I. SIMON MAGUS An. Dom. 55. or thereabouts.

HE was a Samaritan borne. Of him and his Sorcery and the great opinion the Sa­maritans had of him, we read Act. cap. 8. verse 9. &c. He was the Head and be­ginner [Page 8]of Heresie. Euseb. lib. 2. cap. 13. He affirmed,

1. That he himselfe was the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that he was worshipped of all people by divers names.

2. That Christ did suffer no hurt of the Jewes, for hee was Christ. S. Jeronym. contra Lucifer.

3. That any man might lie with any woman; for this was no sin.

4. That the world was made by Angels, and that an Angel redeemed Mankind.

5. Hee denied the Resurre­ction.

6. He thought that the gifts of the Holy Ghost might bee bought with money. Act. ch. 8. vers. 18. And therefore that [Page 9]sinne of him is called Simony.

II. CHRINTHUS about the yeere 69.

He is said to be a Jew by birth: he lived at the same time with Saint John the Evangelist, Irenaeus lib. 3. cap. 3. He taught,

1. That Jesus our Saviour had for his Parents Joseph and Ma­ry, and that at his Baptisme Christ descended on him, who (saith he) is called the holy Ghost, by whom hee did all his Mira­cles; when Josus was to bee cru­cified of the Jewes, then Christ left him, and went up againe into Heaven. Epiphanius Heresi. 28. Hist. Magdeburgens. Cent. 1 lib. 2. cap. 5.

2 That Christs Kingdom after the Resurrection should be an earthly Kingdome, and that men then should live in all fleshly lusts and pleasures toge­ther for a thousand yeares. Eu­seb. hist. Eccles. lib. 3, Eccl. Hist. cap. 14.

3 He denyed the divine na­ture of Christ, and said, that he had onely a humane Nature, and that he was not yet risen from the dead, but he should rise hereafter. Jrenaeus ut Su­pra.

4 He affirmed that the old Law, and all the old comman­dements and precepts belong­ing unto it were to be kept to­gether with the new Law or Gospell, and that therfore [Page 11]Circumcision was necessary for every one that would be saved. Philastrius lib. de haeresibus.

III. EBION An. 80. or thereabouts.

He taught with Cerinthus.

1. That Christ was but a meere Man. Hilarius. lib. 1. de Trinitate. And therfore the Gospell of Saint John was written to confute him. Hieronymus. lib. de Eccles. Scriptoribus.

2. That when Iesus was thir­tie yeares old, there descended on him and dwelt in him ano­ther Person, who was called Christ: and thus Jesus and Christ dwelt and were united toge­ther. Ireneus lib. 1. Cap. 25. and [Page 12]26. Epiph. heres. 30. & Niceph. hist. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 13.

3 He agreed with Cerinthus in the rest of the Heresies tou­ching Circumcision, and keep­ing all the Law of Moses. Epiph. Ireneus. & Niceph. ut supra.

IV. MENANDER Anno 81. or thera­bouts.

He was the schollar of Simon Magus, and lived about the same time with Ebion and Ce­rinthus. He held

1 That the world was made of Angells, and that these An­gells could be overcom by no meanes but by Art magick.

2. He denyed Christ to be a [Page 13]true Man. and

3 Affirmed himselfe to be the saviour of the world, and that he came from Heaven to save mankind, and that all who would be saved must be bapti­zed in his Name. Euseb. lib. 3. cap 26. August. lib. de haeresibus. Niceph. lib. 3. cap 12.

V NICHOLAS of Antiochia.

He was one of the seaven first Deacons. Act. cap. 6. Ver. 5. He having a fair wife, and being accused of being jealous of her gave leave to any that would lie with her. Clemens A­lexandr. lib. 3. Strom.

Others taking occasion of [Page 14]this fact of his, thought it Lawfull for any man to have the company of any woman, whom they themselves would like. Against these men Saint John doth write in the Apocalips cap. 2, ver. 6, Epiphanius saith that they taught Venery to be so necessary that those men who used it not every week, on Fridaye could not bee saved. Epiph. lib. 2, Tom. 2. heres. 25. Of these Nicholaites S. Au­gust. and Philastrius doe speake, lib. de Haeresibus. S. Jerom in e­pist. de Fabiano lapso. Niceph. lib. 3. Eccles. hist. cap. 15. The En­glish notes upon the prementi­oned 2. cap. of the Apoc. in the Remish Testament, saith, that this Nicholas was not onely thought [Page 15]to have taught community of wives, but also that it was lawfull to eat of meates offered to Idols. Idolothita.

VI. SATURNINU circ. An. Dom. 1 [...]8.

He was borne at Antioch. He held many opinions of Menan­der and Simon Magus.

1. That the World was made of seven Angells, without the knowledge of God the fa­ther. Tertul. de Heresibus.

2. That Christ was but the shaddow of a man; for he had neither the true body nor soule [Page 16]of a man, and thus he fulfilled the mystery of our Redempti­on. Philaster Brixiensis.

VII. BASILIDES Ann. 124.

He taught,

1. That Christ did not suffer, or was crucified, but Simon of Cyrene. Euseb. Caesariensis lib. 4. Hist. Eccl. Cap. 8. and Aug. lib. de haeresibus.

2. He turnd away men from suffering Martyrdom, affirming that it was no sin to deny Christ in the time of persecution.

3. That the Angells made 365 Heavens, and that these Heavens made the world. Aug. and Philast. de Haeresibus. Niceph. lib. 4. cap. 2.

