SAMUELS — KINGS CHRONICLES
EARLIER PARALLELS
1 Kings 12:1–2 Kings 8:29; 2 Chron. 13:1–22:5
CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONIES. EARLIER PARALLEL PROTESTANT MOVEMENTS. THEIR MANY CONTROVERSIES. ANTITYPICAL ELIJAH AND ELISHA.
FOR CENTURIES chronologians have striven, and, for the most part of the problem, in vain, to harmonize the comparative chronologies of the kings of Judiah and Israel. In EC, 144 (97)—145 (99), is shown the harmony in the synchronisms of Jehoshaphat's and Ahab's houses. But that harmonization merely scratches the surface of the problem in comparative chronology presented in the books of Kings and 2 Chronicles; for, viewed from the standpoint of the surface evidence as presented in these books, the comparative chronology seems unharmonizable. Indeed, chronologians up to the last half of the 19th century gave up the problem as insoluble. Since then, at the expense of the Bible's inerrancy, most of them have attempted to adjust the data given in the two Kings and 2 Chronicles to the Assyrian Eponyms for as far back as the latter extend—a dangerous thing, among other reasons, because these Eponyms are admittedly deficient and in error in certain particulars. To clarify the problem, first of all, the seeming discrepancies in the comparative chronologies of Judah's and Israel's kings will be pointed out, and that in two tables: (1) up to the death of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel, who died within a few hours of each other; and (2) from their death until the death of Hoshea, Israel's last king, in the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign; and after each of such presentations the harmonization will be given. The first comparative table will give the years of the respective reigns of Judah's and Israel's kings up to the death of Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel.
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
274
(2) Rehoboam and Jeroboam began to reign a few days apart (1 Kings 12:1-24); and Ahaziah (of Judah) and Jehoram (of Israel) died within a few hours of each other (2 Kings 9:22-27). Nevertheless the sum totals of the years' reigns of the six involved Judahite and the eight involved Israelite kings differ, according to the tables, by three years, whereas, according to the facts given in the preceding sentence, they should be of the same length. Knowing the Scriptures to be inerrant, and there being no differences in the involved years' reigns in the Hebrew MSS., we found ourself face to face with the problem that chronologers hitherto had been unable to solve. But the solution had to be found, otherwise the 2520 years parallels for both sets of kings could not be worked out, a task that this book undertakes to do. Knowing that there must be a' solution for this difficulty, where else should we go except to the Lord the Giver of the three involved books (1, 2 Kings and
————————————————————————
* All PRESENT TRUTH references in this and the following chapters to the chronological tables of Judah's and Israel's Kings are to be understood as the same as are given here on pages 274 to 277.
Earlier Parallels.
275
2 Chronicles) and the Source of Truth, for the needed enlightenment? And, praised be His holy name! He gave it; for as we meditated and prayed over the problem, the thought struck our mind: Since the chronology, the Parallel Dispensations, the Parallel Seven Times and the Pyramid measurements prove that the chronology as given in 2 Chro. as to the lengths of the reigns of Judah's kings is true, and since 1 and 2 Kings agree with these reign lengths, why not take the lengths of the reigns of Judah's kings as the basis and calculate the lengths of the reigns of Israel's kings as they are given in terms of the years of Judah's kings and thus see what results would be reached? Thought and done! And the result was complete harmony between the two chronologies! We treated as cardinal numbers the ordinal numbers in terms of which the years of Judah's kings are given when compared with the beginning and ending years of Israel's kings, because, as was the case with Judah's kings, undoubtedly whatever was lacking in full years in the reigns of Israel's kings was made up by the succeeding kings before the years of their own reigns began to count chronologically. So only could a correct chronology be construed; for various of the kings of Israel and Judah died at other times of the year than April, when the various reigns are made to start chronologically. We will now set forth the chronological harmony of these reigns from the standpoint just given.
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
276
(4) Thus by giving the lengths of the reigns of Israel's kings in the compared terms of those of Judah's kings, the chronology of the involved six Judahite and the eight Israelite kings is found to be harmonious.
(5) The seeming discrepancy between the lengths of these two sets of kings from the deaths of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah until the death of Hoshea, Israel's last king, in the year 6 of Hezekiah, which period will next require our study, is much greater when the separately mentioned lengths of each pertinent set are added, but are perfectly harmonized when the lengths of the reigns of Israel's kings are given in the terms of the compared years of Judah's kings, as just shown of the six and eight kings above. First, tables will be given showing the separately mentioned reign years of the two sets of the involved kings:
YEARS
Earlier Parallels.
277
(6) Here is a seeming discrepancy of 22 1/2 years. But it is harmonized by the same method as was used above, i.e., giving the kings of Israel the number of reign years that their reign years are given in terms of the reign years of Judah's kings, as follows, placing after the years the difference plus when more, and minus when less, than the separately given years in the preceding table:
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
278
(7) Since both tables would give Shallum one month and since that is included in the year of Zachariah, we have omitted Shallum's one month from both tables, as neutralizing one another, and as being neutralized, because included in the one year of Zachariah's reign in terms of the reign of Azariah, as for a similar reason we omitted mention of the 7 days' reign of Zimri (1 Kings 16:15) in the first table. It will be seen that one table gives the kings of Israel 22 ½ years less than the contemporaneous reigns of the kings of Judah, while their years in terms of the kings of Judah are 22 ½ years more, which harmonizes the seeming discrepancy.
(8) But, one may ask, Why does the Lord in the separately given reigns of the kings of Israel make the latter 3 years longer in the first table and 22 ½ years shorter in the second table than the harmony shows to be the true datings? We reply that in the datings in terms of the years of Judah's kings the Lord arranged the matter so as to give the dates and events of the large parallel, the one of 2520 years, and in the separately given years of Israel's kings, so as to give the dates and events of the small parallel, which comes out in its second member in terms of days. In this book we will present the large parallel, which to be worked aright required the chronological datings to be made in terms of the years of Judah's kings; hence the foregoing chronological discussion, to clarify the subject. In EJ 333-418 we discussed the small parallel, pausing here, however, to remark that we have given above Athaliah's reign as 7 years, even as the three passages there cited prove it to have been; for, though she died sometime during her seventh year, Jehoash (Joash) filled out the balance of that year before his reign years began to count chronologically, even as every other Judahite and all Israelite succeeding kings did with the balance of their predecessors' last year before their reign years began to count chronologically; otherwise a consistent chronology could not have been formed, since all of them evidently did not die on
Earlier Parallels.
279
Nisan 1. Moreover, as we have elsewhere seen, it is the, regular Hebrew way of counting a fraction of a day or year a full day or year. Our Pastor, ignoring the fraction of Zedekiah's last year, counted the period of the kings as 513 years, whereas, according to his data and the fact that Zedekiah reigned 10½ years, he should; if noting the fractions, have given it as 512½, since he counted Athaliah as reigning but 6, instead of 7 years. The exact length of the period of the kings was 513½ years, which, as required by the other features of the chronology, the Parallel Dispensations, the parallels of the two Seven Times and the Pyramid, requires us to reduce the 449½ years of the judges' period to 448½ years. The expression, "about the space of 450 years," in Acts 13:20 is flexible enough to permit this to be done.
(9) The dates and events of the 2520 years' parallels require Athaliah's reign to be 7 years, otherwise their dates and events cannot be harmonized. Accordingly, in Studies, Vol. II, 374-376, 380, please change the figures 512½ to 512 6/12 for the period of the kings to 513½ and 513 6/12, and those of 449½ and 449 6/12 for the period of the judges to 448½ and 448 6/12. This will also require us to understand the expression in 1 Kings 6:1, "fourth year of Solomon's reign," to mean year 4, as we saw above to be the regular usage with the ordinal numbers of the reign years of Judah's kings. Please also make the pertinent corrections of the expression, 3 years, to 4 years, and the figures, 129½, to 130½, in Studies, Vol. II, 376, end of par. 1. All these references to Studies, Vol. II, are, of course, to the notes in our edition of that Volume. We are not to think that there is in any sense a contradiction between the length of years expressly assigned to the various Israelite kings' reigns as given in 1, 2 Kings and the number of years in the comparative chronology of their and the various Judahite kings' reigns; for the length of the formers' reigns apart from the comparisons is stated to cover only such years in which they
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
280
were active as marked specifically the first and last acts of their reigns required for the working out of the small parallel, i.e., only such years are expressly given as the length of their reigns as were revelatory of God's designs as to the length in days of the second member of the small parallel. Hence in some cases these typical acts as royal acts were performed before they actually ascended the throne and in some cases these typical acts as royal acts were performed as the last ones of their years of life before they really ceased to reign; and in either case the matter was Divinely arranged so as to fit the chronology of the small parallel. Hence there is absolutely no contradiction between the actual lengths of the reigns as the comparison above shows and the years expressly assigned to their reigns in 1, 2 Kings, if we look upon matters as just explained, since the different sets of lengths of the separate reigns are given to mark different sets of acts in the two sets of parallels.
(10) Solomon in the good acts of his reign, as these are given in 1 Kings 1-10 and 2 Chro. 1-9, types in the large picture the Christ in the good acts of the Millennial reign. Certainly, his reign's evil acts of 1 Kings 11, which are entirely omitted in 2 Chro., cannot type anything in the Christ's Millennial reign, which will in every way be good. It will be noted that the evil acts of 1 Kings 11 are represented as bringing resultant evils upon Solomon's reigning descendants. And from this we get a broad hint as to the antitype of Solomon's wicked acts of 1 Kings 11. That the books of Kings are typical prophecies we know from the fact that they are by God put among the books—Joshua, Judges, Ruth and the two Samuels—which God calls, "the earlier Prophets." That Joshua, Judges, Ruth and the first ¾ of 1 Samuel are prophetic types we are assured by the fact that St. Peter by inspiration tells us that Samuel thereby prophesied (Acts 3:24). In fact, so far as we now know, there are three applications of prophetic types in these two books; and the same is true of their
Earlier Parallels.
281
companion book, 2 Chronicles. The first of these three applications is that of general pictures more or less detached, e.g., Solomon in his good acts typing in the large picture the Millennial Christ and in his bad acts, the papacy before and early in the Reformation; from the reign of Ahab on to the death of Zachariah (Jeroboam II's son), when Elijah and Elisha performed their parts in the history, we have a history of the whole Gospel Age up to nearly the time of Anarchy. Then specialized pictures, especially concerning America, are given by the kings of Judah from Rehoboam on to at least Amaziah's time. These and others are general pictures isolated one from the other. Then the three books that treat of the kings of Judah and Israel have a second set of applications, i.e., the 2520 years' parallels, beginning with the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, 1,000 B. C., and ending with Jerusalem's and the land's desolation, 607 B. C., in its first member, and in its second member beginning in April, 1521, with the first workings of a division among the two Reform movements and ending about Oct., 1914, with the setting in of trench warfare in the World War. Then there is a third application, a small application of the parallel of Judah's and Israel's kings in its first member and certain Truth leaders, etc., in 1916 and 1917, wherein the years of the first member of the parallel stand for days in the second member of the parallel. The years of the third application in the first and second parallel's members in the Judah and American features are 392½ years and days respectively, while the years and days of the third application in the first and second parallels' members in the Israelite and British features are 241½ years and days respectively. It is of the second application that several chapters of this book will treat.
(11) Describing the wicked acts of Solomon, 1 Kings 11 serves as an introduction to the second and third applications, the large and the small 2520 years' and days' parallels. In order to keep this book within
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
282
reasonable bounds, since it will cover the contents of 1 Sam. 1—15, nearly the whole of 1 Kings, the whole of 2 Kings and nearly the whole of 2 Chro., we will have to be exceedingly brief; and the reader will have to have his Bible, better two, one at each of the accounts, constantly before him, to compare type and antitype; for we will merely by parenthetical chapter and verse citation, or occasionally by parenthetical word allusion refer to the type and state the antitype very briefly. Briefly, we would say that Solomon's wicked acts of 1 Kings 11 type the pre-Reformation wicked acts of the papacy which led up to reformatory movements and to God's people in Protestantism dividing into two parties and into sets of movements, which were repeatedly antagonistic to one another, as Judah's kings and Israel's kings were repeatedly antagonistic to one another. And later (after Israel's kings had disappeared from the scene) as Judah's kings alone were on the throne, acting out various good or evil things, so various movements of varying good or evil operated among God's people in American Protestantism until utter apostasy, so far as the parallel is concerned, came to a head from 1893 to 1914. Thus we have given a brief outline of the introduction to, and progress of the 2520 years' parallel in both its members; for we are to remember that there are no parallel dates and events in the first member of this parallel before April, 1,000 B. C., and that these ended Oct., 607 B. C., while the parallel dates and events in the second member began April, 1521, and ended Oct., 1914. We gave in EJ, 333-418 the third application. In THE PRESENT TRUTH we have discussed many of the pictures of the first application, the rest coming, in due time, as the Lord opens the way.
(12) Now a few details on the wicked papal practices of the pre-parallel events and dates, typed by Solomon's wicked acts. The papacy greatly desired many cooperating organizations, like synods, councils, orders of monks, nuns, universities, various orders and kinds of
Earlier Parallels.
283
professors, authors, nobles, as well as kings, canonists, officials, armies, guilds, burghers, servants, etc., some more influential, others less so (1 Kings 11:1, 3), forbidden by God to His real people (2). This was especially true in the Sardis period of the Church (4). It fostered a union of state and church (Ashtoreth, Venus, 5), the doctrine of eternal torment (Milcom, i.e., Molech, king, 7) and of purgatory (Chemosh, subduer) and other false doctrines which were urged by its various orders, etc. (8). This aroused God's displeasure against the papacy (9, 10). Repeatedly through the Sardis star-members God threatened to disrupt it (11), but put it off temporarily (12) and said its disruption would not, for the sake of the true Church, be total (13). Early in the Philadelphia period God raised up three adversaries against the papacy: (1) a reform (v. 14, Hadad, sharpsighted) political party demanding the reformation of political Romanism, especially in Germany, when it sent to Rome a set of 100 grievances, demanding redress (14-22). It worked favorably with the reigning political powers for awhile (17-20), then left them to pursue its own policies (21, 22); (2) the reforming humanists, learned scholars, who revived Latin, Greek and Hebrew learning, prominent among whom were the learned Reuchlin, Melanchthon's uncle, and Erasmus; this party (Rezon, prince; Eliadah, God-enlightened, 23) was a thorn in the flesh of the papacy, and did preparatory work for the religious reformation (24, 25); (3) the Lutheran reform party (Jeroboam, striver of the people; Nebat, aspect, 26) from 1517 to 1521. The individuals who later formed this party previously to their reform activity worked valiantly for the papacy (27, 28); but when they formed the Lutheran movement, the sharpsighted ones (Ahijah, Jehovah is my brother, 29) among these forecast that it would disrupt papacy and also make a division among some of papacy's religious adversaries (30-32), declaring that this was because of papacy's wickedness (33), yet they
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
284
said that some would be left with the good part, those who had the Lord's Spirit (34-36), and promised the Lutheran movement much success, if it would be loyal to God. (37, 38), while punishing the others measurably who as Protestant people of God would retain some features of God's Spirit (39). Hearing of the action of these forecasters, the papacy persecuted the Lutheran movement, which fled to certain civil rulers of Germany for refuge, from about 1518 to 1521 (40). Details, among other things, on papacy's wicked acts are found in the star-members' writings (history of Nathan, 41; 2 Chro. 9:29), the writings of leading early Lutherans (prophecy of Ahijah) and later Lutheran authors on Lutheranism (vision of Iddo).
(13) From here on our comments will be on Kings and Chronicles; and we will abbreviate these by their initial letters, K. and C., in the first reference to each chapter's number; after that in the chapter we will merely indicate the verse, without repeating the name of the book and the same chapter number, giving first the Kings citation and, second, that of Chronicles, with the semicolon between the verses of the two books; but when only one citation is made the Kings' citation is followed by the semicolon and the Chronicles' citation is preceded by the semicolon, thus: 2; 3 mean verses in both books, 2; means a Kings' verse and; 2 means a Chronicles' verse. As already pointed out, the first parallel dates with parallel events in the 2520 years' parallel are April, 1,000 B. C. and April, 1521 A. D. In giving the parallel date of the parallel's second member we will in parenthesis often give the date 2520 years before. The parallel events were the division of the typical kingdom into the two-tribed kingdom of Judah and the ten-tribed kingdom of Israel, and the division of God's Gospel-Age people in Protestantism into two movements: (1) the Reformed movement, mainly in Switzerland, corresponding to Rehoboam (who enlarges the people), and (2) the Lutheran movement, corresponding to Jeroboam. Little Flock
Earlier Parallels.
285
leaders and good crown-lost leaders were leaders in both of these movements. As a rule, but not always, the leaders of the movements that correspond to the succeeding kings of Judah were Little Flock and good crown-loser members; and as a rule, but not always, the leaders of the movements that correspond to the succeeding kings of Israel are crown-lost leaders, good and bad. But in some cases the latter set of movements are almost entirely political, infected with the Divine-right-of-kings doctrine. In the first set of movements they are always religious; however, in some of these cases the religious movement is apostate in character, corresponding to the apostate character of some of Judah's kings. The Lutheran movement began as a purely priestly movement, with Luther's nailing the 95 Theses to the doors of the Wittenberg Castle Church, Oct. 31, 1517, and continued such for about a year, when Luther and his colaborers began to lean on the civil rulers of Saxony, and by April, 1521, under Luther's leadership, his movement was quite strongly leaning on the arm of the civil power.
(14) The Zwinglian movement began in 1519 in very attenuated ways, mainly through Zwingli's efforts; and by April, 1521 (1,000 B. C.) under Zwingli's leadership it was an independent movement characterized by more strictness as to Christian life, and was thus more Little-Flock-like, than was the Lutheran movement. It was on this point that the ever-widening rupture between these two Protestant movements set in. At first this movement approached in friendliness the Lutheran movement, which reciprocated. It expected to have the ascendancy over the latter (1 K. 12:1-3; 2 C. 10:1-3). The Lutheran movement desired to give it such, but requested that it ease its too strict demands on the people and accept the more easy-going demands of the Lutheran movement on the people (4; 4). The matter was taken under advisement (5; 5). Wiser heads advised compliance (6, 7; 6, 7). Less wise, but more intimate heads advised stricter demands to be
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
286
made on the people (8-11;). After a time the Lutheran movement returned for the answer (12; 12). A refusal accompanied with stricter demands was given by the Zwinglian movement to the Lutheran movement (13, 14; 13, 14). Thus was effected the condition leading up to the division forecast by the enlightened ones in the Lutheran movement (15; 15). Thus by a very small beginning set in the division between the Zwinglians and Lutherans (16; 16). As the years went by this division became wider, as the Zwinglians made their practices stricter, and the Lutherans made theirs more lenient. When emissaries from the former sought to win over the latter to their stricter practices, the latter refuted these by stronger arguments (18; 18); however, in some states of Germany, the Zwinglian movement got the upper hand (17; 17). Thus the division set in and continued among the two groups of Protestants (19; 19); the Lutherans, in the great majority, recognized and supported their movement (20). This led the Zwinglian movement to plan war against the Lutheran movement (21; 2 C. 11:1), from which it was dissuaded by the Divinely-raised-up peace party in their midst, convincing them that God so willed matters (22-24; 2-4). The Lutheran party then proceeded to develop the German field as congenial, and from there developed the Scandinavian field (25;).
(15) The Zwinglian movement developed itself in the Protestant cantons of Switzerland, in certain principalities of Germany and provinces of France (5-10), strengthened its principles, appointed able defenders of these and put in them hard and easy teachings with much of the Spirit (11). In all of these political units it placed defensive and offensive controversial writings and strengthened them and maintained itself as a movement (12;). Generally speaking, the more consecrated public servants of God left the Lutheran movement and adhered to the Zwinglian movement, since these were cast off by the Lutheran
Earlier Parallels.
287
movement and its representatives as extremists, whom they would not permit to minister among them (13, 14;). The Lutheran movement appointed such clergy as would serve the nominal people, sectarianism and clericalism (15;). Not only so, but the more faithful consecrated laity followed the example of the more consecrated public servants of God by leaving the Lutheran and adhering to the Zwinglian movement (16;). This, of course, gave real spiritual strength to the latter, though the former had the more numerous followers. This continued for three years, 1521 to 1524 (1,000 to 997 B. C.), when the Zwinglian movement began to persecute the Little Flock movement started by Balthasar Hubmaier, which later was sectarianized by crown-lost leaders into the Baptist Church (17;). But the Lutheran movement, to keep its own from going away to the rival movement (26;), sought to hinder their fellowshipping with the latter, in order to prevent their casting it off and turning to the latter (27;). Hence it developed Lutheran sectarianism and clericalism as their deliverers from Satan's empire, to ease matters for its adherents (28, 29;), which became great evils (30;). In every Lutheran dominated country these two evils were served; and in most cases unconsecrated preachers and professors were made servants of these (31;).
(16) This movement counterfeited the class standings of the antitypical feast of tabernacles and served these counterfeit class standings in their Church, particularly by its doctrines of the Lord's Supper, Person of Christ and Romanist sacramental efficacy (32, 33;). Able Zwinglian movement brethren, e.g., Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, Capito, etc., testified against this spurious Church, its servants and their gross errors as the Lutheran movement served these, and forecast that a pure teaching movement would arise and expose as vile sectarianism the Lutheran Church and ministers with their memories (1 K. 13:1, 2), and gave as an evidence of this a rending of the Lutheran Church and
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
288
a rejection of its sacrifices (3;). The Lutheran movement on noting this witness exerted its power against these witnesses controversially to injure them; but that controversial power withered, under the refutative answers that these witnesses gave, and could not be made effective (4;). Great divisions set in the Lutheran Church and its pertinent sacrifices were rejected, as these witnesses had forecast (5;). The impotence of the Lutheran movement appealed to these witnesses to labor for its pertinent healing, which was granted (6;). Thereupon the Lutheran movement desired their fellowship in doctrine and practice (7;), which, as forbidden by the Word, they refused to give (8, 9;). They were charged to return to their usual service in a somewhat altered way of presenting the teachings, which they did (9, 10;).
(17) Various of the Lutheran leaders, like Luther, Melanchthon, etc., were told the actual effects of these happenings by some of their supporters (11;); and the latter indicated the changed form that the representatives of the Zwinglian movement gave their teachings, particularly on the Lord's Supper. This influenced Luther, Melanchthon, etc., to make certain adjustments to their pertinent teachings, in order to use them for the purpose of re-establishing fellowship with them (12, 13;). They met, and after discussions pro and con (14-18;) fellowship in doctrine and practice were agreed upon, particularly between Luther and Melanchthon, with their chief colaborers, on the one hand, and Bucer and Capito, with their chief colaborers, on the other, some of the Lutheran representatives, particularly Melanchthon and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, acting more or less uncandidly in the matter (19;). But some of them, particularly Luther and the Elector of Saxony, seeing through the course of Bucer, Capito, etc., as disloyal to their own principles, forecast that they would become non-existent as pertinent messengers of the Lord, and would lose the respect of their fellows (20-22;). Adjusting their
Earlier Parallels.
289
pertinent doctrine, Luther, etc., sent them away as disloyal (23;). By their course, being a surrender of the Truth on the Lord's Supper as taught by Zwingli, Satan destroyed them as God's messengers; and as such Satan and their doctrine remained with them as teachers of error and no longer God's messengers; and they were seen to be such and proclaimed as such in Lutheran sectarianism (24, 25;), especially by the main Lutheran leaders (26;), whose supporters adjusted for them the real Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper (27;), and thereon they went and found the above-described condition, Satan not having done the unfaithful and their pertinent teachings further harm (28;). They gave them as a former Divine mouthpiece suitable respect, as they would have desired for themselves (29, 30;), and desired their supporters to treat them with the same respect as due a real prophet when their role as such was over (31, 32;). But these things effected no reform in the Lutheran movement, which continued in its special wrong teachings and practices (33;). And these evils led to God's casting off the Lutheran movement (34;).
(18) The Reformed movement developed a considerable number of sub-movements in Switzerland, Germany, England and France, through which many groups of supporters were developed (18-21;), the chief of which was the English Cranmer movement (22;). It wisely distributed these supporting groups in the various principalities, cantons, provisions, etc., of these countries as means of strength, giving them teaching support and seeking to give them organizational helps (23;). But as its strength increased, it and all its supporters did evil by becoming persecutors of Hubmaier and his associates, particularly the latter in late 1525 and early 1526 (2 C. 12:1). Immediately thereafter the papacy (1 K. 14:25; 2) began to make in-roads upon it with huge forces (3); beginning in Switzerland and proceeding in France, through religious, political and military fights, resulting in severe
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
290
defeats for the Zwinglian movement in cantons and provinces, endangering the heads of the movement (4;). The more pious of them denounced their wrongdoings as resulting in their defeats, which produced confession and repentance of sin in them and acknowledgment of God's justice (5, 6;). This moved the Lord to send them a message of partial mercy (7;), though forecasting some oppression upon them from the papists in contrast with the mildness of God's rule (8;). The papists took away some of their religious and political privileges and some of their arguments (26; 9), in lieu of which the movement made less costly but stronger arguments for its leaders who guarded it (27; 10), and who used these in their religious and political spheres (28; 11).
(19) These calamities producing repentance, the Lord relieved it of its evils, since good was found in its adherents (12;). Thereafter it strengthened itself until it ceased to be dominant in the Lord's affairs, despite its clericalistic principles (21; 13). The movement and its adherents were not wholeheartedly loyal to God, resulting in their displeasing God above the primitive believers (22; 14); for they formed sects, had evil leaders and united state and church in each principality, canton and province under great leaders (23;) and furthered such by alliances between various states and more or less continued papal practices (24;). Various historians described its doings, particularly its controversies with the Lutheran movement (29, 30; 15). In the year 1538 (paralleling 983 B. C.) this movement ceased to function as the Lord's more favored movement, though it was remembered as such, and the Cranmer movement succeeded it (31; 16). The Cranmer movement, 1538-1541 (983-980 B. C.), did this good, that it furthered Bible distribution, but it was mixed up with Henry VIII's evil policies (1 K. 15:1, 2; 2 C. 13:1, 2), and was guilty of some of the evils of the Zwinglian movement (3;). But for the little Flock's sake God used it (4, 5;); and as between the
Earlier Parallels.
291
Zwinglian movement and the Lutheran movement, so was there strife between it and the latter (6, 7; 2); because of the evils of the Lutheran movement the Cranmer movement would not sanction an alliance between England and the former, which sought to bring it about by intriguing through the marriage of Anne of Cleves and Henry VIII. This by various arguments the Cranmer movement opposed and annulled, to the discomfiture of the Lutheran movement, after the former had reproached the latter for its iniquities (;3-18), and overthrew its sectarianism, clericalism and creedism (;19), from which defeats it did not recover before the time the Lord cast it off as a less favored movement (;20). On the contrary, the Cranmer movement prospered, gaining many organizations and strong and less strong supporters (;21), and its history is written in the writings of many (7; 22). But the Lord set aside this movement in 1541 as a Little Flock remembered one; and the Unitarian movement became the more favored one (8; 2 C. 14:1).
(20) The Unitarian movement took its place as the Divinely more favored movement for 41 years, i.e., 1541-1582 (980-939 B. C.), i.e., it began while the Lutheran movement was still active (9, 10;). The Unitarian movement was one of the best of all the Divinely more favored movements, acting like the Little Flock (11; 2). It set aside those who favored international alliances and the creedal idols of the Cranmer movement, the false churches, their leaders and union of state and church (12; 3). It even set aside those who nourished it in its weakness, when they set up a creed idol favorable to union of state and church, and overthrew it (13; 2 C. 15:16); yet it did not set aside the sects, though it was loyal almost to the end (14; 17). The good thought of Bible spreading of the Cranmer movement and its own teachings unity of God, mortality of man, death as the wages of sin, Christ as Son of God, it deposited in the Church (15; 18). It laid great stress on the Lord's people
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
292
living aright (; 2 C. 14:4), and thrust out among its adherents the sects and Satan's way of service, thus securing prosperity among its adherents (;5); and there were no special controversies for ten years (1541 to 1551 [980-970 B. C.]). During these years Servetus had leisure to study much and wrote his great work, The Restoration of True Christianity (;6). By prayer, speech and example he encouraged several colaborers to cooperate in reconstructive work (;7).
(21) There was a movement begun by the Luther-an movement and its supporters that for years labored for a settlement of the religious troubles in Germany by a national council participated in by Romanists and Protestants, intended to bring about peace (1 K. 14:1). The Lutheran movement in its secular leaders sent certain of its supporters, who were instructed by it to disguise their relations to the former and inquire of the most enlightened leaders of it, like Luther, Melanchthon, etc. (2;), as to what the prospects of the peace movement's designs as to a German National Council's convening and settling Germany's troubled religious parties might be, and to take along ingratiating gifts for these leaders (3;). These supporters undertook the mission to the unsuspecting leaders (4;). But the Lord opened the latters' minds to discern the identity of these supporters (5;). These leaders, therefore, on being approached by the supporters, told them of their relationship to the secular leaders of the Lutheran movement (6;) and told them to return as answer a denunciation of the evils of the Lutheran movement, both in its religious and its secular aspects (7-9;), and to announce the Lord's rejection of the Lutheran movement, as corrupt, from His favor (10;) and of His cutting off every feature of its various movements, whether restrained or free, by sectarians and rebels (11;). Particularly did these leaders forecast the death of the Lutheran peace movement when they, the supporters, would reach their secular commissioners (12;), which would cause mourning to all
Earlier Parallels.
293
adherents of the Lutheran movement; for this peace movement had commendable features in it (13;). They further forecast that another movement would displace the Lutheran movement as that of the less favored of God's people (14;). They even forecast the overthrow of the autocracy of the Divine-rightist civil powers, because of their state and church union (15;), all because of the evils that the Lutheran movement introduced into Protestantism (16;). This message was carried back by the supporters to the secular leaders of the Lutheran movement; and on their arrival the peace movement died (17;), to the great grief of German Protestantism (18;). Lutheran historians have set forth in detail the acts, controversies and rule of the Lutheran movement (19;). The above phase of the Lutheran movement ceased to be recognized by the Lord in 1543 (978 B. C.), after lasting 22 years, and was succeeded by a sickly Lutheran movement that lasted but one year, from 1543 to 1544 (978 to 977 B. C.), striving through Luther's wilfully beginning a controversy (20;) on the Lord's Supper against the Calvinistic movement, which refuted it as evil, with the other evils of the former movement, while the sickly Lutheran movement was striving against sectarian Romanists (25-30;). This weak phase of the secondary Lutheran movement is described by, Lutheran and other historians (31;).
(22) The Calvinistic movement became in 1544 (977 B. C.) the less favored movement of the people of God, and was active as such until 1567 (954 B. C., 1 K. 15:33); but this movement, like both Lutheran movements, was guilty of sectarianism, clericalism and union of church and state; and additionally it incessantly fought the Unitarian movement (16, 32, 34;), which was the more favored movement of the people of God. The Unitarian movement had a large number of leaders who wrote able expositions of, and able refutations of attacks on, their doctrines, like Servetus, the two Socini, Davidis, etc., and a large number of
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
294
lesser lights who by word of mouth, especially by questions, were able to do likewise (;2 C. 14:8). Against them contended the Greek and Roman Catholics, the Lutherans, the Calvinists and the Anglicans (;9); but the former came forth courageously to meet these, especially on the doctrine of the trinity (;10). The Unitarian movement made earnest, humble and trustful prayer to God, as His more favored representative (;11). God enabled them successfully to defend Unitarianism and to overthrow trinitarianism in an utter defeat (;12, 13); and at the same time they overthrew and captured the doctrines related to trinitarianism (;14) and won to their faith many former Trinitarians (;15).
(23) This victory moved the Unitarian leaders (;2 C. 15:1) to exhort by the Lord's Spirit their brethren to remain faithful to the Lord, who would, if they did, continue on their side (;2). They reminded them of the apostasies of nominal Spiritual Israel and their consequent unhappy experiences, and of the Lord's mercies returning to them on their repentance (;3-6); and from this they drew the lesson to be faithful and promised blessings to follow thereupon (;7). The Unitarian movement, encouraged by these exhortations, put away more and more errors and renewed the true Church publicly in its sacrificing course (;8). This resulted in numerous converts to the unity of God, especially in Italy and Switzerland, where Laelius Socinus (1555, 963 B. C.) mildly questioned the trinity in favor of the Unity (;9, 10). Consecrations and their carrying out marked their course (;11, 12), as they agreed to disfellowship the unconsecrated, and solemnly made their vows to the Lord amid preachings of the Word (;13, 14), for which reason they rejoiced in their wholehearted consecrations as manifesting the Lord to them in blessing (;15). Then this movement lapsed into silence until in 1566 (952 B. C.; v. 19 should read year 25, not year 35, since Baasha died in year. 26 of Asa) Faustus Socinus, nephew and disciple
Earlier Parallels.
295
of Laelius Socinus, held aloft the Unitarian banner (;19). In 1567 (951 B. C.) the conflict between the Calvinistic movement and the Unitarian movement broke out again (1 K. 15:17; 2 C. 16:1), because the former desired to prevent further fallings away to the latter, and therefore developed trinitarianism further. To meet these arguments the Unitarian movement made a combination of arguments from upholders of Scripture and reason to renew a former combination of these (18, 19; 2, 3). Upholders of reason and Scripture agreed to this renewal of their former alliance; and reason attacked and refuted the idea of there being three gods in one God, as well as the pertinent arguments (20; 4). This moved the Calvinistic movement to desist from further elaboration of trinitarianism and to go about its proper business (21; 5). Thereupon the Unitarian movement called upon all its adherents to take away the Calvinistic points based on perverted Scripture and to develop the Unitarian thought on the relationship between the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (22; 6).
(24) But some of the adherents of the Unitarian movement, speaking the truth, rebuked it for making an alliance with reason's upholders, as unbelief toward God, and said that it would result in Romanist trinitarians evading its arguments (;7), reminding it of its victory over all nominal-church trinitarians in their former controversy, because of trusting in the Lord (;8); for God seeks such believers; and folly was the quality of the other act, which would bring continual warfare (;9). The movement became enraged at these and restrained their influence among its adherents, at the same time in Poland and Transylvania it enacted oppressive church laws (;10). Certain ones of the rebukers of this movement rebuked the Calvinistic movement, which from little was by God made great, for committing the same sins as both Lutheran movements, to the Lord's displeasure (1 K. 16:1, 2, 7); therefore they foretold that the Lord would set aside
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
296
the Calvinistic movement from His favor, as He had done with the Lutheran movement (3;), and sectarians and lawless ones would plunder them (4;). Calvinistic historians have given a history of this movement (5;). In 1567 (954 B. C.) the Calvinistic (continental) movement gave way to the Calvinistic Knox Scottish movement as the less favored movement among the Protestant people of God (8;); but after a career of but one year this movement, drunken with its external success, came to grief through an oppositional Scottish politico-religious movement (1568 [953 B. C.], 9, 10.)
(25) At the same time it set aside every vestige of both Calvinistic movements in its leaders as adherents of the less favored movement, even as was forecast (11, 12;), because of the iniquities of both phases of this movement against which God was displeased (13;). Its historians have described this secondary Calvinistic movement (14;). This Scottish politico-religious movement was of very short duration; for the Anglican movement under the lead of Elizabeth, at that time fighting against sectarian Romanism, displaced it as the less favored movement of the people of God, in 1568 (953 B. C.; 15, 16;) by an oppositional movement (17;), for which the Scottish politicoreligious movement gave up (18;); for it, too, in its brief life was guilty of the evils of the Lutheran movement (19;). The historians of this movement have accurately described it (20;). From the cases of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha we construe of all the dynasties (houses) of Israel's kings, that each such house or dynasty in its various ruling members stood for as many variations of the antitypical movement as were ruling members in the pertinent dynasty or house; thus, as there were two ruling members in the Jeroboam house or dynasty, so were there two Lutheran movements in the parallel or antitype, and as there were two ruling members in the Baasha house or dynasty, so were there two Calvinistic movements in the parallel or antitype.
Earlier Parallels.
297
(26) In Britain there were two Protestant parties those who desired a more Scriptural relation of church and state, Protestants in a purer sense, called Puritans, and those who desired a close union of state and church, the latter being led by Elizabeth (with the idea of royal supremacy) and the Anglican hierarchy, which prevailed (21, 22;). The first phase of the Anglican movement was from 1568 to 1579 (953-942 B. C.; not in the year 31, but 27 of Asa; compare 1 K. 16:15-22 and 29 with 23; hence here in v. 23 is a copyist's error). In its first six years it was mainly a religious movement; and in its last five years it was mainly a political movement (23, 24;), force by law sometimes being used to compel conformity to the rites and worship of the Anglican Church from 1574 (947 B. C.) onward. This persecuting phase of the Anglican movement included not only fines and imprisonments, but the burning at the stake of two Baptists in 1575 and another in 1579, to the disgrace of Elizabeth, the leader of this movement. It proved to be, so far, the most wicked of all the less favored movements of the Protestant people of God, and it was set aside in 1579, doubtless as a result of the third heresy burning bringing to a head its wickedness; for we are to remember that both the civil and religious powers supported this movement's wickedness, committing all the evils of the Lutheran movements and more besides, to the Lord's displeasure (25, 26;). Historians of this movement have described it (27;).
(27) This phase ceased, being buried in politics; but it was succeeded by even a worse phase (28;). This worse, yea worst, phase of the Anglican movement was from 1579 to 1600, (942-921 B. C., 29, 30;). This movement not only continued the evils of the Lutheran movements, but became united with the Anglican Church through Elizabeth, furthered by the Royal Supremacy idea, and became the servant of power-grasping and lording (31;). Riding roughshod over all rivals: the Puritans, Baptists and Congregationalists,
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
298
it erected the Church of England as the servant and supporter of power-grasping and tyranny (32;), making the union of state and church firmer, and displeased God more than any other former one of the less favored movements of the people of God (33;). The hierarchy and its literary supporters so developed the Episcopal Church in its Divine-right-of-bishops doctrine and powers and in its promoting to power and influence the supporters of the same as to alienate the Little Flock leader, Robert Browne, and his supporters and the Puritan crown-lost leader, Thomas Cartright, and his supporters, as the Lord forecast of such cases (34;). In 1582 (939 B. C.), thus during the second phase of the Anglican movement, the Unitarian movement ceased to be the more Divinely favored one of the Protestant people of God. It was respected as more or less in harmony with the Little Flock (1 K. 15:24; 2 C. 16:12—14). Toward its end its practices turned still more to the worse, seeking a cure by encouraging its leaders to sectarianize it more or less, instead of seeking the Lord's help in His spirit, which brought about its rejection by the Lord (23; 12). Its historians adequately described its course (23; 11) with much praise of it (;14).
(28) The Unitarian movement was succeeded by the Congregational movement as the more favored one of God's people (24; 2 C. 17:1), in the year of 1582 (939 B. C.), and prevailed as such until 1607 (914 B. C.); but, though well armed, it was a movement deserted by its Little Flock leader, Robert Browne, and by the English government, so far as protection is concerned (22:41, 42; 20:31). Like the Unitarian movement, it did right, thoroughly avoiding the sins of all the less Divinely favored movements; but the Congregational movement failed to put down false religious service (43; 32, 33), but condemned unholy alliances between various states, even those not condemned by the Unitarian movement (46;). It developed its views on church government very strongly as against the
Earlier Parallels.
299
papistical, the episcopal and the presbyterian forms of church government (;2 C. 17:1), training its adherents thoroughly to use the proofs of the congregational form of church government defensively and offensively against the opposing errors (;2). The Lord blessed it, because it clung to Little Flock ways and opposed power-grasping and lording over God's heritage (;3); and because it acted in harmony with the Word, seeking the Lord and avoiding the evils of the apostate movements (;4). Hence the Lord strengthened it, its adherents gave it good support, and its riches were of truth and the respect of its adherents (;5). It was exalted in character through walking in the Lord's ways, and removed from its midst the false religious services that the Unitarian movement failed to do, as well as all combination of church and state (;6). Moreover, in 1585 (936 B. C.) it raised up deacons, elders and pastors, specially trained, who went about preaching the Truth then due, especially on church government, using the Bible as their sole source of faith and main rule of practice (;7-9). While the Anglican Church through Elizabeth persecuted this movement, her clergy, hierarchy and professors did not specially carry on doctrinal controversies with it, their hands being full with their controversies with the Presbyterian Puritans (;10). Some of the sectarians and politicans, doublefaced as they were, e.g., Cecil (later Lord Burghley), Leicester, etc., especially the civil rulers of Holland, whither persecution drove many of its adherents from England, gave it special favors (;11), under which conditions it waxed stronger and developed its principles in greater detail. It trained its adherents thoroughly in its principles, and made a large proportion of them warriors for them (;12, 13) chiefly in five countries: England, Scotland, Holland, Germany and America (;14-19).
(29) Starting off with Robert Browne, 1582, the new creatures in the Congregational movement faced the second Anglican movement with the statement that
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
300
surely no Truth could come apart from their ministry (1 K. 17:1;). The Lord's Word, Spirit and providence prompted them to withdraw from the Anglican Church to the Truth that could be gotten in isolation between that Church and the race under the curse, which they accordingly did (2-5;), where Dutch sectarians gave them some relief (6;). When they could get no more assistance there, they in part returned to England and in part went to America and received nourishment among outcasts of the Anglican Church in England and America (7-10;). These outcasts, consisting of some Baptists and more Puritans, assured them that they had almost no spiritual food; but such as it was they were seeking to prepare it with the thoughts of anti-hierarchism and anti-superstition (11, 12;). They told these outcasts to give them of their spiritual refreshments; and thereafter there would be enough for them and their anti-hierarchical and anti-superstition movement until the Lord would send abundance of truth (13; 14;). Said and done; and the forecast of the new creatures in the Congregational movement was fulfilled (15, 16;). After a time, as the Elizabethan persecution against the non-conformists continued, resulting in the imprisonment and hanging of many nonconformists, including some of the new-creaturely leaders of the Congregational movement, the anti-hierarchical and anti-superstition movement became inactive (17;). The outcasts blamed the new-creaturely members of the Congregational movement for this result (18;); and these by a threefold effort, that led by Browne, that led by Barrowe and that led by Ainsworth, the most learned of all early leaders of Congregationalism, resuscitated it and presented it as such to the outcasts (19-23;), who were thereby fully persuaded of the Divine mouthpieceship of these new-creaturely leaders in the Congregational movement (24;).
(30) The providence of God moved Barrowe and his colaborer, Greenwood, to carry their case before the
Earlier Parallels.
301
civil powers, through which they hoped that the Truth would get a wide circulation; hence they sought to do this (1 K. 18:1, 2;). Their activities brought them to the attention of a more liberal and very prominent section of the Anglican movement (Lord Burghley, Leicester, etc.), who favored the leaders of the Congregational movement, and who with the Anglican movement went forth to obtain refreshment for it (3-5;). One class sought by ecclesiastical, the other by secular means to find the needed refreshment (6;). The liberal section came in contact with Barrowe, Greenwood and certain of their colaborers, mainly while these were in prison for their faith's sake, and under questioning (7;), found them to be new-creaturely members of the Congregational movement, and were told to make them known as such to the Anglican movement (8;). The liberal party demurred, thinking it would injure them with the Anglican movement (9;), protesting earnestly against its inimical attitude toward the Congregational movement (10, 11;) and claiming that the Congregational movement, shifting its lines of thought, would expose them to evil from the former movement (12;). These liberals testified of their care for the Congregational movement, as well as for the Baptists, as against the Anglican Church working through Elizabeth's ire, e.g., Burghley's repeatedly securing Browne's release from prison, etc. (13;). Nevertheless, by the aid of these the new creatures and the Anglican movements met, especially in the persons of Barrowe, Greenwood and other imprisoned new creatures who insisted on confessing their faith in the pertinent Bible teaching (14-16;).
