A recent discovery has directed general attention to this old ecclesiastical writer. In 1842 M. Mynoide Mi- nas, on his return from a mission on which he had been sent by M. VUlemain, minister of pidiUc instruction in France, brought back from INIount Athos, among other unpublished works, a mutilated Greek IMS. of the 14th centurj', written on cotton paper, without name of au- thor, and containing a Refutation of all Heresies (Kara TToaw)' a'itftuiiov iXiyx^'^)- '^'^^^ ^^^- ^^'^® deposited in the Imperial Librarj' at Paris, where it remained luidis- turbed until ]M. Emmanuel Jliller found it to contain the last part of a treatise, the beginning of which was printed in the works of Origen. At Miller's request, the University of Oxford consented to publish it, under his direction, "at their own press, with the title, 'QciiytvovQ (piKoaoipovpiva y Kara Traawr aipkatwv eXeyxoQ (Ori- f/enis Philosophumena dee omnium Hferesium Refutatio : e Codice Parisino nunc primum edidit Emmanuel Jlil- ler [Oxford, 1851, 8voJ). This work attracted great at- tention among the theologians and philologists of Ger- many and France, as well as of England. The first argument published to show that Hippolytus was the author of the MS. may be found in the Methodist Quar- terly Review for October, 1851, in an article by professor J. L. Jacobi, of the University of Berlin. After prov- ing that Origen was not the author, Jacobi shows that the writer was certainly contemporary with Origen. '• He places himself in that age, and all his statements harmonize with this view. Taking him, then, to have lived in the first quarter of the 3d centur\', at the time of ZephjTinus, bishop of Rome, and of CalHstus, we should be led by Eusebius to identify him with the learned presbyter Caius, or with Hippolytus. It is easi- ly shown, however, that Caius could not have been tlie author of the book, for he was specially distinguished
HIPPOLYTUS
269
HIPPOLYTUS
for his writings against Cerintluis, and for his peculiar views with regard to that (Jnostic leader; wliile our au- thor has nothing of his own to offer about Cerinthus, and borrows all that lie does say (and that is not much), word for word, from Irenaaus. Gains ascribed the Apoc- alypse to Cerinthus — our author assigns it to the apos- tle John. The former was a strenuous opponent of the sensual Chiliasm ; the latter, while lie blames much in Moiitanism, does not include Chiliasm under it, and in- deed it is more than probable that he was a friend of that doctrine." On the other hand, there are the fol- lowing, among other reasons, for ascribing the work to Hippolytus. (1.) A work hearing the same or a similar title ^v;^s ascribed by Eusebius, Jerome, Epiphanius, and Nicc'ijhorus to Hippolytus. (2.) The monument dug up at Kome (see above) has on it tlie names of writings which the author of the treatise on heresies claims as his own. (3.) The internal evidence is all in favor of Hippolytus. Professor Jacobi developed the argument at greater length in the D?utsche Zeitschriftfiir Christl. Wissemchaft (1852), and Dr. Duncker followed in the Gottinfjer gdehrte Anzeigen (1851). But the most ear- nest work on the subject was done by the Chevalier Bunsen, who canvassed the whole question with great
oflhr.
learning m his copious and somewhat chui.sy bi polytus and his Age, or the Doctrine ami I'nicl Church of Rome under Commodus cmd Ah .niiiili r Scn- nts, and (iiu-iiiit mill modern Christianitii and Dirinity compared (Lcuid. ls,"]-_>, 4 vols. 8vo). In this work it is, we think, estalilished beyond a doubt that the Refuta- tion of all Heresies was MTitten by Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, near Rome, in the first quarter of the 3d cen- tury. Several ^\'riters, however, objected to some of Bunsen's conclusions, and he replied to them by repub- lishing his work, greatly enlarged, under the title Chris- tianity and Mankind (London, 1854, 7 vols. 8vo). This work is full of erudition, but often advances hasty state- ments and unauthorized conclusions.
The importance of this newly-discovered work of Hippolj'tus in the sphere of Church History and archaa- ology can hardly be overstated. It throws great light upon the Gnostic and other heretical sects of the early Church. Names and even facts are given of which we knew absolutely nothing before ; while others that were held to be as unimportant as they were obscure are brought out into light and prominence, illuminating many dark nooks of Church Historj^ The book tells us, for instance, of a Gnostic, by name Justin, of whom we had not before heard ; and describes at length Mo- noiamos and the Peraticians, of whom we knew only the names. The Simonians, and the strange, fragmen- tary, and enigmatical ideas generally attributed to Si- mon Magus, are here treated with something approach- ing to orderly and clear connection. Tliat part of the work which treats of the morals of the Koman Church and of its clergy is fuU of interest. Hippolytus cen- sures them for michastity, and casts it up to them as a great reproach that many, even of the higher orders oi" clergy, were married — some of them more than once. His accomit of CaUistus throws much light u]ion the state of society and of religion in Rome at the time. The work shows us also that the received ooctrine of the Church at that time — a century before the Council of Nice — was the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the person of Christ. Its revelations are fatal, too, to many of the claims of the papacy. Romanist Avriters, there- fore, have sought to invalidate the conclusions drawn by Jacobi, Bunsen, and the Protestants generally. Pro- fessor Dollinger seeks to refute the "calumnies" of the book against CaUistus in his Hippolytus mid Kallistus (Ratisb. 1853, 8vo), and to settle the question of the au- thorship of the Philosophoumena. He undertakes to show also from the character of the work itself that the author was not a Cathohc, but a heretic, in the Judgment of the Church of the age when he A\Tote it. The abbe Cruice, of Paris, published Etudes stir les . . . Philosophou- mena (Paris, 1853, 8vo), to show that the book is neither