Through the shadows

Front matter

Gfpp.- 6npjjrigyi?0

Shelf _J*£L3

<j

Contents

CHAPTER PAGE

I. An Alarming Fact 9

II. Proof-texts 12

II Proof-texts

" Search the Scriptures." — John v. 39.

TF the ultimate salvation of all mankind is a Bible doctrine, we have good reason to expect that so great and glorious a truth is clearly and frequently stated in the Good Book, and that nothing denying it or rendering it doubtful can be found in a single chapter or verse. All other important doctrines are set forth distinctly and unequivocally. For example, the Scriptures plainly teach the existence of a Supreme Being, our relation to Him, our duty, the evil of sin, the beauty of holiness, the certain t} T of retribution, and the immortality of man ; and not one passage asserts or hints anything to the contrary. The atheist never quotes Scripture to prove atheism, nor does the sinner cite the Bible as his authority for doing wrong.

That eminent defender of the faith, the late Rev. Dr. Thomas Whittemore, in his " Plain Guide to Universalism," admits that there are one hundred and twenty-five passages — thirty in the Old Testament, and ninety-five in the New — that are sometimes quoted to disprove Universalism. And in addition to

PROOF-TEXTS. 13

this formidable array of proof- texts, it is claimed by some that there are many other passages that favor the doctrine of endless misery. This is a cloud of witnesses ; and if their evidence is understood, and if a large majority of the Christian Church for centuries has not misunderstood its meaning, Universalists should either give up their doctrine or renounce and denounce the Bible. But every educated student of the Scriptures knows, and every honest theologian is willing to admit, that some of these proof-texts are not positive and conclusive evidence of interminable woe, and that the force and weight of the others depend on the meaning attached to about a dozen different words and phrases. Give them the usual definition, and they clearly disprove Universalism. Invalidate this timehonored interpretation, and the doctrine of eternal punishment loses its Scriptural foothold. Over these few words and phrases the last theological battle is to be fought, and the final victory won ; and in a matter of so great interest to all mankind, nothing should be overlooked, and nothing assumed that is not in accord with philosophy, histoiy, and the usus loquendi of the people in the land and age in which the Scriptures were written. When, if ever, we ascertain exactly what the inspired penmen wrote (for emendation of the Greek and Hebrew text is still going on), and exactly what they meant by the language employed, then, and not till then, will controversy cease. But that time has not yet come. A person who takes the common version of the Bible to be the precise Word of God, and proceeds to interpret it by the help of an English dictionary, is sure to fall into grave mistakes. An}' one who carefully studies the revised version of the New Testament, and compares it with the common version, will be convinced that a perfect knowledge of the Scriptures is not easily attained. We know that some blunders have been made in explaining the Word of God, and this leads us to suspect that others have also been made. It is admitted that there are thousands of various readings, and some interpolations; for example (1 John v. 7), "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit ; and these three are one." All divines of the present day agree in the opinion that Saint John did not write these words. The passage is not in the revised version. Other proof-texts may yet vanish. The exact meaning of Azazel and Selah, in the Old Testament, is not certainly known ; and there may be many other words in the Bible whose import is not yet decided. Educated men differ in opinion respecting those words ; and persons not acquainted with Greek and Hebrew are not qualified to decide the controversy which hinges on the meaning of the original words rendered hell, damnation, and eternal. This being the case, we must either pin our faith on the opinion

PROOF-TEXTS. 15

of others, or, time and again, with the best helps and lights within reach, go over the entire field in dispute, and decide for ourselves what the Bible teaches. This seems to us the wisest and best course.

III. First Warning

" Of the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." — Gen. ii. 17.

TN the olden time, " eastward in Eden," there was a beautiful garden, in which grew man}' kinds of fruit trees, all planted by the Lord. It was an earthly Paradise; and in it dwelt our ancestors, — the first human pair, young, innocent, and happy, but frail, ignorant, and mortal. Their Father was ever near them, and they were very dear to Him, because they were His children and in His image and likeness. In the midst of the garden there stood a tree whose fruit was not wholesome for man to eat. It contained poison ; and God kindly warned Adam and Eve not to meddle with it, and gave this reason for His warning : "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt [or wilt] surely die," or, as it is rendered in the margin, "In the day that eating thou eatest, dying thou shalt die."

This is the first warning in the history of the human race. What did it mean, and what happened? The heedless and perhaps forgetful pair, unmindful of their Father's words, possibly not realizing the terribleness of the assured result of eating, tempted and misled by the words or actions of an animal called by our translators a serpent, plucked and ate the forbidden fruit ; and the result, the penalty, came upon them. That penalty was death ; and we are sometimes told that it was "death physical, spiritual, and eternal." Is this true? Did this threefold death take place on the clay they ate ? As this event was the beginning of sin and retribution, a correct idea of it is essential to a right understanding of God's policy, and His subsequent dealings with sinners.

The warning is in the form of a command, and is the enunciation of a law. " Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat." This was a law that existed in the nature and relations of things. There were other similar laws ; for example, Thou shalt not abstain from eating wholesome food, drinking pure water, and breathing fresh air, — for if thou do, thou shalt surely die ; Thou shalt not attempt to live under water or in the midst of fire, — for if thou do, death will be the result ; Ye shall live in peace and love, or war, misery, and death will be your portion. Then, as now, the human body w r as frail and mortal, and life could not be prolonged without obedience to the sanitary laws of our nature. May it not be that the "forbidden fruit" was poisonous, and the warning was given on that account ? The law, Thou shalt not eat the fruit of this or that tree, is certainly much like other sanitary laws ; and the penalty, in justice, ought to be the same. Inebriety, gluttony, intemperance in gratifying appetites and passions, are violations of the commandments of our Creator ; and disobedience now and here, as in Eden, has the same penalty, — sickness, suffering, and ultimate death.

We are not to forget that the penalty for wrong-doing is disciplinary, and has a tendency to lead or drive the sinner back to right-doing. The nausea that results from the use of alcohol or tobacco, and the headache and languor that follow gluttony, are warnings not thus to sin again. When a traveller gets out of the smooth and pleasant highway of right, the obstacles he meets, and the discomforts he finds, soon urge him to go back to the easy path of virtue. In every instance the amount and bitterness of the penalty are in exact proportion to the magnitude of the transgression and the frequenc}' of its repetition. This is just, and beneficial to the doer of evil.

The first pair of human beings, unskilled in the use of reason, and estimating the nature and value of everything by its outward appearance, soon after the beginning of their lives, probably did something wrong. This cannot be doubted. Nothing short of a miracle, nothing but the constant intervention of Divine Providence, could have prevented it. Immediately after this first sin, by the eternal laws of cause and effect, came the penalty, the result. What was it? Can it be possible that for this one apparently slight offence their Father doomed them, and all their posterity, to " death physical, spiritual, and eternal " ? Can any possible stretch of imagination in any one enable him to see in such a penalt} T for such an offence anything just or good? Do not the love and mercy of God, and the sense of honor and right in man, repudiate the idea?

Furthermore, if such was to be the terrible penalty, humanity suggests that it should have been stated to our innocent, inexperienced, unsuspecting ancestors with unmistakable clearness, and impressed on their minds by frequent repetitions. If an average man of our culture had been present, and foreknown the dire results of disobedience, he would have said to Adam and Eve, in earnest, pleading tones: U I beseech you, do not eat, do not touch, the forbidden fruit, — for if you do, }'ou will not only die, but }'ou and all 3-011 r posterity, awhile after death, will come to life again, and be thrust down into a horrible place prepared for torture ; and there millions of them will be tormented, clay and night, for ever and ever. Do not go near that terrible tree." Their Father, the merciful God, was present, and knew all the results of transgression ; yet He only said, and so far as we know said only once, " In the day thou eatest of it, thou shalt surery die." No hint was given of a life after death, or of an} 7 lengthy misery, or of any effect the act might have on posterity. The only conclusion possible to a candid mind is, that God meant just what He said, — no more, no less ; and the supposition that the penalty was to be endless agony is an awful mistake. Bat if God did mean eternal misery, it is almost certain that Adam and Eve could not have comprehended His meaning. The}' had no conception of eternity, no distinct idea of acute suffering, no belief in a burning hell ; and the warning did not imply anything of the kind. Evidently the}' sinned without anticipating any very bitter or lasting evil. But what their Father did say, they could and did understand. Death had been a common event long before the creation of man. They had seen many a leaf, insect, bird, and animal die and return to dust ; and the dissolution seemed pitiful and awful. Instinctively they desired to live and enjoy the pleasures of life. No immediate dissolution seemed pending (the warning, in Hebrew, signifies only a beginning to die), the ultimate end seemed far away, and in a moment of excited emotion they yielded. These are the plain facts in the case.

The pair in Eden disobeyed, just as people now sin, because they were strongly tempted, and at the moment lacked the moral courage and will to resist. The tree was handsome, and its fruit inviting. Its significant name, " knowledge of good and evil," drew them to its cool shade. They saw an animal feeding on its fruit with impunity. It did not harm the serpent ; why should it injure them ? Its pantomimic expression was persuasive and forcible : and, either forgetting the warning or willing to take the risk of disobedience, they plucked and ate. Presently the unwholesome juice gave them new sensations ; new thoughts came ; they saw in a new light ; and either from cold or a new perception of modesty, realized that they were naked. The result soon began to be manifest. They were inoculated with disease from which they never fully recovered. In the day they began to eat, the}' began to die ; and after a few hundred years of suffering, their bodies returned to dust. The taint of disease was bequeathed to all their posterity, and " in Adam all die." This is the simple story of the first transgression, as recorded in Genesis ; and it contains no hint of endless perdition.

But, a very long time after the Eden affair, a new meaning was given to, or seen in, the word death, — namely, moral degradation with its inevitable evils. All these evils are involved in sin. Hence it is written : (Ezek. xviii. 4) " The soul that sinneth, it shall die ; " (Rom. vi. 23) " The wages of sin is death ; " (Rom. viii. 6) " To be carnally minded is death;" (Eph. ii. 1) " You hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins ; " (1 John iii. 14) "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren : he that loveth not his brother, abide th in death." This kind of death was one of the results of the first transgression, and it occurred on the very day they ate the forbidden fruit. By eating, they disobeyed God, ceased to be innocent, and morally died. But we are not compelled to infer that this moral change was the beginning of a never-ending curse. The truth is, man was designedly created frail, ignorant, and liable to 3'ielcl to temptations. He was surrounded by mysteries and dangers : mistakes, transgressions of law, were inevitable. There was not the shadow of a probability that he would not sin. It was merely a question of time ; and the theor}- that for this one little misdeed Adam and all his posteritj- were doomed to unending suffering seems unreasonable, an outrage of justice, fiendish, false. We cannot believe that God set such a horrible trap, and baited it with fruit so tempting.

Some critics incline to the opinion that the story of Eden is a myth or an allegory ; and it may be admitted that some of its details have a mystical complexion, but it is evident that the account has a fact foundation. There must have been a first human pair ; they must have been destitute of raiment, and must have dwelt in a grove of fruit trees from which they could obtain food. The fruit of some plants was not wholesome, was poisonous. By chance there grew in the midst of the grove a deadly Japan Upas ; and the new pair must have been entirely ignorant of its nature, and the effect of its fruit on the human system. But something that the scientist might call instinct, that a Christian might call the Holy Spirit, and that Moses called (and rightly called) God, forbade their eating its baneful fruit. The language of the Hebrew text does not require us to believe there was any audible voice. Some kind of animal or insect feeds on each tree and plant ; for what is poison to one is wholesome to another. On or by the Upas Adam and Eve saw an animal eating its fruit with impunity. The actions of the animal seemed to prove that the fruit was good ; and thus enticed and deceived, unmindful of their instinctive repugnance, they also ate of its fruit. But it made them sick, and opened their mental eyes to the fact that some things were good and some evil. In their distress, God, in the awful majesty of their awakened consciences, reproved them, and hinted other evils that might ensue. A sense of responsibility and duty began to be felt ; and then and there commenced man's sad yet sublime career as a moral agent. Eden vanished, and the} r found themselves in a world of labor and care.

But this first disobedience, misstep, mistake, was not wholly a disaster ; for good came as well as evil. It was as a fountain from which flowed many a pure river of life. It aroused the noble spirit of inquiry, investigation, research, and prompted the constant questions, What is this, that, and the other? What is the nature, use, and power of each? How are they related to man and man's interests? These inquiries have led to all the splendid achievements o of science, and to an intimate acquaintance with Nature in all her moods, from the generation of mosses and insects up to the evolution of planets, and the laws that govern the stars. The seemingly terrible lapse from innocence suggested watchfulness, invention, industry, and economy. Xoxious plants were to be destroj'ed ; food-bearing vegetables cultivated, storehouses built, garments made ; and busy thrift was to displace primitive idleness. Our wheat-fields, cloth-factories, ships, railways, are the outgrowth of making leaf aprons in Eden, and seeking good food. It also brought into play a sj'mpathy, a tenderness, that otherwise would have remained dormant. Adam and Eve never realized how much each was to the other — how each loved the other — until each saw tears in the other's eyes. Then began the culture of the finer feelings and the nobler nature of man and woman, and that heroic self-denial and self-sacrifice that culminated in the death of Jesus, and made the cross the symbol of all that is truly great and good. In that hour, also, hope came in the thought that though Eve was weak and did wrong, her posterity, taught and warned by her misfortune, would do better and better, until "the seed of the woman should bruise [crush] the serpent's head," — a hope that has grown so large and bright that many a brave and loving soul in our day dares to believe in "the final restitution of all things." In fact, we can call to mind scarcely a single blessing now enjoyed on earth, that has not directly or indirectly come from that ominous hour of temptation, sin, shame, penitence, promise, and right resolution. Man, not God, made a mistake ; and He has overruled it for good.

Taking this view of what is called the Fall of man, we have no heart to denounce sweet mother Eve or dear father Adam. True, they lost their delightful Eden ; but better Edens are our inheritance. The cultivated and beautified earth ; and our pleasant and comfortable homes are superior to the ancient forest garden ; and we are not unlike our first parents in many respects. Each of us began life as an Adam or Eve, innocent, but weak and ignorant. For each of us there was in store duties and responsibilities, — dangers to shun, and good to gain. In 3'outh we were advised, warned, threatened ; but each one of us was tempted, and each in some sinister way yielded and did wrong, — ate or drank or indulged in something pernicious, and began to die. Many thousand people die every month because of wrong eating or drinking. He who would attain a long life, and be prosperous and happy, should abstain from all forbidden fruits and deeds. Conforming to the eternal laws of right is equivalent to both serving God and taking care of ourselves. Intemperance in parents taints their offspring. Yet in the darkest hour the penitent seeker may find some hope of a better future, here or hereafter.

Taking all these things into consideration, we are compelled to conclude that the first warning does not refer to any after-death results, but only to the vast earthly consequences of man's beginning to learn good and evil.

And, finding in this first proof-text no threat or intimation of eternal damnation, we are encouraged to hope that the Bible does not reveal such a doom for any sinner. One shadow has vanished.

IV. Forsaken Of God

"And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man" — Gen. vi. 3.

n^HESE words were spoken concerning the very wicked people who lived before the Deluge, and their import is ominous. The Divine Spirit had long striven to reform and save these very wicked men. Through conscience, by impression and intuition, by appeals to their innate sense of honor and right, and by temporal chastisements, it had endeavored to win them to virtue, but in vain. Wrong was still the rule. Noah had preached righteousness to them, but his sermons were unavailing. Their wickedness was so great that ; ' eveiy imagination of their hearts was evil." Their reformation was hopeless, and a crisis was inevitable. God saw it, and said, " My spirit shall not always strive with man ; " in other words, " The present condition of affairs — the pleading of my pitying spirit with their rebellious spirits — shall cease." This sounds like the solemn announcement of a hopeless doom. Those from whom the love and care of God are withdrawn must sink down into the lowest state of sin and sorrow. Probably some people at the present day are as sinful and degraded as were the antediluvians, and hence their fate must be as terrible. The cannibal savages of Africa, as described by Stanley, seem to be as far down in the scale of degradation as human beings can go ; and, taking into the account the Gospel light that shines in our country, some in our midst are as guilty as the sooty sons of the " dark continent ; " and if God-forsaken, they must go down with the ancient sinners with whom the Divine Spirit ceased to strive. But before consigning them to hopeless perdition, let us very carefully study what God said, and the occasion on which it was spoken, that, if possible, we may find some reason to hope for their ultimate salvation.

The statement of the Lord was this : " My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." This was said in an age when the average length of human life was more than nine hundred years. Some critics are of the opinion that the Lord meant that He would not permit people to live and sin so long, but would contract the average length of human life to one hundred and twenty years. If this opinion is correct, the passage does not refer to anything beyond the grave, or to anybody since the age of our long-living ancestors.

But it may be asked, Did the antediluvians actually live nearly a thousand years? The Bible affirms that they did, and the writer of Genesis undoubtedly had a tradition or a revelation to that effect. Yet in the minds of some men in our day there are grave doubts on this subject. They say that in those primitive times the people were liable to err in dates and numbers. Their j-ear may not have been of the same length as our year ; and what they called a hundred may not have been what we call a hundred. Besides, for a people ignorant of writing, it must have been difficult to preserve in memory the date of birth or the lapse of years. At the present time, in our own land, there is man}' an illiterate Indian and Negro who does not know his own age ; and very likely many of the people before the Flood did not know theirs. Further, learned physiologists tell us that the average human body will actually w r ear out in about two centuries, and that then death must ensue. If this is true, the stories of ancient extreme longevity are fictions. Finally, it is not easy to imagine any need, use, or benefit of a life protracted beyond a centur} 7 ; and what is useless, God does not permit.

But in opposition to all this, it maj r be urged that the first inhabitants of the earth were not tainted with hereditary disease ; that they ate simple, healthy food ; that they lived out-of-doors, and breathed pure air ; that they did not exhaust themselves by excessive labor or anxiety ; and hence they must have attained a great age. In our degenerate times there are quite a' number of centenarians, and in primitive times a longer lease of life is certainly probable. In a book published some thirty years ago, by Fowler & Wells, entitled " Hydropathy for the People," there is (pp. 43-46) a long list of persons remarkable for longevity. It is there stated that Galen lived 140 years ; Thomas Parr, 152 ; Petrarch Caston, 185 ; Thomas Cam, 207 ; and Numas de Cugna, 307. If these figures are correct — and they seem well authenticated — the extreme longevity of the people before the Flood is not only possible but probable. Admit this, and a literal interpretation of the passage under review is easy and satisfactory. "And the Lord said, My spirit shall not strive with man so long. He shall not sin eight or nine centuries ; his average length of life shall be cut down to an hundred and twent}' years." In accordance with this decision, the average length of life began to diminish, and continued to diminish until the time of King David, when it w T as only about seventy years. The natural causes of this shortening of life were intemperance, crime, and the general degradation of the people. In this view of the case the text does not refer to any thing or condition after death ; the shortening of the earth life is all that was intended.

This is one interpretation ; learned men have another and perhaps a better theory. The Divine announcement was made a little more than a century before the Flood. At that time the human race was so desperately wicked as to be unfit to live. It merited destruction, and was ripe for doom. But the Lord, in His great mercy, in effect said : u This cannot be permitted to continue forever, but I will grant man an hundred and twenty years more in which to repent and reform." The allotted time elapsed ; the people grew worse and worse ; and then the Flood came and swept them all away. If this interpretation is correct, the Lord did not allude to a shortening of average human life, but to the number of years that would elapse before the great Deluge.

But it may be asked, Do the facts warrant this conclusion ? Was there in ancient time a world-wide, destructive deluge ? It seems to us there are many good reasons for answering these questions in the affirmative : (1) The Bible says there was such a flood ; and the Bible is an ancient and reliable book. (2) The old but recently discovered Assyrian tablets, written without any knowledge of Moses or Hebrew tradition, give a full description of such a flood. (3) All the great nations of antiquity had distinct traditions of such a flood, and these many apparently independent traditions must have originated in some actual occurrence. (4) A submersion of a large area of territory, of perhaps all the then inhabited earth, may be accounted for on geological principles, — the depression of the land and the inrush of ocean water. It is said there is positive proof that the island of Great Britain has thus been depressed, flooded, and then elevated, several times {vide Huxley's lecture on " A Piece of Chalk "). (5) The marine shells frequently found on the summits of lofty mountains indicate that whole continents were once covered with salt water. (6) The testimony of the smooth rounded rocks seen on every side is clear and conclusive. God did not make the countless millions of pebbles on the earth ; each one of them is a chip from some old ledge, worn smooth and round in moving water. All land containing them was once and for a long time under water. This is the affirmation of all scientists. Where we now are, waves once rolled, and fish once swam. (7) There have probably been several floods ; but each one was a local affair, because there is not water enough on earth to submerge all the land at once. Noah's Flood was a local affair ; but it was a real, terribly destructive deluge. At the present time a large portion of the Sahara and of the territory around the Dead Sea and the Caspian Sea is below the ocean level ; and if a free communication were opened by an earthquake or otherwise, we should have a modern Flood.

The Noachian Deluge w r as real ; but there is no necessit}' for our supposing that those who handed down the story to Moses were thoroughly versed in geology or natural history. Their all was not commensurate with the all of modern scientists, but much less, much smaller. Nothing is too hard or difficult for the miracle-working power of God ; and it is certain that without superhuman assistance Noah and his probablj* unskilled workmen could not have built a vessel large enough and strong enough to accommodate all the land animals of earth, with food enough to sustain them a year. Nor. supposing the ark built and ready for her voyage, could Noah and his three sons, without Divine aid, have gathered and shipped all the beasts, birds, reptiles, and insects, and for twelve months kept them from dying for want of food, drink, pure air, and cleanliness. And after the ark grounded on the cold peak of Mount Ararat, nothing but a stupendous miracle could have got them all safely down the steep slope of the mountain and away to the homes adapted to their natures. We are reluctant to believe in so mam' and so strange miracles performed to avoid the simple re-creation of animals. But if we adopt the theory that Noah's Flood was a local affair, submerging only a few hundred thousand square miles of territory, and drowning only such animals as dwelt within this area, all difficulties vanish ; we can accept the Mosaic narrative as in the main correct, and believe that about a hundred and twenty years after the announcement was made, the sustaining influence of the Divine Spirit was withdrawn, and the sinful race of men perished. Admit this interpretation, and the passage contains no allusion to the realm of the dead.