<100r>

The same Irenæus in his third book chap. 4 writes thus \writes thus/. [calls the Creed the old tradition of the Apostles &sets down the substance of] S. de aliqua modica quæstione disceptato erit, nunc oporteret in anitquissimas recurrere Ecclesias in quibus Apostoli conversati sunt & ab eis de præsenti quæstione sumere quod certum & re liquidum est? Quid autem si neq Apostoli quidem scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat

The s

Thus far Irenæus concerning the Creed delivered down by universal tradition from ye beginning of the Gospel, representing that it was not lawfull for any man to enlarge diminish or alter it: ffor no man is above his master & by the institution of Christ & his Apostles it conteins that one ffaith by wch & baptism all Christians were admitted into ye Church Catholick from the beginning of the Gospel. Polycarp was the disciple of Iohn the Apostle & {sic} conversed with others also who had seen the Lord, & Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp, & therefore in reciting the \sense of the/ primitive Creed & telling us that is {sic} was received from the Apostles & their disciples deserves to be credited

The same Irenæus in the 4th Chapter of his third book writes thus of the Creed. If a dispute should arise concerning any small question ought we not to have recourse to the most ancient Churches in wch the Apostles conversed & take from them that wch is certain & manifest concerning the present question? And if the Apostles had left us nothing in writing, ought we not to follow the order of tradition wch they delivered to those to whom they committed the churches? To wch ordination many barbarous nations assent \who/ belei|ve|ving in Christ give their assent, having salvation written witten without paper & ink by the spirit in their hearts & diligently keeping the old Tradition, beleiving in one God the maker of heaven & earth & of all things in them, by Christ Iesus the son of God, who out of his ex most eminent love towards his work, underwent the being born of a Virgin, uniting man to God by himself, & suffering under Pontius Pilate & rising again & being received with bightness into glory, shall come the saviour of those that are to be saved & the judge of those wch are judged, sending into eternal fire the corrupters of the truth & the contemners of his father & of his coming. This faith they who have beleived wthout lett{illeg}s to our language are barbarians, but as to opinion & custome practise & conversation, by reason of the faith are most wise & please God conversing in all justice & chastity & wisdome. To whom if any man \speaking to them in their own language/ should tell the inventions of hereticks, sp they would presently shutting their ears, fly far away not enduring to hear the blasphemous discourse. Thus by \means of/ that ancient Tradition of the Apostles they do not so much as admit into their thoughts the monstrous speeches of the heretics. Hitherto Irenæus by \Thus far Irenæus. Now/ By this discourse of Irenæus, you may {understand} \perceive/ that so many all several \many/ nations who understood not the language of the Greeks & Latines nor had the scriptures translated into their language {illeg} {received} the faith & delivered it down to posterity by oral tradition {illeg} wch faith was the doctrine of the Creed {illeg} by means of the faith <100v> & by means of this faith \& baptism/ they became members of the Church Chatholick {sic}. Without having any written scriptures, [or being obliged to beleive in any set forms of \Church/ government or ceremonies in the use of any ceremonies or to receive or any other truths then those conteined in the doctrine of the Creed, as necessary to salvation &|or| communion wth ye Church catholick.] And as their faith by wch they became members of the the {sic} Church & heirs of salvation lay in a few things easy to be learned & remembred without writing so did the practise after the ser They were admitted into ye visible Church by profession of this faith & baptism, {in which they com|{illeg}|}memorated Gods creation of the world by keeping the sabbath weekly com according to ye fourth commandment; they commemorated the {illeg} resurrecti of or Lord upon the first day of the week in the morning before day with \rejoycing &/ praises & speci hymns \composed/ to his honour & \his death they/ they celebrated his {illeg} death commemorated his death \frequently/ by in the breaking of bread |They They commemorated the creation of the world by keeping the sabbath, the resurrection of Christ by keeping the morning of the Lords day before sunrise & the passion by breaking of bread & were {illeg}ing in the Church they were to love God with all their heart & soul & their neighbours as themselves; \& live quietly under governments. They com/ they com & avoid [sorcery wch consists in attributing supernatural vertue to ceremonies dead things & forms of words] superstition|. These things \ceremonies/ were done \used/ not for placing vertue in the ceremonies fo but outwards actions but for putting us in mind of from time to time of worshipping God with thinks {sic} & praises \& of la/ for creating all things & |of| honouring Christ for redeeming us \& becoming our king saviour & king/ & & begetting in us a lively hope \of immortality/ through his resurrection from ye dead by his death & resurrection from the dead. And And all this with su might be wth such a form of government as might be convenient for encouraging piety {illeg} justice & |for exercising this religion & particularly encouraging piety & releiving the poor doing ju| & encouraging piety \for/ admitting proselites & excommunicating {illeg} \such/ men that are impious to Gods or injurious to their neighbour & {illeg} \covetous ambitious or otherwise/ intemperate in their in their in themselves, {illeg} denying communion to evil men \admonishing or/ expelling evil men from communion admonishing evil men or expelling them from communion |comprehends the whole whole {sic} faith & practise of the christian religion, & might be easily remembred & propagated down to posterity by oral tradition without amongst the barbarous nations mentioned by Irenæus without having the scriptures or any thing else in writing.|. And as Irenæus tells us that the whole Christian religion was practised & propagated down |to posterity in many barbarous nations by| by oral tradition without paper & ink, in many barbarous nations, so the things here mentioned [contein the whole body of divinity faith & practise of the Christian religion &] are so few & |so| easy to be remembred that they are very capable of being propagated down by oral tradition without setting pen to paper. There are indeed many truths of a higher nature wch Paul compares to strong meats for men of ripe age, but these are not to be necessary to communion. Men may learn as much of them as they can in their private capacity, \& teach their neighbours in a peaceable manner,/ but ought not to /contend or\ disturb the peace of the Church with disputes about them. The strong in the faith must bear wth the weak & the weak must not {condemne} \judge/ the strong.

Conformable to these Creeds of Irenæus is a Creed recited by Tertullian in his book de virginibus velandis in these words Regula quidem fidei una est omnino est sola immobilis et irreformabilis credendi scilicet in unicum Deum mundi conditorem, & filium ejus Iesum Christum natum ex virgine Maria, curifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in cælis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos & mortuos per carnis etiam resurrectionem He omits {here} the article of beleiving in the Holy ghost as Irenæus does in his second Creed but adds it in his book de And in his book de Præscriptione Hæreticorum he paraphrases the Creed in this manner. Credimus unum omnino Deum esse, nec alium præter mundi conditorem qui universa [de nihilo] produx{illeg}erit per Verbum suum primo omnium productum demissum: Id Verbum filium ejus {illeg} in nomine Dei varie visum a Patriarchis Prophe <101r> tis semper auditum, postremo delatum ex spiritu Patris Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam, carnem factum in utero ejus, & ex ea natum egisse Iesum Christum, exinde prædicasse novam legem & novam promissionem regni cælorum, virtutes fecisse, fixum cruci, tertia die resurrexisse in cælos ereptum sedisse ad dextram Patris, misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti qui credentes agat, venturum cum claritate ad sumendos sanctos in vitæ æternæ & promissorum cœlestium fructum & ad profanos adjudicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusq partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione. Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet quæstiones apud nos quæstiones nisi quas hæreses inferunt & quæ hæreticos faciunt. Thus far Tertullian. And again, in his book adversus Praxeam, he sets down the Articles of the Creed in this words manner \thus paraphrases the Creed./ Vnicum quidem Deum credimus; sub hac tamen dispensatione quam œconomiam dicimus ut unici Dei sit et ffilius sermo ipsius qui ex ipso processerit per quem omnia facta sunt & sine quo factum est nihil. Hunc missum a patre in Virginem & ex ea natum hominem & Deum, filium hominis et filium Dei, & cognominatum Iesum Christū: hunc passum, hunc mortuum & sepultum secundum scripturas & resuscitatum a patre & in cœlos resumptum sedere ad dexteram secundum promissionem suam Patris, venturum judicare vivos & mortuos, qui exinde miserit, secundum promissionem suam, a Patre spiritum sanctū sanctum Paracletum, sactificatorem {sic} fidei eorum qui credunt in Patrem & filium et spiritum sanctum. Hanc Regulam ab initio Evangelij decurrisse, etiam ante priores quosq Hæreticos, nedum ante Praxeam hesternum, probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hæreticorum, quam ipsa novellitas Praxeæ hesterni.

In the fourth Century they began to insert new Articles into the Creed, & \one of/ the first new article{illeg}s was \that of/ the Church Catholick \Church./ inserted by Alexander bishop of Alexandria in this manner. Credimus in unum ingenitum Patrem & —— et qui a nullo co We beleive in one unbegotten father – – – – & in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten son of God — —— – & |making a \prolix/ declaration of his faith inserts it in these words| We confess also one Holy Ghost as the holy scriptures teach us– – & one only Catholick Church Apostolick Church wch is ever inexpugnable tho the whole \world/ attack it – – – [We acknowledge the resurrection of the dead the first fruits of wch was our Lord Iesus Christ, who truly & not only in appearance carried flesh taken of the God-bearing Mary, & in the end of ages that he might take away sin came to man-kind, was crucified & died, but without detriment to his divinity, rose from the dead, was taken up into heaven & sits at the right hand of majesty] Apud Theodoritū Eccl. Hist. l. 1. {illeg} c. 4.

And hence \the Article/ the Catholick Church crept into the Creed of the Church of Ierusalem wch is thus recited by Cyrill bishop of that City. I beleive in one God the father Almighty maker of heaven & earth & \of/ all things {illeg} visible & invisible. And in the Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten son of God begotten {illeg} not made 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 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.

<101v>

The same Article crept also into the Creed of the City Hippo in Afric[1] wch is thus recited by Austin bishop thereof I beleive in God ye father Almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only \only/ son or Lord who was incarnate \conceived/ |born| by the Holy Ghost born of ye Virgin Mary suffered \was crucified/ under Pontius Pilate was \crucified/ dead & buried rose again \the third day/ from ye dead, ascended into heaven \& sitteth at the right hand of God ye father/ from whence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead I beleive in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholick Church, the forgiveness of sins & the resurrection of the flesh.

The next new article was the consubstantiality of the father & son. Eusebius of Cæsarea in the Council of Nice produced a Creed which

\The next article that was inserted was the consubsantiality of the father to ye \&/ son./ Eusebius of Cæsarea in the Council of Nice produced the Creed that wch he was he had received from his ancestors & into which he had been baptized, & it runs this {sic}. I b We beleive in one God the father omnipotent 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 h|H|oly Ghost. This Creed was approved by \the Emperor Constantine &/ all the Council, but the Emperor \proposed &/ pressed to have the {illeg} consubstantiality of the Son inserted & so the Council composed this Creed. We beleive in one God, the father Almighty, the maker of all things visible & invisible: & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, the only begotten of his father, that is, of the substance of his father: God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made; consubstantial to the father, 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, & rose again the third day; ascended to heaven, & shall come to judge the quick & the dead: & in the Holy Ghost. In this Creed by the word consubstantial they understand that the father & son are two substances of the same nature. For the greek \& latine/ words \words/ Ομοούσιος & the latin word consubstantial, are al were always by the Greeks & Latines taken for two substances of the same \essence nature or/ species. When applied to corporeal things they signify two substances taken out of the same mass, when to incorporeal ones they signify two substances of as like one another as if they had been taken out of the same mass. And therefore they do not Epiphanius tells us that they do not say that ye son is ταυτοούσιος or μονοουσιος to ye father but ὁμοούσιος. And the Council of {illeg}                said that the son was consubstantial to ye father as touching his Godhead & consubstantial to us as touching his manhood. And in this Creed the {illeg} son is said to \be/ begotten of his father, that is of the substance of his father: w Which would be improper if the substance of the father was the substance of the son. |And that the word ομοουσιος might be limited to signify only the likeness of two substances without the division of one substance into two, several of the Nicene fathers in subscribing explained the word ομοούσιος by | < insertion from the left margin of f 101v > adding τουτέστιν ὁμοιούσιος. < text from f 101v resumes > |for so ye father would be begotten \the substance of the son &/ for so the son would be begotten of his own substance.| As the father is by this Creed declared to be the substance of the father so the son is the substance of the Son & the Holy G therefore according to this Creed the substance of the son was begotten of the substance of the father. And it is further observable that the Greeks called {illeg} the father & son two Hypostases, & Hypostases <102r> signify substances & cannot signify persons in any other sense then as persons are taken for {illeg} substantial persons or personal substances. or substances wch think & {illeg}. And tho these persons have been since taken by the Latines for something else then substances In this sense the Latines took persons till the dark ages came on & \then/ the Latines ceased|ing| to converse with the Greeks & to understand any thing of the their \Greek/ language, {illeg} began to take persons \these pe Hypostases or personal substances/ for something else then substances.

Some \About 56/ years after the Council of Nice \had made this Creed/, another arti the worship of the Holy Ghost was inserted into the Creed \it/ by ye Council of Constantinople in these words. I beleive in one God, the father Almighty, maker of heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible. And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten son of God, begotten of the father before all worlds, \that is, of the substance of the father,/ God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, Consubstantial to the father, by whom all things were made, who for us men & our salvation came down from heaven descended \from heaven/ & was incarnate by the holy Ghost of the Virgin & was made man & crucified for us under Pontius Pilate & buried & rose again the third day \according to the Scriptures/ & ascended into heaven & sitteth on the right hand of the father & shall come again in glory to judge ye quick & the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And in the Holy Ghost the Lord & giver of life, who proceedeth from the father, who with the father & son together is worshipped & glorified, who spake by the Prophets: And in one catholick & Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins & look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come. Henceforward the father son & holy ghost were accounted three substances of one & the same \usia,/ essence, nature or species, |like as Peter Iames & Iohn are three individual persons of one species. For that this was the \received/ opinion {illeg} in the fourth & fift centuries Dr Cudworth| as {illeg} as Dr Cudworth {sic} & Curcellæus have proved at large beyond any possibility of exception cavill doubting.

Another new Article inserted into the Creed was the descent of Christ intoHades Hell the infernal regions. as in this Creed of {Aquilica} |The Council of Ariminum first inserted it into their Creed wch runs thus – – – It is also found in the following Creed of th Aquileia| into wch Ruffin saith that he was baptized. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Christum Iesum unicum filium ejus Dominum nostrum: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato & sepultus, descendit in inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris: inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos: et in spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, hujus carnis resurrectionem. I |This article is also found in ye Vulgar Creed calle usually called the Apostles Creed, the word Hades or Hell being there put for the infernal regions.|

Another new Article was the Communion of Saints as in the Creed of the Roman Church commonly called the Apostles Creed wch runs thus. I beleive in God the father Almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only son or Lord who was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead & buried, descended into Hell, the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on ye right hand of God ye father, shall come again to judge the quick & the dead. I beleive in the Holy Ghost, the holy Catholick Church the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body <102v> & the life everlasting. The descent into the infernal regions called Hell was added for asserting that Christ had a humane soul, & the communion of saints for asserting that ye saints departed this life held communion with the Church {illeg} militant, &{illeg} knew our affairs heard our prayers & were able to do us good or hurt. & therefore were to be invoked & honoured. ffor so Austin Bp of Hippo explains it in his commentary on this Creed explains it Serm 181 de Temp.

Now if all these Creeds be compared with one another & {sic} the Articles inserted in the fourth Century be omitted, it will plainly appear that the tradition of faith handed from wch was handed down from the Apostles & into \by/ wch \& baptism/ all nations during the first three hundred years were baptised & a admitted into the Church consisted in these articles. I beleive in one God, the father Almighty, the maker of heaven & earth & of all things therein visible & invisible: And in one Lord Iesus Christ or Lord his only Son, our Lord, who was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, crucified under Pontius Pilate \died/ & buried, the third day he arose 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 {illeg} revived by the resurrection of their bodies|y| also the dead raised again to life in the body \of whose kingdom there shall be no end/: And I belive {sic} in the Holy Ghost who preached these things by \Moses &/ the Prophets \spake by the Prophets/ [& whom the Son sent from the father to assist & comfort his disciples] \[& whom the son sent from the father to assist his disciples]/ This Creed \I say/ seems to me to contein the whole fu all the fundamental points of faith requisite \wch were required/ to Baptism & communion wth the Church & all other truths of an abstruser nature, of wch there are many in the Christian religion may be learnt after baptism by such as study \endeavour/ to grow in grace & in the knowledge of or Lord Iesus Christ tho during the three first centuries of the Christian religion. For tho there be many other truths in the Christian religion, yet those may being {illeg} necessary to salvation may be learnt after baptism, such as are the creation of the world by Iesus Christ, then were not generally required to baptism from ye beginning, ought were not to be imposed in after ages as necessary but might be learnt \as well/ after baptism as before |during the three first centuries of the Christian religion, the other truths of an during the three first Centuries of the Christian religion. For the Creation of the world by Iesus Christ \& his appearing to the Patriarchs/ was wanting in all the western Creeds & some of the eastern & might be learnt after baptism as well as before of the eastern & therefore might be learnt as well {illeg} \after/ baptism as before being one of those \mysterious/ truths wch the Apostle Paul compares to strong meats. And what was not necessary to baptism & comm in the first ages of the Christian religion could not be made necessary afterwards by any power on earth. None of the strong meats were to be given to \forced upon/ cnildren \babes/ instead of milk.| And yet the Bishops of the fourth Century took the liberty of inserting many new articles into the Creed \as above/ & thereby brake the Church into parties wch \&/ raised seditions |great disputes animosities & commotions in the whole Empire,| about religion wch lasted with the greatest violence all that century & part of the next.

<103r>

I beleive in one God the father Almighty, maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only son who was born by ye Holy Ghost of ye Virgin Mary. (M.T. & P.C)

<103v>

How this unwritten tradition was thus t \this form of doctrine delivered {sic} to the Churches/ is best learnt by reciting the Creeds of the first ages of Christianity & comparing them together to see how far they agree. For tho the several Creeds propagated down to posterity \by memory/ in several Churches may differ happen to differ in some modes of expression yet {as} \so far as/ they all \they agree/ in the substance of the faith & \undisputed/ sense of the words \wthout any dispute arising between the Churches about them/ they may be recconed one & the same rule of faith tradition. And this tradition is thus recorded by Irenæus.

— according to his humanity. And the faith of this Council was confirmed by the 5t 6t 7th & 8th General Councils \& some other councils of less note/ & much celebrated by several Bi Popes as a[2]Leo M, b[3]Gelasius, c[4]Gregory M. d[5]Martin I. [And the Article of t{illeg} \their/ faith that ye here recited was professed by Iohn Bishop of Antioch Cyrill bishop of Alexandria & Flavian bishop of Constantinople before ye Council & preached by Leo bishop of Rome]

And its further observable that Iohn Bishop of Antioch wth some other \oriental/ Bishops of those composed a presently after the third General Council copnosed {sic} this \this/ profession of faith. in wch they affirmed We confess that our Lord Iesus Christ the o\n/ly begotten Son of God is perfect God & perfect Man of a reasonable soul & \a/ body [consisting] born of \begotten of/ the father before all worlds according to his Deity, & in the last times for us & or salvation born of the Virgin Mary according to his humanity: ομοούσιος to ye father according his {sic} Deity & ὁμοούσιος to us us {sic} according to his humanity. ffor there is an union made of ye two natures, by reason whereof we confess one Christ one Son one Lord. In this sense of \an/ unconfused unity we confess that that ye holy Virgin is θεοτόκος. And This profession of faith was approved by Cyrill bishop of Alexandria, & by Flavian bishop of Constantinople & those Ch & \afterwards/ established by the Council of Chalcedon [wch was the fourth General Council & consisted of 630 Bishops] wth an anathema against all wch who beleived otherwise. And this Council consisted of 630 bishops collected out of all \parts of/ the eastern Empire \& Pope Leo the great \by his delegates/ presided in it & subscribed it/ & {illeg} in point of faith it was confirmed by the 5t 6t 7\th/ & 8th General Councils & some other Councils of less note & \\{illeg} &/ was zealously asserted &/ much celebrated by several \the/ /several\ \Church \Bps of// \Bps of {sic} Rome, & generally received in the Greek & Latin Churches./ [Popes, as by Pope Leo the great who by his Legates presided in it & by subscribed it & by ye Popes Gelasius, Gregory the great & Martin the first.] & \afterwards/ preached that ye son was ομοουσιος to ye father was God, & was of God being God ομοουσιος to ye father & was \also/ true man & according to the flesh consubstantial to his mother |as God was consubstantial to ye ffather & as man was consubstantiall to his mother|. [Serm 10 in Solennitate Nativitatis Domini.] & by \he &/ the Popes Gelasius, Gregory the Great & Martin the 1st were zealus for the faith of this Council.] And by consequence it was the general opinion of the 5t 6t 7th & 8th & 9th centuries, especially in the Greek Churches, that the Bp son was ὁμοούσιος according to his humani to ye father according to his Godhead & ὁμοούσιος to us according to his manhood. \And not/ In what sence they understood him to be ὁμοούσιος to the father is sufficiently explained in the latter part of the sentence not {sic} ταυτοούσιος \of the same individual substance/ but ομοούσιος of ye same essence nature & species of substance. And in the same sence the vulgar Creed commonly called the Creed < insertion from f 103r > of Athanasius saith that the son is the God of the substance of the father & man of the substance of his mother, that is, substance of substance. If the father had not a substance proper to himself the son could not be called God of the substance of the father. One of the principal arguments made used of in ye 4th Century to prove ye son to be consubstantial to ye father was that he would not otherwise \be called the Son abusively & not/ be the true natural son of the father as one man is the true son of another, & this argument would \have/ been of no force if the son{illeg} were not substance of substance. A The Greeks \When therefore/ the Greeks therefore \began to/ called the father son & Holy Ghost three Hypostases & one usia that is \{here meant}/ three substances in number & one in nature Hypostases |& by the Latines were called Arians for this languag both Greeks & Latines by their by three number Hypostases came| understood three substances. {illeg} in number & one in natur [And when the Latines by three Persons & one called the father son & holy G. three persons & one substance & by the Greeks were called Sabellians for this language] ffor the \Hypostasis proper signifies a substance & ye word Hypostasis/ Latines took Hypostasis in the in the Council of Serdica took Hypostasis in ye same sense wth usia in \ὀυσία in/ Greek & substantia in Latine. & the Greeks ne & the Greeks never distinguis & so did those Greeks who said there was but one Hypostasis in the Deity. And \therefore/ those who said there were three Hypostases & one ουσία Vsia meant thre su three substances in number & one in \essence or/ nature. [And the Latines Athanasius upon examining some of the Latines declared that they meant the same thing by three Persons & one substance] And these Latines who said there were three Persons & one substance \after Athanasius had reconciled them wth the Greeks/ meant three personal substantial persons or personal substances in number & one in nature, untill the dark ages came on & the Schoolmen \taught the Latines to/ take one substance for one number./ Nor would the Greeks have called the father & son two hypostases nor \have/ concluded the consubstality {sic} of the son to ye father from the consubstantialy {sic} of a man to his father {illeg} \as they generally did./ And lastly the writers of the 4 fourth & fift \Centuries/ & some following centuries & generally interpreted the Nicene faith consubstantiality of two substances in number & one in nature, as \has/ been {abundantly} \sufficiently/ shewed by Curcellæus & Dr Cudworth out of the writings of Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Greg. Naz. Greg. Nyss. Ambrose, Chrysostom, Ierome, Austin \Iustin/, Theodoret Maximus, Cyrill of Alex. Marius Victorinus, Anastasius Theopolitanus, Iohn Damascene, & Euthymius Zygabenus.

The Greeks by calling the ffather & Son two hypostases [understood them to be two] \understood them to be two like substances & so the/ & by {illeg} concluding \arguing/ their consubstantiality \of the Son to God the ffather/ from the likeness of a man to his father understood them to be two like substances, & therefore they \signified this by/ called|ing| them two hypostases. |And the Latines also in those days tooke Hypostases for substances as is manifest by ye general Epistle of ye Council of Serdica.| And if the latines now take hypostasis for something else then substance, it is because {illeg} \they follow the Divinity of the/ Schoolmen \who/ understood not Greek.

< text from f 103v resumes >
<104r>

Chap. 8
Of the rise of the Roman Catholick Church.

Chap. XIV.
Of the host which was given to the last horn of the Goat \by trangression {sic}/ against the daily worship for trampling the sanctuary & the host of heaven under foot.

Chap. XV.{illeg}
A further account of the Host of heaven & of the corruptions wch crept into it.

<105r>

He beleived also \&/ {illeg} the Father & the Word were one ουσία not in nature only but also in number, as I gather \also/ from a[6] his asking Narcissus bishop of {Nervonias} whether he beleived with Eusebius of Cæsarea that there were two usias. & from his translating ὁμοούσιος in the Creed by unius substantiæ rather then by consubstantialis, & from

As the heathens derived – – – – – resurrection of the body. This was the doctrine of Simon as you have heard above, & Menander held the same opinions wth Simon. And Saturninus – – – – – – purgatory.

The Christians a

As the Iews tolerated the Saducees who denyed the resurrection & \all/ the prophets except Moses, so the first Christians allowe were tolerated some erroneous opinions wch their successors declared to be heresy. {illeg} The \converted/ Iews wch were for imposing the law & {illeg} upon the Gentiles were tolerated \in communion with the Church/ at Ierusalem among the Iews. So the first Gnosticks separated themselv might have staid in communion longer then they did if they had not separated themselves. They went out from us saith Iohn because they were not of us for if they had been of us they would have continued with us. And Iude: These are they that separate themselves. ② So also they that \Those who/ held that Christ was a mere man actuated by a spirit from above continued in communion till after the days of Iustin Martyr. For Iustin gives us this account of them. Verum enim vero Trypho, saith he, non {perisit} – – – – sententia sunt dixerint. ① They|ose| t|w|ha|o|t said yt Christ descended upon Iesus knew nothing of the Logus & by b but\& yet/ were not condemned as hereticks till towards the latter end of the 2d century. For there Epiphanius places the beginning of the heresy of the A Alogj Alogi. ③ But in \about the end of the fourth \second/ century/ the days of ye Popes Victor & Zephirin{e} Theodotus the Tanner was excommunicated for this opinion by Pope Victor \in the west/ & Artemas soon after in the East in the days of his for this opinion. And thenceforward their disciples complained \pretended/ that their opinion was taught by the Apostles & ancient Christians & the truth of the doctrine conserved in|till| the days of Po{pe} Victor, but from the days of his successor Zepherine was adulterated. They {illeg} Iustin lets us know that they were but few in his days & by consequence that their opinion was only tolerated \in the west/ till the days of Pope Victor & in the East till the days of Pope Zepherine. After those days this opinion was constantly accounted heretical being condemned in Noetus, {illeg} \in those that held the Logus to be not a person/ Sabellius, Paul, Eustathius, Marcellus & Photinus. [If they Logus was said that Iesus was actuated by a {illeg} the Logus by wch Iesus was actuated was not a person, they were condemned as making Iesus a mere {illeg} \man/ but if they said that the Logus was a person, I do not find that they were exco denyed communion \for this/ tho that they made the Logus an {emission} And therefore] All these held that the Logus \or spirit/ by wch th Iesus was actuated was not a person. But they that said |t|he \Logus/ was a person, were reputed to make Iesus both God & man & \still/ allowed still to continue in communion: whereby they propagated their |without inquiring particularly into their opinion about the Logus nature of the Logus & his incarnation. And by that means they were enabled to propagate their| opinons silently in the churches {illeg} till the dispute arose between Alexander & Arius. about the nature of the Logus

In this state things continued till |toward the end of the 2d century when Theodotus ye Tanner was excommunicated in the days of Pope at Rome & soon| the bishops began to meet in Councils & against hereticks & condemned first the Montanists \for their fals prophesies/ & the {sic} Theodotus \the tanner & soon after/ in the west & Artemas in the east for this opinion. And this gave occasion \to/ their disciples to complain \pretend/ that their opinion . . . . . . was only tolerated in the Churches till [about ye end of the end of {illeg}the days of the {illeg} & Theodotus the Tanner \{con}demnation of Theodotus & Artemon in the days of those two Popes. But And from th/ {illeg} I understand of those who beleived that the spirit from above by wch \the Man Iesu/ Christ {illeg} assisted was not a person but only a power emitted by the father. All {illeg} \{illeg}ard/ of this opinion \as Noetus Praxeas Noetus Sabellius Paul Eustathius Marcellus & Photinus/ were henceforward excommunicated {illeg} But those that said {illeg}t by wch \the man/ Iesus was assisted, was a person {illeg} still continued in communion {illeg}{illeg} him were not reconned to make Christ Iesus a mere man, but continued {illeg} till the controversy arose between Alexander & Arius.

{illeg} revolt & {illeg} \oppress &/ persecute their brethren who revolted not, & these revolters {illeg} \{illeg}{tr}ansgressors &/ {illeg} last horn of the He Goat & their brethren affli in a state of oppression {illeg} state of affliction persecution & c dispersion & captivity is

So then the Gnosticks & Manietes who were a sort {illeg} & the {illeg} & Angels & the souls of men consubstantial to {illeg} {Mani}chees made the Lo Word \son/ a part of God the father.

<105v>

{illeg}{t}his son of Iupiter, this Æon of the Gnosticks, the Montanists {illeg} be joyned & united to the a man the son of the Virgin {illeg} God & {illeg} & th in one person, \called both/ God & Man \in several respects/, & that this {illeg}n the womb & still continues, but was made without confus{illeg} further conjunction of substance then what that wch is {illeg} man & the holy spirit wch dwells in him. Si enim Sermo, {illeg}an – – – – – occurrerunt. And a little after: Quanquam cum {illeg} id est carnem. By this it is manifest that the Valenti Montanists {illeg}rds that the N made no further \made such/ an union between the Logus & {illeg}{illeg} \{illeg} as/ the Ebionites Nicolaitans ma ancienter hereticks made between {illeg}e & Iesus & therefore were Nicolaitans. \In words/ They professed an union {illeg}\{illeg}him/ the ancienter hereticks used to \(according to Irenæus)/ did between Christ & Iesus & \they/ made that more lasting, but not of a different kind.) The Logus \according to this philosopher/ dwelling|t| in Iesus as the holy spirit doth in good men, without mixture of s alteration or mixture of substances And when they called them one person, they meant \only/ one in outward form & outward appearance, but not in substance & life & will & power of thinking as the bad one in name & two in nature.

In words they professed an union, such an union as the ancienter hereticks (according to Irenæus) made between but without writen as the ancienter hereticks did but united them in nothing rea & \they/ made this \union/ more lasting but not more intimate & real \or of another kind./ {illeg} When they called them one person they meant only in outward form & appearance without any unity in substance but not in substance, life, will, understanding, or power, \or anything else wch was real:/ one in name & two in nature, The Logus d \according to these men/ only dwell|t|ing \& operated/ in Iesus as the spirit of God doth in good men \or as Christ was supposed to operate in Iesus/. And if \for eluding the force of scrit/ they said that The Logus \according/ was born or died they meant only wth respect to the humane nature they \they equivocated &/ meant not what they said: for they accounted the Logus immortal & impassible \& unchangeable/ & that the man alone was really born & suffered. And for eluding the force of the scripture wch says that the word was made flesh & that he is a liv And again if they said that Iesus did miracles they \equivocated &/ meant not the man but the Word. Iust as the Nicolaitans gave the common name of Iesus Christ to the composition of Iesus & Christ \& called them one without meaning what they said/, the Montanists gave the common name of Iesus Christ the Logus to ye composion of Iesus & the Logus & called them one \without meaning what they said/ & therefore they are Ni held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. ffor by the Logus they meant what the ancienter Nicolaitans meant by Christ. The difference is only in words \& therefore they {illeg}/ They denyed that Iesus was the Logus \& that the Logus came in the flesh/ as much as the ancienter Nicolaitans denied that the Iesus was the Christ or that Christ came in the flesh \& in the same manner/, & therefore they were \Nicolaitans &/ liars & antichristians in the sense of the scriptures.

seem to have been the same with the opinion of the Patripassians Praxeas Hermogenes Noetus & Sabellius \the disciple of Noetus/, excepting that these received not the prophesies of Montanus. ffor Ierome speaking of the Montanists saith: Illi Sabellij dogma rectantes Trinitatem in unius personæ angustias cogunt. He means the Montanists & followers of Æschius \Montanists κατα Æschian/.

Praxeas held held such an union of the Logus wth the Man Iesus as the Montanists {illeg} did & that he was passible \was born & suffered died/ in the same sense, that is not really but by imputation: as The man suffered \or in language only: qua/ & ye word was compassible not pas \being immortal &/ impassible in himself & only compassible to the man Iesus who alone was really passible. {illeg} And because he allowed \to the Logus/ no other life then that of \made the Logus one person wth/ ye father, \making them one person/ Tertullian told him that he in saying the Logus \suffered or/ was compassible he com blasphem |made| the father compassible \& crucified him in words/ wch was blasphemy: & hence came the name of \they were called/ Patripassians tho they did not affirm that the father suffered or was \was passible so much as/ compassible It was a The name was \not owned by them but/ imposed upon them |by| their enemies their enemies by way of an ar as a consequence of their opinion \words/. {illeg} For Tertullian argues thus against Praxeas: Ergo, inquis, et nos eadem ratione Patrem mortuum dicentes qua vos filium non blasphemamus in Dominum Deum: non enim ex divina sed ex humana substantia mortuum dicimus, – – – – – – blasphemavit ——— Times dicere passibilem quam dicis compassibilem.

Sabellius \was/ the disciple of Noetus \& held the same opinion with him,/ & Theodoret tells us {illeg} that Noetus Epigothis heresy was first invented by Epigonius, & propagated by Cleomenes, & renewed by Noetus. Now Sabellius like Valentinus derived the Son from the father by superstit efflux made the father son & H.G. . . . . . . . . . . . as Simon did. Alexander of Alexandria \in his general Epistle/ tells us that the son was begotten not of nothing but of the substance of the father, not after the manner of bodies by incisions & efflux arising from divisions as seemed to Sabellius & Valentinus, but after an inexplicable manner. Which imports that Sabellius like the Valentinians derived the Son from the father by an efflux of substance \after the manner of bodies/ with some separation not of the Son from the father but of the parts of subst wch flowed out {illeg} fom those wch did not flow out: {illeg} yet so as to leave the father & son one person actuated with no other life then that of the father. Or that as \Or taught that the f s. & h g. like/ the body soul & spirit |of a man,| are three distinct substances & yet by conjunction compose but one person. — that as Valentinus derived his Æons from the father by an efflux or dilatation \& projection/ of substance after the manner of bodies, with some separation not of the parts: so also did Sabellius derive the son from the father by an efflux of substance & separation \not of the son/ of the parts flowing out from those wch did not flow out, {illeg} as a ray of light by flowing out from the sun departs from the sun. But notwithstanding he made a connection between ye son \father & son as one person/ & as the term is corre \& {illeg}/ as a man & his arm {stret}ched out are but one, or as the body soul & spirit are three distinct substances & yet compose but one person <106r> And as the heathens & the Gnosticks feigned that their Gods were first begotten & then born, & that the supreme Iupiter was both male & female & that \{deriving}/ Minerva was \being/ born out of \his/ brain, being the first conception of his mind according to Simon magus & Bacchus out of his thigh, \according to the heathens/ & Ennoea \& Ennœa the Minerva of the heathens/ being the first conception of his mind according to Simon & his followers \the Gnosticks/: & so the {illeg} Montanists f feigned that the Son of God was begotten {illeg} before the be world began & born when God said Fiat lux & that he was born as it were out of the womb of ye father. And as further; as the Gnosticks feigned that the Logus was first conceived in Gods mind as his \active/ Wisdom \& {illeg}/ & λόγος ενδιαθετος & then emitted as it were out of his mouth & thereby generated into a {illeg} by speaking as his \Word &/ λόγος προφορικὸς & thereby born {illeg} the Montanists entertained the s the son of God: so Montanists taught that the Logus was first conceived \as wisdom/ in Gods Mind & \then then/ emitted \by eructation/ as it were \a Word sent/ out of his mouth by eructation by eructation. Itaq Sophiam – – – – – sermonem optimum. Thus did the Montanists teach that the Son was first conceived as it were in Gods womb before the creation in order to contrive the univers & then born {illeg} \of him/ in order to produce outwardly what God had conceived in his mind. And whereas S And so the Mo Theology of the Monta{illeg}nists is of the same kind wth that of the heathens & Gnosticks & the \big bellied/ Father & \his/ Son in this Theology is the \ermaphroditical/ Iupiter of the heathens & Gnosticks & the son of this Iupiter. And whereas the Gnostick \And this son was \both/ male & female For And this son of Iupiters brain was both male & female like Minerva/ |For| What the heathens called Minerva & the Gnosticks Ennœa, Montanus called Sophia; & \before{illeg} his birth & Logus Logus \afterwards// making but one Æon of Sophia \Ennœa/, Nus & Logus, {illeg} & feigning that this Æon conceived all \things/ virtually in himself wch was the character of as Ennœa & Nus & the Platonic \Logus or/ Idea of Ideas were feigned to do. And for the unity of this Trinity the Montanists alledged the text in the first epistle of Iohn: There are three that beare record the water the spirit the water & the blood & \these/ three are one, {illeg} pretending that the wate spirit the spirit \water/ & the blood were symbols represented the father son & h.g. the spirit signifying the father (Iohn 4.24) the water the holy g. (Iohn 7.38, 39) & the blood ye son.

And tho the Montanists for per reconciling their opinion heresy to the monarchy of the father, made the son inferior to him, yet in some respects they made him equal. ffor ye text of Paul τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω to wh they interpreted alledged for an equality, taking ἰσα wch wth a dative for an adjective of equality, whereas wth a dative case after it, it is always an adverb of similitude.

And thi it is further observable that they made Christ to be a part of the fathers substance not by juxta-position after the manner of bodies, but by {contusion} circumincession as the schoolmen speak per coincidence & common presence the son's being in the father & the father in the son \in all places; by both of them being every where present to the other/ by common presence of their subst or circumincession as the schoolmen speak \wch kind of conjunction some some have called περιχυν εσις & circumincessio/. So Tertullian:[7] Habes patrem in cælis, habes filium in terris: Non est separatio ista, sed dispositio divina. Cæterum scimus Deum etiam intra abyssos esse & ubiq consistere sed vi et potestate: Filium quoq ut individuum, cum ipso ubiq. & &c

And this Word Logus \of Plato/ this son of the God, the Montanis \Iupiter/ this Æon of the Gnosticks, the Montanists feigned to be every where present \joyned &/ united to {illeg} a man the son of the Virgin Mary & her {flesh} him & h \{illeg} born with him/ in one person, God & Man without confusion of substance. [ffor say they by mixture of substance they would become a third sub thing, one substance {com}posed of two others God & man flesh & spirit, \substance wch is neither/ of the components as electrum {comp}osed by mixture of gold & silver is neither gold nor silver but {illeg} when {illeg} the spirit & flesh, or God & man, remain distinct each with \the property of/ its own {illeg} \{illeg} {substa}nce/ so that the spirit perfoms {sic} the virtues works & miracles \without being passible/ & the flesh {illeg} \{illeg} undergoes/ the passions of hunger thirst sorrow & death. And tho the Word is said {illeg}t to to dy yet it is only by rea wth respect to ye man to wch it is {illeg}im sermo, saith Tertullian ex transfiguratione & demutatione {illeg} factus est, una jam erit substantia Iesus ex duabus, ex {illeg} mixtura ut elecrum ex auro et argento; et incipit nec {illeg} spiritus; neq argentum, id est caro dum alterum altero {illeg} quid efficitur. Neq ergo Deus erit Iesus: sermo enim {illeg}ctus est; neq caro id est homo – – – – – utrumq. And a little {illeg}m statum – – – – – – – occurrerunt.

{illeg} Bishop of Antioch was of the same opinion wth Sabellius as we {illeg} condemned by the Greeks he was not called a patripassian. {illeg} that he revived the heresy of Artemas a heretick who {illeg} Zephirine & is called Artemon by Nicephorus {illeg}This Council consisted of about {illeg}

<106v>

If from the \25th day of Month Elull neare \in/ the end of the/ 28th year of Artaxerxes \Longimanus/ when the wall was finished & the gates set up \wch was in ye year of Nabonassar 311 or 312/ we count 62 weeks of years, they will end {illeg} \one or two/ years & about 4 months before the birth of Christ beginning of the vulgar Æra. And then was Christ born: supposing that he was just 30 years old when he came to Iohns baptism [& that Iohn began to baptise in ye 15th year of Tiberias & Iesus in the summer time when of that year when \all/ the people crouded to Iohns baptism, Iesus came amongst them.] or at the most but 31. years old And the covenant that the Iews should be his \Gods/ people & [he] \his father he/ should be their God, they kep he \the Annointed {illeg} \the Messiah after his app{illeg}// kept {he} /one\ week untill then \& then the Iews were/ rejection|ed| of the Iews \the Iews/ |by the| & calling of |ye| gentiles in Cornelius about seven years after his {illeg} \wch happened /rejected the Iews from being his peculiar people. \appointing of/\/ And in half a wekk the \desolator/ caused the sacrifice & oblation to cease, & upon ffor the war by wch it ceased begi|a|nning in spring A.C. 67 & ending wth the burning of ye Temple & taking of the city \in Autumn/ A.C 70. For the better understanding of this prophesy I would read it thus. Also 62 weeks it [the captivity] shall return & the street shall be built & the wall: but [this shall be, not in a flourishing state of things like the seven weeks, but] in troublesome times &|A|nd after [the coming at the end of] the 62 weeks the Mesiah shall [not reign over the Iews as their Prince but] be cut off & it [the city or people or kingdom or dominion] shall not be his, but the people of a Prince that shall come [the Romans] shall destroy the city & the Sanctuary & the end thereof shall be with a flood & unto the end of the war desolations \[in the reigns of Nero Vespasian Trajan & Hadrian]/ are determined. Yet he sha [before they \shall/ cease to be his people] he shall keep the covenant with many [the multitude of or nation of the Iews] for one week. And in \after that/ in half a week the desolator shall cause the sacrifice & oblation to cease & upon a wing of abominations overspread the land & untill the consummation \{illeg}/ [that wch is determined shall be poured upon the desolate [or upon the desolator, & \then/ the sanctuary shall be cleansed.] [\or accomplishment to scatter the power of the holy people/ & the going forth of the commandmt to cause to return & to build Ierusalem & cleansing \of/ the sanctuary] that wch is determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

He that has not the son has not the father but is an Idolatery & by \for/ the same reason he that has not the holy Ghost has not the son. And therefore he that forsakes this faith is an Idolater & denyes his God \has not the father but worships another God/ & breaks the first & great commandmt \article of the /holy\ covenant/ of the law Thou shalt love the lord thy God: And he that violates the rule of Charity breaks the second great article. Those wch is like \unto/ the first: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. And this second Article is like unto the first: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath by this we know that we love him if we keep his commandmts; & he that loveth h not his brother whom he hath not seen how shall he love God whom he hath not seen. The Christian religion was preached to bring men over from |ye| fals G worshipping the fals gods of the heathens to worship the true one \& to love one another/ & the Creed conteins what men were to b the truth wch men were to be instructed in for this end \& the question, Dost thou forsake the devil & his works, conteins the practise/ & the being instructed & baptized in this faith \& practise/ was entring into the covenant, & on the contrary the violation of this faith \or & practise/ is breaking the covenant & returning into the state of a heathen or publican & therefore deserves excommunion\cation./ But erring in such other opini But to \he that/ excommunicate|s| men \others/ for other \such/ opinions \as/ & {illeg} proceeds proceeds from uncharitableness {illeg} do not amount to a breach of the holy covenant \{illeg} is uncharitable/ is uncharitable \factious/ & schismatical is to {illeg} & persecute \& separates from/ the members of Christ & excommunicate|s| your \him/ self.

\He that beleives amiss concerning the father hath not the father &/ He that hath not the father worships another God [& breaks the first & great commandmt \He that beleives ammis concerning the son hath not the Son/ & he that hath not ye Son hath not the father {illeg} but worships another God & anoth{er} Lord. A He that worships another God hath not the father \worships another God/ breaks the first & great {commandmt} Thou shalt love ye Lord thy God & he that is uncharitable breaks the two great commandmts upon wch hang all the law & the prophet {sic}: for he that loveth not his brother {whom he hath} seen how shall he love God whom he hath not seen?

<107r>

The Sethians called the father of all things the first man & Ennœa the son of man & ye second man, & under them placed the holy Ghost makin \whom they called the first woman/ & under them they \placed the/ elements water darkness the Abyss & Chaos upon wch the spirit was moved, & say that of her the first & second man generated \{call}/ Christ, & from this first was emitted also a second woman called Prunicos & Sophia & she emitted seven sons the first of wch was called Ialdabaoth (that is Iah El Dabaoth Deus fortis Sermonum) & {sic} these seven wth their mother Sophia made their Ogdoas. That Prunicus by the help of Ialdabaoth emitt sent forth two emissions one into Elizabeth the other into Mary whence were born Iohn the baptist & Iesus, & that Christ descended through the seven heavens putting on the likeness of their inhabitans {sic} & in conjunction with his sister Sophia descended upon Iesus who by the operation of God was born of a Virgin & was more wise pure & just then all men & so was composed \he was made/ Iesus Christ, who from thence forward did miracles cured diseases & revealed the unknown father, & manifested himself to be the son of the first man. At wch the Princes being angry conspired against him, & when he was led to death, Christ & his mother departed & Iesus was crucified, & rose again & sits at ye right hand of the father Ialdabaoth. Irenæus l. 1. c. 34 And some at l of them (the Ophites) say that Sophia became a serpent. ib.

Cerinthus & Carpocrates & the Ebionites said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary.

The Gnosticks who are from Valentinus say that world was made not by the Word of God but by the Demiurgus, & that the Salvator Iesus the inferior Christ who was from all the Æons was not incarnate nor suffered but descended like a Dove upon Iesus & when he had declared the unknown father reascended to his pleroma & some say that Iesus (qui ex dispositione fuit) was incarnate & suffered, who, they say, passed through Mary as water through a tube. Others say that ye son of the Demiurgus suffered \who descended/ upon Iesus [qui ex dispositione fuit] descendit Others say that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary & Christ who is from above descended upon him being without flesh & impassible. [Iren. l. 3. c. 11.p. 219.] And Christ \who is from above/ suffered according to none of these opinions, being either manifested by a tranfiguation {sic} without passibility or descending like a Dove upon Iesus the son of Mary.

Simon \Menander/ Saturninus & Basilides \Cerdo Marcion/ said that Christ \Iesus/ was a putative man & Simon & the three first that he only appeared to suffer, the fourth that Simon of Cyrene suffered in his room while he \Iesus/ stood by in the form of Simon & derided the Iews. Iren l. c. 10, 21, 22, 23.

The Nicolaitans, \& Sethians, & Ophites/ Cerinthus, Carpocras, Valentinus, Marcus & their followers said that Christ descended upon Iesus. The former heresy was founded by Simon this by Nicolas. |Linga unum Christum Iesum confetentur divisi vero sententia. Iren l. 3. c. 27 pag. 239. col. 2. l. 12.|

Apelles said that Christ had a real body of flesh & blood & really suffered on the cross but was not born of the virgin but formed his \body/ out of the heavens in his descent & after his passion in ascending ut {sic} to heaven disso resolved his body into elements of wch it was formed & left it where he found it.

Valentinus said that Iesus upon whom Christ descended took not flesh & blood of the Virgin but \brough {sic} a body with him &/ passed through her as water through a pipe, & suffered, his body being visible palpable & passible |Iren p. 29. col. 2. l. 17, 18. & p. 42. l. 30|

>The Sethians [a sect of the Nicolaitans] said that Iesus was a true man born of the Virgin by the power of God & that Christ with his sister Sophia descended upon him & thereby he became Iesus Xt.

<108r>

③ The Gnosticks making the {sex} of the their Gods either male or female or both taught that they generated by emission of substance as animals generate or as the heathens supposed their Gods to generate & thence accounted them consubstantial. Sa D For Simon \& his followers/ made the first God impregnate {illeg} Ennœa wth {illeg} Powers & An Archangels & Angels & all of them his Gods \& Powers & Angels/ pass into humane bodies \by incarnation & become men & weomen/ & generate amongst one another & by consequence to be consubstantial to one another & also to humane souls. \And Menander followed in {Simons} opinions {making} himself the Saviour or first Æon emitted by Ennœa./ Valentinus said that that {sic} the first invisible æternal \incomprehensible/ unbegotten God called Proarche Propator & Bythus, after immense ages of rest & quiet emitted a prolation as seed, into ye womb of Ennœa called also Charis & Sige, & that she \conceived &/ being pregnant brought forth Nus calle like & equal to his father, & by conse that is consubstantial to him \& Ennœa/ in the highest degree, & this son was called Nus & Monogenes & Αρχὴ & the father. And at the same birth was also born Alethea who being impregnated by Nus brought forth Logus & Zoe & these two \by copulation/ generated Anthropus & Ecclesia & ten other Æons & Anthropus & Ecclesia \by copulation/ generated twelve new Æons. And all these generations being performed {illeg} between male & female by emissio {sic} of substance from ye male into the female, w must be the children must be recconned \as truly/ consubstantial to their parents \& to one another/ in the most proper signification of the word as all the ofspring of Adam & Eve are consubstantial to their parents & to one another. And this being the Philosophy of the Gnosticks we need not wonder if they some times applied the word ὁμοούσιος consubstantiall to these generations. For that they did so is manifest out of Irenæus to ye animal to their Æons. So For that they did so is manifest out of Irenæus [l. 1. c. 1. sect. 9, 10. & {illeg} c. 5 sec. 2] & the excerpta taken out of Theodotus in ye end of the works of Clemens Alexandrinus. The \Some {illeg}/ Valentinians distinguishing their Æons into spiritual & animal said that the spiritual were ὁμοουσιοι consubstantial to the spiritual & the animal to ye animal, but not the spiritual to the animal. & Epiphanius said that

|But| Ptolomæus & Colarbasus \[H{illeg} & some of the followers of Colarbasus said/ taught that one & ye same God was called the father when he emitted any thing, the truth when he declared the truth \or was manifested/, & a man when he appeared in this earth. [Iren l. 1. c 6, 7

The Gnostick Gnosticks \were/ generally den were guilty of denying one God & one Lord, T & eluding the incarnation & the passion of the son of God. They denyed one God . . . . . . . . . doth in a good man. And in opposition to these opinions Iohn saith: He is Antichrist . . . . . . . also in the Apocalyps.

① The Christian religion is founded in beleiving one God & one Lord & \acknowledging/ the incarnation & passion of this Lord, & the Gnosticks generally {decried b} eluded all the articles of this faith. They denyed one God & one Lord by distinguishing them into more then one & giving away their worship to fals Gods & fals Lords; as when they derived several Æons from the first God & tell us that one of those Æons was the creator of heaven & earth, another was the father of Christ, one was Christ another was the Saviour \another was the Word/ another was Iesus the son of Mary. They eluded the incarnation & the passion by saying either that Iesus Christ had a phantastical body or that Christ or the Saviour \or the Word/ was impassible & only \descended upon &/ dwelt in Iesus as the holy spirit doth in a good man. So Irenæus tells us that all heresies deny or say there is one God; but by an evil opinion change him, being ungrateful to him who made them as the gentiles were ungrateful by their Idolatry. [Iren. l. 1. c. 19]. And again: They blaspheme also the Son our Lord, dividing Iesus from Christ & Christ from the Lord & Saviour & the Saviour from the Word & the Word from the Only begotten [Lib. 4 in Proæ- <108v> And again. Quid e All the hereticks aforesaid altough {sic} in tongue they {confess} one Iesus Christ yet they deride themselves, thinking one thing & saying another [Lib. 3. c. 18] And again \a little after/ For if one suffered, the other remained impassible, one was born the other descended on him who was born & afterwards left him, they are \manifested to be/ not one but two. [Lib. 3. c. 18] And again They understand Christ to be one & Iesus to be another & teach not one Christ but many, & if they say that they were united, yet they shew that one suffered the other remained impassible Lib. 3. c. 2|1|9. And again: Christ was made flesh according to none of the opinions of the hereticks ffor if any one search the rules of them all, he will find that the Word of God & the Christ wch is above is proposed by all the hereticks induced without flesh & impassible. For some think that he was manifested \in appearance/ as a transfigured man: for they say that he was neither born nor incarnate. Others, that he did not so much as assume the figure of a man, but descended as a dove upon Iesus who was born of Mary. [Lib. 3. c. 11.] Therefore Iohn ye disciple shewing that all those were fals witnesses, saith: And the Word was made flesh & dwelt among us. [Lib. 3. c. 11.] These opinions therefore \according to Irenæus/ began in the days of the Apostles, & as Iohn condemned \them/ in his Gospel so he condemned in his Epistles saying: He is Antichrist . . . . . . . also in the Apocalyps. & called & are called by ye Apostle Paul the mystery of iniquity, that mystery wch was to work till the coming of ye Man of sin [& is written in the forehead of the Whore of Babylon \& that iniquity wch is upon the heads of the Beast/. ffor the Nicolaitans were to continue till Christ at his second coming should destroy them with the breath fight against them with the sword of his mouth \(Apoc 2.16)/ & destroy the man of sin with the breath of his mouth & the brightness of his coming.] whom Christ should destroy with the breath of his mouth & the brightness of his coming.] whom Christ should destroy with the breath of his mouth & the brightness of his [second] coming. ffor the \doctrine of the/ Nicolaitans were|as| to continue till Christ should come & fight against them wth the sword of his mouth Apoc 2.16 & 19.15, 21.

—— And most probably the Iewish hereticks had it from the old fables of the Iews, & the Gentile hereticks added the names of Bythos & Sige. ffor the Sephiroths of ye Cabbalists are named after Gods attributes. And {illeg} the Prunicus or Barbelo of the Nicolaitans was the same wth the \Ennoia or/ Sige of the other Gnosticks. And her son Ialdabaoth, Arche or Nus of the Nicolaitans was the sam & {illeg} Logus the son of Nus according to the Nicolaitans were the same with Nus the son of Ennœa & Logus the son of Nus according to Basilides.

③ The Gnosticks after the manner of the Platonists & Cabbalists consi\der/red the thoughts or objects of Ideas or intellectual objects seated in Gods mind as real Beings or substances, & supposed them to be male & female & to generate by emission of substance as animals generate or as the heathens supposed their Gods to generate & thence accounted them consubstantial{illeg} – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – but not the spiritual to the animal.

If Iosephus reccon \might date/ the years of Herod from this|e| the first Passover in his reign (wch was the way of recconing among the th Chaldæans & ancient Iews) & said Herod might reign 17 years complete & some months over: Christ might be born a year later & so be just 30 years old at his baptism.

The host of Heaven is the Church people of God & the usually called his Church, \& The Prince of the Host is the head of the Church \the Prince of God of Princes/ the Messiah the Prince &/ & the Host wch was given to the little horn of the Goat \against the daily worship/ is the Church of the Kingdom of the Goat called in the Apocalyps the synagoge of Satan \those/ who say they are Iews & are not. And the Prince of the host is the head of the Church of God. And because the little horn magnified himself up to heaven & up to the Prince of the host or up against heaven against the Prince of the host \& stood up against the Prince of Princes/ he is thence by the Apostle Iohn called {illeg} /the\ Antichrist. {illeg}

<109r>

ενδιάθετος ὴ προφόρικὸς, & feigned that silence preceded the Word & thence called Ennœa by the name of Sige: Irenæus tells these Gnosticks that Logus & Sige could not be in Bythus at one & the same time, no more than light & darkness. And \yt/ if they say add b that this λόγος was {ακδιατος} ἐνδιάθετος (for it seems this was the language of these Gnosticks) then Σιγη will be also ἐνδιάθετος: wch two, saith he, are inconsistent, & therefore Σιγὴ is not ἐνδιάθετος. Thus does Irenæus represent the opinions of these Gnosticks & argue against them.

The doctrine therefore that the λόγος was ἐνδιάθετος or Word of God was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος \the inherent Word/ of ye father & was emitted & was emitted exerted or emitted as it were by speaking & thereby generated into a Son before the world began came from the Gnosticks Basilides & Valentinus & their disciples Secundus Ptolomæus f[8] Marcus g[9] Heracleon \who derive the Æons from Nus & Logus from Sige derived Nus & Logus/ & perhaps also from Saturninus the fellow disciple of Basilides, & \from/ Menander the common master of Saturninus & Basilides & disciple of Simon. ffor Irenæus tells us that Valentinus had his opinions h[10] from his masters & k[11] blames Saturninus Basilides Valentinus & Marcion & the Gnosticks in general for pretending to know the generation of ye son & endeavouring to explaining it by comparing it to a word spoken by a man. And this opinion seems to have been as old as the days of the Apostles. For l[12] Eusebius tells us that Marcellus in making Quiet to precede |ye| Logus, imitated that impious ring-leader of the hereticks [Simon] who said that atheistically ἠν Θεὸς καὶ Σιγὴ There was God & Silence. And m[13] Gregory Nazianzen alluding to this doctrine of Simon & his followers said that the Simons & the Marcions & the Valentines & the Basilideses & Cerdons & Cerinthuses & Carpocrateses & all their trifles & juggling tricks were delivered τω ἑαυτων βυθω καὶ {illeg} σιγη to their own \Bythus & Sige or/ abyss & silence. And Ignatius[14] tells the Magnesians that they should not be seduced with forreign doctrines [of observing the Law] nor with vain [Iewish] fables wch are unprofitable, & in opposition to those fables subjoins that the Word did not proceed out of silence. And \Nus or Monogenes was by the father Logus was the first emission of Ennœa,/ the Nicolaitans called \Nus/ the first emission of Ennœa, Ialdabaoth, that is Iah El {illeg} dabæoth the God of speeches Deus fortis sermonum the potent God of speeches \or the speaking God &/: [wch seems to imply that relate to the silence wch preceded his \speaking/ & to the Logus wch he Word wch he emitted as it were by speaking ffor \breaking silence \{emitting}/ {illeg} for speaking &/ the Gnosticks made said that Logus was the son of Nus, \& that Nus was/ & gave the name of Nus {illeg} to Ialdabaoth that is, the son of Ialdabaoth that is, the son of Ialdabaoth] And \now/ speaking {speaking} \And speaking/ implies \both/ a word spoken & silence preceding, or Sige the mother & Logus the son & Sige the mother. [ffor breaking silence & uttering a word are phrases for speaking. And accordingly Ialdabaoth was \Ialdabaoth was/ Nus or Monogenes the \the {sic} son of Sige &/ father of Logus.] [& Son of Sige] was Ialdabaoth.

<109v>

② As the Sephiroths of \in/ the Iewish Cabbala were the \{illeg} dignities/ powers & affections \Ideas operations & dignities/ of God the father considered as so many divine persons (namely his Crown a first & supreme emanation conteining all the other sepiroths in it self his Wisdom his Prudence, his Magnificence, his Power, his Beauty, his Eternity, his Glory, his supporting \being the support & foundation/ of all things, {illeg} & his Reign:) so the Æons of the Gnosticks were of the same kind. Simon said that the Ennœa \or Prunicus/ was the first conception or Idea of his mind & made her the mother \of the/ other Æons or Idea of Ideas. Th The Nicolaitans & Cerinthus [& Basi\li/des & Valentinus & his followers] gave the names of Αρχὴ & Πρωτογενης Ialdabaoth \They called him also Monogenes & Ialdabaoth/ Arche & Mongenes & Nus to the first emission of Ennœa or Prunicus & that of Logus to the next emission \The first emission they called {illeg} also Monogenes & Ialdabaoth/ & said that Logus was the son of Monogenes. {illeg} Basilides {illeg} made \called/ the three first Æons Nus, Logus & Phronesis, that is Min the Mind \or Idea of Ideas/, the Word, th Reason or Wisdom \or Wisdom/ & the Prudence: wch names resemble those of \answer to/ the three first Sephirahs \taking Nus or Arche for the Crown or \supreme/ principle wch conteined all other sephirahs/. Valentinus & his followers called the first God Bythus & Megethos, Profundity & Magnitude meaning without bounds & this answers to his Cabbalistical name En-soph the Infinite. And from him & Sige he derived Nus & Alethea the Mind & Truth & from these two Logus & Zoe the Word & life. And that these Gnosticks by their Æons understood the powers & affections operations & Ideas of the supreme God is manifest by what Epiphanius cites out of their writings in these Words. In the beginning, say they, he who of himself is the father conteined all things wthin himself. Then the Ennœa wch was in him, (wch some call Ennœa & others properly Charis because she effuses the treasures of \Megethus/ Magnitude [Æn-soph] upon those who are from Magnitude, but others more truly call her Sige Silence because by cogitation without the use of speech Magnitude perfomforms {sic} all things,) She, I say, the uncorrupt Æonia being willing to extricate her self from her bonds enticed Magnitude to her embraces, & brought forth the father of truth whom those that are perfect, \[the Christian {illeg} Cabbalists/ call the Man [Adam Kadmon & Arich Anpin] because he bears the likeness of the Vnbegotten. Afterwards Sige & the Man being conjoyned by their will brought forth [Alethea Truth in the likeness of Sige. This Man \was the Æon wch they/ they also called \Monogenes/ Nus & Arche. \He was the father of Cochmah & Binah according to ye Cabbalists & therefore is here called the father./ Ptolomæus another of these Gnosticks assigned to the supreme father two wives Ennœa & Thelesis, Vnderstanding & Will & called them the affections of the unknown father & said that the Vnderstanding was the older wife because the understanding precedes the will, & that Ennœa thought of an emission but could not emitt it till the power of the Will came to her assistance, & then she emitted Nus & Alethea. And whereas the Gnosticks made Nus the son of Ennœa, Irenæus tells them[15] that they should rather have made Ennœa the daughter of Nus because Nus the Mind, is the fountain of thinking & Ennœa, Thinking, is the motion. The first motion of Nus the mind \saith he Ireneus/ is Ennœa & if it persevere it is called Enthymesis & after much perseverance & becoming perfect it is called perception & at length it becomes Council & council by persevering with motion is deliberation & deliberation at length becomes λόγος ἐνδιάθετος \inherent/ reason & from reason is {sic} emitted \proceeds/ λόγος προφορικὸς a word or speech \sent forth by speaking./ And all these things are but one thing in several degrees & have place only in the mind of man. They err therefore in describ ascribing to God the affections & passions of men & making him a compound. For God is not as man, nor are his thoughts like ours. He is simple & not compound. He is all like & equal to himself, all sense all spirit, all perception all Ennœa, all λόγος all ear, all eye, all light. He is all sense wch cannot be separated from it self, nor is there any thing in him wch can be emitted from any thing else. Thus does Irenæus represent & confute the Metaphysicks of the Gnosticks. And whereas, after the Apostle Iohn had said In the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God, the Gnosticks called {the} beginning Nus & God the father Proarche & Bythos & took the Word for the λόγος -->

<110r>

– – Hesiod. ffor the Theoglians/logy\ of those ancient Greek Poets came from Egypt being \was/ \& {Phenicia} being {were}/ brought into Greece by Egypti colonies of Egyptians & Phenicians in the days of Cecrops, Cadmus, & Sesostris The mothers of Orpheus \& Linus/ was an|ere| Egyptians, & {illeg} said wth

Plato travelling into Italy & Egypt \& Italy/ had an opportunity of learning the theology |metaphysical opinions| of both the Egyptians & Pythagoreans about And And \in describing this theology he calls/ {recconing} by the superior Beings And in descrbing the Theology wch he had learnt from them he calls the superior Beings Ideas or formal causes or causes by wch

– The mothers of Musæu Linus & Orpheus were Egyptians two weomen \singing weomen & Orpheus travelled into Egypt & there learnt his Theology – –/ & Musæus the disciple of Orpheus taught εξ ἑνὸς τὰ πάντα γίνεσθαι καὶ ἐις ταυτὸν αναλύεσθαι, that all things came from one & should return into one.

Plato

For this doctrine was brought into Greece before the days of those ancient Greek Poets by colonies of Egyptians & Phœnicians in the days of Cecrops Cadmus & Sesostris. The mothers of Linus & Orpheus were Egyptian singing weomen & Musæus the disciple of Orpheus taught – – – – – into one. Plato travelling \& the first emanation of the supreme being was by Orpheus called/ & Orpheus travelled into Egypt & there learnt his Theology sacred mysteries music & poetry wherein he excelled all the Greeks & Musæus the disciple of Orpheus taught – – – – – into one.

Plato

Diodor l 4. c. 1. Laertius l. 1 in Proæm.

– called them Æons. And Irenæus tells us that this doctrine of Æons came from – – – – & other Greeks. And Tertullian also derives the heresies of the Greeks from the heathen Phers. – – – – – – among the hereticks of the first ages.

But the hereticks of the circumcision as Simon – – – – – – – – I

But the hereticks of the circumcision would as Simon Menander Nicolaus Menander Cerinthus Menander would be most apt to derive their opinions from the Iewish Cabbala, & this I take to be the first rise of the p metaphysical heresies. For the Apostle in oppposition to these doctrines admonishes us not to give heed to Iewish fables \& endles genealogies/ & oppositions of science falsly so called. By Iewish fables he means the \cabbalistical/ fables in the Iewish Cabbala delivered down by tradition among the Iews in their Cabbala, by opposions of science f endles genealogies, the genealogies of the Sephiroths & separate intellegencies in those fables which may be multiplied to infinity, & by oppositions of science falsly so called the disputes & contentions \of the Gnosticks/ wch were apt to arise amongst those {illeg} who pretended to mende pretended to skill & understanding in this sort of Theology falsly called science. These hereticks \& their disciples/ from their boasting of knowledge were called Gnosticks, & gloried in the name.

The Gnosticks \Gnostickhereticks/ of the uncircumcision rose later then those of the circumcision, & followed either the hereticks of the circumcision or the heathen Philosophers. Hegesippus – – – – – – – among the Gentile Gnosticks.

The Æons being generated – – – – to the animal

Some of

Irenæus tells us – – – – – – from the Nicolaitans

The Æons \being generated/ {illeg} – – – – – to the animal.

The philosophical errors of the Gnostics – – – – – in the flesh.

Cerinthus was zealous for – – – – – went from him when he was let to Pilate.

Ignatius writing against the Iewish heresies & perswading the gentiles not to have {illeg}d \{illeg} to the Magnesians advises them not to be seduced with forreign doctrines nor/ with old fables wch are unprofitable. ffor saith he, if we still live according to ye law we confess that we have not received grace & then he adds that Iesus Christ is the æternal word of God ὀυκ ἀπὸ σιγης προελθων not proceeding from silence. These last words no doubt relate to \the/ old unprofitable fables of those that|who| lived according to the law. And therefore some of hereticks of the

They \they agreed wth Sabellius in/ putting but one hypostasis in God wth Sabellius & \but in Christ they put/ two natures & two hypostases in Christ \Photius. Epist 34/

<110v>

The Ennoia of Simon & Menander was by some of their followers called Sige {illeg} \{mother} {illeg} Sige/ the first God was by them called Bythos that is Abyss or Chaos & the |{illeg} Sige being taken from the {illeg} wch {illeg} speech & thes {illeg}| {illeg} the Poets {illeg} the first parent of their Gods &c. thence came the doctrine p{illeg} was that some hereticks derived their Æons from B as Valentinus & Marcus & Ptolomeus & Marcus derived the Æons from Bythos & Sige

The first God was by some of the hereticks called Bythos that is Abyss or Chaos, & the Ennoia of Simon & Menander. The names For they compared the production projection or emission of the first Æons Νους & Λόγος to a mans emitting a Word or speech with a signification. {illeg} Ireneus tells us that Valentinus had this doctrine from Val former masters & blames Saturninus Basilides Valentinus & Marcion that & the Gnosticks in general that for explaining \comparing/ the generation of the son b Word by the \of God/ to a mans emitting a Word by speaking. Whence its proable {sic} that Saturninus gave the name of Sige to the Ennœa of his Masters Simon & Menander. After Iohn had called Christ the Word of God, these hereticks \took this Word for a Word spoken, &/ imagined that God was silent before he spake. And this I take to be the original of the opinion that Christ was Verbum prolativum \Verbum prolativum/ the λόγος προφορίκὸς of the father. And upon exp In op [This opinion was as old as the reign of Trajan. ffor in opposition Ignatius tells us that to this opinion Ignatius calls it said that Christ was Θεου λόγος ἀίδιος ὀυκ ἀπὸ σιγης προελθών, the eternal λογός not coming out of silence.] And as a man conceives a thing in his mind before he speaks it: so these hereticks feigned that God {illeg} \first/ conceived the Λόγος in his mind & then emitted him by speaking. & thence came the opinion \So Valentinus said that ‡/ that the Word was the Idea & the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος \or internal wisdom/ of the father seated in his mind from all eternity & at length emitted outwardly as it were by speaking, in order to create the world. In favour of wch opinion they cited the words of \David &/ Solomon & David according to the Septuagint: Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum ad opera sua, & ante omnes colles \(ante Luciferum)/ genuit me, & cor meum eructavit Verbum bonum. So Valentinus said that Bythos & S

ffor \So/ Valentinus \said/ that Bythos & Sige first begat {illeg} Nous \emitted Mens/ & Veritas & these begat \emitted/ Logos \Verbum/ & Vita, by Nous \Mens & verita & veritas/ meaning the λογος ἐνδιάθετος \with his consort veritas/ & by Logos \& {& by word Om}/ the λογος προφορικὸς with his consort wife Vita conjoyned with truth & by Verbum & Vita the λογος προφορικὸς conjoyned with life. ‡ < insertion from lower down f 110v > ‡ Ptolomæus assigned two wives to Bythos called Co \two wives cogitation & Will/ & called them the affections, the first was \of Bythos/ & made cogitation the older wife because cogitation precedes the will. But these two wives were nothing else then two modes of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, & this λόγοσ was nothing else then the Ennoia of Simon & Menander & their followers \& their followers/ called also Sige by Valentinus, Ptolomæus \Secundus/ Marcus {illeg} Heracleon. \Ennoia was first silent untill she brought forth Νους an Idea or thought & thought brought forth the Word./ Before meditation she wa or action she was the Sige of Valentiinus {sic}. Her first ofspring \meaning the {illeg}/ was Νους {illeg} her a thought an Idea or thought \or knowledge/ her {illeg} & thought begat the Word λόγος the word & thought begat the Word. Sige & Νους are but several modes of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, sige {illeg} denoting the faculty & Νους the act of that faculty. And from these beginnings &c < text from f 110v resumes > And from these beginnings came the opinion that the Word of God was first the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος & then the λόγος προφορικὸς of the father, {illeg} But the later hereticks of this kind left of the monstrous la as Tatian, Montanus, Tertullian, & \Sabellius/ Paul, \Manes,/ Marcellus, Photinus, left of the \monstrous/ language of Bythos & Sige.

Simon Samaritanus ex quo univeræ hæreses substiterunt {illeg} se inter Iudæos quasi ffilium apparuisse, in Samaria quasi Patrem descendisse, in reliquis gentibus quasi spiritum sanctum adventasse. Helenam fæminam Tyriam circumducebat, dicens hanc esse primam mentis ejus conceptionem, matrem omnium per quam in initio concepit Angelos facere et Archangelos. Hanc Ennoiam degredi ad inferiora & generare Angelos et potestates a quibus et mundum hunc factum esse dixit. Hanc in corpore humano inclusam fuisse et transmigrare de corpore in corpus. Hujus mystici sacerdotes libidinose vivunt, magias perficiunt, exorcismis et incantationibus \& amatorijs/ utuntur, et imagines colunt Simonis et Helenæ. Et a Simonianis, ffalsi nominis scientia accepit initia. Irem. l. 1. c. 20.

Simon pater omnium hæreticorum Iren. l. 3. Præf.

The |Valentinus Cerdon & Marcion flourished in the days of Hyginus Pius & Anicetus. The rest who called {sic}| Gnosticks properly so called came fom Menander the disciple of Simon Iren. l. 3. c. 4.

The Nicolaitans were a vulsion of the Gnosticks that is a branch of them or a sect separated fom them.

Ebionei credebant Iesum esse filium Ioseph et Mariæ. Iren. l. 5. c. 1

Ecclesia ubiq et semper eandem fidem unanimiter tenet ac tradit 46, 4 & 9. 48, 21 228, 2, 34, 368, 2, 29. 430, 1, 20 & 2, 14:

<111r>

oppositions of science falsly so called. By Iewish fables he means the fables of \in/ the Iewish Cabala, concerning the {illeg} Sephiroths & separate intelligencies & their geneal & by enless {sic} genealogies & oppositions of science falsly so called, the \{illeg}/ genealogies of the Sepiroths Sephiroths & {illeg} of the Cabbalists &c {illeg} & intelligences & divinities & d \Intelligencies &/ {sic} Æons \of the {first} {illeg} hereticks/ {illeg} & by oppositions of science falsly so called the \contentions {illeg} about questions in the {illeg}/ metaphysicks of those Gnosticks then risen hereticks.

|2| The Æons being &c             Some of the Gnosticks &c

Irenæus tells us that Simon

|4| Irenæus tells us[16] that Simon was the father of all the hereticks & that all heresies had their rise from him \Simon & calls him the father of all the/ him & that science falsly so called, that is Gnosticism, had its rise from his followers{illeg}, & particularly from his disciple Menander \the master of Saturninus & Basilides./, & that the Nicolaitans were \also a vulsion of/ a {illeg} sect of the Gnosticks & Epiphanius \And/ from the Nicolaitans Epiphanius derives the \various/ sects of the Gnosticks called Gnosticks Phibionites, followers of Epiphanes, Militaries, Barbelites \Cainites, Ophites/ & by other names And Epiphanius making d also derives the Gnosticks from Nicolaus & his predecessors Simon & others also making \recconing/ Simon \to be/ the predecessor of Nicolaus conjoyns the sects of the Gnosticks & Nicolaitans & d from the Nicolaitans derives the various sects of the Gnosticks called Gnosticks, Phibionites, followers of Epiphanes, Militaries, Barbelites Cainites, Ophites & by other names [And |that Caropocrates the father of Epiphanes was alsoborrowed some opinions from the Nicolaitans| of the same stamp were Carpocrates the father of Epiphanes & Cerinthus] They seem to have borrowed \derived/ their metaphysical theology chiefly \chiefly/ from Simon & their uncleanness from chiefly from Nico the followers of Nicolaus]

Some of the Gnosticks – – – – – & Menander.

|5| The ex meta \philosophical/ errors of the Gnosticks consisted chiefly in denying one God & one Lord, & \in eluding/ the incarnation & \the/ passion of the son of God. They denyed one God \& one Lord/ by distinguishing them into more then one, as when they tell us derived several Æons from the first God & tell us that one of those Æons was the creator of heaven & earth, another was the father of the of {sic} Christ; another \one/ was the λογος \Christ/, another was the Saviour, another was \Iesus/ the son of Mary They eluded the incarnation & the passion by saying |either| that the {illeg} son of God \Iesus Christ in the Word only had a phantastical body or that Christ was impassible & only/ dwelt in Iesus as the holy spirit doth in a good man. And these opinions were as ancient as the Apostles days being \taught by the Nicolaitans & by Cerinthus/ ffor in opposition to these opinions Iohn saith, He is Antichrist that denyeth the father & the son or that Iesus is the Christ or that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh. And Peter that there should be fals teachers amongst Xtians who should bring in damnable heresies even denying the Lord that bought them. And Iude

[Someof the Gnosticks – – – – – & Menander]

|6| Cerinthus was zealous for imposing the law – – – – was incarnate & suffered. The Gnosticks properly so called & the Valentinus & Marcus said also that Christ descended upon Iesus in the form of a Dove at his baptism & went from him when he was led to Pilate [And Carpocrates was of the same opinion wth Cerinthus, saying that Christ \Iesus/ was a mere man assisted by certain vertues immitted into him from the father.] And after the writing of Iohn's Gospels, many | some of these hereticks changed the language \of the Nicolaitans/ & {illeg} instead of saying that Christ descended upon Iesus said that the Word was emitted & descended upon Iesus Christ & dwelt in him & did th & did the divine operations. And this was the Philosophy of the Nicolaitans.

The hereticks of the circumcision

|7| Some of the Gnosticks – –

|3| The hereticks of the circumcision . . . . . among the gentile Gnosticks

|8| Montanus a Platonist

Epiphanius tells us that Cerinthus was of the same opinion wth Carpocrates in all things except that Cerinthus introduced Iewish rites. Both made th \said yt/ Iesus was ye son of Ioseph & Mary & as Cerinthus said that Christ descended upon Iesus so Carpocrates said that

This doctrine seems to have been invented after the writing of Io the Apocalyps & Gospel \& first Epistle/ of Iohn wherein Christ is called the Word & is {illeg} described to be in the beginning with God [& |yt| all things were made by him. And <111v> its probable that Saturninus invented \was the author of/ it & changed the name of Ennoia in Sige (the first {illeg} Æon \female deity/ of his Masters Simon & Menander) into Sige that of Sige < insertion from the left margin of f 111v > & sometim sometimes called Sige by the names of Ennœa & Charis, so that as \Marcus & Tatian/ Valentinus Ptolomæus \&/ Marcus who said that the Vnbegotten God produced \emitted/ Mens & Mens produced \emitted/ Verbum < insertion from higher up the left margin of f 111v > He had this doctrine from Basilides < text from the left margin of f 111v resumes > & Basilides Epiphanius tells us that Basilides had it from Saturninus & Simon < text from f 111v resumes > . And whereas the Nicolaitans said that Christ descended upon Iesus, the Gnosticks who received the Gospel \& Epistle/ of Iohn & {illeg}e acknowledged the λόγος, changed the languages & said that Wo the λόγος |or| Word \wch was emitted &/ descended upon Iesus \Christ/ & dwelt in him & did the λόγος works. supernatural operations. And from them this opinion desended {sic} to \Hermogenes Tatian/ Montanus, & the Proclus Æschines, Praxeas, \Tertullian, Artemas,/ Noetus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosat, Marcellus, Eustathius & Photinus. Alll these hereticks therefore held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, but yet wth some diversity of \language &/ circumstances. For some of them \as Proclus & Tertullian/ held the λόγος to be a person, & \or that is, a/ substance \endued/ wth a proper life will & understanding & others held t as \Hermogenes/ Æschines, Praxeas, Noetus Sabellius Paul Marcellus & Photinus held |yt| the λογος to be \was/ only a power seated in some dilated part of ye fathers \substance/ without any other life will or understanding then that of the father [& others as Proclus & Tertullian held him to be a person or substance with a proper] And again, some \of them as Paul Marcellus \Eustathius/ & Photinus/ held that the λόγος only dwelt in Iesus \Christ/ as the holy spirit doth in good men & others \as Montanus \Hermogenes/ Praxeas Noetus Tertullian Noetus & Sabellius/ that he was united to Iesus so as to become passible. And When And thence Noetus \Hermogenes/ Praxeas Noetus & Sabellius were called patripassians. But all agreed in distningguishing {sic} between the divine & \not/ humane nature of Christ & calling the called the Word, & his humane nature or manhood to in which \the man Iesus Christ who/ took his beginning of the virgin & was assumed & actuated by the Word.

Tatian |Tatian professes that he was educated in the learning Iesus Christ of the heathens & followed the philosophy of the Assyrians. He bele And accordingly he held| held {sic} \wth the heathen Philosophers/ that all things were produced out of the substance of God & that the Word wch was first \first Verbum prolativum emitted before all things/ in order to create the world & was a part of the fathers substance distinguished & divided from the rest of his substance in respect of life but not separated from it: & that as a man commmunicates his mind to another by speaking without diminishing his own understanding \& {illeg} knowledg/ & one lamp an kindles another wthout diminishing its own light so the father gave l a distinct life & \with reason/ understanding \& wisdom/ to the substance of son without diminishing his own life & understanding. His words are |losing his own λόγος ἐνδιαθετος &| becoming ἄλόγος His words are.

And accordingly he taught that the wth ye heathen Philosophers that the Word was po seated in God from all eternity all things were produced out of the substance of God & that the Word waswch was \always/ seated in him proved all \at length/ became Verbum prolativum being emitted before all things in order to create the world, & that this emitted word was a part of \generated by participation of/ the fathers substance, distinguished & divided from ye rest of his substance in respect of life \but not by division from it/ but not –– – – – ἄλόγος, & that this God the Word became a man. But in what m His words are . . . . . . . [He saith also that God became man, but in what manner he conjoyned the λόγος wth the {illeg} humane nature I do not find explained.] After he had received the Æons of Valentinus he fell in wth the doctrines of the Montanists. This was the philosophy of Tatian before he fe lapsed into the Gnostical opinions of many Æons & of the Word's having a phantastical body.

From \them/ this opinion descended to Tatian, Montanus, Tertullian & others He did not make the Word a mere vertue or operation but an substance emitted \permanent/ emission consubstantiall to the father. ffor Pope o[17] Iulius tells us: Marcelli fides confessioq Nicææ spectata est cum Arianis resisteretcontradiceret. He was therefore of the \very/ same opinion with Paul.

He was zealous for the consubstantiality of the Son as the \Montanists Paulinists &/ Sabellians generally were in the sense explained above

<112r>

To Sr Isaac Newton knt

<112v>

The Priesthood of Noah was propagated down to the heathens, & the Priesthood of Aaron to ye unbeleiving Iews: & yet the Heathens notwithstanding their honour inheriting the Priesthood from Noah, were rejected for their Idolatry \for denying their God by Idolatry by wch they denyed their God/ & the Iews notwithstanding their inheriting the Priesthood from Aaron, were rejected for denying their Lord. And so the Christians, if they by lapsing into Idolatry {illeg} otherwise denying the father or the Son \or into/ any other crime or {illeg} practical opinion wch \might/ amounted|s| to a denyal of the father or the son, might cease to be the people of God & become the synagogue of Satan notwithstanding any \constant/ succession of Bisho Priests \or/ Bishops. or Presbyters from the days of the Apostles He is Antichrist, saith the Apostle, who denyeth the father & the son.

— people untill \by Idolatry or some other Act or practical opinion/ they should deny the father or the son or both of them & thence become Antichristian Churches [& Synagogues of Satan.] The Priesthood of Noah was propagated down to the \revolting/ heathens, \&/ that of Aaron to the unbeleiving Iews, the & that of the Christians may be propagated down to the Antichristians. And yet {illeg} the Heathens by idolatry denyed|ing| the the \their/ God {illeg} ceased to \be/ his people & the Iews by denying the Lord ceased to be his people \the people of God for he that denyeth the {illeg} since {illeg} /son hath not the father.\/ & so the Anti Christians by denying that Iesus is the /Iesus is the Xt or yt\ Christ died \is come in the flesh do/ cease to be the people & become the synagogue of Satan & becom /of God\ \& become Apostates &/ Antichristians \& synagogues of Satan/ notwithstanding the continuation of the Priesthood. By d worshipping a false God or a false Lord they deny the true ones \fall into a state {illeg} Apostasy away/ & of become the syagogues of Satan Apostat \{illeg} hæretical/ Churches & by falling out with one another without a sufficient occasion they become schismatical ones ones Churches. And those opinions only wch tend to Apostasy or schism are to be deemed heretical or schismatical. By teaching to break any of — The God of the Iews & Gentiles \Iews & Christians/ was one & the same God the promiss the \fundament/ articles or promisses upon wch they were baptized & admitted into communion they become hereticks & by teaching to fall out \& separate/ about smaller matters they become schismaticks.

<113r>

Athanasius had been condemned \& excommunicated/ in the Council of Tyre \A.C. 335/ for killing Arsenius a bishop of a party in Egypt called Meletians, & excommunicated & banished into Gallia by Constantine the great & sent back into Egypt by his son Constantine & again forced to fly by Constantius the second son of Constantine ye great. M Emperor of the east. He fled to Iulius Bishop of Rome \& so did some other bishops who had been deposed & excommunicated by the Greeks/ & Iulius calling a Council of western bishops at Rome A.C. 342 summoned the Bishops of ye Eastern Empire to appear before him in this Council & give an account of their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest \who had appeared to him/. And this was the beginning of the open pretentions of the Bishop of Rome to ye universal bishopric. ffor he ceased not henceforward to contend for an universal jurisdiction untill he claimed it obteined it tho he met with fra repulses for above 200 years toge before he obteined it The eastern bishops therefore \therefore being sensible that the Bish of Rome contended for dominion/ refused to come to this Council & wrote back to ye bishop of Rome a reprimanding letter telling him that they were his equals. Whereupon the bishops of Italy prevaled with the western Emperor |Iulius & the western Bishops who \met/ in this Council of Rome turned the crime upon the eastern Bishops for not appearing, & received| received {sic} Athanasius into comm & the rest into communion, & by means of the western Emperor Constans procured [the consent of the eastern Emperor Constantius] that] a Council should be called at Serdica in|a| city in the confine of both Empires to h whe to reexamin the matter. And 80 eastern bishops being almost at \coming to/ Serdica & hearing that the western & egyptian bishops were who were already arrived at Serdica \also there/ communicated with Athanasius & the other excommunicated persons wron \sent/ to them \two or three \several times// to forbear his communion & the communion of the rest whom they had exco b stood excommunicated by them. {illeg} On the oth But the \western/ bishops at Serdica would not forbear but summoned the eastern bishops to come to the barr of their tribunal & {sic} \several times to come &/ justify their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest. Whereupon the eastern bishops (after some messages between them & ye western,) seeing that the western bishops contended for a jurisdiction over them & that instead of \being/ joyning|ed| wth the western bishops they w \in Council/ to heare the excommunicated persons at the barr \they themselves were to be judged &/ the excommunicated persons were to be th sit amongst their judges, they went back; & {illeg} both parties writing circulatory letters in defence of their \own/ proceedings the western in their letters claimed appeals from all the world to ye bishop of Rome, accused the eastern for flying from justice, & declared |accused the eastern as guilty \{illeg}/ because they appeared not when Iulius cited them & because they \because they/ now fled from justice, & they declared also in their circulatory Epistle| their faith of one ουσία & one ὑπόστασις of the father son & holy Ghost & the equality of the father & son & assumption of a man son to ye father & his assumption of a man, & excommunicated eleven of the eastern bishops & the eastern excommunicated Iulius Hosius & some others of the western |& some moved & prest endeavoured that a new profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to ye Nicene, but others would not allow the Nicene to be imperfect|. Hitherto the church catholick had continued united though in external communion throughout all the Empire & but now inclined to a rupture between the eastern & western churches, But th \&/ yet came not to a \full/ breach of communion. ffor whilst the eastern bishops excommunicated only a few of the western its evident that they looked upon the western churches as in their communion those few men only excepted whom they excommunicated & while the western & Egypti bishops excommunicated only a few of the eastern its evident that they looked upon the eastern churches as in their communion those few men only excepted whom they excommunicated. These things were done in the year 347 & \Symbol (dot in a circle dividing a horizontal line) in text/ < insertion from f 114v > Symbol (dot in a circle dividing a horizontal line) in text & after ye council rose, a Profession of the Serdic faith of this Council was given about I suppose\not by this Council {illeg} but/ by them who had offered it to ye Council for supplying the defects of ye Nicene Creed being \{illeg}/ not {illeg} but {illeg} And \What this Creed was Historians do not tell us But/ such a Creed is now extant in the Paris edition of the works of Athansius {sic} \published at Paris/ A.C. 1698. It is ascribed to Athanasius but was either made by a Council or presented to a Council for their approbation. For it runs in the plural number as follows. We beleive in one God &c. < text from f 113r resumes > in this state things continued |until| the year 353 when Constantius conquering \the western Emperor/ Magnentius, & becoming lord of ye whole Empire \so checkt the ambition of the Roman church of Rome. For within a year {illeg}/ For the next year he called the Council of Millain & h required the western bishops to subscribe to ye condemnation of Athanasius by ye Eastern, in ye council of Tyre, it being the ecclesiastical rule \for the sake of {illeg}/ that the greek Churches should permit the Latine & the Latine the Greek to govern their one {sic} affairs & each \& judge their own members & acquiesce in one anothers judgments/ without presuming to judge one another, the authority of both being equal. The Latines therefore subscribed, except \Liberius,/ Hilary, Eusebius <113v> Vercellensis, Lucifer Calaritanus, & Paulinus Trevirensis, & Dionysius of Alba \Millain/ \Mediolanensis & Hilary/ who were banished for refusing. < insertion from f 114r > The Latines translating the word Ὁμοούσιος by una substantia & una s saying there was but una substantia una ούσία & una hypostasis of the father son & holy Ghost were taken by the Greeks for {illeg} sabellians & mutually took the Greeks who maintained thre hypostases for Arians. And this made the Greeks shy of communicating wth the Latines till they had examined them & desirous to bring them to a better mind. ffor when Hilary was Sulpicius Severus[18] tells us that when Hilary was carried to the Council of Seleucia, the bishops there first asked what was the faith of the Gauls because they were suspected of Sabellianism: but when he explained his faith according \agreeably/ to the meani Acts of the Nicene Council, they acquiesced & admitted him into the Council. And on the other hand the Latines Greeks who in opposition \to the/ una substantia \of the Latines/ maintained three hypostases were by the Latines taken for Arians. Constantius seing therefore seeing how great misunderstandings had arizen in the Churches by the word ομοούσιος, \considered how to abolish it & for that end/ about four years after the Council of Millain \AC 355/ called the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia A.C. 359. And theses {sic} Councils & the Councils of Sirmium & Nicæa in Thrace & {sic} some others laid aside the use of the word. It Thus the Churches of the east & west seemed now united in the faith tho not in mind & affection. But Constantius dying about two years th after, the union union proved but of short cont continuance

For in the reign of his s < text from f 113v resumes > And four years after vizt A.C. 359 Constantius \for terminating disputes between the eastern & western Churches about ye faith/ called the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia. Constantius was for ye ομοιουσιος or like in \according to/ substance, but ye Councils omitted the words ουσία ομοούσιος & ομοιούσιος as not in scripture & subscribed the Creeds recited above in wch the son was called like ye father or like according to scripture. & there meeting at Ariminum above 400 bishops some say 600, th |The Council of Seleucia subscribed the Creed of Lucius the Martyr recited above & the Council of| The Council of {sic} Ariminum consisting of above 400 bishops some say 600 subscribed a Creed wch a Council {illeg} at Sirmium had had \subscribed the Creed wch had been/ composed & subscribed the year before, & while the Council of Ariminum was sitting it was subscribed also in another |by the Council of Sirmium & this year by the was subscribed by the| {sic} Council of Nicæa in Thrace, & \the same Creed/in the end of the year \was subscribed/ by the Legates of the Council of Seleucia & the next year by a Council at Constantinople. So yt the Churches of ye whole Empire \east & West/ seemed now united in the outward profession of faith, tho not in mind & affection. But Constantius dying the year following, the union proved but of short continuance. ffo

ffor Iulian his succession Iulian revolting to ye heathen religion & set at liberty those who had been banished by Constantius. Yet the Churches being now in affliction continued quiet till the end of his reign.

ffor in the reign of his successor Iulian Pope Liberius wrote to Athanasius returning to the faith of the Council of Serdica wrote who had subscribed the condemnation of Athanasius & the Creed of the Counsels of Sirmium & Ariminum & had been restored to his bishopric by Constantius returned to the faith of the Council of Serdica & wrote an account of his faith to Athanasius representing that there was a Trinity under one Deity & one power & one usia & one hypostasis & that the Word assumed a perfect man without sin & add desired to know of Athanasius if he was of this opinion to subscribe it. And Athanasius wrote back his opinion 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 hypostasis, one usia one glory one dominion one image the {illeg} Trinity consubstantial. And these two being thus agreed in the truth set themselves he And about this time I conceive it was that Athanasius composed the following creed & perhaps sent it to Liberius or translated from the Latin Creed wch he had received from Liberius. ffor it is the Creed of ye Latines ad{illeg}ed to {illeg} faith. And these two being thus |At the same time Lucifer Calaritanus Eusebius Versellensis & some other Bishops whom Constantius had banished being set at liberty by Iulian came to Alexandria & Lucifer went thence to Antioch & created ordeined Paulinus bishop of that City. But Athanasius Eusebius staid at Alexandria & with Athanasius & about fourteen other bishops of Egypt & the Legates of Lucifer & Paulinus| agreed about the faith set themselves by henceforward to separa perswade the Bishops to forsake the communion of those as Arians who used not rejected ye use of the word om had subscribed |the authority of Nice the Council of Nice to promote it: wch was easily done because it was the faith professed by the Bishops of Egypt & the west in the| the Councils above mentioned, & to return to this fait Council of Serdica. The bishops therefore who had been banished by Constantius being set at liberty \by Iulian/, Eus Lucifer Calaritanus & Eusebius Vercellensis came from {illeg} banishment to Alexandria & E Lucifer went thence to Antioch & ordeined Paulinus bishop of that city & but Eusebius staid at \at Alexandria &/ with Athanasius & some about twelve bishops of Egypt & composed a Council at Alexandria for restoring the ὁμοούσιαν fa homousian faith. And this Council as Socrates & Sozomen tell us confirmed the Nicene decree & professing the holy Ghost to be consubstantial to ye ffather & Son named them the Trinity & agreed that the man whom God the Word assumed had not only a soul but also a body but also a soul & that the words usia & hypostasis having created disturbance in the church{illeg} should be used no more with relation to the Deity, unless in refuting Sabellius. For those of the consubstantial faith had hitherto differed in the use of the words, & some \still/ calling the father son \father son/ three persons one hypostasis & one usia & one hypostasis & others calling them three hypostases \& for doing so being accused of Sabellianism by called/ & for doing so being {sic} called \accounted/ Sabellians by others who called them three hypostases. Whereupon Athanasius calling some of both parties to <114r> him examined their language & found that the meaning of both parties the same {sic}, those whose {sic} called him one substance, one usia & one hypostasis, meaning one {illeg} \substance/ in nature & species, & those who called him three hypostases \& three persons/ meaning three \substances/ in number By this means Athanasius reconciled the two parties & to prevent further quarrelling \this Council/ abolished |so that the Latines might henceforward use ye language of una hypostasis |substantia| wthout danger of being called Sabellians & to put an end to the contradiction seeming contradiction of one hypostasis & three hypostases this Council abolished| the use of the words {illeg} usia & hypostasis except in refuting Sabellius, that is, the \Council/ {illeg} abolished the language of one hypostasis & allowed the language of three. Symbol (cross between two small circles) in text < insertion from f 114v > Symbol (cross between two small circles) in text And because a pr\o/fession of faith had been handed about in the name of the Council of Serdica they in wch if I mistake not, the six wch was contrary to the present profession \decree/, they declared it not authentic. [This profession if I mistake not, was as follows. I be We beleive in one God the father Almighty, the maker of heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible & in one Lord Iesus Christ – – – – – because our mother the Catholic & Apostolic Church condemns \condemnes/ them with an anathema. For this Creed is ascribed to Athanasius, & using \since it uses/ the words usia & hypostasis, that & that in one & the same same {sic} sense, contrary to ye Alexandrine decree it was certainly made before the meeting of this Council, & because it {illeg} is mixed of the Nicene Creed & the Creed of ye Latines usually called the Apostles Creed it seems made by Athanasius when he \was/ among the Latines & since it runs in the plural number We beleive &c & \therefore/ was made in the name of more bishops then Athanas one \it \was/ either made by a Council or offered to a Council for their approbation/. And since some in the Council of Serdica desired requested that something might be written concerning for supplying the faith, as if something was \for supplying what seemed/ wanting to ye Nicene Synod, & en endeavoured to have this done; but the Council \of Serdica/ refused would not suffer any other profession of the faith to published {sic} least the Nicene should seem imperfect, thes yet after this Creed is exactly suits more exactly with the opinions of the Council of Serdica expressed in their general epistle & \after the Council rose/ a Creed was handed about in the|ir| name of this Council: it seems to me that those who moved the Council for a new Creed did offer a form to ye Council & {illeg} afterward handed about this \the same/ form as the Serd approved by ye Council tho not subscribed & published by them, least & that the Creed above recited was this form, {illeg} because it agrees exactly with their opinions \of that Council set down/ publish in their general Epistle the opinion of that Council expressed in their general Epistle.] < text from f 114r resumes > This Council also giving the name of Arians to all those who had subscribed \all those who were of the communion of/ the Councils of \Tyre Antioch Millain Sirmium Thracian Nicæa/ Ariminum {illeg} Seleucia \& Constantinople/ who at this [& also to all those who owned the Nicene faith without the consubstiality {sic} of the H. Ghost,] both wch that is to all the Christian part of ye Roman Empire a very few excepted, decreed those should be received \that those/ who would depart \come over to them/ from the Arian communion \should be received/. But that, say they, is to recede from the Arian destestable {sic} hæresy of the Arians, |is,| not to divide the holy Trinity nor to call any thing in it a creature. For they that feign that they profess the Nicene faith & at the same time doubt not to blaspheme the holy Ghost, do nothing more then to deny the Arian heresy in words & retain it in their mind & opinion. < insertion from f 114v > And further because \some of/ those of the homousian profession had been accused of Sabellianism for their language of una substantia & una hypostasis, & of the heresy of Paul of Samosat for their language of ὁμοούσιος, & of the heresies of Ba Valentinus & Basilides \& Marcus/ for making the son the \only inherent/ wisdom & λογος of the father without wch the father is ἄσοφος & ἄλογος, & of the heresy of the Manichees \& of the heresy of the Manichees for making the son ex usia patris/ the Council of Alexandria anathematized these{illeg} heresies < text from f 114r resumes > And becau And these things \being agreed upon/ the Council sent by Eusebius \the wrote them dow them/ in an epistle to their friends at Antioch advising them to joyn w joyn themselves |to| wth Paulinus & his followers. And when this Epistle came to Antioch the faith \things/ conteined in it was subscribed by Paulinus were agreed unto & subscribed by Paulinus. And now the Bishops of Rome Alexandria & Antioch being agreed in the faith, set themselves to bring back the bishops to their party. They were indeed checkt during the reign of Iulian, but after his death wch happened within a few months, they were favoured by the Emperors Iovian Valentinian |&| Gratian successively & then by Theodosus {sic} & his sons & their successors

<114v>

celebrated by Gregory Nazianzen. For

Henceforward therefore the Bishops of Rome & Alexandria with {illeg} being agreed about the faith \& some other upon \who/ had been banished by Constantius/ set themselves to promote it spread the faith wch they had agreed upon |the faith wch they had agreed upon, calling it the Nicene faith| & separating from those who had suscribed {sic} the Councils of \Antioch/ Sirmium, Nicæa in Thrace, Ariminum & Selucia, endeavoured to perswade other Bishops to do the like. & return to ye Nicene faith And by And Liberius & Hilary by calling several Councils in Italy & Gallia esily perswaded most of the Bish & by urging the authority of the Council ffor wch end they called the several provincial Councils in Italy & Gallia to establish \restore/ the Nicene faith. For they that professed the Son Consubstantial to the father – – – – – – – – by the Bishop of Rome. For the Bishops of the who had s of the western Empire & those of Egypt who had professed the consubstantial Trinity in the Council of Serdica, easily returned to the same faith. And in the east they that professed the son consubstantial to ye father, were – – – – Bishop of Rome ffo & the authority of an imperial Edict. ffor Athanasius calling a Council of about 90 bishops of Egypt & Libya, wrote to the Africans & to the Bish Damasus bishop of Rome & Damasus thereupon called a Council of abut {sic} 90 bishops of Italy & Gallia wrote \by Elpidius/ to the bishops of Illyricum in behalf of the Nicene faith & Consubstantial Trinity, & the Bishops of Illyricum met in a numerous Council \A.C. 373/ & wrote by the same Elpidius to the Bishops of the Diocess of Asia & all Phrygia how that after much debating they had approved the consubstantial Trinity, & exhorted them to receive the same faith wch Elpidius would teach them. And the Empero

<115r>

The Apostle tells us of a mystery of iniquity wch began to work in his days & should work untill [that wch hindred \letted/ the rise {of} the man of sin \(vizt the heathen Roman Empire)/ should be taken out of the way & then should {be} a falling away or apostasy from the Church &] the Man of sin should be revealed & exalt himself (in dominion) above every thing that is called God & reign by \& subduing | invading the Church & set invading the churches should sit/ in ye Temple of God or Church & continue till Christ \should/ destroy him with the brightness of his second coming. This mystery of iniquity was the heresies wch rose up in the Apostles days & wch Iohn whose authors Iohn calls Antichrists. Little children, saith he, – – – – – already begun. \The mystery of iniquity was to end in the Man of sin & the many Antichrists in ye great Antichrist./ That wch letted or hindred the rise of the Man of was {sic} the old \heathen/ Roman Empire which flourished in the Apostles days. While that Empire stood – – – – to their Empire. So then – – – – rise of the Man of Sin the great Antichrist. The man |that is ye heresies wch worked in ye Apostles days were at length to gain the dominion unity under this dominion & grow universal. But this dominion was not to be letted rise up till that wch leted should be taken out of the way.| sin of of sin The Man of Sin was the mystery of iniquity wch began to work in the Apostles days but could not rise without dominion. [When that wch letted \his dominion/ should be taken out of the way then the \Man of Sin/ should rise up wth dominion & therefore he {is} \was to be/ an hereticall empire, & that wch letted was the Empire wch flourished in the Apostles days, the heathen Roman Empire]. For while the heathen \Roman/ Empire stood it was impossible for an heretical Empire to stand \rise/ up. And because that wch letted was to be taken out of the way therefore the Apostle does not name it least the heathens should think him an enemy to their Empire, but tells the Christians that they knew it already, & & they o \the writers of/ of {sic} the 4th century tell us it was the Roman Empire. This heathen Empire began to be taken out of ye way by the victories of Constantine over Maxentius & Licinius, & was fully taken out of ye way by the death of Iulian [& then \soon after/ ye mys man of Sin got the dominion, the Empire falling away to the worship of Saints & three equal substances in the Deity & setting up the supremacy of the Pope.] & then the man of sin began \was/ to come \be revealed & come/ with all signes & lying wonders, [the Monks getting \begin/ the do in the reign of Iulian \& his succosors/ be propagating\ing into all the Empire/ a great cry of miracles done by the reliques of dead men & thereby \in the room in a short time of the heathen Gods/ setting up the worship of the saints & of Saints & of three equal substances in the deity \/ < insertion from lower down f 115r > ✝ that they might bring over the heathens more easily to their party < text from f 115r resumes > & in a very short time \procuring Imperial Edicts for/ making it \this worship/ the religion of ye whole \Roman/ Empire. And the bishop of Rome at the same time gain obtaining a grant of the universal Bishopric from the Emperor Gratian A.C. 378 & beginning to \thenceforward/ giving laws to the western Churches by decretal Epistles. So that instead of the \monarchical/ Theocracy wch was set up over the Churches by the preaching of the Apostles, there was now set up the Roman Catholick dominion.

the Moncks in the reign of Iulian & his successors propagating \into all the Empire/ a great cry of miracles done by the reliques of the dead, & thereby in the room of the heathen Gods setting up the worship of the saints & of three equal substances in the Deity, which they called one God in the same sense that the old heathens called all their Gods but one God \& complying with the heathens in many other customes/. And by this means they brought over the heathens more readily \easily/ to their party & in short time grew|ing| more numerous procured imperial edicts for making this worship the religion of the whole Empire Roman Empire. And the Bishop of Rome at ye same time obteinened {sic} a grant of ye universal bishopric from the Emperor Gratian (A.C. 378) & thenceforwd gave laws to the western churches by decretal epistles. So that instead of the monarchical Theocracy wch was set up over the churches by ye preaching of the Apostles there was now set up the Roman catholick dominion.] & reign in the Temple of God till the second coming of Christ.

The mystery heresies wch in the times of the heathen Empire composed this mystery of iniquity consisted chiefly in certain cabbalistical & heathen – – – –

And so Cicero in his first book de natura Deorum, saith, Pythagoras qui censuit animum esse per naturam omnem intentum & commentem ex quo nostri animi ca\r/perentur non vidit distractione humanorum animorum discerpi et lacerari Deum, et cum miseri animi essent, quod plerisq contingerent, tum Dei partem esse miseram, quod fieri non potest. And a little after he rejects the like opinions of Plato Zenophon Socrates \& Zeno with his followers/ For Plato /& his\ travelling & saith that

So then Montanus \Paul/ was of the \{illeg}/ same opinion wth Montanus in relation to the Deity. ffather & Son \about/ the Deity: but he & Sabellius & such \such/ others as \as/ followed Montanus in this point were not called Montanists becaus \if/ they differed fm him in other things & did not receive his prophesies.

<115v>

The Council of Antioch wch condemned Paul & rejected the homousion consisted of about 70 or 80 Bps voluntarily convened to of Asia & Syria. But these Bishops convened \met/ voluntarily & sent their sentence \by a circulatory Epistle/ to all the Churches. And their sentence was unanimous received & approved by all the Churches & [without any dispute \controversy/ arising thereupon] & even by the Church of Rome in writing. ffor when the eastern bishops applied to ye Emperor Aurelian to remove Paul out of the Bishops house the Emperor suspended till he had the sentence of the bishops of Rome & Italy [Whereupon they wrote their approbation of the sentence of ye sentence of ye Council \against Paul &/ So then the word ομοουσιον was at this time rejected by the Church Catholick |emperor thereupon ejected him] & then ejected Paul him So then the| doctrine of Paul that ye Son was ὁμοούσιος to the father was at this time condemned & the use of the word ὁμοούσιος rejected \unanimously {illeg}/ by the Church catholick.

And Any And from Now while the opinion that that the souls of men were of one substance with \God/ the father, obteined so generally amongst the old heathens & old hereticks; & an man who was of this opinion might be affirm that Christ was of one substance with the father without beleiving him to be more then a mere man: [I understand not why the unity of substance should be accounted a language \so proper &/ advantageous to religion \thought/ so zealously contended for a better argument \amongst Christians/ for worshipping Christ then it was \amongst the hea /amongst the\ heathens & {illeg}/ for worshipping the souls of a dead Heroes.] the doctrine of one substa the unity of substance made nothing against any man.

As the heathens were in general \reputed/ of one religion notwithstanding the variety of their Gods & modes of worshipping them \in several nations/ so the \primitive/ hereticks \notwithanding {sic} their particular differences/ may in general be account accounted of one religion & called the \mystery of iniquity & Church catholick of/ Antichristian Church because\Christ the \or/ synagogue of Satan & the mystery of iniquity]/ & \& of/ their \particular/ heresies \like the sects \particular religions of/ the heathens/ were founded in one common principle of worshipping several Gods derived from the supreme Deity by emanation or emission of substance or vertue, & also because they allowed |also| one anothers baptism & res the ceremony by wch converts are admitted into the \one/ Church. ffor when Stephen \bp of Rome was induced to/ allowed the baptism of all ye hereticks, & in his letter to Cyprian he justif alledged \in a letter to Cyprian/ the prescription of the hereticks who \representing that they/ |who| allowed one anothers baptism. All hereticks who sep There were therefore in the Roman {illeg} Empire three sorts of men, Heathens, Christians & Antichristians, & as the Christians composed the Church of Christ, the Antichristians composed the Church of Antichrist mystery of iniquity

We have hitherto given you an account of several of several Arch-hereticks who or fals Apostles who sep all wch derived various agreed \[with the heathens &] with one another/ in one common \fundamental/ error of deducing various Gods from ye \substance of the/ supreme Deity, & in that respect were but one general heresy \mixed of the heathen & Christian religions &/ called by the Apostle Paul the mystery of iniquity. They \hereticks/ were also united \also/ into one \{mystical}/ body by baptism \{illeg}/ for when Stephen \the/ Bishops {sic} of Rome was induced had been induced \(I {illeg} (I supose by Praxeas)/ to allow the baptism of all the hereticks, Stephen Bp of Rome in a letter to Cyprian defended\ded ye {illeg} of the Roman Church by the like practise/ alledged the prescription of the hereticks who allowed one anothers |As several heathen nations worshipped several Gods in several manners & yet were in general of one religion: so all the particular heresies were in general but one heresy heretical religion wch religion like the heathen consisted in worshipping false Gods.| Baptism. {sic}

Iohn saith that that {sic} there were even in his days many Antichrists & {tells} gives \them all/ this definition of an Antichrist th this common characted {sic} that they denyed the father & the son, wch is all one as to say that instead of the father & son they worshipped false Gods. \This was the definition of an Antichrist./ And this Character aggres {sic} to all the heresies hitherto

[1] In libro de fide et symbolo. Tom 3. fol. 30.

[2] a Epist \59 ad Marti/ 73 ad Leon. Aug. \Aug./ et Serm 10 in Solennitate Nativitatis Domini.

[3] b Gelasius ad Euphemianum, & in Synodo 70 Episcoporum.

[4] c Li 1 Epist 24 Li. 2 Epist. 10. Li. 3 Epist 4. Li 7 Epist 12.

[5] d [Martinus 1] in Synodo Lateranensi sect 5.

[6] [a Marcellus apud Euseb. cont. Marcel. l. 1 c. 4.]

[7] p. 655

[8] f Iren. l. 1. c. 10

[9] g Iren. l. 1. c. 6.

[10] h Iren. l. 2. c. 18.

[11] k Iren. l. 2. c. 18, 48, 49.

[12] l. Euseb. cont. Marcel. l. 2. c. 9.

[13] m Orat

[14] Epist ad Magnes.

[15] Iren. L. 2. c 14, 15, 16, 47, 48, 49.

[16] L. 1.c 20 & {illeg} Præf L. 3.

[17] o Epist. apud Athanas. Apol. 2

[18] l. 2. sect 58.

© 2017 The Newton Project

Professor Rob Iliffe
Director, AHRC Newton Papers Project

Scott Mandelbrote,
Fellow & Perne librarian, Peterhouse, Cambridge

Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL - newtonproject@history.ox.ac.uk

Privacy Statement

  • University of Oxford
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council
  • JISC