« السابقةمتابعة »
Novatians; for, in their arguments, they quote to them as books of authority all the books commonly received by Christians; particularly the Acts of the apostles.
4. It is probable, likewise, that they kept pace with the catholics in admitting the epistle to the Hebrews. That some of them in some places received this epistle, may be inferred from the passages
Epiphanius and Jerom before quoted: and St. Ambrose, in his books upon this controversy, considers the objection taken from Hebr. vi. 4,-8, as does Eulogius of Alexandria ; who likewise says that they argued from Hebr. x. 26, 27; but I do not observe that Pacian, or the anonymous author of the Questions out of the Old and New Testament, in writing against this sect, take any notice of the objection founded upon the passage in the sixth chapter of the epistle to the Hebrews. It is therefore my opinion, that, whilst the catholics were not agreed in receiving this epistle, so long there were also different sentiments about it among the Novatians.
5. I can say little concerning the opinion which these people had about the disputed catholic epistles.
6. As for the book of the Revelation, it was certainly received by them : it is quoted by most, if not all, the authors who write against them.
* The Acts are quoted by several writers in their arguments Cum igitur tam evidenti et ipsius apostoli, et scriptorum against the Novatians, as Epiphan. Hær. 59, n. viii. p. 500, ejus exemplo redarguantur, tamen adhuc obniti volunt, et & Ambros. de Pænit. 1. i. cap. 8. p. 399, E. cap. 10, p. 403, auctoritatem aiunt apostolicæ sibi suffragari sententiæ, alleB. C. Quid Paulus apostolus ? erubescit, cum Atheniensein gantes scriptum ad Hebræos: Impossibile enim, &c. Ambr. illum rersum et dixit et comprobat ! Nam in Actis apostolo- de Panit. I. ii. cap. 2. p. 417. C. D. rum ita ponit, &c. Pacian. Ep. 3. p. 308. B. C. Vid. etiam Eulog. ap. Phot. Cod. 280. p. 1604. Qu. ex V. et. N. T. Qu. cii.
Ib. p. 100g. in.
A NOTE UPON CHAP. XLVII.
It is commonly said, by learned moderns, that the Greek writers of the church have mistaken the name of Cornelius's rival, calling him Novatus,' and confounding this presbyter of Rome with the presbyter of Carthage: whereas his name, they say, was Novatianus, or Novatian. So Cave and Ruinart, and Petavius, not to mention any more. Hosce duos nominum similitu. dine decepti perpetuo fere confundunt scriptores Græci. Cav. H. L. in Novatian. Quin et ad ipsum Novatianum, quem Eusebius Novatum vocat, Græcorum more, qui Novati et Novatiani nomina sæpius confundunt. Ruin. Act. M. Sinc. et Sel. de S. Dionys. Alex. n. vii. Græci enim Novatum et Novatianum inter se confuderunt, similitudine nominum decepti. Quo in errore fuit Eusebius noster. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. l. vi. c. 45.
1. My first argument therefore in support of the present assertion is, that this presbyter of Rome is generally called Novatus by the Greek writers; by Eusebius, and Socrates, and Sozomen, and divers others: and I know of no reason why they should be deceived herein. Eusebius had before him the letter of Cornelius to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, and the letter of Dionysius of Alexandria to this presbyter, and divers other letters of the same Dionysius, upon the controversy about receiving the lapsed: and the two last mentioned ecclesiastical historians were well acquainted with the Novatians at Constantinople, who may be supposed to have known the name of the founder of their sect. Let me add here, to all the Greek writers already mentioned, Athanasius; who expressly says, that the Novatians were so called from Novatus; ato No8 Nosatiavoi. Orat. i. contr. Ar. p. 407. B.
2. There are still remaining in Latin authors traces of their agreement with the Greek writers upon this head. For this I allege the words of J. A. Fabricius : Eusebii et Rufini editiones Nosatu Novato vi. 45. Sed Novatiano utique fuit illi nomen, non Novato, qui episcopum Romanum se contra Cornelium ordinari passus est anno 251, quo has ad eum literas Dionysius Alex,
• See note 4, p. 43.
andrinus exaravit. Fabric. not. (f) ad Hieron. de V. I. cap. 69. Rufinus therefore, in his translation of Eusebius, at the place referred to, has Novatus, as Fabricius owns.
I shall next allege a passage taken from the notes of the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose's works : Romana editio ubique Novatum fecit e Novatiano: qua mutatione inductus in errorem Petavius Ambrosium nostrum iis patribus a quibus ambo hæresiarchæ inter se confunduntur, accensuit. Verum doctissimus vir secus sensisset, si quam aliam editionem, aut quemlibet manu exaratum codicem consuluisset. Not. in Ambros. de Poenit. 1. i. cap. 3. p. 393. Hence then I learn, that in the Roman edition of St. Ambrose's works is Novatus, where in other editions we now have Novatianus. Indeed the Benedictine editors of Ambrose say, that all the manuscripts have Novatianus. But, in answer to this, two things may be said : 1. That it is likely the Roman editor did not put Novatus without some reason. 2. It is very likely that in some manuscripts of divers Latin authors the name of the presbyter of Rome may be found written Novatus ; and what is to be farther offered will confirm this supposition. I therefore proceed in the second argument. The Benedictines themselves have so printed his name in their edition of St. Hilary of Poictiers : Nam in urbe Roma sub Novato et Sabellio et Valentino hæreticis factum concilium, ab Orientalibus confirmatum est. Hilar. ex. op. Hist. Fragm. iii. p. 1320. F. Et vid. ibidem annotata. Farther, I find his name frequently printed Novatus in the edition of St. Jerom's works by Martianay, a Benedictine likewise, of the congregation of St. Maur. Quid respondebit Novatus negans poenitentiam, &c. ? Hieron. Comm. in Joel. cap. 2. p. 1358. in Tom. iii. Hæc diximus, non quo juxta Novatum tollamus spem poenitentiæ. Id. in Amos, cap. 5. p. 1407. m. Facessat itaque Novatus errantibus manus non porrigens.-Id. in Ep. 38, [al. 61] T. iv. p. 307. Ego Originem propter
eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror, quomodo Tertullianum, Novatum, Arnobium, &c. Ep. 56, [al. 76] p. 589. ib. Verum ne Montanus et Novatus hic rideant, &c. ady. Jovin. 1. 2. p. 195. m. Non est loci hujus, ut pænitentiam prædicem, et quasi contra Montanum Novatumque scribens, dicam, &c. ad Ocean. Ep. 84, [al. 30] p. 659. Montanus et qui Novati schisma sectantur, nomen sibi munditiæ præsumsere. In. Ep. ad. Tit. cap. 1. p. 414. f. I have put down all these passages out of Martianay's edition of Jerom's works, hoping I may rely upon him for the right readings. I observe, indeed, that, in the index of matters at the end of St. Jerom's fourth tome, Martiany distinguishes between Novatian, and Novatus the presbyter of Carthage; supposing that where Jerom mentions Novatus he intends this last person, and not the presbyter of Rome : but, I believe, most learned men will think Martianay mistaken : Jerom plainly speaking of a writer, and the principal author of the Novatian sect; therefore he must intend the presbyter of Rome: for Cyprian's presbyter is never reckoned a writer. And though the Benedictine editors of Ambrose affirm that, in the manuscripts of that father's work de Pænitentia, the name of this serson is written Novatian; yet there are certainly two or more Latin authors, who write it Novatus : those Benedictines seem not able to deny it. They blame Petavius for reckoning Ambrose among the fathers, by whom these two presbyters have been confounded: but they were not pleased to cite Petavius, nor to refer to the place where he speaks of this matter. I shall therefore transcribe here the passage which I supposeto be intended by those Benedictines : Sic igitur Novatianorum secta ab ambobus illis auctoribus profecta, a posteriore præsertim, hoc est, Novatiano, magnum incrementum accepit. Sed Græci, uti dixi, Patres unum duntaxat sectæ conditorem nominant, Novatum sive Navatov, Romanum presbyterum: quemadmodum Euseb. 1. 6. cap. 45. Theodoretus, Epiphanius hoc loco, Gregorius Nazianz. adeoque Socrates, et complures alii. Imo etiam e Latinis Augustin. 1. de Hær. Philastrius, Ambr. in L. de Pæn. Distinguit autem Cyprianus passim in Epist. et Pacianus, ac Latini omnes, qui de hac hæresi subtilius disputarunt. Petav. Animadv. ad Hær. lix. T. ii. Epiphan. p. 226. Here then are two more Latin authors to be added to the foregoing, Philaste and Augustine ; their words are these : Novatiani surrexerunt post persecutionem postremam a Novato quodam - Philast. de Hær. cap. 82. Cathari, qui seipsos isto nomine, quasi propter munditiam, superbissime atque odiosissime nominant, secundas nuptias non admittunt, pænitentiam denegant, Novatum sectantes hæreticum : unde etiam Novatiani appellantur. Aug. de Hær. cap. 38. Vid. eund. De Utilit. Jejun. cap. 9. n. 11. et contr. Crescon. 1. ii. c. 1. n. 2. These are two material witnesses, Latin authors, who wrote professedly of heresies ; and the latter of them a man of great learning. I must add here that Rufinus, not only in his version of Eusebius before taken notice of, but in his explication of the creed' likewise, has Novatus : Et quod Novatus sollicitavit, lapsis pænitentiam denegando, et secundas nuptias, cum forte iniri eas
necessitas exegerit, condemnando. Symb. Ruf. ap. Hieron. T. v. p. 130. f. Pelagius writes the name in the same manner : Quamvis ergo tota epistola contra Novatum sit, &c. Pelag. in. 2. Cor. cap. 2. ap. Hieron. T. v. p. 1015. In the decree of Gelasius his name is written Novatus. Ap. Labb. Conc. T. iv. p. 1265. I shall mention one author more: Fuerunt hi enim aliquando nobiscum, sed quodam Novato auctore disrupti sunt: non tamen hæreticis coæquandi, quia non a confessione catholica, sed a caritate dissentiunt. Consult. Zach. et Apoll. 1. i. c. 17. ap. Dacher. Spic. T. x. p. 89. And I make no doubt but the name of our Roman presbyter will be found so -written in the manuscripts of many Latin authors, if consulted.
3. The common appellation of this people shews that the name of their leader was Novatus, not Novatian. If his name had been Novatian, his followers would have been called by the Greeks Nzuatiev2101, or Nauti&V152!, Novatianists: whereas they are always called by them NeveTilvor and in like manner by the Latins Novatiani, Novatians, from Novatus. This is evident from the passage of Augustine, before cited; and from a passage in his answer to Cresconius, a Donatist and grammarian: Tuque potius eis facis injuriam, cum scribis, in Latino sermone, non nisi Latinam regulam probans, Donatianos a Donato, sicut ab Ario et Novato Arianos et Novatianos, velles vocari. Contr. Crescon. 1. ii. c. 1. n. 2. T. ix. To these passages innumerable others might be added. I recollect but one exception among the Latin writers : Nec nos movet, frater carissime, quod in literis tuis complexus es ; Novatianenses rebaptizare eos, quos a nobis sollicitant. Cypr. Ep. 73, p. 198. This passage is cited in Augustine in the same manner: De Baptismo.contra Donatistas. 1. iii. cap. 12. Therefore I do not dispute the genuineness of this reading: but no one will suppose that this one instance can assure us of the right name of the author of the sect : for if his name had been Novatian, the common appellation of his followers would have been Novatianenses, or Novatianistæ, and we should have found it continually in ·Latin authors: as we too, upon that supposition; should call them Novatianists, not Novatians. Nay, though we had found these people several times called Novatienses, it could not have amounted to a proof that their leader was called Novatianus, if there were a great deal of evidence to the contrary. It is allowed that the name of Pelagius is rightly so written in Latin, and his followers therefore generally called Pelagiani. Yet they are not seldom called Pelagianistæ, a word derived immediately from Pelagianus, not from Pelagius. But no body therefore concludes that the name of their leader was Pelagianus, and not Pelagius. I put down only an instance or two of: that way of writing the appellation of that sect. Adversus Pelagianistas quoque novos nostrorum temporum hæreticos-per annos fere decem laboravit. Possid. de Vit. August. cap. .18.-illosque Manichæos, Donatistas, Pelagianistas, ex magna parte defecisse, --congaudens. Id. ib.
4. I know not of any one, in any age, called Novatian, unless the person in dispute was so named: but there have been many called Novatus : as Junius Gallio, Seneca's elder brother, born at Corduba in Spain, whose original name was M. Annæus Novatus. Beside the presbyter of Carthage under Cyprian, there was at that time a bishop in Africa named Novatus, who was present at the council of Carthage in 256. Vid. Cypr. Tr. p. 230. Novatus, a bishop, was present at the council of Milevi in Africa, in the year 416. Vid. Augustin. Ep. 176, [al. 92]. The same Novatus, or another bishop of that name, is afterwards mentioned by Augustine, in a letter written about the year 429. A sanctis fratribus et coepiscopis meis Urbano et Novato, qualis sis vir et quantus accepi. Aug. Ep. 229, [al. 262.] A letter of Augustine written in 405, is sent to one Novatus, supposed to be the same Novatus, bishop of Sitifi, who was present at the conference at Carthage in 411. Vid. Aug. Ep. 84, [al. 242.] et August. Vit. a Benedictin. concinnat. l. vi. cap. .6. n. 4, et Collat. Carthag. n. 143. et 204. There was formerly a place at Rome called Thermæ Novati : from whom so called, I do not enquire. Vit. Montfauc. Diar. Ital. cap. 14. p. 203. There is likewise a writer of this name whose work indeed I never saw; but it is to be found in divers curious libraries : this is the title. Novatus Catholicus de humilitate et obedientia. Vit. -Montf. Bib. Mss. T. i. p. 46, 67, 1373. This consideration alone is sufficient to render it pro.bable that the person of whom we are speaking was called Novatus : for it is not likely he should have a name by which no other man was ever called.
5. Some learned moderns seem to have supposed that the name of this person was Novatus. I guess that Beausobre and Lenfant were of this opinion, because they write his name in French Novat: as may be seen in a passage formerly quoted, p. 63, note. In Du Fresne's Latin translation of the Paschal Chronicle, the name Novatus is preserved, p. 271, D. 272. A Paris. 1688. And I am apt to think it will be found, (though this single instance, only now offers itself to me,) that several learned moderns have kept the name Novatus in their Latin translations of Greek writers. Obj
ia So I wrote in the first edition : but the book is easy enough to be found. It is in Bib. PP. Maxima, T. v. p. 1082, 1033, where it makes little more than one folio page. It is also in Bib. PP. Morell. Paris, 1644, T. ii. p. 75, &ca
. I can think of but one objection of moment, which is, that this person's name is always written Novatian by St. Cyprian: and it must be owned that this is a considerable difficulty: nevertheless, I think it ought not to prevail against so much evidence as we have seen on the other side. The case seems to me to be this; Cyprian would have it that his presbyter Novatus was the principal author of the disturbances at Rome, [See before p. 51.] And therefore he called the presbyter of Rome Novatian, as if he had been only a follower of Novatus of Carthage: and, having once given him that name, he used it ever after. Moreover, having occasion, or being of himself mightily disposed, frequently to mention these two presbyters together, no shorter way of distinguishing them could be thought of, than to call one Novatus, the other Novatianus : and St. Cyprian having often called him of Rome Novatian, I suppose he was with: out scruple followed by many Latin writers; though, I think, not universally ; far from it: for we have seen above sufficient evidence that, notwithstanding Cyprian's way of writing, there were not a few ancient Latin authors, who always, or generally, called the presbyter of Rome, and Cornelius's rival, Novatus.
