Cmf*. II.] S(?R?P?ORZ. this is manifest from ?; and that this is owing to the rg$? of men. We will state and answer some of. the weighricer objections urged under this head. 1. It is objected that the Scriptures are wrested by some to their ?truct?2?. That they may be perverted and abused need not be denied. Our common food has been perverted to the purposes of glut- tony-; intellect has been employed in the service of irreligion; civil liberty has been perverted, and made the instrument of anarchy. Bu? still these gi? may be employed to good advantage. An evil disposi- tion may Pervert the beet gif.t8 of Ood to the destruction or injury of' its possos8or, sT of' others. Some were so wicked as to turn the grace of Sod into laociviousne9s. The preaching of the cross was Perverted by some so as to become the ?m?our o? ? un?o de?A. Still the t!? ?each? ?st cmc?ed, and that, ?, although ?ey ?ew that he wo?d ? a ?ne of 8tumb?ng and ?ck ? offence M ?e �ent. ?ugh the ?? ?d ?e? may ?est the word of ?, the well ?8?s? ? receive the Mt im?nt in?? ? it; they ?!1 receive ?e sincere m? ? ?e w?, ?d wi? ?w ?ereby. It i8 ?ible ?at ?n8 may do the?elves h? ? h? the ?fipm?8; but it is more thn ?ssibl?t is eer?n?h ? suffer much ?, ? by ?ng ?em ?eld; for �ey may f? ? of ?ge, Hoe. iv, 6. And why do not ?e Cat?lics show the sine ca?i? in other c?es ? they do in t?s ? Why do ?ey n? ?d i? w?hip, le? ?e ?ple mi?t f?l in? idols? ? Why do ?ey not forbid the u? of ?d?gene?, le? men ?d ?e ?em a ?eense to ?m?t sin ? Md?mdes of such que?o? ?ght ? ?ked, ?d it is s?nge ?at they sh?d be ? ?spicio? of no?ng ? ? the Bible. Men ?ve ?en liable ? fall in? e?or and heresics in ? a?s; yet nei?er the pmphe?, nor our SaCour and ?s a?!es, ever ?ght of ?venfing these e?s ? fo?idd?g the ?ing of Sefip?. fit. Peter ?mself, who mentions ?is d?ger of men's &st? from ? S?res, d?s not blame, ?t sup? eve? man's re?ng ?em. And St. Pa?, wh?e epi?es w?e the ve? Scriptures they ?sted, never r?uires ?em ? be ke? fwm any one C?s?an of ?e seve? ehurch? to w?ch he ?tos. On ?e ?er ?d, he ?q?s ?e con- ?,, concerning an epistle as liable ? ? mis?de? ? ?y of them, and which ac?ally w? ?sundem? immediately. "I cha? you by the ?, that ?s epistle ? re? unw ?l the holy bre?n," 1 These. v, 27. The ancient Christians, in whose da? heresics a?unded, ?d not restsin the ?ople ?m ?ading the 8c?pt?e o?er to preserve them from beret. A?ng ?em �man's delivering ? ?s Bible was, as it ought ? be, ?e mark of a?s?cy from reli?on. Nothing was ? much '?s?ted on ? fa?e? and councils ? the nee?- sity t?t ?1 ?s ?ld ? aequain?d ? the Holy Scfip?e9. The ?mi?ve church was app?hensive of no danger from ?s pine- flee. Tbe Ch?eh of Rome, we acknowledge, has cause ? ? appr? bensire; for had ?e p?ple once gene?l ?be? w ?ad and j?ge fwm 8?pt?, the? is ?eat danger they might come, in ?ne?, ? see w? ?ey who now see d? not own, how ?dely the Scfip?e ?e? ?m ?e docknee comm?!y ?ught ?em. They m ? is l
�
