U*^l  # M. &bCuH~
 L*V 

MODERN UNIVERSALISM

EXPOSED:

IN AN EXAMINATION OP THE WRITINGS OF

REV. WALTER BALFOUR.

BY PARSONS COOKE,
WARE, MASS.

LOWELL:
PUBLISHED BT ASA RAND,
1834.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1834, by A»a K±xd,
the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

UBIKP.TEH PRE.99....LOWKL1..

INDEX.

Page.
Introduction,  *¦
Chapter i. On the Imiportality of the Soul; or the
Soul's Existence in the latermediate State, . 15
Chap. ii. On the subject of the Future Judgment, 89
Chap. iii. Collateral Proofs of a Judgment to come, 55
¦Chap. iv. Is the Eternal Life, promised to believers in
the New Testament, a Life4 to be enjoyed beyond the
grave, or only in this world;? .... '67
Chap. f. The signification of the words Everlasting,
Eternal, Forever, &c. us applied to the punishment of
the wicked,  79
Chap. vi. Comments on Matthew xxiv. and xxv. 98
Chap. vii. The place of Future Punishment, or the
meaning of the words translated Hell. The meaning
ofSheol, . . ' ." 112
Chap. tiii. .Meaning of Hades. . Meaning of Tartarus, 120
Chap. ix. The meaning of Gehena, . 136
Chap. x. The Existence and Agency of Evil Spirits, 166
Ghap. xi. Credulity of the disciples of Balfour, 1S3
Qhap. xii. Miscellaneous Proofs of Future Punishment, 196
Chap. xin. Sources of Universalism, . „ 294

A TABLE OF SCRIPTURE TEXTS,
COMMENTED ON IN THIS VOLUME.

Genesis. \

Page.

— 32.

123

3: 1.

156

23: 3.

173

Deuteronomy.

— 43.

24

32: 22.

117

John.

I. Chronicles.

5: 28.

41

11: 1.

157

8: 44.

176

Job.

12: 43.
43
1: 6.
158
Acts.
14: 10.
19
1: 25.
29
Psalms.
2: 22.
24
6: 5.
19
23: -8.
27
9: 17.
116
Romans.
49: 15.
115
14: 10.
43
109: 4.
159
1. COBINTHIANS.
115: 17.
119
5: 5.
27
Proverbs.
II. Corinthians.
5: 5.
117
5: 6.
31
EcCLESIASTES.
11: 14.
174
3: 19.
26
5: 11.
198
9: 5.
19
Philippians.
12: 7.
27
1: 21.
30
— 14.
52
II. Thessalonians.
Isaiah.
1: 6.
44
33: 14.
89
— 9.
92
Daniel.
II. Timothy.
12: 2,3:
52,91
4: 6.
46
Matthew.
Hebrews.
4: 1.
167
12: 23.
28
5: 22.
137
9. 27.
48
10: 28.
138
James.
12: 22.
165
3: 6.
146
— 23.
122
5: 19.
22
— 28,
23
I. Peter.
— 36.
39
1: 9.
22
16: IS.
123
5: 8.
175
— 26.
20
II. Peter.
17: 1.
28
3: 7.
49
18: 8.
91
2: 4.
131
— 9.
139
— 17.
93
19: 27.
68
Jude.
23: 15.
140
7.
93
— 33.
141
13.
93
25: 41.
91
14.
50
Mark.
Revelations.
3: 28.
40
6: 9.
25
3: 22.
92
7: 9.
25
9: 43.
144
14: 11.
94
Luke.
19: 1.
94
10: 18.
170
20: 10.
94
13: 16.
172
— 22.
51
16: 19.
29
22: 8.
¦J?.
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 best
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. Wjth 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 justi
fication 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 prin
ciples of his theory, as published in his first and se
cond " Inquiry," in his " Essays," and in his " Reply
to Stuart," is called for by the existing state of
things. Replies to him in respect to parts of his
system have been published, while the system has
1

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 al
luded to. . The reasons on which rests my opinion
that these .books ought to be systematically answer
ed, 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 sys
tematic statement of them, and are most appealed
to by Universalists as a satisfactory expression and
defence of their views. Their tracts, sermons, and
conversational arguments, as far as my observation
extends, are built on the principles here inculcated.
So that a refutation of these books subverts the foun
dation 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 re
garded 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 ex
ists, 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 devel
oped 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 o£ the rationalist expedient
of warping the meaning of Scripture in accommo
dation 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 measurejmdjsjujbadJayu^position.-Miji^^
TstersTma proiessing christians have been slow to ac
quaint themselves with their new grounds, and hence
a great amount of the resistance made to Universal
ism has been misdirected and lost. And even now
very few in this community, ministers or laymen,
Universalists excepted, have any adequate knowl
edge 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 the
ories, and, of course, of Universalism as now promul
gated. Consequently much that is said, preached and
printed, fails of reaching the point, — being built on
principles which are not admitted. .Jt is important

V1U 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 Univer
salism be suffered to do their worst, without any gen
eral 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 ab-
surdity_o£jhe speculations. And it is a fact that
thousands in this community are receivijjf^aS IS&rSd
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 promulgat
ed, 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 Catho
lic 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 ans
wered, 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 "doctrine*s;% 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 interpreta
tions of the Bible. The deformities of- the system
are now more numerous, and more capable of being
made to glare 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 Universal
ism. The Universalism that has been concealed
under the name of Unitarianism, is evidentl'y'begin-
ning to throw off the disguise — which circumstance
is giving strength to the Universalists as a sect.
The Unitarians have sowed the seed, and the Uni
versalists are reaping the harvest. This circum
stance has imparted new courage and energy to the
latter. And no sect is more untiring in its exer
tions, than they. So that as the occasion for con
troversy with the Unitarians, seems to be subsiding,
\*

X INTRODUCTION. .
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 sub
ject. 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 un
dertaking, 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 furqish me with scriptural evi
dence 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 con-
. troversy on such subjects and with such opponents,

INTRODUCTION. XI
is no pleasant undertaking. It is the drudgery of
the ministerial work, or rather the 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 need
ful ; 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 can
dor 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 con
vinced of the falsehood and pernicious tendencyiof
the system, and who feels competent to make it ap*-
pear, and in whom it would be hypocrisy to pretend
the contrary. Yet I shall labor clearly to under
stand 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 un
answered. I intend to fix on the strong points, so
as in the shortest compass to make out what 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 di
rect or implied answer, it is such 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, Bal
four'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 Para
bles, first edition. These works abound in criti
cisms upon the Greek and Hebrew of the Bible. But
I shall be under no necessity of leading the unlearn
ed reader far beyond his depth, in my reply, and I
have here no ambition to decorate my 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, wheth
er those passages of the Bible which speak of judge
ment, condemnation, damnation, &.c. teach the doc
trine 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, we shall inquire respecting the
meaning of the words everlasting, eternal, &c. when
applied to punishment. In the next place, whether
any passages speak of a place where punishment af
ter 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 miscella
neous topics connected with the discussion.

INTRODUCTION. XU1

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 proper
ly to conceive, and present the subject, feeling him
self the tremendous weight of the truth he incul
cates. And may the reader come to .the examina
tion of the question with a mind willing to see and
know the truth, and carry through it the impression
that if the doctrine of eternal punishment be true,
it is tremendously true, and_ojigh_Lta take- hold of
the dsSpgSfffliireipielM^iUhe mind and heart.

MODERN UNIVERSALISM
EXPOSED. CHAPTER I.
ON THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL ; OR THE SOUl's EXIST
ENCE IN- THE INTERMEDIATE 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, doc
trines provide an eternal salvation for all men. But tor reas
ons 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 im
mortality 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 re
verse 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 out
set to confine himself to such as are likely to be urged. I am
-willing that Mr. B. should enjoy his belief that such objections,
the mere creations of his own brain, are likely to be urged, but

16 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL : .;i; . »
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 oppo
nents, arguments whose silliness conveys an insult to their un
derstandings, 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 he
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." Answer. — 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 oth
er things which were facts notwithstanding.
2. " God has not imparted to Adam's posterity immortal
sbuls either by gift or propagation." Answer. — 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 inform
ed 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."

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 17
«Snsji>er.— 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 that effect, would be no proof that
he has not amply revealed it in other forms.
5f" We never read in scripture of any soul's being in heav
en or hell after death." ./Jraraer.— 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, while they were dead, enjoyed hap
piness, 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 per
sons, is very true'; and for a very good reason. For if it had
been consistent with his wisdom to lay out to our view the
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 we have of other
kinds. 7. "Nothing is said in Scripture respecting the immortality
of men's souls or disembodied spirits 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. — Respecting the last three,
this general remark is sufficient ; — That admitting the asser
tion 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 evi
dence 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.
2

18 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOb». :
His third section consists of a labored attempt to show that
the doctrine of the soul's immortality prevailed among the
heathen ; and that from them it was borrowed by christians.
This section, of course, will not require particular examina
tion. For the question before us, is, whether it be or be not S
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 it
self, 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 cheer
fully grant, that all the more enlightened heathen nations 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 diffused
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 tra^
dition nor to the law written in the heart, when I have before
me the more sure word of prophecy, in which life and immor
tality 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 spir
its of the departed dead, are not wont to reveal themselves to
the bodily eye in this world. I wonder why he did not incorpo
rate with his disproof of future punishment also, a dissertation
upon witch-craft, and number offhis objections up to eighthly,
against the once popular notions of houses being haunted by
evil spirits. It would have been equally instructive and perti
nent. We have now gone over all the ground of this essay except
the first section. This section consists of an examination of

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 19
the testimony of Scripture, as to the existence of the soul after
death. Here we are happy^o 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
the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words translated soul
or spirit. I have carefully run them through, and can conceive
of no possible benefit to him or his cause, gained by filling out
page after page with quotations from a concordance, and ring
ing perpetual changes upon such euphonious-words, as Nesme
and Nephish and Ruah and Pseuche and Pneuma, unless it
come 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 examina
tion of the original words could throw any light on the subject,
not already in possession of the English reader it is well, oth
erwise 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 de
termining 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' under-
. standing. I shall first notice those passages on. which he relies to dis
prove the conscious existence of the soul after death, 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 ? 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 thee thinks ? Eccl. 9: 5,6. The dead know not

20 IMMORTALITY OP THE SOUL :
any thing — their love and their hatred and their envy is now
perished. And verse 10. For there is no work, nor device, nor
knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave. In these and twoor three
others of the same import, is all the force of scriptural argu
ment 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 immor
tal part. What is here asserted respects man's relations to this
world. His existence among the living in this world is said 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 peo
ple here. In one instance the context thus Iknits 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 sun.
litis shows that the whole assertion respects only man's rela
tions to what is done under the sun, — that they know not any
thing that is done under the sun. But Mr. B. asks, "Is it any
honor to the sacred writers to make them gravely and repeated
ly tell us that a dead carcase cannot praise God ?" Does Mr. B.
need to be informed that all writers have occasion, for the pur
pose 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 ^howing 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 mean-

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. . 21
ing 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 ad
mitting even more than Mr. B. has attempted to prove. And
yet it is capable of easy proof, that this common proverb is here
biased 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 con
struction 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.
In the next place, he adduces those passages which speak
of saving the soul, and labors to show that they mean no more
than saving the life. Here follows his argument to that point.
"Many people seem to think that the term salvation can be ap
plied to nothing else, except the salvation of the immortal soul
in the future state. But when Sight souls were saved by water,
all will allow, eight lives or persons were saved. People forget
that Paul and James wrote to believing Hebrews just before
the destruction of Jerusalem. Our Lord had told his disciples
that he who endured to the end should be saved from all the
calamities which came upon the unbelieving Jews, and that this
is called perdition needs no proof." Thus he makes the saving
2*

22 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL:
of the soul, to be the saving of the life from sharing in Jeru
salem's destruction. ' Let us refer then to some of the instan
ces to test this interpretation. 1 Peter 1: 9. Receiving the
end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. The end
of the Christian's faith, then, was the salvation of their lives,-
when Jerusalem was destroyed. But the men to whom Peter
wrote — strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Gallatia, Capa-
docia, Asia and Bythinia, were in no danger of that destruction,
and had no need of that kind of salvation. If salvation from
Jerusalem's destruction, were the great end of the Christian's
faith, for what purpose was that faith offered to other nations
than the Jews. If the saving of the life were the great end of
embracing the Christian faith, it ill-Iy secured its end, for it"
brought thousands to a violent death. And then just look at
the context, " of which salvation (saving of the life) the prophets
have enquired and searched diligently.'' This saving of the
life of the few Christians that escaped out of Jerusalem, when
it was destroyed, is made the object of the prophet's diligent
search spoken of as the glory that should follow the sufferings
of Christ, and that which the angels desire to look into. Be
lieve it, who can.
Another instance, James 5: 19. Brethren, if any of you do
err from the truth, and one convert him, let him know, that he
that converteth a sinner from the error of his way shall save a
soul from death and hide a multitude of sins. Now how are a
man's sins hid by escaping the destruction of Jerusalem ? If
death were the extinction of being, and the end of all ill effects
of sin, one would think death in the destruction of Jerusalem to
be an effectual hiding of sin. And thon was it so as this inter
pretation implies, that the whole world was in such a condition
that, erring from the truth exposed a man, let him be where he
would, to be buried in the ruins of Jerusalem ? If I can under
stand plain English, the man will have us believe it. Take
another view of the matter. We are told here, that salvation
means only the saving of the life of the body. And Mr. Whit-
teinore, (on the Parables p. 262,) says that the happiness of the
future world " cannot in the nature of things be affected by the

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 23
conduct of men in this life." Properly speaking then, the
gaining of that happiness is not salvation, 'nor the thing called
by that name in the gospel. But then how happens it that the
very name which the sect have chosen to adopt, universal sal
vation, conveys a contradiction to such a principle. They ask
us to believe that all the gospel says about salvation relates to
the well-being of the body. But surely, this kind of salvation
is not universal ; men are not all saved from death and tempo
ral calamity.
Again; Math. 10: 28. Fear not them which kill the body, but
are not able to kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able
to destroy both soul and body in hell. It is not in the power
of man to frame an expression which shall state more plainly,
and set more beyond the power of evasion, the distinction be-.
tween soul and body, and the soul's capability of living after
the death of the body. But Mr. B. tells us men can kill the
body, but cannot kill tbe-life. As though there were alife left
to kill after the body is dead, though no soul or life separate
from the body. Well, if the human mind is capable of con
ceiving of such an absurdity, suppose it to be so — suppose
there be a life left which none but God can kill, after the body
is dead, and yet man has no conscious soul in danger of being
destroyed — how is God to be feared by reason of his ability to
kill this life. The body is killed, and there is no soul to kill,-«-
nothing that is capable of suffering or experiencing the pangs
of death. Why fear God on account of his ability to extin
guish an unconscious entity, which by the way he never does
extinguish. In his interpretation of this passage he makes a
great display of criticism or rather of quotations from the Greek
Testament and lexicon, and spins out his remarks to the length
of twelve pages ; proves to us indisputably, that to kill, mean's
to slay, to put to death, and favors us with glosses of other
words equally enlightening, as if he intended to cover up the
difficulty by the lumber of words. But any man may read
over his exposition a score of times, and then find it impossible
to give from it a satisfactory reason, why God is presented as
an object of fear, because of his ability to destroy the soul, af-

24 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL I
ter the death of the hody. After you have taken away my im
mortal soul and killed my body, you may inflict what you
choose upon what is left.
Again, Acts 2: 22. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in
hell, (Hades, the place of departed spirits) neither suffer thine
holy one to see corruption. That Hades was, in the current
opinion of the Jews at the time of Christ, supposed to be a hab
itation of departed spirits, is admitted by Mr. B. What idea
would this quotation from the Psalms as made by Peter, be
likely to convey to the Je ivs. Would it not plainly teach them
that the soul of Christ went into a conscious existence in the
world of spirits ? Another evidence that the soul of Christ was
in the world of spirits, is found in what he said to the penitent
thief. To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. This diffi
culty Mr. B. escapes as usual, by the help of Hebrew roots ; —
tells us that the word comes from a root, which means to sep
arate, and therefore the word means an enclosure, and there
fore the grave ; and that the Lord said to the thief, To-day
shalt thou be with me in the grave. But here he has involved
himself in many difficulties to escape one. In the first place, the
word is never used by any writers, sacred or profane, in the
sense of the grave. In the next place, he makes Christ's reply
to the prayer of the thief to be, To-day shalt thou be with me
in the grave, which was a cold consolation to a dying man.
And then, it happens the body of the thief found no grave. If
paradise means the grave, it is strange that the seventy who
must have understood the meaning of the word quite as well
as Mr. B., have used it for the word to translate the garden of
Eden. 'And if Paradise means the grave, when Paul was
caught up into paradise, he was caught up into the grave, and
that, a state of complete unconsciousness, and there he heard
unspeakable words. I conclude, after such specimens of Mr.
B.'s philology, my readers will find no hindrance from it to be
lieving that the penitent thief went that day into a state of hap
piness with Christ. And that Christ's soul, living and con
scious, was in the world of spirits while his body was in the
grave.

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 25
Again, Rev. "6: 9, 10, 11. I saw under the altar, the souls of
them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony
which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying ;
How long O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not avenge our
blood, on them that dwell on the earth. And white robes were
given unto every one of them, &c. Now suppose it be said
that John did not intend to represent the vision of these souls,
as of realities, still if a separate soul were what never had ex
istence, it could not be the basis even of a figurative represen
tation. The pale horse seen as the symbol of great destruction
overspreading the world, might be no proof that a real horse
was there, yet the use of such a symbol presupposed the exis
tence of such a creature as a horse. So if the vision of these
souls was only a symbol of the result of persecutions and mar
tyrdoms, about to take place, yet the use of the. symbol pre
supposed the existence of separate souls, as the basis of the
figure. But you shall hear Mr. B.'s explanation. He says the
souls of those martyrs, are only the blood calling for vengeance.
We have it then, that the blood cries, how long dost thou not
avenge our blood — that is, the blood's blood. And then white
robes are given unto every one of them,— that is, to all the
blood. That this is a vision of transactions before the end of
time, appears from the fact, that these martyrs are commanded
to wait till more should be slain. That they were persons is
evident from their having been slain. They were glorified
persons, for white robes were given them ; that they were sep
arate spirits, is asserted. Should it be said, the whole repre
sentation is symbolical — then the question is, Are not real ex
istences used as the symbol, as much as in the preceding case
of the pale horse ? And what does the symbol teach, if not that
the souls of martyrs, even before their fellow servants are slain,
are elevated to glory and clothed with white robes ?
Again Rev. 7: 9. After this I beheld, and lo a great mul
titude, which no man can number, of all nations, and kin
dreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and
before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their
hands. John asks who these persons are, and the angel informs

26 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
him that they are those who have come out of great tribulation,
and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood
of the Lamb. It cannot be denied that these washed in the
blood of the Lamb, were men, were conscious and happy be
ings. And it were easy to show, from the context, that this
-was a vision to set forth things that take place before the end
of the world. Upon this Mr. B. has not remarked, and I will
not dwell upon it.
Eccl. 3: 19 — 21. For that which befalleth the sons of men
befalleth the beasts, even one thing befalleth them, as one di
eth, so dieth the other. Yea, they have all one breath, so that
man hath no pre-eminence above the beast; for all is vanity.
All go unto one place, all are of the dust, and all turn to dust
again. Who knoweth the spirit of a man that goeth upward,
or the spirit of a beast that goeth downward ? This passage
Mr. B. labors to bring in support of his theory of the annihila
tion of the soul. He says, "words could hardly be selected
which would declare more explicitly that there is no difference
between man and beast." Now if he means by this, that there
is innorespect any difference between the destinies of men and
beasts, I would ask him if the beasts experience also a univer
sal salvation. But if this is spoken only of the mortal part of
man, if in one respect man resembles the beast, and in another
he possesses a capability of eternal glory, and if this in the
passage above is affirmed only to set forth the vanity of man
as mortal, what becomes of the inference which he has drawn?
That the writer here distinguishes between the animal and the
immortal part of man, is" seen in that he assumes that the spirit
of a man goeth upward, while, the spirit of the beast goeth
downward. The matter then may be reduced to this dilemma.
The writer was either speaking of the end of a man's mortal
state only, not designing to intimate that he had no immortal
part, or he was speaking of the whole nature and destiny of
man, and asserting that in no respect had man in his destiny a
pre-eminence over the beasts. And Mr. B. may choose which
he will have it.
Again, the doctrine of the soul's separate existence is taugljt

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 27
in Eccl. 12. 7. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it
was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it. Here the
very point in question is directly asserted. After the mortal
part returns to its original dust, there is a spirit to return to
God : — to return to him to be judged by him and appointed to
happiness or woe, according to the deeds done in the body.
Mr. B. answers by saying, what is here asserted is asserted of
all men, and if it is asserted that any go to God, to be happy at
death, it is asserted of all. True, but that phraze, "to be
happy " is one of his own adding. They go to God for him to
determine the sequel ; we are left with the simple fact that
they go to God. But Mr. B. says that the soul goes to the
condition in which it was before it was created. And as that
condition was nothingness, so must this be. And this, he tells
us, this nothing gone to God, is what is meant by our life being
"hid with Christ in God," spoken of by the apostle. The apos
tle would hardly thank him for putting such a meaning upon
his words. But no interpretation can make the passage more
plain or forcible than it is. Then shall the dust return to the
earth as it was, and the spirit shall return to God who gave it.
I need not detain the reader with a detail of that numerous
class of passages which speak of giving up the ghost, of the
spirit's leaving the body, or returning to it again. They all im
ply the existence of a spirit separate from the body. But as
we have sufficient proofs more direct, to occupy all the space
we have for this discussion, I shall not insist on them.
Again, the distinction is made between flesh and spirit, and
the spirit is represented as that which needs to be saved in
this, — 1 Cor. 5: 5. To deliver such a one to satan for the de
struction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus. Again, Acts. 23: 8. Forthe Sadducees say
there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit, but the Phar
isees confess both. Here we are told that the Pharisees be
lieve in the existence of spirits, and in the verse above, Paul
says, I am a Pharisee. That is, we are first told that Paul was
a Pharisee, and then told what a Pharisee believes, which is
equivalent to telling us that Paul believed what it is said the

28 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
Pharisees do. Besides, here is proof that the word pneuma is
used for spirit in the sense of departed spirit ; for here it can
mean nothing else. But Mr. B. as"ks, Why does Paul single
out the article of the resurrection, if he agreed with the Phar
isees in other parts of their creed. I answer : for the .plain
reason that the doctrine of the resurrection was the main doc- '
trine of the system for the preaching of which he was then cal
led to account.
Hebrews 12: 23. We have come unto — the spirits of just
men made perfect. Mr. B. says this passage means, " We are
come to the persons of the just perfected." Well, but how
come to the persons ? " They were come to the better things
without which those persons were not perfected." But this is
a strange way of coming to persons. Paul never wrote such
nonsense as this. But without any controversy about what is
meant by coming unto the spirits, &c, none will question that
heaven is here named as the home of the angels and of the
church of the first born, and of the spirits (or persons if you
choose it) of just men made perfect. There is then the same
reason for believing that the spirits of just men are now in
heaven, as there is for believing that the angels, or God the
judge of all, is there.
Matt. 17: 1 — 3. And after six days, Jesus taketh with him
Peter, and James and John his brother, and bringeth them up
into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them ;
and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as
the light, and behold, there appeared unto them Moses and
Elias. Is it a question whether these persons were here in
body or spirit? Moses died and was buried in the land of Mo-
ab, whatever may be pretended concerning Elijah. And his
body could not be there. Mr. Balfour's reply here, is three
fold, — First, that if Moses and Elijah came from heaven, " it
is certain their conversation did not turn on any thing they
had seen, heard or enjoyed there." But how does he know
that ? Has he a report of all they said ? And suppose it did not,
does that prove that they did not come from heaven ? Second
ly, he says that if any went to heaven before Christ, why is he

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 29
called our forerunner? I answer, he might be our forerunner
and not that of Elijah. And he is that of Elijah in that he
opened the way into the holy of holies for all sinners by his
blood, and so in the order of nature, though not in the order of
time, went before. In the third place, he says it is expressly
called a vision, and ought not to be interpreted literally. If
he means by this that the. persons seen were not the real per
sons of Moses and Elijah, and the voice heard was not a real
voice, he assumes what the word will not justify. The word
here translated vision, means the thing seen, or the sight.
The same word is used when it is said, When Moses saw it
he wondered at the sight, — but that was the sight of a real ob
ject. Besides, Peter represents these things as real, and no
mere phantasm. 2 Peter 1: 16 — 18. For we have not followed
cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the
power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye wit
nesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father,
honor and glory when there came such a voice to him from
the excellent glory, This is my beloved- Son in whom I am well
pleased; and this voice which came from heaven toe heard
when we were with him in the holy mount. Was it not then
in Peter's estimation a real gpene, was not the eloud a real
cloud, the voice a real voice, and the persons real persons, the
real Moses and the real Elijah ? And does not this prove that
the spirit of Moses had existence after his body was dead ?
Again, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, -Luke
16: 19. it is asserted that the rich man died, and in hell he
lifted up his eyes, being in torment. And Lazarus died and
was carried by angels into Abraham's bosom. The conclusion
is unavoidable that their souls were in another world. Do you
say the whole representation is a parable ? What if it be, has
it therefore not a meaning plain and intelligible ? And what
truth.does.it inculcate if not that souls go into a state of hap
piness or misery after death ? As this parable will come under
more particular consideration hereafter, I shall not now notice
any of Mr. B.'s remarks upon it.
Acts 1: 25. That he may take part of this ministry and apos-
3

30 INMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
tleship from which Judas by transgression fell. To evade the
force of this passage, Mr. Balfour chooses to give it a forced
translation^ as follows, — " Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts
of all, show whether, of these two thou hast chosen to take part
of this ministry and apostleship from which Judas is by trans
gression fallen, that he [that is the apostle elect] may enter
into his [that is Judas'] place." But this translation is achieved
by leaving out a word in the Greek, the wbrd translated " own,"
which shows that "he,'' and "his " both have the same ante
cedent, that is Judas. If we may leave out words in the trans
lation, and violate the rules of grammar, we can expunge any
truth from the Bible. Mr. B. asks with an air of triumph,
" Did Luke or any one else know it to be a fact that Judas
went to hell ?" I answer, Luke by inspiration records in this
case the prayers of the apostles, who by inspiration of the Holy
Ghost, said that Judas fell, that he might go to his own place.
Can the authenticity of the matter be doubted? Mr. B.'s quibble
about hell's being regarded by some as a state and not a place,
may be answered by saying, that some also regard it as both a
state and a place.
Phil. 1: 21. For me to live is Christ, and to die ia gain ; but
if I live in the flesh this is the |piit of my labour, yet what I
should choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two,
having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far bet
ter. Here the fact that the saints enter upon a state of enjoy
ment, immediately after death, is repeatedly implied. It is im
plied, in that to die is gain — in that he had a desire to depart —
in that to depart was to be with Christ, and a being with him far
better than any state of being or action here. But Mr. B. says,
to be with another, does not imply being in a state of conscious
existence with him. But pray how can a man be with another,
when he has no being at all ; when he has no more existence
than he had before he was created ? The difficulty found in
this being with Christ, being far better than life in this world,
is met by Mr. B. by asserting that it was far better for Paul to
go into a state of non-existence, than to live in the service of
Christ. But are we called upon to digest such a preposterous

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 31
idea as this ? Are the religious enjoyments of a Paul no better
than blank nothingness ? And yet you tell us that all the de
scriptions of the happiness and happy consequences of a relig
ious life in the Bible, are to be understood of a happiness en
joyed on this side of the grave ! And you tell us that this hap- ,
piness of the believer on this side the grave is enough to au
thorise one to forego all worldly advantages, to obtain it And
now you tell us that non-existence is far better than even the
believer's enjoyment. The conclusion from the premises is,
that non-existence is preferable to all religious, and of course
to all worldly enjoyments. If this be so, Job had real occasion
to execrate the day wherein he was born, and toiament that he
was not forever left to enjoy that blessed non-existence. Away
with such nonsense ! When Paul says, for me to live is Christ,
he declares the present life to be a source of high enjoyment.
The expression is condensed, and one of exceeding power.
"It is everything to me that Christ is;" and who will believe
that he meant to say that annihilation was better to him than
such a combination of sources of enjoyment found in Christ and
h is service ?
2 Cor. 5: 6. Therefore, we are always confident, knowing
that whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the
Lord. We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be ab
sent from the body and present with the Lord. One would
think this passage .deserved a place in an examination of all
the texts which relate to the separate existence of the soul.
But Mr. B. has chosen to leave it out of that examination, and
has introduced in another treatise, that upon the resurrection,
and there incidentally alludes to its bearings on this subject.
What his purpose in so doing was, i^ does not become me to
say. The effect is, whether purposed or not, to prevent one of
the most direct proofs from having its influence on the mind,
in connexion with the rest. Here the possibility of being ab
sent from the body, and yet in a state ofTiappiness is so fully
implied, that in spite of any perversions and explanations, it
would have influence on the most prejudiced mind, and if the
separation of this passage from the rest was intended for that

32

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :

purpose, it was the result of some skill in the tactics of sophis
try. If a man can be absent from the body and be present
with the Lord, and that presence with the Lord be a desirable
state, what more is wanted to prove the conscious existence of
separate spirits ? But Mr. Balfour's labour at evasion here con
sists in saying that "In Scripture style the writers often speak-
of things as present, yea as past, the more strongly to express
their certainty." But how he would fit this principle to the in
terpretation of this text he has not told us. So we will attempt
the labo for him. So we read it. We are always confident,
knowing that while we are sure of being in the body, we are
not certain of being with the Lord. We are confident I say,
and willing rather to be uncertain as respects being in the
body, and certain of being with the Lord. Thus it will some
times happen tha| Scripture language brings out the truth with
such clearness, that the man who is determined by hook or by
crook to cover it, is sure of getting into a condition so pitiable.
Again, you will notice that the denial of the existence of the
separate spirits of men, was one of the features of the Saddu-
cean system. Our Saviour encountered the Sadducees on this
very point. And his argument to prove that the spirits of dead
saints were now living with God, was that God said to Moses,
I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Ja
cob, and this was said hundreds of years after these patriarchs
were dead. And God was not the God of the dead but of the
living. Therefore, these patriarchs though dead in body, were
living in spirit at that time. We ask no one to concede that
this argument is conclusive ; for being used by the Saviour, it
has his authority added to its intrinsic force. But Mr. B. says
the Sadducees' question had no reference to the soul in a dis
embodied state, because they did not believe the soul existed
in such a state. But Mr. B; is the first of men, women or child
ren, who understood the Sadducees to have been gravely and
honestly asking for the sake of information, "whose wife shall
she be of the seven." Does the man need to be informed that
the question was suggested as a difficulty in the way of believ
ing that souls existed in the future world? But waiving this

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 33
point : as well might Mr. B. say, that their question had no ref
erence to the resurrection, because the Sadducees did not be
lieve in a resurrection. But suppose we admit the question
had no reference to the disembodied state, every one can see
that Christ's argument proves the disembodied state, whether
he intended it or not, even with, more force than it does the
resurrection. If it proved anything it proved that Abraham was
living at the time referred to, and it proves the resurrection on
ly as an inference from that conclusion. I wonder not that Mr.
B. has omitted this passage from its place in the discussion,
and noticed' it only in another treatise.
Again, the translation of Enoch is proof in point. Paul says,
by faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death,
and was not found, because God had translated him. Now to
translate does not mean to annihilate, but to transfer to anoth
er state of being. He went to dwell with God, for God took
him- Now, he went into the spiritual world with a body, or
without one. But to go into the spiritual world with a body,
is an absurdity in terms. His translation must have amounted
to laying aside the body^though without the pangs of death,
Or should we suppose that-the change consisted in an assump
tion of the- glorified body, such as the saints will receive after
the resurrection, his condition in heaven must have been'
lonely on theTJniversalisthypothesis — on the ground that there
are no angels and no spirits of just men made perfect for him
to consort with there.
One more passage, Rev. 22: 8, 9. And I John saw these
things and heard them ; and when I had heard and seen, I fell
down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me
these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not. For
I am thy fellow servant and of thy brethren the prophets, and
of them that keep the savings of this book: worship God. The
angel or messenger who was the instrument of communicating
the Revelations to John, was then one of the prophets, not
one of course then living upon the earth ; but it was one whose
spirit had departed: That John thought it to be a real person,
is evident from his attempt to worship him ;. and if John could
3*

34 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
not knmo whether it was real, how can we ? But if here was
one of God's prophets acting after death as God's messenger to
communicate revelations through John to the world, it can no
longer be pretended that all the dead are in a state of uncon
sciousness and annihilation. But if this was one of the spirits
of just men made perfect, it appears that the saints even before
the resurrection, are invested with a glory of which we have
little conception. Here was one of John's fellow servants, in
vested with such a majesty and glory, that John could notJsnow
him to be such, but mistook him for God himself. Truly, we
know not what we shall be !
I have now dwelt at sufficient length upon the Scripture
proof of the soul's conscious existence in the intermediate
state. And I flatter myself that I have succeeded as far as I
have gone to disabuse it of Mr. B.'s perversions. And I may
safely challenge any one to tell what point of doctrine is capa
ble of more clear, and abundant proof from Scripture than this.
But suppose the soul is annihilated at death and restored again
at the resurrection, it does not lead the way to the Universal
is! conclusion. If the frame- work of the human mind be so
dissolved that when it is rebuilt at the resurrection, it is not es
sentially the same mind, bearing the traces of the cultivation
and of the injuries it received in this world, the theory of a
temporary annihilation does not evade the necessity of the sin
ner's suffering in the world to come. For if the mind after the
resurrection be in its essential properties, in its moral charac
ter and-in its affections towards the government of God, what
it was when it left the world, then he must needs be the same
o-uilty, wretched being that he was before — with the same de
filed conscience, the same memory burdened with the history
of a life of sin, the same sense of guilt, the same lusts and pas
sions, the same everything that is essential to make an intelli
gent and moral being wretched. He will have the elements of
an eternal hell in his own. bosom. He will be just what he
would if he should pass into the eternal world without passing
through the pangs of death. Select then from the sinks of
wickedness, one of the maturest specimens of moral corrup-

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 35
tion, and suppose that man to be carried, without conversion,
without a cleansing of his conscience in the blood of Christ, into
the eternal world. Place him in the full light of that world, in
a light which makes him see his own character in all its defor
mity, in the revealed presence of a holy God, — let his con
sciousness make report of all the workings 06 his base and
wretched passions ; let the fire of his every lust send out a
flame ; let his sighing for incongruous and unattainable gratifi
cations, go on ; let memory hold up the blazing record of all past
misdeeds ; let remorse, quickened by the new light which floods
the soul, commence its play, and he will want no fire nor brim
stone to make a hell !
But take the other horn of the dilemma. Suppose the change
which takes place at the resurrection be such as to divest the .
mind of all the consequences of sin, imparting, as Mr. Whit-
temore expresses it, " a new constitution," which of its own
nature .originates the happiness of heaven, independent of
character and conduct exhibited in this world. In that case,
we shall not have the same consciousness, or the same mem
ory, or the same of anything which forms the basis of moral
responsibility. If we are moral beings, then in the world to
come we shall have totally another moral nature. As it re
spects our connexion with our former selves, we shall be total
ly other beings. The souls that will enjoy that universal sol
vation which Mr. B. is expecting, will be other souls and'not
ours. That universal salvation would be no salvation for us,
and would interest us no more than it would the inhabitants of
the moon. All the consolation such a hope of salvation would
bring, would be in the expectation that after we ourselves had
been annihilated some thousands of years, God will create in
the stead of us, some happy beings who, by the constitution
of their natures, will be fitted for endless life, while in their
happiness we shall have no interest.
It is either one thing or the other. The soul of the sinner
will wake in the future world with the same consciousness and
affections which it had before, or it will not. If it does, it must
needs suffer all the effects of unpardoned sin, bear its load of

36 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
conscious guilt, and feel the wretched out-goings of deprav
ed affections. If it does not, the happiness of the soul after
the resurrection is not our happiness, but of some beings then
newly xreated. It must be confessed the theory, that all
that men enjoy in the future world is the result of the new
constitution to.be had after the resurrection, has great merits
as well as great defects. It solves a most difficult problem by
showing how the most wicked and abominable of men, dying in
their sins, become fit to fill a seat of equal honor, and wear a
crown of equal splendor in heaven, with Paul and John and all
those of whom the world was not worthy, — how the most wick
ed and impenitent may be free from all embarrassment and
danger, resulting from sin as soon as they have done with life, —
how one touch of death's dark brush, can cancel all offences
against God and man, and- rectify all moral disorders, — how
one may indulge every desire lawful and forbidden, form any
character, in all the grades of difference between Gabriel and
Satan, may fill out life even to the last moments with whatev
er is most offensive to God, and then feel no alarms, no re
morse, no fearful looking for of judgment, on his dying bed.
Nay, if he has been the veriest profligate, and combined in his
character every feature of baseness and crime, that pollutes
God's image, he may notwithstanding look forward in the pros
pect of death, with a hope full of immortality, and say with
Paul I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course,
I have kept the faith, and there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give
me at that day, and not to me only but to all who either love
or hate his appearing, — and may be sure of being welcomed
on his entrance to heaven, by a well done, good and faithful
servant, thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make
thee ruler over many things, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.
Be not startled ; grant the premises and the conclusion is sound.
Grant that a man is annihilated both body and soul at death,
and that when he is restored to being again, he comes forth
with a new constitution, which bears no impress of past ex
perience, or of injuries inflicted in the present life, that he

OR INTERMEDIATE STATE. 37
comes forth in all important respects wholly a new and anoth
er) and yet wholly the same being, and is made happy by a di
rect stroke of the power that makes him over, and the conclu
sion is good. ~~_^
But then the theory has as great defects to balance its' ad
vantages. And they may all be resolved into this, that it is
absurdity. itself, and a mind needs to be strangely warped to be
able to receive it. The whole scope of the Bible stands in the
face of it That the conduct of this life touches the well being
in the future life, is the very basis of revelation, aud that with
out which the Bible becomes a useless toy. All unperverted
reason and conscience is against it. Speculate as much and
wildly as we may, we have one of God's monitors within, pro
claiming guilt and a judgment to come, and now and then the-
monition will be heard ; the majesty of God's law, the thun
ders of eternal justice will break out. And then the theory,
beautiful and advantageous as it may be, is a prostrate fabric.
In short, its great defect is, it is built on delusion, and serves %
man no longer than the delusion lasts.
If the scripture testimony which has been adduced, has been
properly apprehended, every mind will carry into the eternal
world, just that moral and spiritual character which it had at
the moment of death — death is but the separation of soul and
body. All attributes of mind that are of a moral nature — the
moral affections, the heart as it stands related to God, his law,
his gospel, his kingdom, the character of holiness, or. sin then
possessed, remain unmodified by the passage from this to the
world of spirits. We have no warrant to believe that he who
dies impenitent, a blasphemer, a murderer, a. hater of God — he
who dies with an infinite pressure of guilt upon him, in the
consciousness of having abused mercy, and worse than wast
ed probation's golden hours, will be in a different condition
after death. And if eternity is to let all its light blaze upon '
this character, and this experience with which the%impenitent
die, giving keenness to all the perceptions, a thousand fold vig
or and rapidity to all the movements of the mind, then all the
fears that ever agitated a sinner's dying bed, are to be more

38 IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL :
than authenticated. Then too are all the brightest anticipa
tions of the dying saint, to be immeasurably surpassed, by the
reality. And death's dark passage is to the believer, a lumin
ous and .gilded porch to mansions of eternal blessedness.

CHAPTER II.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE FUTURE JUD&MENT.
Mr. Balfour's second Essay is upon the resurrection of
the dead. This so far as it is occupied with the proofs of the
resurrection of Christ and of mankind, I shall have no occa
sion to controvert. And so far as it consists of a development
of his views of the nature and consequences of the resurrec
tion, it will find a sufficient answer in my remarks upon the
other topics. If I mistake not, the chapter now before us, will
afford a virtual refutation of his notion of a resurrection, which
goes to obliterate all the consequences, and supersede the ne
cessity of a judgment to come. In Mr. B.'s third Essay, he
enters upon an examination of the passages in the New Testa
ment, wherever occur the words judge, judgment, condemned,
condemnation, damned, damnation, &c. for the purpose of
showing that none of them give us reason to expect a judg
ment or punishment after death. In this he has taken upon
him a great work, and we shall see how he has accomplished
it. That some of these words often are applied to judgments in
this life is obvious. But the burden of proof which he has as
sumed to himself is, that in no instance, are they applied to a
judgment in the future world. My task then will not be to
follow him through, and weigh the correctness or incorrectness
of every interpretation which he has given; but to show that
there is at least one instance, where the word is used of judg
ment after death.
The first passage which I shall notice, is Matt. 12: 36. But
I say unto you, that every idle word which men speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Mr. B.'s
reason for believing that the day of judgment here spoken of
is in this world, is in substance this : That Nineveh and the

40 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
queen of the South are predicted to rise in judgment with this
generation, and of course it.must be while they were living up
on the earth. And he asserts that theyrose in judgment only by
their history and conduct given in the Old Testament. But 1
see no necessity of its being in this world, because of its being
with that generation ; that generation and all others will have
a place in the future world. And then Christ says they shaU
rise, not they have risen, as should be said if the record . of
their past conduct were all the testimony they were to bring
for condemnation. Then the proposition in the text happens
to be general. Every idle word that men, (that is any man, not
the men of that generation) shall speak, &c. The accounta
bility here is made as broad as the race of man. And this day
of judgment is a day when every man will give account of
every idle word. But such a day as that did not occur in that
generation. This rendering the account of every idle word,
spoken by every man, cannot take place in one day unless that
day be such a day of general judgment as we are expecting af
ter death. And then the phrase, give account, forbids Mr.
B.'s application of the passage to Jerusalem's destruction, being
never used for the experience of punishment, but always for a
formal rendering of an account of a trust or responsibility,
as you may see by the following quotation of all the other in
stances in which it occurs. Give an account of thy steward
ship.- Whereby we may give account of this day's concourse.
For they watch for your souls as they that must give account.
Who give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and
the dead. Is it not then an unauthorized interpretation to ap
ply this giving of account to anything which took place at the
time of Jerusalem's destruction.
Mark 3: 28, 29. Verily I say unto you all sins shall be for
given unto the sons of men and blasphemies where withsoe ver
they shall blaspheme ; but he that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal
damnation. Mr. B.'s labor upon this passage is chiefly employ
ed in an attempt to show that the word rendered eternal, does
not mean eternal, but that it should be rendered judgment of

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 41
the age, referring to the coming national judgment. But it
was not the Jews only which were exposed to commit the un
pardonable sin here spoken of. Allowing Mr. B.'s view of the
nature of this sin to be correct — that it consists in resisting the
evidence of miracles, the Gentiles to whom the gospel was
published by the apostles, were equally exposed with Jews to
the commission of the sin. And John in his general epistle
warns his readers against this sin unto death, as though the
Gentiles were liable to commit it. But they could not be thus
liable on Mr. B.'s theory. He has a summary way of set
tling the question ; that is by roundly asserting that no one un
derstands this as affecting the eternal condition of the individu
al. This is a favorite argument of his, but requires but a short
answer. In short, if this passage does not express the idea of
punishment in the future world, what language can express it ?
It is said he hath never forgiveness, and, lest this should not ex
press the whole, it is added, is in danger of eternal damnation.
And forever to prevent this being applied to any limited pun
ishment, the never having forgiveness is prefixed. Can lan
guage be better guarded against perversion ? What Mr. B.
gains by his criticism upon the phrase " world to come," I am
unable to discover. For it is well known that " the world to ¦
come," according to Jewish notions was a world without end,
extending from the commencement of the Messiah's reign on
through eternity. And to say that a sin should never find for
giveness neither in this age, nor in the age to come, is equiva
lent to saying that it never shall to all eternity. In this view
of the subject the rendering "age to come'' is preferable to
" world to come," strictly confined to the eternal state. Be
cause, the implied possibility of the forgiveness of other sins in
the age to come, is something very different from the possibil
ity of forgiveness in the future state, in that the age to come
includes the period of probation here as well as of a retribu
tion there.
John 5: 28. Marvel not at this for the hour is coming in
which all that are in their graves shall hear his voice and shall
come forth, they that have done good unto the resurrection of
4

42 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
life, and they that have done evil unto the resurrection of dam
nation. The points which Mr. B. here mainly labors to make
out, I admit — viz. that the phrase, "the hour is coming," is some
times used of other times than the resurrection — that the word
resurrection is sometimes applied to other things than a literal
resurrection of the body — that men are sometimes figuratively
said to be in their graves and to be brought out of their graves
as expressive of moral conditions and changes. But it is one
thing to show that words are sometimes used in such a figura
tive sense and another to show that in this time they are so us
ed. Having shown that these words sometimes mean so and
so, and having assumed without a shadow of proof they have
that meaning here, he then assumes further that to come forth
to a resurrection of life, means to come into the happiness en
joyed by the believer in this world, and to come forth' unto the
resurrection of damnation means the experience of the tempo
ral judgment, which came upon the unbelieving Jews at the
close of their dispensation. Now suppose we admit these,
assumptions, then the passage will read — The hour is coming
when all the spiritually dead shall hear his voice, and come to
spiritual life. They of the spiritually dead which have done
good while spiritually dead, shall come forth to spiritual life.
And they of the spiritually dead who have done evil, shall be
raised from-their spiritual death, and be made spiritually alive,
and find that resurrection one of damnation. There is Mr. B.'s
interpretation fairly put together, and its comely proportions
challenge inspection. And then it seems that all who are in
their graves, that is spiritually dead, in -all parts of the world
and in all ages, are to come forth — are to experience this mor
al resurrection, and be made to believe, and then those of them
who did not do good before they believed, were to have their
belief one of damnation, and one in the destruction of Jerusa
lem. Now where is the sober man who can digest all this
farrago, and call it fair interpretation of the word of God !
The idea that a moral resurrection is here intended, is also
excluded by the context. A moral resurrection is spoken of
in a verse above, and distinguished from this resurrection. Af-

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 43
ter speaking of the moral resurrection, and speaking of the
power of the Son to effect it, it is added, marvel not at this,
namely, that the Son will raise men to a spiritual life, for even
the men that are in their graves, are to hear his voice and come
forth. But if moral resurrection be meant in both cases, then
we have the speaker saying, There is to be a moral resurrec
tion, but marvel not at this, for there is to be a moral resurrec
tion. Mr. B.'s suggestion that " in all the passages universal
ly allowed to treat of the resurrection, not a word is said about
coming forth to a resurrection of. damnation," amounts to this,
and no more, — that when a passage happens to say a word
about such a coming forth, Mr. B. is sure not to allow, that it
treats of the resurrection, and then it ceases to be universally
allowed. John 12: 48. He that rejecteth me and receiveth not my
words hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spo
ken, the same shall judge him at the last day. That the last
day here applies to the end of the world Mr. B. admits, but
evades the truth by saying, that the word rendered . "judge"
means to convince or to persuade ; making Christ say — he
came not to convince or persuade, when every one knows that
a great part of his life was employed in convincing and per
suading. Besides the contradiction to fact, there is- another
difficulty : the word never is used in the sense which he gives
it. Out of the more than seventy times in which it is used in
the New Testament, he cannot produce one where it has that
sense. He doubtless would have done it if he could. The
truth then remains unimpaired, that every one who rejects
Christ hath one that judgeth him at the last day. ~e.
Rom. 14: 10. For we must all appear before the judgement
seat of Christ. 1 Cor. 5: 10. For we must all appear before
the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive of the
things done in the body, according to that he hath done, wheth
er it be good or bad. That the reader may see with how much
reason Mr. B. asserts, that the word judgment seat, and the
scripture usage of it, is not in favor of a judgment seat in an
other state of existence, I will quote all the instances where it

44 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
occurs. " When he was set down upon the judgment seat,
his wife sent unto him " &c. " When Pilate therefore heard
that saying, he brought Jesus forth and sat down in the judg
ment seat." ." Made insurrection with one accord against
Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat." " And drave
them from the judgment-seat." " The next day sitting on the
judgment seat, commanded Paul to be brought." "Then said
Paul, I stand at Cesar's judgment seat." "Therefore when
they were come — I sat on the judgment seat" — "Herod, ar
rayed in his -royal apparel, sat upon his throne [judgment
seat] and made an oration unto them." In one case the word
is used for foot's breadth, but this of course is nothing to the
question. In every other instance the word is used for the
place where the formal sittings of courts are held. And if
they do not refer to judgment in the future world, it is be
cause they are instances where human judges, and not Jesus
Christ are the occupants. If the word when having any re
ference to judgment, always denotes the place for the holding
of a formal court, when the judgment seat of Christ is named,
it denotes the place where Christ in person will hold a formal
court Such as no one pretends has been, or will be held on
this side of the grave. And the writer in the context is speak
ing of death and its consequences, of being absent from the
body. And in the text, he uses the clause " of things done in
the body." Showing the time of the judgment to be after all
those things are done ; after the departure from the body.
Then, this is represented as a judgment at which a complete
retribution is measured out, for all the deeds done in the body,
whether good or bad. But the temporal condition of christ
ians at that age, was the most wretched of any class, and if the
judgment was temporal, it went against the christians — and in
favor of their persecutors.
2 Thes. 1: 6. Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to
recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, and to you
who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire
taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 45
the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ ; who shall be punished
with an everiasting destruction, from the presence of the
Lord and the glory of his power, when he shall come to be
glorified of his saints, and to be admired of all them that be
lieve. Mr. Balfour objects to referring the time when christ
ians are to receive their rest, to the day of judgment, because
those christians have already found their rest at the time of
their death. But this surely should be no objection in his
mind, who by annihilation of the soul, annihilates all time be
tween death and the resurrection. And to us, it is no objec
tion, since we regard the complete consummation of the believ
er's rest, to be reserved to that day ; though their troubles
cease at death. And how would Mr. B. interpret a remark of
Christ parallel- with this? Blessed are ye when men shall re
vile .you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against
you falsely for my name's sake ; Rejoice and be exceeding
glad, for great is your reward in heaven. Is not heaven here
held forth as the place where saints receive their rest from per^
secutions, and their rewards for all endurance in the service of
Christ ? Although heaven according to Mr. Balfour does not
begin till after the resurrection! His next objection is, that the
Thesalonians were to obtain rest at the same time that God was
to recompense tribulation to their troublers. Well, is not this
in every sense true if we understand the passage as relating
to the final judgment ? Is not that the time both of the con
summation of the believer's rest, and of the consummation of
the recompense on the wicked. His third reason is, that Jeru
salem's destruction was the scene in which Christ is said to
come to be glorified of his saints. But was that the time of
"all others when he was to be glorified by his saints ? If he was
glorified, then will he not be much more glorified, and much
more admired by his saints, when he brings them all to heav
en ? His fourth reason exceeds all the rest. Here you have
it in his own words. "This very application of the word ever
lasting is a strong confirming circumstance . in proof of the
views we have advanced." That is, its being called everlast
ing destruction, is a circumstance strong to show that everlast-
4*

46 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
ing destruction is not meant ! Having thus noticed Mr. B.'s
reasons, I have one or two difficulties. to state affecting his in
terpretations. The Jews are not mentioned in the whole epis
tle. Then, there is no evidence that at the time of the writ
ing of this epistle, the Thessalonians experienced their perse
cutions mainly from the Jews. It is far from being probable
that a little handful of Jews, in that province so distant from
Palestine, afforded the church so much annoyance as to re
ceive such a notice in this epistle, as their persecutors. And
then the assumption that the Christians in all parts of the
world were to receive such a glorious rest, when Jerusalem
should be destroyed — that that event was followed by a grand
and eternal jubilee to the church in every province, is glaring
ly contrary to fact. We look in vain to the history of that age,
for any such luminous days to the church, as seem to figure in
the fancy of Mr. B. It is certain that otily sixteen years be
fore the destruction of Jerusalem, Nero commenced his infer
nal persecutions, which spread as far as the Roman power,
and lasted as long as his life, which ended only two years be--
fore that event. And only eleven years after that event', Dom-
itian, whose hostility was second only to Nero's, assumed the
imperial power. And surely, nothing took place in the inter
val answering to the descriptions of the text. Another diffi
culty : It was a rest with us — with Paul, who was dead long
before Jerusalem was destroyed. And so in the ordinary
course of nature, a considerable portion of the Thessalonians
must have been dead also. All then that Mr. B. has said to the
contrary notwithstanding, the church may look forward to that
rest which remaineth for the people of God, and the wicked be
assured of an everlasting destruction from the presence of the "
Lord and the glory of his power, ministered by the same hand
that consummates the rest of the righteous.
2 Tim. 4: 6. For I am now ready to be offered, and the
time of my departure is at hand ; I have fought the good fight,
I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord the righteous Judge shall give me at that day, and not to

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. " 47
me only, but to all them that love his appearing. Who that
had never read Mr. B. would dream of this passage, referring
to the scenes of Jerusalem's destruction ? But there are some
matters which need explaining before we are convinced. This
was said by Paul in immediate prospect of death, which would
show that the crown laid up for him was a crown to be receiv
ed after death. If a dying man were heard to speak of a re
compense laid up for him, we should understand him as ex
pecting it after death. Then we want evidence, as in the last
paragraph, that Jerusalem's destruction was a scene ef such
triumph to the church — such a heaven upon earth. The Sa
viour speaks of it as a day of consternation and flight And
the facts answered to the prophecy — It was a day of " fleeing
to the mountains," when even christians escaped with their
lives, leaving as it were their garments behind for haste and
consternation, and found a refuge in a little town by the name
of Pella. This is the day which Mr. B.'s imagination" transforms
into a glorious Jubilee, a universal rest. And then Paul did
not live to be crowned upon that day, nor did he expect to ; for
nearly twenty years before it he pronounced himself as even
now ready to be offered. But Mr. B. nothing daunted by such
a difficulty, will have us believe, that though dead long before,
Paul was crowned at this time. He says, "We have seen it
stated somewhere in the course of our reading that, it was com
mon to crown the dead victor [in the ancient games] with his
crown the same as if he had been alive. It is certain, Adam in
his Roman Antiquities, p. 472. speaking of their funeral rites
says, ' the couch was sometimes decked with leaves and flow
ers, the bedstead of ivory, and if the deceased had received a
,a crown for his bravery, it was now placed on his head.'" Now
it is somewhat strange that the man who quotes Greek and
Hebrew so profusely when there is no occasion for it, • should
send us to " somewhere in the course of his reading" for a fact
so novel, and for one on which so much depends. That a
crown should be used, in funeral rites as one of the trappings
by which a corpse was laid out in state, in remembrance of
some achievements, by which a man's life had been signalized,

48 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
is a matter familiar to every tyro. But it happens that.the text
before us has no allusion to funeral rites — but to the exercises
of the Grecian games ; and Mr. B. perhaps would have given
the world some instruction if he had told us where he read,
that in games which consisted in wrestling and running races,
(for these were not gladiatorial exercises) men were wont to
be killed — and he who was killed in a race could be the victor
— and then such victors crowned after they were killed : and,
after having admitted all this, we want to know in what fact
consisted the crowning of Paul at the time of Jerusalem's des
truction. What fact then transpired fit to be the basis of such
a representation, what remembrance was made of the apostle
of the Gentiles by any of the parties concerned in that trage
dy ? And then, admitting that his memory was some way hon
ored there, could that be a crown laid up for him, the desire of
which goes out with such a gush of emotion as is expressed in
the text ? Was Paul such an ambitious aspirant for posthumous
fame? Heb. 9: 27. And it is appointed unto men once to die, but
after this the judgment. The question before us is, whether
there be a judgment after death. And what says the text ?
Here I can most conveniently express Mr. B.'s views and my
own in the form of a dialogue. Balfour. One would think it a
premature conclusion, that the soul is to be judged after death
unless it first be proved that man has a soul. Answer. Wheth
er it be a man's soul or body that is judged, it is here asserted
that after death is the judgment. jB. But this is the only text
that speaks of a judgment after death, while the vast import
ance of the subject required, (if there be a judgment after
death) that these things should stand forth in large capitals.
Ans. This is not the only text that speaks of a judgment after
death, as we have seen. And if it were, one assertion, of the
Holy Ghost should convince and satisfy us. B. Will you tell
us when this judgment takes place; immediately after death
or at the resurrection ? Ans. It is both immediately after death
and at the resurrection ; in the first case in the man's own con
science, and in the other amid the public formalities of a gen-

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. • 49
eral judgment. But suppose we could not tell ; so much would
be true as God's assertion can make it, That after death is
the judgment. But pray, Mr. B. will you tell us what kind of
judgment this is that comes after death ? B. Yes, you have it
in this — Dust thou art and unto dust thou shalt return. That
is, after the body. is dead it is adjudged to turn to dust. Ans.
Then we are finally lodged in the conclusion that the judgment
means the decomposition of the body. The invention of man
would never have hit on that idea, unless urged by strong ne
cessity. But when we find an instance in any writer, sacred
¦ or profane, where the word has this meaning, it will be time to
consider whether that is the meaning here. Till then, the
plain meaning of the passage may be taken for the true mean
ing. It is appointed unto all men once to die and after this the
judgment. 2 Peter 3: 7. But the heavens and the earth which are now,
by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against
the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. This pas
sage Mr. B. also refers to the day of God's temporal vengeance
on the Jews, because the dissolution of kingdoms is sometimes
described by such figures as that of the dissolving of the heav
ens and earth. And he says, " If it should be contended that
verses 7 — 12. describe the end of this material system, why not
also contend that verse 13. promises a new material heaven
and earth which are to succeed their dissolution. If the one is
understood literally, so must the other. But it is universally
allowed, that the new heavens and the new earth refer to the
kingdom of the Messiah, which was to succeed theJewish dis
pensation and was predicted in the Old Testament." What
does ihe man mean by this ? Does he not know that we con
tend, and does not he himself contend for a new material sys
tem to be occupied by the material bodies, which the saints
will have after the resurrection. If man has no soul separate
from material bodies, in this or the coming world, surely those
bodies must have a material dwelling place. But when I hear
him assert, that it is universally allowed that the phrase, new
heavens and new earth, here refers to the kingdom of the Mes-

50 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
siah in this world, I am still more stumbled. And I know not
whether it be most charitable to attribute the misrepresenta
tion to ignorance or design. Such writers as he ought to con
sult before he pronounces upon what we all allow — such as
Scott, Dwight, Chalmers, Rosenmiiller and Storr, are directly
against him, (and nowhere in the course of my reading have I
found one in his favor) as to the fact of there being a new
material system after the resurrection. And yet this ground
less assertion contains the main force to be found in his eva
sion of this text. Where in all the chapter is the least intima
tion of the destruction of Jerusalem ? The creation and the
deluge are directly brought in as historical facts, and a com
parison is instituted between those events and the passing
away of the heavens and earth, and the arising of a new mate
rial system in their place, which is yet to come, and you may
as well apply what is said of the creation and deluge to politi
cal changes, as what is said of the coming destruction of the
world. The ideas are majestic, but they wear not the costume
of fiction or poetry — the majesty of the language is but the na
ked majesty of the events described.
Jude 14. Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of
these, saying, behold the Lord cometh with ten thousand of
his saints, to execnte judgment upon all, and convince all that
are ungodly among them, of all their ungodly deeds which they
have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which
ungodly sinners have spoken against him. Here Mr. B. finds
another prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem again. But
he fails of showing that the persons spoken of or spoken to in
this epistle, were Jews, or that that passage has any particu
lar reference to Jews. He does not inform us how Enoch be
fore the flood should have a prophetic eye on Jerusalem's des
truction, or what particular appropriateness the words of this
- prophecy have to describe such an event, or what is repre
sented by ten thousand saints accompanying Christ in that
scene. There were no saints that came from heaven to help
Christ destroy Jerusalem — for on Mr. B.'s hypothesis there
were none in heaven at that time ; and surely the Roman army

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 51
was far from being an-army of saints. Mr. B. refers.us to three
passages in the Old Testament where ho says similar language
is used in application to other events than the judgment. But
in the two first passages quoted, none but Mr. B. would dis
cover the similarity, and in the third, Dan. 7: 10. the final judg
ment is most clearly included in the description. And then
it was not true that all the hard speeches and ungodly deeds of
all that are ungodly were brought to light in Jerusalem'^ des
truction. Rev. 20: 22. And I saw the dead small and great stand
before God, and the books were opened, and another book was
opened which is the book of life, and the dead were judged out
of the things written in the books according to their works,
and the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and
hell delivered up the dead which were in them, and they were
judged every man according to their works. As Mr. B. admits
that this passage refers to the resurrection and gives us no
reason why we must not understand it of the general judg
ment, I shall not for the present abate its force with any com
ments. It will come under consideration again in another part
of this discussion. You observe that the very point in question ,
is here affirmed ; the dead small and great after the resurrec
tion standing before God and receiving judgment. I wish not
to be captious, but here again charity is perplexed to know
whether design or inadvertance is the most favorable construc
tion of another instance of Mr. B.'s improper dealing with his
readers. In the commencement of .! the essay now under ex
amination, he says, "In this essay we shall refer to all the pla
ces where these words are used in the New Testament, ac
cording to their renderings in the common version. Under
each word we shall particularly consider the passages which
are supposed to teach a retribution or punishment after death."
He then takes up the word "krino," the one used in this pas
sage and refers us to fifty-nine texts where it is used, and
says that none of these texts teach the doctrine ; and then adds,
" but the following are supposed to teach it." But in whiah
class does he place the text before us ? In neither. The text

52 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
is not quoted or alluded to in the whole essay ; and that, while
in the first sentence of the essay he promises to refer, to all the
passages which contain the word "krino." And to show that
it was not the effect of inadvertance this same passage is com
mented upon in the discussion of other subjects but even there
its bearings on this subject are not alluded to. If this be not
an artifice to cover up the truth it is not easy to say what is.
It may not be out of place here to introduce two passages
from the Old Testament. Eccl. 12: 14, For God will bring
every work into judgment with every secret thing whether it
be good or whether it be evil. Whether this passage would
also be referred to the destruction of Jerusalem if Mr. B. had
undertaken to notice its bearings on the question, I cannot
say. Certainly the readers of the book in Solomon's day had
nothing to lead them to such an interpretation. The writer
brings this in as the winding up of a description of .the scenes
of old age and of death. He does it in this impressive manner
— Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter, fear God
and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.
For God will bring.every work into judgment, &c. Judgment
here means an examination of conduct, a bringing to light of
secret things, and deciding whether they be good or evil.
But in all the experience of this world there is nothing that fits
such language.
Dan. 12: 2, 3. And many of them (or the multitude of them)
that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to ever
lasting life andsome to shame and everlasting contempt. And
they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firma
ment, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars
forever and ever. So far as it affects the question before us, I
am willing to grant what Mr. B. labors to prove of the first
verse of this chapter, viz. that it refers to the destruction of Je
rusalem, though I do not believe it. But this granted, it by no
means follows, as Mr. B. assumes, that the second and third
verses relate to the same events. The verses describe one
event that concludes a series of events prophetically described
by Daniel, extending from his day onward to the close of this

THE FUTURE JUDGMENT. 53
world's history. That events so distant in time should stand
in such near connexion, is nothing unusual. Numerous in
stances might be adduced of the same peculiarity, of prophetic
language. Jeremiah connects the conversion of the first fruits
of the Jews, and the general conversion which is to be expect
ed in future time, and passes over the intermediate rejection
of the greater part. So Malachi prophesies of the coming of
John the Baptist, in the same verse with the destruction of Je
rusalem, as, Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet' before
the coming; of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. Such
being the habit of prophetic writing, we must be determined
by other reasons than the connexion, as to the time and. event
here made the object of prophecy. And the expressions of
this passage must have great violence done them, before they
can be applied to any thing else than the resurrection and
-general judgment. Mr. B. pretends that a moral resurrection,
such as took place on the day of pentecost is here foretold—
that they that sleep in the dust are those who were spiritually
dead. Here we have it, that many at that time would rise
from spiritual death — and some of these would find that they
had risen from spiritual death, to go into shame and everlasting
contempt! Awaking from the sleep in the dust of the earth,
either means coming to spiritual life, or it does not. If it means
that, it can by no means be asserted of those who awake to
shame and everlasting contempt. Mr. B. quotes no authority
to show that awaking from a sleep in the dust, is proper phras
eology to express the being put to sleep in the dust by the Ro
man sword. And yet he tells us that a part awoke to everlasting
life at the day of pentecost and then forty years afterwards,
those who continued to sleep on, all at last awoke to shame and
everlasting contempt, in the national calamities that came up
on them. And then what were the glorious rewards attained
by those who rose to everlasting life, fit to be compared to
shining as the stars and the firmament? Surely it was not
the glory of a flight to the town of Pella, the only reward
which history records as received by christians then. Mr.
Balfour makes the directness and plainness of this passage an
5

54 THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.
objection. He says, " Did Daniel here speak of everlasting-
punishment of the wicked ? If he did, he declared it in plainer
language than any other sacred writer." Surely he is like to
children sitting in the market and saying we have piped unto
you, and ye have not danced, we have mourned unto you and
ye have not lamented. The truth now is taught too plainly
to admit belief.
I have already pursued this examination beyond the patience
of the reader, and' shall therefore omit other passages whose
testimony is equally in point. And were I to labor in the
summing up of the matter contained in this chapter to give
you aYivid and forcible condensation of the proof, I could do
nothing more effectually than to read you the passages com
mented on, and ask you to decide, what is the plain unsophis
ticated common sense interpretation of them. Read them and
forget every comment that you heard of them, and you will ¦
find it difficult to resist the conviction that the word of God
has revealed a judgment to come.

CHAPTER III.

COLLATERAL PROOFS OF A JUDGMENT TO COME.
I cannot persuade mysejf to dismiss this topic, .without pre
senting some facts and considerations which, independent of
direct scripture testimony, appear to my own mind, cqnclu|iye
proofs that there is to be a judgment after death. The theory
of Mr. Balfour and the modern universalists; (excepting as I do
in all this discussion, the restorationists) is, if I understand it,
that all punishment or retribution which God ever inflicts on
men, he inflicts in this world. This idea I think can be shown
to be untenable, aside from that kind of evidence which we
have been examining. -That it can be clearly proved that this
present life is not the scene of God's last and most complete
retribution. I shall not pretend that nothing is here done in a
way of retribution. Scripture records many instances of re
tributions inflicted on nations and individuals. God here and
there lets down a stroke of his justice to check the .flow of hu
man wickedness, and forewarn the world of what is to be ex
pected, at the termination of the sinner's guilty career. But
it is generally true that sentence against an evil work is not
speedily executed.
My first reason for believing thatthis life is not the scene
of complete and only retribution, is, that the ends of punish
ment are not fully nor chiefly answered by all the judgments
that are inflicted on the wicked here. What is the end pf
punishment ? The universalist replies the good of the offend
er only. This is not true. But grant it for the moment. If
all are punished according to their deeds in this world, it is
plain that this punishment fails of securing in all instances the
reformation of the offender. Those passages of scripture

56 COLLATERAL PROOFS
which speak of judging every man according to his works,
are made by the universalist to say that all men have a com
plete retribution according to the deserts of their sin in this
world, and this punishment is designed to reform the offender.
But I ask, is this end answered ? Are all effectually reformed
in this life ? Are the evils which the drunkard endures seen to
be working a gradual reformation upon him as he approximates
towards a drunkard's death ? Does the man in the act of suicide
show that the work of reformation was complete upon him at
the moment when he left the wqrld? The well known fact
that millions of wretched beings are pressing on from this to
the eternal world, increasing in wickedness and hardness of
heart as they go, shows that the purpose of man's reformation
is not universally and completely effected by punishment or
any other means in this world. On this hypothesis God is
every where attempting what he cannot effect, and then re
ceiving into a state of being, where punishment and the rod of
correction never come — receiving to his confidence and love
those whose obstinate rebellion neither persuasions nor chas
tisements could subdue.
But it is not true that all punishment is disciplinary, intend
ed for the ultimate good of the offender. The execution of a
murderer is not specially intended for his own good, but for
the good of the state, to sustain the force of law. And the
laws of God look as much to the public good as do the laws of
a state. But understanding retribution as designed to give
force to law, and cause the lawgiver to be feared and obeyed,
we do not see its ends universally or generally answered in
this world. No retributions, here experienced, avail to create
a general respect for the law of God, to vindicate his power,
holiness and truth, till all men have an effectual impression of
it, and to rectify the disorders of the moral kingdom. We ex
pect that the authority of God will be recognized, that the
force and energy of government will be felt, if any where,
surely on the ground where law is having its highest and most
impressive executions. But what a farce is God's law, and what
a mockery its execution, if having done its utmost, it secures

OF A JUDGMENT TO COME. 57
no more respect and obedience, than it gets from this world !
God either has no law to which he will exact the obedience qf
men, or there is to be a day after the sun has ceased to shine
upon this world, when he will render unto every man accord
ing to his works.
The fact that there are Atheists in the world, is of itself a
proof of a judgment in the future world. For I take it to be
self-evident, that retribution does not answer its proper ends,
unless the person knows whence and why the infliction comes.
According to the Hebrew law-giver, the offender is punished
that all men may hear and fear ; and retribution is in amount
the practical declaration of God, of his purpose to enforce obe
dience, and if effectual, it is received as such by all on whom
the example operates. If the government of any common
wealth should send out the strokes of justice through secret
agents, employed for th& punishment of crime, instead of dis
tributing them through open courts of justice, so that the com
munity should see that one was made to suffer in his estate,
another in his reputation, another in the loss of life, while none
knew why and whence the disaster came — that would answer
no ends of government, and give no force to law. So a punish
ment sent from, the King of kings, if it come not in ways so
marked and manifest, as to compel conviction whence and
why it comes, fails of its end. Is it to be credited then,
that this world is the scene where God makes the highest
manifestations of his justice, and gives the fullest enforce
ments to his law by penalties, while a great part of the world
have no practical impression that there is a God — while few
of those most deserving of punishment have any idea that they
are receiving punishment for their sins ? Is God pouring his
completest retributions through this world, while the world
knows it not ? If so his whole design is frustrated, he is mocked
by the work of his hands — he is mocked, in his very attempt to
make his power and justiee known. And then it is a remark
able fact that the most wicked, those who deserve most deep
ly to feel the rod are usually most insensible of God!s presence
and power in the evils which they endure. Does this imper-
5*

58 COLLATERAL PROOFS
fection attend the government of God, that he cannot give en
ergy and effect to his retributions, that he punishes and the of
fender knows not by whom he is punished or whether he is pun
ished or not ? I think we have reason to expect that when
God puts on the character of a judge in order to render to every
man according to his works, he will make his justice run out in
such lines, that every eye can see it — he will throw upon the
distinction between the righteous and the wicked such a light
that all will be forced to recognize it — he will let forth the hand
that inflicts the stroke so impressively that none can doubt
whence it comes or for what intent. There will be no athe
ists in that, day which God has appointed to judge the world.
Again, the success which the worst of men often find in the
worst of schemes, proves that God has judgments in reserve
for the future world. I will not say to how great an extent it
is true, as Job expresses, that The tabernacles of robbers
prosper, and they that provoke God are secure, into whose
hands God bringeth abundantly. I own that there are instan
ces of retribution signal and exemplary, so often that the rob
ber has reason to fear that wealth gotten by his means, will
afford him little comfort. But it is sufficient for our argument
that there are many glaring facts of a contrary nature, that there
is many a proud oppressor who gathers wealth from the signs and
tears of his fellow -men, and yet who lives to enjoy his wealth as
long as the most upright —that there are those into whose hands '
God bringeth abundantly, who by the worst of means have accu
mulated hundreds of thousands, and yet who live and die free
from disastrous reverses, whose stately mansions seem to look
defiance to the God of justice, and impress on every beholder
the conviction that justice is forever The dethroned, if she have
not reserved for herself a vindication in the world to come.
What say you of those who by acts of piracy and butchery of
their fellowrmen, enrich themselves with the wealth of the
seas, and yet escape detection? What of those, who against
light and conviction make merchandise of men's bodies, and
roll in affluence brought to them in ships that have served as
the prison-house, yea, the slaughter-house of hundreds of hu-

OF A JUDGMENT TO COME. . 59
man beings, snatched from home and the sweet embrace of
freedom, and doomed to the wretched alternative of a life of
bitter slavery, or an untimely death ? What say you of those
names^ that blacken the page of history by their glaring and
innumerable perversions of justice — who, elevated in the prov
idence of God to seats of sacred trust, to be ministers of God
for good, bearing the sword of justice in -God's stead, have en
riched themselves with bribes, and turned aside the needy from
his right, or who, like Jeffries.of execrated memory, have con
verted the sword of justice to that of religious persecution, and
sold themselves and the power delegated to them, as instru
ments of crushing a nation's rights, and the rising hopes of the
church of God? Is there no justice in the future world for
those, who have spent their lives in driving so successfully their
schemes of expelling justice from this world ? What say you
also of the spiritual tyrants who have perverted a power if pos
sible more sacred, to purposes if possible more wicked, and
who have had full success in their enterprises ? To save the
labor of description, take the name of a Laud. Is there no
justice for such a man, whose tyrannies so long prevailed to
ends so disastrous — to the ejecting of God's" ministers by thou
sands, to the silencing of the voice of the gospel through a
kingdom, and suspending the glorious progress of the work of
reformation ? If there be any such thing as wrong and respon
sibility for it, surely the man who has dealt out such wholesale
mischiefs, and caused his oppressions to be felt through every
village and hamlet of an empire, .and even on the other side of
the globe, must have a fearful account against him. But where
on this side of the grave is the execution of adequate justice ?
But even a Laud is innocent compared with the artificers
and wholesale distributors of the manifold mischiefs of popery.
Here is a human being to be judged of God according to his
works, according to the mischiefs which he does in the world,
and. he usurps the place of God over this world, claiming the
obedience of kings, and causing them to kiss his feet," and
through them exercising a tyranny over half the world, dark and
malignant — taking away the key of knowledge, shutting up

60 COLLATERAL PROOFS
the kingdom of heaven',suppressing the gospel which Christ
has published, licensing and fostering sin in all its forms, pal
sying the heart and searing the conscience, and enslaving and
making wretched millions of human minds. In short, the
wearer of the triple crown, personates the man of sin, holds
the fountain head of that influence which spreads intellectual
and moral debasement, a fearful growth of crime, manifold
oppression, violence, confusion, and every evil work, over many
nations, and yet where on this side of the grave, is he punish
ed for all the injuries he inflicts ? What say you also of the
leaders in the persecutions of the church ? What of Nero,
who regaled himself in scenes of cruelty and human suffering,
and who capped the climax of all his other cruelties, by firing
the city of Rome to enjoy the spectacle of its conflagration ?
History records no judgments upon him equal to his crimes.
Yet is God the patron of right, the mighty redeemer of the op
pressed, and has he not appointed a day, when the world who
have felt, and the world who have wondered at that man's cru
elties, shall see an ample vindication of his justice upon him ?
What say you of the respective authors of the ten persecu
tions which came, from heathen Rome, upon the church of
God, and deluged the empire with christian blood ? What of
the authors of those persecutions inflicted on the church by
Papal authority ? What of the cruelties of the inquisition which
is fitly burlesqued with the name of holy'} For these scenes of
slaughter of the saints some individuals stand responsible.
Take, for instance, the butchery of the Waldenses which came
near to a total extinction of that precious, unoffending race.
They were hunted like wild beasts among the rocks and moun
tains of the Alps to which they fled for refuge ; and persons
of every age, sex and condition were massacred, dismembered
and hung up ; females violated, and other atrocities commit
ted which want a name, under authority of one claiming to be
the vicar of Christ on earth. Is there no justice in store for the
authors of such cruelties.
You have read also the story of the massacre, by the orders
of a Roman Catholic king of France, of 100,000 protestants at

OF A JUDGMENT TO COME. 61
once — of the savage king standing at the windows of his pal
ace and setting on the furious populace, with cries of " kill !
kill !" of the streets filled with the shrieks of those about to be
butchered, and the groans of the dying mingled with the tumult
of their murderers — of blood running in such channels through
the streets as to pour torrents into the neighboring river— yes,
and you have read of the infernal rejoicings over this scene,
which took place at Rome, when the tidings reached that place ;
yet where has history recorded any equal retributions upon the
actors in these several tragedies ? Do you say they are yet to
come in the expected overthrow of the church of Rome? But
are those individuals thus to shift all their personal guilt upon
the" church which is incapable of personal responsibility?
Wherein will that overthrow bring appropriate and sufficient
retributions, to the leading fabricators of this carnage, who
have now gone beyond the reach of all earthly justice ? Post
humous infamy, and disasters coming upon their church cen
turies after they are dead, are no personal punishment to them.
Is this the world where God makes the completest displays of
his retributive justice,.and are such giants in wrong suffered to
pass off the stage undistinguished by his judgments from com
mon sifcers ?
Again, there is not time for some sinners to suffer all they
deserve in the usual term of human life, even according to the
most superficial calculation of guilt. To say nothing of the
criminality of the rebellion of the heart, estimated by a law
which takes cognizance of thoughts and purposes, all the suf
ferings that can be crowded into this life, cannot expiate the
guilt of some men's open transgressions. Here is a man who
has been the prime and responsible agent in the butchery of
fifty thousand human beings to gratify his lust of power or re
venge. So much human life has been wantonly poured out,
so much collateral distress created in the train of war, so many
families bereft, so mueh destruction of the means of human ex
istence and happiness, so much moral corruption carried
through the heart and remotest limbs of the nation, stand
charged against that man in God's book of remembrance.

62 COLLATERAL PROOFS
Now at what rate shall this man expiate his offences by the
suffering of punishment ? Surely it can be at a rate no more
moderate than that of an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth,
or a life for a life. God does not render to every man accord
ing to his works, and make it true that with what measure ye
mete it shall be measured to you again, if in his retributions
hg requires less injury to be inflicted on the offender than was
done by him. That law throws but a feeble guard around the
rights of the community, which only compels the depredator
to restore a part of his booty, which allows a man to take hu
man life, and punishes him in, that which is not equivalent to
the loss of life. The publication of such laws would amount
to the offering of a premium for sin. But suppose the offend
er is held responsible to an amount equal to the injury which
he has done. God does not recompense to a man according
to his deeds, without making his individual sufferings, equal to
all the sufferings which he has inflicted, — to the man who has
unjustly taken fifty thousand lives, a suffering equal to the loss
of fifty thousand lives. But how could that amount of suffering
be accumulated upon one man in the term of human existence ?
But we may find a still stronger case, a man whose influence
has powerfully touched the destinies of the world, and gone
down in many a branching stream of pestilence and death to
succeeding centuries. I have my eye on the author" of Ma-
hommedan delusion, who in the Apocalypse takes the name of
the angel of the bottomless pit; and the spread of whose de
lusion and power in the world is compared to the opening" of
the bottomless pit, or the uncapping of a tremendous volcano —
that issues smoke darkening the air — a smoke producing lo
custs having the teeth of lions and breast-plates of iron, and the
sound of their wings as the sound of chariots and horses rush
ing to battle, and their tails like unto scorpions with stings in
their tails, and having a king over them whose name is the
" Destroyer." How appropriate is all this imagery to the facts,
I need not describe. And how great must be the personal
guilt of him, who issued such a river of baleful influence, and
bid its waters roll over a score of nations and down through

OF A JUDGMENT TO COME. Go
ten centuries ! Who is competent to take the arithmetic of
that man's accountability ? Could one life suffice for him to
Buffer all, if God were to render to him according to his deeds ?
And if it could, history gives us no account of. such sufferings
having come upon him. He lived and died next to deified by
millions. Does this look like a judgment rendered to every
man according to his works in the present world? If a man
may do so much mischief, and live and die so much as an am
bitious man would wish to live and die, in spite of what God's
justice can do in its last efforts, is that justice worthy of the
respect of the world ?
Again, that this world is not the scene of God's last and com
plete retributions, appears from the fact that the greatest por
tion of the earth, and its productions, is in the hands of un
godly men. In the words -of Job, The tabernacles of robbers
prosper, and they that provoke God are secure, into whose
hands God bringeth abundantly. But ask now the beasts, and
they shall teach thee, and the fowls of the air, and they shall
tell thee, or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee, and the
fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee, — to whom they be
long ; that it is not only or chiefly for the righteous few that
the earth is productive. But rather into the lap of proud lux
urious despisers of God, the earth and sea empty their most
abundant treasures. God fills the storehouse out of which all
get what supplies they have, and orders by his providence all
the circumstances which give to individuals any advantages
they have over their neighbors, and yet he makes no discrim
ination in favor of the godly in his distribution of the good
things of this life — sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust,
employs the great agents in nature which minister sustenance
to man, in carrying round his bounty to enemies as well as
friends, and surely he either has no preference for righteous
conduct, which he will manifest by appropriate rewards, or this
is not the season of completing his retributions.
And then God's providential arrangements in this world and
the state of this world by his permission, are such, that ster
ling integrity is often a check to the course of worldly ad-

64 COLLATERAL PROOFS
vancement. Self-denial, a willingness to forego worldly ad
vantages for obedience to God, is essential to christian charac
ter. A man, if he will follow Christ, must take up his cross —
like Moses, must refuse to be called the Son of Pharaoh's
daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people
of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season ; es
teeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treas
ures in Egypt, having respect unto a recompense of reward
which lies beyond the bounds of time. This circumstance
throws the elements of worldly prosperity chiefly into the
hands of those who have less conscience than others. That
promotion which men have the power to give, falls into other
hands, than those of the upright, both because he may not seek
it, and because they have their favorites among quite another
class. A thousand " wrigglers into place " have the advan
tage of him. And then wealth is usually amassed by means
that godliness forbids. Such in short, is the structure of so
ciety and the course of providence, that godliness in some con
ditions requires the loss of all things, and even death itself.
And can such a scene of things be the theatre of God's last
and most perfect retributions ? If it be, what else is it than the
proposing of rewards on a broad scale for the encouragement
of sin. If wickedness has the decided advantage, I will not
say as to real happiness, but as to the means of those gratifi
cations which depraved men most sigh for, and no ill effects
are to be felt from it in a future world ; so far from being pun
ished it is comparatively rewarded, if there be no retributions
beyond this life.
Again, the great agents of human suffering are quite as in-
discriminating as to their objects. Those disasters that come
upon individuals and families under the name of adverse prov
idences, make no distinction between the righteous and wick
ed. The holiest men not unfrequently have the deepest ex
perience of this kind of affliction. The liability to sickness
and death, and the thousand ills that flesh is heir to, extends
to all. And the same is true of general public calamities. If
drought, famine, pestilence, earthquakes, floods or fires are

OF A JUDGMENT TO COME. 65
commissioned to spread, wide disaster,' they ''have- no warrant
except in a few miraculous instances to exempt the righteous
on account of their righteousness. When wars and revolu
tions sweep over nations, the distress is general and indiscrim
inate. And they carry no exact and appropriate retributions
to individuals.
Now, in this stage, of the argument, it is competent for me
to ask, if there be complete retributions in this world, in what
facts do they show themselves ? We have traGed out God's
leading modes of dealing with men, and find them not. We
look abroad on the moral state of the world and find, that the
ends of punishment are far from being answered by all the
judgments that light upon the world-^-that the greater part of
men are ignorant of God, and of his retributions. This sup
posed complete retribution is not to be found in success given
to the enterprises of the righteous and withheld from those of
the wicked — not inany marked and adequate calamities which
have come upon the giants in crime, the authors of persecu
tions and wars — not in any superior elements of worldly hap
piness in possession of the righteous — not in , righteousness
opening away to worldly promotion, wealth and distinction —
not in any partiality of the great distributors of God's bounty
and the great agents of human misery in favor of the righteous.
And if it be not in all these, we ask again, where is it? Surely
it is in nothing that addresses itself to the observation of men.
Is it then anything which passes in the mind and internal ex
perience ? I own that there are enjoyments peculiar to the
righteous, and sufferings of mind peculiar to the guilty. . But
that these are not so distributed as to amount to exact and suf- t
ficient retributions, it were, easy to show. That sinners of
reckless character, and a seared consciencp, having all the means
of external enjoyment, endure thesemental sufferings amount
ing to adequate punishment for all their sins, is a matter that
wants proof. And. as to the happiness of the righteous, their
recompense of reward, Mr. B. tells us that all the enjoyments
of a Paul were not to be desired in preference to annihilation.
That it was far better for him to die than live, death being an
6

66 COLLATERAL" PROOFS, ETC.
extinction of being. So that Jet his enjoyments be what they
may;, the executed malefactor has on such principles a better
reward than he.
Finally, it is not at all according to the common sense of
men, that all in this world are treated according to the princi
ples of retributive justice. If a universalist minister, in preach
ing the funeral sermon of one who after a life of marked af
flictions, had come to some appalling death, should take occa
sion to inculcate the idea that those afflictions in which the
deceased was distinguished from others were the retributions
for guilt in respect to which he was distinguished, and that the
dealings of providence, in all cases afforded a criterion of char
acter, he would find his doctrine no less offensive than that
of the need of repentance towards God and faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ, as a means of escaping the second death. This
is a doctrine which Job with all his patience could not bear in
application to himself, and successfully did he refute it. I ap
peal to the history of your own impressions. Have you been
wont to estimate the character of your neighbors by the deal
ings of providence in relation to them ? Have you regarded
those as sinners above all others, who have suffered above all
others ? When you have seen the apparently virtuous poor,
crushed under the hand of providence, enduring affliction af
ter affliction, wave after wave rolling over them, and deep call
ing unto deep to overwhelm them, have you said in your hearts
that their apparent virtue was a cheat, — that they were the
most guilty of men ? And when you have seen those apparent
ly of another character invested with affluence and splendor,
feeling no changes, and having no bands in their death, have
you said that these are the men whom God approves ? Do you
forget their extortions, oppressions, sensualities, profanity and
blasphemy, and regard their happy life, and quiet death, as the
seal of heaven's approval of their character ? On such ground
many a monster of iniquity would be canonized at once. Uni-<
versal observation then confirms the conclusions from scrip
ture, THAT THERE IS A JUDGMENT TO COME.

CHAPTER 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 ?
The world will be indebted to Mr. Balfour for all the instruc
tion they will get by the discussion of the above question ; for
who but he would ever have thought of making it a question ?
He deserves the credit of having made the discovery, that the
exigencies of his system demanded, that those passages which
speak of eternal life be interpreted as meaning something
whose existence is confined to this world, and of having the
courage to set up the position, and to dash through the desper
ate course of criticism needful to sustain it. And the idea so
felicitously struck out by him has already become classical with
Universalist writers. Mr. Whittemore has strongly insisted
on it in his work on the parables, and he promulgates it through
the Trumpet, the leading organ of New England Universal
ism. The reasons why this position is taken are obvious.
While the words eternal and everlasting are seen to stand conr.
nected with a life enjoyed beyond the grave, and enjoyed as
the fruits of righteous conduct in this life, it is not easy to
make the reader believe that the same words applied to pun
ishment for sin, do never extend the punishmentbeyond the
grave. And in the second place, it is the fundamental and all-
pervading idea of modern Universalism, that the "future state
of immortality and incorruption" "cannot in the nature of
things be effected by the conduct of men in this life." (See
Whittemore p. 262.) As long as it is admitted that the enjoy
ments of heaven are in any sense a recompense for holiness in
this life, it is not easy to be convinced that sin will not also

68 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE.
have its appropriate recompense in the world to come. So
connected are the two ideas, that every proof that righteous
ness in this life is rewarded in heaven, lays the foundation for
an inference that wickedness will be punished in hell.
Mr. Balfour's reasonings upon this subject are found in his
comment upon Matt. 19: 27. These I will notice in numerical
order. First, Old Testament usage shows that " everlasting
life" in this case (and he intends as we see in all others) means
a happiness confined to the age of the christian dispensation
in this world. And what is this usus loquendi of the Old Tes
tament? In one case, and in one only, the phrase is there used.
This one example does not create a strong current of usage.
But strong as it is, it is all against him. The passage is this :
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and ever
lasting contempt. This Mr. B. quotes to show that everlasting
life, according to the usage of the Old Testament, means
something enjoyed on this side the grave, though it is ex
pressly said, those that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake to this everlasting life. But this passage is noticed in
another part of this work, to which the reader is referred for a
more full refutation of Mr. B.'s comment upon it. (See Chap. 2.)
Second, Mr. B. refers to the context of the passage in Matt.
19: 27. for his second proof that everlasting life does not mean
everlasting life, where the enquirer asks what good thing shall
I ik> that I may have eternal life. And to prove that eternal
life in the context does not mean eternal life, he refers us
again to Daniel's use of it. So that his second argument is
identical with the first and may have the same answer. His
third reason is, that it is said to be a life in the world to come.
But this is a strange reason for understanding it of any thing
temporal. It is strange that a man can quote Greek and He
brew so profusely, and not know that the phrase, world to
come, and age to come, means an everlasting age. Suppose we
interpret the phrase by a reference to the Jews' peculiar no
tions of the age to come, or Messiah's reign. There is one
thought which Mr. B. has overlooked. This age to come, ac-

ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE. 69
cording to the current opinion of the Jews, was to commence
by the resurrection of the dead, the conquest of all nations,
and their subjugation to the reign of Christ, and by the judg
ment of the world, and from that opening it was to extend
on without end. (See Wahl's Lexicon.) So if we admit his
premises, the conclusion is against him. This fact reduces
to waste paper sheets of his learned discussion about the age
to come. They all assume that that age was, in the opinion
ofjhe Jews, a limited age. But this is- the very point to be
proved. His fourth reason is, that in the 30th verse it is ad
ded — But many that are first shall be last and the last shall be
first He asks, First about what? About entering into the
kingdom of God. This was said in respect to the case of the
young man, to show that publicans and harlots might go into
the kingdom of God before him, notwithstanding his morality.
And what then ? Does that show, that the kingdom of God did
not include the inheritance of eternal life beyond the grave ?
In the fifth place he says, " The view given of eternal life will
be confirmed by attending to the general usage of this phrase
in the New Testament." So it seems the general usage of
the phrase eternal and everlasting life, goes to prove that in a
given instance it means a temporal good. We come now up
on broad ground. We are now at issue with Mr. B. whether
in all cases the phrase means a temporal good. For he asserts
it of the general usage, quotes the particular passages and
says, " I do not find it [eternal life] spoken of as an object ex
pected after the resurrection of the dead, or once mentioned
as equivalent to the happiness to be enjoyed in the resur
rection state."
Let us then take up the broad question, whether there is
one instance where eternal or everlasting life refers to a hap
piness to be enjoyed in a future world. For proof that there
is none, Mr. B. first suggests, that if it does refer to happiness
in a future state, it is unaccountahle that eternal death is nev
er spoken of as its counterpart to the wicked in a future state.
But this is equally good to prove the opposite. We may as
well say it does not mean any thing enjoyed in this life, be-
6*

70 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE.
cause eternal death is never spoken of as the counterpart of
everlasting life, but eternal death is not once named in the''
Bible. In the next place he says, " If eternal life refers to the
happiness of heaven in a future state, how happens it that it is
so often spoken about as a thing enjoyed in this life and dwell
ing in persons by believing in Jesus ?" That is, if it be a hap
piness in heaven; why is it said to take its beginning here ? Mr.
Balfour knew or ought to have known, that his opponents insist
upon it as essential that eternal life take its commencement
in holiness of heart in this world ; that if it do not here, it never
will begin ; and surely he will not advance as a difficulty that
which we consider an indispensable part of the gospel. We
doubt not but that eternal life begins in this world ; but that it
ends here, is the matter that wants proof. The essence of
eternal life consists in knowing God, and Jesus Christ -whom
he hath sent ; or in holiness of heart and life. This is the
cause of all spiritual enjoyment here, and must in the nature.
of things be carried forward into the future world, if the be
liever is happy there. Further, Mr. B. says, eternal life was a
matter of hope to the disciples. But pray why a matter of
hope? If it consisted in knowing Christ and was limited to
this world, it could not be a matter of hope but of complete
fruition: But if on the other hand they had it here only in its
seminal principles, and were waiting for a more full- develop
ment in the coming world, then it was a matter of hope.
Having replied to Mr. B.'s proofs, I have a few considera
tions of my own to suggest. In the first place, if the passages
in question do not prove a state of happiness beyond the grave,
there is no proof of such a state. After taking away the direct
assertions of happiness beyond the grave, it will be in vain to
build the doctrine upon indirect proofs. Yet Universalists be
lieve there is such a state of happiness. Mr. Whittemore, p.
262, gives us a fair specimen of their treatment of- this sub
ject, first excluding the proper proofs and then believing with-
outproof. "Notwithstanding the everlasting life spoken of
in the New Testament is applied in these pages to that
state of rest, purity and joy into which the' believers of the

ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE. 71
gospel entered whenever they embraced the gospel, the, au
thor takes this opportunity to say, that he undouhtingly be
lieves, that a future state of immortality is revealed in the
New Testament." Thus he takes away God's assertions, and
substitutes his own nndoubting belief in their room. If he
had told us where to find the grounds of this undoubting be
lief, we should have been able to say whether one half, the
sophistry applied to them, which has been applied to those
passages, might not set them also aside.
Again, both Mr. B. and Mr. W. make eternal life in these pas
sages mean a state of belief in Christ, or introduction to the king
dom of Christ, a, state of holiness or spiritual life. Now is. nbt
this holiness or belief, call it what you will, to be perpetuated
in the eternal world, and to be connected with the happiness
of heaven ? Are not the inhabitants of heaven to be holy, to
be believers, to be in the kingdom of God ? Whatever havoc
our author may make of plain language, he surely will not pre
tend that death and the resurrection are to work any changes,
by which a man is to be happy in the presence of God in heaven
without holiness, or spiritual life. Of course then, those
who attain to spiritual life here, enjoy it there. And this spir
itual life is called eternal life here, and beginning here itex-
tends on through eternity ; and why may it not be eternal life
there? If the thing is the same in both states of being, why
does not the name apply to it in both, especially since- that
name of its own power expresses nothing short of both, that is,
everlasting life ?
But let us look at a few examples of the use of the phrase
eternal life, to see how far they tally with Mr. B.'s notion. As
Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so also shall the
the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth on him
should not perish, but have eternal .life. For God so loved
the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever
believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life. He
that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life. And this
is the promise which he, hath promised, even eternal life. What

72 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE.
good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? From
these specimens, the reader may judge of the current use of
the phrases. That they refer to anything which has its end in
this life, cannot be shown from the context. And as they as
sert the life of which they speak to be eternal or everlasting,
it is incumbent on the Universalist to show cause why the ev
erlasting does not mean everlasting. It is not enough to say
that the word is sometimes figuratively applied to limited ex
istences. It must be shown, either that it is always so applied,
or that that is its current and more general use, or that there
are in the cases before us reasons in the context, for departing
from the general use. Neither of these has been attempted.
But Mr. B. says the gospel is called "the everlasting gospel.
But surely none ever thought that the gospel is to be preach
ed to the endless ages of eternity." Yet the gospel is with
much reason called-everlasting, because its elementary prin
ciples, the subject matter, and its efficacy on the hearts of the
redeemed are lasting as the throne of God. It is not called
the gospel everlastingly preached, but the " everlasting gospel."
The question returns — When' everlasting life is made an attri
bute ofa soul destined to unending existence, why are we not
to understand the life as lasting as long as the soul ? This'life
is put in contrast with perishing, spoken of. as. future. That
whosoever believeth should not perish ; but there would be no
use for the mode of contingency, and the implied future, if in
every sense of perishing it were already past in the moment
of believing, and there were no escape from a death yet to
come upon the. unbelieving. And when Paul to Timothy says,
Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, he was
guilty of an absurdity on Mr. B.'s hypothesis. For Timothy
must have already got hold of eternal life, in such a sense that
it could not be regarded as a thing yet to be taken hold of by
him. For in the very verse next preceding, Paul calls him a
man of God. If he were then a man of God, he had spiritual
life, and could with no propriety be exhorted to lay hold of
what he already had. He then proceeds to direct Timothy to
charge them that are rich to do good, that they be rich in good

ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE. 73
works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate,, laying up
in store for themselves a good foundation against the time, to
come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. Here eternal life is
spoken of as what is to be provided for by good works, laid in
as a provision for the future, a thing not now in complete pos
session, but to be secured against the time to come.
Again, the same eternal life is represented as a boon, which
will recompense the endurance of all the calamities of this life.
Christ exhorted his hearers to cut off the hand or foot, or to
surrender life, if need be, to secure it — told them, He that will
save his life shall lose it, and he that will lose it for the gospel's
sake, shall find it. But what is the encouragement held out
for enduring such calamities ? Even admitting that the happi
ness which those ejarly christians who abandoned all, and who
risked all, that a hostile world could inflict, enjoyment superior
to that enjoyed by those who rejected Christ, was such as would
compensate for the loss of a right eye, or for any temporal suf
fering short of death, yet how could any enjoyment" limited to
this life compensate for the loss of life ? For what would it profit
a man if he should gain the whole world — all the means of en
joyment experienced by all the world,, and surrender his life
before he entered upon the enjoyment-? The surrender of life
would render the reward impossible. If there be- no reward
beyond the grave, how does he save his life who loses it?
But the parallel passage in John 12: 25, is still more in point
If he had sought to throw the idea into language the most
guarded against the Universalist interpretation, he could not
have done it more effectually. He that loveth his life shall
lose it, and he" that hateth his life in this world shall keep it
unto life eternal. Here life eternal is put in contrast with life
in this world. And -according to the notion that eternal is
something confined to this world, the passage would read-^He
that hateth his life in this world shall keep it, by acquiring by
the loss that eternal life which is enjoyed in this world. Or in
other words, he that, will surrender his life shall, after he has
surrenderedit, Home in possession of spiritual life in this world
— that is, after he is dead, he shall come back and enjoy life,

74 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE.
But here the Universalist says that the phrase " this world"
means only " this age," before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Then the passage reads — He that surrenders life in this period,
before the destruction of Jerusalem, shall have eternal life by
living through that destruction. That is, by suffering himself
to be killed before, he shall escape being killed then. But we
cannot leave to Mr. B. even the comfort of such an interpreta
tion. For.the word translated world is not aion, about which
Mr. B. has made the discovery that in some cases it means
"age," but kosmos, the most peculiar and appropriate word
for world. This interpretation then i3 miserably lame in every
limb and joint.
Again, if these phrases mean no more than some advantages
secured in this life, it is marvellous that, that word eternal
should be in such free and frequent use as descriptive of it.
If it occurred but once or twice, the work of explaining it away
would not be so hopeless. But-the phrase in our translation
rendered eternal life occurs twenty-seven times in the New
.Testament, and the phrase rendered everlasting life occur*
thirteen times. Here then are forty instances in which accord
ing to Mr. B. the happiness of the believer is essentially called
eternal life. Is not here at least ground for a presumption,
that that spiritual life is eternal in its nature? Surely, if that
word is only an expletive or empty-flourish, its so frequent oc
currence without a guard or explanation, must tend to mislead
the reader. Should we not be expected to believe it to be eter
nal life, since the pen that was guided by the Holy Ghost has
in forty instances called it so ?
And then, what meaning has the word eternal as qualifying
spiritual life, if that life be confined to this ivorld ; the Holy
Ghost does not use words without a meaning. This word
eternal, is fairly presumed to be used as an adjective, to ex
press some quality of that something which Mr. B. calls spirit
ual life. But pray what quality ? It is not duration, as abun
dantly appears from Mr. B.'s remarks, though the word was
made to express duration. It is not spirituality, for it has no
power to express that quality. Mr. B. has not attempted to

ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE. 75
show any examples in which it is synonymous with spiritual.
We have been told what it does not mean with great assur- .
ance, and now we wait to be. told what it does mean— presum
ing that it is not used forty times without a meaning. Our au
thor repeatedly, and with an air of triumph, remarks that the
exact phrase, eternal death, is not used in the Bible. But if it
had been, and had been used in forty instances, what would it
avail withsuch an interpreter? Forty instances of the use of eter
nal life in every variety of forms, cannot convince him that the
writers meant eternal life ; and no more would as many repeti
tions of the phrase eternal death, satisfy him that eternal death
was meant. The one could as easily be made to evaporate in
the destruction pf Jerusalem as the other.
I call now upon Mr. B. to show me a single truth of the Bi
ble that is revealed with more clearness and irresistible force,
than the truth that there is eternal life for the righteous beyond
the grave, is revealed in those forty passages. Give me the
same liberty to distort and pervert plain language, and I will
engage to prove or disprove any thing, — prove that the Bible,
neither teaches nor intends to teach any thing. Yet this no
tion, that these phrases always mean a temporal good, is a main
pillar in Mr. B.'s system, and I have given it a more extended
notice than it would otherwise demand, that the reader may see
how glaringly unsound are his main positions. And it is well
to notice, how the Scriptures are here made to bend to the
convenience of his system. Eternal life in a future state is
not denied. But it so happens that those passages which
most directly reveal the doctrine, are in such ashape as to con
firm by parity of reason the doctrine of future punishment al
so. The witnesses testify fully and distinctly ip favor of a
doctrine received, but in telling their story they let out an un
welcome truth. And so they must be shoved from the stand,
and the main matters of their testimony be assumed without
proof. I appeal to the conscience of my Universalist readers,
whether these witnesses to the salvation of men, would have
been silenced — whether these texts would have been so in
terpreted, did not the wants t>f their system require it. But if

76 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE. i
I am correct in this opinion, we have here a sickening view of
the workings of perverted mind laboring to evade the truth of
God. That man will deal thus with the word of God, in a
matter that involves his own eternal well being, and the well
being" of those whose character and destinies are moulded by
the influence of his pen — that immortal man should be willing
to risk his salvation on such strained and flimsy evasions, is
marvellous indeed. Yet the system of Universalism is con
structed throughout, of materials not unlike to these.
It is essential also to Mr. B.'s : system, as we have observed,
that the happiness of heaven be regarded in no sense as a re
compense for righteousness in this life. That there is no
punishment in the future world, cannot be credited as long aa
it is granted, that any are there rewarded for the conduct of
this life. Let us then take up the position that the future con
dition of men is not to be affected by their conduct in this life,
and bring it in brief terms to the test of scripture. Math. 5:
12. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in
heaven, for so persecuted they the prophets. Luke 6: 28. Re
joice ye in that day and leap for joy, for your reward is great in
heaven. Math. 6: 1. Take heed that ye do not your alms before
men to be seen of them, otherwise ye have no reward of your
Father which is in heaven. 2 Thess. 1: 6. Seeing it is a right
eous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them which
trouble you ; and to you, who are troubled, rest with us, when
the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven,  when he
shall come to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in
all them which believe. 2. Tim. 2: 12. If we suffer, we shall
also reign with him. 2. Tim. 4: 7. I have fought a good fight,
I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, henceforth
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the
Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day ; and not
to me only, but to all them also that love his appearing. Heb.
11: 9. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a
strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Ja
cob, the heirs with him of the same promise ; for he looked for
a city which hath foundations, 'whose builder and maker is

ETERNAL LIFE^ BEYOND THE GRAVE. 77
God. Verse 13. These all died in faith, not having received
the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuad
ed of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were
strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Verse 10. But now they
desire a better country, that is, a heavenly ; wherefore God is
not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for
them a city. Verse 35. And others were tortured, not accept
ing deliverance, that they might obtain a better- resurrection.
Rev. 2: 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the
tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Verse
10. Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown
of life. Rev. 3: 5. He that overcometh, shall be clothed in
white raiment, and I will not blot out his name out of the book
of life, but I will confess his name- before my father and before
his angels. Rev. 14: 13. Blessed are the dead who die in the
Lord from henceforth ; yea, saith the spirit, that they may rest
from their labors, and their works do follow them. Rev. 21:
7. He that overcometh, shall inherit all things, and I will be
his God and he shall be my son. But the fearful and unbeliev
ing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers,
and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in
the Sake which burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the
second death. But it is not worth the while further to extend
these quotations : I should transcribe no small part of the Bi
ble, were I to give all the texts which imply the doctrine. I
chose to present these marked quotations from -the word of
God, without comments of my own, to show how strong and
unequivocal is their testimony, that a reward is reserved in
heaven for the righteous.
The eternal life of the gospel, is a matter of distinct revela
tion. And that the universalist system goes to annihilate that
eternal life which is brought to light in the gospel, and substi^
tutes the product of human conjecture and hope in its stead, is
reason enough for declining the proffered advantage. If the
salvation of the soul be not the end of our faith — if the alter
native of heaven or perdition, be not broadly placed before us
in the Bible — if the pages of the gospel do not glow ". with a
7

78 ETERNAL LIFE, BEYOND THE GRAVE.
light from a heaven to come, and if that heaven be not the prize
of our high calling, the crown reserved for the victor in the
christian warfare, the Bible is the most deceptive of all books.
If the Bible means as it says, and those passages referred to in
this chapter are to be understood according to honest common
sense principles of interpretation, eternal life is a matter of
unequivocal revelation — made Certain to the believer but by di
rect assertions of inspiration ; and this is an eternal life which
has a beginning in this world, at least, in seminal principles.
There must needs be here a sowing to the spirit, if hereafter
we would reap life everlasting. Accordingly it is truly said to
the believer, The kingdom of God is within you. It matters
not essentially in what world a man is ; in proportion as he has a
spiritual and holy temper, the kingdom of God is within him.
That spiritual joy in which mainly consist the rewards of
heaven, is nothing more nor less than the well going machine
ry of a well conditioned soul. And this fact solves all the
mystery of eternal life, being asserted as a thing whose pos
session commences on this side the grave, as well as that
which is to be yet attained in its full perfection in that world,
where all the jarrings of sinful passion are excluded. And
this isthe reason why only the pure in heart can see God ;
why without holiness no man can see the Lord ; why there
is no heaven for man unless it be begun before those who
are filthy are adjudged and confirmed to be filthy still— why
there is no way to die the death of the righteous without liv
ing the life of the righteous.

CHAPTER V.

THE SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS EVERLASTING, ETERNAL,
FOREVER, &C, AS APPLIED TO THE PUNISHMENT OF THE
WICKED.
On this subject, Mr. B. has given his views at large, both in
his second Inquiry and in his Reply to Stuart's Exegetical Es
says. And I shall attempt in this chapter, either directly to
notice or virtually to answer every thing that is material in his
discussion of the subject in both. But no reader of this reply
to Stuart, will expect me to wade through the whole mass of
irrelevant matter, sophistical evasions, and appeals to the pas
sions and prejudices of the Universalists. There is very little
in it which may not safely be left to any unprejudiced mind,
even of limited information. Mr. B. labors the proof that Mr.
Stuart's Essays were intended as an answer to his writings,
though Mr. S. had expressly disclaimed all polemical referen
ces,, except in one instance named, and that, not Mr. B. ; as
though it were an important object gained, to have been re
ferred to by Mr. Stuart. But the question whether Mr. Stu
art's Essays were intended as an answer to Balfour, is almost
the only question fairly at issue, in the whole reply, that he at
tempts to meet by direct and logical proofs. He talks about
it and about it, through more than two hundred pages, but he
does not begin to reply to the proofs presented by Mr. Stuart.
For the sake of bringing as much of the argument as. may
be jnto as little compass as possible, by way of abbreviation, I
shall, on this subject, make use of Mr. Stuart's classification
of passages in part, referring the reader to his Essays for ma
ny important views of the subject, which do not properly come
within the design of this chapter. 1 do not design in this place

80 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
to consider the subject with much reference to those who ad
mit a limited punishment in the future world, though it will be
seen that the arguments presented, will go with equal force
against both systems of Universalism. If it be proved that the
wicked are punished through a proper eternity, Mr. Balfour's
system of no future punishment of course is excluded. And
we have now particular reference to that system.
The question now before us, turns on the signification of two
words in the New Testament, Aion, and its derivative Aion-
i os, rendered everlasting, eternal, forever, &c. Mr. Stuart
has given every instance of the use of these words, arranged
in different classes, according to their signification. And I
shall first present the substance of this part of his investiga
tion ; considering by the way, Mr. B.'s reply. His first class
of meanings of a ion, is that of "An indefinite period of time,
time without limitation, ever, forever, time without end, and
eternity, all in relation to the future." This class is subdivided
into those, in the first place, " which have reference to God or
Christ, to what belongs to bim, or is rendered to him, or will be
rendered to him, and which, from his nature, and the nature of
things, cannot be supposed to have an end." As Rom. 1: 25.
The Creator who is blessed forever. Rom. 9: 5. God over all,
blessed forever. Rom. 11: 36. To whom be glory forever. And
the following,, making in all, twenty-two instances. Rom. 1C:
27. 2Cor.ll:31. Gal. 1:5. Eph.3:21. Phil. 4:20. 1 Tim. 1:17.
2 Tim. 4: 18. Heb. 3: 21. 1 Peter 1: 25. 1 Peter 4: 11. 1 Peter
5: 11. 1 Peter 3: 18. Rev. 1: 6. 1: 18. 4: 9. 4: 10. 7: 12. 10: 6.
15: 7. Here the instances are quoted, and the reader left to
judge for himself, whether in these cases the words have not
the force ascribed to them. Mr. B. does not deny but that
these meanings are properly given. But will have us to un
derstand that if the word "means eternity in any case, it is not
from the native meaning of the word," but from the object with
which it is associated. But pray how do we learn the native-
meaning of a word but by its prevailing use, or the objects
with which it is generally associated ? And the inquiry now
is respecting its native meaning, as deducible from its use in

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 81
connexion with other objects, than that of punishment.
Mr. B.'s assumption, that the object to which the qualifying
word is applied must determine what the qualification is, — that
the object to which a word expressing duration is applied, must
determine the extent of the duration, in a given case, sepa
rately considered, — would render such qualifying words ut
terly useless. If the duration is expressed in the object itself,
why use that word eternal which is so pliable as to mean any
thing or nothing, according to the object to which it is applied ?
Each word is supposed to have of itself a meaning, and this
meaning discoverable by the objects to which it is currently ap
plied. And the inquiry is how, and to what objects, is it cur
rently applied.
Mr. Stuart's second class of texts, under this head, are " those
which have reference to the happiness of the pious, especially
to- their happiness in heaven," as follows: John 6: 51. If any
man eat of this bread he shall live forever. John 8: 51. If a
man shall keep my sayings, he shall never see death. John 6;
58. 8: 52.. 10: 28. 11: 26. 2 Cor. 9: 9. 1 John 2: 17. Rev.22:5.
Here Mr. B. makes it an objection that Mr. S. passes these
texts without comment, assuming that they refer to the happi
ness of heaven. The matter is simply this. Mr. Stuart quotes
these texts and lodges the appeal with the common sense of
every reader, if they do not refer to the happiness of the future
world. Deeming it so clear that they have that reference, he
chooses to leave them without comment ; or rather he asserts
that they have that meaning, and challenges contradiction,
leaving the matter in such a shape, that every man can judge
for himself as to the soundness of his premises. That Mr, Bal
four has made it a question whether these and such like pas
sages refer to the happiness of heaven, none will wonder, after
having noticed his views of the subject of eternal life. But yet
every reader is supposed to have common sense, and to be ca
pable of judging with regard to the use of the word in such
caseB. And the appeal is from his sophistries to their common
sense. Mr. Stuart's third class of meanings, under tnis head, is that
7*

82 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
of a period unlimited or without bounds,'i. e. ever and (with a
negative) never. As Matt. 25: 19. Let there be no fruit of thee
forever. And Mark 11: 14. the same. Mark 3: 29. Whosoever
shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
Luke 1: 33. He shall reign over the house of David forever.
Luke 1: 55. John 4: 14. John 8: 35. 12:34. 13:8. 14:16. 1 Cor.
8: 13. Heb. 1: 8. 5: 6. 6:20. 7: 17. 7: 21. 7: 24. 7: 28. 13:8. 2
John 5: 2. Rev. 5: 12. 11: 15. Mr. B. here comments upon the
word forever, in relation to the curse upon the fig-tree. But as
he does not deny that it means unlimited time, his remarks are
nothing in point ; for he admits all that Stuart asserts. He al
so calls in question the propriety of "classing the above passage,
which speaks of Christ reigning over the house of David for
ever, under this head, and finds fault with Mr. Stuart's reasons
for doing it. Though there is a sense in which Christ's media
torial kingdom will come to an end, Mr. Stuart took the ground
that there is also a more spiritual sense, in which it has no end —
in which it will continue after the appropriate reign of the
Messiah has ceased. Because other passages ascribe endless
dominion to Christ, and because in this verse it is added, And
of his kingdom there shall be no end. To this latter proof Mr.
B. replies, that it must be a limited forever, because it is said,
He shall reign over the house of David, which must be confin
ed to this world., But he ought to know, that the house of Da
vid had become as much a name for the head of the church, as
Israel had for the church itself. Besides, if Mr. B. insists upon
a literal understanding of the phrase, house of David, he is in
volved in a difficulty. Christ never did reign over the literal
house of David. In the same sense is it true that Christ will
reign over the house of David, in the heavenly world, as that
he reigned over it in this world. That the forever in this verse
is synonymous with endless, is beyond question ; inasmuch as
it is added — And of his kingdom there shall be no end. And
that it means endless, without end, or limit, is what is asserted
in the classification.
Mr. Stuart's next class contains those passages, in which the
word refers to past time, and that an indefinite or unlimited pe-

everlasting; eternal, FOREVER, ETC. 83
riod. They are the following:" Luke 1: 70. As he spoke by
the mouth of all his holy prophets which have been since the
world began. Acts 15: 18. Known unto God are all his works
from the beginning of the world. And 1 Cor. 2: 7. Eph. 3: 9.
3: 11. Col.l: 26. John 9: 32. To this class Mr. B. makes no
objections. The next class is of those passages wherein the word has a
tacit reference to the idea of age, or period of time, and also a
particular reference to quantity of time, as a whole, either past
or future — as we speak in English of the patriarchal age or
ante-diluvian age. Eph. 2: 7. That in the ages to come he
might show the exceeding riches of his grace. Heb. 6: 5.
Tasted the good word of God and pcfwers of the world to come.
And I Cor. 10: 11. Mr. B. gives no reasons why these texts
may not be so-arranged^
Mr. Stuart next introduces his second general class of mean
ings, in which the word has a secondary and peculiar sense,
borrowed from the Hebrew, viz. that of world, as present world,
or future world. The first subdivision is of those which imply
world present, or future, with a special reference to time or
duration. Matt. 12: 32. Shall not be forgiven, neither in this
world nor in that which is to come. Mark 10: 30. Shall re
ceive an hundred fold in the present time, and in the world to
come, life everlasting.- And Luke 18: 20.
In the next place, we have a class in which the word denotes
the world, with its cares, business, temptations, &c. Matt. 13:
22. The cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches
choke the word. Mark 4: 19. Luke 16: 8. 20: 34. Rom. 12: 2.
1 Cor. 1: 20. 2: 6. 2: 8. 2 Cor. 4: 4. Gal. I: 4. 2 Tim. 4: 10.
Titus 2: 12.
The next class- is made of those, in which the word denotes
the world itself as an object of actual existence, and this either
present or future. Matt. 13: 40. So shall it be in the end of the
world. Mark 13: 49. Matt 24: 3. What shall be the sign of
thy coming, and of the end of the world ? Matt. 28: 20. I am
with you always unto the end of the world. Luke 20: 35. 1
Cor. 3: 18. Eph. 2: 21. 1 Tim. 1: 17. 6: 17. Heb. I: 2. Heb. 2:

84 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
3. What Mr. B. has to say in respect to the above classes,
being differently interpreted by some orthodox writers, and by
Balfour's Second Inquiry — and being without examples of such
usage, is welcome to pass for what it is worth. It is all an at
tempt to throw dust in the eyes of readers that do not under
stand the nature of philological inquiries. The design of ex
hibiting these passages, in such a form, without comment, ex
cept here and there an explanatory remark, is that every reader
may see with his own eyes, untrammelled by comments, and
judge, by the connexion and subject, whether or not the writer
is correct in his classification. If Mr. B. had employed him
self in proving the incorrectness of the classification, instead
of quoting some conceits of some orthodox writers, and calling
for more comments, he would have labored more to the point.
The next class contains a peculiar meaning of this word, —
that of a generation of men considered either as to the time in
which they live or as to the persons themselves. Eph. 2: 2. Ye
walked according to the course of this world.
Next, under a distinct head, are arranged all the cases in
which the word is used in reference to the punishment of
the wicked. 2 Pet. 2: 17. To whom the mist of darkness is re
served forever. Jude 13. For whom is reserved the blackness of
darkness forever. Rev. 14: 11. The smoke of their torment as-
cendeth up forever and ever. 19: 3. The smoke of her torment
ascendeth up forever and ever. 20: 10. And they shall be tor
mented continually, forever and ever.
The above embrace all, except a few instances in which the
genuineness of the text has been disputed. Here again we
have one of Mr. B.'s calls for comments. But Mr. Stuart as
yet draws no conclusion from the texts. But he only says they
relate to the punishment of the wicked, which Mr. B. will not
deny : whether that punishment be endless, is the question to
be settled, when all the evidence is brought together. The
mere throwing of these texts together, in this connexion, with
a special request that the reader would suspend his judgment,
seems to throw the man into a panic, and sets him invoking
the aid of his Second Inquiry, as if he were conscious that eve-

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 85
ry reader would find it impossible to suspend his judgment.
Having laid out these passages according to their classes, with
an appeal to the common sense of the reader, for the correct
ness of the classifications, Mr. S. proceeds to sum up the re
sult, and he finds the whole number of instances of the use of
the word to be ninety-five. In sixteen of these, it is used in
ascriptions of praise to God and Christ. In five, it is applied to
God or Christ, who liveth forever. In four, it is employed to
designate the dominion of Christ. In.one, it is said the Word
of God abideth forever. In nine, it is applied to the future
happiness of- the saints. In eighteen, it designates the sense
of ever, with the negative never. In seven, indefinite time past.
In three, age in the sense of dispensation. In three, the world,
present or future, with reference to a period of duration. In
twelve, the world as a scene of trials. In eleven, the world as a
place of residence for men. In one, generation of men. By com
paring these together, he finds that those which have a simple
respect to future time, forty-nine out of the whole, besides
those which relate to punishment, are all employed in the sense
of unlimited duration. The seven which relate to time past,
designate either past eternity, or a long and unlimited dura
tion. And the four which relate to the dominion of Christ, un
derstood either way, must designate at least a future indefi
nite period, if not a proper eternity. And the remaining
thirty cases designate world in our sense of that word. From
these premises he brings the conclusion^ that there are fifty-five
"in which the word certainly means unlimited duration, either
future or past, besides those which relate to punishment.
And there is no case in which it is employed to designate a
definite period. Hence he concludes, that when it simply marks
time, in the New Testament, it marks indefinite unlimited time.
All the other instances wherein the word signifies world, ex
cept those which speak of the future world as a state of retri
bution, are foreign to the question about future punishment.
Mr. B.'s reply to this summing up of the matter, is, in the first
place, that Mr. S. spends more pages in summing up, than in
explaining the texts. Secondly, that he differs from other Or-

86 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
thodox writers with. regard to a number of the texts. Thirdly,
that this way of proof is that of mere assertion. Fourthly, that
axon is oftener used in the sense of world, than in application
to future punishment. Fifthly, that he knows of no critic or
commentator who agrees with Mr. S., that " in three cases it is
applied to designate age or dispensation." Sixthly, that the
Talmudic and Rabbinic writers are called in to explain about
one third of the ninety -five texts. Of the force, fairness, and
relevancy of such suggestions, in this place, the reader will
judge. The meaning of Aionios. By the same method of classifi
cation, the steps of which I will not detail in this place, Mr. Stu
art gets the result, that there are sixty-six cases in which the
word is employed in the New Testament ; of these fifty-one are
used in relation to the happiness of the righteous — two in rela
tion to God or his glory — six are of a miscellaneous nature —
and seven relate to the subject of future punishment. That
in all instances in which it relates to future time, it is certain
that they designate unlimited duration, (excepting, of course,
those which lelate to punishment.) That if they have not that
jneaning, the Scriptures do not decide that God is eternal, nor
that the happiness of the righteous is without end, nor that the
covenant of grace will always remain.
Here Mr. B. raises a hue and cry, about Talmudic and Rab
binic writers being mentioned. Though they were mentioned
by Mr. S. only by way of explaining a fact, which fact was to
be proved from other sources. Mr S. tells us that the ancient
Hebrews had no adjective, derived from Olim; but that the
Talmudic writers formed one, and that this was equivalent to
the Greek aionios. But he makes no reliance on this asser
tion, as proving what is the meaning of a i o nios. He proves
that meaning, by quoting the passages wherein it is used. But
here Mr. B. suffers his indignation to kindle ; calls for divine
authority, which the Talmudic writers had to make such an
adjective, as if lexicons were inspired books: and he intimates
the sinfulness of the thought, that Christ and his apostles would
use words in the same sense, that the Talmudic writers did,

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 87
And this is a fair specimen of his mode of argument through the
whole book. In respect to the class of passages which Mr. S.
makes to refer to the happiness of heaven, Mr. B, asks — The
happiness of the righteous where ? and says that they say noth
ing about their endless happiness in heaven. To this I answer,
Mr. B. may choose his place where he will locate it ; it is the
happiness of the righteous, and on all grounds there is rea
son to believe that to be without end, let it be where it will.
Through the other classes he keeps up- his complaint, that the
passages are quoted without note or comment, as if the laying
out of a plain passage to speak for itself were an act of unfair
ness. Mr. Balfour requires, that it shall not only be asserted
that the punishment is eternal, but that it is to be in ihe future
world. " Prove, my dear Sir, that any text says the punishment
is beyond the grave, and I give you no further trouble in oppos
ing endless punishment." More than this can easily be done.
It can be proved that it is beyond the resurrection. ! In Rev.
20: 15. after what Mr. B. admits to be a description of the res
urrection, after the sea, death and hades delivered up their
dead, it is added, and whosoever was not found written in the
book of life, was cast into the lake of fire. But it is asking too
much to require, that the assertions. of eternal punishment shall
be accompanied with the designation of the place where it will
be executed.. The assertions of God's eternity, are not ac
companied always with the geography of the world, where he
displays his peculiar presence. Mr. B. often insists that the
passages which express the eternity of the happiness of the
righteous, shall not be brought as evidence that that other class
imply the eternity of punishment, because he pretends to have
proved that the eternal life of*which they speak is confined to
this world. In relation to this, I have nothing further to say. I
refer the reader to my remarks on that subject, in the last chap
ter. If any man is so far lost to common sense, as to believe
Mr. B.'s positions in relation to that subject, I expect he will
believe in no punishment beyond the grave, or in any thing else,
however absurd. These will serve as a specimen of Mr. B.'s
treatment of the subject.

88 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
The result, then, to which the subject was brought by Mr.
Stuart, is, that while the words a ion .and aionios are never
used to designate a period with definite limits, in a great major
ity of instances they denote an endless duration. In sixty
instances, applied to the rewards of the future world, the read
er will see that the duration is as endless as those rewards.
What reason then is there for believing, that when applied
twelve times to punishment, they import a limited duration?
By what principles of interpreting language can we avoid the
conclusion, that the meaning is the same in both cases ? So of
the cases where glory and praise are ascribed to God, forever,
none will pretend that that is for a limited period ; but what rea
son for a limit in case of everlasting punishment which does
not here exist?
The literal and proper sense of these words must be con
fessed to be that of everlasting or eternal. And we are always to
understand words in their literal and proper sense, unless there ¦
be something in the manner in which they are used, to deter
mine it to be a metaphorical use. Now if that which is called
eternal in one place, is said in another place to come to an end,
as where it is said the earth abideth forever, and in other pla
ces it is said it will have an end, or as when the ceremonial
law was said to abide forever, and yet foretold by prophets to
be coming to an end, — in such cases we are to understand the
term in a metaphorical sense, unless the thing said to come to
an end be spoken of in different senses. So when the sacred
history assures us that that which was said to be forever, had
come to an end ; or when the thing spoken of is known to be in
its nature incapable of eternal duration, as in case of the servant
forever, we are to understand the forever to be figurative.
These classes, I conceive, comprise all the cases, where the
word signifying duration is to be understood metaphorically.
But the Universalists will find it impossible to bring the asser
tions of eternal punishment, under either of these classes. It
is nowhere said of that punishment, to which the wicked will go
with the devil and his angels, Matt. 25: that it will have an
end, nor that it has already come to an end, nor that the soul to
be punished is incapable of living through eternity-

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 89
Again, if our English translation were the original Scrip
tures, and the words everlasting, forever, and eternal were used
as they now are in it, no common sense reader could doubt,
whether it expressed the doctrine of eternal punishment. And
yet our words are used in the same metaphorical sense. We
speak of a man's heirs forever, we speak of an everlasting vex
ation, of an eternal talker, while if the words have any literal
and proper meaning, it is that of eternal duration. If eyerlast-
ing.is so properly and naturally applied to punishments limited
with the present life, why is it not currently used in applica
tion to such punishments ? If we should call imprisonment for
life an everlasting imprisonment ,and say that the court had sen
tenced such and such a felon to everlasting punishment, we
should have at least the credit of originality.
But Mr. B.'s reasons must now be attended to, in an exami
nation of the passages which speak of everlasting punishment.
Isa. 33: 14. The sinners in Zion are afraid, fearfulness hath
surprised the hypocrites ; Who among us shall dwell with de
vouring fire, who among us shall dwell with everlasting burn
ings ! Mr. B. makes this passage to be a prediction of the des
truction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But it is only necessa
ry to read-this chapter with the preceding chapters, where the
Assyrian is mentioned by name, to see that the subject is the
destruction of the Assyrian army. But what are Mr. B.'s
strong reasons for believing that Jerusalem's destruction, by
the Romans, is here spoken of? First, that Israelites are refer
red to by the phrase, sinners in Zion. This we grant, and
wait for proof that none but the Israelites in that age, can be
meant by the phrase. Secondly, the very language seems to
determine it. But I ask, how or where ? Repeat -it. The sin
ners in Zion, &c. what word or syllable goes to determine it ?
Thirdly, the 18th verse is quoted by the apostle, 1 Cor. 1: 20.
But this quotation, "Where is the wise" man, where is the
scribe," how does this fix the application to the destruction of
Jerusalem ? Neither the prophet, nor the apostle in quoting
him, says anything about Jerusalem or the Romans. Fourth
ly, the Roman people seem to be spoken of, verse 19. Verse
8

90 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
19 reads as follows, Thou shalt not see a fierce people, a people of
deeper speech than thou canst perceive, of stammering tongue
that thou canst not understand. If that be the Roman people,
then the passage amounts to a prophecy, that Jerusalem shall
not sec the Romans. , Is that a prophecy of Jerusalem's des
truction by the Romans? Here is the, sum of his. proofs that
the passage refers to this event. His .positions, that tempo
ral calamities are sometimes expressed by a figure of fire and
burnings, and that everlasting sometimes is applied to a limit
ed period, we shall /not here dispute. He having failed' to
show, 'that the passage refers to Jerusalem's destruction, we
want some proof'that the word everlasting, here, has'a limit to
its meaning. None of the three limitations above referred to,
can apply. In any instance where the word everlasting if
used metaphorically, it is easy to -show it to be so used. And
we demand the reasons in this case.
The true interpretation of the passage before us, I conceive -
to be something like this. When the ungodly Israelites saw
the dreadful execution of God's wrath upon the Assyrian ar
my, — the angel smiting in one night eighty-five thousand men,
they are" represented as being powerfully impressed with the
fear of God, together with a consciousness of their own guilts
and giving expression to their feelings in — Who among us
shall dwell"' with everlasting burnings ! That is, If God's wrath
be such a consuming fire, working such vast destruction in
one night, who can endure its everlasting burnings! The con
text confirms this opinion. From the seventh to the ninth >
verse, we have the terror and distress of Israel, which prece-
, ded the deliverance from the Assyrian invasion. In this ex
tremity, God, as in the tenth verse and onward, declares in a
sublime manner, that he will arise and exalt himself, and make
the invading army as chaff and stubble . before devouring fire,
as thorns cut up, and the burning of lime. And then he makes
his proclamation — Hear, ye that are afar off, what I. have done,
and ye that are near acknowledge my might. The sinners in
Zion are afraid, &c. His might, it seems, is exerted for deliver
ance, instead of destruction. And in the following verses, he

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 91
goes on to describe the prosperity of Jerusalem ; a fact which ut
terly excludes Mr. B.'sihterpretation. Thispassage,then, must
bo taken as a proofof everlasting punishment,-notwithstanding
anything which he has shown to the contrary. ' It is the lan
guage of sinners in ' Zion, inferring the terribleness of ev
erlasting fire, from the terrors of God's anger exerted for one
night. ;Dan. 12: 2. And many of them, (or the multitude of them)
that sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, some to everlast
ing life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. All
that Mr. B. has to say upon this passage has been replied to, ex
cept so far as respects the word everlasting, in the chapter on
the judgment. We have shown the fallacy of his application
of it to Jerusalem's destruction. And now this resurrection
is said to be to shame and everlasting contempt, and we call
for reasons why the everlasting is not to be understood in its
proper sense. The burden of proof is now on Mr B. to show
that there will be a limit to an everlasting, that commences
after the resurrection, after all earthly, metaphorical everlast
ings have passed away.
Matt. 18: 8. Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee,
cut them off, — it is better for thee to enter into life halt or
maimed, than having two hands or two feet to be cast into ev
erlasting fire. The absurdity of Mr. B.'s reference of this
passage, to the destruction of Jerusalem, has been shown in
.another part of this book, and we wait for other reasons for be
lieving that everlasting fire means any limited punishment. It
remains for Mr. B. to show cause why it is not to be under
stood as it reads. And the same remark will apply to the oth
er instances, where this passage occurs in the evangelists.
Matt. 25: 41. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting
fire, prepared for the devil and his angels : in connexion with
verse 46. These shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal.' The cbnsideration of this
passage will form the subject of the next chapter, and it need
not here be considered.
Mark 3: 29. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy

92 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
Ghost, hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal dam
nation. This has been considered in the chapter upon the
judgment. . But I cannot here omit to notice the unusual
strength of the expression. The Greek is, Shall not have
forgiveness to all eternity, but is obnoxious to eternal damna
tion. .*¦>-
2 Thes. 1: 9. Who shall be punished with everlasting des-r
truction, from the presence of the Lord, and the glory of his
power. Mr. B.'s objections inflation to this passage have been
met, and his failure to show that- everlasting applies to any thing
in this life, has been 'made sufficiently manifest-in the chapter
upon the judgment: :
Heb. 6: 2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, of the laying on of
hands, of the resurrection, and of the eternal judgment. This
., is one ofthe cases where Mr. B. uses indecent violence to the
. plain language of scripture. Contrary to the express language
ofthe passage, he says, the " principles of the doctrine" in the
preceding verse does not mean anything in the gospel, but in
the Old Testament institutions.. But it is expressly said, the
principles of the doctrine of Christ. With as much reason, he
says the* doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, does not
mean the christian doctrine of resurrection, but refers to some
resurrections which took place under the Jewish economy.
But how such resurrections made the doctrine ofthe resurrec
tion, does not appear. And he s.ays that eternal judgment re
fers to some temporal judgments which took place' under the
Jewish dispensation. But how could that make the doctrine
ofthe eternal judgment? And generally, that these phrases
thus put together, are to be understood, as covering so remote
and incongruous particulars, is incredible. The whole phra
seology of text and context, is the peculiar costume of gospel
ideas, and bearing no reference to Jewish institutions. The
reason for believing that the phrase, " the doctrine of the res
urrection ofthe dead," refers to-the general resurrection, and
that eternal judgment means eternal judgment, is as good as
that Jesus Christ refers to that person whom we call the Sa
viour, and not to one ofthe Old Testament prophets.

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 93
2 Peter 2: 17. To whom the mist of darkness is reserved
forever. As I have not access to- any comments of Mr. B. up
on this passage, I shall not multiply remarks of my own. The
persons spoken of in the context, are false teachers, who bring
in damnable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them— -
who bring; upon themselves swift destruction — -whose judg
ment liDgereth not, and whose damnation slumbereth not —
f whom the Lord knoweth how to reserve unto $ie day of judg-
¦ ment, to be punished — as,he spared not the angejs that sinned,
but cast them down to hell. They are compared'to Baalam, who
loved the wages of unrighteousness ; and after heaping harsh
epithets, upon them, it is added, for whom the mist of darkness
is reserved forever. Surely, there is nothing in these epithets
that would lead us to conclude, that theirpunishment was only
some temporal calamity. The frequent use'of the words, Judg
ment and damnation, and the comparison "with the; destruction ""
of the- angels that sinned and were past down to hell, are at
least presumptive evidence that the damnation:^ in hell is in
tended by the mist of darkness forever. And then our oppo
nents are "required to show, in what historical factthese false
teachers were known to have experienced'in this worldthe mist
of darkness forever — wherein temporal calamities came upon -
them, like to the casting down to hell the angels that sin-
ned.vg-, J ,
Jude 13. Wandering stars, to whom is reserved the black
ness of darkness forever. This is similar to the last, and I
cannot discover that its evidence has been gainsayed'by Mr. B.
and I shall offer no remarks upon it. . ' .
Jude 7. Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and" the cities about
them, in like manner, are set forth as examples, suffering the '*"
vengeance of eternal fire. Mr. B.'s reasons for belieying that
the fire of hell, or eternal fire, is not here meant are the follow
ing. First, Peter mentions the case of Sodom and, Gomorrah,
but says nothing about their going to hell. But the fact, that
Peter has not. said it, proves no more than .(hat Paul has not
said it, and neither proves that Jude has not. His second rea
son is, "that by comparing verses 5, 6 and 7, we find that Jude
8*

94 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
says, that the people to whom he wrote knew that Sodom and
Gomorrah suffered the vengeance of eternal fire.- But they
could not know that they suffered it in a future state of exis
tence." Jude does not say that they knew it, as the reader will
see for himself. And if he had said it, who is able to gainsay
it ? For the readers of this epistle had doubtless rea'd the in
timation which Christ had given of the fact, in speaking of
Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment. Thirdly, Mr-
B. objects, that they are set forth as an example, which could
not be, if the example were in a future state ; for an example
must be visible, to be of any effect. This surely is a new doc
trine. Cannot a fact, though known by sufficient testimony,
affect us as an example, unless seen by our own eyes ? Then
the example of Christ is no example for us. That comes to us
through sufficient testimony, and so does the example of Sod
om's suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. The force of this
passage then, remains unbroken.
Rev. 14: 11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up
forever and ever, and they have no rest day nor night who
worship the beast and his image. And Rev. 19: 1. And after
these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven,
saying, alleluiah, salvation and glory and honor and power, un
to the Lord ourGod, for true and righteous are his judgments ;
and again they said alleluiah, and her smoke rose up forever
and ever. So also Rev. 20: 10. And the devil that deceived them
was cast into, a lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast
and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night,
forever and ever. Here follows every word Mr. B. has to say
in relation to these passages — "It would be idle to show that
these passages have no respect to punishment in a future state
of existence. No well informed man would urge this as a
proof of such a doctrine, for it is plain that their punishments
were in this world, where time is measured by day and night."
This is the way in which he chooses to dispose of testimony,
so incontrovertible. Though I should hazard the loss of his
estimation of being a well informed man, I should be able to
bear it, since I should have the help of such names as Edwards,

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 95
Saurin, Dwight, Scott, Rosenmiiller, Fuller and Stuart, men
generally esteemed not altogether destitute of information on
such suhjects. This, then, is' the kind of dealing by which
men are to be brought into the persuasion that there is no fu
ture punishment. When the most strong assertions of Such
punishment come under notice, they are to be set aside with
the passing remark, that no well.infbrmed man makes use of
them to prove the doctrine. This is an easy method of argu
ment, and for thousands of his more confiding readers, who. .
have not the means of knowing better, it is, doubtless, satis
factory. But what a tremendous responsibility does he as
sume, who convinces men of such an error by such means.
The only reason which he gives to makes us see, what to him
is so plain, is, that when this punishment is inflicted, time is
measured by day and night. But this is equally good to prove
that there is no heaven but in this world. In chap. 7: 15. we
read, Therefore are they before the throne of >God, and serve
him day and night in his temple. The same principle would
also require that the present national distinctions be preserved
in heaven, since it is said, chap. 22: 24. The nations of them
that are saved shall walk in the light of the New Jerusalem.
The adoption of such frigid and puerile evidence may fairly be
taken as proof of the scarcity of that commodity. The reader
will see that our author has given us no reason why we must
not understand these three passages aS proofs of everlastino-
punishment, in the world to come ; and any comments of mine,
designed to set clear evidence in a stronger light, would be
holding " a farthing candle to the sun.""
I have now finished the examination of the particular pas
sages, in which the words-in question occur in application to
punishment. And here I cannot forbear to give a quotation
from Andrew Fuller. "It has long been the practice of writers,
on your side of the question to ring changes upon the wordg>
aion, and aionios — pretty words, no doubt, and could they be
proved to be less expressive than the English* words, everlast
ing and eternal, they might be something to the purpose. But
if not, the continual lecurrence to them, is a mere affectation

96 SIGNIFICATION OF THE WORDS
of learnings serving to mislead the ignorant. Be this as it may,
this is an exercise which hardly becomes you or me. I shall
only observe upon it, that by this method of proceeding, you
may disprove almost anything you please. There are scarce
ly any terms in any language, but what, through the poverty of
language, are sometimes used in an improper or figurative
sense. Thus, if one attempt to prove the omniscience of
God, from .its being declared that his understanding is infi
nite, you might answer, the term infinite is sometimes used to
express only a very great degree, as when the strength of Ethi
opia and Egypt are said to have been infinite. Nahum3:9.
The question is, could stronger terms have been used than are
used ? To object against the words, everlasting, eternal, &c.
as being too weak and indeterminate in their application, for
the purpose, is idle, unless others could be named which are
stronger, and more determinate. What expressions could
have been used, that would have placed the subject beyond dis
pute ? You ordinarily make use of the term, endless, to ex
press our doctrine : it should seem then, that if we read of end
less punishment, or punishment without end, you would believe ;
yet the same objections might then be made. It is common to say,
of a loquacious person, he is an endless talker : it might, there
fore, be pretended that the term, endless, is very indetermi
nate — that it often means not more than three or four hours.
Thus you may see, it is not in the power of language, to stand
before such methods, of criticising and reasoning."
As to the suggestions, that are repeatedly made in the
course of Mr. B.'s reasonings on this subject, that the words
rendered eternal, &c. are applied but seldom to punishment,
(twelve, in all the instances in the New Testament) I would
remark, that twelve times, out of ninety-six, is as large a pro
portion as the subject requires, since it is applied to nearly a
score of different subjects. It is applied as often to the du
ration of punishment as to the duration of the existence of God.
To refute such trifling is verily humiliating.
The eternity of the punishment of the wicked, is implied in
some passages which 1 shall now quote, in which those words

EVERLASTING, ETERNAL, FOREVER, ETC. 97
do hot occur. There is a sin unto death, I do not say he shall
pray fdr it. It is impossible to renew them again to repent
ance. If we sin wilfully after we have received the know
ledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin,
but acertain fearful looking for .of judgment. He that believ
eth not the Son shall not see. life, but the wrath of God abid-
eth on him. I go away, and ye shall seek me, and shall die
in your sins ; whither I go ye cannot come. Whose'eratZ is de
struction. He that showeth no mercy shall have judgment
without mercy. — Now if there be a sin for the pardon of which
we may not pray, there is a sin, doubtless, which God never will
pardon. If there be no more sacrifice- for sin, in any case, but
a fearful looking for of judgment ; — if there be some that die
in their sins, who cannot go whither Christ has gone, there are
some that ivill never get to heaven. If there be some whose
end is destruction, there are some who, in the final pe
riod of their existence, will still be enduring destruction. If
there be a man for whom it had been good never to have
been born, there is one whose career will not be that of exter
nal glory ; for such glory would infinitely outweigh .all con
ceivable temporal punishments, If there be any on whom falls
judgment without mercy, there are some who are never saved,
for none can be saved without mercy. -And we are told that
many shall seek to enter in, and shall not be able. Enter into
what ? „ Salvation, to be sure — for it was said in reply to the
question, Are there few that be saved. If, then, there be ma
ny that shall not enter into salvation, all hopes of a universal
salvation are groundless.

CHAPTER VI.

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV. AND XXV.
The testimony ofthe forty-first and forty-sixth verses ofthe
the 25th chapter of Matthew, is unequivocal — and the Univer
salists have labored hard to dispose of it. Both Mr. B. and Mr
Whittemore have given us an extended argument upon it; but as
Mr. W. has considered the passage most at length, I shall most
particularly notice his argument, having my eye upon anything
material to be found in Mr. B.'s comment, which is not to found
in Mr.W.'s. Mr., W. first finds in the clause, " When the Son of
Man shall come in his glory," verse 31st, an indication that the
passage refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. Because
Christ in some Instances is said to come in his glory, when said
to come for the destruction of Jerusalem, it is inferred that
this coming relates to that event. He quotes the following
passage. Matt. 16: 27, 28. " For the Son of Man shall come
in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then shall he
reward every man according to his works. Verily I' say unto
you, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of
death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom :"
and, first, labors to prove that this coming was at the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, and hence, makes an argument to show that
the same is true ofthe passage before us. With regard to this
last quoted passage, it appears to me to be a clear case, that
that coming of Christ spoken of in the 28th verse, refers to hi3
final coming to judgment; and that in the 29th, refers to
something to take place during the life of some then present;
a little specimen ofthe glory of which, he gave in his transfig
uration, which is described in the same connexion; That his
coming in his glory first spoken of, refers to the final judgment,

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 99
is Clear, from the fact, that it immediately follows a remark,
made to enforce the duty of laying down the life in his service,
out of respect to retributions after death. He tells his hear
ers, whosoever shall save his life, shall lose it — and that noth
ing can be given in exchange for the soul. Aud then adds —
For the Son of Man shall come in .the glory of his Father, and
of his holy angels, and then shall he reward every man accord
ing to his works. Now why does he speak of the coming of
the Son of Man, as an enforcement ofthe duty of laying down
the life, if it was not a coming that was to affect us after death.
Then it is a coming, in which he will render to every man ac
cording to his works. But every man was not then and there
in Jerusalem, to receive according to .his works ; and those
that were, especially the christians, had no adequate re
compense in the destruction of Jerusalem. And then the phra
seology in the 28th verse, intimates that there is a studied dis
tinction between the two comings. In the latter case it is
said, He shall come in his kingdom, and in the former, that he
shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels. If both
clauses referred to the same thing,a pronoun would have natural
ly supplied the place of the last, and prevented the repeti
tion. And then, there are no instances in the Evangelists, where
the coming of Christ " with his holy angels," is plainly applicable
to the destruction of Jerusalem. Or, if Mr. W. Will have it,
that this is a mere rhetorical flourish, descriptive of God's maj
esty and glory, then this passage is not parallel with that -in
chap. 25th. For there it is said, he shall come with all his holy
angels, that is, (if we must so understand it) with all his glory ;
that is, with the highest and most intense display of his glory,
that ever will be made. But is it true that his coming at the
end ofthe world, and at the resurrection, will not be connect
ed with more majesty and glory ,than was that ? If his train of
angels is only a figure for the exhibition of glory, surely the
coming spoken of chap. 25th, being the time when all his glo
ry is displayed, must be his final coming. But read the pas
sage according to that interpretation, and notice the tautology.

100 COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all his
glory with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory.
But suppose we admit that chap. 16, verse 27, does refer to
Christ coming at that age, and that there is a similarity in the
phraseology, it is not proved that the passage before us refers
to that ; because the connexion, as we shall hereafter show, ab
solutely determines it to the final coming of Christ. Mr. W.'s
next suggestion is, that the subject of discourse, in the 25th
chapter, is the same as in the 24th, and that the 24th is a
prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. But that the 24th
does not also contain a prophecy ofthe final judgment, should
be proved before the conclusion is drawn. If we should admit
that there is a general oneness of design running through the
two chapters, it would rather follow that the 24th treats of the
general judgment because the 25th does, rather than that the
25th does nqt because the 24th does not: inasmuch as the 25th
contains language, as we shall see, which cannot, without man
ifest violence, be understood of anything short ofthe general
judgment. I have no wish to controvert any of Mr. W.'s
proofs that the 24th chapter, so far as the 29th verse, speaks of
the destruction of Jerusalem. But that he is mistaken in ap
plying the remainder ofthe chapter to that event, I shall' show
in the sequel. And if I do this, what he says in referring the
parable of the ten Virgins, and the parable that follows it, to
that event, will be refuted without any further remarks. I
shall now proceed to give my views ofthe whole passage.
In the first place, as to the question, in the beginning of
chap. 24th — When shall these things be, and what shall be the
sign of thy coming and ofthe end of the world ? I agree with
Mr. W. that the phrase ought to be rendered, " end ofthe age,"
instead of, end of the world. Now let it be borne in mind what
event, according to current Jewish notions, the disciples were
expecting to take place at the end ofthe age, and the mean
ing of this inquiry will be evident. They were expecting the
destruction of Jerusalem, for Chriat had just told them. And
according to current opinions, they were expecting the ap-

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 101
pearance of Christ in external majesty, to establish his domin
ion in this world — his subduing all kingdoms to himself—his
raising the dead, and sitting in judgment, on Jews and Gen
tiles, and his completing and confirming the blessedness ofthe
righteous, and inflicting punishment on the wicked. (Vide Wahl
on aion.) Their inquiry of course was as to the time when the
resurrection and the general judgment would take place, as well
as the destruction of Jerusalem. Is it asked, why Christ in
giving his answer", did not correct their mistake as to the taking
place of these events contemporaneously with Jerusalem's des
truction? I answer, he did, so far as was consistent with his de
sign not to inform the world as to the exact time of his final
coming. He first, in answering the broad question, gave a
description of Jerusalem's coming destruction, and then, verse
29, began his description of his coming to the final judgment,
by informing them that this event would come afterwards, and
not in the same connexion — " After the tribulation of those
days." And then he tells them that none knows, and it is
not the design ofthe Father that any should know the partic
ular day and hour of this coming. This is precisely such an
answer as he gave to essentially the same question after his
resurrection. When asked — Wilt thou now restore the king
dom of Israel ? he answers, It is not for you to know the
times and seasons which the Father has put in his own power.
Respecting the time when the future judgment was to come,
the New Testament everywhere- observes a studied silence,
except so far as to leave the impression,that however many
years, and ages might first elapse, it would come soon, it was
to be expected as no distant event. And the last thing which
he says, in the last part ofthe last book of the Bible, a book by
the way, which Mr. W. admits was written after the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, is — Behold I come quickly. So we see that
the disciples' question and Christ's answer covered both the
destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment
The two events were connected in their minds ; they in
quired for tl* time, and for the signs of their coming ; he an
swered them as to both, as far as he conceived it proper — giving
'9

102 COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
them particularly the signs of Jerusalem's destruction, but let
ting them know that the signs of his last coming, would be the
coming itself, — that no sign or hint would be given till his actu
al appearance should burst upon an astonished world ; and this
to enforce the need of watchfulness. If this view be correct,
no one need be stumbled to find the two events so closely
blended in the description. For they were still more closely
blended in the question, and expectation of the disciples.
And so far as it respects the date of each event, Christ was
not called upon to give more particular information. As he
purposed that no man should know the day and the hour, he
served that purpose, and yet countenanced no errors in leav
ing the subject just where he did. That the disciples' ques
tion comprehended Christ's coming to raise the dead, is indis
putable. And it does not appear that he evaded that part of
the question more than the other. And that two events so
distant in time should stand so near together in prophecy, is
nothing unusual, as we have already seen.
We come now to examine the description itself, to see
whether the last part ofthe chapter refers to the final judg
ment. One proof that it does, I have already mentioned — i. e.
that the description, verse 29, is of what is to take place after
those days. All the leading circumstances, according as they
actually occurred in Jerusalem's destruction, are enumerated
in the previous verses. After there had been a tribulation,
such as was not since the beginning of the world, and such as
was never to be again, to the end of the world, it is said, " after
the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened," &c.
Now if what is saidaboth before and after the 29th verse, refers
to the same event, it should read, after Christ has destroyed
Jerusalem, they shal 1 see the Son of Man coming in clouds to
destroy Jerusalem. Besides, all before this verse is easily, and
for the most part literally applicable to Jerusalem's destruc
tion. And all after that verse is incapable of such an applica
tion without being made extravagantly figurative. And then
Liike in his report of the same discourse, givts the transi
tion from Jerusalem's destruction to the scenes of the

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 103
last day, still more plainly. He winds completely up the sto
ry of the former, before he commences the latter, in these
words, — And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall
be led captive into all nations, and Jerusalem Shall be trpdden
down ofthe Gentiles, until the times of the Gentries be fulfilled.
Now what we claim to have been said of the last coming of
' Christ, is said after all this ; — after the nation is scattered, and
Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles, till the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled. After having told the whole story of Je
rusalem's destruction, the writer goes on to say — Then shall
they see the Son of Man coming in a cloud. And then this
coming of Christ, last spoken of, is made a day of rejoicing td
christians. And when these things shall begin to come to
pass, look up and lift up your head and rejoice, for your re
demption draweth nigh. But how was the destruction of Je
rusalem a scene of rejoicing ? The temporal condition of
christians in it was not improved by it. Their flight to Pella
was a privilege which they might have had before if it had
been worth their seeking. In the previous part ofthe chapteif
these scenes are spoken of as anything but those of a glad and
glorious redemption of christians. They were command
ed to notice the signs of the coming day of terror, in'order to
timely flight — in order to escape for their lives, and that under
such circumstances as stript them of all their possessions, and
so that terrible must be the condition of her with child, and her
that nursed children, and of those that made their flight in the
winter. But in that part of the chapter which refers, to the
last coming of Christ, christians are bid to lift up their heads
and rejoice, as at the completion of their redemption. Can
these contrary things be said of one and the." same event ?
But you will notice that it is said immediately after those days,
that is, immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem, the sun
shall be darkened, as if the last coming of Christ was imme
diately after that event. The word translated immediately,
may also mean suddenly after a considerable interval. It is
so used in the following passage — Now he that betrayed him
gave them a sign, saying, whomsoever I shall kiss, the same

104 COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
is he, hold him fast, and immediately lie came to Jesus, und
said, hail, master, and kissed him. Now this giving ofthe sign,
was of course before they came into the presence of Christ,
and the act of kissing, though suddenly done when they ap
proached him, must have been sometime after the giving ofthe
sign. The word immediately implies in this case, only the
suddenness ofthe act when it was done. See also Mark 5: 2.
Matt. 13: 5. Mark 4: 5. The word, immediately, in the passage
before us, does not mark so much the time, when the event
will take place, as the suddenness of its approach, when it
comes. So it is parallel with other representations ofthe fact,
that in a moment, in a twinkling, the event shall come.
Much stress is without reason, laid upon its being said, this
generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled.
T,his argument is grounded on a misapprehension of the word
generation. The primary and most common meaning ofthe
word generation, is that of a race or family, as the generation
of Adam, of Abram, of Israel, &c. and not the men of a certain
age. It is true that the generation of Israel as a distinct na
tion, is not to be obliterated till Christ's second coming. But
it was not true that that generation, meaning the average term
of human life, that is thirty years, continued till the destruction
of Jerusalem. Very few of those at middle age, at the time of
the crucifixion, could have been alive when Jerusalem was de
stroyed, forty years after.
Christ in this verse virtually says, this nation, of the Jews
shall not lose itself by mingling with other nations till the last
judgment It shall have a distinct existence, and be to all
ages, a standing pledge and memento of his final coming.
Thus he sets forth this nation, preserved through all ages, by
a careful providence, amounting almost to a perpetual miracle,
as the earnest to confirm the promise of his coming. And in
the same connexion he adds, — Heaven and earth shall pass
away, but my words shall not pass away. Then the date of
this event, be it what it will, is settled in the mind of God,
even to the hour. But the destruction of Jerusalem was inca^
pable of being thus dated, having been the work of months and

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 105
years. No man on the ground could have told the hour wty%n
Christ came for the purpose of destruction. Both the city and
the nation, died by inches. Whereas the hour and moment,
when Christ will be seen coming in the clouds of heaven, will
be distinctly .marked. The last coming is here, and in oth
er places, said to be with great suddenness. It is repre
sented by such comparisons as that of the rushing in of the
waters of Noah's flood, or the kindling of the fires of Sodom,
as an event, pieceded by no signs, or premonitions. The only
sign of his coming being the actual sight of his coming,., as
the summer shows itself by putting forth the summer foliage.
But I need not say that the coming of Jerusalem's destruction,
was every way different from this. Such language then, must
apply to the future coming of Christ. And in other particu
lars the language of the passage is eminently descriptive of
the scenes of the last day, which must be made extravagant
ly hyperbolical, to apply to the destruction of Jerusalem. The
sun shall be darkened, the moon shall not give her light, the
stars shall fall, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken.
Then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, then
shall all the tribes ofthe earth mourn. And they shall see the
Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and
great glory, and he shall send his angels, with a great sound
of a trumpet, aud they shall gather together his elect from the
four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Nowwhattook
place in the destruction of Jerusalem, which such language is
fit to describe? Suppose we grant that the.darkening ofthe sun
and moon, and the falling of the stars, are capable of represen-'
ting the falling ofthe Jewish political fabric, other parts df the
description are not capable of that application. It is said all the
tribes ofthe earth (ge the earth, not oikoumene, sometimes
rendered the land or Jewish nation.) And to put it beyond a
question that the whole earth and not simply Palestine is here
meant, Luke adds — For as a snare shall it come on all them
that dwell on all the face of the earth. But all the tribes ofthe
earth did not mourn, nor were all the dwellers on the face of
9*

106 CpMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
the earth suddenly ensnared by the destruction of Jerusalem.
To the Roman empire, then the greatest part of the world,
those were days of triumph and dividing of spoils.
And then what is meant by sending his angels with the
sound of a trumpet, and gathering his elect from the four winds?
Should it be said that this is a figure for the spread of the gos
pel in all parts ofthe world, and the gathering of christians in
to the church, I answer, this interpretation presupposes that the
preaching of the gospel to all parts of the world, was cotem-
poraneous with the destruction of Jerusalem. But it does not
appear from history that the publication of the gospel to the
heathen, received any new and special impulse, while the work
of destruction was going forward upon Jerusalem. But this
phraseology is specially appropriate to Christ's coming to raise
the dead, and judge the world. And you might, with as little
violence to the language, where the Apostle says — The Lord
himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, and with the
voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God, and the
dead shall rise first — say, this is only a figure for the powerful
and effectual preaching of the gospel ; and so you might un
dermine all the proofs of a resurrection.
Further, we are exhorted to watch, because we know not at
what hour this coming of Christ will overtake us, whereas the
disciples were made to know by distinct signs, as to the time
when the national dangers were approaching, in order to facil
itate their flight. But they were given to understand that the
world could determine by no precursors, when the morning of
the resurrection would open upon them, because no flight could
evade the terrors of that day. Of two women grinding at a
mill, or two man in the field, the one should be taken and the
other left. And so unavailing would be all efforts to escape,
that he who should attempt to save his life, should lose it, and
he that would lose it, should save it. This circumstance ef
fectually characterizes the final coming of Christ, of which his
people were forewarned, to watch and make timely and stren
uous efforts to escape the perils.
I trust it will now be seen, that there is language in this

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 107
chapter which cannot be appropriately applied to anything short
ofthe scenes ofthe last day. And that all the universalist con
clusions, drawn from the application of the whole of chapter
24th to the scenes of Jerusalem's destruction, are unsound.
We come now to the 25th chapter. Much reliance is
made on the particle "then" commencing the parable of
the Ten Virgins, as a connecting link between the two
i chapters. But as I admit that the same general subject is
continued frpm the last part of the 24th, into the 25th, I shall
have no need to dispute it. Neither the parable ofthe ten vir
gins, nor of the unfaithful servant, need be particularly consid
ered. The scenes of Jerusalem's destruction, could hardly be
represented as a marriage festival, even to the christians. For
they were even to-them, scenes of consternation and flight.
And much less is the parable ofthe servants capable of such
a meaning; for where, in those scenes, was the distribution of
rewards, according to what each had gained ? Was the more
faithful christian who had gained his five talents, able to make
better speed towards the town of Pella, than he who hadgain-
ed but two ? And was the advantage of this flight to Pella,
the glorious reward, with which the faithful in Christ's king
dom arc crowned ?
If we look now, at the passage directly under consideration,
we shall find insuperable difficulties in applying it to Jerusa
lem's destruction. When the Son of Man shall come in his glo
ry, and all the holy angels with him. Mr. W. will have us un
derstand that the holy angels, here represent the Roman arm
ies ; and justifies the interpretation by the instance of the As
syrian army, sent for the punishment of Israel, being called
God's army. But he gives us no reason why the Roman ar
my, composed of heathen, and the enemies of Christianity,
should be called holy, his holy angels. When a man is driven
to the necessity of making holy angels out of a Roman army,
it is time for his opponents to lay down their pens. Is it from
such holy angels as these, that the "Redeemer collects the
splendors of his train, when he comes to judge the world in
righteousness ?

108 COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
Again, there was not an assembling of all nations before the
" throne of Christ's glory in that event, nor anything which an
swers to it. It was not an event which very particularly affect
ed all nations. For this Mr. B. and Mr. W. have the same '
answer, i. e. that the phrase, all nations, is used twice before
in this discourse, when all nations really are not meant. Ye
shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. — And this
gospel ofthe kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a
witness unto all nations. That the apostles were hated of all
nations, and that they preached the gospel to all nations, Mr.
B. admits ; but denies that this passage is to be understood of
all individuals of all nations. But there is one consideration
which he over-looks ; the separation in the text is of individuals,
as such, as the shepherd divideth the sheep from the goats.
And then the preaching ofthe gospel is the making of sheep
and goats, and not the sitting in judgment on them after they
are made. And then how could the results of the preaching
of the. gospel, even if it were called the assembling of all na
tions, be represented as a part or appendage to the destruction
of Jerusalem ? All nations to whom the gospel had been
preached, according to our authors, are represented as collect
ed to have a part in this scene, for the purpose of receiving
their doom. And the one class adequately rewarded for all their
piety, and the other for all their hatred ofthe gospel. But on
what page of history stands the record of this ? Mr. W. thrice
repeats his own assertion, that all nations were assembled at
this time, and then leaves us staring in every direction in vain,
to see them so assembled. Besides, the Roman army which
we have just, been taught were the all of the holy angels of
God, are a part of these all nations, who hated Christians, and
who were assembled to be judged for so doing. This Roman
army then, were both the executioners of justice, and the fel
ons who felt its weight. In still another point, the interpreta
tion is lame. What judgments were here inflicted upon the
pagan world, for their hatred of the gospel and their murder of
its preachers? History gives us no account of sufferings, sent
upon them through the destruction of Jerusalem. Probably

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. 1,09
Mr. Balfour's next edition of his Second Inquiry will inform us
that it consisted in the immense wealth, which the pagan world
carried away from the plundered cities of Judea.
Equally, ridiculous is his disposal of the passage, which
Speaks of the devil and his angels. He makes the devil to
mean the Jews. But who were they on the left hand on whom
the curse was thundered? They also were Jews. If Jews and
the devil are synonymous here, we may read it, Depart, ye
cursed Jews, into the fire prepared for the Jews, and his an
gels, or, Depart, you cursed devil, into the fire prepared for the
devil and his angels. And then according to this who were
the devil's angels ? " The emissaries of the Jews," says Mr. W.
Very well. But who were the Jews' emissaries ? The Jews
were too much reduced in power and influence in the world,
long before this, to have under them a class of men by this
name, a class of men for whom a fire was prepared with them
selves. But they have made their most shiftless evasion of the pas
sage — These shall go away into everlasting punishment, but
the righteous into life eternal. They deny that eternal life
has any reference to anything enjoyed in the future world, but
they make it the joy in the Holy Ghost, experienced by Chris
tians in this world. But if it be nothing more, how can it be
represented as a reward for righteous conduct? It is no more ,
than what the righteous already had before these formalities
of the judgment. The Universalist interpretation of this pas
sage amounts to this — These, that is the Jews, and all pagan
enemies ofthe gospel, shall go into the punishment which was
inflicted by the Roman army on Jerusalem, figuratively called
everlasting punishment ; and the righteous shall go away into
that state of happiness, in which they always have been'since
their conversion, figuratively called eternal life. And' then
you will ask, what means that word everlasting ? The punish
ment is held up as terrible because everlasting? And you are
told it means the everlasting reproach, that rests upon that na
tion till this day. But you will still inquire, how that reproach
now existing, could be a terror to individuals then living, and

110 COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV.
how the wicked men of the all nations gathered there, could
have their punishment, their everlasting punishment, in the in
famy which came upon the Jews ? But these questions will be
asked in vain.
Once more. The language before us is that of a judicial
sentence. The words^-Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire,
prepared for the devil and his angels, are taken from the
mouth of a judge uttering sentence at the close of a trial —
which circumstance of itself excludes the figurative interpreta
tion put upon it. Judges are not wont to give sentence in po
etry or hyperbole. The nature of the case requires that the
sentence of the law be expressed with the greatest possible
exactness and precision. That every word be so measured as,
to express the thing intended, and no more. And the general
practice of courts corresponds with this rule. Whenever you
read a solemn sentence of death pronounced by our courts
.you read language framed with the. most studied precision, at
the farthest remove from all metaphor or exaggeration. The
judge is seen to speak as if from the consciousness that the
condemnation which, as the organ ofthe law, he utters, has it
self a weight which it is far from desirable to aggravate by the
swell of turgid phraze. If there is any occasion when such
rhetorical expedients are utterly inadmissible, not to say unnat
ural and ridiculous, it is that of a judicial sentence. A judge
may use what style of language his feelings dictate, when la
boring to produce an impression on the criminal, and on the
spectators, by a statement ofthe grounds ofthe condemnation.
But when he comes to the simple utterance ofthe last voice of #
the law, he of necessity falls into language the most naked
and literal, that can be found. Statutes written in poetry,
would not be a greater solecism, than.hyperbole in a judicial
sentence. But'in the verse before us we have the judge of all
nations, uttering sentence after trial, from his throne of glory —
a sentence touching the weal or woe of all nations — and surely
if any conceivable occasion could require the language to be
used according to its most obviou3 meaning, it must be this.
And yet our authors will have us understand it all as the most

COMMENTS ON MATTHEW XXIV AND XXV. Ill
highly wrought hyperbole or unnatural metaphor. They make
the word "depart "mean to remain, and be destroyed in Jeru
salem, while christians depart by flight — and the phrase "come
ye blessed," mean to flee to the mountains for your lives, —
the word " everlasting " to mean only for a time, and the word
"fire " to mean the reproach endured by the posterity of those
accursed in Jerusalem's destruction — "the devil and his angels"
to mean only the Jews and their imagined emissaries. Is it
conceivable that the Judge ofthe world has wrapt his most sol
emn sentence in such hieroglyphic dress ? Suppose a judge of
one of our courts were to pronounce sentence of imprisonment
for the limited time of ten years ; and instead of giving the exact
time, should say, everlasting imprisonment, because ten years is
a very long period to endure imprisonment, what would you say
of the justice, nay of the sanity of such a judge ? You see at
once what would be the effect of using such a figure, in such
a sentence. Though the word, everlasting, may in some kinds
of composition be used in a metaphorical sense — it cannot be,
and it never is so used in a solemn sentence ofthe law. *"
But I cannot longer dwell on this topic. When a mind has be
come so sophisticated as to find satisfaction in such evasions of
plain truth, there is little encouragement to offer reasons. But
with every candid reader the appeal is lodged whether there
is not incontrovertible proof that this chapter treats ofthe final
judgment— whether the proof in the case can be evadedwith-
out a resort to methods of interpretation which go to unsettle
all laws of language and all principles of reasoning.' Who
would be willing on such a shiftless plank to embark his eter
nal all and launch upon the shoreless ocean !

CHAPTER VII.
TTHE PLACE Or FUTURE PUNISHMENT, OR THE MEANING OF THE
WORDS TRANSLATED HELL. THE MEANING OF SHEOL.
If it were impossible to show that the scriptures speak of a
place, in which future punishment will be inflicted, the fact
would not invalidate the proof exhibited in the previous chap
ters. The fact that the laws of the State do not designate the
place where murderers shall be hung, does not make it less
certain that they are to be hung in some place. But if we
show that the bible does speak of a place where execution is
done upon the wicked in the future world, that involves the
proof of future punishment. This I trust will be satisfactorily
shown. The words translated hell, are Sheol and Gehenna, from
the Hebre w,and Hades and Tartarus, or rather the verb of which
Tartarus is the root from the Greek. My first inquiry will be as
to the meaning of the word Sheol. This word though often used
in the Old Testament is seldom translated hell, and more sel
dom has that meaning. Its primary and most common significa
tion, is that of grave, place of the dead, place of departed spirits.
Nor is it strange that a word having such a primary meaning,
should come to be used occasionally in such a different sense.
For it is no more than what has befallen every other word, that
is used as a name for spiritual and eternal things. Human lan
guage is originally formed by giving names to ideas, gained
by the senses, and by the mind's own consciousness while using
and combining these ideas. But the senses have no cogni
zance of the objects of the spiritual and eternal world. And,
therefore, language in its original formation has no names for
these objects. The makers of language never saw the ob
jects, and have given them no names. When therefore a de-

PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 113
scriptioh of eternal things is undertaken, it is necessarily done
by the use of borrowed language, i. e. words formed to desig
nate ideas which arise from the intercourse ofthe senses with
the objects, of this world, are transferred to set forth spiritual
ideas that are imagined to have some resemblance to the first
The mind seizes on some supposed analogy, between an ob
ject of sense and an object of revelation, and gives the name
ofthe first to the latter. So all the names of the place of fu
ture punishment originated ; so the names of the place of fu
ture happiness were made. Heaven originally meant the vis
ible expanse, or firmament above. And for the want of a bet
ter name, came to be used for the unseen abode ofthe blessed.
Nor can we speak about the perfections of God without using
words in a like secondary sense. We ascribe to him bodily
organs and modes of thought like to those of men, not because
he really has them, but because such is the poverty of human
language, and the contracted sphere of human ideas, that we
cannot conduct 'Our reasonings without the help of such sup
posed analogy. This is a settled principle of language which no
one disputes in its general form. And the fact that hell as a
place of punishment is not the primary meaning of sheol, no more
weakens the proof that in some instances it has that meaning,
than the fact that the place of future happiness was not prima
rily meant by heaven, proves that that word is never used in
that sense. Yet Mr. B^ ignorantly or willingly overlooking
this principle, says, [Inquiry p. 17.] "It follows of course (from
the admission of orthodox writers that sheol and hades did
not originally signify a place of misery) that, wherever these
words are used in Scripture, though translated by the word
hell, we ought not to understands place of misery to be meant
by the inspired writers." This indeed is a mighty conclusion
to draw from such premises. So you might say, because the
word translated heaven, did not originally signify a place of
happiness, wherever the word is used we ought not to under
stand that a place of happiness is meant. Such are the philo
logical principles of the man who astonishes the natives by
10

1 1 4 PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
lavish exhibitions of the profundity of his Greek and Hebrew
learning. That the place ofthe dead should according to the princi
ple above stated, afford a name for the place of punishment,
will seem still more natural, when it is taken into the account,
that by the same kind of transfer of language, the words life
and death are abundantly used in Scripture for the rewards of
the righteous, and the punishment of the wicked. The place
ofthe dead is made the place of punishment, in the same way
that death is made the name for punishment itself; as in the
following instances quoted by Stuart in his Exegctical Essays,
to which the reader is referred for a more full illustration of
this topic. — Ezek. 18: 4. The soul that sinneth it shall die :
which is repeated in 18: 20. So also in Ezek. 18: 17. He shall
not die. Verse 18. He shall die. V.21. He shall not die. V.23.
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die ? V. 24.
In his trespass that he hath trespassed  shall he die.
V. 28. He that turneth away from his transgression .... shall
not die. V. 32. I have no pleasure in the death of him that di
eth. Prov. 15:10. He that hateth reproof shall die. Ezek.
33: 8. The wicked shall die in his iniquity. 33: 11. Why will
ye die ? Prov. 33: 13. Tf thou beatest him with the rod he shall
not die. Gen. 2: 17. In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt
surely die. 3: 3. Neither shall ye touch it lest ye die. John
6: 50. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that
a man may eat thereof and not die. Rom. 8: 31. If ye live af
ter the flesh ye shall die. So the noun death is used in tha
same sense. Deut. 30: 15. See, I have set before you this
day life and good, death and evil. Jer. 21: 8. I have set be
fore you the way of life, and the way of death. Prov. 5: 5.
Her feet go down to death. John 8: 51. If any man keep my
sayings, he shall never see death. Rom. 6: 23. The wages of
sin is death. James 1: 15. Sin when it is finished bringeth
forth death. Rev. 2: 11. He that overcometh shall not be hurt
ofthe second death. Here I take it for granted the words die
and death are used in a figurative sense, to imply punishment

PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 1 15
or suffering, endured as the consequence of sin. No matter
whether that punishment be in the future world or not — let
every one judge of that — it is punishment expressed by death
used in a secondary sense. These and other like instances,
which might be multiplied indefinitely, are all examples of
that kind of usage of language, by which the place ofthe dead
became the place of the punishment ofthe dead. Whether
when it is said, the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is
eternal life, eternal death be meant, I do not affirm or deny in
this place ; the reader may judge for himself. But all must ad
mit that death is figuratively used, as a name for punishment of
sin, as sheol the place of the dead is figuratively used for the
place of punishment for sin. Even should we grant, what Mr.
B. contends form his book miscalled a reply to Stuart's Essays,
that the word death in these cases does not mean suffering for
sin in the future world, still it means suffering for sin, and you
may locate it where you will, and yet it will be as much in point
to illustrate the usage of the language in question.
Having admitted that the primary, and most general use of
the word sheol, was as a name for the place of the dead, I shall
have no need to notice a great part of Mr. B.'s Inquiry on this
subject, which consists of comments upon more than half a
hundred passages in which the word occurs, to prove what no
one was ever silly enough to dispute, that the word in those
instances does not mean hell. I shall make a short story of a
long one, by confining my attention to those passages, where
I conceive the word is used for a place of punishment.
Psalm 49: 15. But God will redeem my soul from the power
of the grave. In the context the righteous are exhorted not to
be disturbed by the pride and oppression ofthe wicked, on the
ground that the prosperity ofthe wicked could not continue —
that they would all die like sheep, and death should feed upon
them, while God would deliver the soul ofthe righteous from
the power of sheol, and receive him to himself. The subject of
the Psalm is the prosperity of the wicked on this side of the
grave, and its melancholy end, and the reverse which takes
place in favor of the righteous at death. How can it be true,

116 PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
that God will redeem his people from the power of sheol, if it
be not from sufferings in sheol after death, while death is left
to feed upon the wicked ? How can it be that death shall feed
upon the wicked in a sense in which it does not upon the
righteous, if there be no distinction by happiness, and punish
ment beyond the grave ? In the 73d Psalm, we have also the
same general ideas. The writer was envious at the foolish
when he. saw the prosperity of the wicked, and thought that
he had cleansed his heart and washed his hands in vain, until
he went into the sanctuary of God and understood their end.
And his doubts are solved by contrasting their end with his
own, by seeing them' (in the light of the sanctuary, not by any
knowledge from earthly sources,) brought into desolation and
consumed with terror, but himself guided by God's counsel,
and afterwards received to glory — being assured that while
his heart and his flesh faileth, God is the strength of his heart
and his portion forever. That this reverse in favor of the
righteous, and against the wicked is to take place in their
"end" after death is evident, because it is far from being a
fact, that the .wicked are in all cases brought into desolation
and consumed with terrors, and that the righteous are always
exalted, on this side ofthe grave.
Psalm 9: 17. The wicked shall be turned into hell, and
all the nations that forget God. Do you say that sheol here
means only the place ofthe dead, and make the sense of the
passage — The wicked shall be turned into the grave ? I answer,
shall not the righteous too be turned into the grave ? But Mr.
Balfour tells us " it is one thing to die and another to be cut off
by the judgment of God from the earth." Yes, but death is
death in both cases. And Mr.. Balfour is desired to inform us
what there was in the death of the heathen, which he says are
here meant by all the nations that forget God, in which a
marked' and terrible distinction was made from the death of
Israelites. When was, or ever will be the time, when all
heathen nations will die a death, so marked_ by the finger of
God, He raises a difficulty out of its being asserted that
all the nations of heathen shall be turned into sfceoZ,— assum-

PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 1 17
ing that it cannot be that all will go to hell. It is asserted that
the wicked and those that forget God will be turned into hell.
But if there be any Jews or Gentiles who are neither wicked nor
guilty of forgetting God,- they of course will be saved. But
that forgetting God, is in God's esteem a grievous sin, you
may see in Psalm 50: 22. Now consider this ye that forget
God, lest I tear you in pieces and there be none to deliver.
Prov. 5: 5. Her feet go down to death, her steps take hold
on hell: Prov. 9: 18. But he knoweth not that the dead are
there, and that her guests are in the depths of hell. Sheol in
both these instances is made the end of intercourse with lewd
women. And as neither a sudden nor violent death was the
necessary result of that sin, there seems to be little propriety
or force in the expressions, unless a punishment after death be
intended. But Mr. B. tells us, allusion is here had to the dis
ease which attends such intercourse. And says that medical
men aver that this disease had .existence as early as when
this was written. But what medical man has averred it, or is
competent to do so, we wait to be informed. Suffice it to say,
there is a total absence of proof that any such disease existed
then. And yet the matter needs to be proved before it can be
used to his purpose.
Deut. 32: 22. A fire is kindled in mine anger, and it shall
burn to the lowest hell. Mr. B. here suggests that if we un
derstand by the lowest hell, the place of endless misery, there
must be three divisions of it. So I may say if we understand
by it the place ofthe dead, there must be three divisions of it,
and therefore it cannot be the place ofthe dead. And suppose
the language did fairly support Mr. B.'s inference, would that
prove it not to be a place of punishment. Is he able to show
an absurdity in the idea of different degrees of misery in hell ?
The imagery of the text is that of a fire, kindling upon the
surface of the earth, and burning down, to the place which the
imaginations of men at that time peopled with the spirits of the
dead, which place had become the name for hell.
These are not all the instances in which I conceive the word
10*

118 PLACE OF FUTURE FUNISHMENT.
has that meaning, but they will serve as a specimen of the use
ofthe word, when employed in its secondary sense. Does it
seem strange to any, that the place of future punishment is
not revealed with more clearness in the Old Testament, they
will do well to inquire with how much distinctness the place
of future happiness is there spoken of. There is as much said,
and as distinctly said in the Old Testament, of hell, as there is
of heaven. Mr. B. makes much ofthe fact that there is no in
stance ofthe use ofthe word where it means of itself the place
of eternal misery, that is, that the word does not of itself deter
mine the duration of that punishment. But with what fairness
let the- reader judge. Is it the property of a name of a place of
punishment to determine the duration of that punishment ?
Does heaven the name of the place of happiness, of itself de
termine the duration of that happiness ? If I should undertake
to prove that there is no future happiness for the righteous, I
could with as much propriety say, that the word heaven is no
where used as the name for a place of eio-noZhappiness. Of
the same character is the following suggestion of Mr. B. — " It
is now generally conceded that the doctrine of endless punish
ment is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does
not pretend that it is taught there, but begs his readers to
grant that probably future punishment may be taught in five
texts." Here are almost as many misrepresentations as words.
The assertion that it is generally conceded that endless pun
ishment is not taught in the Old Testament, is false, and Mr.
B. ought to know it — I do not say that he does. I think I may
say that he knows that orthodox writers generally interpret
Daniel 12: 2. Some to shame and everlasting contempt — an;l
Isaiah 33: 14. Who can dwell with everlasting burnings— is
teaching the doctrine of endless punishment. Then he con
veys the idea that Mr. S. concedes that it is not taught there,
when from the very book of Mr. S. out of which he professes
to take the concession, and to which he has published two pro
fessed replies, he might have read, and it is charitable to pre
sume he has read Mr. Stuart's interpretation of the word ever-

PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 119
lasting in Daniel 12: 2, to mean a proper eternity. But the
falsehood ends not here. He tells us Mr. S. begs his readers
to grant that future punishment may be taught in five texts,
when Mr. Stuart has referred his readers to fifteen texts in
which the doctrine is probably implied. The readers of Bal
four who have never seen Stuart's Essays, must have strange
impressions of that book.
I will now notice Mr. B.'s general concluding remarks upon
the chapter upon sheol. His first remark is that — " In no pas
sage is sheol represented as a place of fire or torment. Noth
ing of this kind stands connected with it in the Old Testa
ment" This is false. For in Deutronomy we read — Afire
is kindled in my anger, and it shall burn to the lowest sheol.
His second remark is — "That olim rendered everlasting,
forever, &c, is never connected with sheol in any shape what
ever." This is true, and what is more — this world o li m is no
where connected with the word translated heaven, meaning
the place of future blessedness.
Remark 3d. " No persons are said to be alive in sheol, to be
punished in any way by any means whatever." This is false
in two particulars. In Isaiah 14. it is said, sheol from beneath
is moved for thee, to meet thee — all they shall speak and say
unto thee, &c. This you say is figurative. Very well. But
the use of such a figure presupposes life and consciousness in
sheol. In regard to the assertion that none are said to be
punished there, its falsity appears in the Psalmist's assertion
that death shall feed on them there. But suppose we grant all
that is here asserted, and. what follows? Cannot a place of
pimishment be named without being accompanied with de
scriptions ofthe several inflictions of punishment there ?
Remark 4th. "The Old Testament writers and modern
cliristians speak very differently about sheol and hell if both
designate the same thing." Here is palpable unfairness.
Mr. B. knows that none pretends that sheol is in all cases sy
nonymous with hell, so that hell could properly be used for it
where it means the grave. It would be strange if the Old

120 PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
Testament writers should not use a word which most general
ly meant the place ofthe dead, differently from our use ofthe
word- hell. And it is neither their fault nor ours, that the Eng
lish word hell, has not the same extent of meaning with the
Hebrew word sheol. Our author has some strange notions about
the nature and origin of language. And p. 47, he arraigns
before him all the users of the English language for 200 years
back, to answer for the crime of perverting the meaning ofthe
word hell in the following terms : " Who has been so kind as
to make the world of future misery the exclusive sense of hell, ,
since the common translation was made ?" And then he goes
on to give his charge a wider range and a longer reach. "I
ask why should hell have the sense of future misery at all."
Sure enough Mr. Balfour — why should there be a word to ex
press such an idea. But men always will be so wicked as to
have words to express their ideas. And when you shall suc
ceed to blot from the minds of men every trace of 'the idea of
future misery, you will be able to redeem that word hell from
perversion. Mr. B. says, " If their belief was the same as in
our day, why do we never find them express that belief, about
eternal punishment, as is now done in books and sermons and
conference meetings and in common conversation." This
question might be retorted. If the Old and New Testament
writers believed there would in the future world be no dif
ference between the righteous and the wicked, between him
that serveth God and him that serveth him not, why do we
never hear them express that belief, as it is now expressed in
books and sermons and conference meetings? Perhaps if we
had as much knowledge ofthe books and sermons and confer
ence meetings and common conversation of David and Solo
mon and Isaiah and Ezra, as we have of those of the present
day, this question would not have been asked. It is an un
heard of requisition, that the only book that has survived of a
nation that flourished 3,000 years ago shall give us all the de
tail, of what passed in books and sermons and conference meet
ings and common conversation.

PLACE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 121
Mr. B.'s answer to objections in the close of the chapter, I
am little concerned to notice. For as the objections, are
chiefly the offspring of his own brain, I am little interested to
defend them. He surely has the best right to determine
whether they shall live ox die.

CHAPTER VIII.

MEANING OF HADES. MEANING- OF TARTARUS.
Hades is the word which the Septuagint translators of the
Hebrew ofthe Old Testament into Greek, have usually em
ployed to translate sheol. And it has essentially the cor
responding meaning of sheol. It is used in the New Testa
ment in the same sense which sheol has in the Old. * The
heathen Greeks connected with their hades, some of the ere- '
ations of their superstitions. But through all the descriptions
which appear in their poets, the leading facts of the Hebrew
sheol can be discovered. TJie Greek poets have more par
ticularly developed their notions of hades. They make it to
be the region of the dead, the underworld, the world ofthe
dead, and this subdivided into upper and lower, the upper part
being an Elysium, the abode of the good, and the other a Tar
tarus or place of punishment for the wicked. The word hades
to which those who spoke the Greek language had given this
meaning was employed as the word to express the Hebrew
idea of sheol. As sheol, though not originally expressive of
that, was capable in a secondary sense of expressing the place
of future punishment, so hades was capable of denoting the
place of punishment. And as hades by the Greeks implied
both a place of happiness, and a place of misery, as separate
divisions ofthe same mansion, of the dead, it even more natur
ally answers the purpose of expressing a place of punishment.
That the word is always used for a place of punishment in the
New Testament, is not pretended. That it has this meaning
in some instances, I shall proceed to show. ,
Matt. 11: 23. And thou Capernaum, which art exalted unto
heaven, shalt be brought down to hell. So Luke 10: 15. the

MEANING OF HADES. 123
same. All that Mr. B. attempts to prove in relation to this I
admit. I admit that it is figurative; that the city had never
b.een literally exalted to heaven, nor would as a city be literally
cast down to hell. But as the use of the word heaven is in the
sense of the abode ofthe blessed; so the use of the word
hell is in the sense ofthe opposite. As the existence of heaven
is implied in such a use of the word, though it is not meant that
the city had been literally exalted to it ; so the existence of hell
is implied, though it is not meant that the city as such would
be cast down to it. ¦
Matt 16: 18. On this rock will I build my church, and the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it. As courts were held '
and all public business transacted at the'gates of cities, the
gates became a, name for the powers and polices of a city. • So
when it is said the gates of hades shall not prevail against the
church, it is meant all tliepowers, polices and machinations of
hell, shall not prevail. Hades here is set forth as the em
pire and head-quarters of wickedness, and opposition to the
church — as the central origin of all the wicked counsels, and
enterprizes undertaken against the church. But if it be the
fountain head of wicked influence and of hostility to the church,
what can it be other than that abode of everlasting punishment,
occupied by the devil and his angels? The only plausible eva
sion of this which I can conceive of is, that hades may here be
simply a name for the empire of death, and the text in that view
represents death as the great enemy of the church. But that
interpretation would greatly diminish, the force ofthe passage.
For death is far from being the only, or the greatest and most
effectual enemy ofthe chui^h. And does Christ intend to say
less than that no enemy shall ^prevail ?
• Luke 16:22, 23. The rich man also died,: and was buried,
and in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torment. This para^
ble ofthe rich man and Lazarus, has occasioned much labor for
both Mr. B.and Mr. W. But whether they have created a de
cent apology for doubting whether hell be here intended, you
will judge. Mr. B. opens his attack upon this passage, by fill
ing out eight pages in proving, that tartarus in the heathen

124 MEANING OF HADES.
hades was fictitious or the mere fancy of the poets. His lan
guage here is very ambig'uous ; but it must mean either that
the fancy of the poets was employed in giving ihe name of
tartarus, and ascribing the attributes that were ascribed to the
real place, or it must mean that the place which goes by that
name, has no real existence. I of course suppose he means
the latter. But, it so happens that all his proofs, so far as they
prove anything, are confined to the former. He proves that
the fancy ofthe heathen poets attached this and that fabulous
idea to tartarus. But that there is in reality no place of pun
ishment which hades or tartarus are fit words to describe, is a
point which his arguments do not touch. There seems to be
running through all the writings of Mr. B. an assumption of a
principle, that if a doctrine or anything like it can be proved to
have been held by heathen, that itself is proof ofthe falsity of
that doctrine. And this assumption is the main principle of
the argument now before us. Egypt believed so and so about
hades, therefore there is no hell. Virgil pictured out the infer
nal regions so and so, therefore hell is the offspring of imagin
ation. It is really humiliating to notice such frivolous prat-
ings. And I would not do it, were it not that my silence
would be taken as constructive evidence of inability to ans
wer, what may appear to the more ignorant of Mr. B.'s read
ers as beyond all the rest wise and learned.
Mr. B. admits that at the time when this parable was utter
ed, the "opinion prevailed among the Jews that there was tor
ment in hades," and he will have it that Christ here speaks in
accordance with popular opinions. But I ask, did our Lord
suffer himself to assert positive error — to say that a man went
to hell when there was no hell, and thus lend his authority to
confirm his hearers in a statement which it is worth a life of
Mr. B.'s learned labors to refute. But Mr. B says repeatedly,
that this was no sanction to error, no more than when he spoke
of demons, satans, ghosts, &c. Thus he assumes that demons
and satan were only imaginary beiDgs, as though it were a
given point, and then builds a weighty conclusion upon it.
And to save appearances, he tucks on that word ghosts, as

MEANING OF HADES. 125
though Christ had somewhere spoken of ghosts by the same
principle of accommodation to popular opinions as of real
beings. I hope in his Third Inquiry he will inform us where.
But look at it. Mr. B. tells us that Christ's hearers believed that
there was torment in hades, and yet that when Christ told
them there was torment in hades, he was not liable to be un
derstood as confirming the opinion that there was. Pray tell
us how Christ's hearers could decide, on such principles, when
he intended to speak the truth and when he did not.
When Mr. B. comes to the question, what did our Lord
mean to teach by so representing hades as a place of torment,
he-says — "This question may be answered by what did he
mean to teach when he spoke of demons.. and of satan as real
.beings ?" Well, what did he mean to teach ? I see not that this
answers the question. But it is all the answer which our au
thor gives, and we must be content with it.
We will turn our attention now to Mr. Whittemore's at
tempt to explain away this passage. His first position is, that
"allowing the passage to be a literal account and not a para
ble, it fails altogether of substantiating either the doctrine of
the Calvinists concerning election, and reprobation, or ofthe
Arminian doctrine^ concerning rewards and punishments in the
future state, for the conduct of men in this life." Very gopd.
If any Calvinist ever came to this passage for proof of the
doctrine of election, he certainly failed of finding it there.
And if any Arminian frames any peculiar notions of his upon
this passage, let him answer it to Mr. Whittemore.
He next says, "allowing the parable to be a literal account and
not a parable, it does not prove that men are to be punished
in the next life for their conduct in this, and that because the
rich man tormented in hades was in some respectsa good man."
Then he goes on to prove, that the rich man was very benevo
lent and holy, by alledging that he fed Lazarus from the
crumbs of his table, and that Lazarus was so pinched with
hunger, that he " delighted" to be fed even with crumbs. He
informs us by the way, that the word means delighted instead
of desired. So much for his benevolence. And then as to his
11

126 MEANING OF HADES.
holiness, that is proved by the fact, that he pmyed to Abra
ham, that his brethren might be warned not to come to that
place. He calls this the breathing of a holy feeling. But
what holiness there is in praying to Father Abraham, and in
drea,ding to have a man's torments aggravated hy the presence
of those who shared in his guilt, does not appear. Here are
the proofs of the man's piety such as Mr. W. relies on to show
that his torments were not on account of his wickedness.
But one would think that his wish to have his brethren warned
to shape their conduct so as not to come to that place of torment,
is proof that he was convinced that his conduct brought
him there — and the hot hearing Moses being brought in as
the ground of their danger, would settle the question. What
is it to hear and obey Moses and the prophets? Is. not he a
wicked man who refuses to hear ? And then if conduct had no
influence in bringing those torments, why should his brethren
be warned lest they also come ?
Mr. W. tells us there were some with Abraham, who would
go to the rich man, but could not. But the parable tells us no
such thing. It does not say that there are any who wish to
pass, but chooses a simple way of saying .that there is a com
plete non-intercourse, and none could pass if they would.
Equal force will be found in the following suggestions, that
"hell cannot be so hot a place, as it has been represented,.or
the rich man would have called for more than a drop of water,"
and this, that the " devil could not be pleased to have so be
nevolent a prayer offered in his dark dominions." These are
the reasonings on which men are invited to risk their eternal
all — by which new and great light is pretended to be poured
upon the holy Scriptures.
Our author's argument, constructed to show that the passage
is a parable is useless, for we are ready to admit it. We con
ceive the same truths are inculcated by it whether it be narra
tive of real fact, or a parable. Take the parable ofthe sower
which Christ himself interprets. He does not bring out the
meaning through the question whether it was narrative or lit
eral fact — whether such a sower went out and sowed in such

MEANING OF HADES. 127
away and compassed such results or not. But when he comes
to the interpretation, he uses the story to illustrate his general
truths, as if it were narrative of real life. This then, Christ
himself being judge, is the proper way to interpret parables.
Whether such a rich man and such a Lazarus lived and died
and came to such ends, is immaterial. But we are to under-.
stand that the results of human conduct in the life and the
state of men in the future life, are as this narrative in its essen
tial features represents.
I make the limitation in the last clause with regard to essen
tial features, for this is made in all interpretations of rhetorical
imagery. A parable is never to be made (to use a homely yet
technical phrase) " to run on all fours." When Lazarus is
represented as in Abraham's bosom, we are not to understand
a literal dwelling in a man's bosom. When the rich man is
said to have lifted up his eyes and to put forth other bodily ac
tions, these expressions argue no more against the fact, that
the parable is descriptive of the condition of spirits in the spir
itual world, than the use of bodily organs everywhere attribu
ted to God, proves that God is not a spirit. These expressions
are the proper results ofthe imperfections of human language
and human conceptions, in relation to matters of the invisible
world. But if this parable is interpreted according to the rules
above stated, none can douht,of_its._bearinga on the subject
before us.
' I now proceed to notice Mr. W.'s interpretation, in which h e
undertakes to tell us what the parable means. In order to
give some air of plausibility to his statements, he pretends that
the verse preceding the parable is related to it as its introduc
tion. The verse is this — Whosoever putteth away his wife
and marrieth another committeth adultery, and whosoever mar-
rieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adul
tery. Upon this our author thus remarks : " If the Jews had
put away the law, and married another covenant before John
came, they in a parabolic sense, would have committed adul
tery. . For infinite wisdom ordained that the law should re
main until John, and it ordained that it Should remain no long-

128 MEANING OF HADES.
' er. For since that time the kingdom of God is preached.
The law was put away, it was fulfilled. The Jews by reject
ing the gospel and adhering to the law, committed adultery,
as would a man that should marry a woman that had been put
away by her husband." Let no man after thjs despair of the
solution of any problem in biblical interpretation ! It seems, ac
cording to this, that the wife (the law) is put away not by the act
of the husband, (the Jewish nation,) nor by her own act, but by
that of a third person. And so put away that it is adultery
even for her own husband, to receive her, after she- had been
forced from him. And that he commits adultery if he refuses
to marry another, that is the new covenant. This is a strange
species of adultery. But not more strange than the original
marriage. The Jewish nation it seems, was married to, not
joined in or by a covenant, to another party — but married to a
marriage covenant' — took a marriage covenant for a wife. And
this we are told is marriage and adultery in a parabolie sense.
Parabolic sense ! nay, arrant nonsense ! Whether the man
himself is a fool or whether he calculates upon all his readers
being fools, I will not decide.
But as to the connexion of the parable with the preceding
verse, Christ said, verse 16. The law and the prophets were un
til John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached and
every man presseth.int£Lii. __That is, ffie"OlQ~Testament insti
tutions were offeree until John. But these now so far as in
consistent with,or as they have been fulfilled by,the introduction
ofthe gospel, are no longer binding. But lest any should think
that the eternal principles of God's law were to suffer mutila
tion, he adds, that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle ofthe law to fail, so he gives them to under
stand that no essential principle of the moral law is repealed
bv abolishing the national ordinances and institutions of the
Jews which had their end and fulfilment in the coming of
Christ. And in the verse respecting adultery, he illustrates
the case by a strong example. Moses desired to prevent all
unnecessary divorces, but was unable to do it without a greater
evil to the state, and so for the hardness of their hearts, he

MEANING OF HADES. , ' 129
suffered a man to put away his wife for other causes than that
of adultery. But Christ took away this permission, and as
serted the doctrine in the verse before us. The scope then ¦_.
ofthe passage is this; — by the change of dispensations not a
tittle of the moral law, suffers a change ; as may be seen in
the example ofthe change which has been made by it in the
law of divorce, which is only the rectifying ofthe imperfections
of ecclesiastical institutions, and bringing the statutes of the
church to a more perfect correspondence with the unalterable
principles of right. But what has all this to do with the para
ble ofthe rich man and Lazarus? A new subject is commenc
ed in the opening of this parable.
Mr. B. makes the rich man to represent the Jewish nation,
and the poor man the Gentiles. The rich man in hell he
makes that nation, cast off for their sins. And the great gulf
is the combination of circumstances which go to keep asun
der the Jews and Gentiles.- But before this is admitted we
shall want a rational answer to some such questions as these:
Is this gulf separating JewS and Gentiles such that they which
would come from them cannot ? Cannot the Jews come to the
embrace of Christianity if they will ? And what was the mer
cy of a drop of water begged of Lazarus? To this Mr. W. ans
wers by proxy, " The Jewish people longed for one drop of
the former legal sprinklings and purifications to refresh their
tongue, that they might confidently say to us that the law was
still efficacious and availing." But these legal sprinklings" are
a boon for which they are not dependent on Christians, and
they were never applied to the tongue nor for purposes of
cooling. And then when have the Jews stood in such a pos
ture of humble supplication before the Gentiles in any case?
And where were his father's house and his five brethren to which
he wished Lazarus tobe sent to testify ? Are there any other
Jewish nations in danger of being cast off and coming to that
place of torment? Do you say they were parts of this same
nation ? But the rich man is made to personate the nation, and
if the whole nation was the person praying, who were his
brethren ? And are Jews wont to supplicate the Gentiles for
11*

130 MEANING OF HADES.
the extension of gospel influences ? And how is it that the five
brethren were to be kept from that place of torment by Mobbs
and the prophets, and not by the gospel ? The gospel in the
peculiar phraseology of Mr. W., is the covenant to which
the church has been married, since the Jews were cast off,
and since they have been supplicating for a drop of legal
sprinkling. And it would be adultery for those five brethren
to marry Moses and the prophets. Then how comes it that
Lazarus, that is the Gentiles, if he go to the five brethren,
must go from the dead, when they are spoken of as not per
suadable by one risen from the dead ? Are the church, those
who have the gospel to dispense to others, the dead, while the
apostate Jews are- the living?
The dying of Lazarus is made a figure for the calling ofthe
Gentiles. But what similitude is there between the dying of
a man and the rising ofthe Gentile world to the glorious light
ofthe gospel ? One would think it should be rather life from
the dead — especially, if death be taken in the Universalist
sense, a dark annihilation sealed upon the spirit till the resur
rection. Really, Mr. Whittemore, are there not some difficul
ties in the way of your ingenious interpretation ? But suppose
we quietly digest all this trash thus far ; hades you say is us
ed figuratively when made a place of torment. But does not
a figurative sense pre-suppose the possibility of a literal sense?
Now if the parts of this story, such as the soul's entering the
invisible world at death, and suffering happiness or misery
there, were not admitted and familiar ideas, how came they to
be used as figures, to set forth something else ? Further, both
Mr. W. and Mr. B. tell us, that this parable, or something very
like it, is found in the Gemara Babylonicum, and that it is used
by Christ as a quotation. Suppose we admit it, and what fol
lows ? If it was composed originally so long before the time of
Christ, it was not composed to pre-figure the rejection of the
Jews, and calling ofthe Gentiles. For the idea of that rejec
tion was far from having a place in the current literature of
those times. Do you say that though originally constructed
for another purpose, it was capable of being accommodated to

MEANING OF TARTARUS. 131
this purpose? Well, but where do you- find your reasons for
apmylngit at all to this subject, if not from the very frame and
structure -©f the parable itself? -But if that structure, was orig
inally adapted to something else, why not now ? So by your
own showing, your, interpretation is not the most natural and
"obvious. The truth is, no man would have thought of putting
such a construction upon such a parable, did not the occasions
of a rotten system demand it — did he not feel himself driven to
the desperate expedient of silencing testimony which he can
not face. When a man undertakes to force the language of
the Bible into harmony with systems so abhorrbnt to the true
scopeand spirit ofthe Bible, into what wretched absurdities is he
unconsciously led I What a miserable business is this of wrest
ing the Scriptures! To say nothing ofthe violence done to the
supreme authority of the Bible and its author — ofthe violence
done to conscience, a man embarked in this, enterprise be
comes in relation to these- subjects, strangely abandoned of,
common sense. His invention will be fertile in expedients to
throw an air of plausibility over false positions, and make the
worse appear the better reason. But he will in the mean time
be guilty of such reasonings as in another man, and on other
subjects, he himself would see to be supremely ridiculous.
I take it then that the testimony of this parable, to the truth
that hades sometimes means a place of torment, is unim
paired.. There are several instances ofthe use of the word in
Revelation, in which to. my mind the word seems indirectly to
implya place of punishment in hades. But they are such in
stances as I should hot rely upon for proof of a doctrine.
MEANING OF TARTARUS.
2 Peter 2: 4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but
cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of dark
ness, to be reserved unto judgment. Here is not the word tar
tarus, but the verb derived from it, tartar o s a s, which amounts
to the same thing as to the question before us. In this case
the context is so decisive as to the meaning of the word, that
if it had been left a blank we could not fillthe blank with any-

132 MEANING OF TARTARUS. -
thing short of that which means a place of the future punish
ment ofthe wicked. I shall first adduce some considerations
independent of the context, and then consider the evidence
which comes from that If the question were to be settled by
thettlassical use of the word tartarus, there could not be a
doubt. For rarely is it used in Greek authors in any other
sense than that of a place pf punishment, and it is only
when the writers speak of the whole of the under world as
a region of gloom,' that they call it tartarus. This fact was
stated by Mr. Stuart ; and Mr. Balfour in his reply did not de
ny it. This kind of proof Mr. B. attempts to evade by saying
that the tartarus of the Greeks was an imaginary place of
punishment This ia an objection which Mr. Stuart has an
ticipated in the following terms — " We may allow the premises,
without in any measure, feeling ourselves moved to the con
clusion. ^ Did not th^ Greek Theos designate an imaginary
God? Was not his our anos and his elusion (elysium)
imaginary? And yet when a Hebrew writer employs Theos
and our an o$ does it designate nothing real, nothing differ
ent from the idea that a heathen Greek expressed. by these
words? — Peter when he wrote Greek, was obliged to use the
Greek language as be found it already made. What term,
then, in order to express the horrors of future punishment,
could he select from the whole Greek language, which was
more significant than t artarosas? Until this question be
answered, I know not how to avoid the conclusion here that
the apostle does refer to a future and endless punishment."
To this Mr. B. replies that Theos and our anos are used
more frequently than, tartarus, and therefore, the cases
are not parallel. Not parallel in respect to what? The num
ber of times in which they are used. But as to the manner
and nature ofthe use, exactly parallel — as Mr. B. by not show
ing, leaves us to believe. But he goes on to say — "Had the
Scripture writers only used Theos and our anos once,
how could you be certain that they attached to them those pe
culiarities of meaning, which may be sought for in vain from
the classic authors to designate the true God or a true heav-

MEANING OF TARTARUS. 133
en?" Surely you might be certain that they used them in a.
new and peculiar sense or -in the old classical sense, and
Mr. B. may choose which he will have it. If TTieos had
been used but once, say in the instance — " I am the God of
Abraham,", or in the phrase, "the Son of God'' — would any one
doubt whether the God of the heathen or the true God were
meant ? No more reason is there to believe that tartarus
was-jbsed for the heathen hell. So much for the meaning of
the word tartarus.
' We -will now direct our attention to the manner in .which
it is here used. That a place of punishment is meant, is evi
dent, because the writer is- speaking directly of punishment.
In the verse preceding he says, whose judgment now of a long j,
time lingereth not ; and whose damnation slumbereth not. And
he then proceeds— For*4fGod spared not the angels that sin
ned, butr«ast.theni down to hetl^^ddeirvereu^heinifltq/hains
of darkness to be reserved unto judgment ; and he then goes
onto enumerate other examples, as God's bringing the flood
upon the world ofthe ungodly, and his overthrow of Sodom and
Gomorrha. Mr. B. informs us that the ", angels that sinned"
here mean Korah and his company. But there are some small
difficulties in the way. , The writer in citing other examples
follows the order of time, mentioning the flood first, and Sod
om's destruction after ; but this interpretation would put Ko-
rah's destruction before the flood. Then we have no reason to
suppose that the churches to whom Peter, wrote, had been ac
customed to call Korah and his company a company of angels,
and that they would know that he meant them by. that name.
Then the angels are said to be delivered into chains of confine
ment, as if in prison, which is no natural phraseology rto ex
press the matter of dying, or the particular death supposed.
Then it is said they are reserved unto judgment — which is not
true of Korah's company on Mr. B.'s hypothesis. According
to his system, Korah's company remain in blank annihilation,
till they shall, at the end of the world, awake to a heayenly ex
istence. But such, a difficulty as this, is nothing in the way of
Mr. Balfour, He tells us that the judgment means the des^

134 MEANING OF TARTARUS.
truction of Jerusalem. Read his. marvellous wisdom. — "Now
though Korah and his company were punished on the spot for
their rebellion, yet we are told all the sins ofthe Jews as a na
tion, which had been committed during past ages were at that
time visited on the nation. On that generation came all the
righteous blood which had been shed on the earth." But to
make the destruction of Jerusalem a judgment to Korah, is in
verting the rule of visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the
children. It is visiting the iniquities of children upon fath
ers forty generations back. It is carrying back the visitation
instead of carrying it forward. I can understand how the blood
of Abel can be required of that generation of the Jews, but not
how the inflictions of God's wrath on Jerusalem can be called
the judgment upon Cain.
As there is not in text or context an;J%llusion to the history
of Korah, it is incumbent on Mr. B. to prove that Korah and
his cpmpany had at the time, when Peter wiote, currently pass
ed under the name of angels, so that men in all parts of the
world whither Peter's letter was directed,«would recognize the
meaning at once. This is not attempted. To prove that the
angels are here meant, he tells us that Korah and his company
were two hundred and fifty princes, who might with as much
propriety be called angels as men might be so called, in case of
the angels ofthe churches in Revelation. But then the con
nexion interprets the meaning plainly, and the reader is not
left in doubt. But here it is said " the angels that sinned" as
though every reader would know what angels, and yet we are
invited to -believe that Peter had his eye on an event to which
there is no allusion, and nothing to lead us to suppose such an
event was intended. Mr. B. says as the second reason, that
Korah and his company sinned, and lost their station thereby.
Granted. Thirdly, he says the connexion favors his view of
the subject. Let the reader decide that. Under this head he
says, " Certainly all will allow it is not the custom of the sa
cred writers to blend in this way examples of God's justice on
men and angels together. If it is done here; another ex
ample of the kind cannot be produced from the Bible," This

MEANING OF TARTARUS.

135

assertion would amount to little if true. But is not here an
example of the kind — Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire
prepared for the devil and his angels? (See also Jude 6.) Is not
that God's judgment on men and angels together? Fourthly,
he suggests that this judgment on the angels, is held up as at
warning to ungodly men — which it could not be if it were a
judgment on angelic spirits, since no man has seen the angels
punished or had any means of knowing the fact if it were true.
It rested entirely on Peter and Jude's statements. Are not
Peter and Jude's statements so much in point worthy of credit ?
If not, we have that of Christ more in point I beheld satan as
lightning fall from heaven. This evidently alludes to satan's
original apostasy, as 'the context will show. John also says —
The devil sinneth from the beginning. Which is as much as
to say, that sin began in the apostasy ofthe devil, and the, next
sentence shows his agency in the sins of this world. ..,. For this
purpose the son of God was manifested, that he might destroy
the works of the devil. And J ode's testimony is — And the an
gels which kept not their first estate but left their "own habita
tion, hath he reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness,
unto the judgment of the great day. >
How a man can have a face- to write and print such glaring
perversions of language so plain, is a mystery of no easy soln-
tion. Sure I am that the mind comes to this belief of such per
versions of truth, if it ever does believe them, while entertain
ing little adequate sense of the solemn import of the question
at issue. How differently men think and reason upon such a
subject while in the midst of life and health, from what they
would while standing on the brink ofthe eternal world ! Now,
the question can be agitated -with as little sense of personal
interest, as if it were a problem in mathematics. But the hour
is coming to all, when this question will stand1 out in a light
far different. '--"-'

CHAPTER IX.

THE MEANING OF GEHENNA.

This like all other words, applied to the scenes of the fu
ture world, was originally applied to what existed in this world.
In its primary sense, it was a name for a valley adjacent to
Jerusalem. It is a compound word, signifying the valley of
Hinnom. It was anciently a delightful valley, shaded with a
-delightful grave, and here the idolatrous Israelites established
the worship of Moloch, and sacrificed their own children to
the idol by burning them.. The valley ^is also called Tophet
from the Hebrew word Tgph, signifying a drum, because
drums were beaten to drown the cries of, the victims. After
the captivity, this spot was regarded with abhorrence on ac
count of these abominations. And following the example of
Josiah, the Jews threw into it every species of filth, the car
cases of animals, and the dead bodies, of malefactors. And to
prevent a. pestilence arising from such a mass of putrifaction,
constant fires were maintained in the valley, in order to con
sume the.whole. By an easy metaphor, the Jews who could
imagine no severer torment.than that of fire, transferred that
name to the place of ,the infernal fire — to that part of hades
which they supposed to be inhabited by demons and the souls
of wicked men suffering punishment So much I suppose is
admitted by all. That the word is not used in the Old Testa
ment in the sense of hell, I freely concede. That it is rarely if
ever used in the literal sense of the valley of Hinnom in the
New Testament, is granted by my opponents. That it is used
in the New Testament in a transferred sense, Mr. B. fully
concedes. What this transferred sense is, is the question now
before us. This we will attempt to settle by an examination
of the particular passages where it occurs.

MEANING: OF GEHENNA. 137
Matt. 5: 22. But whosoever shall say thou fool, shall be in
danger of hell fire. Here I agree with Mr. B. that the word
is in no case to be imderstood of such a punishment as burning
alive in the valley of Hinnom. This passage hasits difficulties of
interpretation, but to my mind none of the difficulty lies in de
termining that the destruction of Jerusalem is not the punish
ment here intended by hell fire. Something more than SchleuS-
ner's authority unsupported by the reasons on which it rests
is needful to convince me that among the Jews " any severe
punishment especially a shameful kind of death was denomin
ated Gehenna." Mr. Balfour finds but one meaning to the
word, making it in all cases a name for the destruction of Je
rusalem whenever it is used in the gospels. Where then is
his evidence that it is used in that indeterminate sense ? And
then there is no evidence external or internal, that Christ used
the word or that his hearers would understand him ofthe des
truction of Jerusalem. There is no allusion in the context, and
nothing which would guide the mind of Christ's hearers to
such a "meaning, unless that meaning by use had become dis
tinctly, and familiarly appropriated to the word. And that was
impossible, for Jerusalem's destruction was not generally sus
pected, when the sermon on the mount was delivered, and of
course such a meaning ofthe word could not come into gen1-
eral use.
But Mr. B. says, no one supposes the two first, i.e. the judg-
andthe council to refer to a future state, and asks, why should
the third ? To this, it is enough to reply, that no one supposes
that the two first refer to national calamities, and why should
the third? Suppose a public speaker, were to say of a certain
eourse of wickedness, that it leads to the prison, to the gal
lows, and to hell. You might say with as much .reason, the
two first do not refer to a future state,- why then' should the
third? Mr. B. asks- -"Is the crime of calling a brother a fool. so
much worse than the other two ?" I answer, the climax in the
text is something, of this nature — The first punishment cal
led judgment, was a punishment by death, adjudged by the
12

138 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
lower court, the second was death, pronounced by the highest
authority, and inflicted in the most appalling forms, and the
third must be a punishment adjudged by the highest of all
courts, the court of heaven. We are- not to understand this
passage as a statement of the comparative guilt of the three
sins, but as a powerful representation of the fact, that sins of
mere intention and words,- are in the sight of God as offensive
as more overt actions. Ye have heard that it was said by them
of old time thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be
in danger of the judgment, (death adjudged by the lower
court.) But I say unto you, whosoever is angry with his broth
er without a cause, is guilty of that which in God's esteem is the
same as murder. And so of the rest — To say to his brother,
Raca, that is to give expression to that causeless anger, is
with more propriety counted as murder. And to call a brother
a fool (a miscreant) in anger, is in God's esteem, a sin for
which there is no adequate punishment this side of hell fire.
In this understanding of the passage, it is not difficult to see
why callings brother a fool should be represented as such a
crime. The design seems to be not so much to make a com
parison between the three sins, as to represent all the three,
as guilty far beyond the common apprehensions of men.
Having answered Mr. B.'s question, we might now retort it
upon him. Why should calling a brother a fool expose one
to shame in Jerusalem's destruction, rather than the other two ?
He shows wherein it was a great crime to call a brother a fool,
but not what particular relation that crime had to the national
judgments then impending, rather than the other two. That
gehenna'm this passage means anything else than hell, remains
yet to be proved.
Matt. 10: 28. Fear not them which kill the body but are not
able to kill the soul. But rather fear him who is able to de
stroy both soul and body in hell. I have already considered
Mr. B-'s views of this passage, p. 23. The question whether
gehenna here means hell, turns on the question whether a man
has a soul to be destroyed in hell. I think I have shown the
absurdity ofthe position, that though a man has no soul, he has

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 139
a life in danger of being killed after the body is dead. But if
it be granted that a man has a soul, capable of being destroyed
after the body is dead, it will follow that gehenna is the place,
where destruction is inflicted on the soul after the death of
the body.
Matt. 18: 9. If thine eye offend thee pluck it out, and cast it
•from thee ; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,
rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Mr. B.Js
first reason why gehenna here may not, mean hell, is, that Christ
was speaking to his own disciples. Well; what if he was ? Did
not they need to be urged to self-denials, by a consideration of
the danger of hell? And did not the urging after all prove of
none effect upon one of their number? He next asserts that
iff no instance where Christ speaks of gehenna was the future
state a subject of discourse. But this is asserting the very
point in dispute. But he spends his chief labor in an attempt to
explain away the fact, that everlasting fire, and the fire of gehen
na, are here used as meaning the same thing. Having consid
ered at sufficient length the use of the word everlasting, when
applied" to punishment, I have no occasion to follow him through
his attempt to prove that everlasting fire does riot mean hell.
I take it as proved, in a.previous chapter, that everlasting fire is
no other than the fire of hell, and I discover nothing, here to
invalidate that proof. In one verse, Christ says, rather than
having two eyes to be cast into.hellfire, and in the other, rath
er than having two hands, to be cast into everlasting fire. Mr. B.
here admits that if the fire of gehenna means the national judg
ments, so does everlasting fire; and he finds a use for the term
everlasting in the protracted calamities which have fallen upon
the Jews.- But how could that kind of everlasting fire, affect in
dividuals then living? What if these calamities have been con
tinued through so many generations, they are therefore no
more severe on that account, to the individuals who fell with
Jerusalem. Their bands and their eyes have suffered no more
from the fire being in that sense everlasting: But this point
comes up again under another text.
The contrast between entering into life, and going into ge- >¦:.

140 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
henna, proves thatgehenna is that which stands as the oppo
site of heaven — It is better to enter into life maimed, than
having two hands to go into hett. Do- you say, entering into
life, means only coming in possession of that spiritual life which
believers haye in this world ? The answer is, the disciples were
supposed already to have entered into that life ; and they could
not be properly exhorted to the means of entering into it.
Then there was no entering into life reserved for them, but
entering into heaven. And then it is not only called everlast
ing fire, and put in contrast with entering into heaven ; but as
if to cut off all possibility of understanding it of anything short
of hell, the expression is added, where tbeic worm dieth not,
and the fire is not quenched ; which is equivalent to saying
that the soul will always live, to endure the punishment, and
the fire will not be quenched, during the life of the soul. To
the phrase. unquenchable fire used in another place, the -Uni
versalists object that it means only that which burns as long as
the fuel lasts. But to cut off that pretence, here is an assur
ance that it will last forever.
Matt 23: 15. Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, hypo
crites; for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte and
when he is made, ye make him two fold more the child of hell
than yourselves. Mr. B. says nothing on this passage but what
is absolutely too frivolous to notice. On the supposition that
gehenna means hell, the phrase, child of gehenna, is clear and
natural. As with the Hebrews, child of death, signified one
worthy of death, or children of wrath signified those exposed
to wrath, so child of hell, signified one exposed to hell, oy de
serving of it. But the child of Jerusalem's destruction seems
to be rather an awkward and unnatural product. And by what
rule of language would he be understood by his hearers so to.
mean, they having no anticipations of such a destruction ? If
that destruction were universally expected, and in every one's
mouth, under the name of gehenna, the case would be different.
But the event could not pass by that name, nor any other name
specially appropriated to it, because none had been expecting
it. The Old Testament prophets' predictions of it seem not to

MEANING' OF GEHENNA. 141
have been understood: he himself had predicted it only in the
hearing of a few, and never in plain and direct terms, till after
this discourse was held. It is preposterous then to suppose,
that his hearers would recognize that event, by that name in
troduced with suph brevity of allusion. If gehenna had become
such a current name for Jerusalem's expected destruction, it
is strange that there are no instances in the discourses of
Christ, where he plainly and indisputably uses it in that sense.
If that were the fact, it might be expected that where the word
is used so often, and reported in different forms by different
Evangelists, there would be at least one instance, where it
would be so eonfined in its meaning, to the destruction of Je
rusalem, that every eye must so apprehend it. We have in
stances where it refers to a place ofthe destruction" of the soul,
when it is called an everlasting fire, but not an intimation that
it is a name for Jerusalem about to be destroyed.
Matt. 23: 33. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell! Mr. Balfour first undertakes
to explain away the force of the word damnation. What he
says on this subject, will find a sufficient refutation in chap. II.
He then asks us to go back to three sources of evidence as to
the meaning of the word gehenna. First, the original meaning
ofthe term. This he asserts, and we grant, was not that of a
place of punishment in a future state. Neither was it that of
the destruction of Jerusalem. So the original meaning of the
word favors not pne interpretation more than the other. ' He
invites us, secondly, to look at the Old Testament usage ofthe
word, and assures us that it is never used there in the sense of
a place of future punishment. Very true ; and neither is it
used as a name of Jerusalem's destruction. He thirdly invites
us to look at the context — which we will do. The evidence
from the context brought to prove that this passage refers to
the destruction of Jerusalem, is the assertion in verse 36. All
these things shall come upon this generation. It is pretended
that these things include the damnation of gehenna above spo
ken of. This then is the question to be settled. We will give
the whole passage. After pronouncing various woes upon the
12*

142 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
Scribes and Pharisees, and bidding them fill up the measure of
the fathers, he adds, Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how
can ye escape the damnation of hell ? And then beginning a
new paragraph, he says— Wherefore, behold I send unto you
prophets and wise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall
kill, and crucify, and, some of them ye shall scourge in your
synagogues, and persecute them from city to city,; that upon
you may come all the righteous blood that has been shed upon
the earth, from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias,
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon
this generation. The reader will perceive that there is an in
termediate topic introduced between the damnation of gehen
na, and th& phrase " these things," a topic connected with the
foregoing by a "wherefore," and introduced as a distinct conse
quence from that. The course ofthe remarks is this, Because
ye are a generation of vipers, so deserving of the damnation of
hell, and determined to fill up the measure of your fathers, 1
will give you further opportunity to act out your infernal dispo
sitions towards the prophets, and to fill up the measure of
your iniquity, and so prepare the way to bring upon you, as a
nation, all the blood of all the prophets, shed upon the earth.
The phrase these things, plainly has its antecedent in the things
specified in the preceding verse, to wit: the righteous blood
that has been shed, the blood of Abel, &c. The word "things"
is supplied by the translators. It may as we.ll read all these
(taufa referring to ai ma repeated in the verse preceding)
shall come upon this generation. That this verse is only a sum
ming up ofthe particulars mentioned in the preceding, is too
clear to need proof. ¦ In one verse it is said, that upon you may
come this that and the other, and here it is said all these shall
come upon this generation. The merest school- boy in Greek,
would not risk his credit, in placing the antecedent to these,
back three verses, and in another paragraph. Even Mr. B.
would not have done it, had he not been overcome by a strong
temptation to violate the laws of grammar.
But should we admit that " these things" referred to the dam-

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 143
nation of hell, and nothing else, Mr. B.'s conclusion would
not follow. The word generation (gene a) does not necessa
rily nor primarily nor commonly, mean the men of a certain
age. Nor is it clear that it has this meaning in the passage
before us. Its first meaning given in the lexicons is, " family,
a race, a lineage." And this is the more common meaning
when used by Christ Our translators have used the word
generation, in twenty-eight instances, and in only three of
theser does the context require it to be understood of the men
ofthe age, and in a great majority the sense is better sustain
ed, if we understand it of lineage or nation, as any orie may see
who will take the trouble to-examine. That it is to be so un
derstood in this passage, is apparent from the fact that the sin
which Christ charges upon that generation was the sin of a
previous age, as well as of that, that he makes the charge of
prophet-killing to sweep through all ages, and charges on the
men whom he was addressingl the killing of a prophet who was
killed centuries before they -were born— from the b)ood of
Abel to the blood of Zacharias, whom ye $lew ; yet who had
been slain at least four hundred and fifty years before. Now
how could Christ say to thosewhom he was addressing — whom
ye slew, if ho were not addressing them as of the same family
with those who slew him ? If the charge was built on such an
idea, and he was holding them up as the murderers of Zacha
rias, because ofthe same race with them, how can the word,
generation, be understood otherwise, than in the sense of a
race ? This mode of speaking is continued through the chap
ter. O Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest
them that are sent unto thee, &c. Behold your house is left
unto you desolate. For I say unto you ye shall not see me
henceforth till ye shall say, Blessed is he that nometh in the
name of the- Lord. Here he tells them as a nation that they
are to be left desolate, until they as a nation should welcome
him as the Messiah. So as in the previous verse he addressed
through them, many ages back, here he speaks of what is to
be done centuries hence, as done by them then living. There
is to my mind strong reason for believing that generation is

144 MEANING OF GEHENNA*
used in the sense of a race or family. And when it is said,
all these things shall come upon this generation, it is meant
the guilt that stands charged against this nation for so many
prophets killed, and the guilt yet to be accumulated in the
same way, will bring a fearful reckoning upon the nation. The
destruction of Jerusalem did not come in that generation, con
sidered in the sense of age, or term of thirty years. It occur
red forty years after the death of Christ, when most whom he
then addressed must have been in their graves'. But if gener
ation does not mean what Mr. B. supposes, the main hinge of
his interpretation has gone. I have dwelt, longer on this point
than is needful for the conviction of most, because the Univer
salists place so much reliance here.
Mark 9: 43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off, it is bet-r
terfor thee to enter into life'maimed, than having two hands
to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched, where
their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. • And if thy
foot offend thee, cut it off, it is better for thee to enter halt into
life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that
never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the
fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee pluck it
out, it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with
one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire, where
their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. This is es
sentially the same as Matt. 18: 9. introduced again because
Mr. B. has further carried out his remarks in relation to it.
Here he admits that if to enter into life means to enter into
heaven, gehenna means the World of woe. But he asks, do
they who go to hell carry with them the things with which
others parted in order to get to heaven ? and says, as this will
not be pretended, something else than hell is meant. But this
wUl be pretended. Those who go to hell, do carry with them
their lusts and vicious propensities with which others part, in
order to get to heaven — they utterly perish in their own cor
ruption. Mr. B. attempts to prove that the phrase, eternal life,
and the phrase, enter into the kingdom of God, here mean en
tering into the reign ofthe Messiah in this world. His proof

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 145
is good so far as to show that the phrase, kingdom of God,
sometimes means the reign of Christ at his resurrection, but
he stops short of- proving that that is the meaning here,
where it. is made synonymous with eternal life. It were easy
to show by ample quotations that, kingdom of God, often means
heaven. But I shall adduce but one, and that one whose rel
evancy Mr. B. will not dispute, because it relates to the res
urrection. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh an d blood can
not inherit the kingdom of God, neither doth corruption inherit
incorruption. 1 Cor. 15: 50. But if the kingdom of God in any
case means heaven, it was incumbent on Mr. B. to show why it
does not here, especially since it is made synonymous with
entering into life, a pbrase appropriated to express the enter
ing into heaven, and never used to express the escape from
Jerusalem's destruction.
Another mistake into which Mr. Balfour has fallen with
some orthodox writers respects the phraseology, where the
worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. He tells us this
came from the burning of. perpetual fires in the valley of
Hinnom, to consume the offal there and prevent its breeding
worms, and in the next paragraph, he tells us this passage he
quoted from Isaiah. That this phraseology as used by Isaiah
did not originate from the fires in the valley of Hinnom is cer
tain, from the fact that the scenes in question, never had ex
istence in the days of Isaiah. The desecration of the vailey
of Hinnom by Josiah, and of course the use offires'there for
the purpose aforesaid, did not. take place till more than sixty
years after the death of Isaiah. Mr. Balfour assumes that the
passage as used by Isaiah does not refer to hell, as the world
of woe, and from that assumption infers that when used by
Christ, it does not. Should we admit what is assumed, the con
clusion would not follow. But we do not admit it. He ought
to have known that the leading orthodox writers refer the pas
sage in Isaiah to the world of woe. Bishop Lowth, whose
acquaintance with this prophecy is second to that of few, says,
this passage refers to.something yet future. Scott refers it to

146 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
the future world. And yet Mr. B. says no man we think, will
affirm this, and builds a conclusion on that assumption.
James 3: 6. And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity.
So is the tonguetimong our members that it defileth the whole
body, and setteth on fire the course of nature, -and is set on
fire of hell. The sum of Mr. B's evasion here, is, that it is as
difficult to conceive ofthe tongue being set on fire of hell, as
from the valley of Hinnom. It may be so to him. Yet he has
not told us what the valley of Hinnom has to do in originating
the mischiefs of the tongue. But to us it is easy enough to
conceive what hell has to do in this business. And besides,
Mr. B. here, contrary to his rule in other cases in the New
Testament and without giving us any reason ¦ therefor, inter
prets gehenna in the literal sense. Now if the word means
the destruction of Jerusalem in all other cases, why not here ?
Surely if the word had become so appropriated to that idea as
his other interpretations imply, the readers of James must have
understood him in that sense. But so far as it regards the
sense or nonsense imputed to the passage, there is little choice
between the two. You may as well say that the destruction
of Jerusalem sets on fire the tongue of every slanderer, in all
parts ofthe world, as that the valley of Hinnom does it. There
is no instance ofthe use ofthe word that brings to my mind
more resistless demonstration that the word had become appro
priated to express the world of woe. It was introduced in
such a way as to show that it had a fixed meaning, that would
be recognised by all. And it is introduced not so much be
cause it is the place of punishment, as because it is the source
of infernal malicious influence. Mr. Balfour's quotations from
Schleusner, making gehenna to mean "any kind of punish
ment especially a shameful kind of death," will not serve him
here. Because we have in this passage no occasion for a
place of punishment, except so far as that is the habitation of
evil spirits, who instigate the wickedness ofthe tongue.
Having considered the passages in which gehenna is used,
we will now notice Mr. B.'s chapters of objections to its being
understood in the sense of hell.

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 147
Objection 1st " The term is not used in the Old Testament
te designate the place of endless punishment to the wicked."
Answer. Neither is it used in the Old Testament as a name
for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Obj. 2. Those who believe gehenna designates a place of
endless punishment in the New Testament, entirely overlook
its meaning in the Old. Ans. Those who believe gehenna is a
name for the destruction of Jerusalem in the New Testament
entirely overlook its meaning in the Old, for it is always there
used in the literal sense. In one case the prophet is command
ed to go forth into the valley of Hinnom or Tophet, and break
a bottle in the sight of the people, and tell the people with
reference to Jerusalem's destruction by the Chaldeans, that
Jerusalem is thus to be broken, and to be made desolate as
Tophet, where they then stood. But here Tophet is used in the
literal sense as an object, of comparison, and is no more the
appropriated name for the destruction of Jerusalem, than the
bottle was which he broke before him.
Obj. 3. " Those who believe gehenna in the New Testa
ment designates apface of endless punishment, give it this
sense on mere human authority." Ans. And those who give
it the sense of the destruction of Jerusalem do it on no author
ity human or divine. Pray, on what authority should they fix
the meaning of words, but the usage of those -who spoke and
wrote the language? Where are your divinely inspired diction
aries? I have always believed, till enlightened by Mr. B's. ex
uberant philology, that human authority was sufficient to teach
the meaning of all words.
Obj. 4. "The word gehenna occurs only twelve times in_the
New Testament." Ans. But.suppose it had occurred twelve
hundred times, would it be any more or less likely to mean
hell. The word, valley of Hinnom, does not occur as many as
twelve times, in the Old Testament; is that any proof that it
is not there used in the literal sense ?
Obj. 5. " The word gehenna is used by our Lord and by ¦
James, but by no other person in the New Testament." Ans.
True, but what then ?

148 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
Obj. 6. " But another striking fact it, that all- that is said
about gehenna in the New Testament, is said to Jews and
Jews only." Ans. Striking indeed, but where it strikes is not
so evident. Was not the whole of Christ's preaching address
ed to Jews, and through them to the world?
Obj. 7. " Nearly all that our Lord said about gehenna was
spoken to his own disciples." Ans. Most that is recorded of
his sayings on other subjects, is spoken to his own disci
ples, — but spoken to them to be published to the World. What
was spoken to them in the ear, they were commanded to pro
claim upon the house-tops.
Obj. 8. " Wherever gehenna is mentioned, the persons ad
dressed are supposed to be perfectly acquainted with its mean
ing." Ans. True— and every public speaker or writer, ifhe
has common sense, will use words which his hearers under
stand. But what then ? Mr. B. goes on to say, on the suppo
sition that the Jews understood gehenna as a place of endless
misery, I have a right to ask from what source of information
did they learn it ? He then informs us that they did not learn
it from immediate inspiration, nor from the preaching of John
the Baptist, nor from the instructions or explanations of the
Saviour, nor from the Old Testament Scriptures, but from the
assertions of fallible uninspired men. Marvellous philology!!
Where should they learn the meaning of a word, but from their
own mothers, whence all children learn to talk? — Yea from
their own mothers, fallible and uninspired women. If he had
asked how that word came to be used in that sense, the an
swer would have been different. But after usage had given
it the meaning of hell, surely men needed no inspiration to
understand a word according to its current use. Whence did
Mr. Balfour learn the meaning of the English words which he
employs in his writings, — not from immediate inspiration, not
from the preaching of John the Baptist, not from the instruc
tions or explanations ofthe Saviour, but from the mouths and
writings of fallible men. One oftwo things is undeniably true
our author is either himself ignorant of one of the plainest prin
ciples of language, or else he expects that all his readers will

MEANINC OF1 GEHENNA . 1 49
be thus ignorant, and is capable of buildrng'on such apresump-
tion. Buf I desist from the notice of such- frivolous arguments,
and pass-to his Section IV, in hopes to find something deserv
ing of attention.
This also is a chapter of objections.
Obji 1. " If gehenna means a place of endless miseTy,ifc is a
fact that the apostles- never preached it, either to Jew&or Gen
tiles." Ans.~ Preached what? That they preached the doctrine
of endless misery, we have already shown, page 44 and in oth
er-places; and we shall bring still more evidence uponthat point
in the sequel. But that they used in their epistolary writings.Uie
word gehenna , in more than one instance is not pretended. —
Tile objection assumes that we know every word that the apos
tles used on all occasions of their preaching. Mr. B.asks, can
any man suppose they believed this, yet in the course of thirty
years' preaching, never mentioned it to- their hearers. How
does he know they never did ? Has he a full length report of all
their sermons preached for thirty years? Besides, this kind-of ar
gument is equally good toiprove the contrary. Can any man
suppose that the apostles believed that all men will be saved,
yet in the course of thirty year's" preaching, nevermentioned it
to their bearers?' Do Universalist preachers now, preach thir-'
ty years and never explicitly state this article df their creed?
But suppose the apostles never did nse the wordt gehenna in ,
more than one instance, is not its use by. Christ sufficient?
, Obj. 2: "The salvation revealed by the gospel js never "spo
ken of as a salvation from hell, or endless misery." — "In all the
texts where he (Christ) speaks of hell, > he was not preaching
the gospel, but addressing, the Jews about temporal calam-
ifiescommg on themtasa people." The assertion that' the
salvation ofthe gospel is not a salvation' from hell, is no. more
nor less than assuming the main point in dispute, to prove
a smaller point— and the supposition that Christ was- not'
preaching the gospel, when according to Mr. B.he was speak
ing of temporal calamities, brings us to the conclusion that he;
preached but very little gospel; as we shall see in the sequel. *
It seems then that Christ was not preaching the gospel in his

150 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
sermon on the mount, — That he was not preaching the gospel
when hetoldhis disciples to.proclaiip on the house-tops, what he
was speaking in the ear, and to fear not them which kill the body,
while making the proclamation, — that he was not preaching the
gospel, when urging his hearers to sacrifiqe aright eye or hand,
in his service- A universalist gospel he was not preaching.
Obj. 3. "Supposing gehenna is a place of endless misery
who. can-vindicate the character of our Lord or his apostles for
faithfulness, compassion or zeal ?" Ans. If gehenna be a place
of endless misery, our Lord here stands accused of a want of
faithfulness ! ! If gehenna be a place of endless misery, this ob
jection is not far from blasphemy ! Did then the Redeemer do
too little for the salvation of men? Follow him from the time
when he first disrobed himself of the glory which he had with
his Father before the world was, down through all his debase
ment, labor, strenubusness, endurance, oonfiict, sacrifice, death,
until he reassumed his throne of glory, and tell me if his
compassion and zeal, were not proportionate to the undertak
ing ofa salvation from hell. Ah yes,-atfd if all this was under
gone for no higher object than the prevention of what tempo
ral sufferings he actually prevented, in the few that became his
followers, where was the- adequate object of all this endur
ance ? And so far as this objection touches the conduct Ofthe
apostles — what could men do more they did, if they hadan ac
tual hell ever blazing before their eyes? Knowing the terrors
of the Lord they persuaded men. Thejr compassed sea and
land, at peril of life, penetrated every heathen nation, they bra
ved the thunders of imperial Rome, in their attempts to snatch
men as brands from the burning. Who could be in labors
more abundant, in perils more multiform, if the salvation of a
whole world from an eternal hell, pressed on his single shoul
der ? But if salvation from temporal calamity was their object,
how strangely misdirected and abortive were their labors!
For the converts which they made and their deliverance from
temporal calamity, they suffered the loss of all things, and took
joyfully the spoiling of their goods, thinking that they had in
heaven a better and enduring substance. Their profession

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 151
above all things, exposed them to temporal calamities, instead
of screening them from it. In short the apostles did just what
Mr.-B. supposes ministers ofthe present day would do, if they
believed in the exposure ofthe heathen world to hell.—" They
rushed into the hottest place ofthe battle and suffered every
privation in the' conflict" • . .
Since Mr. B. in -this connexion, plies some of the thread-bare
Sneers against the missi6nary enterprise, I must here remark
that the apostles w'ere in the comple'test sertse of the Word,
missionaries. They consecrated their lives to the conversion
ofthe heathen. Now if theirgoSpel was Universalism; and if
the Universalists are the true successors ofthe apostles, why
do we not now hear of universalist missions to the heathen ?
If the universalist gospel be the same which Paul believed
and preached, why does it not produce a similar spirit in its be
lievers, and similar results on the world ? Why does it not
send abroad its evangelists to every " heathen nation ?. The
temporal condition ofthe heathen is no better now, than it was
in the days of Paul. The call for the' gospel is every way as
great as it was then. And why do not Universalists copy the
example of Paul and become missionaries to the heathen? I
ask not, why they do not contribute to sustain orthodox mis
sions, but why not plant those 'of their own? Why profess to
hold the gospel as apostles held it, and to be their true'"and
only successors in the world, and then both in theory"and prac
tice, denounce, yea, sneer at the very employment, by reason
of which they were called apostle's? Are not un|versalist mis
sions to the heathen in the nature- of'things impossible ? And
is not here proof enough that theirs is a systdm at war With the
gospel ? Suppose the universalist congregations were called
upon to aid in establishing and supporting missions. ' What
effectual motive could be brought to bear upbhtheifi"? Tell
them of the immoralities and temporal wretchedness of toe
heathen, most of them would have 'sense enough to know with
in themselves, that Universalism would hot greatly tend.to im
prove their morals. And over against any possible improve
ment of temporal condition, they would set 'the dangers and.

152 MEANING OF GEHENNA.
sacrifices to be encountered in relieving them by. the tardy
process of gospel illumination. But suppose a Universalist un
dertakes the work with the^eal and self-denial of aPaul. . On
his first entrance upon his field of labor, he jis. met by the ques
tion — Why are you so much in earnest and enduring so much
to induce us to embrace your religion ? By your own -show
ing we are safe enough as to the future world without it. You
answer-r-My object is to make you so. much the happier in this
world. It is replied — The advantage which you offer us then,
is the advantage of enduring persecutions. Op this hypothe
sis, the, early christians would have replied to Paul — If all the
advantages which you offer us are included in what christians
are here seen to enjoy, the advantage of being hunted like
wild beasts, persecuted, afflicted, tormented as they are, to
use your own phrase, and if the conduct in this life do not
affect the life to come, we wish for no Christianity. Such
a reply would have been enough to silence every attempt-to
convert the world from paganism to Universalism. And so
such a conversion is not in the nature of things possible.
Shall we yield t° the pretence that Universalism is primitive
Christianity ? the. religion which induced the apostles to spill
their blood in the cause of mission, while Universalism takes
the lead" in enmity to the work of missions to the heathen ?
His 4th objection, that though the Old Testament is often
quoted in the New, it is never quoted to show that hell is a
place of eternal misery, is harmless and shall not be harmed.
Obj. 5. "If there be a pface of endless misery, another re
markable fact is, that the Hebrew, Greek and English, origi
nally had no name for this place." Remarkable fact indeed !
There was a time when. these languages had no name for any
thing, but things existed then. The Hebrew language in the
same sense may be said originally to have had no name for
heaven. Is this too, a remarkable fact to prove that there is no
place of happiness beyond the grave ? Or was that word chan
ged, from its original meaning by divine or human author
ity? J,'. '
Ohf. 6. >' Another fact deserving our consideration is, that

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 153'
christians -when they speak of hell, adopt the phraseology used
about sheol and hades rather than- gehenna, '-though it is Con
tended that- gehenna' is the word which signifies the place of
endless misery." If such a childish objection as this will have
the impudence to show itself, it shall have the mortification of
answering itself For I know of none Concerned to answer
it. " '
Obj. 7. " Another fact deserving some notice is, that the pun
ishment of gehenna is never once spoken of as a place of punish
ment for the spirit separate from- the body in an intermediate
state nor as a punishmeht'for both body and spirit after the resur
rection." Ans. It is spoken of. as a place of everlasting punish
ment for men. And I see not how the absence of these par
ticulars about body or spirit affects the question. — Have it of
the spirit or body or both, it is a place of a fire that never shall
be quenched.
" Obj. 8. "CloSely connected with the last fact, is another,
that the learned men seem to believe in two" places of future
punishment, and "the common people only" in one." Suppose
it be so; This does not prove thatthere'is no place of punish
ment. Here is another pitiful quibble, unworthy of.aman who
pretends to reason. .
Obj. 9. " Another fact is, we read of the seat death and ha
des delivering up: the dead, which are in them, yet we never
read of gehenna delivering up anything, dead or alive." And
there is a good reason why we do not. Gehenna is a place of
everlasting punishment, and there is no deliverance from it.
¦Hades as the. place ofthe dead- hot as the place, ofthe punish
ment, is represented as yielding up the dead in it. Butgeftera-
na never being used in the general sense of a place of the
dead, there is no occasion for speaking of delivering up its* in
mates. Obj. 10. " That hone "ofthe original words translated everlast
ing in the common version are connected with gehenna orhell."
What does the man mean? ( Is' not in Matt. 18 everlasting fire
used interchangeably for hell fire or geheniia fire f And' is not
this a connexion of "gehenna with trie word' everlasting ? That
13*

154

MEANING OF GEHENNA.

the expression, eternal hell, does not appear in the Bible isa fact
and for a good reason : for gehenna was a name for a punish
ment known to he eternal, and the addition of that word was
superfluous. Besides, the eternity of the punishment in gehen
na is sufficiently asserted in other- connections, and the fact
that that word is not used in that connection proves nothing.
Obj. 11. " In the common language of most christians, you
find heaven as the place of blessedness for the righteou9, spok
en of in contrast with gehenna or hell as the place of endless
misery for the wicked." Ans. Now if most christians use im
proper language in this particular,.! see not but they must re
form their vocabulary. But what does this prove as to the
question ofthe meaning of gehenna in the bible ?
Obj. 12. " It is common with orthodox preachers to repre
sent hell as a place of endless torments for the wicked, and
speak of persons being tormented there by the devil and his
angels." Indeed ! it is common to speak of devils and wicked
men as being in the same place of punishment ! Q tempora !
O mores!! Orthodox preachers have become so wicked
as to copy the very language of Jesus Christ— Depart ye
cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the d^vil and his an-*
gels. I have thus quoted seriatim two strings of Mr. B.'s objections,
amounting to 16 in all, not because there was one of them which
I would not be. willing to have stand unanswered, but that my
reader^ who have never read his learned works, may have some
idea of the kind of. argumentation, by which he makes out his
results. I shall make no reliance on the arguments drawn from
the Targums,to prove that in the days of Christ the Jews used ge
henna in the sense of hell, though I deem it of itself conclusive.
Because I concejye that that point has been already made out
by examination of passages from the New Testament. And be
cause a full, and satisfactory statement of that argument, would
occupy more space than the relative importance ofthe ques
tion would justify. His section devoted to answering objec
tions I, -shall not notice, becaus.e I choose to have the framing
of my own objections to hjs system, in preference to those

MEANING OF GEHENNA. 155
which he has constructed, for the ease of answering. I leave
the question now whether gehenna does not mean a place of
punishment in the future world to the reader's decision.
The idea of a place of punishment in the future world is in
culcated in the New Testament in passages where neither of
the words-above considered; is used.! Rev. 19 : 20. And the
beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought
miracles before him — these both were cast into a lake of fire,
burning with brimstone. Rev. 20: 10. And the devil that de
ceived them was cast into a lake of fire and brimstone, where
the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day
and night forever and ever. And 1 saw a great white thrqne,
and him that sat on it from whose face the earth and the heav
ens fled away.- And I saw the dead, small and great stand be
fore God, and the books were opened, and another book Was
opened, which is thebook of life, and the dead were judged
out of those things which were written in the books according
to their works. — Anc( whosoever was not found written in the
book of life,' was cast into a lake of fire. Rev. 21: 8. But the
fearful and unbelieving and the abominable and murderers and
whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all '-liars shall
, have their part in a lake which burneth with fire and brimstone,
which is the second death. To these may be added those pas
sages which speak of casting into a furnace of.fire, where shaU
be wailing and gnashing of teeth— into outer darkness where
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. These passages heed
no comment. Let the reader take them in their connection and
judge for himself, whether they relate to scenes before or af
ter death. ¦'.'»"

CHAPTER X. ,

THE EXISTENCE AND AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS.
The bearings of this question upon the subject ofthe pun
ishment of the, wicked have been considered by Mr. B.of suf
ficient importance to justify thelabor of 200 pages to disprove
the existence of the devil. The relative Importance of the
subject would not sustain me in going fully into the proof of
the reality and agency of eviK spirits. Nor need I. do it. .It
has been done, by abler hands. Those who wish to read a
popular yet sufficiently learned argument on that subject, are
referred to " Letters to Dr. Channing, by Canonicus." My
labor in this chapter; will be chiefly employed in exposing
the fallacy of the argument pf Mr. Balfour.
I-need not trouble the reader with a particular notice of the
first section, in which he draws, a caricature of the common
opinions on the subject of satan, with a design to set them forth
in an odious light In his second section he employs ten pag
es to prove that it was not a fallen angel that tempted Eve.
He makes the serpent a personification' of lust in Eve. He asks,
What was it which deceived Eve and which Moses here rep
resents by the subtilty of the serpent, and answers, it was lust
or desire in Eve. The error of this interpretation has been
happily exposed by an anonymous writer in the Christian Mag
azine, whose language in this and in a number of other cases in
this chapter, I shall take the liberty to borrow, though in some
cases in an abbreviated form. The writer above named 'car
ries out Mr. B.'s interpretation as follows — "Now lust was
more subtle than any' beast of the field, which the Lord
God had made. And he (lust) said unto the woman, yea, hath
God said, ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden ? And

THE EXISTENCE AND 157
the woman said unto the lust or desire;, we may eat of the fruit
ofthe trees ofthe garden : But of the fruit of the tree which
is in the midst ofthe garden, God hath said, ye shall not eat of
it, neither shall ye"touch it, lest ye die. And the lust or de
sire said unto the ' woman — Ye shall riot surely die, For God
doth know, that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall
be opened and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.
And when the woman saw that the tree was good' for food, and
that it was pleasant to . the eyes,-and-a tree to be ¦ desired, or
lusted for, or serpented, to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof and did eat — Verse 13. And -the Lord said unto the
woman, what is this that thouhast done : And the woman said
lust or desire beguiled hie, and I did eat. And the Lord saffl
flnto lust or desire, because thou hast done this, thou artxurSed
above all cattle^ and above every beast of the field, and upon
thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of
thy life. And I will put enmity between thee (lust or desire)
and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; and it
shall bruise thy (lust or desire) head, and thou (lust or desire)
shalt bruise his heel. ' Unto the woman he said, I will great
ly multiply thy sorrow, and thy conception ; in sorrow shalt thou
bring forth children, and thy lust, desire, .or serpent, shalt be
towards thy hushand, and he shall rule over thee."
In his next section, Mr. Balfour undertakes to examine all
the passages where the word satan, or adversary occurs, in
order to prove that it means only adversary. Most of this- of
course is a work* of supererogation, for none ever pre
tended that the word adversary was always used in the
sense of an evil spirit. You might as well construct a chap
ter," to prove that the word Messiah never means Christ, be
cause in this and that instance it means simply the.anointed,
and is applied to priests or kings. The next passage in which
the term satan occurs as a proper name is I. Chron. 11: 1. And
satan "stood up against Israel and provoked David to number
Israel. On this passage, Mr. B. comes to the conclusion, p. *
34, that the term Satan may -mean some evil desire or passion
in the mind of David-,, or some human adversary. Nor, says he,

158 AGENCY OF EVII, SPIRITS.
would it" be very strange, that the anger of Jehovah was in this
passage the satan referred to. Though Mr. B. appears at loss
to determine who or what is. meant by satan in this passage,
yet after his- labored criticism we may doubtless venture to
read it thus- -And some evil desire or passion in his own mind
or some human adversary, or the anger of Jehovah,- stood up
against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
The next remarkable passage, where, satan is introduced as
representing a real person, or being, occurs in the .first and
second chapters of the book of Job. Here Mr. B. gives his
own repeated assertions, to refute the heathenish notion of an
evil being called Ahruman, and which he is pleased to call
" the christians devil." He is under the necessity however, of
supposing that the term satan here, must- allude to something^
and chooses therefore that the ^Sabean and Chaldean free
booters, should receive this appellation. In orde,r to obtain
the true sense ofthe passage then, we may read it in the fol
lowing manner: "Now there was a day, when the sons of God
came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Sabean
and Chaldean free-booters came also among them. And the
Lord said unto the Sabean and Chaldean free-booters, whence
comest thou ? Then the Sabean and Chaldean free-booters
answered the Lord and said, from walking to and fro in the
earth, and up and-down in it. And the Lord said unto the
Sabean and Chaldean free-booters, Hast thou considered my
servant Job ? "That there is none like him in all the earth, a per
fect arid upright man, and ojie that feareth God and escheweth
evil? Then the Sabean rind Chaldean free-booters answered
the Lord and said, — Doth Job fear God for nought ? Hast not
thou made an hedge about his house, and about all that he
hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands,
and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine
hand now and touch all that he. hath and he will curse thee to
thy face. And the Lord said unto the Sabean and Chaldean
free-booters, Behold all that he hath is in thy power, only upon
himself put not forth thy hand. So the Sabean and Chaldean
free-booters went forth-frpm the presence of the Lord. Again

TBHE EXISTENCE AND 159
there was a day, when the sons of God came to present them
selves before the Lord,_ and the1 Sabean and Chaldean free
booters came also among them, to present -himself before the
Lord." And the Lord said- unto the Sabean and Chaldean free
booters, from whence earnest thou? And the Sabean and
Chaldean free-booters answered the Lord and said, from going
to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it. And
the Lord said unto the Sabean and Chaldean free-booters,
Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like
him in all the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one- that
feareth God and escheweth evil ? And still he holdeth fast his
integrity, although thou- movedest me against him to destroy
him without cause. And the Sabean and Chaldean free-boot
ers answered the Lord and said, skin for skin, all that a man
hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now
and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy
face. And the Lord said unto the Sabean and Chaldean free
booters, Behold he is in thy hand, but save his life. So went
the Sabean and Chaldeanfree-booters forth frofn the presence
of the Lord, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his
foot unto his crown."
The next passsge to which we may turn our attention is
P3alm 109: 4. For my love they are my adversaries, but I give
myself unto prayer. Now as. the original ofthe term adversa
ry, {though here in the~plura!) is the same as that which in the
sixth verse is translated, or as Mr. B. says, is left untranslated,
satan, Mr. B. concludes that they must both mean the same
thing. Indeed who ever will take the: trouble to consult his
"Inquiry," will find him to insist that the terms satan and ad
versary are synonymous. He asserts, p. 62, respecting verse
6th, that "in- the Jewish mode of parallelism, a wicked man, in
the first part ofthe verse, is. the same as satan in the second.-"
But Mr. B. cannot deny, on his own ground, that the terms he
and him in this arid some of the following verses refer to ad
versary or adversaries previously mentioned. Now, if adver
sary and satan, and wicked man, are synonymous, we may safe
ly read the whole in the following manner. "For my love they

160 AGENCY OF EVIL, SPIRITS.
are my satans, hut I give myself unto prayer. And satans have
rewarded me evil.. for good, and hatred for my love. Set thou
a satan over.satan,and let satan- stand at satan's right hand;
when satan shall be. judged, let satan be condemned, and let
satan's prayer become sin., Let satan's days be few, and let
another take satan's-office. Let satan's- children be fatherless,
and let satan's wife! be a widow." The reader may follow out
the passage if he pleases and get the full sense of.it according
to our author. . ,
Mr. B. invokes particular attention to his 4th Section of this
Inquiry. What tbere is- in it that demands that attention, I am
unable to discoyer.- The object is to prove, that the Jews got
their notion of satan from the heathen, during their intercourse
with them in the time of the captivity. I presume that all
readers who are satisfied by such proofs as Mr. B. has exhib
ited, that the existence' of the devil is not recognised in Scrip
ture previous to the captivity, except as he dwelt in lust or
desire or in the Sabean and Chaldean free-booters, will readi
ly enough admit, that the Jews got their notion of him from the
heathen, But those, who are convinced; that the Scriptures
tapght the existence of evil spirits before the- captivity, will
not read his fourth section with much interest- What if the
heathen did have such and such notions of evil spirits, that is
no proof that the Jews had not previously notions more, consist
ent and true.
When Mr.-Balfour comes upon an examination of the evi
dence in the New Testament, he contrives by an artifice in
which he is well -practiced, to leave out of the examination a
large number of passages commonly relied on for proof ofthe
existence and agency of evil spirits. This he does by consid-
eringthe passages in which satan an&dia bol os, occur, leaving
out those in which daimon and daimonion occur. He justi
fies the rejection of thesepassages from the consideration,by one
or two sweeping and false assertions. He says, " it is well
known, that the words daimon and daimonion have no
refence to that being, christians call the devil, but to demons
or dead men deified." " It is only with the word diab olo$t

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 16t<
rendered devil we are- concerned in this inquiry." He then
retei-s us to Dr. Campbell for proof that it is. well known that
demons are dead men deified. And in the next chapter he
quotes Dr. Campbell as -saying that it is difficult to ascertain
the precise idea of these words, since they are never confound
ed with diabolos. So that by his own showing Dr. Camp
bell is far from laying it "down as a well known truth, that de
mons are dead men deified. The quotation from Dr. Camp
bell expresses no more, than what the Orthodox have generally
believed, that while both the words demon and devil mean evil
spirits of some character, they are not strictly speaking synon
ymous — no nearer so perhaps than the devil and his angels.
But such false dealing as this, was sufficient for the purpose of
blinding many readers, who had not the means, and many more
who would not take the trouble, to detect the falsehood. But
as an honest reasoner, he was bound to state what ideas the be
lievers in diabolical agency attached to the word, and show
their fallacy if he could; instead of dismissing them in the
gross, with one sweeping, assertion, designed to convey the
idea that no one relied upon them forproof. This way of proof
is more expeditious than convincing.
The meanings of the words daimon and daimonion. as
given in Wahl's Lexicon, are as follows — An -evil angel sub
ject to the dominion of satan — that is the same as an unclean
spirit, a fallen angel, an evil spirit. In Robinson's Calmet
they are made to mean, good and. bad angels, but generally
bad angels. And it is there further stated, that the Hebrews
express demon by serpent, satan, or. tempter, sheddim 'or de
stroyers. Now all the instances in which a word occurs to
which standard writers give such a meaning, Mr-Balfour leaves
out of what professes to be a repetition ofthe proofs on which
the Orthodox have relied. By such a method of argument, of '
the fairness of which you will better judge vhen I rehearse
some ofthe passages there omitted, he disposes- of scores of
passages which according to his plan of argument,, would oth
erwise need consideration, and these instances contain some
14

162 THE EXISTENCE AND
ofthe strongest proofs relied on by any one, to prove the doc
trine in question.
Some of these instances I will now adduce, requesting the
reader to carry along with him, Mr, B.'s definition of dai-
m o n, viz : dead men deified, and see how it will apply. Matt.
9: 32. As they went out behold they brought to him a dumb
man, possessed of a devil (dead man deified.) And when the
devil (dead man deified) was cast out, the dumb spake, and the
multitudes marvelled. But the Pharisees said, he casteth out
devils (dead men deified) by the prince of devils (dead men
deified.) Here the historian tells us, not only that the man
was dumb but that he was possessed of a devil, and that the
restoration of his speech was the result of the devil's being cast
out And Mr. Balfour has so disposed of the subject, as not
to have told us the reasons why we should not believe it.
Again, Luke 8: 26. And when they went forth to land, there
met him out ofthe city, a certain man which had devils of a
long time, and wore no clothes, neither abode in any house,
but in the tombs. When he saw Jesus he cried out; and fell
down before him, and with a loud voice said, what have I to
do with thee, Jesus thou Son of God most high ? I beseech
thee, torment me not. For he had commanded the unclean
spirit to come out ofthe man, For oftentimes it had caught him,
and he was kept bound with chains, and in fetters, and he brake
the bands, and was driven ofthe devil into the wilderness. And
Jesus asked him saying, what is thy name ? and he said legion,
because many devils were entered into him. And they be
sought him, that he would not command them to go out into
the deep. And there was there an herd of many, swine feed
ing on the mountains, and they besought him that he would
suffer them to enter into them. And he suffered them. Then
went the devils out ofthe man, and entered into the swine.'
These will serve as examples of passages, where evil spir
its are spoken of under the name of daimonion or daimon
and which are omitted by Mr. Balfour ; because, he tells us,
that it is well known that these words have no reference to

AGENCY OF EVIL; SPIRITS. 163
that being, christians call devil, but to demons or dead men
deified. Surely if this fact were well known, Mr. B. "should
have exhibited some of the grounds of that knowledge. Be
cause with the books before him, that he. occasionally quotes,
it must be well known to him, that his opponents have not at
tained to that knowledge, and will require the proof. And it
ismuch to be regretted, that he has not tried the force of his
methods of interpretation, upon these passages — since their
testimony is so full and explicit, that we are at a loss to' con
ceive-how a plausible evasion could be made out.
One' fact which should convince Mr. B. ofthe disingenuous-
ness and insufficiency of his method of disposing of these pas
sages, is, that in some instances the word demon is made . to
mean essentially the same as satan or beelzebub. In Matt
12: 22, we have an account of Jesus casting out devils' (de
mons) and the pharisees attributing it to beelzebub and of Je
sus replying — If satan cast out satan he is divided against him
self, and how can his kingdom stand ? And if I by beelzebub
cast out devils, how do your children cast them out? Here
demon, satan and beelzebub are used as in such a sense sy
nonymous, that when demons are cast out, satafi'is said to be
cast out, in such a sense that, the casting out of demons is at
least the casting out of satan's angels. Then in Acts 10: 38.
Peter in allusion to Christ's practice of healing demoniacs, says
—who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed
with the devil, (diabolos)-as if those possessed of demons,
were oppressed with the devil, as if the influence of demons
and the influence ofthe devil were the same influence.
Now with regard to the question, whether evil spirits
were actually present, in those said to be possessed with the
devil, I have a few considerations to advance. And as Mr.
B. has passed this subjeet in silence, I am under the neces
sity of conjecturing what objections He would advance to the
doctrine of real possessions. ' This necessity I regret, inas
much as our opponents are supposed to he the best able to
frame their own objections. Though he has asserted, that it
is well known that demons are dead men, and hinted at no oth.

164 THE EXISTENCE AND
er meaning as possible, I will not hold him to the necessity,
and absurdity of carrying out this meaning, through all the pas
sages where it occurs. I will rather suppose this is a matter,
which he did not go into. The folly of such an interpretation,
would be seen at once, if you were to substitute dead men de
ified, in all cases where the word demon occurs, in the passage
respecting the Gadarene demoniac. But I will take the most
plausible evasion, that I have ever seen advanced. And that
is, that these persons were not really possessed of devils, but
only supposed to be so by a superstitious people. And that
Christ and the sacred historians employed language, in com
pliance with popular usage and belief, without countenancing
or discountenancing that belief. This is a notion into which
writers of much respectability for talents have fallen. But the
talents they have employed in its defence, have served to show
out more completely its unsoundness. They will have it, that
Christ spoke of men being possessed of devils, as wo use the
word lunatic, which in its etymology means moon-struck, for
one who is. mentally deranged. And that evil spirits had no
more agency in the diseases which Christ cured under the
name of demoniacal possessions, than the- inoon has in cases of
lunacy which now occur.
. But one difficulty in the way of this "theory is found in the
fact that demoniacs, at once, and in some cases without any
previous knowledge of Christ, address him as the Messiah.
This did the two which met Christ in the country of the Ger-
gesenes. They were strangers to him, and his fame, exceeding
fierce so that no man could even pass them safely, and upon
the first meeting of Christ, they cried. out — What have we to
do with thee, thou Son of God ? Here must have been some
supernatural agency, in imparting to these delirious men if
they were only delirious, the knowledge which they had of
Christ. And it is no easier to suppose they had the spirit of
prophecy, than that they had the spirit of the deril. One or
the other it must have been. A similar instance is recorded
in Mark 1: 23. And there was in their synagogue a man with
an unclean spirit ; and he ciied out, let us alone ; what

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 165
have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou
come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One
of God. Now if this, man were a mere lunatic, whence had he
this knowledge ? If he were deranged, his knowledge did not
come by natural process,, by reasoning from ihe evidence then
before the people, that he was the Son of God.
The sickness ofthe blind arid deaf men, mentioned in Matt.
12: 22, is attributed to satan by Christ himself. He told his
opposers, that if he cast out devils in that case by Beelzebub,
then we have the absurdity of satan casting out satan, which
is as much as to say, that satan was cast out when the demon-
ized man was healed. Nor can it with truth be said, as it has
been sometimes suggested, that this was a mere argumentum
ad hominem, reasoning on the ground of his opponents, with
out admitting it. " For it is not suggested in the objection of
the Pharisees that the -beings that were cast out were satan.
But Christ goes beyond their suggestion, and says if satan
cast out satan. It is Christ and not the Pharisee's that makes
the casting out" of demons, the casting out of satan.. And of
the woman who had been sick eighteen years, he said, satan
bound her. -Now suppose that when Christ cast out devils,
and when he addressed the demons, themselves, and eomm'and-
ded them to depart, he at the same time knew, that the- disease
was entirely natural, and that devils bad- nothing to do with it ;
there was not the mere use of a customary" expression, which
use had sanctioned ; there was a direct confirmation of an
erroneous opinion. Arid the opinion, if it was an error, was
according to Mr. B. one of great magnitude, so great as to re
quire a whple chapter of Mr. B. to display all the evils there
of. But if this belief be an error, and one so mischievous, is it
not surprising that among all that is said in relation to the sub
ject at least apparently giving countenance, not one clause or
word is any where thrown in to intimate that there was no in
tention to give countenance, to the belief in question.
Recur now to the passage already quoted from Luke, de^.
scribing the demoniac, in the country of Gadarenes. Here the
demon is represented as speaking repeatedly, and offering a,
14*

166 THE EXISTENCE AND
reqhest ! If the demoniac was under the influence of a mere
natural distemper, what was it that asked permission to enter
the swine ? The distemper ? The supposition is absurdity.
The man himself fancying that the spirit spoke through him ?
Then why did Christ who came to establish truth make such
an answer as would go to confirm the spectators in a «erious
error? Then went the demons out ofthe man, and entered in
to the swine. Who or what went out of the man into the
swine ? The man himself? Did he go out of the man ? Was
it the distemper ? That did not ask liberty to go. Turn which
way you will, yorf cannot evade the necessity of understand
ing it of real evil spirits.
Again, when Jesus had rebuked the evil spirit who had utter
ed his name, it is said, He came out of him, and hurt him not.
And why does he say it hurt him not, if nothing is meant but
a natural disease ? Is.it wont to hurt a man to be cured of a
natural disease ? Would a writer having the spirit of inspira
tion or the spirit of common sense, think it worth his while to
inform us, that such a man was not hurt by being set clear of
his disease ? But if the writer understdod the matter as of the
ejection of a devil, that in other cases is said to have cried ou
and rent the patient sorely oncoming out, it would be natu
ral for him to inform us of this circumstance. Take now this
passage just alluded- to — The spirit cried and rent him sore,
and came out of him. Now what cried? The disorder? Then
the disorder, to wit deafness and dumbness, a disorder by the
way not given to crying, cried out and rent the man, and took
away his strength, and left him as dead. Was it the man him
self that cried ? Then the man cried, and rent himself, and —
came out of himself.
And if cases of demoniacal possessions were only natural
diseases, what will you do with those instances where distinc
tions are made, as in this? — And he ordained twelve, that
they should be with him, that he might send them forth to
preach and to have power to heal sicknesses and to cast out
devils. If possessions ofthe devil were only sicknesses, why is
the addition thus made, after the whole story is told ? Say if

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 167-
you -please, the latter clause is meant for a particular Idnd of
disease. Then it would be about equivalent to this — to Cure
sicknesses, and to cure fevers. That is by no means a natural
mode of expression.
This kind of proof might be much more extended, but it is
needless. 1 consider myself now warranted in taking it as an
incontrovertible fact, that there were cases in the time of
Christ, wherein persons were really afflicted by the agency of
evil spirits. I do not consider it essentialto maintain that the
Jews never ascribed to their influence, diseases which were in
"fact merely natural. While they saw many cases of real and
indisputable possession of the devil, they might suppose these
cases to be much more numerous than they were, as men now
attribute many temptations to the devil, which have their ori
gin in their own lusts. It being once proved that there were
cases of demoniacal possession, that proof is not invalidated,
should it be shown that some ofthe diseases .attributed by the
people to demons, were natural distempers. Because Christ
would not be interested to correct their mistake, in individual
cases, while their belief as to the general fact of such de
moniacal agency, was well founded. If it be true that persons
were ever afflicted in the manner described in the New Testa
ment^ descriptions there given of ejecting demons,are descrip
tions of realities, the whole of Mr. B.'s scheme is upset by. a
class of proofs, which he has seen fit not to notice. But surely
it is not competent for Mr. Balfour to assert, without any ex
amination, that in no instance we are authorized to. believe
that men are possessed of the devil. He knows, if his reading
has been such as at all to qualify him to write on this subject,
that his opponents generally insist as much on the agency of
evil spirits in the case of demoniacs, as in any .other case.
And as an honest, reasoner, he should have met them on that
ground. I shall now examine some of the passages on which he has
commented in order to divest them ofthe doctrine ofthe real
ity of evil spirits. The first is that in relation to the tempta
tion of Christ. The objections which he quotes from Farmer,

168 THE EXISTENCE AND
I take to be correctly quoted, but as they are built on the- ra
tionalist assumption, that reason should sit in judgment on
what the Bible ought to teach, and is at liberty to reject this
or.thatr as not taught, when the plainest language asserts it, if
it do not consist with our antecedent opinions of what is rea
sonable, instead of simply inquiring by the uses ofthe general
rules of language, what is'the meaning of the writer, I do not
consider myself called' upon particularly to notice them. The
admission of such a principle is a departure from the legiti
mate principles of interpretation, and from such principles as
Mr. B. himself has tacitly acknowledged through the main
part ofthe discussion. The question is not whether it " com
ports with the dignity and sanctity of the Redeemer to be seen
rn-conference with satan," nor any of a thousand such questions
as might be started, but what saith the sacred record? If that
be intelligible and true, the Redeemer was found, while in his
voluntary humiliation, in many positions which to Mr. Farmer's
mind might not seem to comport with his dignity and sanctity-
All the objections here stated are therefore- irrelevant to the
question, what does this passage inculpate respecting evil
spirits ?
Mr. B. makes the tempter here a personification of three
distinct things. In the -first part of the story, he makes the
devil to mean hunger ; in the second, flesh and blood ; and in
the third, worldly grandeur. The first difficulty I have to
suggest to this way of interpreting the passage is, that the oc
currence of personification in such a narrative, and in such a
connexion,is an absurdity without a parallel. Personification the
most perspicuous of all figures, never occurs in any writings,
sacred or profane, where it is possible to doubt whether the
sense be figurative. Mr. B. is challenged to find another in
stance in the whole compass of written composition, where
personification is introduced, in a manner so obscure, as to be
mistaken for the literal sense. If this bean instance of per
sonification it is marvellous that the study of the Bible for
eighteen centuries by many of the most accomplished scholars,
has never until now revealed the fact. And then what in-

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 169
creases the difficulty is, that this personification is not true to
itself, but that it assumes any and every shape, to elude de
tection or to suit the convenience of the interpreter. In the
case before us it becomes three distinct things in one story.
We have on the principle supposed, a devil so accommodating,
as to become now lust or desire, now the.Sabean and Chaldean
.free-booters, now hunger, now flesh and blood, now the glory
and grandeur of the world, now the persecuting Jews, now
the rigidity ofthe backbone, now dead men deified, and any
thing that the exigences of a desperate cause demand. .To
be convinced that this is an unwarrantable use of language,
take any other word frequently personified, and see. if it is ca
pable of thus expressing different things ? Take for instance
Death. This has'sornetimes the properties of a living person
ascribed to it, and is sometimes addressed as a living being, as
— O Death where is thy sting ? Destruction and Death say
we have heard the fame thereof with our ears. "Death is rep
resented as riding upon a pale horse. Here are three instan
ces, very diverse in which the same object is personified, and
you see that the object still remains the same in all.
But let us see how these three devils. figure in the passage
before us. It should read to' give us the sense (?) — Then Je
sus was led. up by the spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted
of three devils, hunger, flesh and blood, and the grandeur of
the" world, and when he had fasted forty days he was an hun
gered. And when hunger came, to him hunger said unto him, if
thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made
bread. Jesus said unto hunger, it-is written man shall not live
by bread alone. (Exit hunger.) Then flesh and blood taketh
him up into the holy city, and 3etteth him on a pinnacle ofthe
temple, and saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God, cast
thyself down, &c. and Jesus said unto him, it is written again
(why again if he is addressing now another person) thou shalt
not tempt the Lord thy God., (Exit flesh and blood.) And
worldly grandeur taketh him up into an exceeding high moun
tain, and- showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and tfco
glory of them,-( worldly grandeur must have had powerful op-

170 THE EXISTENCE AND
tical instruments) and saith all these things will I give thee.if
thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto
him, get thee hence, worldly -grandeur. For it is written
thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou
serve. Then worldly grandeur left him, and the angels came
and ministered unto him. And as angels must be the opposite
of devils, and as Mr. B. seems not to believe in any spiritual
beings, by that name, I suppose these angels were the oppo-
sites of the three devils above named whose exploits we have
considered,— that is, fulness of bread, spirituality of mind, and
worldly poverty and degradation. These angels came and
ministered to him. What beautiful and lofty sentiments are
here set forth, and with what finished drapery are they cloth-
eel ! Here we have flesh and blood pleading to be cast down
from the pinnacle of the temple, as though flesh and blood de
lighted in such exercises and could artfully misquote the scrip
tures, to pr6cure the desired privilege.
Luke 10: 18. And he said unto them I beheld satan as
lightning fall from heaven. Here Mr. B. gives us to under
stand that satan must be used in a tropical sense, for human
adversaries of the gospel, because, serpents and scorpions
in the context are used figuratively. I will quote it in its con
nexion. And the seventy returned again with joy, saying^
even the devils are subject unto us through thy name. And
he said unto them, I beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven j
Behold I give you power to tread on serpents, and scorpions,
and over all the power ofthe enemy, and nothing shall by any
means hurt you. Now suppose serpents and scorpions, were
used figuratively, there is nothing which would imply that sa
tan was. But they are not used figuratively, the passage is
most plainly parallel to that in Mark where similar privileges
are conferred in these woids, — In my name shall they cast out
devils, and they shall speak with new tongues, they shall take
up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not
hurt them. Now this had a literal fulfillment. They did
speak with new tongues, as on the day of pentecost ; they did
take up serpents unhurt, as in the Island of Melita. So Mr.

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 171
B.?s attempt toprove a Jgurative sense fails in both premises.
But this reasoning is followed up by such a question as this.
"I would ask how many fallings from heaven satan has had ;
for he fell from heaven before he tempted eve, and fell again
it seems while-the seventy disciples were on their tour of
preaching. But how did he get to heaven to make that second
fall,' and while there, was he walking over the earth seeking-
whom he may devour?" Mr. B. has here amused himself with
one of his own mistakes. The passage does not say that he
fell while they were on their tour of preaching, but evidently
refers to his original apostacy and fall. As Mr. B. seems here
to assume with so much assurance that his opponents must
receive the interpretation of this passage which he imputes to
them,- I will quote from so common a book as Scott!s Family
Bible. A book that probably coincides with, and influences
the opinions ofthe orthodox more extensively than any other
uninspired book: "When therefore . they returned to him,
(doubtless at the time and place appointed) they told him with
joyful surprise that not only diseases, but even devils had been
subject to them through his name. Our Lord, however, point
ed out far more valuable blessings to be conferred on his disci
ples. He observed he beheld satan fall as lightning from
heaven. Satan had thus instantaneously been cast down from
heaven, on .his original apostacy. And his usumed dominion
on earth, with the idolatrous worship which he had devised to
establish, was about to be thrown down injhe same sudden
and surprising manner, by means of the gospel preached to
the nations, in which the seventy disciples should in a short
time be employed. So that their success in casting out devils,
was only an emblem of a far more decisive victory, which they
and their coadjutors and. successors would by his power ob
tain over satan, the ruler of the whole multitude of evil spir
its." Does this make it appear that satan had had so many
falls from heaven ? . ,
And now Mr. B. will you" be so good as to tell, when it was
that the adversaries of the gospel fell from the political heav
ens, of which you speak, before the apostles,— when it was that

172 THE EXISTENCE AND
" all the cunning and powerful adversaries ofthe gospel were
so hurled from theirseats of political power?" Was not polit
ical power during all the lives of the apostles, and for many
centuries after, andfor the most part till this day, the leading
engine of opposition to the gospel? The gospel wrought its
way in spite of political power, steadily arrayed against it, till
the days of Constantine, and then it was received within the
friendly embrace of this power, only to be palsied and crushed
the sooner. Mr. B. would do well to have some care to have
his interpretations tally with historical facts.
Luke 13: 16. Ought not this woman, being a daughter of
Abraham, whom satan hath bound, lo these eighteen years, be
loosed from her bonds on the Sabbath day ? Here and in some
of the succeeding passages I shall quote from the above named
writer in the Christian Magazine. " In this passage Mr. B.
makes the cause and the effect,the agent and the action,one and
the same thing. He makes the spirit of infirmity, not only the
satan who bound the woman, but the bond with which she was
bound. Accordingly satan must have bound this woman with
himself, for eighteen years. Now as satan who bound her,
and the infirmity with which she was bound, were one and the
same, the passage may read thus :— Ought not this woman
being a daughter of Abraham, whom the spirit of infirmity
hath bound with the spirit of infirmity, lo these eighteen years,
be loosed from this, spirit of infirmity on the Sabbath day ?
Again, Mr. B. says, this complaint, medical men have called the
rigidity ofthe back-bone. The rigidity ofthe back-bone, there
fore, according to Mr. B. was the satan who bound the woman,
and the satan with which she was bound. The passage then,
may read thus — Ought not this woman, being a daughter of
Abraham, whom the rigidity of the back-bone hath bound
with the rigidity of the back-bone, be loosed from this rigidity
of the back-bone on the Sabbath day? But Mr. B. says, 'let
us suppose that satan positively was the cause of this woman's
disorder, what follows ? It follows that our Lord neither on this
nor any other occasion warned men against his great power and
malignity ; nor were the people half so much alarmed as they

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 173
would have been if a wild beast had visited their neighbor
hood.' How this conclusion follows from the premises, is a
matter which puzzles me mud. Whether Christ did or did
not warn his hearers against the power of the devil, is a ques
tion of fast to be judged of by those who' read the Bible. But
it does not follow . that he did not warn them, from the fact that
satan was the cause of this woman's disorder. The premises
and conclusion never saw. eachother, — they do not belong to
the same country. Mr. B. further says, ' whoever contends
that satan bound this woman, ought to contend that all persons
so bound now, and why not all diseases, are inflicted by him.'
With just as much reason might you say, that because certain
effects were wrought, in the time of Christ, by a supernatural
agency, therefore all effects in the material world are miracles.*
Because the bread was multiplied to feed five thousand by a
miracle, so all bread" comes into being by the touch of a mirac
ulous hand. Because the apostles learned Greek by a mira
cle, therefore Mr. Balfour's Greek came by supernatural illu
mination.. Now it by no means follows, that because while he
was upon earth, who came to destroy the works of the devil,
satan was permitted to exhibit his malignant agency more vis
ibly, by spending it upon the bodies of men, iii order to afford
an opportunity the more strikingly to display the Redeemer, in
his, whole capacity of turning men from darkness unto light,
and from the power of satan unto God,— it by no means fol
lows that the same phenomena must be exhibited at all times.
The exercise of a little common sense would have saved the
labor of such" an argument.
"Luke-22: 3. Then entered satan into Judas surnamed Iscari-
ot, being ofthe number of the twelve. On this passage Mr. B-
•says— 'W ell, what satan entered into Judas ? I answer the spir
it of opposition to Jesus, and the secret purpose to betray him.'
In order to get the true sense ofthe verse- therefore, we must
read it — Then entered the spirit of opposition to Jesus, and the
secret purpose to betray him, into. Judas surnamed Iscariot, be- -
ing of the number of the twelve. John 13: 27. And after the
15

174 THE EXISTENCE' AND ¦
sop, satan entered into him. Here Mr. B. says, ' What satan now
entered into Judas ? For it is said in the preceding passage that
satan entered into him. I answer, his. fixed determination to ex
ecute his purpose. This purpose is called satan entering into
him, Luke 22: 1 — 7. And the devil putting it into his heart
John 13: 2.' We may therefore read the several passages in
the following manner — John 13: 27. And after the sop his fix
ed determination to execute his purpose entered into him.
John 13: 2. And supper being ended his secret purpose to betray
him having now put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's
son to betray him. Luke-22: 3. Then entered his secret de
termination to-execute his purpose into Judas Surnamedlscari-
ot being of the number of the twelve. It seems then accord
ing to Mr. Balfour's irietaphysics, that the secret purpose of Ju
das to betray Christ, put it into his heart to betray him. And
that his fixed- determination immediately to execute his purpose,
entered into him, and instigated him immediately to carry his
determination to execute his purpose into execution. This
appears evident, because Mr. B. within one page, and in com
menting on that same passage, uses determination instead of
purpose, and makes it mean the same thing. Mr. B.then cer
tainly interchanges purpose, design and determination, and
makes them all mean the same thing. It seems that the de
termination of Judas enters into him to execute his purpose,
and his purpose puts it into his heart to execute his design,
and both his purpose and design instigate him to execute his
determination. This must either be a Iri-devil, or else one dev
il enters into Judas to execute another devil. In either case
we think it surpasses even Ezekiel's vision of a wheel within a
wheel, and outdoes every 'christian devil,' and every 'ortho
dox devil,' of which we ever heard or read.
"2 Cor. 11: 14. And ho marvel; for satanhimself is trans
formed into an angel of light. On this passage, Mr. B. en
deavors to prove as in other places, that satan means the ' un
believing and persecuting Jews.' In order to get the true
sense of the apostle then, we must read this and the following

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 175
passage thus — And no marvel,-/or the unbelieving and persecut
ing Jews himself is transformed into an angel of light.
" Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be trans
formed as the ministers of righteousness. Mr. B. • says also
that the term satan, means unbelieving and persecuting Jews,
in the following passages, which I will read according to his
translation. 2 Cor. 2: 7. And lest I should be exalted above
measure, thrqugh the abundance ofthe revelations, there was
given to me a thorn in-the. flesh, the messenger of the unbe
lieving and persecuting Jews, to buffet me, lest I should be exal
ted above measure. 1 Thess. 2: 18. Wherefore we would have
come to you, even I, Paul, once and again, But the unbeliev
ing and persecuting Jews hindered us. 2 Thefs. 2: 9, Even
him whose coming is after the workings ofthe unbelieving and^
persecuting Jews with all power and signs, and lying wondersv
1 Tim. 5: 15. For some have already turned aside after the un
believing and persecuting Jews. Rev. 2: 9. I know thy works
and tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the
blasphemies of them which say they are Jews and are pot, but
are of the synagogue ofthe unbelieving and persecuting Jews.
Rev. 3: 9. Behold I will make them of the synagogue of the
unbelieving and persecuting Jews which say they are- Jews,
and are not, but do lie, behold I will make them come and wor
ship before thy feet.
" 1 Peter 5: 8. Be sober, be vigilant because your adversary
the devil as a roaring lion walketh about seekingwhom he may
devour. Here- Mr. B. says, ' It -is confidently believed by
many good people, that this devil who walketh about like a
roaring lion, is a fallen angel, or malignant spirit. But I ask
how is such a belief to be reconciled with his having his abode
in helL with some in the air, and others, his tempting men in all
parts ofthe earth at the same time ? Such a belief is contra
ry to all facts and experience. Did ever any person see the
devil in the shape of a lion, hear him roar, oris an instance on
record in the history of mankind, of one being devoured by
bim? Such idle, childish stories have been told ofthe devil,

176 THE EXISTENCE AND
but what man in our day gives the least credit to them?'. -Af
ter this taunt and long and labored criticism, Mr. B. comes to
the conclusion that the devil here means the persecuting Jews.
The passage therefore, according to Mr. B. should stand thus —
Be sober, be vigilant, for your adversary', the persecuting. Jews,
as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom, he may devour.
But I ask, how is sueh a belief to be reconciled with tlie Jews
having their abode at Jerusalem, with some that the devil is
the principle of evil personified, and even with Mr. B. himself,
that the devil' was 'Judas'ftxed determination to execute his pur
posed' Such a belief is oontrary to all facts and experience.
Did ever any person see either of these devils, in the shape of
a lion, hear him roar, or is an -instance on record, of one being
devoured by him? Such idle and childish stories are repeat
edly told by Mr. B. and by other Unitarian, Universalist and
Infidel writers. But what man who believes the Bible gives
the least credit to them ?
" John 8: 44. Ye are of your father the devil and the lust of
your father ye will do ; he was a murderer from the beginning,
and abode not in the truth. On this passage, after quoting
and misapplying Professor Stuart, (who by the way proves
nothing to Mr. B.'s purpose) Mr. B. finally concludes that the
devil here referred to, means lust. So we have it, -ye are of
your father the lust, and the lusts of the lust ye will do. Lust
was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth,
because there is no truth in him. When lust speaketh a lie
he speaketh of his own, for lust is a liar and the father of it.
We may remark here, however, that our Saviour is addressing
"those very persecuting Jews, whom Mr. B. in other places
calls the devil and Satan. Now as these Jews were of their
father the' lust, it seems that one devil begot another devil, who
went about like a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour.
We may be assured therefore that Mr. B. not only teaches the
true doctrine of devils, but" gives us the history ofthe whole pro
geny in chronological order. But in order to enjoy a little more
light on this subject, we will endeavor once more to open our

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 177
understandings to Mr. B:'s metaphysics. It is evident that
the Jews must have lusted before their lusts could have had
any influence. This appears from Mr. B.'s own declarations.
For in order to illustrate his comment upon this passage, he
proceeds to quotes our Saviour's address to the Jews. Ye do
the deeds of your father. What father ? Asks Mr. B. What
they had seen- or learned from their own evil lusts or passions.
According to this, the Jews must have begotten their lu'stp,
and their lusts must have begotten the Jews. So we may
read it, — Ye are of your father the lusts, and the lusts of
your lusts ye will do,-your lusts was a murderer from the be
ginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth
in your lusts. When your lusts speaketh a lie, he speaketh of
his own; for your lusts' is a liar, and the father of it. Surely
Solomon did not live in our day. He declared that there is no
new tiling under the sun. But if his happy lot had been cast-
in these days of 'interpretation,' he might' learn from Mr. B,
that the. parents begot the children and the children begot the
parents." But here we riiust finish the examination of particular passages-,
not however for want of the wherewith to entertain the reader
with our author's novelties of interpretation equal to any thing
yet exhibited in the language ofthe writer above quoted. We
need not marvel that our author is somewhat given to change,
since he had been so much harrassed by lust and fixed deter
minations to bring himself before the public and many other
devils of which we cannot how speak particularly. We con
fess, however, that it is not a little surprising how Mr. B. should
be able to make such a display of profound erudition in the
oriental languages, while the translators of bur English version
were mere blockheads and gross pedants. But such things
have happened before, and even a pedagogue would stand
pre-eminently learned in the midst of gaping rustics while
- " Still they gazed and still the wonder grew
That one small head could carry all he knew."
Mr. B.'s next chapter consists of objections to the existence.
14*

17& THE EXISTENCE AND
and agency of evil spirits — which we will notice in numerical
order. , '
Obj. I.-.* No distinct account -is given in scripture of an an
gel of God, sinning in heaven, and thereby becoming a devil,
and on account of which he was cast out of it." If Christ's as
sertion that he beheld satan as lightning fall from heaven—
and if. Peter's assertion that God spared not the angels that
-sinned, and cast them down to hell, and delivered them into
chains of darkness to be reserved unto judgment — and if Jude's
assertion that the angels which kept not their first estate but
left their, own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains
under darkness, unto the judgment ofthe great day,, will not
satisfy Mr. B. they will probably be sufficient for every un
prejudiced mind.
Obj. 2. " If it be true that an angel fell from heaven, and has
¦been walking about in the world for near si* thousand years,
how it is accounted for, that no sacred writer asserts, that any
person ever saw him, or, had personal intercourse with him."
That men have had no intercourse with evil spirits, from the
time of Eve till now, and that none are to have a habitation
with the devil and his angels, is the very thing for Mr. B. to
prove, and not to assume, and then convert into an objection.
If Mr. B.'s difficulty is that no person has ever seen and con
versed with the devil, he should recollect that no man hath
seen God at any time. Yet I think he professes to believe
there is a God.
Obj. 3. " If an angel fell from heaven before the sin of our
first parents, how do our orthodox brethren account, for the
fact that the Jews, to whom are committed the lively oracles
of God, were obliged to go to Babylon to get information about
suGh a being." The question was once started in a philo
sophical circle where Dr. Franklin was present — How do you
account for the fact that a barrel filledwith ashes willcontain
as much water, as if there were no ashes in it? After this and
that man had given a learned opinion, the question came to
Dr. Franklin. And he ended the investigation at once by

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS. 179
enquiring, whether it be a fact. So Mr. B.'s "orthodox breth
ren " will first wish to-be satisfied as to the fact,' before they
attempt a solution. Any man,. orthodox, or heterodox who un
dertakes to .account for all of Mr. B^'s facts without such a
previous question, will soon find himself in difficulty. Nor
will any of Mr. B.'s orthodox hrethren be driven to conviction
of this fact; by- all the learning . spent by .him in proving that
the Jews went to Babylon, and that the Babylonians, believed
in the existence of evil spirits.
Obj. 4. " It is a notorious fact not easily accounted for, that
people in these days, make a very different use of the terms
devil and satan from, what were made fn the days ofthe inspir
ed writers. In old times people swore by the name of God,
and cursed each other by their gods, but no one seems to
have known how to swear by satan, or the devil." Surely Mr.
B-. has as much need to account for this fact as any one : for
profane swearings and taking ofthe devil's name in vain, is, to
to say the least, quite as prevalent, and quite as little rebuked,
in Universalist as in Orthodox cireles. .
Obj. 5. " The Old- Testament is often quoted in the New
and quoted to show what was the faith of believers during that
dispensation. But it is never quoted or alluded to, showing
than any of them believed the devil to be a, fallen angel."
This is. another, of Mr. B.'s apocryphal facts, which will be
credited or not, as his interpretations are received or not But
suppose we admit it There are many things in the Old Tes
tament which are not in the New, and many things in the New
which are not in the Old.
Obj. 6. "It is a fact that in every country where the bible is
not known or.not studied where it- is known, these supersti
tious notions have prevailed concerning witches, evil spirits,
ghosts and the devil. And just in proportion as it . has been
known and studied, these have gradually been exploded and
renounced by the people." Here I am happy perfectly to
agree with Mr.' B. as to the general fact stated.. But some of
his examples .are unfortunately selected, being rather excep-

1 80 THE EXISTENCE AND
tions than illustrations of the general rule. He instances the
case of our Puritan fathers, and refers particularly to Mather's
Magnalia, while there never was a race of men who had a
more thorough acquaintance with the scriptures than these
same puritans. And does the Rev. Mr. Balfour boast of his
thorough acquaintance with the scriptures, compared with that
of Mather! ! His attainments are those of the merest baby in
the comparison— yea, few men in modern days can begin to
compare with this same Mather, in respect to biblical ac
quisitions. And yetsuch is the arrogance of literary coxcombs,
that Mr. Balfour can speak contemptuously of Mather. And
then who are these Universalists that issue such boasts of
their thorough acquaintance with the scriptures ? Where did
they come by all this knowledge ? Are their means of biblical
learning more elevated, more abundant, or more assiduously
applied, than those of other denominations? HoW many of
their ministers are even able to read the bible in its original
languages ? Yea, how many of those among them who pre
tend to publish criticisms in these languages, are able to read
the Greek Testament without the aid of a Lexicon or transla
tion ? It is really amusing to hear pretensions to a monopoly
of biblical science, coming from such quarters, and a threaten
ing to pour daylight in upon the ignorance of the rest of the
world, and to bring in such a brightness, that our children
will blush that they had such ignorant and superstitious fath
ers. Mr. Balfour, we pray, we beg, we beseech of you, not to
do it! ! Spare us a little — forbear to pour the full orbed splen
dors, the scorching radiations of your science all at once upon
us!! Obj. 7. " It is also a fact that the common opinions entertain
ed of the devil are at variance with other plain and acknowl
edged truths ofthe bible." As for instance the devil's tempt
ing men to sin. Then is the bible plainly" at war with it
self. But here Mr. B. refutes his own objection by citing
some passages to show that the same things are sometimes as
cribed to God, to the devil, and to men ; and this fact obviates

AGENCY OF EVIL SPIRITS.

181

all the^difficulty that he makes out of the assertion of James,
that every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own
lusts. For the devil cannot operate on the mind to its injury,
but through its own lusts.
Obj.- 8. " It is also a fact that men in sinning are never con
scious of the influence of the devil upon them." And this is
very true, arid for a good reason. For in vain is the net spread
in the sight of any bird. But does our unconsciousness of Sa
tanic influence disprove it. Is Mr. B. Conscious of that agen
cy of God in which he lives and moves and ha3 his being ?
Can he feel the touch of the invisible hand, that expands his
lungs, and propels his blood? yet. I suppose he does not doubt
of that agency.
.• Obj. 9. " It is also a fact that the common opinions enter
tained of the devil, whether right or wrong, are the effect of
early education, and popular opinion." It may be so ; but
such a fact is no proof of the right or the wrong of the opin
ions. Most ofthe right opinions we have in religion came, to
us originally through such sources. And some Universalists
get their opinions, from early education, though none would re
ly on such a proof of their falsity. Is it not rather strange,' that
all the rationality and freedom from bias, and all the unpreju
diced examination of the scriptures, should be on the side of
the Universalists ?
Obj. 10. " The last fact which I shall mention is, that allowing
the personal existence of the devil fully proved, it is beyond all
doubt that he had been much misrepresented and his char
acter abused by many christian people." It may be so, and it
is very kind in Mr. B. to undertake his vindication. May he
have all success in this part of his learned labor. " Give the
devil his due." But I see not what this has to do as a " fact
showing that the devil is not a fallen angel or a real being,"
yet it is so called in the heading ofthe chapter. Many persons
have been abused and yet they retain a personal existence.
Mr. B's reply to objections anticipated by himself, I am not
interested to notice. It embraces few if any ofthe arguments
which an intelligent believer of satanic agency would use.

182 THE EXISTENCE AND
His last chapter is employed in painting the ill effects of a be
lief in the existence of satan, and in ranting and railing against
orthodox views in general. Now the effects of orthodox doc
trines may be very bad in his esteem, and yet these doctrines
still be found in the word of God. Audit is therefore not need
ful to controvert him here. ¦"• But if the question turned on the
effects of the respective systems, it is to be hoped that ortho
doxy would not shrink from a comparison with Universalism.

CHAPTER XI.

CREDULITY OF THE DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR.
A careful observer ofthe different systems of religious er
ror will generally find them the most wanting in respect to
those things, wherein their pretensions are highest The In
fidel boasts of a great enlargement and deliverance from su
perstitions, but if the biography of many ofthe leading Infidels
can determine the matter, infidel character is especially prone
to superstitions; Infidels are fond of dwelling upon and mag
nifying the existing differences among Christians, On questions
with regard to religion and morals, while the writings of Infi
dels on these suhjects, furnish one complete mass of contra
diction and jargon. No class of persons make higher preten
tions to candor than Infidels, and none violates its plainest
rules more egregiously. None accuse their opponents more
largely of credulity, while the chaTge x>f credulity attaches
with unanswerable force to the Infidel. The compass of infi
del credulity is thus vividly set forth in the language of Home
— " They admit that a few illiterate Jews devoted to a-nation-
al religion, conquered their prejudices, and published a uni
versal religion, which was free from the numerous rites and
ceremonies of. their nation, that they taught religious and mor
al doctrines, surpassing the wisdom ofthe highest heathens —
subdued the power and policy of Jews and Gentiles — speedily
propagated their tenets among many nations, and conquered
the pride of learning, without divine assistance. The oppos-
ers of revelation admit that many persons united in propagat
ing a forgery which produced' them no advantage, and that not
one of them was induCed, either by promises or threats, to be
tray a plot, or disown a testimony which exposed them to in-

184 CREDULITY OF THE
conveniences, to insult, imprisonment, tortures and death —
that impostors were attached to virtue, and voluntarily endur
ed every evil^ in order to propagate opinions that were bene
ficial to society, but detririiental to themselves — that bad men
reformed the religion and manners of all nations, or that good
men attempted it by fraud and imposture. They admit that a
few ignorant fishermen were able to make proselytes in oppo
sition to power and prejudice, to eloquence and learning, — that
crafty men chose for their henxa crucified malefactor,. and suf
fered every evil in order to establish the religion of an impos
tor who deluded them by false promises, if he did not rise from
the dead." Yet these are the men who pity, the credulity of
all the world except themselves. Universalism makes equal
ly large pretensions to deliverance from superstition, and cre
dulity. But it were easy to show, that few are more credulous
than he who admits the various tenets embraced in that sys
tem. The truth is, that as when the heart of man throws off
the pressure of moral restraints, it. becomes the more a skive to
lust, exchanging deliverance from the fear of God, for bond
age to satan ; — so the understanding, when it exchanges the
dominion of truth for that of error, affects to rest on a more
solid basis than before, while leaning on the most airy delu-
.sion. The man. congratulates himself on his rationality, his
ability to make the word of God harmonize with an improved
philosophy, and feels the sincerest pity for those who can be
so credulous as to satisfy themselves with vulgar opinions ;
while in fact, all he has gained is, that strong delusion to be
lieve a lie. He has come to such a state of mind, that the great
est absurdities can be devoured on the one hand, and the most
cogent reasons despised on the other.
Having examined at some length, the most material of Mr.
B.'s views and interpretations, I have thought best here to go
back, and get some illustrations ofthe credulity of those who
embrace the system of. Universalism, according to Balfour.
In the first place, that so large a part ofthe Bible should relate
to the destruction of Jerusalem, is ajn.atter that requires some
credulity to digest. I have deemed it worth the while to be-

DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR. 185
stow some labor, and patience in order to ascertain, how much
ofthe New Testament is made, in the books of Messrs., B. and
W. before me, to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the
national calamities connected with it. For this purpose I have
selepted the gospel according to Matthew, and undertaken to
analyze it with reference to this question. I have divided this
gospel into three parts— those passages which contain the
mere narrative ofthe historian— those which contain the dis
courses of. Ghrist, and are iriade to refer to the destruction of
Jerusalen, and tlje national judgments connected with it — and
those containing such of Christ's discpurses as have not been
made to refer to that event. I have -done this^ that it may be
'seen how much of this gospel-is left after taking-out all that
they refer tothat event And I have chosen this Book as a
fair specimen.of the other gospels, — presuming that the pro
portion so referred in them- also, will not materially differ.*
By this examination- it appears, that.by the amount of one
chapter more of the preaching of Christ, reported in Matthew's
Gospel, respects, the destruction of Jerusalem, than was em
ployed on all other Subjects. Before we can admit the inter
pretations pf these men, we must bring our minds to believe
that Christ in his discourses said more about the destruction
*The whole ofthe first and second chapters containthe genealo
gy „and history ofthe birth and childhood of Christ, and must be
placed under the head of narrative. The third chapter, giving an
account of John the Baptist, and his preaching, and the bap lism
of Christ, is all narrative, except that portion which is a report of
John's preaching.. This, though not one of Christ's ..discourses,
may with no unfairness as it relates to this enquiry be counted with
them. And these verses are by Mr, W. p. I, made to refer to the
destruction of Jerusalem. , The fourth chapter, contains tjie nar
rative, of the temptation of Christ, and of the- calling of his disci
ples ; and is all narrative. The fifth, sixth and seventh, contain
the sermon on the mount. None of this is narrative, except
the first-two verses of the fifth and the last two of the seventh.
Chap. 5, verses -21 — 26 is referred by Mr. B.'s Inq. p. 135 to the
destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 27 — 80,' p. 137 is referred' to the
same. Chap. 7: 15— 20 Mr. W. p. 25 refers to the same. 21  27
Mr. W. p 28 refers to the same. The next chapter is all "narrative,
except verses 11 and 12: and.these Mr. W. refers to the-destruc-
tion of Jerusalem. Of chap. 9, all narrative except 12 — 17. And
16

186 CREDULITY OF THE
of Jerusalem, than he said in preaching ofthe gospel. For
Mr. B. admits that this kind of discourse was not preaching the
gospel. In his first Inquiry, p. 200 he says, " In all the texts
where he (Christ) speaks-of hell, he was not preaching the gos
pel, hut addressing the Jews about temporal calamities coming
on them as a people:'' According to this principle, Christ
preached but' very little Gospel. Then if these writers had
given us a complete commentary ofthe whole gospel of Mat
thew, they would have found the same necessity of referring
no small portion of what they have" left us for gospel, to the
destruction of Jerusalem, and so making it no gospel. Almost
all that they have corinmented on, they have thus ungospelled,
and What reason have we to believe that they would spare the
rest? Now were I called upon to give credit to the views of
this class of commentators, I should here be Stumbled at the
threshhold — should de'erh it ahold tax upon my credulity, to
be asked to believe, that the great subject' of Christ's preach -
irig-wis found in the destruction of Jerusalem, that spiritual
and immortal interests were a mere eircumstancef-an inciden
tal adjunct of the other. And if lever succeeded in digesting
the monstrous absurdity, I would be honest enough to call
things by right names, arid label the 'New Testament " Jeru-
this.is not referred to-national calamities Of chap. 10, the first 5
are narrative, 14 and 15 referred by Mr. B. Essays 249, to nation
al calamities. And 28—31 is referred Inq. p. 150 to the same. Of
chap. 11, first 4 narrative, 20—24 referred by Mr. B. p. 58 to the
destruction of Jerusalem. Of chap." 12, verses 1 , 2,, 9—17, 22—24
and 46— 50.are narrative and 25—32 Mr. B.'s 2d Inq. p. 299 refers
to the destruction of Jerusalem. And 33 — 37 in Essays p. 251 is
referred to the same. And 38 — 42 in Essays p. 251 is referred tn
Ihe-same. And 43 — 45 Mr. W. p. 37, refers to the same. Of
chap. 13 the 3 first are narrative 24 — 30< Mr. W. p. 51 refers to the
destruction of Jerusalem. The next 8 verses Mr. W. p. 61, refers
to the same. The last 6 are narrative. Chap. 14, all narrative.
Of chap. 15, none is referred to the destruction of Jej-usalem. 25
of its verses narrative. Of chap. 16, first 16 verses narrative. 21
— 23 narrative, 24 — 27 Essays p. 32 refers to the destruction of Je
rusalem. Chap. 17 all narrative. Chap. 18 two first narrative, 7
— 14 by Mr. W. p. 10 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem.
-Chap. 19 the 1, 2,3,7, 10 and \6, narrative, all after the 16 refer
red by "Mr. W. p. 182 to the destruction of Jerusalem. Chap. 20,

DISCIPLES OF BALFQUR. 187-
sai,em?s Destruction Foretold." And then I would lay it
aside, as a book which interested me no more than any other
treatise upon times and events so remote,— -as fit only for anti
quarian purposes — lay it aside on, the ground that what was
written mainly- and. so exclusively foi- the men that lived near
2000 years ago, could claim little authority and influence over
me. When I read in the. Old Testament, histories and proph
ecies relating to temporal affairs^ and: national events, I feel an
interest in it and derive instruction from it, because I. see in
all those events a preparation for the introduction ofthe gos
pel dispensation. I see in all previous events, the whole cre
ation groaning and travailing, to bring forth him who- was the
redemptionof the church. And therefore I see an ample rea
son, why all those histories and prophecies; should have a place
in an inspired book, bearing the name of the " Revelation of
Jesus Christ" And I see how to derive divine and practical .
' instruction from them all. Considered in this light evangeli
cal prophecy becomes as important,- interesting and praotical
as evangelioal history. But when all the historical, didactic
and hortatory parts ofthe New Testament, are made totermi-
minate in Jerusalem's destruction, an event having so few im
portant connexions with the world's subsequent, history, and
first 16verses, continuation ofthe same subject, and by Mr. W. re
ferred to the same. The next 8 and last 5 narrative. Chap. 21,
first 23 and last2 narrative. 33—44 by Mr. W. p. 196, referred to
destruction of Jerusalem; Chap. 22, first 14. referred by Mr, W.
p. 117 to the destruction of Jerusalem, the next 14 and verses 33 —
36 and 41 and 42 and 4l3 are narrative. Chap. 23, all is directed to
wards a conclusion which Mr. B. p. 163 refers to the destruction
of Jerusalem, arid is so connected that if any refers to that, all
does. The next two chapters both Mr. W. and- Mr. B. argue at
Ereat length in a reference of them to the destruction of Jerrisa-
tm. The next 3 are all narrative, except the last 3-verses. And
here ends the book. Now the reader, may if it be, worthhis while
taking these results and put them together and he will find this
general result. — There are in Matthew's gospel according to this
examination of uriivejs.alist interpretations, 523 verses of narrative,
296 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, and 257 of Christ's dis
courses not referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, i» e. §9 verses
more of Christ's discourses referred to the destruction of "Jerusii-
lern, than of those which are not so referred.

188 CREDULITY OF THE
conduct, the sacred book is divested of its main interest and
influence over me. Before I could believe this, I should hes
itate upon the thought that Jesus Christ should come from hea
ven to earth; for the, mere purpose of warning that nation of
the coming destruction— that he should undergo what he' did
for such a purpose-»-make all his instructions and laborious
teaching point mairily to that— that he should exhaust the re
sources of eternal wisdom," and in the end take upon him such
a death, as mere mortal never underwent, for that object, and
then, fail as he did at the last. For failure most complete it
was, if the great purpose of his coming and ministry was the
salvation of that people from their national calamities. If this
were " the joy set before him; for which he endured the cross
despising the shame," itrwas a joy never attained,— nay, nev
er expected ; for he knew and his prophets foretold before he
came, that the nation was to be destroyed. However much
my guilty heart might desire the belief, that the main threat
enings and warnings of Scripture, had their termination in Je
rusalem's overthrow, my understanding and my- conscience
would rebel. That Enoch before the flood had a prophetic
eye on the Roman army, as of ten thousand saints coming with
Christ to execute judgment upon Jerusalem — that Korah and
his company under the name of angels that sinned, having been
annihilated, soul and body, fifteen centuries before, were still
" reserved" to sustain the heaviest force of their punishment iri
Jerusalem's destruction — that apostles, writing to the Gentile
churches who never saw Jerusalem, and who were not in a
way to be seriously affected by its destruction, made this a
leading topic in all their letters — earnestly warning them
against that day, as one that was to fix their eternal destiny-
are no easy matters to believe. A demand that I shall digest
all this is about equivalent to calling upon me to believe that
Jerusalem is the central point in the universe, and that all the
nations and generations ofthe world are merely its suburbs, and
all other worlds its dependent provinces. That the destruc
tion of this city was an event, in which all others had their ter
mination, and central design, the whole chain of causes andef-

DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR.

189

fects from the morning of eternity onward being only subsi
diary adjuncts of this — in short, that here is the original point
from which go out all the divine counsels and influences, and
to which returns the whole revenue of divine glory.
Again, the Universalists make the doctrine of the resurrec
tion ofthe dead to be the leading doctrine ofthe gospel. And
there is a sense in which it is truly so. But they exalt this
doctrine more than any other class of religionists, in that they
find in it the restoration not only of the life ofthe body, but
also of the soul. And not only this, they find in the resurrec
tion of the body, a substitute for holiness of life and conver
sion to God in this life, making it work such transformations of
character as to save all necessity of a man's preparing for
heaven before he dies. And yet they pretend that they
can believe that a doctrine so important to them, as that ofthe
resurrection, it but seldom" mentioned in the discourses of
Christ, while the destruction of Jerusalem is on all occasions
the theme of remark. My memory now does not fix upon
more than one instance in all the gospels, where they will al
low that the doctrine of the resurrection ofthe dead is taught
And yet they will have us believe that an event of no more im
portance in the history of the world, which he came to save,
than that of Jerusalem's destruction, can occupy the greater
part of his discourses, recorded in the evangelists. They ask
us to believe that the whole gospels are a perpetual sing-song
of Jerusalem's destruction, and yet so important a, doctrine as
that of the resurrection comes near to being overlooked, and
forgotten. It requires some credulity to admit such an idea.
If I would be a Universalist after the model of these writ
ers, I must furthermore believe that Paul being now ready to be
offered, and the time of his departure at hand, had his soul filled
with emotions unutterable, in anticipation of a crown that he
was to receive at the time of Jerusalem's destruction— 20 years
after he was dead,-soul and body ; and to come at this edifyino-
doctrine, I must believe that Grecian games were duels where
men contended unto death, instead of wrestling and racing, as
they are represented in the'classics, and that the party kill-
16*

190 CREDULITY OF THE
ed in these duels, was sometimes the victor. And I must be
lieve, because Mr. B. has somewhere read "in the course of
his reading," — he cannot tell us where — that a dead victor in
such duels was crowned for his valor after his death. And
that Paul was anxiously aspiring for the post mortem crown
that was to be awarded to him as an apostle of the Gentiles
when the Jews should be overthrown.
I am furthermore asked to believe, contrary to the testimony
of prophecy, and history, that the time of Jerusalem's destruc
tion was to Christians throughout the world, a season of grand
and glorious jubilee. That instead of their being in a condi
tion of " fleeing to the mountains," as Christ taught them to
expect, and instead ofthe Gentile churches being in a state of
severe persecution, and under the full pressure of heathen hos
tility, as historians have led us to Suppose, they were enjoying
that glorious rest with the apostles then dead, i. e. annihilated,
which was to take place when the Lord Jesus comes from hea
ven, to be glorified of his saints, and admired in all them that
believe. I must also give my faith to the notion, that all the
passages of Scripture which speak.of eternal, or everlasting
life, refer to something in this life, and do not mean that bless
edness enjoyed by the saints in heaven, and yet that the Bi
ble somehow reveals an everlasting life in heaven, i. e. that
the Bible reveals everlasting life, yet when it speaks of it, it
means no such thing. I must also believe, that in all the pas
sages which speak ofthe resurrection, not a word is said about
any coming forth to damnation. I must believe, that the resur
rection to damnation is a moral resurrection— that a man is
first raised by it to spiritual life, and then finds his damnation
in reward for his spiritual life in Jerusalem's destruction. I
must believe, that when the word everlasting is found in con
nexion with punishment, that itself is an intimation that it is a
punishment limited to this world, i. e. the word everlasting ap
plied to punishment is prima facie proof that everlasting pun
ishment is not meant— that "this very application ofthe word
everlasting is a strong confirming circumstance, in proof of the
views he has advanced." See his comments on 2 Thes. 1: 6.

DISCrPLfis OF BALFOUR. 191
I must furthermore believe that man has not an immortal soul.
That death is annihilation of both body arid soul, a passing in
to unconscious nothingness, there to remain till the resurrec
tion. And to sustain this important pillar of the system, I
must believe that when God appeared to Moses in the bush,
after the death of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and asserted him
self to -be the God of these Patriarchs, it was not true as
Christ supposed, that He was therefore at that time, and in re
spect to them, the God ef the "living. And for' the same rea
son I must believe, that when we are commanded to fear not
them which kill the body, but him who can destroy both soul
and body in hell — though the death of the body is the extinc
tion of the soul, yet man has a life capable of being killed after
both body and soul is extinct, and this-life God and not man
can kill, and the killing of this mysterious indefinable life is
the matter to be dreaded and provided against
I must furthermore believe, if I would attain to the exalted
blessedness of Universalism, taste its fruits, and exhibit its
practical results, that-the souls' Condition in the future state, is
not at all affected by conduct and character here. Or in
the language of Mr. W. that " the future state of immortality
arid incorruption, cannot in the nature of things be affected
by the conduct of men in this life; but that whatever men there
^joV) will be the effect of the constitution in which they are
raised from the dead." The same idea is put out in a-more
practical form, in the following quotation from the Trumpet,
a periodical edited by Mr. W. It is from the number dated,
August 3, 1833, as "follows : — " Many people profess religion
for the purpose of pleasing God. This we must be permit
ted to think is not the design of religion. If we rightly un
derstand it, its design is to please and benefit man. If we do
not err in judgment very much,- it is great folly, to suppose
that the Almighty is pleased or angry, just as far as man is re
ligious or irreligious." So we must believe, not only that
our good conduct can do nothing as to bettering our condition
in the future world, but also that God is no better pleased with
us on account of it. That to please man is the leading purposa

192 CREDULITY OF THE
of the religion of Christ, and of course, that this religion is to
be received or rejected, or any way used, according to man's
good pleasure. That if I am the best pleased to understand it
as having higher and holier ends than the pleasure of man, it
is well. Its end is answered, so far as I am concerned. Or
if I please to understand it as a licence to sin, it is well, or if I
am pleased to treat it with utter contempt it is well. If I please
to say it is vain to serve God, and what profit shall we have if
we pray unto him, and that I canfind no pleasuie in his religion,
that religion having come for my pleasure and found that I
have no pleasure in it, will of course urge no demands upon my
acceptance. In short, I must believe that as the whole design of
religion is not to please God, but men, it is incumbent on God to
shape it so as best to suit the pleasure of men. If men find pleas
ure in wickedness, he must adapt religion to encourage themin
wickedness. Do you say that the pleasure and benefit of man
are the same ? Not always. But be it so. On your hypothesis
religion can never seek thebenefit of man by crossing his will.
For if you require a man to conform to the will and pleasure
of God, contrary to his own inclination, then is your religion
for the pleasure of God, rather than . pf man. It is then no
longer true that God is not pleased or displeased, according as
manisieligious or irreligious.
Further I must believe, that when the apostle says, It is ap
pointed unto man once to die, and after this the judgment, he
means — It is appointed unto men to die, and after death the
decomposition ofthe body. I must see my way clear to be
lieve that man can lose his life as a martyr, and then receive as
the reward of his martyrdom, his life in this world by the loss.
I must believe that Christ, when he. made to the penitent thief
an answer tohis dying request to be remembered when he came
into his kingdom, said to-day shalt thou be with me inthe grave.
I must believe that the souls which John in vision, saw under
the altar interceding for the execution of justice on their mur
derers, were no souls, hut the blood of those martyrs, praying
that their, that is the blood's blood might be avenged. I must be
lieve that Paul, knowing death to b.e the entrance upon tin-

DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR. 193
conscious nothingness, had a desire rather to die than live,
and serve Christ and his church on earth. And that this state of
annihilation wasbeing with Christ and better than living in this
world in the full perfection of that enjoyment, which Mr; B.
calls eternal life. Or in other words, that annihilation is bet
ter than eternal life. And in order to find the way to the
conclusion, that the words translated hell means no such thing,
I must believe that words have no meaning, but what were
given by inspiration. And I must insist on admitting no
meaning to any word until I find a — Thus saith the Lord — this
word means so and so.
Further, if you will be a true Balfourean, you must believe
that Christ was not compassionate enough for the occasion,
provided there be an eternal hell, and you must build strong
conclusions on his want of zeal for a dying world.--— that the
•apostles were not zealous enough, to prove, that they appre
hended any future punishment, for the unbelief of men. That
though the belief of the future punishment ofthe wicked, should
have wrought up the apostles to ten-fold greater exertions
than they put forth in missionary enterprises, the whole bus
iness of missions now, for those who believe the same doc
trine, is a contemptible affair. You must furthermore believe
that there is no devil, and that the langurge of the Bible which
speaks of such a being, means, any thing and everything, but
what it seems' to mean — rio.w lust or desire — now Sabean and
Chaldean free-booters — now the anger of Jehovah — now hun
ger, now flesh and blood, now the glory and grandeur ofthe
world, now rigidity of the, back-bone, now a secret purpose to
betray Jesus, now a determination to execute this purpose, and
last, though not least, the persecuting Jews. You must fur
thermore believe, that. Universalism- is the fruit of more, thor
ough acquaintance with the Scriptures, of more patient exam
ination, more abundant and better plied means ,of biblical. in
struction than exists in sects that are superstitious enough to
beheve there is- a- devil — in short, that the Universalists are the
people and wisdom will die with them.
This system lays a grievous tax on our credulity in another

194 CREDULITY OF THE
quarter, requiring us.to admit new and strange principles of
interpretation. It every where assumes that it is enough to
show that a word or phraze may have in some connexions the de -
sired meaning, in order to prove that it has it in the case consid
ered. It cuts short the labor of applying acknowledged prin
ciples of interpretation, and from them determining what the
writer means, but searches out instances without regard to
connexion, where the word is used in the desired sense. For
instance — it wants to prove that everlasting punishment is a.
something limited to this life, and it overlooks the multitudes
of cases where the word everlasting is used in the literal- ob
vious sense, and finds. a few cases where it is -used in a met
aphorical and limited sense, and thence jumps.to the conclu
sion that everlasting punishment means a temporal punish
ment So when it is attempted to show that paradise means
the, grave, and not a place of happiness for departed spirits, it-
is not even pretended that the word is used in any author, sa
cred or profane, in that sense, but that there is a word in some of
the'Shemilish languages, enoughliko it to be its root. And that
this word means " to separate," and that therefore the word
means an enclosure, and therefore the grave. And whenever
it happens that even such a method is impracticable — and one
would think the cases might be rare — then withoqt any expo
sition of roots, or any instances of a like meaning — we have
Mr. B.'s assertion, that the word means so and so. See his
comments, on John 12: 48, the word translated judge. When
the whole of Mr. B.'s leading principle of interpretation seems
to be,(that if by any process of torturing plain language, the de
sired meaning can be extracted from it, it is lawful and safe
to do it. But if the laws ofthe commonwealth were interpre
ted after this manner, they could not be put in force. If the
blackest offender were allowed to use the same quibbles in
his defence, he could easily enough show that there is no law
against him. We are required then to believe that the enact
ments of heaven are to be subjected to principles of interpre
tation, that would reduce to wreck and nonsense the plainest
laws ofthe land.;

DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR. 195
Again, the true Balfourean must believe, that any quotations
brought from the writings of any believer in future punish
ment to sustain any of the -parts of Mr. B.'s system, are good
and sufficient reasons for believing in the soundness of those
parts. If among allthat has been said by such a diffuse and
fanciful Writer as Adam Clark, or among all the wild asser
tions of Parkhurst, a; name of no authority, an interpretation of
a passage can be found that favors his scheme, it is the prac
tice of Mr. B. to bring it forward, as if we were bound to re-
ceive'it as inspired because it came from a believer in future
punishment. No small part of Mr. B.'s books consist of quo
tations real and' perverted, from the writings of believers in
future punishment, with a design to make out that we must
believe this and that, because such a man has said this arid
that Mr. W". ha's'made -still more reliance On this kind of
proof. 'Ahd recentlyl have seen a notice in his paper, com-
mendinga forth coming work, which consisted entirely of com
pilations of such a sort, "from such a class of works. So that
we-are to understand that this is a favorite method of proof
with them. So then I am called uponto believe that as soon as
all the parts 'of Mr. B.'s system can be made out from collections
of all the foolish arid erroneous interpretations, yeaj- from the
scrapings of the nails Of the thousands of orthodox' writers, I
am bound to receive them as the revelation from God. How
would Universalism be able to stand before such jnethods of
argunientation ? Suppose every opinion that was ever uttered
by a manfbearirig the name of Universalist adverse to the
views of Mr. B. were brought forward as good and sufficient
reasons for disbelieving his system, how much of that Systerii
would be left ? And yet Mr. B. supposes that what the learn
ed Adam Clark has said in his wildest irioods, no believer in
future punishment is at" liberty to gainsay. The admission of
such a principle is not the least ofthe exorbitant teq'uli-effients
ofthe systerii before us.
Again, before,! can subscribe to the assertions and com
ments of this authoT, P must" discredit; the testimony of my oWn
eyes, with regatdto authorities on many essential 'paints. I

196 CREDULITY OF THE
must for instance believe that it is " universally allowed," that
the pew heavens andthe new earth, spoken of 2 Peter 3: 13,
refer to the kingdom of Christ, in this world, and'not any thing
after death, when every , author that I read on the subject)
such as Scott, Dwight, Chalmers, Rosenmeiiller, Storr and
Fuller, refer the passage to the new heavens and the new earth,
which are to emerge from the ashes ofthe present system. So
of the passages in the Apocalypse, that speak of the wicked
being tormented foreVer and ever, I must believe that "no
well informed man urge's them as proof of eternal punishment,"
when I find writers as - well informed as Edwards, Saurin,
Scott, Dwight, Rosenmiiller-and Stuart, involved in the alleged
absurdity. I must furthermore believe that Mr. B. has exam
ined in a given essay, all . the passages which are supposed, to
teach a retribution after death, when he has passed in silence
the very passage whose language is of all the most -full and
unequivocal; i". e. " I saw the .dead small and great stand be
fore God,&c." I must believe that the word daimon which oc
curs in scores of passages, "is well known to have no refer
ence to that being which christians call the devil," and that all
these passages are so irrelevant to the question of the exist
ence of the devil, that they need no consideration by him "who
labors at disproof, though many of them are much relied on
for proof. I must also believe that when he offers to bring
under examination all the passages which are supposed to
teach the separate conscious existence of the soul after death,
and then leaves two of the most material passages out of his
discussion of that subject, and then introduces them in anoth
er place incidentally but briefly, noticing their bearing on the
first question just to save appearances, — I must believe that
such a method of breaking the force of scripture testimony,
comports with fair and ingenuous reasoning, and with a proper
treatment of the word of God.
This list of indigestible matter, might be much more extend
ed, but this will serve as a specimen. The faith that can re
ceive all this has digestive organs more powerful, than those
of the. ostrich. The rational mind that can call these things

DISCIPLES OF BALFOUR. 197
reasonable, when distinctly set before it, or that can read- with
approbation works in which such' things" appear, and not dis
cover any thing out of the way, must be subject to an alarm
ing obliquity of moral vision. The fact' that these books are
read as oracles by men of some intelligence, goes to prove>
what a wreck can be made ofthe mind, of the, habits of moral;*
perception, and of the moral sentiments, by pursuing the dan-'
gerous enterprise of wresting the Scriptures into coincidence*
with depraved desire. 17

CHAPTER XII.

MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.
I propose in this chapter to adduce some disconnected and
independent considerations, in proof of the punishment ofthe
wicked, in the future world, such as it was not in my way es
pecially to notice in any of the preceding chapters.
Conduct has, in many respects, a language more intelligible
and impressive" than words, written or spoken. And the con
duct of such a man as Paul, is capable of throwing much light
on this subject. It is a proper subject of enquiry, whether the
conduct of Paul harmonizes with the notion that universal sal
vation was the gospel which he spent his life in promulgating.
And fortunately we have not only the history of Paul's con
duct in the ministry, but the express reasons assigned for that
conduct in various particulars. So that both his conduct and
the reasons therefor assigned by himself, mutually confirm
the testimony of each other, as to the real sentiments of his
heart. In one instance he gives us a reason for his conduct in
this shape— Knowing therefore the terror ofthe Lord we per
suade men, 2 Cor. 5: 11. Here we learn that the apprehen
sion he had of the terror ofthe Lord, was the cause which im
pelled him to such efforts as he made in persuading men.
Now let us -look at this matter a moment. — Here was one of
the most valuable of lives, with great exclusiveness of purpose,
and with strenuousness unexampled, devoted to the business
of persuading men. Prospects of worldly distinction had been
relinquished, mental endowments and advantages of rank and
influence, second to those of few, were counted as dross and
as dung — the favor of the great ones ofthe world, was ex
changed for their frowns, — poverty, perils, persecutions and
toils unceasing, were encountered in the business of persuad-

MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS 199
ing men. Such singleness of aim, such ceaseless driving to
wards one point, such throwing of the whole soul into the
enterprise undertaken, has rarely been witnessed. Now
what does the man mean by all this ? What is the mighty
principle of conduct like this — what the commanding motive
that sways the eneigies of sucha minclin subserviency tojjhe
single purpose of persuading men to embrace his gospel ?
This is his answer. Eriowing therefore the terror of the Lord
we persuade men. Do you say that the terror of the Lorfi
means some evil to be suffered in this life by those who rejec
ted his persuasions ? The context shows that a terror to be
revealed at the judgment seat of Christ is meant. For we
must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that eve
ry one may receive the things done in the body, according to
that he hatli done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing there
fore the terror, &c. But waiving this, suppose that the terror
ofthe Lord here refers to nothing more than judgments inflic
ted in this world upon those who did not embrace the gospel-
Then we have God's apostle exhausting his life, through
hardships "beyond what the greatest sinners under any judg
ments of God felt in this life, often endure, to persuade men
away from what ? — from the unhappiness of an unconvert
ed state, and from some possible sufferings, that might come
upon them if they did not repent — and to persuade them to en
counter the unparalleled temporal calamities,, that were the in
evitable lot of the ehristian. We have then this wise apos
tle, laboring to persuade men to avoid the temporal calamities
-ofthe wicked; for the more sure .and severe calamities* of the
godly. We have a Paul braving the terrors of a hostile world,
to induce men to exchange the less for the greater evil. We
have himready to go to prison and to death,— to be exposed
to wild beasts at Ephesus, to face the sword of Cesar and the
dungeon of Nero, to persuade men away from the ease and se
curity ofthe enemies of the gospel into the dangers arid per
secutions allotted to those who in such days would, live godly
in Christ Jesus. Is not this magnifying his benevolence at
the. expense -of his reason ? And on this hypothesis we need

200 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
not wonder that his work of persuasion was so difficult Per
suasion in that case would have been a miracle, if Paul had
told the world in the outset, that neither those who receiv
ed nor those who rejected his message had anything to fear af
ter death, and that the question of rejecting or receiving, was
only one of securing the most happiness in this life, none but
maniacs would ever have been persuaded by him. For all the
terrors of a world in arms, a world influenced by sevenfold hos
tility to the gospel were against him, and such arguments had
greater persuasive force than any found in such a gospel as
his wquld have been. The terror was on the other side ofthe
question. It was the receiving and not the rejecting ofthe gos
pel, which exposed a man to temporal dangers. Really, if Paul
employed himself in persuading men that the easiest and most
safe and comfortable way of spending this mortal life, was in
a course of christian duties, when duty led to the rack and the
stake, he had a work before him. If that were fact, the text
above quoted might be paraphrased after this sort — Knowing
the terror ofthe Lord, i. e. the terrors of enjoying unmolested
the favor ofthe world, and ofthe powers that be, we persuade
men to the safer and happier course of life, which confers
bonds, imprisonments, and the privilege- of being hunted like
wild beasts, and the constant expectation of a violent death,
overbalanced by no prospect of a reward in the future life.
On another occasion, giving explanations of the reasons of
his conduct, he says, that he was made all things to all men,
that he might by all means save some. But save some from
what? — from trouble in this life. Were his converts wont to
experience that kind of salvation ? Did he expect they would ?
Did he not rather tell them that all who will live godly in Christ
JesuS must suffer persecution ? From- what else then, did he
save some, than the perdition beyond the grave ? Thus the
conduct of Paul as interpreted by himself, is every way at war
yrith the idea of no punishment in the world to come ? If he
was laboring to save men from hell, conscious of standing be
tween a dying world and an uridone eternity, his whole con
duct was rational and consistent, having a fit proportion he-

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 201
tween the amount of his exertions and the vastness of his ob
ject. On the other hypothesis, his whole history is a history
of quixotic adventures.
Suppose Paul had actually devoted his life to the spread of
the gospel, that held out universal immunity from punishment
beyond the grave; HoW different would have been the course
of his life, and preaching ? Those who preach such a gospel
now, do it with some consistency. Their leading doctrine is
foremost in all their preaching. To convince men that hell is
a chimera,' and heaven the sure portion of the sinner and the
saint— that whatever distinctions are here- made between the
righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and
him that serveth him not, will be obliterated by the hand of
death, — that sin and holiness are tending to one result, — that
both the river of life and the river of death that pour through
this world, are at last to disembogue into the same ocean of
eternal glory, are the points, towards which their main labors
are directed. "Heaven for all and hell for none"- are doctrines,
the absence of which in any universalist sermon would be
deemed unpardonable. But was Paul in this sense a univer
salist preacher ? Was he so anxious, to disburden the sinner's
conscience of every fear of hell? Were all the, energies of
his soul bent to the purpose of persuading the world, that eve-
"ry course of sin was sure to end in heaven? Was he all careful
to make it appear that the dread damnation of which he some
times spoke, meant nothing more than temporal evils ? When
in the presence of Felix, he reasoned of righteousness, tem
perance, and judgment to- come, did he carry the idea that
this judgment to conv?, was only some unpleasant results of
man's irregularities of life experienced in this world? Was
this the doctrine that made to* judge on the bench tremble be
fore the prisoner at. the bar ? And when he thundered in the
Grecian senate, and was hissed from the floor because he came
down upon them with overbearing demonstrations ofthe resur^
rection, think you that the Senators were so offended be
cause he did, or because he did not mention the resurrection
to damnation ? Every way the life of Paul is a standing re-
17*

202 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
fetation of the doctrines of the Universalists. This source
of proof is capable of being advantageously expanded, but I
will not pursue it further.
Again I consider all the earnest warnings in Scripture against
heresy and the adoption of ruinous doctrines as virtual refuta
tions of Universalism — inasmuch as if that system be true, no
doctrines can be ruinous. There is such a thing frequently
spoken of in the Scriptures as heresy. 2 Peter 2: 1, Even as
there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring
in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them,
and shall bring upon themselves swift destruction. In Gal. 5:
20. Heresies are set down in a list ofthe " works of the .flesh,"
and in company with such things as " witchcraft, idolatry, mur
ders, drunkenness," &c. In Titus 3: 10, A man that is a her
etic is represented as one who should be excluded from the
communion of christians. In 2 Peter 3: 16, those who wrest
the Scriptures are said to do it to their own destruction. In
Gal. 1: 8, a curse is pronounced on those who should bring a
different gospel than that preached by Paul ; as though here
sy were a serious matter. Though we or an angel from hea
ven preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have
preached unto you, let him be accursed. Jude exhorts to con
tend earnestly for the faith once, delivered to the saints, against
those who have crept in unawares, ungodly men, turning the
grace of God into lasciviousness. Now I am not inclined to as
sert that Universalism is the only and the specific error on
which the writers in all these cases had their eye- But I would
here ask two or three questions. In the first place, is there
one system of religious error, has there ever been one, the be
lief of which is more fatal to man's immortal interests^ than
Uuiversalism, if that be erroneous ? This question answers it
self: there can be but one opinion about it. If a man believes
theie is no hell, he will, unless all the laws of mind are rever
sed in his case, shape his heart and conduct according to that
belief — and neglect God's appointed means of escaping eter
nal perdition. It is as true as that there is a hell, that he that
believeth not^-believeth not what ? — the great facts revealed

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 203
in the gospel, the perdition of the wicked among the rest — shall
be damned. If any wresting of the Scriptures <?an be to a man's
destruction,— if any strong delusion and believing a lie is a
prelude to damnation, the delusion of the Universalist surely
must have that character.
If this be admitted, I ask in the second place, is there not
ground for all the warnings against heresy which appear in
scripture, in the nature and tendency of this one system, if it
be an erroneous system ? All the warnings against the receiv
ing of erroneous doctrines, and all the earnestness and solem
nity with which they are put forth have a solid basis, if the em
brace of that system draws after it a train of consequences so
tremendous. If there be an eternal hell, and the not believing
of the truth be the highway towards it,- all the strenuousness
with which apostles insisted on the belief of the truth, and the
avoidance of heresy, was the proper dictate of Christian benev
olence.. But if there were no such perdition the apostles were
beyond the occasion when they so exhorted men to contend
earnestly for the faith — in levelling their curse at even the
angel from heaven who should bring another gospel. If the
most false and pernicious doctrines that man or even the an
gel of the bottomless pit ever put forth, are limited in their
mischiefs to this world, there is no occasion for such flaming
reprobation of them, If universalism be the truth- there are
no doctrines further from the truth, than those in this commu
nity called orthodox. But let the most bigotted Universalist
take the arithmetic ofthe evils which flow from orthodoxy, and
tell how much is lost in respect to individual and public happi
ness, and how much evil is brought in by the spread of so dam
nable a heresy as these must be in his esteem^how much the
force ofconscienee is abated, by the. expectation of a future
judgment, how much licentiousness is gendered, by perpetual
ly thundering in the ears of men, that the unbelieving and
abominable of every class, shall have their part in a lake which
burns with fire and brimstone — let him tellhow orthodoxy weak
ens men's attachments to reading and studying the word of
God, abates the religious zeal of men, dries up the fountains

204 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
of public charities — let him tell how much more corrupt in mor
als are Orthodox than .Universalist communities, — let him re
count the names of every apostate or impostor, that has had a
place in the church from Judas down to the last -silenced min
ister, and hold them up as the pure specimens of orthodox char
acter, and the pure results of orthodox doctrines. In short
make the difference as wide as you can, the advantage in fa
vor of universalism as great as you ean, and hold them up and
let any man of common sense say if he dare, that these ad
vantages were valued so highly by the apostles that they stig
matized the opposite doctrines as damnable heresies, as wrest
ing the scriptures to men's own destruction, a strong delusion,
preparing the way to damnation. Who can look at facts as
they are, and claim for universalism any advantages over other
systems as to results seen in this world, especially as to holi
ness or happiness, which would justify such emphaBi3 of denun
ciation of opposite doctrines ? The sum of the whole is this —
the doctrines ofthe gospel are such that the dootrines opposed
to them are ruinous and destructive to men. But the doctrines
opposed to Universalists have no such destructive tendency,
even allowing the truth of Universalism. Therefore Univer
salism cannot be the gospel system.
Another fact which has a serious bearing on the question
before us, is, that while many men have been known to re
nounce Universalism on a dying bed, the instance never was
known of one giving up a belief of future punishment in a dy
ing hour. This proof is not relied on as of equal force with
evidence from the bible, and yet it is worth considering in
connexion with this evidence. With regard to the fact I think
there is no mistake. I do not say that all Universalists find
their foundations fail them.in the near prospect of death. I know
there are those who are given up to believe a lie, those of
course who really believe it, and believe till the light of the
world to come dispels their delusion. And suppose we admit
that a great majority of Universalists, find their faith firm in a
dying hour, it will not be disputed that there are frequent
cases of those, who through life have been confident and as-

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 205
sured, that there was no punishment after death, who have
been deserted by all this confidence, when death approached,
and left to a fearful looking for of judgment. - This fact
might be attested by a thousand witnesses. Thenjthe univer
salist is challenged to point us to one instance of a man, who
lived all his days in the belief ofthe doctrine of future punish
ment till his dying scene arrived, and then was convinced- and
avoided his conviction that he had been deceived. I think I
am warranted in assuming that snch cases do not occur." And
if so, here is a serious fact which the Universalist is interested
to explain. How happens it that in that honest hour when
real and apparent are the same, that the conscience so Often
makes a shift from the one position but never from the other.
If you resolve the fact that Universalists abandon their ground
in a dying hour to the fickleness of the human" mind, why
should not that cause equally lead to a change in case of the
others ? Do you say those Universalists who renounce their
faith in the hour of death never really embraced it ? Well, but
are there not instances of those who pretend to believe in fu
ture punishment without really believing it, and why do not
they confess their hypocrisy also, in the hour of death ? I know
of no satisfactory solution of this fact, consistent with the
truth of Universalism.
Again, Universalism cannot be true, because it goes to in
validate the divine threatenings. This it does in two ways.
First by adopting a system of interpretation which applies many
of the most impressive comminations which appear in the
bible to the men of one age and nation, and excluding them
from all bearings upon the rest ofthe world. Most ofthe ex
pressions in the New Testament in the shape of threatenings,
however general may be the subject, and extensive the "ground
and reason ofthe threatening, are made to point to the destruc
tion, of Jerusalem. This is the chorus to every song. Of
course so much of the bible is divested of its bearings upon us.
And then in the second place those threatenings which are
admitted to be addressed to all mankind, such as " the .soul

206 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
that sinneth it shall die," " Cursed is every one that contin
ued not in all things written in the book of the law to do
them"— and others of like import are reduced to solemn tri
fling. Now suppose the penalty here intended, to be nothing
more than is made of it in this life. It is nothing more of
course than every sinner suffers in this life. For it is a curse
or dying to which every soul sinning is subject. Pardon here
is out of the question; for we speak of those living in their
sins. Now by all these threatenings couched in such gener
al language, no more is" meant than the unhappiness which
any or all sinners are seen to feel, as the result of their sins in
. this life. "Go then and inform a sinning world, that God means
no more by that language so often repeated with such awful
emphasis, than that if sinners continue to sin they shall be just
as unhappy as they are. Is there any thing in the threaten
ings so construed to take hold of the fears of men, and operate
as a check on their perverse passions ? Could a God of infi
nite wisdom be supposed to rely on such threatenings to com
mand respect for his laws ? God says the soul that sinneth it
shall die. The sinner asks, — and shall not others also ? Do not
all men die? What death shall the sinner die that others do
not ? The Universalist answers he shall be deprived of the
happiness of spiritual life, the happiness of the christian. If
that is all, replies the sinner, I shall not be much disturbed, it
is a happiness that I never ardently aspired after, and the loss
of which will little diminish my present comforts. ¦ Take up
this threatening in this sense, and rehearse it in the ears of
every variety of sinnel-s, and whose fears will you alarm, or
whose conscience will you excite ? Say to- the drunkard if he
do not forsake his beastly indulgences he will losethe hap--
piness of the christian life, will the announcement break on his
eafs'with the force of a divine threatening ? Say to the covet
ous, the extortioner, the'licentious, that if he do not repent and
foTsake his sins he shall die, that is, he shall not be happy in
the way that christians are happy. Assure him that it is real
ly so, by quoting a thus saith the Lord, and instead of having

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 207
his fears awoke, such is his disgust for the pleasures of the
christian life, he will despise the God who undertakes to move
his conscience by considerations so inadequate.
Nor on 'Universalist ground can you say even this. If to be
a christian is to be- a Universalist, and the christian's joy and
peace in believing consists in h.elieviug Universalism, I see
not how the most wicked men may not partake, of it.- Nothing
hinders-hut that the most infamous pirate, can be a firm be
liever inthe salvation of all men ! And, Mr. Whittemore tells
us that Universalism is most likely to flourish among such a.
class of men as publicans and harlots, because it is- a doctrine
" suited to their tastes." Now it is not true on his own hy
pothesis that the harlot, if she do not repent, will lose the hap
piness of the christian life, ^provided she be a Universalist
Every way then, Universalism goes to invalidate God's threat
enings. Again, Universalism excludes the mercy of God. . Much is
said in the gospel about the pardon of sin. I have found it im
possible to {ascertain in what way Universalism makes the
mercy of God contribute to the salvation of men. I under
stand, that it is essential to that system, that all men are pun
ished according to their full deserts in this life.-; — And "if so it
leaves no room for the exercise of mercy. The state-prison
er, after having served but his term of years, does not count
himself pardoned out of prison. The truth sis,- God's law orig
inally threatened eternal death to the transgressor, or it,did
not If it did, it would not be unjust forhim to inflicteternai
pains upon the incorrigible ; for it would riot be right to thread
en what would be unjust to inflict. If it did, it is a principle
of divine administration, that the conduct in this life should af
fect the .condition in the future lifej, a principle which' would,
overturn the main pillar of Universalism- Butif it didnot,,salT
vation beyond the grave is no act of mercy, the saving ofa
man from that to which he never was exposed, the remission of
a penalty never deserved-, and never threatened, is no mercy.
Or look at the matter in another light.-. It was originally de
signed that man should be made answerable.- in , the future

208 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
world for his conduct in this, or it was not. If it was so de
signed, why is he not still so answerable ? Surely it will not
be pretended that Christ has made himself the minister of sin,
and limited the extent of man's accountability for it, — by mak
ing sin less hateful to God or less dreadful in its consequences.
But if it was not originally designed that man should be made
accountable in the future world, it were no act of mercy to take
to heaven the most guilty and abandoned wretch that ever
breathed. Mercy cannot come over ground that accountabili
ty has not covered. So that whatever mercy there may be in
the gospel, that mercy does not exercise itself according to the
Universalist hypothesis in saving men from misery in the world
to come. I see not how the inference can be avoided, that
there is no mercy in what is called universal salvation. We
will then, if you please, take it as a settled principle of Uni
versalism, that all the mercy of which we read in the gospel,
is exercised in saving men from deserved temporal calamities.
The Universalists must admit that this mercy is represented
as great. God is abundantly represented as making some
where, and at some period of man's existence, great displays
of his mercy. But how does this fact tally with the represen-*
tation, that all men are punished in this life to the full amount
of their guilt? One would think there were some inconsisten
cy here. In one breath we are told that all men suffer in this
world all they deserve, and then in the next that all the mercy
of God spends itself upon man in this life. You will ask per
haps how men can be judged all according to their works in
any world, and yet there be mercy incase of those who are
saved? And the answer is at hand. First among the works of
the redeemed is the work of faith in Christ, which is the indis
pensable condition of mercy being exercised towards them — ac
cording to this work and the good works which flow from this
and evidence it forth as genuine, the redeemed are judged,
so that salvation is purely an exercise of mercy. But Univer
salism, excluding all conditions of salvation, provides no way in
which strict justice can be executed on all, as it pretends it
will, and yet great mercy shown to some.
And then, if all the mercy of God is confined to this world,

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 209
-I
in what acts of providence or grace does it show itself? Who
are they that have attained this mercy ? , And! how does the fact
of one's being pardoned affect his condition ? Wherein con
sists the blessedness of the man, whose sin is forgiven and
whose iniquity is povered? Does it affect his mind or body,
his reputation orastate? If it affects his mind, pray tell me
how does the absence of pardon, if attended by no consequen
ces beyond the grave, and if death is sure soon to serve iii the
stead of pardon, seriously disturb the peace of the mind ?—
I ask again — If all God's mercy is displayed in this world, and
the pardon of sin displays all its, blessedness here, in what facts
does that blessedness consist ? Is it credible that the gospel
should say so much about pardon, and forgiveness, and so little
of it should be found in actual existence ? The pages of evan
gelical, prophecy,, and of gospel history and gospel exhorta
tion, are made to glow with descriptions and illustrations of a
system' of salvation, contrived to declare the righteousness of
God in the forgiveness of. sins' that are past". A vicari
ous sufferer, a divinely furnished,- and divine victim, stands
forth bowing between the blows of heaven and earth — the
bleeding lamb of God-that takes away the "sins of the world, in
troducing a great salvation, a mysteriously splendid system of
mercy, the masterpiece of all God's works, into which the an
gels desire to look And now is itcredible thatthis broad and"
lofty plan of mercy, works no results but what are seen in
any advantages which the righteous enjoy over the wicke'd-in
this world ?
But perhaps after all, the Universalists will choose to be un
derstood as making the salvation of-man in the world to come,
the result of mercy. Many of the proof texts on which they
place much reliance in support of their notion of a heaven for
all, are such as speak, of mercy— such as these — His mercy
endureth forever, — His tender mercies are over all his works.
Here is an assumption that universal Salvation is equivalent to
universal mercy. But pray tell me, if man was never exposed
toeterrial death, ifhe. never was under condemnation of a law
18

210 ^! MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
which threatened eternal death, what is there of mercy in sav
ing him from such a death ? v
Either way then,I am warranted, to conclude that Universal
ism makes no adequate use of God's mercy, and to set in array
against the system all that is said in the gospel, about the for
giveness of sin and the provisions for it
Again, Universalism annihilates all conditions, connects
with securing eternal life. Assuming that the state of men ii
the future life, is not at all affected by the conduct in this life
- — that there is no judgment beyond the grave, it reduces ti
solemn trifling all those parts of Scripture, which directly or bj
implication, make the performance of certain conditions need
ful to the salvation of the soul. To rehearse all the passagei
which make the enjoyment of eternal life depend on certair,
conditions, would be to repeat no small part ofthe Bible. 1
will select a few out ofthe many. Mark 16: 16. He that be
lieveth and is baptized, shall be saved, and he that believeth
not shall be damned. Here salvation is offered on condition of
believing ; and. that not a salvation from Jerusalem's destruc
tion, for it was a condition to be proclaimed to all the world.
Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creat
ure. He that believeth [in all the world] shall be saved, die.
Rom. 10: 9.' If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Je
sus, and shalt believe with thy heart that God raised him from
the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believ
eth unto righteousness. John 3: 36. He that believeth on the
Son hath everlasting life, and he that believeth not on the
Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Now if the unbelieving are equally safe with the believing,
what is the meaning of all this ? Rev. 2: 11. He that overcome
eth shall not be hurt ofthe second death, — implying that those
that do not overcome shall be hurt of the second death. Rev.
2: 7. To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of
life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God, — meaning if
it means any thing, that he that does not overcome shall not
eat of the tree of life. Rev. 2: 17. To him that, overcometh

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 2ll
will I give to eat ofthe hidden manna. Heb. 3:»1<H- For we are
made . partakers with Christ if. we hold fast the beginning of
our .confidence steadfast unto the end, Thes,e passages im
ply, a reward of perseverance bestowed at the end of life, and
•of course do not consist with the notion that .the Christian has
all his reward, and the impenitent all his loss and sufferings in
this life. " • .
To this same point are all those passages which speak of
heaven, eternal life, &c. a(s the reward of holiness. Matt 5:
12. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in
heaven, for so persecuted they the prophets which were before
you. If the condition in heaven is not affected by the conduct
in this life^ why speak of a reward in heaven ? there can be no
such thing. Luke 6: 23. Rejoice ye in that day and leap for
joy ; for behold your reward is great in heaven. I Peter 4: 13.
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are made partakers of Christ's suf
ferings, that wherihis glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad
also with exceeding joy. In the following also, the fact of re
wards and punishments beyond the grave is clearly implied.
Matt 10: 32. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before
. mep, him will I also confess before my Father which is in hea
ven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I al
so deny before my father which is in heaven. Mark 8: 38.
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me, and of my words
in this adulterous and sinful generation, of hjm shall the Son
of Man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Fa
ther, with the. holy angel?. Here isa contrast between that
generation and the time when Christ should come in his glory,
showingthat the time when the shame should settle on Christ's
enemies, wa3 after that generation had passed away,
To. the same point essentially, are those passages which
speak of the difficulty of obtaining salvation, and the danger of
losing it. Matt. 7: 13. Enter ye in at the strait gate, for wide
is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be whichgo in thereat. Because strait is the
gate, and narrow is the way, that leadeth urito life, and few
there be that find it Here are two ways, described, the one

212 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
leading to life, and the other to destruction.. But the Univer
salist tells us that life here means spiritual, and riot eternal
life; and death means the suffering which sin brings along
with it in this life. But it, happens that this strait gate, which
can mean nothing but the difficulties of a holy life, is that which
leadeth unto life. And the broad, and easy way ofthe sinner
is that which leadeth unto destruction, and not the destruction
itself. Matt. 7: 21. Not every one that saith Lord, Lord, shall -
enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will
"of my father which is in heaven. Many will say unto me in
that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name,
and in thy name have cast out devils, arid, in thy. name
done many wonderful works? And then I. will profess unto
them, I never knew you— Depart from me ye that work iniqui
ty. It seems then, there will be many that will- riot enter the
kingdom of heaven, — many who after great attainments, and
great achievements in religious life, will be addressed by a—
"Depart from me." But suppose the phrase, kingdom of God,
is here used in the sense of, spiritual life, as the Universalist
will tell us. — Then we have hypocrites earnestly, desiring to
be christians indeed, but forbidden to come to the desired
privilege. And we have them. saying, as Luke gives the sto
ry, — Lord, Lord, open unto us. Open what? The kingdom,
the privilege of being real christians. But when' were hypo
crites so earnest to come to spiritual life, and when did the
Lord refuse to admit them, on the ground that they had been
workers of iniquity ?.' Luke 13: 23. Then Said one unto him,
Lord are there few that be saved? And he said unto them,
Strive to enter in at the strait gate, — For many I say unto you
will seek to enter in and shall not be able. ¦ That salvation or
admission to heaven, is the end towards which the strait gate
leads, is seen in the fact that the remark is made, in answer
to the question — Are there few that be saved? The man did
not ask whether few became Christ's followers, for he had no
need to ask it, but are there few that be saved ? And he is
told that many will se"ek salvation, and shall not find it. 1 Pe
ter 4: 18. And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. „ 213'
the ungodly and the sinner appear ? Here, both th,e difficulty
of obtaining salvation, and the fact that the ungodly and the.-
sinner do not obtain it are set forth.
Equally in face ofthe Universalist hypothesis, are those pas
sages which speak of holy life, as of laying up treasure in hea
ven. Matt 6: 19. Lay notup for yourselves treasures upon
the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves
break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures
in heaven,, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt. Matt.
19: 21, Go and sell that thou hast and' give to the poor, and
thou Shalt have treasure in heaven. Luke 12: 33. Sell that
ye have and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not
old,, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not Luke 16: 9.
And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of the mam
mon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive
you into everlasting habitations. 1 Tim. 6: 19. Laying up
in store a good foundation against the. time to come, that
they may lay hold on eternal life. Heb. 10: 34.. For ye had
compassion on my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your
goods, knowing in yourselves, that ye have in heaven a better
and an enduring substance. Cast not away therefore your con
fidence, which hath great recompence of reward. 1 Peter 1: 3.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which
according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us. again unto
a lively hope, by the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from
the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and
that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept
by the' power of God through faith unto, salvation. > And verse
7 — That thetrial of your faith being much more precious than
gold .which perisheth, may be found unto praise and honor and
glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. Chap, 5; 4. And when
the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of
glory that fadeth not away. That in these passages a holy
life is represented as tending to secure a good treasure or a
crown in the heavenly world, I think admits of no question.
All this amount of evidence then, goes against the doctrine of
r 18*

214 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
the Universalists, that no rewards or punishments extend into
the future world.
Equally in point are those which speak ofthe end of a godly
and an ungodly life. Rom. 6: 22. Ye have your fruit-unto ho
liness, and your end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is
death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ
our Lord. Phil. 3: 19. Whose • end is- destruction. Heb. 6: 8.
Whose end is to be burned. 2 Cor.- 11: 15. Whose end is ac
cording to their works.- Prov. 11: 7. 'When a wicked man
dieth, his expectations shall perish. — 14: 32. The wicked is
driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope' in
his death. Job 27: 8. For what is the hppe of the hypocrite,
though he hath gained, when God taketh away his soul ? Here
there is a great difference made between the end of the right
eous, and of the' wicked.' In one case the end is everlasting
life, and eternal life through Jesus Christ And in the other
it is represented as death, destruction, perishing of the expec
tation in death, burning, and hopelessness in the taking away
of the sOul. And if the career of the wicked ends in this,
there can be no eternal glory to them beyond it. 'Do you say
these expressions do not mean the last, the absolutely final
slate, ofthe wicked and of the righteous ? Where is your ev
idence ? The expression is, " Having your fruit unto holiness,
and your end everlasting life." But if these fail of convincing
you that the last end is meant -we will quote one in which that
is expressly said., Numb. 23: 10. Let me die the death ofthe
righteous, and let my last end be like his. . Here a difference
is made between the last end of the righteous and of the
wicked. Equally inconsistent with the hope that all will be saved is
that class of passages, which speak of destruction without mercy.
James 2: 13. For he shall have judgment without mercy that
hath showed no mercy. Seehow this is at total variance with
the scheme of the Universalists. They tell us that all God's
judgments are for the good ofthe person punished; that i3
that men have no judgments but what are in mercy, which es-

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. -215
s sentially amounts to mercy without judgment, where God says
¦some shall have judgment without mercy. Prov. 29: 1. He
that being often reproved, hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly
be destroyed, and that without remedy. Prov 6: 15. There
fore shall his cala'mnity come suddenly ; suddenly shall he be
broken without remedy. - 1 Thes/5: 2. For yourselves know
¦perfectly, that the day of the Lord cometh'as a thief in the
night. For when they shall say peace, and safety, then sud
den destruction cometh upon them, and they-shali not escape.
There, is then a destruction coming upon, the ungodly which
adrhits of no escape or remedy. It must then be an infliction
of God's anger which will last as long as their existence. Har- -
monizing with this'idea' is, 1 John 5: 16. ' If a man' see his
brother.s'in a sin which is not unto death,, he shall ask and he
shall give him life for a sin which is not unto death. There is
a sin unto death. I do not say he shall pray for it. And why
not pray for such, if there salvation be possible, nay certain?
Does-Godforbid bis people to'pray for those whom he himself
is willing to receive to eternal honor ? Heb. 10: 26. For if we
sin wilfully, after-that we have received the knowledge ofthe
truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, hut a certain
fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indignation, which'
shall devour the adversary. If there be no more sacrifice for
sin, and if judgment and devouring indignation remain 'for
some,. salvation of course is excluded. Nor is it out of place
here to.introduce what Christ said of Judas. Mark 14: 21.
Woe to -that man by whom the 'Son of Man is betrayed. Good
were it for that man if he never had been born. Now on the
Universalist hypothesis, what does Judas suffer which made
his existence on the whole a calamity ? 'Did. the few hours of
remorse and the pains of suicide, overbalance the joys of the
eternal heaven, to which his violent and guilty death introduced
him ? Had his whole life been one of endurance beyond what
mortal ever yet endured) it would not have been an atom be
side eterrial weight of glory, in heaven. It would not have
been good for him not to have been born, if there were no suf
fering for him after death.

216 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
Equally decisive are those which represent that there is no
change of character from sin to holiness after death, as Rev.
22: 11, 12. He that is unjust let him be unjust still, and he that
is filthy let him be filthy still, and he that is righteous let him
be righteous still, and he that is holy let him be holy, still.
And behold I come quickly, and my reward is with me, to give
to every man according as his work shall be. Date this sen
tence of confirining the characters of men when you will, it
excludes universal holiness and salvation. There is to be a
time when those that are unjust and filthy will he confirmed
in that character forever. And it will of course be when there
are some to possess that character. And as there can be no
happiness even in heaven without holiness, such unjust and
filthy ones cannot be saved. Prov. 14: 32. The wjcked is
driven away in his wickedness, but the righteous hath hope in
his death. This passage already quoted for another purpose
is proof also that the wicked is confirmed in his wicked char
acter, and. of course. in hopelessness of salvation at death.
Dan. 12: 10. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tri
ed ; but the wicked shall do wickedly ; and none ofthe. wicked
shall understand. John 8: 21. Then said Jesus unto them,
again I go my way, and ye shall seek me,- and shall die in your
sins, and whither I go ye cannot come. Dying in sins is here
made an equivalent to a complete hindrance to coming where
Christ is, i. e. to heaven, as he himself explains it in the con
text. Those passages also which confine the portiori and enjoy
ment ofthe wicked to this life, are decidedly subversive ofthe
Universalist theory. Psalms 17: 14. From the men of the
world who have their portion in this life, — implying that there
is no portion for them in the future life. Psalms 4: 9. Be not
thou afraid, when one is made rich; when the glory of his house
is increased, for when he dieth he shall carry nothing away,
his glory shall not descend after him, though while he lived he
blessed" his soul. He shall go to the generation of his fathers ;
they shallnever see light. 73: 3—17. I was envious at the
foolish when I saw the prosperity of the wicked.  Until I

OF TUTURE PUNISHMENT. 217
went into the sanctuary of God, then understood I their end.
Thou castedst them down into destruction. And this destruc
tion was not the- mere death of the body. For the myste.ry of
which the Psalmist had been speaking was, that the wicked
both livedso prosperously, and died so quietly, — "there were
no bands ih their death" Their being consumed with terrors,
and cast down to destruction, and the glad reverse .of the con
dition ofthe righteous, must he asomething which takes place
" after death. On this verse the writer fixes his eye, and winds
up the Psalm with, — Thou sh;alt -guide me with thy counsel,
and afterwards receive me to glory. My flesh and my heart
faileth,- but God is the strength of my- heart and iriy portion
forever. Thus the contrast between the portion of the right
eous, and the portion of the wicked, is complete. The one ends
with this life, and the other is a portion forever. Luke 12: 16.
And he spoke a parable' unto them saying, the ground of a
oertain rich man, brought forth plentifully. And he thought
within himself, saying, what shall I do because I have no room
where to bestow my fruits; and he said this will I do, I will
pull down my barns and build greater', and there'will I bestow
all my fruits and my goods.. And I will, say to my' soul, soul,
thou hast much goods laid up for many years, take thine ease,
eat, drink and be merry. But God said unto him, thou fool,
this night thy soul shall be required of thee, and theri whose
shall these things be, which thou hast provided ? So is he that
layeth up treasures for himself, and is not rich towards God.
But if Universalism be true, wherein was that man a fool, for
making dependence on his abundant earthly portion, to the.
neglect of being rich towards God? 'On that supposition his ''
heavenly portion was just as sure, and abundant,' as if he had
been ever so rich towards God. Luke 16: 25. But Abram said,
son, remember, that thou in thy life time 'receivedst thy good
things, and Lazarus his evil things, but now he 'is comforted,
and tho.u art tormented; Luke 6: 24. Woe unto you that 'are
rich, for you have received your consolation ; implying that
there is ho more consolation for them hereafter. If there be
salvation for them in heaven, it is infinitely greater than. all

218 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
other ponsolations, and by way^f eminence should be called
their consolation. James 5: 5. Ye have lived in pleasure on
the earth and been wanton, ye have nourished your hearts as
in the day of slaughter. Ye have condemned and killed the
just, and he doth notresist you. Be patient therefore breth
ren unto the coming of the Lord. Here is a tremendous im
plication of punishment coming upon the oppressor, when the
Lord shall come — it being said in the context that the cries
of the oppressed had gone up into the ears'of the Lord of
hosts-^that the oppressed had heaped treasure together for the
last days, that their riches were to,be a witness against them,
they were bid to weep and howl for the miseries that were
coming upon them.
Another class of .texts, running in the very teeth of Univer
salism, is composed of those which speak ofthe wicked as per
ishing, cast away, rejected, burnt as chaff. 1 Cor. 1: 18. The
preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness, but
unto us who are saved it is the power of God. 2 Cor. 2: 15.
For we are unto God a- sweet savor of -Christ, in them that are
saved, and in them that perish. Perishing is here put in con
trast with being saved. 2 Peter 2: 12. And shall utterly per
ish in their own corruption. Luke 9: 25. For what is a man
advantaged if he gain the whole world and lose himself or be
a cast away ? 1 Cor. 9: 27. But I keep under my body, and
bring it into subjection, lest when I have preached to others
I myself also should be a cast-away. Heb. 6: 8. That which
beareth thorns and briars, is rejected. Matt 3: 12. But the
chalfhe will burn in unquenchable fire. Matt. 13: 40. As
' therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fife, so shall
it be in the end of this world. The Son of Man shall' send forth
his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom, all things
that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them
into a -furnace of fire. There shall bewailing and gnashing of
teeth. And verse 47. The kingdom of Heaven is like unto a
net, that was cast into the sea and gathered of every kind,
which when it was full they drew to the shore, and sat down
and gathered the good into vessels and cast the bad away,

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 211 «
So shall it be at the end of the world'. The angels shall comt
forth',, and sever the wicked from Smopg the just* and cast
them into the furnace of fire, there shall be weeping am
gnashing of teeth. Let such testimony speak, for itself.' I
all are finally saved, there is no propriety in speaking of anj
as lost, perished, cast aWay, rejected, and cast at the end o:
the world into unquenchable fire.
To these may be added those passages which directly or in-
djrectly express an exclusion of the wicked from heaven^
John (Rev. 21) after, describing the blessedness of the New
Jerusalem, the holy city coming down from God out of heaven,
says — But the fearful and unbelieving, and the abominable, and
murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars shall have
their" part in the lake which burnetii with fire and_br!mstone,
which is the second death. Then after having given a partic
ular description of the city and its glories, he adds, and there-
shall in no wise enter into it, any thing«rhat defileth, neither
whatsoever worketh. abomination, or maketh a lie,-but they
which are written in the Lamb's book of life. Heb. 12: 14. Fol
low peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man can
see the Lord. Gal. 5: 19. Now the works of the flesh are man
ifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, 1-as-
civiousnCss, idolatry,, witchcraft, hatred,, variance, emulation,
wrath, strifes, seditions, heresip, envyirigs, murders, drunken
ness, revellings, and suchlike, of which I before tell you, as I
have also told you,, that they which -do such things, shall not
inherit the kingdom of God. - 1 £or. 6: 9. -Know ye not that the t
unrighteous shall not inherit theik'irigdom of God ? Be not de* '
ceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, ndr '
abusers .of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor" covetous,
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of
of God. Rev. 22: 14. Blessed afe they that do his command
ments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may
enter in through the gates ofthe city. 'For without are dogs,.
and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters,
and whosoever loveth and "maketh a lie.

,220 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
I have now some unclassed texts to introduce. Rom. 2: 5.
But after thy hardness and irbpenitent heart, treasurest up un
to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of
ofthe righteous judgment of God, who will render unto eve
ry man according to his deeds,- — to them who by patient con
tinuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immor
tality, eternal life. But unto them that are contentious, and do
not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and
wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul'of man that
doeth evil, to the Jew first and also to the Gentile. Can the
doctrine of eternal rewards and punishments, have a more un
equivocal and tremendous assertion ? And though it has such
plain reference to the last judgment, Mr. B. in his Essay on
that subject has not favored us with his comments upon it.
Here an impenitent life is represented as treasuring up wrath
against the day of wrath, and it is asserted that in that day of
wrath God will render to' all the world, Jew and Gentile, ac
cording to their deeds. Such a day of course as the day of
Jerusalem's destruction, was not a day when eternal life is
awarded to those who by well-doing have sought for glory and
honor and immortality — a day when .will come upon the-.wick-
ed from all the world, a retribution which requires such an
accumulation of fearful epithets to express, as is hardly to be
found elsewhere in the. compass of written language — indigna
tion and wrath, tribulation arid anguish.
Rom. 9: 22. What if God, willing to show his wrath, and
make his power known/ "endured with much long suffering the
vessels of wrath fitted for destruction : and that he might make
known the riches of his glory, on the vessels of mercy, which
he hath before prepared unto glory, even us whom he hath
called, not of the Jews only, but alsp of the Gentiles ? Can
anything here be meant by glory, short of the glory of the
' heavenly world? And if not, what can be meant by the des
truction with which the glory stands in contrast, but the des
truction in hell? And if vessels of mercy are the objects of
eternal salvation, the vessels of wrath are the objects of eter-

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 221
nal wrath. Surely the force of the text cannot be evaded, by
the sing-song of Jerusalem's destruction. For it respects not
the Jews only but also the Gentiles.
Rev. 14: 13. And I heard a voice from heaven, saying —
Write — Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord, from
henceforth, yea saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their
labors, and their works do follow them. Here we are told of a
blessing on them who die in the Lord, attendin g them after
death — from henceforth, implying their conscious existence,
and happiness immediately after death. But the Universalist
will tell_ you this blessedness consists only in the remembrance
and influence of their good works which live after them. But
how this remembrance affects them as a blessing after they are
dead and annihilated, does not appear. And then thousands,
we trust, have died in the Lord, and gained a title to this bless
edness, who have made no splendid achievements in this world
to draw after them such a posthumous fame ; thousands
whose names and works are soon forgotten on earth — who
moved in humble and contracted spheres ; and who died no
more missed by the world than if they never had lived, we
trust now stand high in honor before the eternal throne. ¦ But
if those who died in the Lord are blessed from henceforth, there
must be retributions after death.
But I will not further multiply quotations. On every branch
ofthe proofs given in this chapter, I have felt, that the field
before me was exhaustless. And my greatest difficulty has
been in determining' what proofs to omit. It is worthy of re
mark, that most universalist arguments are employed in sus
taining negative positions. The task of their writers is to show
that this and that is not proof of future punishment They
find little in the Bible which ha3 the appearance of positive
proof of universal salvation. This one would think should
stumble1 them. For if the gospel be a proclamation of uni
versal salvation, it is strange that a doctrine of such trans-
cendaat importance, was not made the running title of every
page. 'It is strange that so many expressions, which in the
literal and obvious sense assert the contrary, and which appa-
19

222 MISCELLANEOUS PROOFS
rently obscure the truth, if that be truth, and blind the eye of
the reader, were permitted to stand on the inspired page, — es
pecially if it be true that universal salvation be so glorious to
God, the main object ofthe gospel, this of all doctrines ought
to have been indisputably revealed, and^not a hint given to the
contraiy. Now let the reader go hack with me and notice the main po
sitions which I have endeavored to support, against the efforts
of these writers. These must be seen in their connection as
a system, if we -would apprehend fully how difficult a matter
it is to make out the proof of universal salvation. The man
who undertakes the proof, is under the necessity of proving
that man has no immortal soul, that exists in a state of con
sciousness after death and before the resurrection. And he
must do away all scripture testimony to this point. He must
prove that there is no judgment after death, and silence all the
evidence from scripture, and every voice of Providence that
hints of a judgment to come. He must satisfy us that the
scores of passages, which speak of eternal life, mean no such
thing; that everlasting punishment, and the words eternal
and forever, &c. when applied to punishment, mean something
very far from what they seem to mean. He must prove that
there is no place of future punishment spoken of in the bible,
and that all the passages which refer to that place under different
names translated hell, refer to something experienced in this
world. And finally, he must make it appear that there are no
fallen angels now suffering eternal punishment, and dispose
of more than an hundred texts which spealt of such fallen an
gels. Now the task of the Universalist is not done till all
these positions are made good. Should he prove all the rest
and yet leave us to understand that there is a judgment to
come ; or should he prove all the rest, and leave us to be
lieve that the bible speaks of a hell as a place of future pun
ishment, and so ofthe rest, he would have lost hislabor. For,
give us one of these positions and the doctrine of universal
salvation is overthrown. We see then what is the united force
ofthe whole argument against the doctrine. The different

OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT* 223;.
Branches ofthe argument above alluded to, stand mutually re-.
lated in some sense as the separate stones, which form an arch
— each giving strength to the whole, and\ what goes to sustain
one goes to sustain the whole. All the texts which prove one
of these positions, are so many proofs ofthe ultimate doctrine.
He who will believe ki universal salvation, must face the sep
arate and united testimony of all the passages of holy writ,
which go to prove either of these points. And no man fairly
deals with his conscience, who- admits suCh a belief without
clearing the ground of the whole amount of this testimony.
But where is the man who has explored the whole subject,
and weighed the evidence impartially, and found the way on
all these points, open and clear of obstructions to the belief,
that God has no judgments for his incorrigible enemies be
yond the grave ? Few will even pretend to have done it. And
those who do thus pretend are in great danger, to say the
least, of finding a judgment day, and in it a day of disappoint
ment and terror; unutterable.

CHAPTER XIII.

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
It is very common to find those inclined to the belief of
Universalism, who have a method of disposing of the argu
ments brought against them, not unlike to the Jesuitical doc
trine of " probable opinions." Present before them a serious
argument, which goes to cut up their whole system by' the
roots ; and they have at hand, a short, and as it respects
themselves an unanswerable argument. They will tell you,
"You make your own side ofthe question very fair, but it signi
fies nothing ; I am not obliged to be convinced, so long as I
know that a very plausible story can be told on the other side."
The man shields his conscience from the truth behind the
imagined probabilities, that a cunning writer can make out in
favor of a contrary belief, when he knows these probabilities
come far short of a certainty. When a mind balances itself on
such principles, to offer it reasons is' to beat the air. I know of
no way better calculated to show to such minds the folly of
their treatment ofthe subject, than to give them an opportuni
ty to see themselves in the doctrine ofthe Jesuits, as exposed
by Pascal. This I shall do by a few quotations. — "An opin
ion is called probable, when it is founded upon reasons of some
importance. And hence it happens that only one grave doc^
tor, can render an opinion probable ; for a man who is partic
ularly devoted to study, would not adopt an opinion, unless he
were induced by a good and sufficient reason — For if the tes
timony of such a man possess sufficient weight to convince us,
that any occurrence took place at Rome for example, why should
it not be equally satisfactory in deciding a doubtful point of
morality ?" "Their views (i. e. of these grave doctors) are in
deed frequently different; but this is nothing to the purpose ;

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.

225

every one may render his own, probable and certain. We are
well aware their opinions are not all coincident : so much the
better ; in fact, they scarcely ever agree ; for a very few ques
tions can arise in which you will not find one say yes and an
other no. But each of these contrary opinions is probable.
Pontius and Sanchez, are of an opposite opinion ; but inasmuch
as they are both learned men, each one makes his own senti
ment probable." " Such i3 the use of these contrary opinions
on all subjects. One is always for you, and the other is never
against you. If you do not find your account in one way, you
are sure to do so in another. And so you are always safe."
Though the doctrine herein stated is not sanctioned by the
creed of the Universalists, it is sanctioned by the conduct of
many, whose minds without satisfactory evidence, are inclined
to take up that belief. Though the plain common-sehse-read-
ing ofthe Bible is against them, they yet feel justified in tak
ing up the opinion which they prefer, because more than one
" grave doctor" has asserted it. " And it is not to be suppos
ed that he would, unless he were induced to it by good and
sufficient reasons." A man so " particularly devoted to Study,"
as Mr. Whittemore, and a man who can write Greek and He
brew words, with as much ease- as Mr. Balfour, is not to be
supposed to assert the doctrine, without good and sufficient
reasons, even though the whole scope of the Bible is against
him. Here is the method, in which they operate on the minds
of thousands, who through mental indolence, or fear of being
convinced against their wishes, refuse to give the subject a
full and impartial examination, and yet in spite of all proofs
persist in the flesh-pleasing delusion.
This, however, is a disease of mind, which no reasonings can
cure. All that can be attempted with any rational hope of suc
cess is, so to expose the common sources of Universalism, that
it shall clearly appear, that this and that man's belief of the
doctrine, affords no ground for presuming the doctrine true.
We come then directly at the question, — What are the caus
es, that incline the minds of men to the belief pf the doctrine
in question. That interpretations of the word of God which
19*

226 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
are palpably false, and in many cases ridiculous, are received
as sound — that the crudest absurdities are digested, by ma
ny who ought to know .better— that men of sense in other
matters, knowing that their everlasting all is at stake, will suf
fer themselves to be carried away, by reasons on which in oth
er matters they would not risk a sixpence. Here is a phenom
enon in human character which I now propose to explain.
In the explanation I remark in the first place, that whatev
er the causes may be which bring so many to the belief of this
doctrine, it is not the perception of any firm and satisfactory
reasons in the case, as may be shown from the shifting and
varying character of the premises on which it has been built.
The premises have often been changed, while the conclusion
has remained. That the proof may be adopted and then set
aside, like almanacks when out of date, and yet the same con
clusion remain^and that the same mind could at the same
time draw conviction from opposite premises, is the conclusion
to which the history of Universalism would bring us. The
first Universalists were Restorationists, believing in a purga
torial punishment in the future world. Next comes in the doc
trine of no punishment in the future world, built on some of
the doctrines of Calvinism caricatured. Next, these grounds
are abandoned, and the same doctrine comes forward under the
auspices of Messrs. B. and W. and their eoadjutors, sustained
by such interpretations as we have been examining. Some will
have it that the obvious understanding of some passages ofthe
Bible, brings us to the doctrine of eternal punjshment, but the
doctrine not being in itself reasonable, and consistent with the
known goodness of God, those passages must be so explained
away, as to consist with more rational views. Others will have
us believe that all passages' of the Bible are obviously consis
tent with the doctrine of no future punishment. But as the
conscience cannot at all times and in all persons be made to
see with such eyes, the original doctrine of restoration is held
by many, as a sort of reserve ground, to flee to when driven
from the more comforting doctrine of no hell at all. That dif
ferent minds should stand on grounds 60 opposite, is not mar-

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 227
velous ; but that one and the same mind should hold them both
at once, show that the conclusion is regarded as more impor
tant than the means of coming at it. My observation much
deceives me if it be not true ofthe great mass of the Univer
salists, and more especially ofthe more intelligent of them, that
they feel about an equal confidence and interest in both these
systems — opposite as they are in respect to grounds of proof.
The expression has gone into a proverb among those who-pro-
fess to believe in no future punishment, that the restoration
system "is better than nothing." And inconsistent as.it is
with thair professed belief, they cherish it with a strong affec
tion. And they guard with a jealous care against any con
troversy with Restoralionists (see preliminaries to the Danvera
discussion and the Universalist Trumpet passim) and the read
er is requested to bear in mind the question, whether there is
not among this class of Universalists, much of playing fast and
loose, respecting the grounds on which they are willing to
rest their system, that he may satisfy himself by future obser
vation. Refute before them Mr. Balfour's positions, and even
those who have been wont to look at this author as their ora
cle, are ready to say — "We never agreed with Mr. B. on that
point" Or, " We always had our doubts about it." Now the
conclusion to which all this brings us is, that Universalism
originates rather in the desire ofthe mind, than in the force of
solid proofs. The conclusion seems to have been antece
dent to the proofs. It is a fabric that can stand as well with
out an underpinning as with it. And the foundation can be
slipped from beneath it, and exchanged for another, as often as
it is conceived another can be found of more decent appearance.
The underpinning by the way is used only for appearance
sake. If Mr. B.'s system be the* true one, the Universalism
which existed before this was invented, must have been be
lieved without known and sufficient reasons. A system of
doctrines, under so little obligations to its proofs, that it can
discard and renew them at pleasure, must be rather the off
spring of man's convenience and desires, than the result of im
partial study of the word of God.

-22S SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
In speaking more directly of the sources of Universalism,
I shall first take the position that the depraved inclinations of
men are a fruitful occasion of their embracing it. I suppose I
shall not be required to prove in this place, that there are some
men whose hearts are inclined to sin. And I suppose most
readers will admit that all hearts are more or less so inclined.
And I suppose it will also be admitted, that as strong as is a
man's desire after an unlawful gratification, so strong is his in
terest to wish that no painful consequences might follow the
indulgence. So strong as is a man's inclination to pursue a
sinful course of life, So much is he inclined to wish there might
be no punishment for sin in the world to come. That some
wicked men are troubled by the fear of hell, I think will not
be doubted. That many of them suffer a great amount from
such fears is true. The Universalists are wont to tell us of
the great amount of suffering, created in the minds of men by
the doctrine of future punishment : and to make that a reason
why it should not be preached. Now if some minds suffer so
much, by entertaining tire idea of future misery, as consequent
on a life of sin, is it strange, considering how much the inter
ests and the desires influence the decisions of the understand
ing ? Is it strange that some through their wishes come to be
lieve that there is no hell ? It is familiar to every one, with
how much ease men convince themselves of that which they
wish to believe. And what doctrine can a man, determined on
a life of sin and impenitence, have a stronger wish to believe,
than that of no judgment to come ?
Again, the strong affinities which this doctrine has for
wicked and dissolute men goes to the same point. What the
Earl of Rochester said of the Bible, will particularly apply to
the doctrine of a future reckoning for sin. " A bad life is the
only grand objection to it." A bad life, a life at variance with
the requirements of the Bible, constitutes an ever present, and
powerful bias of the mind, towards Universalism. And men
of dissolute lives have the strongest objections to a future judg
ment. The fact, which few except Universalists will deny, and
which some of them confess, that dissolute and immoral men,

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 229
are specially inclined to Universalism, goes to show that a bad
life is an all powerful argument, multiplying the conquests of
Universalism. I have good authority for saying, that soma
Universalists confess this fact. Mr. Whittemore, p. 195, whils
drawing a contrast between the Scribes and Pharisees, which
he makes the representatives ofthe religious men ofthe pres
ent day, and the publicans and harlots, which he will have us
believe, have their successors in the Universalists— says that
the publicans and harlots were exceedingly fond of the society
of Jesus, and that his instructions had a special attraction for
them. But I. must give the paragraph entire :
" There ean be no question that what is here stated
was a fact. This class of people became exceedingly fond of
the society of Jesus, and listened to his instructions with great
delight, Matthew himself had been a Publican. They ate
and drank with Christ, and he was contemptuously styled by
the Pharisees, the. friend of publicans and sinners. Despised
as they were by the leading religious people of the age, ac
customed to reproach and contumely, they rejoiced to find their
cause espoused by the great teacher sent from God. His doc
trine met and satisfied their desires, and they received it with
joy. . The common people, heard him gladly. For the proud,
the censorious, the self-righteous who thought they had gain
ed heaven by their own exertions, and who anticipated with
fondness the joyful day, when they "should sec those they des
pised, suffering the fierce displeasure of God — for such the be
nevolent, impartial religion of Jesus had no charms. Such peo
ple always opposed Christ when he was on earth. And in ev
ery age since, those of a kindred disposition have hated his
doctrine. These are the reasons why publicans and harlots,
, entered the kingdom of God before the professedly religious
scribes and pharisees. We learn from this, what class
OP PEOPLE IT IS, AMONG WHOM AT THE PRESENT DAT, THE
DOCTRINE OF THE IMPARTIAL SAVIOUR [universalism] SHALL
FLOURISH IN ITS PURITY."
Here we are unblushingly told, that what Mr. W. calls the
doctrine ofthe impartial Saviour, that is Universalism, had in

230 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.'*
the days of Christ and now has a peculiar attraction for aban
doned men and women. And this it seems not because it had "
any tendency to change their tempers, and characters, and
make them religious, but because the doctrine "met and satisfied
their desires." Not because Christ, by the force of his doctrines,
won them over to his cause, but because they rejoiced to find
" their cause espoused by ihe great teacher sent from God." .
Here we. are told in so many blasphemous words, that Christ
espoused the cause of the publican and harlot ! ! And what in
the name of purity and decency was that cause ? It seema
that Christ met and satisfied the desires ofthe publicans and
the harlots ! Oh, shame where is thy blush ! It seems too,
that Universalism now does the same. That it shall flourish
in its purity among those abandoned of all purity ! The pur
est specimens of Universalism, according to one of its own doc
tors who ought to be competent to inform us, are to be found
in the abodes of harlots. It is no wonder then, that females,
who have regard to character and purity, are so shy as they
proverbially are of being found under the droppings of Uni
versalist sanctuaries.
The tendency of a wicked life, to heget Universalism, may
be illustrated by a passage in the life of Rosseau a man
equally distinguished for a dissipated life, for finished scholar
ship and libertine sentiments, jl&ot his npootaoy from the
Protestant to the Catholic Religion, he went to reside with
Madame de Warrens, with whom he sustained a criminal fa
miliarity. This woman often suggested, that " there could be
no justice in God, should he be strictly just to us. Because
not having bestowed what was necessary to make us essen
tially good, it would be requiring more than he had given,''
Rosseau at first, was far enough from being of that opinion,
yet he confessed he dared not combat the arguments of the
lady, while acting on the same principles. "Finding in her,"
he adds, " all the ideas I had occasion for, to secure me from
the fears of death and its consequences, I drew confidence and
security from this source." This story is full of instruction,
as to the matter before us, Universalism, like the sentiments of

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 231
that woman, furnishes the wicked man all the ideas he has
'.occasion for. He cannot consistently combat it, because his
whole conduct is based on the presumption of its truth. It re
quires but half an eye for him to see himself, pledged to a
Universalist belief. The influence of early education, and the
light yet lingering in his conscience, may prevent his adoption
of it — he may be so inconsistent as to assert a contrary belief —
the decisions of his understanding may be strong against it,
yet it requires but little discernment for him to see, that every
word he utters against universalism, condemns himself. Like
Rosseau, while far enough from being convinced of the truth
of such doctrines, he cannot freely combat them. The incon
sistency flashes upon him — he sees that the whole tenor of hi3
life, demands such a belief, and every step of argument by
which he would disprove it, goes to prove himself alarmingly at
war with 'his own eternal interest. In this way a wicked
life by unobserved, influence, represses those efforts of thought
and reason, which should keep before the mind a steady sup
ply of proofs of a judgment to come, and throws the mind un
der a bias towards the hope and the belief that there will be .
no judgment.
In the next place, Universalism every way furnishes the
wicked man the ideas he has occasion for. His occasions for
such ideas are as frequent as his wicked acts and his remorse
ful reflections upon them. Every admonition of conscience
points to a judgment to come, alarms his quiet and makes oc
casion for repose, in the hope that there will be no reckoning
day. And the occasions become more urgent, as these alarms
of conscience become more deep and loud. The man who is
determined to indulge in forbidden gratifications, is reduced to
the necessity of facing the reproaches of his own conscience,
or of doing habitual violence to his convictions, or of screening
himself behind the miserable subterfuges of Universalism. So
that, whether he distinctly purposes it or not, all the faculties of
his mind feel the pressure and embarrassment of such a ne
cessity. His fancy obeys its impulse in the conceptions it
forms of religious things. His memory does its office with a

232 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
partiality equally obedient. His perceptions are clear or cloud
ed, on this or that side of the argument, in proportion to the
force ofthe desire that employs them. And so his judgment
is prepared to strike the balance on the side whither the oc
casion presses. And the whole mental machinery is governed
in its movements, by the overwhelming interest atstake.
And then the doctrine confirms its dominion in the confi
dence it imparts to an impenitent life. After the mind, under
the influence ofthe necessity of which^we have spoken, grasp
ing at the least shadow of evidence that appears to favor the
desired doctrine, and bracing against every thing that makes
against it, begins to admit some glimpses of assurance of it,
such a confidence ofthe safety of an impenitent life comes in,
as is not easily surrendered. The sense of security in sin, in
creasing in proportion as a man's belief in universalism ap
proaches to assurance, places a mind in such a position, that it
is about as difficult for him to entertain the thought, however
forcibly urged, of stepping off from his universalist ground, as
it would be for a man who was riding quietly in a vessel, in
the midst of the ocean, to entertain the thought of stepping
off into the pathless sea. His determination on an impenitent
life, fostered by the universalist hopes, becomes so fixed, that
he is satisfied that he shall sink if his Universalism fails him.
Thus the doctrine swells the number of its adherents, by being
a place of refuge to shield the ungodly from the fears ofthe
just judgment of God, a retreat from the scorpion lashes of a
guilty conscience.
Do I say by this that all Universalists are dissolute men ?
By no means. I affirm no further than that a wicked life fos
ters Universalism, and Universalism favors a wicked life. I do
not deny but there are some Universalists of correct moral de
portment. And with regard to their morality as a sect, I wish
not and need not to affirm. It is a matter about which every
man can form his own opinion.
Again, the mind of every man, who is conscious of wicked
ness, feels in the decision of this question, something of that
embarrassment, which a condemned criminal feels when judg-

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 233
i -«%--•
ing of the penalties laid upon him. Go into one of our States
.Prisons, and how few are there among the hundreds of convicts
there confined,who really acknowledge the justice of their -being
made to suffer so much ? That for the gratification of an hour.
that for one act of theft or forgery, -they should endure years
of imprisonment, within those dreary walls, driven lilje beasts
to their daily task, "and nightly locked within-the solitary cell.
Question .them and they would say, their punishment is out of
all proportion — that there is no justice in their suffering so
much for offences so small. And yet why do their conclu
sions on this subject differ so much from those of disinterested
impartial men, and those of men who framed the laws? Be-
causethey are interested judges, viewing their punishment in
"all its- length and breadth, and overlooking the injury they
have done to the commonwealth. . So it is -with a man who
sits in judgment on the penalties, which infinite wisdom has
seen fit to attach to sin. He estimates as far as he can the
fearful length and breadth of eternal perdition, and so fills his
mind with it,as to exclude a proper sense of the great occasions,
which God, the protector of the rights of the universe, has to
visit him with such inflictions. He overlooks the bearings of
his sins, on the broad interests of -the kingdom of God— over
looks the number and aggravation, of his offences, and then
begins to inquire for the justice of inflicting such .penalties,
for offences that stand in his own estimate for such trifles.
And having by such means satisfied himself^ that such a pun
ishment would be unjust, he concludes it will not be inflicted.
Now the state-prisoner, who pronounces against the goodness
of the" law that condemns him, is under a bias which-bears no
proportion to that, which inclines the mind to reject the idea of
future punishment.
The minds of multitudes arc -prepared for Universalism, by
limited, views of the evil of sin. Fools make a mock at sin.
Wicked men are exceedingly prone to underrate the evil na
ture of transgression of God's law. For a creature whose
life is but a vapor to gratify a vicious inclination, appears a
trifle. They do not consider themselves as links in the, great
' 20

234 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
chain of moral government, and they do not consider how ev
ery transgression of theirs does violence to the whole system,
— starting a train of mischiefs, which, if not counteracted,
wpuld ruin a universe. If men would look at sin with such
eyes as didthe apostle, when he found it exceeding sinful — if
they wcmld estimate their own character by the light of God's
law, if they would estimate the character of sin by the infinite
ly extended interests that it is calculated to injure, they" would
find it more difficult to believe, that God can and Tyill redeem
any sinner, than that he will send any to eternal misery. That
a God of infinite holiness can and will receive to favor and to
heaven, a man who has done so much mischief in his kingdom,
and would have done infinitely more if he had not been pre
vented, is more incredible than that u God of infinite good
ness will inflict endless pains upon the guilty. Thus inade
quate views'of guilt, lead to inadequate views of God's treat
ment ofthe guilty.
A want of a real and present sense of eternal things tends to
the same result. Some men reason and decide about eternal
things, with as much carelessness of the conclusions to which
they are to come, as they would feel were they bargaining for
the sale of their possessions in the island of Utopia, or as if pur
chasing a farm in the moon. Eternity is with them a matter
of much conversation but of little real apprehension. They
put far away the evil day,— look upon death as distant — little
think what will be the wants ofthe mind, when it wakes be
yond the grave — little think how grave and of what personal in
terest the matters are, of which the Bible treat's. Hence orig
inates a levity of thought and feeling, during the examination,
(if examination ever be had) ofthe testimony of Scripture, by
reason of which the matter is treated as of no more concern
than a question of history or politics. Whereas a conclusion
on such a subject, and especially the conclusion that it will be
well with every dinner after death, should come in at the end
of an investigation, conducted with a mind under the pressure
of eternal interests fully apprehended, a pressure giving force
and earnestness to every movetnent of the thoughts.

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 235
Again, Universalism sometimes settles into the mind after
some special alarms of conscience, and after the influences of
the Holy Spirit have been resisted. Temporary reljgipus im
pressions, if effaced, generally leave the mind in a worse con
ditions- Says the Apostle, " If after they have escaped the pol
lutions ofthe. world through the knowledge of our Lord Jesus
Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the
latter end, is worse than the beginning. For it had been better
for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than af
ter they had known it, to turn from the holy commandment de
livered unto Uiem. But it has happened unto them according
to the true proverb, the dog is turned to his own vomit again,
and the sow that was washed, to her'wallowing" in the mire."
And one. greater than an Apostle has said, "When the un
clean spirit is gone out of a man,' he walketh through dry pla
ces seeking rest and findeth none. Then saith he, I will return
to my house from whence I came out, and when he is come, he
findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. . Then goeth he and
taketh to himself seven other spirits mol'e wicked than him
self, and they enter in. and dwell there, and the last state of that
man is worse than the first." Such is the condition of those
who have admitted convictions of sin for a while, who have un
der the alarms of an awakened conscience, commenced "an ex
ternal .reformation, and formed many purposes of a religious
life, and who from that state of , mind, have returned to more
than their former wickedness. Such a relapse is often accom
panied' with the adoption of Universalism. The conscience
becoming seared, and the force of depraved passions more
strong, new tendencies to such an error are created. On this
-ground there is some truth in the pretence sometimes put forth,
that revivals of religion sometimes contribute to increase the
number of Infidels and Universalists. If Universalists were
to reap a harvest after a season of powerful awakening among
a people, from those who have resisted convictions, and return
ed like the dog to his vomit, it would be nothing strange. Re
vivals, of religion now, as in the days of the apostles, are doubt
less made a savor of death unto death to many. Probably hell

236 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
itself, while it loses many that are snatched as brands from
the burning, makes itself more sure of others, whom resisted
convictions leave in a state worse than the first; and in that
sense hell may boast of its gleanings if not of its harvests
reaped from reivals of religion.
Again, if positions above- taken be true, every thing that
tends to vitiate the moral habits,- may be counted among the
auxiliaries of Universalism. There is some philosophy in Mr.
Whittemore's calculation, that Universalism will .flourish most
among those of abandoned character. Where the moral hab
its are bad, the moral sense is prop'ortionally obtuse. The
more a man's propensities and habits become vitiated, the
strength of his desire for forbidden indulgences is increased,
and with it is increased bis occasion and his inclination to have
the doctrine of" no judgment to come" prove true. And if so,
we may look abroad upon the face of society, and survey- all
the causes that are operating to vitiate the morals ofthe young
and the old, as so many sources of influence favorable to Uni
versalism. When we talk of men being principled, and un
principled in respect to morals, we usually mean no more than
that one has, and the other has not a practical regard to right
and wrong, andapractical sense offuture retributions. When
a man becomes reckless of the consequences of right or wrong
in conduct, he is an unprincipled man. Now if Universal
ists are not better than their theory, — if they have no regard
to the consequences of their conduct, any further than they
touch their present interest, they come up to our ideas of unprin
cipled. And any influence that goes to abate the force of mor
al principles, vitiate the moral taste, and throw a man under the
dominion of appetite, and away from the guidance of conscience,
goes to make a man unprincipled, and prepare his mind in
form to avow Universalists' doctrines. There are as many
sources of universalist influence in the land, as there are sour
ces of moral debasement and ruin. And the multitude and va
riety of these is endless. The operation of moral causes is so
adjusted in this world which lieth in wickedness, that man is
interested in a thousand ways, to procure the ruin of his fel-

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 237
low;. His selfishness with all its power enlists him in this and
that enterprise, which is. little else than ministering tempta
tions and inducements, for men to ruin themselves. Millions
of capital are invested in a laborious and omnipresent minis
tration to depraved and ruinous appetites." Talents, laboi and
lives, which might be valuable to the world, are spent in pan
dering to the lusts, and procuring the ruin of thousands and
tens of thousands, It would require a volume to give the
names-ofall the, parts of that vast and complicated machinery,
employed to bring gain to one part of the world, out of the ru-
in ofthe other. Every base appetite haS.its expensive estab
lishment, and its army of operatives, in constant service. The
thirst for vicious amusements has -its theatres" and nameless
appropriate establishments, and in each, a sufficient corps- of
men and women, trained to the profession of corrupting the
morals-ofthe old and young. The sensual lusts have other
millions of wealth, and other armies of men and women, as ca
terers. Here is. a squadron, dealing out intoxicating drinks. —
There is another ministering to a lust still more debasing and
unclean. Indeed every bar-room, grog-shop, theatre, brothel,
gaming and lottery 'establishment, may be considered "as a
source -of moral debasement, and therefore of Universalism.
There is no avenue through which moral destruction can find
its way to the-heart of man, where there is not some part of the
destroyer's army, stationed with ample magazines of death.
Again, evil communications corrupt good manners, "and in
that, good principles. Many a young man may trace the ori
gin of his Universalism, to familiar intercourse with men whose
conversation abounds with objections to thetruth. The young
man by courting such companionships, comes in contact with
minds envenomed with an ever active hostility to the truth,
and seeking occasions to deposit the leaven where it will*
work, and so puts himself-under an influence that while he
perceives it not, works as surely as any law of our nature, to
fritter away his faith in the verities of the gospel. The shape
and movements of all minds, are modified by the action of ad
jacent minds. And where one comes, into familiar intercourse
#20

238 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
with a man of lax principles, he puts himself under a danger
ous influence, not only unarmed, but- in a posture favorable to
receiving the poison — inasmuch as the sympathies of social in
tercourse, and the operation. of the social instinct, and the de
sire of pleasing and being pleased, inseparable from social in
tercourse, open the mind to the reception of whatever erro-
nious impressions a man wishes to convey. If an enemy of
the truth can succeed to wake all your social sympathies to
wards himself, and call them into frequent and unreserved ac
tion, and withal allay any suspicions you may have of his de
sign to corrupt your faith, and if you let him use the liberty of
uttering on all occasions the prevailing sentiments of his mind,
his work is half done. "To hear objections against the truth
continually'repeated, without being answered, to hearthe cause
of Christ attacked in every possible form, without being in a
situation, in a becoming manner, to undertake -its defence,
must have an injurious tendency. Conversation, if we intend
to please and be pleased, should never be a scene of continual
dispute ; we must either relinquish such society, 01- hold our
peace. That person who feels himself called upon on every
occasion to defend his religion, will grow weary of contention,
and seek repose in other kinds of society. But if he contin
ues in it, he will at length learn to be silent. Silence will lead
to acquiescence, and finally he will adjust his opinions to- the
standard of those, with whom he associates. If any man sup
poses that he has strength of mind sufficient to continue in
such society, without having the foundations of his confidence
in the truth weakened, that man is entirely unacquainted with
his own heart."
Another thought. The very doubts and misgivings of the
Universalists themselves, are the cause of much care and la
bor on the part of Universalists, to extend their opinions. The
question has been a thousand times asked — " If you are- so sure
of the truth of your notion that all will be saved, whether
they believe or not, why so anxious to induce men to believe
it?" as if the salvation of men depended on their belie.ving it.
And it has been a thousand times answered — Because we want

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 239
you to enjoy the comforts of our doctrine in this life. But who
was ever satisfied with that as the- real'reason? Who can'be
satisfied till he sees that Universalists in fact have Some palpa
ble advantage of the real christian, — in Tespect to happiness
in this life, and till he sees these men equally-zealous to pro
mote the happiness. of their fellow-men in this life, by all oth
er appropriate means ? For it is not to be supposed that this
class of men will fight, and rage, and issue their slanders and
scurrility against us, purely to bring us the comforts of their
doctrine in this life, when this is the'only comfort they are
zealous to impart to the needy. Nay, in nine cases out often,
the real reason of that zeal for disputation for which Univer
salists, above all other religionists, are distinguished, is a want
of a satisfactory conviction of the truth of their own system.
"They have not the tranquillity of innocence, the confidence
of truth, and they feel themselves strongly fortified, secure and
fearless, in proportion as they have swelled their confederacy,
extinguished the conviction, and put out the light of faith in
others ; whichis a condemning light to them, and holds out to
them a fearful misgiving in the prospect of eternity. They
fear that the foundations they are resting on may- prove inse
cure, they wish therefore to be strengthened by the co-operation
of others, and feel a guilty satisfaction, in proportion as tbey
multiply disciples among their associates, and are thus en
abled to hear an echo in every voice, and see the reflection of
Universalism in every breast They feel their fears allayed,
their perturbation subside, in proportion as they swell their
numbers by extensive confederation; they are deceiving and
being deceived." Here, is the moving principle of- no small
part of that machinery, whichis at work to proselyte men' to
Universalism-. Were it not for the fears and misgivings of
Universalists themselves, there would be litde motive for ex
ertion in such a cause.' Were it not for these fears, the men
who pretend to know that there is no danger to any, do what
they will, and believe what they Will, would for consistency's
' sakebe silent, and let all men choose among different creeds —
which, according to their principles must all be equally safe.

240 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
If there were no opposition to Universalism, no preaching of
future judgment, no christian examples to alarm the conscience
ofthe ungodly, no books nor conversation calculated to dis
turb the quiet of the Universalist, that is if the whole world was
content to make no resistance to their doctrine, all Univer
salist preaching would cease. For then there would be little
to disturb the mind, and awake their doubts, and create occa
sion for proselyting. -
The facilities which the apostles of Universalism now have,
for access to the minds of the young, the ignorant, and those
susceptible of being influenced by them, are unlimited. The
facilities for the circulation of thought, through the press, have
within a few years greatly increased. The tract system,
though it is employed for purposes of amazing good, as well as
evil, was invented by infidels, as a machine for the wide sub
version of the immortal hopes of men, and is now used effect
ually to propagate Infidelity and Universalism. A man of lit
tle reading and less thought, can be induced to give his atten
tion to a Universalist tract, when he would be inaccessible to
any other influence. In this way the doses of the poison are
accommodated to the weakest capacity, and the wonderful sub
limation of reason, and nobleness of thought, which consists in
being freed from the shackles of a belief in a judgment to come,is
attainable by the merest simpleton. The newspaper too is, if pos
sible, a more convenient and efficient vehicle of error, as wejl
as truth, to minds of limited capacities and opportunities. And
there are not wanting Universalist Journalists to pander to the
appetite for flesh — pleasing doctrines, and to descend to the
grossest. expedients for captivating gross and degraded minds.
Both in the newspapers and the tracts to which I allude, there
is a studied adaptation to a class of men, that have a relish for
blackguardism, an industrious catering to prejudices and pas
sions of ignorant and stagnant minds — a ringing of changes
upon such words as "priestcraft," "church and state," and the
like, a dealing in gross personalities, and attacks upon private
character, in distorted narrations of real facts, and in down
right falsehoods. Now all this, while it tends to disgust well

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 24 1
informed and impartial mirids, takes a powerful hold of those
that are low and vitiated enough to be, influenced by it. And
then this kind of publications, like a certain quadruped, whose
defence lies in his power of casting about him an. offensive
smell, is below responsibility. Decent men are unwilling to
come in contact with such filtrations from the dregs of de°ra-
ded minds ; and in most cases it is advisable to suffer, and see
the truth suffer all that can be -inflicted through such organs,
rather than defile it with the touch of such scurrility. As Mi
chael is said not to have brought a railing accusation against
the devil, because the devil was more used to railing than he,
and because the devil was sure to have the last word, so a dis
creet man- will usually refrain from making answer to such
products of defiled tempers; on the ground' that truth is sure
to be injured while defending itself on a level with such base
ness. This circumstance gives- the Universalists the advan
tage of operating undisturbed in a certain sphere, and of ply
ing to much effect a favorite weapon of theirs.
Then there are Universalist publications of a more elevated
character,- less liable to these objections — such for instance as
those of Mr. B. which come in such a form as not to be very
attractive to the controversialist : and that for other reasons
than any difficulty of replying to the arguments. The labor
of exposing sophistry after sophistry, and going thrdugh'vol-
umes of arguments too frivolous to need an answer, were it not
that they would have an effect on ignorant minds if left un
noticed, is not very inviting. A man must, to say the least,
be led to the undertaking by other motives than an ambi
tion to make a display of his reasoning talents, or the am
bition of having the last word, to induce him to encounter such
opponents. He must make up his mind to employ himself pa
tiently in following out, and exposing multiplied perversions
ofthe truth, and when he has done it to have his own work
perverted, and subjected to the same kind of sophistical treat
ment, which he has labored to expose. For those who are ca
pable of putting such crooked interpretations upon the word of
God, are equally capable of perverting the reasonings of men.

242 SOURCES OP UNIVERSALISM.
If they call the master of the house Beelzebub, how much
more those, of his househould. This fact operates as a kind of
protection to Universalist writers, while diffusing their poison
through the community. By reason of this fact, together with
the impression that many have, that errors so gross need no
refutation, it comes to pass that while there are ten writers
found to oppose errors oflessmagnitude, there is scarcely one
who is willing to contend with this. Some indeed have the
impression that it is all of no avail — that Universalists really
do not believe in the inspiration ofthe Scriptures, and there
fore cannot be influenced by any arguments drawn from them.
How far this impression is founded in fact,. I pretend .not to
say. That it extensively exists among orthodox ministers,
I know. Others are kept back from discussions with those
men, on the ground that every argument with them, whether
successful or not, tends to increase the circulation of their
books, which from the adaptation of their doctrines to deprav
ed minds, have only to be read by minds of a certain stamp, in
order to secure belief. And then in most cases, the authors of
these Universalist books, are also proprietors, and derive a pe
cuniary profit from anything that helps their circulation, and
can even afford to have their arguments refuted, since the re-
-futation puts money in their pockets. Now though all these
reasons are not sufficient to justify silence in all cases, they
have had their influence, to shield these writers from many a
flagellation, which otherwise they would have received.
Universalist publications, having this adaptation of char
acter, have in these days great facilites for wide diffusion.
More influence and interest are now -brought to bear, to con
vey religious impression to the minds of the young, and the
old, than in former times. And the good seed is not scattered
with a more diligent hand, than the enemy employs in sowing
the tares. The religious world has become the theatre of
great bustle and conflict. Michael and his angels fight, and the
dragon and his angels. Vast resources of learning and tal
ent are in requisition both for and against the truth. Such fa
cilities are had for the rapid transmission of thought, forcircu-

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 243
lating both the poison and its remedies,, that every train of
thought which a man can put in motiqn, of sufficient power to
gain a hearing; goes on the wings of the wind from Dan to
Beer-sheba. A man of powerful intellect, be his purpose good
or bad, has only to speak and he has a nation before him to
hear. And such is the interest to get a hearing both for the
truth and against it, that every adaptation of mode is resorted
to, and "every thing that has intellect is called upon to hear, to
read, and to take a stand in relation to the grave matters of re
ligion. Ministers, the religious and irreligious, christians and
-infidels, are busy in their appropriate work: "The fire-side, the
work-shop, the farm and the counting-room, are made the
scenes of religious reading and debate. In this state of things,
universalist tracts and newspapers find their way into every
nook and corner, where there is intellect enough to entertain
them. And many minds are so balanced, as greedily to de- '
vp.ur the poison, and reject the antidote. And the result is,
that while the number ofthe. real friends of truth are increas
ed, the number of its decided eriemies are multiplied.
There are many minds so loosely balanced, and ill-inform
ed, that one of the most trival objections to the truth is
enough to upset all its belief. Suppose a man of some little
cunning, come in contact with a young man, who has never'
doubted of a judgment to come, and has never examined and
known on what a'broad and solid basis it rests, and suppose he
start one of the favorite objections of the Universalists. He
knows not how to meet it, since he is ignorant of the whole
field of positive proof, and he knows not but that this one idea
covers the whole ground. He dwells upon it — thinks there is
mighty reason in it — his little mind begins to bloat with the
imagined compass of it, and to count himself happy for having
hit upon it, and to wonder why the world has- overlooked it
so long, and why so many overlook it now. Thus a suggest
ion that would not have the weight of a feather, with a mind
acquainted with the whole subject, gives a fatal turn to his con
clusions. Advantage has been taken of his ignorance, and his
prepossessions secured in favor of Universalism. One little

244 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
paltry quibble, has opened a new and disastrous era in the his
tory of an immortal being!
This result is often facilitated by the pride of reason, which is
characteristic ofthe youthful mind. There is no man wiser in
his own conceit, than is many a boy of fifteen years. And
there is no soil more fit for Universalist cultivation, than that
composed of ignorance and self-conceit. Seest thou a man
wise in his own conceit, there is more hope of a fool than of
him. As soon as the suggestion that there is no judgment be
gins to work, the pride of reason begins to be flattered. The
stripping sophister imagines himself elevated head and shoul
ders, above all around him, and freed by one noble leap from
a thousand vulgar superstitions. He begins to swell with self-
complacency, and to look down upon the littleness of a world,
that is weak enough to believe the Bible. In the dizziness of
his elevation he seems to be floating in a flood of wisdom.
And then the strength of youthful passion goes to confirm
the delusion. . He finds that he has acquired a new and much
desired liberty. That wonderful argument has Cut him loose
from a thousand grievous restraints. He stands relieved from
the thought of a final judgment, and eternal retributions, and
a thousand remonstrances of his conscience are silenced. A
thousand impulses of his heart come up with their congratula
tions, and bless him for the change, and whisper — Rejoice, O
young man in thy youth, and let thy heart cheer thee in the
days of thy youth, and walk in the way of thine heart, and in
the sight of thine eyes, and still be assured that for all this
God will not bring you into judgment. And this freedom from
restraint, once acquired, will not be easily surrendered. The
mind will be slow to listen again to any reasons which go to
replace the dominion of a religious belief over it. And all the
force which corrupt passions acquire by indulgence, will be so
much accumulated resistance to reason and the word of God.
Ridicule is also an efficient means for making proselytes to
Universalism. It is easier to frame a sneer than a solid argu
ment, and it is easier for a weak mind to feel its force. The
young and the unreflecting are peculiarly sensitive to the force

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 246
of ridicule. And rarely have they such attachments to relig
ious truth, unless under the influence of the special grace of
God, that they cannot be laughed out of them. And when it
is considered that Universalist writers Have usually been more
distinguished for talents at this kind of argumentation than for
any other — that their books and pamphlets and periodicals
abound in efforts to take advantage of this weakness of human
nature, that almost all the leaders of petty universalist clubs
in villages and neighborhoods,, are more accustomed to black
guard than sober thought, it will be regarded as a wonder,
that the mischief is not more extensive than it is.
In short were it possible to collect into one view all the
causes that are operating, and all the advantages under which
they operate, with all their details in fell, to make the present
and the rising generation a generation of Universalists — could
we picture out the multi-form exposedness ofthe youthful mind
to corrupting influences, from without and from within — the
frequent and easy access which these influences have to the
mass of mind — with what ominous abundance the press is
pouring out the destructive lava, and in how many streams
distributing it over the face of the country — as if a new volca
no had been uncapped, belching out the very elements of the
under world — it would be no matter of wonder, that so many
are. found to embrace Universalism.
How great is the responsibility of him, who is the instru
ment of perverting one mind from the right way, and inclining
it to this error ! If a new planet should be seen coming from
nothing into a splendid existence before our eyes, destined to
take its course with the rest till the end of time, we should be
the spectators of a great and important event. But with how
much more solicitude should we watch the opening character
of a rational -mind, while with tremulous vibrations, like the
compass needle, it is shifting hither and thither to find the line
of attraction ! Because the being of this mind will have but
just commenced, when the planets have ceased to resolve.
But if this new born planet should be near us in its orbit, and
we could see it.to be the glad abode of life and intelligence—

240 SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM.
could see the richness of its scenery and the bustle of its pop
ulation— aftd were we to reflect that not only such a planet,
but such a world, so furnished -and peopled and destined to
stand through so many ages, had leaped into existence before
us, the thought would be unmeasurable. But there is the germ
. of more life, intelligence and capability of weaj or woe, in that
youth, that is sporting round the entrance to destructions slip
pery way, than could be crowded upon such a planet, for any
limited time. Suppose further, that the destinies of this new
born planet were capable of being touched by influences from
earth — that human agencies, concentrated and sent out upon
it, before it had found its permanent orbit could sway it hither
and thither, and determine whether it were to fill its ornor-
mous periods, amid summer influences, or in abodes of eternal
frost — what responsibility untold would be connected with
tliose human agencies ! But he that should cause such a world
to shoot off into the regions of frost and desolation, would not
equal the mischiefs done by him, who is the means of giving a
fatal direction to an immortal mind, and in fixing the orbit in
which it is to perform its endless and disastrous revolutions.
Then it must be remembered, that the mischievous conse
quences of error are cumulative. Human minds are so linked
together in this world, that we can set no bounds to the trans
mission of sentiments, characters and dispositions, from one to
another. And he who lodges corrupt sentiments in the mind
of his neighbor, kindles a fire which will burn and spread, he
knows not how far. This one person corrupted, communicates
the poison to hi3 connexions, and they to theirs, and thus it
may go on to increase, from generation to generation. So this
one mind corrupted, may become the center of a vortex, which
shall draw into itself millions of immortal men. Such wide
and wasting ruin may be the extended result of one conver
sion to the Universalist delusion. But if the value of one soul
so surpasses that of a world, who can estimate the mischief
done by those who put in motion such whirlpools of destruc-
And how will the authors of all this mischief stand aghast at
the sight of their own work in the judgment day! And with

SOURCES OF UNIVERSALISM. 247 /
what greetings must they meet the wretched victims of their
delusiori, to go with them to their abode in the under world !
If there be a hell, and if Universalism be what I humbly con
ceive I have proved it to be, I' am authorized, and I feel con
strained, as I take my leave of this subject, and that with no
unkindn'ess, to address the hierophants of the system in the
words of Paul to the sorcerer (whose profession by the way
must have been harmless by the side of theirs) O full of all
SUBTILTY AND ALL MISCHIEF, THOU CHILD OF THE DEVIL,
THOU ENEMY OF ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS, WILT THOU NOT
CEASE TO PERVERT THE RIGHT WAYS OF THE" LoRD?'

ERRATA.
Page 18, beginning of 2 paragraph for third, read " second i" P.
31, line 10 from the bottom, insert it after introduced. P. 34, line
20 from the top, for t/read " unless." P. 39, line 11 after conse
quences, insert, " of sin." P. 58, line 8 from the bottom, blot out
the. P. 78, line 7, blot out but. P. 89, for house of David, read
"house of Jacob." P. 93, line 15 from the bottom, after hell, in
sert " of." P. 100, line 5 from bottom, for event, read " events."
P. 106, line 19 from the top after dead, insert "in Christ." P.
113, line 17 from the top, for idea, read "ideas." P. 124, last line
for lucks, read " tacks." P. 129, line 13, for Mr. B. read "Mr.
W." P. 137, line 21, for suspected, read "expected." P. 140,
line 7 from the bottom, for he, read " Christ." P. 142, line 2, for •
the, read ''their." P. 153, line 7, blot out place of. P. 154, line
24, for 16, read " 20." P. 168, line 6 for uses read " use." P. 175,
the first division of paragraphs misplaced. P. 177, line 14 from
the bottom, place a period after exhibited, and blot it after quoted,
and insert a dash ; and for in read " In." P. 179, line 7 from the
bottom, for these read "there." P. 148, line 1, for it read "is."
P.-187, line 7 from the bottom in the note for talcing, read "take."
P. 191, line 14 from the top for is read "are." P. 193, line 7, for
means, read " mean," and line 23, for langurge read " language "
and 4 line from the bottom, for exists read " exist." P. ]y4,line
12 from the bottom for When read " Whence." P. 205, line 8 for
avoided read " avowed."