Migne Reading Room
PL 3 · cols. 889–912
D. G. Lumper, Dissertatio prooemialis in Novatianum presbyterum Romanum
Editors' preface
CIRCA ANNOS DOMINI CCL-CCLXX.
ABOUT THE YEARS OF THE LORD 250–270.
NOVATIANUS
NOVATIAN
PRESBYTER ROMANUS.
ROMAN PRESBYTER.
DISSERTATIO PROOEMIALIS.
INTRODUCTORY DISSERTATION.
Auctore D. Gothofr. Lumper. O. S. B.
By Dom Gottfried Lumper, O.S.B.
CAPUT PRIMUM.
CHAPTER ONE.
EJUS VITAE HISTORIA.
THE HISTORY OF HIS LIFE.
Novatianorum haeresim Novatus et Novatianus condiderunt. Hos confundunt et in unum miscent Eusebius, sanctus Epiphanius, Socrates, Sozomenus, Theodoretus, Photius; aperte distinguunt sanctus Cornelius, S. Cyprianus, S. Pacianus, Hieronymus, et auctor Anonymus operis adversus Novatianum falso divo Cypriano ascripti in appendice operum D. Cypriani Baluzianae editionis pag. 7, et seqq.
Novatus and Novatian founded the heresy of the Novatianists. These two are confused and mingled into one by Eusebius, St Epiphanius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Photius; they are plainly distinguished by St Cornelius, St Cyprian, St Pacian, Jerome, and the anonymous author of the work against Novatian falsely ascribed to the divine Cyprian, in the appendix of the works of St Cyprian in Baluze's edition, p. 7 ff.
Hanc scriptorum apparentem contradictionem ut tollerent Eruditi duplicem hucusque iniverunt viam. Alii potiores tribuunt partes Latinis, atque exinde inferunt, Graecos hallucinatos fuisse. Ita censent Henricus Valesius, Petavius, Ruinartius, Caveus, et Fabricius, quibus omnes prope reliqui scriptores assentiunt, Aliis e contra e diametro opposita placet opinio, existimantque Graecos longe melius veriusque conservasse verum hujus viri nomen. Nemo autem doctius, operosiusque hoc demonstrare conatus est, quam Lardnerus in singulari dissertatione, quae in Credibility of the G. H. vol. IX, part. II, pag. 365, impressa habetur. Cum vero haec sententia Lardneri non solum criticis hactenus inaudita, sed exquisite quoque concepta, atque illustrandis veterum scriptis ut plurimum accommodata sit, haud ingratum nostris lectoribus fore arbitramur, si laudatae dissertationis argumenta hic summatim cum Cl.
To remove this apparent contradiction among the writers, the learned have so far taken two ways. Some give the better part to the Latins, and infer from this that the Greeks were mistaken. So judge Henri de Valois, Petavius, Ruinart, Cave and Fabricius, with whom almost all the other writers agree. Others, on the contrary, favour the diametrically opposite opinion, and reckon that the Greeks preserved this man's true name far better and more truly. But no one has tried to demonstrate this more learnedly or more painstakingly than Lardner in a separate dissertation, which is found printed in the Credibility of the G[ospel] H[istory], vol. IX, part II, p. 365. Since this opinion of Lardner's has not only been unheard of among critics until now but is also finely conceived, and for the most part well suited to throwing light on the writings of the ancients, we think it will not be unwelcome to our readers if we here bring forward the arguments of the said dissertation in summary, with the celebrated
Editors' notes and page, col. 889
Footnotes
(1) ‹anchor: Eusebius› · call in col 889
Euseb. H. E., lib. vi, cap. 35 ; lib. vii, cap. 8, pag. 287, legitur Νοουατίανῳ.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, ch. 35; book 7, ch. 8, p. 287: the reading is Νοουατίανῳ (Novatian).
(printed under page 496)
(2) ‹anchor: sanctus Epiphanius› · call in col 889
Epiphan. Haeres 39.
Epiphanius, Heresies 39.
(printed under page 496)
(3) ‹anchor: Sozomenus› · call in col 889
Sozomen., lib. ii, H. E., cap. 8, pag. 96, scribit etiam Νοουατιάνος.
Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 2, ch. 8, p. 96, also writes Νοουατιάνος (Novatianus).
(printed under page 496)
(4) ‹anchor: Theodoretus› · call in col 889
Theodoret., Haeretic. Fabular. lib. iii, cap. 5, pag. 228, tom. IV.
Theodoret, Compendium of Heretical Fables, book 3, ch. 5, p. 228, vol. 4.
(printed under page 496)
(5) ‹anchor: Photius› · call in col 889
Phot cod. 128 et 280.
Photius, codices 128 and 280.
(printed under page 496)
(6) ‹anchor: sanctus Cornelius› · call in col 889
Cornel. in Ep. ad Fab. Antioch. et in Ep. ad S. Cyprian.
Cornelius, in the Letter to Fabius of Antioch and in the Letter to St Cyprian.
(printed under page 496)
(7) ‹anchor: S. Cyprianus› · call in col 889
S. Cyprian. passim.
St Cyprian, throughout.
(printed under page 496)
(8) ‹anchor: S. Pacianus› · call in col 889
S. Pacian. Ep. ad Sympronian.
St Pacian, Letter to Sympronian.
(printed under page 496)
(9) ‹anchor: Hieronymus› · call in col 889
S. Hieronym. de Vir. Illustr., cap, 70.
St Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 70.
(printed under page 496)
(10) ‹anchor: Henricus Valesius› · call in col 889
Vales in Not. ad Euseb. H. E., lib. vi, cap. 45.
Valesius, in his notes on Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 6, ch. 45.
(printed under page 496)
(11) ‹anchor: Petavius› · call in col 889
Petav. in Not. in S. Epiphan., tom. II opp., pag. 226.
Petavius, in his notes on St Epiphanius, vol. 2 of the works, p. 226.
(printed under page 496)
(12) ‹anchor: Ruinartius› · call in col 889
Ruinart. Act. Select. Martyr., pag. 180.
Ruinart, Select Acts of the Martyrs, p. 180.
(printed under page 496)
(13) ‹anchor: Caveus› · call in col 889
Cave., Hist. litterar. Scriptor. Eccles., tom. I, pag. 129.
Cave, Literary History of Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. 1, p. 129.
(printed under page 496)
(14) ‹anchor: et Fabricius› · call in col 889
Alb. Fabric. not. in Hieronym., in Bibliothec. Ecclesiast., pag. 158.
Albert Fabricius, notes on Jerome, in the Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, p. 158.
(printed under page 496)
Page
- running head: (none)
- marginal letters: A ‹CAPUT PRIMUM›; B ‹exinde inferunt, Graecos›; C ‹dissertationis argumenta hic›; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 263 after ‹Anonymus›
- running head: (none; title page, no running head printed)
- marginal letters: A beside "Walchii subjunctis animadversionibus" (right column; letter in the gutter); B beside "viam. Alii potiores tribuunt" / "editores suis in notis"; C beside "dissertationis argumenta hic summatim" / "Novatum nominant."; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 263 after Anonymus
- misprints kept as printed: ‹assentiunt,› (comma printed where the sentence ends; next word Aliis capitalised)
Walchii subjunctis animadversionibus adducamus.
Walch's annotations subjoined.
II. Sunt autem haec: 1° Omnes graeci Scriptores illum Novatum nominant. Eo magis illis fides habenda est, quod Eusebius litteris authenticis Cornelii et Dionysii Alexandrini usus fuerit, partemque illarum posterorum memoriae conservarit; Socrati vero et Sozomeno cum Novatianis indubia consuetudo fuerit.
II. They are these: 1° All the Greek writers name him Novatus. Credence is the more to be given to them because Eusebius made use of authentic letters of Cornelius and of Dionysius of Alexandria, and preserved part of them for the remembrance of posterity; while Socrates and Sozomen undoubtedly had dealings with the Novatianists.
2° Manifesto falsum est, omnes latinos Scriptores illum appellasse Novatianum. Certe Rufinus sua in versione Historiae Ecclesiasticae Eusebii eumdem constanter Novatum vocavit. In Romana operum D. Ambrosii editione, habetur, libr. I de Poenitentia, cap. 3, nomen Novati, quod quidem Benedictini editores suis in notis, tom. II op. pag. 393, reprehendunt; sed enimvero haud verisimile est, editorem Romanum temere, nulliusque manuscripti auctoritate nixum, illam lectionem secutum fuisse. In Hilarii Fragmentis, pag. 1320 editionis Maurineae legitur Novatus Hieronymus quoque comment. in Joel, tom. III opp., pag. 1358 in Annos, pag. 1407, Epistol. XXXVIII, tom. IV, pag. 307, Epist. LVI, pag. 586, Epist. LXXXIV, pag. 659, editionis Martianaei Novatum appellat, ubi manifeste de presbytero Romano sermonem instituit: insuper Philastrius de Haeresibus cap. 84; Augustinus de Haeresibus, cap. 38, de Utilitate jejunii, cap. 9, § 11, Contra Cresconium, lib. II, cap. 1; Rufinum in Exposit. Symboli, in quinto Tomo opp. Hieronymi, p 130; Pelagius ibid., p 1015, eumdem Novatum nominant.
2° It is plainly false that all the Latin writers called him Novatian. Rufinus at least, in his version of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, constantly called the same man Novatus. In the Roman edition of the works of St Ambrose, book I On Penance, chap. 3, the name of Novatus is found, which the Benedictine editors indeed find fault with in their notes, vol. II of the works, p. 393; but in truth it is hardly likely that the Roman editor followed that reading rashly and resting on the authority of no manuscript. In the Fragments of Hilary, p. 1320 of the Maurist edition, Novatus is read. Jerome too, in the commentary on Joel, vol. III of the works, p. 1358, on Amos, p. 1407, Letter XXXVIII, vol. IV, p. 307, Letter LVI, p. 586, Letter LXXXIV, p. 659, of Martianay's edition, calls him Novatus, where he is plainly speaking of the Roman presbyter; moreover Philastrius On Heresies, chap. 84; Augustine On Heresies, chap. 38, On the Usefulness of Fasting, chap. 9, § 11, Against Cresconius, book II, chap. 1; Rufinus in the Exposition of the Creed, in the fifth volume of Jerome's works, p. 130; and Pelagius, ibid., p. 1015, name the same man Novatus.
Editors' notes and page, col. 890
Footnotes
(15) ‹anchor: Walchii subjunctis animadversionibus› · call in col 890
Christ. Willb. Franz. Walch. Kezergeschichte, ii part., pag. 188, et seqq.
Christian Wilhelm Franz Walch, Ketzergeschichte (History of Heresies), part 2, p. 188 ff.
(printed under page 496)
Page
- running head: (not visible in the image)
- marginal letters: A ‹Walchii subjunctis animadversionibus›; B ‹editores suis in notis›; C ‹Novatum nominant.›
- old-edition numerals: 864 after ‹Tomo›
- running head: (none; title page, no running head printed)
- marginal letters: A beside "Walchii subjunctis animadversionibus"; B beside "editores suis in notis, tom. II op."; C beside "Novatum nominant."; D (none)
- old-edition numerals: 264 after Tomo
- misprints kept as printed: ‹legitur Novatus Hieronymus› (no stop printed after Novatus; Q3 set back as printed); ‹in Annos› (for Amos); ‹Rufinum in Exposit. Symboli› (accusative in a list of subjects); ‹p 130›, ‹p 1015› (no stop after p)
3° Nomen sectae juxta grammaticam originem habet non a Novatiano, sed potius a Novato, quam observationem S. Augustinus in ultimo supra adducto loco confirmat; cui tamen alii in hoc, quemadmodum infra dicemus, contradicunt.
3° The name of the sect, according to its grammatical origin, comes not from Novatianus but rather from Novatus, an observation which St Augustine confirms in the last passage adduced above; others, however, contradict him on this point, as we shall say below.
4° Nominis Novati frequens apud antiquos fit mentio, illudque notissimum; Novatiani vero prorsus non.
4° The name of Novatus is frequently mentioned among the ancients, and it is very well known; that of Novatianus, however, not at all.
Ad objectionem, quod Cyprianus tamen ubique fere presbyterum Romanum Novatianum nominet, respondet Lardnerus, quod, quia Carthaginiensis hujus episcopi multum intererat, presbyterum Carthaginiensem Novatum tanquam praecipuum schismatis auctorem designare, eo consilio Romanum Novatianum appellaverit, ut exinde ostenderet, eum sectatorem fuisse Novati Carthaginiensis.
To the objection that Cyprian nevertheless almost everywhere names the Roman presbyter Novatianus, Lardner replies that, because it greatly concerned this bishop of Carthage to mark out the Carthaginian presbyter Novatus as the chief author of the schism, he called the Roman Novatianus with this purpose, that he might thereby show that he had been a follower of Novatus of Carthage.
III. De hac Lardneriana opinione haec monenda esse duximus. Primum, quod controversiae caput spectat, videntur nobis Cl. Lardneri argumenta haud satis decretoria, et praeponderantia esse; nam praeterquam quod allata ratio, cur S. Cyprianus virum, qui alias dicebatur Novatus, continuo Novatianum appellarit, quin unquam suum permutati nominis consilium indigitarit, haud verisimilis sit, non solum Cyprianus, sed ipse quoque Cornelius, qui inter omnes sui adversarii, et rivalis nomen optime nosse debuerat, suis in epistolis latinis ipsum pariter Novatianum semper nominavit; ubi adhuc notatu dignum quod in graeca epistola Cornelii ad Fabium Antiochenum, cujus luculentum fragmentum nobis conservavit Eusebius, nomen hujus viri nunquam occurrat; adhaec potius accidere potuit, quod Graeci vocabulum Novatianus pro aliquo, ab alias noto et proprio nomine Novatus dicto, atque sectae nomine derivato habuerint, ac exinde ad credendum inducti fuerint, virum illum Novatum appellatum fuisse, quin propterea de confusione duarum personarum tam diversarum accusandi sint; unde recentiores latini scriptores, qui priorum operibus manifesto usi fuerant, illorum vestigia presserunt; quam ut Cornelius et Cyprianus in nomine errarint. Denique omnibus ex momentis Lardneri ea consecutio haud necessario infertur, quod Latini hallucinati fuerint: siquidem duo inter illa extrema tertium adhuc locum habet, quod alterius nostrae animadversionis objectum constituit. Si omnes observationes simul colligamus, ex iis non nisi haec duplex conclusio inferri potest; prima est: aut una, aut altera pars, scilicet vel Latini, vel Graeci in nomine errarunt. Jam vero, cum applicatio laudatae
III. On this Lardnerian opinion we have thought the following points must be made. First, as regards the head of the controversy, the arguments of the celebrated Lardner seem to us not sufficiently decisive and preponderant. Besides the fact that the reason alleged is not probable, namely why St Cyprian continually called a man who was otherwise called Novatus "Novatianus" without ever indicating his purpose in changing the name, it was not only Cyprian: Cornelius himself also, who of all men ought to have known best the name of his adversary and rival, likewise always named him Novatianus in his Latin letters. Here it is further worth noting that in the Greek letter of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, of which Eusebius has preserved for us a substantial fragment, the name of this man never occurs. Moreover, it could more probably have happened that the Greeks took the word Novatianus as standing for someone called by the otherwise known and proper name Novatus, and as a name of the sect derived from it, and were thence led to believe that that man had been called Novatus, without their being on that account to be accused of confusing two persons so different; whence the more recent Latin writers, who had manifestly used the works of their predecessors, followed in their footsteps. This is more likely than that Cornelius and Cyprian erred in the name. Finally, from all of Lardner's points the consequence that the Latins were mistaken does not necessarily follow: for between those two extremes there is still room for a third, which constitutes the object of our second observation. If we gather all the observations together, only this twofold conclusion can be drawn from them; the first is: either one party or the other, namely either the Latins or the Greeks, erred in the name. Now, since the application of the aforesaid
Editors' notes and page, col. 891
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 891
Euseb. H. E. vi, cap. 29.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6, ch. 29.
(printed under page 497)
(17) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 891
Bolland. Act. SS., tom. II Jan., pag. 252 et 256 ; Tillemont. Mémoires sur S. Fabien, tom. III H. E., pag. 362 ; Bower Hist. Paparum, part. i, pag. 83.
Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, January vol. 2, pp. 252 and 256; Tillemont, Mémoires on St Fabian, vol. 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, p. 362; Bower, History of the Popes, part 1, p. 83.
(printed under page 497)
(18) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 891
Fabric. tom. VI Biblioth. lat. med. et infirm. aetat., pag. 24.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis (Latin Library of the Middle and Late Ages), vol. 6, p. 24.
(printed under page 497)
Page
- running head: 891 NOVATIANUS PRESBYTER (cut off at the image edge after PRESBYTE)
- marginal letters: A ‹3° Nomen sectae juxta›; B ‹III. De hac Lardneriana›; C ‹hujus viri nunquam occurrat›; D ‹nis objectum constituit›
- old-edition numerals: (none)
conclusionis communiter in favorem Latinorum et invidiam Graecorum fieri consueverit, nostra profecto opinione Cl. Lardnerus satis solide evicit, eam applicationem recta inverti posse; non vero, quod ita fieri debeat; altera conclusio haec est: ante penes utramque partem est veritas.
conclusion is commonly made in favour of the Latins and to the discredit of the Greeks, the distinguished Lardner has in our opinion quite solidly established that this application can rightly be inverted, but not that it ought to be done so; the other conclusion is this: the truth lies alike with both sides.
Caeterum observatu dignum est, quod Cl. Lardnerus hic annotare neglexerit, pluries jam accidisse, quod nomen alicujus personae diverso modo in scriptis antiquorum offendatur. Sic (ut aliqua hujus rei exempla adducamus) antecessor Cornelii non solum apud Latinos, sed Graecos, Eusebium scilicet, Fabianus; et apud alios Graecos Favianus vocatur. Et jam ab antiquis temporibus auctor Manichaeismi non solum Manes, sed Manichaeus quoque nominatur. Notum etiam est omnibus, Lactantium modo Caelium, modo Caecilium; auctorem Vitae S. Augustini nunc Possidium, nunc Possidonium vocari: aut ultima nomenclatura a Schoetgenio tanquam erronea reprehendatur. Fieri itaque facile potuit, quod circa homines aliunde haud illustri loco natos in usu fuerit utroque modo eorum nomen tum pronuntiandi, tum scribendi, atque quod Cornelius et Cyprianus integrum nomen eo lubentius retinuerint, quod facilius atque accuratius exinde ambae personae, Novatus scilicet ac Novatianus, discernerentur.
It is moreover worth observing, something the distinguished Lardner neglected to note here, that it has already happened many times that the name of some person is met with in different forms in the writings of the ancients. Thus (to adduce some examples of this matter) the predecessor of Cornelius is called Fabianus not only among the Latins but also among the Greeks, namely Eusebius, and among other Greeks Favianus. And already from ancient times the author of Manichaeism is named not only Manes but also Manichaeus. It is also known to all that Lactantius is called now Caelius, now Caecilius; that the author of the Life of St Augustine is called now Possidius, now Possidonius: or the last appellation is censured by Schoettgen as erroneous. It could therefore easily have happened that, in the case of men born in an otherwise far from illustrious station, it was customary both to pronounce and to write their name in either way, and that Cornelius and Cyprian retained the full name all the more willingly because the two persons, namely Novatus and Novatian, might thereby be distinguished more easily and more accurately.
Tertio demum observamus, quod ex Lardneri animadversionibus evidenter patescat, neque Latinos discrimen inter Novatum et Novatianum semper observasse, utut a recentioribus latinis scriptoribus laudatum discrimen tam sedulo inculcetur, quod nimirum ex duobus illis presbyteris Novatiani schismatis antesignanis Carthaginiensis Novatus, Romanus vero Novatianus dicendus sit. Haec ultima observatio, quae ex Dissertatione Lardneri primum menti nostrae obvenit, magnam utilitatem ac momentum habet ad non paucas difficultates solvendas, inde emergentes, quod in latinis Patribus loca de Novato Carthaginiensi exponantur a Scriptoribus, quae revera tamen de Novatiano agunt. Caeterum hic vulgarem morem, suis etia⟨m⟩ innixum rationum momentis sequimur, quo nome⟨n⟩ Novatus de Africano duntaxat, et nomen Novati⟨a⟩nus de Romano presbytero adhibetur.
Thirdly and lastly we observe that it becomes evidently clear from Lardner's remarks that not even the Latins always observed the distinction between Novatus and Novatian, however diligently the aforesaid distinction is impressed by more recent Latin writers, namely that of those two presbyters, the standard-bearers of the Novatian schism, the Carthaginian is to be called Novatus, but the Roman Novatian. This last observation, which first occurred to our mind from Lardner's Dissertation, has great usefulness and weight for resolving not a few difficulties arising from the fact that passages in the Latin Fathers are explained by writers as concerning Novatus of Carthage which in truth nevertheless deal with Novatian. Here, however, we follow the common custom, which also rests on weighty reasons of its own, by which the name Novatus is applied only to the African, and the name Novatian to the Roman presbyter.
IV. Novatianus ex Phrygum gente, si Philosto⟨r⟩gio fides, saeculo III ineunte ortum duxisse existimatur. Antequam Christo nomen daret, philos⟨o⟩phiam excoluisse perhibetur. Scribens enim a⟨d⟩ Sympronianum S. Pacianus, haec habet « Novatianum mihi ingeris? Philosophum saeculi
IV. Novatian, of the race of the Phrygians, if Philostorgius is to be believed, is reckoned to have had his origin at the beginning of the third century. Before he gave his name to Christ he is said to have cultivated philosophy. For St Pacian, writing to Sympronianus, has this: “Do you thrust Novatian upon me? A philosopher of the world
Editors' notes and page, col. 892
Footnotes
(16) ‹anchor: Eusebium scilicet› · call in col 892
Euseb. H. E. vi, cap. 29.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6, ch. 29.
(printed under page 497)
(17) ‹anchor: Favianus vocatur› · call in col 892
Bolland. Act. SS., tom. II Jan., pag. 252 et 256 ; Tillemont. Mémoires sur S. Fabien, tom. III H. E., pag. 362 ; Bower Hist. Paparum, part. i, pag. 83.
Bollandists, Acta Sanctorum, January vol. 2, pp. 252 and 256; Tillemont, Mémoires on St Fabian, vol. 3 of the Ecclesiastical History, p. 362; Bower, History of the Popes, part 1, p. 83.
(printed under page 497)
(18) ‹anchor: erronea reprehendatur› · call in col 892
Fabric. tom. VI Biblioth. lat. med. et infirm. aetat., pag. 24.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis (Latin Library of the Middle and Late Ages), vol. 6, p. 24.
(printed under page 497)
(19) ‹anchor: si Philostorgio fides› · call in col 892
Philostorg. H. E. lib. viii, cap. 15. Hanc Philostorgii opinionem admodum verisimilem arbitratur Valesius ex eo, quod multos sectatores in Phrygia nactus fuerit Novatianus. Conf. Valesii not. f. ad lib. iv H. E., cap. 26. Socratis p. 212 edit. Taurinensis. E contra Cl. Jackson. praefat ad opp. Novatiani pag. 8 et Lardnerus in Credibil. of the G. H. part. ii, vol. IX, pag. 17, haud verisimilem censent.
Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History, book 8, ch. 15. Valesius judges this opinion of Philostorgius highly probable, on the ground that Novatian gained many followers in Phrygia. Compare Valesius's note f on book 4, ch. 26 of Socrates's Ecclesiastical History, p. 212 of the Turin edition. On the other hand the distinguished Jackson, in the preface to Novatian's works, p. 8, and Lardner in the Credibility of the Gospel History, part 2, vol. 9, p. 17, judge it improbable.
(printed under page 497)
(20) ‹anchor: haec habet› · call in col 892
Pacian. Epist. ii ad Sympron., tom. II Bibl. PP. Paris. pag. 56, Hieronym. Ep. ad Damasum (continues)
Pacian, Letter 2 to Sympronian, Paris Bibliotheca Patrum vol. 2, p. 56; Jerome, Letter to Damasus (continues)
(printed under page 497)
Page
- running head: S PRESBYTER ROMANUS. 892 (left part of running head cut off at image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹conclusionis communiter in favorem›; B ‹chaeus quoque nominatur›; C ‹ptoribus laudatum discrimen›; D ‹gio fides, saeculo III›
- old-edition numerals: 865 after ‹accidisse,›
- QA Q2: notes 16–18 have their calls in col 892 (Eusebium scilicet; Favianus vocatur; reprehendatur); n891 carries the same three with "call in col 891" and should drop them. Col 892 ends with saecu- (set whole as saeculi); the word fuisse that was joined here is printed at the head of col 893, whose file should open "fuisse audio."
- misprints kept as printed: ‹ante penes utramque partem› (ante makes no sense here; the English renders the sense "alike"; Q3)
- QA Q3 UNSURE: ‹Graecorum› in line 2 may be printed Graecoram (worn type); kept as Graecorum.
fuisse audio. » Quod quidem jam antea docuerat S. Cyprianus: ex quo etiam discimus, Stoicorum placitis ipsum fuisse addictum. Patria domo relicta Ro⟨m⟩am se contulit, e Porticu in Ecclesiam transiens. Adhuc Catechumenus gravi morbo correptus, Clinicus Baptismum suscepit. « Neque tamen, ut scribit S. Cornelius, sanitati restitutus reliqua percepit, quae secundum Ecclesiae regulam percipienda sunt; neque ab episcopo consignatus est. Deinceps, subdit idem sanctus pontifex, presbyterio cohonestatus est per gratiam et indulgentiam Episcopi... intercedebat enim omnis clerus, et multi ex laicis; eo quod non liceret eum qui, quemadmodum et ille, in lectulo urgente morbo perfusus fuisset, in clerum aliquem assumi. Verum rogavit episcopus, ut eum unum ordinare sibi permitteretur. »
he was, I hear.” This St Cyprian had indeed already taught before; from which we also learn that he was devoted to the doctrines of the Stoics. Leaving his native home he betook himself to Rome, passing over from the Porch into the Church. While still a catechumen, seized by a grave illness, he received clinical baptism. “Yet, as St Cornelius writes, when restored to health he did not receive the remaining things which are to be received according to the rule of the Church; nor was he sealed by the bishop. Thereafter, the same holy pontiff adds, he was honoured with the presbyterate through the favour and indulgence of the bishop... for the whole clergy objected, and many of the laity, because it was not lawful for one who, as he too had been, had been sprinkled in his bed under the pressure of illness, to be taken into the clergy at all. But the bishop asked that he be permitted to ordain this one man.”
V. Existimaverim quidem cum viris eruditis haud mediocri sacrarum litterarum scientia atque eloquentia, quibus imbutus erat Novatianus, permotum fuisse pontificem, sive is demum fuerit S. Fabianus, sive potius aliquis ex ejus decessoribus, ut ipsum ad presbyterii gradum eveheret: ratus nimirum hactenus duntaxat a consueta ecclesiastica disciplina sibi fas esse recedere, ob operam, quam illum Ecclesiae collaturum sperabat: et primo quidem conceptae existimationi eum satis respondisse, testis est locuples auctor Anonymus ipsi coaevus, dum ait: « Novatianum semper in domo una, id est, Christi Ecclesia, proximorum delicta ut propria flevisse; onera fratrum, sicut Apostolus bortatur, sustinuisse: lubricos in fide coelesti allocutione corroborasse. » Verum deinde palam fecit, quam indignus sacerdotio esset, ad quod contra consuetam Ecclesiae disceplinam fuerat evectus. Exorta enim persecntione Deciana cum a Diaconis moneretur, ut cubiculo, quo se concluserat, egrederetur, atque Presbyteri officio inter fratres laborantes et oppressos fungeretur, negabat, se id facturum, imo aperte significabat, modestum sibi Presbyteri munus esse, seque ad Philosophiam suam reverti velle: quemadmodum Cornelius testatur. Ad extremum tam perdit⟨a⟩e ambitionis aestu abreptus fuit, tamque dira flagrare coepit amentia, ut non puduerit « adversus Cornelium Cathedram sacerdotalem invadere: « verbis
V. I should indeed judge, with learned men, that the pontiff, whether he was in the end St Fabian or rather one of his predecessors, was moved by the no ordinary knowledge of sacred letters and eloquence with which Novatian was imbued to raise him to the rank of the presbyterate: thinking, that is, that it was lawful for him to depart from the customary ecclesiastical discipline only so far, on account of the service which he hoped that man would render to the Church; and that at first he did indeed answer sufficiently to the esteem conceived of him, a reliable witness is the anonymous author contemporary with him, when he says: “that Novatian always, in the one house, that is, the Church of Christ, wept over the sins of his neighbours as his own; bore the burdens of the brethren, as the Apostle exhorts; strengthened those slipping in the faith by heavenly address.” But afterwards he made it plain how unworthy he was of the priesthood to which he had been raised against the customary discipline of the Church. For when the Decian persecution had broken out and he was urged by the deacons to come out of the chamber in which he had shut himself up, and to perform the office of a presbyter among the brethren who were in distress and oppressed, he refused to do so, nay he openly declared that the office of presbyter was a moderate thing to him, and that he wished to return to his philosophy: as Cornelius testifies. At last he was carried away by the heat of so abandoned an ambition, and began to burn with so dire a madness, that he was not ashamed “to invade the priestly chair against Cornelius: “with words
Editors' notes and page, col. 893
Footnotes
(21) ‹anchor: docuerat S. Cyprianus› · call in col 893
S. Cyprian. Ep. lii ad Anton. Conf. Suyskenii Vita Cornelii p. 84 in Act. Sanctor. tom. IV Sept. pag. 154.
St Cyprian, Letter 52, to Antonianus. Compare Suysken's Life of Cornelius, p. 84, in the Acta Sanctorum, September vol. 4, p. 154.
(printed under page 498)
(22) ‹anchor: ut scribit S. Cornelius› · call in col 893
Cornel. Epist. ad Fabium Antioch. § 4.
Cornelius, Letter to Fabius of Antioch, § 4.
(printed under page 498)
(23) ‹anchor: idem sanctus pontifex› · call in col 893
Id. ibid. § 6.
The same, same place, § 6.
(printed under page 498)
(24) ‹anchor: cum viris eruditis› · call in col 893
Bollandi Act. SS. Sept. tom. IV, pag. 156.
Bollandus, Acta Sanctorum, September vol. 4, p. 156.
(printed under page 498)
(25) ‹anchor: Ecclesiae collaturum sperabat› · call in col 893
Num praeclara Novatiani merita, vel spes metusque episcopum induxerint. ut statim post susceptum Baptismum ad presbyterorum ordinem eum eveheret, ne sacris Christianis homo resiliret, et ad veteres sordes reverteretur, quam forte voluntatem non dissimulabat, uti Cl. Mosbemius, p. 516 comment, de rebus ante Constant. M. loquitur, quare hoc eum honore alligare quodammodo Ecclesiae, atque a defectione revocare volebat, judice Cl. Walchio Historia Haeresum pag. 197, parte ii, definiri haud facile potest. Falsas Eulogii narrationes de Novatianis refutat Suyskenius loc. cit.
Whether it was Novatian's outstanding merits, or hope and fear, that induced the bishop to raise him to the order of presbyters immediately after he had received Baptism, lest the man spring back from the Christian rites and return to his old filth (a wish which perhaps he did not conceal, as the distinguished Mosheim says, p. 516 of his commentary On Affairs before Constantine the Great), and why he therefore wished to bind him in some way to the Church by this honour and call him back from defection, cannot easily be determined, in the judgement of the distinguished Walch, History of Heresies, p. 197, part 2. Suysken, in the place cited, refutes Eulogius's false accounts of the Novatians.
(printed under page 498)
(26) ‹anchor: dum ait› · call in col 893
Anonymus ad Novatum § 13, inter Opp. Cypriani.
The Anonymous author, To Novatus, § 13, among the works of Cyprian.
(printed under page 498)
(27) ‹anchor: testatur› · call in col 893
Cornel. Epist. ad Fabium Antioch. apud Euseb.
Cornelius, Letter to Fabius of Antioch, in Eusebius.
(printed under page 498)
(28) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 893
Hieronym. de Vir. Illustr. cap. 70; Moshemius in comment. de rebus Christianis ante Constant. M., pag. 513, et Walchius part. ii Hist. Haeretic. pag. 231, ambitionis atque invidiae crimen a Novatiano removere conantur, sed mea opinione irrito conatu.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 70. Mosheim in his commentary On Christian Affairs before Constantine the Great, p. 513, and Walch, History of Heresies, part 2, p. 231, try to clear Novatian of the charge of ambition and envy, but in my opinion the attempt fails.
(printed under page 498)
Page
- running head: 893 NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A fuisse audio. » Quod 866 quidem; B mitteretur. »; C Apostolus bortatur, sustinuisse; D lium Cathedram sacerdotalem invadere
- old-edition numerals: 866 after Quod; 867 after Cornelius
- misprints kept as printed: ‹Apostolus bortatur› (for hortatur); ‹disceplinam› (for disciplinam); ‹persecntione› (for persecutione); ‹Ro:nam› and ‹perdit.e› are broken type, set Ro⟨m⟩am, perdit⟨a⟩e
- QA Q3: the call (28) is not printed in col 893's text; it presumably stands in col 894.
utor Hieronymi. Quibus autem artibus Romanam invaserit sedem, quibusve calumniis Cornelium ex ea deturbare conatus fuerit, Cyprianus ad Antonianum hisce refert verbis: « Quod autem quaedam de illo, » id est Cornelio Papa, « inhonesta, et maligna jactantur, nolo mireris; cum scias, hoc esse opus semper Diaboli, ut servos Dei mendacio laceret, et opinionibus falsis gloriosum nomen infamet; ut qui conscientiae suae luce clarescunt, alienis rumoribus sordidentur. Explorasse autem collegas nostros scias, et verissime comperisse, nulla illum libelli, ut quidam jactant, labe maculatum esse; sed neque cum episcopis, qui sacrificaverunt, communicationem sacrilegam miscuisse: sed eos demum, quorum causa audita, et innocentia comprobata sit, conjunxisse nobiscum. » Trophimum autem quemdam ab eodem cum Ecclesia jure reconciliatum fuisse, pluribus persequitur: deinde, « quod passim communicare cum sacrificatis Cornelium tibi nuntiatum est, hoc etiam de Apostatarum fictis rumoribus nascitur. Neque enim possunt laudare nos, qui recedunt, aut exspectare debemus, ut placeamus illis, qui nobis displicentes, et contra Ecclesiam rebelles, sollicitandis de Ecclesia fratribus violenter insistunt. Quare et de Cornelio, et de nobis quaecunque jactantur, nec audias facile, nec credas, frater charissime. » Hoc Cyprianus de calumniis in Cornelium papam vulgatis, quarum ea praecipua erat, quod lapsos ad communionem indiscriminatim admitteret: Novatianus e contra, ejusque sectarii ad pacem, et Ecclesiae communionem nuspiam admittendos esse censebant. Sed et Novatus Carthagine quidem ad captandam plebis auram lapsos sine discrimine ad communionem admiserat, ut narrat Cyprianus; at mutato Romae consilio, una cum Novatiano, nullam reconciliationis, aut communionis spem lapsis relinquebat: Ecclesia vero Catholica mediam iniens viam (quae tutissima est) singulorum examinata causa, post peractam pro criminum varietate poenitentiam, lapsis pacem, et communionem dabat.
of Jerome I make use. By what arts he invaded the Roman see, and by what calumnies he tried to dislodge Cornelius from it, Cyprian relates to Antonianus in these words: "That certain dishonourable and malicious things are bandied about concerning him," that is, Pope Cornelius, "I do not want you to wonder, since you know that this is always the work of the Devil, to tear the servants of God with lies and to defame a glorious name with false opinions, so that those who shine with the light of their own conscience may be sullied by the rumours of others. But know that our colleagues have investigated and have most truly found that he was stained with no taint of a certificate, as some boast; nor did he mingle sacrilegious communion with the bishops who sacrificed, but joined with us only those whose case had been heard and whose innocence had been proved." He then sets out at some length how a certain Trophimus was rightly reconciled with the Church by the same man; then: "As for your having been told that Cornelius communicates indiscriminately with those who sacrificed, this too springs from the invented rumours of the apostates. For those who depart cannot praise us, nor ought we to expect to please those who, being displeased with us and rebels against the Church, press violently on in enticing brethren away from the Church. Therefore whatever is bandied about concerning Cornelius and concerning us, neither listen to it readily nor believe it, dearest brother." So Cyprian, concerning the calumnies spread abroad against Pope Cornelius, of which the chief was that he admitted the lapsed to communion indiscriminately; Novatian on the contrary, and his followers, held that they were nowhere to be admitted to peace and to the communion of the Church. Novatus too, indeed, had at Carthage admitted the lapsed to communion without discrimination in order to catch the favour of the people, as Cyprian relates; but having changed his counsel at Rome, together with Novatian he left the lapsed no hope of reconciliation or of communion; the Catholic Church, however, taking the middle way (which is the safest), examined the case of each individual and, after penance had been completed according to the variety of the crimes, granted the lapsed peace and communion.
Interea cum de Cornelii, et Novatiani electione varii undique spargerentur rumores, ac fama veri falsique nuntia inter se contraria vulgaret; ut in re gravissima caute agerent Africani episcopi, legatos Romam, ut rem propius inspicerent, miserunt.
Meanwhile, since various rumours were being spread on every side about the election of Cornelius and of Novatian, and report, the messenger of truth and falsehood alike, was publishing things contrary to one another, the African bishops, in order to act cautiously in a most grave matter, sent envoys to Rome to examine the affair more closely.
Editors' notes and page, col. 894
Footnotes
(29) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 894
Cyprian. Ep. lii.
Cyprian, Letter 52.
(printed under page 498)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA. 894
- marginal letters: A utor Hieronymi; B Trophimum autem quemdam; C clesiae communionem nuspiam; D legatos Romam, ut rem
- old-edition numerals: (none)
Vix autem legati Romam advenerant, cum repente Novatianus Episcopus ordinatus est. Qua autem ratione Novatianus Romanam sedem invaserit, ac Episcopus fuerit ordinatus, Cornelius ad Fabium Antiochenum episcopum pluribus persequitur, cum scilicet episcopalis dignitatis cupiditate incensum suam aliquandiu ambitionem affectata humilitate texisse, ut fidei confessores sibi sociaret: brevi tamen, quis fuerit, quantoque superbiae spiritu duceretur, apparuisse. « Nam egregius ille vir, qui tremendis quibusdam sacramentis affirmaverat, se episcopatum non concupiscere, repente tanquam ex machina quadam in medium projectus episcopus apparuit. Et is, qui se doctorem, et ecclesiasticae disciplinae propugnatorem ferebat, cum episcopatum sibi a Deo minime concessum rapere, ac vindicare conaretur, duos deploratae salutis homines sibi socios adjunxit, ut eos in exiguam, ac vilissimam Italiae partem mitteret, atque illinc accitos tres episcopos, homines plane rudes, ac simplices, fraudulenta quadam molitione deciperet, constantissime affirmans, ipsos quamprimum Romam proficisci oportere, ut omnis undecunque orta discordia ipsorum una cum aliis episcopis interventu, atque arbitrio sedaretur. Qui cum advenissent homines, ut jam diximus, simplicioris ingenii, nec in his perditorum hominum artibus, ac fallaciis satis triti, eos ille, a quibusdam sui simillimis, quos ad id comparaverat, inclusos hora decima, temulentos, et crapula oppressos, adumbrata quadam, et inani manuum impositione episcopatum sibi tradere per vim cogit; eumque nullo sibi jure competentem per fraudem atque insidias vindicat. Nec multo post unus ex illis episcopis ad Ecclesiam rediit, delictum suum cum lamentis ac fletibus confitens. Quem nos, cum universus populus pro illo intercessisset, ad communionem laicam suscepimus. »
But scarcely had the legates arrived at Rome when suddenly Novatian was ordained bishop. By what means Novatian invaded the Roman see and was ordained bishop, Cornelius relates at length to Fabius, bishop of Antioch: namely that, burning with desire for the episcopal dignity, he had for some time concealed his ambition under a feigned humility, so as to associate the confessors of the faith with himself; yet in a short time it became apparent who he was and by how great a spirit of pride he was led. « For that excellent man, who had affirmed with certain dreadful oaths that he did not covet the episcopate, suddenly appeared a bishop, as if thrown into our midst out of some machine. And he who presented himself as a teacher and a champion of ecclesiastical discipline, when he was attempting to seize and claim for himself the episcopate that had by no means been granted to him by God, joined to himself as associates two men whose salvation was despaired of, in order to send them into a small and most insignificant part of Italy, and to deceive by some fraudulent contrivance three bishops summoned from there, men utterly unlearned and simple, most insistently affirming that they must set out for Rome as soon as possible, so that all discord, from whatever quarter it had arisen, might be settled by their intervention and arbitration together with other bishops. When these men had come, men, as we have already said, of rather simple mind and not sufficiently practised in the arts and deceits of abandoned men, he had them shut in by certain men most like himself, whom he had procured for that purpose, and at the tenth hour, when they were drunk and overcome with surfeit, he compels them by force to confer the episcopate on him by a shadowy and empty imposition of hands; and that episcopate, which by no right belongs to him, he claims for himself through fraud and treachery. Not long afterwards one of those bishops returned to the Church, confessing his offence with lamentations and weeping. Him we received to lay communion, since the whole people had interceded for him. »
VI. Quos vero seduxerat, ut in schismate confirmaret, sacrilegio Novatianus constingebat; nam Eucharistiam porrigens, ac manus ejus, qui eam accipiebat, ambabus suis manibus comprehensas retinens, « Jura mihi, dicebat, per corpus et sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi, te nunquam meas partes deserturum, nec ad Cornelium esse rediturum. » Et cum panem illum accipiens dicere debuisset « Amen, » ejus loco respondere cogebatur: « Non revertar deinceps ad Cornelium. » Occupato in hunc modum pseudo-episcopatu, legatos suos quaquaversum transmisit, qui id nuntiarent; et si Socrati credimus, simul edicerent, « uti eos, qui simulacris immolassent, minime ad mysteria admitterent, sed hortarentur ad poenitentiam,
VI. Those whom he had seduced, however, Novatian bound by a sacrilege, so as to confirm them in the schism; for, holding out the Eucharist and keeping the hands of the one receiving it clasped in both of his own, he would say: « Swear to me by the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ that you will never desert my party nor return to Cornelius. » And when the one receiving that bread ought to have said « Amen, » he was compelled to answer in its place: « I will not return henceforth to Cornelius. » Having occupied the pseudo-episcopate in this manner, he sent his legates in every direction to announce it; and, if we believe Socrates, at the same time to proclaim « that they should by no means admit to the mysteries those who had sacrificed to idols, but should exhort them to penance,
Editors' notes and page, col. 895
Footnotes
(30) ‹anchor: si Socrati› · call in col 895
Socrat. H. E. lib. iv, cap. 18, al. 23.
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, ch. 18 (elsewhere 23).
(printed under page 499)
(31) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 895
Euseb. H. E. lib. iv, cap. 45.
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, ch. 45.
(printed under page 499)
(32) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 895
Cyprian. Epist. xlv ad Cornelium.
Cyprian, Letter 45, to Cornelius.
(printed under page 499)
(33) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 895
Num solum inter Schismaticos, an etiam inter haereticos referendi sint Novatiani, apud Criticos controversum est: res tota mea opinione dependet a diversa notione haeretici. Videsis Cl. Walchii Haeresiologiam part. ii, pag. 283 et seqq.
Whether the Novatians should be counted only among schismatics or also among heretics is disputed among the critics; in my opinion the whole matter depends on the differing notion of a heretic. See the distinguished Walch's Heresiology, part 2, p. 283 ff.
(printed under page 499)
Page
- running head: 895 NOVATIANUS PRESBYTE[...] (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹runt. Vix autem legati Romam advenerant›; B ‹cessum rapere, ac vindicare conaretur›; C ‹episcopatum sibi tradere per vim cogit›; D ‹buisset « Amen, » ejus loco respondere›
- old-edition numerals: 868 after ‹Novatianus›
remissionemque Deo permitterent. » Ne tamen apostolicam Cathedram turpiter invasisse videretur, simulavit veterator sese invitum ad eam evectum fuisse, ut ex Dionysii Alexandrini Epistola ab Eusebio laudata constat, in qua eum inter caetera admonet, hortaturque, ut quam invitum se ascendisse Romanam Cathedram scripserat, sponte relinqueret: « Si quidem invitus, ut asseris, eo adductus es, id nobis ostendes, tua sponto redeundo: » cum satius fuisset quidvis pati, quam Ecclesiam Dei tam funesto schismate discindere, ut pluribus eodem loco Dionysius persequitur. Dionysium Alexandrinum imitatus est Cyprianus, qui, coacto Carthagine concilio, legatos una eum epistolis Novatiani adjiciendos jussit Anno 251, in concilio Romano a sexaginta episcopis ibidem congregatis denique extra Ecclesiam Novatianus omnino expulsus est. Cum tamen semper doceret. Ecclesiam nec posse nec debere apostatis pacem dare, haec severitas multis placuit, duxque haereseos, quae diu in Ecclesia obtinuit, factus est.
and should leave the forgiveness to God. » Yet, so that he should not seem to have shamefully seized the apostolic Chair, the old schemer pretended that he had been raised to it against his will, as is clear from the Letter of Dionysius of Alexandria cited by Eusebius, in which among other things he admonishes and exhorts him to give up of his own accord the Roman Chair which he had written that he had ascended against his will: « If indeed, as you assert, you were brought to it unwillingly, you will show us this by withdrawing of your own accord: » since it would have been better to suffer anything at all than to tear apart the Church of God by so deadly a schism, as Dionysius pursues at greater length in the same place. Cyprian followed the example of Dionysius of Alexandria, and, having assembled a council at Carthage, ordered that the legates together with the letters of Novatian be rejected. In the year 251, in a Roman council, by sixty bishops gathered there, Novatian was at last expelled altogether from the Church. Since, however, he always taught that the Church neither can nor ought to give peace to apostates, this severity pleased many, and he became the leader of a heresy which long held sway in the Church.
Quae fata viri hujus post expulsionem ex Ecclesia Romana fuerint, omnino ignoratur. Num vero egregio confessionis martyrio vitam in persecutione Valeriani, quemadmodum Socrates refert, finierit, magna contentione inter Scriptores tum antiquioris, tum recentioris aetatis controvertitur, aliis quidem affirmantibus, oliis autem negantibus.
What the fortunes of this man were after his expulsion from the Roman Church is wholly unknown. But whether he ended his life by a glorious martyrdom of confession in the persecution of Valerian, as Socrates reports, is disputed with great contention among writers both of older and of more recent times, some affirming it, others denying it.
CAPUT II.
Chapter II.
NOVANIANI SCRIPTA ET DOCTRINA.
The Writings and Doctrine of Novatian.
ARTIC. I. De libro Novatiani de Trinitate.
Article I. On Novatian's Book On the Trinity.
I. Praeter Epistolam ante ejus schisma nomine cleri Romani scriptam, Hieronymus testatur tractatus sequentes composuisse Novatianum, nimirum de Paschate, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de summo Sacerdote, de Oratione, de cibis Judaicis, de Attali constantia, multosque alios cum magno volumine de Trinitate, quod est quasi compendium Tertulliani operis, quod multi Cypriano tribuunt; non quod Tertullianus dedita opera de Trinitate librum scripsisset, sed, qua quidquid de Trinitate dicebat, ex libris Tertulliani desumpserat. Nullum horum operum sub Novatiani nomine exstat; sed admodum verisimile est tractatum de Trinitate, librumque de cibis Judaicis qui apud Tertullianum habentur, eosdem esse, quos Hieronymus Novatiano ascribit.
I. Besides the Letter written before his schism in the name of the Roman clergy, Jerome testifies that Novatian composed the following treatises, namely On the Passover, On the Sabbath, On Circumcision, On the High Priest, On Prayer, On Jewish Foods, On the Constancy of Attalus, and many others, together with a great volume On the Trinity, which is a kind of compendium of a work of Tertullian, and which many attribute to Cyprian; not that Tertullian had purposely written a book on the Trinity, but because whatever he said about the Trinity he had taken from the books of Tertullian. None of these works survives under the name of Novatian; but it is very probable that the treatise On the Trinity and the book On Jewish Foods which are found among the works of Tertullian are the same as those which Jerome ascribes to Novatian.
II. Principem itaque inter Novatiani scripta locum obtinet liber de Trinitate, de quo haec sanctus Hieronymus: « Novatianus Romanus Ecclesiae
II. The chief place, therefore, among the writings of Novatian is held by the book On the Trinity, about which Saint Jerome [writes] this: "Novatian, of the Roman Church
Editors' notes and page, col. 896
Footnotes
(34) ‹anchor: Socrates refert› · call in col 896
Socrat. H. E. lib. iv, cap. 28.
Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 4, ch. 28.
(printed under page 499)
(35) ‹anchor: oliis autem negantibus› · call in col 896
Videsis Tillemont. Mémoir. tom. III, pag. 212 et seqq , art. 3.
See Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. 3, p. 212 ff., art. 3.
(printed under page 499)
(36) ‹anchor: volumine de Trinitate› · call in col 896
Hieronym. de Vir. Illustr. cap. 70.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 70.
(printed under page 499)
(37) ‹anchor: sanctus Hieronymus› · call in col 896
Id. ibidem.
The same, same place.
(printed under page 499)
Page
- running head: [NOVATIANU]S PRESBYTER ROMANUS. 896 (left part of the head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹remissionemque Deo permitterent›; B ‹jussit (32) Anno 251›; C ‹NOVANIANI SCRIPTA ET DOCTRINA›; D ‹exstat; sed admodum verisimile›
- old-edition numerals: 869 after ‹quam›
Presbyter.... scripsit... de Trinitate grande volumen, » quasi ἐπιτομὴν operis Tertulliani faciens; quod plerique nescientes, Cypriani « existimant » Hinc fortasse orta occasio Rufino scribendi Macedonianos Tertulliani librum de Trinitate Constantinopoli sub nomine Cypriani evulgasse, quo haeresi suae auctoritatem accerserent. Cui quidem Rufini sententiae occurrens idem Hieronymus: « Transit, inquit, inclytum martyrem, et dicit Tertulliani librum, cui titulus est de Trinitate, sub nomine ejus Constantinopoli a Macedonianae partis haereticis lectitari. In quo crimine mentitur duo. Nam nec Tertulliani liber est, nec Cypriani dicitur, sed Novatiani, cujus et inscribitur titulo et auctoris eloquium styli proprietas demonstrat. » Ad quem locum nolim equidem excidisse nupero Hieronymianorum Operum editori CL. Viro Domino Vallarsio, caetera erudito, annotationem illam, qua monentur Lectores, « haud exstare Novatiani Librum Tertulliani operis ἐπιτομήν. »
a presbyter.... wrote... a great volume on the Trinity,” as though making an epitome of the work of Tertullian; which most people, not knowing [this], “think” to be Cyprian’s.” Hence perhaps arose Rufinus’s occasion for writing that the Macedonians had published at Constantinople, under the name of Cyprian, Tertullian’s book on the Trinity, in order to procure authority for their heresy. Meeting this opinion of Rufinus, the same Jerome says: “He passes over,” he says, “to the renowned martyr, and says that a book of Tertullian, whose title is On the Trinity, is read at Constantinople under his name by heretics of the Macedonian party. In which charge he tells two lies. For it is neither Tertullian’s book, nor is it said to be Cyprian’s, but Novatian’s, under whose title it is also inscribed, and the distinctive character of its style shows the eloquence of its author.” On this passage I could indeed wish that the recent editor of the Works of Jerome, the most illustrious Dom Vallarsi, a man learned in other respects, had not let fall that annotation by which readers are advised that “the book of Novatian is not extant as an epitome of the work of Tertullian.”
III. Caeterum, ut viri docti verba usurpem, nil sane mirum, haereticos ad erroris defensionem veterum Testimoniis abuti; nec jam fere quidquam puri et intaminati superesset, si, quidquid isti ad causae suae praesidium arripuerunt, erroris nota signaretur. Sed minus considerate factum a Rufino, ut hunc librum de Spiritus sancti Divinitate mirifice disserentem « Pneumatomachis » traderet. Siquidem auctor « fidem in Spiritum sanctum » itidem ut in Patrem et Filium necessariam esse docet; immutabilitatem, quam inter certissimas Divinitatis notas recenset, Spiritui sancto vindicat: ipsi quoque conceptis verbis « divinam aeternitatem » tribuit; Spiritum item sanctum miracula edere; immortalitatem dare; ubique adesse praesentem, aliaque complura peragere, quae solius Dei esse fides agnoscit, aperte profitetur. Quis ergo Novatiani Doctrinam de Spiritu sancto non probet cui haec omnia accuratissime ascribit? Reliqua porro, quae Pamelius tanquam minus pronuntiata reprehendit, et Rufino similiter displicuisse putat, paulo infra expendemus.
III. For the rest, to borrow the words of a learned man, it is no wonder at all that heretics misuse the testimonies of the ancients in defence of their error; nor would anything pure and undefiled now remain, if whatever these men have seized upon for the protection of their cause were branded with the mark of error. But it was done rather inconsiderately by Rufinus, that he should hand over to the “Pneumatomachi” this book, which discourses admirably on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. For the author teaches that “faith in the Holy Spirit” is necessary just as in the Father and the Son; immutability, which he reckons among the most certain marks of Divinity, he claims for the Holy Spirit; to Him also, in express words, he attributes “divine eternity”; and he openly professes that the Holy Spirit likewise works miracles, gives immortality, is present everywhere, and accomplishes very many other things which faith recognizes as belonging to God alone. Who then would not approve the doctrine of Novatian concerning the Holy Spirit, to Whom he most carefully ascribes all these things? The remaining points, moreover, which Pamelius censures as less [soundly] expressed, and thinks likewise displeased Rufinus, we shall weigh a little below.
IV. Unum adhuc hic addere liceat, ad locum illum pertinens, qui laudato Pamelio errandi ansam
IV. Let me be allowed to add here one thing more, pertaining to that passage by which, for the aforesaid Pamelius, a handle for erring
Editors' notes and page, col. 897
Footnotes
(38) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Ἐπιτομήν. Mihi etiamnum arridet, inquit Cl. Vallarsius in laudat. S. Hieronymi locum, conjectura Pamelii suspicantis ἐπίτασιν reponendum pro ἐπιτομήν, cum nullus allius Tertulliani de Trinitate ex proposito agens liber sit, aut olim fuerit, quam qui adversum Praxeam inscribitur, hic vero Novatiani lucubratione multo sit brevior : eaque adeo Tertulliani operis ἐπιτομήν, sive compendium dici nullo modo potuerit sed e contrario ἐπίτασις, sive dilatatio argumenti. Nec infrequens Hieronymo est ἐπιτάσεω voce uti eo sensu, quo aliquid copiosius tractari significatur, sive cum rei cujuspiam accessione denotari. Denique cum ait de Rufino, contra eumdem scribens lib. ii, num. 20, dicit : Tertulliani librum, cui titulus est de Trinitate, sub nomine Cypriani Constantinopoli a Macedoniae partis haereticis lectitari. In quo crimine mentitur duo; nam nec Tertulliani liber est, nec Cypriani dicitur, sed Novatiani, cujus et inscribitur titulo, nullo verbo innuit expressum eum librum ex Tertulliano, quod utique praecavere debuisset, ne quid adversarius reponeret.
"Epitome" (ἐπιτομήν). The conjecture of Pamelius, says the distinguished Vallarsi on the cited place of St Jerome, still pleases me: he suspected that ἐπίτασιν (expansion) should be restored for ἐπιτομήν (epitome), since there is not, nor ever was, any other book of Tertullian dealing expressly with the Trinity than the one entitled Against Praxeas, and that is much shorter than Novatian's work; so that it could in no way be called an epitome or compendium of Tertullian's work, but on the contrary an ἐπίτασις, an amplification of the argument. Nor is it unusual for Jerome to use the word ἐπίτασις in the sense of treating something more fully, or of marking it with some addition. Finally, when, writing against Rufinus, book 2, no. 20, he says of him: "that a book of Tertullian entitled On the Trinity is read under Cyprian's name at Constantinople by heretics of the Macedonian party. In this charge he tells two lies: for it is neither Tertullian's book nor is it said to be Cyprian's, but Novatian's, under whose title it is also inscribed," he gives no hint in any word that the book was drawn from Tertullian, which he certainly ought to have guarded against, lest his adversary make some reply.
(printed under page 500)
(39) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Ruf. de adulterat Lib. Origen., pag. 53, ad calcem tom. IV opp. Origen edit. Paris. 1759.
Rufinus, On the Falsification of the Books of Origen, p. 53, at the end of vol. 4 of Origen's works, Paris edition, 1759.
(printed under page 500)
(40) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Hieronym. Lib. ii contra Rufin. § 19.
Jerome, Against Rufinus, book 2, § 19.
(printed under page 500)
(41) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Vallars. Not. a pag. 313. ; tom. ii, part. i. edit. Venet. in-4o. 1767.
Vallarsi, note a on p. 313; vol. 2, part 1, Venice quarto edition, 1767.
(printed under page 500)
(42) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Maran. de Divinit. Christ. lib. iv, cap. 19, § 3, pag. 519.
Maran, On the Divinity of Christ, book 4, ch. 19, § 3, p. 519.
(printed under page 500)
(43) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Novat. de Trinitat. cap. 29.
Novatian, On the Trinity, ch. 29.
(printed under page 500)
(44) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 897
Ibid., cap. 31.
Same work, ch. 31.
(printed under page 500)
(45) ‹anchor: necessariam esse docet› · call in col 897
Method. de Creat. § 8.
Methodius, On Created Things, § 8.
(printed under page 500)
Page
- running head: 897 NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹Presbyter.... scripsit... de Trinitate›; B ‹dem excidisse nupero Hieronymianorum›; C ‹(45); immutabilitatem, quam inter›; D ‹Vallarsius in laudat. S. Hieronymi locum› (in the footnotes)
- old-edition numerals: 870 after ‹faciens;›; 871 after ‹tanquam›
praebere visus est. Sub operis finem egregiam unitatis substantiae in Patre et Filio asseverationem attexens Novatianus, haec habet de Verbo Dei: « Omnia, inquit, post ipsum sunt, quia per ipsum sunt. Et merito ipse est ante omnia, sed post Patrem, quando per illum facta sunt omnia. Deus utique procedens ex Deo, secundam personam efficiens post Patrem qua Filius, sed non eripiens illud Patri, quod unus est Deus. » Cui quidem sententiae simillima et maxime genuina sunt, quae sanctus Methodius in Libro de Creatis; ubi de Verbi principatu apud Patrem agens sic inquit: Οὐκοῦν ἀρχὴ μετὰ τὴν ἰδίαν ἄναρχον ἀρχὴν, τὸν Πατέρα, αὐτὸς τῶν ἄλλων γίνεται, δι' ἧς ἅπαντα δημιουργεῖται. » Post ergo singulare illud Principium absque principio, qui est Pater, est ipsum » (Verbum) aliorum principium, « per quod omnia creantur. » Ubi sancti Martyris verba edisserens Combefisius, Patris, ait, illam ingeniti notionem ac auctoritatem insinuat Methodius, qua etiam emanationem ad intra, totiusque Trinitatis fons dicitur, et est unus ipse ἀρχὴ ἄναρχος: non utique ad existentiae prioris exclusionem; sic enim et Filius est ἄναρχος, ut bene Gregorius Orat. de Theolog. aliique passim Graeci; sed per remotionem αἰτίας, ac velut causae, principiique essendi: nam causam in Divinis non ita ferunt Latini, ut nec Graeci ἀρχήν; bono utrique sensu, aliisque et aliis verbis, quod sanum est, explicantes.
seemed to be provided. Towards the end of the work, appending a remarkable assertion of the unity of substance in the Father and the Son, Novatian says this concerning the Word of God: « All things, he says, are after Him, because they are through Him. And deservedly He is before all things, but after the Father, since through Him all things were made. God indeed proceeding from God, constituting a second person after the Father as Son, but not snatching from the Father this, that He is one God. » Very similar to this statement, and entirely genuine, are the words which Saint Methodius has in the Book on Created Things, where, treating of the Word's rank as principle with the Father, he speaks thus: Therefore He Himself, after His own beginningless Beginning, the Father, becomes the beginning of the other things, through which all things are fashioned. » After, then, that singular Principle without principle, which is the Father, it » (the Word) is the principle of the other things, « through which all things are created. » Expounding the holy Martyr's words here, Combefis says: Methodius suggests that notion of the Father as unbegotten, and that authority, by which, with respect to the emanation ad intra as well, He is called the fount of the whole Trinity, and He alone is ἀρχὴ ἄναρχος: not indeed so as to exclude a prior existence, for in that sense the Son too is ἄναρχος, as Gregory rightly says in the Oration on Theology, and the other Greeks everywhere; but by the removal of αἰτία, as it were of a cause and principle of being: for the Latins do not admit "cause" in divine matters in that way, just as the Greeks do not admit ἀρχή; both of them explaining in a sound sense, and with various different words, what is sound.
Eodem plane sensu, et Novatiani verba accipienda, qui jure concludebat, duos fore Deos, si Filius esset ingenitus: nam duae forent substantiae, cum neuter ab altero Divinitatem accepisset. Cum igitur Novatiano nihil aliud propositum sit, quam ut illud incommodum ex duobus ingenitis consequens fugiat, jam non laedit catholicam doctrinam sed confirmat, sive dum Patrem unum esse Deum asserit, quia Filius ab eo Divinitatem accepit; sive dum Filium idcirco Patre minorem, idcirco Patri obsequentem facit, quia Pater fons et origo Divinitatis. Ad summam, ut demum concludamus, Novatianus ea Filio non tribuit, « quaecunque sunt Patris, » non vero negat, quaecunque sunt Dei.
In exactly the same sense are the words of Novatian also to be taken, who rightly concluded that there would be two Gods if the Son were unbegotten: for there would be two substances, since neither would have received Divinity from the other. Since, then, Novatian has no other purpose than to escape that difficulty which follows from two unbegotten beings, he does not harm Catholic doctrine but confirms it, whether when he asserts that the Father is the one God, because the Son received Divinity from Him; or when he makes the Son less than the Father for this reason, and obedient to the Father for this reason, because the Father is the fount and origin of Divinity. In sum, to conclude at last, Novatian does not attribute to the Son « whatever things are the Father's, » but he does not deny whatever things are God's.
V. Nunc vero inquirendum superest quo tempore
5. Now, however, it remains to inquire at what time
Editors' notes and page, col. 898
Footnotes
(46) ‹anchor: Filio non tribuit› · call in col 898
Novatian. l. c. cap. 31.
Novatian, in the place cited, ch. 31.
(printed under page 500)
(47) ‹anchor: quaecunque sunt Dei› · call in col 898
Vide Maran. l. c. pag. 518.
See Maran, in the place cited, p. 518.
(printed under page 500)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹praebere visus est›; B ‹pium absque principio›; C ‹esset ingenitus›; D ‹vatiani, cujus et inscribitur titulo› (in the footnote area)
- old-edition numerals: (none)
- footnote calls (44) after ‹de Verbo Dei› and (45) after ‹agens sic inquit› stand in this column; their notes are filed in n897 (call recorded there as col 897)
hunc commentarium scripserit Novatianus. Existimavit quidem Baronius, commentarium de Trinitate fuisse ab auctore litteris consignatum circa Christi annum CCLXX, quo a Patribus concilii Antiocheni damnatus est Paulus Samosatenus: propterea scilicet, quod viro magno visus fuerit scriptor ille Samosateni haeresim, licet suppresso nomine, fortiter impugnasse. Verum nihil obstat, quonimus Novatianus dimicasse potius dicatur adversus Arteman, cujus haereseos deinceps sectatorem propagatoremque Samosatenum fuisse constat. Sic enim Antiochenae Synodi Patres. Τῷ δὲ Ἀρτεμᾷ οὗτος ἐπιτελλέτω καὶ οἱ τὰ Ἀρτεμᾶ φρονοῦντες τούτῳ κοινωνείτωσαν. « Hic vero (Paulus Samosatenus) ad Arteman scribat, si lubet; et qui Arteman sectantur, cum eo communicent. » Alii autem, quos inter Tillemontius, et Caveus ocius quidem, post schisma tamen, opus suum conscripsisse Novatianum conjiciunt; nam, inquiunt, Sabelii meminit auctor, ejusque impietatem convellit; qui scilicet ex Dionysii Alexandrini litteris Sixto II inscriptis post medium demum saeculi III, haeresim suam sparsisse comperitur. At vero sententia ejus modi haud levibus difficultatibus invenitur implicita. Sabellius enim, ut liquet ex Philastrio, et Augustino, Noeti discipulus fuit, cujus proinde blasphemiarum exstitit propagator. Quid vero de Noeto memoriae proditum? Nimirum, S. Hippolytus, qui circa Domini annum CCXX floruit, ut agnoscit ipsemet Tillemontius, adversus Noetum scribens testatur « non multo ante, οὐ πρὸ πολλοῦ χρόνου, ipsum impietatem suam palam prodidisse, quia ab Ecclesiae communione propterea ejectus, « paulo post moritur, » inquit Epiphanius, τελευτᾷ δὲ αὐτὸς ἔναρχος. Jam vero si quis Hippolytum cum Epiphanio conferat, colligat necesse est Noetum, « qui non multo ante » anum CCXX contumeliosum in Deum Patrem Dogma evomuit, quippe paulo post mortem oppetiit ineunte saeculo III, ut maxime, satanicam illam doctrinam discipulis suis disseminandam reliquisse. His autem positis, quis porro sibi persuadeat, Sabelium Noeti discipulum post quadraginta circiter annos ab obitu praeceptoris sui, haeresin demum Noetianam instaurare ac promulgare coepisse ?
Novatian wrote this treatise. Baronius indeed judged that the treatise On the Trinity was committed to writing by its author around the year of Christ 270, in which Paul of Samosata was condemned by the Fathers of the council of Antioch: on the ground, namely, that it seemed to that great man that this writer had vigorously attacked the heresy of the Samosatene, though with his name suppressed. But nothing prevents Novatian from being said rather to have fought against Artemas, of whose heresy it is agreed that the Samosatene was afterwards the follower and propagator. For thus the Fathers of the Synod of Antioch: "But let this man write to Artemas, and let those who think the things of Artemas be in communion with him." "But let this man (Paul of Samosata) write to Artemas, if he pleases; and let those who follow Artemas communicate with him." Others, however, among whom are Tillemont and Cave, conjecture that Novatian composed his work earlier indeed, yet after the schism; for, they say, the author mentions Sabellius and tears down his impiety; and he, as is learned from the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Sixtus II, spread his heresy only after the middle of the third century. But an opinion of this kind is found to be entangled in no slight difficulties. For Sabellius, as is clear from Philastrius and Augustine, was a disciple of Noetus, and accordingly became the propagator of his blasphemies. And what has been handed down to memory about Noetus? Why, St Hippolytus, who flourished around the year of the Lord 220, as Tillemont himself acknowledges, writing against Noetus, testifies that "not long before", "not long before", he had openly brought forth his impiety, because, having been cast out of the communion of the Church for that reason, "he dies shortly after," says Epiphanius, "and he died recently." Now if anyone compares Hippolytus with Epiphanius, he must conclude that Noetus, who "not long before" the year 220 vomited forth a dogma insulting to God the Father, since he met his death shortly afterwards, at the beginning of the third century at the latest, left that satanic doctrine to his disciples to be disseminated. These things being laid down, who further would persuade himself that Sabellius, the disciple of Noetus, only some forty years after the death of his teacher began to restore and promulgate the Noetian heresy?
Nolim equidem infitiari, Dionysium anno Christi CCLVII ad istum scripsisse περὶ τοῦ νῦν κινηθέντος ἐν τῇ Πτολεμαΐδι δόγματος, hoc est, Valesio interprete, « de dogmate illo, quod nuper, inquit, apud
I would not indeed deny that Dionysius in the year of Christ 257 wrote to him "about the doctrine now stirred up in Ptolemais", that is, with Valesius as interpreter, "about that doctrine which recently," he says, "at
Editors' notes and page, col. 899
Footnotes
(48) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Baron. ad ann. 272. § 15.
Baronius, Annals, year 272, § 15.
(printed under page 501)
(49) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Apud Euseb. H. E. lib. vii, cap. 30
In Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, ch. 30.
(printed under page 501)
(50) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Tillemont. Mem. tom. III, art. 3, sur les Novat.
Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. 3, art. 3, on the Novatians.
(printed under page 501)
(51) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Cave Hist. litterar. ad annum 251, tom. I.
Cave, Literary History, at the year 251, vol. 1.
(printed under page 501)
(52) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Novat. de Trinit. cap. 12.
Novatian, On the Trinity, ch. 12.
(printed under page 501)
(53) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 899
Dionys. Alexandr. apus Euseb. H. E. lib. vii, cap. 6.
Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, ch. 6.
(printed under page 501)
(54) ‹anchor: ex Philastrio› · call in col 899
Philastr. de Haeres. cap 54.
Philastrius, On Heresies, ch. 54.
(printed under page 501)
(55) ‹anchor: et Augustino› · call in col 899
August. Haeres. 41.
Augustine, On Heresies 41.
(printed under page 501)
(56) ‹anchor: ipsemet Tillemontius› · call in col 899
Tillemont. l. c.
Tillemont, in the place cited.
(printed under page 501)
(57) ‹anchor: scribens testatur› · call in col 899
Hippolyt. adv. Noet. § 1
Hippolytus, Against Noetus, § 1.
(printed under page 501)
(58) ‹anchor: inquit Epiphanius› · call in col 899
Epiphan. Haeres. 57, § 1.
Epiphanius, Heresies 57, § 1.
(printed under page 501)
Page
- running head: 899 NOVATIANUS PRESBYTE (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹hunc commentarium scripserit›; B ‹bet; et qui Arteman sectantur› (between this line and ‹cent. » Alii autem›); C ‹tur « non multo ante›; D ‹Nolim equidem infitiari›
- old-edition numerals: 872 after ‹scriptor›
- other: editors' matter set in full: the editor's dissertation on the date of Novatian's De Trinitate (‹hunc commentarium scripserit Novatianus›); the right-hand column (900) is cut off and not set; Sabelii and Sabelium (single l) are set as printed beside Sabellius, possibly a variant spelling rather than a misprint; UNSURE: ‹eo› in ‹cum eo communicent› has damaged type; UNSURE: ‹praeceptoris›, whose first vowel is unclear in print (possibly prec-/prœc-); UNSURE whether ἐπιτελλέτω and ἔναρχος are true misprints or misreadings of worn Greek type; the column ends mid-sentence at ‹apud›
Ptolemaidem commotum est. » Verum non ait Dionysius, eam doctrinam a Sabellio fuisse « nuper » apud Ptolemenses invectam: quin imo Eusebius, qui Dionysii Epistolam integram prae oculis habebat, fragmentum illud recitans diserte testatur, Episcopum Alexandrinum de Sabellianis περὶ τῶν κατὰ Σαβέλλιον αἱρετικῶν, sermonem habuisse: ut propterea Dionysii verba de Sabellii potius sectatoribus, qui tunc temporis increbrescebant, quam de ipso Sabellio sint accipienda. Hunc siquidem jam dudum pravis Noeti, magistri sui, erroribus imbutum, eos longe ante in vulgus sparsisse oportuit: adeoque ipsius haeresim ante annum CCL Novatianus impugnasse existimandus; quo tempore scilicet Ecclesiae Romanae presbyter, orthodoxam ejus doctrinam profitebatur propugnabatque. Atque hujusmodi quidem sententiam Pamelio primum arri⟨s⟩isse, deinde Jacksonum pluribus astruxisse comperimus.
Ptolemais was stirred up." But Dionysius does not say that this doctrine had been brought in "recently" among the people of Ptolemais by Sabellius; nay rather, Eusebius, who had the entire Letter of Dionysius before his eyes, in quoting that fragment expressly testifies that the Bishop of Alexandria had held a discourse concerning the Sabellians, "concerning the heretics after Sabellius", so that the words of Dionysius are to be understood rather of the followers of Sabellius, who at that time were growing in number, than of Sabellius himself. For he, long since imbued with the depraved errors of Noetus, his master, must have spread them among the common people long before; and accordingly Novatian is to be judged to have attacked his heresy before the year 250, at the time, namely, when as a presbyter of the Roman Church he professed and defended its orthodox doctrine. And we find that an opinion of this kind first commended itself to Pamelius, and that afterwards Jackson built it up with many arguments.
