ANOTHER element in the falling away out of which came the Beast, and which was a mighty impulse in the making of the Beast, was the adoption of pagan philosophy.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.1

In the second century there was a school of philosophy in Alexandria called the Eclectic, so called because its originator held that there was truth in all the philosophies of the world, and that if this truth was gathered out from all and embodied in one, this one would become the universal philosophy, and would dominate the world. At the beginning of the third century an improvement was made upon this system by a certain Ammonius Saccas, by which the formation of a universal philosophy, one that would dominate the world, should be accomplished more easily and much more quickly. Ammonius held that the essences of all the philosophies in the world were already one if only men understood one another; and he applied himself to the task of forming such a system of explanations as would enable the philosophers to understand all the philosophies just aslike.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.2

Clement, one of the earliest “Fathers of the church,” adopted the system of Ammonius, and finally established a philosophical school in Alexandria, which at the same time he held under the name and form of Christian.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.3

Clement is supposed to have died about A.D. 220, and was succeeded by Origen, who had been taught by both Ammonius and Clement. This is the Origen who became by this very means, and even yet is regarded, one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Catholic Church. By his philosophizing comments in exposition of the Scriptures, to make this perverse Christianity acceptable to the heathen, and by the great success that he had in building up this new system of things, he became the commentator and master not only of his time, but for ages afterward. For “from the days of Origen to those of Chrysostom [A.D. 451] there was not a single eminent commentator that did not borrow largely from the words of” Origen. “He was the chief teacher of even the most orthodox of the Western Fathers.”—Farrar.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.4

From the beginning there was in the church earnest protest against this tendency to the heathen philosophy. Indeed, this was certain to be so on the part of all who respected the Scriptures, for there it is plainly written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” For in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.” And again, it was plainly stated in the Scriptures that by this very philosophy the world had been brought to the point where it did not know God. Therefore Christians were warned against it because it led away from God.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.5

But these would-be Christians philosophers were not restrained by this admonition of the Scriptures; because, as in former studies we have seen, it was not disciples to Christ that they were after, but “to draw away disciples after them;” and for this purpose they would even pervert what was plainly written in the Scripture. They wanted a multitude drawn to themselves that they might have power; and whatever means would draw the multitude was readily adopted by them.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.6

“The estimation in which human learning should be held was a question on which the Christians were about equally divided. Many recommended the study of philosophy, and an acquaintance with the Greek and Roman literature; while others maintained that these were pernicious to the interests of genuine Christianity and the progress of true piety.” This heathen philosophy and literature were pernicious to the interests of genuine Christianity, and could not be anything else. And the fact that ere was any division at all on the subject among the Christians, simply reveals that among the Christians there were those who could not discern that the heathen philosophy and literature were not compatible with Christian principle and Christian literature.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.7

And this reveals further that the Christianity of those persons was a mere profession, that it consisted only in outward form. And this shows that the heart had never been touched by the divine Spirit, that these persons had never been converted. The natural mind was still theirs, the mind that “is enmity against God,” that “is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” They never had attained to true faith; to the righteousness, the character of God, which is by faith; to the mind of Jesus Christ. And the fact that “the Christians were about equally divided” demonstrates that there were a great number at this time in the church who were unconverted, who knew nothing of true conversion, of the righteousness of God which is by faith, nor of the mind that was in Christ.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.8

These of course followed the lead of Clement and Origen, were pleased at the great “success” of these teachers and their school in gathering such large numbers to “Christianity;” and so “the cause of letters and philosophy triumphed, however, by degrees; and those who wished well to them continued to gain ground till at length the superiority was manifestly decided in their favor. This victory was principally due to the influence of Origen.... The fame of this philosophy increased daily among the Christians; and in proportion to his rising credit his method of proposing and explaining the doctrines of Christianity gained authority till it became almost universal.” Thus, by this means, yet further, “an host was given him” “by reason of transgression.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.9

This system of philosophy, originated by Ammonius and perpetuated by Clement and Origen, was altogether Egyptian, and thence passed to the Greeks, among whom it was preserved in its bad purity, especially by Plato, from whom it was given the title of the New Platonism.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.10

The means employed by Ammonius, and from him adopted by Clement and Origen, of finding or making all the philosophies to be one, was a system of allgorization and mystification by which anybody could find whatever he wanted in any writing that might come to his notice. And when this method was applied to the Scriptures, it was easy enough to pervert the word of God so as to make it sanction anything taught in the pagan philosophies. According to it, in every passage of Scripture there are at least three meanings, and there may be from three to six meanings.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.11

The basis of this was the immortality of the soul. As every man is composed of body, soul, and spirit, so every Scripture has in it three original senses: (a) a literal sense corresponding to the body; (b) a moral sense, corresponding to the soul; and (c) a mystical sense, corresponding to the spirit, or mind. And as the body is the baser part of man, so the literal is the baser sense of the Scripture. And further, as the body often betrays good men into sin, so the literal sense of Scripture often leads into error. And yet further, as the body is a clog to the soul, and hinders it in its heavenly aspirations, and must therefore be despised and separated as far as possible from the soul; so the literal sense of Scripture, which corresponds to man’s body, is likewise a hindrance to the detection and proper understanding of the hidden and mystical meanings of the Word, and therefore the literal sense of Scrip- ture must be despised and separated as far as possible from the hidden senses, and must be counted as of the least possible worth.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 264.12

Accordingly Origen taught and wrote: “The source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal, or external, part of Scripture. Those who do so will not attain to the kingdom of God. Let us therefore seek after the substantial fruits of the Word, which are hidden and mysterious. The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.1

This system at once took away the Scriptures from the common people, and shut up the Scriptures to be interpreted solely by these philosophers, who alone were learned in the mystifications and mysteries that were “the true spirit and substantial fruit of the Word.” The common people could understand the Scriptures only as they are written, just as they must any other writing; because they knew nothing of the use of that method of mystification. And as it was settled that those who did understand the Scriptures as they are written would “not attain to the kingdom of God,” it was plainly in the interests of the common people themselves that these leaders in the new philosophic “Christianity” should withhold the Scriptures from them. For it was only in the receiving of the mystifications of these self-exalted teachers that the ignorant—the common people—could attain to the real truth and “substantial fruit of the Word.” In this Egyptiaco-Platonic-philosophic-Christian system of the third century lies the origin and the philosophy of the papacy’s forbidding even to this day the common people to read the Scriptures.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.2

And when from the common people the Scriptures were shut away, and were shut up exclusively to a perverse-minded hierarchy, who were set on reading into them every pagan doctrine that they chose, in order to be able to class the pagans as Christians—when thus such a sinful and iniquitous “host was given him... by reason of” such “transgression,” it was easy, and indeed only natural, that, as the consequence, there should be revealed “that man of sin.... 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,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked,” “the Beast.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.3

“Studies in Galatians. Galatians 3:24-26” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 17, pp. 265, 266.

THE law that is here under consideration brings men to Christ, that they may “be justified by faith.” Justification by faith is the object in view. But from the example of Abel, from the ceremonial law of Leviticus, which we have already presented these studies, it has been demonstrated that the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings was itself the way of justification by faith; so that it is impossible for a law which in itself is justification by faith, to bring men to justification by faith.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.1

On the other hand, what is the necessity for justification?—All have sinned; all have transgressed the lawn; all are shunt up under sic, and so kept under the law. And they never can be justified by the law. The only possible escape is by faith of Jesus Christ. Their only hope of justification is in justification by faith. Consequently, this law is the law by which is the knowledge of sin; the law “under” which every can is “kept” until he is justified by faith. This law it is that is the schoolmaster to bring men unto Christ in order that they may be justified by faith.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.2

One other word just here. The ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings is done away. There is no question of that anywhere. Now if it were the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings that brought men to Christ, that they might be justified by faith—since that is done away, how can men brought to Christ? and how can they find justification by faith? If that were the law here referred to, then, of all things, that law never should have been, and it never could have been, in righteousness, done away, so long as there remained a single soul that needed to be brought to Christ, that needed to be justified by faith. Consequently, since that law has been done away, and ever since it was done away, men have needed to be brought to Christ, and to be justified by faith, this, in itself, is the most conclusive proof that the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings is not at all, and could not possibly be, the law here referred to.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.3

For these reasons that law could be only a law that abides forever—and that law is the MORAL law—the law by which is the knowledge of sin, by which all the world is declared and held guilty before God, until they are justified by faith. For “what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped; and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.4

“But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.5

“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. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.6

“Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Romans 3:19-28. All this is of the moral law. But it was with the very deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings that men were justified by faith. Indeed, a man could be justified by faith without the deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings: because the deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings were the very expression of faith itself. By faith Abel offered unto God a ...sacrifice.” What was the faith worth that brought no sacrifice?—Nothing. That was Cain’s faith. The law, then, that brought men to Christ that they might be justified by faith, is a law, and must be a law, without the deeds of which men are justified by faith. And this is true and can be true only of the moral law.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.7

One of the principle sources of misunderstanding of this text, lies in the taking of the word “schoolmaster” in the sense of our everyday word “school-teacher,” and knowing that the ten commandments do not of themselves teach, instruct, or tell men about Christ and his work of salvation, while the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings does,—because in figure it was Christ,—it is concluded that this law which was the schoolmaster, must be, and can be, only the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offeringsARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.8

But the word translated schoolmaster does not signify a school-teacher. It signifies a schoolmaster, in the sense of a master as a disciplinarian: not a school-teacher, in the sense of an instructor. It is true that the schoolmaster, the disciplinarian, might be, and sometimes was, also a school-teacher, an instructor, but that was only an incident. The original and primary thought of the word is that of master, as a disciplinarian, a watcher, a corrector. Accordingly, the German of Luther translated it “Zucht-meíster—master of the house of correction.” The Greek word corresponds to the Latin and Anglicized word “tutor.” But even as connected with the idea of tutor, the thought of teacher only incidentally attaches; because the original and primary meaning of “tutor” is simply “a guardian; a watcher; a protector.” A guardian may be indeed a teacher also, if he have the ability and faculty to be a teacher also, but that is not the original and primary thought in the word, it is only an incident.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.9

The Greek word translated schoolmaster is paidagogos and signifies “a boy-ward;” “a child-conductor;” or “child-guide;” “the slave who went with a boy from home to school and back again, a kind of a tutor.” “Fabius is jeeringly called the paidagogos of Hannibal, because he always followed him about:—generally a leader, demokratias, turannidos.” The thought that he was primarily a person apart from the teacher of the boy is emphasized in the word “paídagogio—the room in a schoolhouse in which the paídagogoi waited for their boy.” The Century Dictionary says: “Among the Greeks and Romans the pedagogue was originally a slave who attended the younger children of his master, and conducted them to school, to the theater, etc., combining, in many cases instruction with guardianship.” If the thought intended to be conveyed in this verse were that of a school-teacher, the word would have to be not paídagogos, but didaskalos.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.10

The law then here meant is not a law which in itself teaches of Christ; but that which conducts men as children to Christ that by him they may be taught. The law is not in itself the teacher, but that which watches, guards, corrects, and conducts men as untrained and unruly children to Christ as to the school where by him they shall be taught. And the only law that can possible fit the thought not only of the single word paídagogos, but also the whole context of which verses 24, 25, are only the conclusion and consequence, is the moral law—the ten commandments. For “the scripture has shut up all under sin;” “we were kept under the law shut up UNTO THE FAITH.” “Wherefore”—consequently—“the law was our paídagogos—watcher, warden, guardian, corrector, and conductor—unto Christ, that [so that, in order that] we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under” the law—no longer “kept under the law,” “shut up under sin.” “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.11

TWO correspondents think that this is new doctrine, especially for and in the REVIEW AND HERALD; but whatever and with whomsoever this may be new doctrine, there is one thing certain, and that is that for and in the REVIEW AND HERALD it is not in any sense new. Consider: The first number of the REVIEW AND HERALD ever issued, was Vol. I, No. 1, in November, 1850—forty-nine and a half hears ago. No. 5 of Vol. I was issued in January, 1851. In that No. 5 was the first notice of the third chapter of Galatians that was ever made in the REVIEW AND HERALD. It is in an article by J. N. Andrews, on “The Perpetuity of the Law of God.” From that article we quote, just as there printed, enough to make perfectly plain to all now, the position that was held in and by the REVIEW then:—ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.12

Our faith may be expressed in a single sentence: God’s LAW COVERS ALL TIME, and under all dispensations it stands out before men as the rule of their lives, and the sum of their duty to God. The fall of man left “the work of the law” written in his heart though faintly indeed; then at Mt. Sinai it was written in tables of stone by the finger of God; then, under the new covenant, it is written in the hearts of God’s people, even as it was before the fall. We appeal to men of candor and reason. Are not these things so?ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.13

Galatians 3. The great doctrine of justification by faith having been lost sight of by the Galatian church, the apostle argues the point with them; and with great clearness shows that it is our only hope of salvation. Hence, the different covenants which God made with his people are here examined and contrasted. The covenant made with Abraham, which was based on the righteousness of faith, is first introduced. This covenant secured to him self, and to his seed, the inheritance of the earth. Romans 4:13.... The question now arises. Why does the apostle say that the law could not disannul the promise made to Abraham? Is there anything in the law which is against the promise of God?—No, verily. See verse 21. For the law of God, which embodies his requirements, and man’s duty, can not be contrary to his own promise.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.14

Why then is it said that if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise? We answer that God made perfect obedience to his law the condition on which he took Israel, the literal seed of Abraham, to be his people. Jeremiah 11:3, 4; Exodus 19:5-8; 20. This covenant made the works of the law the condition on which they should receive the inheritance, instead of the righteousness of faith which was the condition of the promise made to Abraham. But it is plain that if the deeds of the law be made the ground of justification, then is justification by faith made void. And as it is evident that fallen, guilty man can not be justified by a law which already condemns him, he could then have no hope of salvation... Why, then, it may be asked, did God give to Israel a covenant which recognized perfect obedience as its only condition? We reply, He did it that he might exclude all appearance of heirship from the natural seed except such as should walk in the faith of their father Abraham. Hear the apostle: “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scriptures hath concluded all under sin that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ MIGHT BE GIVEN TO THEM THAT BELIEVE.” Such are the only heirs.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 265.15

That article on “The Perpetuity of the Law of God” was concluded in No. 6 of Vol. I, and in this Elder Andrews took up the very verses that stand at the head of this present Study in Galatians, as follows:—ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.1

Galatians 3:23-26... How is the law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? Answer: The law shows our guilt and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Saviour. Read Paul’s account of this school in Romans 7:7-25. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:20. “I had not known sin, but by the law.” Romans 7:7. Then the instruction of the law is absolutely necessary, that we may know ourselves to be sinners in the sight of God. We find ourselves sinners by past offences, and unable to render present obedience. The just penalty of the law hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus Christ for refuge.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.2

The same thoughts were published again in Vol. II, No. 4, Sept. 16, 1851; and in Vol. III, No. 7, Aug. 5, 1852; so that it plainly stands as the original doctrine of the REVIEW AND HERALD as to the law of God in Galatians 3. And that is was sound doctrine then, and is sound doctrine now, it is certain from the fact that in The Review and Herald, April 5, 1898, in the first-page article, under the title of “The Perfect Law,” the Spirit of Prophecy speaks as follows:—ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.3

The law of God, as presented in the Scriptures, is broad in its requirements. Every principle is holy, just, and good. The law lays men under obligation to God; it reaches to the thought and feelings; and it will produce conviction of sin in every one who is sensible of having transgressed its requirements...ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.4

In his teachings, Christ showed how far-reaching are the principles of the law spoken from Sinai. He made a living application of that law whose principles remain forever the great standard of righteousness.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.5

Paul’s testimony of the law is: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin [the sin is in the man, not in the law]? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet... Wherefore the law is holy, the commandment holy, and just, and good.” ...ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.6

There is no safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man can not hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with him through the merits of Christ, while he continues to sin. He must cease to transgress, and become loyal and true. As the sinner looks into the great moral looking-glass, he sees his defects of character. He sees himself just as he is, spotted, defiled, and condemned. But he knows that the law can not in any way remove the guilt, or pardon the transgressor. He must go farther than this. The law is but the schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He must look to his sin-bearing Saviour. And as Christ is revealed to him upon the cross of Calvary, dying beneath the weight of the sins of the whole world, the Holy Spirit shows him the attitude of God to all who repent of their transgressions. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever-lasting life.”ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.7

And all this is—not the law in Galatians, but—the gospel in Galatians—justification, righteousness, by faith,—the Third Angel’s Message.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 266.8

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 17, p. 267.

AS to that “American court,” with its “court chamber” and “court dress,” that has been established at Washington, D.C., we noted last week that the idea signifies “specifically, the collective body of persons who compose the retinue or council of a sovereign or other PRINCELY dignity.” Only royalty can appropriately hold court. It consists only with “a sovereign or other princely dignity.” The definition of “sovereign” is “supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; not subject to any other; hence, royal; princely; a ruler, governor, chief, or master; one to who allegiance is due.” Study now this subject in connection with the statements as to these colonial governors being the “personal representatives of the President,” and as such “possessing absolute power,” and “unswerving loyalty to their President,” etc. In his history of “The Fall of the Roman Empire,” Sismondi, tracing the decline from republic to empire, remarks that “the people of the provinces, strangers to the antique liberty, perceived no difference between the republic and the empire; the army, confounding fidelity to a standard with the duty of citizens, and blind obedience with patriotism, attached themselves to the Julian family with implicit and unhestitating devotion.”—Chap. 2, par. 9.ARSH April 24, 1900, page 267.1

April 17, 1900

May 1, 1900