“_If it is so_, it is evident that the infallibility will remain as long as the union shall last. And in that supposition the learned lawyer cannot fail to see that infallibility does not, in any way, come to the body by the authority of its members, but from God, the only authoritative and absolute power in the world, which can bind the minds as well as the wills of men. “That is the Catholic question, and the real position we maintain. “If each man is his own authority, according to the preceding remarks in this book (and that is conceded), then an authoritative church is impossible, because it presents an authority external to me, and then asks me to accept it. I admit that, if there is to be _any_ church, it must be of divine origin. Even were the Bible inspired and infallible, I, being fallible, must interpret it fallibly, and therefore it must be the same _to me_ for all intents and purposes as if it were a fallible book. The same argument applies to the church as a divine, authoritative institution--what is _outside_ of the man--that is, the so-called fact is not an authority for him; but he is the authority for it; if not an absolute authority, at any rate, the only authority possible. The trouble arises from the Baconian philosophy, which has attempted to build up a system on _facts_ so-called--without rejecting the _authority_ for those facts--_as if the authority were in the fact itself_.” This speaks for itself, and the position it takes is not controverted. 146 But the lawyer says it does not meet the question, that is, we presume, the question as it is in his mind, though he had not previously expressed it. He says: “The note given me does not meet the question. It is claimed that the church is infallible because a divine institution--that is, because established by God. “Now, admit it to be a divine institution, if it is to be presented for our acceptance, it must be for the acceptance of our fallible reason. “For example, when the missionary carries the church to the heathen, does he not present it for their rational acceptance? And if so, does he not ask their finite judgment to pass upon and accept the infinite and the absolute? “Now, the point is this: if the thing or truth presented be infinite and absolute, and the person to whom it is presented be imperfect, fallible, and conditioned, how can the truth--or the church, if you please--appear otherwise to him than according to his finite and partial interpretation of it? “The question in respect to the absolute is, not whether it be _really_ true and absolute or not, but to what extent does the normal affirmation go respecting it. In short, must not the same argument obtain against the church as against the Bible?