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…

Verily I am not ignorant how there fly abroad many Epistles of these holy Roman Bishops & Martyrs which they call decretals. But they overthrow themselves with their own absurdities, and show themselves to be but counterfeits, inasmuch as many things be so light, so trifling, and so utterly unlike that ancient simplicity, pureness, and majesty, that not with out good cause they seem unto godly and learned men, to have ben devised long since by others. Neither do I greatly regard that the same are fathered upon the gathering of Damasus and Isidorus: seeing that there want not some men which put over certain of these kind of things even to the time of Gregory the 7. But howsoever the case stand for the time. I pray yon what can be more fond, then the fathering of these words upon Anacletus? This holy holy and Apostolic Church of Rome obtained the supremacy ⟨image 37⟩and preeminence of power over all Churches, not from the Apostles, but from the very Lord himself our Saviour. And again, There was a difference even between the blessed Apostles: and albeit that all of them were Apostles: yet did the Lord grant and the Apostles determined among them selves, that Peter should have preeminence afore all the rest of the Apostles, and be Cephas, that is to say a head, and hold the sovereignty of Apostleship. Thus saith he. But who knoweth not (though he be but meanly seen in histories,) that after full five hundred years, it was obtained and ordained, not by Christ, or his Apostles but by loitering losels or rather by traitorous persons, that Rome should be called the head of all Churches, that is to wit, that it should obtain supremacy & prerogative of power over all Churches? Or who would believe that Anacletus exercised himself so little in reading of the Gospel, that he knew not how Cephas signifieth, not a head but a stone or a Rock? according as it is interpreted by John the Apostle in the first chapter? And which interpreter should a man rather believe? John the Apostle, or the counterfeit Anaclete? The lewd packing then of the lewd losels is detected both in these and in many other things. The same party maketh very often mention of Archbishops and metropolitans, neither omitteth he primates. But it is most manifest, that those titles were utterly unknown to the primitive Church, and were afterward invented and usurped in times following.

VErely I am not ignorant how there fly abroad many Epistles of these holy Romane Bishops & Martyrs which they call decretals. But they ouerthrow themselues with their owne absurdities, and shew themselues to be but counterfettes, in asmuch as many thinges be so light, so triflyng, and so vtterly vnlike that auncient simplicitie, purenesse, and maiestie, that not with out good cause they séeme vnto godly and learned men, to haue ben deuised long since by others. Neither do I greatly regard that the same are fathered vpon the gatheryng of Damasus and Isidorus: seyng that there want not some men which put ouer certeine of these kynd of thinges euen to the time of Gregorie the 7. But howsoeuer the case stād for the tyme. I pray yon what can be more fond, then the fathering of these wordes vpon Anacletus? This holy holy and Apostolike Church of Rome obteined the supremacie