Novatian, On the Trinity 22
Why, though we appear to be rushing on to another part of the argument, do we skip over that passage in the apostle Paul? He writes of the one who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be seized, but emptied himself by taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness; and found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death — even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11).
"Who, existing in the form of God," he says. If Christ were merely a man, he would be in the image of God, not in the form — for we know that human beings are made according to the image, not the form, and even angels do not possess the form of God. Who, then, is this one who was found in the form of God, as we have said, unless he is that chief and noble Son of God above all, the Word of God, imitator of all the Father's works, who himself works just as his Father does, and so exists in the form of God the Father (as we have expressed it)? And rightly he is declared to be in the form of God, since he is above all and holds the divine power over all creation, and is God by the example of the Father. Yet this very status he received from the Father, so that he might be God over all, and Lord, and God in the form of God the Father, begotten and brought forth from him.
Therefore, although he existed in the form of God, he did not consider equality with God something to be seized. For even though he knew himself to be God from God the Father, he never compared or equated himself with God the Father, mindful that he is from his Father and that he possesses his very being because the Father gave it to him. Consequently, both before the assumption of flesh and after the assumption of the body — indeed, even after the resurrection itself — he rendered the same obedience to the Father in all things. By this it is proved that he never regarded his divinity as something to be grasped in order to make himself equal to God the Father; on the contrary, obedient and subject to every command and will of the Father, he was content even to take the form of a servant — that is, to become that man — and to assume the substance of flesh and body, which, born from the bondage of ancestral sins according to human nature, he undertook at his birth. At that time he also emptied himself, because he did not refuse to take on the frailty of the human condition.
If he had been born only as a man, he would not have been emptied; for a human being, when born, grows rather than is emptied. As he begins to be what he could not previously possess, he is not diminished but rather increased and enriched. But if Christ is emptied by being born, by taking the form of a servant, how can he be only a man? Of such a one it would more truly be said that he was enriched, not emptied, at birth — unless the authority of the divine Word, temporarily resting from exercising its powers in order to take on humanity, lowered itself for a time and laid aside its glory, while bearing the man it had assumed. He empties himself as he descends to injuries and insults, as he hears unspeakable things and suffers unworthy treatment. Yet the splendid fruit of that humility appears at once: he received the name that is above every name, which we certainly understand to be nothing other than the name of God (Philippians 2:9-10).
For since it belongs to God alone to be above all, it follows that the name which is above every name belongs to the one who is above all. That name, therefore, is the name of God — and consequently it belongs to the one who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be seized. For if Christ were not God, every knee would not bow to him — in heaven, on earth, and under the earth — nor would all creation, visible and invisible, be subjected to a mere man who remembered that he existed before humanity. From all this — while Christ is said to be in the form of God, while he is shown to have emptied himself in the birth according to the flesh, while it is declared that he received from the Father the name above every name, while it is shown that every knee of heavenly, earthly, and infernal beings bows and bends at his name, and that this very thing happens to the glory of God the Father — it follows necessarily that Christ is not a man merely because he became obedient to the Father unto death, even death on a cross; but also from these earlier realities that proclaim the divinity of Christ, the Lord Christ Jesus is shown to be God, which the heretics refuse to accept.
Latin
Cur autem, licet ad aliam partem disputandi festinare uideamur, illum praetereamus apud apostolum locum? gui cum in forma dei esset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se deo esse; sed semetipsum exinaniuit, formam serui accipiens, in similitudine hominum factus, et habitu tnwentus ut homo: humiliauit se, oboediens factus usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis: propterea et deus illum superexaltauit, et dedit illi nomen quod est super omne nomen; ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quoniam dominus Iesus in gloria est dei patris. qui cum in forma dei esset, inquit. si homo tantummodo Christus, in imagine dei, non forma det rehominem enim scimus ad imaginem, non ad sed nec in angelis formam dei Quis ergo est iste, qui in forma dei, ut diximus, factus est legimus; nisi quoniam hic praecipuus atque generosus prae omnibus dei filius, uerbum dei, imitator omnium paternorum operum, dum et ipse operatur sicut et pater eius, in forma (ut expressimus) est dei patris. et merito in forma pronuntiatus est dei, dum et ipse super omnia, et omnis creaturae diuinam obtinens potestatem, et deus est exemplo patris; hoc ipsum tamen a patre proprio consecutus, ut omnium et deus esset, et dominus esset, et deus ad formam dei patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus. hic ergo quamuis esset in forma dei, non est rapinam arbitratus aequalem se deo esse. qQuamuis enim se ex deo patre deum esse meminisset, numquam se deo patri aut comparauit aut contulit, memor se esse ex suo patre, et hoc ipsum, quod est, habere se, quia pater dedisset. inde denique et ante carnis assumptionem, sed et post assumptionem corporis, post ipsam praeterea resurrectionem, omnem patri in omnibus rebus oboedientiam praestitit pariter ac praestat. quo probatur numquam arbitratum illum esse rapinam quandam diuinitatem, ut aequaret se patri deo: quin immo contra, omni ipsius imperio et uoluntati oboediens atque subiectus, etiam ut formam serui susciperet contentus fuit—hoc est, hominem illum fieri—et substantiam carnis et corporis, quam ex paternorum secundum hominem delictorum seruitute uenientem nascendo suscepit. quo tempore se etiam exinaniuit, dum humanam condicionis fragilitatem suscipere non recusauit. quoniam si homo tantummodo natus fuisset, per hoc exinanitus non esset. homo enim nascens augetur, non exinanitur: nam dum incipit esse quod cum non esset habere non potuit, ut diximus, non exinanitur, sed potius augetur atque ditatur. at si Christus exinanitur in eo quod nascitur, formam serui accipiendo, quomodo homo tantummodo est? de quo uerius dictum fuisset, locupletatum illum esse tunc cum nasceretur, non exinanitum: nisi quoniam auctoritas diuini uerbi, ad suscipiendum hominem interim conquiescens, nec se suis uiribus exercens, deicit se ad tempus atque deponit, dum hominem fert quem suscepit. exinanit se, dum ad iniurias contumeliasque descendit, dum audit infanda, experitur indigna. cuius tamen humilitatis adest statim egregius fructus. accepit enim omen, quod est super omne nomen, quod utique non aliud intellegimus esse quam nomen dei. nam cum dei sit solius esse super omnia, consequens est, ut nomen illud quod est super omne nomen sit eius, qui super omnia est. dei est ergo nomen illud quod super,omne nomen est: quod nomen est eius utique consequenter, qui, cum in forma dei fuisset, non rapinam arbitratus est aequalem se deo esse. neque enim si non deus esset Christus, omne se in nomine eius genu flecteret, caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum: nec uisibilia aut inuisibilia, aut rerum omnium omnis creatura homini esset subiecta siue substrata, quae se ante hominem esse meminisset. ex quo dum iz forma dei esse Christus dicitur, et dum in natiuitatem secundum carnem se exinanisse monstratur, et dum id accepisse nomen a patre quod sit super omne nomen exprimitur, et dum in nomine eius omne genu caelestium, terrenorum et infernorum se flectere et curuare monstratur, et hoc ipsum in gloriam dei patris succurrere asseritur; consequenter non ex illo tantum homo est, quia oboediens patri factus est usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; sed ex his etiam rebus superioribus diuinitatem Christi sonantibus, dominus Christus Iesus et deus, quod haeretici nolunt, esse monstratur.