VI. Analysis hujus Libri. — Dividitur tractatus Novatiani de Trinitate, in triginta et unum capita⟨.⟩ Primum de iis verbis » regulae veritatis, » seu « fidei » (quam Symbolum vocamus) commentatur, quae nos credere jubent « in Deum Patrem et Dominum omnipotentem, rerum omnium perfectissimum creatorem, » a capite I, ad VIII usque; ubi inter alia etiam attributa divina, immensitatem, aeternitatem, unitatem, bonitatem, immutabilitatem, immortalitatem, spiritualitatem partim ex ratione, partim ex SS. Litteris astruit; additque nec passiones, nec membra Deo attribui posse, haecque in Scriptura solummodo ἀνθρωποπαθικῶς de Deo ennuntiari. A capite XI, usque ad XXVIII, ad ea Symboli nostri quoque verba late explicanda accedit quae nobis fidem commendant in « Filium Dei Jesum Christum, Dominum Deum nostrum. » Christum in Veteri Testamento promissum verum hominem, verumque Deum esse, Scripturarum Veteris, Novique Foederis auctoritate probat; capite XVIII errorem Sabellianorum refutat, et auctoritate SS. Literarum distinctionem Patris et Filii confirmat, hujusque haeresiarchae objectionibus aliorumque dein respondet. De fide in Spiritum sanctum agit capite vigesimo nono, inquiens: » Deinceps fidei auctoritatem admonere nos, post Patrem et Filium, credere etiam in Spiritum sanctum, » cujus operationes ex Scripturis recenset, et comprobat. Dein unitatem Dei cum ante disputatis conjungere studet, tandemque summam rerum expositarum exhibet.
VI. Analysis of this Book. The treatise of Novatian On the Trinity is divided into thirty-one chapters. First he comments on those words of the "rule of truth," or "of faith" (which we call the Creed), which bid us believe "in God the Father and Lord almighty, the most perfect creator of all things," from chapter 1 up to 8; where among other things he also establishes the divine attributes, immensity, eternity, unity, goodness, immutability, immortality, spirituality, partly from reason, partly from the Holy Scriptures; and he adds that neither passions nor members can be attributed to God, and that these things are declared of God in Scripture only anthropopathically. From chapter 11 up to 28 he proceeds to explain at length those words of our Creed too which commend to us faith in "the Son of God Jesus Christ, our Lord God." That Christ was promised in the Old Testament, is true man, and true God, he proves by the authority of the Scriptures of the Old and New Covenant; in chapter 18 he refutes the error of the Sabellians, and confirms by the authority of the Holy Scriptures the distinction of the Father and the Son, and then answers the objections of this heresiarch and of others. Of faith in the Holy Spirit he treats in the twenty-ninth chapter, saying: "Next, the authority of the faith admonishes us, after the Father and the Son, to believe also in the Holy Spirit," Whose operations he reviews from the Scriptures and proves. Then he endeavours to join the unity of God with the matters disputed before, and at length presents a summary of the things expounded.
Editors' notes and page, col. 900
Footnotes
(59) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 900
Pamel. in Not. ad inscript.
Pamelius, in his notes on the title.
(printed under page 501)
(60) ‹anchor: Testamento promissum› · call in col 900
Novatian. cap. 9.
Novatian, ch. 9.
(printed under page 501)
(61) ‹anchor: verum hominem› · call in col 900
Idem, cap. 10.
The same, ch. 10.
(printed under page 501)
(62) ‹anchor: verumque Deum esse› · call in col 900
Idem, cap. 11.
The same, ch. 11.
(printed under page 501)
(63) ‹anchor: auctoritate probat› · call in col 900
Idem, cap. 12-17.
The same, chs. 12–17.
(printed under page 501)
(64) ‹anchor: dein respondet› · call in col 900
Idem, a cap. 18-29.
The same, from ch. 18 to 29.
(printed under page 501)
(65) ‹anchor: conjungere studet› · call in col 900
Idem, cap. 30.
The same, ch. 30.
(printed under page 501)
(66) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 900
Idem, cap. 31.
The same, ch. 31.
(printed under page 501)
Page
- running head: [NOVATIAN]US PRESBYTER ROMANUS. 900 (head cut at left edge of image)
- marginal letters: A ‹Ptolemaidem commotum est›; B ‹ejus doctrinam profitebatur›; C ‹Scriptura solummodo›; D ‹tum sanctum, » cujus operationes›
- old-edition numerals: 873 after ‹Dionysii›
ARTIC. II. De Novatiani. epistola de Cibis Judaicis.
Article II. On Novatian's letter On Jewish Foods.
I. Epistolam de Cibis Judaicis S. Hieronymus memorat cum in Libro de Viris Illustribus, tum ad Damasum scribens, quo in loco declarat sanctus doctor, duas a se praetermitti quaestiunculas, quarum altera « de Mundis et immundis animalibus, » altera « de Circumcisione ; quod, inquit, ab eloquentissimis viris, Tertulliano nostro scilicet, et Novatiano, latino sermone sint editae. » Et posterius quidem Novatiani opus intercidit, prius vero superest inscriptum de Cibis Judaicis. Guilielmus Caveus ambiguus est, an certo opus de Cibis Judaicis sit Novatiani : quod mihi certum videtur, inquit Oudinus, cum expressam illius mentionem faciat Hieronymus loco citato, atque interpres Graecus sive alius antiquus omnino, περὶ βρωμάτων Ἰουδαϊκῶν. Praeterea auctor hujus operis sub initium inquit, scriptas a se fuisse duas Epistolas, quibus ostendit Judaeos ignorasse « veram circumcisionem, et verum Sabbatum. » Atqui horum duorum opusculorum in Novatiano, nominatim citatus Hieronymus meminit : unde dubium nullum relinquitur, quin opus de Cibis Judaicis spectet ad eumdem. Denique ex hoc opusculo de Cibis Judaicis, asseritur quoque Novatiano epistola seu libellus de vera Circumcisione inter opera divi Hieronymi impressus: quippe cujus mentionem faciat tum Hieronymus de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis cap. 8 vel 7, tum Novatianus ipse sub initium operis de Cibis Judaicis, ubi ait Epistolam a se de vera Circumcisione conscriptam, quod huic opuscubo apprime convenit, Nullum itaque de his Novatiani operibus dubium aequm esse potest ; praesertim cum judice Dupinio similitudo styli idipsum persuadeat. « Patet autem, inquit Pamelius hanc Epistolam in secessu fuisse conscriptam, fortassis, si quid divinare licet, cum, ut scribit S. Cornelius, metu persecutionis in domo se conclusum occuleret. Quod cum in illo tandem reprehenderetur a diaconis Romanis, et rogaretur, ut egressus, quantum presbytero liceret, quantumque in ejus situm esset potestate, fratres in periculo constitutos juvaret, tantum abfuit, ut illis morem gereret, ut etiam non sine stomacho discederet, se nolle amplius esse presbyterum asserens. Hanc itaque primam occasionem illi fuisse schismatis, deinde et haereseos, admonuisse sufficiat ; sed quantum apparet, post scriptam hanc et similes Epistolas. » Haec Vir doctus:
I. The letter On Jewish Foods is mentioned by St Jerome both in the Book on Illustrious Men and when writing to Damasus, in which place the holy doctor declares that two little questions are passed over by him, one of which is "on clean and unclean animals", the other "on circumcision; because," he says, "they have been published in the Latin tongue by most eloquent men, namely our Tertullian and Novatian." And the latter work of Novatian has indeed perished, but the former survives, entitled On Jewish Foods. William Cave is doubtful whether the work On Jewish Foods is certainly Novatian's: which seems certain to me, says Oudin, since Jerome makes express mention of it in the place cited, as does the Greek translator or some other wholly ancient [writer], περὶ βρωμάτων Ἰουδαϊκῶν. Moreover the author of this work says near the beginning that two letters had been written by him, in which he showed that the Jews were ignorant of "the true circumcision and the true Sabbath." Yet Jerome, cited by name, records these two little works under Novatian: whence no doubt remains that the work On Jewish Foods belongs to the same man. Finally, on the basis of this little work On Jewish Foods, the letter or booklet On the True Circumcision, printed among the works of the divine Jerome, is also assigned to Novatian: since mention of it is made both by Jerome in On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 8 or 7, and by Novatian himself near the beginning of the work On Jewish Foods, where he says that a letter on the true circumcision had been written by him, which suits this little work exceedingly well. No doubt, therefore, can fairly be held concerning these works of Novatian; especially since, in Dupin's judgement, the similarity of style persuades of this very thing. "It is clear, moreover," says Pamelius, "that this letter was written in retirement, perhaps, if one may venture a guess, when, as St Cornelius writes, he kept himself hidden, shut up in a house for fear of persecution. When at length he was reproached for this by the Roman deacons, and was asked to go out and, so far as was lawful for a presbyter and so far as lay in his power, to help the brethren placed in danger, so far was he from complying with them that he even went away not without anger, asserting that he no longer wished to be a presbyter. Let it suffice, then, to have pointed out that this was the first occasion of his schism, and afterwards also of his heresy; but, so far as appears, after he had written this and similar letters." These things the learned man [says]:
Editors' notes and page, col. 901
Footnotes
(67) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 901
Hieronym. Epist. 36, ad Damasum, alias 125, § 1.
Jerome, Letter 36, to Damasus (elsewhere 125), § 1.
(printed under page 502)
(68) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 901
Cave. Histor. litter. in saeculo Novatian.
Cave, Literary History, at Novatian's century.
(printed under page 502)
(69) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 901
Oudin. comment. de Scriptor. Eccles. tom. 1, sect. iii, pag. 283.
Oudin, Commentary on the Ecclesiastical Writers, vol. 1, section 3, p. 283.
(printed under page 502)
(70) ‹anchor: idipsum persuadeat› · call in col 901
Dupin, Bibliothèque des auteurs, tom. I, p. 282, edit. latin. Coloniensis.
Dupin, Bibliothèque des auteurs (Library of Authors), vol. 1, p. 282, Latin edition of Cologne.
(printed under page 502)
(71) ‹anchor: inquit Pamelius› · call in col 901
Pamel. not. 2, ad Epist. de Cib. Jud.
Pamelius, note 2 on the Letter On Jewish Foods.
(printed under page 502)
(72) ‹anchor: secessu fuisse conscriptam› · call in col 901
Novat. Epist. de cib. Jud. cap. 1.
Novatian, Letter On Jewish Foods, ch. 1.
(printed under page 502)
(73) ‹anchor: scribit S. Cornelius (call printed as (95))› · call in col 901
Cornel. epist. ad Fab. Antioch. § 5.
Cornelius, Letter to Fabius of Antioch, § 5.
(printed under page 502)
Page
- running head: 901 NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹ARTIC. II. De Novatiani. epistola›; B ‹Graecus sive alius antiquus omnino›; C ‹Nullum itaque de his Novatiani›; D ‹admonuisse sufficiat ; sed quantum›
- old-edition numerals: 874 after ‹superest›
cui accessit quoque Jacksonus existimans hanc epistolam scripsisse Novatianum sub finem anni CCL, cum secessisset, persecutionem Decianam declinans, quae anno CCLIX exeunte Romae exorta, demum deferbuit ineunte anno CCLI. In aliam abiit sententiam Tillemontius; sub ejus enim Epistolae initium episcopum agentem schismaticum hominem perspexisse sibi persuasit. Quod ante ipsum jam observaverat Dupinius ita disserens; « Prima ejus (Novatiani) verba mihi suadent potius fuisse scriptam, postquam partium dux factus est Galli et Volusiani persecutionis tempore. »
to whom Jackson also adhered, judging that Novatian wrote this letter towards the end of the year 250, when he had withdrawn to avoid the Decian persecution, which, having broken out at Rome at the close of the year 259, finally subsided at the beginning of the year 251. Tillemont went over to another opinion; for he persuaded himself that at the beginning of the Letter he perceived a schismatic man acting the bishop. This Dupin had already observed before him, reasoning thus: 'His (Novatian's) first words persuade me rather that it was written after he had become the leader of a party, in the time of the persecution of Gallus and Volusianus.'
II. Analysis hujus Tractatus. — Hujus tractatus scopus est ostendere animalia quae lex Mosis comedere prohibeat, non absolutate esse immunda. Ad hoc probandum ait, arborum fructus primum hominum cibum fuisse: postea de carne animalium eos manducasse; venisse deinde legem, quae distinctionem fecerat inter animalia, quae manducare fas erat, et ea de quibus comedere non poterant, haeque immunda appellasse, non quod revera talia essent, cum a Deo fuissent creata; sed primo ut homines discerent fugere vitia hisce animalibus figurata et repraesentata, et secundo ut remedium intemperantiae essent; Christum, finem et complementum legis, eam explicuisse, et hominibus libertatem omnibus carnibus vescendi dedisse, modo intra sobrietatis christianae limites consistant; hinc autem arripit occasionem, nonnullos Christianos intemperanter viventes reprehendendi. Observat hoc esse prorsus indignum hominibus qui diu noctuque orare debent. Denique de numero carnium, quibus vesci fas est, idolis sacrificatas excipit, quibus primi Christiani sollicite abstinebant, hisque verbis, quae totius ejus sermonis sunt compendium, absolvit: « Igitur carnium natura explicata, legis Mosis scopum exhibet, et ostendit quae sit Evangelii libertas, modo tamen temperantiae studeamus, et carnibus idolis sacrificatis abstineamus: gratias agamus Domino nostro Jesu Christo, ejus Filio, cui honos, laus, et gloria in omnia saecula. Amen. »
II. Analysis of this Treatise. — The aim of this treatise is to show that the animals which the law of Moses forbids to be eaten are not absolutely unclean. To prove this he says that the fruits of trees were the first food of men; that afterwards they ate of the flesh of animals; that then came the law, which had made a distinction among animals, between those which it was lawful to eat and those of which they could not eat, and had called these unclean, not because they really were such, since they had been created by God, but first so that men might learn to flee the vices figured and represented by these animals, and secondly so that they might be a remedy for intemperance; that Christ, the end and fulfilment of the law, explained it, and gave men the freedom to eat all meats, provided they keep within the limits of Christian sobriety; and from this he takes occasion to rebuke certain Christians who live intemperately. He observes that this is altogether unworthy of men who ought to pray day and night. Finally, from the number of meats which it is lawful to eat he excepts those sacrificed to idols, from which the first Christians anxiously abstained, and he concludes with these words, which are a summary of his whole discourse: 'Therefore, the nature of meats having been explained, he sets forth the aim of the law of Moses, and shows what the freedom of the Gospel is, provided however that we strive after temperance and abstain from meats sacrificed to idols: let us give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, to Whom be honour, praise and glory for all ages. Amen.'
ARTICULUS III. De Novatiani epistola Cleri Romani nomine S. Cypriano inscripta.
Article III. On Novatian's letter written to St Cyprian in the name of the Roman clergy.
I. Alteram quoque Epistolam, quae praecedenti subjicitur, Cleri Romani nomine sancto Cypriano inscriptam Novatiano vindicat ipsemet Cyprianus. Scribens enim ad Antonianum, locum recitat ex eadem Epistola sumptum, statimque subdit
I. The other Letter also, which is placed after the preceding one, written to St Cyprian in the name of the Roman clergy, Cyprian himself claims for Novatian. For, writing to Antonianus, he quotes a passage taken from that same Letter, and at once he adds,
Editors' notes and page, col. 902
Footnotes
(74) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 902
Jakson. L, c. pag. 10.
Jackson, in the place cited, p. 10.
(printed under page 502)
(75) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 902
Tillemont, Mémor. tom. III, art. 3, sur Novatien.
Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. 3, art. 3, on Novatian.
(printed under page 502)
(76) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 902
Dupin, loc. cit., pag, 283.
Dupin, in the place cited, p. 283.
(printed under page 502)
(77) ‹anchor: figurata et repraesentata› · call in col 902
Exempli gratia, ait : Praeceptum de non comedendo porco ideo tantum datum esse, ut disceremus, vitam carnalem non esse agendam ; cum mustelas comedere prohibemur, hoc significare, furtum esse prohibitum ; corvis voluptates designari, etc.
For example, he says: the precept against eating pork was given only so that we might learn that a carnal life is not to be led; when we are forbidden to eat weasels, this signifies that theft is forbidden; by ravens pleasures are signified, etc.
(printed under page 502)
(78) ‹anchor: ad Antonianum› · call in col 902
Cyprian. Epist. iii, pag. 164, edit. Venetae ann. 1748.
Cyprian, Letter 3, p. 164, Venice edition of 1748.
(printed under page 502)
(79) ‹anchor: Epistola sumptum› · call in col 902
Novatian. Epist. ad Cyprian. § 6, not. 1, apud Galland. tom. pag. 322.
Novatian, Letter to Cyprian, § 6, note 1, in Gallandi, vol. [number not printed], p. 322.
(printed under page 502)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA. 902
- marginal letters: A ctus : cui accessit; B hominum cibum fuisse; C que orare debent; D Scribens enim ad Antonianum
- old-edition numerals: 875 after tempore. »
sanctus martyr : « Additum est etiam, Novatiano tunc scribente, et quod scripserat, sua voce recitante, et presbytero Mose tunc adhuc confessore, nunc jam martyre, subscribente, ut lapsis infirmis, et in exitu constitutis pax daretur : quae litterae per totum mundum missae sunt. »
the holy martyr: "It was also added, with Novatian then writing and reciting with his own voice what he had written, and with the presbyter Moses, then still a confessor, now already a martyr, subscribing, that peace should be given to the lapsed who were sick and placed at the point of death: which letter was sent throughout the whole world."
Porro quae hic Cyprianus, eadem confirmare perhibetur anonymus auctor Novatiano coaevus qui quidem de eo verba faciens : « Unde igitur inquit, tam discordiae furore vesanus exstiterit iste Novatianus, invenire non possum ; qui semper in domo una, id est, Christi Ecclesia, proximorum delicta, ut propria fleverit ; onera fratrum, sicut Apostolus hortatur, sustinuerit ; lubricos in fide coelesti allocutione corroboraverit. » His denique addendus S. Pacianus, qui saetulo insequente floruit. « Cur igitur, inquit, Sympronianum alloquens, Novatianus tuus, ne falso quidem adhuc episcopatu sacerdos, longe ante quam Cornelius episcopus fieret, ante quam sacerdotio illius invideret haec suasit ( de Lapsis recipiendis). Habes Cypriani testimonium... Nam quodam in loco scripsit : ADDITUM EST ETIAM, NOVATIANO TUNC SCRIBENTE. » Et caetera quae modo ex Cypriano retulimus. Deinde subdit : « Quid ais, Symproniane frater ? Novatianus haec scripsit, et ut obsequium marae voluntatis adjungeret, etiam scripta recitavit. Testis est ejus dextra ; testis, quae scripsit, manus ; testis lingua, quae legit. Adhuc Cornelius, pro quo ommis haec vestra erupit invidia, episcopus non erat.... Si poenitentae negandus est aditus, Novatianus in crimine est qui haec scripsit, suasit, et legit. Ubi tunc impatiens rigor ? ubi ferox illa censura ? Si nemo vobis Cornelium praetulisset, maneret illa scribentis auctoritas. » Hactenus sanctus ille praesul.
Moreover, the same things that Cyprian [says] here, an anonymous author contemporary with Novatian is held to confirm, who indeed, speaking of him, says: "Whence, then, this Novatian has become so mad with the fury of discord, I cannot discover; he who always, in the one house, that is, the Church of Christ, wept over the sins of his neighbours as his own; bore the burdens of the brethren, as the Apostle exhorts; strengthened those slipping in the faith by heavenly address." To these, finally, must be added St Pacian, who flourished in the following century. "Why then," he says, addressing Sympronian, "did your Novatian, not yet a priest even by a false episcopate, long before Cornelius became bishop, before he envied him his priesthood, urge these things (concerning the receiving of the lapsed)? You have the testimony of Cyprian... For in a certain place he wrote: IT WAS ALSO ADDED, WITH NOVATIAN THEN WRITING." And the rest, which we have just quoted from Cyprian. Then he adds: "What do you say, brother Sympronian? Novatian wrote these things, and, so that he might add the compliance of a pure will, he also recited what was written. His right hand is witness; witness is the hand which wrote; witness the tongue which read. Cornelius, on whose account all this envy of yours broke out, was not yet bishop.... If access to penance is to be denied, Novatian is at fault, who wrote, urged, and read these things. Where then was that impatient rigour? Where was that fierce censure? If no one had preferred Cornelius to you, that authority of the writer would have remained." Thus far that holy prelate.
Ex quibus equidem arbitror satis esse compertum, incunctanter Novatiano hanc esse tribuendam Epistolam. Scripta fuit autem currente anno CCL, vel forte ineunte CCLI. Sic enim Auctor : « Quanquam nobis differenda hujus rei necessitas major incumbat, quibus, post excessum nobilissimae memoriae viri Fabiani, nondum est episcopus propter rerum et temporum difficultates constitutus. » At Fabianus martyrio sublatus est anno CCL, 13 Kal. Febr., eique successit Cornelius ineunte Junio insequenti anni CCLI. uti suo loco annotavimus, licet paulo aliter Coustantius.
From which I think it is sufficiently established that this Letter must without hesitation be attributed to Novatian. And it was written in the course of the year 250, or perhaps at the beginning of 251. For thus the Author: "Although a greater necessity of deferring this matter lies upon us, for whom, after the decease of Fabian, a man of most noble memory, no bishop has yet been appointed because of the difficulties of affairs and of the times." But Fabian was taken away by martyrdom in the year 250, on the 13th day before the Kalends of February, and Cornelius succeeded him at the beginning of June of the following year 251, as we noted in its place, although Coustant [puts it] somewhat differently.
ARTICULUS IV. De operibus Novatiani deperditis.
Article IV. On the lost works of Novatian.
Inter opera Novatiani deperdita numeramus primo
Among the lost works of Novatian we number first
Editors' notes and page, col. 903
Footnotes
(80) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 903
Anonym. Tractat de lapsis, § 13, apud Galland. tom. III, pag. 374.
Anonymous, Treatise on the Lapsed, § 13, in Gallandi, vol. 3, p. 374.
(printed under page 503)
(81) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 903
Pacian., Epist. iii ad Symproniam Bibl. PP. tom. III, pag. 59. edit. Paris. 1644.
Pacian, Letter 3 to Sympronian, Bibliotheca Patrum vol. 3, p. 59, Paris edition of 1644.
(printed under page 503)
(82) ‹anchor: Sic enim Auctor› · call in col 903
Novatian. Epist. ad S. Cyprian, § 4, apud Galland. pag. 322.
Novatian, Letter to St Cyprian, § 4, in Gallandi, p. 322.
(printed under page 503)
(83) ‹anchor: aliter Coustantius› · call in col 903
Galland. Bibl. PP. tom III. Prologom, cap. iv, § 1.
Gallandi, Bibliotheca Patrum vol. 3, Prolegomena, ch. 4, § 1.
(printed under page 503)
(84) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 903
Hieronym. de Vir. Illustr. cap. 70.
Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 70.
(printed under page 503)
(85) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 903
Opp. Hieronym. tom. V, pag. 150, edit. Martian. et tom XI, part. ii, edit. Venet. ann. 1771, pag. 220 et seqq.
Works of Jerome, vol. 5, p. 150, Martianay's edition, and vol. 11, part 2, Venice edition of 1771, p. 220 ff.
(printed under page 503)
Page
- running head: 903 NOVATIANUS PRESBYTE (cut off at the image edge; presumably NOVATIANUS PRESBYTER)
- marginal letters: A ‹sanctus martyr : « Additum est etiam›; B ‹floruit. « Cur igitur, inquit›; C ‹mine est qui haec scripsit›; D ‹paulo aliter Coustantius›
- old-edition numerals: 876 after ‹proximorum›
eos omnes tractatus. quos S. Hieronymus hoc ordine recensuit: nimirum de Paschate, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote (forte de Sacerdotio Veteris Testamenti), de Oratione, de Instantia, de Attalo. Circumfertur quidem tractatus quidam de Circumcisione inter opera divi Hieronymi quem alii Novatiauo acripserunt ; sed ob mentionem Ariauorum, et Manichaeorum, vix Novatiano dari potest, meritoque igitur inter deperditas illius lucubrationes Epistolam de Circumcisione numeramus. Quidam Epistolam S. Augustini de Paschate ordine LV juxta Benedictinos statuerunt habendam esse pro Tractatu Novatiani de Paschate. Inscriptio lucubrationis Novatiani de Instantia videtur nobis admodum obscura ; Graecus interpres reddit, περὶ ἐνεστώτων : forte legis de Instantibus. Nos interpretamur de instantia seu perseverantia in oratione.
all those treatises which St Jerome lists in this order: namely, On the Passover, On the Sabbath, On Circumcision, On the Priest (perhaps on the Priesthood of the Old Testament), On Prayer, On Insistence, On Attalus. There does indeed circulate a certain treatise On Circumcision among the works of the divine Jerome, which others have ascribed to Novatian; but because of its mention of the Arians and the Manichaeans it can hardly be given to Novatian, and therefore we rightly count the Letter On Circumcision among his lost works. Some have determined that the Letter of St Augustine On the Passover, fifty-fifth in order according to the Benedictines, is to be taken for Novatian's Treatise On the Passover. The title of Novatian's work On Insistence seems to us very obscure; the Greek translator renders it περὶ ἐνεστώτων: perhaps you read On Things Present. We interpret it as on insistence or perseverance in prayer.
Omnes quoque Novatiani litteras, quas facto schismate, ad diversas exaravit Ecclesias, edax rerum tempus absumpsit. Meminit S. Cyprianus persaepe earum Epistolarum, quas Novatianus, postquam Cathedram Romanam occupavit, ad alios episcopos perscripsit. Sanctus etiam Hieronymus earumdem mentionem facit his verbis : Simulque Epistolas Novatiani, ut, dum Schismatici hominis venena cognoscimus, libentius sancti Martyris Cypriani bibamus antidotum. Unde colligimus, quod hae litterae Hieronymi aetate adhuc exstiterint.
All the letters of Novatian too, which he wrote out to various Churches once the schism had been made, time, the devourer of things, has consumed. St Cyprian very often mentions those Letters which Novatian wrote to other bishops after he had seized the Roman See. St Jerome also makes mention of them in these words: And at the same time the Letters of Novatian, so that, while we come to know the poisons of a schismatic man, we may the more gladly drink the antidote of the holy Martyr Cyprian. From this we gather that these letters were still extant in Jerome's age.
De stylo Novatiani haec notat Cl. Dupinius: « Hic auctor ingenio, eloquentia, et scientia pollebat. Ejus stylus est purus, nitidus, et expolitus; phrases electae, cogitationes naturales, et ratiocinia solida. Multa habet Scripturae loca apposite citata ; imo in Tractatibus, qui nunc exstant, ordo et methodus optima observatur, semperque placide et moderate loquitur. » Hujus crisi utroque pollice subscribit perdoctus Ceillier Libellus de Negatoribus recipiendis, qui a Paciano adscribitur nostro potes esse XXXVI Epistola inter Cyprianicas, Cleri Romani nomine scripta juxta Oxoniensem editionem.
On Novatian's style the celebrated Dupin notes the following: "This author excelled in talent, eloquence and learning. His style is pure, elegant and polished; his phrases are choice, his thoughts natural, and his reasonings solid. He has many passages of Scripture aptly cited; indeed in the Treatises which now survive the best order and method are observed, and he always speaks calmly and with moderation." To this judgement the very learned Ceillier subscribes with both thumbs. The little book On Receiving Those Who Denied, which is ascribed by Pacian to our author, can be the thirty-sixth Letter among Cyprian's, written in the name of the Roman Clergy, according to the Oxford edition.
ARTICULUS V. — Editiones operum Novatiani.
Article V. Editions of the works of Novatian.
Ex iis autem operibus, quae huc usque Novatiano asseruimus, librum de Trinitate cum Epistola de Cibis Judaicis primus ex antiquissimo codice in lucem extulit, Parisiis, anno 1446, Joannes Gagnaeus, Deinde ad mss. Britannicum in Masburensi Coenobio repertum exegit Gelenius, vulgavitque Basileae
Now of those works which we have so far claimed for Novatian, the book On the Trinity together with the Letter On Jewish Foods was first brought to light from a very ancient codex by Jean Gagnée, at Paris, in the year 1446. Then Gelenius checked it against a British manuscript found in the Malmesbury monastery, and published it at Basel
Editors' notes and page, col. 904
Footnotes
(86) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 904
Lardner in credibility of the G. H. part. ii, p. 82.
Lardner, in the Credibility of the Gospel History, part 2, p. 82.
(printed under page 503)
(87) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 904
Idem. Ibid. pag. 21.
The same, same place, p. 21.
(printed under page 503)
(88) ‹anchor: Cypriani bibamus antidotum› · call in col 904
Hieronym. Epist. x ad Paulum Concordiens. Tom. IV Opp. edit. Benet. pag. 17, et tom. I, part i, pag. 24, edit. Venet, in 4°, 1766.
Jerome, Letter 10, to Paul of Concordia, vol. 4 of the works, Benedictine edition, p. 17, and vol. 1, part 1, p. 24, Venice quarto edition, 1766.
(printed under page 503)
(89) ‹anchor: Cl. Dupinius› · call in col 904
Dupin, Biblioth. tom. I, pag. 28,. edit. Lat. Colon. 1703.
Dupin, Bibliothèque, vol. 1, p. 28, Latin edition, Cologne 1703.
(printed under page 503)
(90) ‹anchor: perdoctus Ceillier (number printed as (70))› · call in col 904
Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs. Tom. III. pag. 296.
Ceillier, Histoire générale des auteurs (General History of the Authors), vol. 3, p. 296.
(printed under page 503)
(91) ‹anchor: a Paciano (call printed as (9 ))› · call in col 904
Pacian. Epist. iii ad Sympronianum.
Pacian, Letter 3, to Sympronian.
(printed under page 503)
Page
- running head: S PRESBYTER ROMANUS. (cut off at left; presumably NOVATIANUS PRESBYTER ROMANUS.)
- marginal letters: A eos omnes tractatus; B cus interpres reddit; C bat. Ejus stylus; D cem extulit, Parisiis
- old-edition numerals: 877 after habendam
anno 1550, iterumque 1562. Pamelius praeterea multis in locis recognovit ad Anglicum ms. exemplar Dn. Joannis Clementis, et quibusdam ex conjecturis Latini Latinii, atque operibus Tertulliani attexuit, Duaci primum editis anno 1579, saepiusque deinceps recusis. Anno demum insequente 1580, recensuit, ediditque Parisiis Renatus Laurentius de la Barre. Atque hactenus inter opera Tertulliani latuit Novatianus.
in the year 1550, and again in 1562. Pamelius, moreover, revised it in many places against the English manuscript copy of Master John Clement, and from some conjectures of Latino Latini, and attached it to the works of Tertullian, which were first published at Douai in the year 1579 and often reprinted thereafter. Finally, in the following year 1580, René Laurent de la Barre revised and published it at Paris. And up to this point Novatian lay hidden among the works of Tertullian.
Separatim vero primum prodiit Londini anno 1709, curante Wilhelmo Whistono, ad calcem operis Anglice inscripti, Sermons and Essays upon severa⟨l⟩ subjects, pag. 32, deinde Oxonii anno 1724, notis illustratus per Eduardum Welchman. Denique rursus Londini anno 1720. studio Joannis Jackson, Ecclesiae Anglicanae presbyteri, in-8°. Atque Wistonus quidem unum librum de Trinitate lectoribus exhibet. Welchmanus vero duas praeterea Epistolas adjecit, alteram de Cibis Judaicis, alteram Romani Cleri nomine scriptam. Jackson autem tertiam insuper junxit Epistolam, quam Clerus Romanus Cypriano inscripsit: incertus tamen et ipse, utrum ejusmodi Epistola Novatianum agnoscat auctorem. Omnes hi tres editores Novatianum eruditissimis notis atque observationibus illustrarunt, hoc tamen discrimine, quod Welchmani notae omnino orthodoxae sint, reliquorum duorum quoad dogma de divinitate Filii purum putidumque Arianismum sapiant. Hucusque de editionibus antiquis.
But it first appeared separately at London in the year 1709, under the care of William Whiston, at the end of a work with the English title Sermons and Essays upon several subjects, p. 32; then at Oxford in the year 1724, illustrated with notes by Edward Welchman. Finally, again at London in the year 1720, through the labour of John Jackson, a presbyter of the Church of England, in octavo. Whiston, for his part, presents to readers the one book On the Trinity. Welchman, however, added two letters besides, the one On Jewish Foods, the other written in the name of the Roman clergy. Jackson, moreover, joined a third letter, which the Roman clergy addressed to Cyprian, though he too was uncertain whether a letter of this kind acknowledges Novatian as its author. All these three editors illustrated Novatian with most learned notes and observations, yet with this difference: that Welchman's notes are entirely orthodox, while those of the other two, as regards the doctrine of the divinity of the Son, smack of pure and rank Arianism. So much for the old editions.
Novissimam, quam Cl. Andreas Gallandius paravit, editionem exegit potissimum ad exemplar Pamelianum, illudque cum duobus postremis editionibus, Oxoniensi et Londinensi, contulit: neque negligendas omnino arbitratus est editiones magis antiquas. Illud vero maxime curavit, ut ad sua quaeque loca reducerentur luxata membra, duce potissimum paroeunte Cotelerio, qui capitum trajectiones in libro de Trinitate post Henricum Valesium acute advertit annotavitque. Ex quibus est perspicuum, quantum debeat praeferri recentissima haec Novatiani editio caeteris praecedentibus. Anno 1782, typis Stahelianis Wirceburgi Novatiani opera recusa fuere volumine IV inter opera SS. Patrum latinorum, a pag. 453-544, in-8°. Analysin utriusque opusculi tum de Trinitate, tum de Cibis Judaicis confecit Cl. P. Dominicus Schram, tom. VI sui operis Patristici, a pag. 269-319, anno 1784. Jam anno 1777, Cl. Christianus Fridericus Roslerus, tomo III Bibliothecae Patrum Lipsiae impresso e Novatiani Tractatu de Trinitate excerpta in lingua nostra vernacula adjectis eruditissimis notis orbi erudito communicavit.
The most recent edition, which the distinguished Andrea Gallandi prepared, he worked out chiefly on the Pamelian copy, and collated it with the two latest editions, the Oxford and the London; nor did he judge that the older editions were to be wholly neglected. But he took the greatest care that the dislocated members should each be brought back to their proper places, with Cotelier above all going before as guide, who after Henri de Valois acutely noticed and noted the transpositions of chapters in the book On the Trinity. From which it is plain how far this most recent edition of Novatian ought to be preferred to all the preceding ones. In the year 1782, at the Stahel press at Würzburg, the works of Novatian were reprinted in volume IV among the works of the holy Latin Fathers, from p. 453 to 544, in octavo. An analysis of both treatises, both On the Trinity and On Jewish Foods, was made by the distinguished Fr Dominicus Schram, in volume VI of his Patristic work, from p. 269 to 319, in the year 1784. Already in the year 1777 the distinguished Christian Friedrich Rösler, in volume III of the Library of the Fathers printed at Leipzig, communicated to the learned world excerpts from Novatian's Treatise On the Trinity in our vernacular tongue, with most learned notes added.
CAPUT III.
Chapter III.
DOCTRINA NOVATIANI.
The Doctrine of Novatian.
ARTIC. I. — Puncta dogmatica de Deo, divinisque ejus perfectionibus.
Article I. — Doctrinal points concerning God and His divine perfections.
Etsi pauca admodum, eaque brevissima vetusti
Although very few, and those very brief, works of this ancient
Editors' notes and page, col. 905
Page
- running head: 90⟨5⟩ NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹anno 1550, iterumque 1562›; B ‹que Wistonus quidem unum librum›; C ‹melianum, illudque cum duobus›; D ‹ris Patristici, a pag. 269-319›
- old-edition numerals: 878 after ‹notis›
hujus Romani presbyteri opera ad nos pervenerint, occurrunt nihilominus in ejus Tractatu de Trinitate, qui fusiori calamo exaratus est, innumera pene dixerim pretiosa fragmenta quoad praecipuas Christianae doctrinae veritates. Ibi siquidem deprehenditur, quid de Deo sentiendum sit ejusque perfectionibus; quaenam sit fides Ecclesiae circa mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis, et Jesu Christi divinitatem ejusque incarnationem.
