put by the fathers & not being understood by the people
gives offense, & because it is not in the scriptures, we have
thought fit to remove, & that henceforth in speaking of God
no more mention be made of ὀυσία, because the holy scrip
tures no where mention the ὀυσία of the father & the son.
But we say that the Son is in all things like the ffather
as the holy Scriptures speak & teach. Thus far the Coun
cil of Ariminum. The descent into the infernal regions
is also found in the following Creed of Aquileia into which
Ruffin saith he was baptized. Credo in Deum, Patrem omni
potentem, et in Iesum Christum Iesum unicum filium ejus,
Dominum nostrum: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria
virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato & sepultus, descendit
in inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlos,
sedet ad dexteram Patris, inde venturus est judicare vivos
et mortuos: et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam Ecclesiam
Catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, hujus carnis resur
rectionem. This Article of the descent into Hades or Hell
is also found in the Creed of the Latines usually called the
Apostles Creed.
Another new Article was that the Holy Ghost is con
substantial to the ffather & Son. But for understanding how
this Article came into the Creed, I should acquaint you
that Athanasius being accused of several crimes by the
Meletians & condemned for them by the Council of Tyre &
banished into Gallia by Constantine the great A.C. 335, &
sent back into Egypt by his son Constantine A.C. 338, & this Constantine the younger dying son being A.C. 340 the Council
of Antioch wchwhich met consisted of about 97 bishops & met in the
beginning of the next Spring A.C. 341 wrote to the Emperors against him
& he made one Gregory bishop of Alexandria in the room of Athanasius & sent an account of these proceedings to the emperors & Churches for their approbation as was usual & Athanasius at the same time calling a Council of about 90 Bishops
of Egypt & Libya wrote also to the Churches in his own defense
& sent the Letter to the Bishop of Rome, & one Gregory being
made Bishop of Alexandria & sent thither While the Legates of both parties were going with them Letters to yethe bishop of Rome, the Eastern Emperor Constantius sent Gregory to Alexandria with an armed force at
Easter, & then Athanasius fled to Rome, as did also Paul of Constanti
pleConstantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza whom the Eastern
Bishops had also deposed. Whereupon These bishops appealed from the Eastern Councils to Iulius Bishop of Rome,
who & he accepted of the appeal examined them, received them into communion & called a Council of about 50 or 60 Bishops of Italy &
the parts adjacent to meet at Rome A.C. 342 & cited the
eastern Bishops then met in the said Council of Antioch to
appear before in this Council & justify their proceedings. The
eastern Bishops came not, but wrote back to Iulius a reprimanding
Letter, telling him that they were his equals & their synods had an
unshaken authoryauthority & the Iudge is used reproachfully whose judgment
is reexamined; that when the western Bishops condemned Novatian
the eastern acquiesced & when the eastern condemned Paul of Sa
mosat the western acquiesced; that to communicate with persons ex
communicated by others without the consent of those who excommunicated
them is criminal by the constitutions of the Church; & that if he desisted
they would have peace with him, otherwise not. When the Council
met at Rome & the eastern Bishops came not, they Council communicated with
Athanasius & the rest as Iulius had done before, & Iulius by their order 2 order wrote back to the eastern Bishops complaining of the
sharpness of their Letter, & of their not coming to the Council
& of their favouring the Arians & defending Athanasius at large, & blaming them for acting
in their Councils in matters of such consequence without giving
him notice to whom it belonged to do justice. Cur igitur, saith
he, et imprimis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere
voluistis? An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum no
bis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est definiri possit? Quapropter
si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcopum concepta fuerat, id huc
ad nostram ecclesiam referri oportuit. Thus Iulius in attempting
contending for the universal Bishopric, gained the Bishops of
Italy to his party together with the friends of Athanasius & some
others in Egypt Libya & some other places, & persisted in his designe.
About four year after when by spreading a clamour
against the eastern Bishops as if they were Arians,
the party of the Bishop of Rome was sufficiently encreased, the
Emperors by the working of the western Bishops were induced to call
a general Council to meet the next year A.C. 347, at
Serdica a city in the confine of both Empires to examin
the matter, but first to treat of the faith. And there came
thither about 80 eastern B & a much greater number of
western Bishops & Egyptian Bishops. But before the two parties
met the eastern hearing that the Western communicated
with Athanasius Marcellus & some others who stood excommuni
cated by them, sent to them several times to dismiss the excommunicated persons from their assembly. And the western Bishops on the other
hand summoned the eastern several times to come to their barr
of their tribunal & justify their proceedings against Athanasius
& the rest. And when neither party would yeild, five of
the six eastern Bishops who had been sent by the Council
of Tyre into Egypt to examin the matters of Athanasius upon the place
proposed to the western that an equal number of Bishops of both
parties should be sent from Serdica into Egypt to reexamin
the matter upon the place; & if the report wchwhich they had
made to the Council of Tyre proved false then they would
quietly submit to be excommunicated without ever complaining
to any body Emperor Council or Bishop, & if their report was found true then five of
the western Bishops who absolved Athanasius should be excom
municated without ever complaining. But this proposal
would not be accepted. Nothing would satisfy the western Bishops
but to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges
over the eastern. And therefor the eastern Bishops seeing that
the western contended for superiority would not joyn with them
in Council to hear the excommunicated persons at the barr
but contended for preeminence & dominion, went back from
Serdica to Philippopolis, & both parties writing circulatory letters in defence
of their own proceedings, the western in their letter
accused the eastern as guilty both because they appeared
not when Iulius cited them & because they now fled from
justice. They declared also in the same letter their faith
of one ὀυσία & one ὑπόστασις of the father & son & holy 3holy Ghost, & the equality of the Son to the ffather & his
assumption of a man. They made some Canons also in wchwhich
they decreed that appeals might be made from to the Bishop of Rome
from all Councils not called by him; & by doing so they submitted all their
churches to his authority, constituting him their Oecumenical Bishop &
themselves Roman Catholicks; & endeavoured that the eastern Chur
ches should be brought into the same subjection.
Athanas. Epist. ad Antiochenos.It was proposed also in this Council that a new profession of
of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Ni
cene Profession; & Sozomen tells us Sozomen. l. 3. c. 12 that they did compose a new form
of faith prolixer then the Nicene but conteining the same opini
on & not much differing in words, & that Hosius & Protogenes wrote
to Iulius Bishop of Rome that they confirmed the Nicene faith, but
for greater perspicuity explained it more at large that the Arians
might not abuse the brevity in wchwhich it was written & draw it to
an absurd sense. And certainly a new profession of faith was
published & handed about for some years in the name of this
Council, & I mistake if it was not the following Creed. We beleive
in one God, the ffather Almighty, the maker of all things visible
& invisible; & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, begotten
of the father, the only begotten, that is of the substance of the father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God,
begotten not made, consubstantial to the father by whom all things
were made which are in heaven & in earth, visible & invisible:
who for us men & for our salvation came descended, was incar
nate & made man, that is, begotten perfectly of Mary always
a Virgin by the holy Ghost: who had truly & not only in
appearance a body soul & mind & all things which are
in men except sin: who suffered, that is, was crucified
buried & rose again the third day & ascended into hea
ven in glory in the same body: sitteth at the right
hand of the father & shall come again in the same body
in glory to judge the quick & the dead, of whose kingdom
there shall be no end. And we beleive in the holy Ghost
who is not alien from the ffather & the Son but is
consubstantial to the ffather & the Son; who is un
created, perfect, the Paraclete, who spake in the Law
& in the Prophets & in the Gospells, who descended on
Iourdan, preached to the Apostles, dwelt in the saints.
And we beleive in this one only catholick & Apostolick
Church, in one baptism for the remission of sins, in the
resurrection of the dead in eternal judgment of souls &
bodies, in the kingdom of heaven & in life everlasting.
But those who say there was a time when the son was
not, or there was a time when the holy Ghost was not,
or that he was made out of nothing, or that the son of
God or holy Ghost was of another ὑπόστασις or another
ὀυσία, or mutable or variable, We anathematize because
our catholick mother & Apostolick Church anathematizes
them. And We anathematize all those who confess not the
resurrection of the flesh, & every heresy, that is, all those
who do not hold this faith of the holy & only Catholick Church 4 Church. This Creed was found in a very old parchment Manu
script in the Vatican amongst the works of Cyrill & in another MS in the king of France's library & printed in the works of Athanasius
at Paris A.C. 1698, Tom. 2. p. 1278. & was certainly composed before the meeting
of the Council of Alexandria A.C. 362. For it uses the
language of one hypostasis of the father son & Holy Ghost, wchwhich
language was abolished in that Council. In the Manuscript it
is attributed to Athanasius but runs in the plural number, We
beleive &c, & after the manner of a Creed made by a Council
anathematizes all that hereticks, & has all the characters of the
Serdican Creed. ffor it is the Nicene Creed enlarged with the
Serdican faith & with so much of the Creed of the Latines
called the Apostles Creed as was then wanting in the Ni
cene & therefore was made by Athanasius & the Latines
together for completing the Nicene Creed. And it uses the word
ὑπόστασις in such a sense as no other Council did besides
that of Serdica. And as the Serdican fathers proposed only
by their Creed to confirm the Nicene & explain it more at
large, so this Creed above recited is in the Manuscript called
an Interpretation upon the holy Creed. I have therefore
recited it his as the oldest Creed in wchwhich the ffather Son & holy
Ghost are declared consubstantial.
The Council of Serdica being convened by the Emperors
to treat of the faith in the first place, the eastern Bishops
also in their return from Serdica published a profession
of their faith composed about two years before by a
Counsil at Antioch: which Profession was as follows. We beleive in one God the father Almighty the maker & creator of & maker of all things from whom all pa
ternity in heaven & earth is named, & in his only
begotten son our Lord Iesus Christ, begotten of the
father before all ages, God of God, light of light
very God of very God by whom all things were made
in heaven & in earth visible & invisible; who is
the Word, the wisdom the power the life & the true
light; who in the last days, for us, was made man,
& born of the holy Virgin. crucified dead & buried
& rose again from the dead the third day & was
taken up into heaven & sitteth at the right hand
of God the ffather, who shall come in the end of
ages to judge the quick & the dead & to give unto
every one according to his works, whose kingdom
without intermission continues to endless ages. For
he sitteth at the right hand of the ffather, not only
in this world but also in that wchwhich is to come. We
beleive also in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Para
clete, whom Christ, having promised him to his Apostles,
after his resurrection sent to teach them & admonish them 5them all things, by whom also the souls of those ytthat
are sanctified who sincerely beleive in him. But
those who say the Son was of nothing, or of another
substance & not of God, or that there was a time
or age when he was not, the Catholick Church
accounts alien from her; & those likewise who say
there are three Gods, or that Christ was not God be
fore the ages, or that he is neither Christ nor the
son of God, or that the ffather Son & holy Ghost are
the same, or that the Son is unbegotten, or that
the ffather did not beget the Son by his Counsel &
will the holy & catholick Church anathematizes.
