JEHU. JEHOHOAZ. JEHOASH. JEROBOAM II. ZACHARIAH. ATHALIAH. JOASH. 

‍

THE AUTOCRATIC later course of the fourth phase of the Anglican movement (antitypical Jehoram of Israel), especially in the king and the episcopate, exercised through the doctrine of the Divine right of kings and clergy in theory and practice, provoked toward 1616 resentment very widely, which came to the attention of God's mouthpiece. Some of the main members of God's mouthpiece from 1616 to 1646, the period now to be discussed, were Bros. Jacobs, Bolton, Sibbs, Adams, Leighton, Burton, Bastwick, Prynne (the last four had their ears cut off and their noses slit for their opposition to autocracy in state and church), Marshall, Calamy, Milton, Goodwin, Owen, Lightfoot, etc. They, therefore, decided from the principles of God's Word and the indications of the Divine providence, that the time had come to arouse, as forecast, the Puritans in their Presbyterian party, who were inclined to be revolutionists (Jehu, living, or energetic one), to overthrow autocracy in state and church. To this end God's mouthpiece in the Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregational Churches (Elisha, mighty deliverer, or God is deliverance) prepared in knowledge certain of their hangers-on for the work of such arousing; and after the preparation of these in knowledge was sufficient, they exhorted them to undertake this service, telling them to betake themselves to the sphere of power-preeminence (2 Kings 9:1; Ramoth Gilead, height of the rough). They further told these that they were to seek out from among the groups there 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

384 

assembled the most energetic class of Puritans, the Presbyterians (Jehu, the living, or energetic one), that, while it was supporting the power-preeminence of the Anglican movement against the Romanist movement, was qualified to execute God's judgments (Jehoshaphat, Jehovah judges) and to expose the dominant evils (Nimshi, exposer), God's mouthpiece cautioning them to work in secret with that class of Puritans (2). Moreover, they instructed these hangers-on to take the pertinent Divine knowledge, and by this qualify and arouse the pertinent class to the forecast work and to assure it that God Himself was setting it apart to become the dominant party in Britain. Finally, God's mouthpiece charged the hangers-on to depart immediately after this work was done, and for no reason to delay leaving immediately thereafter (3). 

(2) Accordingly, these hangers-on betook themselves at once on their errand (4). By their manner and teaching they aroused the attention of the leading groups that defended the power-preeminence of the fourth Anglican movement against Romanism, and that in such a way as made the Presbyterian Puritan opposers of autocracy in state and church wonder to which one among the groups they desired to give their message. The latter assured the former that it was the one desired (5). Privacy was desired and secured for the intended preparation of the Presbyterian Puritan opposers of autocracy for their work of overthrowing it. Hence privately the hangers-on gave these Puritan opponents of autocracy the involved qualification of head and heart, assuring them that God Himself was qualifying them to be the less favored Divinely appointed movement among God's people (6). They declared further that God charged them to refute and overthrow the fourth Anglican movement, their dominators and all the peculiar institutions of the four Anglican movements; to wreak the Lord's vengeance upon the Anglican Church for its persecution of God's mouthpieces and servants (7); to destroy 

Some Middle Parallels 

385 

utterly all autocracy and autocrats and to cut off refutatively and officially from it and them—those who defile the powers of state and church and those who for this course should be restrained and forsaken, i.e., their supporters, whom they should restrain and abandon for such support (8); for God would desolate Anglicism in its four movements from representing Him as the less favored Divine movement, just as He had done to the two Lutheran and the two Calvinistic movements as the less favored Divine movement (9), and would give the Anglican Church to be devoured by sectarians in its union of state and church, so that none would honor her in her destruction. Having thus discharged their mission, the hangers-on immediately left the scene of their pertinent activities with all speed (10). The main secular members of antitypical Jehu from 1616 to 1646 were Coke, Eliot, Hollis, Pym, Haselrig, Hampden, Vane, Cromwell, etc. The main religious members of antitypical Jehu were Jacobs, Prynne, Marshall, Calamy, Young, Newcomen, Spurstow, Milton, etc., all very able and brave men. 

(3) Before proceeding further it would be well if there are pointed out some facts that will help us to note better the relation of type and antitype in the study of Jehu in their chronological aspects. The chronology for the actual 30 years' reign of Jehu is 905 to 875 B.C., while the antitypical chronology in its parallels is 1616 to 1646 A. D. It will be noted that the only chronology that the Bible gives of Jehu's reign is its beginning and ending (10:36), except, of course, the comparisons of his reign with that of Jehoahaz, which came at the end of Jehu's, and with that of Joash (12:1; 13:1). But to the events of Jehu's reign itself, apart from its start and end, the Bible gives no dates. This fact is important to be kept in mind, because in the antitype the revolutionary acts had only small beginnings from 1616 onward until the Long Parliament assembled, Nov. 3, 1640. These small revolutionary acts consisted of public verbal agitations

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

386 

against autocracy in state and church made by the Puritans at each tyrannous act in church and state, especially in the former, later in protests in the courts at the same for the rights of individuals being outraged and in outcries in the parliament, whose protests led to their repeated proroguing by James I and afterwards by Charles I, both of them ruling for years without parliament's sitting, which was in gross violation of the British constitution. Since we know that Biblical prophecies and types in their chronology usually mark the beginnings of the forecast events, we can see that the above-mentioned protests are marked in the type as the antitype of Jehu's beginning his revolution, though it took 30 years for the antitype to reach the end of the revolution's full success, in April, 1646, when Charles I, utterly defeated in war by the revolutionists, surrendered to the Scots, the English revolutionists' allies, who kept him as a prisoner. This enables us to see how the great events and results of the English civil war were the outgrowths of the seed of small but growing protests as the formers' beginnings. This principle, accordingly, enables us to see how the pertinent 30 years' protests, struggles, battles and triumphs of the British patriots against the tyranny of the two Stuarts, James I and Charles I, and of the episcopate, are the parallel antitypes of Jehu's 30 years' acts as king of Israel. 

(4) The beginning of the 30 years' revolt against Church tyranny was the public formation in London of a Congregational Church under the pastoral care of Mr. Henry Jacobs, who, exiled to Holland, returned to England and formed this Church in 1616, as a protest against the Anglican Church, whose head, the king, James I, was; and the beginning of the 30 years' revolt against state tyranny was Chief Justice Coke's refusal to set aside secular law at the king's command in 1616. The King's Book of Sports, 1618, charging the people to engage in all sorts of games Sunday afternoons, met with much Presbyterian 

Some Middle Parallels 

387 

Puritan opposition. His condemning the Calvinism of the Presbyterian Puritans and disfavoring them and favoring the Armenians against his former convictions increased the formers' opposition. In 1620 he forbade parliament to interfere with his government and aroused it to a protest, which he tore out of its minutes. This tyrannous act made many turn against him in and outside of parliament, who before had no sympathy with the oppressed Presbyterian Puritans. His compromising with Romanists to gain their support connected with his negotiating a marriage between the Prince of Wales and the Spanish king's daughter, his leaving his Protestant son-in-law in the lurch in the latter's war with the papists in the Thirty Years' War and his securing a marriage between the Prince of Wales and Henrietta, the bigoted papist daughter of the French king, which resulted in many advantages to the English Romanists, and was accompanied with the usual Jesuit conspiracies in England one and all aroused opposition, while his ruling for years without parliament's meeting could not but provoke resentment among the liberty-loving English. 

(5) Charles I, becoming king in 1625, schooled in his father's absolutism and egged on to tyranny by his Romanist wife, who constantly urged him to be an absolute king like her father, out did his father in tyranny and grossest hypocrisy and dishonesty with parliament and people, all of which met with resentment. His seeking to force parliament to sanction his violations of the constitution, his arousing the episcopacy through the Court of High Commission and the Star Chamber to persecute dissent from the Anglican Church and ritual, his having its hierarchy and clergy preach the Divine right of kings and clergy, to subdue all to him, his proroguing parliament for refusing to sanction his illegalities and for setting forth grievances against his tyranny, his supporting the tyrannies and Romanizings of the episcopate, especially of Laud, the primate, his imprisonment in the Tower of four 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

388 

leading members of parliament for their righteous protests, e.g., the great and good Eliot detained there until death, his ruling for eleven years without parliament, his permitting prominent opponents of Laudism to be mutilated and pilloried, his making England so uncomfortable for Puritans that many of the best citizens left the country, his prohibiting further exoduses of this kind, his illegal assessing of taxes, his overawing the courts to deny redress to petitioners against these exactions, e.g., Hamden's appeal, his allowing the episcopate to draw a half of chancery business into their hand, which it exercised most tyrannously, his allowing them to hold court in their own names, to form new articles of visitation and to put the examined under oath, his seeking to impose the episcopacy upon the Scotch Presbyterians with all their papistical ritualism, his raising an army to subdue them in their opposition, his baiting the long Parliament, his seeking to arrest its five leaders against his tyrannies and his making war on the long Parliament—one and all provoked great resentment against him and the episcopate, especially against its leader, Laud; and these are some of the main events that aroused the actors in the antitype of Jehu's revolution and reign. We will now trace the matter, type and antitype. 

(6) At each of the above-mentioned tyrannies the hangers-on, at the instigation of God's mouthpiece, secretly stirred up the Presbyterian Puritans to revolutionism, and after each of such arousings the latter showed themselves to the groups who were their associates in opposition to Romanists' gaining power-preeminence in England, i.e., the Presbyterians, and later on the less loyal Congregationalists and the Baptists and parliament, the low church party in the Anglican Church and the radical liberty-lovers, e.g., Milton, Ludlow, Harrington, etc., i.e., republicans, who asked whether all was prosperous and what, to them, the fanatical hangers-on desired. They denied knowing what secretively the Puritans told them that they understood 

Some Middle Parallels 

389 

(11). Not understanding the matter, these Presbyterians denied the Puritans' pertinent statements, whereupon the latter told them, after each of such visits and questionings, that these had told them that God was arousing them to lead a revolution (12). And at each stage of the long-drawn-out arousements to oppose the pertinent tyrannies, the above-mentioned groups responded by agreeing to support the Presbyterian opponents of the involved tyranny, offering the support of their several authorities in the heights of their position, and announced by word and act that the energetic Presbyterian Puritan revolutionists were the leader in revolution against the tyranny of king and prelacy (13). Accordingly, the energetic Presbyterian Puritans as executors of God's justice and as exposers of the evils of absolutism in state and church, took counsel with their above-mentioned supporters to overthrow the fourth phase of the Anglican movement, and that at a time it and the rest of Protestants were maintaining its hold on power-preeminence against the radical Romanists (14). So far in this conflict extreme Anglican arbitrary prelacy, the form that antitypical Jehoram had assumed toward the end of its course, had received severe setbacks through James I's blundering compromises with Romanists in England, compromises that continued for years after 1616 and that sorely wounded the prelates in their ascendancy, as did also their Romanizing tendencies, all of which inclined increasing numbers to give increasing support as time went on to the energetic Presbyterian Puritans, as they were more and more, as time went on from 1616 onward, aroused to oppose prelacy. These, recognizing that they ever increasingly received this support, required that no information of these matters be allowed to reach state and church quarters (15). 

(7) Assured of sufficient support, the energetic Presbyterian Puritans with their supporters advanced revolutionarily to attack the fourth Anglican movement as it was combined with the state, and as it was,

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

390 

because of its anti-Romanist conflict, helped by the autocratic Congregationalist movement (16). Their progress in such opposition to arbitrary prelacy was noted by the latter's sentinels in state and church united, who reported what they obscurely observed. Ever suspicious, arbitrary prelacy commanded an ecclesiastical investigation to be made, to find out whether the revolting energetic Presbyterian Puritans intended to keep the peace (17). This ecclesiastical investigation was accordingly made, but the revolting energetic Presbyterian Puritans, doubting the sincerity of their question as to peace, restrained them from returning word to their senders, which fact was noted by the united state-church sentinels (18). Then a state investigation was ordered; for antitypical Jehu was active in state as well as in church matters. But this investigation resulted as the first one resulted (19). The investigations, like the other matters connected with the English revolution, were as repeatedly made as their provoking acts were repeatedly committed. Antitypical Jehoram's sentinels reported the results as the same as those of the preceding attempt, and further announced that the progress of the oncomers was like that of revolting active Presbyterian Puritans, whom they described as progressing as insane ones (20). Hearing this, arbitrary prelacy charged that their organization be made ready, which also the supporting arbitrary Congregational movement likewise did; and thus each in his separate organization went forth to oppose the enraged Presbyterian Puritans; and in the sphere and on the subject of persecution of dissenters they became involved in strife, which increasingly progressed for years after 1616 (21). 

(8) Arbitrary prelacy as repeatedly demanded to know whether peace was intended as the Presbyterian Puritans repeatedly advanced in hostility. The latter replied that peace was impossible as long as the Anglican Church so abounded in her illicit union with the arbitrary prelacy and as long as her errors of doctrine 

Some Middle Parallels 

391 

and practice abounded (22). This answer was as oft given by act as the question was asked. The continuance of strife between these parties caused arbitrary prelacy to seek security by flight, at the same time accusing the Presbyterian Puritans, who also belonged under protest to the Anglican Church, of treachery before the arbitrary Congregational movement (23). Unleashing with all their might their sharp theologico-political arguments against arbitrary prelacy, the Presbyterian Puritans completely refuted the former in their organization; and as the involved 30 years progressed, they took away their powers, prerogatives and office, entirely abrogating these and those of their supporting clergy (24). The revolting Presbyterian Puritans by petitions, demands, etc., asked parliament (Bidkar, stabber), which increasingly during the involved 30 years, in many of its members, and in the last 5½ years as a body, led the Puritan revolutionists in their thrusts and warfare against autocracy in church and state, to make autocratic prelacy drink the cup of oppression and persecution which they had made the purer form of Congregationalism drink, because this would be in fulfilment of the word that both of them remembered, and that was spoken by God, while they acted under the second phase of the Anglican movement, which persecuted the mouthpieces and servants of God (25); since God had declared that He had kept in mind the persecution and oppression of His saintly mouthpieces and their supporters, and that He would requite the guilty house of the oppressor and persecutor in the sphere of oppression and persecution. Hence the revolting Presbyterian Puritans requested parliament to throw these into the sphere of oppression and persecution according to the Word of God, which was done (26). 

(9) The revolting Presbyterian Puritans dealt summarily with autocratic Congregationalism in its cooperation with autocratic prelacy, the type of which is found in vs. 27-29 and in 2 Chro. 22:7, 9. The harmony 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

392 

of the two accounts will appear from our explanation of the antitype. The Lord arranged for the destruction of the autocratic phase of Congregationalism in connection with its cooperation with arbitrary prelacy against the revolting and exposing Presbyterian Puritans whom God had qualified to destroy the phases of that Anglican movement (7). Autocratic Congregationalism sought to escape from antitypical Jehu by evading responsibility for the fruitage that antitypical Ahab sought to get out of his spoils gotten from the oppressed Congregationalists. But the supporters of the exposing and revolting Presbyterian Puritans pursued them and found them involved in church politics, whence they took them and brought them to the Presbyterian Puritans; but they again escaped; and the Puritans charged their supporters to refute them, which they did while they were seeking to ascend to a strong position (Gur, lion's whelp) in the presence of a united people (Ibleam, confluence of people). This refutation was a partial one, after which they continued to flee the doctrinal and practical positions of the Puritans; but the effects of the refutation became complete as the opposing forces clashed in destructive conflict (Megiddo, destruction). These were by their supporters given respect as constituting a movement of God's more favored people, but they had no power to retain their office functions after exercising that power a year (27-29; 9). 

(10) Vs. 30-37 type the destruction of the Anglican Church, which the revolutionists began to effect, first by argument and then, second, through the Long Parliament's enactments shortly after its opening. In his desperation at the need of funds, and after ruling unconstitutionally for eleven years without it, Charles I issued a call; April 13, 1640, for it to be elected and later to meet; and it assembled Nov. 11, 1640. While the Presbyterian Puritans, by 1640 joined by the compromising Congregationalists, were fighting the doctrines and practices of the Anglican Church for years 

Some Middle Parallels 

393 

before the assembling of the Long Parliament, by Charles I's support the prelates and clergy of that Church remained in power all the years previous to the assembling of the Long Parliament. But the revolutionists in church and state after the assembling of that parliament gave their special attention to the subject of union of the arbitrary prelates and the Anglican Church; and on the Anglican Church noting this fact, it tried to beauty-parlor itself as to its theories and practices into attractiveness to the revolutionists; and in this condition it took a public position to observe the revolutionists' doings (30). Perceiving their unfriendly attitude on the subject and their increasing abridgment of her powers and privileges, she sarcastically upbraided their claims of seeking by reforms to give her prosperity, by asking whether the exposers, refuters and overthrowers of their superior, the fourth Anglican movement, could have prosperity in mind for her (31). Stung by this sarcastic upbraiding, and fixing of their hostile attention upon her in her public position, they by various inimical moves emphatically asked as to who among her adherents would support them against her; for there were many of her supporters (1) in the House of Commons, (2) in the House of Lords, and (3) among her less prominent members, who, however, under the repeated exposures of her wrong-doing, gradually and increasingly, as reform measure after reform measure passed by them was opposed by her, losing confidence in her, became increasingly opposed to her, though when the Long Parliament first assembled the bulk of its members, both in Commons and Lords, were her supporters (32). 

(11) Increasingly the revolting Presbyterian Puritans by their ever-increasing demands for the reform of the Anglican Church's abuses were favorably responded to by the Commons and the Lords and their adherents, with repressive measures that withdrew one power and privilege after another from her, hurling her down by increasing degrees from her high 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

394 

position unto complete disruption; for in the end they not only took away from her all her special powers and privileges, deprived her bishops of the privilege of sitting in the House of Lords as lords spiritual, deprived them of their episcopal office, imprisoned all of them, took away her revenues from church property, cast out her clergy of scandalous lives, withdrew the salaries of her clergy, dissanctioned her creed (the 39 articles), abolished her liturgy, suppressed her superstitious Romanizing usages, displaced her clergy with Puritan clergy, finally dissolving the union between her and the state. Thus they hurled her down from her high estate. In her destruction she defiled the powers of the state and its laws, while the revolting Presbyterian Puritans oppressed her and committed the most debasing indignities upon her (33). Turning from their destructive work against her, the revolting Presbyterian Puritans appropriated whatever was of value in her to themselves, including her property, influence, office of teaching and preaching, etc. While thus engaged they charged that, though resting under God's and man's curse, she should be disposed of with as much respect as behooved a church born from the union of the state and Romanism (34). But those who undertook to dispose of her remains found that the only things of her that remained were the memory of her creed, of her conduct and of her ministries (35). Reporting this fact to the revolting Presbyterian Puritans, the latter declared that this was in fulfilment of the forecast that the Lord made through His uncompromising mouthpiece in the days of the second phase of the Anglican movement anent its persecution of the Congregationalists at the Anglican Church's instigation, when the aforesaid mouthpiece declared that sectarians would appropriate to themselves everything belonging to the Anglican Church (except her creed, conduct and ministries) in relation to her union with the Anglican movements (36); for they forecast that everywhere in society the Anglican Church would be regarded 

Some Middle Parallels 

395 

as refuse anent her union with the Anglican movements, and thus none would respect her memory (37). 

(12) The antitype of 2 Kings 9 gives us the generalities of the Puritan revolution from 1616 to 1646 in Britain, as the less favored movement of the real people of God, in overthrowing the fourth Anglican movement and the Anglican Church; and the antitype of 2 Kings 10 gives us the detail thereon and, additionally, how absolutism in state and church was overthrown; while in a subordinate way the former chapter tells of the overthrow of the more favored movement of God's real people, and the latter chapter gives a few details thereon. These details will come out briefly as we go on in our discussion of chapter 10. The most autocratic of the Anglican movements, the second of these, had developed a counterfeit of the 70 secondarily prophets, in the archbishops and bishops, on the one hand, and in the suffragan bishops, the deans and archdeacons of the Anglican Church, on the other hand, the bulk of whom were, of course, more responsible than any others for the gross abuses of power of which that and the two following Anglican movements had become guilty. These abuses became heaven-crying; and the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans gradually came to the determination to depose all of these. But they did not at first come out plainly on this subject. Rather, their conduct for years became a living and slowly written epistle to the ecclesiastical leaders in the union of the fourth Anglican movement and the Anglican Church, and especially to the leading bishops, like Laud and Williams, and leading helpers of the hierarchy and higher clergy (2 Kings 10:1), suggesting that they set up another Anglican movement, inasmuch as they had all the organizations, teachings, ecclesiasticism and controversial materials necessary to start up such a movement (2), being sure that they select a good and just one to be enthroned, whom they should defend; for we are not to forget that the revolution at first was an agitation

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

396 

merely to reform the evils of Anglicanism, and not to overthrow it (3). 

(13) But overawed by the increasing opposition of the Presbyterian Puritan leaders, seconded by the bulk of the nation; which was increasingly angered by the exposures of Anglicanism made in and out of parliament, and frightened by the overthrow of the less favored (the fourth Anglican) and the more favored (the third Congregationalist) movements of God's real people, these leaders, after their efforts at reform failed, concluded that they could no more make headway against the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans (4). Accordingly, by leaders in church and parliament, as well as in the army, they gradually became subject to the Puritan Presbyterian revolutionists, agreeing to carry out their wishes; for it was a remarkable fact of those times that some who were at first supporters of the Anglican church, hierarchy and clergy took a large part in disestablishing the church and overthrowing its hierarchy and higher clergy (5). After they had acknowledged and exercised submission to, and cooperation with the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans, the latter, not only by words and acts, but also by pertinent laws passed by parliament, in which the revolutionaries as the majority were led by men like Pym, Hollis, Vane, Hampden, Cromwell, Haselrig, Selden, etc., commanded their supporters as gradually as the pertinent laws were passed, to strip the hierarchy and the higher clergy of power after power, prerogative after prerogative, possession after possession and office after office, until they were unbishoped, undeaned and unarchdeaconed and with their great ones and supporters were made subject to the revolutionists' church arrangements (6). And, peculiarly, it was the former leading supporters of these that, as required by the revolutionaries, enforced these laws, and that within the time limits set by these laws; for they forced the hierarchy and higher clergy and their great ones and supporters to come into subjection to 

Some Middle Parallels 

397 

the new church movement then formed by the reformers into antitypical Jehu; and they were brought there in harmony with the laws that they themselves, acting in one capacity, helped to make and, acting in another, to enforce. Not only were the hierarchy and higher clergy deposed, but the bishops were dispossessed of membership in the House of Lords and were imprisoned in the Tower (7). 

(14) Word of such treatment of the Anglican hierarchy and higher clergy reached the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans as gradually and increasingly as this treatment gradually and increasingly went on; for this was a matter that covered years until it was brought to a completion. Thereafter the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans had them set forth very publicly unto a completion as of two distinct groups, and that through the writings of Puritans, particularly through the pertinent writings of Smectymmeus (a word formed by the initials of its six authors) and of John Milton, the brightest star on the literary firmament of contemporary Britain, as well as through the writings of less prominent lights, all of whom poured out a flood of writings against prelacy and its chief supporters (8). When the task was well done in each of its parts, the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans appeared publicly in their places, attracting the attention of the whole people on the question as to who (it was especially parliament who did it—the one-time chief support of the bishops, etc.) had cut off the bishops and their higher clerical adjutants, acknowledging that they had deliberately planned the overthrow of the fourth phase of the Anglican movement, and assuring the people that they were righteous in the situation (9). Then the Presbyterian Puritans told the people that they should recognize at that time that not a word of God's uncompromising mouthpiece (spoken during and anent the second phase of the Anglican movement and the Anglican Church under Elizabeth for their persecution of the saintly Puritans, Baptists, Congregationalists

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

398 

and other independent Christians) was spoken in failure of fulfilment, and that God had fulfilled that word then spoken by His uncompromising mouthpiece, now before their very eyes (10). The Presbyterian Puritans continued their verbal and legal attacks against all the rest who stood for the second, third and fourth phases of the Anglican movement, as these were united with the Anglican Church, even the clergy, the principals of the laity, their sympathizers and their sacrificers, and continued it so long and thoroughly that there remained none of such (11). 

(15) Then the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans turned their hostile attention to church politics, at first particularizing their attention to the part therein taken by the clergy who had been intent on fleecing the flock by tithes, fees, etc. (12). That the 42 brethren of Ahaziah were his cousins, as in oriental countries cousins are also called brethren, is evident from the fact that Ahaziah was the only son of Jehoram of Judah that was not slain by the Arabians (2 Chro. 21:12; 22:1). The supporters of the autocratic Congregationalist movement (antitypical Ahaziah) as alleged special helpers of the star-members (7 sets of these, totaling 49 brethren) are shown to be evil, but the special helpers of such (42 = 6 X 7, 6 being the number of evil and imperfection and 7 being that of the star-member sets, 7 X 7 = 49); for they acted autocratically over, and fleeced the Lord's people, being overtaken in the act by the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans, who being apprized by their acts of their unshepherdly characters, and of their purpose to prosper the supporters of the fourth Anglican movement and the Anglican Church (13), charged that they all be shorn of all their powers, prerogatives, and offices in connection with the slanders occasioned by the clergy's covetousness, which was also done (14). 

(16) Then the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans gave their special attention to the Long Parliament (Jehonadab, Jehovah is bounteous), which, consisting

Some Middle Parallels 

399 

in a good part of revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans, trusting in God's bountiful help and being the manager of organized British affairs (Rechab, camel driver), after it came into session from parliament's nearly 12 years' dissolution, became the reforming power in England in matters of state and church, and in a friendly and helpful spirit approached the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans. These, constituting a large part, yea, the majority of the English people, especially of the Londoners, sought to win parliament to its side and expressed loyalty to it. Little by little and more and more parliament made a favorable response to their desires; and they pledged mutual support and cooperation. Thereafter parliament was taken by the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans into their organization (15). The latter desired the former to witness their zeal for God and God's cause; and thus unitedly these two groups worked together against the fourth Anglican movement, the Anglican Church and the autocratic king, court and army (16). On entering the sphere of church politics, they cut off every supporter of the Anglican Church, particularly those who make politics of religion, even setting aside the Book of Common Prayer, the 39 Articles and the canons of the Anglican Church—in a word, disrupted entirely the Anglican Church, its organization, officers, liturgy, creed and laws, all this in fulfilment of God's Word spoken by His uncompromising mouthpiece (17). 

(17) We now come to the overthrow of power-grasping and lording it over God's people as this is typed in vs. 18-29. Through the revolutionary agitations, partly along religious lines and more along the lines of state and church politics in the Long Parliament, the Presbyterian Puritans gathered the British people together along the lines of excitement and partisanship on the involved questions. Their acts of taking more and more of the king's and bishops' powers to themselves gave the people the idea that they in their religious domain were going to act more 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

400 

autocratically than the second phase of the Anglican movement (18). These acts were a charge that all the propagandists of absolutism in its power-grasping and lording and their supporters and sacrificers, without exception, be gathered together as a party separate and distinct from the liberty-lovers; their conduct giving the impression that they were going at great self-denial to sacrifice to the principle of autocracy in state and church and to cut off all privileges of those power-grasping lords, their supporters and sacrificers who failed to join in this service to power-grasping and lording. At the time, while giving these impressions, they hid their purpose to put down the tyranny of the autocrats (19). The revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans caused to be proclaimed that fasts, watchings, prayers, sermons and speeches be had in and out of parliament anent this work (20). These agitations and proclamations aroused the attention of all England and resulted in the autocrats assembling into one party, some of whom did their assembling about the autocratic King Charles I, i.e., in the state, the others about the autocratic Archbishop Laud, i.e., in the Anglican Church. And the stress of partisanship was so great that all autocratically inclined assembled to this party in its two aspects. These assembled in the sphere of serving autocracy, which was filled from end to end (21). 

(18) The revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans came in concealed hostility to the sphere of serving autocracy, as though they would support it, and so pressed matters on the lawyers and judges that these were charged to invest by their legal opinions the autocrats with the authorization to further autocracy. This these lawyers and judges did in setting forth such legal points as gave precedents of autocracy in British history and courts, a thing that, among other ways, shows itself in Hampden's appeal to the high court against the king's tyranny being overruled by the majority of that court (22). These Presbyterian Puritans in the religious

Some Middle Parallels 

401 

sphere and the Long Parliament, largely Puritan, as the organized director of the revolutionists, in the religious and political sphere came to the sphere of autocracy and by their course charged that no liberty-lover be permitted in that sphere, but only the autocrats and their supporters were to be there (23). As the autocrats lent their services to autocracy, even to the degree of Charles' appearing, in gross violation of parliament's rights, in parliament to arrest its five leading anti-autocratic members, and of his assembling an army and declaring war on parliament, which in accepting the challenge declared that its army was fighting to rescue the king from his abductors (subtlety, v. 19), the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans arranged for their best debaters to be stationed about the active autocrats and their supporters as they were serving autocracy, but outside its sphere, and by word and act charged these to refute in detail such, and warned them that at their peril would they fail in this refutative work (24). 

(19) But as soon as the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans finished their pretended service of autocracy, they charged the champions of anti-autocracy to fight these in state and church in the arena of debate, e.g., Hampden, refusing to pay an illegal tax called ship tax, appealed his cause to the courts and won the argument, though the majority of the court in fear of the king decided against him; but the nation in its large majority favored his argument. Milton and lesser lights poured out one pamphlet and book after another in the conflict. Pym and others in parliament made one unanswerable speech after another against autocracy, blaming, not the king ("The king can do no wrong"), but his civil and ecclesiastical ministers. In the argument the autocrats and their supporters were completely refuted. The agitation became so overwhelming that Lord Stratford, Charles I's chief political adviser and supporter, and Laud, his chief religious adviser and supporter, were impeached and beheaded; 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

402 

and the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans, casting out of office all autocrats, overthrew the Anglican Church as the religious government of autocracy (25). All the theories of autocracy as theories and the practices flowing out of them they overthrew, and by the civil war that ensued they broke up the whole structure of autocracy and, defiling it, left it as an unclean thing in theory and practice (27). In this way autocracy was from then to this day left in wreck and ruins, no more in Britain to come into power (28). 

(20) But while the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans destroyed autocracy in state and church, they fostered without deviation clericalism and sectarianism, which had been introduced unto making Protestantism idolistic, by the first phase of the Lutheran movement; for they favored Presbyterianism, which under their sanction and appointment drew up the Westminster Confession and catechisms and a form of worship for the church, as they favored the various sects of that time, particularly Presbyterianism and Congregationalism (29). By His providences and the principles of His Word God approved of the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans' executing His word and will on the Anglican movements and the Anglican Church, and promised them long, but not perpetual continuance as the less favored movement of His real people (30). However, they did not take heed to walk wholeheartedly in the Truth then due and to eschew clericalism and sectarianism as taught in the Word; for they continued to advocate and practice these sins as introduced into Protestantism by the first Lutheran movement (31). It was in the period of the first phase of the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans (1616-1646) that the Romanists made invasions and conquest in Britain and Germany. This began through the compromising spirit of James I, who, to win as a bride for Charles the daughter of Spain's Romanist king, yielded much to Rome in withholding support from his son-in-law, attacked by the Austrian and Spanish 

Some Middle Parallels 

403 

Romanists in the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648). 

(21) Failing to win her as the bride of Charles, he entered into compromises with Romanism to win Henrietta, a bigoted Romanist and daughter of France's king, as a bride for Charles. Successful therein, he had to permit many liberties to Romanists in Britain, contrary to law and the strong convictions of the bulk of his Britons. Henrietta was involved in the arousing of the Irish in the Irish massacres, in which in Ulster alone 154,000 were massacred or exiled, besides untold thousands undergoing these fates in other parts of Ireland. During the civil war Henrietta absconded from England with the royal jewels and with their purchase price hired Romanist soldiers (B 340, 341) to invade England to help her husband, Charles I, against the parliament's army. Charles' favoring Romanists for Henrietta's sake, who urged him on to autocratic acts ("Be a king," which she understood to mean to rule autocratically, as did the French kings), British Romanists flocked to his standard against parliament and did some of the chief fighting in his army. Through these compromises Romanists not only gained a measure of temporary control in Britain and Ireland (Gilead, rough, Manassites, forgetters), but did the same in Germany (Reuben, lo, a son) and Bohemia and Moravia (Gad, fortunate), in all of which, from Britain (Gilead) to Protestantism abroad (Bashan, campaign country), Britain as the chief Protestant power had and should have preserved Protestant influence (Jordan, descender, eastward), but lost it unto restrained Romanism (Aroer, enclosure) and her tumultuous (Arnon, noisy) adherents (33). These and other deeds and powers of the first phase of the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans are abundantly described in the historical works, especially in those of British historians treating of the years 1616-1646 (34). They have been in respectful remembrance by the rightly informed, in unison with their Puritan predecessors for their deeds as to church

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

404 

politics, and were succeeded by the Presbyterian (Jehoahaz, Jehovah keeps) Puritans in a reconstructing but weak phase (35), after serving out their full period in church politics (36). 

(22) Jehu was succeeded in 875 B. C. by his son Jehoahaz (Jehovah preserves—a name given to him in allusion to God's preserving this king and his antitype despite many adverse circumstances, v. 1), who reigned for 14 years, according to the compared dates of his reign with those of Joash of Judah; hence he reigned until 861 B. C. Paralleling his reign is the course of the Presbyterian Puritans (from 1646 to 1660; see the chronological tables in P '40, 181, 182), who as the antitype of Jehoahaz pursued a half-way revolutionary course as to autocracy in state and church, and therefore may, in contrast with antitypical Jehu, who was energetically revolutionary, be called compromisingly revolutionary. During the antitypical Jehu phase the Presbyterian Puritans as revolutionists were supported especially by Congregationalist Puritans, and in a very minor, yea, almost negligible degree, by the Baptist Puritans. And as long as the first two had autocracy in state and church to deal with as their opponents, i.e., during the period of antitypical Jehu, they held together quite well, despite their disagreement on matters of church government. But shortly after they had conquered autocracy in state and church, i.e., shortly after the antitypical Jehoahaz phase set in, differences between them began to appear. The Presbyterian Puritans had their main power in the Long Parliament, which they controlled, while the Congregationalist Puritans had their main power in the army, which was overwhelmingly Congregational, and whose ablest and most successful leader was the Congregationalist Oliver Cromwell. The latter as warrior, statesman and ruler was one of the greatest of Englishmen; yea, it is doubtful if ever another Englishman from a combination of these three standpoints ever equaled him. He was a sincere patriot

Some Middle Parallels 

405 

desiring his beloved England's welfare, to secure which he fought to a complete defeat the army of Charles I, that of the Irish revolutionists and that of the Scotch royalists. But to secure England's welfare he at times violated features of the English constitution and laws. 

(23) As a whole the Jehoahaz phase was an evil one (v. 2). It so greatly favored sectarianism as to have induced its majority in parliament to set it up as the state religion in England, putting the Westminster Confession forth as the creed in place of the Anglican Church's 39 Articles, and its directory of worship in the place of the former's Common Prayer. Yea, it went so far as to authorize a law to put to death deniers of the trinity, Christ's divinity, the resurrection of the body and free-will asserters, and to imprison deniers of Presbyterianism. Such a law was directly opposed to the Congregational doctrine of tolerance for all Protestants and Jews, and aroused Cromwell's unrelenting and successful opposition. Again, the Presbyterian Puritans sought to organize the religion of England on the Presbyterian model of national assemblies, provincial synods and district and local presbyteries, which again greatly outraged the Congregationalists, as this was clericalism, and which again Cromwell as their leader unrelentingly and successfully opposed. In championing sectarianism and clericalism the Presbyterians were guilty of the two sins of the first Lutheran movement (followed the sins of Jeroboam). But there were other evils that antitypical Jehoahaz committed, among which were things that compromised the revolutionary spirit and the fight against Romanism. One of these was their insistence on a union of state and their church, which also antagonized the Congregationalists, especially in the army. Shortly after Charles I fell into the hands of the Long Parliament, i.e., 1646, the Presbyterian Puritans in parliament, contrary to the Congregationalist party in the army, and to secure Cromwell's elimination, sought to effect a reconciliation with Charles

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

406 

that would have greatly compromised the effects of antitypical Jehu's revolution. This step was effectually stopped by Cromwell's interposition with the army. The Presbyterian Puritans, seeing that the army was getting an overweening influence in English affairs, sought to disband it, which, supported by the army, Cromwell prevented. Of course, the clashes between parliament and the army weakened antitypical Jehoahaz, whose main strength was in parliament. 

(24) Just as the Presbyterian majority in parliament was about to effect a reconciliation with Charles I, and to restore him to royalty under conditions which would have given him again the opportunity to tyrannize over England and eliminate Cromwell, the latter sent Col. Pride with two regiments to surround the parliament house and exclude the Presbyterian majority from their seats. This done, the 60 Congregationalist parliamentarians became the sole members of that body and were resultantly called the "Rump Parliament." This act took away from antitypical Jehoahaz all parliamentary power and, of course, greatly weakened them. Great differences arose between many Presbyterian Puritans and the army, because the latter, after seeking a reconciliation with Charles I, found him as deceitful in negotiations as the Presbyterian Puritans had just previously found him to be, and therefore the army and the Rump Parliament decided that Charles must be tried as a tyrant, a traitor and an enemy of the English people. Finding him guilty as charged, they caused him to be beheaded. Upon the Congregationalist Puritans fell the main odium for Charles' execution, "since they constituted the parliament that ordered his trial on capital charges, the army and the Londoners clamoring for his death. But part of the evil effect of the king's beheading, Jan. 30, 1649, fell upon the Presbyterian Puritans and contributed also to their ever-increasing weakness, though they tried to save Charles I from the block, for which their weakness made them incapable. Cromwell's 

Some Middle Parallels 

407 

well's insistence on tolerance for all Protestants and Jews undermined some of antitypical Jehoahaz's influence. Cromwell's absolutism made a reaction in favor of the restoration of the Stuarts to England's throne, in favor of which the Presbyterian Puritans, in one of their huge and fatal compromises, worked. Their course therein gave antitypical Jehoahaz a mortal blow; for it opened the flood gates for a Romanist inundation. Contributory also to their fall on this line were two other things: (1) the inefficiency of Richard Cromwell, who at his father's death succeeded him as Protector of the English Commonwealth, as the English government and nation were called under Oliver Cromwell's rulership, for his inefficiency threw England into disorder and made order-loving people turn toward the monarchy; and (2) the deceitful course of General Monk, who by intrigue created a situation whereby he and the Presbyterian Puritans arranged for Charles' son, the later Charles II, to return and take England's throne. 

(25) Various of the acts of antitypical Jehoahaz set forth in the preceding two paragraphs increasingly turned the Lord against this phase of the revolutionists, antitypical Jehoahaz; and this resulted in many misfortunes coming upon the English people (anger … against Israel, v. 3). This anger of the Lord brought in punishment several things, mentioned in the preceding two paragraphs, upon antitypical Jehoahaz and the English people. In addition to these things, the following may be mentioned as contributory thereto: Charles as Prince of Wales entered Scotland, whose hereditary king he was, and aroused the Scots to make war on England. Cromwell met them at Dunbar, Sept. 3, 1650, and completely crushed their army; and a year later to the day, at Worcester, he crushed the army of the Prince of Wales, who with another army, just before Dunbar, had invaded England from Scotland. These encounters weakened antitypical Jehoahaz: for the Scotch (Presbyterians) were in

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

408 

religious alliance with the Presbyterian Puritans of England. Moreover, these victories aroused foreign Romanists to side with Charles. Cromwell's severe handling of the Romanist Irish revolutionists, for their cruel massacres of, and other wrongs against Irish Protestants, greatly aroused Romanist anger in England, Ireland, Spain, France, Italy and Austria against both the English Congregationalist Puritans and Presbyterian Puritans; and from Romanist machinations trouble was stirred up in England and in foreign countries against England. Charles' escape from England, after his defeat by Cromwell, to France and his intrigues there against both English revolutionary parties made no end of trouble for them—trouble that arose not only amid direct oppositional Romanist works religiously against England (hand of Hazael, v. 3), but also politically through the alliances that first Cromwell and later Charles II made with France and through Romanist political works within England (hand of Ben-hadad)—trouble that was of many years' duration against England, continuing even after James II was driven out of England in 1688 (all their days: literally, all days, the rest of antitypical Hazael's and all of antitypical Ben-hadad's). 

