The Diocesans Trial, Part 2 · Argument 15
The fifteenth Argument.
That which the orthodoxe churches ever condemned as heresie, the contrary of that is truth. But in Aerius they have condemned the deniall of superiority in one Minister above others. Ergo, the contrary is truth.
Answer.
To the proposition, we deny that it must needs be presently true, the contrary whereof is generally condemned for heresie. As the representative catholicke Church may propound an error, so she m…y condemne a particular truth, and yet remaine a catholicke church. To the assumption wee deny that the Church condemned in Aerius every denyall of superiority, but that onelyonly which Aerius runne into. Now his opinion I take to have been this. 1. He did with Ierom deny superiority of any kinde as due by Christs ordinance: for this opinion was never counted heresie, it was Ieroms plainely. 2. Hee did not deny the fact, that bishops were superiour in their actuall admistration; h… could not be so mad. If he had all that a bishop had actually, how could he have affected to be a bishop, as a further honou… ▪ Deniall of superiority, such as consisteth in a further power of ord…r then a P…e…byter hath, and in a kingly monarchicall majority of rule, this denyall is not here condemned: for all the fathers may be …rought as witnesses against this superiorty of the Church. What then was condemned in him? A deniall of all superiority in one minister before another, though it were but of honor and dignity: and secondly, the de…ying of this in schismaticall manner, so as to fors…k… communion with the Church wherein it is. For in these words, foreign, it seemeth foreign should bee read foreign, that there ought to be none. Howso…ver hee is to bee conceived as apposing practically the difference of honour & dignity which was in the Church by Ecclesiasticall institut…on. What is this to us? Deniall of superiority in regard of honor & dignity, joyned with schisme, was condemned: Ergo, deniall of superiority in power of order and kingly majority of rule, keeping the bond of love was condemned.
The assumption therefore if it assume not of this last deniall, then can it not conclude against us. Ergo, it is a truth that some Ministers may be above othersome, in order, honor, and dignity. But …h…y understand not by order such an order onelyonly as is distinct, because some degree of dignity is appropriate to it, which is not to other. Though th…s argument therefore touch us not, yet to speake a little further about it, this opinion of Aerius is not to be handled too severely: neither our authors, D. Whitakerus, D. Reynolds, Danaeus, to be blamed, who doe in some sort excuse him. For bishops were growne such that many good persons were offended at them, as the Audiani. Yea, it was so ordinary, that Ierom distinguisheth schisme from heresie, because the one conteined assertions against the faith, the other served from the Church by reason of dissenting from Bishops. See him on Tit. 3.10. Neither is it plain that he was an Arrian. Epiphanius reporteth it, but no other, though writing of this subject and story of these times. Sure it is, Eustathius was a strong Arian, whom Aerius did oppose. Neither is it strange to bishops to fasten on those which dissent from them in this point of their freehold, any thing whereof there is but ungrounded suspicion. Are not we traduced as Donatists, Anabaptists, Puritanes? As for this opinion▪ th…y thought it rather schismaticall, then hereticall: & therfore happily called it heresie, because it included errour in their understanding, which with schismaticall pertinacy was made heresie. Neither is it like that Epiphanius doth otherwise count it heresie, nor Austin following him. For thou…h Austine was aged, yet he was so humble, that hee sai…h, Augustinus senex à puero nondum anniculo paratus sum edoceri. Neither was it prejudice to h…s worth for to follow men more ancient then himselfe, who in likelihood should know this matter also better. As for his calling it heresie, it is certaine he would not have this in rigour streined. F…r he doth protest (in his preface unto that booke of heresie) that none to his thought, can in a regular definition comprehend what that is which maketh this or that to be heresie. Though th…refore he doubted not of this, that A…rius was in errour, such as Catholickes should decline: yet it doth not argue that hee thought this errour in rigour and former propriety, to have beene heresie. Thus much for this last Argument.
On the contrary side I propound these Arguments following to be serio…sly considered.