Chapter II: Part 2

Such, according to the passage before us must be the manner of his Second Coming: but let us, if we can, reconcile this with the former descriptions. In the one case all nature is to be _destroyed_; in the other it is to remain unshaken. In the former instance He is said to descend with thousands of angels; in the latter, to come unattended. By the first description, He is to be seen visibly by all; in the second, He will be invisible to all except his followers. The two accounts thus stand in direct contradiction to each other. If He comes again in the same "manner" that He ascended, then the former passages cannot be literally understood: or if He comes literally in the manner they describe, the passage before us cannot be true.

I might here, as in the former case, go through every passage, and show that each of them contains within itself accounts which are inconsistent with those of the others: in one it is said that the Lord shall descend from heaven in flaming fire: in another, in the clouds: in a third, on a great white throne. In one it is declared that, before his face the earth and the heaven shall flee away, and their place be no more found: in a second, that _after_ His coming the departed shall rise from the earth, and the grave and the sea give up their dead; consequently, if the latter part be true, the earth will not pass away at the time of His descent. In the whole there are inconsistencies which science, according to the literal meaning, may disguise, but can never reconcile.

We now turn to the consideration of other passages which, taken even in their literal sense, militate strongly against the doctrine in dispute. After the destruction of the antediluvian earth by the flood, Jehovah affirmed, "I will not _again curse the ground any more_, though the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every living thing as I have done." This _curse_ which the Lord is here inferred to have pronounced upon the former world, in whatever sense the terms be taken, was accomplished in its destruction; and the end of that world by a flood of waters, completed its fulfillment. The curse of the Lord, therefore, when pronounced upon the earth, leads to its dissolution. But God Himself affirms that He will not thus curse the ground any more,--that He will not again suffer it to be destroyed, neither will He again smite everything living. The declaration is absolute. It is not said that He will refrain from it during a _limited period_, but that He will not do it _any more_--to all eternity. Yet if the commonly received doctrine be correct, this declaration of Jehovah must be untrue. If _again_ everything living _is_ to be smitten,--if again the earth is to be cursed with destruction as complete, if not more so than the former one; then it cannot be true that every living thing is _not_ again to be smitten, nor the earth again to be cursed. In this instance the literal proofs clash with the solemn declaration of God.

If, however, it be objected that these words refer not so much to the _destruction_ of the globe, as to the _mode_ of that event, I reply that no such qualifying language is found in the text. The words are general; they are not "I will not again curse the earth _with water_," but I will not curse the ground,--I will not destroy the earth "_any more_," either in this way or in any other. "I will not smite any more everything living as I have now done," by an universal destruction. And, in fact, the promise that _a flood_ should no more destroy the world, would have afforded little consolation to Noah, had he understood that another destruction more awful than the former, was approaching, in which not this world only, but the whole universe would perish; and when not the greater part, but _all_ things living, would be destroyed, without the preservation even of a remnant. The flood is certainly in the following chapter referred to particularly as the more recent danger, and a repetition of which would be most dreaded by the survivors; but the very same declaration of Jehovah, which interdicts a flood of waters, equally interdicts any other entire destruction:--"I will not in any way curse the ground any more."

There is another subject upon which I must touch, but very briefly, since the arguments arising out of it might be carried to a length far exceeding my prescribed limits. The prophetic writings abound with descriptions of what is called "the kingdom of David:"--a kingdom which was to arise in the latter day, and upon which every blessing of heaven was to descend. "In those days," says the prophet Amos, "I will raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old." ix. "And in the days of these kings (that is, literally, in the latter times of the Roman power,) shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; but it shall break in pieces, and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Dan. ii. 44. Again, the same prophet: "I saw in the night visions, and behold one like unto the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and his kingdom, that which shall not be destroyed." That these descriptions refer to the Redeemer, is evident. Isaiah when predicting his approach, and the establishment of his kingdom, says, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever." ix. 7.

Now the question is, to what authority or kingdom do these predictions refer? That it is not to the general government of God, is clear,--this had existed from eternity; but the dominion spoken of, was to commence at a definite period of time,--"at that time," and "in the days of those kings." The general subjection of all things to the Divine Being, is also something arising out of his very nature, and is neither given nor acquired; but this was something to be acquired. "The Lord God shall _give_ unto him the throne of his father David:"--"The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom." Nor can it refer to the kingdom of the just in glory, for the descriptions are such as can only apply to the state of men on earth. "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; He shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom." Isa. xl. 11. "I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David." If, therefore, this kingdom be neither the general dominion over all, nor the state of the righteous in eternity, it can only relate to the kingdom of the church on earth. And that it does so, is plain from the very terms used. David is, by almost all professed Christians, acknowledged to have been a type and representative of the Messiah; and the Jewish nation over whom he reigned, most certainly prefigured the Christian church: the throne of David is therefore the authority of the Lord in his church on earth, and his kingdom is that church itself. Now this kingdom and this throne,--this church and authority _are everlasting_; they shall "never be destroyed;" they shall "not pass away;" they shall "stand for ever." But if _the earth_ on which this church exists, is hereafter to dissolve and pass away, the kingdom must pass away with it. For though it is true that the just in heaven would still constitute a kingdom of the Lord, yet that kingdom would no longer be "_the kingdom of David_." The very declaration that the kingdom of the Lord _on earth_ will _never be destroyed_, supposes as a necessary consequence, that the earth on which it is erected will also continue to exist.

In agreement with this are the words heard by John; "There were great voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms _of this world_ are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and He shall reign for _ever and ever_." Rev. xi. 15. And over what is He thus to reign? Most certainly over the kingdoms which He is here said to have obtained--the kingdoms of _this world_; and over these He is to reign "for ever and ever." But how is He to reign for ever over the kingdoms of the world, if the world and its kingdoms are to be destroyed? Whenever the earth is dissolved, the kingdoms of the world will be no more; and he cannot reign over that which has no existence! If, then, the world and its kingdoms are to be destroyed, He can never reign _for ever_ over them: or if He will thus reign for ever over the kingdoms of the world, then those kingdoms must exist for ever; and if the _kingdoms_ exist for ever, _the world_ on which they are founded must exist for ever with them.

And exactly in accordance with this assertion are the words of the Psalmist: "He (the Lord) built his sanctuary in high places, like _the earth_ which He hath established _for ever_." And those of Solomon:--"One generation passeth away, and another cometh, _but the earth abideth for ever_." The same is declared of the heavens: "His name shall endure _for ever_; His name shall be continued _as long as the sun_." Psalm lxxii. 17. "His seed shall endure _for ever_, and his throne _as the sun_ before me; it shall be _established for ever as the moon_, and as a faithful witness in heaven." lxxxix. 36.

Nothing can be more directly opposed to the common opinion than these explicit declarations of the Bible. It is certain that these passages refer to the visible earth and to the material heaven; and these it is expressly declared are to continue not for a limited time, but for ever: while in the passages adduced to prove the opposite, we are left to struggle among difficulties, without any certainty that the visible earth is at all intended, since even those commentators who believe the tenet are compelled, in most instances, to abandon the proofs of it.

I have now established, as far as is necessary, my second proposition. I have shown that the literal sense of the passages brought forward to confirm the doctrine of the earth's destruction, are inconsistent with each other, as well as with other parts of the Sacred Volume; and therefore, that such literal meaning cannot be the true one. I have shown that the words of Jehovah assert that the world shall not be smitten any more. I have further shown that the duration of the kingdom of God, runs parallel with that of the visible world, and that therefore both must endure for ever. And lastly, that the sacred writers declare in explicit language the endless duration both of the earth and the heavens.

3. I now proceed to consider the third part of the subject: that the passages brought forward, when taken in their proper connexion, give no countenance to the popular doctrine, but on the contrary, afford evident proofs that they have no reference to it. In doing this, I shall adduce them one by one in the order they are laid down. And first, the passage in the Gospel of Matthew: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn when they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

I have already noticed the inconsistencies which arise from adopting the literal meaning of the passage; and I now remark further, that in their literal and obvious application, the words refer not to any destruction of the world in general, but to the approaching overthrow of the Jewish nation and polity. I admit that they have a spiritual reference to the state of the Christian church of which the Jews were a type; but of this we shall speak hereafter. It is with the literal meaning we have now to do, since on the literal meaning the doctrine is founded.[5]

Our Lord had been addressing the multitude in the temple; and in that address He had solemnly warned them of their approaching danger. On his departure, his followers pointed to its stately and magnificent buildings; and He again seized the opportunity to repeat to them the prediction of its final destruction. Naturally anxious to learn the fate of their country, and, perhaps, too uneasy on their own account, they came to Him privately and asked, "When shall these things be?" and "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the age?"[6]--that is, the period of the Jewish government and religion. In reply, He delivered the splendid prophecy before us; first warning them against those pretenders to Messiahship, who, soon after His ascension, overrun the land of Judea; and then going on to describe the miseries which were coming upon the Jews, and the final overthrow of their temple and city;--He delivers to them this prediction, not in the common language of narrative, but, in the magnificent figures of the ancient prophecy. A method of speaking which, while it pointed out the mutation of earthly things, had a further reference to things spiritual. And thus while He pointed out the overthrow of the Jewish power, He referred likewise to the degraded state and corruption of the Christian church,--the spiritual Jerusalem,--when, having lost its love or charity, it sunk down into a state of formal observance as lifeless as the departed spirit of Judaism.