This profession of faith Hilary approved & commend
ed as made in short but most absolute definitions. And
hitherto the Greeks Churches of the Greeks & Latines
had continued united in external communion through
out the whole Roman Empire; but now they began
to separate, the Latines being offended that the Greeks
called the ffather & Son & holy Ghost three hypostaceshypostases
& omitted the word ὁμοούσιος in their Creeds, & the
Greeks that yethe Latines translated it unius hypostasis
absolved persons excommunicated by the Greek Church
& endeavoured to subject that Church to the autho
rity of the Bishop of Rome, & both parties that
five or six of the principal Bishops of their party
were excommunicated by those of the other party.
Six years after these things were done Constan
tius conquered Magnentius the successor of his brother
Constance in the western Empire, & two years after
that conquest called a Council of above 300 Bishops
at Millain to subscribe the condemnation of Atha
nasius. They offered to subscribe if the Nicene faith
might be first confirmed, but were made to
understand that nothing could be regularly debated or proceed
in Councils till they quitted the communion of per
sons excommunicated & returned into communion with
the Bishops with whom they were to debate, that the
Emperor called them together for that purpose &
they could not go upon other things till they had
his leave, that the wilful communicating with persons
who stood excommunicated by others was contrary to the
rules of the Church & of a criminal nature, & that
those who persisted in such communion, must expect, for
restoring the peace of the Church disturbed by them to be
banished as criminals. Whereupon they all subscribed
except Paulinus Tervirensis, Eusebius Vercellensis, Dionysius Mediolanensis 6Mediolanensis, Lucifer Calaritanus, & Rhodanius, who
were therefore banished as was also Liberius bishop
of Rome & Hosius of Corduba a little after & Hilary
& Dosanus a year after. And all these offered to
subscribe if the Nicene faith were confirmed first
& thereby they allowed that they could subscribe wthwith
a good conscience. There were also Councils called
at Arles & Biters in Gallia & at Aquileia, and
Messengers sent with publick notaries to take the
subscriptions of the rest of the Bishops who staid
at home. Hosius also & Liberius after they had
been a year or two in banishment subscribed. And
thus the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome set up
by the Councils of Rome & Serdica over the eastern
Churches fell, the Bishop of Rome himself with
all the western Bishops except seven or eight & all
their Presbyters except a few, subscribing & thereby
acknowledging the supreme & absolute judicial
authority of the Councils of the Greek churches
over her own members
But over the Latine Churches of the Con
substantial faith in Europe, the supremacy of
the Bishop of Rome still remained being no ways
opposed by Constantius or the Greek Church. And
thence it came to pass that when the western
Empire was invaded by several barbarous nations,
those nations, particularly the Franks in Gallia,
the Goths in Spain & the Lombards in Italy, & the Saxons in Britain as
fast as they became converted to the consubstan
tial faith, subjected their Churches to the authority
of the Bishop of Rome. And all this was done before
the Greek Emperor Phocas granted him the universal
Bishoprick over the Churches also of his Empire.
After the authority of the Greek Church over
her own members was restored, new Councils were called to
reconcile the Churches about the faith, & for that end they
abolished the use of the word ὀυσία with its compounds ὁμοούσιος
& ὁμοιούσιος wchwhich had given occasion to the discord. This was
first done by the Council of Sirmium A.C. 357 in a Creed
subscribed by Hosius. T & then in another Creed Council of
Sirmium A.C. 359 in a Creed in wchwhich they professed the Son
to be similis Patri secundum scripturas. This Creed was published
at Sirmium in in the presence of the Emperor at Sirmium &
subscribed the same year by the Councils of Nice in Thrace
& Ariminum in Italy. A copy thereof is set down above. The Council 7Council of Seleucia meeting the same year subscri
bed the Creed of Lucius the Martyr with a preface in
wchwhich they abolished the use of those words & declared the son to be like the father according to the Apostle & a conclusion
in wchwhich they approved the sense of the said said Creed of Ari
minum & Seleucium & Ariminum Sirmium published before
the Emperor. And their Legates in the end of the year
subscribed this Creed of Sirmium & so did the Council of
Constantinople the next year A.C. 360 without any materi
al alteration variation of words.
The principal reasons for abolishing the use of those
words isare thus set down by the Council of Seleucia in their
preface to yethe Creed of Lucius: Cum hæ voces ομοούσιον &
ὁμοιούσιον præteritis temporibus atqꝫque etiam nunc multos con
turbarint; imò a quibusdam ἀνόμοιον (sive dissimilem patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ‘ομοούσιον (sive dissimilem
patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ὁμοούσιον et ὁμοι
ούσιον utpote voces a scripturis alienas rejicimus ἀνόμοιον
autem anathemate damnamus. And thus by the Council
of Sirmium at the end of their Creed: Nomen autem
ὁυσίας quod simplicius a Patribus positum, a populisqꝫque
minime intellectum, offensionis causa sit; quod etiam
in scripturis non contineatur, de medio tolli placuit.
And thus by Hilary out of an epistle of some western Bishop, read in the Council of Sirmium: Hilar. de Synod.De homousio … tractantes
primùm idcirco respuendum pronunciastis, quia [per]
verbi hujus enunciationem substantia prior intellige
retur, quàm duo inter se partiti essent – Secundo quoqꝫque
id addidistis quod patres nostri cum Paulus Samosatenus
hæreticus pronunciatus est, etiam homousion repudia
verint. …. Tertio etiam hæc causa improbandi homousij
commemorata a vobis est, quia in Synodo quæ apud
Nicæam fuit, coacti patres nostri propter eos qui filium
patri creaturam filium dicebant, nomen homousij indidissent;
quod non recipiendum idcirco sit, quia nusquam scriptum
reperietur.
The word ὀυσία with its compounds was therefore laid
aside for these reasons. ffirst because the word ὁμοούσιος
in its proper signification (of wchwhich the Greeks were the best judges)
imported a distinction or division of a prior substance
into two or the coming of one substance out of another
by emanation, emission, projection or partition as light
comes from the Sun, a river from the fountain, a branch
from the root, a piece from the whole, a child from the
mother &c. And in this sense the word implies that yethe
son & holy ghost sprang from yethe father after the
manner of the Æons of the Gnosticks, or were parts
of him as in the Trinity of Montanus: & therefore
it was not a proper word to be applied to the Trinity. For Basil tells us Basil. Epist. 300 that the Council of Antioch rejected the in condemning Paul of Samosat rejected the Ὁμοούσιος for this very reason.
Secondly because the Council of Nice had admitted yethe
word hastily & against their inclination, the Emperor being
present in the Council & admitting pressing it, & the Council
making scruples, & excepting against the signification above mentioned 8mentioned wchwhich was the proper signification of the word
& cautioning that it should not be taken in that sense
nor for any thing more then ὁμοιούσιος, & th admitting
it in this sense least the Emperor should be disgusted &
return to the heathen religion, & the Bishops in all the
East disputing afterwards against the use of the word
& contending that it was proper to bodies & ὁμοιούσιος to
spirits, & omitting it in a bigger Council at Tyre &
in all their Councils which followed. For how uni
versally the Greeks rejected this word may appear
by the character wchwhich Hilary Hilar. de Synodis p. 381. Edit. Paris. 1652. A.C 358 gave of the
eastern Provinces where he was then in banishment.
Tantum ecclesiarum orientalium periculum est, saith he,
ut rarum sit hujus fidei [consubstantialis,] quæ qualis
sit vos judicate, aut sacerdotes aut populum inveniri.
— Nam absqꝫque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo,
ex majori parte Asianæ decem provinciæ vere
deum nesciunt.
Thirdly, because the Latines & their friends among
the Greeks had interpreted the word ὁμοούσιος by μιας
ὀυσίας & μιας ὑποστασ unius substantiæ, & thereby
departed from the sense of the Nicene Council wchwhich had
interpreted that word by ὁμοιούσιος similis substantiæ,
as appeared by the Acts of that Council produced in the Council of Ariminum for convincing the Latines. And
there having arisen great disturbances between the Greeks
& Latines about the language of similis substantiæ &
unius substantiæ, the best way to put an end to those
disturbances was to abolish the use of the words wchwhich
had caused them.
ffourthly, the words homousios, ex sub
stantia, & unius substantiæ were very ambiguous & apt to be misunderstood & taken together, very much
favoured the errors of the Gnosticks Cataphrygians &
Sabellians & caused them to spread in the west. For Hilary
in his banishment wrote thus to the western Bishops of Gallia
& Britian. Multi ex nobis, fratres charissimi, ita unam
substantiam Patris et Filij prædicant, ut videri possint non
magis id pie quam impie prædicare: habet enim hoc
verbum in se et fidei conscientiam et fraudem paratam
Nam si secundum naturæ proprietatem ac similitudinem
ut similitudo non speciem suam auferat, sed genus teneat,
religiose unam substantiam prædicaums, dummodo unam
substantiam proprietatis similitudinem intelligamus, ut
quod unum sunt non singularem significet sed æquales:
æqualitatem dico, id est, indifferentiam similitudinis,
ut similitudo habeatur æqualitas. Æqualitas verò unum
idcirco dicitur esse quia par sit. Vnum autem in quo
par significatur, non ad unicum vendicetur. Una igitur
substantia si non personam subsistentem perimat, nec unam substantiam 9substantiam partitam in duas dividat, religiose præ
dicabitur: Quæ ex nativitatis proprietate & ex naturæ
similitudine ita indifferens sit, ut una dicatur. At verò
si idcirco unius substantiæ pater et filius dicatur ut hic
subsistens, sub significatione licet duûm nominum unus
ac solus sit: confessum nomine filium conscientia
non tenemus, si unam substantiam [cum Sabellio]
confitentes ipsum sibi unicum ac singularem &
patrem esse dicimums et filium. Quinetiam et
hujus tanti erroris occurrit occasio, ut divisus a se
ipse pater intelligatur, & partem execuisse quæ
esset sibi filius. Id enim hæretici [Cataphryges sc.]
