The Placing of Hippolytus

The Placing of Hippolytus

The episcopal rank of Hippolytus is the troublesome factor in the task of locating the theatre of his labors. Were it not for this he could be described as a presbyter of the Roman Church, who was eminent for learning, and fertility in theological writing, and who earned in this way a prestige which made him in some sort a rival of the contemporary bishops of the imperial city.

The episcopal office of Hippolytus seems, however, to be pretty well attested. It is said, indeed, that Prudentius, writing in the early years of the fifth century, applied to him the title of " presbyter " but this term -- supposing it to have been thus applied in the authentic text of Prudentius - might have been used by him in the large sense which was sometimes attached to it in the early centuries. Moreover, the Spanish poet gives an open hint that he may have thought; of Hippolytus as possessing episcopal rank, since be speaks of him as the head of a Christian community.

2 Stipati circum juvenes clamore ferebant
Ipsum Christicolis esse caput populis:
Si foret exstinctum propere caput, omnia vulgi
Pectora Romanis sponte sacranda deis.
PERISTEPHANON, Hymnus xi.

A stronger objection to the supposition of episcopal office is this language from an ancient catalogue of Roman bishops: "Eo tempore (anno 235) Pontianus episcopus at Yppolitus presbyter exoles sunt deportati in Sardinia in insula nociva, Severo et Quintino cons." Supposing the Hippolytus in this reference to be identical with the distinguished writer, the language of the catalogue implies that the compiler at least thought of him as only a presbyter, unless perchance he used that term to indicate his relation (held then or previously) to the Roman Church, while beyond this he was understood to be bishop of a suburban community. On the other hand, Eusebius styles him a bishop, though he does not name his diocese, 1 Hist. Eccl., vi. 20. Jerome attaches to him the same rank, and leaves us equally in the dark as to the place of his administration, declaring indeed that he could not ascertain where he had exercised his office. 2 De Viris Illust., lxi. Hippolutus, cujusdam ecclesiæ episcopus, nomen quippe urbis scire non potui. Theodoret speaks of him as bishop and martyr. 3 Hæret. Fab., iii. 1. In his own writings, while he is not found distinctly to claim the office of bishop, he uses language in at least two instances, which might naturally be regarded as implying that office. Speaking of the apostles as recipients and transmitters of the Holy Spirit, he says: "We, as being their successors, and as participators in this grace, high-priesthood, and office of teaching as well as being reputed guardians of the Church, must not be found deficient in vigilance, or disposed to suppress correct doctrine." 4 Philosophum., Proem. In harmony with the participation in high-priesthood which he claims here, he represents himself in another connection as exercising the prerogative of church discipline, speaking of certain persons who, "in accordance with our condemnatory sentence, had been by us ejected from the Church." 5 Ibid., ix. 7. Altogether, the evidence may be regarded as establishing a presumption in favor of the episcopal rank of Hippolytus.

Where, then, are we to locate his diocese? Setting aside the theory which selects Arabia, as having no proper foundation, we are left to choose between Rome and the Port of Rome (Portus Romanus), the one being at a distance of about fifteen miles from the other. In behalf of the former supposition two principal items can be quoted, namely, the close connection of Hippolytus with the affairs of the Roman Church, as evinced in his writings, and the fact that he is named "bishop of Rome" in a number of instances by Greek writers. The force of the second item, however, is qualified by the late date of the writers who use this description. The earliest one of them that Döllinger was able to cite belonged to the closing part of the sixth century. There is also a possibility that this way of referring to Hippolytus may have come about by the hasty act of some Greek writer in substituting Rome for the Port of Rome. The apparent connection of the author of the Philosophumena with the affairs of the Roman Church is a weightier evidence. But the historical critic who, in compliance with this evidence, locates the episcopal administration of the Hippolytus within the city does not escape grave difficulties. On this basis we must suppose that there was a kind of dual episcopate in Rome, a special head being assigned to a Greek-speaking congregation, or else that Hippolytus was a schismatic bishop, -- in Roman phrase, the first Anti-Pope. For the former alternative, though it has been held by respectable advocates, the historical warrant is too dim to afford much confidence. The latter alternative is opposed by negative evidence of great force. No catalogue of the Roman bishops makes any mention of Hippolytus as either a legitimate or a schismatic incumbent. Eusebius and Jerome were apparently ignorant of any rival episcopate having been set up by him in the great capital. Supposing such a schism to have occurred, it must have appeared as the forerunner, almost as the first act, of the Novatian schism, which provoked intense animosity and was branded in severe terms by Catholic writers generally. How did it happen that the odium which was earned by Novatian was not reflected back upon Hippolytus, if the latter only two or three decades before had given an example of rebellion against constituted authority, and had kept the foremost church of Christendom divided for years ? We say for years, since the language of Hippolytus, which Döllinger interprets to mean that he denied the title of Callistus to the episcopate, is applied also to his predecessor Zephyrinus. The latter, no less than the former, is mentioned as one who presumed that he had become bishop of Rome. The phrase is indeed peculiar in either instance. It shows that Hippolytus, in his abhorrence of these men, was pleased to style them interlopers rather than rightful holders of the Roman episcopate. This, however, is far from justifying the conclusion that he claimed for himself the honor which he shrank from formally assigning to them.

A slight abatement ought perhaps to be made from the assumption that in the thought of succeeding generations nothing of the odium of schism attached to Hippolytus. Prudentius speaks of him as having been for a season a disciple of Novatian, Quondam schisma Novatii attigerat.
but as having in the end denounced his schismatic project,"
2 Consultus, quaenam secta foret melior,
Respondit: Fugite, O miseri exsecranda Novati
Schismata: catholicis reddite vos populis.
Una fides vigeat, prisco quæ condita templo est :
Quam Paulus retinet, quamque Cathedra Petri
-- an account that has small claim to credibility, since, if any relation to Novatian is to be predicated of Hippolytus it would naturally be that of forerunner and preceptor.

While thus the theory that Hippolytus was a schismatic bishop of Rome lacks the evidence which is needed for a well-grounded confidence, it must at the same time be confessed that the rival theory has but scanty historical data on its side. The most that is worth quoting is the apparent intent of the not over-critical Prudentius to represent Hippolytus as head of the church at Portus, the accordant statement of Anastasius, who was a papal secretary resident in Constantinople in the latter part of the seventh century, and the tradition which has been more or less current since that date.

It may be concluded that the superior learning of Hippolytus secured him a certain eminence among the clergy of Rome and the neighborhood. It may also be concluded that he was a man of somewhat assertatory temper, not altogether above the temptation to vanity, and that accordingly his representation rather enlarges than minifies the importance of his antagonism to the contemporary Roman bishops. If to these conclusions we add the supposition that Hippolytus was a resident of Rome before he became bishop and that his bishopric was in the neighborhood of the city, so that he could easily entertain and manifest an interest in the management of the Christian community there, we have at once a plausible explanation of his connection with the church at Rome and of his episcocal title. In the view of history, therefore, it may be regarded as possible that Hippolytus was bishop of Portus. The opposing theory, which makes him a schismatic bishop of Rome, though supported by very learned and able investigators, needs better proof than has been offered, to give it an exclusive title to credence.

Ignatian Problem

THE IGNATIAN PROBLEM.

IN the present, as between the brief Syriac recension of three epistles, the shorter of the two Greek recensions of seven epistles, and the longer Greek recension, there is a very general agreement that the second is the more primitive, whether it is to be accounted the unadulterated product of the hand of Ignatius or not.

The greater continuity of thought in the shorter Greek recension suggests rather that the Syriac epistles were made by an abridgment of it than that it arose by enlargement of them. Moreover, the task of abridging would have been a very simple matter, whereas that of enlarging in the manner supposed would have been difficult. No one would have been likely to have attempted so laborious a task except on the score of a desire to modify the contents in favor of some particular views. But doctrinally and ecclesiastically the two lists of epistles are of very much the same tenor.

The longer Greek recension is discredited by points of similarity with the confessedly spurious epistles attributed to Ignatius, by plain indications of borrowing from the writings of Eusebius and the Apostolic Constitutions, and by other tokens of a comparatively late origin. These facts place it in unfavorable contrast with the other Greek recension.

Respecting the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension of the seven epistles, Lightfoot makes the following cogent summary of evidence:—

1. No Christian writings of the second century, and very few writing of antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so well authenticated as the epistles of Ignatius. If the epistle of Polycarp be accepted as genuine, the authentication is perfect.
2. The main ground of objection against the genuineness of the epistle of Polycarp is its authentication of the Ignatian epistles. Otherwise there is every reason to believe that it would have passed unquestioned.
3. The epistle of Polycarp itself is exceptionally well authenticated by the testimony of his disciple Irenaeus.
4. All attempts to explain the phenomena of the epistle of Polycarp, as forged or interpolated to give color to the Ignatian epistles, have signally failed.
5. The external testimony to the Ignatian epistles being so strong, only the most decisive marks of spuriousness in the epistles themselves, as for instance proved anachronisms, would justify us in suspecting them as interpolated or rejecting them as spurious.
6. But so far is this from being the case that one after another the anachronisms urged against these letters have vanished in the light of further knowledge.
7. As regards the argument which Daillé calls 'palmary' -- the prevalence of episcopacy as a recognized institution -- we may say boldly that all the facts point the other way; If the writer of these letters had represented the churches of Asia Minor as under presbyteral government, he would have contradicted all the evidence, which without one dissentient voice points to episcopacy as the established form of church government in these districts from the close of the first century.
8. The circumstances of the condemnation, captivity, and journey of Ignatius, which have been a stumbling-block to some modern critics, did not present any difficulty to those who lived near the time and therefore knew best what might be expected under the circumstances; and they are sufficiently borne out by examples, more or less analogous, to establish their credibility.
9. The objections to the style and language of the epistles are beside the purpose. In some cases they arise from a misunderstanding of the writer's meaning. Generally they may be said to rest on the assumption that an apostolic father could not use exaggerated expressions, overstrained images, and the like,-certainly a sandy foundation on which to build an argument.
10. A like answer holds with regard to any extravagances in sentiment or opinion or character. Why should Ignatius not have exceeded the bounds of sober reason or correct taste? Other men in his own and immediately succeeding ages did both. As an apostolic father he was not exempt from the failings, if failings they were, of his age and position.
11. While investigation of the contents of these epistles has yielded this negative result, in dissipating the objections, it has at the same time had a high positive value, as revealing indications of a very early date, and therefore presumably of genuineness, in the surrounding circumstances, more especially in the types of false doctrine which it combats, in the ecclesiastical status which it presents, and in the manner in which it deals with the evangelical and apostolic documents.
12. Moreover, we discover in the personal environments of the assumed writer, and more especially in the notices of his route, many subtle coincidences which we are constrained to regard as undesigned, and which seem altogether beyond the reach of a forger.
13. So likewise the peculiarities in style and diction of the epistles, as also in the representation of the writer's character, are much more capable of explanation in a genuine writing than in a forgery.
14. While external and internal evidence thus combine to assert the genuineness of these writings, no satisfactory account has been or apparently can be given of them as a forgery of a later date than Ignatius. They would be quite purposeless as such; for they entirely omit all topics which would especially interest any subsequent age. On these grounds we are constrained to accept the Seven Epistles of the Middle Form as the genuine work of Ignatius."

1 The Apostolic Fathers, Part II., vol, i., pp. 401, 409.