Signs of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 29. (7/29/1886)

Signs of the Times

Jul 29, 1886

International Tract and Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jul 29, 1886

General Articles.

By Ellen G. White

Christ and the Law.

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

The law of God is changeless. For this reason, Christ died, taking upon himself the guilt of the transgressor, and making it possible for every penitent, repenting sinner to take hold of his strength, and through him to make peace with the offended Lawgiver.

“Sin is the transgression of the law;” and “the wages of sin is death.” It was sin that brought death into the world. Had there been no sin, there would have been no death. Christ died as the sinner’s substitute, to save him from the penalty of his disobedience. Could the law of God have been changed or abolished, Christ need not have died; for death was not necessary in order to abolish the law. The fact that God spared not his own sinless, beloved Son from the penalty he pledged himself to bear as the sinner’s substitute, is the most telling argument that could be produced to show that the claims of his law will not be released, even in the slightest degree, to save the transgressor. So in the death of Christ we have evidence, not only of God’s love for sinful man, but of the changeless character of his law. The law could not be abolished; one precept could not be altered to save the sinner and meet man in his fallen condition; but God so loved the world that he gave his Son to suffer the penalty of its transgression in the sinner’s stead.

It is by grace that the sinner is saved, being justified freely by the blood of Christ. But Christ did not die to save the sinner in his sins. The whole world is condemned as guilty before God, for they are transgressors of his holy law; and they will certainly perish unless they repent, turn from their disobedience, and through faith in Christ claim the merits of his precious blood. The sin of Adam and Eve lost holy Eden for themselves and their posterity, and those who continue to live in the transgression of God’s law will never regain the lost paradise. But through the grace of Christ man may render acceptable obedience, and gain a home in the beautiful Eden restored.

There are some who do not understand the plan of redemption, but make the death of Christ an argument to prove that the law of God is abolished. Men who claim to be teachers of the people blind the eyes of the ignorant by blending the moral law with the ceremonial, and using the texts which speak of the ceremonial law to prove that the moral law has been abolished. This is a perversion of the Scriptures. There are two distinct laws brought to view. One is the law of types and shadows, which reached to the time of Christ, and ceased when type met antitype in his death. The other is the law of Jehovah, and is as abiding and changeless as his eternal throne. After the crucifixion, it was a denial of Christ for the Jews to continue to offer the burnt offerings and sacrifices which were typical of his death. It was saying to the world that they looked for a Redeemer to come, and had no faith in Him who had given his life for the sins of the world. Hence the ceremonial law ceased to be of force at the death of Christ.

The gospel of Christ reflects glory upon the Jewish age. It sheds light upon the whole Jewish economy, and gives significance to the ceremonial law. The tabernacle, or temple, of God on earth was a pattern of the original in Heaven. All the ceremonies of the Jewish law were prophetic, typical of mysteries in the plan of redemption. The rites and ceremonies of the law were given by Christ himself, who, enshrouded in a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night, was the leader of the hosts of Israel; and this law should be treated with great respect, for it is sacred. Even after it was no longer to be observed, Paul presented it before the Jews in its true position and value, showing its place in the plan of redemption and its relation to the work of Christ; and the great apostle pronounces this law glorious, worthy of its divine Originator. That which was to be done away was glorious, but it was not the law instituted by God for the government of his family in Heaven and on earth; for as long as the heavens shall remain, so long shall the law of the Lord endure.

Christ came to teach men the way of salvation; and we might expect that when the shadowy service was no longer of any value, if the law of ten commandments were no longer binding, he would declare its abrogation. If the Old-Testament Scriptures were no longer to be regarded as a guide for Christians, he would make known the fact. But this was not the work of Him who came to seek and to save that which was lost. In his memorable sermon on the mount, in which he announced to his followers the object of his mission, he expressly declared the perpetuity of the moral law. His solemn warnings to the neglecters and despisers of the law of God, echo down even to our time in the words: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven.”

These are the words of the great Teacher; but they are often perverted, and made to mean something altogether different from the lesson he designed to give to his disciples, and through them to all who should believe on his name. He came to fulfill the demands of the law, to magnify and make it honorable, to show to all that God will not remit the penalty of its transgression. The Most High will fulfill his word; it shall not return unto him void.

