subject of prayer. For in answering prayer, God is, in fact, merely
executing some of the purposes of his special providence; and it is
gratifying to the pious heart to see how he can give an answer to the
humblest petitioner. No matter though all the laws of nature seem in the
way of an answer,--God can so modify their action as to conform them to
the case of every petitioner. War, famine, and pestilence may all be upon
us, yet humble prayer may turn them all aside, and every other physical
evil; and that without a miracle, if best for us and for the universe.
Tell a man that the only effect of prayer is its reflex influence upon
himself, in leading him to conform more strictly to nature's laws, and you
send a paralysis and a death chill into all his moral sensibilities.
Indeed, he cannot pray; but tell him that God will be influenced, as is
any earthly friend, by his supplications, and his heart beats full and
strong, the current of life goes bounding through his whole system, the
glow of health mantles his cheek, and all his senses are roused into
intense and delightful action.
The sad influence of a perversion and misunderstanding of the doctrine of
nature's constancy upon the youthful mind is well exhibited by a late able
writer. "Early trained to it under the domestic roof," says M'Cosh, "the
person regularly engaged in prayer during childhood and opening manhood.
But as he became introduced to general society, and began to feel his
independence of the guardians of his youth, he was tempted to look upon
the father's commands, in this respect, as proceeding from sourness and
sternness, and the mother's advice as originating in an amiable weakness
and timidity. He is now careless in the performance of acts which in time
past had been punctually attended to. How short, how hurried, how cold are
the prayers which he now utters! Then there come to be mornings on which
he is snatched away to some very important or enticing work without
engaging in his customary devotions. There are evenings, too, following
days of mad excitement or sinful pleasure, in which he feels utterly
indisposed to go into the presence of God, and to be left alone with him.
He feels that there is an utter incongruity between the ball-room, or the
theatre, which he has just left, and the throne of grace, to which he
should now go. What can he say to God, when he would pray to him? Confess
his sins? No; he does not at present feel the act to be sinful. Thank God
for giving him access to such follies? He has his doubts whether God
approves of all that has been done. But he may ask God's blessing? No; he
is scarcely disposed to acknowledge that he needs a blessing, or he doubts
whether the blessing would be given. The practical conclusion to which he
comes is, that it may be as consistent in him to betake himself to sleep
without offering to God what he feels would only be a mockery. What is he
to do the following morning? It is a critical time. Confess his error? No;
cherishing as he does the recollection of the gay scene in which he
mingled, and with the taste and relish of it yet upon his palate, he is
not prepared to acknowledge his folly. Morning and evening now go and
return, and bring new gifts from God, and new manifestations of his
goodness; but no acknowledgment of the divine bounty on the part of him
who is yet ever receiving it. No doubt there are times when he is prompted
to prayer by powerful feelings, called up by outward trials or inward
convictions; but ever when the storms of human life would drive him to the
shore, there is a tide beating him back. His course continues to be a very
vacillating one--now seeming to approach to God, and anon driven farther
from him, till he obtains from books, or from lectures, a smattering of
half-understood science. He now learns that all things are governed by
laws, regular and fixed, over which the breath of prayer can exert as
little influence, as they move on in their allotted course, as the passing
breeze of the earth over the sun in his circuit. False philosophy has now
come to the aid of guilty feelings, and hardens their cold waters into an
icicle lying at his very heart, cooling all his ardor, and damping all his
enthusiasm. He looks back, at times, no doubt, to the simple faith of his
childhood with a sigh; but it is as to a pleasing dream, or illusion, from
which he has been awakened, and into which, the spell being broken, he can
never again fall."--_Method of the Divine Government_, p. 224.
O, what a change would this world exhibit, were the whole Christian church
to exercise full faith in God's ability to answer prayer without a
miracle, only to the extent pointed out by philosophy, to say nothing of
the Bible; for, in fact, a large proportion of that church, confounded by
the specious argument derived from nature's constancy, have virtually
yielded this most important principle to the demands of scepticism. When
natural evils, such as war, famine, drought, and pestilence, came upon our
forefathers, they, taking the Bible for their guide, observed days of
fasting and prayer for their removal. But how seldom do their descendants
follow their example! And yet even physical science testifies that the
fathers acted in conformity to the true principles of philosophy. Would
that the Christian church would consent to be led back to the Bible
doctrine on this subject by philosophy.
That same philosophy, also, should lead the good man, when struggling
through difficulties, to exercise unshaken confidence in the divine
protection, even though all nature's laws seem arrayed against him; for at
the unseen touch of God's efficiency, the iron bars of law shall melt away
like wax, and deliverance be given in the midst of appalling dangers, if
best for the man and for the universe; and if not best, he will not desire
it.
Science, too, bids the wicked man not to fancy that the constancy of
nature will shield him from the infliction of merited and special
punishment, should God choose to make bare the rod of his justice; for the
blow may come as certainly in the course of nature as against it.
Let modern Christian theology, then, receive meekly the rebuke
administered on this important point by physical science. For how lame and
halting a defence of the Scripture doctrine of special providence and
prayer has that theology been able to make! How few of our systems of
theology contain a manful vindication of truths so important! Let not the
Christian divine, therefore, refuse the aid thus offered by physical
science. Let him no longer indulge groundless jealousies against true
philosophy, as if adverse to religion. Especially let him not spurn the
aid of geology, which alone, of all the sciences, discloses stupendous
miracles of creation in early times, and thus removes all presumption
against the miracles of Christianity and special providence at any time.
It is, indeed, an instructive fact, that a science which has been thought
so full of danger to Christianity should thus early be found vindicating
some of the most peculiar and long-contested doctrines of revelation. And
yet it ought not to surprise us, for geology is as really the work of God
as revelation. And though, when ill understood and perverted, she may have
seemed recreant to her celestial origin, yet the more fully her
proportions are developed, and her features brought into daylight, the
more clearly do we recognize her alliance to every thing pure and noble in
the universe. "And surely," says a late writer, "it must be gratifying
thus to see a science, formerly classed, and not perhaps unjustly, amongst
the most pernicious to faith, once more become her handmaid; to see her
now, after so many years of wandering from theory to theory, or rather
from vision to vision, return once more to the home where she was born,
and to the altar at which she made her first simple offerings; no longer,
as she first went forth, a wilful, dreamy, empty-handed child, but with a
matronly dignity, and a priest-like step, and a bosom full of well-earned
gifts, to pile upon its sacred hearth. For it was religion which gave
geology birth, and to the sanctuary she hath once more
returned."--_Wiseman's Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion_, p. 192,
Am. ed.
LECTURE XI.
THE FUTURE CONDITION AND DESTINY OF THE EARTH.
Man has a stronger desire to penetrate the future than the past. And yet
the details of most future events are wisely concealed from him. There are
two, and only two, sources of evidence from which he can obtain some
glimpses of what will be hereafter. The one is revelation, the other
analogy. So far as God has thought proper to reveal the future, our
information is precise and certain. But it does not embrace a multitude of
events about which we have strong curiosity. By analogy is meant a
prediction of the future from the past. On the principle that nature is
constant, we infer what will be from what has been. If, however, new laws
are hereafter to come into operation, or if present agencies will then
operate very differently from what they now do, it is obvious that analogy
can be only an imperfect guide. Still, in respect to many important
events, its conclusions are infallible. Judging, for instance, from the
past, we are absolutely certain that no living thing will escape the great
law of dissolution, which, thus far, apart from the few exceptions made
known to us by revelation, has been universal.
The future changes in the condition of the earth, as they are taught us by
revelation and analogy, or, rather, by geology, will form the subject of
my present lecture. And my first object will be, to ascertain, if
possible, precisely what the Bible teaches us concerning these changes.
We find in the Scriptures several descriptions, more or less definite, of
the changes which this globe will hereafter undergo. Some of them,
however, are couched in the figurative language of prophecy, and others
are incidental allusions; and concerning the precise meaning of such
descriptions, there will, of course, be a diversity of opinion.
There are, however, some passages on this subject as literal and as
precise in their meaning as language can be. Now, it is one of the rules
for interpreting language, that, where a work contains several accounts of
the same event, the description which is most simple and literal ought to
be made the index for obtaining the meaning of those passages which are
figurative, or, on any account, obscure. I shall, therefore, select the
passage of Scripture which all acknowledge to be most plain and definite,
respecting the future destruction of the earth, and the new heavens and
earth that are to succeed, and first inquire into its precise meaning;
after which, we shall be better prepared to ascertain what modification of
that meaning other passages of sacred writ demand.
It needs but a cursory examination of the Bible to convince any one that
the description in the Second Epistle of Peter of the future destruction
and renovation of the earth and heavens, is eminently the passage first to
be examined, because the fullest and clearest on this subject. It is the
apostle's object directly and literally to describe these great changes,
apart from all embellishments of language.
_There shall come_, says he, _in the last days, scoffers, walking after
their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since
the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that
by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being
overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth, which are
now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire, against the
day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not
ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning
his promise, as some men count slackness, but is long suffering to
us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in
the 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. Seeing, then, that all these things shall be
dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation
and godliness? Looking for, and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens, being on fire, shall be dissolved, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat. Nevertheless, we, according to his promise,
look for new heavens, and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness._
It would require too much time, and, moreover, is not necessary to the
object I have in view, to enter into minute verbal criticism upon this
passage. I will only remark that the phrase translated _the earth and the
works that are therein_, might with equal propriety be rendered "the earth
and the works that are _thereon_;" and yet the difference of meaning
between the two modes of expression is of no great importance. Again, by
the term _heavens_, in this passage, we are evidently to understand the
atmosphere, or region immediately surrounding the earth; as in the first
chapter of Genesis, where it is said that _God called the firmament
heavens_; the plural form being used in the Hebrew, though not in the
English translation.
What, now, by a fair exegesis, is taught in this passage concerning the
destruction and renovation of the world? The following train of remark may
conduct us to the true answer to this inquiry:--
In the first place, this passage is to be understood literally. It would
seem as if it could hardly be necessary to present any formal proof of
this position to any person of common sense, who had read the passage. But
the fact is, that men of no mean reputation as commentators have
maintained that the whole of it is only a vivid figurative prophecy of the
destruction of Jerusalem. Others suppose the new heavens and new earth
here described to exist before the conflagration of the world. But these
new heavens and earth are represented as the residence of the righteous,
after the burning and melting of the earth, which, according to other
parts of Scripture, is to take place at the end of the world, or at the
general judgment. How strange that, in order to sustain a favorite theory,
able men should thus invert the obvious order of these great events, so
clearly described in the Bible! Still more absurd is it to attempt to
fasten a figurative character upon this most simple statement of
inspiration. It is, indeed, true, that the prophets have sometimes set
forth great political and moral changes, the downfall of empires, or of
distinguished men, by the destruction of the heavens and the earth, and
the growing pale and darkening of the sun and moon. But in all these cases
the figurative character of the description is most obvious; while in the
passage from Peter its literal character is equally obvious. Take, for
example, this statement--_By the word of God the heavens were of old, and
the earth, standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world
that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and
the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved
unto fire, against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men._
I believe no one has ever doubted that the destruction of the world by
water, here described, refers to Noah's deluge. Now, how absurd to admit
that this is a literal description of that event, and then to maintain the
remainder of the sentence, which declares the future destruction of that
same world by fire, to be figurative in the highest degree! For if this
destruction mean only the destruction of Jerusalem, or any other great
political or moral revolution, the language is one of the boldest figures
which can be framed. Who, that knows any thing of the laws of language,
does not see the supreme absurdity of thus coupling in the same sentence
the most simple and certain literality with the strongest of all figures?
What mark is given us, by which we may know where the boundary is between
the literal and the metaphorical sense? From what part of the Bible, or
from what uninspired author, can a parallel example be adduced? What but
the strongest necessity, the most decided _exigentia loci_, would justify
such an anomalous interpretation of any author? Nay, I do not believe any
necessity could justify it. It would be more reasonable to infer that the
passage had no meaning, or an absurd one. But surely no such necessity
exists in the present case. Understood literally, the passage teaches only
what is often expressed, though less fully, in many other parts of
Scripture; and even though some of these other passages should be involved
in a degree of obscurity,--and I am not disposed to deny that some
obscurity rests upon one or two of them,--it would be no good reason for
transforming so plain a description into a highly-wrought figurative
representation; especially when by no ingenuity can we thus alter more
than one part of the sentence. I conclude, therefore, that, if any part of
the Bible is literal, we are thus to consider this chapter of Peter.
In the second place, this passage does not teach that the earth will be
annihilated.
The prevailing opinion in this country, probably, has been, and still is,
that the destruction of the world described by Peter will amount to
annihilation--that the matter of the globe will cease to be. But in all
ages there have been many who believe that the destruction will be only
the ruin of the present economy of the world, but not its utter
extinction. And surely Peter's description does not imply annihilation of
the matter of the globe. He makes fire the agent of the destruction, and,
in order to ascertain the extent of the ruin that will follow, we have
only to inquire what effect combustion will have upon matter. The common
opinion is, that intense combustion actually destroys or annihilates
matter, because it is thereby dissipated. But the chemist knows that not
one particle of matter has ever been thus deprived of existence; that fire
only changes the form of matter, but never annihilates it. When solid
matter is changed into gas, as in most cases of combustion, it seems to be
annihilated, because it disappears; but it has only assumed a new form,
and exists as really as before. Since, therefore, biblical and scientific
truth must agree, we may be sure that the apostle never meant to teach
that the matter of the globe would cease to be, through the action of fire
upon it; nor is there any thing in his language that implies such a
result, but most obviously the reverse.
If these things be so, then, in the third place, we may infer that Peter
did not mean to teach that the matter of the globe would be in the least
diminished by the final conflagration. I doubt not the sufficiency of
divine power partially or wholly to annihilate the material universe. But
heat, however intense, has no tendency to do this; it only gives matter a
new form. And heat is the only agency which the apostle represents as
employed. In short, we have no evidence, either from science or
revelation, that the minutest atom of matter has ever been destroyed since
the original creation; nor have we any more evidence that any of it ever
will be reduced to the nothingness from which it sprang. The prevalent
ideas upon this subject all result from erroneous notions of the effect of
intense heat.
In the fourth place, the passage under consideration teaches us that
whatever upon or within the earth is capable of combustion will undergo
that change, and that the entire globe will be melted.
The language of Peter has always seemed to me extremely interesting. He
says that _the heavens_ [or atmosphere] _will 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; looking for, and hasting
unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens, being on fire,
shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat_.
This language approaches nearer to an anticipation of the scientific
discoveries of modern times than any other part of Scripture. And yet, at
the time it was written, it would not have enabled any one to understand
the chemistry of the great changes which it describes. But, now that their
chemistry is understood, we perceive that the language is adapted to it,
in a manner which no uninspired writer would have done. The atmosphere is
represented as passing away with a great noise--an effect which the
chemist would predict by the union of its oxygen with the hydrogen and
other gases liberated by the intense heat. Yet what uninspired writer of
the first century would have imagined such a result?
Again, when we consider the notions which then prevailed, and which are
still widely diffused, why should the apostle add to the simple statement
that the earth would be burnt up, the declaration that its elements would
be melted? For the impression was, that the combustion would entirely
destroy the matter of the globe. But the chemist finds that the greater
part of the earth has already been oxidized, or burnt, and on this matter
the only effect of the heat, unless intense enough to dissipate it, would
be to melt it. If, therefore, the apostle had said only that the world
would be burnt up, the sceptical chemist would have inferred that he had
made a mistake through ignorance of chemistry. But he cannot now draw such
an inference; for the apostle's language clearly implies that only the
combustible matter of the globe will be burnt, while the elements, or
first principles of things, will be melted; so that the final result will
be an entire liquid, fiery globe. Such a wonderful adaptation of his
description to modern science could not surely have resulted from human
sagacity, but must be the fruit of divine inspiration.
And this adaptation is the more wonderful when we find it running through
the whole Bible wherever the sacred writers come in contact with
scientific subjects. In this respect, the Bible differs from every other
system of religion professedly from heaven.
Whenever other systems have treated of the works of nature, they have
sanctioned some error, and thus put into the hands of modern science the
means of detecting the imposture. The Vedas of India adopt the absurd
notions of an ignorant and polytheistic age respecting astronomy, and the
Koran adopts as infallible truth the absurdities of the Ptolemaic system.
But hitherto the Bible has never been proved to come into collision with
any scientific discovery, although many of its books were written in the
rudest and most ignorant ages. It does not, indeed, anticipate scientific
discovery. But the remarkable adaptation of its language to such
discoveries, when they are made, seems to me a more striking mark of its
divine origin than if it had contained a revelation of the whole system of
modern science.