(26) The earlier calamities of antitypical Jehoahaz's reign led its adherents to repentance and to pleading mercy from the Lord, who extended them mercy (besought the Lord … harkened unto him, v. 4), and who had compassion upon them as to their oppressions from Romanists in England, Ireland and Scotland (oppression … king of Syria oppressed them). The Lord gave them deliverance through Oliver Cromwell's victories over the Irish (1649), Scotch (1650) and English (1651) Romanists (gave Israel a saviour … from under the hand of the Syrians, v. 5), so that so far as Britain and Ireland were concerned they dwelt in safety (Israel dwelt … as beforetime). Thus we see that some of the events mentioned in preceding paragraphs were, through Cromwell, deliverances 

Some Middle Parallels 

409 

to the English people and the compromising Presbyterian Puritan revolutionists, antitypical Jehoahaz, from Romanist machinations. Despite these delivering acts neither antitypical Jehoahaz nor the English people gave up sectarianism [the calf at Bethel] and clericalism [the calf at Dan], set up by the first Lutheran movement (departed not from the sins … of Jeroboam, v. 6); for the first Lutheran movement in these two ways led Protestantism in its less favored movements of God's people greatly to sin (made Israel sin). And the virtual union of state and church in feebler manner than that which characterized the various Anglican movements and the Anglican Church still persisted in church and state politics (remained the grove [where unchaste acts occurred] also in Samaria). These wrongs continued to be punished by the Lord until antitypical Jehoahaz was rendered quite powerless; for while Cromwell and his parliaments did not persecute them, they reduced them for their sectarianism and clericalism to impotence (leave … Jehoahaz but fifty … ten … ten thousand, v. 7); for his victorious fights with Romanists continually drew away the support of the people from antitypical Jehoahaz and gave it to him; and thus by indirect effect (threshing) the Romanists (king of Syria) brought about their impotence (destroyed). 

(27) The historians of the period of antitypical Jehoahaz have very detailedly discussed this period (1646-1660) and the events of the compromising revolutionaries, antitypical Jehoahaz (acts … written … chronicles, v. 8): and by the recall of the Prince of Wales to England and by his turning his back to them after becoming Charles II, though they were the chief ones who brought about his return, they came to an end as the compromising Presbyterian Puritan revolutionaries (slept … buried, v. 9); and for the next 18 years the Presbyterian Puritans became the persecuted and resurgent revolutionaries, as antitypical Jehoash, or Joash of Israel (Joash … 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

410 

in his stead). But all through antitypical Jehoahaz's period, directly by their attacks and revolutions and indirectly, as explained above, by Cromwell's victories over them, the Romanist revolutionaries oppressed this phase of the antitypical Jehu dynasty and the English as antitypical Israel (Hazael … oppressed Israel all the days of Jehoahaz, v. 22). But because of their relation to the Covenant in God, Christ and the Little Flock (respect … covenant … Jacob, v. 23), God favored (gracious … had compassion) both antitypical Jehoahaz, as His less favored movement, and the English, as His antitypical Israel, and did not cast them off nor take His favor from them, but punished them measurably, for their reformation (not destroy … cast … presence, face, i.e., favor). 

(28) We now come to the study of the parallel of Jehoash, otherwise called Joash, of Israel, 861-843 B. C., and his antitype, the Presbyterian Puritans as persecuted but reawakening revolutionaries, 1660-1678. For these dates please see the tables on pages 274-277. The Biblical or typical events on this phase of the parallel are described in 2 Kings 13:10-21, 24, 25. We will here omit the study of the war between Jehoash (Jehovah secures, in allusion to God's increasingly making Protestantism safe in England, vs. 10, 12) and Amaziah of Judah, since it will be treated in connection with the study of the parallel of Amaziah. According to a comparison of vs. 22 and 24, 25, Hazael died during Jehoash's reign. Hazael in this parallel seems to type Romanism as a predominantly religious opponent of Presbyterian Puritans as persecuted but reawakening revolutionaries; and Ben-hadad seems to type it as a predominantly political opponent of such revolutionaries, while in each feature the other feature's characteristics is less prominently present. The fulfilled facts give this thought. Charles II, 1660-1685, the son of Charles I, was invited to return to England and to receive the crown by almost unanimous desire of England, the invitation coming mainly through 

Some Middle Parallels 

411 

antitypical Jehoahaz and Gen. Monk, the English nobility and the royalist supporters of his father. His character was one of the most depraved of English kings. He had 16 known mistresses, many of whom he ennobled and whom he loaded with costly favors, at expense of the state, and at least 13 bastard children, most of whom he ennobled, while he neglected and mistreated his legitimate wife, who pined away in worse than widowhood. Most of his youth and young manhood (he being just 30 on his return) he spent in profligacy in France; and on his return he headed the most unchaste, blasphemous and frivolous court ever to reign in England; and out from it flowed a deep and wide stream of profligacy, frivolity and blasphemy, defiling the nobility and other higher classes of England. Trained as a secret Romanist by his bigoted Romanist mother, Henrietta, queen of Charles I, to gain the crown of Scotland he professed Presbyterianism, taking the oath of the League and Covenant, and persecuting all dissenters; and to gain England's crown he professed Anglicanism, likewise persecuting all dissenters. His whole course was one of enmity to the Puritans of all classes—Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist and Quaker—and of favor to Romanism, all of the while pretending to be a member of the Anglican Church, the head of which he as king was ex officio. His hand very ungratefully rested most heavily upon the Presbtyerian Puritans, now antitypical Jehoash, to whom as antitypical Jehoahaz above all he owed his return and throne. 

(29) Scarcely seated on his throne, he ordered the trial and execution of those most concerned in his father's death. These were permitted no defense, 14 of whom he had hanged, drawn (their vital organs torn out and burned in their sight) and quartered (their yet living bodies cut into four quarters), Charles II nearby watching the scene; and 15 he had imprisoned, a treatment very similar to that of the 14 being accorded to the dead bodies of Cromwell, his 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

412 

son-in-law Ireton, and Bradshaw, the head of the court that condemned Charles I, which were disinterred for the purpose from their graves in Westminster Abbey. Pym's and Blake's bodies were disinterred from the same Abbey and were buried in St. Margaret's churchyard. Similar indignities were offered the bodies of Cromwell's mother and eldest daughter despite their having been models of female virtue. Charles restored wherever possible to all royalists their property confiscated by the revolutionists. He restored the Anglican Church to her place as the state church by the Corporation Act, passed in 1661, by which he required all public officials and army and naval officers to foreswear the League and Covenant, by oath to deny that a subject under any circumstance had a right to resist the king, and publicly to profess Anglicanism and join the national church, an act that cut off all Puritans from public office, steps that favored Romanism, because Anglicanism was half Romanist, and because it weakened Rome's enemies, the Puritans of all creeds, who were genuine Protestants. He then, 1662, caused the Act of Uniformity to be passed, whereby non-conforming ministers to his type of Anglicanism (the Presbyterian Puritans having for a century been the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Church) were to the number of over 2,000 driven from their pulpits and parsonages and were forbidden to be teachers, even of secular subjects, whereby they were reduced to abjectest poverty. This Act he followed with the Conventicle Act, whereby assemblies of five or more were forbidden, unless the Anglican Common Prayer were used. To this he added the Five Miles Act, which forbade the ejected Puritan ministers to come within five miles of a church in which they had formerly preached either regularly or occasionally or but once as a supply. These two Acts resulted in filling English prisons with the best men and some true saints in England. Even before, i.e., in 1660, he ordered the 

Some Middle Parallels 

413 

imprisonment of Independent Puritans who refused to cease preaching, which resulted in John Bunyan's 12 years' imprisonment in Bedford jail, where and when he wrote a number of his best works, including his immortal Pilgrim's Progress, the most wide-spread and popular of English religious books, and in the repeated imprisonment of star-member George Fox, the Little Flock leader of the movement later perverted into Quakerism. His first Declaration of Indulgence, 1662, parliament and the people forced him to withdraw, 1663, because they saw that it was actually shielding Romanists, though ostensibly also favoring the Puritans, who could, however, get no benefit from it because of the Corporation and Uniformity Acts. 

(30) While he persecuted all Puritans as nonconformists, he singled out the adherents of George Fox as the especial targets for his shafts of oppression and persecution; and in a few years 12,000 of them were languishing in jail, this being the number of them released from prison in 1672 under his second Declaration of Indulgence, whereby also John Bunyan obtained his freedom. Through his agents he most fiendishly persecuted the Scotch Covenanters. Though sworn to the League and Covenant to uphold Presbyterianism in Scotland, he most violently sought to overthrow it and put Episcopacy into its place; and he met resistance to these two measures by war, imprisonment, execution, exile and starvation. In 1662 he caused an Act to be passed requiring all Scotch Presbyterian ministers to be reinstated into their charges at the hands of bishops, ejecting all who refused to comply, to the number of 350. He greatly outraged English feelings by marrying a Romanist princess, the daughter of the Portuguese king. He allowed Romanist priests, monks and nuns, especially Jesuits, to swarm back to England, contrary to the law prohibiting their presence in England. His selling to Romanist Louis XIV Dunkirk, which the latter had given England for Cromwell's successful help of

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

414 

him against Spain, greatly outraged the English people, as a national humiliation. Entering into a secret treaty (The Treaty of Dover) with Louis XIV by which he agreed for an annual pension of 3,000,000 francs publicly to profess Romanism whenever conditions in England seemed to make it practicable, to accept Louis' promise of 6,000 French soldiers in case England would revolt at his act of professing Romanism, and in alliance with Romanist France to declare war against the Dutch, in order to break up that Protestant power, he brought England into a most unprofitable war with Holland and deeply insulted his people, in that he, their sovereign, should have sunk so low and disgraced them so blatantly, by becoming a pensioner of France. In 1672 he passed a second Declaration of Indulgence to all religions and their professors, intended by him to advance Romanizing England, whose favoring he could secure only, if he gave tolerance to English Puritans, which resulted in freeing from prison tens of thousands of Puritans, including, among others, 12,000 Quakers and John Bunyan. Knowing his Romanist intent therein, parliament refused him supplies for his war against Holland until he rescinded the part of his Declaration that tolerated Romanists. All of his acts set forth in this and the preceding paragraph were, and were intended by him to be, favorable to Rome; and almost all of them were blows at Protestantism; and those of them which were not such blows were as they were, because they were in the ultimate interest of Romanism and favored Protestantism as an indispensable means to that end, as show his two Declarations of Indulgence. 

(31) Now let us see the relation of the course of Charles II from 1660 to 1678 to the type of Hazael, Ben-hadad and Jehoash. While some of the above acts were preponderantly religiously favorable to Romanism, and are therefore to be viewed as acts of antitypical Hazael, the bulk of them were preponderantly politically favorable to Romanism, and therefore are to

Some Middle Parallels 

415 

be viewed as acts of antitypical Ben-hadad, but in all cases they were acts against antitypical Jehoash, persecuted and reviving Presbyterian Puritan revolutionaries. The pertinent acts of the latter were mainly political (Jehoash … reign over Israel in Samaria [guard, watch], v. 10). Antitypical Jehoash continued to practice sectarianism and clericalism (sins of Jeroboam, v. 11), as well as did wrong in other ways. They favored some of Charles' measures, e.g., the punishment of the regicides, oppression of the Independent Puritans, i.e., Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers, etc., and submission to many of his oppressive acts (did that which was evil). Their acts are set forth in the writings of historians, particularly church historians (acts of Joash … written in … chronicles of Israel, v. 12). This policy—persecuted but reviving revolutionism—ceased to be the reigning policy in 1678 (Joash slept, v. 13), when it was succeeded by an aggressive revolutionistic policy, which utterly overthrew Romanist attacks on England and preserved tolerance for Protestants of all sects (Jeroboam [II, contention of the people, in allusion to their striving for the rights of the people] sat upon the throne). The Jehoash phase, as said above, was one mainly occupied with the political side of Presbyterian Puritanism, and was set aside as a reigning policy as such (Joash was buried in Samaria). The Puritan period so far considered was one in which God used first uncompromising mouthpieces (Elijah) toward His people, nominal and real, then later more or less compromising mouthpieces (Elisha), both kinds of mouthpieces together prevailing for about 90 years, i.e., from about 1582, when Robert Browne began to function, to about 1672, when brethren like Baxter, Howe, Bunyan and Barclay, respectively representatives of Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist and Quaker Puritans, began to cease acting as God's compromising mouthpiece, under repressive measures of antitypical Hazael and Ben-hadad, weakening (sick, v. 14); and about 1672 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

416 

ceased to function as such (died). Persecuted but reviving revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans resorted to these for comfort and counsel (Joash came down to him), mourning over their condition (wept over his face), expressing deep respect and filial affection (my father, my father) and much concern over the weak organization that antitypical Joash had (the chariot of Israel) and the leaders thereof, who were faultful, weak and harassed (the horsemen thereof). 

(32) The symbolic visit was a long-drawn-out one. It began about 1662, when Charles' oppressive legislation began to weigh heavily on antitypical Jehoash, and continued until about 1672. Antitypical Elisha armed antitypical Joash with the knowledge of the sharp pertinent controversial truths (Take … arrows, v. 15) to meet the devious course of Charles' Rome-favoring acts, and with the organization and Biblical passages and facts (bow, whose wood types the organization, and string the passages and facts) to shoot forth these truths. Antitypical Joash availed himself of these (took unto him bow and arrows). Then antitypical Elisha encouraged antitypical Joash to lay hold powerfully on the pertinent organization and Bible passages and facts (Put thine hand upon the bow, v. 16), which they did (put his hand). To their power antitypical Elisha gave their powerful support (Elisha put his hands upon the king's hands). Then antitypical Elisha charged antitypical Joash to act in the matter publicly in the interests of the Gospel (Open the window eastward, literally, toward the rising of the sun, v. 17). This they did (opened it). Then came the charge, Shoot, which was done (Shoot. And he shot). This entire scene, so far enacted as a pantomime forecast, was fulfilled in 1663, as follows: In 1662 Charles II issued his first Declaration of Indulgence, a thing that on its face seemed to decree tolerance for all Christian sects. But its real purpose was to protect and further Romanism, which was not covered by the Corporation and Uniformity Acts. Hence, these two 

Some Middle Parallels 

417 

Acts, still applying to Protestants exclusively, could be enforced against them; but not applying to Romanists, the latter in the end, according to Charles' intention, would be the only ones benefited by the first Declaration of Indulgence. Antitypical Elisha, perceiving this, aroused antitypical Joash in and out of parliament, which included almost all Englishmen, to use their organization, Bible passages and facts to propel the sharp truths of Protestant anti-Romanism against this Declaration. As a result a determined agitation throughout parliament and the English public set in with such mighty force as compelled Charles to withdraw this Declaration. Foreseeing this result, in itself given here as a forecast of the future full victory of God's truth against Romanism in Britain, antitypical Elisha described it prophetically with emphasis as a forecast, to be hoped, of deliverance from Romanism in Britain (arrow … arrow of deliverance from Syria). He added that it prophesied that antitypical Joash would defeat the Romanists (smite the Syrians) as led, secretly, by Charles II, in their power (Aphek, strength) unto overcoming them in their pertinent plans (consumed them). The fulfilment of this pantomime forecast was given above, because in the subsequent narrative it is not mentioned, while the fulfilment of the threefold striking with the arrows is later given, as factual fulfillments of the pertinent forecasts. 

