[Footnote 238: Hippol., Philos. IX. 12: [Greek: Kai parabolen ton zizanion pros touto ephe ho Kallistos legesthai. Aphete ta zizania sunauxein to sito, toutestin en te ekklesia tous hamartanontas. Alla kai ten kiboton tou Noe eis homoioma ekklesias ephe gegonenai, en he kai kunes kai lykoi kai korakes kai panta ta kathara kai akatharta; houto phaskon dein einai en ekklesia homoios, kai hosa pros touto dynatos en synagein houtos hermeneusen.] From Tertull., de idolol. 24, one cannot help assuming that even before the year 200 the laxer sort in Carthage had already appealed to the Ark. ("Viderimus si secundum arcae typum et corvus et milvus et lupus et canis et serpens in ecclesia erit. Certe idololatres in arcae typo non habetur. Quod in arca non fuit, in ecclesia non sit"). But we do not know what form this took and what inferences they drew. Moreover, we have here a very instructive example of the multitudinous difficulties in which the Fathers were involved by typology: the Ark is the Church, hence the dogs and snakes are men. To solve these problems it required an abnormal degree of acuteness and wit, especially as each solution always started fresh questions. Orig. (Hom. II. in Genes. III.) also viewed the Ark as the type of the Church (the working out of the image in Hom. I. in Ezech., Lomm. XIV. p. 24 sq., is instructive); but apparently in the wild animals he rather sees the simple Christians who are not yet sufficiently trained--at any rate he does not refer to the whoremongers and adulterers who must be tolerated in the Church. The Roman bishop Stephen again, positively insisted on Calixtus' conception of the Church, whereas Cornelius followed Cyprian (see Euseb., H. E. VI. 43. 10), who never declared sinners to be a necessary part of the Church in the same fashion as Calixtus did. (See the following note and Cyp., epp. 67. 6; 68. 5).] [Footnote 239: Philos., l.c.: [Greek: Kallistos edogmatisen hopos ei episkopos hamartoi ti, ei kai pros thanaton, me dein katatithesthai]. That Hippolytus is not exaggerating here is evident from Cyp., epp. 67, 68; for these passages make it very probable that Stephen also assumed the irremovability of a bishop on account of gross sins or other failings.] [Footnote 240: See Cypr., epp. 65, 66, 68; also 55. 11.] [Footnote 241: This is asserted by Cyprian in epp. 65. 4 and 67. 3; but he even goes on to declare that everyone is polluted that has fellowship with an impure priest, and takes part in the offering celebrated by him.]