It will be thought by some that I have dwelt too long upon so trifling a thing as a man's name: but, having long ago had doubts about it, I have chosen to put down here the collections I had made upon the point. Let others make what use of them they think fit.
I. His history ảnd works. II. His character. III. His testimony to the scriptures.
1. Dionysius of Rome has been already mentioned by us in the history of his contemporary and namesake of Alexandria. He was first presbyter, afterwards bishop of Rome. His predecessor Xystus, or Sixtus the second, suffered martyrdom under the emperors Valerian and Gallienus, on the sixth day of August, in the year of Christ 258. It is now the general opinion
of learned men that, after the death of Xystus, the see of Rome was vacant almost a whole year, that Dionysius was ordained bishop of that city on the 22d day of July 259, and died the 26th of December 269.
In the time of his episcopate, probably near the beginning of the sole reign of Gallienus, not long after the defeat of Valerian by the Persians, and therefore about the year of our Lord 260 or 261, the Christians at Cæsarea in Cappadocia were in great distress ; occasioned, as it seems, by the inroads of some barbarous people : for St. Basil in one of his epistles says, “that • Dionysius wrote to the church of Cæsarea, and by his letters comforted them when under * affliction, and likewise sent some persons to redeem those of the brethren that had been taken a Vid. Euseb. I. vii. cap. 7. p. 254. A
« Οιδαμεν γαρ, μνημης ακολgθια, παρα των πατερων ημων b Xystum autem in cæmeterio animadversum sciatis octavo αιτηθεντων, και απο γραμματων των ετι και νυν πεφυλαγμεναν iduum Augustarum die. Cypr. Ep. 80. [al. 82] p. 238. Jam παρ' ημιν, διδασκομενοι, Διονυσιον εκείνον, τον μακαριωτατον de Xysto, bono et pacifico sacerdote, ac propterea beatissimo
επισκεπτομενον δια γραμματων την ημετεραν martyre, ab urbe. nuntius venerat. Pont. de Vit. Cypriar). εκκλησιας των Καισαρεων, και παρακαλάντα τες πατερας p. 8. m. Sixti martyris, et Romanæ ecclesiæ episcopi. Hie- ημων δια γραμματων, και πεμπειν τις απολυτρεμενες εκ της jon. ad Ctesiph. Ep. 43. p. 476. fin. Bened.
aiguarwolas tuy aden.co7r1a. Basil. Ep. 70. [al. 220] T. ii. • Vid. Cav. Hist. Lit. Pagi Crit. in Baron. 258. n. vii. 271. p. 164. B. C, Bened.
* Basnag. Aun. 259. n. vii. Tillem. Mem. T. iv. St. Denys Pape.
captive. The memory of this benefit, St. Basil says, was preserved at Cæsarea, not only by the tradition of their ancestors, but also by the letter of that good bishop in their possession.
He was appealed to in the affair of Sabellianism, and probably in the beginning of his episcopate, in the year 260, or soon after. • Some catholics of Pentapolis, as Athanasius writes, • dissatisfied with some expressions used by Dionysius of Alexandria in his writings upon that argument, went to Rome, and accused him there to his namesake Dionysius, bishop of Rome: and he, having heard them, wrote at once against the followers of Sabellius, and against those opinions for which Arius has been expelled the church; declaring that the opinions of Sabel• lius, and of those who say the Word of God is a creature, a workmanship, and made, though
directly opposite to each other, were equally impious. He also wrote to Dionysius, to inform • him of the things laid to his charge; who immediately replied, entitling his book, A con
futation and apology. So writes Athanasius in his epistle concerning the opinion of Dionysius of Alexandria. In another work he says; • When some brought accusations to the bishop
of Rome, against the bishop of Alexandria, as it he had said the Son was-a creature, and not * consubstantial to the Father, the synod at Rome was offended, and the bishop of Rome sent * the judgment of them all to his namesake. He afterwards vindicated himself, entitling his • book, A confutation and apology: and thus he writes to him ;' that is, to Dionysius of Rome.
There was therefore a synod at Rome, which had some concern in this business : but, whether it was convened upon occasion of the accusations brought against Dionysius of Alexandria, or whether his accusers found it assembled, and laid their charges against him before Dionysius of Rome, and the whole synod, is not clear. Hence also we perceive that Dionysius of Rome wrote in that controversy; but whether one piece only, or a treatise, and an epistle besides to Dionysius of Alexandria, is not certain. A large fragment of what he wrote upon this point remains cited in a work of Athanasius. I shall transcribe a part of it presently.
It should be observed, that Dionysius, whilst presbyter only," wrote to his namesake of Alexandria
upon the question of the baptism of heretics. And now, I think, we have mentioned all the works of this bishop of Rome, of which we have any certain notice: I mean the letter just named, the letter to the Cæsareans mentioned by Basil, and what he wrote in the Sabellian controversey: for Jerom has not allotted him any distinct article in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers : and as for decretal, or other epistles ascribed to him, they are allowed by learned men to be spurious : nor does there remain any thing of his genuine writings, beside the fragment just mentioned.
To this Dionysius was sent one of the letters about baptism, written by Dionysius of Alexandria, as shewn formerly: as also another letter by the same person concerning one . Lucian. To him likewise were addressed the four books concerning Sabellianism, written by the same Dionysius of Alexandria, as we are assured by Eusebius; with whom Athanasius agrees when he says, the vindication which that bishop made of himself, entitled, A confutation and apology, was inscribed to Dionysius of Rome. And lastly, to him, and Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, by name, as well as to all other bishops and clergy, and the universal church, was directed 'the Synodical epistle of the council of Antioch, which condemned Paul of Samosata : but Dionysius dying before the end of the year 269, he never saw it: and possibly he was dead at the time of writing it, though the fathers of the council had not received any account of his death.
II. We are not without proofs of the eminence and distinction of this bishop for his personal merit, as well as the dignity of his see. His epistolary correspondence and friendship, whilst yet presbyter only, with the great Dionysius of Alexandria, is an argument he was a man of more than common accomplishments. Eusebius, who read the fourth letter of the Alexandrian
a Vid. Basnag. Aun. 259. 11. viii.
ο δε της Ρωμης επισκοπος την πανίων γνωμην γραφει προς τον –ανηλθον εις την Ρωμην, και κατειρηκασιν αυτα παρα ομωνυμον εαυτ8. κακείνος λοιπον απολογεμενος το μεν βιβλιον τω ομωνυμω αυτα Διονυσια των επισκοπω Ρωμης κάκεινος ακα- επιγραφει ελεγχε και απολογιας. γραφει δε ταυτα προς εκείνον. σας εγραψεν δμε κατα τε των τα Σαβελλια δοξαζοντων, και Alhan. de Synodis, p. 757. F. κατα των φρονεντων ταυλα απερ και Αρειος λεγων εξεζληθη της d Vid. Eus. lib. vii. cap. 5. p. 252. C. εκκλησιας: επεςειλε δε και Διονύσιο δηλωσαι, σερι ων · Vid. Pagi Crit. in Baron. 269. n. iii. Basn. 259. n. ix. ειρηκασι κατ' αυτο και αντεγραψεν ευθυς αυτος, και επεγραψε Tillem. Mem. St. Denys Pape. p. 701, 702. Ta BBA BÀexe xa atoàoYids. Athan. de Sent. Dionys. See before, cb. xliii. n. vi. vol. i. p. 615. i. p. 252.
8 See the same, ibid. • Αλλα τινων αιτιασαμενων παρα το επισκοπω Ραμης τον do See the same, numb. vii. vol. i.
010. της Αλεξανδρειας επισκοπον, ως λεγονία ποιημα, και μη ομο8 - i Vid. Euseb. 1. vii, cap. 30. init. σιον τον υίον τω πατρι, η μεν κατα Ρωμην συνοδος ηγανακλησεν,