<77r>

Now it is to be conceived that the mystery of iniquity which consisted in these heresies & began to work in the Apostles days, worked more & more till it brake in upon the Church & caused that Christian religion was purest in the first age of Christianity & decayed gradually till the man of sin was revealed. [And since the Man of Sin opposed & exalted himself above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped we may conclude that he was under no temporal power but reigned by the sword The Christian religion was set up against the power of the sword, the Antichristian by the power of the sword. The Christian maintained one God & one Lord against all the Gods of the heathens & hereticks & was propagated against the religion of the Empire by poor men preaching the gospel under all temporal discouragements to the hazzard & sometimes to the loss of their lives: the Antichristian was a branch of the heathen religion owning many Gods according to the Theology of the heathens & making Christ to be one of them & worked in vitious men in opposition to the Christian untill it gained the power of the sword & thereby exalted it self above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped. This power of the sword it could not have while the heathen empire stood, but yet worked & encreased in strength under this Empire that when that which letted should be taken out of the way it might be able to gain this power.] Let us therefore now see by what steps this mystery of iniquity grew up untill it gained the dominion, [& the Christian religion at the same time decreased in vertue] For the first times of Christianity may be distinguished into the four following states, the first in which the Christian religion was in its purity & heresies were kept under by Apostolick authority, the second in which heresies multiplied & gained many followers but without breaking in upon the Church, the third in which they were refined & began to insinuate themselves into the Church & the fourth in which they began to divide the Church against her self.

The Church continued in the first of these four states till the reign of Trajan & . For Iohn the Apostle lived till the 2d or 3d year of his reign & Symeon the son of Cleopas a disciple & kinsman of Christ & bishop of Ierusalem was martyred about the middle of his reign being 120 years old. And Hegesippus who was contemporary to Polycarp the disciple of Iohn mentioning the death of Symeon, subjoyns Ecclesiam ad hæc usque tempora instar cujusdam virginis integram atque incorruptam permansisse . . . . . . . . obtrudere aggressi sunt. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 32. Et Ecclesiam quidem hactenus virginem vocabant propterea quod vanis sermonibus nondum corruptam fuerat. Hegesippus apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l 4. c. 22. ✝ < insertion from f 77v > circumcision.

✝ The Gnosticks began to rise up before the destruction of Ierusalem for in oppsition to them the Apostle Paul advises to avoid profane & old wives fables & endless genealogies & oppositions of science falsly so called, that is the fables of the ancient Poets which were profane & foolish & the genealogies of Gods which were endless & disputes about the metaphysical philosophy of the heathens which was false. Some reccon Simon others Nicolaus the first author of the Gnosticks. Simon made some Genealogies, Nicolaus & others might encrease their number & give occasion to the Apostle to call them endless. After these flourished Ebion Cerinthus & Menander but all their heresies being checkt by the authority of the Apostles were of small extent & short continuance. And concerning the Ebionites & Nazarenes its observable that the Christians of the Church of Ierusalem – – – – – – Churches of the circumcision. And the Church of Ierusalem was of the circumcision & had bishops of the circumcision till the 18th year of Adrian A.C. 135 when all Iews were forbidden the city. < text from f 77r resumes > And its observable that the Christians of the Church of Ierusalem in this age were all zealous of the law (Act. 21.20) Gal. 2.12, 13. & the churches of the uncircumcision were by the Iews called the sect of <77v> the Nazarenes {(Acts} 24.5) & when the dispersion of this Church by the wars of the Romans was at hand Matthew wrote his Gospel in hebrew for the sake of these Christians, & therefore I do not reccon them amongst the hereticks. They were all circumcised & by circumcision had covenanted with God to keep the law & it was no crime to keep their covenant for the law was good. (Rom. 7.7, 12. Gal. 5.3) But to impose the law upon the gentiles as necessary to salvation, made void the faith in Christ, & this was the crime of the Ebionites. There were Apostles of the circumcision & Apostles of the uncircumcision & the Nazarenes were the Churches of the circumcision.

The second state or age of the Church lasted till the reign of Severus, Victor being bishop of Rome, ffor in this interval of time the Gnosticks flourished Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Secundus Ptolmæus Marcus Colarbasus Heracleon, Cerdon, Marcion, Apelles, Tatian, & after them arose Montanus & his weomen Prisca & Maximilla. But the Church notwithstanding these heresies continued entire till the days of Victor. For Irenæus who wrote against heresies in the days of Eleutherus the predecessor of Victor – – – – heard above. And Hegesippus who wrote in the days of the same Eleutherus tells us – – – taught by our Lord.

After the reign of Trajan rose up a multitude of eminent Gnosticks Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocrates, Valentinus, Secundus, Ptolomæus, Marcus, Colarbasus, Heracleon, Cerdon, Marcion, Apelles, Tatian. All these rose up in the days of Polycarp the disciple of Iohn the Apostle, who was martyred A.C. 169 & about the time of his death rose up Montanus with his weomen Prisca & Maximilla whose heresy being a more refined sort of Gnosticism then any of the former spread much faster & within the space of twenty or thirty years insinuated it self into the Church of Rome, Pope Victor or his succcessor Zepherinus in the reign of the Emperor Severus becoming a Montanist. And therefore I end the second age of the Church with the beginning of his reign.

The Christians of chief note who instructed the Churches & defended them against heresies in this age were Polycarp bishop of Smyrna, Melito bishop of Sardica, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, Apollinaris bishop of Hierapolis, Dionysius bishop of Corinth, Pinytus bishop of Crete. Iustin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus & Pantænus

Xystus or Sixtus was made Bishop of Rome in the 3d year of the Emperor Adrian & after 10 years was succeded by Telesphorus in the 12th year of Adrian & he after 11 years by Hygjnus in the first year of Antoninus Pius. Hyginus was bishop of Rome 4 years & his successor Pius 15 years, Anicetus 11, Soter 8, Eleutherus 13 Victor      Zepherinus 18, Callistus 5, Vrbanus      Pontianus 6 Anteros 4. Fabianus      Cornelius Lucius     Stephanus      Soter began in the 8th year of <78r-a> Verus, Eleutherus in the 17th year of Verus. V{ictor} in the 10th year of Con{illeg}

spread much faster but yet the church continued entire till the days of Pope Victor. Irenæus

A.C.119Sextus
128Telephorus
139Hyginus
Pius
Anicetus
Soter
Eleutherus
Victor
Zepherinus

Lydiats Canones

Chronologic. Oxon 1675

Basnages Hist. of the Iews.

< insertion from f 78v >

As the heathens deified the souls of dead men & made all their Gods to be consubstantial both to one another & to the supreme God whom they called Iupiter, so the

It was in its purity in the days of the Apostles by whose authority heresies were kept under. In the next age heresies multiplied, in the third they brake in upon the Church & in the fourth they began to divide the Church against her self.

They circumcised their children. ffor all the Bishops of Ierusalem (15 in number were of the circumcision till the Emperor Adrian in the 19th year of his reign A.C. 136 banished all the Iews upon pain of death from that city, & from the regions neare it, & thereby dispersed the churches of the circumcision Every man was to remain in the state in which he was called. If he was called being a gentile he was to remain in the state of uncircumcision. If he was called being a Iew he was to remain in the state of circumcision. And these two sorts of Christians were not to fall out about their circumcision & keeping the law2 or uncircumcision1 & not keeping the law but to eat together & love one another. ffor in Christ Iesus neither circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love Gal. 5.6. that is the faith conteined in the primitive creed, which neither commanded nor prohibited circumcision. Is any man called being cicumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision let him not become circumcised. Circumcision is nothing & uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 1 Cor. 7.18, 19, 20. [This was the reason why the Nazarenes or converted Iews circumcised their children & keept the law & therefore they were not to be blamed for doing so.] This was the Apostles rule & by this rule all the converted Gentiles were forbidden & all the converted Iews were commanded to observe the law & circumcise their children & therefore the Nazarenes or Churches of the circumcision were not to be blamed for doing so. But if the converted Iews imposed circumcision upon the converted Gentiles & refused to eat with them or keep company with them | communicate with them unless they were circumcised – this excommunication was a breach of Christian charity, & made circumcision & the observation of the law a fundamental article of faith necessary to communion baptism & salvation & thereby made void the faith in Christ as the Ap. explains in his Epist., & rending the Church catholick into parties & made the party offending guilty of schism. And the crime was as great if the converted Gentiles refused to communicate with the converted Iews unless they became uncircumcised. They were to converse with one another & be of one communion & one Church & might intermarry. And the children of a Iew & of a Gentile were at liberty either to remain uncircumcised or to become circumcised, as in the case of Timothy, & had reason to chuse uncircumcision for avoiding the burden of observing the law. And this was the state of the primitive Church Catholic in relation to the Churches of the circumcision & uncircumcision of which she was composed during her virgin age & for some time longer. ffor the Churches of the circumcision being dispersed by the wars of the Romans & intermixing with the Churches of the uncircumcision by marriages & in such cases not circumcising their children were but of short continuance.

After the death of Symeon the second metropolitan bishop of the churches of the circumcision, rose up a multitude of eminent Gnosticks, Saturninus, Basilides – – – – – – – And therefore I end the second age of the Church with the beginning of the reign of Severus.

For Irenæus who wrote against heresies in the days of Eleutherus [Bishop of Rome] the Predecessor of Pope Victor testifies – – – – heard above. And Hegesippus the historian a Christian Iew who had travelled from Syria by Corinth to Rome & staid at Rome till the days Anicetus Bishop of that city Soter the predecessor of Eleutherus affirmedin his travels he had conversed with Primus bishop of Corinth & with very many other bishops, & affirmed that he heard one & the same doctrine from them all, & that things remained in the several successions of bishops & in the several cities as they had been preached by the Law & the Prophets & our Lord.

& wrote in the days of Eleutherus the successor of Soter the successor of Anicetus

So then till the days of Soter & Eleutherus the faith remained the same in all the Churches: but about that time it began to vary, someof the Latines adding to their Creeds the resurrection of the <78r-b> body & the life everlasting in opposition to the Gnosticks who denyed the resurrection of the body & made the soul after various states & transmigrations return into God.

In the days of Pope Victor or not long before some Latines began –

About the end of the second age of the Church In opposition to the Gnosticks who denyed the resurrection of the body & maintained that the souls of men after various states & transmigrations returned back into God: some Latines began to add the resurrection of the body & life everlasting to the end of their creed Also the Church of Rome began to be prejudiced against the religion of the Nazarenes & to lay stress upon ceremonies & things indifferent & to err in the faith, Pope Victor excommunicating the true Churches of Asia for keeping Easter the 14th day of the first month of the Iewish year & writing communicatory letters to the Churches of the Montanists in Asia & Phrygia, & afterwards turning patripassian [& recalling those letters by the advise of Praxeas,] as Tertullian a Montanist in his book against Prxeas written about the year 201 thus mentions – – – – crucifixit. The predecessors of Victor who had opposed the Montanists were Soter & Eleutherus. For Soter wrote against them at their first rise & Irenæus a sharp enemy to all heresies was sent to Rome by the Church of Lyons to confer with Elutherus against them

[ Nazarenes & some other Christians knew nothing of the hypostatical union] The creation of the world by Iesus Christ began also about this time to be inserted into some Creeds of the Greeks & thereby the Churches which had flourished under Iames the brother of our Lord & Symeon & their successors were made hereticks

< text from p 78r-a resumes > <79r>

At the same time came in also great contention about Metaphysical opinions, directly contrary to the rules of the Apostle. ② O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane & vane bablings & oppositions of science falsly so called, which some professing have erred in the faith. 1 Tim. 6.20. ① Beware least any man spoile you through philosophy & vain deceipt after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world & not after Christ Coloss. 2.8. By philosophy & vain deceipt after the traditions of men he understands the opinions of old Philosophers handed down by tradition concerning the origin & nature of body & spirit, the origin of the world, the origin nature number {sons} power qualities & actions & genealogies of the Gods, the preexistence & transmigration of souls & doctrines of Ghosts or Dæmons & all other philosophical doctrines or opinions not revealed whether they be false or uncertain. All disputes about these matters are in respect of the true religion & the salvation of mankind, vane bablings & oppositions of science falsly so called, & therefore are here forbidden by the Apostle, & they that endeavoured to introduce any such opinions into the Christian religion under the notion of science were in the first ages of Christianity called Gnosticks. In the first ages of Christianity there were two sorts of people who troubled <79v> Churches of the uncircumcision very much, the Iews who laboured to impose upon them the ceremonies of the law & the traditions of their Doctors & the Gentiles who endeavoured to impose upon them the opinions of the heathen Philosophers. The law was good & was observed by the Churches of the circumcision while the Temple stood. For those with Iames were zealous of the law & Paul circumcised Timothy & thereby obliged him to keep the law. For every man that is circumcised is a debter to the law.[1] Every man was to remain as he was called, wheter in circumcision or uncircumcision. [2]Is any man called being uncircumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any man called in uncircumcision? let him not become circumcised. For the Apostles were not sent to preach the law of Moses but only to preach the Gospel.[3] They neither taught the Iews to forsake the law nor the Gentiles to receive it: & when any endeavoured to impose the law upon the Gentiles as necessary to salvation they were opposed as false teachers, & the Gentiles were taught to [4]stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made them free & not to be entangled again with the yoke of bondage, & that if they be circumcised Christ shall profit hem nothing. For [5]if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void. [6]A man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Iesus Christ. And for this reason the Apostles & Christians of the circumcision who kept the law meeting in a Council at Ierusalem[7] wrote to the Gentiles that they should not observe it but that they should only abstein from meats offered to idols & from blood & from things strangled & from fornication. Strangling is a painful death & therefore we are not to strangle things for food & eat them with their blood, but to let out their blood upon the earth. For we are to avoid all unnecessary acts of cruelty

Now the Iews who were for imposing the law upon the Christian Gentiles were apt to trouble the Churches also with unnecessary questions about the traditions of their Doctors & these were thus reprehended by the Apostle. I besought thee, saith he to Timothy,[8] to abide still at Ephesus that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrines neither give heed to fables & endless genealogies which minister questions rather then godly edifying which is in faith. Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart & of a good conscience & of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved, have turned aside unto vain janglings, desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. And again: [9]There are many unruly & vain talkers & deceivers, especially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not for filthy lucres sake — — Wherefore rebuke them <80r> (the Cretans) sharply that they may be sound in the faith not giving heed to Iewish fables & commandments of men that turn from the truth. And again: [10]Avoid foolish questions & genealogies & contentions & strivings about the law for they are unprofitable & vain.

The other sort of men who troubled the Churches were such Gentiles as adhered to any opinions of the old heathen Philosophers & endeavoured to propagate them among the Christians. In opposition to whom Paul thus admonished the Churches. [11]Beware least any man spoile you through philosophy & vain deceipt after the tradition of men after the rudiments of the world & not after Christ. And again [12]Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane & vane bablings & oppositions of science falsly so called which some professing have erred in the faith. By philosophy & vain deceipt after the tradition of men he understands the uncertain & disputable opinions of the old philo
sophers handed down by tradition among their several sects. And the disputes about these being endless & of no consequence to salvation he calls vane bablings & oppositions of science falsly so called. And because the disputers pretended to science the Christians called them Gnosticks. To this head may be referred all disputes about the nature & origin of matter & spirit, the origin or production of the world by natural causes, the nature, origin, qualities, powers, actions, species & genealogies of the Gods, the preexistence & transmigration of souls & doctrines of ghosts & the state & kingdom of the dead & the like. And the mischief of introducing opinions about these matters into the christian religion was that they tended to wrangling & discord & faction & schism whereas the chief end of the Christian religion was mutual love & charity & peace. I beseech you brethren, saith the Apostle, mark them which cause divisions & offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have received & avoid them Rom. 16.17 ffoolish & unlearned questions avoid knowing that they gender strife & the servant of the Lord must not strive 2 Tim 2.23. And for enabling the Christians to suppress avoid & keep out such philosophical disputes & opinions the Apostles delivered the faith in certain forms of words with direction not to vary from those forms. Hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me 2 Tim. 1.13. The Christians were to adhere to the forms of sound words delivered by the Apostles & set down in the scriptures or in the Creed or learned by heart. ffor the form of sound words which they were to hold fast & deliver down to posterity they would certainly set down in writing least their memory should fail them or at least learn by heart. And hence came the Creeds, these being the forms of words in which they instructed new Christians in order to baptism & for handing down the true faith to all posterity. For they were not to be baptized till they were well instructed in the true faith. The things, saith Paul, that thou hast <80v> heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithfull men who shal be able to teach others also. That is, the principles of religion or Articles of faith which thou hast heard of me in catechizing thee before many Christians who were witnesses of the truth of what I taught thee, the same commit thou to faithfull men by catechising others also for propagating down the true faith to all posterity. And this could not be done without a form of words which being either written down or learned by heart might remain unchanged. This form the Apostle calls the form of doctrine which was delivered to new converted Christians. God be thanked saith he that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free fom sin ye became the servants of righteousness. Rom. 6.17. That is, at your first conversion when you were instructed in the faith, ye obeyed the form of doctrine which was delivered you in your Creed, & thereby being made free from sin ye became the servants of righteousness. This form of sound words the Churches were to hold fast without variation It was called the symbol of the Christians that is, the token by which they knew one another to be Christians, & others ignorant of it to be none & therefore was committed to memory by all Christians that by repeating it they might know one another. & was not published in writing least the heathens should learn it , It was the unwritten tradition of which Paul makes this mention. Therefore brethren stand fast & hold the traditions which ye have been taught whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thes. 2.15. And again: Now I praise you brethren that ye keep the traditions as I delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11.2. The manner of handing down this unwritten tradition was this. The new converts were first instructed in the principles of religion with <81r> out the Creed, then they were taught the Creed by memory as a summary of their faith, & at baptism they repeated it by memory as a profession of the faith into which they were baptized. After this manner they handed down the Creed by oral or unwritten tradition obliging every man to learn it before he was baptised. And this I take to be the only unwritten tradition of the faith.

Tertullian tells us[13] the rule of faith (so he calls the Creed) had descended down from the beginning of the gospel. And Irenæus affirms the same & sets down the substance of the Creed in this manner. The Church altho dispersed throughout the whole world to the ends of the earth, keeps that faith which was received from the Apostles & their disciples which is, In one God the father Almighty, who made the heaven & earth & sea & all things in them, & in one Iesus Christ the son of God incarnate for our salvation, & in the Holy Ghost who by the Prophets preached the disensations of God & the coming of Iesus Christ our beloved Lord & his birth of the Virgin & passion & resurrection from the dead & ascent into heaven with his flesh &his coming from heaven to restore all things & to raise from death to life all the flesh of all mankind that every knee of things celestial terrestrial & infernal may bow to Christ Iesus our Lord & God & Saviour & King according to the good will & pleasure of the invisible father, & every tongue may confess to him & he may give just judgment in all things, & send the spiritual beings which are wicked & the Angels who transgressed & fell & the ungodly & unjust & lawless & blasphemous men, into eternal fire; & giving life unto the just & holy & those who keep his commandments & who either from the beginning or after repentance remain in his love, may make them incorruptible & compass them with glory. This preaching & faith, being received as I said above, the Church altho dispersed throughout the whole world keeps carefully as if she inhabited but one house & beleives these things even as if she had but one soul & one & the same heart, & with one voice preaches & teaches & delivers these things as if she had but one mouth. For altho there be various languages in the world yet the power of the tradition is one & the same. Neither do the Churches seated in Germany beleive otherwise or deliver otherwise nor those which are in Spain or in France or in the East or in Egypt or in Afric or in the middle of the world. But as the sun created by God is one & the same in the whole world, so the preaching of the truth shines every where & illuminates all men who are willing to come to the knowledge of the truth. Neither doth any man very prevalent in speech amongst those who preside in the Church, speak other things then these, for no man is above his master. Nor does he that is weak in speech diminish the tradition <81v> ffor the faith being one & the same, neither does he who can speak much of it enlarge it, neither does he who can speak but little diminish it. Thus far Irenæus concerning the Creed framed by the Apostles & delivered down by universal tradition from the beginning of the gospel it conteining that one faith by which & baptism all Christians were admitted into the Church Cath. from the beginning. For if it had not been from the beginning of the gospel it could not have been universal. Polycarp was the disciple of Iohn the Apostle & had conversed with others also who had seen the Lord & Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp, & therefore in reciting the primitive Creed & telling us that it was received from the Apostles & their disciples, deserves to be credited. It contains the whole faith. into which Christians were baptized from the beginning & therefore was from the beginning In order to their being baptized & thereby admitted into the Church Catholick they were to beleive nothing more or less then the articles of this Creed. They were not obliged to beleive the infallibility or supremacy of the Pope nor the authority of the Church or Councils. If they beleived all the articles of this Creed they were qualified for baptism, & therefore this Creed was the rule & measure of communion with the Church Catholic in the primitive times of Christianity, & the bond by which all Christians throughout the whole world were united into one Church Catholick. And after the Apostles had fixed this rule & measure of communion no [ power on earth could enlarge or diminish it, no not that of the Pope or general Councils or of the whole Church catholick. ffor the servant is not above her master]

When Christ rose from the dead he conversed with his disciples 40 days[14] & explained to them the scriptures saying unto them O fools & slow of heart to beleive all that the Prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things & to enter into his glory. And beginning at Moses & all the Prophets he expounded to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses & in the Prophets & in the Psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understandings that they might understand the scriptures; & said unto them, Thus it is written & thus it behoved Christ to suffer & to rise from the dead the third day & that repentance & remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations beginning at Ierusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. All power is given unto me in heaven & in earth.[15] Go ye therefore & teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father & of the son & of the holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. & lo, I am with you alway unto the end of the world. [16]Behold I send the promise of my father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Ierusalem untill ye shall be endued with power from on high. Thus Christ after his resurrection instructed his Apostles in the principles of the Christian religion & commanded them to teach all nations the same principles, & then to baptize them in the name of <82r> the father son & holy Ghost They were first to beleive in the father son & holy ghost & then to be baptized in their name The Apostles therefore collecting into one body the heads of what Christ had taught them & commanded them & their disciples to teach all nations to the end of the world, composed the Creed as the rule of faith into which all nations were to be baptized & this Creed Irenæus received from Iohn the Apostle by Polycarp & recites: telling us that the Church throughout the whole world to the ends of the earth had received it from the Apostles & their disciples, & kept it every where with one heart & one voice as if she were but one house, none of the Bishops how wise learned or eloquent soever adding any thing to it or taking any thing from it. ffor the servant is not above his master. They were to hold fast the form of sound words without presuming to add or alter; this Creed being the rule & measure of communion, the bond by which all Christians were united into one body & the bulwark of the Church against all heresies.

Yet the order of the articles was not the same in all the Churches as may be seen in the Creed of the Church of Rome usually called the Apostles & in that established by the Council of Constantinople: which runs thus.

I beleive in one God the ffather Almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only son our Lord who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead & buried [He descended into Hell;] the thrid day he rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the father Almighty; From whence he shall come 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, And the life everlasting.

We 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, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, Consubstantial to the father (that is of the same substance with the father) by whom all things were made,] Who for us men &our salvation descended & was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin & was made man & crucified for us under Pontius Pilate & buried & rose again the third day & ascended into heaven & sitteth on the right hand of the father, & shall come again in glory to judge the 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 & the son together is worshipped & glorified] Who spake by the Prophets. [And in one Catholick & Apostolick Church.] We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins & look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come.

In These two Creeds, the Articles which are conteined within the brackets, were inserted in the fourth Century, & if they be omitted, the Creeds agree with one another & with the Creed set down by Irenæus & by their agreement confirm one another to be the true universal tradition of faith during the three first centuries.

There is extant a fourth Creed recited & commented on in the middle of the 4th century by Cyrillus bishop of Ierusalem. It runs thus. I beleive in one God the father <82v> Almighty maker of heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible. And in one Lord Iesus Christ the only begotten son of God [begotten of his father before all worlds, the true God, by whom all things were made] who was incarnate & made man, crucified & buried, rose again from the dead the third day & ascended into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of 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

The Creed of the Church at Hippo in Afric set down by Austin Bishop of that city is the same with the Roman above mentioned except that the descent into Hell the Communion of saints & life everlasting are omitted. And Tertullian in his book de Virginibus velandis recites the same Creed in these words. Regula quidem fidei una omnino est, sola immobilis & irreformabilis, credendi scilicet in unicum Deum, mundi conditorem, & filium ejus Iesum Christum natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum 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 but adds it in his book de præscriptione Hæreticorum where he paraphrases the Creed in this manner. Credimus unum omnino Deum esse nec alium præter mundi conditorem qui universa de nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium demissum: Id Verbum filium ejus appeallatum, in nomine Dei varie visum a Patriarchis, in Prophetis 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 cœos ereptum sedisse ad dexteram patris, misisse vicariam vim spiritus sancti qui credentes agat, venturum cum claritate ad sumendos sanctos in vitæ æternæ & promissorum cælestium fructum et ad profanos adjudicandos igni perpetuo, facta utriusque partis resuscitatione cum carnis restitutione. Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones nisi quas hæreses inferunt & quæ hæreticos faciunt. Thus far Tertullian. Now by comparing all these Creeds together it is easy to see what were the primitive Articles of the Creed & in what sence they were to be understood.

Hitherto the Church throughout the whole world continued united in one faith & the Creed was every where one & the same as to the sense & substance of it no dispute arising between the Churches about it: but in the fourth Century new Articles began to be inserted. And first Alexander Bishop of Alexandria in making a declaration of his faith inserted the Catholick & Apostolick Church in this manner. We confess also one Holy Ghost —– & one only Catholick Apostolic Church which is ever inexpugnable tho the whole world attack it

<83r>

[17]Simon Magus is generally accounted the founder of all the heresies & the father of all the hereticks. [18]He taught that one & the same God in the form of three persons was the father son & holy Ghost, & the first conception or Idea of this God he called Ennœa & Prunicus & a holy spirit & said that by her he conceived in his mind in the beginning to make Powers & Archangels & Angels. He made several heavenly Orbs & placed this God & Ennœa above the Orbs & said that when she came out of him she descended to the lower regions & generated Powers & Angles & that they created the world These Powers & Angels he placed in the several Orbs according to their degrees & gave barbarous names to their weomen whom he called intelligences & said that the Angels governed the world amiss contending for dominion & that Ennoia was very beautifull & enticed the Powers & Angels to her embraces & they used her injuriously & deteined her below & that she was the lost sheep & that the first God whom they knew not (& who was therefore called the unknown father), came down from above to rescue her & save those that acknowledged him from the tyranny of the Angels which deteined their souls below & that in descending changed his form in every Orb into that of the Angels in that Orb that they might not know him, & among men appeared as a man. He said also that Ennœa passed successively into the bodies of several weomen & was in Minerva & in Hellena the Greek & in many others & at length came into Hellena a leud Tyrian woman the concubine of Simon, & that the powers & Angels also passed into the bodies of men & beasts & in the bodies of the Greeks & Trojans made war upon one another for Ennoia then in the body of Hellena. And that Steichoras the Greek Poet was blinded for cursing her, He said also that he himself (that is his soul) was the supreme God & appeared in Iudea as the son, in Samaria as the ffather & in other nations as the holy ghost: & his disciple Menander who followed his masters philosophy in all things, said that the first Virtue was unknown but he was the power sent by the invisible Æons to be the Savior he was sent by the superior powers or Æons to be the Saviour of the world. I suppose they meant in the sense that they feigned Hellena to be Ennoia I suppose they meant in the same sense that they feigned Hellena to be Ennoia, that is, by a Pythagorick metmpsychosis, Yet Simon Yet Simon said that he only appeared as a man in Iudæ & did not really suffer upon the cross when he was thought to suffer. He said also that the Prophets were inspired by Angels his enemies & therefore to be rejected, & that men were to be saved (he meant from the Angels ) not by just works but only by faith in him & Helena & therefore might do what they pleased. Whence his Priests lived in lust & used exorcisms & incantations & magical arts & philters & things inciting weomen to lust, & fictions of familiar spirits & of prophetick dreams, & worshipped the images of Simon & Helena in the form of Iuppiter & Minerva, And in their assemblies had filthy mysteries instituted by Simon, which consisted in offering to their Gods the seminal profluvia of men & menstrua of weomen instead of the Eucharist. And this was the philosophy & practice of the Simonians & the original of science falsly so called rom whence the Gnosticks had their name. By what he saith of Steichoras & Helena & the celesial orbs & their intelligences & comparing himself & Ennoia to & Minerva its manifest that his doctrine was borrowed from the heathen theology mixed with an abuse of the christian religion In the supreme father & the intelligences presiding in the seven Orbs you have the original of their Ogdoas of Æons & of the creation of the world by the Angels & their their Presidents the seven Archangels. And in the lusfulness of their Æons, filthiness of their mysteries & leudness of their lives you have the doctrine & deeds of the Nicolaitans.

Symbol (dot in a circle to the right of a cross) in text < insertion from f 84r > Symbol (dot in a circle to the right of a cross) in text For Irenæus tells us[19] that Cerinthus & long before him the Nicolaitans who were ἀπόσπασμα a sect of the Gnosticks, taught that the maker of the world was one & the father of our Lord was another; the son of the fabricator was one & Christ from above was another who being impassible descended upon Iesus the son of the fabricator in the form of a dove & flew back to his Pleroma or Ogdoas of Æons & that Αρχὴ was the only begotten & Λόγος the son of the only begotten, & our world was made not by the first God but by a Power very inferior & cut off from the communication of those who are invisible & innominable: & that for abolishing these heresies Iohn wrote in his Gospel that there was one God who made all things by the Word who was with him in the beginning. The Nicolaitans therefore being a branch of the Gnosticks were the disciples of Simon. ffor they were contemporary to him & so far as I can find held the same doctrines. His Ennœa b[20] they called Prunicus & Barbelo – – – – – – – – – – every Orb. Irenæus[21] calls Nicolas the master of the Nicolaitans, & therefore reputed him (next after Simon) the author of the sect.

Carpocrates held much the same opinions a[22] with Cerinthus & the Nicolaitans. He said with Cerinthus that the world was made by Angels & that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary & like other men but had a soul from above & more firm & pure then those of other men, & remembred what it had seen in the circumlation & conversation above with the unbegotten God & for that reason a vertue (called Christ by Cerinthus & the Nicolaitans) was sent to him from above by which he might avoid the Angels who made the world & having gone through all things return to God & to those who acted like him, & by means of the virtues (or graces) which he received from above he voided (or made nothing of) the passions which other men underwent in sufferings. And that other mens souls of the same circulation contemning the powers which made the world might be worthy of the same vertue from above, & return to the same station. By this circulation he meant that the souls of men came down from the unbegotten God & circulated by a Pythagoric Metempsychosis untill they were worthy to return up to their first station & condition. He said that the devil was one of the Angels in the world & delivered the souls of those that perish to the Prince or chief of the Angels who made the world, & the Prince delivered the soul to another Angel to shut it up in other bodies untill by Pythagoric transmigration <84v> it had undergone what it deserved & when it had paid the uttermost farthing (for they called the body its prison) it should return to its first station above. They used also magical arts & incantations & philtres & things provoking lust & pretended to have assisting (or guardian) Angels & prophetic dreams: so that they were genuine disciples of Simon & Nicolas. And Epiphanes the son of Carpocrates was instructed by his father & recconed among the Nicolaitans. But Cerinthus imposed the Law & therein differed from Simon & Carpocrates.

< text from f 83r resumes >

For Irenæus a[23] tells us that the Nicolaitans were a branch of the Gnosticks & so far as I can find, they held the same doctrines with Simon. His Ennœa they b[24] called Prunicus & Barbelo, & placed her in the eighth heaven, & seven Intelligences or Æons whom some of them called Ialdabaoth, Elilæus Adonæus, Daden, Seth, Saclan & Iao they placed successively in the seven heavens under her, & said (with Simon) that Barbelo was beautiful & enticed the other powers to her embraces & that Ialdabaoth (or as some called him Sabaoth) was her son & made the heaven & earth & was shaped like an Ass or Hog & therefore forbad swinesflesh to the Iews, & that Saclan was the God of lust. And in the eighth heaven they placed also the father of all things and the Lord who of himself was the father & another Christ who was unborn the Christ who descended & revealed this knowledge to mankind, who was also called Iesus & was manifested by the Virgin Mary but not born of her nor took flesh otherwise then in <83v> appearance. {illeg}ed that souls destitute of the knowledge were cast down from above & transferred into the bodies {of h}oggs & other animals but by their science & practise the soul {should} be set at liberty to return up & pass by the Princes to Sabbaoth & thence to the highest habitation where {Barbelo} resided. And this they called the saving of the soul. And whereas Nicolas had a beautiful wife & being reprehended by the Apostles for uxoriousness quitted her to them that would make use of her, as the supreme father was feigned to quit his wife Prunicus to the inferior Powers & Angels: the Nicolaitan Gnosticks indulged carnal pleasures & invited one another to their tables & after eating, the man departed from his wife saying to her: Arise & be charitable to the brother. And after copulation they filthily offered the seed of the man to the unknown father calling it the body of Christ, & preserving the menstrua of weomen offered that also calling it the blood of Christ. Of these Nicolaitan Gnosticks there were various sects called Gnosticks, Phibionites, Barbelites, Ophites Cainites Militaries, Levites, followers of Epiphanes, & by other names, every master finding out something or other to gratify the curiosity & pleasures of his followers & thereby setting up new denominations of sects. And the Phibionites increased the number of the heavenly orbs to 365 the number of days in the year. placing an Intelligence or Æon in every orb.

[25]Saturninus & Basilides were the disciples of Menander & Saturninus taught with Simon & Menander that there was one unknown father who made vertues powers Archangels & Angels. And that seven of these Angels who reigned in seven parts of the world [vizt the Presidents of the seven Orbs] made the world & all things therein & man. And when the man crept upon the grownd & could not erect himself: a virtue from above emitted a spark of life which erected him & made him live & after death this spark of life (the soul of the man) is to return upward to those things which are consubstantial to it self. He said also that the Saviour was unborn & incorporeal & only appeared to be a man, & that one of the Angels [vizt Sabbaoth] was the God of the Iews & that prophesies were either from the Angels or the Devil.

[26]Bailides, after he had been instructed by Menander at Antioch went to Alexandria. He said with Cerinthus & the Nicolaitans that the unknown father whom he called Abranas emitted Nous & Nous emitted Logus & further that Logus emitted Phronesis & she emitted Dynamis & Sophia & they emitted Virtues Princes & Angels who made the first heaven, & these emitted others who made the second heaven & these others who made the third heaven & so on to the number f three hundred sixty five heavens: (which was the philosophy of the Phibionites a sect of Nicolaitans in Egypt:) & that the Angels in the lowest orb made the world & all things therein & spake by the Prophets, & the Prince of those Angels was the God of the Iews & gave the law & that the unknown father sent Nous his first begotten son (who is also called Christ) to free the world from the power of the Angels who made it: & that he appeared in the world & did miracles but was incorporeal & suffered not, but reascended to his father while Simon of Cyrene suffered in his stead. He gave names also to the Princes of the several orbs

[27]The Valentinians said that the unbegotten invisible God whom he called Proarche Propator & Bythos & a perfect Æon remained infinite ages in quiet & silence with Ennœa whom he called also Charis & Sige & then willing to emitt a Principle of all things impregnated her & she brought forth Nous who was like & equal (& therefore consubstantial) to his father, & was called also the only begotten & the father & ἡ Ἀρχὴ the Principle of all things. And at the same time his sister Alethea was also emitted, & these four Bythus & Sige Nus & Alethia were the Pythagoric Tetractys. Then Nus & Ellethea emitted Logus & Zoe & these two emitted Anthropus & Ecclesia & so completed the first Ogdoas <84r> But because Christ was 30 years old before he was baptized & began to act, Valentinus carried on the generation of Æons to the number of thirty which constituted the Pythagoric Æons & were {set} by him above {the}Orbs. He said also that Bythos was unknown to all the Æons but Nus. That Monogenes produced also Christ & the holy Ghost, & that out of all the Æons arose Iesus the Saviour called the inferior Christ & the Angels arose with him, & that this inferior Christ descended upon Iesus in the form of a Dove & left him at his passion. And that Iesus himself did not really suffer nor was really incarnate but had a body which passed through the Virgin Mary as water through a pipe. And whereas the Apostle Iohn had said In the Beginning was the Word & the word was with God — In him was Life — And the word became flesh & dwelt among us . . . . full of Grace & Truth, they took the Beginning, the Word, God, Life, Grace & Truth for their six first Æons.

Secundus, Ptolomæus Epiphanes, Marcus Colarbasus & Heracleon were Valentinians & held much the same number of Æons but with some variation of Names & Circumstances, & gave the name of Ogdoas to the first eight of them: Epiphanes was also reputed a Nicolaitan.

<85r>

natural branches again into the root of their own olive tree.

The Christians of the uncircumcision during the three first centuries & part of the fourth generally held that Christ was in the beginning before all things, & that God said to him Let us make man & all things were created by him & that he had the dominion over all things & appeared to Adam in Paradise & to Cain & Noah & the Patriarchs & Moses & Ioshuah & at length was incarnate & born of the Virgin Mary without the help of a man & suffered & rose again from the dead & reascended into heaven, & there were also Christians of the circumcision of the very same opinion in the first ages of the Church. ffor Epiphanius[28] tells us that some of the Ebionites said that Christ was Adam, even that Adam who was first formed by God & animated by the divine breath; & that others of them said that Christ was from above & that he was a spirit which was created before all things [I suppose they mean not that he was created out of nothing but that he was the first begotten of every creature] & was above the Angels & had dominion over all things & was called Christ, & that his habitation or residence was there perpetually, but as often as he pleased he descended to these lower regions, as when he came in Adam & appeared to the patriarchs cloathed with a body, coming to Abraham & to Isaac & to Iacob. This same Christ came in these last times & cloathed himself with the body of Adam that is with flesh & bones of the race of Adam) & appeared a man & was crucified & rose again & ascended. But these Ebionites again when they please say it was not thus, but that a spirit who is the Christ came into Iesus & cloathed himself with him who is called Iesus. Thus far Epiphanius. And a little after[29] he represents that the Chionites, {in common with} those of the third opinon said that Iesus was born of the seed of man, & was chosen, & by election was called the son of God from the Christ who came upon him from above in the form of a Dove, & that they said not that this Christ was generated of God the father but that he was created as one of the Arch-angels & was greater then they & reigns over both the Angels & all things which were made by the Omnipotent, & came & taught what was in their Gospel, that is, in the Gospel according to Matthew. Now according to all three opinions the Ebionites taught that Christ was as old as the creation of the world. According to the third opinion Iesus was a mere man the son of Ioseph & Mary. And this was the proper opinion of the Ebionites according to Irenæus: but they added that Christ was from above & descended upon Iesus. And in opposition to this opinion the Apostle Iohn asks the questions, Who is he that overcometh the world but he that beleiveth that Iesus is the son of God? And, Who is a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ? ‡ < insertion from f 85v > ‡ And Irenæus.[31] Vani autem et Ebionæi unitionem Dei et hominis per fidem non recipientes in suam animam, sed in veteri generationis perseverantes fermento, neque intelligere volentes quoniam spiritus sanctus [nempe Verbum] advenit in Maria & Virtus Patris obumbravit eam: quapropter et quod generatum est sanctum est, et filius Altissimi Dei patris omnium, qui operatus est incarnationem ejus, & novam ostendit generationem. And again[32] Iudicabit autem et Ebionitas. Quomodo possunt salvere nisi Deus est qui salutem illorum super terram spiritus est, ὴ {πως} ανθρωπως χωρήσει ἐις θεὸν ἐιμὴ ὁ Θεὸς έχωρήθη ἐις ἄνθρωπον et quomodo {illeg} transit in Deum si non Deus in hominem. < text from f 85r resumes > The first opinion I understand not unless it be the same with the second. And the second is the opinion of those of the circumcision who were of the same faith with the Christians of the uncircumcision during the three first centuries. This opinion is condemned by Epiphanius as the opinion of the Ebionites sometimes contradicting themselves. But Epiphanius is surely in some mistake It's not likely that the same men would thus contradict themselves nor that those of the second opinion were of the same sect with those of the third: I had rather call them Nazarenes then Ebionites unless they had the name of Ebionites from their poverty. ffor they knew of <85v> no such man as Ebion but gloried in their poverty[33] & said that from the time of the Apostles it had been the practise to distribute their goods for the releif of their brethren & thereby they were reduced to poverty. & that from the hebrew word Ebion which signifies a poore man they had the name of Ebionites. Vpon the siege of Ierusalem They & the Nazarenes are said to have fled from Peræa & chiefly to Pella & from thence to have spread their heresies. Whence I gather that they were originally of the Church of Iames, & by consequence were called Nazarenes by the unconverted Iews, that name being given by those Iews to all them of the circumcision who owened Iesus of Nazareth to be the Messiah. But the name of Ebionites whether it was taken from a man called Ebion the supposed author of a sect, or from the poverty of the beleiving Iews in Peræa, seems not to have been so general, nor so ancient. And whilst the beleiving Iews of those parts gloried in the name of poor people that is (in the Iewish language) in the name of Ebionits, we need not wonder if the best Christians of those parts who beleived Iesus to be the son of God, called themselves poor people or Ebionites, while the worst who beleived him to be the son of Ioseph recommended themselves by that name so as at length to make it the name of a heresy. But whatever be the original & signification of that name it is manifest that there were churches of the circumcision who agreed with the churches of the uncircumcision from the days of the Apostles in teaching that in the beginning there was a Spirit, by whom all things were created & who was above the Angels & reigned over all things & appeared to the Patriarchs & to Moses & came down from heaven & took flesh of the virgin & became a man the son of God & not of Ioseph, & was crucified & rose from the dead & ascended whilst others taught that that Christ descended upon Iesus the son of Ioseph. And for distinguishing these two sorts of Christian Iews from one another I will for the future call the first Nazarenes & the second Ebionites. ffor I know of no other difference between them in point of faith. They both observed the law themselves, but the Ebionites imposed the law upon the Gentiles & on that account were vain schismaticks in respect of the Gentiles. The Ebionites also absteined from eating flesh & some things endued with life, & in the Eucharist used water alone instead of wine. Which Customes might arise from their poverty. But the chief difference is that the Nazarenes owned Christ to be the son of God born of the Virgin, & that he was crucified & rose again & the Ebionites said that Christ was not born nor suffered but descended upon Iesus who was only the son of Ioseph & suffered alone.

Now for enlightning the Iews

They said that he was

<86r>

Sabellius (like Paul of Samosat) made the father son & holy Ghost but one person & compared them to the body soul & spirit which composed the person of a man & to the body light & heat of the Sun, & the father & Son he compared also to a man & his reason or speech making the Son to be the only inward reason & wisdom of the father before the creation of the world & also the word spoken by him at the creation & received back into the father after the creation, & that when the son came into the world he was emitted from the father as a ray of light & after his passion returned back into God. Concerning this heresy Basil tells us that – – – Basil Epist. 64. p. 850.

The next shock which the church received from these heresies was by the prevailing with the Church of Rome's allowing their baptism of all hereticks & excommunicating other churches who would not allow it. And this was done by Stephen Bishop of Rome presently after the {sharp} persecution of Decius, For Stephen allowed the baptism of all hereticks, as abundantly proved by Basnagius, & is sufficiently manifest by Stephens epistle to Cyprian & the Africans a paragraph of which is thus recited by Cyprian in his Epistle to Pompeius. Quia desiderasti, saith Cyprian, in notitiam tuam perferri, quæ mihi ad literas nostras Stephanus frater noster rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus exemplum – – – – – – – coacervata congessit

The next shock which the Church received from these heresies was by the Church of Romes allowing the baptism of all hereticks & excommunicating other Churches which would not allow the same. For hereticks received one another into communion by imposition of hands without baptism this was done by Stephen Bishop of Rome presently after the persecution of Decius. Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage in the second century calling a Council of many bishops of Africa & Numidia, they caused that hereticks were to be baptized, & this custome continued in use till Cyprian's days & was followed by Cyprian. Apud nos autem,saith Cyprian,[34] non nova aut repentina res est, ut baptizandos censeamus eos qui ab hæreticis ad ecclesiam veniunt quando multi jam anni sunt & longa ætas ex quo sub Agrippino bonæ memoriæ vero convenientes in unum Episcopi plurimi hoc statuerunt, atque exinde in hodiernum tot millia hæreticorum in provincijs nostris ad Ecclesiam conversi, non aspernati sint neque cunctati imo et rationabiliter & libenter amplexi sint ut lavacri vitalis ac salutaris baptismi gratiam consequerentur. Vpon occasion of the schism of the Novatians Cyprian called a Council of many bishops & sent to Stephen their sentence for baptizing hereticks & schismaticks. A former Bishop of Rome had received Praxeas into communion by laying on of hands without baptism, & Stephen claimed this practise as delivered down in his Church from Peter & defended it in a letter which he wrote to Cyprian, of which Cyprian makes this mention in a Letter to Pompeius. [35]Quia desiderasti in notitiam tuam perferri, quæ mihi ad literas nostras Stephanus frater noster rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus exemplum quas {illeg} <86v> magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui hæreticorum causam contra Christianos & contra ecclesiam Dei asserere conatur. Nam inter cætera vel superba vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel sibi ipsi contraria, quæ imperite atque improvide scripsit, etiam illud adjunxit, ut diceret: [Siquis ergo a quacunque hæresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illi imponatur in pœnitentiam: cum ipsi proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent sed communicent tantum.] A quacunque hæresi venientem baptizari in Ecclesia vetuit, id est omnium hæreticorum baptismata justa esse & legitima judicavit Et cum singulæ hæreses singula baptismata & diversa peccata habeant, hic cum omnium baptismo communicans universorum delicta in sinum suum coacervata congessit. And a little after in reference to the words of Stephen, [nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est] he adds Præclara sane et legitima traditio Stephano fratre nostro docente proponitur, quæ auctoritatem nobis idoneam præbeat. Nam in eodem loco Epistolæ suæ addidit et adjecit [cum ipsi hæretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes non baptizent sed communicent tantum] Ad hoc enim malorum devoluta est ecclesia Dei et sponsa Christi ut hæreticorum exempla sectetur, ut ad celebranda sacramenta cælestia disciplinam lux de tenebris mutuetur et id faciant Christiani quod Antichristi faciunt. And a litte after Cum vero nulla omnino hæresis sed neque aliquod schisma habere salutaris baptismi sanctificationem foris possit, cur in tantum Stephani fratris nostri obstinatio dura prorupit ut etiam de Marcionis baptismo, item Valentini et Apelletis & cæterorum blasphemantium in Deum patrem contendat filios Dei nasci.

Athanasius (as you may see in many places of his works) takes the λόγος for an attribute of the father, the λογος ἐνδιάθετος without which the father would be ἄλογος & ἄσοφος, & thence argues his eternity & saith the λογος arose from the father not as an empty vanid voice but with a substance as light from the Sun, a river from the fountain & a tree from the root & so was consubstantial to him: which was the language & doctrine of the Montanists as hath been explained above.

<87r>

And from these metaphysical opinions arose all that vehement religious war which disturbed the whole Roman Empire almost all the fourth century, & a good part of the fift, the Council of Nice at the importunity of Constantine the great repealing the decree of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosat & making the condemned language of Paul an article of faith , & other following Councils contending about it: all which wrangling would have been prevented by holding fast the form of sound words in the faith which was once delivered to the saints & only rejecting the novel language of Arius & other rash men.

Whilst the heathen Philosophers derived the souls of men from the substance of the supreme God & worshipped them after death as true Gods consubstantial to him : we may reason that the heathens who in the fourth century came over in great crouds to the profession of Christianity would readily embrace the Nicene decree. For by the words of that decree they were obliged to beleive nothing more then that Christ was a mere man deified after death like one of the heathen Gods: & the Gnosticks also who received their opinions from the heathen philosophers & took the λόγος to be one of their Æons would readily embrace the same decree. And much more would the Cataphrygians & Sabellians. For the Trinity of Montanus was henceforward accounted orthodox & I do not hear of any man henceforward excommunicated for Sabellianism.

Neither would the ancient hereticks who taught that the λογος came not in the flesh but only dwelt in Iesus as a holy spirit in a good man, have been much offended at the hypostatic union of the two natures each remaining distinct with its own substance will & understanding, & the λόγος not being subject to the infirmities of the flesh nor feeling the pains of death upon the cross.

<87v>

or the son for the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father, & his generation for an act whereby God emitted him outwardly not from all eternity but in the beginning of the creation as the principle by which he would create the world, & accounted the Holy Ghost ἀπό᾽ρρ῾οιαν an efflux emission or emanation of the substance of God as light is of the sun.

And of the same opinion was his contemporary Theophilus bishop of Antioch ffor Theophilus in his second book to Autolicus writes thus, Εχων ὀυν ὁ θεος

For Tatian made the Word to subsist in God from all eternity & at length to emerge out of him by his will, not an empty emission but the first begotten work of his spirit, born of him not by avulsion but by division only without diminution of the father. ffor as at one lamp many other lamps may be kindled without diminishing the light of the first lamp, so the Word coming out from the power of the father did not make his father ἄλογον void of reason & understanding. And This was the

Tatian & his followers the Encratites seem to have held much thesame opinion about the Son, [& by their appearance of sanctity to have contributed much to the spreading of this opinion.] ffor he made the Word

So also Clemens Alexandrinus a great admirer of Plato, made the Word to be the omnipotent power & wisdom & Idea of the father & at length to come out of him for effecting the creation & afterwards to have begot himself when the Word became flesh so as to be visible

By these instances it is manifest that Platonism began to spread much in the Churches before the end of the second century. And therefore we need not wonder if it prevailed in the fourth. By the condemnation of Paul of Samosat in the middle of the third it met with some check especially in the east: but yet spread silently. Athanasius declares frequently in his works that the son was the λογος ἐνδιάθετος of the father without which the father would be ἄσοφος & ἄλογος & that he arose from the father as light from the sun a river from the fountain & a tree from the root. And Alexander of Alexandria in his general Epistle directed & sent to all the bishops of the Church catholick in the beginning of controversy with Arius & subscribed by all those of his party, writes thus. Quid si filius ratio Patris est ac sapientia, quomodo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dicerent ἄλογον καὶ ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν Θεόν, Deum aliquando rationis & sapientiæ expertem fuisse. This being subscribed by all the party may be taken for their common opinion. And Constantine the great & his party were of the same opinion. For in an Epistle which he composed against Arius & sent to the Church of Alexandria before the meeting of the Council of Nice & which (according to Epiphanius & Socrates) was published in all the cities of the Roman Empire speaks thus to Arius. Verum Dicis Deum: habes ejusdem me sententiæ. Sic igitur sentias. Ejus essentiæ Verbum & pricnipij et finis expers, Verbum esse dicis: Eo contentus sum; ita crede. Siquid præterea adjungis, id tollo. Siquid ad impiam separationem fraudulenter consuis id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor. Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensationem, non improbo. And the bishops of Egypt & the west convened soon after at Serdica say in their general Epistle Confitemur filium esse virtutem patris. Confitemur illum esse Verbum Dei Patris præter quod nullum est aliud: et Verbum verum Deum et sapientiam et virtutem esse Verum autem filium esse tradimus non sicut alij Filij appellantur. Nam hi quidem aut regenerationis causa Dij dicuntur, aut eo quod digni habiti fuerint Filij noncupantur: non autem ob unam ὑπώστασιν substantiam quæ est Patris et Filij. This was in those days the opinion of the Bishops of the West. For ὑπωστασις was then taken in the same sense with ουσια, the language of one υσια & the ὑπωστασεις being not yet established. And these things shew that the opinion of the sons being the λογος ἐνδιαθετος of the father was in those days spread very much in the whole empire.

The words of Tertullian run thus, [36]Nam idem [Praxeam] Episcopum Romanum, agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani Priscæ Maximillæ et ex ea agnitione pacem Ecclesijs Asiæ et Phrygiæ inferentem, falsa de ipsis Prophetijs et Ecclesijs adseverando, & præcessorum ejus auctoritates defendendo, coegit et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito recipiendorum charismatum concessare ita duo negotia diaboli Praxeas Romæ procuravit; prophetiam expulit, & hæresin intulit; Paracletum fugavit et Patrem crucifixit.

<88r>

For The Gnosticks like the Heathens & Cabbalists derived many emissions or Æons male & female successively from the first God by generation & Archangels & Angels from these Æons & the world not from the first God but either from the Angels or from one or more of the Æons. And the first God whom they called the unknown father the unbegotten God, Propator, Proarch Bythos & Abraxas, they placed in the eight or highest heaven together with his wife whom they called Ennœa, Prunicus Barbelo Ataris & Sige, & in the seven inferior Orbs they placed seven chief Æons with Angels under them & the world under them & called the first of those Æons Αρχή, Nous, Pater, {Hang, Cyn} {Ialdabaoth} & the second Λόγος, & Iao & by other names And hence came their Ogdoas of Æons. And some added a Decas of Æons answering to the number of the nations which God promised to give to Abraham for a possession & a Dodecas of Æons answering to the twelve signes. All which made up 30 Æons answering to the number of days in the month & of years in the age of Christ before he was baptized & began to act. And some increased the number of Æons to that of days in the year. This was the Philosophy of Simon, Nicolaus, Menander, Saturninus, Basilides, Carpocras, Valentinus, Epiphanes, Secundus, Ptolomæus, Marcus, Colarbasus, Heracleon, Tation & the Canaites Ophites Sethians Borbelites, Phibeonites, Militaries &c, tho not without variety of opinions. Simon began with the Ogdoas of Æons & Angels & the creation of the world by the Angels, & others added to his inventions. Simon said that the first God appeared on mount Sina & in {Samaria} as the father, In Iudea as the son & in other nations as the holy Ghost & making Pythagoric transmigration of souls said that he himself ( that is his soul) was the first God & his concubine Helena was Minerva & accordingly his followers erected statues to him & his concubine in the form of Iupiter & Minerva & worshipped them And By this worship, & the male & female Gods & Pythagoric transmigrations & placing Æons in the Orbs of the Planets & deriving all things from the substance & power of the first God you may know that he borrowed the main of his philosophy from the Poetry Philosophy & Astrology of the heathens.

These hereticks pretending to learning & science [& introducing the philosophical opinions of the heathens & Cabbalists into the Christian religion] were thence called Gnosticks. And their Æons had – – – – – – affinity with the Iewish Cabbala.

For the first emission of Proarche & Borbelo was by the Nicolaitans & Cerinthus & Basilides called Αρχὴ & the second Λόγοσ & the third (by Basilides) Enthymasis: & these were the first sephiroths of the Cabbalists. Their Æn Soph Infinite was the first God called by some of the Gnosticks Bythos & Megethos, Abyss & Magnitude, meaning without bounds. Their first sephiroth called Kether the Crown or Beginning, was the Ἀρχὴ of the Gnosticks. The Cabbalists said that the first sephiroth Kether was the principle which conteined all the following Sephiroths eminently in it self, & the Gnosticks said the same thing of Ἀρχὴ the first Æon. And The two next sephiroths Cochmah & Binah Wisdom & Prudence. are the same with the two next Æons λόγος & Φρόνησις Reason & Prudence Some of the Gnosticks called the supreme father the first man & Ennoia the second man: which names answer to the Arech Anpin & Scir Anpin [& Adam Kalmon] of the Cabbalists. The hereticks of the circumcision therefore seem to have taken some things from their Cabbala & in this oppinion I am confirmed by the Apostle who in opposition to these heresies admonishes the Christians not to give heed – – – pretending to science.

The Gnosticks of the uncircumcision rose later – – – – – – in the Apocalyps. The Siimonians [& the Nicolaitan Gnosticks] said that Ennoea was very handsom & descending into the lower Orbs to emit the Æons, enticed them by her beauty & was detained by them below & shut up in the bodies of weomen & passed from woman to woman by a Pythagoric metempsychosis & that the Angels passed into the bodies of men that they might enjoy her And by this sort of philosophy & the examples of their Gods they encouraged one another in all manner of uncleanness. And in like manner the Nicolaitans said that Borbelo was very handsom & enticed the other Gods to her embraces & upon this doctrine founded their lascivious practices. After the example of these Gods Nicolas the master of the Nicolaitans as Irenæus calls him abandoned his wife to the lust of other men, [& is by Irenæus called the master of the Nicolaitans] And Those of this sect invited one another to their tables & after eating, the man said to his wife Be charitable to the brother. And when the brother had lain with her they offered to their fals Gods a filthy sacrifice of the profluvia of men & weomen saying (in derision of the Christian religion) This is my body & this is my blood. This abominable sacrifice was first instituted <88v> by Simon, the first founder of {this} heresy. And by all this you may understand that under the names of the Nicolaitans & Antichristians the impure & idolatrous Gnosticks are condemned by Iohn in his Apocalyps & epistles.

Irenæus tells us that Cerinthus & long before him the Nicolaitans, a branch of the Gnosticks said – – – – . . . . . . . . – philosophy of the Nicolaitans. Simon feigned that the first God came down to rescue Ennoia whom he called the lost sheep & to save those that beleived on him from the tyranny of the Angels, but had not a real body nor suffered on the cross. Others said that Ialdabaoth or Νους was the Christ the saviour who descended upon Iesus, others said that this Saviour was another of the Æons. And some said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary others that he passed through Mary as water through a pipe.

As the Sephiroths of the Cabbalists were nothing else then the powers & affections of God the father considered as divine persons (namely his Crown or first & supreme emanation, his Wisdom, his Prudence, his Magnificence, his Power, his Beauty his Eternity, his Glory, his being the Support & Foundation of all things & his Reign) so the Æons of the Gnosticks were of the same kind. Simon said that Ennoia was the first conception of his mind & made her the mother of all the rest. And Basilides said that God emitted Νους & Νους emitted Λόγος & Λόγος emitted Φρόνησις & Φρόνησις                        And Valentinus said that Αληθεια was the wife of Νους & {ennoia} Ζωη the wife of Λογος. And all these are nothing else then the attributes of God or the modes & powers of his being called by the Greeks his λογος ἐνδιάθετος. Ptolomæus a disciple of Valentinus assigned to the unknown father two wives Ennœa & Thelesis, Vnderstanding & Will & called them the affections of the unknown father, & said that the understanding was the older wife because the understanding precedes the will. And the Valentinians in one of the books cited by Epiphanius said: In the beginning he who of himself is the father – – – – – – – – – & therefore Sige is not ἐνδιάθετος Iren. l. 2. c. 14, 15, 16, 47, 48, 49.

The doctrine therefore that the λόγος or Word of God was the λογος ἐνδιάθετος of the father & that the λογος ἐνδιάθετος was emitted or exerted & thereby generated into a son before the world began came originally from the Gnosticks Basilides Valentinus Ptolomæus & their followers Secundus Marcus & Heracleon & from Saturninus the fellow disciple of Basilides. ffor Irenæus blames Saturninus Basilides Valentinus & Marcion & the Gnosticks in general for pretending to know the generation of the Word & explaining it & comparing it to a Word spoken by a man. ffrom this opinion the name of Sige was given to Ennœa & therefore it was as old as that name. They feigned that God was silent before he spake & thence gave the name of silence to his power of thinking

The Gnosticks at first said that Christ descended upon Iesus, but after the writing of the Apocalyps & Gospel & first Epistle of Iohn & the Epistle to the Hebrews in which Christ is called the λόγος, some of the Gnosticks began to say that the Λόγος [descended upon Iesus Christ, or assumed him

<89r>

Cyprian reading the works of Tertullian as his master seems to have imbibed his notions about the Deity. For he calls the f. s. & h. g. Trinitas adunata & In the second book of testimonies against the Iews (ch. 1) for proving Christ to be the first begotten & the wisdom of God by which all things were made, he alledges the words of Solomon (Prov. 8.) Dominus condidit me initium viarum suarum ad opera sua, in opera sua ante sæculum fundavit me: in principio antequam terram faceret, et antequam abyssos constitueret, priusquam procederent fontes aquarum antequam montes collocarentur, ante omnes colles genuit me Dominus. & those in Ecclesiasticus: Ego ex ore altissimi prodivi ante omnem creaturam. both which places are spoken of that wisdom which is seated in God as his attribute or λογος ενδιαθετος. Ruffin tells us that many in the parts about Constantinople took him to be of the same faith in these matters, with Tertullian.

The author of the book de Trinitate ascribed to Novatian, tells his opinion in these words. Antequam nihil præter Patrem. pag. 349. Ex quo [patre] quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur, sed in substantia prolatæ a Deo virtutis agnoscitur. And a little after. Hic ergo quando pater voluit processit ex patre: et qui in Patre fuit processit ex Patre: et qui in Patre fuit, quia ex Patre fuit cum Patre postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre processit: substantia scil. illa divina cujus nomen est Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil.

② Lactantius seems to have been of opinion that the Son was an emitted part of the fathers substance ‡ < insertion from f 89v > ‡ And afterwards. Est ergo Deus pater omnium institutor et creator, solus originem nesciens, invisibilis, immensus, immortalis, æternus, unus Deus, cujus neque magnitudini, neque majestati, neque virtuti quicquam non dixerim præferri, sed nec comparari potest. Ex quo, quando ipse voluit, sermo filius natus est, qui non in sono percussi aeris, aut tono coactæ de visceribus vocis accipitur sed in substantia prolatæ a Deo virtutis agnoscitur. . . . . . . Hic ergo cum sit genitus a Patre, semper est in Patre. Semper autem sic dico, ut non innatum [vel ab æterno sine initio existentem,] sed natum probem. Sed qui ante omne tempus est, semper in patre fuisse dicendus est. Nec enim tempus illi assignari potest qui ante tempus est. Semper enim in patre ne pater non semper sit pater: Quia et Pater etiam illum præcedit, quòd necesse est prior sit quæ pater Quoniam antecedat necesse est eum qui habet originem ille qui originem nescit. His meaning seems to be that the father was before the son not in respect of time which was not yet created, but in respect of the power of generating which was in the father from all eternity before he generated the son & by the son created time, & that the son was in the father even before he was generated & by generation came out of him. ffor he adds Hic ergo quando Pater voluit processit ex patre: Et qui in Patre fuit processit ex patre: et qui in Patre fuit quia ex Patre fuit processit ex Patre: et qui in Patre fuit quia ex Patre fuit, cum Patre postmodum fuit, quia ex Patre processit: substantia scilicet illa divina cujus nomen est Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia et sine quo factum est nihil. The saume author makes the father omnipresent & the son comprehended in place: Q < text from f 89r resumes > Cum dicimus saith he Deum Patrem et Deum filium non diversum dicimus, nec utrumque secernimus; quia nec pater sine filio esse potest nec filius a Patre secerni, siquidem nec Pater sine Filio nuncupari nec filius potest sine patre generari. Cum igitur & Pater filium faciat et filius patrem; una utrique mens, unus spiritus una substantia est: sed ille quasi exuberens fons hic tanquam defluens ex eo riv{um} ille tanquam Sol hic quasi radius a sole porrectus; qui quoniam summo Patri et fidelis et charus est, non separatur, sicut nec rivus a fonte, nec radius a sole quia et aqua fontis in rivo est & solis lumen in radio. And a little after: Quapropter cum mens & voluntas alterius in altero sit vel potius una in utroque: merito unus Deus uterque appellatur: quia quicquid est in Patre ad Filium transfluit, et quicquid in Filio a Patre descendit. And in another place Yet Lactantius seems to place the deity of the son rather in the power & dominion given him by the father then in the metaphysical nature of his substance.

① Lactantius seems to have been of opinion that the Son was a part of the father emitted before the world began but not separated. [37]Deus igitur, saith he, antequam præclarum hoc opus mundi adoriretur, sanctum incorruptibilem spiritum genuit, quem filium nuncuparet. Et quamvis alios postea innumerabiles per ipsum creavisset quos angelos dicimus hunc tamen solum primogenitum divini nominis appeallatione dignatus est, patria scilicet virtute ac majestate pollentem. Then he applies to him the words of Solomon, Deus condidit me in initio viarum suarum in opera sua &c[38] & describes how he came out of the mouth of God as word with a voice & sound, God speaking him in the first place that by him he might speak to us, whilst Angels were spirits breathed out without a sound & that he was not an empty vanid voice but <89v> but a living permanent substance, & by unity of mind with substance one God with the father: [39]Cum dicimus, saith he, Deum Patrem – – – – – – – – – – – – a Patre descendit. And in another place. Docuit [Christus] quod unus solus

The author of the book de Trinitate ascribed to Novatian, makes the son a God generated not by necessity of existence but by the power of the fathers will, not from all eternity but in the beginning so that the father was before he generated the son, & that the son was generated before the father created all things by him. Est enim, saith he, periculum grande . . . . . . generare non potuit. p. 349. ‡

< insertion from f 90r >

‡Hitherto therefore, that is, till the beginning of the fourth century the opinion lasted that the father was the supreme God, the God whom we are always to understand by one God, the God God of Gods the God of God his son the God of our Lord Iesus Christ, , the Lord God almighty whose dominion is over all other persons without exception & whose worship is the foundation & end of the Christian religion. Platonism had hitherto been spreading as a philosophical opinion, but had not yet made any material alteration in the worship of the Christian Churches. < text from f 89v resumes > [And that text of scripture Eructavit cor meum Verbum bonum he applies to the Sons generation. p. 354. Quod si et primogenitus omnis creaturæ ab Apostolo dictus sit Christus, quomodo omnis creaturæ primogenitus esse potuit, nisi quoniam secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex patre Deo sermo processit. p. 361. Deus ad formam Dei patris ex ipso genitus atque prolatus p 364. semper [ab initio] habet rerum omnium potestatem sed qua traditam, sed qua concessam, sed qua a patre proprio sibi indultam. p. 375. Quem volunt hîc Deum descendisse ad turrem illam & homines tunc illos visitare quærentem? Deum patrem? Ergo jam loco clauditur p. 387.] Also the texts of scripture Eructavit cor meum verbum bonum & primogenitus omnis creaturæ he expounds of the Sons coming out from the father as a word or voice by generation in the beginning. Quomodo omnis creaturæ primogenitus esse potuit (saith he) nisi quoniam secundum divinitatem ante omnem creaturam ex patre Deo sermo processit. p. 361. And that his dominion over all things was not by necessity of nature but by the voluntary concession of his father. Semper [s. ab initio mundi] habet rerum omnium potestatem sed qua traditam, sed qua concessam sed qua a patre proprio sibi concessam. p. 375. And that the father differed from the son in that he was not comprehended in any place Quem volunt hic Deum descendisse ad turrem illam et homines tunc illos visitare quærentem? Deum patrem? Ergo jam loco clauditur. p. 387.

Platonism spread in all the Churches , & yet notwithstanding the growth of this philosophy, the opinion still lasted in the Churches, that father was

<90r>

Arnobius speaks of God the Father as the supreme King, & sole object of our worship, & of Christ as Deus Sospitator sent to us from the supreme King to be our Master & to teach us the worship of his father. Nihil sumus aliud Christiani, nisi, magistro Christo, summi Regis ac Principis veneratores: nihil, si consideres, aliud in ista religione versari. Hæ totius summa est actionis: hic propositus terminus divinorum officiorum, hic finis, huic omnes ex more prosterimur, hunc collatis precibus adoramus. And a little after. O maxime, O summe rerum invisibilium procreator. O ipse invise et nullis unquam comprehense naturis, dignus, dignus es vere (si mode te dignum mortali dicendum est ore) cui spirans omnis intelligensque natura et habere et agere nunquam desinat gratias: cui tota conveniat vita gen nixo procumbere et continuatis precibus supplicare. Prima enim tu causa es, locus rerum ac spacium fundamentum cunctorum quæcunque sunt, infinitus, ingenitus, immortalis perpetuus, solus quem nulla deliniat forma corporalis, nulla determinat circumscriptio qualitatis, expers quantitatis, sine situ, sine motu et habitu &c. By these characters he distingishes the Father from all other beings: but yet He speaks also magnificently of Christ. Deus ille sublimis fuit, Deus radice ab intima, Deus ab incognitis regnis & ab omnium principe, Deus sospitator est missus. He calls Christ a true God but makes him a derivative & subordinate God as in the Platonic philosophy & calling the father the first God, he represents the worship of this God sufficient Possumus interim dicere ad cultum divinitatis obeundum satis est nobis Deus primus: Deus (inquam) primus pater rerum ac dominus, constitutor moderatorque cunctorum. In hoc omne quod colendum est colimus: quod adorari convenit, adoramus: quod obsequium venerationis exposcit, venerationibus promeremur. Cum enim divinitatis ipsius teneamus caput, a quo ipsa divinitas divinorum omnium quæcunque sunt ducitur: supervacaneum putamus personas ire per singulas. He distinguishes Christ from the man who suffered on the cross & saith that he put on that man & carried him about in a small part of himself. This opinion savours of Platonism, & if we may judge of him by his calling God pater rerum & by the opinion of his disciple Lactantius, he held the nativity of the son of God before the world began.

Here Lactantius makes God the Son subordinate in power & dominion to his father as the supreme God, the God whom we are to understand whenever we speak of one God & whom alone we are to worship as one God. And of the same opinion was Arnobius the master of Lactantius. Nihil sumus aliud Christiani, saith he, nisi, magistro Christo, summi . . . . . . per singulas.

We have heard that Clemens the master of the divinity school at Alexandria was tainted with Platonism, & I beleive it will easily be granted that {illeg} his disciple & successor in that school was not altogether free from error.

<90v>

The Gnosticks maintaining that the Angels & other creatures were either parts or powers of the substance of God, many of the Christians in opposition thereunto affirmed that they were created out of nothing. & because its said that all things were made by Iesus Christ it became a growing opinion that God created all things out of nothing by Iesus Christ & by consequence that Iesus Christ was omnipotent, & time & place being recconed among the creatures it followed also that Christ was in all time & in all place & that he was begotten before all ages & before all time & was always with the father, that is, always from the beginning of time. These were the opinions of many of them who held that Christ the word was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the inherent reason & wisdom of the father, & that creation signified the producing of things out of nothing & generation the emission of the λογος out of the father. And these opinions at length occasioned the famous dispute in the Church of Alexandria, between Alexander the bishop & Arius one of the Presbyters both parties allowing that the father had a λόγος ἐνδιάθετος from all eternity, & Alexander affirming as you have heard that this λόγος was the son of God, and Arius that the son was not this λόγος but another λόγος a substance begotten by the father out of nothing before the creation of the world. & that there was a time when the son was not or a duration of the being of God from all eternity before the son was generated by him. Now Arius & those with him in an epistle which they sent to Alexander in the beginning of the controversy wrote to him in thus. The son . . . . . . . . proper to bodies. [40]But Alexander avoided these difficulties by recconing time among the creatures & denying that the son came out of the father or out of the womb in any part of time or was in him in any part of time before he came out of him, or had any other antemundane generation then what was before all time & by consequence from all eternity, there being no prius & posterius in time or duration before time was created by the son. He affirmed therefore, as I find by his epistles, that the father was always a father & that the son being the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος the only inherent reason & wisdom of the father, was a natural son always coexisting with the father by a generation without beginning & coequal to him in all things except paternity & uncapable of mutation. And they that opposed Alexander replied that according to this opinion the son was ἀγένητος unbegotten, meaning that the necessary & eternal existence of the λογος ἐνδιάθετος was no generation & by consequence amounted to a denial of the father & the son. that the calling him the son of God with respect to such an existence made him ἀγένητον that the placing the generation of the son in such an existence made the son ἀγένητον & And this is the first material instance that I meet with of calling the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father the natural son of the father by an eternal generation The eternity of this λογος before he came out of the father by an act of generation was not a new opinion, but the calling this λογος the son of God by an eteral act of generation was a new one ‡ < insertion from lower down f 90v > ‡ or at least had but few followers before Alexander expoused it.

< text from f 90v resumes >

And as this opinion was now set on foot so it was some time beforeit began to be generally received. For while the Council of Nice . . . . . . . . . . . .

that the father never was without the son nor can be, & that none of them deny that the son was begotten, & that he could not have alway been if he had had a beginning. And that he is called the only begotten word because he always was & is in the Father & that the Father is greater then the son

that the son had no beginning & defend themselves from the objection of making him unbegotten & affirm th     / And these were the Pastors & sheppherds of Israel frequently reproved by the prophets for neglecting their flocks Ier 2.8 & 3.15 & 10.21 & 23.1, 2 & 50.6 & Ezek 34.

which makes it probable that the bishop was not recconned among the ten       They called him Preses, the president of the council or board of Presbyters.

We have recconed eleven officers which makes it probable that

The Deacons were the same as among the Iews. The Lectors were those whom the Bishop called forth to read the scriptures

The Dean seems to be the chief Ruler of the synagogue. For the word Decanus signifies a ruler over ten. But whereas the chief Ruler of the synagogue was above the Chazan in the Iewish synagogues: the Pastors & teachers are set before governments in the Christian Churches 1 Cor 12.28. & Eph. 4.11.

<91r>

Chap 2
Of the Christian religion & the difference between the Churches of the circumcision & uncircumcision.

The God of the Iews & Gentiles was one & the same God the creator of heaven & earth, & the Christian religion was one & the same with the Iewish till the calling of the Gentiles, with this only addition that Iesus – – – – – – – – – – – – years of the vulgar Æra 312, 314, & 318.

The law of the Iews & Christians (except the cermonial part) was one & the same law. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart & with all thy soul & with all thy mind. This is the first & great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the prophets. Matt. 22.37. And on these two also depends all the Gospel. These are the laws of nature, the essential part of religion which ever was & ever will be binding to all nations, being of an immutable eternal nature because grounded upon immutable reason. And hence it came to pass that charity or the love of our neighbour is by the Apostle commended as the chief of graces absolutely necessary to salvation without which all other graces profit nothing, no not though a man out of faith or hope should give his body to be burned. And the charity of the first Christians is very conspicuous by their keeping in communion & friendship with one another all over the Roman Empire & the nations round about for three hundred years together, excepting some ruffles made by the bish{ops} of Rome Victor & Stephen. How far the first Christians were from falling out with one another upon every difference of opinion, as is now the practise, is manifest by the communion of the Churches of the circumcision & uncircumcision, one of which observed the law & the other was forbidden to observe it. For understanding this it is to be noted that the converted Iews or Churches of the circumcision were by the unconverted Iews called the sect of the Nazarenes (Act. 25) & were all zealous of the law (Act. 21.20 Gal. 2.12, 13.) & yet were in communion with the Apostles & composed the body of the Church of Ierusalem which in those days was the head of all the Churches. And when the dispersion of these Christians by the wars of the Romans was at hand, Matthew wrote his Gospel in hebrew for their use, & therefore the Nazarenes are not to be recconned among the hereticks. They were all circumcised & by circ. – – – – – – – – – – – – unless they departed from the covenant of circumcision.

Now the primitive Church in relation to the Churches of the circumcision & uncircumcision remained in this state till the days of Iustin Martyr & Hegesippus . . . . . . . . . . . itidem non salvari putem. Thus far Iustin And Hegesippus a beleiving Iew of Syria who wrote in the days of the same Eleutherus &had travelled from Syria by <91v> Corinth to Rome & had conversed with many bishops of the uncircumcision as well as with the Christians of the circumsision testifies that he heard one & the same doctrine from them all, things remaining the same in the several successions of Bishops & in the several cities as they had been preached according to the law the Prophets & our Lord. Which testimony Hegesippus would never have given of the Churches of the uncircumcision, had those Churches then broken communion with the churches of his own nation the Nazarenes & looked upon them as hereticks.

But the Christians by degrees loosing their first love & growing daily less & less charitable towards one another & more apt to fall out about trifles Pope Victor the successor of Eleutherus excommunicated the Churches of Asia or at least threatened to excommunicate them) for keeping Easter on the 14th day of the Lunarmonth, the day on which the Iews & Nazarenes observed it: & as this act shews that the Church of Rome began now to look upon the Churches of the circumcision with an evil eye after this I do not meet with any further communion between the Nazarenes & the Churches in communion with the Latines. But as the Apostles worhipped in the Temple while it stood & preached the gospel in the Synagogues of the Iews, so the Nazarenes when they were not numerous enough to have synagogues of their own, worshipped in the synagogues of Iews long after the days of Victor. For Ierome two hundred years after in an epistle to Austin bishop of Hippo tells us Vsque hodie per totas Orientis synagogas – – – – – in quem et nos credimus.

{flourishes} But it wants two of the articles which he sets down in the latter part of the creed in his book against Praxeas < insertion from higher up f 91v > It wants also the epithetes of father almighty, & our Lord which being supplied < text from f 91v resumes > : which being supplied the whole Creed will run thus. Credo in unicum Deum patrem omnipotentem mundi conditorem, et filium ejus Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato & sepultum, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis receptum in cælis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris venturum judcare vivos et mortuos, qui exinde miserit (secundumpromissionem suam) a Patre Spiritum sanctum. And this Creed comprehends the substance of the two Creeds of Ireneus & agrees in language with the Creeds of the several Churches of the Latines afterwards published by commentators  

Now if the articles within the brackets in all these Creeds of both Greeks & Latines, be omitted the Creeds which remain will agree with one another & with the Creed which we last set down out of Tertullian, without any material variation of words, excepting that Eusebius has omitted the article of sitting at the right hand of God. And from this agreement it follows, that the Creeds which remain after the articles within the brackets are omitted were the original Creeds of the several churches before those Creeds began to be enlarged by the addition of new articles; [And particularly that the Creed last set down out of Tertullian was the genuine Creed in which he had been instructed.] And taking all these Creeds for one & the same Rule of faith (as they are one in sense without any material variation of words) we have in them the primitive Rule of faith as it was delivered down in the Churches till the days of Hegesippus Irenæus & Tertullian; that Rule of faith which the Apostles call the form of sound words, the form of doctrine, the one faith, the faith which was once delivered to the saints & the traditions. For I know of no other traditions of faith then those of the articles conteined in the Rule of faith.

And that these Creeds jointly & severally contein the primitive Rule of faith is further confirmed by the Scriptures themselves, wherin the articles of this faith are spoken of as fundamentals & sometimes expesed in the very same words as in the Creeds. the Apostles in preaching sometimes touching upon the articles of their Symbol We preach unto you –– – – baptized. Acts. 19.3. By all these & such like places of scripture it {is} abundantly manifest that all the articles of the Creeds above mentioned (not with the brackets) are divine truths & fundamental points of faith requisite to baptism. What the Apostles preached by parts & explained at large to their auditors is < insertion from f 91r > in this Rule of faith comprised in a short form of sound words.

< text from f 91v resumes > < insertion from the left margin of f 91v >

These places of scripture may suffice to shew that all the articles of the Rule of faith above mentioned are fundamental truths requisite to baptism. And as for the articles of the Creeds within the brackets, that they have been added since the beginning there are manifest indications.

< text from f 91v resumes >
<92r>

Chap. 3.
Of the faith which was once delivered to theSaints

For uniting all Christians in one body & preventing disputes which tended to break this body into parties the Apostles in the beginning of the Gospel comprehended all the articles of faith necessary to communion, in one short systeme called the Creed or symbol of faith. And in relation to this Creed the Apostle Paul tells us that [41]there is one body or Church, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God & father of all & exhhorts us to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of love, that is, to be all of one mind. By one faith one baptism he means one faith by which all men were admitted to baptism & one baptism by which they were admitted into one body or church. For there were certain principles – – – – – – – – – – – – for he had not writ an epistle to them before.

Now that there was one short & unalterable rule of faith propagated with the gospel into all nations in the beginning & delivered down by tradition in the several Churches from one end of the earth to the other, Irenæus declares in the following words. The Church, saith he, altho dispersed throughout the whole world to the ends of the earth keeps that faith which was received from the Apostles & their disciples; Which is in one God the father – – – – – – judicare vivos et mortuos, per carnis etiam resurrectionem. Hac lege fidei manente, cætera jam disciplinæ et conversationis admittunt novitatem correctionis, operante scilicet et proficiente usque in finem gratia Dei. And in his book de Præscriptione hæreticorum he paraphrases the Creed & then adds. Hæc regula a Christo instituta nullas habet apud nos quæstiones nisi quas hæreses inferunt & quæ hæreticos faciunt. And again in his book against Praxeas he paraphrases the Creed & then subjoyns Hanc Regulam ab initio evangelij decurrise, etiam ante priores quosque hæreticos nedum ante Praxeam hesternum probabit tam ipsa posteritas omnium hæreticorum quam ipsa novellitas Praxeæ hesterni. By these testimonies of Irenæus & Tertullian & also by the testimony of Hegesippus mentioned above, it is manifest that in their days all the churches from one end of the earth to the other end thereof had one & the same rule of faith & agreed in this rule without any disputing about it & by consequence that this Rule was propagated into all the Churches at the first preaching of the gospel it being impossible to propagate it afterwards without great disputing. It is manifest also that in the second century the Churches looked upon this rule of faith as derived down to them by tradition from the Apostles themselves & so of divine authority not to be altered by any humane authority what ever. As Emperors & kings, Bishops, Councils & Popes have no authority to alter the Lords prayer or ten commandments or any part of the scriptures so they have none toalter the Creed. And its further manifest that the primitive Christians looked upon the unity & immutability of this Rule of faith as the foundation of the unity & internal peace <92v> of the Church & the bulwark by which she stood her grownd against all hereticks & distinguished her self from them & from the heathens. For this end the Apostles directed the first Christians to keep hold fast & contend for the form of sound words, the form of doctrine, the traditions, the faith which was once delivered to the saints & declared that there was but one faith. For this end they delivered it down to the Churches by oral tradition that the heathens might not know it but Christians by reciting it might know one another & avoyd those as heathens who could not recite it or as hereticks who recited it corruptly. And hence the ancient Christians called it the symbol of their faith, by that word alluding to the watch word by which soldiers of a party distinguish themselves from the enemy & to the symbols which heathens were taught at their being initiated into the mysteries of any God & were obliged to keep secret that they might by reciting the symbol know one another whenever they met.

Now though the unity of the Church depended upon the unity of the faith & therefore the rule of faith was unaliterable yet before the end of the second century some of the Latine Churches in opposition to hereticks began to add new articles to it. And after they had by adding some articles in the language of the scriptures made precedents for creating to them selves a creed-making authority: they began to add articles in other language then that of the scripture till they lost the primitive Apostolick rule of faith & by the loss of it brought all into confusion.

<93r>

first they added in the language of the scriptures these seven articles conceived by the holy Ghost, crucified, dead, sitteth at the right hand of God, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the body & life everlasting. These additions were made in the second & third centuries & in the fourth & fift they added in other language then that of the scriptures these five: holy catholick church , ὁμοούσιος to the father descended into hell, who together with the father & the son is worshipped & glorified, the communion of saints. In the first century while any of the Apostolick men continued alive the Church remained an uncorrupted virgin, as Hegesippus testifies: but after the death of Iohn the Apostle & Symeon bishop of Ierusalem & cousin german of our Lord, heresies began to <93v> multiply & molest the churches much more then before & when any heresy was convicted by any text of scripture, it may be conceived that the Christians in speaking of that heresy would be apt to magnify that text of scripture & recite it in their paraphrases & comments upon the creed until at lengh they inserted it into the body of the Creed it self. And by this means the articles conceived by the holy Ghost, , dead, sitteth at the right hand of God, the resurrection of the body & the life everlasting began to be inserted into the creed of the Latines before the end of the second century. For all these articles crept first into the creeds of the Latines & from thence were translated into the Creeds of the Greeks in the fourth century. For the Latines were less tenacious of the tradition of faith then the Greeks, as is manifest by the proceedings of Pope Victor who in the end of the second century turning Cataphrygian, excommunicated the churches of Asia for keeping Easter on the 14th day of the first month of the Luni-solar year, which was the ancient year of all nations & that he might not break communion which all the christians of Asia issued out communicatory letters to the Cataphrygians, & this without any regard to the Apostolick tradition of faith which was the primitive rule of communion. For there was nothing in the creed concerning holidays. It was by the supposed authority of the Church of Rome that Victor did this. And by doing it he attempted to make himself universal bishop & the Church of Rome supreme over all the Churches.

One of the first articles added to the Creed was sitteth at the right hand of God. ffor this is in the Creeds of Tertullian & in all those of the Latines now extant but not in the earliest Creeds of the Greeks, the two Creeds of Irenæus, that of Eusebius Pamphili & the Nicene – – – – – – – – – – – put under his feet.

The article conceived by the holy ghost is wanting – – – – – – – – – – before the Article I beleive in the holy ghost, & makes that Article superfluous. And therefore Tertullian in two of his Creeds where he omits the first Article he omitts the last

Two other new Articles were the resurrection of the body & the life everlasting – – – – – – as Christ rose to judge them. But the Gnosticks denying the real death of Christ & the resurrection of the body & life everlasting the Latines made their Creed more express by adding those words to the end of it & inserting the words was crucified dead. Tertullian has not the life everlasting & adds the resurrection of the body in such a manner as is to be met with in no other Creeds then his, & therefore the addition was not settled in his days.

The forgiveness of sins is an article not in the creeds of Ireneus Tertullian, Lucian, Eusebius, not in those of Nice & Constantinople, nor in that of Ierusalem recited by Cyrill. It seems to have been added by the Latines in the middle of the third century in opposition to Novatian. For the first mention of it is in the end of a Creed recited by Cyprian in these words remissionem peccatorum et vitam æternam per sanctam ecclesiam.

Hitherto the Christians kept to the scriptures, but now the authority of the Church began to be in vogue, & for magnifying & establishing that authority they inserted the holy catholick church into the Creed. For Alexander bishop of Alexandria a year or two before the meeting of the Council of Nice A.C. 323 in making a declaration of his faith inserted it in this manner. We confess also, saith he, one Holy Ghost —— & one only catholick apostolick church whichis ever inexpugnable tho the whole worldattack it, & overcomes every impious faction of hereticks who rise up against it. And henceforward the holy catholick Church was inserted into <94r> almost all the Creeds next after the article of the Holy Ghost.

And now the Bishops had almost lost the primitive form of sound words in which the faith was once delivered to the saints, every Council began to make new articles of faith in their own words. And particularly The Council of Nice A.C. 225 inserted the word ὁμοουσιος into the Creed; the Council of Ariminum A.C. 359 inserted this Article, descended into the infernal regions & there performed what was to be done, whom the door-keepers of Hell beholding trembled; the Council of Constantinople A.C. 381 inserted this, who together with the father & the son is worshipped & glorified: & the Latines about the beginning of the fift century (I think in opposition to Vigilantius) inserted the communion of saints. For these four Articles are generally allowed to be new ones.

The ancient Creeds of the Greeks generally ended with the article of the Holy ghost & the primitive Creed or Creeds of the Latines came from the Greeks – – – – – – – – – – – – has been added since the beginning.

The first Creed of Tertullian above recited is the oldest Creed of the Latines now extant in proper concise words without paraphrastical flourishes. And as it is the oldest so it is the least corrupt. If the words by the resurrection of the body which are added to the end of it in such a manner as is not to be met with in any other Creed be omitted & the Article of the holy Ghost which is in all creeds be added, the Creed will run thus. Credo in unicum Deum mundi conditorem, & filium ejus Iesum Christum, natum ex virgine Maria, crucifixum sub Pontio Pilato, tertia die resuscitatum a mortuis, receptum in cælis, sedentem nunc ad dexteram Patris, venturum judicare vivos et mortuos. Et Credo in spiritum sanctum. Now if this Creed be compared with the Creeds of the several Churches of the Latines which were afterwards published you will find that all the articles of this Creed are in all those Creeds & that this Creed agrees with & conteins the whole substance of all those Creeds except the Articles which we have noted to have been added to the Creeds of the Latines since the days of Pope Victor. And thence it follows that this Creed of Tertullian is in substance the very Creed of the Latine Churches as it stood in the end of the second century & that all the articles which we have noted to be new ones have been added since those days except the article sedentem ad dextram Patris which might be added a little before. To make this manifest, I have subjoyned the principal Creeds of the Latines which were published in the fourth & fift centuries that you may compare them with Tertullians creed & with one another the new articles being inclosed to distinguish them from the rest

The Creed of the Church of Aquileia is thus recited by Ruffin Presbyter of that Church

The Creed of the Church of Turin is thus set down by Maximus Taurinensis

The Creed of the Church of Ravenna is thus recited by Petrus Chrysologus

The Creed of the Africans is thus recited by Austin bishop of Hippo.

Ambrose in an epistle to Pope Syricius has these words [45]Credatur Symbolo Apostolorum quod Ecclesia Romana intemeratum <94v> semper custodit et servat. This is that Creed which is still called symbolum Apostolorum, excepting that the descent into hell & the communion of saints have been added since the days of Ambrose, & it now runs thus I beleive in God the father almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only son our 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 he rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sitteth on the right hand of God the father Almighty from thence he shall come 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 & the life everlasting.

Now if in all these Creeds the articles within the brackets be omitted as being added since the end of the second century: you will have the creeds of the Churches of Aquileia Turin Ravenna Hippo & Rome as they stood in the end of that century. And all these creeds agree with one another & with the creed of Tertullian & by that agreement make it very evident that one & the same rule of faith was propagated down fom the beginning in all these Churches

Which rule of faith resulting fom all those Creeds compared together is this. I beleive in God [or in one God] the Father almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his son [or only son] our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, & was buried. The third day he rose again from the dead ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God, & shall come to judge the quick & the dead, & I beleive in the Holy Ghost.

The word buried is in all the Creeds but Tertullians & may be retained because the Apostle Paul inserts it into the fundamentals of faith. For I delivered unto you first of all, saith he, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures & that he was buried & that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1 Cor. 15.4.

The Creeds of the Greek Church generally begin thus: I beleive in one God the father almighty, maker of heaven & earth & of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God. And this <95r> form is most consonant to the first commandment & to the words of the Apostle Paul whenever he speaks of the fundamentals of religion as where he says that there is one body one Lord one faith one baptism one God & father of all (Ephes 4.4) one God & one mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus (1 Tim 2.5) one God the father of whom are all things & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things (1 Cor. 8.6) The article sitteth at the right hand of God was wanting in the oldest creeds of the Greeks & in those of Irenæus as was said above & to the article I beleive in the holy Ghost irenæus & the Greeks added who spake by the Prophets, or words to that purpose. For it is a fundamental point of religion to beleive Moses & the Prophets to be authentic, tho it be not necessary to understand all their writings. And in some of the oldest Creeds the names of Mary & Pontius Pilate were omitted. So then the Symbol or rule of faith in the Greek Churches till the days of Irenæus was much to this purpose

I beleive in one God, the father almighty, maker of heaven & earth, & of all things therein visible & invisible; & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, who was born of a virgin crucified & buried. The third day he rose again from the dead & ascended into heaven, & shall come from thence to judge the quick & the dead. And I beleive in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets.

This form of faith is to the very same sense with that of the Latines last mentioned & whether one form or the other or a medium between both be used is of no moment. But to shew that the last recited profession of faith is without any material variation the primitive Creed of the Greek Churches I will here subjoyn two or three of the oldest Creeds of the Greeks, now extant.

In the Council of Nice Eusebius of Cæsarea produced a Creed which he said he received from his ancestors & was instructed in it before his baptism. This Creed was approved & interpoled by the general Councils of Nice & Constantinople & is as follows. I beleive in one God the father Almighty creator of all things visible & invisible & in one Lord Iesus Christ [the Word of God, God of God, light of light, life of life,] the only begotten son, [the first begotten of every creature begotten of his father before all worlds by whom all things were made] who for our salvation was incarnate [& conversed with men,] who sufered & rose again the third day & ascended to his father, & shall come again to judge the quick & the dead. I beleive also in one holy Ghost.

Lucian who was martyred in Dioclesian's persecution, left a Creed in writing which was produced in the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 & signed by them & again by the Council of Seleucia A.C. 359 & is as follows. Credo in unum Deum omnipotentem omnium tam intelligibilium quam sensibilium opificem et conservatorem; et in unum filium Dei unigenitum [ante omnia sæcula subsistentem manentemque cum Patre qui ipsum genuit per quem omnia facta sunt visibilia et invisibilia,] qui [novissimis diebus juxta voluntatem patris descendit et] carnem ex sancta virgine suscepit et [postquam patris sui voluntatem omni ex arte implevisset] passus est et resurrexit & ad cælum reversus sedet ad dextram Patris. Qui venturus est ut judicat vivos <95v> [et Rex ac Deus permanet in æternum.] Credo etiam in spiritum sanctum.

Cyrill bishop of Ierusalem in commenting upon the creed of that city, thus recites it. 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 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:] & 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.]

These articles (except that of sitting at the right hand of God are also found in the Creeds of Irenæus & in the oldest Creeds of the Greeks now extant, vizt that into which Eusebius Pamphili was baptized & which was approved by the Council of Nice, that of Lucian the Martyr which was approved by the Council of Antioch A.C. 341, that of Ierusalem commented upon by Cyril bishop of that city, & that in the Apostolick Constitutions Lib 8. c. 41. And thence it is put out of question that these Articles are genuine, & were in the rule of faith which in the begining was propagated with the Gospel into all nations. But the Creeds of the Greeks began in this manner: I beleive in one God the father almighty& in one Lord Iesus Christ: which way of speaking is more conformable to that of the Apostle. There is one body & one spirit — one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God & father of all (Eph. 4.4) one God & one mediator between God & man, the man Christ Iesus (1. Tim. 2.5) one God the father of whom are all things & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things. 1 Cor 8.6.

So then the creed of the Latines usually called the Apostles Creed conteins the whole faith requisite to baptism & communion, besides some superfluous Articles which if interpreted innocently may be still retained for the sake of peace.

But for other opinions which create disputes & tend to discord amongst Christians such as are what Christ did before he was born, & between his death & resurrection & what he does now in heaven; in what manner the quick & dead shall be judged & with what sort of bodies they shall rise.

Our beleiving in one God & one Lord & one holy Ghost is the whole foundation of the christian religion: The first article teaches us to relinquish the worship of the multitude of heathen Gods & worship and glorify the God who made heaven & earth & all things therein, & governs all things by his almighty power & universal dominion. The second teaches to give honour & glory to the Lord who died for us & by whom God governs the world & will judge the quick & the dead. The third teaches us to beleive & study the scriptures that we may learn how to behave our selves in this life in order to give a good account at the day of judgment.

For besides the first principles & fundamentals of religion conteined in the doctrine of baptism – – – – offences to come.

And if we are not to censure one another & fall out about such questions much less are we to make them articles of faith necessary to baptism & salvation. Strong meats which are proper for men must not be mixed with the milk which is to be given to babes. The Church has no authority to alter the foundation upon which she was built by Christ & his Apostles, none to alter that one faith into which all men were baptized & by one baptism admitted into one church from the beginning. To alter this faith is to loosen the bond of the union & endanger the dissolution of the whole. To impose any new condition of communion is to deny communion to those who by the institution of Christ have a right to it, & thereby to condemn the members of Christ as hereticks: which in the language of < insertion from the left margin of f 95v > the scriptures is blaspheming the names of those that dwell in heaven, making war upon the saints & becoming an Antichrist. Let the men of this spirit consider the admonition of Christ to those of their temper: Iudge not that ye be not judged, for with what judgment ye judge ye shall be judged & with what measure ye meet it shall be measured to you again.

< text from f 95v resumes > <96r>

– born of the Virgin by the power of the most High. And so the description which Iohn in the beginning of his Gospel gives of Christ in calling him the Word & saying In the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God & the Word was God: The same was in the beginning with God: All things were made by him & without him was nothing made that was made: This description I say has a manifest relation to what is said of him in the books of Moses & signifies that Christ was with God before his incarnation, even in the begining when God made the heavens & the earth ffor Christ himself declared as much when he said to his ffather: Glorify me with the glory which I had with thee before the world began. It signifies that he being then with God, it was he to whom God said Let us make man, & That it was he who appeared to Adam in paradise by the name of God & to the Patriarchs & to Moses by the same name: for the father is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see. It signifies that he was one of the three Angels who appeared to Abraham & of whom it is said Iehova rained upon Sodom & upon Gomorrah brimstone & fire from Iehova out of heaven: for the name Iehova is given to none but the God of Israel. It signifies that he is the God who wrastled with Iacob & to whom Iacob erected an altar Gen 35.1,12, & the Angel who appeared to Moses in the bush by the name of the God of his fathers Abraham Isaac & Iacob, ✝ (Exod. 3) & was with Moses in the wilderness & spake to him in mount Sina giving lively oracles to the people & to whom the people were disobedient thrusting him from them & worshipping the Calf (Act. 7.38, 39, 40) It signifies that he was the Angel of Gods presence of whom God said to IsraelBehold I send an Angel before thee to keep thee in the way & to bring thee into the place which I have prepared: beware of him & obey his voice, provoke him not: for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him. Exod 23.20, 21 ffor he that since his resurrection is gone to prepare another place for the blessed might before his incarnation prepare this in which we live. And he who by his resurrection has changed his mortal flesh into an immortal spiritual body might by his incarnation change his immortal spiritual body into a body of flesh. But if any man cannot beleive all this; if he beleives only as much as the {Naza}renes or primitive Christians of the circumcision beleived, the Churches have no more authority to condem{n or exc}ommunicate him then they had to condemn & excommunicate the Churches of the circumcision in the Apostles days.

And he who by his resurrection has changed his mortal flesh into an immortal spirituall body might by his incarnation change his immortal spiritual body into a body of flesh. ffor whereas the father is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see & therefore is totally incorporeal, the son before his incarnation & the Holy Ghost have appeared in visible shapes upon several occasions & therefore had spiritual bodies.

<96v>

& signifies that it was he to whom God said Let us make man & who soon after by the name of God appeared to Adam in paradise & afterwards to the Patriarchs & to Moses. ffor the ffather is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see. As Christ is now gone to prepare a better place for the blessed so in the beginning he prepared this place for mortals being in glory with the father before 1 Iohn. ffor the supreme God doth nothing by himself which he can do by others .] And after he had prepared this place he governed it being the Iehova who reigned upon Sodom & upon Gomorrah brimstone & fire from Iehova out of heaven & the Word or Oracle of God who gave the law on Mount Sina (Acts 7.38, 39, 40) & the Angel who led the Israelites & in whom God had placed his name & authority. Behold saith God I send an Angel before thee to keepe thee in the way & to bring thee into the place which I have prepared for thee: beware of him & obey his voice, provoke him not for my name is in him. Exod 23.20, 21. And the Word was made flesh that is his body , the body by means of which he appeared to the Patriarchs, eat with Abraham & wrastled with Iacob. For nothing is tangible but body. As his mortall body by the resurrection became an immortal body so his immortal body by the incarnation became a mortal one. That which was from the beginning, saith Iohn, which we have heard – – – – – – – circumcision in Iudea.

This Angel therefore was the Lord of the Earth & King of Israel in whom God had placed his name & authority & by whom he governed Israel in the days of the Iudges untill they rejected him from being their King & desired Samuel to make them a King after the manner of other nations

After this I do not find that the Angel of the covenant appeard any more to the Rulers of Israel but [answered them either by the ephod or till the building of the second Temple & the days of Ezra he sent his messenger to the Prophets. And at length the Word was made flesh, that is, his body, the body by means of which he had been visible & audible & tangible, appearing & speaking to the Patriarchs & Iudges, eating with abraham & wrastling with Iacob, & touching his thigh this spiritual body became flesh. ffor nothing is tangible but body. As his mortal body by the resurrection –– – – – – – – circumcision in Iudea. over whom Iames the brother of our Lord was Bishop

– handled by the Apostles, died by the hand of those who had rejected him from being their king; rose again from the dead, went into the heavens to prepare a mansion for the blessed (for in Gods house are many mansions;) & sent his messenger to comfort the Apostles & disciples, & assist them in preaching the Gospel & to shew them things to come; & when hee has prepared a new mansion & the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled shall return to judge the quick & dead & reign over Israel in the beginning beforethey rejected him & desired a king, & shall continue to reign untill Gog & Magog & all other enemies temporal & spiritual be put under his feet the last of which is death, & then shall deliver up the kingdom to the father that God may be all in all, & shall go hence with the blessed to the mansion which he is now preparing for them, having sent the wicked to such places as they deserve.

But if any man cannot beleive – – – Iudæa – – – bishop.

Yet he sent his messenger to the Prophets till the days of {illeg} {illeg}n prophesy ceased the learned Doctors of the Cabbala delivered their traditions to the people & at length taught them to kill the king whom they had rejected. For the Word was made flesh, that is his body

✝ ffor in the Creed after the words I beleive in one God the father almighty are added the words creator of heaven & earth as not included in the former.

<97r>

Christ is therefore called the Word to signify that before incarnation he was the Oracle & mouth of God the Angel by whom God gave the law on mount Sina & commanded Israel whose voice was to be obeyed: and also to signify that in his mortal body he was the Prophet predicted by Moses: & that after his resurrection he was the faithful & true witness, whose testimony was the spirit of prophesy & who shall come to destroy the wicked with the breath of his mouth as with a two edged sword, & to judge the quick & the dead.

He is said to have been in the beginning with God & that all things were made by him to signify that as he is now gone to prepare a place for the blessed so in the beginning he prepared & formed this place in which we live, & thenceforward governed it. ffor the supreme God doth nothing by himself which he can do by others.

He is called God to signify that he is the God who appeared to Adam & the Patriarchs & Moses; not the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see but the Angel in whom God had placed his name with dominion over man. Beware of him, saith God, & obey his voice, provoke him not for he will not pardon your transgressions for my name is in him.

And as his mortal body by his resurrection from the dead became a spiritual body, so the spiritual body which he had in the beginning & by means of which he appeared to the Patriarchs eat with Abraham & wrastled wih Iacob, became a mortal body by his incarnation. ffor, saith Iohn, the Word was made flesh: & again that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, which our hands have handled of the Word of life (for the life was manifested, & we have seen it, & bear witness, & shew unto you that eternal life which was with the ffather & was manifested unto us:) that which we have seen & heard declare we unto you. The word of life which was with the father from the beginning, was born of the Virgin, seen & heard & handled

But if any man cannot beleive all this, yet if he beleives as much as the Nazarenes or primitive Christians of the circumcision beleived: the Churches have no more authority now to condemn & excommunicate him then they had in the Apostles days to condemn & excommunicate the Churches of the circumcision in Iudea, over whom Iames the brother of our Lord was Bishop

The grand occasion of errors in the faith has been the turning of the scriptures from a moral & monarchical to a physical & metaphysical sense, & this has been done chiefly by men bred up in the metaphysical theology of the heathen Philosophers the Cabbalists & Schoolmen . For men tainted with the metaphysical principles of Philosophers Cabbalists & Schoolmen upon reading the scriptures have been apt to strain every thing to their own opinions. If it be said This is my body meaning a symbol of my body, they take it in a metaphysical sense for transubstantiation. If it be said, He that hath seen me hath seen the father, meaning their works, they understand it of seing their substances, tho the father be the invisible God. If it be said I & the father are one, they take it in a metaphysical sense for one in substance tho Christ interprets it of a moral unity or unanimity, Be ye one as I & the father are one. If Christ be called the ΛΟΓΟΣ το Θεου the Oracle of God they take it metaphysically for the ΛΟΓΟΣ of the Platonists, the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of God without which God would be ἄσοφος & ἄλογος the ΛΟΓΟΣ subsisting in Gods mind & emitted as it were out of his mouth by speaking: whereas the name is meant of his legislative & iudicial authority to teach us obedience. If God be called ο παντοκράτωρ the omnipotent, they take it in a metaphysical sense for Gods power of creating all things out of nothing whereas it is meant principally of his universal irresistible monarchical power to teach us obedience. ✝ If the

It consisted at first in understanding the common monarchy of God & Christ & living according to the laws of this monarchy. And those laws were to give our honour & obedience to God & Christ & to kings & magistrates, & to love our neighbours as our selves & do good to our enemies. This religion was easily understood by the meanest of the people & was handed down amongst them by tradition in simplicity untill men skilled in the learning of heathens Cabbalists & Schoolmen corrupted it with metaphysicks, straining the scriptures from a moral to a metaphysical sense. & thereby making it unintelligible.

Ireneus testifies

These things were written by Tertullian in the beginning of the third century & Irenæus about 20 years before testified that all the Churches were then of one & the same faith & retained it with great zeale so as to stop their ears at heresies. And the common people whom Tertullian calls simple & imprudent were unexceptable witnesses of the tradition of the Church being such as the Gospel was preached to in the beginning & as are generally tenacious of traditions while learned men are apt to intermix the opinions of their masters, & making the body of the Church catholick. And Tertullians testimony concerning them is strong & unquestionable because against his own party. So then the Church catholick was vehemently for a monarchical unity till the end of the second century & dreaded a metaphysical unity as polytheistical.

[46] – patrem. The doctrine κατὰ Proclum or Proculum I take to be that which is described by Tertullian. For Tertullian had him in esteem calling him virginis senectæ et Christianæ eloquentiæ dignitas, quem in omni opere fidei – optaverim assequi. That according to Æschines seems to have been followed by Sabellius for Ierome . . . . cogunt And The difference between the two opinions seems to have been only verbal. Proculus with Tertullian considered the whole & its part & part of its part as three substances or substantial persons & Æschines with Sabellius considered them as but one. [But tho Sabellius & some other hereticks followed Montanus in his doctrine of the Trinity, yet they were not called Montanists unless they received also his prophesies.] Paul of Samosat seems also to have followed Montanus in the doctrine of the Trin. but he & Sabellius not receiving the proph. of Montanus were not accounted Montanists

& by the nam I AM: in reference to which Christ in asserting his age to the Iews tells them Verily I say unto you Before Abraham was I AM

If Gods Messengers be called Angels, we take Angels in a metaphysical sense for a species of beings & dispute about their nature as if all Gods Messengers were of one speces. And there seems to be a species of Angels very commonly imployed on Gods messages. But the word Angel is a general name signifying only a Messenger & comprehends all the species of Gods messengers: being given sometimes to Christ sometimes to the Holy Ghost & sometimes to Prophets. & to Iohn the Baptist & after the resurrection of the dead may be given to the sons of the resurrection. And how many other species of Angels there may be is unknown to us.

<98r>

father or son be called God, they take the name in a metaphysical sense as if it signified Gods metaphysical perfections of infinite eternal omniscient omnipotent whereas it relates only to Gods dominion to teach us obedience. The word God is relative & signifies the same thing with Lord & King, but in a higher degree. As we say my Lord our Lord your Lord, the King of Kings, & Lord of Lords the suprem Lord, the Lord of the earth the servants of the Lord, , serve other Lords, so we may say my God our God, your God, the God of Gods, the supreme God, the God of the earth the servants of God serve other Gods: but we do not say my infinite our infinite your infinite, the infinite of infinites, the infinite of the earth, the servants of the infinite serve other infinites. Where the Apostle told the Gentiles that the Gods which they worshipped were not Gods, he did not meane that they were not infinites, (for the Gentiles did not take them to be such:) but he meant that they had no power & dominion over man. They were fals Gods; not fals infinites, but vanities falsly supposed to have power & dominion over man. And in the same sense the Apostle opposes μορφὴ Θεου to μορφὴ δούλου in saying Let this mind [of humility] be in you which was in Christ Iesus, who being in < insertion from f 98v > Let this mind [of humility] be in you which was also in Christ Iesus: who being in μορφη Θεου did not acquire by rapine his present state of glory: but [on the contrary] emptied himself of the μορφη Θεου taking upon himthe μορφη θουλου [by incarnation,] & being found in fashion as a man he [still] humbled himself & became obedient unto death even the death of the cross. Wherefore God hath highly exalted him & given him [ τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω] a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow: Philip. 2. And in the same sence the Father is called the God of God the Son. For unto the Son he saith, Thy throne o God is for ever & ever, a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom: Thou hast loved righteousness & hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath annointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Heb. 1

< text from f 98r resumes >

When therefore the father is called God & the son is called Lord (as is done in the Creed,) it signifies that the ffather is the highest Lord & the Son is Lord next under him or that the son sits at the right hand of God. And when the Son is also called God it signifies that the name of God is in him & that he is Lord over all things under the father. And yet they are not two Gods, because a king & his viceroy are not two kings, nor is the name God to be understood of both together. It allways signifies the father unless by any circumstance it be restrained to the son; even as the name King always signifies the superior King unless by any circumstance it be restrained to the viceroy. And as a man may give Kings & Princes that worship which is suitable to their dignity power & dominion over us without being guilty of idolatry, so we may give Christ Iesus a much greater worship that worship which is suitable to his dignity, power & dominion over us without being guilty of idolatry tho he be not the supreme God. ffor we are to worship him & give him honour & glory as he is the Lamb of God which was slain for us, (Apoc 5.) the mediator between God & Man the Man Christ Iesus. His worship is founded in the dominion which God gave to his humane nature after his death & resurrection. And if this be called worshipping a creature & thought a crime of the same nature with that of the heathens who worshipped the creature more then the creator I answer that by the creature the Apostle here means stocks & stones the worshipping of which was idolatry not because they were creatures but because they were vanities destitute of power & dominion over us, having eyes without seing & ears without hearing & being unable to do us good or hurt. ffor all the old Prophets place Idolatry in the worshipping of vanities. And so doth the Apostle when he tells us that the Gods of the Gentiles are not Gods, & that an Idol is nothing in the world. And therefore if the giving honour & glory to the Lamb which was slain be not worshipping a vanity it can not be Idolatry tho it be worshipping him as a man the Man who humbled h{im}

<98v>

When therefore the father or son is called God we are to understand it not metaphysically but in a monarchical sense. When the father is called God & the son is called Lord (as is done in the Creed

There is a worship due even to his humane nature & this is founded in the dominion which

The heathens & Gnosticks supposed not only their Gods but even the souls of men & the stars to be of one substance with the supreme God & yet were Idolaters for worshipping them. And he that is of this opinion may beleive Christ to be of one substance with the father without making him more then a meer man . Tis not consubstantiality but power & dominion which gives a right to be worshipped. And to worship a consubstantial being wholy destitute of power & dominion is worshipping a vanity & by consequence idolatry. But the giving honour & glory to the Lamb which was slain the mediator between God & man the Man Christ Iesus is not worshipping a vanity & therefore not Idolatry tho it be worshipping Christ as a man the man who humbled himself.

Now this Creed is short & free from repetitions as a symbol of religion ought to be. It is easy to be understood & remembered by the common people & & so may be compared to milk for babes, Its articles are in the scriptures in express words & so liable to no disputes. It conteins a complete system of the faith sufficient for baptism & communion with the Churches It wants no Articles but such as have been added since the beginning nor has any Articles that can be spared from the faith, all its Articles being in almost all the Creeds of both Greeks & Latins. And by these characters it seems to comprehend without any material difference that summ of faith which was at first delivered by memory to all Christians as the symbol of communion. I may add that it conteins not mere theories like some of those Articles which we have omitted but all its Articles are practical truths on which the whole practise of religion depends. We must

<99r>

self to death even the death of the Cross & whom God hath therefore highly exalted & given him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow. [47]Vnto him therefore who loved us & washed us from our sins in his blood & made us kings & Priests to God even his father & who is the faithfull & true witness the firstbegotten from the dead , the Prince of the kings of the earth, unto him be glory & dominion for ever & ever. Amen.

The Christian religion was preached by Christ & his Apostles to the meanest of the people, & therefore was suited to theire capacity: and what it now conteins above their understanding has been introduced since by men of learning. Before it was corrupted by Philosophers & Learned men it consisted in beleiving & {& serving} & obeying one invisible God or suprem monarch of the Vnivers whose dominion is boundless & irresistible: & in this Monarchy & one visible Lord Iesus Christ by whom God governs the world, the Word or Oracle of God [whose voice is to be obeyed because the name of God is in him, &] who by his messenger spake to the Prophets. And we must live according to the laws of this monarchy giving all due honour & obedience to Kings & Magistrates as set over us by God & loving our neighbours & doing good even to our enemies. & according to our merits we may expect to be preferred in this Monarchy or punished To him that overcometh, saith Christ will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I also overcame & am set down with my father in his throne. This religion was easy to be understood by the meanest of the people & was handed down amongst them in simplicity, untill men skilled in the learning of the heathens corrupted it with metaphysicks, & by their eminence for learning & humane wisdom getting into Bishopricks spread their opinions amongst the Clergy & great men of the earth. And now I have given an account of the primitive faith preached to the poor & handed down amongst them by tradition, it remains that I shew by what steps the men of learning have perplexed this faith with metaphysics no way tending to a good life & filled it with subtilties much above the understanding of the people, & destructive to the right notion of the Monarchy.

It was not therefore without reason that eastern bishops opposed the word ὁμοιούσιος to Sabellianism, & in their Councills anathematized the Sabellian & Cataphrygian principles & declared against the language of one hypostasis. In the year 341 Constantius entring the western Empire in his war against Magnentius, a very numerus Council of eastern bishops met at Sirmium against Photinus bishop of that city a Sabellian & made many declarations against the Sabellian & Cataphrygian principles & for establishing the monarchy of the Father:; amongst which were these Siquis ingen{itu}m aut partem ejus ex Maria natum dicere ausit anathema est. siquis Dei substantiam d{illeg}ari aut contrahi dixerit anathema sit. Siquis ἐνδιάθετον ἢ προφόρικον λόγον insitum aut prolatitium verbum esse Dei filium dixerit anathema sit

Now Socrates tells us that the deposition of Photinus by this Council for the heresies of which they convicted him was universally approved both then & afterwards as right & just , & Hillary seven years after sending to the bishops of Gallia & Britain a copy of the Creed of this Council with the anathemas against Paul annexed & saith of the Council. Necessitas –– – –     And then repeating the several anathemas & commenting upon them he approved them all

Socrates writes that the East & West continued in communion till the Council of Serdica

Socrates writes that after the Council of Serdica the West separated fom the east. And that they communicated promiscuously as far as the mountain Suchis which seperates Thrace & <99v> Illyricum, notwithstanding their differens in the faith, but beyond that mountain that is westward they did not communicate. Which is as much as to say that the Greek {Communion} communicated with the Latines but the Latines Churches refused to communicate with the Greeks. And perhaps there might be some factious people in the western empire who : made a difference in some places: but the dispute now between the Greeks & Latines was not {illeg} about the faith but about dominion & did not amount to a breach of communion between the Greek & Latin Churches, but only to the excommunication of a few persons for misdemeanours. ffor the bishops of each party in the Council of Serdica excommunicated six or seven of the other party & therefore looked upon all the rest as remaining in their communion. And the judicial proceedings of the Council of Sirmi{um} against Photinus four years after the council of Serdica, would not have been universally received as authentic had not the Latines Churches been then in communion with the Greeks. Tis certain therefore that the Greek & Latine Churches notwithstanding all their disputes remained in external communion with one another till the meeting of this Council of Sirmium & by consequence till the death of Constantius, & his successor Iulian the last heathen Emperor. And therefore the separation which the bishop of Rome made from this Communion after the death of Iulian was a separation from the visible Church Catholick of Christ.

The main difference between the Greeks & Latines was about the Vniversal bishopric The bishop of Rome claimed appeals from all the churches, & for gaining this dominion received into communion such persons as the Greeks in their Councils excommunicated & summoned the Greeks to appear before him in a Council at Rome & give an account of their proceedings against these condemned persons & the western bishops in the Council of Serdica, proceeded against the Eastern in the same manner: & these two Councils decreed that appeals might be made from all the Churches to the Bishop of Rome: but the eastern bishops would not submit. And this controversy created that misunderstanding which was between the Greeks & Latines presently after the Council of Sardica. But Constantius soon after conquering the western empire made the western bishops submit & subscribe the sentence of the eastern Councils, & so quieted this dispute.

As to the faith, both parties allowed the Nicene decree but interpreted it variously: the western bishops by una substantia una usia & una hypostasis, the eastern by ὁμοιούσιος & ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὁυσίαν. And at length for putting an end to the controversy about the interpretation the bishops in the Councils of Sirmium, Nice in Thrace, Ariminum, Seleucia & Constantinople in the years 357, 358, 359 & 360 abolished the use of the word usia with its compounds & that for these resons. 1 because the ὁμοούσιος had been rejected by the Council of Antioch which deposed Paul of Samosat above 50 years before the Council of Nice decreed it & therefore the tradition of the Church was against it. & the proceedings of that Council were approved by the Church Catholick & therefore being grounded upon tradition were irreproachable in matters of faith., 2 because the Nicene fathers had put it without mature deliberation, the Emperor Constantine coming into the" Council upon a day appointed & proposing & pressing it & getting it decreed at once before he went out of the Council 3 Becaus the word ὁμοούσιος was a stumbling block to the people being misunderstood by them & leading them into various errors 4 because it created great disturbances in the Churches & 5 because the word usia with its compounds was not in scripture which commands us to hold fast the form of sound words received from the Apostles of our Lord. And for satisfying the Latines that the Greeks kept to the true meaning of the Nicene decree the very Acts of the Council were produced in the Council of Ariminum & the Latines were shewn that the Nicene fathers them selves in subscribing those Acts had interpreted the word ὁμοούσιος by the word ὁμοιούσιος & therefore the language of una substantia una usia & {una hyp}ostasis was not authorised by that C.

And hence forward the language of una h{ypostasis} began to be left off. Yet some few continued to use it till the reign of Iulian or a little longer. & were called Sabellians by those who used the language of three hypostases & mutually called thos who used this language Arians till Athanasius in the reign of Iulian examining both parties told them that tho they disagreed in words they agreed in sense, the one party meaning one hypostasis in nature & kind, the other party meaning three hypostases in number. And its observable that Ierome used the language of one hypostasis till he got leave from Pope Damasus to use the language of three. Thus was the language of one hypostasis exploded as Sabellian by the Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia

[1] Act 21.21 Act 61.3 Gal. 5.3

[2] 1 Cor. 7.18.

[3] Act 21.21, 24, 25

[4] Gal. 5.1, 2

[5] Rom. 4.14

[6] Gal. 2.16.

[7] Act 15.24, 28 & 21.25

[8] 1 Tim. 1.4

[9] Tit. 1.10

[10] Tit. 3.9.

[11] Colos. 2.8

[12] 1 Tim. 6.20.

[13] advers. Prax. p. 316.

[14] Luke 24.

[15] Mat. 28.

[16] Luk. 24

[17] Iren{illeg}

[18] Epiphan H{æres.} 20.

[19] Iren. l. 3. c. 11. & l. 1. c. 25.

[20] b Iren l. 1. c 20. Epiphan Hæres. 25 &27.

[21] l. 1. c. 27.

[22] a Epiphan Hæres. 28 sect. 1. & 27. Iren: l. 1. c. 24.

[23] a l. 3. c. 11

[24] b l 1. c. 20. Epiphan

[25] Iren. l. 1. c 22

[26] Iren l. 1. c. 23.

[27] Iren l. 1. c. 1

[28] Hæres. 30. sect. 3.

[29] ib. sect. 14 & 16.

[30] Iren. l. 1. c.    

[31] Iren l. 4. c. 1.

[32] Iren l. 4. c. 59

[33] Ephiphan. Hær. 30, sect. 17.

[34] Epist. 71, 73

[35] Cyprian Epist {74}

[36] Tertull. adv. Prax initio.

[37] lib. 4.sect 6.

[38] sect. 8.

[39] sect. 29

[40] Vide Epist. Alexandri ad Alexandrum Episcopum Bizantij

[41] Eph. 4.4, 5

[42] a Ruffin in Symb. inter opera Hieronymi Tom 12.

[43] Theodoret. Eccl. Hist. l. 1. c. 4

[44] Epist 76

[45] Ambr. Epist. 81

[46] adv. Valentinianos p.

[47] Apoc {1}.

© 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