Drafts on the history of the Church (Section 7) Isaac Newton c. 103,105 words Additional mathematical material distinct from the main text has not been transcribed Newton Project Brighton 2007-04-11 Newton Project, Sussex University

This text is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

 1710s, c. 104,337 words. Yahuda Ms. 15Drafts on the history of the Church (Section 6) [Yahuda Ms. 15.6] Yahuda Ms. 15.7, National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel IsraelJerusalemNational Library of Israel Yahuda Mss Yahuda Ms. 15.7 part of SL249

38

 1710s England English Latin Greek Holograph Unknown Hand (1) Unknown Hand (2) Unknown Hand (3) ReligionCorruptions Mint Catalogue information compiled by Rob Iliffe, Peter Spargo & John Young Tagged transcription by John Young Additional revisions input by John Young Header coding updated by Michael Hawkins Minor coding revisions input by John Young Updated to Newton V3.0 (TEI P5 Schema) by Michael Hawkins Minor coding error corrected by John Young Catalogue exported to teiHeader by Michael Hawkins 116

described, [Vnder the name of the father & son they worshipped fals Gods & is their fundamental error [called by the Apostle Paul the mystery of iniquity.] And as they agreed in one common fundamental error wchwhich made them Idolaters & Polytheists, so they were united into one common body by baptism. ffor when the Church of Rome had adllowed the Baptism of Praxeas a patripassian, & the practise of allowing the baptism of hereticks began to be of some standing in that Church, Stephen Bishop of Rome de in a letter to Cyprian defended it by the like practise of the hereticks amongst themselves who allowed one anothers baptism. But the rest of the Churches of Christ disagreed from yethe Church of Rome in this point, contending that Christ had given tono authority to Antichristians to baptize. There was but one God one Christ one spirit spirit one Church one faith & one baptism but Antichristians denied that God & that Christ & opposed that Church & had not that faith wchwhich wchwhich was into that faith & by wchwhich that faith men were admitted into And This baptism was in yethe name of that God & that Christ & that Spirit & into that faith & by wchwhich it men were admitted into that Church. And Whereas Antichristians had denied that God & that XtChrist & had not that Spirit nor that faith & opposed the baptism were enemies to that Church & had by another baptism admitted men in into another faith admitted men into another Church. the Church of Antichrist or Synagogue of Satan.

The come education of learned men in the Christian religion who prea principles of Plato & other heathen philosophers & yethe too easy admission of hereticks into yethe Church of before they became Christians, the study of the heathen learning by some Christians learned men after they became Christians the writings of Tertullian & the reception of Montanism by the bishop of Rome aboutyethe end of the 2d century & the easy admission of hereticks into yethe latine Church all in the third century & the writings of Tertullian & some other learned men gave occasion to the spreading of some heathen erroneous opinions in the very early Church her self, & particularly to yethe spreading of yethe opinion the the son of God was the Λόγος ἐνδιάθετοσ –– – – from the Sun. For Athenagoras in his Apology for the Christians, after he – – – – – – quæ est Patris et filij.

When yethe Nicene Council at yethe importunity of yethe Emperor had decreed the son to be ὁμοούσιος to the father, & Hosius who published the creed of the Council translated this word not by the word consubstantial wchwhich was the proper by the phrase unius subs by unius substantiæ & some Greek translated unius substantiæ by μιας ὀυσίας & μιας ὑποστάσεος & these translations became a stumbli being capable of several senses became a stumbling block to the people, especially to the Latines & in a few years led them in great numbers into the errors of Montanus & Sabellius.

The education of learned men in the principles of Plato & other heathen ꝑphilosophers before they became XiansChristians & the writings of Tertullian gave occasion to the spreading of those propagating of those opinions not only in the chur amongst such as separated from the Church but even in the

When the opinion that the Son or Word was is the only inward reason understa λόγος of the λογος ενδιαθετος of the father the inward reason & wisdom father emitted outwardly as Gods voice or word had a was thus far spread in the Churches as has been described, & the Emperor Const wthwith the bishops of this opiniopinion by the assistance of the Emperor Constantine had had prevailed wthwith yethe Council of Nice to decreed the Son to be ὁμοούσιος to yethe Father: Hosius who published the Creed of the Council translated the word ὁμοούσιος unius substantiæ & others translated for unius substantiæ wrote μιας ὀυσίας & μιας ὑποστάσεος. And these translations by their ambiguity became a stumbling block to yethe people & led many of them into the errors of Montanus & Sabellius, as I gather fom an epistle wchwhich what Hilary A.C. 358 wrote from Asia from the to the Bishops of Gallia & Britain. Multi ex vobis, saith he,

You have heard out of Ireæus, that all the Churches throughout the whole world agreed in one & the same faith the till his days, that is till towards the latter end of the second century, & that they kn the people were so zealous for this faith that even yethe illiterate Germans wou upon hearing the opinions of the old hereticks would stop their ears & run away. The same zeale in the common people of the Christians, both Greeks & Latines for the monarchical unity of the father & son & against their metaphysical unity is thus described by Tertullian in his book against Praxeas written And what their opinion was in those days in relation to yethe unity of yethe deity & how zealous they were for it in opposition to the memetaphysical opinions of yethe Montanists hereticks about it, is thus described by Tertullian in his book against Praxeas written in the end of yethe second century or beginning of yethe third. Simplices quosqꝫque, saith he, ne dixerim imprudentes et idiotæ quæ major semper credentium pars est.

This Oeconomy of the Montanists consisted in explaining how the father Son & holy Ghost were one by unity of substance, & the and credentium pars major, the major part of beleivers were certainly the christians of the Church catholick. And these in the Tertullian complains that these in the Greek Empire would not understand the Oeconomy of the Montanists & in the Latine empire in opposition to it cried out Monarchiam tenemus pronouncing the word Monarchy with an emphatically wthwith a loud voice, & in generall were affrighted & trembled at yethe this Oeconomy accounting it the Trinity of the Montanists a division of that unity wchwhich they held Church beleived & in wchwhich yethe Monarchy was founded & affirming that the Montanists worshiped two or three Gods

wthwith its co ουσια with its compounds ὁμοουσιος ὁμοιουσιος because not extant in scripture nor understood by yethe people Theis was first done by the Council of Sirmium A.C. 357 in a Creed subscribed by Hosius & Potunius. Then in another Council of Sirmium A.C. 359 in a Creed published before the Emperour in wchwhich they professed the son to be similis Patri secundum scripturas. And this Which Creed was published before the Emperor at Sirmium & subscribed the same year by the Councils of Ariminum in Italy & & Nice in Thrace. And the same thing was done also yethe same year by the Council of Seleucia abolished the use of those words both in their prefa preambl preface to yethe Creed of Lucius the martyr, & again at yethe end of that Creed where they say that confirm the yethe said faith of Sirmium & Ariminum. And the next year A.C. 360 the Council of Council of Constantinople pub subscribed the same faith without of Sirmium it wthwithout any material alteration of words. The reasons given for abolishing the use of those words were ytthat because they were not extant in the scripture nor received by tradition allowed by ancient Councils nor understood by the people. For by The Apostles had commanded them rule they were to hold fast the form of sound words. In The Council of Antioch convened against Paul of Samosat about 93 years 60 years before yethe Council of Nice, & had rejected the Sons being ὁμοούσιος to the father & the sentence of this Council was communicated to & approved by all the Churches of yethe Roman Empire & therefore could not be revoked. The Council of Nice had admitted the word Ὁμοούσιος hastily & wthwithout due deliberation & being pressed by the Emperor then present & the word was misinterpreted & thereby proved proved a stumbling block to people leading them into yethe errors of Sabellius, Montanus & the Gnosticks. For the Council underst of Nice took the word in yethe same sense with ὁμοιούσιος, as appeared by the Acts of the Council produced at Ariminum, but the Latines translated it unius substantiæ & unius hypostasis & the people were apt to understand this translation in the sense of those hereticks. Hilary in the third year of his banishment A.C. 358, writing to the bishops of Gaull & Britain & taking pains to make them understand in what sense the father & son were to be called una substantia, speaks thus to them, Multi ex vobis fratres charissimi – – – – Multi ex vobis, fratres charissimi saith Hilary – – – – – in some of those corrupt senses. And a little after he repeats the objection several times without denying the matter of fact Sed forte dicetur, saith he idcirco [homoousion] improbari oportere quitiose intelligentem? Male homousion Samosatenus confessus est? Sed nunquid melius Ariani negaverunt? Octoginta episcopi olim respuerunt: sed trecenti decem & octo nuper receperunt. And that the word ὁυσία was misunderstood by the people & led them into error iswas also manifest by acknowledged also by all the bishops who subscribed the Creed of the Councils of Sirmium Nice & Ariminum in wchwhich are these words. Nomen autem substantiæὀυσιας, quod a Patribus simplicius positum a patribus positum, a populisqꝫque minime intellectum offensionis causa sit: quod etiam in scripturis non contineatur, de medio tolli & nullam omnino ὀυσίας mentionem in Deo deinceps faciundum esse placuit. Thus did the eastern Churches for putting a stop to the growth of Sabellianism, Montanism, & Gnosticism &c prevail with the western Churches to lay aside the ὁμοούσιος as the Council of Antioch with the approbation of the Church Catholick had done long before for putting a stop to the growth of the heresy of Paul of Samosat. ffor a A And now the eastern & western Churches being reunited in outward profession of faith became once more the visible ChuchChurch Catholick of the Roman Empire. If it be said that the Eastern Churches were Arrians in their hearts, this is d doth not hinder them is an change accusation wchwhich no man can prove. God alone is the searcher of hearts. Man I speak of the visible church whose communion is measured by outward profession of faith. For God & Christ alone are is the searcherssearcher of hearts. We are now come to the period of time at wchwhich it was said: Athanasius continued If it be said that this Church was Arrian in outward profession of faith, I do not see for rejecting the word ὁμοούσιος, I do not see how the Church catholic in yethe days of Paul of Samosat can be excused for the like heresy doing the like

Th Hilary in his book de synodis written in Asia A.C. 358, tells the western Bishops, Tantum ecclesiarum Orientalium periculum est, ut ravum sit hujus fidei [sc. consubstantialis] quæ qualis sit vos judicate, aut sacerdotes aut populum inveniri – – – – – Nam absqꝫque Episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majori parte Asianæ decem Provinciæ intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt. This state of things increased increased so much that Ath in the reign of Iovian wchwhich was about five years after saith

The faith wchwhich Athanasius & his followers began now to profess preach was the Serdican wthwith this difference alteration that instead of saying that calling the father son & h.g. were one hyp usia & one hypostasis they called them one usia & three hypostases, that is changing the language of one hypostasis into that of three hypostases for clearing themselves from the imputation of Sabellianism under wchwhichthey had hitherto lain. [And henceforward then the words usia & hypostasis wchwhich by those of Serdican faith were taken in one & the same signification were henceforward taken in different significations] ffor by one usia & theethree hypostasis, or as the Latines exprest it, una persona & tre substantia et tres personæ they meant one substance in nature & species & three intelligent substances in number & substance meant it the word person being taken for an intelligent substance. This faith Athanasius Eusebius verc. & 12 or 15 other BpsBishops returning from banishment read & meeting at Alexandria had agreed upon at at Alexandria a few months before abolishing the use of the words usia & hypostasis except in opposition to Sabellianism. But afterwards they retained una usia in conformity with to the una substantia of yethe Latines & put hypostates in the only & distinguished the persons only by the name of hypostases.

& abolished the use of the word usia. The reasons they gave for abolishing it are thus set down by Hilary. De homœusio quod est similis essentiæ, commune iudicium est. De homousio vestro quod est unius substantiæ tractantes primum idcirco respuendum pronunciastis, quia verbi [per] verbi hujus enunciationem – – – – nusquam scriptum repenaretur./. As to The meaning of the first of these reasons is that whereas the word ὀμοούσιος properly signifes two a substances taken out of one common substance, derived from another substance by separation, eff efflux, commutio some sort of separation or distinction, & for excluding this sense the Council of Nice had allowed agreed that yethe word was not to be taken in such a sense, nor to signify any thing more then ὀμοιούσιος similis substantiæ & yet the Latines had translated yethe word unius substantiæ & thereby laid aside the interpretation of yethe word agreed upon by the Nicene Council, & gave occasion to the Nicene Council to people to understand the Nicenes decree in favour of the erros of Sabellius Montanus & the Gnosticks; for puting a stop to these errors it was fit the word usia should be laid aside. Another And that the word usia was then misinterpreted by the people Hilary himself itis witness. Multi ex nobis, fratres charissimi – – – – – quam inter se duo pares habeant. Here Hilary describes three corrupt senses in wchwhich peothe people understood yethe Nicene decree, the first in favour of Sabellianism, the second in favour of Montanism & the third in favour of the errors of Hieracas & yethe Gnosticks, & says that many of his party understood unam substantiam in some of these sen corrupt senses [& ytthat ought to be understood of a generical unity or similitude of property] And for The second reason making it appear that yethe Nicene decree ὀμοούσιος was not to be understood in any of these senses, the Acts of the Nicene Council were produced, in wchwhich the word was interpreted to signify nothing more then ὀμοιούσιος or ὁμιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν..

The second reason is made stro

For understanding the force of the second reason it is to be considered that the sentence of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosat, by wchwhich the Council rejected the ὀμοούσιος, commcatedcommunicated to & approved by all the Churches of the Roman Empire without any dispute arising thereupon. And so the Councils of Sirmium Nicæa Ariminum Seleucia & ConstantipleConstantinople are not to be blamed for restoreding the a decree wchwhich had been made by the Council of Antioch & established by the consent of the Church Catholick above 90 years before, & so had the tradition of the Church catholick on its side.

The third reason, namely that the ὀμοούσιος wchwhich the Nicene fathers had been compelled to admit, was not to be received because not in scripture, is made stronger by the AposlesApostles command: Hold fast the form of sound words. A command wchwhich no general Council whatever had authority to repeal or trans

Vpon these reasons the Council of Sirmium

118

p. 33Epiphanius tells us that the Scribes held various traditions some of wchwhich they derived from Moses, others from Akkiba others from Andanus or Ananus & others from yethe sons of Assamonæans, & celebrated these traditions under the name of wisdome & learning. And ytthat yethe phariseesp. 34 added to the Doctrines of the scribes, & attributed much to fate & Astronomy35 gving hebrew names to the translating the greek names of yethe seven seven Planets & 12 signes into the hebrew language. Whence I gather its probable that the Cabbala descended through their hands to posterity its probable that the Cabbala was handed down by the Scribes & Pharisees handed down the Cabbala were Cabbalists & Doctors of the law. For Akkiba is recconned among the Cabbalists. New heresies began first amongst the Iews. For Hegesippus tells us that Hegesippus tells us ytthat from the sects of the Iews founded by Thebutis simon & others came the sects of Menander Marcion Carpocrates Valentinus Basilides Saturnilis &c.

Irenæus calls Simon

119

And that every son is ὁμοούσιος to his father, & if the son of God be a true natural son he must be also ὁμοούσιος, & that the son being the image of the father, & perfectly like him with an per invariable likeness to express this more fully they Council wrote him consubstantial, & (in the name of Theognostus) that the ὀυσία of yethe son is not taken from without nor deduced out of nothing but born of the fathers ουσία & flows from it as the splendor of light & the vapour of water, & yet by this nativity the ουσιαof yethe father suffers no change division or change, having the son its image. And if such a similitude of substance was the sense of yethe the Council

these these

For SrSir Isaac Newton at his House in St Martin's streat near Leciester fields London

120

8 Hod æs. 2 Cochmah gradus plumbi Chesil argentum. 1 Icod argentum vivum. 5 Geberah 1 Kether radim metallica p. 117. 3 Binal stannum p. 117. 6 Tophereth ferrum p. 118 7 Nezach æs 10 Malchuth medicina metallorum p. 118. 4 Gedulah argentum p. 118. 9 Iesod plumbum p 118 fæmina metallica, aqua auri. p. 118. 1, 2, 3 Chether Cochin bina principia metallica. 4 Gedulah Chesed argentum. 5 Geburah aurum. 6 Tipherath ferrum 7 Nezach stannum 8 Hod æs. 9 9 Iesod plumbum 10 Malcuth argentum vivum fæmina metallica aqua auri. p. 118.

but Hyparchus & Ptolomy placed a primum mobile above it & Theologus has placed an infinite & immoaveable calm empyrean above that, & to have die accordingly the Cabbalists have placed three sephiroths above the planetary orbs (Kether Cochmah & Binah) & comprehended them under the name of Arech Anpin & they first called the crown to signify that it encompasses all the rest & made it infinite And in like manner some of the Gnostics have placed more Æons then one above the planetary Orbs. they supposed to be infinite & called it the crown to signify that it encompasses all the rest. And some of the Gnosticks in like manner placed more Æons then one above the orbs of the Planets & said equalled the first Æon to the supreme father.

And the Gnosticksalso imitated the heathens & Cabbalists in the manner of generating their Æons, making them either hermaph males & females or hermaphoditeshermaphrodites & to generate one another in a litteral sense that is by emission of substance as animals generate other animals of the same species A by seminal emissioonsemissions. And thence the

The Cabbalists placed Æn Soph the Infinite or first God in the highest heaven. And under him they placed a sphære wchwhich they called his garment & under that a sphere of splendor or light (wchwhich Divines call cœlum empyricum & make the seat of yethe ) & under that a spaceof the first aer wchwhich some have called the soul of the world, & in this space they say the ten sephirahs were gradually produced. The first or highest next under the sphere of splendor The first or highest was the sphere called Kether the Crown wchwhich e & the highest crown because it encompassed the other nine. This sphere was much less then the sphere of splendor there being a vast empty space between them. And within this sphere were 9 or 10 the spheres of the other nine Sephiroths the lowest of wchwhich was Malcath the kingdom. These sephiroths they distinguished into two classes, called Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin the man wthwith a gtgreat face & yethe man wthwith a little face & in Seir Anpin comprendedcomprehended the seven lower sephiroths & put the names of these seven sephiroths to signify the seven metals. Whence it it seems to me ytthat they made the orbs of the seven Planets & that this Cabbalistical philosophy had it's rise from the Aristotles system of the world. He being the master of Alexander the great, his philosophy came into request among in the reign of the successors of Alexander & chiefly especially in Egypt The three superior Sephiras comprehended in Arich Anpin, answer to the Cœlum empyreum the primum mobile & the firmamentūum stellatum. And thus the ten sephirahs are nothing else then the intelligences wchwhich AristoleAristotle & his successors placed in the heavenly eight Orbs of yethe the Planets & fixt stars & to Aristotel made but eight Orbs & then seven of yethe Planets & one of the fixt stars & thence came the ogdoas of Æons as I said above. Hyparchus & Ptolomy added a ninth called the Primum mobile, & P Theologers have added the cœlum empyreum & reccon it the seat of the blessed. The Cabbalists also supposed that the souls of men come down from above & passed into various bodies till they had performed all that they were to do And thus does the philosophy of the Cabbalists agree wthwith that of the Gnosticks.

For the Gnosticks Simon Menander Nicolas Saturninus Basilides Carpocras, Valentinus, Secundus Ptolomæus Epiphanes Marcus Heracleon Calarbasus Tatian & the Cainites Ophites Sethians Barbelites Phibeonites Militaries &c made many emissions Æons or Deities male & female & derived them from the first God & from one another by generation, or emission of substanceor vertue & from them derived Archangels & Angels & the souls of men & said that the world was made not by the first God but either by the Angels or by one or more of the Æons. And Irenæus tells us And placing their chief Æons with Angels under them in the orbs of the seven Planets & fixt stars made an Ogdoas of principal Æons or intelligencies to to govengovern those Orbs with with Angels under them according to the number of the Orbs & said that they governed the world tyranically & kept the souls of men below & made them pass into various bodies. And that either the supreme God or one of the Angels his first Æon one of the highest Æons descended from above the highest heaven to teach men their science how the knowledge by wchwhich their souls might be saved from yethe power of the tyranny of the Angels & suffered to enabled to escape them & after death to escape them & ascend upwards through the Orbs to their first station & condition. [And some of them as Simon Menander Saturninus Basilides Cerdo Marcion Basilides said that this Saviour descended with a putative body & appeared as a man but was not a true man, others as Valentinus & Secundus that in descending through the orbs he framed to himself a ma out of the elements a real body of flesh & bones but was not man & took not without taking flesh of the Virgin & others that Valent as the Ebionites Cerinth Nicolaitans Sethians Ophites & Cerinthus, & Carpocras & Valentinus, & Secundus, & Epiphanes, & Colarbasus & Marcus & in general the Nicolaitans with their various sects of Sethians, Ophites, Cainites, Gnosticks properly so called, Phibionites &c that Christ the saviour descended upon Iesus the son of Mary & did the supernatural works. And some of these as Cerinthus & said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary, others as the Sethians & Ophites that he was the son of the Virgin Mary by the power of God & others as Valentinus & Secundus that he descended from above & in descending thro the orbs formed to himself a bo out of the elements a true body of flesh & bones & f without taking flesh of the Virgin, & Valentinus said that he passed through the Virgin as water through a pipe.] And from their pretending to science & particularly to yethe knowledge wchwhich the Saviour came down to teach, & placing their religion for their salvation in this science they were called Gnosticks. And this mystery of iniquity, these endless genealogies, these oppositions of science falsly so called these fables, old wives fables, Iewish fables began to work in the Apostles days, & consisted of of the metaphysical theology of the heathens & Cabbalists introduced into the Christian religion, ffor & pa & particularly of the Egyptian Chald Pythagoric, Platonic & Cabbalistic transmigration of souls, & of the heathen Gods & Astrological Intelligencies & Cabbalisticall sephiroths seated in the orbs of the starry firmament & seven Planets the first Sephiroth called Arech Anpin the man with a great face & the seven next Sephiroths called by them Seir Anpin, the man with a little face, & ffor For the Cabbalists put the names of the seven last Sephiroths for the seven metals & by consequence by the Cabbalists & the Gods ytthat to wchwhich the seven metals are the Gods dedicated are the Gods of the seven planetary orbs They Cabbalists distinguished their ten Sephiroths into Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin, the man with a great face & the man with a little face [& by Seir Arich Anpin understood the second first or highest sephiroth] & by Arich Seir Anpin all understood the seven lower Sepiroths under him that is the of seven intelligences in the seven Planetary orbs, & these of answered in number to the or Gods of the Planetary orbs ffor as the Gr. & Latins put the names of the seven Planets for the seven metals so the Cabbalists put the names of the seven last sephiroths for the seven metals the sephiroth or sephirots above the Planetary orbs intelligences & because the Astronomers make a by Arich Anpin the hi first or highest Sephiroths of the Sephiroths, answering to the sephiro intelligences, in the starry firma in the heaven or heavens above the Planetary orbs. ffor This 8th heaven till the after the days of Alexander the great was was at first called only reputed called only the starry firmament, but Pt Hypparchus & Ptolomy added added a distinguished it into the starry firmament & the primum mobile & heaven, the cœlum empyreum crystallinum & the primum mobile & others the Theologers added the cœlum empyreum And so Which made up the number of ten Sephirots, the three first of wchwhich were comprehended in the Arich Anpin, the supreme God wthwith these three & the seven last in Seir Anpin] & Theologers gave the name of cœlum empyreum to the infinite immoveable space beyond the primum mobile & so made up the number of ten heavens with their Sephiroths the three first of wchwhich were comprehended in Arich Anpin & the seven last in Seir Anpin. ffor the Cabbalists refer the three first Sephiroths called Kether Cochma & Binah to Arich Anpin & so have turned the Ogdoas into a Decas of Æons. And The Gnosticks were apt to increased the number of their gods Æons & more then the Cabbalists might do the like did, making them at length as many as days in the month or year, & placing many of them above the Planetary Orbs.

The religion of the Encratites was set up on foot by Tatian & Montanus, (two Gnosticks). And the superstionssuperstitions religion of the Moncks were is of the same kind, but more absurd. Monckery was set up in Egypt by Antony & soon after in Syria by Hilarion, & spread so much that in the reign of Valen soon after the reign of Iulian the apostate a third part of Egypt was the wildernesses of Egypt wer a third part of the Egyptians were got into the deserts of Egypt. They lived first singly in cells, then associated into small companies & cænobia & at last length came into towns, & filled the churches with bishops presbyters & deacons. Athanasius finding the Athanasius finding Athanasius in his younger days poured water upon the hands of his master Antony poured wa He was first a monck then a Deacon & then a bishop & finding the Moncks faithful to him made many of them bishops & Presbyters in Egypt & these bishops erected Monasteries in their cities, out of wchwhich they chose Presbyters & sent bishops to other cities. And the like was done in Syria. Spiridion & Epiphanius of Cyprus, & Iames of Nisibis were both moncks & bishops in the time of the council Cyril of Ierusalem, Eustachius of Sebastia in Armenia Eusebius of Emissa, Titus of Bostra, Basilius of Ancyra, Acacius of Cæsarea were both Bishops & Moncks. Epiphanius in Palæstine Elpidius of Laodicæa Melitius, & & Flavian & Chrysostom of Antioch, Theodorus of Tyre, Protogenes of Carrhæ, Acacius of Berekæa, Theodotus of Hierapolis Eusebius of Chalcedon, Amphilochius of Iconium were both bishops & moncks. Eustachius Sebastenus Basil, Gregory Nazianzen & Gregory Nyssen & Eustathius Sebastenus had monasteries by of Clergymen in their cities, & propa were the first who propagated the this sort of Monkery in Cappado Armenia Cappadocia & Asia minor. Pontus And Eusebius Vercellensis, Hilary & Martin were the first who carried this sort of Monckery into the west & Austin carried it into Afric, All & all these being both bishops & moncks erected monasteries of clergymen in their cities out of wchwhich bishops were sent to other cities who in like manner erected monasteries in their cities w till the churches were supplied with Bishops & Presbyters out of the monasteries & Whence Ierom saith of in a letter written about the year 385Epist. 10. saith of the Clergy: Quasi et ipsi aliud sint quam Monachi & non quicquid in Monachos dicitur non redundit in Clericos qui patres sunt Monachorum Detrimentum pecoris pastoris ignominia est. And in his book against Vigilantius Quid facient Orientis Ecclesiæ? quid Æypti & sedis Apostolicæ? quæ aut virgines Clericos accipiunt, aut continentes, aut si uxores habuerint mariti esse desistunt.

Thus the encratites invaded the Churches of God & got the Empire into their hands. And now you may understand the meaning of the Apostles words where he saith. 1 Tim. 4Now the spirit speeaks expresly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits & doctines of ghosts: speaking lies in hypocrisy (in their legends & figments of miracles done by yethe dead) having consciences seared as with a hot iron: forbidding to marry & commanding to abstain from meats wchwhich God hath created to be received wthwith thanksgiving of them who beleive & know the truth. For every creature of God is good & nothing to be refused if it be received wthwith thanksgiving.

122

the days of Iustin Martyr notwithstanding without falling out about their different opinions. ffor when Trypho yethe Iew put Iustin upon proving that Iesus Christ was God before the world began & was afterwards born & became a man: Iustin makes this in returning an answer subjoins. Veruntamen, O Tripho, non perierit illud, Christum hunc esse Dei, si demonstrare nequeam, et fuisse prius filium conditoris universitatis hujus Dei, esseqꝫque Deum, & genitum esse hominem ex virgine; sed hoc tantum ex omnibus præ ostensis probarem quod hic est Christus Dei, quicunqꝫque tandem sit. Quod si non demonstravero inquam, eum et prius extitisse Sed ex omni præ ostenso [sequatur tantum] quod hic est ChistusChristus Dei, quicunqꝫque tandem sit. Quod Sic autem non demonstravero, inquam, eum et prius extitisse et nasci hominem sustinuisse ijsdem nobiscum passionibus obnoxium, carnem habentem secundum Patris consilium & voluntatem: in eo ipso tantum æquum fuerit me errore lapsum esse dicere, non autem negare hunc esse Christum illum, etiamsi si modo tanquam homo ex hominibus genitus, videatur esse appareat et electione Christus factus esse ostendatur. Sunt enim aliqui, O amici, ex genere nostro, profitentes hunc esse ipsum Christum esse, sed hominem tamen ex hominibus genitum affirmantes: quibus non assentior, neqꝫque id sane multi, qui in eadem mecum sententia sunt, dixerint Iustin. Dial. cum Tryphon p. 267

The Christians therefore who beleived that Christ was before the world began, were much the greater number in the days of Iustin Martyr but did not yet looke upon the Christians of the other party Christians opinion as hereticks Onr the contrary they looked upōon think the difference between the two opinions as not material to the truth of the Christian religion. And And in this state things continued till the days of Victor. ffor Victor excommunicated one Theodotus a Tanner for affirming that Christ was a mere man born of the virgin Mary by the power of the holy Ghost, & elected for his justice & vertue. And henceforward those of this opinion were accounted hereticks & Theodotus was accounted the first author of the heresy. the P But those who beleived Christ to be but a mere man &ee Euseb. Hist. l. 5 c. ult. particularly the followers of Artemon) represented that this was the doctrine of the Christians till yethe times of Victor & that from yethe times of his successor Zepherinus (in whose days also Artemon was condemned for in yethe east for yethe like opinion) the truth was adulterated.

Also the Church of Rome in the days of Pope Victor began to lay stress upon contend about place religion in ceremonies & to err in the faith. ffor this Pope excommunicated the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter upon the 14th day of the first month of the Iewish year a thing in its own nature indifferent & wrote communicatory letters to yethe Churches Churches of the Montanists in Asia & PhygiaPhrygia, & then turned Patripassian & recalled those letters, as Tertullian a Montanist in his book against Praxeas written about the year 201 thus mentions. – – – – – – – crucifixit. The Predecessors of Victor who had opposed the Montanists were Soter & Eleutherus. ffor Soter wrote against them at their first rise, & Irenæus was sent to Rome by the church of Lyons to conferr wthwith Eleutherus against them. And therefore Victor was the first BpBishop of Rome who turned Montanist. He seems to have closed with the Montanists of Asia & Phrygia in opposition to the true Church he excommunicated.

The changes therefore wrought in the Church of Rome by Pope Victor in respect of the faith were so very great that we may begin the third state or age of the church with yethe Papacy of St Victor or reign of the Emperor Severus.

And this is to be understood as well of the Christians of yethe circumcision as of the Christians of the uncircumcision. ffor Iustin Martyr in his Dialogue wthwith Tryphon written between the years 140 & 148 150, represents that Christian circumcis Iews might keep the law & circumcise their children but Christian Gentiles might not. His words are: Si ipsi [Iudæi] propter animi imbecilitatem, etiam quæcunqꝫque nunc possunt ex Mosæ constitutionibus, quæ ob duritiam p cordis populi sancita esse intelligimus, unà cum concepta in hunc Christum spes atqꝫque perpetuis naturâqꝫque comparatis justitiæ et religionis veræ actionibus, servare, & cum Christianis fidelibusqꝫque vivere voluerint; ut modo illis non suadeant pariter cum eis circumcidi ac sabbata agere aliaqꝫque quæcunqꝫque tandem sunt ejusmodi, exequi: eos recipiendos & ad communionem verūum omnium ut fratres, eorundemqꝫque viscerum homines, admittendos esse censuerim. Sin qui generis vestri sunt, in hunc Christum se credere asseverantes, O Trypho, dixi omnibus modis secundum legem per Mosem latam eos vivere cogant qui ex gentibus in hunc Christūum credunt; aut a consuetudinis istiusmodi commercio eos excludere statuant cum illis qui sic instituuntur communicare recusant: consimiliter et hos non susceperim. Eos vero qui (ex gentibus fideles) qui observatione in Christum professionis, in legalem cum illis consentiant politiam, itidem non salvari putem. Thus And this I account the state of the Church till the death of Iustin & & Polycarp & the days of Pope Eleutherus catholic in point of the faith & communion beleiving Iews & Gentiles of the churches till the days of death of In the days death of Iustin & the days of Pope Eleutherus & his successor Victor. For about that time they some Christians began to make additions to their creed mixing strong meats with the milk wchwhich was to be given to babes. There wa And particularly in opposition to the Gnosticks who denyed the resurrection of the body & maintained that the souls of men after various transmigrations returned into God, some Latines began to add yethe resurrection of the body & the life everlasting to the end of their Creed, & some Greeks Gree in opposition to yethe Ebionites some Greeks began to insert the creation of the world by Iesus Christ. & thus by mixing strong meats wthwith yethe milk wchwhich was to be given to babes they

For the Ebionites & Nazarenes beleived that Christ Iesus was a mere man who for his supreme vertue was chosen before other men & annoninted King of the Iews by yethe spirit & thence called the Messiah or Christ that is the annointed. And the Nazarenes were of the same opinion in the days of the Apostles. But after the calling of the Gentiles & the days of yethe Council of Ierusalem when part of the Nazarenes ou to s endeavoured to impose the law upon the Gentiles as necessary to salvation them & part of them complied with the decree of yethe Council of Ierusalem about this matter & refused to communicate with them upon other terms, & these became yethe Ebionites & part of them communicated w complied with the con communicated with the Gentiles with uncircumcision. And These two parties lived together in the Church of Ierusalem under Iames & Symeon till the destruction of that city dispersion of yethe Iews & then the Nazarenes who refused to converse wthwith the Churches of the uncircumcision gained the Name of Ebionites & the other Nazarene mixed by degeres wthwith yethe Churches of the

For like the in the first age of Christianity days of Iustin Martyr [there were Christians who beleived that yethe world was created by Iesus Christ, &] there were Christians (especially among the Iews) who beleived that I Iesus took his beginning from the Virgin Mary, & for his vertue was chosen before other men for his vertue & was chosen therefore annointed king of the Iews by the Holy Ghost & thence called the Messiah or Christ that is the annointed, & there were other Christians (especially among the Gentiles) who beleived that Iesus was before the creation of the world began & that the world was created by him. And these two sorts of Christians conversed together as friends brethren & communicated with one another as members of the Catholick Ch. till the

⊡ – holy men. The Iews who first published Talmudists in setting down the measures of Herods Temple, omitted some measures from north to south on either side of the altar, & the following later Iewish writers dividing the summ of the omitted cubits into two equal parts have placed the altar nearer to the south side of the Temple Priests court then to the north side: whereas they should have divided that summ unequally so that the altar might have stood in the center of the court. The altar was 32 cubits broad & between it & the little rail on the north side were many 24 rings in the pavement for tying down the sacrifices to be slain. From the altar to yethe rings was a space of eight cubits. The space of the rings took up 24 cubits & there were two cubits more to the little rail. And on the south side of the altar there was a sloopingsloping ascent to yethe altar without steps. This ascent took up 30 cubits upon the pavement & there remained a space of four cubits more to the little rail. And thus much concerning the Temple. It remains that we see &c

Solis semi vero diameter mediocris apparens 32' 15" & parallaxis horizontalis mediocris 10" usurpari potest. Lunæ semi diameter mediocris apparens in Octantibus syzygij 31' 30", in Quadraturis vero 31'.3 & parallaxis horizontalis mediocris in syzygijs 57. 30 in quadraturis 55 40, in Octantibus 57. 5

123

What the Ebionites meant by the first of these three opinions I do not well understand unless perhaps they meant that Christ was the Adam Kadmon or first Man of the Cabbalists, that is, their first Sephiroth or Æon called by them Cochmah the Crown or supreme beginn Æon Sephiroth & by the Gnosticks Αρχὴ the beginning or Principle. But be that as it will it is manifest that the Ebionites according to all the three opinions here ascribed to them taught that Christ was as old as the creation of yethe world, & according to the second & third opinion & perhaps yethe 1st also that he was above the Angels & the Archangels & reigned over them, & all things else from the beginning [[ & at legth so with by the Cabbalists must be taken for Adam Kadmon & by all th not inferior either in time or dominion to the Adam Kadmon of the Cabbalists, or to the Angel of Gods presence in the scriptures.] And tho they called him a creature said that he was created yet they those of yethe second sort meant not surely not that he was a created out of nothing but rather that he was the firs the first begotten of every creature [& ἡ ἀρχὴ της κτίσεως του θεου And yet the Ebionites of third so the princ the beginning of the creation of God. A T Those of the [Now whilst if this was the doctrine of theEbionites much more did the Nazarenes think honourably of Christ & make him before all things & above all things.] Those of the third sort in not saying that he was not the generated of God the father but created, might meane at first in those days that he was not generated of the virgin Mary by the power of God but of Ioseph & Mary by the ordinary course of nature, or they might mean that he was not generated before the world began in the manner of the heathen Gods by prolation emanation projection but produced by such a power as they called formation out of something wchwhich & we should rather call generation then creation.] & those of the third that he was ἡ ἀρχὴ της κτίσεως του θεου would no & those of the third that he did not say that he was not generated after the manner of the heathen Gods or by emission of of substance. & those of the third that he was not generated in the usual signification of the word, that is, by emission of the fathers substance, as men are generated & as the heathens supposed their Gods to be generated. The main difference between the Ebionites was in their opinions about Christ about inthe incarnation of this XtChrist some of them sa] & came down from heaven & was either incarnate of yethe virgin or descended upon Iesus. And whereas they said that he was created they meant only that he was not generated in the sense of yethe words then in use.

And if the Ebionites took Christ made Christ as old as the creation & took him to be the supreme being next under the father & Lord of the Universe much more did the Nazarenes. ffor the Nazarenes generally took called XtChrist yethe son of God wchwhich those Nazare Ebionites who said that Iesus was yethe son of Ioseph, did not. Those Ebionites saidthat Ionly that Iesus was the son of God by election & by the descent of Christ upon him, but they allowed no generation of Christ as the Nazarenes did, & therefore the nor did they say say with the Naz that Christ suffered on the cross & rose again from the dead. & therefore These things they attributed only to Iesus the son of Ioseph & Mary & said [& if at any time they called him Iesus Christ they] that isbut therefore the Nazarenes who said that Christ (meaning what we call the divine nature) was the son of God & suffered & rose again & ascended, were of the opinion of those who beleived that Christ came down from heaven, took flesh of the Virgin by the power of God & thereby he became a man & was born of her & being & suffered & rose again from the dead & ascended where he was before, & by reason of his supernatural incarnation was called the son of God.

Vpon the com Iewish war commencing, the Christian Iews fled from Ierusalem into other countries & chiefly into Peræa on the eastern side of Iordan. No And there they acquired the name of Ebionites, being con being called Ebionites so by them selves & their freinds & Nazarenes by their enemies the Ie unbeleiving Iews. ffor they gloried in yethe name of Ebionites & said that they knew of no such man as Ebion, but but from the times of yethe Apostles had releived distributed what they had their goods to the poor to yethe poor & so bei by that means being generally poor impoverished were called Ebionites from the heb word Ebion wchwhich in their language signifies a poor man. And divers among them being so zealous of the law as not only to observe it themselves but also to impose it on the converted Gentiles Christians & th these zelots also falling into the opinion that Christ descended upon Iesus the son of Ioseph & Mary, the name of Ebionites at length degenerated into the name of this heresy, the nam this heresy denoting those Iews. But however those only being called Ebionites who said that Iesus was the son of Ioseph & Mary & that Christ descended upon Iesus, that is the divine nature upon the humane. And from all this it is hence manifest that of the Iews of the circumcision Christians of the Church of Ierusalem whether Ebionites or others beleived from the beginning that Christ was from the time of the creation a a being superior to the Angels & Archangels & at length came down from heaven & either was incarnate or descended upon Iesus. And this faith spread from Ierusalem into all the earth. By the descending of XtChrist upon Iesus they meant * * in our language the descent of the divine nature upon the humane

Also what the Seigniorage has been deteined for seigniorage & for the charge of the first melting according to the rules of the mint & whether all the rest have been pai delivered out of the Mint to the Paymasters: & if not, then who has had the profit made by the lightness & coarsness of the two ryall pieces new money & how the Queen must have satisfaction. Also what evidence the Paymasters have (suppose by the books of the Mint & of the Melter or by Receipts or Certificates or living witnesses) that they have / I suspect that the Mint Master has paid out five two Ryal pieces for every ounce standard received that is coined or an hundred for every twenty ounces & deteined 3 or 4 or perhaps 5 peices for seigniorage: whereas in every twenty ounces of Ingot produces about 110 two Ryall pieces If this be so, then Inquiry should be made about the excess above Who has had the profit of the excess remainder. For every twenty ounces of Ingot produces about 110 two ryal pieces.

The word wchwhich was in the beginning with God was

That this word was not an emanation or emission or λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ἢ προφορικὸς but a pro a thing emitted without a proper & distinckdistinct will & understanding but a person or Being with a proper will & understanding. Λ [not the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ἢ προφοικὸς sometime but a person] or substance Being with a proper will & understanding.]

but also to avoid the communion of the churches of yethe Gentiles who did not observe it, they were censured by those Churches for this separation & distinguished

And these Iews even from the days of the Apostles being for the most part so zealous of yethe law as not only to observe it themselves but also to avoid the communion of yethe Churches of yethe gentiles who did not observe it, they were for this separation censured by& con condemned by the Churches of the Gentiles & at length distinguished from the rest of the Nazarenes by the Name of Ebionites. ffor Ierome tells us ytthat the Ebionites were anathematized by the fathers for this alon nothing else but mingling the law with the Gospel.

124
Chap XVI Of the contest between the host of heaven and the transgressors of the holy covenant.

We have hitherto described the state of the Host of heaven or Church of God down from the days of the Apostles to the times in wchwhich of those men who introduced in which the invocation of Saints called by Daniel the transgression of desolation began to be introduced. It remains that we shew how the authors of this worship invocation separated from the Church of God, made war upon her & & set up an antichurch of transgressors. For the transgressors who trode under In the reign of the Emperor Iulian the apostate A.C. 362 Athanasius & about 14 or 16 other excommunicated Bishops, most of them of Egypt returning from banishment fro the Host of heaven & the sanctuary under foot must of necessity be a distinct body of men from the host which they trampled upon. And the transgressors who set up authors of the invocation of Saints separated from the Church of God & oppressed her at the same time that they set up that transgression

In the reign of the Emperor Iulian the apostate A.C. 362, Athanasius & about fourteen or sixteen other excommunicated bishops, most of them of Egypt, returning from banishment,

Due to Mr Spelman at Midsummer 1707 1. 0. 6. 1708 81. 1709 161. at XtChristmas 1709 201. Paid Mr Molins 30.13.4 & 22.15.0 53. 8. 4 Paid Mr Walker 32. 0. 0 Taxes 12li & 12li & 6 30. 0. 0 Lent 32li 32. 0 0 147. 8. 4 21. 13. 4.
Due at Lady day 1708 0. 0. 0 Due to Mr Spelman at Lady day 1708. 5. 6. 8 1709 80. 0. 0 PdPaid to Mr Walker 16. XtChristmas 1709 60. 0. 0 Spelman 21. 53. 4 140. 0. 0 Taxes 32. 00. 0 PdPaid Mr Molins 22 15. 0. Mr Molins 22 15. 0 Mr Walker 16 16. 2. 6 Mr Spelman 32. 0. 0 Taxes 20. 10. 0 Taxes 6. 0. 0 21. 00 0 150. 0. 10 145. 6. 8 4. 13. 2
Lady day 1708 advanced 32 Lent Ian 22 17089 32 Paid Mr Molins 22. 15 Taxes a year & 3 qtersquarters 21 PdPaid Octob 16 1709 15 Guineas 16. 2. 6 PdPaid Ian 17101 20. 10. 0 Rent due 140li 144. 7. 6 140. 0. 0
p tot:: AB−EF. AB. Et p tot. resist:: AB+EF. AB−EF p columnæ resist:: AB+EF. AB. Velocitas cadendo ab I ad H acquisita. IH. IG:: ☉EF. ☉AB:: IJ. IO:: IO. IG. understand that the party of Athanasius was very small & the first half of t some part of the reign of Valens & that those who ans were more numerous & those whom they called Arians and at that time the flourishing religion of the eastern Empire; You may & that the (except the d church of Millain) in the first three or four first years of Valentinian & Valens returned to the homousian faith & embraced the communion of both the Athanasians & Macedonians without medling with the dispute between them concerning the holy deity of the holy Ghost; but wthwith at length he declared for the Athanasians & threatned to turn the Macedonians out of their bishopricks if they did not come over to the faith of three persons & one God, they were all And at the same time one or more Councils in Spain declared for the same faith. And from this time forward, that is during the last six or seven years of the the reign of Valens there was a very sharp contention. One of his He was accused of killing by the Meletians of killing Arsenius, one of their bishops & of seueral other crimes & condemned for them – – – – – – – in his own defence this Council wrote also to the Churches in defense of Athanasius & in their Letter represent that Arsenius was alive & desired to be joyned in communion with them, & did not expect other testimony but to prove that he was alive but he himself confessed in his letters that he was alive by his letters wchwhich he wrote to our bishop Athanasius whom they affirmed to be his murderer. Nor were theyose wicked men ashamed to charge him with killing a man who was at so great a distance from us by land & sea, & whose place of abode at that time was known to no man. Yea they dared to hide him & make him disappear when he had suffered nothing And if it could have been, they would have translated him into another world, or rather have killed him that they might have killed AthathanasiusAthanasius either by objecting either a true or feigned murder. But herein thanks be to yethe divine providence which suffered nothing unjust to prevail, but produced Arsenius alive [vizt by his letters] before the eyes of all men & manifestly convicted them of reprehended reproved their conspiracy & calumny. For he does not avoid us as his murderers nor hates us as injurious to him. ffor he hath suffered no harm at all, but desires to join in communion with us, & wishes to be amongst us, as his letters testify as he hath written in his Letter. This was all that Athanasius & 90 bishops of Egypt & Libya had at that time to say of this matter. for Athanasius themselves. They knew nothing of the hand of Arsenius in a bag or of his appearing alive at m before yethe Council of Tyre otherwise then by his Letters. Al On the contrary they say that Arsenius confessed by his Letter to Athanasius expected no then his expected staid for no other testimonies of his being alive besides the Letter wchwhich he had sent to Athanasius & by which he exprest his desire to be amongst them. This This letter it seems was produced at the Council of Tyre to prove that Arsenius was alive & the was Bishops of Egypt still in this Council of Alexandria insisted upon it as a sufficient proof of this matter his being alive & of his ✝ ✝ desire to be amongst them: wchwhich is a demonstration that he was not yet amongst them & that they had no better evidence of his being alive & desiring to be amongst them then this Letter. The letter is extant in the apology of Athanasius against the Arians & has an air of fiction. And if Arsenius had appeared alive before the Council of Tyre it is not to be imagined that the Council would have persisted in condeming them for the murder or that Athanasius would have fled from the Council or been banished by the Emperor Constantine. When Athanasius was first accused of killing Arsenius he made the Emperor beleive that Arsenius was alive. But Arsenius not appearing the Emperor commanded that the cause should be heard before the Council of Athanasius came not & & the Emperor the next year commanded that yethe cause should be heard before yethe Council of Tyre & threatned Athanasius that if he would not goe thither he should send him thither be carried by force. Athanasius then went with a great multitude of Egyptians. The Council heard the cause between him & his accusers & for their further satsfaction sent six of their number into Egypt to inform themselves upon the spot. Vpon the report of the six bishops Athanasius fled to the Emperor. The Council sent some of their number to acquaint the Emperor with their proceedings, & upon hearing the whole matter the Emperor banished Athanasius into Gallia & five years after five years more Athanasius & the 90 bishops of Egypt Libya made the defence above mentioned. But no one witness wa is named in history who had ever seen Arsenius alive after Athanasius was accused of killing him.: wchwhich they would not have done if they could have proved it by living witnesses is a demonstration that they had no other evidence When the Easter next after these Councils of Antioch & Alexandria approched, the eastern Emperor Constantius sent Gregory to Alexandria – – – – – – – Greek Church over her own members But after the reign of the Emperors Constantius & Iulian, Pope Liberius revolted Some bishops were also banished in Egypt for no adhering to Athanasius & making disturbances, & on these accounts the Emperor has been railed at as a great persecutor tho he was the mildest & most pious of a very mild & pious temper 126 about 10 years after the Council of Sirmium] By his making the body of Christ to be moved & actuated by the Word without any other a humane soul you may know what was the opinion of the Patripassians Sabellius Noetus Praxeas Hermogenes & the rest touching the incarnation The Council of Antioch wchwhich condemned Paul represented that he fell into the heresy of Artemas [And Artemas (called also Artemon) was condemned as a heretick about 50 or 60 or perhaps 70 years before. And if Theodotus the Tanner whom Pope Victor condemned was the same man with Theodotus the Cataphrygian he might not differ much in opinion from from the opinions of Montanus Æschines Artemas & Paul] & Artemas flourished in the reigh of Severus or soon after. And Eustathius the disciple of Mon bishop of Antioch was deposed for Sabellianism A.C. 328 & banished by the Emperor Constantine the great. He was The Iews of the circumcision called Ebionites many of the Nazare & some of the Nazarenes held that Christ was a mere man & therefore received not the writings of Iohn in wchwhich he is called the λόγος. Of the same opinion were also some Christians of the uncircumcision called Alogi by Epiphanius. The Ebionites were such as the Apostle Paul reprehends for imposing the law upon the Gentiles. For they arose from the Christians of the circumcision who fled to Pella upon the sige of Ierusalem & they were a branch of the Church of Ierusalem under Iames & They communicated wthwith the Churches of the circumcision ( ) but were schismaticks for refusing to communicate wthwith Christians of the uncircumcision. The Nazarenes & Alogi continued in communion wthwith the Churches of the uncisionuncircumcision till about the end of the second century. For Iustin Martyr tells u in his dialogue against Tryphon tells us speaks to him in this manner,p. 267 Verum enim vero, Trypho, dixi, non perierit illud Christum hunc esse Dei si demonstrare nequeam et fuisse prius filium conditoris universitatis esseqꝫque Deum et genitum esse hominem ex virgine: sed suffic ex omni demonstrat sequatum tantum quod hic sit Christus Dei quicunqꝫque tandem fuerit. At si non demonstravero inquam, eum et prius extitisse et nasci hominem sustinuisse – – – – – – – qui in eadem mecum sententia sunt dixerint. And a little after the death of Iustin The Alogi therefore were not yet accounted hereticks. EphiphaniusEpiphanius tells us that this heresy arose after that of the CataphygiansCataphrygians, that is, they began then to be accounted hereticks. But I do not find that they were when Theodotus the currier of Byzantium was dep condemned by Pope Victor for holding Christ to be a mere man & soon after I think in the days of Zepherin the successor of Victor Artemon the master of Theodotus was deposed comnedcondemned in the days of soon after by the Greeks for yethe same error, I think in the days of Zepherin the successor of Victor they alled their disciples alledged that their opinion was most ancient taught by the Apostles & first Christians & the truth of the doctrine preached was conserved to yethe days of pope Victor, but from the days of his successor Zepherin was adulterated. Yet I do not find that Theod Artemon & Theodotus were of the same opinion with the Ebionites & Alogi. These one last rejected the λόγος & the writings of Iohn, the former (so far as I can find) owned both. but held that Christ was a mere man inhabited by the λόγος. ffor Epiphanius argues against them Theodotus out of the writings of Iohn concerning the λόγος. If this Theodotus was the same with Theodotus the Cataphrygian, & Artemon was Artemas the master of Paul of Samosat, they might be of the same opinion with Paul of Samosat Marcellus & Photinus. For Theodotus & Artemas or Artemon & Paul & Marcellus & Photinus are all of them equally accused of making Christ a mere man. By which opinion I conceive they meant that Iesus was a mere man inhabited by the λόγος as a Prophet is influenced by the holy Ghost. For the hereticks thinking it below the dignity of the principal Gods – – – – And about this time the bishops began to meet in councils in Asia & Afric of God the God of God the son our Lord Iesus Christ, the God ☉ church or distinguished from other Christians by any proper name before th till Epiphanius gave them the name of Alogi. About the time that this heresy is said to have risen Theo because of their not receiving the writings of Iohn concerning the λογος gave them the name Alogi. For it was late before all the writings of the new TestamtTestament were generallgenerally received. About Neare the end of the second century when this heresy is said to have risen Theodotus the Currier of Byzantium –– Some of the Gnosticks derived [as Marcion & Valentine Gods Bythos & Sige or Depth & Silence & feigning the & produced the λόγος or word by speaking & this act they call the generation of the Son. An in general that in explaining the generation of the Son they compare him to a word spoken by a man [Iren. l. 2. c. 45.] But yet they make him not a vanishing voice but a permanent being emission.
Of the host of heaven Marcellus bishop of Ancyra the metropolis of Galatia was deposed by the Council of Constantinople A.C. 336 & again by the Council of Antioch A.C. 341 for holding the opinions of Paul of Samosat & Sabellius. His opinions are described He wrote against [& Hhis opinions are recited out of this of his own book by Eusebius Pamphili who wrote thre books against him, were as follows: That the Word of God wchwhich was eternally in God the father as a mans reason or wisdom is in a man without a proper substance. That before the beginning there was rest & quietness in God (called silence by the Valent some of the Gnosticks) the Word being with him inwardly & nothing existing then but God. That when all things were to be made he came out of the father with an operating power, & became Verbum prolativum & that all things were made by this word & that this Word is called an angel by Moses, & that his coming out of the father wthwith an operating power to create the world is not called his nativity nor constitutes him the son of God but only the word of God. That this word assumed flesh & was united to it & was born with humane flesh of the Virgin, & by this nativity became the son of God & the son of man, being only the Word of God before & that before this nativity he was not the son of God nor the image of God but by means of his visible body became the image of the invisible God. And that the word was in the body only by an operative vertue to move it & do those things wchwhich are related in the gospels being united in joined in substance to God as his word inseparable & undistinguishable from him. And that he must reign till he hath put all things under his feet & then become subject to the father & be in the father as before his incarnation, being separed from relinquishing yethe flesh or body wchwhich he had assumed. And for these opinions he was deposed by the council convened at Constantinople out of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, Phrygia, Byithiynia, Thrace & other remoter regions.] His opinions as they are are recited out of his own book by Eusebius & were these. That there was is but one single substance of the Deity God & his Word & that before the creat beginning God was alone & there was rest & quietness & there was nothing but God. ffor & the word was in him & with him inwardly as from all eternity as a mans reason & understanding is in a man without a proper substance & there was rest & quietness like (the Sige Silence of the Gnosticks)]) & when all things were to be made the word came out of God with an operating power & became Verbum prolativum, & by him all things were made & he is called an Angel by Moses but had no proper substance. That this Word assumed flesh, was united to & it & born with it of the Virgin & by this birth became the Son of God & the son of Man, being only the Word before this nativity. That his visible body & not the word alone was the image of the invisible God & the image of the God the invisible God, being neither the son of God nor the image of God but only the Word before this nativity. That the Word was in the body only by an operative vertue to move it & do those things wchwhich are related in the Gospels, being joined in substance to God as his Word . & mind inseparable & undistinguishable from him. And that he must reign in the body till he hath put all things under his feet & & after the day of judgment then ynthen become subject to the father & be in the father as before his incarnation, relinquishing the body wchwhich he had assumed. And for these opinions he was deposed in the reign of Constantine the great by the Council of convened at Constantinople out of the bishops of Asi Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, PhygiaPhrygia Bithynia, Thrace & other remoter regions. And about seven or eight years before his disciple Eustathius bishop of Antioch was was condemned of Sabellianism about seven or eight years before by the Council of Antioch & banished by Constantine the great. And Photinus another of his disciples was condemned of the same heresy 127 The Cabbalists called ther distinguished their ten sephiroths into two ranks classes called which they called Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin the man with a great face & the man with a little face, & by Seir Anpin understood the seven lower Sephiroths, & by their names called the seven metalls by the names of these sephirahs & therefore took them for the Gods of the metalls & by consequence for the intelligences seated in the orbs of the seven Planets, & Arich Anpin for Whence Arich Anpin must be seated in the hi eighth heaven above the orbs of yethe Planets. This eighth heaven In this heaven above yethe firmament of the fixed stars P Hipparchus & Ptolomy have placed a primum mobile & Theologers above that Theologers have placed an infinite & immoveable cœlum empyreum the seat of the blessed & to these three orbs answer the three first sephiroths Kether Cochmah & Binah conteined in Arich Anpin. The first of them is supposed infinite & called Kether the crown to denote that it encompasses all the rest. Let this systeme be compared with the systeme of Ogdoas of the Cabbalis Gnosticks. For some of the Gnosticks have placed more then one Æon in the heaven above the Orbs of the seven Planets The Cabbalists placed the root & fountain of the Sephiroths above & said that the first sephiroth Kether was a sphære wchwhich comprehended the other nine sephirahs & was there called the highest crown the – infinite retracted himself from a great spherical space in wchwhich he designed to form yethe world create the worlds, [& emitted gradually into this space ten subordinate emanations wchwhich they callled – – – in scripture deified] first Being. Next under God they placed a sphere wchwhich they called his garment & next under that sph a sphere of splendor or light [the cœlum empyreum or seat of the blessed], & under [that a space of the first aer wchwhich they called Tohu. And under] that a large empty sphere & under that the sphere of the & under that the sphere of the first sephiroth called Cochmah the crown highest Crown because it encompassed the other nine. And the lowest wor last world called Asia & mundus fabricationis they some of them said was the animate corporeal world of the spheres or cælestial orbs & all corporeal things therein to the very center of the earth & some of the oldest of the Cabalistical writers now extant said that the Sun Moon & Planets were moved by intelligences. Whence Whence I gather that they received the Aristotelick systeme of the heavens, & that their Sephiroths were originally the supreme intelligences wchwhich Aristotel placed in the sppheresspheres to move them, & their mundus & the world Briah was the system of Intelligences under them & the world Iezirah the system of Angels under them. ffor they distinguisehd the sephiroths into two classes wchwhich they called Seir Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin, the man wthwith a great face & the man wthwith a little face & by Seir in Seir Anpin comprehended the seven lower sephiroths & called the seven metals by the names of these seven Sephiroths. Whence I gather that these seven Sephirots were originally the Gods to wchwhich the heathens dedicated the seven metals & the seven Planets or & wchwhich Aristotel called intelligences & seated in the Orbs of the seven Planets to move them. And hence came the philosophy of the Gnosticks who placed an Ogdoas of Æons in the orbs of the seven Planets & the heaven above them or the starry firmament. By Arich Anpin they understood the first Sephiroth Kether called Kether the crown because the starry firmament was the highest Orb & encompassed the system of yethe Planets. Aristotle made only these eight heavens supposing the starry firmament to be the first mover but later Astronomers have distinguished this heaven into two or more heavens more orbs then one placing the first mover above the starry firmament & the cœlum crystallinum between them & accordin accordingly some refer the second & third Sephiroths to Arich Anpin. And as the And if the theology of the cabbalists be compared with that of the Gnosticks it will appear that the Cabbalists were Iewish Gnosticks & the Gnosticks were Christian Cabbalists. For as the Gnosticks placed their Æons in the Orbs of the stars & Planets so did the Cabbalists their Sephiroths, They pla following therein the doctrine of Aristotel who placed Intelligences in the planet Planetary Orbs to move them. Aristotel was the master of Alexander the Great & his philosophy was in request in yethe reign of Alexanders successors especially in Egypt & his systeme of the heavens aa Pars 3 p 151, 152 was received by the oldest of the Cabbalists. For they said that the world Asia (called also yethe m world of the fabric) was the corporeal world of the spheres or celestial Orbs & of all [corporeal] things therein to the very center of the earth, & that the sun Moon & stars were moved by intelligences; & distingu allotted to every sephira his orb, & to placing bp. 232. the first Sephira in the highest Orb next under a sphere of splendor & calling it Kether the crown the highest crown & the crown of the Aziluthis world because it was the highest & encompassed all the rest & the next sephiroth & so in the second Orb & so on, & distinguishing the Sephiras into three superior & seven inferior ones Part 4. p. 232 new, they referred the inferior to the orbs of the seven Planets & yethe superior to to the inferior & the heavens above the Planets to the superior., the first called Kether to the ffor vizt the 8th sphere wchwhich was or firmament of yethe fixt stars & 12 signes to Binah, the ninth or speresphere of yethe diurnal motion to Cochmah & the tenth or world of Intelligence wchwhich gives power & vertue to all the starrs & circles to to Kether. The highest of them save orb of Saturn they referred to Gedula that of ♀ to Gebura. The three superior Sephiras they called Arich Anpin the man wthwith a great face & the seven inferior to Seir Anpin the man wthwith a little face & the Chymcal Cabbalists gave the names of these seven inferior Sephirahs to the seven metals. Some Above the Planetary Orbs Aristotel made but one heaven, the starry firmament.) above yethe Planetary Orbs & thence it comes to pass that the Cabbalists frequently take Arich Anpin only for the first Sephiroth Kether & in this sence Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin compose the Ogdoas of Æons. But as later Astronomers have distinguishinged the eight heaven into more the orbs then One so the Cabbalists have placed more Sephiroths then one referred those Orbs to more Sephirahs then one, From & so also the later Gnosticks have increased the number of their Æons & placed to many of them in the heavens above the planetary Orbs. And by from all this & the opinions common to the Gnosticks & Cabbalists that became so the world was made by the Angels & that yethe souls of men came from above passed through various bodies till they had performed all things requisite & at then returned up, it is manifest that the Apostle in condemning Iewish fables endless genealogies & oppositions of science falsly so called had relation to the doctrines fabulous learning of the Cabbalists then entering into yethe XtianChristian religion XtiansChristians of his days which began in his days to be introduced into the Christian religion by the primitive Gnosticks. [And this is the great mystery of iniquity wchwhich then began to work & was to work untill the man of sin should be revealed & whose coming was to be after yethe working of Satan with all po [magical] power & signes & lying wonders in them that perish because they received not the love of the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousnes, For the time was coming when they would no (the generality of Christians) wshould not endure sound doctrine [the doctrine of the unlearned Apostles], but after their own lusts should heap to themselves [learned] teachers, having itching ears [after science falsly so called] & should turn away their ears from the truth & be turned unto [Iewish] fables] the fables of the learned coloured over wthwith an appearance of science & in other places called by the Apostle Iewish fables, old wives fables, & science falsly so called. Theise fablesous learning the primitive Iewish Gnosticks princip of yethe circumcision principally followed & their disciples added to their it out of the Poets & Philosophers of yethe Greeks.] a Cabb denudatæ p. 20 Pars 2 p. 203, 204. 181, 182, 203, 204 b And thus there are only eight sephiroths or splendors of yethe celestial Orbs, the first being in the namely the splendor of the starry firmament & & the splendors of the seven Planets, & Arich Anpin & Seir Anpin compose yethe primitive Ogdoas of Æons. – – – sephiras then one inserting Cochmah & Binah & calling Cochmah the father & Binah the mother of the seven inferior Sephiras. 128 As the As the Cabbalistical Iews distinguished the powers & affections of God & considered them as so many divine beings or persons whom they called Sephiroths. As the Sephiroths of the Iewish Cabbalists were nothing else then the powers & affections of God the father, consider considered as so many divine persons & of his first Emission called Adam Cadmon (namely the his Crown or first supreme & first & supreme emission emanation conteining all the other Sephiroths in it self his Wisdom, his prudence, his Magnificence, his Being his Power, his Beuty his Eternity, his Glory, his supporting all things & his reign) & considered as so many persons: so the Æons of the Gnosticks were of the same kind. Simon said that Ennoia was the first conception of his mind (or Idea) of his mind. The unknown father whom the Cabbalists called God whom they called wthwith Æn Soph the Infinite As father & Ennoia his or immense Magnitude & from him & his wife Ennœa Valentinus Valentinus derived Bythos & Megethi profundity Nous & Alathea the Mind & Truth & from these two Logos & Zoe the Word & life. A He had these Æo this doctrine from his master Basilides: ffor Basilides derived Nous from the unknown father & Logos from Nous said that the Vnbegotten God emitted Logos Nous & Nous emitted Logos, & Logos emitted Φρόνησις Prudence. They both lived at Alexandria & might have their Æon this doctrine from yethe Cabbalistical Iews of Egypt. ☉ Ptolomæus a disciple of Valentinus assigned to the unknown father two wives Ennœa & Theleus Understanding & Will & called them the affections of the unknown father, & said that the understanding was the older wife because the understanding precedes the will. The Ennœa & Nous with Alethea Truth & Logos with are are here nothing else then various modes of the or powers of the inherent mind of God called by the Greeks λογος ενδιάθετος & Logos with life is his λογος προφορικὸς. ffor so the Valentinians themselves explained this their philosophy & the words are cited by Epiphanius out oneof one of their books. In the beginning, say they, the word of himself in the father conteined all things within himself. Then the Ennœa wchwhich was in him (whom some call Ennœa & others properly Charis because she effuses the trasurestreasures of Magnitude [Æn Soph] that is of the unknown father call Bythos by Magnitude by the Valentinians & their followesfollowers & Æn Soph the Infinite by the Cabbalists) upon those who are upon those who are from Magnitude, but others more truly call her silence because by cogitation without the use of speech Magnitude performs all things,) she, I say, the uncorrupt & Æonia being willing to extricate her self from her bonds enticed Magnitude to her embraces & brought forth the ffather of Truth, whom those that are perfect call the Man [viz Adam Kadmon] because he bears the likeness of the unbegotten. Afterwards Sige & the Man being conjoyned by thir will brought forth Truth in their own likeness of Sige. This Man they also call Nous. But But whereas Basilides & Valentinnus said that the unbegotten father emitted Nous & Nous emitted Logos, Irenæus reprehends them whereas the Gnosticks made Nous the son of Æn Ennœa Irenæus tells them that they should rather have made Ennœa the daughter of Nous because Nous the Mind is the fountain of thinking & Ennoia thinking is the motion. The first motion of Nous the Mind is Ennoia & if it persevere & encreas it is called Euthymosis, & after much time of perseverance & becoming perfect it is called perception, & at length it becomes Council & Council by persevering wthwith wthwith motion is deliberation & deliberation at length becomes λόγος ἐνδιάθετος reason & from reason is emitted λογος προφορικὸς a word or speech. And all these things are but one thing in several degrees, & have place only in the Mind of man. They err therefore saith Irenæus in ascribing to God the affections & passions of man & making him a compound. ffor God is not as man nor are his thoughts like ours. He is simple & not compound. He is all like & equal to himself all sense all spirit all perception all Ennœa all λόγος all hearing ear, all eye all light. He is all sense wchwhich cannot be separated from it self, nor is there any thing in him wchwhich can be emitted from any thing else. Thus does Irenæus represent & confute the Metaphysicks of the Gnosticks. And whereas up after the Apostle Iohn had said In the beginning was the Word & the Word was with God, the Gnosticks called the beginning Nous & the ffather Proarche, & took the Word for the λογος ενδιαθετος & ἢ προφορικὸς & feigned that silence preceded the Word & thence called Ennœia by the name of Sige: Irenæus in op tells the Gnosticks that Logos & Sige could not be in Bythos at one & the same time no more then light & darkness. And if they say that λογ their λο this λόγος was ἐνδιάθετος (for it seems this was the language of these Gnosticks) then Σιγὴ will be also ἐνδιάθετος: wchwhich two saith he are inconsistent, Iren l. 2. c. 14, 15, 16 & therefore Σιγὴ is not ἐνδιάθετος. Iren l. 2. c. 14. 15,16, 47, 48, 49. And Simon placed several phi sorts of & that Angelical powers of several sorts the inhabit the several celestial orbs. & said that EnnoiEnnoia was beutifulbeautiful & incited the powers to lust. & that e The two last of them called whom Valentinus calls Ἄνθρωπος & Εκκλησία by Valentinus seem to be the Seir Anpin & Malcuth of the Cabbalists & his wife Malcuth. ffor by Seir Anpin homo parvae facie a man with a little face, the Cabbalists understood the Soul of the Messiah systeme of all the seven last sephiroths & by Malcuth his kingdom or church. And as the Cabbalists from their Sephiroths derived a great number of other intelligences so did & Angels & Archangels & Angels & three worlds so did Basilides from from the fir his Æons derived the first Principalities powers & Angels & from these the supreme heaven or celestial world wthwith other Angels & from those a second heaven or world of other Angels, & from those a third heaven or world & from those others to yethe number of seve of days in the year. And Valentinus his scholar Valentinus multiplied the Æons to the number of years in the age of Christ before he began to act was baptized & began to act & from these Æons derived Powers & Angels & the world. Well therefore might the Apostle caution the prim churches against the Iewish fables & endless genealogies of the first hereticks & their & oppositions of science falsly so called. This phil Theology these her And whereas the Iohn wrote in his Gospel In the beginning was the Word & the word was wthwith God –– In him was life –– And the Word was made flesh & dwelt among us – full of grace & truth: they interpreted these words of their Æons makin saing saying that yethe beginning Αρχ the Beginning ἀρχη was the Gods first emanation male emission or Æon & the Word wchwhich was in the beginning was the next male Æon & Grace & Truth & were the Life were their wives Ennoia Charis Alethea & Zoe. And that these Gnosticks –– The Nicolaitans therefore said distinguished between Iesus & Christ & said with Simon, Menander, They agreed with Simon in placing several Powers in sev or Intellignces in several orbs & the supreme power with his wife Prunicus in the supreme orb & making her beautiful & lustful, & the incarnation & passion of Iesus to be only in appearance: & therefore are justly reputed Simonians They said wthwith Saturninus, 129 ☉ And Basilides living at Alexandria seemes to have had this Theology from the Cabbala of the Iews of Egypt ♀ ffor Basilides said that the father of all things emitted Nous &Nous emitted Logos & Logos an emitted Phronesis, & Phronesis emitted Dynamis & Sesostris. And Basilides living in Alexandria seems to have had And these were the four first Deities in the Iewish Cabbala. The father of all things was called Bythos & Magnitude by the Gnosticks to denote his immensity & so answers to the first God in the Iewish Cabbala was called Æn Soph the Infinite. The first Æon Nous was called Αρχὴ & the Man & the Father or supreme Sephiroth & cause of causes & Adam Kadmon the first man & the father of Cochma The & Arech Anpin a man with a large face. And as the Gnosticks made Nous like & equal to the father & said that he conteined all the other Æons virtually in himself: so the Cabbalists said that Adam Kadmon comprehended all the other Sephiroths. The second Æon called λόγος reason understanding & wisdom answers to the second Sephiroth called Cochmah wisdom, & the third Æon called by Basilides Φρόνησις Prudence answers also to the third Sephiroth called Binah Prudence. But Φρόνησις being a female Valentinus changed her to a Man & these four Gods with their wives made yethe first Ogdoas of Valentinus & the following leaders of the & the following leaders of the Gnosticks Secundus Ptolomæus Marcus Heracleon & some others leaders of the Gnosticks After Basilides had been instructed by his master Menander he went into lived in & scholarhis scholar Valentinus lived in Egypt & had there an opportunity of learning the cabbala of the Egyptian Iews, & his scholar Valent And that these Gnosticks by their Æons understood the powers & affections operations & Ideas of the supreme God is further manifest by what Epiphanius cites out of their writings In t in these words In the beginning, say they, there he who – – – – – – – – likeness of Sige. Ptolomæus another of these hereticks Gnosticks assigned to Bythos his wives, the unknown By that the supreme father two wives – – – – – – – – – precedes the will; & that Ennœa thought of an emission but could emittnot emitt it till the power of the will came to her assistance & then she emitted Nous & Alathea. And whereas the Gnosticks made Nous the son of Alethea Irenæus tells them – – – – came originally from these Gnosticks Basilides & Valentinus & their disciples Secundus Ptolomæus Marcus Heracleon & their followers & perhaps also from Saturninus the fellow disciple of Basilides & Menander the common master of Bas Saturninus & Basilides, & disciple of Simon. ffor Irenæus – – – – – – – to a word spoken by a man. And Eusebius tells us that Marcellus – – – – ☉ For whereas the Cabbalists called the first God Bythos the Infinite Æn Soph the infinite or immense, the Gnosticks called him Bythos & & said that his first Sephiroth or emanation wchwhich they called the Crown η Αρχη & Adam Cadmon the first Man reteined all the other nine Sephiroths eminently in it self & the Gnosticks wthwith called the first God Bythos & Megathos the Profundity & the Magnitude, meaning the magnitude wthwithout bounds. And his first emission Nous they called the Man & the Son & the only begotten & Adam Cadmon] & ἡ Αρχη the Principle [Cether, the Crown] & Αρχε Αρχη the Principle & said that he was the Principle wchwhich conteined all the other Æons in himself. And whereas Iohn had said in the beginning of his Gospel Ἐν ἀρχη ἠν ὁ Eight or nine hundred thousand Dollars λόγος In the beginning was the Word, they said that ἡ ἀρχὴ the beginning was Nous & in t this Νους was the λόγος & thence concluded that Nous & Logos were the two first Æons [Iren. l 1. c. 1. sect 18.] The λογος answers to the second sephiroth called Cochma reason or wisdom & φρόνησις Prudence the third Æon of Basilides is the third sephiroth of the Cabbalists And the Ennœa of Simon & Menander they retained & made her the wife of Bythos & called her Sige silence because she silence preceded Nous & Logos called Binah Prudence, & Charis favour because by her favour the treasures of Bythos were effused into the Æons. And ffor that this was their philosophy is described by Irenæus in the beginning of his first book & by the Valentinians themselves in one of their letters cited by Epiphanius in these words. In the beginning, say they, he who of himself is the father – – –– – – likeness of Sige. This Man they also called the father & Nous [& said some of them said that he & truth bought forth Logos & [Cochma wisdom] & Bios life. Ptolomæus a disc & Zoe reason & life & these] & said that Bythos was unknown to all the Æons except Nous & these four Bythos & Sige ligh Nous & Alethea they called the Tetractys of Pythagoras & said that Nous & Alethea emitted Logus & Zoe. with ten other Æons & Logus & Zoe emitted twelve others By Bythos & Ennoia they m Ptolomæus assigned to the unknown father two wives Ennœa & Thelesis Vnderstanding & will, & called them the affections of the unknown ffather & said that the Vnderstanding was the older wife because the understanding precedes the Will. And Colarbasus said that Ennœa thought of an emission but could not emitt it till the power of the will came to her assistance & then emitted Manases or Nous & Alethea. And by all this it it is manifest that the Æons of these Gnosticks were nothing else then the powers affections & Notions or Ideas of the supreme God distinguished from one another & represented by divine persons. And whereas the Gnosticks made Nous the Ennœa the monther of Nous Nous the son of Ennœa Irenæus telltells them – – – – – – – is not ἔνδιάθετος. [Iren. l. 2. c. 14, 15, 16, 47, 48, 49.] // The doctrine therefore that the λόγος of or Word of God was the λογος ἐνδίάθετος of the father & was emitted or exerted & thereby generated life into a son before the world began came originally from these Gn Gnosticks Basilides Vale Valentinus, e Secundus? Ptolomæus, ff Iren l. 1. c. c. 10. Marcus gg ib. l. 1. c. 6. Heracleon, & perhaps also from Saturninus the fellow disciple of Basilides. ffor Irenæus blames tells us that Valentinus had his opinions aa from his masters & blames Saturninus Basilides Valentinus & Marcion that they b Marcion & the Gnosticks in general [Iren l. 2. c. 18, 48, 49 & l. 1. c. 10.] that in exp they for pretendeding to know the generation of the Word & explaineding it by comparing to a Word spoken by a Man. And this opinion seems to have been as old as the days of Simon magus. For hh cont. Marcell. l. 2. c. 9 Eusebius tells us that Marcellus in making Quiet to precede the Logus imitated that impious heresiarch ringleader of the hereticks who taught this teaching atheistically, saying said atheistically: There was God & Sol ην θεὸς καὶ Σιγὴ ἠν Θεὸς καὶ Σιγή There was God & Silence. And Gregory Nazianzen alluding to this doctrine of Simon & his followsfollowers saith that the Simons & the Marcions & the & Valentines & theBasilides's & Cerdons & Cerinthuses & Carpocrateses & th all their trifles & fa illusions juggling tricks were delivered τω ἑατων βυθω καὶ τη σὶγη to their Bythos & Sige own abyss & silence. [And Ignatius tells the Thes Magnesians that they should not be seduced with foreign doctrines [of observing the law] nor with vain [Iewish] fables] –– but th their convince men men that there was there being one God who hath manifested himself by Iesus XtChrist his son not who is being the eternal Word not born out of silence]. Whence it seems that after the writing of the Apocalyps & Epistle to the Hebrews in wchwhich Christ is called the Word of God ο῾ λόγος του θεου, the Gnosticks began to compare him to a word spoken after silence the λόγος of a man, wchwhich is first ενδιαθετος silently conceived in the mind & then emitted wthwith a voice after silence & from this comparison make him give the name of sige to make him the son of God & Silence. & after the writing of the Gospel, to make him the son of Αρχὴ & Αρχὴ the son of God & Silence. ffor I think its not to be doubted it will easily be granted that Αρχη Ennoia had the name of silence not from her son Αρχὴ but from her son λόγος. And therefore the opinion that λόγος was the son of Sige was older then the days Heresy of Basilides & must be attributed to the disciples of Simon of wchwhich Menander was the chief. of the same kind was that of the Nicolaitans The Ennoia of Simon they called Prunicus & Barbelo. ffor they made placing her in the eighth heaven & said that Ialdabaoth (or as others called him, Sabaoth) was her son & placed him in yethe seventh heaven, & other inferior Æons they placed in yethe seventh inferior heavens calling one of them Iautacouth & said that () that Barbelo was beutifullbeautifull & enticed the other Princes divine powers to her embraces: And upon such degs fables founded their lasciviousness. [And the Phibionites a sect of these Nicolaitan Gnosticks, placed 365 Princes in so many cœlestial orbs giving names to each of them.] In the first empyreum Orb they placed Iao, in the second Saclan the God of lust, in thirdthe third Seth, in the fourth Daden, in the fifth Abonæus, in the sixt Ialdabaoth Philæus in the seventh Barbelo Ialdabaoth or Sabaoth the maker of heaven & earth, in the eighth Barbelo Chus and other, in the eighth Barbelo & God & Chus. And these are the supreme Princes. And seing the Nicolaitans placed their Æons in the heavenly spheres & had these & the God of the Iews, in the eighth & highest orb they placed Barbelo & the God of the universe & another Christ was begotten of himself & Christ who descended & revealed these things to mankind this knowledge to mankind, who was also called Iesus & was manifested by Mary but not born of her nor took flesh otherwise then in appearance. And the And this philosophy from these eight Orbs with their intelligences seems to have given occasion to the Ogdoas of the Gnosticks. ffor Valentinus suited his Ogdoas to seven Orbs placing the uknown father above them. And further the Phibionites a sect of the Gnost Nicolatians, multiplied the Orbs to the number of days in the year & placed in these 365 orbs placed Princes so many Princes or Æons giving to each of them his proper name. Whic Which mak placing the AEons in orbs yethe celestial Orbs & first increasing the number of Orbs from eight to 365 & giving a phantastic body to Iesus makes it evident that the Nicolaitans & the successors followers of Basilides & Valentinus were Gnosticks of the same kind with the followers of Basilides & Valentinus & differed only in language & some ot In some circumstances language & perhaps circumstances of small but differed but gave hebrew names but being of the circumcision Iudea gave hebrew names to their Æons, & countenanced their unclean actions by the copulation & generation of their Æons. And no doubt the Nicolaitans were the older hereticks, their doctrine & deeds bei & denyal & that Iesus Christ iswas come in the flesh being condemned by Iohn, & their Iewish fables endless genealogies & contentions about profane & vain bablings & profession of science falsly so called being cautioned against by the Apostle Paul being oppo for censured by the Apostle Paul as amounting to a denyal of the faith. 130 Chap Of the faith unity & universality of the Primitive Church Chap Of the breaking of the primitive Church into parties & the rise of Popery The Christian religion continued in its purity till the death of the Apostolic men who had seen Christ the last of wchwhich was Iohn the Apostle who died AC. 99 & Simon bishop of Ierusalem who was crucified A.C. 107. After their deaths heresies increased continually as The Apostle Paul had predicted saying, The mystery of iniquity already worketh & shall work untill that wchwhich letteth be taken out of the way & then shall the Man of Sin be revealed. The Church maintained continually; but yet the Church kept her grownd against them during her afflictions, under the heathen persecutions of the heathen Roman Empire wchwhich letted the rise of an Antichristian, as the Apostle Paul had predicted saying that there should come a falling away & the Man of Sin should be revealed & that the mystery of iniquity worked even in his days, for The mystery of iniquity already worketh & shall work untill that letteth only that which letted should lett untill it should be taken out of the way, that is the heathen Roman Empire which letted the rise of antichristian Roman communion, & then that wicked one should be revealed & continue sit as the Church the Church of God & continue & continue till the coming of orour Lord. till the coming of orour Lord. In opposition to those heresies the Christians of th of the third century & end of the second added some new articles to their Creed to hinder their being admitted into the Church by baptism intending thereby to prevent the admission of those hereticks, & while the articles were in the scripture language & for that reason created no disputes among the Churches about them, they did no hurt to yethe unity of the Church catholick. But after the practise of adding new Articles became of some standing & was reputed authentic & the Bishops began to add such articles as were not in the scripture language they soon rent the Church Catholick into parties. And ffor when they Council of Nice had inserted into their Creed that the Son was ομοιούσιοσ to the ffather & allowed the interpetationinterpretation that yethe word ομοουσιος when appledapplied to things spiritual signified nothing moredid not signify import any emanation emission projection or division of substance, nor any thing more then ὁμοιούσιος or ὁμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσιαν of like substance or like according to substance: & the L Hosius & the Legates of the Bishop of Rome sent a Latin translation of this Creed in or whoever was the Latin translator or whoever translated that Creed into Latin instead of translating the word ὁμοούσιος by the word consubstial or & interpreting consubstantial by similis substantiæ, translated it unius substantiæ. And this different interpretation of the word created such a misunderstanding between the Greeks & Latines as ended in a breach great criticisms upon the word & severe vain disputing in among the Greeks in the reign of Constantine the great & the beginning of the reign of Constantius, while the western Churches remained quiet. For they that with the Latines took consubstantial in the ὁμοουσιος for one substance were thought by those of the other opinion to speak impiously as if they took away affirmed the asserted the son to be without subsistence & were of the same opinion with Montanus & Sabellius: & they that took it for several substances were looked upon by the other party as Gentiles & authors introducers of a multitude plurality of Gods. (Socr. l. 1. c. 23 Sozom l. 2. c.18. And when Eusebius of Nicomedia was accused by the opposed the sense of the Latines & was accused as if he de opposed the ὁμοούσιος he shewed the Emperor Constantine his garment & said If this garment was divided before my eyes yet I would never say that the two parts were της αυτης ὀυσίας of the same substance Sozom l. 2. c. 21. And this wrangle the Bishop of Rome turned to his advantage in the manner following. F For those some among the Greeks who took the Son to be an emanation or emission from of the ffather as light is of from yethe sun & or a river from the fountain & on that account said that he was ομοούσιος to the father (of wchwhich sort were the Gnosticks Cataphrygians or Montanists) others took him to be an attribute of the fathers substance namely the fathers wisdom reason & word spoken without wchwhich the ffather would be ἄσοφος & ἄλογος (of wchwhich sort were the Sabellians) willingly & for that reason approved the language of unius substantiæ (of wchwhich sort were the Montanists & Sabellians:) And all these embracing affirmed from the latin translation of the Nicene Creed affirmed Creed that the ffather & Son were μιας ύσιάς & μιας υποστάσεος of one essence or substance & one hypostasis, And & accounted represented the denyal of this to bee a denyal of the Nicene faith & the maintaining of three hypostases to be the introducing of a plurality of Gods. And those who wthwith the Council of Nice held the son to be of like substance wthwith the father looked upon those who held him to be of one hypostasis with the father to speak impiously as if they asserted the son to be without proper subsistence & were of the same opinions with Montanus & Sabellius. For Montanus made the Son a part of the fathers substance & by consequence without any distinct any other substance then that of the father. And hence arose great disputing in private among the Greeks in the reign of Constantine the great & in the beginning of that of Constantius & great criticising upon the word ομοουσιος. And those who took ὁμοούσιος for one substance were thought by those of the other opinion to speak impiously as if they asserted the Son to be without proper proper subsistence & were of the same opinions with Montanus & Sabellius And finally During these disputes, Eustathius bishop of Antioch being was accused in this manner by Eusebius Pamphili was & deposed as a Sabellian. For Montanus And those who took them for like substances were looked upon by the other party as Gentiles introducing a plurality of Gods (Socr. l. 1. c. 23) & Sozom & l. 2. c. 18.] And when Eusebius of Nicomedia who opposed the language of one substance was accused as if he opposed the ὁμοούσιος & taxed for it by the Emperor Constantine yethe great he shewed the Emperor Constantine the great his garment & answered boldly: If this garment should be divided before my eyes yet I would never say that the two parts were της ἀυτης ὀυσίας of the same substance. Sozom. l. 2. c. 21. By this answer Eusebius seemsto have satisfied the Emperor who knew that the Council of Nice had approved the language of like substance: into that of for the Emperor afterwards had him in great honour & was baptized by him & trusted him with his last will & Testament [Whereas his son Constantius & much more he himself adhered to that Nicene faith according to yethe sense wchwhich the Council it self put upon the word ομοούσιος. & banished Eustathius for the other opinion & consented that Arius upon retracting his novel expressions & confining himself to the faith & language of the Church should be received into communion. I cannot find that the Emperor or his son Constantius receded from the Nicene faith, but rather that they adhered to it constantly in the sense of the Council wchwhich was that ομοουσιος signified nothing more then not unius substantiæ but ομοιος κατ᾽ ουσίαν. [During the reign of Constantine the western Churches were quiet & these disputes were only among the Greeks & that without a breach. But after a while they they reached the West & made a breach beteen the Greeks & Latines in the following manner.] Athanasius being accused before th of several crimes before the Council of Tyre by the Meletians (a party of Christians who had withdrawn themselves from under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria,) & being condemned for them by the Council of Tyre A.C. 335 & banished into Gallia by Constantine the great A.C. 335 & sent back into In the mean time The Meletians a party of Christians who had withdrawn themseves from his the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria thinking the BpBishop of Alexandria too forward in receiving lapsed persons into communion had withdrawn themselves from his jurisdiction accused Athanasius before the Council of Tyre A.C. 335 of several crimes the killing Arsenius one of their Bishops & of some other crimes, & the Council having heard the cause, for their further satisfaction, sent six of their own number into Egypt to examin matters upon the place & after their return deposed him. When sentence was ready to be pronounced Athanasius fled to yethe Emperor Constantine who reheard yethe cause & banished him into Gallia. After the death of Constantine his eldest son Constantine sent back Athanasius into Egypt A.C. 338, and the Council of Antioch wchwhich consisted of about 97 bishops And Ierome: Animas humanas de cælo lapsus esse Pythagoras Omnesqꝫque Platonici statuant et Origines putant: a propria Dei substantia esse Stoici Manichæus & Hispaniæ Prisciliani hæresis suspicantur: continuo creari volunt alij, alij ex traduce ut Tertulianus Apollinarius & maxima pars Occidentalium. Ad Marcellinum Epis 82. This op last opinion that they souls weare ex traduce or that is by emission of substance seems to be of the same kind with that of the heathens & first hereticks who traduced their Gods & Æons from one another by such emissions of substance & made them descend from heaven into humane bodies. And in opposition to the opinions of those traduced all things from the substance of God by emissions emitted in various forms the primitive Christians taught that all their God made all things out of nothing. 131 Some hereticks as Simon Magus, Noëtus Praxeas & Sabellius gave the the name of father son & holy Ghost to one & the same substance in respect of several appearances, being bodi attributes qualities dispositions or actions, or to the attributes of that substance & some pretended & some called their emissions by the names of Gods attributes pretending that the attributes of God were substances emitted from him emitted Some hereticks as Basilides Simon Magus Basilides Marcion thinking it below the nature of their Gods that th to be realy incarnate & to suffer really on the Cross, said that Christ was not really incarnate but appeared to men only in shew. Others as Carpocrates Cerinthus & Paul of Samosat said that Iesus was born of Ioseph & Mary after the manner of other men & that a vertue called Christ descended upon him & dwelt in him as the holy Spirit doth in good & men & deserted him at his passion. The Gnosticks beginning from Nicholas & Simon Magus the first authors of their heresy perm permitted the promiscuous use of weomen. They also laid stress upon attributed supernatural effects to invocation & ceremonies, & of humane invention for producing supernatural effects Some hereticks as Saturninus Marcion Tatian & their followers the Encratites Some hereticks as Simon Magus & Noetus & Praxeas & Sabellius gave the name of father son & Holy Ghost to one & the same substance in respect of several appearances attributes dispositions or actions. Some, as Sabellius compared the father Son Some called & holy Ghost to the body soul & spirit of a man, or to the body the light & the heat of the sonsun Some hereticks, as called the emissions by yethe names of Gods attributes. And some as Simon Magus, Noetus, Praxeas & Sabellius gave the names of ffather Son & Holy Ghost to one & the same substance in respect of several appearances attributes dispositions or actions or partes. Sabellius compared the ffather Son & holy Ghost to the body soul & spirit of a man & to the body light & heat of the Sun, & the ffather & Son he compared to a man & his reason & speech makinmaking the son the inward reason & wisdom of the father before the creation & his word spoken at the creation by which all things were created. Montanus refining the heresi errors of the Gnosticks made the Son & h. Ghost emissions from yethe ffather & subordinate to him. His opinion Tertullian th a Montanist thus sets down. Protulit enim Deus Sermonem, quemadmodūum Paracelsus (id est Montanus) docet, sicut radix fruticem & fons fluvium et Sol radium; quia omnis origo parens est, et omne quod ex origine profertur progenies est: multo magis Sermo Dei, qui etiam proprie nomen filij accepit: nec frutex tamen a radice nec fluvius a fonte nec radius a sole discernitur sicut nec a Deo sermo. Tertius est Idea Igitur secundum – – – – – proprietates suas ducit: Ita Trinitas per consertos et connexos gradus decurrit. And a little after. Pater tota substantia est, filius verò derivatio et portio totius et portio, sicut ipse profiter, Quia pater major me est. Tertul. adv. Prax. Tertullian represents that God ha a Montanist represents that God had reason & wisdom in himself by which he contrived all things before he created them, but this reason & wisdom & notions of things to be created were only internal to God as a mans reason & ideas are in himself only internal in a man, before he declares them outwardly by speaking so Gods reason or wisdom & his conceptions or notions of all things were only internal in God untill he began to speak them outwardly & make them appear outwardly in their species & substances. And when he said Fiat lux, then his reason or λογος was formed outwardly into speech or voice not empty transient & vanid like the voice of a man but permanent & substantial. For nothing can want substance wchwhich ‡ ‡ proceeds from so great a substance. Thus Tertullian describes the philosophy of the Montanists & a little after calling Montanus the Paraclete, he further describes his philosophy in this manner adds Protulit Deus sermonem – – – – me est. [Tertul adv. Prax.] And afterwards Afterwards Tertullian distinguishes three Perso calls the Trinity three persons in one substance & representings the persons distinct from one another but not divided, saying adhærebat illi [Patri] filius secunda persona sermo ipsius & tertia spiritus in sermone. And a little after. Vbiqꝫque teneo unam substantiam in tribus cohærentibus. Tertul. adv. Praxeam Those heresies consisted principally in opinions of old heathen Philosophers By the mystery of iniquity he means the heresies wchwhich began to spring up in his days & were to work till they ended in the Man of Sin great apostacy called the or Man of Sin. And Those heresies consisted principally in certain heathen opinions & superstitions & impieties wchwhich men converted from the heathen religion endeavoured under various disguises & specious pretenses to bring into the Christian. Those opinions were chiefly that The chief of those opinions was that all things came from one first being by emanation or emission of substance & returned into it & by consequence was consubstantial to it, & that there was a transmigration of souls into various bodies. ffor Simon Magus & his successors derived all things from one first being by emission of substance this was the opinion of the ancient Egyptians Phenicians & this was the opinion of the ancient Egyptians Phœnicians Phenicians & Greeks & the opinions of yethe Indian Brachmans to this day, & of this opinion were Simon Magus & his followers succe successors the Gnosticks. Simon & Menander said called the first emitted substance Ennoia & the next Angels & the last & said that Angels created the world. created by Angels Basilides called the first emission Νους Νους & said that Νους was Christ & from Νους derived another a series of other emissions the two last of wchwhich were Angels, & the world was created by them. Nicolaus Valentinus, Secundus Marcus Heracleon Ophitæ & Tatian called such emissions Æons & Irenæus tells us that Valentinus had this doctrine of Æons came from Hesiods Genealogies of the Gods heathen Gods. With Hesiods genealogies may be joyned the Phœnician in Sanchomiato, the Egyptian in Manetho & the in the fragment of Byrsus Montanus made the Son & Holy Ghost emissions from the father & subordinate to him & Tertullian a Montanist called them consubstantial & so did Paul said that the son was a part of the father father was the whole substance & the son an emanation of a derivation & property of the the father & part of him, & I mistake if Paul of Samosat did not call the Father & Son consubstantial to yethe ffather in the same sense of the Gnosticks. These Hereticks also taught the tran heathen transmigration of souls & derived the souls of men from yethe supreme Deity God by emission reputing them parts of his substance & making every soul to have various bodies denyed the resurrection of the body. For Simon Magus made said that yethe first emission called Ennoia was shut up in a woman by Angels & passed from woman to woman & was in Minerva & afterwards in Helen in yethe time of Trojan war was in Helena. & that the Angels transformed themselves passed into humane bodies that they might enjoy her & that he himself came down into a humane body to seek her Saturninus or Saturnilis taught that when yethe Angels who made yethe world had formed a man they were not able to give him life, but the virtue from above emitted a spark of life wchwhich made the man live, & wchwhich after death should return to those things wchwhich are of yethe same nature [ὁμοούσια] with it self. And Carpocrates & Marcion held the transmigration of souls The Montanists said that Man was not only made by a rational author but animated aa De Hæres. ex substantia ejus And The Manichees Priscilianists & Stoicks (as Ierome tells us) that yethe souls of men were particles of the substance of God. And in the same sense I understand Epiphanius where he tells us that Valentinus & Colarbasus & all the Gnosticks & Manichees make certain traductions of souls & transmigrations into various bodies Hæres. 42. Refut. 24. And a Augustin BpBishop of Hippo Gnostici Manichæi Priscilianistæ animas humanas de substantia Dei confectas Deoqꝫque consubstantiales esse docebant. And in opposition to these doctrines, the genuine true Christians taught that God created all things out of nothing. There were other Some hereticks who took away the substance of the son & holy Ghost giving making them & the ffather one & the same substance in several respects; as as Simon Magus, who made the himself all three but one substance of the father son & holy Ghost, saying said that he was that substance & appearinged as the ffather in Iudæa Samaria, as the Son in Samaria Iudæa & as yethe holy Ghost in other countries; [I suppose he means in respect of vizt in respect of several humane bodies bodies animated by yethe Deity according to the doctrine of yethe transmigration of souls]: aAnd heresy error of the same nature was that of Praxeas & Sabellius who g who & such as others as gave the name of ffather Son & holy Ghost to one & the same substance in respect of several attributes qualities, ac dispositions or actions. But some who gave the name to avoid the name of Sabellians said that the attributes of God were substances. Some hereticks as Saturninus Marcion& Tatian & the Encratites condemned marriage & the eating of the flesh of Animals & Montanus condemned marri taught to abstein from marriage & from some sorts of meat. And several other errors & superstitious practises were set on foot by the old Hæreticks. & some of them And some heresesheresies spread so much that in the end of the second Century or beginning of the third, the Bishop of Rome himself became first a Montanist & then a Praxean. Tertull. adv. Praxeam. And Now in opposition to the heresies wchwhich spr arose in the second & third Centuries the Christians of those days added some new Articles to their Creed. And while the Articles were in the scripture language &c. 132 In obedience & 76 × 24 304 18240 We humbly represent to your Lordship that we have considered the same, and upon the best computation we can make, we do find that at the Expiration of the present contract there will be so much Tin befe unsold in her majesty's hands as will amount to about £180000. and we are humbly of opinion that upon upon a new contract her Maj should will be at a medium as the like disburse, which the same deed wchwhich will remain in her the Interest of which being computed at six per cent per annum (being the Interest that is what is allowed for the £10000. advanced to the Tinner in Cornwall) her Majesty cannot in safety afford to give more then £3. 10. – per hundred stannary Weight, the Tinner paying the coynage duty and post groats or an equivalent, provided her MajtyMajesty takes no more Tin then the consumption may annually carry off and upon supposition that her MajtyMajesty purchases no more Tin then will the consumption will annually carry off, – that if 6 prper cent the consumption sh the consumption shoul 1600 Tunns of Tin per anannum & yethe same be annually consumed her MatyMajesty purchases no more 1600 Tunns of Tin per anannum stanstannary wtweight at 3li 10s per Tunn & without abating the coinage duty & Post groats Tin then yethe consumption will annually carry off supposing 600 Tunns & 6 prper cent (the interest at wchwhich her MatyMajesty lends money to cont money to yethe Cornwall) be allowed up to her MatyMajesty upon all yethe rest of the money advanced, wchwhich by our we estimate at yethe at about 180000 the being the value of yethe Tin wchwhich at the end of the contract present contract by the best estimation we can make may remain unsold at yethe recconning 3li 10s per Ccwt averdupois will according to the best estimate we can make will remain remain unsold be at the end of the present contract her MatyMajesty may safely purchase 1600 Tunns per anannum stan.stannary wtweight at 3li 10s prper Ccwt stanstannary weight to be sold at 3li 16s prper Ccwt averdupois: there remain will be allowed only to her MatyMajesty only about 1458.l. 18.s annually, to answer all unforeseen accidents & expences wchwhich at a medium have hitherto amounted to 3 or 4 thousand pounds yearly & there will remain upon be added to the dead stock annually about 80 or 90 Tunns averdupois the excess of the quantity received annually abov fom both ConwallCornwall & Devonshire above the quantity wchwhich has been sold annually duringthe last four years that if her MatyMajesty purchases 1520 Tunns per anannum stanstannary wtweight at 3li 10s prper Ccwt stanstannary wtweight wthwithout remitting the Coinage duty & post groats & if 6 per cent be allowed upon If her MatyMajesty should purchase annually 1520 Tunns prper anannum at 3li 9s prper Ccwt st. wtweight there would that 1520 Tunns per stan.stannary wtweight is as much as the consumption has been yethe consumption –– that yethe consumption during the last four & the present has at a medium amounted to annually to 156 about 1560 Tunns from wchwhich if 44 Tunns of Devonshire Tin be deducted there will remain 1516 Tunns the annual consumption of the Devonshire Cornish Tin That at yethe end of the present contract there will remain a dead stock of about 2400 Tunns averdupois wchwhich at per Ccwt is worth at 76li per Tunn is worth 3li 16 182400li or in round or in round numbers, about 180000 If in the next contract the for 16 16 Tunns & 6 prper cent (the Interest paid by Cornwall for her MatiesMajesties moneys advanced to them by her MatyMajesty) be recconed upon the standing dead stock of 182400li during the next contract, & the contract be for 1516 only for 1600 Tunns per anannum that the dead stock may not in remain the & this quantity should be carried off by the consum annually that the dead stock may remain the same, & her MatyMajesty gives 3li 10s per Ccwt stanstannary wtweight, the state of the contract will be as in the sch annexed following account Paid annually for 1600 Tunns of Tinn at 3li 10s per Ccwt106120 112000 ffeightffreight to London2142 163 Salaries in London1350 Incidents & Porters in London200 Passing accounts94 Salaries in Cornwal & including & 30li to Truro1540 Incidents in Cornwall700 Interest of 182400l at 6 prper cent10124 122958 Insurance & accidents502757 Annual produce of Tin sold at 3li 16s prper Ccwt averdupois12798557 Annual Addition of 84 Tunns 84 Tuns stanstannary wtweight or 90 averdaverdupois to the dead stock added annually to make up 1600 Tunns per anannum makes an Interest a annual addition of 6840li to yethe value of the dead stock the interest of all wchwhich additions in seven years at 6 per cent comes to1149115 That it That at the end of the present contract there will remain by the course of the sale during this & the four last years there will remain at yethe end of the present contract a dead stock of about 2400 Tunns averdupois wchwhich at 76li per Tunn is worth 182400 or in round numbers about of Tinn wchwhich at 76li per Tunn averdupois is worth would produce about 18000 l will be worth about 180000li. That if no m the her MatyMajesty contracts for 16 1600 Tunns of Tin stanstannary wtweight annually & her MatyMajesty at 3li 10s per Ccwt stan.stannary wtweight, & receives without remitting the Coinage duty & Post groats & this quantity shall be consume sold off annually so that the dead stock of 180000li may more or less remain the same during all that cont contract, & if 6 prper cent (the interest now paid by those in Cornwall for moneys advanced to them by her MatyMajesty) be recconned allowed upon the said dead stock: the state of the contract will be as follows. PdPaid annually for 1600 Tunns of Tin at 3li 10s per Ccwt stan.stannary wtweight112000 ffreight to London2142. 163 Salaries in London1350 Incidents & Porters in London200 Passing acctsaccounts94 Salaries in Cornwall & 30li to Truro1540 Incidents in Cornwall700 Interest of 180000li at 6 prper cent10800 128826. 16.3 Insurance & other accidents & unforseen charges1458. 18.0 Produced annually by sale of the Tin at 3l 16s prper Ccwt averdupois130285. 14.3 ☉ If &c. ☉ In this recconing If 10800 should be thought too great an interest upon dead stock, 1458.li 18s, is as much too little for insurance & all other accidents & unforeseen charges. During this & the four last years the sale of the Tin by our acctsaccounts has at a medium amounted to 15 about 1560 Tunns per a per anannum stan.stannary wt.weight wchwhich being deducted from 1600 Tunns received annually from Cornwall & about 44 Tunns received annually from Devonsshire leaves upon her Ma 84 Tuns stannary or 90 Tunns averdepois being valued at 76li prper Ton is 6840li to be annually added to the dead stock: the interest of wchwhich in additions if the contract should continue sixeven years amounts to 8618.li 8s besides the loss by the fall of the price in the end of yethe contrctcontract wchwhich may amount to about about 13860li m above more if the Tin should then fall only to 54.s prper Ccwt averdepois 133 ffor we are humbly of opinion that when yethe contract cease whenever the crown shall sell the dead stock it will bring down the clog the markets & bring down the price of Tin very low. Thus the Crown by purchasing 16 contracting for 1600 Tunns of Tin at 3li 10s per Ccwt would lose in the space of 7 years about 2348.8 or above if the consumption should continue at the as it has been this & the last four years. & this loss in four years more would be more then doubled. We have grownded this recconing upon a supposition that her MatyMajesty the sale of the Tin at a me at a medium will the l continues uniform. How much it may increase or decrease by peace or new wars abroad we do not know & without a certainty can make no estimate of what may be got or lost –– bBefore the determination of this present contract for setting making &a new one at such a price as that her MatyMajesty may be no loser thereby & pen p desire that it may be for some a further a greater quantity: we have according to the the best of judgmtsjudgments stated the account of quantity & the greatest price & quantity at wchwhich her MatyMajesty may contract wthwith upon a par without being a loser & supposing the sale continues one year with another at yethe same rate as in this & the four last years, wchwhich find And for explaining this re that is one year wthwith another amounts to about 1560 Tunns prper anannum we find that if her MajtyMajesty purchases 1600 Tunns of Tin prper anannum at 30 10s prper Ccwt stanstannary wtweight she will bea loser only by the a dead stock of about 84 Tunns prper anannum lying upon her hands 1 If all the purchase goes off her MatyMajesty may give 3l 10s per Ccwt for 3. 10s. 812 for 3. 11. 4 18 2 100 Tunns remaining annually upon her MatsMajestys hands is in the end of seven years a loss of li 126 Tuns in the interest & 220 Tuns by the by the fall of yethe price in the end of yethe contract. 2 Every Tunn remaining in her MajtsMajestys hands is in 7 years a loss of 90 li in the If any spirtual being be called an Angel, they understand the word absolutely & in a metaphysical sense for a species of being of a certain species: whereas the word is relative & moral, denoting a messenger or servant sent upon messages by his Master Lord. So Chr In this sense Christ is the Angel or messenger or servant of God & the Prophetick spiritus the Angel or servant of God & Christ & all much more are all inferior spirits the Angels or servants of God when any inferior spirits is are called the Angels of God it signifies that they are the servants or ministers of God. If the holy spirit be said to proceed from the father meaning as a Messenger they take it for a metaphysical procession of his substance If Christ be called the Λόγος whereas he is said to proceed from the father as a messenger to confirm the truth of his message. If Christ be called the λ The Comforter who is the holy Ghost whom the father will send in my name he shall teach you all things Iohn 14.26. When yethe Comforter is come whom the Father I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth who proceedeth [or comes] from the Father, he shall testify of me Iohn 15.26. He shall not speak of himself but whatsoever he shall hear that he shall speak, & he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive take receive of mine & shall shew it unto you. All things ytthat the ffather hath are mine: therefore I said that he shall take of mine & shall shew it unto you. Iohn 16.13, 14, 15. And in the same sense Christ also proceeded from God. I proceeded forth, saith he, & came from God: neither came I of my self, but he sent me. Iohn 8.42. If Christ be called the λ λόγος – – – – – If Moses saith saith Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live we take it for a Woman who hath a metaphysical power of conversing wthwith spirits, a sham conjurer & in the same sense we understand the word wizzadwizard as if there were real conjurers & necromancers whereas the words signify only such deceivers as pretend to the art of divining by spirits. So Astrologers, Augurs, Auruspices, are such as pretend to art of divining by the starrs, or by the flying of birds & by the entrails of sacrifices, & Sorcerers & Magicians are such as pretend to do supernatural works by certain words & ceremonies without being able to do what they pretend to. If it be said Moses saith There shall not be found among you any one that useth divination or an observer of times [or an such as are that is or of days and lucky & unlucky days] or an enchanter or a witch or a consulter with familiar spirits or a wizzard or a necromancer: for because of these things the Lord thy God doth drive them [the nations] out before from before thee: superstioussuperstitious men are apt to understand by these names such men & weomen as have a metaphysical power of divining, inchanting, bewitching conversing wthwith spirits & conjuring up & raising the souls of the dead; whereas they should understand take the names in a moral sense for deceivers, such as only falsly pretend to a power of doing these things, & thereby seduce deceive & delude the people, & lead them into idolatrous superstitions seduce them to put their trust in dæmons imaginary spirits & ghosts or dæmons wchwhich is a degree of idolatry. ffor what else were the Idols of the Gentiles but enchanted statues. And so Astrologers, Augurs & Aruspices & sorcerers are such as pretend to yethe art of divining by yethe stars, by the motions of birds, & &by the entrails of sacrifices, & by certain words & ceremonies but are not without being able to divine & sorcerers & enchanters are such as pretend to do supernatural works by deceive the people by attributing supernatural effects to certain words & ceremonies, without being able to do what they pretend to called charms & spells, wchwhich in truth are of no efficacy. And to beleive that men or weomen can really divine, charm enchant, bewitch charm or converse wthwith spirits is a superstitions & of the same nature with beleiving that the Idols of the Gentiles were really inhabited not vanities but had dæmons spirits really seated in them. [All this is the doctrine of Dæmons & of spirits of seduction condemned by the Apostle. For he that can conjure up a spirit may lodge it conjure it into a statue & he canthat can divine by a spirit can make himself a Priest to an Oracle. 134 Athanasius being accused of several crimes & condemned by the Council of Tyre A.C. 335 was banished by Constantine the great after he had also heard the cause. & So soon as Constantine was dead Iulius bishop of Rome A.C. 337 wrote to yethe eastern bishops a chiding letter representing that the privilege of calling general synods & no bishop acccused of crimes was to be judged upon an accusation of crimes but in a lawful synod called by Apostolic authority & that yethe privilege of calling general Councils & hearing the greater causes belonged to yethe first seat, & the the first seat was the Roman by not only by the Canons & decrees of the holy fathers but also by the words of our saviour saying Thou art Peter & upon this rock will I build my Church & whatsever thou shalt bind or lose on earth shall be bound or losed in heaven. And that without the sentence of the Bishop of Rome Councils were not to be celebrated nor a Bishop condemned because the holy Roman Church has the Primacy over all the Churches. And as Peter was the first of the Apostles so the church of Rome was the first of yethe Churches & to her all the greater ecclesiastical causes & judgments of bishops ought to be referred & nothing be determined wthwithout the Bishop of Rome. And this letter of yethe Bishop of Rome to yethe Oriental Bishops was the first attempt to yethe universal Bishopric, & the beginning of Popery. To this letter the Eastern Bishops re wrote a sharp answer representing that he dissoveddissolved their Council & sought to destroy em & unless he would forbear these The words dead & buried were also inserted into yethe Creed since the beginning. ffor th are also wanting in The four words expressions suffered was crucified dead & buried Instead of the four expressions suffered, was crucified, dead & buried, the primitive Creeds had only the word expression suffered & sometimes the word expression was crucified. T Dead is implied in yethe following next article viz the third day he rose again from yethe dead. And Buried is a circumstance mentioned only to confirm the truth of his death. Now if the articles & expressions wchwhich have been inserted into the Creeds of the Latines since the beginning be omitted we there will remain the primitive following primitive Creed of the Latines, I beleive in God the father Almighty maker of heaven & earth; & in Iesus Christ his only Son orour Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead & buried, the third day rose again from yethe dead, He ascended into heaven & sitteth aton the right hand of God the father Almighty, From thence he shall cometo judge the quick & the dead. And I beleive in the holy Ghost. And the primitive Creed of the Greeks answeranswering in substance to this of the Latines will be to this purpose. I beleive in One God the Father Almighty maker of heaven & earth & of all things therein visible & invisible & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, the third day rose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven in glory, ffrom twhence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead; And I beleive in the Holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets. These two Creeds are the same in substance as they ought to be because in the beginning of the Gospel men were baptized into yethe same faith from one end of yethe earth to yethe other as you have heard out of Irenæus & these primitive Creed was the symbol by repeating of wchwhich they Christians of all nations knew one another to be christians. The Articles conteined in them are generally found in the ancient Creeds & therefore authentiqꝫque those omitted are wanting in the oldest several of them & chiefly in the oldest. They are short & easy to be learnt by heart & remembred as a symbol ought to be. They are easy to be understood by the meanest capacities as the faith ought to be wchwhich was to be offered to men of all capacities in order to their salvation, & is therefore compared by the Apostle to milk for babes. The Articles conteined in them are generally found in the ancient Creeds & therefore are the most authentic. And They contein the first principles of yethe Oracles of God They contein not all the articles of christian faith of Christians but all thats necessary to salvation the remission of sins by baptism & admission into the church by baptism. We must beleive in God one God or else we cannot love him. We must beleive ytthat he is the father almighty, that the father by his almighty power, the fi that is, the first author of all things by the almighty power of his will, for we are to thank & worship him for our being & for all the blessings of this life. We are to beleive that Iesus the son of Mary who suffered under Pilate was is the Christ or Messiah predicted by Daniel or else we are no Christians. We are to beleive that he rose from the dead, for if he be not risen our faith is in vain & the dead in Christ are perished. 1 Cor. 15. We are to beleive that he sitts at yethe right hand of God or that we may consider him he ais the Mediator be next to God in dignity, the heir of all things, the Mediator between God & Man the heir of all things, the King of Kings & Lord of Lords, that we may pray to God in his name & & beleive keep his law endeavour to obtein the have some notion of the greatness of conceive the happiness of those who shall be admitted into his kingdom be invited to live well to be exceeding great. We are to beleive that he shall come to judge yethe quick & dead that we & reward all men according to their works that we may live accordingly. And we are to beleive that there is a holy spirit, who spake by Moses & the Prophets, that we may beleive & study their writing. All these are truths wchwhich influence the practise & therefore are necessary to be beleived. But what is the metaphysical nature of yethe ffather son & h. Ghost & what Christ was or what he did before he was born of the Virgin Mary or between his death & resurrection or what he or we shall do after the day of judgment, or with what bodies the dead shall rise, [whether wthwith all the body wchwhich they ever had from their conception to their death or only wthwith so much of that body as they had at their death or only wthwith part thereof or only] are questions of a nature to disse less material for us to understand know in order to a good life & conversation & more difficult to understand & so are the questions about predestination & free will & about the nature of the satisfaction made by Christ & therefore 135 Now if the Articles wchwhich have been inserted into yethe Creeds since the beginning be omitted, the Creed of the Latines usually called the Apostles Creed wll be reduced to this form. I beleive in God yethe ffather Almighty maker of heaven & earth & in Iesus Christ his only son our Lord who was conceivd by the holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead & buried, the third day rose again from the dead; asc He ascended into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God the ffather almighty; From thence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead And I beleive in the holy Ghost. And in this Creed there still remain some Articles wchwhich seem to have been inserted from since the beginning. ② ① The Article sitteth at the right hand of God the father almighty [hath also ben inserted by the Latins to since the beginning. ffor in] is wanting in the two Creeds of Irenæus, & in those of Eusebius, & Lucius, & in those of yethe Councils of Nice, Antioch, one of Tertullians & that o the Nicene & in one of Tertullians one of Tertullians & in the Nicene, & therefore was not one of those articles of faith into wchwhich all nations from were baptized in the beginning of the Gospel nor is necessary to baptism, but has been crouded put into the Creed between the articles ascended into heaven, & from thence he shall come to judge the qu. ffor it spoiles interrupts the reference: wchwhich sense those articles have to one another the words from thence relating to the word heaven ffor he does not come from yethe right hand of the ffather but fom heaven to judge the quick & the dead ffor he comes from heaven to judge the quick & the dead & not from the right hand of the father for he sits at the right hand of the father not only in this world but also in that wchwhich is to come as the Greeks represented in one of their Creeds Let these two articles therefore be omitted & the Apostles Creed will be reduced to these Articles. I beleive in God the ffather Almighty maker of heaven & earth, & in Iesus Christ orour Lord his only Son who was born of yethe Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate was crucified dead & buried, the third day rose again from yethe dead, He & ascended into heaven, ffrom thence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead, & I beleive in the holy Ghost. ffor thes two articles conceived by the Holy Ghost & sitteth at the right hand of God the father Almighty are is wanting in the two Creeds of Eusebius Irenæus & in those of recorded by and of Eusebius of Cæsarea & Lucius the Martyr & the Creed Cyril of Ierusalem recited by Cyril & in two of Tertullians & in all the Creeds of yethe Councils of Nice, Antioch, Sirmium, Ariminum, Seleucia & Constantinople & therefore it was not necessary to baptism came not from the Grek Church in the beginning of the Gospel it being generally wanting in their Creeds, nor was necessary to baptism many nations being baptized without it, & therefore was not inserted put into the Creed by the Apostles in order to baptism but came & after their days was inserted out of Lukes Gospel & that improperly because it was improper to mention the holy Ghost in the Creed before the Article, I beleive in the Holy Ghost. And indeed it obscures the true sense of the primitive Creeds wchwhich teach that God is the ffather & the Virgin Mary the Mother of Iesus, or that he was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the almighty power & workes of God hi the father himself & the free had no other father then God & is the only begotten son of God, all other manmen being born begotten by the Almight ordinary course of nature. As he was raised from the dead by the Almighty power of the father & therefore is called the first begotten from of the dead & the first born from the dead & the son of God of whom God saith Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Apoc. 1.5 Colos. 1.18, & the son of God Act 13.33: so he was incarnate by the same power almighty power & therefore also is called the Son of God. The Angel said unto yethe Virgin Mary, a holy Spirit (the λογος or Shekinah or Angel of Gods presence) shal come upon thee & the power of the Highest (the almighty power of God the ffather) shall overshadow thee: therefore also that tholy thing wchwhich shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God Luke 1.35.] He is not the Son of the Holy Ghost & the Virgin Mary but the Son of God the father. & the Virgin Mary. As God Almighty the father in the creation of the world by his almighty power formed the seeedsseeds of all animals & vegetables before they grew out of in the earth & in the sea waters Gen. 1.11, 21, 24, & therefore Adam is called the son of God Luke 3.38: so the same God for by the almighty power of his counsel, choise & will incarnated Iesus & formed him in the seed before he he grew in the womb of the Virgin Mary & to express this in the Creed, Iesus is called the Son of God & Mar his mother is called a Virgin. God formed the seeds of other things in the earth & waters by him & him in yethe womb of the Virgin by his own immediate power & operation & therefore he is called the only Son & the only begotten son of God the father. The titles The titles given to Iesus have generally a relation to yethe old prophesies in the old testament concerning him, that we may & were given to him for explaining those prophesies & signifying that he is the person predicted in them. He is called the son of man to signify that he is the person spoken of by that name in Daniels prophesy of the four bBeasts. He is called Michael Apoc 12 to signify that he is that Michael the great Prince who at spoken of by Daniel in these words And at that time shall Michael stand up the great Prince wchwhich standeth for the children of thy people Dan. 12. He is called the Mes Christ or Messiah to signify that he is the Messiah spoken of in the prophesy of Daniels weeks. He is called the king of kings & Lord of LordLords to signify that he is the Prince of Prince the host & the Prince of Princes spoken of in Daniels prophesy of the Ram & he Goat. He is called the Λογος or Word of God to signify that he is the mouth mouth or Oracle of God whose testimony is the spirit of prophesy the great Prophet foretold by Moses. He is called the Lamb of God to signify that he was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb in the law of Moses. He is called the son of David to signify that he is the seed of David whose throne shall be established for ever Psal. 89. Luc. 1.32. He is called the son of God to signify that he is the person of whom God said in the Psalms Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. Which prophesy Peter applies to Christs being begotten by his resurrection from the dead Act. 13.33 & the Angel Gabriel & the Creed to his being begotten conceived or begotten of the Virgin by the power of the most High. Luc. 1.35.] And in the same sense he is called in the Creed the Son of God born of the Virgin Mary, [& the relation wchwhich these two Articles have to one another is interrupted by & clouded by inserting between them that he was conceived by the h. G] But the following form suits better with the Creeds of the Greeks of the Greeks Now if these two articles be omitted the Apostles Creed will be reduced to this form. I beleive in God, the father Almighty, maker of heaven & earth, & in Iesus Christ his only Son orour Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified dead & buried, He ascended into the third day he rose again from the dead & ascended into heaven, from thence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead & I beleive in the holy Ghost. This Creed is the same in substance wthwith the first Creed of Irenæus, & therefore conteins the primitive faith wchwhich according to Irenæus was preached to all nations in order to baptism & by the recital of wchwhich all Christians from one end of the earth to yethe other knew one another to be Christians. Its articles are generally to be met with in the ancient Creeds of both Greeks & Latines, but in the Creeds of the Greeks are better exprest by teaching to beleive in one God the father & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God & in the h. Ghost who spake by the Prophets use to be exprest more fully in the Creeds of the Greeks, as in the following form I beleive in one God, the ffather almighty, maker of heaven & earth, & of all things visible & invisible, & in one Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God, who was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, & was buried, & the third day he arose again from the dead, He ascended into heaven, from wthence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead & reward them every allowin one according to theiris works sending the ungodly & the pern blasphemers & the unjust & the lawless into everlasting fire & receiving into his own kingdom wthwith glory all those who have lived well towards either from the beginning or after repentance & I beleive in the holy Ghost who spake by the Prophets. These Creeds, wchwhich are the same in substance, are easy to be understood by the meanest capacities & so are fit to be proposed to all men, as the first principles of religion ought to be & on that account are may properly be compared to milk for babes. They are short & easy to be remembred as the symbols of religion ought to be. They are not mere mere Theories but practical truths on wchwhich the whole practise of religion depends & therefore to be learned in the first place as the foundation of all religion. We must beleive in one God that we love him. We must beleive that he is the father almighty or first author of all things by the almighty power of his will, We ytthat we may thank & worship him for our being & for all the blessings of this life. We must beleive that Iesus who was born of the Virgin Mary & suffered under Pontius Pilate is the Christ or Messiah the Prince our Lord predicted by Daniel or else we are no Christians. We must beleive that he is orour Lord or King that we may behave our selves obediently towards him as subjects & keep his laws. And that we may give him the more honour We must beleive that he was not an ordinary man but incarnate by the almighty power of God & born of a Virgin without any other father then God him self. We m We must beleive that by the same almighty power of God he rose from the dead & that he shall come to be our Iudge ytthat we may hab be our judge that we may endeavour to give expect yethe like resurrection & fit orour selves to stand before him at the in that day in the day of judmentjudgment & to deserve an early resurrection. And we must beleive that there is a holy prophetic spirit by wchwhich Moses & the Prophets & Apostles were influenced, that we may study their writing as the oracles of truth & thereby grow in grace & in the knowledge of orour Lord Iesus Christ to yethe end of orour lives. // ffor besides the first principles & fundamentals of religion conteined in the Creed, there wchwhich all are to learn before baptism & wchwhich the Apostle therefore compares to milk for babes there are many truths of great importance but more difficultly to be understood & less not absolutely necessary to salvation. And these the Apostle compares to strong meats for men of ripe full age who by use have their senses exercised to discern both good & evil. With these truths the mind is to be fed continually as the body is wthwith meats. And to these truths I refer what Christ did before his incarnation & between his death & resurrection & after his ascention what he doth in heaven how long & how he reins in the day of judgmtjudgment untill all enemies are put under his feet, the last of wchwhich is death that is untill all the dead are raised & judged & what he or we shall do after the day of judgment, as also the power of the keys, forms of Church government, all disputable questions about the satisfaction of Ch Providence predestination free will, the nature of Angels, & the like state of the dead between death & the resurrection, & the like the bodies wthwith wchwhich the dead shal rise, the power of yethe keys, forms of Church government the keeping of Easter & other holydays & the like. About these & such like things we are to learn all we can & to instruct one another, but not to fall out about them. The strong in faith & knowledge must not despise the weak & the weak must not judge & censure the strong but all pers Christians keeping the common faith into wchwhich they were baptized & whereby they are were admitted into the Church & united into one church mystical body of Christ must beare wthwith one anothers infirmities & abound with love & charity & meekness towards one another more then with self love & fondness towards their own opinions. ffor knowledg puffeth up but charity is the fulfilling of the law & self conceipt & pride of mind tends to wrangling & & enmity & contention & schism, whereas the man of God must not strive. ffor Charity is the fulfilling of the law, & without it all other graces & all knowledge whatsoever profit nothing. In this consists the unity of the & peace of the Church & wo be to them through whom offences come. Now altho strong meats should not be given to mixed with the milk wchwhich is to be given to babes. yet the Latine Churches have done it. & thereby In opposition to hereticks they have added divers new articles to their Creed & thereby altered the foundation upon which the Church was built by Christ & his Apostles wchwhich they had no authority to do. They might anathematize or excommunicate men for wicked practices, & for denying or perverting the faith into wchwhich they were baptized. But were not to enlarge diminish or alter that faith themselves. ffor the servant is not above his master. All the articles of faith necessary to baptism were put into the Creed by the Apostles & nothing unnecessary was to be added afterwards. The sybolsymbol by which the Christians of all nations from till the days of Irenæus knew one another to be Christians should not have been changed & in which the unity of the Church Catholick consisted should not have been changed. But they changed it & by inserting new articles at length dissolved that unity was dissolved While the new articles were in the language of the scriptures they made no disputes: but when they varied from the scripture language the Church was rent asunder by the contentions wchwhich arose thereupon 136 So that the sentence against him was the sentence of the Church Catholick. But the Council of Nice admitted disputed against scrupled the homousios, admitted it at the importunity of their Emperor, & limited its signification, & as soon as the fathers of that Council & & the next su were at liberty they disputed against it, vehemently & dropt it in all their Councils & never desisted till they got it repeald If numbers of bishops are to be considered the Council of Ariminum was bigger then then yethe Nicene: If antiquity freedom & universal approbation, the Council of Antioch must take place. Hilary indeed te Basil in his 300th Epistle represents that the Council of Antioch in the case of Paul of Samosat rejected the word ὁμοούσιος because it implied a division represented when a substance wthwith its properties became divided in such manner that the substacesubstance becam into parts when divided into parts wchwhich it represented those parts it represent the parts of a divided substance And this was true in brass & money coyned out of it but had no place in God the father & God the son ffor Basil tells us that yethe Council of Antioch in condemnng Paul of Samosat rejected the ὁμοούσιος for this very reason. To Sir Isaac Newton KntKnight Master and Worker of Her Majesties Mint, These After the question about yethe sen authority of the Greek Church was res over her own members was restored, other new Councils were called at Sirmium Nicæa in Thrace to reconcile the Churches about the faith. & a Council called These met at Sirmium, Nicæa in Thrace, Ariminum Seleucia & Constantinople in the years 357, 358, 359 & 360, & agreed to abolished the use of the word ουσια & its compounds for these reasons 1 because it was not in scripture 2dly because it had been condemned by the Council of Antioch with the approbation of the Church Cat all the Churches 60 years before the Council of Nice & the sentence was universally received, & was & 3dly because it was a stumbling block to yethe people & led them into dangerous errors being commonly understood by them in a different sense from that of the Council of Nice, for proving of wchwhich the Acts of the Council were produced. The Council of Sirmium therefore omitting the words ομοούσιος & μιας ουσιάς declared the son to be similis patri secundūum scripturas composed & subscribed a Creed wchwhich was the next year subscribed by the Councils of Nicæa & Ariminum & by the Legates of the Council of Seleucia & the year following by the Council of Constantinople: to declare in wchwhich Creed the son is said to be similis patri secundum scripturas ✝ declared in their Creed that the son was similis patri secundum scripturas. And this Creed was the next year subscribed by yethe Councils of Nicæ & Ariminūum & in the end of yethe year by yethe Legates of the Council of Seleucia & the year following by the Council of Constantinople. This Creed we recited above. And thus was the Grek & were the eastern & western Churches reconciled & reunited in the outward profession of faith. And in this united state things continued till the end of the reign of Constantius & during the reign of Iulian the Apostate who be at Sirmium in yethe years 357 358 & 359, at N Ariminum Nicæ in Thrace, Ariminum & Seleucia in yethe year 359 the force of these reasons b The opinion of the The words were laid aside therefore 1st be for putting an end to yethe great disturbances wchwhich they had made in yethe Churches, & ffor the Council of Nice & eastern Churches interpreting the ὁμοούσιος by ὁμοιούσιος similis substantiæ, the western by unius substantiæ. The And for convincing the western Churches that The words were laid aside therefore for these reasons. 1st because the word ομοουσιος in its most proper signification (of wchwhich the Greek were the best judges) imported a former substance out of wchwhich both were a result of two substance first intire & then distinguished or divided into two arising out of division distinction or division of a prior substance into two or the coming of one substance out of another by emanation, emission, projection, or partition as light comes from yethe sun, a river from yethe fountain, a branch from yethe root a fragm a piece from the whole & the like a child from the mother &c. And in this sense the word implies that the son sprang f & holy ghost sprang from yethe father after the manner of the Æons of yethe Gnosticks or were parts of him as in yethe Trinity of Montanus, & so was not a proper word to be applied to yethe Trinity. 2dly Because the Council of Nice had admitted the word hastily & by & without mature deliberation the Emperor being present in yethe Council & pressing it, & the Council making scruples & excepting against the signification above mentioned wchwhich was the proper signification of yethe word & cautioning that it should not be taken for nothing in that sense nor for any thing more more then ὁμοιούσιος & after the Council was ended, making the bishops who had composed the Council & the BpsBishops in all the east disputing afterwards against yethe use of wordthe word in all the East & omitting it in a bigger Council at Tyre receiving Arius into communion wchwhich & in all their Councils wchwhich followed contending that ομοουσιος was proper to bodies & ομοιουσιος to spirits. For the Greeks how universally the Greeks rejected the word ομοουσιος may appear by the character wchwhich eusebi Hilary in his banishmtbanishment A.C. 358 gave of the Eastern provinces where he was then in banishment. 3dly Because the Latines had translated the word ομοούσιος by unius substantiæ & the translation thereby departed from the sense of the Nicene Council wchwhich had interpreted the word by ὁμοιουσιος by similis substantiæ as appeared by the Acts of the Council produced in the Council of Ariminum for convincing the Latines. And there to put an end to the disturbances wchwhich had arisen having arisen great disturbances between the Greeks & Latines about the language of unius substantiæ & similis substantiæ the best way to put an end to those disturbances was to abolish the use of the words wchwhich had caused thoseem. disturbances 4 Because the words ex usia, homousios & unius substantiæ taken together, very much the errors of Montanus & Sabellius, & caused them to spread in the west & the best way to put a stop to the growth of those errors was to remove the cause For Hilary in yethe year 358 wrote thus to the Bishops of Gallia & Britain. Multi ex nobis &c 5 Because the word homousios was repealed rejected by the Council of Antioch 6 Because it was not in scripture. Vir celeberrime Quæ mihi attribuis vota patum conveniunt At fama tua ob doctrinam simul et prudentiam late diffuse efficet inter Principum cura tibi demandata sit Principes nobilissimi Quod in regiones nostras discendi gratia peregre profectientes gaudeo cum vestris auspicijs inde augurer quod vestris auspicijs reg humaniores scientiæ mere flore in regno Moscovitico augmentum sument & maxime florebunt. 137 From this opinion of the Egyptians Plato had his doctrine of Ideas & the cabbala Iews, who in the rein reign of the Greeks were numerous in Egypt, had that part of their Cabbala wchwhich treats theirs of the ten Sephiroths or splendors wchwhich were aethereal emanations from the supreme deity. Those heresies consisted chiefly in certain heathen opinions superstitions & impieties & per wchwhich insinuated themselves first into the Iewish religion & then into the Christian. ffo And as the Israelites of old by conversing wthwith the heathens we Hence came their Theogenies & metaphysical philosophy about the generation & nature of the Gods & the original of the world & the Platonic Idæas From this opinion of the heathens came these metaphysical philosophy of the heathens about the origin of the woldworld the generation & nature of the Gods & the transmigration of Souls. And this doctrine of Dæmons was as old as th the Idolatry of the heathens. ffor their Idolatry was grownded upon it. And therefore Moses to prevent the spreading of this sort of Philosophy among the Israelites wrote the history of the creation of the world in a very different manner from the Cosmogenias of the heathens, attributing the production of all things to the immediate will of of the supreme God. Yet the Iews were very were very apt to fall into Israelites by conversing with the heathens in Canaan were very apt to fall into frequently lapsed into the worship of their Gods & by conquenceconsequence received their Theology untill they were captivated for these transgressions. After And afterwards by conversing wthwith the Babylonians Chaldæans Assyrians, Egyptians Persians Egyptians & Greeks they imbibed their metaphysicks about the Metaphysical Theology as is manifest by their Cabbala of yethe Iews wchwhich consists chiefly in describing how the first Being [whom they call Æn Soph the infinite, caused ten emitted ten whom they call Æn-Soph the infinite emitted ten gradual subordinate emanations wchwhich they call Sephiroths or Splendors, the first (wchwhich they call Adam Cadmon & the first man, & Kether the Crown) proceeding flowing immediately from himself himself Æn-Soph, the second (wchwhich they call Cochmah wisdom) flowing from the first, the third (wchwhich they call Binah prudence) flowing from the first or second second & so on.] emitted ten sub-subordinate & gradual emanations the first And these ten emanations they consider call by the names after Gods attributes & powers, the f calling the first Adam Kether the Crown & Adam Kadmon the first man, the second Cochmah wisdom, the third Binah Prudence & the fourth Gedulah magnificence, the fift Geburah strength the sixt Tipherah beauty & so on the last Melcoth the . And after these ten wchwhich they call mundus azilutheus the emanative world they make three lower worlds to be produced wchwhich they the called Iezirah, Briah & Asiah, wchwhich last is this corporeal world wchwhich they call Iezirah, Briah Iezirah & Asiah Briah the throne of glory & world of separate intelligences, Iezirah the world of of Angels & Asiah the corporeal world that is the world in wchwhich we live. And they say that the influence & power of the first cause wchwhich they call Æn-Soph & the Ænsophic world reaches through all things & by means of the Sephiras the by means of the su by means thereof that of Kether & Cochmah & Binah through all things below them & that by means of the the superior powers superior powers the Azaluthic kingdom formed the world Briah, the Briathic kingdom formed the world Iezirah & the Iezirathic kingdom formed the lowest world Asiah: & that yethe souls of men come from above revolve & pass into several states & bodies & after death return to the internal light of yethe Shekinah. This opinion seems to have had its rise from the first worshipping & deifying of dead kings & exalting them in the opinion of the people till they made them the highest celestiall Gods taking & took the oldest for the supreme God almighty or for a God descended immediately from him & his successors for a series of Gods descended fro successively from yethe oldest, The & making this race of Gods as ancient as the creation of the world or first. For the Chaldeans placed a race of ten successive Gods reigning from the time of the Creation beginning of the world to the time of the flood, the as is recited in a fragment of Berosus preserved by Eusebius. The Phenicians Egyptians began their represented God's creation of the world by a spiders weaving a webb out of her own bowels & began their history with a gener race of Gods & heroes the last of wchwhich was Orus. The Phenicians began their history wthwith a rac the creation of the world & a race of above ten successive pairs of Gods as is recited by Sanchoniatho. And from Egypt & Phenicia came the like Theology into Greece as you may see in Hesiods Theogenia. And as the Cabalistical Iews by conversing with the heathens fell into Idolatry frequently before the captivity so by conversing wthwith the Chaldæans Phenicianscians & Egyptians in the time of the Babylonian Captivity they seem to have learnt their Theology of those nations & refined it. ffor they derived their mystical Cabbala by tradition from the days of Ezra & supposed that it came to Ezra from Moses & this Kabbala consists chiefly in describing how from the first cause whom they call Æn-Soph the infinite were emitted ten gradually ten subordinate emanations which they call Sephiroths – – – – – Shekinah formed the lowest world Asiah X Each of the ten Sephiroths & X Each of the ten Sephiroths they called Adam a man & the first of them they called Adam Kadmon the first man & make him the son of God as Adam is called in Scripture &. From Which confirms the opinion that the ten Sephiroths were originally ten men deified, namely the ten antidiluvian patriarchs mentioned by Manetho the first of wchwhich was called Alorus & by the Chaldæans & Adam by the Iews. And as the ancient heathens held the transmigration of souls into various bodies, making them come from above God & pass into various bodies & at length after various states return upwards from whence they came so did the cabalistical Iews held that souls had a revolution; coming from above passing into various bodies & after death returning to the internal light of the Shekinah. Now the ancient heresies sprang as well from the Cabbala of theIews as from the Theology of the heathens Now as the Metaphysicks of the Cabbalistical Iews came from the Theology of the heathens so the opinions of the ancient hereticks about the emanations of the Deity sprang from both. Simon & Menander called the first emitted substance Ennoia Plato travelling into Egypt at a time when the Iews were very numerous in that country learnt there his metaphysical opinions about the superior beings & formal causes of all things, which he calls Idæas & wchwhich the Cabbalists call Sephiroths & separate intelligences & the heathens Gods The first being was by by the Platonists cald was called the one & the word the next they called by them was called Æon, Αιων Λόγος, ἐιδος, Ιδεα, Ο νους Η῾Σοφια, & Æon. & by Philo Ιδέα των Ιδεων the general Idæa of all things Æon the word the form the Idea the Mind the WisdomΠερὶ Κοσμοπ. p. 3. And by Philo κόσμος νοητὸς το ἀρχήτυπον παράδειγμα, Ἰδέα των Ιδεων, ὁ θεου λόγος & ὁ ὀρφὸς θεου λόγος προτοτονος υιος. the intellectual world, the archetypal exemplar, the generall idea of all things, the word of God, the true first begotten son of God. The third This principle seems to be the same wthwith the second Sephiroth of the Cabbalists called Cochmah wisdom. And [the third principle of the Platonists is Psyche the soul of the world. whose is in matter the lowest If by the world they mean the inferior material world Asiah, then Psyche will answer to Malcuth the last of the Sephiroths: but if they mean the system of the ten worlds, then Psyche will be the Shekinah wchwhich produced the three [This principle they make to be the wife of Æon & therefore it was the Binah or third Æon Æon & Psyche of the Platonists are the Cochma & Binah of the Cabalists Sephirah of the Cabbalists. For the Cabbalists made Binah to be the wife of Cochmah & called her the superior Shekinah & said that yethe Shekinah produced the worlds.] that is the soul of this material world Asiah which soul, wchwhich according to the Cabbalists was called Malcuth the last of the Sephiroths. And as the Platonists make Psyche to be the wife of Æon so the Cabalists make Malcuth to be the wife of Seir Anpin other Microscopus, & the modern Cabalists tell us that Seir Anpin is the Soul of the Messiah united to the conjoyned wthwith the eternal Logos. They call Malcuth the Shekinah & make a double Shekinah the superior called Dinah & the inferior called Malcuth & say that Shekinah produced the three worlds Briah Iezirah & Asiah. But the Platonists do not not make all these distinctions. When they speak [When they speak of the soule of yethe world they seem by this world to mean the system of all the three worlds & by the soul of this world to mean the Schekinah & in the shekinah to comprehend Binah & Malcuth wthwith the six intermediate Sephiroths considered joyntly as the ideal or formal cause of this world & called Malcuth in a large sence or at least by Psyche & & or at least they speak of Malcuth as they mean the soul of the inferior world Asiah. & called her Psyche 138 The third principle Being of the Platonists was was by the Platonists called Psyche the soule of yethe world. & She was supposed to be the wife of Æon & therefore this philosophy had its rise from men & weomen coupled. [And these three principles some take to be the three first Sephiroths of the Cabbalists Kether Cochmah & Binah. ffor the Cabbalists to make Binah to make Cochmah the husband of Binah & from Binah deri with her race of emanations derive the three world systeme of the three worlds, Briah, Iezirah & Asiah] And ffrom Psyche they derived the inferior ideas or forms of the the souls of animals women & beasts & the materia prima, The three & made a transmigration of souls into various bodies. Some take the One, the Logos & Psyche of Plato to be the three first Sephiroths of the Cabbalists, Kether, Cochmah & Binah. And its possible that Plato might borrow from in his travels might coverseconverse wthwith the old Iewish Cabbalists, but whether he did or not is not material certain. This only at least only is certain that Plato's Metaphysicks is of yethe same stamp wthwith the ancient Theology of the heathens & Cabbala of the Iew Iews, all of them deriving the substances of all things from yethe the first cause by emanation & making male & female Gods. Now as the Theology Metaphysicks of the Cabbalistical Iews & Platonists came from the Theology of the heathens, so the metaphysical opinions of the ancient hereticks about their Gods sprang came from them all both. Simon & Menander called the first emitted substance Ennoia The hereticks of the circumcision as Simon & Menander Nicolaus Cerinthus Menander would be most apt to derive their opinions from the Iewish Cabbala & from this fountain came was the rise of yethe Gnosticks. Those of the uncircumcision arose later & derived their errors partly from the Gnostic either followed the Gnosticks or or derived their opinions from the heathen Philosophers. the chief of wchwhich & Principall from Platonick upon the after the death of Iohn & those that had conversed with him the begining of his Gospel was taken by some for a piece of Platonick Philosophy & chiefly the Platonists & some of them as Carpocrates & his followers worshipped the Images of the heathen Philosophers Pythagora Plato & Aristotle & other heathen Philosophers & refining their opinions adapted them to the Idea principles of the Christian religion set down in the Creed. And first Montanus refining the errors of the Gnosticks & heathen Philosophers by the Platoniqꝫque philosophy end of Matthews Gospel, the principles beginning of Iohns Gospel & the Creed made the Son & holy Ghost emissions or Æons emitted from the father & subordinate to him. And misinterpreting the word name Logos used by Iohn he made the Son to be the internal wisdom reason & Word of the ffather, the Λογος ἐνδιάθετος emitted from him not like the empty voice of a man, but – – – – – – – Philosophers. For some of them, as Carpocrates & his followers, worshipped the Images of several heathen Philosophers Pythagoras Plato Aristotle Homer & some others. At first their opinions were gross but afterwards they refined them by Platonism & applied them to the ffather son & holy Ghost. For Montanus made the Son & h. ghost emissions or Æons emitted from the father & subordinate to him: & misinterpreting the name Logos use made the Son to be the internal wisdom reason & word of the ffather, the Λόγος ἐνδιαθητος emitted from not like the empty voice of a man but, but – – Where Christ saith, He ytthat hath seen me hath seen yethe father, that is in their works, somehave understood it literally of seeing their substance & thence inferred that the father & son are one in substance, tho the father is yethe invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see. Where Christ saith, Be ye one I & the father are one, many have understood it of a metaphysical unity as if they were one in substance, tho Christ himself interprets it of a moral unity by saying, Be ye one as I & the father are one. [Where Christ saith that yethe Holy Ghost proceedeth from yethe father many have understood it metaphysically as if the sub substance of the holy Ghost proceeded from yethe substance of the father by emanation; whereas Christ plainly speaks of his proceeding from yethe father as a messenger. He tells his disciples that he would send the comforter to them, & to confirm the truth of the message he tells them holy Ghos further that thewould send Comforter proceeds from the father.] Where Christ is called the Son of God they many understand it of a natural generation from all eternity, whereas it relates to the prophesy Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee, & this Prophesy is applied by Peter to Christs resurrection from the dead. Where Christ is called the Word Λογος, the Word reason & wisdom the Word of God, the many of understand it of the Λογος ἐνδιάθετος the only inward reason wisdom & word of yethe of God the father wthwithout wchwhich the ffather would be ἀσοφος & ἀλογος: whereas he is called the Word as he is the great Prophet to whom alone God reveals himself immediately & who sends his Angel wthwith the revelations pr revelations to his servants the Prophets, [& is therefore call by this Prophetick Angel called the called the faithfull & true witness whose testimony is the spirit of prophesy] as Iohn witnesses in these words: The Revelation of Iesus Christ wchwhich God gave unto him & he sent his Angel & signified it to his servant Iohn God had the book Apoc. 1.1. The book of Prophesy was originally in the hadhand of God & none was worthy to receive it but the Lamb. who obteine (Apoc 4 & 5) who is therefore called the faithful & true witness whose testimon the Word of God, whose testimony is the spirit of prophesy. 139 For understanding the progress of these heresies it may be convenient to distinguish the it into periods of time. And the first period I reccon the age of the Apostles wchwhich ended with the death of Iohn in the first or 2d year of Trajan, A.C. 99, or 100 or about seven years after with the death of Symeon the son of Cleopas & bishop of Ierusalem, the last of the Apostolic men who had seen Christ. For Hegesippus who was contemporary to Irenæus mentioning yethe death of Symeon, adds that yethe church continued till that time like a Virgin incorrupt & pure; but after the holy company of Apostles were dead, errors & heresies began to spring up very fast. In this first age there were some hereticks of note as Simon, Menander, Nicolaus & Cerinthus, but these being checkt by the authority of Apostolick men who had conversed with Christ, made no great progress. In The next age therefore the arose many hereticks Basilides, Carpocrates, Saturninus, Valentinus, Secundus, Ptolomæus Cerdon Marcion, Apelles, Severus, Marcus, Colarbasus, Montanus, Tatian, Theodotion, Bardasanes, Noetus, & others, & their errors spread till they began to shock the Church wchwhich The next age may be recconed first happened in the days reign of Severus, when Victor the Bishop of Rome turned first a Montanist & then a Praxean (as Tertullian mentions) & excommunicated the Churches of Asia for keeping Easter on yethe 14th day of yethe Moon. The third period age therefore must begin wthwith yethe reign of Severus or Episcoppacy of Victor. The next period of moment for in respect of ecclesiastical affairs was the sharp persecution of Decius in the end of wchwhich anniversary holy days to martyrs were instituted & auricular confession & pennance crept into the churches & Stephen Bishop of Rome wrote excommunicated the Churches of Afric & for not admitting the baptism of all sorts of hereticks. For By this easy admittance of hereticks into the Church of Rome, they were invited to croud into it. & by admitting it himself he invited all hereticks to croud into his church. made yethe son to be the internal wisdom reason & word of yethe ffather & emitted from him not like the empty vanid voice of a man but with a substance, like the emissions or Æons of the Gnosticks, nothing being empty & void wchwhich proceeds from God. His opinion Tertullian a Montanist thus sets down & defends. Invisibila quæcunqꝫque sunt habent apud Deum & suum corpus et suam fomamformam: quanto magis uod ex substantia ipsius missum est sine substantia non erit ☉Νους of Basilides & yethe emssions or Æons of the other Gnosticks, noth [nothing being empty & void wchwhich proceeds from God.] For in this manner Tertullian a Montanist sets down the opinion, Invisibilia of Montanus & in defending it contends that Valentinus borrowed his Æons from yethe truth The Py Chap. Of the working of the mystery of Iniquity The Apostle Paul hath told us that before the coming day of Christ there should be a falling away or an Apostasy & the Man of Sin should be revealed the son of perdition, who was to who opposeth & exalteth himself above all that is called God or that worshipped, so that he as a God (or Oracle) sitteth in the templ so that he as a God (or Oracle sitteth in the Temple (or Church) of God (as it were upon the throne between the Cherubims) shewing himself that he is a God, & that this mystery of iniquity worked even in his days only that wchwhich letted should let untill it be should be taken out of the way & then should that wicked one be revealed whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power & signes & lying wonders & a strong delusion & with all deceivableness of unrighteousness & who should reign as a God or Oracle in the temple or Church of God untill the Lord should destroy him with the brightness of his coming. There was to be therefore an Apostasy which should last from yethe Apostles days to the day of judgment second coming of Christ & therefore is now in being. It worked in the AposlesApostles days & was to work without dominion untill that wchwhich letted its rise should be taken out of the way & then it was to rise up & appear & reign as a God in the Church untill the day of judgment. by means of a like an angel of light with all power & signs & lying wonders & a strong delusion & reign as a God in the Church or Oracle in the Temple of God or as an Orac untill the day of judgment, that is, it was to reign & be worshipped in the angel of light it should was to reign in yethe Church with divine authority an authority wchwhich all Christians whose names are not writen in the book of life should worship & wonder after whose names are no as the authority of God himself whose names are not as the infallible authority of God himself, & by this authority it should change times & laws & they should be given into its hands untill the judgment should sit. Now that wchwhich letted yethe Apostle does not name least he should should be thought an enemy to yethe Roman Empire, but tells the churches that they knew it already & by the tradition of yethe first ages of Christianity it was the Roman Empire: not the sun the a future Christian Empire (for the Man of Sin was to be a Christian dominion) but the heathen Roman Empire wchwhich reigned in the Apostles days While this empire stood the Man of Sin who was to be a Christian Roman dominion could not rise up with dominion but when so soon as it should be taken out of the away we were to exp he was to be revealed. And because th that wchwhich letted was to be taken out of the away therefore the Apostle does not name it least he should seem be blamed by the heathens as an enemy to yethe Roman their Empire. So then we are here to consider the working of the mystery of iniquity during the reign of yethe heathen Roman Empire & after the fall of that Empire to expect the rise of the man of sin. Now the mystery of iniquity wchwhich worked in the Apostles days & continued to work till the end of the heathen Roman Empire was the heresies of Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Menander, Cerinthus & wchwhich then sprang up & whose authors Iohn calls Antichrists. Little children saith he, it is the last time; & as ye have heard that Antichrist shall come even now there are many Antichrists whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us but they were not of us &c. Which is as much as to say that as they had heard that Antichrist should come & that the last time was the time of Antichrist his reign,so by the many hereticks which had separated from us the Church & awere the forerunners of the great Antichrist, ye may they might know that the last time taken in a large sense so as to comprehend Antichrist with his forerunners was already begun. Those heresies consisted chiefly in – – – – – – & used the signe of the cross as an amulet or charm against the devil & his works, as the Montanists. In Parabola velocitas corporis ad quamvis ab umbilico distantiam est velocitatem circulo ad eandem a centro distantiam in subduplicata ratione 140 The authority of this Viccar extended over Epire, as The bishop of Rome had also his Vicar over the Province of Venice. For Pope Leo in his 87th Epistle directed to Septimus writes thus. Ne imperia possit obtinere fallacem Ad metropolitanum Episcopum provinciæ Venetiæ scripta direximus quibus ad status sui periculam cognosceret pertinere si quisquam de PelagionorumPelagianorum & Cælestianorum consorte veniens in communione Catholica sine professione legitimæ satisfactionis habeatur. He had also his Vicar over all Gallia & this Vicar in the day was sometimes the bishop of Arles. ffor all the Bishops under of this Metropolis Diocess in their Epistle to Pope Leo I say in favour of their Ravennius b their Metropolitan Cui id etiam honoris dignitatisqꝫque collatum est, ut non tantum has Provincias [vizt Viennensem, Narbonensem primam & Norbonensem secundam] potestate propria gubernaret verum etiam omnes Gallias, sibi Apostolicæ sedis vice mandata sub omni Ecclesiastica Regula continteret. [And in the same Epistle these bishops say that per beatum beatissimum Petrum Apostolorum principem sacrosancta Romana Ecclesia Romana teneret supra omnes totius mundi Ecclesias principatum. [And Ceretius Salonius & Veranus &three other bishops of Gallia in their Epistle to Pope Leo I say Magna præterea et ineffabili quadam nos peculiares tui gratulatione succeressimus] These relate About 34 years before the wri These letters were written A.C. 450 & about 34 years be] And Pope Leo in his epistle to his Vicar Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica (one of his Vicars) speaking of the subordination of bishops governours saith: De qua forma, episcoporum quoqꝫque est orta distinctio, & magna dispositione provisum est, ne omnes sibi omnia vindicarent: sed essent in singulis Provincijs singuli quorum inter fratres haberetur prima sententia: et rursus quidam in majoribus urbibus constituti sollicitudinem suciperent ampliorem per quos ad unam Petri sedem universalis Ecclesiæ cura conflueret & nihil usqꝫque a suo capite dissideret. Qui ergo scit se quibusdam esse præpositum, non moleste ferat aliquem sibi esse præpositum: sed obedientiam quam exigit etiam ipse dependat. Et sicut non vult gravis oneris sacinam ferre ita non audeat alijs importabile pondus imponere. These words sufficiently shew the the form of government then set up in the Churches of the western Empire under the bishop of Rome. One circumstance of this form of government was that no bishops or others were allowed access to the Pope without the Credentialls of his Metr Vicars, as is mentioned in the decretall Epistle of this Pope Zosimus written A.C. 417 to the bishop of Arles his Vicar over all France, in these words Zosimus universis episcopis per Gallias & septem Provincias constitutis. Placuit Apostolicæ sedi – – – – concessimus. Which words imply that the power here given to the Popes Vicar over France had been was given also to his Vicars over other Provinces. For Pope Zosimus A.C. 417 ordeining that none should have all Gallia upon the BpBishop of A bpbishop of Rouen Arles by this decree The granting of this This jurisdiction being granted to the Pope, gave occasion to several bishops to write decret to him for his resolutions upon doubtfull cases & to his answering them by decretal Epistles. For in these days he began to give laws to the western Churches by decretal such Epistles. For Himmerius bishop of Tarraco &c – – – – – of Syricius to Himmerius: Pope Innocent I – – – – – – as the head of their institution. In the days of Pope Zosimus (A.C. 417) the bishop of Arles wasthe Popes Vicar over all Gallia. For in those days the bishops & others had no access was allowed to the Pope was granted to Bishops or others without the credentialls of his Vicars, & the power of giving credentials to those of France all Gallia was then lodged in this bishop by the Decretal Epistle of Pope Zosimus wchwhich ran thus. Zosimus universis Episcopis per Gallias & septem Provincias constitutis. Placuit Apostolicæ sedi – – – – – – – concessimus. And all the bishops in the Diocess of Arles in their Letter to Pope Leo, say, in favour of their Metropolitan: – Cui id etiam – – – – – – – contineret. And in pursuance of the vote of the said Council of Rome & the Edict of Gratian thereupon Pope Innocent I in his decretal Epistle to Vatricius bpbishop of Rouen in France A.C. 404. made this decree: Siquæ – – – – – – of their institution – Rome A.C. 382, that is, presently after the Edict of Gratian. ffrom that time they allowed a superiority to yethe Pope & soon after became his emin their metropolitan became his Vicar. By vertue of the authority wchwhich the BpBishop of Rome had been long endeavouring to compass & wchwhich the Council of Serdica had given him, Constantius had taken from him & Gratian by Gratian had restored, he soon began The Hilarary The bishop of Arles in Province & Vienne in Dauphiny had a lasting controversy about superiorysuperiority & at length upon some disturbances answe occasioned thereby The same Pope By vertue of this authority, Pope Boniface A.C. 419 upon a complaint of the Clergy of Valentia against Maximus the a bishop summoned the Bishops of Gallia & the seven Provinces to convene in a Council in that Province in that Province against him & saith in his epistle to them that his predecessors had done the like. Vide Bonifacij Epist. 2. And when the bishops of Arles & Vienne in Province & Dauphiny had a lasting controversy about superiority & at length upo & the disturbances created thereby were complained of to the Pope, Hillary bishop of Arles was checkt by the Popes Boniface, & Cælestine & Leo successively, & upon a citation appeared at Rome before a Council & Pope Leo not only sent a decretal EpisleEpistle about this matter to the bishops of Gallia & Province but procured a new Imperial Edict to back the authority of his see. But in citing the Council of Nice But Pope Zosimus a litle after, in cityiting the Council of Nice for this authority, was discovered by the African Churches, upon consulting the Acts of that Council, to be mistaken. The canon wchwhich he cited was a Canon of the Serdican Council not of the Nicene. The same Pope Zosimus A.C. 417 cited Proculus bishop of Marseils to Rome for illegitimate ordinations & condemned him as he mentions in several of his epistles. to Patroclus bishop of Arles [He also constituted the Bishop of Arles his Vicar of over Gallia [& metropolitan of Province Gallia Narbonensis, granting him the ordination of bishops in that diocess, &] ordeining that the none in all Gallia should have access to his holiness wthwithout the testimonials of this BpBishop. He made ordeined also & that this Bishop should be metropolitan of all Gal Gallia Narbonensis & have the right of ordeining Bishops in all that Diocess, [representing that the Gospel was first preached thre by Trophinus & went out thence into all Gallia] Placuit Apostolicæ sedi] He also orde constituted the bishop of Gallia decreed ordeined that no Bishops or others should have access to him without the testimonial of his metropolitan Vicars, & particularly that none in all Gallia should have access to him wthwithout the testimonial of [the Bishop of Ales Arles [his Vicar the for those parts] the Bishop of Arles. Th For he def His Decree was in this manner. Zosimus universis Episcopis per Gallias & septem Provincias constitutis. Placuit Apostolicæ sedi – – – – – – – concessimus. The same Zosimus decreed also that And whereas the Bishops of Arles & Biters Vien conten at that time contended for superiority, Pope Zosimus upon decreed that the bishop of Arles should have the right of ordeining Priest in all Gallia Narbone Viennensis & Narbonensis prima & secunda as Metropolitan over all those Provinces. Iussimus autem, saith he, præcipuam – – – – – admonemus. But afterwards upon a Letter from Simplicius bishop of Vienn, Pope Zosimus repealed this decree. And the bishop of Arles continuing contentious, Pope Leo cited him to Rome & decreed against him & for quieting this bishop & such hot fractious men backt his decree wthwith the following Edict of the Emp Valentinian. continued in communion wthwith the Church Catholick from the days of the Apostles who in the reign of Constantius had opposed & supprest the universal bishoprick erected by the Council of Serdica, – & by this Epistle the Pope made Him the Vicar over all Spain for promulging his Decrees & seing them observed 141 – except the Alan kingdom in Spain which fell in the year 419. And if this by reason of its shortness, is not to be recconed, we have the Kingdom of the Lombards to make up the ten. This kingdom was seated in came into Pannonia in the year 4379 under its captains A Ibor & Ayon as above & after their death chose Agilmundus the son of Ayon their king. This was done in the year 489 Consulship of Honorius & Theodosius that is A.C. 4389 according to Prosper. Agilmundus reigned 33 years according to Paulus Warnefridus, & then was slain by the Bulgars a people so called from the river Volga from whence they came originally. He was succeeded by Lamissus in the Consulship of Lamissus Maxinianus & Asclepiodorus (according to Prosper) i.e. A.C. 423: Lamissus routed the Bulgars & reigned three years & was succeeded by Lechu who reigned almost 40 years & then was succeeded by his son Hildehoc & he by Gudehoc reign was contemporary to the whore the reign of Odoacer king of Italy (suppose about the year of Christ 480). The Heruli in Italy & before the invasion of Italy by the Ostrogoths (suppose about the year 479) invaded Rugia the seats of the Rugij] Claffo, Tato, Wacho, Walter, Audoin, Albain & others about the year 478 Gudman was contemporary to Odoacer king of the Heruli in Italy & About the year 478 led his people into Rugia on the north side of the Danube over against Noricum. [After Gu Hildehoc reigned Claffo, Tato, Wacho, Walter, Audoin, Albain & by successive] Tato overthrew the kingdom of the Heruli in & Wa upon the Danube, & Wacho the kingdome ofthe Sueves, & Audoin returned into Pannonia A.C. 526 & overcame the Gepides Alboin A.C. 551 overthrew the kingdom of the Gepides; & A.C. 563 led his people out of Pannonia into Lombardy where they reigned 206 year longer till the year 774. A part of the Sar The G Geberic made war also upon their the Sarmatæns seated westward from the between Dacia & Moravia The river Tene, & the servants of the Sermatans being armed against the Goths revolted & d made their masters fly into the Roman Empire where Constantine granted them seats. This was in the year 333 or soon after. & soon aft And Geberic made war also upon the Vāandals & slew their king Wisumar – – seats They came into the Empire beat the Vandals & seated themselves in Pannonia, A.C. 379 as above. After the death of their captains Ibor & Ayon they had kings AgilmundsAgilmundus, Lamisso, Lechu, Hildehoc, Gudehoc, Claffo, Tato, Wacho, Walter, Audoin, Alboin, &c. After the death of their captains Ibor & Ayon they made Agilmundus the son of Ayon their king. And this they did (according to Prosper) in the rei Consulship of Honorius & Theodosius A.C. 389. But considering that they were at this time a small kingdom its probable that they contuedcontinued in Pannonia by the permission of the Romans & like the other Barbarians lived quietly there till after the death of Theodosius the great. Agilmundus reigned 33 or 34 years according to Paulus Warnefridus & Pros & then was slain by the Bulgars a people so-called from the river Volga. Lamisso routed the Bulgars & reigned 3 years, & Lechu reigned almost 40 years. Gudehoc was contemporary to Odoacer king of the Heruli in Italy, & about the year 478 led his people from Pannonia into Rugia on the north side of the Danube in the borders of Germany & Moravia over against Noricum [from wchwhich place Odoacer then carried the Rugians into Italy. Tato overthrew the kingdom of the Heruli upon the Danube, & Wacho the kingdom of the Sueveians. Audoin returned into Pannonia A.C. 526, & overcame the Gepides. Alboin A.C. 551 overthrew the kingdom of the Gepides, & A.C. 563 assisted the Greek Emperor against Totila king of the Ostrogoths, & A.C. 568 led his people out of Pannonia into Lombardy where they reigned till the year 774. These are the kingdoms into which the Latine Empire was rent at its first breaking. Afterwards some other new kingdoms arose & some of the Alemans as that of the Alemans in Rhetia, & some of the old ones fell. For it is not to be imagined – – – – – – – at their first rise. At this time it was necessary for the Lombards in Pannonia, to arm themselves in their own defence, & assert their liberty And in the year 7895 the Pope sent a Legate & the Emperor Charles an Abbot into England who decreed a CouncilsCouncil to be called in wchwhich Aelfwaldus king of Northumberland & Ean in Northumberland & anathema in Mercia in which tythes were granted to yethe Church by Aelfwaldus king of Northumberland & Offa king of the Mercians. & Westsaxons & this Bishops & Nobles subscribing, & Chuniulf king of the Westsaxons promised to do the like. And In the year 786 the Pope Adrian sent two Legates & Charles the great king of France an Abbot into Britain with twenty Canons to be received by in Councils the Saxons king And of the Saxons Charles the great the king of France sent an Abbot. Some of those Canons were there to receive the first six General Councils, with & the Decrees of the Pope; To keep the ancient privileges granted to the Churches by the Church of Rome; To give the tenths of all the fruits of the earth & of all their possessions to the Church; And & not to pray for those who dye without confession. And these Canons were received & established in Council by Aelfwald king of Northumberland & by Offa king of the Mercians & by their bishops & great men amongst which were the Archbishops of Canterbury & York, & Chuniulf king of the Westsaxons promised also to receive them. [And Ethelwolf the son & successor of Egbert A.C. 846 gave Peter pence to the Pope out of all his kingdom & A.C. 854 he gave the tenth part of his kingdom to the Church.] Also Offa king of the going to Rome ordeined further that every house in his kingdom should pay a penny yearly to St Peter. & And Ethelwolph the son & succesor of Egbert exten A.C. 846 confirmed these donations of Tiths & Peter pence & extended them to all his kingdom of England. These were therefore the days in which Tythes Tythes & Peter pence & Tyths were given to the Pope & Church Clergy, & by consequence in which they began to feed the Woman began to be fed in the wilderness. The granting of Indulgences & Pardons & Canonizing of Saints began about the same time not in the reign of Charles the great or soon after & some say that Pope Leo III began them. And by setting up the worship of Images & canonizing saints, & granting taking upon him to change per canonize saintsaints & deify a wafer & to be worshipped & to grant Indulgences & Pardons & absolve men from their Oaths & Vows &c & to be infallible & to create his God & in his Decrees &c he has reigned ever since with changed times & laws –– –– And by setting up the worship of Images & taking upon him to canonize saints & deify a wafer to be worshipped & to absolve men to be from their vows & oaths & to grant pPardons & Indulgences & to be supreme & infallible in his Decrees &c he has changed times & laws which after his rising up & rooting up three of the first kings were to be given into his hands for a time times & half a time. & ordeining (in the Council of Thessalus Prince of Bavaria about about the year 765 in the Synodus Aschaemensis granted tyths to the Clergy. And so did Charles the great in the Synodus Duriensis A.C. 779 & in his Capitulare composed A.C. 789, ordeining that all his subjects should pay tiths to the Churches out of all their possessions & out of all the fruits of their labours And in the year 803 in the Council of Hall he freed the Saxons from all taxes except tyths. And Pope Adrian in the year 786 sent two Legates into England with twenty Canons to be received by the Saxons; & Charles the great sent an Abbot with them. Some of those Canons – – – – – promised also to receive them. Also Offa goin Charles the great ordeined that every house throughout all France should pay a penny yearly to St Peter & Offa above mentioned going to Rome about yethe year 790 made the rant to the Pope of a penny yearly from every house in his kingdōom & Ethelwulph – – – of England. And Charles the great established tyths also in Councils at Ments & Rhimes & Arles A.C. 863. These were therefore the days – – – And in the year 803 in the Councill of Hall celebrated in his Pallace Salle he freed the Saxons from all taxes except tyths. And in a Councils at Mentz & Reimes & Arles A.C. 313 he established tyths / And when the Emperor Leo Isaurus sent some to tak apprehend Pope Gregory II, the Pope & Citizens of Rome took those that were sent & many of them were slain A.C. 726. And Pope Greg 14. A.C. 837, upon the Saracenes Leo IV upon the Saracens coming by sea to invade Rome, met them with his own forces & those of Naples & overcame them in a fight & fought them & put them to flight A.C. 8 142 Arabia to Babylon. And then a new Temple is built whose outward court is given to the Gentiles Babylonian the Ba the conquering Babylonian Gentiles whocaptivate & tread the holy city under foot, the nations Babylonian Gentiles the nation composing the ten horns of the of the Beast who kills the two witnesses in the streets of the great city Babylon. – Arabia to Babylon. And then a new Temple is built for the two tribes whose outward court is given to the Gentiles, the conquering Babylonian Gentiles who captivate & tread the holy city under foot, the nations composing the horns of the Beast who kills the two witnesses who were tormented by yethe 2 witnesses & see their dead bodies of in the streets of the great city Babylon The Church catholick is at first represented by the seven churches of Asia, & these are called the seven golden candlesticks, They are the seven candlesticks in the first Temple whose lamps gave light to the church catholick in the first ages of the Christian religion. At length the Woman The same church catholick is represented by the Woman in heaven & this Woman at length is persecuted by the Dragon & receives two Wings of a great Eagle that she may fly from the persecutor, that is, she becomes distinguished into two Churches & these two churches by reason of the persecution are the two witnesses of God, & having once acquired this name they keep it ever after. And when a second Temple is built, two candlesticks of olive tree are placed therein to represent these two Churches or witnesses. In respect of the sevenfold division the Church catholick is represented by the lamb with seven horns & seven ys eyes appearing in the first Temple & on Mount Sion. In respect of the twofold division the Church catholick is represented by the son of man with two flaming eyes & two leggs burning as it were in a furnace & standing on the earth & sea to represent the church in time of persecution to s burning leggs feet as pillars of fire standing upon the earth & sea with feet as pillars of fire to signify the persecutions of his people in this state of the Church. And when the Dragon went from the Woman & the ten horned beast ros of her seed womanthe woman was escaped & began to make & made war upon the remant & separated from the remnant of her seed & the Dragon was gone was gone from her to make war upon that remnant. & the ten horned beast rose of out of the sea to succeed the Dragon in the west & the two horned beast rose out of the earth to succeed the Woman in the east then was there a new second Temple buitbuilt to succeed the first & the beast was deified & worshipped with his image & none mo none were suffered to buy & sell excptexcept those who were initiated in the worship Church of the Beast & by receiving his mark & name, [then was the first Temple destroyed by the Babylonians in respect of itits outward form of Church government, & a second Temple was built whose outward court was given to the Gentiles.] & all the twelve tribes received this mark except the 144000 who are sealed wthwith the seale of God in their foreheads; then was the first Temple destroyed in respect of by the Babylonians in respect of its outward form of church government & a second Temple was built whose outward court was given to the Gentiles. And in this Temple two ch Candlesticks of Olive tree are placed to represent the two witnesses now separated from the communion of the Woman. When these times are represented by allusions to the feast of yethe seventh month & to the day sealing in the day of Expiation, & then the first Temple with the seven golden candlesticks continue to the end of the visions, & in this Temple the 144000 are sealed & stand with the lamb on mount Sion wthwith having the name of God in their foreheads & on the sea of glass having the harps of God. & singing the song of Moses & the Lam for their victory over the Beast who is spiritually called Sodom & Egypt & where our Lord was crucified And in this Temple the seven Trumpets & the 7 Vials of wrath are poured out at the sacrifices of the seven days of the feast. And where these times are represented by allusions to the Babylonian captivity, the first Temple is destroyed & a new one built with two Candlesticks alluding to for the two tribes & to the building of a new Temple for the two tribes, the first Temple is destroyed & a new one built with two Candlesticks to represent the two Churches or witnesses who worship in the measured Courts while the outward court is left open to the Babylonian gentiles. Then the Woman f fled from the temple in heaven into the wildernes & separated from to commit spiritual fornication, & separated from the the remnant of her seed wchwhich keep the commandments of God & have the testimony of Iesus & therefore Christ directed no more epistles to her. At that time the two Beasts rose out of the earth & sea & thereby the Empire became divided into two Empires with their Churches false & true seated in the earth & sea: the two Empires being the Dragon & tenhorned Beast, their fals churches the two horned Beast & the Woman & their true Churches the two witnesses. And this great alteration brings in a new scene of things. He must also be taught in particular what those dead works are of wchwhich he is to repent And these are comprehended in the promispromise made before baptism vizt to fosakeforsake the Devil & all his works the vain pomp & glory of the world with all covetous desires of the same & the carnal desires of the flesh so as not to be led by them nor