The second book hath two conclusions: one, that St. Peter was bishop of Rome, and there died; the other, that the Popes of Rome are his successors. Both which have been disputed by others. But supposing them true; yet if by Bishop of Rome, be understood either the monarch of the Church, or the supreme pastor of it: not Silvester, but Constantine, who was the first Christian emperor, was that bishop; and as Constantine, so all other Christian emperors were of right supreme bishops of the Roman empire. I say of the Roman empire, not of all Christendom, for other Christian sovereigns had the same right in their several territories, as to an office essentially adherent to their sovereignty. Which shall serve for answer to his second book.

In the third book he handleth the question, whether the Pope be Antichrist? For my part, I see no argument that proves he is so, in that sense the Scripture useth the name; nor will I take any argument from the quality of Antichrist to contradict the authority he exerciseth, or hath heretofore exercised in the dominions of any other prince or state.