IN 1056 Henry III. died and was succeeded by his son Henry, six years old, but who had already, at the age of four years, been crowned King Henry IV. of Germany. He was under guardianship till he was fifteen years old, 1065, when he assumed the duties of government, and from that time till his death, forty-one years, between the fierce arrogance of the Papacy and the ambitious jealousies of his own subject nobles, he never knew peace. He it was who waged the memorable contest with Hildebrand; during his reign was the first crusade, 1095; and he made Welf (or Guelf, or Guelph) of Altdorf in Suabia, duke of Bavaria.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.1

Henry IV. died in 1106 and was succeeded by his son Henry V. War with the Papacy was renewed, in which Henry’s chief friends were two Swabian princes of the Hohenstaufen family, Frederick and Conrad. Frederick had been made duke of Swabia by Henry IV., and now by Henry V. Conrad was made duke of Franconia, which had been directly attached to the crown since the time of Otto I. Henry V. was succeeded in 1125 by Lothair, duke of Saxony, and when he received the imperial crown, Innocent II. claimed that he did so as the vassal of the Pope. Lothair was succeeded in 1137 by the above Conrad, the Swabian duke of Franconia, who became Conrad III.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.2

With Conrad III. began the reign of the House of Swabia or Hohenstaufen which continued one hundred and seventeen years, and was the most glorious age of the medieval history of Germany. In 1116 went forth the second crusade headed by the Emperor Conrad, and Louis VII. of France. Conrad died in 1152, when Germany passed under the rule of one of the greatest sovereigns she ever had—Frederick Barbarossa, duke of Swabia—who reigned thirty-eight years.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.3

Here we must notice the rise of another Swabian family which has had a notable course in history, and which is inseparably connected with the reign of Frederick Barbarossa. Henry IV. made Welf, or Guelf, of Swabia, duke of Bavaria. He was succeeded in the duchy of Bavaria by his son Henry the Proud, who was also invested with the duchy of Saxony. Henry the Proud rebelled against Conrad III. whereupon both his duchies were declared forfeited; Saxony was granted to Albert the Bear, a Saxon noble, and Bavaria fell to Leopold, margrave of Austria. Henry the Proud suddenly died, and his brother, duke Welf, continued the contest for his duchies. Welf, hoping to succeed Leopold in the margraviate, consented to a compromise by which Saxony, with the assent of Albert the Bear, was granted to Henry the Lion, the son of Henry the Proud. Instead, however, of the margraviate of Austria being given to Welf, it passed, in the end, to Henry Jasomirgott. Welf for years contended with his rival, but without avail, for Henry the Lion finally, at the head of an army, laid claim to Bavaria as his, by right of inheritance from his father, Henry the Proud. Frederick Barbarossa was, through his mother, allied to the Welfs, and he, having a personal regard for Henry the Lion, began his reign by promising to secure for Henry the duchy of Bavaria. The margrave Jasonirgott however persistently refused to give it up, till at last in 1156 Frederick detached the march of Austria from Bavaria, made it a duchy with special privileges, and bestowed it on the stubborn margrave. This honor contented Jasonirgott, and left Frederick free to fulfill his promise to Henry the Lion, and so Henry received his paternal duchy of Bavaria, in addition to the duchy of Saxony which he already held. And from this Swabian—Alemannian—House of Welf, or Guelph, is descended in direct line through Henry the Proud and Henry the Lion, the House of Hanover which has ruled England from George I.—August 1, 1714—to the present Victoria “Regina Dei gracia.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.4

Frederick Barbarossa received the German crown at Aix-la-Chapelle, March 9, 1152. In October, 1154, he descended to Italy and assumed the iron crown of Lombardy. Then “after apprehending Arnold of Brecia, as an earnest of his purpose to support the Papal cause” he was crowned Emperor, by Pope Adrian VI., June 18, 1155. From this time onward till 1186 the reign of Frederick was little else than a long contest with the Lombard cities and with the Popes. By his marriage with Beatrice, daughter of the Count of Upper Burgundy, he added that province to the kingdom of Burgundy and to the empire. He thus reasserted the imperial authority in Burgundy and received the homage of the Burgundian nobles.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.5

Having at last, brought these struggles to an honorable close, he started in 1187 for Palestine at the head of the third crusade, but was drowned while crossing a small river in Pisidia, June 10, 1190.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.6

Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry VI., and was crowned emperor by Celestine III., March 31, 1191. Richard I., of England—Cur de Lion—as he was on his way home from the third crusade, had been arrested by the duke of Austria, December 21, 1192, and in the following March was surrendered to the Emperor Henry who imprisoned him. To regain his liberty Richard was compelled to resign his crown to the emperor as overlord of Christendom, and receive it back as a vassal of the emperor, and to pay a ransom of 150,000 marks. But with all this humiliation he was not released till about the first of March, 1191. With the money that was paid for Richard’s ransom, the emperor was enabled to fit out a fine army, with which he succeeded in conquering the Saracen kingdom of Sicily. So great was the authority which he acquired that it is supposed to be almost certain that had he lived a little longer he would have achieved his great ambition of having the crown declared hereditary in his family. But this aspiration was quenched by his death in 1197. In his reign about 1195 began the fourth crusade.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.7

Upon Henry’s death there was a double election. Philip, Henry’s son, was favored by a large majority of the princes; while his opponents pitched upon Otto, son of Henry the Lion. There was no show for Otto, however, had not Innocent III. cast all the influence of the Papacy, which at this time was absolute, into the scale in his favor. Even with the help of the Pope, Otto’s success was exceedingly doubtful until Philip was murdered, in 1208. This of course put a stop to the war, and Otto IV. was crowned Emperor. As soon as Otto had been made emperor, he violated all the pledges he had made to the Pope for the Pontiff’s favor, and began to act as an independent sovereign. This was what no sovereign could be suffered to do while Innocent III. was Pope. He accordingly played off against Otto, Frederick the son of Henry VI. Otto, thinking to injure Frederick’s chances by striking at the Pope, went to the support of John of England against Philip Augustus of France, but a the battle of Bouvines, July 27, 1214, he met a crushing defeat, and fled, a ruined man. He retired to his hereditary possession, the principality of Brunswick, and apart from that had no more place in history, while Frederick II. “ascended the marble throne of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and received the silver crown” of Germany, July 1215, and November 22, 1220, received at Rome, from the hands of Pope Honorius IV., the golden crown of the empire.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.8

In the estimation of his contemporaries, Frederick II. was “the wonder of the world.” Though perhaps not the strongest in all respects, he was the most brilliant, of the German kings. In the beginning of his public career, in 1208, at the age of fifteen, he possessed but the crown of Sicily, and at his death, December 13, 1250, the splendor of his position was such that it has never been surpassed in addition to his original and inherited crown of Sicily, the crown of Sardinia, the crown of Burgundy, the iron crown of Lombardy, the silver crown of Germany, the golden crown of the empire, and last, but in that age the most glorious of all, the crown of Jerusalem, with which he with his own hands had crowned himself at his recovery of the holy city from the Saracens and its restoration to the church. In 1245, July 17, he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. When he heard of it he laughed, and said:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.9

“‘Has the Pope deposed me? Bring me my crowns that I may see of what I am deprived.’ Then seven crowns were brought him—the royal crown of Germany, the imperial diadem of Rome, the iron circlet of Lombardy, the crowns of Sicily, Burgundy, Sardinia, and Jerusalem. He put them on his head one after another, and said, ‘I have them still, and none shall rob me of them without hard battle.’”—The Story of the Nations, Germany, chap. 21, par. 8.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.10

But though Frederick feared not the excommunication of the Pope, the effect of such a thing was always to turn loose the elements of violence among men, and especially in Germany. Of that time, an old historian says: “After the Emperor Frederick was put under the ban, the robbers rejoiced over their spoils. Then were the plowshares beaten into swords, and the reaping hooks into lances. No one went anywhere without steel and stone, to set in blaze whatever he could fire.”—Id., par. 9.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.11

During the reign of Frederick II. the conquest of Prussia was begun, A.D. 1230, under the leadership of the Knights of the Teutonic Order, who “after half a century of hard fighting, found themselves masters of the entire country.” Also, in the beginning of his reign the fifth crusade was proclaimed by Innocent III., 1198, and went forth in 1201.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.12

Frederick II. died February 13, 1250, and was succeeded by his son, Conrad IV., who reigned only four years, and such was the condition of the empire through the contending factions of Germany and the intrigues of the Pope that he was never actually crowned Emperor. He died in 1254 and with him ended the line of Hohenstaufen emperors, whose rule formed the age “most interesting in the medieval history of Germany.” “Women never held a higher place, nor, on the whole, did they ever respond more nobly to the honors freely lavished upon them.” “The problems of government were seen in new lights, partly from the study of Roman law which passed from Italy to Germany, partly from the summaries of native custom in the ‘Sachsenspiegel’ [Saxon law] and ‘Schwabenspiegel’ [Swabian—Alemannian—law]. Altogether, Germany has seen no more fascinating epoch, none more full of life, movement, and color.”—Encyc. Brit., art. Germany.SITI December 16, 1886, page 756.13

(To be continued.)

“The International Sunday-School Lessons for 1887” The Signs of the Times 12, 48, pp. 758, 759.

THE International Sunday-school Lessons for the first six months of 1887 are in Genesis and Exodus, ending with the ten commandments—Exodus 20. We are glad to see so much of the year given to the study of this portion of the Scripture. And yet we feel well assured that if the lessons are studied according to the guidance of the official “Select Notes” put forth by the Messrs. Peloubet, they will be studied to very little purpose, if indeed to any purpose at all except that of infidelity.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.1

These “Select Notes” are a kind of commentary gotten up by the “Rev. F. N. Peloubet, D.D., and M. A. Peloubet.” The Scripture that contains the lesson is printed in both the Old and the Revised Version, and then accompanying this are notes of their own with many others selected from all sources which they approve; and are intended to be made the guide especially to the teachers of the International Lessons in the Sunday-schools. These notes perhaps more largely than any other helps, are used in the Sunday-schools throughout the country. And than these notes, no better evidence is needed to show how thoroughly the modern “scientific theories” pervade the theology of all the Protestant churches.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.2

All the so-called scientific theories, even to evolution itself, of the creation, and of man, of the flood and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, are here freely admitted if not directly taught. Everything must be made to conform to what “science” says. All must agree with the decisions of “science.” “Science” is the standard by which all must be tested, and if it agrees with “science” that is evidence conclusive that the word is inspired. All this, however, is just the reverse of the true position. The true position is that the word of the Bible is true; that it is given by inspiration of God. That is the sole unerring standard. If scientific deductions agree with the Bible upon matters of which it speaks, it is well; if these deductions do not so agree then the deductions are wrong, that is all, and they, not the Bible, must be revised; they, and not the words of the Bible, must yield, or be re-stated.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.3

In these “Select Notes” on the creation, we read:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.4

“God may have made use of second causes, as, ‘Let the waters bring forth.’ ‘Let the earth bring forth.’ This does not decide the question of the truth of the development theory or of evolution, but shows that God had a plan of development in his own mind, or made creation so that, under is control, it unfolds as an acorn unfolds into an oak. God states the fact that he created all things; he does not state how he created them. God makes a tree as really when it grows in the field as if he had sent it ready made from Heaven. Let scientists discover how.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.5

Very well but has science discovered how? Can science tell how a tree grows in the field? If God should send a tree ready made from Heaven, and should set it right alongside of one that had grown in the field, we should very much like to see the scientist who could tell how the one came any more than the other. There is not a scientist in all the world who can tell that thing, and there never can be one. For the simple truth is that he would have to be equal to God to do it. All this technicality, this shifting of changes, upon the point that God states that he created all, but does not tell how is a sheer contrivance to save appearances. Those who use it are so far advanced in the “advanced science,” and the “advanced theology” of the day, that even the appearance of believing the Scriptures can be kept up in no other way.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.6

Suppose the Creator, beside telling us that he did create the oak, had also chosen to tell us how he did it. Suppose he had told us that he placed an acorn in the earth, that the earth was wet, that then he caused the sun to shine upon it, that the acorn sprouted and took root and grew and became an oak. Would that help the matter a particle? Would not the question still be, How? Still the scientific doubter would say: “God states the fact that he did thus and so, but he does not state how he did it. He states the fact that he placed the acorn in the earth, but he does not state how he did it; he states the fact that he caused the sun to shine upon it, but he does not state how; he states the fact that the acorn sprouted, but he does not tell how; he states the fact that the acorn took root and grew, but he does not state how. Let scientists discover how.” But for scientists to discover how the oak came from the acorn is not enough. They must then discover how came the acorn. If God should state the fact that he created it, still the advanced science doubter would say, “True, God states the fact that he created it, he does not state how he created it. Let scientists discover how.” But can scientists discover how? We have never yet seen or heard of the scientist who had discovered which was first, the acorn or the oak. We wish Mr. Peloubet or some one else would give us “the latest assured verdict of science” on this point. Then we shall ask them how it was first, and how it was at all. Then, too, it will be time enough for them to tell how.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.7

The truth is that the Creator, in stating the fact that he created all things, has told all that can be told on the subject. At the point of creation we touch the infinite, and the finite cannot fathom it. There is one way and only one in which the finite can get beyond that word “how.” That only way is by faith. For thus saith the Lord: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” Hebrews 11:3. It is by faith alone that we can understand the creation of God. Faith alone can connect the finite with the infinite. Mark it, “The things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” “The worlds were framed by the word of God.” “He spake and it was; he commanded and it stood fast.” And “through faith we understand” it.SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.8

Again says the Select Notes:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.9

“If it should be proved that the theory of evolution is true to a large extent (not evolution instead of God, but evolution under God’s control with God as Creator and Guide of all), the story of creation as told in Genesis would not be inharmonious with such evolution.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 758.10

But “the latest assured verdict of science” is that “the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation.” Now if Mr. Peloubet or any of the teachers of the International Lessons can explain just how the story of creation in Genesis would not be inharmonious with such evolution; that is, if he can tell just how that story can be in harmony with a theory that is directly antagonistic to it, we should like very much to see how it can be done. Have scientists yet discovered how this can be?SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.1

Again we read:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.2

“That the DAYS are not days of twenty-four hours, is clearly seen by the use of the word in these chapters. It is used of three days before there could have been any such days, as the sun did not appear till the fourth day.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.3

Is it one of “the latest assured verdicts of science” that the earth did not rotate on its axis till the fourth day? If the earth did rotate, did it not do so once in twenty-four hours, as it still does; or did it then go so slow that it took it ages upon ages to make one rotation? The latter cannot be so, as we believe that it is “the latest assured verdict of science” that it is entirely to its rotary motion that the earth owes its oblate-spheroidal form. If that motion had been so slow as to consume ages in turning once then the earth would not be the shape that it is. But instead of the rotation being then so slow, it is the “assured verdict of science” that “one hundred million years ago” the rotary motion of the earth was actually nearly three-quarters of an hour faster than is now is. Therefore “the latest assured verdicts of science” prove that the days of creation were not more than twenty-four hours long.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.4

As to there being any difference in the days before and after the sun shone on the earth, there was none. The first day, “God said, Let there be light. And there was light.” “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening [the darkness and the morning] the light were the first day.” And so it was the first day, and the second day, and so it has been every other day, and so it is now. Causing the sun to shine did not make the day. God made the day—the light—the first day. Thus day was upon the earth before the sun shone on the earth, and then when God made the greater light, it was to rule—not make—the day. Genesis 1:16. It is singular that the advanced theology has not found out that there was light on the first day and that God called that light Day.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.5

Again says Mr. Peloubet, of the creation of man:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.6

“If the theory of evolution, believed by so many scientific men, should prove to be true so far as relates to man’s body, and it should be shown (though it has not been proved as yet) that the physical man was developed from monkeys and the lower order of animal life, yet that would not contradict the statement that man was made from the dust of the earth. It would only explain how he was made of the dust—an explanation which the Bible nowhere gives, but leaves men to discover.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.7

But the extreme height of this theologico-scientific nonsense and absurdity, is reached when he comes in his select notes to the creation of woman. He says:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.8

“Woman was created from man by taking a rib (not merely the bone, but a piece of the side), and forming it into a woman. This is strictly in accordance with the processes of life as revealed by modern scientific research.... God chose the only method in existence among his creatures which the nature of the case rendered possible.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.9

So then this “method” was already “in existence among his creatures” was it? It is a great comfort, however, to know that science has kindly left us the privilege of thinking that the Creator was wise enough to choose “the only method” “which the nature of the case rendered possible.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.10

Again:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.11

“So from a portion of Adam made He a woman. A miracle, indeed (as all creations are miracles), but a miracle conforming, as far as the conditions admitted, to methods already in use.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.12

“Methods already in use”! By whom, we should like to know. Was that the “method already in use” in the making of women, before ever there was a woman made? Was that “the method already in use” in the making of women, before God made the woman? If so who made them? and if so, then where was the miracle?SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.13

And this is the stuff that the children are to be taught in the Sunday-schools throughout the land! This is the way that faith in God and respect for his word are to be implanted in the minds and hearts of the young! And this is to be called Christianity! Parents, is it so that such senseless jargon as this shall be taught to your children as the word of God? Is this the way that they are to be taught to remember their Creator in the days of their youth?SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.14

That such things as these should be put forth to be taught, yea, as part and parcel of the essential teaching, in the Sunday-schools throughout the English speaking world, is, to him who respects the Bible as the word of God, a most startling thing. For it shows how all-pervading this scientific infidelity has become. For infidelity it is and nothing else. If it is not, then there is no such thing as infidelity. If these things can be held consistently with sound belief in Christianity and the Bible as the word of God, then there is no such things as unbelief. If this be faith there can be no such thing as doubt.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.15

“Keep that which is committed to thy truth, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Timothy 6:20, 21. “When the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?” For “through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.16

“Impressions of the Sunday Law Convention” The Signs of the Times 12, 48, pp. 759, 760.

THE first and perhaps the most notable thing about the Convention, that would be noticed by a looker-on, was the perfect confusion of ideas as to what was really wanted. This will be plainly seen by the report which we have already given our readers. It is true that there was perfect unanimity on the point that there should be a law demanded of the Legislature, but that was the only single thing upon which there was any real agreement.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.1

With some, nothing but a Sunday law would do; with others, nothing but a Sabbath law would answer. With some, it must be a civil Sabbath law; with others, a religious Sabbath law. With some, it must be a civil Sunday law; with others, a religious Sunday law. With some, it was a Christian Sunday that was wanted; with others, a Christian Sabbath. With some, it was a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, and a religious Sabbath law that must be had, and they were ready to go to the Legislature upon that basis; but these were very few. While with others, and these the great majority, it was a religious Sunday law or a religious Sabbath law that was wanted, but at the same time it was naively argued that to go to the Legislature with such a request would be all in vain, for the Legislature would not act upon any question of a religious nature; therefore, to get what they wanted, they must ask only for a civil Sunday law.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.2

It was upon this last point that the discussion and the action of the Convention culminated. And by this action, there was irresistibly forced upon the mind of an observer a strong impression of the insincerity of the great majority of the members of the Sunday-law Convention. The course of the discussion and this culminating action show that the majority of the members of that Convention are willing to cover up the real purpose which they have in view, and to deliberately go to the Legislature of California under a false pretense. They show that while a religious law, and nothing else, is what they want, yet, as to openly ask the Legislature for that would be fruitless, they propose to obtain what they want—a religious Sunday law—by getting the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law. That is, they will have the Legislature to pass a civil Sunday law and then they will enforce it as a religious Sunday law. In other words, they propose to hoodwind the Legislature of California. We hardly think they will succeed.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.3

Another evidence of this insincerity was the ringing of the now familiar changes upon the “workingman.” One had very great sympathy for the “toiling multitudes.” Another was the “friend of the workingman,” and “if any people are the friends of the workingman, they are the ministers.” And yet not one of them was there as the representative of the workingman, nor was it the needs of the workingman upon which the call of the Convention was based. When that which gave rise to the calling of the Convention was officially stated, it was that “the Christian people of Sacramento had been disturbed in their worship, and their religious feelings had been outraged by the disregard of the Sabbath; the matter had come before the Pastors’ Conference; a correspondence opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law; and accordingly the presence Convention had been called.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.4

It was that “the Christian people” had been disturbed in their “worship,” and not that the workingmen had been deprived of their rest; it was that the “religious feelings” of “the Christian people” had been outraged, and not that the workingman had been oppressed, nor that his feelings had been outraged; it was with the “divines,” and not with the workingmen throughout the State that a correspondence had been opened; it was these considerations and not the needs of the workingman that formed the basis of the call for the Convention. And yet in the face of these definite statements, some of these “divines” would get up in the Convention, and fish for the favor and try to catch the ear of the workingman, by trying to make it appear that they came there as “the friends of the workingman.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.5

