The Fundamentals of the Hierarchy Examined and Disproved, Treatise · Part 1 · Section 6
Section VI.
The Instance of Aërius condemn'd by Epiphanius, prov'd to be unserviceable to our Antagonists.
TO Illustrat and Corroborat this their Argument from Antiquity, they adduce the Instance of Aërius; who was for this his Judgement of Presbytry, as well as for Arrianism, condemn'd and counted Heretick by Epiphanius. But it is certain that Epiphanius censur'd Aërius, not only for his being Anti-episcopal, and, as he believ'd, because Arrian, but also for his rejecting of Lents, set and Anniversary Fasts, and for denial of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead. Now either purer Antiquity join'd with Epiphanius in asserting of the necessity of Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such Fopperies; or they did not; and if they join'd with him therein, then our Prelatists, if they be Protestants, are concern'd to reflect better of how little weight their Argument from the Ancients, pressing their unwarrantable Additions, can be unto them: But if they say that sounder Antiquity consented not to Epiphanius, while he urged Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and such Anti-scriptural Fictions, we return that neither did the choicest of the Ancients agree with him in his Plea for Prelacy.
The Judgement of Hierom is so well known herein, that the Bishop of Spalato aDe Repub. Ecclesiasticâ. Lib. 2. Cap. 4. Numb. 46. Sunt qui Hieronymum in rectam sententiam vel invitum velint trahere—neque in hoc aut excusari satis potest, aut &c.acknowledges that Hierom can by no means, yea not byforce be reconcil'd to their Cause. Hierome's Judgement (saith Saravia bDe diversis gradibus ministrorum Evangelii. Cap. 23. Dico privatam fuisse Hieronymi opinionem, consentaneam cum Aërio &c.) was private; all one with that of Aërius, and contrary to the Word of GOD, wherefore we shall examine his Arguments. And on this account he is much offended with Hierome accusing him of Vanity, cIbid. 27.Self-contradiction dExam. tract. de triplici Episcopatû. Page 25., and Prevarication eIbid. Page 34.;
And Alphonsus de Castro fContra Hereses fol. 103. B. Sed revera fallitur Thomas Waldensis quoniam in toto illo decursu p…st verba proximè citata nihil aliud conatur Hieronymus quam ut ostendat ex Divina Institutione non esse differentiam inter Presbyterum & Episcopum—Et fol. 104. D. Nec etiam mirari quisquam debet quod Beatus Hieronymus Vir alioqui doctrissimus sic deceptus fuerit, &c.sharply reproveth Thomas Waldensis another Papist, who had intended to pervert the Testimonies, which are commonly alledg'd for Presbytry out of Hierome: There De Castro having prov'd, out of divers places of Hierome, that he was truly for the Scriptural and Apostolick Idenity of Bishop and preaching Presbyter, concludes, against Waldensis, that of necessity there must be another way taken to Answer the Passages alledg'd out of Hierome for Presbytry: And at length flatly opposes himself to Hierome in this Matter, and saith, that we ought rather to believe the Decrees of Popes and Councils, than the Doctrine of Hierome, though both very Holy and Learn'd.
And Medina, another Champion of the Hierarchy, cited by Bellarmine, asserts the same of Hierome, saying, He was of the same Judgement with Aërius in this Matter. Bellarmine gDe Cler. Cap. 15. Michaël Medina—affirmat sanstum Hieronymum idem omnino cum Aërianis sensisse, neque solum Hieronymum in ea Heresi fuisse, sed etiam Ambrofium, Augustinum, Sedulium, Primasium, Chrysostomum, Theodoretum, OEcumenium, & Theophilactum, atque ita (inquit Medina) isti Viri ali…qui Sanctissimi & Sacrarum Scripturarum consultissimi, quorum tamen sententiam, prius in Aërio, deinde in Waldensibus, postremo in Johanne Vvicklefo, damnavit Fcclesia. Et infra. Ergo in Hieronymo & Gracis illis Patribus &c.is very displeas'd with his Brother for his Ingenuity, and therefore attempts to bring Hierome over to the Episcopal Party; but instead of performing this Task, he only fruitlesly endeavours to set Hierome at variance with himself.
The like success had another of the same Fraternity, who, like Bellarmine, attempted to draw Hierome to his Faction, Bayly the Jesuit:hCatechism. tract. 2. Quest. 23. And yet with these, the most disingenous of the whole fry of Loyolites, some called Protestants stick not warmly to join themselves, and plead for a Patrociny to their Cause from Hierome.
§. 3. Yea not only was Hierome of the same Judgement anent Episcopacy with Aërius, but also, as even the Jesuite Medina acknowledges, the most of the Greek and Latine primitive Doctors, and in special Ambrosius, Augustinus, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostomus, Theodoretus, Oecumenius, Theophilactus. This their Opinion (saith Medina) was first condemned in Aërius, then in the Waldenses, and lastly in Wicklef, but this Doctrine was either dissembled or tolerated by the Church in them for the Honour that was had to them, while on the other hand it was always condemn'd in these Men as Heretical, because in many other things they swerv'd from the Church. Many Papists and other Prelatists cannot away with this Medina's free dealing, and use many shifts to refute him, and draw these Fathers to their Party. But to use the Words of Rivet iCath. Orth. Tom. 1. Page 286., Whosoever shall consider their Answers collested by Sixtus Senensis Biblioth. lib. 6. annot. 319, 323, 324. they shall presently perceive that all their Distinctions are most pitifull Elusions, and that indeed all these Fathers were no less Presbyterian than Aërius, although they accommodat themselves to the Custom then received; least for a Matter not contrary to the Foundations of Religion they should have broken the Vnity of the Church. What do our Opposits herein, but espouse what the Romanists, in whom any ingenuity remains, have long since disowned?
§. 4. But tho' Epiphanius were the mouth of all Antiquity, and the only fit Judge in this Controversie, the Triumph of our Adversaries should be very small: for Aërius to Prove the Idenity of the two, having adduced a parallel of many particulars, Epiphanius kHeresi 55. five 75. foreign.denieth nothing of these to belong to Presbyters, except only Imposition of Hands; he yeelds therefore that both of them equally have Power to Baptize, to occupy the Chair, and finally to perform all Divine Worship. Our Antagonists therefore offering to vouch the Prelacy they plead for, by the Authority of Epiphanius, promise much more then they can perform; for what, pray, is this Power of Imposition of Hands, or Ordination, compared with what they covet, and pretend to support by Epiphanius, his Authority, I mean the, both great and many Differences between Bishop and Presbyter.
§. 5. In the mean while Epiphanius his unjust dealing towards Aërius, is most palpable, for he sticks not to give out, that Aërius his Judgement of the Identity of Bishop & Presbyter, was look'd on by the whole Church as an intolerable Heresie condemned by the Word of God, when yet the quite contrary is so plain in the Writings of the Ancients down from the very Apostles, that even Epiphanius himself could not be ignorant thereof. Neither are his Deductions from Scripture more solid than his Allegation of the Suffrages of the Catholick Church, is true: all he brings from Scripture being 1 Tim. 5. 1. and 19. but he so grossy abuses these Scriptures that even Spalatensis lDe repub. eccles. Lib. 2. Cap. 5.himself, and the ablest Patrons of Prelacy are ashamed of these Inferences. But Epiphanius had less exposed himself, had he, as he did in the Matter of Lents, set Fasts, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such his dear and beloved Doctrines, pretended only to Tradition; and so the Lettice should have been fitted for the Lips, and also his miserable weakness have been less apparent.
§. 6. And though in the last place, to render Presbytry more odious, they still upbraid us with the Arrianism of Aërius; we need be little concern'd therewith, seeing we have the greatest Opposers of Arrians, intirely Aërians (to speak in the stile of our Opposits) in the matter of Presbytry, as we have already shewed. But I must here add, that it is upon no good Ground believed that ever Aërius was Arrian: all the Schisms and Divisions, though but very small, among the Arrians themselves are diligently described by the Historians of these times, as Ruffinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Theodorus Lector, Philost…rgius, and others; but none of these or any others mention a word of the Schism of Aërius, which if we believe Epiphanius, was a Schism among the Arrians themselves: for he tells us that Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Pontus, from whom Aërius made the separation, was a down-right Arrian, and persisted therein till his Death.
