Opening the library…

Home Bible Corpus Discover You

Search the Bible

A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity

Novatian of Rome

Chapter 4

About this work

A Latin exposition of the rule of faith treating God the Father, Christ’s divinity and humanity, and the Holy Spirit while arguing against several rival theological positions.

Author: Novatian of Rome
Traditional attribution: Tertullian or Cyprian (in earlier transmission)
Date: c. AD 240–250
Origin: Rome
Genre: Theological Treatise

Chapter IV. Argument.—Moreover, He is Good, Always the Same, Immutable, One and Only, Infinite; And His Own Name Can Never Be Declared, and He is Incorruptible and Immortal.

Him alone the Lord rightly declares good

‹ Chapter 3 Chapter 5 ›

,

of

whose

goodness

the

whole

world

is

witness

;

which

world

He

would

not

have

ordained

if

He

had

not

been

good

.

For

if

“

everything

was

very

good

,

”

consequently

,

and

reasonably

,

both

those

things

which

were

ordained

have

proved

that

He

that

ordained

them

is

good

,

and

those

things

which

are

the

work

of

a

good

Ordainer

cannot

be

other

than

good

;

wherefore

every

evil

is

a

departure

from

God

.

For

it

cannot

happen

that

He

should

be

the

originator

or

architect

of

any

evil

work

,

who

claims

to

Himself

the

name

of

“

the

Perfect

,

”

both

Parent

and

Judge

,

especially

when

He

is

the

avenger

and

judge

of

every

evil

work

;

because

,

moreover

,

evil

does

not

occur

to

man

from

any

other

cause

than

by

his

departure

from

the

good

God

.

Moreover

,

this

very

thing

is

specified

in

man

,

not

because

it

was

necessary

,

but

because

he

himself

so

willed

it

.

Whence

it

manifestly

appeared

also

what

was

evil

;

and

lest

there

should

seem

to

be

envy

in

God

,

it

was

evident

whence

evil

had

arisen

.

He

,

then

,

is

always

like

to

Himself

;

nor

does

He

ever

turn

or

change

Himself

into

any

forms

,

lest

by

change

He

should

appear

to

be

mortal

.

For

the

change

implied

in

turning

from

one

thing

to

another

is

comprehended

as

a

portion

of

a

certain

death

.

Thus

there

is

never

in

Him

any

accession

or

increase

of

any

part

or

honour

,

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

.

For

increasing

argues

beginning

,

as

well

as

losses

prove

death

and

perishing

.

And

therefore

He

says

,

“

I

am

God

,

I

change

not

;

”

in

that

,

what

is

not

born

cannot

suffer

change

,

holding

His

condition

always

.

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

.

”

For

what

He

is

has

this

name

,

because

it

always

maintains

the

same

quality

of

Himself

.

For

change

takes

away

the

force

of

that

name

“

That

I

Am

;

”

for

whatever

,

at

any

time

,

is

changed

,

is

shown

to

be

mortal

in

that

very

particular

which

is

changed

.

For

it

ceases

to

be

that

which

it

had

been

,

and

consequently

begins

to

be

what

it

was

not

;

and

therefore

,

reasonably

,

there

remains

always

in

God

His

position

,

in

that

without

any

loss

arising

from

change

,

He

is

always

like

and

equal

to

Himself

.

And

what

is

not

born

cannot

be

changed

:

for

only

those

things

undergo

change

which

are

made

,

or

which

are

begotten

;

in

that

those

things

which

had

not

been

at

one

time

,

learn

to

be

by

coming

into

being

,

and

therefore

to

suffer

change

by

being

born

.

Moreover

,

those

things

which

neither

have

nativity

nor

maker

,

have

excluded

from

themselves

the

capacity

of

change

,

not

having

a

beginning

wherein

is

cause

of

change

.

And

thus

He

is

declared

to

be

one

,

having

no

equal

.

For

whatever

can

be

God

,

must

as

God

be

of

necessity

the

Highest

.

But

whatever

is

the

Highest

,

must

certainly

be

the

Highest

in

such

sense

as

to

be

without

any

equal

.

And

thus

that

must

needs

be

alone

and

one

on

which

nothing

can

be

conferred

,

having

no

peer

;

because

there

cannot

be

two

infinites

,

as

the

very

nature

of

things

dictates

.

And

that

is

infinite

which

neither

has

any

sort

of

beginning

nor

end

.

For

whatever

has

occupied

the

whole

excludes

the

beginning

of

another

.

Because

if

He

does

not

contain

all

which

is

,

whatever

it

is

—

seeing

that

what

is

found

in

that

whereby

it

is

contained

is

found

to

be

less

than

that

whereby

it

is

contained

—

He

will

cease

to

be

God

;

being

reduced

into

the

power

of

another

,

in

whose

greatness

He

,

being

smaller

,

shall

have

been

included

.

And

therefore

what

contained

Him

would

then

rather

claim

to

be

God

.

Whence

it

results

that

God’s

own

name

also

cannot

be

declared

,

because

He

cannot

be

conceived

.

For

that

is

contained

in

a

name

which

is

,

in

any

way

,

comprehended

from

the

condition

of

His

nature

.

For

the

name

is

the

signification

of

that

thing

which

could

be

comprehended

from

a

name

.

But

when

that

which

is

treated

of

is

such

that

it

cannot

be

worthily

gathered

into

one

form

by

the

very

understanding

itself

,

how

shall

it

be

set

forth

fittingly

in

the

one

word

of

an

appellation

,

seeing

that

as

it

is

beyond

the

intellect

,

it

must

also

of

necessity

be

above

the

significancy

of

the

appellation

?

As

with

reason

when

He

applies

and

prefers

from

certain

reasons

and

occasions

His

name

of

God

,

we

know

that

it

is

not

so

much

the

legitimate

propriety

of

the

appellation

that

is

set

forth

,

as

a

certain

significancy

determined

for

it

,

to

which

,

while

men

betake

themselves

,

they

seem

to

be

able

thereby

to

obtain

God’s

mercy

.

He

is

therefore

also

both

immortal

and

incorruptible

,

neither

conscious

of

any

kind

of

loss

nor

ending

.

For

because

He

is

incorruptible

,

He

is

therefore

immortal

;

and

because

He

is

immortal

,

He

is

certainly

also

incorruptible

,

—

each

being

involved

by

turns

in

the

other

,

with

itself

and

in

itself

,

by

a

mutual

connection

,

and

prolonged

by

a

vicarious

concatenation

to

the

condition

of

eternity

;

immortality

arising

from

incorruption

,

as

well

as

incorruption

coming

from

immortality

.

Notes

1
Gen. i. 31.
2
In other words, God is always the same in essence, in personality, and in attributes.
3
Mal. iii. 6.
4
Ex. iii. 14. [The ineffable name of the Self-Existent.]