unam substantiam prædicantes contendunt. Et his
multum piæ confessionis nostræ sermo blanditur; ut
dum hoc verbum indefinita brevitate dubium est, pro
ficiat ad errorem. Est præterea error hic tertius
ut cum unius substantiæ pater et filius dicatur esse
dicatum esse dicuntur, significari existimetur substan
tia prior, quam inter se duo pares [juxta Theologiam
Gnosticorum] haberent: ac si tres res sermo significet,
substantiam unam, et duos unius substantiæ velut
cohæredes. Here Hilary gives four significations of unius
substantiæ three of which were heretical, & tells his bre
thren the western Bishops that many of them taught it
in the heretical senses, & endeavours to instructs them in
the right fourth signification, namely that the union was only specific or that yethe father & son
& holy Ghost were three sub two equal substances in number
& one in nature & species. It was not therefore without
some reason that when Hilary came to the Council
of Seleucia the Oriental Bishops examined him, ac
primum quæsitum ab eo, saith Sulpicius, quæ esset
Gallorum fides: qui tum, Arianis prava de nobis vul
gantibus, suspecti ab orientalibus habebamur trio
nymam solitarij Dei unionem secundum Sabellium
credidisse. Sed exposita fide sua [de unitate specifica] juxta ea quæ Nicææ
erant a patribus conscripta, Occidentalibus perhi
buit testimonium. The language of homousios, ex substan
tia & unius substantiæ therefore being being therefore a stumbling block to
Christians & leading them to dangerous heresies & the worship of fals Gods,
was for that reason abolished by the Greeks.
ffiftly, this language was first used by hereticks such
✝ as were the Cataphrygians & Sabellians. It was originally
the language of hereticks, & was condemned in Paul of It was their language & was condemned by the ancient Church, & gave occasion to the Arian controversy. For controversy. For when Abimander bishop of Alexandria a a Socr. l. 1. c. 5 maintained an essetialessential unity of the father & son, Arius took it for the una substantia of Sabellius & thereupon set himself to oppose it. Vna substantia was also the language of the Montanists, & so was ὁμοούσιος. And this last word was condemned in Paul of Samosat
Samosat by a Council of 80 eastern bishops or above volun
tarily convened at Antioch about 60 years before the Coun
cil of Nice, & the sentence against Paul b b Euseb. Hist. Eccles. was communicated
to all the Churches of the Roman Empire for their appro
bation & approved by them without any controversy arising
upon it. And Paul was ejected by the consent of the Bishops of 10of Rome & Italy under their hands in writing, so that the
sentence against him was the sentence of the Church
catholick. But And for this & other reasons the Council of Nice scrupled the homousion,
admitted it only at the importunity of the Emperor & limited its
signification; & as soon as the fathers of that Council were
at liberty, they disputed against it vehemently & dropt it
in all their following Councils & never desisted till they got it re
pealed. If numbers of bishops are to be considered the
Council of Ariminum was bigger then the Nicene: if
antiquity freedom & universal approbation, the Council
of Antioch must take place. But Hilary is of another
opinion. Male intelligitur homousion saith he; quid ad me bene intelli
gentem? Male homousion Samosatenus confessus est, sed
nunquid melius Ariani negaverunt? Octaginta Episcopi olim
respuerunt, sed trecentium decem et octo nuper receperunt.
Thus Hilary argues for repealing the sentence of the primitive Church
catholic against Paul, as if the best way of opposing Arius
was to set receive the language of the older hereticks,
& as if the Greeks did not enough in condemning the language
of Arius unless they receded from the decrees of their ancestors & received the language of Paul &
Montanus & the Sabellians & Manichees & ancient Gnosticks. For the Greeks condemned the language of Arius in almost all their Councils.
A sixt reason alledged for omitting the word ὁμοούσιος
was that the Nicene fathers had admitted it out of
simplicity (or without due examination) & by com
pulsion. For Constantine the great soon after his victory
over Licinius A.C. 324 hearing of the controversy between Alexander & Ath Arius & sending to them by Hosius a
letter to forebear disturbing the Empire by their
trifling disputes & Arius not submitting but repre
senting that he had the multitude & particularly all
Libya: the Emperor set against him vehemently &
resolved to suppress this multitude & for that end
composed against them a florid epistle directed to
Arius & the Arians & caused it to be published in
every city throughout the whole Empire & then
called the Council of Nice. This letter was to silence
the multitude in all places till the Council could meet.
It began thus. Malus interpres negotium est diaboli
ejusqꝫque effigies ac imago. And in the body of the Epistle
the Emperor repeating the words of Arius, Multitudinem
habemus, replies, Ipse igitur exiguus propius accedam
qui hominum dementium bella sedare consuevi ut
insanorum bellorum spectator sim. Ipse, inquam, Ego
ipse, inquam, propius accedam qui hominum dementium
bella sedare consuevi. And a little after: O audaciam dig
nam quæ fulminibus deponatur. And again: At dices
magnum hominum numerum tecum facere et sublevare curas 11curas tuas. Audi et parumper aures præbe nefane Ari,
intellige dementiam tuam &c. And in another part of the
Letter: Vnum dicis Deum: habes ejusdem me sententiæ: sic
igitur sentias. Ejus essentiæ Verbum & principij et finis expers
Verbum esse dicis: eo contentus sum. ita crede. Si quid præ
terea adjungis, id tollo. Si quid ad impiam separationem
fraudulenter consuis, id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor.
Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensatio
nem non improbo. Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 6. Alexander Bis in his circulatory epistle
against Arius sent to all the Churches, had declared the
Son to be the internal or essential reason or wisdom of
the father. Quod si filius ratio Patris est ac sapientia, quo
modo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dice
rent, Deum aliqua ἄλογον καὶ ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν Θεόν Deum ali
quando rationis & sapientiæ expertem fuisse. The Emperor in
his circulatory epistle published in all the cities of the Em
pire declared himself (in his words last mentioned) to be of the same opinion. And there
fore this was the opinion of the party of Alexander & the
grownd of their declaring the father & Son to be consubstantial to the
father & of one substance with him in opposition to Arius who
taught that the Son was another Word. And after the
Emperor had declared to all the Empire that he was of
this opinion, & for establishing it called the Council, came
into it in person, & proposed the ὁμοούσιος & pressed it: the Bishops were
no longer at liberty to act freely in examining & adjudg
ing the matter between the two parties. They condemned
the novel expressions of Arius because they were not
in scripture & disturbed the peace of the Church.
They might have condemned the ὁμοούσιος for the
same reason. But the Emperor might have thought him
self highly affronted & flown off from the Christian to
the heathen religion. And therefore they limited the
signification of the word, dropt it in their following
Councils & rejected it as soon as they were at liberty
And in rejecting the new language of both parties without
introducing a new language of their own, they were of
neither party but kept the faith of their ancestors.
A seventh reason alledged for repealing the
word ὀυσία with its compounds was because it was not
in scripture. And this reason is the stronger because
we are commanded by the Apostle 1 Tim. 1.13. to hold fast the
form of sound words. Contending for a language wchwhich
was not handed down from the Prophets & Apostles
is a breach of this command & they that break it
are also guilty of the disturbances & schisms occasi
oned thereby. It is not enough to say that an article
of faith may be deduced from scripture. It must be exprest
in the very form of sound words in wchwhich it was delivered by the
Apostles. Otherwise there can be no lasting unity nor peace of the
Church catholick. ffor men are apt to vary dispute & run into parties
about deductions. All the old Heresies lay in deductions, the
true faith was in the text.
The 12
The Greek & Latin Churches being reunited in the
outward profession of faith by the Councils of Sirmium
Nice, Ariminum, Seleucia & Constantinople, continued
in this united state till the reign of Iovian & his
successors & then met with new disturbances from Atha
nasius & his party. For Gregory Nazianzen who lived in
those days, tells us that when Iovian came to the throne,
he released Athanasius & the rest of the bishops from ba
nishment, & then subjoins. Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 394, 395. Quinetiam fidei nostræ veritatem
a multis laceratam et perturbatam, atqꝫque in sexcentas opinio
nes partesqꝫque distractam, sibi tradi postulavit. —– Atqꝫque hic po
tissimum Athanasius puritatis suæ, fideiqꝫque in Christum firmæ
et constantis, specimen edidit. Nam cum cæteri omes qui
doctrinam nostram profitebantur trifariam divisi essent ac
multi circa filium, plures etiam circa spiritum sanctum
ægram fidem haberent (ubi levior impietas pietatis
opinionem ferebat) pauci autem utrinqꝫque sani et inclu
mes essent, primus ille et solus aut cum valde admodum paucis
veritatem palam apertisqꝫque verbis promulgare non dubi
tavit, unam trium personarum divinitatem et essen
tiam scripto confessus: et quod multis illis patribus circa
filium prius concessum fuerat, idem ipse postea in
asserenda spiritus sancti divinitate superno afflatu
consecutus. Atqꝫque Imperatori domum vere regium offert
scriptam nempe fidei confessionem adversus novum
dogma nusquam in Scriptura expressum: ut sic et Im
peratorem Imperator et doctrinam doctrina et libellum
libellus frangeret atqꝫque opprimeret. Hujus confessionis
ut mihi videtur, authoritate permoti, tum Occiden
tales, tum quicquid in Oriente vitale est, partim
animo tenus pietatem colunt (siquid ipsorum verbis
fidei habendum est) ulterius autem non proferunt;
partim eam igniculi cujusdam instar, nonnihil accen
dunt, hactenus scilicet ut tempori atqꝫque acrioribus
orthodoxis et ferventibus orthodoxis aut piæ plebi
utcunqꝫque satisfaciant: partim deniqꝫque omni verborum
libertate veritatem prædicant. This was written by
Gregory in an Oration upon the death of Athanasius A.C. 373.
The faith wchwhich Athanasius & his followers began now to
propagate preach was the Serdican with this alteration
that instead of calling the ffather Son & holy Ghost one
usia & one hypostasis they called them one usia & three
hypostases, changing the language of one hypostasis to
that of three hypostases for clearing themselves from yethe
imputation of Sabellianism under wchwhich they had hitherto
lain. ffor by one usia & three hypostases, or as the Latines
exprest it, una substantia & tres personæ they meant one
substance in nature & species & three substances in number
the word person being taken for an intelligent substance Athanasius 13Athanasius, Eusebius Vercellensis & 12 or 15 other bishops
returning from banishment, had consulted about the faith at
Alexandria a few months before & resolved to relinquish the
use of the words usia & hypostasis except in opposition to
Sabellianism: but afterwards they thought fit to retain
the words una usia in conformity to the una substantia
of the Latines & to distinguish the persons only by the
name of three hypostases.
In the said Council of seventeen Bishops of at Alex
andria it was agreed that the Bishops who had subscri
bed in the late Councils of Sirmium, Nice, Ariminum
Seleucia & Constantinople were no hereticks for doing
so, or for being of that communion, & therefore
might be received by the party of Athanasius with
out losing their Bishopricks. Post reditum confessorum,
saith Ierome, Hieron. adv. Lucif. t. 1. in Alexandrina postea synodo constitutum
est, ut exceptis authoribus hæreseos, quos error excusare
non poterat, pænitentes Ecclesiæ sociarentur: non quod
Episcopi possint esse qui hæretici fuerant, sed quod con
staret eos qui hæretici fuerant, reciperentur, hæreticos
non fuisse. Assensus est huic sententiæ Occidens, et
per tam necessarium consilium, e Satanæ faucibus
ereptus est mundus.
In propagating this faith Athanasius had the assistance
of all the Moncks in his diocess, wchwhich were about one third
part of the people of Egypt. ffor he had poured water upon
the hands of Antony their founder & therefore was one of
that body. And Paulinus a schismatical Bishop of Antioch sided with Atha
nasius & was assisted by all the Moncks in Syria & the parts
adjacent within his diocess. For the Moncks were generally
homousians & at this time in such estimation for sanctity
that it came now into fashion to chuse Bishops & Presbyters
out of their body & to erect Monasteries in cities for that
purpose: so that the principal Churchmen henceforward (as
Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Flavian, Chrysostom,
Theodoret Ierome, Ruffin, Augustine, Theodoret Martin, Sulpicius Severus &c) were Moncks &
monasteries became sacred.
In the beginning of this new contention Liberius bishop
of Rome fell off to the party of Athanasius & Paulinus
& in three two or three years gained the better at least one half of the people of Rome.
ffor upon his death wchwhich happened in September, A.C. 366,
Vrsisinus (whom Ierome calls an Arian) contended with
Damasus an homousian for the Bishopric, & the election being
in the people, their parties came to blows with great violence
& almost equal force, as Ammianus Marcellinus thus mentions. Ammian. l. 27.Damasus et Vriscinus supra humanum modum ad
rapiendam episcopalem sedem ardentes, scissis studijs acerrime
conflictabantur, adusqꝫque mortis vulnerumqꝫque discrimina
adjumentis utriusqꝫque progressis: quæ nec corrigere sufficiens Viventius [Vrbis Præfectus]
nec mollire, vi magna coactus secessit in suburbanum:
et in concertatione superaverat Damasus, parte quæ ei favebat 14favebat instante. Constatqꝫque in basilica Sicinini, ubi ritus
Christiani est conventiculum, uno die centum triginta
septem reperta cadavera peremptorum: efferatamqꝫque diu
plebem ægre postea delinitam. Neqꝫque ego abnuo, ostentati
onem rerum considerans verbanarum, hujus rei cupidos
ob impetrandum quod appetunt omni contentione laterum
jurgari debere, quum id adepti, futuri sunt ita securi
ut ditentur oblationibus matronarum, procedantqꝫque vehi
culis circumspecte vestiti, epulas curantes profusas, adeo
ut eorum convivia regales superent mensas.
In six years more the party of the Bishop of Rome
was so far encreased in the west that Damasus A.C. 373 called
a Council of 93 bishops at Rome against Auxentius
bishop of Millain who had hitherto opposed him & this
Council sending a letter to the Oriental Bishops of his communion & ano
ther to the Bishops of Illyricum, the Oriental bishops
convened at Antioch to the number of 146, & subscri
bed the Roman faith, & so did a good number of
bishops convened in Illyricum. And the Council of Illyri
cum sending their faith to the Churches of Asia &
Phrygia, the western Emperors Valentinian & Gratian
backt their letter with an edict directed to the same Churches. Cum in Illyrico, say
they, de salutari Verbo tot Episcoporum Synodus congre
gata esset, post accuratam inquisitionem de salutari
verbo, declaravarunt beatissimi Pontifices consubstantia
lem trinitatem Patris ac ffilij ac spiritus sancti. Nostra
verò majestas eandem ubiqꝫque prædicari præcepit.
Yet the Greek Emperor Valens opposed the homousion
& I do not find that during his reign the Deity of the
Holy Ghost was preached publickly in his Empire. But
after his death the preaching of it made a great commo
tion.
Nam talis orbis motio
Nunquam, reor, fuit,
Quam sanctus est cum spiritus
Dictus Deus palam
Ob idqꝫque me liquit favor
Chari mei gregis. Greg. Nazianz. Iamb. 23
For Gratian presently after the death of Valens, com
A.C. 378, commanded by an edict that the Bishops whom
Valens had banished should be restored to their seats
& that the Churches should be delivered to those who
communicated wthwith Damasus bishop of Rome, & sent Sapor
Master of the horse into the east to put this law in
execution. At that time Sapor delivered the bishopric of
Antioch to Meletius, & the bishop of Rome sent Peter
to Alexandria to succeed Lucius who had succeeded Atha
nasius in that bishopric about six years before. And
the delivering of the Churches to those of the communion
of the Bishop of Rome & their beginning to preach the deity of the Holy Ghost openly made the great commotion mentioned by 15by Gregory Nazianzen. And neare the beginning of yethe year 379 ‡
1 ‡ Neare the beginning of the year 379 about
five months after the death of Valens, Theodosius a Spani
ard was made Emperor of the east by Gratian & by
new edicts in the years 380 & 381 completed the deli
very of the churches of the eastern Empire to those
in communion with the bishop of Rome.
2 In the time between the reign of Valens & Theodosius A.C. 378 The supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the
western Empire Churches was also also confirmed at the
same time by an Edict of the Emperors Gratian &
Valentinian in these words. Volumus autem ut quicunqꝫque
judicio Damasi, quod ille cum consilio quinqꝫque vel septem
habuerit Episcoporum, vel eorum qui catholici sunt judicio
vel concilio condemnatus fuerit; si juste voluerit
Ecclesiam retentare, qu ut qui evocatus ad sacerdotale
judicium per contumaciam per contumaciam non ivisset:
ut ab illustribus viris Præfectis Prætorio Galliæ atqꝫque
Italiæ authoritate adhibita, ad episcopale judicium
remittatur, sive a Consularibus vel Vicarijs; ut ad urbem
Romam sub prosecutione perveniat: aut si in longin
quioribus partibus alicujus ferocitas talis emerserit,
omnis ejus causæ edictio ad Metropolitæ in eadem
Pro provincia Episcopi deduceretur examen: vel si
ipse Metropolitanus est, Romam necessario, vel ad
eos quos Romanus Episcopus judices dederit, sine
dilatione contendat.
3. Vpon the death of Meletius BpBishop of Antioch The council of Constantinople called the second
general council, had created Flavian patriarch of
Antioch & ordeined his successor Bishop setting aside Paulinus for his discord wthwith Meletius. They ordeined also that the Bishop of Constantinople
should have the first chief honour after the Bishop of Rome
because that city was new Rome. The The Damasus But the Bishops of Rome
was & Alexandria were much offended thereat having communicated wthwith Paulinus, & to compose the matter a
general Council was called the by the Imperial letters
to meet the next year at Rome. The Eastern Bishops
came no further then to Constantinople & there cele
brating a Council sent Legates to Rome to excuse their
coming no further & in their letters called Damasus & the
Bishops convened at Rome their brethren & fellow ministers.
Thus the eastern bishops maintained the authority of their
Councils, but the western against the BpBishop of Rome, but the western submittedwestern submitted Some years after the Council of western Bishops And the agreed that the case of fflavian the eastern & western Churches about these matters continued
Siricij Epist. ad Himeriūum in Tomis Concil.4 For Himerius bishop of Tarraco the head city of a Province
in Spain, writing to the bishop Damasus for his resolution
direction in severall questions about certain Ecclesiastical matters
& the letter not arriving at Rome till after the death of
Damasus A.C. 384; his successor Siricius answered the letter
with a patriarchall authority telling him that this thing was
forbidden by the decrees general decrees wchwhich his predecessor
Liberius had sent to the Provinces of one thing: Cum hoc
fieri – missa ad provincias a venerandæ memorias præde
cessore meo Liberio generalia decreta prohibeant. Of another,
Hoc ne fiat omnibus modis inhibemus? Of another, Noverint
se ab omni Ecclesiastico honore quo indigne usi sunt, Aposto
licæ sedis authoritate dejectos. Of another: Scituri posthac
Omnium provinciarum summi antistites, quod si ultro ad
sacros ordines quenquam de talibus esse assumendum, et de suo,
et de eorum statu, quos contra canones et interdicta nostra
provexerint, congruam ab Apostolica sede promendam
esse sententiam. And the Epistle he concludes in this
manner: Explicuimus ut arbitror frater charissime universa
quæ digesta sunt in querelam: et ad singulas ansas de qui
bus ad Romanam Ecclesiam, utpote ad caput tui corporis,
retulisti, sufficientia, quantum opinor, responso reddidimus.
Nunc fraternitatis tuæ animum ad servandos canones
et tenenda decretalia constituta magis ac magis incita
mus; ut hæc quæ ad tua consulta rescripsimus in omnium
coepiscoporum nostrorum perferri facias notionem, et non
solum eorum qui in tua constituti sunt diœcesi constituti:
sed etiam ad universos Carthaginenses ac Bœticos; Lusita
nos atqꝫque Gallicos, vel eos qui vicinis tibi collimitant
hinc inde provincijs, hæc quæ a nobis sunt salubri
ordinatione disposita, sub litterarum tuarum
prosecutione mittantur. Et quanquam statuta sedis Apostolicæ,
vel canonum venerabilia definita, nulla sacerdotum
domini ignorare sit liberum &c.
5 The next year A.C. 386 a Council of 80 bishops at Rome made
several Canons to be observed by all catholic Bishops & sent them to the bishops of Afric for that purpose. The first
Canon was that Vt extra conscientiam sedis Apostolicæ, hoc
est Primatis, nemo audeat ordinare. But I do not find that the African Churches submitted to yethe Roman jurisdiction.
Ambros Epist. 78.6. After three years more A.C. 389 a Council of western bishops
met at Capua & fflavian bishop of Antioch was summoned to appear
but came not, alledging that a Council should be called in yethe
east. The Council of Capua theref.therefore ordeined. that he should
be heard by before a council of the Bishops of Egypt, but he came not. For the BpBishop of Alexandria sided wthwith yethe BpBishop of Rome being disgusted at the eastern Churches for setting the BpBishop of Constantinople before him. Then was
Then Ambrose in a letter to Theophilus bishop of Alexandria pro
posed that yethe cause might be referred to the Bishop of Rome. And
all this contention between the eastern & western churches was for
the sake of dominion, the eastern churches labouring to preserve
the authority of their Councils, the western to subject the Councils Greek
& Churches of the east & her Councils to the judgment of the Bishop of Rome
or of such Councils as he should appoint.
