Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    December 9, 1886

    “The Ten Kingdoms in the Dark Ages. The Alemanni. (Continued.)” The Signs of the Times 12, 47, p. 740.
    THE ALEMANNI

    (Continued.)

    IN the treaty of Verdun, 843, it will be remembered Louis the German received the whole of Germany east of the Rhine. And as he was the first sovereign who ruled over the Germans, and over no other western people, he is considered in history as the founder of the kingdom of Germany. At his death his son Charles the Fat received from him, Swabia—Alemannia—and, as before shown, by the death of his two brothers Charles inherited all Germany, was made emperor, and by invitation assumed the sovereignty of France, but was deposed, and Arnulf, his nephew, chosen king of Germany in his place. Arnulf, like Charles the Fat, went to Rome and was crowned emperor. He returned and in 890 inflicted such a defeat upon the Northmen that “they never again returned in such numbers as to be a national peril.” Arnulf died in 899 and was succeeded by his son Louis the Child, six years old, who nominally reigned till 911. His reign was one of the darkest periods of German history. For as soon as the Magyars—Hungarians—heard that Arnulf had been succeeded by a child, “they swept into Germany in vast numbers, and fearful was the havoc they caused in every part of the kingdom.” “Where the Northmen had whipped with cords, these barbarians lased with scorpions.” And there was no leader around whom the nation could rally. At this time and for about three hundred years Germany consisted of five duchies,—Swabia, Bavaria, Franconia, Saxony, and Lorraine.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.1

    Louis the Child died in 911. Even while he lived, the dukes were virtually kings in their duchies; and when he died they could have been altogether kings, but the dangers threatened by the Magyars, the Slavs, and the Northmen, obliged them to form a central government for the common defense. Accordingly, the nobles assembled at Foreheim, and by the advice of Otto, the duke of Saxony, Conrad, duke of Franconia, was made king. But his election displeased the dukes of Bavaria, Swabia, and Lorraine. The duke of Lorraine rebelled outright. Those of Bavaria and Swabia yielded, but the bishops, jealous of their power, induced Conrad to force a quarrel with these as also with Henry, duke of Saxony. This fairly created an anarchy all his days, but on his death-bed, 918, he recommended that Henry of Saxony be chosen king in his stead.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.2

    With Henry began the rule of the House of Saxony which continued one hundred and six years, 918-1024, through Henry I., Otto I., Otto II., Otto III., and Henry II. Henry I. delivered Germany from the scourge of the Magyars and so thoroughly restored peace and order throughout the dominion that when he died, 936, “every land inhabited by a German population formed part of the kingdom, and none of the duchies were at war with each other nor among themselves.” Before his death the nobles had, in national assembly, promised Henry that his son Otto should be recognized as his successor, and the promise was kept. Otto I. the Great reigned from 936-973. His half-brother, however, raised a rebellion and was joined by the dukes of Franconia and Bavaria. But by the help of the duke of Swabia the rising was put down. A second rebellion was led by Otto’s brother, helped by the dukes of Franconia and Lorraine. This, too, was quelled to the immense advantage of Otto.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.3

    Having secured peace in Germany, and made himself master of the kingdom, as none of his immediate predecessors had been, Otto was by far the greatest sovereign in Europe. But not content with this, he decided to take a step that caused Germany ages of trouble—he put himself into the hands of the Pope and became the “protector of the church.” The way it was brought about was this: Adelaide, the young widow of Lothair, the son of King Hugh of Provence—Burgundy—had refused to marry the son of Berengar, king of Lombardy. For this she was cast into prison and cruelly treated. She appealed to Otto. Her appeal not only touched his sympathies, but aroused a strong ambition, for he saw the way thus opened to imperial authority. At the head of a strong forced he crossed the Alps in 951. He displaced Berengar and assumed, himself, the title of King of Italy. Besides this, he was so fascinated by young Queen Adelaide that in a few weeks he married her. His son Ludolf thought his rights threatened by this marriage, returned sullenly to Germany, and with the archbishop of Mainz formed a conspiracy against his father. Otto, hearing of their plot, hastened home, leaving Duke Conrad of Lorraine to attend to affairs in Italy. But Conrad restored the crown to Berengar, and returned to Germany and joined the conspiracy of Ludolf and the archbishop. War broke out. The majority of the kingdom were indeed opposed to Otto, being displeased with his ambitious designs in Italy. But Conrad and Ludolf basely invited in the terrible Magyars, which so disgusted the Germans that the whole nation with one consent rallied to the support of Otto. At the battle of Lechfeld, 955, Conrad was slain and the Magyars received such an overwhelming defeat that the deliverance of Germany was complete. From that time the Magyars began to settle, and “adapt themselves to the conditions of civilized life in the country which they now occupy,” and so arose the kingdom of Hungary.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.4

    Meantime Berengar and his son Adelbert had laid such exorbitant taxes, and had made themselves so tyrannical in Italy, that an embassy was sent by the most of the bishops and princes, as well as the Pope, imploring Otto to come again and deliver them. The Pope at this time was John XII., to whom as such we shall pay our respects in another place. The legates of the Pope “were enjoined to offer the imperial crown to the king of Germany, provided he drove out the tyrants, and delivered the most of all churches from the miseries she groaned under and could no longer bear.”—Bower’s Popes, John XII. At this Otto went a second time into Italy, in 962, and was crowned emperor by the Pope.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.5

    “The emperor, at the request of the Pope, promised upon oath to defend the Roman Church against all her enemies; to maintain her in the quiet possession of all the privileges she had enjoyed to that time; to restore to the Holy See the lands and possessions that belonged to St. Peter, as soon as he recovered them; to assist the Pope to the utmost of his power when assistance was wanted; and lastly to make no alteration in the government of Rome without his knowledge or approbation. At the same time the emperor confirmed all the grants of Pepin and Charlemagne; but obliged in his turn the Pope and the Romans to swear obedience to him, and promise upon oath to lend no kind of assistance to Berengar or to his son Adelbert, from whose tyranny he was come to deliver.”—Id.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.6

    Thus was finally developed the Holy Roman Empire, that mightiest political weapon of the Papacy. After Otto, the sovereign crowned in Germany always claimed it as his right to be afterwards crowned in Milan with the iron crown of Lombardy, and in Rome with the golden crown of the empire.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.7

    In 964 Otto returned to Germany, increased the number of the duchies, and nobles, and as he was now the protector of the church, and was set for the promotion of her interests, he immensely increased the importance of the prelates. “They received great gifts of land, were endowed with jurisdiction in criminal as well as civil cases, and obtained several other valuable sovereign rights.” Thus he sowed the seed that bore bitter fruit for Germany in the humiliation of Henry by Hildebrand. In 966 he went once more to Italy, where he remained till his death, May 7, 973. Nothing of particular note occurred in the reigns of the three following emperors of the House of Saxony, except that the last one, Henry II., made a treaty with Rudolf III. king of Burgundy, by which at the death of Rudolf his kingdom was to be united to the empire, and showed himself so dutiful a son to the Papacy that both he and his wife were made saints.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.8

    At Henry’s death, in 1024, the great nobles met at Oppenheim and elected Conrad II., a count of Franconia, king. With him began the rule of the House of Franconia, which continued one hundred years, through Conrad II., Henry III., Henry IV., and Henry V. Through all there were plottings and counter-plottings, and wars, civil as well as foreign, which kept the nation in a constant turmoil. In accordance with the above-mentioned treaty, Conrad, in 1032, received the kingdom of Burgundy into the empire, and in 1034 he received in Geneva the homage of its leading nobles. Conrad died in 1039 and was succeeded by his son Henry III., whom, as early as 1026, he had caused to be elected king of Germany, and whom he had made duke of Bavaria in 1027, duke of Swabia and king of Burgundy in 1038. At this time the vices of the clergy all over Europe had become most scandalous, the Popes setting the infamous example. There were three vial claimants for the tiara. Henry entered Rome with an army in 1046, and summoned a council, and had all three of the rival Popes deposed, and raised to the Papal See, Clement II., who crowned him emperor. In the succeeding ten years of his reign it devolved upon Henry to appoint three more Popes in the succession, and as all of them were energetic administrators, and exerted themselves to carry out the policy of Henry, they did much to purify the ecclesiastical system of Europe. But the empire paid dearly for this effort to purify the Papacy. Hildebrand was chaplain to one of the Popes, Gregory VI., whom Henry had caused to be deposed, and went with him into exile. He afterwards became cardinal, sub-deacon, and confidential adviser to each of the last two Popes whom Henry appointed, as well as to all the others till his own accession, in 1073, and during all the time he was forging the weapons by which he would revenge upon the empire the insulted dignity of the Papacy.SITI December 9, 1886, page 740.9

    J.

