Carpenters Chips, Position 2
THE SECOND POSITION. THE CHVRCH OF ROME IS not the Catholike Church, neither yet hath continued an apparant member of the ſame, euer ſince the Apostles time.
1THe Church is ſaid to be Catholike, in regard of the vniuerſality thereof; for this word Catholike ſignifieth Vniuerfall. The Vniuerſalitie thereof conſiſteth in Times, Perſons and Places. For there is no age of the world, no nation on the earth, and no ſort of people, that can be exempted from the ſame. And therefore it is called The celeſtial Hieruſalem, and ſaid to be the congregationHeb. 12. 22. 23. of the firſt borne, which are written in heauen. So that we are to beleeue, That as there hath been euer an head (to wit Chriſt) ſo there hath been alſo a body (to wit the Church) ſome where, or other, but the Church of Rome is a particular Church, confined within a certaine compaſſe, and hath not been a C… but ſince Chriſt his comming in t… … therfore it is not the Catholique C…
2 The Catholique Church is an obiect of faith, according to the Apoſtles Creed, and therefore inuiſible, howſoeuer the members thereof (called by Peter, Liuely 1. Pet. 2. 5. Heb. 11. 1.ſtones) be viſible, as they be men: For faith is the euidence of things not ſeene: But the Church of Rome is viſible, therefore not the Catholique Church.
3 I grant, that as one man, ſo one particular Church may be called Catholike, but it is only in regard of the Catholique faith, (as being one, & the ſame throughout the Catholique Church) which that one man, or that one Church profeſſeth: But the Church of Rome profeſſeth not (indeed) the Catholike faith (as ſhal be in part ſhewed hereafter) therefore (in no ſenſe) it can be truly called Catholique. But ſuppoſe it held the Catholique faith, yet were it not, for that cauſe, an obiect of faith according to the Apoſtles Creed, more than a particular man, or any other particular Church holding the faith. Here it is to be vnderſtood, that howſoeuer we may ſay: This man, or that Church is Catholique, yet we may not ſay, and ſpeake properly, This is the Catholique man, or That is the Catholique Church.
4 That ye Church of Rome holdeth not the Catholike faith, neither yet hath done for many yeeres, may be demonſtrated in ſundry fundamentall points. Let it be ſufficient to produce though but one, yet that moſt fundamental, ſith it is called by an excellency, The Word of faith, preachedRom. 10. 6 8. by all the Apoſtles. And the rather that One, becauſe it is the principall argument of that worthy Epiſtle, which Paul wroteCap. 1. 8. to the Romans, whoſe faith was then publiſhed throughout the whole world. So that, if the Church of Rome ſwarue from this truth, it is manifeſt that it is the ofſpring, not of the true members of the Primitiue Church of Rome, but of the troublers of that Church, of whom Paul thus writeth: Now I beſeech you brethren, Cap. 16. 17. 18.marke them diligently which cauſe diuiſion, and auoid them: For they that are ſuch ſerue not the Lord Ieſus, but their owne bellies, and with faire ſpeech and flattering deceiue the hearts of the ſimple. But what is that moſt fundamentall point? Euen that ſame, which Paul, after a large and learned diſputatiō, ſetteth downe as his peremptory iudgement in theſe words; Therefore Rom. 3. 28.we conclude, that a man is iustified by faith, without the workes of the Law. But the Church of Rome, that now is, holdeth, and for many yeeres hath held, That a man is iuſtified both by faith, and works, contrary to the concluſion; therefore the Church of Rome is not Catholique, but Antichriſtian.
5 I ſay Antichriſtiā, becauſe it may be proued ſuch, by many reaſons, and that becauſe it erreth in this point; but I only propound to wiſe and religious conſideration this deduction: That Antichriſtian Apoſtaſy, or Antichriſt, is called, The Myſtery 2. Theſſ. 2. 7of iniquitie, that is, a myſticall iniquity, that is, an iniquity which is indeed iniquity, but not perceiued, as Chriſt is called The Mystery of godlineſſe, that is, a1. Tim. 3. 16. myſtical godlineſſe, that is, godlineſſe indeed, but not perceiued. But wherefore is Antichriſt a myſticall iniquitie? Becauſe his Righteouſneſſe, though glorious in ſhew, is iniquity indeed, becauſe he attributethGal. 5. 4. Rom. 3. 27. 1. Cor. 4. 1. Rom. 1. 16. 17. & 4. 5. Iuſtification thereunto. Now this is a myſterie to fleſh and blood (which would faine reioyce in it ſelfe) that Righteouſnes ſhould be Iniquitie. Euen ſo is the Goſpell a myſterie, for by it the Righteouſnes of God is reueiled, which otherwiſe could not be perceiued of fleſh and blood. For is it not a myſticall paradox to carnall reaſon, to ſay; God iuſtifieth the vngodly? which yet is cleere to him, who, vnderſtanding the Scriptures, doth not only abhorre his foule iniquitie, but alſoPhil. 3. 9. Eſa. 64. 6. diſclaimeth his owne defiled righteouſnes, and by faith layeth hold on the righteouſnes of God, which is only by Chriſt, or Who truſteth not to his righteouſnes inherent, which taſteth of the caske, but to righteouſnes imputed, which maketh vsus bleſſed. Theſe things well conſidered; It may appeare, that as Chriſt is the myſtery of godlines, not only becauſe he is very God, though in the ſhape of a ſeruant, but alſo becauſe the Word of Chriſt, viz. the Goſpell, teacheth a myſtical righteouſteouſnes; So ye Pope is Antichriſt, not only becauſe he is an aduerſarie in exalting himſelf aboue all that is called God, though he pretend to be the ſeruant of ſeruants, but alſo becauſe his doctrine is a myſticall iniquitie. Heere it is to be remembred, that on the forehead of theReuel. 17. 5. 9. 18. Whore of Babylon (to wit Rome) was written this word, A mysterie; and it is alſo to bee vnderſtood, that on the Popes Mitre is the ſame word ſet with precious ſtones. If then for the doctrine of Iuſtification and merit by workes, the Church of Rome bee Antichriſtian, it followeth, that it is not Catholique, and therefore hath not continued an apparant member of the Catholique Church, euer ſince the Apoſtles time.
6 The later point inferred, may be the rather admitted, if wee marke well that Paul ſaith, That the Myſtery of iniquitie2. Theſſ. 2. 7 was working in his time. So that it is likely, that thoſe troublers (of whom mētion is made in the 4. ſection) ouergrew (as weeds) the good corne in time, and preuailed ſtill, vntill that myſterie of iniquity was reuealed, and conſumed by the Spirit of God in the mouth of Luther, and other the ſeruants of Chriſt Ieſus.
7 For the better manifeſtation of this point, let vsus ſeriouſly conſider, that howſoeuer the Church of Rome were now an apparant member of the Catholique Church (which indeed is not to bee imagined) yet ſith it is not the Catholique and inuiſible Church, but a viſible and particular Church, and hath not any ſpeciall promiſe, that it ſhould continue the ſame from the firſt conſtitution, how can we be aſſured, but that, in ſo many hundreds of yeeres, there hauehave been ſome alterations and innouations, as well as in the Church of God among the Iſraelites,Rom. 9. 4. to whom pertained the adoption, glory, couenants, giuing of the Law, ſeruice of God, and the promiſes? And yet it is written2. Chro. 15. 3 of the Church: Now for a long ſeaſon, Iſrael hath been without the true God, and without Prieſt to teach, and without Law.
8 As for that promiſe of Chriſt, ThouMat. 16. 18. art Peter, and vponupon this rocke I will build my Church, and the gates of hell ſhal not ouercome it, it appertaineth to the Catholique Church, as builded vponupon Chriſt the1. Cor. 3. 11. only foundation of his Church, and not to the Church of Rome, more than to the Churches of Aſia, which are ouercome, or any other particular Church which may be ouercome; & yet that promiſe remainethGen. 9. 13. inuiolable, as the couenant, whereof the Raine-bow is a ſigne, is inuiolable, notwithſtanding ſundrie particular countries be ouerflowen.
9 Indeed Augustine did once take that Rocke to bee Peter the Apoſtle, and his ſucceſſors the Biſhops of Rome; but hee after altered that his opinion, and vnderſtood Rocke to ſignifie Chriſt, by Peter confeſſed: For that Chriſt did not ſay to Peter, I will build me vponupon thee, But his words were (ſo Augustine conceiued them) as if hee had ſaid, I will build thee vponupon me, and not me vponupon thee His meaningCol. 1. 24. is: It is abſurd, that the Church which is Chriſts bodie (and is therefore called1. Cor. 12. 12. Chriſt; becauſe it cannot conſiſt without the head therof which is Chriſt himſelfe) ſhould be builded vponupon Peter, who is but a member of the body. It is therfore conuenient, that Peter being but a member, ſhould be builded vponupon the body, conſidered together with the head.
10 Surely Augustine had reaſon to fly1. Pet. 2. 6. to the true Rocke of ſaluation. For howſoeuer the ſucceſſion of the Biſhops of Rome till his time, was an excellent teſtimony to the truth, becauſe they ſucceſſiuely maintained the faith touching the fundamentall points therof; yet he might well conſider that Perſonall ſucceſſion, without ſucceſſion in faith, is not a ſufficient confirmation, or authenticall note of a true Church. For at Cōſtantinople there hath bin an interrupted ſucceſſion of Biſhops til this day. And yet the Papiſts wil deny that to bee any part of Chriſt his Church, becauſe it reteineth not the true faith of Chriſt.
11 But becauſe there is ſuch adoe about the ſucceeding of Peter, and it is made a matter of ſo great importance, it is neceſſary to bee proued, that the Biſhops of Rome bee Peters ſucceſſors. Which how poſſibly Papiſts can performe, I cannot ſee; ſith there is ſuch a diſagreement about his ſuppoſed immediate ſucceſſor; the Decrees affirming Clement, and writers of good regard, (as Ireneus and other) placing Linus next after Peter.
12 That this doubt whether the Biſhops of Rome be Peters ſucceſſors, may be put out of all doubt, the Papiſts muſt neceſſarily proue foure things. 1. That Peter was at Rome. 2. That he ſate Biſhop there 25. yeeres. 3. That he was vniuerſal Biſhop. And 4. That his vniuerſal authoritie was ſufficiently conueyed ouer to all that ſhould lawfully ſucceed him in that See. In any of which if they faile, the Popes authority falleth to the ground. For if Peter were neuer at Rome, how could he be Biſhop there? If not Biſhop at all, how vniuerſall Biſhop? If he had no ſuch authority himſelfe, how could it be conueyed ouer to his pretended ſucceſſors? And if there were not ſufficient conueyance, how fruſtrate is the Popes claime? But that there be ſuch doubts in eueryevery of theſe points, as the Papiſts cannot cleerely reſolue, conſider well the foure next articles.
13 None doth ſimply deny, but that Peter might hauehave been at Rome, as a paſſenger; or for ſome ſhort abode, although ſo much be not manifeſt: But that he ſate Biſhop there, and that ſo many yeeres, is altogether vnlikely. For it not very likely, that Paul ſaluting ſo many by name, as he doth in his Epiſtle to the Romans, but that hee would make ſome honorable mention of Peter? And wheras ſixe of his Epiſtles were dated at Rome, Is it not likly, but that in ſome of them hee would ſpeake of Peter, if he had been there ſo long, and in ſuch authority, as he doth of Timothy, whoſe authoritie was leſſe, that thereby his exhortations, and reprouings might better preuaile? To ſay nothing that the Scriptures doe not in any place, ſignify that Peter was at Rome: Which (in likelihood) ſhould hauehave bin done, if God had ſeene ſucceſſion of Biſhops at Rome from Peter, to be a matter of ſo great importance, as now it is made.
14 But ſay that he was at Rome, it will helpe the Papiſts nothing, except they can proue, that hee was alſo Biſhop of Rome. Whereof there is ſmall likelihood, if wee take this word Biſhop, not in the large ſenſe, which comprehendeth Apoſtles, and all Miniſters hauing authoritie; but in the ſtrict ſenſe, which ſignifieth a Miniſter intituled to a certaine place. For is it likely that Peter deſcended from the higheſt degree in the Church (of which al Apoſtles were) next to Chriſt the head, to the inferiour degree of a Biſhop? or IsMatth. 18. 18. & 28. 18. 19. 20. it likely that hee who had authoritie throughout the whole world, as hee was an Apoſtle, was tied to a particular charge, as he was Biſhop?
15 But they ſay, He was Vniuerſall Biſhop, and therefore his authority was not reſtreined. They muſt needs ſay ſo, for elſe his ſuppoſed being Biſhop at Rome will ſtand them in no ſtead. But was his authoritie inlarged hereby? If no, (for how could hee hauehave a larger iuriſdiction, thā Apoſtolical authority throughout the world?) what reaſon then can they giuegive, why he ſhould enioy that Vniuerſall authoritie, rather by the name of a Biſhop, and that of a particular place, than by the name of an Apoſtle? Againe, Is it not ſtrange, that they cannot by any Scripture proue this point, ſith it is of ſuch conſequence with them, as that it bindeth their conſciences to the See of Rome? Nay rather the Scriptures ſhew the contrarie. For it is recorded in holy Writ, That the Apoſtleſhip of the circumciſionGal. 2. 7. 8. (that is, of the Iewes) was committed to Peter, and the Apoſtleſhip of the vncircumciſion (that is, of the Gentiles, ſuch were the Romans) was committed to Paul. Againe, Is it likely, that Paul whoRom. 15. 20. inforced himſelfe to preach the Goſpell, not where Chriſt was named, leſt hee ſhould hauehave built on another mans foundation, would ſo intrude himſelfe into Peters office, as to meddle with the affaires of ſo many Churches as he doth, (and that with all authoritie) in his Epiſtle to the Romans, and other his Epiſtles from Rome, and al this, without any mention of Peter, if Peter had been at Rome, and had ſuch an Vniuerſal authoritie? Sith Paul (as is ſaid) ioyned with himſelfe (for the more authorie of ſome of his Epiſtles) Timothy one of leſſe authority than Peter, and writeth to the Philippians, That hePhil. 2. 20. had none like minded to Timothy, that would faithfully care for their matters. Laſtly, It is vtterly vnlikely, That Paul Gal. 2. 11. &c.would hauehave reproued Peter to his face, and that openly, for withdrawing himſelfe from the Gentiles, if Peter had had ſuch authoritie, as the Papiſts dreame of.
16 But ſuppoſe that Peter was at Rome, and had ſuch authoritie, what is the Pope better for it, if it were not made ouer to Peters ſucceſſors, by ſufficient conueyance? But in this poynt, which chiefely concernes the Pope, the Papiſts ſeeme vtterly to faile. For Gregorie the firſt, reprooued Iohn Biſhop of Conſtantinople for indeuouring to obtaine the title of Vniuerſall Biſhop, and to hauehave his Church called the head of all Churches, telling him that none of the Biſhops of Rome durſt take ſuch a title, though the Emperours began in Rome, were wont to abide there only, and did then intitle themſelues Emperours of Rome. Nay he told him yet more plainely, That whoſoeuer aſpired to bee Vniuerſall Biſhop, was a fore-runner of Antichriſt. Whereby it is euident that in Gregories time, there was no knowledge of any conueyance of Peters ſuppoſed authority made ouer to the Biſhops of Rome. But for al this peremptory iudgement of Gregory (ſurnamed The Great) within few yeeres after (about anno 607.) Boniface 3. obtained that title, with much ſuite and bribery, of Phocas an adulterer, and murtherer of his maſter (that Chriſtian Emperour Mauritius) with his wife and children. But ſucceeding Popes for the credit of that dignitie (being belike aſhamed of ſuch an inſtitution) pretended to hold the ſame by ye Donation of Conſtantine the firſt Chriſtian Emperour. So that al this while, there was no cōueyance of that authority from Peter that yet came to light. At laſt, the Pope (being come to the height of his pride) thought it a ſcorne to be beholden to Constantine, or any of them all, and therefore laid hold vponupon thoſe words of Chriſt, Thou art Peter, &c. But what hold he hath by them is partly ſhewed before, and is further to be conſidered, In that the Popes champion (father Bellarmine, made a Cardinall for his deſerts) doth confeſſe, that this Vniuerſal Biſhopricke is deſcended to the Pope by a conueyance indeed, but not of the word, but of tradition. Thus you may diſcouer the ſūdry groūds of an article of the Popiſh creed, viz. That the Pope hath Apoſtolicall authoritie ouer the whole Church, as he is Peters ſucceſſor.
17 Leauing theſe doubts touching the pretended ſucceſſors of Peter, and commending them to the aduiſed examination of the Reader, I proceed briefly to proue (in more ſpeciall manner) the Church of Rome not to hauehave been an apparant member of the Catholike Church, euer ſince the Apoſtles time. I ſay Briefely. For if I ſhould demonſtrate (as I could) the many, & groſſe errors of the Church, both in doctrine and diſcipline (vnderunder which word I vnderſtand the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and the Liturgie) and if withall, I ſhould paint out the bloodie tyrannie thereof, in perſecuting the children of God, it would appeare more than manifeſt that it is, and hath bin long an apparant member, not of the Catholique, but of the malignant Church: But then I ſhould be longer than I may, by reaſon of neceſſary buſines, or need, conſidering ſo many bookes are written of thoſe Arguments. I will therefore only propound ſome few things of many concerning the Pope, whom the Papiſts make the head of the Catholike Church. So that as a member of a mans body, is but dead if it receiue no life from the naturall head, ſo a particular Church is (in their opinion) no apparant member of the Catholique Church, which is not vnderunder the iuriſdiction of the Biſhop of Rome: From hence it followeth, That if the head be dead, the body muſt needs be dead: and, if the Pope be not, the Church of Rome cannot be an apparant member of the Catholique Church: But the Pope is not. Ergo.
18 The Pope is Antichriſt, and hath been ſo long, therefore the Church of Rome is not, and for a long time hath not been an apparant member of the Catholique Church: For as his See is the ſeat ofReuel. 17. 9. 18. the whore of Babylon, to wit the Citie builded vponupon 7. hilles, namely Rome, ſo he hath the properties of Antichriſt: For he ſitteth in the Temple as God, In charging2. Theſſ. 2. 4 the conſcience as ſtrictly with his decrees, and traditions, as with the Word of God, from whence the other hauehave no warrant, and In auouching himſelfe to be free from error, which is proper to God. 2. He exalteth himſelfe aboue all that isRom. 13. 4. 2. Theſſ. 2. 4. called God, In eſteeming himſelfe as far aboue the Emperour (who muſt hold his ſtirrup, & on whoſe necke he muſt tread) as the Sunne is aboue the Moone, andRom. 13. 1. therefore hee will not bee ſubiect to any Magiſtrate, contrary to the expreſſe word of God. 3. He is an aduerſary to Chriſt,2. Theſſ. 2. 4. howſoeuer he pretend to be his Vicar; but1. Ioh. 2. 22. therefore Antichriſt in deed, ſeeing this word Antichriſt ſignifieth For Chriſt, and yet Againſt Chriſt. I ſay an aduerſary, not only In teaching Iuſtification by workes, to the preiudice of Chriſts death, for ifGal. 2. 21. Righteouſnes be by the Law, Chriſt died in vaine, but alſo, In teaching that by Chriſt we are freed from the guiltines of ſinne, but not from the puniſhment therof; and yet the Popes pardons, and the breaden God of his owne creation, can do as much good to ſoules frying in Purgatory, as to all, that pay well for them1. Tim. 4. 1. 3. while they liue on the earth. 4. He teacheth doctrines of diuels, forbidding to marry, and commāding to abſtaine from meates, which God hath created to be receiued with thankeſ-giuing, of thē which beleeue and know the truth. And 5. Hee1. Ioh. 4. 3. denieth Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, In affirming Chriſt his body to be, by tranſubſtātiation, in ſo many places, as where Maſſe is ſaid. As the Anabaptiſts likewiſe deny Chriſt to be come in the fleſh, In affirming Chriſt to hauehave brought his fleſh from heauen.
19 Againe; Sith the Pope (as ſuppoſed head) is of the eſſence and forme of the Church of Rome, it muſt neceſſarily follow, that the Church of Rome hath not been alwaies an apparant member of the Catholike Church (according to the ſenſe of the Papiſts themſelues) if it can be proued, that often, & ſomtimes many yeeres together, there hath been no apparant Pope: But that is not impoſſible to bee proued: For firſt it is to be noted with a memorandum, That by the ſpeciall prouidence of God, Pope Ioan was deliuered of a child as ſhe was going ſolemnly on proceſſion in the middeſt of the open ſtreet, and in the preſence of the people. As if God had ſaid from heauen, Behold the Whore of Babylon. Secondly, It is worthy the obſeruation, That Stephen 6. and Sergius the third proceeded againſt Formoſus, as againſt an vnlawfull Pope, both taking him out of the graue, ſpitefully diſgraded him. The former ſummoning a Councel, attired him with the pontificall robes, plucked them off againe, put on Lay-mans apparell, cut off the two fingers of his right hand, caſt them into Tiber, buried him in Lay-mens buriall, and diſanulled his decrees. The other ſet him in the Popes chaire; drew him thence againe, cut off his head, and the other three fingers; hurled body and al into the riuer, & recondemned all his actes, ſo that it was needful to admit them new to orders, whom hee had made Prieſts. Thirdly, It is not to be neglected as not worth the reading, That ſixe Popes (viz. Clement 5. Iohn 23. Benedict 12. Clement 6. Innocent 6. and Vrban 5.) their See was 70. yeers together at Auignion in France. Where Popes were elected, liued, and died, ſo that ſome of them neuer ſaw Rome. This I ſay is not to bee neglected. For if Iohn the Patriarch of Conſtātinople claimed the title of Vniuerſal Biſhop, becauſe the Emperours had then their ſeat there, howſoeuer they then bare the title of Emperours of Rome. If Peter were therefore the Biſhop of Rome, becauſe he had his feat there, and there died, as Papiſts doe ſuppoſe, and If by the holy daies for Peters chaire at Antioch, and Rome, Papiſts ſhew their iudgement to be, That it is of the eſſence of a Biſhop to ſit in the See, whereof hee hath the title, for otherwiſe they need not make ſuch adoe, to proue that Peter was at Rome, ſeeing it were ſufficient to proue (if they could) that he accepted the title, then thoſe 6. Popes, howſoeuer they were in title Biſhops of Rome, yet in truth they were Biſhops of Auignion, and therefore no apparant ſucceſſors of Peter, and therefore no apparant heads of the Church, and therefore for 70. yeeres the Church of Rome was not an apparant member of the Catholike Church, according to the ſenſe of the Papiſts themſelues. Fourthly, Onuphrius (a Popiſh writer) telleth of 30. Schiſmes in the Church of Rome. Of which the 29. laſted 50. yeeres together. Wherin there were ſometimes two Popes together, and ſometimes three. All which three were remoued by the Councel of Constance. Can any ſay, that all this while there was an apparant head? If not, it muſt neceſſarily follow, That the Church of Rome hath not been euer ſince the Apoſtles time an apparant member of the Catholique Church, according to the ſenſe of the Papiſts themſelues.
20 Laſtly, As when the eye is darke,Matth. 6. 23 the whole body muſt needs be darke: So, if the head, viz. the Pope, be ſo corrupt, as that it cannot be perceiued to be an apparāt member of the Catholike Church, how can the Church of Rome, whoſe being is altogether in that head, be an apparant member? But moſt of the Popes hauehave been ſuch: Ergo. For howſoeuer that cannot be verified of al the Popes, which was ſaid of Boniface 8. commonly called A diuell incarnat, That he entered like a Fox, raigned like a Lion, and died like a Dog, yet ſome of them entered by Coniuration; or the diuels helpe, as Siluester 2. and Gregory 7. firſt called Hildebrand, or The brand of Hell. Some by harlots, as Chriſtopher 1. and Iohn 11. Some by poyſoning their predeceſſors, as Damaſus, who alſo did drinke of the ſame cup; and the ſaid Hildebrand, who (beſides his Coniuration) made way to the Popedome by poyſoning ſixe of his predeceſſors; and many by Simony or Violence. Were they apparant members of the Catholique Church, when they were Popes? Nay ſundry of them were heretiques. As Liberius was an Arrian: Honorius 1. a Monothelite: Anastaſius a Neſtorian: Iohn 2 2. denied the Life to come, and the reſurrection of the body, and this was laid to his charge when he was depoſed by the Councell of Constance: and Eugenius 4. was condemned and depoſed as an heretique in the Councell of Baſil. As for their Liues, In reſpect of all, it is no leſſe truly, than commonly ſaid of Gregory 1. That he was the worſt Biſhop, but beſt Pope of Rome. But ſome of them Platina (no Proteſtant) called Beaſts, and Monſters, and of Iohn 12. Cardinall Turrecremata writeth thus: Becauſe the life of this Pope was deteſtable, therefore Chriſt himſelf gaue out the ſentence of condemnation. For while he was abuſing a certaine mans wife, the diuell ſtroke him ſodainly, and ſo he died without repentance. To ſet downe in particular the monſtrous offēces of moſt Popes, is too large and too filthy a field for me to walke in; I will therefore ſhut vp with the words of Genebrard (a Popiſh Chronicler) who writeth thus: For the ſpace almoſt of ſeuen-ſcore yeeres, and ten, from Iohn 8. to Leo 9. about fiftie Popes did reuolt wholy frō the vertue of their aunceſtors, and were Apoſtaticall rather than Apoſtolicall. Yea ſome did get into the See, by force or bribery; Wherefore it is no maruell, if they were monſtrous, ſith they entered in, not by the dore, but by a poſterne gate.
To conclude, If the Church of Rome be not the Catholique Church, becauſe it is confined, viſible, & faileth in the faith, without which faith, perſonall ſucceſſion is of no validitie; If it hauehave no promiſe of perpetuity, the words of Chriſt to Peter not ſeruing the turne; and therefore may be ouercome as well as the Church of Iſrael, whereunto the promiſes did appertaine. If Papiſts cannot proue, that Peter was at Rome, nor that hee was Biſhop there, nor that he was Vniuerſall Biſhop, nor that his authority was ſufficiently cō ueyed ouer to the Biſhops of Rome, vponupon which ſucceſſion ſtandeth the being of that Church. If the Pope (vponupon whom as their head the Church of Rome dependeth) be Antichriſt, and ſundry times, yea many yeeres together, there hath bin no apparant Pope at all, and moſt Popes hauehave been no apparant members of the Catholike Church, becauſe of their hereſies or monſtrous liues, it followeth euidently, that the Church of Rome is not the Catholique Church, neither hath bin an apparant member of the ſame, euer ſince the Apoſtles time. And therefore it is to be wondered that any Chriſtian man or woman, ſhould bee ſo ſimple, as to hang their ſaluation vponupon ſuch a Synagogue, as out of which, God from heauen biddeth his people to depart: Reuel. 18. 4.