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.