that it im st ?nt? nm3im with them all never to admit of tenet but such as is believed by all bishops, and was believed by their predecessors, up to the apostles themselves. '? Mr. Nolan, an priest, declares as follow8: "True, he (the Roman Catholic) knows the pastor is not infallible; but he al?o knows that, as the organ of the church, he communicates to him the Catholic doctrine pure and una- dulterated. He knows that the doctrine of the priest ?osr be conform- able to the doctrine of the bishop, and that the doctrine of the bishop MUST be the same as that which is believed and taught by the chief .pontiff, and all the other bishops of the Catholic world."?' From these two quotations, which could easily be increased to hundreds, it appears that nothing less th?n the prerogative of infallibility could enable priests and bishops to accomplish what is here assumed. Indeed, the power ascribed to their clergy, in their standard works, falls nothing short infa!?libility. They are represented by them as the mm? of God, t.? r?vre?e?tative? of CAr/st, in such a sense as to require nothing less than infallibility to enable them to discharge the high functions which they assume. Farthermore, not only the priest, but the layman must be infallible, or he may mistake the infallible decision of his church and teachem. And this is an inevitable consequence arising from the doctrine of Re- man Catholic infallibility. It is true the clergy never think of ascr? ing infallibility to the people; for when they speak of the infallible, the people form no part of the church in that case, for the pope and clergy are the church. Nor do the people themselves ever suppose they are infallible; for the?, cannot even allow themselves to judge at all in matters of religion, as they. must receive implicitly what the clergy teach. What we assert is, that to prevent people from mistak- ing to the extent that Roman Catholics believe it necessary to be free from mistake, nothing less than the prerogative of infallibility in all can prevent mistakes, and therefore, to carry out their system, a//men must be infallible, whether clergy or laity. Now as God has not made every man infallible, the way of salvation is known with much more certainty and ?ith less risk of error from the word of God than from the decisions and definitions of councils and popes. The teacher and hearer have the infallible decisions of God in Scripture. They can have no more than this from the church which claims infallibility. Indeed, the way is much more direct the one than the other. The Scripture has the decided advantage; it is more co?,c/?, more dam', and in every way more .?tO W for our in- st. ruction in righteousness. Roman Catholics err, therefore, in not making a distinction between object? and ..d?j?iv? infallibility. Protestants acknowledge that there is an objecti? infallibility, or that the Bible is infallible; but they do not allow that there is as&jeer/re infallibility, or that those who receive this rule mu?t be infallible. This distinction, properly observed, wouM help to correct some of their errors. 9. The claim and exercise of infallibility shut completely the do? a?inst rofonnation. When the church has proclaimed herself to be immutable and invariable, them is no room left for reform?on or e !grid or C, ontmversy, p. 81. ' 1
�
