Drafts on the history of the Church (Section 1)
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 ffather 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 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 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. 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 {illeg}/ A.C. 340/ the Council of Antioch wch 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/ {illeg} 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 ye 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 Constantiple {sic}, 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 authory {sic} & 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 Samosat the western acquiesced; that to communicate with persons excommunicated 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 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 nobis 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 excommunicated 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 wch 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 excommunicated 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 Ghost, & the equality of the Son to the ffather & his assumption of a man. They made some Canons also in wch 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 Churches should be brought into the same subjection.
[1] It was proposed also in this Council that a new profession of of {sic} faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene Profession; & Sozomen tells us[2] that they did compose a new form of faith prolixer then the 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 wch 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 incarnate & 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 heaven 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 uncreated, 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. This Creed was found in a very old parchment Manuscript 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,[3] & 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, wch 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 Nicene & 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 wch 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 {illeg} of & maker of all things from whom all paternity 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 wch is to come. We beleive also in the holy Ghost, that is, in the Paraclete, whom Christ, having promised him to his Apostles, after his resurrection sent to teach them & admonish them all things, by whom also the souls of those {yt} 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 before 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 & commended as made in short but most absolute definitions. And hitherto the Greeks Churches of the Greeks & Latines had continued united in external communion throughout the whole Roman Empire; but now they began to separate, the Latines being offended that the Greeks called the ffather & Son & holy Ghost three hypostaces {sic} & omitted the word ὁμοούσιος in their Creeds, & the Greeks that ye Latines translated it unius hypostasis absolved persons excommunicated by the Greek Church & endeavoured to subject that Church to the authority 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 Constantius 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 Athanasius. 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 persons excommunicated & returned into communion with the Bishops with whom they were to debate, that the Emperor called them together for that purpose {illeg} & 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, 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 wth 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 Consubstantial 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 consubstantial 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 wch 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 wch 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 of Seleucia meeting the same year subscribed the Creed of Lucius the Martyr with a preface in wch they abolished the use of those words \& declared the son to be like the father according to the Apostle/ & a conclusion in wch they approved the sense of the said \said/ Creed of Ariminum & 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 material alteration variation of words.
The principal reasons for abolishing the use of those words is|are| thus set down by the Council of Seleucia in their preface to ye Creed of Lucius: Cum hæ voces ομοούσιον & ὁμοιούσιον præteritis temporibus atqꝫ etiam nunc \multos/ conturbarint; imò a quibusdam ἀνόμοιον (sive dissimilem patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ‘ομοούσιον (sive dissimilem patri filium) jam innovari dicatur: ὁμοούσιον et ὁμοιούσιον 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 populisqꝫ 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: [4] De homousio … tractantes primùm idcirco respuendum pronunciastis, quia [per] verbi hujus enunciationem substantia prior intelligeretur, quàm duo inter se partiti essent – Secundo quoqꝫ id addidistis quod patres nostri cum Paulus Samosatenus hæreticus pronunciatus est, etiam homousion repudiaverint. …. 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 wch 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 ye son & holy ghost sprang from ye 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[5] 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 ye 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 wch 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 universally the Greeks rejected this word may appear by the character wch Hilary[6] 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 absqꝫ episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majori parte Asianæ{illeg} 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 wch 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 wch had caused them.
ffourthly, the words homousios, {illeg} \{illeg}/ ex substantia, & 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, {illeg} 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 partitam in duas dividat, religiose prædicabitur: 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, proficiat ad errorem. Est præterea error hic tertius ut cum unius substantiæ pater et filius dicatur esse dicatum esse dicuntur, significari existimetur substantia 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 brethren the western Bishops that many of them taught it in the heretical senses, & endeavours to instruct|s| them in the right fourth signification, namely \that the union was only specific or/ that ye 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 {illeg} Sulpicius, quæ esset Gallorum fides: qui{illeg} tum, Arianis prava de nobis vulgantibus, suspecti ab orientalibus habebamur trionymam solitarij Dei unionem secundum Sabellium credidisse. Sed exposita fide sua \[de unitate specifica]/ juxta ea quæ Nicææ erant a patribus conscripta, Occidentalibus perhibuit testimonium. The language of homousios, {ex} substantia & 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[7] maintained an essetial {sic} 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 {sic} by a Council of 80 eastern bishops or above voluntarily convened at Antioch about 60 years before the Council of Nice, & the sentence against Paul b[8] was communicated to all the Churches of the Roman Empire for their approbation & approved by them without any controversy arising upon it. And Paul was ejected by the consent of the Bishops of 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 repealed. 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 intelligentem? 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 {illeg} admitted \it/ out of simplicity (or without due examination) & by compulsion. 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 representing 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 ejusqꝫ 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 dignam quæ fulminibus deponatur. And again: At dices magnum hominum numerum tecum facere et sublevare curas 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 præterea adjungis, id tollo. Si quid ad impiam separationem fraudulenter consuis, id nec videre nec intelligere me confiteor. Si hospitium corporis assumis ad divinorum operum dispensationem non improbo.[9] 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, quomodo fuit tempus cum non esset? Perinde enim est ac si dicerent, Deum aliqua ἄλογον καὶ ἄσοφον ποτὲ τὸν Θεόν Deum aliquando rationis & sapientiæ expertem fuisse. The Emperor in his circulatory epistle published in all the cities of the Empire declared himself \(in his words last mentioned)/ to be of the same opinion. And therefore 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 & adjudging 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[10] to hold fast the form of sound words. Contending for a language wch 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 occasioned 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 wch 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.
<12r>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 Athanasius & 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 banishment, & then subjoins. [11] Quinetiam fidei nostræ veritatem a multis laceratam et perturbatam, atqꝫ in sexcentas opiniones partesqꝫ distractam, sibi tradi postulavit. —– Atqꝫ hic potissimum Athanasius puritatis suæ, fideiqꝫ 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 utrinqꝫ sani et inclumes essent, primus ille et solus aut cum valde \admodum/ paucis veritatem palam apertisqꝫ verbis promulgare non dubitavit, unam trium personarum divinitatem et essentiam scripto confessus: et quod multis illis patribus circa filium prius concessum fuerat, idem ipse postea in asserenda spiritus sancti divinitate superno afflatu consecutus. Atqꝫ Imperatori domum vere regium offert scriptam nempe fidei confessionem adversus novum dogma nusquam in Scriptura expressum: ut sic et Imperatorem Imperator et doctrinam doctrina et libellum libellus frangeret atqꝫ opprimeret. Hujus confessionis ut mihi videtur, authoritate permoti, tum Occidentales, 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 accendunt, hactenus scilicet ut tempori atqꝫ acrioribus orthodoxis et ferventibus orthodoxis aut piæ plebi utcunqꝫ satisfaciant: partim deniqꝫ omni verborum libertate veritatem prædicant. This was written by Gregory in an Oration upon the death of Athanasius A.C. 373.
The faith wch 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 ye imputation of Sabellianism under wch 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, Eusebius Vercellensis & 12 or 15 other bishops returning \from/ banishment, had consulted about the faith at Alexandria a few months before & resolved to {illeg} \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/ Alexandria it was agreed that the Bishops who had subscribed 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 without losing their Bishopricks. Post reditum confessorum, saith Ierome,[12] 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 constaret 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, wch 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 Athanasius & 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 wch 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. [13] Damasus et Vriscinus supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopalem sedem ardentes, scissis studijs acerrime conflictabantur, adusqꝫ mortis vulnerumqꝫ discrimina adjumentis utriusqꝫ 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 instante. Constatqꝫ in basilica Sicinini, ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die centum triginta septem reperta cadavera peremptorum: efferatamqꝫ diu plebem ægre postea delinitam. Neqꝫ ego abnuo, ostentationem 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, procedantqꝫ vehiculis 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/ & another to the Bishops of Illyricum, the Oriental bishops convened at Antioch to the number of 146, & subscribed the Roman faith, & so did a good number of bishops convened in Illyricum. And the Council of Illyricum 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 congregata esset, post accuratam inquisitionem de salutari verbo, declaravarunt beatissimi Pontifices consubstantialem trinitatem Patris ac ffilij ac spiritus sancti. Nostra verò majestas eandem ubiqꝫ 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 commotion.
Nam talis orbis motio
Nunquam, reor, fuit,
Quam sanctus est cum spiritus
Dictus Deus palam
Ob idqꝫ 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 wth 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 Athanasius 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 Gregory Nazianzen. And neare the beginning of ye year 379 ‡
< insertion from lower down f 15r >|1| ‡ Neare the beginning of the year 379 about five months after the death of Valens, Theodosius a Spaniard was made Emperor of the east by Gratian & by new edicts in the years 380 & 381 completed the delivery of the churches of the eastern Empire to those in communion with the bishop of Rome.
