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…

See now what's become of the Popish Apostolical Successors among their Bishops? And the scope of all this is to prove, that all Bishops receive their Power from the Pope; and so their succession is confined to him alone: and therefore as oft as there have been interruptions in the Papal Succession, so oft the Succession of all their Church was interrupted.

But if Bishops succeed not Apostles, and have not any of the Apostolic Power, who then doth the Bishop of Rome succeed? Why, Bellarmine hath a shift for this: but how sorry an one it is, you shall bear, cap. 25. he saith that [The Pope of Rome properly succeedeth Peter, not as an Apostle, but as an Ordinary Pastor of the whole Church.] Let us then have no more talk of the Apostolic seat, or at least no more Arguing from that name. You see then that Peter was not the Universal Vicar as an Apostle, nor doth the Pope so succeed him. And do you think this doth not give away the Vicarship? Which way hereafter will they prove it?

But if Bishops succeed not Apostles, and have not any of the Apostolick Power, who then doth the Bishop of Rome succeed? Why, Bellarmine hath a shift for this: but how sorry an one it is, you shall bear, cap. 25. he saith that [The Pope of Rome properly succeedeth Peter, not as an Apostle, but as an Ordinary Pastor of the whole Church.] Let us then have no more talk of the Apostolick seat, or at least no more Arguing from that name. You see then that Peter was not the Universal Vicar as an Apostle, nor doth the Pope so succeed him. And do you think this doth not give away the Vicarship? Which way hereafter will they prove it?

But an Objection falls in Bellarmines way, that [If this ⟨p. 210⟩be so, then none of the Bishops of Afric, Asia, &c. were true Bishops, that were not made by the Pope: To which he answers (as well as he can) that its enough that the Pope do Consecrate them Mediately, by making Patriarchs and Arch-bishops to do it: and so Peter did Constitute the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch, who thus receiving authority from the Pope, did Rule almost all Asia and Afric] But 1. That [almost] marreth the whole Cause. For where now is the universal Headship? 2. Did Bellarmine think in good sadness that Alexandria and Antioch were made at first the seats of Patriarchs, having as large Jurisdiction as afterward they attained? 3. How will he prove that Peter made these two Patriarchates, and that not as an Apostle, but as an Ordinary Vicar General? 4. Who made the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and gave them that vast Jurisdiction? Did Peter many hundred years after his death? Or did the Pope of Rome, that tooth and nail resisted, and still sought to diminish his Power? Or rather did not the General Councils do it by the Emperors Commands, the Pope excepting and repining at it. 5. Who made the Patriarch of Jerusalem? and who made James Bishop of Jerusalem? did Peter? And who made Timothy and Titus Bishops? did Peter or Paul? And who gave Paul that Power? not Peter certainly. Reader, do not these men jest with holy things? Or is it like that they believe themselves?