Can*. IV.] mFALLm?L?. 130 till the appointed time. When Cod said, "In Jerumdem have I 8er my name for ever," doth it follow that Jerusalem should be alway8 in- fallible ! And there is no such promise for Rome as that is for Jeru* salem. To make the promise to the church infallibly true, it is enough that there shall be always a succession of Christians in the world. 3. Should I grant that the being of 8 church doth suppose the assist- ance of God's Spirit, and this is readily granted; but then this assist. ance does not confer infallibility, otherwise no one could be a Christian. w?thout being infallible. 4. Suppose I grant lb_is assistance to be in- fallible, doth all infallible assistance make the testimony of those who have it infallible ? If RomanisM prove they have this kind of infalli* bility, by working miracle8 and uttering prophecies, they will do some- tiling, but what is short of this i8 nothing at all to pttrpose. 5. Suppose I should grant the testimony of the (?atholic Church to be infallible, yet this concesaion avails nothing, unless RomanisM ?ould prove that their church ?s the only catholic church, and this they never can do. 6. But suppose we would grant their church is the catholic church, yet this is far from proving the pope, a council, or both to be infallible. By what means do they claim the infallibility which is given to the church ! Where is it asid that the promises made to the church are made to the representatives of the church ! The ?posdes ? this promise made to them in their j0?r? capacities, and not in their res presentative. Thus they are at least ?x restores from any title to claim infallibility from the promise made to the apostles. (6.) The following text is quoted in fayour el ? infallibility: "But if mt?elOng , that thou mayeat know how thou oughteat to behave thyself house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth," I Tim. iii, 15. The Romish Church have long assumed to themselves the name of tAe C?AoZ?c CAlm:A, to the ez- cluaion of all other Christian churches; and have at?rmed that, as only true cAurcA o/t? ?t?ng (?od, they are tAe ?m' m?r ?rouJ? o/ frt?A, 8o that her decisions are infallible, and her constitutions and cipline are binding on the whole Christian world. In opposition to this conclusion from this text, we o?er the following reasons :?1. That the Church of Rome hath no reason to call herself tb cAtfrcA o./' ? Go?, to the exclusion of all other churches. Every society of believers who, with their pastors, meet together for worshipping God in spirit and in truth, aqcording to the gospel form, is as really a c]m,-cA as the Church of Rome, and is so called in the Scripture, whether the members thereof be more or less. Thus, tAe cAm'cA o/(?o? toA?A ? ? CeterA, I Cot. i, ?; 2 Cor. i, 1; tA? cA?rcA? o./' G?d?, Gal. i, I; ?Ae cA, red 0?' tAe 77?x?m,?m?, I These. i, 1; ? Thess. i, 1 ?nd in the conclusion of some of Paul's epistles, fYte c]mrc]t ?A ?cA w .? m douse ? $?sred. All put together are considered as making one great community, called sometimes zAe �A,zrcA 0_? Go?, sometimes t?d 0/' CAr/st, and sometime8 tAe ]Mt?� and ?wtpb-o.?' (?0?. Titis shows that no particular society of Christians, however numerous or pure, is the church of the living God, exclusively of all other (?hristi?. societies; ? that the whole of these taken together is zA? ? ? ?t?ppori tb rfi?r? Besides, if the apostle, ir? this passage, had spoken of any pa?icular church to the exclusion of all others, not the Church of Rome, but the church at Ephesus must have been that church; because 1
�
