« AnteriorContinuar »
have no doubt wondered, how I could embrace my present views with such texts staring me in the face. One object with me, in the Second Part, has been, to show, that I did not shut my eyes to these texts, but being opened to very dif-ferent views of them, I finally embraced my present opinions. Whether my present views be correct, they can now see and judge for themselves. If I have embraced error, they are requested to have the goodness to correct it.
In the following pages, we have expressed our opinions frankly and sincerely, and appealed to the Scriptures as the test of truth. The author hopes that the spirit in which his remarks are made can give offence to none. He Iras studied to avoid all harsh and provoking language, convinced that man's wrath can never work the righteousness of God. If he has in any instance turned aside from this path, he shall regret it much more than any of his readers, for his object is to convince, not to irritate. Should it be said, some of the opinions controverted are not held now by our orthodox brethren, nor durst any preacher avow them, without forfeiting his station. We are glad to hear of this, but doubt if it is without exception true; and certainly, we have never heard, that any public disavowal of them has ever been made. For example; has it ever been openly disavowed, that infants may be eternally damned? And is it universally disbelieved, that the happiness of those in heaven, shall be sweetened to all eternity in beholding others in eternal misery? If such opinions are not held,
why not publicly denounce them? For it will not be denied, that they have been held by Calvinists in ages that are past. At any rate, we would say, it has been far from our heart to misrepresent the opinions of our brethren.
Should any one reply to the following pages, the author begs leave to say, that it will be of no consequence to point out defects in his manner of discussing the subject, or to show that in some instances he has misunderstood the many texts which have come under his consideration. As to the first, had his time and avocations permitted, he might have rendered the work freer of defects. As to the last, though he has used all means in his power to interpret the Scriptures correctly, yet it would be surprising, if in no instance he had misunderstood the sacred writers. A reply merely bearing on these points he will pass over in silence. But if any one will show, that the devil is a fallen angel, and, that the punishment of the wicked is of endless duration, he will listen with profound attention to whatever may be advanced. He will attend to argument and evidence drawn from Scripture, come from what quarter they may, whether stated in a good or bad temper of mind. If convinced he is wrong, he will be silent, but if not, he will claim the privilege of stating his reasons for his dissent. Whoever undertakes to reply, we beg of them to give us proofs, and not mere assertions, for what they may advance, and to pay particular attention also to what we have advanced in Part i. Sect. 4. To point out defects, without fairly meeting
the grand points at issue, will be considered no
I make no apology for availing myself of quotations from various authors in the course of my remarks, for they are chiefly taken from writers whose religious creeds embraced the opinions which I have controverted. None of them are taken from professed Universalists, for by most people their testimony would be deemed exceptionable, however well supported by evidence. The testimonies quoted in favor of my opinions, are from men competent to judge, and in high repute as critics and commentators among orthodox people. They are quoted, not to give sanction to my views by the weight and number of their names, but on account of the evidence which they produce.
In the present work, the strongest texts in favor of endless punishment are considered, and attention given them in proportion to the degree of stress laid on them in favor of this doctrine. In some instances, we have referred to our former luquiry into the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna, for an illustration, which the reader will please consult. And in all cases, we hope the texts referred to, but not quoted at length, will be turned to and read, as they confirm or illustrate the sentiments advocated.
The author is deeply sensible, that the sentiments he has advanced are very unpopular, and will be condemned by many without a hearing. He is sorry for such persons on their own account; for this cannot stop the advance of light
and knowledge in the present day, any more than sleeping all day can stop the sun in his course. If what I have advanced be true, it must prevail against all opposition, for great is the truth, and it must prevail. If my sentiments are false, the sooner they are refuted, neglected and forgotten, the better. If this can be done, it no doubt will be done, and to the doing of it we shall add our hearty amen.
NOTICE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
IN this Second Edition, the corrections, alterations and additions which have been made from that of the first, are chiefly verbal, and require no particular specification. So far as the author knows, no person has yet attempted to show to the public that his views are unscriptural; and nothing has occurred to himself, tending to alter, but rather to confirm him in his opinions.
INTO THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE DEVIL AND SATAN.
COMMON OPINIONS ENTERTAINED OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN BRIEFLY STATED.
THE opinions entertained of the Devil and Satan are many. We shall give a brief summary of them under the following particulars.
1st. The Unity of the Devil. It is the common opinion, that there is but one being properly called the devil. The unity of God is not more certainly believed, than that the Devil or Satan is one. Though God is said by many to be three persons in one being, yet the devil has never been supposed to be more than one person in one being. Dr. Campbell, Dissert. 6. says, 66 nor can any thing be clearer from Scripture than that, though the demons are innumerable, there is but one devil in the universe."
2d. The Origin of the Devil. The common opinions about this are:-that he was originally, one of the angels of God in heaven. God did not create him a