Roman presbyter have come down to us, there nevertheless occur in his Treatise on the Trinity, which is written with a fuller pen, almost innumerable (I might say) precious fragments concerning the principal truths of Christian doctrine. For there one finds what is to be thought of God and His perfections; what the faith of the Church is concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity, and the divinity of Jesus Christ and His incarnation.
Novatianus initio Tractatus sui de Trinitate docet, teneri nos, prout praescribitur in Symbolo, quod regulam fidei, seu veritatis nuncupat, credere in Deum Patrem, et Dominum omnipotentem, universi conditorem. Deus iste non solum creavit coelum et terram, sed insuper haec omnia propriis et condignis instrumentis et ornata, et plena digessit. Creavit ille hominem ad imaginem suam, cui mentem et rationem indidit et prudentiam, ut Deum posset imitari. Cujus etsi corporis terrena primordia, coelestis tamen et divini halitus inspirata substantia: quae cum omnia in servitutem illi dedisset, solum liberum esse voluit. Et ne in periculum caderet rursum soluta libertas, mandatum posuit (homini), quo tamen non inesse malum in fructu arboris diceretur, sed futurum, si forte ex voluntate hominis de contemptu datae legis praemoneretur. Arbor itaque vetita juxta Novatianum non ex se erat venenata aut noxia. « Et liber esse debuerat, pergit Novatianus, ne incongruenter Dei imago serviret, et lex addenda, ne usque ad contemptum dantis libertas effraenata prorumperet, u⟨t⟩ et praemia condigna et merita poenarum consequenter exciperet: ex quo mortalitas, invidia utique, in ipsum redit, qui cum illam de obedentia posset evadere, in eamdem incurrit, dum ex consilio perverso Deus esse festinat. Cujus tamen poenam nihilominus indulgenter temperavit (Deus), dum non tam ipse, quam labores ejus maledicuntur super terram. Quod ne de ligno arboris vitae contingat, arcetur, non de invidiae maligno livore descendit, sed ne vivens in aeternum, nisi peccata Christus ante donasset, circumferret secum in poenam sui semper immortale delictum. » Irenaeus adducit etiam antiquum scriptorem, qui asseruit quoque non tam hominem, quam terram maledicto subjectam fuisse. « Sicut enarrat Scriptura, inquit, non ipsum maledixit Adam, sed terram in operibus ejus, quemadmodum ex veteribus quidam ait: Quoniam quidem (haec sententia veteris illius auctoris) transtulit Deus maledictum in terram, ut non perseveraret in homine. »
Novatian at the beginning of his Treatise on the Trinity teaches that we are bound, as is prescribed in the Creed, which he calls the rule of faith, or of truth, to believe in God the Father, and Lord almighty, the founder of the universe. This God not only created heaven and earth, but moreover arranged all these things, both adorned and full, with their own fitting and worthy instruments. He created man after His own image, and put into him mind and reason and prudence, so that he might be able to imitate God. Though the beginnings of his body were earthly, yet his substance was breathed in from a heavenly and divine breath: and when He had given all things into his service, He willed him alone to be free. And lest unbound freedom should in turn fall into danger, He laid down a command (for man), by which, however, it was not said that evil was in the fruit of the tree, but he was forewarned that it would come to be if perhaps, by the will of man, [it should arise] from contempt of the law given. The forbidden tree, therefore, according to Novatian, was not of itself poisonous or harmful. « And he had to be free, Novatian continues, lest the image of God should unfittingly be a slave; and a law had to be added, lest freedom should break out unbridled even to contempt of the giver, so that he might in consequence receive both worthy rewards and the deserts of punishments: whence mortality, through envy indeed, returns upon himself, who, though he could have escaped it by obedience, ran into it, while by perverse counsel he hastens to be God. Yet (God) nevertheless mercifully tempered his punishment, in that not so much he himself as his labours are cursed upon the earth. That he is kept back, lest it befall him from the wood of the tree of life, did not come from the malignant spite of envy, but lest, living for ever, unless Christ had first forgiven his sins, he should carry about with him to his punishment his offence, forever immortal. » Irenaeus also cites an ancient writer, who likewise asserted that not so much the man as the earth was subjected to the curse. « As Scripture relates, he says, He did not curse Adam himself, but the earth in his works, as one of the ancients says: Since indeed (this is the opinion of that ancient author) God transferred the curse to the earth, so that it might not remain in man. »
Tradit Novatianus, quod ea, quae infra terram jacent, neque sint digestis et ordinatis potestatibus vacua. Locus enim est, quo piorum animae impiorumque ducuntur, futuri judicii praejudicia sentientes. Secundum mentem nostris auctoris is locus
Novatian teaches that the things which lie beneath the earth are not empty of arranged and ordered powers either. For there is a place to which the souls of the pious and of the impious are led, feeling foretastes of the future judgement. According to the mind of our author, this place
Editors' notes and page, col. 906
Footnotes
(92) ‹anchor: legis praemoneretur› · call in col 906
Novat. de Trinitat. cap. 1.
Novatian, On the Trinity, ch. 1.
(printed under page 504)
(93) ‹anchor: invidia utique› · call in col 906
Invidia diaboli intravit mors in orbem terrarum. Sapient.
"Through the envy of the devil death entered the world." Wisdom [2:24].
(printed under page 504)
(94) ‹anchor: antiquum scriptorem› · call in col 906
Iren. lib. iii adv haeres. cap. 25.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 3, ch. 25.
(printed under page 504)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA. 906
- marginal letters: A hujus Romani presbyteri opera; B dignis instrumentis 879 et ornata; C temptum dantis libertas effraenata; D inquit, non ipsum maledixit Adam
- old-edition numerals: 879 after instrumentis
forto est ᾅδη (infernus), magnum illud e corporibus decedentium animarum receptaculum.
is perhaps ᾅδη (the underworld), that great receptacle of the souls departing from bodies.
Sirca simplicitatem D⟨ei⟩ sequentia docet Novatianus: « Est simplex (Deus) et sine ulla corporea concretione... quandoquidem spiritus sit dictus. » Et dum Scriptura Deo tribuit oculos, brachia, manus, pedes, aliaque humani corporis membra, non intendit Dei essentiam exprimere, ejusque veram nobis repraesentare naturam, sed solummodo eum sic proponere, qualem capere humana mens potest: Non quomodo Deus erat sed quomodo populus capere poterat; ut igitur haec si de Deo dicantur, non Deo, sed populo potius imputetur: Non igitur mediocris Deus, sed populi mediocris est sensus. » Cui praeclarissimae observationi subjungit Novatianus, Scripturam per membra non corporalia lineamenta, sed diversas Dei operationes ostendere: efficaciae igitur ibi divinae per membra monstrantur. « Nam et cum oculi describuntur, » prosequitur idem presbyter, « quod omnia audiat, exprimitur. Et quando auris, « quod omnia videat, proponitur. Et cum digitus, significantia quaedam voluntatis aperitur; et sic de reliquis. Neque enim ei aut membra, aut membrorum officia sunt necessaria, ad cujus solum..... arbitrium, et serviunt, et adsunt omnia. » Cur enim requirat oculos, qui lux est? Aut cur quaerat pedes, qui ubique est? Aut cur manus expetat, cujus mens ad omnia instituenda artifex est, et silens voluntas? Nec auribus eget, qui tacitas etiam novit voluntates. Aut propter quam causam linguam quaerat, « cui cogitare jussisse est? « Fateamur ingenue, omnes has ideas nobilissimas ac sublimes esse, hisque indigitari auctoris ingenium eximium omnino. Nec minus docte atque subtiliter exponit, quo pacto interpretari oporteat passiones, quas Scriptura Deo tribuere videtur ita disserens: « Quod si Dei iracundias legimus, et odia relata agnoscimus, non tamen haec intelligimus ad humanorum relata esse exempla vitiorum; passiones enim istae in hominibus merito dicentur, in Deo non merito judicabuntur; corrumpi enim per haec homo potest, quia corrumpi potest; corrumpi per haec Deus non potest, quia nec corrumpi potest; nam et quod irascitur Deus, non ex vitio ejus venit, sed ad remedium nostrum illud facit; indulgens enim est etiam tunc, cum minatur, dum per haec homines ad recta vocantur; nam quibus ad honestam vitam deest ratio, metus est necessarius, ut, qui rationem reliquerunt, vel terrore moveantur; et ideo omnes istae, vel iracundiae Dei, vel odia Dei, vel quaecumque sunt hujusmodi, dum ad medicinam
Concerning the simplicity of God, Novatian teaches the following: « He (God) is simple and without any bodily compounding... since He has been called spirit. » And when Scripture attributes to God eyes, arms, hands, feet and the other members of the human body, it does not intend to express the essence of God and to represent His true nature to us, but only to set Him forth in such a way as the human mind is able to grasp: Not as God was, but as the people were able to grasp; so that, therefore, if these things are said of God, it should be imputed not to God but rather to the people: Therefore God is not mediocre, but the understanding of the people is mediocre. » To this most excellent observation Novatian adds that Scripture through the members shows not bodily features but the various operations of God: therefore the divine powers are displayed there through the members. « For when eyes too are described, » the same presbyter continues, « it is expressed that He hears all things. And when an ear, « it is set forth that He sees all things. And when a finger, a certain signification of the will is disclosed; and so of the rest. For neither members nor the functions of members are necessary to Him at Whose mere..... will all things both serve and are present. » For why should He require eyes, Who is light? Or why should He seek feet, Who is everywhere? Or why should He desire hands, Whose mind and silent will are the craftsman for establishing all things? Nor does He need ears, Who knows even unspoken wishes. Or for what reason should He seek a tongue, « for Whom to have thought is to have commanded? « Let us frankly admit that all these ideas are most noble and sublime, and that by them the author's altogether exceptional genius is indicated. No less learnedly and subtly does he expound in what manner one ought to interpret the passions which Scripture seems to attribute to God, discoursing thus: « But if we read of the angers of God, and recognize hatreds reported of Him, we nevertheless do not understand these to have been reported after the pattern of human vices; for these passions will rightly be spoken of in men, but will not rightly be judged to be in God; for man can be corrupted by these things, because he is corruptible; God cannot be corrupted by these things, because He is not corruptible at all; for even the fact that God is angry does not come from any vice of His, but He does it for our remedy; for He is indulgent even then, when He threatens, since by these things men are called to what is right; for to those who lack reason for an honourable life fear is necessary, so that those who have abandoned reason may at least be moved by terror; and therefore all these, whether angers of God or hatreds of God or whatever things are of this kind, while for healing
Editors' notes and page, col. 907
Footnotes
(95) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 907
Novat. Tract de Trinit. cap. 1. In eamdem sententiam plerique Patrum concessere.
Novatian, Treatise On the Trinity, ch. 1. Most of the Fathers came round to the same opinion.
(printed under page 505)
(96) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 907
Id. ibid. cap. 5.
The same, same work, ch. 5.
(printed under page 505)
(97) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 907
Id. ibid. cap. 6.
The same, same work, ch. 6.
(printed under page 505)
(98) ‹anchor: ita disserens› · call in col 907
Id. ibid. cap. 7.
The same, same work, ch. 7.
(printed under page 505)
(99) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 907
Id. ibid. cap. 8.
The same, same work, ch. 8.
(printed under page 505)
(1) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 907
Sine controversia itaque Novatianus historiam de Eden et hominis lapsu tanquam veram admisit, sicut Theophilus Antiochenus, quocum in aliis etiam sententiis omnino conspirat.
Without dispute, then, Novatian accepted the story of Eden and of man's fall as true, as did Theophilus of Antioch, with whom he agrees entirely in other opinions as well.
(printed under page 505)
Page
- running head: 907 NOVATIANUS PRESBYTE (cut off at the right edge of the image)
- marginal letters: A ‹forto est ᾅδη (infernus)›; B ‹tioni subjungit Novatianus›; C ‹quaerat, « cui cogitare›; D ‹est etiam tunc, cum minatur›
- old-edition numerals: 880 after ‹non Deo,›
nostram proferuntur, ex consilio, non ex vitio, venerunt. Hunc ergo Deum, concludit Novatianus, novit et veneratur Ecclesia, cui testimonium reddit tam invisibilium, quam etiam visibilium, et semper, et tota natura, quem Angeli adorant, mens humana sentit, qui protoplastis aeternae vitae mundum quemdam Paradisum in Oriente constituit, Arborem vitae plantavit; scientiae boni et mali similiter alteram arborem collocavit; mandatum dedit, sententiam contra delictum statuit.... Is (Deus) prophetas Spiritu instruxit, et per hos omnes Filium suum Christum repromisit, et quando daturum se spoponderat, misit, per quem nobis in notitiam venire voluit, et in nos indulgentiae suae sinus largos profudit, egenis locupletem Spiritum conferendo. Et quia ultro et largus et bonus est, ne totus hic orbis aversus gratiae ejus fluminibus aresceret, apostolos institutores in totum orbem mitti per Filium suum voluit, ut conditio generis humani agnosceret institutionem, et si sequi maluisset, haberet, quem pro Deo in suis jam postulationibus Patrem diceret. » Hanc Dei ejusque divinarum profectionum ideam perhibet Novatianus. Videamus modo quae tradat ipse circa mysterium sanctissimae Trinitatis.
of us they are brought forward, came about by design, not by defect. Therefore this God, Novatian concludes, the Church knows and worships, to Whom the whole of nature, of things invisible as well as of things visible, both always and entirely bears witness, Whom the angels adore, Whom the human mind perceives, Who for the first-formed set up a certain world of eternal life, Paradise in the East, planted the tree of life, likewise placed another tree, of the knowledge of good and evil, gave a commandment, appointed a sentence against transgression.... He (God) instructed the prophets by the Spirit, and through them all promised His Son Christ, and when He had pledged that He would give Him, He sent Him, through Whom He willed to come into our knowledge, and He poured out upon us the ample folds of His indulgence, bestowing on the needy the enriching Spirit. And because He is of His own accord both generous and good, lest this whole world, turned away, should dry up from the rivers of His grace, He willed that apostles as teachers be sent through His Son into the whole world, so that the condition of the human race might recognize its instruction, and, if it preferred to follow, might have Him Whom, in place of God, it might now in its petitions call Father.” This is the idea of God and of His divine perfections that Novatian presents. Let us now see what he himself teaches concerning the mystery of the most holy Trinity.
ARTICULUS II. — Doctrina Novatiani de mysterio SS. Trinitatis.
Article II. — Novatian’s doctrine on the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.
« Regula exigit veritatis, inquit Novatianus, ut primo omnium credamus in Deum Patrem.... Eadem regula veritatis, » pergit ille, « docet nos credere post Patrem in Filium Dei Christum Jesum Dominum Deum nostrum. » Tandem, prope finem ejusdem Tractatus, expresse tradit, debere nos credere in Spiritum sanctum, olim Ecclesiae repromissum, sed statutis temporum opportunitatibus redditum: « Sed enim ordo rationis et fidei auctoritas digestis vocibus et litteris Domini admonet nos post haec credere etiam in Spiritum sanctum. » Habes igitur tres divinas personas perspicue a Novatiano distinctas, qui paulo infra haec habet: « Et haec quidem de Patre, et de Filio, et de Spiritu sancto. » Ex quibus eruitur, per conjunctionem » et, » sicuti et per adverbium « etiam » textus supra recensiti, hoc loco sermonem esse de tribus personis distinctis, quarum una non est alia. Certum itaque firmumque manet. Novatianum a nemine insimulari posse, quod errori Scabellii faverit aut praeluserit. Sed quid de Arianismo?
“The rule of truth requires,” says Novatian, “that first of all we believe in God the Father.... The same rule of truth,” he continues, “teaches us to believe, after the Father, in the Son of God, Christ Jesus, our Lord God.” Finally, near the end of the same treatise, he expressly teaches that we must believe in the Holy Spirit, once promised to the Church, but bestowed at the appointed opportune times: “But indeed the order of reason and the authority of the faith, through the words and writings of the Lord set in order, admonish us after these things to believe also in the Holy Spirit.” You have, therefore, three divine persons clearly distinguished by Novatian, who a little below has this: “And these things indeed concerning the Father, and concerning the Son, and concerning the Holy Spirit.” From which it is drawn out, through the conjunction “and,” as also through the adverb “also” of the text examined above, that in this place the discourse is about three distinct persons, of which one is not the other. It therefore remains certain and firm. Novatian can be charged by no one with having favoured or foreshadowed the error of Sabellius. But what about Arianism?
II. Novatianum de Trinitatis mysterio « non satis accurate esse locutum, imo absurde pleraque tradidisse, » dicit Petavius; et Sandius, Petavii judicio, ut solet, nimium confisus, ipsum
II. That Novatian “did not speak accurately enough concerning the mystery of the Trinity, indeed taught most things absurdly,” says Petavius; and Sandius, trusting too much, as he usually does, in the judgement of Petavius, him
Editors' notes and page, col. 908
Footnotes
(2) ‹anchor: inquit Novatianus› · call in col 908
Novatian. lib. de Trinitat. cap. 10.
Novatian, book On the Trinity, ch. 10.
(printed under page 505)
(3) ‹anchor: pergit ille› · call in col 908
Id. ibid. cap. 1.
The same, same work, ch. 1.
(printed under page 505)
(4) ‹anchor: temporum opportunitatibus redditum› · call in col 908
Id. ibid. cap. 29.
The same, same work, ch. 29.
(printed under page 505)
(5) ‹anchor: haec habet› · call in col 908
Id. ibid. cap. 30.
The same, same work, ch. 30.
(printed under page 505)
(6) ‹anchor: dicit Petavius› · call in col 908
Petav. Theologic. Dogmat. de Trinit. lib. i, cap. 5, n. 5.
Petavius, Theological Dogmas, On the Trinity, book 1, ch. 5, no. 5.
