10. And Christ is said to be "one master." Matt. xxiii. 8, 10. but yet we read that the apostle Paul also is a "master," or teacher. 2 Tim. i. 11.

a

999

11. Under whom [Christ], it is now rightly said: "To the pure all things are pure,—” Titus i. 25.

12. The epistle to Philemon is no where quoted, or referred to, in the remaining works of Novatus.

13. With regard to the epistle to the Hebrews, I shall take what may deserve any notice in this writer. He observes, It is assured of Christ, both by prophets and apostles, that he ⚫ sitteth at the right hand of the Father.' See Heb. i. 3. But this is so often spoken of in the New Testament, in the gospels, Acts, and epistles, that it cannot afford any argument for the epistle to the Hebrews. Again, he says, that Christ is found to be greater and better not than one angel only, but than all the angels.' See Heb. i. 4. "Being made so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." But this is too often said in the New Testament, as Eph. i. 21; Philip. ii. 10; Col. i. 16,-18: and therefore here is no proof of a reference to the epistle to the Hebrews. Mr. Hallet, having allowed that St. Cyprian and our Novatus had not quoted this epistle, adds: There are many passages in the epistle to the Hebrews very pertinent to the purpose of their writings; upon which account it looks very likely that they were of the same opinion with some others of the Latin church at that time, who did not, as Jerom tells us, receive this as a canonical epistle.'

I infer then, that the epistle to the Hebrews was not received by Novatus as an epistle of the apostle Paul. Indeed & Epiphanius and Jerom seem to say that the passage in the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. vi. 4-8, was the main text by which the Novatians, and even Novatus himself, had been misled. But, however it may have been with the Novatians in after times, I think there can be no reason to suppose that Novatus himself insisted upon this passage; his remaining works afford a decisive argument that he did not receive the epistle to the Hebrews: nor does the anonymous author of the piece, Against the Novatian heretic, usually joined with St. Cyprian's works, take any notice of this text. We know likewise, from the several authors who wrote against the Novatians, that there were other texts of scripture alleged by them in support of their peculiar notion: they argued from the words of Christ in Matt. x. 33: "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him also will I deny before my Father which is in heaven:" from Matt. xii. 32: from Acts viii. 22; and from TM 1 John v. 16: not to mention any other texts.

m

n

k

6

What has been just now said is of use to shew the mistake of some moderns, who have supposed that many catholic Christians among the Latins were induced to set aside the epistle to the Hebrews, because the Novatians perverted a passage in the sixth chapter of it. Much to our purpose are the observations of Beausobre and Lenfant: For it is false,' say they, that the church of Rome did not acknowledge the epistle to the Hebrews, because the Novatians • abused the words of chap. vi. 4, 5, 6, to exclude from the benefit of repentance and from the peace of the church those who, after baptism, had fallen into idolatry or other crimes. There is no likelihood that the church of Rome would reject a book which had been held for canoni• cal, because some new heretics endeavoured to make an advantage of it for the support of their errors: besides, it is certain that at Rome they counted but thirteen epistles of St. Paul before the rise of the sect of the Novatians: as appears from the testimony of Caius, presbyter of Rome, ⚫ who wrote at the beginning of the third century: whereas the heresy of Novatus, likewise errorem solvit, et ait. Hieron. adv. Jovin. 1. 2. p. 195. Bened. i Ad Novatian. Hæret. p. 18. a. ap. Cyprian. Vid. Q. cii. ex Vet. et Nov. Test.

* Et magister unus Christus est dictus; at enim legimus, quod magister sit etiam apostolus Paulus. ib. p. 233.

Sub quo merito jam dicitur: Omnia munda mundis. De Cib. Jud. cap. 5. p. 273.

Aut cum sedere ad dextram patris et a prophetis et ab apostolis approbatur. De Reg. Fid. cap. 26. p. 201.

Qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et major et melior invenitur. ib. cap. 20, [al. 25] p. 162.

See his Introduction to his Paraphrase and notes upon the epistle to the Hebrews, p. 18.

Hieron ad Dardan. Ep. 129. Spannes de AUTES TO PUTOV TE AT508 4-8.) Epiph. Hær. 59. n. ii. p. 494. A. B.

о

1 Sed soles alio dolo fraudem hanc velle contegere, dicens eodem sensu etiam Petrum apostolum dixisse Simoni: Age pœnitentiam ab hac malitiâ tuâ, si forte remittatur tibi. ib.

m Unde nec illa quæstio vestra quidquam poterit adferre ponderis, quam sumitis de epistolâ Johannis dicentis: Qui scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum non ad mortem, petat, &c. Ambr. de Pœnit. 1. i. cap. 10. Conf. Pacian. Ep. 3. p. 312. G. n Car il est faux, que l'église de Rome n'ait pas reconnu μevov (Heb. vi. l'epître aux Hébreux, &c. Préf. sur l'Ep. aux Hébr. n. ii. p.

Verum ne Montanus et Novatus hic rideant, qui contendunt non posse renovari per poenitentiam eos qui crucifixerunt sibimet Filium Dei, et ostentui habuerunt, consequenter hunc

413, 414.

• Or l'heresie de Novat, aussi prêtre de Rome, ne commença qu' après les milieu de ce siècle là. ib. p. 414.

presbyter of Rome, did not begin to appear till after the middle of that age.' So those learned writers: and I think their argument conclusive.

But yet it must be owned that Philaster, who flourished about the year 380, says, 'in his time it was customary in some places to omit the reading of the epistle to the Hebrews; and that one reason of that practice was the advantage which the Novatians endeavoured to make of it.' Nevertheless this does not alter my opinion of the forementioned argument of those commentators. Philaster only informs us what was the practice of some churches in his time, near the end of the fourth century: as for the sentiments of the Latin Christians in the former part of the third century, and downward till below the middle of it, we need no information from him; being already sufficiently informed about them by Tertullian, Caius, the works of Cyprian, and Novatus himself, not to mention now any other writers.

7. Our next article will take in the seven catholic epistles, and the book of Revelation.

1. There are no references in this author to the epistle of St. James, nor to the first or second epistle of St. Peter. However, we shall observe, with regard to the last mentioned epistle, that he says: The several parts of the world are so firmly connected together as not to be dissolved by any power, till he alone who made it shall command it to be dissolved for 'affording a better state for us.' See 2 Pet. iii. 11, 12, 13. Again, he speaks of the world's hastening to the fiery day of judgment: see 2 Pet. iii. 7. But this was so common an expectation, that the present world should be sometime destroyed by fire, that these expressions, in my opinion, are not sufficient to determine a particular reference to this epistle. Mr. Jackson,a in a note upon the first cited passages, owns that this was an expectation of the stoics.

с

2. For John also says: "No man hath seen God at any time." 1 John iv. 12. Again, • We find it written, that God is called love, and that he is called light;' see 1 John iv. 8, and i. 5.

3. I remember not any thing in this writer relating to the other two epistles ascribed to St. John.

4. There is nothing in Novatus taken out of the epistle of St. Jude.

5. But there is a woe appointed to those who add, and to those who take away,' See Rev. xxii. 18, 19. But whether this will be reckoned material I cannot say.

8. We are next to observe some forms of citation and general divisions of the scriptures, and afterwards some marks of respect for them.

1. "Of two sparrows," saith the Lord, "one does not fall without the will of your father;" see Matt. x. 29, 30. • Although we hasten to other things, yet that I think ought not to be omitted which the Lord saith in the gospel for representing his majesty: "Destroy this temple ' and in three days I will raise it up again.' John ii. 19. Lastly in the gospel ; "the hour ⚫ cometh," saith the Lord, "when neither in this mountain, nor at Jerusalem, shall ye worship 'the Father." John iv. 21. And in like manner in other places, as may be seen in part in what has been transcribed. He also calls the New Testament in general' the evangelic scripture. 2.This same Jesus, the Son of God, we read to be promised in the Old Testament, and • observe exhibited in the New Testament.' Him the ancient prophecies, as well as the gospels, testify to be the son of Abraham:' see before Numb. vii. 1. Justly" do we believe and hold,

a

m

Et quia addiderunt in eâ quædam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia: etsi legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesiâ leguntur populo, nisi tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et quia et factum Christum, dicit in ea, inde non legitur. De poenitentiâ autem propter Novatianos æque. Philast. Hær. 41.

but ex disparibus elementis ita sit unus mundus istâ coagmentata conspiratione solidatus, ut nullâ vi dissolvi possit, nisi quum illum solus ipse qui fecit, ad majora alia præstanda nobis, solvi jusserit. de Reg. Fid. cap. 2. p. 19.

Sive quoniam ad igneum diem judicii mundus iste festinat. ib. cap. S. p. 56.

Stoici contra (prope cum Christianis) igne dissolutum iri statuebant. Not. ii. p. 19.

e Nam et Joannes, Deum nemo, inquit, vidit unquam. cap. 18, [al. 26] p. 136.

f Invenimus enim scriptum esse, quod Deus caritas dictus sit, et quod Deus lux dictus est. cap. 7. in.

according to the doctrine of the Old and New Testament, that Christ Jesus is God and man.' The phrase of Old and New Testament is frequent in this writer.

с

C

a

3. He calls the scriptures sacred and divine, and at the same time shews their use and authority for confirming the truth of doctrines, or for confuting errors. That Christ is not only man, but God also, is proved by the sacred authority of the divine writings.' The divine scripture easily detects and confutes the frauds of heretics.' Again: The divine scripture of the Old and New Testament.' And sacred scriptures, heavenly scriptures: this last is a common expression in our author. He affirms the scriptures are infallible: he says it is one and the same spirit that spoke in the prophets and the apostles: but he gives the advantage to these. Among the offices of the Holy Spirit he mentions this as one, that he guards the gospels.

9. We are now to sum up the testimony of this writer. We have not seen in him passages of all the books of the New Testament commonly received at that time: but there is no reason to think he differed upon this head from other Christians; there not having been any accusations brought against him upon that account. Every one knows now what are the books I mean: the four gospels, the Acts, thirteen epistles of St. Paul, the first epistle of St. Peter, and the first epistle of St. John: most of these we have seen quoted by him; and it may be taken for granted that the rest also were a part of his canon. He likewise received the book of the Revelation: we saw a passage in him which may be supposed to refer to it. Besides, we know it was received by St. Cyprian of Africa, with whom the church of Rome held a friendly correspondence. It was also received by the anonymous writer against the Novatian heretic, supposed contemporary with Novatus. This book is much quoted in that piece; which is an argument that it was a book of authority with those against whom he wrote. We perceive farther, from the writings of Novatus, that he did not receive the epistle to the Hebrews as a part of sacred scripture, for he never quotes it; though there are in it many texts, which he would certainly have reckoned to be to his purpose, if the epistle had been of authority with him. As for the disputed catholic epistles, that of James, the second epistle of St. Peter, the second and third of St. John, and that of St. Jude, we have no clear evidences what was his opinion of them. He had a great regard for the scriptures of the Old and New Testament commonly received. We have seen in him many undeniable proofs of that peculiar respect which was shewn the scriptures by all Christians in general, as esteeming them books of authority, by which all disputes and controversies were to be decided. Finally, it ought to be observed, that there is not in this learned. Latin writer of the third century any, the least, notice taken of spurious apocryphal Christian writings.

VIII. It remains only that we observe the sentiments of the Novatians concerning sacred scripture. Having before carried down their history a good way below the time of their founder and first leader, it may be thought requisite to make a distinct article of their testimony: but a short one will suffice.

1. For, as we meet not with any complaints against them relating to this matter, it may be concluded that they had all along the same canon with the catholic Christians of the several countries where they lived.

2. Philaster* expressly says that the Novatians agreed with the catholic church in receiving the scriptures of the Old and New Testament; which is not contradicted by Epiphanius, Theodoret, or Augustine, who also have written professedly of heretics and their opinions. Socrates, giving an account of the difference between the catholics and Novatians, assures us, that each side endeavoured to support itself by the authority of the divine scriptures.

1

3. This account is confirmed by the arguments of those writers who designedly confute the

Quia Christus non homo tantum, sed et Deus divinarum literarum sacris auctoritatibus approbatur. cap. 26, [al. 21] in.

Sed enim scriptura divina hæreticorum et fraudes et furta facile convincit et detegit. cap. 24, [al. 19.] p. 187.

Quandoquidem non tam veteris quam etiam novi testamenti scriptura divina. cap. 26, [al. 29] p. 201. d Scripturæ sanctæ. cap. 30, p. 229.

Et poteram quidem omnium scripturarum cœlestium eventilare tractatus. cap. 21, [al. 16.] init. Sed quo modo hoc tenemus et legimus et credimus, sic scripturarum cœlestium nullam partem præterire debemus cap. 30, p 230.

VOL. II.

f Non utique ex scripturarum cœlestium vitio, quæ nunquam fallunt. cap. 30, p. 232.

5 Unus ergo et idem spiritus, qui in prophetis et apostolis, nisi quoniam ibi ad momentum, hic semper. cap. 29, p. 219.. -evangelia custodit. cap. 29, p. 223.

h

iSee before p. 62.

Novatiani surrexerunt post persecutionem postremam a Novato quodam, qui, sicut ecclesia catholica, credebant antea, vetus Testamentum et novum accipientes Philastr. Hær 82. 1 έτω δε αμφοτέρων επιτελλόντων τα εναντία, και εκ των θείων οχυρόντων ο έκατερος ελεγεν. Socrat. I. iv. cap. 28. p. 245, D.

K

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.

b

d

a

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 of 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 against the Novatians, as Epiphan. Hær. 59, n. viii. p. 500, & Ambros. de Poenit. 1. i. cap. 8. p. 399, E. cap. 10, p. 403, B. C. Quid Paulus apostolus? erubescit, cum Atheniensem illum versum et dixit et comprobat! Nam in Actis apostolorum ita ponit, &c. Pacian. Ep. 3. p. 308. B. C. Vid. etiam Qu, ex V. et. N. T. Qu. cii.

$

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 similitudine 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. p. 180. Græci enim Novatum et Novatianum inter se confuderunt, similitudine nominum decepti. Quo in errore fuit Eusebius noster. Vales. Annot. in Euseb. 1. 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; año No82т8 Nosaτiavo. Orat. i. contr. Är. 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 Nosara 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 h, 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 Pœnit. l. 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 pœnitentiam, &c. ? Hieron. Comm. in Joel. cap. 2. p. 1358. in Tom. iii. Hæc diximus, non quo juxta Novatum tollamus spem pœnitentiæ. 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. adv. Jovin. 1. 2. p. 195. m. Non est loci hujus, ut pœnitentiam 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 Pœnitentia, the name of this person 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 suppose to 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 Navarov, 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 Poen. 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, Philaster 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, poenitentiam 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 pœnitentiam denegando, et secundas nuptias, cum forte iniri eas