A Glimpse of Gospel Glory, Treatise
AN Exemplification of a ſhort, yet learned and pithy Treatiſe, written by Mr E: D: a faithfull and zealous Servant of Chriſt, touching St Peter's Biſhoprick at Rome.
FOraſmuch as to the iſſue all our Controverſie is come, that what right or authoritie ſoever the Pope challengeth, he maketh his whole *Et …ihi et Petro; Carion in vita Alex.claime from Peter; and the Papiſts themſelves will defend him no further, but ſo far as he ſucceedeth Peter. I will ſpeak a little of Peter's Biſhoprick of Rome, ſo farre as the Scripture ſhall be my warrant. Conſider thou of it good Chriſtian Reader, and if thou ſee that all the glorying of Peters being at Rome, Roffenſis Cocleus, Tho: Waldenſis, and others, have waſted their wits in this cauſe.is but a facing of an impudent lye, then judge what is their other Religion.
Firſt, Here I muſt forewarne thee, that as a lye cannot long agree with it ſelfe, ſo in all this matter thou ſhalt hardly finde in all points, two Popiſh Chronicles agree together; ſo that whatſoeverSome write that he came to Rome the firſt, ſome the ſecond, ſome the fourth, ſome the thirteenth of Claudius: in this varietie it may be no opinion is true, but it cannot be that all are true. In Chriſts time Peter was neither young nor old, but of a perfect age, Theophylact: in Joh: 21. 18. I write as touching the exact Computation of yeares, there muſt needs be many againſt me, therefore in that I will not ſtrive, I will only write that which is certain, and ſhall have (as I ſaid) either ſome warrant of Scripture, or ſhall be agreed on by the conſent of all Ages. Our Saviour Chriſt was crucified for our ſinnes the 18th yeare of Tiberius, as by all Hiſtories it is manifeſt. Peter is ſaid to be put to death in Rome the laſt yeare of Nero; ſo Peter lived after Chriſt under Tiberius 5 yeares: Caligula 4 yeares: Claudius 13 yeares: Nero 13 yeares: in all 36 years & odd moneths, according to the Reigne of the ſaid Emperours: In theſe 36 yeares and odde moneths, they write of Peter thus; He was Biſhop 4 yeares in the Eaſt parts: 7 yeares at Antioch: and 25 at Rome, where at laſt he dyed. Here this fable doth almoſt bewray it ſelfe; ſuch haſtie inſtallings, and ſo many tranſlatings out of one Biſhoprick into another, doth not well agree with our Saviours words, That they Joh. 16. 2. 33.ſhould have affliction in the world: But let us ſearch the Scriptures, and try how theſe Biſhoprickes will ſtand. After that our SaviourActs 1. 12. is aſcended, they goe intoActs 2. 4. Jeruſalem, all the Apoſtles together, they chuſe Matthias the Apoſtle, after fifty dayes they receive the holy Ghoſt, Peter converteth many.
After certaine dayes, Peter Acts 4. 18.and John goe up into the Temple,Acts 5. 12. they heale the lame, they are put in priſon, they are forbidden to preach any more in the name of Jeſus; then they returne to the other Apoſtles, tarry many dayes together, working many miracles among the people, inſomuch that the Cities round about reſorted daily to Jeruſalem, to have their ſick and diſeaſed healed; Then againe the Apoſtles are put in priſon, and the Lord delivered them, and many dayes they preach in the Temple, and in every houſe; after this came a great perſecution againſt the Church at Jeruſalem, inſomuch as they were all diſperſed, ſaveActs 8. 1. 14. the Apoſtles: Then at the laſt, after many dayes, Peter is ſent out of Jeruſalem into Samaria, where he preacheth in divers Townes about it. Thus far good Reader, thou ſeeſt plainly, Peter is no Biſhop, nor yet in any ſpeciall authoritie, when as the other Apoſtles ſend him out toActs 8. 25. preach; then he returned againe to▪ Jeruſalem; and this is one yeare after the death of our Saviour Chriſt, as the Hiſtories doe all agree in reporting the converſion which was now done, as appeareth, Acts 9. This is the yeare of our Lord, 35.
In the yeare of our Lord, 38. he dwelleth in Jeruſalem, Gal: 1. 18. Likewiſe in the yeare of our Lord, 46. he is impriſoned at Jeruſalem, Acts 12. 2. Againe in the yeare of our Lord, 48. he is at the Counſel holden at Jeruſalem, Acts 15. 7. From that day forward he giveth his faith unto Paul and Barnabas, that he will be an Apoſtle, not to the Romans, but to the Jewes, Gal: 2. 9. which truly he accompliſhed even untill his death, and doubtleſſe never came to Rome. Now Chriſtian Reader, ſeeing the Scripture lyeth thus, that Peter's abode in Jeruſalem after the converſion of Paul, An. Dom. 35. is recorded three ſeverall times, and after the laſt time, a Covenant made that he would continue amongſt the Jewes: If I ſhall prove unto thee, that theſe ſeverall times are rightly numbred according to the yeare of our Lord, that is, that the firſt time was the 38 yeare, the ſecond time the 46 yeare, the third time the 48 yeare, and then in the meane while between the 35 yeare and the 38, likewiſe the 38 yeare and the 46. and between the 46 yeare and the 48. that Peter was not in Rome; laſt of all, that it was true of his promiſe, and after the 48 yeare came not at Rome, then I truſt thou wilt confeſſe with me that Peter was never 25 yeares Biſhop of Rome; but all Popery as it is in it ſelfe nothing but lyes, ſo it is grounded wholly and altogether upon lyes.
Firſt, it is agreed upon by all, and the thing is plaine in it ſelf, Paul was converted in the yeare of our Lord, 35. then Paul himſelfeGal: 1. 18. writeth thus; after three yeares I came to Jeruſalem toActs 9. 26. ſee Peter, and abode in his houſe 15 dayes; ſo this was the 28 yeare of our Lord when Peter is firſt in Jeruſalem, when he was after impriſoned at Jeruſalem, Acts 12. 2. That it was the 46 yeare of our Lord, it is proved thus, the Countreys about, thatActs 12. 20. is, Tyre and Sidon were then nouriſhed with the Kings proviſion, but that proviſion Claudius madeSuetonius in Claudio. Euſeb: Beda. in a great famine the 4th yeare of his Reigne, which was the yeare of our Lord, 46.
Againe, immediately after theActs 12. 23. Scripture mentioneth the death of Herod, but Herod was made King in the firſt yeare of Caligula, and reigned ſeven yeares, ſo he dyed in the fourth yeare of Claudius, and conſequently as is ſaid the 46 yeare of our Lord, Peter being now in priſon at Jeruſalem: And thus the ſecond time that Peter is mentioned to be in Jeruſalem is the 46 yeareOthers number theſe 14 yeares from his firſt going to Jeruſalem, and ſo this Counſell is holden An: 51. of Chriſt; afterwards when the Apoſtles held the Counſell in Jeruſalem, that it was the 48 yeare of our Lord, it is proved by St Paul, who after he had mentioned his converſion, and his firſt going to Jeruſalem, whereof we ſpake before, he ſaith thus; Then after 14 yeares I went up againe to Jeruſalem, ſo it was the 48 yeare of our Lord, this being 14 yeares after his converſion, and he converted in the 35 yeare of our Lord: Thus it is proved that in the yeares of our Lord, 35, 38, 46, 48, Peter was in Jeruſalem.
Now it reſteth to prove, that in the meane ſpace Peter came not to Rome, that he was not at Rome between 35 & 38 yeares, I have this proofe; In the yeare of our Lord, 37. Pilate wrote his Letters unto Tiberius the Emperour, of Chriſt, and of his doctrine, and how the Jewes accounted him a God, whereby the Emperour was ſo moved, that he would needs make Chriſt a God in Rome: If Peter had been in Rome, Pilate's Letters had not been neceſſary, the Emperour ſhould have had better inſtruction. Thus in theſe three yeares Peter was not in Rome, between the 38 yeare, and the 46 yeare, they ſay (ſuch is their impudency) that Peter was Biſhop all the while in Antioch; If it be ſo, then by their own confeſſion he was not at Rome: but the Scripture is plaine, he was neither at Antioch, nor yet at Rome, and how theſe ſeven yeares are paſſed, mark and thou ſhalt ſee.
In the beginning of theſe ſevenActs 9. 32, 33. 35. years, Peter goeth forth a preaching, firſt into all Jewry, Galilee, and Samaria, which would require ſome continuance; afterwardsActs 9. 39. 43. he goeth up to the Saints at Lydda, and there tarrieth; from thence he goeth to Joppa, and there tarrieth (dies multos) a long while; from thence he goeth to Ceſarea, and there converteth Cornelius, the firſtActs 10 24. Gentile that ever he converted, as is plain by the Scriptures▪ Then he abideth certain dayes at Ceſarea, all this well nigh 400.Acts 12. 2. miles from Antioch: And now for proof, he makes no haſt to Antioch, he comes home again to Jeruſalem, where he is again joyned to the Apoſtles, and now the Apoſtles hear word that certain Gentiles at Antioch are converted, not by Peter, Acts 11. 20, 22.but by certain Diſciples that fled when Stephen was ſtoned, Acts. 7. 60. & 8. 1. Well did the holy Ghoſt here name them that preached this while at Antioch, or elſe here had been ſome colour for Peters Biſhoprick. But marke further, when the Apoſtles heare this, to confirme the Gentiles, they ſend to Antioch; But whom ſend they, Peter? ſurely they would have done, had he been their Biſhop; But Peter abideth ſtill in Jeruſalem, and Barnabas is ſent to Antioch, where he abideth, afterward goeth into Tarſus toActs 11. 26. Paul, from thence they come again both to Antioch, and there tarrieth afterward one whole yeare; about this time ſaithActs 12. 2. 4. the Scripture, Peter was put in priſon, which was, is proved, the year of our Lord 46. and that he continued in Jeruſalem ever ſince Barnabas was ſent to Antioch, we have this conjecture when he was deliveredActs 12. 15. out of priſon, and knockt at Maries doore, Rhoda the Maid knew him by his voice, and ſo well, that the Diſciples ſaid ſhe was mad, or elſe it was Peters Angel, yet were the thing never ſo incredible, ſhe ſaid ſhe was ſure it was even he; this perfect knowledg of a mans voyce required ſome continuance of acquaintance. And thus we are come to the ſeaventh year of his Biſhoprick of Antioch, in which time he yet never came at Antioch.
Now the year of our Lord 46. the 4. of Claudius, he goes from Antioch to Rome, and there is Biſhop 25. years, 2. moneths and 8. daies, from the 26. of January, to the 24 of March, ſuch accompt I trow they make, that tell us how many miles to heaven; but be it ſo, he is gone out of the priſon at Jeruſalem, 2000 miles to Rome, to be made Biſhop: If the ſtory of dame Joane were ſo credible as this, Mr. Harding might have with ſome countenance written againſt it. But let us go forward.
In the year of our Lord 48. Notwithſtanding this poſting toActs 15. 7. to Rome, he is yet at Jeruſalem; Oroſius lib. cap. 6. Suetonius. Nauelerus.and from henceforth that he meant not to go to Rome, but keep his promiſe that he would continue amongſt the Jewes, we have this proof: Firſt, thisGal. 2. 9. Oath, where *The Son of Alpbeus.James, Peter, and John do ſwear to Paul and Barnabas, Acts 12. 2. 15. 13. 21. 18.that they would execute their Apoſtleſhip amongſt the Jewes, which ſurely Peter would not have done, if he had thought to have gone to Rome. And all the Papiſts in the world,Rhemiſts Ibid. acknowledge the charge divided into two parts. ſhall never be able to anſwer it, jangle they how they will, that Peter was Biſhop of Rome, he was not, he meant it not, he kept his promiſe; Paul calleth him the Apoſtle of Circumciſion; he was afterwards amongſt the Jewes at Antioch; he writeth his Epiſtle to the Jewes that were ſtrangers, and ſcatteredGal. 2. 8. abroad in Aſia, even as James doth to the twelve TribesGal. 2. 11. ſcattered among the nations; And John to them that had1 Pet. 1. 1. heard, and ſeen from the beginning, which were the Jewes. Jam. 1. 1.Thus did thoſe Apoſtles mind their promiſe, though we talke of Biſhopricks we know not1 Joh. 2. 24. what. But becauſe there are yet 23 years behind, let us, as we may, examine them by the Scriptures.
In the Acts we read thatActs 18. 2. Priſcilla and Aquilla, and allOroſius lib. 7. c. 6. Suetonius, Nauclerus & alii. the reſidue of the Jewes were baniſhed out of Rome, but this was done the 9 year of Claudius, Anno Dom. 51. when now Peter ſhould have been more then 5 years Biſhop of Rome: Thus ill may this Fable agree with the Scriptures of God. But let us examine further: About 6 years after this, and the beginning of the Reign of Nero, Paul writeth his Epiſtle toRom. 15. 26. the Romans, as appeareth for that he then carried up to Jeruſalem, for the poore Saints there abiding, ſuch diſtribution as they of Macedonia and Achaia had gathered, which was a little before Pauls laſt going to Jeruſalem, as moſt Writers agree, in the laſt year of Claudius; and for proof it was ſo, now all things are quiet at Rome, Paul ſaluteth Priſcilla and Aquilla, Acts 18. 3.which in the 9 of Claudius were were both baniſhed; and the Acts do ſpecifie certain years after, in which Paul and they were together: So, now being at Rome again, it agreeth well that the Epiſtle to the Romans was written about the beginning of the Reign of Nero, and the year of our Lord 56. at which time Peter was not at Rome, as may be proved above all gueſſes and conjectures, out of the word of God.
Firſt, He ſaluteth divers byRom. 16. 3. name, and yet he ſpeaks not of Peter, a ſure proof that Peter Rom. 16. 7. 1. Rom. 16. 16. Rhemenſes are here very childiſh; it might be Paul knew Peter to be abſent, or ſent to him ſpecial Letters not ſaluting him in this common Epiſtle, or elſe ſent this encloſed in Peterswas not at Rome. Again he ſaluteth Andronicus and Junia with this eſpecial note [who are notable amongſt the Apoſtles, and were in Chriſt before me,] how much more occaſion had Paul thus to ſalute & commend Peter, whom he calleth otherwhere *Gal. 2. 9.a pillar of the Church? and who was not only before Paul, but before all men ſaving Andrew his brother, called to be a Diſciple: nothing may be here anſwered, but that only which is true, Peter was not at Rome.
If theſe Reaſons ſeem not ſtrong enough, then good Reader look in the 15 to the Romans, I Preached not where Chriſt was already preached and beleeved upon, but where he was altogether unknown, leaſt upon the preaching and faith of others I ſhould lay mine: Therefore the Apoſtle himſelf laid the faith, and himſelf erected the walls.20. Thou ſhalt have another which by no means may be ſhifted off: thus he writeth; I enforced my ſelf to preach the Goſpel, not where Chriſt was named, leſt I ſhould have built upon another mans foundation, but as it is written, to whom he was not ſpoken of, they ſhall ſee him, and they that heare not ſhall underſtand him; then he added, therefore alſo I have been oft lett to come unto you. By which words its manifeſt they had but weak maintenance of their faith, and the true Diſciples had no long continuance among them. But how could this be if Peter was 25 years Biſhop there?
Again he ſaluteth the houſe ofHaymo Ibid. Narciſſus, who (ſaith Ambroſe) was Presbiter ejus Eccleſiae, a chief ruler in that Church; and and how could Paul here have forgot Peter, being Arch-Preſbiter, the chief of all rulers, and Pope himſelf? Thus are we paſt 11 years of this Biſhoprick, and yet we cannot once find St. Peter in his *The Pope (they ſay) cannot be non Reſident, becauſe he is alwayes in his charge.Dioceſs.
In the year of our Lord 58. and the 2. of Nero, Paul cometh to Rome, and then Peter is not at Rome, as appeareth by this ſaying of the Scripture; where the chief of the Jewes in Rome ſpake thus unto Paul; we willActs 28. 21. 22. heare of thee what thou thinkeſt, for as concerning this Sect, we know that every where it is ſpoken againſt; Then when Paul had preached unto them, and ſome beleeved; and ſome beleeved not, the Text ſaith, when he had ſaid theſe things, the Jewes departed, and had great reaſoning amongſt themſelves.
Is it poſſible that Peter ſhould now have been 13 years Biſhop, and yet the chief of the Jewes that were there when Paul came had ſoarce any underſtanding of Chriſt? they may beleeve it that needs will be deceived.
Two years after this, untillActs. 28. 30. the year of our Lord 60. the 4. of Nero, Paul abideth in Rome; All which while undoubtedly Peter came not once there, as may plainly appear, if you read the Epiſtles which Paul wrote in Rome.
To the Galathians, he ſpeakethGal. 2. much of Peter, as of his converſation with him about 20. years paſt, but of his preſent being at Rome not one word, and yet he ſpeaketh of him▪ to this purpoſe, to get the more credit unto himſelf; Why then doth he not name him, as now preſent with him?
In like caſe writing to thePhil. 1. 1. Philippians, he begins his Epiſtle thus; Paul and Timothy; why could he not here have begun, Paul and Peter? Nay, what folly was it to bring Peters teſtimonyGal. 2. 9. many yeares paſt, which now might be doubted of, when he might have had his preſent and moſt certain witneſſe, with ſubſcription of his own hand to confirme his doctrine. Againe, he writeth thus unto the Philippians, Phil. 1. 14.That many brethren in the Lord, were boldened through his bands, and durſt frankly ſpeak the word; If bands would have made them faithfull, no doubt Peter had long before confirmed them, ſurely he would not have ſhrunk neither for chaines, nor priſons; It is his own doctrine, that hereunto 2 Pet. 2. 21.we are called; he could not ſo ſoone have forgotten his ownPhil. 2. 20. good counſell. Againe, Paul Haymo ſaith, that when Paul ſent that Epiſtle, he had none of the perfecter ſort but him. Vide Theop. in illum locum.writeth he had no man like minded as Timothy was; how could this have been, if Peter had been there?
Againe, He writeth he had only*Col. 4. 10, 11. Ariſtarchus, his priſonfellow; ſure Peter would have been in priſon too, if he had been in Rome. Againe, Marke, Ariſtarchus, Phiiem. 23, 24.Demas, and Luke, are only my fellow-workers; And ſhall we think that Peter was now Biſhop, yet would not helpGreat indignity to pretermit St Peter, or elſe a loud lye that Peter was then at Rome Primate. Ambroſ. in Col. 4. Quibus ſolis teſtimoniū prohibet, qui ex circumciſione adjutorio fuevint. Circa finem vitae. Theodor. Dialog. 2. p 9. 7. 2 Tim. 4. 11. Paul in preaching? Reade over all Pauls Epiſtles, written in Rome, and if the Spirit of truth be within thee, thou wilt ſay, Peter was not in Rome; Yet now he ſhould have been even in the flower of his Biſhoprick. Now are there left only ten yeares behind, in which likewiſe it ſhall appeare whether Peter was in Rome.
At the latter end of this ten yeares, Anno Dom. 70. Neronis 14. Paul cometh again to Rome, and is again impriſoned, where he writeth his 2 Epiſtle to Timothy, as Jerome, and Euſebius, and divers others doe thinke; Then Peter is not in Rome. Only Luke is with me, ſaith St Paul; if this be true, where then was Peter? Shall we thinke he would not once ſee Paul (2 Tim. 16.) a priſoner? Againe, at my firſt anſwering, no man aſſiſted me, Peter was not now dead, & therefore he muſt ſuſtaine the blot of the perfidious defection, or elſe looſe his title of being the Biſhop of Rome. Theoph. in 2 Tim. 4. 9. Solus relictus opus habeo praeſentia tua. 2 Tim. 4. 17. De ore Leonis Neronem, intelligit Clarius ibid. Seneca. Oroſius lib: 7. cap: 7.but all forſooke me.
Unthankfull wretches and deſerving ill of Peter, that would now think Peter were Biſhop. But here are now nine yeares in the meane ſeaſon, in which it is ſoone proved, Peter could be no Biſhop. Paul rejoyced that he had eſcaped out of the hands of Nero; but what needed he, if that Peter could ſit quietly Biſhop?
Seneca writeth ſecretly Epiſtles unto Paul, but never a word of Peter. Nero made a Proclamation, that no man ſhould ſpeak either to Chriſtian or to Jew; and how then could Peter be Biſhop? When Nero had ſet the City on fire in the ninth yeare of his Reigne, to avoyde the envie of ſo great a miſchief, he laid all the fault upon the Chriſtians; whereof Tacitus that wickedCorn…l: Tacitus lib: 15. Heathen writeth thus; Repreſſa in praſens exitiabilis ſuperſtitio rurſus erumpebat, that wicked ſuperſtition that was now well repreſſed ſprang up again. But is it like if Peter had been then Biſhop, that Charity ſhould have been ſo quenched, that no man did ſcarce remember it? but be it that all this were true, that let Peter become unfaithfull, let him forget to profeſſe Chriſt, and feed his flock, were he never ſo unthankful, yet ſurely he could not be then Biſhop of Rome, for in the tenth year of his Reign, Nero made ſuch great perſecution of all Chriſtians, that in no place they could be ſure, but every where were drawn forth unto moſt ſhameful deaths, and this perſecution continued four years, without intermiſſion; and how was Peter then a Biſhop? they had Beaſt skins put upon them, and then were worried with doggs; they laid them on heapes, and burnt them, to give light in the night time; they hung them quick upon gibbets, they practiſed all kind of exquiſite cruelty againſt them; and yet for all this ſhall we think that Peter was Biſhop? I leave here to ſpeak2 Pet. 1. 14. of Peters own Epiſtles, the laſt written, a little before his death, what time this perſecution ſhould have been in the greateſt rage, yet Peter doth not ſo much as once mention any ſuch thing, the former was writtenEuſeb. lib. …. c. 15. about the twelfth year of Claud. and by expreſs words dated from Babybon, which thing becauſe it is an evident token that Peter was then no Biſhop of Rome, therefore they make this gloſſe upon it (from Babylon) that is from Rome, So Rhemiſts in Appe. 17. 5. as it was the Seat of the Emperor, not of Peter.and what a miſerable ſhift is this, in defence of Peters Biſhoprick, to confeſs Rome to beSol. John Propheſieth not only of the terrene State of the City, but of the falſe Prophet and Antichriſt, that is the Pope, Apoc. 1…. 16. & 17. 1. … Euſebius Hieronimus Egyptus. Babylon? but Rome as it is, it ſhall be Babylon, and their Religion as it is ſhall be the purple whore, and the Pope as he is ſhall be Antechriſt, rather then they wil looſe this ſucceſſion of Peter, and here to make the fable perfect they ſhut it up with two eſpecial lies; the one, that Paul and Peter both died in one day; The ſecond,Ambroſe lib. 5. …d Auxentium. & F. Cauſterus underſtandeth Babylon in Egypt. Euchirid pag. 1. 5. 9. Acts 7. 58. that Chriſt met Peter flying away, and bad him go back and ſuffer death: as touching the firſt, we read of Paul when he was converted, he was a young man, and when he went to Jerulem to ſee Peter, Athanaſius ſaith, that he went for reverence that he bare to Peters age, ſo it ſeemeth Peter was gray headed when Paul was but young, and about twenty five years after Paul Phil. 9.writeth to Philemon, though I be as I am, even Paul an old man; then what was Peter at theſe years? yet liveth Paul after this 10 years, and then writeth of himſelf, that the time of his diſſolution2 Tim. 4. 6. was at hand.
Paul had now finiſhed even2 Tim. 4. 6. his natural courſe; a very probable conjecture that he outlived Peter.
†Conficta hiſtoria Poſſenius Apparat. Livius Egyſip. lib. c. 2.But this other untruth that we ſpeak of, is above all conjecture, ſhameleſs and unreaſonable; they ſay that Peter the night before he ſhould ſuffer fled away, and as he was going, Chriſt met him, whom when he had ſeen, Peter ſaid unto him, Domine quo vadis? Maſter whither goeſt thou? then Chriſt made anſwer, Roman iterum crucifigi, to Rome that I may be *St. Peter was martyred the Scriptures prove, but that he was crucified, or that he died at Rome cannot be proved. Acts 3. 22. Joſephus remembring ſuch as were ſlain by Nero doth not mention Peters death. Bellarmine objecteth. Acts 9. 3, 4. Sol. Acts 7. 55. 56. & Aug. in Pſ. 54. Caput in coelis clamabat pro corpore interris.crucified again; then Peter perceived that Chriſt ſpake of him, and ſo he returned and was crucified.
As if Peter himſelf had never taught us that the heavens muſt contain and keep Chriſt, untill the time that all things be reſtored, which ſhall not be accompliſhed untill the laſt day; and thus endeth the Fable of Peters Biſhoprick in Rome.
Hanc (ſcilicet) fallaciam ſcripturarum neglectus in Chriſtianiſſimum hodie de Antichriſto intruſit: Vlricus Velenus Minhonienſis.
Quid ſi Epiſcopus, ſi Deaconus, ſi Vidua, ſi Virgo, ſi Doctor, ſi etiam Martyr lapſus a regula fuerit ideo Haereſes veritatem videbuntur obtinere? Ex perſonis probamus fidem? an ex ſide perſonas? Tertullian de preſcript. Heretic.
Si qua eſt Eccleſia quae fidem reſpuat, nec Apoſtolicae praedicationis fundamentae poſſideat, ne quam labem poſſit aſpergere deſerenda eſt. Ambr. lib: 6. in Luc. cap. 9.
FINIS.