After his resurrection, when Jesus revealed himself to the two disciples who were on the way to Emmaus and to those assembled in Jerusalem, he did not point to the mighty works which he had done, to revive their faith in him as the promised Messiah; but he went back to Moses and the prophets, and explained the scriptures concerning himself. Holy prophets had foretold the manner of his birth, the events of his life, his mission, and his death and resurrection; and Jesus impressed upon his disciples the fact that in his life and death these prophecies had met their fulfillment. Hope revived in the hearts of the disciples, as for them the words of the prophets were clothed with new life and power, and they were ready to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of God, the long-expected Messiah.

There is no discord between the Old Testament and the New. In the Old Testament we find the gospel of a coming Saviour; in the New Testament we have the gospel of a Saviour revealed as the prophecies had foretold. While the Old Testament is constantly pointing forward to the true offering, the New Testament shows that the Saviour prefigured by the typical offerings has come. The dim glory of the Jewish age has been succeeded by the brighter, clearer glory of the Christian age. But not once has Christ stated, that his coming destroyed the claims of God’s law. On the contrary, in the very last message to his church, by way of Patmos, he pronounces a benediction upon those who keep his Father’s law: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

The world is full of evidences of the greatness, majesty, and benevolence of God; but the strongest evidence of his love for fallen man is contained in the gift of his Son, who took the nature of man, descended to the office of a servant, tasted life’s bitterest pain, and even died a terrible and ignominious death, that through him we might be restored to obedience and the favor of God, and gain eternal life. Christ, as our exemplar, kept his Father’s law. As he overcame, so may we. And he has promised: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

Basel, Switzerland.

Healdsburg, Cal

By A. J. Morton

“BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED.”

BY A. J. MORTON.

Is it by grace that I am saved? Will not the world's fierce wrath I've braved, The many duties, too, Which I have done in Jesus's name, Relieve my soul from all its shame, And make him count me true?

Ah no; for all that thou hast done Was but thy duty, purchased one, And not an act remains To gain for thee that wished-for place Among the ransomed by his grace; Past sin thy soul retains.

Yes, it is true; whate'er I do, Cannot repay the debt I owe To Him who died for me. It is his precious blood alone, Unbounded love and grace unknown, Can cause me life to see.

So when I stand before his throne, Triumphant o'er the wiles unknown Of right's most deadly foe, I'll praise him for the wondrous grace Which brought me through the weary race, Within this vale of woe.

Healdsburg, Cal

The Law of the Sabbath.

By D. R. Dungan

THERE is now a very earnest effort being made by Adventists and Seventh-day Baptists to bring about a return to Sabbath-keeping according to the law. If I have understood them correctly, their positions are as follows:—

The Sabbath was given at the creation of the world.
It was given to all men, and was to be observed during all time.
It was to be observed on the seventh day of the week.
The law of which it was a part has never been done away.

Now, beyond all question, if their theory is right, their practice cannot be wrong. I understand the religious world generally to agree with their views concerning the giving of that law, as to form, time, and extent. Indeed, I am not aware that either of the four positions taken by Sabbatarians is dissented from by the average religious teacher of to-day. Still, the practice is very distinct. The whole religious world, aside from the parties already named, keep the first day of the week instead of the seventh, which was required to be observed by the law.

Here is a manifest inconsistency, and no man can deny it. If God required us to keep the seventh day of the week, keeping the first will not be obeying that command. And it is vain to talk of keeping the spirit of a law when we deliberately violate its letter. It is impossible to be religiously right and scripturally wrong at the same time. If God commanded all men to keep the seventh day of the week, and has never changed or removed that law, then we must either keep the seventh day or violate the commandment of God. This is so self-evident that to elaborate or repeat it would indicate a want of confidence in my readers.

Some have been heard to say, however, that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. But the Bible does not know anything of any such a change. No inspired man ever called the first day of the week the Sabbath. It was centuries after the last apostle was dead before men began to speak of keeping the Sabbath by observing the first day.

It will be said, however, that the Sabbath, as required of the Israelite, could not be observed in cold climates, and hence the rigor of the law must necessarily have been somewhat abated. But if any such necessity has existed. He who gave the law has surely known it quite as well as any of his creatures, and has therefore, somewhere in his word, removed the severities of the law, or he has not intended it to be regarded in these cold climates. But if it was not intended for these northern countries, then it was not meant to be universal. Hence all that may be legitimately argued from the fact of a needed change in the severities of the fourth command, is that it was not intended for persons living in cold climates. No one can change a law in any feature, except he who gave it. And if God had made any such a change, such amending enactment could be found somewhere in the Bible. But as no such enactment can be found, the law remains as it was.

I have heard a peculiar argument against the Sabbath to the effect that all men cannot observe the Sabbath at the same time; that when it is daylight on one side of the globe, it is night on the other. Hence, while one-half of the world are keeping the Sabbath, the other part will be busily at work. They illustrate by starting two men around the world from the same place, but in opposite directions. With one the days get shorter, and with the other they grow longer, so that the man going east has gained a day on his neighbor, at their next meeting; hence one will be keeping one day for Sabbath, and the other will be keeping the next. And some ingenious person has made a reckoning, showing clearly enough, to himself, that we are really now keeping the seventh, not the first day. All this seems to me very much like surrendering the question. These men say—without intending it—that the Sabbath-keepers are right in their demands, and that it is necessary for us to find some way of excusing ourselves. Whatever difficulties there may be found in keeping the Sabbath in other countries or under other circumstances than could be found in Palestine at the time it was intended for the Israelites, may show that it was not given to other peoples, but can have no effect to prove that the law has in any sense changed.

Again, it is argued that Jesus taught the superiority, not only of man, but also of the beast, to the strict demands of the Sabbath. It is claimed that Jesus violated this law when occasion required, and justified himself in doing so on the ground that human want was of more importance than the letter of the law. But no man has yet been able to find a single instance in which Jesus violated any declaration of the law given by Moses. He could not do so after the statement we find in Matt. 5: 17–19:—

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”

No one could be the author of that language and then violate the law himself without gross inconsistency, such as would unfit him for a public teacher.

Christ neither violated the law nor winked at such conduct on the part of any one else. No case has yet been reported, and no such teaching can be found as coming from him.

Sabbatarians are claiming, and with some show of reason, that a large majority of the Protestant clergy believe just as they do respecting the sanctity of the Sabbath, and that, if their popularity and salaries were not endangered, they would advocate the keeping of the seventh day just as they do. They conclude this from their admissions, as before stated, which legitimately bind them to the law of the Sabbath. They further claim, too, that the devotion of the Christian world to the first day of the week, is a superstition which has no higher origin than the edict of a heathen king.

Now to my mind the question resolves itself into this: Are we now under the law of which the Sabbath was a part, or is the Sabbath now binding on Christians? For it is certain, if we are to keep the Sabbath, then we are bound to observe the seventh day of the week.—Elder D. R. Dungan, Disciple.

Liberalism Personified.

By G. C. Cockman

It was announced some years ago that old Bigotry was dead and fairly buried. I am sorry to be under the necessity of informing this audience that it has been discovered of late that he left behind him an only child, a prodigal son, who has arrived at man’s estate. This son is known by the name of Liberalism. Young Liberalism is the very antipodes of his old father. He is handsome, polite, insinuating, and, although somewhat superficial, possesses that polish and tact which impose upon general observers. He speaks all languages, subscribes to all creeds, holds a levee with all sects and parties, is friendly with everybody, but stands identified with nobody. He professes to abhor religious controversy, and disposes of all doctrinal questions by a motion of indefinite postponement. He can swallow the wafer with the Papist, receive the cup with the Protestant, and thrust the Westminster Confession and the Methodist Discipline into the same pocket. You can never find Liberalism at home, or, rather, “he is never at home but when from home.” He sails all waters under all colors; he exhibits the papers of all nations; but he hails from no port; he charters to no country; and therefore we strongly suspect that he is, in reality, a pirate.—G. C. Cockman.

John Bunyan.

BUNYAN was the opposite of a mystic. His common sense in his sermons of advice is extraordinarily close-packed and hard, and exhibits acute observation of the ways of human nature in practical life. He wrote once what was almost a novel, a history of one Mr. Badman, which is probably truer to contemporary life than the adventures of Jonathan Wild in the next century. If he did not weaken his eyesight over books, he sharpened it on men and women. All his volumes abound with anecdote and incidents which he had evidently seen in the town streets or by the road-side, and with phrases and proverbial sayings close to the soil.

Not the least agreeable of the signs of this realism, this sight for the bare fact in sense alone, are those descriptions of the country, of the birds, and flowers, and fields, and the simple cheerfulness of them to the country-born boy, which strew his pages from cover to cover. So, when he came to write his great book, he united in a perfectly natural way, and without forethought, the reality of a journey on earth with that of the search for Heaven.

The success with which, in a literary work, truth is fused with fact, is a measure of genius. It is, perhaps, more striking in this case because the work is an allegory, which is usually so drearily pale a kind of composition. The characters and action of the “Pilgrim’s Progress,” on the contrary, are a transcript of life, so vivid that it cannot wear out. It is not more realistic, however, than other portions of Bunyan’s voluminous writings, in which one may get an idea of English provincial character of high historical value and human interest.

Bunyan’s memory is singularly agreeable. Personally he was free from the defects of assumption, dogmatism, and spiritual pride which entered largely into the religious character of his epoch, and his sensitive conscience seems to have kept him humble after he had won a name. The two great elements of his work, the homely quality and the Christian quality, were deep-seated in his nature, and gave him charm. In an age of sectaries he was not a narrow bigot, and did not stickle for meaningless things; and in a time of political strife growing out of religious differences, and though himself a sufferer by twelve years’ imprisonment in early manhood, he did not confuse Heaven with any fantastic monarchy or commonwealth of Christ in London, nor show any rancor or revengeful spirit as a subject. The life of the man who could evolve such a story must have been very simply typical of the Christian life itself.—Evening Post.

Satan’s Methods Against the Church

SATAN'S first effort at the destruction of the Christian church was by the fires of persecution; he has since learned that his purpose can be more effectually consummated by putting on a sanctimonious air and joining the church, and then seeking to popularize the church with the world, and thus effect the union of the two.—Methodist Recorder.

Saved by Grace from Sin

WHATEVER is affected by sin can and may be saved by grace from that sad effect; whatever has been effected by Satan can be destroyed by Christ.—Sel.

G. D. BALLOU

By G. D. Ballou

Repose.

The men of power and influence are those who are composed. Fretters do not command our respect. Those who are so uneasy that they never come to a position of rest, are not the ones to whom we can tie and feel secure. Those whose counsel and judgment we honor are the men of serene nature and calm bearing. Those who mid the turmoil and strife of this world quietly repose in God, are the men of power. Repose does not mean inaction, but a condition of mind that sustains mental equipoise, no matter what duties, and cares, and perplexities may press the soul. Jesus was a perfect example, and his conduct ever exemplified the working of a power sustained by calm repose. See him at the marriage feast, at the grave of Lazarus, in Gethsemane, in the judgment hall, and finally on the cross. What self-possession was ever manifest! This true Christian repose is the strongest expression of faith in our heavenly Father, and loving confidence in his promises.

There are many poor, tempest-tossed souls who would find sweet comfort in this repose if they would only cast their burdens on the Lord, and rest in him. Let that perplexed, over-anxious, care-worn, weary, nervous one sit down patiently and take a little sweet repose. It will do her good. And let the men who have heavy burdens to carry, under which they sometimes chafe and fret, seek a condition of repose. It will add to their power in the world, and make them stronger to bear burdens for God. It is worry, not work, that kills. Many a sick one would recover if he would learn to rest in God. How can God grant any of us blessings when we do not manifest confidence in him? “Rest in the Lord, and wait patiently for him;” “trust also in him, and he shall bring it to pass.” More power will be manifest in the church of Christ when all have learned the lesson of repose. “Return unto thy rest, O my soul; for the Lord hath dealt bountifully with thee.”

G. D. BALLOU

An Unselfish Religion.

INFIDEL critics have discovered that the Christian faith is essentially selfish. “It wraps men up in their individual desires and hopes, and makes personal future felicity the sole aim of life.” The ground for this statement is the admitted fact that Christianity requires men to seek their own salvation, to look first and well to their own characters and lives, and promises them reward for so doing. Seeking one’s own spiritual safety cannot be selfish, since the element of injury to others is not involved. It is barely possible that some may seek their own salvation in ways that injure others; but their obvious antagonism to the whole tenor of Christian teaching should certainly exempt it from blame for their course. It commands us to labor for, help, love, sympathize with, suffer for, and save each other. No other book teaches self-sacrifice for others so abundantly and impressively as the Bible.

If anything more were needed to show the supreme absurdity of the accusation that the Christian religion is selfish, it is that we are taught that we can only be saved ourselves by laboring to save others, and that we are saved from sin only in proportion as we are saved from selfishness. One object of our conversion is that we may be fitted to win men to Christ. We are blessed that we may be a blessing to others. “Freely ye have received, freely give.” The converted soul becomes a blessing by the power of his example. He is a living witness of the power of Christ. Happy in the love of God and in assurance of pardon, the Christian’s strongest impulse is to lead others to the same experience. He can retain the experience that enriches his life only by making it a blessing to others. The law of his spiritual life is that he shall receive grace to use for God’s glory, and shall be ministered unto by the divine Spirit only as he ministers to others. “He that watereth shall be watered himself.” Spiritual leanness and apostasy are sure to result from disobedience to this law. In other words, he that endeavors to be a selfish Christian ceases to be a Christian.

Thus all the manifold ministrations of the Spirit to believers are intended to be a blessing to others. Not one is to be selfishly appropriated by or limited to the individual recipient. Paul teaches that divine comfort in sorrow is given that we may comfort others: “Blessed be the God of all comfort, who comforteth us in all our tribulations, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.” No man can consciously receive comfort from God without perceiving that it is meant for others as well as himself. If he is not sure that any mercy comes to him from God, if the recovery of his health, or the saving of his fortune seems to him to be merely a piece of good luck, then he may be meanly and miserably selfish about it. If he recognizes God as the giver of his blessings, he will see that they are too great for him to keep to himself, and that they must be meant for a circle wider than his little life. The joy of his divine comfort will overflow him and bless others.

There is no Christian excellence attainable except by devotion to the welfare of men. Christian perfection is not a negative grace. It is not merely freedom from low temptations. It is positive, aggressive, self-forgetful, self-sacrificing devotion to the welfare of our fellow-men; a constant, joyful effort, inspired and sustained by the in-dwelling, constraining love of Christ to make our lives a blessing to humanity. Phillips Brooks says: “No man has come to true greatness who has not felt in some degree that his life belongs to his race, and that what God gives him, he gives him for mankind. The truth is, we are at our best when we try to be it not for ourselves alone, but for our brethren; and that we take God’s gifts most completely for ourselves, when we realize that he sends them to us for the benefit of other men.”—N. W. Christian Advocate.

Concerning Adoption.

THE word adoption is used only five times in the Bible, and these are confined to the New Testament. But the idea of adoption was not a new one at the time of its being verbally expressed in definite phraseology in apostolic times. Throughout the old dispensation, the idea and principle may be more or less distinctly traced. But, like some other truths, it was brought out into marked prominence in New-Testament revelation; and at the present time it deserves far greater consideration than it receives at the hands of many who take superficial views of the plan of salvation. A certain class of people, who allow their fevered imaginations to picture distorted representations of the fatherhood of God, quite overlook the fundamental truth, that, by reason of natural depravity and actual sin, all men are regarded by both God's law and gospel as being alienated from God; and hence there does not exist, naturally, any true and spiritual relationship between God and the unpardoned sons of men.

The fact and doctrine of adoption take this for granted. It is an axiomatic truth, that, if there existed naturally and vitally such a relationship between God and men as to constitute a veritable fatherhood and sonship, the idea of adoption would be an absurdity. Men do not adopt into their families their own children. No legal enactment nor gracious act is required to establish a true relationship between a human father and his children. It is only when a man determines to take a child who is not his own, either naturally or legally, and make him his own by a sovereign act and gracious favor, and in harmony with the law of his government, that the idea and fact of adoption appear.

All of God's true children are adopted children. And it was necessary that Christ should come into this world and die, in order that the children of the devil might receive the adoption of the sons of God. Hence Paul says: “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” And then, having become sons by a trustful faith in Christ, the Spirit of Christ enables such ones to cry, “Father.” So Paul declares: “Because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. So thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son.” Without adoption, no one can be an heir of God.—Watchman.

JESUS PLEADS FOR ME.

By Frank Hope

BY FRANK HOPE.

Come, let me for a moment pause, And try by faith to see Into the holy place above, Where Jesus pleads for me.

Ah! there before the throne of God, Upon the crystal sea, Before the mighty cherubim, There Jesus pleads for me.

How piteously he lifts his hands, All broken by the tree! How meekly now he bends his head, And softly pleads for me!

How often when in sin I sink, And struggle to be free, With tender love, within the vail, Still Jesus pleads for me.

His tender love with love I'll pay, And to him bend the knee, And tell to all in Mercy's name, How Jesus pleads for me.

Oakland, Cal., July 12, 1886.

Be Not Discouraged.

WE are too much disposed to be discouraged in Christian work unless we see the immediate results of our labors. This we cannot reasonably expect. It is not in accordance with God's method of working. While there are exceptions, which must be admitted, great and important results are usually brought about by slow and gradual processes. This is so in the natural world, and it is also so in the moral world. The progress of truth is compared by Christ to leaven, which gradually and imperceptibly extends its influence until it permeates the whole mass. It is for us to do our duty and trust in the Lord for results, assured that our labor shall not be in vain in the Lord. Dr. Judson, after years of apparently fruitless toil in Burmah, was asked what was the prospect, to which he replied, “As sure as the promises of God.” That is the spirit. We must walk by faith, and not by sight.—Sel.

Rome’s View of Protestantism

A BAPTIST paper says: “In these days, when smooth words concerning Romanism are so often uttered, it may be profitable to read some choice sentences from a book by one of the Canadian Jesuits, a book, too, which has received the highest commendation of the Romish bishop of Montreal: ‘It is customary to regard Protestantism as a religion which has its rights. This is an error. Protestantism is not a religion; it has not a single right. It possesses the force of seduction. It is a rebellion in triumph; it is an error which flatters human nature. Error can have no rights.’ That has always been the doctrine of the Church of Rome. When she is weak, however, she is ‘tolerant.’” —Converted Catholic.

Establishment of the Vandals in Africa.

By J.

(Concluded.)

“By the skill of Boniface, and perhaps by the ignorance of the Vandals, the siege of Hippo was protracted above fourteen months [A. D. 431]; the sea was continually open; and when the adjacent country had been exhausted by irregular rapine, the besiegers themselves were compelled by famine to relinquish their enterprise. The importance and danger of Africa were deeply felt by the regent of the West. Placidia implored the assistance of her Eastern ally; and the Italian fleet and army were re-enforced by Asper, who sailed from Constantinople with a powerful armament. As soon as the force of the two empires was united under the command of Boniface, he boldly marched against the Vandals; and the loss of a second battle irretrievably decided the fate of Africa. He embarked with the precipitation of despair; and the people of Hippo were permitted, with their families and effects, to occupy the vacant place of the soldiers, the greatest part of whom were either slain or made prisoners by the Vandals. The count, whose fatal credulity had wounded the vitals of the republic, might enter the palace of Ravenna with some anxiety, which was soon removed by the smiles of Placidia. Boniface accepted with gratitude the rank of patrician and the dignity of master-general of the Roman armies; but he must have blushed at the sight of those medals in which he was represented with the name and attributes of victory.”

“The discovery of his fraud, the displeasure of the empress, and the distinguished favor of his rival, exasperated the haughty and perfidious soul of Ætius. He hastily returned from Gaul to Italy, with a retinue, or rather with an army, of barbarian followers; and such was the weakness of the government that the two generals decided their private quarrel in a bloody battle. Boniface was successful; but he received in the conflict a mortal wound from the spear of his adversary, of which he expired [A. D. 433] within a few days, in such Christian and charitable sentiments that he exhorted his wife, a rich heiress of Spain, to accept Ætius for her second husband. But Ætius could not derive any immediate advantage from the generosity of his dying enemy. He was proclaimed a rebel by the justice of Placidia; and though he attempted to defend some strong fortresses erected on his patrimonial estate, the Imperial power soon compelled him to retire into Pannonia, to the tents of his faithful Huns. The republic was deprived, by their mutual discord, of the service of her two most illustrious champions.”

