Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    December 2, 1886

    “The Ten Kingdoms in the Dark Ages. The Franks. (Continued.)” The Signs of the Times 12, 46, p. 724.


    “THE appellation of great has been often bestowed, and sometimes deserved; but Charlemagne is the only prince in whose favor the title has been indissolubly blended with the name.... The dignity of his person, the length of his reign, the prosperity of his arms, the vigor of his government, and the reverence of distant nations, distinguish him from the royal crowd; and Europe dates a new aera from his restoration of the Western Empire.”—Dec. and Fall. Chap. 49, par. 41.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.1

    It seems almost certain that Charlemagne really aspired to the restoration of the Roman Empire. But one life was too short, and there was no second Charlemagne. Besides this, the prophetic word was written that when once Rome was divided into its ten parts they should not be made to cleave one to another no more than could iron and clay. Charlemagne reigned forty six years—forty-three from the death of Carloman—thirty-three of which were spent in almost ceaseless wars. He conducted, in all, fifty-three expeditions, thirty-one against the Saxons, Frisons, Danes, Slavs, Bavarians, and the Avars; in upper Germany, Bohemia, Noricum, and Pannonia, give against the Lombards in Italy; twelve against the Saracens, in Spain, Corsica, and Sardinia; two against the Greeks; and three in Gaul itself against the Aguatanians and the Britons. Thus Saxony, bohemia, bavaris, Pannonia, Hungary, the Lombard kingdom of Italy as far as the duchy of Beneventum, that part of Spain between the Pyrenees and the river Ebro, Burgundy, Alemannia, and all of Gaul, was subject to the sway of Charlemagne. He already wore the iron crown of Lombardy in addition to the kingship of all the Frankish dominions, but when on Christmas day, 800, in the church of St. Peter, Pope Leo III. placed a precious crown upon the head of this mighty king while the great dome resounded with the acclamation of the people, “Long life and victory to Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God the great and pacific emperor of the Romans,” the honor seems well deserved. “For fourteen years, with less of fighting and more of organization, Charles the Great proved that he was worthy of his high title and revived office of Emperor of the West.” “And when in 801 an embassy arrived with curious presents from Harun at Rashid, the great caliph who held in the East the same place as Charles in the West, men recognized it as a becoming testimony to the world-wide reputation of the Frankish monarchy.” But this honor, this power, and this glory was short-lived. Charlemagne died at Aix la Chapelle, January 28, 814, and the unity of the empire which he had formed was at an end.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.2

    “Like more than one great barbaric warrior, he admired the Roman Empire that had fallen,—its vastness all in one and its powerful organization under the hand of a single master. He thought he could resuscitate it, durably, through the victory of a new people and a new faith, by the hand of Franks and Christians. With this view he labored to conquer, convert, and govern. He tried to be, at one and the same time, Cesar, Augustus, and Constantine. And for a moment he appeared to have succeeded, but the appearance passed away with himself. The unity of the empire and the absolute power of the emperor were buried in his grave.”—Guizot’s France, chap. 11, end.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.3

    Charlemagne was succeeded by his only surviving son, Louis the Pious, upon whom he had fixed the succession in 843, about six months before his death. Louis passed his life in a struggle with an ambitious second wife, and three undutiful sons who by constant rebellions abused his natural gentleness and goodness. In the quarrels and jealousies of his sons he was twice deposed and twice restored, and perhaps only escaped a third deposition, by his death June 20, 840. This set the sons free to wrangle among themselves, which they did till the fearful battle of Fontanet, June 25, 841, and the treaty of Verdun, August, 843, put an end to their mutual struggles and “to the griefs of the age.” Lothair, the eldest son, retained the title of emperor and received the Italian territory, with a long narrow strip stretching from the Gulf of Lyons to the North Sea, bounded on the east by the Alps and the Rhine, and on the west by the Rhone, the Saone, the Mense, and the Seheldt. Charles the Bald had all the rest of Gaul. Louis the German received Alemannia and all the rest of the German lands east of the Rhine, with the towns of Mainz, Worms, and Spires, on the western bank of that river.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.4

    This division, though counted as marking the real beginning of the history of France and Germany as separate kingdoms, lasted but a short time. For the Emperor Lothair died in 855, and was succeeded in his possessions to the north of Italy by Lothair II., who died in 869, when Charles the Bald seized upon his territory. But Louis the German disputed his seizure of the whole prize, and in 870 they signed the treaty of Mersen by which Louis became possessed of most of Lotharingia, or, as it was now called, Lorraine; Charles the Bald the rest of it; and Lothair’s brother, Louis II., was allowed to retain the possessions of his father in Italy. Louis II. died in 875, and Charles the Bald managed to secure the imperial crown and aimed at the possession of the whole empire with it. But Louis the German, at his death in 876, had divided Germany among his three sons, Carlman, Louis, and Charles—the second of whom, Louis, met Charles the Bald on the field of Andernach and gained such a victory over him as to not only put an effectual damper upon his imperial aspirations, but to force him to give up the portions of Lorraine that had been ceded to his father by the treaty of Mersen. Carlman and Louis both soon died, and the German kingdom passed to Charles surnamed “the Fat,” the youngest of the three sons of Louis the German.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.5

    Charles the Fat, incompetent, indolent, and gluttonous, became, without any effort of his own, sovereign of all the dominions of Charlemagne, except Burgundy which now became again an independent state. Alemannia—Swabia—he inherited from his father in 876, by the death of his brother Carlman, he received Bavaria and became king of Italy, in 880; by the death of his brother Carlman, he received Bavaria and became king of Italy, in 880; he was crowned emperor in 881; the death of his brother Louis of Saxony gave him all the rest of the Germanic possessions; and as Charles the Bald had died in 877, and had no successor who could relieve France from the scourge of the Northmen, Charles the Fat was invited to become the king of France, at the death of Carlman in 885. But instead of boldly meeting the Northmen with an army, he adopted the policy of buying off these bold savages who had plundered Cologne and Treves, and had led their horses over the very grave and in the beautiful basilica of Charlemagne. And when they laid siege to Paris and he still pursued the same cowardly course, his disgusted subjects, under the leadership of his nephew Arnulf, deposed him in 887, and in a week or two afterwards he died. Charles the Fat was the last ruler who ever reigned over both France and Germany. After his deposition the history of these two countries is distinct. It will be seen that the boundaries of France under the treaty of Verdun are very nearly the same as at present with the exception of that part between the Rhone and Saone, and the Alps. And so having traced the kingdom of the Franks to its permanent bounds, there we have it.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.6


    We must now resume the history of the Alemanni, and sketch their fortunes through the tumults of the Dark Ages. We have seen that the Alemanni and their Suevic brethren that followed them in the invasion of the Roman Empire, took possession of all Rhetia as far south as the country about the lake of Constance and the northern border of Switzerland; and that part of Gaul which lay between the Rhine and Moselle, and the head waters of the Seine. Thus they occupied the country which now comprises Alsace, Lorraine, Baden, Wurtemburg, greater part of Bavaria, and the southern of the large divisions of Hesse Darmstadt. When they were defeated by Clovis, their Gallic possessions became the prize of the conqueror, but all the rest they were allowed to occupy, and were permitted by Clovis and his successors “to enjoy their peculiar manners and institutions, under the government of official, and at length of hereditary, dukes.”—Gibbon, chap. 36, par. 5; chap. 38, par. 5. These, as well as the other German conquests of Clovis, “soon became virtually free. They continued to acknowledge Frankish supremacy; but the acknowledgment was only formal. At the head of each confederation was its own herzog or duke. These rulers were at first appointed by the Frankish kings, or received their sanction; but in course of time the office became hereditary in particular families.”—Encyc. Brit., art. Germany, p. 477.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.7

    Of the Allemanni there were two dukedoms, Swabia and Bavaria, and it is under these two names that their future history is found. But as Swabia is the original, and as it has exerted a greater influence in the affairs of Germany than has any other confederation, it is the one about which most must be said; for the history of it is, in a measure, the history of Germany, especially after the treaty of Verdun. Thassilo, duke of Bavaria, had been on ill terms with Pepin, the father of Charlemagne, and when Charlemagne came to the throne, Thassilo repeated acts of treachery caused Charlemagne to remove him, and Bavaria was placed under the authority of the margrave of Ostreich (Austria). The “margraves” were “lords of the marches;” and the “marches” were formed of the border countries, by Charlemagne, over which he appointed “margrave” (markgrafeu) “whose duty was to administer justice in his name, to collect tribute, and extend his conquests.” Bavaria was rule by margraves till about 900, when it again became a dukedom. The margraviate of Ostreich continued till 1156, when it, too, was made a duchy, and thus the march of Ostreich, formed by Charlemagne, was the origin of what is now the empire of Austria.SITI December 2, 1886, page 724.8


    (To be continued.)

    “A Romish Reason for a Romish Custom” The Signs of the Times 12, 46, p. 727.

    HAVING examined all the scriptures which speak of the first day of the week, and found that not one of them gives any reason for the keeping of that day in any sacred manner, we shall now for a little space look at some other of the “reasons” which are given for keeping Sunday.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.1

    Once of these “reasons” is framed something after this manner: Redemption is greater than creation, and as creation had a memorial day, redemption should also have a memorial day; and as redemption was completed at the resurrection of Christ, and as that was on the first day of the week; therefore the first day of the week must now be kept in commemoration of completed redemption.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.2

    This might all be well enough if it were true. But there are several fatal defects about it.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.3

    1. The Scripture says not a word about it.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.4

    .2. This “reason” says that “redemption is greater than creation,” a thing which, as the Scripture is silent about it, no person can prove. For mark what would have to be done before it could be shown that redemption is greater than creation. The whole creation would have to be spanned and measured; and then redemption likewise; then a comparison drawn before ever it could be known which is the greater. But no man can conceive of the creative power employed in the making of the smallest insect that lives, nor of the tiniest blade of grass that grows. In short no human mind can form any just conception of any creative act whatever. How much less then can it be formed of the whole creation, or of the depths of redemption. Therefore, until a person is found who has such a mighty grasp of intellect that he can span the creation; and who is so profoundly wise that he can enter into the counsels of eternity and comprehend the depths of redemption; and then against creation weigh redemption as in a balance—until then none can ever know which is the greater. And as God, who alone is able to do this, has not in all his revelation to men said a word about which is the greater, and as none else can, it follows that there is no just basis for the statement that redemption is greater than creation. Almighty power alone could accomplish either, and to talk of one act of Almighty power being greater than another is only nonsense.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.5

    .3. Another fatal defect in this is in saying that “redemption was completed at the resurrection of Christ.” The truth is that redemption, so far from being finished at the resurrection of Christ, will not be finished till the end of the world. The disciples asked the Saviour what should be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world, and he answered, “There shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heards; for your redemption draweth nigh.” Luke 21:25-28. These things did not “begin to come to pass” till 1780 A.D.; for then it was that the sun was turned to darkness, and the moon also. Therefore it is plain from these words of Christ, that instead of redemption being completed at the resurrection of Christ, it was not even “nigh” for 1749 years after that event.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.6

    This is confirmed by Paul. He says: “Ourselves also, which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.” Romans 8:23. Our bodies will be redeemed at the resurrection of the dead: “I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death” (Hosea 13:11); and the resurrection of the dead is accomplished at the second coming of the Lord. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. Therefore Paul, in telling of our redemption, places its accomplishment exactly where Christ places it, that is, at the second coming of the Lord, and not at his resurrection.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.7

    Again Paul writes: “In whom ye also trusted] after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” Ephesians 1:13, 14. “That Holy Spirit of promise” was not given until the day of Pentecost, forty-nine days after the resurrection of Christ; and this, says Paul, is the earnest of our inheritance until (not because of) the redemption of the purchased possession. By this Holy Spirit, says Paul, “ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Ephesians 4:30. Now as the Holy Spirit was given to be with those who trust in Christ “until the day of redemption,” and as that Spirit was not so given till forty-nine days after the resurrection of Christ, this proves most positively that the day of the resurrection of Christ could not possibly be made “the monument of a finished redemption.” And when anybody, or the whole professed Christian church together, sets up the first day of the week as the monument of a finished redemption, it is simply to pervert the Scripture doctrine of redemption, and to put darkness for light.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.8

    But some may ask, As the ideas of redemption being greater than creation, and of redemption being finished at the resurrection, are not according to Scripture at all, where did they come from, and how did they become so widely prevalent in the church? The answer is, they belong with the Sunday institution itself; they are an essential part of the foundation upon which that institution rests; and they originated where the Sunday-Sabbath institution originated, they came from the same place that it did; that is, from that grand hot-bed of errors and corruptions of Scripture, the Romish Church, the mystery of iniquity, the lawless one. Of that power which opposes and exalts itself above God, it is just what we might expect that it would take upon itself to declare that redemption is greater than creation, which God has not declared, and to declare that redemption was completed at the resurrection of Christ, the contrary of which God has declared. This is only in keeping with the character which the Bible shows of Rome, that of exalting itself above God.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.9

    But the mere statement of this, by us, without proof, would not be sufficient. Therefore we here give the proof that this so-called reason for keeping Sunday is only a Romish reason, and is of Romish origin. In the Roman Catholic Catechism, entitled “The Catholic Christian Instructed,” chapter XXIII. Question 6, is found the following:—SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.10

    “Q.—Why was the weekly Sabbath changed from Saturday to Sunday?SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.11

    Ans.—Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday; as therefore the work of redemption was greater than that of creation, so the primitive church thought the day on which this work was completely finished was more worthy her religious observation than that on which God rested from creation, and should be properly called the Lord’s day.”SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.12

    There, reader, is the true authority upon which rests this “reason” for keeping Sunday. So whenever you hear anybody present as a reason for keeping Sunday (and you will never hear it for any other cause), the idea that redemption is greater than creation, or that redemption was completed at the resurrection of Christ, you may know that both the idea and the institution come from Rome. And you may know that the person who preaches it, in that thing preaches the doctrine of Rome and not the doctrine of Christ. instead of giving a Bible reason for a Bible duty, he only gives a Romish reason for a Romish custom.SITI December 2, 1886, page 727.13


    “Bible Answers to Bible Questions.—No. 4” The Signs of the Times 12, 46, pp. 728, 729.

    ANOTHER important question is, “If a man die, shall he live again?” This question is not one that is asked now so much as it ought to be. The question that is now asked a good deal more than it ought to be, is whether man really dies—whether there is really any such thing as death. And as it is in the great majority of cases decided that man does not die, that “there is no death, what seems so is transition,” in the view that man never ceases to live, it would not be an appropriate question at all to ask, Shall he live again?SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.1

    But as we have abundantly shown, the Bible considers this subject from the standpoint of the fact that man does die; that when he is dead he is wholly unconscious, and that all prospect of future existence depends upon an affirmative answer, from the word of God, to the question as to whether he shall live again. In Job 14:14 is written the question to which we have here referred: “If a man die, shall he live again?” And in Isaiah 26:19 we have the direct answer to the question: “Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise, Awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead.”SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.2

    The only hope of future life which the word of God presents is in the resurrection of the dead. This is the hope of the righteous, it is the Christian’s hope. Paul, in discussing this subject of the resurrection of the dead, proves first that Christ is risen, and then says: “Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen; and if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:12-14. It is evident that there were some at Corinth, even as there are some now, who professed to believe in Christ and at the same time believe not in the resurrection of the dead. But Paul settles that at once by saying, “If there be no resurrection of the dead,” your faith in Christ is vain. This proves plainly that our hope and faith in Christ meets its fruition only at and by the resurrection of the dead.SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.3

    This is so important that the Spirit of God, by the apostle, repeats it. Again he says: “If the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised; and if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” Here it is declared that to deny the resurrection of the dead, is to deny the resurrection of Christ, is to leave the professed believer yet in his sins, and so is to subvert the gospel and the salvation of Christ. This is followed by another most important conclusion, and that is, If the dead rise not, “then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.” It would be impossible to more forcibly show that all hope of future life depends upon the resurrection of the dead. If there be no resurrection of the dead, then the dead are perished. And this is stated, not of the wicked dead, but of the righteous dead, “they also which are fallen asleep in Christ,” even these have perished if there be no resurrection of the dead. In verse 32, this is repeated in another form: “If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.4

    Such argument as that is very seldom heard in these our days. Now the argument is, What advantageth it us to practice the life of Christian self-denial, if the soul be not immortal? What advantageth it us to do these things if we do not go to Heaven when we die? And so it is sung,—SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.5

    “Oh, you must be a lover of the Lord,SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.6

    Or you can’t go to Heaven when you die.”SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.7

    The truth is, that though you be a lover of the Lord, you can’t go to Heaven when you die, but you can go at the resurrection of the dead. And that is at the coming of the Lord. For so it is written: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.” Verses 22, 23. “For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. “So,” means “in this manner.” In this manner it is that we go to Heaven. In this manner we meet the Lord.SITI December 2, 1886, page 728.8

    The hope of life by Christ, at the resurrection of the dead, is the hope in which Paul lived, the hope in which he exercised himself, the hope which he preached. When he stood before the council, he said: “I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” Acts 23:6. And afterward, when he answered his accusers before Felix, he said: I “have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.... Let these same here say, if they have found any evil doing in me, while I stood before the council, except it be for this one voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you this day.” Acts 24:15-21. Again, when he stood before Agrippa, he said: “And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Acts 26:6-8.SITI December 2, 1886, page 729.1

    Now put these things together: (a) He stood and was judged for the hope of the promise made of God. (b) This was the promise made unto the fathers. (c) Unto this promise the twelve tribes—all Israel—hope to come. (d) For this hope he was accused of the Jews. (e) But he was accused—called in question—of the Jews, “touching the resurrection of the dead.” (f) Therefore the hope of the promise of God, made unto the fathers, is the hope of the promise of the resurrection of the dead. (g) This is made emphatic by his question to Agrippa, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” When Paul was at Athens “he preached unto them Jesus and the resurrection.” Acts 17:18.SITI December 2, 1886, page 729.2

    Therefore it is plainly proven that the hope which God has set before us in Christ and his blessed gospel, is the hope of a resurrection from the dead unto everlasting life and eternal glory. And as this resurrection all depends upon the glorious appearing of our Saviour, therefore the second coming of our Saviour is inseparably connected with this the Christian’s “blessed hope.” Thus saith the Lord: “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2:11-13.SITI December 2, 1886, page 729.3

    This is that for which Job looked. He says: “All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come.” Job 14:14. This change is at the resurrection, for says Paul, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump.” 1 Corinthians 15:51, 52. Again says Job: “If I wait, the grave is mind house; I have made my bed in the darkness.... And where is now my hope?” Chap. 17:14-15. Here it is: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God, whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not a stranger. My reins within me are consumed with earnest desire for that day.” Chap. 19:25-27, margin.SITI December 2, 1886, page 729.4

    Time and space would fail us to quote the words of this hope, expressed by David, and Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and Daniel, and Hosea, and Micah, and all the prophets and apostles. We can only cite again the words that this is the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, unto which promise we instantly serving God day and night hope to come. Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should raise the dead? The righteous dead shall live again, at the coming of the Lord, and therefore we look and anxiously wait for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus. Like faithful Job, our reins within us are consumed with earnest desire for that glorious day. And as He assures us, “Surely I come quickly,” our hearts reply, “Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”SITI December 2, 1886, page 729.5


    Larger font
    Smaller font