We may now sum up the arguments which have been adduced.
1. When the literal sense of a passage of Scripture is opposed to common sense and reason, such literal sense must be laid aside, as not containing the true meaning. But the literal sense of those passages which speak of a destruction of the earth, is both absurd and unreasonable. Therefore the literal sense of these passages must be abandoned, and does not contain the proper interpretation. Again: when two prophecies are found couched in the same language, and referring to a similar event, one of which is fulfilled while the other remains unaccomplished; the manner in which the latter will be fulfilled, must be judged of by the previous fulfillment of the former. But the first prophecies relating to the first coming of the Lord, are exactly similar to those which refer to His second coming; yet they never were _literally_ fulfilled: therefore we have no just reason to look for a literal fulfillment of the latter. 2. When any text of Scripture is, in the letter, inconsistent with itself, or with other plain and express passages of the Word, the interpretation must be sought for in the spiritual meaning of the words. But the proofs of this earth's destruction are inconsistent with themselves, and are opposed to other plain and direct portions of the Word of God; therefore the meaning of those alleged proofs must be found, not in the literal sense, but in their spirit. 3. In the explanation of every part of the Sacred Scriptures, a due regard must be had to the connexion in which it stands; and any mode of explanation which tends to break such connexion, or is at variance with it, may be beautiful but cannot be _true_. But the connexion in which the passages referred to are found, is completely at variance with the doctrine derived from them; nor can they in any way support that doctrine until severed from this connexion. Therefore that explanation which the generality of Christians gives them, cannot be correct. 4. And, lastly, whatever doctrine is opposed to the character of God, as a God of unbounded love and infinite wisdom, is not a doctrine of the Bible. But the doctrine before us is thus opposed both to his nature and perfections; therefore it cannot be true.