to follow them nor to be led by them: that is he promisses to forsake the all Idolatry the religion of the Devil the worships of fals Gods called the Devil, with all the works accompanying it; all & all ambition & covetousness & unchastity. Love not the world saith Iohn neither the covetous desires of the world. If any man love the world the love of the ffather is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh the lust of the eyes &the pride of life is not of the father but is of the world. So then the first Principles of the Oracles of God are or the Principles of the doctrine of Christ are called by the Apostle repentance from dead works, faith towards God, the doctrine of Baptisms & of laying of on of hands & of the resurrection of the dead & of eternal judgment, are comprehended in these things, in repentance from all Idolatry & the works accompanying it, & from all ambitious, covetous & unchast desires, in a right beleif in God & Christ & the Holy Ghost in whose name we are to be baptized & in the the death & resurrection of Christ, a right notion of Bapt in the doctrine of Baptisms & of laying on of hands consequent thereupon, & in that of the resurrection of the dead & of eternal judgment. [Vpon renouncing the Devil & his works, & idolatry ambition covetousness & unchastity & professing to beleive aright in the father son & holy GostGhost & in the resurrection & judmjudgment of the dead [according to yethe Baptismal Creed or system of ffaith in wchwhich the Catechumens were instructed from the beginning,] they were admitted into communion by Baptism & laying on of hands. T In the beginning of the Gospel nothing more was requisite to communion then these things. [And to make any thing mo requisite to communion now wchwhich was not requisite to communion in those days or to excommunicate any man now for any thing which was not requisite to communion in the beginning, is schismatical & make the author guilty of preaching another Gospell & makes the author guilty of Schism to alter the fundamentals of the Christian religion, to teach another Gospel & to create Schisms in the Church. of God Now they there were men appointed from the beginning to instruct novices in the first principles of the Christian religion in order to baptism, & those that were so instructed were called Catechumens. And that they were taught from the beginning to forsake idolatry, ambition, covetousness & unchastity & to beleive understand who were t To forsake these things with the heathen worship religions of of Dæmons & the superstionssuperstitions accompanying that worship & to beleive aright was & love one another is the summ of what the Ch Catechumens were taught thein the Apostles days in order to baptism & admission into Communion. & These were the fist Principles of the doctrine of Christ in the beginning of the Christian religion Gospel & there is no power on earth that can increase or diminish the fundamentals of the Christian religion. And these almost all these fundamentals are again thus touched upon enumerated by the Apostle Paul. I beseech you, saith he, 143 By repencerepentance from dead works he means repentance from Idolatry, ambition, covetouness & unchastity & the works wchwhich accompany them, for we promispromise before baptism to forsake the devil & all his works the pomp of the world with the & the covetous desires thereof the world & the carnal desires of the flesh. If any love the world saith the Apostle Iohn, the love of the father & is not in him. ffor all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh [unchastity] the lust of thes eyes [covetousness] & the pride of life [ambition] is not of the father but is of the world. And the Apostle Paul in another place has in anoth has again summed up – The Church catholick is the being the mystical body of Christ is reprentedrepresented by hims body sometimes in the form of a Lamb with seven ey man with two flaming eyes & two feet burning as in a furnace & sometimes by a in the form of a Lamb wthwith seven horns & seven eyes & seven horns. ✝ The first representation relates to the Church catholick as diffused through the Greek & Latine Empires, the two last of the four Empires spoken of by Daniel. The second relates to the Church catholick as represented by the seven churches of Asia. The Church catholick is here compared to the temple & the seven Churches to of Asia to the seven candlesticks holding with seven lamps wchwhich enlighten the whole temple to signify that the Church catholick in the first ages of the Christian religion was illuminated not by the sea of Rome but by the seven churches of Asia who had been long instructed by Iohn. The same Church catholick is also represented by the glorious woman in heaven who at length receives two wings of a great Eagle that she tra partakes of the division of the Roman Empire into the Greek & Latine Empires & ther by begins to be divided into the Greek & Latin Churches. She was distinguished into those Churches before but not yet divided. These wings are given her that she may fly from the persecuting Dragon. ffor the Dragon persecuted her & thence the Churches represented by her two wings became two witnesses of Christ, & having once obteined the name of two witnesses, they ever after keep that name. To represent these two witnesses Churches the son of man stands on the earth & sea sea with his right foot & on the earth with his left & prophesies concerning the measuring of the inner courts of yethe Temple, & that is, concerning the rebuilding them, & concerning two Candlesticks calls the two Witnesses represe the two Olive trees & two Candlesticks standing before the God of the earth, that is the two Candlesticks of olivetree standing before God in this Temple: & Candlesticks in this prophesy are Churches, (Apoc. 1.20) & so are Olive trees Rom. 1.17, 24. In relation to the Churches of the greek Latine empires it is represented sometimes by the two leggs &two eyes & two leggs of the the inhabitants of yethe earth & sea. The Church Catholick in relation to yethe churches of the Greek & & latin churches Empires is represented by the the son of man with two leggs & two eyes, of the son of man, the & by the woman with two wings of a great eagle given to the Woman & & by the temple with two Candlesticks & two Olive trees in the second Temple & therein & by the two witnesses & in the two witnesses: repres & in relation to yethe seven Churches of Asia it is represented by the Lamb with seven horns & seven eyes & by the Temple with seven golden Candlesticks & seven lamps & by the seven churches of Asia The first representation by the seven Churches of Asia & of the Church catholick by the first Temple with seven Ca golden candlesticks [& seven lamps therein & by the lamb with seven horns & seven eyes] continues till the end of the sixt times of the seventh seale commence. And if the affairs of that seale be represented by allusions to the feast of the seventh month & day of expiation, the first Temple wthwith the seven gold candlesticks & seve the Lamb therein same representation continues to the end of the prophesy. At the opening of that Seal the 144000 are sealed in this Temple with the seale of God in the day of expiation & appear with the Lamb on mount sion in this temple & on the sea of glass singing the song of the Lamb, in this temple of the Tabernacle & the rest receive the mark of the beast & the seven trumpets sound & the seven Vials are poured out & all this is done in the first Temple & in the Temple of the Tablernacle. at the sacrifices of the seven days of the feast in this temple. But if the Babylonian capitivity of the Church be alluded unto The representation by But if the affairs of the seventh seal be represented by allusions to to the Babylonian captivity then the the first Temple is destroyed by the Dragon Babylonians when all men receive the mark of the Dragon persecutes the remnant of & a second Temple is built & the courts of the temple & Altar & with the court of them that worship therein are built measured to signify the building of a second Temple, & the outward court is left unmeasured & given to the Babylonian gentiles who captivate & tread under foot the holy city, & two candlesticks are placed in this Temple to represent the two churches churches & them that worship therein now called the & by reason of their sufferings are now called the two witnesses. When the Empire begins to be divided into the Greek & Latin Empires, the Woman in heaven receive being persecuted by the Dragon receives two wings of a great eagle that she may fly from him & these two wings denote the churches of the Greek & Latine Empires & are Gods witnesses in this persecution. Afterwards when she escapes into the wilderness & the multitude receive the mark of the Beast, the residue who receive the name of 6 are sealed out of all the twelve tribes of IraelIsrael remain the two witnesses & prophesy in sackcloth & by their prophesying tormented those that dwell on the earth the peoples & kindreds & tongues & nations that dwell upon the earth untill the thousand 1260 days be ended, & then are politically slain revive & ascend up to heaven in a cloud being the church catholick with the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on yethe earth even to every nation & kindred & tongue & people. Afterwards when she escapes into yethe Wilderness & leaves the Dragon goes to persecute the remnant of her seed behind her this rem wchwhich keep the commandments of God & have the testimony of Iesus, this remnant of the two Churches are the two Witnesses [And when this persecution is ended & the Dragon gives the Beast his throne the 144000 who are sealed out of all the twelve tribes of Israel & stand on mount Sion with the Lamb remain the two witnesses] & continue to be so till the persecution is ended & the dragon gives the Beast his throne & power & there remain only 144000 sealed out of all the 12 tribes of Israel. & These put on sackcloth & by their prophesying torment the peoples & kindreds & tongues & nations that dwell upon the earth untill the 1260 days are ended & then they are politically slain revive & ascend up to heaven in a cloud with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation & kindred & people tongue & people. When the Dragon comes down amongst the inhabitants of yethe earth & sea & persecutes the Woman, two wings of a great eagle are given her that she may fly from him. & These wings denote two churches the churches of the earth & sea or Greeks & Latines, & wchwhich & these churches are Gods witnesses in this persecution And when she escap & having once the names of Gods witnesses they always keep it. While the Woman flyes from the Temple of heaven into the Wilderness The Dragon goes to persecute the remnant of her seed wchwhich keep the commandments of God & have the testimony of Iesus. And in this persecution 144000 are sealed out of all the twelve tribes of Israel. the son of man stand in the form of an Angel stands with his right foot oron the sea & his left foot on the earth & cries wthwith a loud voyce as a lyon roareth, & an hundred &forty & four thousand are sealesealed out of all the twelve tribes of Israel before the four Angels hurt the earth & sea These being sealed out of the earth & sea inhabitants of the earth & sea to whom the Dragon came down, are gods witnesses in the earth & sea during this persecution. And when the Dragon gives the Beast his western throne & power & all the world wonders after the Beast & & worships him & his Image, they prophesy against him till the 1260 days are ended & they are politically slain by in sa in sackcloth & torment the peoples & kindreds & nations tongues & nations untill the thousand years 1260 days are ended, & then they are politically slain by the Beast & revive & ascend up to heaven in a cloud with the everlasting gospel to preach unto all unto every nation & kindretkindred & people & tongue. ☉ When ④ The proper opinion of the Nicolaitans namely that Christ descended upon Iesus, or as the Valentians expressed it that the Saviour descended upon Iesus, or as others, that the Word descended upon Iesus being more plausible then many & did the works & dwelt in him & did the supernatural works, beingwas much more plausible then that the common opinion of the Nicolaitans & Simonians of wchwhich consisted in of placing a multitude of Æons in the celestial orbs, & for that reason spread much more & lasted much then that & lasted longer being & was handed down to posterity by Hermogenes Tatian Montanus, Proclus or Proculus, Æschines, Praxeas, Tertullian, Artemas, Noetus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosat, Marcellus Eustathius & Photinus & I think Tatian. All these hereticks held this doctrine of the Nicolaitans but yet with some diversity of language & circumstances. For some of them as Tatian Proclus & Tertullian held the Logus to be a person or substance endued wthwith a proper life will & understanding & distinguished but not divided separated from the substance of yethe father; & others as Hermogenes, Æschines, Praxeas, Artemas Noetus, Sabellius, Paul, Marcellus & Photinus, held that the Logus was only a power seated in some dilated part of the fathers substance without any other life will or understanding then that of the father. And again, some of them, as Artemas Paul, Marcellus, Eustathius & Photinus & perhaps Tatian held that the Logus only dwelt in Iesus as the holy spirit doth in good men & did the supernatural works & others as Montanus Hermogenes Praxeas Æschines Tertullian Noetus & Sabellius & perhaps Proclus & Æschines that & perhaps Proclus & Æschines that he was united to Iesus so as to become passible. And thence Hermogenes Praxeas, Noetus & Sabellius were called patripassians. But all agreed in distinguishing between the divine nature of Christ called the Word & the humane nature or man Iesus who took his beginning of the Virgin & was was assumed by the Word. Montanus a Platonist refining the errors of the Gnosticks rejected their Astronomical me Theology as too gross & remote from the Christian religion & retained only those Æons of the Gnosticks wchwhich might best be defended. For he took For He took the Son & holy Ghost for emissions of the fathers substance, or Æons emitted from him by efflux or projection of substance & made them subordinate to him. The true Christians wchwhich Tertullian here calls simple & imprudent, in other places of his works he calls Phsychici – animal people, a name borrowed by the Cataphrygians from the Valentinian heresy. ffor the Valentinians called themselves Pneumatici spiritual men & the true Christians Psychici Which confirms me in the opinion that Montanus refined the Valentinian heresy rejecting the Astronomical Æons & retaining only so much of the Nicolaitan philosophy as was applicable to the Word Logus & the Paracles & to Angels & the souls of men. In this philosophy of the Cataphrygians the father is a fals God because the true God emitts nothing from his substance. He is all eye, all ear all sense, all understanding, all wisdom, all power all light & has nothing in him wchwhich can be separated or emitted by speaking, generating, emanation, proj dilation, projection or an or any other act, from any thing els that is in him & to worship a God that emitts any thing that generates by emission of substance is to worship a strange God, a God who resembles the Gods of the heathens another God a strange God the God of Simon Magus & the Gnosticks a God the great Iupiter Iupiter of the heathens who was a man deified & deified & exalted into the throne of the supreme God & is still said to retain the humane passions of love & lust & generating by emission of substance. Also the Son in this Philosophy is a fals God because a substance generated by emission of the fathers substance, That the father gene & by consequence the son of God of the Gnosticks who denied the father & the son, the son of the heathen Iupiter, the Logus of Orpheus & the Platonists & Gnostic & Plato, & the Gnosticks & Philo the λογος ἐνδιάθετος ἢ προφόρικος of the God of the Gnosticks, an Æon emitted from the substance of the God of the Gnosticks as a ray from yethe sun, water a river from its fountain, & a vine tree from its root. And for yethe same reason the Paraclete of yethe Gnosticks Montanists is a fals God heathen God a Gno false God & being an Æon emitted from the God of the Gnosticks. And therefore the generality of the Christians in Tertullians days were not mistaken in proclaiming the Montanists to be polytheists. As the Gnosticks denyed the father & the son by dividing the by their Theology & substituted other so did the Montanists Gods in their room so did the Montanists. When Iohn tells us that there were many Antichrists in his days who went out from the church because they were not of the Church, & adds, Who is Ch a lyar but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ & He is Antichrist that denyeth the father & the son; Whosoever denyeth the Son the same hath not the father: in these sayings he speaks of the great Antichrist Gnosticks of his days who denyed that Iesus was the Christ the son by distinguishing between them and saying that Christ descended upon Iesus, & who by denying that Iesus was the Christ the son of God denyed the Son, & by denying the Son & dividing the father into Æons denyed the father. And asin the same manner that the Gnosticks denyed the father & the son & the Montanists also denyed them & worshipped fals Gods in their stead worshipped fals Gods a fals father & a false son the heathen Iupiter & a part or power of the heathen Iupiter. ffor as worshipping fals Gods is denying the true God (Iob. 31.28) so in the language of Iohn to deny the father is to worship a fals God in his room & to deny the son is to worship another Lord & another another God then Iesus yethe father of the Lord Iesus Christ & therefore Iohn saith he that denyeth the son hath not the father of our Lord master Iesus Christ. For in the language of Iohn when Iohn tells us he that denyeth the Son hath not the father, He doth not mean that he that denieth the son hath no God but that instead of the father he hath another God then the father. And this is the spirit of Antichrist Every Christian who by fals wisdome denys that Iesus is the Christ or that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh denies the son & hath a fals son & he ytthat hath a fals son hath a fals father & denyes the true father & the true son & is an idolater & this is the spirit of Antichrist according to the Apostle. To distinguish the supreme God into parts & make him generate by emission of substance & to worship s is to have & worship the Iupiter of the heathens instead of God the father the God of the Christians & to worship the parts of or powers of the supreme God as his Son & the son & spirit of the supreme God is to worship the son & spirit of the Iupiter of the heathens. And this was the case of the Montanists as the Christians of those days represented. ffor they accused the Montanists of dividing the unity of the supreme God & thereby becoming polytheists, & when the MontanstsMontanists excused this division by calling God unicus cum sua œconomia One God with an œconomy, they waxed pale at this œconomy as polytheistical as a palliation of polytheism like the œconomy of the heathens who siad that they worshipped but one God because all their Gods were but one, being nothing els then parts or powers of the supreme Iupiter. The God of the Gnosticks was the Iupiter of the heathens because they made him generate by emission of seed into Ennœa. And as the heathens sometimes considered their Gods as both male & female so the Gn & said that Minerva was born of Iupiters brain & Bacchus of his thigh, so the Gnosticks made Ennœa born their supreme God both male & female & said ytthat Ennœa was born was born of Iuppiter him alone as the first conception of his mind & so the Cataphrygians made the Logus the son of the first God without the help of any other female then himslfhimself, & said that he was first conceived in him & then born out of him being the λογος ενδιάθετος by conception & the λόγος προφορικὸς by birth. And whereas the Gnosticks had hitherto made a great multitude of consubstantial Æons generated of this father Iupiter & of one another by emission of substance & therefore consubstantial: Montanus for restraining their number to three gave them the name of Τριὰς the Trinity. ffor I do not find that this name was used by any ancienter heretick. And his disciples erroneously pretended that baptism was performed in the name of this Trinity & that the three witnesses the W spiritt the water & the blood were s in the first epistle of Iohn were symbols of this trinity. And this was the metaphysical philosophy reason of the father, even the father being substances. And as a man is first begotten & then born first thinks & reasons & then speaks what he has thought of so according to the Cataphrygian philosophy God first thought of the creation generated Sophia Wisdom by wchwhich he in h by wchwhich he so & contrived all things secretly in himself by his exercising his reason & then produced them outwardly & then brought forth this Logus wisdom outwardly as & Word & by this Word produced all things in their several species & individuals as it were by speaking, & for the con & for contriving them he first created or begat this the exercise of his mind called Sophia & then for producing outwardly what he had contrived, brought forth his Word as it were out of the womb his own womb by speaking Itaqꝫque Sophiam quoqꝫque exaudi, saith Tertullian, tanquam ut secundam personam conditam. Primo Deus creavit me – – – – – cor meum sermonem optimum. The Gnosticks feigned that their Æons were first begotten & then born & ytthat their Word Logus was first conceived in the Gods mind & then emitted by speaking; & in the very same manner the Cataphrygians feigned that the Son of God was first conceived in Gods mind as his wisdom before the creation began & then emitted & brought forth as his Word & born as it were out of his womb by as his Word by speaking & born out as it were out of his womb by eructation when God said ffiat Lux. And this Word they supposed to be not an empty van not the same with the Λόγος . . . . . substantia Father in me. And was first conceived as Gods active reason & wisdom by wchwhich he contrived all things & then born as Gods son as it were outwar of Gods womb & emitted out of his mouth as his & emitted outwardly as Gods Son & Word when he said Fiat Lux & the w as his Son, & emitted as it were out of his mouth as his Word when he said: Fiat lux. And as the Gnosticks made Silence to precede the Λόγος so did the Montanists. Ante omnia, saith Tertullian, Deus erat solus, ipse sibi et mundi et locus et omnia —— Cæterum ne tunc quidem solus; hebebat enim secum quam habebat in seipso; Rationem suam scilicet. Rationalis enim Deus — etiam ante principium, — tacite cogitando et disponendo secum quæ per Sermonem mox erat dicturus. — Vide cum tacitus tecum ipse congrederis, ratione hoc ipsum agi intra te QantoQuanto ergo plenius hoc agitur in Deo cujus tu quoqꝫque imago et similitudo censeris quod habeat in se etiam tacendo rationem & in ratione sermonem. 145 Among the many nations conquered by the Huns Ermaneric I reccon the Lombards. Paulus Diaconus tells us that before they entred Italy they lived in Pannonia 42 years, And & went thence into Italy in April A.C. 568. They came into Pannonia therefore A.C. 526. They were led thither from beyond the Danube over the Danube by Audoin their ninth King, being the Emperor granting them seats. They seated them were seated before beyond the Danube in the confines of the Heruli & the Suevi, & before that in a country called Rugiland or the country of Rugis, a place on the north side of the Danube over against Noricum whither they were led by Gudehoc that is about the year 476. And before that their first King Agelmundus led them into Paulus DioconusDiaconus tells us they were ori Germans originaly called Winuli & from their long beards Longobardi, & came out of an Island of the Baltic Scandinavia (so the ancients under the conduct of two captains Ibor & Ayon who led them to the borders of Vandalus against the Vandals whom they routed & that after the death of these two captains they set up kings over them the first of which reigned 33 years & was slain by the Bulgares, & the third reigned 40 years. Whence its probable that they were a Vandalic nation (as the name Winuli imports & above an hundred years before the Heruli invaded Italy, came into the countries conquered first by Hermaneric & then by the Hunns & were left by the Hunns in or neere Pannonia out out of Gothland in the southern parts of of the great peninsula of Sweden & Norway called by the ancients called Scanzia & Scandinavia & taken for an Island in the Baltic sea, & landing between the Wesel & near the Oder, came amongst the Vandals, Bulgars, Rugij, Heruli Suevi & Gepides & other nations subject first to Ermanreic & then to Attila & upon the death of Attila were left on the north side of the Danube neare the Gepides. The Greeks say that the Lombards were descended from the Gepides, & therefore in the opinion of the Greeks they were the subjects to the Attilaof Attila. Among these nations I reccon also the Lombards who (according to Iornandes) came originally out of the Is Scandinavia or Scanza in the Baltic sea & were called Winuli (that is Vandals) & (from their beards) Longobardi, & under the conduct of their captains Ibor & Ayon first first attacqued & routed the Vandals & then after the death of these captains were governed by Kings the following kings. Agilmundus who after a reign of 33 years was slain by the Bulgars a people who came from the river Volga. 2 Larisso Larisso who routed the Bulgars. 3 Lechu who reigned 40 years. 4 Hildehoc. 5 Gudehoc who led them into a place the seats of the Rugij in the north side of the Danube over against Noricum where a little before the Ostrogoths invaded the Heruli in Italy, that is, about the year 476 & about 3 years after passed over the Danube into Pannonia, the Emperor granting them seats. The Greeks recconed them a branch of the Gepides a people subject to the Vandalic Gothic nation subject to yethe Huns in & before the reign of Attila & before. Whence its probable that the Lombards led the Gepides, Heruli, Ostrogoths & other northern nations to the Rhene under the conduct of Attila in his wars against the Romans. The Bulgars came from the river Volga & therefore might come into Europe with the Hunns under Balamir in the days of the Emperor Valens & attaque the Lombards in Dacia that part of Dacia where the Vandals were seated. The Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Gepides, Lombards came all of them out of Scanzia or Scandinavia Swedeland ca the Peninsula in the Baltic sea conteining Swedeland & Norway & by the ancients recconed an island & called Scanzia or Scandinavia. And thence it came to pass that they all spake the same language & agreed in their manners. Paulus Diaconus tells us in his Historia Miscella lib. XIV when he came to the reign of the sons of Theodosius, tells us: Eodem tempore erant Gothi & aliæ gentes maximæ et multæ & maximæ trans Danubium habitantes: ex quibus rationabiliores quatuor sunt; Gothi scilicet, Huisogothi, Gepides et Vandali, et nomen tantum et nihil aliud mutantes. Omnes autem fidei erant Arianæ malignitatis. Isti sub Arcadijo et Honorijo temporibus Danubium transeuntes locati sunt in terra Romanorum, et Gepides quidem (ex quibus postea diversi sunt Longobardi et Avares) villas quæ sunt circa Singidonem & Sirmium habitavere. And Procopius in the beginning of his Historia Vandalica writes to yethe same purpose. The same [Paulus And Warnefridus in his first Book de Gestis Langobardorum tells us that the Lombards came out of Scandinavia & under the conduct of two Ibor & Ayon & beat the Vandals & led the Lombards over into new seats I suppose he means in the reign of Constantine the great in that war wherin the Vandals being routed by the Gepides retired into Pannonia & left their seats upon the Teis in Dacia to the Gepides with whom the Longobards were then mixed. And the same Paulus tells us that after the death of those captains the Vandals Agilmundus who & in & after he had reigned in peace made Agilmundus their king & after he had reigned peaceably 33 years were sundenlysuddenly set upon by the Bulgars who slew their king. These Bulgars were so named from the river Volga from whence they came. And thence its probable that they came into Europe with the Hunns under the conduct of Balamir in the reign of the Emperor Valens, & attact the Lombards in Dacia upon the Teis soon after their coming, & afterwards were brought over the Danube with the Gepides & Ostrogoths by the Hunns in the reign of Arcadius & Honorius & placed in Pannonia neare Singidonum & Sirmium, being not yet divided from the Gepides.] And Constantinus Porphyrogenita Emperor of Constantinople transcribed out of the History of Theophanes Γήπαιδες ἐξ ὡν ὕστερον διηρέθησαν Λογγοβάρδοι, Gepidæ ex quibus dissidio facto orti Langobardi. And Salmatius out of Greek MSS not yet published Γήπαιδες ὁι λεγομενοι Λογγοβάρδοι, Gepidæ qui dicuntur Langobardi. Prosper & Iornandes & Paulus Diaconus Warnefridus tell us that the Lombards seking new seats came out of Scandinavia under the conduct of Ibor & Ayon & first set upon & that the Vandals & routed them, & Prosper places this victory in the year next after the death of Valens Ausonio et Olybrio Coss. A.C. 379. Whence its probable that Lombards came over the Danube with the other Gothic nations in the reign of Valens. The Vandals had now lived quietly in Pannonia about 40 years before this incursion, & tho they might now now retired from the Lombards, yet they did not quit Pannonia before Stilico invited them against the Western Empire. When therefore the Hunns invaded Pannonia, they found the Lombards there. Prosper tells us that in the Consulship of Timasius & Promotus A.C. 389 the Lombards made Agilmundus their first king & that he was succeeded by Lamissus their second king in year 423. In the reign of Hermaneric the Lombards came out of Scandinavia to see under the conduct of Ibor & Ayon to seek new seats. They were then called Winuli but afterwards from their long beards had the name of Longobards given them. When the Gothic nations fled from the Hunns into the Empire the Lombards also came over the Danube under the same captains into Pannonia & beat the Vandals then seated in Pannonia thence in Pannonia, & remained in Pannonia many years. The Vandals retired retired westward & the Emperor Gratian went into Gallia against them & the & the Alemans & the Vandals went back into Pannonia. This was when Theodosius lay sick at Thessalonica A.C. 379. And the Vandals went back into Pannonia And accordingly Prosper places the victory of the Lombards over the Vandals in the Consulship of Ausonius & Olybrius. A part of the Salian Francks were received into Brittain by the Emperor Iulian about the year 358, & the Burgundians in yethe year 373 or 374 rose from their seats & came to the side of the Rhene with an army of 80000 & there seated themselves till they invaded Gallia on the side of the Rhene. And this state of things continued till/ And now the ten Kings who had received no kingdom were ready to take up arms & receive power as kings so soon as the Dragon should give the Beast his throne. 146 The Vandals in the reign of Constantine the great were seated in Dacia upon the river Teys between the rivers Maresh & . The Gepide & in the latter end of his reign left their seats to yethe Gepides & seated themselves in Pannonia. T And in the end upon death of the reign of Emperor Valens were routed by the Lombards. Yet staid in Pannonia till Stilico called them from thence against the Western Empire. The Gepides came over the Rhene into Pannonia in the Reign of Arcadius & Honorius, & seated themselves in Pannonia neare SingidodonumSingidonum & Sirmium in the borders of the Vandals & Lombards. And after the death of Attila the Gepides with their associatedassociates routed the sons of Attila & became lords of all Dacia where they seated themselves making the main body of the Hunns retire beyond them. The Avares retired from Pannonia into Hungary. The Lombards retired over the Danube into & seated themselves over the banks of that river over against Pannonia. And the Ostrogoths staid in Pannonia. The Burgundians between the Vistula & the southern fountain of the Boristhenes where Ptolomy places the Phrugundiones & the Burgiones. The Alans between the northern fountain of the Boristhenes & the mouth of the River Tanais where Ptolomy places the Mons Alaunus. The Roxolani on the western side of the Palus Mœotis, & southern side of the Alans. The Bastarnæ upon the Boristhenes westward not far from the Euxine sea. Before these nations revolted The Goths or Ostrogoths were seated in the eastern parts of Dacia, the Vandals in the western upon the river Teys where the rivers Maresh & Karesh run westward into it, the Visigoths upon between them, the Gepides are placed by upon the Vistula. The Burgundians another Gothic nation were seated between the Vistuala & the sothern fountain of the Boristhenes at some distance from the mountain Crapac nothwardnorthward where Ptolomy places them by the names of the Phrugo Phrugundiones & the Burgiones. The Alans (another Gothic nation according to Procopius) were seated between the foun northern fountain of the Boristhenes & the mouth of the river Tanais where Ptolomy places the mountain Alaunus. The Rouolani were on the western side of the Palus Mœotis & southern side of the Alans. The Latine Empire is represented by the little horn of the He-Goat, & the Beast with ten horns. It became a horn of the He Goat by inheriting the kingdom of Attalus in Asia minor. It had seven crowned heads without crowns It had seven heads It wa It had seven successive heads without crowns common to it self & the Dragon, These began to reign at the opening of the seven seals but its heads are without crowns because during the opening of the 7 seals it served in the Dragon whose heads are crowned. & answering to the times of the seven seals because until the Dragon gave the Beast his throne It was wounded to death with a sword in its sixt head during the reign of Constantius. It & revived & its deadly wound was healed by the division of the Empire in the beginning of the reign of Valentinian & Valens. It was a After its wound was healed & the division of the Empire between Gratian & Theodosius it rose out of the sea wthwith & ynthen this healed wound in its sixt head & began the reign of its seventh head. And It The Dragon gave him his power & throne at the divisiōon of the Empire between the sons of Theodosius. And then the ten horns which hitherto had received no kingdoms & therefore were without crowns on the Dragons head, receive power as kings & are crowned in the head of the Beast. Because they were upon the head of the Dragon without crowns we are to look for them among the nations which were under the Dominion of the Dragon before the diviondivision of the Empire & from time to time came under his dominion untill the Dragon gave the Beast his throne. And because they are crowned on the head of the Beast & received power as kings the same hour with the Beast, we are to look for them among the nations which received power as kings when the Dragon gave the Beast his power & throne & great authority. [But before I give you an account of them it will be necesse convenient to give you some further account of the Monarchy of Dacia. And on this eighth head are ten horns all of them crowned: but on the Dragons head they are without crowns. They were therefore ten nations over which the Dragon reigned but are in the reign of his sixt head had received no kingdoms, but were to receivedreceive power as kings about the same time with the Beast, that is, about the same time that the Dragon gave the Beast his power & throne. And when the Dragon gave the Beast his throne the seven Trumpets began to sound, the seven thunders began to utter their voices & the seven Vialls of wrath began to be poured out. By the Decree of Gratian the Popes receiving of appeals from the western Churches, his appointing of Vicars in these Churches & his writing Decretal Epistles to them be observed by them: his superiority over other Bishops was became so far established advanced in the West by degrees, that the Council Ccalled at Rome by Charles the Great in the year 800 to hear his accusers declared him above all humane judicature, & by that Declaration established his supremacy over the Western Churches. And henceforward times & laws were given into his hands, & not before because he had but newly subdued three of the first kings who were to oppose him in his rise & had but newly acquired a temporal dominion whereby he became a horn of the fourth Beast, & his religion & authority was but newly extended into Germany & tiths were but newly settled on the Church by Charles the great. The Popes were still now chosen by the Romans & confirmed by the Emperors. But Leo VIII A.C. 964 gave power to the Emperor to chuse the Pope. And the Romans still contending for their right of Election the Emperor Henry II made them renounce their right of Election Anno 1046 & the Nicolas II ordeined that Anno 10589 ordered that the Popes should be chosen by the Cardinals & Emperor, & Gregory the VIIth soon after (vizt 1077) deprived the Emperor of the Investitures as Simoniacal, & by excommunications set the Papal power above the Imperial. & had a look more stout then his fellows. The controversy about worshipping of Images lasted in the Greek Empire till the year 842, & then that worship, was established for the fr after it had been set up by the 2d Council of Nice under Irene A.C. 787, condemned by th a Council at Constantinople under Leo X A.C. 814, was restored & established by a Council at Constantinople under the Empress Theodora, & hath lasted ever since. The doctrine of Transubstantiation began to be was first broached openly by by Bertram or Rotram Paschasius Ratbertus a litle after the year 800. It got ground by degrees & continued to be disputed till Berangarius appealed against it, who for opposing it was condemned for it by a Councils at Rome A.C. 1050, & Rome AC 1059, (wchwhich last Council decreed the Election of the Pope by the Cardinals with the consent subsequent approbation of the inferior clergy & a few then some of the people, salvo Imperatoris honore.) And these the ab by these steps the Abomination of Desolation was set up. Pope Leo III A.C. 8034 coaminge into Germany to the Emperor Charles yethe great attended with his Cardinals Archbishops Bishops & Prelates dedicated several new Churches in several parts of Germany granting them several Indulgences many Indulgences And at the instance of the Emperor Charles thethey went together to the town of Vuerda on the Rhene & near Colen & visited the Church & Convent of St Suibert Sunibert & there Pope Leo wthwith the consent of his Cardinals & Prelates in the presence of the Emperor canonized S. Sunibert with great solemnity, & this is the first instance of canonizing the dead. And at the same time upon & appointed that day vizt day to be observed yearly by that town in memory of the Canonization & Exaltation of this Saint, & granted special Indulgences for that Church to those who should meet there annually to observe the same. And at the same time many people of both sexes came together out of the Province to see the Canonization & receive the Popes benediction & remission of their sins. As Dacia by being formerly a part of the Roman Empire is hence part of the subject of the prophesies concerning this Empire, so all the nations conquered by it henceforward belong to that third part, & so Germany from the time that it was conquered by the Francks in the reign of Charles the great, is another became another part of of the subject of these prophesies body of the Beast. 147 I have hitherto considered those false Christians (or rather Antichristians) who either separated fom the communion of the true Christians or were excommunicated by them. I will now mention some others Christians who continued in commuoncommunion notwithstanding their opinion that the son was the λόγος ενδ προφορικὸς emitted not from all eternity but a little before the world began & by that emission generated into a son. Iustin Martyr who flourished – – – – – – – Christ is called the son of God Tatian the disciple of Iustin was also instructed – – – – it began to have considerable effects Eusebius bishop of Cæsarea – – – – – – being all things potentially. 148 the profane & impious may not trample upon the holy things. For we also acknowledge it a benefit received from you that we are preserved safe & intire, & we pray for f freedom from danger in time to come. And if there shall be need of greater intercession & deprecation, call together a Quire of your brothers the martyrs & in conjunction with them all intercede for us. Let the prayers of many just ones attone for the sins of the multitude & peoples. Exhort Peter, excite Paul & also Iohn the divine & beloved disciple that they may be sollicitous for the Churches wchwhich they have erected for wchwhich they have been in chains, for wchwhich they have undergone dangers & deaths, that the worship of Idols may not lift up its head against us, that heresies may not spring up like thorns in the vineyard, that tares grown up may not choak the wheat, that there may not be against any no rock void of the fatness of true dew, may be against us & render the force fruitful power of the word void of a roodt but by the power of the deprecation of your self & your companions, o admirable man & eminent among the martyrs, the common wealth of Christians may become the a feiield of corn. The same Gregory Nyssen in his Sermon upon the death of Meletius bishop of Antioch, preached at ConstantinopConstantinople the same year (A.C. 381) before the bishops of the second General Council, spake thus of Meletius. The bridegroom, saith he, is not taken from us. He stands in the middle of us tho we do not see him. He is a Priest in the most inward places & face to face intercedes before God for us & the sins of the people. This And while Gregory preached this before Constantinop the Council of Constantinople: that you may thence know (saith aa Baron an. 381. sect. 41. Baronius) that he professed what the whole Council, & therewith the whole Church of those parts beleived, namely that the saints in heaven offer prayers for us before God. And even the great Athanasius who died in the year 373 was of the same opinion from his youth. For in his Epistle to Marcellinus concerning the the book of the Psalms, he introduces an old man calling him his Son & giving him many advices concerning the interpretation & use of this book, & wchwhich he recommended to Marcellinus particularly that no man under a shew of eloquence should be recommended to Marcellinus & induced to adorn them Psalms with secular words nor endeavour to transpose the sayings or anywise to change them, but without any artifice to recite & sing them as they are spoken, that the wise holy men who spake them deliv as Gods men servants delivered them to us, knowing their own words may pray with us, yea or rather that the holy spirit who spake in the holy men seing his own words with wchwhich he inspired them, may join [with them] in assisting us in orour prayers. Certainly, said the old man, I have heard from prudent men that anciently in Israel they put the Devils to flight by the reading of the scriptures alone they put the devils to flight & detected their stratagems against men. And therefore, said he, they are worthy of all condemnation who omitting these, & using foreign elegant words, from those name themselves exorcists. ffor they rather trifle & offer themselves to be derided by the devils as happened to the sons of Sceva the Iew who attempted to exorcise in this manner. For the Devils hearing such things mock at them but are afraid of the words of the saints & cannot bear them. This was the doctrine wchwhich Athanasius imbibed in his youth & under in the name of the old man recommended to Marcellinus. For certainly this Epistle & the Exposition of Athanasius upon the Psalms was writ in the reign of Constantine the great, the discourses therein concerning the Divinity of Christ being suitable to those times & conteining nothing which may relate to the times after the Council of Tyre not to say after the Council of Nice. Let these discourses be compared wthwith the discourses of Athanasius in his Orations contra Gentes written before the times of the Coun homousian controversy & they will appear to be much of a piece. For he ynthen attributed supernatural effects to words & the sign of the cross. Pope Damasus who was made bishop of Rome A.C. 367 & died A.C. 384 – – – – – – – – into the bishopric of Rome A.C. 3867. Hilary who died in the year 368, not only ascribed supernatural effects to the reliques of saints as you have heard but but also declared for the invocation of Angels & saints. For upon the 129th Psalm he writes thus. It is not the nature of God but our infirmity wchwhich wants the intercession of Angels. ffor they are sent for the infirmity sake of those who shall inherit the salvation, God being ignorant of none of those things wchwhich we do but our infirmity wanting the ministry of spiritual intercession to ask & merit. And so upon the 124th Psalm: Neither the custody of the saints nor the protection of Angels are wanting to those who desire to stand. And a little after: And least we should beleive it to be a light protection safeguard wchwhich is placed in the Patriarchs Apostles or Patriarchs & Prophets or rather in the Angels wchwhich do compass the Church with a certain custody, it is added: And the Lord encompasses his people henceforth & for ever. But perhaps the custody of the Apostles or Angels may be thought sufficient: It is true, but &c. Ambrose who was made Bishop of Millain A.C. 374 & died A.C. 397, concludes – – – – – cohæredes Dei. And in his book de viduis he writes thus. When Peters wives mother was taken with a great feaver, Andrew intreated the Lord for her –––– & thou hast neighbours to supplicate God for thee. Thou hast the Apostles thy neighbours, Thou hast the martyrs thy neighbours – – – The Angels are to be intreated for us who are granted to us for a safeguard the Martyrs are to be intreated whose patronage we by the pledge of their bodies we seem to chalenge. They can supplicate for our sins because by their own blood if they had any sins they havewashed them away. For they are the martyrs of God, our Presidents, the inspectors of our lives & actions. Let us not blush therefore to use them as intercessors of our infirmities because when they overcame they knew the infirmities of the body. [Epiphanius who died A.C. was at first free from these superstitions but at length gave way to the multitude By vertue of the same Imperial Edict not only Spain & Gallia but also Illyricum became subject to the Pope. Damasus made Ascholius or Acholius bishop of Thessalonica the metropolis of Illyricum his Vicar for hearing of causes, & in yethe year 382 Ascholius being summoned by Pope Damasus came to a Council at Rome & Pope Innocent Syricius the successor of Damasus decreed that no bishops should be ordeined I in Illyricum wthwithout the consent of Anysius the successor of Ascholius. And the following Popes gave Rufus the successor of Anysius power of calling Provincial Councils. For in the collections of Holstenius there is an account of a Council of Rome convened under Pope Boniface II in wchwhich were produced Letters of Damasus Syricius, Innocent I, Boniface I, & Cœlestine bishops of Rome to Ascholius Anycius & Rufus bishops of Thessalonica, in wchwhich letters they commend to them the hearing of causes in Illyricum granted by the Lord & the holy Canons to the Apostolick Sea throughout that Province. ✝ [✝ And Syricius saith in his Epistle to Anysius: Apud HolsteniumEtiam dudum Frater charissime per Candidianum Episcopum, qui nos præcessit ad Dominum, hujusmodi literas dederamus ut nulla licentia esset, sine consensu tuo in Illyrico Episcopos ordinare præsumere, quæ utrum ad te pervenerint scire non potui. Multa enim gesta sunt per contentionem ab Episcopis in Ordinationibus faciendis, quod tua melius caritas novit. And a little after: ad omnem enim hujusmodi audaciam comprimendam vigilare debet instantia tua, spiritu in te sancto fervente: ut vel ipse, si potes, vel quos judicaveris episcopos idoneos, cum litteris dirigas, dato consensu qui possit in ejus locum qui defunctus vel depositus fuerit, Catholicum episcopum vita et moribus probatum, secundum Nicænæ synodi statuta, vel Ecclesi& Romanæ, clericum de clero meritum ordinare.] And Pope Innocent I saith in his epistle to Anysius:Epist 4 apud Holsten. Cui [Anysio] etiam anteriores tanti ac tales viri prædecessores mei Episcopi, id est, sanctæ memoriæ Damasus Siricius, atqꝫque supra memoratus vir ita detulerunt, ut omnia quæ in omnibus illis partibus gererentur sanctitati tuæ quæ plena justitiæ est, traderent cognoscenda. And in his epistle to RufusEpist 5 the successor of Anysius Ita longis intervallis disterminatis a me ecclesijs discat consulendum ut prudentiæ gravitatiqꝫque tuæ committendam curam causasqꝫque, siquæ exoriantur per Achaiæ Thessaliæ, Epiri veteris, Epiri novæ & Cretæ, Daciæ mediterraneæ Daciæ Ripensis, Mœsiæ Dardæniæ & Prævali Ecclesias Christo Domino annuente censeam. Vere enim ejus sacratissimus monitis lectissimæ sinceritatis tuæ providentiæ et virtuti hanc injungimus sollicitudinem: non primitus hæc statuentes, sed præcessores nostros Apostolicos imitati; qui beatissimis Acholio et Anysio injungi pro meritis ista voluerunt. [✝ And Boniface I in his decretal Epistle to Rufus & the rest of the Bishops in Illyricum: Nullus, ut frequenter dixi, alicujus ordinationem citra ejus [Rufi] episcopi Thessalonicensis] conscientiam celebrare præsumat: cui, ut supra dictum est, vice nostra cuncta committimus. And Pope Cœlestine in his decretal epistle to the Bishops in throughout Illyricum, saith: vicem nostram per vestram provinciam noveritis [Rufo] esse commissam, ita ut ad eum fratres charissimi, quicquid de causis agitur, refereatur sine ejus consilio Nullus ordinetur, nullus usurpet eodem inconscio commissam illi Provinciam. Colligere nisi cum ejus voluntate episcopos non præsumant. ☉ ☉ And in the cause of Perigenes he thus in the title of his epistleEpist 10 apud Holsten. he thus enumerates the provinces under this bishop: Rufo et cæteris Episcopis per Macedoniam Achaiam Thessaliam, Epirum veterem, Epirum novam, Prævalin & Daciam constitutis. And Pope Xystus in a decretal Epistle to the same bishops: Illyricanæ omnes ecclesiæ ut a decessoribus nostris decessoribus nostris , et nos quoqꝫque fecimus; Thessalonicensis Antistitis, ut suo solicitudine, siquæ assilent, actiones distinguat atqꝫque definiat, et ad eum quicquid dotibus agitur, referatur. Sit Concilium quotiens causæ fuerint pro necessitatum emergentium ratione decreverit. And Pope Leo in his Epistle to Anastasius bishop of Thessalonica: Singulis autem Metropolitanis sicut potestas ista committitur ut in suis Provincijs jus habeant ordinandi eos metropolitanos a te volumus ordinari; maturo tamen & decocto judicio Felix III p. 97, 98Synodus Romana sub Felice III circa annum 484 in epistola synodica ad Constantinopolitanos: The Church of Ravenna (the Metropolis of Flaminia & Æmelia) was also subject to the Pope. ffor Pope Zosimus A.C. 417 excommunicated some of the Presbyters of that Church, & wrote a commonitory epistle about them to the Clergy of that Church about them, calling as a branch of the Roman Church. In in Ecclesia sua, saith he, hoc est in ecclesia nostra Romana. ③ And Pope Leo I being consulted by Leo bishop of Ravenna about some quæstions, answered him by a decretal Epistle. A.C. 451. ② And Petrus Chrysologus bishop of Ravenna in his epistle to Eutyches extant in yethe Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, wrote thus: Nos pro studio pacis et fidei, extra consensum Romanæ Pontificis civitatis Episcopi, causa fidei audire non possumus. ① And when those of Ravenna having elected a new bishop gave notice thereof to Pope sixtus, A.C. 433 the Pope set him set him aside & ordeined another Peter Chrysologus in his room [See Baronius Anno 433 § 24.] And Petrus Chrysologus . . . . . . possumus. And Pope Leo I being consulted by Leo . . . . . . . . . . decretal epistle. And Pope Gregory the great reprehending Ioh the bisho Iohn bishop of Ravenna tells him of the privileges granted by about the use of the pallium tells him of a precept of one of his predecessors Pope Iohn cammanding that all the privileges privileges granted by primiti his predecessors should be to the bishop & Church of Ravenna should be kept. And this bishop Iohn returned a submissive answer, & after his death Pope Leo I ordered a visitation of yethe Church of Ravenna sent the pallium to his successor Maxinian as of ancient custome & confirmed the privileges heretofore granted to this Church [Greg. l. 3. Epist 56, 57 & l 5. Epist 25, 26, 56.] This Church revolted two or three times from the Church of Rome but returned again to its obedience. 150 When some whom the Church of Rome excommunicated In like manner the Bishop of Aquileia with his diocesse was subject to the Bishop of Rome, ffor Nicetas Bishop of Aquileia & acted by his decrees as is manifest by the 79 decretal Epistle of Pope Leo I wchwhich begins thus directed to Nicetas bishop of Aquileia ffor this Epistle begins thus A.C. 458 For the Pope begins this Epistle thus. Regressus ad nos filius meus & Deo Adeodatus Diaconus Sedis nostræ, dilectionem tuam poposcisse memoravit, ut de his a nobis authoritatem Apostolicæ Sedis acciperes, quæ quidem magnam dijudicationis difficultatem dijudicationis videntur afferre. And then receiving he continues sets down an answer to the Questions proposed by Nicetas, & concludes thus: Hanc autem Epistolam nostram, quam ad consultationem tuæ fraternitatis emissimus ad omnes fratres & comprovinciales tuos Episcopos facies pervenire, ut in exitium observantia, data prosit authoritas. Data 12 Sept Kal. Apr. Majorano Aug. primùm cos. A.C. 458. This Diocess was large extending eastward to Pannonia secunda or inferior & westward to the river Adda which ran between it & divided it from the Diocess of Millain.a See Basnag Annal. A.C. 579. sect. 6, 7. It conteined Pannonia prima, Rhætia secunda, Noricum, Istria, Forum Iulium & Venetia. It was then the chief second city of the western Empire, & was by some called the second Rome. Gregory the great A.C. 595 cited Severus And Gregory the great A.C. 591 cited Severus bishop of this city to appear before him in judgment in a Council at Rome. Greg. Lib. 1. Indic 9 Epist 16. The Bishops of Aquileia & Millain created one another & therefore were alike sub of equal authority & alike subject to the sea of Rome ffor Pope aa Apud Gratianum de Mediolanensi et Aquileiensi ecclesijs Episcopis. Pelagius (about the year 557) testifes this in the following words Mos antiquus fuit, ut quia pro longinquitate vel difficultate itineris ab Apostolico illis onerosum fuerit ordinari ipsi se invicem Mediolanensis & Aquileiensis ordinare episcopos debuissent. ⊡ ⊡ These wordwords imply that the ordination of these two bishops belonged to the sea of Rome. And accordingly Gregory yethe great writing to yethe Clergy & people of Millain for Deusdedit then elected Bishop of Millain. When Laruentius bishop of Millian had excommunicated Magnus one of his Presbyters & was dead, Gregory the great A.C. 293 absolved Magnus & sent the Pallium to the new elected bishop Constantius. [Greg. Lib. 3, Epist 26 & Lib. 4 Epist. 1.] And the next year reprehended him of partiality in judging Fortunatus & commanded him to send Fortunatus to Rome to be judged there [lib. 5. Epist 4.] & four years after appointed the bishops of Millain & Ravenna to hear yethe cause on Maximus. [Lib 9. Epist. 10 & 67. Hence Ambrose bishop of Millain saith: Ambros. l. 3 de sacramentis c. 1Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetitudinem non habet, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur & formam. And a litte after: In omnibus cupio sequi ecclesiam Romanam. And in his commentary upon 1 Tim. 3: Cum totus mundus Dei sit, tamen tdomus ejus Ecclesia dicitur cujus hodie rector est Damasus. And two years after (viz A.C. 601) when Constantius was dead, & the people of Millain had elected Deusdedit his successor, Greg & the Lombards had elected another: Gregory wrote to the Notary clergy & people of millain that by the authority of his letters Deusdedit should be ordeined & that he whom the Lombards had ordeined was an unworthy successor of Ambrose [Lib. 11 Epist. 3, 4. Whence I gather that the church of Millain had continued in this state of subordination to the sea of Rome ever since the days of Ambrose. For Ambrose himself acknowledged the authority of seathe sea of Rome. Ecclesia Romana, saith he, hanc consuetudinem – – – – – – – – – rector est Damasus. Auxentius the predecessor of Ambrose was not subject to yethe sea of Rome & therefore the subjection began in Ambrose. Theis diocess of Millain conteined Liguria with Insubria, the Alpes Cottiæ & Rhætia. This bishop re In the year 844 the bishop of Millain revolted from the sea of Rome & continued in this revolt about 200 years as is thus mentioned by ✝✝ De Regno Italiæ lib. 9. Sigonius. Eodem anno [sc. 844] Angilbertus Mediolanensis Archiepiscopus ab Ecclesia Romana parum comperta de causa descivit, tantumqꝫque exemplo in posterum valuit, ut non nisi post ducentos annos Ecclesia Mediolanensis ad Romanæ obedientiam auctoritatemqꝫque redierit. The bishop of Ravenna (the metropolis of Flaminia & Æmilia) was also subject to yethe Pope. For Petrus Chrysologus Gregory the great sent the pallium to upon the death of Iohn bishop of this city appointed a visitation of this Church, sent the pallium to his successor Maxinian &as of ancient custome & confirmed the privileges heretofore granted to this church. [ Lib. 5 Epist 25, 26, 56. Pope Leo the great in answer to some questions proposed by Leo bishop of Ravenna sent him a decretal Epistle [Epist 37] Petrus Chrysologus bishop of Ravenna in his epistle written againsto Eutyches & produced extant in the acts of the Council of Chalcedon; wrote: Nos pro studio pacis et fidei extra consensum Romanæ civitatis episcopi, causas fidei audire non possumus In omnibus autem hortamur te frater honorabilis ut his quæ a beatissimo Papa Romanæ civitatis scripta sunt obedienter attendas; quoniam beatus Petrus qui in propria sede & vivit & præsidet, præstat quærentibus Fidei veritatem. Nos enim pro studio pacis & Fidei extra conscient consensum Romanæ civitatis Episcopi, causas Fidei audire non possumus. Petrus ChrysololusChrysologus Ravennatis episcopus in epistola ad Eutychem Consilium Chalcedonense adversus Eutychem A.C. 450. –– had done the like. And Petrus Chrysologus bishop of Ravenna in his epistle sent to Eutyches communicated to the Council of Chalcedon against Eutyches. In omnibus autem hortamur te . . . . . possumus. And Nos enim pro studio pacis et fidei extra consensum Romanæ civitatis episcopi causas fidei audire po non possumus. And a little after they add that the number of bishops convened at Ariminum ought not to have yethe force of præjudice seing their profession of faith was composed without yethe consent of yethe Bishop of Rome whose opinion was to be expected in the first place, & wthwithout yethe consent of Vincentius & some others, & those that did then consent, being since were being since returned to a better mind had exprest their testified their dislike of that form. 151 whose bishops met in Council at Rome every half year at Rome as their metropolis. ffor by the fift Canon the Council of Nice ordeined that Councils should be held every in every Province every spring & autumn & according to this Canon the bishops of his Province met every half year at Rome. ffor in this sence Pope Leo I interpreted this Canon of the Co For that that the Bishop of Rome began now exaltto exalt the Council of of Rome & to overrule the Councils & Metropolitans of other Provinces by the Council of Rome there are many instances. Pope Zosimus A.C. 417 Thus Pope Zosimus –– And to give you some instances of these proceedings in relation to Councils Pope Zosimus A.C. 417 – – – The bishops of Rome claimed a p prærogative over all the west by primitive instititu And if this Ecclesiatical Monarchy had not yet been erected yet the Imperial edict of Valentinian II was And the same Pope Leo having in a Council at Rome passed sentence against Hilary bishop of Arles for what he had done in a Provincial council in Gallia unlawful ordinations took occasion from thence to procure the following Edict from the western Emperor Valentinian for establishing more absolutely the authority of his Sea over all the provincial councils & Churches of the western Empire –– A.C. 445. There were at this time some barbarian kingdoms in the western Empire but as soon as they became converted to the Roman catholick faith they submitted to the dominion of the sea of Rome. Now tho the Western Emperors for the peace of their Empire set up this ecclesiastical dominion of their Imperial city, yet the Bishop of Rome coloured over his claim wthwith other pretenses. So Pope Innocent I in his Decretal epistle to Decentius bishop of Eugubium. A.C. 406, claimed it represents that – – – – head of their institution: an argument that would subject Rome to Illyricum & both to Asia & Antioch & Antioch to Ierusalem. And in almost all the decretal Epistles the language obedience to the Apostolic sea & chair of Peter is inculcated, whereas the Church of Rome was of the uncircumcision & Peter was an Apostle of the circumcision & none of the Apostles were bishops of any cities. They were not confined to residence in single cities but sent to preach to the whole world, & left no successors in this mission. Nor were the Churches of Asia during the reign of Vespasian Titus Domitian & Nerva under the government of the Bishops of Rome but under that of the Apostle Iohn who was superi And as for that text Thou art Peter & upon this rock will I build my church: it was personal & was fulfilled in Peter when by his first sermon he converted three thousand & therby founded the church of the circumcision & afterwards by the calling of Cornelius founded also the Church of the uncircumcision. These These a Arguments drawn from these heads might help to colour f over delude the people, but it was by the edicts of Gratian & Valentinian that this Ecclesiastical dominion colour over this dominion with a shew of religion when it was set up: & we must reccon that but it was set up & established by the Edicts of Gratian & Valentinian. When the Bishops of Asia deposed Paul of Samosat the heathen Emperor Aurelian referred the matter to the bishop of his imperial city Rome. When the bishops of Afric referred their case to the hearing of the Gallican bishops the Emperor Constantine the great refe added the bishops of Rome & Italy, & soon after the Council of Nice gave him the primacy of honour & when Constantinople was built & made the head of the eastern Empire the second general Council gave the primacy to the bishop of this city next after Rome, as being new Rome. And the same Gregory Pope Leo in another place teaches the same thing in these words. De toto mundo unus Petrus eligitur, qui et universarum gentiūum vocationi et omibusomnibus Apostolis cunctisqꝫque Ecclesiæ patribus præponatur, ut quamvis proprie regat Petrus quos principaliter regat et Christus. Serm. 3 de sua ad Pontificatum assumptione. And when Ambrose came to the bishop of a certain city of Sardinia, percontatus est ex eo utrum cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est cum Romana Ecclesia, conveniret. [Ambr. de obitu fratris Satyri.] And the same Ambrose in conjunction with yethe Synod of Aquileia A.C. 381 in their synodical epistle to the Emperor Gratian: Totius Orbis Romani caput Romanam Ecclesiam, atqꝫque illam sacrosanctam Apostolorum fidem, ne turbari sineret, obsecranda fuit clementia vestra; inde enim in omnes venerandæ communionis jura dimanant. [Synod. Aquil. 152 And Tertullian is witness that the baptism of hereticks was rejected disallowed by the practice of the African Churches before the end of the second century. ffor in his book de baptismo wchwhich he wrote before the end of the he became a Montanist, he describes the practise of yethe Churches in Afric & saith c. 15Vnus omninò baptismus et nobis tam ex Domini Evangelio quam ex Apostolis literis, quoniam unus Dominus et unum baptisma et una Ecclesia in cœlis. Sed circa hæreticos sane quid custodiendum sit, digne quis retractet: ad nos enim editum est. Hæretici autem nullum habent consortium nostræ disciplinæ, quos extraneos utiqꝫque testatur ipsa ademptio communionis. Non debet in illis cognoscere quod mihi est præceptum quia non idem Deus est nobis & illis, nec unus Christus, id est, idem; ideoqꝫque me baptismus unus quia non idem; quem cum rite non habeant, sine dubio non habent. The Cataphrygian heresy first spread silently in the Churches & at length created great tumults Apollinaris & at leng & Apollinaris bishop of Hierapolis in his latter days was wrote against it in its infancy & was one of the first who did so & not long after it had created great tumults in the Churches (Euseb. Eccl Hist. l. 4 c. 27) &. ffor it was condemned & its professors excommunicated by a Council called convened at Hierapolis by under Apollinaris & by other Councils convened in the east Asia (Euseb. l. 5. c. 16, 19) And these were the first Councils of Bishops convened against hereticks so far I as I can find in Ecclesiastical history, & by excommunicating the Cataphrygians seeme to have given occasion occasion to Pope Victor to issue communicatory letters to them, this being done as it seems to me in opposition to the proceedings of the Churches of Asia against them this being done as it seems to me in opposition to the proceedings of the Churches of Asia. ffor I see not why he should write communicatory letters to the Cataphrygian Churches of Asia as distinct from the other Churches of Asia before they were distinguished before they were distinguished by excommunications: & after they were excommunicated to write communicatory letters to them was to oppose & dissolve the sentence & authority of the Churches & Councils wchwhich excommunicated them. And this was the first attempt made by the Bishop of Rome to the universal Bishopric. When Cyprian –– – – – – catechized & baptized accipiat spiritum sanctum. The doctrine therefore of disallowing the baptism of hereticks continued in the Churches of Afric till after the year 314: but the bishops of Italy Rome & Italy extirpated it & introduced their own doctrine by supporting the party of Cæcilian extirpated it & introduced their own doctrine of allowing that baptism. In the eastern Churches – – – – – – – – – catechised & baptized. Athanasius This principle of allowing – – – – – – – – A.C. 362. But after this principle began to be received in Egypt & Syria, the Church it overspread the eastern Empire & became universal in a little time. It has been a frequent – – – – – – – – – – – Greek Church over her own members. 153 to God had. Athanasius had an Oration upon the 40 Martyrs who died in the year 373 // Ephrem Syrus who died in the year 378 had an Oration on these 40 Martyrs not yet published & therefore wchwhich Theis Oration of Athanasius is not yet published but Gerard Vossius saw the MS in yethe library of Cardinal Ascanius in Italy, & there as he mentions in his commentary upon the oration of Ephrem Syrus on these 40 martyrs; & therefore their reliques were sent dispersed & sent some of them sent into Egypt in the life time of Athanasius, that is before the year 373. by him And [Basil] a little after: At the memory of the Martyr the whole region is moved; at his festival the whole city rejoyce he is changed into a state 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 yethe end of the Homily he prays that God would preserve the Church thus fortified with the tower great towers of the martyrs. And in his Oration on yethe 40 Martyrs – – – Ephræm Syrus who was contemporycontemporary to Basil & dyed the same year with him, in the end of his encomium Encomium or Oration upon Basil newly dead thus invokes him: Deprecate for me a most very miserable man & recall me by thy intercessions, o father [Basil,] thou couragious me a weake one, thou diligent me a sloathful negligent one, thou chearful me a sloathful an inactive one, thou wise me a foolish one. Thou who hast treasured up a treasure of all virtues me reduce me empty of every good work. And in the beginning of his encomium upon the 40 martyrs written at the same time he thus invokes them. Help me therefore, O ye saints, with your intercessions &, o ye beloved, with your holy prayers, that Christ by his grace may guide my tongue to speake &c And afterwards mentioning the mother of one of these 40 martyrs he thus concludes the Oration with this invocation. I entreat thee o holy & bless faithfull & blessed woman, pray for me to the saints saying: Intercede ye triumphers of Christ for the least & the miserable Ephræim, that I may find mercy & by the grace of Christ may be saved. And again in his second Oration Sermon or Oration on the praises of the holy martyrs of Christ, he thus invokes them. We entreat you, O most holy martyrs to deprecate the Lord for us that miserable sinners beset with the squallor of negligence, that he would infuse his divine grace into us. And in th afterwards neare the end he invokes them again in this manner. Now ye most holy men & glorious martyrs of God, help me a miserable sinner with your prayers: that in that dreadfull hour I may obtein mercy, when the secrets of hearts shall be made manifest. I am to day become to you, O ye most holy martyrs of Christ, as it were, an unprofitable & unskilfull cup-bearer: for I have delivered to the sons & brothers of your faith a cup of the excellent wine of your warfare & wthwith yethe excellent table of your victory replenished with all sorts of dainties have endeavoured with the whole affection & desire of my mind to recreate the your fathers & brothers of the kindred & relations wchwhich dayly frequent your the table: ffor behold they sing & with exultation & jubile glorify God who has adorned the most sacred heads of your vertue with incorruptible & cælestial crowns, & with excessive joy they stand about the sacred reliques of your martyrdome, wishing for a benedictionblessing & desingdesiring to carry away the holy medicines of body & mind. Bestow therefore a blessing upon them all, As good disciples & faithfull ministers of our benign Lord & Saviour, bestow therefore a blessing upon them all. And I also, tho weak & feeble, having received strength by your merits & intercessions, with the whole devotion of my mind, have sung a hymn of your praise & glory before your holy reliques. Wherefore I beseech you stand before the throne of the throne of the divine majesty for me Ephræm a vile & miserable sinner sinner that by your prayers I may deserve to obtein salvation & with you enjoy eternal felicity by the grace & & benignity & of our Lord & Saviour Iesus Christ to whom with the father & holy ghost be prais honour vertue & glory for ever & ever Amen. Gregory Nazianzen A.C. 373 being newly made bishop of Sasyma wrote his sixt Oration 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 written upon Athanasius written presently after his death A.C. 373, he thus invokes him. Do thou – – – virgin Mary. Gregory Nyssen in the life of Ephræm Syrus tells us tells how a certain man returning home from a far country was in great danger by reason that all the ways were obstructed intercepted by the armies of barbarous nations; but upon invoking Ephræm by name & saying Holy Ephræm assist me he escaped the danger, neglected the fear of death & beyond his hope got safe home. And in the end of this Oration Gregory invokes Ephræm in the following manner: But thou [o EphæmEphræm] standassisting now at yethe divine altar & sacrificing to the pPrince of life & to the most holy Trinity together wthwith the Angels, remember us all & obtein for us pardon of our sins that wee may enjoy the eternall happiness of the kingdom of heaven. The same Gregory in his Oration the on the Martyr Theodorus written A.C. 3801, thus describes the power of the martyr & the practise of the people. in this manner. This martyr, saith he, the last year, quieted the barbaric tempest & put a stop to the horrid war of the fierce & cruel Scythians. –––– Si pulverem quo conditorium ubi martyris corpus quiescit If any one is permitted to carry away the dust wthwith wchwhich the tumb where is covered wherein the body of the martyr rests, the dust is accepted as a guift & gathered as to be laid up a thing of great price. ffor to touch the reliques themselves, if any such prosperous fortune shall at any time happen, how great a favour that is & not to be obteined without the most earnest prayers they know well who have obteined this prevailed obteined it. ffor as a living & florid body, they that behold it, imbrace it, applying to the eyes, ears, mouth, ears & all the organs of sense, & then with affection pouring tears upon the martyr as if he was whole & appeared to them, they offer prayers with supplication that it would intercede for them as an advocate praying to him as an Officer attending upon God & invoking him aas receiving guifts whenever he will And at length Gregory concludes the Oration with this prayer. O Theodorus we want many blessings. Intercede & deprecate for your country before the common king & Lord. ffor the country of the Martyr is the place of his passion & they are his citizens & brethren & kindred who have him & defend him & adorn & honour him. We fear afflictions, we expect dangers: the wicked Scythians are not far off ready to make war against us. As a soldier fight for us, as a martyr use your liberty of speech for your fellow servants. Pray for peace that these publick meetings may not cease, that the furious & wicked barbarian may not rage against the temples & altars, that the And the Latines mutually charged the Greeks with Polytheism & Arianism for calling the father & son two hypostases as if the ffather & Son must be two Gods if they be not one orby uniusty of substantiæce & if as if all men who did not place the unity of the Deity in the unity of substance were Arians. Now that Sabellianism & Montanism – – – – – ὁμοιούσιος to yethe father as well as ὁμοούσιος. After this conviction the homousians began to change their language of one hypostasis to that of three, & to fall out amongst themselves about it, those who cho to call those sabellians who still adhered to yethe language of one hypostasis & to be mutually to be called Arians by them for changing their language. And in this state things continued till the reighn of Iulian yethe Apostate when Athanasius reconciled the two parties about their language making telling them that one party by their language of one hypostasis understood that th one substance in nature & species & the other by their language of three hypostases understood three substances in number. And this exposition was allowed by the Bishop of Rome. ffor Ierom a little after the reign of Pope Iulian the Emperor Iulian coming into the east Syria & ther & there being reprehended for using the language of one hypostasis would not change his language till he had written to Pope Damasus about it. Now In these disputes Arius & Athanasius had both of them perplexed the Church with metaphysical opinions & expressed their opinions in novel language not warranted by scripture. The Greeks Church had to preserve the Church from these innovations & metaphysical perplexitys had innovatio anathematized the nove & restore to her that peace wh anathematized the & put an end to the troubles occasioned by them anathematized the novel language of Arius in several of their Councils, & so soon as they were able repealed the novel language of the homousians, & contended that the language of the scripture was to be adhered unto. The Homousians rejected made the father & son one God by a metaphysical unity the unity of substance: the Greek Churches rejected all metaphysical divinity as well that of Arius as that of Athanasius & the Homousians & made the father & son one God by a Monarchical unity, an unity of Dominion, the Son being subject to yethe father receiving all things from the father, being subject to him, & executing his will &, sitting in his throne & calling him his God, ffor & so is but one God wthwith the ffather as a king & his viceroy are but one king. ffor the word God relates not to the metaphysical nature of God but to his dominion. It signifies the same is a relative word sc thing with Lord but in a higher degree. For as w It is a relative word & has relation to us as the servants of God. It is a word of the same signification with Lord & King but in a higher degree. For as we say my Lord our Lord your Lord, other Lords, fals Gods the King of Kings & Lords of Lords, other Lords, the servants of yethe Lord, serve other Lords so we say my God our God your God, other Gods the God of Gods, other Gods the servants of God, serve other Gods. And therefore one God And therefore as a father & his sons cannot be called one King upon account of their being consubstantial but may be called one King by unity of dominion if the son be Viceroy under the father: so God & his son cannot be called one God upon account of their being consubstantial. Nothing can make them one God The heathens made all their Gods of one substance & sometimes called them one God & yet were polytheists. Nothing can make two persons one God but but unity of dominion. And if they Father & Son be united in dominion, the son being subordinate to the father & sitting in his throne, they can no more be called two Gods then a King & his Viceroy can be called two kings. And hHis wratlingwrastling wthwith Iacob is as full a proof that he had a body before his incarnation as his being handled by Thomas is a proof that he had a body after his resurrection. Not the body of an Angel wchwhich hath not flesh & bones but a body wchwhich by the power of his will he could form into the consistency & solidity of flesh & bones as well before his incarnation as after his resurrection. And therefore as his Such a body as he had after his resurrection, such a body he had before his incarnation. And there Now while yethe Apostles of the for the sake of yethe Gospel communicated with all these churches of yethe Iews & Gentiles: they have us an example of charity wchwhich deserves to be considered. 