‘Be not rash with thy mouth (Eccl. v. 2); being poor, labour not to be rich (Prov. xxiii. 4); try not to be wiser than the wise. And if one be found guilty violating the present rule, let him be removed from the communion with the church for the period of forty days.’”
After this it is obvious in what sense the word “church” is to be taken, when reference is made to its infallibility in matters of teaching. Infallible, without doubt, is the whole church of Christ in general, which consists of pastors and the flock. But, since the class of pastors are more particularly enjoined to watch, preach, and interpret to people the divine revelation (636); since the flock is compelled in this holy matter unflinchingly to follow the voice of their God-given instructors (Ephes. iv. 11-15; Acts xx. 28; Heb. iv. 13-17),—it is evident that in disclosing the teaching of the infallibility of the church it is necessary above all to have in view the teaching church (637), which, however, is inseparably connected with the instructed church (638).
From this it is clear what the church means by church: it means nothing but the exclusive right for it to teach. In explanation of this right it says that it is infallible. And it is infallible, it says, because it derives its teaching from the source of truth,—from Christ.
But the moment there are two teachings, which equally deduce their teachings from Christ, this foundation, the proofs, and everything reared upon it fall to pieces, and nothing is left but incitements for such an absurd teaching. The impelling causes are as obvious now, at the sight of the palaces and carriages of the bishops, as they were in the sixth century, if we look at the luxury of the patriarchs, and as they were in the first apostolic times, if we take into consideration the desire of each teacher to confirm the truth of his teaching. The church affirms that its teaching is based on the divine teaching. Proofs are incorrectly adduced in this case from the Acts
