Novatian, On the Trinity 18
Moses records elsewhere that God appeared to Abraham, even though no human being has ever seen God. How, then, could God be seen if he cannot be seen? The text says no man has ever seen him, yet he was truly seen. From this we understand that the one seen was not the Father — who has never been seen — but the Son, who is accustomed to descend and make himself visible. The Son is the image of the invisible God, so that the frailty and limitations of our human condition might grow accustomed to seeing God the Father, even now, in the image of God — that is, in the Son of God. Human weakness had to be nurtured step by step toward that glory, so that one day it could bear the sight of the Father; sudden exposure to great things is dangerous. Just as the abrupt brilliance of the sun after darkness does not reveal the day to unaccustomed eyes but blinds them, God prevented such harm by letting the darkness fade gradually. The rising of this light ascended gently, accustoming human eyes to bear its full orb through increasing rays. In the same way, Christ — the image of God and the Son of God — is seen by human beings to the extent that he can be seen. Through him our frailty and lowliness are fed, developed, and trained, so that, having grown used to seeing the Son, we may someday see the Father also — lest the sudden, unbearable splendor of his majesty strike us down and keep us from seeing the Father we have always longed to see. Therefore the one seen is the Son; the Son of God is the Word of God; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14); and this is Christ. What perverse reasoning would make us doubt that he is called God, when he is confirmed as God in so many ways? (Genesis 16:7-14)
Consider Hagar, Sarah's servant, cast out and fleeing. An angel met her at a spring on the road to Shur, asked the cause of her flight, listened, then gave her counsel of humility and the hope of motherhood, promising a vast offspring and that Ishmael would be born to her, even showing her where he would live. Scripture calls this visitor both angel and Lord and God — for he could not have promised such a blessing unless he were both angel and God. Let heretics examine what they make of this. Was it the Father whom Hagar saw? God is named, but it is absurd to call the Father an angel — unless they claim a different angel was present. How can he be God if he is an angel, since that title is never given to angels? Unless the truth from both sides drives us to this conclusion: the visitor was the Son of God. Because he is from God, he is rightly called God; because he is the Son, subject to the Father and the herald of the Father's will, he is named the Angel of Great Counsel (Isaiah 9:6). This passage fits neither the Father — lest he be called an angel — nor a mere angel — lest he be called God. It fits Christ, who is God as the Son of God, and angel as the announcer of the Father's purpose. Heretics who say they believe Christ is an angel yet refuse to call him God act against the Scriptures, which record his frequent visits to the human race in the Old Testament.
Moses adds that God appeared to Abraham at the oak of Mamre while he sat at his tent door in the heat of the day (Genesis 18:1). When Abraham saw three men, he addressed one as Lord, washed their feet, and set before them bread, butter, and abundant milk, urging them to eat as honored guests. Then he heard that he would become a father, that Sarah would bear a son, learned the coming judgment on Sodom, and that God had descended because of its outcry. If heretics claim the Father was the one seen, hosted alongside two angels, they make the Father visible. But if it was an angel, why is one of the three called Lord and named God — which is not customary for angels? The only coherent reading: the invisibility proper to the Father is preserved, the humility proper to an angel is set aside, and the one seen and hosted is the Son of God, who is also God. He who was to come later among Abraham's descendants anticipated that future in a sacramental way, becoming Abraham's guest; he washed the feet of those descendants as proof of his identity, returning in the sons the right of hospitality the Father had once extended to him. To remove all doubt that this guest was the same person, the account continues with the destruction of Sodom: the Lord rained fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah from the Lord in heaven (Genesis 19:24). The prophets speak in God's person: 'I will overthrow you as the Lord overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah' (Amos 4:11). So the Lord overthrew Sodom — that is, God overthrew Sodom — yet in that overthrow the Lord rained fire from the Lord. This Lord, seen by Abraham as God, is the guest Abraham touched. Since the invisible Father was not seen, the one accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and welcomed. This Lord who rained fire is the Son of God; the Word of God; the Word made flesh who dwelt among us (John 1:14); this is Christ. Therefore the guest with Abraham was not the Father but Christ; the one seen then was not the Father but the Son; Christ was seen. Christ is rightly Lord and God, seen by Abraham in no other way than that before him Abraham was begotten by God the Father as God the Word.
Again, the same angel and God consoled and visited Hagar, cast out with her boy (Genesis 16:7-14). When her water ran out and the child cried, she lifted up her weeping. Scripture says God heard the boy's voice where he lay. Having identified the hearer as God, the text then says the angel of the Lord called to Hagar from heaven — identifying the angel as the one just called God, and naming as Lord the one placed as angel. This angel and God promises greater comfort: 'Do not fear; I have heard the boy's voice. Rise, take the boy, hold him fast, for I will make him a great nation.' If he is only an angel, why does he claim the power to make a great nation — a power proper to God alone? This confirms he is God. To prove the point, Scripture immediately adds: God opened her eyes, she saw a well of living water, filled the skin, gave the boy drink, and God was with the boy. If this was God with the boy — who opened Hagar's eyes so she could see the well and draw water in her desperate thirst — and this God called from heaven, and the angel is said to be the one who, hearing the cry, was God, not another — then he is both angel and God. This cannot fit the Father, who is only God; but it fits Christ, who is not only God but also called angel. Clearly it was not the Father who spoke to Hagar, but Christ — God, to whom the name 'angel' also belongs, since he was made the Angel of Great Counsel, and angel because he reveals the Father's bosom, as John testifies (John 1:18). If John says this same one who reveals the Father's bosom is the Word made flesh, so that he could reveal that bosom, then Christ is rightly not only man but also angel; not only angel but also God, as Scripture shows and we believe — lest, refusing to accept that Christ spoke to Hagar, we either make an angel into God or count God the Father among the angels.
Latin
Ecce idem Moyses refert alio in loco, quod Abrahae uisus sit deus. quod nemo hominum deum uideat et utuat. potest deus, quomodo uisus est deus? quomodo uideri non potest? inquit, wdit umguam; hominum nemo, nec uidere potest. mentitur; ergo uere uisus est deus. ex quo intellegi potest, quod non pater uisus sit, qui numquam uisus est, sed filius, qui et descendere solitus est, et uideri quia descenderit. imago ro est enim éinuisibilis dei, ut mediocritas et fragilitas condicionis humanae deum patrem uidere aliquando iam tunc assuesceret in imagine dei, hoc est, in filio dei. gradatim enim et per incrementa fragilitas humana nutriri debuit per imaginem ad istam gloriam, ut deum patrem uidere possit aliquando, periculosa sunt enim quae magna sunt, si repentina sunt. nam etiam lux solis subita post tenebras splendore nimio insuetis oculis non ostendet diem, sed potius faciet caecitatem. quod ne in damnum humanorum contingat oculorum, paulatim disruptis et dissipatis tenebris, ortus luminaris istius mediocribus incrementis fallenter assurgens oculos hominum sensim assuefacit ad totum orbem suum ferendum per incrementa radiorum. sic ergo et Christus, id est imago dei et filius dei, ab hominibus inspicitur, qua poterat uideri. et ideo fragilitas et mediocritas sortis humanae per ipsum alitur, producitur, educatur, ut aliquando deum quoque ipsum patrem, assueta filium conspicere, possit, w est, uidere; ne maiestatis ipsius repentino et intolerabili fulgore percussa intercipi possit, ut deum patrem quem semper optauit uidere non possit. ex quo filius est hic qui uidetur; dei autem filius, dei uerbum est; dei autem uerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis: hic autem Christus est. quae, malum, ratio est ut dubitetur deus dici, qui tot modis deus intellegitur approbari? Ac si et Agar ancillam Sarae de domo eiectam pariter et fugatam angelus conuenit apud fontem aquae in uia Sur, fugae causas interrogat atque accipit, et post haec humilitatis consilia porrigit, spem praeterea illi materni nominis facit, quodque ex utero eius multum semen esset futurum spondet atque promittit, et quod Hismael ex illa nasci haberet, et cum ceteris aperit locum habitationis ipsius, actumque describit: hunc autem angelum et dominum scriptura proponit et deum (nam nec benedictionem seminis promisisset, nisi angelus et deus fuisset): quaerant quid in praesenti loco haeretici tractent. - pater fuit iste qui ab Agar uisus est, an non? quia deus positus sed absit deum patrem angelum dicere; ne alteri subsed angelum dicent fuisse. quomodo ergo deus erit, si angelus fuit, cum non sit hoc nomen angelis umquam concessum? nisi quoniam ex utroque latere nos ueritas in istam concludit sententiam, qua intellegere debeamus dei filium fuisse: qui, quoniam ex deo est, merito deus, quia dei filius, dictus sit, quoniam patri subditus et annuntiator paternae uoluntatis est, magni consilii angelus pronuntiatus est. ergo si hic locus neque personae patris congruit, ne angelus dictus sit, neque personae angeli, ne, deus pronuntiatus sit; personae autem Christi conuenit ut et deus sit, quia dei filius est, et angelus sit, quoniam paternae dispositionis annuntiator est: intellegere debent contra scripturas se agere haeretici, qui Christum cum dicant se et angelum credere, nolint illum etiam deum pronuntiare, quem in ueteri testamento ad uisitationem generis humani legunt\ saepe uenisse. Adhuc adiecit Moyses, Abrahae uisum deum apud quercum Mambre, sedente ipso ad ostium tabernaculi sui meridie, et nihilominus, cum tres conspexisset uiros, unum ex illis dominum nuncupasse; quorum cum pedes lauisset, cinericios panes cum butyro et ipsius copia lactis offert, et ut hospites retenti uescerentur, hortatur. post quae et quod pater futurus esset, audit; et quod Sara uxor eius paritura ex ipso filium esset, ediscit; et de exitu Sodomitarum, quae merebantur pati, recognoscit; et quod propter clamorem Sodomorum deus descendisset, addiscit. quo in loco si patrem uolunt uideri tunc fuisse cum angelis duobus hospitio receptum, patrem uisibilem haeretici crediderunt: si autem angelum, cum ex angelis tribus unus dominus nuncupatur, cur, quod non solet, angelus deus dicitur? nisi quoniam, ut deo patri inuisibilitas propria reddatur, et angelo propria mediocritas remittatur, non nisi dei filius, qui et deus est, Abrahae uisus et hospitio receptus esse credetur. quod enim erat futurus, meditabatur in sacramento Abrahae factus hospes, apud Abrahae filios futurus; cuius filiorum pedes, ad probationem quod ipse esset, abluit; reddens in filiis ius hospitalitatis, quod aliquando illi fenerauerat pater. unde et ne qua esset dubitatio quin iste Abrahae hospes fuisset, in Sodomitarum exitu ponitur: quoniam pluit dominus super Sodomam et Gomorram ignem et sulphur a domino de caelo. sic enim et prophetes ex persona dei: subuerti uos, inquit, sécut subuertit dominus Sodomam et Gomorram. dominus ergo Sodomam subuertit, id est, deus Sodomam subuertit: sed.in subuersione Sodomorum dominus pluit ignem a domino. hic autem dominus uisus est Abrahae deus: deus autem hic hospes est Abrahae uisus utique quia tactus. sed cum pater, quia inuisibilis, nec tunc utique uisus sit, uisus est et hospitio receptus et acceptus est, qui solitus est tangi et uideri: hic autem filius dei dominus a domino pluit super Sodomam et Gomorram sulphur atque ignem. hic autem dei uerbum est: uerbum autem dei caro factum est, et habitauit in nobis: hic autem Christus est. non pater igitur apud Abraham hospes, sed Christus fuit; nec tunc pater uisus est, sed filius; uisus autem est Christus. merito igitur Christus et dominus et deus est, qui non aliter Abrahae uisus est, nisi quia ante ipsum Abraham ex patre deo deus sermo generatus est. Adhuc, inquit, idem angelus et deus eandem Agar, fugatam de domo Abrahae cum puero, consolatur et uisitat. nam cum illa in solitudine exposuisset infantem, quia aqua defecisset ex utre, cumque puer ille clamasset, fletum et planctum leuasset, et audiuit, inquit scriptura, deus uocem pueri ae loco ubi erat. cum deum esse, qui uocem audisset infantis, rettulisset, adiecit: et uocauit angelus domini ipsam Agar de caelo; angelum referens esse quem deum dixerat, et~dominum pronuntians esse quem angelum collocarat.. quique angelus et deus adhuc ipsi Agar promittit maiora solacia, dicendo: ne timueris; exaudiui enim uocem pueri de loco ubi erat. surge, sume puerum, et tene: in gentem enim magnam faciam eum. hic angelus, si angelus tantum est, cur hoc sibi uindicat ut dicat: in gentem enim magnam faciam eum, cum hoc utique genus potentiae dei sit, angeli esse non possit? ex quo etiam deus confirmatur esse qui hoc potest facere. quoniam ut hoc ipsum comprobetur, adicitur per scripturam statim: e aperuit deus oculos eius, et uidit puteum aquae uiuae, et abiit, et impleuit utrem de puteo, et dedit puero, et erat deus cum puero. si ergo hic deus erat cum puero, qui aperuit oculos Agar, ut uideret puteum aquae uiuae et hauriret aquam propter urgentem sitis necessitatem; hic autem deus e caelo illam uocat; angelus dictus, cum superius uocem audiens clamantis pueri deus esset potius, non alius intellegitur quam angelus esse pariter et deus. quod cum patri competens et conueniens esse non possit, qui tantummodo deus est, competens autem esse possit Christo, qui non tantummodo deus sed et angelus pronuntiatus est, manifeste apparet non patrem ibi tunc locutum fuisse ad Agar, sed Christum potius, cum deus sit, cui etiam angeli competit nomen, quippe cum magni consili angelus factus sit; angelus autem sit, dum exponit sinum patris, sicut Ioannes edicit. si enim ipse Ioannes hunc eundem, qui sinum exponit patris, uerbum dicit carnem factum esse, ut sinum patris posset exponere, merito Christus non solum homo est, sed et angelus; nec angelus tantum, sed et deus per scripturas ostenditur, et a nobis hoc esse creditur, ne, si non Christum tunc locutum ad Agar uoluerimus accipere, aut angelum deum faciamus, aut deum patrem omnipotentem inter angelos computemus.