A reply to Mr. J. Sabine's lectures on the Inquiry into the Scriptural import of the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus ad Gehenna

Front matter

c^

,0-

.0 0,

Preface

then has Mr, Sabine done in refuting these things? Did he take up the texts and show that the author of the book had wrested these texts? had perverted them ? Has he taken up any of the facts, and shown them to be false ? Or has he even told his audience, that he believes Hell to be a place of endless misery 1 His work was to answer the book, not to m^ke 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 sections, which contain the great body of material facts, he has not quoted at all, nor eVen alluded to;) and when he made (juotalions, he never, until the last lecture, in a single sentence, referred his hearers to the page, that they might read and judge for themselves.

^' As Mr. Sabine has not fullilled his engagement to the public

in refuting the book, let us advert to what he has attempted to

do in his discourses. The avowed object of Mr. S.'s discourses

was to establish a future retribution Its endless duration be does

not advocate, but stated that he would leave every man to form

his own opinion as to its duration. His orthodox friends he found

fault with, for preaching hell torments so much, and said it was

only the weaker part of them that did so. Had the " Author of

the Inquiry" only advocated a future retribution, all would have

been well. This was not the object of the book, nor is any

thing said in it, either aifirming or denying it. In the book the

Author repeatedly expresses his readiness to believe the doctrine

of endless misery, if it can be established from Scripture ; but

shows that the texts which speak about hell have been perverted

in support of it. Supposing Mr. S, to have proved beyond all con*

iradiclion a future retribution^ this is no answer to the book which he

undertook to refute. But has he proved this? Let everyone who

has heard him, say, if he has proved either of the two following

things, which require to be both proved, to establish the doctrine

o^ ^future retribution. 1st. Has he proved that the soul of man

at death, goes to Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, or Gehenna, as a place

or state of punishment ? 2d. Has he proved that such souls are

actuall}^ in misery there? The mqst plausible proof he advanced

was, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. But seemingly

at a loss in what sense to view it, he first considered it a parable,

then renounced it, and called on the author of the book to prove

it to be a parable. But the parable says not a word about the

xoul of the rich man in Hades or Hell. Unless Mr. S. believes

that the soul has eyes, and ears, and a tongue, &c. in a separate

state from the body, how can this prove his point? Truly, if we

are to oecome believers in a state of torment in the new life of in^

corruption and immortality, which the glorious gospel of Jesus

Christ brings to light, as the *' free gift of God, not according to

our works, but according to his own purpose and grace before

l\ie foundation of the v/orld," oqr Key. Friend Seibine must fur« pheface. o

nish some better ground for our faith, than the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. That Hades at least sometimes means the grave, is not denied by Mr. S. ; and all said in the parable agrees to the body there, but does not accord with a spirit in a future state separate from the body. But it may be said that Mr. S. has proved a future retribution from the passages which speak of a future judgment. Yes, he attempted to prove :his, but did he show from any of those passages that this judgment was in a future state ? which was the point to be proved, lo be to his purpose. All the texts he advanced fell short of this ; and we were rather surprized that something more plausible was i\ot advanced by him. In short. Mr. S. has not only forgotten tc meet the facts and arguments of the book, proving that hell is pot a place of endless misery ^ but he has failed, much more than Jve expected, to establish his doctrine of future retril>uiion. He pas neither refuted the book, nor estabhshed any thing definite in opposition to it.

" Having said thus much about Mr. Sabine's attempts against Mr. Balfour's book, we must, in justice to our own feelings, say something of his treatment of our friend, the author. Those who have not read Mr. B.'S book, and have no personal knowledge of him, would certainly form a terrible idea of the mai, from the portrait of him in Mr. S.'s lectures. Mr. 15. is theie charged with sophistry, insincerity and faleshood ; with denying all penalty or punishment for sin ; with abetting and upholding all infidelitj^ and all immorality; with first perverting, then denying divine revelation ; witl) attempting to unhinge and throv down the whole moral system, thus to dethrone the moral Rulerof the universe. Mr. S. allows Mr. B. the best abilities, but then accuses him of the V, orst designs against the best interests both o^ 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 personal abuse, and a bad on2 is always made worse.

