Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Herulian Kingdom of Italy.
By J.
“That successful barbarian [Odoacer] was the son of Edecon; who, in some remarkable transactions, particularly described in a preceding chapter, had been the colleague of Orestes himself. The honor of an ambassador should be exempt from suspicion; and Edecon had listened to a conspiracy against the life of his sovereign. But this apparent guilt was expiated by his merit or repentance; his rank was eminent and conspicuous; he enjoyed the favor of Attila; and the troops under his command, who guarded, in their turn, the royal village, consisted of a tribe of Scyri, his immediate and hereditary subjects. In the revolt of the nations, they still adhered to the Huns; and more than twelve years afterwards, the name of Edecon is honorably mentioned, in their unequal contests with the Ostrogoths, which was terminated, after two bloody battles, by the defeat and dispersion of the Scyri. Their gallant leader, who did not survive this national calamity, left two sons, Onulf and Odoacer, to struggle with adversity, and to maintain, as they might, by rapine or service, the faithful followers of their exile. Onulf directed his steps towards Constantinople, where he sullied, by the assassination of a generous benefactor, the fame which he had acquired in arms. “His brother Odoacer led a wandering life among the barbarians of Noricum, with a mind and a fortune suited to the most desperate adventures; and when he had fixed his choice, he piously visited the cell of Severinus, the popular saint of the country, to solicit his approbation and blessing. The lowness of the door would not admit the lofty stature of Odoacer; he was obliged to stoop; but in that humble attitude, the saint could discern the symptoms of his future greatness; and addressing him in a prophetic tone, “Pursue” (said he) “your design; proceed to Italy; you will soon cast away this coarse garment of skins; and your wealth will be adequate to the liberality of your mind.” The barbarian, whose daring spirit accepted and ratified the prediction, was admitted into the service of the Western empire, and soon obtained an honorable rank in the guards. His manners were gradually polished, his military skill was improved, and the confederates of Italy would not have elected him for their general, unless the exploits of Odoacer had established a high opinion of his courage and capacity. Their military acclamations saluted him with the title of king [A. D. 476, Aug. 23]; but he abstained, during his whole reign, from the use of the purple and diadem, lest he should offend those princes, whose subjects, by their accidental mixture, had formed the victorious army, which time and policy might insensibly unite into a great nation. “Royalty was familiar to the barbarians, and the submissive people of Italy was prepared to obey, without a murmur, the authority which he should condescend to exercise as the vicegerent of the emperor of the West. But Odoacer had resolved to abolish that useless and expensive office; and such is the weight of antique prejudice, that it required some boldness and penetration to discover the extreme facility of the enterprise. The unfortunate Augustulus was made the instrument of his own disgrace; he signified his resignation to the senate; and that assembly, in their last act of obedience to a Roman prince, still affected the spirit of freedom, and the forms of the constitution. An epistle was addressed, by their unanimous decree, to the emperor Zeno, the son-in-law and successor of Leo; who had lately been restored, after a short rebellion, to the Byzantine throne. They solemnly disclaim the necessity, or even the wish, of continuing any longer the Imperial succession in Italy; since, in their opinion, the majesty of a sole monarch is sufficient to pervade and protect, at the same time, both the East and the West. In their own name, and in the name of the people, they consent that the seat of universal empire shall be transferred from Rome to Constantinople; and they basely renounce the right of choosing their master, the only vestige that yet remained of the authority which had given laws to the world. “The republic (they repeat that name without a blush) might safely confide in the civil and military virtues of Odoacer; and they humbly request, that the emperor would invest him with the title of Patrician, and the administration of the diocese of Italy.” The deputies of the senate were received at Constantinople with some marks of displeasure and indignation; and when they were admitted to the audience of Zeno, he sternly reproached them with their treatment of the two emperors, Anthemius and Nepos, whom the East had successively granted to the prayers of Italy. ‘The first’ (continued he) ‘you have murdered; the second you have expelled; but the second is still alive, and whilst he lives he is your lawful sovereign.’ But the prudent Zeno soon deserted the hopeless cause of his abdicated colleague. His vanity was gratified by the title of sole emperor, and by the statues erected to his honor in the several quarters of Rome; he entertained a friendly, though ambiguous, correspondence with the patrician Odoacer; and he gratefully accepted the Imperial ensigns, the sacred ornaments of the throne and palace, which the barbarian was not unwilling to remove from the sight of the people. “In the space of twenty years since the death of Valentinian, [A. D. 455, Mar. 16] nine emperors had successively disappeared; and the son of Orestes, a youth recommended only by his beauty, would be the least entitled to the notice of posterity, if his reign, which was marked by the extinction of the Roman empire in the West, did not leave a memorable era in the history of mankind. The patrician Orestes had married the daughter of Count Romulus, of Petovio in Noricum; the name of Augustus, notwithstanding the jealousy of power, was known at Aquileia as a familiar surname; and the appellations of the two great founders of the city and of the monarchy, were thus strangely united in the last of their successors. The son of Orestes assumed and disgraced the names of Romulus and Augustus; but the first was corrupted into Momyllus by the Greeks, and the second has been changed by the Latins into the contemptible diminutive, Augustulus. The life of this inoffensive youth was spared by the generous clemency of Odoacer; who dismissed him, with his whole family, from the Imperial palace, fixed his annual allowance at six thousand pieces of gold, and assigned the castle of Lucullus, in Campania, for the place of his exile or retirement. “Odoacer was the first barbarian who reigned in Italy, over a people who had once asserted their just superiority above the rest of mankind. The disgrace of the Romans still excites our respectful compassion, and we fondly sympathize with the imaginary grief and indignation of their degenerate posterity. But the calamities of Italy had gradually subdued the proud consciousness of freedom and glory. In the age of Roman virtue the provinces were subject to the arms, and the citizens to the laws, of the republic; till those laws were subverted by civil discord, and both the city and the provinces became the servile property of a tyrant. The forms of the constitution, which alleviated or disguised their abject slavery, were abolished by time and violence; the Italians alternately lamented the presence or the absence of the sovereigns, whom they detested or despised; and the succession of five centuries inflicted the various evils of military license, capricious despotism, and elaborate oppression. During the same period, the barbarians had emerged from obscurity and contempt, and the warriors of Germany and Scythia were introduced into the provinces, as the servants, the allies, and at length the masters, of the Romans, whom they insulted or protected. The hatred of the people was suppressed by fear; they respected the spirit and splendor of the martial chiefs who were invested with the honors of the empire, and the fate of Rome had long depended on the sword of those formidable strangers. The stern Ricimer, who trampled on the ruins of Italy, had exercised the power, without assuming the title, of a king; and the patient Romans were insensibly prepared to acknowledge the royalty of Odoacer and his barbaric successors. “The king of Italy was not unworthy of the high station to which his valor and fortune had exalted him; his savage manners were polished by the habits of conversation; and he respected, though a conqueror and a barbarian, the institutions, and even the prejudices, of his subjects. “Like the rest of the barbarians he had been instructed in the Arian heresy; but he revered the monastic and episcopal characters; and the silence of the Catholics attests the toleration which they enjoyed. The peace of the city required the interposition of his prefect Basilius in the choice of a Roman pontiff; the decree which restrained the clergy from alienating their lands was ultimately designed for the benefit of the people, whose devotion would have been taxed to repair the dilapidations of the church. Italy was protected by the arms of its conqueror; and its frontiers were respected by the barbarians of Gaul and Germany, who had so long insulted the feeble race of Theodosius. Odoacer passed the Adriatic, to chastise the assassins of the emperor Nepos, and to acquire the maritime province of Dalmatia. He passed the Alps, to rescue the remains of Noricum from Fava, or Feletheus, king of the Rugians, who held his residence beyond the Danube. The king was vanquished in battle, and led away prisoner; a numerous colony of captives and subjects was transplanted into Italy; and Rome, after a long period of defeat and disgrace, might claim the triumph of her barbarian master.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 36, par. 29–33. Thus by the establishment of the Herulian Kingdom of Italy A. D. 476 the final destruction of the Western empire was accomplished. Rome, that mighty “fabric of human greatness” was fallen. That power, “the fourth kingdom,” “strong as iron,” which had broken in pieces and subdued all kingdoms, was now itself broken to pieces. The kingdom was now divided. Ten kingdoms, ten distinct and independent nations, no more, no less, had fixed themselves within the boundaries of Western Rome, and the prophecy, spoken and written more than a thousand years before, was literally fulfilled. “All flesh is grass, and all the goodliness thereof is as the flower of the field; The grass withereth, the flower fadeth;”—nations rise and nations fall, empires rule the world and are brought to ruin, but over it all there appears the fact that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men,” and in it and by it all there is illustrated not only the truth that “the grass withereth, the flower fadeth,” but also that, “the word of our God shall stand forever.” Isa. 40: 6–8; Dan. 4: 17, 25, 32; 2: 40–43. “PRAISE ye the Lord. I will praise the Lord with my whole heart, in the assembly of the upright, and in the congregation.” “The Lord is gracious and full of compassion.” “The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people; he hath commanded his covenant for ever; holy and reverend is his name.” Ps. 111. Morality and Religion.
By C. P. BOLLMAN
To be moral according to the standard of the world at large, is a very different thing from being moral according to the Bible standard. People say of an individual, “He is a good moral man,” when they only mean that he does not commit outbreaking sins. According to their standard, so long as one does nothing that would shut him out of refined society he is “moral,” but the Bible recognizes no such morality. To be truly moral is to be conformed “to the divine law.” Morality and religion (by which I mean true religion) are generally regarded as two separate and distinct things; but they are not; for without religion there can be no true morality. According to lexicographers “morality describes the duties to man,” while “religion is the recognition of God as an object of worship,” etc., but the apostle James says, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Thus he combines “social” and “religious” duties and says that together they constitute true religion. But it may be said, that, this shows that the social may be performed apart from and without reference to the other; but not so. Webster defines morality as “conformity . . . to the divine law respecting social duties;” but as “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7), there can be no real conformity to any part of the divine law without that change of heart, that renewing of the mind, known as conversion. And this of course, involves a hearty acceptance of Christ, “who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” 1 Cor. 1:30. And not only is Christ’s righteousness (true morality) imputed to the believer, but through grace the renewed soul is enabled to live in harmony with the law, a thing which before he could not do. And so the apostle says, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:3, 4. But while it is shown that religion, and religion only, is true morality, and that true morality is religion, it must not be understood that that which is generally known as “morality” is religion; for it is not. That is just where the trouble lies: people recognize something which they call morality and then they put it in the place of religion and so feel well satisfied with themselves and with the world generally because religion is making so much progress! But in reality a very great deal of the so-called Christian teaching of the present day does little more for those who receive it than would the doctrine of Confucius; for it teaches license to sin instead of freedom from sin; and unlike the doctrine of the apostles (Gal. 2:17) makes Christ the minister of sin, by teaching that they who are in him are free from obligation to keep the law of God. Such a view of Christianity degrades it into a mere system of favoritism, with no higher object than to confer benefits upon its votaries. Of course Christianity does offer rewards, but its first and great object is to bring a race of rebels into harmony with the just laws of Heaven; for while God is no respecter of persons, he is a respecter of character. Acts. 10: 34, 35. And as already shown (Rom. 8:3, 4) Christ died, not alone that men might be forgiven for past sins, but that they through the Spirit might yield obedience to the law of God. Man unaided cannot attain to perfect morality, which is nothing more nor less than perfect obedience to the law of God as a whole; and thus the Saviour says, “He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit; for without me ye can do nothing.” And neither will perfect obedience, both present and future, even if it were possible, atone for past transgressions; and so the plan of redemption not only offers pardon, but it provides the necessary help to enable him who will to form a righteous character. In this connection one thing should be borne in mind, and that is that whether we look at the pardon, or at the grace whereby we may overcome temptation, the praise alike belongs to Him who died for us; for we are equally indebted to him for both. It is through his blood that we have forgiveness, and it is through him, and him alone, that we can do any good thing. A failure to grasp this truth causes very many to make a fatal mistake, some in one direction and some in another; that is, some cry, “only believe,” and refuse to do the things which are commanded; while others, losing sight of faith, imagine that in some way or other their works will contribute somewhat to their salvation, quite forgetting the words of the apostle: “By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.” The Scriptures teach that while faith lays hold upon pardon for past sins, it should likewise grasp the strong arm of Him who says, “My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness,” and of whom Paul said, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” God has joined together faith and works and he who separates them does it at the peril of his soul; and speaking especially of the last days, and of the last people, the seer of Patmos said: “Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Nothing short of this is religion, nothing short of it is true morality, for morality is “conformity to the divine law,” and as we have seen, without the faith of Jesus there can be no such conformity. To eliminate faith from the plan of salvation is to destroy the very life of the system, while to reject works as the perfecter of faith (James 2:22) is to introduce the poison of antinomianism into the very spring whence salvation flows, and so to set at naught the words of Him of whom it was said: “Never man spake like this man.” C. P. BOLLMAN. Does It Look Like the Millennium?
By A. O. Tait
We are frequently assured by popular ministers that the world is getting better and will soon be converted to Christianity preparatory to the reign of the temporal millennium. The word of God, however, does not so teach. It tells us that the last days shall be perilous, and that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” 2 Tim. 3:1, 13. The Saviour, furthermore, tells us that both the righteous and the wicked are to grow together till the harvest which is the end of the world. Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43. The Bible is the word of God, and when men advance ideas that are contrary to it they will always find the facts to be against them. In the case before us, the man who has his eyes open will see plainly that what God has said is true. A few facts from a recent copy of the Inter Ocean will serve to show that what the Lord has foretold on the subject under consideration is being fulfilled. A large portion of the paper is given to the account of the deposition of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, and the trouble that is liable to result from it among the powers of Europe. The general unrest that is causing these disturbances in the European nations, indicates anything but a time of peace when the nations will learn war no more. That longed-for time of peace cannot come till the world's Redeemer makes his appearance and destroys wickedness by the brightness of his coming. 2 Thess. 2:8. In another column the paper states that, “a foreign lady who lost £12,000 at the Monte Carlo gaming tables has committed suicide in a village near Grenoble. This makes the seventy-sixth case of suicide owing to losses at Monte Carlo since the beginning of the season.” It would certainly seem that the millennium was a good way off from that fashionable gambling place. The same paper contains, beside the above, a record of seven cases of murder and embezzlement; and as a climax to the long list of iniquity, it gives an account of a man starving his three little children to death in the most heartless and cruel manner. When one paper, that is only a sample of those published every day, records so many as this one does, how is it possible for men to think that the world is getting so much better and will soon be converted? The man must be blind who will, in the face of such plain facts, argue for the dogma of a temporal-millennial reign of righteousness. A. O. TAIT. THE Christian manifests the excellency of his character by the estimate he places upon the world, its wealth, its pride, its fashion, its folly. Although in the world, he is not of the world. He is not conformed to its spirit. His treasure is not here. Hence the apostle exhorts, “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.” And Christ teaches, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.” It is not surprising that the men of the world love the things of the world, its wealth, its pleasures, its show, for those constitute their treasure—their all. But the Christian should show his superiority to the world by placing a comparatively light estimate on these things. They do not constitute his treasure, they are not the source of his chief joy. He has a richer inheritance and a more abiding source of comfort and consolation. While this is the case, he should not permit his mind to be engrossed with the things of this world, and his spirit to be captivated with the pleasures of sense. While a partaker of true riches and spiritual joys, he should despise the gain of ungodliness and the sinful pleasures and gratifications of the world, showing that he has a higher and purer source of enjoyment. This the true Christian does. He esteems the favor of God above riches, and the pleasures and comforts of religion above earthly joys.—Sel. Obedience Based on Right.
PARENTS who wish to be cheerfully obeyed by their children, must themselves obey the laws which they seek to enforce. Louis XIV. wrote to his grandson, “If you wish to have your will habitually respected, you must show that you yourself are a slave to it.” Interpreting this counsel as meaning that a ruler must be nothing more than the application of a law to his subjects which he recognizes as the rule of his own life, it contains the secret of all successful authority in civil society, or in the home. Law, not arbitrary will—the will of God, not the caprices of passion—must be the manifest rule of family life. The thing required of the child must be required not merely because the parent wills it, but because it is right—because God wills it. When this is made obvious, even to willful children, and is calmly enforced as growing out of principles which the parent himself accepts as the rule of his own life, it compels respect, and, since it appeals directly to the conscience, it compels a responsive “I ought,” and often produces a resultant obedience.—Zion’s Herald. What Was Blest and Sanctified.
