Chap. 2. the. 8. Diuision.
And if there were, I haue shewed how wicked it is to say that Peter framed the ministerie of the Gospell by it. Now let it be seene of all men how strongly you haue concluded, that the names of Archbyshops are not Antichristian, when as it is most certayne that he was a piller of Anti∣christ, vpon whom your reason is grounded.
Though it be certayne that Peter framed not the ministerie of the gospell by any custome of the Paganes, yet y〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ur arguments are of no force, to proue that he did not place ministers of the gospell, where there were before priests of the Paganes, call them by what other name you will〈1 line〉〈1 line〉or that in the chie〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Cities he placed not such as might direct and gouerne the rest: seing it is the consent of all wryters that the Apostles when they had planted Churches, did place Bishops, and other ministers in the Churches which were planted.
Whether he were a piller or no of Antichrist by whom I haue hitherto proued the names of Archbyshops not to be Antichristian, I leaue it to the learned to iudge. 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉f you meane Clement of whom Polidore doth borrowe his report, it is euident that Po∣lidore meaneth that Clement that was one of the first Bishops of Rome, who was no piller of Antichrist but a godly Bishop. Yf you meane Polidore himselfe vpon whose credite I take the report, then surely h〈1 line〉〈1 line〉wsoeuer in diuerse poynts o〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 Papism〈1 line〉〈1 line〉 he erred, yet is he one that hath greatly detected and opened their supers〈1 line〉〈1 line〉itions, and whose authoritie neyther your selfe nor any other learned man in many things will ref〈1 line〉〈1 line〉se.
But if all this were true that you say, yet may we take reportes of antiquities* 1.1 euen from Turkes, Paganes, Papistes, or 〈1 line〉〈1 line〉ls must we condemne the most parte of Histories.