Part 2

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.