IX. The first whom we read to have bent themselves against the superiority of bishops were Aërius and his followers. Aërius seeking to be made a bishop, could not brook that Eustathius was thereunto preferred before him. Whereas therefore he saw himself unable to rise to that greatness which his ambitious pride did affect, his way of revenge was to try what wit being sharpened with envy and malice could do in raising a new seditious opinion, that the superiority which bishops had was a thing which they should not have, that a bishop might not ordain, and that a bishop ought not any way to be distinguished from a presbyter. For so doth St. Augustine1 deliver the opinion of Aërius: Epiphanius2 not so plainly nor so directly, but after a more rhetorical sort. “His speech was rather furious than convenient for man to use: What is,” saith he, “a bishop more than a presbyter? The one doth differ from the other nothing. For their order is one, their honour one, one their dignity. A bishop imposeth his hands, so doth a presbyter. A bishop baptizeth, the like doth a presbyter. The bishop is a minister of divine service, a presbyter is the same. The bishop sitteth as judge in a throne, even the presbyter sitteth also.” A presbyter therefore doing thus far the selfsame thing which a bishop did, it was by Aërius enforced that they ought not in any thing to differ.
Are we to think Aërius had wrong in being judged an heretic for holding this opinion? Surely if heresy be an error falsely fathered upon Scriptures, but indeed repugnant to the truth of the Word of God, and by the consent of the universal Church, in the councils, or in her contrary uniform practice throughout the whole world, declared to be such; and the opinion of Aërius in this point be a plain error of that nature: there is no remedy, but Aërius, so schismatically and stiffly maintaining it, must even stand where Epiphanius and Augustine have placed him. An error repugnant unto the truth of the Word of God is held by them, whosoever they be, that stand in defence of any conclusion drawn erroneously out of Scripture, and untruly thereon fathered. The opinion of Aërius therefore being falsely collected out of Scripture, must needs be acknowledged an error repugnant unto the truth of the word of God. His opinion was that there ought not to be any difference between a bishop and a presbyter. His grounds and reasons for this opinion were sentences of Scripture. Under pretence of which sentences, whereby it seemed that bishops and presbyters at the first did not differ, it was concluded by Aërius that the Church did ill in permitting any difference to be made.
The answer which Epiphanius maketh unto some part of the proofs by Aërius alleged, was not greatly studied or laboured; for through a contempt of so base an error (for this himself did perceive and profess) yieldeth he thereof expressly this reason: Men that have wit do evidently see that all this is mere foolishness. But how vain and ridiculous soever his opinion seemed unto wise men, with it Aërius deceived many3; for which cause somewhat was convenient to be said against it. And in that very extemporal slightness which Epiphanius there useth4, albeit the answer made to Aërius be in part but raw5, yet ought not hereby the truth to find any less favour than in other causes it doth, where we do not therefore judge heresy to have the better, because now and then it allegeth that for itself, which defenders of the truth do not always so fully answer. Let it therefore suffice, that Aërius did bring nothing unanswerable. The weak solutions which the one doth give, are to us no prejudice against the cause, as long as the other’s oppositions are of no greater strength and validity. Did not Aërius, trow you, deserve to be esteemed as a new Apollos, mighty and powerful in the word, which could for maintenance of his cause bring forth so plain divine authorities, to prove by the Apostles’ own writings that bishops ought not in any thing to differ from other presbyters? For example, where it is said6 that presbyters made Timothy bishop, is it not clear that a bishop should not differ from a presbyter, by having power of ordination? Again, if a bishop might by order be distinguished from a presbyter, would the Apostle have given as he doth7 unto presbyters the title of bishops? These were the invincible demonstrations wherewith Aërius did so fiercely assault bishops.
But the sentence of Aërius perhaps was only, that the difference between a bishop and a presbyter hath grown by the order and custom of the Church, the word of God not appointing that any such difference should be. Well, let Aërius then find the favour to have his sentence so construed; yet his fault in condemning the order of the Church, his not submitting himself unto that order, the schism which he caused in the Church about it, who can excuse? No, the truth is, that these things did even necessarily ensue, by force of the very opinion which he and his followers did hold. His conclusion was, that there ought to be no difference between a presbyter and a bishop. His proofs, those Scripture sentences which make mention of bishops and presbyters without any such distinction or difference. So that if between his conclusion and the proofs whereby he laboured to strengthen the same, there be any show of coherence at all, we must of necessity confess, that when Aërius did plead, There is by the Word of God no difference between a presbyter and a bishop, his meaning was not only, that the Word of God itself appointeth not, but that it enforceth on us the duty of not appointing nor allowing that any such difference should be made.
← How far the power of Bishops hath reached fr · Contents · In what respects episcopal regiment is gains →
Footnotes
-
Aug. de Hær. ad Quodvultdeum. [t. viii. 18. Hær. 53.] “Aëriani ab Aërio quodam sunt, qui quum esset presbyter, doluisse fertur, quod episcopus non potest ordinari; [et in Arianorum hæresin lapsus, propria quoque dogmata addidisse nonnulla, dicens, offerri pro dormientibus non oportere, nec statuta solenniter celebranda esse jejunia, sed cum quisque voluerit jejunandum, ne videatur esse sub lege.] Dicebat etiam presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni.” ↩
-
[Epiphan. Hæres. 75. c. 3. ἠ̑ν δὲ αὐτου̑ ὁ λόγος μανιώδης μα̑λλον, ἤπερ καταστασέως ἀνθρωπίνης, καί, ϕησι, τί ἐστιν ἐπίσκοπος πρὸς πρεσβύτερον; οὐδὲν διαλλάττει οὑ̑τος τούτου· μία γάρ ἐστι τάξις, καὶ μία, ϕησὶ, τιμὴ, καὶ ἓν ἀξίωμα· χειροθετει̑, ϕησὶν, ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος· λουτρὸν δίδωσιν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος· τὴν οἰκονομίαν τη̑ς λατρείας ποιει̑ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ὡσαύτως· καθέζεται ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐπὶ του̑ θρόνου, καθέζεται καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος.] ↩
-
Ἐν τούτῳ πολλοὺς ἠπάτησε. [Hær. 75. § 3.] ↩
-
[Hær. 75. § 5.] ↩
-
As in that he saith, the Apostle doth name sometime presbyters and not bishops, 1 Tim. iv. 14. sometime bishops and not presbyters, Phil. i. 1. because all churches had not both, for want of able and sufficient men. In such churches therefore as had but the one, the Apostle could not mention the other. Which answer is nothing to the latter place abovementioned: for that the church of Philippi should have more bishops than one, and want a few able men to be presbyters under the regiment of one bishop, how shall we think it probable or likely? ↩
-
1 Tim. iv. 14. “With the imposition of the presbytery’s hand.” Of which presbytery St. Paul was chief, 2 Tim. i. 6. And I think no man will deny that St. Paul had more than a simple presbyter’s authority. ↩
-
Phil. i. 1. “To all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” For as yet in the church of Philippi, there was no one which had authority besides the Apostles, but their presbyters or bishops were all both in title and in power equal. ↩