THENew Eschatology.SHOWINGTHE INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE EARTHANDTHE WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LETTER ANDSPIRIT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.BYJ. G. BROUGHTON PEGG.roundelPHILADELPHIAJ. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.1872.Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, byJ. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.,In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.Lippincott's Press,Philadelphia.
SHOWING
THE INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE EARTH
AND
THE WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LETTER ANDSPIRIT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
BYJ. G. BROUGHTON PEGG.
roundel
PHILADELPHIAJ. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.1872.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, byJ. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.,In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
Lippincott's Press,Philadelphia.
This little work was published in England several years ago; but has never before been republished in this country. It deals with those texts of Scripture which have generally been supposed to foretell the destruction of the material universe; and shows conclusively that these passages have been entirely misunderstood by commentators; and that, rightly interpreted, they have no reference whatever to the outer realm of matter, but to the inner realm of mind; to the internal condition of the church, the loss or destruction of heavenly charity, and the eclipse of genuine faith, which it was foreseen and foretold would occur at the close of the first Christian Dispensation.
It is proper to add, also, that, although the name of Swedenborg nowhere occurs in the book, it is evident that the author was familiar with his teachings, and viewed and treated his subject from the Swedenborgianstand-point. But with the lovers of spiritual truth and the seekers after a Spiritual Christianity, this fact—now that so many earnest inquirers are beginning to read the writings of the Swedish seer—will rather add to than detract from the interest and value of the work.
American Editor.
Philadelphia, Oct. 30, 1871.
For the first heaven and the first earth were passedaway; and there was no more sea.—Rev.xxi. 1.
Whilewe blame the conduct of the Jews in adhering only to the literal sense of the Scriptures, and by such adherence rejecting their Messiah, we possibly forget that the Christian church has followed precisely the same line of conduct; and that to this we are indebted for the greater part of those absurd dogmas, which have so long exposed the Gospel to the derision of its enemies. Had men properly discriminated between those parts of the Sacred Volume which areliterallytrue, and those which are onlyapparentlyso, we should never have heard of the doctrines of transubstantiation and Roman supremacy; nor of many other equally absurd beliefs which the generality of Christians entertain. We should not have seen a fallible and weak mortal exalted as Head over the church of God; we should not have heard of a morsel of bread being changed into the Lord's body; we should not have seen theDivine Nature divided among three separate and distinct Persons; nor should we have heard of the doctrine which we are about to bring under consideration.
But do not mistake me. When I assert that the Scriptures in the literal sense sometimes speak only apparent truth, I by no means deny the divine authority of the Sacred Record. The church whose doctrines I advocate, most explicitly declares that thewholeof the Scriptures,—every chapter,—every verse,—every word, nay, sometimes everyletter—is filled with the inbreathed wisdom of God. But when I say that apparent and notrealtruths are often laid down in the letter of the Word, I affirm what every man who possesses any share of discernment will readily admit. The fact itself is too plain even to require proof. Thus we read that the sun rises, moves, and sets; which is certainly true inappearance, but not in reality. Again we are told that theLordrepents,—that He is weary, and that He turns away His face from man; which, though correct as regards appearance, has no foundation in literal fact; for though the Sun of Righteousness is said to rise upon the soul, and to set when the mind is given up to evil, yet it is here as in the case of thematerialsun. In God "there is no variableness nor shadow of turning;"—"He fainteth not, neither isweary;"—"He is not a man that He should lie, nor the son of man that He should repent;" but as the earth, by turning to or from the sun, causes the appearance of motion in that body; so the mind of man, by turning to the Lord, or by departing from Him, causesan appearance of change in God; yet it is not He that changes, but the mind itself.
And we may go still further. There are numerous passages in the Word of God, which in the literal sense only, do not convey evenapparenttruth. Among others the following, "Thou ridest through them with thine horses." "He rode upon a cherub and did fly; He came flying upon the wings of the wind." "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him;" "for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." "This (bread) is my body; this cup is the New Testament in my blood." "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee." I am the Door of the sheep." "I am the true vine, and my Father is the Husbandman." In all these passages, and others which will occur to every reader of the Scripture, the literal sense conveys neither real nor apparent truth. The Lord does not really ride through the sea, nor does he evenappearto do so. The flesh of the Saviour was not to beliterallyeaten. The bread which He held was not really his body, nor did it evenseemto be so. And as in these and similar instances, the outward letter of the Word conveys not its true meaning, it is to be sought for in the law of correspondence; or in that eternal connection which subsists between natural things and spiritual.
