ought to be conclusive. Those who do not think so, but still adhere to the common interpretation of that other class of passages to which we have adverted, must at least acknowledge that there is other testimony quite as decided of a contrary nature: which will they accept? It is not easy to believe two opposite statements. If they adhere to those which are supposed to teach the dissolution of the earth, they must give up those which declare that the earth abideth for ever; and so they are driven into the dilemma of turning away from one portion of the Word in order to maintain a theory denied by another. But with the explanations we have given, both are seen to be in perfect harmony with each other, and to culminate in establishing the fact "that the earth endureth for ever."
It is quite true that the sun, the moon, and earth, in the above passages, have, as in the other cases cited, a spiritual signification. They properly refer to the enlightening sentiments and principles which belong to the Church, and these will be preserved amidst every vicissitude. Still, this does not interfere with the argument which applies them to the perpetuation of the world, because if the Church is to endure for ever, the earth must necessarily remain for ever: the existence of the former without the latter is not a possible conception.
It cannot be supposed that the Lord would destroy the earth without a motive; and what motive is conceivable? The earth never had any moral responsibility; it has never transgressed any laws that are proper to its being, or necessary to its position in the universe. Why then should it be suddenly arrested in its career, and brought to an end? Such a catastrophe would certainly be of no benefit to mankind: it is not easy to conceive what blessing it could confer upon the angels; and the Scrip-
