56

N 0 V ATI AN ISM

NOVATIANISM

difference. All sects previous to Novatianismhad erred on the doctrine of the Trinity. TheNovatians alone were orthodox thereupon. Thechurch therefore baptized even Montanists,while admitting Novatians by imposition ofhands alone (Cone. Laodic. can. vii. viii.; Hef.Councils , ed. Clark, t. ii. 503, 332 ; Cone. CP.can. vii. in Hef. 1. c. ut sup. ; Pitra, Jur. hccles.Graec. Hist. i. 430, 576). The reader will findin the articles on Cyprian, Novatian, andNovatus the circumstances which gave rise inA.D. 251 to the so-called Novatian sect. Theprinciples, however, which Novatian formulatedinto a system, and to which he gave a name,took not their rise from him; they existed andflourished long before. The origin of the Nova-tian schism must be sought in the strugglewhich, originating with The Shepherd of Hermas(Baur, Church Hist, trans. Menzies, 1879, t. ii.p. 50, note; cf. Kitschl, Entstehung der Altkath.Kirehe , 2nd ed. p. 529), had been raging atRome for seventy years, at first with theMontanists and the followers of Tertullian,and then between Hippolytus and Callistus.Every one of the distinctive principles ofNovatianism will be found advocated by someor all of them (Baur, l. c. p. 270, note). TheMontanists rejected the lapsed, and in fact allwho were guilty of mortal sins, Tertulliansecond marriages, as also did the strict dis-cipline of the 2nd century (Ambr. de Viduis,„.p. ii.; Lumper, Hist. S3. Pl J . iii. 95. DeS. Athenag. ; Aug. Ep. ad Julian, de Viduit.).Hippolytus held, in a great degree, thesame stern views. This identity in principlebetween Montanism and Novatianism has beennoted by many; both of the ancients andmoderns, e.g . Epiph. Haer. 59 ; Hieron. Opp.Migne, Pat. hat. t. i. 188, Ep. ad Marcellam ,457, Ep. ad Oceanum ; t. vii. 697 cont. Jovinian.lib. ii.; Gieseler, H. E. t. i. pp. 213-215, 284,ed. Clark ; Neander, Anti-Gnostic , t. ii. p. 362 ;Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind , t. i. 395, 428 ;Pressense, Life anti Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i.cap. 6, 7; Baur, l. c. pp. 124-126. Not withMontanism only, but also with Donatism isNovatianism allied, for.it is the same question,viz. the treatment of the lapsed, which under-lay that schism as well. Other points ofsimilarity between the three may just be noted.They all sprung up, or else found their mostenthusiastic supporters in Africa. They eacharose simultaneously with great persecutions.They were separated by periods of about fiftyyears. The two earliest of them at least, as weshall have occasion to notice, proved their essen-tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia inthe course of the 4th century. Novatianismmay indeed be regarded as a conservative proteston behalf of the ancient discipline against theprevalent liberalism of the Roman church (Baur,l. c. p. 271). The sterner treatment of thelapsed naturally found favour with the more en-thusiastic party, who usually give the tone toany religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bishopof Rome, in latter part of 2nd century was in-clined to take the Puritan view (Euseb. H. E.lib. v. cap. 3). Ozanam, in his History of Civili-zation in bth Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans., hasnoted an interesting proof of the prevalence atthat time of this view in Rome. Archaeologistshave often been puzzled by the symbol of a Good

Shepherd, carrying a kid, not a lamb, on hisshoulders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus.Ozanam explains it as a reference by the ex-cavators of the cemetery to the prevalent Mon-tanist doctrine, which denied the possibility of agoat being brought back in this life. Novatian-ism thus fell upon ground prepared for it, andfound in every quarter a body of adherents withwhose views it coincided. At the same time itmust be observed that Novatian was the firstwho made the treatment of the lapsed the ex-press ground of schism. In fact many continuedto hold the same view within the church duringthe next one hundred and fifty years (cf. Hef.Councils , t. i. p. 134, Clark’s ed.; Innocent I. Ep.iii. ad Exuperium , in Mansi, iii. 1039). This factaccounts for the rapid spread of the sect. InAfrica they established themselves in manycities within the course of the two years subse-quent to Novatian’s consecration in the springof a.d. 251 (Cyprian, Vol. I. p. 746 of thisDiet.). In Southern Gaul Marcian, bishop ofArles, joined them (Cypr. Ep. lxviii.; Greg.Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in Migne, Pat.Lat. Ixxi. 175). In the East they made greatprogress, as we conclude from the state of affairspresented to us by Socrates. Between a.d. 260and the council of Nice we hear scarcely any-thing about them. The controversies aboutSabellianism and Paul of Samosata, togetherwith the rising tide of Arianism, occupied thechurch during the concluding years of the 3rdcentury, while the peace which it enjoyed pre-vented the question of the lapsed becoming apractical one. We may, however, trace theinfluence of this period on Novatian doctrine.It became harder and sterner. Obliged to vindi-cate their position, they drew the reins tighterthan Novatian had done. With him idolatrywas the one crying sin which excluded fromcommunion. During the long peace there wasno temptation to this sin, therefore his followerswere obliged to add all other deadly sins to thelist (Soc. H. E. vii. 25; Ambr. de Poenit. lib. i.capp. 2, 3 ; Ceill. v. 466, 467). At the councilof Nice we find them established far and wide,with a regular succession of bishops at theprincipal cities of the empire and in the highestreputation for piety. The monk Eutychian, one oftheir number, was a celebrated miracle-worker,reverenced by Constantine himself, who also en-deavoured at the same time to lead one of theirbishops, Acesius, to unite with the Catholics(Soc. H. E. i. 10,13) [Acesius], During the 4thcentury we can trace their history much moreclearly in the East than in the West, as Socratesgives such copious details about them, as haveled some (Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbaeus)to suspect that he was a member of the sect.In the East their fortunes were very varying*Under Constantine they were tolerated and evenfavoured {Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. tit. v.p. 1522). Under Constantius they were violentlypersecuted, together with the rest of theHomoousian party, by the patriarch Mace-donia. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions severalmartyrs for the Catholic faith whom they thenfurnished, specially one Alexander a Paphlagonian,to whose memory they built a church at Con-stantinople existing in his own day. Several oftheir churches, too, were destroyed at Constan-tinople and Cyzicus, but were restored by Julian