Novatian, On the Trinity 24
The source of this heretical error, as I see it, is their refusal to recognize any difference between the Son of God and the son of man; if they acknowledged the distinction, Jesus Christ would be easily proven to be both man and God. They insist on identifying the son of man with the Son of God so that the man, the flesh, and that fragile substance may be declared identical with the Son of God. Because the distinction between the two is never drawn, but the son of man is claimed as God's Son, Christ is asserted to be only a man who is the same as the Son of God. By this maneuver they try to set aside the testimonies that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) and that "you shall call his name Emmanuel, which means God with us" (Matt 1:23). They quote instead the words reported in Luke's Gospel, twisting them to support not what the text actually says but only what they wish it to say: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). They argue: if the angel tells Mary that what is born from her will be holy, then the substance of flesh and body comes from Mary; and this substance — the holy child born of her — is the Son of God. The man himself, they say, and that bodily flesh which is called holy, is the Son of God; so that whenever Scripture says "holy" we must understand Christ the son of man as a mere man, and whenever it names the Son of God we must perceive not God but a man. But divine Scripture readily exposes and uncovers the frauds and thefts of these heretics. If the angel's statement were only: "The Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called the Son of God," we would have to devise a different kind of argument against them and seek other weapons to defeat their snares and deceptions. But because Scripture itself, overflowing with heavenly fullness, shakes off their calumnies, we can confidently stand on what is written and overcome these errors without any doubt. For the angel did not say, as we have already pointed out, that the child would be called Son of God simply because it is holy; he added a conjunction: "therefore also what is born from you will be holy, and will be called the Son of God." This shows that the holy child — the fleshly substance born of Mary — is not primarily the Son of God, but secondarily. Primarily, the Son of God is the Word of God incarnate through that Spirit of whom the angel speaks: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you" (Luke 1:35). This is the true Son of God, who is from God; when he assumes this holy child and joins the son of man to himself, drawing him up and carrying him across, he confers upon him by their union and intermingling the status of Son of God, which he did not possess by nature. Thus the primacy of the divine name rests in the Spirit of the Lord who descends and comes; the sequence of the name belongs to the Son of God and man, and rightly is this son of man made the Son of God, since he is not the Son of God primarily. The angel, perceiving this arrangement and administering the order of this mystery, did not confuse everything so as to leave no trace of distinction; he drew a distinction by saying: "therefore also what is born from you will be holy, and will be called the Son of God." Had he not dispensed this distribution with its proper measures but left it confused and mixed, he would have given heretics the opening to declare the son of man, insofar as he is man, to be the same as the Son of God. But now, explaining it piece by piece, he has clearly set forth the order and logic of this great mystery, saying: "what is born from you will be holy, and will be called the Son of God," thereby proving that the Son of God descends; who, when he received the son of man into himself, made him the Son of God, because he united and joined the son of man to himself, so that when the son of man adheres to the Son of God in the birth, he possesses through this union what he could not possess by his own nature. And so, by the angel's voice, a distinction is made between the Son of God and the son of man, even while they are joined together — a distinction the heretics reject — urging them to understand that Christ the son of man is man, and also that he is the Son of God, and that the man is the Word of God, who as Scripture says is God; and therefore they should acknowledge Christ Jesus the Lord, woven and compacted from both, and in the harmony of both substances united by the interlocking of a mutual covenant, man and God, as Scripture itself declares in speaking the truth.
Latin
Sed erroris istius haereticorum inde, ut opinor, nata materia est, quia inter filium dei et filium hominis nihil arbitrantur interesse, ne facta distinctione et homo et deus Iesus Christus facile comprobetur. eundem enim atque ipsum, id est hominem filium hominis etiam filium dei, uolunt uideri, ut homo et caro et fragilis illa substantia eadem atque ipse filius dei esse dicatur; ex quo, dum distinctio filii hominis et filii dei nulla secernitur, sed ipse filius hominis dei filius uindicatur, homo tantummodo Christus idem atque filius dei asseratur. per quod nituntur excludere: uwerbum caro factum est et habitauit in nobis; et uocabitis nomen eius Emmanuel, quod est interpretatum nobiscum deus. Proponunt enim atque illa praetendunt, quae in euangelio Lucae relata sunt, ex quibus asserere conantur, non quod est, sed tantum illud quod uolunt esse: spiritus sanctus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; propterea et quod ex te nascetur sanctum, uocabitur filius dei. si ergo, inquiunt, angelus dei dicit ad Mariam, quod ex te nascetur sanctum, ex Maria est substantia carnis et corporis. hanc autem substantiam, id est sanctum hoc quod ex illa genitum est, filium dei esse proposuit. homo, inquiunt, ipse, et illa caro corporis, illud quod sanctum est dictum, ipsum est filius dei; ut et cum dicit scriptura sanctum, Christum filium hominis hominem intellegamus, et cum jiium dei proponit, non deum sed hominem percipere debeamus. Sed enim scriptura diuina haereticorum et fraudes et furta facile conuincit et detegit. si enim sic esset tantummodo: spiritus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi; propterea quod nascetur ex te sanctum, uocabitur filius dei, fortasse alio esset nobis genere aduersus illos reluctandum, et alia nobis essent argumenta quaerenda et arma sumenda, quibus illorum et insidias et praestigias uinceremus. cum autem ipsa scriptura caelesti abundans plenitudine sese haereticorum istorum calumniis exuat, facile ipso quod scriptum est nitimur, et errores istos sine ulla dubitatione superamus. non enim dixit, ut iam expressimus, propterea quod ex te nascetur sanctum, sed adiecit coniunctionem: ait enim, propterea et quod ex te nascetur sanctum; ut illud ostenderet, non principaliter hoc sanctum, quod ex illa nascitur, id est istam carnis corporisque substantiam, filium dei esse, sed consequenter et in secundo loco: principaliter autem filium dei esse uerbum dei incarnatum per illum spiritum, de quo angelus refert: sf7zvitus ueniet in te, et uirtus altissimi obumbrabit tibi. Hic est enim legitimus dei filius, qui ex ipso deo est, qui dum Sanctum istud assumit et sibi filium hominis annectit et illum ad se rapit atque transducit, conexione sua et permixtione sociata praestat, et filium illum dei facit, quod ille naturaliter non fuit; ut principalitas nominis istius fs dei in spiritu sit domini, qui descendit et uenit; ut sequella nominis in filio dei et hominis sit, et merito consequenter hic filius dei factus sit, dum non principaliter filius dei est. atque ideo dispositionem istam angelus uidens et ordinem istum sacramenti expediens, non sic cuncta confundens ut nullum uestigium distinctionis collocarit, distinctionem posuit, dicendo: propterea et quod nascetur ex te sanctum, uocabitur filius dei: ne si distributionem istam cum libramentis suis non dispensasset, sed in confuso permixtam reliquisset, uere occasionem haereticis contulisset, ut hominis filium, qua homo est, eundem et dei et hominis filium pronuntiare deberent. nunc autem partiticulatim exponens, tam magni sacramenti ordinem atque rationem euidenter expressit, ut diceret, e quod ex te nascetur sanctum, uocabitur filius dei, probans quoniam filius dei descendit: qui dum filium hominis in se suscepit, consequenter illum filium dei fecit; quoniam illum filius sibi dei sociauit et iunxit, ut dum filius hominis adhaeret in natiuitate filio dei, ipsa permixtione feneratum et mutuatum teneret, quod ex natura propria possidere non posset. ac sic facta est angeli uoce, quod nolunt haeretici, inter filium dei hominisque, cum sua tamen sociatione, distinctio, urgendo illos uti Christum, hominis filium hominem, intellegant quoque dei filium, et hominem dei filium, id est dei uerbum (sicut scriptum est) deum, accipiant, atque ideo Christum Iesum dominum (ut ita dixerim) ex utroque contextum atque concretum, et in eadem utriusque substantiae concordia mutui ad inuicem foederis confibulatione sociatum, hominem et deum, scripturae hoc ipsum dicentis ueritate, cognoscant.