And upon this law of correspondence or analogy I must make a few preliminary remarks. It is what the world in general termsfigure, ormetaphor; but the New Church makes a distinction, and I will add, a very just one, betwixtfigure(properly so called) andcorrespondence. Figurative language is that in which a comparison is drawn between one natural object and another; the analogy between which exists only in the imagination, and has, therefore, norealexistence: but correspondence is the representation of spiritual things by natural; and the resemblance is not merely imaginary but real, consisting in the proper dependence of the latter upon the former, as an effect upon its cause. If we compare a mighty empire in its rise, glory, and decline, to an oak springing up, flourishing for centuries, and then decaying, we usefigurativelanguage; since both the empire and the oak arenaturalobjects, which have norealconnection with each other, and between which the resemblance is only imaginary. But when the Creator is likened to the sun, the language is no longerfigurativebutcorrespondent. It is not the comparison of earthly things with earthly, but of spiritual things with natural. And the objects compared have a real connection with each other, since the material sun depends on its Creator as an effect upon its cause. Again, when the church is described as the Lord's body, the language is correspondent and the connection real; for the rise and prosperity of the church depended upon the assumption of humanity by the Saviour; and it still hangs upon it as the cause of its existence.
We further notice that all passages of the Word, the historical as well as the poetical, bear within them such a correspondent or internal sense. This will be placed beyond a reasonable doubt if we consider, first, that "all Scripture,"whether historical or prophetic, is, according to the Apostle, inspired orGod-breathed. And as the breath of God is the infinitude of his love and wisdom, every portion of the sacred Volume must be filled with it. Not only every book in general, but every verse and every sentence;—for if we can find a single sentence which does not contain within itself the infinite wisdom of God, such sentence must either form no part of the Scripture, or the assertion of Paul must be untrue. And secondly, the Word of God from the beginning to the end is intended to "make us wise unto salvation." This is the design with which every part of it was written. But we can only become truly wise by being acquainted with our own state, and with the nature of the Divine Redeemer. Whatever part, therefore, does not relate both to God and to ourselves, cannot communicate saving wisdom; and consequently, (if the Apostle be correct,) cannot form any portion of the Sacred Volume. Now, independently of the passages which we have before quoted, the greater part of what is called "the historical Word," consists, in its mereoutward form, of the records of the Jewish nation, their wars, and their policy. The prophecies themselves in their literal and obvious meaning, refer to the rise and decline of earthly states, and to the mutation of earthly empires. Either, then, such records and prophecies must have an internal and correspondent meaning, relating to spiritual and divine things, or if they have not, they cannot be fitted to communicate saving wisdom, and so cannot be accounted part of theScriptures; seeing that theScripturesin every part, are, according to Paul, filled with this wisdom.[1]
If, then, thereareparts of the Word of God, the true meaning of which is not to be found in the literal sense; if that Word contains, within the outward letter, a spiritual and internal meaning; and if we are to resort to such meaning where the letter gives not the true one; the next inquiry which arises is, How are we to determine when a passage is true in the literal sense, or when it is only true in the corresponding one? The answer is easy. When the outward meaning of any passage asserts something at variance with reason,—or when it appears opposed to the known character of God, then such meaning must be abandoned, and the truth sought in the internal sense. This answer has been admitted as correct by the Protestant churches, in their contest with their Catholic neighbors. The latter argue that the words of our Lord, "This is my body," are to be literally understood; while the former very justly answer that, since such an interpretation is opposed to reason and at variance with the nature of God as a God of truth, it ought to be and must be rejected; and the words considered asfigurative, or as I have already termed it,correspondent.
I have now proved a few preliminary points:First, that there are some portions of the Word of God, the truemeaning of which is not to be found in the letter.Second, that when the literal sense of a passage is opposed to fact and reason, such literal sense is to be rejected. Andthird, that in such cases the interpretation must be sought in the correspondent or figurative meaning.
We turn now to what is commonly denominated "the End of the World;" and on stating the generally received doctrine on this subject, we shall quote the words of the celebrated John Wesley, both on account of his piety and learning, and because the views which he maintains may be fairly taken as those of the generality of Christians. First he observes:
"There shall be earthquakes, not in divers places only, but inall places; not in one part only, but in every part of the habitable world. In one of these every island shall flee away, and the mountains will not be found. Meanwhile all the waters of the terraqueous globe will feel the violence of these concussions. The sea and the waves roaring, with such an agitation as had never been known before since the hour that `the fountains of the great deep were broken up' to destroy the earth, which then stood 'out of the water and in the water!' The air will be all storm and tempest, full of dark vapors, and pillars of smoke resounding with thunder from pole to pole, and torn with ten thousand lightnings. But the commotion will not stop in the region of the air: the powers of heaven also shall be shaken. 'There shall be signs in the sun and in the moon, and in the stars;' those fixed as well as thosethat move round them. 'The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come.' 'The stars shall withdraw their shining,' yea, and 'fall from heaven,' being thrown out of their orbits. And then shall be heard the universalshoutfrom all the companies of heaven, followed by thevoice of the archangel, proclaiming the approach of the Son of God and man; and thetrumpet of Godsounding an alarm to all that sleep in the dust of the earth. In consequence of this, all the graves shall open and the bodies of men arise."
After the following judgment, (which Mr. Wesley thinks must last several thousand years, considering "the number of persons who are to be judged, and of actions which are to be inquired into,") he proceeds:
"Then the heavens will be shriveled up as a parchment scroll, and pass away with a great noise. The very manner of their passing away is disclosed to us by the apostle Peter, 'In the day of God, the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved.' The whole beautiful fabric will be overthrown by that raging element, the connexion of all its parts destroyed, and every atom torn asunder from the others. 'By the same the earth also and the works that are therein, shall be burnt up;' the enormous work of nature, the everlasting hills, mountains that have defied the rage of time, and stood unmoved so many thousand years, will sink down in fiery ruin. How much less will the works of art, though of the most durable kind, the utmost efforts of human industry,tombs, pillars, triumphal arches, castles, pyramids, be able to withstand the flaming Conqueror! All, all will die, perish, vanish away, like a dream when one awaketh."[2]
Such, in substance, is the doctrine of the Christian world; and certainly iffearandterrorwere sufficient to drive men into a state of righteousness, here are horrors enough to excite the fears even of the most courageous. But not the eloquence of man any more than his wrath, worketh the righteousness of God. It is not sufficient that a doctrine be eloquently set forth; it must also have truth for its foundation. It is not enough that Scripture be quoted to support it; that Scripture must also stand in its proper connexion, and retain its proper meaning; for if this be not the case, however eloquent the preacher and however numerous the apparent proofs, the tenet can only rank with that "wood, hay, and stubble,"—those unsubstantial and airy doctrines, which, when tried by the fire of Divine Wisdom, are consumed and pass away. And if we can prove,First, That the passages which are quoted to support the doctrine before us, areliterallyunderstood, while nevertheless such literal sense leads to absurdity;Second, If we can further make it appear that such aliteralapplication of them makes them inconsistent with each other as well as with many plain portions of the Bible; and again, that, even if we admit such outward meaning to be correct, it gives no countenanceto the doctrine in dispute; while at the same time that doctrine is opposed to the end of creation and the character of God;—if these propositions can be made good, I trust it will appear, that the tenet itself has no countenance from the Scriptures; and that the true meaning of the passages adduced, must be sought for in the internal or spiritual sense of the Word.
The portions of Scripture on which the supposed destruction of the universe is founded, are far from numerous. Some of them are already quoted in the extract from Mr. Wesley; and previous to entering upon the consideration of our first proposition, we shall point out a few of the remainder. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken; and then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And 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." Matt. xxiv. 29, 30, 31. "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, until all be fulfilled." Matt. v. 18. "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus who is taken from you, shall so come as ye have seen Him go into heaven." Acts i. 11. "Then cometh the end, when heshall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father." 1 Cor. xv. 24. "The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that know not God." 2 Thess. i. 7, 8. "The day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter iii. 10.
But it is from the book of Revelation, that the principal part of the proofs are drawn. A bookconfessedlyfigurative in its language, and which the wisest and most learned men have in vain striven to interpret. One could hardly commit or imagine a greater outrage upon the common sense of mankind, than that which the defenders of this doctrine have committed, by first confessing the Book itself to be figurative and inexplicable, and then adducing its languageliterally, in their support, as if they had all at once found out that it was no longer figurative butliteral. If the visions of the Apostle are not literal, but grand and representative images, then ought they not to be understood in a literal manner, or if they are to be so understood, then as plain and literal narrative they may be easily explained; and the complaint which the receivers of this doctrine have so often made, that it cannot be understood, is to the last degree frivolous and foolish.
And what makes the matter still worse is, that the passages they have adduced are among the most highly figurativein the Apostle's descriptions. The following are among them: "Behold He cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see Him; and they that pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth shall wail because of Him." i. 7. "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." vi. 12, 13, 14. "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." xx. 11, 12. "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." xxi. 1.
Such are the texts of Scripture by which the doctrine before us is supported; the greater part of which have clearly no reference to the subject, and the remainder being not the literal language of narrative, but thecorrespondentand mysterious words of prophecy. Yet, even viewing them in their outward meaning, we can scarcely fail to be struck with the wide difference which exists between them and the description of Mr. Wesley. There is nothing in them of an earthquake, amidst some general concussion in which every island shall flee away:—nothing of "the airresounding with thunder from pole to pole, and being torn with ten thousand lightnings:"—nothing of the connexion of every part being destroyed, and every atom torn asunder from the others. We may therefore fairly set these down as additional horrors, supplied by the imagination of the writer, and unsupported by anything like Scripture proof. And with regard to what remains, we will now see how far thatliteralsense upon which it rests, will stand the criterion by which we are to determine the meaning of Scripture. If the outward meaning is reasonable and consistent, then it must be adhered to, and the doctrine is established: but if, on the other hand, such interpretation leads to absurdity, then, by the consent of every Protestant church, that meaning must be laid aside; and with it, too, must be cast off the tenet of this world's destruction.
But one cautionary remark must here be made. We are by no means authorized to mingle together literal and figurative language. That is, we have no right to interpret one part of a sentence literally, and another as figure. The passages before us are eitherliteral, or they arenot. If theyare, then every part of them must be literally understood; if they arenot, then no part of them can be literally interpreted. If, then, we adhere to the outward meaning, we must carry that adherence to every portion of the text; for if we reject such meaning in any part, we reject it in the whole; and the doctrine which depends for support upon it, must fall to the ground.
Keeping this in view our first proposition is, that, to affixa literal sense to the passages before us, is to give them a meaning at once absurd and unreasonable. We might in proof of this, go through every word in every text. It is declared in the letter that "the Lord shalldescendfrom heaven;" but heaven is not a place connected either by height or distance with the material world. Could we rise far into the regions of space, and ascend for ever in the oceans of worlds, still, as regardsdistance, we should be no nearer heaven than before. Where God manifests Himself in the fullness of his love, there is heaven; but God being a Spirit, can only manifest Himself thus in a spiritual region; and such a region has no relation of space or distance with a world of matter. Hence, therefore, a descent from heaven is not a literal going down from a higher place to one beneath, and consequently must not beliterallyunderstood. Here the literal meaning fails at the very threshold. At the first step we are obliged to seek for a figurative or spiritual sense.
If we overcomethisdifficulty, we have yet to encounter others. It is further said that He shall descend with "a trumpet." Now modern Christians ridicule the idea of visible habitations and outward objects in the spiritual world. What then are we to make of the description before us,—of thistrumpetwith which the Lord is to descend? Is itmaterial, or is itnot? If it is material, then heaven, in which there are material objects, must be a materialplace; and the Being who uses this material trumpet, must be a material Being; consequently, we must materializeboth heaven and its inhabitants. But if this trumpet is not amaterialone, then let the defenders of the literal meaning tell us what is a spiritual trumpet? Whatever may be the answer, one thing is certain,—that which is spiritual isinternal; and if by the words before us we are not to understand a literal trumpet, but something spiritual signified by it, then the literal meaning of the passage is not and cannot be the true one.
It is further declared that "The Lord shall come in the clouds of heaven." The question again arises: What are we to understand by these? The clouds literally mean those masses of vapor, which, arising from the earth, are condensed and become visible in the atmosphere; and which surround the earth at the distance of a few miles. If we keep to the literal sense of the passage, these must be understood. But is it in these that the Lord is to descend? Is six or eight miles above the surface of the globe, heaven? Or can bodies which seldom rise beyond this elevation, be properly called the clouds of heaven? Or is this the glory with which the Lord is to be invested—the vapors which rise from the material globe?
But this is not all. With Him the angels are also to descend. Now the nature of angels is not material; they exist not in space, nor are they included in its boundaries. How, then, we again ask, are spiritual beings to descend in amaterialvapor? It would degrade the subject to carry these questions further; but every person's discernment will enable him to perceive that by no means can theliteralclouds be understood; and that these words must, like the former, be acknowledged asfigurative. Here, therefore, at the very commencement we are obliged tospiritualizeboth thedescent, thetrumpet, and theclouds. Do what we will, the literal sense is absurd. And if we are forced to allow thatpartof the description cannot be literally understood, it is fair to conclude that the remainder has also aninternalmeaning.
We shall soon perceive further proof of this. After it is declared that the Lord shall come "in the clouds of heaven," it is added, as a necessary consequence, "and then shallall the tribes of the earthmourn, when theyseethe Son of Man coming in the clouds." In agreement with this are the words of John, "Behold, He comethwith clouds; andevery eyeshall see Him." If this be understood of an event which is literally to take place, we must again believe an impossibility. This world is aroundbody; and that which is visible to the inhabitants of one hemisphere, must be invisible to the dwellers on the other. Those who live upon one part of its surface cannot, by any possibility, see what is above the opposite part. This is a circumstance of daily experience:—at twelve o'clock at midnight the sun is visible to the inhabitants of the other side of this earth, and with them it is noon-day; but at that hour it is invisible to us; nor can we, by any possible means, obtain a sight of it. If, then, it be true that an object visible on one side of a globe, is invisible on the opposite, we inquire, In what situation must the Lord appear, that He may beseen at one and the same moment fromevery partof a round body? Where, or in what part of the atmosphere must He be placed thatall the tribes of the earth, (those on itsopposite sides,) may behold Him at the same time? Such a position is not only difficult, but absolutely impossible, unless the figure of the globe were changed; and to believe that such will be the manner of our Lord's coming, is to involve ourselves in a labyrinth of absurdities.
Aware of this difficulty, the writer whom I have already quoted supposes that the inhabitants of this earth will be caught up in the air, andthusbe enabled to behold our Lord's descent. "Perhaps," says he, "it is more agreeable to our Lord's own account of his coming in the clouds, to suppose it will be above the earth, if not 'twice a planetary height;' and this supposition is not a little favored by what St. Paul writes to the Thessalonians, 'The dead in Christ shall rise first.' Then we who remain alive shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. So that it seems most probable, the 'great white throne' will be exalted high above the earth." Such a method of explanation only shows the difficulties into which the mere literal sense has thrown its followers. Independent of the total absence of all Scripture proof of these ideas, it may be remarked that, "twice a planetary height," that is, twice the distance of the farthest planet from the earth, is not the place of clouds; in such case, therefore, the Lord would not comeinthe clouds, but farabovethem. Nor could He be said to descendfromheaven;for as heaven, in the literal sense, is the starry region, if He remained stationary in that region, it would not be a descentfromheaven, but a descentinheaven. And besides, as the clouds, literally, are the vapors surrounding the earth, by interpreting them to mean "twice a planetary height," the literal sense is given up; and if this be rejected, the doctrine before us is overthrown.
Once more we turn to the texts. Another event which is said to accompany the coming of the Lord, is the falling of the stars from heaven to the earth. "The stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken." "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." When, in disputing with the Romish church, we contend that the Lord's words are not to be understoodliterally, we think it sufficient to prove, that so understood they involve an absurdity. But fully as great an absurdity is involved in the literal interpretation of the words before us. The stars, though to us they appear but as shining atoms, are proved beyond the possibility of doubt, to be equal to our sun both in size and splendor. Each one of them is, in fact, asun, as large and as brilliant as that which enlightens our day. Now the sun exceeds our earth nearly ten hundred thousand times in magnitude;eachstar, therefore, may be reasonably supposed to exceed the size of this globe nearly a million times. As well, then, may we talk of ten thousand worlds falling upon an atom, as of ten thousand suns, each of them amillion times larger than the globe, falling upon this grain of earth: it is in itself as impossible as for a piece of bread to become the body of the Lord.
But further; thenumberof these bodies is beyond the power of human calculation. Millions sink into nothing in computing it,—thousandsof millions are nothing. Every part of the vault of heaven contains myriads; and clusters of them have been observed which contain, within themselves, myriads more. Could we penetrate into the depths of space, as far as the eye could see—as far as thought could penetrate, we should find suns and worlds till the mind was lost in the idea of their multitude: and though we continued to move onward for ages, we should still find ourselves but on the threshold of creation. These are not the visions of speculation, but the facts of philosophy;—truths which actual observation has placed beyond a doubt. Such are, literally, the stars of heaven: myriads of myriads of suns, surrounded by ten thousand times ten thousand worlds. And let the common sense of mankind decide, whether all these can fall upon the surface of a globe not equal to the smallest of them in magnitude.
But we have not yet done with this subject. Let us imagine it possible that these innumerable and enormous bodieswerethrown out of their stations, and by the hand of God launched towards our little world. What would result if they only came within a short distance of it? (to say nothing of their falling upon its surface.) It is well known to all who are acquainted with philosophy, that eachof the heavenly bodies possesses a power called attraction, by which it draws towards itself any smaller body that comes within its sphere. So powerful is this attractive force that the sun alone draws all the worlds which move around it, and keeps them from flying off, though some are at the distance of eighteen hundred millions of miles! Each of the stars being of the same nature with our sun, possesses equally this attracting power. And were only a few of these bodies to be brought within a certain distance of the earth, the force of their combined attraction acting in contrary directions, would explode and scatter abroad, not only this earth but every earth in the system: and long before they could fall upon its surface, there would be no world for them to fall upon; it would be dissolved, and its atoms scattered through the universe.
Again, the Apostle Peter declares that "The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, andthe elementsshallmeltwith fervent heat." A question, therefore, once more arises, what is meant by "the elements?" Literally, they signify the most simple forms of matter, fire, air, earth, and water. But how can these melt, or be melted?—Canfiremelt with fervent heat? It may be dispersed in its pure form, that of heat or caloric; but it is incapable of being melted. Can air, then, melt? It may be expanded, but it will notmelt, in the literal meaning of the word. Can water melt? It may be raised in steam, and made to fly off in vapor: it may, by the application of heat, be resolved into air, its first principle; but it will not melt.There is, therefore, only one element out of the four which is capable of being literally melted;earth may, indeed, be vitrified, and rendered fluid. But how canone elementbe denominatedthe elements? And besides, the apostle seems to exclude theearthfrom the elements which are thus to melt; for he mentionsitsdestruction, as subsequent to that of the elements. "The elements shall melt with fervent heat, theearth also", that is, in addition to these, the earth and the works that are therein, shall be burned up.[3]Here again, the literal sense fails. We must either allow what is not true, namely, thatfire,air, andwater, can be melted by fire, or seek for an internal and figurative meaning.
