The grand impostor discovered, or, An historical dispute of the papacy and popish religion ... divided in four parts : 1. of bishops, 2. of arch-bishops, 3. of an œcumenick bishop, 4. of Antichrist : Part I, divided in two books ... / by S.C.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Hierarchy of the Church, Ephesians 4.

WE have prosecuted two Arguments against the in∣stitution of the Supremacy of Peter: now follo∣weth the third, which is this, If Peter had been ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church, then the Apo∣stles themselves, and these who lived in their times, delineating the Hierarchy of the Church, would have mentioned it, or affir∣med, That the Government of the Church was monarchical, un∣der one visible head. But both the Apostles themselves, and those who are confessed by our adversaries, to have lived in the times of the Apostles, delineating the Hierarchy of the Church, put e∣ver still more persons then one of equal authority in the highest place of the Hierarchie: whereby it is evident to any, who is not wilfully blinde, that the Government of the Church was not by Christs Institution Monarchical.

And first, the Apostle Paul, Ephes. 4. enumerating the Hie∣rarchie of the Church, verse 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. hath these words, He that descended, is even the same that ascended, far a∣bove all heavens, that he might fill all things. He therefore gave some to be Apostles, and some Prophets, and some Evangelists, and some Pastors and Teachers. In which words ye have the Hierarchy of the Church, consisting of several degrees, in eve∣ry degree many persons: the highest degree, is that of the

Apostles: which are also many, or in the Plural number, where∣by it is evident, that our Savior did institute no Monarchy in the Church, in one single person, or in Peter: neither can it be affirmed, That this enumeration of Church-Officers, ordai∣ned by Christ, is not full, or is not perfect; as if the Apostle had omitted some Church-Officers, ordained by Christ: be∣cause it appears by verse 12, 13, & 14. That no more were ne∣cessarie for the building up of the Church, or performing any du∣ty necessar for the Churches instruction: viz. for the repairing of the ••aints, for the work of the Ministrie, and for the edification of the bodie of Christ, verse 12. Till we all meat together (in the unitie of faith, and that acknowledging of the Son of God) unto a perfect man, and unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ, verse 13. That we henceforth be no more children, wa∣vering, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, &c.

By those words of the Apostle it appears, that no more Church Rulers are necessar eitheir for the founding of the Church: or confirming it after it is built, or defending it when it is confirmed from onsets of the Devil, or his instruments: and since no visible Monarch of the Church is mentioned by the A∣postle, it is evident, that there was no such Monarch ordai∣ned by Christ.

Bellarmin answers two wayes. One way is, that the Apostle in those words, is not delineating the Hierarchy of the Church: but only enumerating divers gifts of some of the Church, and 1 Corinthians 12. he adds the gift of tongues.

But it is replyed, It cannot be denyed, but the Apostle is enumerating diversity of gifts; since verse 7. He expresly af∣firms so much, but it is to be added, that he enumerats those gifts, as they are in Officers of the Church only▪ whence appears the dissimilitude of this place from 1 Corinth. 12. In which gifts are enumerated, which are not peculiar to Church Rulers, but are also found in laiks: Such as gifts of healing, and

tongues, &c. That this is the Apostles meaning, appears by two reasons. First ••he enumerats none, verse 11. Who hath not a degree of ruling in the Church. The second is, because ver. 12. 13, 14▪ He doth not enumerat any utility redounding to the Church, which is not wrought by the Ministry, ver. 11. He enumerats the Ministers of the Church, ver. 12. 13, & 14. He enumerats the ends wherefore these Ministers were ordained: All which ends, Oecumentus comprehends under one, that is, saith he, Those degrees of Ministers enumerated, verse 12. were for that end ordained, that they might minister unto the Church, as appears, ver. 12, 13, & 14.

It is to be observed, that the Apostle enumerats here all Church Officers▪ both extraordinar and ordinar. The extra∣ordinar are those who were ordained only to continue for a time: Such as Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets. Ordinar, are those ordained to be of perpetual standing in the Church: as Doctors, and Pastors. And since in all those Orders of Church Mini∣sters there are many, and not one only in each degree: it is evi∣dent, that one Oecumenick Bishop, or a visible head of the Church, is not comprehended under any of those Ministers.

Bellarmin puzled with this answers another way. He grants, that the enumeration of Church Ministers here is per∣fect: but he denyes that an Oecumenick Bishop hath no place in that enumeration: because, saith he, All the ••ierarchy of the Church▪ and consequently an Oecumenick Bishop, is confus••dly represented under the name of Pastors and Doctors: But finding that Pastors and Doctors were only inferior Orders, below, A∣postles, Prophets and Evangelists. He passeth from this, and affirms next, That an Oecumenick Bishop is comprehended un∣der Apostles: because, not only here, but also 1 Corinth 12. Apostles are put in the first place: and therefore the chief Ec∣clesiastick Power was given to all the Apostles; but to Peter, as ordinar Pastor: and therefore to have a Successor in it, to the

other Apostles, as exraordinar and Delegats to Peter: and therefore none should succeed them.

But it is answered, we prolixly disputed this distinction of Bellarmins to be groundless, contradictory and inconsistent with it self, cap. 6. It is needless to repeat what we said there in this place. It is sufficient here, that never any ancient or Mo∣dern Interpreter before the times of the Jesuits, did so much as dream, that an Oecumenick Bishop was comprehended by the Apostle, Ephes. 4. 11. Which could be made out by an Induction of all the Commentaries, of ancient and Modern Writers upon that place. By which it appears, that all those testimonies by which those Jesuits prove the Supremacy of Peter, (and consequently the verity of the Roman Faith,) are either in Scripture or Fathers, depraved by new devised Glosses unknown to the Ancients: and also their answers, are of the same stuff, by which they elude passages of Scripture and Antiquity, destroying the Monarchy of the Bishop of Rome, and in it the whole edifice of the Roman Church. Both their offensive and defensive arms, are but devised of late, since the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome was established.

That any may see, that this Gloss of Bellarmins, is a fiction of his own devising, we will prove by three Arguments, of three several Interpreters. By which it will appear, what was the opinion of the Church, concerning the meaning of this pas∣sage, Ephes 4. 11. since the times of the Apostles unto those dayes?

The first Interval is of the Primitive Church, before the Council of Nice, what was the opinion of that Church in that Interval? appears by the testimony of the ancient Author (by some believed to be Dionysius Areopagita, the disciple of Paul) his words, epistle 8. are those: Tu ergo cupiditati, ira∣cundiae, rationi modum statue pro dignitate: tibi verò divini Mi∣nistri: his Sacerdotes: Pontifices Sacerdotibus: Pontificibus Apo∣stali

stoli, Apostolorúmque successores. Quod si qu••s etiam in istis ab officio discedat, à sanctis qui sunt ejusdem ordinis corrigetur: at∣que ita non insultabit ordo in ordinem: sed unusquisque in suo or∣dine, ac Ministerio premanebit. In which words ye have two things. The first is, That the chief place in the Hierarchy, in the times of the Apostles, was held not by one, but by many, viz. by all the Apostles alike: neither makes he mention of Peter, his having that chief power, as ordinar Pastor, and of the other Apostles, as having it a•• Delegats to Peter: which will be fur∣ther confirmed by the second thing observable in these words, which is this: After the Apostles were removed, the chief place in the Hierarchy consisted also not in one person, but in many alike, viz. in Bishops, who succeeded to the Apostles in the first place of the Hierarchie: which also he expresly affirms to be of equal Order and Jurisdiction: many and not one having Jurisdiction over all, as a visible head: which quite destroyes the Gloss of Bellarmin, for if others succeeding to the other Apostles, were in the first place of the Hierarchie (which this Author flatly affirms) it is false which Bellarmin affirms, that all the Apostles had the chief power, only during their own time, not communicable to their Successors. And likewise, if those suc∣cessors of the other Apostles, were in the first place of the Hie∣rarchy, equally and alike, (as this Author also affirms) It is false, which Bellarmin affirms, That the Successors of Peter the Apostle, had ••he chief authority in their single persons, as visible Monarchs of the Church. It may be proved by the Glosses of Maximus, and others, that this Dionysius was not the Dis∣ciple of the Apostle Paul, mentioned in the Acts, because, he seems to make mention of the Metropolitants, above Bishops. But it shal be proved, lib. 2. by unanswerable testimonies, That there was no Office above that of a Bishop in the Church, before the latter end of the third age. However, albeit he be not the Disciple of Paul, (as some affirm he is) yet he is an ancient

Author, and delineats, the Hierarchie of the Church, not to have been monarchical in his days.

The second testimony, is of Ambrosius, who l••ved in that interval between the Council of Nice, and anno 604. at which time Bonifacius third, was made (first of all the Bishops of Rome) universal Bishop by an Edict of the Emperor Phocas. The words of Ambrosius are, Apostoli sunt Episcopi, nam in Episcopo omnes ordines sunt, quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, Princeps Sacerdotum, & Propheta & Evangelista, & ad caetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiae in Ministerio fidelium. In which words he is shewing, what Church-Rulers in his own time were answerable to, or represented these mentioned by Paul Ehes. 4. 11. And he affirms, That Bishops succeeded to the Apostles, in the first place of the Hierarchie (Apostoli sunt E∣piscopi, saith he,) in which words he expresly affirms, That the chief place in the Hierarchie in his own time, (which was the latter end of the 4. Age) was in many, and not in one, viz. in Bishops who answered to the Apostles: And consequently, he contradicts this gloss of Bellarmin, who affirms that the Successors of Peter (and not of the other Apostles) only suc∣ceeded in the first place of Hierarchie, as Monarchs of the Church. One Tenebrio or an other (whose name I have forgot, and also where I read it) intends to prove by these words of Ambrosius an Oecumenick Bishop, because Ambrosius makes mention of these words, of Primus Socerdos, and Princeps Sa∣cerdotum, that is of first Priest and Prince of Priests. But any (if not altogether stupid, or else intending to deceive) may perceive, that it is far from the meaning of Ambrosius, his words are, Bishops succeed to the Apostles, or answer to the Apostles (mentioned by Paul, Ephes. 4. 11) because a Bishop is first Priest and Prince of Priests: by which i•• appears, that he is comparing Bishops with inferior Priests or Presbyters, and not Bishops with Bishops. Which is further confirmed, be∣cause

not only Hieronymus (contemporarie with Ambrosius) and other Fathers, but also Ambrosius himself, calls all Bishops, Summos Sacerdotis, or chief Priest, and of alike Juris∣diction: So Anacletus, epist. 2. Tertullianus, de Baptism. cap. 17. Hieronymus, contra Luciferianos, and in his Epistle to Evagrius, Gaudentius, in tractu de Prim. die suae ordinat: Eu∣sebius, Emissenus, in Homil. Augustinus, epist, 36. which is of Paulinus, to Romanianus, Ambrosius himself, lib. 3. cap. 1. de Sacramentis, and also epist. 5. & 34. Other innumerable testimonies could be produced, proving all Bishops alike, are Summi Pontifices, or Sacerdotes: and consequently, that the first place of the Hierarchie is in many alike, and not in one single person, as in the Bishop of Rome or successor of Peter.

The third testimony is of Anselmus, who lived in the 11. age who explaining what Church-Rulers were answerable to these mentioned by Paul, Ephes, 4. 11? In which he num∣bers the Apostle Pettr, Andrew, &c. To which now-adays, saith he, Answers Primats, and Patriarchs, or Arch-Bishops, which quite destroys the gloss of Bellarmin, since he makes many in the first place of the Hierarchie, and doth not dream, that the other Apostles were delegats to Peter, and had the first place in the Hierarchie, for that reason not communicable to their successors. And thus we have proved, that the first place of the Hierarchie, Jur. divino, was not in one single person, which we have demonstrated by Scripture and Antiquity: And consequently, that Peter was not ordained by our Savior Monarch of the Church, which was our third argument. These of the Church of Rome answers the testimonies of these Fa∣thers, calling; All Bishops alike, or all Bishops High-Priests, by distinguishing equality in that of Order, and that of Jurisdicti∣on. In the first sense, they grant all Bishops are alike, but not in the last. We proved before, and shal prove hereafter, that distinction is frivolous, for the present it will be sufficient

to refute that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction, by the testimony of an Author in great esteem, in the Church of Rome, and believed by them to be the Disciple of the Apostle Paul: viz. Dionysius, Arcopagita, whom we now mentioned, epist. 8. hath these words, If any do amiss, he is to be censu∣red by the Priests: If the Priest go astray he is to be ordered by the Bishop: If the Bishop debord, he should be judged by those who succeeded to the Apostles: but if those debord, they ought be judged by those of the same Order. Observe, he puts many in the same order of alike Jurisdiction. In the first place of the Hierarchie which quite destroys that distinction of Order and Jurisdiction.