VIII. GNOSTICI. circ. Ann. 129.

These were the most vile Hereticks in filthinesse of all o­thers. Epiph. l. 2. Tom. 2. haeres. 26. their tenets were.

1. That the soule was made of the substance of God, and that bruit beasts had reason as man hath.

2. That there were two Gods, a good God, and an evill God, and that this evill God was the Creator of all things. Philast. lib. de haeresibus. Niceph. lib. 4. cap. 2. & lib. 2. cap. 24.

IX. CARPOCRATES.

Hee lived at the same time with the Ghosticks, and is said to bee the Author of their Here­sies. [Page 18] Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 24. He taught.

1. That Christ was a meere man, born of the seed of Joseph and not of the B. Virgin Mary. That hee was a good man, and that therfore (after he was cru­cified) his soule went up into Heaven, but his body is still in the Grave. Euseb. Lib. 4. cap. 7.

2. He taught that the world was made by Angells.

3. That there was no Resur­rection. Glossa. in cap. 15. Leviti.

4. He rejected the Old Testa­ment, as not Canonicall Scrip­ture. Aug. de heres. Niceph. lib. 4. cap. 2. Philastrius, and Tertul.

X. CEDRON. circ. An. 144, taught.

1. That there were two be­ginnings [Page 19]of al things: a good God from whom came all good, and an evill God, from whom came all evill. Hilarius. li. 6, de Trini­tate.

2. That Christ was neither born of a woman nor had flesh, neither did hee truely die and suffer, but hee did seeme to die and suffer. Aug. lib. de heres. cap. 21

3. That the Law of Moses was evill, and came from an evill beginning; and this opini­on was imbraced by his scholar Marcion, as also by Manichaeus. Tertul. ut supra. Irenaeus. lib. [...]. cap 28.

XI VALENTINIUS circ. An. 150.

Affirmed,

1. That Christ brought his flesh with him from Heaven, and took no flesh of the B. Vir­gin, but passed through her as water doth through a Conduit pipe. Tertul. lib. contra Valen­tinianos.

2 That ther are two begin­nings of all things, Profundum. i. e. the deep: and Silentium i. e. Silence: these being married to­gether had issue Understanding and Truth, which brought forth three hundred Aeonas. viz. thirty Ages or Angells; and of the 130 Aeon were the De­vill [Page 21]and others born, who made the world Philast. lib. de Haere­si bus.

XII. MARCION. Ann. Dom. 155. or thereabouts.

Was first a Stoick, then a Christian, he followed Basilides, Cedron, and Valentinius in their errors. Policarpus called him Primo genitam Satanae, i. e. The Devills eldest son.

1. Hee Baptised them who died without Baptisme, saying that S. Paul did will him so to doe. 1, Cor. cap. 5, V. 29. Theo­phylact. in com. super locum.

2. He taught that marriage was unlawfull, and that it was [Page 22]a great sin to marry. Hier. lib. 1, contra Jovinianum.

1. That Cain, the Sodomites and all wicked men were saved, because they did meet Christ when hee descended into Hell, but the Patriarches and Pro­phers are still in Hell for not meeting of Christ, for they thought (saith hee) that Christ came to tempt them. Iren. lib. 3, cap. 4. Ter. and alii.

XIII. TATIANUS. circ. Ann. 173.

Hee was of Syria, and the Schollar of Justin Martyr, and continued a good Christian as long as his master lived, but af­ter his death hee ran into many [Page 23]Heresies. His Scholars were called Encratiae because of their continency.

1. Hee held that Adam was damned.

2. That it was not lawfull to eat the flesh of any creature, for it came from the divell.

3. He forbad marriage, and drinking of Wine, and said that the Divell was the Au­thor of these also. Irenaeus lib. 1, cap. 31. Clemens. lib. 3. Strom. Epi­pha. lib. 2. at the end of the third Tome.

XIV. APPELLES about the yeare 178.

1. That Christ tooke not his flesh of his mother, but of the [Page 24]elements, the which hee resto­red to them again after his Re­surrection, and so hee went in­to Heaven without any body, or flesh at all. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 1 [...], Aug. and Philast.

2. He taught with other He­retikes that there were two Gods, a good and a bad God. But he did not teach that these two Gods were two begin­nings, but one beginning; for the good God made the bad God, and hee being bad made the world bad like himselfe. Aug. de Haeresibus cap. 23.

3 He said that the Prophets did contradict one another in their Prophesies, because some of them had the spirit of the good God, and some of the bad. [Page 25] Euseb. lib. 5. hist. Eccl. cap 12.

4 He put out these words. i e Iohn. cap. 4. ver. 2 and 3. Qui­cunque spiritus profitetur Jesum Christum in carne venisse ex deo est. &c. i. e. Every spirit that Confesseth Iesus Christ to have come in flesh is of God. &c. For these words doe prove the incarnati­on of Christ, and confute his first Heresie, Niceph, hist, Eccl, lib 4, cap 28.

XV MONTANUS about the year. 181.

Affirmed,

1 That he had the Holy Ghost and that the Apostles had not.

2. He did baptise the dead.

3. He did allow the first [Page 26]marriages, but not the second, and permitted them who were married to be seperated when they themselves would.

4. He did take away Repen­tance, affirming that sinners could never have their sins par­doned by Repentance.

5. That the Apostles and Pro­phets understood not any thing that they had written, but were Areptitii. Euseb. lib. 5. cap. 15. & 18. Epipha. Theodoretus. So­crates.

XVI ELCHESITAE, Anno Dom. 239 or ther abouts.

They had their name from Elohesae an Arabian, they defen­ded the same heresies with the Ebionites, and said that it was no sin to deny Christ in the time of Persecution, if then they did resolve in their Hearts that they would be constant in the faith of Christ, for God say they, doth regard more the Heart then the tongue. Euseb. Hist Eccl. lib. 6. cap. 18.

XVII MELCHISEDECHIANI Ann. 240.

They thought that Melchise­dech was not a meer man, but a Power of God greater then Christ; because that Christ was of the order of Melchisedech, Psa, 110, ver, 4: Aug, lib, de hae­resibus et Epiph, Haeres, 55.

XVIII NOVATUS and Novatiani, circ. Ann, 250,

They were also called [...] i.e, Puritanes. for they thought themselves purer then others.

1. They would not receive [Page 29]any into the Church after they had denyed Christ, albeit they did repent. Cyprian. in Epist. con­tra Novatianum.

2. They taught that Repen­tance will not profit them who sin after Baptisme. Philast. lib. de haeresibus.

3, They did rebaptize them who had beene baptised of the Catholikes. And

4. They would not receive them into their Congregation who were married to a second wife after their Baptisme. Eu­seb. lib. 6, cap. 43, Aug. de haere­sibus.

XIX. SABELIUS An. 260. vel. circ.

Hee was the schollar of [Page 30] Noetus, these two and Peraxeas, and Hermogenes with them, did confound both the number and difference of the Persons in the blessed Trinity: for they defen­ded that the Father, Son, and Ho­ly Ghost, were but one Person, who had three names, and who was sometimes called the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Ghost. Hee in the Old Testament as God the Father did give the Law. He in the new Testament as God the Son was made man, and di­ed. He in the time of Pentecost as God the Holy Ghost came downe on the Apostles. Niceph. lib. 6, cap. 26, These Hereticks were also called Patropassiani, because they say that God the Father di­ed [Page 31]for us. Aug. Serm. 2, Domini­cae post festam Trinitatis.

XX. SAMOSATENUS, Ann. 273.

Hee was borne in Syria and followed the Heresies of Cerin­thus and Ebion.

1. He taught that the Son of God came not down from Hea­ven, but had his beginning in the Womb of the Virgin. Aug. in Catalogo Hereticorum.

2. That the Son of God is not a Person, neither is hee eternall as his father is, nor the substan­tiall word of his father. But is as a word that is uttered by the mouth, and so passeth a­way with the breath thereof. Philast. de haeresibus.

Yet this Son of God (saith he) was a just man, and by reason of his good life might bee thought rather to have deser­ved the name of God then any other man. Niceph. lib. 6, cap. 27.

XXI. MANES from whom came the Ma­nichies.

He was borne in Persia, hee lived at the same time with Samosatenus.

Hee said that himselfe was borne of a Virgin, and that hee was both Christ and the Holy Ghost. The which that he might the better perswade others, he made choice of 12 of his Disci­ples and sent them to preach the opinion he maintained. Eu­seb. [Page 33]l. 7, c. 28. The Doctrine of the Manichies was compoun­ded of many old haeresies. As

1. That the soule of man is either the substance of God, or of the substance of God.

2. That warre is altogether unlawfull, and this their opi­nion made them to blame Mo­ses for waging warre. Aug. lib. 22. contra Faustum. cap. 74.

3. That beasts have not on­ly sence, but reason and under­standing as well as men.

4. That there were two be­ginnings which are eternall, viz God and Matter, the one (say they) is good, the other bad, the one is light the other dark­nesse, and the Prince of dark­nesse the Devill they call Ma­teriae [Page 34]Principem, i. e. the Prince of matter.

5. That the body is evill by nature, for it came from the e­vill beginning, and so did flesh, and therefore flesh must not be eaten.

6. That the Devill is evill by nature, and so are all other creatures, for they were made of the bad God, and so bread is the Devills creature, where­fore it can bee no sacrament of the Body of Christ.

7. That Christ was not a true man, nor came out of the Vir­gins womb, but he had a phan­tasticall body; for (say they) it is not fit that so great a Ma­jesty, should passe through the filth that is in a womans bo­dy. [Page 35] Vincentius Lirinensis.

8. That there is no day of Judgement to come.

9. That the old Law is e­vill.

10. That marriages are un­lawfull.

11. That sins come from an evill minde, and therefore can­not bee avoided, for there are two minds in every man, a good and a bad mind.

The good mind they call a reasonable soule, and this they would have to come from the good God; the bad minde they called the concupisence of the flesh, & this (say they) cam from the bad God, because when sins come from the bad mind wee have not free wil to hinder thē.

12. They did not admit of the Old Testament, nor receive the Apostles writings in the new Testament, but did call their owne opinions the Gos­pell of Christ. They did also boast of their owne particular illuminations from heaven, and that they could give the Holy Ghost.

Lastly t hey rejected all civill jurisdiction, affirming that marriage and the governments of Kingdomes, and of Com­mon wealths were ordained by the evill God. Euseb. lib. 7. cap. 31. Suidas. Epiph. Socrates. Aug. Niceph. Eccles. Hist. lib. 6. cap. 31.