I might pass thus through the whole of the language on which this tenet is founded; and it would be easy to show that the circumstances are as impossible in their literal meaning, as that a man should eat "the flesh of his own arm," or that our Lord should literally be avineand adoor.
The very advocates of the doctrine are convinced of this. Hence they have framed various and contradictory systems to explain the above descriptions. One has asserted thatthe earth will at that periodbe rolled outof her orbit, and that this motion will cause an appearance as if the heavens passed away. Another has enveloped the world in a thick mist, by which the light of the moon, being changed, will appear of a red color. A third has appointed a comet, which in its passage to or from the sun, will approach this earth and involve it in flames. All have seen the difficulties, and all have attempted to overcome them by explanations; yet, after all, the task remains as arduous as ever. If we will, in despite of reason, found a doctrine on the literal meaning of the texts, we must adhere to that meaning; for to depart from it, is to confess its insufficiency: and if, on the other hand, we resolve to reject the literal sense inone part, we then acknowledge that it is not the true one, and that another must be sought for. If we are obliged to give up a literal falling of stars to the earth, and a literal appearance in the clouds of the air, then we must give up also, a literal burning and destruction of the universe; for if one part of the sentence is to be understood figuratively, so is the other.
And that such destruction is a spiritual event, and not a natural one, will appear still further from the following observation. When two prophecies are found, couched in the same language, and nearly in the same words, one of which prophecies has been fulfilled, while the other yet remains to be accomplished; the manner in which the latter will be fulfilled must be determined by the previous fulfillment of the former.
Now it is a fact, although very seldom noticed, that the prophecies relating to thefirstcoming of the Lord, are expressed in the very same language with those which relate to his second appearance. We need only turn to the writings of the prophets to be convinced of this. "Behold," says Malachi, "the day cometh that shallburn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be as stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saithJehovah of Hosts. And, behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of thegreat and terrible dayof the Lord." iv. 1, 5. Again, Isaiah: "All the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll, and all their host shall fall down as a falling fig from the fig-tree.[4]Every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be withburningandfuel of fire. For unto us a child is born." ix. 5. "Upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days I will pour out my spirit; and I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth,blood, andfire, and vapor of smoke.The sun shall be turned intodarknessandthe moon into bloodbefore the great and terrible day of the Lord come." Joel ii. 29-31.
This latter prophecy is expressly applied by Peter to the commencement of Christianity. In defending his brethren from the charge of imposture brought against them by the Jews on the day of Pentecost, he declares, "This (the extraordinary inspiration of the spirit) is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; I will show wonders in the heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood." Acts ii. 16-20.
Once more, the prophet Haggai, speaking of the same period declares, "Thus saith Jehovah of hosts. Yet once it is a little while and I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land, and I will shake all nations and the desire of all nations shall come, and I will fill this house (the latter temple) with glory, saith Jehovah of hosts." Again, the prophet Joel before quoted, says, "Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision; for theday of theLord is near in the valley of decision.The sunandthe moon shall be darkened, and the stars shall withdraw their shining. TheLordalso shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the Lord will be the hope of his people. So shall ye know that I am the Lord your God, dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain. Then shall Jerusalem be holy." iii. 14-17. "But who (says Malachi,) may abide the day of His coming, or who shall stand when Heappeareth? for He is like a refiner'sfireand like fullers' soap." And to conclude this magnificent imagery, Isaiah declares, "Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered nor come to mind;—they shall not hunger, nor thirst, neither shall the heat of the sun smite them; but He that hath mercy upon them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall He guide them."
With such descriptions of the first Advent of the Messiah do the prophets abound. Let any one peruse with attention the writings of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Joel, Haggai, and Malachi, and he will be convinced of the truth of this remark. We will now notice the agreement which exists between these prophecies relating to his first appearance, and those which refer to his second coming. Both periods are called "the day of the Lord;" and both are ushered in by "darkness and gloominess." In both it is said that "the sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood;" and in both "the heavens and the earth" are said to "pass away." In both of them the Lord is declared to come "in fire," and the conclusion of both is "a new heaven and a new earth."
Nowoneof these periods is past. The first Advent of the Saviour to which the above prophecies refer, is accomplished. And how were these predictions fulfilled? Did the eventsliterallytake place? Let history answer. Though the heavens and the earth were to be shaken and pass away, yet no commotion took place in the visible parts ofnature. The seasons ran their wonted course; the sun gave forth his usual light; and the earth pursued without intermission her annual journey. Though the moon was to be "turned into blood," yet no such disaster befell the visible planet; her light shone as bright as ever. One solitary meteor alone over the plains of Judea, announced to the Eastern sages the coming of the Saviour. Though his approach was to bein fire, yet no material flames accompanied his Advent. The fire of Divine Love alone distinguished Him. Not one of all these predictions had anything resembling a literal accomplishment. And now let us look to the conclusion. If, when two prophecies are given, couched in the same language, one of which is fulfilled while the other remains to be accomplished, the interpretation of the second is to be judged of by the fulfillment of the first, the following argument at once arises: Since the prophecies relating to the first Advent of the Saviour are expressed by the very same terms, and represented by the very same images as those which refer to hissecondcoming, the meaning of these latter must be similar to that of the others. And since not one ofthoseprophecies ever received a literal fulfillment, so neither are we to expect a literal fulfillment of those before us. In a word, since the events predicted at the Lord'sfirstcoming were not natural, but representative images of spiritual things—of states of the world and of the church; so those foreshadowing his second coming are representative of similarthings, belonging to the minds of men, and will never receive aliteralaccomplishment.
If, however, it be still maintained in opposition to this remark, that theymustbe understood literally, I will ask one question. Since the words of theOldTestament which describe the first appearance of the Redeemer, are exactly similar to those of theNewwhich predict his second coming; how is it that the former never received a literal fulfillment? If it be replied, that this was figurative language, while the latter is literal description; I again inquire, By what authority or according to what rule is this distinction made? Why is the first to be resolved into figure, while the latter is considered as literally true? Such distinction between the two cannot arise from thelanguage; this is almost word for word the same. It cannot be made because the literal sense is in one casereasonable, while in the other it is not; for in both cases it involves numerous absurdities. It cannot be because the one is prophecy and the other narrative; for both are the language of prophetic declaration. On what authority, then, is the literal meaning of the firstrejected, while in the other it is retained and believed? Why are not both to be understood alike, since in both the descriptions are similar? There is no rule by which a distinction can be drawn.
I have now gone over the first proposition, and have proved that a literal interpretation of the passages adduced involves absurdities as great as that of transubstantiation; and that the absence of all literal fulfillment in the case ofother prophecies exactly similar, affords the strongest reason to expect that inthisinstance no literal accomplishment will take place. That the language itself is that ofcorrespondence,—the representation of spiritual things by natural; and as such it will receive a spiritual and not a natural fulfillment.
2. We now pass to the second point, namely that the texts supposed to refer to the destruction of the material world are inconsistent with each other; and are opposed to other clear and express declarations of Scripture. In this case as in the former, we shall note the words in the debated texts. In the passages brought forward to support the doctrine, there are four ways mentioned in which the destruction of the heavens (or visible starry firmament) is hereafter to take place. First, in one passage of the Revelation, they are described as being "rolled away as a scroll;" in another the stars are said to "fall from heaven to the earth." In Peter's Epistle it is declared that they shall "pass away with a great noise;" and in another place the same apostle says that "the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved." Now these four descriptions considered literally, contradict and destroy each other. To dissolve is to separate into particles, and to return to their first elements. But if the starry heavens arethusto be destroyed, then they can neither fall to the earth nor be rolled together as a scroll; for that which is dissolved and reduced to its first elements, can be destroyed no further except by annihilation. And if the heavenly bodies are to bethusdissolved,then no other kind of dissolution can affect them. Again, if we take the other passage, "they were rolled away as a scroll," we are placed in precisely the same dilemma. By their being rolled away as a scroll, we must then understand that they will be driven from their stations, thrown into confusion, and hurried afar into the depths of space. But if they are thus rolled away they cannot possibly "fall to the earth," for the two events stand in direct opposition; in the first instance they must be hurled into space, far beyond the earth's orbit; in the latter they must absolutely fall upon her surface. And now we ask, Are the stars to be rolled away, or are they to fall upon the earth? The literal sense of the Scripture mentions both events; but if one occurs, the other (consistently with the text) can never take place.
Suppose, however, we admit for the sake of argument, that the rolling away of the heavens is an event separate from the destruction of the stars. We again inquire whether this event will take placebeforesuch destruction, orafterit. Ifbeforeit, we come to the former conclusion; for then the stars must fly off with the heaven in which they are fixed. Ifafterit, then, as there will be nothing butempty spaceremaining, we ask how such empty space can be calledthe heavens; and how emptyspacewithout a single visible object, can be rolled away as a scroll!" In this instance, therefore, if we abide by the literal sense of one passage, we must of necessity reject that of the others.
