(22) much more too ; for we havethe Piety ofall the Churches to plead, andnot your sea alone : And we undertake to prove fuch a moral Infallibility as is alto Natural, viz. That Mans Nature and Interefts fuppofed, it is no more poflible for fo many Perfons and Nations of crofs Inter- efts to have agreed in their Teftinnony for the Gofpel,than for all the contentious Lawyers in the Land to have a- greed falfly to inform us, that our Statutes were made by fuch Kings and Parliaments. But a domineering Fa6tion alone might eafilier havedeceived. men. 3. Yea, even as to thrifts Promife, we canbetter prove that the Univerfal church,or Body of Chriftians,fhall never lofe the Faith, than you can prove it of Rome alone, or the Papal Secs. Bellarmine himfelf dare not fay, that Rome fhall not ceafe to be the feat of the Papacy, or flail not be utterly deftróyed. And then how can there be a Bifhop of Rome, when there is no Rome? But you'll fay, that if he dwell at Avignion, he may be called Bi/hop of Rome? But if he be called fo when he is not fo, at leaf when there is no Rome, or no Chriflian Church there, fure afalfe Name is not an Effential part of our Religion. If you fay, that at Avignion, or Ravenna, or Vienna, he may be S. Peter's Succeffor, and fo the Univerfal Monarch íä1l. I anfwer, Then it feems that the Council of Cal cedo,, as afore - cited, was in the right, (that RomesPrivi- ledge was given by the Fathers, becaufe it eras the Imperial seat :) And fo that thePope is not S. Peter's Succeffor, eo nomine, becaufe he is Bifhop of Rome. But if the Bifhop ofAvignion, or Vienna, might become S. Peter's Succeffor (who never was Bifhop there,) how fhall we know that the Bifhop of Rome is ids Succeffor now? We havehithertohad nobettermeans to prove it,and deceive the World, than by fayirg that S. Peter dyed Bifhop of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=