works, describes him as "having been a precious vessel, an house of the Lord, who, as long as he was in the church, bewailed the faults of other men as his own, bore the burdens of his brethren as the apostle directs, and by his exhortations strengthened such as were weak in the faith." This testimony sufficiently disposes of the accusation of Cornelius that Novatian denied the faith in time of persecution, declaring himself "an admirer of a different philosophy." In 250 he approved of a moderate policy towards the lapsed, but later in the year changed his mind and took such extreme views that the martyr Moses, who probably suffered on the last day of 250, condemned them. In Mar. 251 Cornelius was consecrated bp. (Lipsius, Chron. d. röm. Bisch. p. 205). This roused the stricter party to action (Cyp. Ep. xlvi.). NOVATUS, the Carthaginian agitator, having meanwhile arrived at Rome, joined them and urged them to set up an opposition bishop. He made a journey into distant parts of Italy, and brought back 3 bishops who consecrated Novatian. After his consecration Novatian dispatched the usual epistles announcing it to the bishops of the chief sees, to Cyprian, Dionysius of Alexandria, Fabius of Antioch. Cyprian rejected his communion at once. Dionysius wrote exhorting him to retire from his schismatical position (Eus. H. E. vi. 45). Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that Dionysius addressed him a letter on the subject; and two bishops, Firmilianus of Cappadocia and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to Dionysius requesting his presence at the council of Antioch, to restrain tendencies in that direction (ib. 44, 46). In the latter part of 251 Novatian was formally excommunicated by a synod of 60 bishops at Rome. He then began to organize a distinct church, rebaptizing all who came over (Cyp. Ep. lxxiii. 2) and dispatching letters and emissaries to the most distant parts of the East and West (Socr. H. E. iv. 28). [CYPRIAN; NOVATUS.] His subsequent career is unknown, save that Socrates informs us that he suffered martyrdom under Valerian (ib.). He was a copious writer, as we learn from Jerome (de Vir. Ill. c. lxx.), who gives as his works, " de Pascha, de Sabbato, de Circumcisione, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de Instantia, de Attalo, de Cibis Judaicis, et de Trinitate," only the last two being now extant. (An ed. of de Trin. by W. Y. Fausset was pub. in 1909 in the Camb. Patr. Texts.) His work on Jewish meats was written at some place of retreat from persecution. The Jewish controversy seems to have been then very hot at Rome, and Novatian wrote to refute their contention about distinction of meats. Jerome describes his work on the Trinity as an epitome of Tertullian's, and as attributed by some to Cyprian (Hieron. Apol. cont. Rufin. lib. ii. Opp. t. iv. p. 415). It proves Novatian to have been a diligent student, as its arguments are identical with those of Justin Martyr in his Dialog. cum Tryph. c. cxxvii.; Tertull. adv. Prax. cc. xiv.–xxv.; Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. 16, v. 11, 12. He deals first with the absolute perfection of the Father, His invisibility, etc., then discusses the anthropomorphic expressions of the Scriptures, laying down that "such things were said about God indeed, but they are not to be imputed to God but to the people. It is not God Who is limited, but the perception of the people." In c. vii. he declares that even the terms Spirit, Light, Love, are only in an imperfect degree applicable to God. In cc. ix.–xxviii. he discusses the true doctrine of the Incarnation, explaining, like Clement and others, the theophanies of O.T. as manifestations of Christ, and refuting the doctrine of the Sabellians, or Artemonites, according to Neander (H. E. ii. 298), which had just then been developed. He ends by explaining the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, wherein he is thought by some to have fallen into error. He was quoted by the Macedonians of the next cent. as supporting their view (cf. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xii. 565 and references noted there; Bull's Def. of Nicene Creed, ii. 476, Oxf. 1852; Judg. of Cath. Ch. pp. 9, 137, 291, Oxf. 1855). Lardner (Credib. c. 47, t. iii. p. 242) shews that Novatian did not accept Hebrews as Scripture, since he never quotes any texts out of it, though there were several which favoured his cause, notably Heb. vi. 4–8. His followers, however, in the next cent. did use them. Some have even thought Novatian to be the author of the Refutation of all Heresies (Bunsen, Christ. and Mankind, i. 480). A trans. of his works is in the vol. of Clark's Ante-Nicene Lib. which contains pt. ii. of St. Cyprian's writings (Edinb. 1869). Jackson's ed. is the best.
Novatianism.— The members of this sect called themselves Καθαροί (Eus. H. E. vi. 43). They were called by others Novatiani (Pacian. Ep. i. § 1).
Novatianism was the first great schism in the church on a pure question of discipline. In Montanism questions of discipline were involved as side issues, but did not constitute its essential difference. All sects previous to Novatianism had erred on the doctrine of the Trinity. The Novatianists alone were orthodox thereupon. The church therefore baptized even Montanists, but admitted Novatianists by imposition of hands (Conc. Laodic. can. vii. viii.; Hefele, Councils, ed. Clark, t. ii. 303, 332 ; Conc. CP. can. vii. in Hefele, l.c.; Pitra, Jur. Eccles. Graec. Hist. i. 430, 576).
The principles which Novatian formulated into a system, and to which he gave a name, existed and flourished long before him. The origin of the Novatianist schism must be sought in the struggle which, originating with the Shepherd of Hermas (Baur, Church Hist. trans. Menzies, 1879, t. ii. p. 50 note; cf. Ritschl, Entstehung der Altkath. Kirche, 2nd ed. p. 529), had been raging at Rome for 70 years, at first with the Montanists and the followers of Tertullian, and then between Hippolytus and Callistus. Every one of the distinctive principles of Novatianism will be found advocated by some or all of them (Baur, l.c. p. 270, note). The Montanists rejected the lapsed, and in fact all guilty of mortal sins, Tertullian rejected second marriages, as also did the strict discipline of the 2nd cent. (Ambr. de Viduis, c. ii.; Lumper, Hist. SS. PP. iii. 95; de S. Athenag.; Aug. Ep. ad Julian. de Viduit.). Hippolytus held, in a great degree, the same stern views. This identity in principle between Montanism and
