generally in rodmorns tosg?#. Their infallible rule embraces at least eight folio volumes of bulls, ten of decretals, thirty-one acts of councils, fifty-one acta 8anctorum, and at ]east thirty-five volumes folio of the Greek and Latin fathera. All these put together make one hundred and t?rty-five volumes folio. Add to this, that these are all in untrans- iated (}reek and Latin, and therefore beyond the reach of most read- era. To increase the diiticulty, the unlimited addition of tm?to? tradition must be acided. All these additions are to be added to the Scripture in order to complete the Roman Catholic rule. Now every man who considers the two rules must see at once that the Romanist has ? rule for his direction; for a rule which i8 8o long that he cannot examine it, so intricate that he cannot understand it, and withal in an tinknown tongue, is the same as no rule at all. And this is properly the ease with most Roman Catholics, for they know very. little of theta rule except as they are taught it by the priest. But to this it is answered, "that private persons must be directed by their more informed guides, and receive the doctrines of the church from them." But here the question returns, Are particular guides in- fallible or not? If they be not, then it is possible that the guides
- hemselves may be mistaken; and if so, they may mislead the man
that trusts to them; and then what service is the church infallibility to him for the certainty of hi8 faith 7 If it be said that particular guides are infallible, but it is a thing which they thelnselves do not pretend to, yet supposing it so, their difficulties do not end here, unless every private person would be infallible. When a priest expounds the Roman Catholic faith to a private man, and the man is certain he doth righdy expound it, yet how is he certain that he rightly understands it in the true sense of the infallible church and teacher ? It is not a new thing for instructera to hear of their discourses being miserably misunderstood and perverted by those that hear them. What security have they more than we have, who, besides the instruction of abler clergy, make use of our eyes in examining by Scripture the doctrines th.ey teach us ? Our security is certainly greater than theirs�'l?here Is the same difference in the two cases that there is between a man's taking up the truth of a relation at the third or fourth hand from a credible person, and so depending on the truth of it ? he understands it from him, with- out farther examination, and a man's taking the same story from the same person, but withal takes pains to trace it up, as to all the partict,- lars, to the original author. , We readily allow that the exercise of private judging is to be taken with some cautions and limitations. We acknowledge that private persons are to judge only for themselves, and not impose t?teir judg* ment upon others. The privilege of judging for ourselves does not take away the necessity and use of teachers in religion, nor does it exempt men from a due submission and obedience to their teachers and governors, nor does it extend so far as to assume that every man becomes fit to dispute on the controver9ies of religion. But when we maintain these things, we also contend that private persons are fit to judge for themselves in matters of religion, because the most neceso sary things to be believed and practised are so plain that every man of ordinary capacity, under competent instruction, can as well judge for himself as any .mss or company of men can judge for him. Besides, 1
�
