Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Answer to Mr: Jackson. On the Name of Novatus.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Let us then see how Mr. Jackson name. However, Mr. Jackson, affirms, p. 131, that my opinion is contrary to the testimony of the most ancient Greek, as well as Latin writers.' shews this.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

He allows, p. 126, that Eusebius generally calls him Novatus; and the historian Socrates ⚫ likewise after Eusebius.' But why does he say after Eusebius?" Doubtless Socrates had read Eusebius: but was he not also well acquainted with many of the Novatians at Constantinople? And had they not there divers learned men, who could inform him in the history of their founder?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

At p. 126, Mr. Jackson says that though Eusebius himself calls him Novatus, he has preserved his true name in the seventh book of his Ecclesiastical History, and eighth chapter; ' where he is called Novatian in the letter which his contemporary, Dionysius bishop of Alexandria, wrote concerning his schism to his namesake of Rome." But I should think that Mr. Jackson might be reasonably led to conclude that must be a wrong reading, even though it should be allowed to be ancient. For the title of that chapter is, Of the Heresy of Novatus:' and at the end of the preceding chapter Eusebius, introducing that letter to Dionysius of Rome, says that in it Dionysius of Alexandria writes concerning Novatus after this manner.' I papel de aviw μεθ' ετέρα, των καλα τον Νο8ατον μνημονεύων εν τέτοις. And in the 43d chapter of the sixth book of his Ecclesiastical History, giving an account of the affair at Rome, both Eusebius and Cornelius: himself, in his letter to Fabius, often mention the Roman presbyter by the name Novatus: it must therefore be probable that in one place an error has crept in contrary to the original reading: accordingly, in the Latin translation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, printed at. Basil in 1611, or 1612, is Novatus; the translator, I suppose, taking it for granted that the other was a wrong reading: Novato quidem merito succensemus. Moreover, in the 45th chapter of the same sixth book of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, is a letter of Dionysius to the presbyter of Rome himself, where he calls him Novatus: Διονυσιος Ναβατω τω αδελφω χαίρειν. Indeed as that letter is given by Niceph. 1. vi. c. 4, it has Novatianus: but surely Eusebius's authority is better than that of so late a writer, if indeed we have his authority for it: but probably that reading did not come from Nicephorus himself; for he too, as well as other Greek authors, writes his name Novatus. Vid. Niceph. 1. vi. c. 3, T. i. p. 397. A. cap. 5, p. 394, c. 6, p. 395, et 396, c. 7, p.397, B. &c. et cap. 35, p. 436, C. Kav Ewиgaтns o en NavaTS.And, even introducing Dionysius's letter to Novatus, where we now have Novatian, Nicephorus says, that letter was written to Novatus.' Οποια δε και αυτω εκείνῳ Ναυατω την εν Ρώμη εκκλησιων διασαλεύοντι γεγραφε, παραθεσθαι δικαιον, L. 6. c. 4. p. 393. D. Insomuch that, though in the Greek copies of Nicephorus is Navatieve, the Latin translator, sensible it must be a wrong reading, puts Novatus: Dionysius Novato fratri salutem : and so it is likewise in Rufinus's ancient Latin translation of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, as was shewn formerly see p. 66.

I hope I have now at once shewn that Dionysius of Alexandria, and Nicephorus, as well as Eusebius, write the name of the presbyter of Rome, Novatus.

Still Mr. Jackson says, p. 127, that in the Chronography of Georgius Syncellus, p. 374,. • Dionysius calls the Roman presbyter to whom he wrote Novatian.' But then in the margin is put Novatus, as a various reading, or a correction of the text, as supposed to be corrupt, and. with good reason; for elsewhere very often, perhaps forty or fifty times, that, author writes Novatus.

Mr. Jackson says, p. 127, And Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History, I. iii. c. 8, calls the Roman presbyter Novatian, and so is expressly against Mr. L, though he has alleged him Μαθων γαρ, on his side.' But let any attentive person judge whether Mr. Jackson has reason for what he And in another place he says here: in that place indeed Sozomen has Novatian: but in another Novatus. Mabwv jag,. Μακεδόνιος της πλειες ενθαδε τα Ναυατε Φρονειν. κ. λ. 1. iv. c. 21, p. 571, D. expressly says that the name of the leader of the sect was Novatus. Navaros μey yas, os askyros EYEVELO TYS RIREσEWS. u. λ. l. vi. c. 24, p. 670. A. It is likely therefore that, in the place referred to by Mr. Jackson, we have a wrong reading; for it is not reasonable to think that in that one place Sozomen intended, to contradict himself, or that he used a different writing of the name from Eusebius and Socrates: but, however that be, should not the other places have been taken notice of by Mr. Jackson? Was Mr. Jackson in the right to conceal them from his readers? And was not I in the right to reckon Sozomen on my side, when he has left at least two places. to one for me?

At p. 66, I mentioned Athanasius among other Greek authors writing Novatus. And certainly he is an ancient author: nor does Mr. Jackson attempt to weaken his testimony: I referred to but one passage in Athanasius; but I might have referred to others; and he is a good witness, having lived some while in the west: and that he means the presbyter of Rome is apparent. Vid. Ap. cont. Arian, n. 25, p. 144, E. F. Vid. et Ep. iv. ad Serap. n. 13. p. 704. E. The author of the Paschal Chronicle, giving the history of Dionysius of Alexandria and the Roman presbyter, calls him Novatus several times. Εν οις αρθεις υπερηφανεια Ναυατος της Ρωμαίων εκκλησίας πρεσβύτερος ɛλɛyev. u. λ. p. 271, C. vid. ib. D. et p. 272. A. Theodoret expressly makes Novatus presbyter of Rome author of the sect. Ο δε Ναυατος Ρωμαίων της εκκλησίας πρεσβύτερος ην. Η. Fab. l. iii. cap. 5, and I might allege Philostorgius, Epiphanius, Zonaras, and other Greek authors, writing the name after the same manner: but I forbear. If I have set Mr. Jackson's readers right as to Dionysius of Alexandria, and Sozomen, I have performed all that was needful for repairing my first argument.

My second argument, p. 66, 67, was, that there are still remaining in Latin authors "traces of their agreement with the Greek writers upon this head.' I allow that some ancient writers did, though corruptly, write the Roman presbyter's name Novatian: but I think that many others write it Novatus: of which we still have traces in the works of divers of them: but I am of opinion that in several passages the right reading has been altered; which has been owing to a notion, prevailing of late among moderns, that his name was Novatian.

Under that argument I produced passages of divers ancient Latin authors: one of those passages is from Hilary, at p. 249, which Mr. Jackson does not contest, because, as I suppose, he is sensible the Roman presbyter must be meant: other passages are from Jerom, Philaster, Augustine: these Mr. Jackson disputes; for he says those writers do not mean the presbyter of Rome, but the presbyter of Carthage. I argued that by Novatus Jerom must mean the Roman presbyter in several places of his works, because he speaks of him as an author, whereas Novatus of Carthage never was reckoned an author. In answer to this Mr. Jackson says, p. 129, that Jerom certainly meant Novatus of Carthage in all the places referred to by me; and that this Novatus he supposes to have been a writer in his 56th epistle to Tranquilinus, p, 589. But I am apt to think that most readers, who look upon those passages of Jerom will be of a different mind, and think that probably Jerom means the Roman presbyter. Mr. Jackson has no reason for saying, that he certainly meant the presbyter of Carthage: nor can I see that Jerom, in the epistle referred to by Mr Jackson, supposes Novatus to have been an author: I think he means the Roman presbyter, Mr. Jackson's author. The words are: Ego Origenem propter eruditionem sic interdum legendum arbitror, quomodo Tertullianum, Novatum, Arnobium.But who ever heard of the writings or the learning of Novatus of Carthage?

[ocr errors]

Some may make a doubt whether Philaster and Augustine, when they say the Novatians were so called from Novatus, mean the presbyter of Carthage or him of Rome: but it seems to me most likely that they mean the latter, who was by much the more famous man: nor can there be any good reason assigned why they should not there mean the same person, even the presbyter of Rome, to whom their brethren, the Greek writers, continually ascribe the unmerciful doctrine of rejecting penitents; to whom likewise the Latins themselves ascribe it very frequently; and I suppose it to be a common opinion, among learned and judicious moderns, that the party was not denominated from the presbyter of Carthage, but from the presbyter of Rome. Nefandæ seditione tamen Novatianus, non Novatus nomen imposuit. Basnag. An. 251. n. vi. Indeed Jerom says: Hujus auctor Novatus Cypriani presbyter fuit: which I have translated: The first author of this rigid principle was Novatus, Cyprian's presbyter,' p. 43. And Mr. Jackson, p. 128, translates it after this manner: The author of this sect was Novatus, one of Cyprian's presbyter's.' But I think that we have neither of us translated very happily; for that sense does not agree with the preceding words, where Jerom expressly says that Novatian, or Novatus of Rome, formed or constituted the sect of the Novatians. Novatianus Romanæ urbis presbyter, adversus Cornelium cathedram sacerdotalem conatus invadere Novatianum- -dogma constituit, nolens apostatas suscipere pœnitentes. Hujus auctor Novatus Cypriani presbyter fuit. It seems to me therefore that in these last words Jerom intends to say. his adviser was Novatus, one of Cyprian's presbyters:' for, having before said that the presbyter of Rome formed the sect of the Novatians," he cannot be diposed to say, presently afterwards, that Novatus of Carthage was the author of

the same sect. The most, I think that he can mean is, that the presbyter of Carthage helped and concurred with him at Rome: and this too it is likely is said by him upon the authority of St. Cyprian only. Moreover, it is observable that Novatus, the presbyter of Carthage, so long at least as he was in Africa, was of a quite contrary principle from that which distinguished the Novatian sect: he was for receiving those who had lapsed upon very easy terms; and though he may afterwards have embraced the rigid principle of that sect, yet it is not likely that he should have been the first author and proposer of it. I shall represent this in the words of some others, that it may not be suspected I state the case wrong. Secundum Baronii argumentum pariter ** infirmum, quod nempe cum duæ essent inter se contrariæ sectæ schismaticorum, Felicissimus ille sententiæ Novati adversarius erat, quod diceret, lapsos omnes absque pœnitentiæ mora recipiendos. Nam hæc nihil probant. Quippe Novatus, quamdiu in Africa fuit, semper se ejusdem cum Felicissimo sententiæ de lapsis recipiendis professus est. Cum autem Romam venisset, et se Novatiano adjunxisset, ut Romanum schisma promoveret, illius sententiam amplexus esse videbatur, sive serio, sive ficte, ut et ipse Novatianus sententiam suam jam mutaverat, ut Cornelio fortius contradicet. Pagi in Baron. A. D. 250, n. xiv. Vid. et Basnag. Ann. P. E. 371. n. v. Qua quidem in re a nonnullis in duo peccatum est extrema. Nam, Carthagine, Felicissimus, cui Novatus se adjunxit, lapsos omnes absque ulla mora recipiendos dixit. Contra, Romæ, Novatianus, ad quem et postea Novatus, mutatis partibus, accessit, lapsos nunquam recipi voluit. Turretin. Hist. Ec. Compend, p. 23. Novatus Carthagine, absente Cypriano, cum lapsis communicaverat Paullo post Romam veniens Novatus simile inter Cornelium episcopum et Novatianum dissidium invenit, ex nimia Cornelii in lapsos indulgentia, natum, et eousque excrescens, ut Novatianus a factiosis episcopus crearetur. Hic Novatum in aliud extremum pertraxit, suisque partibus junxit, quæ Catharorum, seu purorem superbivere nomine. Lampe Synops. Hist. Ec. p. 120. And here I think it would not be amiss for my readers to recollect what I said. formerly, p. 51, 52, shewing that Cyprian beyond measure magnified the influence of his presbyter Novatus in the disturbances at Rome, and that Cyprian has been too much relied on by some.

[ocr errors]

My third argument was, The common appellation of this people shews that the name of their leader was Novatus, not Novatianus. For they are generally called Novatians. If the name of their leader had been Novatianus, they would have been called Novatianenses, or somewhat like it; whereas there is but one instance of this, which is in Cyprian, and is cited from him by Augustine. I took notice of it, p. 67, nor has Mr. Jackson produced any other instance: he has therefore left this argument in its full force..

My fourth argument was, "that there never was, that we know of, any one, in any age, called Novatian, unless the person in dispute was so named. This argument Mr. Jackson has not touched, having no instance to allege; whilst Novatus is no uncommon name, as I shewed, This argument must be of considerable weight in a point of this kind; for it is not likely that this famous presbyter of Rome should be called by a name which no other man ever had, neither before him nor after him. Indeed, this argument alone appears to me decisive, unless there is some clear evidence of another kind against it, which there is not,

In the fifth place I observed that some learned moderns seem to have supposed the name of this person to be Novatus.' And I referred to some, p. 69; to them ought to be added the author of the Roman edition of St. Ambrose's works, spoken of p. 67. The learned lawyer, Fr. Balduinus, likewise was of the same opinion: Ecclesiæ Romanæ presbyter Novatus, et Antiochena episcopus Paulus Samosatenus, magnas paulo ante turbas dederant. De Leg. C. M.. 1. i. p. 48. Vid. et ib. p. 65, m.

I accounted for Cyprian's manner of writing this person's name, p. 69, and shall add nothing more here..

Upon the whole it still appears to me highly probable that Novatus was the name of the presbyter of Rome, Cornelius's rival, and that Novatianus, or Novatian, is the denomination of his followers.

I am sorry to have spent so much time upon this point: and if, for the sake of brevity, I have omitted to take particular notice of any difficulty in Mr. Jackson, I hope the reader will find it obviated in the note upon chap. xlvii. p. 66-69.

CHAP. LXII.

ARCHELAUS, BISHOP IN MESOPOTAMIA.

1. The history and antiquity of a work ascribed to Archelaus. II. Extracts out of it, and the author's testimony to the books of the New Testament.

a

1. SAYS Jerom: Archelaus, a bishop of Mesopotamia, wrote in the Syriac language a book of his Conference [or Dispute] with Manichee at his coming out of Persia, which has been translated into Greek. He flourished under the emperor Probus, who succeeded Aurelian • and Tacitus.'

This piece, as we now have it, contains two conferences with Mani, one at Caschar, or Carchar, a city in the Roman part of Mesopotamia, and another at Diodoris, a village, or a small town, in the same country: with an historical account of the life and death of Mani, and some other things.

b

[ocr errors]

The greatest part of it is now only in a Latin translation, not made from the supposed Syriac original, but from Greek. When this Latin translation was made is not certain. Zacagni, the editor, supposeth that it was not in being in Jerom's time, but that however it was made before the seventh century. Another learned writer argues, that this translation was not made sooner than the sixth, or the latter part of the fifth century; because the conference itself was unknown to Augustine, and likewise to pope Leo, who died in 461.

с

It is thought that this piece is not now entire and complete.

g

Archelaus is placed by Cave, and many others, as flourishing about the year 278. Beausobre's opinion of this book, entitled The Acts of the Disputation of Archelaus with Mani, or Manichee,' is, that it is in general, a romance, published by some Greek, about the year of our Lord 330, fifty or sixty years after Mani's death.' There are in it,' he says, some truths, but not many; and those disguised and mixed with manifest falsehoods. Again: It is a 'fiction of some Greek, who, having got some memoirs concerning the life and opinions of Mani, ⚫ resolved to write a history of him, and confute his errors.'

i

[ocr errors]

I fear that account of this book is too just, and that a large part of it is fiction: of which I may say more in the next chapter. At present I would chiefly consider the author and the time of his work.

[ocr errors]

112

As for the author of the book, Jerom supposed it to have been written in Syriac by Archelaus himself, and then translated into Greek: but he does not name the translator. Epiphanius likewise and Cyril of Jerusalem, and Socrates, ascribe the book to Archelaus: but by Photius we are informed that " Heraclean, bishop of Chalcedon, in his book against the Manichees, said, Hegemonius wrote the Dispute of Archelaus. This has induced Cave, and others,

[ocr errors]

• Archelaüs, episcopus Mesopotamia, librum disputationis

suæ, quam habuit adversum Manichæum, exeuntem ex perside, Syro sermone composuit, qui translatus in Græcum habetur a multis. Claruit sub Imperatore Probo, qui Aureliano et Tacito successerat. De V. I. c. 72.

b Porro Græcam versionem, non vero Syriacum textum, præ manibus Latinum interpretem habuisse--satis superque demonstratur. Zacagn. Præf. sect. v. in. c Ib. n. iv. f. d See Beausobr. Hist. de Manich. T. i. Diss. Prelim. P. 6. Illud tamen dissimulare non possum, Acta ista disputationis Archelai cum Manete, quæ ex Vaticano Casinensis codicis apographo primi edimus, integra nequaquam videri, sed pluribus in locis a librario mutilata. Zac. ib. n. 14. in.

f En général toute cette pièce, qu' on nomme les Actes de la Dispute d'Archélaüs, n'est qu'un roman fabriqué par un Grec, et publié depuis l'an 330, soixante ans, ou environ, après la mort de Manichée. Beaus. ib. p. 6.

[ocr errors]

* Il y a quelque verités, mais en petit nombre; et le peu qu'il y en a, est altéré, confus, mêlé de fables manifestes.id. ib.

h Dès que j'eus lû cette pièce, que feu M. Zacagni, bibliothécaire du Vatican, publia le premier toute entière, j'eus un graud soupçon, que la Dispute de Cascar n'étoit qu' une fiction de quelque Grec, qui, ayant eu des mémoires touchant la vie et les dogmes de Manichée, voulut écrire son histoire, et refuter ses erreurs. L'examen changea mes soupçons en certitude. Id. in Preface. T. i. p. vi.

* See the first section in the next chapter, numb. i. 2.

k

* año т8 Axeλas Bibs. Epiph. H. 66, n. 32, in Vid. et 1 Cat. 6, n. 27, p. 104.

n. 21.

m H. E. 1, i. c. 22, p. 56, D.

» Ἡγεμονίον τε τον [τας] Αρχελαο προς αυτόν αντιλογίας avaypalavra. Phot. Cod. 85, p. 204.

• Unde conceptis pene verbis jurare ausim, non alium hu

Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia.

a

b

age

с

to look upon Hegemonius as the translator. Zacagni says that Hegemonius not only translated To the like purpose Asseman. Both which last is unknown, the Syriac, but made additions of his own. writers ascribe such additions and alterations to Hegemonius, an author whose as must greatly lessen the authority of this work: more, perhaps, than they imagined. But Beausobre says that this piece was originally written in Greek, and that Hegemonius was the author, and that it was not written before the year 330. He argues in this manner: Eusebius published his Ecclesiastical History about fifty years after the death of Mani. He there speaks of this heresiarch, and his heresy: but he says not one word of his excursion into the Roman Mesopotamia, nor of his disputes with Archelaus. Since Eusebius says nothing of these matters, it may be concluded that he was entirely ignorant of them: but it is not to be supposed that he should be ignorant of so public an event that had happened half a century before: nor that he should omit to relate so memorable a thing if he knew it.' Beausobre thinks that Archelaus must have been entirely unknown to Eusebius: and therefore he concludes that these Acts of Archelaus did not appear until after Eusebius had published his Ecclesiastical History; that is, in the space of time between the year 326 or 330, and the year 348 or 350, when Cyril of Jerusalem wrote his Catechetical Discourses, who is the first author that has quoted this piece. Nor does it appear that St. Ephrem who was of Mesopotamia, and died in 373, has any where taken notice of this Disputation, though he often speaks of Mani. Moreover there is a particular in the book itself, which leads him to conclude it was composed between the years 330 and 340. This time, says Beausobre, is distinctly marked in some words, which the writer puts into the mouth of Archelaus, for convincing Mani that he could not be the promised Paraclete. *When you say you are the Paraclete, perhaps you little think that you charge Christ with falsehood: who, though he promised to send him soon after his resurrection, has not sent him till above three hundred years afterwards.' These three hundred years come out in the year of our Lord 333 or 334. Zacagni says this dropped from Archelaus in the heat of dispute: because from the death of Christ, to the conference at Caschar, there were not more than 249 years: but, says Beausobre, I think otherwise. Nothing is more common than for impostors, who make another speak, not to remember every thing that is agreeable to the character they have introduced, and to thrust in themselves without thinking of it. Hegemonius, who in fact lived more than three hundred years after our Saviour's resurrection, thought of the time when he himself lived, not that of Archelaus, who was speaking. So that learned author.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I must be here indulged the liberty of making some remarks. I readily own I am inclined to think with Beausobre that this work was originally written in Greek, not in Syriac.

The argument from the silence of Eusebius is specious; and yet, possibly, not conclusive. It is indeed strange that he should never mention the name of Archelaus. Nor do I pretend to confute this argument of Beausobre; for it is almost inconceivable, that Eusebius should be ignorant of Archelaus if these disputes were real. However, I would not omit any thoughts which offer, and may tend to bring truth to light; and therefore I observe, that though Archelaus, and these conferences in Mesopotamia are never mentioned by Eusebius, some may suspect that he had seen this book called the Acts of Archelaus: for in his Ecclesiastical History, when he speaks of k And in his Chronicle Mani, and so particularly insists upon the barbarism of his language and manners, he may be thought to refer to passages in the Acts, which resemble his account.

jusce versionis auctorem fuisse quam Hegemonium nostrum, nec aliam eam, quam quâ Cyrillus, Epiphanius, aliique olim usi sunt. Cav. De Hegemonio, in Diss. de Scriptor. incert. æt.

--Hegemonium vero, quæ ab Archelao jam edita fucrant, meliori non solum ordine digessisse verum ejiam exordio, epilogo, aliisque nonnullis locupletâsse, ut omnibus numeris absoluta celeberrimæ illius disputationis acta ad posteros transmitterentur. Zac. Præf. cap. 4, p. iv.

[ocr errors]

Quæ quum ita sint, ab eodem Hegemonio videntur quædam ex illis Actis mutilata, quædam etiam addita. Assem. Bib. or. T. 3. P. 2. p. 47, in. Vid. quæ ibidem præeunt et sequuntur. c B. Hist. de Manich. T. i. p. 5, 6, p. 145, 146. d Ib. p. 146. -dicens se esse paracletum, qui ab Jesu præsignatus est mitti, in quo mendacem ignorans fortasse asserit Jesum: qui enim dixerat se non multo post missurum esse paracletum,

VOL. II.

invenitur post trecentos, et eo amplius annos misisse hunc Arch. c. 27, p. 46.

f Contentionis æstu actus videtur hic dixisse Archelaüs, post trecentos et amplius annos a Christi morte Manetem emersisse: nam a Christe morte usque ad habitæ cum Manete disputationis tempus, anni circiter 249 intercedunt. Zacag. in. & Beaus. ubi supr. p. 153. 46. not. ad Arch. P. η βαρβαρος δητα τον βίον αυτῷ λόγῳ καὶ τρόπῳ. Η. Ε. 1. 7. c. 31.

Persa barbare, non Græcorum linguæ, non Ægyptiorum, non Romanorum, non ullius alterius linguæ seientiam habere potuisti, sed Chaldæorum solum, quæ ne in numerum quidem aliquem ducitur. Act. Arch. c. 36, p. 63. Et Confer. c. 12. p. 23. Secundo anno Probiinsana Manichæorum hæresis in commune humani generis malum exorta. Eus. Chr. p. 177.

T

« ElőzőTovább »