A17167:104
A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two years ago…A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two yeres agoe…
A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two years ago against Elizabeth the most gracious Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and against the noble realm of England together with a defence of the said true Christian Queen, and of the whole realm of England. By Henry Bullinger the Elder.A confutation of the Popes bull which was published more then two yeres agoe against Elizabeth the most gracious Queene of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, and against the noble realme of England together with a defence of the sayd true Christian Queene, and of the whole realme of England. By Henry Bullinger the Elder.
London: printed by John Day, 1572London: printed by Iohn Day, 1572
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
I Will not now dispute whether Peter came at Rome or no. Whereof I see learned men to doubt, not without cause. Surely it may be proved by substantial arguments, that Peter sate not in that seat, at that time ⟨image 34⟩and so long a time as he is commonly said to have sit continually together. If he came to Rome at all, certes it was late ere he came, and peradventure not long afore his death. For all the old writers, even those that were near the Apostles time, do agreeably and steadfastly affirm, that Peter was crucified at Rome under the Emperor Nero for preaching Christ and his Gospel, the same time that Paul was beheaded. Which thing I can easily grant. But from this Peter unto Sylvester there be registered 33. Bishops or pastors of Rome. Of whom notwithstanding none took upon him any sovereignty either over the City it self, or over the Church of Rome, and therefore much less advanced they them selves over kings and kingdoms. Yet am I not afraid to say thus much more of them, that if they might be found to have attempted any whit of this preeminence, or to have sewed for sovereignty, it is certain that they started aside from the way of their predecessors, yea and from their master Christ, and grew out of kind from their own Peter. Wherefore their sayings and doings being against the express testimonies of Christ and the Apostles above rehearsed, could prove nothing.
I Will not now dispute whether Peter came at Rome or no. Wherof I sée learned men to dout, not without cause. Surely it may be proued by substantiall argumentes, that Peter sate not in that seate, at that tyme ⟨image 34⟩and so long a tyme as he is commonly sayd to haue sit continually together. If he came to Rome at all, certes it was late ere he came, and peraduēture not long afore his death. For all the old writers, euen those that were néere the Apostles time, do agreably and stedfastly affirme, that Peter was crucified at Rome vnder the Emperour Nero for preaching Christ and his Gospell, the same time that Paul was beheaded. Which thing I can easly graunt. But from this Peter vnto Siluester there be registred 33. Byshops or pastors of Rome. Of whom notwithstandyng none tooke vpon him any souereintie either ouer the Citie it selfe, or ouer the Church of Rome, and therfore much lesse aduaū ced they them selues ouer kynges and kyngdomes. Yet am I not afrayd to say thus much more of them, that if they might be found to haue attempted any whit of this preheminence, or to haue sewed for souereintie, it is certein that they started aside from the way of their predecessours, yea and from their maister Christ, and grew out of kynd from their owne Peter. Wherfore their sayinges and doinges being against the expresse testimonies of Christ and the Apostles aboue rehearsed, could proue nothing.