Philosophumena; or, The refutation of all heresies, Volume I

by Antipope Hippolytus

2. The Authorship of the Work

Even before Mynas’ discovery, doubts had been cast on the attribution of the Philosophumena to Origen. The fact that the author in his Proæmium speaks of himself as a successor of the Apostles, a sharer in the grace of high priesthood, and a guardian of the Church,[12] had already led several learned writers in the eighteenth century to point out that Origen, who was never even a bishop, could not possibly be the author, and Epiphanius, Didymus of Alexandria, and Aetius were among the names to which it was assigned. Immediately upon the publication of Miller’s text, this controversy was revived, and naturally became coloured by the religious and political opinions of its protagonists. Jacobi in a German theological journal was the first to declare that it must have been written by Hippolytus, a contemporary of Callistus,[13] and this proved to be like the letting out of waters. The dogma of Papal Infallibility was already in the air, and the opportunity was at once seized by the Baron von Bunsen, then Prussian Ambassador at the Court of St. James’, to do what he could to defeat its promulgation. In his Hippolytus and his Age (1852), he asserted his belief in Jacobi’s theory, and drew from the abuse of Callistus in Book IX of the newly discovered text, the conclusion that even in the third century the Primacy of the Bishops of Rome was effectively denied. The celebrated Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, followed with a scholarly study in which, while rejecting von Bunsen’s conclusion, he admitted his main premises; and Dr. Döllinger, who was later to prove the chief opponent of Papal claims, appeared a little later with a work on the same side. Against these were to be found none who ventured to defend the supposed authorship of Origen, but many who did not believe that the work was rightly attributed to Hippolytus. Among the Germans, Fessler and Baur pronounced for Caius, a presbyter to whom Photius in the ninth century gave the curious title of “Bishop of Gentiles,” as author; of the Italians, de Rossi assigned it to Tertullian and Armellini to Novatian; of the French, the Abbé Jallabert in a doctoral thesis voted for Tertullian; while Cruice, who was afterwards to translate the work, thought its author must be either Caius or Tertullian.[14] Fortunately there is now no reason to re-open the controversy, which one may conclude has come to an end by the death of Lipsius, the last serious opponent of the Hippolytan authorship. Mgr. Duchesne, who may in such a matter be supposed to speak with the voice of the majority of the learned of his own communion, in his Histoire Ancienne de l’Église[15] accepts the view that Hippolytus was the author of the Philosophumena, and thinks that he became reconciled to the Church under the persecution of Maximin.[16] We may, therefore, take it that Hippolytus’ authorship is now admitted on all sides.

A few words must be said as to what is known of this Hippolytus. A Saint and Martyr of that name appears in the Roman Calendar, and a seated statue of him was discovered in Rome in the sixteenth century inscribed on the back of the chair with a list of works, one of which is claimed in our text as written by its author.[17] He is first mentioned by Eusebius, who describes him as the “Bishop of another Church” than that of Bostra, of which he has been speaking;[18] then by Theodoret, who calls him the “holy Hippolytus, bishop and martyr”;[19] and finally by Prudentius, who says that he became a Novatianist, but on his way to martyrdom returned to the bosom of the Church and entreated his followers to do the same.[20] We have many writings, mostly fragmentary, attributed to him, including among others one on the Paschal cycle which is referred to on the statue just mentioned, a tract against Noetus used later by Epiphanius, and others on Antichrist, Daniel, and the Apocalypse, all of which show a markedly chiliastic tendency. In the MSS. in which some of these occur, he is spoken of as “Bishop of Rome,” and this seems to have been his usual title among Greek writers, although he is in other places called “Archbishop,” and by other titles. From these and other facts, Döllinger comes to the conclusion that he was really an anti-pope or schismatic bishop who set himself up against the authority of Callistus, and this, too, is accepted by Mgr. Duchesne, who agrees with Döllinger that the schism created by him lasted through the primacies of Callistus’ successors, Urbanus and Pontianus, and only ceased when this last was exiled together with Hippolytus to the mines of Sardinia.[21] Though the evidence on which this is based is not very strong, it is a very reasonable account of the whole matter; and it becomes more probable if we choose to believe—for which, however, there is no distinct evidence—that Hippolytus was the head of the Greek-speaking community of Christians at Rome, while his enemy Callistus presided over the more numerous Latins. In that case, the schism would be more likely to be forgotten in time of persecution, and would have less chance of survival than the more serious ones of a later age; while it would satisfactorily account for the conduct of the Imperial authorities in sending the heads of both communities into penal servitude at the same time. By doing so, Maximin or his pagan advisers doubtless considered they were dealing the yet adolescent Church a double blow.