7 While these things were doing, the practise of elect
ing Bishops, Presbyters & Deacons out of Monasteries
was propagated from the eastern to the western churches.
For the western Bishops erected monasteries in their cities
for this purpose. And Sulpicius Severus speaking of the
moncks under Martin, saith, Sulp. in vita Martini.Plures ex his postea episco
pos vidimus. Quæ enim civitas aut Ecclesia, quæ non se
de Martini monasterio cuperet habere sacerdotes? So then the government of the Church at this time came into the hands of the Moncks. And thereby the Moncks were enabled to bring all their superstitions into the church. 16 And Pope Siricius in the 13th article of his decretory Epistle to Himerius above mentioned decrees enjoyns that Moncks should be chosen into the orders of clergimen: So then the affairs of the Church at this time came into the hands of the Moncks. And thereby the Moncks were enabled to bring their superstitions into the church, such as were the celebacy of the clergy & abstinence from flesh on fasting days the veneration of reliques & pictures, the feigning of miracles & legends, the invocation of saints & celebrating them with annual festivals & masses & the veneration of the Virgin by the names of Dipara and mater Dei., the superstioussuperstitious use of holy water & the signe of the cross, auricular confession & corporal pennance & praying by beads, & pilgrimage to holy places.
ffor Pope Siricius in the 7th article of his aforesaid decretory epistle complained ytthat some many in Spain had children by their wives & concubines, & declaresd that all the Clergy from yethe day of their ordination were bound by an indissolvable law to continency that in offering sacrifices daily they might please God, because he that is in the flesh cannot please G him: & threatens to denouncesd that all those who act otherwise shall be are degraded by the authority of the Apostolic See.
How the miracle working power of reliques began to be was cried up in the reign & the reliques were sent into all the empire & placed in the Churches & legends were written of the miracles in them & how pic & read in the churches in the reign of Valentinian Gratian & Theodosius & his sons we have shewed above, & also how the Saints at the same time began to be invoked & their pictures to be set up in Oratories & Churches & their solid images soon after. The invocation of Saints began in the reign of Valentinian & Gratian & overspread the Empire before the death of Theodosius. The statue of Constantine the great was worshipped with oblations in Constantinople in the fourth century & in yethe middle of the fift, by the images of Simeon Stylites were placed before all the shopps as their guardian (Theodorit. in vita Simeonis.) The superstitious use of the in the houses of all the Catholicks in Rome as houshold Gods even in his life time. The Montanists absteined from meat, used the signe of the Cross & superstitiously. & The superstioussuperstitious had annual festivals to the first martyrs in& Tertullians days & These festivals came superstionssuperstitions crept into yethe Churches in the latter half of the third Century & encreased in the fourth were generally received by the Catholicks in the fourth The Moncks pretended to do great miracles water & oyle consecrated by the signe of the cross & holy was. In the reigns of Valens & TheosiusTheodosius, the moncks Macarius magnus, Aphraates, Macedonius & Iacobus & Iohn are said to have cured many sick people & done other miracles by water & oyle consecrated by the signe of the cross. Paul the Abbot said 300 prayers daily & counted them by throwing so many stones out of his bosom, Macarius said 100, Evagrius as many, a certain virgin 700, Moses the Monck 50, Iames the younger some other certain number: for Pachomius the first founder of Monasteries in yethe reign of Constantine the great in Egypt a little after the Nicean Council ordeined ytthat the Moncks should say 12 prayers in the day, 12 at night, 12 in yethe morning & 3 at 9 a clock in common & left every Monck at liberty to say an any greater number in private. And Paul the Abbot &c.
Also Going on pilgrimage to holy places upon vows came now in fashion. For For Palladius ‡And Palladius ‡ (in the life of Philoromus a Monck & Presbyter) tells us that Philoromus who became a Monck in the days of the Emperor Iulian, went on foot to Rome & Alexandria to pray at the tumbstombs of Peter & Paul & Mark & went twice to Ierusalem also twice on foot to Ierusalem upon vows. And in the life of Ruffin he tells us further. PostqPostquam in the life of Ruffin tells us. Postquam Valens Imperator Episcopos Ægypti &c – – – – suis fovebant expensis. And Ierome in his 17th Epistle directed to Marcella speaking of those who came to visit Ierusalem saith: Qui in toto orbe sunt primi —— gentium diversitates.
Also auricular Confession & Pennance werewas in use in these days.
Also abstinence from meats werewas in use in those days. For Socrates Socr. Hist l. 5. c. 22. tells us that in keeping Lent some absteined from all animated creatures, somesome from all but fishes, some eat birds with fishes eat also birds affirming that they were also made out of water, some absteined from all fruits of trees & from eggs, some lived fed only on bred, others not so much as on bread. 17
put by the fathers & not being understood by the people gives offense, & because it is not in the scriptures, we have thought fit to remove, & that henceforth in speaking of God no more mention be made of ὀυσία, because the holy scriptures no where mention the ὀυσία of the father & the son. But we say that the Son is in all things like the father as the holy scriptures speak & teach. Thus far the Council of Ariminum. The descent into the infernal regions is also found in the following Creed of Aquileia into which Ruffin saith he was baptized. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem, & in Christum Iesum unicum filium ejus, Dominum nostrum: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato & sepultus, descendit in inferna, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris; inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos: et in Spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam Catholicam remissionem pecatorum hujus carnis resurrectionem. This article of the descent into Hades or Hell is also found in the Creed of the Latines usually called the Apostles Creed. & as the Serdican fathers claimed proposed by their Creed not for a new Creed but only for an interpretation of the Nicene Creed to confirm yethe Nicene Creed & explain it more at large, so this Creed above recited is in the MS called an interpretation upon the Holy Creed
Another new Article was that the holy Ghost is consubstantial to the ffather & Son. But for understanding how this Article came into the Creed I should acquaint you that Athanasius being condemned accused of severall crimes by the Meletians & condemned for them by the Councill of Tyre A.D. 335, as guilty of several crimes & banished into Gallia by Constantine the great A.C. 335 & sent back into Egypt by his son Constantius & A.C. 338 was a Council of about 97 Eastern Bishops at Antioch A.C. 341 in the beginning of Spring A.C. 341 wrote to yethe Emperors against him & Athanasius he at the same time calling a council of about 90 bishops of Egypt & Libya wrote letters in his own defense & sent them to yethe Bishop of Rome, & about Easter one Gregory being sent madmade BpBishop of Alexandria & sent thither wthwith an armed force to succeed Athanasius, he fled to Rome, as did also Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza whom yethe eastern bishops had deposed. Thereupon Iulius BpBishop of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 BpsBishops of Italy & the parts adjoyning to meet at Rome again forced to fly by Constantius the second son of Constantine the great at the instance of the Council of eastern Bishops then met at Tyre & fled to Iulius Bishop of Rome & so did some other Bishops who had been deposed & excommunicated by yethe Bishops of the eastern Empire. Whereupon Iulius called a Council of 50 or 60 Western Bishops to meet at Rome A.C. 342 & summoned the Bishops of the eastern empire also to cited the eastern Bishops then met in the said Council of Tyre Antioch to appeare before this Council to give an account of their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest who had appealed to him. And this was the beginning of the open pretensions of the Bishop of Rome to the universal Bishopric. [ffor he ceased not henceforward to contend for an univeral jurisdiction tho he met with several repulses about 200 years a long time before he obteined it.] The eastern Bishops therefore being sensible that the Bishop of Rome contended for dominion refused to come to this Council, & wrote back to the Bishop of Rome the Bishop of Rome a reprimanding Letter telling him that they were his equals. Whereupon Iulius & the western bishops who met in this Council, turned the crime upon the eastern Bishops for not appearing, & received Athanasius & the rest into communion, & of the eastern Emperor Constantius three or so years after obteined of the Emperor forced the Eastern Emperor Constantius to consent & Iulius in the name of the rest wrote a letter to the Eastern Bishops in defense of Athanasius & Marcellus his proceedings in & complained that they acted in their Councils wthwithout him to whom it belonged to do justice Cur igitur, saith he, – – – oportuit. & about three years after procured of the Emperour that a that a Council should be called at Serdica a city in the confine of both Empires to reexamin the matter but first to treat of the faith. About 80 eastern bishops & a greater number of western & Egyptian bishops came to Serdica A.C. 347. But before they met the eastern hearing that the western communicated with Athanasius & Marcellus sent to them several times to forbear their his communion & the communion of the rest whom stood excommunicated by them & were to be heard before the whole Council. And with whom they would have no communion the EasterEastern Bishops. But the western Bishops would not forbear, but on the other hand summoned the eastern Bishops several times to come to the bar of their tribunal & justify themselves their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest, & when neither five of the eastern BpsBishops who had five of been sent by the And at length the eastern Bishops saw that the western Bishops contended for jurisdiction over them & when neither party would yeild, five of the eastern BpsBishops titely who had been sent by the council of Tyre to Egypt to examin the matters of Athanasius upon thethe place, proposed to the western that an equal number of Bishops of both parties should be sent from Serdica into Egypt to reexamin the matter upon the place, & if the report wchwhich they had made to the Council of Tyre proved true false then they would quietly submit to be excommunicated without ever complaining to the Emperor, but if their report was found true then five of the western Bishops who had defended Athanasius should be excommunicated without ever complaining. And when But this proposal would not be accepted. Nothing would satisfy the western BpsBishops but to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges over the Eastern & therefore the eastern BpsBishops seeing ytthat the eastern Bishops seing that the western & the western Bishops contended obstinately for a jurisdiction over them for preeminence & would not joyn wthwith wthwith them in Council to hear yethe excommunicated persons at the barr but still contended to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges over them
They western Bishops Council of made some Canons also in wchwhich they decreed that appeals might be made from all the world the Councils of all the churches to the Bishop of Rome. And by these Decrees they constituted the Bishop of doing so submitted all their west churches of the western Empire submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome & made making constituting him their Oecumenical Bishop & themselves Roman Catholicks & endeavoured that the Eastern Churches should be brought into the same subjection. It was proposed also in this Council Athanas. Epist. ad Antiochenos. that a new profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene Profession; and Sozomen tells us Sozom. l. 3. c. 12. that they did compose a new form of faith prolixer then yethe Nicene but conteining the same opinion & not much differing in words, & that Hosius & Protogenes wrote to Iulius bishop of Rome that they confirmed the Nicene faith, but for greater perspicuity explained it more at large that the Arians might not abuse the brevity in wchwhich it was written & draw it to an absurd sense. And certainly a new Profession of faith was handed about published & handed about for some years in the name of this Council, & I mistake if this be it was Profession not the following Creed.
king & they they being hithe people of his kingdom in the world to come.
The ancient Creeds of the Greeks generally ended with the Article of the Holy Ghost, & the ancient primitive Creed or Creeds of the Latines came from the Greeks & therefore ended wthwith the same Article of the holy Ghost & by consequence the Article or following Articles wchwhich now follow of beleiving the holy catholick church the communion of saints the forgiveness of sins the resurrection of the body & the life everlasting have all of them been added by degrees in oppo upon various occasions.
The Baptism is performed in the name of the father son & holy Ghost & chatechizing is to teach men what they are to beleive con who the that there is a ffather Son & holy Ghost & who they are & what we are to beleive concerning them in order to orour being baptized in their name. For this reasōon the primitive creeds consisted only of three principal branches: the first concerning the ffather the second concerning the son, the third concerning the Holy Ghost: & what we now find added to these the Greeks have added nothing to these three unless in the Creed where Latine three by yethe Latines has been added since the beginning. These additions are only in the Creeds of the Latines & where the Latines have influenced the Greeks.
The Creeds being taught in order to baptism ought to contein nothing more then what is necessary to baptism: & therefore such Articles as the primitive Greek Church did not insert into their Creeds were sup were 18
put by the fathers & not being understood by the people gives offense, & because it is not in the scriptures, we have thought fit to remove, & that henceforth in speaking of God no more mention be made of ὀυσία, because the holy scriptures nowhere mention the ὀυσία of the father & the son. But we say that yethe Son is in all things like the father as the holy Scriptures speak & teach. Thus far the Council of Ariminum. The descent into the infernal regions is also found in the following Creed of Aquileia into which Ruffin saith he was baptized. Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem et in Christum Iesum unicum filium ejus, Dominum nostrum: qui natus est de spiritu sancto ex Maria Virgine, crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato & sepultus, descendit in inferna tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in cœlos, sedet ad dexteram Patris: inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos: et in spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, hujus carnis resurrectionem. This article of the descent into Hades or Hell is also found in the Creed of the Latines usually called the Apostles Creed.
Another new Article was that the Holy Ghost is consubstantial to the ffather & Son. And this was asserted by the western Bishops in the Council of Serdica in their Ep general Epistle above-mentioned but got not much footing in the East before the reign of Iovian & his successors. For Gregory Nazianzen tells us that in the reign of that Emperor, when the Christians were divided into three parts & many erred about the Son & many more about the Holy Ghost (where a less impiety was accounted piety) & few were sound in both points: Athanasius first of any man & alone or with but a very few doubted not to profess the truth openly confessing in writing that there was one divinity & essence of the three [persons] & what had been formerly attained by those many fathers [at Nice] about the Son, the same thing he afterward attained by divine inspiration about the Holy Ghost & offered the Emperor [Iovian] a gift truly royall & magnificent a written confession of faith against a new unwritten opinion. And by the authority of this confession it seems to me, saith Gregory, that the western churches & whatsoever is vital in the eastern have been induced to exercise piety & preach the truth.
for understanding how this Article came into the Creed I should acquaint you
These thingthings were done in yethe year 347 & in this Council some proposed that a new for profession of fathfaith should be published for supplying the defects of the Nicene & lab endeavoured to get it done but others would not have the Nicene faith thought deficient. However, after the Council was ended a Profession of faith was handed about in their name & if I mistake not, the Profession was as follows.
of about 50 Bishops of Italy & the neighbouring parts to meet at Rome A.C. 342 & summoned Eusebius & the bishops Eastern bishops the five of the western esatern Bishops who had been sent by the Council of Tyre into Egypt to examin the matters of Athanasius, proposed to yethe western that an equal number of Bishops of both parties should be sent into Egypt to reexamin the matter upon the place, & if the report wchwhich they had made to the Council of Tyre proved false then they would subm submit to be excommunicated without com complaining to the EmpororEmperor, but if their report was found true then five of the western Bishops who had defended Athanasius should be excommunicated without comp complainingwithout complaining to the Emperors.
at the motion of the Council of Antioch in spring A.C. 341 / & 4 years after of the Emperors
& Iulius in the name of the rest wrote to eastern
Iulius in the name of the western Bishops who met in this Council began wrote an answer to the eastern bishops complaining that they met called Councils & acted without him from to whom it belonged to do justice. Cur igitur, saith he, et de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis? An ignari estis hanc esse consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur ut hinc quod justum est definiri posset? Quapropter si istic hujusmodi suspicio in Episcoum concepta fuerat id huc ad nostram Ecclesiam referri oportuit. And at length At length for compassing this supreme judicature Iulius prevailed wthwith yethe Emperors to call a synod at Council at Serdica toa town in the confine of both Empires
– communicated wthwith Athanasius & some others whom they Eastern BpsBishops had excommunicated
After the Council of Nice had declared the Son Consubstantial to the father, some interpreted the consubstantiality in such a manner as to be taxed with three having three Gods others in such a manner as to be taxed wthwith taking away the substance of the son & h.g.
After the Council of Nice had declared the Son Consubstantial to the father, people fell into various opinnions & some about it . And some some thought that those who approved the word were thought to speak impiously as if they asserted the Son to be without substance & were of the same opinion with Montanus & Sabellius
Athanasius being accused by the Meletians of various crimes & condemned by the Council of Tyre was banished into Gallia by Constantine the Great A.C. 335 & after the death of Constantine sent back by his into Egypt by his eldest son Constantine the younger A.C. 337. The eastern Bishops were offended after the death of Constantine yethe younger, meeting at Antioch A.C. 341 & being offended ytthat Athanasius should had go who had been deposed by a Council and taken his bishopric without the authority of a Council, made Gregory Bishop of Alexandria & the Emperor Constantius about the time of Easter sent an armed force to expel Athanasius & introduce Gregory. Athanasius fled to Rome & so did some other Bishops who had been deposed yethe in yethe east, as Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, & Asclepas of Gaza, & the Iulius Bishop of Rome A.C. 342. received them Bishop of Rome into communion & se sent them back restored them to their Churches & by them wrote to yethe Eastern Bishops reprehending them for judging not judging right, for troubling the Churches, & for not acquiescing in the Nicene decree, & summoned some of them to come to a Counci him upon a day appointed & justify their proceedings, & threatned that he would not suffer them for the future if they did not forbear to innovating. This was done at Rome A.C. 342 And this was the first time that the Bishop of Rome exercised the authority of V universal Bishop.
When the eastern Bishops received these letters, they met in a Council at Antioch A.C. 342 or 343 & wrote back to Iulius Epist. Antioch. [complaining that blaming accusing him blaming him for communicating wthwith Athanasius & for reproaching & ab & abrogating their Councels & & communicating with Athanasius contrary to the ecclesiastical laws & going about to destroy them, & offering theim peace if they he desisted, but & the contrary if he resisted their decrees, & re] telling him ytthat when yethe Roman Church expelled Novatian the Greeks acquiesced & when yethe Greeks expelled Paul of Samosat the Latines acquiesced. ffor he that seeks enmity who departs from his friend that to communicate wthwith excommunicated persons wthwithout the consent of those who excommunicated them was criminal being contrary to the the Canons requiring that he who is excommunicated by some be not received by others during the lives of those by whom he stands excommunicated. That he (Iulius) dissoveddissolved the Councils of the eastern Churches the criminals being condemned by the Bishops of the whole east, That & their crimes being notoriously known in yethe very great & notoriously known & manifest above 1000 people having perished by their means, & that that they would have peace with him if he desisted & the contrary if he resisted their decrees. For if he conspired with the criminals it was manifest that he sought to destroy them. And BpBishop of Rome persisted & wenwhen the BpBishop of Rome redread these letters he persisted & the the Legates by whom they eastern Bishops sent this Letter offered proposed to the BpBishop of Rome to refer the matter to a general Council. These Letters were sent by Martyrius & Hesychius. And in the mean time the eastern BipsBishops procured caused Athanasius & Paul to be again ejected 19ejected, & Athanasius went again to Rome.
When the Iulius received these letters & other Legates came to him from Athanasius he preferred the Legates of Athanasius & Martyrius & Hesychius the Legates of the eastern BpsBishops proposing to referr the matter to a general Council, Vide Epistola Iulij Iulius sent Elpidius & Philoxenus to the eastern Bishops at Antioch with an answer to their Letter, complaining of the sharpness of their letter & cited them to appear at Rome to at a certain day to give an acctaccount of stand in judgment & justify & their proceedings, & the Eastern Bishops returned an answer from Antioch by the s Elpidius & Philoxenus in wchwhich they represented that any every Synod had an unshaken authority & the judge is used reproachfully whose judgmtjudgment is questioned examined by others, that when yethe eastern BpsBishops in a Council condemned Paul of Samosat the western acquiesced in their judgment, that there was an equal & the same honour in all Bishops, nor was the honour of a bishop to be accounted greater or less according to yethe dig greatness of his city, that the time of appointed for a Synod coming to Rome was too short, & that all he did not summon all general Council the Eastern Bishops but directed his letter only Ad Eusebiūum cum suis, that meaning those that were then met at Antioch, & insinuating that they were a party of Eusebians.
When the Council met at Rome, they were A.C. 343 or 344 & the Eastern Bishops came not the BpBishop of Rome laid their Letter before yethe Council, & was desired by at the desire of the Council returned an large answer complaining that they received the Arians against yethe authority of yethe Nicene Council defending AthansiusAthanasius & Marcellinus, Extat Epistola in Tom. Concil Ancyras insinuating that yethe Eastern Bishops deal were afraid to appear out of a guilty conscience & complaining that they proceeded acted in their Councils without him. Cur igitur saith he & imprimis de Alexandrina civitate nihil nobis scribere voluistis? An ignari estis hanc consuetudinem esse ut primum nobis scribatur, ut hinc quod justum est nobis definiri posset? Quapropter si istic hujusmodi suspicis in Episcopum concepta fuerat, id huc ad nostram ecclesiam referri oportuit.
About three years after these thingthings the Emperor Constans at yethe request of AthanasusAthanasius & Marcellus obtenedobteined of his brother Constantius that a general Council should be called at Serdica a city in the confine of the two Empires. And the Council was directed to to hear this matter treate first concerning the faith & then to hear this matter concerning the cause of these who were deposed. T
A council of Eastern Bishops at Tyre A.C. 340 wrote to the Emperors against him & sent the next spring meeting at Antioch ordeined one Gregory to succeed him & in spring A.C. 341 sent Gregory wthwith an armed force to succeed him Alexandria, whereupon Athanasius fled to Rome, & Iulius BpBishop of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 bishops of Italy
A Council of Eastern Bishops met at Antioch A.C. 340 wrote to yethe Emperors against him & And thereupon Athanasius present calling a Council of 90 about 90 bishops of Egypt & Libya wrote letters in his own to all the Churches in his own defense & sent them to the Bishop of Rome. And Athanasius the next spring A.C. 341, One Gregory being ordeined BpBishop of Alexandria by the Council of Antioch & sent thither with an armed force, Athanasius fled to Rome as did also some other BpsBishops Paul of Constantinople Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza. And whom the eastern BpsBishops had deposed. And then And Iulius BpBishop of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 BpsBishops of Italy & the parts adjacent to meemeet at Rome the next year A.C. 342 & sent Elpidius & Philoxenus to visit the Council of Tyre to summon cite the BpsBishops met the of that Council to meet appear in this Council at Rome on they a day appointed & give an account of their proceedings against Athanasius & the rest. But the eastern At wchwhich the eastern BpsBishops were greatly offended & wrote back that
And in their letters they The western BpsBishops made & ordeined that appeals might be made from all the world to yethe BpBishop of Rome, & new so & Socr Sozomen tells u / & Iulius by their order wrote back to yethe eastern Bishops complaining of the sharpness of their Letter, & of their not coming to yethe council & defending Athanasius & Marcellus at large, & representing that they ought blaming them for acting in their Councils without giving him notice to whom it belonged to do justice.
About four years after, when by spreading a clamour against the eastern bishops as if Arius they were Arians, his party was sufficiently increased, the Emperors by the working of the BpsBishops party the BpsBishops were induced to call a general Council to meet the next year A.C. 347 at Serdica a city in the confine of both Empires to examin yethe matter but first to treat of the faith. And there came thither in the next year & there came thither A.C. 347 the there came about 80 eastern & a much greater number of Western & Egyptian Bishops. But before they met.
And in this state things continued till Constantius yethe year 353 in wchwhich Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor of Constans & becoming Lord of the whole Roman Empire checkt the ambition of the Church of Rome, & in this interval of time a new Creed was handed about in the name of the Council of Serdica. ffor some had proposed & & endeavoured in that Council that a new profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene ytthat profession & endeavoured to compass it & others were unwilling that the Nicene should be thought deficient. They they that were for a new form Creed no doubt offered one agreeable to yethe the sentiments of yethe Council & this I conceive to be that the Creed wchwhich afterwards was handed about in their name. And such a Creed I meet wthwith And I mistake if this be not the following Creed found in an old parchment MS in the Vatican & printed in the works of Athanasius printed at Paris A.C. 31698 as fo I bel We beleive &c This Creed is attributed to Athanasius in the MS, but runs in the plural number We beleive &c & after the manner of a CouncilCo. & anathematizes all that do not beleive it and therefore was either made by a Council or at least offered to a council where Athanasius was present.. It uses the words usia & hypostasis in yethe one & the same sense, as yethe Council of Serdica did, & this sense of yethe word hypostasis was abolished in yethe Council of Alexandria A.C. 362, & therefore this Creed suits only wthwith yethe times before yethe Council of Serdica & Alexandria was older then yethe Council of Alexandria & suits best wthwith the times of the Council of Serdica. It is a Creed [was composed for supplying what yethe Latines might account wanting in the Nicene Creed: for it] is the Nicene Creed enlarged wthwith the Serdican faith & the with so much of the Creed of the Latines call usually now called yethe Apostles Creed, as was then then wanting in the Nicene, [It wants the descent into hell & yethe Communion of Saints & theref.therefore was made before those articles came into the Creed of the Latines. It uses t Instead of the word ὁμοούσιος it uses the exp phrase & therefore it was composed by under the influence of yethe Latins for supplying the defects what the Latines might acount wanting in yethe Nicene Creed. It wants the descent into hell & yethe communion of saints & therefore was made composed before those articles came into yethe Creed of yethe Latines. It has the article of the gr Creeds of the Greeks whose kingdom shall have no end & therefore was designed by those who composed it, to be for a complete Creed comprehending the whole faith of both Greeks & Latines owning the Council of Serdica. [And by all these characters compared together I know not what take it] It In delivering the Serdican faith it declares the holy Ghost to be ex usia usia patris & homousios the son to have a body soul & spirit to be of the ούσια of the father & ὁμοούσιον to to yethe father & Son & this as this article then wanted to be dec inserted into a Creed, & this is the oldest creed in wchwhich I meet with it & I cannot find it in any older creed then this above recited so I cannot find it in any older Creed then this above recited. It declares also that yethe son Vpon And The Serdican Council which was the first Council oldest wchwhich declared the consubstantiality of yethe holy Gh.Ghost & this Creed is the oldest I can meet wthwith in wchwhich pro that consubstantiality is professed, & so far I as I can observe it conteins the faith of the generality of the Council of Serdica & western churches in & next after the times of yethe Council of Serdica very fully co truly fully & compleatly. 20
them, [& that instead of being joyneding with them western Bishops joyning in Council to hear the excomunicated persons at yethe bar, they themselves were to be judged & the excommunicated persons were to sit amongst their judges,] went back from Serdica, & both parties writing circulatory letters in defence of their own proceedings the western in their general Letters accused the eastern as guilty both because they appeared not when Iulius cited them & because they now fled from justice. They declared also in these same Letter their faith of one ὀυσία and one ὑποστασις of the father son & holy Ghost & the equality of the Son to the father & his assumption of a man [& excommunicated ten or eleven of the eastern Bishops, & the eastern excommunicated Iulius, Hosius, Protogenus & some others of the western. [Hitherto the Church Catholick had continued united in external communion as one Church Catholick throughout all the Empire; but & tho by these disputes it inclined now to a rupture, yet it still continued one Church catholick. ffor whilst the eastern & western Bishops two parties excommunicated only a few of the western one another, its evident that they each party looked upon the western Churches as in their other as in communion & with it self those few men only excepted whom they excommunicated. And while the western Bishops excommunicated tw only a few of the eastern, its evident that they looked upon the eastern churches as in their communion those few men only excepted whom they excommunicated & These things were done in the year 347, & in this state things continued till the year 353 in wchwhich Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor of Constans, & becoming Lord of the whole Roman Empire checkt the ambition of the Church of Rome. And in this interval of time a new Profession of faith was handed about in the name of the Council of Serdica For some propposed & endeavoured in that Council that a new Profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene pProfession, & others were unwilling that the Nicene should be thought defective. They that were for a new Creed no doubt offered one agreable to the sentiments of the Council, & this I conceive to be the Creed which afterwards was handed about in their name.] And I mistake if this be not the following Creed found in a very old parchment manuscript in the Vatican & printed in the works of Athanasius at Paris A.C 1698. We beleive in one God the ffather Omnipotent, the maker of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God, begotten of the ffather, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial to the father by whom all things were made which are in heaven & in earth visible & invisible: who for us men & for our salvation came down for our salvation & was incarnate & made
Another new Article was the consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost to the father & son, & this was first decreed by the Council of Serdica A.C. 347 then confirmed by some other Councils & at length inserted into yethe Creed commonly attributed to Athanasius.
Another new Article was the worship of the holy Ghost. And this was inserted A.C. 381 into the Creed of the second General Council called the Council of Constantinople A.C. in these words. I beleive &c – – – resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come.
Another new Article was the Communion of Saints. [And this was began to be inserted into the Apostles Creed of the Latines about the end of the fourth century or beginning of the fift Century [in favour of the invocation of saints for establishing an opinion wchwhich at th wchwhich at that time had newly overspread yethe the orthodox Churches of all the Roman empire.] And this began to be intoinserted into the Creeds about yethe end of the fourth Century or beginning of the fift namely that there was a communion of the saints For yethe primitive meaning of the Article was that there was a Communion departed this life wthwith the Church militant on earth. And It This article It was inserted into yethe Apostles Creed & into the Creed commente upon by wchwhich Eusebius Gallicanus A.C. 420 about yethe year of Christ 420 or 430 commented upon, & into those of St Augustin Serm 115, 123 & 181 de Temp. & into that of Paschatius l. 1. c. 1. Eusebius makes this comment upon it. Credamus – – – – contemptu mortis insinuant. Similiter quidam And St Austin or whoever was the author of serm 181 de Tempore makes this Sanctorum communionem; id est, – – supplicare &c [And in the Præface to yethe passion of Perpetua. Et qui nunc – – cum Domino Iesu Christo] And after it Augustin in his book de Civitate Dei (l. 20. c. 9) after he had explained the kingdom of yethe saints Apoc. 20 of the present Church & the judgment given to them of the power of the keys, he adds: Et animæ occisorum – – – – – et mortuis. And the author of the Passion of Perpetua & Felicitas in the Preface: Et qui nunc cum Domino Iesu Christo.] Now concerning all these Creeds made observe first that the to It was seems therefore inserted into yethe Creeds for establishing an opinion wchwhich in the end of the fourth Century was grown general of a communion of between the saints departed this life is & the Church militant on earth, wchwhich opinion had newly overspread the ort established Churches of the Roman Empire namely th before the end of the fourth century & is explained described by St Augustin bishop of Hippo in his 20th book de Civitate Dei ch. 9, where, after he had explained the kingdom of the Saints Apoc 20 of yethe present Church & the judgment given to them of the power of the keys he adds Et animæ occisorum - - - - et mortuis. And in the same sense the author of the Passion of Perpetua & Felicitas saith in the Preface: Et qui nunc cognoscitis per auditum, communionem habeatis cum sanctis martyribus & per illos cum Domino Iesu Christo.
Now if the
Another new Article was the forgiveness of sins. For this was wanting in the ancient Greek Creeds & did not begin to be generally inserted into Latines Creeds till after the days of Cyprian.
An Two other new Articles wasere the life everlasting. ffor this was wanting in most of the old Creeds of the Latines & in almo resurrection of the body or as some Creeds have it, the resurrection of the flesh & the life everlasting. ffor thisese articles wasere wanting And all in all the Creeds of the Greeks till they about the middle of the fourth Century when they began to insert them out of the Creeds of the Latines till the Council of Constantinople A.C. 381 added it in them to their Creed, excepting that the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added in writing to the Latines for pleasing the Latines added them to the end of the Creed of Lucius the Martyr. And the life everlasting was wanting also in most of the old Creeds of yethe Latines. [They were Council was then writing to the Latines & therefore when for the satisfaction of the Latines added th added them out of the Latine Creeds ffor when they had the Creed of Lucius they they conclude thus. We beleive also in the holy Ghost concluding the Creed of Lucius with these words And if this is to be added: we beleive the resurrection of the flesh & life everlasting.] In the primitive original Creeds these two Articles were understood tacitely comprehended in th Christs conyethe Articles of Christs coming to judge the quick & the dead. For this articles implies that the dead shall rise again to be judged & be rewarded everlastingly according to their works. As it was not thought necessary to mention the resurrection & immortality of Christs body any further then by saying that the third day he rose again from the dead & shall come hereafter & shall from heaven to judge the quick & yethe dead, so it might not be thought necessary in the original Creeds beginning of the Gospel to mention the resurrection & immortality of the bodies of the rest of the dead any further then by saying that they shall be judged at Christs coming & understanding thereby that they shall then rise again to judgmtjudgment from the dead for that end they may be judged & rewarded & receive everlasting rewards. ffor if the dead rise not then is Christ not risen 1 Cor 15.13 and therefore if the resurrection & immortality of Christs body be granted the resurrection & immortality of the bodies of yethe rest of the dead will not be disputed, they then being theyn people people of 21
made man that is, begotten perfectly of Mary always a virgin by the holy Ghost: who had truly & not only in appearance a body soul & mind & all things wchwhich are in men except sin: who suffered, that is, was crucified buried & rose again the third day & ascended into heaven in glory in the very same body: sitteth at the right hand of the father, & shall come again in the same body in glory to judge the quick & the dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end. And we beleive in the holy Ghost, who is not alien from the father & the Son but is consubstantial to the ffather & the son; who is uncreated, perfect, the Paraclete, who spake in the law & in the Prophets & in the Gospels; who descended on Iourdan, preached to the Apostles, dwelt in the saints. And we beleive in this one only catholick & Apostolick Church, in one baptism of repentance in the remission of sins, in the resurrection of the dead, in eternal judgment of souls & bodies, in the kingdom of heaven & in life everlasting. But those who say, there was a time when the son was not, or there was a time when the holy Ghost was not, or that he was made out of nothing, or that the son of God or Holy Ghost was of another ὑπόστασις or another ὀυσία, or mutable & variable, We anathematize, because our catholick mother & apostolick church anathematizes them. And we anathematize all those who confess not the resurrection of the flesh, & every hæresy, that is, all those who do not hold this faith of the holy & only Catholick Church. This Creed was found in a very old parchmtparchment MS in yethe Vatican & printed in the works of Athanasius at Paris A.C. 1698 & was certailycertainly – – – This Creed was certainly made before the meeting of the Council of Alexandria A.C. 362 because that Council abolished it uses the language of one hypostasis of the father son & holy Ghost which was abolished in that Council It is attributed In the MS it is attributed to Athanasius but runs in yethe plural is attributed to Athanasius in the MS but runs in the plural number (We beleive &c) and after the manner of a Creed made by a Council anathematizes all that do not beleive it, & has all the characters of the Serdican Creed. For it [therefore was either made by a Council or at least offered to a Council where Athanasius was present. It] uses the word usia ὔσια & ὑπόστασις in one & the same sense, as the Council such a sense as no other Council did besides that of Serdica did, & [this significa use of the word ὑπόστασις was abolished by the Council of Alexandria A.C. 362 & therefore this Creed was older then the Council of Alexandria.] is the Nicene Creed enlarged with the Serdican faith & with so much of the Creed of the Creed of the Latines called the Apostles Creed, as was then wanting in the Nicene. And by all these circumstances I take this it answers to be the Creed wchwhich went about was published in the name of the Council of Serdica. till it was abolished in the said Council of Alexandria Certainly it is the oldest Creed by in wchwhich the consubstantial Trinity was established ffather Son & holy Ghost were declared consubstantial, & therefore was made by Athanasius & the Latines together for completing the Nicene Creed & it uses the word ὑπόστασις in such a sense as no other Council did besides that of Serdica. This Creed I have therefore recited as conteining the Serdican faith & as the oldest in wchwhich yethe father son & holy G.Ghost are declared consubstantial.
The Council of Serdica being called ordered by the Emperors to treat of the faith of the faith in the first place (for wchwhich end the BpsBishops of both Empires should have met wthwithout seeing the excommunicated persons till their cases could have been heard) the eastern Bishops also in returning also in their return from Serdica published also a Profession of their faith, wchwhich composed about two years before by a Counil at Antioch, wchwhich profession was as follows. I We beleive in one God the father Almighty, the maker & creator of all things, from whom every creature all Paternity in heaven & in earth is named & in his only begotten son our Lord Iesus Christ, begotten of the father before all ages God of God, light of light, by whom all things were made in heaven & in earth visible & invisible who is the word the wisdome the power the life & the true light In Who in the last days for us was made man & born of yethe holy Virgin crucified dead & buried & rose again from the dead the third day & was taken up into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God the father who shall come in the end of ages to judge the quick & de dead & to give unto every one according to his works, whose kingdom without intermission continues to endless ages. ffor he sits at the right hand of the father not only in this world but also in that wchwhich is to come We beleive also in the Holy Ghost, that is in the Paraclete whom Christ, having promised him him to his his Apostles, after his resurrection, sent to teach them & make them remember admonish them all things, by whom all the souls of those are sanctified who sincerely beleive in him. But those who say the son iswas made made of nothing or of another substance & was not of the substance of the father God or that there was a time or an age when he was not the Catholick Church accounts alien from her; & those likewise who say there are three Gods or that Christ iwas not God or that before the ages before the ages, or that he is neither Christ nor the son of God was not before the ages, or that the ffather Son & Holy Ghost are the same or that the son is unbegotten, or that the Father did not beget the son by his counsel & will, & choice counsel the holy & catholick Church anathematizes. This Profession of faith Hilary approves & commends as done made in short but most absolute definitions & finds no fault with it And hitherto the Churches Catholick of the Greeks & Latines had continued thus united in external communion throughout the whole Roman Empire by but now they began to separate the Latines being offended that the Greeks called the father son & holy Ghost three hypostases, & omitted the word ὁμοούσιος in their Creeds & called & the La Greeks that the Latines translated it unius substantiæ hypostasis, absolved persons excomunicated by them Greek Church & endeavoured to subject them to the auth Bishop of R that thate Greek Church to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. & both parties that five or six of the principal BpsBishops of their party were excommunicated by those of the other party.
Six years after these things were done Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor of his brother Constans & f in the western Empire & called Councils at Arles & Aquileia & two years two years after called a Council called a Council of above 300 BpsBishops above 300 BpsBishops at at Millain, in wchwhich the western Bishops were required [besides two Councils at Arles & Biterræ in Gallia & a third at Aquileia] to subscribe the condemnation of Athanasius They offered to subscribe if the Nicene faith might be first subscribed confirmed but were told that the Emperor who convened them not to debate about the faith but for to acknowledge the judicial authority of the eastern Councils for restoring the peace of the Churches that nothing could be done proceed till they quitted the communion of persons excommunicated, for wchwhich end they were called together. to depart from the communion of of excommunicated persons Whereupon they all subscribed except for Paulinus Trevirensis an A, & Eusebius Vercellensis Lucifer Calaritanus, & Dionysius Mediolanensis et Milliu & Rhodanus who were therefore banished as was also Liberius bishop of Rome & Hosius a litte after & Hilary & Dosanus a year after. These fiv And all all these five offered also to subscribe if the Nicene faith might be subscribed first were confirmed first, & thereby they allowed that they might could subscribe with a good conscience. Messengers were also sent to take the subscriptions of such Bishops as came staid at home. And Thus the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome set up by the B over th set up by the Councils of Rome & Serdica over the eastern Churches, fell.] subscribe wthwith a good conscience. There were also two Councils called upon yethe same acctaccount at Arles & Biterrs in Gallia & at third at Aquileia, & Messengers sent wthwith publick notaries to take the subscriptions of the rest of the Bishops who staid at home. And besides the Persons above mentioned Hosius also & Liberius after they had been 22been a year or two in banishment subscribed. And thus the supremacy of the BpBishop of Rome set up by the Councils of Rome & Serdica fell, the over the eastern churches fell, the Bishop of Rome himself with all the western Bishops except seven or eight & all their Presbyters except a very few, by subscribing & thereby acknowledging the supreme & absolute judicial power authority of the eastern Councils over their own members Councils of the eastern Greek Churches of the Greek over their her own members. But in over the Latine Churches of the consubstantial faith in Europe the supremacy of the BpBishop of Rome still remained being no ways opposed by Constantius or the Greek Church. And thence it came to pass that Socrates who wrote A.C. 429 saith that yethe BpsBishops of Rome & Alexandria had of old exceeded the bounds of Priesthood & degenerated into domination Socr l 7 c 11 that when the western Empire became subject to the was invaded by several barbarous nations, those nations (particularly the Franks in Gallia the Goths in Spain & the Lombards in Italy), as fast as they became became converted to the Consubstantial faith, they subjected their Churches to yethe authority of the Bishop of Rome; & that Socrates who wrote A.C. 429 said then that yethe BpsBishops of Rome & Alexandria had of old exceeded the bounds of Priesthood & degenerated into domination (Socr. l. 7. c. 11) & that Ammianus in describing the very bloody contest between the BpBishop Damasus & Vrsisinus for the bishopric of Rome A.C. 367, saith
but were told that nothing could proceed till they quitted the communion made to understand that the communicating with persons excommunicated was criminal contrary to yethe rules of yethe church & of a criminal nature, that nothing could proceede till they quitted such communion, & returned into communion wthwith the Churches who had excommunicated them, that the Emperor called them together for that purpose & that they were not to go upon other things wthwithout his leave, & that those who persisted in such communion must expect to be banished as criminals.
but were made to understand that nothing could be debated or proceed in Council till they quitted the communion of persons excommunicated & returned into communion wthwith the bishops with whom they were to debate, that the Emperor called them together for that purpose & they could not go upon other things without till they had his leave, that the wilful communicating with persons excommunicated by others was con who stood excommunicated by others was contrary to the rules of the church & of a criminal nature & that those who persisted in such communion excommunicated themselves & must expect expect to be for restoring the peace of the Church disturbed by them to be banished as criminals.