But it is further said that all these events are to take placepreviousto the appearance of the Son of Man. "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 (immediately following these events) shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." Now this prior commotion includes the dissolution of all the elements, "The heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." Among the number of the elements,the airwill of course be destroyed, for it is included among them; and with the air thosecloudswhich depend upon it for their existence and visibility. Yet, after this, when the clouds have ceased to be, and when the heavens are no more, the Son of Man is to appear in these very clouds and in the midst of this heaven! Here, again, is an inconsistency in the literal sense of the passage. If the heavens, and with them the clouds are dissolved, then it is impossible that anything can appearinwhat has ceased to have an existence. Or if the Son of Manisto appear in the clouds, then the heavens cannot be destroyed previous to that appearance. Which way soever we turn we are met by a difficulty. If we receive one of the passages in the literal sense, we must either reject or spiritualize the other.
Again: at the time of our Lord's ascension, the two angels who appeared to the disciples declared, "this same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shallso come in like manner, as ye have seen him go into heaven." Actsi. 11. It would therefore appear that, if these angelic messengers are worthy of credit, thedescentof our Lord is to be exactly similar in circumstance to his ascent. Now, in his ascension into heaven, there are several things which require notice. 1st: It wasprivate. He led his disciples from the city to the Mount of Olives. 2d: It was seen by none but his followers. The generality of the Jewish nations did not even know that such an event had taken place; they considered our Lord as a dead man; and hence when they accused Paul before Festus, one part of that accusation was that he affirmed one Jesus to be alive, who was (in their opinion) dead. Acts xxv. 19. 3d: His ascension was asolitaryone. There is no account whatever that any persons wereseenascending with Him:—"Hewas taken up; and a cloud receivedHimout of their sight." And, 4th: It wasunattended by any outward pomp. The Jews knew nothing of it;—there was no alteration in the visible world; and even those who witnessed the event, beheld nothing save a bright cloud into which he passed and disappeared. The ascension of the Saviour was therefore to the world aprivateoccurrence, so far as privacy consists in general ignorance respecting it. It was seen by none but his disciples; it was without pomp or show. Of those who afterwards heard of it, numbers gave no credit to the story. And the only visible proof that it had taken place, was the effect which followed—the extraordinary out-pouring of the divine influence.
And if we keep to the literal sense of the words,thisisto be his descent from heaven: He is to comein like manneras He went up. If, then, this be the case, then such descent will be an occurrence unknown to the generality of mankind, or only known by its following effects. It will be unaccompanied by any destruction, and even by any commotion in the realm of material nature. And many of those who hear of it may be expected to deny it, according to his own words: "When the Son of Man cometh shall He find faith on the earth?"
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 bedestroyed; 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 hisface the earth and the heaven shall flee away, and their place be no more found: in a second, thatafterHis 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 notagain 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." Thiscursewhich 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 alimited period, but that He will not do itany more—to all eternity. Yet if the commonly received doctrine be correct, this declaration of Jehovah must beuntrue. Ifagaineverything livingisto 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 isnotagain 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 thedestructionof the globe, as to themodeof 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 earthwith 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 thata floodshould 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, butallthings 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 toestablish 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 shallgiveunto 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 authorityare everlasting; they shall "never be destroyed;" they shall "not pass away;" they shall "stand for ever." But ifthe earthon 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 Lordon earthwillnever 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 kingdomsof this worldare become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and He shall reign forever 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 ofthis 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 reignfor everover them: or if He will thus reign for ever over the kingdoms of the world, then those kingdoms must exist for ever; and if thekingdomsexist for ever,the worldon 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, likethe earthwhich He hath establishedfor 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 endurefor ever; His name shall be continuedas long as the sun." Psalm lxxii. 17. "His seed shall endurefor ever, and his throneas the sunbefore me; it shall beestablished 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 worldshall 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 whichthe 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 andcorruption 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 wordimmediatelyshows that our Lord is not speaking of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent oncalamities already predicted; and that must be the destruction of Jerusalem. TheJewish heavenshall perish andthe sunandmoonof 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; andthe starsare thejudges 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 bycasting down some of the host of heavenandthe starsto 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,—"thesunandmoonof theJewish heaven." Wemight 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 itsinternalmeaning. As the sun and moon in the literal application are, (to use the words of Dr. Clarke,) "the sun and moon of theJewishheaven" or state, so in spiritual reference, they are the sun and moon of theChristianheaven, 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 theinternalsense of the prophecy, it is confessed, even by the advocates of the doctrine, that there is nothing respecting it in theoutwardsense. And if nothing is found relating to it either in thespiritualorliteralmeaning of the words, then it is not thereat 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 blackas 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 theseals(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 thesixthseal; yet the descriptions of theseventhas 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, happenafterthe description above quoted.
If, then, various and multiplied events are described as occurringon the earth, afterthe 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 destroyedunder thesixthseal, then no events can happenupon itunder theseventh, since it will then have no existence; but as such eventsaredescribed as passingin the worldunder theseventhseal, then that world cannot previously be destroyed under thesixthseal.
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, occurafterthe 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 worldunder 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 worldafterthat time, that is, after the world shall have been destroyed!