Transcriber's Note.
Apparent typographical errors have been corrected.
Italics are indicated by _underscores_. Small capitals have been
converted to full capitals.
In the list of the publisher's other books, at the end of the work, the
first line of each entry sometimes comprises only part of the title and
sometimes extends beyond the title. The entire first line has been
italicised in the original. In this version only the title has been
italicised.
THE
NEW ESCHATOLOGY.
SHOWING
THE INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE EARTH
AND
THE WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LETTER AND
SPIRIT OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
BY J. G. BROUGHTON PEGG.
[Illustration: Behold He Cometh with Clouds; The Word]
PHILADELPHIA
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.
1872.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1871, by
J. B. LIPPINCOTT & CO.,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
LIPPINCOTT'S PRESS,
PHILADELPHIA.
NOTE.
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 Swedenborgian
stand-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.
THE
NEW ESCHATOLOGY.
_For the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there
was no more sea_.--REV. xxi. 1.
While we 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 are _literally_ true, and those
which are only _apparently_ so, 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 the Divine 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 the _whole_ of the Scriptures,--every
chapter,--every verse,--every word, nay, sometimes every _letter_--is
filled with the inbreathed wisdom of God. But when I say that apparent
and not _real_ truths 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 in
_appearance_, but not in reality. Again we are told that the LORD
repents,--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 the _material_ sun. In God "there is no variableness
nor shadow of turning;"--"He fainteth not, neither is _weary_;"--"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, causes an 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 even _apparent_
truth. 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 even _appear_ to do so. The flesh of the
Saviour was not to be _literally_ eaten. The bread which He held was not
really his body, nor did it even _seem_ to 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 terms _figure_, or
_metaphor_; but the New Church makes a distinction, and I will add,
a very just one, betwixt _figure_ (properly so called) and
_correspondence_. 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, no _real_ existence:
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
use _figurative_ language; since both the empire and the oak are
_natural_ objects, which have no _real_ connection with each other, and
between which the resemblance is only imaginary. But when the Creator is
likened to the sun, the language is no longer _figurative_ but
_correspondent_. 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 or _God-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 mere _outward 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 the Scriptures; seeing that the _Scriptures_ in every
part, are, according to Paul, filled with this wisdom.[1]
If, then, there _are_ parts 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 as
_figurative_, 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 true meaning 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. And
_third_, 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 in _all
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 those
that 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 universal
_shout_ from all the companies of heaven, followed by the _voice of the
archangel_, proclaiming the approach of the Son of God and man; and the
_trumpet of God_ sounding 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 if _fear_ and _terror_ were 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, are _literally_ understood,
while nevertheless such literal sense leads to absurdity; _Second_, If
we can further make it appear that such a _literal_ application 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 countenance to 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 he shall 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 book _confessedly_ figurative 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 language _literally_, in their
support, as if they had all at once found out that it was no longer
figurative but _literal_. 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 figurative in 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 the _correspondent_ and 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 air resounding 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 that _literal_
sense 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 either _literal_, or they
are _not_. If they _are_, then every part of them must be literally
understood; if they are _not_, 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 affix a 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 shall
_descend_ from 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
regards _distance_, 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 be
_literally_ understood. 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 overcome _this_ difficulty, 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 this _trumpet_ with which the Lord is to descend? Is it
_material_, or is it _not_? If it is material, then heaven, in which
there are material objects, must be a material _place_; and the Being
who uses this material trumpet, must be a material Being; consequently,
we must materialize both heaven and its inhabitants. But if this trumpet
is not a _material_ one, 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 is _internal_; 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 a _material_ vapor? 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 the _literal_ clouds be
understood; and that these words must, like the former, be acknowledged
as _figurative_. Here, therefore, at the very commencement we are
obliged to _spiritualize_ both the _descent_, the _trumpet_, and the
_clouds_. Do what we will, the literal sense is absurd. And if we are
forced to allow that _part_ of the description cannot be literally
understood, it is fair to conclude that the remainder has also an
_internal_ meaning.
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 shall _all the tribes of the earth_
mourn, when they _see_ the Son of Man coming in the clouds." In
agreement with this are the words of John, "Behold, He cometh _with
clouds_; and _every eye_ shall see Him." If this be understood of an
event which is literally to take place, we must again believe an
impossibility. This world is a _round_ body; 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 be seen at
one and the same moment from _every part_ of a round body? Where, or in
what part of the atmosphere must He be placed that _all the tribes of
the earth_, (those on its _opposite 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, and
_thus_ be 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 come _in_ the clouds, but far _above_ them. Nor could He
be said to descend _from_ heaven; for as heaven, in the literal sense,
is the starry region, if He remained stationary in that region, it would
not be a descent _from_ heaven, but a descent _in_ heaven. 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 understood _literally_, 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, a _sun_, as large and as
brilliant as that which enlightens our day. Now the sun exceeds our
earth nearly ten hundred thousand times in magnitude; _each_ star,
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 a
million 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; the _number_ of these bodies is beyond the power of human
calculation. Millions sink into nothing in computing it,--_thousands_ of
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 bodies _were_ thrown 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 each of 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, and _the elements_ shall _melt_ with 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?--Can _fire_ melt
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 not _melt_, 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 can _one
element_ be denominated _the elements_? And besides, the apostle seems
to exclude the _earth_ from the elements which are thus to melt; for he
mentions _its_ destruction, as subsequent to that of the elements. "The
elements shall melt with fervent heat, the _earth 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, that _fire_, _air_, and _water_, 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 a _vine_ and a
_door_.
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 that the earth will at that period _be
rolled out_ of 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 in _one 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 the _first_ coming 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 shall _burn 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, saith JEHOVAH OF HOSTS. And,
behold, I send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the _great
and terrible day_ of 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 with _burning_ and _fuel 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_, and _fire_, and vapor
of smoke. _The sun shall be turned into_ _darkness_ and _the moon into
blood_ before 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 the _day of the_ Lord is near in the valley
of decision. _The sun_ and _the moon shall be darkened_, and the stars
shall withdraw their shining. The LORD also 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 He appeareth? for He is
like a refiner's _fire_ and 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."
Now _one_ of 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 events _literally_ take 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 of nature.
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 be _in 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 his _second_ coming, the meaning of these latter must be
similar to that of the others. And since not one of _those_ prophecies
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's _first_ coming 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 similar things, belonging to the minds of men, and will never receive
a _literal_ accomplishment.
If, however, it be still maintained in opposition to this remark, that
they _must_ be understood literally, I will ask one question. Since the
words of the _Old_ Testament which describe the first appearance of the
Redeemer, are exactly similar to those of the _New_ which 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 the _language_; this
is almost word for word the same. It cannot be made because the literal
sense is in one case _reasonable_, 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 first _rejected_, 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 of other prophecies exactly similar, affords the
strongest reason to expect that in _this_ instance no literal
accomplishment will take place. That the language itself is that of
_correspondence_,--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 are _thus_ to 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 be _thus_ dissolved, 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 place _before_ such
destruction, or _after_ it. If _before_ it, we come to the former
conclusion; for then the stars must fly off with the heaven in which
they are fixed. If _after_ it, then, as there will be nothing but _empty
space_ remaining, we ask how such empty space can be called _the
heavens_; and how empty _space_ without 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 place
_previous_ to 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 air_ will of course be destroyed, for it is included
among them; and with the air those _clouds_ which 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 appear _in_ what has ceased to have an existence. Or
if the Son of Man _is_ to 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.