Befdde?, although Dr. Mfiner, in arguing with Protestants, attempts to prove infallibility from Scripture, yet he "protests against the right of Protestants to argue from Scripture." And though he attempts to prove.infallibility from Scripture, because "the whole business of the Scripture8 belonga to the church, and she alone autlu?t?ivel?t explains them,*' he would compel his Protestant opponent to silence by this sweeping conclusion: It is i?pos?l, that tAe real sense of Scripture should e,? be agai, ut t!? Cimrv. A' of Rome and her doct?i? ; sAe under. stand? tAs pa?s%ov di?tly from P,"ote. sMnts, therefore tkey mistal? her ?/?..o What a monstrous conclusion ! As if tAat could be a proof to us which is unintelligible without the assistance of the very thing to be proved! Thus the Scripture, not rationally, but infallibly inter- preted, is made to prove tAe infallibility which is itself the matter in dispute. Herein, then, lies the fallacy, that church infallibility is com- pelled toprove itself. Dr. Milner therefore begs that which he professes to prove. It would have been more consistent had he candidly con- fernseal that holy mother is/? ow? autAority--that we must believe her to be infallible, not because Scripture says so, but because she claims to be se. Dr. Milner too seems to have been aware that his ground was not tenable, because he drops this subject after bestowing on it a few lines more than are quoted above. But no art of man can avoid the consequence that the argument for church infallibility although on the issue of this question the pretensions of ]?ome must stand or fall. 5. The distinction, that infallibility in doctrine may consist with profligacy in manners, although a necessary position for the purpose of maintaining infallibility, is peculiarly adapted to produce error in doctrine and viciousness in life. The Pope might be in heart and life an enemy to Christ and his gospel, and yet enjoy all the privileges granted to Peter, in consequence of the love which he bore, above all others, to his Master. John xxi, 15. He might be a monster of vice, yet he did not cease to be the v/cm- of Him who d/d no s/n. The church under him might be corrupt in Aead and z?mbers, that is, tAe pope clergy, but still she must be infallible in matters of faith. Such is the solidity of the structure on which infallibility rests; and unless these thing? are true, the gates of hell must have prevailed against her. A moral corruption of head and members might prevail in every possible tbrm, and to any extent, and yet, according to their doctrine, the church might be free from error. What a gross mistake this is ! How pre- posterons it is to take for granted that the victory of hell consists in the diversity of abstract doctrines among Christians, and not in the preva- isnce of dark works of wickedness, provided they were wrought in the unity of papal faith !t Moreover, the distinction between infallibility in doctrine and liabi- lity to misconduct is easily transferred, and has been done, from the pope to the inferior clergy. As a clear consequence from this, the ministrations of common priests, however wicked they may be, are all valid. Hence profane and profligate priests may as properly teach righteousness as if they were the holiest men on earth. And se teach- eth the Church of Rome in the infallible Trent catechism: "Were ?End of Controversy, ? i, let. 11. See Interim] ]bidencee, by Bbnoo White, p. IlS et seq.
�
