabina, omitted in Ughelli. The anonymous Frenchman praised above concludes from these examples that the Greeks, by the name of Papa or Bishop of Rome which they attribute to St. Hippolytus, meant to indicate a prelate suffragan or comprovincial of the Roman Pontiff, and that they are not on account of this manner of speaking at once to be charged with error, since the Latins themselves so wrote in the eleventh century and perhaps earlier.
[30] in which sense he is called by others bishop of the Roman port. Whatever may be the mind of the Greeks, who are often unskilled in Western matters, we willingly interpret this doubtful phrase of theirs in the better part, especially since other writers of the same nation have spoken more distinctly; among whom Anastasius, with George Syncellus, expressly asserts that this holy martyr was bishop of Porto near Rome: for in the Letter given to Theodosius, priest of Gangra, which our Sirmond published at Paris in the year 1620 among other little works, he alleges against the heretics on pages 209 and 212 the testimony of St. Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, that is, of the harbor of Rome, and martyr of the truth, τοῦ ἁγίου Ἱππολύτου ἐπισκόπου Πόρτου, ἤγουν τοῦ λιμένος Ῥώμης, καὶ μάρτυρος τῆς ἀληθείας. St. Germanus also, patriarch of Constantinople, who flourished at the beginning of the eighth century, seems to reckon our Saint among the Romans, when in the Cologne Library of the Fathers, volume 8, page 58, he writes thus: This both Hippolytus of Rome and St. Cyril say in their books on Antichrist.
[31] He does not seem to have been a Roman senator; Nay, some think that he is called by Jerome in the Letter to Magnus the orator a senator of the city of Rome, because in certain editions of the Works of St. Jerome, and also in the most recent Paris edition, volume 4, part 2, column
656, they read the following: Hippolytus also and Apollonius, senators of the city of Rome, composed their own little works. But Remigius Ceillier the Benedictine in his French work On Ecclesiastical Writers, volume 2, page 316, in his notes on the first article of the twenty-seventh chapter, skillfully observes that it is so read only in some editions: for in the ancient manuscripts which Marianus Victorius, an Italian prelate, used in his edition of the Works of St. Jerome, according to the same French bibliographer, for the word senatores is read senator, so that this dignity is attributed to Apollonius alone, to whom certainly it belongs, since St. Jerome in the book On Illustrious Men, chapter 42, again ascribes it to him, and there in chapter 61, in the eulogy of St. Hippolytus, makes no mention of that senatorial dignity.
[32] but to have come to Rome from Arabia, But as regards the Roman, or rather the Portuensian bishopric of St. Hippolytus, most of the more recent writers attribute it to him, among whom Du Cange in the Preface to the Chronicon Paschale, after long seeking elsewhere for a city Portuensis, at length on page XVI and following discourses thus: But what seems altogether to persuade that Hippolytus was bishop of Porto near Rome, would be chiefly this, that he is called Roman in the Catalogue of emperors of Leunclavius praised above, and that in the year MDLI in the Veranian field, not far from the church of St. Lawrence near the City, there was found an ancient marble statue sitting upon a throne, on the two side-panels of which throne Paschal cycles of sixteen years were inscribed in Greek letters; from which, and also from the heading of the books which the right-hand one of these contained, it was easily discovered to be the statue of Hippolytus, whose name was not expressed — a statue which it is very probable was brought hither from the Roman port, and not from Egypt. Then he confuses this Hippolytus, whose statue was found in the year 1551 in the Veranian field with the Paschal cycle, with St. Hippolytus the priest, who was banished together with Pontian to the island of Sardinia, and who is everywhere commemorated in the Martyrologies on the XIX or XX day of November together with St. Pontian, Roman Pontiff. This opinion of Du Cange does not please us, and on the XIX or XX day of November several arguments will be able to be brought against it. We say nothing here of the gross error of the Magdeburg Centuriators, who in Century 3, chapter 10, make St. Hippolytus bishop of Ostia, and by this new opinion betray their want of skill, not distinguishing between the bishopric of Ostia and that of Porto.
