Novatian of Rome maintains that the Word is always “in” the Father (semper enim in patre) but the Father nonetheless precedes the Son “in a certain sense” and degree. Novatian also contends that the Father somehow exists qua Father “before” he generates the Son (quoniam antecedat necesse est eum) which indicates that God the Father is prior to His Son in some undefined sense (De Trinitate 31.3). So there is a positing of God’s paternal antecedence in relation to the Son since the Word has a “beginning” as Son (qui habet originem) whereas God the Father does not have a beginning qua Father: He is necessarily innascible or unbegotten (ille qui originem nescit)
W. Yorke Fausset notes that the qualifying phrases quadam ratione (“in a certain sense”), quodam modo (“in some degree”), and aliquo pacto (“in some way”) are interpolations by Gangneius, the first editor of Novatian’s De Trinitate. Yet they evidently represent Novatian’s thinking since he apparently did not want his use of praecedit to have “a strictly temporal sense.” See Novatiani Romanae Urbis Presbyteri De Trinitate liber: Novatian’s Treatise on the Trinity, ed. William Yorke Fausset (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 117-118.
4 comments:
Fascinating, further evidence to my claim that most of the ante-Nicene Fathers were ontological subordinationists (if not all). The idea that the "word" is always "in" the Father (found also in Origen and others) doesn't contradict this, since the "word" is spoken of as God's reason which God generates into his Son ... (Origen also speaks of the logoi of all rational beings existing always in God, in a sense, this doesn't mean pre-existence, but only that they have their origin in God's mind/will).
I've seen some theologians try and orthodoxize the ante-Nicean Fathers by adding the qualifier "ex-nihilo" to distinguish the creation of the cosmos and the generation of the Son, and say the Son was not ex-nihilo because the logos was (at least for some ante-Nicene Fathers) always IN the Father .... yet, ex-nihilo, with regards to creation, doesn't mean literally from not anything, but from not anything outside God and outside of God's free will (not from necessity, i.e. not a neo-Platonic, Avicenna like necessary emenation from God), if ex-nihilo means this ... then yes, the Son is ex-Nihilo, since for most of these ante-Nicene Fathers (I say most only because there might be something I've missed, not because I know of any exceptions) the generation of the Son is associated with creation, and thus not necessary but the result of God's free will to create .... so either you're an ontological subordinationist, or a Avicenna style neo-platonist who says the Son is not created ex-nihilo, but neither is creation.
I think the "temporal" issue is tricky since time itself is a part of creation made through the logos (thus the whole Athanasian argument that there was "no time where the Son was not" kind of is a cop out), the real question is whether or not the generation of the Son is contingent on the free will of God or not.
I've read Novation's De Trinitate before, but haven't studied him closely as I have some early Fathers.
I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. There is plenty of good literature about Novatian's christology. In my dissertation, I included much of the literature on Novatian in this respect and I argued (bvased on other sources) that he believes the Son's generation is contingent on the Father's will. There is also a good case for ontological subordination with many of the Fathers, including Novatian and Tertullian. I've thought about posting some bibliographical lists for the Trinity doctrine in the near future. If you've ever read Hanson's monster text about the Arian controversy, I think you'll see plenty of evidence for ontological subordination in the early church. For Novatian, in addition to the primary text in Latin, I recommend Russell DeSimone's study. Hope I spelled his name right :)
I haven't read Hanson's whole book, I've read parts of it (I don't have the book, but my uncle does), I plan to read it in the future.
My hat's off to you, if you read Hanson. It's a monster tome but worth reading IMO. "Mega biblion, mega kakon" :)
Post a Comment