Novatian, On the Trinity 18
Look at Moses: in another passage he reports that God was seen by Abraham. Yet no human being sees God and lives. So how could God have been seen? How can it be said he cannot be seen? The text says no man has ever seen him, and no one can see. If that is true, then the account is false—yet the vision was real. From this we can understand that the one seen was not the Father, who has never been seen, but the Son, who was accustomed to descend and to be seen because he had descended. For the Son is the image of the invisible God, so that the weakness and frailty of the human condition might become accustomed to seeing God the Father even then, in the image of God—that is, in the Son of God. Human frailty had to be nourished step by step through the image until it could reach that glory and someday see the Father, because great things are dangerous when they come suddenly. Even the light of the sun, breaking suddenly after darkness, does not reveal the day to unaccustomed eyes with its overwhelming brilliance; instead it blinds them. To prevent such harm to human eyes, the darkness is gradually broken and dispersed, and the rising of this light, increasing by moderate degrees, gently accustoms men's eyes to bear its full orb through the gradual increase of its rays. In the same way, Christ—the image of God and the Son of God—is seen by men insofar as he can be seen. And so the frailty and lowliness of the human lot are nourished, strengthened, and trained through him, so that they may eventually be able to see God the Father as well, once they have grown accustomed to beholding the Son; lest they be struck and cut off by the sudden, unbearable splendor of his majesty, and fail to see the Father whom they have always longed to see. It follows that the one who is 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 reason, then, could there be to doubt that he is called God, when he is confirmed as God in so many ways?
Consider also Hagar, Sarah's servant, cast out of the house and fleeing. An angel met her by a spring of water on the road to Shur, asked the cause of her flight, heard it, then offered her counsel of humility, gave her the hope of motherhood, promised that her offspring would be a great multitude, that Ishmael would be born to her, showed her a dwelling place, and described his future. The Scripture presents this figure as both angel and Lord and God (for he would not have promised the blessing of offspring unless he were both angel and God). Let the heretics explain what they make of this passage. Was it the Father whom Hagar saw, or not? God is named, but it is absurd to call God the Father an angel—unless they want to say an angel was substituted for him. How then could he be God if he was an angel, since that name is never given to angels? Unless the truth from both sides forces us to this conclusion: we must understand that it was the Son of God. Because he is from God, he is rightly called God, because he is the Son of God; because he is subject to the Father and announces the Father's will, he is proclaimed the Angel of Great Counsel (Isaiah 9:6). Therefore, if this passage fits neither the person of the Father—lest he be called an angel—nor the person of a mere angel—lest he be called God—but fits the person of Christ, who is both God because he is the Son of God, and Angel because he announces the Father's purpose, then the heretics must realize they are acting against the Scriptures. They say they believe Christ is an angel, yet refuse to call him God, even though they read in the Old Testament that he came often to visit the human race.
Moses adds further that God was seen by Abraham at the oak of Mamre, while he sat at the entrance of his tent at noon. Though he saw three men, he called one of them Lord. He washed their feet, offered them bread with butter and an abundance of milk, and urged them to eat as his guests. Afterward he heard that he would become a father, learned that Sarah his wife would bear a son by him, recognized the coming destruction of the Sodomites who deserved to suffer, and learned that God had descended because of the outcry against Sodom. In this episode, if the heretics want the Father to have been the one seen then, received in hospitality along with two angels, they have believed in a visible Father. But if it was an angel, since one of the three is called Lord, why is an angel called God—which is not customary? Unless it is so that the invisibility proper to God the Father may be preserved, and the lowliness proper to an angel may be set aside, and we believe that the Son of God, who is also God, was the one seen by Abraham and received as a guest. For what was to come, he was foreshadowing in the sacrament by becoming Abraham's guest, destined to come among Abraham's descendants; he washed their feet as proof that he was the one, returning in the sons the right of hospitality which the Father had once lent to him. So, to leave no doubt that this guest of Abraham was he, the account places him at the destruction of the Sodomites: "The Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah fire and sulfur from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19:24). Thus the prophet also speaks in the person of God: "I will overthrow you, as the Lord overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah" (Amos 4:11). Therefore the Lord overthrew Sodom—that is, God overthrew Sodom. But in the overthrow of the Sodomites, the Lord rained fire from the Lord. This Lord who was seen by Abraham is God; this God is the guest seen by Abraham, certainly because he was touched. But since the Father, being invisible, was not seen then, the one who is accustomed to be touched and seen was seen and received in hospitality. And this Lord, who rained fire and sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah, is the Son of God. He is the Word of God; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14); and this is Christ. Therefore it was not the Father who was the guest with Abraham, but Christ; it was not the Father who was seen then, but the Son; and Christ was seen. Christ is rightly Lord and God, who was seen by Abraham in no other way than because, before him, the Word of God was begotten from God the Father.
Moreover, the same angel and God again consoled and visited Hagar, cast out of Abraham's house with the boy. When she had left the infant in the wilderness because the water in the skin was gone, and the child cried out, and she lifted up her voice and wept, Scripture says, "God heard the voice of the boy where he was" (Genesis 16:11). Having reported that it was God who heard the infant's voice, it adds: "The angel of the Lord called to Hagar from heaven" (Genesis 16:11)—identifying the angel as the one just called God, and naming him Lord whom it had placed as angel. And this angel and God promised Hagar greater comforts, saying, "Do not fear, for God has heard the voice of the boy where he is. Arise, lift up the boy, and hold him fast, for I will make him a great nation" (Genesis 16:17-18). If this angel is only an angel, why does he claim for himself the power to say, "I will make him a great nation," when that kind of power belongs to God and cannot belong to an angel? From this it is also confirmed that he is God who can do this. And to prove this very point, Scripture immediately adds: "God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of living water, and she went and filled the skin with water, and gave the boy a drink, and God was with the boy" (Genesis 16:19-20). If, then, this was God with the boy, who opened Hagar's eyes so she could see the well of living water and draw water because of the urgent necessity of thirst; and this God calls her from heaven; and he is called angel, when above, hearing the voice of the crying child, he was rather God—he is understood to be none other than both angel and God together. Since this cannot be fitting for the Father, who is only God, but can be fitting for Christ, who is not only God but also proclaimed an Angel, it clearly appears that it was not the Father who spoke to Hagar then, but rather Christ. Because he is God, the name of Angel also belongs to him, since he has been made the Angel of Great Counsel; and he is an Angel while he expounds the bosom of the Father, as John declares (John 1:18). For if John himself says that this same one, who expounds the Father's bosom, is the Word made flesh, in order that he might expound the Father's bosom, then Christ is rightly not only man but also Angel; and not only Angel, but also God, as is shown through the Scriptures, and is believed by us. Otherwise, if we refuse to accept that Christ spoke to Hagar then, we either make an angel into God, or count God the Father Almighty 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.