to the disciples declared, "this same Jesus which is taken up from you
into heaven, shall _so come in like manner_, as ye have seen him go into
heaven." Acts i. 11. It would therefore appear that, if these angelic
messengers are worthy of credit, the _descent_ of 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 was
_private_. 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 a _solitary_ one. There is no account whatever that
any persons were _seen_ ascending with Him:--"_He_ was taken up; and a
cloud received _Him_ out of their sight." And, 4th: It was _unattended
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 a _private_
occurrence, 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, _this_ is to be his
descent from heaven: He is to come _in like manner_ as 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 be _destroyed_; in the
other it is to remain unshaken. In the former instance He is said to
descend with thousands of angels; in the latter, to come unattended. By
the first description, He is to be seen visibly by all; in the second,
He will be invisible to all except his followers. The two accounts thus
stand in direct contradiction to each other. If He comes again in the
same "manner" that He ascended, then the former passages cannot be
literally understood: or if He comes literally in the manner they
describe, the passage before us cannot be true.
I might here, as in the former case, go through every passage, and show
that each of them contains within itself accounts which are inconsistent
with those of the others: in one it is said that the Lord shall descend
from heaven in flaming fire: in another, in the clouds: in a third, on a
great white throne. In one it is declared that, before his face the
earth and the heaven shall flee away, and their place be no more found:
in a second, that _after_ His coming the departed shall rise from the
earth, and the grave and the sea give up their dead; consequently, if
the latter part be true, the earth will not pass away at the time of His
descent. In the whole there are inconsistencies which science, according
to the literal meaning, may disguise, but can never reconcile.
We now turn to the consideration of other passages which, taken even in
their literal sense, militate strongly against the doctrine in dispute.
After the destruction of the antediluvian earth by the flood, Jehovah
affirmed, "I will not _again curse the ground any more_, though the
imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again
smite any more every living thing as I have done." This _curse_ which
the Lord is here inferred to have pronounced upon the former world, in
whatever sense the terms be taken, was accomplished in its destruction;
and the end of that world by a flood of waters, completed its
fulfillment. The curse of the Lord, therefore, when pronounced upon the
earth, leads to its dissolution. But God Himself affirms that He will
not thus curse the ground any more,--that He will not again suffer it to
be destroyed, neither will He again smite everything living. The
declaration is absolute. It is not said that He will refrain from it
during a _limited period_, but that He will not do it _any more_--to all
eternity. Yet if the commonly received doctrine be correct, this
declaration of Jehovah must be untrue. If _again_ everything living _is_
to be smitten,--if again the earth is to be cursed with destruction as
complete, if not more so than the former one; then it cannot be true
that every living thing is _not_ again to be smitten, nor the earth
again to be cursed. In this instance the literal proofs clash with the
solemn declaration of God.
If, however, it be objected that these words refer not so much to the
_destruction_ of the globe, as to the _mode_ of that event, I reply that
no such qualifying language is found in the text. The words are general;
they are not "I will not again curse the earth _with water_," but I will
not curse the ground,--I will not destroy the earth "_any more_," either
in this way or in any other. "I will not smite any more everything
living as I have now done," by an universal destruction. And, in fact,
the promise that _a flood_ should no more destroy the world, would have
afforded little consolation to Noah, had he understood that another
destruction more awful than the former, was approaching, in which not
this world only, but the whole universe would perish; and when not the
greater part, but _all_ things living, would be destroyed, without the
preservation even of a remnant. The flood is certainly in the following
chapter referred to particularly as the more recent danger, and a
repetition of which would be most dreaded by the survivors; but the very
same declaration of Jehovah, which interdicts a flood of waters, equally
interdicts any other entire destruction:--"I will not in any way curse
the ground any more."
There is another subject upon which I must touch, but very briefly,
since the arguments arising out of it might be carried to a length far
exceeding my prescribed limits. The prophetic writings abound with
descriptions of what is called "the kingdom of David:"--a kingdom which
was to arise in the latter day, and upon which every blessing of heaven
was to descend. "In those days," says the prophet Amos, "I will raise up
the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches
thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the
days of old." ix. "And in the days of these kings (that is, literally,
in the latter times of the Roman power,) shall the God of heaven set up
a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be
left to other people; but it shall break in pieces, and consume all
these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever." Dan. ii. 44. Again, the
same prophet: "I saw in the night visions, and behold one like unto the
Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the ancient of
days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him
dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and
languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away; and his kingdom, that which shall not be
destroyed." That these descriptions refer to the Redeemer, is evident.
Isaiah when predicting his approach, and the establishment of his
kingdom, says, "Of the increase of his government and peace there shall
be no end upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom to order it and
to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for
ever." ix. 7.
Now the question is, to what authority or kingdom do these predictions
refer? That it is not to the general government of God, is clear,--this
had existed from eternity; but the dominion spoken of, was to commence
at a definite period of time,--"at that time," and "in the days of those
kings." The general subjection of all things to the Divine Being, is
also something arising out of his very nature, and is neither given nor
acquired; but this was something to be acquired. "The Lord God shall
_give_ unto him the throne of his father David:"--"The saints of the
Most High shall take the kingdom." Nor can it refer to the kingdom of
the just in glory, for the descriptions are such as can only apply to
the state of men on earth. "He shall feed his flock like a shepherd; He
shall gather the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom." Isa.
xl. 11. "I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them,
even my servant David." If, therefore, this kingdom be neither the
general dominion over all, nor the state of the righteous in eternity,
it can only relate to the kingdom of the church on earth. And that it
does so, is plain from the very terms used. David is, by almost all
professed Christians, acknowledged to have been a type and
representative of the Messiah; and the Jewish nation over whom he
reigned, most certainly prefigured the Christian church: the throne of
David is therefore the authority of the Lord in his church on earth, and
his kingdom is that church itself. Now this kingdom and this
throne,--this church and authority _are everlasting_; they shall "never
be destroyed;" they shall "not pass away;" they shall "stand for ever."
But if _the earth_ on which this church exists, is hereafter to dissolve
and pass away, the kingdom must pass away with it. For though it is true
that the just in heaven would still constitute a kingdom of the Lord,
yet that kingdom would no longer be "_the kingdom of David_." The very
declaration that the kingdom of the Lord _on earth_ will _never be
destroyed_, supposes as a necessary consequence, that the earth on which
it is erected will also continue to exist.
In agreement with this are the words heard by John; "There were great
voices in heaven, saying, the kingdoms _of this world_ are become the
kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ, and He shall reign for _ever
and ever_." Rev. xi. 15. And over what is He thus to reign? Most
certainly over the kingdoms which He is here said to have obtained--the
kingdoms of _this world_; and over these He is to reign "for ever and
ever." But how is He to reign for ever over the kingdoms of the world,
if the world and its kingdoms are to be destroyed? Whenever the earth is
dissolved, the kingdoms of the world will be no more; and he cannot
reign over that which has no existence! If, then, the world and its
kingdoms are to be destroyed, He can never reign _for ever_ over them:
or if He will thus reign for ever over the kingdoms of the world, then
those kingdoms must exist for ever; and if the _kingdoms_ exist for
ever, _the world_ on which they are founded must exist for ever with
them.
And exactly in accordance with this assertion are the words of the
Psalmist: "He (the Lord) built his sanctuary in high places, like _the
earth_ which He hath established _for ever_." And those of
Solomon:--"One generation passeth away, and another cometh, _but the
earth abideth for ever_." The same is declared of the heavens: "His name
shall endure _for ever_; His name shall be continued _as long as the
sun_." Psalm lxxii. 17. "His seed shall endure _for ever_, and his
throne _as the sun_ before me; it shall be _established for ever as the
moon_, and as a faithful witness in heaven." lxxxix. 36.
Nothing can be more directly opposed to the common opinion than these
explicit declarations of the Bible. It is certain that these passages
refer to the visible earth and to the material heaven; and these it is
expressly declared are to continue not for a limited time, but for ever:
while in the passages adduced to prove the opposite, we are left to
struggle among difficulties, without any certainty that the visible
earth is at all intended, since even those commentators who believe the
tenet are compelled, in most instances, to abandon the proofs of it.
I have now established, as far as is necessary, my second proposition. I
have shown that the literal sense of the passages brought forward to
confirm the doctrine of the earth's destruction, are inconsistent with
each other, as well as with other parts of the Sacred Volume; and
therefore, that such literal meaning cannot be the true one. I have
shown that the words of Jehovah assert that the world shall not be
smitten any more. I have further shown that the duration of the kingdom
of God, runs parallel with that of the visible world, and that therefore
both must endure for ever. And lastly, that the sacred writers declare
in explicit language the endless duration both of the earth and the
heavens.
3. I now proceed to consider the third part of the subject: that the
passages brought forward, when taken in their proper connexion, give no
countenance to the popular doctrine, but on the contrary, afford evident
proofs that they have no reference to it. In doing this, I shall adduce
them one by one in the order they are laid down. And first, the passage
in the Gospel of Matthew: "Immediately after the tribulation of those
days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens
shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man coming
in the clouds of heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth
mourn when they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory."
I have already noticed the inconsistencies which arise from adopting the
literal meaning of the passage; and I now remark further, that in their
literal and obvious application, the words refer not to any destruction
of the world in general, but to the approaching overthrow of the Jewish
nation and polity. I admit that they have a spiritual reference to the
state of the Christian church of which the Jews were a type; but of this
we shall speak hereafter. It is with the literal meaning we have now to
do, since on the literal meaning the doctrine is founded.[5]
Our Lord had been addressing the multitude in the temple; and in that
address He had solemnly warned them of their approaching danger. On his
departure, his followers pointed to its stately and magnificent
buildings; and He again seized the opportunity to repeat to them the
prediction of its final destruction. Naturally anxious to learn the fate
of their country, and, perhaps, too uneasy on their own account, they
came to Him privately and asked, "When shall these things be?" and "what
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the consummation of the
age?"[6]--that is, the period of the Jewish government and religion. In
reply, He delivered the splendid prophecy before us; first warning them
against those pretenders to Messiahship, who, soon after His ascension,
overrun the land of Judea; and then going on to describe the miseries
which were coming upon the Jews, and the final overthrow of their temple
and city;--He delivers to them this prediction, not in the common
language of narrative, but, in the magnificent figures of the ancient
prophecy. A method of speaking which, while it pointed out the mutation
of earthly things, had a further reference to things spiritual. And thus
while He pointed out the overthrow of the Jewish power, He referred
likewise to the degraded state and corruption of the Christian
church,--the spiritual Jerusalem,--when, having lost its love or
charity, it sunk down into a state of formal observance as lifeless as
the departed spirit of Judaism.
In neither of these senses, however, does the passage point to any
destruction of the visible universe. If we take it in its outward
reference to the Jewish nation, then the darkening of the sun and the
withdrawing of the moon, together with the other parts of the
description, can only be representative images of their multiplied
distresses. This view of the subject is taken by most of those who have
commented on the words. "The sun shall be darkened," "that is, (says
one,) all their glory and excellency shall be eclipsed; all their wealth
and prosperity shall be laid waste;--the whole government, civil and
ecclesiastical, shall be destroyed; and such marks of misery found upon
them, as never were seen upon a people."[7] But among the believers of
the tenet in dispute, we presume there is not one more highly celebrated
for learning than Dr. Adam Clarke; yet he, in commenting upon this
passage, gives up all idea of a literal destruction. The following is
the doctor's explanation:
"'Immediately after the tribulation.'--Commentators generally understand
this and what follows, of the end of the world and Christ's coming to
judgment. But the word _immediately_ shows that our Lord is not speaking
of any distant event, but of something immediately consequent on
calamities already predicted; and that must be the destruction of
Jerusalem. The _Jewish heaven_ shall perish and _the sun_ and _moon_ of
its glory and happiness shall be darkened,--brought to nothing. _The sun
is the religion of the church; the moon the government of the state_;
and _the stars_ are the _judges and doctors of both_. In the prophetic
language, great commotions upon earth are often represented under the
notion of commotions and changes in the heavens. The fall of Babylon is
thus represented by the constellations of heaven withdrawing their
light, and the sun and the moon being darkened:--the destruction of
Egypt by the heaven being covered, the sun enveloped with a cloud, and
the moon withholding her light: the destruction of the Jews by Antiochus
Epiphanes, is represented by _casting down some of the host of heaven_
and _the stars_ to the ground. And this very destruction of Jerusalem is
represented by the prophet Joel, by showing wonders in heaven and in
earth,--_darkening the sun, and turning the moon into blood_. This
general mode of describing these judgments, leaves no room to doubt the
propriety of its application in the present case." (_Commentary on
Matthew._)
Thus, in the hands of one of the most learned advocates of the doctrine,
does one of its principal proofs vanish into air. According to his
showing, there is nothing in the whole passage referring at all either
to the material earth, or the visible heavens; and the whole is a
figurative account of the overthrow of the religion and government of
the Jews,--"the _sun_ and _moon_ of the _Jewish heaven_." We might
follow the doctor through the whole chapter, and show that in almost
every point he confirms what has been formerly advanced. "The sign of
the Son of Man was, (he says,) the signal manifestation of Christ's
power and glory," in the destruction of Jerusalem. The "angels sent
forth to gather the elect, the apostles and their successors in the
Christian ministry." The sound of a trumpet, "the earnest affectionate
call of the Gospel:" and "_the elect_," "the Gentiles who were now
chosen or elected, in place of the rebellious obstinate Jews." In the
same manner he explains the whole of this and the following chapter; and
in the latter declares that the whole of the accounts up to the
thirty-first verse, may be properly applied to the destruction of
Jerusalem. And here we may leave him; for if there is nothing from the
first verse of the twenty-fourth chapter, to the thirty-first verse of
the twenty-fifth, which relates to the destruction of the world, surely
nothing respecting it will be found in the remainder.
Thus does this passage, so often brought forward to add to the terror of
the world's dissolution, which has been sounded forth from pulpits and
re-echoed from the press, when calmly examined, prove to have no
connexion with the subject: but to refer to an event as different from
the general conflagration, as light from darkness.
But some may be ready to say, "Although it has not this reference in its
outward meaning, yet you have already confessed that it relates to
Christianity and the church; and is not the doctrine contained in this
internal application?" I answer, no! The doctrine only stands upon the
supposition that the heavens and the earth referred to in the passage,
are the literal and visible portions of nature. We have seen that in its
relation to the Jews, no such things are intended; still less,
therefore, can it point to these in its _internal_ meaning. As the sun
and moon in the literal application are, (to use the words of Dr.
Clarke,) "the sun and moon of the _Jewish_ heaven" or state, so in
spiritual reference, they are the sun and moon of the _Christian_
heaven, or state of the church; and, as pointing to spiritual principles
and spiritual states, have nothing to do with the outward machinery of
nature. As no destruction of the world, then, can be found in the
_internal_ sense of the prophecy, it is confessed, even by the advocates
of the doctrine, that there is nothing respecting it in the _outward_
sense. And if nothing is found relating to it either in the _spiritual_
or _literal_ meaning of the words, then it is not there _at all_; and
the passage as a proof of the dissolution of all things, must be
abandoned for ever.[8]
The next passage which claims attention, is that in the sixth chapter of
the Revelation; for the words in the first chapter being those of the
apostle previous to his prophetic visions, may be classed among the
apostolic passages of which we shall speak hereafter. The text before us
reads: "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there
was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair,
and the moon became as blood, and the stars of heaven fell unto the
earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken
of a mighty wind: and the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled
together, and every mountain and island were moved out of their places."
In this part of the subject I say nothing of the evidently figurative
nature of the passage, nor of the absurdities before alluded to, as
existing in the sense of the letter; but I shall make one remark obvious
to the minds of all, and borne out by the connexion of the words
themselves. The vision of the _seals_ (as well as that of the vials,) is
one continued prophecy, which is not concluded until the breaking of the
seventh seal in the eighth chapter. Now the events above described,
whether representative or literal, happen under the _sixth_ seal; yet
the descriptions of the _seventh_ as well as those of the others, refer
to events which were to occur in the church and on this visible earth.
The sealing of the hundred and forty-four thousand,--the prohibition of
the wind to blow on the earth,--the seven trumpets and their
consequences, evidently relate to states of the church in this world;
yet all these things which were to be transacted in the visible world,
happen _after_ the description above quoted.
If, then, various and multiplied events are described as occurring _on
the earth, after_ the heavens had departed like a scroll, and the
islands were moved out of their places, nothing can be more clear than
that the destruction of the earth is not here alluded to; for if the
world is to be destroyed under the _sixth_ seal, then no events can
happen _upon it_ under the _seventh_, since it will then have no
existence; but as such events _are_ described as passing _in the world_
under the _seventh_ seal, then that world cannot previously be destroyed
under the _sixth_ seal.