(31) The Anglican movement at their meeting accused them of disturbing God's people (17;), which charge was thrust back into their teeth with proofs of the truth of the counter charge (18;). The attitude of these new creatures was a challenge to the Anglican movement to bring into debate with them the power-grasping and lording Anglican hierarchy and clergy
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
302
and those of them who stood for the union of state and church, who were supported by the Anglican Church, headed by Elizabeth (19;). This was, therefore, done by the Anglican movement (20;). The new creatures called for a decision on the part of the people as to the Bible organization of its Church or the hierarchical organization of the Church of England, but the public did not respond either way (21;). Then they called attention to their few numbers and the large numbers of the hierarchy, their clergy and followers (22;). Further, they suggested that each side through their respective sacrificial service demonstrate whether the hierarchical or the Congregational position on church government is right (23, 24;). They deferred to the other side as the more numerous one, who should sacrifice first (25;). The defenders of Episcopacy, therefore, proceeded to set forth, especially in writing, their views, the chief writers being Drs. Bancroft, Hooker, Saravia and Bilson, as a cry that hierarchism might be proven the prevailer, but no response came, though they earnestly busied themselves about their church (26). The Congregational new creatures by act derided them with the indifferent and unresponsive attitude of their principle of power-grasping and lording (27;). Their more or less mutual contradictions lacerated them to their great injury (28;). They continued their discussion for a number of years, but to no avail (29;).
(32) The Congregational new creatures lovingly appealed to the people to be in spirit near them, and then refuted the error, and set forth the truth on the true Church (30;). Then taking twelve truths in harmony with God's real people (31;), they by these gathered the true Church in God's name, and set forth the Word, in a large measure, full of Truth on the false church and the true Church (32;). They arranged well the pertinent truths and made large sacrifices, including the surrender of their liberty and going to prison for their faith in the Word, laying down
Earlier Parallels.
303
especially four truths: (1) justification, and (2) consecration, showing that not English citizenship, but justification and consecration were necessary for membership in the Church, (3) Christ, and not the State in the Sovereign, is the head of the Church, and (4) the Bible alone is the determiner of the faith of the Church (33;). This was done, as charged, three times: (1) by the Browne movement, (2) by the Barrowe movement and (3) by the Ainsworth movement (34;). Those truths filled the true Church and the beliefs of the brethren (35;). Then these new creatures began their sacrifice, partly by writings; in Barrowe's and Greenwood's case it was done, first, by their writing tracts in prison, smuggling these out one page at a time through visitors daily, and sending them to Holland, and, second, by defending the Truth in their examination by the Church of England prelates and scholars; and their efforts were a prayer to God to demonstrate their being His mouthpieces (36;), and that the people recognize that the Lord is God in truth, and thus be converted to Him (37;).
(33) God manifested His accepting their sacrifice in using for His purposes the sacrifice, the Bible passages, truths and historical testimonies and practices (38;). This convinced an ever-increasing number of people who reverenced and acknowledged Jehovah (39;). Then the new creatures called for an all-round refutation of the defenders of hierarchism and clericalism, which by the Word was done (40;). Furthermore, they invited the Anglican movement to refresh itself; for there was evidence of preparation to issue truth literature (41;). This was done while the new creatures ascended to the sphere of prayer for a downpour of truth (42;). They encouraged their supporters to seek evidence of such approach of truth, and found it only after a sevenfold search performed by their supporters in the movements of the seven churches that they had founded. It was only after the seventh movement was formed that the evidence, first small, but ever
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
304
enlarging, appeared, when they charged these to tell the Anglican movement to prepare their organization to escape the downpour (43, 44;). The downpour came in the form of books and tracts; and the Anglican movement fled before it, the new creatures leading the way by the Truth, to their condition of union of church and state, which had its highest expression in Elizabeth as English sovereign and head of the Anglican Church (45, 46;).
(34) The Anglican movement reported to the Anglican Church, especially to Elizabeth, its head, what the Lord's mouthpiece had done, especially how he refuted with the Truth her hierarchy and clergy (1 K. 19:1;). Angered, Elizabeth and the Anglican Church set into operation the instruments of persecution, causing Barrowe, Greenwood, etc., to be hanged for denying her royal supremacy in the Church, imprisoning some others, and exiling still others, and, finally, exiling all who were imprisoned (2;). This course made the other members of the Lord's mouthpiece flee into isolation, some to Scotland, but most of them to Holland, where a liberal government gave them refuge, and where they separated themselves at the well of truth from every little sectarian movement of the seven congregations that confessed Congregationalism (3;). Journeying still further in their isolation, they under the civil protection of Holland fell into much melancholy and desired to give up their office as mouthpiece (4;). While these were asleep as to the real condition, the Lord's messenger, first, Johnson, second, Ainsworth, aroused them into vigorous action in Holland, where they issued to the British authority an important statement on their faith, strengthened in this by Ainsworth's teaching and preaching (5-8;). This enabled them to stand their hard journey to the completion of their task of maintaining the organization of the embryo Church intact (9;). Their hard plight, as well as their words, spoke their discouragement, believing themselves alone and desolate (10;). The Lord
Earlier Parallels.
305
gave them to foresee great theological fights, revolutions and anarchy coming upon the second Anglican movement, and after that a better time (11, 12;). This made these new creatures look into matters more openly in the exercise of their office powers; and in their discouraged condition their words and attitude again told the Lord of their zeal and of the disloyalty of the people, the overthrow of the Church and the cutting off of the Lord's mouthpieces (13, 14;). By His providence the Lord indicated that they should mingle among the Puritans, train certain younger new-creaturely leaders to take up their work, stir up the Puritans to fight the Anglican movement and some of its supporters to rebel against it, which three things would thoroughly refute the Anglican movement (15-17;), the Lord assuring them that there were faithful ones in England who had not grasped for power and lorded it over God's people, nor supported such (18;). Mingling with the members of various denominations, particularly with the Presbyterians (Puritans), they found immature new creatures, and joined them with themselves, and by that association they let them partake with them in their office powers (19;). Some selfishness and worldliness held these immature ones back for awhile, which drew from the faithful a needed rebuke (20;). Renewing their consecration, and benefiting the people, they followed the mature new creatures, ministering to them (21;).
(35) The two long theological controversies that the second Anglican movement had with the Puritans (Presbyterians) are typed in 1 Kings 20. The first of these was from 1583 to 1586, in which the Puritans sought by argument, Parliamentary acts and influential people in the government to set aside: (1) the Anglican hierarchy and to establish Presbyterianism in its stead, (2) the Book of Common Prayer and to substitute for it the Book of Discipline written by the Puritan leaders, Cartwright and Travers, and (3) the 39 Articles of religion and to substitute Calvinism in their
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
306
stead. The second of these controversies, begun by the Martin Mar-prelate controversy, was from 1588 to 1593, both controversies ending in failure for the Puritans. We will briefly describe each one of these as typed in 1 Kings 20. Presbyterianism, which in contrast with the second Anglican movement was radical, while the latter was conservative, mustered all its warriors, including 32 special leader movements, with their teachings and organizations, and attacked the Anglican movement, especially through the House of Commons and some of the leaders in the government (1). They sent word to the Anglican movement politically that by right they had the Divine Truth and the Anglican movement's organizations and leading members on their side (2, 3). Overawed to find that the bulk of the members of the Anglican Church and their organizations had by the Puritan methods of boring from within been won over to their side, the Anglican movement was ready to succumb (4). But when the Puritans wanted to set aside the Episcopate, the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles and substitute their Presbyterian system, discipline and creed for them (5, 6), the Anglican movement called its leaders, the two archbishops, especially Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, the primate of all England, their bishops and leading clergy and professors, telling them what concessions it made (7); these advised it strongly to deny all concessions, except those offered before (8). This answer the Anglican movement gave to the Puritan party (9). Angered at this answer, the Puritan party threatened to bring its immense following in clergy and laity, its majority in the House of Commons and its supporters in the government and universities against the Anglican movement (10). Their pride moved the Anglican party to answer, by act rather than by word, that before victory it behooved no one to boast of it (11). This message moved the Puritan party, feasting with its leader movements, to charge that they open up the controversy, by literary works,
Earlier Parallels.
307
sermons, lectures and ordinances introduced into a Puritan-majority Parliament that would have set aside the three above-mentioned things and introduced the three Puritan substitutes therefore (12).
(36) At this juncture certain teaching members of the Anglican movement, led by Archbishop Whitgift, through their resolute and confident stand encouraged the movement with the prospects of certain victory (13), assuring them that the leaders of the nobility, with Elizabeth as their head, would be the ones to effect victory, and that the movement as a whole should take up the aggressive (14). Under the lead of the archbishop it, accordingly, did the following: The archbishop went to Elizabeth and moved her to forbid the House of Commons to pass the legislation which its majority favored passing, and to give as her reason that the tricky legislation that they were about to pass was unconstitutional, since it would nullify her royal supremacy in the church and change the national religion. She also sent word to the House of Lords that if the Commons should pass the legislation, they should reject it and read the Commons a much needed lesson. Overawed by the Queen, Commons dared not pass the ordinance, and it was certainly given a severe reprimand by the House of Lords. The Council, the most powerful body in the kingdom, was on the Puritans' side and sought to discipline Whitgift for some of his official acts; but as they were busy-bodying in his matters the Queen curtly silenced them, for she supported him in everything, having unbounded confidence in him. In spite of every effort of the Puritans against the Anglican movement, they were defeated on all fronts of the fight by the Queen and the nobility, backed by most of her cabinet members and the conforming clergy and laity. The new Parliament turned against the Puritans and their cause was lost (15-19). New measures were enacted that put to flight the remaining efforts of the Puritans, whose ministers were forced to vow loyalty to the Episcopate, the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles, or lose their places. Thus the Puritan
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
308
movement was crushed temporarily, and forced from the field very greatly discredited, with their principles repudiated and their organizations overthrown by the full weight of the Anglican movement's attack (20, 21). But the teaching members of the Anglican movement, knowing the character of the Puritan adherents, encouraged the Anglican movement to strengthen its position and act with great circumspection; for they said that as soon as they could recuperate the Puritans would return to the conflict (22). This the Anglican movement did along all lines, i.e., with the Queen, her cabinet, the nobility, the House of Commons, the universities, the hierarchy, the clergy and the laity, unto readiness.
(37) The second onslaught against the second Anglican movement was begun and carried forward by the Puritans, first, through a series of anonymous booklets, printed by presses that they had to move from place to place to evade the searching officers, and entitled, Martin's Mar-prelate, and later, by sober literary products. The former were gotten up as satires on Anglicanism in the forms of dialogues in which a number of persons spoke their parts. They were filled with disparaging, yea, even scurrilous personalities against the Anglican hierarchy and clergy and their supporters, and gave rise to a new form of English literature-satire. These were first answered almost as effectively by the Anglicans in the same vein, and later by learned discussions, including the ablest treatises on Episcopacy in itself and in its contrast with Presbyterianism ever issued. Bancroft, Saravia, Bilson and especially Hooker were the main warriors for the Anglican movement; and Hooker's Laws of the Ecclesiastical Polity is the finest example of English prose ever produced. In prose he is the equal of Shakespeare in poetry. Of course the Puritans produced sober treatises, too, in this battle; but they were overmatched. However, it was a case of error fighting error, and the abler champions of error were on the
Earlier Parallels.
309
Anglican side; and they were, accordingly, victorious in the fight. These general remarks will prepare us for the details typed in vs. 23-30. The leaders of the Puritans said that in an encounter that involves the civil powers, the power of the Anglican movement was too much for them, but in a merely intellectual battle among the common people they could overcome the Anglican movement (23). Hence they counseled the Puritans as a body to enter a literary debate with the Anglican movement, setting aside their statesmen favorers and putting their theological debaters into the fray (24), with all their doctrines and organizations restored to the battle line, by which they promised them victory. This counsel was accepted and acted upon (25). The Puritan party mustered its forces for what they supposed to be certain victory and took a powerful position (26). The Martin Mar-prelate booklets then set in their appearance. This aroused the Anglican movement to muster its few fighters as against the many on the other side (27). The faithful in this movement, as the Lord's mouthpiece, assured it that as the Puritans had said that the Anglican movement could hold its grounds only by the civil powers, it would be proved that in argument it would more than defeat them by God's power (28).
(38) There were preliminary attacks by satirical booklets on the Anglican movement by individual Puritan writers, but the real fight set in with the appearance of the first of the Martin Mar-prelate booklets entitled, The Epistle. Its tone was sharp, its exposures of the evils of certain bishops and higher clergy were most damaging, and its satire most devastating. A second shortly afterward appeared, entitled, The Epitome, which was even more damaging than the Epistle. The authorship of the Martin Mar-prelate booklets is unknown, but there were a number of writers who cooperated thereon. Almost at the same time as the Epitome appeared the first answer to the Epistle by a Mr. Nash appeared. Thereafter in quick succession the
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
310
two sides assailed one another, and that satirically, but the satire of the Martin Mar-prelate booklets was severer, keener and deadlier. Each side had much of damaging facts against the other; for the bulk of the clergy and leaders of both sides were far from being saints; but when the conflict changed from the satirical and personal to the scholarly and doctrinal, the Anglican side, having abler mouthpieces, won an overwhelming victory (29). The remnant of the Puritan fighters, fleeing to their fortress on presbyters as against bishops, found that under the blows of the Anglican movement's writers, its powers fell; for they refuted still others; and the Puritans sought refuge in secret works (30).
(39) Some of its representatives suggested that they humbly ask from the Anglican movement for concessions permitting Puritanism to survive, which suggestion was accepted (31); and these in an humble attitude asked for such concessions. Anxious for peace, the Anglican movement expressed a fraternal concern for the Puritan movement. The messengers made the most of such fraternity, and a reconciliation took place, (33). The Puritans promised to surrender the advantages that they had won under the first phase of the Anglican movement, and to give the Anglican movement the corresponding advantages. The Anglican movement accepted the proposal. It softened somewhat the demanded subjection to the Episcopate and made the subscription to the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles non-obligatory for renewal, which was before demanded, to those already in the ministry, but did require it of new candidates for the ministry (34). With this agreement a temporary peace was made between the two movements. Certain ones of the Lord's mouthpieces asked others of this class to treat them as partially refuted, which was refused, and the refusers were told that the nominal church would rend them, which took place (35, 36). This same group of the Anglican movement asked a Puritan mouthpiece group to do this to them, which was done unto the formers'
Earlier Parallels.
311
wounding (37). Thereafter the first mouthpiece group disguised itself to the Anglican group and told a pertinent illustration to it, which, not seeing the application, condemned the mouthpiece group (38—40). Then the mouthpiece group revealed its real identity, which was by the Anglican movement recognized as such (41). Then the mouthpiece group pronounced the sentence of the Lord, in principle pronounced by the second Anglican movement, that because the second Anglican movement had spared the Puritan movement, the latter would refute it (42), which saddened and displeased the second Anglican movement in its dealings in church and state (43).
(40) The English Congregationalists, Separatists, as they were then called for their separation from the union of state and church, had a sphere of activity all their own, but close to the office functions of the second Anglican movement (1 K. 21:1). Their sphere of activity, separation from the state church, the Anglican movement desired to take from them and offered them, instead, incorporation into the state church, or special privileges otherwise (2). But the Separatists declined to give up their separatism, believing it to be the one given them by the Lord in the original constitution of the Church (3). This saddened and displeased the Anglican movement, which betook itself to its creed, became disgruntled and would accept no refreshment (4). Its complaints, voiced through its leaders, particularly Archbishop Whitgift of Canterbury and Bishop Aylmer of London, reached the Anglican Church headed by Elizabeth, which and who inquired for the reason of its indisposition (5). It answered as indicated above in the explanation of v. 2 (6). They encouraged it to resume its former refreshment and cheer, promising to take the privilege of separation away from the Separatists and to give it into the second Anglican movement's power (7). Through the proper officials they caused word to go out to the leaders and officials in church and state to appoint a time of self-mortification
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
312
in the state church for the spread of nonconformity, to single out the Separatists for special prominence as the worst pertinent offenders, and to make the state and ecclesiastical leaders witness against them as heretics against God and rebels against the second Anglican movement, and then, depriving them of their rights, as blasphemers and rebels, to hurl their teachings against them unto their cutting off (9, 10). The officials did as commanded (11).
(41) They appointed a period of self-mortification in view of the disorders in state and church, and put the Separatists into the place of prominence by the unfavorable publicity given them (12). And, true enough, the state and ecclesiastical leaders appeared as witnesses against them as heretics and rebels, and they were condemned as the former by the highest church court, Whitgift and Aylmer being their chief condemners therein, and as the latter by the civil court, the two chief justices being their chief condemners therein. The processes and hearings were numerous for the individually accused ones, but the upshot of it all, the persecution from beginning to end lasting in its imprisonment phase from 1582 to 1597, was Browne's being imprisoned 32 times, six being hanged, including Barrowe, Greenwood and Penry, the first a barrister and the second and third ex-Anglican clergymen, hundreds being imprisoned, among whom at least 26 died from prison severities, and hundreds being exiled to Holland, etc., and some as Pilgrim fathers leaving England and Holland for Massachusetts. Indeed, all others of them were by law sentenced to exile. Public sentiment, contrary to the hierarchy's ordinance introduced into Parliament, would not allow more hangings; and therefore, emptying the prisons, Parliament decreed their banishment. Frances Johnson, first the pastor of the London, and afterwards of the Amsterdam Separatists, seems to be the last released from jail, in 1597, after four years' incarceration (13).
(42) When the Anglican Church headed by Elizabeth
Earlier Parallels.
313
learned of the persecution of these, it told the second Anglican movement to take control of the privileges of the Separatists, whose persecution, they assured it, was a reality that cut them entirely off (14, 15). At this news the Anglican movement advanced to take possession of their privileges (16). The principles of the Lord's Word charged the faithful new creatures to face, by literary products, the Anglican movement, which was mixed up in politics, in its taking possession of the privileges of the Separatists (17, 18). These principles suggested that the faithful new creatures remind it of its cutting off of the Separatists and possessing itself of their sphere of activity. The forecasts of the Word moved them to announce to the Anglican movement that in the sphere of persecution, where sectarians took away the life powers of the Separatists, would sectarians take away the life powers of the Anglican movement (19). It demanded of the faithful new creatures as its enemies whether they had arrived at a Biblical knowledge of it;' and it was told that such was the case, and that because it had for a price given itself to do evil in matters related to God (20). Then they announced the Lord's judgment of destruction against it and its immediate successors and descendants, whether bound or free (21), that God would do with the phases of the Anglican movement as He had done with the two phases of the Lutheran movement and the two phases of the Calvinistic movement, and that for its God-provoking wickedness and for making its adherents do evil (22). Furthermore, that sectarians would devour all the policies, powers, arrangements, clergy, hierarchy, etc., that the Anglican Church headed by Elizabeth had established in the state church (23), that sectarians would devour all of the offspring of the Anglican movement that would remain in its state church, and that revolutionists would do that for those of them who would leave it (24). Of all the less favored movements of the Protestant people of God, none did so wickedly as the second
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
314
phase of the Anglican movement, and that from 1579 to 1600, stirred up thereto by the Anglican Church headed by Elizabeth (25). It did especially wickedly in various forms of evils, after the manner of the sins of pride, so contrary to the ways of God's real people (26). These rebukes had a corrective effect upon the second Anglican movement, which repented of its course and amended its ways (27). From the Word the faithful new creatures observed this repentance and amendment, and from it they learned that the Lord would delay the execution of the threatened punishment until the end of the Anglican movement's fourth phase (28, 29).
(43) There were two controversies involving the Anglican movement after the controversy that it had on Episcopacy versus Presbyterianism: One was on Calvinistic predestinarianism, in which the dispute was mainly among themselves, in which the Calvinistic theory, held by the Puritans and Separatists, as well as by one side in the Anglican movement, was decidedly worsted. Hence it cannot be typed by the war of Ahab and Jehoshaphat against the Syrians in 1 Kings 22; 2 Chro. 18. The other was the Sabbath controversy. In this controversy the Anglican movement, antitypical Ahab, and the Congregational movement, antitypical Jehoshaphat, took the liberal side and the Puritans (Presbyterians), antitypical Ben-Hadad, took the strict or radical side, applying to Sunday all that the Old Testament applies to the Jewish Sabbath. Previous to this controversy Sunday was generally regarded as a day whose morning should be devoted to church attendance and the rest of the day to worldly sports, business, feasting and pleasure. In 1595 a Puritan divine, a Dr. Bound, wrote a book advocating a strict keeping of Sunday after the manner of the Jewish Sabbath, whose commands and prohibitions he applied as obligatory for Sunday as the alleged place-taker for Christians of the Jewish Sabbath. Shortly thereafter several other Puritan divines published books advocating
Earlier Parallels.
315
the same ideas. In 1597 Dr. Rogers in the preface of his book on the 39 Articles threw out a caution that this "new view" was doubtless being advocated to reflect upon the church holidays (taken over from Rome). But a couple of years passed before the matter broke out as a controversy, which by the Spring of 1600 resulted in a defeat of the defenders of the prevalent loose views of Sunday observance and the triumph of the Sabbatarians. It is this controversy that is typed in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chro. 18, which will be set forth.
