In this application of the passage, we are supported by the explanation of the above commentators. They agree in defining heaven and earth figuratively, to mean the state of the world and of the church;—of the Jewish world, when applied to the Jews;—of the Pagan world, when applied to the Heathen: and by the self-same mode of interpretation, we are justified in applying it to the Christian world in its reference to Christians. In no case can it be explained of the visible world of matter; for the passages being acknowledged to be figurative, it must, as in the other instances, bear the figurative meaning.
Having thus noticed the only two texts in the Revelations, which seem, in the least, to bear upon the subject, I may be allowed again to repeat my surprise, that persons should be found attempting to support a doctrine by the literal sense of this book. Those among the advocates of the popular belief, who have most carefully studied the prophecy, protest their ignorance of its meaning and application. "I cannot pretend to explain the book," says the writer above quoted; "I do not understand it. I repeat it, I do not understand the book; and I am satisfied, that not one who has written on the subject, knows anything more of it than myself."—"What the prophecies mean, and when and how they are to be fulfilled, God in heaven alone knows." It "is termed a Revelation; but it is a revelation of symbols;—an exhibition of enigmas, to which no particular solution is given; and to which God alone can give the solution." "To pretend to say, (observes Calmet,) what this new heaven and new earth mean, and what are their ornaments and qualities, is, in my opinion, the greatest of all presumptions." Yet, into this presumption do the generality of Christians fall, who, amidst this candid confession of learned ignorance, bring forth with the greatest confidence the literal sense of the book, to support a doctrine which length of time has seemed to render sacred.
The words of the apostles now demand our attention; and with respect to these we notice a fact which is necessary to the proper understanding of their ideas; that is, that the apostles were themselves ignorant both of the time when, and the manner how, the second coming of the Lord would be accomplished; and that they have, therefore, when speaking upon this subject, carefully abstained from giving any opinion of their own, confining themselves entirely to the words of the Saviour, or paraphrasing them without altering the symbolic images.
This circumstance in no degree detracts from that extraordinary illumination with which the apostles were endowed. They were men raised up by God, and filled with the Divine influence, in order that they might propagate in the world, and among all nations, the religion of Christ; but it does not appear that among the supernatural gifts which they received, the gift of prophecy was included, except in the case of the apostle John. Yet, even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that they did possess this gift, it would by no means follow that they perfectly understood their own predictions. It is the peculiar nature of prophecy, that its proper meaning is not known until the time of its fulfillment; and this was especially the case with the Jewish writers who foretold the first advent of the Saviour. Although their predictions seem now so clear and strong, yet both the prophets themselves and their followers, were at the time ignorant of their precise meaning; and hence arose the absurd notions which the Jews entertained of a temporal salvation and an earthly Saviour. The gift of prophecy was, therefore, except in very rare instances, accompanied by entire ignorance of the manner of its fulfillment. It does not, however, appear that this gift was bestowed in general upon the apostles; their knowledge of the second coming of the Saviour was derived entirely from the words of the Saviour; and of the express meaning of these words, as referring to a future event, they were completely ignorant. In quoting his prediction they, therefore, seem to have held a persuasion that this second coming was very speedily to be accomplished. Thus they speak of the "day of the Lord" as "at hand,"—of "the Judge standing at the door:" and Paul, in particular, seems to have believed that some of the Christians of that day, if not himself among them, would live to see its approach.
Whether this latter opinion be true or not, certain it is that the words of the apostles had such an effect upon the first Christians, that they were in momentary expectation of the appearance of the Lord. During the first nine centuries after his ascension, a general idea prevailed that his second coming would speedily take place; and when, after waiting nine hundred years, they found their expectations disappointed, they still looked to the one thousandth year to usher in this great event; and so powerfully did this opinion operate upon the world, that rich and poor flocked in great numbers to the Holy Land, there to await his appearance. The wealthy sold their possessions, or gave them away to charitable institutions; kings quitted their thrones, and subjects their employment, under the impression that "the end of all things was at hand," and that the world was of no further value. Such, then, was the effect of a misapplication of prophetic language; and though nearly nineteen hundred years have gone by, yet are the Christian churches still following in the steps of their predecessors, holding the literal sense of the Word in defiance of reason, and looking for the Lord's personal appearance in the clouds of heaven, though common sense proclaims its improbability.
But to return. From a comparison of the descriptions of the apostles with the predictions of the Lord, it is easy to perceive whence they quoted. In many instances the two accounts are almost word for word the same; in others they are enlarged; but in none is the connexion of events, or the prophetic symbols, disturbed. "The day of the Lord (says Peter,) shall come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise." Here it is easy to perceive whence the words of the apostle were drawn; for we have only to compare them with those of our Lord, to be convinced that it was from these the description is taken. "Heaven and earth (says the Saviour) shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." "Know this, that if the good man of the house had known at what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through." Again, Paul declares, "The Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first." Here, too, the prophecy is quoted from the Saviour's declaration: "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." Once more the Apostle John says: "Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, even they that pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth shall wail because of Him:" where the allusion is to these words: "Then shall appear the sign of the coming of the Son of Man in 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." "Behold, (says the Lord) I stand at the door and knock;" "Behold," says the apostle, echoing the Saviour's words, "the Judge standeth at the door."
It would exceed my present limits to enter fully into this subject. Suffice to say, that in most passages the reference to our Lord's predictions may be plainly discerned; and in all the prophetic representatives are retained: The sun,—the moon,—the stars,—the earth,—the heavens, darkness, dissolution, and fire—the very images which are used by the Saviour, are likewise used by the apostles, and used, too, with a reference to the same period—the last days of the Christian church. If these images, when used by the prophets and by the Redeemer, are figurative, then, as the same images applied to the same period, they are figurative when employed by the apostles. Or, if the dissolution and burning of the earth described by the latter are literal facts, then the burning of the earth and its dissolution described by the former, are literal facts likewise; for the same images applied to the same period, must have the same meaning.
If, then, these observations be correct, and I see not how they can be fairly controverted;—if the apostles did not, except in one instance, possess the power of foretelling future events, and if their descriptions of the second coming of the Lord are gathered from his own words, or from the prophetic writings, then we must judge of their meaning by that of the prophecies whence they are derived. This is a plain and self-evident conclusion. If I quote the words of any writer, the meaning of the quotation must be gathered from the works of that writer; and more especially if I quote for a similar purpose, and profess myself one of his disciples and admirers. The passages, therefore, which occur in the apostolic writings, are by no means decisive proofs of the doctrine in debate. As quotations and paraphrases of the Lord's words and those of the prophets, they must, by every rule of fair criticism, have a similar meaning. We have seen that the former are, by the acknowledgment of the most learned writers, figurative and correspondent; the just inference therefore is, that the latter, as quotations and paraphrases of them, must be figurative also.
4. The last part of our proposition comes now before us, namely: that the doctrine of the destruction of the universe is opposed to the end of creation, and to the character of God as a Being of unbounded love and infinite wisdom. I may here be told of the tendency of matter to dissolution; of its mutability and constant change; of the elements of destruction which nature herself engenders; and of all those by which reason and science have sought to gloss over the popular tenet. But the mutability of nature is no proof of final dissolution. Mutability is liability to change, or a continual tendency to remove from one state to another. Whatever is changeable, or whatever can experience alteration, is, therefore, mutable. But this mutability attaches not to material nature alone, but to all creation; the highest archangel in the highest heaven, as well as every spirit embodied on earth, is a mutable creature. The state of glory in the eternal world, as well as the state of man below, is a state of mutability,—a state in which there are continual changes either for the better or the worse. This will appear plain if we consider that, whatever is immutable cannot be acted upon by any higher power; for the action of such a superior cause supposes a corresponding effect and that effect supposes a change in the object acted upon, in one way or another; and, consequently, any object upon which an effect can be produced, must be a mutable or changeable object. Now, in the case of angelic beings, God, the First Cause of their existence, is continually acting upon them by his love and wisdom, and thus raising them eternally in the scale of blessedness: such alteration of their state from glory to glory is a change,—an effect produced upon them by an Almighty Cause; and this effect is at once a proof that angels themselves are mutable creatures, or liable to change. The same may be said of the state of blessedness; it is continually receiving fresh supplies of glory from the Fountain of life, and is thus changing—becoming more and more blessed: and it equally applies to the spirit of man. This, like the mind, is never "at one stay;" nor, perhaps, does the state of the mind remain precisely the same for two hours together. The angels of heaven, the state of the blessed, the spirit of man, are all changeable. God is the only immutable Being; for He alone cannot be acted upon or changed by any higher power; and hence it is one of his exclusive prerogatives to be "without variableness or shadow of turning." If, then, the angelic hosts, as well as heaven itself, are mutable, while yet they endure for ever, the mutability of nature is no proof at all that she, any more than the former, is approaching dissolution.
"Nature herself," as one well observes, "effects her renovation from her decay." Matter, though decomposed and subjected to ten thousand changes, loses none of its essential properties; but continually assuming new forms, gives variety to the world, without being at all altered from its original nature. Indeed, it has been strongly asserted that there has not been a particle of matter lost from the creation to the present moment; changed every particle may have been, but still there is not one wanting; and if this be the case, such continual change is no proof of approaching destruction.