proaches to the sun, which have sometimes been adverted to as collateral evidence to support the theological theory of the earth's destruction; but it will be time enough to inquire into the bearing of the supposed phenomena upon that subject, when the scientific world are agreed about their meaning. We feel quite confident that they will never disturb the conclusion we are attempting to establish.
Destruction is contrary to the character of God and His purpose in creation. He does not create to destroy, but to preserve. Indeed, preservation is continual creation; and why should that which He has preserved for unnumbered years not be maintained for ever? Whoever thought of making anything with the intention of destroying it? The architect does not build a city, with the view of setting it on fire. The potter does not make his vessels, for the purpose of dashing them to pieces. The effort of all wise workmen is to impart duration to what they make; to do otherwise would not be an act of wisdom. Why then should an intention be attributed to God which would be considered derogatory to man? God declared creation not only to be good, but "very good." How then can He bring ruin upon a work which He has distinguished by such an epithet? God is essential love and wisdom; and who can doubt that He has made the world with as much perfection as those infinite attributes could devise? how unreasonable then is it to suppose that He will terminate its existence! Could perfect wisdom produce anything that should exclude the presence of itself? Surely something of the cause must be in the effect, and this, to some extent, is clearly visible in the frame of nature by which we are surrounded; to destroy it, therefore, would imply a censure upon the wisdom which brought it into being. It was love that moved
