“This was the saddest time that ever was in Germany. Every one did what he liked. The fist and the sword decided between right and wrong. The princes and the cities were in constant feud. The knights made themselves strong castles and lived in them on plunder and murder. From their fortresses they swooped down on the merchants traveling from town to town and robbed them, or levied on them heavy tolls. They went plundering over the level land; they robbed the farmers of their cattle, devastated their fields, and burned their houses. Moreover, the neighboring nobles and knights quarreled with each other and fought, so that the country was one battle-field.”—The Story of the Nations, Germany, chap. 22.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.2

This period of anarchy was turned to account by the Papacy through Pope Urban IV. Up to this time the election of the emperor was always virtually by the leading princes, although each election needed the sanction of the whole class of immediate nobles. Now, however, mainly by the influence of the Pope, the electorate of Mainz, the archbishop of Cologne, the archbishop of Treves, the margrave of Brandenburg, the king of Bohemia, and the princes of the House of Wittelsbach (Bavaria), and of the House of Saxony. Thus the electorate stood till 1356, when Charles IV. issued the Golden Bull, by which the office of electors was fixed to the three archbishops, the king of Bohemia, the margrave of Brandenburg, and only the duke of Saxony, and the palsgrave or count palatine of the Rhine, of the House of Wittelsbach. Thus the electorate was confined to seven personages—three archbishops, three lay princes, and one king—and ever afterward the emperor was chosen by these officials who are the ones so often referred to in the history of the Reformation, by the term “electors.” Luther’s protector, Frederick, was the “elector of Saxony” in his day.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.3

At the beginning of the Great Interregnum, William of Holland received a nominal allegiance for two years, when he died; then, about 1257, there was a double election, of Alphonso of Castile in Spain, and Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of Henry III. of England. Richard was crowned, but he only visited Germany three times in the seventeen years; while Alphonso never visited it at all, although claiming all the time to be its sovereign. The influence of none of these tended in the least degree to check the disorder of the times. When Richard died the princes showed no disposition to choose an emperor, for a condition of affairs that allowed every one to do as he pleased was exactly to their liking. But the northern revenues of the Pope were seriously falling off, and this with troubles at home caused a Papal longing for an emperor again who would be “the protector of the church.” The Pope, therefore, informed the electors that if they did not choose an emperor he himself would appoint one.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.4

Accordingly the electors met in 1273 and raised to the throne Rudolf, count of Hapsburg, of Swabia. During the interregnum Ottocar, king of Bohemia, had acquired by marriage and conquest, a great territory beyond his native possessions, and his acquisitions included the duchy of Austria and its dependencies, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. This made Ottocar the most powerful prince in Germany, and he expected to receive the German crown at the election. When it was bestowed upon Rudolf, Ottocar refused to acknowledge him as sovereign. War followed, and in the battle of Marchfeld, near Vienna, A.D. 1278, Ottocar was defeated and slain. Austria, Styria, and Carniola were then granted in fief to Rudolf’s son Albert. Thus Rudolf made himself memorable as the founder of the House of Hapsburg, which has ruled Austria from that time to this; which from his time has formed one of the most influential forces in the national life of Germany, and which gave sovereigns to Spain in the days of her greatest glory.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.5

Rudolf of Swabia died in 1291, and was succeeded by Adolf of Nassan who ruled till 1298, when he was succeeded by Duke Albert of Austria, Rudolf’s son. Albert reigned till 1308, and was succeeded by Count Henry of Luxembourg who reigned, as Henry VII., till 1313. Upon the death of Henry VII. the electors could not agree, and the result was a double election—Frederick the Fair, duke of Austria, son of Albert, and Louis, duke of Bavaria. War broke out and continued for nine years, when, at the battle of Muhlbert, A.D. 1322, Frederick’s army was entirely routed, and in 1325 the two rivals agreed to rule in common. Frederick died in 1330, and Louis IV. reigned till 1347. At the death of Louis, Gunther, count of Schwarzburg was elected, but Charles, king of Bohemia, by liberal bribes, bought off his supporters, and Gunther resigned his claim, and Charles IV. reigned. It was he who issued the Golden Bull. He added the margraviate of Brandenburg, Silesia, and Lower Lusatia to the possession of his House—the House of Luxembourg. He died at Prague in 1378, and was succeeded by his son Wenceslaus. Wenceslaus was deposed and the crown was given to Rupert, elector of the palatinate, A.D. 1400, who reigned till 1410, when he died and Sigismund, brother of Wenceslaus, and king of Hungary, reigned. This was the Emperor Sigismund who gave up John Huss and Jerome of Prague, to be burned by the Council of Constance, which brought on the Hussite wars. Sigismund was a spendthrift and never had enough money for his wants; and for 400,000 gulden he granted to Frederick, count of Hohenzollern, of Swabia, first as a pledge but afterwards as a permanent fief, the march of Brandenburg. With the death of Sigismund ended the Luxembourg dynasty, and the House of Hapsburg was restored.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.6

Sigismund was succeeded by Albert II. duke of Austria, in 1438. Albert II. was succeeded in 1440 by Frederick IV. and he, in 1493, by Maximilian I., and he, in 1519, by Charles V., before whom Luther stood for the faith of Christ; and before whom the German princes read the famous PROTEST.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.7

Although the German crown remained elective from the time of Albert II. forward, it was “always conferred on a member of the House of Hapsburg until the extinction of the male line;” and then it was taken up by the female in Maria Theresa, whose husband was elected emperor in 1745. He was emperor only in name, however; Maria Theresa’s was the rule in fact. Maria Theresa’s husband was succeeded in 1765 by her son, Joseph II. And in her line of the House of Hapsburg the imperial office remained till the Empire and the German Kingdom came to an end in 1806; and in her line the Imperial office of the empire of Austria-Hungry remains to the present day.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.8

We referred above to the grant of the march of Brandenburg, by the Emperor Sigismund, to Frederick of Hohenzollern, of Swabia. Frederick thus became one of the electors of the empire. It will be remembered, too, that it was the Knights of the Teutonic Order who made the conquest of Prussia. At the time of the Reformation, Albert of Brandenburg happened to be Grand Master of the Teutonic Order. He became a Protestant, dissolved the Order, and received in fief, 1525, from the King of Poland, the duchy of Prussia. Albert left two granddaughters, Joachim Frederick, Elector of Brandenburg, married Eleanor, the younger, and his son, John Sigismund, married Anna, the elder, and thus the duchy of Prussia was secured to the family of the Elector of Brandenburg. Frederick William, called the Great Elector, was the grandson of John Sigismund and Anna. By the treaty of Wehlan, in 1657, the duchy of Prussia was declared independent of Poland. The Great Elector added largely to his territories, and in 1701 his son Frederick, who had succeeded him in 1688, having obtained the consent of the emperor, crowned himself king of Prussia. And thus, under the Alemannian House of Hohenzollern, arose the kingdom of Prussia, which, through Frederick I. 1701-1713, Frederick William I. 1713-1740, Frederick II. the Great 1740-1786, Frederick William II. 1786-1797, Frederick William III. 1797-1840, Frederick William IV. 1840-1861, has come down in direct descent to William I. king of Prussia 1861-1871 and Emperor of Germany from January 18, 1871, to the present day.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.9

It is true that in tracing at such length the history of the Alemanni, we have had a double purpose, the full value of which will be appreciated when we come to consider the rise and growth of the Papacy, but even without that, we believe, and we think it must be admitted, that when it is realized that from the Alemanni sprang what is still the German nation; that under the rule of the Alemannian House of Hohenstaufen was the most glorious and prosperous period of medieval German history, that, with but a short interval since the end of the Hohenstaufen dynasty, the Alemannian House of Hapsburg held the imperial office as long as the empire existed, and when it ceased to exist, still rule in Austria and does yet rule the Austria-Hungarian Empire; that the Alemannian House of Hohenzollern made of Prussia one of the strongest States of Europe, and accomplished what had been the wish of ages,—the vital union of all the little States into which the German people had been separated,—and now rules the German Empire; that the Alemannian House of Guelf furnished to England the House of Hanover and by it her present and most illustrious Queen Victoria, and that Spain in her glory was ruled by princes of the Alemanni;—we say when this is realized, we think it must be admitted that Gibbon made no mistake when he described the rise of the Alemanni as the origin of “a great and permanent nation;” that the French, who have lived side by side with them since the time when together they were all savages in the German forests, likewise make no mistake when even to this day they call the Germans Allemands and Germany Allemagne; and we believe that we make no mistake when we number them as one of the ten kingdoms that arose upon the ruin of the Western Empire of Rome.SITI December 23, 1886, page 772.10

“Prophecy and the Sunday Movement” The Signs of the Times 12, 49, pp. 775, 776.

LAST week we noticed the special efforts at the enforcement of Sunday laws, now being made simultaneously in different places all over the country; and not only in our own country but also in England and France. We have at different times lately called attention to the tendency in this direction, in both Europe and America. The tendency has now become the fact. The enforcement of Sunday laws and prosecutions for Sunday work, becoming so general, and being engaged in by so many different classes from the highest to the lowest,—from preachers to saloon-keepers, from religionists to Socialists,—is forcing the attention of all to the truth that this is fast becoming the leading question not only in the Nation but in the world. The papers, secular as well as religious, but more especially the religious, are discussing it.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.1

It is especially remarkable how everything is bent to the recognition of Sunday. The whole tide of human events seems to be set in that direction, and every elements is going with the current. Even the Jews who, as a people, have stood for ages the bitterest persecution for their religion’s sake, are in this readily yielding, and, now willing to go with the multitude to do evil, are deserting the truth of God as to the Sabbath of the Lord, and are going over to the Sunday. The New York Observer says that “it is proposed to form a World’s Day of Rest League, and a convention of representative Jews is advocated, which will endeavor to secure the transfer of the Jewish Sabbath to the first day of the week. It is urged that this uniformity would add greatly to the influence of the principle of resting one day in seven.” We have no doubt that it will.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.2

We wish some influence could be brought to bear that would greatly revive the old-fashioned principle of obedience to God. God gave a commandment that men shall rest on the Sabbath of the Lord. He gave this commandment that there might be uniformity. In the commandment he plainly declared that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God—not the “Jewish Sabbath”—and that in it—the seventhday—thou shalt not do any work. Yet in spite of that commandment, the world sets about to form a World’s Day of Rest League, to secure the world’s worldly observance of the first day of the week, and to get the Jews to transfer the Jewish Sabbath to the first day of the week. Before these men of the world get their World’s League formed, and have by it secured the world’s uniformity in the observance of the first day of the week, it would be well for them to remember the word of God that says: “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.”SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.3

It is one of the clearest possible proofs of the lack of real godliness in the professed church of Christ, that all this ready favor of the world it mistakes as the manifest favor of God, while the word of God declares that it is enmity with God. There could be no better evidence that Sunday is not of God, than is furnished in this, that Spiritualists, Socialists, Labor Unions, Catholics, and all such, so heartily unite in favor of it. For what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness! and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? ... Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord.” No interest that makes for righteousness can be promoted by the favor of such elements as are now swiftly rallying to the support of the Sunday institution. This consideration alone demonstrates the unrighteousness of the Sunday cause.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.4

And yet we are not the least surprised that these things are so. We are not surprised that even the professed church of Christ should stoop to an alliance with the world to maintain by civil power the influence which she deems her right, but which through her own worldliness and lack of self-respect she has lost. We are not at all surprised that the church should endeavor to maintain by civil power the position before the world which she has but by her own lack of the power of godliness. And that she has so lost her position, no stronger proof is needed than is shown in her willingness and even anxiety to ally herself with the world, that she, re-enforced by the non-religious elements of the world, may wield the power of the world.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.5

We say we are not surprised at any of these things for we have for years expected to see the very things that are now soon throughout the so-called Christian world. For years we have not only expected to see an alliance between the church and the world by which the civil power would be wielded by the church in her own behalf, but we have expected to see the Sunday and its compulsory observance made the basis of the alliance. For years we have expected to see the Sunday, and controversy concerning it, become the leading question in this Nation. We have talked it and preached it, we have written it and printed it, when as yet the most strenuous advocates of the Sunday only accounted it as among the very least of the questions that pertained to Christianity. Yet now these very men concede all that we have taught, and they themselves claim that upon the preservation of Sunday hangs the destiny of Christianity in this Nation, and that if it is to be preserved the religious element must be re-enforced by the non-religious, and even the Socialistic.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.6

For more than forty years, in public and in private, by speech and by print, Seventh-day Adventists have constantly taught that there would be the very condition of things which now is and is impending. And this upon the authority of the word of God. In fact from no other authority could such teaching have been derived, when it was as confidently urged so long before as it is now; when as yet there was apparently no probability of its coming to pass; and when even the supporters of Sunday themselves steadily refused to admit that there was any possibility, much less any probability, that it should come to pass.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.7

The word of God contains a solemn warning that must be given to the world. It is the Third Angel’s Message of Revelation 14. That message says: “If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb.” Revelation 14:9, 10. In years past it was known among Protestants that the beast is the Papacy, “the man of sin,” “the mystery of iniquity.” Nowadays Protestants are not so ready to let it be known, yet it is the truth now as it has ever been.SITI December 23, 1886, page 775.8

The “beast” represents the Papacy. The Sunday is the one grand institution which the Papacy sets forth as the sign of its authority. It is by the establishment of Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the Lord that the Papacy has thought to change the law of God. In thus changing the law of God, the Papacy has virtually declared independence of the Most High. In thus presuming to put away an institution—the Sabbath—which rests upon the authority of Jehovah, and putting in place of it an institution—the Sunday—which rests solely on its own authority, the Papacy has exalted itself above God. In demanding the observance of the Sunday, which rests upon its own authority, instead of the Sabbath, which rests upon the authority of God, the Papacy has usurped the place of God. In thus demanding obedience to its own authority instead of obedience to the authority of God, the Papacy has usurped the obedience, and in that the worship which is due to God. The commandment to keep Sunday holy is the first commandment of the church of Rome. To keep Sunday is to keep the commandment of Rome, for there is no other commandment for it.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.1

But there is mentioned the image to the beast. That which formed the beast of the prophecy was the union of Church and State—the union of Catholicism and the State. An image to the beast must be likewise a union of Church and State, but in this case a union of Protestantism and the State. This image to the beast is to be formed by the union of Protestantism and the State in the United States. But it is to enforce the worship of the beast, and the receiving of his mark—see Revelation 13:11-17. As the keeping of Sunday is to keep the commandment of Rome and to recognize her authority, so to compel people to keep Sunday is to compel them to keep the commandment and to recognize the authority of Rome. To compel men to keep Sunday, is exactly that for which the Protestant churches in the United States are now grasping for civil power and working up the Sunday laws and their enforcement. It is to compel men to observe Sunday that the Protestant churches in the United States invoke the re-enforcement of the non-religious and Socialistic elements of society.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.2

But to compel men to keep Sunday is to compel them to do homage to the Papacy, and the Papacy is the beast. To compel men to keep Sunday is to compel them to worship the beast. Therefore the Protestant churches in the United States are at present engaged in a movement to compel men to do what the word of God by the Third Angel’s Message solemnly warns them not to do. The present movement of Protestantism in behalf of the Sunday is in the course of fulfillment of Revelation 13:11-17, and the Third Angel’s Message (Revelation 14:9-12) is God’s solemn warning to all men against it, and his call to come out from among them and be separate, and to “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” It is for this cause that all these years Seventh-day Adventists have been preaching and publishing that there would be in the United States exactly what now is here, and this is only the beginning.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.3

The fourth commandment of God says, “Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy.... The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work.” The first commandment of the man of sin says: “Remember that thou keep holy the Sunday.” Whose commandment are you going to keep? Whom will you worship?SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.4

The Third Angel’s Message is now the one thing of the greatest importance to the people of the United States and of the whole world, for the enforced worship of the beast is to be made universal. J.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.5

“Bible Answers to Bible Questions Concerning Man.—No. 5” The Signs of the Times 12, 49, pp. 776, 777.

OUR last question under this heading was, “If a man die, shall he live again?” Job 14:14. And we presented the direct Bible answer by Isaiah: “Thy dead men shall live” (Isaiah 26:19); and by the Lord Jesus, “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.” John 5:25. We presented abundant Scripture proof that it is at the second coming of the Lord that the dead hear his voice, that the trumpet of God sounds, and that the dead are raised. We presented proofs of Holy Writ that the hope of the gospel is the resurrection of the dead; that this is the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers; that in this hope they all lived; that in this hope they died; and that in this hope they still sleep in the dust, awaiting the glorious sound of the voice of the Son of God to call them from the dead to life and immortality. We proved by Paul’s repeated argument in 1 Corinthians 15 and other places that in assurance of the resurrection of the dead alone, lies the assurance of a future life; and that if there be no resurrection of the dead there is no future life for either righteous or wicked.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.1

In connection with this, there now comes in a question that has perplexed men for ages, and does yet perplex many; and although the Bible both asks and answers the question, there is yet much perplexity about it even among those who profess to believe the Bible. That question is, “How are the dead raised up?” 1 Corinthians 15:35. The answer is, in substance, The dead are raised up by “the power of God.” Matthew 22:29.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.2

This is shown by the Saviour’s words to the Sadducees. The Sadducees, who “say that there is no resurrection,” once came to Jesus and in favor of their unbelief presented what they deemed an insuperable objection to the idea of there being such a thing as a resurrection of the dead. They said: “Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother; likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.3

All the difficulty that has ever arisen in men’s minds upon this question, “How are the dead raised up?” has been from these causes. At the foundation of all the difficulty lies the lack of knowledge of the Scriptures, and the accompanying, if not the consequent, lack of knowledge of the power of God. Without the Scriptures we can know nothing about the resurrection of the dead; and without the power of God there can be no resurrection of the dead; and so to leave out either consideration, is only to be at sea on the question before us—not only at sea, but at sea with neither rudder nor compass nor pole-star. It was only giving expression to this same thought of the Saviour’s when Paul, speaking of this hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers, appealed to Agrippa in these earnest and thrilling words: “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?” Acts 26:8.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.4

Sure enough! Why should it be thought a thing incredible with any one that God should raise the dead? God made a man once from the dust of the ground; he states in his word that many have arisen from the dead, and he has given us the most abundant testimony that he raised up the Lord Jesus from the dead, and that he was seen of witnesses chosen before—witnesses, too, to the number of above five hundred at once. Most, if not all of these witnesses were acquainted with him both before his death and after his resurrection. Some of them at with him, talked with him, and handled him, after they had seen him dead and buried and risen again. And yet if men leave out the Scriptures and the power of God, to them it still remains incredible that God should raise the dead.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.5

Even in this our duty, and amongst those who profess to firmly believe the Scriptures and the power of God, there are those to whom it is incredible that God should raise the dead. Now is this confined to what are sometimes called the “ignorant multitudes.” It is found, and in fact is prevalent, amongst the “divines,” the “great scholars,” and the “leaders of thought.” But yet in all this the difficulty lies in the fact shown by the Saviour that they “do err, not knowing the Scriptures.” For the one thing which logically and reasonably leads these eminent scholars, as well as others, to doubt the resurrection of the dead, is their fixed belief in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Than the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, there is nothing more destructive of belief in the resurrection of the dead, and nothing more subversive of the Bible doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. In fact the two doctrines cannot possibly be consistently held in the same mind. Now for the proof.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.6

The Scripture says: “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.” 1 Corinthians 15:36. This is spoken in answer to the question that is the subject of this article, and is therefore spoken with direct reference to the subject of how the dead are raised up. To quicken is “to make alive.” What Paul says therefore is, “That which thou sowest is not made alive except it die.” That this is spoken directly of man and his resurrection, is plain by verses 42-44. “It is sown a natural body,” etc. Now the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is, that the body properly has no life, that it is not the real man; but that the soul is the real, living sentient man; that it is that about man which alone possesses real life. In other words, the body is only the house in which the real man lives; i.e., the real “I” dwells within the “me;” and death is simply the separation of the soul from the body. Death breaks down the house, and lets the real occupant free.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.7

According to this doctrine, there is no such thing as real death; because the body properly has no life, consequently it does not die; and the soul—the real man—is immortal and it cannot die; therefore there is in reality no such thing as death. If this be true, there is not only no such thing as death but there is, likewise, no such thing as a resurrection of the dead. For, upon the apostle’s premise that “That which thou sowest is not quickened [made alive] except it die,” it follows that, as the body, having no life, does not die, it cannot be quickened (raised from the dead); and as the soul does not die, it cannot be raised from the dead; consequently there is no such thing as a resurrection of the dead.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.8

Therefore it stands proved to a demonstration that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is utterly subversive of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. But the resurrection of the dead is a Bible doctrine; it is the very truth of God. And it is because of the wide-spread belief of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul that there is so much doubt and misunderstanding of the Scripture on the subject of the resurrection of the dead.SITI December 23, 1886, page 776.9

As we have already shown in these articles that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul is contrary to the Scriptures throughout; and as it is now shown that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul leads to disbelief in the resurrection of the dead, the Saviour’s words are distinctly applicable to all who now doubt the resurrection. “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.”SITI December 23, 1886, page 777.1

To all with whom there is any difficulty in understand the question, “How are the dead raised up?” we say, Get an understanding of the Scriptures as to the nature of man, and his condition in death, and all connected subjects, then allow the power of God a place, and all your doubts will be removed, and the subject will be all plain and easily understood.SITI December 23, 1886, page 777.2

For a view of the actual process of bringing the dead from the graves to real living existence again, Ezekiel 37:1-14 may be read with profit. It is too long to copy here; we ask the reader to turn to that scripture at once and read it carefully, and as you read do so in view of the “power of God.”SITI December 23, 1886, page 777.3

December 16, 1886

December 30, 1886