Scripture Facts bearing upon the Existence of the Day Line.
By John Nevins Andrews
The act of creation divides time from eternity, for it stands at the beginning of the Creator’s work. The first day of time did therefore commence at the moment that the earth was called into existence. This act took place in the profound darkness which preceded the creation of light. And thus was a portion of ancient night severed from the eternity of the past, that it might form the first division of the first day of time. This night differed from any night which has since existed in that it was not ushered in by twilight, and in that its existence commenced at the same instant the world over. During this night of absolute darkness, the Spirit of God performed a work of vast importance in giving order to our unorganized and new-formed earth. The proper portion for night, of the first day of time, having expired, it was fitting that it should give place to the light of day. And so at the boundary between these two natural divisions of the twenty-four-hour day, i. e., at the time for the twilight of morning, the Lord said, “Let there be light: and there was light.” Gen. 1:1–3. But though the darkness of the first night enshrouded the entire globe, it was not thus with the light of the first day. The creation of light made one-half our globe light in an instant and left the other half still covered with darkness. Daylight having now commenced, darkness no longer ruled with universal sway. Yet darkness continued to exist, and, dividing its empire with light, both bear rule over the Creator’s work and, by God’s wise arrangement, change territory with each other seven times each week. The separation of light from darkness is not an act confined to the first day of time, or peculiar only to that day. For, according to God’s arrangement, when the sun was made the ruler of the day, and the moon the ruler of the night, he appointed them to divide the day from the night, the very thing which began to be done on the first day of time. Gen. 1:14. And lest any should dispute that dividing “the day from the night” is the same as dividing “the light from the darkness,” we cite verse eighteen in which the exact term used for God’s act on the first day is used for that work which the heavenly luminaries are to do on every successive day. We are not, therefore, to conclude that when God created light, it was everywhere diffused through the universe, and mingled with darkness, so that twilight existed all round our earth, and that God then gathered the light to one side by itself; for such an interpretation of the words is wholly inconsistent with the fact that this identical work has continued to be wrought during each twenty-four hours since the world began, or rather since the morning of the first day. Compare verses 4, 5, 14, 17, 18. We think a careful study of the facts will enable us to understand the work performed by the Creator when he divided the light from the darkness, especially when we bear in mind the fact that this work has been continued each day ever since. Manifestly it was an act which established the existing order of things in the succession of day and night, and by which that order is maintained. And now observe that the creation of light was at that point in the first twenty-four-hour day when night gives place to day. That is to say, it was the commencement of daylight on the first day of time. For after God had created the light, he called it “day,” and he called the darkness “night,” and the two constituted the first day of the creation week. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that whereas the act of creation was at that point of time corresponding to our Saturday night at sunset, for there the first day of the week commences, the creation of light was at a point of time corresponding to the commencement of light on first-day morning. And here we are brought to notice a most important fact. When light was created, the point of time marked by this act was “morning.” Now every morning is introduced by twilight, and this first morning was in this respect no exception to the rule which God has ordained to govern the commencement of morning. Twilight exists each morning because at that point of time the observer stands on the narrow strip of land where light on the east and darkness on the west come together and mingle, just as also each evening the observer stands on the same narrow tract covered by twilight, but with the light on the west and the darkness on the east. Twilight necessarily existed on that first morning when God gave existence to light. For when God had lighted up one side of our globe, as the other side still remained dark, twilight certainly existed on the boundary where light and darkness came together and mingled. The twilight of morning is where light on the east and darkness on the west come together. In order that twelve hours of day should succeed the morning that was ushered in by the lighting up of one side of the globe, it is necessary to understand that the standpoint of the sacred writer in recording this work, is on the western extremity of the light just where the light and darkness mingled together. Here it was twilight on that first morning of the creation week. East of this point one side, or half, of our globe was lighted up. The revolution of the globe from west to east carried that standpoint of the sacred writer, or rather of that divine Spirit by which he was inspired, eastward across that field of light, bringing that same standpoint or narrow tract where light on its western extremity mingled with the darkness twelve hours before, again to twilight. The twelve hours of daylight, or the twenty-four hours of the first day of time now expired, and with light disappearing in the west, and with darkness covering one half of our globe to the east of this standpoint, the twilight which marks the evening of the second day comes on. We cannot therefore doubt that that point, or line, or narrow tract in our earth’s circumference, where twilight existed on the west side of the field of light which lighted one side or half of the globe, is the place at which morning existed when God created light. And from this point the revolution of the earth eastward on its axis carried the standpoint of the writer in twelve hours across the field of light. For the reader can see in a moment that morning cannot exist at the same instant on one whole half of the globe, but only on a narrow tract. And this narrow tract must be on one edge of the field of light that it may there be twilight; and it must be on the west side (so that twelve hours of daylight may follow at this standpoint as it goes eastward), for if it were on the east side it would be the twilight that is succeeded by the shades of night. The remarkable peculiarities of the first day of time will be noticed hereafter. We are now prepared to show what is meant by God’s act of dividing the light from the darkness, and why that same work has been in continued process of execution from the moment that it commenced even until now. Twilight is light and darkness mingled as they meet upon the borders of their respective empires. And such being the very condition of that narrow tract where morning was marked by the creation of light, God caused the earth to revolve, carrying forward this standpoint into and through the field of light. Thus God began the work of dividing the light from the darkness by causing morning twilight, which precedes the full light of day, to constantly give place in its westward flight to the perfect light of day which follows next in its train. The division of light from darkness, or the transformation of twilight into full daylight, has therefore been in constant operation ever since the morning of that first day on which God created light. The first night began all round the world at once, for its commencement was marked by the act of creation, and this pertained to the whole globe. But night does not now begin in one instant to all the earth. Indeed it did not begin thus the second time. The creation of light caused this change. As God caused the light to shine out of darkness, without the agency of the sun, it is manifest that he could have lighted the whole world in an instant instead of simply lighting one half and leaving the other half dark, had he thought best to do so. Had he adopted this plan, then the alternations of light and darkness would have taken place in the same instant to all the world. It would then have been the case that each night and each day would have begun at the same instant the world over. This would, however, have involved the extinction of light after it had shone twelve hours, and its creation again after twelve hours of darkness. And these astounding miracles would have been requisite every twenty-four hours. The wisdom of God did not choose this plan. He did not think it best to strike light from existence once each twenty-four hours in order that the darkness of night should come at the same instant to the whole globe. Nor did he think it best to create light anew every day, that he might light the whole world in one moment. Had he chosen to do these two things, then it would have been the case that each twenty-four-hour day, i. e., each day of the week, would have begun at the same instant to all the world, and there would have been no such thing as day beginning earlier in the east than in the west, and no day line dividing between the beginning and the end of the course of day. Each day would begin and end at the same instant to all the world, and that would be all that there could be to any day. Light and darkness are the two natural divisions of each day of the week, and it is evident from the six statements of Gen. 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31, as well as from many other testimonies of the Bible, that these are essential to the existence of the twenty-four-hour day. God could have caused that these should in turn give place to each other in an instant, and thus have given days that should begin to all mankind at the same time. But he chose that light and darkness should make the apparent circuit of the globe, and thus, while giving everywhere days composed of the two natural divisions which are essential to their existence, he has established the law that each day shall make the circuit of the globe. Had he given us days commencing at the same instant, he would have established for all the world the reckoning of absolute time, i. e., days measured simply from the moment of the creation. But he has introduced another element into the reckoning of time, so that beside the simple existence of twenty-four-hour days in every part of the habitable globe, he has also established a course for each day around the world, and thus caused it to begin earlier or later, according as men are situated nearer, or more remote from, the beginning of the course of day. This may be called relative time, for it is manifest that the distance of any place from the day line, or commencement of the course of day, modifies the time at which day commences at that place. And lest any should find fault that God has given to mankind relative time instead of absolute, we call attention to the remarkable fact that God has also preserved the reckoning of absolute time, and that it is by this that relative time is governed. The following statement covers the ground: At the day line the reckoning of absolute time still exists; while all other portions of the earth’s surface have relative time, that is to say, the commencement of each day at any place is later than at the day line, just in proportion as that place is distant from that day line. We are therefore interested to learn how God established the day line, and how, while preserving absolute time, at that line, he gave, in the establishment of the course of day, relative time to all the rest of the world. The creation of light did necessarily introduce the day line, and the course of day round the world, unless God had also decreed that the earth should not revolve upon its axis (in which case there would have been on one side of the world perpetual day, and on the other unending night); or unless he had lighted the whole world in an instant, and then extinguished that light the world over when it was time for night to commence, doing both these acts each twenty-four hours. But no sooner did God create the light than he divided it from the darkness, and this work, by his appointment, has continued to be wrought each day ever since. Gen. 1:14, 18. It is manifest that this work is wrought by causing the earth to revolve upon its axis. For light and darkness, or day and night, mingle even to this day in the same manner that they did on the first day of time, and hence the work of dividing the one from the other is of perpetual continuance. They mingle thus in twilight, and the division of light from the darkness is the act of changing the twilight of morning into the light of day. Twilight is therefore by the revolution of our globe making the constant circuit thereof, and following close upon the retiring darkness, while the clear light of day itself follows in the train of twilight. These facts show clearly that a day line must exist from which each day sets out on its circuit of the globe, and at which also it ends its course. They also give us the first clue to the establishment of that line. The creation of light was at that point in the first day of time when morning should appear. And morning did certainly form one of the divisions of that day, and it did not exist till light was created. The twilight of that morning was on the extreme western verge of that side of the globe which God had lighted up. In twelve hours, this line or narrow tract where the twilight of morning first existed is carried eastward by the revolution of the earth, to the extreme eastern verge of the light, and the first twenty-four-hour day closes with the twilight of evening at that very line where the twilight of morning first existed. In twelve hours more, the eastward revolution of the earth has carried this same line through the darkness which formed the first half of the second day to the twilight of the second morning; and another period of twelve hours brings this same line to the twilight which marks the close of the second and the commencement of the third. And in twenty-four hours more, this same line has reached the twilight which closes the third day and begins the fourth. And now the sun, moon, and stars, constituting the heaven which God created on the first day, having no doubt had a work wrought upon them corresponding to that which God had wrought upon the earth during the three202days, were made light bearers. The light of the solar system which had existed for three days independent of the sun, was now gathered up by the act of its Author and deposited by him in the sun to be from thence communicated to the earth and the other planets. God appointed the sun to rule the day. The revolution of the earth on its axis eastward causes the sun to rule the day by an apparent westward circuit of the globe. When God clothed the sun with this wonderful dominion over the day, he did not do it for the purpose of disarranging or confounding the day. God had by his own direct power caused three days to be measured off without the sun. And the reckoning of time being thus established by himself, he made the sun his vicegerent to perpetuate and maintain the existing divine arrangement. The reckoning of time continued without the least confusion or disarrangement. It is plain, therefore, that when the sun became the ruler of the day and the dispenser of light, his position in the heavens was just over that meridian which was midway between the eastern and the western extremities of that field of light which covered one-half of the globe. And here observe that the sun’s rule should not begin from the meridian at which he appeared exactly overhead, or to the south, when he was first invested with his authority; but his rule in his westward circuit of the globe must begin from the eastern extremity of his light. And this is that same day line which we have been noting in the record of the previous days. In other words, when God gave to the sun the office of light bearer and ruler of the day, the eastern extremity of his light corresponded to the extreme eastern verge of light as it existed the moment before the sun began his rule, so that where the first morning twilight was witnessed, there also was witnessed the first evening twilight. And this place thus marked was the eastern verge of the sun’s light when it began to rule the day; and from here the first sunset commenced to make the circuit of the globe. And thus sunset marked the commencement of the fourth day at this day line, and as it went westward it carried the commencement of the fourth day with it. When sunset had completed the circuit of the earth, the commencement of the fourth day had reached the east side of that line. And when it crossed that line, it marked the commencement of the fifth day. And as this sunset which marked the beginning of the fifth day made the westward circuit of the globe, the fourth day retired before it, requiring just as much time for retiring before the fifth day as it did for advancing in the first place behind the third. And thus it is seen that two days are making the circuit of the globe at the same time, excepting only the single instant each twenty-four hours when sunset has exactly accomplished the circuit of the globe. But the moment that it has done this, it crosses the day line and begins the circuit of a new day, and the old one must now retire before it. Thus one day is coming on and another day going off all the time, a single instant each twenty-four hours being excepted. It takes each day twenty-four hours to advance, and twenty-four hours to retire; in other words, the circuit of day is forty-eight hours in duration. But bear in mind that when each day advances, its predecessor retires before it, and when itself retires, its successor follows close after it. This one fact is of great importance to be clearly understood. We shall have occasion to use it in a future article in explaining a remarkable telegraphic problem. When, therefore, we read of the division of the light from the darkness on the first day of time, we have the standpoint of the Holy Spirit given us from which he counts the days of the week. It is that point where light and darkness mingled on first-day morning, and again where it mingled in twelve hours after, when that standpoint was on the east of the light, and the west of the darkness, and that evening had commenced which began the second day. And this same point also has been shown to be that one from which the first sunset commenced on the fourth day of the week to make the circuit of the globe. And we have proof that when God created light, he caused it to cover one-half our globe, in that when he made the sun the light bearer, he caused it to take charge of the existing day, and to continue to divide it from the darkness, and we know that the sun with his light covers one-half the globe at once. The creation of the sun did not, therefore, change the reckoning of the day or the relative position of light and darkness. But the deposit of light in the sun, gave man a clock in the heavens. For when light existed before there were any luminaries, and one side of the earth was all light and the other nothing but darkness, with a single exception of twilight each twelve hours, there was nothing to indicate to man what time of day or night it was. So the creation of the luminaries while making no change in the time for the commencement of day and night, and no difference in the relative position of light and of darkness, did add vastly to the well-being of mankind in that God made them to be as clocks in the heavens to indicate the time of day and of night, to say nothing of many other important purposes which they serve. We have shown that a day line is clearly proved to exist by the facts recorded in Gen. 1. The lighting of one side of the world while the other remained dark and the revolution of the earth render it certain that the days of the week do not commence everywhere at once, but that there is a fixed point whence they commence and where they end their circuit. For you cannot have a Bible day without having an evening and morning, and moreover you cannot begin anywhere it happens in the twenty-four hours and thence count the time necessary for a day. No; the day must be made up of an evening and a morning as in Gen. 1, and it must commence with the commencement of evening. Evening, as has been shown, goes round the world in the train of sunset. Evening, therefore, never ceases to exist, for it is every moment on the wing and has been thus since the first day of time. No one will deny this fact. And its existence alone proves the necessity of the day line. For there must be a point where evening completes the circuit of the globe, and from which it sets out again. This must be the point at which the count in Gen. 1 is made. For when it is said, “The evening and the morning were the first day,” “the evening and the morning were the second day,” and so through the six days of creation, it is certain that there was a point in the course of evening (which itself is perpetual) where the Spirit of God counted the days. And that is necessarily the point of transition where evening, finishing the circuit of the earth, in an instant changes from being the commencement of one day to being the commencement of another. The place where the days of the week were first counted is therefore of necessity the line of division which marks the circuit of days. But we cannot complete what should be said on Gen. 1 in this article. It is, however, manifest that the course of evening, which in itself is perpetual, must be divided by passing some point on our globe, so that from being the commencement of one day it instantly becomes the beginning of another. This is the meridian of the day line. At this line the reckoning of time is absolute, being just so many periods of twenty-four hours from creation. And from this line each day of the week makes the circuit of the globe occupying twenty-four hours in passing any one point, and forty-eight hours in completing that circuit. Each day of the week does therefore visit the whole habitable globe, but those who live where the circuit of day closes are of necessity twenty-four hours behind those who live at its commencement. The day line has therefore a place in the divine order, and has existed since the creation of light. He careth for you, O ye weary!
With the sweat upon your brow;
He has cared for you forever,
And he careth for you now.
He careth for you when the shadows
Rend the sunbeam joys apart,
When time’s moaning blasts are wailing
Through the chambers of your heart. He careth for you, youthful pilgrim,
When your heart is sad and lone;
Yes, he careth when the friendship
Of this heartless world is flown.
He careth for you, fainting manhood,
With the dust of toilsome years
Clinging to your wornout garments—
Moistened only by your tears. He careth for you, O ye nations!
With your sounds of war and strife,
And he longs to bear you safely
To the shores of better life.
He careth for you! Blest assurance!
Naught unnoticed by his eye,
Not a sparrow falleth earthward,
But he watcheth till it die. He careth for you, every mortal;
None so humble, none so low,
But he would bring you to be whitened,
Where life’s eternal rivers flow.
He careth for you! Cease your sighings!
Take his hand and go your way,
And he’ll lead you to the glory
Of an everlasting day. —Sel. The Great Speech in the Vatican.
By Leonard W. Bacon
TRANSLATED BY REV. LEONARD W. BACON, BALTIMORE. The boldest and most powerful, condensed argument extant against the pretensions of popery is a speech pronounced by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Roman Council. The copy in my possession is one published in the Italian language by the association which issues in Florence the journal entitled, “Papal Rome Unveiled to the People.” It ought to be printed for general distribution here, and would be, if we had an effective society for Protestant work. A sixteen-page tract would contain it all. The great speech is published without name, but my copy, which has just reached me from Rome, bears on its title-page, in the handwriting of one of the most eminent Catholics in that city, the note: “This speech is by Mgr. Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia in Croatia.” It is difficult to abridge what is already a marvel of condensed force; but I will do my best. After a few calm, weighty words of introduction, the Bishop says that under a grave sense of his responsibility to God, he has studiously applied himself to the examination of the Holy Scriptures on the question whether the holy pontiff who presides in the Council is really the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible teacher of the church. The effect of this inquiry has been startling:— I open, then, these sacred pages. . . . But what! shall I dare to tell it? I find in them nothing to justify, however remotely, the ultramontane view. Nay more! to my utter astonishment, I find nothing said about a pope, successor of St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than about a successor of Mohammed. Yes, Archbishop Manning, you will say that I blaspheme; and you, Bishop Pie, that I am out of my senses. No, no, my lord bishops! I am not blaspheming; I am not beside myself! But having just risen from the reading of the New Testament from beginning to end, I declare to you before God, lifting my hand toward yonder great crucifix, that I find in its pages no trace of the papacy as it now exists. Do not refuse to listen to me, venerable brethren! Do not by your murmurs and interruptions, justify those who declare, with Father Hyacinthe, that this Council is not free, but that our votes are imposed upon us in advance. If this were so, this august assembly, toward which the eyes of the whole world are turned, would fall into the most shameful contempt. If we would be great, we must be free. I thank his grace, Bishop Dupanloup, for that nod of approval! It gives me courage to go on. Reading, then, the Scriptures, with such attention as the Lord has made me capable of, I have not found in them a single chapter, a single verse, in which Jesus Christ commits to St. Peter lordship over the apostles, his fellow-laborers. If Simon, son of Jonas, had been appointed to be what we understand his holiness, Pius IX., to be in our time, it is astonishing that Christ did not say to the apostles: “When I am ascended up to my Father, ye all shall obey Simon Peter as ye have obeyed me. I appoint him my vicar upon earth.” Not only is Christ silent on this point, but he has so little thought of giving the church a chief, that when he is promising thrones to his apostles, to judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28), he promises twelve of them—one apiece—without saying that one is to be higher than the rest, and is to belong to Peter. Surely if he had wished this to be so, he would have said so. What must we infer from his silence? Logic tells us: Christ did not intend to make Peter chief of the apostolic college. When Christ sent forth the apostles to the conquest of the world, he gave to all alike the power of binding and loosing; to all, the promise of the Holy Ghost. Let me repeat it; if he had meant to make Peter his vicar, he would have appointed him commander-in-chief of his spiritual army. Christ, says the Scripture, forbade Peter and his colleagues to have rule and lordship and power over believers like the princes of the Gentiles. (Luke 22:25.) If Peter had been made pope, Jesus would not have spoken thus, for, according to our traditions, the papacy holds in its hands two swords, the symbol of spiritual and temporal power. One fact has profoundly impressed me. When I observed it, I said to myself: If Peter had been pope, would his colleagues have suffered themselves to send him with St. John to Samaria to preach the gospel of the Son of God? (Acts 8:14.) What would you think, venerable brethren, if, at this moment, we were to permit ourselves to depute his holiness, Pius IX., and his eminence, Monsignor Plantier, to betake themselves to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and adjure him to put an end to the Eastern schism? But here is another fact, of greater importance still. An œcumenical council was assembled at Jerusalem to decide on questions in which believers were divided. Who would have convoked this council, if St. Peter had been Pope? St. Peter. Who would have presided over it? St. Peter or his legates. Who would have formulated and promulgated the canons of it? St. Peter. Well, now, nothing of the kind took place. The apostle was present at the council, like all his colleagues. But it was not he who framed its conclusions, but St. James; and when the decrees of it were promulgated, this was done in the name of “the apostles, the elders and the brethren.” (Acts 15.) Is this the way we manage things in our church? The deeper I go, my venerable brethren, in my examination, the more I am convinced that in the Holy Scriptures there is no appearance of the primacy of the son of Jonas. While we teach that the church is built on St. Peter, St. Paul, whose authority cannot be questioned, tells us in his epistle to the Ephesians (2:20) that it is “built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.” The same apostle is so far from believing in the supremacy of Peter, that he openly rebukes those who say: “I am of Paul and I of Apollos” (1 Cor. 1:12) in the same terms as those who would say: “I am of Peter.” If, then, the latter apostle was vicar of Jesus Christ, St. Paul would have taken good care not to censure so violently those who held to his colleague. The same apostle Paul, enumerating the offices of the church, mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, pastors. Is it credible, venerable brethren, that St. Paul, the great teacher of the Gentiles, would have left out the greatest of all the offices—the papacy—if the papacy had been founded by divine institution? It seems to me that this omission would have been no more possible than a history of this Council that should make no mention whatever of his holiness, Pius IX. [Voices in the assembly: Silence, heretic! silence.] Keep calm, venerable brethren. I have not got through yet. By hindering me from going on, you will show the world that you are in the wrong, and that you have gagged the humblest member of this body. I proceed: The apostle Paul in not one of his letters addressed to the various churches, makes any mention of the primacy of Peter. If this primacy had existed, if in short the church had had a supreme head, infallible in teaching, would the great teacher of the Gentiles have omitted all mention of it? Nay! He would have written a long epistle on this important, this vital subject; when, therefore, he is rearing the edifice of Christian doctrine, is it possible that he leaves out the foundation and the key-stone? Now, unless the apostolic church is to be reckoned heretical, which we neither wish nor dare to say, we are constrained to acknowledge that the church has never been more fair, more pure, nor more holy, than in the days when it had no pope. [Voices: It is false! It is false!] Monsignor de Laval cannot contradict this; for if any of you, venerable brethren, should dare to think that the church which at this day has a pope for its head is stronger in the faith, or purer in morals, than the apostolic church, he must say it openly in the face of the world; for this room is the center from which our words fly from pole to pole. I proceed: not in the writings of St. Paul, nor in those of St. John or St. James, have I found any trace or germ of the papal power. St. Luke, the historian of the missionary labors of the apostles, is silent on this vital point. The silence of these holy men, whose writings are part of the canon of the inspired Scriptures, is as inexplicable, if Peter had been pope, as that of Thiers would have been, if he had omitted the title of emperor in the history of Napoleon Bonaparte. I see before me a member of this body who says, pointing at me with his finger, “He is a schismatic bishop who has got amongst us under false pretenses.” No, no! my venerable brethren, I did not come into this august assembly like a thief by the window. I came by the door just as regularly as yourselves. It is my right as a bishop as it is my duty as a Christian, to speak and declare what I know to be true. But the thing which astounds me beyond all expression is the silence of Peter himself. If he had been what we say—the vicar of Christ upon earth—he must have known it. If he knew it, how does it happen that he never once—not one solitary time—acted as pope? He might have done it on the day of Pentecost, when he pronounced his first discourse; but he did not. He might have done it at the council of Jerusalem; but he did not. He might have done it at Antioch; but he did not. He might have done it in his two epistles to the churches; but he did not. Imagine such a pope as this, O my venerable brethren! If, then, we would maintain that Peter was pope, it necessarily follows that we must maintain that he was not aware of it at the time. I put it to any man with a head to think and a mind to reflect, whether these two suppositions are credible. To sum up, then: During the lifetime of the apostles, the church never thought of the possibility of a pope. To maintain the contrary, it would be necessary to put the Holy Scriptures into the fire, or out of the mind. But I hear from all sides the questions, “Was not St. Peter at Rome? Was he not crucified here head downward? The chair from which he taught, the altar at which he said mass—are they not all in this Eternal City?” Venerable brethren, the sojourn of St. Peter at Rome has no other proof than tradition,203But even if he was bishop of Rome, what argument can be drawn from his episcopate here to prove his supremacy? A scholar of the highest rank, Scaliger, has not hesitated to say that the episcopate and sojourn of St. Peter at Rome must be classed among ridiculous legends. [Repeated cries: “Silence him! silence him! Down with him from the platform.”] Venerable brethren, I am ready to be silent; but is it not more becoming to such a body as this to prove all things, as the apostle enjoins, and believe that which is good? In the midst of such a storm of disapprobation, the bishop reached the close of his main scriptural argument. The interruptions he encountered, and the retorts he made upon the overwhelming majority that roared against him, are not the least interesting and instructive things about the speech. But nothing could check the torrent of voluble Latin, in the fluent use of which no man in all the Council could compare with Strossmayer. The historical argument which followed, was not less notable than the beginning.—Congregationalist. Responsibility for Sin.