In neither of these senses, however, does the passage point to any destruction of the visible universe. If we take it in its outward reference to the Jewish nation, then the darkening of the sun and the withdrawing of the moon, together with the other parts of the description, can only be representative images of their multiplied distresses. This view of the subject is taken by most of those who have commented on the words. "The sun shall be darkened," "that is, (says one,) all their glory and excellency shall be eclipsed; all their wealth and prosperity shall be laid waste;--the whole government, civil and ecclesiastical, shall be destroyed; and such marks of misery found upon them, as never were seen upon a people."[7] But among the believers of the tenet in dispute, we presume there is not one more highly celebrated for learning than Dr. Adam Clarke; yet he, in commenting upon this passage, gives up all idea of a literal destruction. The following is the doctor's explanation:

"'Immediately after the tribulation.'--Commentators generally understand this and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to judgment. But the word _immediately_ shows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on calamities already predicted; and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem. The _Jewish heaven_ shall perish and _the sun_ and _moon_ of its glory and happiness shall be darkened,--brought to nothing. _The sun is the religion of the church; the moon the government of the state_; and _the stars_ are the _judges and doctors of both_. In the prophetic language, great commotions upon earth are often represented under the notion of commotions and changes in the heavens. The fall of Babylon is thus represented by the constellations of heaven withdrawing their light, and the sun and the moon being darkened:--the destruction of Egypt by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped with a cloud, and the moon withholding her light: the destruction of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes, is represented by _casting down some of the host of heaven_ and _the stars_ to the ground. And this very destruction of Jerusalem is represented by the prophet Joel, by showing wonders in heaven and in earth,--_darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood_. This general mode of describing these judgments, leaves no room to doubt the propriety of its application in the present case." (_Commentary on Matthew._)

Thus, in the hands of one of the most learned advocates of the doctrine, does one of its principal proofs vanish into air. According to his showing, there is nothing in the whole passage referring at all either to the material earth, or the visible heavens; and the whole is a figurative account of the overthrow of the religion and government of the Jews,--"the _sun_ and _moon_ of the _Jewish heaven_." We might follow the doctor through the whole chapter, and show that in almost every point he confirms what has been formerly advanced. "The sign of the Son of Man was, (he says,) the signal manifestation of Christ's power and glory," in the destruction of Jerusalem. The "angels sent forth to gather the elect, the apostles and their successors in the Christian ministry." The sound of a trumpet, "the earnest affectionate call of the Gospel:" and "_the elect_," "the Gentiles who were now chosen or elected, in place of the rebellious obstinate Jews." In the same manner he explains the whole of this and the following chapter; and in the latter declares that the whole of the accounts up to the thirty-first verse, may be properly applied to the destruction of Jerusalem. And here we may leave him; for if there is nothing from the first verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, to the thirty-first verse of the twenty-fifth, which relates to the destruction of the world, surely nothing respecting it will be found in the remainder.

Thus does this passage, so often brought forward to add to the terror of the world's dissolution, which has been sounded forth from pulpits and re-echoed from the press, when calmly examined, prove to have no connexion with the subject: but to refer to an event as different from the general conflagration, as light from darkness.

But some may be ready to say, "Although it has not this reference in its outward meaning, yet you have already confessed that it relates to Christianity and the church; and is not the doctrine contained in this internal application?" I answer, no! The doctrine only stands upon the supposition that the heavens and the earth referred to in the passage, are the literal and visible portions of nature. We have seen that in its relation to the Jews, no such things are intended; still less, therefore, can it point to these in its _internal_ meaning. As the sun and moon in the literal application are, (to use the words of Dr. Clarke,) "the sun and moon of the _Jewish_ heaven" or state, so in spiritual reference, they are the sun and moon of the _Christian_ heaven, or state of the church; and, as pointing to spiritual principles and spiritual states, have nothing to do with the outward machinery of nature. As no destruction of the world, then, can be found in the _internal_ sense of the prophecy, it is confessed, even by the advocates of the doctrine, that there is nothing respecting it in the _outward_ sense. And if nothing is found relating to it either in the _spiritual_ or _literal_ meaning of the words, then it is not there _at all_; and the passage as a proof of the dissolution of all things, must be abandoned for ever.[8]

The next passage which claims attention, is that in the sixth chapter of the Revelation; for the words in the first chapter being those of the apostle previous to his prophetic visions, may be classed among the apostolic passages of which we shall speak hereafter. The text before us reads: "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind: and the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." In this part of the subject I say nothing of the evidently figurative nature of the passage, nor of the absurdities before alluded to, as existing in the sense of the letter; but I shall make one remark obvious to the minds of all, and borne out by the connexion of the words themselves. The vision of the _seals_ (as well as that of the vials,) is one continued prophecy, which is not concluded until the breaking of the seventh seal in the eighth chapter. Now the events above described, whether representative or literal, happen under the _sixth_ seal; yet the descriptions of the _seventh_ as well as those of the others, refer to events which were to occur in the church and on this visible earth. The sealing of the hundred and forty-four thousand,--the prohibition of the wind to blow on the earth,--the seven trumpets and their consequences, evidently relate to states of the church in this world; yet all these things which were to be transacted in the visible world, happen _after_ the description above quoted.

If, then, various and multiplied events are described as occurring _on the earth, after_ the heavens had departed like a scroll, and the islands were moved out of their places, nothing can be more clear than that the destruction of the earth is not here alluded to; for if the world is to be destroyed under the _sixth_ seal, then no events can happen _upon it_ under the _seventh_, since it will then have no existence; but as such events _are_ described as passing _in the world_ under the _seventh_ seal, then that world cannot previously be destroyed under the _sixth_ seal.

And in this opinion we are, as before, supported by the advocates of the doctrine themselves. The sealing of the tribes is almost universally acknowledged to signify the preservation of the church, under those heavy and forthcoming calamities represented by the effects of the seven trumpets. And as this preservation, and these calamities, occur _after_ the darkening of the sun, and the falling of the stars, the latter event is generally supposed to prefigure (not the destruction of visible nature, but) some great change in the political or religious constitution of the world. The precise period to which this change is to be referred, has, however, divided the opinions of the learned. Some apply it altogether to the Jews, and suppose that their destruction in Judea and at Jerusalem was so dismal that it was represented to John as the darkening of the sun, and the moon looking like blood, and the stars falling. Others apply it to the overthrow of Paganism and the destruction of the heathen emperors; and accordingly by the earth quaking,--the sun becoming black,--the moon becoming blood, and the stars falling from heaven to earth, is to be understood the great changes that were made in the Roman empire by the overturning of the Pagan state. Others again apply it to "the great and horrible confusion of the Christian world under Antichrist, when Christ the Sun of Righteousness began to be obscured; that is, his doctrine darkened,--the moon or church turned into blood,--the stars or pastors fallen from heavenly offices, the Scriptures, like the heavens rolled up, forbidden to be read, the mountains, (king and princes) in jeopardy,--and the islands brought under Antichrist's yoke and tyranny." Very few venture to apply it to what is commonly called the "end of the world;" and none can do it without charging the apostle with inconsistency, by affirming that it shall take place at a definite period of time; and then speaking of events that are to occur in the world _after_ that time, that is, after the world shall have been destroyed!

On this passage the commentator whom we have already quoted observes,

"A great earthquake," that is, "a most stupendous change in the civil and religious constitution of the world." "The _sun_"--the ancient Pagan government of the Roman empire, "_was totally darkened_; and like a black hair sackcloth, was degraded and humbled to the dust. The _moon_--the ecclesiastical state of the same empire, _become as blood_, was totally ruined; their sacred rites abrogated; their priests and religious institutions desecrated; their altars cast down; their temples destroyed, or turned into places of Christian worship. The _stars of heaven_--the gods and goddesses, demi-gods and deified heroes, of their poetical and _mythological heaven_, prostrated indiscriminately, and lay as useless as the figs or fruit of a tree shaken down before ripe by a tempestuous wind. _And the heaven departed as a scroll._ The whole system of Pagan and idolatrous worship, with all its spiritual, secular, and superstitious influence, blasted, shriveled up, and rendered null and void as a parchment scroll when exposed to the action of a strong fire. And every mountain--all the props, supports, and dependencies of the empire; whether regal allies, tributary kings, dependent colonies, or mercenary troops, were all moved out of their places, so as to stand no longer in the same relation to that empire and its worship, support, and maintenance, as they formerly did. And _island_:--The heathen temples, with their precincts and inclosures, cut off from the common people, may be here represented by _islands_."[9]

Like the former passage, therefore, this is rendered nugatory as a proof of the dissolution of the universe; and rendered so, too, by the admission of its friends. As that referred to the _Jewish heaven_ which passed away at the destruction of the city of Jerusalem, so this is affirmed to apply to the _mythological heaven_ of the Pagans, which was dissolved at the conversion of Constantine to Christianity; and to have no allusion to the system of material nature. Here are two of the strongest passages thrown aside as useless in the controversy; and we shall quickly perceive that, when closely examined, the advocates of the doctrine equally cast off, if not the whole, at least the greater part, of the remainder.

