MU,^. . 

 
 e/vj ^JC
 
 UCSB LIBRARY
 
 MEMOIR 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Rev. WALTER BALFOUR, 
 
 AUTHOR OF LETTERS TO PROF. STUART, 
 
 AND VARIOUS OTHER PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 By THOMAS WHITTEMORE. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY J. M. USHER, 
 
 No. 37 Cornhill, 
 
 1852.
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by 
 JAMES M . USHER, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District 
 of Massachusetts.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I have been induced to prepare the Memoir of 
 Kev. Walter Balfour, by the solicitations of sev- 
 eral of my ministering brethren. I had known 
 him, ever after his arrival in this country. He 
 took lip his residence amid the scenes of my 
 youth ; and it was permitted me to see every 
 step of his progress. 
 
 The predominant moral qualities of Mr. Bal- 
 four were honesty, love of Scripture truth, a fear- 
 less spirit of inquiry, and independence to assert 
 and defend what he believed. His knowledjje 
 of the Scriptures was extensive ; and the works 
 he produced, although not all regarded by the 
 
 writer as faultless, were very valuable, and have 
 1^
 
 4 PREFACE. 
 
 exerted, and will continue to exert, a wide influ- 
 ence on the community. Such men as Walter 
 Balfour continue to live on the earth after they 
 are dead. It was said of Abel, " being dead, 
 yet he speaketh," Heb. xi. 4. So we may say 
 of the subject of this memoir. The influence of 
 his life will be long felt. The truth that radia- 
 ted from him will be reflected from mind to mind; 
 and many perhaps will be enlightened by it, who 
 may not be conscious of ever having heard his 
 name. To assist in giving the proper influence 
 to his life and character, the following work has 
 been prepared. May the divine blessing attend 
 it. . T. ^r^
 
 MEMOIR 
 
 OF 
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR, 
 
 The name Balfour has been a name of Tb« name 
 some eminence in Scotland. The fam- 
 ily of Balfour, long- heritable sheriifs of Fife, de- 
 rive their name from Balfour Castle in that 
 county, built upon their earliest possessions in 
 the vale or strath of the river Or, a tributary of 
 the river Leven. Their first recorded ancestor 
 was Siward, probably a Northumbrian, living in 
 the reign of Duncan I. His grandson, Octred, 
 witnessed a charter of David 1. about 1151-2. 
 Sir James Balfour was deputy Governor of the 
 castle of Edinburg, in the time of Mary, Queen 
 of Scots ; and when that castle was besieged by 
 the associated lords, he delivered up the jewels 
 and the private correspondence of the queen, to
 
 6 MEMOIR OF 
 
 the messenger sent to receive them. A person 
 of the name of Balfour was lieutenant of the 
 Tower of London, during the reign of Charles I. 
 The famous Earl of Strafibrd, who was a pris- 
 oner there, under sentence of death for high trea- 
 son," offered Lieut. B. £22,000, the king's war- 
 rant of indemnity, and other gifts, for his escape, 
 which was refused. We have not the means 
 of tracing the pedigree of the subject of this me- 
 moir. 
 
 Birth and Youth He was bom at St. Ninians, not 
 *"''' far from the year 1776. This is one 
 of the small towns of Scotland, and is situated 
 in Stirlingshire, a few miles south of Stirling, 
 about forty miles north west of Edinburg, and 
 nearly as far N. E. of Glasgow. Here he passed 
 the term of his youth. He was fully initiated 
 into the religious creed of the Church of Scotland 
 during his childhood and youth ; and early re- 
 ceived strong religious impressions under the 
 preaching of Rev. William Sheriff, then Minis- 
 ter of St. Ninians. From his earliest years 
 young Balfour had a strong love for reading. 
 From this source of information, and from a 
 habitual perusal of the Scriptures, he was led to 
 doubt the correctness of some of his religious im- 
 pressions and opinions. He always was an
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 7 
 
 honest inquirer after truth. He felt the impulse 
 of this generous attribute of his nature, very- 
 early in life. His doubts related to the general 
 aspect of the Church of Scotland, as established 
 by law — her government^ — rather than the doc- 
 trines of her creed. He was in no small degree 
 weaned from his mother church, by reading some 
 of the ablest works on church government. Be- 
 sides, a weekly meeting was held in the village 
 — by a select number of about twelve or fifteen — 
 for prayer and conversation on the Scriptures. 
 Each member took his turn in prayer, and made 
 such remarks on the portion of Scripture read as 
 seemed correct and pertinent. One of Mr. 
 Sheriff's deacons was of this number, and Mr. 
 S. himself frequently attended. 
 
 While these thinjrs were ffrad- isadiuittedamem- 
 
 ° ^ tercf:-Ir Hal- 
 
 ually infusing a little light into the ^^^^^s scuooi. 
 mind of young Balfour, Mr. Robert Haldane — a 
 rich gentleman in the neighborhood — determined 
 to devote a large share of his fortune in diffusing 
 a knowledge of the Gospel in Scotland and other 
 places. To accomplish this benevolent design, 
 he selected twenty-five persons with a view to 
 educate them for the ministry. The deacon, re- 
 ferred to above, and Mr. Balfour made two of 
 this number. Some of our readers may have
 
 8 MEMOIR OF 
 
 some knowledge of the thorough course of theo- 
 logical education pursued in Mr. Flaldane's 
 school, and of this gentleman's exertions to spread 
 the Gospel in Scotland, on the continent, and in 
 other places. It was in this school that Mr. Bal- 
 four was prepared for the studies which he pur- 
 sued in after life. He paid particular attention 
 to Hebrew and Greek, as being the languages in 
 which the Sacred Scriptures were originally 
 written. He foresaw not the consequences to 
 which this preparation would ultimately lead 
 him. He had strong confidence in the doctrines 
 which he then professed ; he believed them with 
 all his heart ; it was his desire to consecrate his 
 life to the promulgation of them. The more he 
 might learn of Sacred Literature, the more firm- 
 ly, as he supposed, should he cherish those doc- 
 trines, and the more capable should he be of 
 maintaining them. He therefore gave himself 
 to his studies with unabating ardor ; resolving to 
 prepare himself for the accomplishment of the 
 greatest good of which he was capable. 
 Becomes a After pursulng the course of studies 
 Scotland, described, Mr. Balfour commenced to 
 preach, in his native country. This occupation 
 he pursued for a few years, before he resolved to 
 emigrate to America. He had several invita-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. \f 
 
 tions to settle as a pastor, but these he declined, 
 believing he could make himself more useful as 
 an itinerant or missionary. We do not wonder 
 at all at his resolution. The pastor's life was 
 not suited to his taste. He did not love restric- 
 tion nor confinement. He had a strong sense 
 of individuality. He had not a desire to be re- 
 strained to a small Parish. His spirit was pecu- 
 liarly a missionary spirit. If it involved the sa- 
 crifice of ease, and of the comforts of home, 
 more than a pastor's life, he was ready to make 
 it. If a missionary, he should be free. He 
 could preach without the slightest restraint, what 
 he esteemed to be the doctrines of the word of 
 God ; and if the people refused to hear, he could 
 shake the dust from his feet, and go and preach 
 to others. He was in early life, a great reader 
 of the Scriptures. All the history of the sacred 
 books, all the devotional parts, all the prophecies, 
 the life and sufferings of Christ, the labors, trav- 
 els, sacrifices and sufferings of the apostles, were 
 all vivid and familiar scenes hung up in the cham- 
 bers of his memory. Nothing would have been 
 more natural to him, than the desire to imitate 
 the apostles, not only in the doctrines they preach- 
 ed, but also in the manner of their lives. The 
 missionary spirit, therefore, burned within him.
 
 10 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Eesoivesto emigrate From reading he had conceiv- 
 merica. gd a stroiig piedilection fof Amef- 
 ica, which was in no degree diminished by his 
 further advance in life, and progress in knowl- 
 edge. Being fixed in his purpose to cross the 
 ocean and settle in the new world, he sought to 
 avail himself of certain advantages which he 
 could find in his native land, but which would 
 not be so easily attainable in America. We refer 
 to his attendance on the course of theological 
 lectures in Edinburg. He accordingly resided a 
 year in that city, and attended the lectures of 
 the University. And it was there that he became 
 acquainted with a young American by the name 
 of Codman, afterwards settled as the pastor of a 
 congregation at Dorchester, Mass. They became 
 mutually attached ; and sailed together from 
 Leith to London. Mr. Balfour did not remain 
 long, however, in the great metropolis of the 
 British empire ; but sailed for Halifax, Nova 
 Scotia, A. D. 1S06. Here he tarried but a 
 short time ; it was not to be the place of his la- 
 bors. After spending the winter in the province, 
 he came to the United States. He probably had 
 letters of introduction to Dr. Jedediah Morse, of 
 Charlestown, who was, at the time of Mr. Bal- 
 four's arrival, one of the most eminent of the or- 
 thodox clergy of New England.
 
 REV. "WALTER BALFOUR. 11 
 
 Mr. Balfoui's mind was ac- na not remain with hia 
 
 . , 11' ^Tst associates, 
 
 tive. As we have already in- 
 timated, he was stimulated by his ardent love of 
 truth, to seek continually for it. That he was 
 strongly attached to his opinions, we do not deny ; 
 but he reverenced them, not because they were 
 his opinions, — not from any feelings of self-im- 
 portance ; but because he believed them to be 
 founded in truth. While he was decided in the 
 statement of his opinions, and was wedded to 
 them, for the reasons we have stated, — his mind 
 was open to every new ray of light. His senti- 
 ment was, " Prove all things, and hold fast that 
 which is good." He prayed, with the poet, 
 
 " If I am right, thy gra«e impart, 
 Still in the riglit to stay ; 
 If I am wrong, O teach my heart. 
 To find the better way." 
 
 Few persons will be able to estimate how 
 strongly such feelings swayed Mr. Balfour. He 
 would not, if he knew it, harbor an error in his 
 mind, any more than he would sin in his heart. 
 It could not be possible that such a man would 
 remain, for any length of time, trammelled by a 
 creed. We are to expect, that he will not remain 
 long in intimate connexion with his first Amer- 
 ican associates. Let it not be thoudit that he
 
 12 MEMOIR OF 
 
 was a man of fluctuating mind ; far from it. He 
 had not the element of change. Having adopt- 
 ed his opinions in honesty, he supposed them 
 correct ; and his honesty and natural inflexibili- 
 ty would have made him invulnerable to change, 
 had it not been that he bowed, with a deep rev- 
 erence, before the majesty of truth. He was de- 
 termined to follow the light of truth wherever it 
 led him. He would sacrifice nothing to his creed, 
 as such ; but all to conscience. Now what could 
 be expected of such a man ? Would he conform 
 to others for mere benevolence ? for the sake of 
 a welcome at their fire-sides or their tables ? In- 
 deed, he would not. He would give them the 
 last dollar to aid thenn in relieviag the distresses 
 of mankind; but he would adopt no new doc- 
 trine, or continue to support an old one, for the 
 sake of all the smiles and favors that men might 
 see fit to bestow upon him. 
 
 Takes up his abode Mr. Balfour, as we have said, 
 came into the country with letters 
 of introduction to Dr. Morse, of Charlestovvn, 
 written perhaps by Mr. Codman, with whom he 
 had sailed from Leith to London. He was re- 
 ceived with much cordiality by the Doctor. That 
 eminent divine exercised a great influence in 
 New England. He was, in fact, the leader of
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 13 
 
 the orthodox party, who were then beginning 
 to draw off from associates, whom they sus- 
 pected of Unitarianism. He was a man of great 
 blandness ; dignified ; of considerable learning ; 
 a very good writer ; but he did not shine in the 
 pulpit, except when he sung. His voice was a 
 beautiful alto ; and when he joined in the mu- 
 sical part of the exercises, as he usually did, if 
 acquainted with the tune, he attracted the atten- 
 tion of all. He loved to have help in the public 
 services from any competent brother who might 
 come along. In those days the members of the 
 church used to hold vestry meetings, in the neat 
 little chapel, that stood in the parish garden, on 
 the southern slope of the town hill. The Doctor, 
 who was not used to extempore speaking, was 
 always happy to receive any ministering brother, 
 who had the talent to make these meetings in- 
 teresting. Mr. Balfour, especially when a young 
 man, excelled in that respect. He had been a 
 diligent student of the Scriptures, and had always 
 practiced preaching without notes. When he 
 entered the Doctor's pulpit, therefore, and espe- 
 cially in the conference meeting, he excited great 
 attention. He became acquainted, at once, with- 
 out putting himself forward in the least, with all 
 the principal members of the Doctor's church and
 
 14 MEMOIR OF 
 
 congregation. He was spoken of as a man of 
 great learning, who had the Scriptures almost 
 wholly committed to memory, and who had the 
 power to preach, without writing his sermons, 
 and apparently without taking thought what 
 he should say, as it seemed to be given him in 
 that very hour. It was thought that God had 
 brought him to this country, for a great purpose, 
 and that he would be instrumental in the accom- 
 plishment of a high degree of good. He visited 
 the first families in the town ; and took up his 
 abode for the time in that of deacon Warren, a 
 worthy and respected citizen. But his labors 
 were not confined to Charlestown. He was in- 
 vited to the pulpits of the orthodox clergymen, 
 through all the surrounding region. He preach- 
 ed without compensation, except such as was 
 bestowed by the free will of the people ; for he 
 had serious doubts, at this time, whether it was 
 proper and right for a minister of the gospel, to 
 receive a stipulated price for his labors. He ab- 
 horred every thing that partook of the nature of 
 a bargain in respect to the preaching of the 
 gospel ; and he trusted that the Lord would pro- 
 vide for him. 
 
 His marria-e. In the coursc of his visits among 
 the members of the Doctor's church, he became
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 15 
 
 acquainted with the amiable lady, who was soon 
 to be united to him in marriage. This was Miss 
 Mary Devens, a grand daughter of the well known 
 Commissary Devens, (as he was universally call- 
 ed,) one of the most wealthy and respected citi- 
 zens of the town in his day. Mr. Balfour was a 
 welcome visiter at the house of that amiable and 
 good man, deacon Thomas Miller, who had 
 married the mother of Miss Devens. His ac- 
 quaintance with Miss Devens soon ripened into 
 that mutual respect and love, which ever after- 
 wards made their union happy. They were uni- 
 ted in marriage, by the Rev. William Collier, the 
 Baptist clergyman of Charlestown, on Dec. 4th, 
 1809. Mr. Collier was a man universally re- 
 spected for his benevolence, integrity and piety, 
 although his pulpit talents were not of a high 
 order. Whether he was chosen to officiate at 
 the marriage of Mr. Balfour because Dr. Morse 
 was at the time absent from town, the writer has 
 not troubled himself to inquire. Perhaps, thus 
 early, the Doctor had discovered that Mr. Bal- 
 four was no suple instrument to be used for other 
 men's benefit ; but that he had an independent 
 mind ; an honest conscience, that was true to the 
 convictions of his own understanding ; and that 
 he was not to be fettered by any forms of faith
 
 16 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 drawn up by other men. The family with which 
 Mr. Balfour had thus connected himself, was one 
 of the most respectable families in the town. 
 She survives him. Her relatives, persons of high 
 discernment and respectability, entertain a pro- 
 found respect for his memory. He corresponded 
 to their ideas of a truly good and honest man. 
 His habits of inquiry But let US rotum to the early life 
 the csivmists, of Mr. Balfour in Charlestown. 
 We have already intimated, that a person of his 
 honesty and independence, and unceasing spirit 
 of inquiry, could not remain fettered by any 
 creed. What he believed he avowed ; and al- 
 though he continued to hold, without any doubt, 
 the doctrine of the endless misery of the wicked ; 
 although the suspicion had never once crossed 
 his mind that the doctrine of the final holiness 
 and happiness of all men might be true, yet there 
 were points on which he differed from Dr. Morse 
 and the majority of his church. This state of 
 things broke up the intimacy that had existed 
 between them ; and Mr. Balfour could no longer 
 be admitted into the Doctor's pulpit. Such was 
 the Doctor's influence and wide acquaintance 
 with the orthodox clergy of the vicinity, that the 
 feelings cherished by him would soon become 
 general, and Mr. Balfour, having a spirit that
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 17 
 
 would disdain to plead or sue for any favors, 
 would follow what he regarded as the path of 
 duty, even if it cost him the regard of those 
 who had professed to be his dearest friends. Al- 
 though he went no more into the pulpit of Dr. 
 Morse, yet still he had friends, — christians, — 
 who were ready to follow him, and bear reproach 
 and opposition, if need be, for conscience sake. 
 A hall was obtained and these friends clustered 
 around him. They held meetings regularly upon 
 the Sabbath day, for years. He preached with- 
 out pecuniary compensation, supporting himself 
 by opening a store, for a very respectable branch 
 of mercantile business upon the main street in 
 Charlestown. But he never for a day abandon- 
 ed his theological studies. Books were his com- 
 panions. At his place of business, when no one 
 was present, he was almost invariably engaged 
 in reading or writing ; and at home, especially 
 in the long winter evenings, he maintained the 
 same habits. He never for an hour, lost his in- 
 terest in the great subject of moral and religious- 
 truth. He was a constant inquirer, albeit at tlie 
 same time he was a teacher. What he had 
 learned, he was willing to teach others , but he 
 felt that he should always be a learner himself.. 
 The fountain dispenses streams to fertilize the 
 2
 
 18 MEMOIR OF 
 
 surrounding region ; but this it would not do ex-, 
 cept its own bosom were filled by the rains from 
 heaven. 
 
 Is baptized. In the course of his inquiries, Mr. 
 Balfour had his attention turned to the subject of 
 adult baptism, and to the proper form thereof. 
 He reflected deeply upon this subject, and sought 
 to learn what were the opinions and what was 
 the practice of the disciples of Christ, in the 
 apostolic day, touching this matter. The resulfr 
 in his own mind was, that he believed baptism 
 by immersion to be the proper form. He con- 
 ferred not with flesh and blood ; but proposed 
 himself, as a candidate for baptism to Rev. Wil- 
 liam Collier, of whom we have before spoken ; 
 and upon a beautiful Sabbath morning, he was 
 immersed in the arm of the sea that bathes the 
 base of the gentle declivity, where the ancient 
 dead of the town were laid. His views on the 
 subject of baptism were never afterwards chang- 
 ed, in fact, he seldom found reason to change 
 his mind in regard to any subject, on which his 
 opinion had been deliberately formed. The 
 changes of his mind affected those doctrines only 
 into which he had been initiated in his childhood. 
 Pr«.che8 at Ho Is now to bo contemplated 
 
 ■Wa&Uingion Hall. . • r . , i 
 
 for a series of ten or twelve years,
 
 REV. WALTER BALEOUR. 19 
 
 as the preacher to a small, but very respectable 
 congregation, at Washington Hall, in Charles- 
 town. These were principally persons living in 
 Boston and Charlestown, who were attached to 
 him for his piety, his sound scriptural discourses, 
 as they regarded them, and for the honesty, in- 
 tegrity and noble christian independence of the 
 man. He had no compensation, except a few 
 slight gifts from the people ; yet he faithfully la- 
 bored for their good. He prepared two sermons 
 for each Sabbath day, with the same regularity 
 and faithfulness that he would have observed, 
 had he been the pastor of a congregation that 
 furnished him a living. Those who heard him 
 were always interested. His discourses were 
 marked with sound sense, and abounded with 
 scriptural knowledge. In the meantime, in or- 
 der to support himself, he continued the store in 
 Charlestown, and for the principal part of the 
 time without any one to assist him. He was 
 salesman and clerk himself; he was proverbially 
 honest; what he said, his customers believed; 
 but the predominating passion with him was not 
 a love of worldly business, but a love of theolog- 
 ical studies. As the atmosphere was the element 
 in which his body lived, so theological study was 
 the element of his soul.
 
 • CHAP. II. 
 
 THE ANDOVER INSTITUTION AND PROF. STUART. 
 
 A digression. Wg iiiust dlgress foF a short time 
 
 from Mr. Balfour to give a brief account of the 
 
 Andover Institution and of Professor Moses 
 
 Stuart. 
 
 The Andover This InstitutioH grew up in corise- 
 
 Institiition. . -, ^_ . . 
 
 quence or Harvard University havmg 
 passed into the hands of the Unitarians. The 
 Unitarian influence had been secretly increasing 
 in Massachusetts, especially in the vicinity of 
 Boston ; but no public demonstration was made 
 in favor of the principles of that sect, until the 
 fact was made clear, that the government of the 
 University had become decidedly Unitarian. This 
 point was settled by the election of Dr. Henry 
 Ware, as HoUis Professor of Divinity. Dr. Ware 
 was not a Calvinist. He did not make a clear 
 definition of his faith on the points in controversy 
 between the two great parties that were manoeu- 
 vring for mastery in the University ; but it was
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 21 
 
 well understood that he was a Unitarian. A late 
 writer in one of the public papers in Charles- 
 town, whom we do not hesitate to describe as an 
 eminent physician there, — a native of the town, — 
 who has made it his residence for the whole term 
 of his life, now about seventy years,. has spoken 
 of the rise of the Andover Institution as follows : 
 " It will be remembeTed, that the foundinfr of Har- 
 vard College " for Christ and the Church"' was among 
 the earliest and most cherished objects of the Fathers 
 of New England. Many now living know how and 
 when the College passed out of the control of Ortho- 
 doxy into the hands of Unitarians — not without a se- 
 vere struggle — the din of that fierce controversy is still 
 ringing in our ears — the Charlestown folks, especially, 
 were in the hottest of it. It is but justice to say, that 
 the champions of Calvinism fought nobly, but the bat- 
 tle ended, (as all such battles always will end, either 
 in religion or politics,) in the triumph of liberal opin- 
 ions. But the discomfitted party were not men to sit 
 down quietly undei such defeat. They girded them- 
 Eelves with new zeal, mustered their forces of talent 
 and wealth, (and these were great and povverful,) and 
 planted their standard and flung it to the breeze on 
 one of the most beautiful heights of New Enjiland. 
 It will not for a moment be denied that the Andover 
 Institution was begotten and born out of the contro- 
 versy about Harvard College. Ii is bare justice to say 
 that among all the truly distinguished men who have 
 filled and adorned the offices of this Institution, no one 
 has attained the high fame of Professor Stuart. The 
 Andover Institution, expressly set up as the defence 
 and support of Orthodoxy or Partialism, officially made 
 Prof. Stuart, and in the wonderful providence of God, 
 Prof. Stuart made Mr. Balfour a Universalist ; and
 
 22 MEMOIR OF 
 
 without any disparagement of the extraordinary talent 
 of Prof. Stuart, it ia saie to say that where he has 
 reached and influenced one human mind, Mr. Balfour 
 •has aroused thousands ; because the critical labors of 
 the learned Professor are suited only to the capacity 
 of a few select minds, while the labors of Mr. Balfour 
 operate directly on the mass of common minds. What 
 shall we say then to these things'? For my own part 
 when I consider the reflex operations of Divine Prov- 
 idence, as manifested in all the great questions which 
 afl^ect humanity, 1 am more and more constrained to 
 cast myself humbly down at the feet of Jesus, and to 
 exclaim with the good Apostle, '^ O the depth of the 
 riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ; 
 how unsearchable are his judgements and his ways 
 past finding out — for who hath known the mind of the 
 Lord, and who hath been his counsellor, or who hath 
 given to him, and it shall be recompensed to him 
 again. For of him and through him and to him are 
 all things — to whom be glory foiever. Amen !" " 
 
 The Creed of the Sucli weFG the cifcumstances un- 
 der which the Andover Institution 
 was founded. Among- the first cares of its found- 
 ers, was the preparation of a Creed to which 
 every persoft who shall accept a professorship in 
 the Institution must give his public assent. To 
 show how exclusively this Institution is devoted 
 to orthodoxy, so called, and how carefully every 
 change in this respect is sought to be prevented 
 forever, a few extracts shall here be made from 
 the statutes of the Institution. 
 
 " Every Professor shall be «n orthodox and consist- 
 ent Calvinist ;" and after a careful examination by the
 
 REV. WALTER FBAFOUR. 23 
 
 visitors with reference to his religious principles, he 
 shall, on the day of inauguration, publicly make and 
 Subscribe a solemn declaration of his faith in Divine 
 Revelation, and in the fundamental and distinguishing 
 doctrines of the Gospel, as expressed in the following 
 Creed, which is supported by the infallible Revelation 
 which God constantly makes of himself in his works 
 of creation, providence, and redemption, namely : — 
 
 CREED OF THE INSTITUTION. 
 
 "I believe that there is one and but one living and 
 true God ; that the word of God, contained in the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only 
 perfect rule of faith and practice ; that agreeably to 
 those Scriptures God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal and 
 unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, 
 justice, goodness and truth; that in the Godhead are 
 three persons, the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost; 
 and that thes3 three are one God, the same in sub- 
 stance, equal in power and glory ; that God created 
 man after his own image in knowledge, righteousness 
 and holiness ; that the glory of God is man's chief 
 end, and the enjoyment of God is supreme happiness ; 
 that this enjoyment is derived solely from conformity 
 of heart to the moral character and will of God ; that 
 Adam, the federal head and representative of the hu- 
 man race, was placed in a state of probation, and that' 
 in consequence of his disobedience all his descendants 
 were constituted sinners ; that by nature every man ia 
 personally depraved, destitute of holiness, unlike and 
 opposed to God, and that previously to the renewing 
 agency of the Divine Spirit all his moral actions are 
 adverse to the character and glory of God ; that be- 
 ing morally incapable of recovering the image of his 
 Creator, which was lost in Adam, every man is justly 
 exposed to eternal damnation ; so that, except a man 
 be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ; 
 that God, of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity,
 
 24 MEMOIR OF 
 
 elected some to everlasting life, and that he entered 
 into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of this 
 state of sin and misery, by a Redeemer; that the only 
 Redeemer of the elect is the eternal Son of God, who 
 for this purpose became man, and continues to be God 
 and man in two distinct natures and one person forev- 
 er ; that Christ as our Redeemer executes the office of 
 a Prophet, Priest and King ; that, agreeably to the 
 covenant of Redemption, tlie Son of God, and he alone, 
 by his suffering and death, has made atonement for 
 the sins of all men ; that repentance, faith and holi- 
 ness, are the personal requisites in the gospel schfeme 
 of salvation ; that the righteousness of Christ is the 
 only ground of a sinner's justification ; that this right- 
 eousness is received through faith ; and that this faith 
 is the gift of God ; so tliat our salvation is wholly of 
 grace ; that no means whatever can change the heart 
 <if a sinner, and make it holy ; that regeneration and 
 sanctification are effects of the creating and renewing 
 agency of the Holy Spirit, and that supreme love to 
 God constitutes the essential difference between saints 
 and sinners ; that by convincing us of our sin and mis- 
 ery, enHghtening our minds, working faitii in ns, and 
 renewing our wills, the Holy Spirit makes us partak- 
 ers of the benefits of redemption ; and that the ordina- 
 ry means by which these benefits are communicated 
 to us, ?re the word, sacrament, and prayer ; that re- 
 pentance unto lite, faith to feed upon Christ, love to 
 God and new obedience, are the appropriate qualifica- 
 tions for the Lord's Supper ; ar.d that a Christian 
 Church ought to admit no person to its holy commun- 
 ion, before he exhibits credible evidence of his godly 
 sincerity ; that perseverance in holiness is the only 
 method of making our calling and election sure ; and 
 that the final perseverance of the saints, though it is 
 the effect of the especial operation of God on their 
 hearts, necessarily implies their own watchful dili- 
 gence ; that they, who are effectually called, do in
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 25 
 
 this life partake of justification, adoption and sanctifi- 
 cation, and the several benefits which do either ac- 
 company or flow from them ; that the souls of believ- 
 ers are at their death made perfect in holiness, and do 
 ioimediately pass into glory ; that their bodies being 
 still united to Christ, will at the resurrection be raised 
 up to glory, and that the saints will be made perfectly 
 blessed in the full enjoyment of God to all eternity ; 
 but that the wicked will awake to shame and eveilast- 
 ing contempt, and with devils be plunged into the 
 lake that burneth with fire and brimstone forever and 
 ever. I moreover believe that God, according to the 
 counsel o; his own will, and for his own glory, hath 
 foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and that all 
 beings, actions and events, both in the natural and 
 moral world, are under his providential direction ; that 
 God's decrees perfectly consist with human liberty ; 
 God's universal agency with the agency of man, and 
 man's dependence with his accountability ; that man 
 has understanding and corporeal strength to do all that 
 God requires of him ; so that nothing but the sinner's 
 aversion to holiness prevents his salvation ; that it is 
 the prerogative of God to bring good out of evil, and 
 that he will cause the wrath and rage of wicked men 
 and devils to praise him ; and that all the evil which 
 has existed and which will forever exist in the moral 
 system will eventually be made to promote a most im- 
 portant purpose under the wise and perfect adminis- 
 tration of that Almighty Being ; who will cause all 
 things to work for his own glory, and thus fulfil all his 
 pleasure. And furthermore I do solemnly promise that 
 I will open and explain the Scriptures to my pupils 
 with integrity and faithfulness ; that I will maintain 
 and inculcate the Christian Faith, as expressed in the 
 Creed, by me now repeated, together with all the other 
 doctrines and duties of our holy religion, so far as may 
 appertain to my office, according to the best light God 
 shall give me, and in opposition not only to Atheists
 
 26 MEMOIR OF 
 
 and Infidels, but to Jews, Papists, Mahometans, All- 
 ans, Socinians, Sabellians, Unitarians and Universal- 
 ists, and to all heresies and errors, ancient or modern, 
 which may be opposed to ihe Gospel of Christ, or haz- 
 ardous to the souls of men ; that by my instruction, 
 counsel and example, I will endeavor to promote true 
 piety and godliness ; that I will consult the good of 
 this Institution, and the peace of the Churches of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ on all occasions — and that I will re- 
 ligiously conform to the Constitution and Laws of this 
 Seminary, and to the Statutes of this Foundation." 
 
 " The preceding Creed and Declaration shall be re- 
 peated by every Professor on this Foundation at the ex- 
 piration of every successive period of five years, and 
 no man shall be continued a Professor on said Founda- 
 tion, who shall not continue to approve himself a man 
 of sound and orthodox principles in divinity according 
 to the aforesaid Creed." 
 
 The Creed bars out Such Is the cFeed which the 
 ree inquiry. professoTs at AndoveT must sub- 
 scribe at their inauguration, and which, every 
 fifth year, they must repeat as the declaration 
 of their faith. 
 
 One cannot help remarking here, that free in- 
 quiry is forever barred out of the Institution. 
 No Professor can dissent the least from the fore- 
 going creed, without foifeiting his office and all 
 its emoluments. He must therefore henceforth 
 sit down quietly under the impression that he 
 cannot be wrong, or else expose himself to the 
 danger already described. What temptations 
 then are placed before the Professors, not to make
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOTJR. 27 
 
 them desirous to discover what is truths but to 
 suppress every rising inquiry, to maintain a blind 
 devotion to a creed framed by men, all of whom, 
 in a few years, will have passed away. Is it not 
 a matter of astonishment that the Professors 
 would receive their offices on such conditions ? 
 The creed virtually binds them to study the Bible 
 with a fixed determination to believe what they 
 now profess, and nothing opposed to it. Setting 
 all the future at defiance, it bids them close their 
 eyes upon every ray of increasing light, and up- 
 on the labors of every ardent lover of truth, who 
 shall henceforth rise up, so far as he shall depart 
 from the creed. What is this less than saying, we 
 know we are right ? and what more did the Pope 
 at Rome ever say ? Protestants have ridiculed 
 the Pope because he lays claim to infallibility ; 
 wherein does this differ ? If those who framed 
 this creed, and those who have signed it, admit- 
 ted of a possibility of their being wrong, it was 
 arrogant presumption, it was direct hostility to 
 truth in them to place it upon the foundation on 
 which it stands, and in the most solemn manner 
 to bind every Professor and every Visitor to be- 
 lieve and defend it henceforth and forever; and 
 if they did not admit of a possibillity of being 
 wrong, they laid all the claim to infallibility 
 which the Pope ever did.
 
 28 MEMOIR OF 
 
 The Profe sore ' Let it HO loHgcr, then, be a matter 
 
 inusttoe governed . . . , • ^ r 
 
 by the Creed, qi wonder, as it IS in the minds of 
 some persons, that the Professors at Andover op- 
 pose doctrines manifestly reasonable and scrip- 
 tural, and make war on all the sects proscribed in 
 their creed — they have promised to do it ; they 
 have pledged their veracity (a promise and a 
 pledge which they every fifth year repeat) ; they 
 are paid, cash in hand, for doing that service. 
 And all this they must continue to do so long as 
 they retain the Professorships they now hold. 
 
 The founders of the Professorships, in order 
 effectually to guard their gifts, in all future time, 
 against all perversion, or the smallest avoidance 
 of their true design, constituted a Board of Vis- 
 itors to be, as in their place and stead, the Guar- 
 dians, Overseers and Protectors, of these founda- 
 tions. These Visitors, previously to taking their 
 seats at the Board, must solemly declare, in the 
 presence of God and the Board of Trustees, that 
 they will faithfully exert their abilities to carry 
 into execution the regulations of the Consti- 
 tution of the Institution ; and, like the Professors, 
 they are required " to subscribe the same theo- 
 logical creed," and to repeat a declaration of their 
 faith in it " at every successive period of five 
 years." These Visitors will, of course, keep a
 
 REV. WALTER BALPOUR. 29 
 
 watchful eye upon the Professors, and see that 
 they depart not in any way, nor in the smallest 
 degree from the creed which they are all requir- 
 ed to subscribe. And they have power to remove 
 the Professors '* either for misbehavior, hetero' 
 doxy J incapacity, or neglect of the duties of of- 
 fice." 
 
 The Professors at Andover are not to be blam- 
 ed for being Calvinists, or Hopkinsians. Far 
 from this. But they are to be blamed for accept- 
 ing their professorships on conditions, which ex- 
 clude all inquiry as it respects the truth of their 
 sentiments. The spirit of Christianity is opposed 
 to such a practice ; the spirit of the times is be- 
 coming more and more opposed to it ; the spirit 
 of our government and institutions generally is 
 opposed to it ; and the time must speedily come, 
 (if it be not already come,) when this, and kin- 
 dred institutions, if there be such, will generally 
 be regarded by the many as monuments of party 
 zeal, and strong sectarian attachments. 
 
 Professor Stuart, says one of i^ev. Moses ntuart 
 
 becomes 
 
 his friends, " was born at Wilton, Andover^SsmutU. 
 Conn., in March. 17S0 ; was graduated at Yale 
 College in 1799; was afterwards tutor for two 
 years in that Institution ; he studied law, but 
 abandoned that profession for that of the minis-
 
 30 MEMOIR OF 
 
 try, and in 1806 was ordained Pastor of the Cen- 
 tre Church in New Haven ; and in 1810, after a 
 pastorate of four years, was transferred to the 
 chair of Sacred Literature at Andover, which he 
 actively filled till 1848. when he resigned." 
 His labors at '* I" January, 1810, just forty-two 
 years ago," says* Prof. Park of Andover, 
 in the sermon at his funeral, " he was inaugura- 
 ted Professor of Sacred Literature in this Theo- 
 logical Seminary. His knowledge of the Hebrew 
 then enabled him to translate with the aid of 
 Parkhurst's Lexicon, only five or six chapters of 
 Genesis and a few Psalms. His acquaintance 
 with the Greek tongue was far from being exten- 
 sive. He was to be a self-made man. In about 
 two years he prepared a Hebrew Grammar with- 
 out points, for the immediate use of his pupils. 
 They were obliged to copy it day by day from 
 liis written sheets. In the third year he publish- 
 ed it at his own expense. To print a Hebrew 
 Grammar was then a strange work. He was 
 compelled to set up the types for about half the 
 form of verbs with his own hands. He taught 
 the printers their art. That Grammar he after- 
 wards enlarged and improved in successive edi- 
 tions, and the labor which he has expended upon 
 it would have filled up the life of an ordinary 
 man.
 
 , REV. TVALTER BALFOUR. 31 
 
 " In consulting Schleusner's Lexicon, he met 
 here and there a German word. No one could 
 explain to him the meaning of it. His curiosity 
 was aroused. At an exorbitant price he obtained 
 the apparatus for German study, and in a single 
 fortnight had read the entire Gospel of St. John 
 in that language. Self-taught, he persevered 
 through Lieber's Biblish Hermeneutik, and this 
 work introduced him to the wide range of Ger- 
 man literature. He felt himself in a new world. 
 It was that one volume which, through the gen- 
 erosity of the Trustees of the Institution, enabled 
 him to fill our library with the richest collection 
 of German treatises then in the land. For ten 
 years he performed the rugged work of a pioneer, 
 and in his maturer life he often said, that he did 
 not know how to begin to study the Bible until 
 he was forty years old. For forty years he had 
 been in the wilderness. He entered late in life 
 upon the promised possession. Nor w^as he 
 merely alone in the efforts of the first ten years 
 of his professorship. To have been simply friend- 
 less would have been to him a relief. But the 
 suspicions of good men were excited with regard 
 to the result of his German study. He endured 
 the whisperings of his brethren. Many of them 
 met him with an averted face. Dark predictions
 
 82 MEMOIR OF 
 
 were uttered concerning him; but he kept his 
 eye fixed upon the distant goal. Morning after 
 morning, he sallied forth from his house at five 
 o'clock, through rain, hail, snow, storm ; and as 
 his attenuated figure breasted the winds of our 
 cold winters, it seemed a type of his spirit, en- 
 countering manfully the opposition, not of foes 
 only, but of friends." 
 profe.Bor 8t nartnota Profcssor Stuart's learning was 
 
 profound tliiiiker. . , , 
 
 extensive, but somewhat superfi- 
 cial. He had studied much, but he had not con- 
 centrated his studies. His learning therefore 
 was more superficial than that of some men. He 
 showed the world all the learning he had. He 
 was neither a sagacious thinker, nor a sound 
 logician. He was ambitious, industrious, untir- 
 ing, but not acute and far-seeing. Such a man 
 would be in the foremost rank at all times ; but 
 he would be liable to make many mistakes. One 
 of his own brethren has said of him, since his 
 death, " The deficiencies of Prof. Stuart's mind 
 are as apparent in his commentaries as any where 
 else. His want of that faculty of rigorous and 
 exact logic which some possess, led him to hold 
 principles sometimes in a rather indeterminate 
 and shifting way, and to apply them with a vari- 
 able and uncertain method j so that one could
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 33 
 
 not always be sure that the same interpretation 
 would recur a year afterwards that had been ur- 
 gently maintained a year before. Timorous 
 minds, who looked for rules rather than princi- 
 ples, and wl^o more desired precise information 
 on special points than general stimulus and en- 
 largement of thought, were sometimes repulsed 
 from the Professor by this. But the rare and 
 great excellencies of his m.ind and heart were as 
 well expressed in these favorite works. '"^ 
 
 *See the "Independent" of Saturday,- January 10th, 
 1852. We do not intend to intimate that Prof. Stuart 
 was not deeply beloved by his brethren. He was indeed 
 beloved ; but many of his brethren were not blind to the 
 inequalities (so to speak) of his mind, which evidently 
 was not well balanced. The writer from whom the quo- 
 tation above was made, says also, " Few sights have been 
 to us more atiecting, than the general and spontaneous 
 burst of acclamatioi», transcending all so-called ♦ proprie- 
 tiea' and uttering itself in instant clapping and cheers, 
 with which his tall and wasted form was greeted by the 
 men whom he had instructed — men many of them emi- 
 nent now in station and influence — when he met them 
 at the meeting of the Alumni at Andover a few years 
 since, h was the inevitable homage of the heart, to one 
 who though sometimes abrupt in language was always 
 cordial and generous at heart ; and who, though not al- 
 ways implicitly to be followed, was always sincere, self- 
 devoted, believing " The " Christian Register," (Uni- 
 tarian,) has said, " It was not our privilege to have any 
 personal acquaintance with Professor Stuart. Our know- 
 led of hirn was gained first from his controversial writ- 
 ings, and afterwards from his more elaborate critical 
 works on ditFereat portions of the Bible. He has seemed 
 
 3
 
 CHAP. III. 
 
 MR. BALFOUR THROWN INTO DOUBT AS TO THE 
 DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS MISERY. 
 
 Mr. Balfour convert- Prof. Stuait, whose connexioH 
 
 ed by means of • i i at t • • 
 
 Prof, stuaru With the Anclover Institution we 
 have so fully described in the preceding chapter, 
 was the means of converting Mr. Balfour, under 
 the blessing of God, to the belief of the doctrine 
 of the final holiness and happiness of all men. 
 This, of course, the Professor had no intention 
 of doing. It was a paragraph in his Letters to 
 Rev. Wm. E. Channing, that first attracted the 
 attention of Mr. Balfour to the great subject of 
 Universalism, so far as to raise the suspicion in 
 
 to us an ardent, impulsive, earnest, large-souled man, with 
 a vigorous mind, with high and generous aims, and a true 
 religious enthusiasm, carrying with him a vast amount of 
 thought and learning, often more than he had either the 
 ability or the time thoroughly to master. Hence his 
 thoughts were sometimes crude, his measures unwise, and 
 his learning incorrect. His books have great merits, but 
 the want of exactness and of thorough arrangement must 
 prevent their being long standard authorities ; though 
 they may furnish the materials out of which inferior minds 
 may prepare the works which shall take their place.' '
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 35 
 
 his mind that that doctrine was true. Mr. Chan- 
 n'ing at the time was pastor of one of the churches 
 in Boston. He had then (1819) become an open 
 advocate of Unitarianism, of which system he 
 had been the principal defender in this country 
 for about four years only. The circumstances 
 which called out Prof. Stuart's Letters to him, 
 will be explained in a subsequent paragraph. 
 The class of christians call- ^. ,^ ., . . 
 
 Eis« of Unitarianism 
 
 ed Unitarians, were but little ^ New England. 
 known, as existing in New England, until about 
 the year 1815. Before this time the sentiments 
 of that sect had secretly spread, and some clergy- 
 men and laymen, were strongly suspected of 
 holding them, although they had made no pullic 
 avowal which justified such a suspicion. They 
 corresponded with their Unitarian friends in 
 England, to whom they unbosomed themselves. 
 The public avowal of Unitarianism was drawn 
 out in the following manner. Rev. Thomas 
 Belsham, a Unitarian clergyman, of London, in 
 preparing the biography of Rev. Theophilus 
 Lindsey, the father of Unitarianism in Great 
 Britain, devoted a chapter to the history of Uni- 
 tarianism in the United States, in which he pub- 
 lished the epistles, or rather extracts from the 
 epistles, which he had received from his Ameri- 
 3~^ ,
 
 36 MEBIOIR aF 
 
 can correspondents. This book, after much de- 
 lay, fell into the hands of the leaders of the or- 
 thodox party in New England; who proceeded 
 at once to publish, in Boston, the chapter refer- 
 red to. It will be difficult for any one, in the 
 present day, to estimate fully the effect of the 
 disclosure. The Unitarians were charged, by 
 their orthodox opponents, with having studiously 
 concealed their Unitarian opinions. The pam- 
 phlet containing the disclosures, was reviewed 
 by a spirited writer in the " Panoplist," the lead- 
 ing orthodox review of ihat day. So thorough, 
 efficacious and wide-spread was the influence of 
 this review, that Mr. Channing, who had not 
 then received his Doctor's diploma, felt himself 
 obliged to take the field in defence of himself, 
 and his brethren. A controversy of some length 
 was carried on between him and Dr. Worcester, 
 of Salem, Mass. Mr. Channing publicly avow- 
 ed himself to be a Unitarian. Upon his confess- 
 ing that he believed in Christ as a distinct being, 
 dependent on God, subordinate to him and deriv- 
 ing all from him. Dr. Worcester said, " Such 
 is your confession of faith : and for this con- 
 fession, I, dear sir, for one, most sincerely thank 
 you ; and hundreds and thousands of Christians, 
 1 am persuaded will thank you. It will serve to
 
 Mr. ChanDing's 
 Balutaore Sarmon, 
 
 EEV. WALTER BALFOUR. 37 
 
 relieve us from much of the uncertainty and 
 much of the embarrassment, which, uritil now, 
 we have felt in relation to you and your liberal 
 brethren.'"^ Hereafter Mr. Channing \va3 con- 
 sidered as an avowed Unitarian. 
 
 The storm of the Unitarian con- 
 troversy had nearly died away,and 
 men's spirits were becoming quiet again, when 
 Mr. Channing, in the execution of his duty, dis- 
 turbed once more the aspect of the heavens. Ke 
 was called to Baltimore to preach a sermon at 
 the ordination of Rev. Jared Sparks, in this day 
 the President of Harvard University. The ser- 
 vice took place on the 5th of May, 1819. The 
 sermon was one of the most effective ever writ- 
 ten by its author, — a calm, dignified, manly, hon- 
 est statement and defence of Unitarianism, and 
 a thorough, bold, and christian exposure of the 
 absurdities of Calvinism. He departed from 
 the course generally pursued at ordinations ; he 
 did not speak of the nature, design, duties and 
 
 *Thi3 wag the first distinct public avowal of Unitari- 
 anisai maiie by the late Dr. Channing. In 1808 he 
 preached the ordination sermon of Mr, (afterwards Dr ) 
 Codman, of Dorchester, a rigid Calvinist. Up to 1815, 
 Mr. Channing had remained uncomn)itted, as had almost 
 all his brethren. What their private understandings and 
 mutual concessions might have been, we know not ; we 
 speak only of what was made public.
 
 38 MEMOIR OF 
 
 advantages of the christian ministry ; hut he 
 went into a statement and defence of the doc- 
 trines believed by Unitarians, setting them off in 
 contrast with the opinions of his opponents. He 
 unfolded the principles which Unitarians adopt 
 in interpreting the Scriptures, and asserted the 
 doctrines which the Scriptures, thus interpreted, 
 seemed to him to express. This discourse, we 
 think, taken in all its circumstances and effects, 
 was the severest blow, that Calvinism had ever 
 received in the United States. Mr. Channing 
 m^aintained that the Bible is a book written for 
 men, in the language of men, and that its mean- 
 ing is to be sought in the same manner, as that 
 of other books. " We believe (said he) that God, 
 when he condescends to speak and write, sub- 
 mits, if we may so say, to the established rules 
 of speaking and writing. How else would the 
 Scriptures avail us more than if communicated 
 in an unknown tongue ?" In the interpretation 
 of this book men must use their reason. " We 
 profess to know no book, (said he,) which de- 
 mands a more frequent exercise of reason than 
 the Bible." He defended at much length the 
 necessity of using reason in the interpretation of 
 the Scriptures. He then proceeded to state 
 some of the views which he derived from the
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 39 
 
 Bible, particularly such as distinguished him 
 from other christians. 
 
 He asserted, 1st. The unity of God. He at- 
 tacked the doctrine of the trinity in the most 
 open and forcible manner. He showed that the 
 doctrine of the divine unity was clearly taught 
 in the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Tes- 
 taments. He objected to the doctrine of the 
 trinity on account of its practical influence ; it 
 distracted the mind to worship three infinite 
 persons, notwithstanding they might be called 
 one God. 2d. He taught the unity of Jesus 
 Christ ; and here again he attacked with great 
 vigor the view taken by the Trinitarian. He 
 then proceeded to treat of the moral perfection of 
 God. He believed that christians had generally 
 leaned towards very injurious views of the Su- 
 preme Being. " We believe (said he) that God 
 is good, kind and benevolent, in the proper sense 
 of these words ; good in disposition as well as in 
 act ; good not to a few, but to all ; good to every 
 individual, as well as to the general system." 
 God's justice is but another form of his goodness. 
 Mr. Channing asserted the paternal character of 
 God. He ascribed to Him, not only the name, 
 but the principles and disposition of a parent. 
 He objected to Calvinism that it took away from
 
 40 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 men their Father in heaven, and sulDStituted in 
 his place a being whom they could not love, if 
 they would, and whom they ought not to love, if 
 they could. He denounced the doctrines of elec- 
 tion and reprobation as taught by the so called 
 orthodox, with great earnestness and effect. He 
 denounced the views which orthodoxy gives of 
 the moral perfection of Deity in unsparing terms. 
 "We ask our opponents to leave to us a God 
 (said he) w^orthy of our love and trust, in whom 
 our moral sentiments may delight, in whom our 
 weaknesses and sorrows may find refuge. We 
 cling to the divine perfections. We meet them 
 every where in creation, we read them in the 
 Scriptures, w'e see a lovely image of them in Je- 
 sus Christ ; and gratitude, love and veneration 
 call on us to assert them." The preacher then 
 proceeded to speak of the mediation of Jesus 
 Christ and the purposes for which he died. Here 
 he asserted the Scriptural view of the doctrine of 
 atonement, in contradistinction, to the harsh, 
 half-heathenish doctrine on the same subject, as- 
 serted by those who call themselves orthodox. 
 He condemned the doctrine as a theory, and he 
 condemned it for its practical influences. From 
 these subjects, the speaker proceeded to define 
 the nature of christian virtue, or obedience to
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 41 
 
 God, under which head he showed that much 
 that passed in the world for religion or moral 
 goodness, or fitness for heaven, was very far from 
 being so. Much that was called piety he believ- 
 ed to be worthless. Such, in brief, was the doc- 
 trinal character of the famous sermon which pro- 
 voked the first letters from Prof. Stuart to Mr. 
 Channing. 
 
 The Sermon of air. Channinsf ^ 
 
 ^ Prcf. Stuart's letters 
 
 had not been long before the pub- ^° ^"' chaamng. 
 lie, when the letters of Prof. Stuart appeared. 
 The main object of the Professor was to show, 
 that the doctrines of the orthodox party of New 
 Englcmd, were not subject to the objections made 
 by Mr. Channing, but were, in fact, truths re- 
 vealed by the Holy Spirit to men, by means of 
 the sacred Writings. Prof. Stuart seemed par- 
 ticularly solicitous to defend against the assaults 
 of Mr. Channing, the doctrine of the Trinity, the 
 great point of distinction between the two par- 
 ties. To show that Jesus Christ was the second 
 person in the Trinity, — the one living and true 
 God, — he aimed to prove that he was worthy 
 of the worship of every human being ; that 
 christians ought to worship him as God; that 
 Christ ought to be worshipped on earth as he is 
 worshipped in heaven ; that if he be the object
 
 42 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 of worship in heaven, he should be the object of 
 
 worship on earth. He hoped in this way to parry 
 
 the arguments of Mr. Channing, and sustain the 
 
 confidence of those who believed that the Father 
 
 and Jesus were the same being. The following 
 
 paragraph contains his language on this point; 
 
 •♦ PhilHp. ii : 10, 11, ' That at the name of Jesus 
 e%'ery knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things 
 in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every 
 tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
 glory of God the Father' Things in heaven, earth, 
 and under the earth, is a common peripl)rasis of the 
 Hebrew and New Testament writers, for the Uni- 
 verse ; (ta pan or ta panta.) VA^hat can be meant by 
 things in heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the 
 knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant? 
 What other worship can heaven render? And if the 
 worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual, should not 
 that of others, who ought to be in temper united with 
 them, be s])iritual also? Rev. v : 8, 14,' And when 
 he (i. e. Christ, see ver. 6, 7,) took the book, the four 
 beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the 
 Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden 
 vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints. 
 And they sung a new song, saying, thou art woithy 
 to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for 
 thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by thy 
 blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, 
 and nation ; and hast made us unto our God kings and 
 priests; and we shall reign on the earth. And 1 be- 
 held and heard the voice of many angels round about 
 the throne and the beasts and the elders ; and the 
 number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, 
 and thousands of thousands ; saying with a loud voice, 
 worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive power,
 
 EEV. WALTER BALPOUR. 43 
 
 and riches, ar.d wisdom, and sireng-th, and honor, and 
 glory, and blessinor. And every creature which is in 
 heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and 
 such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard 
 I sayincr, blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, 
 be unto him that sitteih upon the throne, and unto the 
 Lamb forever and ever. And the four beasts said 
 Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down 
 and worshipped him that liveth forever and ever.' If 
 this be not spiritval worship — and if Christ be not the 
 object of it here ; I am unable to produce a case, 
 where worship can be called spiritual and divine." 
 pp. 101, 102. 
 
 It is difficult to account for the fact ^ , ^, 
 
 A remarkable 
 
 that Prof. Stuart should have indited p^^-^^^^p^-' 
 such a paragraph as this. However strong it might 
 have appeared in proof of the doctrine of the Trin- 
 ity, it is remarkable that he did not see its bear- 
 ing as affecting the question of the salvation of all 
 men. If all human beings are at last to worship 
 Christ, with spiritual and divine worship, must 
 they not all be happy when they render such 
 worship? and if so, can the doctrine of endless 
 misery be true ? There is no way in which we 
 can account for the uttering of such an argument, 
 except on the presumption that the Professor did 
 not see the full bearing of what he wrote. We 
 have before stated the fact that he was not ?l pro- 
 found thinker ; he was more specious than sa- 
 gacious ; and this opinion we have confirmed, by
 
 44 MEMOIR OF 
 
 the testimony of some of his own brethren in the 
 church. His opponents, the Unitarian, review- 
 ers, charged him with uttering- many contradic- 
 tions. As for instance, in treating of the princi- 
 ples of interpretation propounded by Dr. Chan- 
 ning. Prof. Stuart commenced by objecting to 
 those principles altogether ; as he went on to re- 
 view them, he seemed to adopt them one by one, 
 or at least to see but little objection to them ; but 
 at last, he excites the wonder of his reader by 
 saying, that the adoption of such principles will 
 eventually lead to the conclusion that the Bible 
 is not of divine origin ! " We think (says the 
 Unitarian reviewer) we never witnessed so com- 
 plete a revolution of opinion, within the compass 
 of two hundred pages. The wheel has come full 
 circle. ^^^ 
 Mr. Balfour Mr. Balfour, of course, read Prof. 
 
 thrown 
 
 into doubt. Stuart's Letters to Mr. Channing, for 
 he was accustomed to read almost every thing, 
 especi;illy on dogmatical theology. Pie was a 
 firm believer in the doctrine of endless misery, 
 of which he had never had a doubt in his life. 
 If he regarded any thing as beyond all doubt, it 
 was that doctrine. He htxd a high regard, a great 
 
 * See Christian Disciple, for July and August, 1819, 
 p. 322-
 
 REV. AVALTER BALFOUR. 45 
 
 respect for Prof. Stuart, as a man of learning, 
 eminent in the midst of the churches, to whom 
 any of his brethren might look with propriety for 
 knowledge, and for assistance 'in solving difficult 
 matters. He seized his Letters at once, and read 
 them with great avidity. When he came to the 
 passage w^e have quoted above, his faith was 
 staggered. He was thrown into amazement ! 
 What could it mean ? Prof. Stuart certainly did 
 not intend to teach the doctrine of Universalism ; 
 and yet there seemed to Mr. Balfour to be no 
 way to controvert the statem.ents, nor to receive 
 them, unless he should also receive the doctrine 
 of Universalism, which he had so long regarded 
 as a great error. He expressed his own feelings 
 on this subject in the following language : 
 
 " Until the year 1819, a serious thought never oc- 
 cupied my mind, that the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment might be false. In the belief of this doctrine I 
 had been educated fiorn my childhood. The books I 
 read ; the preaching I heard ; and all my religious in- 
 tercourse ; tended to deepen my early impressions, 
 that it was scriptural. Believing it to be so, 1 had 
 preached it for several years both in Scotland and 
 America. In the course of my reading, I had perused 
 several books on the subject of universal restoration, 
 but they only tended to confirm me in the belief, that 
 endless punishment was true, and that reformation in 
 hell arid salvation from it, could not be established 
 from the Bible, i deemed Universalism a great error, 
 sometimes discussed the subject with Universalists and 
 always thought I had the best of the argument.
 
 46 MEMOIR OF 
 
 " The first thing which staggered my faith in the 
 doctrine of endless punishment, was reading that par- 
 agraph of Prof. Stuart's letters to Dr. Channing quo- 
 ted in my first letter. His statements, I was unable 
 to controvert, and the texts on which they were found- 
 ed, seemed to support them." 
 
 Mr. Balfour As Prof. Stuart had been the cause 
 Prof, "^stuart. of Mr. Balfoui's doubts, the latter be- 
 lieved it was his right to ask him how he would 
 reconcile his statements with his professed be- 
 lief in the doctrine of endless misery. Although 
 Mr. Balfour could see no,way in which this could 
 be done, he still supposed that the Professor must 
 have some way in which he could do it. It was 
 not as a Universalist, but as an inquirer, a doubt- 
 er, that Mr. B. went to him. He went almost 
 in a state of alarm ; he felt still that Universal- 
 ism was a great error ; he felt somewhat as a 
 man would who had been drawn to the edge of a 
 frightful precipice, and left there, alarmed and 
 dizzy, without seeing any way by which he might 
 retrace his steps. Although he was not afraid 
 of truth, he was afraid of Universalism ; he be- 
 lieved it a snare of the devil, and he was afraid 
 he should fall into it. He believed that the Pro- 
 fessor would come to his help. Still, it will be 
 seen from Mr. Balfour's whole character, that if 
 Universalism were really true, he would desire
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 47 
 
 to know it. He felt perhaps there was some 
 danger that he might be deluded merely by error 
 seeming to be truth. He determined therefore, 
 to address the Professor an epistle, which he did 
 in the following terms : 
 
 TO MOSES STUART, 
 
 Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in Theological 
 Ssminary^ at Andover, Mass. 
 
 Sir, — I have read your letters to Mr. Channing. 
 It is not my object to interfere in the coniroversy be- 
 tween you, but to call your attention to one thing in 
 them, which is not likely to be noticed by ycur oppo- 
 nents, but which struck my mind with great force 
 while reading them. As the paragraph is not very 
 long on which I wish to remark, I shall quote it. In 
 your third edition, proving that divine honors and 
 worship are ascribed to Christ, you have the following 
 quotations from Scripture, and observations : 
 
 " Phillip, ii : 10, II—' That at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
 things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that 
 every tongue sliould confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, 
 to the glory of God the Father.' Things in heaven, 
 earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis 
 of the Hebrew and New Testament writers for the 
 Universe ; (ta pan or ta panta.) What can be meant 
 by things in heaven, i. e., beings in heaven, bowing 
 the knee to Jesus, if spiritual worship be not meant? 
 What other worship can heaven render? And if the 
 worship of Christ in heaven be spiritual; should not 
 that of others, who ought to be in temper united with 
 them, be spiritual also? Rev. v: 8 — 14, 'x^nd when 
 he (i. e Christ, see ver. 6, 7,) took the book, the four 
 beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the 
 Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden
 
 48 ME3I0IR OF 
 
 vials full of odors, which are the prayers of the saints. 
 And they sung a new song, saying, thou art worthy 
 to take the hook, and to open the seals thereof : ior 
 thou wast slain and hast redeemed us to God by ihy 
 blood, out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, 
 and nation ; and hast made us unto our God kings 
 and priests ; and we shall reign on the earth. And 
 1 beheld and heard the voice of many angels round 
 about the throne and the beasts and the elders; and 
 the number of them was ten thousand times ten thou- 
 sand, and thousands of thousands ; saying with a loud 
 voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to receive 
 power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and 
 honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature 
 which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the 
 earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in 
 them, heard I saying, blessing, and honor, and glory, 
 and power, be unto him that sitieth upon the tlirone, 
 and unto the Lamb forever and ever. And the four 
 beasts said Amen. And the four and twenty elders 
 fell down and worshipped him that liveth forever and 
 ever.' If this be not spiritual worship — and if Christ 
 be not the object of it here. I am unable to produce a 
 case where worship can be called spiritual and divine." 
 Such, Sir, are the Scriptures you have quoted, and 
 such are the comments you have given, and this is 
 the paragraph, which arrested my attention. Upon 
 reading it, the followinji ideas rushed into my mind 
 with much violence : " Things in heaven, earth, and 
 under the earth is a periphrasis for the universe ; this 
 universe worships Christ with spiritual and divine 
 worship, and yet INIr. Stuart believes that many in 
 this very universe are to be punislied in hell for ever. 
 1 paused, and concluded, that I certainly must havt 
 read or understood you wrong. I returned, and read 
 with careful attention, the whole division of your sub- 
 ject, in which the above quotation occurs, but found 
 to my surprise I had not. After repeated perusals of
 
 REV. WALTER BALEOUR. 49 
 
 it, and after much reflection upon it, I am constrained 
 to think that you either are, or ought to be, a Univer- 
 salist. Sure I am, that nothing which 1 have ever 
 read or heard, in so few words, so conclusively estab- 
 lishes the doctrine of universal salvation. Having re- 
 ceived the impression, from reading your letters, that 
 you are a candid, honest man, it has led me thus to 
 address you. I cannot suffer myself to think that you 
 secretly believe all will finally be saved, and publicly 
 profess to believe a different doctrine. I have conclu- 
 ded that this passage of your letters must have been 
 inadvertantly written, or you must have some way of 
 getting rid of difficulties from the texts you have quo- 
 ted, and your comments, of which I candidly confess 
 my ignoranca. The object of this correspondence is 
 to state what has occurred to me, and to request fur- 
 ther information from you on this subject. 
 
 I am unable to controvert what you say, that, 
 "things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a 
 common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testa- 
 ment writers, for the universa," My present degree 
 of knowledge leads me to think that this statement is 
 correct. If it be not, I should be glad to see the evi- 
 dence by which it is disproved. Neither can I, nor 
 am I disposed to dispute that the worship spoken of 
 in the texts quoted by you, is spiritual worship. So 
 sure you are of this, that you say, " if this be not 
 spiritual worship, I am unable to produce a case where 
 worship can be called spiritual and divine." Now, 
 my dear sir, if it be true that things in heaven, earth, 
 and under the earth, is a common periphrasis for the 
 universe; and if it also be true that this worship is 
 spiritual and divine, you certainly have told us that 
 the universe is to worship Christ with spiritual and 
 divine worship. The worship is spiritual and divine, 
 and the universe are the worshippers. Are we able 
 to avoid this I The mind must be diffarently construct- 
 ed from mine that can avoid it. Is it, or can it be 
 4
 
 50 MEMOIR OF 
 
 believed by any any one, that any beings in the uni- 
 verse who worship Christ thus shall be punished for- 
 ever? I am sure I never had any such idea ; and I 
 have always understood that it was on account of per- 
 sons not worshipping Christ in this way that they 
 were punished. You certainly cannot think that the 
 punishment of the wicked forever, is in whole or in 
 part to consist, in rendering to Christ spiritual and 
 divine worship. If this be punishment, what is hap- 
 piness] If this be hell, what is heaven? 
 
 It is pretty evident to me from these texts which 
 you have quoted, and the explanations you have given, 
 that the universe is to worship Christ with spiritual 
 and divine worship. Notwithstanding this, I presume 
 you profess to believe that some, if not many in this 
 universe, are to be forever miserable. How to recon- 
 cile these things, has been a subject of consideration 
 with me. After turning and looking to these things 
 on all sides, I am unable to devise how you can recon- 
 cile them to your own mind, but in ^ne or the other 
 of the three following ways. But as each of these 
 ways present to me some difficulties, 1 shall state 
 them, hoping that you will assist me, if possible, to 
 remove them. But this must be the matter of another 
 communication.* 
 
 I am yours, respectfully, 
 
 An Inquirer after Truth. 
 
 ♦♦'Rev. Walter Balfour's Letters to Professor Stuart are 
 most able and instructive papers. They are out of print 
 now, but should be in a form to be obtained by all inquir- 
 ers after truth. Br. Whittemore proposes to publish a 
 Memoir of Br, Balfour, and we hope these Letters will 
 be introduced into that work, for extensive circulation 
 and permanent preservation." See * Christian Freeman ' 
 of January 16, 1852. For the first published copy of 
 this letter, see " Universalist Magazine ' of January 29th, 
 1820,
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 51 
 
 Mr. Balfour chose, as the me- The paperinwhicii 
 
 ... the letters were 
 
 dium of the communication be- published, 
 tween himself and the Professor, " The Uni- 
 Yersalist Magazine." This was a small quar- 
 to sheet, of four pages, which had been com- 
 menced in the summer of 1819. Henry Bowen 
 was the publisher, and Rev. Hosea Ballou 
 the editor. With neither of these individuals 
 had Mr. Balfour any acquaintance, nor had 
 they ever seen him. In fact the authorship of 
 the letters was totally unknown to them, or to 
 any one else except the writer of them. He 
 chose the " Magazine," because probably he 
 doubted, whether any other religious paper would 
 be open to such communications; and from the 
 nature of the letters, he had no doubt they would 
 be admitted to the Magazine. Copies of the 
 papers containing them were sent to the Profes- 
 sor, who undoubtedly received them and read 
 them, but he gave no answer. It is a subject 
 worthy of a very serious inquiry, whether he 
 could give an answer consistently with his duty 
 to defend the specific creed of the Institution 
 with which he was connected. There were three 
 letters in the first series. We proceed to give 
 the remaining two : 
 
 4#
 
 52 MEMOIR OF 
 
 TO MOSES STUART, 
 
 Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in Theological 
 Seminary at Andover. No. ii. 
 
 Sir, — 1 staled to you in my last communication, 
 that there were only three ways which had occurred 
 to me, by which you could make the everlasting pun- 
 ishment of the wicked, consistent with the quotation 
 I made from your letters. As each of these ways, 
 presents difficulties to my mind, I shall proceed to a 
 statement of them, relying on you for some explana- 
 tion. 
 
 1st. It occurred to me, that you might believe the 
 universe, would render spiritual and divine worship to 
 Christ, yet hold the doctrine of the eternal punishment 
 of the wicked, by saying, that, " the place of their 
 punishment was without the hounds of the universe." 
 Admitting this to be your view, I admit your state- 
 ments to be consistent with your belief in the eternal 
 punishment of the wicked. My mind, however, 
 asks, " Is this true ' " Do not you think that this is 
 a very fanciful idea? If you indeed suppose that the 
 place where the wicked are to be punished is without 
 the bounds of the universe, please inform us in whose 
 dominions this place is? But as I do not believe you 
 capable of entertaining such a foolish idea, I pass 
 this, and notice, 
 
 Sd. That it further occurred to me you might at- 
 tempt to extricate yourself from the difficulties in 
 which the paragraph quoted involves you, in the fol- 
 lowing manner. In commenting on the passage quo- 
 ted from Phillipians, you say, Christ " is the proper 
 object of universal adoration." Did you mean by 
 this to inform us that Christ was the proper object of 
 universal adoration, but that he was not universally 
 adored? If so, I can easily understand how you hold 
 to the everlasting punishment of some, but then [ am 
 unable to reconcile this with the comments which you
 
 REV. WALTER FBAFOUR. 53 
 
 have given in the paragraph of your letters on vi-hich 
 I am remarking. Remember, sir, you have told us 
 that " things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, 
 is a common periphrasis for the universe." Besides, 
 the texts quoted, and your comments upon them, seem 
 to prove that this very universe renders spiritual and 
 divine worship to Christ. Should this seem the least 
 doubtful from the text in PhilUpians, all doubt seems 
 to be removed by the one you quote from Revelation. 
 Notice its language, sir, " And every creature which 
 is m heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, 
 and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them 
 heard I saying, blessing and honor, &c." Observe, 
 also, your own language in commenting on this pas- 
 sage. Do you speak of Christ being only " the prop- 
 er object of universal adoration, but not universally 
 adored?" No, you say, " if this be not spiritual 
 worship, I am unable to produce a case where worship 
 can bs called spiritual and divine." Joim's language 
 does not, and your comment on it does not deny, but 
 as the worship is divine, the universe are the worship- 
 pers. On the contrary, have you not said, " things 
 in heaven, earth, and under the earth, is a periphrasis 
 of the Hebrew and New Testament writers for the 
 universe." If this indeed be true, and you are confi- 
 dent that the worship rendered by this universe is 
 spiritual and diyine, where do you find your subjects 
 for everlasting punishment, unless among sjnritnal 
 and divine worshippers of Christ? Are any of them 
 to b3 the subjects of this? As I am confident you do 
 not believe any such thing, suffer me to appeal to your 
 candor, if there is not a difficulty, which requires your 
 consideration here, and which 1 hope you will con- 
 descend to resolve. You are a man of too much mind 
 not to perceive the difficulty, and my opinion of you 
 is, that you are possessed of sufficient humility to say 
 something by way of explanation. 
 
 3d. But it occurred to me that vou reconcilsd the
 
 54 MEMOIR OF 
 
 paragraph on which I am rrmarking, with your beliet 
 of endless punishment, by explaining the universal 
 langjiage of Paul and John in the texts in a restricted 
 senso. Presuming that this is the mode you take of 
 extricating yourself, my desire is to see you do it 
 honorably. The difficulties which have presented 
 themselves to me on this mode of interpretation, will 
 be best presented to you by considering the two pas- 
 sages which you quote, in order. 
 
 Jn Phillip, ii : 10, 11, the word ^'ery is found 
 twice : " that at the name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus 
 Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Let 
 us then understand the word every here, as not mean- 
 ing all or every individual, but only some, and see how 
 it will suit. '• That at the name of Jesus some knees 
 should bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
 and things under the earth ; and that some tongues 
 should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory 
 of God the Father." According to this way of un- 
 derstanding the word every, only some knees in heaven 
 bow to Christ, and some tongues confess that he is 
 Lord. But is this true? Are there any such as bow 
 not to, or confess not Christ in heaven? This inter- 
 pretation of the word every, however well it might 
 suit, when applied to persons on earth, and under the 
 earth, it will not do when applied lo persons in heaven. 
 Are vve then in this passage to understand the word 
 as meaning all or every individual in heaven, and only 
 some on the earth? I'iiis would be understanding the 
 word every, in two different senses m the course of 
 one sentence The word every is not repeated, but 
 ought to be understood as repeated, after every thing 
 spoken of in the passage, thus, '' that at the name of 
 Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
 and that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow 
 of things on earth, and that at the name of Jesus 
 every knee should bow of things under the earth."
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 55 
 
 And the apostle adds, as including all he had just 
 mentioned, "And that every tonjjue should confess 
 thai Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Fa- 
 ther." But in this way of understanding the word 
 every, the passage must read thus, " That at the name 
 of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
 and at the name of Jesus some knees should bow, of 
 things in earth, and that at the name of Jesus some 
 knees should bow of things under the earth." But, 
 supposing that all this was very good, how are we to 
 dispose of the next part of the sentence in which the 
 word every occurs? " And that every tongue should 
 confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, &c." In what 
 sense are we to understand the word every, here"^ 
 Does it mean some or every individual ? If only some, 
 it must refer to, and be restricted by, the things on ., 
 earth, and under the earth. If it means all or every 0'- 
 individual, it is only applicable to the things in heaven. 
 Now, my dear sir, in which of these senses are \(e to 
 understand it'' If the word every is not to be under- 
 stood as meaning every individual uniformly through- 
 out the whole passage, be pleased to refer to some 
 other parallel texts, in which the word every must 
 evidently be understood in two such different senses in 
 the course of one sentence. 
 
 But perhaps you may say, " have I not explained 
 things in heaven, earth, and under the earth, to be a 
 common periphrasis of the Hebrew and New Testa- 
 ment writers for the universe," collectively taken, and 
 not in this way of separating its parts. Yes, vou 
 have, and to this very thing I wish to call your atten- 
 tion. Let us, then, see how it will do to understand 
 the word every as only meaning some in the universe. 
 It is a plain case, and stands thus: You make the 
 apostle gravely tell us, " some in the universe shall 
 bow the knee to Jesus, and some in the universe shall 
 confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Fa- 
 ther." Da you think that this was all the apostle
 
 56 MEMOIR OF 
 
 meant to express in the passage? Is this then all the 
 Saviour's reward for his humiliation, sufferings and 
 death, recorded in the preceding verses? Is this in- 
 deed all for which God hath highly exalted him, and 
 given him a name ahove every name, that some knees 
 should bow to him in the universe, and some tongues 
 confess ihat he is Lord ? Jf we thus modify, and ex- 
 plain away the word every, it is all the apostle did 
 express, and this is all the reward of Jesus' work. 
 It will not mend the matter much, if instead of the 
 word some^ we should substitute the word many. The 
 difficulty still presses, where it most needs to be re- 
 lieved. Let us see if it does not. " That at the name 
 of Jesus, many knees should bow of things in heav- 
 en," &c. You may easily perceive that it still makes 
 the apostle say that there are in heaven some knecB 
 which do not bow to Christ, and some tongues that do 
 not confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the 
 Father. Understanding it of the universe collectively, 
 it makes the apostle say, that, " ;/?wj?/ knees shall 
 bow to Christ, and many tongues in the universe lihall 
 confess that he is Lord to the glory of God the Fa- 
 ther ; " but T doubt if this is the full amount of the 
 apostle's meaning. If you think it is, 1 will thank 
 you to make this clearly appear. The things which 
 lead me to doubt, 1 shall briefly state that you may 
 accommodate your reply accordingly. 
 
 The word "every" appears to me to apply equally to 
 every thing mentioned in the passage. It seems to 
 me to be an arbitrary mode of interpretation, to make 
 it mean evfry individual in heaven, and ordy some or 
 many on earth and under the earth. Besides, I would 
 submit it to your superior judgment whether the apos- 
 tle does not, in the conclusion of the passage, encour- 
 age us to take the most extensive view of what he 
 says in the beginning of it. After saying, " Ihat at 
 the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things 
 in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 57 
 
 earth," instead of qualifying these genera] or univer- 
 sal expressions, he adds, " And that every tongue 
 should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory 
 of God the Father." But further, what bears weight 
 in my mind most, is, the connexion in which the pas- 
 sage stands, and the design of the apostle in intro- 
 ducing it. This is so obvious that I need tiot point it 
 out. J would only say, it seems most natural to me 
 that the apostle, in showing the exalted condition of 
 the Saviour, instead of using language which needed 
 to be qualified, would use language which ought to be 
 understood in its most unlimited sense. I may add, 
 and which has some weight with me, that in the verse 
 preceding the passage under consideration, the apostle 
 uses the word eccry, as 1 think cannot he doubted 
 must be understood in its most extensive sense. It 
 runs thus, " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted 
 him, and given him a name which is above every 
 name." Must we change the word every into so7ne 
 or many immediately, for the apostle adds, with the 
 very next breath, " That at the name of Jesus every 
 knee should bow," &c. Must not the every knee 
 that shall bow to him, and the every tongue that shall 
 confess that he is Lord, be as extensively understood 
 as the every name he is above ? 
 
 As I have not the talent of saying much in few 
 words, I must reserve the remainder of my remarks 
 for one more communication. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, An Inquirer after Truth.* 
 
 The editor of the " Universalist coniuctofthe 
 
 . iditorofthe 
 
 Magazine," entered not at all into iiasizine. 
 the subject matter, pending between Prof. Stuart 
 and the unknown " Inquirer after Truth." No 
 one bat Mr. Balfour himself knew who was the 
 
 *See " Universalist Magazine " of Feb. 19, 1820.
 
 58 MEMOIR OF 
 
 author of these letters. That he was a learned 
 man, was evident. He was not a Universalist, 
 unless he misrepresented his own faith ; he was 
 merely in doubt ; and he was earnestly seeking 
 to know the truth. The editor of the •• Maga- 
 zine" did not therefore interfere, at this early 
 stage, even with a single suggestion or remark. 
 He left the field of inquiry wholly to the unknown 
 writer. The Professor could not therefore com- 
 plain that he was about to encounter a band of 
 Universalists. He had but one man to deal with, 
 whose name, it is true, was not known ; but who 
 was evidently an honest and fearless " Inquirer 
 after truth." The second letter brought no re- 
 ply, when the Inquirer issued the third. 
 
 TO MCSES STUART, 
 
 Associate Professor of Sacred Literature in Theological 
 Seminary, at Andover. No. iii. 
 Sir, — The second text in the paragraph quoted 
 from your letters to Mr. Channing, and on which I 
 wish to make my remarks, is Rev. v : 8 — 14. To this 
 text and your comments on it I shall now turn your 
 attention. Having quoted at length the above passage 
 in my first letter, I shall here only transcribe ver. 13 : 
 *' And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
 earth, and under the earth, and such as are in ihe sea, 
 and all that are in ihem, heard I saying, blessing, and 
 honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth 
 upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever." 
 Let it not be forgotten, sir, that you have told us in 
 *the paragraph quoted from your letters in my first
 
 RRV. WALTER BALFOUR. 59 
 
 communicatioii, that " tilings i. e. beings in heaven, 
 earth, and under the earth, is a common periphrasis 
 for the universe." It cannot come within the range 
 of fair debate, that the same periphrasis is expressed 
 in this verse as in Phillipians ii : 10. the passage on 
 which you give us this comment. If there be any 
 difference it is, that in this verse the periphrasis is ex- 
 pressed more fully. Kor is any room left for us to 
 debate whether the worship mentioned in thispast:age 
 be spiiitual and divine. You express yourself clearly 
 and decidedly about this. You say, "If this be not 
 spiritual worship, and if Christ be not the object of it 
 here, 1 am unable to produce a case, where worship 
 can be called spiritual and divine." The point then to 
 be examined is, how are we to understand the words 
 every and all which occur in this passage ? Under- 
 standing these words in a universal sense, you prove, 
 that every being in the universe shall worship Christ, 
 with spiritual and divine worship. What could a 
 Universalist wish you to prove more? But as you 
 profess your belief in the eternal punishment of many, 
 you must modify or explain the words every and all to 
 mean only some. Let us examine this matter and see 
 how these words ought to be understood. 
 
 1 think it will be frankly conceded, that if any diffi- 
 culties pressed in limiting the word every in the form- 
 er passage, the same difficulties press in limiting the 
 words every and all, here. Let us see how limiting 
 these words to some, would suit in this passage. 'Ajid 
 some creatures which are in heaven, and on the earth, 
 and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and 
 some that aie in them heard I saying, &c.' Are we 
 then to understand that some only in heaven are to 
 worship Je.*us? But, I presume here, as in the for- 
 mer passage, you would give the word every its most 
 extensive sense as it respects creatures in heaven, but 
 its limited sense as it respects those on earth and un- 
 der the earth. Having remarked on this arbitrary
 
 60 MEMOIR OF 
 
 mode of interpretation already, I pass this over. It 
 oiio-ht not to escape observation, that there seems to 
 be something said in this text, which forbids this mode 
 of interpreting the words every and all. It is this. 
 After John says, ' And every creature which is in 
 heaven, and on earih, and under the earth, and such 
 as are in the sea,' observe, sir, he adds, ' And all that 
 are in them.'' John does not say, ' and all that are in 
 t?,' refeiring to heaven ; no, but he says, ' and all that 
 are in them,^ referring to all the places he had men- 
 tioned, heaven, earth, under the earth, and in the sea. 
 Does this look like limiting the word every 1 or un- 
 derstanding both in a limited and universal sense the 
 word every in the very same sentence'? This phrase, 
 ' and all that are in them,' instead of modifying the 
 word every, seems to express with the more certainty 
 the universal sense in which it ought to be understood. 
 John, instead of qualifying what he had just said, rath- 
 er adds something to strengthen and confirm it. 
 
 But understanding the words every and a//, as only 
 meaning some, let us see what follows ! It makes 
 John inform us twice in the compass of one sentence 
 that some beings in the universe worship Christ. Does 
 John then use all this glowing language, for no other 
 purpose but to tell us twice, that some persons in the 
 universe are to worship him ? After specifying all 
 parts of the universe, after telling us every creature 
 in them, yea after adding, ' and all that are in them,' 
 are we only to understand, that some in heaven, earth, 
 and under the earth, and in the sea, shall render to 
 him spiritual and divine worship? It may be so, but 
 your candor will certainly allow, that John's languaoe 
 seems to convey somewhat of a different idea. In 
 your comments on this passage, you say nothing to 
 .shew, that the words every and all, ouffht to be re- 
 stricted to some in the universe. Your object in quot- 
 ing it did not lead you to say any thing about this. 
 You quoted it to prove that spiritual and divine wor-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 61 
 
 ship was rendered to Christ. But can we learn from 
 the text with more certainty, that Christ is worship- 
 ped at all, than we can from your comments, that the 
 universe are the worshippers 1 Is it more certain from 
 the text and your comment, that the worship is spirit- 
 ual and divine, than that every creature in heaven, on 
 earth, under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and 
 all that are in them perform it? May I not then re- 
 turn you your own comment on this passage, witn ihe 
 following addition to it : ' If this be not spiritual wor- 
 ship and if Christ be not the object of it here ; and also 
 every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and 
 under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all thai 
 are in them perform it, I am unable to produce a case 
 where worship can be called spiritual and divine, rtn<f 
 tchere the universe are said to be ic or shippers.'' The 
 words marked, you will easily perceive contain my 
 addition. I leave you to judge if it be not a very ne- 
 cessary addition to your comment, and equally sup- 
 ported by the passage. By what process of reason- 
 ing, and by what laws of interpretation can it be made 
 fairly out from this passage, that every creature in 
 heaven worships Christ, which is only one part of the 
 universe, and that on earth, under the eanh, and in 
 the sea, the other three parts of the same universe, 
 only some worship him. You are bound to explain 
 why you limit the words ei:ery and all applied to three 
 parts of this universe, and give them in the very same 
 passage an unlimited signification when applied to one 
 part of it. 
 
 I am aware, that it may be said by you and others, 
 ' Are there not many passages of scripture, which 
 speak of everlasting punishment to the wicked? and 
 what are these two which seem to speak of universal 
 salvation when laid in the balance with them?' 1 
 frankly admit this ; but must say, there must be some 
 way in which these opposite texts can be fairly recon- 
 ciled. About nothing am I more certain than this,
 
 62 MEMOIR OF 
 
 that one writer of scripture never contradicts another, 
 or himself, when we truly understand thenn. In your 
 letters to Mr. Channing, you have told us, that we are 
 not to adopt rules of interpretation for the purpose of 
 saving the consistency of the inspired writers ; that if 
 by the fair rules of exegesis apparent contradictions 
 cannot be reconciled, the credit of the writer must go 
 down. Suffer me also to remind you, that you have 
 also asserted in your letters that the truth of any doc- 
 trine, does not depend on the number of passages in 
 which it is taught. That a law once promulged, is 
 not rendered more true by its being many times re- 
 peated. Admitting all this, and I do not see how it 
 can be controverted, let us simply apply it to the case 
 before us. If universal salvation be taught in the two 
 passages on which I have been remarking, it is as 
 true as if it had been taught in a thousand. If there 
 be indeed a palpable contradiction between these, and 
 other texts, which speak of everlasting punishment to 
 the wicked, there is no way left but to give up the 
 credit of one or other of the writers. Persuaded as I 
 am, that this contradiction has its origin, not in the in- 
 spired writers, but in my ignorance of the scriptures, 
 I use all means to be better informed of their contents. 
 On this account I have taken the liberty to address 
 you for information, how you reconcile the paragraph 
 quoted from your letters, with your belief in the end- 
 less punishment of any being in the universe of God. 
 Certain I am, that you are in the possession of knowl- 
 edge I have not, consistently to reconcile these two 
 things — ' That the universe shall worship Christ with 
 spiritual and divine worship, yet many of the beings 
 in this universe be eternally miserable.' If you are 
 in possession of such information, be kind enough to 
 communicate it, and be assured, that it will meet with 
 profound attention from 
 
 Yours, respectfully, An Inquirer after Truth.* 
 
 *See ♦' Universalist Magazine," March 4th, 1820.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 63 
 
 Such were the first three Letters cause and object 
 
 . , , ... of the first 
 
 01 the unknown "Inquirer after three Letters. 
 Truth" to Prof. Stuart. They were written to 
 solicit from Prof. Stuart some explanation, as to 
 the manner in which he would reconcile his 
 statements with his avowed and pledged faith in 
 the doctrine of endless misery. The " Inquirer" 
 believed that the Professor was under obligation 
 to clear away his doubts. " As he had shaken 
 my faith in it, (he subsequently said,) I thought 
 I had some claim on him to say something to 
 re-establish it. 
 
 " The signature I assumed, ' An Inquirer af- 
 ter Truth,' though in one sense fictitious, was 
 in another real, for my letters were written in 
 sincerity. I was anxious to see where the truth 
 lay on this subject. And believing as I had done, 
 that Universalists were in a great error,! was also 
 desirous, that Prof. Stuart should so answer my 
 letters, as to convince them of it. It will be easily 
 perceived by the reader, that the three first letters 
 were only embraced in my original design."
 
 CHAP. IV. 
 
 PROF. STUART DECLINES TO ANSWER THE LETTERS 
 OF INQUIRER AFTER TRUTH. 
 
 The Professor It cannot be forgotten, by the read- 
 bound to support ' • 1 1 
 
 tua Creed. eF, after what we have said, that 
 Prof. Stuart was bound to support the Creed of 
 the Andover Institution. We know not what 
 rules of interpretation, what principles of latitu- 
 dinarianism the professors have prescribed to 
 themselves in the interpretation of that formula ; 
 but one thing is certain, they were bound to sup- 
 port the Creed, however they might interpret it, 
 " in opposition not only to Atheists and Infidels., 
 but to Jews, Papists, Mahometans, Arians, So- 
 cinians, Sabellians, Unitarians and Universalists, 
 and to all heresies and errors, ancient and modern, 
 which may be opposed to the gospel of Christ, or 
 hazardous to the souls of men." In view of this 
 ■fact, we see, in the first place, that Prof. Stuart 
 could make no concessions to Universalism, even 
 if he felt in conscience bound to do so, without
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 65 
 
 incurring the risk of losing his professorship. 
 He had pledged himself to oppose Universalism; 
 he held his place on that condition ; and he could 
 not therefore do any thing intentionally, even if 
 he might do so conscienciously, to favor that doc- 
 trine. Again, being bound to oppose it, he had 
 a very strong reason why he should reply to the 
 "Inquirer after Truth," and refute his arguments, 
 if he felt that it was in his power to do so. While 
 it would be the effect of his subscription to the 
 creed, to prevent his making concessions in favor 
 of Universalism, it would also naturally spur 
 him on to oppose that doctrine, if he felt confi- 
 dence in the arguments which he might bring 
 forward for such a purpose. How then are we 
 to interpret his silence, except upon the presump- 
 tion, that he felt that it would be difficult to de- 
 fend the paragraph in his letter to Dr. Channing, 
 in a way that would harmonize with his own 
 creed and satisfy an honest inquirer after truth. 
 It was evidently then, the safest and easiest for 
 Prof. Stuart, to treat the unknown " Inquirer" as 
 a writer of mere newspaper articles, and thus as 
 unworthy of his attention. 
 
 The •♦ Inquirer," at first, felt but lit- 
 
 ■"■ Inqu rer ur^ea 
 
 tie doubt that Prof. Stuart had some ^ "^^y- 
 way in which he woul dreconcile his statements 
 5
 
 66 MEMOIR OF 
 
 with the doctrine of endless misery. He expect- 
 ed daily some communication from him, through 
 the press, on this subject ; but he was doomed to 
 disappointment. Four months passed and noth- 
 ing came. He then adopted one more method, 
 viz. to address a letter to the Professor by mail, 
 that he might be more certain it had reached him 
 and arrested his attention, than he could be, if 
 he depended on the medium of a public journaj. 
 He accordingly sent him the following epistle. 
 
 July 4, 1820. 
 Rev. Moses Stuart: 
 
 Sir, — Sometime ago I addressed several letters to 
 you through the medium of the " Universalist Maga- 
 zine." I requested the numbers to be sent to you in 
 which these letters appeared. No reply being made, 
 I began to doubt whether my request had been com- 
 plied with. To satisfy myself, I made the inquiry ; 
 and in the Magazine of July 1st, the editor informs 
 me that the numbers in which the above letters ap- 
 peared were certainly sent you. I may therefore con- 
 clude that you have seen these letters, though you 
 have not thought fit to say any thing to relieve my 
 mind from the difficulties which your book to !Mr. 
 Channing occasioned. 
 
 It is probable, upon reading my letters, that you 
 concluded they were written by a Universalist, and 
 w'ere intended to draw you into controversy with them. 
 I assure you that this was not the case. 1 never knew 
 what it was to be shaken in my iaith on this subject 
 until I read your book. The paragraph on v»hich I 
 took the liberty to remark, struck me wdih all the 
 force I mentioned. My letters were written in the
 
 TIEV. WALTER BALFOUR. 67 
 
 uprightness and integrity of my heart, and with an 
 unfeigned desire that you would, if possible, relieve 
 my mind from the perplexity which you had occa- 
 sioned. It is true that ray letters have the shape, in 
 some places, of one not writing to have doubts re- 
 movpd, but rather of one writing to defend sentiments 
 most surely believed. This was done with the ex- 
 press design that your reply might be shaped, not 
 merely to suit me, but to convince the Universalists. 
 If they be in an error, some means ought to be used 
 to convince them of it ; and no man seems more ca- 
 pable of doing it than yourself, and doing it in the 
 spirit of meekness. 
 
 My design in the present communication, is to beg 
 it as a favor that you would say something to relieve 
 the difficulties of my mind which I stated in my let- 
 ters. As your book has been the means of creating 
 them, I wish from my heart that you may be the means 
 of removing them. But as the paragraph on which 
 I remarked confirms the faith of Universalists, if you 
 deem them to be in error, the interest of truth de- 
 mands from you some explanation. For my sake, for 
 their sake, and above all for the sake of the truth, I 
 hope you will condescend to do this. I tremble to 
 embrace an error of any kind. If my heart does not 
 greatly deceive me, I sincerely desire to know and 
 obey whatever God has revealed in the Scriptures. 
 Had I been the means of shaking your faith on any 
 subject as you have done mine, I would render you 
 every assistance in my power. This assistance I 
 earnestly request of you. I am fully aware that from 
 your professional and other duties, you cannot spare 
 time to write largely on this subject. I make no such 
 demand. All I wish you to do is, in a brief way to 
 afford me a clue whereby 1 may be led out of the dif- 
 ficulties which I have stated in my letters. I simply 
 wish you to state by what fair rule of interpretation 
 I can understand the Scriptures and your comments 
 
 5=^
 
 68 MEMOIR OF 
 
 on them differently, which occasioned my remarks. 
 
 Since 1 finished my letters to you, I have been ex- 
 amining the places in which ta panta occur, which 
 you say means the universe. It vvill be an additional 
 favor conferred on me if you could so shape your an- 
 swer as to relieve similar difficulties arising from the 
 following texts in which ta panta is found : 1 Cor. 
 XV : 24—29 ; Col. i : 16—21 ; Heb. ii : 6—10 ; Eph. 
 i: 10; Phillip iii : 21, &c. &c. 
 
 Any reply to my letters which you may be pleased 
 to make, 1 presume will be admitted into the Univer- 
 salist Magazine, the editor of which, instead of avoid- 
 ing, rather invites discussion. My only reason for not 
 giving my name, is, it would be Ibolish to afford peo- 
 ple occasion of saying I had embraced the doctrine of 
 Universal Salvation, when I am only using every 
 proper means to avoid it. There is no danger of my 
 doing so, if you can slate evidence that the views ad- 
 vanced in your letters are consistent with the opposite 
 doctrine. If you cannot do this, how can we avoid 
 being Universalistsl 
 
 I have only to add that I esteem your talents and 
 character, and sincerely hope my esteem will be 
 increased by your gratifying my wishes in this com- 
 munication. 
 
 I am yours, as formerly, &c., 
 
 Am Inquirer after Truth.* 
 
 This was an honest, straieht-for- 
 
 Character of ' O 
 
 ti.a appeal. ^^^ J ^ candid appeal. The "Inquir- 
 er " assures the Professor that he had no desire 
 t© draw him into a controversy ; that he was 
 seeking light and truth and not victory ; that 
 the letters were written in the uprightness and 
 integrity of his heart, with the only desire that 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine of Jan. 13th, 1821.*
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 69 
 
 the Professor would, if possible, re-establish his 
 faith in the doctrine he had always been accus- 
 tomed to believe. If his letters sometimes bore 
 marks as if written by a Universalist, they were 
 so framed only that the Professor's answer 
 might satisfy the Universalists at large as well as 
 himself. He then begs, as a favor, that the Pro- 
 fessor will say something to relieve him from 
 his difficulties. This he felt the Professor was 
 bound to do. Your book (said the Inquirer) 
 has been the means of creating the difficulties 
 in my mind : " I wish from my heart that you 
 may be the means of removing them." He tells 
 the Professor he ought to do this for the sake of 
 Universalists, as well as for the sake of himself. 
 He does not call for much of the Professor's 
 time. If the Professor could not write many 
 letters, write one. If he could not write a long 
 article, write a short one. " All I wish you to 
 do is, in a brief way to afford me a clue, where- 
 by I may be led out of the difficulties which I 
 have stated in my letters." But all this was of 
 no avail ; Professor Stuart made no reply. He 
 had plunged the Inquirer into doubt, and there 
 he left him. 
 
 The Inquirer waited five months to in^^^rer waits 
 get a reply to the preceding candid ^'^^^^^f^^-
 
 70 MEMOIR OF 
 
 and earnest appeal; but he waited in vain. He 
 then determined on the publication of his pri- 
 vate letter to Professor Stuart, which he sent to 
 the editor of the Magazine for that purpose, in- 
 timating that he was not ashamed to persevere 
 in his inquiries after truth. He had, during the 
 Professor's silence, given his Letters to Chan- 
 ning a re-perusal ; and this would lead to a few 
 more letters, which he should publish. He had 
 nearly abandoned the hopes before cherished 
 tliat he should get any light from the Professor, 
 and he most sincerely requested any other per- 
 son to grant him the favor which the Professor 
 declined to give, and save him from error, if he 
 were in danger of going into it. "I shall," said 
 he, " esteem the m.an who does this my best 
 friend." 
 
 iBquir.r . rit.s ^"^ light camc. The Inquirer de- 
 a fifth Leuer. ^epj^^i^ed to pursuc ihis sLibject faith- 
 fully. If Universalism was the truth, (contrary 
 to all his former expectations and faith,) he was 
 determined to know it. He sought the truth on- 
 ly, and above all things the true sense of the 
 word of God. His subsequent letters were oc- 
 casioned by observing things in Professor Stu- 
 art's book which he had not seen at first, and by 
 his own investigations of the meaning of certain
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 71 
 
 Greek phrases.^^ His doubts of the truth of the 
 doctrine of endless misery became more and 
 more increased. The Inquirer commenced his 
 
 fifth letter as follows : 
 
 ♦ 
 
 February 3, 1821. 
 Dear Sir, — It is with great reluctance that 1 again 
 address you. I fondly hoped that you would have 
 answered my former letters, and removed my difficul- 
 ties. This you have not condescended to do. Since 
 I finished these letters, I have thought considerable on 
 the subject of them. 1 have also given your letters a 
 
 *"The others were occasioned by observing other things 
 in Prof. Stuart's book, and my own investigations of 
 some Greek phrases which he had explained. In investi- 
 gating the scriptural sense of these phrases, my doubts 
 were increased as to the truth of the doctrine of endless 
 punishment This made me still more anxious that he 
 should come forward with some explanation. 
 
 The last of the three first letters was published in the 
 Magazine for March 4th, 1820, to which Mr. Stuart made 
 no reply whatever. After waiting until the 4th of July 
 for some explanation on the subject, I wrote him by mail, 
 urging him to do this. After waiting several months, 
 and still no reply being made, I sent the copy of this let- 
 ter to the editor of the Magazine for publication. The 
 remaining letters of the whole series soon followed, as 
 their dates show. At last Mr. Stuart condescended to 
 write a brief note, declining all compliance with my ur- 
 gent requests for an explanation. This note will be giv- 
 en in its proper place. The reader can judge whether 
 his professed reasons for declining all explanation are sat- 
 isfactory. In his letter he blames me for not giving my 
 real name, and seeking a private interview with him for 
 my own satisfaction. My reasons for declining this are 
 given in the letters, and of them the reader can also 
 judge."
 
 72 MEMOIR OF 
 
 second perusal ; but instead of my difficulties being di- 
 minished, they have increased. Permit me in as brief 
 a way as possible to state these, still hoping that you 
 or some one else will condescend satisfactorily to re- 
 move them. 
 
 # 
 The..co.cniauon The Iiiquirer then proceeds to 
 
 of an things. ^^^j^g ^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^ p^^|.^ g^^^^^ 
 
 had repeatedly asserted that ta panta signified 
 the entire Universe which God had created. He 
 then consulted those places in the Scriptures, in 
 which that phrase occurs. And first, Col. i. 15 — 
 17 — '* Who is the image of the invisible God, 
 the first-born of every creature ; for by him were 
 all things (ta panta, the universe) created, that 
 are in heaven, and that are on earth, visible 
 or invisible, whether they be thrones, or domin- 
 ions, or principalities, or powers; all things (ta 
 panta, the universe) were created by him, and 
 for him. And he is before all things (panton) 
 and by him all things (ta panta, the universe) 
 consist. And he is the head of the body, the 
 church; who is the beginning, the first-born 
 from the dead; that in all things (pason) he 
 might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased 
 the Father that in him should all (pan) fulness 
 dwell ; and having made peace through the 
 blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things 
 (ta panta, the universe) unto himself; by him I
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 73 
 
 say, whether they be things on earth, or things 
 in heaven." 
 
 The ground taken by the Inquirer in regard 
 to this verse, and defended at some length, was, 
 that it was the same universe which God had 
 created that is to be reconciled through and by 
 Jesus Christ. The same universe [ta panto) is 
 spoken of in both cases ; the phraseology is the 
 same, both in the Greek text and English ver- 
 sion ; and if the Professor held that all things in 
 the unlimited sense were created by Jesus Christ 
 [as God], then should we not conclude they 
 would be reconciled by him ? This argument 
 Prof. Stuart never did answer; and it is not pre- 
 sumptive to say, he never could have answered 
 it satisfactorily, without abandoning the creed 
 which he had bound himself to defend. The 
 Inquirer also referred him to Phillip ii., 10 — 
 " That at the name of Jesus every knee should 
 bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, 
 and things under the earth, and that every tongue 
 should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the 
 glory of God the Father." These phrases Prof. 
 Stuart had avowed were a periphrasis of the 
 New Testament writers for the universe, and the 
 inquirer showed that Dr. Campbell, in his Pre- 
 liminary Dissertations (Dis. vi., Part ii.. Sec. 6,]
 
 74 MEMOIR OF 
 
 explained them " to include the whole rational 
 creation." On this the " Inquirer " remarked : 
 
 *• What more pray remains to be reconciled or sub- 
 dued to God than the universe, the worlds material 
 and immaterial, or the whole rational creation? That 
 something in Scripture very like this is to be found, 
 has been shown in my foimer letters, from Phillip, ii : 
 10, 11, and Rev. v : 13. Your own concessions and 
 explanations of these two texts, and the one under 
 consideration, would lead one to think that you be- 
 lieved universal salvation to be a Scripture doctrine. 
 Certainly, nothing that I have ever seen from the 
 pen of a Universalist, is half so convincing to me as 
 what you and Dr. Campbell have conceded or said on 
 this subject." 
 
 Not fully a After pursuing and illustrating this 
 Universalist. argument at some considerable length, 
 the Inquirer drew his fifth letter to Prof. Stuart 
 to a close. He had not come to regard the Uni- 
 versalists with full favor. He rather felt that 
 the Professor had somewhat degraded himself 
 by thus becoming an auxiliary in building up 
 the doctrine of Universalism ; but still he had 
 too much honesty and love of truth to flinch 
 from his inquiries, even if they should lead him 
 to embrace that doctrine. 
 
 " To conclude this communication, 1 would observe 
 that it is vain for us to pretend that in the above re- 
 marks there is no force. I aver that no man capable 
 of reading them and of putting two ideas together,
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 75 
 
 can help feeling their force. 1 have freely confessed 
 the force they have on my mind ; and I call upon you 
 to show me ray error, if you are able, by reconciling 
 these statements with the idea of limited salvation. 
 Until you or some one else shall do this, I should sin- 
 fully abuse the faculties God has given me, and lie 
 with my lips to deny that, this passage has at least 
 the appearance of proving, that it pleased the Father 
 by Jesus Christ to reconcile the universe, or whole 
 rational creation to himself. If I am really mistaken, 
 one thing is certain, Dr. Campbell and yourself have 
 been the instruments of leading me into it, by your 
 becoming hewers of wood and drawers of water to 
 the Universalists. It will not be pretended that 1 have 
 misunderstood or misrepresented either of you. I 
 have only shown that the statements you have made 
 fairly involve the doctrine of the salvation of the uni- 
 verse, or whole rational creation. If you can show 
 their consistency with the contrary doctrine, no man 
 in the universe will be more obliged than yours,* 
 An Inquirer after Truth." 
 
 Sixth Letter. 
 In the sixth letter, the " Inquirer " still con- 
 tinues his effort to learn the Scriptural use of 
 the phrase ta panta. The next passage which 
 he brought forward was 1 Cor. xv : 24, 28 — 
 " Then Cometh the end, when he shall have de- 
 livered up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; 
 when he shall have put down all rule and all 
 authority and power. For he must reign till he 
 hath put all enemies under his feet. The last 
 
 *Universali3t Magazine — ii : 121, 122.
 
 76 MEMOIR OP 
 
 enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he 
 hath put all things under his feet. But when he 
 saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest 
 that he is excepted which did put all things {ta 
 panta, the universe) under him. And when all 
 things {ta panta, the universe) shall be subdued 
 unto him, then shall the Son also himself be sub- 
 ject unto him, that did put all things {ta panta^ 
 the universe) under him, that God may be all in 
 all." 
 The eubiection On this thc Inoulrer submits a 
 
 of all things 
 
 to Christ, series of very mterestmg remarks. 
 He sees here the proofs of the subjection of the 
 whole moral universe to Christ. He dwells on 
 the point at some length. 
 
 " This passage demands particular attention. 1 
 hope 1 shall he excused in being somewhat minute in 
 my examination of it. 
 
 Let it then be observed, Sir, that ' ta panta,* which 
 you say means ' the universe,^ occurs three times. To 
 you it is superfluous to add, that it also occurs several 
 times in a form equivalent to ta panta. Let us go over 
 in order the things mentioned in this passage. 
 
 It is said, ' Then cometh the end.' The question 
 naturally occurs here, — The end of what 1 I presume 
 it is generally allowed to be the end of Christ's reign. 
 If the question be asked, — His reign over what? The 
 answer from the passage plainly is, his reign over the 
 kingdom which he is to deliver up to God, even the 
 Father. But let us ask again, — When shall the end 
 comel The passage answers: ' When he shall have
 
 REV. "WALTER BALFOUR. 77 
 
 delivered up the kingdom to God even the Father.' 
 But let us ask again, — What is to be accomplished by 
 Christ before this end comes ? The passage answers : 
 The kingdom shall not be delivered up, and the end 
 come, until ' he shall have put down all rule, and all 
 authority and power; for he must reign, till he hath 
 put all enemies under his feet.' And of these ene- 
 mies the last to be destroyed ' is death.' But the 
 apostle proceeds, * for he hath put all things under his 
 feet.' It is necessary to notice here what the snme 
 apostle says, Heb. ii. 8 — 9, 'But now we see not yet 
 all things {ta parUathe universe) put under him ; but 
 w^e see Jesus who was made a little lower (for a little 
 time lower) than the angels, crowned with glory and 
 honor,' &c. Compare Phillip, ii. 9, 10, 11. It is 
 true even m our day, that wc see not yet all things 
 put under Christ, that is, actually subdued to him, yet 
 we know that he is exalted for this purpose, and the 
 apostle assures us, that — ' he must reign till he hath 
 put all enemies under his feet.' Ta panta, the uni- 
 verse was put under him by the Father to be subdued, 
 and when this is fully accomplished, then shall the 
 Son also himself be subject unto him ihat put all 
 things under hrm, that God may be all in all. But 
 there are some things in the passage which demand a 
 distinct and more enlarged consideration " 
 
 The Inquirer then proceeds to notice the ex- 
 tent of the promised subjection to Christ. Ta 
 pania, according to the Professor, meant the uni- 
 verse ; it is the universe which Christ had crea- 
 ted. Can it be said that ta panta meant the 
 whole universe when Christ was said to create 
 it, and only a part when it was said he will bring 
 it into subjection ? " So long (said the Inquirer
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 to the Professor) as you maintain that ta panta 
 means the whole universe when Christ is said to 
 create it, so long you must expect the Universal- 
 ist to maintain that it means the whole universe 
 when he is said to subdue it." Again the In- 
 quirer laid down the following rule : 
 
 " When exceptions are made to a general subject, 
 all not excepted are allowed to be included. Observe 
 then, that there is one, and only oue exception made 
 b)' the apostle in the passage about tapanta, the uni- 
 verse, being subdued to Christ. This is God himself. 
 He says, ' But when he saith all things (ta panta, the 
 universe) are put under him, it is manifest that he is 
 excepted which did put all things under him.' Can 
 you prove that there are other exceptions^ Can you 
 refer us to other texts in which some more exceptions 
 are made 1 Be pleased to say in what other part of 
 the Bible they are to be found. But as if even this was 
 not enough, the apostle says, that Christ is, to ' put 
 down all rule and all authority and power.' Yea, 
 that ' he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under 
 his feet ;' and that ' the last enemy that shall be de- 
 stroyed is death.' Besides, to shew the ultimate and 
 complete nature of this subjection, the apostle says, 
 ' And when all thing's {ta panta, the universe) shall be 
 subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be 
 subject unto him that put all things undor him, that 
 God may be all in all. Will you be kind enough to 
 shew, what, after all ihis is done, yet remains in the 
 universe to be subdued 1 How shall all things, or the 
 universe, be subdued unto Christ, and yet a great part 
 of it still remain in rebellion 1 And how shall God be 
 all in all, if this be the truth? How is it. that the 
 last enemy which is to be destroyed is death, and yet 
 millions of the human race remain forever under
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 79 
 
 the power of the second death 1 Do, my dear Sir, 
 explain how the universe is to be subdued and put un- 
 der Christ's feet, and yet that the greater half of the 
 children of men are to remain in rebellion and misery 
 to the endless ages of eternity ?" 
 
 The subjection Having" thus requested the Pro- 
 of tne universe ... 
 
 is voluntary, fessor to noticG the important argu- 
 ments which had occurred to his mind, as above 
 described, the Inquirer proceeds to show, that this 
 universal subjection (or subjection of ta panta, 
 the universe) would be a loving and willing sub- 
 jection. 
 
 " The important question at issue here is, are we to 
 understand this subjection a forced or willing subjec- 
 tion 1 Is it constrained by force or fear, or is it the ef- 
 fect of love ? Does it consist in the universe being 
 subdued, yet rebels still at heart? or does it consist in 
 all being made loving and obedient subjects 1 I have 
 used some pains to examine this point with care and 
 impartiality, and shall lay before you the result of my 
 investigations. 
 
 *' 1st. Then, I attempted to understand the subjec- 
 tion mentioned, a constrained subjection, but could 
 find nothing m the meaning of the original word, or 
 circumstances mentioned, nor in the scope of the wri- 
 ter to suppoit this view. If any thing of this nature 
 is contained in the passage, it has escaped my observ- 
 ation. 2d. I next attempted to understand the sub- 
 jection, as partly constrained and partly of love, know- 
 ing that,Christ is at least to have some loving and obe- 
 dient subjects. I found this view would not suit any 
 better than tlie former. I could find nothing to justify 
 it, but much to condemn it, as shall presently appear. 
 The subjection I saw, must be understood eittier as 
 universally constrained, or universally of love."
 
 80 MEMOIR OF 
 
 The Inquirer then proceeds to 
 
 Voluntary subjection ^ '■ 
 
 furtner considered, confcss, that It seemcd to him, 
 the subjection must be considered to be a volun- 
 tary, obedient and loving one. 
 
 *' 1st. It is the subjection of {ta panta, the universe) 
 and this sabjection is spoken of throughout the whole 
 passage as of the same nature or kind. Jt is the uni- 
 verse which is to be subdued, and no distinction is 
 made about different kinds of subjection. No hint is 
 given that some shall be subdued by force, and others 
 by love. The universe is put under Christ to be sub- 
 dued, and all are spoken of as partakers of the same 
 kind of subjection. If the subjection is constrained, it 
 must be so to all ; and if we understand it of love, it 
 must be so to all. That this subjection is a willing 
 subjection, or of love, may be inferred, 2d. From the 
 •ame original word expressing the subjection of the 
 universe to Christ, and Christ's subjection to the Fa- 
 ther. No man for a moment hesi:ates to admit, when 
 it is said, ' then shall the Son also be subject unto him 
 that put all things under him,' that this subjection is 
 voluntary and ot love. For what good reason then 
 ought we to understand it otherwise, when the very 
 same word expresses the subjection of the universe to 
 Christ? Consistency and candor require, that we un- 
 derstand the subjection in both either to be constrain- 
 ed, or in both voluntary, for the apostle considered the 
 same word a correct expression for both." 
 
 ^. ,. The Inquirer then went at 
 
 Voluntary subjection *■ 
 
 further considered, jgngth into an cxamlttation of 
 the scripture usage of the words rendered, sub- 
 ject and subdue ; and the result to which he came 
 was, that " in few or none of the places where it 
 occurs, can it be supposed that a constrained
 
 REV. WALTER AALFOUR. 81 
 
 subjection is meant." It is used to signify the 
 subjection of Christ to the Father; of the uni- 
 verse to Christ ; of christians to God, to Christ, 
 to his gospels, to civil rulers ; of wives to their 
 husbands ; of children to their parents ; of youth 
 to the aged, &:c. &c. 
 
 But the Inquirer takes away from the Profes- 
 sor all opportunity of saying that the subjection 
 of the universe, or of any part thereof to Christ, 
 was forced, and not voluntary, by urging upon 
 his consideration the fact, that he himself had 
 stated, very clearly and forcibly, not only that the 
 universe shall worship Christ, but that they shall 
 worship spiritually, and after the very model 
 which heaven itself furnishes. " What can be 
 meant [said the Professor, as if nothing else 
 could by any possibility be meant] by things in 
 heaven, i. e. beings in heaven, bowing the knee 
 to Jesus, if spiritual loorship be not meant ? 
 What other ivorship can heaven render ? " And 
 again, '' If this be not spiritual worship, I am 
 unable to produce a case, where worship can be 
 called spiritual and divine." The argument is 
 complete. It makes thorough work. It drives 
 the nail entirely through and clinches it. And 
 therefore the Inquirer said, in closing his sixth 
 
 letter, he could see no way to avoid the conclusion 
 6
 
 82 MEMOIR OF 
 
 that Christ should continue to reign, until God 
 had put all things under his feet ; and when all 
 things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the 
 Son himself be subject unto God, that God may 
 be ALL IN ALL. 
 
 The Inquirer Clearly as this doctrine seemed to 
 •tiucauu.ms.^j^g luquirer to be taught in the Scrip- 
 tures, he was very cautious about giving him- 
 self up to a full belief of it. He w^as cautious 
 and doubtful. How did he know that the Pro- 
 fessor had not some way in which he could set 
 all these arguments aside ? But if he had, he 
 ought to show it. The Inquirer w^as willing to 
 wait patiently, and in the mean time to pursue 
 his inquiries. 
 
 Seventh Letter. 
 In one fortnight from the appearance of the 
 sixth letter, came out the seventh. It pursued 
 the same subject, viz., an examination of the 
 passages in which ta panta occurs. 
 
 Sir, — The next passage to which I shall call your 
 attention is, Heb. ii : 8 — " Thou hast put all things 
 in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all 
 [ta panta the universe) in subjection under him ; he 
 left nothing that is not put under him. But now we 
 see not yet all things {ta panta the universe) put un- 
 der him." You will readily perceive \\\^X ta panta^ 
 which you explain to mean the universe, occurs at 
 least twice in this text.
 
 REV. WALTER FBAFOUR. 83 
 
 The Inquirer shows that ta pari' subiection of the 
 
 entire Universe 
 
 ta signifies here unquestionably ^^"^«r considered, 
 the universe. In verse 7 the Apostle says, — 
 " thou didst set him (Christ) over the works of 
 thy hands," i. e., the works which God had cre- 
 ated, or the universe. " He left nothing- that is 
 not under him;" as expressed in 1 Cor, xv. 
 God alone is excepted. This proves the full and 
 complete subjection of the universe to Christ in 
 God's time. It is not now fully done. " But 
 now we see not yet all things put under him," 
 Heb. ii : 8 — but every preparation hath been 
 made by the Father to bring about this sublime 
 purpose. Jesus, who was made a little lower 
 than the angels, that he might suffer death, was 
 crowned with glory and honor, that he, by the 
 grace of God, might taste death for every man. 
 Heb. ii : 9. And at last all the universe, God 
 alone excepted, shall be subject unto him. Hav- 
 ing shown these points, the Inquirer (seeing more 
 clearly, as he proceeds, the Scriptural evidence 
 of Universalism,) addresses the Professor in the 
 following pungent terms : 
 
 *' Suffac me to ask, how yoii can avail yourself of 
 ta panta as signifying the universe when Christ is said 
 to be the Creator of it, and deny this liberty to the 
 Universalists, when Christ is said to reconcile or sub- 
 due it] By what rational means do you slide, or rath- 
 er
 
 84 , MEMOIR OF 
 
 er leap over this difficulty ? Perhaps it did not occur 
 to you in the heat of the controversy with Mr. Chan- 
 ning, what use might be made of your explanation of 
 tapanta, as meaning the universe, to establish uni- 
 versal salvation. I think you cannot but feel the ne- 
 cessity undei which your explanation of ia panta has 
 laid you, to come forward and own yourself a Uni- 
 versalist, or rationally and Scripturally to state, how 
 you reconcile your explanation with your limited 
 views of salvation. Unless this is done, I must think 
 your weapon, forged for Mr. Channing, has wounded 
 yourself. Supposing in the passages 1 have brought 
 to your view, you should come forward and teil us, 
 that ta panta only means a part of the universe, would 
 not Mr. Channing smile to s^e you thus do away all 
 the torce of your argument against him. Unless you 
 admit that ta panta means the universe when Christ 
 is said to subdue or reconcile it, how can you look 
 Mr. Channing in the face and maintain, that it means 
 this when he is said to create it. You know this is 
 the strongest argument in your book to prove the di- 
 vinity of Christ against him ; but you must relinquish 
 it, or admit universal salvation. You are too shrewd 
 a man not to perceive the force of this statement, and 
 I hope too candid and honorable to refuse some ex- 
 planation. I cannot certainly say but you may be 
 able to show how your explanations are consistent 
 with limited salvation, but certainly I cannot perceive 
 how it can be done. I want information." 
 
 Here we think the Inquirer hit 
 
 True cause of tnc a 
 
 Professors silence. ^^ ^^i^ ^^^^ eXpknation of PlO- 
 
 fessor Stuart's remarkable paragraph in his Let- 
 ters to Dr. Channing. *' Perhaps it did not oc- 
 cur to you in the heat of the controversy with 
 Mr. Channing, what use might be made of your
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 85 
 
 explanation of tapanta, as meaning the universe, 
 to establish universal salvation." This was un- 
 questionably true. The statement of the Pro- 
 fessor was the honest conception of his under- 
 standing, at a time when the doctrine of endless 
 misery was not in his thoughts. After having 
 made such a concession, what was he to do ? 
 He could do only one of three things, viz : 1st. 
 Acknowledge himself a Universalist. If ia pan- 
 ta means the universe — all things, all the intel- 
 ligent creation — and if all the intelligent crea- 
 tion shall at last worship Jesus, with spiritual 
 and divine worship, with just such worship as 
 heaven renders, then universal salvation must 
 ensue. But as the Professor could not acknowl- 
 edge himself a Universalist without losing his 
 place, he was obliged 2d, to show, if he could, 
 that his premises might be true, and yet the doc- 
 trine of Universalism not ensue. But this was 
 an utter impossibility. If Prof. Stuart was cor- 
 rect in his premises, the doctrine of endless mis- 
 ery must be false, and the doctrine of Universal- 
 ism must be true. Then 8d, if Prof. Stuart 
 could not, from any cause, adopt either of the 
 foregoing courses, there was nothing for him to 
 do but to shut himself up in silence ; and that 
 he did. And in these facts, vre think we have
 
 86 
 
 MEMOIR ^F 
 
 the true view of his case, the true cause of his 
 silence. 
 
 Gathering together The " Inquiier " proceeded next, 
 all tmngs .a Christ. -^ ^ontinuing his seventh epistle, 
 
 to notice Eph. i : 10 — in which ta panta occurs: 
 
 " The next passage to which T invite your attention, 
 is Eph. i : 10 — ' That in the dispensation of ihr full- 
 ness of times, he nuipht gather together in one all 
 things, ta pania, the universe., in Christ, both which 
 are in heaven, and which are on earth ; even in him.' 
 Notice again, sir, that the all things here, as in the for- 
 mer passages, is ta fanta^ the universe. The person 
 in whom the all things, or universe is to be gathered 
 together, is expressly said to be Christ ; and by w hom 
 the all things are to be gathered together in him, we 
 learn from verses 3, 8, of the chapter." 
 
 The.ath.nn,ofau ^hc followittg Temaiks of the 
 
 farther considered. .,jj^q^.j.^j.„ ^^^ ^^^ important tO 
 
 be omitted. He shows that this gathering togeth- 
 er, spoken of by Paul, has respect to the whole 
 moral universe, and that it is the reconciliation 
 of all to God and Christ: 
 
 " In reference to the subject before ns, there are 
 two things which demand particular attention : 
 
 " 1st. What is to be understood by the gathering 
 in one all things in Christ? Let it then he noticed, 
 that tlie Apostle not only says, that it is ta panta 
 (which you say means the universe) which is to be 
 gathered together in Christ, but he adds, ' both which 
 are in heaven and which are on earth even in him.' 
 1 must again remind you, that ' things in heaven and 
 things on earth,' you say, ' is a common periphrasis
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 87 
 
 of the Hebrew and Greek writers for the universe.' 
 The Apostle then, by your own explanation, makes 
 this matter doubly sure. He first gives us ta panta, 
 the universe, and then the common periphrasis of it. 
 You have, then, by your own comments, placed this 
 matter beyond fair debate, thai the universe, in the dis- 
 pensation of the fullness of tunes, is to be gathered 
 together in one in Christ. 
 
 " But let us consider what ought to be understood 
 by this gathering together. 1 presume it will not be 
 disputed that this gathering together is, for substance, 
 the same thing, as is expressed in 1 Cor. xv : 24, 28, 
 by Christ's subduing all things to himself. And the 
 same as is expressed in Col, i : 20, by his reconciling 
 all things to himself, or to take your own comment on 
 this last text, by gathering together all things in 
 Christ, ' seems evidently to be meant, bringing into 
 union, under one great head, i. e., Christ, bv a new 
 and special bond of intercommunication, both angels 
 and men.' The subject, the circumstances, and the 
 language in all these texts, are so much the same that 
 they need only to be read, and your comment ought 
 to be admitted. 
 
 The " Inquirer " maintains, that ^^^ ^^^^ ,^^^^,, 
 it is the same moral subjection to ^^"^^^ =°^^^'^er«'^' 
 Christ, which is insisted on by the great apostle, 
 in 1 Cor. xv : 24, 28, and Heb. ii . 8, and that it 
 is, not a forced, but a willing subjection. 
 
 " I cannot forbear noticing here, that if any further 
 evidence was needed to prove, that the subjection to 
 Christ, 1 Cor. xv : 24, 28, and Heb. ii : 8, was a vol- 
 untary subjection, a conclusive argument seems to be 
 furnished in the passage under consideration. Do you 
 ask what this is? It is this, that the gathering spok- 
 en of, is a gathering together^ and a gathering togeih-
 
 88 MEMOIR OF 
 
 er in one, yea, a gathering together in one all things, 
 or the universe, in Christ. According to the common 
 faith, which I presume you believe and preach, so far 
 from tlie wicked being gathered in Christ, and gath- 
 ered together in one in him with the righteous, they 
 are to be separated from them forever. But accord- 
 ing to the apostle, and even according to yourself, the 
 universe is to be gathered together again and re-united 
 under one head, Christ, Surely with no propriety can 
 it be said, that the wicked and righteous are gathered 
 together in one in Christ, if this is not voluntary. 
 What kind of re union could it be of the universe in 
 him, if the greater part is to remain in eternal rebel- 
 lion against God? It must be a strange special bond 
 of intercommunication, by which such different beings 
 are held together. How the wicked, in misery for- 
 ever, can be said to be in Christ, and gathered togeth- 
 er, yea, re-unilecl in him with the rest of the universe, 
 I must leave you to explain, for it is beyond my com- 
 prehension. 
 
 The re.titnticn ^^^ drawkig his SGveiith letter to a 
 ofaiuhings, ^.JQse, the "Inquirer" takes up the 
 language of Peter, Acts iii: 21, which contained 
 the Greek word pas in one of its forms. 
 
 •'Acts iii : 20, 21 — 'And he shall send Jesus Christ, 
 which before was preached unto you ; whom the 
 heavens must receive until the times of restitution of 
 all things, panton, which. God hath spoken by the 
 mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.' 
 I need nut inform you ih^X, panton, in this passage, as 
 in Heb. i: 1, 14, is equivalent to ta panta, the uni- 
 verse." 
 
 The Inquirer contended that the restitution 
 was the settling of all things, like the restoring
 
 KRV. WALTER BALFOUR. OXf 
 
 of society to order, after wars and tumults. 
 Such is the definition which Raphelius gives the 
 word, according to Parkhurst, and this goes far 
 to win the Inquirer's mind over to Universalism, 
 
 " This learned and accurate critic shows that Po- 
 lybius applies the word in this view, comparing 1 
 Cor. XV : 24, 25. If this person, whom Parkhurst 
 calls a learned and accurate critic, be correct in his 
 explanation of this word, it not only establishes the 
 doctrine of universal salvation, harmonizes with 1 
 Cor. XV : 24, 28, and other texts, but exhibits some- 
 thing peculiarly pleasing to the mind. What, my 
 dear sir, has this world been, since sin entered it, but 
 the theatre of wars and tumults? So much so, that 
 the heart sickens at the tale of woe, \shich history 
 and even our own experience afford. Is it not then a 
 heart reviving consideration, that the period is to ar- 
 rive, when tranquility and peace shall be restored to 
 all the universe of God ? But you know, sir, that ac- 
 cording to the common doctrine of the endless pun- 
 ishment of a great part of the human race, tranquility 
 and peace shall never be restored to all the universe. 
 No ; instead of any thing like this being accomplished 
 at the period mentioned in this text, it is then properly 
 speaking, that eternal tumult and misery are to com- 
 mence. One thing is certain, that if the word resti- 
 tution in this passage means any thmg good, this good 
 is to all, for it is ' the restitution of all {h'mgs panton 
 the universe.' " 
 
 The Inquirer then considers at ^,^^ ^,^^ ^^ ^^^ 
 what time this "restitution cf all ^■^^"^'^'^°^- 
 things " is to take place. It is to be at the final 
 coming of Christ, (see Acts i : 11) ; and is the
 
 90 MEMOIR OF 
 
 same restitution of all things, described by Paul, 
 as taking place at the final coming of Christ, 
 and the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 *' In the passage before us, we are told, ' the heav- 
 ens must receive him (or rather retain him) until ihe 
 times of the restitution of all things.' The time then 
 of this restitution of all things, is that mentioned in 
 Acts 1:11, when Jesus shall so come in like manner 
 as the disciples saw him go into heaven.' Observe, 
 sir, the precise agreement of Luke in this passage, 
 with Paul in the passages already considered. They 
 agree not only in the work to be done, but also the 
 time of its accomplishment. Luke calls the work to 
 be done the restitution of all things, and Paul calls it 
 subduing all things, and both agree as to the time, 
 the coming of Jesus." * 
 
 Eighth Letter. 
 Christ, the heir ^c HOW come to tlic eighth and 
 thm.'s. |gg^ principal letter from the Inquir- 
 er to Prof. Stuart. It was published in three 
 weeks after the seventh had appeared, and 
 through the same medium. In fact, all these 
 letters had a common channel to the public mind. 
 The Inquirer still dwells, in this letter, on the 
 Scriptural use of the phrase ta panta. 
 
 *' Sir, — The next passage I quote for your consid- 
 eration is, Heb. i : 1, 4. ' God who at sundry times, 
 and in divers manners spake in times past unto the 
 
 *See '-Universalist Magazine" of March 24lh, 1821, 
 for the original publication of ihe seventh letter.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 91 
 
 fathers, by the prophets, hath in these last days, spo- 
 ken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir 
 of all iU'in^s, (panton) by whom also he made the 
 worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and 
 the express image of his person, and upholding all 
 things ta panta, the universe, by the word of his pow- 
 er,' &c." 
 
 In the remarks which follow, ^^^,^^^.^„^„^3 
 
 • 1 .1 il_ X j.T_ more confident. 
 
 we can see evidently, that the 
 convictions of the Inquirer as to the falsity of 
 the doctrine of endless misery, grew more and 
 more strong. He speaks with increasing bold- 
 ness. 
 
 " Notice here, that Christ is said to uphold all things, 
 or, ta panra, the universe. Is not this the same all 
 things, which in the passage he is said to be heir of? 
 What hs upholds, and what he is appointed heir 
 of, are the same, and this is, ta panta, the uni- 
 verse. Christ then is appointed heir, or as some 
 translate and explain the passage, ' possessor of the 
 universe.' He is not indeed yet come into the full 
 possession of his inheritance, but we are assured that 
 all thitiijs are to be subdued to him. I need not stop 
 to notice, how exactly this passage agrees with Phil, 
 ii : 9, 10, and Kev. v: 13, and your comments on 
 them. Passing this, permit me to ask, — If Christ is 
 the heir of the universe, will he leave any part of his 
 inheritance unsubdued? You know that according to 
 the popular belief, a great part of this mherilance is 
 to rsmiin forever in rebellion and misery. But I ask 
 further, if the greater part of the human race are to 
 live in eternal rebellion and misery, is Christ very 
 highly exalted, or honored, by being appointed heir to 
 such an inheiitauce ? But permit me to ask once more,
 
 92 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 if a great part of the universe is to continue forever 
 in rebellion and misery, may it not be said with more 
 truth, that the devil is appointed heir of the universe? 
 And that God hath given all things into his hands? I 
 am shocked, myself, sir, at such questions ; but I put 
 them for the purpose of leading you, and myself, and 
 all my readers, to a candid and careful re-examination 
 of this very important subject. It is possible we may 
 be mistaken. Indeed, if we are not, but it is a fact, 
 that all who have not given evidence in this world of 
 being subdued to Christ, are to perish forever, the 
 greater part of the universe of God in ages past have 
 certainly perished." 
 
 Christ is abl* to 
 subdue aU thinos. 
 
 The next passage, and the last 
 which the Inquirer quotes at 
 length, in his Letters to Prof. Stuart, is the fol- 
 lowing, by which he shows that the " Lord Jesus 
 Christ is able to subdue all things unto himself: " 
 
 " Phil, iii : 21 — ' Who shall change our vile body, 
 that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, 
 according to the working whereby he is able even to 
 subdue all things to panfa, the vniverse, unto himself.' 
 
 *' It is here, as in the preceding texis, ^ ta panta, 
 the universe.'' Besides, the word translated svLdne, is 
 the same as in 1 Cor. xv : 24 to 28, Heb. ii : 8, and 
 other texts already considered. If I have proved that 
 the subjection in these texts, is a willing subjection, 
 the proof equally applies here. In this text Christ's 
 ability to subdue all things to himself is expressly as- 
 serted, and I presume you will not dispute his wil- 
 lingness. Indeed, this is included in the word which 
 expresses his ability. It deserves our notice, sir, that 
 this subjection is said to be ' unto himself.'' This lan- 
 guage corresponds to the language of 1 Cor. I5ih,
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 93 
 
 Col. 1st, and other texts, which have been consid- 
 ered." * 
 
 Having thus noticed all the passages classification 
 in which the phrase ta panta (the uni- °^ p^^^^^es. 
 verse) occurs, which the Inquirer judged it neces- 
 sary to quote at length, he proceeds to classify 
 the remainder, or a portion of them. He finds, 
 he says, 
 
 1st. That the creation of all things [ta panta) 
 is ascribed to God the Father. 
 
 2d. That God is said to have created all things 
 [ta panta) by Jesus Christ. 
 
 3d. That Jesus is appointed heir of all things 
 [ta panta) Acts x : 36. All things are delivered 
 to him Matt, xi : 27, given into his harrds, John 
 iii : 35, and xiii: 3. And that God hath given 
 him power over all things, John xvii : 2, xVlatt. 
 xxviii : 18, Comp. John v : 20, and xvi : 15, and 
 xvii : 7. 
 
 It cannot have escaped the read- 3^^^^^ ^^^^.^^^ 
 er's attention, that Prof. Stuart had "— ^^-• 
 thus been the means of opening up to the In 
 quirer's attention, some of the strongest proofs 
 of Universalism which the New Testament con- 
 tains, viz : 
 
 1st. That the universe, the entire universe, 
 
 *See '• Universalist Magazine " of April 14, 1S21.
 
 94 MEMOIR OF 
 
 shall worship Jesus, with spiritual and divine 
 worship, yea, with just such worship as heaven 
 renders. Phil, ii : 10, 11, and Rev. v: 8, 14. 
 
 2d. That God will at last, by the agency of 
 his Son, reconcile all things (the universe) unto 
 himself; viz., the same all things that he had 
 created, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, 
 principalities and powers. It pleased the Father 
 to endow Jesus with the fullness and the power 
 to reconcile (not merely to subjugate) all things^ 
 in this most extended sense, to God and his Son. 
 Col. i: 15, 17. 
 
 3d. That Christ will reign, until he hath put 
 down all adverse rule, authority and power, — 
 overcoming every foe, even death, the last : that 
 all things, with no exception whatsoever, except 
 God himself, shall be subject to Christ, in the 
 same way and in the same spirit, in which Christ 
 is subject to the Father ; and thus God shall be 
 ALL IN ALL. All shall bow to him ; all shall 
 confess the Son to be Lord in such a way as to 
 reflect on God the highest glory ; every intelli- 
 gent creature, without any limitation, shall join 
 in the grand eulogium of blessing, and honor, 
 and glory, and power to him that sitteth on the 
 throne and to the Lamb forever and ever ; 1 Cor. 
 XV : 22,23; Comp. Phil, ii: 10, 11; Rev. v: 8, 
 14; Col. i: 15, 17; and Heb. ii : 8.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR 95 
 
 4th. That all things, the universe, and intelli- 
 'gent beings in the most extended sense, are to be 
 gathered together in Christ, in the fullness of 
 times. See Eph i : 9, 10. This is the same 
 as bringing all things into subjection to Jesus, 
 and reconciling them all to himself. See the 
 passages before quoted. 
 
 5th. That there shall be a " restitution of all 
 things," at the final coming of the Lord Jesus, 
 as hath been spoken by all God's holy prophets 
 since the world began. Acts iii : 21. 
 
 6th. That Jesus is appointed heir of all things. 
 Heb. i: 1, 4. That all things are delivered to 
 him, Matt, xi : 27 ; and that " he is able even to 
 subdue all things unto himself." Phil, iii: 21. 
 
 When we view these texts as they uni^ub^ldiy 
 are laid before us, collated and illus-^ Godfword! 
 trated by the Inquirer, we confess, with devout 
 gratitude to Almighty God, that we see a power 
 in them that no ingenuity or sophistry can par- 
 alyze ; and not the least lingering doubt remains 
 in our mind, that the doctrine of the final holi- 
 ness and happiness of all men, in the fullest 
 sense of the terms, is the doctrine of God and 
 his word ; that the salvation of all men is a work 
 for which God appointed, endowed and qualified 
 his holy and faithful Son ; that Jesus shall sue-
 
 96 MEMOIR OF 
 
 ceed ; that his victory shall be complete ; that all 
 his enemies shall die, even death, the last of the 
 vanquished train; and that God himself shall 
 then reign immediately in every heart, — one 
 grand subjection, union, reconciliation having 
 been wrought upon the entire universe, in and 
 over which universe God shall be ALL IN ALL. 
 other considerations Well thon might the Inquirer 
 
 laddressed to . . , , 
 
 Professor Siuart. gay, as hc drcw his prmcipal let- 
 ters to a close, — 
 
 " Here, sir, I finish my remarks on the texts in 
 ■which ta panta are found. In concluding, I shall state 
 for your serious consideration, some things which oc- 
 curred to me in the course of my investigations. 
 
 " 1st. Is not the number of texts, which I have 
 brought forward, about as many as you have done, to 
 prove the divinity ot Christ ? If you should say, you 
 only brought forward a few out of the many v\hich 
 you could have adduced in proof of this doctrine ; it 
 is likely the Universalist would reply, that 1 have only 
 afforded a small specimen of the texts, which they 
 could adduce in proof of theirs. But what you ob- 
 serve to Mr. Chaniiing, 1 think is just, that it is not 
 the number, but the nature of the texts which can 
 prove any doctrine. A law a thousand times repeated, 
 does not make it more certainly a law, than if only 
 mentioned once. But, 
 
 " 2d. Are any of the texts which you have quoted 
 in proof of Christ's divinity, more plain and explicit 
 than those 1 have quoted in proof of universal salva- 
 tion? Does any one text say more plainly and ex- 
 plicitly that Christ is God, than the texts I have quo- 
 ted say, that all things shall be subdued unto him, and
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 97 
 
 that God hath by hhn reconciled all things unto him- 
 self? How then do your texts prove Christ's divinity, 
 and those I have quoted do not prove universal salva- 
 tion ? Pray deliver yourself from this arbitrary mode 
 of explaining the Bible, if you can do it, by some ra- 
 tional explanation. 
 
 " 3d. Have T, in these letters, or do Universalists, 
 resort to the original languages and put them to the 
 torture to prove their doctrine, that you, and those 
 whom you oppose, do in the controversy about the 
 trinity? This, I think, will not be asserted. The 
 force of all I have advanced, you have furnished me 
 in your criticisms about la panta. I have only shown, 
 that in judging Mr. Channing, you have condemnel 
 yourself. So far as I have looked into the writiuL'S of 
 Universalists, I find they take our common translation 
 as they find it, and attempt to prove their doctrine by 
 it. Your comments, and your criticisms on the orig- 
 inal, as I think I have shown, both tend strongly to 
 confirm them in their opinions. The Orthodox are 
 not more under obligations of gratitude to you for 
 your letters in proving Christ's divinity, than are the 
 Universalists, in establishing universal salvation. 
 
 "4th. In any one of the texts on which 1 have 
 commented, what false rule of interpretation have I 
 adopted, to wrest it from its plain obvious meaning'? 
 If my rules of interpretation are false, yours cannot 
 be true, for they are the same. I will feel greatly 
 obliged to you, or any other man, who will show, in a 
 single instance, that I have deviated from your rules 
 of interpretation, nr modes of reasoning. 
 
 " 5th. Could you have availed yourself of as many 
 explanations and concessions from Mr. Channing, as 
 I have done from you and Dr. Campbell, what would 
 you have said? Had he, in a controversy with the 
 Universalist, intimated as plainly that Christ is the 
 supreme God, as you have done that the universe shall 
 perform spiritual and divine worship to Christ, would 
 7
 
 9S MEMOIR OF 
 
 you not have quoted him with triumph'? You have 
 quoted authors in your letters in proot of your views. 
 1 therefore put this question solemnly to your con- 
 science, — Are any of your quotations more plainly 
 and forcibly to your purpose in pioof of Christ's divin- 
 ity, than those 1 have made from you and Dr. Camp- 
 bell, are in favor of universal salvation? 
 
 " t)th. It seems to me, that in proving three persons 
 in the God-head, you are obliged to adopt a course 
 which the Universalists seldom if ever do in proving 
 universal salvation. 1 shall explain myself. Is it not 
 a fact, sir, that the doctrine oi three persons in the 
 God-head, is attempted to be proved by passages, and 
 these tew in number, by way of inference 1 These 
 inferences are sometimes not of the most obvious kind. 
 Do not the Universalists quote plain declarations of 
 Scripture in proof of their doctrine? Besides, when 
 you are pushed into a corner by argument, in pioving 
 your doctrine, is it not common to take shelter in this — 
 *It is a mystery.^ Have you ever found a Universal- 
 ist flee fur refuge to any thing like this? It is very 
 common with you, in regard to the trinity to say, 
 ' The fact is revealed, the mode we do not undertake to 
 exp/ain.^ Universalists not only refer you to passages 
 declaring the fact, that all men shall be saved, but to 
 texts showing how this is to be done." * 
 
 ♦These arguments are abridged from the letters as 
 originally printed. The Inquirer puts home the following 
 questions to the Professor : " Had you been brought up 
 a Universalist as you have been a Trinitarian, and were 
 universal salvation an article in the Andover creed, yea, 
 and had your place as Professor, and your temporal in- 
 terest led you to defend it as you have done that of the 
 trinity, which of these two doctrines could you most 
 easily have defended ? Could you not adduce as many, 
 and as powerful arguments, drawn from Scripture, reason 
 and common sense, to support the one, as you have done 
 in support of the other ? 1 think you would at least hes- 
 tate to answer this question in the negative."
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 99 
 
 In the following paragraph, the Inquirer touch- 
 es subjects of vast importance; and one can 
 scarcely refrain from exclaiming, " he is not far 
 from thg Kingdom of God; '* although he still 
 remained in some doubt : 
 
 " 7th. Whether does the doctrine of universal sal- 
 vation, or its opposite, give the most honorable and 
 amiable view of the character of God, and which is 
 most calculated to produce peace and good will among 
 men^ As to the first of these, little need be said, for 
 surely if the doctrine of universal salvation can be 
 fairly and fully established fron the Bible, it, to the 
 reason of men, has the preference. It is not very 
 easy for us to see, God's character honorable and 
 amiable, in bringing a vast number of beings into ex- 
 istence, whom he foresaw would be (not to say as 
 some do predetermined that they should be) forever 
 miserable. I never tound one who thus talked about 
 God's dooming some to endless misery, that ever be- 
 lieved themselves of this number. To say the least, 
 those who thus speak of such a tremendously awful 
 subject, have given too just cause for Universalists 
 to say, — that th3 God of such persons, if they say the 
 truth about him, is very like a tyrant. As to the sec- 
 ond, certainly the doctrine of universal salvation, if 
 it is proved to be true, has the advantage of the other 
 in promoting peace and good will among men. The 
 doctrine is what every unbiassed, benevolent mind 
 wishes true, if consistent with the will of God. It is 
 what every good man prays for, that all may be saved, 
 and what his exertions go to promote. Admitting 
 the doctrine true for a moment, though men might 
 look on each other as wrong in many respects, yet 
 not as finally to be excluded from happiness. Con- 
 templating each other as children of the same Father, 
 7#
 
 100 MEMOIR OF 
 
 and finally to enjoy the same blessedness in heaven, 
 it is surely belter calculated to beget peace and benev- 
 olence among them, than the opposite doctrine which 
 leads to endless strife and contention here, and one 
 party consigning the other over to endless misery in 
 the world to come. If the doctrine can be proved 
 beyond dispute true, 1 think you will allow, that all 
 the religious sects may bear with each other, yea live 
 in union together. 
 
 " 8ih. It is not true, as some have affirmed, that 
 this doctrine leads to licentiousness. Say some, if I 
 believed this doctrine true, I would take my fill of 
 sin. This, sir, I iiave always considered very unfair 
 treatment of the Universalists. It will be used by no 
 man, who does not wish to excite popular prejudice 
 against them. The same argument was brought 
 agaiiist the apostles, and indeed is to this day brought 
 against every man, who preaches the grace of God as 
 they did. If the grace of God teaclies one man to 
 deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, it also teaches all 
 who know it. If it leaches one to say, it teaches all 
 to say, — ' Shall we sin because giace aboundeth^ 
 God forbid. How shall we that are dead to sin, live 
 any longer therein.' No Universalist that I have 
 heard of, ever held the doctrine that men were saved 
 in their sins, but hold that all men are or will finally be 
 saved from their sins. 
 
 " yih. But you may say, are there not many pas- 
 sages of scripture which seem irreconcilable wiih the 
 doctrine of universal salvation? I admit this, but 
 submit for your sericus consideration the following 
 remarks. Are there more texts to be found which 
 appear irreconcilable with universal salvation, than 
 there are found which seem irreconcilable with the 
 
 doctrine of the trinity? 
 
 #* *'* # »#* 
 
 " I have called, and do again call upon you to show, 
 how they can be reconciled. When you have done
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 101 
 
 this, it is no more than reasonable that you demand 
 of the Universalists to reconcile their doctrine with 
 those tests which are at variance with it. If their 
 views are at variance with the Scriptures, I think I 
 have shown that you are at variance with yourself. 
 Could I have quoted as much from a Universalist, as 
 I have done from you in favor of eternal misery, would 
 you not have said that he contradicted his own re- 
 ceived doctrine? But I have further to remark, that 
 though we may in our writings contradict ourselves, 
 one thing is certain, that God does not contradict him- 
 self in the Bible. The contradictions men perceive 
 there, arise from their ignorance, and vanish as they 
 become better acquainted with it. T do study this book, 
 and wish to avail myself of every means to ascertain 
 its true meaning, for, to ascertain this, 1 most cordial- 
 ly agree with you is true Orthodoxy. That we may 
 both study it as we ou^^ht, be taught by the spirit of 
 all truth to understand it, and confess and practice 
 what it reveals, is the sincere desire of yours, re- 
 spectfully,* 
 
 Inquirer after Truth. 
 
 *Universali3t Magazine — vol. ii : p. 166.
 
 CHAP. V. 
 
 The Inquirer becomes a Universalist and 
 avows himself. 
 
 , The Inquirer still waited with ear- 
 
 Inquirer mules i 
 
 one roore effort. ^^^^^ but scmewhat Weakened ex- 
 pectations, for Prof. Stuart to appear to deliver 
 him from the danger of embracing error, if in- 
 deed the doctrine to which his mind had been 
 turned were an error. No reply came. All his 
 inquiries were leading him further onward to- 
 wards Universalism. He prayed earnestly, if 
 that doctrine were not true, that he might not 
 be left to embrace it ; but if it were true, he was 
 determined to know it. He sought to gain the 
 true sense of the word of God. He did not ut- 
 terly despair that the Professor would help him. 
 He was tempted to write him once more. His 
 feelings were these : he wished the Professor to 
 know to what result his " Letters to Channing," 
 aided by the Inquirer's own investigations, were 
 likely to lead him. He still hoped the Professor 
 might make an effort to save him from Univer-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 103 
 
 salism. He resolved to write once more, for it 
 could harm no one, if it did no good. This let- 
 ter he published in the Universalist Magazine, 
 for June 16th, 1821. 
 
 The Ninth Letter. 
 
 " Sir, — Permit me only once more to address you. 
 If yoa thought my communications unworthy of an 
 answer, you might have said so in a few words, and 
 perhaps I might have been satisfied. At the time I 
 wrote them, I considered tliere were things stated 
 which required some explanation from you, and have 
 not yet seen any reason to change my opinion." 
 
 The following extract will show, Eeintimstes 
 
 •11 -I 11'^® mav publish 
 
 that the Inquirer had conducted his a boot. 
 inquiries on an extensive scale. He hoped, and 
 yet he trembled. He feared, if he meant to re- 
 main an honest man, he must become a Univer- 
 salist. Hear him. 
 
 *' Since 1 first wrote you, the little time I can spare 
 has been employed in examining this subject. I have 
 directed my attention to the Scriptures, and all my 
 researches are conducted with this view, to ascertain 
 what is truth. The plan I have laid down, is on an 
 extensive^ scale, and I find it will take much time and 
 labor to finish it It has cost me much time and labor 
 already, and I increasingly find it will require much 
 more, before all my researches are completed. I do 
 not wish to anticipate the final result, but so far as my 
 investigations have yet been conducted, I fear that if 
 I am an honest man, I must be a Universalist. Now, 
 my dear sir, I wish you, on reading this, to pause and 
 ask yourself, 'Am I doing right, not to interpose to
 
 104 MEMOIR OF 
 
 prpvent this result 1 Can I thus suffer a man to be 
 led astray by anythino I have written, after such re- 
 peated and earnest solicitations for necessary explana- 
 tions^ Should this man perish, and others through 
 his instrumentality, all originating from my book, can 
 I wash my hands and say, 1 am clean, your blood be 
 upon your own head? ' The God of heaven be wit- 
 ness between us, that the statements on which I took 
 the liberty to remark, were the means of shaking my 
 faiih, and yet you refuse to say anything to re-estab- 
 lish it. I solemnly declare that 1 have been sincere 
 in all I have wriiten, and unfeignedly have desired, 
 that you would show me, if possible, how you recon- 
 cile your statements with the doctrine of eternal mis- 
 ery. I have urged you uiitil 1 am ashamed, yet you 
 assign no reason fur your silence. What am I, sir, 
 in such a case to do? Is there any other alternative 
 left me, but either to shut my eyes, quiet my convic- 
 tions, and sit down conienled, an implicit believer in 
 the doctrine of eternal misery ; or, to gird myself to 
 the task, candidly and patiently to examine this sub- 
 ject fully fur myself? The la-st of these I prefer, and 
 if life and health be granted me, 1 shall give it a very 
 full investigation. Should my inquiries end, as I fear 
 they must, you may, perhaps, have an opportunity of 
 seeing that I have neitlier liasiily nor carelessly made 
 up my mind on ihis very important subject. The ob- 
 servations I have already by me, collected in my ex- 
 amination of tlie Scriptures, are by far too voluminous 
 for Magazine communications. I shall not trouble the 
 world with another book, if 1 have not something to 
 offer on this subject, strong and conclusive. I feel a 
 solemn responsil)iiity for what I may write, knowing 
 that it will outlive me, and may be doing much mis- 
 chief in the 'Aorid, when it is out of my power to 
 prevent it. If you have got anything to offer, I en- 
 treat you now to produce ii. I am open to conviction. 
 What is truth is my object, and to argument and evi-
 
 Prof. Stnart 
 answers. 
 
 EEV. WALTER BALFOUR. 105 
 
 dence drawn from the Scriptures, I shall pay atten- 
 tion, from whatever quarter they may come. To any 
 other mode of settling- this question, ] shall he like 
 the deaf adder. When once my investio-aiions are 
 finished, and I am fully satisfied that the Bible teaches 
 no such doctrine as endless misery, I shall neither be 
 afraid nor ashamed to avow it, and, if necessary, to 
 defend it. My views may then possibly be submitled 
 to you and the world at large for examination." 
 
 From this heart-stirring appeal, the 
 Professor could not turn away. Policy 
 even required him to say something, and he 
 therefore sent the following epistle to the editor 
 of the " Universalist Magazine," under date of 
 Andover, June 19th, 1621 : 
 
 PiioF. Stuart's Letter. 
 
 To the Editor of the Magazine : 
 
 " Sir, — I acknowledge the receipt of several num- 
 bers of vour paper, containing letteis addressed to me, 
 by some anonymous author. In a recent number, 
 which 1 have received, the author seems to lake it 
 hardly, that I have not noticed any of his former com- 
 municcitions. I have surely had no intention to treat 
 him ill ; and I believe I may venture to say, that he 
 has no just reason to complain of me. Anonymous 
 animadversions in newspapers may be rejilied to by 
 those who have no other occupation which prevents 
 their engaging in composing pieces of such a nature. 
 But every man, who is deeply engaged in professional 
 business, may surely be excused from this knid of 
 warfare. 
 
 Besides, if your correspondent be really a serious 
 inquirer after truth, as he professes to be, he could 
 certainly choose some belter method of research than
 
 106 MEMOIR OP 
 
 by writing newspaper criticisms. Can he candidly 
 beliere that I am ooliged to spend my time in u-riting 
 discussions, for the satisfaction of a single individual, 
 which would occupy the time that must be spent in 
 performing duties that relate to many ? or does he think 
 that I love to court disputes? In his private letter to 
 me, why did he not, like an honest inquirer after 
 truth, give his name, that I might reply to his letter? 
 Or why, if he wishes to know my sentiments relative 
 to his exegesis of certain passages of the Scripture, 
 did he not call on me, or seek an opportunity of per- 
 sonal and friendly conference? This he could have at 
 almost any time. 
 
 In short, to speak plainly, I have thought from what 
 I have read^ that your correspondent has already fixed 
 his system of belief, and only wished to solicit to a 
 dispute. For this 1 have no desire ; though of it I 
 have no fear. But I must know ihe name and object 
 of my antagonist, before I enter the lists ; and con- 
 tend on some other ground than that of a newspaper. 
 
 If your correspondent is not satisfied with these 
 reasons, he can easily obtain satisfaction by a friendly 
 conference. I am indeed quite unable to reason as he 
 does about the meaning of the Scriptures ; but I can- 
 not spare time to give the reasons for such dissent in 
 writing, at present. 
 
 Your obedient servant,* 
 
 M. Stuart. 
 
 ch^rarterof ^^ ^^ evldetit that Prof. Stuart, like 
 the Kepiy. g^^^y ^^jy g|gg^ ^^,^g totally ignoTant 
 
 who the Inquirer was. He objected to his ani- 
 madversions, because they were anonymous, and 
 because they were published in newspapers. But 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine, vol. iii. p. 1.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOITR. 107 
 
 such objections as these must be considered friv- 
 olous, when men's consciences, and their hopes 
 for time and for eternity are at stake. Would 
 the Professor stand by in silence, and see men 
 led away to believe doctrines he considered dan- 
 gerous — doctrines that might ruin them forever — 
 when the writing of a newspaper criticism to an 
 anonymous suppliant [for such the Inquirer truly 
 was] would save them? He would, we think, 
 have done no such thing ; and we are compelled, 
 therefore, reluctantly we acknowledge, to regard 
 his objection as a subterfuge. The Professor 
 was very anxious to know who this Inquirer was. 
 He was fearful he was some real Universalist in 
 disguise, who was seeking to get him into a dis- 
 pute. He wished a personal conference with 
 him, that if possible (as we judge) the matter 
 might be hushed up. But the Inquirer was too 
 honest to be turned from his purpose. He had 
 assumed no disguise ; he stood before the world, 
 professing to be precisely what he was, an open, 
 honest, fearless Inquirer after Truth. 
 
 The Inquirer responded to the Pro- Attempt to 
 
 ascertain wbo 
 
 fessor's epistle. In the meantime a inquirer was. 
 new editor had taken charge of the " Universal- 
 ist Magazine," who, on the reception of the In- 
 quirer's rejoinder, made an effort to learn who
 
 108 MEMOIR OF 
 
 he was. The curiosity among Universalists on 
 this point ran very high. A letter was deposited 
 in the Boston Post Office, directed to an " In- 
 quirer after Truth ; " and there was an under- 
 standing with the Clerk of delivery, that when 
 this letter was called for, he should learn, if pos- 
 sible, who took it ; and if a messenger called for 
 it, it was to be inquired by whom he was sent. 
 To facilitate this plan, the following paragraph 
 appeared in the Universalist Magazine : 
 
 '♦An Inquirer after Truth, in answer to the Rev. 
 M. Stuart (in the first number of vol. 3cl) is received. 
 The apparent sincerity and candor exhibited by the 
 writer, would entitle his essay to hipher consideration, 
 and render it equally interesting to the generality of 
 our readers, had he, in expressing his sentiments on 
 the subject, paid stricter attention to conciseness and 
 perspicuity. His answer, however, is under consid- 
 eration ; in the interim, he will find a letter in the post 
 office."* 
 
 The Inquirer, however, was too wary for the 
 editor of the Magazine ; he never made any ap' 
 plication for the " letter in the post office." It 
 still remained a profound mystery who he was. 
 Inquirer notices It was to bo oxpocted that the In- 
 
 the Professor's . • l i 
 
 Letter. quiror would pay suitable attention 
 to the Professor's letter. He read it very care- 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine, vol. iii., p. 16.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 109 
 
 fully; he took time to reflect upon it, when he 
 published an epistle to the Professor, in the 
 "Universalist Magazine," which closed utterly 
 his communications to him. We make the fol- 
 lowing extracts : 
 
 " Sir, — I am glad you notice my communications, 
 but am sorry you do not comply with my reasonable 
 request. You do not deny but that it was reasonable. 
 It even seems to be admitted, that your statements on 
 which I remarked, are at variance with the doctrine 
 of eternal misery. I am not charged with having 
 misunderstood you, treated you uncandidly, or used 
 unkind and disrespectful language. You do not say 
 your statements are false, nor do you profess yourself 
 able and willing to reconcile them with this doctrine, 
 but say things of me, which, upon reflection, I think 
 you must legret. For example, that I am not a serious 
 and honest inquirer after truth ; my system of belief 
 is already fixed ; and that I am your antan-oriist, and 
 only wish to solicit a dispute with you. Of the truth 
 of these charges, I leave others to judge, from what I 
 have written. I can only say, my conscience bears 
 me testimony, that in every one of them you are mis- 
 taken. Only show how you reconcile your state- 
 ments with the doctrine of eternal misery, and, how- 
 ever unsatisfactory your explanation may be to my 
 mind, I shall be silent, unless you desire my further 
 Cv^rrespondence. This is the sum of all 1 ever request- 
 ed. This, my dear sir, is all I ask. 
 
 " I was fully aware that your time did not permit you 
 to write at large on this subject. Such a demand 1 
 have never made. All I have requested, is, that in 
 the briefest possible way, you give me a clue, or a 
 few hints, whereby I can reconcile the statements you
 
 J 10 MEMOIR OF 
 
 have made, with your belief in eternal punishment. 
 You must have the 7iame and object o( your antagonist, 
 and even then you will not enter the list with him on 
 the ground of a newspaper. I never v»as, my dear 
 eir, your antagonist. I never wished to enter the list 
 with you, or solicit a dispute. How you can be yet 
 ignorant of my object, is to me surprising. It is, then, 
 for your information, this, — Rationally and scriptural- 
 It/ to reco?icile your statements, on which I used the free- 
 dom to comment, with the doctrine of endless misery. 
 ******** 
 
 *' My reasons for not giving my name at first, and 
 why 1 yet decline doing so, I shall now briefly state. 
 First, then, because the world is ruled by names. As 
 your name gives weight and force to all you say and 
 write, 1 am not willing that mine should be the means 
 of rendering W5e/e.s5 anything which I have to advance. 
 Let men judge what 1 say, uninfluenced by my name. 
 Farther, I had no occasion to give my name, for 1 was' 
 not writing an answer to your book, but only request- 
 ing some explanation from you about a very small part 
 of it. Besides, you could as easily show, without my 
 name as with it, how you reconciled your statements 
 with the doctrine of eternal misery. Hovi^myname 
 could be of any service to you about this, I am unable 
 to perceive. 1 may add, that common /?n^^e/ice dic- 
 tates I should not give my name until my mind is 
 brought to some decision on this subject. You have 
 unsettled my mind. I have urged you to say some- 
 thing to establish it ; and, until this is done, (y 1 am 
 convinced that the doctrine of eternal misery cannot 
 be supported from the Bible, why should 1 give peo- 
 ple occasion to say I had become a Universalist, when 
 I am only using means to avoid it. 
 
 " But a still more powerful reason than all these has 
 operated with me, not to seek satisfaction by personal 
 conference, or private letter. It is the following : J
 
 KEV. WALTER BALFOUR. Ill 
 
 am not the solitary individual, my dear sir, who has 
 been, or is likely to be affected by jour statements. 
 Every reader of your book is liable to this. That 
 reader is no honor to you, nor will he profit himself 
 much, who reads your book so carelessly as not to 
 perceive that your statements strongly go to prove the 
 idea of universal salvation. So long as the sun and 
 moon endure, you may be quoted to prove this doc- 
 trine. A writer in the Universalist Magazine avers 
 that he never saw, in so few words, anything so con- 
 clusive in support of their sentiments. Though this 
 writer is unknown to me, and though 1 have never 
 conver:?ed with a single individual on the subject, I 
 venture to say that this declaration is that of the whole 
 body of Universalists. 1 go further, and say that no 
 candid, reflecting man, who reads your book with at- 
 tention, but must be of the same opinion. You see, 
 then, that with such impressions, I did not consider 
 myself writing as you intimate, ' newspaper criti- 
 cisms,' to oblige you to spend your time ' in writing 
 discussions for the satisfaction of a single individual.' 
 No, my dear friend, I wished you to write for the 
 benefit of a// the Universalists, of all who read your 
 book ; yea, of thousands yet unborn. You presume 
 too much if you think the Universalists so dull as to 
 overlook the pertinent statements you hare made in 
 their favor. Had 1 not brought them to view, long 
 before now, they would likely have quoted you tri- 
 umphantly. Why, then, blame me for not pjivately 
 conferring with you for my own satisfaction ; when so 
 many r^uire also to be satisfied, how you reconciled 
 your statements with your professed belief. I think 
 you rather ought to be thankful that thus you had a 
 fair opportunity of retracting your statements, or show- 
 ing to all men how you did reconcile them. 
 
 ## * * * *#* 
 
 " May 1 use the freedom to suggest that your time 
 would not b«^ unprofitably spent, in showing to the
 
 112 me:\ioir of 
 
 youns: men under your care, how you reconcile your 
 statements with the doctrine of eternal misery ; and 
 pointing oat to them the fallacious nature and perni- 
 cious tendency of my reasoninrr about the meaning of 
 Scripture? For my benefit, and that of the Univer- 
 salists, yea, of all others, you might easily give an 
 abstiact of your labors, I have to complain of the 
 want of time as well as you. Be assured, sir, it was 
 not for the want of any other ' occupation,' I have en- 
 gaged in writing. That man must be very busy in- 
 deed, if, in a similar state of mind with me, he cannot 
 redeem a little time to have his mind informed, and 
 established on such a subject as the one before us. I 
 really thiiik you might have found a few moments to 
 reconcile your statements, and prevent their evil ten- 
 dency on me, and others. About this subject, it is 
 impossible for me to be at rest, until I either obtain 
 satisfaction or can persuade myself that the future 
 eternal conditions of men are mere trifles. 
 
 " It appears to me that you have some secret con- 
 viction that I am in league with the Universalists, and 
 that all this writing is intended to involve you in a 
 controversy with them. If it were so, I can see no 
 possible reason you can have for declining an expla- 
 nation, how you reconcile your statements with eternal 
 punishment. But I assure you no such thing is the 
 case. What 1 have said is in the sincerity of my 
 heart, and with no man on ike face of the earth have I 
 ever exchanged a icord on this subject, ^^ 
 
 The Inquirer's last words to the Professor 
 
 were , — 
 
 "Should you feel disposed to give me the informa- 
 tion I have requested, I shall consider myself as very 
 much obliged to you. If you have not time to do 
 this, would you be kind enough to refer me to some 
 work in which I may find this information. If you
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 113 
 
 decline both, you shall not very soon hear again from 
 me, as I wish to devote all my leisure moments to the 
 investig-ation of this deeply interesting subject. If 
 want of ti ne be the reason why you do not reconcile 
 your statements with the doctrine of everlasting mis- 
 ery, I am sure it cannot be for want of talents. Per- 
 haps soma may suspect that it arises from the impos- 
 aibility of the thing. To me, at present it appears to 
 be impossible. It is one thing for you not to fear a 
 dispute with me, and quite another to perform an im- 
 possibility. If It can be very easily done, it only 
 makes me the more urgent that it should be done. 
 I am yours, &c.,* 
 
 An Inquirer after Truth." 
 
 The Inquirer then had no farther The inqurer 
 
 . 1 • 1 r> turns away from 
 
 prospect 01 getting any light irom ^^^^ -staart. 
 Prof. Stuart, and he determined to apply to him 
 no more. Nothing remained for him to do as an 
 honest man, but to go very thoroughly into tho 
 examination for himself, that he might know 
 whether the doctrine of endless torments, and 
 other kindred dogmas, were taught in the word 
 of God. To that high standard he went. He 
 sought truth, and truth alone. His prayer was, 
 " lead me, Lord, in the right way." He gave 
 all his leisure hours to this investigation. He 
 was seen continually studying the Bible, and the 
 best writers on the sense and the proper manner 
 of the interpretation of the Scriptures. He re- 
 
 *3ee Universaliit Magazine, vol. iii., p. 25. 
 
