Novatian, On the Trinity 21
I could have expounded every heavenly Scripture and, so to speak, stirred up a vast forest of arguments about this kind of Christ's divinity; but my aim is not to debate this heresy at length. Instead, I intend to set out briefly the rule of truth concerning the person of Christ.
Even though I am eager to move on, I must not pass over the sign of his majesty that the Lord gave in the Gospel when he said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19), or when he declared elsewhere, "I have authority to lay down my life and authority to take it up again; this command I received from my Father" (John 10:18). For who could claim the power to lay down his own life and take it up again simply because he received that command from the Father? Who could claim the power to 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. He is the imitator of the Father's works and virtues, the revealer of the invisible God, who descended from heaven and testified to what he had seen and heard. He did not come to do his own will, but the will of the Father who sent him for this very purpose: that, as the angel of the great counsel, he might unveil to us the laws of the heavenly mysteries. And because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, Christ is proved to be not only human, since he is the Son of Man, but also God, since he is the Son of God.
If the apostle also calls Christ the firstborn of all creation (Colossians 1:15), how could he hold that title unless, according to his divinity, he proceeded from God the Father before all creation? If the heretics refuse this, they are forced to say that Christ is the firstborn of all creation as a mere human — something they cannot prove. Therefore, either he exists before all creation, so that he can be the firstborn of all creation, and is not merely human, since 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 unless it is according to that Word which precedes creation?
Thus the firstborn of all creation becomes flesh and dwells in us — that is, he assumes this human being who comes after all creation, and so dwells in us with him and in him. In this way neither the human is taken away from Christ, nor is the divinity denied. If he were only before all creation, the human would be subtracted from him; but if he were only human, the divinity that precedes all creation would be cut off. Consequently, both natures are united in Christ, both are joined together, both are bound fast; and rightly so, because in him there is something that surpasses creation, the concord of divinity and humanity appears as a pledge in him. For this reason the one who is called the mediator of God and humans is found to have joined God and human together in himself.
And when the same apostle says of Christ that, having stripped off the flesh, he disarmed the rulers and authorities and triumphed over them in himself, he did not present this stripping as pointless; he meant that Christ would be clothed again in the resurrection. Who, then, is the one who is stripped and then clothed again? Let the heretics ask. We know that the Word of God was clothed with the substance of flesh, and that the same Word was stripped of that same bodily material, which he took up again in the resurrection and, as it were, put on once more as a garment. If Christ had been only human, he would not have been stripped or clothed, for no one ever strips or clothes himself. It must be another who does the stripping or clothing from outside. From this it follows that the Word of God is the one who was stripped of the flesh and clothed again in the resurrection; he was stripped because he had already been clothed at his birth.
Therefore, in Christ it is God who clothes himself, and he must also be the one who is stripped; for the one who clothes himself is necessarily also the one who is stripped. He clothes and strips himself in the human being, as if with a tunic woven from a body. And so, consequently, the Word was, as we said, the one who is found to be clothed and stripped. He foretold this long ago in a blessing: "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 the flesh, and the garment is the body, we must ask: whose body is the garment, and whose flesh is the robe? It is clear to us that the flesh is the robe and the body is 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. Since the garment is washed, the human is the one washed, because the garment that is washed is the flesh; but the one who washes is the Word of God, who became the wearer of the garment in order to wash it. Rightly, then, the human is declared from the substance that was received to be washed, so that from the authority of the Word who washed, it is shown that he is God.
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.