155 This Creed is attributed to Athanasius in the MSS. It was composed before the reign of Iulian becuase it takes ὀυσία & ὑποστασις in the same signification. It recites & anathematizes all the particular expressions of Arius & therefore was composed in the heat of that controversy. It comprehends all the Nicene Creed & enlarges it wthwith several articles of the Creeds of the Latines & therefore was writ when AthanatiusAthanasius had to do wthwith the Latin Church & studied to approve himself orthodox to theirm opinion And these characters agre best to yethe time when the Latines he was in the west & the Latines gave an acctaccount of his faith to yethe Latines in order to be received into communion. This Creed I I have recited at large because it is yethe oldest I can meet wthwith in wchwhich the H.G. is declared consubstantial to the father. The man of sin was to be revealed by a falling away or defection from yethe Church & to exalt – The heathens off derived all their Gods from one suprem Iupiter, & made them all of one usia & in that sence said they were all but one God. The Cabbalists & Gnosticks call call limited their number & called them by the names of their attributes & powers. The Cataphrygians, yethe Ca Noetians, Sabellians & Paulinists restrained their numernumber to the father son & holy Ghost, The auth but did not make them actually distinct from all eternity, the authors of the language of one usia & one substance & one usia are the translat of the the homousians who made yethe Son to be the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father & in turning the nicene creed into latin translated Ομοούσιος by unius substantiæ & afterwards in turning the faith of the Latines into Gr the homousian who took yethe son to be yethe λογος ἐνδιάθετος of the father made the the homousians who took the son for the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father made them as much distinct from all eternity as they are at present. The man of This mystery of iniquity was to work till the most should the man of sin there should be a falling away & the man of sin should be revealed & sit in the Tempe of God & exalt himself in the Temple of God above eve every thing that is called God worshipped, that is till it should make such a great falling a defection from the Church or schism & by it power wchwhich should as should overcome the Church reign in its stead it & reign over it & grow into a very potent dominion above all dominions. They did not not se at this time separate from the Greek ChuchChurch, but claimed dominion over them, & the bishops of each party excommunicated six or eight of yethe other party & thereby declared that they continued in communion wthwith the rest. And the Montanists thaught that the word was God & the flesh was man, & that the word was cloathed with ytthat flesh without confusion of substance & by the union they became one person both God & man. Videmus saith Tertullian duplicem statum non confusum sed conjunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem Iesum. De Christo autem differo Et adeo salva est utriusqꝫque proprietas substantiæ: ut et spiritus res suas egerit in illo; id est virtutes & opera et signa; & caro passionis suas functa sit, esuriens sub diabolo, sitens sub Samaritide, flens Lazarum, anxia usqꝫque ad mortem, deniqꝫque et mortua est. Quod si tertium quid esset ex utroqꝫque confusum ut electrum, non tam distincta documenta parerent utriusqꝫque substantiæ. Sed et spiritus carnalia et caro spiritualia egisset ex translatione . . . . . . occurrerunt. And & wrought the supernatural divine works. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ And to avoid being charged wthwith dividing between Christ & Iesus & making them two, Tthe Montanists taught that the word being cloathed with flesh without confusion mixture of substance, by this union they became one person with it both God & man, the word being God & the flesh man. Videmus, saith Tert. – – – – – occurrerunt. It was not therefore wthwithout reason that the Bishop But the Council understanding the original word of two sub substances one of wchwhich was Ὁμοούσιος to the other, the Bishops of the Greeks Church wasere offended at the translations & as leading to Sabellianism & Montanism & in opposition thereunto called the father & son two hypostases & the h.g. a third & the Latines taking the language of two or three hypostases to be a denyal of the father & son ὁμοουσιος, & placing the unity of the Deity in the unity of substance, comp complained of yethe Greeks for worshipping more Gods then one. Whence arose And this was that great controversy about the meaning of the word ομοουσιος wchwhich Socrates compares to a nocturnal war. Verum sicut nos, saith he, – – – – aversabantur. This heresy began in yethe Greek Empire but after a few years spread into the western For And in relation to this controversy the Greek Council of Antioch A.C. 341 at the end of a declaration of their faith, added that yethe Father Son & holy Ghost were not mere names but were hypostasi quidem tres, consesuconsensu autem unus. And another coucilcouncil of Antioch about 4 or 5 years after, in a declaration of their faith wchwhich they composed for the satisfaction of the western Churches & sent to the bishops of Italy they defend themselves against the calumnies of making three Gods, or separating the son from the father & anathematize the opinion of Sabellius them who make the father Son & h.g. one thing [because it make the father suffer] because according to this opinion the son cannot be incarnate & suffer without yethe father. by reason of their common substance. And on the other hand yethe western Bishops in yethe Council of Serdica A.C. 347 in their general Epistle as it is recited intire by Theodorit, say call it heresy to to say that yethe father son & h.g. are three hypostases & endeavour to clear themselves from the crime of Sabellianism. But however, that the language of una substantia & una hypostasis became a stublingstumbling block to yethe western nations & in the space of 33 years led many of them Bishops into yethe errors of the Sabellians & MontanistMontanists Hilary in an epistle wchwhich he wrote from Phrygia to yethe bishops of Gallia & Britain A.C. 358 to convert them from those opinions thus acknowledges. 156 The bishop of Hispalis (Sevil) was vicar over all Spain till the days of Pope Hormisda & then vicar over Batica & Lusitania only, the vicarage of all the rest being given to the bishop of Tarracon. To the RtRight HonbleHonourable the LdLord Papa Simplicius hæc ad Zanirem Hispalensem Episcopum scribabat Talibus idcirco gloriantes indicijs, congruum duximus Vicaria sedis nostræ te authoritate fulciri: cujus vigore munitus, Apostolicæ institutionis decreta, vel sanatorum terminos Patrum nullatenus transcendi permittas. Pene similia scribet Hormisda Pontifex (Epist. 24) ad Ioannem Tarraconensem his verbis: Et quia per insinuationem dilexionis tuæ, hujus est nobis via patefacta providentia, remuneramus solicitudinem tuam & servatis privilegijs Metropolitanorum, vices nobis Apostolicæ sedis eatinus delegamus, ut inspectis istis, sive ea quæ ad Canones pertinent, sive ea quæ a nobis sunt nuper mandata, servenur. At this time Pope Hormisda made the bishop of Hispalis his vicar over Bœtica & Lusitania only & the bishop of Tarracon over all yethe rest. In the time of the Council of Nice, Thrace was under the Bishop of Thessalonica. For Gelasius Cyzicenus representing that at when the Bishops of the Nicene Council sent the Nicene decrees faith to yethe Provinces under each of them, the subscription of the Bishop of Thessalonica (as Gelasius Cyzicenus represents was this Alexander Thessalonicæ Episcopus, per eos qui sub ipso censentur Ecclesijs in Macedonia prima & secunda cum ijs qui in Græcia & Europa tota, in utraqꝫque Scythia, et omnibus deniqꝫque in Illyrico Thessalia et Achaia: Europa is sometimes taken generally for all all Europe sometimes strictly for all for Thrace alone, & here it is taken in the latter sence. Constantinople at that time was subject to Thessalonica & presided only over the Islands Cyclades. ffor the subscription of Alexander bishop of Constantinople was Ecclesijs omnium cycladum insularum. But upon the building of Constantinople by Alex Constantine the great & the dision division of the Empire between Rome & Constantinople whereby Thrace became a part of the Eastern Empire while all the rest of the Province of the bishop of Thessalonica remained in the western. And at length the Council of Constantinople called the second general Council giving him the primacy next after the Bishop of Rome, he extended his juri a patriarchal authority over the diocesses of Thrace Asia & Pontus, whose metropolitans were the Bishops of Heraclea, Ephesus & Cæsarea subjected Thrace & Asia minor & Cappadocia to the bishop of Constantinople & set Constantinople above Alex him above the bishop of Alexandria: wchwhich gave great offence to the Bishops of Alexandria & Rome. Syrmium was Syrmium was the Metropolis of Illyricum occidentale till Attila destroyed the city, after wchwhich Laureacum became the metropolis of Noricum & both Pannonias, & Salona the metropolis of Dalmatia. [And the Pallium was sent by yethe Pope Symachus to Theodorus bishop of Laureacum & by Pope Garth to the bishops of Laureacum & Salona [Vide Epistolam Symmachi Papæ ad Theodorum episcopum Laureacensem & Epistolas Gregorij magni lib. 4 Epist Ep. 53 ad Episcopos per Illyricum.] And the bishops of Laureacum & Salona received the Pallium from the Pope. [Vide Caroli a S. Paulo Geographiam sacram p. 72, 73] And Pope Zosimus in his decretal epistle to Hesychius bishop of Salona, directed him to denounce the Apostolic decrees as well to the bishops of his own Province as to those of the neighbouring Provinces. The first Roman Catholic bishop of Sirmium was Anemius. He was ordeined by Ambrose Bishop of Millain in the reign of Gratian & in the Council of Aquileia under Pope Damasus A.C. 382 held this opinion these were his words: Caput Illyrici non nisi civitas Sirmicensis157 Sirmicensis, Ego igitur illius civitatis episcopus sum. Eum qui non confitetur filium Dei æternum et coæternum patri, qui est sempiternus, anathema dico. The next year Anemius & Ambrose wthwith Acholius bishop of – – & Valerian bishop of Aquileia & Acholius bishop of Thessalonica with many went to the Council of Rome wchwhich met was convened by the influence of the Pope for abrogating the decrees of the eastern Councils [& setting up the power of the western Churches under the BpBishop of Rome by the majority of votes as] & carrying on the designes wchwhich had ben attempted before in the calling the Council of Serdica, the designes wchwhich] wchwhich met for overruling the Greek Church by the majority of votes & setting up the Popes authority enabling the authority of the Apostolic Sea, as was attempted before in yethe Council of Serdica. Magnus ille Ioannes [Chrysostomus] susceptis Ecclesiæ Constantinopolitanæ gubernaculis, non illi solum civitati, verum et toti Thraciæ, quæ est in sex Episcopatus divisa, & cunctæ etiam Asiæ quæ undecim habet Antistites, Ponticam præterea ecclesiam quæ eundem habet Episcoporum numerum quem Asia, ijsdem legibus adornavit. Theodoret l 5. Hist Eccl. c. 28 Magnus ille Iohannes [Chrysostomus] simul atqꝫque Ecclesiæ gubernaculis admotus est, iniquia –– non urbem duntaxat regiam hujusmodi cura ac sollicitudine gubernabat sed et universam Thraciam quæ in sex Provincias divisa est; et Asiam totam, quæ ab undecim Præsidibus regitur : Ponticam præterea ijsdem legibus exornavit quæ totidem Rectores habet quot Asia. Theod l. 5 Eccl Hist c. 18. Besides these three Diocesses the Patriarch of Constantinople præsided over some churches without the Roman Empire & particularly over Alania & Russia. For yethe Alans belonged to the Diocess of Pontus & the Russia to that of Thrace. Balsomm in Can 18 Conc. Chalc. After the destruction of Ierusalem Cæsarea Stratonis became the Metropolis of Iudæa. & Ælia was su was superior to Æia till The Council of Nice by this canon gave the dignity of Patriarch to Ælia the bishop of Ælia by this Canon. Quia consuetudo obtinuit & antiqua traditio ut Æliæ Episcopus honoretur; habeat honoris consequentiam salva metropoli [Cæsariæ] propria dignitate. And henceforwdforward the Bishop of Ierusalem was sometimes named before the bishop of Cæsarea as Patriarch & sometimes the bishop of Cæsarea was named first as Metropolitan, At this time Cæsarea & these two bishops contended abo And Cyrill bishop of Ierusalem contending with Acacius bishop of Cæsarea about superiority was deposed by him. [Theod. Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 27] At this time Iudæa & Cæsarea wthwith all Iudæa was under the patriarch of Antioch ffor Ierom in his epistle to Pamm At this time, as Cæsarea was the metropolis of Palæstine so Antioch was the Metropolis of all the east including Palæstine [Hieron Epist 61 ad Pammachium.] But at length the Council of Chalcedon exempted the three Palæstines from yethe bishop of A jurisdiction of the bishop of Antioch & gave subjected them with their Metropolitans the bishops of Cæsarea Scythopolis & Petra to yethe power of the bishop of Ierusalem. [Concil. Chalced. Act. 7.] The Diocess of Asia had its rise from the kingdom of Attalus inherited by the Romans: that of Pontus from the kingdom of Mithridates conquered by them But lett And accordingly Pope T Hormisda, in his decretal EpistleEpistola to Iohn bishop of Tarraco wrote thus: Et quia – – – – – serventur.] Bu The bishop of Sevil was also some the Popes viccar sometimes. ffor Pope Simplicius wrote thus to the Zeno bishop of Sevil: Talibus idcirco . . . . permittas And Pope Hormisda made the bishop of Sevil his vicar over Bœtica & Lusitania & the bishop of Tarraco his vicar over all the rest of Spain, as appears by his Epis Epistles to them. Aquileia was the second city of the western Empire & was by some called the second Rome. It was the Metropolis Istriaof Istria, Forum Iulium & Venetia & its subjection to the sea of Rome is manifest by [the 79th] decretal decretal epistle of Pope Leo I directed to Nicetas bisopbishop of Aquileia. For the Pope begins this Epistle thus. Regressus – – – – – A.C. 458. And Gregory the great A.C. 4591 cited Severus bishop of this city to appear before him in judgmtjudgment in a Council at Rome. Greg. Lib. 1 Indic. 9 Epist. 16. 158 And The abominat transgressions or abomination lasts till the sanctuary be cleansed & the desolation accompanies the abomination & is caused by the Kings indignation. of the het again of the king against the holy comment & all of the in & the time of the end is the time of their rapine & continuing at the height untill the sanctuary be cleansed. & therefore> all of them rage & continue at the height until all the time of the end untill the sanctuary be cleansed. Chap. 7 Of the corruption of the Christian religion in Monkery superstition & idolatry ffor as Antiochus Epiphanes when he last returned out of Egypt & interdicted the law of of religion sacrifices of the Iews & set up the worship of the heathen Gods in all Iudea is said to have indignation against the holy covenant Dan. 11. so by the indignation in the reign of the bl king who doth according to his will, is to be understood the kings indignation against the holy per holy covenatcovenant in favour of the abomination of the Mahuzzims whereby the people of God are persecuted & made desolate & troden under foot untill the sanctuary be cleansed & by consequence all the time of the end. And this is also described plainly by Daniel in his prophesy of the scripture of truth weeks. The Messiah saith he shall be cut of – & the people of a Prince that shall come shall destroy the city & the sanctuary & & the end thereof shall be wthwith a flood & unto yethe end of the war desolations are determined –– & upon a wing of abominations he shall make [the land] desolate, or that is by the overspreading of abominations as seing or of idolatrous me a bird overspreads her wing he shall make the land desolate See Isa. 8.8. Ier. 48.40 & 49.22. And to After this placing of the abomination in all the this desolation And thus was the desolation completed, to which the Prophet Hosea relates in saying, The children of Israel shall abide many days wthwithout a king & without a prince & without a sacrifice & without an image & without an Ephod & without a teraphim. Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God & David their king & shall fear the Lord & his goodness in the latter days. After this placing of the abomination in all the land of the Iews Now when the Romans – – – – – – Chap 9 Of the Mahuzzims worshipped by the King who doth according to his will. And the flatterers are fals Christians such Christians as those above mentioned who forsake the holy covenant, Chap. 10 Of the daily worship & the abomination of desolation This horn is also said to exalt himself stand up against the Prince of Princes & & to from this opposing & exalting himself, & establishing the transgression th And by all these circumstances you may know him to be the great Antichrist & the man of sin, He wil He set up the transgression of desolation & thence is has the name of properly called the man of sin. He stand magnifies himself even to the prince of the host stands up against the prince of princes, & exalts & magnifies himself above every God, & speaks marvellous things against the God of Gods, & in matters of relig & from this opposition & exaltation the man of sin is said to oppose & exalt himself again above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped. In making a making laws about religion he doth according to his will & defe by the transgression of desolation treads under foot the sanctuary & the host of heaven untill the sanctuary be cleansed & this sanctua vision continues till the last end of the indignation: & accordin the man of sin continues sits in the temple of God till Christ destroy him wthwith the breath of his mouth & the brightness of his coming. And the man of sin se – By his setting up the transgression of desolation, exalt magnifying himself even to the Prince of the host & above every God, standing up against the Prince of Princes & & speaking marvelous things against the God of Gods, treading under foot the sanctuary & the host untill the sanctuary be cleansed & reigning in the time of the end & last end of the indignation, you may know that he is the man of sin who exalts & opposes For the man of sin or is the man of transgression & opposes & exalts himself above every God, & sits in the temple of God till Christ destroy him with the breath of his mouth & the brightness of his coming. This king by reason fo the transgression of desolation is by the Apostle Paul called the man of sin & because he stands up against the Prince of Princes he is by Iohn called the Antichrist & because he ma speaks marvellous things against the God of Gods & exalts himself above every God & prospers till the sanctuary be cleansed the man of sin is said to oppose & exalt himself above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped & to sit as a God in the temple of God till Christ destroy him by the brightness of his coming. And in the last place I would observe that the prophesy of the Apostle Paul concerning the man of sin is nothing a commentary upon Daniels prophesies concerning the last horn of the Goat. They that forsake the holy covenant hereticks called by A S mystery of iniquity as I noted above, & the king who doth according to his will is the man of sin so called from the transgression of desolation. The hebrew word ח Mahoz signifies That Mahuzzim here Signifies protectors guardians defenders & helpers such as were the fals gods of the gentiles to those that worshipped them & angels saints & dead men Christians to those that worship them has been sufficiently shewed by Mr Mede, & I shall here only shew how & when the king who doth according to his will became a worshipper of such Gods. The idolatry of the heathens consisted And when new emperors were of new opinions they failed not of new opinions Councils to repeal the acts of former the councils of former Emperors as is manifest in hist. And since the Councils were convened by the civil authority for establishing the opinions & & religion of the Court, they de their decrees are to be looked upon as acts of the Empire Whence Daniel saith These times wchwhich follow the opening of the seals are in the new [The book was to be opened not only by the prophesy of the Apocalyps but also by the fulfilling of prophesy] testament c called in the new Testament the latter days, & the latter times But first it will be convenient to premise explain more at large some things relating to the prophesies of Daniel. 1 Chap. Of the Messiah the Prince of the host 2 Chap. Of the sanctuary of strength. 3 Chap. Of the holy Covenant & daily wpworship Chap Of those that forsake the holy covenant. 4 Chap Of the worship of Mahuzzims. 159 their land: the second – – – – – – Mahuzzims. The first interval is ushered in wthwith these words But it shal not prosper – – – – – – shall fall in the reign & by the persecution of this king till the time of the end. For it is to be noted that this second intervall of time consists of two parts. In the The first part precedes the time of the end; the second is called the time of the end. In the first part the king who doth according to his will sets up the transgression of worshipping the Mahuzzims strange Gods & th with a strange God & those of understanding fall & grow few: in the second the people of this king continue to worship of the Mahuzzims thus set up called the or transgression of desolation con & the few remaining saints continue in a state of affliction dispersion & desolation all the time of the under the persecuting transgressors, whose transgression is therefore called the transgression of desolation. The Angel Gabriel in interpreting the prophesies Vision of the he Goat tells Daniel that this rough goat is yethe king of Greece & the great horn that is between his eyes is the first king ( not the person of Alexander And that being broken whereas four stood up for it four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation but not in his power And in the latter time of their kingdom when the transgressors are come to the full a king of fierce countenance shall stand up & understanding dark sentences shall stand up & his power shall be mighty but not by his own power. By kings he understands kingdoms. And because the period of time when the transgressors are come to the full relates to the vision concerning the daily worship & the transgression of desolation wchwhich was to last 2300 prophetick days, the Prophet same Angel Gabriel in the prophesy of the scripture of truth, wchwhich (as I said) is a sermo commentary upon the Vision of the he goat), after he had described the rise of he kingdom of Greece represented by the first horn of the Goat & its breaking into four kingdoms represented by the four next horns, to point out the period of time called the latter time of their kingdom when the trasgressorstransgressors are come to the full, he describes the particular actions of two of the four the single kings of two of the four kindomskingdoms wchwhich he calls the kings of the north & south & prosecutes the decriptiondescription to the eighth year of Antiochus Epiphanes, the year in wchwhich the Romans conquered Macedon & then the at that period of time passes from the descriptionbing of the kings of the north & south to describe the arms affairs of the arms wchwhich then at that time begin to stand up. And therefore the eighth year of Antiochus is the period of time when the called transg the latter time of the kingdom of the four horns when the transgressors are come to the full & the king of fierce countenance begins to stand up in room of the four & the arms wchwhich then begin to stand up after that that period the eighth year of Antiochus are this king of fierce countenance, And this the reas or last horn of the Goat, & the But after remaining part of the prophesy of the scripture of truth relates to that horn. And this I take to be the true reason why the Angel after he comes to thatis period, insists no longer upon the particular actions of the single kings of the north & south but passes on to the time of the end gradually through all the kings following by describing touching only the greas upon the main turns of affairs relating to the reign of the last horn. And it is to be observed that the Angel in passing on from this period downwards to the end of the prophesy proceeds by two large pe intervalls of time answering to the double reign of the last horn, The first that wchwhich followed its rising up waxing great towards the pleasant land & to the host of heaven & that wchwhich followed its rising growing up up to the Prince of the host. The first intervall Hitherto the Prophesy h Now This practising & prospering relates to imports that is relates to the time of yethe end is ready to co For the vision is said to be at yethe time of the end & at the last end of the indignation &. In the proceedings against the of Antiochus Epiphanes against the holy covenant its said that it should not prosper because the end or time of the end was not yet but still at a further time & therefore the prospering imports that the time of the end is at hand for The set setting up the Transgression was attempted by Antiochus Epiphanes but was not then to prosper till the time of the end because the time of the end was not come. But & therefore but but the king who doth according to his will & prospers till the indignation be accomplished & therefore the abomination of the mahuzzims wchwhich he sets up proper prospers & continues lasts all the time of the end all yethe times of yethe end all yethe time of yethe end till the sanctuary be cleansed. For the time of the end now fo For the time of the end is now commencing. For after the invocation of saints & the veneration of their reliques & pictures were established: the Empire of the Saracens – – – The little horn is the power of the After the Prophets had described the This Prophesy of the scripture of truth consist of th After the Prophet had descibeddescribed the actions of the kings of the north & south down the 8th year of Antiochus Epiphanes, the year in wchwhich the (Romans conquered Macedon & began to reign over the Greeks, he proceeds downwards from that period of time by two large intervals of time to the end of th day of jugmentjudgment, describing only the greatest turns of affairs. The first interval conteins the mighty reign of the Greeks by by or under the power of the Romans from the 8th year of Antiochus in wchwhich that power began till the end till the division of the Roman Empire & separtionseparation of the Greeks from the Latines whereby that power reign came to an end. The second conteins the reign & fate of the Greek Empire after separation, & this interval is subdivided into two successive parts the last of wchwhich is called the time of the end. The first of the two great intervals is ushered in wthwith these words But it shal not prosper – – – – – – And the second part of the second interval beginns wthwith these words; And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him, & continues to the day of judgment. And in this time of the end the abomination transgress worship of the Mahuzzims set up by the king who doth according to his will continues to overspread the churches christian world & the saints continue in a state of affliction & desolation & dtherefore this abomination worship is called the abominatransgrestsion of desolation & said to this affliction state of desolation of the saints is called the indignation against the holy covenant, & the last end of the indignation meaning by the last end not the last moment but the last interval called the time of the end. The first interval conteins the reign of theis Greeks horn by the power of the Romans; the second conteins the reign & fate of this horn of the Greeks Empire after separation from the Latines. The first begins with the 8th year of Antiochus inclusively this being the year in wchwhich the Romans conquered Macedon & began to reign over the Greeks, & ends with the division of the Roman Empire into the Greek & Latine Empires this division putting an end to the reign of the Romans or Latines over the Greeks. The second intervall extends from the time of that division to the end of the prophesy & day of judgmtjudgment. The first interval comprehends the taking away of the Iewish daily worship & placing the abomination of desolation in their land: the second interval comprehends the taking away of the Christian daily worship & the placing the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary of the sanctuary of the Christians wchwhich abomination is represented by the honouring of a strange God together wthwith Mahuzzims. The first interval conteins the rise of the last horn of the Goat up to the host of heaven & his reign in wchwhich he cast down some of stars to yethe ground, the second interval conteins his usurpation of the throne of the Prince of the host After the Prophet had described the rise of the Greek empire represe – by two large intervalls of time with relation to the double rise & reign of the last horn of the GoadGoat of – represented by the Goat & the actions of his first horns & particularly of the the kings of the north & south down or northern & southern horns down to the the eighth year of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes the year in wchwhich the Romans conquered Macedon & began to reign over the Greeks: he translates his discourse from the first horns to the last & proceeds downwards from this period of time to the day of judgment by two large intervalls of time answering to the double rise & reign of this last horn, & describes only the greatest turns of affairs relating to this horn it. The first interval conteins the reign of the Greeks by this horn by the anothers power of the Romans or or the reign of the Greeks under the dominion of the Latines: the second conteins the reign & fates of the Greeks Empire after separation from the Latines. The first begins – – – – – day of judgmtjudgment. The first interval conteins the rise of the little horn up to the host of heaven & the first part of his reign wherein he cast down of the stars host & of the stars to the ground: the second conteins the reign rise of this horn up to the Prince of the host & his taking away the daily worship of the people of the Prince & casting down & casting down his sancturysanctuary with an host given him th by reason of the transgression of desolation. The first interval comprehends the taking away of the Iewish daily worship & placing the abomination of desolation in their When we are commanded to beware of Philosophy & vain d & oppositions of science falsly so called: the meaning is, not that we should condemn all Philosophy of falshood, but that we should avoyd falling out with one another about it philosophical opinions true or false. When some of the Christians of the Circumcision who came from Iames endeavoured to impose the law of Moses upon the Christians Gentiles, the Apostles Paul told them that they preached ano called it preaching another Gospel whereby they made void the faith in Christ, not because the law was evil (for the Apostle tells us that it was good;) but because it was not necessary to salvation & therefore not to be imposed as an articles of communion. And for the same reason we are not to the imposing of any Proposition (true or false) as an Article of Communion wchwhich was not an Article of communion from the first preaching of the gospel, is preaching another Gospel & the persecuting of a any true Christians for not receiving that gospel is persecuting a memb Christ in his mystical members & the persecutor in making war upon Christ deserves the name of an Antichristian in a litteral sense. Moses commanded the people of Israel that they should make Iudges & Officers in all their Gates (or that is in the Gates of every all their citys) to judge the people with just judgment. Deut. 16.18. And These Iudges sat in the Gates of every the every citys & were called the Elders of the city & had power judged of capital causes & Mults more often other matters of life & death Deut 21.19, 20, 21: & 22.15, 16, 17, 18, 21. & 25.7, 8. Ruth 4.1, 2, 9, 11, Amos 5.14. And This sort of government by Elders for putting the laws of God in execution continued in Israel till the captivity & then was abolished by the Chaldeans (Lament 5.14) & at length restored by the commission of Artaxerxes given to Ezra (Ezra 7.25, 26), & 10.14) And while these Elders met in the Gates of the City to do justice, & were there attended by their under Officers & by such of the people as had business with yethe Iudges or came to heare the tryalls, theyre had was also a place of worship in yethe Gates set apart in the Gate for prayer & for reading of the Law of Moses by wchwhich the Elders were to judge the people & the Elders who sacrificed erected an Altar on the next hill calling it the high place 1 Sam. 9.19, 25. And these Assemblies were under the direction of the Elders & were at length called by the Greeks called Synagogues & the Elders & Presbyters & sometimes the Synagogue were called Churches Matt. 18.17. [And this form of government & public worship was retained by the primitive Christians, the christians of the circumcision calling these assemblies Synagogues (Iames 2.2) & continuing to call them so in Iudea till after the middle so till the end of the fourth Century as Ierome informs us who tells us also that the President whom we call the Bishop of the Church they called the Prince of the Synagogue] And the Iews also who were dispersed among the Gentiles, erected Synagogues in every city where they were sufficiently numous numerous, the Greeks & Romans conniving at this practice. And this form of government descended from them to yethe Christians, For they ordeined Elders Elders being ordeined in every city 1 Tit. 4 5 ✝ ✝ & the Iewish ceremony of ordeining by laying on of hands the board of Elders in every city exercisinged a judicial power even in civil affairs – – – the board of Elders in every city & ward among them reteined exercising a judicial power everover civil affairs by the consent of the Christians people under them 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 3, 4, & Tim. 5 Tim This board was & being by the Greeks called yethe Presbytery or consistory of Elders 1. Tim. 4.14 & & by the Latines Prebendaries those of the board by the Latines Prebendaries, & their President the chief ruler of the Synagogue the President or Presul or [Ἐπίσκοπος the] Bishop, And a Roman Lawyer being who was at length called in to assist them in civil affairs, becoaminge their Chancellour of their Court. The And the first Christians of the circumcision called these assemblies Cathedral Churches Synagogues Iames 2.2. & continued to call them so in Iudea till after the middle of the fourth Century as Ierome informs us, who tells us also that the Bishop was by them called the Prince of the Synagogue. And since this form of government was interrupted by the Babylonian captivity & is now much altered from what it was in the beginning of Christianity, ✝ ✝ & the Holy Ghost is not given to wicked men by the laying on of hands, & no man has power to give the Holy Ghost to whomsoever he pleases by vertue of a ceremony Christians may hence we Christians may hence learn every man to live quietly under the govern to live quietly & to suffer one another to live quietly every man under the government of his own city. & suffer other Christians to live quietly under the governments of theirs These Elders were elected by the City the people voting & the Elders Presbytery confirming the Elections by laying on of hands And this form of government descended from them to the Christians. For they ordeined Elders in every city 1 Tit. 1.5 & in ordeining them retained the Iewish ceremony of laying on of hands 1 Tim. 5.22. & the board of Elders in every city exercised a judicial power over the Christians by their consent even in civil affairs 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 3, 4 & 1 Tim. 5.17, & was by the Greeks called the Presbytery or consistory of Elders 1 Tim 4.14, & the place of their assembling & worshipping was by the christians of the circumcision called their syagoguesynagogue Iames 2.2. And after the manner of the Iews the Christians of every city incorporated themselves Presbyters under a Council or Consistory of Elders or of Elders hea Presbyters called the Presbytery & headed by a President or Bishop Act. 4.23 1 Tim 1.5 & called the Presbytery of & this Council admitted of Presbyters 1 Tim 4.14 admitting them after baptism into the communion of their own city by laying on of the hands of their President & depriveding offenders of this communion as they saw reason. They judged also of civil affairs by the consent of the people 1 Cor. 6.1, 2, 3, 4 & 1 Tim. 3.5. & 5.17. [And by reason of an allow stipend allowed them yearly for their attendance on the affairs business of the Council they were called Prebendaries At length They called in a Roman Lawyer to assist them in civil affairs & this Lawyer becme their Chancellour.] Thus the Ch primitive Christians disting by ordeining Elders in every City distinguished themselves into as many Communities or Churches as there were cities & those of any one Church communicated with those of any other by Letters communicatory. & being excommunicated by their own Church they lost the communion of all the rest. And in this state things continued till the days of Pope Victor. The places where the Presbytery met were called Churches by the converted Gentiles & Synagogues by the converted Iews. And by re the Bishop was by the converted Iews called the Prince of the Synagogue Iames. 2.2. Ierom And by reason of a stipend allowed them Presbyters yearly for their attendance on the Council they were called Prebendaries. by the Latines At length they called in a Roman Lawyer to assist them in civil affairs & this Lawyer became their Chancelour. & Theseus stole Helenaaa Apollonius in Argonaut. l. 1. v. 101. just before the time of the Argonautic expedition being then 50 years old & she but seven or as some say ten. Thus And And Atachates & Theseus went also with Perithous to bb Plutarch in Theseo.steale Proserpine Proserpina the daughter of Orestes Aidoneus & Persephone king & Queen of the Molossi & was imprisoned by Aidoneus & then Castor & while Theseus lay in prison Castor & Pollux released their Sister Hellena & captivated Æthra the mother of Theseus, & while Theseus lay in prison then sailed with the Argonauts. sailed Sesostris was therefore contemporary to &c – And Apollonius Rhodius, that Hypsipyla gave Bacch Iason the purple cloak, wchwhich the Graces made for Bacchus, & h & wchwhich Bacchus gave to his son Thoas the father of Hypsipyle. His tuition might begin about t in the 17th or 18th Olympiad & his Legislature fall upon the 221th or 232dth. Now the daughters of Danaus being contemporary to Theseus, & some of their sons being Argonauts, Danaus with his daughter fled from his his brother Sesostris into Greece one generation before the Argonautic expedition, and so that w & therefore Sesostris returned into EgypEgypt in the reign of Rehoboam & so was Sesac. ffor both of them were kings of all Egypt at one & the same time. nine years in – soon after, & Prixus married Chaleiope the daughter of Danau Ætes & by her had Argus the Argonaut & other by some reputed several children & died before the Argonautic expedition 161 For as the Heathens & Hereticks beleived all their Gods to be of one substance with the first God, so all the Christians who beleived the Son to be the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father must of necessity have beleived that he was unius of one substance with the father, this opinion being the consequence of the former. And yet this opinion was the foundation of the philosophy theology of the heathens Cabbalists & Gnosticks & when the Montanists applied it to the Trinity & gave the name of Oeconomy to their disposition of the Trinity, the Christians major part of Christians both Greks & Latines who flourished in the end beginning of the second third century & beginning of the third (that is, the body of the Church Catholick) were frighted at this doctrin (as you have heard out of Tertullian) & accounted it polytheism & therefore looked upon the Montanists as heathens & idolaters. ffor as the heathens were guilty of polytheism notwithstanding that they beleived all their Gods to be of one substance & sometimes called them one God so the Christians of those days & accounted them all to be but one Iove & sometime called them one God so the Montanists might be polytheists notwithstanding that they beleived the Tinity to be unius substantiæ & called it one God, For words without sense cannot free any men from being criminals, & therefore the Christians of those days ffor the affirming the three persons to be but one God amounts to nothing more then a denial of yethe crime of polytheism, & a bare denial of a crime doth not free men from being guilty. And if it did, it would free the heathens as well as the Montanists from this crime. Tertullian indeed calls the Christians who opposed the Montanists, simplices quosqꝫque & imprudentes & Idiotas quæ major semper credentium pars est, but in doing so he speaks in calls himself a Gnostick. ffor the Christian religion Gospel was adapted to the understanding of the meanest of the people, & preached to the poor Father, saith Chris The Gospel was & preached to the poor. Father saith Christ, I thank thee that thou hast hid these things from the wise & prudent of this world & revealed them to babes. And therefore we are to look for Apostolick tranditions amongst Tertullians simple people & to account all such learned metaphysical doctrines as are above the reach of these people to be the inventions of the wise & prudent of this world. The common people are tenacious of traditions, yethe learned are apt to intermix their own opinions. As by Tertullians testimony it appears that the body of Christians both Greeks & Latines in his days were both Greeks & Latines were very averse from placing the unity of the Deity in the a metaphysical unity the or unity of substance & could not so much as hear the opinion wthwith patience accounting the Montanists to be Idolaters: so it appears by the proceedings of the Council of Antioch against Paul of Samosat that the Churches continued against it till those days. This Council met 55 years before the Council of Nice & consisted of about 80 bishops & her sentence against Paul rejected the ὁμοούσιος & her sentence was communicated to all the Churches & unanimously approved by them & confirmed by them & confirmed by the bishops of Rome & Italy even in writing & therefore the ὁμοούσιος or doctrine of the λογος being one God with yethe father by unity of substance was then rejected by the voluntary & unanimous consent of the Church Catholick. And after when she had once rejected it she had no authority to receive it afterwards, because by rejecting it she declared tradition to be against it. And For in matters of faith she has no authority to vary from tradition, no not in point of language. For the faith wchwhich was once delivered to yethe saints is only to be known by the language in wchwhich it was delivered, & therefore the Church is commanded to keep to yethe form of sound words. And yet the by the writings & discourses of Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clemens & Tertullian & their friends & followers, the opinion that the Word son of God was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος καὶ προφόρικος spread so much was in consequence was that they were unius substantiæ cum Patre of God the father the internal & prolatitious word of yethe father, spread so much in the Churches in the third & fourth centurys that as to [procure an establishment of the word ὁμοούσιος in the Council of Nice.] taint taint the bishops of Rome & Alexandria & the Emperor Constantine the great with his favorite Hosius & the Bishops of Rome & Alexandria with those of their party who who subscribed the Letters of Alexander yethe BpBishop of the bishop of Alexandria & by their means tho not without much opposition to get the word ὁμοούσιος established by the Council of Nice inserted into the Creed by the Council of Nice. The Emperor to influence yethe bishops published his opinion bef in all the Cities before the Council met, & when they met & could could not agree he came in person into yethe Council upon a day appointed, & proposed & pressed the ὁμοούσιος & got it received into yethe Creed before he went out of yethe Council giving the bishops no time to consider the danger of admitting the lan condemned language of hereticks. Yet the Bishops cautioned that it should not be understood in the sense of yethe hereticks nor signify any thing more then ὁμοιούσιος as being derived from ὅμος wchwhich signifies the words ὁμος & ὅμοιος signif being of commonly taken in the same signification. But Hosius,ff Athanas. Epist. ad Monachos [Tom 1 p. 369. Edit Paris. 1698] prope medium. who fpublished the Nicene Creed & by consequence translated it into Latin, rendred the word ὁμοούσιος by unius substantiæ & the Greeks of that perswasion translated unius substantiæ by μιας ὀυσίας & μιας ὑποστάσεως & theise language being frequently used instead of ομοουσιος & being more apt to be understood in the sense of the hereticks became a snare & stumbling block to the people, being frequently taken in yethe sense of the Sabel here hereticks especially most apt to be to the Latines who used only the translation. Whence the Greeksgg Socr. l. 1. c. 23. Sozom. l. 2. c. 18, 21. began soon to look upon the Latines as inclining to Montanism & Sabellianism & to put a stop to the growth of those opinions anathematized them in their Councils & the Latines mutuallyhh Socr. ib. Sozom l. 2. c. 18 charged the Greeks with polytheism & Arianism for calling the So ffather Son & Holy Ghost three Hypostases & in their ii Vide Epist. Concil. Serdic. apud Theodoritum l. Councils endeavoured to free themselves from the imputation of Sabellianism. And even those who used the lang word ὁμοούσιος at length fell out amongst themselves some calling continuing to call the father son & holy Ghost one hypostasis, others to avoid yethe imputation of Sabellianism, calling them three hypostases, & these two parties called one another Sabellians & Arians till Athanasius in the reign of Iulian the Apostate reconciled them & made them understand that tho they agreed differed in language yet they agreed in sense, one party by one hypostasis meaning one in species & nature, the other party by three hypostases meaning three in number. And thence forward the homousian Greeks to free themselves from the imputation of Sabellianism, began wholy leftaveto leave of the language of one usia & one hypostasis & used constantly to use the language of one usia & three hypostases & meaning one substance in nature & species & three in number & the Latines thenceforward used the language of one substance & three persons in the same sense. And that Sabellianism & Montanism by the influence & under the protection of the language of una substantia in Latin translation of the Creed spread very much in the Latin Churches is not sufficiently acknowledged by Hilary who in Hilary in an Epistle wchwhich he wrote A.C. 358 from Phrygia to yethe Latine Churches. Bishops of Gallia & Britain thus acknowledges. Multi ex nobis, fratres charissimi, ita unam substantiam Patris et ffilij prædicant ut videre possint non magis pie quam impie prædicare: habet enim – – – – – – ὁμοιούσιος to yethe father as well as ὁμοούσιος T And by this conviction I conceive it was that Sabellianism fell in the west, & that the homousian Greeks began to change use yethe language of onethree hypostasishypostases into that of three & not long after, were taught by Athanasius to yethe language this new language of three Hypostases generally reconciled to it by Athanasius in order to bring over the Greeks more easily to his party. For at this time his 162 his party was very low (the world being now against him) & wanted art to revive it the world being now against him But after the reign of Constantius & Iulian, Iovian an Emperour of his own opinion came to the crown & began to give new life to the his affairs. of his party [The circumstances of his party at that time you will best understand by the description wchwhich his contemporary Gregory Nazianzen gives of them.] ffor Iovian succeeding Iulian recalled the excommunicated & banished bishops & demanding acan acctaccount of their faith favoured that of Athanasius, as his contemporary Gregory Nazianzen thus describes, Greg. Naz. Orat. 21.Iovianus, ut pulcherrimum sui l imperij sui fundamentum jaceret rectamqꝫque legum sanctionem – – – – – – partem animo tenus pietatem colunt –– partim eam igniculi cujusdam instar nonnihil accendunt –– partim deniqꝫque omni verborum libertate veritatem prædicant. And this was the state of affairs at the death of Athanasius. 163 The homousian controversy was managed b lasted till the death of yethe Emperor Valens A.C. 378 & was managed between the Latine Churches & chiefly the Church of yethe one Rome on yethe one hand & the Greek Churches & chiefly the churches of Asia on the other. Th In the year 341 A.C. 341 Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, Paul of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra & Asclepas of Gaza having been accused of various crimes & deposed by the Greek Councils, fled to Rome & appealed from the Greek Councils to Iulius bishop of Rome: Iulius accepted of the appeal, examined the appellants, received them into communion & called a Council of about 50 or 60 bishops of Italy & the parts adjacent to meet at Rome A.C. 342 & cited the eastern Bishops then met in a Council at Antioch, to appear in this Council at Rome & justify their proceedings. – – – – – – – – – – I have therefore recited it as the oldest Creed in wchwhich the father son & holy Ghost are declared consubstantial because they appeared not when Iulius – – – – – – act of the eastern & western Churches. Six years after these things were done Constantius conquered Magnentius the successor – – – – – – – sup acknowledging the supreme & absolute judicial power authority of the Councils of the Greek Church over her own members. After these things several Councils meeting at Sirmium, Nice in Thrace Ariminum & Seleucia & Constantinople in the years 357, 359 & 360 abolished yethe use of the words usia homousios & homoiusios as not being in scripture & occasioning great disturbances, alledging also that the word ο homousios was rejected by their fathers in the council of Antioch above 50 years long before yethe meeting of yethe Council of Nice, & was not well considered put by the Council of Nice hastily & sudenly or without mature deliberation & was apt to be misinterpreted by in favour of heresies, & gave offence to yethe common people who understood it not & created great disturbances by imposing it. & was a stumbling block to yethe people who understood it not in the sense of the Council. For Constantine the great coming in person into the Council proposed & pressed the word ομοουσιος & got it decreed in one day, & the bishops having no time to deliberate, admitted the word with an interpretation that it should signify the sa be taken in the same sense wthwith ομοιουσιος, not considering the danger of admitting a word wchwhich was usually taken in another sense. For Constantine the great coming in person into yethe Council of Nice proposed it & pressed it without giving the bishops time & got it decreed the same morning wthwithout giving the Bishops time to deliberate: The Latines used not yethe very word but translated it homousios unius substantiæ & by unius substantiæ the common people of the Latines & even their Bishops were apt to take understand either one common substance out of wchwhich the previ of yethe vizt father & son whether a previous substance out of wchwhich the father & son both were derived by division or one undivided substance in wchwhich both subsisted; To as Hilary in a A.C. 358 complains in a letter written A.C. 358 to the Churches Bishops of Gallia & Britain, saying, Hilar. de Synodis p. 382Multi ex nobis, fratres charissimi, ita unam substantiam Patris et ffilij prædicant ut videri possint non magis id pie quam impie prædicare Habet enim hoc verbum in se et fidei conscientiam & fraudem paratam &c &c. And as for the people & clergy of the eastern Churches, how much they were either strangers to yethe word homousios or averse to it against it the same Hilary in the same Epistle may appear by the character wchwhich the same Hilary in yethe same letterp. 381. gave of the eastern provinces where he was then in banishmtbanishment. Tantum ecclesiarum orientalium periculum est, saith he, ut rarum sit hujus fidei [consubstantialis,] quæ qualis sit vos judicate, aut sacerdotes aut poulum inveniri. –– Nam absqꝫque episcopo Eleusio et paucis cum eo, ex majori parte Asianæ decem provinciæ vere Deum nesciunt. The new language above mentioned being for these reasons rejected, the Greek & Latin Churches continued united still in quiet till the end of the reign of the Emperors Constantius & his successors Iulian the last heathen Emperor. And hitherto from the times of the Apostles till the death of Iulian the Church Greek & latin Churches continued united by one fai in one unanimous Church the main body of the visible Church Catholick of Christ visible without interruption tho not without intestine broiles nor without heretical men in their m intermixt wthwith them in outward communion For Churches may have hereticks in their congregation & yet not be heretical. There were might be Sabellians in the communion of wthwith the Latin Churches & yet yet the Latine Churches if they did not make an open profession of the Sabellian faith were not to be called Sabellian, & there were might be Arians in communion wthwith the Greek Churches & yet if the Greek Churches did not make an open profession of Arianism they were not to be called Arian. They anathematized the proper langua were so far from professing Arianism that they anathematized the proper language of Arius in several of their Councils. They published several articles Creeds or Professions of faith & I do not meet wthwith any heretical articles in any of them. If their Councils of Sirmium, Ariminum & Seleucia are called Arian for repealin rejecting the use of the word homousios, the Council of Antioch wchwhich did the same thing 90 years before must also be Arian & so must And if it be said that they were Arians in their hearts; God only knows the hearts of men: we are to judge of visible churches by their outward professions of faith If the worship & outward profession of faith be free from heresy we are not to leave separate from yethe Communion so that of any Church be free from heresy so that we may joyn in communion with her without sinning we are not to separate from her communion upon pretence that her members are hereticks in their hearts & by their continuing in communion wthwith the Church catholick. The Church composed of the Greek & Latine Churches & of the Churches in Scythia & Germany all of them in fo commuunion wthwith one another in the reign of Iulian never separated from the Church Catholick & therefore was not schismatical. These Churches & such others as were in communion wthwith them were the whole body of Christians throughout the whole world a few separatists excepted & therefore they were the church Catholick of Christ. The Greek & Latin Churches never separated from this Church catholick nor from one another & therefore were neither of them schismatical. They contended with one another vehemently in the time of the Council of Serdica, but wthwithout breaking communion excomunicating one another or breaking communion by any publick act. And if they had broke communion the western Churches would have been the schismaticks because they in the dispute was they imposed the Popes supremacy upon the eastern Churches wchwhich was an unjust article condition of Communion. & occasioned the schism And upon returning into communion wthwith the eastern they the schism would have ceased And when the western Churches desisted from their imposition & the imposition & acknowledged the authority of the eastern Councils over her own members, subcribing subscribing to the sentence of sentence of those Councils in the Council of Millain they would have ceased to be schismaticks. And as for the faith, the Creed published by the eastern bishops in their return from the Council of Serdica is by Hilary (one of the hottest of the homousians) allowed to be a complete & absolute definition of the faith And the Creed published b in wchwhich the Churches of the whole Empire agreed in the (both Greeks & Latines) agreed at the Councils of Sirmium, Nice in Thrace, Ariminum, & Seleucia & Constantinople & is not found fault with except for abolishing the use of yethe word usia. because it was not in the scriptures ffor Certainly if the Greek & Latin Churches were in communion with one another before they & by consequence a member of the Church Catholick before they abolished the use of this word: the they could not cease to be a member of the church catholick by abolishing of the use of a word wchwhich was not in it, it would not make them become a word wchwhich is not in scripture nor received from the Apostles by tradition, but a word wchwhich had been introduced by hereticks & abolished 90 years by yethe Council of Antioch wthwith the approbation of the Church catholick 90 years before, could not make the Greek & Latines cease to be a member of the Church catholick in anything which a word wchwhich created great disturbances & was abolished by the Apostles rule of holding fast the form of sound words wchwhich they had received from the beginning Apostles beginning. 164 It was Hitherto the Man of Mystery of iniquity was to work before the Man of sin should be revealed. ffor b it was to work without prevailing against the Church. ffor it was to work the man o the Man of s was to work the Man of sin was not to be revealed till that wchwhich letted should it was to work without prevailing untill the man of sin shouldshould be revealed & the Man of Sin was not to be revealed till that wchwhich letted should be taken out of the way & that wchwhich letted was by the first Christians taken for the Roman Empire St Paul had told the churches what it was, but was unwilling to set it down in writing least he should be taken for an enemy to the Empire. Remember ye not, saith he, that when I was with you I told you these things? And now ye know what witholdeth that he [the Man of sin] might be revealed in his time. ffor the mystery of iniquity doth already work. Only he who now letteth letteth will let untill he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wikedwicked one be revealed. That which letted was therefor in being in the days of the Apostles & therefore was the Roman Empire. And this agreed on is generally allowed by interpreters. Not a Christian Empire but the heathen Roman Empire then in being, the heathen Roman Empire While the Empire continued heathen The Man of sin was to be a Christian dominion & while the Empire continued heathen it was impossible for a Christian dominion to rise up. It was therefore the heathen Empire which letted. This Empire began to be taken out of yethe wasway by the conversion of Constantine to the Christian religion & his victories over Maxentius & Licinius: but was not fully taken out of the way before the death of Iulian the last heathen Emperor. And we have shewn that the mystery of iniquity only worked till his death, but without prevailing In the reign of Constantius the mystery of Bishop of Rome laboured hard for the supremacy, & the Western Emperor Constans with his bishops endeavoured to set up this new dominion wchwhich was to be the man of sin: but they succeeded not. The their endeavours were without success & frustrated & the Church catholick continued entire till the taking away of th death of Iulian. And now that which letted its taken out of the way it remains that we shew how the mystery of iniquity prevailed over the Church & became the man of sin sin sitting in the Temple of God. For the revelation of the man of Sin signifies the victory of the Man of sin the victory of the mystery of iniquity prevailing of the mystery of iniquity the by the over the Church & his its exaltation into the throne where the Man of sin is to be worshipped as a God. And this came to pass in the manner following. When the Emperor Iulian was dead, his successor Iovian, as as Gregory Nazianzen tells us who lived in those days informs us released from banishment released Athanasius & some other bishops, & in that , as Gregory subjoyns, presented from banishment & desired an account of their faith, as Gregory Nazianzen who lived in those days thus mentions. Quinetiam fidei nostræ veritatem a multis laceratam & perturbatam – – – – – upon the death of Athanasius A.C. 373. The faith wchwhich Athanasius & his followers began now to be preached was agreed upon at Alexandria a few months before by Athanasius & 12 or 15 other banished bishops. Hitherto they had used the greek words usia & hypostasis in one & the same sense making the father & son but one usia & one hypostasis but hence forward they thought fit to use the word una usia in conformity to yethe una substantia of the Latines & to distinguish the persons by the name of three hypostases, meaning by una usia & tres hypostases the Greeks to avoid the suspicion of Sabellianism they called the ffather Son & holy ghost one usia & three hypostases & conform themselves to the the language of the Latines, thought fit to call the father son & holy Ghost one usia & three hypostases meaning one substance in nature & specesspecies & three substances in number. They agreed also that the bishops who had subscribed in the late Councils of Sirmium, Nice – – – – – finibus The faith wchwhich began now to be preached was agreed upon a few months before partly by between letters between Athanasius & Liberius Bishop of Rome & by a consultation of 12 or 16 banished bishops who were there with Athanasius. The Latines had long ago translated homousios by unius substantiæ, & the G homousian Greeks had translated the una substantia of the Latines by una usia & una hypostasis. And the Latines now declaring the holy Ghost to be consubstantial to yethe father & son & expressing it this faith by una substantia & tres personæ, Athanasius & those with him examined the language translated it una usia & tres hypostases, changing una hypostasis into tres hypostases to clear themselves from the suspicion of Sabellianism. & meaning by una usia & tres hypostases one substance in nature & kind & three personal substances in number. And this was the faith wchwhich Athanasius presented to Iovian. It was agreed also by Athanasius & those with him at Alexandria that the Bishops who had subscribed in the late Councils of Sirmium, Nice – – – – – – – – – – ereptus est mundus. The Bishop of Rome therefore separated & joyned himself in communion with AthathanasiusAthanasius an excommunicated person by communicating wthwith Athanasius a man revived his claim to appeals & to strengthen himself sent letters to all the western bishops signifying that they might separat inviting them to separate & inviting come over to him & signifying that they should be received into his communion without losing their bishopricks, & in a few years he gained the greatest part & his successor Damasus gained most of the western bishops. In yethe third year of this controversy In three years he bained one half of the people of Rome. ffor upon his death, wchwhich happened in November 366 A.C. 366 – – – – & this Council sending a letter to the bishops of Illyricum they met & subscribed the Roman faith & sent recommended it to the Churches of Asia & Phrygia & the western Emperors Valentinian & Gratian – – – – – – prædicare præcepit. In the mean time the bishops of Alexandria & Antioch endeavoured to propagate yethe same faith in Egypt & Syria & were generally assisted by the Moncks of in their diocesses. Yet the Greek Emperor Valens opposed the homousion – – – – – – – – – – – – sine dilatione contendat. And henceforward the Bishops of Rome began to give laws to the Churches by their Decrees. ffor soon after this edict Himmerius – – – – – – – – ignorare sit liberum &c. This was the beginning of decretory Epistles. The next year A.C. 386 a Council of 80 – – – – – – jurisdiction. After three years more – – – – – – – called in the east. Together with the Popes supremacy & Decretory Epistles, & the worship of three equal substances in the Deity, came in the invocation of saints & the veneration of their miracle working reliques the practis of writing fabulous legends & the superstitious use of the signe of the cross in baptism. ffor the Council of Constantinople usually called the second general council. –– because they appeared not when Iulius cited them & because they now fled from justice and they made some Canons also in wchwhich they decreed that appeals might be made to yethe Bishop of Rome from all Councils not called by him & by doing so they constituted him their universal Bishop over the churches western Churches & as far as lay in their power over the eastern also, & thereby they declared that they continued in communion with the eastern Churches They excommunicated six or eight eastern Bishops by name & thereby also they declared that they continued in communion wthwith all the rest of them eastern bishops Churches. And the eighty eastern bishops excommunicated five or six of the western bishops & thereby they declared that they continued in communion with all the rest of the western bishops Churches And These excommunions produced animosities between the common people in the confine of both empires, but the animosities of a small part of the common people are not the act of the eastern & western Churches. Six years after – – – – – – – – her own members 165 And when he comes from his father to judg the world he is called the messenger of the father. For it is manifest appears out of Philo that the ancient Iews Angels wchwhich were sent wthwith Gods word & principally the Angel of Gods presence by the name of λογὸι to Legati Orators or messengers sent with Gods word. May it please yoryour LordpsLordships In obedience to yoryour LordpsLordships order signified to us by Mr Lowndes his letter of last Ian 29 we have considered upon the annexed proposal of Mr RobtRobert Ball merchant for vizt that if your LordpsLordships shall ship off & deliver 200 Tunns of Tinn to his factor at Leghorn, upon his factors rectreceipt thereof he will pay for yethe same either three pounds 16s prper Ccwt either here or at Leghorn as yoryour LordpsLordships shall think fit: & we have considered this proposal & humbly represent, that SrSir Theodore Ianssen paid 4li per Ccwt to yethe late Ld Tr.Lord Treasurer for Tin shipt off delivered at Leghorn & Genoa & ship her Majesty bearing the run into barrs barrelled & shipt off at her MajtsMajestys charge & delivered at Leghorn or Genoa. That in the exportation thereof was subject to various some accidents a considerable quantity of Tin being was always imbezzelled by the soldiers seamen when ever they touched upon land in their voiage & the barrells of Tinn being broken upon removing the Tin from ship to ship, wchwhich their voiage & that the business of her MatsMajestys ffleet required sometimes a removal of the Tinn from ship to ship whereby the barrels of Tin were broken wchwhich might gave the seamen & soldiers further opportunities of imbezzling the same. ffor wchwhich reasons & caused a new charge of repairing the barrells. All wchwhich being considered we are humbly of opinion that the price of 4li should not be abated 3li 16s upon delivery at the Tower is a better price then 4li upon delivery at Leghorn, & that therefore the price of four pounds should not be abated. We hav Besides the specific unity You have heard that yethe three persons were said to be unius substantiæ of one substance & consubstantial by reason of their similitude & being of one nature essence & species: but there is yet a further reason. ffor as two cohering parts of one undivided stone are unius lapidis & unius lapis substantiæ & cannot properly be called two stones or two substances til they are broken & separated from one another so the three hypostases were represented by conceived by many of the fourth & following ages to cohære & in one undivided substance & for that reason to be of one substance. And hence came the language of calling the Trinity the holy & undivided Trinity. So Athanasius . . . . . . their rays, & others compare the Trinity to thre men with this difference that men are separated from one another but the Trinity undivided. And many in yethe Council of Serdica seemed to be of this opinion when they called it Arianism to make the father son & holy ghost three separated hypostases. But it is to be conceived that its to be observed that the cohesion & union of the divine hypostases was not a to be conceived in a corporeal manner by juxtaposition & cohesion of contiguous tangible parts but by the internal cohesion of three spirits wchwhich pervade one another & are each of them omnipresent: wchwhich manner of cohæsion & conjunction the Greeks called περιχιόρησις & the Latines circumincessio. For these & these words that import a mutual penetration & per of some substances & pervasion of conjoyned coincident substances every where coincitentcoincident & present to one another. The Gnosticks & Cataphrygians in deriving their Æons & particularly the Son & holy spirit from the first God, explained these generations & productions after various manners some making the father the whole substance & the son & the holy ghost exerted powers of that substance, others making them parts the father still remaining the whole, others making them parts & leaving the name of the father to the remaining part. Some making th separating the parts from yethe father others not separating them. And these opinions after Pope Victor became first a Montanist & then a Praxean sprea took root & spread in the west & being joyned & united wthwith the opinion of æternal generation became the opinions of those the many of many bishops in the west when which when Hilary wrote to the bishops of Gallia & Britain for running into these erroneous opinions. And the opinion You have heard that when the languag in the times next after the Council of Nice when the Lati language unius substantiæ & unius hypostasis began to be used the Greek ChuchChurch accused those of Sabellianism & MonanismMontanism who used it. By Sabellians they meant those of the tautousian faith, by Montanists those of the homousian faith in the sense of Montanism Montanists Montanus that is those who held the father & son to be of one substance as parts cohæring in cohæring hypostases in one undivided substance. For in one undivided substance. For Tertullian in his book against Praxeas in explaining & defending the doctrine of MonanusMontanus κατὰ Proclulum, represented that the son was an undiv a cohering part of the father born of him without separation or division of the fathers substance. And & that after yethe nativity of the son the father acted as a person in the remaining part. ffor in explaingingexplaining how (according to Montanus) the son might suffer without the father, he compares yethe son to a river wchwhich may be muddied while the fountain from whence it flows may remain cleare. The Montanists therefore in comparing the father & son to a fountain & river a stream a root & tree its branch, the sun & its light, understood two cohering hypostases wchwhich wthwith the holy Ghost composed one undivided substance in the deity. And this doctrine together wthwith Montanism Sabellianism (wchwhich was Montanism κατὰ Æschynem being successively received by Pope Victor & defended by Tertullian got root in the western churches & spread silently till it was improved by the language of eternal generation & as is manifest by the character wchwhich Hilary gives the bishops of Gallia & Britain in his epistle written to them as has been mentioned above & also by the complaint of the eastern churches that the western was Sabe lapsed into Sabellianis the errors of Sabellius & Montanus, & by the approbation wchwhich the Trinity of Montanus met with amongst the homousians. For Epiphanius tells usHæres. 47 sect. 1. that Montanus was of the same opinion with the catholick Church concerning the Trinity father son & h.g. tho Tertullian confesses that the generality of Christians in his days looked upon the Montanists as guilty of polytheism. Montanism therefore after it was improved by the doctrine of eternal generation, & recommended by the language of unius substantiæ prevailed in the world.. In the first half of the fourth century the disputes were only about the nature of the son. Very little was then said about the holy Ghost. And I do not find that his deity began to be preached openly in the Churches they began to call him God openly before the reign of Iulian the Apostate. In his reign Athanasius & the little Council at Alexandria above mentioned declared one an undivided consubstantial Trinity & yet but one deity, & that isit was Arianism to separate the holy Ghost from yethe father & son or call him a creature. But Athanasius being soon forced to fly, matters rested till the reign of Iovian. And then Athanasius presented to Iovian the Nicene faith with a declaration profession of the Deity & worship of the holy ghost added to it. For we do not only saith he the Nicene fathers, saith he, that the son should not be beleived only like God but true God of God, did not only say that the son was like the father, [least becau be that that he should not be beleived only like God, & not but true God of God:] but they wrote him ὁμοούσιος because wchwhich is proper to to a genuine & true son of a true & natural father. Neither did they disp alienate the holy Ghost from yethe father & the son but rather glorified him with the father & son in one faith of the holy Trinity, because in the holy trinity there is one deity. [Thus did Athanasius not not only propos endeavour to fasten the Deity of & worship of the holy Ghost his own opinions his own interpretat upon the Nicene Council by way of consequence: whereas the Council expresly cautioned that ὁμοούσιος should not be tak understood in any corporeal sence & by consequence no nor signify any thing more then like according to substance; & by consequence not be illustrated by corporeal similitudes, such as are those of a bodily father & son, a fountain & its stream, a root & its branch, a tree & a sun & its ray, so as to make any inference from these similitudes beyond what was allowed by the Council allowed. ffor these were the similitudes by which the the Gnosticks & Montanists supported their doctrine of Æons, & therefore are not to be applied to the actions of God the father without great caution. Neither did] But certainly the Council of Nice did not establish or declare any thing about the procession, consubstantiality Deity or worship of the holy Ghost. Montanism was not yet ripe enough for such a purpose. Nor do I meet with any disputes about hims before Athanasius & Pope Liberius & the Council of Alexandria began them. Deity & worship before the reign of Iulian the AspostateApostate & Iovian And I find Basil & Gregory Nazianzen who lived in those do days to be of the same opinion. with my self. For Gregory tells us that writes thus: Iovian Basil tells us th writes thus. The confession of faith wchwhich the Nicene fathers composed I prefer to all the confessions wchwhich were afterwards invented, in wchwhich the son is confessed consubstantial to the father. –––– But because the quæstion wchwhich νὺν ακύναν at this present time is started up amongst by those who are always endeavour labouring to innovate, was being passed over in silence by those of the former age because it was not denied, was left indiscussed, I mean the question concerning the holy ghost; we must add the explication of this also according to the meaning of the holy scripture : namely that we beleive accordingly as we are baptized, & give glory as we beleive. And therefore because baptism was instituted by our saviour in the name of the father & son & holy ghost, we exhibit a confession of faith according 166 according to baptism & a doxology according to the faith, glorifying the holy ghost with the father & son. This [The doxology had hitherto in this form, Glory be to the father by or with the son in the holy Ghost: but now they changed it into this form Glory be to the father & the son & the holy Ghost.] Here Basil tells us the time when the controversy about the Deity of the holy ghost began & the fundamental argument upon wchwhich this Deity was founded & the ancient doxology changed. ffor And as the ancient Creed was in one God, the father almighty maker of heaven & earth & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God who was crucified for us, & in the holy Ghost & this Creed faith was taught to the new converted Christians in catechizing them before baptism that they might know who were the father & son & holy ghost in whose names they were to be baptized: so it is to be understood that when the primitive ChristianChristians were baptized in one wer were baptized in the name of the father & son & holy ghost they were baptized in the n or not in the name not in the name of one God the father son & holy ghost but in the name of one God the father almighty the maker of heaven & earth & of one Lord Iesus Christ the son of God who was crucified for us & in the name of the holy ghost. [And accordingly it is to be understood that when the ancient primitive Christians gave glory to the persons in whom they were baptized they gave glory to this one God the father almighty the maker of heaven & earth by or with the one one Lord the son Iesus Christ the son of God who was crucified for us & is now highly whom God hath raised from the dead & highly exalted with by his a name above every name, that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow. But And this glory may be given they might give to the father & the son in the holy ghost: but whether after glory is given to one God the father & one Lord the Son, it can might be given to the holy ghost either as God or Lord I deserves to be considered. The controversy therefore about the deity & worship of the holy ghost, began just before was newly begun when Bazil wrote this Epistle. And the time when it began & who began it is thus thus stated more exactly by Gregoy Nazianzen: Iovian, saith he, desired that yethe truth of orour faith] And the primitive doxology was suited to yethe Creed. The time when the controversy about the deity of the holy Ghost began & who began it is told us also by Gregory Nazianzen, & who began it. Iovian, saith he, The do & founded this worship & deity of the h.g. upon the form of baptism. We beleive saith he as we are baptized. He should have said on the contrary: We are baptized as we beleive. ffor the primitive Christians were Catechised before baptism that when they came to be baptized they might understand who were the father son & h.g. in whose name they were baptized. And in catechizing them they wre taught to beleive in one God the father almighty maker of h & e & in one LdLord I.C. the son of God who was crucified for us & in the h.g th the sptspirit of truth & therefore they were baptized not in one God the father son & h.g. the spirit of truth but in one God the father almighty maker of h. & e & in one Lord I C. the son of God who was crucified for us & in one h.g. the spirit of truth, & were migh were accordingly they might give glory to one God yethe father as the one God, the God almighty who created the heaven & earth & to the son as the one Lord the Lord Iesus Christ whose the Lord who was died for us & redeemed us wthwith his blood & rose again from the dead wthwith a name above every name, & they might also wish for grace from the holy spirit ghost that in him they might glorify the father & the son the father as one God & the son as one Lord. [And when they directed their prayers to God in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ the mediator between God & man, they understood not God the holy Ghost nor God the Trinity but God the father the one God in whom they had been taught to beleive. All this is plane distinct & easy to be understood & sufficient to salvation & why men should love to dance upon high ropes when they may walk safely upon plane grownd, to weare the glittering amusing apparrel of mysteries unintelligible mysteries when they may walk walk soberly & righteously in a plain dress & & uncharitably damn their sober brethren who are capable of salvation, I do not understand.] For There is one God & one mediator between God & man but the man XtChrist Iesus, but there is no mediator between the h.g. & man nor between the Trinity & man, no mediator in whose name we may invoke any other God then the father. And we want a mediator that our prayers may be heard. In that day saith XtChrist ye shall ask me nothing, saith Christ Whatsoever ye shall ask the father in my name he will do it for you. This was the primitive faith, the primitive baptism & the primitive worship & th is of divine authority & sufficient to salvation. For the doxology is thus set down in scripture. Here we are authorized to glorify the father in the son & we are also authorized to glorify the father & the son, but in different senses represented by the different names of God & the Lamb. Here we are authorised by God himself to give glory to the father & the son as they are God & yethe Lamb that was slain or the God & the Lord & we may give this glory in or by the assistance of & grace of the holy spirit, but we are no where authorised to give glory to the father & yethe the son in any other sense then as they are God & the Lamb or God & the mediator between God & man or the God & the Lord neither are we authorized to give glory to God & to the Lamb that was slain & to the holy Ghost One God or to God & the Mediator between God & Man the man Christ Iesus & to the holy Ghost one God, or to one God the father almighty & to one Lord who was crucified & to the holy Ghost one God. ffor For according to Basil we are to glorify as we beleive & were baptized. First by this method there is more allowed by way of deduction of duties then all the Duties either paid or laid by Act of Parliam amount unto. By yethe Act of yethe 2d of Q. Ann no more then the nett Duties payable to yethe Queen & yethe 612 per cent for prompt payment & 6 per cent for Warehouse room were to be deducted: but by this method the deduction and deduction is greater more then all these to the manifest detriment of the Crown revenue. The hypostatical union, & purgatory & anniversary Lents & were also taught by Montanus & so was the placing holiness in abstinceabstinence from marriage & meats wchwhich God has created to be received with thankgiving, so that Monkery & corporal pennance are nothing else then Montanism improved And in the little Council of Alexandria A.C. 362 for clearing his party from the heresy anathematized Basilides & Valentinus who taught that yethe son was the λογος προφοrico taught those opinions to whom those opinions were attributed ascribed And And what notion Basil opinion of the Greeks had of the Latines & their friend Paulinus for the language of 1 hyp & for defending Marcellus & of Paulinus for their friend Paulinus, you may further will now see more fully may further understand by the an letter Epistle of Basil & those with him to yethe western Churches, [in wchwhich they thus endeavours to diswade them Latines from the commuioncommunion of Paulinus] As for Paulinus, say they, whether he is blamable for what concerns the imposition of hands, you can tell. But it greives us that he beleives the opinions of Marcellus & receives his followers without distinction into communion. You know, most reverend brethren, that the doctrine opinion of Marcellus voids all our hope, who neither confesses not the son in his proper hypostasis, but makes him only speaks of as he is produced & is to return to him from whom he proceeded; nor allows the Paraclete a proper subs & distinct subsistence. Whence I seem to gather that the Latines were now coming off, if not from yethe language of one hypostasis, yet leastat least from the T tautousian sense of yethe word. But notwithstanding this Epistle the Latines still adhered obstinately to Paulinus. Now by all this it may be understood that the western Churches & those some in the eastern used the language of one hypostasis from before the first beginning of their contention with the Greeks about Marcellus or rather & others, till the reign of Theodosius the great, & were all this time accounted Sabellians & Montanists by the Greeks, notwithstanding the endeavour of Athanasius to reconcile them. But the The language of three hypostases was d suited not with that of one sub the Tautousians una substantia. [And yet for clearing themselves the language of una substantia from the imputation of tautousianism wchwhich was accounted Sabellianism the Latines were at length forced to admit it.] And yet the language of one hypostasis being accounted tautousian & Sabellian by all almost all the Greeks: the Latines were at length for clearing themselves from the tautousian imputation of Sabellianism & reconciling themselves to the Greeks were at length forced to quit it. Before the nativity of the Son yethe father was the whole substance, & by the nativity a part of this substance became the son & the father thenceforward acted in all then in all the substance but that part only no longer in that part least he should be incarnate & suffer. ffor yethe fountain & river the root & the branch are two undivided cohering parts of yethe whole. I suppose Athanasius means that the Council of Alex Nice glorified yethe son holy ghost silently in their heart. ffor they Now that this was the beginning of the controversy about the Deity & worship of the h.g. I learn further from Basil & Greg. Naz. Now this profession of faith being was approved by the Emperor & thereby gave a beginning to this new controversy about the Deity of the holy Ghost, as I learn further fom Basil & Greg. Naz. The doxology had hitherto been in these forms Glory be to the father or Glory be to God or glory be to the father or Glory be to the father by or with the son or Glory be to yethe father & the Son & if when the Holy Ghost was added it was with the particle in & sometimes wthwith yethe particle by to signify his assistance. But now they changed it into this form Glory be to the father & the son & the holy Ghost. And 167 At that th time Dacia was a large country bounded on yethe south by the Danube on yethe east by the Euxine sea & & the country of the Alans on the north by the river Niester & mountain Crapac & on the west by Germany, being parted from it by the river Tibesis or Teys which runs into yethe Danube a little above Belgrade. &It comprehends the countries now called Transylvania Moldovia & Valechia. Its inhabitants were anciently called Daci by the Latines & Getæ by the ancients Greeks: whence & from Getæ came their name of Goths Trajan conquered them & reduced their country into a a Roman Province & whence came their name of Goths Whence some think they came from the Goths in Scandia & from Getæ came the name Goths. [When the Hunns invaded them they were grown into a great mon their King was Ermanarich. He was a great conqueror warrior & had subdued several neig they were grown into a great monarchy by the conquests of their king Ermanarick who h was a great warrior.] Trajan conquered them & reduced their country into a Province of yethe Roman Empire After wchwhich promoted the propagation of the Christian religion among them Sometime after they revolted & lived under their own kings were again conquered by Constantine the great. When therefore yethe Huns invaded them they were a free nations & Ostrogoths Caiva Annius Gepeticus Hermanericus & by successive conquests grew into a of Constantius & his successors by the conquests of their king Ermanerick they were grown into a great monarchy. At that time Vpon that invasion they separated into two nations bodies called Ostrogoths & Visigoths, [The Visigoths under the conduct of Athanaric flying Fritigern flying flying over the Danube & by the consent of th into Mœsia now Servia & invading the eastern Empire] The Ostrogoths opposed the Hunns & being were conquered by them in the cc. Ammian l. 31. consulship of Gratian & Merobaudes A.C. 377. And The Visigoths under the conduct of Fritigern flyinged over the Danube into Mœsia now called Servia & thence invadinged the eastern Empire, In this invasion they beat & slew the Emperor Valens A.C. 378, & were beaten by the Emperor Theodosius & upon submission had seats granted them in Thrace as subjects of the Empire A.C. 380. They were composed of various Gothic Gothic nations nations all speaking the same Gothick language, namely Goth & Geth Ostrogoths Visigoths, Vandals, Gepides, Alans Alans & Lombards Gepides Heruli &c all speaking the same gothick languages & their king Ermaneric was very potent extending his dominion over several neighbouring nations. He died in the reign of Valentinian & Valens & his kingdom by his death became divided into the several kingdoms of the chief of wchwhich were the Ostrogoths & Visigoths. & Gepides About that time the vizt A.C. 376 or 377 the Huns invaded Dacia, conquered yethe Ostrogoths & Gepides & made yethe Visigoths fly to yethe Danube & entreat for seats in the Roman Empire, And hav whereupon they were allowed to come over the Danube & seat themselves in Thrace. And the Vandals & Alans had seats granted them in Pannonia & the Burgundians who bordered upon Dacia westward fled to the Rhene in a bod to yethe number of 80000. lived under their own kings & by succesive conquests grew into a large & potent Empire composed of many nations. Their kings Ostrogotha conquered the Gepides, Geberich the Vandals & Ermaneric the Heruli & Veneti, Antes, Sclavi, & many other warlike northern nations of Scythia & Germany. as Iornandes informs us, & amonstamongst others the Æstri seated upon the a very long bank tract of the German Ocean, & the Thuydi nations called Thuidi, Vasinambrocæ, Mœrens, Mordensimni, Cari, Rocæ, Tadzans, Athual, Naveco, Bubegentæ, & Coldæ. From wchwhich conquests some compared him to Alexander the great. About ten years before his death the 80000 Burgundians fled from the Goths & seated themselves u About four years before his death 80000 Burgundians fled from yethe Goths & seated themselves upon the Rhene. The Vandals Gepides, Vandals & Alans Heruli were Gothic nations & spake the same language with the Goths & agreed with them in manners. And the Lombards & Avares Paulus Diaconus tells us that yethe Lombards were originally called Winili, wchwhich makes it probable that they were a Vandalick nations of the same stock being derived from the Gepides by division. Ermaneric reigned long & being 110 years old when he died. And a A little before his death the Hunns made war upon him & at his death brake into his kingdom & ruined it, subduing part of his people & putting the rest to flight. They reduced the OstroGoths & Gepides Amongst the conquered nations were the the Gepides Gepides & a a part of the Goths called the Ostrogoths. Another part of the Goths called the Visigoths fled to the Danube & were received by the Romans into Thrace. ‡ ‡ And a body of Vandals & Alans was at yethe same time received into Pannonia [& there remained 40 years [& a body of 80000 Burgundians to yethe fled to the Rhene.] For They remained there 40 years & rose from those seats & invaded yethe western Empire in yethe year 407 & therefore fled thither in the year 377. the year that is at yethe same time that yethe Visigoths were received into Thrace// When yethe Visigoths came to the Rh Danube they sent their Bishop Vlphilas embass Embassadors to yethe Emperor Valens to beg seats & had seats granted them in Mœsia in Thrace, & The chief of the Embassy was Vlphilas their Bishop or Patriarch. He was Patriarch of all the Goths the Ostrogoths as well as Visigoths, wchwhich shews that they had hitherto been one nation. He was at the Council of Constantinople A.C. 360 & his predecessor Theophilus was at the Council of Nice A.C. 325 & therefore the Church of the Goths was hitherto allowed by the Churches of the Roman Empire to be a meb member of the Church catholick. He was He invented the Gothick or sclavonian letters & translated the scriptures into their language of the Goths, & promoted the Christian religion much among them, wchwhich seems to have given gave occasion to the conversion of Fritigen king of the Visigoths to yethe Christian religion & to the persecution perse Goths of both nations whereupon Athanaricus king of the Ostrogoths raised a persecution against the Christians fearing least it should pravailprevail in his kingdom as it had newly done amongst the Visigoths. When the Goths were seated in Thrace & they wanted food & the Roman commanders Lupicinus & Maximus exacted yethe upon them & Lupicinus invitinged Fridigernus their king to a feast with a designe to kill him & giving gave order to his soldiers to kill with a designe to kill him & his retinue. But Fridigernus hearing the groans of those who were first slain escaped narrowly & took up arms against the Romans & sle beat them in battel & slew their Emperor Valens, but soon after were beaten by Theodosius & upon submission had seats granted them again in Thrace A.C. 380 where they remained quiet about 18 or 20 years as subjects of the Empire. Then upon new commotions, by the sollicitation of Salv they took up arms again, made Alaric their captain & troubled the eastern Empire about five years together, & then – – –– His successor Vithimiris or Winitharius after some resistance was slain in battel & Viderich the young son of Vithimir was left under the tuition of Alatheus & Saphrax two eminent Captains. Both These two sorts bands of Goths OstrogotsOstrogoths & Visigoths had been hitherto but one nation. ffor the Christians among them both, who were now grown very numerous, had but one Bishop. Two of their Bishops are named in history, Theophilus & Vlphilas. The first was at the Council of Nice A.C. 325 & the second at the Council of Constantinople A.C. 360. Their Church In the reign of the Emperors Constantine the great & his son Constantius tho was allowed by yethe Romans to be a member of the Church catholick: ffor their Bishop came to yethe Councils of the Roman Empire. Theophilus their Bishop was at the Council of Nice A.C. 325 & his successor Vlphilas was at the Council of Constantinople A.C 360. ♀ had war with the Vandals & took the name of Lombards from their long beards wchwhich makes it probleprobable that the Vandals as well as the Lombards were sig descended from yethe Gepides. For Vandali & Winili are but various pronunciations of yethe same name & that after separation from them & from one another the Lombards were called by that name to distinguish them from yethe other Vandals. ffor Vandali & Winili are but various pronunciations of one & the same name. 168 And so far he was Athanasius from rejecting from objecting to that interpretation of the word ὁμοούσιος wchwhich Eusebius Pamphili in his Epistle above mentioned written to those of Cæsarea represents to have been allowed by the Council, namely that this Word should signify nothing more then that the Son was the unlike the creatures & in all things like the father: that he app in his Epistle or Tract de Decretis Nicænæ Synodi he appealed to this Epistle of Eusebius & subjoyned it to the end of the Tract as an evidence of threthe truth of the proceedings of the Council of Nice, & even in his own writings several times inculcates the same sense of wordthe word. And if the Council allowed that the word imported such a similitude was the sense of of the such a similitude of substance was to be understood by allowed by the Council to be the true meaning of the word ὁμοούσιος we need not wonder if it were explained/ And if the signification of the word ὁμοούσιος was debated & it was allowed by the Council to import such a similitude of substance we need not wonder if it were explained in the Acts of the Council & that more fully then in the Creed. If the f But on the other hand, if by the words ὁμοουσιος, & μιας ὀυσίας μιας ὑποστάσεως & unius substantiæ we are to understand that the father & son have one common substance, & if the son be incarnate & like one of us as the Council of Chalcedon affirms (this is, as a mans spirit is incarnate & becomes one person wthwith his soul & body) & suffered & died in the flesh as the same Council of Chalcedon affirms; then the substance of the son was incarnate suffered & died in the flesh. ffor what ever is done by any thing or person is done by the supposition or substance of the thing) or pers & by consequence the substance of the father was incarnate suffered & died in the flesh. Which is the absurd consequence from whence the Patripassians andhad their name. But Or if with the Council of Nice we we shall say that the father is the substance of the father, & few their f that the son subsists in the fathers substance wthwithout any substance of his own: this is the opinion of those who make the son λογος προφορικὸς καὶ ὑποστατος Verbum prol a Word spoken without a permanent substance which was the known error of the Paulinianists & Sabellians Both These two opinions are of the Patripassians & Sabellians are one & the same in substance & differ only in words & are the consequence of the doctrin opinion of a single substance shew that the Greek Churches had reason to oppose the Monousian faith. And whereas Eusebius Pamphili in his letter above mentioned written to those of Cæsarea, had represented that the Council in their debates had allowed that yethe word ὁμοοὺσιος should signify nothing more then that the son was unlike the creatures & in all things like the father: Athanasius in an Epistle de decretis Nicænæ Synodi in explaining what was done at the C of Nice mentions refers to this Epistle letter as evidence of & subjoins it to his Epistle de decretis Nicænæ Synodi without finding fault with to shew that Eusebius had approved the faith of the Council. And Basil in his 349th Epistle blames those of the party of Paulinus bishop of Antioch in the reign of Valens, for calling the three persons one hypostasis. By all wchwhich it seems that the Latines of both Europe & Afric & some Greeks in the diocess of Antioch & in Egypt received not the language of three hypostases till after the reign of Valentinian & Valens./ be præpossess wthwith the opinion of Sabellius who said the same thing; namely – who although he shal openly teach a difference of persons yet he shall therewith presume it with understand it in the sense of Sabellius saying who said the the same thing, namely that there is one God in hypostasis, but who in scripture th takes upon him various persons according to the property & exigence of the subject: & sometimes takes upon to speak as him the speeches of the father when it is seasonable to put on his person, & sometimes the speeches of proper to the son when he is to descend for taking care of us or for other oeconomical operations, & sometimes puts on the person of the holy Ghost when the time requires speeches agreeable to this person. Therefore if there are among us some (he meanes Paulinus bishop of Antioch & those of his party) who say that the father son & holy ghost are one thing as to the subject & yet confess them three perfect persons; how do not seem to exhibit a perfect demonstration of the truth of what we say? Basil Epis 349 You have heard out of Hilary that many bishops & others among the Latines Churches abounded wthwith men corrupt in the faith & here you have the like account of the Churches of Syria, those that used the language of one hypostasis being taxed by Basil with holding one suppositum subject or substance in the Deity wchwhich opinion Basil him notwithstanding any distinction of persons Basil himself taxes with Sabellianism. [ffor that by hypostasis Basil] And ytthat Egypt was not much freer from from these errors may be gathered from these concurrence of their Bishops with the western bishops in the Council of Serdica in the profession of one hypostasis & their saying in their letter to the Africans that hypostasis signified the same thing wthwith usia substantia. And I think it will not be disputed that by hypostasis Basil understands [Now that hypostasis was taken for substance in the fourth & followfollowing centuries & one usia & three hyposttases I for three consubstantial one essence of one usia, or three consubstantial hypostases for three three substances of one essence nature & kind, has been proved by Petavius, Curcelleius, Cudworth, Bull & Huetius beyond exception.] substance. ffor besides the places produced, he tells us Athanasius libro de Synodis written in yethe end of the year 359. Si similis dicatur [filius] secundum substantiam, id non idem prorsus idem significat atqꝫque ex substantia quo verbo magis, ut ips germanum patris filium ipsum esse significatur. Nam stannum est argento simile, canis lupo, aurichalcum vero auro, nec tamen stannum ex argento est, nec lupus canis filius haberi potest. Quandoquidem autem et ex substantia et ὁμοιούσιον similem secundum substantiam eum esse dixerunt, quid aliud his significant quam eum esse ὁμοούσιον consubstantialem? Etenim sicut qui dicit tantum similem ὁμοίουσιον similem secundum substantiam non prorsus indicat eum ex substantia esse: sic qui dicit, ὁμοουσιον consubstantialem, utriusqꝫque dicti sententiam complectetur, & ὁμοιούσιον similem quoad substantiam et ex substantia. sect 41. Si ffilius non ex participatione filius est sed τη ὀυσία substantiâ ipsâ Verbum est et substantia sapientia Patris: hæc autem ὀυσία substantia paternæ ὀυσίας substantiæ fœtus est & ejus similitudo, velut splendor est similitudo lucis &c ib sect 48. Simile non de substantijs sed de figuris et qualitatibus dicturdicitur. De substantijs enim non similitudo sed identitas dici debet. Homo igitur hominis similis dicitur non secundum substantiam sed secundum habitum et figuram: quoad substantiāam enim ejusdem naturæ sunt. Rursum homo cani non dissimilis dicitur sed diversæ naturæ. Ergo quod ejusdem naturæ est, etiam ὁμοούσιον consubstantiale est et quod diversæ naturæ est etiam ἑτερούσιον diversæ substantiæ.. sect. 53 170 Victor Bishop of Rome The The Bishop of Rome in the end of the second century or beginning of the third became first a Cataphrygian & then a Praxean as Tertullian in the beginning of his book against Praxeas relates & by consequence was of opinion that the Word of God was the λογὸς ἐνδιάθετος of the father from all eternity & was emitted a in the be was at length emitted outwardly for creating in the beginni at length was emitted outwardly as a ray of light from the sun & as the first word wchwhich god spake when he began to exert his power for creating the world, & as a ray of light is emitted from the sun. For this was the common opinion of both those hereticks. T The Church of Rome in the days of Praxeas Pope Victor began to place religion in ceremonies & to stagg err in yethe faith. ffor this Pope excommunicated – – – – – – – – newly excommunicated He seems to have written letters of peace to the Montanists of Asia & Phrygia for strengthning himself against the true Churchs of Asia & Phrygia in oppos those parts whom he had newly excommunicated in order to subvert them. And henceforward there has be was remained a perpetual misunderstanding between the Churches of Asia represented in the Apocalyps by the seven Candlesticks Churches & the Church of Rome represented (after their separation from the seven Churches) by the woman seated upon seven hills in the wilderness. Now while the Bishop of Rome became first a Cataphrygian & then a Praxean he was certainly of of opinion that the Word of God was the λογὸς ἐνδιάθετος of the father from all eternity & at length was emitted outwardly as a ray of light from the Sun & as the first Word wchwhich God spake when he began to exert his power for creating the world. For this was the common opiniōon of both those hereticks. [It was also their common opinion that the father & son were unius substantiæ, tho they differed in their manner of explaining this opinion.] By these instances it is manifest that Platonism the metaphysical theology of Orpheus Plato & other heathen Philosophers began to spred much in the Churches before the end of yethe second century insinuating it self into the churches of Antioch & Rome & the school of Alexandria & infected not only those who separated & became hereticks of note, but also many others who did not separate & particularly that it insinuated it self into the Churches of Antioch & Rome & the school at Alexandria. And therefore we need not wonder if it still got ground in the third century & prevailed in the fourth. X X Athanasius took yethe t X Antony the father of the Moncks [was of opinion that Christ the Word was the λογὸς ἐνδιάθετος for he] (as Athanasius tells us) taught the people that the son of God was yethe eternal word & wisdom of the fathers substance not a creature nor produced made out of nothing ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἀίδιός αιδιος της του πατρὸς ὀυσίας λόγος καὶ σοφία, but that the word & wisdome of the fathers substance is eternal & therefore eternal. Athanasius was educated a Monk under Antony attending upon him as Elijah did upon Elisha pouring water upon his hands im as Elisha did upon Elijah, & imbibed the same doctrine. For For he taught, as you may see in many places of his works, that the λόγος – Athanasius, as you may see in many places of his works . . . . . . . . . . . . [Proclum) as you have heard above. And so far as it appears, Antony & all his disciples the Moncks were of yethe same opinion with Athanasius. For Athanasius was a Monck bred up in his youth under Antony, & imbibed this opinion in his youth as is manifest by his Orations contra Gentes written before the Arian controversy with Arius began. And I do not find that there were any disputes among yethe disciples of Antony about their opinions concerning the Deity Antony or any of his desciples found fault with Athanasius or Alexander or any of the bishops who subscribed the Letter of Alexander,] ob unam hypostasin quæ est Patris et ffilij. Athanasius was But it is to be observed that these new opinions whether they be of Iustin or of the others Christians whom Iustin refutes mentions, were only private opinions not yet imposed upon the Churches nor inserted into any Creed. But these opinions whether of Iustin or of those whom he mentions were were only were only private opinions ones not yet imposed upon Christians the professors of them not being yet become sufficiently but few. ffor he Iustin lets us know that the Churches hitherto comunicated wthwith such as beleived nothin that Christ took his beginning of the Virgin. Now the And th But although But these opinions were only prvate ones not yet imposed upon Christians ffor the article of faith that Christ Now according to the metaphysical opinion of these Christians mentioned by Iustin the Son or word of God or Λογὸς was from all eternity the internal λογὸς or λογος ενδιαθετος of the father from eternity from all eternity & was emitted from him outwardly as light from the sun when before the beginning of the world in order to create it & this emission emission they called his nativity metaphysical theology as tho it came from the heathens & was & hereticks the theology of the hereticks Cataphrygians yet it spread very quickly in the Churches so as to infect several Christians of Good note before yethe end of yethe second century. For Athenagoras in his Apology after he had been describing the opinion of Plato concerning the Deity subjoyns. Quod si – – – – – – – – – – – – may subscribe their Creed without beleiving Christ to be more then a mere man. Arius & those with him in their Epistle sent to Alexander written before the meeting of the Council in the beginning of their controversy wrote thus wrote thus. The Son is not a being which first existed & was afterwards begotten or formed into a son; as for you your self, o blessed father, in the middle of the Church & in the senate session [of the Presbytery] have often confuted them who affirmed these things. And hence I gather that the saying of Arius & those with him that before the son was begotten he was not, was opposed to yethe opinion of those who taught that And a little after: But if this, out of the I came out from him & out of the womb, & out of from the Father I came, be understood by some as a consubstantial part or an emission: the father will be compound & divisible & mutable & also a body according to those men, & so far as they can effect, the incorporeal father will suffer those things wchwhich are proper to bodies. By these words of the Arians I conclude that the both parties agreed that the son was begotten before the creation & in order to effect it but disputed whether he existed & was in the father before he was begotten Arius denying it. And & formed into a son some denying it with Arius, & others affirming it: And therefore that the council of Nice in anathematizing those who should said that say that before the son was begotten born he was not not, confirmed the contrary opinion of those who maintained that the fat son was in the father from all eternity as his inherent & essentiall Word & wisdom & at length came out of him or was emitted begotten or born by a metaphysical emission for creating yethe world & called this coming out of that from the father the nativity or generation of the Son. And therefore these Council by these article of the sons being their Creed that the son was begotten of the father before all worlds or ages that is of the substance of the father, that is of the substance of the father God of God light of light, very God of very God begotten not made, is to be understood understood not an eternal generation but of the a single act of generation whereby at once act of the sons comingame out of the father in the beginning for creating the world, & b after he had been in the father from all eternity. And in the same sense I conceive ytthat it was that this article of But at length for making the father always a father & the son always a son the eternal generation was received & the antemundane generation by degrees was laid aside. Christs being begotten of the father before all ages was inserted into the Creed of Eusebius & some other Creeds of the Greeks in before the the times of yethe second third century. It was first inserted into the expositions & paraphrases of the Creed & came thence into the body of it For in this sense Tertullian in a neare the beginning of that century inserted it into one of his pa paraphrastical Creeds in these words. Credimus unum omninò Deum esse nec alium præter mundi conditorem qui universa de nihilo produxerit per Verbum suum primo omnium demissum. Id Verbum filium ejus appellatum in nomine Dei varie visum a Patriarchis, in Prophetis semper auditum, postremò delatum ex spiritu Patris Dei et virtute in Virginem Mariam &c. 171 That the Christian religion is the same with the Iewish except yethe ceremonial part, & To shew that the Iewish religion teach is one & the same wthwith the Christian it may be further observed that the various names given to Christ have generally a relation to yethe old testament to signify that he was there spoken of. He is called the son of man to signify that he – – – – – – – – – desired Samuel to make them a king after the manner of other nations. And after this Angel was rejected from being their king he came to them in the form of a servant. For the Word was made flesh, that is his body – – – – – – – – – – – – & desired a temporal king. He was received up into heaven & sat on yethe right hand of God Mar 16.19. Ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of the power & coming in the clouds of heaven Mar. 14.62. Luc. 22.69. For understanding the Law & the Prophets with relation to the promised Messiah, it may be further observed that the various names – – – – – temporal king. The Converted Iews therefore who beleived in the Messiah looked upon themselves as not released from the law by that beleif, & upon that canon those who as many of them as understood the calling of the Gentiles by Peters vision under looked upon them as proselytes converted Gentiles as proselites of the Iews whom God had cleansed but not obliged to enter into the covenant of the law by circumcision. And the converted gentiles were of the same opinion concerning the calling of themselves & the Iews & Gentiles themsel during the two first centuries. And therefore the Christian religion was not a new one. nor do the Iews offend in keeping the law but Tthe churches of the Gentiles did not grow upon their own root but were a branch of a wild Olive grafted into the stock of the Iews, Rom. 11.17. & therefore are were not to boast themselves against the natural branches. Rom. 11.17. The law was good & the Iews did not offended transgressed not in keeping the ceremonial part of it but in laying the stress of religion upon this ceremonial part & neglecting the fundamental part of thereof of it, such as was to love God with all their heart & soul, & their neighbours as themselves, to be just & temperate & chast friendly & merciful & to all men & be the temperate meek & humble in themselves & content wthwith their present condition. These things they ought to have done & not to have left the ceremonial part of the law undone. But while they were hurried on with ambitious & covetous desires of honour & glory & riches in this world & could think of no other Messiah then a temporal king king conqueror who should conquer the nations round about & exalt the Iews in power honour & glory & dominion over all the by conquering all the nations round about : God made use of this their abitionambition & covetousness to blind their eyes so that they should not understand the prophesies concernconcerning him the Messiah nor know him when he came, but crucify him & set up fals Christs against the Romans to provoke them to d their own destruction. And by this means God has rejected them from being his people or kingdom & dispersed them into all nations as at this day, I do not sa so that at present they are no people or body politiqꝫque but a scatered nation servile generation of men without any government of their own & yet in a wonderfull manner continue numerous & distinct from all other nations: wchwhich cannot be said of any other captivated disperst nation what ever, & therefore the work of providence. ffor God is able to turn away unrighteousness from Iacob, & graft the natural branches again into their own root. Now while the Iews have been hitherto blinded by tempor expectation of temporal greatness for enlightning the Iews both at the first preaching of the gospel & hereafter whenever it shall please God to have mercy upon them that scattered nation there have been many names given to th Iesus Christ with relation to the old testament for explaining Moses & the Prophets. He is called the son of man to signify that he – – – – – – – – & desired a temporal king. In relation to his This Angel therefore governed Israel in the days of Moses & the judges untill they rejected him from being their King & desired Samuel to make them a king after the manner of other nationnations. After wchwhich he sent his messenger the holy spirit to the Prophets for a time & at length came to them Iews himself to the Iews For the word was m in the form of a servant. Thus the Word was And in relation to his being called an Angel or Messenger in the old testament, he is now said in the new to come be sent from his father & to come down from God heaven & from God. This coming the Apostle Iohn describes by saying that the word was made flesh, that Word wchwhich was in the beginning with God & appeared to Adam Noah & yethe Patriarchs & wrastled with Iacob became flesh. And even Christ himself represents the state wchwhich he was in before his incarnation to be like that wchwhich he was to be in after his resurrection. Glorify me, saith he to his father, with the glory wchwhich I had wthwith thee before the world began was Iohn 17.5. And what if ye shall see He came out from God & went away to God Iohn 13.3. I came forth from the father & am come into yethe world & again I leave the world & go to yethe father. Iohn 16.28. & 13.3. Sabellius like yethe Valentinusians a derived the son from the father by emissions sections or by defluxions proceeding of th & coming from divisions after the manner of bodies & made Now if the articles within the brackets be omitted in all these creeds of both Greeks & Latines be omitted, there will remain this Creed. I beleive in God (or in one God) the father almighty maker of heaven & earth, & in one Lo Iesus Christ his only son our Lord (or in one lord Iesus Christ the son of God) who was born of the virgin Mary (of a Virgin) suffered (or was crucified) under Pontius Pilate) & was buried, the third day rose again from the dead & ascended into heaven & sitteth at the right hand of God & from whence he shall come to judge the quick & the dead: & I beleive in the holy Ghost. And the articles of this Creed all al are all of them of divine authority fundamental to religion & necessary to baptism being The found in all the Creeds wthwithout any material variation of words (excepting that the article of the holy Ghost is omitted in Tertullian's & that of judging the quick & dead in Alexanders) they were received by tradition in the several it is manifest may be thence concluded that they were derived down by tradition in the several churches from the days of the Apostles. And they are all of them of divine authority fundamental to religion & necessary to baptism. & communion To beleive in the father son & holy Ghost is necessary to baptism because men are baptized in their name And as they are authorised by were received by oral tradition so they are delivered in the scriptures as fundamental articles of faith requisite to baptism also authorised by the written word of God. There is one spirit one Lord one faith one baptism one God & father of all Eph. 4.1. To us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things 1 Cor 8.6. Who is Antichrist a liar but he that denyeth that Iesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist that denyeth the father & yethe son 1 Iohn. 2.22 There shall be fals teachers among you who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, men denying the Lord that bought them 2 Pete 2.1 God will have all men to be saved & come to the knowledge of the truth: for there is one God & one mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus who gave himself a ransom for all 1 Tim. 2.4. Whosoever shall confess that Iesus is the son of God, God dwelleth in him & he in God 1 Iohn 4.15. When Philip preached Iesus to the Eunuch Iesus, & the Eunuch said I beleive that Iesus Christ is the son of God, Philip baptized him Act 8.37. ☉ ☉ That The power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore that holy thing wchwhich shall be born of thee shall be called the son of God Luke 1.35. He that denyeth the father & the son or that Iesus Christ is come in yethe flesh is Antichrist 1 Iohn. 2.22 & 4.3. ] every spirit that confesseth that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God & every spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God, & this is that spirit of of Antichrist whereof ye have heard that it should come. 1 Iohn 4.2, 3 & 2 Iohn. 7. As the children are partakers of flesh & blood he also partook of yethe same that through death he might destroy him that hath yethe power of death. Heb. 2.14. For in all things it behoved him to be makemade like unto his brethren that he might be a merciful & faithfull high Priest in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people Heb. 2.14, 17. I delivered unto you first of all that wchwhich I also received how that Christ died for our sins according to the sciptures [or prophesies concerning him of the old Testament concerning him]] & that he was buried & that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures 1 Cor. 15.3, 4. Baptism is a symbol of the burial & resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6.4 Col. 2.12). & therefore to be administered only to such as beleive that Christ died was buried & rose again from the dead. Having obteined help of God &c – – – – & the dead 1 Pet 4.5. whom they slew & hanged on a tree him God raised up the third day –– & he commanded us to preach unto the people & to testify that it is he who was ordeined of God to be the judge of the quick & dead. Acts 10.39, 40, 4 To him give all the Prophets witness that through his name whosoever beleiveth in him shall receive remission of sins. Act 10.39, 40, When Paul finding certain disciples at Antioch told Paul that they had said unto them, have ye received the holy Ghost & they said unto him we have not so much as heard whether there be any holy Ghost, Paul said unto them, Vnto what then were ye baptized & they said Into Iohns baptism Act. 19.3. Go ye & teach all nations baptizing them in the name of the father & of the son & of the holy Ghost Mat. 22.19. Now by all these places of scripture it is manifest that all the articles of faith last mentioned are truths of divine authority expressed in the language of the scriptures & not only truths but fundamental articles of religion the first principles necessary to baptism & therefore were all of them articles of the primitive rule of faith. It remains that we inquire whether the primitive Rule of faith conteined any more articles then these. 173 corruptly Bu – And for all these reasons it was immutable. ✝ ✝ There was but one faith & one baptism & this faith all Christians were to keep hold fast & contend for & therefore it was immutable. I do not It might be paraphrased & explained at large in cate preaching & catechising, but not enlarged diminished or altered in the number & sense of the articles. The two Creeds of Irenæus have & two of the three Creeds of Tertullian are manifestly paraphrases & thence it is that all therefor differ in words tho they agree in sense. The For the original Creed it self or sȳymbol of the primitive christians was not yet committed to writing. Two of the three Creeds of Tertullian are also paraphrases & have in them a relish of Montanism. The third of his Creeds, that recited above, is in concise words without any paraphrasticall flourishes & by comparing it with several the words are very nearly the same wthwith those of other Creeds of the Latines Churches of yethe Latines afterwards published I it seems in the fourth & fift centuries, excepting that the I Tertullian has omitted the article of the holy Ghost & the later Creeds have added some articles wchwhich are not neither in Tertullians nor in those of Irenæus & therefore have been added since their days. from yethe heathens: for wchwhich end the Apostles . . . . . . . . but one faith, & the first Christians of the first ages called it their symbol implying thereby that it was conceived in a form of sound words Now because the first Christians delivered this faith down to the Churches by oral tradition as their symbol that the first Christians heathens might not know it & used it as their symbol but Christians by reciting it might know one another & avoid those as heathens who could not recite it or as hereticks who recited it corruptly: therefore Irenæus did not set it down in the proper form of words but receited it paraphrastically; Aand so did Tertullian in two of his three Creeds. The third Creed of Tertullian (that set down above) is in concise words without any paraphrastical flourishes & agrees with the Creeds of the the several Churches of the Latines afterwards published (by those who commentators upon them]: excepting such inconsiderable differences of words as might arise either from variety of translations or from the frailty of memory in propagating the faith down by oral tradition in several Churches; & excepting that Tertullian has omitted the article of the holy Ghost & the resurrection of yethe body in another manner then is done in other Creeds & yethe later Latines have added some articles in opposition to hereticks have added some articles wchwhich were not in the Creed when Ireneus & Tertullian wrote. The Creeds of the later Latines I have here set down, including the addit new articles in brackets that you may compare the rest of yethe articles wthwith yethe Creed of Tertullian. The coynage of 104227 pound weight & ten ounces english Troy weight at 16d ob per lwt amounts to 7165.13 And a penny per pound weight allowed to the moneyers for coyning 103346 pound weight very well amounts to 430.12.2 7596.5.7 174 That yethe word was in the beginning & that all things were made by him is affirmed by Iohn & I The Gnosticks & their disciples frequently called their Æons by the names of Gods attributes & some of them took yethe λόγος of Iohn incarnate to be the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the fathers the is the inherent word reason wisdom & Idea of the father without wchwhich he would be ἄσοφος & ἄλογος & feigned that as he emitted the Æons & retracted them back into himself so he emitted & retracted the λόγος outwardly as the & th as tho a man emits a voice or the sun a ray of light or a fountain a river or a root a branch & And & this opinion seems to have been imbibed by the Christians mentioned by Iustin. It was also imbibed taught not only by the heresiarchs Tatian, Montanus, Proclus, Æschines, Tertullian, Noetus, Artemas, Paul of Samosat Sabellius Paul of Samosat, Marcellus & Photinus but also by several others who were not never condemned for it as by Theophilus bishop of Antioch Athenagoras bishop of Clemens master of the school at Alexandria & Hipp perhaps his successor Origen & & Hippolytus the martyr & Lactantius & Constantine the great & Alexander & Athanasius bishops of AlexdriaAlexandria & Antony the father of the Moncks. For Constantin in his epistle – – – – Alexander teaches the same opinion expresly in his epistle to Alexander of Byzantium & Athana so doth Athanasius in some places of his works & in the beginning of the life of Antony – – – But afte Now Athanasius tells us thathe powred water upon the hands of Antony & therefore he was bred up a Monk under Antony & probably learnt his do was instructed by him in the faith. The Christians of the second & third centuries who held that the λόγος of Iohn was the λόγος ενδιάθετος of yethe father, taught that this λόγος was emitted outwardly befo a little before the creation of the world was emitted outwardly as a voice from a man, as a ray of light from yethe Sun, a river from yethe fountain, or a branch from yethe root & called this emission the generation of the son & the λόγος thus emitted the son of said that he was emitted in order to said that God emitted him in order to create the world. And this emission some explained by projection or dulutation of part of the fathers substance without separation, some by section & separation, of some by into two substances, some by emission & exertion of a power seated in the fathers substance or some part of it. [And some who distinguished the Word fom the λόγος ενδιάθετος said that he was begotten & as Iustin martyr & Arius by a new existence of something which was neither a part nor nor inherent power of But after these opinions were condemned they quickly ceased the in Photinus they quickly ceased the Definitions of the Council of Sirmium being universally received the father but existed by the fathers will without any di received its existence from the fathers will inherent word & will before the world began as one lamp receives light fire is kindled from from another without taking any thing from the light of the original lampfire. No By But all those who beleived the taught yethe antemundane genenerationgeneration of the Son in these or any other senses made him subordinate to the father supp beleived him generated by the voluntary act act & sole power of the fathers will, & by consequence made him subordinate to him father subject to the power of his will & subordinate to him.] But these opinions of antemundane generation making the father mutable, Alexander dropt them & taught that with Athanasius & Antony taught that the son was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος generated from all eternity & argued that otherwise the father would have been ασοφος & ἄλογος before the son was generated. And their adversaries replied that this was to make the son ἀγένετος & the unbegotten & they never heard before that there were two unbegotten. From these men the opinion of eternal generation descended to yethe Monks & & by their means got ground daily notwithstanding that the opinion that yethe son was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος after it was condemned in Photinus decreased & in a few years vanished. By this profession of faith it The Council of Paris A.C. 365 or 366 confirmed the faith of Hilary Nam homousion sermonem, say they – – – – – appellatio videretur. The Council of Lampsacum at the same time declaring for yethe The Council of Lampsacum A.C. 365 or 366 confirmed the faith of this Council of Antioch the The next year but one the Council of Lampsacum A.C. 365 declareding for the Council of Nice, confirmed the faith of this Council of Antioch (Socr l 4 c 4) professing professed that the son was like the father according to substance: Socr. l 4 c 4 for, say they, the word like must necessarily be added to signify the difference of the hypostases. (Sozom l 6 c 7. Socr l 4. c 4 And three Legates sent from this Council to the bishop of Rome And three Legates sent from this Council to yethe BpBishop of Rome told him that the son was in all things like the father, for & that consubstantial differs not from like: & the bishop of Rome approved their faith Socr l. 4. c 12. And At the same time tThe Council of Paris A.C. 360 or 366 confirmed the faith wchwhich Hilary had been preach coequal of of two like & equal of two substances in number & one in nature, wchwhich Hilary had been preaching to them: Nam homousion sermonem, say they, – – – videretur. Soon after the reign of Iovian Liberius Bishop of Rome hearing what had been done by the little Councils of A & Antioch wrote a circulatory letter to the bishops of Italy solliciting them to return to the Nicene faith. The letter is extant in Hilaries fragments & there is not one word in it about the Nicene deity of the holy Ghost. After Valentinian was gone into Gallia the Legates of the Council of Lampsacum arrived in Italy vizt A.C. 366, & in the name of that Council & the Council of Smyrna & some others presented a confession of their faith to yethe BpBishop of Rome without allo mentioning the Deity of the holy Ghost & th were received into communion by the Bishop of R. without acknowledging that Deity. ffor they were Macedonians, And therefore the dis & came from Councils of Macedonian bishops. And therefore the controversy about the deity of the holy Ghost was not yet begun in Italy. Athanasius had proposed it to the Emperor Iovian & had some followers: but they were but few as you have heard out of Gregory Nazianzen, & the Emperor Valens was against them & forced ymthem to be silent in this point upon pain of losing their bishopricks. The western Churches had liberty of speech, but I do cannot find that they contended for the deity of the holy Ghost before the year 373 & therefor reccon that the year in wchwhich this controversy began in the west. After the councils of Sirmium Nicea, Ariminum Seleucia & Constantinople had rejected the use of the word usia with its compounds in relation to the Son, the first work was to restore the use of those words by & reestablish & the authority of the Council of Nice & when this point was gained after after sometime after by Dorotheus the Presbyter to, the next 175 step was to extend this doctrine to the holy Ghost. For after My Lord Thereupon Macedonius who had hitherto been for against the use of the words usia & homousios & declared for the homousia Nicene decree declared for it Nicene faith in the sense of yethe word ὁμοιούσιος, & had many followers, this being the sence in wchwhich the greek church had understood the Nicene f faith: for, said the Macedonians, the western churches corrupted vitiated the homousios; & Ætius in yethe east corrupte coined a new language: introduced τὸ κατ ὀυσιαν ἀνόμοιον unlike according to substance. And both opinionopinions were wicked. For these [the western] rashly connected the distinct hypostases of the father & son into unity se singularity unity binding them together wthwith the word ὁμοούσιος as wthwith a bond of inequity: & he wholy disjoyned the conjunction of the nature of the son wthwith with the father by introducing the name of unlike according to substance. Seeing therefore the two opinions run into two extremes, we have accounted the middle way between both agreable to truth & piety, namely that wchwhich the son is like the father according to hypostasis or substance Socr l. 3 c. 10. κατ ὑποστασιν according to substance Socr l 3 c. 10. And in the reign of Iovian some of them with the Arcadians &c. I have been attending to aquaint your LordpsLordships board that the East India Company as I understand by Mr Ward are willing to give seven thousand pounds for one hundred Tunns of Tinn, to be paid out of the first moneys they shall receive of your LordpsLordships for salt peter, & in the same moneys, & if your LordpsLordships approve thereof they desire that the tin may be speedily delivered that they may have time to run it into blocks before the sailing of their fleet. I shall attend at the Treasury to morrow for your LordspsLordships answer. Liberius go And yet Liberius in the sent letters wchwhich he wrote back by them to those eastern Macedonians & other eastern bishops in wchwhich he testified And yet Liberius & the western Bishops in the answer wchwhich they wrote back to those eastern bishops by their Legates acknowledged the agreement of their faith wthwith the faith of the churches of Italy & the west, & calls them beloved brethren & fellow ministers. A The Council of Constantinople A.C. 360 had for various crimes deposed Macedonius bpbishop of Constantinople Eustathius of Sebastia Eleusius of Cyricum Cyril of Ierusalem Heortasius Sophronius Neonas, Nectaras Sophronius of Pompeiopolis in Paphlagonia, Dracontius of Pergamus, Neonas of Seleucia where a council had met. Thereupon Macedonius Eustathius Eleusius & some others declared for the Nicene faith in such a sense that & that homousios they should signifie like the father according to substance should be taken in the same sense with homoiusios like the father according to substance. And in the reign of Iovian some of them meeting in a Council at at Antioch with Meletius one of the bishops of that city & with Eusebius of Samosat, T Acacius of Cæsarea, Titus of Bostra & their friends, presented a profession of this faith to yethe Emperor Iovian. And But the Afterwards the Macedonians met in severa for restoring the Council of Nice met in several Councils in Pamphilia Isauria & Lycia & at Smyrna & Lampsacum. And when the Emperor Valens who in his stay at Constantinople had been prepossessed by Eudoxius bishop of that city came to Heraclea in Bithynia, wchwhich was in September A.C. 365, the bishops of yethe council of Lampsacum applied to him & were rejected, & thereupon resolved to send Legates to the western Emperor Valentinian & the bishop of Rome for their assistance 176 The Christian Iews of the under Iames in the Church of Ierusalem under Iames being dispersed by the siege of that city & flying in great numbers to Phil Pella, beyond Iordan, became the Nazarenes & the Ebionites. ffor they were called Nazarenes before that flight & Ebionites from their poverty. They received only the Gospel of Iohn & the Matthew in hebrew & for the most part beleived Christ to be a mere man without framing to themselves any opinions abutabout the λόγος ffor the Gospel of Iohn was not yet written. The Ebionites communicated with the Chr were such as the Apostle Paul reprehends for imposing the law upon the Gentiles. They communicated with the Christian Iews but in respect of the Christian Gentiles were schismaticks. The Nazarenes or some of them communicated also with the Christian Gentiles & continued in that communion till almost till about the end of the second century as has been explained above. An And so did the Christian gentiles afterwards called Alogi. These held that Christ was a mere man & bel received not the writings of Iohn in wchwhich he is called the λόγος. For it was long before all the writings of the new Testament were generally received. in his d Iustin Martyr gives us this account of the communion of the Alogi in his days. Verum enim vero, Trypho, dixi . . . . . . . . . . . . . sententia sunt, dixerunt. After the death of Iustin arose the Montanists & Encratites & Montanists & after them the Alogi according to Epiphanius TessarescædecatiesTessarescædecatites & the Alogi. after them the Alogi according to Epiphanius. When the opinions of the Tessarescædecatites were condemned as hereticks & Alogi were began to be accounted hereticks then their heresies are said to arise, When the opinons of Pope V begin though their opinions were that is, the heresy of the Tessarescædecatites in the days of Pope Victor who condemned it & the heresy of the Alogi in the latter end of his days or in the days of his successor Zepharine. But I do not find that the Alogi were condemned in any Councils or that they were distinguished from other Christians by any particular name before untill before Epiphanius gave them the name of Alogi. When Theodotus the currier of Byzantium was condemned by Pope Victor for holding Christ to be a mere man & soon after (I think in the days of Pope Zepherine) Artemon the master of Theodotus was condemned by the Greeks for the same like error: their disciples alledged that their opinion was taught by the Apostles & ancient Christians & the truth of the doctrine conserved to the days of Pope Victor but from the days of his successor Zepherine [inclusively] was adulterated. Atbout this time therefore the NazreanesNazarenes & Alogi were excluded communion by the condemnation of Theodotus & Artemon. But yet I do not find it doth not appear to me that Artemon & Theodotus did not held Christ to be a mere man in the same sense wthwith the Eb Nazarenes a different sense from that of the Nazarenes & Alogi, The last rejected the λογος received not the doctrine of the λογος the first (so far as I can find if I am not mistaken) received it in a corrupt sence. If this Theodotus was the same in the sence of Paul of Samosat teaching with Paul of Samosat, MacellusMarcellus & Photinus that Christ was a man inhabited by the λόγος For the Gnosticks & such like hereticks thinking it below the dignity of their principal Gods &c. The opinions of the Tesseradecædecatites & Alogi were much older, but its to be understood that when Epiphanius their opinions they were first declared heresi condemned; then Epiphanius reccons that their heresies began. The Tesseracædecatites were first condemned by Pope Victor & therefore the opinion of the Alogi that Christ was a m heresy of the Alogi was recconed to begin about in the latter end of the days of Victor or in the days of his successor Zepherine. These sences were various modes of the Monousian faith he rejects & tells them ytthat yethe father & son were two like & equal substances of one nature & kind from all eternity; two in number & one in nature & kind, & that the son was notwithstanding obedient to yethe father as his author. He did not by rapine equalize himself equal to the father but was obedient to him even unto death. And hitherto the doctrine remained in the Churches that the father was the supreme Monarch of the univers & reigned over the Son, notwithstanding their generall unity of substance disputes about the time & the manner of the sons nativity & the nature of his substance. And in this sense Hilary preached the Nicene faith to the western Churches for the future, in opposition to the heretical senses wchwhich had hitherto been spread amongst them. the λόγος might be. Before the days of Alexander some might say that yethe Word was always with the father [& perhaps call him ἀίδιος & æternus but they then spake of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, or if they spake of the λόγος προφορικὸς or of any other λόγος, they meant only that he was always with the father from yethe beginning, for the wordwords αιθι ἀει ἀίδιος æternus come from the words ἀιων ætas & anciently signified not wthwith the common people signified nothing more then a long duration, a duration in sæculum or in sæcula] but I do not meet with any before Alexander who said that he was always begotten. And I am the more inclined to beleive Alexander was the author of this opinion because his enemies objected that this was to make the son ἀγένητος according to this opinion the son was ἀγένητος unbegotten & they that they never heard of two unbegotten principles before. They looked upon Alexander therefore as the first author of this opinion: & if the opinion had been older the objection would also have been older. According to Iohn the Word was in the beginning with God, & the Son was begotten & born when the Word became flesh. According to he was born of a Virgin & at the age of 30 years baptized & declared to be the son of God. According to the Christian Philosophers of the second & third century the son of God was begotten a little before the beginning of the World in order to the its creation. of the world. According to Alexander he was begotten from all eternity. And according to Arius he was begotten of nothing before all time ages. Hosius who presided in the Council of Nice & published the Nicene Creed, & by consequence – – – – – – – – – – et ffilius est filius Patris. From whence it is manifest that the opinion of one hypostasis of the father son & holy Ghost was now much spread in the Churches west. And since Hosius was at the head of this Council it may be concluded that he was of this opinion & therefore in publishing the Cre Nicene creed translanslatedtranslated ὁμοούσιος by unius substantiæ & unius hypostaseos. About twelve years after the meeting of this Council Hilary being then in the east & sending to yethe bishops of Gallia & Britain an account of the condemnation of Photinus by the Council of Sirmium & of the faith & decrees of the Council against him adds with his expositions unponupon them as was mentioned above & doing this to set them right in the faith, he adds: Multi ex nobis tells them that many of them understood the language of una substantia in the sense of the hereticks Multi ex nobis fratres Charissimi, saith he, ita unam substantiam Patris et filij prædicant – – – – – – – – – – – – – & that more fully then in the Creed. The Greeks therefore for checking & abolishing the monousian faith wchwhich by the language of una usia substantia una usia usia & una hypostasis had been spread in the west & in Egypt, & was contrary to the Nicene faith & by the eastern churches accounted Sabellianism, & Paulinianism endeavoured in the Counc several Councils A.C. 357, 358, 359 & 360 to abolish that language & revive the decree of the Council of Antioch against Paul. And particularly in the Council of Constantinople A.C. 360 they decreed that the word