I found that some doctrines which I had been taught as doctrines of the
greatest importance, were never so much as alluded to in the whole
Bible, while in numbers of places quite contrary doctrines were taught.
While unscriptural doctrines were inculcated as fundamental doctrines of
the Gospel, some of the fundamental doctrines themselves were not only
neglected, but denounced as grievous heresies.

Many passages of Scripture which were perfectly plain when left to speak
out their own meaning, had been used so badly by theologians, that they
had become unintelligible to ordinary Christians. While professing to
give the passages needful explanations, they had heaped upon them
impenetrable obscurations. Words that, as they came from Jesus, were
spirit and life, had been so grievously perverted, that they had become
meaningless or mischievous.

I met with passages which had been used as proofs of doctrines to which
they had not the slightest reference. There were the words of Jeremiah
for instance: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his
spots?" The prophet is speaking of the impossibility of men, after long
continuance in wilful sin, breaking off their bad habits; as the closing
words of the passage show; "Then may ye who are _accustomed_ to do evil,
do well." But the theologians took the words and used them in support of
the doctrine that no man in his unconverted state can do anything
towards his salvation,--a doctrine which is neither Scriptural nor
rational. Again; Isaiah, referring to the calamitous condition of the
Jewish nation, in consequence of God's judgments, says: "The whole head
is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot to the
head, there is no soundness; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying
sores," &c. This, which the prophet said with regard to the _state_ of
the _Jews_, the theologians applied to the _character_, not of the Jews