Novatian — On the Trinity 20
XX. 1. And if some heretic, stubbornly struggling against the truth, should wish in all these examples to understand an angel properly so called, or contend that an angel must be understood, in this too he must necessarily be broken by the force of truth. 2. For if, with all heavenly, earthly, and infernal things subjected to Christ, the angels themselves also, with all the rest that are subject to Christ, are called gods, Christ is rightly God. And if any angel subject to Christ can be called god, and if this is said and brought forward without blasphemy, much more certainly can this belong to God’s Son Christ himself, that he be pronounced God. 3. For if an angel subject to Christ is put forward as god, much more and more firmly will Christ, to whom all angels are subject, be said to be God. Nor does it suit nature that what is granted to lesser ones be denied to greater. So if an angel is less than Christ, yet an angel is called god, it follows more that Christ is said to be God, who is found greater and better than not one but all angels. 4. And if God stood in the assembly of gods, and in the midst God judges gods, and Christ has often stood in the assembly, then Christ stood as God in the assembly, judging those gods to whom he says: How long do you accept persons of men?, accusing the men of the synagogue for not exercising just judgments. 5. Further, if those who are rebuked nonetheless for some cause obtain this name without blasphemy, that they be called gods, much more will this one be held God who is said not only to have stood as God of gods, but also judging and discerning gods. 6. And if they who have fallen by a crime’s desert are nevertheless called gods, much more is this one God who has not fallen into a crime’s desert, but is even found the condemner of others’ crimes. 7. What if he is also found so far God of all that even God the Father applied this name to him? Or does Scripture report: And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven? For when the Lord rained fire from the Lord, two are put forward: one who came down and one who rained from heaven — Christ the Lord who was seen, and God the Father who was not seen, who with the Son is Lord as well. 8. And if Abraham also saw God and heard him and spoke with him, yet no one has ever seen God, this one who was seen is proved to be God: God the Son, not the Father. And so that it might be clear that Christ is Lord and God, David says: The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand.
9. And if Isaiah also reports Egypt laboring and merchants of Ethiopia and Seba crossing to him as slaves who will worship him because God is in him and there is no God besides him — for you are God, and we did not know it, the God of Israel, the Savior — who is this who has God in him and who himself is God, except Christ Jesus the Son of God? 10. And if Jeremiah says: This is our God, and no other will be counted with him; he found every way of knowledge and gave it to Jacob his servant and to Israel his beloved; afterward he was seen on earth and lived among men — who is this who was seen and lived among men, except Christ God the Son? 11. And if Habakkuk too says: God will come from the south, and the Holy One from a shaded dense mountain — who else is this but Christ? 12. And if Daniel reports the Son of man coming in heaven’s clouds and approaching the Ancient of days and receiving power — he who receives power as Son of man is also God. 13. What if John also writes: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word; all things were made through him; and later: And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us? Who is this Word made flesh and God, except Christ? 14. And if he also says that Christ washed his robe in wine and his garment in the blood of the grape — the robe and garment are the flesh; he washed the body’s substance with blood, that is wine, washing flesh’s matter by the assumed man’s passion. 15. From which, insofar as it is washed, it is man, because the garment washed is flesh. But he who washes is God’s Word, who, that he might wash the garment, was made the garment’s taker. 16. Deservedly man is expressed from that substance received that it might be washed, just as from the Word’s authority he who washed is shown to be God.
Latin
XX. 1. Ac si aliquis haereticus pertinaciter obluctans aduersus ueritatem uoluerit in his omnibus exemplis proprie angelum aut intellegere aut intellegendum esse contenderit, in hoc quoque uiribus ueritatis frangatur necesse est. 2. Nam si omnibus caelestibus, terrenis et infernis Christo subditis etiam ipsi angeli cum omnibus ceteris quaecumque subiecta sunt Christo dicuntur dii, iure et Deus Christus. Et si quiuis angelus subditus Christo deus potest dici, et hoc si dicitur et sine blasphemia profertur, multo magis utique et hoc ipsi Dei Filio Christo competere potest, ut Deus pronuntietur. 3. Si enim qui subiectus Christo angelus deus promitur, multo magis et constantius Christus, cui sunt omnes angeli subiecti, Deus esse dicetur. Nec enim naturae congruit ut quae minoribus concessa sunt maioribus denegentur. Ita si angelus Christo minor est, angelus autem deus dicitur, magis consequenter Christus Deus esse dicitur, qui non uno, sed omnibus angelis et maior et melior inuenitur. 4. Ac si stetit Deus in synagoga deorum, in medio autem Deus deos discernit, in synagoga autem aliquotiens Christus stetit, Christus ergo in synagoga Deus stetit, diiudicans scilicet deos quibus dicit: Vsquequo personas hominum accipitis?, accusans scilicet consequenter homines synagogae non exercentes iusta iudicia. 5. Porro si illi, qui reprehenduntur atque culpantur, propter aliquam tamen causam hoc nomen adipisci sine blasphemia uidentur, ut dii nuncupentur, multo magis utique hic Deus habebitur, qui non tantum Deus deorum stetisse dicitur, sed etiam deos discernens et diiudicans ex eadem lectionis auctoritate aperitur. 6. Ac si illi qui tamquam unus de principibus cadunt dii tamen nuncupantur, multo magis Deus esse dicetur qui non tantum tamquam unus ex principibus non cadit, sed ipsum quoque malitiae et auctorem et principem uincit. 7. Quae autem malum ratio est ut, cum legant hoc etiam Moysi nomen datum, dum dicitur: Deum te posui Pharaoni, Christo negetur, qui non Pharaoni Deus, sed uniuersae creaturae et Dominus et Deus constitutus esse reperitur? 8. Et in illo quidem hoc nomen temperate datum, in hoc profuse, in illo ad mensuram, in hoc supra omnem omnino mensuram. Non enim ad mensuram, inquit, dat Filio Pater; Pater enim, inquit, diligit Filium. In illo ad tempus, in hoc sine tempore; diuini enim nominis potestatem et super omnia et in omne tempus accepit.
9. Quodsi qui unius hominis accepit potestatem, in hac exiguitate huius datae potestatis nomen tamen istud dei incunctanter consequitur, quanto magis qui in ipsum quoque Moysen habet potestatem, nominis istius auctoritatem consecutus esse credetur? XXI. l. Et poteram quidem omnium scripturarum caelestium euentilare tractatus et ingentem circa istam speciem Christi diuinitatis, ut ita dixerim, siluam commouere, nisi quoniam non tam mihi contra hanc haeresim propositum est dicere, quam breuiter circa personam Christi regulam ueritatis aperire. 2. Quamuis tamen ad alia festinem, illud non arbitror praetermittendum, quod in euangelio Dominus ad significantiam suae maiestatis expressit dicendo: Soluite templum hoc, et ego in triduo suscitabo illud, aut quando alio in loco et alia parte pronuntiat: Potestatem habeo animam meam ponendi et rursus recipere eam; hoc enim mandatum accepi a Patre. 3. Quis est enim qui dicit animam suam se posse ponere aut animam suam posse se rursum recuperare, quia hoc mandatum acceperit a Patre, aut quis dicit destructum corporis sui templum resuscitare rursum et reaedificare se posse, nisi quoniam sermo ille, qui ex Patre, qui apud Patrem, per quem facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil, imitator paternorum operum atque uirtutum, imago inuisibilis Dei, qui descendit de caelo, qui quae uidit et audiuit testificatus est, qui non uenit ut faceret suam uoluntatem, sed potius ut faciat Patris uoluntatem, a quo missus ad hoc ipsum fuerat, ut magni consilii angelus factus arcanorum caelestium nobis iura reseraret, quique uerbum caro factus habitauit in nobis, ex nobis hic Christus non homo tantum, quia hominis filius, sed etiam Deus, quia Dei Filius, comprobatur? 4. Quodsi et primogenitus omnis creaturae ab apostolo dictus sit Christus, quomodo omnis creaturae primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quoniam secundum diuinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex Patre Deo sermo processit? Quod nisi ita haeretici acceperint, Christum hominem primogenitum omnis creaturae monstrare cogentur, quod facere non poterunt. 5. Aut igitur ante omnem est creaturam, ut primogenitus sit omni creaturae, et non homo est tantum, quia homo post omnem creaturam est, aut homo tantum est et est post omnem creaturam. 6. Et quomodo primogenitus est omnis creaturae, nisi quoniam [dum] uerbum illud, quod est ante omnem creaturam et ideo primogenitus omnis creaturae, caro fit et habitat in nobis, hoc est assumit hunc hominem qui est post omnem creaturam et sic cum illo et in illo habitat in nobis, ut neque homo Christo subtrahatur neque diuinitas negetur? 7. Nam si tantummodo ante omnem creaturam est, homo in illo subtractus est. Si autem tantummodo homo est, diuinitas, quae ante omnem creaturam est, intercepta est. Vtrumque ergo in Christo confoederatum est et utrumque coniunctum est et utrumque connexum est. 8. Et merito, dum est in illo aliquid quod superat creaturam, pignerata in illo diuinitatis et humanitatis uidetur esse concordia. Propter quam causam qui mediator Dei et hominum effectus exprimitur, in se Deum et hominem sociasse reperitur. 9. Ac si idem apostolus de Christo refert, ut exutus carnem potestates dehonestauit, palam triumphatis illis in semetipso, non utique otiose exutum carne proposuit, nisi quoniam et resurrectionem rursum indutum uoluit intellegi. 10. Quis est ergo iste exutus et rursus indutus? Requirant haeretici. Nos enim sermonem Dei scimus indutum carnis substantiam eundemque rursum exutum eadem corporis materia, quam rursus in resurrectione suscepit et quasi indumentum resumpsit. 11. Sed enim neque exutus neque indutus hominem Christus fuisset, si homo tantum fuisset. Nemo enim umquam se ipso aut spoliatur aut induitur. Sit enim necesse est aliud quicquid aliunde aut spoliatur aut induitur. 12. Ex quo merito sermo Dei fuit qui exutus est carnem et in resurrectione rursus indutus, exutus autem, quoniam et in natiuitate fuerat indutus. Itaque in Christo Deus est qui induitur atque etiam exutus sit oportet, propterea <quod> is qui induitur pariter et exuatur necesse est. Induitur autem et exuitur homo quasi quadam contexti corporis tunica. Ac propterea consequenter sermo fuit, ut diximus, Dei, qui modo indutus, modo exutus esse reperitur. 13. Hoc enim etiam in benedictionibus ante praedixit: Lauabit stolam suam in uino et in sanguine uuae amictum suum. 14. Si stola in Christo caro est et amictum ipsum corpus est, requiratur quisquis est ille cuius corpus amictum est et stola caro. Nobis enim manifestum est carnem stolam et corpus amictum uerbi fuisse, qui[que] sanguine id est uino lauit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis abluens ex parte suscepti hominis passione. 15. Ex quo siquidem lauatur, homo est, quia amictum quod lauatur caro est. Qui autem lauat, uerbum Dei est, qui, ut lauaret amictum, amicti susceptor effectus est. 16. Merito ex ea substantia quae recepta est ut lauaretur homo exprimitur, sicut ex uerbi auctoritate qui lauit Deus esse monstratur.