#30 Novatian

What If the Man You’ve Been Calling a Heretic Was Bought by the Blood of Christ?

An examination into the orthodoxy of Novatian

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment… but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” — Matthew 5:22

Christ does not treat words as trivial. Even careless speech against a brother places a man in danger of judgment (Matt. 5:22; cf. Matt. 12:36).

To call a man a heretic is not a neutral historical classification. It is to declare that his teaching is incompatible with the apostolic faith—and by implication, to cast doubt on his standing before Christ. If that claim is false, it is not merely an error of interpretation; it is false witness against one whom Christ has redeemed (cf. Acts 20:28).

This demands careful examination in the case of Novatian.

——————————

The Syllogism

• Major Premise: To condemn a true and orthodox Christian as a heretic is to bear false witness against someone whom Christ loves and died for (Matt. 5:22; Acts 20:28).

• Minor Premise: If Novatian was a regenerate believer who held to orthodox doctrine and committed no error properly called heresy, then he was one of Christ’s own.

• Conclusion: Therefore, labeling Novatian a heretic without certainty risks bearing false witness against one of Christ’s own (Matt. 5:22).

The question, then, is straightforward: What do the primary sources actually show?

——————————

I. Who Was Novatian?

The earliest witnesses do not present Novatian as doctrinally incompetent or heretical in faith, but as a leading theological figure in Rome.

Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography, drawing on contemporary evidence, records that Novatian’s talents—“especially his eloquence, to which even Cyprian witnesses (Ep. lx. 3)”—brought him to prominence, making him “the most influential presbyter of the Roman church.” —Wace, Henry, ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography. Entry: “Novatianus and Novatianism.”

Wace also stated, “the treatise against Novatian, written a.d. 155 and included by Erasmus among Cyprian's 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."”.  —Wace, Henry, ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Biography. Entry: “Novatianus and Novatianism.”

Jerome, in his De Viris Illustribus, lists him as “Novatianus, presbyter of Rome,” and attributes to him substantial theological works, including On the Trinity. His inclusion among “illustrious men” is itself a testimony to his standing. —Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 70.

——————————

II. What Novatian Actually Taught

Novatian’s work De Trinitate (On the Trinity) demonstrates his orthodox Trinitarian beliefs.

It should be noted that Cyprian and other Catholic writers used every available means against Novatian. One would expect, in such a controversy, explicit charges of doctrinal heresy; however, these are notably absent.

Prior to his separation from the church at Rome, Novatian is not once accused of holding false doctrine. After the schism, Cyprian discouraged further inquiry into Novatian’s character and teachings, stating that he “has lost even what he previously had been“ (see Cyprian, Epistle Li, To Antonianus Concerning Cornelius and Novatian, 51.24.) because ecclesiastical separation itself was treated as decisive. In other words, communion with Cyprian’s church was effectively the controlling issue, such that even an orthodox confession could be dismissed as irrelevant outside of that communion.

This is reflected in his remarks concerning the Novatians:

“But that they are said to have the same God the Father as we, to know the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, can be of no avail to such as these.” — Cyprian, Epistle Lxxv, To Magnus, 75.8.

Jerome notes that De Trinitate circulated under other names—sometimes even attributed to Cyprian (and many years Tertullian)—suggesting that when detached from authorship bias, it was not perceived as doctrinally deviant.

——————————

III. The Actual Controversy: The Lapsi

The Novatian controversy arose during the Decian persecution (A.D. 249–251), when many professed Christians (lapsi) denied Christ under pressure.

The commonly misunderstood point of dispute does not center on whether the church could readmit such individuals, but on whether the clergy possessed authority to grant absolution without demonstrated repentance from the lapsed.

A key concern expressed by Novatian in the Roman correspondence associated with this controversy is caution regarding premature restoration:

“Even repentance should be snatched from these wretched beings, to their greater overthrow…” (Cyprian, Epistle 30, 3)

The argument is not against repentance itself, but against what is perceived as premature clerical absolution that might trivialize genuine contrition. The concern is that such leniency could, in effect, “snatch” away the opportunity for sincere repentance before God.

——————————

IV. Separation and Authority

Novatian ultimately rejected the legitimacy of Cornelius as bishop of Rome and was consecrated as bishop by like-minded supporters (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History VI.43).

At the heart of the dispute was ecclesiastical authority: whether the church had the power to pronounce forgiveness in cases of grave apostasy. This emphasis appears as a conceptual precursor to later medieval developments surrounding indulgences and raises the deeper theological question: “Who can forgive sins but God only?” (Mark 2:7)

——————————

V. Acesius at Nicaea

At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine reportedly summoned Acesius, a Novatian bishop. After discussing a few doctrinal matters and finding no doctrinal error in him, Constantine asked why he nevertheless refused communion with the broader church. Acesius then explained the Novatian position concerning the lapsi, stating “that they should indeed be exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from the priest, but from God, who is able and has authority to forgive sins. When Acesius had thus spoken, the emperor said to him, 'Place a ladder, Acesius, and climb alone into heaven.'” —Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, I.10

To my knowledge, schism has never been included in any formal definition of heresy.

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states concerning the Novatianists:

“Though doctrinally orthodox, the Novatianists were excommunicated.” — F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 1165, s.v. “Novatianism.” See also the entries “Heresy” and “Schism.”

——————————

VI. Conclusion

From the sources presented:

1. Novatian was a recognized Roman presbyter of significant standing.

2. His theology in De Trinitate and other writings align broadly with pre-Nicene orthodoxy.

3. The controversy centered on discipline and authority, especially the lapsi question.

4. Historical sources do not clearly identify a distinct doctrinal heresy.

It is true that, with limited documentation and nearly eighteen centuries separating us from the controversy, it is difficult to assert Novatian’s orthodoxy with absolute certainty. Nevertheless, there appears to be no extant evidence sufficient to justify confidently labeling him a heretic merely on the basis of inherited assumptions or later polemical tradition.

If Novatian substantially held the apostolic faith and acted from conviction regarding the integrity and authority of the church, then careless denunciations carry serious moral weight. Christ’s warnings concerning speech against a brother therefore apply with sobering force (Matt. 5:22). Again, to casually brand a man a heretic without sufficient warrant risks bearing false witness against one who may well have been among God’s faithful ministers.

This calls for caution—not only in judgment, but also in language.