By W. C. G.
From the superficial reading of a few texts of Scripture, and from the prevalence of the old fable of foreordination, quite a large class of people are to be found at the present day who feel disposed, either directly or indirectly, to lay the responsibility of their sins upon God, instead of taking it upon themselves. Such texts of Scripture as 2 Thess. 2:11, 12, are pressed into the service of these unbelievers, and made to teach man's lack of accountability. Let us for a moment examine this scripture, and see what it really teaches: “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” Verses 11, 12.
By a careful examination of this scripture and the context, we shall learn, 1. The time when these delusions are sent. 3. The condition of the people upon whom they are sent, and 4. The purpose of God in sending them. 1. The time when these delusions are sent. The chapter opens with an exhortation concerning the coming of Christ. The Thessalonians are admonished not to be deceived into the belief that Christ's second advent would occur in their time. “For,” says the apostle, “that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that Man of Sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Verses 3, 4. Reference is here made, undoubtedly, to the great apostasy which finally culminated in the establishment of the papacy, which is to endure until the coming of Christ, and which “the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth,” and “destroy with the brightness of his coming.” Verse 8. Before he comes, however, there is to be a special work of deception accomplished by Satan, in which all will be involved who receive not the love of the truth. The time referred to in the text, therefore, is just prior to the second advent of our Saviour. 2. The nature of these delusions. Satan is to work with “all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” Who can doubt the fulfillment of this prediction in the workings of modern spiritualism? It has come up in the right time, and is exerting the predicted influence to prepare the people for condemnation before the Judge of all the earth. If necessary, we might multiply texts of Scripture on this point to show the fulfillment, but this is foreign to our purpose. 3. The condition of the people on whom these delusions are sent. They have first prepared themselves for deception and delusion by not receiving the love of the truth. As the terrible power of Satan is about to be felt in the world, the mercy of God is manifested in the increasing light upon his word, and especially upon an important truth which shall be a shield against the power of Satan to all who receive the love of it in their hearts. The rejection of the truth prepares the way for the deceptions of the enemy, and the strong delusion which God permits to come, sweeps into the snare all who are not fortified with the love of the truth. 4. The purpose of God in permitting these delusions to come. The text says, “That they all might be damned.” The original is κριθῶσι, which is sometimes rendered judged or condemned, and which is its obvious meaning in this case. The object of their delusion is not simply to seal their destruction, for this is already sure in their rejection of the truth; but to manifest before all the world what is in their hearts, and show the justice of their condemnation. While God is able to judge the heart without the aid of the outward acts, he nevertheless deems it best in some instances to develop the hidden iniquities of the heart, that finite beings may see the justice of his dealings. It will be seen that those who are deceived are such as have “pleasure in unrighteousness,” and not the honest in heart, who desire to walk in the truth; so that none can charge God with the responsibility of their acts. They first reject the truth, not having the love of it in their hearts, and then fall an easy prey to Satan's wiles because the truth is not their shield and buckler. Let us all learn from this the importance of keeping the love of the truth, and not merely its theory, in our hearts, lest we, like others, become victims to the strong delusion that is to ensnare so many in these last days.