YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

TO

MR. J. SABINE'S LECTURES

ON THE

" INQUIRY "

INTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OF THE WORDS SHEOL, HADES,
TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA.
IW TWO FARTS.
1st. A DEFENCE OF THE INQUIRY.
2d. HIS PROOFS OF A FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED.

BY WALTER BALFOUR. w

HOWE A NORTON, PRINTERS, 14, STATE-STREET.
1825.

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to Wit:
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the fourteenth day of May, A. D. 1825, in
the forty-ninth year of the Independence of the Uni.ed Siates of America, Walter
Balfour, of the said District, hath deposi ed in this office the title of a book, the right
whereof he claims a9 Author, in the words following, to wit :
" A Reply to Mr. J. Sabine's Lectures on the " Inquiry" into the scriptural import
of the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. In two parts. 1st A Defence
of the Inquiry. 2d. His Proofs of a Future Retribution Considered. By Walter
Balfoub."
In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, " An act for
the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books, to
the authors and proprie ors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and
al=o >o an act en i;led " an act supplementary to an act entitled ' an act for the encour
agement of learning, by securing ihe copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors
a ¦ J proprietors of such copies, during the times therein mentioned, and extending the
benefits thereof lo the arts of designing, engraving, and etching, historical and. other
prints.'" - JOHN W. DAVIS, Clerk of the District of Massachusetts.

PREFACE.
The pledge given to the public by Mr. Sabine, in
the public papers to answer the " Inquiry," is generally
known. The circumstances connected with his obtaining
a pulpit, and the delivery of his Lectures, he has suffi
ciently detailed in his preface. One thing he has omitted,
which deserves to be recorded with the history of this
affair. On the last evening of their delivery, just be
fore the audience was dismissed, Dr. Abraham B.
Thompson thus addressed them:
"My Friends — The Rev. Mr. Sarine having now closed his
lectures, I request the privilege of making a few observations to
you on the subject of his labours. The Reverend Gentleman,
ot his own free will, offered his services in the public papers, to
examine and refute Mr. Palpouk's Book, provided he might be
allowed the use of a pulpit. This religious Society, in the gen
uine spirit of free inquiry, unanimously offered him their pulpit:
and you, my friends, have patiently and candidly attended the
discussion. Some of 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 author ol the book, and to those who have not read
it, 1 feel constrained to state explicitly, but briefly, what the pur
pose and scope of this book are. The object of Mr. Balfour's
book, then, from the beginning to the end, is TO SHOW THAT
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 oc
cur. He also spent two sections of the book, in stating a number
of facts, that the inspired writers did not consider Hell as a place
of endless misery, nor of any misery in a future state, as has
been supposed ; that no prophet in the Old Testament, nor yet
our Saviour, nor his apostles in the New, ever used the word
Hell to express a state of punishment in the future world. He
also traced the doctrine of Hell, as a place of endless misery, lo
heathenism as its origin ; and adduced some quotations from be.
licvers in the doctrine of hell torments to prove it, &c. What

mm--

4 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 au-
dience, 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 queried but
little of the book ; (and two whole sections, whjch 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
lecture, in a single sentence, referred his hearers to the page,
that they might read and judge for themselves.
"As Mr. Sabine has not fulfilled 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 he 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 affirming 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 5 but
shows that the texts which speak about hell have been perverted
in support of it. Supposing Mr. S. lo have proved beyond all con
tradiction a future retribution, this is no answer to the ooo}c which he
undertook to refute. But has he proved this? Let everyone who
has hefird him, say, if he has proved either of the two following
things;, which require to be both proved, to establish the doctrine
of a future relribulwn, 1st. Has he proved that the soul of man
at dpath, goes lo Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, or Gehenna, as a place
pr s,tate pf punishment? 2d. Has he proved that such souls are
actually in misery there? The most plausible proof he advanced
was, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Bui seemingly
at a loss in what sense to view it, he first considered it a parable,1
then renounced it, and called on the author of the book t'o prove
it to be a parable. But the parable says not a word about the
soul 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 10 necome 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
the foundation of $« world," our Rev. Friend Sabine must fur*

PREFACE. 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 separafe 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 this, but did
he show from any of those passages that this judgment was in a
future state ? which was the point to be proved, to be to his pur
pose. All the texts he advanced fell short of this ; and we were
rather surprized that something more plausible was not advanc
ed by him. In short, Mr. S. has not only forgotten to meet the
facts and arguments of the book, proving that hell is not a place
of endless misery ; hut he has failed, much more than we expect
ed, to establish his doctrine of future retribution. He has neither
refuted the book, nor established any thing definite in opposi
tion 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 man, from the
portrait of him in Mr. S.'s lectures. Mr. B. is there charged
with sophistry, insincerity and faleshood ; with denying all pen
alty or punishment for sin ; with abetting and upholding all infi
delity, and all immorality; with first perverting, then denying di
vine, revelation ; with attempting to unhinge and throw down the
whole moral system, thus to dethrone the moral Ruler of the uni
verse. Mr. S. allows Mr. B. the best abilities, but then accuses him
of the ?. orst designs against the best interest's 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 personal abuse, and a bad one is always
made worse.
" 1 would now give notice that Mr. Sabine's Lectured are to be
printed, and will be reviewed by Mr. Balfour ; and alsb 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 everlast
ing 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 little 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 infi
nite importance for all to know. Give me leave, then, to recom
mend a course to you which will be equally just to the cause of

PREFACE.

truth, to your own minds, and to the Rev. Gentlemen who ap.
pear before you as parties in this question. First take Mr. lial,
four's book in one hand and the Bible in the other, and read se.
riously what Mr. B. has written, and compare it critically uiih
the divine testimony. Haying done this faithfully, then take Mr.
Sabine's book, and read and compare it in the same manner.
Then judge for yourselves. I ask no more."
I have given these remarks entire, with the exception
of a single sentence, which, having a personal reference
to myself, delicacy required its omission. We Jnsert
them that the whole may go down to posterity or obli
vion 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
of it. Why then, it may be said, make this reply ? We
do this principally for the following reasons.
1st. The questions at issue are of deep and universal
concern. If, therefore, a further discussion of them be
the means of bringing truth to light, it ought to be done.
Mr. S. does not defend " endless misery," yet if his doc
trine of future retribution be true, it ought to be believed
by all. We have, therefore, deemed it proper to con
sider what he has advanced in proof of it. He thinks,
that by proving this he answers my book, which is cer
tainly a great mistake. ,But if he has not proved this,
the book is 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 re
tribution. The result has not altered but confirmed us in
our opinions. When I wrote my book, this investiga
tion was not thought of, nor would it likely have ever
been 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 advo
cate future retribution, we considered it high time to re
consider the subject, and explore the whole ground. If
a first rate orthodox man deemed it prudent thus to shift
his 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 lis 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 this
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 filled my
pages with remarks at length on them, would have in
creased my book beyond all due bounds, and of little
profit to the reader. But neither Mr. S. nor any one
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 un
qualified assertions. To have done this, would have re-
qired 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 with
out 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 through
out 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 be
lieve, that he' will approve it in any case, much less in
defence of what he believes 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

8 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 ar
gument 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 embrac
ed 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
misunderstood him or misrepresented him.

PART I.
A 2>HFENCE OF THE INQUIRY.

What is truth, concerning the questions at issue be
tween 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 reflec
tions, 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 under
took to refute ? No person could learn any of these from
his discourses, but would rather conclude from his state
ments, that it was a mere book of negatives, without ar
gument 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 ?
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 or
thodox doctrine was, and yet is, not that Hell is a place
of temporary misery, but that it is endless in its dura
tion. This is the universally received doctrine, by all
true orthodox people, as all of them will readily acknowl
edge. 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 ? 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 Chris
tian asked, will no man meet this uncircumcised Philis
tine, who hath defied the armies of the living God V> 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 A DEFENCE
this controversy, I had read the " Inquiry" through with
thought and care ; many sections and passages I had con
sidered again and again ; the result was, that I was al
most persuaded Mr. B. hacfthe 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 with
care, and sections and passages considered again and
again, 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 stat
ed what occured to me on this subject for candid consider
ation. 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 1
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 chap
ters. Sect. 1st of Chap. 1st, contains a consideration of
all the passages in the Old Testament, where the word
Sheol occurs, 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,
$nd. others, are made in confirmation of this. Besides a
number of facte are stated in proof, that no such sense
was attached to this word by them, in Sect. 2d, all the
passages are considered 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 end
less misery. A number* of facts are also stated in proof
of this, and quotations are made from Dr. Campbell,
Whitby, and others, in confirmation of the sentiments ad*
vanced. 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 punish
ment in Hades, Tartarus, or Hell, from the heathen.
Another quotation is made from M. Le Clerc to show,

OF THE INQUIRY. 11
what contemptable opinions the wisest heathens had of
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 Gehenna in the
Old Testament, was not, as he asserts, made an emblem
of eternal misery to the wicked, but of temporal punish
ment to the Jewish nation. Sections 2A and 4th are
wholly employed in stating facts, proving that Gehenna
was not used by our Lord, nor any New Testament wri
ter, to express a place of endless 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 eontext of Matt, xxiii, 33, and shown,
that he did not use it to express a place of endless mise
ry, 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 Ge
henna, 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 allowed the
writers use their own fancies and fictions as glosses on the
texts. Besides, the texts on which they speak of Ge
henna, do not warrant the false glosses about Gehenna
given by those writers. Section 6th, is occupied in an
swering objections ; and 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.' S. to have done
to answer this book ? The answer is, He ought to prove
that hell is a place of endless misery to the wicked.
But has Mr. S. done this ? No ; he has not even at
tempted it. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the
streets of Askelon, for the daughters of the uncireumcised
will triumph, that he does not pretend to advocate that
hell is a place of endless misery. As to hell being a

12* A DEFENCE
place, he denies it ; and as to the endless duration of its
punishment, he abandons its defence. 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 con
cerning 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 uncireumcised
Philistine. They may well say, " Physician heal thy
self. 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 mighj; 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
a consideration of all the texts in which Sheol occurs,
and showed that this was indeed their meanings Thisjjj
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, Ha
des, Tartarus and Gehenna. He says, " It shall be ad-
mitted that Sheol in the Old Testament has no reference |j|
to a place or 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^jj
written while Mr. S. maintained " a candid and inquir- ""
ing mind." See p. 72, 73. It is a pity he did not mah> ,.

OF THE INQUIRY. 13
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 : Tarta
rus was not a place or state of punishment for transgres
sors ; it was rather a political limbo, a place of Tabled
confinement for unfortunate gods and kings, without re
gard 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 tafasso, which signifies
a turbid, distressed state. Tartarus was the name the
poets gave to the future state of punishment ; it was gen
erally known in that character, hence Peter adopts it as
descriptive of the state of punishment to which the trans^
fressing angels fell upon their condemnation. Why
'eter chose this term we cannot say, any more than we
can why our Lord adopted such words as mammon, Bo
anerges, 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. dis
cards 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 transgres
sors." What then was it ? He says, " It was rather a
political Umbo, a place of fabled confinement for unfor
tunate gods and kings, without regard to their moral or
general character." This confirms all we have said in
Chap. 1, Sect. S,^e>( the Inquiry, to which we refer the
reader. There, we see Dr. Campbell calls Tartarus the

14 A DEFENCE
prison of Hades ; and here, Mr. S. calls it a political
limbo or prison, a place of fabled confinement for unfor
tunate 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
" 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 which the transgressing angels fell
upon their condemnation." What! Did the transgress
ing angels fall to a political limbo, a place of fabled con
finement 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
punishment for the angels who sinned 1 And was it also
changed into a state or place of retributive punishment
rtpon 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 transgres
sors." But the the angels, according to the orthodox
faith, fell long before the heathen made Tartarus a polit
ical 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 reeeived
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 Sheol, Hades
and Tartarus, are all "equally inapplicable to a future
state of misery," as admitted by Mr. S. himself. Ac
cordingly 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 show
ing my interpretations false. We shall see, that in only
one or two of the passages where this terra is used does
lie controvert what I have written.
I devoted two whole sections of the " Inquiry" to a
statement of facts, showing that Gehenna does not mean
as the orthodox doctrine teaches, " a place of endless

OF THF INQUIRY. 15
misery for the wicked," Mr. Sabine was told, pages
328, 329, of the Inquiry, that my book could never be
answered, nor I convinced that Hell was a place of end
less 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 notiee 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. Wheth
er this arises from incapacity in Mr. S- or the impossible
nature of the ease, let others say, but I am sure it was
not from want of inclination. I will 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 unseriptural. He
had foresight enough to pereeive, that if he had asserted,
I can do this, the next question would be, why then did
you not do it 1 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 dis
courses, 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 univer^
salist 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 was 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 sub
ject ? No, Mr. S. does not insinuate any such thing.
Well we feel inclined to put a few questions to him about

16

A DEFENCE

this. We would then respectfully ask him, if he had
found in any author, either orthodox or otherwise, evi
dence to prove my facts false, and my interpretations of
the texts erroneous, would he not have quoted it ? We
must doubt this until he quotes such an author. Again,
we ask, had any thing occured to himself, which could
have shown the facts false or the interpretations unscrip-
tural, would he not have produced it against a book he
pledged himself to refute ? If it did occur, why did he
not state it ? If it did not, why was he not candid enough
to confess the difficulty of the case ? Once more we
would ask, supposing he had proved the facts false and
the interpretations erroneous, what difference could it
make, whether the evidence he adduced was borrowed or
original ? For my part, if he will only produce such evi
dence, I care not a straw how, nor where he gets it,
whether from himself, Dr. Campbell, or any other man.
The authors quoted were respectable, and whoever con
sults them will find, that they were not so much in the
habit of making bold assertions as our friend Mr. S. nor
so indifferent as he is to evidence which other writers
produced who preceded them.
But seeing Mr. S. has not answered my book, it may
be asked, what then has he done ? It does not appear
that it ever entered into his calculations to answer it, but
to attempt to establish a future retribution. By doing
this he fancied he should accomplish such a wOrk. But
it was only a mere fancy, for if he had, it would not in
the4 slightest degree affect my book. My book was writ
ten to show, not that there was no future retribution, but
that endless misery in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna,
or Hell, was not true, as orthodox people believe. If it
turned out in the course of my investigations that none of
these words even taught a place of temporary misery in a
future state, the fault Was not mine. This was not the
object of the book to show, but a mere secondary ob
ject, which fell out in the course of my research. It
was not sought after, but it obtruded itself upon me.
If he had read fiiy book with any attention he could
not avoid^eeing this, yet he labours to make his read
ers believe, that this secondary and accidental object,
wrs my only object. But did he ever read the follow-

OF THE INQtrfRY. It
ing among other passages I might quote from the
'• Inquiry." Thus it is said; p. 46, " But letting such
persons have this parable all their own way, on their own
principles, it does not prove endless misery. All that
they can possibly draw from it is, that Hades is an inter
mediate place of piinishment between death and the res
urrection ; and that then, according to their own account,
this place is to be destroyed. Supposing then that I
should grant all they desire, they must allow, that this
garable does not say a word about a place of endless
misery. I might here close my remarks on this parable,
as it has no bearing on the subject of our investigation."
Mr. S. we think may blush when he reads this. Be-1
sides, did I not repeatedly state, that though endless mis*'
ery was not taught in any of the texts which speak about
hell, that I was ready to believe even it, or a temporary
future punishment, if either could be established from
other parts of the Bible. But his eyes, and his ears,
were closed to all this, and much more stated in my book.
But it may be asked, seeing it was not Mr. Sabine's ob
ject to answer the Inquiry, nor to prove the doctrine of
endless misery, but only a future retribution, what course
does he pursue ? How does he proceed with the book ?
And how does he prove his own doctrine ? It shall now
be our work to show this by following him throughout
his six discourses. LECTURE I.
Mr. SABtNE gives us two pages of Introduction with
which I have no particular concern. He then states
that Revelation is to decide the questions at issue.
Agreed. But does he abide by this ? No, far from
it, for,
1st, On the very same page he proceeds to alter my
book to suit bis own convenience, and makes it say no fu
ture punishment. He drops altogether what was the
primary object of my book, to show that Hell was not a
place of endless .misery, for this he. does not mean to ad
vocate. But he takes up the accidental object5fthat Hell
was not even a place of temporary punishment, and is de
termined to make the book speak this whether it will or
3

18 A DEFENCE
no;. He makes a man of straw, no future punishment^
and then proceeds to fight with him. To make this man,
he begins by telling us about three classes of Universal-
ists. fie then quotes some detached sentences from my
bppk to show, tha| I differ from them all. See pp. 7, 8.
But why djd he trouble himself about what is orthodoxy,
or heterodoxy among Universalists or any other sect, but
a\ ojrne proceed to refute my book from divine revelation,
qur agreed standard- But, instead of this he proceeds very
deliberately to alter it. But this is only the beginning of
his alterations, for in pages 10, 11, 12, of the same dis
course, yea, throughout his six discourses, it seems to be
a chief part of his work to make such alterations. But
I always, understood that he had pledged himself to an
swer the book and not to make it or alter it. Had he
been, a true hearted orthodox man, he would have defend
ed the doctrine of endless misery to the last extremity,
and saved himself the trouble of such mutilations and al
terations. But he seems ashamed of it, and refuses to
become counsel \n its behalf. He says, that it would be
attempting to, prove too much. How much more than
fenough, it would be to prove this, he no where informs.
us, but it is too, much, for him to prove, that Hell is a
place of endless misery for the wicked. The very thing
which ought to. be proved, to answer ' my book, is that
which he refuses to do, yea, says it would be proving too
much if he did prove it. But Mr. S. must have a Hell
in a future state, though he does not advocate its endless
duration. To give up Hell altogether as a place of fu
ture punishment, would be bad policy. People would
be shocked at the imposition which had been practised
on them, and on the world, for ages by most preachers.
Mr- S. has preached, and we presume now preaches hell
torments. If he does, why then does he not defend this
doctrine 1 But he goes on to tell his readers, that my
views differ from allthe three classes of Universalists he
had mentioned,, p. 7, yea, evenfrom that " which includes
the immediate salvation of all." And how does it dif
fer ? W^y, because I say "nothing about salvation or
future happiness." Indeed! But was not Mr. S. nod
ding when he read pp. 41, 42, 63, 259, &c. of the " In
quiry," or did he not sometimes turn two or three leaves

OF THE INQUIRY. 19
at a time 1 or perhaps he felt disposed to misrepresent a
book whieh he could not fairly answer. If Mr. S. by
salvation means, being saved from endless hell torments,
let him understand, that I did, and now do deny, that
Jesus Christ is ever said to save any from such a punish
ment. Can he prove from his Bible that such a thing is
once asserted there ? I now go further, and call upon
him to prove, if he can, that Jesus Christ is ever said to
save any from temporary hell torments in a future state.
Let Mr. S. gird himself to his task, and if he proves this
I will feel under obligations of gratitude to him- Rut
proving this, it would be no answer to the Inquiry, the
object of which was to show, that hell was not a place
of endless misery. We grant further to Mr. S. that if
he proves satisfactorily temporary hell torments in a fu
ture state, that he will nearly, convert us to the belief of
endless hell torments. Granting him to prove this, he
might say, I have got the wicked all into hell on the
authority of the Bible, I leave you to get them as fairly
out of it by the same authority. But on p. 9, Mr. S.
.says, Mr. B.'s " system differs from that which includes
the immediate salvation of all." But he seems to have
forgotten this by the time he reaches p. 34, for he says
there, " Mr. B.'s views therefore introduce all men into
heaven at death, though they expire in the very act of
murder." As these statements cannot both be true, it
remains for him to tell us which of them he considers
true. In pp. 10, 11, 12, Mr. S. quotes my book and makes
it teach no future punishment to any man under heaven.
As I could not, or did not express mysehj" in terms suita
ble to his doctrine of future retribution, he is very kind
in teaching me what I ought to have said. According
ly he first institutes an inquiry on the phrases used by me
" endless misery," and " eternal punishment ;" and de
nies that my Inquiry is on the subject of endless misery.
It is on future misefy, says Mr. S. and tells me, that I
should always "say temporal punishment, when I mean
those calamities, which come On men in this" present life,
and future punishment, when I mean the miseries of a
future life." He then adds, p. 12, "This distinction is
not a quibble, it is a logical and important one, because

20 A DEFENCE
it divides the parties in this discussion into two, wliich
otherwise would be three : it makes temporal punishment
one party, and future limited with future eternal, the
other. Future is a common term equally applicable to
those who hold a limited, as to those who hold an eter
nal punishment." On this we beg leave to remark,
1st, How this distinction is a logical one, and not a
quibble, because it happens to divide the parties into two,
which otherwise would be three, is above all my logical
powers to fathom. We thought that Mr- S. only a page
or two above had divided the parties into three himself,
but now he is for only haying two. But here he is for
making future limited and future eternal join hands,
and become one flesh. Having abandoned the defence
of endless misery himself, he is willing to make a common
cause of it with those who believe in future limited pun
ishment. 2d. But why need Mr. S. have any more than one
party in this case, if this matter is to turn on the word
future. The word future is a common term, and equals
'ly applies to those who believe in a temporal punishment,
for sin, as those who believe in a limited or eternal pun
ishment in a future state. We never understood that
men were punished for their sins before, but always af
ter they committed them. What then becomes of this
fine logical distinction about the word future. And what
becomes of Mr. S.'s assertion on page 13, where he says
of me, " He covenants with us, when he takes his ground,
to eoxisider future not eternal punishment as the subject
of opposition." I should be glad to see where I have
entered into any such covenant. Mr. S. made the cove
nant himself, by altering my book, but I have not owned
it, by bow, subscription, nor otherwise. What alarms
Mr. S. is this, " If I resist him upon future limited pun
ishment," he says I "will flee to future eternal, and so
vice versa.'? Strange ! I flee to future eternal if I am
resisted on future limited punishment ! then Satan must
be divided against himself. Let Mr. S. lay all his fears
to rest,' for I will hold on to my book. I will hold that
theplrf orthodox doctrine, that Hell is a place of endless
im&ery, is <noi a Bible doctrine. Let Mr. S. defend
|his if he can, or honestly tell- us, that Hell is given up

OF THE INQUIRY. 21
by the orthodox as a place of endless misery ; or that
Hell is altogether abandoned as a place of misery, and
that future punishment, endless or temporary, is now to
be defended from other parts of the Bible. If Mr. S. is
ashamed of orthodoxy let him publicly avow it. If he
did not mean to defend this, why intrude his services on
the public, and volunteer himself as the champion of the-
armies of the living God ? Will he receive the thanks
of true orthodox people for thus betraying their cause?
But to return to the discourses : Mr. S. proceeds to
a second remark, p. 13, relative to " the seemingly in
definite use of Hell as a term expressing the idea of pun
ishment or misery ! ! What ! the word Hell a seeming
ly indefinite term to express the idea of misery ? With
whom is it so ? Not with me ; for on Matt, xxiii, 33, I
have definitely settled the sense in which our Lord used
this wrord by an appeal to the context, which Mr. S.
seems afraid to look in the face. Is it so with the ortho
dox ? Far from it ; for their books, and their sermons,
and their conversation declare, that Hell is not only a
place of misery, but of endless misery. Can Mr. S. de
ny this ? Has the word Hell then become seemingly in
definite with him ? We should think not very indefinite,
for where I use the words hell and hell torments, eter
nal and endless misery, he is for substituting future pun
ishment, future misery, future retribution, &*c. see p.
14, and other places in the discourses.
The final conclusion to which Mr. S. comes about my
book is thus expressed in Italic type, " That the Scrip
tures neither assert, nor teach, nor admit the doctrine
of future punishment.'' But the legs of the lame are
never equal, for Mr. S. quoting from the Christian Re
pository, says, that I have maintained a studied silence
. on this subject. But the very best of men sometimes
contradict themselves.
Mr. S. having put the result of his labour, in altering
my book in Italic type, says, " It will be our next buis-
ness to inquire what this position includes, and what con
sequences are necessarily and inevitably involved." The
seven remaining pages of his first discourse are spent in
drawing seven bugbear concequences from his mutilated
and distorted account of my book. In the paragraph

22 A DEFENCE
preceding them Mr. S. says, " If they are found to be
JustT no bare denial, on the part of Mr. B. shall be ad
mitted as counter evidence ; let him, if he can, disprove
or invalidate this reasoning by superior argumentation,
but a mere denial of the eoncequences will be rejected."
Hoping our readers will turn to the discourses and read
Mr. S.'s seven consequences and his reasoning on them,
we proceed to a few remarks.
1st. Speaking of these consequences Mr. S. says, " If
fhey are found to be just, no bare deniel will be accept
ed as counter evidence from me." Let the question be
asked, Found just by whom ? Surely not by me, for be
never could suppose I could find them just. Does he
mean by himself ? This we have some doubt about, for
lie says, " it is no uncommon thing in dispute, for the ar-
guist to draw conclusions and consequences which the op
posite party will deny." Mr. S. seems to have been
conscious, that drawing consequences in this way was
delicate,, if not dishonourable ground, and hence he intro
duces it with an apology. But once more let me ask, if
these consequences are found just, by whom ? Does Mr..
S. mean, found just by our readers ? Certainly; for he
could not mean himself as he is a party concerned.
Well, we are willing to submit the case to them, or if he
prefers it, we will submit it to referees, and two out of
¦three shall be of his own choosing. If they shall in con
science say, that these seven inferences are legitimate
fair consequences from my book, I pledge myself to sub
mit to their decision, and shall relinquish all future pre
tensions, to judging of what are fair inferences from
any premises.
But, 2d, As Mr. S. will admit of no bare denial from
me of such consequences, I hope he will admit me, for
the sake of argument, to plead guilty to them. We
shall then state the case in its very worst point of light.
Supposing then, that I deny, that " in the constitution of
divine government there is any future retribution," and
that I assert, that " the Scriptures do not teach or assert
any divine law ;" that they " do not assert the character
of divine justice," nor "reveal to man any way of sal
vation." Further, that I do not admit a future retribu
tion, and say that the Scriptures do not reveal or assert

OF THE INQUIRY.

23

a future state. Yea, that I deny, that there is any di
vine revelation ; and, finally, that I am a bold, daring
Atheist. Supposing that these seven demons were found
in me, what has all this to do with fairly answering my
book ? I have appealed to divine revelation, and at
tempted to show, that Hell is not a place of endless mis
ery, as good orthodox people have long believed. All
that Mr. S. had to do was to dispute my facts, and cor
rect my false interpretations of Scripture. But has he
done this ? If he had, there was no need of concentra
ting so many evils in one man, or imputing so many evil
consequences to the book he volunteered himself to an
swer. But as he coxiid not refute the evidence, he is de
termined to frighten people, if possible, against the book-
It would be an easy matter for me to retaliate m kind ;
and John Wesley, the founder of the good people the
Methodists, would furnish me with materials in abun
dance against Calvanism, ready for use. But, bad as I'
am, I dare not pursue this eourse ; nor is Mr. S. likely
to dispossess me of my seven demons by his adoption of
it. They may be reasoned out of me by a fair appeal to
the Scriptures, but never frightened out of me. Mr. S-
mistakes, if he even thinlcs to frighten the public by such
means, for men's curiosity will be excited to know what
this horrid book contains. They will naturally say,
" Can this book be as bad as he represents it ? Let us
read it and see for ourselves." But experience might
have taught him better policy. By giving such frightful
accounts of Unitarianism many have been excited to han
dle the bugbear for their own satisfaction, and have got
over their fright.
But I am told by Mr. 3. that if I am to invalidate his
seven inferences it must be by " superior argumentation."
Well, we have got no very hard task before us small as
our powers of reasoning are.
1st Inference. " The first consequence inevitably in
volved in this position is this : That if there be no future
punishment for the wicked, then, in the constitution of the
divine government, there is no future retribution. What
position? let it be asked. The position which he makes
and thus puts in Italic type, " That the Scriptures nei
ther assert, nor teach, nor admit the doctrine of future

2<£ A DEFENCE
punishment." This is the position from which this and
all his other six inferences are drawn. But it should be
remembered, that this position is of Mr. S.'s own man
ufacture, for we have said no such thing. Mr. S. first
makes this position by altering my book, and then goes
on to draw his seven inferences from his own self-invent
ed position fathered on it. But the moment this imposi
tion is detected, they all fall very harmless to the ground.
But for argument's sake* I shall admit it true, and shall
proceed to show that he has no very great cause to be,
proud of his superior reasoning powers.
Admitting then that I deny all future punishment in
an other world, howtloes it follow that in the constitution
of the divine government there is 'no future retribution ?
My book shows, and Mr. S. allows in various places,
that I hold to punishment in the present life. Here then
is a future retribution for sin, unless he contends that
God punishes sin here before it is committed. Is this
very cogent reasoning? But again, says Mr. S. "we all
admit that a just and righteous government is, and must
be administered in the exercise of retributive justice.
Rewards and punishments are the necessary consequen
ces." True; but does Mr. S. mean to say, thatthere can
be no righteous government unless its rewards and pun
ishments are carried into another world ? According to
Mr. S. there can be no righteous government either of
God or man, unless its punishments are to pursue the of
fenders beyond the grave. He may call this reasoning,
but few will believe it to be very convincing. But Mr.
S. adds, " I need not spend a moment to prove, that
there is a reward for the righteous : And it is equally
unnecessary to prove that the reward of the righteous is
to be in a future state." On this we remark,
1st, The very thing which Mr. S. ought to prove, is
that which he says, "I need not spend a moment in
proving." And what is this ? That the righteous and
wicked are rewarded in a, future state. A man that
takes things for granted at this rate, need be at no loss
to prove just what he pleases. Nor need he ever be at
a loss for texts of Scripture to prove his positions, if the
two he quotes or alludes to, prove punishment in a fu
ture state. The first he quotes is Isa. iii, 11, "Woe

OF THE INQUIRY. 25
unto the wicked, for the reward of his hands shall
be given him." But is it added, in a« future state *
This is Mr. S.'s addition to the text, one very necessa
ry in support of his position, but one which we do not
admit, unless he produce his credentials as an inspired
messenger of Heaven. But can he do this ? The oth
er text he refers to is Rom. ii, 8, 9, "The reward of
the wicked is indignation and wrath upon every soul of
man that doeth evil !" But does the passage add, in a
future state ? This is again Mr. S.'s addition to the
text. Such are his proof texts in this place for a future
state of rewards and punishments ; and we shall see that
when he comes to take up the subject formally, what he
adduces is very little better. Can he believe, that I, or
any man, ought to become a believer ef this doctrine by
such proofs ? One thing I would merely observe in pas
sing, that according to Mr. S.'s orthodoxy in the above
quotation, as he believes men are to be punished in a
future state for their evil deeds here, so for their good
deeds here men are to be rewarded with happiness in
that state. It seems then that eternal life is not the gift
of God but the reward justly due men for their good
deeds done in the body. Bad as I am, I am not so far
away from orthodoxy as this.
We cannot forbear noticing how Mr. S. begs the
question he ought to prove. He says, " this reward of
punishment must be future." And why must it be fu
ture in another state of existence? He tells us, " for the
same reason as the reward of the righteous is future."
And why so? He adds, "They are both individually
moral agents, and must be dealt with in strict justice
equally in a moral way." If Mr. S.'s must be is to
be taken for God's word, no doubt it must be as he
says. I, however, have my strong doubts if Mr. S. or
any other man is " dealt with in strict justice," if any of
us will find the next world a very happy state. If such
an heretic might be allowed to say one word, he would
recommend Mr. S. rather to say, " if thou, Lord,
shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest
be feared." Ps. cxxx, 3, 4. Bu*t why should I venture
to say any thing about salvation by our Lord Jesus
" 4

26 A DEFEN*CE
Christ, for Mr. S. in the very paragraph On which I am
commenting, and in many other places, declares that I
.say nothing about this, nor does my scheme even admit it.
But let us look at Mr. S.'s wonderful reasonings a
little further. I have said that hell is not a place of
endless punishment. Well, what is the conclusion he
draws from this? He from this infers, therefore there is
no ^punishment for the wicked, nor happiness for the
righteous in a future world. But will the retributionists,
with whom he wishes to claim relationship, think that
this is good reasoning? They will hardly admit, that be
cause Ldeny there is none, therefore there can be none.
Ag&in, there is no future punishment, therefore there
can be no future rewards. But does Mr. S. really be
lieve, that Unless God make some of mankind miserable,
he can make none of them happy? He certainly does
mean this, for he says, if there be no future punishment
there can be no future rewards. But Mr, S.'s divinity
is no better than his logic, for if heaven is a reward for
good done here, as punishment in hell is for evil, then
it is no more a gift by grace, but of works; and the
apostle was mistaken in saying, that boasting was ex
cluded. 2d. The next inference is, Mr. S. thinks, unless the
law threatens punishment in a future state, there can be
no divine law. But this is assuming the question in de
bate. Besides, according to this reasoning, there could
be no divine law until sin enteredT and the sinner was
threatened with such a punishment. Further, unless sin
and punishment are to exist for ever, we cannot have a
divine law for ever. The moment they cease to exist,
according to Mr. S.'s logic, all divine law and moral
government cease to exist. Moreover he says, "A le
gislator when he issues his laws, promises rewards to the
obedient, and threatens punishment to the disobedient."
Very true, but do legislators carry their rewards and
punishments beyond death?. If they do not, then accord
ing to Mr. S. there is no law nor moral government
among men. But is this ranting, or reasoning.
3d Inference. By Mr. S.'s logic, if " the Scriptures
do not assert a future retribution, then the Scriptures do
not assert the character of divine justice." It seems

OF THE INQUIRY. 2p
then, that justice has nothing to do in'this world but to
look on, and; mark out its victims for punishment in, the
next. But does Mr. S. believe, that his own descrip
tion of human miseries, p. 116, are no way, connected
with divine justice? It seems this world is no place for
men to be punished or rewarded. Divine justice is no
way concerned in the affairs of men. If Mr. S. will
not learn a better logic, we hope he will read his Bible
a little more attentively. We are sorry to see such a
deficiency in regard to both, in a professed teacher ; and
so adverse to his own professed creed. The ortho
dox creed is, that divine justice is remarkably dis
played in the sufferings and death of Christ. But
unless Jesus Christ goes to hell, there can be no divine
justice in them, according to Mr. S.'s reasoning.
4th Inference. " If the Scriptures do not assert the
doctrine of future retribution then they cannot reveal to
man any way of salvation." Well, it seems if there is
no hell to be saved from, Jesus Christ can do nothing
for us, and the Gospel is of no use to mankind. There?
can be no salvation from any thing hy Jesus Christ, but
salvation from hell, or Mr. S.'s future retribution, ! !
This is doing great honour to the Saviour, and a high
compliment paid the Gospel, that they do us no good
here nor hereafter, but only save us from hell. But in
the Inquiry we said, and now we call on Mr. S. to dis
prove it, " that Jesus Christ is never said to save any
person from hell." But Mr. S. fully justifies by this
our remarks there, that with orthodox preachers to be
saved from hell is what they seem most concerned about)
in their preaching. We refer Mr. S. to the Inquiry,.
for an account of some very important things from which
Jesus Christ saves, though he saves no person from hell.
We would only here just hint, that he would be" none
the worse for being saved by him from a few evils which
are but too manifest in these discourses, It would be
for his own good here, and perhaps for other people'*
good, if the Gospel had a little more influence over his
mind, and would lead him to write with more candour,'
calmness and fairness..
5th Inference. i( That volume of Scriptures which
>does not admit a future retribution, does not reveal or

28 A DEFENCE
assert a future state." The Scriptures say, all things
are possible with God. But no, says Mr. S. this is not
true, for it is not possible that God could reveal to us a
future state, unless he also reveal to us a hell in it.
No : God Can make known no heaven to us, without
his hell or future retribution also. Does Mr. S. call
this reasoning?
6th Inference. " The next consequence is. that there
is no divine revelation." According to Mr. S. unless
God reveal a hell to man, he can reveal nothing to him.
Unless his hell or future retribution is found in the Bi
ble, it is no revelation, nor does it contain any informa
tion whatever from^ God. If it then says nothing posi
tive about his hell, it is a book Very like mine, a book of
negatives. I proceeded to examine the Bible as it stood
on this subject. But Mr. S. proceeds on the principle that
his hell or retribution must be found in it, or it is a book
good for nothing. Would Mr. S. really be so foolish as
to burn his Bible because it does not teach his hell tor
ment ? And will he or any man else call such inferences
Just because the Bible doesnot teach it ?
7th Inference, ** The final consequence is, that. Mr.
B.'s theory leaves us without any God ; at least it re
veals none," &c. Mr. S. says that *'this consequence
is too awful for discussion." And I say, it is too absurd
to deserve any reply. I would only say, my theory, as
he is pleased to term it, represents God as bringing good
out of evil, and finally rendering all men for ever happy.
This, according to Mr.;S. is to leave the world without a
God. His theory is, that God has prepared a hell for a
large portion of his creatures, and therefore the world has
got a God. Which of the two systems leads most to
Atheism, let our readers judge, It will be allowed,
that if he, by his system, gives the world a God, he is
one not so much like John's as mine, for, " God is love."
But enough about Mr. S.'s seven inferences, for they
did not deserve any reply.
In concluding this discourse Mr. S. informs us, " Our
immediate object after this discourse will be, to set up
and establish, in opposition to Mr. B. this position, viz.
That in the constitution of the divine government there
is a future riglvtenus retribution." But why does he

OF THE INQUIRY. 29
not set up and establish, in opposition to me, this posi
tion, viz. That in the' constitution of the divine govern
ment there is a future righteous retribution of endless
misery. To have established this, would have answered
my book, and until it is established the book is not an
swered. But if we had any hope that Mr. S. would
listen to our advice, we would suggest to him to lay aside
all his preconceived positions and hypothesis, and simply
examine into the true sense of the divine oracles, without
the least regard to them. But it seems Mr. S.'s five
remaining discourses are to be taken up in establishing a
future righteous retribution. This he* is to set up and
establish in opposition to my book. I must then either
here close my reply or follow him on to his own ground.
The latter I prefer for two reasons. First, in establish
ing a future retribution, there are two or three passages
of Scripture considered in the " Inquiry," the views I
have given of which he controverts. It will be necessa
ry, therefore to consider them a little further. Second,
if Mr. S. by these, or any other texts, establishes a fu
ture retribution, it is of deep importance for us to believe
it, or to show why we think him mistaken in what he ad
vances. Both of these we shall attend to in the second
part. The consideration of the first of these belonged
to a defence of the " Inquiry," but being texts which
he considered teaching his doctrine of a future retribu
tion, we left them to be considered in the second part.
We have no desire to act with Mr. S. on the maxim,
"Divide and conquer." No ; he shall either have a
conquest or a defeat, with all his troops in the field at
pnc.e.

PART II.
KH. SABINE'S PROOFS
"OF A FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED.

We are now to examine Mr. Sabine's proofs, fo
his doctrine of a future retribution. The retributioi
for which he contends, is thus stated by himself, p. 51
" By retribution you will bear in mind that we meai
future punishment, or the punishment of the wicked in i
future state." He does not contend for endle&s punish
ment; nor does it appear that he contends for puriishmenl
of soul and body after the resurrection of the dead. Ii
he believes either of these, they' do not form any part ol
the subject of his lectures. It appears from his book,
that the punishment for which he contends, is a punish
ment for the soul in its " disembodied" state. He in
deed speaks of soul and body being destroyed in Gehen
na, but I am unable to perceive, whether he considers
this the same, or a different punishment, from the pun
ishment of the disembodied spirit in Hades. Though
we have shewn in the " Inquiry," that the scripture re
presentations of Hades and Gehenna are very different,
yet he takes no notice of this. His object is to prove a
future retribution; and, overlooking this, he presses in
to his service the texts about Hades and Gehenna, with
others, to establish his point.
The reader has now got to bear in mind, that Mr.
S.'s proof texts must not only prove that sinners are
punished, but that .they are punished in a future state
of existence. A thousand texts proving that sinners are
punished, is nothing to his purpose, unless they prove that
this punishment is inflicted on soul, or body, or both, in some
place or state, beyond this mortal existence. It ought
to be noticed, that sapposing Mr. S. to prove a future
retribution, yea, an eternal punishment to the wicked in
a future state, from texts which do not speak of Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna, yet he proves nothing

mr, sabine's proofs, &c, 31
against my book. Should he prove it^. not from them,
but from some other texts, he and his orthodox friends
ought to thank me for correcting their mistake, in found
ing their doctrine of endless misery on texts which do
not support it. , ¦
Gen. ii, 17, is Mr. Sabine's text to his second dis
course, which he entitles, " Divine government con
stituted upon the principles of future retributiom" " In
the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The question to be settled is thus stated by himself, p. 23.
" The question we have now to settle is, whether the
retributions of justice be wholly exercised in this state,
or extended to a future state." To this we agree, for
we have just stated this to be the precise question at is
sue. Mr. S. says, p. 24, "The penalty threatened is
death." And here the question is supposed to pinch.
" What is the nature of that penalty here threatened
under the form of death? What is death?" Yes, indeed,
here the questiondoes pinch; and Mr. S. seems to have felt
the pinch. Well, how does he relieve the difficulty? He
says, it " is to be met two ways, and both in agreement,"
He asserts, that had Adam " maintained his obedience,"
his reward would have been, not a temporal one, but a
reward, " stretching out into the regions of an eternal
scene." It would have been " an eternal spiritual bles
sedness." He even says, " I need not press this inqui
ry, it must be admitted, and our opponent will not refuse
his assent." We have noticed some of Mr. S.'s must
be arguments already. He begins by asserting boldly;
he proceeds by begging the question earnestly; it must
be admitted is his conclusion; and he tells his readers in
confirmation, that his " opponent will not refuse his as
sent." The reason Mr. S. thinks I will assent to this,
is thus stated; " For this reward Mr. B. grants to ev
ery ungodly rebel at his death; and surely he will not
deny a heaven of spiritual happiness to such as finish
their course in righteousness." We not only withhold
our assent here, but must express our supprise at Mr.
S.'s notions of heavep, and the way of obtaining it.
, This is far from being orthodoxy. Dr. Franklin would
have taught him better orthodoxy than this, although he
is not classed with orthodox people. In opposition f»
the whole of the above we remark,

32 MR. sabine's proofs of a
1st, That the* state Adam was created in, was never
'intended for continuance, as the event sufficiently show
ed. To reason, therefore, about what would have been
Adam's condition, from what was never intended to con
tinue, is what I would call vain reasonings'. . 2d; Ad
am had no promise of a life of spiritual and eternal bles
sedness in heaven, when the threatening was denounc
ed; nor can Mr. S. produce evidence, that any other but
Jhe life he then enjoyed, Was implied as the opposite of
the threatening. When, or where, or how, did God
promise to Adam spiritual and eternal heavenly blessed
ness, if he continued in obedience? We demand the
proof of this, for all that Mr. S. says is gratuitous. 3d.
A life of spiritual and eternal heavenly blessedness,
comes to men, as the gift of God through our Lord Je
sus Christ. But had Adam any intimation about Christ,
or this life through him, until after he had sinned? Mr.
S. should recollect, that Christ is never said to have
procured the heaven to men, which they lost, either by
Adam*s sin or by their own. This heaven comes by the
death and resurrection of Jesus; for if Christ is not rais
ed from the dead, they who have fallen asleep in him
have perished. See 1 Peter, i, 3, 4; and I Cor. xv.
Mr. S. is entirely off orthodox ground, for he makes a
heaven of spiritual and eternal blessedness the reward of
personal righteousness. But this is neither orthodox nor
scriptural; for it is not by works of righteousness, but
according to God's mercy we are saved. Adam, with
all his righteousness, could not obtain heaven, any more
than " every ungodly rebel at his death;" to whom Mr.
S. says I grant it. If it be a gift, and a gift by grace,
none but such as are trusting to themselves that they are
righteous and despising others, can object to God's con-
•ferring it on the one more than on the other. Rom. v.
12—21. Besides, according to Mr. S.'s views, he
makes God provide for a thing, which was never to take
place. He proceeds on the ground, that God provided
eternal life in heaven for Adam if he continued in obe
dience;, yet he perfectly knew he would not, yea never
intended he should continue. WJiile Adam continued .
obedient, he had his reward in his obedience; nor is any
other reward expressed or implied in the passage, or in

PUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 33
the history. Wre call on Mr. S. to produce evidence,
that any sacred writer intimates, that a life of heavenly
blessedness would have been Adam's reward for obedi
ence, had he not sinned. Are we obliged to receive un
qualified assertions for divine revelation?
But let us look at the other way, in which Mr. S.
meets the difficulty, which he says pinched. He meets
it thus: as heaven, or future eternal spiritual blessedness
would have been the reward of Adam's obedience, so
must his disobedience extend his punishment to a future
state. ^ He says, " Man's punishment, if he transgress,
must be spiritual and future, a punishment adapted to his
moral character in a future state." And why did he
not add, " and by the same rule must be endless in its
duration." Why he does not, and why he did not use
this as a strong argument in its favour, we are left to
guess. Permitting me do this, I wrould say, Mr. S.
wished to get people to allow, that Adam's obedience
would, have brought him to endless happiness in heaven.
Admitting this, one could hardly have the face to deny,
that his disobedience must, as the reverse of this, bring
him to endless punishment. Thus people are made con
verts to the doctrine of endless misery, before they
are aware. But what evidence does Mr. S. produce?
He produces only another of his must be arguments; for
he adds, " The punishment must of necessity be in a fu
ture state, adapted to his moral, rather than to his natural
condition." Shall we never have done with such argu
ments? But Mr. S. lays aside suppositions, and comes, to
a fact about Adam. He denies that "natural death"
was the penalty threatened Adam, and in proof refers to
his living 930 years after, and becoming the father of
many generations. But if Adam's living 930 years be
any argument against natural death being the penalty
threatened, it is equally so against his future retribution-
Because Adam did not die, the day he sinned, a natural
death, therefore this could not be the penalty. Well,
because Adam did not go into a future state of retribu
tion the day he sinned, therefore this could not be the
penalty. What now comes of his wonderful argument?
But he says further, " This threatening wa^ executed,
or at least was in the way of legaf process, so that Ad-
5

34 MK- SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
am was the subject of death in the day of his transgres
sion." Yes, but this holds good, equally on the ground
that the penalty was natural death, as on the ground of
Mr. S.'s future retribution. Besides, on my ground the
penalty death, was finally inflicted, but on his, if Adam
was saved by Jesus Christ, the penalty never was, nor
never will be inflicted upon him. The threatening to
Adam was a nullity, and God's word has failed. The
marginal reading of the I6th verse is, " eating thou shalt
^eat," or shalt go on to eat. In the 17th verse it is,
" dying thou shalt die," or shalt go on tp die. And
this is in agreement with Mr. S.'s own views, that the
threatening from the day of his transgression, was in the
way of legal process. This is according to the fact.
But in proof that the death threatened Adam was a fu
ture retribution, or punishment in another world, he re
fers to several texts in the New Testament. The first
is Rom. v, 12 T 18, which he thus quotes, page 26: "By
one man, sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sin
ned. — By the offence of one, judgment came upon all
men to condemnation." This is a most unfortunate
quotation for our friend, Mr. S. For if the death spoken of
he punishment in another world, he must believe, that it
hath " passed on all men." Then all are to be punish
ed in another world; and instead of universal salvation,
we have got universal punishment. But does he be
lieve this? But Mr. S. thinks his retribution must be
taught, " for this condemnation to death, is here con
trasted with that life to which man is restored by the
salvation of Christ." But here Mr. S. goes to work in
his usual way to beg the question, for he says, " Surely
no one will attempt to prove, that by death is here meant
an extinction of animal life." It was his business to
prove that it is not, but a future retribution or punish
ment in another world. Let him then lay his bones to
the task, for the text nor its context, does not say one
word, that it has any reference to punishment in another
state of existence. The context shows the contrary;
but we wish him to prove his own doctrine.
John viii, 24, is his next text. "If ye believe not
that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." All that Mr.

Future retribution considered. 35
S. says on this text is this: " Does not every one see that
this is to die in a state of unpardoned guilt, and remain
exposed to the retribution of condemnation?" Is not
this getting along at a miserable rate, to prove his point
by a mere appeal to his readers, and taking it for grant
ed that they are all, no doubt, of his way of thinking on
the subject? Does the text say a word about punishment
after they died? Mr. S., we think, will not affirm that
it does. What is it then to the purpose? for this is the
very point to be proved. But we would notice here,
that en in this passage rendered in, is in other texts ren
dered by, for, or on account of See Parkhurst on the
word. Our Lord then merely told the Jews, that they
would die by, for, or on account of their sins, if they
did not believe that he was the Messiah. This did take
place, for on that generation of the Jews, came all the
righteous blood shed on the earth. Josephus declares,
that over a million of them died in the destruction of
their city and temple.
1 John iii, 14, is his next text. <l We know that we
have passed from death unto life." Does Mr. S. indeed
suppose, that persons passing from " death in trespasses
and sins" to " faith in Christ," is any proof that they
were exposed to endless punishment in a future world ?
A man must be at his wit's end for proof, to quote such
texts to prove such a doctrine. If we had known he was
in such a strait, we would have furnished him with some
more plausible than these,
John v, 24, is the next text brought up. " Verily,
verily, I say unto you, he that hath my word, and be-
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and
shall not come «snto condemnation; but is passed from
death unto life." This text he passes by without any re
mark, or even begging the question. See on the last text.
1 John v, 16, he quotes thus, without referring to
chapter or verse : " There is a sin unto death, — ¦ and
there is a sin not unto death." On this he thus com
ments, and it is all he says about it; " We know there
is no sin but what is connected with natural death, and
therefore, that sin which is unto death, must expose to
something beyond the death of the body." Mr. S. as a
public teacher at least, ought to have known, that in

36 MR. sabine's proofs of a
apostolic times, sins were committed, and that by Chris
tians too, which God punished by inflicting death. Such
was the case with Annanias and Sapphira. Such also
was the case with some in the Church at Corinth, Acts.
5th, J, Cor. xi, 40. In the above verse, so partially
quoted, the person is called a brother, who might sin this
sin unto death. Christians guilty of other sins might be
forgiven, see Jas. v- 14, 15, but such sins were not to he
pardoned, even when prayers were made for their forgive*;
ness. No; temporal death was to be inflicted as their
punishment, Does Mr, Sabine never pray for the par
don of any but those whose sins do not expose them to
his future retribution? Besides, we really thought, that
he considered all sins as exposing men to a punishment
in another world. How to make these things hang to
gether with any tolerable decency we know not. These
are his proof texts, and then says p. 27, " Passages might
be multiplied to confirm and illustrate this point, but it
would be only taking up your time to little purpose."
Yes indeed, passages such as Mr. S. has produced might
be multiplied to a great extent, and if multiplied, it would
indeed be only taking up our time to little purpose, and
if such texts prove his future retribution, he can very
easily prove any thing.
After summing up what he has said p. 27, he expres
ses himself to be at a loss, what sense to put upon lan
guage, or to account for Adam's violation of the divine
law under such a penalty, and he to live another day.
But why is our friend Mr. S. not at as great a loss that
he lived another day out of his state of future punishment?
If his future retribution might be suspended for 930 years,
why might not his natural death be suspended for the
same period,
But we shall now give Mr. S. a few more proofs, that
neither eternal death, nor his future retribution in an
other state of existence, was included in this threatening
to Adam- If they should happen to be like the rest of
my proofs, negative, we think they may at least pass for
as much as his mere assertions
ist. God's threatening to Adam says not a word about
eternal death, or Mr. S.'s retribution. These are ex-.
pressions alike unknown in Scripture- Death, of any

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 37
kind, must have been unknown* to Adam from experience
or observation. If either of these was intended by the
term death, it is reasonable to suppose some explanation
would have been given him. It is not God's usual
way with his creatures, to practise deception on them by
delivering threatenings in language involving such conse
quences, not understood by them. Let it not be said
that they did understand it in this way, for, 2d, God's
command to multiply and replenish the earth forbids such
an interpretation. Gen. i, 26V-29.. Is it said, But this
command was given while he was innocent. True ; but
is not the same command repeated Gen. ix, 1, 2, after
sin entered, and was the cause of the flood ? We leave
it with judicious men to say, if such a command would
have been repeated, if sin involved men in eternal death,
or Mr. S.'s retribution. If this was the, reason why God
said of men, " It repenteth me that I have .made them,"
the command would have been, " Let the race become
extinct." But it seems, according to some, God was
determined to people the regions of endless misery, or,
according to Mr. S. furnish subjects for, a future tremen
dous retribution in another world. But, 3d, The sen
tences pronounced on all the offenders are inconsistent
with such a view of the threatening. Allowing the ser
pent to be, as the orthodox believe, a fallen angel or
devil, he is not. condemned to either eternal death or Mr.
S.'s retribution in another world. See Gen. iii, 14, 15.
Nor was such a sentence pronounced on the woman, but
something very different. See Gen. iii, 16. Nor on Ad
am. See Gen. iii, 17 — 20. What could be a better com
mentary on the threatening, than the execution of the
sentence? But will Mr. S. dare to affirm, that a syllable
is said about his retribution in another world ? The doc
trine of purgatory, and prayers for the dead, may just as
well be alleged from the whole history as it. 4th. As
Adam and Eve no doubt understood this matter fully as
well as Mr. S. let us see if they understood eternal death,
or' his future retribution, as included in the death threat
ened them. If they believed this, I ask, would they,
without scruple of conscience, proceed to propagate chil
dren, as we find they did ? See Gen. iv, 1, 2. Would
Mr. S. or his orthodox friends, really enter into the mar-

38 mr. Sabine's proofs of a
ried state, if they sincerely believed that they might be
the instruments of giving existence to ten or more beings
who must lift up their eyes in endless misery ? We pre
sume this part of their creed is thrown into the hack
ground on such occasions, for what man of any principle
would be the father of a child where there was such a
risk ? Let it not be objected here, that marriage is a
commanded duty. It is ; but .let all soberly consider, if
God wouki ever have given such a command if this doc
trine be true. We may add, if Adam and Eve believed
this doctrine, would they not rather haVe died of grief
for their crime, and suffer their race to end with them
selves, than to entail such misery on so many of their
posterity. But what we think proves conclusively that
they believed no such doctrine is, that they taught no
such thing to their children or their posterity. Let their
whole history be consulted, but not a word Is said to
Cain, Abel, or any one else, that they were subjected to
eternal death or Mr. S.'s future retribution. Cain was
wicked, but his parents say nothing to him on such a sub
ject. See Gen. iv, 8—16. Nor is Lamech threatened
with any such punishment. See verses 23, 24. I ask,
5th, How did Moses understand the death threatened
Adam? He wrote this account many ages after Adam
sinned. Had he believed as the orthodox or Mr. S. does,
is it possible he should not mention it? Yea, I may ask,
how did all the sacred writers understand this death threat
ened to Adam? Does any one of them say, that it includ
ed in it eternal death, or even punishment in a future state
of existence? The expression eternal death is not once
used in the Bible, and that it involved Mr. S.'s future
retribution, is the very thing he has got to prove. Let
him do this if he can, not by assertions, not by adding to
the scriptures, but by a candid appeal to the texts with
their contexts where he supposes such a doctrine is taught.
6th, But what ought to settle this question for ever is,
Jesus Christ is never said to redeem from eternal death
nor from Mr- S.'s punishment in a future state. He
does redeem from death, and this is explicitly stated, see
Hosea xiii, 14, and compare 1 Cor. xv, 54-^-58, and
Heb. ii, 14, and 1 John iii,10. But in no text that I can
find is it said, that the death he redeems from, is a death

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 39
including in it, temporary or eternal punishment in a fu
ture state.
I stated, that endless misery in hell, was not threaten
ed to Adam, to the ahtideluvians, to the Sodomites, nor
to any persons under the Old Testament dispensation.
Mr. S. admits this p. 29. He adds, p. 31, "I believe
all is a blank in the Mosaic history." How came he
then to learn from a blank that Noah preached his retri
bution? We thank him for this admission, and his readers
ought to notice it.
« Why then does he, p. 30, blame me for my unbecom
ing boldness, in asserting, that the doctrine of future re^
tribution was not believed by the Patriarchs. Does he
find them speak of his future retribution any more than
of endless misery? His phrases, retributive justice, and
future retribution, borrowed from scholastic theology,
or the idea he means to convey by them, were alike un
known in those days. But he adds, " With this bold chal
lenge before us, I ask, for what were the sacrifices offer
ed? In these was there no recognition of retribution?
No sense or consciousness of offence? " O yes, Mr. S-
but what you have got to prove is, that in the sacrifices
there was a recognition of punishment in another state
of existence. If you could have found proof of this, why
beg the question of your readers?
But he goes on thus begging the question, and even
altering the Bible as well as my book to suit his purpose.
He says, p. 30, " What are we to understand of Noah's
doctrine as a preacher of righteousnes? In preaching
righteousness, could he avoid the doctrine of retributive
justice? Is it not said that by righteousness he condemn
ed the world, and became heir of the retribution by
Heaven's favour bestowed."
The passage Mr. S. thus alters is found, Heb. xi, 7.
He is determined to have his retribution in the Bible. If
the Spirit of God did not insert it, he foists it in without
any preface or apology. Let our readers compare the
apostle with Mr. S.'s edition of his words, and cease to
wonder that he should mutilate and alter any thing that
I have said. Notice, that though the apostle says, that
by faith Noah condemned the world, he does not say,
that by his preaching, conduct, or otherwise, he con-

40 MR. sabine's proofs of a
demned them to a punishment in another ivorld. But
Mr. S. might have inserted this, just as well as the oth
er in the text, for in preaching righteousness he tells us,
that Noah could not avoid the doctrine of retributive
justice; and this is with him punishment in another state
of existence. If Noah could not avoid this doctrine, it
is rather a surprising thing, that Moses could avoid
saying a word about it. If Mr. S. could have found
it, he had no occasion to alter the Bible by insert
ing it. If Noah, in preaching righteousness, could not
avoid Mr. S.'s doctrine of punishment in a future
world, how can any other man preach righteousness,
and avoid it? All then who do not preach punishment in
a future state, are no preachers of righteousness. Up
on this principle of reasoning, Noah himself, though
called a preacher of righteousness was not one, for not
a syllable is said that he preached Mr. S.'s retribution.
But Mr. S. asks, p. 31, how I " know that Noah did
not preach retribution?" Answer; I know this in the
same way, that Mr. S. does that he never preached the
doctrine of endless misery. I know it in the same way,
that I know that he did not preach the doctrine of pur
gatory. I know this too from his own confession, for he
says, p. 31, " I believe all is a blank in the Mosaic history,
not one word of Noah's preaching or meditation on the
subject." But in the same page, says Mr. S. " But does
not every one see that our friend Balfour is only proving
negatives, and the whole of his theory so far stands upon
negatives, and upon nothing else." It is not easy to
prove a negative. But I prove this negative in the same
way, that an apostle proved another negative. Heb. vii.
14. Why does not my friend S. say, " But does not
every one see that our friend Paul is only proving nega
tives, and the whole of his theory so far stands upon ne
gatives, and upon nothing else." But Paul, it seems*
thought that this was evident proof for a negative, not
withstanding all he says to the contrary. But further;
as Mr. S. had the positive side, and not the negative of
this question, positive evidence was required of him.
But does he give us any? So far from this, he goes on
begging the question in one place, altering my book in
another, and determined to have proof positive, . of his-

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 41
future retribution, he at last ventures to ' insert it into
Heb. xi, 7, referred to above. But my book is a book of
negatives, which seems to trouble our friend Mr. S. not
a little: And because he cannot give us any positive
proof for his retribution, I must produce positive proof
against it. But a Catholic demands Mr. S. to bring
positive proof against his purgatory. Says Mr. S. "the
Bible says nothing about it. Your business is to prove it
by positive evidence, as you believe it." Let Mr. S. go
and do likewise in the case before us.
But in p. 31, Mr. S. has a reference to 1 Peter, iii,
20. " Peter says again that after the long suffering of
God, and the righteous preaching of Noah, God brought
in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." Yes, he says
this, but does Peter or any other sacred writer say, that
God brought the world of the ungodly into a future state for
punishment? But this was what Peter ought to have said,
to have said any thing suited to Mr. S.'s purpose. 2 Pe
ter ii, 6, is the othertexthe alludes to, rather than quotes.
His remark on this text is, " And so in regard to Sodom
and Gomorrah, condemned them with an overthrow,
making them an ensample unto those that after should
live ungodly." But does this passage say, that God
" condemned them with an overthrow to a future state
to be punished? But ho\v could they, on this view of the
subject, be an ensample there to others, who should after"
live ungodly? But the overthrow of these cities have
been to past ages, and will be for ages to come, an. en
sample of God's punishment of men for iniquity. Mr.
S. may see that had he understood my views, and I may
add those of the Hopkinsians, he need not have misrep
resented us as in p. 28, that we decry "all obedience
under a Sense of penalty." But nothing can stand in
his way in defence of his present favourite doctrine of
retribution. I regret, for his own sake, that he is not
more on his guard against snch palpable misrepresent-
¦ ations. Can such things help a righteous cause?
What Mr. S. says, p. 32, about the silence of the
Old Testament concerning a future state, has been suffi
ciently noticed in the " Inquiry." But we add here,
that the New Testament writers recognise the Old, as
believers in a future sjate of happiness. See Heb. 3,1,
6

