Ca,. I�.] rar-tsn,t. One or the other el' these ?io? mint ee?y ? e??. then a? the he?ti? ? A? w?t is ?eir infa!li?i? g? for, w?ch either c?not or ?11 not decide que?s of such im?ance ? h? ?ie?- as t?s ? It ? said a?in, "that ?out an infs?ible ?ide the Scfi?. c?- n? be e?ded?the sense ? te? cannot ? asce?ain?. ? B? what advantage, ? this ?spect, h? the Church of Rome, that pretends ? ?f?bili?, a?ve other churches that pretend ? none ? Do they unde?nd the Scripture beger th? Pm?st? ? ? their 1? de?nd the Bible better than the P?testant lai? ? Do their e]er? underland the Bible better th? Protestant cler?men ? Have they cleared or settled the sense. of one doubtful text, by mea? of inf?- bili?, during a? the time they have pretended to it ? Let them p?uce ?ne le?, ?e ?en?e of which is by this mean8 asce?ined. We M?eve �ey w?l not. They know as we? ? we that ? thee te? w?ch have been ?cmlt and obscure at fi?t are so sti?, for any t?ng that ?fallibili? h? done to explain them. And if the sense of any obsc? ?ages be better unders?d now than formerly, we a? not indebted for it ? ? infallible judge, but ? f?!ible commentary, wh?e learning ?d indust?, through the blessing of God, have been succe?ful in the ?eat work of elucidating God's wo?. Nay, father, that of all other e?ositors, the ?pes themselves, who are by some accounted the infallible judges, ?e the most unhappy in their explications. And far have they been from clearing obscure texts, ?ey have ?se?bly ?e?ed and misapplied the plainest, as many ins?nces might ?ven out of the? epistles, w?ch now make a conside?ble ? of canon law. These are incontestable proofs ?at Ch?t ?d not desi? we should a?ve at the knowledge of his will by means of an ?o?ng ?de, ?ut by employing our intellectual ?d moral ?we? ? the of those means afforded us for our inst?cti?. 7. ?is bo?ted infalhbility th?ws ?ea?r di?culfies in ?e way an inquirer than the ?tes?nt ply. Pe?ons who follow ?e Roman Catholic ?le la?ur under disadvantages unknown ? us. ?h they and we acknowledge Scripture to be inf?ible. We say it is iikew?e ? plain in all necessa? ?ints that eve? ?hristian, ?th ?e help of such means ? he hath among us, may rightly unde?tand it, in ?in? necessa? ? salvation, ? ?at he may have a sure foundation on which to build ?s faith. Their ?shion is, ?at a laban ca?ot celia that he is ? the right way units he is celia that he ?he?s to ?e doctrines of ?e eh?ch, and ?uares his frith by them, the ch?ch ?ing the only ?f?ible inte?re?r of Scfip?re. Now we ma?n t?t their co?se presents more ?d ?Mer d?c?fies than o?s does. In the c?e of the Romanist a que? arises, How shall he ? able ? know t?t he holds all ?in? of frith ? the church holds them ?s he must be able ? know to a ce? ?fo? he can have pm?r d for his frith. Though the church should be infa?ible, what s it profit him, ?less he cemainly ?ows what she teaches ? But ?w shall he know that any better than he c? know what ?e ture teaches ? Nay, how can he k? it ? e?ily as he may �e other? For the decrees of the ch?ch, ? mat? of ffi?, ? ?? n?d ? ?,? ? ? of 8cfi?, ? shut 1
�
