reality so conflicting that they never can commingle; but they tend to keep the natural conscience in its uuruffled security. To bring down lofty imaginations, or to insinuate a suspicion of the perfect safety of such as espouse this set of notions, is no part of these men's endeavour. Their whole efforts and their whole views conspire, no less than if it were systematically pursued, to assist the strong man armed to keep his goods in peace. In common with all error, this heresy makes the strait gate wider, and the narrow way broader than the Bible does; and they labour as strenuously to retain the conscience in its perilous repose, as if the bias of the mind, in its natural suggestions, did not sufficiently whisper peace and safety when sudden destruction cometh. Between Rowism and Morisonianism the only difference is that the former requires all men to believe that their sins are already pardoned, while the latter is comprised in the belief-Christ died for me. But they are positions, both of them, not only devoid of scriptural authority and unsanctioned by apostolic practice, but calculated to lull the mind into a delusive belief of pardon, without the evidence of a change of heart. Mr Erskine, who may be said to have run riot with the unguarded statements of Marshall, Hervey, and the marrow-men, proclaims that the sins of all mankind are pardoned whether they believe it or not. Mr Kirk, using the language of his party, says, "As truly may you say he has borne my sins in his own body on the tree. It is true that he has done so it shall remain for ever true, whether you believe it or not.* Mr Erskine sets forth, that the penalty is removed and the pardon is proclaimed whether men believe it or not. Mr Kirk again says, "Whether you believe it or not, God is propitious to you for Christ's sake;" + and in another place," Whether you will or not, Jesus has effected your deliverance so completely, that through him is now proclaimed to you the forgiveness of sins." In their deepest ground, in this inmost germ, the two systems are identical. They demand, contrary to the dictates of conscience and to the Word of God, a persuasion of personal safety, on grounds upon which no mind awakened by the Holy Spirit ever did or ever could repose. They agree to persuade men that they are pardoned, whether they have any desire to return to God or not. Though God has yet spoken no peace to the awakened sinner, they labour to convince him that it is the greatest sin to entertain a doubt of his salvation. No more effectual opiate could be brought to stifle the convictions of sin, and to pacify the conscience by a mere delusion: and the conclusion of which the anxious inquirer runs the risk is, that he may be saved whether he return to God or not. They virtually calm the inquirer's well-founded apprehensions, as if all were a groundless fear. The awakened jailer of Philippi they would have soothed, not by leading him, as Paul did, to the personal Redeemer, and to a direct intercourse with the Living One, but by assuring him that Jesus died for him, and that God was propitious to him, whether he believed it or not. They would have brought him, not to a living connexion with the God-man, but to a fact to a doctrine, but not to the Saviour. If they attach any real meaning to their words, they have no ground on this side the wildest universalism which they can consistently occupy. But, amid this light-hearted security of a system, which neither allows free course to convictions nor *Way of Life, p. 12. ↑ Ibid., p. 11. } Ibid., p. 60. pacifies the conscience in the appointed way, the sinner, as an outcast prodigal, does not return to the Father's house in the frame which the omniscient Saviour mentions. Compare our Lord's description of the prodigal's history, in which every converted person sees himself reflected in a mirror, the destruction of his false peace, the resolution of the awakened sinner, the illumination of his mind, his repentance (I have sinned, and am not worthy), and every one will be overwhelmed with emotion when he reads such language as the following: "1. We therefore learn that we have no sorrow to suffer before we enjoy the favour of God. Many speak and act as if a mighty agony must be endured before he can have mercy. Were this the case, it would be untrue that Jesus finished the work given him to do. That was just the work of bearing our agonies: and were there still some that we must bear ere we get pardon, he could not be said to have finished his work. O how fearful the position which men take up in maintaining that the sinner must suffer an agony ere he is forgiven! They go right up to the cross of Jesus and contradict his dying words."