XXII ARIUS, and the Arians, Anno Dom. 315. or there abouts.

He was a Priest of Alexandria, he taught,

1. That the Son of God was like unto God in name only, but not in substance. Philast. de hae­resibus.

2. That the Father, Son, and holy Ghost, are not of the same nature, power, and Majesty. For the father alone is the invisible God, and he alone is to be wor­shiped. The Son may be called God, but he is a created God. He may be called the Son of God, [Page 38]but he is the Son of God by adop­tion, and not by nature, for ther was a time when he had no be­ing at all.

2, That the Son of God was the first creature that ever God made, and was made of those things which have no existence, and is the most excellent, of all creatures.

3, That the Son of God is the Instrument of God his father, by whom he made all other crea­tures, but yet he doth not know his fathers Secrets, not compre­hend his nature and essence.

4. That the Son is not infi­nite as his father is, for when he conversed in the world with men he was not then in Heaven with his Father, and that the [Page 39]Kingdome of the Son of God shall end with the world.

5, That the Holy Ghost is a cre­ature created of the Son of God, and doth know neither the na­ture or secrets either of the Fa­ther or of the Son, but is much inferior in nature and dignitie unto them both, and is their Servant and subject. August. Amb. Athanasius. Basil, Hilar. Hi­erom. Socrates. Theod. Niceph. lib. 8, c, 5, 6. Cassiodorus, Tripartitae hist. lib, 1 c, 12, 13, 14, 15.

XXIII AERIVS, and the Aerians, anno 342. or near it.

1. They would have no set dayes of fasting, but they [Page 40]thought it fit that every one should be left to his owne li­berty to fast when he himselfe would, lest they might bee said to be under the law and not un­der grace.

2. They affirmed that Bish­ops and Priests were not distin­guished the one from the other, but were equall both in degree and authority.

3. That none were to be re­ceived unto the holy Communi­on but they who were continent and had renounced the world. Epiph. Aug and Philast. de haere­sibus.

XXIII DONATUS, and the Donatists, about the year 358.

1. They beleeved that the true Church of Christ was no where but in Affrick, and that there and no where else Baptism was rightly administred.

2. That the Sacraments were holy and Effectuall when they were received at the hands of holy men, and not other­wise.

3. That their Sect was with­out Sin. And

4. That they were not to have any Societie with them who had fallen into any Sin. Aug & Optatus Milevitanus.

XXV MACEDONIUS, and the Macedo nians, Anno. 359, or therabout.

They said that the Son of God was like the Father in Substance and in all things, but that the Moly Ghost was unlike unto the father and Son, and a meer Cre­ature, yet they preferrd him before the Angells.

Russinus lib. 1 hist, Eccl, cap, 25, Aug, lib, de Haeresibus. cap, 5, 2,

XXVI. APOLLINARIUS and his followers Anno. 377. or there abouts.

1. That Christ in his Incarna­tion did assume a body without [Page 43]a Soule, or if he had a soule, yet it was no reasonable soule, but that God the word was in­stead of it.

2. Hee brought that body with him from Heaven, and made it of the same substance with his divine nature, and that this body when it came on the earth was passible, visi­ble and mortall.

3. That sin is a part of mans essence, and that therefore if Christ had beene a perfect man hee must needs have beene a sinner. Gregor. Nazianz in Epist. ad. Nectarium. Basil. Epist. 72. Hi­eron. in Catalogo. Socrates. Sozome­nus. Ruffinus.

XXVII PRISCILLIANUS and his follow­ers, Anno 388. or therabouts.

Was a Spaniard, he gathered many Heresies out of the wri­tings of those Heretikes who were before his time.

1. He and they were of opi­nion (with Origen) that the soules sin'd before their infusion into the bodies.

2. They thought (with Tati­anus and the Encratitae) that the eating of flesh was an uncleane thing.

3. With the Gnosticks and the Manichies they made two Gods, one good and another bad. ut supra.

4. They confounded the Per­sons [Page 45]of the B. Trinity, with Sabel­linus.

5. They were of opinion (with Bardesanes) that every man had his fatall Star, and that our bodies were compoun­ded according to the operation of the twelve signes in the Zodi­ack.

6. They thought it no sinne to swear and forswear rather then to reveale the things they taught. Aug. de Haeresibus & Hi­eron in Chronico.

XXVIII. JOVINIUS & the Jovinians, An. 395. or neere about.

He was a Monke at Rome con­temporary with S. Jerom, hee and his tribe defended.

1. That it was lawfull for all men to eate all meates at all times, albeit they were for­bidden by the ecclesiasticall Lawes. Aug. lib. de Haeresibus ad quod vult deum, cap. 82.

2. That in this life there is no disparity of merit, nor any disparity of glory in the life to come, but that all should bee rewarded alike in Heaven.

3. That they who have a full and perfect faith when they are regenerate by Baptisme cannot sin any more after Bap­tisme.

4. That the B. Virgin was carnally known of her husband Joseph, after the birth of Christ, Hieron. libris duobus contra Jo­vinianum. Aug. ut supra. Aquinas [Page 47]in tractatu contra detrahent. Reli­gion. cap. 6. Sabellicus lib. 9. Septim. Eneadis.

XXIX ANTHROPOMORPHITAE.

They lived & set abroach their Heresies at the same time with Jovinian.

1. They thought that God had the forme and members of a man, because that God is said to have made man after his own image & likeness, Gen. 1.26.

2. They seperated themselves from the Church because Use­rers and wicked men were suf­fered therein, Theodoretus lib. 4. Cap 10, Aug. ad quod vult deum Epiph. Niceph.

HEIVIDIUS, and the Helvidians, Anno. 395. or near abouts.

These were at the same time with the Anthropomorphites, and were called Antidicomaritae, because they opposed the per­petuall Virginity of the B. Virgin. Mary the Mother of God; for they affirmed that shee had children by Joseph her Husband after the birth of Christ: and this they would prove Mat, 1, ver, vult wher Christ is called the first born Son of the B. Virgin. and Iohn 2, 12, and cap, 7, 3, Epiph, lib, 3, Tom, 2, Hieron cont, Helv, Aug, Her, 84.

PELAGIUS, and the Pelagians. Anno. Dom. 405.

He was borne in Great Britany. He with his Scholars held these Assertions

1. That the nature of Man after the fall of our first Pa­rents was Good, and not cor­rupted, Especially the soule of Man, and therfore Infants were born without Sin, and needed no Baptisme, but yet it was fit that they should be baptized, that they might be honored with the Sacrament of Adopti­on.

2. That the lust of the flesh was no Sin, but a Natural good, and that sin was not propaga­ted unto mankind by generati­on, but by innitiation only; nei­ther could Infants Sin, for all Sin, is voluntary.

3. That Sin, is not the Death, but the condition of Nature; A­dam then should have died if he had never sinned.

4. That all men have free will by nature, not onely in all naturall and morall, but in all spirituall things.

5. That the beginning of our salvation is in our selves, and we may attaine grace of rege­neration in Christ by our natu­rall faculties, if we aske, seeke, and knock for the same.

6. That Faith is a Generall worke of nature, and no speci­all work of Grace, and perse­verance in Faith is in our selves.

7. That the love of God and of our neighbour, and all our Christian Virtues are of our selves, and not of God.

8. That the prayers of the Church are not necessary, seeing whatso­ever we pray for, we may obtain without Prayer; for God doth give his grace unto every one according to his own merits.

Lastly, that men neede not commit any sin except they will themselves.

Aug. lib. de Haeresib ad quod­vult Deum cap 8 & alibi & in li­bris & Epist. suis cont. Pelagianos. Hieron. in Epist ad. Ctesiphont m. [Page 52]Prosp. de Ingratis. Hilarius Are­latensis. Maxentius cont. Hor­misdam.

XXII. PREDESTINATI, Ann. 414. or thereabouts.

They had this name given them because in their disputati­ons upon predestination this was their assertion, viz. good works will doe men no good at all, if by God they be predestinated un­to death and damnation; nei­ther will bad workes hurt wic­ked men if by God they bee pre­destinated unto eternall life and Salvation. By which this their assertion they did hinder many men from doing good works, [Page 53]and did stir up wicked men to heap sin upon sin. Sigibertus in his Chronicles. Vincentius lib. 19, cap. 5, & Luceburgensis.

XXXIII. NESTORIUS, and his Disciples, a­bout the yeare 427.

NESTORIUS, Archbishop of Constantinople, and Anastatius his Priest, Theodorus Mopsuetanus and the rest of that most wicked sect did teach (with Cerinthus) that the B. Virgin bare in her womb a meere man, who had onely the nature of a man, and was a man in his person, and that therefore the said Virgin was not the mother of God, but [Page 54]the Mother of Christ. Neither was the Nativity, Passion, Resur­rection, or Assension of Christ, more then humane, yet (say they) the Son of God was united unto the Son of man, not substan­tially, by communicating unto him his hypostasis or substance, but accidentally, by Habitation, V­nion, Operation and Participation. By Habitation, for the Eternall word or Son of God dwelt in the man Christ as in his Temple, we find himselfe saying, Dissolve this Temple, and in three dayes I will rayse it. Ioh. 2, 19, wee have it prophesied of him Esa. 7, 14, They shall call his name Emmanuel. i. e. God with us, or God dwelling in us. And his best beloved Historiographer records of him. [Page 55] The word was made flesh and dwelt in us. Ioh. 1.14. By Vnion not onely of his will but of his love also; for the Son of Man was u­nited both in his will and in his love unto the Son of God, they did will and love alwayes the same things, even as man and wife doe, who do love one another.

By Operation, for the Man Christ was alwayes the instru­ment which the Word or Son of God did use in the doing of all his great Miracles.

By Participation, because the Son of God did give unto the Son of Man both his name and dig­nity, for he would have him to be called both God and the Son of God, and to bee adored of all [Page 56]his creatures, not for his owne sake, as he was the Son of Man, but for his sake who was the Son of God, and who did com­municate unto him both his name and dignity. Socrates. lib. 7, cap. 32. Evagrius lib. 1, cap. 2, &c. Theodoretus lib. 4, de haereticis fabulis.

XXIV. EUTICHES, and the Eutychiani, An. 443.

He was Abbot of Constantinople, he with his associates maintai­ned these Heresies.

1. That in Christ after his in­carnation, there was and is but one Nature, and this one Na­ture was made of his Divinity [Page 57]and his flesh, by the turning of the Divinity into the flesh, and this Divinity of Christ was borne, suffered, and was dead and buried.

2. That the flesh of Christ is not of the same nature with our flesh, neither was the Word or Son of God turned into true flesh, but into flesh in shew and appearance only, so that the word did rather faigne himselfe a Man, who was borne and di­ed, then that he was borne and died indeed. For (say they) it stood not with the Majesty and excellency of God to become true flesh, or to bee borne, to suffer, and to die indeed and truth.

Flavianus in Epist. ad Leo. Leo [Page 58]Papa in Epist. ad Leo Imper. Theod. lib. 4, de Haereticis fabulis. Eva­grius lib. 1, cap. 9. & lib. 2, cap. 4, & 16. & alibi.

XXXV THEOPASCHITE, An. 476.

Petrus Gnaphaeus Bishop of Anti­ach was the author of this heresy.

Hee and his sect taught that God was crucified, and by God they understood the whole Tri­nity. Evangrius lib. 3, cap. 8, and 16. & Theodoret in Collectaneis.

XX. MONOPHISITAE.

There were another sect of the Theopaschites, called Mono­phisitae, because they affirmed [Page 59]that there was but one Nature of the Word and his flesh, after the ineffable Vnion therof, which made them also say (with the first sort) that God suf­fered and was crucified. Niceph. lib. 18. cap. 52. and 53.

XXXVII. APTHORDOCITAE, Ann Do. 536 or thereabouts.

They were of opinion that the flesh of Christ tooke of the Blessed Virgin was incorrupti­ble before his passion; Wee (say they) carry about us by ne­cessity of nature the affection [Page 60]of nature, as Hunger, Thirst, Wearinesse, Anguish, and the like, but Christ who suffered of his owne acord was not subject to the same Lawes of Nature with us. Niceph. lib. 17. cap. 29. Greg. lib. 10, Epist. 55.

XXXVIII. SERGIUS, the Author of the Mo­nothelites. Anno 604. vel circ.

The author of the Monothe­lites, he was Patriarch of Constan­tinople, and taught that there were two wills in Christ, a di­vine and an humane will before the Vnion of his natures, but af­ter [Page 61]the Vnion hee had but one will and one nature, whence it came to passe that the Divini­ty suffered those things which did belong unto the humanity, and the humanity did appro­priate unto it those things which did belong unto the Di­vinity. Niceph. Lib. 18, cap. 54.

XXXIX. SERGIUS, the Master of Maho­met. An. 630. vel circ.

Some contend that hee was the same with the former, but whether hee were or not hee was author of two Heresies, the Minothelites and the Mahu­metans, wherefore let him (at least his name) shall stand in [Page 62]the front of them both. He was a monk, he embraced, the He­resie of Arius and Nestorius, for which he was banished. Hee comming into Arabia fell ac­quainted with Mahomet the false Prophet, him hee taught to misinterpret many places both in the old and new Testa­ment, out of which false inter­pretations of theirs, they did coine a new Religion, which was neither wholly Christian, nor wholly Jewish, but was compounded of them both, re­jecting in both Religions those things which they disliked: and this newest Religion is cal­led Mahumetisme. Pomponius Lae­tus. Johan. Baptista Egnatius.

Hee in Arabia among the [Page 63]Hagarenes and Saracens was both a King and a Prophet.

Hee denied the Trinity with Sabellinus: he said it was ridicu­lous to thinke that Christ was God, and therefore with Arri­us and Eunomius hee taught him to be a creature, and with Car­pocrates to bee an holy Prophet.

Hee maintained with Cedron that it was impossible that God should have a son becaus he had no wife. Hee denyed with the Manichies that Christ was cru­cified, but saith he, one was cru­cified in his place who was very like him. With the Originists he wil have the Divels to be saved at the end of the world, & with the Anthropomorphites hee will have God to have the form and [Page 64]members of a man, with Cerin­thus hee places the chiefest feli­city of man in bodily pleasures, and with Ebion hee doth admit of Circumcision, and with the Encratitae hee forbids the use of wine. First hee saith that the Alcoran was made of the Holy Ghost, and their sins shall never be forgiven who believe it not, as also that Christians and Jewes who contradict it, can­not be saved.

2, In his Alcoran he maketh Friday his Sabboth day, per­mitteth a man to have 2.3. or 4. wives, forbiddeth the eating of swines flesh; teacheth that beasts shall rise againe at the last day as well as men, and that Baptisme is not necessary. [Page 65]Circumciseth none before they be seven or eight yeers old.

3. He denieth that the Eu­charist is to be kept in remem­brance of the death of Christ, for Christ (saith He) was not put to Death, but he affirmeth that this Eucharist is of God, and that it hath great force to con­firme those who receive it re­verently in faith and good workes, as also that they are damned who commit any great sin after the receiving of it.

Hee hath his religious men, who preach, and expound the Alcoran, who are called Muph­tii, Cadii, and Telemeani.

XL. ALBANENSES, An. 796.

He taught,

1. That the old Testament came from an evill God, and the new Testament from a good God.

2. That God did not create new soules, nor infuse them in­to mens bodies, but they went from body to body, viz. so soon as a mandieth, his soule goeth into another body, and giveth life, sense, and motion unto it.

3. That there is no Resur­rection of the Body, and that [Page 69]the generall Judgement is al­ready past.

4. That before the Incarna­tion of Christ, there was no good man, no not Adam, Moses, or any of the Prophets.

5. That ther are no Hell Tor­ments, but only those that wee suffer in this world.

6. That the world ever was and ever shall be in the same es­tate that now it is.

7. That God hath no presci­ence of any evill, but cometh to the knowledge of it by the De­vill.

Antonius 4, Parte Summae Tit: 11. cap. 7.

In the 9, 10, and 11, Centu­ries, there is mention made of few or none Heretikes but B. rengarius, and even him he reformed Church­es affirme to have taught the truth.

XLI PETRUS de Bruis & HENRICUS, An. 1124. or thereabouts.

Their Schollers were called Petrobusians and Henricians.

They taught,

1. That infants can have no good by Baptisme because they want reason and faith to be­lieve the word of God, which [Page 71]is preached unto them.

2. That those infants which are baptised must bee baptised againe, when they come to yeares of discretion.

3. Thirdly that the supper of the Lord is not to bee given to men in these dayes, for it was once given by Christ him­selfe unto the Apostles only Bernard. Epist. 148. & Petrus Ab­bas Cluniacensis.

XLII. PETRUS ABELARDUS, Ann. 1143. or thereabouts.

Hee was a French man, in a French Synode convicted of these Heresies.

1. That the whole nature [Page 72]and essence of God may be comprehended by the Reason of man, and whatsoever God doth, he doth it by a Naturall Necessity.

2. God is not the Author of all Good, neither can the Saints in Heaven see his Es­sence.

3. There is somthing else be­sides the Creator and the Cre­ature, and that is eternall.

4. The holy Ghost is not of the same Substance with the father, but he is the Soule of the world.

Platina: Bernardus (larevallen­sis, Frisingensis, & Petrus Perga­menus, his Table annexed to the workes of Aquinas.

ALBIGENSES, Anno 1200.

Their heresies began to spred first in the City of Tolouse, in Narbon, in France.

1. That ther are two begin­nings, God and the Devill: God created the Soules of Men, and the Divell the bodies.

2. To go to Church and to pray there, will doe us no good.

3. The soules of the dead doe goe into the bodies of beasts and Serpents, if men doe Live ill; but it they live well, then they goe to the Bodies of Princes and great men.

4. That the Church ought not to possesse any thing in proper but in common only:

Lucelburgius: Antoninus: Vin­centius, & Caesarius Cist. in dial.

ALMARICUS, XLVI.

He was a French Man, & com­menced Doctor at Paris, he held

1. That God spake as well in Ovid, as in Austen.

2. Ther is no Resurrection of the body, no heaven, no hell, but he who hath the know­ledge of God within him, he hath Heaven within him, & he who hath great sins within him, hath hell within him.

3. Adam & Eve should ne­ver have been married, If they had continued in the state of Innocence, neither should there [Page 75]have been any difference of Sex betweene them, but mankind should have increased as An­gells doe.

4. God cannot be seen in himselfe, but in his Creaturs, as light is seen in the aire.

Caesarius Cisteriensis lib. dial. dis­tinct. 5. Lucelburgius Gangui­nus, Vincentius.

XLV. BEGARDI and Beguinae, Anno. 131 [...].

Begardi, were Monks which kept in Low Germany, and Be­guinae were women that lived [Page 76]here in a Nunnery, as long as they themselves would, for they made no expresse vow to for­sake the world.

1. They held, that men may in this life bee as happy as they may bee in Heaven, i. e. they may come to such perfection, that they may be in this world without sinne, and attaine that measure of Grace, that they cannot increase in grace.

2. That the soule of man is blessed in its selfe by nature, without the grace of God; and therefore it needeth no light of glory to enlighten it to see God, that in the sight and fruition of him it may be blessed.

3. To kisse a woman when nature doth not incline unto it, [Page 77]is a great sin; but to lie with a woman when nature and the lust of the flesh provokes, is no sin.

4. A man having attained unto the State of perfection, is not subject to any law of man, neither is hee tied any more to fast, and pray to God. Alpharus lib. 2, de planeta Eccl. Bernar. Bar­tholomeus Caranza in summa Con­cilior.

XLVI. ADAMITAE.

There were two sorts of A­damitae; one had their name gi­ven [Page 78]them of one Adam, who lived in the second Century. Whensoever (saith Epiphanius) these met together at prayers, or on any other publike occa­sion, they were naked. Their Churches were hot houses, un­der the ground: before they went into their Churches, e­very one of them did put off their cloathes in a roome by the Church doore. If any had committed any sin, they would not admit him any more into their congregations; for they said, that he was Adam, who had eaten of the forbidden fruit; and therefore deserved to bee thrust out of Paradise, i. e. to be put out of their Church; for they thought their Church [Page 79]to be Paradise, and themselves to bee Adam, and Eve. Epiph. Haeres. 52.

XLVII ANABAPTISTS, An. 1522.

About this time (saith Slei­den speaking of these Anabap­tists) there was a sect of certain men, who said that they had talked with God, and that hee had commanded them to kill all wicked men, that only good and godly men might live [Page 82]and governe the world.

Of these Anabaptists there were many kinds, and all of them professe such Doctrine, as is neither to be endured in the Church, or Common-wealth, or in the government of the household.

First Anabaptisticall Arti­cles not to bee suffered in the Church, are,

1. That Christ did not as­sume the flesh of the Virgin Mary, but brought it with him from Heaven.

2. That Christ is not true God, but that hee is the best of all Saints, because hee received more gift of the Holy Ghost then they.

4. That infants unbaptised, [Page 83]are no sinners in the sight of God, but are just and innocent, and by this their innocency, they are saved without Baptis­me.

5. That infants are not to be baptised untill they have rea­son and discretion, for the chil­dren of Christians are holy without Baptisme, and the chil­dren of God.

6. That that is no true Christian Church, in which a­ny sinners are to be found.

Lastly, that no sermons are to bee heard in those Churches, wherein Popish Masse hath beene.

Secondly, Anabaptisticall Articles not to bee suffered in the Common wealth, are.

1. That the office of the Ma­gistrate pleaseth not God, nei­ther can any Christian with a safe conscience be a Magistrate, neither ought any subject to implore the aid of the Magist­rate for his defence.

2. That a Christian may not safely use any oath at all, nei­ther ought any subject to take any oath of alleageance unto his Prince, nor sweare or pro­mise any fealty or obedience.

3. That the Magistrates li­ving in the time of the New Testament, may not with a safe conscience put to death or pu­nish any Malefactors

Lastly, Anabaptisticall articles not to bee suffered in the Oeco­nomy or houshold government.

1. That a Godly man may not with a safe Conscience have a­ny goods of his owne but what­soever goods he hath, he must make them common.

2. That a Christian man may not be a victualler, nor a Merchant, nor make any wea­pons.

3. That it is lawfull to di­vorce the husband and the wife if they be not of the same Reli­gion, and to mary them unto any other Persons that doe not discent from them in Religi­on.

Lib: concordiae. Sleidan. Schlus­selburgius Tom. 2.

XLVIII. GASPER SUENCFELDIUS, & his disciples. Anno. 1527

Hee came of a Noble family in Silesia, and was a man of good parts before hee fell into these Heresies.

1. That the outward Ministry of the word is not necessary, neither doth outward Baptis­me further regeneration; nei­ther in the Lords Supper are the body and bloud of Christ exhibited in the bread and wine.

2. That the human nature of Christ is no creature, but after his resurrection was every way equall unto his divine nature.

3. That the Ministry of a vicious Priest or Minister is not effectuall unto the salvati­on of his Auditory, allbeit hee preacheth never so well, or ad­ministreth the Sacraments ac­cording to the institution of Christ. Lib. Concordiae, Bucolcerus, and Schlusselourgus, Tom. 10.

XLIX. The new SAMOSATENIANS. An. 1532.

The Author of this sect was Michael Servetus, his followers were Georgius Blandrata, Fran­siscus David, and many others in Transilvania; their opinion is compounded of many ancient Haeresies, as

1. In God there is no distincti­on of persons. Servet. lib. 5, Trin. pag. 189, & ministri Transilvani. lib. 2. cap. 4. and this was the Heresie of Sabellius, Samosatenus, and many others, ut supra.

2. Christ before his incarnati­on, was nothing but an Idea in the mind of God. Servet. lib. 3, Trinit. pag. 92, and this was likewise taught by Cerinthus and E [...]ion, Irenaeus. lib. 1, cap. 25. and 26, as also by Samosatenus. Aug. Heres. 44, and 45.

3. The Divinity that Christ hath, was communicated unto him by God, not by eternall generation, but by the unction of Grace, and by inhabitation: and thus Christ may bee called God, but he is a made God, and [Page 89]hee is a temporall, but no eter­nall God. Blandrata disput. 6. Al­ba. & ministri Hungarici. lib. 2. cap. 7, and this was part of the Heresie of Nestorius as wee may see in Theodoret. lib. 4. here. fabu­larum, and in other Heretikes, ut supra.

L. The new ARRIANS, Ann. 1534. or thereabouts.

These came from Valentius Gentilis, who was one of the schollars of Servetus, they taught.

1. That there are three eter­nall spirits, the Father; Son and Holy Ghost, which differ in number and essence, Val Gen­tilis Prothesi, 20, and 23, and [Page 90]this is also recorded by Aretius in his history of the punishment of Ʋal. Gentilis. This was the opinion of the Hereticks called Peratae, in Theodoret. lib. 1, cap. 18 haereticarum fabularum, and of Johanis Philoponus the Here­tike Niceph, lib. 18. cap. 48.

2. They taught that these three Persons were not equall, but that the father was far a­bove the other two, so that he might be called Essentiator, and the other two Essentiati. i. e. he that had his essence of him­selfe alone, and the other their essence from him. Gentilis lib. Antidoto 3. fol. 26. wher he saith, that it is the property of the Father to be called the one & only God; And so the new [Page 91] Tritheites went from Philiponus to Arrius, for Arrius was the first that Taught that the father was lesse then the sonne. Epiph. haeres. 69.

3. They say that the Son of God was not of nothing, neither that he was begotten in time, but from all eternitie of the sub­stance of his father, Gent, Pro­thes 11 12. And this was the o­pinion of the New Arians in Austins time. The later Arrians granted that the Son was eter­nall with the father, albeit Ari­us was of another mind. Aug. lib. 6. Trin. cap. 1. & lib. 1. Trinit. Maximus doth confesse as Aug: there saith, that the son was not of nothing, but was begotten of the substance of his father. And [Page 92]this was the judgement of the Councell held at Ariminum. &c.