A key for Catholics, to open the juggling of the Jesuits, and satisfy all…A key for Catholicks, to open the jugling of the Jesuits, and satisfie all…

In the second age he hath nothing but the names of a few that never dreamt of Popery, and a Canon (which you must believe was the Apostles) that Priests must communicate. Of which we are well content.

In the third Age he nameth fifteen Bishops of Rome, of whom the last was deposed for offering incense to Saturn, Jupiter, &c. But not a syllable to prove that one of these Bishops was the universal Monarch: Much less that the Catholic Church was for such Monarchy. But to excuse the matter, he tells you, that the second and third Age produced no Councils (the greater deceivers then are the Papists that have found us Councils then) and so you have no Catholic succession proved. Yea, but he saith, they have successions of Popes, Martyrs and Confessors, which is sufficient for their purposes. See the strength of Popery! Any thing is sufficient for your purposes, it seems. Rome had Bishops, therefore they were the Universal Rulers of the Church: A strong consequence! Rome had Martyrs and Confessors: therefore it was the Mistress of all Churches. Who can resist these arguments? But why did you not prove that your Confessors and Martyrs suffered for attesting the Popes Sovereignty! If they suffered but for Christianity, that will prove them but Christians, and not Papists. Thus you see to the confusion of the Papists, that they have nothing to show for the succession or antiquity of Popery for the three first Ages. Yea worse then nothing: For here he comes in with some of the Decretals forsooth of some of their Bishops. Decretals unknown, till a while ago in the world, brought out by Isidore Mercator: but with so little cunning as left them naked to the shame of the world; the falsehood of them being out of themselves fully proved, by Blondel, Reignolds, and many more, and confessed by some of themselves. Here you see the first foundation of Papal succession; even a bundle of fictions, lately fetched from whence they please to cheat the ignorant part of the world.

In the third Age he nameth fifteen Bishops of Rome, of whom the last was deposed for offering incense to Saturn, Jupiter, &c. But not a syllable to prove that one of these Bishops was the universal Monarch: Much less that the Catholick Church was for such Monarchy. But to excuse the matter, he tells you, that the second and third Age produced no Councils (the greater deceivers then are the Papists that have found us Councils then) and so you have no Catholick succession proved. Yea, but he saith, they have successions of Popes, Martyrs and Confessors, which is sufficient for their purposes. See the strength of Popery! Any thing is sufficient for your purposes, it seems. Rome had Bishops, therefore they were the Universal Rulers of the Church: A strong consequence! Rome had Martyrs and Confessors: therefore it was the Mistris of all Churches. Who can resist these arguments? But why did you not prove that your Confessors and Martyrs suffered for attesting the Popes Soveraignty! If they suffered but for Christianity, that will prove them but Christians, and not Papists. Thus you see to the confusion of the Papists, that they have nothing to shew for the succession or antiquity of Popery for the three first Ages. Yea worse then nothing: For here he comes in with some of the Decretals forsooth of some of their Bishops. Decretals unknown, till a while ago in the world, brought out by Isidore Mercator: but with so little cunning as left them naked to the shame of the world; the falshood of them being out of themselves fully proved, by Blondell, Reignolds, and many more, and confessed by some of themselves. Here you see the first foundation of Papal succession; even a bundle of fictions, lately fetcht from whence they please to cheat the ignorant part of the world.