Novatian, On the Trinity 15
If Christ is merely human, how can he say, "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards"? (John 8:14-15). He also declares here that he will return to the place from which he came, having testified that he was sent from heaven. Thus he descends from the very place he came from, and he goes back to the place he descended from. If Christ were only a man, he could not have come from there, and consequently he could not return there either, since he never came from there in the first place. But by coming from a place no human can come from, he demonstrates that he came as God. Yet the Jews, ignorant of this very descent, have made these heretics their heirs — people to whom it is said: "You do not know where I come from or where I am going. You judge by human standards" (John 8:14-15). Both the heretics and the Jews insist that Christ's birth was purely fleshly, and so they conclude he is nothing but a man. They fail to consider that since a human being cannot originate in heaven so as to return there legitimately, the one who descended from heaven — from where no human can come — must be God.
If Christ is only a man, how can he say: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world"? (John 8:23). If every human being belongs to this world, and Christ is in this world, does that make him merely human? By no means. Consider his claim: "I am not of this world." Would he be lying if he were of this world by virtue of being only a man? If he does not lie, then he is not of this world. Therefore he is not merely human, because he is not of this world. To leave no doubt about his identity, he explicitly states his origin: "I am from above" — that is, from heaven, where no human can originate, since human beings are not made in heaven. Consequently, the one who is from above is God, and for that reason he is not of this world. Nevertheless, in a certain sense he is of this world; thus Christ is not only God but also man. Rightly, just as he is not of this world according to the divinity of the Word, so he is of this world according to the frailty of the body he assumed. For humanity is joined with God, and God is united with humanity. Here Christ now emphasizes his divinity alone, because Jewish blindness saw only his flesh. In this present passage, passing over the frailty of his body that belongs to the world, he speaks solely of his divinity, which does not belong to the world. He does this so that, to the degree they were inclined to believe he was only a man, he might draw them to consider his divinity and come to believe he is God — overcoming their unbelief about his divinity by setting it in direct opposition, while temporarily setting aside mention of his human condition.
If Christ is only a man, how can he say: "I came forth from God and have come here," when it is established that human beings are made by God, not generated from God? Humanity did not proceed from God, but the Word of God did — concerning which it is said: "My heart overflows with a noble theme" (Psalm 45:1). Since this Word is from God, it rightly abides with God; and because it was not uttered idly, it rightly accomplishes all things. All things were made through it, and without it nothing was made (John 1:3). This Word, through whom all things were made, is God, because the one who proceeded is the Word, and the one who proceeded from God is God. If Christ is only a man, how can he say: "Whoever keeps my word will never see death"? (John 8:51). To never see death is nothing other than immortality. Immortality belongs to divinity, because divinity is itself immortal, and immortality is the fruit of divinity. But every human is mortal, and immortality cannot spring from what is mortal. Therefore immortality cannot arise from Christ as a mortal man. Yet he declares: "Whoever keeps my word will never see death." Consequently, Christ's Word bestows immortality, and through immortality it bestows divinity. If a mere mortal could not confer immortality on another, but Christ's Word does confer it, then he is not merely human — for a mere human could not grant what Christ's Word grants. By bestowing divinity through immortality, he proves himself God, offering a divinity that only God could confer.
If Christ is only a man, how can he say: "Before Abraham was, I am"? (John 8:58). No human being can exist before the one from whom he derives his existence, nor can anything precede the one from whom it takes its origin. Yet Christ, though descended from Abraham, claims to have existed before Abraham. Either he lies and deceives — if he was not before Abraham despite coming from Abraham — or he does not deceive, because he is also God, having existed before Abraham. If he were not God, then, being from Abraham, he could not have been before Abraham. If Christ is only a man, how can he say: "My sheep hear my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish"? (John 10:27-28). Every human is bound by the law of mortality and cannot preserve even himself forever, let alone another. Yet Christ promises to give salvation that lasts forever. If he does not give it, he is a liar; if he gives it, he is God. He does not deceive, for he fulfills his promise. Therefore he is God, the one who bestows eternal salvation — a salvation no mere human, unable to save even himself, could bestow on another.
If Christ is only a man, what are we to make of his claim: "I and the Father are one"? (John 10:30). How can the Father and the Son be one unless he is both God and the Son? One can be said to be one with the Father precisely because he is from the Father, because he is the Father's Son, because he is begotten of the Father, because he is found to have proceeded from the Father — and through that procession he is God. When the Jews considered this claim arrogant and blasphemous, because Christ revealed himself as God in these words, they picked up stones to stone him. But Christ vigorously refuted them with Scripture's own testimony and example. He said: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods' to whom the word of God came — and Scripture cannot be set aside — what about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36, referencing Psalm 82:6). By these words he did not deny being God; on the contrary, he confirmed it. For if those who received God's word are called 'gods,' how much more is this one God, who surpasses them all? And he refuted the slanderous charge of blasphemy with a proper legal argument: he wants to be understood as God in the sense that he is the Son of God, not the Father himself. He said he was sent, and he showed that he performed many works from the Father — thereby making clear he is the Son, not the Father. In the final part of his defense he speaks as the Son, not the Father. So, regarding the charge of blasphemy, he identifies himself as the Son, not the Father; but regarding his divinity, by saying "I and the Father are one," he proves he is both the Son and God. Therefore he is God — yet God in such a way that he is the Son, not the Father.
Latin
Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait: etsi ego de me testificor, uerum est testimonium meum, quia scio unde uenerim et guo eam, uos ignoratis unde uenerim aut quo eam, uos secundum carnem iudicatis? ecce et hic illuc se dicit rediturum, unde se testificatur ante uenisse, missum scilicet de caelo. descendit ergo unde uenit, quo modo illuc uadit unde descendit. ex quo, si homo tantummodo Christus esset, non inde uenisset: atque ideo nec illuc abiret, quoniam non inde uenisset. ueniendo autem inde, unde homo uenire non potest, deum se ostendit uenisse. sed enim huius ipsius descensionis ignari et imperiti Iudaei heredes sibi haereticos istos reddiderunt, quibus dicitur: vos ignoratis unde ueniam, et quo eam: uos secundum carnem tudicatis. tam isti quam Iudaei, carnalem solam esse Christi natiuitatem tenentes, nihil aliud Christum esse quam hominem crediderunt, non considerantes illud, quoniam, cum de caelo homo non potuerit uenire, ut merito illuc posset redire, deum esse qui inde descenderit, unde homo uenire non potuerit. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: vos ex inferioribus estis, ego desursum sum; uos de hoc mundo estis, ego non sum de hoc mundo? ideo autem si omnis homo ex hoc mundo est, et ideo in hoc mundo est Christus, an homo tantummodo est? absit. sed considera quod ait: ego non sum de hoc mundo. numquid ergo mentitur, cum ex hoc mundo sit, si homo tantummodo sit? aut si non mentitur, non est ex hoc mundo. non ergo homo tantummodo est, quia ex hoc mundo non est. sed ne lateret quis esset, expressit unde esset: ego, inquit, desursum sum; hoc est, de caelo, unde homo uenire non potest; non enim in caelo factus est. deus est ergo qui desursum est, et idcirco de hoc mundo non est. quamquam etiam quodam modo ex hoc mundo est; unde non deus tantum est Christus, sed et homo; ut merito, quo modo non est ex hoc mundo secundum uerbi diuinitatem, ita ex hoc mundo sit secundum suscepti corporis fragilitatem. homo est enim cum deo iunctus, et deus cum homine copulatus. sed idcirco nunc hic Christus in unam partem solius diuinitatis incubuit, quoniam caecitas Iudaica solam in Christo partem carnis aspexit, et inde in praesenti loco, silentio praeterita corporis fragilitate quae de mundo est, de sua sola diuinitate locutus est, quae de mundo non est: ut in quantum illi inclinauerant, ut hominem illum tantummodo crederent, in tantum illos Christus posset ad diuinitatem suam considerandam trahere, ut re deum crederent, uolens illorum incredulitatem circa diuinitatem suam, omissa interim commemoratione sortis humanae, solius diuinitatis oppositione superare. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo dicit: ego ex deo prodii et ueni, cum constet hominem a deo factum esse, non ex deo processisse? ex deo autem homo quo modo non processit, sic dei uerbum processit; de quo dictum est: eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum. quod quoniam ex deo est, merito et apud deum est: quodque, quia non otiose prolatum est, merito omnia facit; omnia enim per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil. sed enim hoc uerbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, deo, dum qui processit sermo, deus est qui processit ex deo. si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait: sz gués uerbum meum Seruauerit, mortem non uidebit in aeternum? mortem in aeternum non uidere, quid aliud quam immortalitas est? immortalitas autem diuinitati socia est, quia et diuinitas immortalis est, et immortalitas diuinitatis fructus est. sed enim omnis homo mortalis est; immortalitas autem ex mortali non potest esse. ergo ex Christo homine mortali immortalitas non potest nasci. sed qui uerbum custodierit, inquit, meum, mortem non uidebit in aeternum. ergo uerbum Christi praestat immortalitatem, et per immortalitatem praestat diuinitatem. quod si non potest exhibere ut immortalem alterum faciat ipse mortalis, hoc autem Christi uerbum exhibet pariter et praestat immortalitatem, non utique homo tantum est, qui praestat immortalitatem, quam, si tantummodo homo esset, praestare non posset. praestando autem diuinitatem per immortalitatem, deum se probat diuinitatem porrigendo, quam, nisi deus esset, praestare non posset. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo inquit: ante Abraham ego sum? nemo enim hominum ante eum potest esse ex quo ipse est; nec potest fieri ut quicquam prius fuerit ante illum ex quo ipsum originem sumpsit. sed enim Christus, cum ex Abraham sit, ante Abraham esse se dicit. aut mentitur et fallit, si ante Abraham non fuit, qui ex Abraham fuit: aut non fallit, si etiam deus est, dum ante Abraham fuit. quod nisi fuisset, consequenter, cum ex Abraham fuisset, ante Abraham esse non posset. si homo tantummodo Christus, quomodo ait: ef ego agnoscam eas et sequuntur me meae; et ego uitam aeternam do illis, et numquam peribunt in perpetuum? sed enim cum omnis homo mortalitatis ro sit legibus alligatus, et idcirco in perpetuum se ipse seruare non possit, multo magis in perpetuum alterum seruare non poterit. at in perpetuum se Christus repromittit salutem daturum; quam si non dat, mendax est: si dat, deus est. sed non fallit; dat enim quod repromittit. deus est ergo, qui salutem perpetuam porrigit; quam homo, qui se ipsum seruare non potest, alteri praestare non poterit. Si homo tantummodo Christus, quid est, quod ait: ego e pater unum sumus? quomodo enim ego et pater unum sumus, Si non et deus est et filius? qui idcirco unum potest dici, dum ex ipso est, et dum filius eius est, et dum ex ipso nascitur, dum ex ipso processisse reperitur; per quod et deus est. quod cum inuidiosum Iudaei putassent, et blasphemum credidissent, eo quod se ostenderat his sermonibus Christus esse deum, ac propterea ad lapides concurrissent, et saxorum ictus inicere gestissent, exemplo et testimonio scripturarum aduersarios suos fortiter refutauit. sz zos, inquit, dixit deos ad quos det uerba facta sunt, et non potest solui scriptura; quem pater sanctificauit et misit in hunc mundum uos dicitis, quia blasphemas, quia dixi: filius dei sum ego? quibus uocibus neque se negauit deum, quin immo deum se esse firmauit. nam quia sine dubitatione dii esse dicuntur, ad quos uerba dei facta sunt, multo magis hic deus, qui melior illis omnibus inuenitur. et nihilominus calumniosam blasphemiam dispositione legitima congruenter refutauit: deum enim se sic intellegi uult, ut filium dei et non ipsum patrem uellet intellegi. missum enim se esse dixit, et multa opera se ex patre ostendisse monstrauit; ex quo non patrem se sed filium esse intellegi uoluit; ultima parte defensionis filii, non patris, fecit mentionem SUM. ita quod ad crimen blasphemiae pertinet, filium se non patrem dicit: quod autem ad diuinitatem spectet ipsius, ego e pater unum sumus dicendo, filium se esse et deum probauit. deus est ergo: deus autem sic, ut filius sit, non pater.