J?7, 1439, wi? ? ?n; ?uiv?e? to ? :?" The ? ?e h?h ?e ?m?y ?er all the ea?; that he is the 8ucce?r of St. Peter, ?e p?ce ?e a?d?, and the ? of ?e church, ?e fa?er ? macher of ? Ch?fi?; ?d t?t Je8? Ch?t ? h? in the ? d St. Pe?r, ?e ?wer W f?d, ?e, and govern the Cathohc Ch?ch ? it ? expl?ned in the acts of mcumedcal co?c?s and in ?e hot ? c?o?-"t ]nf?h? h ?eir ?ea ?t. A? indeed if their church ? infalhM6 we ought aH w ?w ? i? dec?io?. But on ?e most careful ex?t?n of Scg?ure, ? well ? every o?er e?dence that can
- ?, to us Pw?s? it ?es ap?ar that t? clam ? unscrip?,
i? ?st Scd?re; ?t it is a novelty in the chumh; it is ?ufficient to ?swer the pu?s? for w?ch it is employed; it is attend? with f? ?re and ?aer diffic?fies ?an thee it presses to remedy; and it is fol?wed by a ?eat number oi bad cons?uences. II. Let ?e?mine the p?fs on w?ch ?e ?manists fo?d ?eir cl?s ? i?ibfii?. They not o?y quota Scripture for the pu?se of proving the infd- ]ibfiity of their church, but they present us with several ar?menm drown from r?n, w?ch, they say, eatabash this as a p?ege be- l?ng ? ?e Church of Rome. 1. We sh?l first t?e a survey of ?ose ?xts of Script?e w?ch ?e ?mmnly quoted ? es?lish the inf?]ibi?ty of ?e Church of Rome. We may promise on t?s subject, ?at ff i?allibfiity be a doctrine S??, ?d ? ?ant a doct?e ? ?e Romanisls say it is, then ,:?y it mu? be cl?ly mveal? in Sc?pt?e, ? well ? the wh? it ? ? ? found. We asse?, however, that it is not a d?tdne taught by Sc?e, ?d ?at the texts bwug? to prove it do not con- l?r it; or, if they do, they concern none but the a?des themselves. (1.) To prove the church's in?bi?W, the following wo?s of our Sa?ur m Pemr ?e ?g?: "I say unto thee, ?ou a? Peter, ?d u?n ?his ?k will I b?d my church, and the ?tes of hell s?l not pr? v? ?st it," Ma?. xvi, 18. The greatest advocates and w?te? of the Church of Ro? acknowledge t?t this is ? pdnci? text for in- l?i?ty. It is not con,rotted between them and us whe?er Chest is ?e ?eat fo?dation of ?s church, for in t?s ?1 are a?eod; but c?versy ?es ? ?, whether ?e ?rm rock refers m Pe?r or Ch?c The construction of the ori?n? pl?nly disfin?ishes ?tween Pe?r and the ?k. If it were written rrz ?r? ? H?r?, up? tk? Pet?, the? ?ght be some ?o?d ?o think Pe?r ?d the word ?k the same. But it is not so: the wo?s of Ch?t ?e, E? rz H?, w?ch ?ou ?t co,eased, &c.; ?t? berg in the ?c?e gender, and ?a ? ?e fe?e. The Latin Vul?e spe? ?e s?ne l?- ?age: T,z ? Pet?s, et su? ? ?tr?, "Thou a? Peter, and this ?k, ? the one ?g m?e and ?e o?er feline. ?at wo? Peter si?ifies a stone, we have our Sa?o?s testimony: "T?u s?t ? c?l? Ceph, which is by in?re? a STOSS," John i, 42. Ch?t, or ?e d?t? of C?t, seem pl?y ?en ? ? &e ?k mended in ?e ?xt. This view is sup? by seve? ?xm Sc?m. Pe?r says, "?ld, I lay in Zion a c?ef comer ?o? I.--9
�
