SERMON

ON

THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.

2d PETER, CHAP. ii. VER. 1.

But there were false Prophets also among the People, even as there shall be false Teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable Heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift Destruction.

In these words it is very probable the Apostle principally intended to describe the primitive heretics of his own times: for, as appears from the best records of ancient history, four several heretics had broached their doctrines against the person of our Saviour, even whilst many of the Apostles were yet alive; particularly Simon Magus, Nicholaus, Ebion, and Cerinthus. Against the two last of which St. John wrote his Gospel, as Irenæus tells us expressly, who is an author of undoubted credit, and one who was very capable of knowing this, being scholar to Polycarp, who was disciple to St. John. So that it is not improbable, but that St. Peter also might have his eye upon those early corrupters of the truth, who began to sow their tares in the Apostle's days.

But, however, letting this pass at present only as a probability, it is certain he here prophetically describes and characterizes all those heretics, who should, in after ages,

VOL. VIII.

Z

make future attempts upon the Divinity and incarnation of our Saviour, and deny the satisfaction and redemption made by his death. First, he tells us, there would come a generation of men, who would even deny the Lord that bought them. Then, secondly, that they would do this privily and craftily, under the disguise and pretence of truth. Thirdly, that such men, whatever their subtleties and pretences be, were still to be looked upon only as false teachers. Lastly, that their doctrines are not only simply false and erroneous, but heretical and damnable; such as will bring upon the authors swift destruction. In this character the Apostle does so graphically describe the reviving heresies of our own times, and withal so plainly obviate their main pretensions, that (as if what Porphyry said of Daniel's prophecy, were to be applied to this) one might rather take it for an historical account, than a prophetical description.

To make this appear, in the further prosecution of these words, I shall

1. Shew who those are that may be said to deny the Lord that bought them; by drawing an historical parallel betwixt the ancient and modern heresies, which have undermined the true Divinity of our Saviour.

2. I shall point out the principal arts, by which two of the most prevailing heresies, namely, Arianism and Socinianism, do privily recommend themselves and shew that they are these two pretences; first, that many eminent Catholic anthors have acknowledged, that their doctrines are not contradicted, either in words or sense, by Scripture or antiquity, for the three first centuries after Christ. Secondly, that though they be erroneous, yet they are not heretical and damnable.

3. In opposition to the first of which pretences, I shall shew in the third place, that, notwithstanding any conces sions of Catholic Authors, their doctrines are contrary to the plainest and most indubitable sense of Scripture and primitive writers for the three first centuries after Christ.

4. And in opposition to the second, I shall, in the last place, prove from the same fountains of Antiquity, that they are not only false but heretical and damnable.

And this, I conceive, will be a fair exposition and just comment upon the Apostle's words, "There shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them."

1. I begin with the first, which is to shew, who those are that may be said to deny the Lord that bought them; by drawing an historical parallel betwixt some of the more noted heresies, ancient and modern, which have undermined the true Divinity of our Saviour. And this I shall endeavour to do the more accurately and exactly, because the very stating rightly of some opinions is with ingenuous men a sufficient confutation of them.

Now heresies, I conceive, may be summed up under these four kinds, Photinianism, Arianism, Sabellianism and Tritheism. The two first deny Him to be God, the two latter to be the Son of God. Photinianism and Arianism ascribe unto Him no Divinity at all; Sabellianism and Tritheism such a Divinity, as destroys his filiation. So that all concur, though in different ways, to undermine the true doctrine of our Saviour's Divinity, and "deny the Lord that bought them."

1. Photinianism allows Him nothing but a bare human nature; making Him a fiλos äv0рwπоs, a mere man, that never had a being in the world till he was born of the Virgin Mary. "Christum hominem tantummodo solitarium

adserit, cui principium adscribit ex Mariâ." (Vincent. Livin. c. 17. de Photino.) The very same is now asserted by Socinus and his followers; though neither he nor Photinus was the first author of it. It was an heresy begun very early, even in the Apostles' days, by Ebion; against whom St. John therefore is supposed to have levelled the first words of his Gospel, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;" because Ebion denied the Word to be God, and dated his original from the Virgin Mary. From Ebion, the Heresy was first taken by Artemas and Theodosion, two obscurer names in ancient history; but was afterwards better known under the names of Paulus Samosatensis and Photinus: the first of which was condemned by two Provincial Councils held at Antioch, and the latter by a General Synod of

the Arians themselves, assembled at Sirmium, where they pronounced anathema against the heresy, and deposed the author. Since which time it was hardly known in the world, till it was unhappily revived in the last age by Socinus, who to the heresy of the ancients has added another of his own, which may be called an original; as being perhaps what was never maintained explicitly in terms by any heretic before, viz. that the death of Christ is no propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of mankind. In this Socinus and his followers seem to have outstripped all that went before them, and so more properly fallen under St. Peter's censure, not only in denying the Lord, but the Lord that bought them.

2. The next heresy against the Divinity of our Saviour is Arianism; which allows Him indeed to have had a being before the world, and ascribes the creation of the world to Him; but yet ranks Him also amongst the creatures, making Him at most but a Deus factus ex nihilo, a God created out of nothing; and so of a different nature from the Father, neither consubstantial to Him nor co-eternal. These are the genuine doctrines of Arius, as they were first condemned by the Council of Nice, whose anathema against the Arian blasphemies is expressed in these words: τὰς δὲ λέγοντας κτίσμα, ἤ ποίημα, ἤ ἐξ ἐκ ὄντων, ἤ ἦν ποτε, ὅτε ἐκ ἦν, αναθεματ τίζει ή καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία, The Catholic Church anathematizes those, who call him a creature, or a production, or say that He was made of things which are not, or maintain that there was a time when He did not exist." Symbol. Con. Nic. But afterwards there arose a subtler kind of Arianism, which allowed Him to be both consubstantial and co-eternal, and yet denied Him to be infinite in nature or equal to the Father. This was an invention of some politic Arians in St. Austin's days, who kept close to the terms of the Council of Nice, and yet maintained their heresy under them, by putting an equivocal sense upon them. For by consubstantiality, they meant no more, than that the Son was made of the Divine substance, in the same manner as many other primitive heretics (particularly the Manichees, Priscillianists, and Gnostics,) believed concerning the souls of men; viz. that they were made of the very substance of God, and so were of the

same nature with the Deity. Apollinaris asserted the same concerning the flesh of Christ, that it was made of his Divine nature, and was consubstantial to it. Yet none of these heretics believed the souls or bodies of men to be therefore infinite in substance, or properly of a Divine nature equal to their original. No more did these Arians believe the Son to be equal to the Father in nature, though they equivocally played upon terms, and asserted both his consubstantiality and eternity. This is a piece of Arianism, I presume, not very commonly observed: but it is ascribed by St. Austin to the Arians of his own time, and particularly to Donatus, the schismatical Bishop of Carthage, who, besides his being a ringleader of the sect of the Donatists, was also infected with this sort of Arianism. " Apparet eum etiam non Catholicam de Trinitate habuisse sententiam: sed quamvis ejusdem substantiæ, minorem tamen Patre Filium; et minorem Filio putasse Spiritum Sanctum." August, de Hares. c. 69.

And this kind of Arianism was revived in the last age by Valentinus Gentilis; who asserted in the same terms that the Son was consubstantial to the Father and co-eternal, but yet of a finite and circumscriptible nature. It is true indeed, we have been told very confidently by Curcellæus and some authors since, that Valentinus Gentilis believed three infinite Spirits in the Trinity. But if we may judge of his doctrine by his own assertions, he believed quite the contrary, that it was impossible there should be three infinite Spirits, or Spirits of immense substance. For this is one of his assertions amongst his Protheses: "Tres Spiritus immensæ substantiæ esse non possunt." And for this very reason, though he allowed the Son, with the forementioned Arians, to be consubstantial and eternal (taking these words in an equivocal sense,) yet he still denied his infinity and equality, and made him only a finite and circumscriptible substance. These are his own words: "Filius pro generationis modulo circumscriptibilis genitus est." Upon which account we rank Gentilis, where he must and ought to stand, amongst the Arians, rather than the Tritheites; which, as will presently appear, are heresies very different from one another.

3. The third heresy which undermines the Divinity of our