CHAP. lV.] INFALLIBIL!'rY. the ?cripture allows this pr/vilege to every man, as we will prove at a future time. And indeed the Roman Catholic8 are forced to 8Tant this in e?'ecf. For though they deny a liberty of judging in particular points, they are force/ to grant this upon the whole. For when they would persuade a Jew or heathen to become a (?hristian, or a heretic to com? over to their church, they require such to judge of the trr? cAm'cA and the true religion. Now if men are capable ofjudgin? in a matter of much importance a8 the choice of their religion, they can certainly judge in the ?w,- It is faAher conceded that the present condition of human nature admits not of any state in knowledge or pracdce that can be entirely perfect, and those who have usumed it, notwithstanding their high pretensions, have been as liable to 88 many inconveniences ?nd mis- takes u their more humble neighbouts. It is true, that state is best which i8 liable to the fewest and least. But if men will modestly, humbly, and willingly learn, God has done sufficient for them with respect to the truth and certainty of religion. For he has by his word, Spirit, providence, and ministry, made all things necessary su/iicienfly clear. And if men will not attend to these, they will not attend to any other. For when Christ taught men they disobeyed him. And while God was giving hist law from Sinai, the Israelites were making an image to worship at the foot of the mount. While the apostles taught, there were heresics, contentions, and schisffis. So we see if men will not hear our Lord, Moses, the prophem and apostles, they would cer- tainly not hear any other. So inconveniences will remain, n(?t because suflicient has not been done, but because men do not pay attention to the things revealed. . 8. The absurdity of the infallibility of the Church of Rome will ap- pear farther if we consider, that to claim an infallibility that would preserve every person from error, then all men must be made infafiible, whether clergy, men or laymen. It will require infallibility in the priest, that he may neither receive erroneous views of the doctrine8 of the church, nor communicate wrong v/ews to his hearers. Fo?if he errs, either in understanding the church or in making known her declarations, the person who is guided by him will as certainly be led into error as if he erred in the use of his own private judgment. To avoid this glaring result from the doctrine o/infallibility, Roman Catholics are led to attach 'to their clergy a pre- rogative in deciding points of faith and morals which falls litde short of infallibility. Indeed, as this prerosative is exercised by many priests, and confided in by many Roman Catholics, it amounts to no* thing less than infallibility. It is true, the/r controversialism deny that individual pr/ests are infallible; but in pmcr/? we cannot separate the assumption of the highest degree of infallibility, whether it regards the ab801ute decisions of the clergy or the implicit submission of the ignorant people. As a proof of this we give the following extract from Dr. Milner, one of their most eminent controversialism: "Most likel? learns the doctrine of his church from the par/sit the Catholic peuant priest; but then he knows that the doctrine of this priest MUST be con- brmable to that of his b/shop, and that otherwise he will 800n be called to an account for it. He knows also that the doctrine of the bishop himself' mus'r be con?rmable to the other biolmlm an? tim pope, and 1 p
�
