The Resurrection Revealed, Book 3 · Chapter 3
CHAP. III.
The inconſiderableneſſe, and inconſiderateneſſe of ſome ancient Authors verball glancings againſt what we have alleadged for our generall Theſis in the fore quoted places of Scripture taken into conſideration, whereby it is cleared that they are juſtly to be condemned in their owne way, and out of their owne words.
SECT. I.
A generall Survey of the authority of mens words, or writings.
§. 1 AS long as we have but the bare aſſerts of any Humane Writers, we are not to be moved more then with wind; as the Apoſtle calls ſuch dictates, wind of Doctrine, and names them Children, that will be toſſed to and fro with the blaſts thereof, Epheſ. 4.14.
§. 2 A ſufficient ballancing againſt ſuch is the bare enumeration of as many of equall qualifications on the other ſide. But if we produce more, then upon this account purely the former are out-weighed. We quoted afore in our firſt Booke (it being the very buſineſſe thereof) a multitude of all ſorts of learned men of our judgement. And in the next, viz. the fourth Booke, we ſhall quote as many more as will amount to little leſſe then will ſignifie our opinion to be even …he voyce of the Law of Nature in all men. And for this particular fourth Chapter of Malachie, we muſtered up afore*In the 2. §. of this preſent 51. Section. very many of the learned, that held on our ſide, that it propheſied of Chriſts ſecond coming, where wee brought you alſo Calvins confeſſion, that the All of that minde, were the major part of Commentators.
§. 3 Rationall men are not ſwayed in matters of moment, but by reaſon; nor in Divine things, but by Divine reaſon. If God ſay a thing, it is enough to a Beleever, whether he ſpeak it in his Word, or in the naturall inſtinct, and univerſall vote of all Mankind (that is compos) both being a kinde of revelation. But if an hundred men ſhould affirme a thing in words, without evincing Arguments, the Heathen would ſoone anſwer; Socrates is my friend, and Plato is my friend, but a greater friend is truth.
SECT. II.
JEROMS jerkings at the precedent proofes, diſcuſſed.
[Erom (who flouriſhed about three hundred and ninety years after Chriſt) in his Commentations on the Old Teſtament, gives many jerks at the opinion of a glorious time of the thouſand yeares, and at the proofs thence alleadged by learned Jews and Chriſtians, upon as Iſ. 54.1, &c. to 12—ch. 60. ver. 1—ch. 66.22. Jerem. 31.27. to 39. Ezech. 16.55. chap. 36. to ver. 12. chap. 37 ver. 15. chap. 38. chap. 39. Micha 4. Zach. 14. to ver. 10. but therein Jerom confeſſeth againſt himſelfe, that that opinion was ancienter then himſelfe, and that thoſe places were ſo long ſince urged for proofe thereof.
§. 2 And indeed generally the ſtreame of all the beſt approved Antiquity before him both of Hebrews, Greeks, and Latins ran that way;*See our firſt Booke. and therefore wiſe men much wonder how Jerom raiſed, and rubb'd himſelfe to that animoſity and boldneſſe, to ſwim againſt the ſtreame, unleſſe he could have brought in a tide of over-maſtering demonſtrations.
§. 3 And he is juſtly the more to be wondered at, becauſe hee hath confeſſed as much, viz. That many Eccleſiaſticall men and Martyrs were againſt him. And we may perceive that his objecting that the expectation of Oblations and Sacrifices were mixed with their opinion, was no demonſtration upon his Conſcience, he only ſaying ſo, not peremptorily condemning it (to which ſhould ſeeme he was prone enough, if he had been as free in his ſpirit) but rather permitting men of that fame, therein to abound in their owne ſence. For,
¶ 1. His owne words on Jerem. 19.10. [Then ſhalt thou breake the bottle in the ſight of the men] are theſe;*Et conteres, &c. Perſpicuè non de Babyloniâ, ſed Romanâ dicitur captivitate, poſt Babylonios quippe, & urbs inſtaurata, & populus reductus in Indaeam, & …bundantiae priſtinae reſtitutus eſt. Poſt captivatem au…em quae ſub Veſpaſiano & …ito; & poſtea accidit ſub Hadriano, uſ que ad conſummationem ſeculi, …uinae Hieruſalem permanſu…ae ſunt; quanquam ſibi Iudei auream, at que gemmatam Hieruſalem reſtituendam putent; rurſum que victim. …, & ſacrificia, & conjugia Sanctorum, & regnum in ter…is Domini ſalvatoris. Quae l…cet non ſequ… mur, tamen d…mar… … p…ſſumus; Quia mul…i ECCLESIASTICORUM VIRORUM ET MARTYRES iſta dixcru…t. Et …uſquiſ… que in ſuo ſenſu a…und…t, & Domini cuncta judicio reſerventur. Quomodo autem vas fict le, & teſt…ceum ſi …tactum …u… it, in actiquam ſpeciem non poteſt reformari, ſi… et populus Judaeorum, & Hieruſalem ſubverſa, ſtatum priſtinum non habebune, Hieronymus in I…rem. 19.10. This is evidently ſpoken, not of the Babylonian, but of the Roman captivity; for after the Babylonians, both the City is rebuilt, and the people brought back to Judea, are reſtored to their ancient abundance; but after the Captivity that happened under Veſpaſian, and Titus, and after that under Hadrian, the ruines of Jeruſalem ſhall remaine unto the end of the world, although the Jewes imagine that a golden, and gemmed Hieruſalem ſhall be reſtored unto them; and that againe they ſhall have oblations, and Sacrifices, and the marriages of Saints, and the Kingdome of our Lord and Saviour upon earth. Which things, though we follow not their opinion, yet wee cannot condemn, becauſe many Eccleſiaſticall men, and Martyrs have ſaid the ſame. And let every one abound in his owne ſence, and all bee reſerved to the judgement of the Lord. But looke how a Potters veſſell of earth, if broken, cannot be againe formed into its former ſhape, ſo the people of the Jewes, and the City of Jeruſalem being ſubverted, they ſhall never have their ancient ſtate. Thus Jerom, in which words obſerve; 1. That all we aſſerted in the former §. is here repreſented to a ſyllable before your eyes. 2. That his argument he urgeth againſt the Jewes reſtauration after their Romiſh deſtruction, is as weake as the earthen bottle whereof hee makes the foundation of it. For he overſtretcheth the Prophets compariſon, who therein intended onelyonly a totall or univerſall diſperſion of the Jewes, but not a finall deſtruction; this ſelfe-ſame Prophet elſe-where, and of the reſt the moſt in all the old Teſtament (as we have largely diſcuſſed) propheſying, and deſcribing to the life the glorious reſtauration of the Iewes, yea, and of the Iſraelites too. And as Ierom formally urgeth the argument; hee doth ſeem to ground himſelf upon the impoſſibility of that reſtauration, as of re-forming a broken earthen bottle; and ſo with a byblow ſmites our hope of the reſurrection, becauſe that may ſeem to men impoſſible: But beleevers muſt not goe upon that ground in diſpute. It is a like eaſie for God to doe, as to ſay, witneſſe his fiat, let it be ſo, in the creation. Yea, the compariſon it ſelfe prompts a poſſibility and probability; that as after a broken earthen bottle is mellowed and mouldered againe into clay, may be new formed into a bottle: ſo after the deep deſolations of the Jewes, they ſhall be reſtored againe, as the Prophet Daniel chap. 12. v. 2. gives it us, in a like compariſon; and the Apoſtle after him, Rom. 11. v. 15. viz. of bodies turned to duſt or clay, reviving to life, which metaphors are higher then the new-forming of an earthen broken bottle.
¶. 2. Collate with Jeromes words, the words of that moſt ancient, pious, and learned Juſtin Martyr, in his very diſcuſſe of the future glorious reſtauration of the Jewes and of the univerſall Church, and that in his Dialogue with Tryphon the Iew, foreign. Juſtin Mart. in Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 340. Ed…t. Graec. Lat. Pa…iſ. A. D. 1636.and we ſhall find that Ierom did wrong in ſaying they expected again Iewiſh Oblations and Sacrifices. Iuſtin Martyrs words are theſe, For he is the excellent cheife Prieſt and eternal King, CHRIST himſelf, as the Sonne of God, in whoſe coming again, ye may not think that Iſaiah, or others of the Prophets did teach that the Sacrifices of blood, or Oblations ſhould be offered upon the Altar, but true, and ſpirituall praiſes with thankſgivings. For indeed we doe not in vaine hope in him, neither are we ſeduced from thoſe that ſo teach. Thus Juſtin. In which words you ſee clearly the opinion of the religious learned Ancients, Jewiſh Prophets &c. (of whom Juſtin ſpeakes in the Plurall) that their opinion, yea, and faith, and hope was contrary to the ſence that Jerom would put upon them.
¶. 3. Jerom himſelfe hath confeſt the ſame ſence with us of divers places before alleadged for our opinion, as on Hoſ. 3.4. Book 3. chap. 2. Sect 39, on Mat. 11.14. on Mat. 17.14. &c. Book 3. cha. 2. Sect. 51. Margent, and elſe-where.
¶. 4. Hear Mr. Medes anſwer to all Ieroms ſpeeches againſt us, on thoſe places of Scripture afore quoted §. 1. Sed fidem tuam Hieronyme! qui cum Dionyſio tuo Alexandrino &c. i. e. But O thy faithful dealing O Ierom! who together with thy Dionyſius Alex. doe faſten upon the opinion of the Millenaries, that the injury of circumſicion, the blood of Sacrifices, and the reſt of the legal Ceremonies, are againe to be reſtored after their ſuppoſed death; Indeed thoſe things which Iewes, or perhaps Hereticks out of Iudaiſme dreamed concerning their Millenarie, you odiouſly daſh upon the Chriſtians. But hath this becommed your candor? Yea, thou Ierom no more but thy ſelfe being judge, doſt bewray thy crimination to be falſe. For ſo thou writeſt on Jer. 19.5. Poſt captivitatem quae ſub Veſpaſiano, that is, After the captivity which happened under Veſpaſian and Titus, and after under Hadrian, the ruins of Hieruſalem, are to continue to the end of the world; albeit the Jews do thinke that there ſhall be reſtored unto them a golden and gemmed Hieruſalem; and that again ethere ſhall be oblations and ſacrifices, and the marriages of the Saints, and the Kingdome of the LORD our SAVIOUR upon earth, which although we follow not, yet we cannot condemne, becauſe many Eccleſiaſticall men and Martyrs have ſo ſaid. Theſe are thy word O Jerome. But prethee tell me; did thoſe Eccleſiaſticall men and holy Martyrs ſay, that circumciſion and ſacrifices ſhould at the time of Chriſts Kingdom be reſtored? take heed of ſaying ſo. For certainly they taught the contrary, as may be confirmed out of Juſtin Martyrs Dialogue with Trypho &c. or if thou hadſt certainly known they had ſo beleeved, wouldſt not thou have condemned them without any demur? Thus Mr. Mede.
SECT. III.
Of the words of GAIUS, ſeconded by DIONYSIUS ALEXANDRINUS, both falſly fathering our opinion upon CERINTHUS, and injuriouſly mingling therewith, ſuch impieties as our ſouls abhorre; yet ſo far credited by EUSEBIUS PAMPHYLIUS, therein too credulous, as that they are alleadged by him for hiſtory without putting any check upon them.*foreign, &c. Euſeb. Pamphil. lib. 3. cap. juxta Graec. 26. & 27. juxta la…motas in Irenaeo. & juxta Aug. cap. 24, 25In the diſcuſſe whereof, our Opinion of the THOUSAND YEARS is VINDICATED from VOLUPTUOUS CHILIASME.
THE whole ſtory is this. About the ſame time (viz. of the Sect of the Ebionites) we learne that there was one Cerinthus, an Author of another Hereſie. Gaius, whoſe words we have aforealleadged, in the controverſie carryed about in his name, writeth thus of him. CERINTHUS alſo by revelations written as of a great Apoſtle, brought unto us certaine monſtrous things, faining them to have been revealed unto him by Angels; that the Kingdome of Chriſt after the reſurrection, ſhould become earthly; that in Jeruſalem our fleſh again ſhould ſerve concupiſcence, and the luſt of the fleſh. And being wholly ſet to ſeduce, as an enemy to the word of God, he ſaid there ſhould be the term of a MILLENARIE feaſt allotted for marriage. Dionyſius Biſhop of Alexandria, in his ſecond Book, after he had remembred the Revelation of Saint John received by tradition of OLD, he reporteth of this man CERINTHUS, thus; CERINTHUS which founded the Cerinthian Hereſie, gave his figment a name, for the further credit thereof. His kind of Doctrine was this, he dreamed the Kingdome of Chriſt ſhould become earthly, and ſet upon thoſe things which he luſted after, now being covered with his fleſh, and conpaſſed in his skinne, that is, the ſatisfying of the belly, and foreign eum quae ſub ventre ſunt, with meat, with drink, with marriage. And that he might the more colourably bring his devilliſh devices to paſſe, he dedicated thereunto Holy-days, Oblations and ſlaughter for Sacrifices. So far Dionyſius. But IRENAEUS in his firſt Book againſt Hereſies layeth down certain more deteſtable opinions of his. And in his third booke he reporteth an hiſtory, worthy the memory, as received by tradition of Polycarp, ſaying, That John the Apoſtle on a certain time entred into a Bath, to bathe himſelfe; and underſtanding that CERINTHUS was therein bathing himſelfe, John ſtarted aſide, and departed forth; not abiding to tarry with him under the ſame roofe, ſignifying the ſame to his company, and ſaying, let us ſpeedily goe hence, leſt the Bath come to fall, wherein CERINTHUS, the enemy of the truth, batheth himſelfe. Thus Irenaeus. And thus you have heard at full Euſebius his report of the whole matter.
To prepare, and make way for an anſwer whereunto, let the Reader take notice, that if Cerinthus did ſay that the Kingdome of Christ after the reſurrection ſhould become earthly, yet we ſay not ſo; though we affirme that the Church ſhall be reſident on earth for a thouſand years after the firſt reſurrection (as tis called Rev. 20.) that is the reſurrection of all beleevers (as tis explained Rev. 11.) For the true Church of beleevers hath been on earth from the creation to this day, and yet, as beleevers not earthly, but the ſpirituall body of Chriſt. The holy Angels and Chriſt Jeſus have converſed on earth, and yet they were not thereby earthly. And if Cerinthus ſaid, That in Jeruſalem our fleſh againe ſhould ſerve the concupiſcence, and luſt of the fleſh, &c. Yet our ſoules abhor any thought thereof.
But indeed Cerinthus, for ought we can find by diligent ſearch into the ancienteſt and moſt approved antiquity, did not ſay any ſuch thing; nor did he meddle with our opinion at all in the particulars thereof. And therefore wee have more cauſe to ſuſpect Euſebius, Gaius, and Dionyſius to be guilty of too light credulity, then to accuſe Cerinthus of that we cannot groundedly charge him withall. We deny not Cerinthus to be an Heretick (as the Ancients call him) holding divers great impieties: But we cannot beleeve Euſebius, Gaius, and Dionyſius, that he was guilty of thoſe things they charge upon him in relation to our opinion.
To this purpoſe, hear Mr. Medes *Opuſcul: Lat: Ad rem Apoca: ſpect. par: 2… p: 55.anſwer, An non hinc merito quis ſuſpicari poſsit Gajum iſtum, &c. i. e. May not one juſtly hence ſuſpect that ſame Gaius to have been one of the number of the heretical Alogi **Alogi are according to the ſignification of the word, men without the word, or without reaſon. And therefore by the Ancients oft called Brutes, and charged with denying the word of God both the axiomatical, in the etter, and the ſubſtantiall viz Chriſt in the fleſh:, which Alogi, or Alogians denied, ſaith Epiphanius foreign Dei, THE WORD OF GOD, and therefore they aſcribed to Cerinthus, as well the Goſpell of John, as the Apocalyps? The time doth altogether agree to that; For Theodotus the Champion of the Alogian Standard, was caſt out of the Church by Pope Victor; and Gaius flouriſhed in the time of Zephirus, who next ſucceeded Victorius. Nevertheleſſe, the words of Gaius †foreign &c. lo…: citat: § 1. hujus Sect. 3.may bee taken in that ſence, as if he had ſaid, Cerinthus had feignedly fathered upon the great Apoſtle, I know not what Apocalypſes (beſide that one and onelyonly Apocalypſe) out of which feigned Apocalypſes that forging fellow endeavoured to prove that after the reſurrection, the Kingdome of Chriſt ſhould be earthly, wherein men ſhould ſerve the luſts of the fleſh, and the inticements of carnall pleaſures. But what ever was the mind of Gaius, it is very likely he was deceived concerning Cerinthus. For if this had been the Hereſie of Cerinthus, how could it be that Juſtin, Irenaeus, Melito, Tertullian, and Hippolytus ſhould be ignorant of it; of whom, Irenaeus and Tertullian have purpoſedly numbered up the Hereſies of Cerinthus? but of that hereſie, deep ſilence. How therefore came it to be knowne to Gaius? Nevertheleſſe it ſeems that the words of Gaius, an obſcure fellow, gave occaſion to Dionyſius Alexandrinus, Euſebius, and many others, in the heat of contention with the millenaries, to doubt of the authority of the Apocalypſe. Thus Mr. Mede.
§. 4 That which I have to adde, or illuſtrate, is this, that the words of Gaius and Dionyſius, and the ſtory of Euſebius alleadging them, are not to bee weighed in this matter. My reaſons are,
¶. 1. If Euſebius, and Dionyſius, yea, and Gaius himſelf doubted of the au…henty of the Apocalyps in oppoſition to our opinion, of the glorious ſtate of the Church with a viſible, yet ſpiritual glory for a thouſand years yet to come, they muſt needs be miſ-led thereunto by miſtakes, untruths, and falſe reports. For there is no juſt reaſon to doubt of the divine authority of the book of the Revelation, Nor is there any thing in our Tenet, unbecoming that divine book, nor diſſentanious there-from, but is more evidently held forth there then in any other book of the Scripture.
¶ 2. Irenaeus and Tertullian, and I adde Epiphanius naming Cerinthus, and particularizing his hereticall opinions, have not one word of his holding any thing of our opinion.
*Iren. lib. 1. ca. 25. (quoting in Marg. Euſeb. l. 3. cap: 25:) and Iren: l: 3: c: 3:1. Irenaeus mentions Cerinthus, and his wicked opinions, and wickedneſſe twice, yet hath nothing of his holding our Tenet, either in the ſame words with us, or in others of any proportion; although Eraſmus or Grineus, or both in their marginall notes doe well mind what Euſebius had ſaid quoting the place. All that Cerinthus held, as Irenaeus reports the matter was, Cerinthus autem quidam in Aſia, &c. i. e. And there was one Cerinthus in Aſia, who taught that the world was not made by the firſt cheife God, but by a certaine power that was exceedingly ſeparated and diſtant from that principality who is over all things; Et ignorante eo, quieſt ſuper omnia Deo. He alleadged that Jeſus was not borne of a Virgin (for that ſeemed impoſſible to him) but was the ſon of Joſeph and Mary, like as other men. But could doe more, (or was more potent, by his righteouſneſſe, prudence, ſapience above all; and after his baptiſme Chriſt deſcended upon him in the figure of a Dove, from that principality which is over all, and then declared the unknowne Father, and perfected his vertues; and in the end Chriſt fled away from Jeſus, and Jeſus ſuffered and roſe, but Chriſt being impaſſible, impatible, or unpaſſive, continued in his ſpiritual exiſtence. And there are that heard Polycarp ſay, that becauſe John the Diſciple of Chriſt going into a Bath in Epheſus to be waſhed, ſaw Cerinthus in the Bath, he the ſaid John …eaped out of the Bath unwaſhed, ſaying, that he feared leaſt the Bath ſhould fall, whiles Cerinthus an enemy of the truth was in it. And this is all Irenaeus ſaith of Cerinthus or his opinions.
*Tertul. De preſcrip. adver. A… reticos cap: 48.2. All that Tertullian hath concerning Cerinthus and his opinions is this. Carpocrates praeterea hanc tulit ſectam, &c. i. e. Furthermore Carpocrates brought forth this Sect. He ſaith that there is one principall power in the higheſt; by this the Angels, and Powers, or Vertues were brought forth. Which Angels being far diſtant from the ſupreame vertues or powers, did create that world in the inferiour parts. That Chriſt was not born of the Virgin Mary, but was begotten of the ſeed of Joſeph, as a meer man. Indeed he was better then others in the adorning of righteouſneſſe, and integrity of life: He ſuffered among the Jewes, onelyonly his ſoule was received up into heaven, becauſe he was more conſtant and ſtronger then others. Whence he would collect, that there are no reſurrections of the body, only he retained the†In the ordinary copies tis teniatâ a…imarum ſolâ ſalute: But Junius in his notes on Tertul: ſaith, legendum cenſceo retentâ animapum ſolâ ſalute. Ʋocem autem illam retenta latinius repoui monuit oporicre. ſalvation of ſoules. After this man, CERINTHUS the Hereticke broke out teaching the LIKE THINGS. For he alſo ſaith, that the world was ordained by them (thoſe Angels aforeſaid.) He publiſheth or declares that Chriſt was born of the ſeed of Joſeph, contending that he was only a man, without the divinity. Giving forth alſo, that the law was given by Angels. And tels us that the God of the Jewes was not the LORD, but an Angell. Thus far, and no further Tertullian of Cerinthus and his opinions.
*Epiphan: l. 1. contra …aereſ. Tom 2. Haereſ. 28.3. Epiphanius ſpeakes more largely, becauſe hee mentions not onelyonly Cerinthus, but his heretical ſucceeding race, and doth not only relate, but confute their Hereſies; yet hath not Epiphanius one word from firſt to laſt of his or their holding any thing of our Tenet. Cerinthus porro rurſus, a quo Cerinthiani dicuntur, &c. Furthermore (ſaith Epiphanius) Cerinthus, of whom are named the Cerinthians, did out of this beſtiall ſpawn of theſe creepers, bring again into the world a poiſon. But nothing more, almoſt, but the aforeſaid Carpocras. Indeed he brings forth into the world the ſame miſcheivous poiſons. For he vomits out againſt Chriſt the ſame calumnies as did the ſaid Carpocras; as that Chriſt was begotten of the ſeed of Mary and Joſeph. And likewiſe that the world was made by Angels. For this man varied nothing from the former, in the introduction of his Doctrine, ſaving in this onelyonly, that in part he to as addicted to Judaiſme. He alſo aſſerteth that the Law and the Prophets were given by Angels; and he that gave the Law, was one of thoſe Angelis that made the world. This CERINTHUS lived in Aſia, and there made the beginning of his preaching. Now let us ſpeak of this man, that he alſo preached, That the world was not made by the firſt and ſupream power, but from them above, and the ſupream God there deſcended upon Jeſus (after he was of ripe yeares, having been begotten of the ſeed of Joſeph and Mary) Chriſt, that is, the holy Spirit, in ſhape of a Dove at Jordan, and revealed to him, and by him to his poſterity the unknown Father. And thereupon after vertue or power came upon him from them above, he did wonders. And that when he ſuffered, that which came from above, fled away again from Jeſus. That Jeſus indeed ſuffered, and roſe againe. But Chriſt that came upon him from above, fled away again unhurt upward from Jeſus, that is, that which came deſcending in the ſhape of a Dove. And that Jeſus was not Chriſt. But this man alſo erred, as all you that are the friends of truth do plainly ſee. For he ſaith, the Law-giver was not good, whoſe Law he ſeems to obey. And tis plaine he obeys it as ſeeming good. How then did one that is evill give a good Law, &c? But the man is mad, who enters upon ſuch things. Furthermore, my deare friends, this is one of them that cauſed trouble before, or in the preſence, or times of the Apoſtles touching circumſition (Act. 15.34.) And this is one of them that reſiſted Peter touching his going to uncircumciſed Cornelius, Act. 11. 2, 3. Theſe things were then handled and moved by this aforeſaid falſe Apoſtle Cerinthus. Even he and his Companions at another time raiſed ſedition at Jeruſalem, when Paul returned with Titus, Act. 21.27, 28. &c. compared with Gal. 2.1, 2, 3. Theſe are they that Paul cals falſe Apoſtles, deceiful workers, transforming themſelves into Apoſtles of Chriſt. For they uſe the Goſpell according to Matthew in part, not wholly. But for that ſpeech of generation in the fleſh, they bring that teſtimony out of the Goſpel. It is ſufficient to the Diſciple, that he be as his Maſter. What therefore ſay they? Jeſus was circumciſed, be thou alſo circumciſed. Chriſt walked according to the Law; do thou likewiſe. But they refuſe Paul, becauſe he was not obedient to Circumciſion; yee reject him, becauſe he ſaid, As many of you as are juſtified by the Law, yee are fallen from grace; and if yee be circumciſed, Chriſt ſhall profit you nothing. This ſame Cerinthus alſo being a foole, and a Maſter of fooles, raſhly durſt further ſay, that Chriſt ſuffered, and was crucified, but was not yet riſen againe. But ſhall riſe when the univerſall reſurrection of the dead ſhall be. Therefore with them their words and opinions are unconſtant; againſt this Paul diſputes 1 Cor. 15. &c. Therefore every way Cerinthus is eaſie to be reprehended, and they that are deceived by him Thus ye have the whole of what Epiphanius ſpeaks of the particulars of Cerinthus his opinions.
§. 4 You ſee it now confirmed in the mouth of the three witneſſes of the beſt antiquity, that Cerinthus held no wanton voluptuous chiliaſme; nor ſpake he any thing at all of the Millenaries, though Tertullian, and Irenaeus lived above an hundred yeares nearer to Cerinthus his time then did Euſebius. And therefore wiſe men cannot but wonder that Euſebius ſhould tel us ſuch ſtories. And wonder the more, becauſe Epiphanius, on the other ſide, (that gave himſelfe ten times more to inquire into opinions then Euſebius) flouriſhing about 30 years after Euſebius his death⸪Euſeb: dyed about the year 339. and Epith. flouriſhed about the year 365. doth neither himſelfe finde any ſuch opinion held by Cerinthus or his Sect; nor doth he mention it as reported by Euſebius, or his Gaius, or Dionyſius, or any other. And thus (praiſe to Jehovah) of the places in the Old Teſtament.