Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/411

 HIPPOLYTUS

361

HIPPOLYTUS

equally possible that Origcn heartl a homily by Hippo- lytus when he went to Rome about tlie year 212. In the reign of Pope Zephyrinus(19S-217) became into conflict with that pontiff and with the majority of the Church of Rome, primarily on account of the chris- tological opinions which for some time had been causing controversies in Rome. Hippolytus had combated the heresy of Theodotion and the Alogi; in like fashion he opposed the false doctrines of Noetus, of Epigonus, of Cleomenes, and of Sabellius, who emphasized the unity of God too one-sidedly (Monarchians) and saw in the concepts of the Father and the Son merely manifestations (ittodi) of the Divine Nature (Modalism, SabellianLsm). Hippo- lytus, on the contrary, stood uncompromisingly for a real difference between the Son (Logos) and the Father, but so as to represent the Former as a Divine Person almost completely separate from Gorl (Dithe- ism) and at the same time altogether subordinate to the Father (Suborflinationism). As the heresy in the doctrine of the Morlalists wa.s not at first clearly apparent, Pope Zephyrinus declined to give a decision. For this Hippolytus gravely censured him, repre- senting him as an incompetent man, unworthy to rule the Church of Rome, and as a tool in the hands of the ambitious and intriguing deacon Callistus, whose early life is maliciously depicted (Philosophumena, IX, xi-xii). Consequently when Callistus was elected pope (217 or 218) on the death of Zephyrinus, Hip- polytus immediately left the communion of the Ro- man Church and had himself elected antipope by his small band of followers. These he calls the Catliolic Church and himself successor to the Apostles, terming the great majority of Roman Christians the School of Callistus. He accuses Callistus of having fallen first into the heresy of Theodotus, then into that of Sabellius; also of having through avarice degraded ecclesiastical, and especially the penitential, discipline to a disgraceful laxity. These reproaches were al- together unjustified. Hippolytus himself advocated an excessive rigorism. He continued in opposition as antipope throughout the reigns of the two imme- diate successors of Callistus, Urban (222 or 223 to 230) and Pontius (230-35), and during this period, prob- ably during the pontificate of Poutianus, he wrote the "Philosophumena". He was banished to the unhealthful island {insula nociva) of Sardinia at the same time as Pontianus; and shortly before this, or soon afterward, he became reconciled with the legiti- mate bishop and the Church of Rome. For, after both exiles had died on the island of Sardinia, their mortal remains were brought back to Rome on the same day, 13 August (either 236 or one of the fol- lowing years), and solemnly interred, Pontian\is in the papal vault in the catacomb of Callistus and Hip- polytus in a spot on the Via Tiburtina. Both were equally revered as martyrs by the Roman Church: certain proof that Hippolytus had made his peace with that Church before his death. With his death the schism must have come to a speedy end, which accounts for its identification with the Novatian schism at the end of the fourth century, as we learn from the inscription by Damasus.

The fact that Hippolytus was a schismatic Bishop of Rome and yet was held in high honour afterwards both as martyr and theologian, explains why as early as the fourth century nothing was known as to his see, for he was not on the list of the Roman bishops. The theory championed by Lightfoot (see below), that he was actually Bishop of Porto but with his official residence in Rome, is untenable.

This statement, made by a few authorities, results from a confusion with a martyr of Porto, due perhaps to a legendary account of his martyrdom. Moreover De Rossi's hypothesis, based on the inscription by Damasus, that Hippolytus returned from exile, and subsequently became an adherent of Novatian, his

reconciUation with the Roman Church not being effected until just before his martyrdom under the Emperor Valerian (2.53-60), is incompatible with the supposition that he is the author of the "Philoso- phumena." The feast of St. Hippolytus is kept on 13 August, a date assigned in accordance with the legend of St. Laurence ; that of Hippolytus of Porto is celebrated on 22 August.

Hippoljrtus was the most important theologian and the most prolific religious writer of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era. Nevertheless the fate of his copious literary remains has been unfortunate. Most of his works have been lost or are known only through scattered fragments, while much has survived only in old translations into Oriental and Slavic languages ; other writings are freely interpolated. The fact that the author WTote in Greek made it inevitable that later, when that language was no longer under- stood in Rome, the Romans lost interest in his writ^ ings, while in the East they were read long after and made the author famous. His works deal with several branches of theology, as appears from the aforementioned list on the statue, from Eusebius, St. Jerome, and from Oriental authors. His exegetical treatises were numerous: he wrote commentaries on several books of the Old and New Testaments. Most of these are extant only in fragments. The com- mentary on the Canticle of Canticles, however, has probably been preserved in its entirety (" Werke des Hippolytus", ed. Bonwetsch, 1897, 343 sqq.) ; likewise the fullest extant commentary on the Book of Daniel in 4 books (ibid., 2 sqq.). Eight of his works, known by their titles, dealt with dogmatic and apologetic subjects, but only one has come down entire in the original Greek. This is the work on Christ and Antichrist ("De Antiehristo", ed. Achelis, op. cit., I, II, 1 sqq.) ; fragments of a few others have been pre- served. Of his polemics against heretics the most im- portant is the "Philosophumena", the original title of which is KaTo. iraauiv alpiaewp 6Xe7xo! (.\ Refutation of All Heresies). The first book had long been known; books IV to X, which had been discovered a short time previously, were published in 1851. But the first chapters of the fourth and the whole of the second and third books are still missing. The first four books treat of the Hellenic philosophers; books V to IX are taken up with the exposition and refutation of Christian heresies, and the last book contains a recapitulation. The work is one of the most impor- tant sources for the history of the heresies which dis- turbed the early Church. Origen is cited in some manuscripts as the author of the first book. Photius attributes it to the Roman author Caius (q. v.), while by others it has been ascribed also to Tertullian and Novatian. But most modern scholars hold for weighty reasons that Hippolytus is undoubtedly its author. A shorter treatise against heresies (Syntagma), and written by Hippolytus at an earlier date, may be restored in outline from later adaptations (Libellus adversus omnes hsereses; Epiphanius, "Panarion"; Philastrius, "De haeresibus"). He wrote a third anti- heretical work which was universal in character, called the "Small Labyrinth". Besides these Hip- polytus wTote special monographs against Marcion, the Montanists, the Alogi, and Caius. Of these writings only a few fragments are extant. Hippoly- tus also produced an Easter cycle, as well as a chroni- cle of the world which was made use of by later chroni- clers. And finally St. Jerome mentions a work by him on Church laws. Three treatises on canon law have been preserved under the name of Hippolytus: the " Constitutiones per Hippolytum" (which are parallel with the eighth book of the Apostolic Con- stitutions), the Egyptian Church Ordinance, in Coptic, and the "Canones Ilippolyti". Of these works the first two are spurious beyond doubt, and the last, the authenticity of which was. upheld even by Achelis