17o ?pt?u?.?tm?t is not the Pl?testant rule oF hitit. 7'b ?Ab a/o?e/? o,r i,,f? ?A?. The Bible is the ?le, intelFelon i8 ?e ? o? ?at ?le. I; ?n ?e? i? ?e ?e i?!? is M h (a?L ? examh?on o? the Bible ? �?e o; ?th, ?mp?d ? the ?n C?o?c ?, will pr?ent ?e foyer in ? ?nmg?s fight. ?e ?ng is w?y ? ?tice here, nmely, ?at they ? ? �e au?entici? and i?pi?fion of ?e Sc?p?r?s. Here, ?en, i8 t? infa!?ble role. Thus Roma?8? must ?l? ?at ?e Pm?t ?e ? inspired ?d ?lible, though they ?ow it needs ?e ?r?emfion of �eir church. Hem, then, we have this acknowled?ent, t?t ? rule, as far ? it ?es, is ?th inspired and ?fal?ble; ?d t?s c?not ? p?rly said of their ?e, for it h? never been pmv?, and P? ?smnm do n? admit the inspirefiSh and infallibility of ?e ? Catholic ?e. Yet Romanism must allow that o? role h inf?ble. Now just glance at the Roman Catholic rule. It embraces the Bi- ble, a?c?ha, writ?n and unitten t?ditions, ?e unanim?s consent of the father, and in?rpremtion of all by an inf?lible ju?, who h? not s?en for ne?!y ?me hundred yea?, and whose w?fino ?d in?remtions make a lib? in two dead lan?ages. The Bible ? embr?ed ? one volume of modera? size; while the mines of their ?e r?re the la? of more than a whole life w peruse and dig?t ?em. But ? we have ? the foregoing chaplin sufficienfiy discuss? ?e Rom? Ca?olic ?e of faith, the reader must be ?fe?d ? them for 8atisfacm? ?menm respecting ?e deficiency of ?e ?e of f? ?op?d by the Church of Rome, and ?e v?t superio? of the P? ?s?t ?e. 1
�
