Modern universalism exposed : in an examination of the writings of Rev. Walter Balfour

Index

Introduction. r.

Chapter i. On the Immortality of the Soul ; or the

Soul's Existence in the Intermediate State, . . 15 Chap. II. On the subject of the Future Judgment, 39

Chap. hi. Collateral Proofs of a Judgment to corne, 55

Chap, iv Is the Eternal Life, promised to believers in the New Testament, a Life to be enjoyed beyond the grave, or only in this world ? .... 67

Chap. v. The signification of the words Everlasting, Eternal, Forever, &c. as applied to the punishment of

the wicked, 79

Chap. vi. Comments on Matthew xxiv. and xxv. 93

Chap. vii. The place of Future Punishment, or the meaning of the words translated Hell. The meaning

ofSheol, \\2

Chap. vjii. Meaning of Hades. Meaning of Tartarus. 120 Chap. ix. The meaning of Gehena, . . 136

Chap. X. The Existence and Agency of Evil Spirits, 156 Chap. XI. Credulity of the disciples of Balfour, 183

Chap. xii. Miscellaneous Proofs of Future Punishment, 198 Chap. xiii. Sources of Universalism, . . 2'24

A TABLE OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS,

COMMENTED ON IN THIS TOLl'ME.

Geivesis.

PafTc. — 22.

3: 1.

23: 3.

Deuteronomy.

32: 22.

John.

I. Chronicles.

5: 28.

11: 1.

8: 44.

. 176

Job.

12: 48.

1: 6.

Acts.

14: 10.

1: 25.

Psalms.

2: 22.

6: 5.

23: 8.

9: 17.

Romans.

49: 1.3.

14: 10.

109: 4.

I. Corinthians.

5: 5.

Proverbs.

II. Corinthians.

5; 5.

5: 6.

ECCLESIASTES.

11: 14.

3: 19.

5: 11.

9: 5.

Philippians,

12: 7.

1: 21.

II. Thessalonians.

Isaiah.

1: 6.

33: 14.

Daniel.

II. Timothy.

12: 2,3:

52,91

4: 6.

Matthew.

Hebrews.

4: 1.

32: 23.

5: 22.

9. 27.

10: 28.

James.

12: 22.

3: 6.

5: 19.

I. Peter.

1: 9.

5: 8.

II. Peter.

17: 1.

3: 7.

2: 4.

19: 27.

JUDE.

23: 15.

7. ■

25: 41.

Mark.

Revelations.

3: 28.

6:9.

3: 22.

7: 9.

9: 43.

14: 11.

Luke.

19: 1.

10: 18.

20: 10.

— 22,

16: 19.

22: 8.

Introduction

The following pages exhibit the substance of a course of Lectures, prepared and delivered by the writer to his own people. And the reasons which led him to think it expedient to give the lectures the form of a reply to Mr. Balfour, as the jjest means of counteracting the efforts of Universalists among the people of his charge, are equally good to show that this is the best mode of meeting the wants of the community in general. With regard to the immediate effect of the lectures, all the expectations of the writer, to say the least, have been realized. For offering the substance of them in this form to the public, I shall attempt no apology. For if the contents of the book do not avail to carry my justification to the reader, no prefatory apologies will do it.

I have been for some time satisfied that a reply to Mr. Balfour, which shall embrace all the main principles of his theory, as published in his first and second " Inquiry," in his " Essays," and in his " Reply to Stuart," is called for by the existmg state of things. Replies to him in respect to parts of his system have been published, while the system has

VI INTRODUCTION.

been in process of development. But I know of no attempt that has been made to meet all the main points as they are presented in the books above alluded to. The reasons on which rests my opinion that these books ought to be systematically answered, are —

In the first place, that they embody the main and fundamental principles of the most modern form of Universalism, and contain the ablest and most systematic statement of them, and are most appealed to by Universalists as a satisfactory expression and defence of their views. Their tracts, sermons, and conyersational arguments, as far as my observation extends, are built on the principles here inculcated. So that a refutation of these books subverts the foundation of the whole. Though comparatively few of those who believe in no punishment in the future world, have ever read these books, yet these are their oracles, and the fountain head of all their opinions and arguments. These books may, therefore, be regarded as, in a sense, the sources of that influence which goes to spread the pestilence of Universalism in the community. And an exposure of the errors and absurdities which they contain, seems to be the most obvious method of resisting that influence.

In the second place, Universalism, as it now exists, is something very different in respect to the grounds on which it chooses to rest, from what it has been in all former ages. A few years have developed almost entirely a new system. Grounds which most Universalists before have conceded, are now

INTRODUCTION. Vll

disputed. And those who are well acquainted with the arguments of Winchester, Murray, Chauncey and Huntingdon, are no better prepared, on that account, to confute the Universalists of the present day. Mr. Balfour and his coadjutors have undertaken what their predecessors were too wise to attempt — that is, to disprove the doctrine of future punishment by legitimate and grammatical interpretations of the Bible, without the help of the rationalist expedient of warping the meaning of Scripture in accommodation to the antecedent conceits of human reason. Though by thus shifting their grounds, they have multiplied rather than diminished their difficulties, they have gained the advantage of operating for a while, in a measure undisturbed by opposition. Ministers and professing christians have been slow to acquaint themselves with their new grounds, and hence a great amount of the resistance made to Universalism has been misdirected and lost. And even now very few in this community, ministers or laymen, Universalists excepted, have any adequate knowledge of the subject. Most have heard or read in newspapers enough to get the idea, that Mr. Balfour has put forth some rash and absurd interpretations and criticisms, in which few have any confidence. But I have met with very few who have any accurate and tolerably extensive knowledge of Balfour's theories, and, of course, of Universalism as now promulgated. Consequently much that is said, preached and printed, fails of reaching the point, — being built on principles which are not admitted. It is important

Vlll INTRODUCTION.

then that the christian community should inform themselves in relation to these subjects. This must either be done, or the efforts made to spread Universalism be suffered to do their worst, without any general effective resistance. And it is not the least of the ends of this publication, to contribute to extend the needed information to that part of the community who are not in a way to get it from Universalist writings.

But there is a feeling in some minds that doctrines and interpretations so absurd, have no need to be answered. But the question of the expediency of answering seems to depend more upon the actual efficiency, than on the inherent plausibility or absurdity of the speculations. And it is a fact that thousands in this community are receiving as sacred truth all these speculations crude as they are. And not the least of the reasons in which they strengthen themselves is, that no serious attempt has been made to refute them. There are no doctrines, suited to the taste of flesh and blood, which are too absurd to be successfully promulgated, in this degenerate world, when dressed up in plausible sophistries and suffered to work without resistance as these have been. The even greater and more abundant absurdities of the Roman Catholic system are far from falling by their own weight. Controversy is needed, and is useful as a means of resisting those errors. It was useful in resisting Universalism in the forms in which it appeared in past generations. And now the mischief is abroad

INTRODUCTION. IX

in a form so far new as to require the battle to be fought over again. And I see no way more obvious or promising of success than directly to point out and expose its deformities and opposition to God's truth.

Another reason why these books should be answered, is found in the rare opportunity which they afford, to expose in a short compass, an abundance of false and ridiculous reasonings, to which men must needs resort, to sustain such doctrines. The last improvements of Universalism will be found, when properly canvassed, to be more absurd than any of the preceding, in proportion as they pretend to rely more exclusively upon legitimate interpretations of the Bible. The deformities of the system are now more numerous, and more capable of being made to glnre on the public eye, than ever before. And we shall be recreant to the cause of truth if we suffer the advantage to pass unimproved.

Still another reason is found in the peculiar state of the public mind as it stands related to Universalism. The Universalism that has been concealed under the name of Unitarianism, is evidently beginning to throw off the disguise — which circumstance is giving strength to the Universalists as a sect. The Unitarians have sowed the seed, and the Universalists are reaping the harvest. This circumstance has imparted new courage and energy to the latter. And no sect is more untiring in its exertions, than they. So that as the occasion for controversy with the Unitarians, se^ms to be subsiding, 1*

X INTilODUCTION.

the occasion to contend with the Universalists seems to be increasing. And something needs to be done to awaken interest in the minds of the Orthodox, both ministers and people, in relation to this subject. And if these efforts of mine, can contribute something to this end, they will not be altogether useless.

Another reason which has inclined me to this undertaking, is that great use is made by Universalists of the fact that little notice has been taken by the Orthodox, of these their standard writings. Balfour himself vauntingly says, "if it is not unanswerable, we may say it remains unanswered." "Let my blood be on the head of those who condemn me for my error, yet refuse to furnish me with scriptural evidence that 1 am wrong." And this, by the way, is a kind of reasoning that is peculiarly taking with that class of mind, over which Universalist books have influence. It is not strange that those who regard those books as oracles, should consider the almost silence of the Orthodox in relation to them, as next to demonstration, that they are unanswerable. And probably this one circumstance has contributed more than any force of argument in the books, to give them an influence. Many who have never been enlightened by Mr. B.'s Greek and Hebrew criticisms, can comprehend the insinuation, that we did not, because we dared not, undertake the answer. Such are some of the considerations that induced me to enter upon this work. To engage in a controversy on such subjects and with such opponents,

INTRODUCTION. XI

is no pleasant undertaking. It is the drudgery of the ministerial work, or rather tiie business of a scavenger, and for that reason, probably others more competent, who ought to have undertaken it, have declined it. But the work of the scavenger is needful ; what the cause of truth demands, we have no right to withhold.

With regard to the manner of performing the work before me, I shall make no large professions of candor not sustained ; no pretence of carrying my mind in an equal balance through the investigation ; as if the question of the truth or error of Universalism, had never been decided in my own mind. I shall come to the discussion as one who is deeply convinced of the falsehood and pernicious tendency of the system, and who feels competent to make it appear, and in whom it would be hypocrisy to pretend the contrary. Yet I shall labor clearly to understand and fairly to state the views of my opponent, and to make use of no argument which is not in my own apprehension valid. Without touching upon every subordinate topic introduced by Mr. Balfour, I shall endeavor to leave nothing of importance unanswered. I intend to fix on the strong points, so as in the shortest compass to make out v^hat shall, at least virtually, amount to an answer to the whole. And if any thing be found, in the books under examination, to which I have not given a direct or implied answer, it is sujch as I am willing should have all the weight it can with any mind. The books which will come under special examina-

Xll INTRODUCTION. -

tion are, Balfour's first Inquiry, third edition, Balfour's second Inquiry, second edition, and Balfour's Essays. I shall also occasionally notice Balfour's reply to Stuart, and Whittemore's work on the Parables, first edition. These works abound in criticisms upon the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible. But I shall be under no necessity of leading the unlearned reader far beyond his depth, in my reply, and I have here no ambition to decorate rny pages with such ornaments. I trust I shall be able to adapt the style to popular use, and yet leave no depths of Mr. B.'s learned criticism unfathomed.

The main questions on which we are at issue with the modern Universalist, and which will now come under discussion in review of Mr. Balfour's books, are — First, that of the immortality of the soul, or whether souls exist in a state of consciousness after death and before the resurrection. Second, whether those passages of the Bible which speak of judgement, condemnation, damnation, &c. teach the doctrine of a retribution after death. Third, whether those passages which speak of everlasting or eternal life, mean a life enjoyed in this, or in the future world. And next, v.e shall inquire respecting the meaning of the v/ords everlasting, eternal, &c. when applied to punishment. In the next place, whether any passages speak of a place where punishment after death is inflicted. Next, examine Mr. Balfour's attempt to disprove the existence and agency of evil spirits. And then we shall dwell on some miscellaneous topics connected with the discussion.

INTRODUCTION. Alll

And may the God of truth, by the Spirit of his grace, guide the understanding and the heart of the writer; that he may be kept from the exercise of all feelings and purposes inconsistent with the high ends of such a discussion; and be governed by the single desire to sustain the truth against the assaults of its enemies, and commend it to the consciences of men ; and may his understanding be assisted properly to conceive, and present the subject, feeling himself the tremendous weight of the truth he inculcates. And may the reader come to the examination of the question with a mind willing to see and know the tiuth, and carry through it the impression that if the doctrine of eternal punishment be true, it is tremendously true, and ought to take hold of the deepest principles of the mind and heart. •

MODERN UNIVERSALISM EXPOSED.

CHAPTER I.

0?< THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL ; OR THE SOUl's EXIST- EiSCE IN THE I>'TERMEDIATE STATE.

No one unacquainted with Universalism, according- to its latest pattern, would dream of its being needful to prove the immortality of the soul, in an argument with those whose doctrines provide an eternal salvation for all men. But tor reasons which will appear in the sequel, Mr. Balfour strenuously denies it In his reply to Stuart he says, " It is my honest opinion, that the whole doctrine of future punishment, whether limited or endless, depends on this, — Is the soul immortal, and is it capable of suffering or enjoyment in an intermediate state ?" The reader then will understand, that proof of the immortality of the soul, and of the fact of its existence after death, and before the resurrection, amounts by Mr; B.'s own confession, to proof of the doctrine of future punishment.

In considering this subject, I shall for convenience sake reverse the order of subjects which Mr. B. has pursued ; so that I may dispose of the less important consideration first. His last section is devoted to answering objections to his denial of of the soul's separate existence. And he promises in the outset to confine himself to such as are likely to be urged. I am willing that Mr. B. should enjoy his beliefthat such objections, the mere creations of his own brain, are likely to be urged, but

I am sure it will not be, till his opponents become strangely stultified. They are such objections as I never heard of, and, for the most part, such as have no relation to the subject. If Mr. B. can find amusement in building, and then slaying a man of straw, I would not deprive him of it. But it is no part of a fair and honest reasoner, to put into the mouths of his opponents, arguments whose silliness conveys an insult to their understandings, and then set himself gravely to their refutation ; as if they were the main hinge of the controversy. Surely he has presumed much on the ignorance of his readers, or fie would not dare hold out the pretence, that the immortality of the soul was believed on such grounds.

Mr. Balfour's fourth section of this essay, is occupied with objections, or what he calls " facts showing that the common opinion respecting a man's soul and its condition after death cannot be true." These I shall notice in their numerical order.

1. " When God created man he did not inform him that he had given him an immortal soul." Jlnsiver. — That he did not we have Mr. Balfour's assertion. And if he did not, the fact proves nothing. For he did not inform him of a thousand other things which were facts notwithstanding.

2. " God has not imparted to Adam's posterity immortal souls either by gift or propagation." Jlnsiver. — This rests on Mr. B.'s bare assertion. It is an assertion that man has not an immortal soul brought as a fact to prove that he has not.

3. " God has not, during the past history of man, ever informed him that he has given him an immortal soul which shall either suffer or enjoy in a future state." Answer. — Here again we have an assumption of the very point in dispute brought to prove that point, and need not occupy the time in refuting it. The tirade against revivals of religion and missionary exertions which is brought in to illustrate this objection, is doubtless a genuine expression of the writer's feelings, but is of little avail to prove that men have not immortal souls.

4. " We do not read in scripture of any persons in time of sickness, or near prospect of death, expressing fears that their souls after death would go to hell, and suffer endless misery."

Answer. — Should we grant this assumption, the fact that God had not revealed man's immortality, by recording in his word expressions of the dying to th?it effect, would be no proof that he has not amply revealed it in other forms.

5. " We never read in scripture of any soul's being in heaven or hell after death." Answer. — Here, those who understand the scriptures as they plainly read, will differ in opinion from Mr. B,, and find it hard to be convinced by such an argument.

6. "None of the persons raised from the dead intimated that their disembodied spirits, Avhile they were dead, enjoyed happiness, suffered misery, or had conscious existence of any kind." Answer. — That God has not seen fit to record in his word any surveys of the world of spirits made by these persons, is very true ; and for a very good reason. For if it had been consistent with his wisdom to lay out to our view tho scenes of that world, he has more effectual means of doing it. But he chooses to deal with men now, rather through Moses and the prophets, than through those who arose from the dead. Whether, in the nature of things, it was possible for Lazarus to bring and publish reports in this world of scenes in a world of spirits, is a question which we are not interested to decide. For the fact that we have not testimony of a certain kind, does not invalidate sufficient testimony which Ave have of other kinds.

7. " Nothing is said in Scripture respecting the immortality of men's souls or disembodied s])irits at the resurrection of the dead." 8. " Nothing is said of them after the resurrection." 9. "The term immortal is never joined in Scripture with the terms soul or spirit." Answer.— Res^Qcimg the last three, tliis general remark is sufficient ;— That admitting the assertion true, about which different opinions will be entertained, as we understand certain passages differently, it proves nothing. It is only saying, because we have not this kind of evidence which we choose to demand, that which we have, full and distinct as it is, is good for nothing. So much for our author's chapter of objections. If this be all that he has to object, it will surely require no great amount of positive proof to balance it,

18 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUjut

His third section consists of a lal>ored attempt to show that the doctrine of the souFs immortality prevailed among the heathen ; and that from them it was borrowed by christians. This section, of course, will not require particular examination. For the question before us, is, whether it be or be not a doctrine of christian revelation. And this is a question wholly independent of the questions agitated in this section. Mr. B. seems to reason as if the fact that some vague notions of the soul's immortality floated about among the heathen, was, of itself, enough to disprove the doctrine of its immortality. As well might you say, that because many heathen nations had some notion of a God, therefore the being of a God is not taught in the Bible, but was incorporated into Christianity through the influence of the Platonic philosophers. I cheerfully grant, that all the more enlightened heathen nalions had some ideas of the immortality of the soul, and consider it a strong proof that this doctrine was divinely communicated to man in the first ages of the world, and by tradition diff'used over the world, and a proof that it is at least intimated in the law which is written in the hearts of men. But I go not to tradition nor to the law written in the heart, when I have before me the more sure word of prophecy, in which life and immortality are brought to light. The question is simply this. Is the doctrine taught in the Bible?

Mr. B.'s third section is occupied in putting down what he calls the doctrine of ghosts. Yes, the man, for purposes best known to himself, spends thirteen pages of his learned treatise in seriously arguing that apparitions, and the disembodied spirits of the departed dead, are not wont to reveal themselves to the bodily eye in this world. I wonder why he did not incorporate with his disproof of future punishment also, a dissertation upon witch-craft, and number off his objections up to eighthly, against the once popular notions of houses being haunted by evil spirits. It would have been equally instructive and pertinent.

We have now gone over all the ground of this essay except the first section. This section consists of an examination of the testimony of Scripture, as to the existence of the soul after death. Here we are happy to meet him, and will give his statements all due consideration. But in the first place, I must lay aside as irrelevant, his endless quotations brought to show tlie meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words translated soul or spirit. I have carefully run them through, and can concdve of no possible benefit to him or his cause, gained by filling out page after page with quotations from a concordance, and ringing perpetual changes upon such euphonious words, as Kesme and JVephish and Ruah and Pseuche and Pneuma, unless it ccme from the impression left on the minds of those who are stupid enough to look upon Greek and Hebrew words, as the mystic symbols of incomprehensible wisdom. If an examination of the original words could throw any light on the subject, not already in possession of the English reader it is well, otherwise it is the silliest pedantry. The English words, soul and spirit, have essentially the corresponding varieties of meaning found in the Greek and Hebrew words. And yet we find no difficulty in expressing distinctly, the doctrines which relate to the immaterial spirit by means of them, and no difficulty in determining when to understand them of animal life, and when of the immortal soul. The numerous passages remarked upon by Mr. B. which have little or no relation to the subject, need not be noticed. Whatever advantage he gets from an expedient, often resorted to, of refuting arguments that were never urged, he is welcome to enjoy. Such artifices show that he is writing for effect upon a class of readers capable of being influenced by such means, and are no compliment to his readers' understanding.

I shall first notice those passages on which he relies to disprove the conscious existence of the soul after dea^h, and be^ fore the resurrection, and then those which go to prove the doctrine. Those of the first class, are. Job 14: 10. Man giveth up the ghost and where is he 7 Psalm 115: 17. The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence. Ps. C: 5. For in death there is no remembrance "of thee ; in the grave who shall give tl^ee thanks ? Eccl. 9: 5,6, The dead know not

20 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL I

any thing- — their love and their hatred and their envy is nowperished. And verse 10. For there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave. In these and two or three others of the same import, is all the force of scriptural argument which he adduced to build his conclusion upon. And there is nothing in any of these passages, which may not be said on the ground, that man has both a mortal and an immortal part. What is here asserted respects man's relations to this world. His existence among the living in this world is s;iid to be done at death: — he cannot join in the praises of God in this world. He cannot praise him as he is here praised — can have no part in the enterprises which engage the hearts of his people here. In one instance the context thus limits the meaning. Their hatred and their envy is now perished, neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the snn. TKiis shows that the whole assertion respects only man's relations to what is done under the sun, — that they know not anything that is done under the sun. But Mr. B. asks, "Is it any honor to the sacred writers to make them gravely and repeatedly tell us that a dead carcase cannot praise God ?" Does Mr. B. need to be informed that all writers have occasion, for the purpose of connecting an argument or of aiding impression, to state truths as obvious as that ? If Mr. B. can show that such statements are not consistent with the scope of the passages in question, the showing will be to the point. Besides, if it be a fact that man is nothing but body, I might retort the question upon Mr. B., Does a Sacred writer tell us that a dead carcase cannot praise God ? For there is still less occasion to say it on his hypothesis.

I come now to notice those passages which Mr. Balfour has remarked upon for the sake of showing that they do not prove the doctrine of the existence of the soul after death. Matt. 16: 26. What shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? That the word here rendered soul, is the same that is in many places, and in the context, rendered life, I admit. And I will go further and admit, that this text was a common proverb in the time of Christ, and that its meaning as a proverb was — what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world at the expense of his life ? This is admitting even more than Mr. B. has attempted to prove. And yet it is capableof easy 4)roof, that this common proverb is here used in a transferred sense, — accommodated to express the loss of eternal life. Christ in the context urges his disciples to take up the cross, and follow him through every danger. And tells them that whosoever will save»his life (by refusing to risk it in his cause) shall lose it, (that is shall lose eternal life). And whosoever shall lose his life, (natural life) for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it, (that is eternal life). That I am correct in here understanding eternal life as used in antithesis with the life of the body, is plain from the parallel passage in John, He that loveth his life shall lose it, and he that hateth his life shall keep it unto life eternal. Having said this, the Saviour quotes the proverb and accommodates it to the case in hand. What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own life ? Now, what life ? Not temporal life, for he is urging them to risk that in his cause, but eternal life, the same as in the verse above. The passage admits of no other construction which does not reduce it to nonsense. If Mr. Balfour had been willing to meet the argument^ he would have told us how to interpret the preceeding verse, consistently with his notion, — told us how a man can lose his life as a martyr, and gain the life of his body by the loss.