p. 6 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 12, No. 48. (12/16/1886)

The Ten Kingdoms in the Dark Ages.

THE ALEMANNI.

(Continued.)

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.

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.

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 1146 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.

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 Jasomirgott 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 Jasomirgott, 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.”

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 Brescia, as an earnest of his purpose to support the Papal cause” he was crowned Emperor, by Pope Adrian IV., 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.

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.

Frederick was succeeded by his son Henry VI., and was crowned emperor by Celestine III., March 31, 1191. Richard I., of England—Cœur 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, 1194. 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.

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 at 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. 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 human history; for then he possessed 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:—

“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.

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.

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.

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.

(To be continued.)

Against the Cooking Stove Apostasy

THERE was quite a scene at Farwell Hall on Wednesday evening when Dr. Gordon said in his address: “I want here and now to lift up my warning against the ‘cooking stove apostasy,’ which is turning so many of our church basements into places of feasting, and against the entertainment heresy which sets up all sorts of shows and exhibitions for amusing the unchurched masses into an interest in the gospel.” The ministers on the platform and nearly the whole audience instantly arose and said, “We stand with you, amen, amen!”—Sel.

'To Destruction by Express.'

By C. P. Bollman

Such is the title of an article in a recent number of Messiah's Herald, which speaks as follows concerning Sunday railway traffic:—

"Sunday travel has increased almost incredibly within the last fifteen years. Each year sees still greater increase. This increase is illegal, but it defies the Sunday laws, and goes on as though they did not exist. The public is willing to pay for Sunday trains; the roads are willing to furnish them. Commercial interests demand Sunday freighting; the roads claim that they must accommodate commercial interests. Indeed, Sunday business and travel have ceased to even raise the question as to whether there be any law.

"Places of amusement vie with each other in offering inducements to pleasure-seekers. The law looks on, if it be not too dead to open its eyes; but it does nothing more. It can do nothing more. The officers who are sworn to execute the laws prefer that they should remain unexecuted; their friends prefer this; almost everybody prefers it. Many religious teachers are glad to have Sunday trains, that they may the better reach distant appointments. From the standpoint of all those who believe Sunday ought to be observed sacredly, all this means rapid destruction.

"These facts show, not that Sunday will be overthrown, but that it is overthrown. They who, years ago, talked about the danger of the American Sunday becoming Europeanized, now are forced to agree that it is Europeanized. Sabbathlessness means godlessness. Holidayism means the destruction of public worship, the annihilation of public religious teaching; it means the gradual abolition of religion in the family; it means a steady increase in the agencies which lure men to evil.

"In the earlier centuries the church made love with the world, yielded to its blandishments, sought its favor, and reaped, as the result, centuries of darkness and degradation reaching almost to ruin. God's ancient people were taught the same thing again and again. God's modern people will be no exception. If the prophet who failed to carry God's message to the world in wickedness, found God's hand resting heavily upon him, the prophet of this century, neglecting his duty, will feel the same hand. He who daubeth with untempered mortar, shall find the wall he seeks to rear burying him; and the wall will not cease to tumble though he cry piteously. God demands that the watchmen on the walls of Zion in the United States should make an effort to stem the tide of ruin. Brethren, silence and indifference and cowardice are all criminal. We leave each man to settle the account with God. He must settle it quick, for Sabbathism is going to destruction by express."

This is but a sample of the many impassioned appeals that the religious journals of our country are constantly making in behalf of the Sunday sabbath. And yet the men who write such articles know full well that Sunday is not the Sabbath by divine appointment. They are wont to forge from the law of God thunderbolts which they hurl at all who desecrate the Sunday, and yet they are well aware that that law says nothing whatever of Sunday as a sacred day.

The law of God, the penalty of which they so freely invoke upon those who do not keep the first day of the week, says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work;" and yet every man of them violates that commandment by making the seventh day a common working day. Moreover, they have by both precept and example taught the people to despise the divine Sabbath law, and now they piously (?) sigh and cry for the abominations that are done in the land! Why is it that the Sabbath is not regarded? why is it that the law of God is trampled under foot? Very largely because those to whom the people look for instruction in the things of God have made his law void through their traditions; because they are told that God does not mean just what he says; because the plain truths of his word have been toned down and "accommodated" until they have no longer any power to move those that are at ease in Zion, to say nothing of the multitudes who make no profession of serving God.

It is indeed true that "in the earlier centuries the church made love with the world, yielded to its blandishments, sought its favors, and reaped the result;" and part of that harvest was the Sunday unsupported by any divine law. Sunday has not and never had any place in the law of God, other than as one of the six working days; it belongs to the world, and what right has any man or any set of men to demand that it be invested with the blessing and sanctity which by divine right belong only to the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord?

God worked upon the first day of the week and gave it to man as a common working day, and how can it be expected that people will reverence a day which God has not sanctified, when they are taught to despise one that he has blessed? It is one thing to turn men away from the true Sabbath, but it is quite another thing to inspire within them feelings of true reverence for a base counterfeit.

In the words of the Herald: "If the prophet who failed to carry God's message to the world in wickedness, found God's hand resting heavily upon him, the prophet of this century, neglecting his duty, will feel the same hand. He who daubeth with untempered mortar, shall find the wall he seeks to rear burying him; and the wall will not cease to tumble though he cry piteously."

The figure which the Herald uses is borrowed from the thirteenth chapter of Ezekiel, but it does not apply to those who do not demand the strict observance of Sunday. The burden of the prophet's message is to those who have not made up the gap in the law of God, "for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the Lord." In that day these words will come home with crushing force to those who have made void the law of God by their traditions:—

"Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken? Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Because ye have spoken vanity, and seen lies, therefore, behold, I am against you, saith the Lord God." Eze. 13: 7, 8.

But again the Lord says:—

"Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered mortar, say unto them which daub it with untempered mortar, that it shall fall; there shall be an overflowing shower; and ye, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall rend it. Lo, when the wall is fallen, shall it not be said unto you, Where is the daubing wherewith ye have daubed it? Therefore thus saith the Lord God; I will even rend it with a stormy wind in my fury; and there shall be an overflowing shower in mine anger, and great hailstones in my fury to consume it. So will I break down the wall that ye have daubed with untempered mortar, and bring it down to the ground, so that the foundation thereof shall be discovered, and it shall fall, and ye shall be consumed in the midst thereof; and ye shall know that I am the Lord. Thus will I accomplish my wrath upon the wall, and upon them that have daubed it with untempered mortar, and will say unto you, The wall is no more, neither they that daubed it." Eze. 13: 10-15.

The wrath of God is indeed about to fall, not only upon this country but upon the world, but not because the people have not kept Sunday. The destruction will come because God's law has been despised and his Sabbath trampled upon. The wall (the changed law of God) which one (the Papacy) built up has been most industriously daubed with the untempered mortar of false doctrine, but the Lord declares that it shall fall; but from the reference made to the great hailstones we fear that it will be swept away only by the last of the seven last plagues, when there shall fall "upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent." Rev. 16: 21. Truly "the refuge of lies shall be swept away," but when the wall is no more neither shall they be that daubed it.

On Prayer.

By M. O. C.

Of all the duties of the inner life I suppose there is none which is performed so frequently in a perfunctory manner as private prayer. Probably the rule of our lives since we first learned to whisper our baby prayers at our mothers' knees, has been to "say our prayers" each day, morning and evening. Alas! that "saying" our prayers should be but a too true description of a vast majority of our devotions; the evening comes, so we kneel down, and, with little thought or effort at recollection, repeat our common form, perhaps learned from some book, perhaps still the childish prayers, though we have long outlived our childhood. . . .

Prayer is the lifting up of the heart to God, talking with God. It is the treating him as "our Father;" and as little children look trustfully up in an earthly father's face, and make their little wants known, or tell him their little joys and sorrows, certain of sympathy, so ought prayer to be to us. In prayer we make God our confidant, and as we speak he hears and helps and comforts.

Are we glad and full of joy, then we follow James's advice, and being merry, "sing psalms." Are we anxious and careworn, then we go and lay our burden down at his feet, and even as we lay it there, relief and comfort come, and he "refreshes" us, and as we rise from our knees we feel such a wondrous fullness of vigor, such a simple trust, that though the trouble remains it no longer crushes nor weighs us down. A praying Christian brings to bear against all difficulties, within and without, the host of Heaven, yea, God himself, and surely "if God himself be for me, I can a host defy." My sisters, if we would grow, if we would but really live, we must pray, and pray continually. "In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." It must not be only great needs, great joys, great sorrows, that must bring us to our knees, but the tiny daily trials and pleasures of life should all be the subjects of prayer.—M. O. C., in Penny Post.

Thoughtful Charity Toward the Poor

By Ruskin

How OFTEN it is difficult to be wisely charitable; to do good without multiplying the sources of evil! To give alms is nothing unless you give thought also. It is written, not "blessed is he that feedeth the poor," but "blessed is he that considereth the poor." A little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money.—Ruskin.

What to Give Each Person

By Mrs. Balfour

The best thing to give your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.—Mrs. Balfour.

Faithful in Unpleasant Duties

By Professor Riddle

WHEN you have learned to submit, to do faithfully, patiently, duty that is most distasteful to you, God may permit you to do the work you like.—Professor Riddle.

Items from the General Conference.

By Editor

THE past week has been a busy one for those attending the Conference, yet we have but few items of interest to the general reader. The election of officers of the General Conference has taken place, resulting as follows: President, Elder Geo. I. Butler; Secretary, Elder U. Smith; Corresponding Secretary, Mrs. M. J. Chapman; Treasurer, A. R. Henry; Executive Committee, Elders G. I. Butler, S. N. Haskell, W. C. White, O. A. Olsen, R. A. Underwood. Following this election, the Constitution was so amended as to call for seven members of the executive board, instead of five, and the Nominating Committee were instructed to recommend two persons to complete the required number.

There was probably never before a session of the General Conference in which so much attention was given to the work in foreign countries as has been in this one. This is what we should naturally expect; for since the Third Angel's Message is to be preached "in all the world, for a witness unto all nations," it would be natural that the nearer we come to the end, the more extensively will the message be preached. Provision has been made in this Conference for England, Scandinavia, and Central Europe, South America, South Africa, British Honduras, and Australia. The additional items voted by the Conference, according to the recommendation of the Committee on Distribution of Labor, are as follows:—

That H. Peebles and wife, of Vermont, go to Indianapolis, to take charge of the mission in that city.
That J. M. Rees, of Tennessee, spend what time he can in looking after the work in North Carolina.
That W. C. Sisley and wife, of Michigan, go to California, Sister Sisley to conduct the missionary class in Healdsburg College.
That E. W. Farnsworth remain in Battle Creek until he goes to England with Elder Haskell, and that Sister Farnsworth take charge of the missionary work in the College, filling the place hitherto filled by Sister Sisley.
G. W. Anglebarger and wife, of Ohio, go to Atlanta, Georgia, to superintend the mission to be established in that city.
Richard Coggeshall, now at Basel, Switzerland, is to go to the publishing house in Christiania, Norway, as soon as consistent, to spend several months giving instruction in printing and press work.
Ludwig Henricksen, of Iowa, goes to Norway to instruct and assist in the Bible-reading work.
Sisters Fannie Bolton and Hattie Annes are to go to Washington, D. C., to work in the mission there.
Elder F. D. Starr, of Illinois, after spending a few months in obtaining all information possible about city mission work, colporter work, etc., is to go to Basel, Switzerland, to devote himself especially to the German work.
Elders S. S. Smith and C. W. Olds, of Wisconsin, are to labor in Alabama and Mississippi.
Elder T. H. Gibbs, of the New Orleans Mission, is to spend some time in British Honduras, looking after the cause there, and baptizing those who are ready for that ordinance.
Geo. A. King, of Michigan, will accompany Elder Rupert on his trip to British Guiana, to assist him by selling publications.
Chas. F. Curtis is to go to Atlanta, Georgia, to work in connection with the mission to be established there.
Elder M. C. Wilcox is to return to England, to edit the British paper.
Sister Mary Heilesen, of Battle Creek, will go to Christiania, Norway, to labor in connection with the publishing work.

The Sabbath-school Association, after adopting a revised constitution, elected the following officers:—

President, C. H. Jones; Vice-President, A. B. Oyen; Secretary, Winnie Loughborough; Executive Committee, C. H. Jones, A. B. Oyen, W. C. White, J. E. White, G. H. Bell, D. M. Canright, Winnie Loughborough.

The Committee on Contributions brought in a recommendation that the contributions for the coming year be given to the following missions: first quarter, South African; second, Norwegian; third, Central European; fourth, British. This report was, after some remarks, amended so as to recommend that during the coming year the Sabbath-schools of the United States support the South African Mission. This proposal was heartily supported, and was adopted with enthusiasm. We believe that in carrying out this recommendation our Sabbath-schools will experience more of the blessing of God than ever before.

The International Sunday-School Lessons for 1887.

By Editor

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.

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.

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.

In these "Select Notes" on the creation, we read:— "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 his 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."

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.

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.

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." Heb. 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.

Again says the Select Notes:— "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."

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?

Again we read:— "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."

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 it now is. Therefore "the latest assured verdicts of science" prove that the days of creation were not more than twenty-four hours long.

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. Gen. 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.

Again says Mr. Peloubet, of the creation of man:— "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."

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:— "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."

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."

Again:— "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."

"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?

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?

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 thing as unbelief. If this be faith there can be no such thing as doubt.

"Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith." 1 Tim. 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."

Continue reading: Impressions of the Sunday Law Convention