" I would now give notice that Mr. Sabine's Lectures are to be printed, and will be reviewed by Mr. Balfour; and also that Mr. B. intends immediately to publish a second edition of his book, in a cheaper form. Thus both these books will be before the public, within the reach of every man who feels disposed to read and examine for himself. And you will allow me to say, that this subject is one of those things, which belong to our everlasting peace. What the Rev. Mr. S, or the Rev. Mr. B. may say, or what any other man, reverend or irreverend may say, on this solemn subject, is of litde consequence either to you or me, who are travelling together to another world. But what God, our Father in heaven has said in his word, on this subject, is of infinite importance for all to know. Give me leave, then, to recommend a course to you which will be equally just to the cause of

PREFACE.

troth, to ^i^our own minds, and to the Rov. Opntlemen who ap» pear befor^e jou as parties in this question. First take Mr. Balfour's boot in one hand and the Bible in the other, and read se- Tiousfj what Mr. B. has written, and compare it critically with •the divine testimony. Having done this faithfully, then take Mr, Sabine's b(jok, and read and compare it in the same manner. Then judg^ for yourselves. 1 ask no more."

I have ^iven these remarks entire, with the exception txf a singir sentence, which, having a personal reference to myself^i delicacy required its omission. We insert them thki the whole may go down to posterity or oblivion together. Any candid person who has read the *' Inquiry,'' and reads Mr. S.'s Lectures, will say that the Doctor's remarks are a brief but sufficient defence ©f it. Why then, it may be said, make this reply ? We da this principally for the following reasons.

1st.. Tpe questions at issue are of deep and universal concern. If, therefore, a further discussion of them be the mean^ of bringing truth to light, it ought to be done. Mr. S. 4^es not defend " endless misery," yet if his doctrine of future retribution be true, it ought to be believed hf alL We have, therefore, deemed it proper to consider whgt he has advanced in proof of it. He thinks, that hj p'oving this he answers my book, which is certainly a gi'eat mistake. But if he has not proved this, the bookjis not answered, even by his own confession.

2d. We have entered into a further examination of the texts in the '' Inquiry," which Mr. S. controverts, with others on which he builds his doctrine of future retribution. The result has not altered but confirmed us in our opinicjns. When I wrote my book, this investigation was Aot thought of, nor would it likely have ever Ireen undertaken, but for Mr. S.'s lectures. We were content in showing that hell was not a place of endless misery. When Mr. S. abandoned its defence, to advocate /tt/^i^re retribution^ we considered it high time to reconsider the subject, and explore the whole ground. If a first rate orthodox man deemed it prudent thus to shift Lis ground, it was proper to examine, if his new was any better than his old. The following pages contain a brief statement of what has occurred to us on the subject.

PREFACE.

It will be perceived by the reader, that many of Mr. S.'s texts, quoted in proof of his future retribution^ have been but slightly considered. The reasons for thi^ are obvious. He did not show us how they applied to his subject. They in fact did not apply; for what have texts proving a temporal punishment to do in proving^ punishment in a future state? Besides, to have filkd mf pages with remarks at length on them, would have increased my book beyond all due bounds, and of little profit to the reader. But neither Mr. S. nor any onq else can complain, that we have passed over any of the texts, which form the foundation of his views as given us in his lectures. These we have considered at as much length as our limited room would permit. To increase our room we have printed without the leads, but have been obliged to omit nearly a third part of what we had Written in reply. There are several things in Mr. S.'s lectures, we have thought proper not to answer. For example, we have not attempted to reply to all his unqualified assertions. To have done this, would have reqired a volume. We have, in some instances, referred our readers to his pages, where they may be seen, and in a few instances have confronted them with the truth. All the answer assertions deserve, is merely to assert the contrary; but this would have been to trifle with our readers, and fill our pages to no profit. Nor have we attempted to correct all his misrepresentations, mutilated statements, and exaggerations of the sentiments advanc-' ed in the ' Inquiry.' Some of these we were obliged to notice, but many of them we have passed over without either censure or remark. But to Mr. S.'s harsh^ and even abusive language, we have made no reply. We have been pained to notice so much of this throughout his lectures, and some of it even uttered against his own orthodox friends. We think, upon mature reflection. Mr. S. must regret this; for we cannot let ourselves believe, that he will approve it in any case, much less in defence of what he beheves the truth of God. It is not required in any to speak wickedly for him, nor can the wrath of man ever work his righteousness.

We presume that Mr. S. has done his best to answer the ' Inquiry,' but has entirely failed in meeting the

PREFACE facts and arguments contained in it. Should any one else think fit to attempt this, or to reply to the following pages, it is hoped they will not do as he has done, alter, mutilate and misrepresent my sentiments. Let the argument and evidence of both be fairly and honourably met. If my* views are proved unscriptural, I pledge myself to renounce them; but if not, who would ask me to change them? I have sought after truth, and embraced it as evidence has appeared. No man can alter my present opinions; but evidence of their falsehood will change them at any time. If they are false, no man can more sincerely wish to see their falsehood exposed than I do; and if this can be done, no doubt but it will be done.

In our reply to Mr. S. we have endeavoured to keep constantly in view the great points at issue. We have carefully attended to his meaning, stated his sentiments honestly, and fairly; and how fairly and fully we have met them we now leave to the judgment of our readers. We presume that he will not say that we have either yAisunderstood him or misrepresented him.

Part I

What is truth, concerning the questions at issue between Mr. Sabine and myself, ought to be the entire object of inquiry, both of us and of our readers. Every thing, which would divert the mind from this, ought to be studiously avoided. All hard words, personal reflections, or sectarian feelings, ought to be laid aside, for what have they to do in settling such questions. We shall endeavour to avoid them.

The first question then ought to be. What is the object, scope, and matter of the book, which Mr. Sabine undertook to refute ? No person could learn any of these from his discourses, but would rather conclude from his statements, that it was a mere book of negatives, without argument or arrangement ; which set out to prove one thing, but all said happened to prove another. If this was true why was Mr. S. at the trouble to make any reply to it 1

The object and scope of my book throughout, was to show, that Hell, so long considered by the orthodox, as a place of endless misery, is a doctrine not taught in the Bible. Let it be particularly noticed here, that the orthodox doctrine was, and yet is, not that Hell is a place x)f temporary misery, but that it is endless in its duration. This is the universally received doctrine, by all true orthodox people, as all of them will readily acknowledge. Mr. Sabine himself will not deny it. Was this book then made up of bold barefaced assertions that Hell was not a place of endless misery 9 Surely such a book as this could never lead Mr. S. to say concerning it, page 4, ^' A reply was demanded, and many a serious Christian asked, will no man meet this uncircumcised Philistine, who hath defied the armies of the living God ?'? Nor could a book filled with mere childish assertions, produce the effect which Mr. S. confesses it had on his own mind, as stated by him page 12 ; " When I began to write on 2

10 K DEFENCE '

this controversy, I had read the '' Inquiry" through witfe thought and care ; many sections and passages I had considered again and again ; the result was, that I was almost persuaded Mr. B. had the truth in a great measure on his side, in regard to the real and doctrinal application of Sheol and Hades." A book which was read Vv^ith care, and sections and passages considered again and ^gain, to produce such a result in his mind, with all his former knowledge and prejudices, could not be altogether a book of '' negatives and evasions, critical perplexities and feeble consequences." See p. 107^ &c. I would merely observe here, that I defied no man, but only stated what occured to me on this subject for candid consideration. I am sorry the armies of the living God did not find some one, to make a more able, and candid reply.

What kind of matter then did this book contain ? Those who have read it, need not be informed. They will no doubt excuse me for giving here a brief statement of its contents. The book then is divided into two chapters. Sect. 1st of C)iap. Ist^ contains a consideration of all the passages in the Old Testament, where the word Sheol x)ccurs, and is rendered pit, grave, and hell in the common version. Here it is shown, that sheol or hell, was not used by the Old Testament writers to express a place of endless misery. Quotations from Dr. Campbell, and others, are made in confirmation of this. Besides a number of facts are stated in proof, that no such sense was attached to this word by them. In Sect. 2d, ail the passages are cotisidered in which Hades occurs, which is rendered grave and hell in the common version. It is there shown, that Hades is the corresponding word in the New Testament to Sheol of the Old, and that it was not used by Christ nor his apostles to express a place of endless misery. A number of facts are also stated in proof of this, and quotations are made from Dr. Campbell, Whitby, 8fhd others, in confirmation of the sentiments advanced. In Sect. 3d, the word Tartarus, 2 Pet. ii, 4, is considered^ which is also rendered Hell in the common version. A quotation is here made from Dr. Campbell, showing, that the Jews derived their notions of punishment in Hadesy Tartarus, or Hell, from the heathen. Another quotation is made from M. Le Clerc to show.

what uontemptable opinions the wisest heathens had 6t their own hell. Chap. 2d contains seven sections. In section 1st remarks are made on Dr. Campbell's views of Gehenna ; and it is there shown, that Gehenhia in the Old Testament, was not, as he asserts, made an emblem of eternal misery to the wicked, but of temporal punishment to the Jewish nation. Sections 2d and 4th are wholly employed in stating facts, proving that Gehenna was not used by our Lord, nor any New Testament writer, to express a place of endkss misery. Section 3d is taken up in a consideration of all the passages in the New Testament^ where Gehenna occurs. Here, the sense our Lord attached to this word, is determined by an appeal to the context of Matt, xxiii, 33, and shown^ that he did not use it to express a place of endless misery, but the temporal miseries which came during that generation on the Jews. It is also shown, that all the other texts where this word occurs, are in agreement with this view of the subject. In Sect. 5, the argument drawn from the Apocrypha and Targums is considered. Here it is shown, that the Apocrypha says nothing about Gehenna, and that Whitby, Parkhurst and others, were mistaken, in referring to these writers for the common sense attached to the word Gehenna, It is also shown, that all that is said about Gehenna in the Targums> is found in those of least merit, and where it is allbwed the writers use their own fancies and fictions as glosses on the texts. Besides, the texts on which they speak of Gehenna, do not warrant the false glosses about Gehenna given by those writers. Section 6th, is occupied in answering objections ; arid the 7th in concluding remarks. Such is a brief outline of the book, which Mr. Sabine undertook to refute, the correctness of which we are confident he will not dispute. The question comes then fairly before us. What ought Mr. 8. to have done to answer this book ? The answer is, He oiight to prove that hell is a place of endless misery to the wicked. But has Mr. S. done this 7 No ; he has not even attempted it. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon, for the daughters of the uncircUmcised will triumph, that he does not pretend to advocate that hell is a place of endless misery. As to hell bmng 9 place^ he denies it ; and as to the endless duration of its punishment, he abandons its defence. What the armies of the Hving 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 bad grace from him, when he strikes the orthodox flag of endless misery to half-mast in his first onset with such an uncircumcised Philistine. They may well say, ^' Physician heal thyself. Consider from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do thy first works.''

Mr. S. in various places, represents my book as a book of negatives. Notwithstanding all this, it is very evident from page 72, that it nearly converted him to my faith about the doctrinal " application of Sheol and Hades. '* But a new discovery prevented his complete conversion. I ought at leat to have the credit of being the occasion of this discovery, and he might have set it before us, to let all see how it showed to him the sandy foundation on which my " whole fabric is reared.'' But he keeps this a secret to himself, and merely tells us, page 73, " Sheol, I perceive, is very seldom used in direct application to the grave as the place of the dead, and almost always in relation to the future world, the state and condition of departed spirits. And in this state too, I observe, that God particularly shows his indignation to sinners." If Mr. S. perceived all this from his new discovery, why could he not impart it to others, and have entered into ^ consideration of all the texts in which Sheol occurs, and showed that this was indeed their meaning. This would have settled the whole business at a single stroke,. But no, he keeps all his new light to himself, and thinks we ought to be perfectly contented with his assertions on the subject. But it is very evident, from page 10, that he admits for substance all that I said about Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. He says, '' It shall be admitted that Sheol in the Old Testament has no reference to a place pr state of misery ; and that Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna in the New, are equally inapplicable to a future state of misery."' This part, however, was likely ^written while Mr.

S. maintained '' a candid and inquiring mmd," See p. 72, 73. It is a pity he did notmainr tain this in writing all his discourses. It is true he retains the right of disputing " at least some portion*' of the above statement afterward, and we shall see afterward what it is. As to Tartarus, which occurs only in 2 Pet. ii, 4, we shall quote all that Mr. S. says concerning it. He says, p. 55, " As to Tartarus, the Hell of paganism, of which Mr. B. speaks, it exhibits not a principle of retributive justice as revealed in the Scriptures : Tartarus was not a place or state of punishment for transgressors ; it was rather a political limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods and kings, without regard to their moral or general character, but by no means a state of retributive* punishment upon the principles of moral justice. At this Hell unbelievers laugh, and the pagans laughed at it themselves.'' He adds, p. 109, '' Tartarus remains yet to be considered. It occurs but once in the Scriptures ; it is in 2 Peter ii, 4, and in the common version translated Hell. The phrase originally is Greek ; it is derived from a word or words expressive of horror and trouble of mind, as tarassOy which signifies a turbid, distressed state. Tartarus was the name the poets gave to the future state of punishment ; it was generally known in that character, hence Peter adopts it as descriptive of the state of punishment to w^hich the transgressing angels fell upon their condemnation. Why Peter chose this term we cannot say, any more than we can why our Lord adopted such words as mammon, Boanerges, Paradise. All we can say, Peter was divinely inspired, and so the adoption of the phrase is of divine authority : Mr. B. says nothing against this term, that needs a reply, and therefore we need not detain you on a question not disputed."

It is very plain from these statements, that Mr. S. discards Tartarus as a place of retributive punishment, upon the principles of moral justice. But he also avers, that it '' was not a place or state of punishment for transgressors." What then was it ? He says, '' It was rather a political limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods and kings, without regard to their moral or general character." This confirms all we have said in Chap. 1, Sect. 3, of the Inquiry, to which we refer the reader. There^ we see Dr. Campbell calls Tartarus the prison of Hades ; and here, Mr. S. calls it a political limbo or prison ^ a place of fabled confinement for imfortiinate gods and kings. Their " horror and trouble of mind,'' and '^ turbid distressed state," were no doubt all a fable also. But Mr. S. further informs us, that ^' Teirtarus was the name the poets gave to the future state of punishment ; it was generally known in that character ; hence Peter adopts it as descriptive of the state of punishment to which the transgressing angels fell upon their condemnation. '^ What ! Did the transgressing angels fall to a political limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods and kings ? What ! Did Peter, by using this term, change a political limbo, a place that was only a mere fable, into a real place of punisbjnent for the angels w^ho sinned ? And was it also changed into a state or place of retributive punishment upon the principles of moral justice to them 1 for he says it was not such a place to unfortunate gods and kings* It was "not a place or state of punishment for transgressors." But the the angels, according to the orthodox faith, fell long before the heathen made Tartarus a political limbo for unfortunate gods and kings. Besides, does not Mr. S. with great confidence affirm, p. 71, '' That what the heathen knew of a future state, they received directly, or indirectly, from divine revelation." Will Mr» S. be kind enough to give us chapter and verse from whence they could learn that Tartarus was a political limbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfortunate gods and kings ?

As to the word Gehenna, it, as well as Sheal, Hades and Tartarus, are all " equally inapplicable to a future state of misery," as admitted by Mr. S. himself. Accordingly he does not so much as attempt to refute my explanations of Matthew xxiii, 33, and other passages where the term Gehenna is used. No, he passes them over in silence, neither explaining them himself or showing my interpretations false. We shall see, that in only one or two of the passages where this term is used does he controvert what I have written.

I devoted two whole sections of the " Inquiry" to a $tatem.ent of facts, showing that Gehenna does not mean 'ts the orthodox doctrine teaches, '' a place of endless

OP THE IJTQUIRY. 15

misery for the wicked.'' Mr. Sabine was told, pages 328, 329, of the Inquiry, that my book could never he answered, nor I convinced that Hell was a place of endless misery, until those facts were farely removed out of the way. But he very prudently leaves the facts just as he found them, undisturbed, yea without any notice of them. Mr. S. pages 10, 11, 12, briefly refers to some of these facts, but he does not attempt to show a single one of them to be false. But until he shows those facts false, and my interpretations of the texts erroneous, it is idle to say the book is answered. Mr. S. ought to have done both these, but he has not attempted either. Whether this arises from incapacity in Mr. S. or the impossible nature of the case, let others say, but I am sure it was not from want of inclination. I w^ill do him the credit to add, that though his discourses abound in assertions, he does not venture to assert, that he could either prove the facts false or the interpretations unscriptural. He had foresight enough to perceive, that if he had asserted, I can do this, the next question would be, why then did you not do it ? But had he not foresight enough to per-* ceive, that by leaving these things undone, it would be concluded, he is^ unable to do them.

Mr. S. does not seem pleased in some parts of his discourses, that I have made quotations from Campbell, Whitby, Chapman, and others, in favour of my views of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. But what has he done to show, that these quotations were not to the purpose for which I made them ? He is aware, that they are all taken from men who belonged to the armies of the living God, and not one of them from any universalist writer. Nor were they made to give currency to my views by the sound of great names, but on account of evidence they adduced in favour of them. It was not who said this^ but what teas said we were concerned about in making such quotations. We merely availed ourselves of the proofs and concessions of such writers, to corroborate the opinions we advanced. But does he attempt to show, that I perverted the meaning of these writers, or, that the quotations were irrelevant to my subject ? No, Mr. S. does not insinuate any such thing. Well we feel inclined to put a few question^ to him about