APPENDIX No. 1.

ARGUMENT OF ATHANASIUS,

REFERRED TO AT PAGE 41.

AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT, BECAUSE GOD SO WILLED,

HE SUFFERED.

As the traveller avoids every wandering from his road, and would suffer any inconvenience sooner than leave the highway, thus the pilgrims in the path of sound doctrine follow the footprints of those who never leave the way, and when they have learned the landmarks of their journey, they guard against any departure therefrom, and so are always guided in the truth. But some disregard this aim and please themselves in unbelief, and abandon the footsteps of the orthodox fathers, and the landmarks that the divine instructors have set up, and follow by-paths, some discovered by heretics of old, some, at the present time, by themselves. Thus they assert this unreasonable dogma; God suffered because he so willed. Being unable to demonstrate the paossibility of Go “ d’s”s nature, they do not hesitate to utter untruths concerning his will; and if questioned concerning the Divine nature, their answer relates to his will. If God’s”s nature were ca. pable of suffering, then it might be permitted to consider his will; but though, for the sake of argument, such a volition were conceded many times, yet could that concession not shake the immoveable laws of Nature., What madness, then, to assert, that he suffered because he so willeubd! What rational man -is unaware that will and nature must harmonize? That the ends of nature and the ends of volition must unite, is a truth self-evident; and equally so that their limits are fixed, and their aims regulated by nature and intelligence. He that would assert the contrary would put nature and the will in hostile array, the latter longing for that which is impossible, or the former admitting conditions elementally destructive to itself. That essenceo that, by its constitution, setting will aside, may admit suffering is passible; but that essence, which in its nature and being is inconsistent with suffering, may not assume the condition of paossibility, though its will may strongly thereto consent. Each class of animated beings retains the law and form of its first creation, and maintains it irreversibly. Should man ofttimes and earnestly desire to be a bird, yet would nature as often overcome that will; should he long for the spirit of an uniareasoning brute, yet would it be but a foolish thought and an unaccomplished design. Now as Nature thus displays her unconquerable power, and her superiority to the despotism of all opposing volitions”s, shall the unchanging and undying essence of God alone yield itself to be shackled by the will? Wonderful thought! Shall that which guards with watchful care all essences, and conserves each in its sphere, shall that alone be thusm , easily driven from the bounds of impassibility, and God the Creator possess less inflexibility than he has bestowed on every creature? But let us inquire of what prophet or apostle they receive this erroneous doctrine, that he thus willed? FProm none. The error springs from and rests on the light authority of those who maintain it. We have neither read he suffered, nor found he willed to suffer. What holy man ever saw suffer the invisible and impassible God, or to whom hath he revealed sucholx a will? 7 O0, the boldness of man to trample over invisible powers@! ForPot who hath ascended into heaven! who transcended thrones, principalities, powers, dominions, majesties? Who hath flown beyond the flight of the seraphim? Who hath seen the things concealed from their eyes? Who hath found out the nature of God in volition and suffering, when, the Scriptures have niaot revealed it? We have heard that -he hwliath performed his good pleasure; but that, he suffered, anaiad because he willed, we have nowhere learned. Why, then, miningle instability with unchangeabilit,y ? This is madness, not wisdom. The truth is the reverse of this. Christ suffered indeed, but it was in the flesh of mortal men, and not in his immortal Word.

AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT THE EXPRESSIONS OF SCRIPTURE SHOULD BE RECEIVED LITERALLY, WITHOUT REGARD TO THEIR:IIL TRUE MEANING AND SPIRITUAL IMDIPORT.

With great difficulty are those silenced who would subvert the constitution of the human mind, restraining men from the exercise of reason, and from the knowledge of natural truth and loveliness, by telling their followers that the expressions of Holy Writ are to be received literally, without examination, without discussion, without comparison, and without reference to the end for which they have been uttered. If, then, as they counsel, men should overlook the end and the meaning of the expressions of Scripture, and receive them literally and irrationally, would it not be to allow the words of apostles and prophets to echo through the ears in vain and unfruitful sounds, while the heart remained untouched and unaffected? When they advise to listen with the ears, but strive not for that fruitful perception which belongs to the heart, and the curse that attaches to them, to listen with the ears and not perceive. Thus they say, the phrase “the Word became flesh,” is to be understood literally, and not in the sense pious reason wouald put upon the words; as if it were in their power to wrest the conception of any person from that which is befitting and profitable to that which pleases themselves. Shall I listen to words, and seek not for the idea intended thereby to be conveyed? Where, then, would be the results of discourse and the profit of listening? How quickly would they transform men into unreasoning beasts by such propositionspropostions; to listen to sounds of words and neglect the sounds of reason. Paul, who was a teacher in such affairs, did not thus instruct; his precepts were, to receive nothing save upon the sanction of right reason; thus, solid food belongs to strong men, who by exercise are able to discriminate between good and evil. He advises perfection, praises exercise, recommends sober judgmentjudgement between good ,and evil. But how can he judge who discerns not the matters revealed? For as the man whose senses are disordered by disease has no true perception of alimnients nor their properties, so the man who, from idleness or stolidity, is unexercised in his mental faculties, apprehends the words he hears, but gathers not the force of the argument, nor perceives the distinctions in the ideas intended to be conveyed. His participation is heedless aad irrational, like the beast who devours the nutritive and hurtful as they may chance to offer. Nor is he to be numbered among clean beasts, since he does not ruminate, but transmits a crude and unprepared mass of mental food to the inner man. Thus he receives injury from imperfect digestion, rather than support to his vital powers. Is any one ignorant that the command of the Divine law enjoins a scrutiny upon him who is bidden to sup at the table of a ruler, and diligently to consider what is placed before him? Thus, it is manifest that we are not to make the words of Scripture our prey, but we must consider what is fitting to God, useful to man, consonant with truth, in harmony with the law, responsive to nature; to that which faith may know, on which hope may build and the sincerity of love adopt, whereby the glory of God may shine untarnished, envy be vanquished, grace justified. These elements co-exist in the meditations of piety, but find no place in these absurd novelties, whose dependence is upon mad theories. To conclude, he who receives the text of Scripture literally and neglects the meaning cannot understand passages that seem to clash; he can find no proper solution thereto, give no answer to inquiries, and cannot fulfil the precept, be careful always to have that whereby thou mayest answer him who inquires.

AGAINST THOSE WHO ASSERT THAT GOD

THE WORD SUFFERED IN FLESH.

I wonder that the inventors of these new doctrines seem never tired in their search or introduction of novelties, but are always frivolously propounding theories like the one we now proceed to confute, that God the Word suffered in the flesh. In this proposition there is much that is irrational, and much that is untrue. It is irrational to say one nature suffered in another; untrue to say the Word suffered. That which they would not dare to express unqualifiedly they conceal by the addition of “the flesh;” thus they would cover up this revolting idea, in the same manner as is an ugly face, by a deceitful mask. If the Word suffered, he suffered in his own essence. If aught else suffered, then the Word did not suffer, unless that injury which was directed alone against the suffering body may be considered as recoiling on the Word thereto united. To say, however, the Word suffered in the flesh is unscriptural, untrue, self-contradictory. But as these men are unbounded in impiety, and are conscious that pious ears will not listen to the expression “the Word suffered,” they subjoin the expression “the flesh,” @ in order to heal the wounds wrought by the other. Thus they would introduce disease, and heal by improper remedies; i for none of these doctrines are conson.uant with truth; and frequently in the same sentence are contained contradictions, so that rational men can give them no attention. The Word was not rendered passible by being joined to the flesh, nor was the flesh impassible through the agency of the Word; but as the body, by its nature, admitted the infl@uence of suffering, so the Word retained impassibility, as an essential and inseparable attribute. If the Word suffered,, why subjoin the additionu “llin the fllesh?” Why mniention the fliesh? The body suffered with the Word, or it did not. If it did nduot suffer, impassibility was bestowed on it. If it suffered, then the proof is that both natures suffered; for, as they say, the Word suffered in the flesh, and the body, by its own constitution, suffered in its proper nature. But perhaps the declaration of the apostle may be urged, “Of whom, as concerning the flesh, is Christ.”tlxe dwkratiou of the apostle may be as concerning the flesh, is Christ.@” Say

Christ suffered,@ and the word flesh recurs in the same manner. He who names God the Word names a pure essence; he who names :Chrisat designates one in whom two natures are united; and, thus@ it is with propriety we say Christ suffered, because this namane implies at once the impassible Word and the body which tasted death. Wherefore Paul did not use the expression, of whom is the pure God after the flesh, but “ Of whom is Christ after the flesh,” in order that he might indicate him who was intended of the Israelites, as pertains to the body; but as pertains to his divini@ty, the begot@ten of God the Father. He did not say of whom is God after the flesh. But say this, if you would convince me Christ suffered in the flesh. And if you pl “ ease to say God suffered in the flesh, then tell me, are God and the flesh the same, or different in nature? If they are the same, then did God suffer in his own nature ; for God and the flesh are in nature the same. But if they are different, how does the one suffer in the other, since suffering induces no change in the essence? Thus man does not suffer in a horse; the soul dies not in the flesh, but the flesh is dissolved, and the soul separated therefrom; i and yet the man, consisting of soul and body, is called dead, but yet only. in that nature which may die, that is, the body, not the immortal soul; for no one has ever said of the soul of man that it has died in the body; but the man, the union of soul and body, has died. Thus the Scriptures, when about to establish the immortality of the soul after death, say the just live forever. An appeal to Scripture condemns altogether these men; for, notwithstanding the number of prophets and apostles, we find nowhere an expression like theirs. On the other hand, that Christ suffered is universally announced. Christ, our passover, is offered for us. If Christ be passible, he died for our sins, according to the Scriptures. The cross is Christ’s”s, the body Christ’s”s, the blood Christ’s”s. How is it possible that they can neglect so great a cloud of witnesses, and prefer their own private judgment to the authority of the Spirit? Thus they would violate the command which forbids to transgress the ancient landmarks that your fathers have placed, and would disregard the decision of the great and holy Council of Nice, the fathers of which council with unanimity have placed in their creed the name of the Lord Jesus Christ next to God the Father; and to him they have ascribed the lofty attributes of Godhead and the beneficial faculties of his own manhood: according to the words of the blessed Paul, other foundation can no man lay than is laid, namely, Jesus Christ. We have not abandoned that foundations—a recipient of glory in one nature, of suffering in the a other. If you name him God alone, how can you lay on him the needed passion? If you name him man al*one, then how can g- he contain the vast riches of incomprehensibleiucotdprehensi”bli glory! I But it is our duty to call him Christ; hereby he reaps the fruit of glory in the Godhead, while in his manhood he bears suffering, and in the inseparable union works all miracles, and bestows all blessings on the faithful. Thus the impassibility of the Deity, the reality of the passion, and the universal advantage of man-bi ina-n,kind are made sure., In this manner the clear word of truth, the foundation of unshaken fa&ith, the glorious greatness of the mystery, the mraarvel worthy of the credence of antiquity, the unfading beauty of orthodoxy, and the harmonious belief of all ages are displayed. To assert this new and wild doctrine, and condclemn all who deny that God the Word suffered in the flesh, is not only to oppose the men of this age, but to array an opposition to the doctors and teachers of all antiquity. Why do these men avoid the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in which we are commanded to believe? Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved. It is lovely to fix the hope of salvation in this name; for there is no other name given among men whereby we may be saved. At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things heavenly and things terrestrial, and of things infernal, and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father. HI-le is judge of the living and dead. Stephen, when dying called on him: Lord Jesus receive my spirit. There is one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things; i he is Saviour, he is Redeemer. Christ is all these. Why, then, avoid that beloved name? It hath removed disease: “In the name of Jesus Christ, arise and walk.”2@ It hath put to flight devils: “I command thee, in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, come out of her.”.@2 How is it that, leaving this name; as if ungratefulungratefal to them, they assume an expression nowhere found among the holy writers: the Word suffered in the flesh!

AGAINST THOSE WHO INQUIRE WEwu6@qtiunwHY SHOULD THE

JEWS BE PUNISHED

IUNLESS IT WAS GOD WHOM THEY SLEW?

Argument has no power to restrain the madness of contentious men. If we advance a thousand irrefragable arguments, though they may display the truth, yet will they fail to convince these framers of falsehood; for it is the punishment of those who, in despite of the clearest of demonstrations, have abandoned the truth, never to leave their own devices nor return to the true road ; but continuing to travel by headlong by-paths, they are not ashamed to interroga@te of us why the Jews shall be punished if they slew not God. Shameless and deceitful impudence! I To avesnnge Christ they asperse Christ. Thus, that the Jews may be punished, they would confuse all things, despise doctrine, blaspheme the impassible God by callingo him passible, revile God’s”s glory, tear up the order of the universe. Cease to avenge God by blaspheming God; a defence joined with dishonoaur to the one defended is detestable. Leti Jews receive gain, if their loss is the shame of Christians. Rather let the guilty escape than he who suffered acquire such advocates. Better that Jews be pardoned than the GCodhead be reproached with mutability and paossibility. Why afford such a theme of boasting to Jews as that they were triumphant over God? They would have had no power over the temple had not the inmate permitted it, who raised the temple when dissolved, but himself remained indissoluble. Your opinion is contrary to the express announcement of the sufferer, and your vindication inflicts a worse grief than the injury you would avenge. Then wherefore distort the compassionate words of the Saviour Christ; for at the time of the passion he said, Father, forgive them; they know not what they do. And do you accuse the Jews of a knowledge of the presence of a God, and a conscious pollution of themselves with his blood? This audacity surpasses that of the crucifying Jews. They killed Christ, deeming him mere man. You, while vindicating God, call him mutable, passible, and dead. Thus, in proportion as that man is more criminal who is impious towards God than he who injures man, so is the state of him more dreadful who, in language, kills God the Word, than theirs who drove the nails into the flesh of the Lord. But though the Jews are less impious than you, we revoke not their awful doom. We maintain the impassibility of the Godhead of Christ, and ascribe passion to the manhood thereto united, and that the Jews shall be punished for impiety towards the manifest Deity through insane rashness and blindness. Even now we see that those who lift up impious hands against the temples of God and do this sacrilegiously and destructively, are punished as though they were impious criminals in respect of God, notwithstanding that their rage is outwardly directed against stones and wood. If then an inanimate temple be guarded by such severe laws, how much severer sanctions should protect that living and unpolluted temple joined ineffably and indissolubly to the living God! To offer injury or insult to that holy temple must be considered as offering injury and insult to the God who dwelt therein, and who distinguished it by so many miracles. Nor can the Jews find any palliation of their guilt in the circumstance that they appeared to sin against a mere man, while, to confute them, so many miracles wrought by his hand displayed the glorious majesty and power of the Godhead. His birth was pointed out by prophecy, its place was well known, its manner most remarkable, the time of its accomplishment made certain in every word in Scripture was declaratory of the event, the Oriental wise men came afar to worship, a star prognosticated, and angels sang the nativity of the Saviour. Herod the king was troubled; all Judea was filled with wonder, for it was the manifestation of him who should take away the sins of the world. Simeon takes the child in his arms, and calls him the salvation of God. Anna prophesies; John, at Jordan bears witness to him. The voice of the Father from heaven acknowledges him to all as the well-beloved Son; the descent of the Spirit as a dove on his head confirms and glorifies him; the water changed into wine, and five loaves multiplied to satisfy the hunger of as many thousands, while twelve baskets are filled with the fragments, attest his power. Diseases are healed by his word; devils, expelled by his command, bear witness from afar to the terror of his power; even the dead are at once rescued from the power of the grave; the very hem of his garment brings health to the sick woman, making evident the glory of the concealed God. Even the frame of universal nature, at the time of the, passion, and the destruction of the visible temple of his body, is disturbed in divers ways; and those who crucified him bore testimony to the reality of his resurrection; for, while they watched the slain, they were confounded by the omnipotence of the sufferer. These things, and many besides, evinced the hidden Godhead, and to be wilfully blind to these manifestations was a crime of deep impiety against God.

AGAINST THOSE WHO CALL HIM A JEW WHO DENIES THAT GOD SUFFERED.

In our former arguments the conclusions were so clear, and so variously and manifestly demonstrated, that our adversaries ought in all fairness to acknowledge their cogency; but this they do not, being intent upon weaving new and deceitful subtleties; Thus, they say he is a Jew who denies that God suffered. It is well that they remind us of a name well suited to themselves. They have drawn upon themselves affinity with Jews by denying the salvation of the incarnation, and by rejecting the mystery of the union of the two natures. Let us now imagine whether he is a Jew who receives the gospel of grace, or he who strives for the letter of the law! The gospel teaches us that the invisible God was manifest in visible flesh. The Jews maintain their ancient traditions, wherein the Deity is represented under types and forms. In what manner do we call others, Jews who reject the riches of the New Testament?

Have we not heard that many prophets and just men have desired to see those things which we have seen, and have not been able? 7 What have they not seen? The God manifest in the flesh. Is it not written, God was seen by Abraham, by Isaac, by Jacob, by Moses, and by many others? That which they desired to see, and were not able, was that which we have seen, the ineffable and indissoluble union of Godhead and manhood. This is the strange sight revealed to all who by fa&ith confebss the adorable union of the Word and flesh. They who reject the assumption of human na, ture are convicted manifestly of affin@ity with the ancient Jews, who were unable to see the things we have seen. Jews are they who reject the incarnate mediation of the Saviour, and to these must those be added, or, rather, must be considered greater criminals, who deny the two natures. The Jews were unable to perceive the Deity, thoughlx working miracles among them; and these revilers of God attributeattribiate to the Word the infirmities them; and these of the flesh he assumed. But perhaps they will say (for they do not scruple to deny the most evident truths), we do not call the divine nature passible. Should we ask of you, ye cunning sophists, how is it possible, that you can avoid this assertion, you would make answer: He suffereqd because he so willed, and thus is not passible. In this manner you but avoid the letter, while in youear faith the error remains. If you condemn such as deny that God suffered, can you escape the inevitable conclusion, God is passible? If he be a Jew, in your opinion, who does not acknowledge that the divine nature suffered, and a Christian “Who believes it@ then the Jew thus confessing the divine impassibility must be preferred to you who deny it; for, of necessity, you must be called Jews, maintaining the impassibility, or Christians, as you would define the word, holding to the paossibility of God. Then tell us plainly to which doctrine you subscribe; for with the heart manm believes to justification, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation. If the Word did not suffer, then the flesh did suffer. If neither suffered, then somrae third essence suffered. If nothing suffered, then there was no passion. If the passion took place, and yet no one suffered, it was but an illusion; we are saved by a mere illusion. You are as impious as the Manicheans; and why do you hesitate to adopt their name, when manifesstly- you are inheritors of their heresy? Hence is your error shown to be worse than that of the Jews, and nearly as impious as that of the Manicheans. Why mention Jews and Manicheans? You are more resolved in guilt than he, the contriver of all evil and hater of all good—-who hath planted these tares in your heart—-the devil. He, when, at Jordan, the divine glory of the Saviour was manifested, though urged by the stings of envy, dared not begin the temptation till he saw Jesus fainting with hunger, an undoubted sign of human weakness. He well knew the attribute of the Godhead to be subject to neither temptation nor passion. You ascribe to the Godhead hunger, thirst, and similar infirmities, and dare annex the suffering of crucnoifixion thereto. He (the devil), for the magnitude of his guilt, was called a murderer from the beginning; you, in the greatness of your mad impiety towards God, call the Jews the slayers of God, and do not blush in allowiing greater power to the Jews, “ the disciples, than to the devil, the teacher of all wickedness; and thus, according to the accusation of the Scripture, knowing God, you have not glorified him as God; fobr you have maintained his passibility.—-(Athanitasius’s”s Worksv, vol. 2,iL pp. 305-31830 l@, Ed. of Cologgne, 1686.)