THE ARK AT ASHDOD; AT GATH; AT EKRON.WORK OF THE PHILISTINE LORDS. BETH-SHEMITES. KIRJAH-JEARIMITES. WAR WITH THE PHILISTINES. DESIRING A KING. 

‍

AS WE SAW that the line of thought in 1 Sam. 3, 4, differed from that of 1 Sam. 1, 2, in that these two sets of two chapters did not type things chronologically successive, so the same remark applies to chapters 5, 6; for the things typed in these two chapters began in the second century of the Christian era and ended in the seventeenth century. The possibility of such a reaching so far back in this Age for the beginning of the antitype of these two chapters lies in the definition given to the antitypical ark of the covenant—the full depositary of God's arrangement as seen in the Truth due at any time in question. Another thing that suggests that the antitypes of chapter 5 reach so far back into the Age from our time is the nature of the antitypical Philistines and their five cities: antitypical Ashdod, Gath, Ekron, Askelon and Gaza (1 Sam. 6:17). For the Gospel Age the Philistines (villagers) represent sectarians at any time during the Age. Their five cities represent the five chief Gospel-Age sects, i.e., those that have been during this Age united with the state as state churches. These are the Greek Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England, the Lutheran Church and the Calvinistic Church. Is. 19:18 describes these five denominations. It calls them cities, because in Bible symbols a city represents a religious government. This we can see from the city of Babylon representing the nominal church as a religious government (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 18;

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

84 

18:2, 10, 16, 18, 19, 21), and from Jerusalem as representing the true Church (Matt. 5:35 [the word, is, here means types]; Is. 66:13; Zech. 14:4, 8, 17, 21; Rev. 21:2, 10—22:3). Accordingly, these five cities represent five religious governments, i.e., five religious denominations. 

(2) These five religious governments are spoken of in Is. 19:18 as being in Egypt, i.e., symbolic Egypt, which is the present evil order of affairs (Is. 19:1, 12-25; 20:3-5; 30:1-3; 31:1-3; 52:4; 63:10-14; Rev. 11:8). In symbolic Egypt antitypical Pharaoh, Satan, is king or god (Ex. 1—15; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 2:2). And certainly, these five denominations, united with the state, are in this Egypt in the sense of being parts of Satan's empire. They speak the language of Canaan, i.e., of the Canaanites, error (Zech. 14:21), not the language of the Hebrews, the Truth (Rev. 9:11; 16:16; Neh. 13:24). All five of these have required consecration of their clergy and of their laity. It is true that in most cases the consecration was not a true one, but they required it to be made at the ordination of their clergy and at the confirmation of their laity, all five of them practicing confirmation in European countries, where they are united with the state (swear to the Lord of hosts, Is. 45:23). And one shall be called, the city of destruction. This one is the Roman Catholic Church, to which such a name is applicable, not only because it goes into a more emphatic destruction than the others, but also because it has wrought destruction more emphatically than any of the other four denominations. These five denominations in the Gospel-Age picture that we are now studying are typed by the five cities of the Philistines. Our study will show us that Ashdod types the Greek Catholic Church, that Gath types the Roman Catholic Church and that Ekron types the Church of England. The other two cities represent the Lutheran and Calvinistic Churches, Askelon probably the Lutheran Church and Gaza probably the Calvinistic Church. 

Samuel. 

85 

Perhaps later the Lord will give us certainty as to which types which; the most that we now can say thereon is "probably." It is the typical significance of the three first-named cities that enables us to locate the time setting of this and the next chapter's antitypes. The general reasons why we understand Ashdod to type the Greek Catholic Church is the time setting and the fact that Chapter 5 gives it as the first of the three denominations especially afflicted by symbolic plagues, sifting errors and siftings; for the same general reasons we understand Gath to type the Roman Catholic Church in these two chapters; and for the same general reasons we understand Ekron to represent the Church of England. This will come out more clearly as we examine the details further on in this chapter. 

(3) The ark of the covenant (1) at the time of the antitype of v. 1 was the doctrine that the Apostle John used to begin the movement that was later by crown-lost leaders perverted into the Greek Catholic Church. As we have already learned in EH, 225-236, this was the doctrine of our Lord's pre-human, human and post-human natures and offices as God's appointed Executive. As John gave this doctrine, and as Polycarp fostered it, it being the Truth then due, it was the antitypical ark of v. 1. Under the manipulation of crown-losers, like Justin Martyr, Origen, Dionisius of Rome, Athanasius, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory Nyssa, gradually over a period of about 250 years while holding the office of our Lord more or less after a manner in harmony with St. John's teachings, they increasingly grossly perverted his teachings on our Lord's natures into the God-man theory. This perversion was completed by 381 A. D., at the second general council, the first of Constantinople, the God theory of it having been completed by 325, at the first general council of Nice. Hence, the stewardship doctrine of the Greek Catholic Church was more or less perverted, even as every other denomination of Christendom more or less perverted its 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

86 

stewardship doctrine. The antitypical Philistines (Greek Catholics) took the pertinent doctrine from the apostolic Truth (Eben-ezer, stone of help). Please note the difference in the antitypical significance of the Philistines, etc., here from that of them in Chapter 4, though always they stand for sectarians. Ashdod (stronghold) here types the Greek Catholic Church, to which the crown-lost leaders pervertingly brought the stewardship doctrine under consideration. The bringing of the ark to the house of Dagon (2) types the efforts of the crown-lost leaders to harmonize it with the errors that they taught on Christ's person and office, and their setting it beside the image of Dagon types the crown-lost leaders' claim to have harmonized the two teachings. Dagon was an image consisting of a part fish and part man figure. His lower part was the image of the body of a fish without a head and his upper part was the image of the body of a man without legs. His lower part types the man in the God-man theory and his upper part types the God in the God-man theory. Hence Dagon types the nominal church's counterfeit theory of Christ's natures. All the while the God-man theory was developing the Truth teachers refuted each of its developing phases (Dagon falling [the literal translation] upon his face to the earth before the ark, 3), the morrow of v. 3 representing the periods after each of such refutations up to the completion of the antitypical Dagon in 381; and the morrow of v. 4 representing the periods after each refutation up to the end of the monothelite controversy, as we will see later. We know that in the heathen religions Satan before Christ counterfeited every part of God's plan of which he could get glimpses, from its parts, as they were gradually revealed. E.g., he knew from Gen. 3:15 that the seed of the woman would do a delivering work, and from the expression seed he concluded that the Deliverer would be human, but more than a human being, else He could not destroy Satan. This he apparently inferred also from Deut. 

Samuel. 

87 

18:15-18, where he saw that a Prophet greater than Moses would come, as he also inferred this from Gen. 22:17, 18, where the seed is veiledly referred to as heavenly and as bringing the race back from the dead, and from Gen. 49:10; Num. 24:17. The chief blessing that Gen. 9:26, 27 assigns to them Satan also wove into his counterfeit God-man Messiah, Osiris, etc. 

(4) Hence he palmed off a counterfeit of this coming Deliverer as both human and spiritual, by the fish-man god of Ashdod, Dagon. And in due time he made a more exact counterfeit for Christendom; for we are not to forget that, while in the ancient heathen religions Satan, by conclusions erroneously based on God's gradually increasing revelation, sought to anticipate the Lord's plan by what he gave the heathen before the New Testament times, after the full revelation was given by Christ and the Apostles he counterfeited in the papacy every doctrine, practice and organizational feature of The Christ that in an entirety stood before his mental eyes in that revelation. And he used the speculative minds of the second, third and fourth centuries' crown-lost leaders as the means of palming off his counterfeit of our Lord's natures and His office. The mental twists and contortions of these crown-lost leaders produced the antitype of Dagon in the God-man theory. They had the hardest kind of mental gymnastics to perform in their efforts to harmonize even seemingly the teachings of St. John on Christ's natures and office, particularly the former, with their God-man theory. The deepest thinker of all of them, Augustine, had to admit that the God-man theory and the trinity, of which it was a part, were unexplainable. Additionally, they were unreasonable mysteries of iniquity. And all their efforts to make antitypical Dagon and the antitypical ark stand side by side, i.e., be in harmony with one another, dismally failed. This will appear not only from an analysis of the two opposing teachings as we now see them in the light of the Parousia and the Epiphany, but from a 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

88 

knowledge of the history of the God-man theory from its outstart until it was completed at the first council of Constantinople, 381, where it was decreed as a doctrine of orthodoxy, with anathemas to eternal torment pronounced upon all who taught contrary to it. 

(5) All sorts of foolish conclusions have been drawn from the God-man theory by its exponents. One of these is that Christ's humanity had no personality of its own, though it was alleged that it possesses its own intellect, sensibilities and will—the very essence of personality. Again, they taught that on account of its personal union with His divinity, His human nature shares in the use of the attributes of the Divine nature and vice versa, hence it is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., and that the Divine nature suffered, etc. Hence they said that God suffered and died, that God was born of the virgin Mary and that Mary is the mother of God and the God-bearer. It was these latter expressions that occasioned a controversy that resulted in the antitype of the second falling of Dagon before the ark of the covenant (Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the Lord, 4). Keeping in mind that the God-man theory was completed as a dogma of the so-called orthodox faith at the Council of Constantinople, 381, and keeping in mind the above-mentioned absurd conclusions that it involves, and the consequent expressions flowing from it, we are prepared to see how such expressions would grate on the ears of reasonable men. The one who was most prominently so affected by these absurdities was Nestorious, the pious, eloquent and learned patriarch of Constantinople, who, next to the pope, was the most prominent churchman of the time. He was trained at Antioch, Syria, where the theology there entertained was opposed to such expressions. He brought with him from Antioch to Constantinople Anastasius, a presbyter, who was offended by the expressions, mother of God, bearer of God, and called them to Nestorius' attention. The latter, handicapped by the 

Samuel. 

89 

hatred of Proclus, his unsuccessful rival for the Constantinoplitan See, by the rivalry of Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, and by the resentment of Coelestine, patriarch of Rome, for his having protected the exiled Pelagians, began to denounce the view of the God-man that warranted such expressions to be used of it. He opposed it with a modified error that so emphasized both natures as contemporaneous in contrast with each other that it made Christ really two persons, which also was wrong (1 Cor. 8:6). The error of both views is that they made Christ have, while on earth and since, two natures contemporaneously. The Truth on the subject is: Christ had only one nature at a time, though during the transition from the Logos to human nature the Logos' disposition was decreasingly had until it entirely passed away, changed into Jesus' human disposition, and during the transition from the human to the Divine nature the human disposition was decreasingly had until it was entirely changed into the Divine disposition in our Lord; but in each of these modes of existence He had only one nature at a time, i.e., for the first, the Logos' nature, for the second, the human nature and for the third, the Divine nature. Hence while He was the Logos, He had only the Logos' nature; while He was a man, He had only the human nature (John 1:14); and when He became the life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45), He had only the Divine nature. We might here say that at that time there were, apart from the true view, three views: (1) the one held by the Syrian theologians, that so separated the human and Divine natures while supposedly now existing in our Lord as to have made Him two persons; (2) the one held by the Alexandrians, which so fused the two natures supposedly existing now in our Lord as to have made them but one nature combined out of the two; and (3) the Roman view, that held the two natures now supposedly existing in our Lord as separate and distinct as natures, but forming a union into one person. The third view 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

90 

united what the "orthodox" considered the truths in the other two views and avoided what the "orthodox" considered their errors. All three views are erroneous. 

(6) The debate over this matter was long (428-444) and acrimonious, particularly on the side of Cyril of Alexandria, who was shrewd enough to conceal in his view what the Roman bishop would reject, and to emphasize in Nestorius' view what he knew the pope rejected, and in this tricky way he won the pope over to fight with him against Nestorius. In the same way he won over to his side the patriarch of Jerusalem and the bishop of Ephesus, there being then five patriarchs. Thus on one side were three patriarchs and on the other two: John of Antioch and Nestorius. And the entire Syrian Church, with their patriarch, John of Antioch, took Nestorius' side. The Emperor's family was also divided, some siding with Nestorius, and some, especially his sister Pulcheria (beauty), with Cyril. These two patriarchs were irreconcilably opposed. The pope (430) demanded that Nestorius recant within ten days; Cyril (430) held a synod at Alexandria through which he anathematized Nestorius on 12 counts. Nestorius returned the compliment on just as many counts. To settle the trouble the Emperor called the third general council, that at Ephesus (431). The Emperor and his plenipotentiary sided with Nestorius. Cyril appeared with many bishops and monks, the latter ready to vindicate their side with their fists. Additionally, the bishop of Ephesus had an immense retinue of bishops, priests, monks and laity who also were ready to use the same kind of proof for their orthodoxy. Before the bishops of the West, the pope's legates and the Syrian bishops arrived, Cyril in inordinate haste opened the council and had by its infallible (?) decree Nestorianism condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and Cyril's 12 propositions adopted as the standard of orthodoxy. The pope's legates acknowledged the council's decrees as genuine; but not so the Emperor and his plenipotentiary. 

Samuel. 

91 

(7) During this and the subsequent disputes the Arians maintained the Truth as we gave it above; and thus they refuted both sides in the argument. This refutation and the following refutations are the antitype of Dagon falling to the ground face downward in the presence of the ark, losing head and hands (behold, Dagon was fallen [literally, falling—present participle] upon his face to the ground and the head of Dagon and both palms of his hands were cut off, 4). While active as to antitypical Ashdodites, all of the disputants for the two natures coexisting saw their God-man refuted (Dagon falling). Their efforts to save the antitypical Dagon from being refuted is the antitype of the efforts of the Ashdodites in setting up Dagon again in his place (3). Thus the scene in v. 4 finds its antitype in the controversy on what in Church History are called: dyoprosopism or Nestorianism, the doctrine which virtually taught that since His carnation our Lord was, because of allegedly having two natures, two persons; monophysitism, the doctrine that the human and Divine natures are united by a mixture into but one nature—the Divine, and monothelitism, the doctrine that though Christ supposedly now has two natures they have but one will. The first of these was fought out first, as described above, then afterward the other two arose and were fought out. We will briefly explain the second and third controversies as the further antitype of v. 4. Cyril's successor, Dioscurus, though less acute than the former, exceeded him greatly in ill temper and tyranny. The aged head of a Constantinople monastery, called Eutyches, taught monophysitism, claiming that since Bethlehem our Lord had only the Divine nature and that His human body as the supposed body of God was not in substance like ours. First, Domnus, patriarch of Antioch, and then Theodoret, his chief theologian, intrigued against him, but in vain appealed to the Emperor against him. Then they began to write against him. Dioscurus, the patriarch of Alexandria, entered 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

92 

the fray on the side of Eutyches. He won over the Empress and the prime minister, and through these worked on the Emperor in his favor, resulting in the Emperor's passing severe measures against the Syrians, especially Theodoret, whom the Emperor forbade to pass out of his diocese. In a synod held under Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople (448) Eutyches was accused of heresy, and despite the Emperor's favor and protection was excommunicated and deposed as abbot of his monastery. He and Flavian appeared before Leo I of Rome for his favor; Leo, taking Flavian's side against Eutyches, wrote acutely against monophysitism. The Emperor called a general council at Ephesus (449) to discuss the question. Here Dioscurus presided and would not allow Flavian and his party to be heard. The absence of Theodoret, the chief opponent of monophysitism, by the Emperor's order above-mentioned, handicapped his side. 

(8) This council was one of extreme arbitrariness and violence and is called in Church History the Robber Synod. It condemned the doctrine of two contemporaneous natures, and when Eusebius, bishop of Doretaeum, in Phrygia, sought to defend it, the Egyptians shouted, "Away with him! Burn him! Tear him into two pieces, as he has torn the Christ." Both Flavian and Eusebius appealed to Pope Leo I, called the Great. But they were excommunicated and anathematized by the council. When certain bishops expostulated with Dioscurus, he called soldiers, monks, ruffians and an unruly rabble, who raised a riot. In it Flavian was killed and a speedy flight alone saved the Roman legates and Eusebius. Eutyches was restored and his leading opponents, Theodoret, Ibas and Domnus, one of the five patriarchs, were deposed and excommunicated. Under Leo's protest the Emperor changed sides. A new general council was called at Chalcedon (451), which deposed and banished Dioscurus and condemned monophysitism and Nestorianism, and decreed the following, dictated by Leo as orthodoxy: 

Samuel. 

93 

"Christ is true God and true man (dyophysitism), according to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father in everything, according to His humanity born of Mary, the Virgin and God-bearer in time, and like to us men in everything, only without sin; and after His incarnation the unity of the person (monoprosopism) consists in two natures which are conjoined without mixture and without change, but also without rending and without separation." This council war marked with almost as much violence as "the Robber Synod at Ephesus." The Egyptians, the monophysites, were as violent against Theodoret as their party had been against his supporters at the Synod of Ephesus. Years later in the efforts to win back the monophysites a concession was made by many, even by Pope Honorius (who is the classic example of a pope erring while speaking ex cathedra, and is an inescapable thorn in the sides of the infalliblists), to them, to the effect that, while, since His becoming human, our Lord has two natures, the false claim of orthodoxy, yet He had only one will. This question led to much controversy until the error was finally accepted as orthodox, i.e., that our Lord has since Bethlehem two contemporaneous wills. The Truth on the subject is that our Lord having only one nature at a time, i.e., as Logos, the pre-human Son of God, as the man, Jesus, the human Son of God, and since His resurrection, as the glorified Christ, Divine Son of God, there could not at any one time have been more than one will in Him, if His sinlessness is to be maintained. The one-will doctrine was called monothelitism (from monos, one and thelema, will). 

(9) All these heresies arose from the errors on the Son's alleged consubstantiality, coequality and coeternity with the Father, as a part of trinitarianism. From the standpoint of these three errors, from Bethlehem onward there had to be two natures held as subsisting in our Lord at once, leading to the gross error quoted above and decreed at Chalcedon, which

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

94 

gross error condemned Nestorianism and monophysitism, and which logically from its wrong position involved the denial of monothelitism, when later it arose. All the time these errors were combating one another (for it will be noted that by them Satan was opposing the various forms of error against one another, so that the Truth on the subject would be forgotten), the Truth on these subjects was held by the Arians, and it overthrew both the contemporaneous two-natures idea and the form of the one-nature idea presented against that two-natures idea, and also overthrew the two-will and the one-will ideas as they were opposed to one another. The refutative effect of the Truth against the doctrine that finally became established as orthodox, one person in two contemporaneous natures with two wills, is also typed by Dagon's falling down and having his head and hands cut off, the two natures being represented in the human body and fish body and the one person as held by the orthodox in the severed head; and the refutative effect of the Truth against the doctrine that finally became established as orthodox, two contemporaneous wills in Christ: one in the human, the other in the Divine nature, is typed by Dagon's two hands being cut off—the will being the real active agency in personality, two wills are well typed by two hands, the active agents of one's body (4). The Ashdodite Philistines' arising on the morrow of v. 4 types the Greek Catholics' proceedings after each refutation by the Truth, i.e., in the Nestorian, in the monophysite and dyophysite (two natures) and in the monothelite (one will) controversy (arose early on the morrow, 4). The expression, only Dagon was left on him (the words stump of, as shown by the italics, were interpolated), shows what the Truth left of the God-man theory; it left its antitype without any real will and without having a real personality. It is because the two contemporaneous natures and wills were officially declared to be the orthodox teachings that the type 

Samuel. 

95 

does not specifically point out in v. 4 dyoprosopism, monophysitism and monothelitism. These, with their opposing errors, are brought out in the plague of vs. 6, 7, as will be later shown. 

(10) The Greek Catholics, clergy and laity, proceed by mental steps to the theory of their God-man with two wills. But their thoughts (steps) pass over from figurative steps into figurative leaps in making their mental trips to the theory of their God-man with two wills (priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold [they leap over it] of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day, 5). That is, they stop thinking out the various mental steps that must be taken as to their God-man with two wills and spring to the conclusion, contrary to correct and Scriptural reasoning, which at the very entrance to this theory refutes it; and thus, not to tread upon the ground on which their theory lies prone in utter defeat, they jump over such Scriptural reasoning, i.e., evade it, under the plea that this is not a matter to reason out, but to be believed; hence they thus leap over the ground where their God-man with two wills lies refuted. And they continue this course unto the present and will continue it until their theory through Armageddon's devastations will utterly sever from it the exponents of that theory. Thus in vs. 3-5 we see typed the Truth (not the errors) controversies on the God-man with two natures, but in vs. 6, 7, we see the types of the great errors and siftings connected with these errors that set in among the antitypical Philistines in the Greek Catholic aspects. Above, we sketched only the controversies that were connected with the God-man with two wills, in order to show how the Truth refuted the involved errors, without referring to the great siftings that these occasioned among them. This is because vs. 3-5 type these controversies in so far as the Truth refuted them, without referring to the divisions that they occasioned and accompanied. These divisions and errors are typed in vs. 6, 7, which 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

96 

will be taken up for our study now. In Bible types and symbols siftings, with the errors that are their heart, are set forth as plagues. This we have already seen in the types of the five great harvest siftings (1 Cor. 10:5-14). The sixth sifting, i.e., the Epiphany sifting, with its errors, is set forth in Ps. 91:6 as the pestilence that walketh in darkness. From all six of these the Parousia and Epiphany Little Flock is, in Ps. 91:7-10, promised immunity for its faithfulness. And in principle such immunity from each error as it arose was promised to, and enjoyed by, the Little Flock always. 

(11) But not so the unfaithful and the nominal people of God. As an illustration of the latter fact, the account in 1 Sam. 5:6, 7 shows typically how the Greek Catholic Church was plagued and rent by these pestilences of error. The plague of vs. 6, 7 seems to be the bubonic plague, which is spread by rats and mice. This thought is suggested by the emerods of that plague and by the golden mice offered the Lord by the Philistines as an atonement. In describing above the errors and the conflicts on them, we did so in order to make clear what the errors were that the antitypical Ark, the Truth (brought out by St. John as the stewardship Truth of the Greek Catholic Church, by it more or less perverted), in its unperverted form refuted, viz., the God-man and two-wills-in-Christ theories. This made it necessary to say some things on the plague antitypical of vs. 6, 7. We will now explain other things on this plague. Let us remember that a symbolic plague is a sifting error and the sifting that it occasions. Thus seen, the above-described errors were a part of the plague typed in vs. 6, 7. Now we will describe the other main sifting activities and resultant divisions that marked the antitypical plague. The ancient Greek mind was primarily a theoretical and speculative mind, contrasted with the practical mind of the Romans. In our times these two aptitudes are respectively well represented by the German mind, on the one hand, and the English and American mind, 

Samuel. 

97 

on the other hand. And the Greek speculative mind was exactly the kind of a mind for Satan's purposes in palming off, on the assumption that the basal error was true, in seemingly logical consistency various errors involved in the trinity and the God-man theories. To the speculative Greeks these mysteries (in truth, mix-upteries) were indeed a sweet morsel to roll on their symbolic tongues; for it was among the Greeks that the pertinent errors and siftings arose and were fought out. Nor must we conclude that only the theologians and clergy occupied themselves with these matters, though they, humanly speaking, originated them; additionally the so-called laity took an ardent part in them. For these questions were discussed by the families of the emperors and peasants, in the stores and shops, in the churches and homes, in synods and councils, in the factories and ships, in the market places and parks, in the barber shops, dressmaking shops and shoe shops, in the theatres and hippodromes, and in the Emperor's cabinets and courts. In a word, they were the principle topics of conversation and debate in all ranks of society and walks of life. Crowds even on the streets debated these questions and everywhere sides were taken. They were as lively topics of the day as the New Deal was in the 1936 campaign. 

(12) Yes, indeed, on all hands sides were taken, households were divided, even in the Emperor's palaces various members of the imperial families were lined up on opposite sides, which lining up made parties of the various members of their officers and servants. Of course, the party spirit was enkindled and increased until there were great divisions made, the first of these being that between the so-called orthodox and the Nestorians. Literally millions left the Greek Catholic Church and organized the Nestorian Church, which included, first of all, a large party of the Syrian Church, whence Nestorius and his doctrine came; then it spread to Persia, where it took over the whole of that church as its adherents. Thence it passed on into

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

98 

India; and in the dark ages it spread widely in China and Tartary. Thus Nestorianism as a creed and as a sect was a part of the plague upon the orthodox. Part of it was also their own pertinent error. While Nestorianism was nearer the Truth than orthodoxy, to the orthodox it and orthodoxy's own errors were some of the emerods (great boils of the symbolic bubonic plague) upon the men of antitypical Ashdod (6; Greek Catholicism), and the antitypical coasts thereof (the Roman, Syrian, Egyptian, etc., Catholics). The Lord smote them by putting His Word on the pertinent subjects in its peculiar form (the hand of the Lord was heavy upon, etc.), and by stirring up the sectarians, as well as the faithful, against them. The same things in principle were carried out as the antitype of v. 6 in the monophysite and monothelite controversies. Almost all of Egypt was committed to the monophysite teaching; and it and the breaking away of almost the entire Egyptian Church from the Greek Catholic Church, as well as the orthodox pertinent error, were the symbolic emerods on all the orthodox. Monothelitism was offered by some of the orthodox as a concession to the monophysites in the hope of winning them back to orthodoxy and the Greek Catholic Church. But the conciliators only stirred up more controversy and, while winning back some of the monophysites, made the consistent ones among them all the firmer against the orthodox. And as the Nestorians persist to our day in Syria, Persia, India, etc., so in the Coptic Church of Egypt and Ethiopia the monophysites and monothelites continue to our times. 

(13) Throughout these controversies on the two natures and two wills the so-called orthodox fought the truths on these subjects. Indeed, they began to fight the Truth on the various natures in Christ and His relation to the Father in His pre-human, human and post-human natures long before the dyoprosopic and monoprosopic, monophysite and dyophysite and monothelite and dyothelite controversies. As said above,

Samuel. 

99 

about 140, through Justin Martyr, who introduced the human immortality and eternal torment theories into the Church from his Platonic philosophy, the first squints toward trinitarianism were made. Origen, about 235, introduced the Son's alleged coeternity with the Father, while yet holding to His subordination to the Father. Dionesius of Rome, about 270, introduced His alleged consubstantiality with the Father, and Athanasius, about 320, His alleged coequality with the Father. Each of these steps in the development of this gross error was taken against the protests of the defenders of the pertinent Truth that St. John set forth on the Son, that Polycarp fostered, that many others defended before Arius, and that the latter and his supporters defended against these gross errors. With his usual subtlety Satan set defenders of the extremes of error on these subjects against one another, that the Truth lying between these extremes might be lost from sight. This course marked the controversy from Origen's time until Arius in 318 stepped forth in the defense of the Truth against the errors of Christ's alleged coeternity, consubstantiality and coequality with the Father. The refutations of these three errors were the first of antitypical Dagon's falls in the presence of the antitypical Ark, while the truths brought out refutatively against the so-called orthodox views—dyophysitism and dyotheletism—in the Nestorian monophysite and monothelite controversies, were the antitypical Ark's second felling of antitypical Dagon and of its bereaving him of his head and hands. The efforts of the orthodox to refute and banish the pertinent Truth is the antitype of the Ashdodites' determining to send away the ark from their midst (The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us, 7). This began with Origen's efforts to suppress the Truth on Christ's having been created in time as distinct from His being eternal. This started the first emerod on the Greek Catholics; Dionesius' error started the second; and Athanasius' invention started the third. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

100 

Others came during the later controversies above-mentioned—the full fixing of the God-man theory at the first Council of Constantinople, 381, and the use of this doctrine against Nestorianism, monophysitism and monothelitism (His hand [the Lord's] is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god); for certainly the orthodox and their God-man were sorely put to it by the Truth during those four centuries of controversy. Their many subterfuges, twists and self-contradictions, their hiding in the hole of mystery (mix-uptery) and their inability to give a clear, reasonable answer to the Truth in these controversies, are the antitype of the statement, the men [leaders] of Ashdod saw that it was so. 

(14) The calling and gathering together of the hierarchs in numerous councils and synods to discuss the involved questions were the antitypical calling and gathering together of the lords of the Philistines (8). And all of these gatherings decided to send away the pertinent Truth—reject the truths and anathematize its holders—from the Greek Catholic Church (answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath, the type of the Roman Catholic Church). It is noteworthy that in all these controversies the bishop of Rome was appealed to by the so-called orthodox Greeks; sometimes their antagonists did this also; and the pope (as is to be expected of Satan's special representative on earth) with but three exceptions, two of which are more or less doubtful as such, Pope Honorius being the only sure exception, gave the answers that were accepted as orthodox. This fact gave the pope more influence in these councils, etc., than any other hierarch. There is also another thing typed in deciding to send and in actually sending the ark to Gath—it indicates typically the way of the transition of the Truth from tormenting the Greek to its tormenting the Roman Catholics: The Greeks ridded themselves from the necessity of defending the Truth that they in common with the Romans held on 

Samuel. 

101 

there being but one Church, which is the steward of the Truth and the agent of salvation; for they had plenty of occasions to raise the question controversially through the divisions that arose in their midst; but they did not so do, but left it to the Roman Catholics to fight out the controversies on that subject. In his sense also they sent the antitypical Ark to antitypical Gath (wine or oil press, which certainly the Roman Catholic Church has been to the true Church). We have seen in these columns that through Irenaeus, about 180, the Lord gave the stewardship Truth that aroused a Little Flock movement, later perverted by crown-losers, especially by Cyprian and Augustine, respectively of Carthage and Hyppo, of North Africa, into the Roman Catholic Church. It was about 251 that Cyprian began to pervert this doctrine by setting forth the one Church as being summed up in the bishops as the alleged successors of the Apostles. 

(15) Cyprian started the course that raised this emerod (they had emerods, 9) on the members of the Roman Catholic Church as follows: There were divergent views in the Carthage Church on how to treat those who in times of persecution abjured Christ. Some favored a mild course, allowing them to come back with a mild acknowledgment of this wrong; others a stricter course, refusing to receive such at all. Cyprian at first favored the latter course. When he returned, 251, from his flight to the desert during the Decian persecution, the mild party fought him. This resulted in a division. Cyprian set forth the thought that in separating themselves from him, their bishop, they severed themselves from the Catholic Church, whose unity, he alleged, is centered in its bishops as successors of the Apostles. When the persecution was renewed Cyprian went over very largely to the milder practice of the other party, and thus he ended the schism at Carthage. But the same questions arose in disputes at Rome. The party that stood for the strict practice came under the lead of a presbyter, Novatian. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

102 

The Roman bishop Cornelius (251-253) stood for the mild practice. Novatus, the leader of the mild party at Carthage, fought Cyprian for his strict practice, for which Cyprian excommunicated him. Thereupon Novatus went to Rome. There he took up with the strict practice group; and with it he opposed Cornelius' mild practice. He did this under the lead of Novatian, the unsuccessful candidate for the bishopric of Rome as against Cornelius, in 251, and the leader of the strict party in the Roman Church. In the strife a division came; and the rigorists elected Novatian as their bishop. Both heads of these parties by correspondence and messengers sought to obtain the recognition of the most celebrated churches. Cornelius falsely represented Novatian, who was a blameless man and elder, as a monster, intriguer and long-standing evil-doer. Cyprian, and Dionesius, head of the Church of Alexandria, took sides with Cornelius, the former being in part influenced thereto by Novatus' adherence to Novatian. Forgetful of the facts that he had up to very recently espoused the same principles as Novatian, and that for those principles he had excommunicated Novatus, Cyprian with the zeal of a new convert attacked Novatian's view to the effect that while Christ might forgive His deniers and gross sinners who fall after their baptism, the Church as the communion of saints had no right to absolve them, even after they had undergone ecclesiastical repentance; for Novatian argued that the Church consists and must consist of the pure only. Both sides went to an extreme. The Novatianists spread all over the Roman Empire, having many and large churches, and stood with the orthodox in their controversies against the Arians. The Council of Nice, 325, consisting in the main of the Greeks, maintained a friendly attitude toward them, so did the first Council of Constantinople (381), though in the mean time the Occidental Church (Romanist) persecuted then as heretics, but Emperor Honorius, who in the West succeeded Theodosius, the convener 

Samuel. 

103 

of the first Constantinopolitan council, persecuted them, at the instigation of the Occidental Church. The Novatianists persisted into the 6th century. 

(16) Both sides had some truth and some error. The error of the Novatianists was that they attempted to cast sinning ones as crown-losers out of the true Church, a thing that must be left to the Lord alone, who forbade such judging until the Second Advent (1 Cor. 4:5). Moreover, He forbade a judging between wheat and tares before that time (Matt. 13:28, 29). Yea, the fulfilment of the parable's prohibition occurred during the pertinent controversies. But a worse error was on the other side—the loss of the thought that the true Church consists of the saintly only, and the defense of the thought that the true Church consisted of all who profess faith in Christ, living under and in obedience to the bishops as the center of the Church's unity. This second thought Cyprian elaborated in his celebrated treatise on The Unity Of The Church. Here, then, we see the first antitypical emerod breaking forth on the leaders and led of antitypical Gath (and they had emerods [the expression, in their secret parts, is a mistranslation; it is in fact an interpolation], 9). Here, then, the hand of the Lord (9) is seen to be heavy on the Roman Catholic leaders and their ledlings as well. It was indeed a very great destruction from the Lord. But 60 years later a greater and longer-drawn-out controversy over practically the same question broke out and made a by far greater division in the Roman Catholic Church. We refer to the Donatist controversy, which continued from 311 to 415. As the root question was practically the same as that in the Novatianist controversy, we need not here enter into its details. The Donatists were the strict party that wanted only saints in their churches. The Catholics, claiming that the Church consists of all professed Christians who are united under obedience to the bishops as successors of the Apostles, objected to the excommunicating of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

104 

everybody who did not seem to be saintly, as practiced by the Donatists. The controversy spread all over North Africa. The Emperor, the bishop of Rome and a great Western synod at Arles, 314, decided against the Donatists. Persecution set in against them, which but increased their zeal, as always in the sincere. 

(17) They rebelled against the civil power, which brought the army out against them, none of which things crushed them. So things continued throughout the fourth century. In 400 Augustine started his long-drawn-out controversy with them, in general using the same truths and errors against their error as Cyprian did, but with greater dialectical skill. He at first counseled mild measures, but their stubbornness moved him to advocate, on a misapplication of Luke 14:23, the use of force (the word should be rendered, constrain, not compel) to draw them back from damnation into the ship of salvation. Thus Augustine became the father of the doctrine that force should be applied to heretics to restore them to the Church, a principle that reached the height of its hideousness in the crusades against heretics and in the Inquisition. Previously, he had sought to draw their leaders into a debate with him; but they declined, fearing his superior ability as a debater. Finally, they were by the Emperor forced to enter into a debate which was held at Carthage, 411, Petelian and Primian being the chief Donatist debaters and Augustine and Aurelian the chief Catholic debaters, and 279 Donatists and 286 Catholic bishops being in attendance. No real results were gained thereby. In 415 the Donatists were by the Emperor declared bereaved of all rights and death was threatened upon all who attended their meetings. The Vandals (Arians) in conquering Africa oppressed both Donatists and Catholics as being both in the wrong. This led to the reunion of Donatists and Catholics. In this controversy the question was also debated as to whether bishops who were unbishoply in character forfeited their powers as bishops, and thus could perform 

Samuel. 

105 

no valid bishoply acts, like the valid administration of the sacraments and the valid conference of ordination, confirmation and absolution, the Catholics affirming that they could, and the Donatists that they could not. Both of these parties erred in ascribing the conference of grace by the mere application of the sacraments and other sacred rites just mentioned. Had they held to the truth that neither water baptism nor the Lord's Supper conferred grace, but that grace came through the actualities symbolized by these two acts and that the other three rites were human inventions, they would have seen that they were debating the extremes of error against one another and were forgetting the pertinent Divine Truth altogether. As a result of this phase of the debate the Roman Catholics had another antitypical emerod break out on them, i.e., that the sacraments of themselves convey grace where no stubborn resistance is offered to their administration. The Truth on these controverted subjects in the Donatist controversy was especially defended by Tichonius, a member of the Pergamos star. 

(18) But the worst of all of the antitypical emerods that broke out upon the Roman Catholic leaders and ledlings were the further developments of the hierarchical idea. This was embedded in the doctrine of the Apostolic succession of bishops, and out of this view sprang its higher expression: Archbishops over the bishops in the various provinces of the Empire; five patriarchs of equal standing in the entire Church over the archbishops; and finally, the pope as supreme, supported by his college of cardinals, who were originally the presiding priests in the various churches at Rome, and who were later exalted over all archbishops, but not over the other four patriarchs, for the reason that in the meantime they became Greek as opposed to Roman Catholic patriarchs. These antitypical emerods reached their most festering and foul condition in the exaltation of the pope to absolute supremacy and infallibility. While there were minor differences

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

106 

between the Greek and Roman Catholics that led up to temporary divisions among them, like the 35 years' division due to the monophysite controversy and the split of 50 years due to Pope Vigilius' vacillation during the later parts of the monophysite controversy, connected with the Emperors' efforts to make peace, new fuel was added to the fiery feeling between the East and the West over the monothelite controversy, on account of Pope Honorius' heresy making a division, which was soon healed, following his excommunication and anathematization by a general council. But the Trullan Council at Constantinople, 692, added more fuel to the fires burning between the two halves of the Catholic Church. There were six matters there passed displeasing to Rome: (1) Disapproving certain of Rome's canons and approving 35 of which Rome disapproved. (2) Disapproving Rome's enforcement of the celibacy of the presbyters and bishops. (3) Forbidding certain of Rome's enjoined fasts. (4) Renewing the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, predicating the equality of the patriarch of Constantinople with the pope. (5) Disapproving Rome's permission to drink blood and eat things strangled, forbidden by God (Gen. 9:4), when He gave them permission to eat meat, as the Apostles also charged (Acts 15:29). And (6) prohibiting the Roman custom of representing Christ by a lamb, a thing quite general in the West. 

(19) These six points stirred up more or less feeling between the two parts of Catholicism, and later, especially point (4), were to play an important role in the separation between the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches. Rome's continued and increasing claims of the pope's supremacy, which was at the background of many practical differences between the East and the West, at last made the breach so wide as to lead to a final division between the Greek Catholic and the Roman Catholic Churches. Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople, 867, held with the eastern patriarchs a council at Constantinople and charged the popes with 

Samuel. 

107 

falsifying the creed by adding to it the phrase that the Holy Spirit in their sense proceeded from the Father and the Son. This resulted in great controversies, with reciprocal anathemas and conspiracies on both sides. These differences came to a head in the controversies between Caerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, and Pope Leo IX. The result was that, while hitherto their reciprocal anathemas had been hurled at individuals and their followers, now, in 1054, the pope excommunicated the whole Greek Catholic Church; and the four Greek patriarchs returned the compliment solemnly to the whole Roman Catholic Church—the papal supremacy being at the root of the trouble. Despite many efforts at reunion, none was ever achieved. Thus each antitypical emerod (error) led to a division among the Roman Catholics, in fulfilment of v. 9. 

(20) We now come to a study of the antitype of v. 10, which types the Church of England. The Roman Catholics' worst emerod, the unity of the Church is summed up in the absolute supremacy and infallibility, of the pope, was the cause of the Church of England's coming into existence as a sect, separate and distinct from Romanism; hence Rome's pertinent emerod made this division also. This will appear as the facts are considered, surrounding the presentation of the stewardship Truth of the Church of England, which was used by Thomas Cranmer, supported by Hugh Latimer especially, to start a Little Flock movement, later by crown-losers perverted into the Church of England. The circumstance that led to the promulgation of the pertinent Truth was this: Henry VIII of England, for whom no Truth person would hold a brief, was right in being conscience-troubled over his marriage to his brother's widow, a thing forced upon him by his father, Henry VII, against his solemn protest. It is not necessary for us to go into the pertinent details here, since 'we have already given them in EH, 254-265. Suffice it to say that due to the pope's temporizing on the matter of the divorce, the question was 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

108 

raised by Cranmer as to who had the right to grant divorce, the pope or the civil power. Cranmer answered the question as follows: The State, not the Church. He gave two main reasons for it: (1) Marriage, being an earthly, not a spiritual matter, was subject to the rules set up by the State, according to God's ordinance. (2) The Church in earthly matters is subject to the State, not vice versa, as Rome claimed. Hence, as Rome views the question, in ultimate analysis the matter of Henry's marital relation touched the question of the unity of the Church as being in an infallible and sovereign pontiff—one of Rome's worst emerods; hence Rome stood out for its alleged powers in the matter. This resulted in the English Church separating from Rome, and the resultant controversy was the sending of the antitypical Ark from antitypical Gath to antitypical Ekron (Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron, settlement, 10). And in the Church of England a resultant deadly destruction went on (for there was a deadly destruction, 11), and certainly the Lord permissively sent them many emerods, as we will now proceed to show (the hand of God was very heavy there) from the many pertinent facts. 

(21) Let us not forget that the Truth which Thomas Cranmer, especially supported by Hugh Latimer, taught was the following: God has subjected the true Church in civil matters to the civil powers. Of course, God did not subject The Christ to the civil powers in spiritual matters; for it is His will that The Christ preserve the Truth and its Spirit against all assaults from the civil powers or from any other human source (Acts 5:29). Hence only in His earthly interests was the Christ subject to the civil powers (Rom. 13:1-6; 1 Pet. 2:13-16). But Catholics being used to having an earthly head, the Church of England as such accepted the English king as its "head under God," who was, therefore, in the pope's stead made "by the grace of God [Divine right] under God head of the Church of England." This was the first and chief emerod (12) that afflicted the clergy and laity

Samuel. 

109 

of the Church of England, and it proved to be a sore boil indeed, as the after history of the English Church proves. This made the tyrant, Henry VIII, control the English Church at the outstart of Cranmer's promulgation of the pertinent Truth and of the Anglican Church's separation from Rome (as the ark of God entered Ekron, 10), and he used that control in matters of doctrine, organization and practice to the great injury of the Reformation. Hence he gave a Romanist doctrinal setting to the Church of England, which on his death was considerably modified in an anti-Romanist sense. He appointed the hierarchy and decided its form, and he maintained most of Rome's evil practices, including the burning of heretics. He had a law enacted called the Six Articles, which must be believed in England, requiring the following points: (1) transubstantiation; (2) non-necessity of communion in both elements; (3) celibacy of the clergy; (4) obligatoriness of all vows; (5) private masses; and (6) auricular confession. Unconditional burning was the penalty for denying the first; and for the others deprivation of goods and imprisonment for the first offense, and death as felons for the second. The marriages of priests, monks and nuns were dissolved. If they married again they were to be hanged. Abstaining from attending mass and confession was held as offenses against these articles. Under former laws, if heresy was abjured the abjurer was spared; under this, whether he abjured or not, he was unconditionally exposed to its penalties. This was the most bloodthirsty law ever inscribed in English law books, and Henry VIII originated it, required its passage and saw to its enforcement. Hence, almost solely apart from the question of papal supremacy Henry was a bigoted (Roman) Catholic. At least 30 were put to death under this law. There were, according to Burnet, the historian of the Anglican Reformation, at one time 500 persons in prison by virtue of its penalties. All these six laws, or one law in six parts, were antitypical emerods that came upon the clergy and laity of the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

110 

Church of England by virtue of the antitypical emerod, that the king was by the grace of God under God head of the Church of England, which doctrine was a gross perversion of the stewardship Truth of the Church of England, that The Christ is by God subject in earthly matters to the civil power, and not vice versa. 

(22) Henry VIII died in 1547 and was succeeded by his son, Edward VI, a mere lad, but a sincere Protestant. Guardianed, trained and influenced by Cranmer, he favored Protestant reforms in doctrine more on Calvin's than on Luther's foundations. Under him the law on the six articles was revoked, Romanists were tolerated but not favored, the book of Common Prayer was promulgated and a confession of faith in 42 articles was sanctioned by law, both these devotional and doctrinal features being, with Ridley's help, largely Cranmer's work, who as a part of antitypical captive Samson ground out the grain for the antitypical Philistines. This service book and confession of faith proved to contain some more emerods. In these 42 articles as a matter doctrine the king's headship was set forth and this error was soon (in Mary's days) to produce worse results than it effected in the days of Henry VIII; for Edward VI died in 1553, before attaining his majority, his nominee as successor, a cousin, Lady Jane Gray, a real Protestant, was set aside and a bigoted Romanist, Mary, a daughter of Henry VIII, ascended England's throne. She dismissed all Protestant high officials, beheaded Lady Jane, her husband and father, and charged those, including Cranmer, who advised her successorship, with treason, beheading all of them, except Cranmer, whom she spared to reserve him for burning as a heretic. All the pro-Protestant laws of Edward VI she then abrogated and reinstated the law of her father, Henry VIII, on the six articles. Then she reinstated Romanism as the state church. While she annulled the law making England's sovereign head of the church, which for her the pope was, she used all the 

Samuel. 

111 

power that that law gave the sovereign in restoring and operating Romanism. All Protestant bishops were displaced by Romanists. Those who could not escape she imprisoned. The bigoted Bishop Gardiner, made prime minister, enforced the law on the six articles. The Protestant leaders were all imprisoned, the bones of their eminent dead leaders were exhumed and burned, and married priests with their wives and children were by the thousands driven out of the land. In 1554 the exiled Cardinal Pole returned as papal legate, absolved the penitent kneeling Parliament and received back into the Romish den all England. The next year, 1555, the literal fires of persecution were lit at Mary's order, who, therefore, became known as bloody Mary, and whose cruelty became so great that almost the whole nation, ashamed of having such a fiend on England's throne, hated her and rejoiced at her death, 1558. 

(23) The persecution was indeed a very sore one. The legal records of the burning of 288 Protestants have been discovered, and how many more (for there were more) were burned cannot now be proved by the records of men; but we may be sure the Lord has kept an accurate record of this barbarity and will publish it to the praise of His name and the vindication of His suffering children. During 1555, among many other Protestants, four Protestant bishops: Latimer, Ridley, Ferrar and Hooker, were burned; and Archbishop Cranmer, the primate of all England under Henry VIII and Edward VI, a Philadelphia star-member, was burned the next year. In 1554 Mary had married Philip II of Spain, one of the most bigoted and cruel Romanist monarchs of all times, who kept arousing Mary to her persecuting career, for especially from the time of her espousal and marriage onward she acted the persecutor in true Spanish style. His return to Spain in 1555, never again returning, greatly depressed her, which made her hate and persecute Protestantism all the more. She instituted a heresy tribunal after the pattern of the Spanish Inquisition

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

112 

under the presidency of "bloody Bonner," bishop of London, who consigned to the flames crowds of faithful Protestants, clerical and lay, men and women, old and young. Beside those who were burned at the stake, literally thousands died of starvation and exposure for their faith, while awaiting trial for heresy, in England's prisons; for in those days the prisons were not heated, nor did jailers feed or medicate the accused, who had to starve unless friends fed them. After the persecution had raged for nearly five years Mary died of a rupture of the heart and dropsy, unwept, unmourned and unloved, a female hyena in human form. As though by a providential visitation nearly all of her main assistants in persecution died within a year of her death, some just before, some just after it. Of all England's sovereigns she easily carries off the palm for cruelty, inhumanity and bigotry. Her persecuting course raised up in England such hatred for Rome, as the embodiment of cruelty, as has not yet, after nearly four centuries, died out. The terrible suffering and many deaths incident to Mary's persecution were a part of the deadly destruction throughout the Church of England (there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city, 11). The sufferings and deaths due to Henry's persecution were also a part of these deadly destructions. But these were not all of them; some more of these came in Elizabeth's day; yea, also in the days of James I, Charles I and II and James II, all of them more or less due to making England's sovereigns head of the Church of England, and all of them acting as though they were such. While the Romanists, bloody Mary and James II, refused to use the title, they did use the power of that office, in favor of the pope, as loyal Romanists. 

(24) At Mary's death Elizabeth, the only then living child of Henry VIII, Mary's half-sister, ascended the throne. How she faced the exacting problems germane to the political and religious situation in England and Europe, we described with some detail in EH, 272-278. 

Samuel. 

113 

However, she accepted the position of head of the Church of England. Cranmer had educated her in the Protestant faith of her mother, Anne Boleyn, who, though innocent, was by Henry VIII beheaded, under the accusation of adultery. She was one of the ablest sovereigns that ever lived; and her 45 years' reign almost obliterated Romanism from England. She abrogated the law on the six articles, stopped the persecution of Protestants, burned no Romanists for heresy, though she caused not a few of them to be beheaded for treason, especially for attempting to depose her and to assassinate her. She proceeded with great prudence and moderation, so that the pope for a while was deceived into believing her to be a Romanist. In 1559 Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity, which reasserted the royal supremacy over the Church, fixed penalties of loss of goods, imprisonment and exile for perversion to Romanism, and death for a repetition, as treason to the country. It was the pope's, etc., attitude and course in the Marian persecutions, a repetition of which would have been ruinous to the country, that caused Elizabeth to declare the effort to embrace, spread and reintroduce Romanism as treason to the country; for such it is in deed and in truth, because of Romanists' doubled allegiance, the allegiance to the pope superseding that to the state in case of conflict between them. A revision of the book of Common Prayer was made. Cranmer's 42 articles were reduced to 39 and adopted as the creed of the Angelican Church. As adopted, the 39 articles swerved away from the Calvinistic character of the 42 articles and took on a form half-way between Calvinism and Lutheranism. These 39 articles were adopted by convocation in 1562, and were made a fundamental law of the land by Parliament in 1572, subjecting all England thereto. 

(25) Thus the Anglican Church was set up by law as the state church, with an episcopal form of government, claiming Apostolic succession, under royal supremacy. It thus became the law of the land that uniformity 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

114 

of worship with diversity of creeds was to be practiced; hence severe penalties were meted out on attendance at other than Anglican Church services, attendance thereat being compulsory. This caused persecution to fall to the lot of non-conformists, and endless troubles to come between Anglicans, on the one hand, Puritans (Presbyterians), Independents (Congregationalists, Baptists and Quakers), etc., on the other hand, leading to house searching, to torture of the suspected and to not a few deaths for treason, as nonconformity was regarded. Thus the Act of Uniformity proved to be another emerod, and caused endless troubles with the non-conformists, which those who would not accept and practice uniformity were called. And these troubles increased in England during the days of James I, 1603-1625, in the sense that the nonconformists increased in numbers and power. James' son, Charles I, 1625-1649, even more arbitrary than his father, sought with his Divine-rights ideas to down the ever-increasing non-conformists in church and state, and exercised such tyranny as to rule for years without Parliament, and through England's primate, Laud, sought to high-church the Church of England and to suppress the non-conformists, to such a degree as to force a bloody and long-drawn-out revolution, as a result of which both he and Laud were beheaded. Then followed the ascendancy of the Puritans and Cromwell's protectorship, with all the bloodshed attending the various religious wars at that time in England, Ireland and Scotland. When the son of Charles I, Charles II, was restored, the Church of England again became the state church, but persecution of the Puritans was diminished. And to offset Charles' favoring Catholicism Parliament passed the Test Act, requiring all civil, military and naval officers to deny under oath transubstantiation, the worship of saints and allegiance to the pope, as well as to be communicants in the state church. Charles II died, surrounded by his many mistresses and bastard children, after

Samuel. 

115 

receiving papal communion and extreme unction. His brother, James, was a bigoted Romanist, who in Rome's interests decreed religious liberty, and then proceeded to fill all civil, military and naval offices in England with papists. Then he started on a course intended to disestablish the Anglican Church, preparatory to introducing the Romanist Church. This led to a revolution, in which, as James II declared, for the mass he lost three kingdoms: England, Scotland and Ireland; for the Protestants called in from the Netherlands James' son-in-law, William of Orange, in 1688, as their leader, by whom James II in England and Ireland was defeated. His and his Irish Catholic army's defeat at the River Boyne, Ireland, July 12, 1690, still celebrated by the Irish Protestants and Orangemen, ended Rome's serious blows at English Protestantism. William's Toleration Act exempted all English non-conformists, but not papists, because of their double allegiance, from all civil disabilities. Thus we see that the royal supremacy as a most malignant ulcer—emerod—wrought deadly destruction in England for over 150 years. Indeed, the Lord's hand was heavy upon the Anglican Church and England because of this emerod. 

(26) Above, without detailed references to vs. 1012, we have given their antitypes. We will now briefly summarize the antitypes. After the stewardship Truth given by Cranmer made its entrance into, and spread over the Anglican Church (after they had carried it about, 9), trouble began to come upon its members (a very great destruction) through the error of the royal supremacy in the Church, as we saw in the pertinent acts of the English sovereigns from Henry VIII to James II; for the Lord permitted this trouble because of the great error (emerod) on the sovereign being head of the Church (the hand of the Lord was against the city). Certainly, trouble was upon all of them, high and low alike, during those over 150 years, particularly during the first 70 of them, due to this great error and its evil consequences (He smote the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

116 

men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods). While v. 9 applies to antitypical Gath, the things there typed are the same in principle as those that came upon the men of antitypical Ekron, hence we used v. 9 to illustrate the principles operative in antitypical Ekron. Note that just as the antitypical Ark entered antitypical Ekron trouble started, as Henry began, immediately after Cranmer's true teachings went forth, to insist on his headship in the Church of England (as the ark of God came to Ekron, 10). And the antitypical Ekronites began to cry out against the troubles incidental to the immediate abuse of the pertinent stewardship Truth, as the facts given above prove (the ark of God … to slay me [so the Hebrew] and my [so the Hebrew] people). The leaders of the Anglican Church sent for help to the leaders of other churches, some sending for Lutherans (in Henry's day), others for Calvinists (in Edward's day); some to Romanists (in Mary's day) and some to the Greek Catholics (in Elizabeth's and James I's day), to counsel over how they could rid themselves of their evils, actually due to their misusing the stewardship Truth (sent and gathered the lords of the Philistines, 11). The gatherings were in the many councils, synods, colloquies and convocations of those days, as we will show when explaining 1 Sam. 6. The Anglicans briefly explained their sad experiences to the antitypical lords of the Philistines, and that by the experiences themselves (said, Send away … very heavy there). In v. 12 we are not to understand that those who died were not smitten by emerods and that those who did not die were. Rather, all were so smitten, some mortally, others not mortally. This types the fact that some of those who were injured by the gross error became through their gross errors Second Deathers, others not (And the men that died not were smitten with emerods, v. 12). Certainly, the great sufferings in persecutions, wars, etc., occasioned such distress as touched God (the cry … went up to heaven). 

Samuel. 

117 

(27) From our study of 1 Sam. 5 we have learned that sectarians (Philistines, 1 Sam. 6:1) began to exercise control as to Truth teachings from early in the Smyrna period, i.e., from about 140 A. D., and, gradually securing that control, kept it until about the middle of the sixteenth century, when they began to relinquish it. This means that gradually one after another the five involved denominations, the Roman Catholics (1564), the Anglicans (1572), the Lutherans (1577), the Calvinists (1581) and the Greek Catholics (1576), began to let go their hold upon the truths of God's Word, and dismissed them from their midst at the dates just indicated for each one. Thus the completed period from 140 A. D. to about 1581 is the antitype of the seven months of v. 1. Just before the end of this period, varying with each denomination, as the above-given dates indicate, each of the denominations set into operation the antitype of v. 2; for in each of these denominations there was a gathering together (called for, 2) in council, synod or convocation, accordingly as they variously called their authorized legislative bodies, of their higher ecclesiastics (priests) and theologians (diviners) to pass such ecclesiastic teachings and laws as would in creed form be their authorized confessions of faith and practice, by which they dismissed the antitypical Ark. We are not to understand that in so many words such leaders inquired in each denomination of one another how they could get rid of God's Truth as due. (What shall we do to the ark of the Lord? Tell us [literally, Cause us to be made to know] wherewith we shall send it to his place). Rather, as we have often seen, typical speeches are usually antityped in pantomime; what these leaders sought and did was ridding themselves of what really was the Truth as due, though they regarded it as error to be put aside. 

(28) This will appear from a short study of how the antitype was fulfilled in each of these five denominations. The Reformation movements struck hard blows, first of all at Rome. Thus the Lutheran, Calvinistic

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

118 

and Anglican Churches by their stewardship truths struck Rome hard blows; and she sought to defend herself against these blows. Among other ways, she sought to do this through calling the Council of Trent (1541-1543, 1549, 1563-1564), to discuss the involved questions, to define her attitude thereon and to set forth her pertinent defenses and attacks. But, from the Divine standpoint, what they were actually doing was discussing and arranging ways and means to cast off the due Truth from their midst (Cause us to be made to know wherewith we shall send it to his place). The Anglican Church received such blows against her doctrine of royal supremacy in the Church from Romanist, Lutheran, Calvinistic and Independent sources that to defend herself against these she called a convocation together in 1562 and Parliament in 1572, to legislate on this matter. Actually, from the Divine standpoint, their object was to get rid of the pertinent Truth due on the subject. The Lutheran Church received such blows against her doctrine of total depravity (one of her chief emerods), of the real presence and the communication of the Divine attributes to Christ's human nature, etc., from Romanist, Greek, Calvinistic and certain Lutheran sources, that to defend herself against these she gathered her chief theologians, 1574-1577, to draw up arguments thereon. Actually, from the Divine standpoint, her object was to get rid of the pertinent Truth due on the subject. The Calvinistic Church received such blows from. Roman, Greek, Lutheran, Anglican and certain Calvinistic sources against her emerod on absolute predestination to eternal life and eternal torment, that to defend herself against these she called in various countries and times various synods, to legislate thereon. Actually, from the Divine standpoint, her object was to send away the antitypical Ark from her midst. The Greek Catholic Church, suffering blows from Lutheran and Calvinistic sources against her mass and Apostolic succession, and under blows from the Unitarians 

Samuel. 

119 

against her trinitarianism, God-manism, etc., to defend herself against these called the Council of Jerusalem, 1672, to give creedal authority to the reply of Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople, issued in 1576 thereon. Actually, from the Divine standpoint, these were gatherings to send away the antitypical Ark from their midst. Thus was antityped v. 2. 

(29) The antitypes of vs. 3-11 occurred at councils, synods and convocations. We would remark that, as usual with speeches, the antitype of the speeches of vs. 3-9 occurred in pantomime. The period from 1530 to 1581 above all other periods in Church history was marked by the meetings of creed-making councils, synods and convocations. The Augsburg Confession, with its Apology, the joint product of a number of Lutheran theologians, Melanchthon being the principal worker thereon, the Schmalcald Articles, written by Luther and signed by the leading Lutheran theologians, his small and large Catechisms and the Epitome, 1576, and Solid Declaration, 1577, of the Formula of Concord, prepared by a number of Lutheran theologians, Andreae being the main author of the former, and Chemnitz the main author of the latter, were all in 1580 incorporated in the Book of Concord, the special creed of the Lutheran Church. The first five of these creedal expressions were brought into existence through the conflict with Rome and the Formula of Concord through the controversies that arose after Luther's death among the Lutheran theologians themselves. It was Chemnitz's part in such creed-making that effected his fall from the Little Flock, a member of which he was while writing the ablest anti-Romanist work of all times, his four-volumed work entitled, The Examination of the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent. On the Romanist side the Council of Trent, which sat intermittently, i.e., 1541-1543, 1549 and 1563-1564, was the great creed-maker of Romanism, publishing its decrees and canons in 1564, in which are refined the Romanist views contrasted with those of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

120 

non-Romanist Churches, particularly their views as against those of Greek Catholicism, Lutheranism, Calvinism and Anglicanism. Its creed-making was supplemented by the work of Pius IX, who ex cathedra, i.e., officially as pope speaking to the entire Church, in 1854 decreed the Immaculate Conception of Mary, in 1864 issued the Syllabus Of The Principal Errors Of Our Time, and through the Vatican Council of 1870 proclaimed its decrees on the supremacy, absolute authority and infallibility of the pope as Christ's vicar. However pertinent to the Romanist creed these utterances of Pius IX are, they are not included in the things typed by 1 Sam. 6:1-12. 

(30) In paragraph (22), among other things, we showed how Cranmer, aided by Ridley, prepared the 42 articles of the Church of England, largely in a Calvinistic sense, in the days of Edward VI, as a creed for the Anglican Church, and how the convocation in 1562 revised these articles into a sense midway between Calvinism and Lutheranism and reduced them to 39, which, ever since Parliament's legalizing them in 1572, have been the creed of the Anglican Church. While the Lutheran creeds drawn up in Germany between 1530 and 1577 were accepted by the Lutheran churches in countries outside of Germany, the Calvinists of each country where they became the dominant, or a more or less influential Church, drew up for their churches in the involved countries separate creeds. Thus for Switzerland they drew up the Second (1566) Helvetic Confession; for Germany, the Heidelberg Catechism (1563); for France, the Gallican Confession (1559); for Belgium, the Belgic Confession (1561); for Scotland, the Second (1581) Scotch Confession. Later Calvinistic Confessions do not enter into the antitype of 1 Sam. 6. The Greek Church, in a writing of Jeremiah II, Patriarch of Constantinople, co-operated with in its production by a number of higher clerics and theologians, 1576, rejected Romanism, Lutheranism and Calvinism; but she did not deem it necessary to

Samuel. 

121 

decree this rejection as her creed for nearly a century later, when the Synod of Jerusalem, 1672, approved Jeremiah II's confession and gave it creedal sanction as the doctrine of the Greek Catholic Church. Thus we see that the creedal views of all five of the pertinent denominations were issued by 1581, as a final time-point. And this, we see, is the period to which 1 Sam. 6 assigns them, as was shown above. 

(31) The decision, reduced to an act, to cast off the Truth given by the various star-members was made not as works devoted only to such rejections (send it not empty, 3); but these rejections were made as a part of a larger work that embraced the presentations of their more or less caricatured stewardship truths and gross errors embodied in their creeds. Thinking these caricatures of truths and these gross errors were truths, and feeling that by issuing them they were doing a Divinely-pleasing work, they also thought that such work would make good before God for the evils that they recognized they had committed in pertinent word and act (return Him a trespass offering); for they recognized that they had been more or less faultful amid the controversies that led up to their creed-making, for which faults they thought their creed-making would heal them, e.g., after Luther's death Lutheran theologians fell into great controversies among themselves on total depravity, justification, sanctification, the Lord's Supper, the omnipresence of Christ's human body, things indifferent, etc. Much of evil was wrought on all hands by these controversies, and their leading clergy and theologians sought to make good these evils and bring peace about through their adopting the Formula of Concord contained in the Book of Concord. Again, the Reformation caused much controversy to arise among the Roman hierarchy and theologians, all of which the creed-making Council of Trent sought to end by their becoming one, and thus making good for their former wrongs. The same things in principle preceded and marked the Greek, Anglican and Calvinistic creed-making procedures. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

122 

And all of them looked upon their pre-creed-making experiences as calamities from the Lord (be known why His hand is not removed from you), which calamities they thought their creed-making would end, despite the fact that hitherto they could not clearly understand why they came to them. 

(32) The antitypical Philistines, having received the answer antitypical of that given in v. 3, inquired of the leading clergy and theologians by what service (What shall be the trespass offering, 4) they could make good the wrong done the Lord, connected with the antitypical Ark. They were told by the acts of the leading clergy and theologians in each of the five involved denominations (the number of the lords of the Philistines), in their creed-making, that the (caricatured) stewardship truths and their (by them unrecognized) errors should be offered to the Lord. Of course, they considered all of these teachings to be true. The (caricatured) stewardship truths (mice) and their (as such not recognized) errors (emerods), by them believed to be true, they thought would be a proper offering to God and would procure peace and healing for them. That they thought that these teachings, as supposedly true, would placate God, is typed by the fact that they were to be of gold, which symbolizes something divine (five golden emerods and five golden mice). But that these creedal teachings, as set forth in the creeds, are erroneous, is evident from the fact that mice were among the unclean foods (Lev. 11:29; Is. 66:17—here Protestant error, as the swine flesh is Romanist error, the abomination being the mass). That the emerods represent errors is apparent not only from our previous study, but also from the fact that they were sores, ulcers (Lev. 13:42, 43; Rev. 16:2). We know that images (5) in the prophets represent creeds (Ps. 97:7; Is. 21:9; 30:22; 41:29; 42:8, 17; Jer. 50:2, t38, 51:47, 52). These creeds, therefore, are alike error (one plague was on you all, and on your lords). But these antitypical Philistines, not knowing the true God, and thinking their prospective creeds

Samuel. 

123 

would be true, thought that they would be just the thing to glorify the Lord (give glory to the God of Israel). So doing they expected to obtain relief as to themselves (lighten His hand from off you), their doctrines (gods) and the sphere of their spirit (land). 

(33) The clergy and theologians in each of the five involved denominations considered their creed-making work one of making harmony in their respective denominations, hence a work that would please God, and hence not to do it would be a hardening of the involved hearts, a thing against which they pleaded by word and act among those opposing their plans and purposes (Wherefore, then, do ye harden your hearts, 6). The chief of the clergy and theologians in each of the five denominations, in exhorting one another to creed-and-harmony-making in the sense of each involved denomination, cautioned their fellows not to harden their hearts against such activities, since that would be worse than the course of the Egyptians and Pharaoh, who, while temporarily hardening their hearts, finally under the plagues relented and let the people go (wrought wonderfully … let the people go, and they departed). Then they advised that a new organization be formed (make a new cart, 7), consisting of a council, or synod, or convocation, newly organized, to meet the crisis in each of the five involved denominations. They further advised that a new statement of their doctrines (one of the two milch cows) and practices (the other of the two milch cows) be drawn up, requiring that these doctrines and practices be such as had not before been put into creedal form (on which there hath come no yoke). But the implication products (calves) of such doctrines and practices that would interfere with the progress of these doctrines and practices should be kept out of sight, buried in oblivion (bring their calves home from them). Upon council, synod or convocation (cart) was to be placed the responsibility of carrying away the star-members' teachings from among the five pertinent denominations (take the ark … lay it upon the cart, 8); and the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

124 

caricatured stewardship truths (those "jewels of gold" that consisted of the golden mice) and the pet errors of these sectarian Churches (those "jewels of gold" that consisted of the golden emerods) were to be given a place of (supposed) authority (by the side thereof) over the star-members' teachings (the ark) in their creeds (coffer). In this way they felt sure they would rid themselves of the star-members' teachings (send it away, that it may go). 

(34) At the time of the creed-making described above, all five denominations, while fighting one another, were a unit in fighting the so-called Independents (Beth-Shemesh, house of the sun, 9). These Independents consisted of undenominational Christians, Baptists, Unitarians and Congregationalists, all of whose stewardship teachings the creedists rejected, because they were not polluted then, as were the stewardship teachings of the pertinent five denominations. God considered such to be the house (Beth) of the Bible (Shemesh, sun), while the five denominations considered them to be arch heretics. The supposed errors (actually truths, i.e., the Ark) of the star-members the higher clergy and theologians thought would be cast off, and as such would naturally go to the Independents. If they did, they would consider that they were plagued for having the errors, actually the truths, of the star-members in their midst (if it go … to Beth-Shemesh … He hath done us this great evil). If the antitypical Ark did not go to the Independents, all of whom the creedists believed to be gross heretics, the antitypical Philistines would conclude that their plagues were an accident (then we shall know … not His hand … it … happened to us). The advice of the higher clergy and theologians was carried out (the men did so, 10); for they united (tied) their councils, synods and convocations (cart) to the pertinent creedal doctrines and practices (two milch cows), by causing these to make such creedal doctrines and practices—those of the councils, synods and convocations. And they carefully kept 

Samuel. 

125 

among themselves, away from their published creedal doctrines and practices, certain distracting implications (calves) as the recent products of such creedal doctrines and practices (two milch kine). For example, the Papists kept out of the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent the doctrine of the pope's infallibility and its resultant practices; the Lutherans kept out of their published Book of Concord matters like the creation of the soul (in their sense of the word) and the omnipresence of Christ's humanity as the basis of their doctrine of the real presence; the Calvinists kept out of their creeds the question of supra-lapsarianism (God's predestinating Adam's fall and everything else that happens, i.e., among other things, sin); the Greeks kept out of their creedal statement references to the Divine omnipresence being communicated to Christ's humanity; and the Anglicans kept out of their creedal statements all discussion of the Bible's directly teaching Apostolic succession. All such questions as are the direct products (calves) of their doctrines and practices (milch cows), because of their containing, to them, very inconvenient implications, they studiously kept away from their published creedal statements; but they have discussed these privately (at home) among themselves individually. 

(35) The higher clergy and theologians, accordingly laid upon their councils, synods and convocations (the cart, 11) the duty of carrying away from them the antitypical Ark (ark), together with the duty of making their caricatured stewardship doctrines and practices (five golden mice) and their false teachings, viewed by them as true (five golden emerods), accompany the star-members' teachings, since they embodied all of these in their creeds (coffer): some (the truths) as rejected and anathematized teachings, the others (the caricatured stewardship truths and pet errors) set forth as truths held by the denominations and therefore fit to be offered to the Lord. Their doctrinal teachings and practical precepts (the two kine, 12) 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

126 

led the councils, synods and convocations to direct the pertinent teachings straight at the Independents (the straight way to the way, direction, of Beth-Shemesh). This was done publicly (went along the highway), announcing, in their propounders, their thoughts continually (lowing as they went). These teachings kept on developing, as aimed by their propounders, in the direction of the Independents, without turning aside at all (turned not aside to the right hand or to the left). The leaders of the five denominations (the lords of the Philistines) kept on accompanying (supporting) their councils, synods and convocations, which were taking away from the antitypical Philistines the star-members' teachings, at the same time causing to accompany them their various caricatures of their stewardship teachings and errors embedded in their creeds. This they continued to do until this combination of things reached the Independents (the border of Beth-Shemesh). 

(36) In construing this type we must remember that as the Philistines were not believers in the antitypical Ark and in the God that it represented, so the higher clergy and theologians were not believers in the star-members' teachings and in the God that they represented. When the facts of the case are considered in the way these five denominations by their creed-making cast off the star-members' teachings, the symbolisms of vs. 2-12 certainly give us the understanding of the pertinent acts as outlined above. And we must marvel at God's wisdom in clothing the prophecy of these transactions in the story under study. Who of us would have thought that such a remarkable piece of typology is embedded in the story of the ark's experiences while in the hands of the Philistines? Certainly human wisdom and ingenuity could neither have put into, nor have taken out of this story such a remarkable piece of typology! Let us praise God for the gift of this understanding, as another evidence of His grace bestowed upon us richly and upbuildingly. 

Samuel. 

127 

(37) It may strike some as contradictory that in the camp picture we teach that the five above-mentioned denominations are called the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Gad, Judah and Ephraim, while here they are called the five cities of the Philistines. This is due to the fact that they are viewed from different standpoints in the two pictures. In the camp picture they are represented as the nominal people of God as existing in the pertinent denominations, as such doing some good service for God, even as some of them are called the honorable women of Christ's court, in Ps. 45:9; while in the picture under study they are pictured forth as sectarians opposing certain of God's teachings. Thus the different aspects of their activities account for their being typed by such antagonistic peoples. We find that Israel is variously used typically. In their good representatives and in their doing well they represent the real people of God during the Gospel Age, and in their bad representatives and in their bad acts they represent the nominal people of God. 1 Cor. 10:1-4 shows the former and vs. 5-11 show the latter line of thought. The same principle is seen in Israel and Moab, and Israel and Ammon, in their varied relations. Thus the phenomenon under study is in principle of frequent occurrence in Biblical types. 

(38) The Independents of all kinds-the Baptists, the Unitarians, the Congregationalists and undenominal Christians from 1564 onward, in the case of the Congregationalists from about 1581 onward, were gathering very many adherents to themselves, as their contemporaneous history proves (And they of Beth-Shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest, 13) amid more or less oppressive conditions (in the valley). At this particular juncture of history they were engaged in earnest study of Scriptural subjects (lifted up their eyes) and, among other things, recognized the dismissed star-members' teachings (and saw the ark). Thus the Baptists, Unitarians and Congregationalists saw the Truth on the true Church in its 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

128 

nature, organization and government, as opposed to Greekism, Romanism, Anglicanism, Calvinism and Lutheranism; the Unitarians in some of their representatives saw the full teaching of star-members on Christ's person and office, others saw them on His office; while undenominational Christians saw more or less of the star-members' teachings on all lines rejected by the five denominations. These facts made such believers rejoice greatly, for they loved these teachings and were glad that they were freed from the sectarian perversions and possessions of the five involved denominations (rejoiced to see it). This combination of things: the antitypical Ark, which by now consisted of eight star-members' teachings, cart (in their acts), kine, golden mice and emerods and coffer, came into the sphere of activity of the most salutary laborers (field of Joshua, Jehovah is salvation, 14) along Bible lines (the Beth-Shemite). There among them stood the great teaching (a great stone) that the Bible is the sole source of faith and the main rule of practice. They severed to pieces the councils, synods and convocations, i.e., they destroyed them refutatively as such and used such remnants of them as were Scripturally available for sacrificial purposes (clave the wood of the cart) and used the remnants of the doctrines and practices (the kine), i.e., such as were in harmony with the Lord's Word for sacrificial purposes in a way that manifested God's acceptance of their sacrifices under Christ (a burnt offering to the Lord). The manifest acceptance of God was recognized in the blessings with which He owned the services of the involved antitypical Joshua; for through their labors the star-members' truths were widely spread, many were won for the Lord, and error was refuted. 

(39) Antitypical Levites (faith-justified ones) took part in this service by offering linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic helps that forwarded the involved star-members' teachings (took down the ark, 15). Doubtless among these antitypical Levites 

Samuel. 

129 

were many crown-losers, whom God before the Epiphany, as we have seen, anticipatorily viewed as anti typical Levites (Num. 16:8-11); for among the Unitarians crown-losers, leaders like Faustus Socinus, Valentine Schmalz, Johann Voelkel and Johann Crell, did very much in the way of taking down the antitypical Ark. Among the Baptists crown-losers, leaders like Christoph Ostorvat, Gregorius Paulus, John Smyth, Peter of Cologne, etc., contributed their part to taking down the antitypical Ark. Among the Congregationalist crown-losers, leaders like Henry Barrowe, Henry Ainsworth, John Robinson and William Brewster, did their part in taking down the antitypical Ark. Among the undenominationalist crown-losers, leaders like Jacob Arminus, Hugo Grotius, etc., took a helpful part in taking down the antitypical Ark. All of the above took a large part in laying hold of the creeds (coffer) in order to bring out in their proper light the caricatured stewardship doctrines (golden mice) and the peculiar doctrinal errors (golden emerods) of the five involved denominations (wherein the jewels of gold were). They submitted these to the test of the teaching that the Bible is the sole source of faith and the main rule of practice (put them on the great stone). And under their linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic studies they vindicated the star-members' teachings (ark), cleansed the stewardship doctrines (golden mice) from their defilements and overthrew the errors of the creeds (golden emerods). In doing these things, which they did with the hearty and joyous co-operation of their like-believing denominational and undenominational brethren, they all, leaders and ledlings, in the three involved denominations, as well as those apart from denominations, offered up antitypical burnt offerings, i.e., performed services in which God's acceptance appeared manifestly (offered burnt offerings), amid which they yielded up much of their humanity to God (sacrificed sacrifices), especially as they did this work amid many persecutions heaped upon them. This 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

130 

sacrificing occupied a period of about 80 years (the same day), according to the pertinent facts. 

(40) All these 80 years the leaders of the five involved denominations (the five lords of the Philistines, 16) were mental observers (had seen) of what the antitypical men of Beth-Shemesh did to the antitypical Ark, cart, kine, coffer, golden mice and golden emerods. These things were observed amid the controversies connected with the involved matters. While not plainly indicated in this type, these five groups of leaders did their observing by taking a more or less lively part in the involved controversies, and in them repudiated the antitypical Ark and defended their antitypical golden mice and golden emerods as things fitting to be offered to the Lord. England, becoming the chief sphere of the sacrificing of the antitypical Beth-Shemites, especially during the second half of the involved 80 years, the brunt of the controversy in defense of the creeds was allowed to fall upon the theologians of the Anglican Church (they returned to Ekron the same day). The leaders of the five denominations did a creed work that they felt sure pleased God in the sense of appeasing Him (a trespass offering to the Lord, 17); for to them their antitypical emerods, which were errors, seemed to be Truth. 

(41) As vs. 17 and 18 recapitulate the thought of vs. 4 and 5, designating expressly what was not so expressly stated in vs. 4 and 5, that one golden emerod and one golden mouse was for each of the five cities of the Philistines, we will here recapitulate the antitypes. The grossest error (emerod) of the Greek Catholic Church (Ashdod, 17) is the trinity with its involved God-man, and its stewardship truth (mice, 18) is the pre-human, human and post-human office of our Lord Jesus Christ; the grossest error (emerod) of the Calvinistic Church (Gaza [?]) is absolute predestination of all things, including sin, according to the supralapsarians, and of some persons to eternal bliss and the bulk of the race to eternal torment and its steward

Samuel. 

131 

ship truth (a mouse) is: The bread and wine are a symbolic representation and commemoration of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus; the grossest error (emerod) of the Lutheran Church (Askelon [?]) is total depravity or the doctrine of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, with its implied doctrine of the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, and its stewardship doctrine (a mouse) is justification by faith; the grossest error (emerod) of the Roman Catholic Church (Gath) is the mass, and its stewardship doctrine (a mouse) is the doctrine that there is but one Church, which is the custodian of the Truth and its administrator for salvation; and the grossest error (emerod) of the Anglican Church (Ekron) is its doctrine of Apostolic succession of bishops, and its stewardship truth (a mouse) is the doctrine that the Church in secular matters is subject to the state. These were sent to the real people of God (returned) as a trespass offering of the five leaders of the five denominations (the number of all the cities of the Philistines for [literal translation] the five lords). Thus each of the five denominations (fenced cities) and their sectarian divisions (country villages) participated with their leaders in these trespass offerings. The five involved grossest errors and the five involved caricatured stewardship truths were by the five denominations and their five leader-groups sent to the Bible teachers (Beth-Shemite) stationed at the Bible as their sole source of faith and the main rule of practice (returned … even to the great stone). And this great symbolic stone, the teaching that the Bible is the sole source of faith and the main rule of practice, abides to this day, when the antitype of the writing of 1 Sam. is taking place in the writing of this series of chapters on it (remaineth to this day), not among all professed Christian, many of whom repudiate the Bible as the sole source of faith and the main rule of practice, but in the sphere of service occupied by the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

132 

real and salutary servants of the Bible (in the field of Joshua, the Beth-Shemite) truths as due. 

(42) But some of the antitypical Beth-Shemites did some of the antitypical gazing, speculating (because they had looked into [or at] the ark of the Lord, 19). It is more likely that the translation, looked at, is correct, rather than looked into, for death was the penalty for any one, except the priests, looking at the ark (Num. 4:19, 20). When it was taken by the Israelites into the battle during which it was captured, it undoubtedly was covered, and in all likelihood it remained covered while in Philistia and until it was placed upon the great stone in Joshua's field. It is very unlikely that Israelites would have opened the ark and looked at its contents; hence it is very likely that they merely uncovered it and looked at it. So far as the Hebrew is concerned, it may be rendered looked at, in or into. Antitypically, it would mean that some of the Bible believers and supporters speculated as to the eight star-members' doctrines, typed by the ark at that time, for at the time of each star-member's bringing out his special truth, it became a part of the ark; hence at this time there were eight star-members' truths in the antitypical Ark. From history we know it to be true that crown-lost leaders speculated at this time, e.g., Faustus Socinus, the first and chief crown-lost member of the Unitarians' crown-lost leaders, speculating on the doctrine of justification by faith, denied the ransom. Others of the Unitarians' crown-lost leaders, speculating on Christ's person, denied His pre-existence, taught that His father was Joseph. Some of the Baptist crown-lost leaders, not seeing the distinction between tentative and vitalized justification, speculated themselves into denying justification by faith alone. Some of the Congregationalist leaders, speculating on the powers of the ecclesia and its elders, came to teach a hybrid doctrine, a mixture of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism on Church government. In such studies they looked at the antitypical 

Samuel. 

133 

Ark; and God therefore caused them to die from their standing, i.e., some Little Flock members lost their crowns; some Great Company members sank into the Second Death; some of the justified forfeited their justification and some of the campers became infidels in the form of Deism, which sprang up at that time (even He smote). Their fallen condition was, among other ways, manifest from the large numbers of them who renounced their faith under the rod of persecution. Many undenominal Christians went over to Deism at that time, which spread, especially in England. 

(43) The following words (19) are mistranslated in the A. V.: fifty thousand and three-score and ten men. Dr. Young properly renders them as follows: seventy men-fifty chief men. A very similar mistranslation occurs in Mic. 5:2, in the A. V. and Septuagint (thousands of Judah), which inspiration corrects in Matt. 2:6 (princes, i.e.; leaders, chief men). This mistranslation is due to the fact that the word eleph may mean both thousand and leader, dependent on the connection. Little towns like Beth-Shemesh, a farming community (13), and Bethlehem did not have so many inhabitants as to warrant the translation to imply many thousands of them. Thus there were not 50,070, but 120 smitten, 70 not so prominent and 50 leading citizens of Beth-Shemesh. The proportion of leaders killed to the ledlings killed, compared with the probable population, was very large. In the antitype there was a disproportionate number of Unitarian, Baptist and Congregationalist leaders smitten for their speculating, while those of the smitten ledlings were comparatively few, considering the many of them. The fact that so many of their leaders and some of their ledlings went wrong on various very important doctrines was a great grief to the survivors. This grief was felt amid the accompanying controversies and the resultant apostasies and siftings. The histories of the Baptists, Unitarians and Congregationalists of that time are more or less full of such controversies, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

134 

apostasies and siftings, all of which is a proof that many leaders and ledlings were as a result of their speculations symbolically slain (smitten). That the stroke was a comparatively great one (with a great slaughter) is manifest from what we have just stated, considering the fact that these three denominational and the undenominational Christians were comparatively few at that time, even as the inhabitants of Beth-Shemesh were comparatively few. 

(44) It was by their acts that the inhabitants of antitypical Beth-Shemesh asked, Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God (20)? To stand before the Lord means to minister to Him as a representative of Him. This the crown-losers and their main justified assistants in these three denominations and out of all denominations were. While so ministering certain ones speculated and went badly wrong, as shown above, and the unsmitten ones, i.e., those who did not symbolically die, as described above, recognizing their fall, were very much afraid of the dangers connected with speculating while engaged in God's service. And it was their fear that was the antityping of the words of the surviving Beth-Shemites, "Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God?" The second question of v. 20 should be rendered, "and to whom shall it [the ark] go up from us?" for they wanted, not to get rid of God, but to get rid of so dangerous a thing as the ark was proven to be for speculating leaders and ledlings. This question was also antityped in pantomime. It was by discussing more or less unfavorably the by now eight star-members' doctrines typed by the ark when it came to them, including the doing of the same with the three star-members' doctrines that the three Little Flock leaders gave whose movements were perverted into the Baptist, Unitarian and Congregationalist sects, and their more or less discussing the perversions of their stewardship doctrines, that the antitypical Beth-Shemites pantomimed the question, "To whom shall it go up from us?" So far as v. 20 is concerned, matters 

Samuel. 

135 

had not proceeded further in repudiating the eight star-members' teachings than a more or less unfriendly discussion of the eight involved Truth teachings and in a tendency to pervert their three involved stewardship doctrines, i.e., things were taking a turn for the worse as to their attitude toward the involved truths, but they had not yet gone to the extreme of a fixed rejection of these eight truths, nor to a full perversion of their stewardship truths—they were only on the way toward these unhealthy steps. 

(45) The books, confessions, reports, etc. (messengers, 21), that flowed out of the discussions just mentioned, spread among the more faithful consecrated Christians in and out of the then existing denominations (they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim [city of the forests—trees represent great ones, among God's people or among the world, here among God's people]). These books, confessions, reports, etc., showed that the five large denominations of Christendom had by their creeds rejected the five involved star-members' teachings (saying, The Philistines have brought again the ark of the Lord). But these books, confessions, reports, etc., more or less rejecting as they did all eight involved star-members' teachings, were by this fact an invitation to the more faithful consecrated to receive the rejected star-members' teachings (come ye down and fetch it up to you). The break between the chapters should not have occurred at the end of v. 21; chapter 6 should have continued to the end of 1 Sam. 7:2. These two verses belonging to our subject, we will treat of them here. The more faithful among the consecrated took to themselves these eight teachings (the men of Kirjath-jearim came and fetched up the ark of the Lord, 1). They brought these teachings to their like-minded clergy and principals of the flocks, e.g., teachers and professors (brought it into the house of Abinadab [my father is noble]) and put them into the special care of the ablest and most helpful of these (sanctified Eleazar [God is

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

136 

help] his son to keep the ark of the Lord). The historical facts corroborate this understanding of the antitype, as the following facts will prove: The eight involved denominations above described petrified their beliefs, set forth in their creeds (those of the three denominations were as yet unwritten as such), in voluminous works on dogmatics written by their chief dogmatical writers. This petrification became a putrification, because it led to the period of dead orthodoxy. These dogmatical works reduced the creedal views to the forms of so-called scientific treatises that were drawn up with the precision and dryness of mathematical formulas, and the result was that Christian life became stagnant and dead in these denominations. Concurrently with this dead orthodoxy came the 30 years' war in Germany and the revolution and its resultant wars in England. Thus piety was at its lowest ebb throughout Europe among the bulk of Christendom at the time that antitypical Beth-Shemesh was seeking in their folly to get rid of the ark of the Lord. 

(46) But the Spirit of the Lord was not by God allowed to be entirely quenched; for He raised up certain consecrated ones in Germany, France, Italy and Britain (the inhabitants of antitypical Kirjath-jearim) to a closer life with the Lord. Among these were some of the clergy and the principals of the flocks (Abinadab), and also some of the ablest men and women of the time. All of these stood for the true doctrines in their churches, but they insisted on a consecrated walk with God. In Germany they were in ridicule called Pietists, in Italy Heretics, in France Quietists and in England Fanatics. Among the leaders of this movement in Germany there stands out most prominently the name of: Johann Arndt, really the forerunner of the movement and author of The True Christianity, one of the greatest books on Christian living ever written, and one of the ten most widely spread, translated and read books ever written; Philip Jacob Spener, whose influence for good was more

Samuel. 

137 

powerful than that of any other Pietist in Germany; and August H. Franke, who raised the influence of the Halle University for Christian living to as great a degree as the Wittenberg University had for doctrine and reformation in the days of Luther. In Italy the Spaniard, Michael Molinos, by his book, Spiritual Guide, wrought very fruitfully for Christian piety in the Romanist Church until the Jesuits secured his suppression as a heretic, despite the pope's remonstrances. In France Madame Guyon, Archbishop Fenelon and the Port Royalist scholars: Antoine Arnauld, his sister Angelica (abbess of Port Royal), Racine, De Sacy, Pascal, Quesnel and Tillemont, some of the ablest and most pious men and women of France, wrought most fruitfully for Christian living as against dead orthodoxy. In England George Fox, a star-member, and John Bunyan, author of Pilgrim's Progress, one of the ten books above referred to, wrought very fruitfully for the consecrated life. These men and women were the cream of all the leaders in this movement for Christian living. They were the antitypical Eleazar of v. 1, while their clerical and other (teacher and professorial) supporters were antitypical Abinadab in Christendom. 

(47) These brethren, clerical and lay, professors and teachers, prominent and obscure, consecrated Christians, received the antitypical Ark. Indeed, George Fox was used by the Lord to bring out another truth that then became a part of this antitypical Ark. We are not to understand that all of these received all of the nine involved star-members' teachings. Some of them received more, some less; all of them received at least that star-member doctrine that in his church was perverted into an antitypical mouse. Their ministry was most fruitful, and always received persecution from the dead orthodox. Especially in Romanist countries did the Jesuits persecute these. It was they who secured the condemnation and imprisonment of Molinos and Madame Guyon. It was they who secured the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

138 

suppression of Port Royal, the headquarters of the French part of antitypical Eleazar, son of Abinadab, and the scattering of its able men and women. The period of the activities of these and their successors of like spirit, if we begin them with those of John Arndt, was from about 1610 onward until the Harvest (the time was long, 2); for the typical ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, which is the same as Baalah, or Baali (Josh. 15:9), until David (type of that Servant) brought it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6:1-11). The A. V. of v. 2 does not give the sense of the original when it implies that the ark was at Kirjath-jearim but 20 years. Dr. Young renders v. 2 as follows: "And it cometh to pass, from the day of the dwelling of the ark in Kirjath-jearim, that the days are multiplied—yea, they are twenty years—and wail do all the house of Israel after Jehovah." This rendering gives the sense literally. As a matter of fact, is was there about 90 years, i.e., during the 40 years of Samuel's judgeship, the 40 years of Saul's reign and about 10 years of David's reign; for David had reigned 7½ years at Hebron, then transferred his capital to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 5:9). It was sometime thereafter that the ark was brought from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem. The thought of 20 years mentioned in v. 2 is that it was after the ark had been at Kirjath-jearim 20 years that Israel began to repent of their sins (all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord). This—and thus the end of the antitypical 20 years—was antitypically fulfilled just after the time that John Wesley, 1738, began his work as a star-member. 

(48) Due to the inroads that the teachings and loose conduct of Deism made on matters of faith and practice among the British people, religion and morality were at a very low ebb in Britain in the second half of the 17th and in the first half of the 18th century. While Deists talked and wrote much on "God, virtue and immortality," the blighting effects on faith and morals that it wrought depraved the British public as

Samuel. 

139 

few others things in history did. At first it affected a great stand as loving Truth and righteousness. But the progressive ridicule and disregard of the Bible that it inculcated tore away the foundations of faith and righteousness from under the feet of the people, resulting in the most unblushing iniquity spreading progressively among all classes of society. The leading Deists of the old ethical school were Lord Herbert of Cherbury (died 1648), Charles Blount (died 1693), John Toland (died 1722), Anthony Collins (died 1729), William Whiston (died 1752), Matthew Tindal (died 1733), Thomas Morgan (died 1743), Peter Annet (died 1769) and Conyers Middleton (died 1750). These, one after the other, progressively deteriorated from a more or less respect for the Bible and Christianity into a disbelief in them as a revelation and in its miracles and prophecies. But a second class of Deists appeared who developed principles that undermined Christian ethics, and made ethics a matter controlled by selfishness. The leaders among these were Shaftesbury (died 1713), Mandeville (died 1733), Dodwell (died 1751) and Bolingbroke (died 1751). Their influence was very disastrous on religion and ethics. These were followed by a third class of Deists who will here be briefly described. Hume (died 1776) turned Deism into infidelity. Voltaire (died 1778) combined almost all forms of Deism into his system. He accepted the skepticism of Hume, the natural theology of the first class of Deists mentioned above, and the selfish ethics of the second set of Deists mentioned above. Later on Deism in France went over into irreligion and materialism, as is exemplified in Diderot (died 1784), Holbach (died 1789) and Helvetius (died 1771). Rousseau (died 1778) went back to the position of the first Deists. But the effect of all of these was in final analysis an evil one, undermining religion and morality, as the history of Britain and France proves was the case. 

(49) It was this undermining of religion and morality that caused the widespread grief in Christendom 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

140 

typed by the lamenting after the Lord on the part of Israel (all the house of Israel lamented after the Lord, 2), as they saw religion and righteousness ridiculed and unbelief and ungodliness spreading. Amid this condition the ministry of John Wesley set in. In EH, 403-416, we have given the main facts of his life and ministry, and will not repeat them here; rather we refer our readers to these details there. Samuel's speech in v. 3 summarizes typically the preaching of Wesley pertinent to the situation created by the first set of Deists. His star-membership dates with his quickening as a star-member in 1738, which he mistakenly called his conversion. From that time on he preached the message antitypical of v. 3. It will be noted that his ministry was a widespread one, described by him in his words, "The world is my parish" (spake unto all the house of Israel). In preaching and writing he greatly stressed a complete, whole-hearted repentance, faith, consecration, its faithful performance and disinterested love (If ye do return unto the Lord with all your hearts). These steps he showed implied that they put aside all forms of sin and selfishness and worldliness (put away the strange gods) especially sex sins (Ashtaroth). He strongly urged them to detach their affections from everything that had the tendency of turning them away from the Lord, and to fill their hearts with every affection that would dispose them toward God and things divine (and prepare your hearts unto the Lord). He likewise exhorted them to carry out their consecration by self-sacrificial service, holy meditation and faithful development of the graces of the Spirit (serve Him only). These things done, he assured them that God would deliver them from the doctrines, practices and effects of the Deists (He will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines). Here we see that the Deists had become the antitypical Philistines of this particular period. While the antitypical Philistines are always sectarians, they are specifically such sectarians as are sectarianly

Samuel. 

141 

opponents of God's people in the particular times and forms of sectarian opposition. Hence we find the antitypical Philistines to be many different sectarians—but they are always such of them as fight God's people, and usually such as oppose these as they are led by the star-members. 

(50) Wesley's ministry certainly had the effect typed by the statements of v. 4. The movement that he led is called the Great Awakening, or Revival. It is often called the revival of religion in Britain. George III, England's king during the latter part of Wesley's ministry, said of him, of his associates, and of the Great Revival, that they did more for religion and the common people of Britain than the entire established Church of England. The ungodliness and infidelity that Deism produced met their Waterloo from the Great Revival. The immense throngs that listened to Wesley and his assistants, and the great numbers that read the literature that this movement produced and circulated, felt themselves pricked to the heart by the thunderous appeals to repentance, by the tender pleas to faith and by the clear persuasives to consecration. And mighty was the effect of such preaching and reading. Literally multitudes repented and believed. Generous numbers took the second step, and got "the second blessing." Sin, selfishness and worldliness in all their forms were set aside (the children of Israel did put away Baalim [the ending im is the masculine plural in Hebrew, like cherubim, the plural of cherub, and seraphim, the plural of seraph; thus the many idols of Baal are meant] and Ashtaroth [sex sins], 4). The most hardened and degraded sinners were melted to repentance. The sternest unbelievers became believers. The bitterest opponents were made sweet and faithful friends of Christianity everywhere. A cleansing of thoughts, motives, words and acts characterized the converts. Those who became identified with the Wesleyan movement became exemplars of the Christian life and character. They were indeed a holy people (they 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

142 

served the Lord only). While repentance and faith with their implications were the main themes preached by this movement to the public, in the meetings for the brethren—parlor meetings, class meetings, band meetings and the larger Church meetings—it was consecration made and carried out with its implications that was the special subject, the chief stress being laid on the cultivation of disinterested love. Holiness was the theme preached and lived by the faithful of this movement. 

(51) The main other themes stressed among these brethren in their assemblies were watchfulness of conscience and prayer. They were, one and all, by Wesley exhorted to practice the watchfulness of conscience in their thoughts, motives, words, acts, dispositions, surroundings and the influences operating upon them (Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh—watchtower, 5). Carelessness as to these seven objects for watchfulness of conscience was shown to be dangerous. All exhorted one another to practice daily the watchfulness of conscience (Gather all Israel). And Wesley, who was mighty and prevalent in prayer, as many examples of the Lord's answering his prayers prove, not only gave them the example to pray, and not only exhorted them to pray, but also promised them to pray for them (I will pray for you unto the Lord). The brethren gave heed to Wesley's admonitions and, encouraged by his promise to pray for them, in their consciences practiced self-examination and watchfulness (And they gathered together unto Mizpeh, 6). This they did not only privately, but also in their class meetings and bands; for Wesley arranged various kinds of meetings for them for their development in grace, knowledge and service. They faithfully studied the good Word of God, gathering out of the Bible, the well of salvation, those Truth teachings due at the time (drew water). These teachings they did not study for their personal enjoyment alone. While deriving therefrom great personal blessings, they also used them for the blessing of others; for they spread the good Word 

Samuel. 

143 

by word of mouth, by distributing pertinent literature, by arranging for meetings where practiced preachers would deliver the message and by inviting friends, relatives and neighbors to such and other helpful meetings. Thus they spread the Truth widely as a religious service pertinent to, and in the interests of the Lord (poured it out before the Lord). They did these things through self-denying and world-denying service, for which those disciples are noted (and fasted on that day). Added to this in their watchfulness of conscience they humbly made confession of their shortcomings (said there, We have sinned). There were special class meetings held in which such confessions of shortcomings were a regular part of the service. In all these works Wesley acted as their leader, directing the Lord's work among these brethren in respect to their watching and prayer, somewhat after the manner in which Bro. Russell directed the Lord's work in the Parousia (Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh). 

(52) This great Revival with its attendant righteous and holy living and serving soon attracted the inimical attention of the Deists, whose loose moral principles had a bad effect on the people, but whose doctrines, apart from undermining the faith of not a few, especially among the higher classes, gained no great acceptance with the common people, because of their abstruseness and lifelessness (the Philistines heard that the children of Israel were gathered together to Mizpeh, 7). The Deist leaders of the second group above-described (the lords), partly through previous writings and partly through contemporaneous writing and speaking, sallied forth against the brethren, who in ridicule were called Methodists (went up against Israel). This immense deistical literature and oratory frightened the pious Methodists (they were afraid of the Philistines), when they became cognizant of it (heard it). Naturally in their fears they came to their leader, Wesley (the children of Israel said to Samuel, 8), for comfort, protection and intercession before the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

144 

Lord (Cease not to cry … for us), that God might deliver them from the Deists (He will save us, etc.). Wesley thereupon raised up the Methodist ministry, consisting in the most part of consecrated laymen, mainly circuit riders, and in small part of a few ministers, like himself, his brother Charles, Whitefield, Fletcher, Perronet, etc., and encouraged them to sublime heights of sacrifice in an evangelistic work at least equal in love, zeal, fervor, self-denial and loyalty to any ever raised up between the Harvests. As a rule his lay preachers were uneducated and unrefined, but in all their efforts they were spurred on by Wesley's words, direction and example, to a most faithful and fruitful ministry (Samuel took a fat [not, suckling] lamb, 9). This ministry was by God manifested as acceptable to Him through our Lord's merit (a burnt offering). And it served with an eye single to the Lord's glory (wholly unto the Lord). Wesley by his strenuous ministry and ardent and believing prayer entreated the Lord on behalf of His people (cried unto the Lord for Israel); and the Lord answered in a most marked way (the Lord heard him). It was amid such sacrifices and prayers that the Deists launched their attack upon God's people (as Samuel was offering … the Philistines drew near to battle, 10). But the Lord stirred up a great controversy against them (the Lord thundered with a great thunder … upon the Philistines). Just as in their part of the controversy the Deists used past writings and current writings and speeches against the true believers, so did the true believers use past writings and current writings and addresses against the Deists. 

(53) A brief mention of such writings and writers would be in place here, as showing with what great controversies God opposed the Deists. First we will give the names of the past pertinent writers, with their birth years and their books: Cudworth, born 1617, and his book, The Intelligent System Of The Universe; Boyle, 1626, Things Above Reason; Stillingfleet, 1635, 

Samuel. 

145 

Letters To A Deist; Sir Isaac Newton, 1642, whose intellect was one of the greatest ever to grace a man, Observations On Prophecy; Leslie, 1650, A Short Method With Deists; Lowth, 1661, Vindication Of The Divine Author Of The Bible; King, 1669, Origin Of Evil; Samuel Clark, 1675, Evidence Of Natural And Revealed Religion; Waterland, 1683, Scripture Vindicated; and Butler, 1692, Analogy Of Religion To The Constitution And Course Of Nature. Because of their appropriateness to the controversy now under description, these works, though produced from 8 to 75 years before the controversy broke out, were republished and circulated by the antitypical Israelites. God had assisted the writers of these and subsequent ones that will shortly be mentioned (the Lord thundered with a great thunder). Of these so far mentioned undoubtedly the last one mentioned (Bishop Butler's Analogy), first published in 1736, was the most convincing; for it met the Deists on their own ground, and so thoroughly defeated them that to this day no Deist or other unbeliever has attempted to answer it. It is one of the few apologetic books that the intervening centuries have not antiquated; for its fruitful ministry still persists. The same is true in a less degree, however, of Leslie's Short Method With Deists. Among the able anti-deistical writers and books that appeared during the controversy under discussion, the following deserve special mention: Lardner, 1684, Credibility Of The Gospel History (a work of eight crown octavo volumes, which and Butler's Analogy are the two ablest works used in this controversy. It is still after two centuries the chief depository of learning on its particular subject. Though begun before the controversy had started, it was not completed until after it was in progress); Leland, 1691, View Of Deistical Writers, and Advantage And Necessity Of Revelation; Chandler, 1693, Definition Of Christianity, On Prophecy; Bishop Warburton, 1698, The Divine Legislation Of Moses; Bishop Warburton, 1698, The Divine 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

146 

Legislation Of Moses; Bishop Newton, 1704, On The Prophecies; Richard Watson, 1737, Apology For Christianity (against Gibbon), also Apology For The Bible (against Paine); too numerous to mention are the writers and writings against Hume; and, finally, Paley, 1743, Horde Paulinae, Evidences Of Christianity, and Natural Theology. Paley brought to a successful close the controversy with the Deists. 

(54) In this way the Lord answered Wesley's prayers; and thus He nonplussed the Deists (discomfited them); for they were surely defeated by antitypical Israel through the lines of thought indicated in the titles of the above-mentioned books (smitten before Israel). From their positions of conscientious watchfulness (Mizpeh), which implies, among other things, a study of the errors that attack the Truth and of the ways to refute them, as well as a quick conscience to perceive right and wrong, these warriors of the Lord and their less able fellow-soldiers attacked and stormed the positions of the Deists, followed them in their retreat from the field of battle (pursued the Philistines, 11), and pushed the attack beyond the utmost powers (Beth-car, house of the battering ram) of the Deists to resist. Wesley was by no means an idle spectator of this controversy. He participated in it by exalting the Bible (Samuel took a [Hebrew, one] stone and set it, 12) as the Truth and as the Divine Revelation. He set it forth as the object of study, both by Christian watchfulness in its function of conscience (between Mizpeh) and by sanctified reason (Shen, crag), both of which are heights on which one is to stand in studying the Bible. In his defenses of the Bible Wesley repeatedly appealed to the Christian conscience, which is a chief factor in successful watching, and to sanctified reason as supported by it. Well did he do in setting forth the Bible as the strengthener of the Christian conscience and as the helper of the Christian reason from the beginning to the end of the Age (Ebenezer, stone of help). In many ways he proved this to be true of it, 

Samuel. 

147 

e.g., from its reasonableness, its harmony, its fruitfulness, its beauty, its strength, its sublimity, its adaptability to our needs, its efficacy, the character that it ascribes to God and Christ, the character it develops in the faithful, the honesty of its portrayals of its agents and foes, its harmony with all well-authenticated secular history and archeology, its effects on the nations, proportionate to their responsiveness, its prophecies, its miracles, its solution of the problem of creation and of the permission of evil, its refutation of all objections, its preservation against all assaults, and its transcendent superiority to the authoritative books of all other religions. Yea, by these things he proved that this unbreakable Rock has been a great means whereby God has been "our help in ages past, our hope for years to come" (saying, Hitherto hath the Lord helped us). 

(55) In this controversy the Deistical sectarians were thoroughly refuted and brought into full defeat and subjection (the Philistines were subdued, 13). Their grounds are now no more taken by serious thinkers; for sectarian unbelief has shifted its grounds from those of refuted rationalistic Deism, and has taken other grounds, e.g., those of atheism, agnosticism, materialism, pantheism, evolution and higher criticism. Thus Deism during the later days of Wesley made no more inroads among real Spiritual Israel (came no more into the coast of Israel); for God, through the writers and writings above-mentioned and the ministry of Wesley and his associates, successfully opposed them all the days of Wesley; and ever since they have been effectless in whatever efforts, feeble as they have been, they have put forth to discredit the Bible as the Divine Revelation. The teachings (cities, 14) that the Deists had taken from Christianity, e.g., the natural revelation, God, virtue, the hereafter (which the Philistines had taken from Israel), and had perverted unto the subduing of some Christian doctrines under error, were retaken (restored), purged from Deistical error and used in harmony with 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

148 

Biblical thoughts. Not one of these teachings taken from Christians was left in the hands of Deists (from Ekron even unto Gath). Any Deistical teachings that touched on Christian thought were taken from Deists by Spiritual Israel (coasts thereof did Israel deliver out of the hands of the Philistines). Sinners of all kinds were subdued by the Wesleyan movement (peace between Israel and the Amorites). Wesley presided as teacher and executive in the Priestly movement up to the end of his long life, living 88 years, 53 of which were spent by him as a star-member (Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life, 15). He continued unto old age to ride his circuits, where he addressed the nominal people of God (Bethel, 16), those rejoicing in justification with its various crises (Gilgal) and those living in the conscientious watchfulness of consecration (Mizpeh), and presided among all three of these classes as teacher and executive (judged Israel in all those places). But his habitual spiritual abode was in the height (Ramah [height] … house, v. 17) of Christian character. Therein did he preside as teacher and executive; and there he gathered unto the Lord choice spirits like himself as sacrificers and comforters of sacrificers, prominent among whom were his brother Charles, the greatest hymn-writer of all times; Whitefield, one of the greatest pulpit orators of all times; the saintly Fletcher, a mighty controversialist; the humble and loyal Perronet; Richardson, the faithful companion of Wesley's last twenty years and the prayer and praise meeting leader of Wesley's last hours, and the conductor of his funeral; the devoted Asbury, the most of the Christ of that time (there he built an altar unto the Lord). 

(56) In 1 Sam. 8 the antitype turns back to the Jewish Harvest and then covers certain phases of the Gospel Age until about 1850. Aged Samuel (old, 1) represents as developed the twelve Apostles and the seventy prophets in the Jewish Harvest, also the twelve star-members and their twelve special helpers shortly.

Samuel. 

149 

after beginning the twelve Little Flock movements, which were later perverted into the twelve denominations of Christendom, in their capacity of arranging for elders in the ecclesias (Acts 14:23; 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17; Tit. 1:5; Jas. 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1). In the days of the Apostles these elders were of two kinds: the abler or leading elders, and the less able or more or less led elders. This distinction was not based on there being different grades officially among the elders. Rather, it was based on the difference in them from the standpoint of the spirit of consecration, talents and providential situation. Officially they were all equals; but among these equals some were abler in the three standpoints just mentioned. The ablest in these three matters became in the Lord's providence and arrangement the first among equals, and as such doubtless were entrusted with the most responsible and important services, just as occurs in our day, and as occurred in our Pastor's day; for we know that in this way God sets by the ecclesia's vote the leaders in local ecclesias where there are several elders varying in the above-mentioned three things. This is the way matters stood with the elders, i.e., bishops, until the death of St. John, though during the Apostles' day, but by their disapprovals, some were already striving in unholy ambition for more power (2 Thes. 2:7; 3 John 9—11). This distinction did not imply two grades among the elders, or bishops, but by the way of designating some as the first among equals in office, all of them executing the duties of their office as decided by the ecclesias (judges over Israel). These two kinds of elders, or bishops, are typed by Samuel's two sons at the beginning of their judgeship. 

(57) Shortly after John's death the leading elder or bishop by way of distinction began to be called the elder, or the bishop. At first this was merely used as an emphasis on the idea of a first among equals; but in only a few years, i.e., about 115 A. D., under the lead of Ignatius of Antioch, the distinction was emphasized

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

150 

into a real difference in office, the name bishop being restricted to the actual ruling teaching official and the name elder to the not ruling teaching officials of the ecclesia. This misdevelopment increased into the creation of a graded hierarchy as distinct from the lower clergy, called priests, a corruption of the Greek word presbyter, elder. Samuel's two sons in their continued deterioration continued to represent these two deteriorating classes among the clergy. The firstborn, Joel (Jehovah is mighty, 2), types this misdeveloping hierarchy; and the second born, Abiah (my father is Jehovah.), types the misdeveloping lower clergy. Thus we see that at first they typed the elders as God constituted such, but later as Satan perverted such. In each of the twelve Little Flock movements before their perversion into sects set in we find two kinds of elders, like those of the Apostolic days; and shortly after these twelve Little Flock movements were being perverted into sects they began in most denominations to change into the misdevelopments mentioned above. Thus we see a twelve-fold fulfilment of the type of this entire chapter, as we will find it also to be the case in certain of the experiences of Saul, who types the crown-lost leaders. At first they were teachers of Truth (judges in Beersheba, well of the oath; the Oath-bound Covenant being the sum of the Gospel Age truths). In their falling and fallen condition these two clerical classes sought riches of money, honor, position, power and luxury (lucre, 3), took bribes to effect the promotion of the bribers or to favor the bribers against others (bribes), and perverted the true teachings into error (perverted judgment). This these two classes did in every denomination of Christendom, as Church history abundantly proves, especially that of the larger denominations. Thus they did not follow in the paths of the star-members and their special helpers (not in his ways). 

(58) The better leaders consulted over this situation (all the elders of Israel gathered themselves

Samuel. 

151 

together, 4). They also submitted the situation to the star-members and their Little Flock colaborers (came to Samuel) in their well-developed Christian characters (Ramah). These set forth the evil condition of these two clergy classes in the twelve denominations (thy sons walk not in thy ways, 5) and Samuel's inability to keep them in line with Truth and righteousness (thou art old). Then they requested in all twelve denominations leaders who would have power sufficient to curb these two evil clergy classes, to teach aright and act as executives in what they regarded as the Lord's affairs, like the leaders in the older denominations, the Greek and Roman Churches alleging the example of the Jewish kings and hierarchy (make us a king to judge us like all the nations). This matter grieved the star-members and their Little Flock colaborers, for they saw that it was not the best thing for the people, since it implied their rejection of the Divinely commissioned teachers and executives for the Lord, a thing sure to be fraught with evil consequences (the thing displeased Samuel; literally, the thing was evil in Samuel's eyes, 6). These star-members and their special colaborers did just what they should have done under those circumstances-prayed over the matter, bringing it to the Lord for His decision (Samuel prayed unto the Lord). God, knowing that the waywardness of the people could best be cured by the experiences of evil attendant on the course that they were intent upon following, gave the star-members through His Spirit, Word and providence to understand that the will of the people be granted (Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee, 7). God corrected His faithful servants who felt hurt at the rejection of themselves as teachers and executives and showed them that the real one rejected was not they, but He Himself from being their teacher and king (not … thee but … Me … not reign over them). Both the type and antitype here show that God at times yields His preference to that

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

152 

of others (Ps. 106:15). The Lord then gave His faithful antitypical Samuel some comfort to be derived from a consideration of the fact that they were being treated unkindly, ungratefully and neglectfully, in fellowship with Him, by the same class as had so treated Him continually, despite His having brought them out of the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of His dear Son, and had always helped them (the works which they have done since … out of Egypt … wherewith they have forsaken Me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee, 8). 

(59) By His Spirit, Word and providences the Lord gave antitypical Samuel at the transition of each Little Flock movement into a denomination to understand that he should accede to the people's demand (hearken unto their voice, 9). At the same time and by the same ways God gave antitypical Samuel to understand that he should protest against their demand (protest solemnly unto them), and that he should seek to persuade them to give up their will to have a king by describing to them the unfavorable course of kings with their subjects (show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them). Thus while the Lord at times yields His preference to that of others, He at the same time offers them earnest advice and protests against their desired course, pointing out to them the disadvantages of rejecting His in favor of their preference. As charged by God, so antitypical Samuel did (told … the people, 10). He showed them just what their crown-lost princes would do to them (this will be the manner of the king, 11): They would in their interests make their stronger ones (sons) serve their organizations and their organizations' officers (appoint … for his chariots and [literally] for his horsemen) and in their interests make them apologists for their organizations (run before his chariots). They would in their interests appoint some of them to be their subordinate officers for warfare purposes (captains over thousands and … fifties, 12). They in their interests

Samuel. 

153 

would make them prepare people for hearing the crown-lost princes' messages (ear his ground; literally, plow his plowing) and win ripe ones for their interests (reap his harvest); make them prepare controversial treatises (make his instruments of war) and treatises to vindicate their organizations (instruments of his chariots). They would make their weaker ones (daughters, 13) prepare appetizing spiritual foods (confectionaries), hunger-satisfying spiritual foods (cooks) and strengthening spiritual foods (bakers) for them. They would take from Spiritual Israelites their spiritual service-spheres (fields, 14), their Truth-producing spheres (vineyards) and grace-producing spheres (oliveyards), including even those that belong to the Little Flock (best of them) and give them to their favorites. They would require that they give up their consecrated rights in the Word ["the seed is the Word"] and its teachings (take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards, 15) and let their favorites, great (officers) and small (servants), have them for their aggrandizement, to the detriment of those thus spoiled. They would take the Little Flock brethren (menservants, 16), the Great Company brethren (maidservants), the best Truth students and warriors (your goodliest young men) and their teachings (asses) and make them serve their interests (put them to his work). They would take their symbolic flocks, the Lord's people, as consecrated to them (tenth of your sheep, 17) and reduce them to be their servants (shall be his servants). These things would distress those who wanted such leaders and they would cry to the Lord to free them, but God would … not hear, 18. 

(60) The earnest counsels, expostulations and protests that the star-members and their special colaborers made against the people's taking the crown-lost leaders in their place as their special teachers and executives were unavailing; for the people refused to heed these counsels, expostulations and protests (the people 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

154 

refused to obey the voice of Samuel, 19). They remained obdurate in their determination to take the crown-lost leaders as their special teachers and executives (Nay; we will have a king over us). This refusal to listen and determination to have their own way set in toward the end of each of the twelve Little Flock movements introduced by the twelve star-members, whose movements were perverted into the twelve denominations of Christendom. They wanted in each successive case from the third to the twelfth denomination to be in this respect like the Greek and Roman Churches and the others preceding each new sectarianizing movement, while the Greek and Roman Churches wanted to be like the Jewish Church in this respect (we … like all the nations, 20), believing that the crown-lost princes would be more practical and efficient than the pertinent star-members, as special teachers and executives (kings may judge us), leaders and warriors (go out … fight our battles). The star-members and their special colaborers in all the twelve Little Flock movements, undergoing sectarianizing perversions toward the twelve denominations into which they later developed, listened to the people's reasonings (Samuel heard … the people, 21) and properly referred their words and course to the Lord (rehearsed them … the Lord). The Lord by His Spirit, Word and providence gave the star-members and their colaborers to understand that He was yielding to the people's preference (Hearken unto their voice, 22) and commissioned them to train the crown-lost princes for their office (make them a king). Accordingly, they charged the people to abide in their particular stewardship truth (Go … unto his city). 

(61) As shown above, the antitype of 1 Sam. 8 occurred in every one of the twelve Little Flock movements that were later perverted into the twelve denominations of Christendom. Above we gave merely a general description of the antitypes, without offering 

Samuel. 

155 

illustrations of how it was actually carried out. We will do it here by the example of the Wesleyan movement, as it was being turned into the Methodist Church. The corrupt, time-serving and worldly bishops and presbyters of the 18th century in the Church of England, in which Wesley remained until death, well illustrate the antitype of Samuel's two corrupt sons; the Wesleyan movement's efforts and failures to reform these two classes of the Anglican clergy, that of Samuel's efforts and failures at reformation of his two sons; the dissatisfaction of the better elements of that Church in the Wesleyan movement with the corrupt ways of its bishops and presbyters and with Wesley's inability to change matters, that of the Israelites dissatisfied with Samuel's sons and his inability to reform them; these better elements' desiring, through what proved to be crown-lost leaders, a reformation that Wesley was unable to affect, that of the Israelites' desiring of Samuel a king as a more effective method and agent of conducting Israel's public affairs. These requests came from Wesley's preachers, who for the most part were not ordained, and thus could not, according to high church ideas, administer the sacraments: through certain ones, like Dr. Coke, desiring ordination as bishops at Wesley's hands; through the desire for the deed of declaration that, when adopted, went far toward sectarianizing the Wesleyan movement; and through the conference of 100 preachers pushing the matter of a separation of the Wesleyan movement from the Anglican Church. Wesley's many-years-long protests against the desires of the Methodist people, with pertinent reasons against sectarianizing his movement by separating it from that Church, correspond to Samuel's protests and reasons' against a king. Wesley's final yielding to the clamors corresponds to Samuel's similar yielding. Wesley's telling the people to abide by their stewardship teaching, and to wait on the Lord corresponds to Samuel's charge to them to abide each one in his city, waiting 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

156 

on the Lord's providence. Wesley's referring all the pertinent matters to the Lord corresponds to Samuel's bringing the similar matters to the Lord. The Lord's answering Wesley's queries by His Spirit, Word and providences pertinent to the case corresponds to His answering Samuel's queries. Thus we see the antitype's fulfilment, as it was wrought out in connection with the Wesleyan movement. But the same general lines of procedure occurred in the transition from the other eleven Little Flock movements toward the eleven denominations into which later they were perverted. But it will be unnecessary to trace these things in all of them, the one example of the operation of the antitype sufficing to clarify that in each of the twelve movements. 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What thought was brought out on the chronological features of 1 Sam. 1, 2 and 3, 4? How does this matter stand as to 1 Sam. 5, 6? What situation proves this? What makes this possible? What other things suggest this? What do the Philistines suggest for the Gospel Age? In general, what do their five cities represent? In particular? Where are they described? What do cities Biblically symbolize? What two proofs are offered for this? How do the cited passages prove the first point? The second point? What conclusion do we draw from these proofs as to the five cities? 

(2) Where are these cities? What is symbolic Egypt? Who is its king or god? How do the cited passages prove this? In what sense are the five symbolic cities in Egypt? What is symbolized by their speaking the language of Canaan? And not Hebrew? How do the cited passages prove these two points? What have all five required of their clergy and laity? How is this symbolized? Which one is the city of destruction? What does this mean? By what are these five cities typed in our study? What does Ashdod type? Gath? Ekron? Askelon and Gaza? What does Askelon probably type? Gaza? When will certainty likely come on this? For what general reasons do we believe that Ashdod types the Greek Catholic Church? Gath the Roman Catholic Church? Ekron the Church of England? What will bring this out more clearly?

Samuel. 

157 

(3) At the time of the antitype of v. 1 what was the antitypical Ark of the Lord? What was this doctrine? What made it the antitypical Ark then? Who were the main crown-losers who perverted it? During how long a period? Into what did they pervert it? When was this perversion completed in its first part? Second part? What is typed by the Philistines' taking the ark from Ebenezer? What is to be noted in this connection? What does Ashdod mean and type? What is typed by bringing the ark to Ashdod? To the temple of Dagon? Setting it beside Dagon? What kind of an image was Dagon? What formed his lower part? His upper part? What did each part lack? What does Dagon type? His upper part? His lower part? What, accordingly, does Dagon type? What is typed by the morrow of v. 3? By that of v. 4? What did Satan do with God's plan from Eden on until some time before Christ? Whom did he especially seek to counterfeit anticipatorily? How did he do this from Gen. 3:15? Deut. 18:15-18? Gen. 22:17, 18? 49:10? Num. 24:17? Gen. 9:26, 27? 

(4) What conclusion do we draw from this as to Dagon? When did Satan make a more exact counterfeit? In this connection, what are we not to forget as to Satan's pertinent activity before the Gospel Age? After he heard Christ's and the Apostles' teachings? In what three particulars did he work out this counterfeit? In what system? Through whom did he work out the counterfeit of our Lord's natures? As the antitype of what? What kind of a mental task did they have to harmonize even seemingly John's pertinent teachings and their God-man theory? Who was the deepest thinker of all of them? What did he accomplish in this matter? What in reality are their speculations? What characterized their efforts to harmonize these two teachings? How are these efforts typed? From what two things will their failure appear? From when on does this history belong? What was done as to it at the council of Constantinople? 

(5) What kind of and how many conclusions have the orthodox drawn from the God-man theory? What was the first of these? Despite what did they hold this thought? What other absurd doctrine did they teach, based on the view of the personal union of the natures in Christ? What conclusion did they draw from these lines 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

158 

of thought? What expressions did they, accordingly, use? What did the expressions, Mother of God and God-bearer, occasion? In what did this controversy result? How is this typed? What two things in this connection should be kept in mind? What will this prepare us to see? Who was the most prominent person so affected? What was his position? Where was he trained? What pertinent effect did the Antiochian theology have on him? Whom did he bring with him to Constantinople? How was Anastasius affected by the expressions, mother of God, bearer of God, etc.? What did he do about it as to Nestorius? Under what three handicaps did Nestorius labor? Despite these handicaps, what did he do? With what theory did he oppose the God-man orthodox theory? In what respects are both views wrong? What is the Truth on the subject? What happened in the two transitions with the Logos' and human dispositions? During His three modes of existence how many natures did He have in each mode of existence? In the pre-human mode of existence? The human? The Divine? How do the cited passages prove this of the human and Divine modes of existence? Apart from the Truth view on Christ's person, how many views were there in the first half of the fifth century? What were they? What did the third view do with the others? What was the character of all three? 

(6) What were the two characteristics of the pertinent debate? On whose side especially? In what two ways did he exercise shrewdness toward the Roman bishop? What did he thereby win? Whom else did he in the same way win over? How many patriarchs were there then? Where was each one's see? How did they line up on this matter? What national church also stood with Nestorius? How did the Emperor's family stand on the question? Who, especially in his family, stood with Cyril? Who were irreconcilably opposed? What did the pope demand? What did Cyril do? Nestorius? Thereupon what did the Emperor do? Who especially sided with Nestorius? With what kind of a retinue did Cyril appear at the council of Ephesus? The bishop of Ephesus? Before whose arrival did Cyril open the council? What did he secure? What did the pope's legates do as to the council? The Emperor and his plenipotentiary? 

Samuel. 

159 

(7) In the meantime, what did the Arians do on the subject? Of what is their refutation the antitype? What did the antitypical Ashdodites see? As antitype of what? What is the antitype of the Ashdodites' setting up Dagon in his place after his first fall? Wherein does v. 4 find its antitype? What is dyoprosopism or Nestorianism? What is monophysitism? What is monothelitism? How in time were the last two points fought out? Who was Cyril's successor? How did they compare in intellectual and moral qualities? Who originated monophysitism? What did he think on the subject? What two men intrigued against him? Before whom? With what results? What did they then do? How did Dioscurus then proceed? What course did the Emperor as a result pursue? What occurred in a synod held in Constantinople in 448, despite the Emperor? What did Eutyches and Flavian then do? With what result? Thereupon what did the Emperor do? Who presided at the council at Ephesus in 449? What did he do as to Flavian? The Emperor as to Theodoret? 

(8) What characterized this council? What does Church History call it? What did it condemn? How was Eusebius, bishop of Doretaeum, Phrygia, treated when he sought to defend the doctrine of the two contemporaneous natures in Christ? What did Flavian and Eusebius then do? What did the council do to them? What did Dioscurus do when a bishop expostulated with him? What happened as a result of this riot? Who were saved by flight? What was then done to Eutyches and his three chief opponents? What did Leo's protest effect in the Emperor? What was convened in 451? What did it do with Dioscurus? With Eutychesism and Nestorianism? Who dictated the formula of orthodoxy on the controverted point? How does it read? How was the spirit of the Chalcedon council, compared with that of "the Robber Synod of Ephesus"? How did the monophysite party act toward Theodoret? What concession was made to win back the monophysites? What pope espoused the so-called heresy of monothelitism? What did his pertinent teaching do with the teaching of the pope's infallibility? What is monothelitism? In the ensuing controversy what error was accepted as orthodox? What is the Truth on the subject? On what three planes of being? Why in each of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

160 

these three modes of existence could there be only one contemporaneous will? What was the one-will doctrine called? What does the word mean? 

(9) What errors are the source of these errors? What do these errors hold as to our Lord's person from Bethlehem onward? To the condemnation of what two errors did this error lead? Where? What truth did it logically deny? What was Satan seeking to do by making the Greek Catholics fight over the above-mentioned questions? While they were so fighting what was done with the Truth on the subject? What did the Arians do with the involved errors? By what is the refutative effect of the Truth as to the second error typed? How so? By what is the refutative effect of the Truth as to the third error typed? How so? What is typed by the Ashdodites' arising early in the morning of v. 4? What is typed by the words, only Dagon was left on him? Why does the type not specifically point out dyoprosopism, monophysitism and monothelitism? Where are these brought out? 

(10) With what kind of steps did the Greek Catholic clergy and laity proceed to their God-man with two wills? How do they proceed from mental steps to their God-man with two wills? How is this typed? What is meant by the antitypical not treading on the threshold of Dagon's temple? What as a result does their theory make them do? How long? What effect will Armageddon have on this subject? What, accordingly, do we see typed in vs. 3-5? In vs. 6, 7? How did we describe matters above? Without reference to what? Why was this done? Where are the connected divisions? Where are the pertinent divisions and errors typed? How does the Bible type and symbolize sifting errors and their accompanying divisions? How does 1 Cor. 10:5-14 prove this? Ps. 91:6? Who in Ps. 91:7-10 is promised immunity therefrom? Who in principle have the promise of the same immunity? 

(11) Who does not have such immunity? What does the account in 1 Sam. 5:6, 7 type? What was the plague of vs. 6, 7? What two things seem to suggest this? Why was the above-given description on the pertinent errors and resultant conflicts set forth? What did this fact make necessary? What will now be done? What should here be remembered? How did the ancient Greek and Roman minds stand in contrast? What modern nations exemplify 

Samuel. 

161 

this contrast? What adaptability did the Greek mind have to Satan's purposes on the trinity and the God-man theories? Who of the Greeks busied themselves with these subjects? Where were these subjects discussed? How universal comparatively were these discussions? 

(12) What were taken on all hands? E.g., where? What spirit was kindled and increased? What resulted? What was the first of these? How many went into the Nestorian from the Greek Catholic Church? The Catholics of what countries went over to the Nestorian Church? Where did it spread during the dark ages? Of what was this and Orthodoxy's own errors a partial antitype? What are the antitypes of the men of Ashdod? Of the coasts thereof? Of the Lord's hand being on them? What else are parts of the antitypical plague? To whom was the monothelitism offered? By whom? As what? Why? What was the net result? What two great divisions of the Greek Catholics prevail to this day? Where? 

(13) Throughout these controversies what did the "orthodox" fight? Before what even did they begin to fight the related truths? Who gave the first squints toward the orthodox pertinent errors? About when? What did Origen do in this matter? About when? Dionesius of Rome? About when? Athanasius? About when? Against what was each one of these steps of error taken? Who in the Smyrna period first announced this Truth? Who then fostered it? By whom was it then defended during the Symrna period? Who was its staunchest defender? How did Satan throughout this controversy proceed? Until what period did he act out this principle rather freely? Who brought out the Truth thereon that Satan sought to hide? How are the refutations of these three theories typed? How was the refutation of dyoprosopism or Nestorianism, dyophysitism, monophysitism, monothelitism and dyothelitism typed? How are the orthodox efforts to refute and banish the Truth during these controversies typed? How and by whom did this antitype begin? What was thereby started? Who started the second? How? Who started the third? How? How and by what did other emerods come? In this what was heavy on them? How long? How did the antitypical Ashdodites show that they recognized this? What types it? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

162 

(14) What is the antitype of the Ashdodites' calling and gathering together the Philistine lords? Of their deciding to send the ark away to Gath? What is noteworthy in all these controversies as to the Bishop of Rome? How did he decide? With how many doubtful exceptions? Real exceptions? What resulted from these orthodox answers? What else is typed in deciding to send away the ark? What Truth did the Greek and Roman Catholics hold in common? Despite what did the former not enter into controversies on this Truth? To whom did they leave these controversies to fight out? Of what else is this the antitype? What, as implied in the meaning of the word Gath, has Romanism been to the true Church? Through whom was the second Gospel-Age stewardship Truth given? What did it arouse? What crown-lost leaders perverted this movement into the Roman Catholic Church? Where did each live? When did Cyprian begin this evil course? By what teaching? 

(15) What evil did this produce on Roman Catholics? What views and conditions created the setting that occasioned Cyprian's false teachings? How did Cyprian first stand on the subject? What happened when he returned from his flight before the Decian persecution? In what did this result? What theory did Cyprian oppose to the dissidents? When the persecution was renewed what change of view did Cyprian advocate? What at the same time was taking place at Rome? Who led the strict party? The mild party? What adherent of the mild practice fought Cyprian for his strict practice? How did Cyprian treat him? What did Novatus thereupon do? What did he there do? Under whose leadership? What were the relations of Novatian and Cornelius? What did both sides seek to secure? How did Cornelius misrepresent Novatian? Who sided with Cornelius? What in part influenced Cyprian thereto? Despite what did Cyprian attack Novatian's view? What was it? Why did he hold it? Wherein did both sides err? How extensive did Novatianism become? With whom did they side in the Arian controversy? How did the councils of Nice and Constantinople regard them? The Occidental Church? Honorius? At whose instigation? How long did they persist? 

Samuel. 

163 

(16) What did both sides have? What was the error of the Novatianists? Why was this an error? What even was then prohibited? How do the cited Scriptures prove these points? When was the second one fulfilled? What kind of an error was on the other side? What two things were implied in it? In what treatise did Cyprian elaborate this thought? Of what was this error a partial antitype? Of what antitype was the resultant trouble a partial antitype? What set in about 60 years later? What was it? How long did it last? Why need we not here enter into details on the Donatist controversy? Who were the strict party therein? The mild party? To what did the latter object? Where did the controversy spread? Who decided against the Donatists? What set in against them? How did this first affect them? 

(17) How did it later affect them? How was this met? How did this avail? What did Augustine do as to this? When did he start this? Like Cyprian, what did he bring out against them? How did he begin against them? What effect did their stubbornness have on him? How did he pervert Luke 14:23 to this end? Why did he advocate this error? Of what evil principle did this make him the father? What were its worst expressions? What had he previously sought to do? Why did they decline? What were they finally forced by the Emperor to do? Where and when was this debate held? Who were the two leading debaters of the Donatists? Of the Roman Catholics? How many Donatist bishops were present? Roman Catholic bishops? What failed to be achieved by this debate? What did the Emperor in 415 do as to the Donatists? What did the conquering Vandals do to both sides? To what did this lead? What question was also debated in this controversy? How did each side answer this question? What error did both sides hold on the question? What truth, if held, would have ended the debate? As it was, what did each side defend and attack? What was neglected altogether? What was the result of this debate to the Catholics? Who especially defended the Truth pertinent to the involved controversies? What was he? 

(18) What was the worst antitypical emerod on Roman Catholics? In what was it embedded? Into what did it first grow? Into what did the arch-episcopal idea develop? Into what did this grow? By whom was the pope surrounded? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

164 

Who were they at first? Into what did they develop? Over whom did they never come? Why not? In what did the Romanist emerod reach its worst development? What three divisions occurred between the Greek and Roman Catholics? What did the Trullan council add to their mutual feelings? What was the first point that it raised against the Occidental Catholics? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? 

(19) What was the effect of the council's passing these six points? What one had this effect especially? What did it later cause? What in Rome's claims was in the background of many controversies between the Occidental and Oriental Christians? In what did this finally result? Who was Photius? What did he and the other three Eastern Patriarchs and a council charge against the Western Catholics? In the consequent controversies what did each side do to the other? In whom did these controversies come to a head? What were the final results contrasted with previous results of their controversies? What was at the root of their differences? Despite what, what was never achieved? In what did each antitypical emerod result? Of what was this an antitype? 

(20) What church is typed in v. 10? What was the cause of the Anglican Church's coming into existence as a separate sect? By what will this appear? Who was God's agent and the latter's supporter in presenting the stewardship Truth of the Church of England? What movement did they start? Into what was it perverted? What were the circumstances leading to its promulgation? Why will we not here go into detail on this question? What did the pope do in the matter? What question did Cranmer raise on this matter? What two answers to this question did he give? What answer does the papal view require? Why did Rome give this answer to the question? What was the result of this controversy? Of what was the resultant controversy the antitype? What resulted from the antitypical Ark coming into the Church of England? Of what two statements in v. 11 is this the antitype? 

(21) What Truth set forth by Cranmer, with Latimer's support, must be kept in mind? What does this not imply? Why not? What does this Truth imply? How do the cited passages prove this? What influenced the Church of England to desire an earthly head? Whom did it 

Samuel. 

165 

accept as its earthly head? Whose place in the Church of England did he take? What did this error become? What proves this statement? What did this make the tyrant Henry VIII? In what three spheres did he use that control? With what result? What kind of a creed did he give the Church of England? When was it modified? What evil things did he do and continue? What terrible law did he originate and have enacted? What was its first error? Second? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? What was the unconditional penalty of the first? Of the first offense against the other five? Of the second? What did it decree as to the marriages of priests, monks and nuns? If they thereafter married again? How did it regard abstinence from attendance at mass and confession? What was a marked difference between this and former laws as to abjurers? How does it compare with other English laws? What was Henry's relation to it? Apart from rejecting the papal supremacy, what in reality was Henry? How was this law enforced? In what did it result antitypically? By virtue of what? Of what was this doctrine a gross perversion? 

(22) When did Henry VIII die? Who succeeded him? How did he stand? Who was his guardian, teacher and adviser? How did he influence Edward VI? What was under him revoked? How were Romanists treated? What two pen-products were adopted? How is this part of his work typed? What did these two pen-products contain? What gross error did the 42 articles contain? What did it effect in Mary's days? When did Edward VI die? What happened to his nominee as his successor as such? Who became his successor? What did she at once proceed to do? Why did she spare Cranmer the fate of others? What did she do with the pro-Protestant laws of Edward VI? With the law of the six articles? What did she then do? While annulling the law making the sovereign head of the English Church, how did she act on the subject? Why these two contradictory acts? What did she do to all Protestant bishops? Whom of them did she imprison? Who was made prime minister and the executor of the six articles law? What was done with the living and dead Protestant leaders? With married priests and their families? What did the exiled Cardinal Pole 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

166 

do? What began in 1555? For her cruelty what attribute was applied to her name Mary? How did the nation react to her cruelty? 

(23) What was the character of the persecution? According to the discovered records, at least how many were burned for rejecting Romanism and accepting Protestantism? What cannot now be proved by legal records? Who holds the record and will publish it? Who, among many others, were burned in 1555? What noted one was burned in 1556? Whom and when did Mary marry? What was his character and conduct? Why do we know that he aroused Mary's persecuting zeal? What effect on the persecution did his leaving her and never returning have? What as a result did she institute? Under whose presidency? What was his course as such? How else did thousands die? Why? How long did this persecution rage? What stopped it? How did she die in the public's view? What is her place in English history? The effect of her course after nearly four centuries? Of what were the Marian persecutions a partial antitype? What else was a part of it? When did more of that antitype come? To what were these more or less due? Who even acted on the principle, though denying the theory? Why so? 

(24) Who succeeded Mary on the throne? How related to Mary? Where was her course given in some detail? What position did she accept? Who educated her? What is here said of her mother? What was Elizabeth's standing as a sovereign? What did her 45 years' reign accomplish as to Romanism? What did she do with the law on the six articles? What was not, and what was her course toward Romanists? How did she proceed? With what effect on the pope? What act did Parliament pass in 1559? What did it demand? On what penalties? Especially as to perversion to Romanism? On a second such perversion? What was argued in defense of such a law? What was done with Cranmer's 42 articles? What change did the revision of the 42 to the 39 articles make in their general character? What was done with these 39 articles in 1562 and 1572? 

(25) As to what was the Anglican Church set up by law? What did the Law of Uniformity in favor of the Anglican Church require and tolerate? What was penalized? What was thereby made compulsory? What did 

Samuel. 

167 

this bring upon Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians? Who were the latter? What evils did this law cause? What did also this law prove to be? What were the disobeyers of this law called? How did this condition show itself in the days of James I? In the days of Charles I? Why so? What evils did he practice in state and church? What resulted from his evil course? In what did the revolution result as to the chief of state and the chief of church? What followed thereupon? What was done on the restoration of Charles II? By Parliament in offset to Charles 11's Romanizing course? How did Charles II die? What was the first course of his successor brother, James II? The second? Why this? To what did this lead? With what result? How was this result brought about? In what and by whom is his and his Irish Catholic army's defeat celebrated? When? What did that defeat end? What did William's Toleration Act do for all Protestants and Catholics? What is a summary on the nature and effects of the royal supremacy in the church? What did its effects prove as to God's part in these matters? 

(26) What was done above without detailed reference to 1 Sam. 5:10-12? What will here be given? What is the antitype of the ark's entering Ekron? The deadly destruction there? Through what did it come? From whose to whose reign? Why did the Lord permissively send it? What is its type? What is the antitype of the trouble's being on great and small? How long? Especially in how many of them? Of what were these long-drawn-out sufferings the antitype? While v. 9 applies to Gath, why may its events be applied to Ekron? To what did this fact leads just before? What is the antitype of the trouble starting at Ekron just as the ark was brought here? What led to the troubles? When did the cries antitypical of those at Ekron start? What was the cry? What did it antitype? What is the antitype of the Ekronites' sending for the lords of the Philistines? The antitype of the lords of the Philistines? Why were they called, type and antitype? How was it done in the antitype? What were the antitypical gatherings? When will this be shown? What is the antitype of the Ekronites' telling their sad experiences to the Philistine lords? What are we not to understand to be meant by the statements

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

168 

of v. 12? Rather, what are we thereby to understand? What in type and antitype reached up to God? 

(27) What did we learn from our study of 1 Sam. 5? What does this mean? At what year for each of the five involved denominations did they dismiss the antitypical Ark? What period is the antitype of the seven months of v. 1? When did these denominations set into operation the antitype of v. 2? Why is this so? In antitype of what? What did they effect by their creed-making? How are we not to understand them to have expressed this thought? In antitype of what? How was it done? Why? 

(28) From what will this appear? What occasioned it as to the Romanist Church? How did she attempt to repel these blows? What were the dates of the Council of Trent? What did the Romanists there do? What, from the Divine standpoint, did their creed-making actually effect? How was this typed? What occasioned it as to the Anglican Church? What did the Anglicans do as to this matter? Divinely viewed, what did they actually effect? What occasioned it as to the Lutheran Church? What did the Lutheran higher clergy and theologians do about it? Divinely viewed, what did they thereby actually effect? What occasioned it as to the Calvinistic Church? What did her higher clergy and theologians do about it? Divinely viewed, what did they thereby actually effect? What occasioned it as to the Greek Church? What did her higher clergy and theologians do about it? Divinely viewed, what did they thereby actually effect? What did these matters antitype? 