And, too, just thing of a lot of “divines” called in general convention to secure the enactment of a Sunday law to protect the “worship” and the “religious feelings” of “Christian people;” and then to fulfill the purpose, and to attain to the object of that call, they, in convention assembled, unanimously decide to go up to the Legislature and demurely ask for a law entirely civil! And why is this? Why could they not go to the Legislature in the name of that purpose for which they were called? Oh, that would never do! For if the word “civil” be stricken out, “you cannot reach the Legislature.” Therefore just put in the word “civil” and the purpose of the Convention will be accomplished, for we will get all we want and the Legislature will not know it. If those worthy “divines” think the Legislature of California is so exceedingly verdant as not to be able to see through that piece of wire-work, we rather think they will find themselves mistaken.SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.6

The demand of these “Christian people” for a Sunday law, because their worship was disturbed, is just as hollow a pretense as is any other part of their scheme. For if their worship was really disturbed, they have already a sufficient resource. For the protection of religious worship from disturbance, the statutes of California make provision that ought to satisfy any ordinary mortal. Section 302 of the Penal Code of California reads as follows:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.7

“Every person who willfully disturbs or disquiets any assemblage of people met for religious worship by noise, profane discourse, rude or indecent behavior, or by any unnecessary noise either within the place where such meeting is held, or so near as to disturb the order and solemnity of the meeting, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 759.8

And such misdemeanor is punishable by “imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or both.”—Id., sec. 19.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.1

Are not six months in jail and a fine of five hundred collars a sufficient punishment for the disturbance of worship? Or is this penalty so insignificant that these “divines” and “Christian people” disdain to inflict so light a punishment and therefore demand a Sunday law to make the punishment heavier? But if the present penalty is insufficient to properly punish those who disturb their worship, then what will satisfy these “divines”? Where the State chastises with ships, do they want to chastise with scorpions? Do they want to imprison a man for life and mulet him of all his property for disturbing (?) their worship by working on Sunday on his farm, in his shop or garden, far away from any place of worship? We firmly believe that if the truth were told it would appear that it is not their worship at all, but their doctrine that has been disturbed.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.2

Just a word more on their pretended friendship for the workingman. We freely hazard the opinion that if they should obtain the “civil” Sunday law which they seek, then the poor workingman, who, to support his needy family, should work on Sunday, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We venture this opinion because of facts of which we know. In Tennessee there are lying in prison to-day, honest, hard-working men, whose families are dependent upon their daily labor, and these men are in that prison for working on Sunday to obtain the necessary means to support their families, and while they are in prison their families are in want, and have to be supported by the charity of Christian friends. That is the kind of friendship for the workingman that is shown in the enactment of these “civil” Sunday laws. And if the people of California want to see the same thing repeated in this State, then just let them allow these “divines” to secure the enactment of the “civil” Sunday law that they want. Then may be seen exemplified here this solicitous friendship for the workingmen.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.3

One of the leading members of the Convention remarked that he had “been in politics long enough to know that legislators keep their finger on the public pulse, and that they generally give what the people want.” From our observations in the Convention, of the speeches, and of its workings, we are prepared to give it as our private opinion, publicly expressed, that the most of the members of the Convention have been in politics long enough to know a good deal about the ways and means by which politicians too often compass their ends.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.4

“Justice is Gone Away Backward” The Signs of the Times 12, 48, p. 760.

AFTER a long, careful, and fair trial, those murderous Anarchists and Socialists of Chicago were found guilty of murder and justly condemned to be hanged December 3. Since their condemnation, as well as before, every trick that is know to the tricky lawyers has been employed to deliver them from the consequences of their crime. Not only this, but Labor Unions in different parts of the country have sent petitions in favor of the criminals, and appeals have come all the way from France, in their behalf. Politicians interested themselves in the case, and an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court has finally been secured, and that the Supreme Court may hear and pass upon that arguments, a respite has been granted until March. It is now seriously doubted whether the murderers will receive any punishment at all or not. The Chicago correspondent of the Christian Union says:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.1

“It now becomes a matter of grave doubt whether the Anarchists will receive any further punishment at all. The stay of proceedings granted by Justice Scott does not necessarily set aside permanently the decision of the lower court, but it increases the probability that some way fill be found, for political purposes, if for no other, to mitigate the sentences pronounced against Spics, Parsons, and their associates. It is commonly thought that our Mayor and our city officials generally are in favor of the respite, and would not be sorry to have the proceedings of the lower court permanently set aside.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.2

When such a terrible crime as that committed by these men finds such ready sympathy by so many Orders throughout the country, and in foreign lands, by lawyers, by politicians, and by the officials, even to the mayor, of a great city like Chicago, it shows a fearful condition of society. When the protection of criminals and the promotion of crime become essential to political preference, then Government is on the verge of ruin. And when the most influentially religious portion of society forms an alliance with this non-religious portions, as it actually proposes to do, and as it inevitably will do, then the fearful climax is reached and society itself is ready for disintegration. This know also that these are now the last days and perilous times have come. 2 Timothy 3:1-5.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.3

“The Latest Sunday Alliance” The Signs of the Times 12, 48, p. 760.

THE Sunday law question is springing up almost everywhere. We have reported the movement in California, and in the South. But like movements are going on in both the East and the middle West, only that there the question is on enforcing the laws already on the statute books, while in California it is to get a strict penal statute that may be enforced. In Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and other cities in the East, in La Crosse, Wisconsin, and other cities in the West, the laws are being enforced. In Boston and some places in the West it is by the liquor dealers. In Philadelphia, it is by the “Law and Order League” and the “Sabbath Association;” in Reading, Pa., and Worcester, Mass., it is by the barbers’ association of the Knights of Labor. In La Crosse, Wis., it is by the Norwegian population. In New York City it is by the Central Labor Union, “a radically Socialistic organization.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.1

The Christian Union reports a like movement going on in Great Britain; this also represented by the Labor Unions. Likewise in Germany and in France. Says the Union: “A strong and apparently hopeful attempt is being made to secure the enforcement by law” of Sunday observance, “not on religious but on Socialistic grounds.” And then the Union most meaningly says:—SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.2

“It is very clear that if our Sabbath [Sunday, of course] is to be preserved at all—and we are sanguine of its preservation—the non-religious sentiment of the country must be brought in to re-inforce the religious demand for Sabbath [Sunday] rest, and it is increasingly evident that this is entirely particable. And, curiously, what renders this practicable is that horrid ‘Socialism’ which keeps some good people lying awake o’ nights in fear and trembling. One of the Sabbath Committee in Philadelphia is, indeed, represented as relying ‘upon the law of the Sabbath as promulgated by the Creator.’ But the majority of Americans, including a large proportion of those who are most desirous of preserving the Sabbath, will never consent to see a purely religious obligation enforced by civil penalties. On the other hand, pure individualism affords an entirely adequate legal basis for anything like adequate Sabbath legislation.... Modern, and, if our readers please so to regard it, Socialistic political economy ... holds that the community has a right to act as a unit; .. it has a right to fix upon a legal holiday or an eight-hour standard for the normal labor day—if it judge this best. In short, no eight-hour man can consistently deny the right of society to maintain a Sabbath by legal provisions; and ... no advocate of Sabbath laws, unless he maintains the right of the State to establish a purely religious observance, can consistently deny the right of the community to fix a normal labor day.... And Christian Socialism finds a place for both.”SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.3

In this extract is clearly marked out the course which the Sunday cause will pursue. The religious sentiment and demand will be re-enforced by the non-religious. So-called Christianity will ally itself with Socialism to get the support of the Socialists in preserving the so-called Christian Sabbath. And by such shameful alliances as these the wicked scheme of a National Sunday law will surely succeed and persecution under it will surely follow. For when a religious element to compass its ends has to ally itself with the non-religious element, then the whole body becomes most basely corrupt and pure religion is persecuted to the death. How much more surely will this be so when, as in this impending evil, the alliance is formed with the very basest element of human society—the Socialistic. And to make the thing the more attractive to this element, the shamefully abused term “Christian” is blended with the terrible title “Socialism,” and so there is introduced to the world the new phrase, “Christian Socialism,” which is just as congruous as is the phrase “Holy Inquisition,” and no more so. And we are very sure that the outcome will yet demonstrate that the real meanings that underlie the two incongruous phrases are very nearly identical. When a religious element to preserve its religion is forced to ally itself with the non-religious, then such religion is not worth preserving. And when a professed Christianity becomes so lost to all the vital power of real Christianity that it becomes essential to its preservation that it shall ally itself with Socialism, this of itself is proof that such Christianity is no better than such Socialism, and the sooner it should perish the better would it be for the world. As Christianity is the greatest blessing the world has ever known, so such perversion of Christianity becomes the worst bane the human race can know. Thus has it ever been. Thus only can it ever be.SITI December 16, 1886, page 760.4

December 9, 1886

December 23, 1886