By James White
In the teachings we received in our early days, “Dwight’s Theology” occupied an important place; with many it was the standard of truth. When first converted, we were compelled by force of Scripture evidence to reject the teachings of the “Theology” on the subject of baptism. On the subject of the Sabbath the Doctor appeared to be equally faulty. Speaking of the fourth commandment he said that the blessing and the sanctification was conferred, not upon the seventh day, but upon the Sabbath. He distinguished between the Sabbath and the seventh day in the commandment, though Jehovah said, in that commandment, “the seventh day is the Sabbath.” The object of his assertion was to make it appear that God sanctified the Sabbath as an institution, and that the seventh day was an unimportant part of the precept; that the institution did not depend upon the day, but any other day could be inserted without affecting the validity or the perpetuity of the institution or of the commandment enforcing it. Against this reasoning we have the express statement of the Bible: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” Gen. 2:3. It was the day that was blest; the day that was sanctified; and the day that was required to be kept. A very literal translation of the fourth commandment would read: “Remember the day of the rest.” “The seventh day is the rest of the Lord thy God.” “God blest the day of the rest and hallowed it.” This is the exact truth. Thus we see that to maintain a theory, the D. D. ventured to contradict the express words of Scripture as found in Gen. 2:3. We will further show the fallacy of his reasoning. God blest and sanctified the seventh day because that in it he had rested. The seventh day was his rest day, or his Sabbath day, before it was blest or sanctified; but there was no institution. When the day was blest and sanctified, then it became an institution. The sanctifying of the day was the setting of it apart to a sacred use; it made its observance obligatory, and therefore it was the making of the institution. Instead of God blessing and sanctifying the Sabbath institution, and not the day, the truth is that, before his act of sanctifying the day there was no institution to sanctify. The act of sanctifying turned the day into an institution. The day thus became an institution; remove the day and the institution is destroyed. But now an objector arises and says: “Conceding the ground that the day is an institution,—that they are identical, then what may be said of one may be said of the other. Hence, it is true, after all, that he blessed the institution. If he blessed the day he must have blessed the institution, for they are one and the same thing.”583 Let us see if that reasoning will hold good. Mr. A owns a house; Mr. B says he bought it; but Mr. C says: Not so; he bought the material of which he built the house. But B answers: What is the difference? you cannot separate the material from the house; they are identical. Being identical, what is true of one must be true of the other. It is indeed true that at this time you cannot separate the material from the house; they are identical. But at the time of which the first affirmation was made, it was not true. The time specified in Mr. C’s statement was that when the purchase was made; the affirmation referred to what Mr. A bought, not to what he now possesses. He now owns a house; but when he bought the material the house did not exist. Therefore, at the time covered by the statement of the purchase, it was not true that the material and the house were identical. And so of the day and the Sabbath institution. They are now identical; they cannot be separated. But it was not so in the beginning. God rested the seventh day, and thus it became his Sabbath,—his rest. But there was no institution,—it had not yet been made a matter of precept. Then he sanctified the day, separated it, or set it apart to a sacred use, and thus the day became an institution by being sanctified. It is a sacred institution because the day of which it was made was rendered sacred. God cannot deny himself. He said: “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified IT.” And “who art thou that repliest against God?” Search the Bible through, and you find no hint that God ever removed the blessing and sanctification from the seventh day, or that he conferred such honors upon any other day. “Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil.” Isa. 56:2. J. H. W. Christ and the Law.
By John Nevins Andrews
The following from the pen of Elder J. N. Andrews appeared in the Review and Herald years ago, but age has not caused it to lose any of its force or point. Elder Andrews was the pioneer Seventh-day Adventist foreign missionary, and died in Switzerland a few years ago. He was one of the first to advocate the doctrine of the Third Angel’s Message, by means of the pen, and though he was a prolific writer, he wrote with the greatest care. His History of the Sabbath is justly regarded by all who have read it as a classic on that subject. The article which follows is an extract from a review of one who had argued for the abolition of the law. It shows that Christ is truly honored only by those who acknowledge and insist upon the fact that God’s law is now and forever binding upon all men. “The doctrine stated by Paul in the third chapter of Romans is worthy of careful study, and lasting remembrance. The great truth that the law of God condemns the whole world, is here unequivocally stated. The reason is also given in distinct terms: ‘All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.’ Verse 23. And such is the justice of this condemnation that ‘every mouth’ is ‘stopped.’ What is now brought to view as the hope of lost men? Is it that God will take back his law, and receive those into his favor who are now condemned before him? Sooner would heaven and earth pass ‘than one tittle of the law’ of God. How then may men be justified before God who now are condemned and guilty in his sight? The apostle answers: ‘Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.’ Verses 24–26. That God, instead of abolishing his law, should give his own Son to die in the place of those who have broken it, and should offer pardon to such only as should avail themselves of this propitiation, is proof of the strongest character possible, that that law is immutable. Those only who avail themselves of this propitiation are ‘delivered from wrath;’ the claims of the law remain good on all beside; for they are left to answer the demands of the broken law. The great idea held out in the New Testament, is that of pardon through faith in the blood of Jesus; but if his death abolished the law, the consequences are precisely the same, whether men avail themselves of pardon or not. If they are pardoned it is well; if they are not, there is no law which condemns them. The fact that we are so urgently entreated to seek pardon through the blood of Jesus, shows that we may expect the fearful sentence of the law to be executed upon us, if we do not avail ourselves of it. Paul has settled the question, however, as may be seen by reading on to verse 31: ‘Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, WE ESTABLISH THE LAW.’ “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law.’ Gal. 3:11–13. “This abundantly proves the doctrine that the law condemns the whole world, and that none can be justified in the sight of God, except through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has ‘redeemed us from the curse of the law.’ But how? By abolishing it? No! verily. By offering up himself in our stead. 1 Peter 2:24. He took the curse upon himself. Gal. 3:13. He did not ‘destroy the law;’ he submitted himself to its penalty. But how many are delivered from the curse of the law? Is it all the world? or is it such only as make a personal application of the atonement to themselves? If the former view be correct, then the doctrine of Universalism is true, for the atonement avails equally for those who do not, as for those who do, accept it. If, however, it is those only who believe on the Son of God, who are redeemed from the curse of the law, then the world is left under it, and remains in the fearful state described in Rom. 3:19, and will have to answer, not only for breaking the law, but also for treading under foot the Son of God, who died to redeem them. The reason why the law could not give life, was not because the law was not ‘holy,’ ‘spiritual,’ and ‘perfect,’ but because men had broken it; and it could only condemn them, and show their guilt before God. Hence the apostle says that ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ There is seen, therefore, the absolute necessity of the death of Jesus Christ. When, therefore, the New Testament holds out pardon through him, it is because the law condemns us, and we are exposed to its just sentence. “The idea that the law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith, is often urged as proof that the law is abolished. How is the law our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? We answer, it shows our guilt and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Saviour. Hear the apostle Paul, who was converted since the time when it is said the law was abolished. ‘I HAD NOT KNOWN SIN BUT BY THE LAW.’ Rom. 7:7. ‘BY THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN.’ Rom. 3:20. Read a full account of Paul’s experience in this school, also his deliverance from the carnal mind, which ‘is not subject to the law of God.’ Rom. 7:7–25; 8:1–7. The instruction of the law is absolutely necessary, for without it we can never know our guilt in the sight of God. It shows our just condemnation, its penalty hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus Christ. What does he do to save us from the curse of the law? Does he abolish the law that he may save its transgressors? He assures us that he did ‘not come to destroy’ it; and we know that the law being ‘holy, just, and good,’ cannot be taken back without destroying the government of him who gave it. Does the Saviour modify its character and lessen its demands? Far from it. He testifies that ‘one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’ Matt. 5:18; Luke 16:17; James 2:10. And he knows that those who in heart commit any act of iniquity, are transgressors of the law. Matt. 5:22, 27, 28; 1 John 3:15. If the Saviour did not abolish or relax the law, how can those who have fled to him ‘for refuge,’ hope for salvation? What does he do, to save the transgressors from the sentence of the law? He gives up himself to die in their stead. He lays down his own ‘life a ransom for many.’ Matt. 20:28. ‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ John 3:16. Man, though justly condemned, can now be pardoned without dishonoring God, or making void his law. God can be just, and yet the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:25, 26. Had the law been abolished at the death of Christ, it could not have been a schoolmaster many years afterward to bring the Galatians to Christ. Paul testifies that he ‘HAD NOT KNOWN SIN, EXCEPT THE LAW HAD SAID, THOU SHALT NOT COVET.’ But an abolished law could never have convinced him of sin as a transgressor. James 2:8, 9; Rom. 4:15. We cannot know sin ‘but by the law;’ but if the law was abolished by the death of Christ, the world has never known its sinful state, or realized its need of a Saviour. We may state on the highest authority, that the law brings us to faith for justification, and that faith does not make void the law, but establishes it. Gal. 3:23; Rom. 3:31. The fact that the law is our schoolmaster to show us the claims of God, and our own just condemnation, is direct evidence that it has not been abolished; hence though we have been pardoned through the death of Jesus, and thus rescued from its righteous sentence, we can never violate its precepts without being convinced by it as transgressors.”