    (To be continued.)

    “That Sunday Law Convention” The Signs of the Times 12, 47, pp. 743, 744.

    ACCORDING to the call of the Sacramento preachers, noticed in our issue of two weeks ago, a meeting of pastors and church-members favorable to the passage of a Sunday law was held at the Young Men’s Christian Association Hall, San Francisco, November 29. There were about sixty or seventy gentlemen present, the majority being ministers of various denominations, and about a half-dozen women. Among the clergymen were Rev. Dr. F. A. Horton of Oakland, Mr. Warren of San Leandro, Mr. Dobbins of West Berkeley, Dr. E. S. Chapman of East Oakland, J. A. Wheeler of Sacramento, Samuel Slocum of Cayucos, and J. C. Eastman of San Francisco, Presbyterians; John Kimball, editor of the Pacific, Congregationalist; M. C. Briggs, Dr. Heacock, Dr. F. F. Jewell, Mr. Rich, and Thomas Filben, Sacramento, Methodists; Dr. Abbott and Mr. Bateman, Baptists; N. R. Johnsten, Reformed Presbyterian; and Elders McHatton of Sacramento, and Sweeney of Oakland, Disciples.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.1

    A week before the day of the convention, the Congregational Club of San Francisco had discussed the subject in their regular Monday meeting. In that meeting Rev. Mr. Hamlin said that the Sabbath was about as well observed here without a Sunday law as it was at the East with one. The Sunday law was not enforced there, nor was it enforced here when we had one. If ministers stepped out of their sphere and meddled with politics they generally ran things into the ground. The almost unanimous opinion was that it would be useless to try to do anything while the present Legislature existed, and when the question was put whether the club should adjourn over two weeks or hold its next meeting at the same time with the convention, it was voted to hold their regular meeting at the same time that the convention was held.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.2

    As those who issued the call were slow in putting in an appearance a good deal of doubt seemed to exist as to who was authorized to call the meeting to order. After waiting about a quarter of an hour, Dr. Horton arose and called for some one to state the object of the meeting so that they could get to work as all could not wait all the afternoon. It was then moved that Dr. Horton take the chair and call the house to order. Mr. Filben of Sacramento, though yet absent, was elected secretary. After prayer, the chairman called for some of the Sacramento ministers, as they had issued the call, to state the object of it.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.3

    Dr. Wheeler responded, and said that the pastors of Sacramento had proposed attending the meeting in a body, but for a variety of reasons they had been prevented. The Christian people of Sacramento had not only been disturbed in their worship, but their religious feelings had been outraged by systematic and flagrant disregard of the Sabbath. So serious had the matter become that it had been brought before the pastors’ conference, and a correspondence had been opened with divines throughout the State on the subject of a Sunday law, in accordance with which the present convention had been called. He believed that it would not be difficult to secure such legislation as would insure a proper observance of the “Lord’s day, or Sunday, or Sabbath, or whatever you are pleased to call it.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.4

    Mr. Johnson, a National Reformer by the way, moved that the calling the convention be approved. This opened the way for discussion, and then the thing became really amusing. We were there, and we verily believe that there were not three persons in the hall who were really agreed upon the reasons why a Sunday law should be made, nor upon what kind of a law it should be when it was made. Yet they were all perfectly assured that there should be a Sunday law.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.5

    Upon the motion to approve the calling of the convention, Rev. John Kimball was the first speaker. He said he could not vote for the motion as it stood. He believed in the objects of the convention, but it should have been held before the election. It was useless to hope that any church influence could be brought to bear on the next Legislature. The members were pledged, especially those belonging to the Democratic party, against any legislation of this character. A movement at this stage would only be inviting a Waterloo. It might, however, be a good time to begin to agitate for the next election. The Democratic party was now in control, and it was notoriously against any such legislation. The Republican party attributed their defeat to the fact that they had not taken the same ground as their opponents. The speaker believed in agitating the subject and disseminating literature.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.6

    Rev. Mr. Briggs said he hoped that those who called the convention would present some plan,—a clear definition of what was wanted. If it is to be a civil Sabbath law, the discussion and advocacy of it must not be allowed to run wild. It must be a law that will protect the citizens. Intelligent instruction on this point would prevent the purblindness that characterized the work of the previous Sunday law campaign, of urging its enforcement as a religious law. He said that information is greatly lacking on this point of the intelligent distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the question. What he favored was distinctively a civil law.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.7

    Mr. Sweeney said that he came in simply as a citizen to work for a civil Sunday, not as a preacher to work for a law to enforce a religious institution. “If we can come in here this year as preachers and call on the State to enforce the observance of the Christian Sabbath, next year we may come in as preachers and ask the State to compel everybody to be baptized; and the next year ask the State to compel everybody to celebrate the Lord’s supper, and so we shall have church and State.” But none of these things are wanted. Therefore he said he indorsed the remarks of Dr. Briggs. Simply a civil law is all that is wanted. The question was one of political economy and State ethics, and not of religion at all. The preacher should be entirely separated from the question, and the law should be demanded by them as citizens.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.8

    Mr. McHatton said that this was the idea of his people. They were working for a civil Sunday.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.9

    Dr. Chapman did not think that the minister ought to be left out of the question. The movement was a religious one, and he was decidedly against divorcing it from a Christian standpoint. The ministers of the State were decidedly to blame for their long delay in taking action on the subject, but it was now necessary to do something. Should no attempt be made on the present Legislature, could they expect to succeed with other ones? He said he would not entertain the question as to whether it would be a “Waterloo” or not. 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. Besides, if the Legislature is asked and it refuses, then there is something to go into the work with next time. “If the legislators are not on the side of the toiling multitudes, then we shall know how to go to work.” It is failure not to try. This speech was much applauded.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.10

    Dr. Jewell said, “If parties in their platforms have challenged us, it is cowardly not to accept the challenge. If they have opposed the Sunday law, it is time for us to speak out. I indorse Dr. Chapman’s idea. I don’t want to eliminate the minister from the subject. If any people are the friends of the workingman they are the ministers. The workingmen have a right to the Christian Sabbath. I am the friend of the workingman. I am traveling in the footsteps of their friend, the Carpenter of Nazareth. I do not propose to drive all the gospel out of the question.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.11

    Mr. Sweeney said, “I too am in favor of the workingman. I am too in favor of all this religion. But Jesus of Nazareth never asked the Roman Empire to unsheathe the sword in favor of his religion? Nor do we want to invoke the sword of California in favor of his religion.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.12

    Dr. Carver stated that he was surprised that Mr. Sweeney should make such an assertion. He would advocate no Sunday law that excluded the Man of Nazareth. If Democratic or Republican parties would not give them what they required, then let them support some party that would. And that a religious Sabbath and not a civil Sunday is what is wanted.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.13

    Then Mr. Rich offered an amendment to the motion of approval, reading as follows:—SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.14

    “WHEREAS, The purpose of the Sacramento ministers in calling this convention is to secure by agitation a civil Sabbath for California, therefore,SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.15

    Resolved, That we approve the object proposed.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.16

    Mr. Johnson.—“I don’t like the word “civil” in that.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.17

    Dr. Chapman.—“Insert the words, ‘to secure a better observance of the Sabbath.’ Isn’t that what the Sacramento brethren want?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.18

    Several answers, “No.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.19

    Dr. Abbott obtained the floor and said, “I like the term ‘Sunday,’ not Sabbath. I would like some one to show me in the words of Jesus any Christian Sabbath. There is no such thing as a Christian Sabbath. And if any one here has fixed upon the idea of a Christian Sabbath, he had better revise his scholarship. The term Sabbath has no place in Christianity, it is a Judaistic expression. The term Christian Sabbath, the Lord never used, not his disciples. I want a Sunday law. I believe in having a Sunday law, but I believe that agitation in favor of one at this time is neither timely nor practical. We have been defeated. We must yield all religious ideas in connection with the question. Sweeney is right.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.20

    Then in hopes of getting an agreement, the proposed amendment was changed so as to leave out the words civil Sabbath and have it read, “To secure by agitation a Christian Sunday for California.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.21

    Dr. Briggs.—“When you leave out the word ‘civil’ my interest in the question is gone. If you strike out the word ‘civil’ you cannot reach the Legislature. To urge the Legislature to pass upon anything Christian is fruitless.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.22

    Then the proposed amendment was changed again so as to read “civil Sunday.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.23

    Then Mr. Morris asked, “Is agitation the proper word to use there, or is it legislation? It is by legislation that we are to get the Sunday law.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.24

    Another said, “We have in our churches the Christian Sabbath, it is the civil Sunday that we want.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.25

    Mr. Ware.—“It is not a civil Sunday that we want, it is a civil Sunday law.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.26