* We tell these misjudging men, who fill sermons with such painful irreverence and ignorant tirades, that they but betray their own deficiencies, and that the hearts' desire and prayer of all who wish their welfare is, that they may know that repentance and those convictions of which they speak so lightly. Was it not the substance of our Lord's own preaching to enforce repentance: "From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mat. iv. 17.) Did not Peter say," Repent," to the awakened thousands at Pentecost, who might have been thought sufficiently awakened, and who had inquired, "What shall we do?" And on the second great birth-day of the Church (Acts iii.), when Peter charged the Jews with their denial, and rejection, and murder, of the Prince of life, was not his address," Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (εἰς τὸ ἐξαλειφθῆναι.) Νο conscience awakened by the Spirit was ever persuaded of pardon without repentance; but to tell men that repentance is unnecessary, or to tell them that it is wrong to "think of God as one who demands the hard task of repentance from them, before he would condescend to receive them into his favour," is to daub with untempered mortar, and to heal the hurt slightly, saying "Peace, peace, when there is no peace." The crude revivalism of America, which may be called the other side of this system, leads them to lay claim to an ability which it cannot be proved even unfallen Adam had in his possession. They make pretensions to a strength, a life, a fulness, which even the angelic hosts draw from the living Head-both theirs and ours. They lay claim to an independent life, which we are very certain even the humanity of the Godman did not possess in itself, but derived from the Holy Ghost, by whom he was immediately led and replenished. We intend to dwell on the identity between our life and that of Christ-the great positive truth fitted to outflank and to consume this naturalistic heresy-to point out that the Living One, with the most perfect possession of every gift and grace, and a humanity plentifully endowed rather for us than for himself, lives in all the members whom he apprehends; but at present we only remark that if even Jesus lived by the Father, surely the pre*Precious Seed, p. 46. Way of Life, p. 178. objective word. Here, however, a crude set of opinions presumes to claim public notice, though they do not profess to be legitimately evolved from Scripture; nor can they, if we try them by a test, bear the application of any rule of interpretation known to the modern exegesis-a result the more strange and inexcusable in one like Mr Morison, who takes credit for mature acquaintance with exegesis and the use of hermeneutic canons. But before they are entitled to attention from the public, a definite understanding must be had with them on what ground they argue their case-whether Scripture, fairly interpreted, binds them as an ultimate authority, and whether they are content to regard theology as a reproduction, in the most ample fulness and in the most luminous outline, of the Divine ideas given in the Word, while insulated passages are most clearly expounded by itself as a harmonious whole. On any principles of interpretation which do homage to Scripture as the basis of theology, and evolve its import with philological precision, it is the easiest task to demolish to the foundation this whole system. It is now incumbent on them to avow whether they hold their reason as ruled by Scripture, and not ruling it, and whether they abide by the Word as the final standard, when expounded on the principles of grammatico-historical interpretation. sumptuous arrogance of laying claim to independent | use a German phrase, is simply to subjectivize the activity, and life, and power, is only equalled by its ignorance. The Morisonian notions of ability are imported from America-a quarter whence every statement on this subject is to be received with the greatest caution and suspicion. And far from giving heed to the reckless crudities of Finney, few will be prepared, at least of those well versed in the Augustinian theology, to give an unreserved assent to all the statements on ability which even Edwards and Bellamy propounded. For ourselves, while we do not object to the distinction of natural and moral ability, we cannot acquiesce in all the inferences drawn from a distinction which has as much embarrassed its propounders as advanced the cause. Presumptuous and perilous, however, as American revivalism may be, it is turned to some account in its proper homes. But in this country the introducers of the exotic do not know to what use to turn it. Though such men as Finney make the most unwarrant. able statements on ability, yet they employ it to urge on men the immediate duty of submission and return to God. In this country, claims no less arrogant are made; but men are not called to repent and to return from their rebellion. We can understand the American, and can sympathize with his appeals in no small measure, when he urges sinners to yield to God on the spot, and before they draw another breath, although he deeply errs in assuring them they have the power. But we cannot understand the Morisonian, when he flatters men with their ability, but keeps silence on the urgency of the divine claims on the one hand, and the pressing immediate duty of the sinner on the other. Why this is not attempted may appear strange, especially as it is admitted that the sinner is found with the weapons of rebellion in his hands. And yet, in that strange consistency which error carries with it as well as truth, it is in keeping with the other parts of a system, the whole aim of which is to leave man's subjective nature as inviolable and intact as if it never was enfeebled or beclouded by the fall. But we cannot proceed farther without pointing out, that for every doctrine there is an indispensable necessity for a scriptural foundation. To this, however, these opinions lay no claim. They do not even claim to be drawn from Scripture, the basis of all theology, and the substance of all knowledge of divine things. And the public have right and reason to complain that doctrines of a character so wholly negative are obtruded on their notice. Doctrines which do not profess even to be a reproduction of the objective word, merit no notice, and should be visited with the most unceremonious rejection. We should rejoice to see the public resent it as an indignity offered to the intelligence of the age, and as an outrage for which men should be made to answer at the bar of public opinion, if the propounders of doctrines cannot establish them from Scripture. If the domain of science is so severely fenced, that theories can be established only on the solid basis of a wide induction, is theology alone to be a prey to every one who will have a new set of notions, whether they can be deduced from Scripture or not? The views in question do not appeal to the final standard. They rest for their ultimate ground, not on the Word of God, but on the subjective reason of the individual. They are professedly adopted, because the propounders account them most befitting the character of God. But the business of the theologian, to But, on the contrary, their whole attitude is neological. If they are unconscious of the ground they occupy, it is high time they knew it: if they know it, it is high time to avow it. They seem to attach no more importance to the Scriptures, if we may judge from their presumptuous audacity of interpretation, than as they reflect their preconceived ideas, and enable them to dress out their conceits. In proof of this we need only cast our eye on any portion of their writings. We take the following from Mr Morison :-In a separate tract he labours to show that the words of Jesus, "I pray not for the world," manifest his love to the whole world; and the principles of interpretation which conduct him to the rare discovery are no less rare. The Divine idea was not in harmony with his views; and the question was, Whether were his views to be brought to harmonize with Scripture, or Scripture exhausted of its fulness to suit his superficial views? It is curious to trace how he acquits himself of his task; but whether he exhibits an ingenuous love of truth-an honest candour, that yields a supreme reverence to the Word, whether for his system or against it-we leave our readers to judge. He first assumes that "the declaration cannot possibly mean that there is a vast non-elect company of mankind, in which Jesus took so little interest that he would not even pray for them"-language which none would presume to use who is acquainted with the prayers of the Godman; and then he capriciously asserts that Jesus prayed for disunion as a blessing to the world. We are at a loss what to say to such wayward petulance and pueriency of exegesis. He first assumes that it cannot mean what the natural grammatical meaning of the words imply, and then he puts the most arbitrary sense upon them which it is possible to conceive. Few peasants in the country but discern at a glance that the words cannot bear that sense, and that the omniscient Saviour, in the second clause, has forestalled the possibility of misconstruction. No sooner does even a common reader peruse the words, "I pray not for the world, but for them In as Dorner emphatically remarks, that Pelagianism which thou hast given me," than he concludes that, as Jesus prayed for his own because they were given him, so he prays not at all for the world because the world was not given him. That Mr Morison is ignorant of the rules of exegesis, when it has engaged so much of his attention, we cannot believe; but such an exposition, whatever defect it argues, is so little in harmony with an honest attempt to educe a meaning from Scripture by sound rules and philological exactness, that we are very hopeless of his recovery. His whole idea of Scripture, we fear, is so jejune and superficial, that, in common with all heretics, he finds a use for the Word only to put a meaning into it, but not to draw a meaning out of it. It does not evince that any attempt is made, in compliance with the claims of science, to go back to Scripture, and to speak out what is there discovered. Deliverance from error, and an advance in the life of the Church, is practicable only by a new immersion in the sacred springs of Scripture; but, instead of seeking to fathom its depths, to trace its outline, and to explain it by itself, such a wayward exposition argues mental habits that are wholly perverted. We take another specimen from Mr Guthrie, who thus denounces the doctrine of inability: "Constituted as I am, it is not in my nature, nor do I believe it in the nature of any rational being in the universe, to feel any obligation to work impossibilities, or, in the event of not doing so, to feel anything like remorse." "* In such choice phrase any doctrine may be denounced; but this profound thinker forgets that the appeal is not to Mr Guthrie's nature, but to Mr Guthrie's judge-logy was there set free from the formulas of bygone to the Word of God. We cannot believe that the Popish maxim is the maxim of these writers-" Mundus cult decipi," but sure we are that they take no steps to set the world right. An uneducated audience may be easily deluded by preconceived ideas, when the ultimate decision turns on what these men call fitting or unbefitting the character of God. But, with all who are acquainted with the Scriptures as the source of knowledge, conceits are held in small account. We give another instance of the same neological bias from Mr Kirk: “Much that is true, and of inestimable value, is written, even about Jesus, in the Bible, which is not the gospel. That only is the gospel which is the good news concerning him. Let us then search the Bible, keeping this in view. By doing so you will be enabled to see clearly that one glorious truth, by the knowledge of which the soul is saved."+ If this man attaches any meaning to such revolting language-which the wise will bewail, and which the profane will scarcely use-if he will play the rationalist, we call upon him openly to avow it, and we shall know how to deal with him; but we will not allow him, under the semblance of deference to Scripture, to select a gospel out of a few favourite texts, and leave the rest as a residuum, as common and unclean. He cannot be allowed to reduce its holy words to his naturalistic stand-point. But towards rationalism they are greatly more advanced than they are at all aware. "Naturalism," which is the real character of this system, "finds," as Kahnis well remarks, "its truth in rationalism." The very arguments which we have seen employed against Calvinism may be employed by them against the still more mysterious doctrines of the trinity. The system still retains the objective fundamental truths in reference to Christology; but it is not the less true, + Way of Life, p. 4. Kahnia die Lehre vom Heiligen Geiste, p. 99. Guthrie's New Views. centuries, and every traditional doctrine beaten down, and already they are being reconstructed with fresh strength. If this struggle is to be renewed here, when it is expiring in its proper home, we can only say, let them honestly take their ground, and we shall know how to deal with them. Whatever sanctifying influence is expected-and it is deeply painful to trace how small a place this holds is expected from the mere belief of pardon. The unerring Scriptures announce a sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth. This human system calls in the moral influence of pardon to heal the spiritual disease. The rationale of the process Mr Kirk ventures to explain, but with what success we leave our readers to determine. "Why, for example," says he,+ " is it necessary to communicate the intelligence of pardon to a condemned criminal with the greatest possible care? Is it not true, that if a man were going into a prison, and saying all at once to the condemned criminal, 'You are pardoned,' if he did not die, would not his reason sustain a shock from which he might never recover? Surely, then, if a sentence might take away life and dethrone the reason of man, it is not too much to say that a sentence, provided of God for the purpose, may save them and change the unconverted soul." It is beside our purpose to animadvert on the rare felicity of this illustration, but we put it in juxtaposition with the divine explanation of the process: "We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." It is true, the moral influence of pardon is the proximate motive in the hand of the renewing Spirit, but no primary moving power. It is true, he that is forgiven much loves much, and stands forth among men as the purchased property of Jesus, his willing dis*Dorner Enforickelungsgeschichte der Person Christi, p. 236. † Precious Seed, p. 54. ciple, his devoted servant, drawn with cords of love, while the will of one so precious is invested with a captivating glory, goodness, and wisdom. But it is utterly unscriptural to hold, as these opinions do, that all this precedes the new nature, and engenders all the moral change. The mind is carried to its activity, not alone by motives from without, but by a new nature from within. And, to anticipate the supposition in question, the Redeemer sets forth in the stony-ground hearers, where the soil was not prepared, that the mere force of motives without a new sense, that even the great facts of redeeming love without a new nature and a hidden life-all prove unavailing. But these men would adjust the deranged machinery by the application of an outward moving power. Such is the implacable enmity of the carnal mind, however, that the nearer it is brought to God, the more affecting the outward exhibition of his loveliness and grace, the more embittered the hostility. Who but such a class of theologians can fail to understand that all carnal minds, disguise their enmity in feigned submission as they may, would, equally with the Jews, lift up their hand against the life of the God-man, were he within their reach? But whatever is of mere nature is strange fire: and we cannot omit to apply this consideration to much of the temporary earnestness with which these new opinions are associated. The semblance of ardent zeal disguises no small part of their mischief and their danger. The line between tendency and motive we do not overstep when we assert, that the dark chamber of religiosity, which in reality comes under a higher bar, is no proper test of doctrines. They are to be tested by their scriptural foundation, and by their proper character. But we cannot admit, and least of all in a period when many worshippers of earnestness have scarcely even a personal God, that any convulsive efforts of nature, however earnest-that any mere religiosity, however impassioned-are, in themselves, a letter of commendation to any set of doctrines. These are often kindled into the fiercest flame by what is wholly human in its origin. The Hindu devotee, who shares them in common with the Pharisee who compassed sea and land to make one proselyte, is proof enough that no mere earnestness can weigh or test the truth of doctrines. They must have more worthy testimony in their favour than the feverish heat of our fitful nature. But we must add, that, to a large extent, the language and the tenets peculiar to the Antinomians have been adopted in this system. Here, again, we must summon them to complete their views. The reformers were fully persuaded that the more warmly all works of the law were repudiated as a condition of acceptance, the more needful was it to maintain the law's authority and its relation to the Christian life. They saw that an omission here would forfeit on the one hand what had been gained upon the other. In his five impassioned disputations against the Antinomians, Luther maintains, with all his fiery energy, that a neglect of the law in its threefold use would usher in a perilous security, ruinous both to faith and to the fear of God. Mr Kirk complains that "very many make repentance a work of law."* We should like to see him prove that it is not. The main position which Agricola laid down in his controversy with Luther was, that re*Way of Life, p. 177. pentance is not to be enforced from the ten commandments, or from the law of Moses, but from the sufferings and death of the Son of God, by the gospel; and here we have the same sentiment avowed. These divines find no use for the law. If they do not, with the early Antinomians, dismiss it to the civil tribunals, they do not employ it as the apostle did (Rom. iii.), to give the knowledge of sin. They forestall the possibility of true repentance, as much as in them lies, by keeping silence on the awful holiness of God reflected in his law. Christian freedom dissociated from right views of the Holy One, degenerates into mere frivolity and dangerous security. With reference to the proper nature of repentance, Denne, the Antinomian, made it a part of faith, or a change of mind. To the same effect, says Mr Kirk,* 'you see that in some cases in Scripture you are called upon to repent and believe, in others only to believe, and in others only to repent, in order to be saved. Now, there is no difficulty with these various phrases, if you only understand repentance to be a change of mind." The principle of the old Antinomians was, that no minister was to threaten or to declare the wrath of God against sinners till they refused Christ; and so far have these divines imbibed the same spirit, that they not only do not come forth, saying, "Knowing the terrors of the Lord we persuade men," but they do not so much as retain the doctrine or the duty of repentance. They will have no offers of the gospel, but gifts to all alike, although they might remember that the gifts and calling of God are without repentance. They will have unconverted men equally with saints the objects of God's love, although the former are termed "children of wrath," and "condemned already." When the Spirit comes, he convinces men of sin at the commencement of his work; God manifests his love only to the awakened that they may adequately value Christ, and understand the character of God as no less holy than marvellously gracious to the undeserving; but these preachers will announce only glad tidings, without inquiring whether there be any hungry and thirsty, sick and weary, souls, to value them. The Antinomians of a former period, alleged that their duties were superseded because Christ prayed, and repented, and was sanctified, for them, and they could speak of holiness as Pharisaic Popery. Our modern pretenders have not ventured on such language; but in all their writings we do not remember the enforcement of a single duty, or of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Of old they alleged that it was contrary to faith to be moved by the convictions of sin: the modern representatives fill whole sermons with every opiate that can soothe the conscience, with every consideration that tends to discourage or remove sorrow for sin and hatred of it. And the calumnies with which they burden the opposite opinions are almost verbally the same. Saltmarsh, for instance, said of old, that they who opposed his views, "durst not believe till, upon terms of humiliation, sorrow for sin, works of righteousness, they have a price and satisfaction to come with." And with similar unfairness, Mr Kirk + says "Conviction of sin is considered a necessary part of saving faith. It is not meant by those who hold this error, that conviction of sin will always go along with saving faith, or follow it; but that if a sinner has not a considerable degree of a feeling called conviction of sin, he is without * Way of Life, p. 178. + Ibid., p. 42. an essential condition of acceptance with God." savour of spiritual life, though it has conceded much on the extent of divine grace; but the theology in question, by its own showing, contemplates nothing higher than mere nature. The Morisonian movement, as every one must, at a glance, discern, runs counter to the whole spirit of the Reformation; nay, the most of its peculiar tenets, although the germs may be discovered, are not developed, even in the Church of Rome, in a manner so offensive as by men who would resent it as an indignity to be denied the name of Protestant. The Reformation would never have succeeded in the hands of men infected with such withering, baleful tenets. We shall adduce, to this effect, an impartial but competent witness. D'Aubigné, speaking of Melancthon's Common places (book ix. chap. 9), remarks: "What is, above all, remarkable in this first But, still farther we must add, these opinions have edition of the Common places is the manner in which forfeited all title to be viewed as evangelical. There the theologian of Germany speaks of free-will. He may be a belief of many doctrines connected with perceives, still better, perhaps, than Luther, because the person and the work of Christ; but the refusal he was more of a theologian than he, that this docto regard the Spirit as the author of conversion, and trine cannot be separated from that which was the the source of spiritual life, puts a Church or an in- essence of the Reformation. Man's justification bedividual beyond the pale of the truly Christian. fore God proceeds only from faith: this is the first Such religion has no claim to be classed among Pro- point. That faith proceeds in the heart of man only testant or evangelical communions. A religion dis- from God's grace: this is the second point. Melancdaining to be termed spiritual, to act in the Spirit as thon felt clearly, that, if there be admitted in man the principle of action, and in dependence on him any natural capacity for believing, this must overas the author of life, and light, and holiness, can only be throw in the second point the great doctrine of grace the religion of nature. It may give offence to not a few, established in the first." But, to show still more to speak in these terms of a system which makes high clearly that this new theology can claim no affinity pretensions; but, deeply persuaded that the essential with the spirit of Luther, whom Mr Morison on all feature of Christianity, according to our Lord's own occasions quotes, or with the Reformation, from the delineation, is the new birth, and that even a de- spirit of which, indeed, it is wholly alien, let us listen pendence on Christ for righteousness, and for the to the Reformer himself. Erasmus had assailed him blessings of his purchase, is an unreal fancy without on a point which some accounted not a central onethe new nature, we must avow, that whatever sys- the doctrine of free-will, or the natural power of tem, not only puts itself beyond the confines of the man. "Luther" (we again quote from D'Aubigné, hidden life, but formally disclaims possession of it, book xi. chap. 9) "thought quite otherwise, and we cannot be viewed as truly Christian. This system has agree with him. I must own,' said Luther, that done so by the deliberate act of its propounders. you alone in this contest have seized your antaThey may fondly delude themselves with the impres-gonist by the throat. I thank you for this with all sion that others who retain their evangelical position my heart, for I am better pleased to engage on that have gone equally far, and made equal concessions subject than on all those secondary questions of the to the spirit of the age; but others who adopted sen- Pope, purgatory, and indulgences, with which the timents at variance with the theology of the country, enemies of the gospel have teazed me till now."" retained a sufficient connexion with evangelical reli- This was, in reality, the hinge on which the Reforgion and with spiritual experience to break their fall.mation turned; and they can claim no affinity with But this new communion cannot diffuse the savour of the knowledge of Christ, or reflect the beauty of holiness. They must advance to the landing-place, at which the consistent followers of Arminius are not slow to arrive. They have no doctrine that can intercept their descent to the lowest depths of naturalism or Socinianism. The Wesleyan system, unhappily, imbibed most of the Arminian tenets; but it was rescued from the irreparable ruin that had otherwise awaited it by the unequivocal recognition of the "PAUL, thou art beside thyself," was the exclamation Holy Spirit as the author of all spiritual life. But of Portius Festus when he heard the apostle earthe Morisonian communion repudiates the superna-nestly pleading for the truth of God. High fervour tural impulse, in which the other glories, and the would have been tolerated in any cause but that which spirituality and power given from on high, which Paul was advocating the cause of God and purity constitute the other's strength. Wesley says, in lan- against the world and sin. But ardour on that topic guage not to be mistaken, "The author of faith and was instantly frowned on. Religious zeal-such as salvation is God alone. There is no more of power the Bible warrants or demands-in one man, rebukes than of merit in man: but as all merit is in the Son the indifference of millions, and, in self-defence, they of God, so all power is in the Spirit of God; and must assail and revile him. Festus was just the retherefore every man, in order to believe unto salva-presentative of the world when he cast the imputation, must receive the Holy Ghost." A communion tion of madness and mysticism on the preacher of may retain all the characteristics and the evangelical righteousness, who made Felix tremble, and won the spirit of the Reformation who set at nought its central point, as the propounders of this new theology are so forward to do. But we must pause for the present. DOES TRUE RELIGION EVER LEAD TO |