(44) The controversy on Episcopalism and Presbyterianism tapered to an end from 1594 to 1596; and the Sabbath controversy lasted about a year, from the Spring of 1599 to that of 1600 (1 K. 22:1). The Congregational movement possessed much Truth on church government and much honor through its brave stand amid persecution, which resulted in Parliament's abolishing the death penalty and imprisonment against its advocates, though still banishing them (2 C. 18:1). In 1599, agreeing with the Anglican movement on Sunday's not being the Sabbath, and thus not obligatory upon Christians in the sense of the Jewish Sabbath's being obligatory on the Jews, the Congregational movement joined the former against the Puritans (Presbyterians) on the subject (2; 2). This agreement influenced the Anglican movement to show its specially favored attention and desire for its cooperation to wrest through the Sabbath controversy the place of preeminence from the Puritan Presbyterians, which these had taken from it, and which it claimed for itself (3; 2). It, therefore, proposed to the Congregational movement that it join it in the pertinent controversy, which the Congregational movement agreed to do (4; 3). More careful to carry out the Lord's will than the Anglican movement, the Congregational movement proposed that they learn the Lord's present will on the subject (5; 4). The Anglican movement gathered its numerous mouthpieces to inquire what they
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
316
considered the Lord's will thereon to be. These encouraged it to enter the controversy, promising it that the Lord would give it victory (6; 5). Still hesitating, the Congregational movement inquired whether there were not a class of mouthpieces who recognizedly spoke in harmony with the Lord's principles (7; 6). The Anglican movement replied that there was one such group of Anglican movement brethren, which it disliked, because it never spoke well, but always evil of the Anglican movement. The former remonstrated with the latter for such sentiments (8; 7). Thereupon the Anglican movement sent for this class to be brought quickly (9; 8). These two movements in their full authority came before the public in political respects; and all the mouthpieces were thus speaking on their affairs (10; 9). One set of these mouthpieces as advisers presented strong arguments for the two movements' position and assured the Anglican movement that thereby they would be able utterly to overthrow the Sabbatarianism of the Puritan Presbyterians (11; 10). This view all the other mouthpiece groups corroborated (12; 11). Those sent to bring the Truth-speaking class told it how all the other mouthpieces foretold prosperity and suggested that it do the same (13; 12). This mouthpiece group solemnly answered that only according to the principles of the Lord's Word would it speak (14; 13).
(45) On its coming into contact with the Anglican movement, the latter asked whether it should struggle for the preeminence on the Sabbath question or not, and, if so, whether it would be successful, to which questions this mouthpiece group gave an ironical and sarcastic answer implying the opposite thought of what a non-ironical and non-sarcastic answer would convey (15; 14). In doubt as to the import of the answer, the Anglican movement remonstrated that it had often solemnly to demand from it a true answer according to the principles of the Word (16; 15). Dropping its irony and sarcasm, it foretold a crushing defeat that would result in the death of the second phase of the
Earlier Parallels.
317
Anglican movement, leaving the Anglicans on the pertinent subject without a leader, with the principles of the Word implying that they would have no real teacher thereon, and that the Anglicans would give up the fight on the Sabbath question (17:16). On hearing this answer the Anglican movement appealed to the Congregational movement to witness that it had foretold, not a prosperous, but a calamitous answer and outcome (18; 17). This mouthpiece then declared that it had seen a set of circumstances manipulated by the Lord (19; 18) whereby God's course showed that He desired to take the supposedly wise Anglican movement in its own craftiness (Job 5:13), which circumstances, so manipulated, appealed for someone to inveigle the Anglican movement into the fatal step of fighting for preeminence with the Puritan Presbyterians on the Sabbath.
(46) Some of these circumstances suggested certain, and some, other courses (20; 19). One of these circumstances suggested a specially deceitful course (21; 20). It was Divinely manipulated to indicate that it would impress the various sets of the Anglican movement's mouthpieces with the thought of certain victory for it; God's favoring this circumstance foretold by act that the ruse would be successful (22; 21). Then the Truth-speaking mouthpiece declared that the Lord's providences suggested to the false prophets a deception as true, but that in truth the principles of the Word forecast calamities upon the Anglican movement (23; 22). Thereupon the boldest group of the false mouthpieces denounced the true one, challenging it to prove that the Truth went from the smiter to the smitten one (24; 23). The latter answered that when the coming defeat would drive the former to hide itself in shameful confusion, it would see how it was (25; 24). Indignant, the Anglican movement charged that the true mouthpiece be handed over to corrective officers (26; 25) and by them be restrained and disciplined with rigor until it would return in triumph (27; 26).
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
318
To this the true mouthpiece answered that if it would return in victory in the Sabbath controversy, the Lord would not have spoken by that mouthpiece; and this statement it called upon all to note (28; 27).
(47) Thereupon the Anglican and Separatist movements undertook the campaign to gain the position of preeminence on the Sabbath question, a subject on which both sides were in more or less error, though there was less truth thereon with the Puritan Presbyterians than with the other two movements. It was here the old story of one extreme of error fighting another extreme of error, with the truth lying between them forgotten (29; 28). The Anglican movement proposed that it would hide its real pertinent thoughts, and' that the Separatist movement express its real pertinent thoughts, which was done (30; 29). The Presbyterian movement, desiring to defeat the Anglican movement, and not caring so much about the relatively small-numbered Congregational movement, charged its champions to fight against the Anglican movement only (31; 30). Thus they entered the controversy, in which the Separatists expressing their real sentiments, were taken to be the Anglican movement, and the Presbyterians, concentrating on these, soon put them to such distress and expressions of distress as betrayed their real nature, whereby the Lord helped them and moved their attackers to cease their attacks on them (32, 33; 31, 32). A group among the Puritan Presbyterians by hit-and-miss methods struck the Anglican movement in a vulnerable part of its armor—the view that Sunday was the same kind of a day as any of the other festivals of the church year, e.g., like a saint's day, on which after service every kind of worldly sports, competitions, pleasures, business, etc., could properly be indulged. Feeling this blow keenly, it asked that the managers of its organization take it out of the fray, pleading by its condition that in the argument it was sorely smitten (34; 33).
Earlier Parallels.
319
(48) The controversy increased in intensity and the Anglican movement set itself firmly in its organization until April, 1600, when it gave up in complete defeat and its vitality oozed out even unto the lowest adherents of its organization (35;34). The Anglicans and Separatists by that time were so completely worsted in the controversy, that immediately thereafter the latter accepted the Presbyterians' pertinent position and the Anglicans were more or less driven to a certain kind of compliance, the result being that the British people are the strictest Sunday observers of all peoples (36). Thus the Anglican movement gave up on the main phases of the question, and was brought over to political questions and there entered oblivion on the subject (37). The Anglican organization had to be purged from the death evidences of the second phase of the Anglican movement; and sectarians appropriated these evidences by the aid of the teachings with which the state churches sought to purge their defilements (38). All this was in fulfilment of the Lord's word against the most wicked phase of the less favored movements of the Protestant people of God. The Anglican and other historians have accurately described the history of this movement, as well as the powerful system that it built and its dioceses. So ended the second phase of the Anglican movement; it was succeeded by the third phase of that movement, which had to do with the subject of ecclesiastical versus civil courts (39, 40).
(49) The Separatist or Congregational movement, after the Sabbath controversy, returned to its own sphere of service (2 C. 19:1). But the Lord's mouthpiece in it gave it a strong rebuke for its siding with the hitherto most wicked phase of the less favored movements among the Protestant people of God, and told it that the Lord was displeased with it (2). But praise tempered the dispraise, because it had rejected the union of state and church with its main evils, and because it had faithfully set its heart to become
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
320
one with the Lord (3). This movement remained in its stewardship doctrine, congregationalism, and sought to convert to its truth all that it could, from the faithful new creatures to the adherents of the Episcopal Church, and succeeded in so doing with increasing numbers (4). It arranged with more or less error the servants of the local ecclesias as follows: (1) pastors, (2) teachers, (3) ruling elders, (4) deacons, (5) helpers and (6) widows (5), enjoining upon them great carefulness as to themselves and the brethren and to exercise their offices not for man, but for God, who would support them in right and Truth (5, 6). It exhorted them to have reverence for God and to exercise it, since iniquity, partiality and bribery do not prevail in the Lord's affairs (7). Moreover, this movement arranged that the various ecclesias could hold conferences through pastor, teacher, and elder representatives sent by each ecclesia, so that each ecclesia might be helped by the collective wisdom of all, given as advice, not by compulsion, in doctrine and practice, especially on controverted subjects. This done, they returned to each ecclesia as a complete thing in itself (8).
(50) Such servants of the brethren were by it exhorted to act in harmony with their consecration faithfully and single-heartedly (9). It told such servants that in all cases of controversy among the ecclesias on matters affecting brethren and brethren personally and on matters of practice and practice, doctrine and doctrine, they should warn the brethren not to be guilty against God, else wrath would come upon them and upon their brethren, and that by so doing the guilt of unfaithfulness would not attach itself to them (10). It also charged that the pastors were their chief servants in the Lord and that the elders were to rule in the concerns of the ecclesias. (This was the corruption of the stewardship truth that Henry Barrowe as a crown-lost leader introduced, whereby he sought to blend Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, against the teaching of Robert Browne, whose pertinent
Earlier Parallels.
321
teachings were pure Congregationalism.) It also commended the lesser officers to the brethren, as well as exhorted to courage, with the assurance that God would be with the good (11). During this time Romanism had no chief movement in Britain; it had the mere shadow of a movement secretly led and inefficient (1 K. 22:47). During this time (1600-1602) the Congregational movement approached the third phase of the Anglican movement, which was very wicked (44; 2 C. 20:35); and the latter offered to cooperate in making certain groups of scholars seek Divine matters in joint study (48; 36). For this the Congregational movement was denounced by one of the new-creaturely companies and told that this cooperative effort would fail, and that the Lord would destroy its works. This occurred through the learned ones, especially at Oxford and Cambridge, whereby these groups of scholars were unable to make the mental journeys necessary to get the real Divine matters (2 C. 20:37). This occurred after the Congregational movement refused to accept the scholars of the third phase of the Anglican movement into study groups (1 K. 22:49).
(51) The second phase of the Anglican movement ended April, 1600, and was succeeded by its third phase, which was also a power-grasping phase, especially seeking to perpetuate its power through the low and high ecclesiastical courts; but it lasted only two years (51). It continued in all the evils of the second phase of the Anglican movement, of the Anglican Church and of both of the Lutheran movements (52), especially grasping for power and lording it over God's people (53). It met with a calamity in connection with its procedure in its low courts and its Court of High Commission. These courts were marred by the same evils as they committed in the days that Romanism controlled them. They were guilty of many tricks to mulct the people of their money and to delay litigation for gain, as well as of bribery from, and favoritism to the great and of severity toward the poor.
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
322
Especially did they do evil in cases of marriage licenses, excommunications and clerical litigation. This diseased condition moved this Anglican movement to seek answer to the question as to its curability, not from the principles of the Lord's Word, but from those of self-preservation, disregardful of the proper means used thereto (2 K. 1:2). The faithful new creatures, as God's mouthpiece, seeing through this evil course, were by the principles of God's Word aroused to expostulate against this course, demanding whether there were no God of Truth and justice among God's people, that the movement made its appeal to wrong principles and methods, as an appeal to Satan and not to God for pertinent information (3). Therefore God's new creatures, as His mouthpiece, announced that the pertinent disease would be fatal, and with this announcement they left the movement's messengers (4).
(52) These returned to the sick Anglican movement and gave the answer given them, after it had expressed its wonder at their so speedy return (5, 6). The movement inquired as to the character of their informants (7). These replied that they were well versed in the Scriptures and served their cause humbly, from which the movement inferred that they were the Lord's new creatures acting as His mouthpiece (8). Partisan warriors of the movement, especially Archbishop Whitgift and certain of his special helpers in 1601, agitated certain reforms as the quick answer to God's mouthpiece, which were in effect a demand upon it to leave the high grounds on which it had taken its stand and to surrender to them as the movement's representatives (9). By the act of calling from the spiritual sphere refutative arguments God's mouthpiece overthrew their points (10). In January, 1602, Whitgift and his supporters offered other reforms as quick refutations of God's mouthpiece, who again by spiritual arguments refuted their attackers (11, 12). Again, but in an humble manner, these came, entreating that spiritual arguments no more be used, as those that refuted them
Earlier Parallels.
323
before, but that the practical aspects of the situation be given consideration, as needed by the critical conditions of the movement on the courts' situation (13, 14). God's mouthpiece condescended to take the lower ground, as directed by their leader, and thereon met the movement on its own grounds (15). There he gave the message of death to the movement on the question of ecclesiastical courts, because of their past and present wickedness in acting out Satan's principles in the past and seeking help from them in the present situation (16). This death set in, and was brought about, not by reforming these courts, but by litigants' obtaining prohibitions from the secular courts, which these were only too glad to grant as a curb on the ecclesiastical courts, estopping the executions of the latters' decisions (17). The historians of the Anglican Church describe this aspect of the Anglican movement (18).
(53) In 1603 (918 B. C.) after Elizabeth's death, and on the accession of James I to the English throne, in the fourth phase of the Anglican movement, 16021616 (919-905 B. C.), there arose against the Congregationalists James in autocracy, clericalist Oxford University professors and the statesmen (not Ammonites, but the Meamites, according to Ginsburg's notes, i.e., Edomites; see 2 C. 20:10, 22, 23), who stood for a union of state and church in a controversy on whether the exiled Congregational movement might return to England and enjoy peace and the protection of the laws (2 C. 20:1, 2). The Congregationalist brethren tremblingly betook themselves to fasting and to prayer to the Lord (3). All Congregationalism gathered itself out of all their ecclesias and joined therein (4). The Congregational movement set itself in their midst (5) and prayed to God as universal sovereign and irresistible (6), who had hitherto enabled them to defeat all their enemies as against this sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, and who had given it to God's children for a lasting inheritance (7). These dwelt therein and built up the Church unto God's glory (8), saying that
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
324
if controversy, punishment, error or lack of Truth would overtake them, they would appear publicly before the Church, where God's glory dwells, and pray to Him in such trouble, believing that He would hear and deliver them (9). Then they told the Lord that autocratic clericalistic professors and state and church unionistic statesmen, whom God would not permit them to molest when they came out of the kingdom of darkness, and whom they, accordingly, did not harm (10), were now in ingratitude seeking to dispossess them of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, their Divinely, given inheritance (11). They asked God to rule them, pleading their powerlessness, lacks as to the opposing host and their confidence in God (12).
(54) This was done in the presence of all Congregationalists in all their classes (13). Certain of the secondary leaders, deacons, animated by the Lord's Spirit, arose in their midst (14), asking for their attention and declaring the Lord's message, to the effect that they should not be terrified, since the battle was not theirs, but the Lord's (15). These encouraged them to set forth their views on the government of the ecclesias, as to what it should be and should not be for the militant Church (16). They assured them that they would not need to carry on an extended controversy, but content themselves in quietness to see the effect of their presentations of their views as a deliverance from the Lord, whose presence with them should remove all terror from them, since they were simply to go forth and present their views and trust His presence (17). This moved the Congregational movement and all Congregationalism and Congregationalists to bow in worship (18). Certain brethren, led by F. Johnson, the main pastor, and H. Ainsworth, their main teacher, prepared themselves to do the speaking and writing part of their case before the three classes of their enemies (19). These in all prepared four writings for the king, etc., and went to London from Amsterdam to present their case orally and in
Earlier Parallels.
325
writing. The movement itself asked the brethren's attention and exhorted the brethren to faith in God, who would build them up, and to believe in His mouthpieces, which would bring prosperity (20).
(55) With common consent it sent forth the responding messengers, whose presentations of the Word reflected credit upon God (21). These presentations resulted in the autocratic king and the Oxford professors refuting the state- and church-union statesmen, and the autocratic king and Oxford professors refuted one another after the Lord's messengers refuted the position of all three (22, 23). The faithful witnessed the defeat of their enemies and saw them defeated by one another over the statements, especially the 14 points, presented by the messengers (24). Their fourth writing, entitled, An Apology, or Defense of such True Christians as are Commonly (but unjustly) called Browneists, made spoil of their adversaries (25). They thereafter assembled in a condition of blessing; for they praised God (26). Victorious in God's sight and their own, they returned to their usual activities, though unable to obtain permission to return to England, glad that they could confess the Truth before the great ones of England, who were by it put to confusion and mutual refutation (27, 28). Their triumphant confession and its effects made a good impression on many, who recognized that God fought for them, and the result was prosperity (29, 30).
(56) It was just after the first of the fourfold verbal and literary attempts of the Congregational movement to secure permission from James I for their exiled members to return to England and to obtain for those there and the returned exiles the privilege of freedom of worship, assembly and propaganda, that a setting aside of the more uncompromising brethren from mouthpieceship and the obtaining of that office by the less uncompromising brethren was to occur (2 K. 2:1). The four stations to which Elijah and Elisha went represent four stages in their later united ministry:
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
326
crucial transitory experience (1) with general conditions, (2) with the true Church, (3) with the nominal church, and (4) with the disapproved British peoples. In connection with the first three the more uncompromising brethrens' course proved very trialsome to the less uncompromising brethren who yet overcame the trial; and some of the Congregationalist hangers-on forecast at the second and third stages the completion of the change as to mouthpieceship which the less uncompromising brethren anticipated, but on which they desired that silence be kept (2-6). As these brethren while progressing toward this change approached and stood before the disapproved peoples of Britain: the king, nobility, hierarchy and liberty lovers, their course was watched by a large company of hangers-on (7). Uniting all their resources the more uncompromising brethren set forth the evils of the disapproved peoples of Britain, severely rebuked them for these evils and denounced their institutions unto destruction, which divided the disapproved peoples of Britain into (1) autocrats: king, nobility and hierarchy, and (2) the radicals: liberty-lovers and opponents of autocracy, between whom in their two kinds the new-creatures passed unhurt to experiences beyond (8). The course of the more uncompromising ones suggested to the less uncompromising ones that they ask a parting boon. Those in the latter attitude then asked for successorship as mouthpiece under condition of obedience to those in the former attitude (9). Those in the first attitude, stressing the difficulty involved in the request, assured those in the second attitude that their request would be granted, if they continued in cooperation until the change set in (10). This they did. The leader of those in the first attitude was Thomas White, and of those in the second attitude was Francis Johnson. The latter got control of the organization of the Holland Congregationalists and forced those of the other attitude into the background (11). During this change those in the second
Earlier Parallels.
327
attitude recognized those in the first attitude, were at first distressed at the change and at the condition of their own organization, then refused longer to recognize those of the former attitude as controlling, became guilty of many evils, as well as repudiated their subordinate position, taking the controllership that those in the first attitude let slip out of their hands (12). And with their new powers they by word and writing caustically arraigned, rebuked and condemned the disapproved peoples of Britain alienating them increasingly into the above-mentioned groups, and that under the impression that they themselves were the ones acting by right in this matter. Their arraignment, rebukes and condemnation of the peoples of Britain divided the latter more and more. Then they passed between them to other activities, more or less injured by the peoples of Britain (13, 14).
(57) The hangers-on, especially those of them who were in Holland, and who had taken their stand only as far as the third attempt at freedom from the ecclesias' difficulties, accepted these as in the controlling attitude and work; they approached these and became subject to them in their leaders (15). These in a large company proposed to make a reconciliation between those in the two attitudes and activities, fearing the former had by then office powers been too highly exalted or too deeply degraded. Their counsel was by the now controlling group rejected (16). The former continued with their urgings, until out of sheer shame the latter consented to the effort, which proved after lengthy attempts to be a failure (17). After failure they returned to the position taken in the third attempt at freedom from ecclesias' difficulties, where they found those in the second attitude, and were rebuked with the statement, Did we not tell you not to undertake it, as it would end in failure? (18). The adherents of the now controlling group told these that their sphere of activity was good; but that their "teachings," despite their Scriptural proofs for each of the involved
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
328
14 points and a more elaborate explanation of those 14 points, made in a confession of faith to James I and his supporters were bitter and their dispositions were resultantly barren (19). This led, at the controllers' request, to the preparation of a new and milder and more Truth-conforming publication; for this request was granted; and the matters were set forth in a publication of Francis Johnson's in 1606, which, while bettering matters, left still much to be bettered, which from time to time was done (20-22). From this sphere of activity the members of the mouthpiece betook themselves to the Anglican Church, emphasizing the 14 above-mentioned points, i.e., set forth their main constructive views and the opposing views of the fourth Anglican movement in 14 articles or propositions on the real and nominal Church.
(58) Therefore undeveloped nominal-churchists greatly derided them as bereft of the Truth and its Spirit (23). This led to their studying these and to their forecasting evil things to come upon them in the Lord's name. Two groups, one of state, the other of church, shortly came out from among earth's great ones, and in controversy rent 42 dioceses in Britain with contentions (24), until 1607 (914 B. C.), when the Jehoshaphat phase of the Congregationalist movement ended. After these things they had a temporary prosperity, but just afterward they became mixed up in church politics among themselves (25); yea, from here on for a long time the Congregationalist movement, beginning with the development in Truth of John Smyth in 1607 (914 B. C.), corresponding with Jehoram of Judah's reign (914-906 B. C.), entered into a reactionary course. Indeed, this reactionism set in as a faint beginning 8 years before and increased to a full head by the end of the first phase of the Congregationalist movement, corresponding to Jehoram's co-regency with his father Jehoshaphat 1599-1607 (922-914 B. C.). It took its rise in an attempt of the Congregationalist leaders in 1599 (922 B. C.) to enlist Dutch ecclesiastics
Earlier Parallels.
329
to take their side against the Anglican movement, which attempt ended in a flat failure. The second phase of the, Congregationalist movement was from 1607 to 1615 (914-906 B. C.). But before discussing it we will discuss one thing yet that belongs to its first phase, as set forth in 2 Kings 3, as well as a thing that belongs to the fourth phase of the Anglican movement.
(59) All the forces of the radicals, James I and the Archbishop of Canterbury at their head, both standing for the Divine right of kings, of aristocrats and of those clergy represented especially in the episcopacy, began a siege of the conservatives, especially in the domain of state and church politics. They put into operation a series of arbitrary acts tending to crush the conservatives in state and church. By their active support and the insistence of the king and Convocation, the highest legislative body in the Anglican Church, they did two things: (1) passed a series of 161 canons, divided into 13 chapters, many of which canons were passed legally by Parliament years before, but some of which were new and actually never received Parliamentary sanction, and thus are not a part of the English Church law; and (2) they required all clergymen to subscribe to them and what they sanctioned, e.g., the 39 Articles, the Book of Common Prayer and Apostolic Succession, certain papal ceremonies, etc., and that with their souls' full approval, which put a test of conscience on the Puritans, many of whom were conservatives, by which course the archbishop secured the ousting of 300—"deprived" 300—of such clergymen from their churches; and hundreds of others resigned before they could be ousted. Additionally, the Court of High Commission arbitrarily sought to push its ecclesiastical jurisdiction beyond its sphere of authority against the conservatives. All of this is typed by the siege of Samaria (2 Kings 6:24).
(60) These measures reduced the conservatives in the sphere of state and church politics to great stress,
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
330
in which there was the sorest kind of a famine in state and church rights in teaching edifying matters (25). The conservative party in state and the conservative party in church in their desperation entered into deals with each other for their mutual preservation, in which deals, after the latter had made their promised sacrifices, the former refused to make theirs, a thing that the aggrieved party brought to the conservatives as a whole, greatly distressed as it was in the exercise of its powers (26-29). This horrified these to such a degree as to expose its deep mourning over the situation as it was exercising its power (30). This angered it at God's mouthpiece that had encouraged the conservatives to resist the radicals (31). God's mouthpiece was at that time attending to their work with all their leading brethren before them. The conservatives sent a messenger to bring the threat of expulsion against God's mouthpiece, but before he arrived God's mouthpiece declared to the leaders before them that the descendant of the saint-disfellowshipping second Anglican movement was intent on their disfellowshipment, but they charged their auditors to give no access to such, assuring them that the party as a whole was taking action against them (32). Immediately thereafter the messenger of the conservative party came, whereupon God's mouthpiece recognized this misfortune as being providential, and as indicating that they should no longer withhold the Lord's pertinent message (33), which was to the effect that very shortly the famine of rights would end in an abundance of them easily obtained by all (2 K. 7:1).
(61) But the executive committee upon which the conservatives depended to carry out its measures doubted the word of God's mouthpiece, denying that even Divine power could effect this change, to which the latter replied that it would see this, but not enjoy its fruitage (2). In prominent places were certain fence-straddling crown-lost members of Parliament, of the judiciary, of the deprived clergy and of followers
Earlier Parallels.
331
of God's mouthpiece, very much distressed by the crisis in which they found themselves, debating over their situation which would bring them to a cutting off from their places, if persisted in (3). Furthermore, they reasoned that if they allied themselves outrightly with the conservatives they would lose their still possessed but diminished privileges, and that if they continued in their present fence-straddling position they would also be cut off. Hence they determined to fall away to the radicals, concluding that the worst that could from these happen to them was a refusal to receive them, whereas they stood a chance to be accepted by these (4). In their uncertainty they assayed to join themselves to the radicals, but when they came to the position of those who were nearest their own position, they found them to have abandoned it (5). The reason was that the Lord had caused to come to them the news of many organizations and teachings of the Parliamentary, judicial, conservative and independent parties working against them, which caused the radicals to think that all the fearful of all parties and all in harmony with British secular affairs had come to the relief of the conservatives (6).
(62) It happened as follows: In Nov., 1610 (911 B. C.) Bancroft, the very radical Archbishop of Canterbury and the Anglican primate, died and was succeeded by the Puritan Abbot, who largely reversed the radical policies of Bancroft. Furthermore, the judiciary and Parliament deprived the Court of High Commission of all its power, except in purely' ecclesiastical matters, and even in these so curbed its power as to give it liberty only in dealing with heresy by imprisonment or death, whereas before it dealt with anything that had an ecclesiastical aspect, e.g., marriage, inheritances. In 570 cases the courts set aside the radical decisions of the Court of High Commission, which very greatly compromised its assumed prerogatives. Parliament came to the aid of the judiciary, dissanctioning the radical autocracy of the king in
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
332
state and church and of the radical episcopacy in the church, and demanded the reinstatement of the deprived clergy. Among other things, to the king's great disliking, it caused Dr. Cowel to be imprisoned, as advocating things contrary to the British Constitution in his book, The Interpreter, which advocated the propositions that the king was above the law and that he could void it and acts of Parliament at his pleasure, views that the whole radical ecclesiastical party sanctioned. It also caused his book to be suppressed. It continually opposed the autocratic arbitrariness of the king and the bishops. Public sentiment was greatly aroused against the radicals, because the Court of High Commission at the king's insistence, through the connivance of certain hand-picked radical judges, caused several heretics to be publicly burned for their heresy.
(63) All of this, and more too, frightened the radicals, as typed in v. 6; and thereupon they beat a general retreat from advocating their spheres of work, doctrines and principles; in a word, gave up pressing their radical positions and prerogatives into practice, and fled from practicing their radical views in fear of their official lives (7). The fence-straddling crown-losers in their four groups began to enter one position after another, taking as booty the unused and forsaken prerogatives; for they at first made only selfish use of these (8). But they, conscience-stricken, saw through their selfishness and, acknowledging their wrong, decided to break the good news to all the conservatives, 'also fearing that if their course were to become known, they would suffer for it; therefore they resolved to break the news to the members of the conservative party (9). Hence each one told the leaders of his own individual group, declaring that they had come to the position of the radicals and found no defender of it, no advocacy of it, but each doctrine and principle and sphere of activity standing in its place (11). As one man they encouraged the leaders to make the news known to the members of their
Earlier Parallels.
333
several conservative parties. The conservatives in their ignorance of the situation suspected a stratagem as being worked against them to inveigle them from their position that they might be overwhelmed outside their defenses; and they told their suspicions to one another (12). But the leaders counseled that of the principles of the British Constitution still remaining with them, five be used to test the condition. These five principles were the inviolability of the Constitution, Parliament as the sole law-making body in Britain, the judiciary as the sole interpreter of the law, the king and his cabinet as the executives of Parliament's laws and the competence of Parliament, concerning British matters, to discuss any subject, a thing that the king denied so far as his matters were concerned, most other principles of the British Constitution having, with their advocates, been crushed (13). Thereupon a committee of Parliament and one of the judiciary with pertinent teachings were sent out to investigate the report of the radicals' retreat (14).
(64) Their investigations disclosed the fact that it was apparent even to the most depraved peoples of Britain that the radicals had fled from their positions; and strewn about all the way were scattered the prerogatives and principles cast away, so far as advocating them was concerned, in their flight by radicals; and this news was by the investigators brought back to the conservatives (15). Therefore the conservatives went forth and took advantage of the defense-abandoned position of the radicals to improve their own position. In the parliamentary elections of 1614 (907 B. C.) almost every supporter of the radicals was defeated; and the new Commons met in a very belligerent mood toward the autocratic power-grasping king and episcopacy. This settled the questions at dispute, so far as the votes of Britain were concerned—they had completely rejected the radicalism of the king and the bishops, the thing here typed. This was the beginning of the end of the pertinent struggle, which as it went
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
334
forward resulted more and more favorably until the former radicals were utterly defeated in 1646 (875 B. C.) in state and church (16); and this made the conservatives' rights normally maintained and used in great abundance, as the Lord had through His mouthpiece declared would be the case. To secure the inculcation of their principles, the conservatives in their four divisions appointed their fourfold executives to supervise the public operation of this educational work; but the British people, now turned conservative on the questions, took this matter into their own hands as advocates and displaced these executives from their pertinent office, and thus fulfilled the pertinent forecast of God's mouthpiece made when the conservatives came to them to cut them off (17). Vs. 18, 19 are a repetition of vs. 1, 2, made in connection with their fulfilment, hence their antitypes were given above in the explanation of vs. 1, 2 and will not be repeated.
(65) God's mouthpiece had told their supporters in the Congregationalist movement, in which they had aroused a public movement, that the Lord had determined that there would be a destitution of rights and privileges unto a completion in the sphere of their teachings and its spirit, and that they should seek a refuge (2 K. 8:1). Accordingly, such supporters and all they had betook themselves into a sectarian condition until such destitution should come to an end (2), which occurred as the radicals beat a retreat from their domineering over the conservatives in state and church, when the supporters of God's mouthpiece came back from their sectarian position and petitioned the conservatives for a restoration of themselves and their sphere of teaching and its practice (3). At the time of their petitioning Francis Johnson was also engaged in negotiations with the conservatives, who requested him to recount to them some of the great deeds of God's mouthpiece (4). And just at the juncture of his recital of how they had aroused among their supporters into activity a movement toward the public from its
Earlier Parallels.
335
deadness, those supporters among whom this movement was from deadness aroused to life petitioned for the restoration of themselves and their sphere of teaching and its practice, which occasioned Francis Johnson to tell the conservatives that the petitioners and their movement were the supporters of God's mouthpiece, and that their movement was the one that from deadness was by God's mouthpiece aroused to energetic activity (5). Thereupon the conservatives asked these supporters of God's mouthpiece about this event and were by them assured that the thing was true; whereupon the conservatives charged the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Puritan Abbot, and through him his fellow bishops to, grant to these the restoration of themselves and their sphere of teaching and practice plus all the benefits that had accrued since they were deprived of these (6).
(66) Now a change came in the picture as it is related by the antitypical Syrians. The Catholic party, consisted of two classes in England at that time: a milder and a stricter class. The former were the Anglo-Catholics in so far as they have been hitherto described (7), and the latter were a more fanatical class, the Roman Catholics. The former were led by an Oxford University Professor, William Laud, who later became, first, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, then of London, and in 1633, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This milder class was somewhat like the Anglo-Catholics of the present time, but in principles and practices further than these away from the Roman Catholics, with whom the present Anglo-Catholics seek reunion, but are kept back therefrom by the doctrine of the pope's supremacy and infallibility. The milder class of Catholics had heard that God's mouthpiece was occupied, especially in thought, with the Anglo-Catholic and Roman Catholic principles. It was during the primacy of Archbishops Abbott (1611-1633) and Laud (1633-1640) that the power of the milder Anglo-Catholic party gradually sickened and weakened, and
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
336
at the same time that of the Roman Catholics began secretly, stealthily and gradually to increase, through the intrigues of James I and Charles I. The sickened milder Catholics, learning that those new creatures who actually were God's mouthpiece, but whom they recognized as faithful Christians, were occupied more or less with the radicals, sent some of the more rigid of these by their writings, with courteous exhibitions of amity to inquire of them as to whether they might recover from their increasing loss of power and influence (8). With testful servility, natural to the radicals, these Roman Catholics approached by their writings God's mouthpiece and delivered their inquiry on behalf of the Anglo-Catholics, as if the latter were of the same class as God's mouthpiece (9). While God's mouthpiece through their writings told the Romanists to tell the milder Catholics that they might recover their power and influence, they, nevertheless, assured the Romanists that the milder party, would utterly lose its power and influence, which would be gained by the Romanist party (10).
(67) God's mouthpiece then fixedly held before the Romanists this knowledge of the situation until they became ashamed, but the knowledge of God's mouthpiece as to what they under the secret lead, first, of James I and then of Charles I, and finally of Charles II, and the open lead of the Romanist James II would do to the Anglican Church party greatly distressed them (11). This distress prompted the Romanists to inquire as to its cause. The former replied that they knew the evils that the latter would heap upon the Anglican Church party, i.e., overthrow their strong positions, refute their warriors, wreck the faith of the weak and destroy violently the fruit of their labors (12). This statement surprised the rigid radicals (Romanists) in their secret royal allies, who held themselves incapable to do such enormous works. But they were assured by God's mouthpiece through their writings that God had made them understand that
Earlier Parallels.
337
the rigid radicals would become the dominant party of the radicals, yea, that all the radicals would become rigid (13). Leaving God's mouthpiece in their writings, they returned to the weakened mild radicals, who inquired as to what God's mouthpiece had said. The rigid radicals answered that God's mouthpiece had declared that the sick mild radicals would surely recover their strength (14). But the Romanists were intent on suppressing the ascendancy of the Anglo-Catholics. Under the secret lead of James I and Charles I' the secret struggle of the Romanist movement began against the Anglo-Catholic movement, and set into operation the smothering of it unto death (15). Here the remark is to be made that it is to be remembered that the types usually mark the beginnings of the antitypes, just as prophecies usually mark the beginnings of their fulfillments. This principle, among other things, works throughout the 2520 years' parallels, e.g., if we would not apply this principle to the events of the Jehu reign (905-875 B. C.) in relation to the Puritan revolution (1616-1646) against the Anglican Church movement and its struggles against the Romanist (radical) movement, we could not construe the pertinent parallels; for the fourth Anglican Church movement changes from the conservative wing of it into the whole Anglican Church movement, i.e., it includes the low, high and broad Anglican Church movements as the later antitype of Jehoram of Israel, whose death at the beginning of Jehu's revolution types the outcome of the Puritan revolution (1616-1646).
(68) A reactionary Congregationalist movement was in the ascendancy from 1607 to 1615 (914-906 B. C.), beginning with the moving of the first contingent of the Scrooby ecclesia in England to Holland in 1607, the rest of this ecclesia moving there in 1608, with its pastor, John Robinson, who was the main leader in this reactionary movement. This movement had six related movements, each existing in a separate ecclesia, i.e., the four ecclesias at Amsterdam respectively presided in by Thomas White, John Smyth, Francis Johnson
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
338
and Henry Ainsworth, the original church at London and one in western England, from which Thomas White and others of its members emigrated to Holland (8:16; 21:2). The purer. Congregationalist movement, as well as their separate ecclesia bodies, had blessed each of these six ecclesias with many gifts of knowledge and grace; but the chief position was yielded to the movement whose leader was John Robinson, because it was the chief of the seven movements (; 3). The acts of the benevolent Congregationalist movement, its first phase, its constructive and refutative powers, are described by Congregationalist and non-Congregationalist historians (1 K. 22:45; 2 C. 20:34). It was as an ascendant movement put to an end in 1607 (914 B. C.) and has been kept in memory as one of Little Flock origination (50; 2 C. 21:1). But after reactionary Congregationalism came into the ascendancy it cut off the other six kindred Congregational movements by withdrawing fellowship from them, as well as cut off the leaders of the Baptist movement from fellowship (; 4). This reactionary Congregationalist movement was quite mature when it came to the ascendancy and passed through an eightfold set of experiences (2 K. 8:17; 5). But it was marred by sectarianism and clericalism and some autocracy, and reactionarily did some fellowshipping with the spirit of the Anglican Low Church party, even to the extent of advising its followers to attend the ministry of these and the Dutch National Church, with the result that it did evil before the Lord (18; 6). Yet the Lord spared this movement from eclipse; because it in respect to Congregationalism did better than most of the other six movements that it disfellowshipped; and thus God did according to His promise to the Little Flock, for it was a light in the true Church (19; 7).
(69) The oppressed Armenians, who opposed its Calvinism, rebelled against reactionary Congregationalism and, making a leader over themselves, fought
Earlier Parallels.
339
against it (20; 8). But it invaded the sphere of Arminianism with its leaders, especially John Robinson, and its organizations, and secretly attacked these, who had put it at a disadvantage, and whom it defeated in the debate (21; 9). Yet the Armenians continued to maintain their freedom against it; and at the same time certain enlightened priests turned against it for its wrong-doings (22; 10). Under John Robinson's lead this reactionary Congregationalist movement sanctioned and cooperated with various sects, like the Church of England and the Dutch Reformed Church, and encouraged its members to fellowship with these sects and their sectarian ministries and members (; 11). While so engaged there came to it a book of Robert Browne, the Little Flock star-member who started the Congregational movement, setting forth the true pertinent doctrine and chastising the very sins that reactionary Congregationalism was committing, rebuking it for departing from the pure and benevolent Congregationalist movement and from the good ways of the Unitarian movement (; 12), for practicing sectarianism and clericalism, for encouraging the brethren to fellowship with harlot sects and for disfellowshipping the other six Congregationalist movements in the other six leading Congregationalist Churches (; 13). Then this book of Robert Browne announced God's judgment on their apostacy: a plague of error on its adherents, its converts, its arrangements and its teachings (; 14), and a disease upon the movement itself that would make it disintegrate internally by a long-drawn-out process (; 15).
(70) This was fulfilled by sectarians from the outside and traitors from the inside attacking them (; 16). These came against the reactionary Congregationalist movement's sphere of teaching and spirit, taking away its attainments, its converts and its arrangements, leaving it with but one policy, autocracy (; 17). Then internal troubles beset it (; 18). And after a lingering disease, due to their desire to escape
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
340
from the social conditions in Holland, this reactionary form of Congregationalism through loss of its vital powers ceased to have the ascendancy among Congregationalists, which policy was not held in honor among God's real people (; 19), nor was it any more desired by them after passing through its eight stages. Its deeds are recorded by Congregationalist historians (23). It ended as a movement that had some Little Flock aspects, but failed to be a real Little Flock movement (24; 20). It was succeeded by even a worse movement—autocratic Congregationalism, which co-reigned a while with it and which was spared by the traitors in its midst, while the Anglicans were yet in power, who became the antitype of Jehoram of Israel in the changed aspect of his later years (24, 25; 9:29; 2 C. 22:1). This autocratic Congregational movement was a fairly developed movement before it came into the ascendancy and it worked on only one line autocracy. It showed its origin to be of the Low Anglican movement; for its spirit was such as in its Athaliah aspect it agreed to accept episcopacy, in order to get the privilege of a character from James I for those of its members who would migrate to America as pilgrims (26:2; by a copyist's mistake Ahaziah was said in; 2 to be 42 at his accession, whereas he was 22, as given in 26; 42 would have made him 2 years older than his father). The Anglican party was its adviser; and it acted autocratically, to its ruin (27; 3, 4). Following their advice, it cooperated with the Anglican Church party in its fight with the rigid Romanist (Hazael) party for power preeminence (28; 5). In this fight the Anglican Church movement through the double dealings of James I was given with Romanists many reverses (28), from which it sought convalescence from its own Church. It was at this juncture that autocratic Congregationalism joined forces with those of the Anglican Church movement to assist it in its recovery and to fight with it against the
Earlier Parallels.
341
Romanist party as antitypical Hazael working secretly with James I and later with Charles I (29:6).
(71) The end of the third phase of the Anglican movement has already been discussed. The co-regency of the third phase and the fourth phase, which was contemporaneous with that of the third phase, was from 1600 to, 1602 (921 to 919 B. C.), and during the last named year the sole existence of the fourth phase set in; and it lasted until 1616 - (919-905 B. C.), 14 years. It started in the year 20 of the first phase of the Congregationalist movement and in the second year of the co-regency of its first and second phase (1602 [919 B. C.]; 2 K. 1:17; 3:1). While the fourth Anglican phase did evil, it was not so bad as its second phase, nor as the Anglican Church headed by Elizabeth; for it modified considerably their power-grasping and lording, i.e., their absolutism (2); yet it served sectarianism and clericalism, the besetting sins of the less favored movements of the Protestant people of God, and persisted therein (3). In Britain the autocracy of the papacy had been subject for years to that of the first and second and even the third phases of the Anglican movement; but in the latter's fourth phase the papacy, through some of its British members, rebelled against the fourth phase (4, 5; 2 K. 1:1). This rebellion reached its height in the infamous Gunpowder Plot, whereby the Romanist autocratic hierarchy sought to blot out the entire royal family, nobility and Commons (when King James I, accompanied by his entire family and other close relatives, was to open Parliament) by exploding in a vault under the hall where all were to be assembled many barrels of gunpowder. The guilty Guy Fawkes, caught in the vault with matches in his pockets, under rack torture confessed the plot and its conspirators. This, of course, unleashed a great controversy between the fourth Anglican movement, whose chief warriors were Bishop Andrews and Dean Field, the Congregationalist movement and the secular rulers of Britain, on the one side, and Romanist
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
342
apologists, especially Bellarmine, Rome's greatest controversialist, and Stapleton, on the other side. To this controversy the fourth Anglican movement, using politics, called all its adherents (6). It also asked the Congregationalist movement to be on its side against Rome. To this it willingly consented (7). The latter asked as to the plan of procedure, and the former answered, along statesmanly lines (8). Hence the controversy involved the royal as against the papal power, the Anglican and Congregational and the statesmen, including the king, controverting along that line, and the debating powers of Bellarmine put their supporters to great distress (9).
(72) The Anglican movement fell into despair, thinking all three of the groups were doomed by God to defeat at the hands of autocratic Rome (10). But the Congregationalist movement inquired for a mouthpiece of God, to inquire of the Lord for counsel; and a group of the Anglican movement called attention to the now controlling mouthpiece as well acquainted with God's Word as disciples of the best leaders of the Congregationalist movement (11). Thus all three groups of controversialists went to them for counsel (12). This mouthpiece severely snubbed and reproved with sarcasm the Anglican movement, telling it to get its counsels from the mouthpieces of its autocratic predecessor and the Anglican Church headed by Queen Elizabeth, to which it demurred, expressing its despair that all three cooperating parties were doomed (13). For the evils of the Anglican movement the Lord's mouthpiece most solemnly asserted by the God whose mouthpiece they were that they would have no regard for, or recognition of the Anglican movement, were it not for their regard for the Congregationalist movement (14). Nevertheless, it called for the Bible that then was undergoing translation into the A. V., and from it at God's enlightenment drew forth teachings against Rome full of refreshment for the Truth-thirsty coming without the ordinary avenues therefore (15-17).
Earlier Parallels.
343
This would be easy for the Lord, they told them, and added that God would deliver to their power the autocratic papists (18), promising them that they would refute their every strong choice teaching and overthrow their every leading representative and all their fundamental writings and make barren their every field of activity in Britain (19).
(73) Shortly thereafter there came new truths from the statesmen for their refreshment (20). The Romanist warriors, on learning of the attack planned against them, had rushed to the defense of their views (21). When they saw the start of the new truths coming to their enemies on account of the Bible's light shining upon them, they thought them to be harbingers of strife and overthrowal among the three confederate groups and exhorted one another to fly to the spoil (22, 23). But instead of spoil they found resourceful warriors awaiting them, who, falling upon them, put them to flight, during which the three confederate groups made spirited pursuing attacks and invaded the positions of the pursued (24). Here they refuted their doctrines and made their teachings barren. They overthrew their literary sources, refuted their leading controversialists and exposed the rise of the papacy, leaving only the primitive doctrines intact, but with questions made these useless for the papacy (25). Seeing that the battle was going against it, the papacy, marshalling its chief warriors, made a determined attack upon the statesman group of the three confederates, especially assailing the defense by James I of the Divine right of kings, on which he wrote a book, to overthrow it, but failed (26). Thereupon they sacrificed their chief defenders in power. Great was the wrath of the papal party at the controversy's outcome; and, it ending in victory for the confederates, the latter desisted from further fighting of the papacy, and returned to their work (27).
(74) The episode of 2 Kings 4:1-7 is connected with the fourth statement that the Congregationalist
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
344
exiles made of their faith to James 1. As the first three petitions that accompanied their first three statements of faith failed, and after their fourth statement, which was a fair-sized book, was prepared, the Congregationalist churches in England were greatly saddened at their being cut off from their exiled leaders and at the prospect of their consecrated and justified adherents' being greatly oppressed in England by the repressive attitude of the government, and, therefore, poured out their plaints to the Lord's mouthpiece (2 K. 4:1). On the latters' asking them what they had in the way of satisfying the king, they replied that he had assured some of the former petitioners that he was willing to receive any truth of God, and that all should preserve and be allowed to preserve the same attitude (2). Thereupon these advised that these churches secure as many names in England as possible to petitions to the king, asking him to allow the Congregationalists living in England to have their leaders restored to them from their exile (cut-off condition) in Holland (3). These further advised that secretly there be added to these petitions the request that these churches be allowed to enjoy freedom of assembly, worship and propaganda, setting aside each full petition so added to (4). This these churches did, assisted by their consecrated and justified adherents (5). But desiring more petitions, they asked their two kinds of adherents for more. These answered that, having gone over the ground thoroughly, they could get no more, which ended that work (6). These then told the Lord's mouthpiece what had been done, who told them to present these to the king, which was done. While he would not ask Parliament to change the law, he did arrange for a milder enforcement thereof. As a result the Congregationalists in England were not so severely molested as formerly (7).
(75) While engaged in labors among the consecrated and justified certain new-creaturely leaders as God's mouthpieces found support among the
Earlier Parallels.
345
Congregationalists (8), who secured from their leaders permission to give them special help (9-11). These mouthpieces of God asked their leading helper, Francis Johnson, to gather these Congregationalist brethren into assemblies, which was done (12). They expressed appreciation for the kind support that they received from these, and asked what return they might make, suggesting appeal for them to the Anglican movement and its leaders, which they declined (13). Still wondering what to do for them, they were told by Francis Johnson that they had no concerted work toward outsiders, and that their leaders were without the zeal to arouse them thereto (14). Again God's mouthpiece to the public asked him to assemble them, to which they gave a ready response (15). Thereupon it promised them a movement toward the public, which announcement they received with incredulity (16). Yet the mouthpiece's forecast was fulfilled (17). But this movement's activities met with setbacks from the civil powers, while it was trying to gather into the Congregationalists' fold members from the English public, and soon came to an end, despite the Congregationalists' efforts to preserve it (18-20). They lay this movement on the teachings of God's mouthpiece as in secret (21), and asked their leaders for a helper and a teaching that would assist them to lay their case before God's mouthpiece (22).
(76) Their leaders, seeing no reason for such a step, objected mildly, which was overcome by a reassuring answer (23). Thereupon they prepared the pertinent teaching and asked the furnished helper to make rapid progress to God's public mouthpiece (24), and thus approached them, while they were fruitfully engaged. Seeing these afar, they pointed them out to Francis Johnson (25), whom they charged to approach them, inquiring as to them, their leaders and their movement, To these inquiries these said that all was well (26). Their humble attitude influenced Francis Johnson to attempt to repel them, but the mouthpiece forbade this,
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
346
recognizing that there was something troubling them concealed from them by God (27). Their sorrow could express itself only in saying that the movement, now dead, had not been asked for by them, and that they be not deceived by too bright hopes (28). They then commissioned Francis Johnson to go without delay and exercise his office for the resuscitation of the dead public movement (29). The Congregationalists did not trust F. Johnson to accomplish this, hence solemnly besought the Lord's mouthpiece to go with them, which they consented to do (30). F. Johnson failed in his efforts and reported the failure to God's mouthpiece (31). The mouthpiece gave their attention to the dead movement resting upon their teachings (32). Secretly they labored for its resuscitation (33), applying to it their whole beings, teachings, perceptive powers and energies, and worked with it to arouse it into activity (34). They continued this course repeatedly, until the movement began to give evidence of life and insight (35). Thereupon they had F. Johnson assemble the Congregationalists and presented the movement to them in activity (36). These humbly expressed their gratitude and accepted their resuscitated movement (37).
(77) God's mouthpiece returned to the subject of the Church as God's embryo kingdom; and there was a famine of Truth, no new truth having come to the Congregationalists since Robert Browne's ministry among them. In fact, Henry Barrowe, etc., had corrupted the pure Congregationalism of Browne into a hybrid by mixing it with Presbyterianism. This made the hangers-on look to God's mouthpiece for spiritual food, who called for the presentation of the Word as spiritual food (38). A group among the Congregationalists taught the error that, since God's people are to have a watch-care over one another, they should consider one another to point out one another's faults to the end that, seeing these, each one might put them aside. They did not, at first, realize the evil of such a course (39).
Earlier Parallels.
347
But the acting out of this evil produced evil-surmising, fault-finding, recrimination, quarrelling, self-justification, etc., which demonstrated the poisonous effect of this evil practice (40). They, complaining of this evil to God's mouthpiece, who asked that the true teaching on the pertinent subject be brought forward, which being done, he mingled it with their general truths and charged that it be given the brethren, who found it wholesome (41). Attention has already been called to Bro. Thomas White as the leader of the more uncompromising brethren who were pushed into the background by the less uncompromising brethren under F. Johnson's lead. Another leader of the former kind, John Smyth, later discredited by sectarian Congregationalists because of continued advancement in the developing Truth, differed from the new-creaturely brethren among the Anglicans, the Puritans and the Congregationalists, from whom he and kindred spirits had separated. In 1607 he gave out a pertinent booklet entitled, Differences of the Churches of the Separation, friendly to God's public mouthpiece and adapted to correct evils among the brethren, circulating it especially among associates of F. Johnson. This booklet God's mouthpiece charged to be given to these (42); but F. Johnson sought to prevent their reading it, a year later writing a specious answer to it. However, the mouthpiece overruled him, declaring that it was for them to accept what they could approve and reject what they disapproved (43; 1 Thes. 5:21). This resulted in their reading it, accepting some parts and rejecting other parts of it (44).
(78) Among the Congregationalist brethren there were at first two parties: a radical and a conservative party, and later a party more or less associated with the latter yet somewhat different. The radical group was too rough in its victorious controversies with the Anglicans, Puritans and Romanists, and its leading warriors had thereby contaminated themselves with crown-lost uncleanness (2 K. 5:1). These radicals made inroads
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
348
on the sphere of the conservatives, and won for themselves some of the latters' adherents, who served the supporters of the leading radical controversialists (2). These thought and said that God's public mouthpiece, who sided with the conservative Congregationalists, could recover them from the uncleanness that made them abhorrent to the public (3). This statement of these converts to radicalism came, through certain controversialists, to the ears of the radicals, who felt the handicap under which those labored with the public (4). Thereupon the radicals commissioned them to go to the conservatives, sending along a pertinent communication. Thereafter these leading controversialists went, taking along crown-losers with full powers and authority, mingled with some evils (5), and delivered the communication to the conservatives, asking for the healing of the controversialists from the uncleanness that made them abhorrent to the Anglicans, Puritans and Romanists (6). The conservatives, who for a long time had had all sorts of differences with the radicals, construed the radicals' request as an attempt to provoke controversy between them, doing violence to their graces, protesting that, not being God, they could not effect such a cleansing, and calling upon their supporters to 'note the episode as a trick to provoke strife (7).
(79) But God's public mouthpiece, Ainsworth, etc., hearing of the acts of the conservatives, sent word rebuking them for their misconduct and requested that the leading controversialists be sent to them, from whom they would learn that God had a mouthpiece among the conservatives (8). These leading controversialists, with their teachings and church organizations, came before the office functions of God's mouthpiece, brethren like Ainsworth, who held themselves somewhat aloof from the former (9). They told them by a messenger to mingle completely in teaching ways in a friendly and sympathetic spirit with the Anglicans, Puritans and Romanists, and a healing of the faults
Earlier Parallels.
349
that neutralized their usefulness would set in (10). These leading controversialists, e.g., brethren like Robinson, Johnson, etc., felt offended because the Lord's mouthpiece did not make much ado over them and honor them (11), exclaiming that the more and less radical groups were more to be considered than the public among the Anglicans, Puritans and Romanists; why not, by mingling among the former, be cleansed? Hence they went away in a rage (12). But some of their supporters reasoned respectfully and tactfully with them, showing them that if the Lord's mouthpiece had asked them to do something difficult, they would have done it; why, therefore, not do this easy thing (13)? Persuaded, they mingled in a friendly way with the Anglican, Puritan and Romanist public unto a completion; and the promised healing set in, taking all the roughness away from them and making them winsome (14).
(80) Recovered, they returned with their whole company to God's mouthpiece and confessed their faith in the true God of perfect wisdom, love, justice, and power as alone the God of antitypical Israel, and with this confession offered the place of chief power and authority among God's people to His mouthpiece (15). As a true mouthpiece of God, they solemnly, and that against repeated entreaty, refused the reward that the leading controversialists offered them (16). Refused, they asked for some of the sphere of the Truth and of its Spirit as a portion on which they may sacrifice to spiritual Israel's God alone (17). Then these controversialists asked whether they might not with God's forgiving long-suffering give the radicals among the Congregationalists some support in their sacrifices to the god of radicalism (18). This was compromisingly allowed them; and with a, God Bless You, they were sent away (19). But Francis Johnson, who was indeed a power-grasper and lord over God's heritage, saw how he could derive personal gain in power out of the situation (20). Accordingly, he sought the controversial
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
350
leaders, who, seeing his desire to meet them, approached him, inquiring, if all was well (21). Giving them an affirmative assurance, he said that God's mouthpiece sent for assistance for the pastors and teachers as confirming their power and for the elders and deacons as confirming their authority in the ecclesia (22) [Among the Congregationalists the officers of the ecclesias were supposedly of four classes: (1) pastors, (2) teachers, (3) elders and (4) deacons; whereas we consider the first three to be names for one kind of officers, elders].
(81) The controversial leaders insisted on what were in reality one' class: the pastors, teachers and elders, getting even double the single power asked, i.e., control over the deacons, as well as over the ecclesias, requiring two sets of their supporters to help deliver the pertinent power and authority (23). But by intrigue F. Johnson manipulated matters so that finally he got the main power in the ecclesia (24). Thereafter he was called in question by God's mouthpiece, Ainsworth, etc., and falsified as to his activities, denying that he had been engaged in anything of intrigue (25). Then God's mouthpiece let him know that they knew and, therefore, were saddened at what he had done in intrigue for power-grasping and lording over God's heritage, declaring that at such crucial times it was especially out of order for God's servants to grasp for power, to lord it over God's heritage and to covet controllership over the working spheres of crown-retainers and of crown-losers, over these two kinds of brethren and over the serving brothers and sisters (26). Then they declared that the uncleanness of the controversial leaders would perpetually be upon him and his main supporters in power-grasping and lording. And F. Johnson left their presence leprous with perpetual uncleanness (27).
(82) The unpromising work that the hangers-on did moved them to appeal to God's mouthpiece, Ainsworth, Robinson, etc., to leave off their pertinent work, which
Earlier Parallels.
351
through persecution became too hard for them, and to undertake among the public another work, in which each one, using his human all, might prosper in the work. These were told by God's mouthpiece to undertake it (2 K. 6:1, 2); but the former desired the latter to partake in that new work, which they agreed to do (3). They as a company got out a book entitled, The Confession of the Exiled Anglican Brethren, which somewhat later fell under the ban of the government and was prohibited from circulation, which very greatly circumscribed its spread. This caused them great distress, as the loss of a thing not theirs but put into their custody for a while (4, 5). Ainsworth, Robinson, etc., were appealed to, to restore it to its former circulation. At their request they were told of the circumstances and state of its banned condition. Thereupon they set forth a teaching on the right of God's truth to freedom of circulation; and as a result the Confession was reissued with certain revisions and additions (6); and it circulated in several languages in 1607 (914 B. C.), after Ainsworth, etc., had encouraged them to lay hold on it and circulate it again (7).
(83) In the Anglican Church at this time there were three parties: first, the radicals, the High Church or Anglo-Catholic party, who in their radicalism exalted the king, the nobility and the episcopate with the doctrine of the Divine right of kings, aristocracy and bishops. These, in the picture now to be studied, correspond to the king of the Syrians; second, the conservatives with whom the first party in that Church warred. The second or conservative party was the Low Church, or Evangelical party, which corresponds to the king of Israel (8); third, the Puritans, who sided with the Low Church party in its conflicts with the High Church party, i.e., sided with the conservatives against the radicals. The radical party had as its champions James 1, the episcopate and most of the higher clergy and nobility, as well as many of the university professors. Apart from these, there were God's mouthpiece, new
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
352
creatures, particularly, but not exclusively those in the Congregational movement (9). The radicals decided to attack the conservatives on the question of the Divine right of kings (8), but God's mouthpiece cautioned the latter against this as putting in opposition to them James 1, who as shown above held a literary debate with Bellarmine on the subject of his Divine right. On exploring this question the conservatives avoided the trap set for them (10); as, warned by God's mouthpiece, they also avoided the trap from the standpoint of the Divine right of the clergy and aristocracy; for the radicals bound it up with that of the Divine right of kings. Many moves were made in this matter by the radicals in Convocation and the king's court; but these were sidestepped by the conservatives, who generally were supported by the House of Commons and the courts, which successfully counteracted the moves of the radicals. These evasions of the radicals' traps not only troubled the latter, but made them suspect treachery in their own ranks (11). But certain members of the radical party, denying the charge, blamed God's mouthpiece, the new creatures, some in Holland, like Ainsworth, Robinson, etc., and some in Britain, as giving the conservatives the Truth on the three Divine-right doctrines, enabling them to evade the argument traps, even the most hidden ones, of the radicals (12). Whereupon the radicals charged their main advocates to investigate the position of God's mouthpiece, that the radicals might capture these in their views. Thereupon, they were informed that these stood on the double teachings of the Old and New Testaments (13).
(84) This prompted the radicals to send secretly a great array of their leading scholars with accompanying teachings and organizations against God's mouthpiece, surrounding them in their Old and New Testaments' position (14). Francis Johnson early recognized the purpose of these scholars in attacking this position with all their teachings and organizations; and, greatly fearing and lamenting, and unable to understand how
Earlier Parallels.
353
to cope with the situation, he cried out for help to God's mouthpiece (15): In full faith these, telling him to quiet his fears, and assuring him that those on their side were more numerous than those on the other side (16), prayed the Lord to open his eyes of understanding to perceive the real situation. The latter thereupon saw that, not only the Lord and His holy angels and people, but also that under sore trial the House of Commons, the judiciary, the conservatives and the bulk of Englishmen were throughout the kingdom on the side of God's mouthpiece (17). When the learned advocates of the radicals came directly against the Lord's mouthpiece the latter prayed to God to blind them as to their theories by the Biblical Truth used against their position, which the Lord did (18). They pointed out that their Biblical points were inapplicable to the situation, and convinced them that their position was not provable from the Bible, but promised them that if they would follow them they would bring them to see in the true light the men whom they sought. These consenting to their arguments, they brought them to the conservatives' pertinent position as its convinced captives (19).
(85) God's mouthpiece then prayed that by the legal and religious arguments of the conservatives, in so far as they involved God's mouthpiece, the radicals might be given a proper understanding of the applicable principles, which the Lord granted, by enabling them to prove that the Divine rightists in all three of their pertinent positions were legally and religiously wrong, which enabled them to see that they were captives in the power of the conservatives' position (20). Seeing their advantage, the conservatives emphatically requested God's mouthpiece for permission utterly to overthrow the arguments of the radicals' advocates (21). While it was God's mouthpiece's arguments that had captured the former, tactfully the latter spoke as though it was those of the conservatives, who, they said, should play the part of a magnanimous host in refreshing their argument-convinced opponents (22).
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
354
Thereupon the conservatives gave them a pertinent mental feast that avoided the controversial aspects of the involved questions, which still more convinced the radicals' advocates of the correctness of the conservatives' position. This done, they sent these back to the radicals; and that ended such advocates' entering controversially the position of the conservatives (23). While among the Congregationalists the chief members of God's mouthpiece were Ainsworth and Robinson, among the Anglicans the main members of God's mouthpiece were Bishop Andrews and Dean Field. The main secular members of the conservatives were Coke, the chief justice of Britain, and the leaders in the House of Commons, while Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and most of the bishops and certain professors at Oxford and Cambridge universities were, with King James I, leaders of the radicals.
BEREAN QUESTIONS
(1) What is the subject of this study? What for centuries has been attempted in vain? By whom? What is presented in EC, 144 (97)-145 (99)? What does this harmonization do with the entire problem? Why? Up to the last half of the 19th century what have chronologians done with the problem? What, at the Bible's expense, have they since attempted? What is the character of this attempt? Why? To clarify the problem what, first of all, must be pointed out? By what two things? What will the first give? The second? What will be done after each of these presentations? What does the first part of the first table give? What is the reign length of each of the six Judahite kings given in this table? How does the Bible prove this in each case? What is the total of their reign lengths? What does the second part of the first table give? What is the reign length of each of the eight Israelite kings given in this table? How does the Bible prove this in each case? What is the total of their reign lengths?
(2) How far apart were the beginnings of Rehoboam's and Jeroboam's reigns? The time of Ahaziah's and Jeroboam's deaths? Despite these two facts, what is the difference between the totals of the reign lengths of the two sets of kings? What should their totals be, in the light of facts given in this paragraph's first sentence? What three
Earlier Parallels.
355
facts bring one face to face with a problem hitherto unsolved by chronologians? What required a solution of this problem? To whom and what was resort taken to solve it? Why? What four considerations prove that the chronology of 2 Chro. is correct? What agrees with it? What thought resultantly struck the praying and meditating mind and heart? What was done with this thought? With what result? How were the ordinal numbers in which the reigns of Judah's kings are given treated? When what was done? Why? After what examples? What makes this procedure necessary? What proves it to be correct? What will now be done?
(3) How long did each Israelite king actually reign, as proven by a comparison with chronological data given in terms of Judah's kings? How does the Bible prove this in each case? What, accordingly, is the total of the eight involved reigns?
(4) What does this method of treatment do with the reigns of the two involved sets of kings? What results from this method of treating the reign lengths of the eight Israelite kings in terms of their comparison with the chronological data connected with the six Judahite kings?
(5) What is the next period calling for our study? What is the character of the seeming discrepancy in this period as to the two sets of the involved king? How is the apparent discrepancy harmonized? After what example? What will first be given? How long did each of the involved seven Judahite kings reign, as required by this table? How does the Bible prove it in, each case? What was the total of these years? How long did each of the involved nine Israelite kings reign, as required by this table? How does the Bible show it in each case? What was the total of these years?
(6) What is the seeming discrepancy here? How is the matter harmonized? How will the plus and minus differences be indicated? How long did each of the involved Israelite kings reign in terms of the years of the involved Judahite kings? What is the plus or minus difference between the reign lengths in the two tables for the involved Israelite kings? How does the Bible prove it in each case? What are the entire and the plus and minus totals? What does the result do with the seeming discrepancy?
(7) What is done with kings Zimri and Shallum in these tables? For what two reasons? What do these last
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
356
two tables do with the seeming discrepancy of 22% years?
(8) What question do the two seeming discrepancies, that of 3 and that of 22y2 years, raise? What reply should be given to it from the standpoint of the exact years involved in the Judahite kings? Of the stated years of the Israelite kings? Which of these parallels will be presented in this book? What does its proper outworking require? Why the preceding chronological discussion? What has already been discussed in EJ 333-418? What remark is here made as to the length of Athaliah's reign? How do the passages cited in the third table prove this? What fact proves that Jehoash filled out the balance of her seventh year before the length of his reign began to count chronologically? Why was this matter observed? What facts prove this to have been the case? What did our Pastor do with the fraction in Zedekiah's 10½ years' reign? What did he consequently give for the period of the kings? As what should he have given it, according to his data? Why, so far as Athaliah's reign length is concerned? What is the exact length of the period of the kings? What facts prove it? What does this figure require us to do with the period of the judges? How may we justify this from the standpoint of Acts 13:20?
(9) What length do the dates and events of the 2520 years' parallels require for Athaliah's reign? Why? What changes are required by this fact in Studies, Vol. II, 374-376, 380? What will this require as to the A. V. expression, "fourth year of Solomon's reign," in 1 Kings 6:1? What regular usage justifies this? What changes does this fact require to be made in Studies, Vol. II, 376, end of par. 1? To what edition of Vol. II are the above references made? As to the seeming discrepancies pointed out above, what are we not to think? What were these seeming discrepancies? What is intended to be indicated by the expressed length of the Israelite kings' reign? What does this mean? When, accordingly, were some and others of these acts performed? In either case, why were they so performed? What conclusion results from this fact? Viewed under what condition? Why?
(10) Where are the good acts of Solomon recorded? What does he in the large picture thereby type? Where are his evil acts recorded? From what book are they omitted? What can they not type? Why? What are his evil acts typed as effecting? What do we infer from this
Earlier Parallels.
357
fact? By what two reasons are we warranted in concluding that the two books of Kings are prophecies in form of types? How many known applications do these two books and their companion book have? Of what does the first of these consist? What are some illustrations on this point? What general characteristic do they exhibit? Of what does the second of these applications consist? What are the respective parallel books? Of what does the third of these applications consist? What is the length in years and days of the Judah and American features respectively? Of the Israelite and British features respectively? Of which of these three applications will part of this book consist? Through what will it run?
(11) For what does 1 Kings 11 serve? What is necessary to keep this book within reasonable limits? Why? What will help in connection with this study? Why? Briefly stated, what do the wicked acts of Solomon of 1 Kings 11 type? What are typed by the various acts of Judah's kings after Israel's kings ceased to be? What has so far been given? At what times do the acts of the 2520 years' parallel begin? End? Where was the small 2520 years-and-days parallel given? Where have many of the first application's pictures been given?
(12) What will next be given in this study? What forbidden things did the papacy in those pre-parallel times greatly desire? How typed? Of what period is this particularly true? What evils did it foster? How typed? What did God through His star-members repeatedly threaten, postpone and modify? How typed? What and how many did God raise up early in the Philadelphia period? What was the first one? What activities characterized it? How typed? The second one? Its activities? How typed? The third one? Its activities? How typed? What forecast did its enlightened members make? How typed? What effect on the papacy did these forecasts have? How typed? How did the persecuted ones act? How typed? Where are pertinent details given, in type and antitype?
(13) To what things will resort hereinafter be made, to save space? What are the beginning dates of, and events in the two members of the 2520 years' parallel? Who partook as leaders in the sets of antitypical movements? How do these two sets compare and contrast with each other, (1) in the leaders, (2) as to politics, (3) as to
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
358
religion? How typed in each case? How and when did the Lutheran movement begin, for a short time continue and ultimately continue?
(14) How and when did the Zwinglian movement begin and proceed? What difference in Christian life marked these two movements? What did this difference produce? What were their first reactions and expectations toward one another? How typed? What requests did the Lutheran movement make of the Zwinglian movement? How typed? What was done on hearing these requests? How typed? What advice was given respectively by wiser and less wise heads? How typed? After awhile what did the Lutheran movement do? How typed? What, and what kind of an answer was given? How typed? What did the answer effect? How typed? With what kind of a beginning? How typed? What things occurred as to the division with the flight of time? How typed? What did adherents of the Lutheran movement do to messengers of the Zwinglian movement? How typed? What contrasted thing happened in some German states? How typed? How did matters proceed with these two movements? How typed? To what did this lead the Zwinglian movement? How typed? What resulted? How typed? What did the Lutheran movement then do? How typed?
(15) Where did the Zwinglian movement develop itself? How typed? Doing what? How typed? Generally speaking, what were the experiences of the more consecrated public servants of the Truth in the Lutheran movement? How typed? What kind of clergy did the Lutheran movement appoint in their stead? How typed? Who else followed the example of the said more consecrated Truth-servants? How typed? With what result? How long did this continue? What change set in thereafter? How typed? What did the Lutheran movement do to keep its own from joining its rival's movement? How typed? What did it accordingly do? How typed? What did these things become? How typed? What were served in purely Lutheran countries? How? How typed?
(16) What did the Lutheran movement set up as counterfeit? Particularly by what? How typed? What did abler Zwinglians do thereat? How typed? What evidences of this did they give? How typed? What reaction did the Lutheran movement make thereto? With what effect? How typed? What results followed? How typed?
Earlier Parallels.
359
What effect did the impotence of the Lutheran movement have on the witnesses? What resulted from this? How typed? What was the witnesses' response to this? How typed?- With what were they charged? How typed?
(17) What was told Luther, etc., by some of their supporters? How typed? What did these indicate? What was Luther's, etc., reaction thereto? Why? How typed? What followed this? How typed? What resulted from these discussions with some double-dealing? How typed? Who perceived the accompanying inconsistency? What did they forecast? How typed? What two things resulted from their disloyalty recognized and proclaimed in Lutheran circles? How typed? By whom especially? How typed? What did their main supporters do? How typed? What did they find? In what condition? How typed? What as desired for themselves did they give those fallen witnesses? How typed? What desire did they express? How typed? What did these things not effect? How typed? What did these evils move. God to do? How typed?
(18) What did the Zwinglian movement develop? Where? With what result? How typed? What was the chief one? How typed? What did it wisely do? After becoming stronger what did it do? How typed? What followed thereon? How typed? What did papacy do? How typed? Where did it begin? How typed? How proceed? How typed? How did it result? How typed? What did the more pious do? With what results? How typed? What did this move God to do? How typed? With what forecast? How typed? What did the papists do? How typed? In lieu of this, what did the Zwinglian movement do? How typed? Where did they use these? How typed?
(19) What things followed thereupon? How typed? What was the general course of the Zwinglian movement thereafter? How typed? What kind of an adherence did it give the Lord, to His displeasure? How typed? What evils did it commit? How typed? How furthered therein? How typed? Who described its varied history? How typed? What occurred to it in 1538? How typed? What succeeded it? How typed? How long did it function? How typed? What good and evil did it do? How typed? In imitation of what movement? How typed? Why did God continue to use it? How typed? What other
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
360
similarity set in? How typed? What did, the Lutheran movement's evils affect the Cranmer movement to dissanction? By what acts? How typed? With what effects? How typed? What were the effects on the Lutheran movement of the Cranmer movement's warfare against it? How typed? What kind was the course of the Cranmer movement? How typed? By whom is its history recorded? How typed? When was it by the Lord set aside? What movement succeeded it? How typed?
(20) How long was the Unitarian movement as the Divinely more favored one operative? While which movement was active? How typed? What was its character as such? What did it set aside? How typed? Whom even did it set aside? Why? How typed? What did it not set aside, despite its almost life-long loyalty? How typed? What good things did it deposit with the Church? How typed? On what did it lay great stress? How typed? Whom and what did it thrust out? With what result? How typed? During what years was it without special controversy? How typed? What two things did Servetus do during these ten years? How typed?
(21) What movement did the Lutherans operate; intended to bring peace? How typed? On what mission and to whom did the Lutheran movement in its secular leaders send messengers, supplying gifts therefore? How typed? What did the latter do? How typed? With what did the Lord intervene? How typed? What did the enlightened leaders first tell the messengers? How typed? Secondly? How typed? Thirdly? How typed? Fourthly? How typed? Fifthly and particularly? How typed? Sixthly? How typed? And seventhly? Why so? How typed? What was done with this message? How typed? What occurred on the arrival of the messengers? How typed? What was its emotional effect? How typed? Who described the history of the Lutheran movement? How typed? When did its above phase cease? How typed? By what succeeded? How typed? What were the chief three events of the second phase of the Lutheran movement? How typed? Who described its history? How typed?
(22) When and how long was the Calvinistic movement operative? How typed? Of what evils was it guilty? How typed? What did a large number of leaders in the Unitarian movement do? Who were the main ones
Earlier Parallels.
361
of these? How is their and their less able brethren's part in these activities typed? Who contended against them? How typed? What did the former do to these, especially on the trinity? How typed? What did this movement do thereover? How typed? What five things did God enable it to do? How typed?
(23) To what did this victory move the Unitarian leaders? How typed? Of what did they remind them? How typed? What lesson was drawn and promise made? How typed? What was the first result? How typed? The second? How typed? The third? What agreement and vows were made amid Truth preaching? How typed? What did these things move them to do? How typed? What correction is made as to the reading in 2 Chro. 15:19? When and by whom did the Unitarian movement become vocal after a rather long silence? How typed? What occurred the next year? Why? How typed? To meet these arguments, to what did the Unitarian movement resort? How typed? What resulted? How typed? How did this affect the Calvinistic movement? How typed? What did the Unitarian movement consequently do? How typed?
(24) What did some Unitarians thereupon do to it? Why? What did they say? How typed? Of what did they remind them? How typed? How did they characterize the two pertinent grounds of argument? How typed? What effect did the rebuke have on the movement? How typed? At the same time, how did it act in Poland and Transylvania? What did certain ones in this movement do to the Calvinistic movement?. Why? How typed? What two things did they foretell as to the Calvinistic movement? How typed? Who gave the history of the latter movement? What occurred in 1567? How typed? What happened to the Calvinistic Knox movement after but a year? How typed?
(25) What occurred at the same time as forecast? Why? How typed? Who described it? How typed? Why did it last but a short time? How typed? In the face of what kind of a movement did it give up? Why was this? How typed? Who have recorded its history? How typed? What do we construe from the cases of the houses of Jeroboam and Baasha? Why is this to be said?
(26) How many and what Protestant parties were there in Britain? Which prevailed? How typed? What was the period of the first phase of the Anglican movement? How
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
362
typed? What copyists' error is proved by vs. 15-22, 29, 23 to exist in v. 23? What was it mainly in its first six years? In its last five years? Why this? How typed? What forms did this persecution take? What did it prove to be? When was it set aside? Why? How typed? What did it do, to the Lord's displeasure? How typed? Who have clearly described it? How typed?
(27) In what condition did the first phase of the Anglican movement end? By what kind of a phase was it followed? How typed? What were the period, character and operating agents of this succeeding phase? How typed? How did it treat its rivals and the Anglican Church? How typed? What did it do with the union of state and church toward God in comparison with other Divinely favored Protestant movements? How typed? What was its course on the Divine right of bishops and the effect of that course on the Little Flock leader and supporters and crown-lost leader and supporters? How typed? When did the Unitarian movement cease to operate as the Chief Divinely favored Protestant movement? How was it regarded? Why? How typed? What did it do and experience toward its end? How typed? Who recorded its deeds? How typed?
(28) By what was it succeeded? How typed? What was the period of its operation? How typed? By whom deserted? How typed? What were its good and evil points? How typed? What did it condemn? How typed? What did it develop antitypically? How typed? How did it train its adherents? How typed? Why did God bless it? How typed? In what ways did He bless it? How typed? In what did this result? How typed? Whom did it raise up in 1585? How typed? What did the Anglican movement do to it in contrast with the higher and lower clergy? Why in each case did it so act? How typed? Who gave it some favor? How typed? How did it respond to the conditions? How typed? Especially in what five countries? How typed?
(29) With what statement did Robert Browne and other new creatures face the second Anglican movement? How typed? What did the Word, Spirit and providence prompt them to do? How typed? Who gave them some relief? How typed? What was done thereafter? How typed? What did the outcast Baptists and Puritans tell them? How typed? What did they reply? How typed? What
Earlier Parallels.
363
resulted? How typed? What did the enemies of nonconformists do and effect? How typed? Whom did the outcasts blame for this result? How typed? What was done and by whom? How typed? How did this affect the outcasts? How typed?
(30) What did God move Barrowe and Greenwood in hope to do? How typed? In what did their activities result? How typed? In what activities were the two parties in the Anglican movement engaged? How typed? In what two ways? How typed? With whom did the liberal section come in contact? How typed? What did they find them to be, and what commission did they receive from them? How typed? How did their request strike the liberal party? How typed? What did they protest? How typed? Of what did they testify? How typed? Yet what occurred? How typed?
(31) Of what did the Anglican movement accuse them? How typed? How was the accusation met? How typed? What did their attitude do to that movement? How typed? How was the challenge received? How typed? What did the new creatures call for? How typed? To what did they call attention? How typed? What did they suggest? How typed? What did they then do and why? How typed? What did the defenders of Episcopacy do? Especially how and by whom? How typed? With what results? How typed? How did the new-creaturely Congregationalists react to their efforts? How typed? What did the defenders of Episcopacy do to one another? How typed? How long did their discussion last, and what did it effect? How typed?
(32) What did the Congregational new creatures first do when their turn came? How typed? Secondly? How typed? Thirdly? How typed? What four truths especially did they set forth? How typed? How many times and in what movements was this done? How typed? How did the pertinent truths affect the brethren? How typed? What did the Congregational new creatures then proceed to do? How typed? What did Barrowe and Greenwood do therein? What were their efforts? How typed? What was the effect on the people? How typed?
(33) How did God manifest His acceptance? How typed? How did this affect the real people of God? How typed? For what did the new creatures then call? How typed? What did they invite the Anglican movement to do? Why? How typed? What did the new creatures then
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
364
do? How typed? To what did they invite their supporters? When was it found? What occurred after the seventh movement? In what manner? What did they charge as to the Anglican movement? How are these things typed? In what form did the downpour come? What was then done by the Anglican movement and the Congregational new creatures? How typed?
(34) What report was made? By whom? To whom? Especially to whom? How typed? What was Elizabeth's reaction? How typed? What was the effect of this persecution? How typed? In their isolation and despondency what did they desire? How typed? What two things occurred and by whom during their twofold sleep over the real condition? How typed? What was the result of the refreshment? How typed? What spoke their discouragement? Under what impression? How typed? What four things did the Lord give them to foresee? How typed? What effect did these four foreseeings have on them? What three things did their words and attitude tell the Lord? How typed? What three things did the Lord's providence indicate to them? How typed? What would these three things effect? How typed? What assurance did the Lord give them? How typed? While mingling with the Puritans whom did they find? How typed? What did they do with them? How typed? What evil qualities of the younger new creatures showed themselves? How typed? What did this draw from the mature new creatures? How typed? What followed then? How typed?
(35) What are typed by 1 Kings 20? When was the first of these waged? By what means did the Puritans (Presbyterians) work in it? What was the first thing that they sought to set aside and to substitute for it? The second? The third? What was the second of these controversies called? When was it? How did both controversies end? What was the contrast between the spirit of the Puritans and the second Anglican movement? What did the former do? Especially through what and whom? How typed? What word did they send to the Anglican movement? How typed? What effect did the pertinent information have on the latter? How typed? What did the six demands of the Puritans move the Anglican movement to do? How typed? What did the latter do? How typed? What pertinent advice was given it? How typed? What as a result did the Anglican move
Earlier Parallels.
365
ment do? How typed? What effect did this answer have upon the Puritans? What did they threaten? How typed? What kind of an answer and what answer did the Anglican movement give? How typed? What was its effect on the Puritans? In what ways? How typed?
(36) What then occurred in the Anglican movement under Archbishop Whitgift's leadership? How typed? What two things did they advise? How typed? What two things did Archbishop Whitgift advise Elizabeth to do? What two reasons were given for the unconstitutionality of the proposed legislation? What word did she send to the House of Lords? What effect did Elizabeth's stand have on the House of Commons? What did the House of Lords do to the House of Commons? On whose side was the Council? What unconstitutional thing did it attempt to do? What did Elizabeth do in these circumstances? Why? In spite of the Puritans' efforts, what was the outcome? By what combination? How did the new Parliament stand on the controversy? With what effect? How are these things typed? What was the effect of new measures? What was required of the Puritan ministers on pain of loss of place? What were the temporary effects on the Puritan movement? How typed? What did the teaching members of the Anglican movement then do? Why? How typed? What was the effect of this advice? On whom?
(37) By whom was the second onslaught against the Anglican movement carried on? Through what at first? Through what later? What were the main characteristics of the Mar-prelate tracts? How were these at first answered? Later on? What are the main characteristics of the sober replies? Who were the chief Anglican warriors? Especially who? What is the name of his chief work? Its main characteristics? What did the Puritans also produce? How did the two sets of writings compare? Of what was this a case? On whose side were the abler errorists? With what result? In what verses is this conflict set forth? What two things did the Puritans assert? How typed? What four counsels did they give? How typed? What was done with these four counsels? How typed? What was accordingly done by the Puritans? In what hope? How typed? What put in their appearance? What was the effect of these steps on the Anglican move
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
366
ment? What assurances did the faithful as God's mouthpiece give? How typed?
(38) What was the character of the preliminary attacks on the Anglican movement? With what did the real fight set in? What was its title? Its character? It effects? What was the title of the second Mar-prelate tract? Its character and effect? Who are the authors of the Mar-prelate tracts? What appeared immediately after the Epitome? Thereafter? How do the Mar-prelate tracts compare with their replies? What did each side have as to the other? Why? From what to what did the conflict change? With what results? How typed? What happened to the remnant of fleeing Puritans and to Puritanism itself? How typed?
(39) What did some of its representatives suggest? What was done with this suggestion? How typed? Thereupon, what did the Puritans do? How typed? How was this received? What did the messengers do? What resulted? How typed? What two things did the Puritans promise? What was the response of the Anglican movement? What three concessions did it make? To whom and to whom not? How are these things typed? What resulted from this agreement? What request was made by certain of the Lord's mouthpieces? What was done with the request? What was then said and done? How are these things typed? What was then requested and done? How typed? What was thereafter done? In what did it result? How typed? What things were then done? How typed? What did the mouthpiece group then do? How typed? What was the effect? How typed?
(40) What were the Congregationalists called? Why? What did they have? Close to whose office was it? How are these things typed? What did the Anglican movement desire and offer in trade? How typed? What did the Separatists do with the offer? Why? What effect did the refusal have upon the former? How typed? By whom especially were its complaints voiced? What and whom did they reach? What did they ask? How are these things typed? What did it answer? How typed? How did these do and promise? How typed? What did they cause to be proclaimed? Through and to whom? Why? Whom did they single out preeminently as the alleged worst offenders? What two classes did they have bear false witness against them? What two false things were
Earlier Parallels.
367
witnessed against them? What other two things were they to do? How are these things typed? What, accordingly, was done? How typed?
(41) What two things did they do? How typed? What then did the state and church leaders do? As what did the highest church court condemn them? The highest civil court? Who were the chief judges in the two courts? Many individuals being involved, what resulted as to the processes and hearings? When did the persecution begin and end? Which leaders did it involve? What were the punishments and sufferings inflicted? What sentence was pronounced upon all the rest of them? Contrary to what would public sentiment not allow further? What did Parliament decree? Who was the last one released? How are these things typed?
(42) What did the Anglican Church then do? How typed? What did the Anglican movement thereupon do? How typed? What did the principles of the Word incite the faithful to do? How? In what was this movement involved while possessing itself of the rights and privileges of the Separatists? How are these things typed? Of what did the pertinent principles remind the faithful? What announcement did these principles cause to be made? How are these things typed? What did the Anglican movement demand of the faithful new creatures as its enemies? What answer was given? Why was this punishment to be meted out? How are these things typed? What did the faithful then announce? How typed? According to what examples would the punishment be inflicted? For what two reasons was this punishment to come? How typed? What third punishment was announced? How typed? What fourth and fifth punishments? How typed? What was the comparative character of the Anglican movement? How long? By what incited? How are these things typed? In what special way did it sin? How typed? What effect did these announcements have? How typed? What did the faithful observe from the Word? Learn from it? How typed?
(43) What was the first controversy involving the Anglican movement after its conflict with Presbyterianism? What does the fact that the Calvinistic view advocated by the radicals was worsted prove as to this controversy in relation to 2 Kings 22 and 2 Chro. 18? What was the second controversy after that against Presbyterianism?
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
368
How were the two sides lined up in this controversy? What did the strict side do with the Old Testament passages applying to the Sabbath? Previous to this controversy how was Sunday regarded? On the Puritan side what were the preliminaries to this controversy? On the Anglican movement's side? How long was the controversy delayed? When did it break out? In what did it result? By what is it typed? In what will it be considered?
(44) What happened from 1594 to 1596? From 1599 to 1600? How typed? What did the Congregational movement have? With what result? How typed? On what subject at this time did the Anglican and Congregational movements agree? With what result? How typed? What did their agreement move the former to do? How typed? What did the former propose to the latter? With what result? How typed? In what respect was the latter more careful than the former? With what result? How typed? How did the former respond to the latter's proposal? With what result? How typed? Thereupon what did the latter ask? How typed? What reply did the former give? What did the latter say to the reply? How were these things typed? What effect did the latter's statement have upon the former? How typed? What did the two movements then do? Who spoke then? How are these things typed? What assurance did one set of the advisers give? How typed? How did the other mouthpiece groups express themselves? How typed? What did the messengers say to the Truth-speaking group? How typed? What did these answer? How typed?
(45) What two questions did the Anglican movement ask these? What kind of a reply was given? What was the contents of the reply? How are these things typed? In doubt as to the reply's meaning, what did the Anglican movement ask? How typed? What was the answer? How typed? What was the Anglican movement's reaction to this answer? How typed? What was the answer of the true mouthpiece? How typed?
(46) What did the circumstances varyingly suggest? How typed? What did one of these circumstances suggest? How typed? How was this circumstance Divinely manipulated and accepted by God? How typed? What two things did the true mouthpiece then say? How typed? How did the boldest group of false mouthpieces react to this? How typed? What answer was given it? What did
Earlier Parallels.
369
the Anglican movement then do? How typed?. What did the true mouthpiece answer? How typed?
(47) What then was done? How in relation to truth on the Sabbath did the hostile side stand? In accord with what frequent experience? How are these things typed? What two proposals did the Anglican make to the Congregational movement? How typed? What was the purpose and charge of the Presbyterian movement in this controversy? How typed? How was the controversy waged at first? In what did it soon result? How are these things typed? What view did a hit-and-miss method attack? With what result? How are these things typed?
(48) How did the Anglican movement react to the increasing controversy? With what result? How typed? What was the first result of the Anglicans' and Separatists' defeat? How typed? The second result? How typed? Of what were these things a fulfilment? Who have described the second phase of the Anglican movement and its accomplishments? By what was it succeeded? What was its feature? How are these things typed?
(49) What did the Separatist movement then do? How typed? What did the Lord's mouthpiece do to it? Why? How typed? What tempered the rebuke? Why? How typed? What did it do with and for its stewardship truth? How typed? How did it erroneously in part arrange its elected servants? How typed? What exhortations did it give these? Why? How typed? For what else did it arrange? Why? What was then done? How typed?
(50) In harmony with what were they encouraged to act? How typed? What were they told as to matters of controversy? On what points? Why? How are these things typed? What else did it charge? Of what was this a corruption? What did it do as to the lesser brethren? How are these things typed? What was Romanism's condition then in Britain? How typed? What approach was made by the two Protestant movements? How typed? What did the Separatist movement propose to the Anglican movement? How typed? What was done to it for this course? How was this prediction fulfilled? How typed? After what did this occur? How typed?
(51) When did the second phase of the Anglican movement end? By what kind of a movement was it succeeded? How long did it last? How are these things
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
370
typed? What evils did it continue? How typed? Wherein did it meet calamity? What marred the low courts and the Court of High Commission? In what particulars did they do especial evils? What did this diseased condition cause the third Anglican movement to seek? How are these things typed? How did the faithful new creatures react to this procedure? How typed? What did they consequently announce and then do? How typed?
(52) What did its messengers then do? After what? How are these things typed? What did the movement then ask? How typed? What was the answer? From it what did the movement infer? How are these things typed? What did Archbishop Whitgift and his special helpers thereupon do? In effect what was this? How are these things typed? How did God's mouthpiece refute their position? How typed? What did the former class then do? When? How were these things met? By whom? How are these things typed? What did the former class then ask? How? How typed? How did God's mouthpiece react? How typed? What sentence did he announce? Why? How typed? How was the sentence not executed? How was it executed? How typed? What did historians do with the third Anglican phase? How typed?
(53) Who arose against the Congregationalists? After what and during what? What was the period of the fourth Anglican phase? What correction of the reading Ammonites should be made? For what and against what did these stand? How are these things typed? To what did the Congregationalists resort? How typed? What did all Congregationalism do? How typed? What things did the Congregationalist movement do? How typed? Of what special things did they make mention? How typed? What had they done as to the Truth and its Spirit? How typed? What did they say? How typed? What did they then tell the Lord? How typed? What did they say as to their enemies' intentions? How typed? What did they ask?
(54) Where was this done? How typed? Who arose in their midst? How typed? What did they ask and declare? How typed? To what did they encourage, negatively and positively? How typed? What assurances did they give? Why? How typed? How did the addresses affect the Congregationalists? What two brothers were
Earlier Parallels.
371
especially correspondingly active? For what did they prepare themselves? How typed? How many writings did they prepare? What did they do with these? What did the movement ask and to what exhort? How typed?
(55) What did the movement and the messengers do? How typed? What was the effect of the message? How typed? What two things did the faithful witness? By what was the refutation especially made? How are these things typed? What made spoil of their enemies? How typed? What did they do thereafter? How typed? What then did they do? In what condition? Despite what? For what? How are these things typed? What two effects did their confession have? How typed?
(56) What occurred after these things? How typed? What four classes had crucial experiences? How typed? What marked the first three crucial experiences? How typed? What did certain hangers-on in the Congregational movement forecast? How typed? How did the less uncompromising brethren react thereto? How typed? Whom did the brethren approach and stand before? Who watched them? How are these things typed? What four things did the more uncompromising brethren do? What did these things effect in the disapproved British people? What did the new creatures do? How are these things typed? What did the course of the more faithful suggest to the less faithful? What did the latter ask? What was the answer? How are these things typed? What did the latter do? Who were the respective leaders of these two classes? What did the second leader do with the first and the latter's powers? How typed? How did the less faithful feel during the change? Over what? What did they later do? How are these typed? What did they do with their new powers? With what effect? Under what impression? How are these things typed? What did their arrangements, rebukes and condemnations effect? What did they do therein? Amid what events? How typed?
(57) What special class of hangers-on accepted the less faithful as controllers and became subject to them? How typed? What did they propose? Why? How was their counsel treated? How are these things typed? What did they continue to do? With what two effects? How are these things typed? What followed upon their failure? How typed? What did the adherents of the controllers
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
372
say? How typed? To what did this lead? In what way? How are these things typed? What next did the mouthpiece do? How typed?
(58) What did undeveloped nominal-churchists do to them? How typed? To what did this lead? How was the forecast fulfilled? How are these things typed? When did this phase of the Congregational movement end? What two things set in? How are these things typed? From here on what set in, yea, in a small way, even eight years before? How and when did it take its rise? With what result? What was the period of the second phase of the Congregational movement? What thing will be discussed before that phase is discussed?
(59) Who stood at the head of the radical party? What evil teachings did they hold? Of whom did the radical party consist? By whom typed? What did they do to the conservatives? In what domain? What did they put into operation? What was the highest legislative body in the Anglican Church? By what and whom were two evil things put into operation? What was the first of these two? The second? What resulted from their operation? What additional evil did the Court of High Commission introduce? How are these things typed?
(60) What effect on the conservatives did these measures have? How typed? What did this move the two main conservative parties to do? What did each party do as to fulfilling their respective promises? What did the keepers of their promise do with the violators of theirs? How are these things typed? With what effect on the entire party? How typed? What did the horrible condition move it to determine as to God's mouthpiece? Why? How typed? How was God's mouthpiece then engaged? On what errand was a messenger of the conservatives sent? Before his arrival what pertinent thing did God's mouthpiece declare to their supporters? What did they charge their supporters? With what assurance? How are these things typed? What happened immediately thereafter? How was it looked upon by God's mouthpiece? What did this indicate to God's mouthpiece? How are these things typed? To what effect was the Lord's message? How typed?
(61) What was the attitude of the conservatives' executive to the message? How did God's mouthpiece answer?
Earlier Parallels.
373
How are these things typed? Where were certain fence-straddlers? In how many groups? What were these? How did they feel over the crisis? On what did they debate? What did their situation threaten? How are these things typed? In what two ways did they reason over the possibilities of their situation? To what conclusion did they come? Why? How are these things typed? What did they seek to do? While trying to do this what did they learn? How are these things typed? Why had the radicals abandoned their position? What effect did this news have upon them? How typed?
(62) What were the first two events that produced this effect? What third event produced this effect? What exception did this event contain? Under what limits? What did the secular courts do in 570 cases? With what effect? In what ways did parliament come to the courts' assistance? What did it demand for the deprived clergy? Among other things, what did it do? Why? What propositions did Dr. Cowel's book advocate? What did the radical party do as to these propositions? What did parliament cause to be done with the book? What did parliament do with the autocracy of the king and bishops? What happened to public sentiment? Over what? Through whose connivance? In what did this course result?
(63) What was the twofold effect of these things on the radicals? How typed? In a word, what did they do? How typed? What did the four groups of fence-straddlers do? What kind of use did they make of the situation? How are these things typed? Conscience-stricken, what did they then think and decide to do? At the same time what else did they do? What did these things move them to do? How are these things typed? Accordingly, what did each of the four classes do? How typed? As one man what did they then do? What did the conservatives suspect? What did they do with their suspicions? How are these things typed? What did the leaders counsel? What were the involved five principles? Who had denied the fifth principle, so far as his affairs were concerned? What had been done with most of the rest of constitutional principles and their advocates? How are these things typed? What did the conservatives do? Why? In what groups? How are these things typed?
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
374
(64) What did the investigation disclose? What characterized the flight? What did the investigators report? How are these things typed? Thereupon, what did the conservatives do? What happened to the radicals in the 1614 parliamentary elections? In what mood did the new parliament meet? So far as the popular vote was concerned, what did the election settle? What had they done with the king's and bishops' radicalism? What does the involved type set forth? Of what was this the beginning of the end? What resulted gradually and finally? What are the parallel dates? What finally resulted as to the conservatives' rights? According to whose forecast? What did the conservatives do in their four groups to secure their principles? What did the now conservatively-minded British people do in this matter? What did this fulfill? How are these things typed? How are vs. 18, 19 related to vs. 1, 2? What does this fact result in as far as interpreting here vs. 18, 19? How are these things typed?
(65) What had God's mouthpiece told their supporters in the Congregationalist movement? What had they previously done in that movement? How are these things typed? What, accordingly, did such supporters do? How typed? In connection with what occurrence did the evil condition end? What did they do to the conservatives? At the time of their petitioning how was Francis Johnson engaged? What did the conservatives ask him? How are these things typed? At what point of his recital did the supporters of God's mouthpiece appear with their petition? What did this occasion Francis Johnson to do? What did this move the conservatives to ask the petitioners? What answer was given? What charge, accordingly, did the conservatives give Archbishop Abbot and his fellow bishops? How are these things typed?
(66) What set in here as to the antitype of the Syrians? Of how many classes did the British Catholics consist? What were the characters of these? Who were the former? The latter? Who was the leader of the former? What were his progressive officers? Like whom was the former class? What is the difference between them? What had the milder class heard? During whose archbishoprics did the power of the milder party decline? At the same time what was taking place? Through what? What did the milder class do to God's mouthpiece without recognizing them as such? How did they send the messengers? With
Earlier Parallels.
375
what inquiry? How are these things typed? How did these messengers act? What did they do? On what assumption? How are these things typed? What answer did God's mouthpiece first give? Afterward? Who would then get this power? How typed?
(67) What did God's mouthpiece then do? Until what? What was their knowledge of the secret workings of the Romanists? Open workings? Who were the secret workers? The open workers? What effect did this knowledge have upon God's mouthpiece? How are these things typed? What did their distress cause the Romanists to ask? What was the answer? How are these things typed? How did the secret allies of the Romanists feel and answer about this matter? What reply did the mouthpiece give? How are these things typed? After leaving God's mouthpiece what did the rigid radicals do? What did the mild radicals ask? The rigid radicals answer? How are these things typed? On what were the Romanists intent? Through whose secret lead? How did the struggle proceed? What did it set into operation? How are these things typed? What remark is in place here? With what begun?
(68) What operated from 1607 to 1615? What was the parallel reign? With what did it begin? Under whom and when did the rest go to Holland? What was John Robinson's relation to this movement? How many related movements did it have? In what did they exist? What were four of these and their leaders? What were the other two? How are these things typed? What had the former Congregational movement and its separate ecclesias done to these six? To what did it give the chief position? Who was its leader? Why was it made the successor movement? How are these things typed? By whom has the first Congregational movement been described? How typed? When did it end as an ascendant movement? As what was it kept in memory? How are these things typed? What did reactionary Congregationalism, when becoming ascendant, do with the other six movements? How? What else did it so treat? How are these things typed? What was its condition when it came into the ascendancy? Through how many sets of experiences did it pass? How are these things typed? By what three evils was it marred? What did it reactionally do? To what extent? With what result? How are these things typed? From what did God
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
376
spare it? Why? In accord with what promise? How are these things typed?
(69) What did the oppressed Armenians do? To what were they opposed? Making a leader, what did they do? How are these things typed? Thereupon what did reactionary Congregationalism do? With whom and what? What did they secretly do? With what result? How are these things typed? What did the Armenians maintain? What did certain enlightened priests then do? Why? How? are these things typed? Under John Robinson's lead what did the reactionary Congregationalism do and encourage? How typed? Amid these activities what came to it? What did it do to it? How are these things typed? Of what particular sins did it rebuke it? How typed? What did Robert Browne's book then do? How typed? What did it say would overtake and disintegrate it? How typed?
(70) By whom was this fulfilled? How typed? How did these effect the fulfilment? How typed? What else beset it? How typed? By what did it lose its ascendancy? Due to what? Through what? How was this policy not held by God's real people? How are these things typed? How did they not feel for it after its eight stages were passed? By what are its deeds recorded? How typed? As what did it end? In what did it fail? How are these things typed? By what was it succeeded? What had it done with it for a while? After what? During what two things in Anglicism? How are these things typed? What was it before coming into ascendancy? Along what one line did it work? What did it show of its origin? What proves this? Why did it so agree? What copyist's error is found in 2 Chro. 22:2 as against 2 Kings 8:26? How else is this error proved? What was its advisor? How did it act? Unto what? How are these things typed? Following its advice what did it do for the Anglican Church party? For what did they fight? How are these things typed? In the fight what did the Anglican Church movement experience? Through whose duplicity? What did it seek from its own Church? How are these things typed? At this juncture what did autocratic Congregationalism do? For what two reasons? With whom did Romanism work secretly in this conflict? Later? How are these things typed?
(71) The end of what phases of the Anglican Movement has already been discussed? With what co-regency
Earlier Parallels.
377
was the third phase contemporaneous? What are the involved parallel dates? When did the sole existence of the fourth phase begin? How long did it last? What are the involved parallel years? How is its start related in time to the first phase of the Congregational Movement? How typed? How in quality did the third and fourth Anglican Movements compare? How typed? In what evils did the latter persist? How typed? In England what had been the papacy's relation to the first three phases of the Anglican Movement? What did it do in the fourth phase? How are these things typed? In what did this rebellion reach its height? What as a result was unleashed? Who were the leading controversialists on each side? What did the fourth Anglican Movement do therein? How are these things typed? What did it also ask? What response did this request receive? How typed? What question was asked by the Congregational Movement; and what was answered? How typed? Along what lines did the controversy move? With what result? How typed?
(72) What was the effect on the fourth Anglican Movement? Why? How typed? How did the first Congregational Movement react thereto? What answer did it receive? How are these things typed? With what result? How typed? What did God's mouthpiece do to the fourth Anglican Movement? How did this affect the fourth Anglican Movement? How are these things typed? In reply what did the Lord's mouthpiece say? How typed? What did the latter then do? How typed? What reassuring things did they then say? How typed? What promises did they make? How typed?
(73) What came shortly thereafter? How typed? How did the Romanist warriors react to the preparations against them? How typed? What impression did the coming of the new truth make upon them? With what result? How are these things typed? Instead of spoil what did they find? With what effect? How are these things typed? What things did the three classes of warriors accomplish? How typed? What response did the papacy make thereto? With what effect? How are these things typed? What did the papacy then do? How did it feel as to the outcome of the controversy? What did the confederates then do? How are these things typed?
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
378
(74) With what antitypically is the episode of 2 Kings 4:1-7 connected? What resulted from the first three petitions and the accompanying confessions of faith? What was then prepared? How did the English Congregationalist churches feel? Why? What did this move them to do? How are these things typed? To the question of the Lord's mouthpiece what answer did they give? How typed? What answer did the Lord's mouthpiece give? How typed? What did they advise to be done secretly to these petitions? How typed? What response did the Congregationalist churches make? What did they then desire? What were they answered? How typed? What did they then do? What was told them to do? What was the result of the petitions with the king? With what result? How typed?
(75) While doing their appointed work among the justified and consecrated, what did God's mouthpiece find? How typed? What did the Congregationalist churches secure for these? How typed? What in response did the latter do? With what result? How are these things typed? What did God's mouthpiece then do? What did they suggest? With what result? How are these things typed? While they meditated on what to do for them, what did Francis Johnson say to them? How typed? What then was done? How typed? What did God's mouthpiece then promise? How was the promise received? How are these things typed? What happened with the forecast? How typed? What resulted with the movement? Why? Despite what? How typed? What then did these churches do? How typed?
(76) What was the leaders' response? How was it overcome? How typed? What did they then do and charge? How typed? How was the mouthpiece engaged when they approached him? On seeing them what did the mouthpiece do? How typed? With what did they charge him? What answer did he receive? How are these things typed? To what did their attitude move him? What did the mouthpiece do? Why? How are these things typed? How only did their attitude express itself? How typed? With what did it charge Francis Johnson? How typed? How did the Congregationalists regard this charge? What, accordingly, did they do? How did the mouthpiece respond? How are these things typed? What did Francis Johnson do? How typed? What did the mouthpiece then do? In what condition was the dead movement? How typed? For what and
Earlier Parallels.
379
how did the mouthpiece labor? How typed? What did they apply to it? To what end? How typed? With what and how did they continue? Until what occurred? How typed? Thereupon what two things did the mouthpiece do? How typed? What did the Congregationalists do? How typed?
(77) What did God's mouthpiece then do? What did they find? Why? In fact what had happened? How did this affect the hangers-on? Why? How are these things typed? What error did a group among the Congregationalists teach? Why? What at first did they not perceive? How are these things typed? What did the practice of this error produce? What did these effects prove? How are these things typed? What did they do about this evil? What did the mouthpiece do therewith? What did they then charge? With what result? How are these things typed? To what has attention already been called? What other such leader was there? What were some of his experiences? What did he do in 1607? What did God's mouthpiece charge to be done with this booklet? How are these things typed? Who opposed its reading? By what? What did the mouthpiece do therein? What declaring? How are these things proved? What proves the propriety of the mouthpiece's course? With what results? How typed?
(78) What at first existed among the Congregationalists? Later? What characterized the controversial course of the victorious radical group? With whom? With what result? How typed? What did these radicals do as to the conservatives? What did they win thereby? How typed? What did the winlings think and say? How typed? What resulted therefrom? Why did it arouse their interest? How are these things typed? What, accordingly, did the radicals do? What did the leading controversialists then do? With what equipped? How typed? What did these do to the conservatives? How typed? How had matters for a long time stood between the conservatives and radicals? How did the former construe the latters' pertinent course? With what demonstrations? How typed?
(79) What two things did God's mouthpiece do thereover? Why the second thing? How typed? What and how did the leading controversialists then do? How did God's mouthpiece act toward them? How are these things typed? What did they tell them to do? By whom? How typed? How did this instruction affect the leading controversialists?
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
380
Especially whom? Why? How typed? What did they claim? How as a result did they reason? How did they leave? How are these things typed? How in manner and substance did some of their supporters reason thereover with them? How typed? What effect did this have on them? In what did this effect result? How typed?
(80) What on recovery did they do? With this confession what did they offer God's mouthpiece? How are these things typed? What course therein did God's mouthpiece take? How typed? What first did the controversial leaders then ask? How typed? Secondly? How typed? What was done with the second request? How? How were they sent away? How are these things typed? What was reprehensible in Francis Johnson's character? What did he see in this situation? How are these things typed? Whom did he seek? What three things did they first do to him? How typed? What answer did he first give? What falsehood did he tell them of what were in reality two classes of ecclesia servants? What did he ask for each class? How typed? What was the Congregationalist view of the classes of ecclesia servants? What is the true view?
(81) On what did the controversial leaders insist? What did they require of two sets of their supporters? How are these things typed? What did F. Johnson manipulate? How? How typed? What did God's mouthpiece thereafter do? Especially in whom? What did he do to God's mouthpiece? On what line? How typed? What did God's mouthpiece then do? How did they feel over his wrongs? What were they? What did the mouthpiece declare? As to what thing? Classes? Kinds of brothers and sisters? How typed? What did they then declare? How did F. Johnson leave them? How are these things typed?
(82) What moved the hangers-on to appeal to God's mouthpiece? In whom especially? What two things did they request? What were they told by God's mouthpiece? How typed? What did the former desire of the latter? What response did they receive? What as a company had they produced? What befell it? How did this affect them? Why? How typed? Who were appealed to, to restore it to its former circulation? At their request what were told them? What did they then do? With what result? How conditioned? How are these things typed? In what did it circulate? After what? How typed?
Earlier Parallels.
381
(83) At this time of how many parties did the Anglican Church consist? What was the first of these? What did they in radicalism exalt? To whom do they correspond? Of whom did the second party consist? Who warred with them? To whom does the second party correspond? In what are these two parties typed? Who were the third party? With whom did it side in the conflict between the low and high church parties? How also can this conflict be termed? Who were the champions of the radicals? What other persons were concerned in this conflict? With whom in their majority were they associated? How typed? What did the radicals decide to do? On what question? How are these things typed? What caution did God's mouthpiece give the conservatives? On what ground? How did the conservatives react to this caution? How typed? Against what other trap did God's mouthpiece caution them? Why? What was done in this conflict by the radicals? In what spheres? How did the conservatives react thereto? Who generally supported them? With what results? What effects on the radicals did the conservatives' moves have? How are these things typed? Denying the charge, whom did certain radicals blame? Where were the blamed ones located? With what did they blame God's mouthpiece? How are these things typed? As a result whom did the radicals charge? With what? Why? What information was given them? How typed?
(84) What did this prompt the radicals to do? How? How typed? What did Francis Johnson recognize? How soon? How did he react to the situation? Why? To whom did he cry for help? How are these things typed? What two things did these tell him? How typed? In what quality did they act? For what did they pray? What did F. Johnson, as a result, see? How typed? What did the learned radical advocates do? What did God's mouthpiece pray as to these? What did God therein do? How are these things typed? What did these point out? With what effect? What did these promise them? On what condition? What did these do to them? How typed?
(85) For what did God's mouthpiece pray? With what limitation? What did God do as to their prayer? How did He answer the prayer? What did this enable the radicals' advocates to see? How are these things typed? On seeing their advantage what did the conservatives request of
Samuels—Kings—Chronicles.
382
God's mouthpiece? How? How typed? Whose arguments captured the radicals' advocates? Despite this how did God's mouthpiece speak of the conservatives? What did they counsel these to do? How typed? Thereupon what did the conservatives do? What did they avoid? With what effect? What was then done? What did this end? How are these things typed? Who were the leaders among God's mouthpiece? Among Congregationalists? Among the Anglicans? Among the conservatives? Among the radicals?