Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/160

 fa/tA that candidate who shall contend for the popedom under the least restraint of moral obligation. Hence no episcopal see has ever been so much polluted by wicked and profligate bishops as that of Rome. For what prospect of success of filling the chair of St. Peter could a true follower of Christ have when a Borgia was bent upon falling that seat ? Gold, steel, and poison were the instruments of acq. u. irin it, while the belief that the f was still safe prevented opposmon from the force of public opinion. Thtts Alexander VI. became the true representative of Christ upon earth ! The theory of infallibility requires the aid of sophist for its sup- port. As evidence of this assertion we may quote their distinction between doctrines and opinions, as vell as their use of the dr�/e in argument, or,, as it is sometimes called, though improperly, the v/don c/n/e, for all arguing in a circle is unsound. In order to preserve their aasumod infallibility and pretended union, they draw a distinction be- tween doctrines and opinion.. All those doctrines on which their church is divided they call opinions; and* those are called doctr/net on which they are agreed. Of course, then, they are always agreed upon doctrines, or points of faith. For example; it is a cardinal doctrine among them that their church is infallible. But where this infallibility is lodged is a matter of opinion, that is, they are not agreed where it exists, whether in the whole church, the pope, a council, or pope and . council united. The immaculate conception, although discussed warmly, and contested in the Council of Trent, was left undecided, and there- fore must be left as a matter of opinion. Yet the council could decide that infants cannot be saved without baptism, and that baptism is not valid without the intention of the administrator. There are few accusations which the Roman Catholics hate more than the charge of proving church infallibility by what is called rea- soning in a circle. Nevertheless they have recourse to this kind of reasoning; that is, they prove their infallibility from Scripture, and then prove Scripture from infallibility. Hear Dr. Milner on this point: "True it is that I prove the inspiration of Scripture by the tradition of the church, and that I prove the infallibilitt of the church by the testi- mony of Scripture; but you must take notice, that independently of, and prior to, the testimony of Scripture, I knew from tradition, and the general arguments of the credibility of Christianity, that the church is an illustrious society, instituted by Christ, and that its pastors have been appointed by him to .guide me in the way- of salvation. In a word, it is not every kind of mutual testimony which runs in a v'nt. tire/e; for the Baptist bore testimony to Christ, and Christ bore testimony to the Baptist." Dr. Milner would have us believe he does not reasos in a circle, because he proves the inspiration of Scripture by the tradi- tion of the church, which is one thing, and the infallibilitt of the church by the testimony of Scripture, which is snotJet thing. Now this is a mere sophism in Dr. Milner, because he knew very' well that in dis- puting with us who adm/t the inspiration of Scripture, the proof thereof is foreign to the question. The circle consists in proving the infallibility of the church by the pretended testimony of Scripture, while the proof of that testimony is avowedly based upon the authority of an infallibl interpreter. I * Eml of Cemtr., p.