[33] But if anyone further ask how that Saint was translated from an Eastern see to a Western or Portuensian one in Italy, and to have been made bishop of Porto near Rome, as Baronius the most eminent Baronius answers this question when in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year of Christ 229, number 4, he writes thus of our St. Hippolytus: But it appears that he, coming to Rome, was worthily (as was fitting) received by the Roman Pontiff Callistus (for before him there exists no memory of him), and was by him given the bishopric of the church of Porto, with this design, namely, lest the care of the flock formerly committed to him should impel so great a bishop, bound to another see, to return into Arabia: whom, that he might have him always clinging to his side and a counsellor in doubtful matters, he created bishop of Porto, assigning him a see of small care indeed but of most ample dignity, whose bishop was accustomed to assist the Roman Pontiff. This opinion of that most eminent writer displeases Tillemont and certain others, and there is objected to him chiefly the silence of St. Jerome, who, having lived long at Rome, would not have been ignorant of the Portuensian bishopric of St. Hippolytus, as they argue.
[34] Notwithstanding this negative argument, which here certainly has its force, and Ughelli judge, Ferdinand Ughelli in the most recent Venetian edition of the Italia sacra, volume 1, column 110, followed the opinion of Baronius, and there adorned that holy martyr with this eulogy: St. Hippolytus, bishop of Porto, an Arab by race, once metropolitan of Arabia (that he should not be called metropolitan, but how he could have been a bishop under the metropolitan of Arabia, has been explained above), a disciple of Clement of Alexandria, at whose exhortation he set out for Italy, and, coming to Rome, venerated the thresholds of the Apostles and the cemeteries of the martyrs: whose holiness of life being perceived by Caelestinus (read Callistus), he was created bishop of Porto, that he might use so learned and so holy a man in the weightiest matters, as may be gathered from the ecclesiastical records and from the Acts of his martyrdom. He was surnamed Nonnus, that is monk, as Peter Damian writes in his Letter to Pope Nicholas, where he quite prettily confuses him with the other Nonnus, who by his prayers roused Pelagia, a noble harlot, from the lethargy of lust in the times of Theodosius the younger. Hippolytus of Porto flourished under Callistus I, and suffered martyrdom, not under Claudius, as certain corrupted codices affirm, but under the emperor Alexander in the year CCXXIX, on the XXII day of the month of August, Ulpian being prefect of Rome, or, as others read, Ulpius. And so, with feet and hands bound, he was plunged into a deep well; and after his departure the companions of Hippolytus in the same Porto near Rome bore away the illustrious palm of martyrdom. We scarcely dare to embrace this more common opinion, on account of the argument which is drawn from the ignorance of St. Jerome, who in the place cited above indicates that he had investigated the episcopal city of St. Hippolytus, and yet had not been able to learn it. But if that city had been Porto near Rome in Italy, it is most probable that the holy Doctor, living at Rome in the neighborhood of that bishopric, would not have been ignorant of it. Wherefore we propose to the learned another conjecture.
[35] to whose opinion we add a conjecture, From the ancient Martyrologies related above it is first established that St. Hippolytus on this day or the following underwent martyrdom at Porto near Rome. Besides, from Eusebius and other ancient writers it is clear that this martyr was endowed with episcopal dignity. Lastly, St. Jerome in the work On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 61, testifies that St. Hippolytus had a homily On the praise of the Lord and Savior, in which he signifies that he was speaking in church in the presence of Origen. Hence St. Hippolytus seems to have been a bishop in the East, and perhaps in Arabia, to which Origen was summoned about the year 217, as we read in Eusebius, book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 19. Whence our Peter Halloix in the Life of Origen, book 1, chapter 10, writes the following upon this matter: While he tarried for a time in Arabia, there is no doubt at all that he did there also what he commonly had as his custom, and, partly for study's sake and partly for honor's sake, went to hear the bishops in the assembly of the church; and that it then happened which is related concerning St. Hippolytus, namely that while he was delivering a sermon to the people on the praises of the Lord and Savior, and had fixed his eyes upon Origen who was present, he made his presence known to the hearers, either because he saw him assenting to his words, or because he wished to gratify the people by declaring such and so great a guest.
[36] which however we shall readily abandon. These things being thus laid down, could not St. Hippolytus, an Arab bishop, easily have come to Rome to visit the sepulchres of the Apostles and of other martyrs, have been seized by the heathen at Porto near Rome, and have been there put to martyrdom? What if the common people, being ignorant of the determined see of that martyr, surnamed this pilgrim bishop "of Porto" from the place of his martyrdom, and this popular error passed over to some writers of a later age; or rather, that name gave posterity occasion for asserting a Portuensian bishopric of this martyr? Whatever may be the case with this conjecture of ours, which we shall gladly abandon for any more certain arguments, we in the title have placed the martyrdom of St. Hippolytus, with the ancient and more recent Martyrologies, at Porto near Rome. Moreover in this system of ours we can press more closely the anonymous critic cited above, who seems to deny the Eastern bishopric of St. Hippolytus: for from Eusebius and others it is established that St. Hippolytus presided over some church, and St. Jerome asserts that a sermon was delivered by him in the presence of Origen, who certainly was dwelling in the East. But on the hypothesis above, the other arguments of the same critic give us no trouble, by which he contends against Tillemont that St. Hippolytus was rather a bishop in the West than in the East: for we shall not unwillingly admit, with Baronius and Ughelli, both an Eastern and a Western bishopric of this holy martyr, as we intimated above; and this last system of ours we offer as a mere conjecture. Since the particular deeds of our Saint are hidden from us, it only remains now that we treat of his writings.
§ IV. The eulogies of this holy man, and some of his writings.
Besides the praises bestowed on this martyr, Theodoret compares this holy Doctor to the stream of a fountain, when in Dialogue 3, or volume 4 of his Works, page 154 and following, he adduces the testimony of him and of other holy Fathers against the heretics in this manner: Open your ears therefore, and receive the streams of spiritual fountains: of St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and martyr, from his letter to the Smyrnaeans … of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, from the third book against the heresies … of St. Hippolytus, bishop and martyr, from his letter to a certain queen. Anastasius in the Sirmondian Collection, which was reprinted at Venice in the year 1728, volume 3, column 387, citing some texts of St. Hippolytus, thus concludes from his authority against the Monothelites: Behold, now this most sacred and great Doctor also, and faithful witness of the truth, in harmony with all the other holy founders of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, confesses and proclaims with a loud voice that, according to the union unconfused and indivisible, as there are two natures, so also there are two wills and two operations agreeing and befitting the natures — the divine, as has been said, and the human, the uncreated and the created, the unbegun and the begun — as of God and man at once, of one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Jerome in the Letter to Magnus the orator, which we assigned above, numbers St. Hippolytus among those learned men who used philosophy and profane sciences for the assailing of the heathen. Now let us proceed to enumerate some of his lucubrations.
[38] Eusebius in book 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, chapter 20, testifies Eusebius of Caesarea that the letters of St. Hippolytus were in his own time still kept in the library of Jerusalem, and there in chapter 22 he thus summarily enumerates his writings: At the same time Hippolytus also, among very many other monuments of his wit, composed a book on the Pasch; in which, describing the succession of the times and setting forth a certain Paschal canon for a period of sixteen years, he bounds his computation of the times at the first year of the emperor Alexander. And of his remaining writings these are they which have come to our knowledge: On the work of the six days. On the things which followed the six days. Against Marcion. On the Song of Songs. On certain chapters of Ezekiel. On the Pasch. Against all heresies. But it is possible to find very many others also preserved by others. Eusebius here seems to treat only
of those writings of St. Hippolytus which he himself had seen. It is not strange therefore if more are enumerated by others.
[39] St. Jerome in the Catalogue of Illustrious Men, chapter 61, has these words concerning his lucubrations: and St. Jerome enumerate his writings, Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (for I have not been able to learn the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of the Pasch and canons of the times down to the first year of the emperor Alexander, and discovered a cycle of sixteen years, which the Greeks call ἑξκαιδεκαετηρίς; and he gave occasion to Eusebius, who upon the same Pasch composed a canon of a cycle of nineteen years, that is ἐννεακαιδεκαετηρίς. He wrote several commentaries on the Scriptures, of which I have found these: On the Hexaemeron; and on Exodus; and on the Song of Songs; on Genesis and on Zechariah; on the Psalms; on Isaiah; on Daniel; on the Apocalypse; on Proverbs; on Ecclesiastes; on Saul and the Witch; on Antichrist; on the Resurrection; against Marcion; on the Pasch; against all heresies; and πρὸς Ὁμιλιῶν; on the praise of the Lord and Savior, in which he signifies that he was speaking in church in the presence of Origen. In emulation of him, Ambrose, whom we have said to have been corrected from the heresy of Marcion to the true faith, exhorted Origen to write commentaries on the Scriptures, furnishing him with seven and more shorthand writers and their expenses, and an equal number of copyists; and what is greater than these, exacting from him daily a work with incredible zeal; whence in a certain letter Origen calls him ἐργοδιώκτης (that is, a driver of the work).
[40] in which a certain opinion, That famous Photius, who in the ninth century occupied the see of Constantinople, read some of these works of St. Hippolytus, as he himself testifies in his Bibliotheca, Codex 121, or page 302 in the edition of our Schott, in these words: I read the little book of Hippolytus (who was the disciple of Irenaeus) against thirty-two heresies. Beginning from the Dositheans down to the heresies of Noetus and the Noetians, which he relates to have been overthrown by arguments in the discussion of Irenaeus, and to have written this little book gathering the sum of those arguments. His style is clear and somewhat grave, and by no means redundant, although it does not aim at Attic speech. But he relates, among other things not altogether sound, that the epistle to the Hebrews is not by Paul the Apostle. They say likewise that he delivered sermons to the people in imitation of Origen, and, being on most familiar terms with him, became so great an admirer of his writings that he urged and impelled him to illustrate the divine Scripture with a commentary, adding also at his own cost seven shorthand writers to take down his dictation quickly, and as many copyists to transcribe it accurately. That Hippolytus, then, supplying these things, was accustomed without relaxation to exact the work which Origen had elaborated, and that hence he is in a certain letter named by him the exactor of the work. And they record that he wrote very many other things besides. Now we think that some things should be noted upon this judgment of Photius.
[41] censured by Photius, As regards first the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews, which St. Hippolytus does not attribute to that Apostle, we are chiefly pleased with the answer of Sixtus of Siena, who in book 7 of the Bibliotheca sancta, heresy 8, or in our copy page 593, thus discourses upon this subject against his adversaries: Let us grant them that this Epistle was nowhere cited by the ancient Fathers, and (what is more) that it was even sometimes doubted of by them. What then? Shall it also be lawful for us to doubt of it again? By no means indeed: for although it was lawful for those very ancient Fathers, before the universal determination of the whole Church, to doubt of this Epistle and not rashly to receive it into the canon, yet for us, after so many decrees of councils and the common sanction of the Catholic Church, it is by no means lawful to do the same, since by these all those causes of doubting have been removed which could induce Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and other Fathers not undeservedly to hesitate concerning this Epistle, and accordingly not to produce testimonies from it for the confirmation of our faith.
[42] we excuse with Sixtus of Siena, But among the other occasions of suspicion the first was that this Epistle was of the class of those Scriptures which came to the knowledge of the whole Catholic Church not at once from the beginning of the infant Church, but a little later — of which kind are the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and his Apocalypse — concerning which, before they were placed in the canon, there was deservedly discussion among the Fathers, lest they should decide a matter of such moment without long and diligent examination. But the other cause is that, since the authority of the whole Church had not yet decreed anything concerning this Epistle, it was free for anyone without danger of heresy to doubt and dispute concerning it. But now, when this Epistle after so great a multitude of years has been taken into the canon by the decrees of so many councils, it is not only rash but heretical again to call its authority in doubt. These things abundantly suffice for excusing the opinion of St. Hippolytus, which at that time was harmless. If, however, anyone desires to read more upon this matter, let him consult the most eminent Bellarmine, volume 1 of the Controversies, book 1, chapter 17, and the readily available interpreters of sacred Scripture who have published commentaries upon this epistle of St. Paul.
[43] But when Photius above asserts that St. Hippolytus gave Origen seven shorthand writers and as many copyists, and we show that Photius himself erred in another matter. and that he is called by Origen ἐργοδιώκτης, that is, exactor of the work, he is manifestly deceived, since St. Jerome ascribes this to a certain Ambrose. Nay, Origen himself in the select fragments of his commentaries on the Psalms calls this Ambrose the driver of his work, as may be gathered from these words, which in the most recent Paris edition of his Works, volume 2, page 526, are read thus: These things have been set forth by us by way of preface, we who have been roused to a very great struggle — one which without any doubt surpasses our strength and ability — by your mighty zeal for letters, most holy man Ambrose, and have been impelled by your kindness and moderation to enter upon it: since, when I long refused, having learned the greatness of the peril, not only to dispute of the sacred Scriptures but much more to write and to leave them to posterity, you by all means and allurements soothed me, and by certain advances of the Godhead led me to this. Hence it is sufficiently evident that Origen was chiefly urged by Ambrose to publish commentaries on sacred Scripture.
[44] Let us now go on to hear Photius, who in Codex 202, or page 526 of his Bibliotheca, gives this judgment concerning another lucubration of St. Hippolytus: The Saint taught another opinion, which is carped at by Photius, I read the interpretation of Daniel by Hippolytus, bishop and martyr; who, although he does not explain him word for word, yet omits no meaning, to tell the truth. Moreover he sets forth most things in the ancient manner, not as they were afterwards more accurately sifted; although it is not fair to demand an account of these from him: for it befits us not to require of those who established the beginning of some branch of knowledge an account of the things which they passed over, but rather to be content with the very attempt, and with what, so far as was possible, they attained from their considerations. But that Hippolytus dared to assign the coming of Antichrist (when also the destruction of this visible world will follow), which Christ did not disclose even to his disciples when they asked, to the five hundredth year after Christ, as though, six thousand years from the first constitution of the world having then run out, its destruction were at hand — this indeed belongs to a mind hotter than is fitting. But this assertion of his argues human ignorance rather than any heavenly inspiration. His manner of speaking, clear and perspicuous above all, well befits an interpreter, although it truly rejects Attic laws. We read at the same time a homily of his on Christ and Antichrist, in which the same form of speech is kept, and the simplicity of the thoughts is greater and more ancient.
[45] along with the ancient Fathers, Probably St. Hippolytus learned this opinion, here censured by Photius, from his master St. Irenaeus, who in book 5 against the heresies, chapter 28, in the most recent Paris edition, page 327, writes the following concerning the future destruction of the world: For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousands of years is it completed. And on this account the Scripture of Genesis says: "And the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment; and God finished on the sixth day all his works which he had made, and rested on the seventh day from all his works which he had made." Now this is both a narrative of the things done before, as they were done, and a prophecy of things to come. For if a day of the Lord is as a thousand years, and in six days were finished the things which were made, it is manifest that their consummation is the six thousandth year. But from whomsoever St. Hippolytus drew this improbable doctrine, at least he had many defenders of the same opinion among the illustrious doctors of the Church, whom one may see in Sixtus of Siena, book 5 of the Bibliotheca sancta, Annotation 190, or in our copy page 394 and following. Nevertheless St. Augustine in his Enarration on Psalm 89 and elsewhere rightly refutes that opinion of certain of the ancient Fathers.
[46] and he wrote a Paschal canon, found in the year 1551, Besides, St. Hippolytus, on the testimony of Eusebius and Jerome cited above, composed a Paschal cycle of sixteen years, on occasion of which our Bucherius in his Commentary on the Paschal canon of Victorius of Aquitaine, pages 291 and 292, gives the following notice: That canon had perished with the other monuments of the same Hippolytus, nor did anything of it survive besides the name; when behold, by God's goodness and to the great joy of all the learned (as Baronius, Scaliger, and Gruter testify), in the year of the Lord MDLI there came forth from the Veranian field, not far from the church of St. Lawrence near the City, dug out from the rubble of the ancient memorial of Hippolytus, an ancient marble statue seated upon a throne, inscribed with Greek letters on both sides. The letters on the two side-panels of the chair displayed Paschal cycles of sixteen years; on the right those of the fourteenths, on the left those of the Paschal Sundays, both comprised altogether in one hundred and twelve years, in which period of years Hippolytus believed that the same days returned in their round. The name of Hippolytus was not indeed expressed, but was easily betrayed by the very method of the sixteen-year cycle and by the heading of the books which the right-hand panel contained: for Eusebius, Jerome, and others make bishop Hippolytus the author of all these. So illustrious and so rare a monument of the primitive Church seemed to Marcello Cervini, then Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and afterwards Pope Marcellus II of the same name, most worthy to be carried thence to Rome and laid up in the Vatican library; Gruter afterwards published it in Greek, as it was, with his ancient inscriptions; Scaliger also illustrated it with notes: I here have determined, having faithfully rendered it into Latin, not so much to explain it anew as briefly to show it to be in conformity with the Paschal reckonings of our Victorius and of the first Latins.
