23
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 Gen
tiles, 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 wo
man 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 kingdom was ancient of days to receive an everlasting kingdom, the Prince of the host or head of the Church against whom the last horn of the Goat ethe quick & the dead & that we are to give him honourChrist 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 re
turn 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 & testi
fy our becoming his disciples by repentance from dead works & by faith 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
28th year of Artaxerxes Longimanus as above & waswere
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 wchwhich 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 & re
surrection, having thereby a name given him above every name 24name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow
& he kept the covenant wthwith many of his people for a
week of years untill the calling of Cornelius & the Gen
tiles, by which the Iews ceased to be his peculiar people
And in half a week of years (by the wars of the Ro
mans upon the Iews) the 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
solate, & 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 resur
rection 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. ItNow in the seventh
year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, by the Kings commissi
on 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 be
gan to be preached among the Iews & seven years
after among the gGentiles, 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 wchwhich was that vehement
& lasting persecution under the Emperors Dioclesian
Galerius & Maximinus, which ended in the conver
sion of the Roman Empire to the Christian religion
by the victories of Constantine the great over Max
entius 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 cere
monial 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 command
ment, & 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 these 25was 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 wchwhich met at Antioch in the reign of
Iovian A.C. 363 wrote to that Emperor. Socr. Hist. Ecc. l. 4. c. 12. We approve, say they,
& constantly retain the faith of the holy Synod heretofore
assembled at Nice: since the word consubstantial wchwhich was
used in that Council, & to some seems new & unusual, was
[there] explained by the fathers with a cautious interpreta
tion so as to signify that the Son was begotten of the substance
of the father & is like the father according to substance
Nicetas Nicet. in Thesauro Orthod. v. 8. tells us that some of the Nicene fathers in sub
scribing the decrees of that Council wrote by way of ex
planation 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. Apud Theodor. Eccl. Hist. l. 4. c. 8.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 for
merly 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 there
fore according to this Creed the son of the fathers
substance:
stance. 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 explain
ing this article of the Nicene Creed a a Epist. 2. ad Serapionem, sec 5 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
substance & saith that ὁμοούσιος signifes the same thing with ομοιουσιος & εκ ὀυσία together. ♁ For Athanasius himself in explaining this article of the Nicene Creed
a a Epist. 2 ad Serapionem sect. 5, 6 allows the son to have an ὀυσία not created but consubstantial to the
father, & b b lib. de Synodis sect 48. 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 c Ib. sect 41 saith that ὁμοούσιος signifes the same thing
with ὁμοιούσιος & ἐξ ὀυσίας together; & a that every son is ὁμοούσιος
to his father, & if the son of God be a true natural son he must
be ὁμοούσιος; & d d De decretis Nicænæ synodi sect 20. that the son being yethe 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 Theo
gnostus he e e Ib. sect 25saith 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 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 monousian 26monousian 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 yethe 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 hence
forward 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 signi
fy 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 sabellia
nism & Paulinianism for using the language of una usia they ana
thematized those heresies, & to free themselves those from the imputa
tion of Arianism for who used using the language of three hypostases, they
rejected as spurious a table of faith wchwhich had hitherto been handed
about as the Serd faith of the Council of Serdica. ffor this Coun
cil rejected of Serdica used the language of one hypostasis & condem
ned that of three as Arian.
Yet it was some years before thaet language of three one
hypostases fully ceased. ffor ♁ ☉ Hitherto the words . . . . . . . . .☉ Hitherto the words ὀυσία ὑπόστασις & substantia had been used in one & yethe
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,
unius substantiæ, wchwhich being wchwhich come from 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 theirm 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 wchwhich we usu Hilary calls the essence of a thing, & also & 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 & holyghostholy ghost 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 hypostaeshypostases 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 a In Anchorato N. 6 that ὁμοούσιος signifies one hypostasis, b b Hæres 69 that it is the same thing
to say one hypostasis & usia, & c c Hæres 74 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 d Ad Terentium Comitem. 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 signi
fication. And Victorinus Afer e e In opusculo de homousio, & lib. 2 adv. Arium. 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 yethe three persons one hypostasis. And in the
letter wchwhich the Council Pope Damasus & the Council of Rome in the letter wchwhich Pope Damasus & the Council
of Rome sent to the Council of Illyricum A.C. 373, the
holy Ghost is said to be one hypostasis wthwith 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 he
retick, as you may see in his letters to Pope Damasus about
this matter. Quia vocabula, saith he, non ediscimus, hæ
retici 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 hy
postases 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 wchwhich 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 wchwhich was then spread
ing 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 person 27person being of an ambiguous signification, the Greeks to make
it signify a substance & not a mere power or form of a sub
stance used the language of τρία πράγματα & τρεις
στάσεις three things & three hypostases as well as that of
of τρια πρόσοπα three persons. And hence arose that
controversy about words wchwhich Athanasius composed in the
little Council of Alexandria above mentioned, & of wchwhich
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 under
stood by the Latines who by reason of the narrow
ness 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 & Aria
nism 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 & un
reasonable 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 consi
dering 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 wchwhich continues still in use,
vizt una substantia & tres personæ subsistentiæ & hypostases.
After the signification of ὀυσία & substantia were changed & the words
were used as common names of 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, Maxi
mus the Martyr Chrysostom I Augustin Theodoret 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 Epist 325 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 Paulinus he adds. That also pleases me that amongst other things decisions becoming a
divine your 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
gone made you safe in this point. And certainl Basil in his 10th 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 opini
ons do those things now which they did formerly in Marcellus, namely con
tending with those who tell them the truth, & establishing heresy by
themselves. In my self would truly have written to them to their leader [the BpBishop 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 wchwhich
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 reccon pride an honour, it being rather a crime wchwhich alone may render God an enemy.
Thus doth Basil tax the western churches with haughtiness & heresy, meaning Sabe
lianism couched under the language of one hypostasis & manifested formerly by
their defending Marcellus a Sabellian of the heresy wchwhich they formerly favoured in defending Marcellus a Sabellian Ⓧ Ⓧ 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 wthwith wchwhich
Basil here taxes the Latines must be that of holding one hypostastasishypostasis wthwith
MacellusMarcellus & the Sabellians. And & the Sabellians] & still continued to favour favour * [* by defending the
of one hypostasis against the Greeks who tell them the truth
And in another Epistle Epist 345he saith, We excorate all anathematise those that who hold that
wicked opinion concerning the confusion of the hypostases, in wchwhich the most
impious heresy of Sabellius is revived. wchwhich heresy can be no other then
that of one hypostasis] Thus doth Basil tax the western Churches wthwith hautines &
heresy in oppositionng in th when in like manner then the case of Mar
cellus: wchwhich her a Sabelliantheir 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
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 wchwhich the most impious heresy
of Sabellius is revived. And this was the heresy of wchwhich the homousian Greeks accused
Ierome. For Ierome …….. prædicabit. By all wchwhich 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 & wasere all this time accounted Sabellians & Montanists by the Greeks notwithstanding the endeavour
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 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 wchwhich 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 Dr Cudworth Dr 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 yethe 4th & 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,
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 yethe 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 & ytthat united hypostasis of God & man was also a substance. The fourth general Council said
that Christ was consubstantial to yethe father as touching his godhead &
consubstantial to us as touching his manhood & in one & the same short sentence consubstantial must have one & yethe same signifsignification.. T And in the 18th & 19th sessions of yethe Council
of fflorence A.C. 1449 When Iohn bishop of Fonojulium in the name
of the Latines had said [that
& 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 19th 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
& son, the divine ουσία substance signifying what is common to yethe 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 significa
tion 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 wthwith 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
understood to be divided into the persons, being when we say the ουσία of the father, the
ουσια of the son & the ουσια of the holy Ghost,
proper hypostases or persons. So ththe 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 mono
usians yet the word essentia wchwhich they used for answers to usia,
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 yethe 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 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
that three substances in yethe
Deity, objected that Peter Lombard made four a quaternity in the Deity, the three hy
postases & the one divine essence. And the Council of
Lateran Council A.C.
that there was only a Trinity & not a quaternity in God:
& that evy every person is being that divine essence. ffor say they yethe 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 & to have the same substance
with the son. And so say they, the father & son are one thing toge
ther 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
four several several sences, three of wchwhich 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 substancsubstance will be its own father &
its own son] But But there was anotheanother 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 comparecompared
the father & son to a fountain & river wchwhich are undivided & to the
sun & its ray wchwhich are unsepatedunseparated & Gregory Naz. compared the Trinity
to three SonsSuns wchwhich 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
one another.
similitudine non ex solitudine — Prædicantes itaqꝫque fratres filium in omnibus patri nihil
aliud quem æqualem prædicamus: perfectæ æqualitatis habet significantiam similitudo, & hoc ex sacris scripturis intelligendum
est. Leginus namqꝫque: 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 quois secundum Samosateum in Christo renatus et filium confessus ac patrem: quod Christus in se sibi esse et pater
& filius sit, confitebitur? Par itaqꝫque 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]
29
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 a Vide ejus Epist. 85 ad Sororem. makes this mention, Cognovistis imò vidistis ipsi multos a dæmonijs
purgatos, plurimos etiam ubi vestem sanctorum manibus con
tigerunt his quibus laborabant debilitatibus absolutos. Repara
ta vetusti temporis miracula. The whole story you have
described by Paulinus And in a sermon b b Serm 91. made the next day
on this occasion: Dicunt Arriani dicunt: Non sunt isti Mar
tyres nec torqueré diabolum possunt nec aliquem liberare;
cum tormenta dæmonum ipsorum voce probentur et bene
ficia martyrum remedijs cæcorum & absolutorum indicijs
declarentur. Negant cæcum illuminatum, sed ille non
negat se sanatum.
possint aliqui visitari? hoc est Christo non credere. Ipse enim dixit:
Et majora his facietis. An
dudum 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. Neqꝫque 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 testi
monium sed confessionem. The whole story &c 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 85th Epistle & 91th 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 yethe reign of Constantius abounded wthwith 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
Humatum corpus nemo ad alterum locum transferat: nemo
martyrem distrahat, nemo mercetur. Habeant vero in
potestate, si quolibet in loco sanctorum est aliquis condi
tus, 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 martyrs, wchwhich 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 Episco
pis 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 super
stitione 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 ubiqꝫque constitu
untur altaria, omnimode reprobentur.
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 yethe 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
wthwith 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 yoryour
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. ◬ ◬ And a little after: At the memory of the martyr the whole region is
is 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. And in his Oration on the 40 Mar
tyrs: These are they, saith he, who obteining our country
like certain towers, afford us safety against the invasions incursions of
30
Protasius in dedicating a Church without Martyrs was admo
nished 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 mar
tyrs Nor was
this And in one of his orations a sermon made :; 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 85t Epistle & 91th 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 wchwhich Edicts is as follows. Apollinari
anos Apollinarianos cæterosqꝫque diversarum hæresum sectatores
ab omnibus locis jubemus inhiberi, a mœnibus urbium a con
gressu honestorum, a communione sanctorum: instituendo
rum Clericorum non habeant potestatem: colligendarum
congregationum
careant potestate facultate: nulla ijs faciendorum Episco
porum præbeatur auctoritas: ipsi quoqꝫque 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 atqꝫque
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 Em
pire 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 wchwhich
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
Quadragesimæ diebus nulla supplicia sint corporis
absolutio expectatur animarum. Datum VIII Idus Sept
embris 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 For SoFor So Ierome in his Epistle against Vigilantius wri has these words Quid
facient Orientis ræ? quid Ægypti aut et sedis Apostlicæ: quæ aut
virgines cler accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint
mariti esse destunt? 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
119th Epistle written to Ianuarius concerning the rites of the Church, thus com
plains: 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 præsumpti
onibus subjiciuntur.
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.
Eusebius relates how Constantine wthwith several others in his war against Maxentius
in the afternoon saw in the clouds in the day time the signe of yethe cross over the Sun wthwith 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
ffor it now grew customary fo Christians to signe themselves wthwith yethe sanctif use the signe of
yethe cross in a superstitious manner upon all occasions. exhorted his hearers that bids you his hearers
to impress this signe confide wthwith 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
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 wchwhich was A.C. 389 they abo
lished the symbols of Serapis & in their room painted the signe of yethe Cross. The paces
so then what an ivy leaf was to as the worshippers marma of Bacchus were marked wthwith
an ivy leaf & the worshippers of Serapis & their houses wthwith the badge of
Serapis so the Roman Catholicks & their houses were marked with the signe of the cross in the room of those marks 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
the worshippers of Christ as those marks were of used by the heathens as the badges of yethe
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
& wthwith the temples of the other Gods ofin Egypt wchwhich was in yethe year 389, they also abolished the or symbols or symbols of Serapis & & names names of yethe 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 quasqꝫque domos in parietibus, in ingressibus, in postibus etiam ac fenes
tris 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 unusquisqꝫque in postibus in ingressi
bus in fenestris in paretibus columnisqꝫque depingeret. So then as the worshippers
of Bacchus were marked wthwith an ivy leaf & the worshippers of Serapis & their
houses wthwith the symbol of thoraxthwith
their symbols Marks or names, so the Roman Catholicks & their Temples & houses were now marked
wthwith 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 Christian Catholick faith & Christian religion as those marks were used
by the heathens as the badge of the worshippers of the heathen Gods. See
hen used as a charm to scare away the Devil & do other supernatural as the signe of the Roman catholick religion
of the Beast, especially if it be used at the same time used in as the mor a charm
& sanctify things & guard them from evil] & do other supernatural
his edicts called the signe of the Christian of their faith & the sig
catholic faith & commanded that 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
32
of orour 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 re
joyces 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 orour cares, suffragans & co
adjutors of prayer, most powerfull embassadors to God, &c. Ephræm Syrus 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 EphæmEphræm Syrus on these 40 martyrs: & therefore their reliques were dispersed & some of them sent into Egypt in the life time of Athanasius.
Gregory Nazianzen ⊡⊡ 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 – – – – – 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, wchwhich in the ffather, Son & Holy-ghost is contemplated & adored, & if there shall be pleace 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 wchwhich 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 wchwhich is given us by God for exercise, or perswade that we may beare it wthwith courage, & direct all our life to that wchwhich 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 orour desires & receive this reward of the wars wchwhich 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 wchwhich 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 A.C. Chap. Of the Theology of the Heathens Cabbalists & ancient Hereticks. 33
A.C. 384 & adorned the tombs of many saints with verses invoked them publickly as in the following instances. in the the inscriptions,
Vpon Agnes.
O Agnes verum decus, alma pudoris imago,
Vt Damasi precibus faveas precor inclyta virgo.
Vpon Agatha.
Iam remidens quasi sponsa polo
Pro misero rogita Damaso.
Vpon Eutychius.
Quæritur, inventus colitur, fovet, omnia præstat.
Expressit Damasus meritum, venerare sepulchrum.
Vpon Felix
Versibus his Damasus supplex tibi vota rependo,
Qui ad te sollicite venientibus omnia præstas.
Vpon a Greek Martyr
Vt Damasi precibus favias precor inclyte Martyr.
By these inscriptions it is manifest that the invocation of saints was publickly allowed & practised in the Church of Rome before the year 384, Pope Damasus promoting it all his reign. For upon a sepuchersepulcher of martyrs A.C. 369 he set this inscription
Vpon a sepulcher of martyrs
Sanctorum, quicunqꝫque legis, venerare sepulchrum;
Nomina nec numerum potuit retinere vetustas.
Ornavit Damasus tumulum, cognoscite, Rector;
Pro reditu cleri Christo præstante triumphans,
Martyribus sanctis reddit sua vota sacerdos.
And Vpon this inscription Baronius a a Baron. ad A.C. 367. sect. 19. has this note remark: Reperitur in antiquis inscriptionibus 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 wchwhich 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 Serm. 92representing that the patronage of the Martyr was not restrained to the City of Millain he adds. Non clauditur locis quod diffunditur meritis. Invocasti ubiqꝫque martyrem ubiqꝫque 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.
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 wthwithout 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 wthwith wchwhich he inspired them may joyn [wthwith 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 was 34was done in his own times, relating how the soldiers delivered the heathen temples of Egypt into the hands of the Moncks (wchwhich 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 quoqꝫque locarunt collocarunt, ut pro Dijs qui animo cernuntur servos et quidem flatitiosos divinis honoribus percolerent, hominum mentibus ad cultum cermoniasqꝫque obligatis. Ii namqꝫque 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 sordibusqꝫque conspurcati. Martyres igitur vocabantur et Ministri quidam et Legati Arbitriqꝫque 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 wchwhich 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 wchwhich edicts is as follows. Apollinarianos cæterosqꝫque diversarum hæresum sectatores ab omnibus locis jubemus inhiberi, a mœnibus urbium, a congressu honestorum, a communione sanctorūum: instituendorum Clericorum non habeant potestatem; colligendarum congregationum vel in publicis vel in privatis ecclesijs careant facultate: nulla ijs faciendorum episcoporum præbeatur auctoritas: ipsi quoqꝫque Episcopi nomine destituti appellationem hujus dignitatis amittant. Adeant loca, quæ hos potissimum quasi vallo quodammodo ab humana communione secludant. His etiam illud nectimus, ut supramemoratis 35 Chap. 6 IX Of the corruption of the Christian religion in discipline and morality. 36 Chap. 45 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. 37
hypostasis the hereticks call substance & that the hypostasis of the son is that wchwhich 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 wchwhich were those that follow. Siquis Christum Deum Deiqꝫque 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 πραφρικὸν 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 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 Socr. Hist. Eccl. l. 2. c. 29 that the deposing of Photinus by this Council for the heresies wchwhich 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 Hilar. de Synodis p. 374 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 unicuiqꝫque generi hæreticæ et furtivæ fraudulentiæ contrairetur: essentqꝫque totidem fidei absolutiones, quotidem essent quæsitæ perfidiæ ocasiones Ac primum post generalem illam atqꝫque indubitatam sacra- mentorum 38sacramentorum 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 wchwhich 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 Vide Tom. 1 p. 99. Operuūum Athan. Edit Paris. 1699. I believe in the one only begotten Son Word, Wisdom, son begotten of the father without beginning & from eternity, λόγον δὲ ὀυ προφόρικον ὀυ 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 oOpinions 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 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 wchwhich 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 wchwhich condemned the five last of them. And being baffled in the hereticks it was at length relinquished by those in communion wthwith the Church Catholick.
And that you may know how dangerous this doctrine was you may know by the opinion wchwhich the major part of Christians that is the Church catholick in the second century had To w of it, who accounted it T polytheism 39polytheism 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.
Tatian the disciple of Iustin made yethe Son an unseparated part of yethe father. Natus est autem (saith he) 40
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 classingclashing 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 wchwhich were left in the Church by those who brake in & wchwhich still hang up in yethe 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 orour prayer may come to him that no other Bishop be introduced here. In hindring whichwhich 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 wchwhich Lucifer Calaritanus in a railing book wchwhich he wrote against his Emperor Constantius, makes this mention. Lucif. lib. Moriend. pro Dei filio.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 sitiqꝫque 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 wchwhich 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. Extat Epistola apud AthanasiumI know not, saith he, whether any thing ever happened wchwhich 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 nicks 41nicks, 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 [vizt] 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 wchwhich 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. Athan. Apol. 1 pag.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 aa 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. 42
a horn in the same sense wthwith 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 St 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 wchwhich 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 2d 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 yethe Exarch. And the Lombards also pr being zealous for yethe worship of images & pretending to favour the cause of yethe 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. TAnd 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 the 43 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 St 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 yethe church of Rome came speedily with an army into Italy raised yethe siege besieged the Lombards in Papia & forced them to surrender the Exarchate & region of Pentapolis to yethe 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 St Peter, that is upon his Tomb at yethe high altar in signum veri perpetuiqꝫque 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 and 44and 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 wchwhich 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 wchwhich he has ever since carried two keys in his hand & added two temporal crowns to the spiritual one upon his head.