Indeed, as I have already remarked, the connexion of the passage is such as will by no means admit of any literal burning of the earth; so that, even though its inapplicability to the subject had _not_ been allowed, yet would the inconsistency attendant on such a meaning, have pleaded loudly for its rejection.

We pass now to consider the next proof, which occurs in the twentieth chapter of the same book: "And I saw a great white throne and Him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead small and great stand before God; and the books were opened," etc. In connection with this stands the first verse of the twenty-first chapter: "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away, and there was no more sea."

Upon this passage we may repeat the remark which we applied to the foregoing: that the events which follow this descent of the Saviour, and which are stated as its consequences, are such as apply only to the church of God on earth; and that, therefore, the words before us cannot point to any dissolution of the universe. The immediate effects of the passing away of the heaven and the earth, are the formation of a new heaven and a new earth, and the descent of "the holy city New Jerusalem." This latter event the celebrated Dr. Hammond declares cannot refer to the state of glorified saints in heaven, but must signify some peculiar benefit bestowed upon the church on earth. The expression "descending out of heaven from God," at once determines its reference to a state of things below; and it no doubt relates to the restoration of Christianity to its primitive purity. In the very same manner does Dr. Clarke explain the passage, though he evidently betrays a wish to find within it a proof of the dissolution of all things. "The New Jerusalem," says he, "doubtless means the Christian church in a state of great prosperity and purity:" and alluding to the description given of her, he observes, that "it has been _most injudiciously_ applied to _heaven_." If, then, the consequence of the passing away of the first heaven is to usher in (not eternal glory, but) a prosperous state of the church on earth, it must follow in course that such a passing away of the heavens must refer to a change and alteration in the church, and not in the natural world;--to the conclusion and departure of a state of darkness, and the commencement of a new state of light and affection. As the former _Jewish heaven_ of types and shadows departed at the first coming of the SON OF GOD, and as the _mythological heaven of Paganism_ was "shriveled up" at the triumph of the Gospel, so must the _modern Christian heaven_ of ignorance and evil pass away at the Second Coming of the SON OF MAN; and to it will succeed a _new heaven_ of purity and peace.

In this application of the passage, we are supported by the explanation of the above commentators. They agree in defining heaven and earth figuratively, to mean the state of the world and of the church;--of the Jewish world, when applied to the Jews;--of the Pagan world, when applied to the Heathen: and by the self-same mode of interpretation, we are justified in applying it to the _Christian world_ in its reference to Christians. In no case can it be explained of the visible world of matter; for the passages being acknowledged to be figurative, it must, as in the other instances, bear the figurative meaning.

Having thus noticed the only two texts in the Revelations, which seem, in the least, to bear upon the subject, I may be allowed again to repeat my surprise, that persons should be found attempting to support a doctrine by the literal sense of this book. Those among the advocates of the popular belief, who have most carefully studied the prophecy, protest their ignorance of its meaning and application. "I cannot pretend to explain the book," says the writer above quoted; "I do not understand it. I repeat it, I do not understand the book; and I am satisfied, that not one who has written on the subject, knows anything more of it than myself."--"What the prophecies mean, and when and _how_ they are to be fulfilled, God in heaven alone knows." It "is termed a _Revelation_; but it is a revelation of _symbols_;--an exhibition of _enigmas_, to which no particular solution is given; and to which God alone can give the solution." "To pretend to say, (observes Calmet,) what this new heaven and new earth mean, and what are their ornaments and qualities, is, in my opinion, the greatest of all presumptions." Yet, into this presumption do the generality of Christians fall, who, amidst this candid confession of learned ignorance, bring forth with the greatest confidence the literal sense of the book, to support a doctrine which length of time has seemed to render sacred.

The words of the apostles now demand our attention; and with respect to these we notice a fact which is necessary to the proper understanding of their ideas; that is, that the apostles were themselves ignorant both of the time when, and the manner how, the second coming of the Lord would be accomplished; and that they have, therefore, when speaking upon this subject, carefully abstained from giving any opinion of their own, confining themselves entirely to the words of the Saviour, or paraphrasing them without altering the symbolic images.

This circumstance in no degree detracts from that extraordinary illumination with which the apostles were endowed. They were men raised up by God, and filled with the Divine influence, in order that they might propagate in the world, and among all nations, the religion of Christ; but it does not appear that among the supernatural gifts which they received, the gift of _prophecy_ was included, except in the case of the apostle John. Yet, even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that they did _possess_ this gift, it would by no means follow that they perfectly understood their own predictions. It is the peculiar nature of prophecy, that its proper meaning is not known until the time of its fulfillment; and this was especially the case with the Jewish writers who foretold the first advent of the Saviour. Although their predictions seem now so clear and strong, yet both the prophets themselves and their followers, were at the time ignorant of their precise meaning; and hence arose the absurd notions which the Jews entertained of a temporal salvation and an earthly Saviour. The gift of prophecy was, therefore, except in very rare instances, accompanied by entire ignorance of the manner of its fulfillment. It does not, however, appear that this gift was bestowed in general upon the apostles; their knowledge of the second coming of the Saviour was derived entirely from the words of the Saviour; and of the express meaning of these words, as referring to a future event, they were completely ignorant. In quoting his prediction they, therefore, seem to have held a persuasion that this second coming was very speedily to be accomplished. Thus they speak of the "day of the Lord" as "at hand,"--of "the Judge standing at the door:" and Paul, in particular, seems to have believed that some of the Christians of that day, if not himself among them, would live to see its approach.

Whether this latter opinion be true or not, certain it is that the words of the apostles had such an effect upon the first Christians, that they were in momentary expectation of the appearance of the Lord. During the first nine centuries after his ascension, a general idea prevailed that his second coming would speedily take place; and when, after waiting nine hundred years, they found their expectations disappointed, they still looked to the one thousandth year to usher in this great event; and so powerfully did this opinion operate upon the world, that rich and poor flocked in great numbers to the Holy Land, there to await his appearance. The wealthy sold their possessions, or gave them away to charitable institutions; kings quitted their thrones, and subjects their employment, under the impression that "the end of all things was at hand," and that the world was of no further value. Such, then, was the effect of a misapplication of prophetic language; and though nearly nineteen hundred years have gone by, yet are the Christian churches still following in the steps of their predecessors, holding the literal sense of the Word in defiance of reason, and looking for the Lord's personal appearance in the clouds of heaven, though common sense proclaims its improbability.

But to return. From a comparison of the descriptions of the apostles with the predictions of the Lord, it is easy to perceive whence they quoted. In many instances the two accounts are almost word for word the same; in others they are enlarged; but in none is the connexion of events, or the prophetic symbols, disturbed. "The day of the Lord (says Peter,) shall come as a _thief in the night_, in which the heavens shall _pass away_ with a great noise." Here it is easy to perceive whence the words of the apostle were drawn; for we have only to compare them with those of our Lord, to be convinced that it was from these the description is taken. "Heaven and earth (says the Saviour) shall _pass away_, but my words shall not pass away." "Know this, that if the good man of the house had known at what hour _the thief_ would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through." Again, Paul declares, "The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the _archangel_ and _the trump_ of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first." Here, too, the prophecy is quoted from the Saviour's declaration: "He shall send his angels with a _great sound_ of a _trumpet_, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." Once more the Apostle John says: "Behold, he cometh _with clouds_; and every eye shall _see_ him, even they that pierced Him; and all _the tribes of the earth_ shall wail because of Him:" where the allusion is to these words: "Then shall appear the sign of the coming of the Son of Man in _heaven_; and then shall all the _tribes of the earth mourn_, when they _see_ the Son of Man _coming in the clouds_ of heaven, with power and great glory." "Behold, (says the Lord) I _stand at the door_ and knock;" "Behold," says the apostle, echoing the Saviour's words, "the Judge _standeth at the door_."

It would exceed my present limits to enter fully into this subject. Suffice to say, that in most passages the reference to our Lord's predictions may be plainly discerned; and in all the prophetic representatives are retained: The sun,--the moon,--the stars,--the earth,--the heavens, darkness, dissolution, and fire--the very images which are used by the Saviour, are likewise used by the apostles, and used, too, with a reference to the _same period_--the last days of the Christian church. If these images, when used by the prophets and by the Redeemer, are figurative, then, as the same _images_ applied to the _same period_, they are figurative when employed by the apostles. Or, if the dissolution and burning of the earth described by the latter are literal facts, then the burning of the earth and its dissolution described by the former, are literal facts likewise; for the _same images_ applied to the _same period_, must have the _same meaning_.

If, then, these observations be correct, and I see not how they can be fairly controverted;--if the apostles did not, except in one instance, possess the power of foretelling future events, and if their descriptions of the second coming of the Lord are gathered from his own words, or from the prophetic writings, then we must judge of their meaning by that of the prophecies whence they are derived. This is a plain and self-evident conclusion. If I quote the words of any writer, the meaning of the quotation must be gathered from the works of that writer; and more especially if I quote for a similar purpose, and profess myself one of his disciples and admirers. The passages, therefore, which occur in the apostolic writings, are by no means decisive proofs of the doctrine in debate. As quotations and paraphrases of the Lord's words and those of the prophets, they must, by every rule of fair criticism, have a similar meaning. We have seen that the former are, by the acknowledgment of the most learned writers, figurative and correspondent; the just inference therefore is, that the latter, as quotations and paraphrases of them, must be figurative also.

4. The last part of our proposition comes now before us, namely: that the doctrine of the destruction of the universe is opposed to the end of creation, and to the character of God as a Being of unbounded love and infinite wisdom. I may here be told of the tendency of matter to dissolution; of its mutability and constant change; of the elements of destruction which nature herself engenders; and of all those by which reason and science have sought to gloss over the popular tenet. But the _mutability_ of nature is no proof of final dissolution. _Mutability_ is liability to change, or a continual tendency to remove from one state to another. Whatever is changeable, or whatever can experience alteration, is, therefore, mutable. But this mutability attaches not to material nature alone, but to all creation; the highest archangel in the highest heaven, as well as every spirit embodied on earth, is a mutable creature. The state of glory in the eternal world, as well as the state of man below, is a state of _mutability_,--a state in which there are continual changes either for the better or the worse. This will appear plain if we consider that, whatever is immutable cannot be acted upon by any higher power; for the action of such a superior cause supposes a corresponding _effect_ and that effect supposes a _change_ in the object acted upon, in one way or another; and, consequently, any object upon which an effect can be produced, must be a mutable or changeable object. Now, in the case of angelic beings, God, the First Cause of their existence, is continually acting upon them by his love and wisdom, and thus raising them eternally in the scale of blessedness: such alteration of their state from glory to glory is a change,--an effect produced upon them by an Almighty Cause; and this effect is at once a proof that angels themselves are _mutable_ creatures, or liable to change. The same may be said of the state of blessedness; it is continually receiving fresh supplies of glory from the Fountain of life, and is thus _changing_--becoming more and more blessed: and it equally applies to the spirit of man. This, like the mind, is never "at one stay;" nor, perhaps, does the state of the mind remain precisely the same for two hours together. The angels of heaven, the state of the blessed, the spirit of man, are all changeable. God is the _only immutable Being_; for He alone cannot be acted upon or changed by any higher power; and hence it is one of his exclusive prerogatives to be "without variableness or shadow of turning." If, then, the angelic hosts, as well as heaven itself, are mutable, while yet they endure for ever, the mutability of nature is no proof at all that she, any more than the former, is approaching dissolution.

"Nature herself," as one well observes, "effects her renovation from her decay." Matter, though decomposed and subjected to ten thousand changes, loses none of its essential properties; but continually assuming new forms, gives variety to the world, without being at all altered from its original nature. Indeed, it has been strongly asserted that there has not been a particle of matter lost from the creation to the present moment; changed every particle may have been, but still there is not one wanting; and if this be the case, such continual change is no proof of approaching destruction.

We are accustomed to look upon God as a Being of infinite Love; and, perhaps, at this stage of the subject it may be well to inquire, what motive induced the Lord first to create the visible universe; and what was the end proposed in its creation. In the breast of the Divine Being there could exist but one motive from which creation could spring; and this was Love. But the Love of God being infinite, could only have respect to an eternal work; hence the end of creation was to make as many beings as possible happy, and this to all eternity. In order to accomplish this, infinite _Love_ clothing or embodying itself in _wisdom_, made the worlds. According to the words of the apostle, "By the Word (or the wisdom of God,) were the heavens made;" intending these as the habitations of rational beings, who after having passed through a short state of probation, might finally enter upon a spiritual state and enjoy perfect happiness. The wisdom of God, being the manifestation of his love, in completing this work, arranged everything in the most perfect order; and accordingly every part of the universe is formed in the manner best fitted to promote the end of its existence,--the everlasting happiness of man. In our own world, where evil has produced a corresponding change in outward things, even that change itself is good, since, while it reminds man of his corruption, it leads him to seek a better habitation.

Thus far our assertions are easy of proof. GOD IS LOVE;--not merely _loving_, but LOVE, the Spring and Fountain of all derived existence. And love, even in its derivative form in the bosom of man, is an active passion, continually seeking for objects on whom to bestow its affection. As is the stream, then, so is the fountain: God being Love in its Infinite Essence, must ever have sought to form creatures capable of being rendered eternally happy; and hence the motive that led to creation. But _love_ always manifests itself in the understanding or thought; and by the thought is brought into outward action. It is the thought or wisdom of man in which his love first takes a definite form; this serves it for a guide, and directs its operations: and so again is it with the Being in whose "image" we are formed. The manifestation of infinite Love, is infinite Wisdom; and this brings the power into outward act: by infinite Wisdom, therefore, as the acting form of infinite Love, were rational beings and their varied habitations created. But this perfect wisdom can never produce anything unlike itself; for, as is the _cause_, so is the _effect_; hence the frame of nature which that wisdom calls into being, must be like itself, the most perfect and complete that could possibly exist. The _motive_, therefore, which led to creation was _Love_; its _cause_, Wisdom; its _end_, continued and eternal happiness.

And further, as the love and wisdom of God once operated in bringing the universe into existence, so from that period have they been unceasingly employed in preserving the creatures which they formed; for, as the _end_ of creation was the "bringing of many souls into glory," so, to the present, has that end been answered by the constant exercise of the Divine protection over the universe of matter and its rational inhabitants; that the one might continue a fit habitation for the creatures of God; and that by the constant procreation of the human race, a succession of men might be brought into being as candidates for everlasting glory. But the expected dissolution of the universe, and the end of human succession, will at once put a stop to this infinite design. If, after a certain number of persons have been born into the world, the procreation of man must end, then the purpose of creation cannot be _infinite_; for that which has reference to a certain number and a definite period of time, is not an _infinite_ purpose; and that which is not an infinite purpose, is not the off-spring of _infinite love_. Or, if the purpose of God in creation _did_ spring from infinite love, then it must be an infinite purpose; and if the purpose of creation be infinite, then it is not bounded by a few thousand years, nor will it end with a few generations.

Nor is the popular doctrine more consistent with the character of God than with the infinity of his designs. We have seen that _love_ was the cause of the world's creation; but what motive, I ask, can lead to its destruction? There is nothing in the Almighty contrary to love; therefore, if it is destroyed at all, _love_ must be still the motive. But love never works except for the good of its creatures; therefore, if the universe is dissolved, it must be because such dissolution will confer a benefit upon mankind. And the question then arises: What benefit can mankind derive from the destruction of this material world? The answer of some will be ready. "The world" they tell us, "has been changed by sin, and it will be dissolved in order that it may be restored to its pristine glory and beauty;--that a new heaven and a new earth may spring from its ashes." But does the change here supposed in the constitution of the world, require its dissolution? When sin entered into the universe, and the mind of man was contaminated, an immediate and corresponding effect was produced upon the world of matter; but the production of that effect was not accompanied by a _dissolution_ of the material system; it operated surely indeed, but slowly, and without any outward destruction. Why, then, should not the change from evil to good, be effected in like manner as the change from good to evil? When the earth is "filled with the knowledge of the Lord,"--when all shall experimentally "know Him from the least even unto the greatest,"--when man is again restored to his former state of peace and purity, a corresponding change must once more take place in his material habitation; but that change requires no destruction of the world to effect it. Similar causes produce similar effects; and as a change in man from good to evil, produced an alteration in the system of the world, but without any dissolution, so a change in the souls of men from evil to good, must likewise produce an alteration in the earth, but without dissolution.

But this destruction, it is said, is to usher in "a new heaven and new earth." We are, therefore, justified in asking, for what purpose is this new material system created? Since it is believed that the succession of man will cease with _this_ earth, why should _another_ earth be formed? Is another race of men to be created? This, the strongest advocates of the doctrine do not even suppose. Is it, then, to be the habitation of the righteous of the present earth? This, it cannot be, for the bodies of the departed will no longer be material, but _spiritual_; and to assert that a _spiritual_ substance can dwell and walk on a material earth, however pure that earth may be, is to assert what every one sees to be preposterous. Since, then, it will not suit the departed righteous, and another race is not to be formed, why, we continue to ask, will this new earth be created? Here we are left completely in the dark; nor amidst all the reasoning of the advocates of the popular doctrine, can we find a single clue to direct us to an answer.

And here the former inquiry properly comes in. Since there is nothing in the nature of God contrary to _love_, and since that love only works for the temporal or everlasting benefit of man, what motive can induce the Almighty to destroy this visible universe? We have seen that the state of mankind in time will not be improved by it; for a change in the constitution of the earth has been already, and may again be, effected without it: and, besides, whenever such an event takes place, time and the temporal existence of man will be no more: and the eternal happiness of the blessed can in no degree be increased by an overthrow of material nature; for when the spirit has left this sphere, it has done with matter, and no longer depends upon it for its feelings or its pleasures. If, then, such a dissolution of the earth as Christians in general look for, will neither benefit mankind in time nor in eternity, then it is contrary to the character of God that He should bring such an event to pass; for He never operates unless to effect some benevolent purpose; and this will effect none, either here or hereafter.