(printed under page 505)
Page
- running head: S PRESBYTER ROMANUS. 908 (left part of the running head cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹nostram proferuntur›; B ‹Et quia ultro et largus›; C ‹credere post Patrem in Filium›; D ‹a nemine insimulari posse›
- old-edition numerals: 881 after ‹conferendo.›
- footnote calls (99) after ‹concludit Novatianus› and (1) after ‹in Oriente constituit› stand in this column; their notes are filed in n907 (call recorded there as col 907)
- misprints kept as printed: ‹profectionum› (for perfectionum; English renders "perfections"); ‹Scabellii› (for Sabellii; English renders "Sabellius")
accenset iis qui idem quod Arius, ante tradiderunt. Verum minus accurata et absurda illa vel ad Filii οἰνοχομίαν, vel ad minoritatem istam Filii ad Patrem tanquam ad auctorem et principium suum collati, quam Catholici omnes etiam post synodum Nicaenam agnoverunt, referenda sunt judice doctissimo Bullo. Novatianum autem cum Ario minime sensisse, paucis ex ipso, sed iis luculentissimis, adductis testimoniis demonstrat; cui demonstrationi (sunt verba Cl. Bulli) hoc unum praemittimus observandum, ipsum Petavium alibi fateri disertis verbis, minus accurata et absurda illa, quae operi suo inseruit Novatianus, « aut solo loquendi modo, aut certe citra mysterii substantiam, ab catholica regula discrepare. » Hoc strictim notato, rem ipsam aggrediamur. In capite 23 auctor Christi divinitatem sic astruit: « Si homo, inquit, tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: Ego ex Deo prodii, et veni, cum constat hominem a Deo factum esse, non ex Deo processisse? Ex Deo autem homo quomodo non processit, sic Dei Verbum processit. » Mox addit: « Deus ergo processit ex Deo, dum qui processit Sermo, Deus est, qui processit ex Deo. »
counts among those who taught beforehand the same as Arius. But those less accurate and absurd [statements] are to be referred either to the economy of the Son, or to that inferiority of the Son when compared with the Father as His author and principle, which all Catholics acknowledged even after the synod of Nicaea, in the judgement of the most learned Bull. And that Novatian by no means held the same views as Arius he demonstrates by a few testimonies drawn from [Novatian] himself, but those most clear; to which demonstration (these are the words of the celebrated Bull) we prefix this one point to be observed, that Petavius himself elsewhere admits in express words that those less accurate and absurd [statements] which Novatian inserted into his work 'differ from the Catholic rule either only in manner of speaking, or at any rate without touching the substance of the mystery.' Having noted this briefly, let us approach the matter itself. In chapter 23 the author establishes the divinity of Christ thus: 'If Christ is only man,' he says, 'how does He say, I came forth from God, and have come, when it is agreed that man was made by God, not that he proceeded from God? But in the way in which man did not proceed from God, in that way the Word of God proceeded.' Soon he adds: 'God therefore proceeded from God, since the Word which proceeded is God, Who proceeded from God.'
III. Quid fere in ipso Nicaeno Symbolo contra Arium expressius dicitur? Nam haec duo, « a Deo factum esse, et ex Deo procedere, » Novatianus diserte opponit: et Christum in excellentiori sua natura non factum sive minime creatum esse, sed ex ipso Deo processisse, proinde Deum ex Deo esse, haud minus diserte affirmat. Idem paulo post in eodem capite: « Si, inquit, homo tantummodo Christus, quid est, quod ait: Ego et Pater unum sumus? Quomodo enim ego et Pater unum sumus, si non et Deus est et Filius, qui idcirco unum potest dici, dum ex ipso est, et dum Filius ejus est, et dum ex ipso nascitur, et dum ex ipso processisse repetitur, per quod et Deus est? » Ex quo loco clare refellitur Petavii calumnia in hujus libri auctorem, dum ait, ipsum « verba illa Joannis decimo, Ego et Pater unum sumus. Ariano pene more declarasse; » ad hanc censuram confirmandam citans ista ejus verba cap. XXXII: « Unum autem quod ait, ad concordiam et eamdem sententiam, et ipsam charitatis societatem pertinet; ut merito unum sint Pater et Filius per concordiam, et per amorem, et per dilectionem. » Atqui, inquam, ex loco jam a nobis allato constat, auctorem verba illa Joannis non de sola concordia, sive consensu voluntatis (quod Ariani fecerunt), sed etiam, atque in primis, de communione substantiae, quae inter Patrem et Filium intercedit, cum catholicis omnino intellexisse. Quod et eo ipso in loco, quem citat Petavius, auctor clare satis exprimit, dum haec verba (a Petavio haud bona fide celata) ἀμίσως subjicit: « Et quoniam ex Patre
III. What, practically, is said more expressly against Arius in the Nicene Creed itself? For Novatian explicitly sets these two against each other, 'to have been made by God, and to proceed from God': and he affirms no less explicitly that Christ in His more excellent nature was not made, that is, was in no way created, but proceeded from God Himself, and is therefore God from God. The same [author] a little later in the same chapter: 'If Christ is only man,' he says, 'what is it that He says: I and the Father are one? For how are I and the Father one, unless the Son too is God, Who can for this reason be called one [with Him], since He is from Him, and since He is His Son, and since He is born from Him, and since He is repeatedly said to have proceeded from Him, whereby He is also God?' By this passage is clearly refuted the slander of Petavius against the author of this book, when he says that he 'explained those words of John in the tenth [chapter], I and the Father are one, almost in the Arian manner'; citing, to confirm this censure, these words of his in chapter 32: 'But the "one" which He speaks of pertains to concord and the same mind, and to the very fellowship of charity; so that the Father and the Son are rightly one through concord, and through love, and through affection.' Yet, I say, it is evident from the passage already brought forward by us that the author, entirely in agreement with the Catholics, understood those words of John not of concord alone, or agreement of will (as the Arians did), but also, and above all, of the communion of substance which exists between the Father and the Son. This the author expresses clearly enough in that very passage which Petavius cites, when he immediately adds these words (concealed by Petavius in bad faith): 'And since from the Father
Editors' notes and page, col. 909
Footnotes
(7) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 909
Sand. Nucl. H. E. lib. i, pag. 110.
Sandius, Nucleus of Ecclesiastical History, book 1, p. 110.
(printed under page 506)
(8) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 909
Bull. Defens, Fid Nicaen. pag. 134.
Bull, Defence of the Nicene Faith, p. 134.
(printed under page 506)
(9) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 909
Petav. l. c. Praefat. in tom. II., cap. 5, n. 3.
Petavius, in the place cited, Preface to vol. 2, ch. 5, no. 3.
(printed under page 506)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA.
- marginal letters: A ‹accenset iis qui idem quod Arius›; B ‹pite 23 auctor Christi divinitatem›; C ‹in eodem capite : « Si, inquit›; D ‹et per amorem, et per dilectionem›
- old-edition numerals: 882 after ‹rem›
est, quidquid illud est Filius ; est manente tamen distinctione, ut non sit Pater ille qui Filius, quia nec Filius ille, qui Pater est. » Nimirum Sabellii haeresin ibi unice impugnat, quae Patrem et Filium sic unum praedicat, ut distinctionem personarum omnino tollat. Adversus hanc haeresin docet, Patrem et Filium unum quidem esse cum voluntatis consensu, tum etiam substantiae unitate, siquidem Filius ex ipso paternae essentiae fonte derivetur ; sed tamen duos omnino esse subsistentia sive persona.
is, whatever the Son is; it is so, the distinction nevertheless remaining, so that the Father is not the one who is the Son, because neither is the Son the one who is the Father.» Clearly he there attacks solely the heresy of Sabellius, which declares the Father and the Son one in such a way as to abolish the distinction of persons altogether. Against this heresy he teaches that the Father and the Son are indeed one, both by agreement of will and also by unity of substance, since the Son is derived from the very fount of the paternal essence; but that they are nevertheless altogether two in subsistence or person.
Praeterea τὸ ὁμοούσιον Filii luculentissime confirmat locus ex capite 11, ubi de utraque Christi natura, divina et humana, sic Novatianus loquitur : « Tam enim Scriptura etiam Deum annuntiat Christum, quam etiam ipsum hominem annuntiat Deum. Tam hominem Jesum quam Deum quoque descripsit Christum Dominum. Quoniam nec Dei tantum illum Filium esse proponit, sed et hominis ; nec hominis tantum dicit, sed et Dei referre consuevit : ut, dum ex utroque est, utrumque sit, si alterum tantum sit, alterum esse non possit. Ut enim praescripsit ipsa natura hominem credendum, qui ex homine sit, ita eadem natura praescribit et Deum credendum esse, qui ex Deo sit : ne si non et Deus fuerit, cum ex Deo sit, jam nec homo sit, licet ex homine fuerit, et in alterutro utrumque periclitetur, dum alterum altero fidem perdidisse convincitur. » Certe mens illi tota caligat, qui non illic perspicit, hisce verbis apertissime doceri Christum perinde Deo Patri ὁμοούσιον esse, qua ex Deo est, atque ὁμοούσιος est nobis hominibus, qua ex homine est ; neque minus verum Deum, quam verum hominem esse. Caeterum haud injucundum erit observare, quod Novatianus, cap. 13, sicut et reliqui antiqui Patres passim pro divinitate Jesu Christi demonstranda iis sint usi Novi Foederis textibus, sc. Joan. I. 3 et 14 ; Joan. III, 13 et 17 ; Joan. X, 80 ; XX, 28 ; Rom. IX ; ad Galat. I ; Coloss. I, etc., quos etiamnum et nostri theologi suis in instructionibus adhibent.
Moreover, the homoousion of the Son is most splendidly confirmed by a passage from chapter 11, where Novatian speaks thus of both natures of Christ, the divine and the human: «For Scripture announces Christ as God just as much as it also announces God Himself as man. It has portrayed Jesus as man just as much as it has also portrayed Christ the Lord as God. For it sets forth that He is the Son not of God only, but also of man; nor does it speak of Him as of man only, but has been accustomed to refer to Him also as of God: so that, since He is from both, He is both, since if He were only the one, He could not be the other. For as nature itself has prescribed that he must be believed a man who is from man, so the same nature prescribes also that He must be believed to be God who is from God: lest, if He were not also God, though He is from God, He should then not be man either, although He were from man, and in the one or the other both should be put in jeopardy, while the one is shown to have lost credibility through the other.» Certainly his mind is wholly darkened who does not perceive there that by these words it is most plainly taught that Christ is homoousios with God the Father, in as much as He is from God, just as He is homoousios with us men, in as much as He is from man; and that He is no less true God than true man. For the rest, it will not be unpleasant to observe that Novatian, in chapter 13, like the other ancient Fathers everywhere, used for demonstrating the divinity of Jesus Christ those texts of the New Testament, namely John 1:3 and 14; John 3:13 and 17; John 10:30; 20:28; Romans 9; Galatians 1; Colossians 1, etc., which our theologians too still employ in their instructions.
IV. In capitis 29 processu, Novatianus eas Spiritui sancto addicit virtutes et operationes, quae in creaturam competere neutiquam possunt. Ac denique prope finem capitis eidem Spiritui sancto « divinam aeternitatem » expresse tribuit. Spiritum sanctum, ubi capite XVI, al. XXIV, minorem esse Filio dicit, eodem plane medo intelligendum, quo Filii subordinationem, ad Patrem relati, theologi interpretantur, ita scilicet, ut Spiritus sanctum dicatur Filio minor non naturae, sed originis respectu, quia nempe a Patre per Filium deducitur, ut loquitur Tertullianus, adv. Praxeam, cap. 4, ac proinde sua omnia a Patre per Filium accipit, ut dicit Novatianus.
IV. In the course of chapter 29, Novatian assigns to the Holy Spirit those powers and operations which can in no way belong to a creature. And finally, near the end of the chapter, he expressly attributes to the same Holy Spirit «divine eternity». Where, in chapter 16 (otherwise 24), he says that the Holy Spirit is less than the Son, this is to be understood in exactly the same way in which theologians interpret the subordination of the Son in relation to the Father: namely, that the Holy Spirit is said to be less than the Son not in respect of nature but of origin, because He is brought forth from the Father through the Son, as Tertullian says, Against Praxeas, chapter 4, and therefore receives all that is His from the Father through the Son, as Novatian says.
Editors' notes and page, col. 910
Footnotes
(10) ‹anchor: dicit Novatianus› · call in col 910
Ex Novatiani principiis, qui Filium quatenus e Patre genitus, Patri aequalem negat, aptum erat omnino et consequens, ut Spiritum sanctum (continues)
On the principles of Novatian, who denies that the Son, inasmuch as he is begotten of the Father, is equal to the Father, it was entirely fitting and consistent that the Holy Spirit (continues)
(printed under page 506)
Page
- running head: NOTITIA. 910
- marginal letters: A ‹est, quidquid illud est Filius›; B ‹stum, quam etiam ipsum hominem›; C ‹Deo Patri ὁμοούσιον esse›; D ‹vinam æternitatem » expresse›
- old-edition numerals: 883 after ‹hominis tantum›
Levissima sunt, quae Pamelius in Novatiano reprehendit, quod capite 7 scribat sequentia : « Denique si acceperis Spiritum substantiam Dei, creaturam feceris Deum ; omnis enim spiritus creatura est. » Haec enim verba, « Omnis spiritus creatura est, » minime Spiritum sanctum attingunt, Demonstrat Novatianus Deum ab hominibus nulla voce designari posse, quae non plurimum aberret ab infinita illa majestate. Quamobrem sive lux, sive spiritus, sive ignis dicatur, nihil horum apte de Deo et commode pronuntiari; propterea quod et spiritus et ignis creaturae sint. « Haec, inquit, figurantur potius, quam ita sunt. Nam et in Veteri Testamento Deus ignis dicitur ; ut peccatori populo metus incutiatur, dum judex ostenditur : et in Novo Testamento spiritus esse profertur, ut refector et creator in delictis suis mortuorum, per hanc bonitatem collatae credentibus indulgentiae, comprobetur. » Ubi vidos, « ignis et spiritus » appellationes Novatiano a rebus matorialibus translatas videri ; nec eum de Spiritu sancto dictum voluisse, quod « omnem spiritum » ait creaturam esse, Haec Maranus.
Very slight are the things which Pamelius censures in Novatian: that in chapter 7 he writes the following: "Finally, if you take the Spirit to be the substance of God, you will have made God a creature; for every spirit is a creature." For these words, "Every spirit is a creature," in no way touch the Holy Spirit. Novatian demonstrates that God can be designated by men with no word that does not stray very far from that infinite majesty. Therefore, whether He is called light, or spirit, or fire, none of these is aptly and fittingly said of God, because both spirit and fire are creatures. "These things," he says, "are figurative rather than being so in fact. For in the Old Testament too God is called fire, so that fear may be struck into a sinful people while He is shown as judge; and in the New Testament He is declared to be spirit, so that He may be proved the restorer and creator of those dead in their sins, through this goodness of the pardon bestowed on believers." Here you see that the appellations "fire and spirit" appear to have been transferred by Novatian from material things, and that he did not mean it to be said of the Holy Spirit when he says that "every spirit" is a creature. So Maran.
Queritur dein Pamelius, Novatianum, capite 30, Spiritum sanctum non appellare Deum, nec ullam mentionem ejus facere,cum Patrem et Filium unum
Pamelius next complains that Novatian, in chapter 30, does not call the Holy Spirit God, nor make any mention of Him, when the Father and the Son are one
Editors' notes and page, col. 911
Footnotes
(11) ‹anchor: (not visible)› · call in col 911
Maran. loc. cit.
Maran, in the place cited.
(printed under page 507)
Page
- running head: 911 NOVATIANI PRESBYTER[I …] (cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹Levissima sunt, quae Pamelius›; B ‹fector et creator in delictis›; C ‹tatem accepit. Quin etiam› (in the footnote text at the page foot)
- old-edition numerals: 884 after ‹reprehendit,›
- other: ligature doubt raised by the check (text not changed): Queritur | Quaeritur (æ apparently faintly printed; text not changed)
esse Deum, hocce in capite auctor demonstrat. Sanctum quidem Spiritum nominatim non appellat Deum Novatianus: sed de illius « divina aeternitate » in capite praecedente non silet, et Deum esse multis argumentis probat. Quid enim ei propositum est, cum divina illius attributa defendit, nisi ut probet quod se probaturum promiserat, nempe oportere credere etiam in Spiritum sanctum, » ac proinde eum unum esse cum Patre et Filio Deum? Unde etiam postquam ea absolvit, quae de Spiritu sancto dicere statuerat, sic initio hujus capitis tres personas conjungit: « Et haec quidem de Patre et Filio, et de Spiritu sancto breviter nobis sint dicta. » Quod si tacere de Spiritu sancto videtur Novatianus, dum Patrem et Filium non duos esse deos, sed unum ostendit; non aliunde quaerenda hujus rei causa nisi quod in evertenda Filii divinitate omnis haereticorum conatus versabatur. Nam si semel probassent Filium non esse unum cum Patre Deum, eadem opera Spiritum sanctum a divinae naturae cousortio dissociassent. Sic etiam semel demonstrato, Patrem et Filium « per substantiae communionem, » ut ait Novatianus, unum esse Deum, non jam supererat dubitandi locus, quin Spiritus sancti divinitas nequaquam tres deos efficeret.
God, as the author shows in this chapter. Novatian does not indeed call the Holy Spirit God by name; but he is not silent about His "divine eternity" in the preceding chapter, and proves by many arguments that He is God. For what was his purpose, when he defends His divine attributes, if not to prove what he had promised he would prove, namely that one "must believe also in the Holy Spirit", and accordingly that He is one God with the Father and the Son? Hence also, after he has completed what he had resolved to say about the Holy Spirit, at the beginning of this chapter he joins the three persons thus: "And let these things about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit have been said by us briefly." But if Novatian seems to be silent about the Holy Spirit while he shows that the Father and the Son are not two gods but one, the cause of this is to be sought nowhere else than in the fact that the whole effort of the heretics was engaged in overturning the divinity of the Son. For if they had once proved that the Son is not one God with the Father, by the same labour they would have dissociated the Holy Spirit from fellowship in the divine nature. So also, once it had been demonstrated that the Father and the Son are, "through the communion of substance", as Novatian says, one God, there no longer remained any room for doubting that the divinity of the Holy Spirit by no means made three gods.
Editors' notes and page, col. 912
Footnotes
(12) ‹anchor: tres deos efficeret› · call in col 912
Maran. Divinit. D. N. J. C. lib. cit. p. 521.
Maran, On the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, book cited, p. 521.
(printed under page 507)
Page
- running head: I PRESBYTERI ROMANI 912 (left part cut off at the image edge)
- marginal letters: A ‹esse Deum, hocce in capite›; B ‹deos, sed unum ostendit›; C ‹ctore sanctitatis, pendere› (in the footnote area, not set)
- old-edition numerals: 885 after ‹dissociassent›
- misprints kept as printed: ‹cousortio› (for consortio; English renders "fellowship")