(29) Where did the antitypes of vs. 3-9 occur? Usually how are speeches antityped? How above any other period is the time from 1541 to 1581 marked? What creedal parts appeared in 1580 in the Book of Concord? Who principally worked on each one? By what were the first five of these occasioned? The Formula of Concord? Who during its making fell from the Little Flock? What work did he write while yet a member of it? How did the Council of Trent sit? What did it publish in 1564? What did this make it? What are defined in its creed? In opposition to whom? Who supplemented its creedal expressions? By what three instruments? What do the antitypes under study not include? 

Samuel. 

169 

(30) What, among other things, did our last study show of certain activities of Cranmer, aided by Ridley, and of the convocation in 1562 and of Parliament in 1572? What have the 39 articles been ever since? What territorial differences were there in the acceptance of the Lutheran creeds and the Calvinistic creeds? What is the name of the Calvinistic creed for Switzerland? Germany? France? Belgium? Scotland? What are not considered in the antitype under study? Through whom did the Greek Church reject the creeds of the other four involved denominations? What did she for nearly a century deem unnecessary? What did the Greek Synod of Jerusalem (1672) do as to Jeremiah II's pertinent declaration? What does this study show as to the limit of the pertinent creed-making? How is this related to 1 Sam. 6? 

(31) How was the decision to cast off the antitypical Ark not made? How is this typed? Of what were these rejections made a part? How did the creed-makers regard their caricatured stewardship doctrines and gross errors? Their issuing of them? What did they thereby think they would effect Godward? How is this typed? Why did they think an atonement to be necessary? By what did they think it would be made? How is this illustrated by the Lutherans? Romanists? Whom else does this principle involve? How did all of them look upon their pre-creedmaking experiences? How is this typically suggested? What effect did they think their creed-making would have? What could they not understand? 

(32) After receiving the answer to their questions, what did the antitypical Philistines then ask? What were they told? How did they consider the involved teachings? Accordingly, fit for what two things? Of what were these things the antitypes? Why did they think the five golden mice and emerods a proper offering, type and antitype? What proves that the five antitypical mice were more or less erroneous? That the five antitypical emerods were erroneous? How do the cited passages prove this of the mice? What is the mouse of Is. 66:17? Its swine flesh and its abomination? How does our previous study prove this of the emerods? The first set of cited passages? The second set of cited passages? What conclusion as to all the creeds are we warranted in drawing? Why did the antitypical Philistines think their creeds would glorify

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

170 

God? How is this typed? What did they expect to obtain by their trespass offering, type and antitype? 

(33) Why also did the higher clergy and theologians consider their greed offerings pleasing to the Lord? What did they consider a refusal to make such creeds to be? How typed? Contemporaneously, against what was a caution given in type and antitype? Even worse than those hardening? Why? What did the higher clergy and theologians then advise? How typed? What further did they advise? How typed? What did they require of these doctrinal and practical expressions? How typed? What did they advise as to the implications of their doctrines and practices? How typed? Upon what was placed the responsibility of sending away the antitypical Ark, golden mice and emerods? How is this typed? What was supposedly assigned to the second and third as to the first? How is this typed? In what were the second and third placed? How is this typed? Of what were they sure, type and antitype? 

(34) While making their creeds, what were the five denominations doing to one another? In what were they a unit? By what are the Independents typed? Of whom did they consist? What did the creedists do with the formers' stewardship doctrines? In what condition were these then, as distinct from that of the stewardship doctrines of the five involved denominations? How is this typed? How in contrast did the five denominations consider the Independents? How is this typed? Where did the leading clergy and theologians think the involved stewardship doctrines would go? How is this typed? What was their attitude of mind as to the source of their plagues? How is this typed? What did they think would give them certainty as to their source? How is this typed? What was done with the advice of the higher clergy and theologians? How is this typed? How do we know that their advice was carried out? How is this typed? What did they do with certain questions raised by their creedal doctrines and practices? How is this typed? How is this fact illustrated in the Romanist Church? In the Lutheran Church? The Calvinistic Church? The Greek Church? The Anglican Church? What twofold course did they follow as to such questions? How is this typed? 

(35) What, accordingly, did the higher clergy and theologians do? In antitype of what? What are the details of 

Samuel. 

171 

these acts? What did their doctrinal teachings and practical precepts do under the circumstances? How is this typed? How was it done? How typed? What did these teachings announce? How is this typed? What did these teachings further do? How is this typed? What did the leaders do? How far? How are these things typed? 

(36) What must be remembered in construing this type? How does this apply to the antitype? What do the facts of the case, considered in the light of the above presentation, suggest of our interpretation? At what, therefore, should we marvel? Why? What in this would we not have thought? What could not have put these thoughts into, nor taken them out of this narrative? What should our understanding of this prompt us to do? 

(37) What in our study may strike some as contradictory? Why this seeming contradiction? How does the camp picture present the matter? The Philistine picture? What do we conclude therefrom? How do the various uses of the Israelites illustrate this same principle? What is the difference in the antitype? How does St. Paul's interpretation in 1 Cor. 1:1-4 show the picture of real Spiritual Israel? In 1 Cor. 1:5-11 show the picture of nominal Spiritual Israel? In what other pictures is the same principle illustrated? What conclusion are we thus warranted in drawing? 

(38) What were the Independents of all kinds doing from 1564 and 1581 onward? In antitype of what? Amid what conditions? What types this? In what were they engaged? What types this? What did they recognize? In antitype of what? What did the Baptists, Unitarians and Congregationalists see on the true Church? In contrast with what? What did Unitarians see on the person and office of Christ? Undenominational Christians on all five star-members' teachings? How did these Truth views affect them? How is this typed? What combination of things is mentioned here? Where did it go? How is this typed? What prominent things stood in this sphere of activity? How is this typed? What did these do with the involved deliberative bodies and their doctrines and practices initially and progressively? As what? How was God's acceptance manifested? What types these things? 

(39) Who took part in these services as to the star-members' teachings? How? Who else took part in them? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

172 

What Scriptures show this to be reasonable? How is this typed? What facts are in harmony with such an antitype among Unitarians? Among Baptists? Among Congregationalists? Among undenominational crown-losers? What else did they do? How is this typed? Why did they do this? How is this typed? What did they do with all these things? How is this typed? What did they do by their linguistic, interpretational, historical and systematic studies? With whose hearty and joyous co-operation did they do these things? What did they thereby offer up? What else did they offer up? Amid what? How are these things typed? How long a period did they do these things? 

(40) Of what were the leaders of the five involved denominations observers during these 80 years? In antitype of what? Amid what were they such observers? How did they do their observing? What therein did they repudiate and defend? Upon whom did the brunt of the defense of the creeds fall? Why? How is this typed? Of what did the leaders of the five denominations feel sure? Why did they thus feel sure? How are these things typed? 

(41) What do vs. 17 and 18 do? How do things differ in the presentation from that of vs. 4, 5? What are the grossest error and the stewardship doctrine of the Greek Church? By what are it and these two things typed? What is the grossest error of the Calvinistic Church? Its stewardship doctrine? By what are it and these two things typed? What are the grossest error and the stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church? By what are it and these things typed? What are the grossest error and stewardship doctrine of the Romanist Church? By what are it and these things typed? What are the grossest error and stewardship doctrine of the Anglican Church? By what are it and these things typed? As what were these doctrines and errors sent to God's real people? As whose offerings? How is this typed? Who participated with the leaders in this service? How is this typed? To whom were these teachings sent? Where were they stationed? How is this typed? Until when does this great truth persist? How is this typed? What is the antitype of the writing of the typical fact? Among whom does, and among whom does not, this great truth remain? How is this typed? 

(42) What did some of the antitypical Beth-Shemites do? How is this typed? What is the more likely translation of the pertinent typical statement? What facts favor

Samuel. 

173 

this likelihood? What was quite unlikely in this case? Likely? So far as the Hebrew is concerned, what must be said? What would the antitype be? Give some examples of Unitarians doing this. Of Baptists doing this. Of Congregationalists doing this. What did they do in such studies? What did God cause to happen to them? To Little Flock members among them? Great Company members among them? Justified among them? Campers among them? Among other ways, what manifested their fallen condition? Into what did many undenominational Christians go? 

(43) What in v. 19 are mistranslated? How does Dr. Young properly translate them? What similar mistranslation is there in the A. V. and the Septuagint? Where does God correct it? To what is the mistranslation due? What determines the meaning? Why in connection with Beth-Shemesh and Bethlehem should it be translated leaders, chief ones, princes? How many were not, and how many were smitten? How distributed? What made the proportion of leaders killed large? How is this typed? How did the proportion in the leaders and led smitten stand? How did these siftings affect the others? How is this typed? Wherein was this grief felt? Where are these facts found? What do they prove? What proves that the symbolic slaughter was great? How is this typed? What especially emphasizes the great smiting? 

(44) By what did the antitypical Beth-Shemites ask the questions of v. 20? What is meant by standing before the Lord? Who were such? What happened to the speculators among them? How did their symbolic death affect the others? What did this fear prompt them to antitype? How should the second question of v. 20 be rendered? Why? How in general and in detail was this question antityped? So far as v. 20 is concerned, not further than what had the antitypical Beth-Shemites proceeded? In other words, what did they and what did they not do in this matter? 

(45) How did the knowledge of the situation just discussed come to the more faithful? How is this typed? What did these messengers declare? How is this typed? How did these messengers invite faithful consecrated ones to accept the eight rejected star-members' teachings? How is this typed? To what does 1 Sam. 7:1, 2 really belong? What does that suggest as to them here? What did the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

174 

more faithful ones among the consecrated do in the premises? How is this typed? What did they then do with them? How is this typed? Into whose special care did they put these? How is this typed? What corroborates these statements? What did the eight involved denominations do with their beliefs? What did this petrification become? What did the involved dogmatical works do with the creedal views? In what did this result? What occurred concurrently with this dead orthodoxy? In what condition was piety when antitypical Beth-Shemesh was seeking to get rid of the antitypical Ark? 

(46) What did the Lord not then permit? What proves this? How is this typed? By whom are these typed? Who first of all were among these? How are they typed? What were the abilities of some of these? For what did all of these in their churches stand? On what did they insist? What were they called in Germany? In Italy? In France? In Britain? Describe Arndt, Spener and Franke, as German representatives of these faithful Christians, Molinos, as a Spanish representative of these in Italy, Madame Guyon, Archbishop Fenelon, the two Arnaulds, Racine, De Sacy, Pascal, Quesnell and Tillemont, as French representatives of these, Fox and Bunyan, as English representatives of these. How may they be described in comparison with their co-operating brethren? Of whom were they the antitype? Who were the antitype of Abinadab? 

(47) How did such differ in their places in life? What did they receive? What was George Fox used by God to do? In this connection, what are we not to understand of all of them? What are we to understand of them in this connection? What at least did all of them receive? What was the character and accompaniment of their ministry? Who especially persecuted these? Whose condemnation and imprisonment did they secure? The suppression of what did they secure? The scattering of whom? How long was the period of the activities of these? How does the type prove this? What mistaken sense does the A. V. give to the length of the ark's stay at Kirjath-jearim? How does Dr. Young correctly translate this passage, giving its right sense? About how long was the ark at Kirjath-jearim? What facts prove this? What is the time thought 

Samuel. 

175 

of v. 2? How is this typed? When was this lamentation and the end of the 20 years antitypically fulfilled? 

(48) What was the effect of Deism on the British people in the second half of the 17th and in the first half of the 18th century? On what did Deism speak much? Despite this, what did it effect? What did it at first affect? What did its ridicule and disregard of the Bible effect? In what did this result? Who were the leading Deists of the old ethical school? Into what did they develop increasingly one from the other? At approximately what time was the period of their activity? What characterized the second class of Deists? Who were the main representatives of the school of Deists? Approximately what was the period of their activity? What was the character of their influence? What was the general character of the third class of Deists? Who was its leading British representative? What was his position? Who were its leading French representatives? What was the position of each of these? In final analysis, what was the effect of all of these Deists? 

(49) What did Deism's evil effects cause? How is this typed? What occurred at this juncture? Of what does P '29, 86 (5) - 89 (17) treat? What in a summary does Samuel's speech (v. 3) type? When and with what did Wesley's star-membership begin? What did he henceforth preach? What was the sphere of his ministry, as described by him? How typed? What four things did his preaching and writing stress? How typed? What did these four things generally and specifically imply? How typed? What things did he strongly emphasize? How typed? To what three ways of carrying out consecration did he exhort? How typed? What effects of God's working did he show would come therefrom? How typed? Whom does 1 Sam. 7 show to have become the antitypical Philistines? What are the antitypical Philistines always, generally and specifically? What are they usually? 

(50) What effect did Wesley's ministry have? How typed? What is the movement called that he led? What is it often called? How did George III speak of it and its leaders? What did Deism's effects meet from the Great Revival? What heart effect on the multitude did this movement's preachings and writings have? To what were great numbers led? To what were generous numbers

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

176 

led? What three things in all their forms were set aside? How typed? Even what kind of sinners, unbelievers and opponents were favorably affected? What characterized the converts? What did the true "Wesleyans" become? What kind of a people did they become? How typed? What were the themes that were preached to the public? In the various meetings of the believers? On what was the chief stress laid? What was thus preached and lived? 

(51) What were the main other themes stressed before the brethren? In what respects was the watchfulness of conscience directed? How typed? What was shown of carelessness therein? What were all to do to one another? How typed? As to prayer, how was Wesley, as many examples show? What did he do and promise as to prayer? How typed? What effect did this have on the brethren? How typed? Where did they practice watchfulness and prayer? How did Wesley help therein? Why? What did they do as to the Bible? How typed? What did they do as to such teachings? How did they do this? In whose pertinency and interest? How typed? Through what kinds of service did they do this? How typed? What did they add to this? How typed? What were specially arranged for such confessions? Who was their leader in all this? In what manner? How typed? 

(52) What did this great revival soon attract? How typed? Despite the Deists' wicked effects, wherein did they not prevail? Why not? What class of Deists became now active? In what ways? How is this typed? How did this Deistical activity affect the Faithful? How typed? What did their fears prompt them to do? How typed? For what did they request his prayers? How typed? What did he thereupon do? Of what two classes did his preachers consist? What was the character of this ministry? Particularly of its lay part? Who spurred them on? How typed? How did God regard their service? How typed? What was its purpose? How typed? In what two ways did Wesley personally share in this ministry? How typed? During these works what did the Deists do? How typed? How did the Lord respond to the situation? How typed? What similarity existed between the means of conflict? 

(53) For what will a brief mention of the pertinent writings and writers serve? What writings and writers will first be mentioned? Who were they? Approximately

Samuel. 

177 

when did they live? What are the titles of their chief works? Why were these past writings used in this controversy? Who helped in producing them? Which of these writings was the most convincing? Give a brief description of its history. What other of these past works was also especially helpful? What writers and writings appearing during the controversy deserve special mention? Which work additional to the Analogy was the most able and effective of all of these? Briefly describe its history. Whom did God use to end this controversy? What was the character of the controversy with the Deists? 

(54) How did God answer Wesley's prayer? Who were defeated in this controversy? By what lines of thought? What was the position of antitypical Israel therein? How typed? What is implied in being at antitypical Mizpeh? What did they do with the positions of the Deists? Who was not an idle spectator of this controversy? How did he participate in it? How typed? How did he set forth the Bible in relation to the Christian conscience and the sanctified reason? How typed? In his defense of the Bible to what did he often appeal? How did he set it forth? How typed? In what ways did he from these standpoints prove it true? What especially did he prove thereby? How typed? 

(55) In this controversy what happened to the Deists? How typed? Who no longer defend their positions? To what has sectarian unbelief turned from Deism? What did Deism not do in Wesley's later years? How typed? What did God do to them then? Through whom and what? What is the character of their efforts since Wesley's days? What teachings had Deists taken from Christians? How typed? What did the Deists do with such teachings while in their possession? What was done with these teachings as a result of the above-described controversy? How typed? How extensive was the reconquest? What happened with Deistical teachings touching on Christian thought? How typed? What was done to sinners by the Wesleyan movement? How typed? What did Wesley do to the end of his life? How typed? How old did he become? How long was he a star-member? What activity did he continue unto old age? To what three classes did he minister? How typed in each case? What was his relation to these three classes? How typed? What was his habitual spiritual abode? How typed? What 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

178 

were his official positions there? Whom did he gather to the Lord? Who were his more prominent faithful fellow-laborers? In fact all of whom? How typed? 

(56) What does 1 Sam. 8 do as to the antitype? Whom does Samuel represent for the Jewish Harvest? In most of the Gospel Age until about 1850? For what did they arrange? What is the Biblical proof for this arrangement? How typed? Of what two kinds have the elders in each of the pertinent movements been? Upon what was this distinction not based? Rather, upon what was it based? How did they compare officially? How did they differ individually? By the Lord's will what did the abler ones become? To what did this doubtless lead? How do matters now stand in this respect? In our Pastor's day? Why is this so? How did matters in this respect stand during the Apostolic days? Despite Apostolic disapproval, what evils existed among some elders, i.e., bishops? How do the cited Scriptures prove this point? What did this not imply? What did it imply? What did all do? 

(57) Shortly after John's death how was the leading elder designated? How was this term first used? Under whose lead did a change set in, about 115 A.D.? What was the change? Into what did this misdevelopment increase? How was this deterioration typed? Whom did Joel, Samuel's first-born, type? Abiah, his second-born? What did they first type? Later on? Like whom were two kinds of elders in the twelve Little Flock movements before their perversion into sects? How were they after such perversion? What kind of a typical character have 1 Sam. 8 and much of the events connected with Saul? At first what did these two kinds of elders teach? How typed? What three classes of things did the falling and fallen leaders seek? How is each typed? According to Church history, where did these two classes of leaders in general and particular do such acts? In whose ways did they thus not follow? How typed? 

(58) What did the better leaders in each of the twelve denominations do as to this situation? How typed? To whom did they submit the situation? How typed? In what character condition did they find them? How typed? What did those better leaders tell them? How typed? What did they then request? How typed? What examples were cited in corroboration in type and antitype? How 

Samuel. 

179 

did this request strike the Little Flock, especially its leaders? How typed? What did these properly do? How typed? Why did God give the answer, type and antitype? How was the answer given, type and antitype? What was His answer, type and antitype? What typical and antitypical correction did God give these? What procedure do both the type and the antitype prove that God at times follows? What comfort did God give, type and antitype? 

(59) What did God give antitypical Samuel to understand? Amid what events? How typed? Before giving his consent, what was antitypical Samuel charged to do to the people? How was the charge given? How typed? Why and how was antitypical Samuel to protest? How typed? How did antitypical Samuel act toward the charge? How typed? What did he show them? How typed? What seven things did antitypical Samuel tell the people the crown-lost leaders would do to their stronger ones? How is each of these seven things typed? What three things did antitypical Samuel say they would do to the people's weaker ones? How is each of these three things typed? What three things of theirs did antitypical Samuel say they would give to their servants? How is each of these three things typed? What tithes, type and antitype, would be levied for their servants? What would they do with the Little Flock and Great Company brethren, their best students and warriors and their teachings? How typed? What would they do with the Lord's people? How typed? What would they do to those who desired to make them their leaders? How typed? How would these oppressions affect the people? How typed? From whom would they seek deliverance from their oppressors? How typed? What would God do to their cries? How typed? 

(60) What was the effect of the star-members', etc., protests? How typed? In what did the people persist? How typed? When in each of the twelve Little Flock movements did this course set in? What is meant, type and antitype, by the words, "like all the nations"? Why did they so desire, type and antitype? What did the star-members, etc., do to the people? How typed? What did they do before the Lord? How typed? How and what did God answer? How typed? What was then done, type and antitype? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

180 

(61) In what did the antitype of 1 Sam. 8 occur? What, apart from illustrations, was given above? With what movement will the antitype be illustrated? Give the types of 1 Sam. 8 and their antitypes in their various parts as illustrated in the Wesleyan movement. How did this matter stand in the other eleven Little Flock movements later perverted into eleven denominations? What will here be unnecessary?