“It might naturally be expected, after the retreat of Boniface, that the Vandals would achieve, without resistance or delay, the conquest of Africa. Eight years [A. D. 431–439] however, elapsed, from the evacuation of Hippo to the reduction of Carthage. In the midst of that interval, the ambitious Genseric, in the full tide of apparent prosperity, negotiated a treaty of peace, by which he gave his son Hanneric for a hostage; and consented to leave the Western emperor in the undisturbed possession of the three Mauritanias. This moderation, which cannot be imputed to the justice, must be ascribed to the policy, of the conqueror. His throne was encompassed with domestic enemies, who accused the baseness of his birth, and asserted the legitimate claims of his nephews, the sons of Gonderic. Those nephews, indeed, he sacrificed to his safety; and their mother, the widow of the deceased king, was precipitated, by his order, into the river Ampsaga. But the public discontent burst forth in dangerous and frequent conspiracies; and the warlike tyrant is supposed to have shed more Vandal blood by the hand of the executioner than in the field of battle.”

“The convulsions of Africa, which had favored his attack, opposed the firm establishment of his power; and the various seditions of the Moors and Germans, the Donatists and Catholics, continually disturbed or threatened the unsettled reign of the conqueror. As he advanced towards Carthage, he was forced to withdraw his troops from the western provinces; the sea-coast was exposed to the naval enterprises of the Romans of Spain and Italy; and, in the heart of Numidia, the strong inland city of Corta still persisted in obstinate independence. These difficulties were gradually subdued by the spirit, the perseverance, and the cruelty of Genseric, who alternately applied the arts of peace and war to the establishment of his African kingdom. He subscribed a solemn treaty, with the hope of deriving some advantage from the term of its continuance and the moment of its violation. The vigilance of his enemies was relaxed by the protestations of friendship which concealed his hostile approach; and Carthage was at length surprised [A. D. 439, Oct. 9] by the Vandals, five hundred and eighty-five years after the destruction of the city and republic by the younger Scipio.”

“A new city had arisen from its ruins, with the title of a colony; and though Carthage might yield to the royal prerogatives of Constantinople, and perhaps to the trade of Alexandria, or the splendor of Antioch, she still maintained the second rank in the West as the Roma (if we may use the style of contemporaries) of the African world. That wealthy and opulent metropolis displayed, in a dependent condition, the image of a flourishing republic. Carthage contained the manufactures, the arms, and the treasures of the six provinces. A regular subordination of civil honors gradually ascended from the procurators of the streets and quarters of the city to the tribunal of the supreme magistrate, who, with the title of proconsul, represented the state and dignity of a consul of ancient Rome. Schools and gymnasia were instituted for the education of the African youth; and the liberal arts and manners, grammar, rhetoric, and philosophy, were publicly taught in the Greek and Latin languages. The buildings of Carthage were uniform and magnificent; a shady grove was planted in the midst of the capital; the new port, a secure and capacious harbor, was subservient to the commercial industry of citizens and strangers; and the splendid games of the circus and theater were exhibited almost in the presence of the barbarians.”

“The reputation of the Carthaginians was not equal to that of their country, and the reproach of Punic faith still adhered to their subtle and faithless character. The habits of trade and the abuse of luxury had corrupted their manners; but their impious contempt of monks, and the shameless practice of unnatural lusts, are the two abominations which excite the pious vehemence of Salvian, the preacher of the age. The king of the Vandals severely reformed the vices of a voluptuous people; and the ancient, noble, ingenuous freedom of Carthage (these expressions of Victor are not without energy) was reduced by Genseric to a state of ignominious servitude. After he had permitted his licentious troops to satiate their rage and avarice, he instituted a more regular system of rapine and oppression. An edict was promulgated which enjoined all persons, without fraud or delay, to deliver their gold, silver, jewels, and valuable furniture or apparel to the royal officers; and the attempt to secrete any part of their patrimony was inexorably punished with death and torture, as an act of treason against the State. The lands of the proconsular province, which formed the immediate district of Carthage, were accurately measured, and divided among the barbarians; and the conqueror reserved for his peculiar domain the fertile territory of Byzacium and the adjacent parts of Numidia and Getulia.”—Dec. and Fall, chap. 33, par. 11–13.

Thus the kingdom of the Vandals was permanently fixed in Africa, where it remained as long as it was a kingdom at all, and as long as the Vandals were a nation. J.

Continue reading: Flames of Fun and Frolic