THE FALSEHOOD OF THE CHIEF grounds of the Romish Religion.  
Descried and convinced in a brief Answer to certain Motives sent by a Priest to a Gentleman to induce him to turn Papist.  
By W.S.  
Printed for the Author Anno Dom. 1635.   

TO THE WORSHIPFUL his much honoured Uncle EDWARD SMYTH Esquire.  
SIR,  
THere are other reasons besides that common motive, and popular pretence of the importunity of friends, which hath now put this little manual into the world. It was composed by the Author (for I cannot say that it was written by him, but rather dictated as he spoke it) lying on his bed of sickness: and therefore he intended to have kept it private, judging it unworthy other men's approbation, because unworthy his own. Nevertheless it secretly crept into the press, and returned from thence full of faults like the Printer of it, who had as little authority to Print it at all, as Print it false. There was no other way to suppress the old impression, but by a new, which I have here done, setting it out the second time, but in a less volume, and with less faults.  
There is one motive more, and that more important than the former. The Author since his death (for in his life time malice itself was never so audacious as to dare eclipse the bightnesse of his integrity either in life or doctrine) hath had his faith branded with the name of apostasy, and his profession with heresy. But whither he were a professed open enemy, or an hypocritical friend, which hath done him this wrong, I forbear to name. Whosoever he were, this ensuing treatise will put him both to shame and silence; and therefore I need not make any apology for him, whose own works speak in his defence.  
Sir! it was formerly made solely yours by the Author, and therefore in the dedication it now justly claims your patronage only. If it satisfy not the more curious reader, yet he that made it, thought his pains fully recompensed in that it gave you satisfaction; neither doth the reward of my labour spread itself unto others, but is wholly terminated in your acceptance. If it chance to be condemned as imperfect, because he hath not spoken all, that might have been said on this subject; I add, neither hath he spoken all that he could. It was intended for a letter only, and therefore not to swell into a larger volume; yet I presume there is as much in the answer, as the Priests motives require, & more peradventure than he ever expected, or at least thanked him for. Such as it is, it is once more made yours by him, who desires to be esteemed  
Your dutiful Nephew and Servant WILLIAM SUTTON. From Christ-Church in Oxon. jun. 28. 1635.   

Motives sent by a Priest to a Gentleman, to Induce him to turn Papist.  
The rejection of the jews and acceptation of the Gentiles.  
I Have no will in you, 
How to know the holy Catholic. Church which all Christians profess to believe.  saith the Lord of Hosts, and gift I will not receive of your hands, for from the rising of the Sun to the going down, great is my name among the Gentiles, and in every place there is Sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, because my name is great amongst the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. Mal. 1. vers. 11.  
A Description of the true Christian Catholic Church Militant.  
The holy Christian Catholic Church militant, which we profess in the Apostles Creed to believe, is a visible Monarchy or Kingdom consisting of all the true believers upon the face of the earth, confessing one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, under one lawful visible head for the time being, observing one Faith, Religion, and Sacraments, instituted by Christ.  
Which holy kingdom and Society, is composed of a visible head, Clergy and Laity, the head to govern, the Clergy to preach and administer Sacraments, the Laity to learn and to obey in all things touching their faith and salvation: For Christ saith of the Pastors of his Church, He that heareth you, heareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, Luk. 10. vers. 16.  
That our Saviour Christ, being a Priest for ever secundum ordinem Melchisedec, was the first visible head, and founder of the said holy Christian Catholic Church militant composed of a head, Clergy, and Laity is apparent, first in his sacred person, being the visible head, in his holy Apostles being the Clergy, and in his Common disciples being the Laity, which small beginning is compared to a Mustardseed, and the increasing to a great tree, that birds may build in the Branches thereof, our Saviour saying to the Clergy his Apostles; and in them to all their lawful Successors, To you it is given to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, but to the rest in Parables. Luk. 8. vers. 10.  
The increasing of the Church.  
By the Preaching and Miracles of our Saviour Christ and his Apostles, many were converted to be members of the Church. At S. Peter's first Sermon after he had received the Holy Ghost 3000. were added, and afterwards 5000. Act. 2. vers. 41. Act. 4. vers. 4. And Saint Paul affirmeth, that in his time the Roman faith was renowned in the whole world. Rom. 1. vers. 8. agreeing with the words of Christ's But you shall receive the virtue of the holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be Witnesses to me in jerusalem, and in all jury and Samaria, and even to the utmost of the earth. Act, 1. v. 8.  
Of the Continuance of the holy Catholic Church in true Faith, by the Holy Ghosts assistance.  
This is my Covenant with thee saith our Lord, speaking of his Church, my spirit that is in thee, and my words that I have put in thy mouth shall not departed out of thy mouth, and out of the mouth of thy seed, and out of the mouth of thy seeds seed, saith our Lord, from this present and for ever, Isay 59 vers. 21.  
All power is given to me in Heaven and in Earth, going therefore teach ye all Nations baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold I am with you always to the Consummation of the World, Math. 28. vers. 19.20.  
I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclet, that he may abide with you for ever, the spirit of truth. joh. 14. vers. 16.17.  
And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen, and as the Publican, Math. 18. v. 17.  
All which promises of Christ, for sending the Holy Ghost to preserve his Church in truth for ever, was visibly & miraculously performed on Whitsunday, Act. 2. vers. 1.  
That our Saviour Christ did constitute Saint Peter to be Ministerial head of his Church militant.  
And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in the heavens, and whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth, it shall be loosed also in the Heavens, Math. 16. v. 18.19.  
And our Saviour said; Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath required to have thee for to sift as wheat, But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted confirm thy Brothren. Luk. 22. v. 31.32.  
Our Saviour Christ ask Peter, if he loved him more than these, said, yea Lord, thou knowest I love thee, whereupon Christ said to him twice, feed my Lambs and the third time feed my Sheep. joh. 21. v. 15.16.17.  
That Saint Peter was chief of the Apostles and the first Bishop of Rome.  
When all the holy Apostles are named, S. Peter is the first, Math. 10. vers. 2.  
After the Apostles had visibly received the Holy Ghost, S. Peter made the first Sermon thereof, whereat 3000. persons were converted, Act. 2. v. 41.  
With his word and power, he killed Ananias and Saphira for their Sacrilege, Act. 5. v. 5.  
Saiut Peter called the first Council of the Apostles held at jerusalem, and first spoke therein, Act. 15. v. 7.  
It is affirmed by old writers and some modern learned Protestants; that S. Peter was 15. year's Bishop of Rome, and by the ancient Ecclesiastical writers, that S. Peter and S. Paul were both of them martyred together in Rome under the Emperor Nero. Orig. apud Euseb. Lib. 3. cap. 1. Eus. Cap. 24. Lib. 2. Hist. Eccliastic. Tertul. de praesc. c. 26. Aug. tract. 123 in joh. Chrysost. & Beda in hunc locum. S. Ambr. Serm. 66.68. St Maximus.  
Statu faelix Ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostoli cum suo fanguine pro funderunt, ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus johannis exitu Coronatur. Tertul. de Praescrip. cap. 36.  
That St Peter's Successors Bishops of Rome have exercised chief authority in the Church Militant ever since to this day.  
After the Martyrdom of St Peter, first Bishop of Rome, 32. of the succeeding Bishops there were martyred for the faith of Christ. Eusebius.  
Pope Victor in the first 200. years excommunicated the Asian Bishops about the observation or keeping Easter day.  
Pope Silvester 314. years called the first Council of Nice against the Arian hear.  
Pope Damasus 367. called the second general Council at Constantinople against Macedonius the heretic.  
Pope Celestine 414. called the third general Council at Ephesus, against Nestorius the heretic.  
Pope Leo 440. called the fourth general Council at Chalcedon against the heretic Eutiches.  
And likewise ever since to the last general Council of Trent, the Bishops of Rome have called them all, as heresies and false Prophets did arise in the Church.  
It is confessed by diverse learned Protestants that the Roman Church was the true Mother Church, which Christ our Saviour planted some for 300. years, some for 400. years, some for 600. years and some for 800 years after Christ, which being true, that it was once the true Church, and also true, that our Saviour Christ promised to be with it to the consummation of the world, and to send the spirit of Truth to abide with it for ever, and that Hell gates should not prevail against it; and Christ saith, Heaven and Earth shall pass, but my words shall not pass; How then can it be true that the Roman Church being once the true mother Church should fall so foully from her first purity, as is by some too too boldly affirmed?  
It is so necessary for every one to know and beliene the holy Catholic Church Militant, that whosoever is not a sound member of that society either in act or desire cannot be saved, as all those which were out of Noah's Ark were drowned.  
And to end with a demonstration, all the patriarchal & Episcopal Seas of the Apostles be extinguished and worn out many hundred years since by Heretics and Jnfidels, only the Church of Rome the Seat of Saint Peter stands at this day most conspicuous, according to the prayer and promise of Christ; that his faith should not fail, and that the gates of Hell should not prevail against it.  
Thus briefly is proved, the beginning, increasing and continuing of the holy Christian Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church; as also the promised continual assistance of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of truth to remain therewith always to the Consummation of the World, that is for ever. Of which Vine all Christians that shall be saved must be united lively branches and members,   

THE ANSWER to the Priests Motives.  
GOod Brother? Whosoever he was that sent you these lines as motives to make you a Romish Catholic, I must needs think him your friend, (and by that name I mean to call him hereafter) because I think he did it out of a desire to save your soul: although I am sure he goes the wrong way to work: And if you should follow him (which God forbidden) he will certainly lead you into the ditch. Though his proofs be simple ones, (as I hope you will see by the answer) yet it seems, he thought better of them, and they were the best he knew; and therefore if he fail in his purpose (as I hope he shall) yet you have some cause to thank him, in that he used the same arguments to persuade you, wherewith he himself was persuaded. But for the validity of his reasons do you judge yourself, when you have heard us both speak, or if not, let it be tried by God and the country. And who soever he was he hath placed a sentence in the foot of his discourse, which for the importancy thereof deserved to be set in a higher room: & therefore I will begin with that first.  

The true Catholic Church.  
(It is so necessary (saith he) for every one to know and believe the holy Catholic Church militant, that whosoever is not a sound member of that society either in act or desire, cannot be saved.) All this is true, and there is great reason for it; for if it were once agreed among Christians which were the true Church of Christ, other differences in Religion would more easily be composed by the authority thereof. But so long as the doubt remains concerning the Church itself (as in these days that is the capital controversy between Protestants & Papists) there is small hope of any good accord unless both sides could agree upon some third party to be umpire: Who must be such a one as is of sufficient understanding to discern where the truth resteth, and withal of that indifferency in affection, that he incline no way to one side more than to another; For that either the Romish or reformed Church, being themselves the parties litigant, that they should require to be made judges in their own cause (though some of our adver saries be not ashamed to make such a proposition) yet I think there is no man that hath his five wits about him, but will detest the impudence thereof at the first hearing. Of necessity therefore some third party must be thought upon, who being no way interested in either faction, is of sufficient judgement to determine which of the pretenders make the best claim; now though we should search the whole world over with a candle, there is none such possibly to be found under heaven, but only the holy Scripture: which being confessed by both sides to be the rule of faith, cannot well be denied to be the most competent judge for deciding of all doubts in that kind arising among the faithful.   

Scripture a competent judge of the true Church.  
And for this question of the Church St Aug. is peremptory, that there is no other way to determine it but by Scripture alone;  
Jnter nos & Donatistas' quaestio est ubi sit Ecclesia (just as it is now inter nos & Papistas) quîd ergo facturi sumus? in verbis nostris eam quaesituri, an in verbis capitis sui? Puto quòd in illius potius verbis came quaerere debemus: lib. de unit.  Eccles. c. 2. 
That whole chapter together with the 3. and 4. following is altogether to the same purpose; nay Bellar. himself denies not but in some cases the Scripture is better known to us then the Church, and ex hac hypothesi, when the Church is doubted of he is content to grant, that we must seek for it in the Scripture, de Eccles. l. 4. c. 2. And yet notwithstanding all this fair weather that he makes with Scripture, there is neither he, nor any of the rest that are willing to accept it for judge in this controversy; the most they will yield, is to accept it for a rule of faith, and yet they stand not to that neither, when they require tradition to be joined unto it, as if without the help thereof it could not measure perfectly. For Regula & regulatum debent esse adaequata. 
The authority of the scripture.  If Scripture alone be not sufficient of itself to measure the length of a Christians faith, unless tradition be added to help, than it is no rule at all, much less a perfect rule, but only a piece of one. But howsoever they are content sometime for fashion sake to acknowledge Scripture for the rule of faith in part, yet by no means will they allow it for a judge, though that be the very name, whereby S. Augustine, and the Fathers of those times, did usually call it, Ista controversia judicem requirit (saith he) lib. 2. de nup. & concup. c. 33. judicet ergo Christus judicet cum illo & Apostolus: quia in Apostolo ipse loquîtur Christus: and again, de gratiâ & lib. arbit. c. 18. Sedeat inter nos iudex Apostolus johannes. and Optatus contra Parmen. l. 5. Quaerendi sunt iudices, saith he: In terris de hâc re nullum poterit reperiri iudicium. (You see by this, that the Pope was not acknowledged in those days for the judge of controversies, & if Optatus had been a Papist, he durst not have spoken such a word) but mark how he goes on: De coelo quaerendus est judex: sed quid pulsamus ad coelum, cùm habemus hic in Evangelio Testamentum? the place is too long to be all set down, and that which followeth, is all to that purpose. Our adversaries speak in another language now adays, then Optatus or Augustine or any of those holy Fathers were wont to speak. When they said so often, Judicet Christus & judicet Scriptura, they would have said once at the least, judicet Papa, if they had imagined that any such power had belonged unto him. Here was a fit opportunity for them to have declared themselves true Catholics. But alas, good men, how could they speak of that which they knew not, or how could they teach that doctrine to others that they were never taught themselves? For this upstart judge, it is a mere novelty of a later edition utterly unknown to the Christian world in those days, like that gibberish tongue, which some mongrel jews spoke, & Neh emias complains of c. 13.24. In scriptures didicimus Christum: in scriptures didicimus Ecclesiam. Aug. ep. 166. & de unitat. Eccles. c. 16.  
Now when we say, that the Scripture is judge, we do not refuse to hear the voice of the Church, speaking in the ordinary Ministry of her lawful Pastors, & interpreting the Scriptures unto us. We know that there are many texts full of difficulty, and above the reach of common understanding: nay, there are many which his Holiness himself, I am sure, understands not for all his infallible chair. But we know withal, that there are other places of Scripture, so facile and plain, as a man of ordinary capacity may safely be his own interpreter: and there is nothing necessary to salvation, either concerning faith or life, but that in some one place or other, it is delivered in such plain manner, as every man may understand it: if Saint Augustine deceive us not the Doctr. Christ. l. 2, c. 9 And many other of the ancient Fathers, as well as he. And therefore if blind men see not the sun, it is not the fault of the sun, but theirs, whose eyes the God of this world hath blinded.   

A lawful Council the Church representative.  
Now for those places of scripture which are of greatest difficulty, if we seek for a vocal judge to interpret them unto us, it is certain that there is none sufficient to inform upon earth the conscience of a Christian, but only a lawful Council, which is fitly therefore called the Church representative. The declaration of several Pastors though never so learned & godly, can induce no more than a probability: but the uniform consent of them all joined together in a lawful Council, doth conclude a certainty of truth in that that is declared. What conditions belong to a lawful Council I will not now stand to inquire. Some such there have been heretofore (though not so many as, would be thought so) and some there may be again.  
In the mean time, 
A council the highest judgement upon earth.  I desire you to think that Protestants ascribe fare greater authority by many degrees to the voice of the Church speaking in such assemblies, than Papists do for all their great talking; and yet you must know, that there are diverse learned Papists of the same opinion with Protestants in this point; namely, that the judgement of a lawful Council is to be reputed the highest judgement upon earth, whether the Pope give his consent thereunto or no. The jesuites labour hard on the contrary side to draw all to the Papal chair, affirming the sentence of a Council to be of no validity, unless the Pope do approve it, which in effect is nothing else, but to abuse the name of Counsels, and of the Church, making them mere stales to serve the Pope's turn; 
Differences amongst the Papists.  see the differences that are among themselves about this matter in Bel, lib. 2. de conc. c. 14.17. and the base conceit the jesuites hold of all such Counsels as want the Pope's confirmation: contrary to the judgement of Peter de Alliaco, Cardinal of Cambry, john Gerson, jacobus Almain, Card. Cusanus, Bishop Tostatus, Abbot Panormitan, with the Counsels of Pisa, Constance, and Basil, and generally of the whole French Church at this day. I know not to which of these factions your friend inclines: if he think as the French Papists do, I am of his opinion; if he be jesuited, desire him to mend his description of the Catholic Church; and where he names it (a visible Monarch) let him sit down and write (a visible Monarch.) For that is Purus putus jesuitismus; 
Disput. Theol. To. 3. dis. 1.  By the Church we mean her head (saith Greg. de Valent.) that is the Pope: in whom there resideth the full authority of the Church, when he pleaseth to determine matters of faith, whether he do it with a Council or without. His words are these: Est in Ecclesiâ authoritas divinitûs instituta, quâ fideles tum doctrinâ, tum praeceptis informentur: Haec authoritas, plenè in Romano Pontifice Christi Vicario, & S. Petri successore residet, qui scilicet de fidei & morum controversiis vel per se, vel unà cum generali concilio sufficienter constituat. Nomine Ecclesiae intelligimus eius caput, id est, Romanum Pontificem per se—  
I have stood thus long upon the authority of Scripture, because if the question of the Church must receive its decision from thence, as Bell confesseth, me thinks it is but hard dealing in him and his fellows to keep Lay-people from the free reading of the scripture; unless they mean to keep them from the knowledge of the true Church also; but for your friend though he talk much of the Catholic Church, yet I cannot find by his description, that ever he consulted either with scripture or any ancient lawful council, when he went about it. And thereupon I would presently join issue with him, but that I am bound to take knowledge first of a place of Malachy, which he sets most eminently in the forefront of his writing.  
I have no will in you saith the Lord of Hosts, and gift I will not receive of your hand; for from the rising of the Sun to the going down great is my name amongst the Gentiles, and in every place there is sacrificing, and there is offered to my name a clean oblation, because my name is great amongst the Gentiles, saith the Lord of Hosts. Mal. 1.11.  
In the allegation of this Text I complain, that there are two notorious faults committed by him. 1. That he allegeth it to no purpose: any other text in the Bible would have become the place as well as that. 2. That he falsifies the words of the Prophet, and makes him to say that which he never meant.  
1. If your friend in citing these words, did purpose to prove the rejection of the jews, and calling of the Gentiles, I know it is true; but I know not to what purpose alleged, to persuade any man to Popery more than the deposing of Abiathar, and Sadocks' advancement to the Priesthood, 1. Reg. 2.35. If his meaning be to show that the Church of the Gentiles is of greater extent than ever the jewish Synagogue was, & that it is not now confined to any one place, or people, as it was under the Law, but belongeth indifferently to all Nations upon earth, for my part, I know no Christian that ever denied it besides the Donatists of old, and some Papists of later times, who seeking to bring all Christians to a dependence upon Rome, and the Bishop of that place (just as the Synagogue depended upon the Temple of jerusalem and the high Priest there) they turn the universal Church into a particular congregation, howsoever for fashion sake they retain the name of Catholic. They themselves do in a manner acknowledge as much, when as not contenting themselves with those known marks of una, Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica, by which the Church was wont to be notified in the ancient Creeds, and Counsels, they foist in Romana amongst the rest, which being but a late trick unheard of in antiquity, and only devised to serve the present turn, it shows that the Church for whose sake it was first devised, is but of a late edition, per Romanam Ecclesiam nemo unquam intellexit universalem nisi forte latini sermonis ignarus, Pigh. hierar Eccl. l. 6. c. 3.  
2. My second accusation is, that your friend deals not faithfully in setting down the words of Malachy. For whereas he makes the Prophet to say (that in every place there is sacrificing) you may boldly tell him, that there is no one word of sacrificing in the Hebrew text at all. God saith that among the Gentiles there should be incense offered to his name; that is, prayers & supplications, as you shall findethe word interpreted by the holy Ghost himself, Rev. 5.8. and therefore the Septuagint, renders it by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, & Arias Mont. 
The sacrifice of the Mass.  (who understood both the Hebrew and Greek very well) in his interlineary Bible translates it incensum. As for Sacrificing, there is, Nec vola nec vestigium, neither fell, nor mark of it, as we say, in all that saying of the Prophet. You must think it was not without some special cause, that the name of Sacrificing was drawn into the text, thus by the heels, but upon hope that it should do some special service: which though your friend do not signify (and so I need not take knowledge of it) yet I think good to make you acquainted withal, because it may serve to discover some other of our Adversaries mysteries. Cardinal Allen forsooth, 
Card. Allen.  hath undertaken out of these words of Malachy, to prove the sacrifice of the Master, by six reasons (which would make my writing swell too big if I should set them all down) lib. de Euch. c. 5. I would desire you to read both his reasons, & the answer made unto them by Doct. Reinolds, in his conference with Hart. p. 479. 
D. Reinolds and Hart.  And if you receive not full satisfaction in that point, besides many others, blame me for commending the book unto you. Now what hope could he ever have of proving the Sacrifice of the Mass by Malachy, unless the word Sacrifice itself were first found in the Text.  
And so I come to his description of the Catholic Church as he calls it, though all things considered he hath little reason to give it that name.   

A description of the Catholic Church.  
The holy Christian Catholic Church militant, which we profess in the Apostles Creed, to believe, is a visible Monarchy or Kingdom, consisting of all the true believers upon the face of the earth, confessing one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, under one lawful visible head, for the time being, observing one Faith, Religion and Sacraments instituted by Christ.— In which words let it be no offence to say, that he deals as boatmen use to do, when they look one way & row another; for whatsoever he talks of the Catholic Church, you shall find presently that he means the Romish Church, a mere particular one, though for the credit thereof he would fain yoke it together with the Church Catholic in the same description. But see his ill luck. For while he goes about to describe them both in one, he fails to describe either of them as he should. For if the Catholic Church doth comprehend (as he saith) the multitude of all true believers even from righteous Abel (as Augustine speaketh) to the end of the world, how can this agree to the Romish Church? On the other side, if it comprehend no more than such as are subject to one visible head, how can the name of Catholic in right belong unto it? So this description is like a shoe that will serve neither foot.  
If we should grant that the Romish faith in these days were the true faith of Christ: yet could not that make their Church to be the Catholic Church, but only a part thereof, and that is the most that can be said of it, though it were fare better than it is; but the Pope looks higher than so, & Rome scorns to be ranked in the order of particular Churches. He must be the universal Bishop, and she the universal Church of the World. For if that should be denied, what right hath either He, or She to claim subjection of those, who have their several dependence upon other Bishops? Therefore to make this good, and to bring all fish into St Peter's net, there were some wellwishers to the Romish cause, who not finding how two such disparates in nature, as universal and particular, Catholic and singular, might possibly be joined together in one subject, they found a means at last to join them both together in one word; and hence it comes to pass, that instead of Romana fides, & Romana Ecclesia, which was wont to be the common language among all Christians, we must call it henceforth, Romano Catholicam fidem, Romana Catholicam Ecclesiam, or else they will complain that we allow them not their full style; Thus still it falls out, that Portenta rerum gignunt portenta verborum. And if it were not a new and strange doctrine, it never needs to coin such new and strange words. And yet, as if Romana Ecclesia did not speak home enough to express their meaning, or, as if it were too large a term, and they durst not trust that more than Catholica or Apostolica, Bellarmine de effect. sacr. l. 2. c. 25. to be sure to fit the shoe to the Pope's foot, restrains it to nunc Romana Ecclesia: I know not what the spirit of giddiness is, if this be not, or why we should not say of these men, as it was said of the Arrians, Habent annuas & menstruas fides (Ecclesias.) If the ancient faith of Rome were the same with the present, what means nunc Romana? if it were not, how is the present faith Catholica? For that only is so, quae est omnium temporum & locorum. The Counsels of Lateran or Trent will not be guided by the Counsels of Basil or Constance. And therefore Cusanus speaks plainly, and says, that there is fides temporum, a faith that altars with the time, and that the true sense of the Scripture is that, which the present Church gives. Non est mirum, si praxis Ecclesiae uno tempore interpretetur scripturam uno modo, & alio tempore alio modo; nam intellectus currit cum praxi: intellectus enim, qui cum praxi concurrit, est spiritus vivificans: sequuntur ergo Scripturae Ecclesiam & non è converso, Epist. 7. Bohem.  
The holy christian Catholic Church, 
No absolute Monarchy.  is a visible Monarchy under one visible lawful head, I complained before that the Church of Rome being a mere Particular, he made it all one to the Catholic Church of Christ. Here I find cause to complain on the other side, of his wrong done to the Catholic Church, when he terms it a visible Monarchy, under a visible Head: which is the placing of a bar in her arms, and makes her no better than the Romish, or any other particular being of the younger house.  
1. When he names the Church a Monarchy, if he mean it in respect of Christ, sole King and Monarch thereof, I will not contend with him about the name: or if he mean it in regard of particular Churches we confess, that in as much as they are subject to their several Bishops, their government in that respect is a kind of Monarchy, though not an absolute Monarchy, but such a one as is tempered with an Aristocracy; because Bishops either do not or should not impose laws upon the Church, but Ex communi Concilio Presbyterorum, by the advice and with the consent of their Presbytery.  
A visible Monarchy. 
Not visible. ) If the Catholic Church were a natural body, and not a mystical: If it were some individual and singular subject, and not a mere universal (as the name of a Catholic imports) Visibility might well be an adjunct belonging unto it. Which otherwise, I confess, I understand not how it should, and I believe, they that speak most of it understand it as little; if your friend have ever seen the Catholic Church with his eye, let him say whether it be Diaphanum or adiaphanum, luminosum corpus, or opacum; bid him tell you of what colour and complexion it is. And do not think I jest in moving such questions, for in good earnest it must be qualified thus for in some such sort, if it be subject to the eye of man. I grant he hath seen some particular persons that belong unto the Church, and are members thereof (and so have I often) but for the Church itself, whose formality consisteth in a spiritual conjunction with Christ the head, & of the members themselves one with another, this mystical union I am sure he did never see: & therefore he did never see the Church no not any particular Church, to speak properly, much less the Catholic church. This is an article of faith, and not an object of sense, fare above the sphere of all optic learning; it is an Article to be believed, not a thing to be descried, by a pair of spectacles, or any other prospective glass; if he mean Video pro intelligo, by the old Grammar rule, let him and the rest speak so a God's name, and call it hereafter the intelligible Church, that we may understand them: for than they shall begin to speak somewhat more like Protestants: for otherwise, while they call it the universal, yet visible Church, they interfeare at every word, and speak pure nonsense.   

The Pope not the head of the Church.  
Under one lawful visible head.) It had been plain dealing to have named the Pope, rather than to use such a circumlocution of words: for you must not doubt but that he is that Visible head whom he means. Now it deserves a Quare, why the Church being but one body, should need two Heads? Why being but one Monarchy it cannot consist without two Monarches? To say that one is a visible, the other an invisible; the one a principal, the other a ministerial head, it is all one in effect, as if they told us of two Christ's, a visible and an invisible; & perhaps in time to come the world may hear of some such matter, if this doctrine go on. In reason they ought to make two Churches; because the body must be multiplied according to the multiplication of the heads; we are sure that Christ now in heaven, is every way as able to govern his Church by himself, as he was while he lived upon earth: if in regard of his bodily absence they think it necessary that he should leave some deputy behind him: Neither doth this hang well together with some other popish Positions; for by their doctrine Christ is not so ascended into heaven, but that they have his body (as they say) remaining still among them upon earth; and that not only in a spiritual manner, but most really and carnally. They have freer recourse to Christ now by the help of Transubstantiation, 
Transubstantiation.  than they could possibly have with him while he conversed here in the flesh. Nay they have not so free access to the Pope I am sure, as they have to him, with whom they may speak, when they list, upon every Altar, and in every Pixe. And what folly is it to seek to the foot, when we may go to the head? To set up a ministerial head in the Church, where the principal himself is always at hand? Dulciùs ex ipso fonte bibuntur aquae.  
Besides, 
No visible head necessary.  if this visible Head were such a necessary implement in the Church of God as they would make us believe, it seems strange to me why his name should be forgotten, and that in those very Scriptures, where the Governors, and the government of the Church is purposely treated of; or how was it possible for Saint Paul speaking of Apostles, and Prophets, and Evangelists, of Pastors, and teachers ordained by Christ for the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the Ministry. etc. Eph. 4 11. and 1. Cor. 12.28. to forget the name of this Pastor Paramont: who now takes upon him to be Dominus fac totum, and to rule the roast throughout all Christendom.  
There is another thing that makes me doubt much of this matter, namely that whereas the Church hath still been known by the name of a Monarchy, yet the Pope among all other his titles hath not ordinarily taken upon him the name of a Monarch, till of late. I know some such thing hath been muttering a pretty while in the Schools: but it never passed for currant Doctrine in the Church till within these few years: nay, it is not so fare passed yet, but that the Sorbonists of Paris, & generally the whole Church of France, oppose strongly against it. In like sort, whereas the Church hath ever been called the body of Christ, Ephes. 1.23. yet I never heard of a Pope so desperate that durst call the Church his body: which yet in some sort he might be allowed to do, if it be lawful for him in any sort to call himself the Head of the Church (by the Doctrine of Relatives.)  
Moreover, I find the maintainers of this Doctrine much puzzled in seeking to express what authority it is, that the Pope may challenge in right of his headship, and Monarchy, & what power is appendent to that name: whether it be a mere spiritual power, or a temporal, or both, or some third mixed power compounded of temporal and spiritual? 
Difference between the Papists touching the temporal and the spiritual power of the Pope.  Here I see them at such deadly strife among themselves, as I hold it no safe trusting either of them, until I shall first find that they trust one another better. Card. Bellarmine himself within these few years knew not what to make of that matter, as it appeareth by his latter writings compared with the former.  
When he first set forth his books of controversies, he was of one opinion concerning this point, which afterward he changed & became of another, as you shall find by his recognitions, wherein he did not mend that which was amiss, as Augustine did in his Retractations, but proficiens in peius, like those, of whom the Apostle speaks, 2. Tim. 3.13. he made that worse which was too bad before; even in the judgement of his own good friends. In his former writings of this argument, though he had pleaded for the Papal authority, Quantum honestè potuit, 
Barclay. Sixtus Quintus.  & plus etiam quàm debuit: saith William Barclay a Papist, yet was Sixtus Quintus the Pope so discontented with his book, that he was once of the mind, to have damned all his writings, because he did not speak home to his Holiness contentment: I mean, because he did not attribute such an unlimited, and transcendent power unto him, as that proud & imperious Praelate did challenge in right of his pretended Monarchy; because he did not affirm him to have as direct a temporal power over Kings, as a spiritual over Bishops, making all Kingdoms, as well as all Churches, subject to his disposition. See Barclay de potestate Papae in Principes christianos, cap. 13.  
They that contract the power of the Pope within the confines of a mere Spiritual jurisdiction, though they speak more modestly than other of their fellows; yet in as much as they extend this jurisdiction over the whole world, (which in respect of him they make to be but as one Diocese) even this Paradox of theirs is as false as the others, though not so impudent: & as injurious to Christ and his Church, though it be not so pragmatically dangerous to secular states, and Princes Crowns: for if the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ be of no greater extent than the Pope's jurisdiction, it followeth that none are Christians but Papists; which though some Popish Puritan in his fiery zeal, will make no bones perhaps to affirm: yet all of them are not so desperate, and he that speaks so in his heat, must recall it again in cold blood, or else he will leave Christ but a poor Kingdom, and a few subjects in respect of that multitude, which God promised unto him, Psal. 2.8. and Psal. 72. v. 8.9. etc. Nay how shall that Prophecy of Malachy be verified of the Church, spreading itself from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof, if there be no more Christians in the world then there be Papists? All the world knows that the Pope's Kingdom never extended itself so fare, as that Prophecy speaks of, by many degrees, when it was at the largest. And Papists have little hope ever to see it hereafter spread over the whole World. Now because the Pope hath no jurisdiction in those parts, nor ever had, shall we think therefore that Christ hath no kingdom there? Or that the Grecian, Armenian, Jndian, Aethiopian, and other African Churches be no Churches at all, because they are no Popish Churches? (I omit to speak here of Protestants in Europe, whose multitude the Pope knows better than he love's.) But for those other which I was speaking of, it is certain that either the Prophecies mentioned before are accomplished in those Christians, or else they were never accomplished hitherunto at all: either Christ now reigneth in those Churches, or else his kingdom was never so large as it was promised that it should be. And although it cannot be denied, but that those Eastern & Southern Christians are much degenerated from their primitive purity, and there be divers things amiss in their profession; yet, they are Christians still: and whosoever denies them that name, because they are none of the Pope's creatures, he robs Christ of more subjects than he leaves him to reign over. Vbicunque timetur, & laudatur Deus, ibi vera est Ecclesia August. in Psal. 21.  
The Church for the space of six hundred years was not only without this visible head, but so fare from desiring it, that when john Patriarch of Constantinople, an ambitious Prelate began to affect this matter, he was told by Gregory the Great that his course was Antichristian: & yet it is certain the ambition of this Patriarch was no more, then that which hath since broken forth in ambitious Popes, under the name of their Supremacy: and the same reasons which Gregory used against john, being many in number, they conclude as strongly against Gregory's Successors now a days, as ever they did then against the other. Read Greg. on that Argument, lib. 4. Ep. 30.32.36. & alibi. If the same question were made now to the Pope, which was then made by Gregory to that Patriarch. Tu quid Christo universalis Ecclesiae capiti in extremi iudicij dicturus es examine, qui cuncta eius membra vibi conaris universalis appellatione supponere? I think his Holiness would be to seek of an answer. I am sure Gerson a learned Roman Catholic, was so fare from thinking such a visible Head to be any matter of necessity in the Catholic Church, that he thought the body might do well enough though this head were taken off from the shoulders: as appears by his book written, De aufenibilitate Papae. And so I pass from this description of the Catholic Church.  
All that follows from thence to the end almost of the first page might well have been spared, neither can I devise to what purpose it is brought in.   

1.  
That our Saviour Christ being a Priest for ever secundum ordinem Melchisedec, 
Christ the head of the Church.  was the first visible Head and founder of the said holy Christian Catholic Church, etc.— He is no Christian that doubts of it: but when I hear him say, that Christ (was the first visible head of the Church) me thinks he speaks strangely, unless he think that Christ is now ceased to be somewhat that he was heretofore. For why else did he not say in praesenti, that Christ is the head of the Church, as well as (he is a priest for ever) unless he were afraid to hurt the Pope's head? Primus semper dicitur in ordine ad secundum, & secundus ad tertium. Now if the Church by the death of Christ her first head got her a second head, which was S. Peter, why then upon his death she got a third head, and so consequently hath had as many Heads, as she hath had Popes, which is scarce good English.   

2. How fare the Clergy are to be obeyed.  
That Christ did institute a Clergy & a Laity in his Church, the one to preach and administer Sacraments, the other to learn and to obey, etc.— I hope he doth not mean that the Clergy are freed from obeying the Gospel, because they are bound to preach it; But that Christ did institute such a distinction of people in his Church we know before he told us so. Hear a man might suspect that some Priest had his finger in the framing of this writing, in as much as when he speaks of the duty of the Laity, he tells them, (That they are bound to obey the Clergy in all things touching their Faith,—) a speech too lavish for any Priest to speak, and too slavish for any ingenuous Lay man to hear, except it be much circumcised, (they must obey in all things) he means first the persons, than the doctrine. Ex personis fidem, non ex fide personas. And Champnies, an English Sorbonist, professeth as much, l. de vocat. minist, c. 1. And so likewise Stapleton; In doctrinâ religionis non quid dicatur, sed quis loquatur attendendum est. defence. Ecclesiasticae autorit. l. 3. c. 7. & daemon strat. princip. doctrine. l. 10. c. 5. Which Tertullian thought a great absurdity, and so disclaims it, Veritas docendo persuadet, non suadendo docet: adver. Valent. Hic est sacerdos de genere Aaronis, non decipiet nos. 1. Mac. 7.14. so did some over-credulous jews say of Alcimus; but yet they were deceived. And so would your friend persuade you, to believe him, because he is a Romish Priest, and to take up your faith upon his credit. But let it first appear, that their Clergy are so privileged by special or common grace, that either they cannot preach false doctrine, though they would, or that they will not though they can, & then we are content they should be obeyed in all things. Alfonsus' à Castro tells indeed strange things that he heard a Dominican preach concerning the privileges of his own order. l. 1. de haeres. c. 9 but your friend goes beyond him, and says as much of every popish Priest, such must be obeyed in all things, and therefore such cannot, or should not err; and then ubi Papae infallibilitas? what pre-eminence shall his holiness have more than every common Mass Priest? Either this Pontifex maximus this high Priest must forbear to say his Pater noster, or forbidden other Priests to say theirs, or else they will go cheek by cheek with him: neque sufficit dicere; neither can they say, that they are all equal potestate ordinis only: for they will be so potestate iurisdictionis too, if they are to be obeyed in all things. What will they say then? that the Pope alone is the infallible Church to the learned Papist; but to the common people every parish Priest is their Church: to this I may answer, that as Cotton seemed to mistrust even the Pope's infallibility, when he desired to know of the devil the strongest proof in Scripture for Purgatory, Thuan. To. 5. fol. 1136. (though he needed not have troubled the devil so fare, when many of his own friends can assure him, that there is no proof of it there) so have we also just cause to mistrust the inferior Priests the feet, when the head gins to fail; and when we hear S. Hierome crying out, that all heresies and commotions both Ecclesiastical and Civil commonly came from Priests: nay, it seems, they justly deserve to be thus stigmatised, when their own Canons have laid this note upon them, which says, omne malum à Sacerdotibus: dist. 50. quod retentum à Gregorio, 13. expunxit Sixtus Quintus Jnd. expurg. Belg. fol, 306.  
Besides by this rule of blind obedience, they that followed Luther's doctrine are justified against the Pope, because he was their lawful Pastor: and they did no more than their duty in harkening unto him; if it be true indeed that the Laity are bound to obey the Clergy in all things touching their faith and salvation.   

The perpetuity of Christ's Church on earth.  
That the Church increased by Preaching and Miracles at the first; That it shall continue unto the end of the world by virtue of Christ's promise and the assistance of the Holy Ghost,  
All this is undoubted truth, and I pray you ask your friend, whether he know any Protestant that doth deny it? Stapleton & some other of the shameless crew have gone about to persuade the world, that we believe not the perpetuity of Christ's Church for ever upon earth; but it is so shameless a slander, that Bellarmine himself stands upon our defence, and pleads our cause against all such calumniators. Notandum est (saith he) multos ex nostris tempus terere: & let your friend note it (for he is one of those multi whom it concerns) dum probant absolutè Ecclesiam non posse deficere. Nam Calvinus & caeteri Haeretici id concedunt. Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eccl. milit. c. 13. in initio capit. And though himself undertaking in the same place to set down the Protestants opinion, do it very untowardly, yet you see what he thinks of those other gamesters, who charge us to hold that the Church hath at sometime decayed, and consequently that Christ hath failed in his promise made unto her, Tempus terunt (saith he) they are all but triflers. If your friend have any such conce it of us, desire him to believe Bellarmine, and hereafter to have a better opinion. If not, ask him to what purpose he cited Isa. 59.22. Math. 28.19.20. Joh. 14.16.17. Math. 18.18? Howsoever let him now know that we believe the Catholic Church to be Regnum quod non dissipabitur, an everlasting Kingdom that shall stand when all earthly Kingdoms fail. But we do not believe that this is true of every particular Church, and we know that the Romish Church is no more than a particular, and therefore as subject to mutability and corruption, as any other of the same nature. Secondly, tell him how we believe that the holy Ghost doth, and ever will guide the same Catholic Church into all necessary truth: but we deny first that all those things are necessary to be believed, which Rome professeth as truths. Secondly that the guidance into such truths is a grace entailed to any one succession of Bishops more than to other, or that the Pope's chair hath any greater reason to presume of her infallibility, than any other patriarchical Seas had heretofore of theirs. But we must talk more of this hereafter.   

Saint Peter not the ministerial head of the Church.  
That our Saviour did constitute St Peter to be Ministerial of his Church—) Well may the name of a Ministerial head be given to Saint Peter in respect of his Apostleship, and there is not one of the twelve, but that in the same respect, the same name belongs unto him; as they are called the twelve foundations of the holy jerusalem, Apoc. 21.14. so they may be called 12. Ministerial Heads of the Church under Christ. But to appropriate these names unto Peter alone, to make him not a Ministerial, but the Ministerial head, as if the rest were no Heads at all, it is such a wrong done to the other Apostles, as cruel Landlords sometimes offer to their Tenants, when they take away their common from them, and make it their own enclosure. As for the courtesy which perhaps they think they do unto Saint Peter, it is such a one as he will never give them thankes for; that blessed Saint knows well enough, that all this quarrelling about Supremacy is not for his sake, but for the Popes, and that his name is used only for a leaping stock to help the other to horse. He takes as much delight in this honourable supremacy, which they would cast upon him, joined with the disgrace of his fellow Apostles, as Paul and Barnabas did when the men of Lystra would have sacrificed unto them, Act. 14.14. Hoc erant utique & caeteri Apostoli, quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio praediti & Honoris & Potestatis: Cip. de unit. Eccles. And yet we do not say that this equality between the Apostles was so equal, but that there was ever a Prius & Posterius among them, as in all well-guided societies it is fit there should be, for avoiding confusion; james, and Peter and john, are termed Pillars, by which they are understood to be persons of special note among the rest, Gal. 2.9. and like enough that Peter, in regard either of his seniority in the Apostleship, or the fervency of his zeal to Christ, or some other special grace, wherein he did excel, might be a more eminent pillar than any one of the other; ut Plato Princeps Philosophorum, sic Petrus Princeps Apostolorum. Hierom. adversus Pelag. lib. 1. cap. 4. Now as that name made not other Philosopher's subject to Plato, so neither doth the like given to Peter infer any jurisdiction that he had over his fellows, or makes them any whit inferior unto him that way. Saint Ambrose saith of Paul, that he was not inferior to Peter, or to any other of the Apostles that went before only in time in 2. Cor. 12.9. And in his book de Incar. Dom. Cap. 4. speaking of that Primacy that Peter had, he calleth it Primatum Confessionis, wherein Peter was preferred; a primacy of confession, faith he, not of honour, a primacy of faith, but not of degree. Your friend is of another mind, and brings Scripture to prove a greater supremacy given unto Peter then all this we speak of, consider his proofs.   

St Peter's supremacy.  
And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt lose in earth, it shall be loosed also in the heavens, Math. 6. vers. 18.19.) Before that ever our Saviour spoke these words to Peter, you must understand that he had proposed a certain question to them all in general. Vos autem quem me esse dicitis, v. 15. Unto which question Peter making answer in the name of them all, saith. Tues ille filius Dei viventis, verse. 16. Whereupon he received the promise of the keys, and those other comfortable words spoken by Christ unto him, vers. 18.19. yet not so spoken to him alone, but that it is apparent that the substance of the promise did equally belong unto them all: and there is nothing singularly belonging unto Peter alone throughout the whole speech, but only an allusion between his name and the nature of his confession, between Petrus & Petra; for the rest, it is all common, for either we must say that the disciples did make no answer at all to their Master's question, which had been a point of great incivility, and so not likely; or else the answer that Peter made must be taken for their common answer, and his confession the common confession of them all. Now if it be granted that it was the common confession, and only delivered by Peter as the foreman of the Jury, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. 2. Hist. Eccl. cap. 14. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  (for so Eusebius calls him) our Saviours-reply thereunto cannot with any congruity be otherwise understood then to belong unto them all, though spoken unto Peter; as judges use to direct their speech to the foreman, when they would have the whole jury take knowledge of it: Petrus pro omnibus dixit, & cum omnibus accepit, Orig. tract. 1. in Mat. & Aug. de verbis Dom. secund. Mat. Ser. 13. Quia tu dixisti mihi, Tu es filius Dei vivi, & ego tibi, tu es Petrus.  
Upon this rock will I build my Church-). Whether by the rock we understand Christ himself, or whether we understand the confession of Saint Peter made of Christ, all comes to one; if there be any difference between them it is merely verbal, and consisteth rather of a divers manner of men's expressing their minds, then in any matter of substance. But for the person of Peter, the Church of Christ did never understand herself to be any otherwise built upon it, then upon the rest of the Apostles; Apoc. 21.14. or than Saint Paul when he saith, it is built upon the foundation not only of the Apostles, but also of the Prophets, that is upon their doctrine. 
Eph. 2.20.  Tu es Petrus & super hanc Petram, quam confessus es, super hanc Petram quam cognovisti, dicens, tu es Christus filius Dei vivi, aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: super me aedificabo te, non me super te, Aug. ubi supra; I could cite twenty places out of August. to the same purpose, besides Ambr. Ser. 84. Hil. de Trin. l. 2. Hier. in Mat. l. 1. c. 7. Tert. adversus Martion. l. 4. c. 13, Theod. in Psal. 47. But for August. he is so plain for us against the Popish interpretation, that Bellarmine would fain quarrel with him upon the point, & chargeth him with ignorance of the Hebrew tongue. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 10. and Stapleton calls it lapsum humanum in that holy Father, because he could not think of the matter as they would have him; (Princip. doctrinal. lib. 6. c. 3.  
And the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it—) This makes it more plain that the other part of the speech was not spoken to Peter alone, because this cannot be understood of Peter alone, and so Origen collecteth Tr. 1. in Mat. shall we dare to say (saith he) that the gates of Hell shall not overcome only Peter, and that the same gates shall prevail against all the other Apostles? And again in the same Tract. 1. in Mat. If you think that the whole Church was builded only upon Peter, what will you say of john the son of thunder, and of every of the Apostles?  
And I will give to thee the keys etc. Here is nothing promised in the Keys to Peter, nor in the power of binding & losing, but what is likewise promised to all the Apostles, Mat. 18.18. Quaecunque ligaveritis in terrâ, erunt ligata & in coelo, and when this promise came to performance joh. 20.22.23. you shall find that it was performed to all alike. Accipite Spiritum Sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur iis. Now it is certain that remitting and retaining of sins is a power of the same extent with the power of the keys, and that being given to them all, joh. 20. as well as unto Peter, proves that there was nothing promised unto Peter, Mat. 16. but was intended to them all, Cuncti Apostoli claves regni coelorum accipiunt. Hier. adversus jovinianum l. 1. & Origen. An vero soli Petro dantur claves regni coelorum, nec alius beatorum quisquam eas accepturus est? Quod si dictum hoc tibi dabo claves,- caeteris quoque commune est, cur non simul omnia communia Tract. 1. in Mat. & Cypr. Christus Apostolis omnibus post resurrectionem suam parem potestatem tribuit l. 1. de unitat. Eccl. & August. in joh. tractat. 124.— quando Petro dictum est, tibi dabo claves— & quodcunque ligaveris- universam significabat ecclesiam vide eundem Tra. 50. & Theoph. upon Math. 16. Nay Anselme that was a child in comparison of the Fathers, yet he understood this truth. Notandum est (saith he) quod haec potestas non solum Petro data est: sed siout Petrus unus pro omnibus respondit, sic Christus in Petro omnibus hanc potestatem dedit.  
And our Saviour said, Simon Simon, behold Satan hath required to have thee for to sift as wheat, but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou being converted confirm thy brethren, Luk. 22. vers. 31.32.) The first part of this speech was spoken to all the Disciples, Satanas expetivit vos ut cribraret: as the vulgar likewise translateth: and therefore it is no good dealing in your friend to render it in the singular number (Satan hath required to have thee for to sift) as if these words had been spoken to Peter alone, which is a mere falsifying of the Text: as if a man would pay his creditor with counterfeit coin; but let that pass with his former citation of Malachy. In the words themselves, 1. Christ signifies to his Disciples the malice of Satan against them all, and consequently the danger wherein they stood, unless his grace did stand by them. 2. Because he knew that Peter's danger was greatest, & that he would prove the weakest in his performance, who had made the greatest promises of love to his Master: Christ I say, foreseeing that Peter's fall would be more dangerous in many respects then the fall of any of his other fellows, therefore he turns the latter part of his speech to him alone, promising to assist him with his special prayer, as the greatness of his sin had speeciall need of; If Satan desire to sift them all (saith Chrysostome) why did not Christ pray for them all? it is evident that to touch Peter more deeply and to show his fault to be more grievous than any of the rest, Christ turned his speech to him in particular, in Math. Hom. 83. All this proves no greater Monarchy, but rather a greater infirmity in Peter then in any of the rest, and greater mercy in Christ towards him, whose sin did deserve a greater judgement. As S. Paul infers the like of himself 1. Tim. 1.16. I am sure the Pope will not be thought to succeed Peter in the sin of his denial: why then doth he claim the benefit of Christ's prayer, Ego pro te oravi,- which was made purposely for Peter in regard of that sin? For as Peter's denial was his personal fault, and is not derived per traducem to his Successors, (for then not only many Popes should Apostatare, as Lyra in Math. 16. saith, but all Popes should be Renegates which I believe not.) As therefore it was a personal sin in Peter to deny Christ, so the prayer of Christ for Peter was a personal favour bestowed upon him: and the Pope hath no more right to the one than the other; beside, let it be considered, that the faith which Saint Peter obtained by Christ's prayer was not only fides notitiae, such as Devils have and tremble, but it was fides fiduciae vera & salvifica sides: such a faith as worketh with charity, and whosoever hath it shall undoubtedly be saved; and so Chrysostome understands it, Oravi proute ne deficeret fides tua, hoc est, ne in fine pereas, Hom. 72. in joh. Now it is confessed by all Papists, that all Popes are not furnished with this kind of faith. Pope Adrian 6. is said to have doubted of the salvation of many of his predecessors: and Bellarmine (if the Seminary Priest belly him not) hath passed a peremptory judgement upon Pope Sixtus Quintus. Quia sine poenitentiâ vixit, & sine poenitentiâ mortuus est, quantum sapio, quantum capio descendit ad inferos. Watson in his Quodlibets. Now if this be true, that Popes may be damned, it must needs follow, that either Christ's prayer did not prevail with God, (which were impiety to think) or that the Pope was never thought upon by Christ, when this prayer was a making. Now to his third proof.   

3.  
Our Saviour Christ ask Peter îf he loved him more than these, said yea Lord, thou know'st I love thee: whereupon Christ said to him twice, feed my Lambs, and the third time feed my sheep, joh. 21. vers. 16.17.) Here is some mistaking of the Text again: for Christ did not say twice to Peter feed my Lambs, & once feed my sheep: but twice feed my Sheep, and once feed my Lambs. But let this pass for a peccadillo. I say farther, that in the words there is nothing spoken more to Peter, then is elsewhere spoken to all the Apostles: When they are commanded to go, and teach all Nations baptising them, Mat. 28.19.20. And if he think that there lies any special mystery in these words, because there is such distinct mention of lambs, and sheep both committed to Peter's charge, the like whereof we do not find in the mission of the other Apostles: Let him not be too hasty to say so, till he have considered the words of their general commission. Mark. 16.15. Go into all the world (Saint Peter could not have a larger Diocese) and preach the Gospel to every creature. Therefore whether they be Lambs or sheep, they belong to the charge of every other Apostle as well as to Saint Peter. But they will say that Peter is commanded not only Pascere, but regere: and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies more than a Pastoral duty, even a kind of Regal authority to be given by Christ unto him. Bellarmine stands much upon the word though there be little cause. Lib. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 15. I know that Kings are sometimes called Shepherds, as Homer calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Nay God himself calls Cyrus so, Jsa. 44.28. But I think it were harsh, because Kings are sometimes called shepherds, to infer that Shepherds therefore are Kings, whether we speak of rustic or Ecclesiastic Shepherds. But if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be such a mystical word, and doth imply such a sovereign authority, what meant Saint Paul to use that word speaking to the ordinary Presbyters of Ephesus, whom he willed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Act. 20.28.  
You have heard his three texts of Scriptures: which if they be so clear for the supremacy, as he would have you think: let him give you some reason why Pope Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Caelestinus, did not allege any of these Scriptures in the 6. Council of Carthage, when their supremacy lay a bleeding, but only made their claim by the Council of Nice. it is not likely that ever such learned and wise Prelates as they, would have sought for humane proofs to justify their cause, if they had known how to do it by divine authority: which is to me an undoubted argument that these fore-alleadged places (Mat. 16.18. Luk. 22.31. joh. 21.16.) either were not thought on in those days to imply any such Supremacy in Peter: or that Peter's supremacy (whatsoever it be) was not thought to belong any whit to the Pope. Else why did they not stand upon the Scriptures? Why did the Pope's Legates urge the Nicene Canon? Or rather why did they forge it to serve their turns? for so it is certain that they did, and the forgery remains upon record in the Acts of the Council. And though Cardinal Baron. Tom. 5. Annal have strained his wits hard to salve the matter, yet it will not be.— Haeret lateri lethalis arundo. But as I was about to say: if these Scriptures make any good proof for the Pope's Supremacy, why were not they brought forth in that Council of Carthage, either by the Pope or his Legates, rather than the Nicene Canon? Saint Augustine was one of the Father's present in that Carthaginian Council, when this cause was debated, and is it likely that either the Pope would have stood then upon Canons, if he had known any Canonical scripture for it, or that Saint Augustine and the rest would have denied him any authority that was due to him by God's word? I conclude that either the Church in those days did not understand these places of Scripture, or the Romish doth not understand them now. But see whether these proofs that follow do help his cause any better.   

1.  
When all the holy Apostles are named, S. Peter is the first, Mat. 10.2.-) That is not so: for Saint Andrew is named before him, joh. 1.44. James is named before him, Gal. 2.9. Paul and Apollo's were both named before him, 1. Cor. 3.22. Nay see 1. Cor. 9.5. and Mark. 16.7. and you shall find him named last of them all. 2. If it were so that Peter were still first named, yet what a weak foundation is that, for so great a building as they would raise upon it? The most that can be inferred thereupon is a primacy of order which no man ever denied. If that will content the Pope when a general scrutiny of Bishops is called, to have his name set in the first place, let him take it.   

2.  
After the Apostles had visibly received the Holy Ghost, St Peter made the first Sermon thereof: whereat 3000. persons were converted Act. 2.4.) For Peter to have his name placed first, or to preach the first Sermon, these are poor proofs for a Supremacy, and it is but a poor Supremacy that can be drawn from such proofs. Why should it argue any Supremacy more in him that he preached the first Sermon, then in Mary Magdaalen, that she published the first news of Christ's resurrection to the Disciples, even to Peter himself? Mark. 16.7. joh. 20.2.  
But how if Peter did not preach the first Sermon after the visible descent of the Holy Ghost? Why then all that he urgeth is to little purpose. Consider the text well, Saint Peter's sermon gins at the 14. Verse of the 2. Chap. of the Acts: the effect thereof was the conversion of 3000. souls mentioned vers. 41. It is plain in the 4. Vers. that all the Apostles had spoken publicly to the people, before Peter stood up to begin his Sermon. The argument whereof they entreated, was the same that Peter handled. they declared unto them Magnalia Dei, the wonderful works of God, Vers. 11. and Peter declared nothing else. That preaching of theirs was not without good effect, as well as S. Peter's, though we know not the just number of the converts. Nay it seems that the conversion of those 3000. was the fruit of all their preaching at that time, and not of Peter's alone, and so it is said vers. 41. That upon the same day were added unto the Church about 3000 souls: He doth not say that all this was the effect of Peter's one sermon: but that so many were converted upon that day. To the next proof.  
With his word and power he killed Ananias and Saphira for their Sacrilege, Act. 5. vers. 5.) It was for their lying to the Holy Ghost that Peter slew them (and so he tells them, vers. 3.4.) & so not for sacrilege alone. But let it be as he would have it. I say it proves not that for which he brings it. S. Paul by the like power smote Elimas the Sorcerer with blindness, Act. 13. Now if at the same time Paul had slain Elimas outright, and in stead of taking his eyesight from him, had taken away his life (as I think no man doubts but he could have done) ask your friend, whether he think that such an act would have made Paul head of the Apostles? Let him spit and speak out plainly. His fourth proof followeth with some more show, though of as little force as the former.   

4.  
Saint Peter called the first Council of the Apostles holden at jerusalem and first spoke therein: Act. 15. v. 7. Bellar. l. 1. de Rom. Pont. c. 22. saith, Petrus in concilio primus loquitur: & sententiam eius Jacobus omnesque alij sequuntur. This is more than he should have said, because it is more than he can prove: but yet he durst not say as your friend doth, that Peter called the Council (he knew it to be untrue) and if you read the whole Chap. you shall not find one word to that purpose. Peter spoke first in the Council, so Bellarm. saith indeed: and your friend speaks it upon his credit. But yet the Council itself says no. Act. 15. v. 7. When there had been much disputing Peter rose up, and said; Men and Brethren,— Therefore some other there spoke of the matter before Peter. And what if he had been the first speaker in that Council? would that prove his supremacy? Just as it was proved before by his making the first sermon? Nay rather it is an argument that doth overthrow his supremacy altogether. For it is well known that in such kind of assemblies the inferior do commonly speak first, and the Precedent of the Council having heard and gathered their opinions delivereth his judgement last of all, according whereunto the decree commonly passeth. So I have heard that the Lord Chancellor doth in the Star-Chamber, and the chief judges upon other benches. And in this very Council of jerusalem, when Peter and Paul and Barnabas had spoken their minds concerning the matter in question, james stands up and using a special kind of authority, Men and brethren hearken unto me, v. 13.— he concludes the business: which shows that he, and none but he was Precedent in that Council: and so Chrysostome terms him, calling his sentence the definitive sentence, according whereunto the decree of the council was framed, Chrysostom. Hom. 33. in Act. Apostolorum.  
It is affirmed by old writers, and some modern learned Protestants, that S. Peter was 25. years Bishop of Rome, and by the ancient Ecclesiastical writers, that Saint Peter and S. Paul were both of them martyred together in Rome under the Emperor Nero. Origen. apud Eusebium l. 3. c. 1. Euseb. c. 24. l. 2. Hist. Eccl. Tert. depraescrip. c. 36. Aug. Tract. 123 in joh. Chysostom & Beda in hunc locum, S. Ambr. Ser. 66.68, S. Maximus. 
How Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome.  When Peter is called Bishop of Rome, or james of jerusalem or any other Apostle of any other particular City, we must understand that in those speeches, the name of Bishop is taken in a larger extent, than the strict Ecclesiastic use of the word will allow. As when Presbyters are called Bishops, Act. 20.28. And the Apostleship itself is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 12.25. Rom. 11.13. For as in propriety of speech a Deacon is inferior to a Presbyter, & a Presbyter to a Bishop: so is a Bishop unto an Apostle by many degrees, though the names be often used promiscuously; the calling of the one is extraordinary, and the whole world is within the compass of his commission: the other is a mere ordinary vocation, and his jurisdiction confined within the limits of one Diocese. But because the Apostles, being sent by Christ to preach the Gospel to all nations, made their chief abode in Cities of greatest resort, as Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Rome,- hence it comes to pass that they are often called Bishops of those Cities, not in that sense that in times succeeding the chief pastors of every City were known by that name of Bishops, but after a more large, or rather licentious use of the words: & whosoever calls S. Peter Bishop of Rome in any other sense then so, he speaks as wisely as if he should say, the King of England were Constable of New-market, because his Majesty resides often in that place.   

How long Saint Peter sat Bishop there.  
You understand by this, that Saint Peter is called sometimes Bishop of Rome, your friend adds, that he sat Bishop there 25. reeres as old writers assirme, and some modern learned Protestants.-) Eusebius indeed saith so in his Chronicle, and withal that he sat 7. year before he came to Rome at Antioch: both which cannot possibly be true, and is evidently contradicted by the history of the Acts, and S. Paul's Epistle to the Galath. as Onuph. a learned Papist proveth in his Annot. upon Platina de vit. Pont. Rom. I will not enter into that discourse, but desire you to read what others have written. I think there be few learned Papists now but think, that Eusebius was deceived in that point of his Chronicle, or else they must think that Saint Luke and Saint Paul were deceived. But it is generally agreed that he was first Bishop of Antioch before he was Bishop of Rome; Now desire your friend to give you some reason why the prerogative of Peter's Supremacy (if there were any such thing in rerum naturâ) why it should not belong unto the Patriarch of Antioch, as well as to the Pope of Rome, both being his successors alike in their several places. Perhaps he will say because Peter was put to death in Rome, and not in Antioch: and to that purpose it is likely that he cited Tertullian. statu foelix Ecclesia, cui totam doctrinam Apostolicum sanguine suo profuderunt, ubi Petrus passioni' Dominicae adaequatur, ubi Paulus johannis exitu coronatur, Tert. de praescrip. c. 36. For else I know not what those words do there; but if that be his meaning he might well have spared that quotation; for if S. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome be a good plea for the supremacy of that Sea above Antioch; why should not jerusalem claim it from them both, seeing Christ the Son of God and Saviour of the world was put to death there?   

St Peter's successors.  
That S. Peter's Successors Bishops of Rome, have exercised chief authority in the Church militant ever since to this day.-) And how doth he prove this. 1. Because that after the Martyrdom of S. Peter 32. of the succeeding Bishops were likewise Martyred. This piece of his reading in old history might serve for some use in another place, but I cannot see how it helps to prove that Popes have ever exercised chief authority in the Church, to which end it is brought here in this place. I am sure that Popes in these latter ages have neither succeeded Peter in his Martyrdom, nor desire to be his successors that way. All the world sees they have been more busy in making of Martyrs, then in suffering of Martyrdom; and in that respect may better be called the Successors of Nero, Decius, and Dioclesian: then of S. Peter and those 32. holy Bishops that succeeded him. It is certain that by the cruelty of Popes, and their Popish instruments there hath been more Christian blood shed in the world, than ever was shed by those heathen tyrants in the greatest heat of their persecuting. What though the Pope succeeded in place to those 32. holy Bishops and Martyrs: It is no otherwise then as corruption succeedeth generation, vinegar succeedeth wine, as the Turk succeedeth james in jerusalem, and other of the Apostles in other places.  
Pope Victor, in the 200, year excommunicated the Asian Bishops about the observation or keeping Easter day.-) So they say; but do you speak this to his credit, or to disgrace his person? Certainly it was a foul fact that he did commit therein, and so it was censured by most learned and godly Bishops of that age, and namely by S. Ireneus, who wrote unto him purposely about the matter, and reproved him sharply for it, as he well deserved. Jreneus in Victorem per Epistolam graviter invectus est, saith Socrates Eccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 21. And that it displeased other Christian Bishops besides Jraeneus you shall find in Euseb. l. 5. Hist. Eccl. c. 23.24.   

The four first gener all Counsels not called by Popes.  
Pope Silvester in the (314) year called the first general council of Nice against the Arian Heresy.-) Baronius then is out in his reckoning of anno 325. Eusebius who lived in that time, and was well acquainted with the business, affirmeth that it was called by Constantine the Emperor, l. 3. de vit. Constant. c. 6. and 7. And I think it were hard to name any ancient writer that denies it. The Council itself acknowledgeth so much in a Synodical Epistle to the Church of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. Quoniam Dei gratiâ & mandato Sanctissimi Jmperatoris Constantini, qui nos ex variis civitatibus, & provinciis in unum congregavit, magnum & sanctum Concilium Nicenum coactum est.— apud Socrat. l. 1. Hist. Eccles. c. 6. This case is so plain that Pigh. Eccles. hier. l. 6. c. 1. calls general Counsels (Inventum Constantinum) though Bellarm. chid him for it, l. 1. de Concil. c. 13. To. 2.  
Pope Damascus in the (367) year called the second gener all Council at Constantinople against Macedonius the Heretic-) As true as Silvester called the first. Sozomen Hist. Ecles. l. 7. c. 7. saith directly that Theodosius the Emperor called it: & the Council itself in a letter written to him, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  doth acknowledge that it was assembled together by virtue of a writ directed from his (Imperial) Piety.  
Pope Celestine (414) called the third general Council at Ephesus against Nestorius the Heretic,-) It seems that Pope Celestine himself was not present at this Council: But for the Council itself it was called Authoritate & nutu Theodosii junioris, qui tum oririent ale administravit imperirium saith Evag. lib. 1. cap. 6. And Literae Jmperatoris erant ad Cyrillum & ad alios omnes ubique sanctarum Ecclesiarum Praesides missae) Ibid. and the Canons of the Council in the very beginning do testify so much.  
Pope Leo (440) called the Fourth genera all Council at Chalcedon against the Heretic Eutiches,-) Let the acts of the Council speak; which begin thus, In civitate Calcedonensi Metropoli Provinciae Bythiniae facta est Synodus ex decreto piissimorum Imperat. Valentiniani & Marciani: and he that reads the Epistles of Leo, shall find in what humble and submissive manner he wrote diverse times to the Emperor to call a Council, not challenging any authority therein to himself, but entreating it as a favour from his Lord the Emperor. Vide Epistolam. 9 ad Theodos. & Epist. 12. & Epist. 23. ad Clerum & Plebem Constantinop. & Epist. 24. & 26. And thus you see how the four Popes did call the first, four general Counsels.  
For when your friend gins to speak of the Council of Trent, he gins to draw upon the lees. And here Bellarmine, who thinks general Counsels profitable and convenient, but not absolutely necessary for the Church l. 1 de council. c. 10. when he comes to the Council of Trent, he pleads for the necessity thereof, ut pro aris & focis, as Demetrius for Diana: Act. 19 Our trade is like to decay and be undone, if that be touched. Si tollamus autoritatem praesentis Ecclesiae & Concilij (Tridentini) than all will come to nothing, the effect saor. l. 2. c. 35. q. d. Though all other counsels were expunged, yet that may stand by itself, and so long we shall stand. One thing more by the way I would have you take notice of in Bellarmine, how when he had first endeavoured to prove that the first four general Counsels were all called by Popes (just as your friend would have it) yet presently after in the same chapter he sets down four reasons, why the Emperor did call call those 4. Counsels and not Popes alone l. 1. de Concil. to. cap. 13. to. 2.  
It is confessed by diverse learned Protestants, that the Roman Church was the true Mother Church, which Christ our Saviour planted: some for 300, years, some for 400. years, some for 600. years, etc.) Among other particular. Churches planted by the Apostles, the Roman Church with the first was of special note: and the faith of the Romans in the beginning renowned through the whole world. Rom. 1.8. But what doth S. Paul say more of the Romans in that place, 
The Romish Church not the mother of all Christians.  than he doth of the Thessalonians elsewhere? Read 1. Thes. v. 7.8. 2. Thes. 1. v. 3.4. and you shall find as great praise if not greater given to them, then to the other. What would he infer hence? Did he ever hear any Protestant confess (because he would so fain work somewhat out of their confession) that the Romish Church, when it was at the best, was the Mother of all Christians? Or that the holy Catholic Church which we believe in our Creed, was nothing else but the Church of Rome? Or, because that Church was faithful in the Apostles days, doth it follow that it must needs continue so still? Egesippus an ancient Catholic writer saith, that so long as the Apostles lived, Virgo pura & incorrupta mansit Ecclesia, etc. apud Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. c. 29. And whereas he talks of 300 and 400. nay of 800. years, as if we did acknowledge Rome so long to have been the Church of Christ; tell him for his further learning, that we acknowledge her for a Church still (though a most degenerate, and corrupted one:) Whose doctrine is full of Novelty, and her practice as full of pride, and cruelty; and yet a Church in respect of some truths that she teacheth among many falsehoods, as a man that is heartsick and ready to dye, ceaseth not for all that to be a man; so we likewise think of diverse other Christians in the world: though there be many errors in their doctrine, and much scandal in their lives, yet so long as they hold the foundation, the name of the Church is not to be denied them; and if your friend think otherwise tell him that his faith is never the better, because his charity is worse than ours.   

The corruptions of Rome.  
But he will deny perhaps that there are any such corruptions, as we speak of, grown into the Church of Rome. What then mean so many grievous complaints made by men of special note in that Church long before Luther was borne? 
Bernard. in ●antic. ●on. serm. 〈◊〉.  What meant Bernard to say that there was putida tabes, a filthy disease that had spread itself throughout all the parts of the Church? & that Ministri Christi, in his time did servire Antichristo? If nothing be amiss in the Church of Rome, what meant Paulus Tertius to set certain delegate Cardinals and others a work to give their advice how reformation might be made? Or what meant those Cardinals to write such a book as they did (called Concilium delect. Card. & aliorum Praelat.) which if you will read (as it is extant in Tom. 3. Concil. edit. per Crab. editionis Colon. 1551.) you shall find that their Church hath both rugas & maculas, 
Concil. Trident. sess. 22. d●eret. de O● serb. & 〈◊〉 vit. in celebratione Missae.  as well in matter of doctrine as in manners. What meant the Council of Trent to decree, that the Mass itself ought to be purged out of all such abuses, as vel avaritia, vel superstitio induxit: if all were as it should be, what needed such a reformation of your Breviary and Missal, & officium beatae virgins? But that they were refertae superstitionibus, and so confessed in Pij Quinti, constitut. super recitat. office Beat. virgins: Read also his preface in Breviar, & Missale restitut.   

Indeficiency of faith not promised to one particular Church.  
Now let him answer himself, how it may be true that Rome was once a sound Church of Christ, and yet is not so now. Let him remember what Isaiah said, c. 1. v. 21. How is the faithful City become a Harlot-) Desire him to read that whole passage in the Prophet, and he shall find how changing of the name, the words do as well fit Rome in these days, as ever they did jerusalem then. And whereas he talks of the promises of God, it is but the same vanity that the jews were possessed with, when they stood so much upon Templum Domini, Jer. 7. v. 4. The promises that Christ made to his Church; that he would be with it to the end of the world: That he would send the spirit of truth to abide with it for ever: that Hell gates shall not prevail against it: They were made to the Catholic Church, and not to any particular one, such as Rome is; and to that Catholic Church they have been and ever shall be most truly performed. God will have his Church upon earth though Rome were as deep buried under the earth, as now she stands above it.  
And to end with a demonstration-) He doth well to end with one, for I am sure that from the beginning hitherto such Arguments have been geason with your friend and if this be one, Aristotle never knew what demonstrations meant: in that kind of argument, the propositions ought to be evidently true: and the conclusion to be drawn from the premises not by probable, but by necessary consequence. And here is no such matter.   

The patriarchal and Episcopal seats of the Apostles not extinguished.  
That all the patriarchal and Episcopal seats of the Apostles.-) This is not true; nay, in saying so he doth unreasonably overlash: For it is well known to the world, that there is at this day a Patriarch of Constantinople, to whose jurisdiction are subject all the Christians of Asia minor (excepting Armenia the less, and Cilicia) besides Circassia, Mengrelia and Russia; moreover that in Europe itself the Christians of Greece, Macedonia, Epirus, Thracia, Bulgaria, Rascia, Servia, Bossina, Walachia, Moldavia, Podolia,- do acknowledge the jurisdiction of that Patriarch, and cannot endure the Bishop of Rome; under this Patriarch there is the Metropolitan of Salonichi (Thessolonica) and thirty Churches of Christians in that one City: and no less than ten Suffragan Bishops subject to his jurisdiction: besides this the Metropolitan of Philippi, hath 150. Churches under him: Athens as many: He of Corinth hath a hundred; besides all the Lands of the Aegean Sea, Constantinople itself the very seat of the Turkish Empire hath above twenty Churches of Christians. Put all these together, and you shall see that Papists have little cause to boast of their multitude, or to slight this Patriarch, as if there were but few Christians subject unto him. There are likewise at this day Patriarches, though poor ones of Alexandria and Antioch, and great multitudes of Christians that are subject to each of them; though nothing so many in number as were wont to be heretofore, (by reason of the Turkish tyranny and oppression, under which they are brought:) yet neither so few that it can be truly said of the meanest of them, as your friend ventures to affirm of them all. (That they be extinguished and worn out many years since:) They be poor, and suffer much affliction under the Turk, and other Infidels, and yet they may be never the worse Christians for all that. True piety and godliness did never so much flourish in the Church, as when the Church itself was most persecuted and afflicted by Tyrants. Schola Crucis, est Schola Lucis, & semen Ecclesiae, est sanguis Martyrum; and therefore they that make temporal prosperity a note to know the Catholic Church by, (as generally our jesuites do) speak more like Epicures, then Divines and Christians.  
Besides your friend shows himself very ignorant in the state of his own Romish Church, if he do not know that the Pope at this day doth usually create certain titular Praelates; Whereof one is called Patriarch of Alexandria, the other of Antioch, another of jerusalem. It is true that these all are but mere puppets and Idols, and possess not a foot of revenue or the least part of jurisdiction in those places whereof they bear names; yet your friend should not have denied that there were any such Patriarches, seeing they are Creatures of the Popes own making, whose greatest use is to gull the world under those names, as if those four Patriarches did perform him obedience: when indeed they be but four vizards in comparison of the Patriarches themselves.  
Only the Church of Rome, the seat of Saint Peter stands at this day-) Let him not stand too much upon the standing of his Church: 
Rome no sound Church of Christ.  For sure the legs thereof are not so sound as they should be; a church may be worn out as well by diseases bred inwardly in her body, as by the violence of external persecution: If Rome be free from this latter, yet a great part of the world thinks her ill affected in her inward, and vital parts. She thinks not so herself: no more doth many a dying man, but will say he is well, when he is ready to give up the Ghost. Sacerdotium quod intus cecidit, foris diu stare non potest, Greg. Mor. You see the falsehood of those propositions upon which his demonstration is built, see now how loosely his conclusion hangs upon those propositions, though I should grant them to be true. If there be any sense at all in the connexion of the parts together, this it is. All the other patriarchal Churches are fallen: Only Rome is not fallen: Therefore it shall never fall. Let him take his answer from S. Paul Rom. 11.17. If some of the branches be broken off, and thou being a wild Olive tree, etc. Now let him remember to what Church Saint Paul there writes, and what they were to whom he gave such earnest premonition to take heed least for their infidelity God should cast them off, as he had done the jews in their sight. This had been a very needless admonition especially from the Apostle to the Romans, if he knew certainly that God had promised them such indeficiency of faith, that whatsoever became of other Churches, theirs should never turn Infidel. Be not high minded but fear, saith he unto them, vers. 20. and again, If God spared not the natural branches (the Jews) take heed lest he also spare not thee, v. 21. and again. Behold the goodness of God towards thee (if you continue in his goodness) otherwise thou shalt be cut off, v. 22. And yet your friend would make you think that the Romans have no cause to fear, and that they cannot be cut off, and all by virtue of an imaginary promise which he supposeth Christ made to them: by which reckoning all Saint Paul's (iffs) were but Panici timoris: He feared where no fear was: and therefore might well have spared all the breath he spent that way.  
To conclude let me now at the Parting, give him a demonstration out of these words of the Apostle. That Church which may possibly be cut off from Christ and fall into infidelity, is not the true Catholic Church. But it is possible the Romish Church may be cut off from Christ, and fall into infidelity. Teste Apostolo ut supra. Therefore the Romish Church is not the true Catholic Church.  
FINIS.