 8
 
 114 MEMOIR OF 
 
 solved to leave no means untried to make him- 
 self acquainted with the views of the sacred 
 writers on the great subject of the extent of sal- 
 vation. "^ 
 Inquirer dreaded Somc suoposed that he was some- 
 
 to become a, , r ■ i ^ XT • T 
 
 universaiist. what ajraici to become a U niversalist; 
 that he was rather seeking means to avoid it, if 
 possible. One writer addressed him through the 
 Magazine, quoting his words, ''My only reason 
 for not giving my name is, it would be foolish to 
 afford people occasion of saying I had embraced 
 
 ♦The Inquirer said, some years afterwards, "When 
 Mr. Stuart declined all explanation how he reconciled his 
 gtatemenis with the doctrine of endless punishnrient, I 
 determined to make a pretty thorough examination of the 
 subject for my own satisfaction. The substance of my 
 investigations has been published in my first and second 
 inquiries, essays, and other publications. Whether my 
 books have done any good or evil to the world, the world 
 has Prof Stuart lo thank for them. When I wrote those 
 letters, 1 had as little thought of writing a book in favor 
 of universal salvation as of creating a new world. All 
 my prejudices, and habits of thinking, as well as my 
 honor and interest, were strongly in favor of the doctrine 
 of endless punishment. To Mr. Stuart, of Andover, I 
 am indebted for making me a Universalist, and to him 
 the world are indebted for my books, if I have em- 
 braced an error, and have published it to the world, let 
 all who think so, know, that he is the man who led me 
 astray ; was urged to give some explanation, but de- 
 clined it ; and that nothing has been said by him or any 
 person, to show me my error. His Exegetii al Essays do 
 not touch the points discussed in the following letters.''
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR ]\5 
 
 the doctrine of universal salvation, when I am 
 only using- every proper means to avoid it." " I 
 should think, sir, (said the writer) if the doctrine 
 of universal salvation were as congenial to the 
 benevolence of your soul as you have represent- 
 ed it to be, you would not use every proper 
 means to avoid believing it." ^ Inquirer had fre- 
 quently intimated, that he rather dreaded to be- 
 come a Universalist; it was not his wish, but he 
 feared he should be obliged to do so, if he meant 
 to remain an honest man. It was this which led 
 the individual from whom we have quoted to 
 address him. Universalists generally supposed 
 the Inquirer somewhat dreaded to embrace their 
 doctrines ; and this seemed to them an unfavor- 
 able reflection upon God's truth. Why should 
 a man dread to be brought to believe, that all 
 God's intelligent creation will at last be made 
 holy and happy ? Is it not what he would pray 
 for? Would it not increase his peace of mind ? 
 Would it not make him a happier man ? 
 
 To suggestions like these, the xnquirer's e.plana. 
 
 Inquirer was not blind. Li the "--^^-p--^ 
 spirit of open-hearted candor, he replied as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 ♦See Universalist Magazine, vol. iii , p. 40. 
 
 8^
 
 116 MEMOIR OF 
 
 " It must be evident to every candid man, that my 
 raind was far from being decided ; yea, my very writ- 
 ing was Jor the purpose of obtaining Jight to form a 
 correct decision on this subject. 1 had formerly be- 
 lieved that universal salvation was a very pernicious 
 error. Until I therefore had seen sufficient evidence 
 to convince me that I was mistaken, it would ill be- 
 come a candid inquirer after truth not to use all prop- 
 er means to avoid it. This I applied to Mr. Stuart 
 to assist me in doing, which I am truly sorry he de- 
 clines doing. On the other hand, my letters surely 
 may be allowed to speak for themselves, that I was 
 not using means merely to avoid this it it was an er- 
 ror, but was also using means to ascertain if this 
 might not be truth, and that 1 had been formerly mis- 
 taken. Seeing Mr. Stuart declines satisfying my 
 raind, I have girded myself to the task of making an 
 extensive inquiry for my own satisfaction on this sub- 
 ject. When I shall be able to finish the course of in- 
 vestigation I have prescribed for myself, it is impossi- 
 ble for me at present to say; perhaps sometime in 
 the course of the coming w inter. 1'he lime 1 have to 
 devote to this is but little, especially in summer. I 
 anticipate the long evenings, when, if my health be 
 continued, 1 hope to bring to a conclusion my present 
 investigations. It is impossible for me to change my 
 opinion on such a subject as this, as easily as I could 
 shift my clothes. 
 
 " If you or any one else think that when convinced 
 of the truth of universal salvation, I would be ashamed 
 or afraid to avow it publicly, only exercise patience 
 for a few months and you may find yourself mistaken. 
 I can assure you 1 have no place nor pension at stake 
 by a change of opinion. No man can be placed in a 
 situation more favorable, free from all worldly tempta- 
 tions to either side of this subject, so as to give it an 
 impartial examination. In short, as I have nothing to 
 hope for by a change of opinion, I have as little to
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 117 
 
 fear, except it be to defend the new sentiments which 
 I may embrace. This 1 wish to be prepared for, 
 should my investigations terminate, as I think they 
 must, in the belief that universal salvation is the doc- 
 trine of Scripture, when it is justly interpreted." 
 
 It will have been observed, that the ^ 
 
 ' He pursues 
 
 Inquirer said, "1 have girded myself^^'^'"-"'""^- 
 to the task of making an extensive- inquiry, for 
 my own satisfaction, on this subject." He pur- 
 sued this inquiry very faithfully. His friends 
 knew not what he was engaged in, and perhaps 
 not even his own family were aware the course 
 his mind was taking. For a time he ceased to 
 attract the public attention. He sunk, as it were, 
 out of sight. Some had begun to forget him, 
 and his letters to Prof. Stuart, which had come 
 to be regarded somewhat, merely as things that 
 luere. But the Inquirer's mind was never more 
 active than during this time. He had quite ful- 
 ly investigated the evidences furnished by the 
 New Testament writers, in favor of the ultimate 
 holiness and happiness of all men, in the course 
 of his letters to Prof. Stuart; but there was 
 another class of texts to be examined, viz., those 
 which had been comnnonly used to support the 
 opposite doctrine of endless misery. During the 
 time we have mentioned, when the public knew 
 not what the Inquirer was doing, he was engaged
 
 118 MEMOIR OF 
 
 in the examination of these texts, and especially 
 of those in which the word hell occurs, which 
 had been regarded as the strong foundation of 
 the awful doctrine we have mentioned. He pur- 
 sued these inquiries, until he became fully satis- 
 fied, not only that the doctrine of the salvation 
 of all men was revealed in the word of God, but 
 that there was not a passage, in any part thereof, 
 which, when properly understood, taught a con- 
 trary doctrine. The Inquirer took time for a 
 very careful examination ; and the result was, 
 that he found himself convinced, beyond the 
 shade of a doubt, that Universalism was sus- 
 tained by the word of God. 
 ^ , He was not a man to flinch from 
 
 Icquirer avows 
 
 Mmseif. ^ candid avowal of what he fully 
 believed. He now saw that Universalism was 
 a plainly revealed doctrine of the divine word ; 
 and that not a text in all the book of God, when 
 understood in its original intent and signification, 
 furnished the slightest objection to that doctrine. 
 He felt it his duty, therefore, to avow himself. 
 On the morning of the last Sabbath in May, 
 1S23, he opened his mind, on the great subject, 
 to the little flock to whom he had been accus- 
 tomed to minister at Washington Hall, testifying 
 to them, before God, that he had been brought to
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 119 
 
 believe in the final reconciliation of all things, 
 as a fact clearly and fully revealed in the divine 
 word; and declaring, that in his judgment, there 
 was not a text which could be properly used in 
 opposition. He gave them some of the leading 
 evidences of what he believed. What the con- 
 sequences of this avowal might be to himself, 
 he did not stop to inquire. He clearly saw that 
 Universalism was God's truth; he k?ieio it was 
 his duty to avow and defend God's truth, and 
 impress it upon the minds of men ; and whether 
 they would hear, or forbear to hear — whether 
 they would love him more or less for his 
 change — he must declare it. 
 
 There was much excitement in p,„,,,.,,„,^, 
 Charlestown, on the succeeding day. °'i^**^°^'^^- 
 The little flock, who first heard the intelligence, 
 were amazed. They knew their pastor's con- 
 scientiousness ; they knew he was an honest be- 
 liever of what he had avowed ; they knew they 
 could not turn him from his purpose, even if 
 they wished to do so ; and nothing remained for 
 them to do but to adhere to him as a Universal- 
 ist, or to forsake him altogether. The change in 
 his opinions became at once the subject of con- 
 versation, not only between the members of his 
 little flock, but between those of the other re-
 
 120 
 
 MEMOIR dF 
 
 ligious' societies in the town, and especially 
 among the Universalists. They had always 
 respected him for the quiet and peaceable life he 
 had pursued, in all godliness and honesty. 
 "When they learned that he had become a Uni- 
 versalist, — a fellow believer with themselves, — 
 they rendered thanks to God ; but when they 
 learned also that he was the author of the Let- 
 ters to Prof. Stuart, which had excited so much 
 speculation in regard to the authorship, their joy 
 became still greater. They looked upon the con- 
 version of Mr. Balfour as an eminent triumph 
 of divine truth. It was the Tictory of truth over 
 long cherished and honestly believed errors. 
 The Universalists could not but make the com- 
 parison between this conversion and the conver- 
 sions that had taken place under the preaching 
 of the partialist divines. Those preachers prose- 
 lytised the young, the thoughtless, the ignorant, 
 merely by working upon their passions, without 
 communicating to them any proper knowledge of 
 the Scriptures, and by such conversions, they 
 filled up their churches with a class of profes- 
 sors, who knew very little of the word of God, 
 and who felt sometimes but little of the spirit of 
 Christ. But Mr. Balfour had been made a Uni- 
 versalist by a diligent and prayerful study of the
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 121 
 
 Scriptures, against the influence of long cher- 
 ished opinions, and with the help of a thorough 
 theological education. He was regarded by the 
 public as a profound scholar, who had had the 
 advantages of a liberal education, and who un- 
 derstood the original languages in which the 
 Bible was written. That such a rnan should, 
 in such a manner, be brought to the knowledge 
 of the truth, avowing his faith cheerfully and 
 openly, was indeed an eminent triumph of the 
 gospel; and it gave great satisfaction to the 
 Universalists of the country. 
 
 The following announcement appeared in the 
 " Universalist Magazine" of May 31st, 1823: 
 
 Another Conversion in the Ministry. 
 " The Rev. Mr. Balfour, who has been for several 
 years a Baptist minister in Charlestown, Mass., has 
 recently become a L^niversalist. On the last Sabbath 
 morning, he made an avowal of his sentiments to his 
 congregation. The friends of universal grace and 
 salvation cannot but be thankful for this valuable ac- 
 quisition to the number of those who proclaim eter- 
 nal life sure in Christ Jesus for all mankind. Mr. 
 Balfour is the learned author of the Letters to 
 Prof. Stuart, which appeared sometime since in the 
 ' Universalist Magazine,' signed 'An Inquirer After 
 Truth.' " 
 
 The little congregation at Washington Hall 
 dispersed, and the place has never since been 
 used, we think, for the purpose of public wor-
 
 122 MEMOIR OF 
 
 ship. Some of the members followed their late 
 pastor to the Universalist meeting-house, where 
 he delivered lecture after lecture, in defence of 
 his new opinions. He found himself at once in 
 a new field of duty and labor.
 
 CHAP. VI. 
 
 Mr. Balfour's First Publication. 
 After Mr. Balfour had avowed him- ma course of 
 
 ^ Sermons in 
 
 self as a Universalist, and as the au- cuaneatown. 
 thor of the letters to Prof. Stuart, the Univer- 
 salists of his own town (prominent among whom 
 was Dr. A. R. Thompson) expressed a very 
 strong desire that he would deliver a course of 
 lectures in the Universalist church. This he 
 did not decline to do. They believed that he 
 possessed the learning and talents, the independ- 
 ence of mind and freedom from prejudice so 
 necessary to an impartial investigation of the 
 great subjects to which he had given his atten- 
 tion ; and many of his religious opponents did 
 him the justice to say he was not a rash man, 
 but one who proceeded with caution, who never 
 received anything as divine truth until he had 
 sufficiently and prayerfully considered it, and 
 was convinced it was such. The errors of his 
 early days he did not receive from examination, 
 but from his education, at home, and at the kirk,
 
 124 MEMOm OF 
 
 and by the influence of public opinion all around 
 him. Much of this he had to unlearn ; he gave 
 up those doctrines one after the other, as he 
 found them to be false. He became a Univer- 
 salist because he could not resist the powerful 
 influence of that doctrine. All this the Univer- 
 salists of Charlestown knew ; and they wished 
 to give him an opportunity to utter his opinions, 
 before the public, and in a place where all who 
 wished to hear could gain access. Accordingly, 
 he gave a course of sermons in the church re- 
 ferred to, which attracted much attention. They 
 embraced a Scriptural view of the meaning of 
 the four words translated AeZZ, viz., Sheol^ Hades^ 
 Tartarus and Gehenna. Mr. Balfour had fully 
 satisfied himself in writing his Letters to Prof. 
 Stuart, that the doctrine of the salvation of all 
 mankind was a doctrine of the divine word, 
 but there was a class of texts which seeemed to 
 oppose that doctrine. These it was his duty to 
 examine, and it was the result of that examina- 
 tion which he proposed to lay before the citizens 
 of Charlestown. 
 
 It is scarcely possible for any in this 
 day, who did not live at that time, and 
 participate in the soul-stirring events, to realize 
 the satisfaction afforded to those who listened to 
 
 Effects of the 
 Sermons.
 
 RRV. WALTER BALFOUR. 125 
 
 Mr. Balfour on the occasions referred to. The 
 
 Universalists of this country, it is true, had come 
 to the same general conclusions arrived at by 
 him, even before he was known to them ; but he 
 treated the Scriptures with a breadth of thought 
 and a scope of investigation rarely known among 
 them before, He entered into a faithful and 
 critical analysis of the Scriptures, classifying all 
 the passages in which the word hell occurs ; and 
 avowed it his full conviction, after the most thor- 
 ough examination that it was in his power to be- 
 stow upon the subject, that hell^ in the original 
 Scriptural sense of the word, did not signify a 
 place or state of endless misery, nor even of a 
 limited punishment after the present life. Such 
 was the effect of this course of sermons, that Mr. 
 Balfour was urged, very earnestly, to permit the 
 publication of his inquiries concerning the true 
 import of the word hell, as used by the Old and 
 New Testament writers. These are the facts 
 which gave rise to his, so called, ^7-5^ inquiry. 
 In July, 1823, came out the pros- import of 
 
 1 T 1 r- ^^ words 
 
 pectus for the publishment of the^^^^^''^'^^^"- 
 inquiry, entitled "An Inquiry into the Scriptural 
 import of the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus 
 and Gehenna, all translated Hell in the com- 
 mon Endish version." Mr. Balfour said —
 
 126 MEMOIR OF 
 
 " The principal object of the author has been to as- 
 certain by an examination of all the passages in which 
 these words occur, whether the inspired writers used 
 any of them to express a place of endless misery for 
 the \sicked. Though it is generally allowed that the 
 three first are not so used, yet, as some of the texts 
 in which these words occur, are still quoted in proof 
 of this docirine, such texts are considered. 
 
 "As it is universally contended that the word Ge- 
 henna is always used by the sacred writers to signify 
 such a place of misery, all the texts in which it oc- 
 curs are particularly examined. 1 his investigation of 
 the above words, as to their Scripture usage, has end- 
 ed in the conviction that, originally, no such idea was 
 attached to them. It was undertaken merely for the 
 author's own satisfaction upon this deeply interesting^ 
 subject to the human race ; but having delivered what 
 he had written in a series of discourses, at tlie request 
 of many who heard them, they are now submitted for 
 publication." 
 
 Outline of ^^^^ author pursued this object with 
 '''''''°'^- great faithfulness; and the plan of the 
 work undoubtedly was suggested to him by the 
 course which his mind had taken in the investi- 
 gation. It was as follows : 
 
 Chap. i. — Sheol^ Hades and Tartarus. 
 
 Sec. 1st. All the passages of Scripture considered 
 in which Sheol occurs, translated pit, grave and hell, 
 in the common version. 
 
 Sec. 2d. All the passages in which Hades occurs, 
 translated grave, and hell, in the common version, 
 considered. 
 
 Sec. 3d. 2 Peter : 2,4, considered. This is the 
 only place in which Tartarosas is used and is trans- 
 lated hell in the common version.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 127 
 
 Chap. ii. — Gehenna. 
 
 Sec. 1st. Remarks on Dr. Campbell's views of Ge- 
 henna, which is uniformly rendered hell in the com- 
 mon version. 
 
 Sec. 2d. A number of facts stated which are not 
 easily accounted for, if by Gehenna, the sacred writ- 
 ers meant a place of endless misery. 
 
 Sec. 3d. All the passages in which Gehenna oc- 
 curs, considered. 
 
 Sec. 4th. Additional facts stated, proving that Ge- 
 henna was not used by the sacred writers to express 
 a place of endless misery. 
 
 Sec. 5th. The argument arising from the authority 
 of the Targums and the Apocrapha, in favor of end- 
 less misery, considered. 
 
 Sec. 6th. Objections answered. 
 
 Sec. 7th. Concluding remarks. 
 
 The work came out in Febru- it sets aside the 
 
 doctrioe of 
 
 ary, 1824, an octavo of 448 pages, ^^ture pumaiiment. 
 and followed this general plan. Mr. Balfour's 
 inquiries into the Scriptural import of tlfe words 
 rendered hell, had led him, not only to reject the 
 doctrine of endless punishment, but the doctrine 
 of punishment altogether, so far as it related to 
 the future life. There were Universalists who 
 took the same ground with Mr. Balfour in this 
 respect, especially Rev. Hosea Ballou, of Boston, 
 and that very large class of Universalists who 
 sympathized with him in opinion on this point. 
 But the earlier Universalists, and indeed some 
 at the time of which we are treating, held that
 
 128 MEMOIR OF 
 
 although hell was not a place of endless misery, 
 yet it was a place of a purgatorial punishment 
 after death. When Mr. Balfour first avowed 
 himself to be a Universalist, there was a some- 
 what lively interest to know on which side of 
 this question of future limited punishment he 
 would take ground. But with his wonted frank- 
 ness he dispelled, in the very first paragraph of 
 his "Introduction," all doubt on this point. 
 
 " The simple object of the author, in this Inquiry, 
 is, to examine the foundation on which the doctrme of 
 endless misery is built. This doctrine rests on the 
 fact or ihe falsehood that a place called Ae//, in a tuture 
 state, is prepared for the punishment of the wicked. 
 In speaking, atid preaching, and writing on the sub- 
 ject, this is always presumed as true. It is taken for 
 granted as indisputable. Most Universali.sts have 
 conceded this to their opponents, and have contended 
 not agaifcst the existence of such a place of misery, 
 but against the endless duration of its punishment. 
 All the principal writers on both sides of this ques- 
 tion proceed on this ground, that there is a place of 
 future punishment, and that the name of it is hell. 
 Winchester, Murray, Chauncey, Huntington and oth- 
 ers, all admit that hell is a place of future punishment. 
 Edwards, Strong, and others who oppose<l them, had 
 no occasion to prove this, but only to show that it was 
 to be endless in its duration. This Inquiry is princi- 
 pally for the purpose of investigating, if what has 
 been taken for granted by the one party, and conce- 
 ded by the other, is a doctrine taught in Scripture. If 
 the views I have advanced be false, it still leaves the 
 question between Universalists and their opponents 
 undisturbed. If they are found upon examination to
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 129 
 
 bs true, all dispute about endless misery in hell mast 
 of coarse cea->e, for if no sach place exists, [in the 
 fature statej why dispute about the endless duration 
 of its punishment? " 
 
 The word Sheol, as Mr. Balfoar ^^^^.^^^^^^ 
 showed, occurred in the Old Testa- -^^°^h-°^- 
 ment in sixty-four instances. In thirty-two of 
 these, it is rendered in the common version, pit 
 and grave, and in thirty-two, hell. Mr. Balfour 
 examined every passage by itself, and havino- 
 done this, he came to the following conclusion : 
 
 " 1st. The word translated everlasting, eternal, for- 
 ever, is never connected with Sheol or hell by any of 
 the Old Testament writers. If they indeed believed 
 that this was a place of punishment for the wicked, 
 and that it was endless in its duration, it is somewhat 
 surprising that this should be the case. Every one 
 knows that these words are very often used there, but 
 not in a single instance do the inspired writers in any 
 way use them, when speaking of Sheol, or hell. So 
 far from this, we have seen that in some of the' texts, 
 it is said, h^ll is to be destroyed. We may then make 
 an appeal to every candid mind, and ask, if Sheol or 
 hell in the Old Testament refers to a place of eternal 
 misery, how are we to account for this? The fact is 
 certain. To account for it, 1 leave to those who be- 
 lieve this doctrine. We read, to be sure, in books 
 and we have heard it also in sermons, of an eternal 
 hell, but such language is not found once in all the 
 book of God, nor did it ever drop from the lips of any 
 inspired writer. 
 
 '' •2J. Another fact equally certain, is, that noi only 
 are the words eternal, everlasting, or forever, omitted 
 in speaking of Sheol, or hell, but this place is not 
 y
 
 130 MEMOIR OF 
 
 spoken about, as a place of misery, at all. Whether 
 Sheol is translated pit, grave, or h^ll, in not one of 
 the passages, is it described as a place of misery or 
 punishment for the wicked, or for any one else. Be- 
 fore there need be any dispute, whether the punish- 
 ment in this place is to be of eternal duration, we have 
 got first to prove that it is a place of punishment. 
 But as this place is Sheol and not Gehenna, I pass 
 this over. 
 
 " 3d. But so far from its being a place of misery, 
 or eternal in its daration, it is also a fact, that it is 
 described as a place of insensibility and ignorance. 
 We are told that there is "no work, nor device, nor 
 knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, or Sheol, 
 whither thou goest." Eccles. ix : 10. Besides, 
 Hezekiah, we have seen, said Isaiah, xxxviii : 18 — 
 " the grave cannot praise thee ; death cannot celebrate 
 thee ; they that go down mto the pit carmot hope for 
 thy truth." I ask, could those persons have spoken 
 in this manner, it they believed that Sheol or hell 
 was a place of punishment? Yea;, I ask, could they 
 in truth have spoken so, if their ideas about Sheol 
 were the same as Christians aie about hell"? we think 
 this is impossible." 
 
 Mr. Balfour also showed, that the habits of 
 speech of believers in endless misery in our day- 
 are altogether different from the language of the 
 Old Testament writers on the subject of punish- 
 ment, of salvation, and of the state of the de- 
 parted. But to understand all that is said on 
 this subject, his Inquiry must be read. 
 
 Mr. Balfour showed, that the word 
 Hades occurred eleven times in the 
 
 Esaniination 
 
 ab to H.ADB3. 
 
 i
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 131 
 
 New Testament, in ten of which it is translated 
 kell,^ud in one, viz., 1 Cor. xv : 55, grave. He 
 showed that this word answered precisely to the 
 ^eol of the Old Testament. If the former did 
 not signify a place of misery in the future state, 
 so neither did the latter. Mr. Balfour contended 
 that this word originally had no reference to a 
 place of future torment. The account of the 
 rich man in Luke xvi., 23, he contended is a para- 
 bolic representation. He admitted that our Lord 
 might here allude to what he called the heathen 
 notion of punishment after death, but not to re- 
 cognize this notion as truth, any more than he 
 recognized the god mammon, when he said, " ye 
 cannot serve God and mammon ; " or Paul the 
 doctrine of witchcraft, when he said, " foolish 
 Galatians, who hath bewitched you;" or any 
 more than we, when we say, such an one has 
 got St. Anthony's fire, another St. Vitu's dance, 
 recognize the influence of these saints in pro- 
 ducing these disorders. He contended that the 
 Jews got their notion of future punishment from 
 the heathen, in proof of which he adduced a lu- 
 minous quotation from Dr. Campbell, in the third 
 section of this chapter. After considering all 
 the passages in which Hades occurs, Mr. Bal- 
 four said, " These are all the passages in which 
 9#
 
 132 MEMOIR OF 
 
 the New Testament writers use the word Hades, 
 and which is once translated grave, and ten 
 times hell in the common version. We think 
 all must admit that it is never used to express a 
 place of endless misery ; and some evidence has 
 been given that it is never used to express a place 
 of punishment of any kind." 
 
 In regard to the use of the word Hades in the 
 parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Mr. Bal- 
 four further showed, that the apostles could not 
 have understood the Saviour as teaching the 
 doctrine of future punishment, for not one of 
 them ever afterward spoke of Hades as a place, 
 or state, of future punishment, a fact which is 
 altogether unaccountable on the supposition that 
 Jesus intended to signify such a state by the use 
 of that word. Let this great fact be well re- 
 membered. 
 
 In concluding his remarks on Hades ]\Ir. Bal- 
 four says, — 
 
 " 1st. It will not be disputed by any man, that what 
 the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed 
 by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word 
 Hades. Both words appear to have been used to ex- 
 press the grave or state of the dead. 
 
 "2d. But observe, that the heathen Greeks seem 
 not ordy to have attached similar ideas to the word 
 Hades, as the Hebrew writers did to the word Sheol, 
 bat also the additional idea, that in Hades persons
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 133 
 
 were punished or rewarded, according to their merits 
 or demerits in the present world. This was their own 
 addition ; for no such idea seems to he conveyed in 
 all the Old Testament, by the word Sheol. The evi- 
 dence of this adduced above, we think will be allowed 
 conclusive. 
 
 " If the Jews did not imbibe the idea, that Hades 
 was a place of punishment, from the heathen, let it 
 be shown from what source the Jews derived this in- 
 formation. They attached no such idea to the word 
 Sheol, nor does the Old Testament contain such in- 
 formation. The doctrine must either be from heaven 
 or of men. I have attempted to prove that it is not 
 from heaven It becomes those who believe it, to 
 show that it is not of men, or cease from believinfj it, 
 and from quoting the texts in which Siieol and Hades 
 occur, in proof of it. The very circumstance, that 
 only Hades, and not Sheol, is represented as a place 
 of torment, shows in part, that this doctrine is of 
 heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word ; and it is 
 well known that Greek was the language of the 
 heathen, and Hebrew that of the Jews. 
 
 " 3d. Since neither Sheol nor Hades, nor even the 
 word hell, in English, originally signified a place of 
 endless misery, we have a few questions to put to 
 those who believe in this doctrine. We ask, then, is 
 it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to quote any 
 of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to prove 
 it? It is well known that such texts are often quoted 
 for this purpose. But I ask again, is it not a very- 
 great imposition upon the ignorant, to quote such 
 texts in proof of this doctrine? The simple, honest- 
 hearted English reader of his Bible, sees the word 
 hell often used by the sacred writers. He lias been 
 taught from a child, that hell means a place of end- 
 less misery for the wicked. Every book he reads, 
 every sermon he hears, all tend to deepen his early
 
 134 MEMOIR OF 
 
 impressions, and confirm him in this opinion. Those 
 who know better, are not much disposed to undeceive 
 him about such mistaken views and wrong impres- 
 sions. On the one hand, they are perhaps deterred 
 from it by a false fear of disturbing public opinion, 
 and on the other, by reluctance to encounter the odium 
 of the Christian public, in being looked on as heretics. 
 Select the most celebrated preacher you can find, and 
 let him frankly and fully tell his audience, that neither 
 Sheol, nor Hades, nor eveii our woid hell, did, orig- 
 inally, mean a place of endless misery, and his celeb- 
 rity is at an end. He would from that moment be 
 considered as an heretic, and his former admirers 
 would now be his most warm opposers. Bu', I ask 
 again, and I solemnly put it to every man's conscience, 
 who professes to fear God, — ought not men to be hon- 
 estly and plainly told the truth about this, let the con- 
 sequences be what they may? Are we at liberty to 
 pervert the Scriptures in favor of any sect, or system 
 in the world 1 
 
 " 4th. The translators of our common English ver- 
 sion appear to have had more correct ideas about 
 Sheol, Hades, or hell, than most people who read 
 their translation. They certainly were at some pains 
 to guard us against attacliing to the word hell the idea 
 of a place of endless misery. In many places where 
 they render Sheol and Hades by the word hell, they 
 have put grave in the margin. Besides, let it be re- 
 membered that the word hell originally signified the 
 same as Sheol and Hades. If was then the very best 
 word they could use in rendering these two words. 
 If men have affixed a different sense to the word hell, 
 the translators are not to blame. 
 
 " 5th. Several very serious evils arise from under- 
 standing Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless 
 misery. In the first place, it is a perveision of those
 
 REV. AVALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 135 
 
 texts ia which these words occur. This perversion of 
 them leads to a misunderstanding of many others. 
 By this means, the knowledge such texts convey, is 
 not only in some degree lost, but our knowledge of 
 the word of God is greatly retarded, and our minds 
 are perplexed and embarrassed on other connected 
 subjects. Every text of Scripture misunderstood, 
 lays a foundation for a misunderstanding of others ; 
 and thus error is not only rendered perpetual, but pro- 
 gressive. 
 
 " But this is not all. Understanding Sheol and 
 Hades to mean a place of endless misery, is pervert- 
 ing God's word to caricature himself. It is putting 
 our own sense on his words, to make him say things 
 ag'dinst ourselves which he never intended. It is giv- 
 ing a false color to the lanj/uage of the Bible, that we 
 may support the false views we entertain of his char- 
 acter, and his dealings with the children of men. 
 
 " 6th. I may just add about Hades Vvhat was no- 
 ticed about Sheol, that we never find the words eter- 
 nal, everlastino, or forever, used in connexion with it, 
 or concerning it. We never read of an everlasting or 
 eternal Hades or hell, or that men are to be punished 
 in it forever. Nothing like this is to be found in 
 Sciipture. Such epithets added to the word hell, 
 found in books and sermons, are among the improve- 
 ments in divinity which man's wisdom teacheih. The 
 word hell is first perverted from its original significa- 
 tion, and then the word eternal is added to it, to make 
 the punishment of endless duration." 
 
 The word Tartarus occurs but ^^^^.^^^.^^ ^ 
 once in the Bible, 2 Peter ii : 4. ^°^-^-- 
 Mr, Balfour explained this passage on the same 
 principle on which he interpreted the use of Ha- 
 des by our Lord in the parable of the Rich Man.
 
 136 MEMOIR OF 
 
 It was a reference by Peter to a heathen notion 
 by way of illustraiion, but with no intent of re- 
 cognizing it as truth. jVlr. B. concluded this 
 section by showing the following results : 
 
 " 1st. The doctrine of punishment in Tartarus 
 seems to have originated with legislators, for the pur- 
 pose of restraining the passions of the multitude, and 
 to alarm ' them on all sides with the most frightful 
 representations,' Ihe Persians, Chaldeans, Kgyp- 
 lians and Greeks, all introduced punishment alter 
 death. The Jewish nation is an exception. Some 
 deistical writers have even blamed Moses as a legis- 
 lator for not introducing eternal punishment into his 
 code of laws, as a curb on men against licentiousness. 
 It is generally allowed that the punishments threat- 
 ened in the Old Tesiamenl are of a temporal nature. 
 
 "2d. From the above quotation, it appears that 
 though punishment after death in Tartarus was be- 
 lieved by the heathen generally, yet the better inform- 
 ed among them did not believe ' in thefalhs of hell, ^ 
 but turned tliem into ridicule. Juvenal took no part 
 in those opinions of the vulgar ; and Yirgil says — 
 ' it w as the province of philosophy alone to shake oft' 
 the yoke of custom, riveted by education.' Is it not 
 then strange, that a doctrine which was invented by 
 heathens, and treated with contempt by their own 
 wisest men, should be a fundamental article in the 
 faith of christians? How is this to be accounted for? 
 
 " 3d. I may just add, that when the heathen were 
 made converts to the Christian faith, all allow that 
 many of their previous notions were soon incorporated 
 wiih it. This, together with the erroneous views 
 held by the Jewish converts, laid a foundation for 
 such a corruption of Christianity, which, if it were 
 not attested by evidence indisputable, could not be be- 
 lieved. That punishment in Hades, or Tartaius, af-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 137 
 
 ter death, is but a part of this cOTruption of Christian* 
 ity derived from the heathen, at least deserves to be 
 seriously considered. The evidence we have adduced, 
 proving that it is, we submit to the reader's judg- 
 ment. 
 
 " To conclude this chapter. We have shown, that 
 neither Sheol, Hades^ nor Tartarus, is ever used by 
 the sacred writers to signify a place of endless misery 
 for the wicked. This was all we were bound to do 
 in opposing the common opinion on this subject. But 
 we have also shown that this opinion originated with 
 the heathen, and that ihe Jews learned it from them. 
 To invalidate the evidence which has been produced, 
 the very reverse must be proved.'' 
 
 The word Gehenna had been re- ^^^ . ,,. ^ „ 
 
 i:>xain.naticn as 
 
 lied on, by learned theologians, as 
 the word by which they were to prove the doc- 
 trine of endless misery. If they gave up this 
 w^ord, all support of the doctrine referred to was 
 gone. Here they had made their last stand; 
 and it was not to be supposed they were to be 
 driven from this point, without the greatest ef- 
 fort to sustain themselves which they were ca- 
 pable of making. Mr. Balfour knew this. He 
 knew, therefore, that his fullest attention must 
 be given to the Scriptural use of the word Ge- 
 henna,. He says, — 
 
 " Vv'e have now arrived at a part of this Inquiry, 
 which requires the utmost attention. The Xew Tes- 
 tament is considered as clearly and decidedly teaching 
 the doctrine of endless misery to all the wicked, and
 
 J 38 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Gehenna is the place in which they are said to suffer 
 it. The truth ox falsehood of this doctrine is then at 
 issue upon the decision of the question — What is the 
 Scripture meaning and usage of the word Gehenna? " 
 
 He devotes one section to reviewing the re- 
 marks of Dr. Campbell on the word Gehenna^ 
 in which he shows that the learned author had 
 acknowledged that the corresponding Hebrew 
 terms in the Old Testament signified merely 
 temporal punishment ; but that the word Gehen- 
 na had come, in our Saviour's time, to signify a 
 place of endless punishment. The latter posi- 
 tion Mr. Balfour disputes, and, in the Sequel, 
 renders it utterly untenable. 
 Important facta ^0 gives a serios of facts to show 
 as to Gehenna. ^^^^ Gehewm is not uscd by the 
 New Testament writers to signify a place of fu- 
 ture punishment. 
 
 " 1st, Then, let it be kept in remembrance, that 
 neither Gehenna nor any other word is used in the 
 Old Testament to express a place of endless misery 
 for the wicked. This we presume will be admitted 
 as established from the preceding pait of our exam- 
 ination. It is evident from chap. i. that Sheol, Hades, 
 and Tartarus, have no such meaning. 
 
 " 2d. The word Gehenna occurs just twelves limes 
 in the New Testament, and is always translated hell 
 in our English version. The following aie all the 
 places where this word is found: Matt, v : 22, 29, 
 30, and xviii : 9, Mark ix : 43, 47; Luke xh : 5 ;
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 139 
 
 Matt. X : 23, atid xxiii : 15, 33 ; James iii : ^;. T only 
 refer to these texts now, because they shall all be 
 particularly considered afterwards. The fact that this 
 word is only fonnd twelve times in the New Testa- 
 ment, I notice for the following^ reasons : 
 
 *' It is contended by Dr. Campbell, and I believe is 
 universally admitted, that Gehenna is the only word 
 which signifies the place of endless punishment for 
 the wicked. But do most Christians know that the 
 word hell, so much talked of and preached about, is 
 only found twelve times in the Scriptures'? But a lit- 
 tle reflection may convince any one that, properly 
 speaking-, it w^as not used originally so often as twelve 
 times. It occurs eleven times in the gospels written 
 by Matthew, Mark and Luke, and by comparing the 
 places, it is easily seen, that these historians only re- 
 late some of the same discourses, in which our Lord 
 used this word. Though it occurs then eleven times 
 in the three histories given us by those evangelists, it 
 is plain it was not so often used by him when he ut- 
 tered his discourses. Viewing the matter in this light, 
 and surely it is the true one, few words of such im- 
 portance occur so seldom in the New Testament as 
 the word Gehenna, 
 
 ******** 
 
 " 3d. Another fact is, that the word Gehenna, or 
 hell, is used by our Lord, and by James, but by no 
 other person in the New Testament. This fact, every 
 person who can read English, may satisfy himself 
 about in the course of a few minutes, by reading all 
 the texts referred to above where the word Gehenna 
 is found. Is it not, then, somew'hat surprising, that 
 it should only be used twelve times in the New Tes- 
 tament, and still more surprising, that our Lord and 
 J-ames should be the only persons who say anything 
 about it? 
 
 ******** 
 
 " 4th. Another fact deserving our attention, is, that
 
 140 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 all that is said about Gehenna in the way of threaten- 
 ing-, or in any other shape, was spoken to Jews. Jews, 
 and they only, were the persons addressed, when 
 speaking of Gehenna. It is not once named to the 
 Gentiles in all the New Testament, nor are any of 
 them ever threatened with such a punishment. This 
 fact is indisputable. The evidence of its truth does 
 not depend on a tedious, intricate process of reason- 
 ing, which few persons could go through and decide 
 about. All that any one has to do is to read all the 
 texts referied to, in which Gehenna occurs, in con- 
 nexion with their contexts, and he must be satisfied 
 of the correctness of my statement. 
 
 ******** 
 
 " 5th. Another very important fact to be noticed, 
 is, that the chief part of all that our Lord said about 
 Gehenna, was spoken to his disciples. Out of twelve 
 times in which Gehenna or hell is mentioned in the 
 New Testament, in only two instances is a word said 
 about it to the unbelieving part of the Jewish nation. 
 In nine of those places our Lord was evidently ad- 
 dressmg his disciples, and in the other place where 
 Gehenna is mentioned, James was addressing believ- 
 ing Jews of the twelve tribes, who were scattered 
 abroad. This fact is also so notorious that the te.vts 
 where the word Gehenna occurs, need only to be con- 
 sulted, to satisfy any one of its truth. It is |not 
 more certain that this word occurs just twelve times 
 in the New Testament, than it is certainly used ten 
 times in speaking to the disciples, and only twice to 
 the unbelieving Jews. 
 
 ** * * **** 
 
 " 6th. But another fact which deserves some no- 
 lice, is, that in all the places where Gehenna or hell 
 is mentioned, the persons addressed are supposed to 
 be acquainted with its meaning. No explanation is 
 asked, and none is given, nor is it thought, either by 
 speaker or hearers, to be necessary. The Jews, who
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 141 
 
 are always the persons addressed, appear to have un- 
 derstood what our Lord meant by the punishment or 
 damnation of Gehenna, as well as what was meant by 
 stoning to death. The very first time ii is mentioned, 
 Matt. V. 22, the disciples had no more eccasion to ask 
 our Lord what he meant by Gehenna, than what he 
 meant by the judgment and council. If this be true, 
 and we think it will not be disputed, a very important 
 question arises, — how came they to understand that 
 Gehenna meant a place of eternal punishment for all 
 the wicked ? From what source did they derive their 
 information concerning this? I cannot conceive of 
 any sources from whence they could pi)ssib]y derive 
 this information, unless from one or other of the fol- 
 lowing : 
 
 " 1st. From immediatp inspiration. No evidence 
 that this was the case can be produceed, nor is it like- 
 ly to be asserted by any person who has considered 
 the subject. 
 
 "2d. The preaching of John the Baptist. But as 
 John never said a word about Gehenna to his hearers, 
 this cannot be contended for by any one. 
 
 "3d. Did they then derive their information from 
 the insti'iictions and explanations of the Saviour? 
 Neither can this be contended for by any one who has 
 read the four gospels. Our Lord on no one occasion 
 ever gave any such explanation of Gehenna. No man 
 will say he ever did. 
 
 "4th. Did they derive their information from Me 
 Old Testament Scriptures which they had in their 
 hands? This they could not do, for we have seen 
 above, that it did not contain much inf(jrmation. They 
 could not learn a doctrine from it, which Dr. Camp- 
 bell and others declare it did not teach. We have 
 seen what the Old Testaiament leaches about Gehen- 
 na, but not a word does it say that it means a place 
 of future eternal misery for the wicked. 
 
 " 5th. The only other source from whence they
 
 142 MEMOIR OF 
 
 could learn that Gehenna meant a place of endless 
 punishment for the wicked, was the writings oi falli- 
 ble, uninspired men. Accordingly, no other alterna- 
 tive was left Dr. Campbell but to say, that ' Gehenna, 
 in process of time, came to be used in this sense, and 
 at length came to be confined to it.' Here, then is 
 the way in which it is said Gehenna came to have the 
 sense which is now commonly given it.'' 
 
 Autbe passages ^^^1 Stating thcse very important 
 considered. ^^^^^^ ^^ Balfour proceeds to con- 
 sider every passage in the New Testament in 
 which the word Gehenna occurs. But we must 
 refer to the work itself for what he says on this 
 point. Suffice it to remark, that he clearly, ful- 
 ly, and unquestionably shows, that the word is 
 not, in a single instance, used by the sacred 
 writers to signify a place of punishment in the 
 future state. He considers every passage in 
 connexion with its context, and with the circum- 
 stances under which it was spoken, and comes 
 to the conclusion above named without a solitary 
 doubt being upon his mind. There is a fund of 
 Scriptural criticism in this part of the work, 
 which ought never to be lost. Let successive 
 authors and preachers, who love the Bible in 
 its true sense, keep these very important ex- 
 planations, collations, reasonings and conclu- 
 sions, before the people. They must not be lost, 
 and thank God they cannot be. They are be-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 143 
 
 fore the world ; and the light of them can no 
 more be extinguished than the light of the sun. 
 To Mr. Balfour, more than to any other man, 
 must be ascribed the credit of bringing out and 
 setting in order these arguments and interpreta- 
 tions. 
 
 Having completed the examination of ^^^.^^^^^ 
 all the texts, Mr. Balfour proceeds to give ^'^^' 
 additional facts, showing that the word Gehenna 
 was not used by the sacred writers to denote a 
 place of punishment in the future state. We 
 give merely an outline of these facts, referring 
 the reader to the work itself for the full argu- 
 ment. 
 
 " 1st. If Gehenna means a place of endless misery 
 for the wicked, it is a fact that the apostles never 
 preached it, either to Jeivs or Gentiles. The historv 
 of the Acts of the apostles contains an accotmt of 
 their preaching for thirty years, but not once is the 
 subject oVidl or Gehenna torments mentioned by them. 
 They were commanded to preach the gospel to every 
 creature, and they did so, but to no creature under 
 heaven did they ever preach this doctrine. No living 
 being did ihey ever threaten with such a punishment. 
 They addressed the worst of charactecs, but to none 
 of them did they ever say, ' how can ye escape the 
 damnation of Gehenna? ' 
 
 " 2d. Another fact is, that the salvation revealed 
 by the go:>pel, is never spoken of as a salvation from 
 hell or endless misery. No such salvation was ever 
 promised or predicted in the Old Testament, and no
 
 144 MEMOIR OF 
 
 such salvation was ever preached by Christ, or his 
 ' apostles. Oar Lord received the name Jesus, because 
 he should save his peofle from their sins. But I do not 
 find that he received this name, or any other, because 
 he should save them from hell Our Lord and his 
 apostles, in their preaching, proposed by it to turn 
 men from darkness to light : from the power of satan 
 unto God ; from idols to serve the living God ; from 
 the course of this world ; and from all sin to holiness ; 
 but where do we ever read of their proposing to save 
 them from hell ? No such salvation was preached by 
 our Lord. In all the above texts, where he speaks of 
 hell, he was not preaching the gospel, but addressing 
 the Jews about the temporal calamities coming on 
 them as a people. In no instance did he ever exhort 
 men to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, be- 
 cause they were exposed to hell tormenis in a future 
 state. So far from this, in nine instances out of elev- 
 en, where Gehenna is used by him, he was addressing 
 his disciples. It is of no use to observe, that his apos- 
 tles never made use of the punishment of hell to in- 
 duce men to repentance, for they do not once name it 
 in all their writings. James is the only exception, 
 who mentions hell once, and that only in a figurative 
 sense. Nothing is said in our Lord's commission to 
 his apostles about hell, and as little is said of it by 
 them in their execution of it. To Jew and Gentile, 
 bond and free, they are all silent about it. It is never ^ 
 mentioned by them to any persons, on any occasion, ' 
 or in any connexion, or on any subject. 
 
 *■'* * * * * * * 
 
 " 3d. Supposing that hell is a place of endless mis- 
 ery for the wicked, it will not be an easy matter to 
 vindicate either the character of our Lord or of his 
 apostles. 
 
 It will not be easy to vindicate their character for 
 jidehly to God, or to the souls of men. It is certain 
 our Lord was faithful to him who appointed hira.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 145 
 
 The apostles were also faithful, in declaring the whole 
 counsel of God. But can all this be true, if they 
 knew that hell was a place of eternal misery, and that 
 all the wurld stood exposed to it, yet said nothing to 
 them about it? It is true the Saviour mentions hell 
 nine times to his disciples, and twice to the unbeliev- 
 ing Jews, but we have seen that he did not refer to 
 such a place of misery. Neither he nor his apostles 
 ever used the word in speaking to the Gentiles. Now 
 I ask, is this like being faithful? Is this being half 
 so faithful as most preachers are in our day ? We 
 think every candid man must say no ; it is rather be- 
 ing very unfaithful, if they indeed believed this doc- 
 trine as it is commonly received among us. Let it 
 then be accounted tor, how preaching hell as a place 
 of endless misery now is so much a daty, since it was 
 not so accounted by the apostles, nor even by our Lord 
 himself- 
 
 "4th. The Old Testatment is often quoted in the 
 New, but it is an indisputable fact, that though quo- 
 ted by our Lord when speaking about hell, or Gehen- 
 na, it is not quoted to show that hell was a place of 
 eternal misery, but in reference to temporal punish- 
 ment. Indeed, it was impossible for our Lord or his 
 apostles to quote the Old Testament to prove that hell 
 was such a place of m^ery ; for it is acknowledged 
 by Dr. Campbell and others, that in this sense Gehen- 
 na or hell does not occur there. They could not make 
 a quotation in proof ot this from it, for it did not af- 
 ford them anything to quote. Well, permit me to 
 ask, why our Lord did quote the Old Testament, and 
 quoted it on the very texts in which hell or Gehenna 
 is spoken of? In Mark ix. considered above, our Lord 
 expressly quotes a passage from Isaiah, when speak- 
 ing concarning hell to his disc.iple;^. In other places 
 he seems to allude to others. Had our Lord then 
 meant to use Gehenna or hell in a different sense from 
 10
 
 146 MEMOIR OF 
 
 that in the Old Testament, was it not calculated to 
 mislead his hearers thus lo quote iti 
 
 " 5th. If there he a place of endless misery for the 
 wicked, is it not another remarkable fact that the He- 
 brew, Greek, and English languages originally had 
 no name for this place? We have seen from Dr. 
 Campbell, that Gehenna does not occur in this sense 
 in the Old Testament ; that it is not a Greek word ; 
 that it is not found in the Septuagint, nor in the Gre- 
 cian classics. It is originally ' a compound of the 
 two Hebrew words gia enm, ge hinno?n, the valley of 
 Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, of which we hear 
 first in the book of Joshua xv. 8.' Let us also see 
 what he says about our English word hell. Speaking 
 of Hades, in his sixth dissertaiion, he says: 'To 
 this the word hell in its primitive signification perfect- 
 ly corresponded. For, at first it denoted only what 
 was secret or concealed. This word is found vvilh 
 little variation of form, and precisely in the same 
 meaning, m all the Teutonic dialects. But though 
 our word hell, in its original signification, was more 
 adapted to express the sense of Hades than cf Ge- 
 henna, it is not so now. When we speak as Chris- 
 tians, we always express by it the place of the pun- 
 ishment of the wicked after the general judgment, as 
 opposed to heaven, the plice of the reward of the 
 righteous.' It is very evident from this, that the word 
 hell did not originally signify a place of endless 
 misery. 
 
 *' It is then a very plain case, that for this place of 
 endless misery, the Hebrew, Greek and English lan- 
 guages did not originally furnish a name. We have 
 then to ask, had the inspired writers any idea of such 
 a place of misery? If they had, it is evident they 
 wanted a name for it to express it to others. If they 
 have not expressed it by any word to others, how does
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR, 147 
 
 any man know that they entertained such an idea? 
 We have seen persons use words to which they had 
 no distinct ideas. And ue have also seen persons 
 having ideas, which they could not very easily ex- 
 press in appropriate language to others. But we be- 
 lieve it is a singular case, that the Bible is said to re- 
 veal a place of endless misery, yet the inspired wri- 
 ters had no name for it. It will not do to say, — did 
 not our Lord call it Gehenna, and did not our transla- 
 tors call it hell' No; this will never do ; for we 
 have seen that the word Gehenna is borrowed from 
 the Old Testament, yet this is not its sense there. 
 And we have seen from an examination of all the pas- 
 sages where it occurs in the New, that our Lord did 
 not by Gehenna mean a place of endless misery. Yea, 
 we have seen that it is conceded by those who believed 
 Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery, that the 
 word hell, in its original signification, had no such 
 meaning. It is surely then a very proper question lo 
 be asked, who changed the words Gehenna and hell 
 from their original signification to mean a place ot 
 endless misery? We shall see in the next section 
 that the writers of the Targums and the apocrypha 
 are appealed to for this change, that this change was 
 gradually produced, and finally Gehenna was used ex- 
 clusively to mean such a place of misery. Who gave 
 this new sense to the word hell, or whether its change 
 of sense was gradual or sudden, I can afford no infor- 
 mation. It is enough for us to know that this was 
 not its original signification ; and this fact is attested 
 by Dr. Campbell, Parkhursi and others, all Arm be- 
 lievers in the doctrine of hell torments. 
 
 " 6th. Another fact deserving our consideration, is, 
 that Christians, when they speak of hell, adopt the 
 phraseology used about Sheol and Hades, rather than 
 Gehenna, though it is contended that Gehenna is the 
 word which signifies hell, or the place of endless mis- 
 10=^
 
 148 MEMOIR OF 
 
 ery. I shall explain what I mean. For example, it 
 is evident upon an inspection of the passages in which 
 Sheol, Hades and Gehenna occur, that Gehenna, for 
 depth, is never contrasted with heaven for height, like 
 Sheol and Hades. Nor do we read of persons going 
 down to Gehenna, of the depths of Gehenna, or of 
 the lowest Gehenna. Neither do we read of the gates 
 of Gehenna, nor of the pains of Gehenna. All these 
 things are said of Sheol and Hades, as we have seen 
 in a former part of this Inquiry. Besides, no repre- 
 sentations are given of Gehenna as of Sheol and Ha- 
 des, as if all the dead or even the wicked were there. 
 ******** 
 
 " 7th. Another fact deserving some notice, is, that 
 the punishment of hell or Gehenna is never once 
 spoken of as a punishment of the spirit, separate from 
 the body in an intermediate state, nor as a punish- 
 ment for both body and spirit, after the resurrection 
 of the dead, 
 
 ****##*# 
 
 " 8th. Closely connected with the last fact is anoth- 
 er, that the learned seem to believe in two places of 
 future punishment, and the common people only in 
 one. L)r. Campbell, we have seen, declares that Ge- 
 henna is the place of eternal punishment for all the 
 wicked. He also thinks that Hades is an intermedi- 
 ate punishment until the resurrection ; but that this 
 place is then to be destroyed. If it be true, then, that 
 Hades is one place of punishment, and Gehenna anoth- 
 er, it is beyond all doubt that there are two places of 
 future punishment, the one temporary, and the other 
 
 after the resurrection of the dead. 
 
 ******** 
 
 " 9th. Another fact is, that though we read of the 
 sea, death and Hades, delivering up the dead which 
 are in them, yet we never read of Gehenna's deliver- 
 ing up anything dead or alive. Now let us suppose 
 that at death the body goes to Hades, the grave, or 

 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR 149 
 
 State of the dead, and the spirit goes to Gehenna or 
 hell, to suffer punishment until the resurrection of the 
 body. If this commonly received doctrine be true, is 
 it not as rational to think that we should read in Scrip- 
 ture of Gehenna or hell's delivering up the spirits of 
 the wicked at the resurrection, as that Hades or the 
 grave should deliver up their bodies 1 In order to a 
 reunion at this period, it is just as necessary that the 
 spirits should come forth from the one place, as their 
 bodies from the other. But nothing like this is to be 
 found in the Bible. 
 
 " lOth. Another important fact deserving our no- 
 tice, is, that none of the original words translated in 
 the common version, eternal, everlasting and forever, 
 are once connected with Gehenna, or hell.. Not an 
 instance can be found where we read of an everlast- 
 ing Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or of an everlasting Ge- 
 henna, or hell. No ; though we often hear preachers, 
 in our day, speak of an erernal hell, such language 
 never was used by any inspired writer. The phrase 
 ' everlasting fire ' occurs in the Bible, and this has 
 been shown before to be the same as ' everlasting 
 punishment,' and the ' fire that never shall be quench- 
 ed.' But we have seen that none of these expres- 
 sions refer to a place in a future state called Gehen- 
 na, or hell ; or that the punishment referred to is end- 
 less in its duration. But an eternal hell is often heard 
 of from the pulpit, and perhaps many believe it to be 
 a Scripture exprossion. 
 
 " 11th. In the common language of most Chris- 
 tians, you find heaven as the place of blessedness for 
 the righteous, spoken of in contrast with Gehenna or 
 hell, the place of endless misery for the wicked. 
 Whatever they say about the former, they have a 
 counterpart in speaking of the latter. But when we 
 look into the Bible, we do not find such a counterpart.
 
 150 MEMOIR OF 
 
 I shall illustrate what I mean by an example or two. 
 In the Bible we find persons expressing their hopes of 
 going to heaven ; but do we ever read of one express- 
 ing his fears of going to Gehenna or helH We in- 
 deed find persons speaking familiarly of Sheol and 
 Hades, and expressing both their fears and feelings in 
 regard to this place ; but do we ever read of one who 
 expresses his fears or feelings about going to Gehen- 
 na? No; not an instance of this is found in Scrip- 
 ture." 
 
 Such are the important facts, which in Mr. 
 Balfour's mind formed an irresistible mass of 
 evidence to show, that Gehenna was not used by- 
 Christ, or his servant James, (for these are the 
 only persons who ever used the word, so far as 
 we can learn from the New Testament,) to sig- 
 nify a place of future punishment. In the first 
 place, Mr. Balfour gave a class of facts somewhat 
 preliminary in their nature ; 2d, h© examined 
 every text in which the word Gehenna occurs, 
 and showed, beyond all dispute, by a reference 
 to the Old Testament sense of the corresponding 
 Hebrew term, and by a careful examination of 
 the context to each of the twelve passages in 
 the New Testament, that the conclusion above 
 named, in regard to the Scriptural use of the 
 word, is undoubtedly true; and 3d, he corrobo- 
 rated the whole, by another series of very inter- 
 esting and very important facts. But here he 
 does not leave the matter.
 
 REV. "WALTER BALFOUR. 151 
 
 He considered the question whether Apocrypha 
 
 ana Tarr-ama 
 
 the Apocrypha or the Targums show examined. 
 that Gehenna was ever used by divine authority 
 to signify a state of future punishment. But be- 
 hold, said he, the word Gehenna does not occur 
 in the Apocrypha at all ! As to the Targums, 
 he fully showed that whatever be the sense, in 
 which Gehenna is used therein, it cannot affect 
 the question at issue, as no one of the Targums 
 was written early enough to determine in what 
 sense the word Gehenna was used in the time of 
 Christ. Even if the Targums, or either of 
 them, had been in existence in the days of our 
 Saviour, whether is the more probable that he 
 would have followed the prophets in their sense 
 of Gehenna, or the Jewish Rabbins? The for- 
 mer surely. Did he, in a single case, intimate 
 that he used Gehenna in a different sense from 
 that which the corresponding term bore in the 
 Old Testament ? But all questions about the 
 sense of the word in the Targums may be dis- 
 missed, as there is no proof that either of them 
 was written until sometime after the death of 
 Christ, and of course they would determine noth- 
 ing in reference to the sense which Christ and 
 his apostles, or the Jews generally, attached to 
 the word Gehenna in his day. The preponder-
 
 152 MEMOIR OF 
 
 ance of evidence goes to show that the earliest 
 Targums were not written until two or three 
 hundred years after the death of Christ. That 
 the Jews finally came to use the word Gehenna 
 to denote a place of future punishment, Mr. Bal- 
 four did not deny ; but this had not happened in 
 our Lord's day. At that time the Jews knew 
 only the sense attributed to the term Gehinnom 
 in the Old Testament. They gained their sub- 
 sequent views of future punishment by their 
 association with the heathen around them. Such 
 are the great facts brought out by Mr. Balfour in 
 regard to the Scriptural sense of the word Ge- 
 henna. 
 
 Objections ^^ ^^^ conclusion of his work, Mr. 
 answered. gjjjfQyp auswered the objections which 
 might be urged against his belief of the great 
 doctrine of universal salvation, and his disbelief 
 of the doctrine of punishment after death. ^ 
 
 *Mr. Balfour subsequently said, *' When the first edi- 
 tion of the Inquiry was published, the author's attention 
 was entirely directed to the endless duration of future 
 punishment. From his examinations, then, he had strong 
 doubts of limited future punishment. Subsequent inves- 
 tigations have confirmed and increased these doubts, nor 
 has he seen any satisfactory evidence that limited any 
 more than endless punishment is taught in Scripture. He 
 thinks he has candidly considered all which his brethren 
 have urged in defence of a limited future punishment ; 
 but the arguments used, and the Scriptures quoted, only
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 153 
 
 It will be difficult to form a just es- 
 
 Efect of 
 tbe i.nquiry. 
 
 timate, in this day, of the efTect which 
 the publication of this Inquiry had upon the pub- 
 lic mind. There were thousands who believed 
 the whole subject had been exhausted by Mr. 
 Balfour. They thought the whole matter had 
 been settled, that the word hell, as used in the 
 Bible, did in no case signify a place or state of 
 punishment hereafter. The clergy, — the preach- 
 ers of endless misery, — were evidently thrown 
 into a state of alarm, as to the way in which 
 they should thereafter defend their doctrine of 
 punishment beyond the grave. The Unitarian 
 divines in general remained ominously silent. 
 When questioned on the subject, they intimated 
 that learned men had long known that the most 
 which Mr. Balfour had said was true; though 
 they did not seem pleased to have the founda- 
 tion of the doctrine of future punishment entire- 
 ly swept away. Those Universalists who be- 
 lieved in future punishment, like Messrs. Turner, 
 Dean, Hudson and others, did not fully partici- 
 pate in the general joy of their brethren on the 
 publication of the work. The so-called Orlho- 
 
 tend to confirm him in the opinion that the doctrine of 
 limited future punishment cannot be supported from the 
 Bible." See Inquiry, 3d edition, p. 5, Boston, 1832.
 
 154 
 
 MEMOIR JF 
 
 dox, or Evangelical ranks, resembled a body of 
 men who had been prostrated to the earth by the 
 descent of lightning; and it was for a little time 
 a matter of very interesting excitement, whether 
 they would attempt again to make a defence of 
 their favorite doctrine, so essential to those who 
 propagate their religion by operating on the fears 
 of the ignorant; and if they should, on what 
 new ground they would attempt to build it up. 
 
 The attempts made to break down the influ- 
 ence of the Inquiry will be treated of in the 
 next chapter.
 
 CHAP. VII. 
 
 Controversy to which the Inquiry gave rise. 
 
 The Inquiry had been but a little time -^g^^,^^ 
 before the public, when it was made the ^^'^^^-®- 
 subject of animadversion. At first the attacks 
 were quite indirect. They were made in the 
 pulpits to which Mr. Balfour could not gain ac- 
 cess, and in public papers which would admit of 
 no replies. Of course, in this kind of warfare, 
 he could not defend himself; in fact, it was alto- 
 gether a kind of warfare too small, indirect and 
 disingenuous, to satisfy his mind.^ He loved 
 honesty, directness and simplicity. 
 
 The Inquiry had been before the isr. sawne 
 
 . attacks thd 
 
 public SIX or eight months, when some inquiry. 
 person called on the clergy, through the public 
 
 *In 1832 Mr. Balfour said, — " It would be tedious and 
 would occupy niore room than we can spare, to notice all 
 the attacks which hav<i been made upon it [the Inquiry] 
 from the pulpit and in the public journals, since its first 
 publication. The instances which have come within the 
 range of our own personal knowledge and observation, 
 have not been few.'
 
 156 MEMOIR OF 
 
 journals, either to refute it, or to confess that 
 they were deceiving" the people. There was, in 
 Boston, at this time, a clergyman by the name of 
 James Sabine, who was, for aught we know, a 
 virtuous man, but who had lost caste among his 
 Congregationalist brethren. He had had a war 
 with his Society in Essex street, and been driven 
 out of his station there. It was probably a de- 
 sire to write himself back again into public favor, 
 that led him to attack the Inquiry. He professed 
 to have been roused by the call which had been 
 made upon the clergy; and he came out, there- 
 fore, in the public journals and said, that if a 
 suitable meeting house could be obtained, he 
 would refute the Inquiry.^ He was a good 
 speaker, as well as a good writer. The doubt 
 for some time was, whether he could obtain a 
 church for his purpose. At length the Methodist 
 Society in Brom field street, Boston, gave him 
 liberty to deliver his course of lectures in their 
 house. • Public notice was accordingly given ; 
 but before the day arrived, the committee became 
 alarmed, and revoked the permission. This was 
 principally because they feared they should be 
 called on to open the house for a reply, or be- 
 
 *See Columbian Centinel of Sept. Oct. and Nov., 1824.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 157 
 
 cause a reply might be made upon the spot. Mr. 
 Sabine, in announcing his disappointment, gave 
 the following significant hint : " This diversion 
 of my plan has been occasioned not by a want of 
 religion, as it is professed by too many, but for 
 the want of a little common honesty. ^^ He at- 
 tributed the change to some influence out of the 
 committee. When all others failed to aid Mr. 
 S., the Universalist Society in Charlestown came 
 forward, with great liberality, and threw open 
 their doors ; and the reply to Mr. Balfour was 
 actually delivered in their meeting house, and 
 in no other place. The Universalists, evidently, 
 were not afraid of free inquiry. 
 
 One great trouble with Mr. Sabine -p^^^^^ 
 from the beginning was, that he did not *^^ *"^''^' 
 understand the subject he had attempted to dis- 
 cuss. He did not come up manfully to the task, 
 and meet boldly Mr. Balfour's positions and ar- 
 guments ; but he went off to side issues, and 
 put in a great amount of special pleading. The 
 work was rather an attempt to support future 
 punishment on other grounds, than to refute the 
 arguments of the Inquiry. The so-called reply 
 was comprised in six lectures, of which the titles 
 were as follows :
 
 158 MEMOIR OF 
 
 1. Examination and trial of the ground taken in 
 the Inquiry. 
 
 2. Divine government constituted upon the princi- 
 ple of Future Retribution. 
 
 3. Retiibution threatened to the wicked, a motive 
 to Virtue. 
 
 4. Rewards and punishments in a future state, 
 proved from the Direct Testimony of Scripture. 
 
 5. Punishment in a future state further considered. 
 
 6. Mr. Balfour's system opposed to Divine Au- 
 thority.* 
 
 Did not meet Now, the most of the positions taken 
 of Inquiry by Mr. Sabine might be true, and still 
 the real grounds of the Inquiry remain untouch- 
 ed. Never did a book go under an examination, 
 and come out so completely unmarred, as did the 
 Inquiry. It is not our place to say whether Mr. 
 Sabine did or did not sustain his six positions ; 
 but even allowing that he sustained them all, 
 excepting the last, he might have done so with- 
 out affecting at all the ground taken in the In- 
 quiry. But even under his sixth and last posi- 
 tion, Mr. Sabine did not attempt to prove direct- 
 ly that the Inquiry was opposed to divine au- 
 thority ; but went off to side issues, and sought 
 
 *See " Universal Salvation indefensible upon Mr. Bal- 
 four's Ground : A Reply to an Inquiry, &c. ScC, in a 
 Series of Lectures, delivered in the L'niversalist Cliurch, 
 Churlestown. By James Sabine, pastor of the First 
 Presbyterian Church in the city of Boston. Boston, 
 1825." 8vo, p. 132.
 
 Dr. Thompson on 
 Mr. Sabine's eS'ort 
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 159 
 
 to make out that point by appealing- to other 
 things. He did as little to overthrow Mr. Bal- 
 four's book, as the perching of a hawk upon the 
 apex of Bunker Hill Monument would do to un- 
 settle the base. 
 
 At the close of Mr. Sabine's 
 last lecture, Dr. A. R. Thompson, 
 a citizen of Charlestown, of much distinction, 
 then a member of the Universalist Society, as- 
 cended the pulpit, and delivered an address to 
 the very crowded auditory. The following ex- 
 tracts will show the character of Mr. Sabine's 
 Lectures, as viewed by those who listened to 
 them : 
 
 " My Friends, — The Rev. Mr. Sabine having now 
 closed his lectures, I request the privilege of making 
 a few observations to you on the subject of his labors. 
 The reverend gendeman, of his own free will, offered 
 his services in the public papers, to exanriine and re- 
 fate Mr. Baltour"s book, provided he might be allow- 
 ed the use of a pulpit. This religious Society, in the 
 genuine spirit of free inquiry, unanimously offered him 
 their pulpit; and you, my friends, have patiently and 
 candidly attended the discussion. Some «f you have 
 read Mr. Balfour's book, but many have attended these 
 lectures who have not read the book. Those of you 
 •who have read the book will bear me witness that 
 those who have not, cannot possibly form a correct 
 idea of it from Mr. Sabine's lectures. In justice, 
 therefore, to the cause of truth, to the autlior of the 
 book, and to those who have not read it, I feel con- 
 strained to state exphcidy, but briefly, what the pur-
 
 160 MEMOIR OF 
 
 pose and scope of this book are. The object of Mr. 
 Balfour's book, then, from the beginning to the end, is 
 TO SHOW THxVT HELL WAS NOT A PLACE 
 OF ENDLESS MISERY, AS HAS BEEN 
 GENERALLY AND LONG BELIEVED. This 
 the author shows incontroverlibly, by a consideration 
 of all the texts where the words rendered hell in our 
 common version occur. He also spent two sections 
 of the book, in stating a number of facts, that the in- 
 spired writers did not consider hell as a place of end- 
 less misery ; nor of any misory in a future state, as 
 has been supposed, — that no prophet in the Old Tes- 
 tament, nor yet our Saviour, nor his apostles in the 
 New Testament, ever used the woid hell to express a 
 state of punishment in the future world. He also 
 traced the doctrine of hell, as a place of endless mis- 
 ery, to heathenism as its origin — and add\iced some 
 quotations from believers in the doctrine of hell tor- 
 ments to prove it, &c. What, then, has Mr. Sabine 
 done in refuting these things I Did he take up the 
 texts to show that the author of the book had wrested 
 these texts ? had perverted them? Has he taken up 
 any of tlie facts and shown them to be false? Or has 
 he ever told his audience that he believes hell to be a 
 place of endless misery ? His work was to answer 
 the book, not to make it ; but has he not, in quoting 
 it, altered it, and found constant fault with the author, 
 because he did not write the book to suit him? He 
 quoted but little of the book ; (and two whole sec- 
 tions, which contain the great body of material facts, 
 he has not quoted at all, nor even alluded to,) and 
 when he made quotations, he never, until the last lec- 
 ture, in a single sentence, referred his hearers to the 
 pacre, that they might read and judge for themselves. 
 
 '* Having said thus much- about Mr. Sabine's at- 
 tempts against Mr. Balfour's book, we must, in jus- 
 tice to our own feelings, say something of his treat-
 
 KRV. WALTER BALFOUR. 161 
 
 ment of our friend the author Those who have not 
 read Mr. 13. "s book, and have no personal knowledge 
 of him, would certainly form a teirible idea of the 
 man, from the portrait of him in Mr. S.'s lectures. 
 Mr. B. is there charged with sophistry, insincerity 
 and falsehoood, with denying all penalty or punish- 
 ment for sin, with abetting and upholding all infidel- 
 ity, and all immorality, with first perverting, then de- 
 nying divine revelation, — with attempting to unhinge 
 and throw down the whole moial system, thus to de- 
 throne the moral Ruler of the universe. Mr. S. al- 
 low.^ Mr. B. the best abilities, but then accuses him of 
 the worst designs against the best interests both of 
 God and man, and thus adroitly hangs him up between 
 heaven and earth, as fit for neither. But, my friends, 
 remember, a good cause is never made better by per- 
 sonal abuse, and a bad one is always made worse. As 
 the best possible refutation of everything which can 
 be said agiinst Mr. B.'s book is to read it ; so the best 
 possible refutation of every thing that has been said 
 against the man is to know him as we do.'"* 
 
 In two or three months after Mr. _ ^ ,, . 
 
 irr. Balfour s 
 
 Sabine's lectures had been delivered, ^'''^^^• 
 they were published. Mr. Balfour came out, at 
 once, with a second edition of his Inquiry, re- 
 duced in size, and brought down to half price ; 
 and as soon as it could be prepared, he published 
 his Reply to Mr. Sabine. t He divided it into 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine, vol. vi., p. 127. Mr. Sa- 
 bine, shortly after these Lectures were delivered, left 
 Boston, al);uidoned his position as a Presbyterian, con- 
 nected himself with the Episcopal church, rind moved 
 into Vernioti!;, where he became the rector of a parish. 
 
 tMr. B.ilfour was a man of ready utterance, in the 
 11
 
 162 MEMOIR OF 
 
 two parts. 1st. A Defence of the Inqwiiy, and 
 2d, Mr. Sabine's Proofs of a Future Retribution 
 considered. Mr. Balfour, like many other intel- 
 ligent men, believed that Mr. Sabine had done 
 little or nothing to break up the ground of the 
 Inquiry. For instance, see the following para- 
 graph : 
 
 " Such is a brief outline of the book, which Mr» 
 Sabiue undertook to refute, tlie correctness of which 
 we are confident he will not dispute. 'J'he question 
 comes then fairly before us, 'H /lat ought Mr. S. to 
 hare done to answer this hook? We reply, lie ought 
 to have proved that Hell is a place of endless misery to 
 the icicktd. But has he done this ? No, he has not 
 even attenripled it. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not 
 in the streets of Askelon, for the daughters of the un- 
 circumsised will triumjjh, that he does uoi pretend xo 
 advocate that hell is a place of endless misery. As to 
 hell being a place, he denies it; and as to the endless 
 duratioii (»f its punishnnent, he abandons its deiisnce. 
 What the armies of the living God will think and say 
 of this, it is not for me to say. But we will say, that 
 what he remarks concerning the departure of certain 
 men in this region from Orthodox principles, comes 
 with a had grace from him, when he strikes the Or- 
 thodox flag of endless misery to half mast in his 
 first cnset with such an uncircumsised Pliilistine." 
 Pp. 11, 12. 
 
 pulpit, but wag not what the world would term an orator. 
 He judged ii best, therefore, and very wisely we think, 
 to reply to Mr. Sabine from the press, and not from the 
 pulpit. See "A Reply to Mr. Sabine's Lectures on the 
 Inquiry, &c., in two parts. 1st. A Defence of the In- 
 quiry. 2d. His proofs of a Future Retiibution consid- 
 ered. By Walter Balfour." Boston, 1825. 8vo, p. 136.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 163 
 
 In the second part of his book, AHeged proofs of 
 
 . . Future Retribution 
 
 which IS by far the greater part of ccnsidered. 
 it, Mr. Balfour considers at length all Mr. Sa- 
 bine's alleged proofs of the doctrine of future 
 retribution. Mr. B.'s object in the "Inquiry" 
 was to show that neither Sheol, Hades, Tartarus 
 or Gehenna denoted a place of endless misery. 
 It came out, two or three times in the course of 
 the work, that the author saw no proof of a fu- 
 ture punishment at all; but this was not an in- 
 tegral part of his system ; the system was com- 
 plete, in its original design, without that incep- 
 tion. But Mr. Sabine showed a very strong, 
 and in fact an uncontrollable desire to run off to 
 side issues. Had he succeeded in proving the 
 doctrine of endless misery, he would have settled 
 the whole question as to punishment hereafter; 
 but even if he had proved the doctrine of limit- 
 ed future punishment, he would still have left 
 the main question untouched. He might well 
 therefore have given his _ w^hole attention to the 
 doctrine of endless punishment. But as he did 
 not see fit, for certain reasons, to do so, Mr. Bal- 
 four saw fit to follow him whithersoever he led ; 
 and hence he entitled the second part of his re- 
 ply, " Mr. Sabine's proofs of a Future Retribu- 
 tion considered." And faithfully did he consid- 
 11=^
 
 164 MEBIOIR OF 
 
 er them. He did not leave one stone upon anoth- 
 er, that was not thrown down. At the close, he 
 proposed to Mr. Sabine a further discussion of 
 the subject, laying down the principles on which 
 he thought it should be conducted; but Mr. Sa- 
 bine made no further efforts, 
 otter labors Soou after the publication of the 
 ofMrBauour.,q^q^j^y^„ ^^^ Balfour scnt several 
 
 very important articles to the " Universalist 
 Magazine" for publication. They consisted of 
 facts which had been gathered during the prepa- 
 ration of the " Inquiry," and which did not come 
 within the design of it. The first was a very 
 luminous exposition of 2 Thess. i : 9 — " Who 
 shall be punished with everlasting destruction 
 from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
 glory of his power.". He took the same view of 
 the text which had been taken by Mr. Ballou, 
 and other Universalists ; but he went into the 
 subject at length, and with such freshness of il- 
 lustration that the article was regarded as one of 
 the best essays that had ever been produced upon 
 the subject.^ He also came out with a similar 
 essay, on Acts xvii : 80 31 — "And the times of 
 this io-norance God winked at ; but now com- 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine, vol. v., pp. 157, 161, 165, 
 169.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 165 
 
 mandeth all men every where to repent : Because 
 he hath appointed a day, in the which he will 
 judge the world in righteousness by that man 
 whom he hath ordained ; whereof he hath given 
 assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised 
 him from the dead."^ This essay was of equal 
 value with the other. It is a somewhat singular 
 fact, that Mr. Balfour had never studied the 
 writings of Universalists. He began his in- 
 quiries de novo, taking no hints from any Unir 
 versalist authors or preachers. He diligently 
 compared Scripture with Scripture ; and it was 
 by this process that he was brought, in almost all 
 the important cases, to the same results to which 
 Mr. Ballou, and others, had been brought before 
 him. There was, indeed, a freshness of illus- 
 tration, and Mr, Balfour worked out many fine 
 criticisms that tended to confirm what had been 
 before said. He brought forward also the testi- 
 monies of learned men to sustain the expositions 
 he had given. These things were new ; but the 
 expositions of themselves, (and this remark will 
 apply also to the " Inquiry,") were not new. 
 In the summer of 1S23, he had com- ei? arndea 
 
 on the phrase 
 
 raenced the publication of a series of spi'itof God. 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine, vol. v., pp. 183, 190, 196, 
 198, 206.
 
 166 MEMOIR OF 
 
 articles, in the " Evangelical Repertory," =^ on 
 the phrase " Spirit of God." As this publica- 
 tion continued but for a short time, he made the 
 offer in September, 1S24, to the editors of the 
 Universalist Magazine to furnish the articles for 
 that paper. They were cheerfully accepted ; 
 and those which had appeared in the " Reperto- 
 ry " were republished, so that the whole series 
 appeared in the "Magazine." In these articles 
 Mr. Balfour showed very plainly that he was a 
 Unitarian. His object was to ascertain, ^'lohat 
 say the Scriptures concerning the Holy Spirit ? " 
 That the Inquiry might be complete, he collected 
 and examined every passage in which the He- 
 brew word Ruh and the Greek word pneuma oc- 
 cur, in whatever way translated in the common 
 version. They were classed according to the 
 best of his judgment, and the work was one of 
 great labor. In fact we know of no work in our 
 language which contains so thorough and valu- 
 able a treatise on this subject! 
 
 *The " ETangelical Repertory" was conducted by- 
 Rev Edward Turner, and was published in Charlestown 
 from July 1823 to July 1824, wlien it ceased. The arti- 
 cles on the " Spirit of God " were signed " Mikros, ' pp. 
 44, 39, 68. 
 
 tSee Universalist Magazine, vol. vi., pp. 43, 49, 65, 
 73, 81, 101, 113, 146, 157, 202. vii , 48, 53, 57.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 167 
 
 In August, 1825, Mr. Balfour ad- 3,,,,,,,^ 
 dressed a letter to Rev. Lyman Beech- °''' ^'^''^^'"' 
 er, then of Litchfield, Conn., and one of the most 
 eminent of the Orthodox divines of New Eng- 
 land. The doctor, in some one of his publica- 
 cations, had said — 
 
 " When natural philosophers differ in theory, and 
 facts are adduced by one, in confirmation of his opin- 
 ions, an obligation is supposed to be laid on the other 
 to account for these facts in accordance with his theo- 
 ry ; and the philosopher who makes no reply to mat- 
 ters of fact, and who makes no attempt to account for 
 thern upon his own system, is supprjsed to be van- 
 quished, and to be conscious that he is vanquished. 
 The rule is certainly fair in natural science, and why 
 it should not be applied to moral subjects is more than 
 I can perceive. It is a hopeless case to adduce facts 
 in evidence, if all an opponent has to do is to pass 
 them over in silence, or to make a diversion to draw 
 away the attention of the unwary."* 
 
 So had Dr. Beecher said, in his controversy 
 with rhe Unitarians. Mr. Balfour's eye caught 
 the passage. He had adduced facts in confirma- 
 tion of his opinions as to the Scriptural use of 
 the words Skeol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. 
 In this way he had laid his opponents, according 
 to Dr. Beecher's own confession, under an obli- 
 i^ation to account for those facts, in accordance 
 
 ^See the " Christian Spectator " of June, 1825, p 303.
 
 168 MEMOIR OF 
 
 with their use of those words. And if they 
 made no reply to those matters of fact which 
 Mr. Balfour had adduced, the latter held that 
 they were vanquished, and that they kneiu they 
 were vanquished. He put home the Dr.'s argu- 
 ment to him in his own words, as follows : 
 
 " For eighteen months my book has been before the 
 public. Your decision in my case is, that for this 
 leno-th of time, an obligation has been laid on the 
 whole Orthodox body to account for the lads I have 
 stated in accordance with their theory of hell tor- 
 ments. But have they discharged this obligation? 
 Mr. Sabine professed to answer my book, but he no 
 more attempts to account for the facts than he does 
 for the spots in the sun For the same length of time 
 the obligation has rested on you, but in violation of 
 your own rule with the Unitarians, you have not at- 
 tempted to account for these facts. Am I to conclude 
 that you are vanquished, from your silence about them? 
 or, am I to conclude that you have one rule for Uni- 
 tarians and another for yourself? Do you claim the 
 exclusive right to lay heavy bordens on other men's 
 shoulders to account for facts which militate against 
 their system, yet relieve yourself from all obligation 
 to account for iacis which sap the foundation of your 
 own? Must you be permitted to judge others, yet not 
 suffer yourself to be judged ? and measure to them by 
 a rule you will not admit just in measuring to you 
 again? Say, if we must allow you the privilege to 
 expose the mole in your brother's eye, yet no one 
 Bfiust say a word to you about the beam that is in your 
 own? You have too much sense to think that such a 
 course is either like a philosopher or a divine, or that 
 men of ordinary sense will submit to it. Abandon, 
 then, your rule as false, and retract your statements
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 169 
 
 in the above quotation, or renounce all pretensions to 
 philosopher or divine, yea to common consistency." * 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to say that Dr. Beech- 
 er never made any reply to this ep bi^e, nor any 
 direct and acknowledged reference to Mr. Bal- 
 four's Inquiry, 
 
 Mr. Balfour continued his efforts jp-^n^. 03 20. 
 to illustrate those passages of Scrip- *^^ ^ ^°'^" ""■ '°' 
 ture which had been supposed to teach the doc- 
 trine of endless misery. In the month of No- 
 vember, 1825, he sent to the editors of the 
 " Magazine " a full illustration of the phrase 
 " day of judgment," containing many very valu- 
 able criticisms, confirming the views which Uni- 
 versalists had been in the habit of taking of 
 those passages in which that phrase occurs.! 
 Immediately after this, at the call of an " In- 
 quirer," he furnished vab^able illustrations of the 
 meaning of John v: 28,29 — "Marvel not at 
 this, for the hour is coming, in the which all that 
 are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall 
 come forth; they that have done good, unto the 
 resurrection of life ; and they that have done 
 evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." I In 
 
 *TJniversalist Magazine — vol. vii : p. 31, 
 
 tThe same work — vii : p. 86. 
 
 tThe same work — vii : pp. 103, 105.
 
