Page:Delineation of Roman Catholicism.djvu/354

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

and? of m; ?nd, a? ira a?, they ?not d?y ?e c?e ?t ?ve them bi?h. "It is erientiS, ? the nst?e of ? effects, ? de?nd on their causes: ?ey bye neither ?g nor ?m but wht they derive from cs?; ?d, in ?s?ct ? ?e? ca. es, ?ey are 8?lutely ?dm. The ? ?y exist without ?e eff?; but ?e ?e? c?ot su?t wi?ut ?e ?e: m act against im cause is im?ssible, ?cau? ? no independent ?g nor ope?on; by it, therefore, the being or s?te of ?e ca?e can never be affected. Just so 8uffe?, whe?er ?? or ?lunt?, c?not ?ect thz bei? or nat?e of ?n, w?ch ?ey proceed. ?d could we for a moment ente?n ?e s?ty, ?at they co?d a? for, ?, or ?stro? the c? ? �m being, then we must conceive an effect, wholly dependant on cause for i? being, ?se up a?nst ?at cause, destroy it, and yet ?ii continue to be an e?ect, when i? cause is no more ? The sun, at a p?cular angle, by shying a?st a p?amid, projects a shadow co?ng ? ? angle and the height of the p?id. The �erefore, ? ?e e?ect of ?e i?pt? of the sun's ra?s, by ?e m? of the p?d. Can ?y man sup?se ?at t?s s?ow would c?t? well de?ed and ?sce?ble, though ?e p?amid were a?i?lated the s? e?inct ? No. For ?e e?t would necessar?y ?A ?th ?. So sin ?d suffe?ng; the latter sp?n? from the foyer; c?not des?oy suffering, which is its necessary effect; and s?e?ag ca?ot destroy sin, w?ch is i? pr?ucing cause: ergo, salvation by ?K i8 absurd, contradicts, and im?ssible." From ?e fore?ing it must appe? manifest ?t works of g?, or works done beyond what G? requires, ?e impossible. ?m?sm m?ta? strongly the exis?nce of such wor?; and t? ? ?y not o?y ?ve a s?ck of e? me?ous works, so have enough for himself, but ?so to spare; and these e? supplies, coHec?d from ? quurte? and eve? age, ?e Church of ?me pmfe?es m have in s?re, ?d from th? re?si? to dispense them to who ?ve few or none. The following a?cle, adop?d subs?n?' by ? Pro?s?, presen? t?s in a proof ?ght, and justly prono?c? such clams of me?t ? ?o?t and impious :-- "Vol? wor?, besides, over, and a?ve God's comm?dme?, w?ch ?e c?ed works of supereroga?on, cannot be taught wit?ut a?o?ncy ?d impiety. For by them men do declare that they not only rander un? ?d as much ? they ?e ?und ? do, but ?at ?ev do more for ?8 ?e t?n of ?unden du? i8 r?uired: whereas ?th pl?y, When ye have done all ?at ? co?nded you, say, We ?e ?profi?ble 8e?an?." (2.) There is the utmost foil)- and impiety in st, pposing that a hum? ?g who is ?self sinful and of li?ted ?wers, could satisfy &v?e jus?ce for s?. Thus the perfect holiness of Christ was m?ss? ?s m?ng sa?s?action for sin. H? he had any sin of ?8 0?, ?t he suffered wo?d have been due ? divine jus?ce on ?s own ac- count. "Such a ?gh p?est became [was necessary for] us, who holy, ??s, ?defiled, sepam? from 8inner, and made higher �e heave?; w? neede? not d?ly, ? ?ose high p?es?, [under the law,] to offer up ?c?ce ?t for his own si?, and ?en for the ?s's,"Heb. v?, 26, 27. His s?e ?d &v?e ju?, ?cm 1