NOVAZIANO and NOVAZIANISM. – N. was a Roman presbyter of the 3rd century, founder of the schismatic Novatian Church.
The exact form of the name is undoubtedly Novazianus, not Novatus (Novato) as called by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI, 43) and later Greek literature (alongside the forms Novato, Novatus). The Novatians designated themselves as “the pure” (καθαροί = mundi), in opposition to the members of the Catholic Church stained by communion with sinners.
I. SOURCES
What is possessed is not without a certain bias; particularly the letters of Cornelius see in him nothing but “a monster of cunning and wickedness” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 43, 6). The contemporary accounts are: 1) the collection of Cyprian’s letters (Ep., 44–55; 59–61; 68; 69; 73), containing letters by Cyprian, Cornelius, and the Roman confessors. 2) Eusebius’s narrative, drawn from a collection of Roman letters, with substantial extracts from a letter of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch (Hist. eccl., VI, 43, 4–22). 3) The letters of Dionysius of Alexandria, including one to N. himself (Eusebius, ibid., 45). 4) The pseudo-Cyprianic treatise Ad Novatianum (ed. G. Hartel, CSEL, III, 3, pp. 52–69), composed by an African bishop (v. B. Capelle, in Bull. d’ancien littér. chrét. lat., 1924, n. 236). Later accounts are more important for knowledge of Novatianism than for that of N. (s. Ambrose, De paenitentia [PL 16, 465–524]; Pacian of Barcelona in three letters to the Novatian deacon Sempronius [PL 13, 1051–82]). In the East, Eusebius of Emesa, s. Basil, s. Gregory of Nazianzus, and Chrysostom wrote against Novatianism. The history of the Novatian communities is described with some sympathy in Socrates’ Historia ecclesiastica (PG 67).
II. LIFE OF N
N. was a native of Rome or, at least, of Italy. Philostorgius (Hist. eccl., VIII, 15) calls him a native of Phrygia, in keeping with the tendency to link his doctrine with the rigorism of Phrygian prophecy (v. MONTANUS AND MONTANISM). His conversion came in mature years; he was a man of great intellect, well versed in sacred and profane letters, endowed above all with perfect oratorical skill, wielding (Cyprian [Ep., 55, 24; 60, 3]: “facundiae venenata iacula contorquens”; Jerome [Ep., 36, 1]: “eloquentissimus vir”). Even the ironical expressions with which Cornelius presents N. to Fabius of Antioch (ὁ δαμάσιος, ὁ λαμπρότατος, ὁ δαμάσιος [Eusebius, loc. cit.]) attest to the esteem enjoyed by N. in the Roman community. N. was also conscious of his own cultural superiority (Cyprian, Ep., 55, 24), ambitious, of austere and unsociable character. He had received baptism during a severe illness, by aspersion, without confirmation (σφραγίς) by the bishop. In the ancient Church, baptism of the “clinici” was viewed with some suspicion; nevertheless, on account of his exceptional qualities, N. was ordained “presbyter” by a Roman bishop (probably s. Fabian), overcoming the opposition of the clergy and some laity. In history, N. first appears at the time of the Decian persecution. During the long vacancy of the Apostolic See from the death of Fabian (January 250) to the election of Cornelius (March 251), he occupied a position of first rank among the Roman clergy. It was N. who wrote two of the letters sent by the Roman presbyters to Carthage concerning the delicate question of the “lapsed” (Ep., 30, 36 in the Cyprianic collection). At that time, he fully agreed with the ideas of the African primate (v. LAPS). But when in March 251 a large majority elected Cornelius to the see of Rome, N., urged also by the African agitator Novatus, placed himself at the head of a rigorist party of some presbyters and confessors and had himself consecrated bishop by three credulous rural bishops who, according to Cornelius, half-drunk, would have ordained him at the tenth hour (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 43, 8–9). The schism immediately manifested itself in a violent form. N. engaged in very active propaganda; rejected by s. Cyprian, he sought especially to win over the Churches of the East. He was unsuccessful with Dionysius of Alexandria, who repeatedly urged him to return to unity: “All things must be endured rather than tear apart the Church of God” (v. Ch. L. Feltoe, The letters and other remains of Dionysius of Alexandria, Cambridge 1904, p. 62); but at one point Fabius of Antioch seems to have inclined toward the schism (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 44, 1). Dionysius, in the form of a consultation, attempted to lead him to a more lenient practice toward the lapsed, and after Fabius’s death personally intervened at a council convened at Antioch, where peace was restored among the Churches of Asia, gravely disturbed by Novatian rigorism (Eusebius, op. cit., VII, 5, 1). In the autumn of 251, Cornelius (v.) convened some sixty bishops and many priests and deacons at a Roman council, where N. was solemnly excommunicated, while reconciliation was assured to all libellatici and, at least in danger of death, even to those who had sacrificed.Precise information on the events of N.’s final years and his death is lacking. According to the testimony of Socrates (Hist. eccl., IV, 28; PG 67, 540), N. died a martyr under Valerian (257–58). This agrees with the assertion of the Novatian deacon Sempronius that Cyprian, in a letter, alluding to N., wrote: “praecessit me adversarius meus” (Pacian, Ep. II ad Sympronianum; PL 13, 1062). From the first chapter of De cibis Iudaicis it appears that N. lived for some time away from his community, probably in exile; such a death could have been regarded as martyrdom.
III. DOGMATIC IMPORTANCE OF N.’S SCHISM. – It has been claimed that the reconciliation of the lapsed by s. Cyprian and s. Cornelius represented a break with the ancient conception of the Church (“Church of saints” that definitively excludes grave sinners), and that N. embodied the protest of the primitive Church of salvation against the Church of sacraments and priests (H. Koch). Certainly, as in the time of Tertullian, in the mid-3rd century there were rigorist bishops who shut the Church entirely to the lapsed. But that these rigorist tendencies did not represent the ancient tradition is shown by the indisputable fact that s. Cyprian and the Roman confessors, among others
Inclined to severity, and Novatian himself at first minimized the possibility of reconciling apostates. The question that so preoccupied St. Cyprian was not whether ecclesiastical "pardon" should be granted to the *lapsi*, but when it should be given. The principle of "full and just patience" (*pazientia plena et iusta*) prevailed both in Carthage and in Rome; peace would be granted, but the fruit of reconciliation could not be gathered "at an unripe time" (Cyprian, *Ep.*, 16, 2; note the identical statement by Novatian in *Ep.*, 36, 1). Thus it was not Cyprian and Cornelius who introduced a revolutionary change in penitential practice, nor was Novatian an advocate of ancient tradition: it was Novatian who changed. During the persecution, he refused only the premature reconciliation of the *lapsi* and regarded their desire for ecclesiastical peace as the fulfillment of an obvious duty (*Ep.*, 30, 7). He even consented to the reconciliation of the dying who had not yet performed full penance; indeed, at this point, with the Roman clergy, he showed the way to St. Cyprian. His schism was therefore not rooted in the penitential question. This had to justify his rebellion against St. Cornelius, which arose from personal ambition and rivalry. Just as Novatian did not hesitate to ally himself, against Cornelius, with the scheming African Novatus, leader of the *lapsi* in Carthage, so he later repudiated his initially moderate stance, denying the Church the right to
forgive apostasy, even at the moment of death (*Ep.*, 55, 28). St. Cyprian does not fail to note Novatian’s inconsistency: while harshly rejecting the *lapsi*, he tolerated in his communion fraudulent men and adulterers (*Ep.*, 55, 26). Later Novatians, more consistent, indeed excluded from reconciliation those guilty of other grave sins.
IV. WORKS AND DOCTRINE
Of Novatian’s literary legacy, which St. Jerome (*De viris illustribus*, 70) judged to be quite substantial, the following are certainly authentic: two treatises that in the manuscript tradition go under the name of Tertullian—*De Trinitate* (probably composed before AD 250) and *De cibis iudaicis* (written after the schism); two treatises, *De spectaculis* and *De bono pudicitiae*, which had found a place among the works of St. Cyprian; and finally the two letters to St. Cyprian (*Ep.*, 30, 36).In *De spectaculis*, Novatian inculcates the prohibition of attending pagan theatrical performances; in *De bono pudicitiae*, he extols the various degrees of chastity (virginity, continence in marriage, conjugal fidelity). *De cibis iudaicis* is a pastoral letter sent from exile to the Novatian community in Rome, to demonstrate that the time of the old law is past, that Christians are free from all dietary prohibitions except meat sacrificed to idols. A notable influence on Western theology was exerted by the treatise devoted to the Trinitarian dogma. Here Novatian shows himself indebted to Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and particularly to Tertullian (*Adversus Praxean*). There is perfect identity between Tertullian’s *Verbum* and Novatian’s *Sermo*. While retaining some traces of the distinction between the *Logos endiathetos* and the *Logos prophorikos*, Novatian surpasses his master with the affirmation of the Son’s eternal generation; it is no longer the "procession" from the Father at the creation of the world that gives the Son a distinct hypostatic state. Novatian equally rejects both modalism (Sabellius) and adoptionism. The subordinationist note of his predecessors is not absent in Novatian. Only the Father is invisible; the Son manifested Himself in theophanies, is subordinate and inferior to the Father. Novatian’s theology of the Holy Spirit is more rudimentary. The Macedonians invoked his authority. It must however be noted that his asserted inferiority in relation to the Son seems to be of the same order as the subordination of the Son to the Father. The Father, as the source of divine life, communicates it to the Son, who in turn transmits it to the Holy Spirit.