[30] Not “sovereignty” but the doctrine of One Source and Ruler of All. The phrase constantly recurs in the theology of the time, and the word Monarchian is applied to all heresies of the Noetian kind.
[31] There can be little doubt as to the source of this chapter. The quotations from Heraclitus are taken from some book of extracts, like the work of Diogenes Laertius, and much corrupted in the taking: the words put into the mouth of Noetus on the other hand are doubtless taken from some written note of the arraignment of Noetus before “the blessed presbyters” who expelled him from the Church as described in Hippolytus’ own tract against Noetus, mentioned in n. on p. [118] supra. In c. 3 of this, Hippolytus declares that Noetus made use of the same passages of Scripture as “Theodotus,” which explains the allusion in the Table of Contents, and he uses other phrases to be found in our text. As the whole controversy between himself and Callistus was doubtless familiar to his readers, there was therefore no reason for him to refer to any written document containing the opinion of Noetus or his successors.
[32] In this chapter, as has been said, Hippolytus discloses his chief reason for the publication or republication of the whole work. The controversy which raged round the evidence of schism in the Primitive Church which it affords has now died down, and we are therefore able to examine such evidence dispassionately. The suggestion that the Callistus here mentioned had been confused with another person has now been given up, and there is little doubt that Hippolytus’ adversary was the Pope of that name who presided over the Church of Rome between the primacies of Zephyrinus and Urbanus, this last being quickly succeeded by Pontianus. In estimating the worth of the story which Hippolytus here tells against him, the way has been cleared by the frank acceptance by contemporary Catholic writers such as Monsignor Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l’Église, Paris, t. I,) and Dom. Chapman (The Catholic Encyclopædia, New York, 1908, s.v. “Callistus”), of the view that the calumnies against Callistus here put forward, although much exaggerated and coloured, have a basis of fact. In this, they follow the line taken by the celebrated Dr. Döllinger at the first appearance of our text, and no modern scholar has yet been found to seriously controvert it. It therefore only remains to draw attention to the points in which Hippolytus has, in Dr. Döllinger’s opinion, garbled or added colour to the facts, and on the whole, it has seemed more satisfactory to do this in the footnotes than here. The references, except when otherwise stated, are to the English edition of Döllinger’s Hippolytus and Callistus, Edinburgh, 1876. Callistus’ primacy appears from several testimonies to have lasted from A.D. 218 to 223, when he was killed apparently in a riot.
[33] Zephyrinus appears to have been Pope from A.D. 202 to 218.
[34] τῳ ὑφ’ ἡμῶν παραινεῖσθαι. It is thought that this is a pluralis majestatis consequent on Hippolytus’ claim to be himself Bishop of Rome.
[35] The construction of the whole of this paragraph offers difficulty, and many emendations have been proposed in the text. The reading of Roeper has been mainly followed here, and the meaning is not doubtful.
[36] ἐν τῷ λαῷ, i. e. “the laity.”
[37] “Worshipper of two gods.” In Döllinger’s opinion (op. cit., p. 219) this accusation was well founded.
[38] ἀγαπητόν. Doubtless written sarcastically. Wordsworth, Cruice and Macmahon all attach the phrase to δοκεὶ and translate “seems good,” for which use of the word I can find no precedent.
[39] ἐμαρτύρησεν. A play on the double meaning of the word, which might be translated “he was martyred.” But Callistus had not been martyred when our text was written, nor was he even a confessor.