Drafts on the history of the Church (Section 3)
in the seed before he grew in the womb of the Virgin & to express this in the Creed Iesus is called the Son of God & his mother is called a Virgin
The Article, Sitteth at the right hand of God the father hath Almighty, hath also been inserted by the Latines since the beginning. For it is wanting in the two Creeds of Irenæus & in that|ose| of Lucius & \that of/ Eusebius, & in one of Tertullians & in the Nicene \It is in ye figurative language of ye \Prop{hets}/ & interrupts ye sense of the \Latin/ Creeds. ffor it comes between the Articles Ascended into heaven & sitteth ffrom thence he shal come to judge the quick & ye dead & interrupts the reference wth those ……. is to come./ & therefore it was not one of those Articles of faith into wch all nations were baptized in the beginning of the Gospel. nor is necessary to baptism, but has been inserted into the Creed between |It is in the figurative language of the Prophets, & being put between And further, it interrupts the sense of the Creeds of the Latines. ffor it comes between is put between whereas the {langua} Creed should be plaine. And it is improperly put between| the articles Ascended into heaven & sitteth ffrom thence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead, ffor it \ffor it {illeg}/ interrupts the reference wch those two Articles have to one another, the words from thence relating to the article Ascended into heaven. ffor he comes from heaven to judge the quick & the dead & not from |sitting at| the right hand of the ffather \as the words of the creed of the Latines {illeg} \{illeg}/ import/. ffor he sitteth at the right hand of the father not only in this world but also in that wch is to come.
Now if these {two} \new/ Articles be omitted \the Creed of the Latines called/ the Apostles Creed will be reduced to this fform. I believe in God, the ffather Almighty, maker of heaven & earth, & in Iesus Christ his only son or Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead & buried, the third day he rose again from the dead, & ascended into heaven \& sitteth at the right hand of God/; from thence he {sic} shall come to judge the quick & the dead; And I beleive in the holy Ghost. This Creed \(if eternal rewards & punishments be added)/ is the same in substance with the first Creed of Irenæus & therefore conteins the primitive faith wch according to Irenæus was preached to all nations in order to baptism, & by the recital of wch all Christians from one end of the earth to ye other end thereof knew one another to be Christians. Its articles are generally to be met with in the ancient Creeds of both Greeks & Latines: but \in/ the following form it suits better with the Creeds of the Greeks \especially if instead of life everlasting the everlasting kingdom of Christ be inserted in its proper place/ & |in the last article thereof includes all the Articles wch have been added to the Creed in the language of the Scriptu{re}| |I| beleive in one God, the ffather almighty, maker of heaven & earth, & of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried, & the third day rose again from the dead: He \He/ ascended into heaven \sitteth at & the right hand of God &/ from t\w/hence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead \whose kingdom shall have no end whose kingdom shall have no end./. And I beleive in the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets. |And if it be thought fit And the Articles sitteth at the right hand of God. The resurrection of the body & life everlasting being {illeg} & may be {instituted} by way of explicatiō if it be thought fit the same being short & in scripture & received into the Creed \by the christians/ of the second century without \occasioning/ any disturbance in the Churches.| |In lieu of ye article whose kingdom shall have no end the Latines added life everlasting to ye end of their Creeds|
This {illeg} {creed} {illeg} the same in {illeg} are /Now this Creed is\ easy to be understood by the meanest capacities & so are \is/ fit to be proposed to all men, as \conteining/ the first principles of religion ought to be, & on that account may properly be compared to milk for babes. They are \It is/ short & easy to be remembered as the Symbols of religion ought to be. \All its Articles are in the scriptures in express words & so liable to no disputes./ They are \It conteins/ not \repetitions nor/ mere Theories like \some of/ the Articles wch we have omitted, but practical truths on wch the whole practise of religion depends, & therefore \a system of faith fit/ to be learned in the first place as the foundation of all religion. We must beleive in one God that we may love & {worship} \& fear/ him. We must beleive that he is the father Almighty, or first author of all things by the almighty power of his will, that we may thank & worship him \& him alone/ for the our being and for all the blessings of this life ✝ ✝ We must beleive that this is the God of moses \& the Iews/ who created heaven & earth & the sea & all things therein \as is exprest in the ten commandments,/ that we may not take his name in vain nor worship images or visible resemblances nor have (in our worship) any other God then him. For \he is without similitude/ he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see, & therefore is not to be worshipped in any visible shape. He is the only invisible God & the only God whom we are to worship & therefore we are not to worship any visible image picture likeness or shape \form/. We are not forbidden to give the name of Gods to Angels & Kings but we are forbidden to worship them as Gods. For tho there be that are called Gods whether in heaven or in earth (as there are Gods many & Lords many) yet to us there is but one God the ffather of whom are all things & we in him & our Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we in him, that is, but one God & one Lord in our worship: One God & one mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus. We must beleive therefore in one |We are forbidden to worship two Gods but we are not forbidden to worship one God, & one Lord: one God for creating all things & one Lord for redeeming us with his blood. We must not pray to two Gods, but we may pray to one God in the name of one Lord. We must beleive therefore in one Lord| Lord {sic} Iesus Christ that we may behave our selves obediently towards him as subjects & keep his laws, & give him that \honour & glory &/ worship which is due to him as our Lord & King \or else we are not his people/. We must beleive that this Lord Iesus is the Christ, or Messiah the Prince predicted by Daniel, \& we must worship him as the Messiah/ or else we are no Christians. |The Iews who were taught to have but one God were also taught to expect a king, & the Christians are taught in their Creed to have the same God & to beleive that Iesus is that King.| And that we may give him the more honour we must beleive also that he is the Son of God {illeg} born of the Virgin Mary without any other ffather then God himself. Who is a lyar, saith Iohn, but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denyeth the ffather & the Son. \And we are authorized also to call him God: for the name of God is in him. Exod. 23.21. / And we must beleive also that by his incarnation \of the Virgin/ he came in the flesh not in appearance only but really & truly \so as to be subject to the infirmities of the flesh/, being in all things made like unto his brethren (Heb. 2 17) \for wch reason he is called also the son of man./ For many deceivers, saith Iohn, are entred into the world who confess not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver & an Antichrist. 2. Iohn. 7. We must beleive that Iesus who was born of the virgin Mary & suffered under Pontius Pilate is the Christ & Messiah predicted by Daniel or else we are no Christians. We must beleive that he is the Messiah the Prince our Lord, that we may behave our selves obediently towards him as sujbjects & keep his laws & give him that worship wch we owe to him as our Lord & King. And that we may give him the more honour we must beleive that he was not an ordinary man but incarnate by the almighty power of God & born of a Virgin {illeg} without any other father then God himself. We must beleive that he was crucified being slain at the Passover as a propitiatory sacrifice for us, that in gratitude we may give him honour & glory & blessing as the Lamb of God wch was slain & hath redeemed us & washed away our us from our sins in his own blood \& made us Kings & Priests unto God his ffather./ We must beleive that he rose again from the dead that we may expect the like resurrection & that he ascended into heaven to prepare a place or mansion for the blessed that by the expectation of such a glorious & incorruptible inheritance we may endeavour to deserve it. ☉ ☉ We must beleive \that he is the heir of all things or first begotten son of God/ that he sits at \is exalted to/ the right hand of God \(Acts 2 /) or is next in dignity to God \the ffather/ Almighty, being \the first begotten the heir of all things &/ Lord over all the creation next under God, & we must give him suitable worship. For because he humbled himself to death even the death of the cross therefore God hath highly exalted him & given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven & earth & under the earth & every tongue confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the ffather. All The worship wch we are directed in scripture to give to Iesus Christ respects his death & exaltation to the right hand of God & is given to him as our Lord & King & tends to the glory of God the ffather. Should we give the father that worship wch is due to the Son we should be Patripassians, & should we give the Son \all/ that worship which is proper \due/ to the father \we should make two creators & be guilty of polytheism/ it would not tend to the glory of the father, but we should |detract from ye God father {illeg} the son, make him the creator & {idolise} him him {sic} contrary to the language of the first & fourth commandments| be Idolaters & in both cases we should practically deny the father & the son. We may give blessing & honour & glory & power unto God & the Lamb \together/ but it must be in different respects, to God as he is \God/ the ffather Almighty who created the heaven & earth & to the Lamb as he \is the Lord who/ was slain for us & washed away our sins in his own blood & is exalted to the right hand of God the father. In worshipping them we must keep to the Characters given them in the Creed primitive Creed \& then we are safe./ We must also beleive that Iesus Christ shall come to judge the quick & the dead, that is to reign over them with justice & judgment untill he shall subdue all rule & all We must beleive \that he sits at the right hand of God or is next {illeg} in dignity to God Almighty \& give him suitable worship/ because he humbled himself to death even the death of the cross therefore God hath highly exalted \him/ & given him a name above every name yt at ye name of Iesus every knee should bow. We must beleive also that he shall come not from the right hand of God but from heaven to/ that he shall come from heaven to {sic} judge the quick & the dead, that is, to reign over them with justice & to execute judgement untill \he shal subdue all rule & all authority & power, &/ all enemies be put under his feet the last of wch is death & by consequence untill all the dead be {illeg} raised & judged. that we may pray for this coming of his kingdom (called also the day of judgement & the times of refreshing & restitution of all things, & yt we may & |For he sits at the right hand of God not only in this world but also in that which is to come untill all enemies be put under his feet. And this his coming to judgmt we must beleive that we may with understanding pray for the coming of this kingdom &| fit our selves to stand before him in that day, & to deserve an early resurrection, knowing that the dead in Christ shall rise first & judgement shall begin at the house of God & that the saints who are first judged shall reign wth him over the quick & dead with a rod of {iron} \{illeg}/ untill all |the dead be raised in the body & & then God| be judged, & the ungodly, the blasphemers, the unjust, the lawless & all the workers of iniquity be sent into places of misery suitable to their merits & the saints go to the place \of eternal happiness/ wch Christ is now preparing for them in heaven. And we must beleive that there is a holy prophetic spirit by wch Moses & the Prophets & Apostles were influenced that we may study their writings as the Oracles of truth, & thereby grow in grace & in the knowledge of our Lord Iesus Christ to the end of our lives.
For besides the first principles & fundamentals of religion conteined in \the doctrine of baptism & laying on of hands & in/ the Creed wch all are to learn before baptism, & wch the Apostle therefore compares to milk for babes, there are many truths of great importance but more difficult to be understood & not absolutely necessary to salvation. And these the Apostle compares to strong meats for men of full age who by use have their senses exercised to discern both good & evil. With these truths the mind is to be fed continually as the body is with meats. And to these truths I referr
<45r>We must beleive that there is one God or supreme Monarch whose dominion is boundless & irresistible that we may fear & obey him & keep his laws & give him honour & glory. We must beleive that he is the \father of whom are all things, the/ father of his people & loves them \& that he loves his people/ as his children that they may mutually love him & obey him as our \their/ father. We must beleive that he is παντοκράτωρ Lord of all things with an {illeg} irresistible & boundless \power &/ dominion that we may not hope to escape if we rebell & set up other Gods or transgress the laws of his monarchy & \that we may/ expect \great/ rewards if we do his will. We me {sic} must beleive that he is the \is the {illeg} is the God of the Iews who/ created the heaven & earth all things therein as is exprest in the ten commandments that we may thank him for our being & for all the blessings of this life, & forbear to take his name in vain or worship images or other Gods. We are not forbidden to give the name of Gods to Angels & Kings, but we are forbidden to have them as gods \as Gods/ in our worship. ffor {tho as} Gods or power reigning over us For tho there be that are called God whether in heaven or in earth (as there are Gods many & Lords many, yet to us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & we in him & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him: that is, but one God & one Lord in or worship.
The Church catholick during the two first Centuries {illeg} accounted the unity of the Deity monarchical, & were zealous against a metaphysical unity {illeg}
This Tertullian who was for a metaphysical unity testifies in his {illeg} his ow in his book against Praxias in these words – – – – – – – – \This \was the metaphysical {belief} of the Montanists/ Oeconomy [of the Montanists consisted in explaining how ye f. s. & h.G. were one by unity of substance. And/ The credentium pars major was certainly the Church Catholick. These \both Greeks & Latins/ were affrighted & waxed pale at this metaphysical Oeconomy [of the Montanists: wch \& this Oeconomy/ consisted in explaining how the father son & holy Ghost were one by unity of substance] {illeg} \& opposed to it/ & this Oeconomy they \major credentium pars/ opposed their \\own/ tradition of a/ The monarchical unity of God & Christ as that \their/ wch they held by tradition & did {illeg} it with passion \zeale/ pronouncing the word monarchy aloud. As |Irenæus tells us that same faith was preacht in all the Churches throughout the whole world in his day & that illiterate Churches in| illiterate Churches in {sic} Germany in keeping to their traditions were impatient & ready to stop their ears when they heard the opinions of the ancient hereticks, & \& in like manner,/ the common people whom Tertullian calls simplices & imprudentes, \both Greeks & Latines/ were impatient {illeg} \& in a passion at hearing/ the metaphysical Opinion of the Oeconomy of the Montanists |& with zeale opposed it to their own faith of a monarchical unity. And therefore the faith of a monarchical unity was the tradition of the Church Catholick till the days of Tertullian. For| this testimony of Tertullian being against his own party is very strong & unexceptionable. The common people to whom ye Gospel was preached from ye beginning were tenacious of their traditions. while Tertullian, Montanus & such learned \& such as were bred up in the learning of the heathens & Cabbalists men as accounted the other/ being puffed up wth a conceipt of their own learning & wisdome & looking|ed| upon the generality of Christians as ignorant & silly people |& by degrees| it spread {illeg} up pleased themselves with their own inventions the metaphysical|ks| learning of the heathen Philosophers. |& brought into the mixed their own metaphysical learning with the Christian religion.|
About 70 years after Tertullian wrote against Praxeas,
The heathen Philosophers {illeg} Cabbalists & first hereticks generally made their Gods [Ideas Æons & Saphroth] to be either part, or powers of one substance. This Doctrine the Montanists \Sabellians & Paulinists/ applied to the Trinity, making the unity of the Deity Metaphysical, while the Church catholick made it monarchical. The & were zealous aga For the people of the Church cath. were zealous against a metaphys unity du for a monarchical unity against a metaphysical one during the two first centuries. This Tertullian who was – – – – of the heathen Philosophers.
<47v>For Athanasius in his Orations contra Gentes & de incarnatione Verbi Dei written before the Arian controversy began & in several other parts of his works, teaches this doctrine
For Lactantius
– began to creep into ye churches even before the end of ye 2d century the Phygian heresy was in those days spreading very fast.
For Athenagoras {illeg} in his Apology written to ye Emperors Marcus & Commodus about ye year 176 exprest himself of this opinion. ffor after he had explained one supreme eternal invisible Deity the first author of all things he proceeds thus: Quin et Dei filium mente complectimur
The names given to Iesus {Christ} related generally to his offices of Priest Prophet & King & to the Prophesies of the old Testament concerning him He was called Iesus \the Lamb of God to signify that he was prefigured in the Paschal Lamb. The/ the {sic} Christ in re or Messiah in rela or Messiah to signify that he is ye Messiah predicted in Daniels prophesy of ye 70 weeks, the son of Man to signify that he is the son of Man predicted in Daniels prophesy of the four Beasts, the son of David to signify that he is that Son of whose whose {sic} government upon the throne of David there shall be no end. Isa. 9.6, 7. the son of God to signify that he is the person spoken of in the second Psalm in these words The Lord hath said unto me Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee; Ask of me & I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance & the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt breake them wth a rod of iron: thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potters vessel. He is also called |the Prince of the kings of the earth & the Lamb of God to signify that he was prefigured in ye Paschal lamb,| the Prince of Pri King of Kings & Lord of lords \Apoc 10/ to signify that he is the Prince of Princes spoken of in Daniels prophesy of ye Ram & he Goat, & Michael (Apoc 12) to signify that he is the Michael spoken of in Daniels prophesy of the scripture of truth where he is called Michael the great Prince wch standeth for the Children of Israel, & the Word of God to signify that he is the Oracle or Prophet of God whose tes sch the faithful & true witness, whose testimony is the spirit of prophesy (Apoc 19.\10,/ 13 & 3.14.) to signify that he is the Oracle the great of God, the Prophet foretold by Moses Deut 18 15, 18. [And because this Word of God, this faithful & true witness is called ἡ ἀρχὴ της κτίσιως του θεου the beginning of the creation of God \(Apoc 3.14)/, therefore Iohn begins his Gospel after this manner. In the beginning was the Word & the Word & ye Word {sic} was with God & the Word was God The same was in the beginning wth God. All things were made by him] For in relation to his being called \in the Apocalyps/ the faithfull & true Witness, the beginning of the creation of God (Apoc \Chap/ 3.14) Iohn in the beginning of his Gospel calls him the Word wch was in the beginning with God & by whom all things were made?, putting his name the Word instead of his name the faithfull & true witness. And therefore those names are equipollent.
But men of corrupt minds, not attending to the relation wch the names of Christ have to the prophesies concerning him, {illeg} & wch the several parts of scripture have to one another; but taking things in a litteral & philosophical \natural/ sense wch were spoken allegorically & wth re \morally/ with relation to piety & virtue, & wresting the expressions of scripture to the opinions of philosophers, have brought into the Christian religion many philosophical opinions to wch the first Christians were strangers. So where Christ saith This is my body, meaning a type of his body, the Romanists Catholicks understand it litterally as if the bread was transubstantiated changed into Christs body in a litteral sense. Where Christ saith, The father is greater then I, meaning in power, some have thence inferred that the Son is a part of the father.
<48r>bishops & they had in the several cities as they had been taught by the Lord the law, the Prophets & our Lord.
In the days of Pope Victor or not long before,
In opposition to the
In the days of Pope Victor or not long before, in opposition to the Gnosticks who denyed the resurrection of the body & maintained that the souls of men after various transmigrations returned into God, some Latines began to add the resurrection of the body & life everlasting to ye end of their Creed.
Siquis {illeg} The easy admission of hereticks into the Church of Rome gave them opportunity of spreading \of propagating/ their doctrines \early/ in that Church. And the west that Church. And \those/ doctrines were most apt to be propagated in wch most the {heresies} most agreed. such And hence it came to pass that the opinion that Christ |which were most generally \& {illeg} taught/ by the hereticks: Such as was the opinion that the son of God arose from the father as a river The son of God \from the fountain/ a tree from the root & a ray from the sun & yt he was emitted from the father as a| was the internal wisdom reason & word of the ffather without wch the father was ασοφος & ἀλογος \overspread the Roman Empire in the \third &/ fourth Century &/. ffor this was the opinion \common language/ of Montanus & Paul of Samosat & Sabellius & had its rise from the Gnosticks who called their Æons |considered their Æons as such emissions & called them Ennoia, νους, σοφια λογος & such like σοφια δυναμις & such like \attributes/ powers & vertues.| by the names of several powers & vertues. And this opinion overspread the Roman Empire in the fourth century. And Alexander bishop of Alexandria \And this sort of language insinuated it self into the Churches by degrees in the third & fourth Centuries/ [And this opinion overspread the Roman Empire in the \third &/ fourth century] For Alexander Bp of Alexandria in a letter which he wrote to all the bishops of the Church catholic against Arius, relating|es| |yt| these|is| \to be one of the/ opinions for which Arius had been condemned by a Council of almost 100 Bps of Egypt \for this opinion amongst others vizt for denying/, {illeg} that ye son \this doctrine fo {sic} & teaching (amongst other things) that the Son of God/ was neqꝫ verum ac genuinum Dei Verbum nec vera ejusdem sapientia – – – abusive autem Verbum dicitur atqꝫ sapientia: quippe cum et ipse extiterit per proprium Dei Verbum et per sapientiam quæ in Deo est in qua Deus tum cætera omnia tum eum ipsum fecit. And in answer to this \opinion of Arius/ Alexander represents replies. Quod si filius ratio Patris est ac sapientia, quomodo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dicerent ἄλογον και ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν θεόν, Deum aliquando rationis et sapientiæ expertem fuisse. This letter being sent to all the bishops was subscribed by some & rejected by others. And from thence I conclude that the Council of Alexandria {admitted all} |they that subscribed it were doubtless of said the same opinion with Alexander above mentioned| consisting of almost 100 Bps \of Egypt & Libya/ & also all the bishops wch |in the other provinces \of the Empire/ who| subscribed thee|is| letters of Alexander were of this opinion took the Son of God for ye internal wisdom & reason of ye father [\since/ before the meeting of the Council of Nice.]
And This doctrine was also proclaimed by the Emperor Constantine ye great in all the cities of ye Roman Empire. For when he had wrote \without success/ to Alexander & Arius to forbear their \frivolous/ disputes & & resolv as not & \but could not prevail & therefore/ resolved to suppress the party of Arius, & for that end to call ye Council of Nice, he sent circulatory letters to wrote a threatning Letter against Arius & sent it to all the cities: & in that letter there was this passage Constantine speaks thus to Arius. Vnum dicis Deum: habes ejusdem me sententiæ. Sic igitur sentias. Ejus essentiæ Verbum & pricipij et finis expers, Verbum esse dicis: eo contentus sum ita crede Siquid præterea adjungis, id tollo. Siquid ad impiam separationem fraudulenter consuis, id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensationem, non improbo. Epiphan hæres. 69. Baron annal ad An. 36|1|9. sect. 6. Socr. l. 1. c. 9 in fine
[1] And the bishops of Egypt & the west in the Council of Serdica in their circulatory letter had these words. Confitemur filium esse virtutem patris. Confitemur illum esse Verbum Dei patris præter quod nullum est aliud: et Verbum verum Deum & sapientiam et virtutem esse.
<48v>By this you may understand that the Church Cath. continued in respect of the faith continu & comnion {sic} \of Christians/ continued in her primitive constitution till the days of Iustin/ This was the state of the primitive Church Cath: & was till the in till the days of in respect of the l circumcision & the law of Moses When Iustin wr in the days of Iustin. And I do not see but that ye Church \catholick/ continued in her primitive constitution in respect of the \whole/ faith & communion of her members \she/ continued in her primitive constitution till the days of Eluetherus & his successor Pope Victor.
|For| when Iustin \had/ represented to Trypho the Iew that Christ was God before ye world began & was afterwards born & became a man, & Trypho put him upon proving this; Iustin replied that (tho he should fail in proving \that/ Christ |to be| \have been/ /was\ God before ye world began, yet if \yet {illeg} if he/ could \only/ but prove that \Iesus what were Chr was/ the Christ, it was sufficient for the Christian religion, Verum tamen, o Trypho, saith he, non] it was sufficient for yeseveral \some of the/ Christians beleiving that Christ was only a man. Verum tamen, o Trypho saith he – – – –
And the relaxation of discipline giving too easy lapsed persons too easy readmission to communion, seems to have given offenc|d|e|d| to Novatian & his followers & who running into the other extreme denyed \the all/ remission \of all such sins /as\ were/ sins committed after baptism, & occasioned the inserting a new ar \a new article vizt/ the remission of sins, into the creed.
At the same time Liberius bishop of Rome wrote letters {illeg} to the western Churches to receive the Arians without baptism ({illeg} as Pope Siricus mentions in his \decretal/ epistle to Himerius, & soon afte then ye Council of Constantinople \usually/ called the second General council, \composed &/ setled the matter upon Co between the Church of Rome & the other Churches by a Canon in writing that the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, Aristerans, & Tesseradecatites & Apollinarists might \upon anathematizing all heretical opinions/ be received without new baptism by signing & anointing them in the forehead, eyes, nose mouth & ears, \with holy Chrism & at the same time/ & {sic} calling this the sign of the gift of ye holy ghost. But the Eunomians Montanists Sabellians & all other hereticks were to be \exorcised/ catechised & baptized. Concil. Const. Can. 7.
<49r>tiality of the Son should be inserted, & so the Cou\n/cil in the presence of the Emperour after some disputing agreed to this Creed. [2] We beleive in one God, the ffather almighty, the maker of all things visible & invisible: and in our Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, the only begotten of the father, that is of the substance of the father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, {illeg} consubstantial to the ffather, by whom all things were made wch are in heaven & in earth; who for us men & for our salvation descended & was incarnate & made man, & suffered; & \who/ rose again the third day, ascended to heaven, & shall come to judge the quick & the dead. We beleive also in the Holy Ghost.
The word ὁμοούσιος wch was used by ye Nicene Council in this Creed & wch is here translated Consubstantial, was by the Latines improperly translated unius substantiæ. ffor unius substantiæ may signify two things of one & the same common substance: but the words ὁμοούσιος & consubstantial were always taken by the G ancient Greeks & Latines for two substances of one & the same {natur} essence nature or species. For Eusebius of Cæsarea writing to his Church in the time of this Council & giving them an account of what passed in it concerning the faith, told them that it was agreed by the Council that the son's being consubstantial to the father signified nothing more then that the son of God had no similitude wth the creatures wch were made by him, but was in all respects like ye father & from no other substance then the fathers. And some of \{divers}/ the Nicene fathers \a considerable number of them {sic}/ in subscribing the decrees of the Council wrote by way of explanation that the son was ὁμοιούσιος to the father. And after Constantius came to the throne & conquered the west the opinion of authority of the Council of Nice was alledged with success against the opinion of a singular substance, the son being there \in the Acts of that Council called ὁμ/ called ὁμοιούσιος. And in the Creed it self the son is said to be begotten of the father, that is of the substance of the father. He is therefore according to this Creed, the son of his father's substance, but certainly not the son of his own substance. If the ffather is the substance of the father as is affirmed in this Creed, the son is the substance of the son, & this substance is the son of the fathers substance. But if the father is not the substance of the father, he is not a substance & so can be no father: & if the son is not the substance of the son, he is not a substance & so can be no son. And it's further observable that the Greeks called the ffather & Son two Hypostases, that is two substances: for the Greeks always took Hypostases for substanses {sic}, & so did the Latines till the dark ages came on & Greek ceased to be understood in the Latine churches.
The word ομοούσιος having been \had been/ been {sic} newly rejected {illeg} by almost all the bishops universally rejected in the reign of Constantius & that for the reasons above mentioned, namely yt \because it was/ |it| was {sic} a novel word & to introduce it was a breach of the Apostles rule of holding fast the form of sound words, that \because/ it had been rejected \long ago/ by the Council of Antioch wch met against Paul of Samosat & the rejection \had been quietly/ approved by the Churches of both east & west to whom that Council sent their circulatory letters, & that \because/ it was a word not understood by the people & liable to various significations. Properly it related to bodies & implied a previous substance divided into two & so might be taken in favour of their opinions who held \(wth Tertullian & others/ that God was corporeal, or that ye son was a part of the father or an emanation or efflux or prolation of his substance or his only wisdom & understanding without wch he was ἀσοφος & ἄλογος: for preventing of wch misinterpretations the Council of Nice had in their Acts allowed that ye son was of it signified nothing more then that ye son was of ye substance of the father & ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν τώ πατρί like ye father in substance & had permitted the as many of the fathers as thought fit to explain the word in their subscriptions by the word ὁμοιούσιος. But this explanation not being in the Creed it self & the Latines but lying hid in the Acts of the Council \was not security against errors misinterpretations./ t|T|he Latines explained the word in their version of the creed wrote unius substantiæ {illeg} & took \by/ this phrase was apt to be taken for gave occasion to a great part of the west to turn \T/ Tautousian Monousians without being able to know before they knew that unius substantiæ was put for similis substantiæ or unius substantiæ quoad speciem & fo naturam ejus. T {sic} Sulpicius Severus speaking of the homousian faith, saith that the Coucil {sic} of Nice was accounted to have been finished by {illeg} means of Hosius, that is by his influence over the Emperor, And Hosius was a Monousian as is manifest by his noting in the He influenced also the Council of Serdica & therefore was a Monousian & th
The Merchant \Importer/ delivers all his bullion in Ingots by weight & assay to ye Mr & Wn of her Mts Mint to be coined & if it be not in I Ingots, he reduces it into Ingots at his own charge before the Master can receive it by wt & assay. {illeg} & the charge of coynage is then born by the Master out of the coinage Duty. The money of Scotland is delivered by the Bank people to the Bank of Scotland & by the Bank to three Commrs who deliver see it melted into ingots & deliver the Ingots by weight & assay to the Master of that Mint to be coined. Quære 1 May th The Bank is paid for their service out of the Equivalent. Quære \1/ may the three Commrs be paid \for their service/ out of the Coynage Duty of that Mint collected before the Vnion. Or if they must be paid out of the Equivalent Quære 2 By Who must order the paymt & by what method.
<49v>The Council of Nice therefore did most certainly in their Acts explain the word ὁμοούσιος by consequen ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν or {sic} ὁμοιούσιος Eusebius of Cæsarea {then} wrote from the represented|s| & by consequence gave leave to as many of the Bishops as thought fit enter {sic} that interpretation in their subscriptions. And that they did so is further manifest by the Creed of the Council of Illyricum assembled in the reign of Valentinian & Valens, {illeg} wherein they wrote thus. We confess {illeg} – – – – – – excellent creature. Here this Council in their Creed allows that some fathers in the Council of Nice did interpret the word ὁμοούσιος of \such a/ similitude as Eusebius describes, & subscribed the Acts of that Council according to this interpretation, that is by entring in their their subscriptions that ye son was ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν or ὁμοιούσιος to ye father A But And They This Council indeed \of Illyricum/ complains \indeed/ of those subscriptions as unsincere, but this is to complain of the \if the their complaint is a reflection upon the/ Council of Nice it self for approving | admitting that that interpretation. & approving of | allowing those subscriptions. To the testimony of these two Councils we mad|y| add that testimony of a third the Council of Chalcedon wch was the fourth Gen general Council & affirmed that in their Creed \consisted of 630 Bishops &/ must be allowed to have understood the Nicene Creed. And they in their Creed affirmed that the son was consubstantial \ὁμοούσιος/ to ye father according to his Deity & {illeg} ὁμοούσιος to us according to his humanity. Certainly he is ομοούσιος to us \{illeg}/ by similitude of substance. To the authority of these Councils may be added the testimony of many writers. In such a sense \therefore/ as he is ομοούσιος to us, in such a sense he is ομοούσιος to ye father, & that is by similitude of substance |And \He was therefore/ \till the days of this Council by {illeg} but/ ομοούσιος to ye father in such a sense as he is ομοούσιος to us, that is by similitude of substance & this sense was ratified in the churches by the authority of this Council|. And lastly \And lastly/ T|t|o the testimony of these \three/ Councils we mad|y| add the testimony of ye writers of third & fourth \& fift & some following centuries./ centuries {sic} [as Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Marius Victorinus, Ambrose, Chrysostom, \Ierom,/ Augustin, Theodoret, Cyrill of Alexandria, \Marius Victorinus, Anastasius Theopolitanus/ Iohn Damascene, Euthymius Zygabenus.] ffor \{illeg} ffor/ Curcelleius & Dr Cudworth have \plainly/ shewn that they generally understood they generally |the writers of those ages (Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Greg. Naz. Gr Nys. Ambrose, Chrys. Ierom. Augustin, Theodoret, Cyrill of Al. Marius Vict. Anastasius Theop. Iohn Damsc. Euth| understood the father son & Holy Ghost to be three substances of one essence nature or species.
Which interpretation & subscriptions being admitted made openly & admitted by made openly \admitted/ \& admitted admitted all we/ by the Council, & admitted by th cannot be complained of as unsincere wthout differing from the Counc reflecting upon the Council for admitting the allowing them & taking the word ὁμοούσ \it self, & {illeg} differing from it in the {illeg} taking of the word \opinion.// If the word ὁμο\ι/ούσιος is no security against Arianism the word ὁμοούσιος is none because by the {illeg} approbation of ye Council bothh ye words are of the same to be understood in ye same sense when applied to spirits. Ierom tells us that the Stoicks & the Manichees & the Priscillianists {illeg} reputed ye souls of men to be parts of ye De substance of God & any heretick may wth as much reason say that they are consubstantial to God
And the complaint against these subscriptions as insincere is a further confirmation \strengthens the evidence/ that \there were/ such subscriptions were really made in the Acts of ye Council.
<50v>And at the same time many of ye Latines took the words unius substantiæ in a very different sense, {illeg} understood the latine version of the Nicene Creed in a very different sense taking the words unius substantiæ to signify that the father & son had one \& the same/ common substance. And ffor the Western Bishops in the Council of Serdica \accused condemned/ Vrsatius & Valens for saying that there were three Hypostases \or substances/ of the father son & Holy Ghost & in opposition to them affirmed that there was of all three but one Hypostasis or substance wch the hereticks call Vsia, & that the Hypostasis of the son was that which alone is the Hypostasis of the ffather. But when the Emperor Constantine overcame the western Emperor And this mistake created a great misunderstanding between the eastern & western Bishops about |the eastern bishops calling those Sabellians who held but one substance & the western calling those Arians who held three|. But when the Emperor \Eastern {sic} Emperor/ Constantius conquered the western Emperor Magnentius & became Lord extended his domion {sic} over all the west, the authority of the Council of Nice was alledged with success against this opinion of a singular substance, the Acts of the Council being produced in which the {son} was called {in} the Council of Ariminum \in the times of the councils of Ariminum & Seleucia/. And by this means the bishops of the whole Empire a very few excepted came into the opinion that the son was |ὁμοιούσιος to the father & condemned the opinion of one Hypostasis of the father son & h.G.| like the father acording to substance. Against the use of the word ὁμοούσιος three reasons were \now/ alledged, as Hillary mentions \(lib. de Synodis sub finem)/, 1 because that word in its most proper signification {illeg} implies a partion {sic} of o|a|ne \antecedent/ substance into two, 2 because the \89/ Bishops wch convened at Antioch against years before ye Council of Paul of Samosat 61 years before the Council of Nice rejected the ὁμοούσιος, 3 becaus the word was not in scripture \Hilary de Synodis sub finem/ for wch reason they rejected also ye word \Bishops at Ariminum & Seleucia/ omitted also the word ὁμοιούσιος & used only the word ὁμοίος \‡/ ‡ saying tha in their Creed that the son was like the father according to the scriptures,. & b|B|y which expression \they intended to/ excluded {all} \the/ other words wch were the word usia \ουσία/ wch was |is| not in \the/ scriptures & pointing at \referring to/ the Apostle's expression that the son is the express image of the fathers Hypostasis & to declare the likeness of the son to the father to be that which wch /such as\ is described in the scriptures by calling him \the image of the invisible God & the/ the {sic} express image of his fathers substance. \They condemned also the language of one Hypostasis of the father son & H. Ghost./ And tho after the reign of Constantius the the {sic} word ὁμοούσιος was again received yet it was not any more taken for a single substance till the dark ages came on. Liberius b|B|ishop of Rome subscribed to ye word ὁμοιούσιος in the reign of Constantius & after his death returned to ye {illeg} use the word ὁμοούσιος but took it in the same sense with ὁμοιούσιος. ffor when the in the reign of Valentinian & Valens when the Macedonianias {sic} came to him & professed the son to be in all things like the father & that ὁμοούσιος differed not from ὅμοιος, he received them [Socr. l. 4. c. 12.] And the Council wch met at Antioch in the reign of Iovian [Hilary de Synodis sub finem.] And tho after reign of Constantius the word ομοούσιος was again received \received made use of/ yet yet {sic} it was not any more taken for a single taken for a {singular} \single common/ substance till the dark ages came on.
Sulpicius Severus saith that the Arians [corrupted the Council of Nice: but had the corruption been discovere &] \by adding a letter & writing \pretending that {writi} \& turning/ ὁμοούσιος \to ὁμοιούσιος/ {sic}/ was {illeg}/ by alledging the \Council of Nice/ for themselves clouded the truth having corrupted the Council by adding a letter & turn thereby turning ὁμοούσιος to ὁμοιούσιος. But if any \any such a/ corruption had been discovered it would not have clouded the truth. Aga I Against the use of the word ομοούσιος three – – – came on. ffor the Council wch met at Antioch in the reign of Iovian
Here this Counsel repeats \affirms/ what Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote from ye Council to his Church while the Council was sitting
<51r>hesternum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hæreticorum quam ipsa novellitas Praxeæ hesterni.
Eusebius of Cæsarea \in Palestine/ who was baptized in the third Century tells us that he received the following Creed from his ancestors & was baptized into it. We beleive in one God, the father almighty, creator of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Iesus Christ, the word of God, God of God, light of light, life of life, the only begotten son, the first begotten of every creature, begotten of his father before all worlds, by whom all things were made, who for our salvation was incarnate & conversed among men, who suffered & rose again the third day & ascended to his father, & shall come again with glory to judge the quick & the dead. We beleive also in one Holy Ghost.
Hitherto the Church throughout the whole world continued united in one faith & one Creed as to the sense & substance of it, no disputes arising between the Churches about it: but in the fourth Century new articles of faith began to be inserted And first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in making a declaration of his faith[3] inserted this the universal \catholick/ Church. We confess also, saith he, one only Catholick Apostolick Church Holy Ghost, — & one only Catholick Church Apostolick Church wch is ever inexpugnable tho the whole world attack it, & overcomes every impious faction of hereticks {illeg} who rise up against her it. And henceforward this Article crept into several Creeds, as into that of Ierusalem wch is thus recited by Cyrill bishop of that city. I beleive in one God, the ffather Almighty, maker of heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible. And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten son of God, begotten of his father before all worlds, the true God by whom all things were made, who was incarnate & made man, crucified & buried, rose again from the dead the third day & ascended into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God the father, & shall come to judge the quick & the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end: and in the Holy Ghost the Comforter who spake by the Prophets; & in one Holy Catholick Church, & in the resurrection of the flesh, & in life everlasting. It crept also into the African Creeds as appears by that|is| set down by Austin Bishop of Hippo. [4] I beleive in God the father Almighty maker of heaven & earth, & in Iesus Christ his only son our Lord who was born by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary was crucified under Pontius Pilate & buried, rose again the third day from the dead ascended into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God the father, from whence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead. I beleive in the Holy Ghost the holy Church, the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the flesh & the life everlasting. It crept \into/ also into into the Creeds of the Latines It crept also into the Constantinopolitan \Cree/ Creeds of ye Greeks \& Latines/ framed at Constantinople & into the Creeds of the Latines ffor it was in the Creeds of \Constantinople/ Aquileia, Ravenna, & Turin, & in the Roman Creed commonly called the Apostles Creed. The Creed of Turin is thus set down by Maximus Taurinensis[5] Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem & in Iesum Christum unicum filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum. \Qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine./ Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus, Tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlum, sedet ad dexteram Patris, Inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. Et in spiritum sanctum, \sanctam Ecclesiam,/ remissionem peccatorum & carnis resurrectionem And that of Ravenna thus by Petrus Chrysologus. [6] Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem. Et in Iesum Christum Iesum ffilium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum, qui natus est de Spiritu sacto {sic} ex Maria Virgine. Qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est |&| sepultus, tertia die resurrexit ex|a| mortuis, Ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris. Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos. Credo in spiritum sanctum, {illeg} sanctam ecclesiā catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, et re carnis resurrectionem et vitam æternam. The same Article crept also into ye Creeds of Afric. for it ffor Austin Bishop of Hippo sets down the Creed in this manner [7] Credo in Deum, Patrem omnipotentem qui fecit cœlum & terram et omnia quæ in eis sunt. Et{illeg} in filium e Iesum Christum filium ejus unigenitum, Dominum nostrum; Qui natus est per spiritum sanctum ex Virgine Maria, qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est & sepultus, tertio die resurrexit ex mortuis, in cœlum ascendit, sedet ad dexteram Dei Patris, inde venturus judicare vivos et mortuos. & \Credo/ in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam, remissionem peccatorum & carnis resurrectionem.
♀ But however they \Yet the Christians/ continued quiet till the death of Iulian, & then Athanasius sent his faith to the Emperor Iovian in an Epistle ♀ \♀/ And soon after some time \{illeg} a little ꝑsent \he/ presented/ offered his faith to the Emperor Iovian to in an Epistle wch concludes thus. The Nicene Council did not call \say/ the son \was/ simply like the ffather but \wrote him/ ομοούσιος that \that the \son/ might be believed not simply/ he might be beleived beleived \not/ simply like God & but true God of God \did not say that he was simply like/: but \also/ they called \wrote/ him ομοουσιος wch is the property of a genuine & true son of a true & natural father. Neither did they alienate the holy Ghost from the father & son but glorifed him with the ffather & son in one faith of the holy Trinity, because there is one Godhead in the holy Trinity. The Christians in the reign of Iulian were quiet, but in the reign of Iovian \& Valentinian/ revived their disputes & Pope Liberius & Hilary And this is that confession of faith by the authority of celebrated by Gregory Nazianzen |by the authority of wch the western churches & some of the eastern were induced to \separate and/ preach the truth. For| Hence forward {illeg} of the {illeg} & Hilary & {illeg} Athanasius Henceforward \they {illeg} returned |began to returned from the Councils {illeg} & Seleucia to to {sic} ye Nicene faith & (as Sozomen tells us)|/ they that professed the son consubstantial to ye father, were of the same opinion concerning the Spirit. Which doctrine |was| Apollinaris Laodicenus taught \was zealously promoted/ in Syria, Athena by Apollinaris Laodicenus, in Ægypt by Athanasus {sic}, in Cappadocia & Pontus by Basil & Gregory. And when this question was moved & the contention increased the Bishop of Rome wrote hearing thereof wrote to ye eastern churches \[by one Elpidius]/ that they should together \confess/ with the western Bishops confess the Trinity consubstantiall & & equal in honour & glory. Which being done they began to acquiesce in seing the controversy determined by the judgment of the Bishop of Rome \backed with {illeg} an Imperial Edict/. ffor Pope Liberius & Hilary & \quickly/ prevailed with the Latine Churches \of Italy & Gallia/ to return to the Nicene faith & joyn the holy Ghost wth the father & son in one consubstantial Trinity, as they had done before in the Council of Serdica \then at the sollicitation of \{Eusebius}/ Basil & some other eastern Bishops/. And \then/ Pope [8] Damasus about the year 368 & 90 Bishops of Italy & Gallia assembled at Rome about ye year 368 | 370 |&| wrote \by {illeg} Elpidius/ to the Bishops of Illyricum {illeg} \in behalf of/ the Nicene faith & consubstantial Trinity & the Bishops of Illyricum convened in Council composed a Creed in wch wrote \by the same Elpidius/[9] to ye Bishops of \the Dioces of/ Asia |& all Phrygia| enter \representing/ how that after much debating they had approved the consubstantial Trinity & \complained of them for separating the spirit from the father & son/ exhorted them to receive the same \☉/ ☉ consubstantial faith of all three \wch Elpidius {illeg}/, And the Emperors Valentinian & Gratian \wrote/ at the same time to ye same Bishops of the diocess of {Aix} & P\h/rygia, enjoyning the faith of the consubstantial Trinity wch the Council of Illyricum after an accurate {illeg} inquisition had agreed in & chiding them for their continuation faith, & composed a Creed in wch they ma made this confession of faith. We beleive with the late synods of Rome & Gallia that there is one & the same ουσια of the father & son & holy Ghost in three persons that is in three perfect hypostases. We confess also according to the exposition of the Nicene faith that the consubstantial son of God was incarnate of the holy virgin Mary & dwelt among men & \for our salvation/ fulfilled all dispensation for our in birth, in passion in resurrection in ascention to heaven, & that he shall come again to reward every one in the day of judgment according to his life, being visible to all flesh & to shew his divine power seing he is God who assumed flesh & not man who assumed the Deity. And they that beleive otherwise we anathematize.
<51v>The few who wth Athanasius \first/ made this profession of faith ere Lucifer ye Calaritanus, Eusebius Vercellensis
In the reign of Iulian ye Apostate Liberius Bp of Rome wrote to Athanasius an account of his faith to Athanasius including the H. Ghost in the Deity & representing that there was one \an/ Trinity under the Deity & one power & one usia & one hypostasis & that \the Deity is {illeg} &/ ye Word \of G./ assumed a perfect man without sin begotten of the Holy father [read the Holy Ghost] & of the holy Virgin, & desired that Athanasius if he was of this opinion \would subscribe it/. And Athanasius wrote back that the son of God assumed a man & that he beleived in one God the father almighty & in his son or Lord Iesus Christ & in the holy Ghost & that they were of one unity, & one power, & one usia, & one doxology glory, & one dominion, & one kingdom the ima one image, the Trinity consubstantial. And at that time Athanasius convened Eusebius Vercellensis & the Legates of Lucifer Calaritanus & some other Bishops in a Council at Alexandria wch \Council (as Socrates/ (as|&| Sozomen tells us[10] ) confirmed the Nicene decree, & professing the holy Ghost to be consubstantial to ye ffather & Son named them the Trinity & that the man whom God the Word assumed had not only a body but also a soul, & that the words usia & hypostasis having created disturbance in the Church should be used no more with relation to ye Deity unless in refuting the opinion of Sabellius who held but one singular d [least by the intent of words they should seem to call one thing by three names] |by calling every one in the Trinity God in his proper hypostasis.| ffor it seems the Latines using unius substantiæ for consubstantial & taking this word substantia \the words usia & hypostasis/ & in the same signification with usia substantia & hypostasis \had/ contended \hitherto/ that there was but one usia & one hypostasis \& three persons/ in the Deity, & the Greeks who were of the homousia consubstantial faith contended that there was one mistaking usia specifically & hypostasis numerically contended that there was one translating substantia by usia contended that th affirmed that there was one usia & three hypostases, And th \& thereupon the Greeks/ called the Latines Sabellians for holding but one Hypostasis & the Latines called the Greeks Arians for holding three. But Athanasius \in the reign of Iovian \now/ examining/ calling both parties toget found that they agreed in their sense the Latines by one \Vsia & one/ Hypostasis \& three persons/ meaning one \substance/ in nature & species \& three in number/ & the Greeks by \one usia &/ three hypostases meaning three \individual substances/ in numbers \the same thing./ & so \he/ made them friends.
<53r>Now as the metaphysicks of ye Iewish Cabbala came from the Theology of the heathens, so the metaphysicks|all| opinions of the ancient hereticks came from both. For Irenæus tells us that the doctrine of Æons {illeg} came from {g they} |the Gnosticks [Simon, Menander, Nicolas Saturninus Basilides, Carpocras, Valentinus Secundus Ptolomæus Epiphanes, Marcus Calarbasus] [Heracleon Tatian & the Cainites Ophates Sethians Barbelites Phibionites, Militaries &c {made demission} made many {D}emissions| the Gnosticks like the heathens & Cabbalists derived many Emissions Æons or Deities male & female successively /& served them\ from the first God \& from {new} \one/ another/ by generation: & Irenæus tells us that the doctrine of Æons came from the generation of the heathen Gods recited by the Greek Poets – – – – – – affinity with the Iewish Cabbala. And Epiphanius tells us that the heresy {illeg} \of Carpocrates/ was composed of the errors of all the former hereticks Simon & Menander, &c – – – – – – – mens wives ought to be in common.
|✝ And because – – – – |✝ And because the hereticks like the heathens derived their Æons from one common substance \by emission or projection/, they accounted them ὁμοούσιος consubstantial So the Valentines said that the first God Bythos emitted Νους like & equal to himself seed into Ennæa & thereby generated Νους like & equal to himself, & by consequence consubstantial in the highest degree. The Gnosticks also applied the word ὁμοούσιος to their Æons as is manifest out of Irenæus & the exerpta taken out of Theodotus in the end of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus. And some of them, {illeg} the Valentinians, . . . . . to the animal.
< text from f 53r resumes >And I think it is not to be doubted but that the hereticks of the circumcision who before their conversion were instructed in the Iewish Cabbala, \& other fabulous traditions of that nation/ would borrow some opinions from thence. For the Apostle in opposition to the first heresies admonishes the Christians not to give heed to fables Iewish fables endless genealogies & oppositions of science falsly so called. By fables he may mean the fables of the Poets Iewish fables he seems to mean the fables delivered down – – – – – – Gnosticks pretending to science. The first God was by the Cabbalists called Æn-Soph the {illeg} Infinite \& Aroch Anpin the man with a great face/ & by some of the Cabbalists Gnosticks the Βυθος & Μεγηθος Depth & Magnitude meaning without bounds. The first Æon \Sephiroth/ was by the Cabbalists called Kether the Crown \or the top & first principle of the Æons Sephiroths/, & the firs said to contein all the others Æons \Sephiroths/ eminently in self & the first Æon was \by the Gnosticks/ called Ἀρχη the true Beginning or Principle & said to contein all the other Æons virtually. {illeg} The two next Sephiroths were Cochmah & Binah, wisdom & Prudence & the two next Æons were by some of the Gnosticks called λόγος & φρόνησις wisdome \Reason/ & Prudence. The first God & the first Sephiroth were by some of the Cabbalists called Aroch Anpin & Sein Anpin the man with a great face & the man with a little face & the first God & first Æon were by some of the Gnosticks called the first man & the second man & The first Sephiroth was by some of the Cabbalists called Adam Kadmon the fi \first/ Man & the father of {ochmah} & Binah \& Arech Anpin the man with a great face/, & the first Æon was by some of the Gnosticks called the Man & the Father. The first God & the first Sephiroth was by the Cabbalists called {illeg} Are |The first {illeg} Sephiroth was by the Cabbalists called Arech Anpin the man wth a great face & the second Sein Anpin the man with a little face & the two Gods And the| And as the Cabbalists said that this world was created \made/ not by the first God \but/ by the inferior Sephiroths so the Gnosticks said that it was made \not by the first God but either the Angels or by/ by one or more of the \Sephirot/ Æons or by the Angels.
Simon was
Irenæus tells us that all heresies had their rise from Simon & calls him the father of all the hereticks. He said that The first the And \Simon/ derived the all things from the conceptions or Ideas of God & said that the first conception of Gods mind he called Ennoea & Prunicus & a holy spirit, & said that by her God conceived in his mind to in the beginning to make Powers & Ange Archangels & Angels \& placing God & Ennœa above the Spheres or heaven he/ He made several heavenly Orbs & placed \& placing/ God & Ennœa above the orbs \of the Planets he {sic}/ said that when she came out of him she descended & to the lower regions \or Orbs/ & generated Powers & Angels & that they created the world. And these powers & Angels he placed in the several \heavens or/ Orbs where they were generated & gave barbarous names to them Princes {illeg} \{illeg}/ {illeg} \{illeg}/ {whether} called intelligences \powers or Æons/ & said that the Angels governed the world amiss contending for dominion & that Ennœa was very beautifull & enticed the A Powers & Angels to her embraces & they used her injuriously & deteined her below & that she was the lost sheep, & knew not the first God. & therefore \Whence it came to pass that/ the Gnosticks called him the unknown father. [He said also that Ennœa was the lost sheep & God came down to rescue her from ye tyranny of the Angels & save those that acknowledged him from the tyranny of the Angels who deteined their souls below & in descending changed his form in every orb that the powers & Angels in that Orb might not know him, & among men appeared as a & \He said also that the Angels/ caused her to pass into the bodies of weomen, meaning by a Pythagoric transmigration, & that she was in Minerva & in the Trojan Helena & at length came in many others & at length came into Helena the concubine of Simon. He & that the Angels passed into men & beasts & in the bodies of the Greeks & Trojans made war upon one another for that Ennoia then in then in the body of Helena & \men enjoyed her & made war upon one another for her sake meaning at Troy/ \He said also/ that she was the lost sheep & |yt| the unknown father \first God/ descended to rescue her from the tyran & save them that acknowledged him from the tyranny of the Angels who deteined their souls below \& made them pass into various bodies/, & that in passin descending through the orbs he changed his form into that of the Angels in in every Orb into that of the Angels in that Orb that they might not know him & among men appeared as a man \& seemed to suffer in Iudæa/; And \but did not really suffer. He said further/ that the n God appeared {illeg} \in Samaria/ on Mount Sina in the form \person/ of the father, in Iudea in the person of the son & in other nations in the person of the holy ghost, He said also \& that he himself was this God/ that he |he himself| was this \the highest vertue or first/ God; meaning in the same sence that his concubine was Ennœa that is by a Pythagoric transmigration of God into a humane \soul or at least by having an apparent body/ soul {sic}. And in the same sense his Disciple Menander said that he was the first emission of Ennœa |a power sent by the invisible Æons to redeem be the saviour of the world. & came down to {illeg} the unknown father|] Simon said also \yt weomen were to be in common &/ that the Prophets were inspired by Angels his ennemies & therefore not to be regarded rejected & that men were to be saved \(he ment from the tyranny of the Angels)/ not by just works but only by faith in him & Helena & therefore might do what they pleased. By the salvation of men he & his followers meant the rescuing their souls from the tyranny of the Angels & setting them at liberty to return up to their first residence & station & condition |[And some of his followers said that the souls of men passd fom body to body till they had]| \And that weomen {illeg} were to be |in| common./ Whence his Priests lived in lust & used exorcisms & incantations & magical arts & philtres & things enticing weomen to lust & fictions of familiar spirits & of prophetick dreams & worshipped the images of Simon & {illeg} Helena in the form of Iupiter & Minerva; & in their assemblies had filthy mysteries instituted by Simon wch consisted in offering to their Gods the seminal profluvia of men & menstrua of weomen instead of the Eucharist. [And as Simon said that he & Helena were the unknown father & Ennœa so \as Simon made himself the first God & Ennoia the first Goddess so/ his disciple Menander said \made himself the second God saying/ that the was the first Vertue was unknown but he was the \a/ power sent by the invisible Æons \[to reveal him & thereby]/ to be the saviour of the world. By saving the world they meant rescuing the souls of men from the tyranny of the Angels wh who deteined them below & made them pass into who deteined them below & setting them at liberty after to return from after a circulation through various bodies to return upward through the Orbs to their first station & condition. & this salvation they said men were to obtein by beleiving in Si \in them Simon &/ & |his followers &| learning their science & followin living after their manner wch they came to teach & \{illeg} by/ living in all sorts of pleasures. But The first God they said was {illeg} all the Æons but the first, & Menander was said that who was came down to {illeg} From their {illeg} boasting of science & making it the means of salvation they were called Gnosticks. So the Ogdoas of Simon Now in the generation of male & female Æons by emission of substance, in the Æons placed in the {illeg} Orbs of th heavens of the star |[& passing from body to body till {they} {illeg} {done} all {illeg}] that they might fulfil perform every thing in the present body perform every thing requisite to their salvation without suffering any more transmigrations: For the Gnosticks compared the body to a prison & said that mens souls were to be shut up in this prison till they had paid the uttermost farthing.| To the Ogdoas of Æons {illeg} placed \by Simon/ in the heaven of the fixt stars & seven planets some added a decas of Æons \or Intelligences/ answering to them. Thus have you the original of the Ogdoas of Æons so much celebrated by answering to the eight heavens & planetary \or/ Orbs of the fixt stars & {illeg} seven Planets From the \To the Ogdoas of Æons placed by Simon & his followers/ \To the Ogdoas of Powers/ Intelligences or Æons placed \by Simon & his followers/ in the eight heavens of the fixt stars & \seven/ Planets came the Ogdoas of Æons so much celebrated by the Gnosticks & some added a decas of Æons answering to the number of the nations wch God promised to give to Abraham for a possession & \also/ a Dodecas of Æons answering to the twelve signes of the Zodiac & twelve months in the year: All wch made up \the/ 30 Æons \of the Valentinians/ answering to the number of days in the month & of years in the age of Christ before he began to was baptized & began to act. And some understood \(as Basilidas) equalled/ the number \of Æons/ to that of days in the year [And they generally held a transmigration of souls feigning with Simon that they came down from above & after a circulation through various bodies under the tyranny the Angels \till they had performed all things/ were at length \{illeg} a Saviour/ set at liberty to return up again.] They allowed {illeg} \The {sic}/ Simon's making every soul to have various more bodies then one allowed no resurrection of ye body but placed salvation in the ascent of the soul alone through the Orbs to their first station & condition. And his disciples taught that the body was the prison in wch the souls of men were {illeg} by passing from body to body till they had paid the uttermost farthing, that is till they had done all things wch they were to do in the body / And making denying the resurrection of the body (for he assigned many bodies to ever the same soul) he placed salvation in the ascent of the soul alone
<54r>Epiphanius tells us recconing Simon to be the predecessor of Nicolaus conjoins the sects of the Gnosticks & Nicolatitans {sic} & from the Nicolaitans derives the various sects of the Gnosticks called Gnosticks, Phibionites, ffollowers of Epiphanes Militaries Barbelites \Sethians/ Cainites Ophites & by other names, & so far as I can find they held much the same doctrines with Simon. His Ennœa they called Prunicus & Ba\r/belo \or Barbero/, by Prunicus meaning a Goddess of lust & by Barbel {sic} & placed her in the eight heaven & seven Intelligences or Æons in seven the seven heavens under her, calling the first or highest of them Ialdabacth & Νους & said also with Simon that Ialda Barbelo \{(who}/ was beautiful & & {sic} enticed the Gods other powers to her embraces & that Ialdabacth was her son & made the heaven & earth. \They called her Prunicus to signify her lust./ {illeg} They said also that souls destitute of the knowledge were cast down from above & transfused into the bodies of of {sic} hoggs & other animals but by their science & \the/ practise \of their sect/ the soul might be set at liberty to return up \& pass by the Princes/ to the highest heaven. And this they called the saving of the soul. They indulged carnal pleasures & after the example of Nicolas quitted their wives leaving them to the embraces of other men, & bidding them be charitable to the brethren. And after adultery they offered the {whor} filthy sacrifice of \instituted by/ Simon saying this is my body & this is my blood.[11] And some of them \(as the Phibionites)/ not content with an Odoas of Æons encreased them to the number of days in the \month &/ year. \Thus far therefore/ They seem therefore to have been Gnosticks of the same kind with Simon & his followers. [But there was this difference between them Simon said that & his followe & Menander said that Iesus was a putative man & did did not really suffer on the cross had only an apparent body Nic the Nicolaitans that Iesus was had a real body Christ descended upon Iesus & Iesus had a reall body but Christ was impassible. In first opinion Simon & Menander were followed by Saturinus Cerdo Marcion & Basilides, but Basilides sai in the second opinion Niclas was followed by Cerinthus, Carpocras, {illeg} \Valentinus/ Marcus \&/ the Sethites \&/ Ophites. But Basilides said that {illeg} Simon of Cyrene suffered on the cross while Iesus stood by wth a putative body & in the form of Simon & derided the Iews for crucifying another in his room. And Valentinus said that Iesus upon who Christ descended took not flesh of the Virgin but passsed through her as water through a pipe & yet had a real body visible palpable & tangible passible & suffered. And Apelles said that] excepting their opinions about Iesus Christ But yet they differed in their opinions about Iesus Christ they differed
For Simon & his followers said
For the Simonian Gnosticks said that Iesus \Christ/ was a putative man & had only an apparent body, the Nicolaitans that Iesus was a true man Christ descended upon Iesus & composed Iesus Christ & \said with the Ebionites/ Iesus was a true man {illeg} visible palpable & passible like other men, but Christ was an impassible spirit \or vertue from above/, & that Christ descended upon Iesus & composed Iesus Christ, & did the miraculous works. For Irenæus tells us[12] that Cerinthus & long before him the Nicolaitans, a branch of the Gnosticks, said that taught that the maker of the world was one & the father of our Lord was another, the son of the fabricator was one & Christ from above was another who being impassible descended upon Iesus in the form of a Dove & \when Iesus was led to Pilate/ flew back to his pleroma (or Ogdoas of Æons) & that Απχὴ was the only begotten & Λόγος the son of the only begotten & our world was made not by the first God but by a power very inferior & cut off from the communication of those [seven Æons] who are invisible & innominable; & that for abolishing these heresies Iohn wrote in his Gospel that there was one God who made all things by Iesus Christ.[13] They feigned therefore that An I And the Sethians \& Ophites/ a sect|s| of the Nicolaitans, said that Iesus was a true man born of the Virgin Mary by the power of the true God & that Christ (the son of God & Ennœa \& {sic} the first female {illeg} in conjunction/ with his sister Sophia descended upon Iesus & composed Iesus Christ & that the souls of Iohn the Baptist & Iesus descended from above For the transmigration of souls was the common opinion of the Gnosticks. The Nicolaitans therefore taught that the soul of Iesus descended from above & that he was a true man born either of Ioseph & Mary as was the doctrine of \the {Phibionites} &/ Cerinthus or of Ioseph \Mary/ alone by the power of God as was the doctrine of the Sethians & Ophites, & that Christ a superior vertue whom they called Christ descended upon him at his baptism & composed Iesus Christ & revealed the unknown father & did the supernatural works & after when Christ Iesus was led to Pilate departed from \him/ & flew up to his Pleroma, & Iesus alone suffered on the cross crying out My God My God why hast thou forsaken me. And this was the doctrine of Carpocras \& his son Epiphanes &/ Valentinus & Marcus who {illeg} were therefor Nicolaitan Gnosticks ffor Epi the The Const Those therefore who followed this doctrine as \Cerinthus &/ Carpocras & his son Epiphanes & Valentinus & Marcus \& Colarbatus & Succindus & the Gnosticks properly so called & {Samatius}/ are to be recconned among the Nicolaitan Gnosticks. But those who with Simon & Menander & Saturninus & {and Saturninus} said that Iesus Christ had \was/ but a putative body man & had a body only in appearance may be recconed among the Simonian Gnosticks of wch sort were Saturninus Basilides Cerdo & Marcion Carpocras was of ye same opinion wth Cerintus saying that a Vertue descended upon Iesus & his Son Epiphanes was recconed among the Nicolaitans: but Valentinus had a singul parti singular opinion. He said that Iesus had a real visible palpable passible body but brought this body with from {sic} heaven & passed through the Virgin as water through a pipe & that Christ descended upon this Iesus. Apetes said also that \And Secundus seems to have followed Valentinus in this opinion. But Menander {illeg}/ Saturninus Basilides Cerdo & Marcion said that Iesus was a putative man & therefore may be recconned among the Simonian Gnosticks. [or Irenæus tells us that the errors rather among the Menandrian. ffor Simon had a particular opinion that the supreme God appeared in Iudæa as the Son, & his two pincipal {sic} disciples Menander & Nicholas divided the sect of the Gnosticks the one making Christ an Æon wth putative body the other making him an Æon wch descended upon Iesus. And therefore Irenæus[14] reccons Menander the author of a sect. {illeg} He was the master of Saturninus & Basilides & in them \& their followers/ propagated his heresi opinion whilst Nicolas propagated his in the Cerinthian \Gnosticks properly so called & in the {illeg}/ Cerinthians, \Carpocratians Borbelites/ Phibionites, Sethians, Ophites Carpocrat \& Elemites/ & others. But Cerinthus And this opinion was chiefly To this opinion those hereticks of the circumcision, who with Cerinthus were zealous {illeg} for the law & took Christ only for beleived that Iesus took his beginning of the Virgin, were principally addicted., especially if wth Cerinthus they were zealous for the law & took Ch beleived that Iesus took his beginning of the Virgin. believed \the Ebronites they were so superstitious as to/ lay the stress of salvation upon the works of the law. For these men {illeg} were opi For the Ebionites generally believed that Christ took his beginning of the Virgi Ioseph & Mary & many of the Nazarenes that he took his beginning of Mary by the power of God, & then they \those who were/ of either of these opinions might be apt to & looked upon the extraordinary works of Christ to be above the power of a man might be apt to ascribe them to the spirit wch descended upon him at his baptism &
< insertion from the left margin of f 54v >Those therefore who held with {Simon that Iesus} had but a putative body, as Menander, \the disciple of Simon & {illeg}/ {Saturni}nus Basilides \the disciples of Menander &/ Cerdo & Marion, I reccon among the Simonian Gnosticks, & those who said that Iesus had a real body & that Christ descended upon him, as Cerinthus Carpocrates & his son Epiphanes Valentinus Secundus Marcus Colarbasus & the Gnosticks properly so called \& the Phibionites Barbelites {Ophites} &c/ I reccon among the Nicolaitan. Carpocrates was – – – – – followed Valentinus in this opinion.
< text from f 54v resumes >|For| The \some of the/ Ebionites were much of the same opinion \wth Cerinthus. Epiphanius tells/ They said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary us that they had the form of the Cerinthians & the wickednes of the Carpocratians. They said that Christ \Iesus/ was the son of Ioseph & Mary. They were zealous for the works of the law & said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary. & \[There were some among them who said/ that Christ was \from heaven/ a certain spirit[15] from heaven who was \he is & was that he was/ created before all things & was nobler \(I suppose they meant that he was the first begotten of every creature) & was/ superior to the Angels & had the dominion over all things & descended from heaven whenever to these lower regions whenever he pleased as when he came to Adam & appeared to the Patriarchs cloathed with a body, & in the last days came cloathed wth the & cloathed himself wth the body of Adam (that is, wth a body of flesh & bones like that of of the species & seed of Adam) & was seen \appeared/ a man & was crucified & rose again & ascended into heaven.[16] There were others who] \&/ said] \&/ that a certain spirit came into Iesus & that this spirit is Christ & cloathed himself with Iesus.[17] — That he \Iesus/ was born of the seed of man & was chosen by|&| by election was called the son of God from the Christ who came upon him from above in the form of a Dove. And They say \said not/ that this Christ was not generated of the f God the father but \that he was/ created as one of the Archangels but \& was/ greater then them|y| & reigns over them & both the Angels & all things which were made by the father Omnipotent & came & taught what was in their Gospel, that is in the Gospel according to Matthew. [They ate no flesh & said that they \had all things in common from the Apostles days &/ were called Ebionites only from their poverty,] And some of them said that this Christ \(the Christ who descended upon Iesus)/ was Adam, that Adam who was first formed by God & animated by the divine breath.{illeg} I suppose they meant the soul of Adā
Epiphanius tells us that there was also some of the Ebionites said that Iesus Christ was the from heaven & that he was a certain spirit created before all things (I suppose they meant \that he was/ the first begotten of every creature) & was superior to the Angels & had the dominion over all
Chap
The Original of Popery
The Church of Rome began to decay in vertue before the end of the second Century, & to lay the stress of religion upon forms of religion & {sic} ceremonies & forms of rel & outward forms as is manifest by Victor's making so great a dust against the Churches of Asia Syria Mesopotamia & Iudæa for keeping Easter upon ye 14th day of the Moon & threatning to excommunicate them for it. It has Whether they should commemorate the resurrection on that day as they had done from ye beginning or on \neglect the commemoration thereof till/ ye {Su} Lords day following as the Latines Africans & Egyptians had done from the beginning was a thing indifferent & Victor had no authority to in its own nature & Victor could not judge the eastern nations for their practise without usurping the authority of universal bishop.
The same thing is further manifest by the growth of Montanism \{the Ca}taphrygian heresy/ in the Church of Rome in the end of that century: [a religion full of superstition. For the contagion of this heresy spread it self so as to reach the Bishop of Rome himself & incline him to write pacificatory letters to the Cataphrygians in Asia. Which he had done had not Praxeas {illeg} the author of another heresy insinuated himself into prevented it by converting the Bp of Rome from the Cataphrygian to the Praxean {illeg} party, as Tertullian \a Cataphrygian a Montanist or Cataphrygian/ the in his book against Praxeas thus mentions |in these words,| Nam idem [Praxeas] tunc Episcopum Romanum tunc agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani Priscæ et Maximillæ & ex ea agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiæ & Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis Prophetis et Ecclesijs eorum adservando, & præcessorum ejus authoritates defendendo, coegit ejus et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, & a proposito recipendorum charismatum concessare. Ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit, prophetiam expulit & hæresin intulit; Paracletum fugavit & Ch Patrem crucifixit. Praxeas maintained that there was one single substance of the father son & holy Ghost distinguished into three in degree form & species called by three names in three respects & \as Sabellius did afterwards/ & therefore Tertullian reccons him a Patripassian \saying Patrem crucifixit/. This [Tertullian with the Montanists distinguished this substance into three degrees forms & species,[18] making the Son an \unseparated/ emanation \emission & probole/ or projection from the father \the substance of the ffather & a part {thereof} as the ray is from the sun, a river from its fountain, a tree from its root,/ & deriving the holy Ghost from the substance of the father by the son & calling all three the consubstantial Trinity & expounding the monarchy of God by a subordination of the son to ye father & of the holy Ghost \to both/ & saying \of the Holy Ghost to both, & saying/ that every man was animated ex substantia Dei, not only made by a rational author but animated ex substantia ejus. [Which opinion seems borrowed from some ancient Philosophers who derived \intelligent beings & even/ all things from the substance of God & called the son {sic} & stars consubstantial to him & compared{illeg} him to him a spider as if he formed the word {sic} out of himself as a spider forms her web out of her own bowels. And This was the opinion of the ancient Egyptians \& of the Stoicks/ & is the opinion of ye b[19] Brachmans to this day. In this sense some of the ancient Greek Philosophers \& Poets/ taught that \Iupiter Saturn & Iupiter mare sol &/ all their Gods were but one God & some of the old hereticks as Valentinus Marcion Basilides derived several emissions from the first God several emissions wch they called Æons] In the same sense Saturninus or Saturnilum By these doctrines it appears that the Cataphrygians were Gnosticks ffor the Gnosticks derived Simon Magus & his successors derived all things from one first being \or father/ by emission or projection of substance. Simon & Menander called the first emitted substance Ennoia \& the next Angels/ Basilides called it \the first emission/ Νους & said that Νους wh|as| Christ whom the & from Νους derived other en a series of other emissions the last of wch was Angels. Valentinus \Secundus/ & Tatian made called these \such/ emissions Æons. Simon followed \pretended that Ennoia according to/ the doctrine of the \old/ heathen Philosophers transmigration of souls & {illeg} Simon pretended that Ennoia was seized by Angels & shut up in the body of a woman & according to the Doctrine of ye transmigration of Souls & appeared passed from woman to woman having been having been in the Trojan \& in the time of the Trojan war was in/ Helena, & that he himself was the first God & (I suppose according to ye same doctrine of transmigration) appeared in Samaria in|as| the form Son, In Iudæa as the father & in other nations as the Holy Ghost. Montanus {illeg} made the son & holy Ghost emissions from the ffather & subordinate to him. And And (if I mistake not) Cerinthus was of the same opinion. Saturninus or Saturnilis taught that when \when/ the Angels & who made ye world had formed a man they were not able to give him life, till but the virtue from above emitted a spark of life wch made the man live & wch after death should return to those things wch are of ye same nature wth it self. The Montanists that Man was not only made by a rational author (vizt the Deity) but animated ex substantia ejus The Manichees that Man partakes of the P Priscilianists & Stoicks (as Ierome tells us) that the souls of men were particles of the substance of God. Of wch opinion were also the ancient Egyptians & the Brachmans. to this day ffor they make all things proceed from ye substance of God & return into it. \And in the same sense I understand Epiphanius where he tells us that Valentinus & Colorbasus & all the Gnosticks & Manichees made certain traductions of souls & transmigrations into various bodies./ Saturninus, Marcion, & Montanus & Tatian condemned marriage & the eating of live animals animals \the flesh of the flesh of/ animals. & Montanus taught to abstein from marriage & from some sorts of Meat.
< insertion from the left margin of f 55v >& gave occasion to ye Arian controversy. For when Alexander Bp of Alexandria maintained an essential unity of the father son & h.g. Arius toook it for the doctrine of \the una substantia of/ Sabellian|us|ism & & {sic} thereupon set himself to oppse it. And {illeg} as for |Vna substantia was also the language of the Montanists & so was| the ὡμοούσιοι. And was \this last word was/ condemned in Paul of Samosat
< text from f 56r resumes >Simon magus feigned that he wit he was the great God [& appeared in Samaria as ye father in Iudæa{illeg} as the Son, in other nations as the holy Ghost,] & that his wif \his woman/ Helena or Selena a woman resulted from \him/ & was the first conception of his mind, & that of \called Ennoia/ the mother of all things: ffor of her he conceived Angels & Archangels in the beginning \& powers/ by whom the world was made; & that Ennoia being \was/ deteined & used opprobriouly {sic} by those who had bee the|se| Angels & powers emitted from her wch had been emitted from her & was shut up in a humane body & according to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls passed from body to body, being f{illeg} formerly in the Trojan Helena & that he apeared \{illeg} also came/ among men \in the form of a man/ tho he was not a man, & appeared in Iudæa as the son in Samaria as the ffather & in other nations as the holy Ghost passing from body to body. {So} His successor Menander feigned in like manner that the world was made by Angels \who were/ emitted fro {sic} Ennoia. And Saturninus |& that the first vertue was unknown to all & sent him down for the salvation of men. And Saturninus or Saturnilus| the next heretick like Menander feigned that there was one father unknon {sic} to all who made the Angels Archangels & powers & that the Angels made the world & when they had made a man but were not able to give him life & motion, the Vertue from above emitted a spark of life wch made him \the man/ live & wch after death returns to those things wch are of the same nature with it self. And other things rexolved into what they were made of. These three hereticks seem to have held much the same opinions deriving all things from one original power or father by \such a generation \or production/ as consisted in/ emission or projection of substance.
And after {illeg} the Emperor had declared him self to all the Empire that he was of this opinion & {his} that he would suppress the contrary opinion & coming \for that end came/ into ye Council in person & proposed & pressed the ὁμοούσιος, the Council were no longer at liberty to act freely in examining & adjudging the matter between the two parties. They rejected \condemned/ the novel expressions of Arius because they were not in scripture & disturbed the peace of the Church. They might have rejected \condemned/ the homousion for ye same reason b, but were afraid of making the Emperor fly off \from the Christian/ to the heathen religion. And therefore they \chose rather to/ limited the signification of the word, \& to/ dropt it in their following Councils & |to| repealed it as soon as they were at liberty & declared ye Son to be like the father according to scripture.
A seventh reason therefore \alledged b \in th/ the Councils/ for repealing the word ὀυσία wth its compounds was because it was not in scripture. And this reason \This reason was alledged by the Councils of Ari Sirmium, Nice Ariminum Seleucia & Const/ |&| is the stronger because they were \we are/ commanded by the scripture \Apostle/ to hold fast the form of sound words [& avoid vain babbling & oppositions of science fally so called] To admit \contend for/ any \For any man therefore to contend for any/ language wch was not handed down from the Prophets \in writing or by/ & Apostles was \is/ a breach of the|is| divine command, & they that do it \transgress this command/ are guilty of the disturbances & schisms occasioned thereby. & A And the Councils of Sirmium Ariminum & Seleucia |And {sic} therefore the said Councils did well therefor the said Councils \in/ making the scripture their rule & \appealed to scripture &/| contenting themselves with saying that the son was like the father according to scripture. If it be said that they were Arians I doubt not but there were Arians amongst them, as there were Sabellians \& Montanists/ amongst the western Churches but I am speaking of the visible Church whose being & extent is measured by her outwar not by the private opinions of men of men \known only to God/ but by their outward profession of faith. And in the What men were in their hearts God only knows: we can only judge of Churches & Councils by their outward professions of faith, & in the professions {illeg} published by the\se/se Councils Greek Church in their Councils I meet with nothing Arian. Nor do I find in history that they were called Arians for any thing else then abrogating the language of the ancient hereticks & holding adhering to scripture & holding fast the form of sound words
The Greek & Latine Churches being reunited in the outward profession of faith by the Councils above mentioned continued in this \{illeg}/ state till the reign of Valentinian & Val
<56v>The Council of Nice \A.C. 325/ decreed that among the Bishops the first place \in dignity/ was due to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Alexandria, the third to the Bishop of Antioch. Athanasius being accused ten years after by the Meletians \of various crimes & before the Council of Tyre &/ condemned by the Council of Tyre & banished into Gallia by Constantine ye great, Iulius Bishop of Rome so soon as Constantine was dead \vizt A.C. 357/ wrote took hold of th wrote a reprimanding Letter to ye eastern Bishops a chiding Letter[20] representing that no Bishop accused of B crimes was to be judged but in a – – – – –– was the first attempt to ye universal Bishopric & the beginning of Popery.
of Valentinian & Valens. In the reign of Iulian of Iovian & his successors & then of Iulian the Apostate & his successor Iovian. In fell into a met wth new disturbances from Athanasius & his party, of wch Gregory Nazianzen {illeg}who lived in those times gives this account.
excommunicated Iulius Hosius & some others of the western. The western Bps made some Canons also in wch they decreed |yt| appeals \might be made/ from all the world to the Bp of Rome, |It was proposed also in this Council that a new profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene Profession.| & that Sozomen tells us that they \did/ composed a new form of faith prolixer then ye Nicene but conteinng the same opinion & not much differing in words. And \that/ Hosius & Protogenes bishop of Serdica wrote to Iulius that they confirmed ye Nicene faith, but for greater perspicuity had expained {sic} it more at large that the Arians might not abuse the brevity in wch it was written & draw it to an absurd sense. And certainly there a new Profession of faith was handed about in the name of this Council. And I mistake if this be not the following Creed found in a –
About six years after the
The Council of Serdica {illeg} met in ye year 347 & {illeg} in ye year 353 Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor of his his {sic} brother Constans in the western Empire & [thereby becoming Lord of the whole Empire checkt the ambition of the Bishops of Rome & extinguished his supremacy for a time. ffor in ye the year] & two years after called a Council at Millain Millain & & caused the western Bishops to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius by the Council of Tyre, banishing those as seditious who refused to subscribe, & thereby the \{illeg}/ supremacy of the Bishop of Rome was fell & was suppressed for a time. For the Eastern Bishops alledged the when the eastern Bishops alledged that all \the/ Bishops were of ye east & west were ye equal \in dignity/ {illeg} & had no authority to question one anothers judgments |but ought each of them to acquiesce in what those their judgment \out of Christian/ love & unit friendship to acquiesce in the judgments of the other.| & the ffor when the {illeg} western Bishops condmned Novatian \{yet}/ the eastern acquiesced in their judgment & when the eastern condemned Paul of Samosat & the western acquiesced in {illeg} was {illeg} & the same thing ought to be done in the case of Athanasius \their {illeg} judgment./
When the western Bishops had laid aside their supremacy, the Constantius set himself to abolish the use of language unius substantiæ, unius \ταυτης/ ουσιας, & {illeg} called the Councils of \Sirmium/ Ariminum & \& Seleucia & thereby who/ abolished the use of the word ουσια as not in scripture, & {illeg} And now explained the Nicene faith by the language ὅμοιος according to the scriptures κατὰ τὰς γραφας like according to ye scriptures. And now the churches of the whole Empire \eastern & western Churches/ seemed united in \communion &/ outward profession of faith, But & continued in this state till the reign of Iovian. A.C. 363. Th But the seads of new commotions were laid the year before.
Yet in the middle of the reign of Iulian the Apostate Athanasius
For Liberius Bp of Rome who had subscribed the condemnation of Athanasus {sic} & the faith of Ariminum, after the death of Constantius \returned to the serdican faith &/ began to meditate a revolt, & for that end returned wrote an account of his faith to Athanasius, representing – – –
Chap. 1.
Of the Church of God & \of/ her Laws and Sanctuary \Government/ & Worship.
The true religion was propagated by Noah to his posterity, & when they revolted to ye worship of their dead Kings \& Heros/ & thereby denyed their God & ceased to be his people, it continued in Abraham & his posterity who revolted not. And when they began to worship the Gods of Egypt & Syria, Moses & the Prophets reclaimed them from time to time till they rejected the Messiah from being their Lord, & he rejected them from being his people & called the Gentiles, & thenceforward the beleivers both Iews & Gentiles became his people.
The Laws of this people were first the Precepts of the Sons of Noah, then circumcision & the Law of Moses & precepts of ye Prophets & the Apostles \& the Law of Moses has been handed down to us in the following manner/. When Manasses set up a carved Image in the house of Lord {sic} \Sect I Of the Laws of the Church/ – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – And no power on earth is authorized to alter this covenant.
\Sect II Of the Sanctuary/
The nation of Israel had first a Tabernacle & then a Temple common to them all for the worship of their God, besides their Synagogues in every city. The Temple looked eastward & stood in a square area &c. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – For God was worshipped daily in the Synagogues & Cathedral Churches.
The Law of the Iews & Christians, except the ceremonial part &c – – – – – – – natural branches again into ye root of their own olive tree.
The God of the Iews & Gentiles was one & the same God the creator of heaven & earth – – – – – – – – – & the Iews to be dispersed into all nations
The Law \natural religion/ of the Iews & Christians \Gentiles/, except the ceremonial part &c – – – – – – – – – – – natural branches agin into their Olive root of their own olive tree.
Now for enlightning the Iews – – – – – – – – – & to come down from heaven & from God that the father may be glorified in the Son. Iohn. 14 13. whereby he became the first begotten of every creature.
<57v>especially if they worship the
If these Churches have the same God \& fall out only about smaller matters/ yet they are guilty of uncharitableness towards one another. If they
If those Churches have ye same God & same Lord, \& differ only in smaller matters/ they are schismaticks; if they
If those Churches worship \only/ the true \Lord/ God the father the Almighty {illeg} the Father & the true Lord Iesus Christ the Christ who truly came in the flesh & truly suffered for us they are & fall out \only/ about smaller matters they that are in a state of schism the \visible/ Churches of God & Christ in a state of schism \broken into parties/ & those are the \parties or \particulars// schismaticks who \either/ impose any other articles of communion \& salvation/ then what God & Christ has imposed \or refuse to comply wth any articles imposed by God & Christ/ & thereby give occasion to the breach. ffor the case is the same wth that of the|ose| beleiving Iews who imposed the law of Moses upon the beleiving Gentiles & thereby brake communion with them & made {ye evid} the faith in Christians & yet continued in external communion wth the true \beleiving/ Churches of the circumcision. But if those {that} \any of those parties or particular/ Churches worship a false [Lord Iesus Chr God \& separate on that account/ they cease to be the people of the true God & if they] worship a false Lord Iesus Christ a Christ who was not truly incarnate nor truly suffered for us, {illeg} \&/ separate on that account, they cease to be the Churches of the true Christ & by the separation become his open enemies: for he that is not with me saith Christ is against me. [And \such/ enemies are in the scriptures called Antichrists \& synagogues of Satan]/. Who is a liar saith the Apostle but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denyeth the father & the son. Whoever denyeth the son the same hath not the father. ߝ And every spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, & this is the spirit of Antichrist. |By| Worshipping a fals Christ makes \in secret/ men cease to be members of the invisible Church &|of| if the separation from the visible Church makes men \Christ & by/ worshipping such a \a false/ Christ openly in a separate congregation makes men cease to \ they {illeg} are revealed & manifested to be what they were before in secret & \They enter into open rebellion, &/ cease to be members of ye visible Church of Xt & become false Churches called in/ be members of the \true/ visible Church {sic} These {illeg} of Christ & become members of the & become members of the visible church of a fals Christ. These are they that separate themselves & become \{illeg}/ other Churches called Anti as are in scripture called Antichrists \& are revealed & made manifest to be {illeg} Antichristian churches/ |& become {illeg} fals Churches called in {sic} scripture synagogues of Satan & Antichrists &| These are they saith the Apostle that separate themselves saith Iude of Vicious lives & errors in opinion made men \beleivers become/bad christians but did not deprive them of being members of the visible Church of Christ. Vnrea Vnreasonable men Separation deprived them of membership be \without a sufficient cause/ made them |factious & seditious| |&| schismatical members. And [Worshipping a fals Christ /openly\ made them \no longer member members but but open/ enemies of Christ the true Christ \& of his mystical body/, such enemies as are in scripture called Antichrists & synagogues of Satan [& by consequence \are/ no members of the Church or mystical body or Church of ye true Christ.] And worshipping a false Gods {new} without any Christ made them heathens.] \And/ Worshipping a fals Christ made them fals Christians, & enemies of the true Christ, such enemies as are in scripture called \say they are Iews & are not, & are in scripture called synagogues of Satan &/ Antichrists [& worshipping fals Gods made \& renouncing the name of/ Christ made them heathens.] & These are These are they that separate &c First they privily bring in damnable heresies denying the Lord that bought them & then they separate & become open enemies of the truth denyi |open enemies &| synagogues of Satan. — And in like manner the mystery of iniquity first worked in the Church privily & then by going out was revealed & \fell away from the Church &/ by going out & separating became the Man of sin who sitteth in the temple of God but opposeth as the Church of God & Christ but opposeth & exalteth him self above every God & by that oppoition {sic} \& pride/ is known to be Antichristian
<58v>They that worship the true God are the people \or host/ or church of ye true God & they that worship \& serve/ other Gods \or Lords/ are the peoples \hosts/ or Churches of the Gods \or Lords/ whom they worship. {illeg} & the true religion consists principally in worshipping the true God, & loving those that worship him.
The standing constant religion of Gods people in all ages, except the ceremonial part, has ben one & the same. Thou shalt love – – – – immutable reason. By loving one another they beco|a|me one people & by united in \mind/ friendship & affection & by loving the Lord God they beco|a|me his people. ] And hence it came to pass that charity – – – – – – – give his body to be burned Victor & Stephen. ✝ [✝ Nothing is more dangerous to ye Church then running into parties & separating from her. For a into parties & separating from her. For a house divided against this it self cannot stand. And that \For/ every separation from ye true Church was accounted constituted an heresy was the revelation or manifestation of an heresy. \Vicious lives &/ Errors in opinion & made men bad Christians but did not deprive them of being members of the Visible Church: separation \deprived them of membership &/ made them hereticks |& Antichristians. For he that is not for me saith Christ is against me.| These are they that separate themselves, saith ye Apostle Iude. And Iohn 1 \of the many Antichrists:/ They went out fom us because they were not of us for had they been of us they would have continued wth us, but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not \all/ of us, that or that \that is that they/ they {sic} might be revealed |& become Antic open enenemies {sic} or Antichristians|. And in like manner, the separation of the great Antichrist from the Church the Apostle Paul calls ye revelation of ye Man of Sin |The mystery of iniquity worked secretly in the Church before this separation, by this separation it was revealed & began to work openly against the Church & became {illeg} Antichrist &| A house divided against it self cannot stand; {illeg} nothing is more dangerous to ye Church of God then running And \And/ Those parties that separate How far the first Christians were from {illeg} from the true Church of Christ are against the true Church of Christ \ & thereby become Anti-churches or in the language of the Scriptures Antichristian/: ffor he that is not with me saith Christ is against me. [And \And parties/ that are against the Church of Christ are in the scriptures justly called Antichrists.] ffor e No Vicious lives & errors ans in opinion made men bad Christians but did not deprive them of being members of the visible Church \of Christ/. Separation deprived hem of {illeg} membership & made them hereticks & \other Churches Antichurches/ Antichristians. A These are they that separate themselve {sic} saith Iude {illeg} of those Antichristians \the Nicolaitans/ who turned the grace of God into lasciviousness & \by making a fals God & a fals Christ/ denied the only lord God & the Lord Iesus Christ \& therefore were {illeg}Nicolaitans & /wch is the character of\ Antichristians/. And the Apostle Iohn /saith\of ye many Antichrists: They went out from us because they were not of us for had |if| they \had/ been of us they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not \all/ of us. By their going out from the Church they were made manifest to be not \\that they were/ not to beof her nor with her but any longer with her but/ against her |When they ceased to be with her they became other Churches against her.| And in like manner the going out or separation of the Ma great Antichrist from the Church the Apostle Paul calls the revelation \or manifestation/ of the Man of sin The mystery of iniquity worked secretly in the \members of the/ Church before this separation & by this separation it|they| ceased to be of the Church & became its open enemy & the great Antichrist \& \Thereby this {illeg}/ ceased to be a part of the Church of Christ & became another Church tho seated in the Temple of God./ And while the mystery of iniquity |another Church the Man of Sin sitting in the Temple of God & opposing & exalting himself above every thing wch is called God: by wch opposition he is known to be the great Antichrist. The mystery of iniquity| How far the first Christians were from falling out wth one another upon consisted in their doctrines wch amounted to a denyal of the father & the son & the revelation of the Man of sin \consisted/ in the \this a/ separation or Apostasy from the Church \occasioned by these doctrines & For it is/ called by the Apostle a falling away or Apostasy. {illeg} And in conjunct relation to the temporal power it is represented by a male the man of sin shewing himself as a God
How far \{averse}/ the first Christians were from falling out wth one another – – – – – – – – – – – – – & graft the natural branches again into their own olive tree.
Sect II
Of the Sanctuary scriputes & laws of the Church.
When Manasses set up a carved image – – – – – – – – – & no power on earth is authorized to alter this covenant.
Sect III
Of the Sanctuary.
The Temple of God looked eastward & stood – – – – – – – – – For God was worshipped in the synagogues & cathedral churches.
<59>the charitable man therefore is {rational} /long suffering\, kind, free from envy & malice, humble modest & decent in his {illeg} behaviour, not covetous, not passionate, not mischievous {but} \just/ good, veracious, patient, & easy to beleive & his [{illeg} what tends to ye glory of God & the good of mankind is well attested] the truth & hope the promises, not tossed about with every \wind of/ doctrine but {judicious in trying} the spirits of men & discerning between what is reasonable \& suitable to Gods wisdom & goodness {illeg}/ & tends to his glory {illeg} & the good of mankind & what proceed from the \useless/ inventions of men fierce, proud, ambitious, immodest, covetous |{illeg}| {illeg} evill false {illeg} \wicked/ deceiptful vain superstitious & fancifull \uncharitable/ men.
Chap. XI
Of the Sanctuary of strength
Of the holy covenant.
① The holy covenant between God & his people is that he shall be their God & they shall be his people. They shall honour him \trust in him fear him/ obey him, & love him as their God or supreme \Emperor &/ governour & he shall \& live according to his laws/ & he shall protect \them as his people/ & reward them \as his people/ for their services. To honour him is to \wish him glory & dominion &/ worship him with praise & thanks-giving \& to wish him glory & dominion/ |& prayers|. To trust in him is to beleive him \& rely upon his promises hope for them/ & pray to him. To love & obey \& fear/ him is to live according to his laws. {illeg} By this we know \saith the Apostle/ that we love him if wee keep his commandments. For his commandments consist in love. The two great commandments are that we must love God & our neighbour. Vpon these two depend all the Law & the Prophets ③ And by the end of this love is to unite us all \God & Christ & all his people/ into one mystical {illeg} body [that they may be one with one another & with the Son as the father & son are one.] |God loving his people as their father his children & they loving & honouring him as their \him as their father the/ king & their fellow subjects as themselves. ffor this \is/ the Law & the Proph{ets} law & the Prophets. {sic}| There must be In this body there We must unite \& become one/ by love under one God & one Lord in one Chris faith & one baptism one spirit one faith, one baptism & one Church or kingdom of God \the host of heaven/. And to have any other God or any other Lord or any other faith or baptism \or to hate one another or to change times & laws by humane impositions or to hate one another/ is to forsake the holy covenant. If thou bringest thy gift to ye altar & re For Who soever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment & whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell-fire. Therefore if thou bringest thy gift to ye altar & there remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee: leave there thy gift before the altar & go thy way, first be reconciled to thy brother & then come & offer thy gift. Th Matt. 5. This is the covenant ② The two tables \of the law/ are called the Tables of the covenant by Moses; but because the house of Israel brake that covenant God rejected them from being his people & \has promised that/ upon their returning to him has promised to \he will/ make a new covenant with them. And this is the covenant \saith God/ that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their mind & write them in their hearts, & I will be to them a God & they shall be to me a people. Hebr. 8. Now his laws {profest} \are fulfilled/ by love. For love is the fulfilling of the law. The two great \For love is the fulfilling of the law. For the ends of love/ commandmts are that we must love God & our neighbour & Vpon these two hang all the law & the Prophets.
4 The Apostle tells us – – –
<60r>Chap.
Of the corruption of the Christian Religion in language opinions \discipline/ & morality.
While the first Christians continued in affliction under the heathen Roman Emperors, their affliction purged them from hypocrites & vicious men. But after the Empire by the victories of Constantine the great became Christian, the Christians by the prosperity of their affairs & by the flowing in of the most hypocritical dissembling loose & vitious part of the heathens into the Churches for temporal ends without mending their lives & conversations & by the crouding in of flatterers & ambitious men into ecclesiatical dignities, quickly
Chap.
Of the rise of the Roman Catholick Religion.
The Churches of God continued united in faith & friendship till the days of Hegesippus & I Irenæus & Eleutherius bishop of Rome as you have heard above. The first discord \schism/ of moment was that made by Pope Victor who excommunicated the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter on the day of the Iewish passover & wrote communicatory letters to the Montanists. But Praxeas perswaded him to revoke those letters. Then turning Praxean he received Praxeas into \the/ communion by a of the Church of Rome by imposition of hands alone without baptizing him {& For the hereticks allowed} {illeg} {baptism} |& thereby made a step toward \such/ an union between the Church of Rome & the Churches of hereticks as there was between the Churches of the hereticks amongst themselves| But after this principle was received began to be received by |in| the Egypt & was {throughly the} & Syria, the Church of Rome {illeg} {said Council was} joyned with those of this principle & in the space of 15 or 20 years propagated her schism with this doctrine into all the empire. The communicating with hereticks in their baptism was a great step towards a schi separation from those who did not joyn in the communion. Let us now see how the schism was separation was completed. with success For \as/ the hereticks {illeg} For as the heathens of several kingdoms provinces & cities worshipped several Gods & yet were all in general of one & the same religion: so the hereticks were in general of one & the same religion notwithstanding their variety of \their/ Gods \were of one in general of one & the same religion composed of the heathen & Christian./ For their religion was a mixture of the heathen & Christian & they communicated in baptism \For they/ allowed one anothers baptism & by communicating in baptism were in general of one \mystical/ body called by the Apostle the mystery of iniquity. And when Victor turned Praxean he admi {illeg} he joyned the church of Rome to them in their principle of owning one anothers baptism & thereby gave occasion to a new schism in the Churches about 55 or 60 years after |Pope Victor by allowing the baptism of hereticks united the Church of Rome & the Churches of the hereticks in one baptism, as much as they united to one another by the same principle.|
|Now this principle of allowing the baptism of hereticks after it was of about 55 or 60 {years} standing in the Church of Rome gave occasion to a new schism in the Churches,| the Church of Rome allowing \contending for/ the baptism of all hereticks & excommunicating the Churches of Afric & Asia for disallowing them. The controversy was as follows.
<60v>This principle of allowing the baptism of hereticks beginning in the Church of Rome & spreading by the authority of that Church: we may by \this/ spreading thereof make a judgment of the growth of ye authority of that Church \from time to time/ & conclude that the Religion of that Church did not overspred the Roman Empire before \the meeting of the aforesaid Council of Alexandria in/ the reign of Iulian ye apostate in wch the said Council of Alexandria was called A.C. 362. After |How| that Church at the same presently after the reign the|is| {sic} Emperor made a schism & within the space of 15 or 20 years overflowed the whole e \by the help of the Monks/ propagated its religion \the sch{ism} wth this doctrine/ into all the Empire remains next to be deal explained.
– \the/ Popes Silvester & Iulius supported the Cæcilianists against the sentence of a Council of the African Churches, Pope Zozimus received the appeal of Apianus against their sentence of some bishops in Afric, & Pope Iulius received the appeals of several persons from ye Councils of the Greeks. For Athanasius
In the first case the Church of Ro Bishop of Rome succeeded \& those with him,/ by refusing the testimony of living evidence against Cæcilian, succeeded: in the second & third he was baffled.
The Controversy about the universal bishoprick being thus quieted \composed/ the Emperor \bishops/ set hi|the|mself|ves| in the next place to compose the disputes wch compose the disputes wch had arisen about the faith. They had in the Council of Nice & in the Councils of Antioch, Philipopolis, & Sirmium rejected the novel language of Arius with an anathema & now they res agreed in the 2d \& third/ Councils of Sirmium & in those of Nice in Thrace Ariminum Seleucia & Constantinople to reject the A.C. 357, 358, 359 &360 to reject the novel language of Alexander Constantine Hosius & Athanasius,namely the words ὀυσία \substance/ ὁμοούσιος & ὁμοιούσιος, & to content themselves with as not in scripture nor received by tradition {illeg} \nor understood by the people/ but /tending to disturbance\condemned \in the times Paul of Samosat/ by the Council of Antioch & convened with the approbation of the Church catholick above 50 years before the meeting of the Council Nice {sic}, & condemned also by the Apostles, who commands us to hold fast the form of sound words wch we have received, & to contend for the faith wch was once delivered to the saints. [They rejected therefore the novel expressions of both parties as \as not necessary to salvation not belonging to the primitive rule of faith, but/ tending to strife & faction & therefore contrary to the rul proceeding from {illeg} a spirit \& schism & therefore not to be imposed without the {sixty} crime/ of uncharitableness. And instead of those imposing those novel expressions they contented themselves with this profesion of faith making that the son is like the father according to scriptures, making the scriptures the rule of faith. And hitherto the \visible/ Church catholick of Christ represented by the seven Churches of Asia, overcame all her enemies & continued |prevailed & from the days of the Apostles continued united & constantly| diffused through the whole Roman Empire. for without interruption
But now the schism was at hand wch proved its ruin.]
Whether they \the words \sentences/ & opinions imposed/ were true or fals was not the question but whether they were fundamental truths, \& delivered in the language of the Apostles,/ such truths as the Apostle calls milk for babes, such truths as a man must beleive before baptism, such truths as are necessary to salvation \were alway always in the Creed/ & were conditions of communion from the beginning. If they were not such truths b not such truths, to make \impose/ them \as/ fundamental was to create disturbances factions & schisms, & {illeg} make the imposers guilty of all the mischiefs wch followed thereupon. Its impossible saith Christ but offenses must come but wo be to Wo to \unto/ the world \saith Xt/ because of offences, for it must needs be that offences come: but wo to that man by whom the offence cometh. Mat. 18.7. \{illeg} And so the Apostle:/ Now I beseech you, brethren saith the Apostle, \saith ye Apostle/ mark them who cause divisions & offenses contrary to the doctrine wch ye have learned, [that is contrary to the doctrine & avoid them. For they that are such, serve not our Lord Iesus Xt but their own belly, & by good words & fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. Rom. 16.17 And \again:/ tho we or an Angel from preach {sic} any other gospel unto you, then that wch ye have received, let him be accursed \anathema/. As we said before, so say I now again, make you If any man \man/ preach any other gospel unto you then that wch y we have preached, let him be accursed anathema. Gal. 1.8. Circumcision was lawful to the Iews but not imposed on the Gentiles, & \as/ the imposing it \on them/ is here called another Gospel so every imposition of \the imposing of/ any {illeg} truth \as necessary to {illeg} communion/ wch was not imposed from the beginning of ye Gospel is \{teaching}/ another Gospel & by the Apostles rule deserves an anathema. It is giving offence to weak brethren & wo be to that man throgh {sic} whom offences come. It tends to discord \& schism/ & therefore proceeds from {illeg} a spirit of uncharitablness, & charity is a greater grace the {sic} faith, & more necessary to salvation, The bishops therefo & schisms are more damnable then infidelity. For its better not to have known the Lord then to set the members of his mystical body at variance amongst themselves. The bishops therefore rejected the novel language of both parties as not necessary to salvation, not belonging to the primitive Rule of faith, not consisting with the indispensible rule of charity but tending to strife & faction & schism. And instead of imposing those novel expressions they contented themselves with this {rule} of faith profession of faith . . . .
<61r>When the Novatians refused to communicate wth those who lapsed in the persecution of Decius . . . . . . . . . . . . . were to be exorcised catechised & baptized.
About 59 years after the schism of Novatian was \began/ the|re was another| schism of \made between/ the Donatists & the Cicilianists \in Afric/. And this was inflamed & perpetuated by the Church of Rome wch supported the \Cicilian & his s/ small party of the Cicilianists against Donatus & the Church of Afric in favour of the baptism of hereticks as has been mentioned.
It has been the \a/ frequent practise of the Church of Rome to support the {illeg} \factious &/ excommunicated persons against the Churches who \opposed or/ excommunicated them that they might thereby make gain to themselves appeals from all the world & make themselves judges over all other Churches And in pursuance of this designe, they \Pope \{Melchiades} & {Pope}/ Sylvester supported the Cætilianists against the African Churches & sentence of a Council of the African Church & Pope Iulius/ received the appeals of |several| Athanasius, Marcellus, Paulus, & Asclepius from ye Councils of the Greeks A.C. 341. For Athanasius being accused of several \various/ crimes by the Meletians & condemned for them by the council of Tyre . . . . . . . . both because they appeared not when Iulius cited them & because they now fled from justice. They made some Canons also in wch they decreed that appeals might be made to the bishop of Rom {sic} from all Councils not called by him; & by doing so they submitted the western Churches to his authority, constituting him their Oecumenical Bishop \& themselves Roman Catholicks/ & endeavoured that the eastern churches should be brought into the same subjection.
After four years more Constantinus coming
Hitherto the Gree Churches of the Greeks & Latines had continued united in external communion throughout the whole Roman Empire \(except the short schisms made by the Victor & Stephen)/ but now they inclined to a separation. ffor the western bishops of {sic} at Serdica excommunicated seven or eight of the eastern bishops & the eastern bishops at Philippolis excommunicated the Iulius bishop of Rome & Hosius \bishop of Corduba/ & five \three/ or six \four/ others of the western bishops for raising this stir \receiving & supporting excommunicated persons against the lawful authority of the Councils wch excommunicated them/ & the western at Serdica excommunicated seven or eight eastern bishops by name for their proceedings against the \for not submitting to the judgement of the western &/ upon other \various/ pretenses. But while only six or eight \a few/ bishops of each party were excommunicated by the other party it is manifest that the eastern & western Churches \both parties/ looked upon |one another| themselves as \continuing/ in communion with one another. & still continued in communion & therefore were still A \themselves as hitherto in communion & still continuing/ in communion with one another. \& that they still continued in communion. And this further/ Th T And that they continued in communion is further confirmed by the \eastern/ Council of Sirmium wch about four years after \vizt/ A.C. 351, condemned Photinus & whose sentence was generally received approved in the west as well as in the east \both then & for afterwards./
After
About four years more the Emperor Constantius having conquered {illeg} Magnentius the successor of his brother Constance in the western empire |And now Constantius conquering Magnentius the western Emperor & {sic} united the whole Empire under himself & put a stop to the growing discord & A.C. 355 for reconciling the contending parties|, called a council of above 300 bishops at Millain to subscribe ye condemnation of Athanasius. They offered to subscribe \western Bishops/ defended not Athanasius but offered to subscribe if the Nicene faith might be first confirmed: but \they/ were made to understand that nothing could be regularly debated or proceed in Councils till they quitted the communion of persons excommunicated. Whereupon they all subscribed except Paulinus Trevirensis, Eusebius Vercellensis, Dionysius . . . . . . . . . . over her own members.
And now the Greek & Latin Churches being upon an equal \equalled in authority/ they agreed in the Councils of Sirmium Nice in Thrace Ariminum Seleucia & Constantinople A.C. 357, 358, 359 & 360 to lay aside the new languge of ὀυσία ὅμοούσιος & ὁμοιούσιος which had no & content themselves with the profession of faith that the son was like the father according to the scriptures, making the scriptures the rule of faith.
Hitherto the Greek & Latine Churches continued united in an un one Church catholick from the days of the Apostles without interruption or schism excepting two or three short contentions one in the days of Pope Victor a second in the days of Pope Stephen, & a third in the days of Pope Iulius: all of |them| occasioned by these Popes. The first & second amounted to a schism \between some of the churches, but was/ but {sic} of very shor quickly healed: the third amounted {illeg} tended to a schism but after a dispute of four or five years, it was ceased by the conquest of the western empire. & in this united state the Church continued till the death of Iulian the Emperors Iulian & Iovian A.C. 363. For if {illeg} any schism had at any time happened, such as was that \early one/ between the members of the Church of Corinth, that between Victor & the Churches of Asia & Phrygia, & that between the Stephen & the Churches of Afric & Asia, it was but short of short partial & of short continuance; & the tendency to a schism beteen the eastern & western Churches in the times betw next after the Council of Serdica was \lasted/ but of {sic} four or five years. continuance The bishops of the Council of Nice were on all hands acknowledged in communion wth the Church catholick of Christ & in this communion the Greek & Latines Churches continued till the reign of the Emperor Iovian. I speak of the external visible Church \united in language/. ffor God alone knows the hearts of men. The Greek Church exploded & anathematized the \novel/ language of Arius in many of their Councels & the {illeg} & their prof & published several Proffessions of their faith all wch were \free/ from Arianism & therefore it was not Arian though it might have Arians in its communion, & the Latin Church declared against Sabellianism & therefore was not Sabellian although it might have Sabellians in its communion. Both Churches being united in language & communion were but one \visible/ Church & this Church was together wth all forreign Churches in her communion was the visible Church catholick of Christ. And they that were excommunicated by this her, de (whether justly or unjustly,) were while they stood excommunicated by her were out of the communion of the visible Church catholick of Christ, & those that separated from her were Schismaticks. For the Greek Church never made a Schism & therefore continued in continued in communion of the visible Church catholick of Christ. The latine Church by the of Rome made two or three short schisms, but \quickly/ returned into communion wth the other Churches, were also & therefore was also a branch of the visible Church catholick of Christ. To call either of them schismatical or heretical is to call the whole schismatical because they were but one. And if they were not schismatical they were in communion with the visible Church catholick of Christ, & those out of their communion were no members of the visible Church.
T Now after the death of Iulian & Iovian the \Liberius/ Bishop of Rome \for gaining the universal Bishopric/ separated from the communion of this Church pretending it was Arian, & in a few years made a general defection in the west while the Emper the western Emperor Valentinian leaving the Bishops to their liberty while the eastern Emperor Valens opposed the like defection in the east. And after the death of Valens \wch happened A.C. 378/ the the {sic} eastern Empire coming into the hands of Gratian & Theod they delivered the churches of that eastern Empire \also/ into the hands of those in communion with the Bishop of Rome & thereby propagated the Roman Catholick religion into all the Empire. And the Emperor Gratian by an Edict A.C. 378 granted appeals to the Bishop of Rome from ye churches of Spain & Gallia, thereby making him universal bishop over the west. And this Bishop about seven years after began t by vertue of this new authority, began to give laws to the \Churches of the/ western empire by decretal Epistles, the first epistle of this kind being written by Pope {Scricius} A.C. 385.
Chap.
Of the corruption of the Christian Religion in morals.
Chap.
Of the Roman catholick religion
The christian religion at the first preaching of the gospel was propagated into all the Roman Empire & some other neighbouring nations as a[21] Germany, {illeg} Scythia, Arabia & Ethiopia Dacia, Sarmatia, Arabia Ethiopia, & the churches throughout all the Empire continued in communion with one another till the reign of the Emperors Valentinian & Valens, in whose days the church of Rome separated. In the reign of Constantius, the bishop Rome {sic} laboured very hard to make himself universal bishop & for that end received appeals from the C Councils of the Greek Church absolved from excommunication those whom {illeg} the Councils had excommunicated & summoned the bishops of the Greek church to appear before him in a Council at Rome. The & give an account of their proceedings against the persons whom they had excommunicated. But the bish Greek bishops opposing & reprimanding him severely for his ambition, & to put a good colour upon the designe, it was whispered in the west that the bishops of the Greek Church were Arians & had excommunicated the persons appealing out of malice because they were orthodox. But the Greek bishops instead of coming to Rome, wrote a sharp letter to the bishop of Rome reprimanding him \very roundly/ for his irregular & ambitious practises. These things were done A.C. 341 & 342, & about five years after, a Council was called at Serdica by the consent of both Emperors for examining the matter.
When the Greek bishops came to Serdica,
– – but sprang from the Creed of the Africans mentioned by Cyprian
The article of |ye| resurrection of ye flesh was first inserted into the paraphrases upon \& expositions of/ the article of judging the quick & dead It is as may be seen in yt one of the paraphrastical Creeds of Irenæus & in{illeg} one of Tertullians. In another of Tertullians it is thus inserted into the same article who \into the body of the Creed &/ shall come to judge the quick & the dead by the resurrection of the body flesh. The resurrection of the dead was exprest in the primitive Creed by the resurrection of Christ from ye dead & his coming to judge the quick & dead. For this implied that the dead should rise again to be judged. Afterwards in the {middle} of ye |towards the end of ye| second century upon some disputes \{illeg}/ about the bodies wth wch the dead should arise the resurrection of the flesh began to be inserted into the expositions & paraphrases of the article of [Alexander of Alexandria in the profession of faith which he published {illeg} to ye Churches the year before ye Council of Nice, inserterted {sic} this the articles & that of the \one bapti/ remission of sins into the middle of the of the catholick Apostolick Church into] Afterwards it was separated from ye article of {illeg} judging the quick & the dead & made an art \made a distinct article &/ put after the article of beleiving in the holy Ghost. In the beginning of ye 4th century it was got only into some Creeds. \ffor it was wanting in the Creeds of Eusebius/
Novatian . . . . . . . mentioned by Cyprian. It was wanting in one of the Creeds of Irenæus & in one of Tertullians & in ye Creeds of Eusebius & Lucian & in the Nicene & that of Theophronius & that of the Councils of Antioch A.C. 342, & was not \& 345 & Sirmium A.C. 351. & did not begin to be/ generally received till after the middle of ye fourth century.
Novatian . . . . . . . mentioned by Cyprian.
Alexander of Alexandria in a letter to Alexander of Byzantium sent an explication of his faith these articles of his faith. I beleive in God —
And this is the first Creed that I meet wth in wch \the Church is called catholick apost/ the \catholic Apostolick \holy/ Church & the/ resurrection of the flesh are made a distinct articles & {illeg} \& \in wch/ together/ of the beleiving in the holy Ghost the Chur \in wch/ the Church is called catholick & Apostolic & the resurrection of the flesh is set after ye article of beleiving in the holy Ghost.
<62v>As the Council of Nice interpoled the Creed of Eusebius wth the new article of consubstantial to the father, so Athanasius \a few years after/ interpoled the Nicene Creed with |several| \other/ new articles yt in the manner following – – – –
This Creed \was later printed out of the MSS \one/ in the Vatican & another in ye K. of France's library, &/ I take it to be that wch Athanasius presented to Pope Iulius A.C. 341 & afterwards to the Councils of Rome \{Ariminum}/ & Serdica And when they examined him about his faith & received him into communion [& wch he afterwards presented to the Emperor Iovian A.C. 362. For that wch he presented to Iovian was the Nicene & asserting the divinity of the holy Ghost, as I gather from Gregory Nazianzens Oration on ye life of Athanasius & from the Epistle wch which Athanasius presented to Iovian with this Creed.] |For in this Creed the words ουσία & υπωστασις are taken in one & the same sense & with some additions therefore this Creed was made \by Athanasius/ while the language of one usia & one hypostasis was in use wch was & b amongst his party, & by consequence before the meeting of the Council of Ale Athanasius & the Council of Alexandria in the reign of Iulian the Apostate abolished the use of that language for avoiding the imputation of Sabellianism.|
The four \last/ Articles wch of this Creed were are found also in the end of the Creed of Ierusalem in these words, & in one baptism for the remission of sins, in one holy catholic church & in the resurrection of the flesh & in life everlasting.
They are found also in the end of the Creed of above recited out of \in/ the Apostolic constitutions in these words; who was sent to all who beleive in the holy catholick Church, in the resurrection of the flesh, in the forgiveness of sins, in the kingdom of heaven & in the life of the world to come.
They were also added by the Council of Constantinople to ye end of the Nicene Creed in these words And I beleive one Catholick & Apostolick Church, I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, & I look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come.
And while the Greeks of the party of Athanasius added them out of his Creed into theirs, the Latines added them to theirs, & \the/ eastern Churches \also/ for ye satisfaction of the Latines added them to \one or two of/ theirs. For the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added \to the end of their creed/ these two articles. to the end of the And if, say they, this is to be added, we beleive in the resurrection of the flesh & in life everlasting. And the eastern bishops who came to ye council of Serdica A.C. 347, in reciting the Creed wch the Council of Antioch had published A.C. 342 \& 345/, added to the end of it these articles, And we beleive in the holy Church, |in| the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the flesh & in life everlasting. |But four years after, in condemning Photinus, the \Greek/ Council of Sirmium omitted them again as not belonging to this \their/ Creed. And the following Councils of Sirmium A.C. 357 \& 359 of/ Nice in Thrace A.C. 359 of Ariminum & Seleucia \A.C. 359 & Constantinople A.C. 360/ continued to omit them in their Creeds. But after ye year 381 the Homousians spread them with their religion over all the east.|
These addition of these articles to Creeds wch wanted them before shew {sic} plainly that they are additional articles & crept into the Creeds \of both Greeks & Latines/ in the fourth Century being publick authorized by the \authority of Athanasius & the bishop of Rome & by the/ Councils of Rome Serdica & Constantinople. In the third century they got into t & beginning of the 4th they {illeg} began to get into the Creeds of the Africans & Egyptians & from thence in the middle of the 4th they got into the Creeds of Europe & Asia |being propagated \from Egyp {sic}/ by Alexander & Athanasius into all the Churches of into the Churches of the homousians & by the homouusians {sic} (after the year 381) into all the Empire.|
<63r>{illeg} but sprang from Cyprians \this/ Creed of ye Africans {mentioned} by Cyprian & Alexander of Alexandria in his profession of faith. {illeg} he {instituted} the title of catholick to the holy Church, & th wch he published to the Churches the year before the council of Nice added the title of catholic to the holy Church & this is the first instance that I can find of the article of holy catholick church being in any Creed & in the Creed of Ierusalem In the Creed of Ierusalem published about 30 or 40 years after, the article is {illeg} catholicks And from these beginnings this article crept into the latin Creeds \& inserted these articles & the resurrection of the flesh in the middle of the Apostolic creed/ \Afterwards/ The Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added to ye end of the Creed of Lucian the resurrection of the body & life everlasting, & |about 10 years after Cyril of Ierusalem recited the Creed of {illeg} the that city with these four articles at the end of it| in the \end of the/ Creed of Ierusalem {illeg} recited \about two years after/ by Cyrill {illeg} afterwards bishop of that city are all the three articles together wth the resurrection of the flesh in these words \& I beleive/ & {sic} in one baptism \of repentance/ for the remission of sins & in one holy {illeg} catholick church & in the resurrection of ye flesh & in life everlasting. |And the Council of Constantinople called the second General council \A.C. 381/ added the same articles to the Nicene Creed in these words I beleive one Catholick & Apostolick Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come.|
The resurrection of the flesh began to get into ye creed before ye end of ye second century. Some disputes arising between the Christians & some of the {illeg} hereticks whether the dead should arise with their one {sic} bodies of flesh or with thin \subtil/ aereal bodies such as the heathens assigned to their Gods, the Christians represented that Christ rose wth his body of flesh & bones. Irenæus Clement in his 2d Epistle to \the/ Corinthians advises: Let none of you say that this flesh shall not be judged or rise again for as ye were called in the flesh so shall ye come again in the flesh. Irenæus {illeg} \in one of his creeds/ expresses in his Creeds \one of his paraphrases on the Creed/ that Christ ascended up into heaven wth his flesh \& shall raise from death to the life the flesh of all mankind/: Tertullian that Christ shall judge the quick & dead by the flesh \resurrection of the/ flesh. Alexander of Alexandria And In the fourth Century In the|one| \other/ of ye paraphrases of Irenæus, upon the Creed, & in the Creeds of Eusebius, Lucian, & Alexander & in the Nicene The Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added it to the Creed of Lucian & the Council of Constantinople A.C. 381 added it to the Nicene. And henceforward it got into became generally received. It was a great truth. but the Apostles contented themselves wth preaching the resurrection of the dead without entering into disputes about the nature of the body|ies| wth wch the dead should rise And about ye same time or soon after the Latines added the like articles to ye end of their Creeds. For I do not find any of these articles in that long profession of faith wch they published at Serdica A.C. 347 in their general Epistle to ye Churches recited by Theodoret or wch at least was attributed to them in the latter end of the reign of Const the Emperor Constantius.
Afterwards the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added to the end of the Creed of Lucian the resurrection of the flesh & the life everlasting, in these words, And if this is to be added: we beleive the resurrection of the flesh & ye life everlasting. They seem to have grownded this addition upon the Apostles words who in speaking of the foundati fundamentals names the them in this order, repentance from dead works, |& {illeg}| faith towards God, the doctrine of baptisms & of laying on of hands & of the resurrection of the dead & of eternal judgment. And after this Council began to add articles to ye This Council being of great authority in the east Heb. 6.1. For from this text & that of Eph. 4.5 they began now to add also one baptism to ye end of the Creed. as I gather from the Creed of Ierusalem recited by Cyril about tenn years after this Council of Antioch, in the end of wch Creed are these \four/ articles. and I beleive in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins & in one holy Catholick Church & in the resurrection of the flesh & in life everlasting. And the Council Constantinople {sic} in a Creed called ye second general Council, A.C. 381, added the same articles to Nicene {sic} Creed in these words I beleive one Catholic & Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, & I look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come. And while the Greeks added these articles to the end of their creeds the Latines added them to the end of theirs. [For I do not find any of these articles in that long profession of faith wch the \Latines/ published at Serdica A.C. 347 in their general epistle recited by Theodoret (l. 1. c ) or wch at least was attributed to them in the end of the reign of the Emperor Constantius & therefore they were added by ye Latines since the days of that Council.]
And the same articles we are at ye end of a Creed composed by Athanasius about the same time & lately published out of a MS found in the Vatican. {illeg} \The/ words are {illeg} in ye end of this Creed are: And we beleive in one only Catholick & Apostolick Church, in one baptism of repentance & |of| remission of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, in æternal judgment of souls & bodies, in the kingdom of heaven & life everlasting. Here the article of eternal judgment is plainly taken from the words of abovementioned words of the Apostle. And from this Creed of Athanasius its p \its probable that/ \And Athanasius being the great oracle of those days its probable that from this his Creed/ the four articles were above mentioned were added to the Creed of Ierusalem recited by Cyrill. They were added also to the Nicene Creed by the \general/ Council of Constantinople called the s A.C. 381 in these words I beleive one catholick & Apostolick Church, I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins, I look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come. And where \since/ these articles were added to old Creeds that wanted them its plain that they were new ones. They are also at the end of the Creed in the Apostolic constitutions. And while the Greeks added them to their Creeds the Latines added them to theirs.
< text from f 63r resumes >Chap
Of the rule of faith & Schism of the Christian Roman Empire.
The articles of the Creeds of the Greeks which are not found in any of ye Creeds of the Latines were not necessary to baptism because the Latin Churches were baptized without them
The article of the Communion
And for the same reason the articles of the communion of saints is to be rejected, it being in none of the Creeds of the Greeks. Neither was it in the Creeds of Tertullian, Ruffin \{illeg}/ or in those of Aquileia, Turin Ravenna, nor in any Creed of the Latines before ye end of{illeg} the fift{illeg} century, It seems to have been \first/ inserted into the Creed into the {sic} Apostles Creed of ye Romans which called the Apost [It is not found in any Creed earlier then ye fift century] Nor \It/ was in \not/ in the African Creeds when Austin Bp of Hippo wrote his Enchiridion to Laurentius. For there he affirms Post commemorationem sanctæ Ecclesiæ in ordine confessionis ponitur remissio peccatorum. [It is not found in any Creed earlier then ye fift century \Vigilantius/, & seems to have been inserted \in opposition to him/ neare the beginning of the \fift/ century in opposition to Vigilantius. For] It is first found in ye Creed recited [upon wch Eusebius Gallica about year {sic} of Christ 420 or 430 commented, & in that that] of Augustin of of {sic} HIppo serm 115, 123, 181 de Tempore & in that of Paschasius a Presbyter \Deacon/ of the Church of Rome lib. 1. c. 1. Eusebius makes this comment upon it . . . . . . . . . et per illos cum Domino Iesu Christo. From all wch it \this article/ seems to me to have \been first/ inserted into ye Apostles Creed & ye other those of the in opposition to Vigilantius & his followers about the year of Christ 4087, or soon after.
The article descended into Hell is not found in any Creed till after the middle of the fourth Century. [When Apollinaris denied that Christ had a human soule, the text Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell was alledged against him, & A little after A When Constantius \the Emperor/ was labouring to reconcile the Eastern & western Churches, a question arising whether {illeg} {illeg} son of God λογὸς assumed a body only or a Christ had a humane soule & the text, Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, being alledged for the affirmative: the Council of Ariminum \the Council of Ariminum A.C. 359/ for quieting that dispute the Council of Ariminum AC 359 inserted into their Creed this article that Christ | died &| descended into the infernal \lower/ regions & there performed what was to be done whom ye door-keepers of Hades beholding, trembled. And the next year the Acatians in a council at Constantinople inserted it into their Creed in this manner, dead & buried, descended into the lower regions, whom Hades also feared. And from these Creeds it \the words descended into the lower regions/ crept into the Creeds of Ierusalem & \&/ Aquileia & Rom at length into the Creed of Rome. Th \at legnth into the Creed of Rome. For/ When Ruffin published the Creed of Aquileia wch was at neare ye end of ye 4th century he assures us that it \this article/ was not in Roman. In Ecclesiæ Romanæ symbolo, saith he, non habetur additum, descendit ad inferna. Exposit in Symb. Apost. The But afterwards the article was inserted into this Creed in these words descendit in Hadem {illeg}
Novatianus A.C. 362 in the end of the persecution of Decius A.C. 362 \351/ separating from the Church of Rome, \denying making a schism in the Roman Church &/ denying remission of sins to them who had lapsed after baptism {& so} made a schism from the Roman Church {illeg} was condemned for it by |ye| Councils at Rome Carthage & Antioch. And because the Novatians had the Africans to exclude distinguish themselves from ye Novatians inserted this article into their Creed remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per \sanctam/ ecclesiam. For Cyprian in his 76th Epistle about baptising the {Novatians} contending that the Novatians had no baptism, argues thus. Quod si aliquis illud opponit ut dicat eandem Novatianum legem tenere quam Catholica Ecclesia tenet; eodem symbolo quo et nos, baptizare, eundem nosse Deum Patrem, eundem filium Christum eundē spiritum sanctum et propter hoc usurpare eum potestatem baptizandi posse quod videatur in interrogatione baptismi a nobis non discrepare, sciat quisquis hoc opponendum putat primum non esse unam nobis et schismaticis symboli legem neqꝫ eandem interrogationem. Nam cùm dicunt: Credis remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam: mentiuntur \est/ interrogatione quando non habeant Ecclesiam. \☉/ ☉ And in his 70th Epistle writing upon the same subject he saith. Sed et ipsa interrogatio quæ fit in baptismate testis est ventatis. Nam cum dicimus: Credis in vitam æternam et remissionem peccatorum per sanctam Ecclesiam? intelligimus remissionem peccatorum non nisi in Ecclesiā {aeri}. This is much as to \say/ that the Africans in is the first instance that I can meet with of any of these \three/ articles, The holy Church, The remission of sins & the life everlasting, being in the \any/ Creed. but from this time they go They were not in the Creeds of Irenæus, Tertullian, Eusebius, Lucian nor in the Nicene nor in that of Gregory Nazianzenus
<64r>bishops of ye Church catholick in the very beginning of the controversy wth Arius & subscribed by all those of his party writes thus Quod si ffilius ratio Patris est ac sapientia: quomodo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dicerent ἄλογον και ἄσοφον ποτὲ τον Θεόν Deum aliquando rationis et sapientiæ expertem fuisse. This being subscribed by all the Bishops of his party may be taken for their common. And Constantine the great published the same opinion even before he convened ye Council of Nice. For in an epistle wch he then sent to ye Church of Alexandria & wch(according to was also published in all the cities of the Roman Empire, he spake thus to Arius: Vnum dicis Deum: habes ejusdem me sententiæ. Sic igiture sentias. Ejus essentia Verbum et principij et finis expers, verbum esse dicis: Eo contentus sum; ita crede. Siquid præterea adjungis, id tollo. Siquid ad impiam separationem fraudulenter consuis, id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor. Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensationem, non improbo. And a little \after this/ the Bishops of Egypt & the West convened at Serdica say \write thus/ in their general Epistle \to all the Churches/. Confitemur filium esse virtutem Patris Confitemur illum esse Verbum Dei Patris præter quod nullum est aliud: et Verbum verum Deum et sapientiam et virtutem esse. Verum autem filium esse tradimus non sicut alij Filij appellamur. Nam hi quidem aut regenerationis causa Dij dicuntur, aut eo quod digni habiti fuerint Filij non cupantur: non autem \ob/ unam \ὑποστασιν/ substantiam quæ est Patris et ffilij
The And the Latines translating the word \by/ unius substantiæ \& the \{Latines} {illeg} Greeks/ translating unius substantiæ by {ρόες} ὑποστασις {illeg}/ led their people into the errors of the Cataphrygians & Sabellias {sic}. As Hilary in an Epistle wch he wrote A.C. 358 to ye the Bishops of Gallia & Britain thus acknowledges Multi ex nobis fratres charissimi —
< insertion from the right margin >The Bishops therefore at this time laid aside the use of the word {illeg} ουσία with its compounds because it was not in scripture & gave created great disturbances, & also because the word ὁμόούσιος was rejected by their father in the Council of Antioch long befor the meeting of the Council of Nice & was admitted by the Council of Nice simply or wthout {making} deliberation, & became a stumbling block to ye people who were apt to understand it in another sense then that of ye Council.
< text from f 64r resumes >This made the Greeks suspects the Latines as \as/ inclined to Sabellianism. And therefore when Hilary was came to the Council of Seleucia & \A.C. 35{illeg} {359}/ the Oriental bishops examined him about the \his/ faith {illeg} \ac/ primum quæsitur ab eo, saith Sulpicius, quæ esset Gallorum fides – – – – – – perhibuit testimonium. However, Sabellianism was so far spread in the western Churches that the \in/ opposition to those of this opinion in the Council of Ariminum, the {illeg} Greeks were forc necessitated to produce \send/ the Acts of the Council of Nice to the Council of Nice \Ariminum/ for convincing the western Bishops that according to ye Acts of that Council the son was \of Nice the father & son were two substances the son being in these \Acts/ called/ ὁμοίουσιος to ye to the father. And after this conviction, \& the preaching of Hil./ the Latines \(so far as I can find/ generally took una substantia so far not for one \for two substances/ in number but for \&/ one in species, untill the dark age came on (as two men are two in nu are one in species but not in number) untill the dark ages came on & the Acts of the Council of Nice were lost & forgotten.
And now you may understand the meaning of the controversy \about una substantia & { sim su} wch began/ between the Greek & Latin Churches presently after the Council of Nice \about the decree of that Council/, & lasted till the abrogation of ye \use of the/ word usia wth its \was abrogated/ in the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia Socrates thus describes the beginning of it. [22]Vox consubstantialis, sicut ac ex varijs epistolis deprehendemus quas Episcopi post absolutam synodum ad se scripserunt quorundam animos conturbabat. Quam illi diu – – – – – aversabantur. One party rejec{ting} \offended at/ the word ὁμοούσιος & unius substantiæ as being the language of the Sabellian Pa{rty} & Montanism & in the proper \& {illeg} usual/ signification of the words favoured these here{ticks} the other party adher approved them as if the father rejected the ομοιούσιος adhered to the \words/ as if the father & son must be two Gods unless they were \be/ one ex unitate substantiæ [Socrates expresses {illeg} at a loss to know the meaning of the The controversy being {so} saith he all parties acknowledged one God in three hypostases. But Socrates is mistaken. In the fift This was the language of the fift Century in wch Socrates lived: but |& as if they that denied this denied the homousion. For b[23] Eusebius of Nicomedia being on this account accused to ye Emperor as if he denied the homousios Eusebius shewed the Emperor his garment & undaunted replied that if his garment should be rent before his eyes yet would he would not say that the two pieces were της τ ἀυτης ὀυσίας of the same substance| in the fourthe middle middle of the fourth century they called the father & Son \one usia &/ one hypostasis wch was Sabellianism & therefore were justly suspected of Sabellianism \& Montanism/ by the other party. ffor the Council of Western Bps & those of Egypt in the{illeg} Council of Serdica wrote thus to ye Churches Hæreticorum factio pertinaciter asseverat Patris ac ffilij et spiritus sancti diversas esse ac se invicem hypostases et a se invicem separatas. Nos verò hanc a majoribus accepimus ac dicimus & tenemus catholicam atqꝫ Apostolicam traditionem et fidem ac professionem unam esse hypostasim, quam ipsi hæretici usiam appellant, Patris ac Filij ac spiritus sancti. Et si quærant quænam sit hypostasis filij, proftemur eam esse quæ omnium consensu sola est Patris: Theod. l. 2. c. 8.]
And in relation to this controversy \bishops of \the/ Greek Churches in/ the Council of Antioch wch A.C. 341 added in ye end of one of their Creeds mentioning the institution of baptism [24]Ite & docte omnes gentes, baptizantes cunctos in nomine Patris et ffilij et spiritus sancti, added these words: Patris {nequaqꝫ} \utiqꝫ/ vere Patris, et ffilij vere ffilij et Spiritus sancti revera spiritus sancti: ita ut hæc vocabula non sint nuda vocabula et sine re vocabula; sed quæ accurate exprimant propriam uniuscujusqꝫ hypostasin, ordinem ac gloriam: adeo ut {per} hypostasi quidem tres sint consensu autem unus. And \the same Bps in/ another Council of Antioch about \four or/ five or six years after in a {illeg} large declaration of their faith wch they composed for the satisfaction of the western churches & sent to the bishops of Italy, say: Eos {illeg}item qui dicunt tres esse Deos aut Ch – – – – aut eundem esse Patrem et ffilium et spiritum sanctum – – – anathematizat sancta et universalis ecclesia – – – – – – – Quamvis autem tres {illeg} {Xiteamur} res tresqꝫ personas Patris videlicet ac Filij & Spiritus sancti juxta sacras scripturas non ideo tamen plures facimus Deos – – – – – Nos vero intelligimus illum non esse duntaxat Verbum Dei prolatum et internum sed verbum vivens ac per se subsistens – – – – – Illos etiam qui eundē dicunt eundem esse dicunt Patrem ac ffilium et spiritum sanctum tria hæc nomina de una eademqꝫ re ac persona per summā impietatem accipientes, merito ab Ecclesia relegamus, eo quod patrem, qui nec comprehendi nec pati potest passioni et comprehensioni subjiciunt per incarnationem, cujusmodi sunt qui a Romanis quidem Patripassiani ac nobis vero Sabelliani dicuntur. – – – – – – Sed neqꝫ tametsi dicamus filium per seipsum esse & vivere ac subsistere perinde ac Patrem, illum idcirco a patre separamus. Credimus enim eos absqꝫ ullo medio et interstitio conjunctos esse. Those things being written by the Councils of the Greek Church to the Bishops of the Latine for {essa} putting a stop to ye growth of Sabellianis{t}m & in op for asserting 3 persons, & three hypostases in opposition to it & clearing the assertion from polytheism & from ye imputation of separating the hypostases of the father & son; shew do plainly shew that the controversy mentioned by Socrates was now kindled into a flame between ye Greek & Latin Churches. And is still more manifest by the answer wch the Latines \soon after/ in the Council of Serdica returned to ye Greeks. Hæreticorū factio seu {illeg} pertinaciter asseverat Patris ac Filij et Spiritus sancti diversas esse hypostasis & a seinvicem separatas. Nos vero hanc a majoribus accepimus et didicimus & hanc tenemus catholicam atqꝫ Apostolicam traditionem ac fidem ac professionem unam esse hypostasin quam ipsi hæretici su{illeg}am appellant, Patris ac Filij ac Spiritus sancti. Et si quærant quænam hypostasis Filij, profitemur eam esse quæ omnium consensu sola est Patris — Nos dicimus Patrem esse ffilium nec {negamus} ffilium esse Patrem — Verum filium esse Confitemur filium esse Verbum Dei Patris præter quod nullum est aliud — et verum \esse/ ffilium ob unamsubstant hypostasin quæ est Patris et ffilij. By saying Non dicimus Patrem esse ffilium they {illeg} endeavour to clear themselves from Sabellianism & therefore were taxed with it. And in opposition to this \& such like/ opinions wch were spreading in the western Churches the B eastern bishops about four years after in a Council at Sirmium made the following Anathemas \Siquis ingenitum illum aut partem ejus ex Maria natum dicere ausit, anathema esto/ Siquis ἐνδιάθετον ἢ προφόρικ{ον} λόγον internum aut prolatitium Verbum esse Dei filium dixerit, anathema \Siquis – – Siquis . . . . Siquis – – – Siquis . . . ./ – Siquis Patrem et ffilium et Spiritum sanctum, unam personam dicat, anathema sit. \Siquis . . ./ – Siquis spiritum Sanctum partem Patris aut ffilij dixerit, anathema sit. Siquis Patrem et filium et Spiritum sanctum tres Deos dixerit, anat{hema} sit. And after Constantius had conquered the West & the eastern bishops prevailed to have the words ουσία wth its compounds abolished, they abolished also the language of {illeg} one hypostasis. By these anathemas it of \opinions wherein the mystery of the old hereticks, it/ seems to me that the mystery of iniquity worked now very strongly in the Churches. By these anathemas of the old heresies, it seems to me that the mystery of iniquity [under the protection of ye language una usia & una hypostasis] worked now very strongly in the churches, & the words \language of/ una usia & una hypostasis being a stumbling block to the people & a shelter to the heresies. For tho Hilary acknowledges many such hereticks in the Latine Churches in his days yet I do not read find that any of them either then or at any time since have been excommunicated by the Latines for their heresies.
We must beleive that he is the ff{ather} whose to whom the Lords prayer is directed & whose dominion is celebrated {in t}hat praye saying Our father wch art in heaven thi being exalte or who art highly exalted in dominion, hollowed {sic} be thy name as the name of the L as the glorious & sacred name of the \supreme/ king of ye univers ought to be, Thy kingdome come by the increase of the number of thy \faithful/ subjects |on earth & the coming of thy Christ |whom thou hast {annointed}| to reign over the quick & the dead|. Thy will be done in this lower part of thy monarchy wch is on earth as it is done in the super higher part of thy kingdom \thereof/ wch is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread for all things are under thy dominion \& in thy disposal/. And forgive us our trespasses against the laws of thy kingdom as we forgive th our fellow subjects who trespass against us. \And lead us not into temptation but deliver us fom evill. For we are in thy power &/ ffor thine is the kingdom the power & the glory. And whilst this prayer was composed under the law we must beleive that this \father almighty, this universal uncontrolable/ Monarch is the God of the Iews, the God who created|or| the \of/ heaven & ye earth
– till the days of Victor the Pope Victor the successor of Eleutherus, For Victor turning first a Montanist{illeg} Montanist & then a Patripassian, {illeg} & \& being a hot {illeg} superstious {sic} {illeg} & uncharitable/ a zelot against the {illeg} {invented one. } The man brake communion wth ye Churches of Asia about the keeping of Easter that of celebrating Easter & wth the for their keeping Easter on the Iewish day of the passover & (wth ye Christians \who/ who beleived that Christ took his beginning of the Virgin by the operation of the holy ghost & took his beginning of the Virgin & was elected for his vertue & ex justice & {illeg} wch being the common opinion of the Nazarenes soon made \them/ henceforward be looked upon as hereticks. Yet they – – – – – credimus. The Apostles & primitive Chur{ch} of ye circumcision worshipped in communion or continued in communion even wth the unbeleiving Iews worshipping in the Temple while it stood & in the synagogues till after the days of Ierome. And therefore therefore they could not refuse to communicate wth the \all all the/ Iews who beleived Christ to be the Messiah & \tho they beleived/ the Messiah to be but a mere man preferred for his vertue. And this was the charity of the first Christians. T So then the Apostles of the circumcision & their disciples for promoting the f gospel extended their communion in a very charitable manner to the unconverted Iews, & to ye converted Iews \& Gentiles/ whether they beleived Christ to be but a mere take his beginning of the Virgin or to have been before the world began. But the Christians of the present age And therefore it is the character of a true Christian spirit to extend the charity of communion as far as is consistent wth piety & vertue can be done without sinning & to be \for the sake of the Gospel as far as is conistent with/ pious & vertuous life & conversation.
Chap
Of the revelation of the Man of Sin.
From the time that the power of influencing religion by {illeg} Councils came into ye hand of ye Roman Emperors they modelled them Christian religion so as suited best with \their own opinions &/ yt power \interest/ of their Empire & wi {inclinations} of their empire inclinations of the people & interest of their Empire & |therefore consisted of so far as they {illeg} influenced by their own opinions they consulted the inclinations| inclinations {sic} of the people that all of them (heathens hereticks & Christians) might unite & become of one mind & one religion for the quiet of the empire. And for the same reason they had chief regard to ye Bp of Rome the first bishop of the Empire & next after him to the bishop of Alexandria & then to ye bishop of Antioch. And after the Bp of Constantinople was made the head of eastern {sic} Empire & its bishop & placed those of Alexandria & Antioch they had chief regard to ye bishop of Constantinople next after the bishop of Rome.
Not long after the Council of Nice, the Eastern Churches deposed Athanasius bishop of Alexandria, Marcellus Bp of Ancyra & bp of & some others; & the excommunicated persons appealed to ye Bp of Rome, & he summoned taking hold of the opportunity to make himself universal Bp summoned the eastern Bps to appear before a council at Rome & justify themselves But they wrote back a reprimanding letter representing that he had no authority over them \& that it was the custome of the eastern & western churches to agree to one anothers Councils/. Then by the consent of ye Greek & Latin Emperors \Latin & Greek Emperors Constantius & Constans/ the concil {sic} was called of Serdica was called, \& the Bishops of both parties came to Sardica/ but the sea western bishops \still/ contending to judge the eastern, & the eastern refusing|ed| to submit, they met not & returned back & the western decreed \made some Canons importing/ that appeals lay from all the churches to ye Bp of Rome. This was in ye year 347 & about {7} or 8 \or 10/ years after \this/ the eastern Emperor conquered having conquered the western Empire made the \western/ bishops & clergy sub\sc/ribe to ye sen{tence} of the eastern councils against Athanasius, & thereby abolishished {sic} \suppressed/ for a time the claim of the Bishop of Rome to appeals to all from ye Councils of ye eastern empire. And soon after by other Councils the \western Emperor/ abolished the use of the word homousion as not being in scripture nor understood by the people but being long ago {illeg} condemned by \nor consistent wth the decree of the{illeg} council of/ 80 Bishops convened at Antioch against Paul of Samosat: \almost {illeg} 8 9 1 years before/ wch decree was then \at that time/ communicated to all ye Churches & \unanimously/ apporved by them, wthout disputing & so was the decree of the Church catholick.
The Emperor Constantius was succeed {sic} \A.C. 362/ by Iulian the Apostate the last heathen Emperor & he A.C. 363 by Iovian, & thereby that wch letted was fully taken out of ye way
Thus you see \By this it appears that/ the mystery of iniquity worked in these days very strongly in the west, the words {illeg} homousios in language of {illeg} una substantia \& {illeg}/ being misunderstood by the people \Latines/ & leading them into \the/ errors, & therefore the sin being as much mist & the language of una usia & una hypostasis being of as ill consequence amongst those Greeks whos sided with Ath used it. ffor una hypostasis is on all hands allowed to be sabellianism. Eusebius of Nicomedia observed the ill consequences of this language very early for upon
And For Hegesippus being a Iew \conversed with the bishops of the converted Gentiles & being also/ a travellourer & an Ecclesiastical historian was acquainted wth both Churches & wth ye state of each from the beginning, & gave an honourable character of both, representing that the \primitive/ Church continued a|n| \uncorrupted/ virgin untainted till the death of Symeon the son of Cleepas & bishop of Ierusalem the last of the Apostolic men who had seen Christ & that the Churches of the uncircumcision \also/, wth whose bps he had conversed kept the true \primitive doctrine sincerely/ faith as it was delivered to handed down to them by the several successions of bishops in the several cities. Which testimony he would never have given to ye churches of the uncircumcision had they yet begun to break \then broken/ communion wth the churches of the circumcision of wch he was a member or had been a member \his own/ nation.
<66r>λελόγχασιν ἰσα θεοισιν Odyss. {illeg} \XI/. v. 303. Et de Vly Achille {illeg} autem {pa}rtem, σε ζαιὸν ἐτίομεν ἰσα θεοισιν Αργειοι Odyss l. {illeg} XI v. 444: Deqꝫ Eurymacho {illeg} nondum mortus. τὸν νυν ἰσα θεω Ἰθακήσιοι ἐισορόιοσι. Odyss. l. XV, sub finem. Sic et \Paulus/ Apostolus Christum \hominem/ τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω \nomen super omne nomen/ non rapicisse, sed a Deo Patre propter \per per/ obedientiam {illeg} humiliationem suam {illeg} misse dicit & obedientiam ad mortem usqꝫ obtinuisse per obedientiam suam & mortem obtinuisse dicit. Loquitur enim Apostolus non de divina sed {illeg} de humana Christi natura a mortuis resuscitata et super omne nomen exaltata ut ab omnibus {colsetur} & dominus \omnium/ agnosceretur in gloriam Patris.
He is ὀ πατὴρ ὀ παντοκράτωρ the father almighty that is, the first author of all things who bears a fatherly affection towards all his offspring, & the f reigns over all \them/ with an universall invincible & irresistible dominion \& the son \☉/ ☉ is heir of all things & owes him owes him the duty of a son/. He hath life in himself originally \essentially & independantly/ & hath given the son to have life in himself. He hath knowl Iohn \Iohn 5.26./ He hath knowledge & præscience of all things to come in himself & \by communication/ hath given the son to have knowledge \& prescience/ in himself Apoc. 1.1. & 5.3, 5, 7, 9. & Matth. 13.32. Heis always the God who said thou shalt have no other Gods before me — \&/ who in six days made heaven & earth & the sea & all things in them & his son is the God \Lord/ to whom he hath given a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow. \☉/ ☉ [For this is the truth \life eternal life, saith Christ,/ that they should \migh {sic}/ know thee the only true God & Iesus Christ whom thou hast sent. Iohn. 17.3.] For he is to \must \is the King of Kings & Lord of Lords & must// reign till God hath put all things \shall be put/ under his feet & then to deliver up the kingdom to his father that God may be all in all. For tho there be that are called Gods, as there are Gods many & Lords many, yet to us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & we of him & one Lord, Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him. And this Lordship Iesus obteined by ob this name above every name \that all men should honour the son even as they hour {sic} ye father/ Iesus obteined by humility. Let this mind [of humility] saith the Apostle be in you wch was in Christ Iesus, who being [since his resurrection] ἐν μορφη θεου, did not violently assume τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω the|a| name above every name but evacuated himself [of what he had] & taking \& took/ upon him the form of a servant \& was made in the likeness of men/ & being found in fashion as a man he humbled himself \& became obedient to/ to {sic} death even the death of the cross: & wherefore God \hath/ highly exalted him & gven him τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω a name above every name that at the name of Iesus \[next under God]/ every knee should bow of things in heaven & things in earth & things under the earth [{illeg} \{illeg}/ in that {illeg}] & that every tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the father, & give him glory & honour \& thanks & worship as \the Messiah the Christ our Lord & as/ our Lord & King/ because he was slain & hath redeemed men us with his blood & made us kings & priests to God his father.
| 0 | 4. | 2. | 32. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 50. | 14 | 8. | 28. | 30. | 54. |
| −4 | 5. | 20. | 42. | 45 | −5. | 12. | 46. | 19 | (2. | 17. | 22. | 3 |
| +1 | 4. | 9. | 23. | 2 | 1. | 10. | 30. | 54 | −0. | 19. | 19. | 43 |
| Nov | 1. | 15. | 37. | 26 | 1. | 3. | 52. | 8 | −0. | 16. | 5. | 54 |
| 4. | 6. | 49. | 51 | 6. | 12. | 35. | 57 | 10. | 10. | 27. | 20 | |
| 23 | 10. | 3. | 3. | 25 | 0. | 02. | 33. | 45 | – | 1. | 13. | 5 |
| 2. | 9. | 3. | 16 | 6 | 15. | 9. | 42 | 10 | 9. | 14. | 15 |
| 14,37 ( 1 |
| 148 |
| 371 |
| 519 |
The scriptures are the rule of truth & the Creed the rule of faith necessary to communion & the keeping to this rule of faith in the bond of love & living accordi is keeping the holy covenant & being members of the host of heaven the Church militant.
<67r>body as he had after his resurrection such a body he had before his incarnation. And therefore as his natural \mortal/ body by the resurrection became an immortal body, so his immortal body by the incarnation became a mortal one. And it is as easy to beleive the one as the other. & And That which was from the beginning, saith Iohn, wch we have heard, wch we have seen wth our eyes, wch we have looked upon, wch our hands have handled of the Word of life, (for the life was manifested, & we have seen it & bear witness & shew unto you that eternal life wch was was with the father & was manifested unto us:) that wch we have seen & heard declare we unto you. 1. Iohn. 1.1. Iohn thought it no absurdity to speak of the Word as a being visible & tangible. And even Christ himself represents the state wch he was in before his incarnation to be like that wch he was to be in after his resurrection. Glorify me, saith he to his father, with the glory wch I had with thee before the world was. Iohn 17.5. \‡/‡ before the foundation of the world, vers 24 No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, even the son of man who was in heaven Iohn 3.13. I came forth fom the father & am come into the world & again I leave the world & go to the father Iohn 16.28 & 13.3. And what if ye shall see the son of man ascend up where he was before? Iohn 6.62. As his leaving the world & going to the father & ascending up where he was before is to be understood of the death of his mortal body & the resurrection & ascention of his immortal one: so his coming forth from the father coming down from heaven & coming into the world is to be understood of the descent of his immortal body to be incarnate & of his being born into the world. His immortal body in wch he was in glory with the father before the foundation of the world, came down fom heaven became a mortal one, died, rose again an immortal one, \&/ ascended up to heaven in to be in the glory wch he had with the father before the world was. But the father is a pure spirit intangible invisible intangible & immovable, being alike in all places & incapable of incorporation. ffor he is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see.
Let nothing be done therefore through strife & vain glory, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better then themselves. Let Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Iesus who being \now/ in the form of an immortal Lord or God, did not not {sic} \forcibly/ assume τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω the being honoured as a God, \was/ emptied \his present state of glory but \evacuated &/ humbled/ himself of the form of a Lord \wch of a Lord immortal/ & took upon him the form of a \mortal/ servant & was made in the likeness of men. And being found in fashion as a man he \further/ humbled himself & became obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω a name & given him τὸ ἐιναι ἴσα θεω \or {illeg} θεου τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω/ a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee shoud {sic} bow of things in heaven & things in earth & things under the earth, & that every tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father.
a[25] Ἰσα adverbium est similitudinis, ut in his exemplis ἰσα τυρω Iob. 10.10 ἰσα ὄνω ἐρημίτη Iob. 11.12 ἰσα σπονδω Iob. 13.12 ἰσα ἀσκω Iob 13.28. ἰσα πηλω Iob 27.16 & 30./19\ ἰσα λιθω Iob 28.2 ἰσα, διπλοίδι Iob. 29.14. in the same sense Homer uses the word ἰσα Homero etiam ἰσα adverbium est similitudinis & \autem/ ἰσα θεω idem significat quod ἰσόθεος, {illeg} ac de \& honorem/ & honorem {illeg} \denotat/ in homines \vel/ post mortem vel etiam in hac vita collatum significat {denotat} Sic \enim/ de Castore et Polluce verba jam mortuis ve\r/ba faciens, addit τιμην δε λελογ
One God whom we are to invoke & one Lord mediator in whose name we are to invoke him. One God whom we are to worship as \God/ the father almighty ye maker of heaven & earth & one Lord whom we are to worshipe as the \the Messiah the Prince/ Lord & king who {was} redeemed us wth his blood.
[1] Apud Theod l. 2. c. 8.
[2] Socr. Eccles. Hist. l. 1 . c. 8. Sozom. l. 1. c. 12
[3] Theodorit. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 4.
[4] Augustin de {fide} et symbolo. To{m.} 3. fol. 30. et {de} Symbolo ad {C}atechumenos {illeg} lib. 1 & {illeg} Tom 9. fol {227.} et seq.
[5] In Hom. de expositione symboli
[6] Serm. 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62.
[7] A\gu/stin de fide et symbolo Tom 3 fol. 30. Et de Symbolo ad Catechumenos lib 1. Tom. 9. fol. 227.
[7] A\gu/stin de fide et symbolo Tom 3 fol. 30. Et de Symbolo ad Catechumenos lib 1. Tom. 9. fol. 227.
[8] Th\e/od. l. 2. c. 22
[9] Theod. l. 4. c. 9
[10] Socr. l. 3. c. 7 Sozom. l.
[11] Epiphan Her. 26.
[12] Iren. l. 3. c 11. & l. 1. c. 25.
[13] Iren l. 1. c. 34.
[14] Iren. l. 3. c. 4.
[15] Epiphan Hæres. 30 sect. 3.
[16] Epiphan Hæres. 30 sect 3
[17] Ib. sect. 14 & 16.
[18] Epiphan. Hæres 42. {Definit} 24.
[19] b Tavernier
[20] Extat Epistola in Tomis Conciliorum.
[21] a Irenæus l. 1. {illeg} Tertullian ad {Iu}dæos p: 212
[22] Socr. l 1.c.23. Sozom. l. 2. c. {illeg}
[23] b Sozom. l. 2. c. 21
[24] Socr. l.2.c.10
[25] a ἰσά θεον
