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 (Classic Reprint)

Excerpt from 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

Then has Mr. Sabine done m refuting these things? Did he take up'the texts and'sho'w that the author of the book had wrested these texts? Had pervertedtthem? Has be taken 0 facts, and 'shown them to be false ?v'orihas he 'eve dience, that' he believes Hell to he a place of en work was to answer the book, not to make it; but h quoting it, altered it; and found constant fault'with the author, because he did not write the book to suit him? He quoted but little of the book; (and two whole sections, which contain the great'body of material facts, he has not quoted at all, noneven alluded tb;) and when he made-quotatlons, he never, butil the last lecture, in a single sentence, referred hishearers to the page, that they might read andjudge for themselves. As Mr. Sabine has not fulfilled his engagement to the public ln'refuting the hook, let us advert to what he has attempted'to (join his discoursesf The avowed object of discourses was to establish afuture retribution Its endless duration'he does h'ot advocate, but stated that he would leaye every man to forth hishwn opinion as wto 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 ao.' Had the '9 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 afi'irming or denying it. In the book the Author repeatedly expresses his readiness to believe the doctrine of'endles's misery, if it can be established from Scripture but shows that the texts which speak about hell have been'perverted in support of ii. Supposing Mr. S. To have proved beyond all con fra'diction afuture retribution, this is no answer to the book which'he undertook to rtfute. But has he proved this? Let every one who has heard him, say,-if he has proved either of the two following things, which require to be both proved, to establish the doctrine of afuture retribution; lst. Has he pl'qved that the soulnf man at death, goes to Hades, She'ol, Tartarns, or Gehenna, as a plac or state of punishment m'qd. Has he proved that such souls are actually in miseity' there? The most plausible proof he advahéed was, the parable of the rich man and Lazarfis. But seemingly at a loss in whatsense to view it, he first considered' it a parable, then renounced it, and called on the author of the book to prove it' to be a fiarahle, But: the parable says hot 3 word about the soul of the rich man'in Hades 0? Hell. Unless Mr. S. Belieties that the soul has eyes, and ears, and a tongue, in a'separate stat'e from'the body, how can this prove'his point? Truly, if we' are to become believers in a state of torment in the new life of im corruption 'and immortality, which the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ brings'to light; as the 'f free gift of God, not accordin our works, hut according to his own purpose and grace be the fonnciatioh of the world, our Rev, Friend Sabine must.

About the Publisher

Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com