 170 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 this, as in the other cases, he bad embraced 
 the opinions of Universalists without reading 
 any of their writings, being led thereunto by 
 comparing Scripture with Scripture. And, 
 not weary in well doing, he prepared a very 
 full and satisfactory exposition of 2 Cor., v: 
 10 — "For we must all appear before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ ; that every one may receive 
 the tilings done in his body, according to that he 
 hath done, whether ?Y ^e good or bad."^ By 
 these efforts j\Ir. Balfour rendered very impor- 
 tant services to the cause of truth. 
 
 Tbe second ^^ Jutto, 1S26, Came out the work 
 Inquiry, ^yj^j^,]^ ]^^g gy^j. slnce been denomina- 
 ted Balfour's Second Inquiry. It was called 
 " An Inquiry 'into the Scriptural Doctrine con- 
 cerning the Devil and Satan ; and into the ex- 
 tent of duration expressed by the terms Olim^ 
 Aion and Aio7iios. rendered everlasting, forev- 
 er, &c., in the Common Version, and especially 
 when applied to punishment."! The intent of 
 the title page at the last section was to as- 
 sert the fact that the inquiry into the ex- 
 
 *See Universalist Magazine — vol. vii : pp. Ill, 119, 
 125, 131, 135. 
 
 tThe first edition was published in Charlestown, by 
 Georjie Davidson.
 
 KEY. WALTER BALFOUR. 171 
 
 tent of duration expressed by Olim, and the 
 other words, had respect particularly to those 
 cases in which those words were applied to pun- 
 ishment. In brief, the results of Mr. B.'s in- 
 quiries in these fields were, that the words devil 
 and Satan, as used by the sacred writers, did 
 n©t signify a personal devil, according to the 
 vulgar superstitions upon the subject; but were 
 susceptible of interpretations much more consis- 
 tent with common sense and with truth. Mr. 
 Balfour had never read the celebrated Treatise 
 on Atonement by Eev. Hosea Ballou ; but he had 
 explained the temptation in the garden of Eden, 
 and that of our Saviour in the same way which 
 Mr. Ballou had pursued,^ and taken the same 
 ground generally in the book, in both its parts. 
 The plan of the work was this : It was di- 
 vided into two parts. Mr. Balfour said, — 
 
 " In the first of these Inquiries, the chief ohject of 
 the author has heen to ascertain if SATAN or the 
 DEVIL be a Fallen Angel or a real Being? If not, 
 what is the meaning of the sacred writers, in all the 
 various texts where these words occur? The fullow- 
 in:,'- is a brief statennent of its contents : 
 
 Sec. 1, The comnnon opinions entertained of the 
 Devil and Satan, briefly stated. 
 
 *For an evidence of Mr. Ballou 's happiness on this 
 account, see L'niversalist Magazine, vol. viii., p. 10.
 
 172 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Sec. 2. Remarks on Genesis iii , showing that the 
 serpent which deceived Eve was not a fallen angel. 
 
 Sec. 3. All the texts in the Old Testament, where 
 the original word Satan occurs, considered. 
 
 Sec. 4. The opinion that the Devil or Satan is a 
 real Being, with other connected opinions, shown to 
 have their origin in heathenism. 
 
 Sec. 5. All the passages in the New Testament 
 where the term Satan occurs, considered. 
 
 Sec. 6. All the passages where the original term 
 diaboJos, or devil is used, cor.sidered. 
 
 Sec. 7. All the passages considered in which the 
 terms Devil or Satan are both used by the sacred wri- 
 ters synonimously. 
 
 Sec 8. All the texts considered, where the Devil 
 is supposed to be called the evil one, the tempter, the 
 great dragon, the serpent, and old serpent, the prince 
 of this world, the prince of the power of the air, and 
 the god of this world. 
 
 Sec. 9, Facts stated, showing that the Devil is not 
 a fallen Angel, or real Being. 
 
 Sec. 10. Objections considered. 
 
 Sec. 11. Concluding remarks, pointing out the evils 
 which have arisen from the common opinions enter- 
 tained of the Devil and Satan." 
 
 Concerning the second part, the author also 
 said, — 
 
 " The principal object of the author in the second 
 Inquiry has been, to notice in what way the sacred 
 writers use the terms OLIM, AION, and AIONIOS, 
 and to examine particularly all the texts where any of 
 them apply these terms to punishment. 
 
 Sec. 1. All the texts noticed where ohm occurs in 
 the Old Testament, but is rendered by words which 
 do not express or imply eternal duration. 
 
 Sec. 2.- All the passages noticed where olim is used,
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 173 
 
 and rendered by words which convey the idea of end- 
 less duration. 
 
 Sec. 3. All iho texts where olim occurs, is ren- 
 dered by words which convey the idea of endless 
 duration, and applied to punishment, particularly con- 
 sidered. 
 
 Sec. 4. General remarks on aion and aionios, as 
 used in the New Testament. 
 
 Sec. 5. All the places noticed where aion and 
 aionios are rendered ages, course, never, forever, ev- 
 ermore, eternal, everlasting, but which have no rela- 
 tion to punishment. 
 
 Sec. 6. All the places where aion and aionios are 
 rendered world, considered. 
 
 Sec. 7. All the places where aion and aionios is 
 used to express the duration of punishment, particu- 
 larly considered, in whatever way rendered in the 
 common version. 
 
 Sec. 8. Concluding remarks on olim, aion, and 
 aionios, throughout the Bible, whether applied to God, 
 to life, or punishment." 
 
 In the spring of 1827 came out^^^,^^.^^^^^^^^ 
 a work written by Rev. Charles ^°^-"°- 
 Hudson, then of Westminster, Mass., addressed 
 to the Kev. Hosea Ballon, the design of which 
 was to support the doctrine of a future limited 
 punishment. It was entitled " A Series of Let- 
 ters addressed to Rev. Hosea Ballou, of Boston, 
 being a vindication of the doctrine of a Future 
 Retribution, against the principal arguments used 
 by him, JMr. Balfour and others." Mr. Hudson 
 sought to overthrow the religious system of Rev.
 
 174 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Mr. Ballou. There is much room for doubt, 
 whether Mr. Hudson gave a proper view of Mr. 
 Ballou's opinions. Be this as it may, he pro- 
 fessed to examine his arguments and refute 
 them ; and he aimed to establish the doctrine of 
 future retribution, by analogy, by the alleged in- 
 equalities of providence in the present world, 
 and by various testimonies from the Scriptures. 
 The work never had a wide circulation ; and it 
 was made more eminent by Mr. Balfour's reply 
 to it, and the controversy that ensued, than by 
 any other circumstance.^ 
 
 Balfour's ^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ appcarattce of Mr. 
 j:.ssay8. jiy^jgo^'s work, feeliog as Mr. Balfour 
 did, it was to have been expected that he would 
 reply to it. His name was used in the title 
 page ; and the work was professedly an attempt- 
 ed confutation of some of the arguments which 
 he had published. He resolved, therefore, to 
 bring out the results of his inquiries into the 
 three following general subjects, viz., of the In- 
 termediate State, the Resurrection from the 
 Dead, and the Greek terms rendered judge, con- 
 demn, damnation, &c. The latter part of the 
 
 *The work was printed by David Watson, Woodstock, 
 Vt., 1827. 12mo, pp. 312.
 
 EEV. WALTER BALFOUR. 175 
 
 •vVork consisted of " remarks on IMr. Hudson's 
 Letters, addressed to Mr. Hosea Ballon, and oth- 
 ers, in vindication of a future retribution."' The 
 plan of the work is thus described: 
 
 Essay I. 
 On the Intermediate State of the Dead. 
 
 Sec. 1. The Scriptures examined respecting the 
 state of man's Body, Soul, and Spirit, between death 
 and the resurrection. 
 
 Sec. 2. On Ghosts, and their intercourse with this 
 world after death. 
 
 Sec. 3 On the various opinions which have been 
 entertained respecting the nature of man's sou] ; its 
 immortality ; its condition after death ; whence such 
 opiiiions originated ; and how they came to be incor- 
 porated with the Christian religion. 
 
 Sec. 4. Facts stated, showing that the common 
 opinions respecting man's soul, and its condition after 
 death, catmot be true. 
 
 Sec. 5. Objections considered. 
 
 Essay II. 
 On the Resurrection from the Dead. 
 
 Sec. 1. On the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
 the Dead. 
 
 Sec. 2. On the Resurrection of ]Man from the 
 Dead. 
 
 Sec. 3. Remarks addressed to Christians, Jews, 
 and Deists. 
 
 Essay III. 
 
 On the Greek terms krino, krisis, krvna, &c., ren- 
 dered judge, judgment, condemned, condemnation, 
 damned, damnation, &c., in the New Testament. 
 
 Concluditig remarks, on Mr. Hudson's Letters, in 
 Defence of a future Retribution, addressed to Messrs. 
 Hosea Ballon, Balfour and others.
 
 176 MEMOIR OF 
 
 These essays had been commenced for the 
 author's personal satisfaction, without any view 
 to Mr. Hudson's book, or even to immediate 
 publication. But as Mr. Balfour deemed them 
 a full answer to it, he prepared them for the 
 press. All the texts quoted by Mr. Hudson, in 
 proof of a future retribution, are particularly 
 considered, as well as the principle of analogy on 
 which he reasoned concerning the future state ; 
 and the assumed ground on which he built his 
 whole scheme of punishment after death, was 
 shown to be without foundation in the Bible, as 
 Mr. Balfour fully believed. 
 
 Howt-neEss3Vs ^tt the SubjCCtS of tho kst tWO 
 
 were received. £^^^y^^ Utti versalists generally were 
 agreed with Mr. Balfour; but there was much 
 difference of opinion among them, as to the sub- 
 ject of the first. Those who agreed with him 
 maintained that the Bible does not teach the 
 inherent immortality of the human soul; and 
 consequently that man's hope of immortality 
 rests solely on the resurrection from the dead ; 
 and this hope of a resurrection rests solely on 
 the fact of the resurrection of Christ. Mr. Bal- 
 four held that there was no intermediate state 
 between death and the resurrection. Death, in 
 his view, was a sleep; the patriarchs, it is said,
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. l77 
 
 went down to the grave, to sleep with their fa- 
 thers. All go to one place; all are of the dust, 
 and all return to the dust again. The human 
 race are unconscious between death and the 
 resurrection. It must be confessed, concerninsr 
 this work, that although it gave satisfaction to 
 many, it did not meet with that general and cor- 
 dial greeting from Universalists which Mr. Bal- 
 four's former works had received. He however 
 fully believed it to be founded on the Scriptures; 
 nor did his opinions on these points ever change. 
 He was accustomed to say, " if you think I am 
 wrong, show me my error. Give me a ' thus 
 saith the Lord.' I bow to nothing but the 
 word of God." This was the first point of any 
 importance, in which Mr. Balfour had differed 
 from Mr. Ballou ; but not the slightest aliena- 
 tion was produced between them, by the publi- 
 cation of the work. 
 
 It was in the beginning of the year Hadson-a 
 1829, that Mr. Hudson^ came out with ^sba>8. 
 
 *At the time of which we speak, Rev. Charles Hudson 
 was pastor of the Universalist ^Society in Westminster, 
 Mass., where Ite resided for several years. He was seot 
 from tliis towa a Represt^ntative to the (ieneral Court of 
 Massach\isetts, and afterwards was elected to the Senate. 
 Being a steady political partizan on the prevailing .side, 
 he was, in due course of tiiue, sent from the Ditiirict in 
 
 12
 
 178 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 his reply to the Essays. Mr. Balfour was in* 
 the habit of expressing his opinions without very 
 great reserve ; and Mr. Hudson, not being suf- 
 ficiently careful, indulged in a style of tartness 
 and retaliation which made this controversy be- 
 tween two Universalists more unpleasant than it 
 otherwise would have been. Mr. Hudson pro- 
 fessed to treat the subject in the following 
 manner: 
 
 1st. He examined Mr. Balfour's pretensions to fair- 
 ness, and noticed his severity and his mistakes. 2d. 
 He staled and examined his system ; 3d, he examined 
 his rules of interpretation ; 4th, he considered the sub- 
 ject of the state of the dead, and showed the evidence 
 of the present immortality ot the soul, and of an 
 intermediate state; 5th, he stated the question ia 
 debate as it respected future punishment; 6th, he en- 
 deavored to prove a future judgment from the Scrip- 
 tures ; 7th, he gave alleged proofs of a future retri- 
 bution; and lastly, he sought to answer the objections 
 to his system. It must be confessed that L'niversal- 
 isis at large did not take a very deep interest in this 
 controversy. 
 
 That we may not break the con- 
 tinuity of the history of the contro- 
 versy with Mr. Hudson, we introduce in this 
 place an account of Mr. Balfour's Letters to 
 
 Balfour's Letters 
 to Hudson. 
 
 which he lived as a Representative to the Congress of 
 the United States. He subsequently lost his election : 
 but obtained a lucrative appointment under the general 
 government, which he holds to this day.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 179 
 
 him. It was a large duodecimo of 360 pages, 
 and was called Letters on the Immortality of the 
 Soul, the Intermediate State of the Dead, and a 
 Future Retribution, in reply to Mr. Charles Hud- 
 son, Westminster, Mass.'"^ Mr. Balfour felt 
 not that he commenced this controversy. He 
 felt that he was attacked by Mr. Hudson, in 
 his Letters to Rev. Hosea Ballou. As he had 
 most fully avowed, on the publication of his In- 
 quiries and Essays, that he stood ready to defend 
 the doctrines laid down in those books, and as 
 he was the last man to shrink from a fair and 
 manly controversy, he felt it his duty to reply to 
 Mr. H., notwithstanding the latter professed to 
 be a Universalist. Another fact is to be remem- 
 bered : In Mr. Balfour's mind, the doctrine of 
 the natural immortality of the human soul, and 
 that of future retribution, stood or fell together. 
 Many Universalists differed from him in opin- 
 ion, as to this subject of immortality; but Ae 
 most devoutly and religiously believed, that the 
 only hope of the immortality of man was in the 
 Christian doctrine of the resurrection. Before 
 that event shall take place, in his view, man, the 
 whole man, from the time of death, sleeps; and 
 
 ♦Published by G Davidson, Charlestown, 1829 
 12^
 
 180 MEMOIR OF 
 
 is capable neither of suffering or of joy. He 
 
 believed that the resurrection was a Christian 
 
 doctrine ; but he held that the doctrine of the 
 
 soul's separate existence in the intermediate 
 
 state, was a heathen doctrine, as was also the 
 
 doctrine of future retribution for the sins of this 
 
 life. On this whole subject of the controversy 
 
 with Mr. Hudson, and of the origin of the two 
 
 doctrines named, Mr. Balfour said, — 
 
 " My first eight letters are a reply to Mr. Hudson's 
 book ; and he will admit I have overlooked nothing 
 material in it, or slightly passed over what he deems 
 his strongest proof texts and arguments. 1 have Ibl- 
 lowed him in his course from its commencement to its 
 conclusion. Of the success of my labors the reader 
 must judge. I am soriy to say he pursued a different 
 course with my Essays. To the five additional let- 
 ters I solicit the reader's careful attention ; particular- 
 ly to the tenth and eleventh. The doctrines of the 
 immortality of the soul, and a future retribution are 
 not taught in the Old Testament, by Mr. Hudson's 
 own showing ; and in these two letters we think it 
 proved they had their origin in heathenism. He con- 
 lends they had their origin in revelations now lost, 
 ■without affording any proof that they ever existed. 
 On the contrary we think it is shown by a profusion of 
 evidence, that such opinions arose from the vain spec- 
 ulations of heathen philosophers ; were imbibed by 
 the Jews in their intercourse with them ; were early 
 introduced into the Christian church, by converts from 
 Judaism and heathenism ; and have been transmitted 
 to us as a part of Christianity ever since. It is shown 
 in the eleventh letter, that Luther held the opmions 
 for which 1 contend.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 181 
 
 " This controversy was first begun by Mr. Hudscm. 
 It now remains with him whether it shall here end. 
 I never wished to provoke a controversy among Uni- 
 versalists, and I have no desire to continue it. Should 
 he choose to reply, or any one else, 1 request that 
 proof be adduced from Scripture that the soul is im- 
 mortal, and has a conscious existence in a disembodied 
 state. Until this is settled, it is useless to discuss — 
 is it to suffer in this state ? Oi what is to be the na- 
 ture or duration of its punishment ■? To the Scrip- 
 tures 1 appeal to decide this question, and trust we 
 shall hear no more about lost revelations to support it. 
 We have given the history of the soul's immortality 
 and its punishment after death, but this is done mere- 
 ly to show that Mr. Hudson's opinions are of heathen 
 origin. Let it be shown frona the Bible that they 
 are not."* 
 
 The most valuable sections of nistoryoftbe 
 
 Bir 1 T TT 1 doctrine of 
 
 aliour s Letters to Hudson are ^^t^'"=p"'^ishiuent. 
 
 those which embrace the history given therein of 
 the doctrine of future punishment for the deeds 
 of this life. He divides this subject into two 
 parts, first tracing the history from the ear- 
 liest times to the introduction of philosophy 
 into Rome ; and second, from the latter pe- 
 riod to the present time. This account is 
 abridged from the History of Philosophy by Dr. 
 Wm. Enfield; and will be very valuable to ev- 
 ery one, who cannot obtain the work itself; 
 though it must be remembered, that Dr. En- 
 
 *Letter3 to Hudson, Introduction, pp. 11, 12.
 
 182 MEMOIR OF 
 
 field's work is an abridgement of Brucker's on 
 the same subject."^ Mr. Hudson published no 
 other volume, and thus the controversy closed. 
 Mr. Hudson's books, and Mr. Balfour's Essays 
 and Letters, did not have a large sale; and no 
 second edition of them was ever called for. Not 
 so vvith the First and Second Inquiries, — they 
 each passed through three editions. 
 President Allen In the summer of 1828, Presi- 
 
 attacks 
 
 Mr. Baifoar-sworkg. dent AUeu, of Bowdolu College, 
 gave a lecture to the students, entitled, " Lec- 
 ture on the Doctrine of Universal Salvation, de- 
 livered in the chapel of Bowdoin College, by 
 the President." Mr. Balfour felt then that he 
 was attacked in high places. He sought early 
 to get a copy of the lecture, for it had been pre- 
 viously announced by the President that he was 
 about to review Mr. Balfour's book, and a friend 
 living in the vicinity had given Mr. B. informa- 
 tion of the fact. He supposed it would be a 
 work of elaborate criticism. Judge, then, of 
 his surprise, when he found that the whole was 
 embraced in a single lecture to the students, and 
 that it was altogether a superficial production. 
 
 *Dr. Enfield's was a clear and able performance. He 
 had been tutor and lecturer in the dissenting academy at 
 Warrington, England.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR 183 
 
 There had been no little commotion in the Or- 
 thodox ranks, from the time of the publication 
 of the First Inquiry. Travail and anguish seiz- 
 ed them ; but when the effect of all this labor 
 was made visible, it was difficult to keep out of 
 mind the proverb concerning the progeny of the 
 mountain. President Allen sought to reply to 
 Mr. Balfour, without naming him, as if he dis- 
 dained the antagonist with whom he must have 
 felt himself insufficient to contend ; but he made 
 such allusions that there could be no doubt whose 
 books he was reviewing, for he sometimes named 
 the works. The pamphlet of forty pages was 
 not thought too mean to be noticed by Mr. Bal- 
 four, although it had been described by a review- 
 er as made up of hackneyed and jaded assump- 
 tions.^ 
 
 The Reply of Mr. Balfour came ^Bauou^-s Reply ^ 
 out in the beginning of Novem- "^ ^'^•^^^'^^^'^ ^^^^°* 
 ber, 1S2S. It was a large duodecimo pamphlet 
 of upwards of seventy pages, and appeared in 
 
 *AIr. Balfour =aid, four years afterwards, *♦ The Dr.'s 
 attempt to refute the ' Inquiry,' was deemed so weak, 
 even by his own friends, that his pamphlet was with- 
 drawn from the bookstores and suppressed, if our infor- 
 mation is correct. It is certain it was frequently asked 
 for in the bookstores of Boston, but could not be obtain- 
 ed ; and very few persons in this region ever procured a 
 copy of it." Inquiry, 3d edition, p. 8.
 
 184 MEMOIR OF 
 
 the form of a letter to the President. It was 
 written in Mr. Balfour's pungent, candid, matter- 
 of-fact manner; and it did not fail to carry con- 
 viction to the mind of every honest inquirer af- 
 ter truth who read it. It was thought by some 
 that Prof. Stuart instigated Dr. Allen to this at- 
 tack ; but of this we never saw any proof. The 
 Professor still remained silent, and neglected his 
 half-made promise"^ to " enter the lists." 
 Another x^etter ^^ December, 1828, Mr. Balfour 
 toDr.Beecher. attended a public lecture in the ves- 
 try of the Society in Hanover street, of which, 
 the elder Dr. Beecher was then pastor, and heard 
 a lecture from him on the parable of the Rich 
 Man and Lazarus. This lecture was unques-^ 
 tionably designed to counteract the influence of 
 the First Inquiry among the Orthodox them- 
 selves. The Dr maintained that our Lord, in 
 this parable, clearly taught the immortality of 
 the soul, and that Hades was a place of future 
 punishment. He also took the ground that Ge- 
 
 *Prof. Stuart had intimated, that if he could know the 
 name and object of his aiitiigonist, and contend on s-on.e 
 other ground than that of a newspiipef; h« Uiighl be in- 
 duced to enter the lists. " 1 niust know the nanie and 
 object of my antagonist, before 1 enter the litits: and 
 contend on some other ground than that of a newt^paper " 
 See his letter of June 19ili, 1821, published in " Lniver- 
 aalist Magazine," vol. iii., p. 1.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 185 
 
 henna was made an emblem, by the sacred wri- 
 ters, of future punishment. There were only- 
 two things which the Dr.'s sermon lacked, ac- 
 cording to Mr. Balfour, viz., argument and truth. 
 The latter came out with a " Letter to Rev. Dr. 
 Beecher,"^ to which the Dr., with profound sa- 
 gacity, never condescended to pay any attention. 
 During the time that Mr. Balfour ^^ Baifour 
 was engaged in preparing these works, ^ ^p"^^*^^"- 
 and, in fact, ever since his conversion to Univer- 
 salism, he had been diligent as a preacher. Fre- 
 quent calls were made upon him from various 
 parts of New England, which he always held 
 himself ready to meet, so far as it was in his 
 power to do it. He was not a popular orator, 
 but a ready speaker, whose discourses always 
 abounded with sound sense and scriptural knowl- 
 edge. These labors Mr. Balfour continued, as 
 calls were made upon him for many years, and 
 until he was obliged, by bodily infirmities, to de- 
 sist from them. We may name, in this place, a 
 journey made by him to the State of Maine, in 
 the summer of 1S30. He passed through 
 Portsmouth, N. H,, to Portland, thence to Nor- 
 way, Buckfield, Turner, Augusta, Bowdoinham, 
 Brunswick, Bath, Wiscasset, Waldoboro, Union, 
 
 *See Trumpet, vol. i., pp. 105, 106.
 
 186 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Searsmont, Montville, Belfast, Hallowell, Gard- 
 ner, preaching in all these places, to crowds of 
 hearers. He enjoyed hinriself highly on this 
 journey, and his labors were said to have been 
 the cause of great good."^ 
 
 Stuart's ^" ^^® ^^^^ 0^ 1830, more than six 
 
 E.eget.cai Essays. ygjjj.g ^^^^^ ^^^ First' Inquiry had 
 
 been published, Prof. Stuart came out with a 
 book designed to counteract the effect of Mr. 
 Balfour's publications. At this time there had 
 appeared of Mr. Balfour's works, his First and 
 Second Inquiries, Essays and Letters to Hudson, 
 with the replies to Sabine and to Allen. The 
 Professor's work was entitled " Exegetical Es- 
 says on several words relating to Future 
 Punishment."t It was unquestionably designed 
 to break down the influence of Mr. Balfour's 
 works, especially the three first named ; but the 
 Professor had not the magnanimity to name 
 either the works or their author. Whether this 
 was consistent with candor or Christian charity, 
 we shall not undertake here to discuss.! 
 
 The " Exegetical Essays " were 
 
 Exegetical Essays ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^iS following plan: 
 
 *See Trumpet, vol. iii., p. 33. 
 
 tAndover, Mass., 1830. 12iiio, pp. 156. 
 
 tThe Professor evidently felt as if this circunistance
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 187 
 
 First, the Professor treats of Aion and AionioSf 
 which had been so fully treated by Mr. Balfour 
 in his Second Inquiry. He speaks, as he says, 
 1st, of the importance of the subject. 2d, The 
 Classical us© of the words in question. 3d, 
 Their sense as employed in the New Testament. 
 4th 5th and 6th, Meaning of Aion. 7th. In- 
 stances of Aion in respect to future punishment, 
 of which he claims there are five instances only, 
 2 Peter ii : 17. Jude. v: 13. Eev. xiv : 11. 
 xix : 3. XX : 10. 8th, General Summary of 
 the meaning of Aion. He comes then to the ad- 
 
 needed an apology. "That I have not referred, in the 
 general course of discussion to those who differ from me 
 in opinion (one instance only excepted) they must not 
 put to the score of neglect ; for nfiiher have I referred 
 to those with whom I agree. My wish is, not to appear 
 in a polemic attitude," &c. Prof Stuart had openly at- 
 tacked Dr. Channing, and the Unitarians generally ; and 
 nine years before the publication of the Exegetical Es- 
 says, he had almost professed a willingness to " enter the 
 lists ■' with the Inquirer, if he could know his real name, 
 and contend on some other ground than that of a news- 
 paper. See a previous note. How does it happen, then, 
 that he was so averse to assuming " a polemic attitude " 
 just at that time .' It is certain that on other occasions 
 he had had no objections to assuniing such an attitude. 
 Not six months before the ''Exegetical Essays'' appear- 
 ed, he had addressed his Letter to Dr Channing on Re- 
 ligions Liberty, which was of a very polemical character; 
 and he somewhat blamed Dr. Channing for not having 
 noticed the works which had been addressed to him. See 
 work last mentioned, p. 47.
 
 188 
 
 MEMOIR JF 
 
 jective Aionios. 10th, First class of meanings, 
 llth, Second class of meanings. 12th, Instances 
 in respect to future punishment. These are 
 Matt, xviii: 8. xxv : 41, 46. Mark iii : 29. 
 1 Thess. i : 9. Heb. vi . 2. Jude. 6. 13th. Gen- 
 eral Summary of the meanings of Aionios. 
 14th. Meaning of the corresponding Hebrew 
 word in the Old Testament. 15th. General 
 Summary in regard to that word. 16th. Use of 
 Aion and Aionios in the Septaagint. 17th. 
 Bearing of the testimony on the subject of 
 future punishment. ISth. Results. 19th. Man- 
 ner in which Aion and Aionios have been 
 treated by some critics and lexicographers. 
 
 Having used up half the bulk of his work, 
 on Aion and Aionios, he comes to consider the 
 words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, the 
 subjects embraced in the First Inquiry. He con- 
 siders I. Sheol. 1st. Moral meaning of the 
 word. 2d. Remarks on the common translation 
 of Sheol. 3d. Manner of using figurative lan- 
 guage in respect to the objects of a future world. 
 4th. Secondary signification of Sheol. 5th. 
 Popular views of Sheol. 6th. Remarks thereon. 
 7th. General conclusion. II. Hades. 1st. Clas- 
 sical sense of the word. 2d. Hades, as used by 
 the sacred writers. 3d. Remarks on the use of
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 189 
 
 Hades in the Scriptures. III. Tartarus. IV. 
 Gehe7ina. To this most important part of the 
 subject the Professor devotes only seven out of 
 his one hundred and fifty-six pages. He ac- 
 knowledges that primarily Gehenna signified the 
 valley of Hinnom, on the boundaries of Jerusa- 
 lem. Both parties were agreed, that it is used in 
 the Scriptures in a secondary sense. He main- 
 tained, but without sufficient authority, that it 
 referred to a future state of punishment. With 
 a few general remarks, he closes his book. 
 
 One great fault of the " Exeget- j,^^,^, ^, ^^^ ^ 
 ical Essays " was, that the Profes- ^"^^''"'="''^^^"^^' 
 sor spent the most of his strength on subjects 
 that wrre of the least importance, and which he 
 acknowledged, in effect, to be so. The great 
 points in respect to the words and phrases he 
 considered, received the smallest share of his 
 attention. Think of the fact, that he should 
 have given so small a section to the word Ge- 
 henna ! which should have been the main point 
 of his inquiries. Another great insufficiency of 
 this work is the circumstance that he paid no at- 
 tention whatsoever to the chapters of facts sub- 
 mitted by Mr. Balfour. He knew that those 
 facts were regarded by Universalists as forming 
 a body of evidence incontrovertible, in favor of
 
 190 MEMOIR OF 
 
 their understanding of the Scriptural use of the 
 word Gehenna. Facts are difficult things to 
 deal with. When facts are adduced in support 
 of any theory, it manifestly devolves on those 
 who are opposed to that theory to account for 
 those facts ; and if they do not account for them, 
 if they pass them over in silence, and appear as 
 if they would keep them out of sight, we say, 
 with the elder Dr. Beecher, *' it is evident such 
 persons are vanquished, and that they are sen- 
 sible they are vanquished."=^ 
 
 Eepiytothe ^^^ ^ ^^'^ months after the " Ex- 
 
 Exegeticai Essays, ^^g^.^^j Essays" appeared, camc 
 
 *The *' Exegetical Essays '' produced little effect. In 
 truth, Prof. Stuart himself seems afterward to have been 
 doubtful on the subject of endless misery. He has ex- 
 pressed himself at times, in such terms, that he has been 
 accused, by some of his Orthodox brethren, of heresy. 
 Tholuck found fault as to the views of the Professor on 
 the subject of original sin. See the periodical edited by 
 Tholuch, entitled ''Literarischer Anzeiger," of April 
 7, 1834. He accuses the Professor of using the same 
 objections against the doctrine of original sin which had 
 been employed by the Rationalists of Germany A pa- 
 per in our own country, called the "Presbyterian," 
 echoed the voice of Tholuch; and the well known " Pu- 
 ritan'' (Nov. 4th, 1841,) re-echoed it. Many will re- 
 nie«)ber the painful suspicions that were excited in some 
 Orthodox minds, by the Professor's article in the " Bibli- 
 otheca Sacra" for February, 1843, on "Angelology," in 
 which he said, " that as to the power of Satan over the 
 wicked, it is every where presented in the Kew Testa- 
 ment as something which will wholly cease after a time.''
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 191 
 
 out Mr. Balfour's reply.* It must be confessed that 
 in following up the Professor's train of thought, 
 Mr. Balfour had not a difficult labor to perform. 
 The Professor's arguments, or rather shows of ar- 
 gument, were replied to with great candor, and 
 with great vigor. The reply was embraced in 
 five letters. In the first of these, Mr. Balfour 
 
 *It was entitled " Reply to Prof. Stuart's Exegetical 
 Essays on several words relating to Future Punishment." 
 By Walter Balfour, Charlestown, Mass. Boston, printed 
 for the author, 1831. 
 
 The Professor's small work, entitled *' Hints on Proph- 
 ecy," aimed at the delusion of Millerism, also excited 
 painful sensations among some of the Orthodox party. 
 He maintained, in this work, that by far the larger pro- 
 portion of mankind will be saved. " That the final pro- 
 portion of men who will be redeemed must be greater, 
 yea much greater than that which will be lost, seems to 
 be made certain by the ancient promise, that 'the seed of 
 the woman should bruise the serpent's head,' Gen. iii : 15. 
 But how can this promise be true, if, after all, Satan shall 
 destroy the larger portion of the human race.' " Second 
 Edition, Andover, 1842, p. 132. In the same work the 
 Professor interpreted the passages in the New Testament 
 which treat of " the end of the world," much as the 
 Universalists do, and this was another cause of grief to 
 some of his brethren. The " New York Evangelist," 
 that organ of popular Orthodoxy, spoke of the opinions 
 of Professors Stuart and Bush, on this point, in the fol- 
 lowing terms : " The tendency of these views is to de- 
 stroy the Scripture evidence of the doctrine of any real 
 end of the world, any day of final, general judgment, or 
 general resurreetion of the body. The style of interpre- 
 tation, we assert, tends fearfully to Universalism. 
 This tendency we are prepared to prove." But one of
 
 T92 MEMOIR OF 
 
 considered what the Professor had said on the 
 words Aion and Aionios. He separated his as- 
 sertions from his arguments, showing that the 
 former were by far the most numerous. He 
 pointed out his misapplications of Scripture ; and 
 showed, too, that notwithstanding his boasted re- 
 gard for the Scriptures, he seemed to rely much 
 more upon the testimony of Talmudic and Rab- 
 binic writers, tlian upon that of the inspired 
 servants of God. In fine, it must be said, after 
 
 the most remarkable articles ever written by Prof. Stu- 
 art, was published in the "Biblical Repository," A. D. 
 1840. It was professedly in defence of the doctrine of 
 endless misery ; but, like Archbishop Tillotson's famous 
 sermon on that point, it had a decided influence to weak- 
 en the faith of those who believed it. V\ e make the fol- 
 lowing quotations : 
 
 "Next to the inquiry whether the soul is immortal, 
 stands in point of importance and interest the question, 
 * Whether there is a state of rewards and punishments 
 beyond the grave, and whether that state is eternal? ' 
 A more fearful question cannot be raised by the human 
 mind, than by asking whether the punishment of the 
 wicked in a future world is to be regarded as endless ? 
 
 "No reflecting man can wonder, that so.many among 
 us are so deeply agitated by this subject. While'ihe great 
 majority of Christians consider the inquiry suggested by 
 this last question as answered, yea fully answered, by the 
 Scriptures, yet there are not a few who claim to be consid- 
 ered Christians, whose minds are filled with difficulty in 
 respect to the subject of endless njisery in a future woild." 
 
 Speaking of those who believe in the final salvation of 
 all men, he said, — 
 
 "iNot a few persons in our community secretly belong 
 to this class. They perceive the extravagant and obtru-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 193 
 
 looking carefully over the Essays and the Reply, 
 that the Professor left the controversy concern- 
 ing Aio/i and Aioiiios just where he found it 
 when he begun. No dependance can be placed 
 on the mere force of these words, to sustain the 
 doctrine of the endless duration of punishment. 
 As Isaac Taylor says, " The unfixed practice of 
 our English translators in rendering the Scrip- 
 ture terms of duration, has thrown a disadvan- 
 tage upon certain very momentous questions, 
 
 sive assumptions of those who deny any future punish- 
 ment; and fearing to encourage them in their error, they 
 withhold the expression of their own doubts and difficul- 
 ties, guarding, at the same titne, from expressing and 
 inculcating any positive belief in the doctrine of endless 
 punishment. Thus they live and perhaps die, without 
 ever making any explicit avowal of their secret belief, or 
 at [east of their secret doubts. And among these are 
 not a few of the professed preachers of the gospel. 
 
 '* It were easy to prefer accusations in this case, of 
 insincerity and the want of open and honest dealing; and 
 this is soin -times done. To such accu-iations. indeed, 
 there are so;ne who would be justly subjected . Bull 
 am not persuaded that all doubters of this class are to be 
 taxed with hypocrisy and double dealing. There are 
 minds of a very serious cast, and prone to reasoning and 
 inquiry, that hive in some way come into such a state, 
 that doubt on the subject of endless punish iient, cannot, 
 without the greatest difficulty, be removeil from them. 
 
 " They commence their doubts, it is probable, by some 
 a 7>riori reasoning on this subject. ' God is good. His 
 tender mercy is over all the w^rks of his hands. He has 
 no pleasure in the death of a sinner. He has power to 
 prevent it. He knew before he created man, and made 
 
 13
 
 194 MEMOIR OF 
 
 and has made many affirmations of the inspired 
 writers seem vague, which probably were to 
 themselves, and their first readers, quite definite ; 
 or at least more so than they are to our ears. 
 The confusion hence arising, has led certain 
 controvertists to found an argument upon the 
 supposed force of a single term [Aionios) to 
 which Scripture usage has given a very great 
 latitude of meaning ; and which therefore must, 
 in every place, receive its specific value from the 
 
 him a free ajjent, that he would sin. In certain prospect 
 of his endless misery, therefore, his benevolence would 
 have prevented the brinj^mg of him into existence. No 
 father can bear to see his own children miserable w ithout 
 end, not even when they have been ungrateful and re- 
 bellious; and God, our Heavenly Father, loves us better 
 than anv earthly parent does or can love his children.' 
 
 " Besides, our sins are temporary and finite, for they 
 are committed by temporary and finite beings; and in a 
 world filled with enticements both from without and front 
 within It is perfectly easy for Omnipotence to limit, 
 vea to prevent, any mischief which sin can do; so that 
 the endless-punishment of the wicked is unnecessary, in 
 order to maintain the divine government and keep it up- 
 on a solid basis. Above all, a punishment without end, 
 for the sins of a few days or hours, is a proportion of 
 misery incompatible with justice as well as mercy. And 
 how can this be any longer necessary, when Christ has 
 made atonement for sin, and brought in everlasting re- 
 demption fiom its penalty ? 
 
 " The social sympathies, too, of some men are often 
 deeply concerned with the formation of their religious 
 opinions. They have lost a near and dear friend and 
 relative by death, one who never made any profession of
 
 RRV'. ^VALTER BALFOUR. 195 
 
 subject in hand."^ In his second letter, Mr. 
 Balfour considers that section of the Professor's 
 work in which he treated of the word Skeol. 
 The Professor did not maintain that there were 
 more than^i-e texts, out of the whole sixty-four 
 instances in which Sheol occurs in the Bible, 
 which had relation to future punishment; and 
 
 *See the work entitled " Saturday Evening,'' 3d Am. 
 ed., Crocker & Brewster, Boston, p. 311. 
 
 religion or gave good reason to suppose that his mind was 
 particularly occupied with it. What shall they think of 
 his case? Can they feel that one so dear to them, has 
 become eternally wretched ? an outcast forever from 
 God ? Can they endure the thought that they are never 
 to see or associate with him any more? Can heaven it 
 self be a place of happiness for ttiem, while they are con- 
 scious that a husband or wife, a son or a daughter, a 
 brother or a sister, is plunged into a lake of fire from 
 when .-e there is no escape? It is impossible, they aver, 
 to overcome such sympathies as these. It would be un- 
 natural and even monstrous to suppress them. They 
 are, tlierefore, as they view ihe case, constrained to doubt 
 whether the miseries of a future world can be endless." 
 
 It cannot be saii, that Prof. Stuart referred here mere- 
 ly to Universalists, or those who are associated with them. 
 It is tnuch more reasonable to believe that he referred to 
 many members of the Orthodox churches, who, he knew, 
 reisoned m this manner, taking good care, in the mean- 
 time, ti> keep their doubts to themselves. 
 
 "If there are any whose breasts are strangers to such 
 ditBculties as these, they are to be congratulated on hav- 
 ing made attainments afmost beyond the reach of human- 
 ity in the present world ; or else to be pitied for ignorar.ce, 
 or the want of a sympathy, which seems to be among 
 the first elements of our social nature. With the great 
 
 13=^
 
 196 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Mr. Balfour said, " Such are your five texts 
 in proof that Sheol denotes, ' the world of mis- 
 ery, the region of the second death.' " And ap- 
 plying to him his own words, he said further, 
 " but according to your sound rule in philology, 
 what is there in these texts or their contexts 
 w^hich 'imperiously demands ' that Shtol should 
 have such a sense given it? What there is 
 which demands it here, I cannot see." In his 
 Third Letter Mr. Balfour meets that part of the 
 
 mass of thinking Christians, 1 am sure such thoughts as 
 these must, unhappily for them, be acquaintances too fa- 
 miliar That they agitate our breasts as storn.s do ihe 
 mighty deep, will be testified by every man of a tender 
 heart, and who has a deep concern in the present and fu- 
 ture welfare of those whouj he loves 
 
 " It would seem to be, from such considerations, and 
 the like to these, that a belief in a future repentance and 
 recovery of sinners, has become so wide spread in Ger- 
 many, pervading even the ranks of those who are regard- 
 ed as serious and evangelical men, in respect to most or 
 all of what is called Orthodox doctrine, saving the point 
 before us. Such was the case also with some of the an- 
 cient fathers, and such is doubtless the case with not a 
 few of our day, who are far removed from noisy and ob- 
 trusive sectarianism, and who even do not venture posi- 
 tively to assert and maintain the modified doctrine of uni- 
 versal salvation, viz., the final restoration of all to divine 
 favor, after punishment and repentance. 
 
 "Can we find it in our hearts secretly to reproach 
 doubters of this retired and modest class; who will not 
 even venture to assert what they hope is true, and on the 
 whole do believe to be true.' " 
 
 These extracts from Prof. Stuart may be found in the 
 article entitled •' Future Punishment, as exhibited in the
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 197 
 
 ' Exegetical Essays ' which treated of the word 
 Hades. He followed the Professor from one po- 
 sition to another, carefully replying to every 
 thing he had said, and showing that he utterly 
 failed to sustain his points. He paid large at- 
 tention to the Professor's argument founded on 
 the parable of the Rich [Man and Lazarus, and 
 certain passages in the Apocalypse ; and con- 
 cerning these points he remarked, that " if these 
 passages are the grounds on which endless hell 
 torments are defended, even by Prof. Stuart, 
 [so manifestly must they be perverted from their 
 true sense to make out the points,] the day must 
 be at hand when this doctrine will be totally and 
 I hope forever abandoned. The very attempt by 
 such a man to support it hy such proofs, proves 
 it is indefensible from the plain testimony of 
 God, and must hasten the day of its destruc- 
 tion." p. 206. In letter fourth, Mr. Balfour con- 
 sidered what the Professor had said as it respects 
 
 Book of Enoch,'' American Biblical Repository, for July, 
 1840, pp 1,2, 17 to 22. The Professor stales that his 
 own mind had been " deeply anxious and distressed " 
 on this subject, p. 28 Pity he had not learned of Jesus, 
 instead of men, for then he would have found " rest unto 
 his soul," Matt, xi : 28 to 30. He attempts to remove the 
 doubts of his brethren in reg;ird to the rectitude of the 
 divine government in view of endless misery, but the at- 
 tempt was a signal failure.
 
 I9S MEMOIR OF 
 
 St. Peter's use of the word Tartarus. The Pro- 
 fessor's great mistake here lay in supposing that 
 because the apostle used a word which had been 
 employed in the heathen mythology, therefore 
 he meanot to adopt the heathen fables themselves. 
 The fifth letter treats of Gehenna; and here 
 Mr. Balfour found almost nothing to do. The 
 Professor, had not invalidated one of the great 
 facts brought out in the First Inquiry. He mis- 
 represented Mr. Balfour and the Universalists 
 generally, in giving the idea that they held to 
 no sense being attached to the word Gehenna^ 
 except literally the valley of Hinnom. All the 
 plausibility he gave to his views, was founded 
 on that misrepresentation. Mr. Balfour went 
 through the work, replying with great patience 
 to whatever Prof. Stuart had said ; and at the 
 close he rebuked him with severity for his per- 
 sonal reflections on Universalists, with whom by 
 this time Mr. B. had become well acquainted. 
 It must be said by every one who looks candidly 
 into the matter, that the " Exegetical Essays " 
 left the First and vSecond Inquiries utterly unim- 
 paired."^ 
 
 *Mr. Balfour's views of the First and Second Inquiries, 
 as affected by the Exegetical Essays, were given, in a 
 subsequent puljlication, in the following words : 
 
 "Before Mr. Stuart's Essays appeared, we supposed he
 
 EEV. WALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 199 
 
 The last controversial book prepared whitmans 
 
 Letters to a 
 
 by Mr. Balfour, was a reply to a cer- o^iversaust. 
 tain section of a work by Rev. Bernard Whit- 
 man, a Unitarian clergyman of Waltham, Mass. 
 Mr. W.'s book was entitled, " Friendly Letters 
 to a Universalist on Divine Rewards and Pun- 
 ishments.'"'^ Although regarded as a man of 
 large liberality, Mr. W. was by no means friend- 
 ly to Universalists, especially that class of them 
 who, like Mr. Balfour, did not believe that the 
 Bible teaches the doctrine of a future punish- 
 ment for the sins of this life. He fell unfortu- 
 
 *it ca.-ne out in 1S33, and was published by f?rown, 
 Shattuck & Co., Cambridge. 
 
 must have soaiething new and powerful to produce ; that 
 the Inquiry would receive a lull and fair reply, and that 
 I should see in what my error consisted. But we are en- 
 tirely disappointed ; for like all the preceding attempts 
 to refute it, the principal facts and arguments are passed 
 over without any notice. Indeed, many of Mr. Stuart's 
 statements confirm the views advanced in the Inquiry. 
 We begin to suspect no respectable reply can be njade to 
 it which will prove that Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Ge- 
 henna, designates a place of endless misery to the wick- 
 ed. We hate too high an opinion of Mr 5?tuail's under- 
 standing, to think that he considers his Essays deserving 
 the name of an answer to the Inqniry. We liave never 
 heard of a single intelligent man, Orthodox or otherwise, 
 who thinks his Essays a reply to it. But we have heard 
 several express a contrary opinion. If the book, then, 
 is not unanswerable, we may say it yet remains unan- 
 swered."
 
 200 MEMOIR OF 
 
 nately somewhat under the influence of that 
 class, who had a separate existence at that time, 
 and who called themselves Eestorationists, b}' 
 whom his antipathy to the other class of Uni- 
 versalists was much increased. In 163^2, he pre- 
 paTed and published a volume of sermons, enti- 
 tled " Village Sermons," which called forth a 
 series of letters addressed to him, by that highly 
 respected divine, Rev. L. E. Paige, of Cam- 
 bridgeport.^ It was probably these Letters of 
 Mr. Paige, w^hich led Mr. Whitman to prepare 
 his principal work, " Letters to a Universalist."! 
 It was a duodecimo volume of 856 pages; the 
 largest work, we believe, ever produced by that 
 author. It consisted of twelve letters. The 
 spirit of it was unfriendly to that class of Uni- 
 versalists who did not profess to believe in future 
 punishment as a doctrine of the Bible. It was a 
 work prepared in great haste, — some of the 
 arguments were weak and sophistical, and such 
 as the author himself would, upon further reflec- 
 tion, have rejected. t This was the first, and, 
 
 *See Memoir of the Rev. Bernard Whitman, hy Jiisnn 
 Whitman. Boston: B. H. Greene, 1837; p. 103. lor 
 Rev. Mr. Paige's Letters, see Irunipet, vol. v., pp. 16, 
 17, 21, 25, 36, 37. 
 
 tMenioir of Whitman, p. 104. 
 
 4:" This volume was prepared under unfavorable circum-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 201 
 
 indeed only attack ever made by Unitarians 
 upon Mr. Balfour's views o( Geherma ; though 
 be it remembered, that Mr. Whitman, imitating 
 the false dignity of Prof. Stuart, sought to un- 
 dermine the first " Inquiry," without naming 
 either the work or its author. 
 
 In the summer of 1S34, came out saifour-^ Reply 
 Mr. Balfour's answer. He did not ^'^^^«-*°- 
 reply to the whole book, for that he was under 
 no particular obligation to do; but he took up 
 merely the sixth chapter, in which his views of 
 Gehe?ina had been assailed. "^ He stated that he 
 
 *See "A Letter to Rev. Bernard Whitman, on the 
 term Gehenna, rendered hell in the Common Version. 
 By Walter Balfour. Boston: Thomas Whittemore and 
 B B Mussey, 1834 " Duodecimo, pp. 96. 
 
 stances, and written in great haste, and without opportu- 
 nity for r8-«xamination. JMr. Whitman sent to the jjrinter 
 each mornmg what he had written during the [irevious 
 day. Under these circumstances it will not be thought 
 strange that the volume should contain some arguments 
 which are weak or sophistical, and which the author him- 
 self would, upon further reflection, ha\e rejected." See 
 the .Memoir of Whitman, before referred to, written by 
 his brother, p. 104. See also the following extract : 
 " This volume (' Letters to a Universalist ') was fjrepared 
 in great h;iste, from materials furnished in part by the 
 author's friends, and without sufficient care in the selec- 
 tion and arrangement of topics. It is diffuse to a fault, 
 and contains some instances of weak and irrelevant reas- 
 oning." Christian Examiner, for July, 1837, p. 355. 
 The article in the "Examiner" was from the pen of 
 Rev. A. P. Peabody, the Unitarian clergyman of Ports- 
 month. N. H.
 
 202 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 had no objection to replying to the whole of 
 Mr. AVhitman's book on certain conditions, 
 which were, however, never complied with. 
 Whether Mr. W. would have complied with 
 them, had his life been spared, is doubtful ; but 
 about the time of the appearance of the reply, 
 he w*as attacked with consumption, and died 
 early in the month of November, 1S34. Had 
 Mr. Balfour known that Mr. W.'s sickness and 
 death were so soon to follow, he would not prob- 
 ably have made the reply. Mr. Balfour com- 
 plained, and very justly, that Mr. Whitman had 
 " grossly misrepresented his views of Gehenna 
 punishment," and hence that much of his labor 
 was merely fighting a man of straw; for Mr. 
 W. sought to persuade his readers that Mr. B. 
 held that Gehenna must be taken in its literal 
 sense, as a place of corporeal punishment in the 
 valley of Hinnom, near Jerusalem. On the con- 
 trary Mr. B. held, and had defended the opinion 
 at length in his First Inquiry, that although this 
 was the literal sense, its general use in the New 
 Testament was to signify the judgments which 
 came upon the Jews. The reply was very nat- 
 urally divided into three parts, viz : 1st. An 
 exposure of Mr. Whitman's misrepresentations 
 of the " Inquiry," and an examination of his
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 203 
 
 classification of the passages in which Gehenna 
 occurs, and of his views of the sense of that 
 term. 2d. An examination of his proof adduced 
 from the Targums, and other Jewish writings of 
 alleged antiquity, in defence of the opinion that 
 Christ and James intended by Gehenna ^'spirit- 
 ual punishment in the future state." And 3d. 
 An examination of Mr. W.'s reply to Mr. B.'s 
 objecrions to the common use of Gehenna. 
 
 This is perhaps one of the most pointed 
 and spirited of all Mr. B.'s works. He dealt 
 with his opponent in a plain, matter-of-fact man- 
 ner. He was not accustomed to hold up false 
 appearances. Wherever he could with consist- 
 ency, respect and honor his opponent, he did it 
 cheerfully; but he did not hesitate to give utter- 
 ance to his thoughts, when called on to expose 
 pedantry, vanity and misrepresentation. He 
 was accustomed to go into the open field ; he 
 threw his whole soul into the Chrustian warfare; 
 in fiict, he was one of the most truly honest men 
 that ever lived, who spoke out exactly what he 
 thought it his duty to say. It was these attri- 
 butes that gave to the Reply to Whitman its se- 
 verity."^ 
 
 *Mr. \'i hitman strited (p. 194) that lie eniploved Rev. 
 George iNichols and liev. A. P. Peabody, tutor in H
 
 204 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 General Thus had Mf. BalfouT sustained him- 
 ^^''^' self at every point. He had defended 
 his two "Inquiries" against the attacks of all 
 who had assailed them. This was what he 
 avowed, at the beginning, he would do; and he 
 followed up that resolution. j\]r. Whitman had 
 been regarded as a theological champion among 
 the Unitarians, since the publication of his cele- 
 brated Sermon at Waltham, in 1S*27, on denying 
 the Lord Jesus. No one can read the chapter in 
 his " Letters," (viz., that which treats of Gehen- 
 na,) and compare it with Mr. Balfour's Reply, 
 without being perfectly satisfied that every one 
 
 brew and Mathenititics in Harvard University, to assist 
 hitn in making exaininations into the Targums and Tal- 
 muds. He said, "they have spent hours and days in 
 poring over the Targums and Tahnuds, and other author- 
 ities in various ancient and modern languages." A per- 
 son who knew the facts in the case, would smile at such 
 a statement. It appeared, that all the extracts from the 
 Targums and Talmuds which appeared in IMr. Wliitman's 
 book, were copied second-hand from Wetstein's New 
 Testament ; and Mr. Whitman's friends did not so much 
 as verify their quotations by referring to the originals, as 
 they copied VVetstein's mistakes, which such a reference 
 would have corrected. Quoting from Wetstein, they 
 spake of the Targum of Jonathan on Canticles and .lob, 
 whereas there is no such Targum in exisience. Wet- 
 stein make the mistake, and Mr. Whitman's friends blind- 
 ly followed him. In 1837, Mr. Peabody, who had then 
 removed to Portsmouth, N H., and become the pastor of 
 the Unitarian Society there, caused to be publisbed in the 
 "Christian Examiner," a Review of the " Memoir of
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 205 
 
 of Mr. W.'s positions in regard to Gehenna is 
 broken down, and that the doctrine of the " First 
 Inquiry " is fully sustained. It was publicly 
 asked, two years afterwards, by a very intelli- 
 gent man, " If, with the assistance which Mr. 
 Whitman acknowledges he had received from 
 the Library and tutors of Harvard College, he 
 failed, is it not fair presumptive evidence, that so 
 far as the term Gehenna is concerned in the con- 
 troversy between Universalists and their oppo- 
 nents, the former have truth upon their side ? "=^ 
 
 *Trumpet, vol. viii : p. 205. 
 
 Whitman," in which he referred to the " Letters to a 
 Universalist," and repeated the story as to the " critical 
 researclies'' that had been made at the library of Har- 
 vard College to obtain materials for that work. This fact 
 drew out from Rev. L. R. Paige two articles, entitled 
 " Tricks of Authorship," in which he exposed the fact 
 that the extracts professedly made from theTargums and 
 Talmuds were copied second-hand from VVetstein; and 
 that the extracts were not verified by comparison with 
 the original. Trumpet, vol. x : 14, 18. Mr. Balfour al- 
 so was drawn out once more in a " Letter to the Rev. 
 A. P Pe iboiJy." He asked that reverend gentleman cer- 
 tain very important and pungent questions. At the end, 
 he invited him to a discussion of the question as to the 
 facts concerning Gehenna, advanced in the " First la- 
 quiry," saying, " I am perfectly wilhng you should take 
 Targum ground, Talmud ground, Bible ground, or any 
 other ground which best answers your purpose.'' Trum- 
 pet, vol. X., p. 29. Mr. Peabody made no reply to this 
 epistle.
 
 206 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Parsons Cooke Rev. PaTSOTis Cooke was, among the 
 Mr Baifoar. Oithodox, what Mt. Whitman had 
 been among the Unitarians. He felt a strong 
 desire to wield the sword of controversy. He 
 had attacked the Unitarians with great vigor in 
 the early part of his ministry. But as he gained 
 more experience, he felt that "as the occasion 
 for controversy with the Unitarians seemed to 
 be subsiding, the occasion to contend with the 
 Universalists seemed to be increasing.'"^ He 
 came out, therefore, with a duodecimo volume of 
 247 pages, entitled " Modern Universalism ex- 
 posed, in an examination of the writings of Rev. 
 Walter Balfour." He treated on the immortal- 
 ity of the soul; the intermediate state; the fu- 
 ture judgment; eternal life ; the words eternal, 
 everlasting and forever, as applied to punish- 
 ment; the meaning of the words Sheol, Hades, 
 Tartarics and Gehenna; the existence and agen- 
 cy of evil spirits; the credulity of Mr. Balfour's 
 disciples ; and the sources of Universalism. 
 Thus Mr. Cooke covered the Avhole ground of 
 all Mr. Balfour's works. It must be confessed, 
 however, that Mr. C.'s work never seems to have 
 
 *See "Modern Universalism Exposed, in an examina- 
 tion of the writings of Rev. Waller Balfour." By Par- 
 sous Cooke, of Ware, Mass. Lowell, 1834.
 
 Mr. BaliouT'g 
 Reply tc Cooke. 
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 207 
 
 been highly regarded, even by the Orthodox 
 themselves. It has been but little used, and we 
 believe no second edition ever appeared. It was 
 marked by cunning, rather than sound argu- 
 ment. 
 
 Mr. Balfour did not think it neces- 
 sary to bring out another book. If 
 Mr. Cooke's profundity of investigation would 
 permit him to answer^zye or six large volumes of 
 closely arranged facts, in a duodecimo of 247 
 pages, giving up, too, the most of this space to 
 subjects that might well have been spared, Mr. 
 Balfour believed that it was best the reply should 
 be given in the columns of a religious newspa- 
 per. He availed himself, therefore, of the 
 " Trumpet; " and the reply came out in a series 
 of Lett3rs in the years 1834 and lS3o. He ex- 
 amined all Mr. Cooke's principal positions, and 
 showed that they were untenable. He showed, 
 furthermore, that Mr. C. had abandoned all the 
 distinctive points of Calvinism, and planted him- 
 self fully upan Arm.inian ground. The spirit 
 manifested in Mr. C.'s work, and the misrepre- 
 sentations with which it abounded, were made 
 clearly manifest. Mr. B. took up section after 
 section; set off one part against another; and 
 did not hesitate to administer the rebukes which
 
 208 MEMOIR OF 
 
 Mr. C.'s temper, censoriousness and sectarian 
 pride called for.^ In concluding, he made the 
 following proposition to Mr. Cook : 
 
 " Before T conclude, I submit to you the following 
 proposals : Will you be pleased to select one or two 
 of your strongest texts, and on which you are willing 
 to rest the doctrine of endless misery, and let us thor- 
 oughly examine their true meaning. I take the lib- 
 erty to suggest 2 Thess. i: 6 to 11, as Prof. Stuart, 
 Dr. Allen and others, seem willing to risk the whole 
 controversy upon it. Besides, 1 frankly confess to 
 you, when I was a believer in endless punishment, I 
 considered this the strongest text in its support. 
 Should you be pleased to fix on this text, I hereby 
 pledge myself to abide the issue. Prove that it teach- 
 es endless punishment, and I shall give you no more 
 trouble about Universalism." 
 
 Mr Cooke ^^^- Cooko, in a formal letter, declined 
 decuz.e«. ^j^g proffered controversy. "Mr. Bal- 
 four," said he, " is welcome to all the advantage 
 of having the last word, and of my declining his 
 challenge." t Thus the matter ended, and thus 
 ended the last controversy in which Mr. Balfour 
 ever engaged. There were small matters which 
 came up, from time to time, and which clain^.ed his 
 attention; but nothing that might properly be 
 dignified by the name of a controversy. 
 
 *See Trumpet, vol. vii., pp. 17, 29, 37. 53, 65, 81, 
 125, 173. 
 
 tSee Boston Recorder of May 15th, 1835.
 
 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 Mr. Balfour's Labors Draw to a Close. 
 
 Mr. Balfour continued to preach, though 
 with less frequency, up to the year 1S47. 
 But before that year, it became apparent to 
 his family and friends, who watched his course 
 with much solicitude, that the days of his ac- 
 tivity were fast passing away. In the year 
 1842 came out the third edition of his " Second 
 Inquiry." In this edition a third part was added, 
 " On the possession of devils mentioned in the 
 New Testament." He had no occasion to make 
 any other alteration, for he had seen no reason 
 to change his opinions in respect to any of the 
 subjects embraced in the work. To the day of 
 his death, although he had availed himself of 
 every opportunity to examine and re-examine his 
 arguments, he saw no reason to change his opin- 
 ion as to any doctrine he had defended. He died 
 in the full belief of the truths he had inculcated. 
 It was not uncommon for the editors of the par- 
 tialist journals, and for over-zealous and rash 
 14
 
 210 MEMOIR ^F 
 
 preachers, to misrepresent his views, especially 
 on the subject of the immortality of the soul, or 
 of the Scriptural sense of the word Gehenna. 
 He sometimes would reply through the columns 
 of a Universalist journal, and sometimes would 
 let such matters pass as altogether unworthy of 
 attention, since it would seem impossible that 
 any honest man could be deceived by such 
 means. "^^ In the summer of 1844, he delivered 
 a sermon in Newburyport, on " Salvation by 
 Grace," in which he discussed the questions, 
 By what are men saved ? through what are they 
 saved? and from what are they saved? This 
 sermon had been listened to by Eev. Stephen 
 Farley, among others, a Unitarian clergyman, 
 residing in Amesbury, Mass. A brief corres- 
 pondence took place between them, in which 
 Mr. Balfour explicitly avowed that he had his 
 religious education in the kirk of Scotland, where 
 he got his earliest views of the grace of God ; 
 and that he had never seen reason to depart from 
 his belief that salvation was by grace alone. t 
 In November of this year, (1844,) a friend of 
 his proposed in the public papers, that a uni- 
 form edition of his works should be published, 
 
 ♦See Trumpet, vol. xv., pp. 138, 150, 177, 194, 197. 
 tTrumpet, xvii : 1, 17, 22, 37, 45, 57.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 211 
 
 with an autobiography, assigning as a reason 
 why it should be done at once, that " he was fast 
 declining," and that if it were not done soon, the 
 opportunity would be passed for him to do it. 
 He was able to preach but little.^ In August, 
 1846, he lifted up his monitory voice to Univer- 
 salists in regard to studying the Scriptures. One 
 editor said, in introducing his sentiments, "the 
 public of late does not often hear the voice of 
 that faithful old Bible Christian, Father Balfour. 
 His health, we are sorry to say, is far from being 
 perfect. A slight paralysis that came upon him 
 two or three yeefrs ago, has much enfeebled his 
 step ; yet he is still able to go about, and occa- 
 sionally preaches." Speaking of Universalists, 
 he said — 
 
 " They ought to see to it that Universalists in name 
 be also Christians, and able and \villin?to defend what 
 they beUeve from the Scriptures. There can be no 
 safety from controversy until Christians are correctly 
 and generally instructed in ike Scriptures, for so long 
 as general ignorance of the Scriptures prevails, there 
 will always be some who will impose on the ignorant 
 for selfish and sectarian purposes." 
 
 ♦The last sermon ever preached by Father Balfour was 
 delivered in Maiden, on Sunday, 26th Sept., 1847, on 
 which occasion he officiated through the day. His ser- 
 mons were observed to be delivered not with his accus- 
 tomed vigor. 
 
 14^
 
 212 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 In July, 184S, the aged father was called to 
 part with a dearly beloved son — a bright orna- 
 ment to his family — Charles Devens Balfour, 
 aged 34. The prominent type in the character 
 of the son was filial love. Threatened long with 
 a pulmonary complaint, he had resided in the 
 West Indies, for the benefit of a tropical climate ; 
 and by successful business, he had amassed a 
 considerable fortune. But climate and medical 
 aid availed him but little ; and he returned to 
 his native town and breathed his last breath be- 
 neath his father's roof. The father then was so 
 enfeebled in his powers of lo.comotion, that it 
 was with much difficulty he came down stairs to 
 the funeral. He bore the affliction like a man 
 sustained with Christian hope. He knew in 
 whom he believed. Although he differed from 
 many in his views of the inherent immortality 
 of the soul, yet he had full consolation in the 
 fact of the resurrection from the dead. These 
 convictions he again asserted in October, 1848.'^ 
 He believed them to be the result of a careful 
 study of God's word, and they were dear to his 
 heart. 
 
 A last Letter ^" ^^^ pubHcatlon of Prof. Cros- 
 by's edition of the celebrated Letter 
 
 to Prof aiuart 
 
 ♦Trumpet, xxi : 68.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 213 
 
 of Hev. John Foster, (with notes and appendix,) 
 in the spring of 1S49, Mr. Balfour was greatly- 
 moved with the extract therein given from Prof. 
 Stuart's article in the Biblical Repository of Ju- 
 ly, 1840. The character of this article has been 
 very fully shown in a p-eceding note.^ Mr. Bal- 
 four saw, or thought he saw, that a great change 
 had taken place in the Professor's mind and feel- 
 ings ; and though weak and feeble, he could not 
 refrain from addressing him once more. He 
 realised that the Professor had brought him in- 
 to Universalism, and now it seemed almost as if 
 the Professor was himself knocking at the door. 
 
 " Sir, — iVny one who has read yourExesfetical Es- 
 says, mast see what a wonderful change has taken 
 place in your mind since you wrote them, respectinor 
 Universalists, particularly the Restorationists. Its 
 temper, its tone and hinguasie, are radically changed 
 from the lion to the lamb. What smooth and honeyed 
 language is now used to your Orthodox brethren, who 
 are in doubt about the doctrine of endless punish- 
 ment." 
 
 Mr. Balfour assured the Professor he still held 
 fast the doctrines of the First and Second In- 
 quiries and the Reply to the Exegetical Essays. 
 
 " It is plain from your statements, that endless pun- 
 ishment is on the wane among Orthodox preachers, 
 
 *See pp. 190 to 197 of this work.
 
 214 MEMOIR OF 
 
 and you seem to be vastly cooled down in its defence. 
 And of late years there is but little talking or preach- 
 ing about it. Ministers in this region jseem to be 
 afraid, or ashamed, to bring endless punishment into 
 the pulpit, and when they do it, they handle the sub- 
 ject very briefly. T have no doubt but some of them 
 have found out that preaching endless punishment is 
 not the best way of making substantial and durable 
 Christians. Thny are so sick of seeing so much chaff 
 brought into their churches by this kind of preaching, 
 that they are now trying what preaching Jesus Christ 
 and him crucified ' can accomplish. Endless punish- 
 ment is dying out among us, and it will die out of the 
 world in proportion as Christ's religion prevails in it." 
 
 Mr. Balfour acknowledged to the Professor he 
 had found many good things in his works, and 
 been profited by ihem. He invited him to ex- 
 press himself freely on the subject of human 
 salvation, and almost seemed to expect from him 
 an avowal of the great doctrine of the final sal- 
 vation of all men. To their age, and his own 
 increasing infirn:)ities, he makes the following 
 touching allusion : 
 
 " We are both old men, encompassed with bodily 
 infirmities, and are near the grave. ]f either or both 
 of us are in any important errors, we have but little 
 time left us for furtlier research, and a rectification of 
 them. If you have any further light to impart from 
 the Bible, 1 should like to see it, for I am willing to 
 die \n the harness, in my search after truth. But 
 what is done ought to be done quickly ; for I shall 
 soon be beyond its doing me any good, by death or 
 increasing bodily infirmity."
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 215 
 
 This, we think, was the last epistle ever pub- 
 lished from his pen. The last article written by 
 him for any public paper, appeared in the " La- 
 dies' Repository," for April, 1650. It was a no- 
 tice of Chapin's work on the Lord's Prayer. He 
 sent an article subsequently to the " Trumpet," 
 (May IS, 1S50); but he intimated at the end that 
 the article had been written for several months, 
 and that the power of writing had forsaken him. 
 
 " This article was written more than six months 
 ago, before 1 was disabled from writing. I send it 
 without any additions, and with hardly any correc- 
 tions, /or I am not able to attend to such things.''^ 
 
 Feeble in body, but strong in faith, ^e^,^^. a. 
 the good old saint attracted both the ^'"''^' '''^'** 
 sympathy and admiration of those who visited 
 him. We avail ourselves of the language of 
 Rev. W. A. Drew, of Augusta, to describe a 
 visit that he made to the sinking patriarch on the 
 5th of November, 1850 : 
 
 " He cannot walk without much assistance, and is 
 mostly confined to his chair and bed. He appeared 
 pale, ar.d bore the marks of an age beyond his years. 
 He is now in his seventy-sixth year. If ever we saw 
 the scriptural figure of a ' shock of corn fully ripe,' 
 verified in the ripening piety of an earthly being, we 
 thought we saw it in the submissive looks, the patient 
 spirit and the triumphant joys of Father Balfour. 
 God has brought him upon the last perch of life, and
 
 216 MEMOIR OF 
 
 given him winps of faith, with v-hich he is just ready 
 to fly away from earth and be at rest in heaven. We 
 asked him if he had seen any cause yet to renounce 
 his faith in a world's salvation? His characteristic 
 reply was in these very words! 'I have seen no 
 cause to change this faith ; when I do, the world will 
 know it ; I am not one of the men who helieve a thing, 
 right or wrong.' We remarked to him that we be- 
 lieved his views of religion v. ere alv\ays what are 
 technically called evangelical. After a brief criticism 
 on the word evangelical, as relating to good news, he 
 replied that he had alwaye been a friend of experi- 
 mental religion, and trusted he always should enjoy it. 
 The morality of heaihen philosophers, which was as 
 pure as the morality of modern philosoj hers, he 
 thought had not the vital power in it which belongs 
 to the Christian religion. He had tried to live an 
 honest man before men, and he trusted he should die 
 such before God. None could doubt this vho ever 
 knew him. He was anxious for the purity of our 
 ministry. He would condemn none for their infirmi- 
 ties, and even when he spoke with emphasis against 
 the misconduct of one that shall here be nameless, 
 he would only say — 'I am soiry for him, from the 
 bottom of my heart. He loves the cause, but does 
 not so love it as, for the sake of a fakse peace, to wink 
 at and apologize for sin.' 
 
 " His rooTi was hung with several pictures from 
 scenes in the Scriptures, executed in Italy, and were 
 brought home by his most excellent son, Charles D. 
 Balfour, Esq., a bright scholar who travelled exten- 
 sively in Europe, arid died a few years ago. His 
 death was a great affliction, not only to his parents 
 and brothers and sisters, hut to a large social and lit- 
 erary circle which held him in the very highest es- 
 teem. After viewing these pictures, the good old 
 father desired us to go — nay, he wished to accompany 
 us himself— into the other parlor, across the front en-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 217 
 
 try, there to inspect other paintini^s, and especially to 
 see the admirably executed likeness of his departed 
 son He asked us to assist him. He wished to walk 
 once more, and to do so leaning on us, one of his old 
 friends. We helped raise him from his arm chair, 
 and supported his whole lefi side with our right arm, 
 whilst he supported his right by the aid of a staff. In 
 this way he tottered along, slowly moving one foot a 
 few inches at a time beyond the other. We were glad 
 to be his conductor on so long and on so interesting a 
 journey. In due time we had emerged from his room, 
 crossed the entry, and stood before the image of his 
 son in the parlor. He did not kuow we saw the tear 
 gather in his eye — he sought to conceal it — but that 
 tears should flow at the remembrance of such a son, 
 was both natural and commendable. He has yet two 
 sons living who are able, and, we are happy to say, 
 esteem it their highest privilege to contribute to the 
 support and comtort of their aged and worthy pa- 
 rents. The daughter, too, who is with them, is sedu- 
 lous and unremitting in her efforts to serve the faith- 
 ful and affectionate father and mother of a dutiful and 
 beloved family. After inspecting the paintings, and 
 witnessing other curiosities, the return journey was 
 commenced, and in due time accomplished ; and as 
 we replaced the patriarch in his arm chair, he ex- 
 claimed — ' There, Br. Drew, this is the longest jour- 
 ney I have performed for a great while ; perhaps it is 
 the last I ever shall take, and you have been my sup- 
 porter in it. My journey of life is almost finished, 
 during which I have been always supported by kind 
 friends ; my final rest I trust will be glorious.' " * 
 
 Such was the feebleness of the aged -^ ^.^^, 
 saint, on the 5th of November, 1850. *" 
 
 *See the " Gospel Banner " of 23d Nov., 1850.
 
 218 MEMOIR OF 
 
 A friend, who called on him in September, 1S51, 
 described his condition in the following terms : 
 
 " He seems as cheerful and resigned as a man in 
 his situation can be. Sickness wears upon the minds 
 of men, as well as their bodies. Father Balfour ap- 
 pears bright, however, considering his weakness and 
 long confinement. He has utterly lost the power of 
 locomotion. Through the day he sits, and through 
 the night he lies; but he caimot walk, or even rise 
 from his chair or bed without help, any more than a 
 babe. He has a faithful and affectionate wife, in good 
 heahh, and sons and daughters around him ; and it is 
 the ardent wish of all lo have him enjoy all the com- 
 forts of which he is capable." 
 
 The last scene was rapidly drawing near. His 
 mind remained unclouded. On all the great 
 events of his life he looked back with satisfac- 
 tion; and he held fast the doctrines he had de- 
 fended. Not the slightest doubt passed over 
 him in regard to them. He trusted in God ; he 
 trusted in Christ; he had a hope full of immor- 
 tality. When the new year dawned, it found 
 him still alive; but very, very feeble. He lay 
 utterly helpless. His voice had become a whis- 
 per; the heart almost refused to act. Still, 
 however, he lingered until Saturday, January 
 3d, 1852, at 9 a. m., when he expired, gently as 
 a babe falls to sleep. His funeral was attended 
 on the following Monday, from his dwelling-
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 219 
 
 house, in the most private manner. Prayer was 
 offered by Rev. A. A. Miner, of Boston. One 
 of his daughters being at the time sick with the 
 small pox, it was rendered the more desirable 
 that only his most intimate friends should be 
 present. But on the preceding day (Sunday) 
 the Universalist clergy of Boston and vicinity, 
 made honorable references to his life, services, 
 and usefulness. It is a remarkable fact, that 
 Prof. Stuart died on the day following that of 
 Mr. Balfour's death. Thus the fiat of heaven 
 seemed to connect the events of their deaths as 
 it had those of their lives. Many of the public 
 journals made touching allusions to the lives and 
 deaths of both. 
 
 In sketching the character of the sub- ch=iracter 
 ject of this memoir, we feel a fear that ° 
 we cannot say truly what we think of him, with- 
 out being suspected of exaggeration. When w^e 
 speak of a 'departed friend, who would never, 
 when living, permit any person to praise him, 
 our words should certainly be few, and fitly 
 chosen. 
 
 He was by nature an honest man. We will 
 not say there never was one more so ; but we must 
 say, loe never knew a person who excelled him in 
 this respect. He was incapable of a lie, or of
 
 220 
 
 MEMOIR OF 
 
 evasion. Who can call to mind an instance of 
 the slightest prevarication or shuffling in him ? 
 So regardful was he of truth, so well defined 
 was his character in this respect, that among all 
 who* knew him, he would have been believed in 
 a case in which he was not liable to a mistake, 
 against the testimony of a hundred common 
 men. It will be seen, then, that he could not 
 endure hypocrisy, or evasion, and more especial- 
 ly falsehood in any one. As surely as the me- 
 tallic point draws the lightning, were hypocrisy 
 and falsehood certain to draw from him a with- 
 ering and almost annihilating rebuke. He was 
 a truly humble man. He had a sense of inju- 
 ries, but he never thought highly of himself. 
 He could not brook dictation, or pride, or super- 
 ciliousness in any one ; and this was the attri- 
 bute of his mind, which sometimes gave tartness 
 and severity to his controversial writings. This 
 appears in his replies to Rev. B. Whitnian, tind 
 especially to Rev. Parsons Cooke. But, not- 
 withstanding what we here say, he was a truly 
 courteous man. No one would go farther to 
 oblige another ; no one respected the aged more 
 than he; no one would more cheerfully conde- 
 scend to assist the young; no one heard a tale 
 of true sorrow more patiently ; no one received
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 221 
 
 his friends, or even strangers, with more cordial- 
 ity. His politeness did not waste itself in forms 
 of speech, but it shone out like the sun on clouds, 
 illuminating- and softening the adversities of men. 
 In the language of another, " There were few 
 men of greater personal excellence. We never 
 shall forget the delightful social simplicities of 
 his nature, the genial goodness which uttered it- 
 self in every word, the cheerful quietness of his 
 unruffled spirit. Fully Christian in feeling and 
 faith, there was thrown over his whole character 
 the permanent freshness of a purity the world 
 had not soiled, and which bigotry could not 
 blacken."^ 
 
 He was a man of true Christian independ- 
 ence. The servant of Jesus, he knew he was, 
 and the servant of men for Jesus' sake ; but he 
 knew, too, that he had rights, and these he nev- 
 er yielded. Nothing was more agreeable to him 
 than to sit at Jesus' feet and learn ; but when 
 he had learned what is Christian truth, he had 
 the noble independence to declare it. He kept 
 nothing back. How the declaration of an opin- 
 ion would affect his popularity, was a question 
 he never asked. He had an unbounded and un- 
 conquerable love of truth. It could not be 
 
 *Rev. T. P. AbcU, in Trumpet, vol. xxiv , p. 174.
 
 222 MEMOIR OF 
 
 quenched. Like a volcanic mountain, it would 
 have utterance, even though convulsions of so- 
 ciety were the result. Out of this love of truth, 
 grew his reverence for the Bible, the highest of 
 all truth. This blessed book he ever regarded 
 as the word of God. It was to him the fountain 
 of life ; the source of divine knowledge ; the 
 moral standard, or test, by which all doctrines 
 must be tried. All systems of philosophy, how 
 sacred soever in the eyes of men, were second- 
 ary in his sight, compared with the Bible. His 
 first question was, in regard to all matters of ju- 
 risprudence, ethics, or doctrine, " What saith the 
 Scriptures?" He venerated Prof. Stuart to the 
 last, because he had done so much to introduce 
 proper rules of Biblical interpretation among his 
 religioTis brethren. 
 
 There have been few such men as Walter 
 Balfour. Nothing was more natural than that 
 he should become a Universalist, after Prof. Stu- 
 art (unwittingly on his own part) had put him 
 upon the train of inquiry. It is among men of 
 this class, in which we may place not only Bal- 
 four, but Murray, Winchester, the early Street- 
 ers, Barnes, Ballou, and many others — all at first 
 of the partialist faith — it is among such that Uni- 
 versalisra makes its most eminent triumphs.
 
 REV. WALTER BALFOUR. ^23 
 
 Concerning those who have de- inaaenco 
 
 . of the good 
 
 parted this hfe, it is the custom to ^'ter their death, 
 say, they are dead. But in what sense are they 
 dead ? Their bodies indeed are not present with 
 us any miie ; but do not all men live unto God ? 
 Abraham and Isaac and Jacob were not present 
 on the earth, in the days of Christ ; but they 
 were not dead ; for God was their God, and he 
 " is not the God of the dead, but of the living." 
 In this sense men live on, after their bodies re- 
 turn to the dust. They survive the dissolution 
 of their bodies also, in the influence their lives 
 exert after they are gone. Said Daniel Webster, 
 in his discourse on the deaths of Adams and Jef- 
 ferson, " How little is there of the great and 
 good which can die. They live in all that per- 
 petuates the remembrance of men on earth; in 
 the recorded proofs of their own great actions, 
 in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep en- 
 graved lines of public gratitude, and in the re- 
 spect and homage of mankind. They live in 
 their example ; and they live emphatically, and 
 will live, in the influence which their lives and 
 efforts, their principles and opinions exercise, 
 and will continue to exercise, on the affairs ot 
 men." Thus Walter Balfour still lives, and will 
 live. The effect of his studies, and of the works
 
 224 MEMOIR OF REV. WALTER BALFOUR. 
 
 which he gave to the world, -cannot soon pass 
 away. As we said in the preface to this little 
 volume, "the truth that radiated from him will 
 be reflected from mind to mind ; and many will 
 be enlightened by it, who may not be conscious 
 of ever having heard his name." If it be pleas- 
 ant to have the likeness of a great and good man 
 on canvass, or in marble, how much more so to 
 have the image of his thoughts, his flaming as- 
 pirations, his zeal for God. Such is the likeness 
 that is left to us of Walter Balfour ! and while 
 we look at him in this point of view, may his 
 honesty, his love of truth, his noble independ- 
 ence, his natural kindness and benevolence — in 
 a word, the whole man, be copied by us.
 
 A Jk
 
 UCSB LIBRARY
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 B 000 007 893 1