Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/351

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

he has nothing to cb/m. In these circumstances, was not only m?m in but also every ,m,l and of e?mi?, no crea?d berg, however pure, holy, subminive, and ob?- ent, c? have ?y ?? on iM Cre?or. From ?m it8 ?ing ? o?ly de?ve? ?d by ? ?t being i8 8ust?ued; ? ?m, there* ?ore, by ?ght it belon?; ?d w?ver he ? m?e it ca?ble o;, he h? a ?ght M ?. As well ?ght the ?e be su?sed M be a ? ? ?e e?ect pr?uced by i? as the Crew, in ?y c?c?s?e?, be a ?bt? m &e ?e?ure. "To ? s?vation, is to ?ve an evui?a?t for e?mal glory; f? ? man can be saved by hi8 works, ?s clam is ? ?vino ?; and if justice m?e a c?ut? of e?m? glo? for obedience, then ?is o?ce must be in me?t ?ual to ?at glo?. Juice deman? what is d?; it can require no more; it will t?e no 1e88. Man's therefore, ?o?ed in ti?, whic? however long, is only a moment when comp?ed to e?mity, must ? considered, on t?s decree, ? m ?tk ? ?e ?ss and ut?st beat?t? w?ch O? c? eonf? on an ?tel?gent being, w?ch is abs?d. Therefor, no ?g ? ?- � dience in t? c? me?t an ete? glo?. "A?n: m ? any t?ng from ?, we must act a8 be? ? of him, and ?ve him th? on w?ch he h? no ? c?: for ? we cannot purc?se one pa? of a man's prope?y by ?ng him ?- o?er ? of hi8 o? pm?, so we cannot p?ch?e from O? any �ing ?at is h? ?, by that ? w?ch he h? n? an e?al ?. To merit glo?, &erefore, a man must not only act i?p?tl? ? but ?so with po?s ?d ?es of w?ch ?od is neither author ?r supper; for the ?wers which he h? created, and which he u? hol?, are already his ?; and to their utmost use and sedco he h? ? ?? ?At. ?ow m? i8 a ? ?d ?? creature; h? no?ng but what he h? r?c?ged; cannot even ? without the suppling energy of ?; and can return him no?g ?at is ?t k? o? ? ?d therefore c? me?t nothing. On t?8 ?und, also, the d? t?ne of s?o? ? t? ?t ? ? is demonstrably ?th imp?sible a? absurd. "?e? more: ? ?? ?ts &?n?l? ?t?s, man must ? commensum? ? such ac?: ? ? ?n?lg, ?res in?ni? ?t ? the acre; and in?ite me?t in the ?ts requ?s united ? ?s ? the ?t; for no ?ing of limited and ?nite ?we? can ?o? ?m of h?nite wo?h; but m?, in hi8 best es?te, ? a being of limi? ?we?, who?y depen?t, even for these, on the ener? of ano?er ? .cons?uently, cannot perform act8 of ?nfini? womb; and, ?o?fo?, can in no way wha?ver merit, by ?s ob?ence or his works, that ?nite ?d eternal weight of glo? of which the Sc?ptu?s s?. On the ?o?d, ?erefore, of the dependant and ?mited power8 of m?, the doct?ne of ? glorification by the me?t of work8 is 8elf-con--eton*, irascible, and absurd. "All ?e proce?ng ?easoning is founded on the sup?sition that man i? in a sta? ?pu?t? ; having ? f?l? fr? ?nal ?d ? ?n?ed a?inst ? ?reator: and even in those circum?c? we find that ?s pure and s?t]es8 o?ienee c?not p?ch? an end- leas glo. "But we must now consider ?m in his ?es?t circums?ce?; 1