Christ’s Death and Resurrection
Novatian, On the Trinity 21
I could certainly range through all the heavenly Scriptures and stir up a vast forest, so to speak, on this aspect of Christ's divinity, but my aim is not to write against this heresy; it is to lay out briefly the rule of truth concerning the person of Christ. Even though I am hurrying on to other matters, I cannot pass over what the Lord said in the gospel to reveal his majesty: "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days" (John 2:19), or when he declared elsewhere: "I have authority to lay down my life and to take it up again, for this command I received from my Father" (John 10:18). Who can say he has the power to lay down his own life and take it up again because he received that command from the Father? Who can claim he can raise and rebuild the destroyed temple of his own body? Only the Word who is from the Father, who was with the Father, through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made (John 1:1-3), the imitator of the Father's works and virtues, the messenger of the invisible God, who came down from heaven and testified to what he saw and heard (John 3:13, 31-32), who came not to do his own will but the will of the Father who sent him (John 6:38), so that as the angel of the great counsel he might reveal to us the laws of the heavenly secrets, and who, becoming flesh, dwelt among us (John 1:14). In this way Christ is proved not only human, because he is the Son of Man, but also God, because he is the Son of God.
But if the apostle also calls Christ the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15), how could he be the firstborn of all creation unless, according to his divinity, he proceeded from God the Father before all creation? If the heretics refuse to accept this, they will be forced to show that Christ is the firstborn of all creation as a mere human, which they cannot do. Therefore, either he is before all creation, so that he is the firstborn of all creation, and not only human, because humanity comes after all creation; or he is only human and comes after all creation. And how can he be the firstborn of all creation except according to that Word which is before creation? And so the firstborn of all creation becomes flesh and dwells among us, that is, he takes on this human who comes after all creation, and thus he dwells among us with him and in him, so that neither the human is subtracted from Christ, nor is the divinity denied. For if he is only before all creation, the human is subtracted from him. But if he is only human, the divinity which is before all creation is cut off. Both, therefore, are united in Christ, both are connected, both are joined, and rightly so: since there is something in him that surpasses creation, the concord of divinity and humanity appears to be pledged in him. For this reason, the one who is expressed as the mediator of God and humans is found to have associated God and human in himself (1 Timothy 2:5).
And if the same apostle reports of Christ that, having stripped off the flesh, he disarmed the powers and authorities, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in himself (Colossians 2:15), he did not present that stripping as pointless unless he also meant to be understood as being clothed again in the resurrection. Who, then, is the one who is stripped and clothed again? Let the heretics ask. For we know that the Word of God was clothed with the substance of flesh, and the same Word was stripped of that same bodily material, which he took up again in the resurrection and, as it were, put on again like a garment. But certainly Christ would not have been stripped or clothed if he were only human. No one ever strips or clothes himself; there must be something else, whatever is put on or taken off from outside. It follows, then, that the Word of God was the one who was stripped of flesh and clothed again in the resurrection; stripped, because he had also been clothed in the nativity. And so in Christ, God is the one who clothes himself, and also the one who strips himself; for the one who clothes himself must also be able to strip himself. He clothes and strips himself with human flesh, as with a tunic of a woven body. And therefore, consequently, the Word was, as we said, of God, who is found now clothed, now stripped.
For he also predicted this beforehand in the blessings: "He will wash his robe in wine, and his garment in the blood of the grape" (Genesis 49:11). If the robe in Christ is flesh, and the garment is the body, let it be asked: whose body is the garment, and whose flesh is the robe? For it is clear to us that the flesh was the robe and the body was the garment of the Word, who washed the substance of the body and the material of the flesh with the blood of the grape, that is, with wine, cleansing the passion of the assumed human. From this, since he is washed, he is human, because the garment that is washed is flesh; but the one who washes is the Word of God, who, in order to wash the garment, became the wearer of the garment. Rightly, therefore, from the substance that was received to be washed, the human is expressed, so that from the authority of the Word who washed, God is shown to be.
Latin
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. 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 in alio loco et alia parte pronuntiat: potestatem habeo animam meam ponendi et rursus recipere eam. hoc enim mandatum accepi a patre. 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, mago 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 habttauit in nobis, ex nobis hic Christus non homo tantum, quia hominis filius, sed etiam deus, quia dei filius, comprobatur. Quod si 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. aut igitur ante omnem est creaturam, ut primogenitus sit omnis creaturae, et non homo est tantum, quia homo post omnem creaturam est: aut homo tantum est, et est post omnem creaturam. et quomodo primogenitus est omnis creaturae, nisi secundum uerbum illud quod est ante 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. 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. utrumque ergo in Christo confoederatum est, et utrumque coniunctum est, et utrumque conexum est, 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. 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 in resurrectione rursum indutum uoluit intellegi. 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. 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. 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 homine, quasi quadam contexti corporis tunica. ac propterea consequenter sermo fuit, ut diximus, dei, qui modo indutus, modo exutus esse reperitur. hoc enim etiam in benedictionibus ante praedixit: Lauabit stolam suam in uino, et in sanguine uuae amictum suum. si stola in Christo caro est, et amictum ipsum corpus est, requiratur, quis est ille cuius corpus amictum est, et stola caro? nobis enim manifestum est carnem stolam et corpus amictum uerbi fuisse, qui uuae sanguine, id est uino, lauit substantiam corporis et materiam carnis, abluens ex parte suscepti hominis passione. 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. merito ex ea substantia, quae recepta est ut lauaretur, homo exprimitur, sic ut ex uerbi auctoritate, qui lauit, deus esse monstretur.