< text from higher up f 15r resumes >\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 quicunqꝫ judicio Damasi, quod ille cum consilio quinqꝫ 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 atqꝫ Italiæ authoritate adhibita, ad episcopale judicium remittatur, sive a Consularibus vel Vicarijs; ut ad urbem Romam sub prosecutione perveniat: aut si in longinquioribus 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 Bp of Antioch/ The council of Constantinople called the second general council, had {illeg} created Flavian patriarch of Antioch & ordeined |his successor Bishop setting aside Paulinus for his discord wth 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 {sic} Damasus But the/ Bishop|s| of Rome was \& Alexandria were/ much offended thereat \having communicated wth 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 celebrating 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 Bp of Rome, but the submitted {sic} |Some years after the Council of western Bishops {illeg} \And the {illeg}/ agreed that the case of fflavian the eastern & western Churches about these matters continued {illeg}|
[14] 4 For Himerius bishop of Tarraco the head city of a Province in Spain, writing to the bishop Damasus {illeg} 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 wch his predecessor Liberius had sent to the Provinces of one thing: Cum hoc fieri – missa ad provincias a venerandæ memorias prædecessore 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, Apostolicæ 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 quibus 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 incitamus; 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; Lusitanos atqꝫ Gallicos, vel eos qui vicinis tibi collimitant hinc inde provincijs, hæc quæ a nobis sunt salubri ordinati{illeg}one 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 ye Roman jurisdiction.|
[15] 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 ye east. The Council of Capua theref. ordeined. {sic} that he should be heard by \before a council of/ the Bishops of Egypt, but \he/ came not. |For the Bp of Alexandria sided wth ye Bp of Rome being disgusted at the eastern Churches for setting the Bp of Constantinople before him.| Then was {sic} |Then| Ambrose in a letter to Theophilus bishop of Alexandria proposed that ye 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.
< insertion from f 15r >7 While these things were doing, the practise of electing Bishops, {illeg} 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, [16] Plures ex his postea episcopos vidimus. Quæ enim civitas aut Ecclesia, quæ non sede 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 supersti\ti/ons into the church. {sic} And Pope Siricius in \the 13th article of/ his {illeg} 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 superstious {sic} 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 yt some \many/ in Spain had children by their wives & concubines, |&| declares|d| that all the Clergy from ye 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 denounces|d| that all those who act otherwise shall be \are/ degraded by the authority of the Apostolic See.
{illeg} 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 ye 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 {sic} signe of the Cross \&/ superstitiously. & The superstious {sic}/ had annual festivals to the {first} martyrs in|&| Tertullians days & These festivals came \superstions {sic} crept/ into ye 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 reign|s| of \Valens &/ Theosius {sic}, the moncks \Macarius magnus,/ Aphraates, Macedonius & Iacob{us} \& Iohn/ are said to have cured \many/ sick people & done other miracles by water & \{illeg}/ oyle consecrated by the signe of the cross. Paul the Abbot said {illeg} 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 {illeg} Monasteries in ye reign of Constantine the great |in Egypt a little after the Nicean Council| ordeined |yt| the Moncks should say 12 prayers in the day, 12 at night, 12 in ye 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 {sic} 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, {illeg} went on foot to Rome & Alexandria to pray at the tumbs {sic} of Peter & Paul & Mark & went twice \{illeg}/ to Ierusalem \also/ twice on foot to Ierusalem upon vows. And in the life of Ruffin he tells us further. Postq 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 were {sic} in use in these days.
Also abstinence from meats were|was| in use in those days. For Socrates[17] tells us that in keeping Lent some absteined from all animated creatures, some 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.
<17r>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 {illeg} ye Nicene Creed & explain {illeg} 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 {illeg}/ & 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 ye 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 ye Bishop of Rome, & about Easter one Gregory being sent \mad {sic} Bp of Alexandria & sent thither/ wth an armed force to succeed Athanasius, he fled to Rome, as did also Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza whom ye eastern bishops had deposed. Thereupon Iulius Bp of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 Bps 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 ye 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 {illeg}/ 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, & {illeg} 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 {illeg} & complained that they acted in their Councils wthout him \to whom it {belonged} to do justice/ Cur igitur, saith he, – – – oportuit. & about three years after \{illeg}/ procured of the Emperour that a| that a {sic} 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 {illeg} with whom they would have no communion/ the Easter {sic} 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 {sic} {illeg} five of the eastern Bps who had five of been sent by the/ And at length the eastern Bishops {saw} that the western Bishops contended for jurisdiction over |& when neither party would yeild, five of the eastern Bps {illeg}ti{illeg}tely who had been sent by the council of Tyre to 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 wch 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 Bps but to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges over the Eastern & therefore the eastern Bps seeing yt/ the eastern Bishops seing that {sic} the western |& the western| Bishops contended obstinately for a jurisdiction over them \for preeminence & would not joyn wth \wth them/ in Council/ to hear ye excommunicated persons at the barr but still contended to make themselves & the excommunicated persons judges over them \{illeg}/
The|y| western Bishops \Council of/ made some Canons also in wch 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 the\ir/ 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[18] that a new profession of faith should be published for supplying what was wanting to the Nicene Profession; and Sozomen tells us[19] that they did compose a new form of faith prolixer then ye 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 wch 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/ hi|the| 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 wth the same Article of the holy Ghost & by consequence the Article or \following/ Articles wch 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 or being baptized in their name. For this reasō 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 {illeg} Latine /three by {ye 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
<18r>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 ye 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 thing {sic} were done in ye year 347 & in this Council some proposed that a new for profession of fath {sic} 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 {illeg} five of the western \esatern/ Bishops who had been sent by {illeg} the Council of Tyre into Egypt to examin the matters of Athanasius, proposed to ye 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 wch they had made to the Council of Tyre proved false then they would {subm} submit to be excommunicated without com {sic} complaining to the Emporor {sic}, but if their report was found true then five of the western Bishops who had defended Athanasius should be excommunicated without comp complaining {sic} to the Emperors.
at the motion of the Council of Antioch in spring A.C. 341 / & {illeg} 4 years after {illeg} of the Emperors
<18v>& Iulius in the name of the rest {illeg} 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 {illeg} prevailed wth ye Emperors to call a synod at Council at Serdica to {sic} town in the confine of both Empires
– communicated wth Athanasius & some others whom they Eastern Bps 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 wth 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 {illeg}. 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 ye younger, \meeting at Antioch A.C. 341 &/ being offended yt 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 ye in ye 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 & {illeg} by them {illeg} wrote to ye 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[20] [complaining that blaming \accusing him blaming/ him for communicating wth Athanasius & for reproaching & ab & abrogating their Councels \& {illeg} \& communicating with Athanasius// contrary to \the/ ecclesiastical laws \& going about to destroy them/, & offering the|i|m peace if they he desisted, but & the contrary if he resisted their decrees, & re] telling him |yt when ye Roman Church expelled Novatian the Greeks acquiesced & when ye Greeks expelled Paul of Samosat the Latines acquiesced. ffor he that seeks enmity who departs from his friend| that to communicate wth excommunicated persons wthout 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) dissoved {sic} the Councils of the eastern Church\es/ the criminals being condemned by the Bishops of the whole east, That & their crimes being notoriously known in ye |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 \Bp of Rome persisted & \wen {sic} the Bp of Rome red {sic} these letters he persisted & the// the Legates by whom they \eastern Bishops/ sent this Letter offered \proposed to/ the Bp of Rome to refer the matter to a general Council. \These Letters were sent by Martyrius & Hesychius. And/ {in the} mean time the eastern Bips procured caused Athanasius & Paul to be again ejected, & 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 Bps {illeg} proposing to referr the matter to a general Council,[21] 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 acct of \stand in judgment & justify & {sic}/ their proceedings, & the Eastern Bishops returned an answer \from Antioch/ by the s Elpidius & Philoxenus in wch they represented that any every Synod had an unshaken authority & the judge is used reproachfully whose judgmt is questioned \examined/ by others, that when ye eastern Bps 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 ye 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 a|ll| general Council \the Eastern Bishops/ but directed his letter only |Ad| Eusebiū 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 Bp of Rome laid their Letter before ye Council, & was desired by \at the desire of/ the Council returned an \large/ answer \complaining that they received the Arians against ye \authority of ye/ Nicene Council/ defending Athansius {sic} \&/ Marcellinus,[22] {Ancyras} insinuating that ye 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 {illeg} 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 thing {sic}/ the Emperor Constans at ye request of Athanasus {sic} & Marcellus obtened {sic} 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 {sic} hear this matter treate first concerning the faith & then to hear this matter \concerning/ the cause of these {illeg} 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 wth an armed force to succeed him Alexandria, whereupon Athanasius fled to Rome, & Iulius Bp of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 bishops of Italy
A Council of Eastern Bishops \met at Antioch/ A.C. 340 wrote to ye Emperors against him & {sic} 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 Bp of Alexandria by the Council of Antioch & sent thither with an armed force, Athanasius fled to Rome |as did also some other Bps Paul of Constantinople Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza. And whom the eastern Bps had deposed. And then| And Iulius Bp of Rome summoned a Council of about 50 Bps \of Italy & the parts adjacent/ to mee {sic} at Rome the next year A.C. 342 & sent Elpidius & Philoxenus to {visit} the Council of Tyre to summon \cite/ the Bps 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 wch the eastern Bps were greatly offended & wrote back that
<19v>And in their letters they \The western Bps made {illeg} &/ ordeined that appeals might be made from all the {world} to ye Bp of Rome, & new so & {Socr} Sozomen tells u / & Iulius by their order wrote back to ye eastern Bishops complaining of the sharpness of their Letter, {illeg} \&/ of their not coming to ye council & defending Athanasius & Marcellus at large, & representing that they ought \blaming them/ for acting in their Councils without giving him notice to {illeg} 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 {illeg} the Bps party \the Bps {sic}/ 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 ye matter but/ /first to treat of the faith. And there came thither\ in the next year \& there came thither/ A.C. 347 the {illeg} 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 ye year 353 in wch 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 {yt} 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 ye the {sic} sentiments of ye Council & this I conceive to be that \the Creed/ wch afterwards was handed about in their name. And such a Creed I meet wth \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. 3|1|698 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 Co. {sic} & 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 ye one & the same sense, as ye Council of Serdica did, & this sense of ye word hypostasis was abolished in ye Council of Alexandria A.C. 362, & therefore this Creed suits only wth ye times before ye Council of Serdica & Alexandria \was older then ye Council of Alexandria & suits \best/ wth the times of the Council of Serdica/. It is a Creed [\was/ composed for supplying what ye Latines might account wanting in the Nicene Creed: for it] is the Nicene Creed enlarged wth the Serdican faith & the \with/ so much of the Creed of the Latines call usually \now/ called ye Apostles Creed, as was then \then/ wanting in the Nicene, [It wants the descent into hell & ye Communion of Saints & theref. 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 ye Latins {illeg}/ for supplying the defects what the Latines might acount wanting in ye Nicene Creed. It wants the descent into hell & ye communion of saints & therefore was made \composed/ before those articles came into ye Creed of ye 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 \{illeg}/ /usia\ patris & homousios \the son to have a body soul & spirit/ /to be of the ούσια of the father & ὁμοούσιον to\ to {sic} ye father & Son & this \as this \article/ then/ wanted to be dec inserted into a Creed, & this is the oldest creed in wch I meet with it \& I cannot find it in any older creed then this above recited {sic}/ /so I cannot find it in any older Creed then this above recited.\ It declares also that ye son Vpon And {illeg} The Serdican Council \which/ was the first Council \oldest/ wch {illeg} declared the consubstantiality of ye holy Gh. & this Creed is the oldest \I can meet wth/ in wch pro that consubstantiality is professed, & so far I \as/ I can observe it conteins the faith of the {illeg} generality of the \Council of Serdica &/ western churches in & next after the times of ye Council of Serdica very fully co truly \fully/ & compleatly.
<20r>them, [& that instead of being joyned|ing| with the|m| western Bishops \joyning/ in Council to hear the excomunicated persons at ye 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 wch 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 p|P|rofession, & 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 &
<20v>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 ye 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 Sai\n/ts. [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 wch at th| wch at that time had newly overspread ye the \orthodox/ Churches of all the Roman empire.] And this began to be into {sic} the Creeds about ye end of the fourth Century or beginning of the fift |namely that \there was a communion of/ the saints For ye primitive meaning of the Article was that there was a Communion {illeg}|departed| this life wth the Church militant on earth.| And It \This article/ |It| was inserted \into ye Apostles Creed &/ into the Creed {sic} commente upon by \wch/ Eusebius Gallicanus A.C. 420 about ye 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.} {illeg} 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 ye 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 ye 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 ye Creeds for establishing an opinion wch in the end of the fourth Century was grown general \of {illeg} \a/ communion of \between/ the saints departed this life is & the Church militant on earth, wch 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 ye 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 {illeg} 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 Article|s| was|ere| 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 this|ese| article|s| was|ere| wanting And all \in all/ the {illeg} Creeds of the Greeks till they about the middle of the fourth Century when they began to insert{illeg} them out of the Creeds of the Latines till the Council of Constantinople A.C. 381 added it in \them {illeg} to/ their Creed, excepting that the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 added in writing to the Latines \for {illeg} 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 ye 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 {illeg} 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 {illeg} primitive \original/ Creeds these two Articles were understood \tacitely comprehended/ in th Christs conye 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 {illeg} 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 & ye 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 judgmt 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 {illeg} 1 Cor 15.13 and therefore/ if the resurrection & immortality of Christs body be granted the resurrection & immortality of {illeg} the bodies of ye rest of the dead will not be dis{pu}ted, they \then/ being they\n/ people \people/
<21r>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 wch 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 parchmt MS in ye Vatican & printed in the works of Athanasius at Paris A.C. 1698 & was certaily {sic} – – – 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 ye plural/ is attributed to Athanasius in the MS but runs in the plural {sic} 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 wch 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/ wch 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 wch ye father son & holy G. are declared consubstantial.
<21v>The Council of Serdica being called \ordered by the Emperors/ to treat of the faith of the faith in the first place (for wch end the Bps of both Empires should have met wthout {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, wch \composed about two years before by a Counil at Antioch, wch 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 ye 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 wch 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, {illeg} 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 is|w|as 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 i|wa|s 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/, abso\l/ved persons excomunicated by them \Greek Church/ & endeavoured to subject them to the auth Bishop of R \that that|e| Greek Church {illeg} to the/ authority of the Bishop of Rome. |& both parties that five or six of the principal Bps 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 Bps /above 300\ Bps at/ at {sic} Millain, in wch 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 {illeg} Councils \for restoring the peace of the Churches/ \that {sic} nothing could be done \proceed/ till they quitted the communion of persons excommunicated, for wch end they were called together./ \to depart from the communion of {illeg} of excommunicated persons/ Whereupon they all subscribed except for \Paulinus Trevirensis an A{illeg}, &/ 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 wth a good conscience.| There were also two Councils called \upon ye same acct/ at Arles & Biterrs in Gallia & at third at Aquileia, & Messengers sent wth 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 a year or two in banishment subscribed. And thus the supremacy of the Bp 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 Bp 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 ye Bps 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 {illeg} became \became/ converted to the Consubstantial faith, they subjected their Churches to ye authority of the Bishop of Rome; & that Socrates who wrote A.C. 429 said{illeg} \then/ that ye Bps 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 Bp Damasus & Vrsisinus for the bishopric of Rome A.C. 367, saith
<22v>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 ye rules of ye church & of a criminal nature, that nothing could proceede till they quitted such communion, \& returned into communion wth the Churches who had excommunicated them,/ that the Emperor called them together for that purpose & that they were not to go upon other things wthout 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 wth 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.
[1] Athanas. Epist. ad Antiochenos.
[2] Sozomen. l. 3. c. 12
[3] Tom. 2. p. 1278.
[4] Hilar. de Synod.
[5] Basil. Epist. 300
[6] Hilar. de Synodis p. 381. Edit. {illeg} Paris. 1652.
[7] a Socr. l. 1. c. 5
[8] b Euseb. Hist. Eccles.
[9] Socr. Hist. l. 1. c. 6.
[10] 1 Tim. 1.13.
[11] Greg. Naz. Orat. 21. p. 394, 395.
[12] Hieron. adv. Lucif. t. 1.
[13] Ammian. l. 27.
[14] {illeg} Siricij Epist. ad Himeriū in Tomis Concil.
[15] Ambros Epist. 78.
[16] Sulp. in vita Martini.
[17] Socr. Hist l. 5. c. 22.
[18] Athanas. Epist. ad Antiochenos.
[19] Sozom. l. 3. c. 12.
[20] Epist. Antioch.
[21] Vide Epistola Iulij
[22] Extat Epistola in Tom. Concil
