Drafts on the history of the Church (Section 2)

<23r>

Chap. 2
Of the Christian religion \Messiah and the calling of the Gentiles/, and the difference between the Christians of the circumcision & uncircumcision. |Of the Prince of the host or Messiah the Prince & of the his host composed of Iews & Gentiles & united by charity.|

1      The God of the Iews & Gentiles was one & the same God the creator of heaven & earth, & the Christian religion was one & the same with the Iewish till the calling of the Gentiles, with this only addition that Iesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate was the seed of \the Prince of the host or head of the Church/ the seed of the woman which was to bruise the serpents head, the Shiloh who was to come before the scepter departed from Israel, the Prophet promised by Moses & prefigured by the Paschal lamb, the \holy/ David who was not to be left in the grave nor to see corruption, the servant of God who was wounded for our transgressions & bruised for our iniquities & brought as a lamb to the slaughter & made an offering for sin, \the prince of the host against whom the last horn of the Goat rose up, the son of man who came in the clouds of heaven to the {illeg} kingdom {was} ancient of days to receive a|n| \everlasting/ kingdom, the Prince of the host or \{head} of the/ Church against whom the last horn of the Goat {illeg} rose up, & the Messiah the Prince or Christ the Lord predicted by Daniel (whence came the name of the Christian religion;) & that he rose from the dead & shall judge y^e quick & the dead & that we are to give him honour/ & the Christ or Messiah \or Christ the Prince/ predicted by Daniel (whence came the name of the Christian religion;) & that he rose from the dead & is to return from heaven to \reign over us as our King & to/ \shall/ judge the quick & the dead; & that |we are| he was a Prophet & we are to observe his doctrine & testify our becoming his disciples by \repentance from dead works & by faith {illeg} God &/ baptism, & |to| give him honour & glory on account of his death & to commemorate it often & to direct our prayers to God in his name as our great high Priest the mediator between God & man. & upon repentance But when this doctrine had been preached to the nation of the Iews about seven years, & they received it not, God began to call the Gentiles without obliging them to observe the law of Moses, & soon after caused the Iewish worship to cease & the Iews to be dispersed into all nations.

The street & wall of Ierusalem were finished in the 28^th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus as above & was|were| \{illeg}/ to continue 62 weeks of years in troublesome times untill the coming of the Messiah Dan. 9.25. And those weeks ended two or three \years/ before the vulgar Æra. began. And at that time Iesus Christ the author of the christian religion was born.

The Messiah the Christ & the Annointed are words of the same signification in several languages. He came to be the Messiah or the annointed Prince of the Iews but his kingdom was not of this world. ffor after that his first coming w^ch was at the end of the 62 weeks, when he had preached the gospel to the Iews & executed his fathers will, he was cut off & the people rejected from being his & the people of another Prince to come (the Romans) destroyed the city & the sanctuary & the end thereof was with a flood & unto the end of the war desolations were made in the land

Yet he was annointed a king by his death & resurrection, having thereby a name given him above every <24r> name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow & he kept the covenant w^th many of his people for a week of years untill the calling of Cornelius & the Gentiles, by which the Iews ceased to be his peculiar people And in half a week of years (by the wars of the Romans upon the Iews) |t|he \desolator/ caused the sacrifice & oblation to cease & when \& {even} upon/ a wing of abominations overspreading the land, |was the made it desolate as it is at this day,| & is to be untill the consummation & that \time/ determined be poured \it {illeg} shall continue/ upon the desolate, & \even untill/ the commandment goes forth to cause to return & to build Ierusalem, & the sanctuary be cleansed.

2      Before this desolation the Iews continued a people & holy city seventy weeks of years untill the finishing of transgression & making an end of sins & making a reconciliation for iniquity & bringing in everlasting righteousness & fulfilling the vision & the prophesy & annointing the most holy: that is, from the time of the incorporation of the Iews into a body politique or holy city untill the death of the Messiah & his resurrection from the dead whereby he washed away our sins in his blood, reconciled us to God & was annointed to be the Prince or king of the Iews. It|Now| in the seventh year of A|r|taxerxes Longimanus, by the Kings commission granted to Ezra to set magistrates & judges over the land with power to judge according to the law of God & the king & to punish by death or banishment or confiscation of goods or imprisonment, the Iews were incorporated into a polity & became a people & holy city. Seventy weeks of years counted from that period of time end in the year of the vulgar Æra 33 or 34 & then was Iesus the Messiah slain & raised from the dead & the Christian religion began to be preached among the Iews & seven years after among the g|G|entiles, who were thereby grafted into the stock of the Iews & became Gods people |{the} \or/ Church called by Daniel the host of heaven,| & persevered under the heathens \Roman Emperors/ in various afflictions & persecutions, the last of w^ch was that vehement & lasting persecution under the Emperors Dioclesian Galerius & Maximinus, which ended in the conversion of the Roman Empire to the Christian religion by the victories of Constantine the great over Maxentius Maximinus & Licinius in the years of our Lord 312, 314 & 318.

|☉ Herod was made king by the Senate &c|

The law of the Iews & Christians, except the ceremonial part, was one & the same law. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart & with all thy soul & with all thy mind. This is the first & great commandment, & the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. On these two commandments, saith Christ, hang all the law & the Prophets. Mat. 22.37. And on <25r> was unlike the things created by him & \in all things/ like the father. And that this interpretation was entred in the Acts of the Council is manifest by what another Council w^ch met at Antioch in the reign of Iovian A.C. 363 wrote to that Emperor. ^[1] We approve, say they, & constantly retain the faith of the holy Synod heretofore assembled at Nice: since the word consubstantial w^ch was used in that Council, & to some seems new & unusual, was [there] explained by the fathers with a cautious interpretation so as to signify that the Son was begotten of the substance of the father & is like the father according to substance Nicetas^[2] tells us that some of the Nicene fathers in subscribing the decrees of that Council wrote by way of explanation that the Son was ὁμοιούσιος to the father. And that they did so is manifest by the Creed of the {Council} Council of Sirmium Illyricum assembled in the reign of Valentinian & Valens A.C. 373, in which they wrote thus. ^[3] We confess according to the great & orthodox Synod that the Son is consubstantial to the father. Nor do we understand consubstantial in such a manner as some formerly expounded who did not subscribe sincerely & according to truth to the truth & as others do now who call those men fathers, abolishing the force of this word, & following the example of those who have written that the word signifies like, namely that the son is like none of the creatures which were made by him but bears the likeness of the father only. For they that thus expound it, impiously teach that the Son of God is an excellent creature. Here this Council in their Creed allows that some fathers in the Council of Nice did interpret the Word ὁμοούσιος of such a similitude as Eusebius describes & subscribed the Acts of that Council according to this interpretation, that is, by entring in their subscriptions that the Son was ὁμοιούσιος to the father & ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν. And the accusing these subscriptions as insincere strengthens the evidence that there were such subscriptions. They could not deny the fact & therefore they accused it of insincerity tho the accusation reflects upon the Council it self who had allowed that interpretation, & in whose presence & by whose permission those subscriptions were made. They said in their Creed that the Son was begotten of the father that is of the substance of the father. He is therefore according to this Creed the son of the fathers substance: {illeg} but certainly not the son of his own substance. And therefore the substance of the son is not the substance of the father. If the father is the substance of the father as is affirmed in this Creed, then the son is the substance of the son, & this substance is the son of the fathers substance & the father & son are not the same but like substances. ♁ For Athanasius himself in explaining this article of the Nicene Creed \^a[4] allows the son to have an ὀυσία not created but consubstantial to the father, &/ describes the ὀυσία of the son to be της ὀυσίας πατρικης γένημα καὶ ὁμοιότης {illeg} ἀυτης, the ofspring & similitude of the fathers substance \& saith that ὁμοούσιος signifes the same thing with ομοιουσιος & εκ ὀυσία together./ < insertion from f 25v > ♁ For Athanasius himself in explaining this article of the Nicene Creed ^a[5] allows the son to have an ὀυσία not created but consubstantial to the father, & ^b[6] describes the ὀυσία of the son to be της ὀυσίας πατρικης γήνημα καὶ ὁμοιότης ἀυτης the ofspring & similitude or image of the fathers ὀυσία; & ^c[7] saith that ὁμοούσιος signifes the same thing with ὁμοιούσιος & ἐξ ὀυσίας together; & ^a[8] that every son is ὁμοούσιος to his father, & if the son of God be a true natural son he must be ὁμοούσιος; & ^d[9] that the son being y^e lit image of the father, & like him with an invariable likeness, to express this more fully the Council wrote him consubstantial: & in the name of Theognostus he ^e[10] saith that the ὀυσία of the son is not taken from without nor deduced out of nothing, but born of the fathers ὀυσία & flows from it as the splendor of light & the vapour of water, & that by this nativity the fathers ὀυσία suffers no change, having the son its image. And if such a similitude of substance was the sence of the Council &c < text from f 25r resumes > And if this was the sense of the Council we need not wonder if it were explained in the acts of the Council & that more fully then in the Creed.

The Greeks therefore for checking & abolishing the <26r> monousian faith which by the language of una substantia una usia & una hypostasis had been spread in the west & in Egypt & was contrary to the Nicene faith & by the eastern Churches accounted Sabellianism & Paulinianism, \& Montanism, introduced the Acts of y^e Nicene Council against it, &/ endeavoured in several Councils A.C. 357, 358, 359 & 360 to abolish that language & revive the \ancient/ decree of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosat. And particularly in the Council of Constantinople A.C. 360 they decreed that the word hypostasis, or (as Theodoret writes) one hypostasis should not be named of the father & son & holy Ghost. And henceforward the language of one hypostasis began to cease.

For in the reign of the Emperor Iulian A.C. 362, Athanasius & about 14 or 16 other bishops most of Egypt returning from banishment & meeting in Council at Alexandria agreed that the language of one usia & one hypostasis should signify that the father & son were one substance not in number but in nature only, & that the language of three hypostases might be used to signify that the father son & holy Ghost were three substances in number tho but one in nature. And further to free themselves from the imputation of sabellianism & Paulinianism for \using/ the language of una usia they anathematized those heresies, & to free themselves \those/ from the imputation of Arianism for \who used using/ the language of three hypostases, they rejected as spurious a table of faith w^ch had hitherto been handed about as the Serd faith of the Council of Serdica. ffor this Council rejected \of Serdica/ used the language of one hypostasis & condemned that of three as Arian.

Yet it was some years before tha|e|t language of three \one/ hypostases fully ceased. ffor \{♁}/ \☉ Hitherto the words . . . . . . . . ./ < insertion from f 25v > ☉ Hitherto the words ὀυσία ὑπόστασις & substantia had been used in one & y^e same sense, the proper sense of the words. ffor the Council of Nice in saying that the son was begotten of the father that is of the ὀυσία of the father, meant by ὀυσία not the common essence or nature of the father & son but the proper substance or ὑπόστασις of the father. ffor at the end of their Creed they anathematize those that should say that the son was of another ὀυσία or ὑποστασις, meaning of another substance then that of the father. And hence |it| came \to pass that in/ the language μιας ὀυσίς, {illeg} μιας ὑποστάσεως & unius substantiæ, w^ch being \w^ch come from {illeg} the words ὀυσια & υποστασις {usias} & substantia were/ taken for the fathers substance |as if the son was not only of the fathers substance but also had no other substance untill ~ ~ was not only begotten of his father but had no other substance| was charged with Sabellianism & Montanism untill \first Hilary & then Athanasius/ Athanasius \& those with him/ for freeing their party from that accusation taught them \the imputation of Sabellianism & Montanism taught their|m| party/ to change the signification of the words ὀυσία & substantia & use them to signify not the proper substance of a thing but the common nature species or kind of substance \w^ch {we usu} \Hilary/ calls the essence of a thing, & also/ & {sic} gave them leave to change the language of one hypostasis into that of three, so that ὁμοούσιος \& μιας ὀυσίας/ might no longer be taken for a single substance but \only/ import the relation of the single substances of the father son & holyghost {sic} to one another. |And this I take to be the original of using the words usia & hypostasis in different senses.|

Yet the language of one \usia & one/ hypostasis had taken such root that notwithstanding the great authority of Athanasius |& the Council of Alexandria amongst the party, it|, it was some years before it ceased \the language of one usia & three hypostaes {sic} could take place/. For Epiphanius ♁ Yet it was some years before the language of one hypostasis fully ceased. For Epiphanius (who wrote in the reign of Valens) the tells us ^a[11] that ὁμοούσιος signifies one hypostasis, ^b[12] that it is the same thing to say one hypostasis & usia, & ^c[13] that the Trinity are την της ἀυτης ὑποστάσεως of one hypostasis. And Paulinus bishop of Antioch with his party in the reign of Valens called the three persons one hypostasis & were blamed for it by Basil in ^d[14] his 349 Epistle. And Athanasius \himself/ & a Council of 90 bishops of Egypt & Libya in their Epistle to the Africans written about the year 369 say that ὀυσία & ὑπόστασις are words of the same signification. And Victorinus Afer ^e[15] saith: Hoc esse Græce ὀυσίαν vel ὑπόστασιν dicunt quod nos uno nomine Latine substantiam dicimus. And Pope Liberius in his letter to Athanasius (if it be genuine) calls y^e three persons one hypostasis. And in the letter w^ch the Council Pope Damasus & the Council of Rome < text from f 26r resumes > in the letter w^ch \Pope Damasus &/ the Council of Rome sent to the Council of Illyricum A.C. 373, the holy Ghost is said to be one hypostasis w^th the father & son And Ierome about the year 377 coming into Syria & being there pressed to use the language of three hypostases, he scrupled it as Arian & for scrupling it was accounted an heretick, as you may see in his letters to Pope Damasus about this matter. Quia vocabula, saith he, non ediscimus, hæretici judicamur. Siquis autem hypostasim usiam intelligens non in tribus personis unam hypostasim dicit alienus a Christo est, et sub hac confessione vobiscum pariter cauterio unionis inurimur. Discernite si placet obsecro, non timebo tres hypostases dicere: si jubetis condatur nova post Nicænam fidem & similibus verbis cum Arianis confiteamur orthodoxi. Tota sæcularium schola nihil aliud hypostasin nisi usiam novit, & quis rogo ore sacrilego tres substantias prædicabit?

The Council of Antioch A.C. 344 or 345 in a long declaration of their faith w^ch they sent to the Latines, anathematized them who should say that the father son & holy ghost were one thing & one person & declared that they were three. And the Council of Sirmium which condemned Photinus A.C. 351 repeated the anathema. This was done in opposition to Sabellianism w^ch was then spreading in the west. And hence I seem to gather that the language of three persons as well as that of one substance was already begun amongst the Latines. But the word <27r> person being of an ambiguous signification, the Greeks to make it signify a substance & not a mere power or form of a substance used the language of τρία πράγματα & τρεις {illeg} ὑποστάσεις three things & three hypostases as well as that of of {sic} τρια πρόσοπα three persons. And hence arose that controversy about words w^ch Athanasius composed in the little Council of Alexandria above mentioned, & of w^ch Gregory Nazianzen in his Oration upon Athanasius gives this account. There being, saith he, one usia & three hypostases piously professed by us (for the one denotes the nature of the deity, & the other the properties of the three) & these being in like manner understood by the Latines who by reason of the narrowness of their language & want of names, could not distinguish hypostases from usia: they therefore introduced the language of three persons least they should admit three usias. And what happened from thence? A thing very ridiculous or rather miserable. That light & empty contention about the sound of words seemed to amount unto a difference of faith. Then was Sabellianism imputed to the language of three persons & Arianism to that of three hypostases: both which names were feigned by the parties contending for victory. And what followed? When something was ever added to the troubles (the troubles I say made by \the/ contentiousness of parties) at length the ends of the earth were in danger of being broken together with the syllables. Therefore that blessed man \[Athanasius]/, that man of God truly so called, that great dispenser of souls, seing & hearing these things, did not think that such an absurd & unreasonable section of the word should be neglected but he himself applied a medicine to the distemper. And what was that? Calling both parties before him together before him with lenity & mildness \[in the said Council of Alexandria]/ & accurately considering the sense & meaning of their words: after he found them agreeing & not at all differing in opinion he indulged them the use of their words & bound them only by the things. Thus far Gregory. And henceforward the two contending parties began to allow one anothers language & the Latines, that they might exclude the Sabellian signification of three persons invented the language of three subsistencies & began also \by degrees/ to use the language of three hypostases. And this I take to be the true original of the language of the Latine Empire w^ch continues still in use, viz^t una substantia & tres personæ subsistentiæ & hypostases.

<27v>

After the signification of ὀυσία & substantia were changed & the words were used as common names of {illeg} denoting the nature common nature of the divine persons, & the language of one hypostasis was ch for avoiding the infamy of Sabellianism was changed into that of three, the langua language of \language/ three usia hypostases of one usia & three \subsistencies or/ persons of one substance continued \for many ages/ in the Churches of both Greeks & Latines to be used {to} signify three intelligent substances of one essence, or nature or kind as has been suff sufficiently shewed by Petavius, Curcelleus, Cudworth, Bull & Hueteius. This appears plainly by the writings of Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Greg Nyssen, Ambrose, Ierome, Maximus the Martyr Chrysostom I Augustin The\od/oret Leontius Byzantinus, Iohn Damascene, Theodorus Abucara, Euthymius Zygabenus, Theorianus, & Manuel Calecas &c. & by \also by the Acts of/ several Councils. The Council of Antoch A.C. 363.

And again \in his Epistle to \Epiphanius^[16] the bishop writ/ a little after the death of Athanasius suppose about the year 376/ in mentioning the schism at Antioch between the two parties of Meletius & Paulinus two contemporary bishops of Antioch & preferring \siding with/ the party of Meletius \& censuring that of against the party of {sic} Paulinus/ he adds. That also pleases me that amongst other things \decisions/ becoming a divine you|r| have diligence has added that it is necessary to confess three hypostases Let \that/ the brethren \may/ have this who are at Antioch 1. Yea they have learned it. ffor \certainly/ you would scarce have {enter} bee enterteined \cherished/ their communion if they had not gone made you safe in this point. And certainl \Basil/ in his 10^th Epistle \written to Gregory Nazianzen/ reflecting upon the western Churches \as heretical/ for using this language of one hypostasis he saith: But if \saith he/ the anger of God remains [upon us] what help can we expect from the pride & superciliousness of the western Churches, who neither know the truth nor can bear to be taught it? but being prepossessed with faire opinions do those things now which they did formerly in Marcellus, namely contending with those who tell them the truth, & establishing heresy by themselves. In my self would truly have written to them \to their leader [the B^p of Rome]/ without the usual forms to their leader \of letters/: \& truly truly/ concerning ecclesiastical affairs nothing but by enigmas, because they understand not the truth of our people, nor embrace |  admit the way \method/ by w^ch they may learn But in general I would have signified this by letters that they should not insult over those who are humbled & oppressed by afflictions nor nor {sic} reccon pride an honour, \it being rather/ a crime w^ch alone may render God an enemy. Thus doth Basil tax the western churches with haughtiness & heresy, meaning Sabelianism couched under the language of one hypostasis & manifested formerly by their defending Marcellus a Sabellian \{illeg} of the heresy w^ch they formerly favoured in \defending/ Marcellus a Sabellian Ⓧ < insertion from lower down f 27v > Ⓧ against the Greeks & still continued to favour by adhering to his doctrine of one hypostasis against the Greeks who tell him the truth. ffor there being at this time nothing in no article of faith in dispute between the Greeks & Latines but that of the one hypostasis affirmed by the Latines & three hypostases \affirmed/ by almost all the Greeks: it mus the heresy of the L w^th w^ch Basil here taxes the Latines must be that of holding one hypostastasis {sic} w^th Macellus {sic} & the Sabellians. And & the Sabellians] < text from higher up f 27v resumes > & \still/ continued to favour favour {sic} \*// < insertion from lower down f 27v > [* by defending the {illeg} Sabellian doctrine of one hypostasis < text from higher up f 27v resumes > \against the Greeks who tell them the truth/

And in another Epistle ^[17] he saith, We excorate all \anathematise/ those that who hold that wicked opinion concerning the confusion of the hypostases, in w^ch the most impious heresy of Sabellius is revived. w^ch heresy can be no other then that of one hypostasis] Thus doth Basil tax the western Churches w^th hautines & heresy in opposition|ng| {illeg} the Greeks as in th when in like manner {then} the case of Marcellus: w^ch her a Sabellian \they did formerly in the case of their defending Marcellus/. And this heresy can be no other then that of their maintaining \with Marcellus/ one hypostasis in the deity. becaus \For/ this was the only article of faith in disput at this time in dispute between the Greeks & Latines, & was the artic in defending Marcellus was maintained by them \a Sabellian was asserted by \the Latines/ in the Council of Serdica/ & was accoun by Basil accounted Sabellianism. So {illeg} in another Epistle it is to be understood that Basil taxes the Latines & the p in the west & \as well as/ the party of Paulinus in the east with the same heresy where he saith We anathematize those who hold that wicked opinion concerning the confusion of the hypostases, in w^ch the most impious heresy of Sabellius is revived. And this was the heresy of w^ch the \homousian/ Greeks accused Ierome. For Ierome …….. prædicabit. By all w^ch it may be understood that the western Churches used the language of one hypostasis till \from before the time of the Council of Serdica first beginning of/ the reign of Theodosius the great & was|ere| all this time \accounted Sabellians & Montanists by the Greeks/ notwithstanding the endeavour {illeg} of Athanasius to reconcile the matter.

<28v>

The language of three hypostases was therefore difficultly received by the homousians because it imported three hypost substances. And yet for clearing themselves from the imputation of Sabellianism, they were at length forced to admit it. So Athanasius in his Exposition of the faith tells us that the Sabellians {illeg} the son \making the father & son/ μονοούσιον & not ὁμοούσιον & \do/ thereby take away the being \of the fathe son./ And Epiphanius that the son was not τατοούσιος to the father but ὁμοούσιος & that the word ταυτοούσιος being used by some, draws to Sabellianism. And Basil that for clearing our selves from Sabellianism it is not enough to name three persons number the differences of persons but we must confess that every person subsists in a true hypostasis. otherwise ffor Sabellius himself would not reject that figment of persons which have not singly their proper hypostases: seeing he said that the same God being one & as to the subject substance was upon every necessary occasion transformed & spake sometimes as the father sometimes as the son & sometimes as the holy ghost. Epist 64. p 859. And in again in again: What calumny can be more grievous . . . . nomina. And that Basil by hypostases means substances is evident. ffor he tells us that because the Son is the image of the father he is consubstantial to him; that there is one ὀυσία of Peter & Paul; that ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ουσίαν |ἀπαραττες| like according to substance with an invariable likenes is the same with ὁμοούσιος in the sense of the Nicene Council, that there is one ουσία of Peter & Paul, & ὁν εχε that \the/ relation w^ch a common name hath to a proper one that same relation the name ουσία hath to ὑπόστασις. |And in his Epistle|

And in general Petavius Curcellæus D^r Cudworth D^r Bull & Huetius have adm shewn beyond all quæstion that Hypostases were taken for substances & ουσια for essence and ομο the three Hypostases were taken \by the writers of y^e 4^th & following Centuries/ for three substances of one essence or nature [by all the writ the writers of the fourth & follo following centuries.] Ath Athanasius, Hilary, {illeg} Epiphanius Bazil Gregory Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Maximus the martyr, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose Ierome Austin, Leontius Byzantinus, Iohn Damascene, Theodorus Abucara, Euthymius Zygabius & Theorianus \Manuel Calecas/ are cleare in this matter & so are several Councils. The Council of Antioch A.C. 363 say that the Council of Nice cautiously explained the consubstantiality of the son by his likeness to y^e father The third general Council decreed that the two hypostases of God & man were united & became one & certainly the hypostasis of the man was a substance composed of body & soul \& y^t united hypostasis of God & man was also a substance./ The fourth general Council said that Christ was consubstantial to y^e father as touching his godhead & consubstantial to us as touching his manhood \& in one & the same short sentence consubstantial must have one & y^e same signif./. T And in the \18^th & 19^th sessions of y^e/ Council of fflorence A.C. 1449 When Iohn bishop of Fonojulium in the name of the Latines had said [that {illeg} \in divinity/ substantia is really the same with persona & hypostasis but differs in the mode of conception, substantia a person consisting of substantia a substance & its properties \together/, & that substantia is communicated \[or is common/ but pr the properties not: Marcus bishop of Ephesus answers \in the name of the Greeks/ that ουσια & υποστασις differ as a proper \common/ name differs from a common \proper/ one & as the ουσια of a man taken in common differs & the person & differs from the person & hypostasis of a man; & supposes that both parties agree in this notion. And in the 19^th session of this Council 1, in explaining these things Marcus saith that a brother is non of th his brother hypostasis but of his nature as connatural & ὁμοούσιος. And Andreas bishop of Rhoes that in the common Theology of the doctors of both Greeks & Latines the \{illeg}/divine substance differs from the substance of the father & son, the divine \ουσία/ substance signifying what is common to y^e father son \or holy ghost/, & the ουσια substance of the father signifying the person of the father. And \in/ the rest following \of the/ debate both parties agree that ουσία substantia hath a double signification being taken sometimes for what is common as where the three persons are said to be of one ουσια and one substance, & sometimes for what is proper and then it signifes the same thing w^th hypostasis & person, as where the Nicene fathers said that the son is of the ουσία of the father & not of another ουσία or ὑποστασις: & that the common usia esence or nature is distinguished into {illeg} understood to be divided into the persons, being when we say the ουσία of the fat{her, the} ουσια of the son & the ουσια of the holy Ghost, {illeg} & thereby mean {their} proper hypostases or persons. So th{illeg} <28r> the doctrine \opinion/ of three three substances in number & one in nature continued to be the doctrine of the Churches of both Greeks & Latines till the times of the Council of Florence. [And tho the Latines are now become monousians yet the word essentia w^ch they used for \answers to/ usia, {illeg} still & was used by Hilary \& the ancient Latines/ for usia continues to this day to signify the common nature of things \such things as are/ of the same species kind, & in that sense to be applied to y^e persons of the Trinity.] But yet the ταυτοσοη tautousian faith began to be revealed in the East of among the Latines by the schoolmen \& to be {illeg} much spread {illeg} then \in the west/ before the times of this Council./ almost three hundred years before ffor \in the/ Peter Lombard the master of the sentences \in the middle of the 12 century/ affirming: Vnam et summam quandam rem est divinam essentiam & non dici divinam essentiam genuisse essentiam ne eadem res seipsam genuerit {illeg} Ioachim the Abbot who held that three substances in y^e Deity, objected that Peter Lombard made four \a quaternity in the Deity/, the three hypostases & the one divine essence. And the Council of Lateran Council A.C. {illeg} 1215, declared against Ioachim that that {sic} there was only a Trinity & not a quaternity in God: & that evy every person is \being/ that divine essence. ffor \say they/ y^e father in generating gave his substance to the son, not a part of it \so as to retain the remaining part to him self/ least the divine substance should be divisible, nor the whole so as not to retain it himself, for so least he should cease to be a substance: but \he gave them the whole/ so as to retain it also himself without diminution, And {illeg} & to have the same substance with the son. And so \say they,/ the father & son are one thing together with the spirit. This was the doctrine of that Council in favour of Peter Lombard. /This was the doctrine of the Council.\ And now the tautousian faith being defended \mainteined taught/ by the schoolmen & established \favoured/ by a Council of 412 Bishops \could not but very/ get grownd till it overspread the Latine Churches.

You have heard out of Hilary that the \Bishops of the/ Churches of the Latines about the neare the end of the reign of the Emperor Constantius took understood the language of \took the words/ unius substantiæ in four several several {sic} sences, three of w^ch Hilary condemnes as impious & the fourth was th \his own namely/ that the father & son were two like & equal substances called by one because of one nature essence & species. But there is still [And this opinion he explains a little after by saying una [substantia] ex similitudine, non ex solitudine & again Quæ nihil differunt unium sunt non unione personæ se æqualitate naturæ & again una [substantia non personæ unitate g seu generis. And again Quis enim sanæ mentis tertiam substantiam quæ et patri & filio communis sit, prædicabit? Vel quis secundum Samosateum, in Christo renatus, & filium confessus & patrem: quod Christus in se sibi et pater & filius sit, confitebitur? He means that is the father & son have a common substance, that substanc {sic} will be its own father & its own son] But But there was anothe {sic} reason of the unity given by some for they said that the father son & holy ghost were three cohering hypostases in one undivided substance. So Athanasius compare {sic} the father & son to a fountain & river w^ch are undivided & to the sun & its ray w^ch are unsepated {sic} & Gregory Naz. compared the Trinity to three Sons {sic} w^ch are joyned to one another & intermix their rays And hence the trinity is usually said to be undivided. Now as three unsepara cohering parts of one undivided stone may properly be called one substance; so may three \uniform/ cohering per spirits; \but yet/ with this difference that the parts of a stone are in several places, but the spirits if infinite are all of them every where. Which manner of cohering & being in one another the Greeks call περιχορησις & the Latines circuminsessio words {illeg} which imply that the three persons are substances pervading one another.

{illeg} similitudine non ex solitudine — Prædicantes itaqꝫ fratres {illeg} filium in omnibus patri nihil aliud quem æqualem prædicamus: perfectæ æqualitatis habet significantiam similitudo, & hoc ex sacris scripturis intelligendum est. Leginus namqꝫ: Vixit Adam centum triginta annis et genuit \[filium]/ secundum effigiem & similitudinem suam, & cognominavit nomen ejus Seth. Quæro ejusmodi effigiem & similtudinem quam Adam in Seth genuerit. — Quæ nihil differunt unum sunt, non unione personæ sed æqualitate naturæ. —— Æqualitas autem naturæ non potest esse nisi una sit: una vero non personæ unitate sed generis. —— Quis enim sanæ mentis tertiam substantiam quæ et patri et filio communis sit prædicabit? Vel quo|i|s secundum Samosateum in Christo renatus et filium confessus ac patrem: quod Christus in se sibi \{esse}/ et pater & filius sit, confitebitur? Par itaqꝫ in condemnandis impietatibus hæreticorum nostra sententia est, & hanc in homousij intelligentiam non modo responit sed et odit. —— Male intelligitur homousion? quid ad me bene intelligentem . . . . . receperunt. —–– Synodo Samosatenæ . . . . . . Ariani. — Ariani non essent: cur negando homousion censemur in Ariani?* [quoad {eo} substantiam]

<29r>

Protasius lay buried whose bodies being dug up were translated into the church & did many miracles & part of them were distributed to other churches. Of the miracles Ambrose |in a sermon ^a[18] | makes this mention, Cognovistis imò vidistis ipsi multos a dæmonijs purgatos, plurimos etiam ubi vestem sanctorum manibus contigerunt his quibus laborabant debilitatibus absolutos. Reparata vetusti temporis miracula. The whole story you have described by Paulinus And in a sermon ^b[19] made the next day on this occasion: Dicunt Arriani dicunt: Non sunt isti Martyres nec torqueré diabolum possunt nec aliquem liberare; cum tormenta dæmonum ipsorum voce probentur et beneficia martyrum remedijs cæcorum & absolutorum indicijs declarentur. Negant cæcum illuminatum, sed ille non negat se sanatum.  < insertion from f 29v > {illeg}  se sanatum. — Sed quæro quid non credant? utrum a martyribus possint aliqui visitari? hoc est Christo non credere. Ipse enim dixit: Et majora his facietis. An{illeg} ab istis martyribus quorum merita jamdudum vigent, corpora dudum reperta sunt? ac si martyribus Si mihi invident, nunquid a me aliquæ virtutes fiunt? Nunquid meo opere, meo nomine? Cur igitur mihi invident quod meum non est? Si martyribus (restat enim ut si mihi non invideant martyribus invidere videantur) ostendunt alterius fidei esse martyres quam ipsi credunt. Neqꝫ enim aliter eorum operibus inviderent nisi fidem in his fuisse eam quam isti non habent judicarent. Fidem illam majorum traditione firmatam quam dæmones ipsi negare non possunt sed Ariani negant. Audivimus hodie dicentes eos quibus manus imponebatur neminem posse esse salvum qui patrem & filium & spiritum sanctum negaret qui trinitatis omnipotentem virtutem non crederet. Confitetur hoc diabolus sed Ariani nolunt fateri. Dicit diabolus, sic torqueatur quemadmodum ipse a martyribus torquebatur qui spiritus sancti Deitatem negarit. Non accipio diaboli testimonium sed confessionem. The whole story &c < text from f 29r resumes > The whole story you have described by Paulinus of Nola in the life of Ambrose, by Austin of Hippo in several parts of his works & by Ambrose himself in his 85^th Epistle & 91^th Sermon. In propagating these superstitions the ringleaders were the Monks, & the distributing of reliques occasioned many under the habit of Monks to carry the members of Martyrs or pretended Martyrs up & down the Empire to sell which occasioned |And since Egypt \& Syria/ in the end of y^e reign of Constantius abounded w^th Moncks & Monckery was not yet spread into other countries & the Egyptians had very many Martyrs & by keeping the bodies of the Martyrs unburied in their houses had the greatest opportunities of raising stories of miracles done by such bodies & Chrysostom calls Alexandria the Metropolis of the whole world for spreading this sort of devotion: it makes me suspect that the cry of such miracles began in Egypt in the two or three last years of Constantius & soon spread thence into Phœnicia & Syria & from Egypt & Syria was propagated with Monkery into all the Empire in the reign of Valens & Theodosius, the Moncks feigning such Miracles in opposition to Constantius, Iulian & all their enemies, & running up & down all the Empire with reliques or pretended reliques of Martyrs till| the Emperor Theodosius A.C. 386 {illeg} put out this Edict. Humatum corpus nemo ad alterum locum transferat: nemo martyrem distrahat, nemo mercetur. Habeant vero in potestate, si quolibet in loco sanctorum est aliquis conditus, pro ejus veneratione, quod Martyrium vocendum sit, addant quod voluerint fabricarum. Dat IV Kal. Mart. Constantinopoli, Honorio nob. puerò et Euodio Coss.

|And after this they filled the fields & high-ways with altars erected to  Martyrs| < insertion from f 29v >  martyrs, w^ch they pretended to discover by dreams & revelations. And this occasioned the making of the following \fourteenth/ Canon by \of/ the fift Council of Carthage A.C. 398. Placuit ut altaria quæ passim per agros aut vias, tanquam memoriæ martyrum constituuntur in quibus nullum corpus aut reliquiæ martyrum conditæ probantur, ab Episcopis qui illis locis præsunt, si fieri potest, evertantur. Si autem hoc propter tumultus populares non sinitur, plebes tamen admoneantur ne illa loca frequentent, ut qui recte sapiunt nulla ibi superstitione devincti teneantur. Et omnino nulla memoria martyrum probabiliter acceptetur, nisi ille aut corpus aut aliquæ certæ reliquæ sint, aut ibi origo alicujus habitationis vel possessionis vel passionis fidelissima origine traditur. Nam quæ per somnia & per inanes revelationes quorumlibet hominum ubiqꝫ constituuntur altaria, omnimode reprobentur.

< text from f 29r resumes >

Now by these miracles the invocation of Saints was quickly set on foot. Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, set Ephrem Syrus & other Monks & set it on foot in y^e east in the reign of Valens & Pope Damasus \Ambrose & Hilary/ did the like in the west as may be seen in their writings. I shall content my self w^th a few instances. Basil who died in the year 378, in his oration on the Martyr Mamas, saith: Be ye mindfull of the Martyr as many of you as have enjoyed him in yo^r dreams, as many of you as in this place have been assisted by him in prayer, as many of you as upon invoking him by name have had him present in your works, as many as he has reduced into the way from wandering, as many as he has restored to health, as many as have had their dead children restored by him to life, as many as have had their lives prolonged by him. \◬/ < insertion from f 29v > ◬ And a little after: At the memory of the martyr the whole region is is {sic} moved: at his festival the whole city is transported with joy. Nor do the kindred of the rich turn aside to the sepulchres of their ancestors: but all go to the place of piety. And in the end of the Homily he prays that God would preserve the Church thus fortified with the great towers of the martyrs. And in his Oration on the 40 martyrs. < text from f 29r resumes > And in his Oration on the 40 Martyrs: These are they, saith he, who obteining our country like certain towers, afford us safety against the invasions \incursions/

<30r>

Protasius in dedicating a Church without Martyrs was admonished by the people how he should dedicate & thereupon dreamt of two mar where two Mar] where you will find re
The Arians represented to the Empress Iustina these were no martyrs {illeg}but Ambrose had hired men to feign themselves/ {Nor} was this And in one of his orations \a sermon made {illeg} on this occasion/: Arriani dicunt:; Non sunt isti Martyres nec torquere diabolum possunt, nec aliquem liberare; cum tormenta dæmonum ipsorum voce probentur & beneficia martyrum remedijs cæcorum et absolutorum indicijs declarentur. Negant cæcum illuminatum sed ille non negat se sanatum. The whole story you have described by Paulinus of Nola in the life of Ambrose, by Austin of Hippo in several parts of his works & by Ambrose himself in his 85^t Epistle & 91^th Sermon.

& grew general before the year 390. ffor between the years 380 & 390 the Emperors by their Edicts delivered all the Churches \by severe edicts prohibited all assemblies/ throughout the whole Empire to the Catholicks who worshipped them & permitted no other assemblies under severe penalites, confiscating the places where they met & so that no assemb |besides those of the Catholicks that is of the saint worshippers & prohibited all| one of w^ch Edicts is as follows. Apollinarianos Apollinarianos cæterosqꝫ diversarum hæresum sectatores ab omnibus locis jubemus inhiberi, a mœnibus urbium a congressu honestorum, a communione sanctorum: instituendorum Clericorum non habeant potestatem: colligendarum congregationum {illeg} vel in publicis vel in privatis Ecclesijs careant potestate facultate: nulla ijs faciendorum Episcoporum præbeatur auctoritas: ipsi quoqꝫ episcopi nomine destituti appellationem hujus dignitatis amittant. Adeant loca, quæ hos potissimùm quasi vallo quodammodo ab humana societate communione secludant. His etiam illud nectimus, ut supramemoratis omnibus adeundi atqꝫ interpellandi serenitatem nostram aditus denegetur. Dat VI Idus Maj Martij Thessalonicæ Theodosio A. 11 et Cynegio Coss. [A.C. 388.] I do not heare that \at this time/ there were \at this time/ two sorts of Catholicks, one who invoked the saints & another who opposed that worship invocation & therefore I reccon that all the Churches throughout the whole Empire were henceforward in the hands of the saint-worshippers.

At the same time came in the custome of going on pilgrimage to visit Ierusalem & other sacred places w^ch made Ierusalem frequented by great crowds of people from Gallia Brittai all nations as Ierome mentions \an eye witness/ represents in some of his Epistles. And \corporal/ Pennances came in at \about/ the same time. I perceive by this Edict of the Emperor Theodosius {illeg} Quadragesimæ diebus nulla supplicia sint corporis {illeg} absolutio expectatur animarum. Datum VIII Idus Sept{embris} {illeg}ro Flam. Timasio et Promoto Coss. [A.C. 389.] At the {same} time came in also \with/ Monkery & \came in/ the Cælibacy of the Clergy <30v> For \So/ Ierome in his {Epistle} against Vigilantius wri has these words Quid facient Orientis {illeg}ræ? quid Ægypti aut \et/ sedis Apostlicæ: quæ aut virgines cler{illeg} accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint mariti esse de{illeg}stunt? And at the same time came in also a greater load of ceremonies into the Churches of the Catholicks then the Iews were ever burdened with: as Austin of Hippo thus complains in his 119^th Epistle \written/ to Ianuarius concerning the rites of the Church, thus complains: Hoc minus doleo quia multa quæ in divinis libris saluberrima præcepta sunt; minus curantur & tam multis præsumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per Octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem vinolentia sepelierit. — Ipsam religionem, quam paucissimis & manifestissimis celebrationum sacramentis misericordia Dei esse liberam voluit, servilibus oneribus premunt, ut tolerabilior sit conditio Iudæorum, qui etiamsi tempus libertatis non agnoverint, legalibus tamen sarcinis non humanis præsumptionibus subjiciuntur.

<31v>

Vigilantius a Presbyter of Gallia \was the only catholic upon record who/ opposed it, but \as idolatrous & he/ could not be heard so as to make a party or leave any followers. ffor the world was against him, as Ierom in writing against him \A.C. 406/ affirms in these words. Male facit ergo Romanus episcopus qui super mortuorum hominum Petri et Pauli secundum nos ossa veneranda, secundum te vile pulvisculum offert domino sacrificia & tumulos eorum Christi arbitatur altaria? Et non solum unius urbis sed totius orbis erant episcopi, qui cauponem Vigilantium contemnentes, ingrediuntur basilicas mortuorum &c. {illeg}

Eusebius relates how Constantine \w^th several others/ in his war against Maxentius {illeg} {illeg} in the afternoon \saw in the clouds in the day time/ the signe of y^e cross over the Sun w^th this inscription In this thou shalt overcome & afterwards was admonished in a dream to make it the standard of his army. & h \publickly/ attributed his successes to it. Hic verò noster Imperator – – – – præsidium agnoscerent {illeg} — Porro Imperator triumphale illud signum colit – omibus præcepit.

ffor it now grew customary fo Christians to signe themselves w^th y^e \sanctif use the signe of/ y^e cross \in a superstitious manner/ upon all occasions. {illeg} Whence Cyril of Ierusalem exhorted his hearers that \bids you his hearers/ to impress this signe confide w^th your fingers confidently upon your forehead & upon every thing else, upon the bread you eat & upon the cups you drink, & to use it upon all all occasions \as/ in eating {illeg} in drinking in sitting in lying down in rising up in speaking in walking And Ruffin tells us that when that & in \or upon/ every thing \occasion/ /thing\ that the Devils seing this royal sign may fly far away with trembling. Catech 4 & 13. And Ruffin tells us that when they demolished the heathen temples in Egypt & amongst others that of Serapis in Alexandria the w^ch was A.C. 389 they abolished the symbols of Serapis & in their room painted the signe of y^e Cross. {The paces} so then what an ivy leaf was to as the worshippers {marma} \of Bacchus/ were marked w^th an ivy leaf & the worshippers of Serapis & their houses w^th the badge of Serapis so the Roman Catholicks \& their houses were marked with the signe of the cross/ in the room of those marks {illeg} \of the heathen God use the signe of the Cross/ were marked with a Cross as the badge of the Christian religion the discipl worshippers of Christ this mark being used as succeeding in the room of the marks of the heathen Gods & being {illeg} used \by the Catholicks/ as the badge of the worshippers of Christ as those marks were of \used by the heathens as/ the badges of y^e \Roman Catholic/ worshippers of Bacchus Serapis & the other heathen Gods. See therefore if this mark when used as a Charm \in nomine ✝ Patris et ✝ ffilij et ✝ spiritus sancti/ to scare away the devil & do other mirac supernatural operations be not the mark of the Beast.

And Ruffin tells us that when they demolished the Temple of Serapis in Alexandria \& \w^th/ the temples of the other Gods of|in| Egypt/ w^ch was in y^e year 389, they also abolished the \{illeg} breastplates or symbols \or// symbols of Serapis & \& names names of y^e Gods/ in all places & in their room painted the signe of the cross. Sed et illud apud Alexandriam gestum est, saith he, quod etiam Thoraces Serapis qui per singulas quasqꝫ domos in parietibus, in ingressibus, in postibus etiam ac fenestris erant, ita abscissi sunt omnes et abrasi, ut ne vestigium quidem qua usquam, vel nominis appellatio, aut ipsius aut \cujuslibet/ alterius cujuslibet dæmonis remaneret, sed pro his crucis dominicæ signum unusquisqꝫ in postibus in ingressibus in fenestris in paretibus columnisqꝫ depingeret. So then as the worshippers of Bacchus were marked w^th an ivy leaf & the worshippers of Serapis & their houses w^th the symbol of thorax \arms/ of Serapis & the worshippers of other Gods w^th their symbols \Marks/ or names, so the Roman Catholicks & their \Temples &/ houses were \now/ marked w^th the signe of the cross & this mark succ upon abolishing the marks & names of the heathen Gods \& dedicating their Temples to Christian uses/ this mark succeeded in their room being used by the Roman Catholicks as the badge of the worshippers of Christ \& the sign or {illeg} \symbol/ of the Christian Catholick faith & Christian religion/ as those marks were used by the heathens as the badge of the worshippers of the heathen Gods. See {illeg}hen used as a charm to scare away the Devil & do other supernatural \as the signe of the Roman catholick religion/ {illeg} of the Beast, especially if it be used \at the same time used in {illeg}/ as the mor a charm {illeg}& sanctify things & guard them from evil] & do other super{natural} {illeg} his edicts called the signe of the Christian \of their faith & the sig/{illeg} {illeg} catholic faith & commanded that {illeg} <31r> of the heathens should be expiated by this signe placed \placing/ in them the signe of the Christian religion meaning the signe of the cross. So then as the

<32r>

of o^r enemies. Neither are they shut up in one place only, but being distributed are sent into many regions & adorn many countries. — You have often endeavoured, you have often laboured to find one who might pray for you: these are forty emitting one voice of prayer. — He that is in affliction flyes to these, he that rejoyces has recourse to these, the first that he may be freed from the evil, the last that he may continue in the happiness. Here a woman praying for her children is heard: she obteins a safe return for her husband from abroad & health for him in his sickness. — O common keepers of mankind, the best companions of o^r cares, suffragans & coadjutors of prayer, most powerfull embassadors to God, &c. | Ephræm Syrus| < insertion from f 29v > Ephræm Syrus who died in the year 378 had an Oration on these 40 martyrs. And so had Athanasius who died in the year 373. This Oration of Athanasius is not yet published but Gerard Vossius saw it in MS in the library of Cardinal Ascanius in Italy, as he mentions in his commentary upon the Oration of Ephæm {sic} Syrus on these 40 martyrs: & therefore their reliques were dispersed & some of them sent into Egypt in the life time of Athanasius.

< text from f 32r resumes >

Gregory Nazianzen \⊡/ < insertion from f 32v > ⊡ in his sixt Oration written A.C. 373 when he was newly made bishop of Sasima, saith: Let us purify our selves to the martyrs or rather to the God of the martyrs. And a little after he calls the martyrs mediators of obteining an ascention or divinity. And in the end of his oration upon Athanasius – – – – – < text from f 32r resumes > in the end of his Oration upon Athanasius written presently after his death A.C. 372 thus invokes him. Do thou look down upon us propitiously from above propitiously & govern this people a perfect adorer of the perfect Trinity, w^ch in the ffather, Son & Holy-ghost is contemplated & adored, & if there shall be pl|e|ace preserve me & feed my flock with me; but if war, reduce me & assume me & place me with your self & with such as you are, altho it be great w^ch I desire. And in the end of the funeral oration upon Basil written A.C. 378 he thus invokes Basil. But thou, o divine & sacred Head, look down upon us from heaven & by thy prayers either take away that thorn of the flesh w^ch is given us by God for exercise, or perswade that we may beare it w^th courage, & direct all our life to that w^ch is most conducible & when we depart this life receive us there in your tabernacles that living together & beholding the holy & blessed Trinity more purely & perfectly whereof we have now but an imperfect view, we may there come to the end of o^r desires & receive this reward of the wars w^ch we have waged or suffered. And in his Oration upon Cyprian Bishop of Carthage he invokes Cyprian after the same manner, & tells us also how Cyp a pious virgin called Iustina was protected by invoking the virgin Mary.

Gregory Nyssen \in the life of Ephræm Syrus tells how &c – – – – cross/ in his funeral Oration upon Meletius Bishop of Antioch spoken before the Bishops of the Council of Constantinople A.C. 381, said that Meletius interceded for them & for the sins of the people: by w^ch you may know, saith Baronius, that this was the opinion of the second general Council & by consequence of the Church catholick.

|Hilary who died in the year 368|

Damasus who was made Bishop of Rome A.C. 367 & died

<32v>

Chap.    
Of the Theology of the Heathens Cabbalists & ancient Hereticks.

<33r>

A.C. 384 & adorned the tombs of many saints with verses invoked them \publickly as in the following instances. |  in the {illeg} the inscriptions,/

Vpon Agnes.

Vpon Agatha.

Vpon Eutychius.

Vpon Felix

Vpon a Greek Martyr

Vpon a sepulcher of martyrs

||And| Vpon this inscription Baronius ^a[20] has this note remark: Reperitur in antiquis inscriptionibus | < insertion from f 33v >  Reperitur in antiquis inscriptionibus Damasus per unione sanctæ ecclesiæ nuncupasse vota martyribus quæ et persolvit ubi Romanus clerus relicto schismatico Vrsicino, Damaso conjunctus est. The schism therefore upon w^ch Damasus made this vow to the Martyrs was made at the election of Damasus into the bishopric of Rome A.C. 367, & Damasus was \then/ devoted to the saints. |before that time & put his trust in them.|

Ambrose who was made bishop of Millain A.C. 374 & died A.C. 397 concludes his second preparatory prayer with this invocation. Et ut efficax hæc mea sit deprecatio, beatæ Mariæ virginis suffragia peto – Apostolorum intercessionem imploro – Martyrum preces deposco – Confessorum orationes expostulo. {Talium} Domine Deus And in his sermon on the Martyrs Nazarius & Celsus^[21] representing that the patronage of the Martyr was not restrained to the City of Millain he adds. Non clauditur locis quod diffunditur meritis. Invocasti ubiqꝫ martyrem ubiqꝫ te exaudit ille qui honoratur in martyre. – Quæ cum ita sint honoremus beatos martyres, principes fidei, intercessores mundi præcones regni, cohæredes Dei. And in his book de viduis he writes thus - - - - - - - - - - infirmities of the body.

< text from f 33r resumes >

Athanasius in his epistle to Marcellinus saith that the words of the Psalms are not to be transposed or anywise changed but to be recited & sung w^thout any artifice as they are written; that the holy men who delivered them knowing them to be their own words may pray with us: or rather that the Holy-ghost who spake in the Holy men, seeing his own words w^th w^ch he inspired them may joyn [w^th them] in assisting us.

In the year 388 Palladius went into Egypt to visit the Monasteries & telling how he visited the sepulchre of Apollonius & others martyrs of Thebais who had suffered under Maximinus, saith: Iis omnibus Christiani fecerunt ædem unam ubi nunc multæ virtutes peraguntur. Tanta autem fuit viri gratia ut de ijs quæ esset precatus statim exaudiretur, eum sic honorante servatore. Quem etiam nos in martyrio præcati vidimus, cum ijs qui cum ipso fuerunt martyrio affecti; et Deum adorantes eorum corpora salutavimus.

Eunasius a Heathen but yet a fit witness of what <34r> was done in his \own/ times, relating how the soldiers delivered the heathen temples of Egypt into the hands of the Moncks (w^ch was done in the year 389) rails thus at the Martyrs as succeeding in the room of the old Gods of Egypt. Illi ipsi [milites] Monachos Canobi quoqꝫ locarunt collocarunt, ut pro Dijs qui animo cernuntur servos et quidem flatitiosos divinis honoribus percolerent, hominum mentibus ad cultum cermoniasqꝫ obligatis. Ii namqꝫ condita et salita eorum capita qui ob sclerum multitudinem a Iudicibus extremo judicio fuerant affecti pro Divis ostentabant, ijs genua submittebant, eos in Deorum numerum receptabant, ad illorum sepulchra pulvere sordibusqꝫ conspurcati. Martyres igitur vocabantur et Ministri quidam et Legati Arbitriqꝫ precum apud Deos cum fuerint servitia infida et flagris pessime subacta quæ cicatrices scelerum ac nequitiæ vestigia corporibus circumferrent. Ejusmodi tamen Deos fert tellus. This was the opinion w^ch the heathens had of the saint-worship of these times. And some of the old Hereticks had much the same opinion of it. ffor ffaustus an eminent Bishop of the Manichees in Afric thus accused the Catholicks: Vos sacrificia Paganorum vertistis in agapes, Idola in Martyres quos votis similibus colitis, defunctorum umbras vino placatis et dapibus. And this may suffice to shew that the Invocation of Saints \began to/ overspread the Empire before \between/ the years 390 360 & 370 & grew general before the year 390. ffor between the years 380 & 390 the Emperors by severe Edicts prohibited all assemblies throughout the whole Empire besides those of the Catholicks: one of w^ch edicts is as follows. Apollinarianos cæterosqꝫ diversarum hæresum sectatores ab omnibus locis jubemus inhiberi, a mœnibus urbium, a congressu honestorum, a communione sanctorū: instituendorum Clericorum non habeant potestatem; colligendarum congregationum vel in publicis vel in privatis ecclesijs careant facultate: nulla ijs faciendorum episcoporum præbeatur auctoritas: ipsi quoqꝫ Episcopi nomine destituti appellationem hujus dignitatis amittant. Adeant loca, quæ hos potissimum quasi vallo quodammodo ab humana communione secludant. His etiam illud nectimus, ut

<35r>

Chap. 6 IX
Of the corruption of the Christian religion in discipline and morality.

<36r>

Chap. 4|5|
Of the corruption of the Church \Christian religion/ by the Theology of the heathens, Cabbalists and hereticks.

Chap. XIV
Of the Host of Heaven & the corruptions which crept into it.

<37r>

hypostasis the hereticks call substance & that the hypostasis of the son is that w^ch alone is the hypostasis of the father.

In the year 351, four years after the Council of Serdica, the Emperor Constantius called a Council coming to Sirmium in a Pannonia called a Council against Photinus bishop of that city, & the Council deposed him for holding the opinions of Sabellius & Paul of Samosat, & condemned his opinions very particularly by many anathemas, some of w^ch were those that follow. Siquis Christum Deum Deiqꝫ filium ante sæcula esse dicens, eundem non confiteatur in creatione omnium rerum Patri ministrasse, anathema sit. Siquis ingenitum aut partem ejus ex Maria natum esse audet dicere, anathema sit. Siquis substantiam Dei dilatari aut contrahi dicat, anthema sit. Siquis dilatam substantiam Dei filium facere dicast, aut dilatationem substantiæ ejus nominet filium, anathema sit. \Siquis ἐνδιαθετον ὴ πραφ{illeg}ρικὸν λόγος internum aut prolationem Verbum dixerit Dei filium, anathema sit./ Siquis filium ex Maria natum, hominem tantum esse dicat, anathema sit. . . . . . . . . Siquis illud: faciamus hominem, non patrem dixisse ad filium, sed ad semet ipsum locutum esse Deum asserit, anathema sit. Siquis non filium Abrahamo visum esse dicat, sed ingenitum Deum aut partem ejus illius, anathema sit. Siquis non filium tanquam hominem cum Iacobo colluctatum esse dicat, sed ingenitum Deum aut partem illius, anathema sit. Siquis illud: pluit dominus a domino, non de Patre ac filio intelligat, sed ipsum a semetipso pluisse dicat, anathema sit. Pluit enim dominus filius a domino patre. Siquis audiens dominum patrem et dominum filium; & dominum dixat \erit/ patrem et filium {illeg} \quia/ dominus ex domino dictus \sit/, duos dixerit deos, anathema sit. Non enim filium exæquamus Patri, sed subjectum illi esse intelligimus. . . . . . . . . Siquis patrem filium et spiritum sanctum unam personam esse dicat, anathema sit. Siquis . . . . . . Siquis spiritum partem patris et filij esse dixerit, anathema sit. Siquis filium non volente patre genitum esse dixerit, anathema sit. Siquis filium ingenitum et principij ex partem esse dixerit, tanquam

Now Socrates tells us^[22] that the deposing of Photinus by this Council for the heresies w^ch they convicted him of was universally approved both then & afterwards as right & just, & Hilary seven years after sending to the bishops of Gallia & Britain a copy of the Creed of this Council^[23] with the anathemas of the errors of Photinus annexed to it, saith of the Council. Necessitas & tempus admonuit eos qui tum convenerant, per multiplices quæstiones latius ac diffusius expositionem fidei ordinare: quia multis et acutis cuniculis in catholicam domum ea quæ per Photinum renovabatur hæresis, tentaret irrepere: ut per singula genera intemeratæ & illesæ fidei unicuiqꝫ generi hæreticæ et furtivæ fraudulentiæ contrairetur: essentqꝫ totidem fidei absolutiones, quotidem essent quæsitæ perfidiæ ocasiones Ac primum post generalem illam atqꝫ indubitatam sacra- <38r> sacramentorum expositionem [i.e. post symbolum fidei a Concilio editum,] hinc exponendæ fidei adversum hæreticos cœpit exordium. Then he goes on to repeat the said absolutions or definitions of faith, amongst w^ch are the anathemas above mentioned, & commenting upon them singly he approves them all, & adds: Concludi damnatio ejus hæresis propter quam conventum erat, expositione totius fidei cui adversabatur oportuit. And Vigilius Tapsensis about 120 years after, in his fift book against Eutyches, saith of the many anathemas made by this Council against the errors of Photinus: Illius verò Catholici Concilij apud Sirmium contra Photinum ex toto orbe congregati quis sufficiat multiplices fidei sanctiones comprehendere; quæ apud Nicænam synodum, quia necessitas fuerat nulla non sunt omnino sancita; quæ nullus fidelium audet respuere aut cunctanter recipere, qui non vult cum Photino anathematis eorum sententiæ subjacere. Such was the credit of this Council that Athanasius himself submitted to it, as you may see in his Exposition of faith where he saith of the son Credo in ^[24] I believe in the one only begotten Son Word, Wisdom, son begotten of the father without beginning & from eternity, λόγον δὲ ὀυ προφόρικον ὀυ{illeg} ὀυκ ἐνδιάθετον ὀυκ ἀπό᾽ρρ῾οιαν του τελείου, ου τμησιν της ἀπαθους φύσεως, ὀύτε προβολὴν, the word not prolatitious not inherent, not an efflux of the perfect, not a section of the impassible nature, nor a projection.

And thus by the universal approbation of the sentence of this Council against Photinus the growing opinion that the Word of God was his λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ἤ προφόρικος was at length universally exploded as erroneous & worthy of an anathema. And so was that the opinion in general that the son was generated by the emission efflux dilatation or projection of any part or power of the fathers substance. These o|O|pinions \of this kind/ were the foundation of \the metaphysical/ theology of the heathens, Cabbalists, Gnosticks Montanists & such like hereticks: & therefore what we meet with of these opinions in Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, C{illeg} Tertullian, Clemens or any other writers of the first ages is to be looked upon as not derived from the Apostles by tradition but unwarily brought into the Church from the Theology of the heathens or Cabbalists in w^ch learned men happened to be \educated &/ instructed before they became Christians, or from the Theology of the hereticks who by their emissaries endeavoured to corrupt the Church. First \|For| In the second century/ there were \arose/ some Christians, as Iustin mentions, who taught that the Son & holy ghost & Angels were emissions of Gods powers! Then Martinus \Others, as Tatian, that they were parts of him/ Others distinguishing between generation & creation as if the one was out of God the other out of nothing |teaching creation out of nothing derived only the son & holy Ghost from God by emission derived no|. And this opinion being more plausible \as it got into the Church so it/ was taught in various manners by Montanus the \more refined/ hereticks Montanus, Noetus, Praxeas, Tertullian, \Hermosenes,/ Sabellius, Paul of Samosat, Marcellus, Eustathius & Photinus, but \at length/ was baffled by condemning the Councils w^ch condemned the five last of them. And being baffled in the hereticks it was \at length relinquished by those in communion w^th the Church Catholick./

And that you may know how dangerous this doctrine was you may know by the opinion w^ch the major part of Christians {illeg} \that is the Church catholick/ in the second century had {To w} of it, who accounted it <39r> polytheism in the Montanists as you have heard above out of by the confession of Tertullian a very competent witness against himself & his own party. And indeed if the all the Gods of the heathens were, according to them \heathen/ Theology, either parts or powers of the supreme deity, & they \heathens/ were polytheists for worshipping them as several persons under several names, \were polytheists/ notwithstanding that they called them one God & represented that in worshipping them they worshipped but one God: & that a I know not how the like practise of the hereticks, or of any Christians whatsoever, can excuse them from the like s \like/ crime of polytheism. The calling of such persons one God is \nothing only more then/ a denyall of the crime of polytheism, & does not a bare denyal of a crime doth not acquit any man from the guilt.

<38v>

Tatian the disciple of Iustin made y^e Son an unseparated part of y^e father. Natus est autem (saith he)

<40r>

afterwards go on to tell the story thus. On the fift of the Calends of February we were watching [all night] in the Church, & being at prayers because of the Assembly that was to meet on the Preparation, the Commandre Syrianus with many Legions of soldiers having drawn swords & other weapons, & being armed with helmets & other armour, suddenly set upon us while we were at prayers & reading the scriptures, brake the doors & some began to throw darts others cried an Alarm, so that there was made a great classing {sic} of arms the drawn swords shining by candle light, & Virgins were slain & troden underfoot. And whilst their Leader marshalled his army, the Bishop sat in his throne & exhorted all to prayers & being thrust hither & thither was almost pulled to pieces, & when in a great deliquium he lay for dead & now does not appear, we know not what is become of him. A little after they further add that the arms w^ch were left in the Church by those who brake in & w^ch still hang up in y^e church, were no light argument of the hostile incursion so that they could not deny it. For Gorgonius the Governour of the City hath, say they, often sent a military Hangman with a Captain to take them down, but we would not suffer them that the thing may be known to all men. Then they go on to say how that as they had already resisted unto blood so if it were the Emperor's pleasure that they should be thus persecuted, they were all ready to suffer martyrdome, that is, to dye in that resistance. Their words run thus. If it be the Edict of the Prince to pesecute us we are all ready to suffer martyrdome. But if it be not the Emperors Edict we entreat the Prefect of Egypt Maximus & the other Magistrates, that they desire the Prince that such things be no more committed; & we desire that this o^r prayer \may/ come to him that no other Bishop be introduced here. In hindring <40v> which we have resisted unto blood, desiring the most reverend Athanasius.

The City being thus inflamed by these incendiaries, there followed other boiles before it could be quieted of all w^ch Lucifer Calaritanus in a railing book w^ch he wrote against his Emperor Constantius, makes this mention. ^[25] Recordare Constanti de scelerum tuorum memoria recenti, quam tibi in civitate Alexandrinorum inussisti: quantos per abrupta una tincta subscriptionis tuæ dejecerit, quantos gladio demeti fecerit, quantos fame sitiqꝫ exedi, vel carceribus necari, quantos intercepto effecerit spiritu strangulari: et tamen his omnibus crudelitatibus in sanctos martyres quos tuus interfecit gladiatorius animus, cùm sævieris; in nos crudelius sævis dum retines gladium.

Nor were these stirs of short continuance For Athanasius exclaiming against the proceedings of Constantius as a vehement persecution & celebrating all those who as martyrs & confessors who were slain or taken prisoners, plaid the trumpeter to the rebellion & kept it up for a good while as you may understand by that railing book w^ch Hilary wrote against his Emperor Constantius, in which he has this passage. Adest mecum Alexandria tot concussa bellis, tantum commotarum expeditionum expavens tumultum. Brevius enim adversùm Persam quam adversum eam armis certatum est. Mutati Præfecti, electi Duces, corrupti populi, commotæ Legiones ne ab Athanasio prædicaretur Christus prædicaretur. These words shew that the sedition was both great & lasting. So great was it that Constantius whilst it was on foot, wrote thus to the Citizens of Alexandria. ^[26] I know not, saith he, whether any thing ever happened w^ch may be compared with these things, seing many in this City were blinded & there presided a man who was emersed from the lowermost hell: who as in the dark, seduced the desirers of truth to lyes – – – – – – & the common-wealth was carried as with a torrent, all things as in a flood being contemned: & one ruled the multitude who (to speak most truly) differed nothing from the vulgar Mecha <41r> nicks, having contention with the City only because he could not cast it into Hell. But that excellent man durst not come to plead his cause in judgement. And in the end of the Letter. Whilst the most wretched Athanasius, convicted of most foule crimes for which he can never be sufficiently punished no not tho he should be ten times killed wanders abroad from place to place, 'twould be absurd to suffer his flatterers & ministers, a sort of jugglers & such as it is not fit to name, to raise seditions here, concerning whom I have long since commanded the Iudges to put them to death: who perhaps may not so perish if in time they return from their former crimes [viz^t] of raising seditions] & shun those to whom the most wicked Athanasius was Leader: who hurt the common wealth & laid his most impious & wicked hands upon most holy men.

In short the Egyptians were so seditious that afterwards when Valens would have expelled Athanasius he could not effect it but found it necessary to desist. For it was not Alexandria alone but all Egypt & Libya w^ch was inflamed by this sedition, the people with their Presbyters & Bishops being every where stirred up by the above-mentioned Letter of the Alexandrians & getting into bodies in the field: whereupon at length followed a skirmish in the Wilderness like that nocturnal one at Alexandria, as Athanasius in his first Apology thus mentions. ^[27] Whilst I was wondring, saith he, at these things behold there came again another grievous report concerning Egypt & Libya: namely that almost ninety Bishops were expelled & their Churches given to the Arians; sixteen of them being banished & the rest being partly put to flight & partly compelled to dissemble. For the Persecution there was said to be like that at Alexandria, the brethren being gathered together in <41v> a desart place neare a Cæmetary to pray on the Passover & on Sundays, & the Commander of the forces coming with more then three thousand soldiers armed with armour & naked swords & arrows & falling upon the Christians: Whereupon followed such slaughters as use to follow in such assaults, the impression being made upon weomen & children who did nothing else but pray. Thus does Athanasius palliate & sanctify these seditions as if his party were assembled out of all Egypt & Libya with so many Bishops & kept the field in a great body together for no other end but to pray on sundays, & as if the Roman Legions came armed to conquer nothing but weomen & children But this is his flourishing poetical way of talking in all his writings.

<42r>

a horn \in the same sense w^th the other ten/ Pictures & images began before this time to be set up in Churches but their worship was not yet decreed. At length the Greek Emperor Philippicus a Monothelite A.C. 712 caused the picture of the sixt general Council called against the Monothelites to be abolished. And thereupon Pope Constantine calling a Synod at Rome anathematized the Empreor, forbad setting up of his Images set up in S^t Peters Church the picture of the six general Councils &, as Sigonius relates, added another decree whereby all who should deny to the holy Images the veneration w^ch was appointed to them by the Church are damned. This was the first decree for the veneration of images. ffor hitherto they had been allowed both in the eastern & western churches only for instructing the people in history.

The Emperor Leo Isaurus about ten years after called a meeting of Counsellours & Bishops in his palace for putting a stop to the spreading of this worship & by their advice put out an edict against it & wrote to Pope Gregory the 2^d that a general Council might be called. But the Pope thereupon calling a Council at Rome \A.C. 726/ confirmed the worship of images, excommunicated the Greek Emperor, absolved his subjects in Italy from their obedience & forbad them to pay tribute to him & thereby \got the city Rome into his own hands &/ caused a great part of the Exarchate to revolt & kill Paul y^e Exarch. And the Lombards also pr being zealous for y^e worship of images & pretending to favour the cause of y^e Pope invaded the cities of the Exarchate, & in the year 752 \took Ravenna &/ put an end to the Exarchate. And this is the second of the three kingdoms that fell to make way for the rise of the Pope.

At length Pope Zechary A.C. 752 fearing the power of the Lombards, deposed Childeric a sloathfull & useless king of ffrance & the last of the race of Merovæus & absolving his subjects from their oath of allegiance gave the kingdom to Pipin king of Austrasia \& Suevia/ for ever, hoping thereby to strengthen himself by making a new & potent friend. T|A|nd thus by the conjunction of these two kingdoms did one of the ten horns fall before the little horn. This was done in the beginning of the year 752.

The same year in March this Pope died & Stephen succeeded & before the end of the year the Lombards took Ravenna & put an end to the Exarchate. And this is the second of the three kingdoms that fell.

Then Pope Stephen knowing better how to deal with <43r> the Greek Emperor then with the Lombards went the next year to their king to persuade him to return the Exarchate to the Emperor, but without successe this not succeeding he went into France & perswaded Pipin to take the Exarchate & Pentapolis from the Lombards & give it to S^t Peter. And accordingly Pippin A.C. 754 came with an army into Italy & made Aistulphus king of the Lombards promise the surrender. But the next year Aistulphus on the contrary to revenge himself on the Pope beseiged the city of Rome. Whereupon Pope Stephen sent letters to Pipin wherein he told him that if he came not speeedily against the Lombards, pro data sibi potentia alienandum fore a regno Dei et vita æterna, he would excommunicate him as he had done the Greek Emperor. Pipin therefore being devoted to y^e church of Rome came speedily with an army into Italy raised y^e siege besieged the Lombards in Papia & forced them to surrender the Exarchate & region of Pentapolis to y^e Pope for a perpetual possession. And now Ravenna & the rest \of the Exarchate/ were surrendered some few cities excepted & the keys sent to Rome & laid upon the Confession of S^t Peter, that is upon his Tomb at y^e high altar in signum veri perpetuiqꝫ dominij sed pietate Regis gratuita, as the inscription of a coin of Pipin has it. \This was in the year 755./ And henceforwards the Popes left off in their Epistles & Bulls to note the years of the Greek Emperors as they had hitherto done. And now by this guift the Pope became a temporal Prince \in all respects/ & the Papacy a true horn of the Beast. This was in the year 755.

Afterwards the Lombards invading the Popes countries, Pope Adrian sent to Charles the great the son of Pipin to come to his assistance, & accordingly Charles entred Italy with an army, invaded the Lombards, overthrew their kingdom, took Desiderius their king prisoner, became master of their countries & restored to the Pope not only what they had taken from him but also the rest of the Exarchate which they had promised Pipin to restore to the Pope but had hitherto deteined \& also gave him some cities of the Lombards/. These things were done in the years 773 & 774. And now the Pope being arived to his full temporal greatness & freed from the fear of his enemies did henceforward reign prosperously with \two Keys/ the keys of the cities \of the two kingdoms/ in his hand in lieu of a scepter <44r> and a triple crown upon his head.

These crowns I take take to be in memory of his acquiring his dominion by the grant of one king & the {ruin} \conquest/ of two others. The primacy or first place in point of honour was allowed to the sea of Rome & the second & third places to the seas of Alexandria & Antioch before the time of the Council of Nice but none of them were then acknowledged universal Bishops. In the reign of Constantius the western Bishops to strenghthen the authority of the western Churches against the eastern laboured that appeals should be made from all the world to the Pope, but did not subject themselves to the Pope as universal Bishop over all the western churches. When the western Empire became sub divided into ten kingdoms w^ch at first were either heathen or Arian, the Catholicks began to unite \against them/ under the Pope & those kingdoms as fast as they were converted to the catholic religion subjected themselves to the Popes authority in matters ecclesiastical. or as is exprest in the Apocalyps, they gave their kingdome became of one mind & gave their kingdom to the Beast. And first Clodovæus king of ffrance being converted from the heathen to the Catholic religion subjected his kingdom to the Pope & by the advice of Remigius Bishop of Rhemes sent to Pope Hormisda a crown of gold adorned with gemms A.C. 514, & the Pope in recompence made Remigius his deputy Bishop over all the churches of the Francs. This crown by the circumstances of the History was episcopal, the Francs thereby acknowledging them \Pope/ their Monarch in Ecclesiastical affairs. And soon after by subverting the kingdom of the Ostrogoths who were of a different religion & setting up the Catholic Exarchate in its room, & by the submission of the Greek Emperors Phocas Iustinian & Phocas who granted to the Pope the universal Bishoprick over their dominions, this spiritual crown became fixed on the Popes head, & afterwards by subverting the Exarchate & the kingdom of the Lombards the Pope gained also a temporal dominion, in memory of w^ch he has ever since carried two keys in his hand & added two temporal crowns to the spiritual one upon his head.

PROPOSALS
For PRINTING by
SUBSCRIPTION
THE
Critical HISTORY
OF MANES,
AND OF
MANICHEISM.
WITH
Ample NOTES.
Written Originally in FRENCH, by the late Reverend and Learned Mr. DE BEAUSOBRE, Chaplain to his Prussian Majesty:
And Translated into ENGLISH,
By the Reverend Mr. GEORGE STEPHEN TACHERON.

<47r> <48r>