    So then the word “law” was inserted. Then a motion was made to strike out the word “civil.” This motion was fortunate enough to get to a vote, and was lost. Then the chair shut off debate, and put the question of the proposed amendment and it was lost. Then the original motion for approval was put and carried, four voting against it.SITI December 9, 1886, page 743.27

    A motion was then carried for the appointment of a committee to draft resolutions and an order of business. While the committee was out, the way was opened by the chair for short speeches.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.1

    Mr. Johnston advocated stringent Sabbath laws, based on the fourth commandment, and cited the action of the late convention of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union at Minneapolis,—that they were not ashamed to base their claim for law, upon the religious aspect of the question, nor should these. He considered the publication of newspapers, the running of excursion trains, and even funerals, a desecration of God’s holy Sabbath and would support a law to prevent them. He would stop excursions and excursion trains on Sundays, if Senator Stanford himself stood on the track.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.2

    Another clergyman suggested that a law should be made preventing people from dying or becoming sick on Sunday.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.3

    Professor Knowlton said as Sunday newspapers would bear no inconsiderable place in relation to the Sunday law, they should consider the fact that virtually all of the work on a Sunday paper was done on Saturday, while the work on a Monday paper was done on Sunday. They should consider which paper would be affected by the law.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.4

    Then a gentleman arose and said, “That is a question that concerns me. I am a newspaper man, and my paper is printed on Mondays, and the work has to be done on Sunday to get it ready. Now will you prohibit that, and stop my Monday paper?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.5

    The answer was, “Yes.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.6

    Then said he, “The work on the Sunday paper is done on Saturday, but will you let us sell it on Sunday?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.7

    The answer was, “No.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.8

    Then said he, “What then are we newspaper men to do? You will not let us print a Monday paper, and you will not let us sell a Sunday paper, what is to become of the newspaper business in California?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.9

    By this time the Committee on Resolutions had returned, and their report was received. They recommended “the formation of a Sabbath Union for California, on a permanent basis, and the election of officers and an Executive Committee.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.10

    Dr. Abbott moved that the word Sunday be substituted for Sabbath.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.11

    Another said as Sabbath means rest, he could not see why Sabbath could not be used.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.12

    Dr. Abbott replied, “This is for the Legislature to act upon, and we can never get the word Sabbath in the law. If we ever get any law we shall have to get it as a Sunday law not as Sabbath.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.13

    Another said, “The old law read, ‘The first day of the week commonly called Sunday,’ that is what we want.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.14

    Another said, “There is already in the civil code of California a recognition of Sunday as a civil day. What more is wanted? Is it not something religious?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.15

    Then a reverend gentleman said that there are some people in the State who keep the seventh day, and are opposed to the Sunday law. But that on this question the majority must rule.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.16

    Another said that on that principle, if those who keep Saturday were in the majority, then they would have an equal right to pass a law to compel all to keep Saturday. He said, “You are in the majority and propose to make a law compelling them to keep Sunday. You claim this as your right. Now if they were in the majority, would you recognize it, would you allow it, as their right, to compel you to keep Saturday?”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.17

    At this there was a murmur all over the house and the answer, “No.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.18

    Then said he, “What becomes of the Golden Rule? It is gone. And then where is your Christianity? for Christ said, on this hangs all the law and the prophets. If those who keep the seventh day were trying to get a law to compel all to keep Saturday, I would oppose it. And when you try to make a law to compel them to keep Sunday, I oppose that.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.19

    The nominations for officers was next made: Gen. O O. Howard for President, Dr. Briggs for Vice-President, Mr. Filben for Secretary, and an executive committee of seven. It was recommended that petitions be prepared as soon as possible and sent throughout the State for signatures, and returned as soon as possible to be presented to the Legislature, which begins its session January 1, 1887. A representative of the Good Templars stated that already that body had 20,000 signatures to a petition for the Sunday law.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.20

    A resolution recommending that in all places where there are two or more churches, union services be held for the good of the cause, failed to pass. And then the explanation was made that “as this is a civil, and not a religious movement, it is not supposed that the services would be held on Sunday, but on a week day.”SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.21

    Then it was voted to adjourn and so closed the Sunday Law Convention. Lack of space demands that our comments upon it, and our impressions of it, be reserved till next week. We may add, however, that the papers show that General Howard resigned immediately, and as yet nobody has been chosen in his place. J.SITI December 9, 1886, page 744.22

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents