Letters to Rev. Moses Stuart

Front matter

BX

33 5

BALFOUR'S LETTERS

Introduction

The following letters, were published in the Universalist Magazine, in the years 1820, and 1821, and signed 6 Jin Inquirer after truths They were addressed to Moses Stuart, associate Professor of Sacred Literature, in the Theological Seminary at Andover. In presenting them to the public, now in a small book, and with my real name affixed to them, a brief statement of the circumstances which gave rise to them, seems to be necessary. Without this, some might suppose, they were written since I became a Universalist,. whereas they were expressly written to avoid becoming one.

Until the year 1819, a serious thought never occupied my mind, that the doctrine of endless punishment might be false. In the belief of this doctrine I had been educated from my childhood. The books I read; the preaching I heard ; and all my religious intercourse ; ' tended to deepen my early impressions, that it was scriptural. Believing it to be so, I had preached it for several years both in Scotland and America. In the course of my reading, I had perused several books on the subject of universal restoration, but they only tended to confirm me in the belief, that endless punishment iv ^ . INTRODUCTION.

was true, and that reformation in hell and salvation from it, could not be established from the bible. I deemed Universalism a great error, sometimes discussed the subject with Universalists and always thought I had the best of the argument.

The first thing, which staggered my faith in the doctrine of endless punishment, was reading that paragraph of Mr. Stuart's letters to Dr. Channing quoted in my first letter. His statements, I was unable to controvert, and the texts on which they were founded, seemed to support them. This gave rise to the three first letters, and as the reader will see, they were written to solicit from Mr. Stuart some explanation, and how he reconciled his statements with this doctrine. As he had shaken my faith in it, I thought I had some claim on him to say something to reestablish it.

The signature I assumed, ' An Inquirer after truth,' though in one sense fictitious, was in another real, for my letters were written in sincerity, anxious to see where the truth lay on this subject. And believing as I had done, that Universalists were in a great error, I was also desirous, that Mr. Stuart should so answer my letters, as to convince them of it. It will be easily perceived by the reader, that the three first letters were only embraced in my original design. The others, were occasioned by observing other things in Mr. Stuart's book, and my own investigations of some Greek phrases; which he had explained. In investigating the scriptural sense of these phrases, my doubts were increased, as to the truth of the doctrine of endless punishment. This

INTRODUCTION.

V made me still more anxious, that he should come forward with some explanation.

The last of the three first letters, was published in the Magazine for March 4th 1820, to which Mr. Stuart made no reply whatever. After waiting until the 4th of July for some explanation on the subject, I wrote him by mail, urging him to do this. After waiting several months, and still ho reply being made, I sent the copy of this letter to the editor of the Magizine for publication. The remaining letters of the whole series soon followed, as their dates show, At last, Mr. Stuart condescended to write a brief note, declining all compliance with my urgent requests for an explanation. This note will be given in its proper place. The reader can judge, whether his professed reasons, for declining all explanation, are satisfactory. In his letter, he blames me for not giving my real name, and seeking a private interview With him for my own satisfaction. My reasons for declining this, are given in the letters, and of them the reader can also judge.

When Mr. Stuart declined all explanation, how he reconciled his statements with the doctrine of endless punishment, I determined to make a pretty thorough examination of the subject for my own satisfaction. The substance of my investigations have been published in my first and second Inquiries, Essays, and other publications. Whether my books, have done any good or evil to the world, they have Mr. Stuart to thank for them. A little timely explanation from him, might have prevented them from being written. When I wrote those 1* vi

INTRODUCTION.

letters, I had as little thought of writing a book in favor of universal salvation, as of creating a new world. All my prejudices, and habits of thinking, as well as my honor and interest, were strongly in favor of the doctrine of endless punishment. To Mr. Stuart of Andover, I am indebted for making me a Universalist, and to him the world are indebted for my books. If I have embraced an error, and have published it to the world, let all who think so, know, that he is the man who led me astray ; was urged to give some explanation, but declined it ; and that nothing has been said by him or any other person, to shew me my error. His exegetical essays, do not touch the points discussed in the following letters.

But, perhaps it may be asked, why republish these letters? Why not let the subject rest in oblivion? We have several reasons to offer. 1. WTe have been repeatedly solicited, to republish these letters in pamphlet form, for general circulation. The Magazine in which they first appeared, was not adapted to this ; it was read comparatively by few ; nor was it preserved by many for future reading. Besides, all know, tracts and pamphlets are widely circulated to put down Universalism, and why should not Universalists circulate some in its defence ?

2. Many people know, that I am a Universalist, but a great many of them do not know, Mr. Stuart was the cause of my becoming one. It is nothing more, than a duty I owe to myself and to them, to give them correct information on this subject. It is certainly proper, they should see, that a highly orthodox Professor's statements)

INTRODUCTION.

vii were the occasion of my giving up the doctrine of endless [punishment. Many of my former orthodox brethren, and other well meaning people, have condemned me for becoming a Universalist, who may moderate the severity of my condemnation, when they know the real facts of the case. I wish to furnish them with these, and let them judge accordingly. If they believe I have strayed from the truth, let them see who led me astray, and the pains I took to avoid straying. Mr. Stuart certainly was the person who led me into Universalism, and all ought to know, how little he did to prevent it. But

3. The importance of the texts, and Mr. Stuart's comments on them, brought forward in these letters, is the principal reason with me for publishing them. Until his statements and comments, are shown false, Universalism never can be proved unscriptural. They are foundation stones, on which it rests. Mr. Stuart's statements, comments, and principles of scripture interpretation, when universally understood and adopted, must make all men Universalists. Strong as my prejudices were, they were overcome by them. No Universalist wishes his statements altered to suit him. Is it not then proper, these texts with Mr. Stuart's comments, should be generally diffused in the community ? Let all see, how much he has done to promote Universalism. But

4. No doubt Mr. Stuart, and many others, still believe Universalism a great error. Well, we publish these letters, to afford Mr. Stuart a fair opportunity, either to retract his statements and comments, or show how he reconciles them with the doctrine of endless punishment.

viii

INTRODUCTION.

In his letter, he declares, he had no particular objection, or any fears to discuss the subject His principal objections are thus stated.' 4 But I must know the name and the object of my antagonist, before I enter the lists ; and contend on some other ground than that of a newspaper.' These objections I now remove out of Mr. Stuart's way for

1. I now give him my real name affixed to these letters. About this, there can now be no mistake ; no fighting in the dark ; no discussion with a real name on the one side, and a fictitious one on the other.

The object of his antagonist must now also be well known. It has always been, a strong desire to see, how Mr. Stuart reconciled his statements and comments with his belief in the doctrine of endless punishment. Before God and all the world, I still declare this to be my sincere desire.

3. He wished to 6 contend on some other ground than that of a newspaper.' This objection is now also removed, by publishing these letters in regular book form. His objections being then removed, we may expect to see, how he makes his statements and comments agree with the endless punishment of a part of mankind. This, we hope Mr. Stuart will now do, seeing the doctrine is an article in the Andpver creed, and he is set for the defence of the gospel. This duty he ought to have performed more than ten years ago, and had it been done in a satisfactory manner then, he might have saved me from Universalism.

When Mr. Stuart's exegetical essays were announced,

INTRODUCTION. IX

we expected to see in them a powerful vindication of the doctrine of endless punishment, and also his statements and comments reconciled with it. But we were entirely disappointed. If Mr. Stuart can reconcile them, we shall confess it to be one of the most extraordinary things we have ever seen accomplished. Want of time? can not now be pled as an excuse, for he finds time to write books on far less important subjects. Why not then, make one mighty effort, to refute 4 the widely spread helief of universal salvation ? Stay its progress now, or the United States, the whole world must be filled with this doctrine. Let the reader judge, if Mr. Stuart's statements discussed in the following pages, are not admirably calculated to promote its progress.

Respecting the following letters it is proper to apprise the reader of the following circumstances. 1. When published in the Universalist Magazine, no dates were affixed to them, the one sent by mail to Mr. Stuart excepted. They are now dated according to the time in which they appeared in the Magazine.

2. All the letters, and also Mr. Stuart's note in reply, are given in their regular order, without note, alteration, or addition. We should have preferred making some slight alterations and some considerable additions. But, as it might lead some to say^we had altered the letters, we give them as they appeared in the Magazine, merely correcting the errors of the press, and substituting our own proper name for the flctitous one, ' An Inquirer after truth?

3. We have added a number of concluding remarks

X

INTRODUCTION.

founded on some other parts of Mr. Stuart's Letters We were not aware until we gave them another perusal, that he had said so many things in favor of universal salvation. The candid reader, we think, will consider the concluding remarks a valuable addition to the letters.

Walter Balfour.

Charlestown, July 29, 1833.

Letter I. To Moses Stuart

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SACRED LITERATURE IN TH£ THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, AT. AND OVER, MASS,

Sir, — I have read your letters to Mr. Channing. It is not my object to interfere in the controversy between you, but to call your attention to one thing in them, which is not likely to be noticed by your opponents, but which struck my mind with great force while reading them. As the paragraph, is not very long on which I wish to remark I shall quote it. In your third edition, proving that divine honors and worship, are ascribed to Christ, you have the following quotations from scripture, and observations.

< Phillip, ii : 10, 11, ' That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that JesuS Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New-

MR. STUART.

Testament writers, for the Universe ; (ta pan or ta panta.) What can be meant by things in fieaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant ? What other worship can heaven render? And if the worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual should not that of others, who ought to be in temper united, with them, be spiritual also ? Rev. v : 8 ■ — 14, c And when he (i. e. Christ, see ver. 6, 7,) took the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation ; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests ; and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld and heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders ; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands ; saying with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for-

MR. STUART.

ever and ever. And the four beasts said Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth forever and ever.' If this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ be not the object of it here ; I am unable to produce a case, where worship can be called spiritual and divine.5 pp. 100—103.

Such Sir, are the scriptures you have quoted, and such are the comments you have given, and this is the paragraph, which arrested my attention. Upon reading it, the following ideas rushed into my mind with much violence. — c Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth is a periphrasis for the universe ; this universe worships Christ with spiritual and divine worship, and yet Mr. Stuart believes that many in this very universe, are to be punished in hell for ever. I paused, and concluded, that I certainly must have read or understood you wrong. I returned, and read with careful attention, the whole division of your subject, in which the above quotation occurs, but found to my surprise I had not. After repeated perusals of it, and after much reflection upon it, I am constrained to think, that you either are, or ought to be, a Universalist. Sure I am, that nothing which I have ever read or heard, in so few words, so conclusively establishes the doctrine of universal salvation. Having received the impression, from reading your letters, that you are a candid, honest man, it has led me thus to address you. I cannot suffer myself to think, that you secretly believe all will finally be saved, 2 and publicly profess to believe a different doctrine. I have concluded, that this passage of your letters, must have been inadvertantly written, or you must have some way of getting rid of difficulties from the texts you have quoted and your comments, of which I candidly confess my ignorance. The object of this correspondence^ is to state what has occurred to me, and to request further information from you on this subject.

I am unable to controvert what you say, that, 6 things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers, for the universe.' My present degree of knowledge leads me to think, that this statement is correct. If it be not, I should be glad to see the evidence by which it is disproved. Neither can I, nor am I disposed to dispute that the worship spoken of in the texts" quoted by yqu, is spiritual worship. So sure you are of this, that you say, ' if this be not spiritual worship, I am unable to produce a case, where worship can be called spiritual and divine.5 Now, my dear Sir, if it be true, that things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis for the universe ; and if it also be true,, that this worship is spiritual and divine, you cer^ tainly have told us, that the universe is to worship Christ with spiritual and divine worship. The worship is spiritual and divine, and the universe are the worshippers. Are we able to avoid this ? The mind must be differently constructed from mine, that can avoid it. Is it, or can it be believed by any one, that any beings in the universe, who worship Christ thus, shall be punished forever ? I am sure I never had any such idea ; and I have always understood, that it was on account of persons not worshipping Christ in this way, that they were punished. You certainly cannot think, that the punishment of the wicked forever, is in whole or in part to consist, in rendering to Christ spiritual and divine worship. If this be punishment what is happiness ? If this be hell, what is heaven ?

It is pretty evident to me from these texts which you have quoted, and the explanations you have given, that the universe is to worship Christ with spiritual and divine worship. Notwithstanding this, I presume you profess to believe, that some, if not many in this universe, are to be forever miserable. How to reconcile these things^ has been a subject of consideration with rne. After turning, and looking at these things on all sides, I am unable to devise, how you can reconcile them to your own mind, but in one or the other of the three following ways. But as each of these ways, present to me some difficulties, I shall state them, hoping that you will assist me? if possible to remove them. But this must be the matter of another communication. I am yours, respectfully,

W. Balfour.

LETTER II. February 19, 1820

Sir, — I stated to you in my last communication, that there were only three ways which had occurred to me, by which you could make the everlasting punishment of the wicked, consistent with the quotation I made from your letters. As each of these ways, present difficulties to my mind, I shall proceed to a statement of them, relying on you for some explantion.

1st. It occurred to me, that you might believe the universe, would render spiritual and divine worship to Christ, yet hold the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked, by saying, that, ( the place of their punishment, was without the bounds of the universe.' Admitting this to be your view, I admit your statements to be consistent with your belief in the eternal punishment of the wicked. My mind however asks, 6 Is this true V Do not you think, that this is a very fanciful idea ? If you indeed suppose, that the place where the wicked are to be punished, is without the bounds of the universe, please inform us, in whose dominions this place is ? But as I do not believe you capable of entertaining such a foolish idea, I pass this, and notice,

2d. That it further occurred to me, you might attempt to extricate yourself from the difficulties in which the paragraph quoted involves you, in the following manner. In commenting on the passage quoted from Phillipians, you say, Christ 'is the proper object of universal adoration.' Did you mean by this to inform us, that Christ was the proper object of universal adoration, but that he was not universally adored ? If so, I can easily understand, how you hold to the everlasting punishment of some, but then I am unable to reconcile this with the comments which you have given in the paragraph of your letters on which I am remarking. Remember Sir, you have told us, that, ' things in heaven, earth and under the earth, is a common periphrasis for the universe.3 Besides, the texts quoted, and your comments upon them seem to prove, that this very universe, renders spiritual and divine worship to Christ* Should this seem the least doubtful from the text in Phillipians, all doubt seems to be removed by the one you quote from Revelation. Notice its language, Sir, ' And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them heard I saying, blessing and honor, &c.' Observe also your own language in commenting on this passage. Do you speak of Christ being only, 6 the proper object of universal adoration, but not universally adored?' No, you say, 'if this be not spiritual worship, I am unable to produce a case where worship can be called spiritual and divine.' John's language does not, and your 2* comment on his, does not deny, but as the worship is divine, the universe are the worshippers. On the contrary, have you not said, 6 things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers for the universe.5 If this indeed be true, and you are confident that the worship rendered by this universe is spiritual and divine, where do you find your subjects for everlasting punishment, unless among spiritual and divine worshippers of Christ ? Are any of them to be the subject of this ? As I am confident you do not believe any such thing, suffer me to appeal to your candor, if there is not a difficulty, which requires your consideration here, and which I hope you will condescend to resolve. You are a man of too much mind, not to perceive the difficulty, and my opinion of you is, that you are possessed of sufficient humility to say something by way of explanation.

3d. But it occurred to me, that you reconciled the paragragh on which I am remarking, with your belief of endless punishment, by explaining the universal language of Paul and John in the texts in a restricted sense. Presuming, that this is the mode you take of extricating yourself, my desire is to see you do it honorably. The difficulties which have presented themselves to me on this mode of interpretation, will be best presented to you by considering the two passages which you quote, in order.

In Phillip, ii : 10, 11, the word every is found twice : 6 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.' Let us then understand the word every here, as not meaning all or every individual, but only some, and see how it will suit. 6 That at the name of Jesus some knees should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that some tongues should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.' According to this way of understanding the word every, only some knees in heaven bow to Christ, and some tongues confess that he is Lord. But is this true ? Are there any such as bow not to, or confess not Christ in heaven ? This interpretation of the word every, however well it might suit, when applied to persons on earth, and under the earth, it will not do when applied to persons in heaven. Are we then in this passage to understand the word, as meaning all or every individual in heaven^ and only some on the earth ? This would be understanding the word every, in two different senses in the course of one sentence. The word every is not repeated, but ought to be understood as repeated, after every thing spoken of in the passage, thus, 6 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things on earth, and that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things under the earth.5 And the apostle adds, as including all he had just mentioned, c And that eve** ry tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' But in this way of understanding the word every, the passage must read thus, c That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and that at the name of Jesus some knees should bow, of things in earth, and that at the name of Jesus some knees should bow of things under the earth.' But, supposing that all this was very good, how are we to dispose of the next part of the sentence in which the word every occurs? c And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, &c.' In what sense are we to understand the word every, here ? Does it mean some or every individual? If only some, it must refer to, and be restricted by, the things on earth, and undei- the earth. If it means all or every individual, it is only applicable to the things in heaven. Now, my dear Sir, in which of these senses are we to understand it ? If the word every, is not to be understood, as meaning every individual uniformly throughout the whole passage, be pleased to refer to some other parallel texts, in which the word every, must evidently be understood in two such different senses in the course of one sentence.

But perhaps you may say, ' have I not explained things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, to be a common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testament writers for the universe/ collectively taken, and not in this way of separating its parts. Yes, you have, and to this

MR. STUART.

very thing I wish to call your attention. Let us, then see how it will do to understand the word every i as only meaning some in the universe. It is a plain case, and stands thus : You make the apostle gravely tell us, 1 some in the universe shall bow the knee to Jesus, and some in the universe shall confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father.' Do you think, that this was all the apostle meant to express in the passage ? Is this then all the Saviour's reward for his humiliation, sufferings and death, recorded in the preceding verses ? Is this indeed all, for which God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that some knees should bow to him in the universe, and some tongues confess that he is Lord. If we thus modify, and explain away the word every, it is all the apostle did express, and this is all the reward of Jesus' work. It will not mend the matter much, if instead of the word some, we should substitute the word many. The difficulty still presses, where it most needs to be relieved. Let us see if it does not. ' That at the name of Jesus, many knees should bow of things in heaven,5 &c. You may easily perceive, that it still makes the apostle say, that there are in heaven some knees which do not bow to Christ, and some tongues that do not confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father. Understanding it, of the universe collectively, it makes the apostle say, that, c many knees shall bow to Christ, and many tongues in the universe shall confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Father ;' but I doubt if this is the full amount of the apostle's meaning. If you think it is, I will thank you to make this clearly appear. The things which lead me to doubt, I shall briefly state that you may accommodate your reply accordingly.

The word every, appears to me to apply equally to every thing mentioned in the passage. It seems to me to be an arbitrary mode of interpretation, to make it mean every individual in heaven, and only some or many on earth and under the earth. Besides, I would submit it to your superior judgment, whether the apostle does not in the conclusion of the passage, encourage us to take the most extensive view of what he says in the beginning of it. After saying, c That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth,' instead of qualifying these general or universal expressions, he adds, ' And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.' But further, what bears weight in my mind most, is, the connexion in which the passage stands, and the design of the apostle in introducing it. This is so obvious that I need not point it out. I would only say, it seems most natural to me, that the apostle in shewing the exalted condition of the Saviour, instead of using language which needed to be qualified, would use language which ought to be understood in its most unlimited sense. I may add., and which has some weight with me,