Add hereto that Augustine and others, who, in their Catalogues of Hereticks mention Aërius, still in their Preambles, intimat that their Author is Epiphanius. I name Augustine on the vulgar supposition that he is the Author of that tract de Heresibus, which yet is very doubtfull, seeing it's altogether improbable that he ever heard off, & far less read Epiphanius his books foreign It's altogether unprobable that they were then translated, and it's certain that Augustine was utterly unable to understand them in the Original. Moreover, we have in that Tractat Relations of the Nestorian and Eutichian Heresies, not broached till after Augustine's Death. Which Relations, altho' some alledge to have been added by another to the rest, which they think to be really Augustines, yet seeing they are no less then the rest handed down under his Name (tho' they now stand there as an Appendix, for in the end of the Pelagian Heresie which is the last before the Appendix, he promises more) make a good proof that it's not easie to discern the genuine part of that Tractat from the Spurious. However this be from what is said, the matter of Aërius resolves into this Issue, that we have only the report thereof from Basilius, and Epiphanius.
§. 7. But that discourse of Basilius, foreign, in which Aërius is mention'd, is suspected & well nigh condemn'd by Erasmus mEpistola ejus dedicatiora translationi suae praefixa.And to confirm what he asserts, Robert Cock, in his Censure of the Fathers, adds divers Reasons, as I am inform'd by Rivet, nCritic. Patrum Page 330.for I have not perus'd Cock himself; neither need I, seeing in all that Tractat there is not the least mention of Aërius. The ground of somes mistake was, that instead of Aëtius, who indeed was a most noted and pernicious Arrian, by the escape of the Printer, or some other accident, the word Aërius had crept into Erasmus his Translation thereof: But in the Original, printed at Paris Anno MDXVIII, there is Aëtius, not Aërius. They have (saith heoforeign. cap. 2. foreign.cap.2. foreign) a certain old Quibble from Aëtius the head of his Heresie. And indeed Basil could never have term'd Aërius, or any thing said by him, ancient, seeing he was scarcely so old as Basil himself, As for Epiphanius, if we consider the Passion wherewith he manages the Debate with Aërius, and his great credulity of whatever might favour his own Cause, and his many Mistakes in Historical Matters, he deserves little Credit in this Matter. A mighty Tide of Passion, which both blinds Mens eyes, and opens their Ears to false Reports, visibly appears in Epiphanius his whole conduct of the Dispute with Aërius: and that he was most credulous, believing the most light and groundless Reports, and in matters of Fact, of all men most frequently fell into Mistakes, is attested, not only by Melchor Canus, and Baron, in many places of his Annals, among the Papists; but also by the learnedest of the Protestants, as Casaubon, pVir maximus Epiphanius, sed, quem res arguit ipsa, levibus auditiunculis, nescio unde acceptis, facilè nimis aliquando fidem habuisse.whose words are: Epiphanius was a great Man, but, as is very evident, he did most easily believe every most silly and groundless Report. To which also the learned Rivet assenteth.
§. 8. One Instance whereof appears in his Relation of the Donatists, whom, either out of misinformation, or some other weakness, he accuses also of Arrianism, and tells usqHaeresi 39. vel 59. foreign— that they agreed with Arrius in Doctrine, and that one Refutation would serve for both.
§. 9. Augustine rEpistola 50. ad Bonifacium.indeed speaks as if some of them believed the Son to be less than the Father: But, as appears from the same Author, sIbidem.they erred rather in expression than reality; for he presently absolves them from the Charge, and informs us, that between the Church and them, there was no Question concerning this Matter. And elsewhere, tTom. 6. Haeresi 69.he imputes this dangerous Expression to Donatus their Leader, who had used it in some of his Writings, but tells us with all that his Party follow him not herein. Neither (saith Augustine) shall ye readily find one among them all who knows that Donatus had any such Opinion.
And Optatus uLib. 3. Page 101.plainly declares, that in the great Foundations of Christianity, there was no difference between the Orthodox and Donatists. And indeed it is acknowledg'd by all, except Epiphanius, that the Donatists were only guilty of Schism, not of Heresie.
§. 10. But Aërius (they may object) his Arrianism is sufficiently attested by what is recorded of Eustathius his Friend and Bishop: and indeed Basil xEpist. 74.accuses Eustathius of Arrianism, but for ought I remember the Historians of these times differ from Basil.
§. 11. They accuse Eustathius of Levity, Deceit, Macedonianism, or the denial of the Holy Ghost's Divinity, a most damnable Heresie, yet different from Arrianism. And herein also they represent him rather variable and unfixed, than intirely wedded to this Heresie. He once subscrib'd to the Orthodox Doctrine, and was approv'd as such by Liberius the Bishop of Rome, then Orthodox, and other Catholick Christians. But they write that he relapsed. In the mean while, when he was most for the Macedonians, he said as he would not call the Holy-Ghost God, so he durst not call him a Creature; hence, he may rather be counted among these who were most dangerously shaken, than a down-right Macedonian; and may for all is said of his Opinions plead for some Charity from all that well consider, the most dismal and dangerous Age wherein he lived.
§. 12. But let him be an Arrian blacker than Arrius himself, it will be hard thence to draw any Conclusion concerning Aërius.
For First, Basil, in the forecited place, tells us, that Eustathius was so cunning, as to perswade the ablest of these times that he was Orthodox; and why might he not then put a Cheat on his own Presbytry.
Secondly, Eustathius, as is related, was much given to Covetousness, and altho' Epiphanius carri'd out with Passion, for his Innovations justifies and praises him, that he may reach a harder Blow to Aërius: yet this his Avarice was one of the Grounds wherefore Aërius, (as he professeth) deserted Eustathius: and this I think is no less to be believ'd, than ought else we have from Epiphanius, uncharitably at least, wresting both his Words and Actions. And it is not improbable that he, who had the Conscience to dislike Eustathius for his Vices, might do no less on the account of his Errors.
Thirdly, Aërius was priviledg'd by God with, both, eyes to perceive, and courage to oppose the unwarranted Festivals, superstitious Fasts, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, and other such then growing Dottages, notwithstanding that they were so kindly imbrac'd by most Christians. Now I believe that hardly an Instance can be adduc'd, of any who set himself in Opposition to the whole World, by condemning such growing Corruptions, and attempting at least to stop the beginnings of Anti-christianism, and yet fell into this damnable Heresie wherewith they brand Aërius. I hope therefore, that henceforth all true Protestants shall inlarge their Charity, and be more backward to join with Romanists in bespattering the memory of him who did amongst the first declare his Detestation of the leaven of Romanism.
§. 13. Had any thing written by Aërius, come unstain'd to our hands, I doubt not but we had got a far other account of his Creed and Doctrine: but the Zeal of these Innovatours prompted them to make all Opposers of their Fopperies grand Hereticks, and fasly stigmatize Truth's Witnesses with what really deserved that name, and then overwhelm'd them with Calumnies; and gave their Writings to the Flames for a Repository. This was the Fate of Vigilantius, Claudius Taurinensis, and others, of whose Writings nothing, except some mangl'd and deprav'd scrapes found in the bitter Invectives of their most partial and disingenous Adversaries, remains.
§. 13. The Aërians are also remembred by Philastrius yHaeresi 25. Aërii ab Aërio quodam sic appellati sunt, qui astinentiis vacant &c.They are so named (saith he) from Aërius, they give themselves to abstinences, and live mostly in Pamphilia, they are also call…d Encratites, i. e. Abstinents. They possess nothing; They abhore Meats which God with his Blessing hath bestow'd on Mankind: They condemn moreover lawfull Marriage, alledging that it's not of God's Institution. Thus Philastrius.
§. 14. But to me it is not probable that any who deni'd, and despis'd all their Lent-seasons, Xerophagies, wherein nothing was eaten but dry Bread, and such rigorous Fasts and restraints, were ever addicted to Encratitick abstinences, whereby all use of Wine, Flesh, and other such Delicacies was probihited.
Secondly, Epiphanius makes the Encratits and Aërians quite contrary Sects to one another, who sustained quite contrary Doctrines and Practices: for according to himzHaeresi 27. sive 47. foreign. the former ate no living Creature— nor drank Wine. Which is also Attested by Eusebius aHist. Eccles. Lib. 4. Cap. 29. foreign &c., and Irenaeus. bLib. 1. Cap 30.The latter Epiphanius, cHaeresi 55. sive 75. foreign.according to his custom of turning all the Aërians their Practices into Crimes, will have to be excessive Gormandizers, and but to liberal to themselves in both Flesh and Wine: so far was he from joining with Philastrius in ascribing Encratitism to the Aërians.
Thirdly, Another of the Heresies of these Encratites, was their rejecting much of the New Testament, and in particular the Epistles of Paul dEusebius Eccles. Hist. Lib. 4. Cap. 29. foreign &c.. But so far were the Aërians therefrom, that they foundedeEpiphanius Haeresi 55. sive 75. foreign. the Doctrine, for which they are so much reproach'd by Epiphanius, viz. that of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter, on these very Epistles of Paul citing 1 T…m. 3. 4. & 14. And the like places of Paul for Proofs of their Doctrine, which afterward was done by Hierome, and after him by the stream of Interpreters of these Places, and others that handled that Subject, and at this day by the Body of the Reformed Churches. From all which is evident the falsehood of what Philastrius alledges, and that the Aërians were far from being guilty of Encratitism or such Crimes, but they must needs first suffer the persecution of tongues as a preamble and preparative to make them a Prey more obnoxious to the violent hands of these who are beginning to dote on the Romish Superstition.
§. 15. And so it fell out. For Epiphanius fIbidem foreign.himself tells us, that the Aërians were banish'd from Churches, Lands, Villages, and Cities, and that often times they lodg'd only in the open Air, all covered with Snow, and were oblig'd to seek shelter in the Woods and Rocks. Now what was the cause of this so violent hatred and hot Persecution? Was it their being guilty of Arrianism? sure not: For if we believe Epiphanius they were a branch of the Arrians, and, as he insinuats, liv'd among them. But suppose they did not, we find no such Persecution of the Arrians on the account of their Faith in these times, but only their Exclusion from the publick Churches. They being permitted in the mean while to keep their Conventicles in privat Houses, even at the very Gates of the greatest Cities. Add hereto (which we trust we have evinc'd) that Aërius never Arrianiz'd, and so they could not persecute him, and his Followers upon this account. From all that is now said, 'tis clear, that we most seek another spring of this violent Hate and Persecution. And this I think may easily be reach'd and perceiv'd to be nothing else but the passionat Zeal, the World, declining more and more after Anti-christian Superstition, had for their set Lent-seasons, their Fasts of their own making, Prayer and Sacrifice for the Dead, their despotick Hierarchy, and other such preparatives of the Man of Sin's appearance, all which were oppos'd by Aërius, and his Followers with more Zeal than they were by any others in the World at that time, and so had presently War made upon them by such as minded nothing more than worshipping the Rising-Sun of Unrighteousness. And indeed to me the whole strain of Epiphanius his Discourse clearly intimats, that not Arrianism but the opposing of these Dotages was the Ground of all this Hatred and Spight that was pour'd upon Aërius and his Adherents.
§. 16. And now I have done with Philastrius: only I must observe, for which I mainly adduc'd him, that in him there's no mention of Aërius his Arrianism, which, tho' a negative Testimony, yet exceedingly weakens that we have from Epiphanius, Philastrius being a Bishop, a Man of Credit, and of no less Antiquity than the other. In which Sentiment, I am confirmed from Rabanus Maurus gDe instit. cler. Lib. 2. Cap. 58. Aëriani ab Aërio quodam nuncupati sunt, hi offerre sacrificium pr… defunctis spernunt.Bishop of Mentz, who only informs us, that the Heresie of Aërius consisted in despising Sacrifices for the Dead. From all which to me it's more than probable, that there's no ground to believe that ever Aërius Arrianiz'd.