42 mr. sabine's proofs of a
with other places which might be named. Well, can Mr.
S. show us, that they recognise them as believing also in
endless misery, or his future retribution? If he cannot, he
would do well to reconsider the subject, before he writes
again, or asserts, that Noah preached his doctrine. But
we shall give him a little more proof, that temporal
punishment, and not his future retribution, or endless
misery, Was inflicted on the people.
1st. No other punishment is stated in the history of
Noah, or the punishment of the people at the flood. See
Gen, Vi, 7, 13—17; and vii, 4, 21, 22, 23; and viii, 20
J-22. Man was to be destroyed from the face of the
earth. But is it any where said, he was to be sent to
hell, or any other place, to suffer temporary or endless
misery, after he was destroyed from the earth? If Mr.
S. or any other man will affirm this,, let evidence of it
be produced, for assertions are good for nothing in such
a case. 2d. There is just as much said about punish
ment in a future state to the beasts of flte earth, which
perished in the flood, as there is to men, who perished in
it. FrOm any evidence the history affords, the endless
or temporary punishment of the former in a future state,
may as well be proved as the latter. It affords not a
particle of proof for either, and if we are allowed to as
sert in the one case, why not also in the other. 3d. If
temporary Or endless misery in a future state, was to be
the state of those who perished in the flood, it is certain
ly not very likely that Noah believed this, yet was silent
to them oil the subject. If he did preach so to them, it
is not less remarkable that no inspired writer should say
he did. But Mr. S. can as easily learn from their stu
died silence his doctrine of retribution, as he did no fu
ture punishment from mine. The improvement which
the after writers in scripture make of the history of
Noah and the flood, show that they did not believe as
Mr. S- does, that Noah preached punishment in a future
state of existence, Peter uses it, 1st Epistle, iii, 20,
21, as a figure to illustrate Christian baptism. It is re
ferred to Isa. liv, 9, 10, to illustrate God's faithfulness
to his people. It is also used, Ezek. xiv, 14—20. Heb.
xi, 7, to show, that faith and obedience are the best
preservatives in the midst of God's public judgments

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 43
against sin. We find also that God's judgment on the
people at the flood, is set forth as a warning to those,
who should afterwards live ungodly. 2 Peter ii, 5, 6.
And lastly, I find it used to set forth the situation of the
Jews as to false security and insensibility, when God
visited them in the destruction of their city and temple.
Matt, xxiv, 37—40; Luke xvii, 26—31. Now, these
are all the ways the sacred writers improve the history
of Noah and the flood, for the benefit of mankind. But
it seems our friend Mr. S. was much wiser than any of
them. I may just here add, that what he says, pp. 30s
33,: about a " unison of cases," relative to the punish
ment of Adam, the Sodomites, and antideluvians, de
serves no notice, except to say, that if Mr. S- judged
me sane, be never could suppose what he imputes to me.
We thought the unison was stated to be, that Adam, the
Sodomites, and antideluvians were alike, in haying no
eternal misery threatened them. If I left him in " the
dark on the subject," he must continue in, it. But in
justification of the course pursued, Mr. S. proceeds to
quote the Christian Repository, p. 34. "He is so Un
derstood by the " Christian Repository," a journal edit-.
' ed upon the principles of Winchester and Murray, the
principles avowed as I understand by two societies of
our city. It has the following passage. " The avowed
object of the treatise is, to sap the foundation of endless
misery, but the arguments made use of, weigh equally
against all misery in a future state, whether temporary
or endless. Mr. B.'s views, therefore, introduce all
men into heaven at death, though they expire in the very
act of murder. I have, continues the Reviewer, men
tioned this, that the reader may not be deceived on this
point. For in the " Inquiry" there appears a studied
silence on that point, although the arguments are level
ed at the root of future, as well as endless punishment."
Notice, 1st, That it is confessed at last, what the object of
my book was. What then was it? To teach no future
punishment, Mr. S. has all along been affirming. But
now, both he and the Christian Repository say, " The
avowed object of the treatise is to sap the foundation of
endless misery." The -truth will SQmetinies come our. m

44 mr. sabine's, proofs pf a
spite of a man's self, and we here thank Mr. S. for this
inadvertant confession. 2d. But Mr. S. may probably
say, is it not immediately added, " But the arguments
made use of, weigh equally against all misery in a future
state, whether temporary or endless.'' Yes, but it only
makes the bad worse; for it is plain if my arguments
have any weight against endless misery, it is allowed,
that they weigh equally against all misery in a future
state, whether temporary or endless. Do my arguments
then weigh any thing against endless misery? The wrir
ter in the Repository thinks they do not, for he says,
" I am far from being a believer in endless misery, but I
anl free to confess that J find nothing in the volume be
fore me, which, convinces me of its falsity." Well, the
orthodox' endless hell, and Mr. S.'s temporary hell; are
both perfectly safe from my attack^ It is very evident,
however, that both hells must stand or fall together.
Should the orthodox' endless hell fall, by my sapping its
foundation, the other temporary hell must go with it,
for it is allowed, ]that my arguments weigh equally
against both. Mr. S. seems alarmed, the armies of the
living God are alarmed, anc| he tells us what we did not
know before, that the retributionists are alarmed, yea,
he wishes to alarm a\U, and to rouse them to embark
" all thejr best moral powers and means in counteract
ing,?' the progress, influence, and tendency of my book.
See p. 38. But why is he so much alarmed? for the
Christian Repository assures him, that there is nothing
in my book to prove the falsity of endless misery. But
it seems he was not of this opinion; nor was this the
opinion of rtiany a serious .Christian, who asked, "will
no one meet this uncireumcised Philistine?" My avow
ed object was to sap the foundation of endless misery.
Contrary, however, to the zeajous and sound," he
judged it the " most tenable and safe," to attack my
book on the ground of future retribution. This, says he,
" Affords us' the best opportunity, of assailing our adver
sary with success." p. 25. But had '! the zealous and
sound,?? only consulted with the writer in the Reposito
ry, he could have hushed all their fears to rest by in
forming them, " I find nothing in the volume which con
vinces me of the falsity of endlqss misery." We see?

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 45
therefore, no cause for all this false alarm. Mr. S. deserves
a reproof for making so much noise about nothing. But
in the same page, and the following, Mr. S. proceeds to
carricature my views thus: They " negative every moral
principle in God and man." Their course is "Mate
rialism," and "their conclusion, Atheism." They make
men " mere mechanical systems of a perishing world."
My arguments are "exceedingly defective;" and 'my
"proofs are mostly negatives or mere assumptions."
Mr. S. is not done yet. " The inquirer does not appear
to be distinctly acquainted with the precise subject he
has undertaken to discuss; hence there is an indistinct
ness in the selection of his arguments, and in the con
clusions at which he would arrive." Moreover " he
does not, as he goes on, seem to know whether he is to
disprove the doctrine of endless or future: punishment.
But from what he has admitted in the statement of the
question, we shall hold him to One point, namely, future
punishment." If this is Mr. S.'s bona fide opinion,
most people would conolude, that he who stooped to
answer such a book, was not much wiser than the man,
who wrote it. Strange, that such a book as this should
alarm Mr. S. so much. That it should lead so many
serious Christians to put such questions as he says they
did. That even the retributionists should be alarmed
about it. That he should be at so much trouble to
preach, and write it down. And even to confess that it
nearly converted him from his former opinions. And it
is not less strange that he should immediately add, p. 35,
" 2d. It appears that the ground assigned us in this con
troversy is the most tenable and safe, and affords us the
best opportunity of assailing our adversary with success.
I am aware that some of the zealous and the sound
would urge, that we prove first, the eternity of future
punishment, and then, say they, ' All is done at once.'
But I confess that I am a little fearful of attempting to
prove so much at once; indeed it is quite unnecessary:
if I can prove a future retribution, Mr. B. and all who
stand, on the same ground are defeated, and the truth
triumphs; and then you are left to form your own judg
ment on the extent and duration of future retribution."
What! was not any ground tenable and safe enough to

46 mr. sabine's proofs of a
put down such a book? What ground could be taken,
that did not afford opportunity to assail such an adversa
ry with perfect success? What! such a book as he de
scribes the " Inquiry" to be, make him afraid to advo
cate the doctrine of endless misery ! He says, " The
zealous and the sound would urge" to "prove first the
eternity of future punishment, and then, say they, * AH
is done at once.' " The zealous and sound, it seems,
understood my book better than he did, and urged him
to his duty as a true orthodox man. But he tells us
what deterred him from his duty. " But I confess that
I am a little fearful of attempting to prove so much at
once." But Mr. S. need not be so fearful of proving
this at once, if endless misery be true. Is he afraid of
proving the truth? Or is he afraid it cannot be proved
true? Or what other end has he in view in being so very
cautious on this ground. We shall see this presently.
But he says the ground he has taken, " is the most ten
able and safe, and affords us the best opportunity of as
sailing our adversary with success." What! has Mr.
S. forgot that my book is stated to be on the very same
page and other places "exceedingly defective in argu
ments," and my proofs "mostly negatives, or mere as
sumptions." It seems after all that there was something
about it which made him say,fc " I confess that I am a
little fearful." A little fearful about what? He was a
little fearful to assail me on the ground of endless mise
ry, and hence he takes up his position on the ground of
a future retribution. The zealous and the sound who
urged Mr. S. to assail me on the ground of endless mis
ery, seems to have understood this to be my ground, and
urged that I should be assailed on this ground. Such a
course did not appear to him wise or prudent. If not
absolutely ruinous, it would be more " tenable and safe,"
to risk a battle on the ground of a future retribution.
To say the least, says Mr. S- this ground " affords us
the best opportunity of assailing our adversary with suc
cess.." But why not do this at once, if it can be done?
The orthodox doctrine of endless misery required this to
be done at once. My book, written to show that this doc
trine was not true, required it to be done at once. Public
expectation required it, for this is what they expected hijn

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 47
to do. Why then did he not do this at once? Why let
his little fear prevent him "attempting so much at once?"
But supposing Mr. S. to prove a future retribution, how
does the truth of the doctrine of endless misery triumph, if
it is left for every man to form his own judgment on the
extent and duration of it? But he seems inclined to give
up endless misery, and finds fault with me, p. 25, for
"proving more than is necessary." He says "he has
proved too much;" and this is what has exposed me to
Mr. S.'s attack. He thinks I am encumbered with my
victories and conquests. Well, have I conquered end
less misery, and driven it from all defence by Mr. S. or
his orthodox friends ? If this be true, my end is gained,
and I had no desire to pursue the war if he had not pro
voked it.
3d. Mr. S- adds, " That the ground taken in the ex
amination of this " Inquiry" is that on which a greater
number of thinking and serious men can meet, than ean
be expected to come together on any other ground." It
should seem from this, that it is a matter of more concern
to Mr. S. to get on to popular ground, than true scrip
tural ground. This is a matter of no concern to me ; my
only object has been, what is scriptural ground? But it is
difficult for me to perceive that the principle exhibits any
L benevolence' towards me, or is likely to be a mean of
convincing me of my error and show me wherein I have
" misled others." He would accomplish these sooner,
by showing a sacred regard to what saith the Scriptures,
without any concern about what would be most popular.
Mr. S. is correct in thinking, " that reasonable and se
rious measures must be adopted with me, and that it is
perfectly useless to turn upon me tine artillery of church
authorities or the thunderbolts of Heaven's vengeance.'1
No ; this ammunition, Mr. S. may assure himself, would
make no impression on me, except to beget a smile at the
man's folly who used it. I must thank my friend for the
compliment he pays me, p. 37. It seems a few years
since I "was strictly orthodox." If so, I am more so
now, for it has been my object all along to approximate
nearer the Bible in my religious creed. I have also ta
ken the advice which he gives me to read over again that
"holy volume." . The result of my labours, on the sub-

48 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
ject in discussion, will appear in the sequel. I shall al
ways be glad of his assistance, and have much cause of
gratitude to him that he has called my attention again to
this subject. Mr. S. has been very circumspect in his
remarks, in regard to endless misery. The cause of this
seems to be, that he wished to shape his system, to em
brace the greatest numbers. Hence he adds, p. 37, " The
controversy, conducted upon these terms, admits the aux
iliary force of all who believe in a future retribution,
whether that future be considered as limited or eternal,
and by rejecting the phrase eternal, and substituting fu
ture, all parties, even Mr. B. will agree in the course
taken in the discussion."
But Mr. S. presumes too much when he says " even
Mr. B. will agree in the course taken in the discussion."
What ! I agree to reject " the phrase eternal and sub
stitute future punishment. No, by no means; nor will
the orthodox agree to this? Have they indeed come so
far over as to reject the word eternal, and substitute the
word future ? If I had really thought so, I might have
saved myself the labour of writing my book, for it was
against eternal misery it was written. If all this be true,
a coalition may soon be expected between the orthodox
and those whom Mr. S. calls retributionists. We are
really glad to hear this, if we could persuade ourselves
that it is true. But we thought that Mr. S. p. 24, regret
ted that so many of " the reputed orthodox" were willing
to let ' ' the doctrine of a future retribution fall into disre
pute, without, on their part, a suitable effort to maintain
it." And in the same connexion he expresses his hap
piness that so many Universalists " stand forward to vin
dicate, and espouse those that vindicate the doctrine of a
future retribution." It seems, the Universalists are be
coming orthodox ; and the orthodox are becoming Uni
versalists, and that too of the worst class. But has nbt
my friend Mr. S. got put out with his old orthodox friends,
and here rather misrepresents them. We regret to see
this. Why did he not blame them, and himself too, for
letting the doctrine " of endless misery fall into disre-
jmte without a suitable effort to maintain it?" This
is the orthodox doctrine, and it seems he will not make
any effort to maintain it, but will let it fall into disrepute,
just as much as he says they do that of future retribution.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 49
In concluding, this lecture, Mr. S. informs his readers,
that he makes no " compromise," nor offers "no terms
of reconciliation" to me, while I hold my "present
ground with no better pretensions." Yet, before he ends
the paragraph, he sounds the loudest blast of alarm, to
all, to embark in counteracting the " progress, influence
and tendency" of my book. I leave him to unravel this
and other inconsistencies at his leisure. Mr. S.'s sen
tence of outlawry will not break my heart.
LECTURE III.
Mr. Sabine entitles this discourse, "Retribution threat
ened to the wicked, amotive to virtue." Let the ques
tion be asked, Retribution, where threatened to the wick
ed a motive to virtue? The reader must bear it constant
ly in mind, that he must prove, that this retribution is in
a future state of existance. This must be borne in mind^
because he not only would have his readers believe, that
I deny all punishment threatened as a motive to virtue,,
but he palms on his readers, texts which speak indeed of
punishment, but takes it for granted, that it is to be in
flicted in the world to come.
Though Mr. S. at the outset, agreed to settle this
question by an appeal to the Scriptures, yet in his intro
duction to this discourse, he tries to establish his future
retribution, 1st, By refering to human governments.
He says, they have " a near resemblance to the divine
government," and that they recognise "the principle of
retributive justice." But we ask, do any human govern
ments carry their punishments into a future state of exis
tance? He will not say so. What then does he mean to
establish by all he can reason by analogy from them? 2d.
He next refers to " courts of a more moral complexion,
courts of conscience, or sessions of authority in the
Church." They, "inflict penalties upon the transgres
sors according to the rule of a righteous retribution."
We know a little about the court called sessions in the
Church of Scotland, but that church, with all her faults,
never carried her punishments beyond death. Does Mr.
S.'s Presbyterian churches in America carry their retri
butions into another world? This is news to us. So does
7

50 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
hisholiness the Pope against the whole Protestant fraterni
ty. Mr. S. laughs at the Pope, and he will allow me to
smile at him. 3d. Mr. S. appeals to the Masonic tribu
nal, which he calls a '^solemn, tribunal ;" and adds, "wo
to the unfaithful ; he is cast but to the most awful retri
bution, to be known amongst us no more for ever." I
am no Mason, nor shall I ever be one, if their punish
ments are carried beyond death. No man can be a con-
sistant Mason, according to Mr. S. unless he believes irv
endless misery, or at least a temporary punishment after
death. But we have authority from respectable men,
and Masons in high orders, to say, that none of their re
tributions are carried beyond this life. But what if all
these three tribunals did this, the Bible must decide what
is truth on the subject, for all our reasonings from anal
ogy can decide nothing.
Mr. S. says, pp. 39, 40, " In all these views of govern
ment, a threatening retribution is held out as a motive
to virtue." A very singular way to prove a future re
tribution indeed , to tell us that national- governments,
church sessions and masons have temporal punishments
annexed to their laws, therefore men must be punished
in another state of existance ! I ButT let us follow Mr. S-
in his course. In pp. 40, 41 , he refers to the state of things
in France, when all law and justice were trampled in the
dust ; and that he may carricature me in company, he al
ludes to the Hopkinsians, and intimates that our systems
are the same as the French Philosophers of that day in
principle. He treats the neiv divinity men, my com
panions, rather worse than he does me, so that I have no
great reason to complain. But as there is not even com
mon civility in these/ two pages, we leave them to Mr.
S.'s own serious reflections. We did think, that the fa
mous Maiden Sermon, with some other things, would
have taught our friend a more excellent way of conduct
ing a religious controversy. ¦ It is a species of the gross
est slander, to identify either my views, or the Hopkin
sians, with that of Godwin and others.' Do we announce
a ' political justice' without law, without sanction, with
out penalty, without retribution? Mr. S. verily hath had
his reward for his labours at Maiden. He has found, and
may yet find, that retributive justice follows doing evil

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 51
even in this world, though it may not pursue him beyond
the grave. 2 Cor. v, 11, is Mr. S.'s text to this dis
course. " Knowing therefore the terrors of the Lord
we persuade men." Seemingly aware, that his text did
not teach a punishment in another world, he thus writes,
" Whether this was preaching ' hell-fire or wrath to come'
it was preaching terror ; and it was urged as a motive to
a holy life j by it our apostle persuaded men, and we in
tend to imitate his example." That by the terror of
the Lord, hell-fire or punishment in a future state was
meant by the apostle, is the very point Mr. S. had got
to prove. But, without making the least attempt to do
this, he proceeds in pp. 42, 43, to make some quotations
frOm my book. Is his object in making them to refute
them? No, his readers may see he makes them, as usual,
to substitute the expression future punishment where I
use hell torments. And why is he so determined upon
altering my language? Why, j-eader, Mr. S. could not
say that hell torment was preached by Adam, Noah, Lot,
Abraham,. &c. to make men holy, and therefore he sub
stitutes the expression future punishment in place of it.
Now, by future punishment, Mr. S, would have his rea
ders think that I believe in no punishment at all as a mo
tive to holiness, and to conclude that this is the doctrine
of my book. But Mr. S. has forgot himself, for he has
allowed, that I hold to punishment in this world at least.
But his readers should recollect, that by future retribu
tion or future punishment, Mr. S. means a punishment
in another world. Now, let him take his choice of the
Qrthodox expression which I have used, hell torments, or,
his own substitute for it, future punishment, it avails
him nothing. Let him only prove, that punishment in «.
future world was preached to make men holy, and he es
tablishes his point. Establishing this, however, does not
touch my book. If he will still have hell to be a place of
temporary punishment, let him have it, for I do not wish
to be very fastidious about it. At any rate I must ex
amine his proofs of this.
As to what Mr. S. says, pp. 42—44, against my not
preaching terror as a motive to holiness, Httle need be
said. I have denied, and do deny, that any- inspired
writer ever preached endless hell torments as a motive

52 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
to holiness. Let him prove this to be false if he can. I
never denied, that terror, or the divine displeasure was
held forth to men, to deter them from sm and promote
obedience. Mr. S. allows this. Can the fear oT God's
displeasure here have no influence on men? and can it
have no influence even on the righteous, though the rul
ing motive of their obedience is love? It should seem
from Mr. S. that it cannot, unless it be the terror of the
Lord in a future state. Let him read his Bible a little
xnore attentively before he asserts such things again.
In p. 44 Mr. S. says, that Noah preached future re
tribution to promote virtue. Yet this retribution is,
v God threatened all flesh with the deluge." After all,
then, his future punishment is only a temporal one. Af
ter again: and again recurring to the history of Noah; he
is unable to find any thing in it to support his punishment
in another world. He cannot either strike out negative
or positive proof from it, to support his doctrine. Noah
was " moved with fear," he knew the terror of the
Lord, but Mr. S.'s honest man after all cannot find that
his fear was about punishment after death, for he says,
'*Noah, you see, knowing the terror of the Lord was
persuaded." Persuaded to do what? It comes out honest
ly from Mr- S. he was "persuaded to prepare the arkP
What a pity that it was not said, he was "persuaded to
flee from hell torments or future retribution." It would
have been well for him to let the history of Noah alone.
Was the ark built to preserve him from punishment in a
future state?
But Mr. S. tells us his next case is still more to
the point, " as it meets our inquirer's challenge, not on
ly in all its parts, but in the very expression and letter,
namely, the preaching of hell torments, a motive to vir
tue and the preacher is Jesus." Well, the texts Mr,
S. refers to are Luke xii, 4, 5; and Matt, x, 28; both
of which were considered in the Inquiry. But as Mr.
S- does not give us his views of these texts here, but
reserves them to a future lecture, we must wait till we
hear them jn their place. The use he makes of them
here is this; " I appeal," says he " to the most common
understanding, to the understanding of a child, whether
punishment in Gehenna, be pot by our Saviour urged as

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 53
a motive to virrtue? If this be admitted, and it cannot
be evaded, then our doctrine is established, and we may
proceed to illustrate the position for practical use." On
this, we remark,
1st, If these texts referred to, did meet my challenge
" in all its parts," yea " in the very expression and let-
tet, namely, the preaching of hell torments," why was
Mr. S. at so much trouble to alter my book, .and substi
tute for hell torments, the expressions, future punish
ment, future retribution? &.c. Why could he not
let the book stand as I made it, and thus meet it in all
its parts, yea, in its very expressions and letter? We
ask again, why did not Mr. S. quote Math, xxiii, 33,
and show that my interpretation of the words, " damna
tion of hell," was false and erroneous, and that this text
met my challenge in all its parts, yea, in its very ex
pression and letter? and not to ask him too many ques
tions at once. Why did not Mr. S. show the -two sec
tions of my book false, which state facts, that Gehenna
was rot used by our Lord or his apostles to express a
place of endless misery? I must put one more; Why
did Mr. S. not take some notice of the evidence I ad
duced^ that the very texts he refers to are in unison with
these facts, and all the other passages which speak of
the punishment of Gehenna? 2d. Of what use was it
for Mr. S. to , appeal to the understanding of a child,
" whether punishment in Gehenna, be not by our Sav
iour urged as a motive to virtue ?" A child could tell
him, Mr. S. we all know this ; but what you have got
to prove is, that Jesus urged Gehenna torments in an
other state of existence as a motive to virtue. This is
not only what you ought to prove, but even the endless
duration of them, to answer the book and to redeem
your pledge from the public. To prove, that Gehenna
punishment was urged on the disciples by our Lord as a
motive to virtue, is just what the " Inquiry" says he
he did. Your work was to show, that this punishment
was not temporal, but of eternal existence in a future
state. Besides, instead of asserting that the inquirer
labours hard, even to distress, you ought to have refuted
his arguments. Mr. S. may then see, that his " doc^
trine is not established," nor never can he established

54 MR- SABINE'S proofs OF A
by such a mode of proving it. But allowing that he
had proved the doctrine of endless hell torments, let us
see what account he gives of its practical use. He says,
p. 45, " And here, first, let us come to some point on
the character of that doctrine and preaching, so often
by our Inquirer called the doctrine of hell torments.
This method of denominating and describing our preach
ing, I mean that of those who assert an eternal retribu
tion, has in it something to be admitted, and something
to be rejected. There is^ in this description, a part we
shall admit.. A great deal has been written in retire
ment- and much more has been proclaimed in the pulpit,
on the subject of future punishment, than can be justifi
ed upon the grounds of scripture and reason. Many
passages of holy writ have been selected as descriptive
of future misery, while perhaps they have no allusion
whatever to a future state. Others, highly figurative,
have been selected, and the preacher has insisted upon
the most literal fulfilment of them; his genius too, form
ed for the love of metaphor, his passions burning with
his subject, and his judgment a long wray behind, has
made an awful display of the terrific. But what has
sueh a disclosure effected? Why it has perhaps irritated
and shocked some of the best people in his audience; it
has gained the applause of some of the weakest, and
may have established the preacher's character for faith
fulness, but as to the wicked, not one of them has been
'persuaded' to forsake his evil way, and turn unto God;
so far from it, their understandings have been outrag
ed, and their best, not their worst, passions disgusted,"
and so' they have-resolved to sin on, being hardened in
their iniquities, instead of being alarmed, and softened,
and subdued."- The following, among other things, de-*
serve notice in this account of preaching hell torments.
1st. He admits that what I have said of such preaching- is
partly true. In an after part of the same paragraph," he
" protests against such Gospel preaching;" and adds,
" here we set up our remonstrance, a feeble one, it is
true, but decided, and declare against such a method of
calling sinners to repentance. We declare against it in
terms of reprobation, let it come from whatever quarter
it may, from the learned or the rude, from the college

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 55
or the camp." We are glad to see Mr. S- so decided
in condemning this kind of preaching. But he seems to
forget himself; for in pp, 46, 47,' and other places, he
just does what he here condemns. He selects texts,
which have no reference to a future state, and groups
them together, to make an awful display of the terrific;.
We are disposed to ascribe this to the force of an old
habit, which leads him astray contrary ip his judgment.
We have little doubt, that if he goes ott, thus condemn
ing such preaching, and examines his . texts with more
care and attention, he will soon cure himself of this evil,
and avoid condemning himself in the thing which he al-
loweth. 2d. It would be difficult for me or any one else to
give a worse description of such preaching, than he here
gives us himself. As to the preachers of hell torments he
says their judgments are " a long way behind," they select
" many passages of holy writ," which they think " descrip
tive of future misery," which " have no allusion whatever
to a future state." Besides, " highly figurative" passages
are " selected, and the preacher has insisted' upon the
most literal fulfilment of them;" and his judgment being
a long way behind, and " his passions burning with his
subject," he " has made an awful display of the terrific."
As to the practical effects of such preaching, I should
hardly venture to give such a bad account of it as he
does. It has " irritated and shocked some of the best
people in his audience; it has gained the applause. of
some of the weakest, and may have; established the
preacher's character for faithfulness, but as to the wick
ed, not one of them has been ' persuaded' to forsake
his evil way, and turn unto God; so far from it, their
understandings have been outraged, and their best, not
their worst, passions disgusted, and so they have resolv
ed to sin on, being hardened in their iniquities, instead
of being alarmed, and softened, and subdued." Such are
the practical effects of terrific preaching, as given us un
der Mr. Sabine'sown hand and seal. From his intimate
and extensive knowledge of orthodox preaching, much
more dependance may be placed on this account, than
any thing I could say about it. But we think he ought
to have been more cautious himself, about awful displays
of the terrific, lest it should only produce similar effects.

56 MR. SABINE'S proofs OF A
And in drawing this portrait of orthodox preachers, he
ought to have reflected, that he was also taking his own
likeness. We question, if any of his brethren ever
made an attempt at the terrific, from any passages, leav
ing their jugments farther behind them than he does in
some parts of his discourses. 3d. But it seems a para
dox to us, how any man can preach terror, without some
display of the terrific: And how can endless misery, or
even Mr. S.'s retribution in a future state be preach
ed, without ait awful display of the terrific? Perhaps
he can explain this. But we aver, that if either of these
doctrines be true, no man can easily give too awful a
display of the terrific. We contend, that the preachers
whom Mr. S. condemns, are the most honest and faithful,
and act most consistent with their own professed creed.
Their profession and practice agree; but Mr. S. gives
us awful displays of the terrific, yet tells us it is wrong,
and is attended with very bad consequences. Like
causes produce like effects, he will allow. But, notwith
standing all that Mr. S. has said against this kind of
preaching, his own system requires him to defend it.
Accordingly he says, p. 46, that the apostles, and partic
ularly Paul, preached terror, " Knowing the terror of
the Lord, he persuaded men." And how? Why, by
setting before them the terrors of retributive justice;
and to render this retribution the more to be dreaded,
he places the despised and neglected Jesus, once a Sa
viour, upont he tribunal, (verse 10.) " We must all ap
pear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one
may receive the things done in his body, according to
that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." But
we ask him, does the apostle say, he preached the ter
ror of the Lord in a future state, or, that this judgment
seat of Christ was in another world? We can show the
contrary, but we wish Mr. S. to prove his own doctrine.
Rom. ii, 5, 6, he quotes thus, " In the day of wrath, and
retribution of the righteous judgment of God, God will
render to every man according to his deeds." This text
he passes without any remark. When he attempts to
show us, how it proves his future punishment in another
world, I am prepared to prove it has no relation to such
a doctrine. Gal. vi, 7, 8, is thus quoted by him, " Be

Future retribution considered. 57
not deceived, God is not mockedj for whatsoever a man °
soweth that shall he also reap; for he that soweth to his/
flesh shall reap corruption." But as the text does not
say this corruption is to be reaped in a future state of
existence, it is nothing to the purpose, for this is the
precise point all his texts should prove. Mr. S. seems
determined to forget this. John, v, 28, 29, is thus quot
ed, " The wicked shall be raised to the resurrection of
damnation." But Mr. S- forgot to comment on this
text, or to show that the resurrection to which our Lord
referred, was a literal resurrection, The preceding con
text shows it was not, and until he shows that it is>
which would be contrary to the scope of the whole con
text, it is nothing to his purpose. Matt, xxv, 46, is
thus quoted and commented on. " The wicked shall go
away into everlasting punishment, that is on the lowest
estimation, into punishment in, a future state;" This is
one of the strongest proof texts in favour of endless mis
ery. But Mr. S. is willing, to reduce it, to suit his doc
trine of future retribution. But if he will only study a
little more attentively Matt, xxivth and xxvth in connex
ion, he may see, that it has no reference to either his
retribution or endless misery. But as this is one of the
passages, which I have considered at length, in the in
quiry into the words aion and aioneon, referred to in
my book, I forbear introducing what I have to say of it
here. Isa. iii, 11 is correctly quoted, but without giving
book, chapter, or verse. " Wo unto the wicked, it
shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall
be given him." But as the passage does not say the
reward of his hands is to be given him in a future state,
Mr. S. might just as well have quoted the words, " An
homer is the tenth part of an ephah." Jude 14, is thus
quoted: " Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied of
these things." If Mr. S. had even quoted the whole of
this text, it is not to his purpose, for it does not say a
word about punishment in another world.
But he goes on, " Noah preached righteousness, and
warned of these things; And were not all these proph-
esyings and preaching a declaration of the doctrine of
future retribution, and was not a.11 this to warn and to
persuade men?" We have said enough already about
8

5& MR. sabine's proofs of a
Noah's preaching. All the preachings and prophesyings,
to which our friend has yet referred, say not a Word
about punishment in another state of existence. They
are warnings and persuasions to men, but say nothing
ahout his future retribution. But what he builds up
with the one hand, he pulls down with the other, for he
immediately adds, " in all these discourses and alarms I
do not see a word about hell in any form." Very well
said; but he ought to have added, " In all these dis
courses and alarms I do not see a word about my future
retribution in any form." But how comes it to pass
that he does find his retribution in them, and contends,
as we shall see afterwards, for hell punishment for the
disembodied spirit, yea, for hell, or gehenna punishment
for both soul and body. But Mr, S. adds, " The wick
ed are told in plain terms, terms plainer than Hell ean
express, that they " shall in no case enter into the king
dom of heaven. That there shall in no wise enter into
it, any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh
abomination or maketh a lie." He connects two texts
here together, which the contexts of both show, that the
use he makes of them, is unwarrantable and unscriptur-
al. We are sorry to see such quotations, and associa
tions of texts, made by him, and especially in proof of
such a point as the one in question. They injure his
own cause, for even admitting them justly quoted, they
do not say a word about his future punishment. Allow
ing them to exclude from heaven, they send none to hell,
as Mr. S. would have his readers believe. All Mr. S.'s
texts fall short of proving punishment in a future state.
If he has any better, we hope he will produce them.
From pp. 47—50, Mr. S. proceeds to show that sin
is a great evil, and says, " That God takes cognizance
of sin, for the express purpose of giving judgment upon
it." True, but cannot God bring good out of this evil?
It should seem, he is determined to make God bring a
temporary, if not an endless punishment out of it to a
great part of his creatures. We agree with him, that,
5' Nothing is mere clearly laid down in scripture than
this," that God will punish sin; but is it at all to the
purpose, to quote texts proving that God will do this in
the present world, when texts ought to be produced,

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 5$
proving that he will do this in the world to come. That
Mr. S.'s texts are of this description has been shown
above, and the texts he here produces, I shall pro
ceed to examine,. Eccl. xii, 14, is the first he quotes.
" God shall bring every work into judgment, with ev
ery secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be
evil." But this text neither says nor insinuates, that
God will bring every work into judgment in a future
state of existence. What is to come of Mr- S. if this
be true? Eccl. xi, 9, is next quoted. " God will bring
thee into judgment." The same remark applies here as
in the last text. Mr. S- says,, "the Bible is full of
this." Yes, the Bible is full of this, but if it is not full
of texts proving his punishment in another world, if, is
just full of that, which he ought to have known better
than to quote- Mai. iii, 5, is next produced in proof
that the Bible is full of this. " And I will come near
to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against
the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against
false swearers, and against those that oppress the hire
ling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and
that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not
me, saith the Lord of hqsts." How Mr. S. could quote
such texts, to prove punishment in another state of exist
ence, is to me strange, for neither in the texts, nor their
contexts, is a word said about a future state. I coukj
prove the contrary from them, and when he produces his
proofs, I am ready to meet him with mine in reply. The
Bible furnishes texts such as these by the hundred, with
out much trouble in finding them, but when found, they
are only as many cyphers to proye Mr. S.'s position.
We would caution Mr. S. against using such texts, for
they are only calculated to bring his doctrine into suspi
cion. A weak defence is worse than none.
But Mr. S. adds, pr 40, " Our. Saviour is perpetually
turning the attention of his hearers to tins tribunal: ' I
gay unto you, That every idle word which men shall
Speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment.' And again, ' The men of Nineveh shaU
rise up in the judgment with this, generation and con
demn it. The queen of the south shall rise up in the
judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it,*

60 mr- sabine's proofs of a
All the apostles, whose sayings and writings are preserv
ed, refer to this judgment, in a great variety of language
and doctrine; Paul, ' The judgment seat of Christ;' Pe
ter, 'The day of judgment, and perdition of ungodly
men.' John saw in vision ' The dead, small and great',
stand before God; and the books were opened; and they
were judged every man according to their works.' This
is a scripture view of the judgment seat; let us now see
how this tribunal is adapted to man's state and charac
ter." Here Mr. S. gives us a number of partially
quoted texts, about the judgment, and the day of judg
ment, without reference to book, chapter, or verse,
where they may be found. As these texts which speak
of the judgment, and the day of judgment, form the
'foundation of his future retribution, as the texts which
speak of hell do that of endless misery, tiiey deserve a
iserious and candid consideration. We then drop the
discussion with Mr. S. for a moment, and proceed to
consider all the texts in the Bible where the expression,
the day of judgment, occurs. We shall take them up
in the order they are found in the New Testament.
The first place then, where the expression, the day of
judgment occurs is, Matt, x, 15, "Verily I say unto
you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
and Gamorrah in the day of judgment (en hemerd krise-
os) than for that city."* Mark Vi, 11, is the parallel
text, which I need not transcribe. On these passages
let it be remarked,
1st. That these words were addressed by our Lord to
the twelve apostles when he commissioned them to
preach and to work miracles in his name. It is plainly
supposed, that some of the cities to which they might go
to preach and work miracles, would not receive them;
In this case, when they departed they were to Shake' off
the dust of their feet against them, verse 14. The min
istry of the apostles, during our Lord's life, let it be
remembered, was exclusively confined to the Jews..
2d. The punishrhent of the city which did not receive
them, was to be more severe' in the day of judgment,
than that which befel Sodom and Gomorrah, when God
destroyed them. I beg it to be noticed here, that the
punishment of the cities of the plain, is not here con-.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 61
trasted with the punishment of all the wicked, hut only
with that city, which rejected the ministry of the apos
tles. But all know that this is generalized and applied
to all the wicked at the day of judgment. 3. Tc~what
period then is a reference made by the phrase, " The day
of judgment?" In answer to this let it be observed,
that the Greek phrase, en hemera kriseos, is simply a
day of judgment, and not as in our common version,
the day of judgment. This we think will not be contro
verted. This remark applies to all the passages in which
this phrase occurs. The Greek expression, is vmiformly
the same in all the texts, with only one exception, which
will be noticed in its place. Precisely the same expres
sion is once used in the Greek version of the Seventy,
Prov. vi, 34, " For jealousy is the rage of a man; there
fore he will not spare in the day of vengeance, (en he
mera kriseos.) But who ever supposed, that this ex
pression referred to a day of general judgment at the
end of this world, and that a jealous man would not
spare when it arrived. Its meaning here needs no com
ment. I may just notice, that the same word rendered
judgment in the passages in the New Testament, is in
this place translated vengeance. The question then is,
what day of judgment did our Lord refer to? It will be
answered, the day of judgment at the end of this world.
But I ask, where is the proof of this? The Greek
phrase forbids such an interpretation. The same ex
pression in the Seventy forbids it: The context of the
passage forbids it: The contrast between the cities, who
rejected the apostles, and the cities of the plain forbid
it: And nothing, that I can perceive, is in its favour,
but the assumed popular sense which people have attach
ed to this expression. A day of judgment was coming
on the Jewish nation. The day of vengeance when all
things which were written were fulfilled. A day, when
all the righteous blood shed upon the earth .came on that
generation. A day of vengeance or judgment, the like
had never been, nor again shall be; and unless, the
Lord had shortened it, no flesh could have been saved.
A day in which it was more tolerable for Sodom and
Gomorrah than for the city that rejected the apostles..
As Jerusalem, their capital city, was chief in their reject

$2 MR- SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
tion of Christ and those whom he sent, so here his vials
of vengeance were chiefly poured out. This view of the
subject is then in agreement with the fact. Besides, it
is on* temporal judgment contrasted with another. But
the common view of the expression, the day of judgment,
is contrasting a temporal punishment with an eternal one,
and one in this world with one in the world to come.
We are aware of the objection likely to be made here ;
" It is not said, it was more tolerable for Sodom and
Gomorrah, hut it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and;
Gomorrah in the day of judgment, referring to a future
punishment yet to be suffered." To save time and room
we refer to the next passage, with others, for an answer
to this objection.
Matt, xi, 20 — 25, is the next passage. " Then beT
gan he to upbraid the eities wherein most of his mighty
works were done,^ because they repented not. Wo un
to thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the
"mighty works which were done in you had been done in li
Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in
sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be
more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, v
(en hemera kriseos) than for you. And thou, Capernaum,
which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to
hell : for if the mighty works, which have been done iq
thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained
until this day. But I say unto you, that it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment,
(en hemera kriseos) than for thee." All will perceive,
that the remarks on the last passage equally apply here.
The Greek phrase is the same. Chorazin, Bethsaida,
and Capernaum, cities highly favoured with our Lord's
preaching and miracles, are upbraided with their unbelief
and rejection of him. Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, are
here contrasted with those cities. The contrast as in the
last text, is not between the punishment of Tyre, Sidon,
and Sodom at the day of judgment, and all wieked men,
but, between those cities, and the cities which had been
favoured with our Lord's ministry. The punishment, as
in the former text, was to be more tolerable for the former
than for the latter. As the spiritual advantages had been
greater^ the punishment w©njdi he more severe. The

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 63
same advantages would have produced repentance in the
people, and saved Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom from the
judgment of God which came upon them. The passage
contains a prediction of what would be the fate of the
cities which saw his mighty works but repented not, at a
day of judgment when it came upon them. What this
day of judgment is we have seen from the last passage,
and need not be again repeated. It is very evident from
the context of both passages, that our Lord's discourse
had a particular reference to the Jewish nation, and to
those cities in which the gospel of the kingdom was
preached and miracles performed, but were both rejected
by the people. The objection stated on the last passage
bears equally against the one before us which I shall now
attempt to consider. It is this, " It is not said, it was
more tolerable for Sodom, &,c. but it shall be more tole
rable for Sodom and Gamorrah in the day of judgment."
This objection, together With the definite article, has led
people to conclude, that the day of judgment referred to
the end of this world. In answer to it I would observe,
1st, That this objection arises from overlooking the
explanation which our Lord gives of his own meaning in
the passage. In verses 22 and 24, he says, it shaU be
more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, in a day of
judgement, than for Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Caperna
um ; but he explains what he means in verse 23, which
mtervens betwixt these two verses. " And thou Caper
naum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought
down to hell : for if the mighty works which have been
done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have
remained unit this day." That our Lord was not
speaking of a punishment to the Sodomites at a day of
future judgment, but of the past judgment inflicted on
them, seems evident from the last part of this verse, for
it is said, Sodom " would have remained until this day,"
had the same mighty works been done in it which had been
done in those other cities. 2d. This objection implies
that Tyre, Sidon, Sodom and other cities have not yet
been sufficiently judged ; but are again to be brought to
trial at a day of general judgment at the end of this
world. But is it not also believed that all the wicked
inhabitants of these cities were judged at death, and their

64 MR. sabine's proofs of a
fate decided to hell torments for ever? If this be true^
why judge them again ? What reasons can be given for
a second judgment,' "or what valuable end can be served
by it? 3d. But this objection proceeds on the principle,
that bodies politic, or cities are to be judged at a day of
general judgment at the end of this world. But Mr.
S. denies, that this can be the case. He says p. 33,
"punishment may be inflicted on an individual for his
sins in a future state; on a people or a nation it cannot
be so inflicted ; the punishment must be inflicted while
their national character exists ; in a future state nations
or bodies politic cannot be the subjects of retribution."
But all must see, that in the above passages, cities, or
bodies politic, are spoken of as the subjects of the judg
ment mentioned. According then to Mr. S.'s own ac
count, the judgment our Lord refers to must be in this
world, a temporal punishment for sins committed by these
cities, or as bodies politic. 4th. But observe, that in the
above passages, the people are not said to be punished at
all, either as individuals or as bodies politic. It is only
said, " it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom
in a day of judgment." And speaking of the people of
Tyre and Sidon it is said, verse 21, "they would have
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes, had they enjoy
ed' the same advantages as Chorazin and Bethsaida. It
would not have been correct, to have said of Tyre and
Sidon, as of Sodom, that these cities "would have re
mained until this day," for the sites_ of those cities were
not, like that of Sodom, destroyed. 5th. In those passa
ges, not a word is said, that this day of judgement is to be
at the end of this material world, or, that at this day, indi
viduals or bodies politic, are to be brought up to the bar
of God and judged a second time. Such ideas have no
foundation in the passages, but are additions made to
them by men in support of a preconceived system. As
the sin of adding to the Bible, is equal to taking any
thing from it, let us lay aside our preconceived opinions,
and impartially examine what is the will of God in every
part of it. The more critically, and carefully such pas
sages are considered, we are persuaded the common opin
ion of a day of judgment must be given up as taught in
fbem. The texts, their contexts, and all the circumstanced

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 65
mentioned forbid it ; and when these things are consider
ed, the above objection has no weight against the view
which we have advanced.
Matt, xii, 36, is the next passage ; " But I say unto
you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment." (En he
mera kriseos.) On this passage let it be noticed, 1st,
That uthe day of judgment" mentioned, is the same
as judgment, and the judgment spoken of, verses 41,
42. " The men of Neneveh shall rise in judgment with
this generation, and shall condemn it, because they re
pented at the preaching of Jonas ; and behold, a greater
than Jonas is here. The queen of the south shall rise
up in the judgment with this generation, and shall con
demn it; for she came from the uttermost parts of the
earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon ; and behold, a
greater than Solomon is here;" Luke xi, 31, 32, is the
parallel passage, which, to save room, I forbear trans
cribing. It is easily seen, that Mr. S. in the above quotation,
considers all these expressions as referring to the same
judgment day. Indeed this is allowed by all orthodox
people, so that there is no room left for debate. One
judgment day they conceive is referred to, and this is
to be a day of universal judgment at the end of this
world. No one can question, that " the day of judg
ment" verse 36, "judgment" verse 41, and "the judg
ment" verse 42, all refer to the same time and the same
punishment. The only question to be settled is — is this
a correct view of the passage? To show that any, or all
these expressions refer to a different time and punishment,
overturns the whole fabric which has been built for ages
on the expression " the day of judgment." That this
expression, referred to the day of judgment, or vengeance
coming on the Jewish nation, we have in part seen from
the preceding texts. This is still more apparent from
this passage, for observe, 2d, What our Lord says in the
verses above quoted. He does not say that the men of
Nineveh and the queen of the south, shall rise up in
the judgment, or the day of judgment, with the whole
world or all the wicked. No: They shall only rise up
in the judgment, he says, with this generation, namely,
9

66 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
the generation of Jews then living, by whom our Lord's
ministry and miracles were rejected. This we think
is indisputable, and it shows, that by such expres
sions our Lord did not mean a day of general judgment
at the end of time, but a day of judgment coming on that
generation of the Jews. 3d. But in this passage, we
have a more full and conclusive answer to the objection
mentioned in the last text. There it was said, it shall
be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom, at the
day of judgment. Now notice, that in this text it is said,
"- The men of Neneveh shall rise in judgment ;" And
" the queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment
with this generation." It is certainly as easy to perceive,
how it should be more tolerable for such cities when a
judgment day came on the Jewish nation, as how the
Ninevites and queen of the south, should rise up at this
day and condemn the Jews for their rejection of the Sa
viour. How did they rise up and condemn them? Sure
ly by the history of their conduct recorded in the Old Tes
tament, and not by a literal rising up in the judgment.
So the history of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon showed, that
it was more tolerable for those cities, than for the Jews
when the day of God's judgment or vengeance came on
them, as it did on that generation.
Luke x, 12, 13, 14, is next in order. " But I say unto
you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day. for Sod-
am than for that city. Wo unto thee, Chorazin ! We
unto thee, Bethsaida t for if the mighty works had been
done in Tyre and Sidon which have been done in you,
they had a great while ago repented sitting in sackcloth
and ashes. But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and
Sidon at the judgment than for you ! " Let it be noticed
on this passage, that though the Greek phrase is not en
hemerq kriseos, a day of judgment, as in the preceding
texts, but en te krisei, at the judgment, yet all will al
low, that the same judgment is referred to. Farther ;
let it be noticed, that what is called " the day of judg
ment in the preceding passages, and "the judgment,"
verse 14 of this, is in verse 12 called '-' that day." Now
nothing can be more certain, that the day of judgment
which eame on the Jews at the destruction of their city
and temple, is expressly called " that day " in various pas-

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 67
sages of the New Testament. See, among others I
might quote, the following ; Matt, xxiv, 36 ; Lukexxi,
34 ; Matt, vii, 22. Again notiee, that what is said in
this passage, was spoken by our Lord when he sent'out
the seventy disciples, ,and is similar to that spoken to the
twelve in the texts already considered. It contains our
Lord's predictions, or declarations, concerning those cit
ies which should reject them as the heralds of the king
dom of God. "It shall be more tolerable in that day
for Sodom, and more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the
judgment," than for the cities which refused their mes
sage. I may add, that the sense our Lord attached to
the words, "it 'shall be more tolerable," is explained,
verse 13, in the same way as already noticed in the pre
ceding passages, and need not be here repeated. Here,
as there, our Lord was predicting that when a day of
punishment came on those cities, which rejected the min
istry of the seventy, it would be more severe than the
punishment which came on Tyre, Sidon and Sodom.
Such then are all the passages in the four Gospels
where this expression, (en hemera kriseos) the day of
judgment, occurs. Before entering on the texts where
it is found in the epistles, we shall submit for considera
tion the following observations.
1st. It occurs just five times, and the Greek expres
sion is uniformly the same, not the but a day of judg
ment. Few persons would have thought of a day of
general judgment at the end of this world, if the indefi
nite instead of the definite article had been used in the
English version. It has also been seen from the above
texts, that the day of judgment, the judgment, and that
day, all refer to one and the same thing.
2d. It is easily seen from all the above texts that, our
Lord was the speaker and that he addressed himself, to
Jews. Not Only so, but all the above texts with their
contexts and the circumstances connected with this ex
pression, -show that it had a particular reference to a day
of judgment or vengeance coming on that generation of
the Jews. A day of judgment did come on them which
exceeded God's judgments pn Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom,
as is seen from Matt. 24th, Luke 21st and Mark 13th,
and is confirmed by Josephus their historian.

68 mr. sabine's proofs of a
3d. I do not find that the apostles in preaching to the
Gentiles, speak as our Lord did of the. day of judgment,.
In preaching at Corinth, Athens, Ephesiis, or any other
Gentile city, we never find them say as our Lord did,
that it should be more tolerable for Tyre, Sidon, or So
dom, than for them if they did not receive their message.
No ; nor do we find them in preaching to the multitude:,
or in speaking to individuals, give descriptions of, or
warnings about a general judgment day at the end of time,
as is common with preachers in our day. Does not this
confirm the views which have been stated in the above
passages. 4th. Neither do we find the apostles in their epistles
to the churches among the Gentiles speak of the day of*
judgment as our Lord did in the passages which have
been considered. To whomsoever the epistles were ad
dressed, Peter and John are the only writers who make
mention of the day of judgment, as our Lord did. We
shall presently see, that the passages, in their epistles
Strongly confirm the views we have advanced about this
day of judgment.
2 Peter ii, 9, is the first, S' The Lord knoweth how
to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve
the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished.
(eishemeran kriseos koladzomenous.) Here, as in the
preceding texts, it is a day of judgment, and not the
day of judgment. This is perhaps the most plausible
passage in the Bible, in favour of a day of general judg
ment, and ought to be candidly considered. Though we
are chiefly concerned with the last part of the passage,.
yet to understand this, it is necessary to pay spme atten
tion to the first. " The Lord knoweth how to deliver
the godly out of temptations." What persons then had
Peter in view by the term " godly?" It is evident from
verses 5, 8, that he had godly Noah and Lot in his eye;
and also the godly persons to whom he was writing. Let
us alsp ask what their, temptations were to which he re
fers? The word temptation is often used for trial or put
ting a person to the test. Noah was put to the trial, he
had great temptations among the antediluvians. The
same was the case with Lot among the Sodomites. See
the context, and the history of those rnen in the book of

FUTURE RETRIBUTION GONSIDERED. 69
Genesis. But it is declared here, " The Lord knoweth
how to deliver the- godly out of temptationsr" The
Lord knew how to deliver Noah out of his temptations
or trials, by the ark which saved him, while the flood
came in on the world of the ungodly. He also knew
how to deliver Lot out of his temptations, by the angels
whom he sent to Sodom; for this purpose, see the histo
ry of those events, and compare verses 5, 6, 7, of the
context. Peter brought the history of those persons to
view for the purpose of encouraging those to whom he
wrote, under their trials. The Lord also knew how to
deliver them as he had done righteous Noah and Lot.
Let us now attend to the second part of this passage ;
" And to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to
be punished." The term "unjust" here, is opposed to
the word "godly" in the first. As by it godly Noah
and Lot were referred to, so the unjust refers to the
wicked antediluvians and Sodomites, from whom their
trials or temptations arose. See the context, and the his
tory above referred to. Peter also had in view the un
just, from whom the persons were suffering to whom he
was writing. The grand question then to be settled is,
What day of judgment did Peter refer to, and to which
he says the unjust were reserved to be punished? The
common opinion is, "a day of general judgment at the
end of this world." But in opposition to this view of
the passage, Jet it be recollected, that the Greek phrase
is not the but a day of judgment. Besides, the common
usage of this expression, in the texts considered above,
is opposed to such an interpretation. Besides, it is con
trary to the use of this phrase in the Seventy version,
as noticed above, from Prov. vi, 34. Peter heard our
Lord make use of the expression, the day of judgment,
and applied it to the day of God's vengeance coming on
the Jewish nation. The presumption then is, that he
used it in the same sense as the Saviour did, in all the
pseceding passages. The proof lies with those who as
sert that Peter here meant a day of general judghient
But I shall proceed to show, from this text and its con
text, that Peter referred to the same period, and the
same punishment, as our Lord did, by the expression
fl the day of judgment." Let it be then observed, that

7fJ Mr. sabine's proofs of a
a day of judgment or vengeance, came on the antedilu
vians, when the flood took them all away. Also on the
Sodomites, when the Lord destroyed them with fire from
heaven. The Lord knew how to reserve those unjust
persons unto a day of judgment to be punished. But it
may be asked, is this all the day of judgment Peter re
fers to? I answer no; for he had some design in intro
ducing Noah and Lot as examples of God'» delivering
the godly out of temptations; and he also had some de
sign in saying, that the Lord knew how to reserve the
unjust to a day of judgment to be punished as he did
the antediluvians and Sodomites. What then was Pe
ter's design, in introducing this to the persons to whom
he wrote this epistle? To ascertain this, let it be notic
ed, 1st, That the persons to whom Peter wrote, were
enduring trials or temptations similar to those of Noah
and Lot, whom he introduces in the context. The
whole epistle shows this. He introduced this for the
purpose of supporting their minds under these trials; the
Lord knew how to deliver those two righteous men out
of their temptations, and he knew also how to deliver
them out of theirs. 2d. As the Lord knew how to re
serve the unjust, from whom Noah and Lot suffered, to
a day of judgment to be punished, so he also knew how
to reserve the persons from whom they, as Christians,
were suffering, to a day of judgment to be punished.
The persons, from whom their temptations or trials
came, were chiefly the unbelieving persecuting Jews, as
the whole New Testament abundantly shows. Th§
context of the passage confirms this, for Peter, after
saying that the Lord knoweth how to reserve the unjust
unto a day of judgment to be punished, immediately adds,
" Chiefly those that walk after the flesh in the lust of
uneleanness, and despise government : presumptuous are
they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dig
nities." The apostle proceeds to the end of the chap
ter, in giving an account of their wicked character and
conduet, which all may examine. Now if Peter meant
by the unjust, all wicked men in verse 9, as reserved to
a day of general judgment, why say, verse 10, but
" chiefly them that walk after the flesh?" &.c. Why
any chiefly in such a case? If we look at the preceding

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 71
context, the character of the persons is thus described :
They were to bring, in damnable heresies, verse 1, and
they were the many who should follow their pernicious
ways, verse 2. What day of judgment to those men,
was then meant by Peter, verse 9 ? That he did not
refer to a day of general judgment at the end of time,.
but to the day of God's vengeance on the Jews, I shall
attempt to prove from the following considerations: 1st.
Peter speaks of this day of judgment as near. The
persons spoken of. in the context, were to bring upon
themselves " swift destruction." Their judgment ling
ered not, and their damnation slumbered not; see verses
lr-4. But could this be true,- if the day of judgment
to them referred to the end of the material world? Two
thousand years have nearly passed away already, and
how long yet to the end of this world no man can cer
tainly say. We are aware, that many Christian writers
have admitted, that the apostles and first Christians
thought that the day of judgment was to happen during
their lifetime. This admission, has afforded Gibbon and
other infidel writers, an unanswerable argument against
Christianity. The fact proves, that they were mistaken,
and if mistaken in this very important article, what cred
it can be given to any thing which they have said. It
in short destroys their whole testimony. But admitting,
that by the day of judgment, the day of God's vengeance
on the Jews was meant, this objection is entirely remov
ed, the credit of the inspired writers is established, and
Christianity is recommended to infidels as a revelation
from Heaven. I consider it to be some evidence, that
my views of the day of judgment are correct, that they
fully and fairly remove this objection out Of the way of
infidels. This remark, applies to other passages in the
New Testament, against which the same objection has
been urged.
It will never do here, to say, that the day of man's
death is the day of judgment, and the commencement of
his future punishment. No, for it is contended, that the
day of judgment in this text, is to be at the end of this
material system. If so, the text is express in declaring,
that the unjust are reserved to this day to be punished.
To suit the common belief, Peter ought to have said.

72 mr. sabine's proofs of a
"The unjust are punished until the day of judgment,
and are to be more severely, yea, eternally punished after
this." Nothing can be plainer, than that the punishment
here mentioned, commences at the day of judgment,
whatever day that may be.
2d. The persons to be punished at the day of judg
ment here mentioned, and the nature of their punish
ment, point to the day of God's vengeance on the Jews,
and not to a day of general judgment at the end of this
material world. Let it be noticed that Peter does not
use language expressive of a day of general judgment.
He does not say the Lord knoweth how to reserve all
the unjust unto a day of judgment to be punished. Nor
does the text, or the context say, that this day of judg
ment was to be at the end of this world. Nothing like
this is intimated. Peter, from the scope of the context,
is evidently speaking of persons from whom Christians
in his day were enduring trials or temptations, and he
informs them for their consolation, that the Lord knew
how to delivee them out of their temptations, and to re
serve the unjust from whom they were suffering to a day
¦of judgment to be punished. Now, those Christians to
whom Peter wrote, knew from what our Lord had said,
Matt. 24th and other sources, that a day of awful ven
geance wras coming on the unbelieving persecuting Jews
during that generation- It was expected, and looked
for with earnest anticipation, as the period when their
redemption should draw nigh, see Matt. 24, &.c. Some
of them no doubt had heard our Lord call this very day,
" the day of judgment." Peter's language was not new ,
to them. Indeed, in no other sense could they under
stand it, for by no sacred writer had this expression been
used in the sense in which it is now used among us.
But if we advert to the nature of the punishment
threatened, the above observations are confirmed. The
verb kolazo, rendered to be punished in this passage
says Parkhurst, signifies " to restrain." He adds, " this
derivation is confirmed by observing, that the Greek
kolazo, is sometimes applied by the profane writers in
the sense of restraining or repressing, as may be seen
in Scapula." This word occurs only here and in Acts
iv, 21, of the New Testament, where it is rendered pun-

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 73
ished, and is evidently used in the sense of repressing or
restraining, which confirms what Parkhurst has stated.
But let us advert to the context of this passage, and see
if we can learn any thing as to the nature of the punish
ment at this day of judgement. It must be allowed, for
it cannot be controverted, that Peter says nothing about
sending the unjust to hell, to be punished at the day of
judgment mentioned. No pathetic descriptions are given
by him here of the mode of trial at this day, and the end
less misery in which it results, as is often done by preach
ers in our day. The context as we have seen, refers to
a day of judgment, which came on the old world, and
also on the cities of the plain. Now, is there not some
thing incongruous, and unscriptural, to allude to such
punishments of a temporal nature, if he meant to teach
a day of judgment at the end of this world, and endlessf
punishment in a future state of existence ? No other sa
cred writer, ever availed himself of such temporal judg
ments, to set forth such a day, or such a punishment.
But admitting, that Peter here, by the day of judgment,
refers to the day of God's temporal vengeance on the
Jews, and their punishment at this day, he only does
what our Lord did before him. Thus in Matt, xxiv,
37 — 40, and Luke xvii, 2G — 37, our Lord avails himself
of the flood on the old world, and the destruction of So
dom by fire from heaven, to illustrate the temporal ca
lamities coming on the nation of the Jews during that
generation. In this, Peter, only imitates our Lord, and
this being the way in which our Lord improved those
past judgments on men, is no small corroboration of the
views I have advanced relative to the day of judgment.
But further ; at verse 12, Peter says, "but these, as
natural brute beasts made to be taken and destroyed,
speak evil of the things that they Understand not ; and
shall utterly perish in their own corruption." All this
is in perfect agreement with the character of the unbe
lieving wicked Jews in Peter's day, and the dreadful ca
lamities which came Upon them. But it bears not the
shadow of resemblance, to a day of judgment at the end
of this world, or endless misery in hell. Had Peter, by
a day of judgment, verse 9, referred to the orthodox1 judg
ment at the end of this world) like &em he would have
10

74 mr. sabine's proofs of a
gone on to describe, the terrible and endless punishment
of such wicked characters. Well, say some, "does not
Peter do this very thing, for at verse 17 he says, 'to
whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.' " Yes,
but such persons take for granted the very things which
ought to be proved, that this mist of darkness is natural
darkness, is in a future state of existance, and is endless
in its durtion. These things they will not find easily
proved. It may then be asked, " how do you make these
words agree with your views of a day of judgement ? It
is their perfect agreement with my views, which leads me
partly to conclude, that they are correct. I have then
said, that the day of judgment refers to; the temporal ven
geance which came on the Jews. Allowing then that
the term darkness, refers to moral darkness here, as it
certainly does in many places in scripture, as could be
easily shown if it were necessary, it exactly answers to
the present situation of the Jews. Since that period,
their eyes have been darkened that they might not see :
Blindness has happened unto them, and Will continue
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. This has
continued already for nearly two thousand years. And
although it is not to be endless in its duration, yet it may
be said to he for ever in the Jewish usage of this expres
sion. In concluding my remarks on this passage, I shall
briefly notice the declaration, "the Lord knoweth how
to reserve the unjust unto the day Of judgment to be pun
ished." The general meaning of the word rendered re~
serve is, "to keep, or reserve something until after
wards." If the question is here asked, reserve or keep
the unjust till after what? The answer is, until after the
Lord hath delivered the godly out of their temptations.
The antediluvians were not punished, until after God
had delivered Noah and shut him safely up in the Ark.
The Sodomites were not punished until Lot had escap
ed from Sodom. " Haste thee," said the Angel to Lot,
"for I cannot do any thing till thou be oome' thither."
The Lord also reserved the unbelieving Jews, until af
ter his disciples had left the city and were safe in Pella.
Seeing the signs given by our Lord, Matt. 24, they left
it. Then, and not until then, did the wrath of God
come on them to the uttermost.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 75
2 Peter iii, 7, is the next passage. " But the heav
ens and the earth which are now, by the same word are
kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judg
ment, (eis hemeran kriseos) and perdition of ungodly
men." The Greek phrase here, is the same as in the
preceding text, is used by the same writer, and in the
same epistle. Tbe presumption is, that the apostle used
. it in the same sense as in the preceding texts. It is not
probable, that in liie course of a few verses,, he should
change its sense. But let us notice the persons who are
here referred to by Peter. He calls them " ungodly
men." In the last passage he calls them " unjust,"
but in neither does he intimate, that the punishment or
perdition at the day of judgment was for nil ungodly or
unjust men. No such thing is taught in any of the
places where the day of judgment is spoken of. Notice
further, that " the day of judgment" and " perdition" of
those ungodly men are represented as simultaneous events;
or, if the word and is rendered even it will make them the
same; " Reserved unto fire against the day of judgment
even perdition of ungodly men." To most people the
word perdition conveys something tremendous. It not
only leads their minds into a future state, but to a pun
ishment, inconceivable in its nature, and , endless in its
duration. The following are all the places where the
original word rendered perdition occurs in the New Tes
tament, and the various ways it is translated in our ver
sion. It is rendered waste, Matt, xxvi, 8; Mark xiv,
4; and applied to a box of ointment. It is rendered
pernicious, 2 Peter, ii, 2, and applied to the ways of
the false teachers. In Acts viii, 20, perish; " Thy
money perish with thee," whieh surely does not mean
thy money go to hell or endless misery with thee. It
is also rendered damnable and damnation, 2 Peter
ii, 1, 3, and is applied to the heresies and punish
ment of the false teachers. Is not the damnation
that slumberethnot, and the judgment that lingereth
not, the same, and do not both refer to the temporal
punishment of which we have spoken on the preceding
passage? Had the word been rendered destruction, as
it is in some other texts, endless misery would never
have been thought of from this passage. Thus it is

76 MR. sabine's proofs of a
rendered destruction, 2 Peter ii, 1, and iii, 16; Philip.
iii, 19; Matt, vii, 13; Rom. ix, 22. In some of these
texts it evidently refers to the temporal destruction of
the Jews, but in none of them does it refer to endless
misery in a future state. But in the following texts it
is rendered perdition. The beast that ascended out of
the bottomless pit shall " go into perdition." Was this
into endless hell torments? Rev. xvii, 8—11. Paul
Says, 1 Tim. vi, 9» " They that will be rich fall into
temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurt
ful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition."
Is not the destruction and perdition referred to, explain
ed in the next verse, and called, "piercing themselves
through with many sorrows," To say it refers to end
less misery is adding to the divine record. It is first as
suming the question in debate, and then accommodating
the language of scripture in support of such an assump
tion. In John xvii, 12, Judas is called the " son of per
dition." Did not he, by his love of money, pierce him
self through with many sorrows, and drown himself in
destruction and perdition? Bad as Judas was, it is not
said he went to hell, or even into Mr. S-'s future retri
bution. In 2 Thess. ii, 3, Paul calls the man of sin,
" The son of perdition." Any one who consults Whit-
jby on this chapter, may see evidence stated, which will
not be easily refuted, that the son of perdition referred
to the unbelieving Jews. Philip, i, 28; " and in nothing
terrified by your adversaries: Which is to them an evi
dent tpkeh of perdition," It could be easily shown,
that the adversaries of Christians in the apostles' day,
were the unbelieving Jews. Their persecutors filled
Up the measure of tiieir iniquity, and were an evident
token of the perdition or destruction, which came on
them as predicted, Matt, xxiv, compare 2 Thess. i, 5.
Again, Heb. <x, 39, it is said, " But we are not of them
who draw back unto perdition." On this text we would
fiotice that. Paul here wrote to believing Hebrews,
They were suffering persecution, verse 32—35,. Some
of them were drawing or had drawn back, verse 25.,
Addressing those who yet continued steadfast, he says,
we are not of them who draw back unto perdition.
What; perdjtion?. We should think this must bp the per*

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 77
dition or destruction coming on their nation, for this was
predicted by our Lord, Matt, xxiv, and was a thing gen
erally expected by all Christ's disciples. He that en
dured to the end was saved.
Let us now consult the context, and see if it does not
afford evidence in support of the views we have stated.
Upon the supposition that a day of judgement at the end
of this world is meant, it must follow, that the apostles .
expected it to take place during that generation. The
whole context goes to show this. They were looking
for it, and hastening to it, and Christians were earnestly
exhorted to be prepared for its arrival. See verses 11-18.
It was looked upon as so near, that the scoffers consid
ered God slack as to his promise concerning it. Peter
accounts for its delay on account of God's long-suffering.
See verse 9. It will not be questioned that the unbe
lieving Jews during that generation were ungodly, scof
fers, walking after their own lusts. Nor will it be deni
ed, that in view of the day of awful judgment coming on
them as a nation, Christ's disciples were exhorted to pa
tience and watchfulness. This day, both by our Lord
and Peter, is represented by the coming of a thief in the
night. See Matt, xxiv, 43, and compare verse 10 of the
Gontext of the passage under consideration. Are we
then, in support of the common opinion of a day of judg
ment, to admit that Peter and the first Christians were
all mistaken ? The fact proves that they were mistaken.
But if we admit this, does not this very admission inval
idate the whole of their testimony. Why not also mis
taken in all that they have written ? And who can answer
Gibbon and other infidel writers upon such a supposition?
But on the supposition that a day of judgment on the
Jews is referred to, all is plain and easy, the credit of
the apostles is supported, and is in unison with what our
Lord predicted. This was an event looked for by all
Christians during that period, and a suitable conduct was
expected from them in view of it. All this is plain from
the New Testament, but the common opinion of a day
of judgment is assumed, and this and other texts are
quoted "in proof of it, at the expense of the credit of
the New Testament writers, and in opposition to the
scope of the context, But if the common opinion of a
day of judgment, founded on this and the preceding,

78 mr. sabine's' proofs of a
texts be admitted, the ungodly are not to be punished un
til this period, as has already been shown. I am aware
that it may be objected, " Does not the language used
in the context show that Peter is speaking of a day of
judgment at the end of this material world? Does he not
speak of the heavens and the earth being reserved unto
fire against this day? And does he not describe the dis
solution of the present system in very awful and plain
language?" See verse vii, 10—13. In answer to this
let it be noticed. That this can occasion no real diffi
culty, to those who have considered, that the prophets
often describe in very similar language, the dissolution
of kingdoms, or great political and moral changes in the
earth. That they have described the removal of the
Jewish dispensation, in the very same or similar lan
guage could be easily shown if it were necessary. Those
^svho wish to see this proved may consult M'Knight on
Matt. 24th, and other commentators If it is contended
that the end of this material world is described in verses
7 — 12, it must also be admitted, that a new material
heavens and earth are promised, verse 13, to succeed their
dissolution. If the ope is to be understood literally, why
not also the other? But the new heavens and new earth,
are allowed to signify the establishment of the new dis
pensation, which is often called the kingdom of heaven
in scripture ; and in the language of the Old Testament,
new heavens and new earth. See Isa. lxv, 17 — 20 and
Ixvi, 22.
1 John iv, 17, is the only other text in which the ex
pression " the day of judgment" occurs. "Herein is
our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the
day of judgment : (en te hemera tes kriseos .•) because
as he is, so are we in this world." This is the only text
where this phrase is used with the article the. It can
occasion no serious difficulty to my views of this phrase,
for if the day of God's judgment on the Jews was a thing
expected during that generation, and no doubt was a sub
ject familiar among Christians, it was natural to speak
of it as the day of judgment. At the time John wrotey
this day was near, and they are exhorted to watchfulness,
that they might have boldness and not be ashamed before
him at his coming. Compare chap, ii, 28 ; Matt, xxviii,
24-51.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 79
Such are all the places in the Bible, where the phrase,
" the day of judgment," occurs. In concluding our re-
marks, we would ask, if this phrase referred to a judg
ment day at the end of time for all mankind, is it not
rather surprising that the Old Testament writers should
say nothing about it ? Is it not equally strange, that the
New Testament writers, when they do use it, are not
treating of the end oi this world, but of the day of ven
geance which came on the Jewish nation. I ask further,
if the sacred writers believed just as people do now about
this, how came it to pass that they preached so httle about
it, compared with preachers in our day ?. The book of the
Acts contains the history of the apostles' preaching for
thirty years, and chap, x, 42, xxiv, 25, and xvii, 31, are
the chief, if not all the texts which would be quoted, that
they preached this doctrine. The last of these Mr. S-
quotes, p. 54, in proof of his future retribution- We
have made some remarks on it in the Universalist Mag
azine, vol. 5, but our limits forbid their insertion!, as well
as a consideration of these and other passages which are
supposed to prove this subject. I ask again, why preach
ers now speak of the day of judgment in connexion with
the resurreetion of all the dead and the end of this world,
when it appears that this was not, done by the inspired
writers ? In short, if the day of judgment referred to the
judgment of all mankind at the end of time, let it be ra-.
tionally and scripturally accounted.for, why it is seeming
ly introduced when they are speaking of God's awful
judgments on the Jewish nation.
It will be readily perceived, that if my views of " the
day of judgment" are correct, they deeply affect Mr. S.'s
whole scheme of future retribution. Should he deem it
expedient to reply, let him show wherein I have misinter
preted the passages, and I pledge myself to stand correct
ed by him, or offer some defence of what has been ad
vanced. - I might here put an end to my reply, until I
see how he supports this foundation of his whole scheme.
If he or his orthodox friends, lets this corner stone go,
the whole superstructure must fall of course. He thought
it the most tenable and safe ground, to advocate a future
retribution, and not endless misery in answering my book.
Whether he will abide by this ground, return to the old

80 mr. sabine's proofs of a
orthodox ground, or shift to one different from both, must
be left for time to unfold. Whatever course he pursues,
it is hoped he will avoid altering this book which he may
think saps the foundation of his future retribution, as the
" Inquiry" did that of endless misery. Let him not say
I defy the armies of the living God. No, I defy no
man, but only wish, calmly and candidly to examine
what is the truth of God on the questions at issue, which
are of great importance to us all.
We shall now return to Mr. S.'s discourses. On p.
49, he recurs to Rev. xx, 12. But is Mr. S. certain
that a passage from the highly figurative book of Rev
elation will prove his point, When he may see that the
plain passages he quotes are not to his purpose. But
let him go to work and show us, that this passage, and
why not also all the book? is to be understood literally,
before we receive his doctrine. But even literally unr
derstood, it does not support it. Yea, what text has Mr.
S. produced which proves this assertion of his in p. 51 ?
" God will send away the wicked into a state of punish
ment in the future and unseen world." Let him show
how his texts bear on this point. On p. 50 he partially
quotes Heb. x, 30, and Rev. xxii, 12, but without a sin
gle remark. But these texts say not a word about a fu
ture world or punishment in it, and I cannot afford to fill
my pages in reply to texts, which he deems unworthy of
remark to show how they apply to his subject. But on
p. 51, Mr. S. brings up again his old alteration of my
book, that " there is no future punishment." And adds,
" This then is the sentiment we are to meet in conclud
ing this lecture." This he does in three particulars.
But as they are all built on his own false statement they
deserve no attention from me. But lest he should think
his three remarks, extending to twice as many pages,
neglected, I shall give them a little attention.
In the first, Mr. S. thinks that I am " exceedingly
mistaken" about the doctrine of future retribution : And
that I speak very " incorrectly and loosly," because I
say " hell torments," and did not use his language " future
punishment," &c. What] has the phrases, "eternal
hell, endless misery in hell, or endless punishment in-
fire and brimstone," beeome grating to Mr. S.'s ears ?*

F,UTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 81
Why then could he not have let my book be answered
by some of his orthodox friends, in whose ears these are
pleasent sounds. But has he forgot, that he admitted,
that "the avowed object of my book was to sap the
foundation of endless misery." If he was a httle fear
ful, to answer the avowed object of my book, was it like
a noble minded man to alter it? 2d. He thinks I am
"exceedingly mistaken," about a future retribution not
tending to promote holiness. Mr. S. should recollect,
that the phrase "future retribution," does not occur in
my book, nor even in the Bible. It was never denied
by me, that "the inspired ministers of religion," preach
ed punishment to deter men from sin. What I have
denied, and still continue to deny, is, that they preached
endless hell torments to deter them from, it. Can he
prove that they did? If he could, why alter my book?
If he can establish a future temporary punishment, let it
be done honestly and fairly. All his attempts to prove
it from God's threatening to Adam, the preaching of
Enoch, Noah, Moses, &c. which he again introduces,
pp. 55, 56, prove abortive. But here he introduces a
new preacher of it, for he tells us, " Jonah preached to
the Gentiles, but he preached retribution: yet forty days
and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Stay thy hand
friend Sabine with your proofs of a future retribution,
for surely this is too much for credulity herself to be
lieve. Was Nineveh to be overthrown within forty
days in a future state?" And was Jonah displeased ex
ceedingly, yea very angry, that God did not do this?
Compare Jonah iv, 1, with iii, 10. Mr. S. in his third
remark, adverts to the evil tendency of my views: But
they happen to be his own false representations of them.
Let Mr. S. quote the page of my book, showing, that
my " scheme is a sanctuary for the man that dies in the
very act of murder *" and, that it makes "no moral dif
ference," between the very worst and best of men.
We demand qf him to give the public my words, or re
tract such gross misrepresentations. But what else
could be expected from him, who drew the seven infer
ences already noticed in his first discourse. In con
ducting this third discourse, Mr. S. says, " I would sol
emnly call upon hijn to re-examine bis progress, for infi
ll

82 mr. sabine's proofs of a
dels of every grade will lay claim to him, and free think
ers, and free livers too, will lay hold by his skirts, and
he will not be able to shake them off." In concluding
our remarks on it we return him the quotation with a
slight variation of the language. " I would solemly call
on him to re-examine the whole of his orthodox creed,
for infidels of every grade have been made infidels by it,
and free thinkers, and free livers too, have laid hold of
its skirts to justify their conduct, and all the orthodox
body have not been able to shake them off."
LECTURE IV
Mr. Sabine entitles this discourse, " Rewards and
punishments in a future state, proved from the direct tes
timony of scripture." We may surely ask, from what
has he been proving this in his three preceding discourse
es? It seems that he is conscious, his former proofs have
not been very dkect. Well, we are now to have his di
rect proofs, and no doubt his strong reasons. Let us
see what they are. His text is Prov. xiv, 32, " The
wicked is driven away in his wickedness ; but the right
eous hath hope in his death;" and Luke xvi, 22, 23,
" And it came to pass that the begger died, and was car
ried by the angels into Abraham's bosom : the rich man
also died, and was buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes,
being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Laz
arus in his bosom." After spending three pages to in
form us, that all we know of a future state must be from
divine revelation, he comes to this result, p. 60, " Thus
have we made our way to the subject of this lecture, re
wards and punishments in a future state, as revealed
in the holy scriptures : it is a subject beyond the reach
of human speculation." Agreed. The simple, and en
tire question then is, what does divine revelation teach
concerning it ? The use Mr. S. makes of his text is,
" the wicked is driven away in his wickedness," and this
is, " to scenes of misery," " In hell he lifted up his eyes
being in torments." See pp. 60, 61. Notice here, 1st,
That he takes for granted the question in debate, that
these texts teach a future punishment in Hades . He ought
first to have proved, that Hades is a place or state of

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 83
misery, as something considerable was said in the " In
quiry," showing that it is not. Reasons were offered
for our opinions, which Mr. S. does not attempt to re
fute. He seems to intimate, p. 59, that reason has no
further office but to examine the evidence for divine rev
elation. But we are surely bound to exercise it also in
ascertaining what is the true sense of that revelation.
Does Mr. S. receive every sense put on parts of scrip
ture ? If he does, why did he not receive mine ? Does
he receive the Catholic interpretation of the words, "this
is my body ?" If not, the question then betwixt us is,
What is the true sense of the scriptures on the subject
we are discussing ? But he says, or insinuates, that I
refuse to believe some parts of revelation. Because I
do not believe Mr. S.'s views and those of the, orthodox
about hell, I must be branded for infidelity. And why
have not I as good right to say he denies divine revela
tion, because he does not believe mine? But this is far
from my heart ; I would only amicably discuss with him,
what is the true sense of any given text which is adduced
as proof of the questions at issue. 2d. He connects two
texts, one from the Old, and the other from the New
Testament, to make out his system, which is, to say the
least, a very objectionable association of scripture. If
he allows me the same liberty of associations, I can
prove, that he ought to practice many evil things, which
I forbear naming. But Mr. S. on his own authority,
tells us, that the wicked, when driven away in his. wick
edness, is driven to Hades, as a place of misery. Job
says, chap, xviii, 18, that the wicked " shall be driven
from light into darkness, and chased out of the world ;"
but he does not venture to say as Mr. S. does, that he is
driven "to scenes of misery." No doubt he knows bet
ter than Job, or any other inspired writer, about this.
But it is not said that this man was wicked, according to
his own account of him. Nor is a hint given us, that he
was driven away. It is said he died ; but not a syllable
is uttered indicating force on the one hand or reluctance
on the other. Had Mr. S. preached his funeral sermon,
perhaps he would have sent him to Abraham's bosom.
On page 61, Mr. S. commences his remarks on Sheol,
Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna. After some remarks, in

84 MR- sabinb's proofs oh? a
accordance with my views, he gives us the following re*
suit in unison with them as to Sheol and Hades. " We.
see from hence, that the more literal meaning of Sheol is
pretty well preserved in the three English renderings, pit ,
grave and hell, a place in which the dead are buried, and
so concealed or put out of our sight ; as Abraham said
to the sons of Heth, demanding a burying place among
them, 'That I may bury my dead out of my sight.'
Hades, as we have seen, is the common Greek term for
expressing what is conveyed by Sheol, and is so used in
the Septuagint, the translation of the Hebrew scrip
tures into Greek by the Seventy." Here Mr. S. ad
mits " Sheol " to be a place in which the dead are buri^
ed, and that this is its more literal meaning- He allows
also, that " Hades is the common Greek term for ex
pressing what is conveyed by Sheol." Well said ; but
let us now see how he proceeds in his remarks, pp. 61, 62.
1st. He agrees with me about Sheol and Hades, render-:
ed pit, grave and hell in the common version. " Hades is
a very good rendering into Greek of the term Sheol in
the Hebrew. Pit, grave, and hell, in English, also
generally express what is intended by Sheol and Hades.'?
By pit and graye, " the invisible state of the dead has
been intended.'' But hell, he says, " has proved to be a
more unfortunate term." Why more unfortunate? Be
cause, says he, it "has been chosen as a word by which
to represent a future state of misery." Here Mr. S.
perfectly agrees with me, that hell has changed its origi
nal signification. But at what period, or, whether gradu-r
ally, or all at once it came to have such a meaning, he
affords no more light than I did on this subject. But he
quotes my very words, to show that he agrees with me,
and then refers to several places in the Geneva Bible in
confirmation of the correctness of our mutual opinions,
He concludes by saying, " It appears to me that in the
time of this translation, hell, pit and grave were synony
mous, and alike considered as representing the invisible
state, without qne being more indicative of misery than
the other." We thank Mr. S. kindly for this conces
sion. It not only confirms what I have stated on this
subject, but is at total variance with the views he wishes
to ..establish. But, 2d, There are some things in the two

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 85
pages referred to which we are at some loss clearly to
understand. Mr. S, says, Sheol signifies " the invisible
future world." But of this he gives us no proof,- but
on the contrary, his statements are at variance with his
assertion, as is easily seen from those pages. I want
some explanation to know what he means by "Sheol
through the Greek Hades, passes into English as pit,
grave, hell." I em still more at a loss to understand
what he means when he says, " But there is no more
punishment and misery in translating Hades into hell
than into pit or grave." He surely did not mean to
inform us, that_ in the mere act of translation, the trans
lator felt no more punishment in the one case than he did
in the other. From the connexion it should seem, that
he means, that the word hell did not signify in their use
of it, a place of misery in a future state, any !more than
Jhe words pit and grave, "for hell simply signifies the
concealed state as do the other terms." This is confirm
ed from the next sentence, for which we thank our friend
Mr. S. once more. He says, "And it appears to me also,
that our translators had no more idea of conveying a sense
of punishment, or misery, in the term hell, than they had
in the other terms." This is a bold stroke. It is a per
fect libel on the whole orthodox body, who have so gross
ly misunderstood, and as grossly misrepresented the lan
guage of our worthy translators. If they did not mean
to convey the idea of punishment or misery by the term
hell in our English version, how comes it to pass, that
the orthodox have been putting such a sense on this word
in their preaching, and quotations from it? Has Mr. S.
never preached from it, and quoted it, putting the sense
of punishment or misery on the word hell? Yet with the
highest pretensions to orthodoxy, without a blush or an
apology to the public, he comes forward and tells us,
"And it appears to me also, that our translators had no
more idea of conveying a sense of punishment, or misery,
in the term hell, than they had in the other terms."
Very well. According to Mr. S. neither the term hell,
nor any of the other terms, conveyed a sense of " punish
ment or misery," nor was it the intention of our transla
tors by these words, to convey any such idea. Why
then does 'Mr. S. quote any of such passages to prove
his future punishment?

86 MR. sabine's proofs of a
But Mr. S- proceeds to say-, "2. Remark upon these
terms in the original and translation. Sheol in the He
brew, Hades in the Greek, and pit, grave, or hell in the
English, do not describe to us any place or the circum
stances of any location whatever. Sheol, rendered as it
may be, asserts , and reveals to us the future, invisible,
spiritual state ; for, first, it cannot mean that place we
call the graye literally, that place in which the human
body is laid to corrupt and consume away. Sheol is not
used for this purpose, another word is used." Strange !
beyond measure strange ! ! Has Mr. S. forgot so soon
that he said, p. 61, "The more literal meaning of Sheol
is pretty well preserved in the three English renderings,
pit, grave and hell, a place in which the dead are buried,
and so concealed or put out of our sight." But now he
point blank denies that it does mean the grave. But he
says further, that. Sheol, Hades, pit, grave or hell, " do
not describe to us any place or the circumstances of any
location whatever." But this is only Mr. S.'s mere as
sertion, and is at variance with the language used in
speaking of Sheol and Hades, as any one may see from
that part of the Inquiry where such, words are consider
ed. I shall give an example or two. WThen we read of
persons going down to Sheol, of the deeps of Sheol, of
the lowest Sheol, and of Sheol beneath ;/does such lan
guage describe to us " no place or the circumstances of
any location whatever ?" Pray what language can, if
this does not ? What is Mr. S.'s mere assertions good
for when confronted with this scripture language. But
he says, Sheol "reveals to us the future, invisible, spir
itual state." Mr. S. offers us some proof here which
we shall examine. It is this ; 1st, When the " sepulchre,
tomb, or burying place for the body is intended, the He
brew word is Keber, which is never translated Hades."
But how does it follow from this that therefore Sheol is
the invisible spiritual state ? What connexion is there
between the premises and the conclusion. But does he
not know, that Sheol is the ' general term, by which the
scriptures speak of the universal recepticle of all the
dead, good or bad ; " The house appointed for all the liv
ing," and concerning which it is said, " All go to one
place." The Kebers, or graves were many, and far

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 87
separated from each other, yea many died and had no
Keber assigned them : Yet all these dead when spoken
of collectively, are never represented as in one Keber,
or sepulchre, but are spoken of as in one place, and that
is Sheol. But is this Sheol or recepticle of all the dead,
ever spoken of as Mr. S. does, as a spiritual state. We
thought we had said enough on the texts which speak of
Sheol and Hades, to show, that it is spoken of as a state
of ignorance, and insensibility, except where figurative
discriptions are given of it. Even the best of men de
clare, that there is no remembrance of God in Sheol, and
that none there give God thanks. A strange spiritual
state indeed for a good man to be in, and enough to put
down Mr. S.'s assertion for ever ? Had he attended to
these things, he never would have given us^ his criticism
about Keber, nor Taphos, or Mnema, nor told us,
"neither is Hades ever compounded with funeral rites.
Nor would he have referred us to Acts ii, 27, 29, in
proof of his view. Mr. S. will allow, that in the words,
" Thou wilt not leave my soul in Sheol, Hades, or Hell,
the grave, or common recepticle of all the dead is meant,
or the concealed place." But the individual sepukhre of
David was as certainly meant, when Peter says, " His
sepulchre is with us to this day." His tomb was visi
ble before their eyes, but was David's body visible ? We
thought that he had told us himself above, that Abraham
and others buried their dead that they might be out of
their sight. Had Mr. S. only attended to his own de
claration, page 64, that, " Sheol or Hades is the common
recepticle of the departed, without any regard to the
places where their bodies are buried," he would not have
written as he has done, nor have added in the same page,
that " Sheol is in the singular number."
But Mr. S. adds, " 3. We are now brought to a dis
tinct idea upon the state and character of the future
world, as expressed by Sheol, Hades, pit, grave, or hell.
It is evidently a spiritual state, a state and condition suit
ed to man as disembodied, and separate from this visible,
material world. It is spiritual, in opposition to mate
rial, and state in opposition to place. It is not material
or natural, for, the tomb, the sepulchre receives the ma
terial or natural man, but Hades, the spiritual man."

88 mr. sabine's proofs of a
But as this, and all he says under this particular, is mere
assertion, yea, contrary to what has been even allowed
by himself, it deserves no notice from me. When he
gives us any thing like argument, I shall meet him with
argument, but point blank assertions deserve no reply.
But Mr. S says, p. 65, " 4th Article. The knowledge
at which we are arrived on the subject of the future state,
whether it be by means of such terms as Sheol, Hades,
Keber, Hell, or grave, sepulchre, or tomb, the source
of this knowledge is Revelation, a distinct communica
tion from the Divine Spirit — the King eternal, immortal,
invisible. Without a divine revelation on this subject
we could have known nothing. The very terms used
report our ignorance, Hades ! the concealed, invisible,
unknown state." Mr. S. ought not to call this an " un
known state," for he says that it is a state of punish
ment or misery. He seems to know all about it, and
pretends to derive his knowledge too from the Bible.
How then can it be an unknown state ? But Mr. S.
page 66, says, " The scriptures challenge man upon his
ignorance in this case, Job xxxviii, l7." Had God
challenged him, " Have the gates of death been opened
to thee ? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of
death ?" he could have answered yes, I know it to be a
place of punishment or misery. But he says, "2d, Ja
cob knew that the departed lived in another world ; I
will go down to the grave to my son, meaning Joseph, '
whom he supposed to be dead." Yes, but did he say he
would go down to a place or state of punishment or mis-
try ? or did he even say, that Joseph and he would be
alive there ? he only says, he would go down to Sheol,
the place where there is no devise, wisdom, or knowl
edge, nor even remembrance of God, nor giving him
thanks. This is an unfortunate quotation, nor is the ref
erence to Job any better. Job says he knew that his
Redeemer lived, and that he would, after worms had de
stroyed this body, yet in his flesh see God. But does
he say a word about Mr. S.'s state of punishment in an
other world ? It was not until this corruptible had put
on incorruption that he even hoped to see God- But
Mr. S. page 66, adds, " Third, What is revealed,. of
the unseen, future world, Sheol or Hades, is a develop-

future retribution considered. 89
ment of man's moral character and condition. The first
member of our text, ' The wicked is driven away in his
wickedness;' Where to? 'The wicked shall be turned
into hell,' into Hades, ' with all that forget God.' " The
simple question between us is, What is revealed ? Let
our readers judge if Mr. S. has proved that " Sheol or
Hades is a development of man's moral character and
condition." If assertions are proof, we have had more,
than enough of them. But it is with what God, not Mr.
S. reveals to us, we are concerned. But he again re
curs to his text for proof ; " The wicked is driven away
in his wickedness ! Where to? ' The wicked shall be
turned into hell,' into Hades, 'with all that forget God."
But has Mr. S. proved that Hades or Sheol is a place of
misery? That it is not, we have sufficiently proved above,
but have refuted it at length in the Inquiry. This evi
dence Mr. S. does not attempt to refute. But he pro
ceeds to review my sentiments and compare them. He
says, p. 68, " We can but observe here, as in former
branches of investigation, that Mr. B. is asserting one
thing, and proving another. His assertion is, and his
book was written to make good the assertion, No future
punishment. But his arguments, his proofs, and his
illustrations are for No eternal punishment." I must
be a strange writer indeed, according to this aceount. I
wrote a book expressly to show there was no future
punishment, and yet I made all my arguments, proofst
and illustrations, to bear against endless punishment.
Well, it seems at last my book contains some arguments,
and proofs, and illustrations ; and Mr. S. owns frankly,
that they all bear against endless punishment. This
was just what I intended them, and it affords me pleas
ure to find, that he confesses that this was my object in
writing. He has hitherto represented me as professing
to prove, no endless misery, but actually proving no fu
ture punishment. Now he reverses the case. The
supposed inconsistency in my book, which has given him
so much trouble as he says it has, and involves him in
such inconsistencies, is entirely of his own creating, even,
by his own confession.
On page 71 Mr. S. says, " I assert it without the
least fear of contradiction, that what the heathen knew
12

90 mr, sabine's proofs of a
of a future state, they received directly,_ or indirectly
from divine revelation, the same source originally as did
the Jews." The fact was originally from this source,
but what Mr. S. had got to prove is, that the heathen
derived the knowledge of punishment in this future
state from revelation and was not an addition of their
own. I have offered some proof in the Inquiry that it
was their own addition, which Mr. S. as usual makes no
attempt to refute nor even state to his readers. We have
seen above what he says of Tartarus and also his con
cessions about Sheol and Hades. He allows, " The
heathen had very imperfect ideas on this subject, and
many were their inventions and additions, but the idea
simply was from a divine source." If it was not their
own invention, but from a divine source, let Mr. S. show
us this divine source, for all he has advanced does not
prove his point, as we think has been shown. I have as
serted and given proof of it, that the heathen added the
idea of punishment to the word Hades, for no such idea
was attached to the corresponding word Sheol, in the
Old Testament. But says Mr. S. " Of this asserted fact
Mr. B. gives us no proof; neither is there any evidence
before the world, that the heathen of any nation, invent
ed the doctrine of a future retribution in rewards and
punishments." But in the ' Inquiry' I have adduced
evidence, and the very same kind of evidence, that he
would adduce, that purgatory is a human invention. Yea,
1 question if he could produce from Catholic and other
writers, evidence equally good, against it, as I have done
from orthodox writers. I presume a Catholic would not
be at much loss, to produce as plausible proofs of his
purgatory from the Bible, as Mr. S. has produced from
it for his future retribution. We question, if ever any
of them were more unfortunate in quotations, than Mr.
S. is in the following. He says p. 72, " Isaiah xiv, in
the strongest language, sets before us the condition of
men in the future world; in Hades too. ' The dead are
stirred up; even all the chief ones of the earth; all the
kings of the nations are raised up from their thrones.'
There is an exhibition of the living, not of the dead
corpses." Please turn to p. 50 of the Inquiry and read
it, and then say, if Mr.. S. would not have better said

*
FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 91
nothing about this text. Yet he tells us that it, " in the
strongest language sets before us the condition of men
tn the future world." But it says not a .word about
punishment or misery in a future state. Before I say-
any thing more on this text, I should like to know if
Mr. S.'-was serious in urging it in proof of his doctrine.
I am very sure every intelligent orthodox person, will
feel mortified, that he should have exposed their cause
by adducing it. Isa. xivth would never have been quot
ed by him, had he found Sheol used, " almost always in
relation to the state and condition of departed spirits."
If he did, he is very injudicious in making his selection
of proofs.
In pp. 73—76, Mr. S. leads us on to Apocryphal
ground. He says, 1st, That those writers " Never con
tend for the doctrine of future retribution, the doctrine
is taken for granted, as a doctrine of divine revelation
found in the law and the prophets." This is a bold as
sertion. How then does Mr, S- know but all the other
silly stories of those writers, which they also take for
granted as true, are not doctrines of divine revelation.
One should think his own observation would teach him,
that people are more ready to receive and take for grant
ed human inventions in religion than doctrines sanction
ed by divine authority. 2d. Mr. S. again introduces
the Apochryphal book «of Enoch. He says the lan
guage of this book, is in resemblance to Deut. xxxii,
22; and Isai. xxxiii, 14, which passages we have shown
in the Inquiry, have no reference to future punishment.
The question is not, did those Apocryphal writers" be
lieve in future punishment themselves, but the question
is, whence did they derive their information about this?
Not from the Old Testament scriptures, for it is allowed
by the ablest writers, that this doctrine is not taught
there. All the proofs Mr. S. has been able to bring
from it, only tend to show the correctness of their state
ments. Should he say, that the Seventy, in rendering
Sheol, used the word Hades, which conveyed the idea
of punishment in a future state, and that this proved that
Sheol had also the same idea attached to it by the Old
Testament writers, we must say this is a great mistake,
and one Very easily detected. We have only to ask, were

92 mr. sabine's proofs of a
the seventy translators inspired men? If not, their, use
of the word Hades in rendering Sheol, no more proves
this, than that the word Hell expresses the same as She
ol when used by our translators. Neither of these trans
lators were inspired men, and their use of Hades and
Hell in rendering Sheol, is no proof that it conveyed
the idea of a state of rewards and punishments in a fu
ture state. We have shown, that the general usage of
Sheol, yea a variety of palpable facts are opposed to this
view of the subject. The Seventy, and our translators
also, in rendering Sheol, chose the words, which came
nearest to express their own ideas, and perhaps the best
they could find as a translation of Sheol. We are per
fectly aware, that it may be objected; " Did not the
inspired writers of the New Testament write in Greek,
and did not they use the "term Hades? If it conveyed
the idea of future rewards and punishments, why did
they use it, if they did not mean that we should believe
this doctrine?" The answer to this objection will show,
that this very circumstance is ruinous to Mr. S.'s whole
theory, and confirms all I have said on the subject.
Well, the New Testament writers wrote in Greek, and
used the term Hades, but I ask, do they speak of Ha
des as a state of rewards and punishments? Let any
one consult all the texts in which they use it, and he will
see, that the reverse of this is the case. They speak of
it, as the Old Testament writers do of Sheol, but never
represent it as a place of future punishment- The par
able of the rich man and Lazarus is the only place which
can be supposed as an exception to this, has been consid
ered in the Inquiry, and will presently be again intror
duced. It is not the mere use of the word Hades, but
how it is spoken of in the texts where they use it, can
determine whether they believed it to be a place of fu
ture misery for the wicked. Had the apostles believed
that our Lord taught, this in the parable, or were believ
ers of such a doctrine, I submit the case to Mr- Sabine
himself to say, why they have all been entirely silent on
such a subject. Let any candid man say, if this looks
like the New Testament writers using Hades to express
a state of rewards and punishments. It is of no conse
quence jn determining this question, what the'Apocry^

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 93
phal writers say, the book of Enoch not excepted ; our
only inquiry is, What saith the scriptures? 3d- But in
confirmation of his views, Mr. S. refers to the two sects
which arose among the Jews, the Pharisees and Saddu-
cees. Among the latter, I have the honour to be plac
ed, for my book, he says, is calculated to bring Saddu-
ceeism into credit. For such civilities I make my bow,
and would notice what he says of the other sect, in con
trast with them. Page 75, he thus writes, " The Phari
sees, whatever might have been their superstition, and
however they might have neutralized much of the divine
testimony by vain traditions, were, notwithstanding, be
lievers in the great essentials of the Jewish faith. But
almost all of these essentials the Sadducees denied.
When our Saviour opened his ministry and asserted the
doctrines of Moses and the Prophets, the Pharisees
were reproved for their superstition, but applauded for
their faith." In this he is entirely mistaken, for our
Lord declares them to be unbelievers, " Had ye believed
Moses, ye wrould have believed me : for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe
my words?" John v, 46, 47. If their faith had been
right, how came their practice to be so bad? for a right
faith is the foundation of good practice. Their supersti
tious faith, begot a superstitious course of life, as it al
ways has, and always will do. They had made void
God's law, both as to faith and practice, and were reprov
ed by him for both. These men, " belivers in the great
essentials of the Jewish faith! " Was there ever a more
unscriptural assertion? for Christ, to whom their scriptures
bore witness, and the end of their whole law for right
eousness, they rejected, and went about to establish their
own righteousness. But, Mr. S. makes the Sadducees
as bad as he well can, for he intended to class me with
them, and the Pharisees must be made as good as pos
sible, for he claims kindred with them on the subject be
fore us. I think our friend, in his cool moments, will
see, that in the heat of his zeal he has here carried things
a little too far. But, if I must be classed with one or
the other of these Sects, I think friend Sabine has class
ed me with the best of the two. Against which of these
two sects did our Lord direct most of his discourses?

94 MR. SABINE'S proofs *of a
Against which did be pronounce so many woes, and to
whom did he say, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers,
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" &c.
We now come to New Testament ground, and would
just notice, that the first step on it, Mr. S. asserts with
out a particle of proof, that, " The doctrine of a future
retribution is preached by John Baptist." This is rath
er a poor beginning. He then proceeds from p. 76, to
the end of this discourse, to prove his doctrine from the
parable of the rich man and Lazarus. As Mr. S. pre
scribes me my task here, I shall attend to it. It is this,
as stated p. 83, " We insist upon our author's proving
this to be a parable." Seeing Mr. S. insists upon my
proving it to be a parable, I shall gird myself to the
task assigned me. And,
1st, We offer Mr. S. all the proofs we have adduced
in the Inquiry, that it is not a literal account of facts,
but a parable. These he takes no notice of, nor at
tempts to refute. Nor is it of much consequence for me
to adduce any more, for he may just do the same with a
thousand more were they adduced. But we shall give
him a few more proofs in addition to those in the, Inqui
ry, that this is a parable.
2d. The account of the rich man and Lazarus, is
considered a parable by orthodox people generally, if not
universally. What higher orthodox authority can I find,
than Mr. S. himself. He says, in the very same dis
course, p. 77, " The parable of the rich man and Laza
rus, is furnished with imagery from both worlds, the vis
ible and invisible." &,c. In short, he goes on as any one
may see from p. 76—83, to consider it a parable. I am
well aware, that p. 83, he says, " And here also we re-
cal all our grants heretofore made allowing this to be a
parable." But why go on through six or seven pages
to consider it a parable, and then recal all such grants?
Why not dash out these pages ? Why go away from or
thodox ground, and insist on its being a literal account
of facts? There must be some reasons for all this, and
although Mr. S. does not state them, we may be allowed
to guess at them. We guess then, that he thought it
rather slender ground to rest his doctrine on a mere par
able, and the only text in the New Testament*, too, in

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 95
which any thing is said about punishment in Hades. He
deemed it safest, to turn right round, and advocate its
being a literal account. We shall presently take him
upon his own ground, for now he has deprived himself of
its being a parable. He must now abide by his literal
account, and we fear he has gone from home as to a de
fence of his doctrine. It is needless for me, to quote
any other orthodox authority, proving it to be a parable,
for he allows, that " almost every one besides" himself
has admitted it to be a parable. Now he is determined
to think for himself, for as to Campbell, Doddridge,
Chapman, and every other commentator or writer, yea,
every being in the universe except Jesus Christ, he cares
not a straw what they may say to the contrary of his lit
eral account. Very well said, if he would only refute
the reasons which such men offer us, that it is only a par
able, and give us good reasons for his literal account.
We earnestly wish he would imitate these men also, in
giving us reasons instead of bold sweeping assertions, and
in their candour and modesty in stating their sentiments.
3d. To show Mr. S. that this is a parable I quote the
following from Whitby. It contains not only some rea
sons showing it to be a parable which he will find some
difficulty in answering, but it informs him of the source
whence our Lord borrowed the parable. On Luke xvi,
he thus writes, " That this is only a parable, and not a
real history of what was actually done, is evident, 1.
Because we find this very parable in the Gemara Bab-
ylonicum, whence it is cited by Mr. Sheringham, in
the preface to his Joma. 2. From the4 circumstances
of it, viz. the rich man's lifting up his eyes in hell, and
seeing Lazarus in Abraham' s bosom, his discourse with
Abraham, his complaint of being tormented with flames,
and his desire that Lazarus might be sent to cool his
tongue; and if all this be confessedly parable, why
should the rest, which is the very parable in the Gema
ra, be accounted history? As for the judgment of an
tiquity in this case, they who owned this as an history,
owned the whole so to be, thinking the soul to be cor
poreal, as Tertullian did, and that there was some dis
cretion, or resemblance of men as to their shapes after
death; which was the sentiment of Ireneus, proving from

96 MR- sabine's proofs of a
this very instance, that souls, when they have putofftli#
body, do yet preserve the shape or character of the
body to which they were united; as Tertullian before
from the same instance had inferred, the shape and cor
poreal lineaments, and also Thespesias returning to life
represents the colours of souls, and saith that there be
ulcers and scars of their passions left upon them by
which they are discerned. Whereas they who renounc
ed these opinions as false and ridiculous, declared that
this was not an history, but only a representation; that
after the separation of the soul from the body, she could
receive no advantage from any man, and that it was
foolish to think it an history; and this they also gather,
because there was to be no future retribution before the
general resurrection. And whereas against this it is ob
jected, That the proper name Lazarus shows it to be
an history; it is answered, That the name Lazer, being
only the contraction of Eliezer, is the same with Ani
Achad, a poor man in the Gemara, as being in sense
one that hath no help, or one who hath God only for
his help. 2d. That though this parable contains some
thing suitable to the opinions of the Jews touching the
state of souls after death, yet doth it not respect their
state immediately after death, but the punishments that
wicked men are to suffer after the resurrection of the
dead, at the last day, saith Theophylact. For as Cicero
says of the fables by which the poets represent the pun
ishment of evil souls, that though they know their bodies
have been burnt, yet they do represent them suffering
such things in the infernal regions, which neither can
be done nor suffered, or even understood to be so with
out bodies: so is it plainly here in the forementioned in
stances produced to prove this a parable."
4th. But Mr. S. says, " Many of our Lords discours
es are introduced as parables, thus, ' he put forth a par
able' ' and he spoke a parable unto them," &c. and adds,
"not a word in holy writ about this being a parable."
Mr. S. is rather positive about this. But this very ac
count of the rich man, is introduced in the very same
way as other discourses of our Lord's, where all, yea, Mr.
S. himself will allow are parables, though not formally
called so. How then js it introduced? It is introduced

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 97
thus, "There was a certain rich man," Let Mr. g.
then turn to Matt, xviii, 23, where it is said " The king
dom of heaven is likened unto a certain king." See also
xxii, 2. Are not these allowed to be parables, and is
not this passage introduced in the same way ?
Having said enough we think to prove that this is a
parable, we shall for argument's sake admit it to be a lit
eral account. What then follows on Mr. S.'s views of
this passage? The following among other things follow.
Abraham and Lazarus have their comfort in Hades, the
same place where the rich man has his torments. They
were so near, as to see, hear, and converse with each
other. But we suppose Mr. S. teaches his children and
his congregation, that to heaven, not hades, the righte
ous go at death. Does he believe that heaven is in ha
des, or hades in heaven, or, that they are so near each
other as to admit conversations, &c. between the inhab
itants of both places. Has he forgot the scripture con
trast between them, " It is high as heaven, and deeper
than hades?" &.c. Besides, has he not told us, that
Hades, the place of future punishment, is a spiritual state
for the disembodied spirit? Yet here, the rich man, has
all his bodily members. For example, "he lifted up
his eyes being in torments." Yes, but says Mr. S.
" not the eyes of his pampered carcass." Then it seems
he lifted up the eyes of his disembodied spirit or soul.
The immaterial spirit then has eyes.., It has also a
tongue in this spiritual state, and it can ask for a drop of
water to cool its tongue in the torment of material fire.
It can ask Abraham to send Lazarus with it, and it can
hold a conversation with Abraham, notwithstanding all its
torment. Such are a specimen of the incongruities, and
absurdities which Mr. S.'s literal account involves. Mr.
S. charges me with materialism, but we think it may
justly be said, " Physician heal thyself." This is not
only materializing the spirit, but the very spiritual
state for which he contends, and indeed every thing con
nected with it.
But we must be indulged in a few remarks, showing
Mr. S.'s misrepresentations of this rich man. He calls
him, pp. 77, 78, "A sensual sinner, a mere man of this
world, driven away in his wickedness:" And finds, when
13

98 mr. sabine's proofs of a
"too late, the sad consequences of his infidelity and sen
suality." In p. 99, " A rich man well clothed and well
fed, and so rich that he forgot not only his own original,
but all the poor he had left behind." Mr. S. on the
same page, adds, " Nothing is said as to the morals of
these two men, the rich man and the beggar ; their charac
ters respectively seem to be moddled upon their outward
condition ; the rich man is sensual, self-important, proud,
neglectful of the lowly ; the other is submissive, suppli
ant, content, humble." On these and other similar state
ments made, I remark, 1st, That this rich man whom
Mr. S. sends to hell to be tormented, is not represented
as to his character worse than that of rich Christians in
our day. Are not they well clothed and well fed? And
are none of them self-important, proud, and neglectful of
the lowly? This rich man " was clothed in purpel and fine
linen, and fared sumptuously every day." Now do not
rich Christians just do the same? He lived in style, and
enjoyed his riches, and so do they. It is not said he kill
ed himself by his excesses, or that he lived thus on other
people's property, or even that his riches were obtained
by fraud and injustice. But can even as much as this
be said of many of Mr. S.'s good Christians, whom at
death he sends to Abraham's bosom? We allow Mr.
S.. perhaps does not enjoy such good fare every day, but
We doubt if this is not more from necessity than choice.
If our memory serves us, when he delivered his lectures,
he was not clothed in raiment of camels hair. Nor does
Mr. S.'s literal account, so much as insinuate the charge
of inhumanity against this man, but the contrary, as could
be easily shown. He is not charged with denying Laz
arus the crumbs from his table, ordering him to be gone
from his gate, or sending him to the alms house, as per
haps some of Mr. S.'s rich Christians would do in like
circumstances. Even himself being judge, nothing bad
is said of his morals. This is more than can be said of
some Christians, whose vices are smoothed over in fune
ral sermons; and pompous parade at their funerals, out
does all said of this rich man at his death? If such go
to heaven, it may in truth be said, that from their birth
here to their rest in Abraham's bosom they have never
been out of it. Nor do we find any solid reason in all

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 99
Mr. S. has said, why this rich man should be sent to a
different place and excluded their society. Here they
would have counted it their honor and pleasure to cultif
vate his company. If Mr. S.'s hell is to be peopled
with such characters, sure we are, that many good peo
ple are making all necessary preparation for it. Con
scious, perhaps of their affinity with this rich man, they
misrepresent his character, that their identity may not
be so readily perceived. Should my remarks be deemed
severe it is their truth which renders them so, and not the
language in which I have clothed them. It is Mr. S.'s
literal account which has called them forth. I have
merely defended this man's character against his misrep
resentations. If some good Christians, upon their own
principles, do not take warning to abandon the course
of life which involved this man in such misery, the blood
of their souls cannot be found in the skirts of my gar
ments. Mr. S. in concluding this discourse, charges me
with denying the scriptures, because I asserted, that
Christ only once, and that in a parable, spoke of a pun
ishment in Hades. This almost makes him peevish. Be
it so, it is true, he could only find it once; and that proved
to be only a parable. Jonah was angry, because God
would not destroy, but spare Nineveh; and Mr. S- seems
fretted because he cannot find his doctrine of future re
tribution more plainly taught in the Bible. But so far
from denying the scriptures, I have expressly declared,
that I am willing to believe his doctrine, if it can only
be found once taught in scripture. If Mr. S. could
have found it more than once, either in a parable or in a
narrative, charity forbids us thinking he would have
concealed it. LECTURE V
Mr. Sabine, in concluding his last discourse, says,
" Gehenna punishment will be bur next topic." He
calls this Lecture, "Punishment in a future state fur
ther considered." His text is, Matt, x, 28; and Luke
xii, 4, 5, which will be noticed in their place: He
commences this discourse, by blaming me for want of
precision in speaking of Sheol and Hades. I am accus-

100 mr. sabine's proofs of a
ed of blending the grave, with the place or state of the
immortal spirit. But has he proved, that Sheol or
Hades, is the place of the immortal spirit ? No; and
we are bold in saying he never will be able to prove it
a place of either temporary, or endless misery for the
immortal spirit. His attempt to do this has only tended
to convince me, that it cannot be done. But I am also
blamed for using the word place instead of state, in
speaking on this subject. But why blame me for this,
when all good orthodox people, have spoken of it so,
time immemorial, and is yet their language in their
preaching and conversation. It is Mr. S. who deserves
to be censured, for his departure from, orthodox phrase
ology, yea, shrinking from a defence of their doctrine
of endless misery. His Presbyterian brethren, yea, the
whole orthodox body, ought to make him stand on the
stool of repentance, and receive a public rebuke for his
conduct. But it seems also, that I cannot .manage my
' Inquiry,' unless I am permitted to " localize, and ma
terialize spiritual things." And what have good ortho
dox people been doing for ages but this? Have they not
localized hell, and materialized it also, when they have
described it as a place of literal fire and brimstone?
Yea, even in the present day, prints of it are handed
about, and exhibited to the sick and dying, for thek
eomfort or misery in this condition. Hell has been
preached as a place, and a place of fire and brimstone,
so much, that people are really sick of hearing it. Is
he become ashamed of his orthodox doctrine? But Mr.
S. gives us his reasons for considering hell not a place
but a state, They are the following- 1st. It is more
congenial with the subject. This he asserts without any
attempt at proof, and in opposition to orthodox preach
ers and writers, for many ages on the subject. In this
he departs from past, yea present orthodoxy, for preach
ers of this class speak of hell as a place, as their hear
ers can testify, 2d. To speak of hell as a state, comes
nearer to the scripture mode of speaking of this doctrine,
This is not true, as wre have shown, and as every one
may see, by consulting all the texts where hell is spoken
qf in the Bible, But if Mr. S. thinks state is coming
nearer p the Bible mode of speaking of hell, why does

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. lOl
he not come altogether to it? Why shift his ground, and
not come at once on to scripture ground about this? He
says, " If it were a place merely we should see it." It
seems then heaven cannot be a place, for we do not see
it. But we should think,' that if Mr. S.'s " disembodi
ed spirits" are not everywhere, nor no where, they must
be somewhere. 3d. But Mr. S. tells us what he means
by state. He says, it. is nothing within the " wide range
materiality." His description of what it is, is telling.
us what it is not. He says, "I am sorry to deal in such
truisms, and to trifle with this audience." Well he
might; but it was his departure from orthodoxy, which
demands it, and not my book, which he undertook to re
fute. But in direct opposition to him we observe, 1st,
To speak of Sheol, Hades, &c. as a place, is more
agreeable to the scriptures, than to speak of it as a state.
It is no where spoken of in scripture as a state, as the
passages obviously show. The scriptures say, Man giv-
eth up the ghost and where is he? Mr. S- would say,
he is no where, he is only in a state. Let him consider
also, that man is to be raised from the dead, and where
then will be be? He would say no where, but in a state.
He has no locality, occupies no space. In a future
world all is state, and nothing else, with him. But is
this either being orthodox or scriptural? Jesus Christ
said, John xiv, 2, " I go to prepare a place for you;"
but had Mr. S. been present, he could have told him
that he was mistaken, for he was only to prepare a state
for them. Besides, Jesus' Christ is in no place, for he
adds, " That where I am there ye may be also." What
a pity our friend Mr. S. had not volunteered himself to
write the Bible, as he did to answer my book. But She
ol, Hades, or Hell, is always spoken of in language
which indicates place. Let the texts which speak of
Sheol, Hades, &,c. be examined, and no one, we think,
can dispute this, except Mr. S. who we shall see even
cannot keep clear of place after all his exertions. 2d.
Jt is more agreeable to common sense, to speak of She
ol or Hades, as a place than as a state. Admit the dis
tinction which Mr. S. makes between place and state,
yet does not the common sense of men, always attach
the idea of locality or place to any creature as well as

102 MR- sabine's proofs of a
that of state? Indeed, it is impossible to think, or speak
of them without a reference to place. But according
to him, creatures in another world, have no relation to
space, place, or locality. In this he makes them God,
who from his being everywhere, can properly speaking
have no relation to place, yet is represented to us as in
heaven, which even conveys the idea of jjlace. Crea
tures are finite, and must be confined to some place.
Mr. S. contends for the disembodied spirit suffering in
another world. Before it was disembodied it was in
some place; when disembodied, it must go somewhere, if
not made an everywhere spirit. If it is not either of these,
but no where, is it not out of all existence? But that
Sheol, Hades, or Hell, is a place rather than a state, is
evident from what Mr. S. himself has said. He says
of the rich man, p. 90, that he was " in a positive state,
in Hades, in torments, in a state of misery." Torments
or misery describe the state of this man, and he says
this was in Hades, as the place where he endured it.
Has he not all along been contending, that there is a
future retribution Or punishment, and also a future state
of blessedness? Well, where is his future punishment
to be? Has he not also contended, that it is in Sheol or
Hades. He has tried to avoid place, but after all he
cannot avoid it. In p. 90, he calls Hades expressly,
" The invisible place." But he adds, " A place which
no mortal eye hath seen or can see resolves itself into
state." Strange ! Must not the invisible God then re
solve himself into a state, for no eye hath seen him nor
can see him. Indeed, it is not easy for a man to avoid
what is so much in agreement with scripture, common
sense, and established opinion. He says, "If it were
a place we should see it." Indeed, can there be no
place in God's vast creation hid from mortal eyes? We
might say in return, If it were a state we should feel it.
But how is he to dispose of the body, which he says is
to be destroyed in Gehenna? If it is not a place but a
state, will he be kind enough to tell us, how it is to be
punished without a place. If his disembodied spirit can,
how is the body to be so also, for we should think it
must occupy some place. Mr. S. must either then ad
mit the idea of place, or assert, that body and soul are to

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED- 103
be punished, but punished in no place, no not anywhere
in the universe of God. But most people would think
that this was arriving at annihilation or no future pun
ishment, only by a different route. Mr. S. proceeds
to illustrate, that hell is not a place, but a state, by
again introducing the parable of the rich man and Laz
arus. But as nothing new is advanced, and having said
enough already on this, it deserves no further attention.
I must, however, give him credit for telling his readers,
that he doubts the sincerity of my reasonings, and that
I " only intended to show the credulity of the human
mind, in proposing the most palpable sophisms, for anti-
retributionists to receive, and thereby expose their sys
tem to defeat and contempt." My reasoning can have
no weight, but with persons, who, through ignorance,
weakness or prejudice, are prepared to receive any
thing," We thank him for his politeness, and if agree
able to him, when he writes again he would be pleased
to give his readers my " palpable sophisms" with his re
marks, and then leave them to judge for themselves. It
could not injure his cause, if it be good, to lay entirely
aside this mode of defending it.
In page 91, &c. Mr. S. enters on the consideration of
the term Gehenna. It occurs twelve times in the New
Testament, and the passages where it is found, have all
been fully considered in the " Inquiry." Only two of
those Mr. S. condescends to notice. His first is, Matt.
v. 22, 29, 30, which he neither attempts to explain, how
it proves his punishment in a future state, nor to refute
what I have said, showing that it does not. My expla
nation of this text, Matt, xxiii, 33, Mark ix, 43 — 45,
and other passages, he very prudently avoids. Nor does
he attempt to controvert the two sections of facts, show
ing that Gehenna was not used to express eternal mise
ry in another world. Why he so cautiously avoided
these and other things in my book it is not for me to say.
The circumstances which Mr. S. details in pages 93,
94, relative to Gehenna, are little more than have been
stated in my book. He substantially agrees with me, so
far as he goes, about Gehenna. He even agrees with
me, that it is an emblem of punishment. But what pun
ishment ? is the question at issue between us. He con-

104 MR. sabinb's proofs of a
tends, that this punishment is in a future world. Pages
95, 96 are employed in bold unsupported assertions Con
cerning this. We cannot spare room, or we would pre
sent them as a literary, controversial curiosity to our
readers. None, or all of them may be true, or they may
be -false, but we must receive them on his authority,
without so much as an attempt at proof. All these as
sertions, respecting Gehenna punishment, being in a fu
ture state of existence, we have proved false in the
" Inquiry," which evidence he quietly passes by in si
lence. But what is worse, he considers that these two
pages of assertions, "is in the light of the Holy Spirit,"
as any one may see who reads them in connexion with
the succeeding paragraph. But, in the light of this Ho
ly Spirit, Mr. S. informs us, that Gehenna is used by
" our Saviour as an emblem of future punishment to the
wicked, soul and body." It is however too late in the
day, to make such a bundle of assertions pass for the
light of the Holy Spirit. Let him look, let his readers
look at these two pages of assertions, and say, if he
would have made them, could he have found proof of his
subject. We doubt if the present century, furnishes on
any controverted point, so many assertions crowded to
gether in the same compass, without less attempt at
proof. If he could not find proof, that G ehenna was an
emblem of future punishment to the wicked, soul and bo
dy, wTe wonder he did hot attempt to invalidate the evi
dence which was adduced in the " Inquiry" that it was
not. We would only observe in passing, that if this is
the wray orthodoxy is to be defended, let its friends cease
to mourn over people's departure from it.
On page 97, Mr. S. says, " 1st, Mr. B. declares, ov<er
and over again, that the Old Testament writers knew
nothing about future punishment." Perfectly correct,
if by future punishment he means punishment in another
world of endless duration, "for my book was written to
show, that endless misery in hell was not correct, as the
orthodox have long affirmed. But Mr. S. says further,
" 2d, What our inquirer says upon the article of Gehen
na being an emblem of punishment must now be consid
ered." After quoting from my book Mr. S. states the
result of my views thus. "Hinnom or Tophet was used

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 105
by the prophet (Jeremiah, chapters 19th and 7th) as an
Emblem of future temporal punishment to the Jews as
a nation." We thank Mr. S. for once stating my
Views fairly; Let us now see how he disposes of them.
Calling in the aid of Crabb's Syronymes, he tries to
prove, that the earthen bottle, and not Tophet, was made
the emblem of temporal punishment to the Jews. But a
recurrence to the above passages, is sufficient to show
how unsuccessful his labor is. Jeremiah xix, 3, 4, 5,
reads thus, " Hear ye the word of the Lord, O kings of
Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, Thus saith the
Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I will bring
evil upon this place, the which whosoever heareth, his
ears shall tingle : Because they have forsaken me, and
have estranged this place, and have burnt incense in it
unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers
have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this
place with the blood of innocents : They have built also
the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for
burnt-offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor
spake it, neither came it into my mind." According to
Mr. S.'s views of the emblem, the next verse ought to have
read thus, as the inference from the three preceding.
" Therefore thou shalt break the bottle in the sight of
the men that go with thee." But no; the inference is,
"Therefore, behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this
place shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the
son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter." See also
verses 7, 8, 9. At verse 1, 2, the prophet was to take of
the ancients of the people with him out to the valley of
Hinnom, which was the most horrid place known to a
Jew. There, in the hearing of those men, he described
the crimes of the Jews, and on the spot, referred them
to this place as an emblem of the miseries in which they
would involve the nation. Why go out to this place, if
the bottle only was to be the emblem, as Mr. S. affirms?
Jeremiah might have broken it in his own house before
them as well as there. Let him inform us for what pur
pose they went out to Tophet, or the valley of Hinnom,
if it was not made an emblem ; or why it is spoken of
at all on this occasion, if his views be correct. ' Mr. S.
might have seen, from verses 10, U, that the breaking
14

106 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
of the bottle, was used by the prophet as an emblem of
the breaking of the Jewish nation to pieces, but Tophet
was used as an emblem of the dreadful miseries of the
people when it took place. " How strange ! a man of
Mr. S.'s sagacity should not see this."
Mr. S.'s courage never fails him in the way of asser
tion, for in p. 100 he gives us half a page more of as
sertions, that " Our Saviour applies the valley of Hin
nom under the phrase Gehenna, a state of punishment
for ' soul and body' in the future world." If assertions
are proof, sure we have them in the greatest variety and
abundance. If we are not edified or instructed, we are
at least amused by them, and the paragraph which imme
diately follows them. Mr. S. says, " If what we have
offered on Hinnom guilt and punishment be satisfactory,,
then we need not take up your time in going over all
Mr. B.'s reasons on Gehenna ; for if his principles be
false his deductions must be so: that his position of the
emblem is unsafe is pretty Clear, and equally clear the
position we have taken, namely, that Gehenna punish
ment literally is a figure of future punishment morally.
But it will be well, before we quite dismiss this article^
to show you some of the difficulty into which Mr. B.
has brought himself by assuming this position, and the
advantage we gain thereby." Could my friend Mr. S.
think that his assertions offered could be satisfactory to
any rational being? Such assertions, however, save him
all trouble; "We need not take up your time in going
over all Mr. B.'s reasons on Gehenna." He ought
to have considered, that his hearers and readers were .
not so much concerned about having their time saved,
as to have the book answered. Mr. S. here shows
his wisdom and prudence not to entangle himself among
my reasons. But it seems there was no need to do
this, for if my principle be false, my deductions must
be so. But, says Mr. S. in the above quotation, " that
his position of the emblem is unsafe is pretty clear."
How clear it now is, let Mr. S. himself judge. But
he adds, it is " equally clear the position we have
taken, namely, that Gehenna punishment literally is a
figure of future punishment morally." And from what
is this clear? We call on Mr. S. or any one else, tar

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 107
point out from what it can be clear but his own asser
tions, for no attempt is even made to prove it. But by
assuming the position, that Gehenna punishment refer
red to the punishment which came on the Jewish nation,
it seems I have brought myself into difficulty, and Mr.
S. has gained an advantage thereby. Well, let us see
the difficulty on the one hand, and the advantage on the
other. My difficulty is, that I am obliged to explain
¦away, and get rid of every passage of scripture, which
militates against my position, Why could not Mr. S. have
given his readers my explanation of the words " damna
tion of hell," Matt, xxiii, 33, &.c. and others as a spe
cimen of explaining away the scriptures. Why could
he not have given my reasons and explanations to his
readers, to show how absurd they are? Would not this
have been the best way of exposing my error? But the only
texts, out of the twelve places where Gehenna occurs,
and on which he builds his Gehenna punishment, are the
following, and were chosen as his text; Matt, x, 28, and
Luke xii, 4, 5, " And fear not them which kill the bor
dy, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."
" And I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them
-that kill the body, and after that have no more that they
can do; but I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear:
fear him, which, after he hath killed, hath power to cast
into hell; yea, I say unto you, fear him." 1st, These
two texts were very fully considered in the " Inquiry,"
where it was frankly stated that they were the only two
passages, which presented any difficulty to my views of
Gehenna punishment. But taking into view, the sense
in which our Lord used the term Gehenna in Matt.
xxiii, Mark ix, and other places, we could not conclude,
that a place of endless misery could be intended by this
word in these two texts. Besides, this view was utterly
irreconcilable with the indisputable facts, which we stat
ed concerning Gehenna. If Mr. S- can refute my ex
planations of Matt, xxiii, 33, Mark ix, 42, &c. and re
concile his views with those facts, wre are sorry he did
not attempt it. We presume the difficulties here were
felt, but he is not frank enough to own it. Let our
readers turn to chap. 2d, sects, 2d and 4th of the Inquiry,

108 MR- sabine's proofs of a
and judge if they do not present difficulties to Mr- S.'s
-views, which he does not attempt to meet, and which I
think no man ever will be able to reconcile with the
orthodox doctrine, that hell is a place of endless misery;
nor with even temporary misery in another world. 2d,
The difficulty, which these two texts presented to my
view of Qehenna, was fairly stated in the " Inquiry,"
and we endeavoured as fairly to meet it. In reference
to what I stated, Mr. S- says, that by the " ingenuity of
criticism," I divert people from the common sense of
the passage. But does he attempt to show the criticism
to be false? No, nor does he inform his readers what it
is. Yea, will he risk his reputation as a scholar and pub
lic teacher, to deny that it is just? It was shown that the
difficulty in these two texts, arose from its peculiar phra-=
seology, which, we attempted to show was a Hebrew idi
om. Mr. S- has not the candour to confess that it is, if
he thought So, nor has he the boldness to deny it. 3d.
In my explanation of these two texts, I maintained, and
do now maintain, that by (psuhe J soul in them, was not
intended the immortal spirit, but natural life. Even Mr.
S. p. 103, admits that (psuhe J soul is " often used to
express mere natural or animal life." He then asks,
?' But does Mr. B. offer 'this for proof, that soul means
merely animal life in this place?" We did not offer this
alone as proof, as Mr. S. knows. We offered also as
proof, the general usage of nephish and psuhe, rendered
life and soul in the Bible. We offered further as proof,
that psuhe was used to express mere natural life in the
context of these very passages. We further offered as
proof, that there was nothing more strange in its being
said, that God was able to destroy soul and body in Ge
henna, than, that the Sayiour's soul was not left in Ha
des. These, and other proofs, together with the He
brew idiom already mentioned, we did offer as proof, that
soul meant in these texts natural life, and not the immor
tal spirit. We are sorry our friend Mr. S. so slightly
passes over them. W^e shall presently offer him some
more proofs of this, which may probably make him regret,
that he did not pass over these two texts, as he has oth'
ers, and the facts in the ' Inquiry.' But Mr. S. says,
that I prove nothing, unless I prove that psuhe in the

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 10$
above texts does mean animal life. We thought the
proofs, stated at length in the Inquiry just hinted at, were
proofs of this. It is however a bad rule, which will not
work both ways; I say then, " Mr. S. proves nothing,
unless he proves, that psuhe or soul in the above texts,
does mean the immortal- spirit." This is his doctrine
from them, and he is tound to prove it. But he has
also got my proofs to the contrary to disprove. Let
him attempt this, for my proofs are -certainly equal at least
to his bare assertions. Besides, if Matthew meant by soul
the immortal spirit, as Mr. S. affirms, it is beyond a doubt
that Luke is very deficient in his account of this matter.
Aware of this, he plays with the word deficiency, p. 102,
to amuse his readers." Had Luke been the only histori
an, what proof could he find in the passage for his sys
tem? It is founded on the peculiar phraseology of Mat
thew, and to this Mr. S. clings as his hope for safety,
regardless of all the evidence we produced. But he will
presently see, that this is a forlorn hope, and that he is
too self-confident to affirm, that I cannot produce proof
that psuhe, soul, in the text in question does not mean
the immortal spirit. The proof I did adduce we thought
might have at least satisfied him, who admits, p. 104, that
this word is of "very various application," and does
mean "person, animal life, &c." But Mr. S. affirms,
that psuhe " likewise frequently signifies the rational
immortal mind." This he attempts to prove from Heb.
x, 39, 1 Peter i. 9, 3 John 2. He tells us that "these
are only two or, three instances among a grea»t many,
showing that soul (psuhe) often means the spiritual, im
mortal part." Whether these proofs are to his purpose,
and whether he might not have read them life or person
in a public assembly, will also be seen in its place.
But Mr. S. goes on, p. 104, to inform his readers, that
to make good my argument about soul (psuhe) not sig
nifying the immortal spirit, I have pursued " the same
bewildering and deceptive course in regard to pneuma."
What a pity Mri S. cannot learn to be a little more civil.
But to proceed ; he adds, " He asserts, or rather insin
uates, that when the immortal part of man is intended,
pneuma is used, and not psuhe; but this is quite as wide
of the truth as the other criticism." As proof of the

110 mr. sabine's proofs of a
former he refers to Luke viii, 35. Here Mr. S. says,
"Pneuma is applied to both, animal life, and immortal
life." Well, allowing that it is, but is psuhe applied to
Loth these? He will find this not so easily proved, as we
shall show presently. Unless he does prove this, pneuma
being applied to both does not -affect the argument, for
this was never denied by me. Bui he. further informs
Ins readers, " Mr. B.'s cause must be desperate, or he
would not catch at such straws." When once I have
got to the end of this discourse he shall see whose cause
is desperate. We wish to let him have his course with
out interruption to its consummation. But Mr. S. fur
ther says, I was not " fully aware of the absurd conse
quences involved in the proof." What then are they?
He adds, " Jesus is made to speak in this manner, ' Fear
not them which kill the animal life, but are not able to
kill the animal life, but rather fear him which is able to
destroy both animal life and animal life in gehenna."
This would indeed be an absurd consequence, but it hap
pens to be one drawn from Mr. S.'s own alteration of the
text. In p. 205 of the Inquiry, I have said, that the
text, on my views of the word soul, would then read thus,
" Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to
kill the hfe: but rather fear him who is able to destroy
both life and body in hell." That I proved a distinction
to be made, not only between soul and body in scripture,
but even between these and the pneuma, spirit, Mr. S.
does not deny. That by the body, or wrhole body, both
soul and .body were included, few will question who com
pares all the passages in reference to this subject. What
I have said about man being able to kill the body, but
not being able to kill the soul, or hfe, or to prevent the
person living again, Mr. S. does not attempt to refute. Let
our readers then judge, if his "absurd consequence"folldws
from any thing I have said on the subject ; and they may
also see how candid and fair my opponent is. We have
now followed Mr. S. in his course, throughout this dis
course on Gehenna punishment, and shall submit a few
remarks on the whole of it, for candid consideration.
1st. Why did Mr. S. pass over all the other texts in
which Gehenna occurs, with my explanations of them,
and merely fix on Matt, x, 28, and Luke xii, iv, 5 ?

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. Ill
Why did he not take up Matt, xxiii, 33, and Mark ix,
42 — 49, and discuss them? Why did he pass over in si
lence those texts which constituted the bone and sinew of
my interpretations? Is it like the champion of the armies
of the living God, thus to avoid combat with texts and
explanations, which constitute the ground- work of the
book, and make a defence of his system from the pecul
iar language of a single passage? Why did he not march
Up to my strong holds in view of the whole army, and
show himself mighty in demolishing them ? 2d. Will
Mr. S. be kind enough to inform us, what could be his
reasons, that he avoided all combat with my two sections
of facts in regard to Genenna ? He was told in the In
quiry, that they were a phalanx of difficulties against
the common views of Gehenna punishment. But he
carefully avoids coming into contact with them. Was he
dismayed at their appearance ? If not, why did he not
break boldly through them, and route the whole in the
majesty of his strength? Let him say himself, if the
slightest victory can be obtained over my book, until this
phalanx is destroyed. While it remains, and my expla
nations of Matt, xxiii and Mark ix, not met and refuted,
my book remains unassailed; yea, unassailable. Mr. S.
had sense enough to see where my strength lay, and he
carefully avoids that part of my book. 3d. Mr. S. con
tends for a future retribution in another world. We have
seen him, in a former discourse, contend for Hades; and
here he has been contending for Gehenna. Does he
make these two States or one? One future retribution he
does contend for, and that is in another world ; but cer
tainly he must see, that the scripture representations of
Hades and Gehenna are very different. But throughout
the six lectures, I perceive not a sentence which would
lead one to suppose that Mr. S. views them as two states
or places of punishment. He does not say, that Hades
is an intermediate state of punishment for the soul sepa
rate from the body, and Gehenna for both soul and body
after the resurrection. No, not a word is said about this.
He is so intent upon establishing his new orthodox theo
ry, that texts of scripture, scripture distinctions, yea,
every thing which stands in his way, must bend or break
before him. But the Bible remains the same, and to it
we now call his sober attention.

112 mr- sabine's proofs of a
We sincerely thank Mr. S. for calling our attention
again to Matt, x, 28, and Luke xii, 4, 5. But for this,
it is probable, we should never have troubled ourselves
with the following reconsideration of them. The result.
of this further investigation we shall now briefly state.
1st. Mr. S. by the soul* or psuhe in these texts, would
have his readers believe, that the spiritual immortal part
of man is meant ; ^nd by kilting or distroying the soul,
is intended his punishment in a future state of existance..
But I think I shall convince him, and every candid man,
that this is a mistake. If the very same or similar lan
guage, used by the same speaker, and in the hearing of
the same persons, be admitted as a correct exposition of
the phraseology in the texts in debate, beyond a doubt
Mr. S. is mistaken. Let us then look at Mark iii, 4.
" He (Jesus) saith unto them, is it lawful to do good on
the Sabbath days, or to do evil? To save life (psuhe)
or to kill? ("apokteinai." ) Now, here are the same
words for the soul, and killing the soul, as are used in
the texts in question, and our Lord asked the Jews, is it
lawful to save the soul or to kill it? Let Mr. S. then
say, if soul means here the immortal spirit, or killing
the soul, can mean a punishment in a future state of ex
istence. But Luke vi, 9, is still more explicit. " Then
said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it law
ful on the Sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? To
save life (psuhe) or to destroy (apolesi) it." Notice,
that here is the same word for soul, as in the preceding
text, and in that under consideration. What Mark ex
pressed by the word kill, Luke here expresses by the
word destroy. This varied mode of expression in the
texts just quoted, is the same or similar to the texts un
der consideration, on which Mr. S. builds his punishment
in Gehenna. Our Lord asks the question, Is it lawful
to save the soul or to destroy it?.. Let Mr. S. be placed
chief justice on the bench, surrounded by twelve ortho*
dox jurymen, and let them say, by what rule of feir in
terpretation they can make it appear, that soul signifies
the immortal spirit, and killing the soul, means a pun
ishment of it in a future state,, in the texts under discus
sion, and not also in those two we have now quoted.
Yea, I think I nlay safely leave it to Mr. S.'s own can-

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 113
dour to say, if they do not clearly show, that he is en>
4"J V mistaken in all he has said about this. In the
tejxts quoted, mere natural life is meant by soul, as he
will allow. By killing or destroying it, he will not pre
tend, that future punishment was meant. How then
could this be intended by our Lord, or how could it be
so understood by his diseiples in the passages we are
considering;? Why then should he contend, that this
was cur Lord's meaning? In the one, God's ability
or poiver to kill or destroy the soul is mentioned, and
in the other, our Lord puts a question about the lawful*
ness to kill or destroy the soul on the Sabbath day.
Our Lord did save men's souls or lives on the Sabbath,
and on other days. But can Mr. S. produce an instance,
in whieh God destroyed or killed a soul on any day,
thereby meaning punishment in a future state of exist
ance. Whether he, therefore, hold? to the doctrine of
endless misery, or his future retribution, these two texts
show the fallacy' of both systems, as built on the pas
sages in question. 2d. But Mr. S. raises considerable
noise, about what I said concerning God's being able
or having power to kill the soul, and its not being said
that he would do it. We must thank him, for also
bringing this up, for it has led us to re-examine this part
of the passage also. He must admit, for it cannot be
denied, that the passages do not assert, that God will
kill the soul. We would respectfully ask him, does God
do all that he has ability or power to perform? No man
will affirm this. How then does he know, that he will
destroy the soul in Gehenna, for in no other text is this
asserted. If power or ability to do this, be equivalent
to actually doing it, why is it expressed in this way?
But what ought to decide this, is the sense of similar
language in other passages. In Matt, iii, 9, it is said,
" God is able of these stones to raise up children to
Abraham." But did God ever do this? According to
Mr. S.'s reasoning on the passages in question, God
must have raised up from the stones children to Abra
ham, because he had power or ability to do it. But did
he ever know any persons so raised up? We would ask
him further, if he found it said in scripture, that God
had power or ability to make all men for ever miserable'
15

114 MR. sabine's proofs of a
or happy, would he conclude from this that God would
do so ? In short, God has power to do all things, he has
power to settle in a moment the questions at issue be
tween us; but he suffers us to settle them in the way of
candid and amicable discussion, by an appeal to the
scriptures. But let it be noticed, that if he will insist
on God's actually destroying body and soul in Gehenna,.
it is the souls and bodies of Christ's own disciples,, who
are threatened with this punishment. In no text is this
threatened the wicked, for such language occurs in no
other place in the Bible. Now, Mr. S.'s retribution is
for wicked people, a thing the passages before us say
nothing about. But his mistaken view of them, arises
from his overlooking the persons to whom our Lord
spake, and the design of what he said to them. It was
to fortify the minds of his disciples against the evils they
should be called to suffer for his name's sake. They
were exhorted, not to fear man but God. They had
also heard our Lord say to the unbelieving Jews, " How
can ye escape the damnation of hell?" and the connex
ion of his discourse evidently pointed them to the tem
poral judgments coming on the nation, as the sense of
these words. To remind his disciples, therefore, of
God's being able to destsroy soul and body in Gehenna,
or subject them to the same punishment as the unbeliev
ing Jews, was just as sufficient for this purpose, as it
was for John to say, that God was able of the stones
to raise up children unto Abraham. Was any thing
more necessary, or could any thing be said more suita
ble than this, in such circumstances. But how will my
friend Mr. S. ever be able to reconcile his views of these
texts, with the two sections of facts, and the explana
tions of the passages given in the "Inquiry." Were
his views correct, the facts ought to be in his favour,
and against my views, and instead of God's ability or
power being only stated, this would be spoken in the
most plain and explicit manner. 3d. But allowing the
texts to mean what Mr. S. says they do, we do not per
ceive how he can make his views hang together by script-
ture, reason, or facts. Does he believe, that after the
body is killed or destroyed, that it suffers any pain or mis
ery? We have always thought it did not. He has said.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 115
« good deal in his discourses, showing that it does not.
Well, how can he make it appear, that if the soul or
spirit is killed, that it can suffer any pain or misery.
And if both are killed or destroyed, how can either suf
fer any misery. Does the latter live to suffer after being
killed, but not the former. He should remember that both
alike are killed or destroyed. But further; before Mr.
S. made such assertions, that soul and body were to suf
fer in Gehenna, he ought to have proved, that this state
or place, is in another world. But this he has not done,
nor attempted to do, though we think we proved that it
was not. But let him have it so. If it is, he should
remember, that both soul and body must go out of this
world to be killed or destroyed, for they are said to be
destroyed in Gehenna. Now, does Mr. S. believe,
that the body goes into another world to be killed?
Should he fix on the parallel text in Luke xii, 4, 5,
there only the body is said to be killed, and after it is
killed, it is said to be cast into hell or Gehenna. It is
after it is killed, it goes into his state of future retribu
tion; but when, neither the text says, nor does Mr. S.
in any way inform us. It cannot be, according to him,
at death, for in another place he contends for its being
left in the tomb or sepulchre. Mr. S.'s views then on
this subject, are neither in unison with scripture, nor
facts, nor are they consistent with themselves. These
texts which he selects from all the others, and deemed
most to his purpose, when further examined are decided
ly against him. In short, view them in any way you
please, they cannot support the doctrine he wpuld fond
ly build upon them. Does he recur to the context, the
word psuhe as used there is opposed to him. Does he
recur to similar modes of expression in other places,
they palpably contradict his doctrine. And if he has
recourse to the other places where Gehenna is found,
the texts and contexts utterly forbid such a sense as he
gives it. And above all, a phalnax of facts, relative to
Gehenna, stand like a brazen wall, which, until refuted,
must for ever prevent any rational man from believing
what he says about Gehenna.
We thought! we had said enough, on these two texts
in the Inquiry, tp satisfy any reasonable man, that the

U6 MR. SABINE'S PROOFS OF A
apparent difficulty did not constitute any solid objeetioa
to my views of Gehenna, and especially when these texts
were viewed in connexion with the others, and the facts
which were adduced. But seeing Mr. S, laid hold of
them as the only passages on which he could make his
attack, we have entered into a still further examination
of them. We would now state the result of this exam
ination- 1st- The word nephish of the Old Testament, which
is rendered life and soul, Sec. is never used to express the
spiritual part of man, or what Mr. S. calls the disem.'
bodied spirit, which at death he sends to a place or state
of misery. On this word, Parkhurst, in his Hebrew
Lexicon, thus writes, " Nephish hath been supposed to
signify the spiritual part of man, or what we. commonly
call his soul: I must for myself confess, that I can find
no. passage where it hath undoubtedly, this meaning,
Gen. xxxv, 18; 1 Kings xvii, 21, 22; Ps. xvi, 10, seem
fairest for this signification- But may not nephish. in
the three former passages, be most properly rendered
breath, and in the last a breathing or animal frame?"
The passages in which nephish occurs, are over three
hundred. Our time has not permitted us to. examine,
them with all that care and leisure, which we could have
wished, but from the attention we have paid to them,
we concur in the. above, statements. I may add, that
Taylor, in his Hebrew, Concordance, in giving the vari
ous senses, of nsphisk in the. Old Testament, does not
intimate, that it ever means the immortal, spirit, nor
does he refer to a single text where it has such a mean*
ing. If the Old Testament writers then, did not believe
that the soul went to Sheol to be punished, nor believed,
that it was the immortal spirit, which existed separate,
from the body, let Mr. S. inform us how he. is so
confident of both. If they did believe both these things,
let candour say, why they never ventured to say so, though
they spake of the nephish or soul over three hundred^
times. If Mr. S. can explain this,, in consistency with
his views, we hope he will do it- Let him account, for
it, why inspired writers for. so, many years, should say-
nothing about his disembodied spirit, and yet they knew
jaen. had souls, and. spoke as frequently, and familiarly

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 11?
about them as we do. If inspired teachers in those
days, knew nothing about this doctrine, how comes it to
pass, that uninspired teachers in these, are so well
acquainted with it. 2d. The word psuhe, also ren
dered life and soul in the New Testament, corres
ponds to nephish in the Old, and is commonly used for
it in the Seventy version. After an examination of all
the texts where it is used in the New Testament, it ap
pears to us, that the writers there apply it in a similar
way as nephish is applied by the Old Testament writers.
The following are all the places where it occurs and
may be consulted. The various senses in which I con
ceive it is used by the sacred writers, and how rendered
in the common version, I shall briefly notice.
1st. It occurs both in the singular and plural, is rem*
dered soul and souls, and expresses the same as the
word person or persons. Thus, for example, we read
Acts ii, 41, of " three thousand souls," and xxvii, 37,
of " two hundred, three score and sixteen souls." See
also 1 Pet. iii, 20; Rev. vi, 9, and xx, 4; Matt, xii, 18;
Luke xii, 19; John xii, 27; Acts ii, 31, 43, and iii, 23;
Rom. xiii, 1; Heb. x, 38; Acts ii, 27; Rom. ii, 9; 2
Cor. i, 23; Jas. v, 20; Rev. xviii, 14; 1 Cor. xv, 45.
2d. Psuhe is rendered soul and souls in the following
texts, and expresses the mind or some of its powers.
Thus, as an example, it is said Matt, xi, 29, " Ye shall
find rest unto your souls." See also Luke xxi, 19;
Acts xiv, 22, and xv, 24; 1 Pet. i, 22; 2 Pet. ii, 14;
Luke i, 46; Acts 4, 32; 3 John 2; 2 Pet. ii, 8; Heb.
vi, 19; 1 Pet. ii, 11; Matt, xxii, 37; Mark xii, 30, 33;
Luke x, 27. Accordingly psuhe is rendered mind.
Acts xiv, 2; Philip, i, 27; Heb. xii, 3; with which all
the above texts may be compared. By examining the
whole, any one may see, that in most of them, mind would
have been a clearer and more definite rendering than soul.
It is rendered heart, Eph. vi, 6, and in Col. iii, 23 it is
rendered heartily. 3d. But I find psuhe rendered life
and lives, as expressing natural life, more frequently than
in any other way. As an example, it is said Luke xii,
22, 23, " Take no thought for your life." See also
Luke ix, 56; Acts xv, 26; 1 John iii, 16; Matt, vi, 25;
Mark viii, 35; Acts xx, 10; Phihp. ii, 80; 1 Thes. v? 23.

118 Mr. sabine's proofs of a
Matt, ii, 20, xvi, 25, and xx, 28; Mark viii, 35, and x,
45; Luke, ii, 35, ix, 24, xiv, 26, and xvii, 33; John x,
11, 15, 17, xiii, 37, 38, and xv, 13; Acts xx, 24; Rom.
xi, 3; 1 John iii, 16; Rev. xii, 11; Acts xxvii, 22; Rom.
xvi, 4; Acts xxvii, 10; Mark iii, 4; Luke vi, 9; Matt, x,
39; Heb. iv, 12. In some of these texts the psuhe, soul,
or life, is expressly distinguished from both the soma, body,
and the pneuma, spirit. In Rev. xviii, 13, instead of
" slaves and souls of men," it ought to be " bodies, so-
maton, and souls, psuhas, of men;" or "bodies and
souls of men." In 1 Thess. ii, 8, it is rendered souls;
but it is easily seen from the scope of the text and con
text, that it ought to be lives or persons ; for surely the
apostles and those other persons, never intended to say,
that they were willing to have imparted to the Thessa-
lonians their immortal spirits. 4th. In the following
texts it is not rendered at all ; 2 Cor. xii, 15, and John
x, 24. 5th. It is rendered life and soul, and is applied
to creatures in the sea, Rev. viii, 9, and xvi, 3.' 6th. In
the following texts psuhe is rendered soul, and are the
only places in which any person can suppose that this
word is used to express the " spiritual part of man,"
or Mr. S.'s "disembodied spirit," which, he says, goes
to Hades at death. To these we must then pay a little
more attention. In Luke xii, it is said of one, " This
night thy soul shall be required." But how could this
be his spiritual part ? for it is the same soul, which,
verse 19, had goods laid up for many years; and which,
he said, might taks its ease, eat, drink and be merry.
Does the spiritual part eat and drink? &c. In Matt, xvi,
26, and Mark viii, 36, a man is said not to be profited,
if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul.
But the context shows, that natural life is meant, for;the
same wrord, psuhe, is rendered life in the verse preced
ing, and is so rendered even in these places by various
translators. We have seen, that the word soul is rendered mind
in some places, and ought to be so in many others. Be
lievers in Jesus had purified their souls, or minds, in
obeying the truth. We have seen that the word soul
also .means person. Those believers were once as sheep
going astray, but had returned to the Shepherd, Bishop,

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 119
or Overseer of their souls, minds, or persons. They
were in his fold. See 1 Peter ii, 25. But if any one of
them erred from the truth, or strayed from the fold, and
one converted or turned him back to it, he saved a soul
or person from death. James v. 20. The apostles and
teachers were under shepherds, or overseers, to watch
over the minds and persons of such. They were to
watch for their souls, as they that must give account
Heb. xiii, 17. The lives or persons of believers were
exposed to the most cruel persecution, and hence they
are exhorted to commit the keeping of their souls, or
their persons to God in well doing, as unto a faithful
Creator, 1 Pet. iv, 19. The ingrafted word received with
meekness, was able to save their souls or persons, James
i, 21. Such are all the texts, in which psuhe, rendered
soul, could be supposed to refer to the immortal spirit,
except the three texts, which Mr. S. produces in page
104, to prove that it does. These we shall now intro
duce. His first is Heb. x, 39 ; "We are not of them
who draw back unto perdition ; but of them that believe
to the saving of the soul." In reading this text, it is
forgotten by people what our Lord said, Matt, xxiv, 13,
that " He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be
saved ;" evidently referring to being saved from the tem
poral miseries which he predicted should come on the
Jewish nation during that generation. In consequence
of abounding iniquity, and the persecutions to which his
disciples were to be exposed, the love of many should
wax cold, and draw back to the perdition or destruction,
in which the whole nation were to be involved. He that
thus loved his life should lose it.' He that turned one
who erred from the truth, should save a soul or person
from this death. The apostle, in the above text, was
writing to the believing , Hebrews, and he told them,
verse 36, that they had need of patience under their tri
als. That it was but a little while when Jesus would
come as he had foretold, Matt, xxiv, to relieve theiq, v. 37.
Some had drawn back already. See verse 25. But in
the verse under consideration, he says to those steadfast
in the faith, " We are not of them who draw back unto
perdition, but of them who believe to the salvation of our
souls, lives or persons." Those who did endure to the

120 mr. sabine's proofs of a
end, left the city of Jerusalem, and were saved, as we
showed in the Inquiry. Those who hated their life in
this world kept it unto life eternal, John xii, 25. Mr.
S.'s second text is, 1 Peter i, 9, " Receiving the end of
your faith the salvation of your souls." The same or
similar remarks apply to this text, as to the last, and
need not be repeated. Is it objected to this, " Was this
kind of salvation, that for which the prophets inquired and
searched dilligently, mentioned in verse 10?" We an
swer, yes, this was a part of it, as is evident from Joel ii,
32, and other places in the prophets. Mr. S.'s third
text is,: 3 John 2, " Beloved I wish above all things that
thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul
prospereth." How he could quote this text to prove,
that soul here means the immortal spirit, is to me strange.
Gaius5 bodily health seems to have been poor, and the
apostle expresses his kind wish, that it might be like his
foul, in a prosperous state. What soul then did he mean?
I answer, simply his mind, which is the sense of the word
psuhe, rendered soul in other places. This sense of the
word soul, is evident from verses 3, 4, 5, 6, which de
scribes, how the apostle knew that his soul or mind did
prosper. The views I have stated on all the above texts,
is confirmed, from comparing them with the following,
in which psuhe is rendered both life and soul, Mark viii,
35, 36, 37; Matt, xvi, 25, 26; Luke ix, 24, 25.
On the whole of these passages in which psuhe occurs,
and in whatever way rendered in the common version, I
would now beg leave to submit a fewr brief remarks.
1st. All must see, that it is variously rendered by our
translators. In reading the New Testament, therefore^
people would do well to consider from the context where
the word is rendered soul, if some of its other renderings
would not be much more suitable to the scope of the wri
ter. We have been accustomed, to attach the idea of
an immortal spirit, which leaves the body at death, to the
word soul, and if I am not much mistaken, this leads to
a misunderstanding of many passages in which this word
occurs. 2d. The word psuhe in the New, not only corresponds1
to nephish, rendered life, soul, person, &e. in the Old
Testament, but the writers of the New have adopted

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 121
the Hebrew idioms of the Old in many places where
they use it. We think the more the two Testaments
are compared the truth of this remark will be apparent.
It is now evident, that Mr. S. has built his ideas of Ge
henna punishment on the mere Hebrew idiom of the pas
sages in question, and it has been shown from parallel
texts where the same idiom occurs, that they are with
out any solid foundation.
3d.- In our classification of the texts where psuhe oc
curs, we have perhaps classed some of them wrong. For
example, where psuhe means the natural life, we may
from ignorance, or oversight have placed such texts under
the head where it means the mind, or some one of its
powers; or the reverse. About this we were not scru
pulous, as we gave all the places where the word is found,
that all may read and judge for themselves. It will be
seen immediately, that such scrupulous care was not neces
sary in regard to the grand point under discussion between
Mr. S. and myself in his discourses.
4th. Let not Mr. S. or any of his orthodox friends
suppose, that it is necessary for me to deny, that nephish
or psuhe, rendered soul, means the immortal spirit, in
supporting my views. No, we have merely stated this
as our present opinion, from the examination which We
have given the passages in which these words occur.
We are willing, for the sake of avoiding all controversy
on this point, to allow that they do mean the immortal
spirit. Yea, we will even suppose, that in every instance
of their occurence in the Bible, that this is their meaning.
This is more than he would think necessary. Let him
then notice,
5th, That in no text where either of these words is
used, is it said the nephish, psuhe, or soul, is in punish
ment, or that it shall suffer misery in another world.
We call on Mr. S. or any of his friends to come for
ward, and show in a single instance, that the soul when
disembodied goes into another state of existance, to be
punished in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, Gehenna, or in any
other place or state in the whole universe of God. We
demand of him to produce only one text in which it is
said, that the disembodied sperit is in misery any where.
Does he recur to the parable of the rich man and. L&s»-
16

122 MR- sabine's proofs of a
rus? But let him say himself, if a word is said about
the soul or disembodied spirit in the whole passage.
Now, this was the very point he ought to have proved.
But no such thing is stated; but on the contrary, every
thing in the whole parable, proceeds on the principle of
his body being in Hades, and not his disembodied spirit,
as has been shown. We then appeal to Mr. S.'s own
candour, and common sense about this. If nephish,
psuhe, or soul, expresses the immortal spirit, whieh at
death is sent to Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna, to
suffer misery, how does he account for it, that not in a
single text, is this said by any sacred writer. If they
did not assert this, how dares he affirm it? If they all as
one man are silent on the subject, why is he so very con-s
fiient about i„? If in the course of three hundred times
using the word nephish, the Old Testament writers sug»
gest no such idea, from what part of their writings does
he derive his information? Our readers may count at
their leisure, how often the New Testament writers use
the word psuhe, but not in a single text can Mr. S. find,
that the soul, bodied or disembodied, goes to a state or
place of misery in another world to be punished, as ha
very confidently affirms. Pause, sit down deliberately,
and reflect, friend Sabine, about this. Think soberly,
whether you have not received this doctrine by tradition
from your fathers. Whence else could it oome if no sa»
cred writer has taught it? Do not accue me of defying
you, or the armies of the living God about this. I defy-
neither, but respectfully ask you, to name the text from.
Genesis to Revelation, where the Spirit of God has
taught, that the soul or disembodied spirit, goes any
where to suffer misery.
It is now seen, how very much mistaken Mr. S. is, m
affirming, that the " disembodied spirit" is sent to Sheol^
Hades, Tartarus or Gehenna, to suffer punishment, either
at death or at any other period. The mistake is increas*
ed, if I am correct in my opinion, that neither nephish
nor psuhe, is u&ed ly any sacred writer to express thej
immortal spirit. Parkhurst, an orthodox critic affirms,
that nephish is not used in this sense in the Old Testa--
ment, though it occurs there over three hundred times.
In giving us the different meanings of the word psuhe ia»

Future* retribution considered. $2&
the New, Matt, x, 28, is the only text he refers to,' that
this word signifies the human soul or spirit. This text,1
is the foundation of Mr. S.'s doctrine of Gehenna pun
ishment, and we are almost confident that he will now"
allow it is left without any foundation from this' passage.
We would suggest it respectfully to Mr. S. and all of
the same views with him, to examine whether these'
things I have stated be so, before they assert any more,j
that the disembodied spirit at death is sent to1" scenes'
of misery," not to say endless in their duration! Let-
them reflect, if it be not rash to do so, when God him
self has not said this in any part of his revelation to the'
children of men. Our readers then, have the means be
fore them, of judging of the weakness or solidity of tie7
foundation of Mr. S.'s doctrine of " punishment for ther
disembodied spirit" in Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, of Ge
henna. We think we have candidly examined this sub-'
jeet, and have shown, that Mr. S, is much mistaken' in
his views of it.- We allow, that the doctrine he contends'
for is old,- and is yet very popular. But it appears notf
to be old enough, not being taught in Scripture. Lef«
no one say that this is a bold assertion. The eviderice1
of it we have stated, as fully as our limits would' permitf*
and we request either Mr. S. or any of his friends to'
show our statements to be false.
6th. But we add, " We shall feel obliged to' Mr. S:
or any other man, to prove from the Bible that the (nb-'
phish, psuhe) soul, or the (pneuma) spirit, or any part'
of man, goes to any place or state at death and suffers'
punishment in any degree." We shall allow himto'call
it place, or state, or by any name he pleases. We shall*
even allow him, to hold to temporary or endless misery,*
as best suits his own inclination. Only let him prOVe,*
that the whole man, or any part of him aftef death, 4s in*
a- state of pain^or misery, in any part of the universe of
God. Such are the terms we offer, and surely if Mr!
S. had them to make, he could not well make them more
liberal or convenient. We* have frankly but'- briefly
slated- the result of our further investigation of these two1
tfextS; It remains ;for binvto disprov e-what wehave noV-
advanced*-

124 mr. sabine's proofs of a
Against these statements Mr. S. will likely object, •
1st, If these things are admitted "they lead to material
ism." In answer to this we would observe, that it ought
not to concern us, what these statements lead to, the only
question ought to be, Are they true? Is this the doctrine
of the Bible, or is it not? No man ought to be deterred,
and frightened from investigating what is truth, by hold
ing up some bugbear consequence, which is supposed to
follow. In this way have men often been kept from be
lieving God's word,' and against what may it not be used
for a similar purpose. But, such a consequence does not
certainly follow. It may be true, that nephish and
psuhe, or soul, do not express the spiritual and immortal
part of man, yet man has a spirit which survives the
dissolution of the body. We showed in the " Inquiry,"
that a distinction was made between these, and the pneu
ma, spirit in scripture, which Mr. S. does not controvert.
This spirit of a man Solomon says " goeth upward,"
Eccles. iii, 21. That "The spirit shall return to God
who gave it," when the dust shall return to the earth,
xii, 7'. But I do not find, that any thing like this, is said
of the nephish, psuhe, or soul, for which Mr. S. con
tends, as surviving the disolution of the body. If the
scriptures make such a distinction, why ought we not to
make it? And if the scriptures no where assert, that the
soul does survive the body, but that the pn?.uma, spirit
does, why does he so confidently assert it? WThy not
think, and speak on such subjects, as the inspired wri
ters did?
2d. Perhaps it may also be objected, " That the sen
timents advanced, does away all punishment for the ne-
phish, psuhe, or soul in a future state, for which Mr. S.
has been contending." In answer to this I would say,
that if it be true, that the spul does not survive the body,
it is beyond all fair debate, that it cannot, in the very
nature of the case, be punished in a disembodied state.
It settles this question for ever, and shows, that Mr. S,
has been contending for a dqctrine, which cannot possi
bly be true. It also puts an end to all dispute, about
s$ate apd place, concerning which he has made so much
noise in his lectures; and it affords no room for discus?,
sipg the duration of its punishment. All the^e ques*

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 125
tions, are put entirely to rest, if what I have stated
about nephish, psuhe, or soul be correct. We may here
notice, that supposing he could prove the existence of
the soul after the death of the body, yet he has got it
still to prove, that the soul is ever said in scripture to
suffer punishment, or misery in a disembodied state.
The last of these, we feel confident Mr. S. never will
be able to prove from any part of scripture. The first,
we should like to see proved, if it can be done. Noth
ing said by him in his lectures, proves either of these
things. We would urge upon him, to spend a few hours,
in examining all the texts where nephish, psuhe, or soul
is spoken of in the Bible, and see if he can find any sa
cred writer teach such doctrines. But notwithstanding
this, it may still be objected, " That the pneuma, spirit
exists and suffers punishment or misery in its disembodi
ed state." Well, if this can be proved from scripture,
let it be done, for it is a matter of but little consequence,
whether we call it soul or spirit, if it is to be thus pun
ished in a future state. I beg of Mr. S. to spend a few
hours more in examining all the texts where ruh, pneu
ma, or spirit is spoken of in scripture, and if he finds a
single text, which teaches this I shall feel extremely mor
tified at my carelessness in overlooking it. We have seen
it said, Eccles. xii, 7, that, " The dust shall return to the
earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who
gave it," but no sacred writer says, that soul or spirit,
goes at death, or at any other poriod into " scenes of
misery;" a doctrine which my friend Mr. S. has been la
bouring throughout his lectures to establish. It is a pity
that we who are but of yesterday and know nothing,
should attempt to speak with such confidence on a sub
ject which is a matter of pure revelation. We think it
would shake Mr. S.'s confidence if he could be induced
to examine all the passages we have just recommended
to his notice. To be sure it will cost him more time and
labour to do this, than to make assertions, but we think
it wiltamply repay him in the satisfaction afforded.

126 MR. SAftlNfi's PROOFS OF A

LECTURE VI.
This Lecture is "a review of the course" Mr. ST. has*
pursued. He entitles it, " Mr. Balfour's System op
posed to Divine Authority." His text is Mark xii, 24,
"Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scrip--
tures, neither the power of God ?,J In a note at the
end of it, he says, " The sixth and last Lecture, more
particularly, declares Mr. Balfour's system to be in- di
rect opposition to Divine authority." This he has been
declaring in all his lectures ; but we have shown it is
only declaring but not proving this. It is proofs', not
declarations, we care any thing about.
Our work here then is,, to review Mr. S.'s review' of
his whole course. But, as hardly any thing is- said but
what has been remarked on already, he has given us little
to do. As to any more proofs or appeals to- the scrip
tures, we have got to the end of that chapter. Our re--
marks shall therefore be very brief, for we feel no great
concern as to any thing else, but "What is truth?" on'
the subjects which have come under discussion;
He says, page 107, that the origin of my scheme has
arisen at the disgust I have " taken at the superstitions,
assumpsions, errors and hypocricies which have mingled
with the profession of religion."' I have only to say,
that Mr. S. in this, as in many other things, is mistaken.
If he is not allowed to know more about this than I do,.
its origin is in an increased attention to the scriptures'.
Had I not long ago learned to make1 "a proper distinc--
tion between the doctrines of revelation and the errone
ous and faulty way in which they have been represented'
and taught," I should have-before now been an Infidel!
or an Atheist. His own orthodox creed would have had'
a hand in producing such an, effect. No wonder that'
men are Infidels, who do not learn to make- such1 a'dis^
tinetion. In pages 107 — 109, Mr. S.- reviews what'hesaid about'
the two texts we considered in the preceding discourse,
Matt, x, 28, and Luke xii, 4, 5. What he here says,
is only a fresh assortment of assertions, and given in still
more indecorous language than anything which preceded

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 121
them. As he sinks in argument he rises in the boldnes*
of his assertions, and as he approaches the end of his
course he becomes rather abusive. Eut as hard words,
and strong arguments, are very different things, we pass
such language by, as Mr. S. has done my facts and ex*
planations. In page 110, Mr. S. says, " We have directly met
and examined Mr. B.'s principal arguments on the deri*
yation, uses and application of the terms Sheol, Hadei
and Gehenna. Mr. S. does not venture to say he met
and examined, either directly or indirectly, my facts about
the uses and application of these term's. Let our read-«
ers judge whether he has even done what he here boldly
asserts. In pages 110—112, Mr. S. seems to get into a merry
mood about the "Inquiry," to which I referred in my
book, in regard to Olim, Aion, and Aionion, rendered
eternal, everlasting, in the common version. Presuming
that he knows what Sdlomon says of a man who answer-
eth a matter before he heareth it, we only notice, that
my "first book does not supercede my second," as ha
asserts. It is well known that a number of texts in-
which these words occur are quoted by the orthodox to
prove endless misery. One great object, therefore, of
this second "Inquiry" is, to examine all those textsr
and to show that they do not teach such a doctrine. We
wish to show our orthodox friends wherein we think them
mistaken about the meaning of such passages. Should
it ever be published, perhaps it may convince him, that
his mirth was premature, if not altogether unnecessary.
At any rate, it will show that we did not embrace the
views advanced, before we had considered pretty fully
the chief texts on which our brethren build their doctrine
of endless misery.
In. pages 112, 113, Mr. S. says, that "Mr. B. can
make no distinction between the nature of that punish
ment God inflicts on men in their collective and political
character, and that inflicted on them in their individual
and moral character. Nations and bodies politic,
churches, and other associations, if rewarded or punish
ed, must be so dealt with in this present visible state, for
they do not pass into the future state as nations or

128 mr- sabine's proofs of a
churches, or in any other associate capacity." ' What!
Does Mr. S. suppose that I can make no distinction be
tween "the nature of that punishment God inflicts" on
nations and on individuals ! I always made a distinction
between the drowning of the antideluvians and the hang
ing of Haman. We also have thought that " bodies
politic, churches, and other associations," were punished
in this visible state. And we believe so also of individ
uals. But Mr. S.'s doctrine is, that the latter, but not-
the former, go, and go as individuals, into a future state
to be punished. This is what he has been trying to
prove, but cannot accomplish. He again introduces the
old world, the Sodomites, and the nation of the Jews as
examples, and now says that this was " temporal punish
ment in the infliction of natural evil." But has he really
forgot that he introduced these very examples to prove
his punishment in a future state in his preceding discours
es? But we ask Mr. S. what does he find in the history
of these examples, that the people either as individuals,
or as bodies politic, went into a future state to be pun
ished? Let him take his choice, or let him choose both if
he pleases, and show us, that these persons went into a
a future state to be punished in any "capacity," either
for "natural evil" or "moral character." There is just
as little said about an individual going there to be pun
ished, as there is about a church, or a nation. Nor do
we perceive any more impropriety, in sending churches
and nations into a future state to suffer for their sins in
this capacity, than to send an individual to suffer in his
individual capacity. If the Judge of all the earth does
right in punishing them in these capacities here, what is
to prevent him doing the same in another state of exis
tence. The question is, has the Judge of all the earth
said he will send either of them there to be punished?
Prove either, or both of these from the Bible, and we
are made converts to this doctrine.
But in confirmation, Mr. S. recurs to the history
whence his text is taken, and classes me once more with
the Sadducees. Ignorant as they were of the scriptures
and power of God, let him take notice, that our Lord
did not threaten them with punishment in a future state,
either as a sector as individuals. Though "society is.

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 129
broken up and dissolved at death," let Mr. S. notice
once more, that our Lord, on this occasion, did not say
that the bond between husband and wife was broken at
this period, that as individuals they might go into a fu
ture world to be punished. " Strange that a man of
the acuteness of our author should not see this."
In pages 115—20, Mr. S. proceeds to give us some
of his reasons for his " faith in a future state," and " a
future state of punishment." He first reasons from the
benevolence of Deity, that nothing " goes to weaken this
doctrine." We have seen some attempts made, to re
concile endless misery with the benevolence of Deity, but
without success. As Mr. S. does not attempt to recon
cile his future retribution with it, we have no means of
judging whether he can do it or not. But 2d, he says,
-' The wicked are more obnoxious to suffering in the
future world than they can be in the present; a disem
bodied state is a state of experience, and more depends
on the mind than on matter." Mr. S. seems to be well
acquainted with the future world. Was he ever there?
If not, from what part of his Bible does he learn all
this, and much more under this particular? He quotes
no divine authrity for what he says, and from personal
knowledge and experience, or information from such as,
have been there, we presume he knows about as little as
we do. He has in a former lecture told us, that all we
can know of a future state must be from divine revela
tion, and to this we perfectly agreed. Why then does
he undertake to tell us so much about it, without any
appeal to divine revelation? If I err, not knowing the
scriptures nor the power of God, why does he not quote
them and explain them for my instruction. I have a
little respect left in me for the scriptures, but I have no
respect for the mere assertions of any man, on such a
subject as the one in question. What Mr. S. says un
der this particular, is a mere rhapsody of imagination,
very unlike any thing ever uttered by any inspired wri
ter. His object in this is thus stated; " In this method
of illustration, brethren; you must have observed, that I
have called in no aid from divine wrath to make men
miserable. I have made a hell of sin and sinners, and
these are the constitution of future punishment," &c.
17

130 mr. sabine's proofs of a
See pp. 118, 119. , This hell is indeed one of his own
making, and in the same way this one was made, he
could make any quantity which might be required. Any
man, not destitute of fancy and imagination, could do
this, but is he not afraid to indulge these on such a sub-
j ct? Dies not my friend do here, what he said some of
his orthodox brethren did p. 45? "His genius too, formed
for the love of metaphor, his passions burning with his sub
ject, and his judgment a long way behind, he has made an
awful display of the terrific." We can devise nothing
more suitable in the way of remark than his own observa
tions on this kind of preaching. "But what has such a dis
closure effected? Why, it has perhaps irritated and shock
ed some of the best people in his audience; it has gained
the applause of some of the weakest, and may have es
tablished the preacher's character for faithfulness, but as
to the wicked, nqt one of them has been 'persuaded' to
forsake his evil way, and turn unto God; so far from it,
their understandings have been outraged, and their best,
not their worst passions disgusted, and so they have re
solved to sin on, being hardened in their iniquities, in
stead of being alarmed, and softened, «and subdued."
Let Mr. S. look at what he has said in pp. 117, 118,
and say if this display of the terrific, and making a hell
of sin and sinners, is likely to have any better effects
than he has just described in this quotation. Where
does he find the sacred writers make hells in this way?
If he had, it would, have saved him the trouble of man
ufacturing one from his own imagination.
li-r. S. from pp. 119—124, goes onto tell his readers,
that I am not acquainted with the principle or tendency
of my own system. And I might with as much propri
ety assert, that he is not acquainted with the principle
and t nd.ncy of his system, lor one assertion is as good
as another, where no proof is attempted. But his talent
does not seem to lie in proving things, for here, as in
many other places, he favours us with a few more pages
of assertions, misrepresentations, and frightful, conse
quences, which few men. except Mr. S. would venture
to risk on paper. They are an outrage on all sober dis
passionate discussion. But, I ought to be thankful, that
he seldom abuses me alone, but generally flogs me in

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 131
company with some other person. Here the ' Roman-
ists,' the 'Church of England,' the 'Calvinists,' the
' Armenians,' and ' Hopkinsians,' all come in for a share
of my flagellation. Why he should have let the poor
Unitarians go without a portion throughout all his dis-
c urses, I am unable to perceive/ unless it be, that he
nearly flogged them to death on a former occasion. I
can easily account for the Presbyterians escaping his
lash. They are for the present his dearly bdoved
brethren. But let them take care, lest Mr. S. get an
gry with them. If he should, he has stripes in reserve
for them. If he has chastised others with whips, take
care lest he chastise you with scorpions. Humour him,
keep his good graces, for wo be to you, if you do not.
In pp. 124— 126, I am accused by Mr. S. of resorting
to stratagem, " especially in the section, entitled, ob
jections considered." It seems I made " a mere man of
straw," to show my prowess in beating him down. Eut
unfortunately for him, as usual, all he says about this is
only bare-faced assertion. Why could he not have, ad
duced an example or two from my system of objections,
and showed his prowess in exposing my stratgim. But
we would inform him, that all these objections were ac
tually made, and we endeavoured to state them as fully
and fairly as we could. Whether I met them fairly and
folly, let my readers judge. Mr. S.'s assertions against
what I have said, ought not to put it down ; and as he
offers us nothing but assertions, they deserve no atten
tion from me.
From pp. 126—129, as well as other parts of Mr.
S.'s lectures noticed already, I cannot help suspecting,
that his object was to give his orthodox friends a flog
ging, fully as much as to answer my book. His plan is,
to whip them over my back. Here he commences, by
misrepresenting what I have said in relation to the or
thodox, and puts it in Italic type. " He asserts that
they have departed from the great doctrines of the
reformation; that their ecclesiastical discipline and
moral progress are a mere party formality, and a
shameful hypocrisy." We call on Mr. S. to name the
page of the ' Inquiry,' where I have asserted, " That
their ecclesiastical discipline and moral progress are

132 MR. sabine's proofs of a
a mere party formality and a shameful hypocrisy.'*
J have not named their ecclesiastical discipline, impeach
ed their morals, nor taxed them with hypocrisy, not to
say shameful hypocrisy. I have, indeed, asserted the
fact, which is notorious, that they have departed from
orthodoxy, or the great doctrines "of the reformation,
but not in the way of blaming them for it. I have as
serted this, just as I have done that Mr. S. has departed
from the great doctrines of the reformation, in not ad
vocating that Hell is a place of endless misery to all
the wicked. Was not this a great doctrine of the refor
mation? And has not he departed from it? Let him lay his
hand on his mouth and his mouth in the dust, and never
open it any more against Andover or Cambridge until
he returns to this great doctrine of the reformation.
But Mr. S. proceeds to give us two definitions of or
thodoxy. He says, 1st, " Sometimes, and that often,
it describes an established or dominant party in the visi
ble church, or a party that has retained enough of power
still to usurp and domineer over such of their brethren
as refuse to be of their party, and to work with them in
their church craft- Thus the term applies to all parties,
and mere sectarians of every creed, whether it consists
of faith or unbelief; this is orthodoxy." Bad as Judas
was, when he turned a satan to Christ and his cause,
he had no such story to tell of him, his fellow disciples,
nor of orthodoxy in those days. For his. own credit,
for the credit of all orthodox men, and the general credit
of orthodoxy itself, we wonder that Mr, S. did not avoid
such a disclosure. But we query if he does not here,
and in some other places, allude to some personal diffi
culties between himself and the orthodox, with which I
have nothing to do. Ought not some allowance to be
made, for his excited feelings and prejudice against the
orthodox? 2d. "But by the term we understand, sometimes,
that body of Christians who hold, what are commonly
called, the doctrines of the reformation; what these are,
I need not delineate, every one at all acquainted with
the history of the church knows what these are. The
term evangelical applies much in the same way." Mr.
Sr then, is neither orthodox nor evangelical, for " every

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 133
one at all acquainted with the history of the church,
knows," the t endless misery in hell" is a principal doc
trine of the reformation. The following complaint,
about the professors at Andover, comes, therefore, with
an ill grace from Mr. Sabine. He says, " Our princi
pal Theological department, after a series of vassillating
and speculating, has aimed a deadly blow at the all-im
portant and all-precious doctrine of the atonement.
And what is still worse on this point, after some effort on
the part of this declining Seminary to return, the Chris
tian Spectator, the professed guardian of sOund doctrine,
comes out in open advocacy of this defalcation, and
boldly tells the orthodox commuity, that they do not un
derstand the subject." The press is free. Mr. S. is
also " the professed guardian of sound doctrine."
Why does he not write, and put those vassillating and
speculating men right. We are confident, that they
will give his evidence a patient hearing, and should they
dissent, will offer in reply something more than bare as
sertions. Why does such a giant in the defence of the
reformation, not put his shoulder to the work, and put
the Andover Institution, yea, the whole orthodox body
to rights at once?
But Mr. S. says, " This kind of proceeding in theolog
ical affairs gives Mr. B. and indeed all unbelievers, an
opportunity of exulting over the orthodox." Here Mr.
S. is mistaken, for neither as a believer nor an unbeliev
er have I exulted over the orthodox. I merely urged
the fact, that they took the liberty to depart from ortho
doxy, and that I was no more to blame then they were.
So far from blaming them, or exulting over them, the
men to whom he more particularly alludes, we not only
respect but esteem. Happy would it be for Mr. S. if
he would imitate them, in freely investigating what is
truth, and the excellent spirit in which they can discuss
their religious opinions with those who differ from them.
But we call on Mr. S. to quote my words, where I have
said what he asserts. " Mr. B. triumphs not a little also
over the fallen moral character of the orthodox." In
what part of my book have I impeached the moral char
acter of a single individual of any sect under heaven. I
venture to say no man in the whole orthodox body will

134 mr. sabine's proofs of a
accuse me of this. I am sorry Mr. S. should make me
the lash to his whip.
But Mr. S. declares that I have said " many hard
things" of the orthodox, two or three of which he says
he will only notice. 1st. " That the orthodox do not
believe the doctrines they profess, particularly the pun
ishment of the wicked, if they did they would not act as
they do. We put it to Mr. S.'s own conscience, if he
sincerely believed in the endless misery of a part, and ac
cording to true orthodoxy, a large part of the human race,
would he act as he does? Would not his eyes weep blood,
would not his labours be incessent, would he not endure
every hardship, and suffer patiently every privation in en
treating and warning men about such misery? Does not
all that he says on the subject pretty much evaporate in
the pulpit? If but the inmates of a ten foot building were
in danger of being burnt to death, he would not nuiiifest
one half the apathy, as he does about the whole town. of
Boston, yea, the whole world.
2d. " Revivals of religion, the subject of so much
boast, are mere schemes of church policy, a pious fraud,
a manoeuvre to get up, a something for the enlargement
of a sect wanting in better means of promoting its spirit
ual interest." Mr. S. says more than I did, or durst
say in regard to revivals of religion. He does not con
trovert my views of a true revival, and his statement of
what passes for this, may be relied on, as he has been in
the secret of how such affairs are managed. No doubt
he knows all about the priest craft and church craft of
this buisness. From what he says of revivals, it is plain
he does not approve of such church craft, and it is well
known, that he has ceased from being a workman among
that part of the orthodox called Congregationalists.
In p. 129, Mr. S. says, " From this view of ortho
doxy, as given by Mr. B. we learn two things." What
are they? " First, the probable reason why the orthodox
did not attempt an answer to the " Inquiry." The reason
is rather obvious, the orthodox were conscious that they
were too much on the wane themselves to do any thing
with Mr. B. ; he would have said, if they had " opened
their. lips" ' Physician heal thyself.' He does say, " Be
fore they open.their lips against me, let them return to

FUTURE RETRIBUTION CONSIDERED. 135
the doctrines of their forefathers and confess how great
ly they have departed from the good old way." And
cannot I now say the very same thing of Mr. S. who has
departed from the good old ivay of endless misery to all
the wicked. I do say to him again, " Physician heal
thyself." We are unable to say, what was the probable
or possible reason why the orthodox did not answer the
' Inquiry.' But this we will say as our honest opinion,
that had they answered it, they would not have mutilated,
altered and misrepresented it as Mr. S. has done. Nor
would they, like him, have abandoned the defence of end-
lsss misery.
2d. But Mr. S. adds, " We are taught secondly, how
to take our leave of Mr. B. We have an opportunity
now of introducing our friend Balfour to a body of the
Christian community, with whom, it is probable, he had
thought there could be little fellowship. Mr. B. insin
uates that the orthodox do not believe in a future retri
bution for sinners, (231,) and he justifies his ' doubts' of
their faith in this doctrine by argument not a little co
gent : if so then they are Universalists, and Universalists
of Mr. B.'s class, Non-retributionists. The junction is
easily formed and it seems natural; for these apostoliz-
ing orthodox, it seems have had a hand in forming our
Inquirer's present scheme, and Mr. B. himself has given
a delineation of their decline so favourable to his own,
that they in the fitness of things ought to coalesce, and
declare themselves one." Well, I thank Mr. S. after
"hanging me up between heaven and earth as unfit
for neither," he should at last leave me in such good
company. In taking our leave of Mr. Sabine, we have only
room for a remark or two, and these very briefly stated.
They respect the further discussion of the subject, should
he be pleased to continue it. It is very evident, that
we are not agreed in our religious opinions, and that on
a subject of universal concern, involving the future and
eternal condition of the children of men. Are we then
agreed. on any principles, on which a further discussion
of this subject might be useful if properly conducted.
1st. We are perfectly agreed, that all we can know
of a future state, and of man in regard to it, is to be

136 mr. sabine's proofs, &,c
learned entirely from divine revelation. As we both
profess, that the Bible contains the whole of the reveal
ed will of God, the simple question between us is, What
has God been pleased to reveal on this subject? It is of
no consequence, what were the great doctrines of the
reformation, or what is now orthodoxy or evangelical,
the entire question is, Wrhat saith the scriptures?
2d. We propose then to Mr. S. that we leave all
questions out of view except this, What does the Bible
teach, in any given text as to the punishment of soul
or body in a future state of existence? We cordially
agree to the principles in the following quotation, and to
be regulated by them in settling this question. Though
written on another controversy they equally apply to this.
Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Dr. Channing, says, p. 14,
" The claims of the Bible to be authoritative being once
admitted, the simple question in respect to it is, What
does it teach in regard to any particular passage? What
idea did the original writer mean to convey? Wrhen this
is ascertained by the legitimate rules of interpretation, it
is authoritative. This is orthodoxy in the highest and
best sense of the word; and every thing which is oppos
ed to it, which modefies it, which fritters its meaning
away, is heterodoxy; is heresy; to whatever name or par
ty it is attached." Let Mr. S. then select any texts,
which he thinks prove this doctrine, and let them be
candidly and fairly discussed, by all the rules of legiti
mate interpretation, and let this be orthodoxy, whatever
may be the sense of them. Let all these rules of inter
pretation be employed, to ascertain, what ideas the orig
inal writers meant to convey in them.
3d. Let this discussion be conducted in a Christian
spirit, free from all bitterness of temper, or harsh and pro
voking language. Let the meekness and gentleness of
Christ, dictate the language, and evidence be the object
we shall keep constantly in view, in all that we write on
the subject. Should my friend Mr. S. be inclined to ac
cept of my proposals, and be regulated by the principles
stated, good might result from a farther discussion. But
if we are not both to govern ourselves by them the pub
lic could derive little benefit from its continuance K

3 9002 08844 4006