only, but of _all mankind_. What Paul said about the law of Moses, and
the works or deeds required by that law, the theologians applied to the
law of Christ. And so with regard to multitudes of passages. I was
constantly coming across passages that the theologians systematically
perverted, taking them from their proper use and meaning, and forcing
them into the support of notions to which they had not the slightest
reference. The liberties taken with the words of Paul went far towards
turning the writings of that great advocate and example of holiness into
lessons of licentiousness.

It was plain that, on many points, theology was one thing, and
Christianity another; and that many and important changes would have to
be made in the creeds and confessions of Christendom, before they could
be brought into harmony with the truth as taught by Jesus.

Some theological doctrines I found rested on the authority of Milton's
Paradise Lost, or of the Church of England Prayer Book, or on the
authority of earlier works from which Milton or the authors of the
Prayer Book had borrowed.

One day, about forty-two years ago, I was travelling homewards from
Shields to Blyth on foot, when a man with a cart overtook me, and asked
me to get in and ride. I did so. The man and I were soon busy discussing
theology. We talked on saving faith, imputed righteousness,
predestination, divine foreknowledge, election, reprobation and
redemption. We differed on every point, and the man got very warm. He
then spake of a covenant made between God the Father and His Son before
the creation of the world, giving me all the particulars of the
engagement. I told him I had read something about a covenant of that
kind in Milton's Paradise Lost, but that I had never met with anything