We believe that Christ hnSne'mf'sdlible church on enh, because none of the primitive churches any pretensions to it, not even the Church of Rome herself. We do not find that the doctrine, o� the infallibility of the church, much lesa the Roman Church, i? asserted by any one ancient council or father. We cannot ascertain that in controversies the guides of the church had recourse to the argu- ment of infallibility in order to end them; which, had they known of any such thing, would be the easiest way to end them. The ancient fathers had another method of confuting heretics and schismatics thMt appeals to infallibility. Their appeal was to bring their doctrines to be tried by the ancient usages and doctrines of the apostolical churches, and especially by' the Scripture, which they looked upon as the entire and only ru?e of faith. Moreover, the other churches never thought o� ascribing infallibility to the Church of Rome. This appears from their behaviour toward her in opposing the decisions nf that church as vigor- oualy as they did any other church that diNerod from them. 3. The pope and his council, by the exercise of infallibility, have deprived believers el' that privilege, the use of reason, which Christ nted them in the gospel. Placing themselves between mankind and Redeemer, the), allow those only to approach him who first surren- der their judgments to Popes and councils. A belief in Christ and his truth, grounded on Scripture and its evidences, is made useless, unless it is preceded by a belief in Roman infallibility and supremacy, grounded on mere conjecture or bare assumption. The broad foundation of' Christian evidence is removed, for the purpose of m?idng place for that authority which proscribes reason and requires blind submission. The Roman Catholic ACT OF FA?TS, "I believe whatsoever the church believes and teaches," prepares the Romanist to receive every thing taught by his spiritt? leader, however absurd. 4. The doctrine of infallibility depends upon a theory which is f*ounded on a series of assumptions, doubts, and evasions. 1. They �8oume that which is in question, namely, the ?ty of an infallible judge in matters of faith. 2. Upon the strength of this assum. p.tion they interpret certain passages of Scripture to fayour this opmmn. 3. They are then in doubt as to the identity of the judge, whether church, council, or pope. 4. To avoid this difficulty they avail them- solves of the term eAuteA, as including the pope and council. 5. The)* are then obliged to contrive another method, which may meet the objections arising from the dissensions between councils and Popes, such as between the Councils of Basil, &c., and the cotemporary Popes. This is done by allowing no council to be infallible until it has received the sanction of the pope; and this resolves church infallibility into the opinion of the Roman see. 6. And finally they intrench them- selves within the distinction of infallibility on abstract doctrines of faith and liability to sin. Now mark the c.o?trmu:e? to which the whole system leads. The only ?zor/bb mark of a legitimate council is the approbation of the pope; �and the only ?ou/blz mark of a legitimate pope is his possession of the see of Rome. They have therefore, 1. Entailed the gift of infallibility- ou the strongest o� the rival candidates for that see. 2. And as moral worth i8 denied to be a necessary characteristic of the vicar of Christ, they have adde?[ one clmuce more of having for their /? rub /m l
�
