Novatian (c. 210–280) was a highly educated priest, theologian, and writer. His work, On the Trinity, advances beyond the Trinitarian theology of Tertullian’s earlier thought in maintaining the eternal Sonship of Christ. Novatian initiated conceptualizing the metaphysics of the Incarnation, through the doctrine of Trinitarian circumincession, which in later theology came to be referred to as the ‘hypostatic union’ of the natures in the person of Christ and the ‘communication of idioms’ between the natures. The aim of this article is to explore some areas of Novatian’s thought on the essence and attributes of God, his deployment of divine (apophatic) grammar, his understanding of the use anthropomorphic language in Scripture, the normative assumption of the simplicity of God in his theology (anachronistically speaking), his response to some objections to the hypostatic union, and a few elegantly written reflections on the Spirit.
Novatian divides his treatise up into thirty-one chapters. In chapter two, he begins with God as above all things, containing all things, immense, eternal, transcending the mind of man, is inexplicable in all discourse, and loftier than all sublimity. Theology should start with God—always.[1] Novatian discusses God’s unboundedness in time and space, writing:
For we read that He contains all things, and therefore that there could have been nothing beyond Himself. Because, since He has not any beginning, so consequently He is not conscious of an ending; unless perchance—and far from us be the thought—He at some time began to be, and is not above all things, but as He began to be after something else, He would be beneath that which was before Himself, and would so be found to be of less power, in that He is designated as subsequent even in time itself. For this reason, therefore, He is always unbounded, because nothing is greater than He; always eternal, because nothing is more ancient than He. (Trin. 2)
God is always “unbounded,” “has no time,” he “does not come to an end,” and is “debtor to no one” (Trin. 2). Novatian moves on to consider God’s majesty, which man’s mind cannot conceive, lacking the eloquence to approach and speak of it. God cannot be declared because to declare him (as he is) would be to contain him. Novatian sees that all human discourse about God is encompassing and containing him, thus whatever is thought and spoke about God is less than He. He writes, “we can in some degree be conscious of Him in silence, but we cannot in discourse unfold Him as He is.” Novatian stresses the unbounded glory of God because God is uncreated being. We cannot even fathom what uncreated, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and necessary being is. And when we acknowledge that before we embark on discourse of divinity, we situate ourselves in the proper place to engage in discourse. Basically, we begin our talk about God by acknowledging we cannot truly talk about God—as he is. When we do talk about God, what are we speaking about? After all, Scripture is God’s Word to us about himself, so we must be able to use his words to express something about him, right?
Novatian reminds us that the words given to us allow us to comprehend something about the essence of God as revealed not as he is. He writes, “For should you call Him Light, you would be speaking of His creature rather than of Himself—you would not declare Him; or should you call Him Strength, you would rather be speaking of and bringing out His power than speaking of Himself; or should you call Him Majesty, you would rather be describing His honor than Himself” (Trin. 2). But he then asks how can we say or think about that which is greater than all words and thoughts? How can we grasp God? Interestingly, one grasps God when one grasps that one cannot grasp him. Novatian concludes, “For He is above all that can be said. For He is a certain Mind generating and filling all things, which, without any beginning or end of time, controls, by the highest and most perfect reason, the naturally linked causes of things, so as to result in benefit to all” (Trin. 2).
In chapter 3, Novatian picks back up about how a creature can learn and know of God. If God is, as Novatian writes, “above all that can be said,” then what can we say about him? Novatian answers:
And since by the gaze of our eyes we cannot see Him, we rightly learn of Him from the greatness, and the power, and the majesty of His works. “For the invisible things of Him,” says the Apostle Paul, “from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by those things which are made, even His eternal power and godhead;” so that the human mind, learning hidden things from those that are manifest, from the greatness of the works which it should behold, might with the eyes of the mind consider the greatness of the Architect. (Trin. 3)
He cites Paul’s words in Romans 1:19–20. God has revealed himself through creation, so by what we see with our eyes—his glorious works, we can understand (know) who God is—his eternal power and divine nature. But does that mean mankind can know God through purely natural theology or general revelation? Novatian does not clarify. Now, all of mankind has rejected the truth about God, which Paul says was plainly revealed to it (Rom 1:19–20). God’s evidence of his existence in creation reveals his eternal nature and divine power, but man has rejected it. In that sense, mankind naturally knows enough about God to the point that its rejection of him is a willful rejection of the truth about God, therefore, all of mankind is under condemnation. But, with that said, we have yet to see if Novatian delineates the general knowledge of God and the special knowledge of God through Christ.
In chapter 4, Novatian discusses God apophatically (divine grammar); he explains what God is not, thus leading us to speak of God’s perfections. God is immutable, which means he is always good and the same; he is infinite, having no beginning or end; he is incorruptible and immortal. These negative ascriptions of God, saying what God is not, tells us much about him. Novatian, regarding God’s immutability, writes,
Thus there is never in Him any accession or increase of any part or honor, lest anything should appear to have ever been wanting to His perfection, nor is any loss sustained in Him, lest a degree of mortality should appear to have been suffered by Him. But what He is, He always is; and who He is, He is always Himself; and what character He has, He always has. (Trin. 4)
While Novatian is specifically talking about God’s immutability, he roots this perfection in God-self. And in so doing, we get a hint of the doctrine of divine simplicity (more to come in chapter 5). Novatian writes, “For whatever it be in Him which constitutes Divinity, must necessarily exist always, maintaining itself by its own powers, so that He should always be God. And thus, He says, “I am that I am” (Exo 3:14). God can only be God by what God is in himself. All that is in God is God. Nothing can be God except God—completely. He cannot have an attribute or quality otherwise it would be something (“parts”) he acquired from another source. Novatian continues this theme of negative ascriptions of God demonstrating their necessary existence in God if he is to be perfect and beyond all comprehension.
In chapter 5, Novatian makes the argument that we cannot ascribe any human vices to God though Scripture uses them (i.e., anger, indignation, and hatred) of him, taking anthropomorphic language, or human-like language used about God, beyond its intention. Reason being is that we can only understand anger and wrath from a creaturely perspective, which can corrupt man. But God cannot be corrupted. Novatian refers to them as “passions,” which “are rightly said to be in men , . . but not rightly . . . in God” (Trin. 5). And how is man corruptible by these but God is not? Novatian writes, “These things, forsooth, have their force which they may exercise, but only where a material capable of impression precedes them, not where a substance that cannot be impressed precedes them. For that God is angry, arises from no vice in Him.” Novatian is saying that man is corrupted by such vices because man can be impressed or acted on because he is material; thus, passions are proper to human composite beings. God cannot be impressed by passions because they do not properly belong to his divine substance/essence because God cannot be acted upon by anything other than God’s perfect, holy self, which is impassible. When God is said to be angry or have hatred, such notions in God do not arise out of vice as they do in man; rather, Novatian writes,
He is [angry] for our advantage for He is merciful even then when He threatens, because by these threats men are recalled to rectitude. For fear is necessary for those who want the motive to a virtuous life, that they who have forsaken reason may at least be moved by terror. And thus all those, either angers of God or hatreds, or whatever they are of this kind, being displayed for our medicine,—as the case teaches,—have arisen of wisdom, not from vice, nor do they originate from frailty; wherefore also they cannot avail for the corruption of God. (Trin. 5)
Scripture uses words that help us understand in some sense what God thinks about sin and wickedness; however, God’s display of anger and hatred at humanity, resulting in various acts of judgment and curses, as Novatian stated, flow from his perfect, divine wisdom and holiness. God cannot be “impressed” as creatures can, impressing is proper to finite, fallen sinners. Rather, God responds through God’s perfections, which are always derived from himself. So, since God is holy, he only acts in holiness, and nothing (spec. no passion) can “impress” upon him that will corrupt him in a manner to act not in accordance with his perfect holiness. In closing chapter 5, Novatian concludes with a further explication on divine simplicity, which functions as the foundation for God’s perfections and to also demonstrate why man is imperfect and corruptible. Basically put, man can be corrupted because he has body parts; God is not constructed or associated with bodily parts. Now, this does not imply that body parts are evil or wicked in themselves, as God’s creation. Novatian writes:
He is simple and without any corporeal commixture, being wholly of that essence, which, whatever it be,—He alone knows,—constitutes His being, since He is called Spirit. And thus those things which in men are faulty and corrupting, since they arise from the corruptibility of the body, and matter itself, in God cannot exert the force of corruptibility, since, as we have said, they have come, not of vice, but of reason. (Trin. 5)
Much of contemporary theology holds to some version of divine simplicity, mostly a mere affirmation that God does not have body parts. But simplicity is more than affirming God does not have body parts; it’s affirming his divinity. His simplicity is the constitution of his divinity, just as compositeness is the human constitution. We see the logic in Novatian’s thought, in his understanding that God’s being is Spirit. Does a Spirit have parts? As a spiritual being or referred to as an intellectual being or a being of reason, he must be simple—not composite—if he is to be omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and all the other appellations of deity ascribed to him. Just think, can God be everywhere present all at once if he has a body? No, thus he must be simple, i.e., not composed of parts that make up what he is. To be everywhere God must be a simple being.
Toward the end of his treatise, Novatian considers some objections to the hypostatic union, specifically the argument that if Scripture tells us that Christ died then it must be accepted that Scripture is likewise telling us that God died. Novatian responds by expressing that the Scripture is clear on the matter, but the objectors are not understanding what they are reading. And so Novatian, exposes the folly of their ways, showing the absurdity of accepting what Scripture does not tell us, namely that Christ is not only God; rather, he is man and God. Novatian writes, “If Scripture were to set forth that Christ is God only, with no association of human weakness mingled with his nature,” . . then their arguments might work (Trin. 25). If Christ is purely deity, or deity only, and the Scripture tells us Christ died, then we could conclude that God died. But that is impossible, writes Novatian, because Scripture tells us that our Lord is man and God. You can see up to this point the consistency in his argumentation, without even really making an argument; rather, he is just taking all of Scripture in consideration—the Rule of Faith—ensuring a balanced approach, as it pertains to passages that speak to the humanity and deity of Christ.
Novatian now follows up with explaining what is proper to both natures. Beginning with deity, he writes, “who cannot understand that the divinity is impassible, although the human weakness is liable to suffering?” He makes the key distinction between the divine and human nature—impassibility. God cannot suffer; man does suffer. And again, Novatian repeats the point that should be so easily understood that the Word took on flesh manifesting himself in the person of Jesus Christ, and that when he died, it was not that God died but that which died in him was man. And to support his argument, he goes to Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:28, where he talks about having no fear in man, who can only kill the body, whereas God destroys both body and soul. So, he says in the same manner, Jesus’ flesh was killed on the cross, not his soul. What I appreciate about Novatian is that he referred directly to Scripture, instead of making a metaphysical speculation. And that is why he says the objectors have made fallacious errors; they have overlooked what is plainly taught in Scripture, which is that Christ is fully man. Novatian’s response demonstrates the importance of balance in interpreting Scripture; giving greater credence to texts that speak of either his deity or humanity moves us into heresy. Precision is important.
In chapter 29, Novatian offers a systematic exposition of the person and work of the Spirit, in which we see his hiddenness yet he is observed everywhere present and active, in that he is weaved in all throughout Scripture, manifesting himself in the divine economy. The Spirit, writes Novatian,
is not new in the Gospel, nor yet even newly given. . . . He is therefore one and the same Spirit who was in the prophets and apostles, except that in the former He was occasional, in the latter always. But in the former not as being always in them, in the latter as abiding always in them; and in the former distributed with reserve, in the latter all poured out; in the former given sparingly, in the latter liberally bestowed; not yet manifested before the Lord’s resurrection, but conferred after the resurrection. (Trin. 29)
He is the Spirit of truth, sent to declare all things to the disciples, strengthening their hearts and minds, and who has given gifts to the children of God. Novatian writes,
the Spirit placed prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord’s Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed. (Trin. 29)
Since
it is the eternal Spirit who dwells in Christ, the Spirit’s outpouring onto the
Church is how we can say the fullness of Christ has been displayed and
manifested in the Church. The Spirit is “working in us for eternity,” training
our bodies to “advance in immortality,” by restraining “insatiable desires,
controls immoderate lusts, quenches unlawful fires, conquers reckless impulses,
repels drunkenness, checks avarice, drives away luxurious revellings, links
love, binds together affections, keeps down sects, orders the rule of truth,
overcomes heretics, turns out the wicked, guards the Gospel” (Trin. 29)
Concluding our survey of Novatian’s doctrine of the Trinity, we will look at his final argument, which considers the ad intra relations, specifically Jesus’ begotteness from the Father as it pertains to origination in time. He begins with a doxological statement of God the Father, as the founder of all of creation, having no beginning, because he is invisible, infinite, immortal, and eternal—the One God (Trin. 31). But when speaking of the Son of God, Novatian must explicate on how we understand Christ as begotten of the Father yet having no beginning as he is God of God, the exact image of the Father. While the Son is born of the Father, “he is always in the Father,” unless there was a time when the Father was not the Father, having preceded the Son. But that is not the case.
Novatian, however, considers that in some sense there is a beginning in the Son (not a temporal one), whereby the Father willed that the Son be, and the Son proceeded from the Father. His beginning is something that has always been in the Father, but, as the Creator of all things, in that the Son “is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by him, and he proceeded from him of whose will all things were made” (Trin. 31). The language seems odd because, as he continues forward on his tangent of the Son’s begotteness from the Father, being before all things, yet, Novatian affirms that he does not have a beginning apart from the Father; he is fully God with the Father having the full blessedness of him. Novatian considers the objection that if the Son is born from the Father, this would cause a second person that takes from the Father the characteristic that he is one God. To show that the Son’s begotteness does not entail separation of being in God, as in two beginnings, two fathers, two invisibilities, and thus two God’s, Novatian writes,
whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods, since He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. (Trin. 31)
The Scripture clearly shows the full divinity of the Son with the Father. In abiding by what Scripture says about the Father and the Son (and the Spirit), they are both God of all and they are both the one and only true God.
The demonstration of deity and unity in the Godhead, Novatian writes, comes through the manner in which the Father and the Son manifest what belongs to divinity (i.e., majesty and Lordship). Though not expressly referencing it, what follows is Novatian’s exposition of 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. The divinity of God is declared, by the Son, who Novatian says is also “an Angel,” not in a creaturely constitution, but as the Messenger who has come “to announce the Great Counsel of God,” thus declaring the Father’s divinity. And in the revelation of his Son, the Father subjects all things to the Son, in which the Father gives and directs majesty and Lordship to his Son. And then this is reciprocated, whereby the Son demonstrates his unity of divinity with the Father, in that “the Son refers all that he has received to the Father, remitting again to the Father the whole authority of his divinity” (Trin. 31).
Novatian refers to this reciprocation of divinity as the Son’s “communion of substance to the Father.” However, he does not metaphysically tease out “communion of substance,” as his use of “substance” seems to be a metaphysical statement. The demonstration of returning and reflecting majesty and divinity appeals to the unity of the Father and the Son, “so that reasonably God the Father is God of all, and the source also of His Son Himself whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put before all Him whom He begot.”
Conclusion
Novatian is an obscure figure, in that modern Patristic scholarship has paid little attention to his writings. I venture to say it is because a few leading patristic scholars pigeon-holed him as a Modalist. Furthermore, his name is forever attached to schism, in that he is considered the first “antipope,” when, following the election of a new pope in 251, Novatian had himself ordained by three Italian bishops and gathered other bishops supportive of his endeavors, which promulgated a “new” church, with practices not in conformity with primitive Christian heritage.[2]
Only
a few have kept Novatian alive in the Patristic academy, advocating for a
thorough reading of Novatian in his context, with the confidence that a
reappraisal of his writings will reveal that Novatian, in fact, embodied the
very antithesis of Modalism.[3] From the brief exposition observed above, I
am inclined to agree with Novatian’s modern advocates. The contemporary
classical theism ressourcement project is re-reading the Patristic corpus
looking for the rich treasures of Trinitarian classical theism in its formative
years. And Novatian seems to be a generous contributor to that Great Tradition
of classical theism.
~ Romans 11:36
____________________________
[1] A key distinction often asserted between the Western and Eastern theologians is that the West starts with the oneness or unity of God, whereas the East starts with the threeness or diversity of God. Dunn, “The Diversity and Unity of God in Novatian’s De Trinitate,” argues that Novatian (a Westerner) was an exception to that simplification.
[2] H.J. Vogt, “Novatian,” in Di Berardino, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 2:934.
[3] Dunn, “The Diversity and Unity of God in Novatian’s De Trinitate,” 387.
Comments