[47] Then Bucherius in the same place, page 295, sets forth a Latin translation of that little work, from which we shall excerpt only the following titles of his lucubrations, with which some titles of his Works were found. which are thus expressed on the right side: On the penitential Psalms. On the Witch. On the Gospel and Apocalypse of John. On the charisms. The Apostolic tradition. A Chronicle. To the Greeks. On Plato, or also on the universe. Exhortation to Severina. Demonstration of the times of the Pasch; also in a table. Odes on all the Scriptures. On God and the resurrection of the flesh. On the good, and whence evil. The Syrians also know some lucubrations of St. Hippolytus, as may be seen in the Bibliotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, volume 3, part 1, page 15, where the most learned Assemani renders into Latin certain titles of books from the Syriac catalogue of Ebedjesu, bishop of Soba, in these words: St. Hippolytus, martyr and bishop, composed a book on the Dispensation, and an exposition of the lesser Daniel and of Susanna, and chapters against Caius, and an apology for the Apocalypse and the Gospel of John the Apostle and Evangelist.
[48] The Arabs also attribute to St. Hippolytus thirty-eight canons of ecclesiastical discipline, Other little works ascribed to him are enumerated, as the praised Assemani in the same place testifies in these words: Thirty-eight Arabic canons under his name Macarius, priest and monk of the monastery of St. Macarius, collected and inserted into the first volume of the canons of the church of Alexandria, in an Arabic codex written in the year of Christ MCCCLXXII. John Michael Vansleb the Dominican in the History of the Church of Alexandria, part 5, chapter 3, or page 280 and following, published these thirty-eight canons in French under the name of Abulides, and there in the margin warns the reader that he could not even by conjecture make out who that Abulides was. But Job Ludolf in the Ethiopian History, page 333 and following, translated the same canons of St. Hippolytus into Latin, and there instructs Vansleb that Hippolytus is called Abulides by the Ethiopians, and finally, after setting forth those thirty-eight canons, adds this: On account of these canons Hippolytus is called DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH by the Ethiopians; and both by them and by the other Orientals he is called ROMAN POPE, although he is not found in the catalogue of the Pontiffs. Yet he is found in the Synaxaries of the Greeks on the XXX of January, which is the V of February among the Ethiopians. Besides, by some there is ascribed to the same holy martyr a Greek Didascalia, which is the same as the Constitution of the holy Apostles through Hippolytus, of which Lambeck in the Vienna Library, book 8, page 429, makes mention.
[49] which we leave to the bibliographers to examine. But since it is our purpose to discuss at length rather the deeds of the Saints than each of their writings, we put an end to this historical-critical Commentary, and refer the curious reader to Remigius Ceillier the Benedictine, who in the General History of Ecclesiastical Authors, volume 2, chapter 27, has lately laboriously examined the genuine, doubtful, and spurious lucubrations of St. Hippolytus. Finally, John Albert Fabricius the Lutheran in his Bibliotheca Græca, volume 5, part 1, or book 5, chapter 1, page 203, discourses abundantly concerning St. Hippolytus and his writings, both surviving and lost, and afterwards in the years 1716 and 1718 published at Hamburg in two folio volumes all the works of that holy martyr which he could find, and illustrated them with notes, as the praised Remigius Ceillier in chapter 27 just cited, article XI, number 2, informs the reader. In this edition of Fabricius, volume 1, page 282, there deserves to be noted against the Calvinists the open testimony of that ancient Doctor which demonstrates the real presence of Christ in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in these express words: His divine flesh and his precious blood (in Greek τὴν θείαν αὐτοῦ σάρκα καὶ τὸ τίμιον αὐτοῦ αἷμα) he gave us to eat and to drink for the remission of sins. These are the chief things which we have judged should be set forth concerning the intricate Acts of this Saint and his various writings.