hypostasis or (as Theoderet writes) one hypostasis should not be named of the father son & holy ghost. The Greeks therefore used the language of three hypostases but many of the Latines continued to use yethe language of one & accused the Greeks of Arianism & were mutually accused of Sabellianism by the Greeks. And this was the state of things in the end of the reign of the Emperor Constantius, A.C. 361. The next year Athanasius – – – – – cannot be disputed. Yet it was some years before the language of one hypostasis could be abol fully ceased among the Latines – – – – – – – – – – – tres substantias prædicabit? However, the Latines in a little time for avoiding the imputation of Sabellianism quitted this language as tending to Sabellianism & came into the opinion of Athanasius & Hilary that the father son & holy Ghost were three substances in number & one in nature & species And further to free themselves from the language of una usia & una substantia the imputation of Sabellianism of wchwhich the & Paulinianism of wchwhich they had been accused, they anathematized those heresies. And now the language of three hy una substantia & una substantia usia being no longer Sabellian nor contrary to the Nicene faith became defensible as if it had been erroneously abolished by the late Councils, & the language of theree hypostases And hence forward the language of one usia hypostasis began to cease. ffor Athanasius & a in reignthe reign of Iulian At A.C.. 362. Athanasius & about 14 or 16 other Bishops excommunicated Bishops most of Egypt returned from banishmtbanishment & meeting in Council at Alexandria & there composing a declared that in calling the father & son holy Ghost the language of one usia one hypostasis & one substance not in number but in nature & in calling three hypostases & the language should signify that they might be called three hypostases taking the language to signify that they were three substances in number & this determination being sent to Constantine & 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 the language of una usia & una substantia being freed from the imputation of Sabellianism & Paulinianism & the language of three hypostases being cleared from Arianism was readily received by the party of Athanasius, And yet the language of one hypostasis & the language of una usia & una substantia being easily relinquished. And yet the language of one hypostasis remained in the western churches it was some years before the language of one hypostasis fully ceased especially in the west where the language of three hypostases was accounted contrary to that of una substantia. For in the letter . . . . . prædicabit. The Council of Nice took hypostasis in the same sense with usia: for in the anathemas annexed to their Creed they say During this controversy the Latines began to use the language of three hypostases persons to that of one substance & in ac Instead of calling the father son & holy Ghost three hypostases the Latines called three persons. The Council of Antioch A.C. 344 d or 345 declared th in a long declaration of their faith wchwhich they sent to yethe Latines d anathematized them who should (wthwith the Sabellians) say that the father son & holy ghost were one as thing & one person & declared that they were three & the council of Sirmium wchwhich condemned Photinus A.C. 351 anathematized those who should say that they were one person repeated the anathema. This was done in opposition to Sabellianism wchwhich 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 in the west amongst the Latines. But the word person being of an ambiguous signification, The Greeks to make it signify a substance & not only a power or form of a substance used the language of τρια πραγματα & τρια τρεις ὑποστάσεις three things & three hypostases as well as that of τρία πρόσοπα three persons to make it signify a substantial person, or intelligent substance. And hence arose that controversy about words wchwhich Athanasius composed in the little Council of Alexandria above mentioned, & of wchwhich E Gregory Nazianzen in his life of his Oration upon Athanasius gives this account. Before the times of this Council of Alexandria I do not find that the holy Ghost began to be called God or to worshippedbe worshipped as God in conjunction wthwith the father & the Son. In the Creed primitive Creed we are taught to beleive in one God the father & in one Lord Iesus Christ the son & in the holy GostGhost & this we are taught in order to be baptized in their names, & therefore the primitive Baptism was instituted Christians were baptized in the name of one God the father & of one Lord Iesus Christ the son & of one holy Ghost: but now men began to be baptized in the name of one God the father son & holy ghost one God. And this faith & baptism was set on foot at the same time with Saint-worship & by the same men. For Athanasius & the other bishops in the aforesaid Council of Alexandria declared one Deity of yethe father son & h. Ghost & about two years after (vizt AC. 364) Athanasius published this doctrine to the Emperor Iovian. Amongst those Christians who beleived that Iesus Christ was the λόγος & that th some as Marcellus beleived that th & that this It was therefore a very growing opinion that the λογος Word was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, the –– which were made by him. And the Council of Serdica composed of about 200 Western & Egyptian bishops A.C. 347, & in their general epistle as it is recited by Sozomen say: Confitemur filium esse virtutem Patris. Confitemur illum esse τὸν λογον Verbum Dei Patris præter quod nullum est aliud et Verbum verum Deum et sapientiam ac virtutem esse. Venem autem filium esse tradimus non sicut alij filij non appellantur: nam hi quidem aut regenerationis causa Dij dicuntur, aut eo quod digni habiti fuerint Filij noncipantur non autem ob unam hypostasim quæ est Patris et Filij. This And this Epistle was handed about in the Churches till the reign of Iulian the Apostate as containing composed by the Council of Serdica & therefore the profession of faith conteined therein had many followers in those days. So then the opinion that the Word of God was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of the father was a very grow as tho it had itits rise among the Gnosticks & sprang from the the philosophy of the heathens & Cabalists yet after it was refined by the Montanists & Patripassians & was taught by some other Christians of good note who had been educated in the philosophy of the heathens & backt by the text of Solomon Dominus creavit me initio initio viarum suarum ad opera sua: it spread in the Churches in the second & third centuries & got ground very much in the fourth century in the fourth century untill it was condemned in Photinus by the Council of Sirmium A.C. 351 [& the sentences of the Council against him were made known in all the churches] then from wchwhich time it decreased & in a few years vanished, the faith & sentences of that Council being universally received against Photinus meeting with an universal reception & approbation. And so far as I can find even Athanasius himself rejected that opinion. ffor in the Creed wchwhich is publishe extant in his works & called his exposition of faith, he affirms that the father son & holy Ghost are three hypostases & declares against the sons being the λόγος ἐνδιαθετος ἢ προφορικὸς. For it is to be understood that those Christians who held the Word to be the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, generally held that this λόγος wchwhich had been seated inwardly in the substance & heart of the father from all eternity was a little before the creation of the world emitted outwardly & became the λόγος προφορικὸς & some explained this emission by a dil the projection or dilatation of some part of the fathers substance wthwith an inherent power, as light from the sonsun as a branch from the root, a river from the fountain, an ofspring from the parents, & breath with a sound from a man. And this emission projection or dilatation they called the λογος generation of the λόγος into a son, & made the λόγος προφόρικος to be the son generated of God generated a little before the creation & in order to it, & others (as Marcellus & perhaps Paul of Samosat) did not make the λόγος προφόρικος to be the Son of God before the nativity of Iesus Christ was born of the Virgin. But I do not meet with any who made the son the to be the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος from all eternity, before Alexander bishop of Alexandria. But these opinions that the son Word of God was either the λογος προφορικὸς or the λογος ἐνδιάθετος being condemned in Photinus by the Council of Sirmium decreased were soon relinquished & came to an end. The opinio In the three first centuries I doe not meet wthwith the opinion that a Word was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος was the son of God begotten from all eternity. Alexander bishop of Alexandria so far as I can find was the first author of this opinion. Before his days the antemundane nativity of the λόγος προφορικος was the growing opinion. But it being objected that this opinion made the father mutable, it was rejected by both Alexander & Arius, & Alexander instead thereof Alexander taught that the son was bego the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος begotten of the father from all eternity & Arius that he was not the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος but another λόγος b nor begotten of the fathers substance but another λόγος produced out of nothing before the world began. And henceforward the doctrine of eternal generation being received by Athanasius & the MocksMoncks got grownd in the Churches. And having once taken root remained & spread even after the the fundamental doctrine that the Word was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος ἢ προφόρικος was exploded; those that beleived the antemundane generation of the λόγος προφορικὸς easily changing their opinion for that of the æternal generation of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος whatever 178 – wrote also to the Churches in his own defense. One of the crimes of wchwhich the Meletians accused him was that he had killed Arse one of their Bishops called Arsenius. At He made the Emperor beleive that Arsenius was alive, but Arsenius not appear the Meletians persisting in the accusation & Arsenius not appearing, the Emperor ordered Athanasius to give an account of this matter before the Council of Athanasius came not & therefore the Emperor ordered him to appeare the next year before the Council of Tyre & threatned that if he came not he would send those for him that should carry him thither. Then Athanasius went wthwith a great multitude & & pretended that Arsenius was alive as he knew by a letter wchwhich when the Council had heard the cause between him & his accusers they sent for their s for their further satisfaction six of their numbers to the places in Egypt where the facts were done th to examin persons upon the spot, & upon their report Athanasius fled from the Council to yethe Emperor. The What further worship may be given him on account of The opinion of his being consubstantial to the father & what worship may be due to him on that account I do not here consider. For The heathens looked beleived that the souls of all men were consubstantial to the supreme deity & yet worshipped only some of them & those only according to their merits sup [reputed merits in this life [& therefore philosophy alone is not to be relied upon we in matters of religion. We must consult the scriptures for the worship due to Christ] & their] supposed dominion over man acquired by their merits in this life. The Goths & other Scythian nations beyond the Danube had hitherto lived without letters & the Christian religion had been hitherto propagated among them only by oral tradition. But now Vlphilas the Bish patriarch of Dacia invented the Gothic letters & translated the scriptures into their tongue. & propagated the Christian religion among them very much so ytthat Fridigern king of the Visigoths became a Christian & Athanaric fearing that the Christian religion should also prevail in his kingdom to the (for Vlphilas instructed the people of both kingdoms) raised a vehement persecution against the Christians & put many of them to death & made others fly. They were seated on the eastern side of the River Teys upon the rivers Maresh & Karesh ☉ to Alexander the great Among the conquered nations I reccon yethe Burgundians and Burgeones whom Ptolemy places in Poland between the Vistula & Borythenes & whom I take to be the Burgundians who had war with Suilda king of the Gepides in the reign of Philip the EmprEmperor & in the reign of Valentinian fled from their seats to the side of the Rhene ffor these Burgundians are usually recconed a Gothic nation. # & grandson of Athanipas or Wulpha the brother of Hermaneric, reigned The Gepides & Vandals were Gothic nations & spake the same language with the Goths & agreed with them also in manners, & the Vandals are recconed a branch of the Gepides but when they separated from them is uncertain. For since the Gothic nations had no letters before the days of Vlphilas, we can have no certain account of their earlier actions but from yethe works of the Greeks & Latines who recorded nothing of them only what they themselves were concerned in. Iornandes tels us that the kings of the Vandals family of the Vandals was of the stock of the Astidirgi & Dio that the Alans under the conduct of Rhaus & Rhaptus entred Dacia in the reign of the Emperor Marcus & had seats tranted them there by that Emperor. ffrom that time therefore the Astingi Adingi or Vandals were members of the Empire till the revolt of Dacia They were seated upon the And in in the reign of Constantine the great they were conquered by the Gepides under the conduct of their king Gromer conquered the Vandals they were conquered by the Gepides & left these their seats in Dacia to the conquerors & had seats granted them in Pannonia by that Emperor. And Iornandes calls the war between the Goths & Gepides a civil war wchwhich imports that they had been formerly one kingdom. They lived quietly in Pannonia as subjects of the Empire till they invaded Gallia, that is for the space of above 70 years. Iornandes represents that they lived quietly in Pannonia 40 years & long after that invaded Gallia And in another place a little after he says that when Atathenes & Saprach invaded Pannonia Gratian was gone from Rome into Gallia by reason of an incursion of the Vandals. He reccons therefore that the Vandals lived quietly in Pannonia 40 years before they & then made this incursion. But he is seems to be mistaken in ascribing this incursion to yethe Vandals. It was against the Alemans a German nation seated upon the upper Rhene that Gratian that Gratian went at this time from Rome into Gallia, & the Vandals staid in Pannonia thirty years longer, before they in all 70 years before they in. And by their long stay in the Roman Empire first in Dacia & then in Pannonia, the Christian religion prevailed amongst them. [They lived all this time in Pannonia without a king, till they [& then at length rising from their seats to invade Gallia made Godegisilus a Christian their captain king, & taking along with them the Alans & some other nations in their way to the Rhene they invaded Gallia while Alaric invaded Italy & the Hunns Pannonia & by these invasions & the revolt of the Sabian Franks & the British Soldia the western Empire at once broke into ten kingdoms, The history of which is as follows.] After the death of the Emperor Theodosius the Visigoths rose from their seats – – – – gentium orare. Then Radagaisus a heathen, calling to his assistance many barbarians from beyond the Danube invaded Italy with an army of above 200000 men wchwhich were all of them either slain or taken pr. & was shut up in the mountains by Stilico & his army whole army famished & taken prisoners. In the mean time Stilico desiring to gain the Empire by means of the barbarous nations favoured the Goths underhand & at length procured a military prefecture for Alaric – – – – – – And For facilitating this designe he invited the Vandals with other barbarous nations to invade the western Empire. And those nations under And those nations – – The Vandals lived in Pannonia without a king but now rising from their seats made Godegisilus their captain, took along with them the Huns & marched with the Alans & some Gepides & Heruli to the Rhene taking along with them the Suevi & Burgundians who lay in their way & may be understood of the kingdom of Macedon standing up under the the power &c. not in in conjunction the power of the Romans & growing mighty by their the the power in the power of the becoming in their power by the successive additions of the kingdoms of Pergamus Syria & Egypt. In the prophesy of the he Goat this kingdom is derived from the kingdom of Pergamus represented by the little horn of that Beast in this of the scripture of truth it is derived from the kingdom of Macedon beginning standing up in the power of the Romans. ffor it arose from them both growing into one by the Legacy of Attalus, & it was fit that both its originals should be represented in these prophesies. And whilst the little horn became mighty but not in his own power; the Arms which stood up after Antiochus Epiphanes after & the same & became one wthwith this little horn, was also to be mighty but not in his own power. The holy spirit The Greek Empire being founded by the conquests of the kingdom of Macedon, & lasted while this kingdom stood unconquered; & therefore the holy spirit in describing the affairs of Alexander the great & his successors the kings of the North & South bordering upon the holy land, untill is very particular untill he comes to the conquest of Moesi the kingdom of Macedon by the Romans. For he carries on that particular description & until the last return of Antiochus Epiphanes out of Egypt wchwhich was of the of the single the kings until the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes wchwhich was on Novemb 1 in the year of Philip 156 as above, & untill the profanation of the Temple at the return of Antioch by Antiochus in the return, wchwhich was on 1 Novemb 1 in the same year t & Perseus the last king of Macedon was conquered by Æmilius the Roman Consul on 10 SeptembrSeptember 10 in the same year. And And henceforward This was done to By this means the prophesy points out the period of time in wchwhich the king of fierce countenance began to stand up & the fourth Empire began to reign. And henceforward the holy spirit describinges the affairs of the Greeks under the dominion power of the Romans [or if you please the affairs of the Romans within the dominions of the Greeks. ffor this whole prophesy relates to the nations of the Greeks represented by the He Goat. And in describing their affairs of under the Romans he] & makes no more mention of the nations of particular kings (for the Romans were governed by a senate) nor insists upon particular wars & actions; but touches only upon the greatest & most general turns of affairs & passes on by large periods of time till he comes to the end of the prophesy wchwhich ends with from the rise of the Roman empire to the the Greeks to to the day of judgment. saying at the end of every The first period conteins the reig rise & reign of the Greeks under the Romans or Latines, the second conteins the rise of reign of the Greeks alone after separation from the Latines, the third is called the time of the end. The first is ush is called the time of the end & conteins the reign of the kings of the south & north over the Greeks or some part of them. the first begi For this whole prophesy relates to the nations of the Greek Empire represented by the he Goat. The first is a period interval of time is ushered in wthwith these words: And it but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed, that is the conspiracicyconspiracy of the kings of Syria & Egypt against the holy covenant for taking away the daily worship of the Iews & setting up the abomination of abomination or worship of the heathen Gods in all the land of Iudea shall not prosper because there is still an appointed time the time of the end in wchwhich the abomination transgression of desolation is to prosper is not yet arrived the end in wchwhich the setting up of yethe abomination of desolation was to prosper flourish & reign is not yet, but there is still a time appointed before the time of the end begins. The second period interval of time is ushered in with these words, And of those of understanding there shall fall to try them & to purge & make white to the time of the end, And For a king shall do according to his will – & shall prosper till the indignation shall be accomplished, that is a king shall do according to his will in making laws about religion & in setting up the abomination represented by the worship of the Mahuzzims, & shall prosper till the indignation against the holy covenant shall be accomplished, & by the setting up this abomination those of understanding who oppose it shall fall in the reign & by the persecution of this king till the time of the end. And the third period is called the time of the end & con second part of the second interval begins with these words. And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him. In all this time this period time of the end therefore the worship of fals Gods set up by the king who doth according to his will was to prosper & reign & make desolate180 desolate the people of God, & therefore it is called the abomination transgression of desolation & the indignation against the holy covenant. But let us go over the particulars. And after him arms shall stand up that is after the reign of Antiochus carried on to his second expedition into Egypt & return into Syria, a power shall rise up, the power of the kingdom of Macedon under the by the access of the power of the Romans & of the kingdoms of Pergamus & by the conquest of the kingdoms of Syria Palestine & Egypt shall stand up with mighty dominion. And Now when these arms were thus risen up they made war upon the Iews in the reigns of Nero Vespasian Trajan & Hadrian, burnt their Temple destroyed their city set up the heathen Gods in all Iudea & dispersed the people into all nations forbidding them to enter the holy Iudea upon pain of death. And all this is described by Daniel in the next words: And they shall pollute . . . . . . . Mountains Mat XXIV.15. This first setting up of After Th In setting up the abomination of the Mahuzzims & casting down those of understanding & desolating the saints this king of Greece shall do according to his will & desolate the people of God till the time of the end, & shall during all the time prosper not only in setting up the transgression of desolation till before the time of the end, & desolat but also in continuing it during all the time of the end untill the indignation against the holy covenant be accomplished & the sanctuary be cleansed from the Mahuz abomination. For the time of the end is the last end of the indignation is the time of the end. that that communal wpworship (of this people the Christians. ffor the Prince of the host is Iesus Christ When the Roman Empire became Christian & its this Emperors began to act as Princes of the Church of Christ & to take upon them the authority of Christ himself in giving laws to the his Church by their edicts then this horn is said to magnify himself to the Prince that of the host, And at length when when by these Edicts to take away t he chang he established new articles of faith & modes of worship wchwhich had not been without he usurp that is, to usurp his throne & sit in the temple of God shewing himself as a God legislative authority & by doing so took away the daily worship of the Prince & cast down the place of his sanctuary & set up an abomination the transgression of desolation to the sanctuary & the host & as the Apostle Paul expresses it to sit in the temple of God shewing himself as a God, thinking he sat in the place the throne of God upon the ark between the Cherubims [upon vizt as it were upon the throne between the T Cherubims] shewing himself as a God by making laws in matters of religion, or as exprest in the prophesy of the scripture of truth [wchwhich is a commentary upon the prophesy of the he Goat] to do [by his Edicts] according to his will & exalt magnify himself above every God, that is & speak marvellous things against the God of Gods, [that is by their his edicts & laws imperial laws. to do according to their will & speak exalt themselves & speak marvellous things & exalt themselve above every God against his supremacy to do according to his will & reign as if he were above every God & abrogate the laws & supremacy of God the father himself the God of the Iews.] But for understanding these things, its necessary to compare this vision of the Ram & Goat with the prophesy of the scripture of truth. For they both concern the nations of the Greek Empire or third Monarchy reigning sometimes by their own power & sometimes by the power of others, till the end of the four empires & the latter prophesy is a commentary upon the former. – & by doing so took away the daily worship of the Prince & cast down the his sanctuary & the truth to the ground & set up the transgression of desolation. And by reason of this transgression the Apostle Paul in commenting upon this Prophesy calls him the man of sin & because he rose stands up against the Prince & (as is exprest in the Prophesy of the scripture of truth) exalts & magnifies himself above every God, the Apostle saith that he opposeth & exalteth himself above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped so that he as a God (by his usurped legislature) sitteth in the Temple of God (as it were on the ark between the Cherubims) shewing himself that he is a God – & by doing so took away the daily worship of the Prince Messiah the Prince & cast down his sanctuary to the ground & the truth to the ground & set up the transgression of desolation, & destroyed the mighty & the holy people & practised & prospered. But for understanding this prophesy of the he Goat it should musmust be compared with the prophesy of the scripture of truth wchwhich is a commentary upon it. For both these prophesies concern the nations of the Greeks Empire or third Monarchy reigning sometimes by their own power & sometimes by the power of others, till the end of the four Empires & day of judgment. But the words are shut up & the book is sealed till th to yethe time of the end & the seals are opened in the Apocalyps then begins the latter time. Then many shall run to & fro & knowledge in these things shall be increased untill the gospel be preached in all nations. This For the wise shall understand but none of the wicked shall understand. And many shall be purified & made white & tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly. And none of the wicked shall understand these things but the wise shall understand. [This sealed book is opened in the Apocalyps & as the seven seals are gradually opened the time of the end approaches. In a large sence the time of t latter times commence wthwith the taking away of the Iewish daily worship of the Iews & opening of the first seal. In a strickter sence the latter times commence wthwith the opening of the last seal & reign of the king who doth according to his will, & takes away the daily worship of the Christians. It But the time of the end commences with the first Wo-trumpet]. The Goat in the reign of his last his last horn is called by the Apostle the man of sin from the transgression of desolation & the Antichrist from his standing up against the Prince of Princes & because he stand magnifies & exalts himself above every God therefore the Man of sin & speaks marvellous things against the God of Gods & reigns till the sanctuary be cleansed & all last end of the indignation therefore the Man of sin is said to oppose & exalt himself above every thing that is called God or that is worshipped. & to sit in the Temple of God & continue till Christ destroys him with the brightness of his coming. Th He is also represented by the Dragon in the ApocalysApocalypse & from his idolatry called the Devil & Satan & his Church is called the synagogue of Satan, & from his first rise this because the kingdom of Pergamus was the little horn this Satan is said to have his seat or throne in Pergamus. SrSir Is. Newton P.R.S. ✓ 1 Mr Bembdy Hill ✓ 2 Dr Halley Lowtharp x Roberts ✓ 3 Dr Sloan Secr. ✓ 4 Mr Pitfield Tr ✓ 5 D Derham x Dr Cockburn x SrSir Iohn Percival x Dr Arbothnot Dr Harris x Mr Wren Mr Clavel x Mr Isted ✓ 7 Dr Mead Dr Woodward x Mr Waller Secr ✓ 6 Dr Mr Mr Pettiver x Mr Foley SrSir Chr. Wren Mr Aston Dr Hutton Dr MrMaster of Pembr. Mr Pettiver SrSir Is. Newton Mr Pitfield Dr Sloan Mr Waller Mr Hill Mr RobetsRoberts Mr Hill Mr Isted Dr Halley Dr Mead Mr Bembdy} Dr Arbothnot} or Mr Wren SrSir Chr Wrenn Dr Hutton Mr Aston Mr Foley Dr 181 Gr Naz. Orat 21 There being one usia & three hypostases piously professed by us (for the one denotes the nature of the deity, & the other the properties of the three [hypostases] beings) & these being in like manner understood by the Latines who by reason of the narrowness of their language & want of names could not distinguish hypostasis from usia: & They therefor introduced the language of three persons least they should admit three usias. And what happened from thence? A thing very ridiculous or rather miserable. Diversitas fidei videba That little light & empty contension about the sound of words seemed seemed to be amount unto a difference of faith. Thenre was Sabellianism was conc imputed to the language of three persons & Arianism to that of three hypostases: both wchwhich namenames were by feigned by the studyzeale of contending. And what followed? When something was ever added to the afflicti affictifliction (the desire of contending make the troubles (the troubles I say made by the desire of contending:) at length the ends of the earth were in danger of being broken together with the syllables. Therfore that blessed man that man of God truly so called that great dispenser of souls, seing & hearing these things did not think that he should suffer he should such an absurd & unreasonable section of the word should be neglected but he applied he himself applied a medicine to the distemper. And what was that? Calling both parties together before him with lenity & mildness, & accurately considering the sence & meaning of their words, after he found them agreeing & not at all differing in opinion, he indulged them their use of words & const bound them only by the sense things. Hac Thus far Gregory. And henceforward the Latines allowed the language of three hypo How Athanasius reconciled the two parties two contending parties allowed one anothers language, & the Latines to exclude the Sabellian signification of three persons invented the language of three substances & began also to use language of three hypostases. So then the language of the two united parties united was henceforward μία ὀυσία, una substantia, in nature & τρεις ὑποστάσεις τρεις ιδιοτεις tres personæ & tres subsistentiæ in number: that is one substance in nature & kind & three intelligent substances in number. For this was the sense wchwhich Athanasius taught the two contending parties, as you may see in his epistle to those of Antioch. So Epiphanius testifies that they did not hold the father & son to be μονοούσιοι or ταυτοούσιοι but homousio ὁμοούσιοι & Basil that for clearing your selfves from Sabellianism it is not enough to name three persons if yo we do not confess every person to subsist in a true hypostasis or substance distinguish three substances & the second general Council decreed the son consubstantial to yethe father in yethe same sence wthwith the C. of Nice & the word it self implies two substances & the third general Council decr.decreed that Christ is consubstantial to yethe father as touching his Godhead & consubstantial to us as touching his manhood & the fourth general Council confirmed the decree faith of the third. And in general short, Curcellæus, Dr Cudworth, Dr Bull, Petavius & Huetius have proved beyond exception that the Churches of the fourth & fifth & following ages held centuries held the father son & holy Ghost to be three substances in number & one in nature: Yet in the dark ages by yethe language of una substantia silently revived the opinion of a single substance silently revived among the Latines & made persons subsistences & hypostases to be taken by the schoolmen for something else then substances by the Schoolmen who understood not Greek, & the Sabellians who denyed three hypostases, to be taken for a sort of hereticks to who deniedy three persons not substantial. – And the same Athanasius in his exposition of faith condemns the Sabellians for making the Son μονοούσιος not ὁμοούσιος to the father. And EpiphaniusHæres 65. sect. 8 & Hæres 76 sec. 7 that the Son was not τατοοούσιοςταυτοούσιος 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 (wchwhich Sabellius himself would not refuse to do) if we do not confess every person to subsist in a true hypostasis or substance Epist. 64. And that because the Son is the image of yethe father he is consubstantial to him Adv. Eunom. lib. IV sub initio. & that ὀυσία there is one ὀσία of Peter & Paul Adv. EunonEunom l I. initio. And that if any one says the son is like the father but does allows not acknowledge an invariable likeness, he suspects his faith. Epist 41 ad Maximum. And that ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ουσίαν like according to substance with an invariable likeness is the same with ὁμοούσιος according in yethe sense of yethe Nicene Council. Epist 41. ad Maximum. And in his 43 340th Epistle [he saith, What relation a common name hath to a proper one that relation hath ὀυσία to ὑπόστασις] disputing against the language of those who called the father son & holy ghost one hypostasis he he saith Quænam vero calumnia hac ipsa gravior esse queat aut quænam violentius multitudinem concutere quam si invenirēentur qui alicui a partibus nostris qu unam patris filij et spiritus sctisancti unam ubi hypostasim affirmassentntes, qui utcunqꝫque personarum differentiam aperte docerēent, nihilominus cum hoc ipso dogmam Sabelliuso præoccupatum posuerint ut hoc idem dicente; unum scilicet in hypostasi Deum esse, diversimodis tamen personis tamen in s. scriptura nominari secundum idioma & & exigentiam subjecti: et nunc quidem illum patris sibi nomina sibi inducere cum illa ei persona sit adhibenda; nunc autem ea quæ filio congruunt cum scilicet vel ad nostri curam agendam aut dispensatorias quasvis operationes sit descendendum; spiritus nunc vero spiritus induere personam cum tempus huic personæ congrua expetat nomina. # # And a little after: Quæ est ratio comm ὃν ἔχει λόγον τὸ κοινὸν πρὸς τὸ ἴδιον, τουτο ἔχει ἡ ὀυσία πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν. That relation wchwhich a common name has to a proper one, that same the name ὀυσία has to the name ὑπόστασις And in his 43d Epistle directed to his brother Greogry Nyssen, he explain writing against those who took the names ὀύσια & ὑπόστασις in the same sense & contended that they must either say one usia & one hypostasis or three hypostases & three usias he explains the diffe teaches his brother the difference of the names & tells him that some names are common & denote the nature common to many as homo & some are peculiar & proper as Peter Andrew Iohn or Iames who have & that Paul Silvanus & Timothy haveing the same the same common mode of ὀυσία are called ὁμοούσιοι but particularly are distinct several hypostases, & that if you know any word wchwhich expresses the difference of ὀυσία & ὑπόστασις among men, if you & shall transfer the same to the divine dogmata, you will not err. Sabellius therefore taught that there in the deity there was but one substance wchwhich the Greeks had hitherto called ὀυσία & ὑπόστασις, & that this substance according to vari or some part of it by dilatation or otherwise emission emanation projection or otherwise according to various occasions exerting various powers or putting on various forms acted sometimes in the person of the father sometimes in the person of the son & sometimes in the person of the h. ghost & therefore the language of τρία πρόσωπα & tres personæ was not thought sufficient to exclude Sabellianism unless the language of three hypostases was added to it make the προσωπα or personæ intelligent three intelligent substances in singular existence tho but one in nature & kind. And this was the argument wchwhich then prevailed in the world for changing the language of one hypostasis into that of three. The right method of computation as is conceived by the Auditors, is to find the ratio of the Queens duty to the gross price in any one case, & then in all cases to multiply the gross price by that ratio. Let the net value of the goods be 100 li, & in this case the Queens duty will be 52li. 2. 6 as above, & the summ of this value & duty augmented by the seventh part thereof (the allowances for prompt payment & warehouse room,) namely 173li. 17. 157 will be the gross value by the candle: and as this value is to the Queens duty in this case, so is 1 to ,299815, & so is the gross value to the Queens duty in all cases. Therefore multiply the gross value by the ratio ;299815 & you will have the Queens Duty. As if the gross value be 100li, this multipled by ,299815 will produce the Queens Duty 29li,9815 that or 29li. 19. 712. For Now that 29li. 19. 712 is the Queens just duty, will further appear by the following computation For 100li – – The gross price 29. 19. 712 The Queens dutys. 12. 10. – The allowance to yethe Company of 6 & 612 ꝑper cent 42. 9. 712 The total of yethe deductions 57. 10. 412 The summ from whence yethe deductions are taken net value to be taxed. 4. 1. 1114 Old subsidy. 4. 1. 1114 New Do 4. 1. 1114 13 & 23 Do 10. 15. 912 Impost 1690. 6. 18. – 14 12 per cent on China ware. 29. 19. 712 The summ of the Duties composing yethe Queens Duty. So that in every 18li 8. 912 received as on the other side, there is lost 11li 10. 10. & Sabellius often confounding the notion said understanding undertook to introduce a difference of distinguish the persons saying that the same hypostasis or substance was transformed upon every occasion wchwhich was offerred. Basil. Epist 392. If pers the word person be taken in the same sense wthwith hypostasis, that is for an intelligent substance, heSabellius held but one person: if for a power forme or mode of appearance he denyed not allowed a variety of persons but someti value Connotated allowed an opinion of much after the manner of Simon Magus who said held said that one & the same God appeared sometimes as the person of the father sometimes as the person of the son & sometimes as the person of the h. ghost. ffo it was in various respects that Sabellius called the divine substance God by the names of the father son & h. Ghost. But in this in this he differed did from Simon, in that he did not teach that he makinge himself was that God, as Simon did ffor Simon taught that he himself was the supreme God who appeared among the Iews as the son & descended in Samaria as the Father & came to other nations as the h. Ghost. Iren. l. 1 c 20. These hereticks therefore are If this difference between yethe opinions of Simon & Sabellius be excepted the heresy of Sabellius is old descended from Simon. You have heard that Athanasius interpreted the NicenceNicene Creed of the consubstantial substances of the father & son. The supreme bei He doth it in several parts of his works. According to that Council the son was begotten of the fathers substance in the likeness of the father of the father & in & his likeness & therefore had a substance of his own & he was God of God light of light & therefore in the sense of yethe C. was consubstantial to the father as one light is consubstantial to another. All parties allowed henceforward allowed ytthat 182 ytthat yethe son was like the father, as being the image of the invisible God; & the homousians henceforward contended for a perfect likeness, such a likeness as amounted to an equality & alledged taught that απα such a likeness amounted to a consubstantiality, & ytthat απαραλλατως ὁμοιος signified the same thing with ὁμοούσιος, [as you may see describ in Athan the writings of Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil Gregory Nazianzen Gregory Nyssen, Ambrose Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose. Ierome Austin &c] others ③ They taught that ὁυσία & substantia were common names & or names wchwhich denoted the common nature of the three persons as homo is a common name & denotes the common nature of men & that the hypostases or subsistences of the father son & holy ghost were proper names or names wchwhich wchwhich signified the single subsisting properties or proper subsistensies of the individuals as Peter Iames & Iohn is a proper name & signithe predestine individual properties of several menfies not that wchwhich is prop common to Peter & Iohn but all that wchwhich is propper to Peter & subsists in him alone, that is, the proper substance of Peter with all the proper habits & powers & forms & qualities subs actually subsisting in that substance & sometimes they said that there was one ουσία of the three persons as there was one usia of three men ✝✝ but with this difference, that three p men were divided from one another, but the three divine persons were undivided, like a root & its branches, a fountain & its streams, or three cohering Suns wchwhich intermix their light; so that singly they were three whole substances. & yet jointly three coequal & coeternal parts of one whole & yet jointly but one whole undivided whole. ② They taught that if the son or Word of God was like any of the creatures he would consubstantialbe consubstantial to those creatures but if he was like the father he must be consubstantial to the father & that as every natural son is consubstantial to his father so the natural son of God must be consubstantial to his father, & that he was consubstantial to the father as touching his Godhead & consubstantial to us as touching his manhood. ‡ ‡ And these notions of the P Trinity are almost every where in explaining these mysteries either plainly described or hinted at or at least are hinted in the writings of Athanasius, Hilary, Epiphanius, Basil, Greg. Naz. Greg. Nyss. Chrysostom, Maximus the Martyr, Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, Ambrose, Ierome, Austen, Leontius Byzantinus, Iohn Damascene, Theodorus Abucara, Euthymius Zygadenus Theorianus &c. whereverver they explain the doctrine of the Trinity & also in the decrees of several & letters of several Councils either plainly descibeddescribed or in degree or other touched upon where there is occasion to explain these mysteries. And Agapius a heathen that the souls of men are consubstantial to God & that so are the sonsun Moon & starrs. And Porphyry that the soulsouls of brutes are consubstantial to those of men, namely by being all of them derived from yethe substance of God. And in the same sense Aristotle, that all the stars are consubstantial, to Go They taught homousians taught also that the son was not μονοούσιος or τατοούσιος to the father but ὁμοούσιος, & that to tak make them τ μονοούσιοι or ταυτοούσιοι or to take the three person for three powers faculties modes forms, appearances or any thing th else then personal substances tended to sabellianism So Basil tells us that because the son is yethe image of yethe father he is consubstantial to him & that there is one usia of Peter & Paul & that ὅμοιος κατ᾽ ὀυσίαν like according to substance wthwith an invariable likeness is the same wthwith ομοούσιος in the sense of the Nicene Council & that there is one usia of Peter & Paul, & ὁν ἔχει λόγον . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you will not err. Basil tells us also that for clearing our selves from Sabellianism it is not – – – – – – – – – And in his 349 epistle disputing against the language of those of Antioch who called the three persons one hypostasis – – – – – congrua expetat nomina. And upon this account Athanasius condemns in his exposition of faith condemns the Sabellians for making the son μονοούσιος not ὁμοούσιος to yethe father – And Epiphanius saith that yethe son was not ταυτοούσιος to to yethe father but ὁμοούσιος & that yethe word τατοούσιος being used by some, draws to sabellianism. Sabellius therefore taught – – – – – – hypostasis into that of three: the language of three persons & τρία πρότωπα being found insufficient to clear the μονοουσιον Monousian faith from Sabellianism. It would be tedious to run over the writings of all that have explained the doctrine of thre consubstantial hypostases: but they that have leasure will find that Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostome Ambrose Ierome Austin, Theodoret, Cyrill of Alexandria Leontius Byzantinus, Iohn Damascene, Theodorus Abucara, Theorianus Euthymius Zygabenus, Theorianus &c wherever they have had occasion to explain this doctrine have take one usia & three hypostases, one substance & thre subsistences for one substance in nature & kind & three in number. And several Councils have done the like as the Councils of Antioch A.C. 363 & that of Illyricum A.C. 373 above me who say that yethe Council of Nice cautiously explained the ConsubstantialyConsubstantiality of the Son by his likeness to the father, the Council of Rome under Damasus A.C. 379 or later or 380 who declared that the Son was born of begotten of yethe substance of the father & equal to him & that the divinity of the father son & holy ghost was una & æqualis. And the The second general Council who ratified the Nicene faith. The fourth general Council who say that the Christ was consubstantial to yethe father as touching his Godhead & consubstantial to us as touching his manhood. Which And the third general Council that who decreed that the two hypostases of God & man were united & became one. If the hypostasis of the man Iesus was a substance composed of body & soul the two hypostases of God & man must be two substances & neither of them must be the substance of the father least the father should be incarnate & suffer ffor this Council decreed that God the word became did not inhabit the man Iesus, as the spirit of God dwells in holy men, but became flesh & communicated wthwith flesh & blood like one of us (that is as the spirit of a man communicates with his soul & body & by the union all three becomes is united with them into one man) & that the Word suffered died & rose again in the flesh. In short, that the Greeks & Latines of the fourth & following ages, b as many as used the language of three hypostases beleived tooke these hypostases for subst three substances of one nature & species has been so fully proved by Petavius Curcellæus Curcelleius, Dr Cudworth, Dr Bull & Huetius that it cannot be disputed. And since EuthyYet in the mius Zygabenus & Theorianus lived in the 12th century this doctrine seems to have continued in the Greek Empire while that Empire stood. But the la among the in the Latine Churches when the dark ages came on & the significations of the Greek words ὁμοούσιος & ὑπόστασις were no longer understood in the west the language of una substantia was again ta revived restored the opinion of a single substance & caused made persons subsistences & hypostases be taken by the Schoolmen for something else then pe substances & the single hypostasis of the Sabellians for something else then a single substance. Yet the word essentia which answers to the word ὀυσία & seems derived from it continues to this day among among the Latines to signify one na common essence or nature & had this word been as old as the Council of Nice the of many all the individual substances of one species or kind. For the hereticks thinking it below the dignity of their principal Gods to be really incarnate & to suffer really on the cross, eluded the truth of Christs being come really in yethe flesh by various opinions. Some of them, as Simon magus, Basilides . . . . . Manes, said that Christ had not a real body of real flesh & bones but only appeared to men in shew: & others as Cerinthus Carpocrates Marcus Colarbasus Montanus, Proclus, Sabellius Sabllius Paul of Samosat, Photinus & I think Artemas, Theodotus, Marcellus, Eustathius & the rest of the Cataphrygians Paulinists & Sabellians said that Iesus was a hum mere man born after the manner of other men & that a vertue or spirit called the λόγος or Word dwelt in him as the holy spirit doth in good men & performed the divine operations. And this composition the Montanists called one person & said that it was made without confusion of substance. And Praxeas & Noetus said that this spirit was the father or some part of him & were thence called patripassians. But Iohn yethe Apostle tells us: Every spirit that confesseth not that Iesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God & this is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard that it should come, & even now, saith he already it is in the world. This was one character of Antichrist & another was to deny the father & the son, as all those did who made the son to be either the Idea or λόγος π ἐνδιάθετὸς or προφορικὸς of the f of the father or any part or power of the fathers substance, & in this sense worshipped them both as Gods wthwith divine worship. For this was the theology of the heathens. & to worship They made Tthe parts & powers of God are not to be his sons & to worship them as such sons & explained the generation of such sons by emission prolation or projection of s his those parts or powers but the Christian religion is a stranger to such generation genealogies generations. Yet the opinion that the Word was from all eternity the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος & of God & a little before the world began was emitted outwardly & by such emission became the λόγος προφορικὸς & by such emission became the son of God, was a growing opinion in the the second & third centuries & the first half of the fourth & infected some men of note in yethe Church whom I forbear to mention. But at length by degrees this heresy being condemned in Photinus by the Council of Sirmium After as above it A.C. 351, as was mentioned related above & this Council being universally recognised the opinions so it soon ceased, & & vanished out of the world & it began from that time to cease & in a few years was extirpated in a few years the sentence of yethe Council being univeruniversally accepted & was succeeded by the opinion that the father son & holy ghost were three like & equal substances For Hilary, & seven or eight years after this Council writing to the bishops of Gallia & Brittain & for setting them right in the faith he made definitions of this : Multi ex nobis – – – – – – – or that the father & son were two equal substances in number & one in gender nature & likeness, that is two substance or two like & equal substances. And this is the first instance that I meet with of this doctrine. The next year Hilary returning into Gallia, made it his business to propagate this doctrine in those parts & for the establishing it got the bishops to meet in several small councils & being favoured by the bishop of Rome went into Italy on the same account. And after this faith by the authority of the bishop of Rome & the preaching endeavours of Hilary & others was received by the endeavours o major part of the bishops of Gallia & Italy the Bishop of Rome A.C. 373 called a Council at Rome to establish it & sent the establishment to a numerous council called at the same time in Illyricum. who also established it, & the Emperor Valentinian commanded at the sa at the same time that it should be received every where. And Thus it became the religion of the western Empire & the Emperor Valen about two or six or eight years years after upon the death of the eastern Emperor Valens, it was established also in the eastern empire by the edicts of the Emperors Gratian & Theodosius. but presently after the death of Iulian the Apostate they were extended to the holy ghost & the added the coequal deity of the H.G & made him coequal to the father & the son doctrine that the father son & holy Ghost began to be preached were three like & equal substances began to be preached. For Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen who lived in those times gives this account of this new the beginning of this new controversy. But tho the consubstantiality made The opinion that the son of God was the λογος προφορικὸς the Wor emitted by the father not from all eternity but a little before the world began was for a warily embraced by some men of note in the Church in the second & third centuries, as by Theophilus bishop of Antioch, Athenagoras, Tertullian Clemens master of the school of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus martyr, Lactantius The opinion that the Λογος so son of God was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of God the father seated in him from all eternity, crept into the Church very early Besides the heresiarchs who were openly condemned & exploded, there were some very early in the Church who imbibed the heathen philosophy without being censured for it. Such were they whom Iustin Martyr mentions in this manner. The opinion wchwhich most prevailed with the Christians was that the λόγος of the Apostle Iohn was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος the inherent Word & wisdom of the father & that this word was inherent in the father from all eternity, but in & a little before the world began was emitted outwardly as a voice from a man or as a ray of light from ☉ or water from the fountain or a branch from yethe root. And this emission they called the generation of the son. Of this opinion I reccon those Christians mentioned by Iustin as above, & Tatian & Theophilus of Antioch & Athenagoras & Clemens master of the school at Alexandria & perhaps his successor Origen & Hippolytus the ma martyr & Lactantius & Constantine the great. ffor Constantine in an Epistle wchwhich he sent – – – – & caused to be published in all the cities of the Roman Empire just before the meeting of the Council of Nice, spake thus to Arius – wchwhich were made by him. Hitherto the said antemundane generation of the λογος had been a growing opinion in the Churches, But Alexander & Ath But this antemundane generation was rejecteddisputed by But the subsis Alexander bishop of Alexandria & Athanasius in the disputes wchwhich they had wih Arius dropt this antemundane generation & declared & & who the λογος ενδιαθετος declared to be the son of God by an eternal generation approved received And when their adversaries objected that by this opinion the son was αγενετος unbegotten & And at length the opinion that the son of God was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος being condemned in Photinus by the Council of Sirmium was totaly exploded & ceased in a few years, But the faith & definitions of that Council being universally received approved & received: But the opinion of eternal generation still continued & got ground. I reccon Alexander the author of this opinion becaus his adversaries said that by his opinion the Son was ἀγενετος unbegotten, & they never before heard of two that were unbegotten Hitherto the Son had been accounted subordinate to the father by all parties, those who held the antemundane generation teaching that the father begot the son emitted or begot the son not by by the force & power of his will in order to create the world. But now they son began to be equalled the son to the father in all respects except the relation of paternity of father & son And But soon after the condemnation of Photinus they began to equal the son to the father & declare them two coequal substances & the one of the first who did so was Hilary. Creation in scripture signifies formation out of something: as where God created man out of the dust of yethe earth Gen 2.7 & generation is formation of a thing But in the metaphysical / By creation here is meant not formation (as in scripture) but production out of nothing, & by traduction – – – – the breathings of God. He seems to have had his opinion from his master Montanus: ffor but I do not – – – – – resurrection. By continual creation they meant creation continual production out of nothing & by traduction a derivation seminal propagation of the souls of yethe children from yethe souls of the parents, & of the soul of the first man either from the substance of the fi God (according to the b or from nothing For Tertullian & per traduced them originally from the substance of God. ffor he said – – – – – – M Platonist for I do not find that yethe Monanists allowed the Pythagorick transmigrations or denyed the resurrection & therefore They either held either the traduction of souls from one another or their continual creation of souls production out of nothing. Whilst the opinion that the souls of men we primitive hereticks were of opinion that Angels & the souls of men were of one substance wthwith the father the supreme God the opinion that the Word or son of God was of one substance with the father gave him no prerogative him could give the Word no preeminence among them above that of an angel or a humane soule excepting so far as he was the first or one of the first emissions. But the But these opinion that he was the first or one of the first emissions of the supreme God, gave might give him a great prerogative. And the opinion that he was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος the inherent word & wisdom of the father madegave might give him still greater. And after the opinion that all things were created out of nothing or by the s by the son overspread the Churches, & that it still added to his greatness a great preeminence. And after the words creation & generation were taken to signify the production of something out of something & the production of something out of nothing, & the opinion that prevailed in the Churches ytthat God created all things were created out of nothing & did it by Iesus Christ & in order to do it begat Iesus Christ of his own substance before the world began: this opinion made the son of God still greater. Yet I do not find that it equalled him to the father in the amongst either the Christians or hereticks before the middle of the fourth century. The opinion that the son Word was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος the inherent word & wisdom of the father spread in the Church & infected some men of note in the Church & before the world began was emitted outwards & became the λόγος προφορικὸς & the son of God infected some men of great note in the Church as Theophilus bishop of Antioch, Clemens Doctor of yethe school at Alexandria Tertullian & the Emperor Constantine yethe great & by the influence of such men it spread in the Church whom I forbear to mention, & by their influence it spread in the Church in the second third & fourth centiriescenturies untill it was condemned in Photinus by the Council of Sirmium as above. After wchwhich time it decreased & in a few years vanished, the Definitions of that Council being universally received & approved. And on the other hand the opinions of Arius that the son of God was produced out of nothing &that there was a time when he was not, were anathematized not only by the Council of Nice but also by seven other Greek Councils & particularly by the Council of Sirmium wchwhich condemned Photinus, & by these anathemas the language & doctrine of the Ariansus also ceased. And hitherto the Church catholick prevailed against all heresies. Eight years after the meeting of this Council (vizt A.C. 359) Hilary writing from Asia to yethe bishops of Gallia & Britain & for setting them right in the faith sending to them the Creed & Definitions of this Council as above, he subjoins in his Letter subjoins adds this admonition in his letter: Multi ex nobis The next year (A.C. 360) Hilary returninged into Gallia & it may be presumed that he set himself to propagate the doctrine of the equality of the two substances of the father & Son. For hitherto the disputes wchwhich commenced in the reign of Constantine the great concerned only the father & the sonn, but 184 – into all nations. Seventy weeks, saith Daniel, are determined upon thy people & upon thy holy city [from the time of their incorporation] to finish transgression & to cover seal up or hide or blot out] sins & to make reconciliation for iniquity & to bring in everlasting righteousness & seal up [or accomplish] the vision & prophesy & to annoint the most holy. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes 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. And seventy weeks of years counted from that time end in the year of the vulgar æra 33 or 34 & then was Iesus the Messiah slain & by his death blotted out sins & made an reconciliation for iniquity & brought in everlasting righteousness & accomplished the vision & prophesy & was annointed as the most holy ☉ & by his death & by his resurrection the most holy was annointed to be a king of the Iews & ffor he has obteined a name above every name & shall at his coming from heaven to judgecome to judge the quick & the dead at his appearing & his kingdom ☉ & by his death & resurrection the most holy was annointed. ffor by the suffering of death he was crowned wthwith glory & honour & seated at yethe right hand of God bBecause he humbled himself to death therefore God exalted him & gave him a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow of things in heaven & earth & under the earth & that every tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the father. Because he loved righteousness & hated iniquity God annointed him with the oile of gladness above his fellows & set him at his own right hand. He was annointed, that is became the Messiah the Christ ffor the Messiah the Christ & the Annointed are words of the same signification in several languages. At his birth he was named Iesus, & at his resurrection he commanded his disciples to preach that he was the Christ, that is the Messiah predcted by Daniel. And thenceforward his disciples called him Iesus Christ, & for doing so were soon after called Christians. He was annointed to be Prince or Lord or Prince or king of the Iews ffor in the next words the Prophet calls him the Messiah the Prince: & thence his disciples in our Creed we call him call him Christ the Lord & the Lord Iesus Christ. At his death he owned that he was was born for this end that he should be a king but sa & this title was given him upon the cross: but his kingdom was not of this world. He is as compares himself to a noble man going into his country to receive a kingdom & return & who at his return he will called his servants to to account & reward them according to their works making one a ruler over ten cities wthwith a rod of iron & another a ruler over five & casting a third into utter darkness. He is gone to prepare a place for the or mansion for the blessed & will come again & receive them to himself. For he shall judge the quick & the dead at his appearing & his coming kingdom & must reign till he hath put all things enemies under his feet the last of wchwhich is death & when all the dead are raised & sentenced to their several places he shall is to deliver up the kingdom to the father that God may be all in all, & to go to with the blessed to the place wchwhich he is now preparing for them. For in Gods house wchwhich is the universe there are many mansions. As David was annointed long before he began to reign so Christ was only annointed king of the Iews at his first coming but was not to reign over them before his second coming, & in respect of that coming reign he is in the next words called the Messiah the Prince. And know & understand, saith the Prophet, that from yethe going forth of the commandment to cause [the captivity] to return & to build Ierusalem [the city of the great king] unto the Messiah the Prince [or unto his coming as Prince after his being annointed thereunto shall be seven weeks. The 1290 prophetick days or years end when God shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people & if this comes to pass three or four years after the going forth of the commandment to cause them to return there will be seven weeks unto the arrivall of the blessedness of them that expect wait & to the resurrection of Daniel at yethe end of the 1335 days. For all Daniels prophesies concerning the affairs of Gods people reach to yethe end of the four monarchies. Also threscore & two weeks it shall return & the street shall be built & the wall, and and [this shall be done not in a flourishing times state like the seven weeks but] in a difficulty of times. And after [the coming at the end of] the threescore & two weeks the Messiah shall [not reign as Prince but] be cut off, & it [the city or people or kingdom or dominion] shall not be his but the people of a Prince that shall come shall not [the Romans] shall destroy the city & the sanctuary & the end thereof shall be with a flood & unto yethe end of the war desolations are determined. The death of the Messiah was predicted before & the Prophet is here predicting his two comings. From yethe 28th year of Artaxerxes in wchwhich the street & the wall of Ierusalem were finished & the gates of the city set up, as above, count 62 weeks of years & they will end two or three years before the vulgar Æra: at wchwhich time Iesus Christ was born. And Know also & understand that from the going forth of the commandment to restore cause [the captivity] to return & to build Ierusalem the Metropolis of a imperial city of the kingdom until the [coming of the Messiah [the royal city of the kingdom] untill [the coming of] the Mes annointe Messiah the annointed Prince [to reign in the city of th as Prince in the city of the great king] shall be seven weeks. The 1290 years end at the when God shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, & if this comes to pass three or four years after the going forth of the commandmtcommandment to cause them to return, there will be seven weeks to the resurr arrival of the blessedness of them that wait & the resurrection of Daniel at yethe end of the 1335 days. Thus For all Daniels prophesies reach to yethe end of the four Monarchies. Also threescore & two weeks the Messiah city street shall be rebuilt & yethe wall [unto the coming of the Messiah] but this [not in flourishing times like the seven weeks but] in troublesome times. And after [the coming at the end of] the threescore & two weeks the Messiah [shall [not reign as Prince but] be cut off & it [the City or people or kingdom or dominion] shall not be his, but the people of a Prince that shall come [the Romans] shall destroy the city & the sactuarysanctuary & the end thereof shall be wthwith a flood: & unto the end of the war desolations are determined. The death of the Messiah was predicted before: here his first coming is predicted & the Prophet is here predicting his two comings. ffrom yethe 28th year of Atarxerxes in wchwhich the wall was street & the wall of Ierusalem were finished & the gates set up as above, count 62 weeks of years & they will end with two or three years before the vulgar æra, at wchwhich time Christ was born. Yet he shall keep the covenant with many [or with the multitude] for one week. The covenant that they shoul between him & his people that they should be his people & he would be their God or King, he kept seven years after his death untill the calling of Cornelius the Gentiles in Cornelius. But in half a week [of years] the desolator shall cause the sacrfice & oblation to cease & upon a wing of abominations overspread the land, & untill the consummation & time determined it shall continue upon the desolate even untill the commandment goes forth to cause to return & to build Ierusalem: The ha war of half a week by wchwhich the sacrifice & oblation ceased began in spring A.C. 67 & ended wthwith the taking of Ierusalem in autumautumn A.C. 70. And by other wars in yethe reign of Trajan & Adrian the Iews Herod was made king by the senate in the end of October or beginning of November – – – – – – would be in recconing by weeks of days. The law of the Iews & Christians except the ceremonial part &c The western Churches at the first joyned wthwith the Macedonian & declared only for the consubstantiality of the son. But Athanasius The death & annointing of the Messiah & his coming to reign having been predicted before, the Prophet is here predicting not predicting his de the time of his death again but stating the time & circumstances of his first coming to distinguish it from his coming to reign as Prince. From the 28th year . . . . . born. And at the same time Pope Damasus callinged a Council at Rome at the request of the Council of Rome above mentioned [wchwhich Pope Damasus called there for establishing the Roman Catholick faith & condemning the Arians Macedonians & all others who differed in faith from the Church of Rome,] the Emperors Gratian & Valentinian created restored to the Bishop of Rome the universal bishopric over the west in matters judicial by this edict. –– Volumus ut . . . . . . . . . year 378. And about a year & six months after the death of Valens the new eastern Emperor by the following Edict dated Feb 28 A.C. 380 commanded all to be of the religion of Rome the Church of Rome – – – – – – & their followers. And the next year the Emperor Theodosius for putting the better e establishing the Roman faith in the minds of the people called a general Council of the Bishops of his own party to meet at Constantinople. And this Council established the Nicene Creed with some alterations & additions & particularly after the article I beleive in the holy Ghost added these words, the Lord & giver of life who together who proceedeth from the father who with the ffather & the son together is worshipped & glorified, who spake by the Prophets. And I beleive one Catholick & Apostolick Church, I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead & the life of the world to come. Which last articles were taken from th Creeds of the Latines. received a name above every name [that every tongue should confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to yethe glory of God the father, [And because he humbled himself to death & was slain & hath redeemed us with his blood & made us kings & Priests to God his father.] And this name was given him because he humbled himself to death & was slain & hath redeemed us with his blood, [& made us kings & priests to God. For worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive riches & honour power & riches] And this name is the aa Ουκ ἅρπαγμον ἡγήσατο idem hic significat quod ὀυκ ἥρπασε non rapuit. τὸ ἐιναι ἴσα θεω which did not he did not assume & was given him because he humbled himself. He did bb Ισα cum dativo sequente semper est adverbium similitudinis, ut in his expemplis. Ισα – – – – – flectat. Nam totius hic locus ad humanam Christi naturam spectat. not take it by force but on the contrary laid aside th his the μορφη θεου the state of glory & dominion which he had before his dominion called μορφη θεου incarnation & took upon him the ην δουλου μορφην the condition called μορφή δουλου of a servant & humbled himself to death even the death of yethe cross & therefore God highly exalted him & gave him the name the τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω the name above every name that at yethe name of Iesus every knee should bow & every tongue confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of god the father. NB. b Μορφὴ θεου & μορφὴ δουλου, sibi invicem opponuntur, ut et ἅρπαγμον ἡγήσατο & ἐκέκοσεν ἑαυτὸν ἐκένοσε, & ουκ ἅρπαγμον ἡγήσατο idem hic significat quod ἡγησατο ουκ ἥρπασε non rapuit. Vide Hilar. de Trin. l. 8 p 182 & contra Constantium p. 330 & de synodis p 384 Edit Paris 1652 et Theophylact in h. l & Oecumen in h. l. et Chrysostom de Christi præcibus Serm. 51 p. 698, 699 Tom 5 Edit Paris & Hom. 7 in 2 Phil. 2. aNota etiam quod vox ἰσα cum dativo sequente, semper adverbium est similitudinis ut in his exemplis. Because he humbled himself therefore God gave him this name And This name is the τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω God gave him because he humbled him self. He did not a take this τὸ name, [this τὸ ἐιναι b ἰσα θεω] by force but on the contrary cc Μορφὴ θεου & μορφὴ δούλου are opposed to one another, & ἑαυτὸν ἐκένοσε relates to the μορφὴ θεου wchwhich he laid aside when he took on him the μορφὴ δούλου. laid aside the μορφὴ θεου the state of glory & dominion wchwhich he had before his incarnation & took upon him τὴν δούλου μορφὴν the form or state & condition of a servant & humbled himself to death even the death of the cross & therefore because he humbled himself God highly exalted him & gave him the τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω a name above every name that at the name of Iesus every knee should bow & every tongue confess that Iesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God yethe father. to God his father. ffor worthy is the Lamb wchwhich was slain to receive riches power & riches & wisdom & strength & honour & glory & blessing. And let every creature, wchwhich is in heaven & on earth & in the sea & all that are in them, share to give say blessing & glory honour & glory & power unto him that sitteth upon the throne & unto the Lamb for ever & ever. Amen. And thus much concerning the humane nature of Iesus called in scripture the Christ, the Messiah, the Lord the Prince of the host the King of Kings & Lord of Lords & by many other names & concerning the worship wchwhich is due to him as our Lord & King the mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus & wchwhich cannot be refused him without denying the Lord that bought us. To worship one God as the creator of – – – – – – – – sufficient to salvation. Nor does the opinion of the consubstantiality demonstratively require any other sort of worship. ffor the heathens Philosophers beleived that the souls of all men were consubstantial to the supreme God, & yet worshipped only some of them, & those only according to their supposed merits in this life; & not till after death [We are not to ground our worship not upon mere consequences disputable consequences of scripture but upon express commands & the practise of the primitive Church in the days of the Apostles.] Wha What further worship may be due to him on account of the consubstantiality I consider not here, because the heathen] How far this worship may be founded on his consubstantiality & I do not here consider. The heathens beleived – – – – – in this life. But their Gods had no dominion/ vel cum diametro foraminis & Either come, say they, & purge your selves of the calu what you are accused of or& of the calumnies wchwhich ye have wrought, or know that ye shall be condemned by the Council as offenders, & Athanasius & those wthwith him shall be declared free & pure from all evil crimes. And in all these proceedings I do not find that the producing of Arsenius alive at the Council of Tyre was [once alledged, as it would have been upon all occasions had it been true.] so much as mentioned. Had it been true, the Councils of Alexandria Rome & Serdica would not have been silent about it: The five eastern Bishops at Serdica would not have proposed a reexamination of the matter. The western Bishops there would at Serdica would not have declined the proposal at the Serdica, not have offered unanimously to subscribe in the following Councils of Millian Arles Biters & Aquileia to subscribe the condemnation of Athanas provided the Nicene faith might be first confirmed. And therfore the story of the h was of a later invention. A pretedpretended feigned letter of Arsenius was produced alo in yethe Council at Tyre to prove that he was alive & at length the story was told by the Moncks as if it was Arsenius himself not a letter but Arsenius himself wchwhich was there produced. 186 Christ & therefore no other Articles of faith are requisit to this incorporation nor are men to be deprived of this incorporation for not beleiving more then was required of them at their admission into it. And to excommunicate any man for not beleiving more is to rend asunder Christs mystical body, to leave the love of the primitive Christians, to be uncharitable to yethe members of Christs mystical body, to rend asund that body asunder & to become guilty of schism, a crime as much greater then heresy it self, as Charity is a greater grace then vertue. Nor can the crime be diminished by any humane sanction, establismentestablishment censure or judgment whatsoever to al ffor God has not given to Emperors Kings or Bishops, senates or Councils any authority to change times & laws in matters of religion & condemn the charity of the first Christians as heretical & impious. They world may call men latitudinarians for not admitting their humane impositions but in doing so they rail at charity. They world may call men hereticks for not receiving these definitions their impositions definitions, but are not these definitions all new impositions articles of communion another Gospel & doth not the imposing preaching them as necessary to salvation make voyd the faith in Christ The Gospel preached by the Apostles was not after man nor received of man but was were the neither were the Apostles taught it of God but it but by the revelation of Iesus Christ And tho the Law was holy & good yet] & deserve the Apostles curse Gal. 1 & if The Gospel wchwhich was preached by the Apostles was not after man ffor they neither received it of man neither were neither were taught it but by the Revelation of Iesus Christ. And if any man or even an Angel from heaven, saith the Apostle, preach any other Gospel then that wchwhich they had preached Let him be accursed, Gal. 1. If the new impositions be pretended to be holy just & good so was the Law; If they are in scripture so was the Law: & yet to impose it upon the Gentiles without a divine command is called preaching another Gospel, & the imposers are declared accursed. The scriptures are the rule of truth but not & the primitive Creed the rule of faith requisite to communion. For There are many truths in scripture wchwhich a man may be ignorant of without deserving to be excommunicated for his ignorance, but all And in the primitive ages few men had all the scriptures & some nations into wchwhich the Christian religion was propagated had not so much as the use of letters: But all men were to learn all the articles of their Creed before they were admitted into communion by baptism; And a systeme of these Articles wehave given you above by rejecting out of the Creeds of the Greeks & Latines such articles as have been inserted since the beginning. And as all m the Christians of all nations were in the primitive times united into one mystical body by one unity of faith one faith symbol of faith one Rule of faith & communion & by departing from this Rule brake into many factions & parties so it is not to be expected that all the parties of Christians should ever return reunite into one mystical body of Christ untill they shall return to the primitive rule of communion. Yet considering that the Creed usually called the Apostles Creed is generally received by the Latine Churches of the Latines, I do not see by but that the use of it may be still be used by still indulged to allowed them for the sake of peace provided the Articles wchwhich have been inserted since the beginning be all understood in such a sense as is consonant to the other s scripture [& not imposed upon the Churches of the Greeks, Aremenians, Egyptians Syrians, Coptites, Ethiopians or any other Churches as primitive articles necessary to baptism & communion. If by the descent into Hell nothing more be understood then that Christ died & was buried really & truly & in all respects underwent the state of the dead; If by beleiving the article of beleiving the holy Catholick Church be not applied to establish reign of the man of sin in the Temple of God or the Beast to the wondring of all nations to wonder after Church the Beast by the authority of any fals Church 187 For By the descent into hell may be understood that Christ died really & truly & in all respects underwent the state of the dead; without entring into particular opinions about that state. By the resurrection of the body may be understood that every man shall revive with his own spiritual immortal body; without entring into particular opinions & controversies about the nature of that body. By the remission of sins may be understood the remission of sins at yethe day of judgment of all such as heartily & sincerely repent in this life; without entring into disputes about the power of the priesthood Clergy By the communion of Saints may be understood the duty of all Christians to live in communion & charity & to love one another; without medling wthwith the doctrine of ghosts or dæmons. And by the holy Catholick Church may be understood also body of body of all those who live in such communion, serving one God & one Lord & being united in one God & one Lord & one faith the faith wchwhich was once delivered to the saints, without being avoiding & & avoiding contending & quarelling about other other disputable opinions contrary to the rule indispensible duty of charity. ffor of such is the kingdom of heaven & avoiding quarrels about other opinions as contrary to the indispensible duty of charity. [And wthwith such interpretations of these articles I conceive it beare con better to indulge the use of this Creed to yethe Latines then to create disputes & prejudices by rejecting the interpolations what has been added to it] ffor in such a sense these articles are nothing more then explications of the primitive articles of the Creed & of the Charity by wchwhich men & one faith men are to continue united in the Church into wchwhich they are admitted by baptism into the faith of this Creed By the last words he means that when the Bishops in their communicatory letters explained their faith (as they did very frequently), they did not tye themselves to a set form of words, but expressed themselves in words more or less copious & eloquent according to every mans ability, & yet all of them from one end of the earth to the other end thereof agreed in the number & sense of the articles of their communicatory faith, without adding or di diminishing or altering any thing, as if the whole Christian world had but one soul & one mind. By what has been said it may seem that the Creeds now in use have all of them been altered, & yet I considering that the Creed usually called the Apostles Creed 188 & imports that the controversy about the h. g h. g. was set on foot by Ath. about in the reign of Iovian wchwhich was about 10 years before & from Egypt & Syria spread into the west, that after the death of Iovian it was restr wchwhich happened A.C. 364 it was restrained under in the Greek Empire under the dominion of Valens being only whispered in Syria & Asia & Syria & muttered in Egypt, but in the western Empire under the dominion of Valentinian it was preached openly with all freedom of speech. For the Emperor Valentinian left religion to the bishops, & gave them leave to meet in Councils about it as they thought fit amongst themselves but Valens prohibited the worsh worship deifying of the holy Ghost as polytheistical. The seeds foundation of the sermon about the deity & worship of the holy Ghost wereas laid by by the Council of Serdica be in their assertion that there was but one hypostasis of the father son & holy Ghost & that the hypostasis of the son was that wchwhich alone was acknowledged to be the hypostasis of the father. But this did not yet create any controversy about the holy Ghost. The controversy at this time was only about yethe Son. About two years after, vizt A.C. 349, Athanasius in his return from yethe west into Egypt making some stay at Antioch avoided the communion of the BpBishop Leontius the bishop of that city & communicated wthwith the disciples of Eustathius who had been desposed for Sabellianism &And at that time they began to sing the verses of the Psalms alternately & to add the doxology to the end of them, & some said Glory be to the father & the son to denote an equality & others Glory be to the father in the Son or Glory be to the father by the Son in the h. G. to denote a subordination. But the holy Ghost was not yet worshipped: the disputes hitherto were only about the son. When Hilary wrote to the bishops of Gallia In all the writings of Hilary (his Epistle to the bishops of Gallia & & Britain A.C. 358, his books against the Emperor Constantius A.C. 359 360 361, his book aga Hilary in all his works contends only about the deity of the son. I do not remember that he gives the name of God to him the holy Ghost the name of God or contends for his worship in all his works. The Council of Paris convened A.C. 361 in a large profession of of faith disputes only for the deity of the son. Auxentius bishop of Millain being accused by H ten years after the Councils of Sirmium & Ariminum that is A.C. 366 or 367 being vehemently accused by Hilary of here th heresy defended himself only about the deity of the Son without acknowledging the deity of the holy Ghost or being accused by Hilary of denying it & was acquitted & Hilary as you may see in Hilaries book against him. And therefore the controversy about the deity & worship of the holy G. was not yet begun in the west. It seems the western bishops were willing to let the deity of the holy Ghost alone till that of the son was sufficiently established. But after the consubstantiality & coequal Deity Deity of the Son was by the influence of the bpbishop of Rome & industry of Hilary & Eusebius sufficiently established Pope Damasus A.C. 373 called a council of 93 bishops at Rome – Their meaning in these words was that they hoped for an Emperor in a short time who should turn out all the bishops of in the eastern Empire who received not their consubsta differ received not this faith as they had were beginning to turn out all in the western. ffor Auxentius bishop of Millain had hitherto remained quiet, but now this Council deposed him with some others in the west. Thus they reestablished the language of the Council of Serdica By these words it is manifest that the Bishop of Rome & the western ChurchurchesChurches of his communion had not yet separated from the communion of the Churches of the Greek Empire. [But the churches of the whole Empire both Greeks & Latines whether they used the language of one usia & three one hypostasis or that of one usia & three hypostases or rejected the language of one usia & homousios, were continued hitherto in communion with one another in one general visible church catholick.] But now the Latines began to medi resolve to impose their faith upon the whole Empire & excommunic remove from their communion all those & deprive all the Bishops who think otherwise & remove deprive all such bisho so soon as they should get an Emperor to put this designe in execution in the eastern Empire as well as in the western. And I The Emperor Valentinian residing at Millain had hitherto continued in communion with Auxentius bishop of that city In September & october October the Emperor Valentinian went to Paris & a Council met at Paris out of all Gallia first to Rome & then to Paris. What past between the Emperor & the Bishop of Rome about this matter is not recorded, but when he came to at Paris a Council met of the bishops of Gallia met & [published a profession of faith wherein they declared their approbation of the faith of Hilary] in answer to Hilary communicated to them a letter which some eastern bishops (I suppose at Antioch) had written to Hilary they published him & in answer thereunto they returned to them a large profession of their faith in which they approved the faith & communion of thus them: Ex literis vestris, say they, quas Hilario direxistis – – – – . . . . – unius, [a nobis, vel usiæ vel [hypostaseos substantiæ cum Deo patre confessum, ne creatura potius aut adoptio aut appellatio videretur. And a little after: Auxentius abjacimus. By this I gather gather that Hilary upon publishing his book against Auxentius & directing it to all the bishops who detested the Arian heresy, had accordingly sent copies of it to the eastern bishops of his party as well as to the western & received back their letter wchwhich he communicated to this Council of Paris against Auxentius. Vpon his return into Gallia & the revolt of Iulian the apostate, A Hilary A.C. 361 he wrote a very railing book against the Emperor Constantius, calling him persecutor, Antichrist tyrant, the most wicked of mortals, a ravening wolf, a man of a diabolical ingenuity & yet railing at him for his not persecuting but being mild, affable, courteous charitable pious & religious. And from that time he set hims The book is usually sp supposed to have been written after the Emperors death, but was certainly writ before it because he constantly speaks directs his speech to the Emperor as alive. From that time he set himself to sollicit the bishops of Gallia to a defection return to the language of one substance & homousios. & when he had made a conside [& receive his doctrine of two equ like & equal substances in number & one in nature & species] And when he had makemade a considerable party in Gallia he went into Italy with Eusebius Vercellensis to sollicit the bishops of Italy & accused Auxentius bishop of Millain of he of to the Emperor Valentinian of heresy. This & Auxentius accused Hilary & Eusebius of being condemned persons & endeavouring every white to make schisms. This was in the year 365 ten years after the Councils of Millain Sirmium & Ariminum. ffor the Emperor resided that year at Millain the till the month of September. The cause was heard between Auxentius & Hilary by the Emperors order & the whole debate was about the Deity of the son. & Auxentius was acuqitted & Hilary ordered to depart out of Italy as a fals & Auxentius sent his faith with the Acts of the Council of Ariminum to the Emperor in his defense ffor the whole debate was about the deity of the Son. & was acquitted & Hilary ordered to depart Italy Millain whereupon he wrote his book against Auxentius. In all this contention the debate was only about the deity of the son. The Auxentius neither acknowledged the deity of the holy Ghost nor was accused of denying it. as yethe At that time Hilary wrote his book against Auxentius & directed it to the bishops de A And therefore the controversy about the deity In The same – of the holy G. was not yet begun in the west. The whole story you have in Hilary's book written at that time against Auxentius & in the Epistle of Auxentius to the Emperor annexed to it. This book was directed to the bishops detesting the Arian Heresy & reflected upon Vrsatius Valens Vrsatius Auxentius Germichus & Caius as Arians. The same year in September & October the Emperor Valentinian went first to Rome & then to Paris in Gallia. What past between the Emperor & the Liberius bishop of Rome about this matter is not extant recorded. But that winter a Council of the bishops of Gallia met at Paris & Hilary communicated to them a letter wchwhich he had received from some eastern Bishops in answer wchwhich they desired that Auxentius Vrsatius Valens Gaius Megasius & Iustinus might be excommunicated. And this Council excommunicated them accordingly & sent back to those eastern bishops a large profession of their faith. Ex literis vestris, say they, . . . . . . . . unius, a nobis, idcirco vel usiæ vel [hypostasis] substantiæ cum Deo patre confessum ne creatura potius aut adoptio vel aut appellatio videretur. This faith is the very same with that wchwhich Hilary had sent to them eight years before in his Epistle to the bishops of Gallia & britain & had ever since his return been preaching to them, namely that the father & son are two equal like & equ have no common substance but are two like & equal substances in number & one in nature & species, the whole son being the son of the whole father. But about the deity of the holy ghost there is not one word in all this long profession of faith, & therefore the controversy about the deity of yethe holy Ghost was not yet set on foot in the west: but Gallia by the means of Hilary was now retuned to the language faith & profession of one usia & one substance of the father & son & of their being consubstantial. Cum plerisqꝫque videretur (saith (Severus) non ineundam cum his communionem qui Arimenensem Synodum recepissent, [Hilarius] optimum factu arbitratus revocare cunctos ad emendationem & pœnitentiam, frequentibus intra Gallias concilijs, atqꝫque omnibus fere epsicopis de errore profitentibus, apud Ariminūum gesta condemnant & in statum pristinum Ecclesiarum fidem reformant. –– Illud apud omnes constitit unius Hilarij beneficio Gallias nostras piaculo hæresis libertatas. Sulp. Sever. hist. l. 2 sect. 60. Ita duo isti viri [ Hilarius & Eusebius velut magnifica duo mundi lumina, Illyricum Italiam Galliasqꝫque suo splendore radiarunt ut omnes etiam suo splendore de abditis angulis & abstrusis hæreticorum tenebræ fugarentur. Ruffin l 1. c 30, 31, Italy was not yet ripe for excommunicating Auxentius, much less for for prea entring upon a new controversy about the deity of the holy Ghost but after seven years more, A.C. 373, the Emperor Valentinian being then in Italy, a Council of 93 bishops met at Rome – – – – – – – – Their meaning in these words was By these words it is manifest – – – – – – as in the western Ten years after the Councils of Millain Sirmium & Ariminum, A.C. 365, the Emperor Valentinian being that year at Millain till September, Auxentius bishop of Millain was vehemently accused of p The disciples of Eustathius the who had been deposed for SabellianisSabellianism left every dis continued numerous at Antioch many years after & Paulinus was one of them & therefore Basil was not mistaken in blaming as Sabellians for using the language of one hypostasis & communicating with the disciples of Photinus. But notwithstanding what he wrote of them to the Hippolytus therefore took yethe Word of God to be this λόγος ἐνδιάθετος & the generation of the son of God to be the emission of this λόγος outwardly a little before the world began as light is emitted from yethe sonsun & water from yethe fountain. Yet Origen in his book περὶ ἀρχων as it is translated by Ruffin speaks much of the Word of God as the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος & wisdom of God seated always in the him by nature, & applies to him the text of Solomon the Lord created me in the beginning of his ways or before his works of old Dominus creavit me principium initium viarum suarum ad opera sua & that of yethe Apostle Deo genitus omnis creaturæ, & adds ipsam per Solomonem dicit creatam esse sapientiam initium viarum Dei, continens scilicet in semetipsa universæ creaturæ vel initia vel formas vel species Whence you may understand that Origen took the λόγος λογο Word of God to be the Platonic λόγος the Idea of Ideas or Platonic λόγος, exerted & emitted outwardly before yethe world began in order creation of yethe world in the very beginning of Gods works in order to create the world & thereby by this emission generated into a son, And & that in respect of this antemundane emission & generation Origen calls him a creature [notwithstanding that he was alwasalways in the father before he was thus generated] tho he was always latent in the father before he was emitted. tho he was latent in the father before this emission. ffor he represents him emitted as light from the sun Ruffin in traslatingtranslating the books of Origen περὶ ἀρχων has much corrected them as Ierome notes affirms & he himself confesses & yet Origen in this translation speaks much of the Word of God as the λογος ενδιαθετος the inherent word & wisdom of God seated always in God him by nature, & applies to this Word the text of Solomon Dominus cre represents this Word emitted as light from yethe Sun or a vapour from the earth & applies to him the text [of Solomon Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum ad opera sua & that of the Apostle Primogenitus omnis creaturæ & adds that of Solomon Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum ad opera sua & adds, Ipsam per Solomonem dicit creatam esse sapientiam initium viarum Dei, continens scilicet in semetipsa universæ natura creaturæ vel initia vel formas vel species. Whence you may understand that Origen took the Word of God to be the Idea of Ideas or Platonic λογος exerted & emitted outwardly as light from the Sun in the beginning of Gods works in order to create the world & all things therein by the principles forms species & ideas of all things conteined in himself, that in respect of this antemundane emission & that he was by this emission generated into a Son & that in respect of this antemundane emission & generation Origen calls him he is by Origen called a creature & the first begotten of every creature notwithstanding that he was latent in yethe father before this emission. For Plato made the Platonists taught that all their Ideas or things were latent in the internal inherent I ideas of God from all eternity, & were at length exerted & produced outwardly by such acts of the metaphysically compared God as the heathens metaphysically represented by the similitudes of generation & manufacture humane acts of generation & manufacture And while Clemens & Origen Origen also held an eternal generation of the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος if Ruffin has not misrepresented him facture, & called generation in respect of things intellectual & manumanufacture work structure or creation in respect of things corporeal or compound. Origen he And by And whilst Origen derived the Son And hence you may understand in what sense Origen said that all things were of one substance. ② Origen taught also a held also an eternal generation of yethe λόγος ἐνδιάθετος if Ruffin has not misrepresented him. ① He represented that the Son was begotten of the mind of the father as the will is of proceeds from the mind, without any division or diminution of the fathers substance. By saying that the son or word was in the father before he came out of him, [he seems to be of the opinion of those who in those days placed the Word son in the father potentially as his λόγος ἐνδιάθετος from all eternity, before untill this λόγος came out of him & was actually generated into a Son. Si homo tantummodo Christus, saith he, quomodo dicit Ego ex Deo prodij – – – – omnia facit.] & that he that that yethe Word the verbum was born by the fathers will in substantia prolatæ a Deo virtutis, he seems to make him a virtue or power seated in the father from all eternity & at lengh emitted sent out with a substance first the λο the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος before he was born & the λόγος προφορικὸς afterwards. Here Lactantius makes the Son subordinate in power & dominion to the his father as the supreme God, notwithstanding their being of one substance And if he had his o its probable that he had his opinions from his MasAndter Arnobius. Hitherto therefore – – – – – – by one God the God of our Lord Iesus Christ. Platonism had hitherto – – – – effects. Constantine the gGreat – – – – – – were made by him.// And by all these instances you may understand that the opinion [of Orpheus &Plato & the Cabbalists Gnosticks & Cataphrygians Cabbalistical & heathen Philosophers & Gnostick christians that there were were intellectual beings powers emitted or projected from yethe substance of the suprem God by way of dilatation projectiōon or emanation & that the Son & h. ghost were two such powers, was not only received] that the Son was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετ essential internal inherent wisdom & reason of the father from all ete the & λόγος ἐνδιάθετος from all eternity of the father, & a little before the creation of the world was emitted outwardly as light from the sun & thereby became the λόγος προφορικὸς & by this nativity the son of God, spread in the churches of both Greeks & Latines untill the times of the Council of Nice.// And to these opinions the Council of Nice had relation in their Creed in saying that the son was begotten of the substance of the father before all worlds all ages , not made [of nothing] that is, begotten [of nothing] & in calleding him light of light. ffor this was the language of the philosophical Christians of the third century who composed theis Creed of Cæsarea wchwhich was approved by this Council & & the faith of Constantine the Great who inserted into it the word ὁμοούσιος. And so far as I can observe, the faith of this Council was the same wthwith that of Iustin Martyr described above. In the Council of Nice Eusebius of Cæsarea produced the Creed of his Church wchwhich he had received from former BpsBishops & into wchwhich he said he had been baptized: & sam in this Creed yethe Son is called light of light the first begotten of every creature begotten of God the father before all ages, by whom all things were made: wchwhich was the language of the Christi shews that the philosophical Christians of the second & third centuryies [& imported that yethe son was begotten of the father as a ray of light proceeds from the Soun] who held the antemundane generation of yethe Son & compared this gener it to yethe emission of a ray of light from ☉ had got their opinion into the Creeds of some Churches before the end of the third century. And that Creed was approved Antony by the Council of Nice so far was the opinion spread that this Creed was approved readily approved Antony – – – – – – – An This Constantine wrote soon after the Council of Nice & with relation to yethe Nicene faith published & therefore by the words of the Creed begotten before all ages, understood that the son of God, who was always latent in the father as his inherent essential word & wisdom, came out of him in the beginning in order to create yethe world & by coming out was begotten into a Son. And it may be presumed that the Emperor (who presided in the Council, approved the Creed of Eusebius, dictated the ὁμοούσιος, & moderated in the whole debate about the fa Nicene faith, understood the meaning of the Council. And whilst Hosius was at the head of this Council & in the time of the Councilof Nice influenced by means of influenced by the Emperor Constantine the great influenced the Council of Nice influenced the Council of Nice you may thence tha understand that Hosius was of opinion that th & the opinion that the Son was the onl the only λόγος of God was published to all the Empire by Constantine & confirmed by this Council of Serdica: you may thence know that it was the opinion of that Hosius, namely that son was of the same opinion. He beleived therefore with Constantine & Alexander & Eustathius & the Council of Serdica ytthat yethe λόγος wchwhich became flesh was in the beginning & became flesh was the only word & wisdom of the f God the father, the word without wchwhich God would be ἄσοφος & ἄλογος. This opinion therefore wchwhich came from the metaphysicall So then The op The opinion that the son of God was the λόγος προφορικὸς emitted in the beginning before all ages for creating the world & that before this word was emitted the Son was potentially in the father as his λόγος ἐνδιάθετος but not yet actually generated into a son, was the pravailingprevailing opinion among the learned untill the times of the Council of Nice. This opinion being introduced by the Platonists & Gnosticks & Platonists & refined by the Cataphrygians & Patripassians, & spreading in the Churches till the times of the Council of Nice about an hundred & fifty years together, & then was again refined by the Alexander bishop of Alexandria. ffor it being objected that this opinion made the doctrine of the antemundane generation or of the son or of his Sons being the λόγος προφορικὸς made the father mutable unless the son was generated out of nothing, Alexander rejected it that doctrine the antemundane g it & made the son the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος begotten of his father from all eternity. And so far as I can find, he was the first man of note of this opinion. ffor his adversaries replied that heby was the first man of note of this opinion this opinion madehe made the son ἀγένετον unbegotten & or without beginning or or original & ytthat they never before heard of two unbegotten principles before. Henceforward therefore some continued of opinion that the son was the λόγος προφορικὸς others followed Alexander & became of opinion that the son was the Son was the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος. for I [The first made taught that yethe Son was begotten befor all ages in order to create the world; the second that he was begotten with from all eternity least the father should at any time be the father being immutable & never without a son least he should have been at any time ασοφος & αλογος And] & at length suffer a change by the generation of the son. And after the second opinion was set on foot & embraced by the Moncks it spread faster then the first until the Council of Sirmium in condemning censuring Photinus A.C. 351 condemned both thoese opinions with an this anathema. Siquis ἐνδιάθετον ἢ προφορικὸν λόγον internum vel prolativum verbum dixerit Dei filium, anathema sit. And hence But from time And from that time forward these opinions decreased & in a few years vanished, the faith & sentences of that Council again meeting wthwith an universal approbation as you have heard above. And so far as I can find – – – – ἢ προφορικος. And by all these things it is manifest that the original meaning of the article of the Creed was that begotten before all ages was that the son was begotten from in or a little before the beginning of the ages in order to create the world, & be which being but a philosophical opinion grounded chiefly upon a misinterpretation of the words of Solomon Dominus creavit me initium viarum suarum in opera sua must have got into the Creed long after the days of the Apostles & beiing only of humane authority, may be rejected by the same authority be rejected cataphrigians, seem to have given occasion to their tumults & to the letters of Pope Victor. For Tertullian represents that those letters were for giving bringing peace to the Cataphrygian Churches. And before they were disturbed excommunicated & separated the bishop of Rome could not write commun letters of peace to them separately from the true Churches wchwhich excommunicated them. He seems therefore to have written these letters of peace for supporting the Cataphrygians against & thereby strengthning himself against the Churches of Asia who had excommunicated them them & whom he had excommunicated for keeping Easter on the Iewish day. And hence forward – – – – – – hereticks And Tertullian propagated the same opinions in Afric as you have heard above. And Cyprian calling Tertullian his master – – – – spirit The like sence like opinions were propagated by Tertullian in Afric Ante omnia, saith he, Deus erat solus . . . . . . . appellamus. And a little after describing first how God generated wist first created wisdom in the beginning of his ways & then generated the son when he said fiat Lux he adds Nam ut primum Deus voluit – – – – – – – – generatus ad effectum. Because the Son is called light, ther therefore Tertullian represented him generated in the beginning of the creation when God said, Fiat L Let there be light. creatiōon. Or Origen the successor of Clemens in the said school, in his the first of his four books περι αρχων, as it was extant before in the fourth century before the transcribers & translators corrected it, taught many (in his fourth book) the same philosophical opinions & many others recited by Ierome in his Epistle to Avitus in these words Christum filium Dei non natum [lege natura] esse sed factum, Deum patrem invisibilem per natura invisibilem, etiam a filio non videri. Filium, qui sit imago patris invisibilis patris comparatum patri non esse veritatem: apud nos autem qui dei omnipotentis non possumus recipere veritatem, imaginariam patrem veritatem videri: ut majestas ac magnitudo – – – – – – quæ sancta dicuntur. Ierome further describes how Origen held the transmigration of souls, that Angel Arch-angels might become Angels & angels men & men dæ devils & devils return into the state of Angels & all rational creatures be changed into one another –– that there were many successive worlds, that might æther might become gross bodies & gross bodies return into æther, that the Sun Moon & stars were animated, that angels & devils were of one & the same nature but differed only in will. But many of yet he said that he spake of many of these things not as dogma dogmata or ecclesiastical doctrines but philosophical Questions occasionally touched upon. And in his second third & fourth books he treats proposeds the like opinions & in the end of the fourth book he teaches the consubstantiality of all intelli rational beings. Et ne parvam putaremus, saith Ierome, impietatem esse eorum quæ præmiserat, in ejusdem voluminis fine conjungit omnes rationabiles – – – – – – angelis hominibusqꝫque largitur. ✝ ✝ And in the end of the third book he seems to derive all corporeal nature also from the substance of God. Post disputationem longissimam, saith Ierome, qua omnem creaturam corpoream in spiritualia corpora et tenuia dicit esse mutandam cunctas substantiam in unum corpus mundissimum & omni splendore purius convertendum et talem qualem nunc est humana mens non potest cogitare; ad extremum intulit: Et erit Deus omnia in omnibus ut universa natura corporea redigatur, in eam substantiam, quæ omnibus melior est: in divinam scilicet qua nulla est melior. [Many of these opinions Origen most certainly had from the philosophy of the heathens] And when Ruffin had misrepresented the opinions of Origen, Ierom in reprehending him for it saith Probo ego inter multa Origenis mala, hæc maxime hæretica: Dei filium creaturam, spiritum sanctum ministrum, mundos innumberabiles æternis sibi sæculis succedentes, angelos versos in animas hominum, animam Salvatoris fuisse antequam nasceretur ex Virgine Maria, et hanc esse quæ cum in forma Dei esset ὀυκ ἁρπαγμον ἡγήσατο τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω non rapuit cultum sibi honores divinos, sed se exinanivit formam servi accipiens. Hieron adv. Ruffin. lib 2. Origen the successor of thewho successoreded of Clemens [in the said School of Alexandria] & whose opinions are recited by Ierome (for his works now extant have been corrected) taught the plurality of worlds & the transmigration of souls &that the Sun that the son was a creature & that all rational beings creatures might be changed into one another & were all of them creatures not excepting the son & h. G. that the sun Moon & stars were animated, that Angels were changed into yethe souls of men & that the soul of orour saviour was preexisted [existed before it was born of Mary & that it was this soul who being in the form of God ὀυκ ἅρπαγμον ἡγήσατο τὸ ἐιναι ἰσα θεω assumed not by force the being worshipped as a God but emptied himself taking upon him the form of a servant.] preexisted & was be was that being wchwhich was in the form of a God ὀυκ α before he [was incarnate &] took upon him the form of a servant. And that all rational beings were (that is saith Ierome the father son & h. g. angels powers powers & the souls of men) were of one substance in some respect, of one substance tho in some other respect he said sometimes that the Son was not of one substance wthwith yethe f.. [Among these rational beings Ierom reccons the father, but tells us that Origen in another place denied that the son & holy ghost were consubstantial of one substance to the father] that is of one substance in nature but not in number. ffor Ierome tells us that Origen sometimes said that yethe son was not of one substance wthwith yethe father.] And while Clemens & Origen taught these philosophical opinions in thise School of Alexandria it could not be but that their disciples would spread the same in Egypt. While Va Tertullian repres complains that Praxeas hindred this bishop of Rome from bringing peace to the churches of Asia & PhygiaPhrygia, & implies that these Cataphrygian Churches were now in trouble, & this trouble came upon them by therefore these things were done presently & had been newly condemned & excommunicated by the Councils of the Greeks 190 This is enough to shew that as the Gnosticks Platonists the Gnosticks called derived certain from the supreme God certain other Deities wchwhich emissions Ideas, & Splendors, or from the supreme God & called them by the names of his attributes, the Cataphrygians, & Encratites, & Paulinists & Sabellians took Christ fo the son of God for yethe Platonick had thence their notion that the Son of God was yethe Platonic λόγος, or the λόγός ἐνδιάθετος the inward reason & wisdom of the father wthwithout wchwhich he would be ἄλογος & ἄσοφος: so this notion began to creep into the very Church her self in the latter part of the second century spread in it all the third and in the fourth overspread it & was the ground & in the reign of Constantine the great fourth century the overspread it was generally received by those & was the grownd upon wchwhich those Bishops proceeded who repealed the Decree of yethe Council of Antioch made against Paul of Samosat & made his condemned language an article of faith. & that they grounded their proceedings upon this notion Which article any man man who wthwith yethe old heathens & hereticks who takes yethe souls of men for particles of yethe Deity, may subscribe wthwithout beleiving Iesus Christ to be more then a mere man The Nicene Bishops fathers therefore who [in the Councils of yethe 4th Century] intended by decreeing this Article to establish who pressed contended for this Article And tho they intended thereby to establish the eternal Deity of Christ [opinion that yethe Son of God was yethehis internal essential λόγος wthwithout wchwhich the father he was ἄσοφος & ἄλογος, but yet:] and yet they did it unskilfully: For any man who wthwith yethe old heathens & hereticks takes the souls of men for rays sparks or particles of yethe Deity, may subscribe it their Creed without beleiving Christ to be more then a mere man. Had they interdicted the novel language of both parties, & interdicted the & only established & declared yethe the in the language in wchwhich in wchwhich they received the faith fom yethe Apostles beginning, & upon pain of excommunication commanded all men to acquiesce in it in that language without further disputing about Metaphysical questions niceties upon pain of an anathema: they had quieted the Empire & the Churches questions proposed in any other language then opinions not expresly disturbing the Churches about questions not worded in that language or opinions not proposed in that language nor in the language of the scriptures or ancient Creed they had quieted the Empire & the Churches. But by making this new language of Paul of Samosat & the Montanists an article of faith they fomented rather then quieted the divisions & wchwhich were then commencing. Hitherto the Christian religion arose & flouris spread by the preaching of the Gospel to poor people without the power of the sword, & by its truth, evidence & vertue & the blood of the martyrs prevailed against the power of the Iewish nation & that of the heathen Roman Empire. unconverted Iews the hereticks & yethe heathens Empire. Henceforward it flourished in & regarded & the by the power of the sword, the Christian Roman Emperors calling Councils & to for establishing whatever such opinions they as they thought fit. ffor whatever th were the opinions of the Roman Emperors, the Councils convened by them were of the same opinion decree declared became of the same opinion & before they parted established those opinions. ffor whatever were the opinions of yethe Christian Roman Em ffor the Christian Roman Emperors But But Now from the time that yethe Empire became Christian & Constantine called a Council to establish his own opinions & to influence the Bishops first published his opinion in all the cities of the Empire & then came in person into the Council, the Christian religion reigned by the power of the sword, every Emperor calling Councils to establish his own opinions & the Councils establishing the opinions of the Emperors wchwhich convened them. Which change was so very great that if the state of the Church under the persecution of Dioclesian & his successors wherein I (wherein all disputes between the Christians & hereticks ceased for a time) be recconed for ther fift thi state, this under the first Christian Emperors may be recconed for the sixt.// For by the Emperors hence forward by their Councils In this sixt state of yethe Church, the made several new articles of faith in expr new in forms of words not heard of in the Churches before received from the Apostles by tradition, & there modelled the Christian religion so as suited best wthwith the interest of their Empire, & with the inclinations of the people that all of them (heathens hereticks & Christians) might unite & become of one religion mind & one religion. For its notoriously evident that the Councils always decreed established the opinions of the Emperors who convened them. And whereas the occasion of the And whereas iIt has been shewed that the Platonists & Christians by taking the λόγος the Christians wchwhich was incarnate for the λόγος of their Plato, gave occasion to those & spred this notion among in the Churches, gave occasion to yethe vehement controversies yethe Roman Empire in the 4th Century. They The names given to Christ have either a relation usually relate either relate to his a relate to his offices & powers or denote his offices & powers & have have a relation to yethe prophesies of yethe old Testament to denote sin concerning him to signify that he is the person in whom they were or shall be fulfilled. or denote his offices & powers He is called the Son of man to signify that he is yethe person spoken of by that name in Daniels prophesy of yethe four Beasts: The Christ or Messiah to signify that he is the Messiah spoken of in yethe prophesy of Daniels weeks: the King of Kings & Lord of Lords to signify that he is the Prince of the host & yethe Prince of Princes spoken of in Daniels prophesy of the Ram & He Goat: & Michael the Prince of the host Apoc. 12, to signify that he is that Michael spoken of by Daniel in these words At that time shall Michael stand up the great Prince wchwhich standeth for the children of thy people Dan. 12. He is called the Lamb of God to signify that he is the Oracle of God was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb in the law of Moses: the son of David to signify that he is the seed of David whose throne shall be established for ever (Psal 89. Luc 1.32): & the son of God to signify that he is the person of whom God said Thou art my Son this day have I begotten thee: wchwhich prophesy Peter applies to Christs being begotten by his resurrection from the dead, & the Angel Gabriel & the primitive Creed to his being conceived born of the Virgin by the power of the most High And lastly so he is called the λόγος λόγος the Word of God to signify that he is the Prophet foretold by Moses, the gr Oracle of God whose dictates are the law of God & by whom alone God reveals himself to all the creation & shall judges the quick & the dead & by whose voice God smites the nations as with a two edged sword coming out of his mouth & whose commands are the law of God, & by whom God shall judge the quick & the dead, & the Commander of the armies in heaven (Apoc. 5:) the great Iudge by whose sentence God shall judge the quick & the dead, & the great Commander of the armies in heaven, by whose voice as wthwith a the great Iudge by whose sentence by whose voice as wthwith a two edged sword God shall smite the nations (Apoc. 19.) ffor this word of God is quick & powerfull & sharper then a two edged sword Heb. 4. These interpretations of the names of Christ are very easy to be understood & very material to the Christian religion. But what all this has to do with Platonism or Metaphysicks I do not understand. that he is yethe Prophet foretold by Moses, that yethe word of God is in him, & was spoken by him & that he is the Oracle of God by whom God reveals himself to us, dictates all his laws, & judges the quick & dead, & by whose breath & voice as wthwith a two edged sword God smites the nations. destroys the man of sin & commands the Beast & ffals Prophet to be cast into yethe lake of fire (Apoc 19) for this word of God is quick & powerfull & sharper then a two edged sword Heb. 4.12 And so he is called the Word of God, the truth, the faithful & true witness & the Amen to signify that the word of God is in him that he is the Prophet predicted by Moses that the Word of God is in him & his sayings are to be regarded & obeyed as yethe word of God, & & that he is the great Oracle of God by whom God not only reveals himself to us, & dictates all his laws, & but also judges the quick & dead & by whose breath & voice he as wthwith a two edged sword God smites the nations, destroys the man of sin & commands the Beast & fals Prophet to be cast into yethe lake of fire (Apoc 19) ffor this Word of God is quick & powerful & sharper then a two edged sword (Hebr. 4.12) And lastly he is called Θεος God to signify that he was the invisible God whom no eye hath seen nor can see but the visible God who acts in yethe name of the invisible one, & the & the Angel of God, a presence whose voice was to be obeyed because Gods name was in him. Exod. 23. the presence who who appeared to Moses and the Israelites in the wilderness & gave the law is meant moving from place to place appeared to Adam Adam & Moses, the Angel of Gods presence who led the Israelites through yethe wilderness, & gave the law in mount Sina, & whose voice was to be obeyed because the name of God was in him. Exod. 23.20, 21. [These interpretations191 interpretations of the names of Christ are very easy to be understood & very material to yethe Christian religion: but what all this has to do with Platonism or metaphysicks & the λόγος ἐνδιάθετος of God or wthwith the generation of Christ before his Incarnation I do not see or with any sort of metaphysicks I do not see. [The scripture given to teach men not not metaphysicks by but morals, ] understand. Because his voice was to be obeyed as the voice of God he is called the λόγος τει Θεου & because the name of God was in him he is called God Θεὸς. & by his incarnation truly became a man like us, the mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus This λόγος came in the flesh, & as the children are partakers of flesh & blood, he also himself likewise took part of yethe same, that through death he might destroy him that hath yethe power of death, that is the devil. For in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful & faithful High Priest in things perteining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. ffor in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Seing then that we have a great High Priest that is passed into the heavens, Iesus Christ the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an High Priest wchwhich cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are yet without sin. Heb. 2.14 & 4.14. And as he was made like his brethren by his incarnation so they will be made like him by the resurrection. In this sence the λογος Iesus Christ came in the flesh & became the mediator between God & man the man Christ Iesus being in all things made like unto his brethren, & subject to yethe same infirmities except sin; & to deny this in the true proper sense of the words is yethe spi makes void our redemption by his sufferings. And this is the spirit of Antichrist. This Λόγος as he was the Agent by whom God made the world in wchwhich we live, so he is now gone to prepare another place or mansion for the blessed. ffor in Gods house are many mansions. This Λόγος is now glorified with This Λόγος ascended up to heaven & is there glorified wthwith the glory wchwhich he had wthwith yethe father before yethe world began. For as this world was made by him so he is now gone unto into heaven to prepare another place or mansion for the blessed. ffor in Gods house are many mansions. And when he shall have prepared a place for the blessed, he shall return to judge the quick & the dead, & reward every man according to his works, receiving the saints to himself that they may be where he is & behold his glory, & sending the reprobate to other places or mansions according & the fallen Angels to places of misery suitable to their merits. a being emitted by dilatation of yethe fathers substance without separation but not separated from it & so no therefore without any other substance then the fathers as a branch of a tree is emitted without any other substance then that of the tree. [And this Word he conceived to dwell in the man Iesus as the holy spirit did in the Prophets, And called Ies making Iesus a mere man & calling him the son of God] For he said And When Paul He argued that if Christ was not a Deified man but was God by being the Word the Word, he would be consubstantial to yethe ffather, & this consubst the council of Anti decreed expressed condemned, meaning saith Athanasius in a corporal sence as one substance is said to be consubstantial to another frōom whence it was derived & arose. If Paul He made a part of yethe fathers substance to be common to yethe father & the son: for – & by their taking the opinion of a single substance common to the father & son for yethe heretical opinion of Paul of Samosat & Sabellius d condemned by the Council of Antioch. For Hilary mentioning hom the homousion of Paul & its condemnedioncondemnation by that council calls it quæstio quæ communi omnium nostrum judicio damnatur. Quis enim sanæ mentis saith he etiam substantiam quæ et patri et filio communis sit prædicabit? Vel quis secundum Samosatenum, in Christo venutus, et filium confessus ac patrem: quod Christus in se sibi et Pater & filius sit, confitebitur? Par itaqꝫque in condemnandis impietatibus hæreticorum [et Concilij et] nostra sententia est, & hanc homousij intelligentiam non modo respecit [ sed & odit. Hilar adv. Arianos p. 390 And a little after: Male intelligitur homousion? quid ad me bene intelligentem? Male homousion Samosatenus confessus est? Sed nunquid melius Ariani negaverunt? Octoginta episcopi olim respuerunt sed trecenti et octo nuper receperunt. His meaning is that that Paul was justly condemned by yethe Council of Antioch for under declaring the son to be homousios to yethe father by reason of a common substance & that also although yethe homousion of Paul relating to a common substance of yethe father & Son was justly condemned by yethe Council of Antioch, yet the homousion of yethe Council of Nice negl relating to signifying two substances of yethe same kind might be justly received. ffor in other places a little before he explains the Nicene homousios of two æqual substances of yethe same kind. wchwhich are una natura non personæ unitate sed generis, & finds fault wthwith homœusios not because cause it denotes a similitude but because it doth not also denote an equality. He takes Persons for substan singular intelligent substances. And in the same sence the Greeks then took hypostases. And if the Latines now take hypostases for &c – or, as Hilary tells us, a third substance common to yethe father & son, that is not yethe whole substance of the father but a part thereof – or, as Hilary tells us, that the father & Son had a common substance, not the whole substance of yethe ffather but a part thereof. A year or two before the Council of made this new article of faith, the heathen heathen Empire by the victory of Constantine the great over Licinius became Christian ch & these changes in the affairs of the Church were great, that if Dio doth in good men & performed the divine operations. And the Montanists calling this calling the Man flesh said that by this conjunctioconjunction without any mixture or confusion of substance, the word & the flesh became one person wchwhich was both God & Man the word bein & god conjunction the Word being God & the flesh man – doth in good men & performed the divine operations. And the Montanists calling the man flesh said that the Word & the put on fflesh & by this conjunction became (without any mixture or confusion of substance) the Word & the flesh became one person which was both God & Man, the Word being God & the flesh man & each performing their distinct proper operations distinctly without – that the word put on flesh without any mixture or confusion of substance & by this conjunction they became one person, the Word wchwhich was 6755430024 27021610008 3335 192 Paul made the father the whole Deity & the son λο Word a part thereof consubstantial to yethe whole: the Council of Antioch declared that yethe So Word was not consubstantial to yethe father & their decree was communicated to all the Churches & approved by them, & Paul was dethro displaced by the consent of the bishops of Rome & Italy. the Council of Nice made the father & 1 Paul of Samosat made the Son a part of the father & in that sense consubstantial to him, that is to his other part For when we say th as a branch of a tree is said to be consubstantial to yethe tree, that is that is vizt we mean that it is consubstantia not to it self, but to the rest of the tree. In opposition to this opinion wchwhich was the general philosophy of the heathens Cabbalists Gnosticks & Cataphrygians, the Council of Antioch composed of 80 bishops who being met voluntarily convened met to examin Paul declared that the λόγος was not consubstantial to yethe father. Their sentence was communicated by circulatory letters to all the Churches & they Churches acquiesced in it. And when Paul was being deposed & refused to quit the bishops house at Samosat & the Eastern bishops applied to desired the Emperor Aurelian to remove him the Emperor desired suspended till he had the opinion also of the bishops of Rome & Italy, & upon their letter aginst Paul, removed him. The language of homousios was therefore at that time condemned by by the Council of Antioch with yethe consent of of the Church catholick. And yet the Bishops of the fourth century established it, & made it heresy to oppose it & by consequence repealed the decree of their. [The Council of Antioch only declared the tradition of yethe Church against the language of homousios (for Councils have no further authority in matters of faith) the Council of Nice by yethe authority of the Roman Emperor took upon them it it her & this declaration being agreed to by the Church Catholick of that age could not be repealed by any later declaration. The Council of Nice without set aside this tradition & took upon her to act with ana au legislative power in matters of faith contrary to without regard to yethe tradition of the Church declared above 50 years before by the Council of Antioch with the consent of the Church Catholick & the Churches in common. And this presumption usurped authority of the Bishops this And this usurpation of divine authority began a new state of the Church. ffor this put it into yethe power of the Emperors & Bisho] Hitherto – – – for the sixt Hitherto the Churches had kept to tradition whether in writing or oral, admitting nothing but what had been delivered down to them either in the scriptures or in the primitive Creed. ffor tho they added some articles to their creed yet they added them in the language of the scriptures: but now they began to deviate from both. The sentence of the Antiochean Council of Antioch against the homousios of Paul was grounded upon tradition. They had no tradition about the Logos or consubstantiality of the Word or Son of God his being homousios to the father & therefore they rejected the use by the Apostles rule of holding fast the form of sound words & contending for the faith wchwhich was once delivered to the saints & consenting to wholesome words the words of orour Lord Iesus Christ, they disallowed that language: knowing that if any man teach otherwise then according to according to the tradition of yethe Apostles & consent not to the wholesom words the words of orour Lord Iesus Christ & to yethe doctrine wchwhich is according to godliness, he is proud knowing nothing but doating about questions & strifes of words whereof cometh envy strifes railings, evil surmisings perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds & destitute of yethe truth supposing that gain is godlines. But And this sentence was grounded upon tradition, for Councils have not authority to vary from the tradition of the Apostles for Apostolic tradition whether written or unwritten is the law wchwhich they Bishops are to observe in judging judicature. In all of faith Councils have not a legislative power but only a judicial. And yet the Council of Nice co They have a law by wchwhich they are to judge They are to put Gods laws in execution & not to make laws of their own & the Gods laws is are the tradition deliveddelivered down to them whether oral from the Prophets & Apostles whether oral by word or in writing, Where unwritten tran The C & they have no authority to alter this The Council of Antioch accordingly grounded her judgment upon tradition: for otherwise her judgm sentence would not have been so universally approved by the Churches. The word homousios homousios was not in the scriptures nor received by from the Apostles by unwritten tradition & therefore she rejected it. And after such a judgment & all the Churches acquiesced in her judgmtjudgment. And after such a sentence there was no room for any following Council to pretend tradition for it. And yet the Council of Nice 55 years after made it an Article of And therefore the Council of Nice took upon her a legislative power in receiving it 55 years after & making it an article of faith & communion. And this usurpation of divine authority began a new state of the Church. But the Council of Nice proceeded received it by a legislative power And this usurpation of divine authority began a new state of the Church. Hitherto – – for the sixte the Christian religion arose & spread by the preaching of the Gospel to poor people without the power of yethe sword, & by its truth evidence & vertue & the blood of the martyrs prevailed against the power of the heathen Roman Empire. While this Empire stood it was impossible difficult for a Christian the Roman Emperors to corrupt the Christian religion & turn it to a r it was able to persecute the christians religion but not to corrupt their religion continued heathen it was impossible for the Christian reigion to become an Empire. But now that wchwhich letted is taken out of the way, now & the Roman Emperors begi took upon them to call Councils for establishing their own opinions & a Christian Empire is & is succeeded by a Christian Empire: Now & the Christian Emperors begin to Call Councils for establishing their own opinions & by consequence to set up a new religion by the power of the sword: these changes are in religion are so very considerable, that if the state of the Church under the lasting persecution of Dioclesian be recconed for the fift & his successors (wherein all disputes between the Christians & hereticks ceased for a time) be recconed for a fift state, this under the first Christian Emperors may be recconed for the sixt. 2 And yet the BpsBishops of yethe fourth century established it & made it heresy to oppose it. And not Nor did they only established the new word homousios contrary to yethe rule of ho tradition the rule of holding fast the received form of sound words, & contrary to the tradition of the church declare against Paul of Samosat, but by the that word but they established also a new doctrine also wchwhich was contrary to the rule of faith by that word namely that the Deity comprehended two constantialconsubstantial substances called the father & the son, wchwhich were consubstantiall that is one of wchwhich arose from the other & was consubstantial to it, being two substances in number & one in nature. The heathens derived all their Gods from one root & said that they were all of them but one Iupiter one God: the Christians began now to decree that the father & Son were two substances in the Deity, & by consequence two parts of yethe Deity of the same essence or nature one of wchwhich arose from yethe other & both were but one God. The Cabbalists & Gnosticks refined the doctrine of the heathens & restrained it to a certain numbers of Gods & called those Gods by yethe names of Gods yethe powers & attributes of God, the Cataphrygians Paulinists & Sabellians refined the doctrines of the Cabbalists & restr Gnosticks & restrained it to yethe Trinity. The Egyptians reined the doctrine of these hereticks & to avoid divisions of & changes in the substance of the deity, said that the father & son were was consubstantial begotten of the father from all eternity. Had yethe Council of Nice supported the Council of Antioch condemned the new language of both parties & forborn making a new article of faith & adhered to the language of tradition & the scriptures they had composed the controversy & quieted ‡ ‡ 3 quieted the Empire & preserved the unity of the Church: but by assuming usurpassuming a legislative power in matters of faith innovating in language & narrowing religion they set the Empire in flames & rent the Church into body divided the body of the Church rent the Church asunder. ffor whereas the decre sen sentence of yethe Council of Antioch was made being according to tradition was sub the voluntary act of the Bishops & & being according to tradition was received universally by the Churches without any opposition: the Nicene decree be contrary decree of yethe BpsBishops (at Nice met with incredible opposition. For Tho the Emperor to influence the Bishops had proclaimed his opinion by his letter published in all the cities before yethe Council met, & had imployed the bishops of his opinion to get it stablished when yethe Council met: yet the designe succeeded not till the EmperrEmperor upon a day apointed came int person into yethe Council to get it decreed. & And When it was decreed, the opposition wchwhich it met with in the Churches occasioned all that la vehement lasting religious war which disturbed the whole Empire till the reign of Theodosius & could not then be composed but by turning out the bishops of the Greek Empire out of their bishopricks by force & delivering their bishopricks to those of the Nicene faith, & prohibiting them meeting of their Churches in the cities by severe edicts. 4 Hitherto The Christian rel arose & spread by yethe preaching of yethe Gospel to poor people without yethe power of the sword & by its truth evidence & vertue & the blood of the martyrs prevailed against the power of the heathen Roman Empire: but ffrom the time that the Empire became Christian the Christian religion flourished reigned by the power of the sword: Hitherto Before the Empire became Christian yethe Bishops Church kept to yethe language of yethe scriptures & exercised only a judicial power without in their Councils according to the laws of God [if some of the Bishops of Rome from the days of Victor be excepted] if some Acts of the Bishops opposed by the other Bishops be & the powers of the Bishop of Rome excepted. Henceforward After the Empire became XtianChristian the Emperors called called set up created Councils to establish their own opinions by a legislative authority. ffor in the what ever was the mind of the Emperors who called the Council the same was was put in execution by imperial edicts as established by the Council. And these changes in yethe Christian religion were so very considerable that if the state of the Church under the lasting persecution of Dioclesian & his successors be recconed for a fift (wherein all disputes between the Christians & hereticks ceased for a time) be recconed for the fift state this under the first Christian Emperors during the homousian controversy may be recconed for the sixt. 4 The Christian religion arose – – may be recconed for the sixt For in the end of that controversy the prevailing party set up the invocation of saints & Popery, a religion wchwhich has ever since reigned in & may be recconed the seventh state of the Christian religion. The homousian controversy lasted with various success till the death of the Emperor Valens & was managed between the Latine Churches & chiefly the Church of Rome on the one hand & the Greek Churches & chiefly the churches of Asia on the other. Then the Greek whole Roman Empire coming into yethe hands of Gratian, he In the reign of Constantius the bishops of Asia & Greece prevailed to have the use of the words homousio usia & homousios abolished, in the reign of Valentinian & Valens & the Greek & Latin Churches after some discord reunited. In the reign of Valentinian & Valens (wchwhich began A.C. 364 the churches of yethe Latines under Valentinian separated from those of the Greeks & under Valens & revived the use of those words, After the death of those Emperors the Gr whole Empire coming into the hands of Gratian, he sent & & in their Councils decreed the persons of the father son & holy Ghost to be three persons consubstantial persons & or one in substance & one God God in substance God by pers three consubstantial persons meaning theethree personal substances & by one of na & by one God & one substance meaning one substance in nature & species & expressing this unity in nature & species, or three intelligent substances of one & the same nature & species. And to distinuish this metaphysical divinity from the Theology of those heathens who made all their Gods consubstantial parts of one & the same supreme Iupiter & so but one God: They forbad calling made it decreed that unlawful to call the father son & holy Ghost three Gods. As if a man might worship Iupiter Mars & Vulcan provided he he calls them three consubstantiall persons & one God & gives them doth not call them three Gods [name of God to each of them apart provided he doth not call them three Gods but denies that they are three Gods because they are consubstantial parts of one Deity] as if it was no breach of yethe first commandmtcommandment for a heathen to worship Iupiter Neptune & Pluto & call each of the give the name of God to each of them apart, provided he denyed affirmed that they were not three Gods because consubstantial they were three consubstantial persons in one & the same the Deity Deity, only three parts of the substance of the supreme Iupiter, three consubstantial persons in one & the same Deity. according to yethe theology of the heathens. Or as if the polytheism of the heathens consisted not in invoking & worshipping the God Iupiter the God Neptune & the God Pluto but in calling them threee Gods the God MecuryMercury in giving yethe name of Go the God Mars the God Baal the God Moloch but only in calling them Gods in the plural number. This divinity metaphysical divinity being in the time of the reign of the Greek Emperor Valens established by the influence of the bishop of Rome Rome & established in the west, & upon the death of Valens A.C. 378 the western Empire coming into the hands of the Western emperor Gratian &the western Emperors Valentinian & Gratian set up & Rome & of the western Emperors Gratian & Valentinian & Gra his son Gratian established in set up & established in the west & upon the death of Valens A.C. 378 the whole Roman Empire coming into yethe hands of the western Emperor Gratian, who while Valens an enemy to this the homousian this Theology reigned in the east: upon the death of Valens A.C. 38 378 the whole Roman Empire came into the hands of Gratian And he thereupon Arians & Athanasians Eusebians & Iulians. Greeks & Latins. Orientals & Occidentals, Asian Churches of Asia & Church of Rome Anaticks & Romanists. Homousians & Homoiusians Father. For he said that the Word was ὁμοούσιος to yethe father: & this consubst – – – – – – then that of the tree & so is called consubstantial to the tree, that is not to it self, but to yethe rest of the tree. For the Council of Antioch And therefore WnWhen Paul of Sam taught ytthat that the Word Logos of God was consubstantial ὁμοούσιος to yethe ffather he used the word ὁμοούσιος in the proper sense of ὁμοούσιος & unius in its proper signification the same sence Tertullian a Montanist said that the Word Logos was prolatione genitum prolatione genitus & Deus dactus ex unitate substantiæ. But the Council of Antioch in condemning Paul declared that the Word was not ὁμοούσιος to the father The sentence of the Council of Antioch against Paul was communicated to all the Churches & unanimoslyunanimously agreed unto & therefore the ομοουσιος was then freely rejected by the Church Catholick. That of the Council of Nice for yethe ὁμοούσιος was pressed upon the Council by the Emperor, disputed by the BpsBishops of yethe Greek Church both in & after the Council & at length & repealed in following Councils & at length the Bishops of the Greek Church under a pretence that five five g were charged with heresy by the Latines & at length by the Monologers & at length thrown out of their bishopricks for not receiving it. The Council of S [The word in its proper signification ratifed the opinion of the Gnosticks and heathens Gnosticks Cataphrygians & Sabellians that the λογος was a part of the the supreme God, & therefore was rected by rejected by the Council of Antioch. & the Greeks of yethe 4th century. The The Emperor put a new signification upon the word, & a spiritual signification wchwhich could not be understood & the Greeks were made hereticks for not receiving the the word wchwhich in its proper signification was allowed on all hands to be heresy & its improper new signification was unintelligible.] The G The Greeks alledged that the word [was not in scripture that it was rejected by yethe Council of Antioch, & that it was a stumbling block to yethe people. ffor the people were apt to take it in its proper sense & it properly signified that the λογος was a substance taken out of a prior substance the substance of the father & that by emiss projection emission or emanation or dilatation or division . And This allowed on all hands to be t was the opinion of yethe old hereticks but & was allowed on all hands to be heresy. The Emperor put a new sense upon the word & the Greeks to restrain the word from being taken in the heretical sense proposed that it should be taken in the same sence wthwith the word ὁμοιούσιος, the the wordομος from whence it is derived signify the words ομος & ομοιος as derived similis substantiæ deriving it from ομος, similis & The Council allowed this interpretation but did not the Latines afterwards in turning the Nicene Creed into their own language translated it unius substantiæ. [& desisted not till they got their translation established by throwing the Greeks out of their Churches] The Greeks alledged that the word was not in scripture nor that it was condem & dis The Greeks alledged that the word was not in scripture, that it was rejected by the Council of Antioch tha & that it was a stumbling block to yethe people they being apt to understand it in its proper sense: but the Latines adhered to desisted not till they got it their translation established by throwing the Greeks out of their Churches. / And the commencing of this controversy together / The Council of Nice trans erred in transgreedtransgressed in make inserting into the Creed an article of faith in a language not not to be met wthwith a form of words not to be found in scripture, not received by tradition, lately introduced by hereticks apt to be interpreted in favour of them & condemned rejected above 50 years before by the Church Catholick in the case of P. of Sam. I cannot say that erred in By this I do in beginning & by this wordBy this word they intended to establish only that the son was of like substance wthwith the father but The Latines contended that it signi translated it of one substance wthwith the father, & the contention wchwhich arose hereupon established & contended for this translation. And the admission of this word into yethe Creed together with the controversy wchwhich arose thereupon between yethe Greeks & Latines, & the change of the religion of the Empire from heathen to Christian made toso great an alteration in the affairs of the Church.