(33) Continuing the pantomime forecast antitypical Elisha charged antitypical Joash to lay hold on all the rest of the controversial truths against Romanism, which he gave them (Take the arrows, v. 18). This antitypical Joash did (did so). Then antitypical Elisha told him to smite with this Romanism's political social earth (Smite upon the ground). In pantomime antitypical Joash did this only three times (smite thrice) and then ceased so doing (and stayed), i.e., on only three points did he use these truths against Romanist political and social arrangements in relation to England. When describing the fulfilment as typed in v. 25, we

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

418 

will set forth the antitypical facts. Antitypical Elisha was displeased at this manifestation of little zeal and aggressiveness (was wroth with him, v. 19), telling him that full zeal and aggressiveness would have moved him to smite five or six times (shouldst have smitten five or six times), thereby indicating that a proper zeal and aggressiveness would utterly overthrow Romanism (smitten Syria till thou hadst consumed it), whereas their incomplete zeal and aggressiveness would not result in a complete overthrow of Romanism in England (smite Syria but thrice). We are to understand that before each one of the three blows in the antitype antitypical Elisha gave the charge to smite the Romanist works of Charles II. Hence we believe that antitypical Elisha's ceasing to function as God's mouthpiece from the standpoint of separate and distinct pictures was a little time before 1674, when the last of the three defeats was administered to the Romanists as they acted in Charles II. Thus antitypical Elisha ceased to function about 1672, as Rome was about to get the third blow in England that bade her pause (Elisha died, v. 20), and was kept in deep respect by the Puritans of all branches (buried him). With their supporters the wicked Cabal ministry (1667-1673), that negotiated the Treaty of Dover, 1670, whereby Charles for 3,000,000 francs agreed publicly to profess Romanism, to aid Romanist France in a war against Protestant Holland and to receive 6,000 French soldiers on English soil to defend him against a possible revolution raised by his open profession of Romanism, was in their autocracy guilty of many corrupt acts against England politically (Moabites invaded the land). On every opportunity they committed corruption (at the coming of the year). 

(34) The exposure of the existence of the infamous Treaty of Dover—so disgraceful to England—forced, in 1673, the resignation of the Cabal ministry. In their cast-off condition they and the bulk of their supporters continued to be political pirates, except 

Some Middle Parallels 

419 

their ablest representative, the Earl of Shaftesbury (Ashley Cooper) and his supporters, who as reformed became dead to them; and as they were ridding themselves of these (they were burying a man, v. 21) their attention was attracted by the agitation over the Titus Oates' and others' outcries of murderous popish plots, which proved to be base inventions, but which were believed in widely, and which stirred up in 1678 Protestant vigilants to counteractive measures (behold, they spied a band of men). As the majority of the defunct Cabal ministry and their remaining supporters took note of these measures they cast off the Earl of Shaftesbury and his adherents (cast … sepulchre of Elisha) into contact with the memorials of antitypical Elisha, and in that cast-off and contacting condition these (touched the bones of Elisha) were revived in their British and Protestant patriotism (revived). Thereupon as a counteractive measure he and his supporters caused to pass through both houses of parliament a bill disqualifying all Romanists, except the Duke of York, Charles II's staunch Romanist brother, from sitting in parliament, a law that for over 150 years debarred all Romanists from membership in either house (he stood up on his feet). Vs. 22, 23, having been expounded while antitypical Jehoahaz was being described, we pass by here. It was, as shown above, during antitypical Joash's days (1660-1678) that the Romanism conflict changed in England's experience from a preponderantly religious fight (Hazael … died, v. 24) into a predominately political fight (Ben-hadad his son reigned in his stead). And on political lines antitypical Joash—the Presbyterian Puritans as persecuted but revived revolutionaries—drew to their side the Congregationalist, Baptist and Quaker Puritans as religious bodies that Romanists alienated from them during the days of antitypical Jehoahaz, 1646-1660 (Jehoash … took again … the cities … his father, v. 25). 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

420 

(35) This occurred through a threefold conflict (three times … beat him) waged against Charles II as the secret leader of political Romanism in England, which conflict will now be described. Still persisting in his attempts to favor Romanists Charles II made a second Declaration of Indulgence, 1672, ostensibly aimed to free all sects from legal disabilities. By now the Presbyterian Puritans had gained much influence in parliament. They recognized that Charles sought to give Romanists liberties forbidden by law. They therefore, by their own members in parliament and others that these convinced of Charles' purpose, refused to vote him supplies until he would withdraw his Declaration. This made him give up his second Declaration of Indulgence; but parliament granted this indulgence to all Protestant sects and excluded Romanists from it. This was the first of the three victories of antitypical Joash over antitypical Ben-hadad; and this victory did its part in freeing the Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist and Quaker churches from Charles II's oppression. As a result John Bunyan was freed from his 12-year confinement in Bedford jail; and 12,000 Quakers got their freedom from prison. The second victory of antitypical Joash over antitypical Ben-hadad was this: Charles had filled many political and civil offices with Romanists, and had made a very large number of them military and naval officers. To break this up and thus deliver England from being betrayed to her Romanist enemies antitypical Joash in parliament passed, 1673, a law called the Test Act, requiring (1) all civil, political, military and naval officers to deny all specifically Romanist doctrines, (2) to belong to, and (3) to commune in the Anglican Church. This law forced the retirement of all Romanists, including the Duke of York, Charles' brother and heir to the throne, who was also commander-in-chief of the navy, from their offices in these four branches of public service, and certainly was a great victory over political Romanism. The third victory of antitypical Joash over 

Some Middle Parallels 

421 

antitypical Ben-hadad was their forcing the dissolution of the Treaty of Dover. This disgraceful treaty, that made the English king a pensioner of Romanist France and offered him 6,000 French soldiers to put down an English uprising at Charles' intended announcement of his going over to Rome, and that made it fight Protestant Holland for Rome, was to the extremist degree a humiliation of Britain, and was most deeply resented by practically the entire English people. Antitypical Joash outside, in and through parliament denounced, 1674, the treaty and forced Charles to give up the alliance with France, to make peace with Holland, 1674, and to withdraw Protestant England's support of Romanist Louis XIV in his war against Protestant Holland. That infamous treaty was kept a secret from 1670 until 1673; and on its becoming known an outraged public sentiment forced the overthrow of the Cabal ministry, which had negotiated it, as well as moved parliament to take the three steps set forth in the second preceding sentence. A decidedly Protestant ministry succeeding the Cabal ministry kept Charles in check until the Joash phase ended. 

(36) The antitypical Jeroboam II phase, 1678-1730 (parallel years are 846-791 B. C.; see pages 275-277), witnessed the complete overthrow of religious and political Romanism in Britain, so far as controllership in its affairs is concerned, as it witnessed the full enjoyment of tolerance on the part of the nonconformists, non-Anglicans—a thing that grew stronger throughout this entire phase. First the historical events in the development of these two sets of activities will be set forth; then their relation to the type of Jeroboam's activities and accomplishments will be shown. These events form a very large part of the history of religious and political England during the period, 1678-1730. By the year 1678 the bulk of the British people became fully convinced that Charles II, backed by Louis XIV of France, was intent on ruining English liberty, trampling on English law, introducing Romanism

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

422 

as the state religion in England and Romanizing the English people. Taking advantage of such a state of the public mind, Titus Otis, first an apostate Baptist preacher, then a Romanist pervert, then a Jesuit, then an adventurer, an imposter and an unequaled falsifier, spread widely a lying invention that the Jesuits were on the eve of executing a plan to murder the king and parliament, then overthrow Protestantism by a Romanist uprising in England and a Romanist invasion from Spain and France and bring England into subjection to the papacy. His ever-growing and gruesome stories gained such popular credence as engrossed the attention of parliament, before which, at its invitation, he gave details on his exposures of the alleged conspiracy. 

(37) It was as a result of this agitation that Lord Shaftesbury caused his bill mentioned above to pass through parliament disqualifying Romanists from sitting in either house of parliament. It also resulted in the trial and execution of many prominent innocent Romanists. This agitation and the desire to prevent the exposure of the worst feature of Charles II's disgraceful bargain with Louis XIV moved him to agree to the dissolution of his partisan parliament, the Cavalier Parliament, by which he had from 1661 to 1678 been able to work so effectively for Rome and against the Puritans of all sects. The new parliament, thoroughly anti-Romanist, both religiously and politically, passed (1679) the Habeas Corpus Act, one of the three great liberty Acts of England, which greatly freed accused Britons from the king's power to imprison arbitrarily, without charge or trial, those in the way of his schemes. Three times in as many years (1679, 1680, 1681) Charles dissolved parliament for its anti-Romanism. In 1682 the changing fortunes of the strife between Charles and parliament gave him the advantage over parliament; and for three years he ruled as an absolute monarch, i.e., he ignored the Test Act, appointing Romanists to civil, military and naval

Some Middle Parallels 

423 

offices, and had his Scotch representatives terribly to persecute the Covenanters. Some base criminals were exposed as guilty of what was called the Rye House Plot, whereby they sought to kill Charles and the Duke of York; and the king brought to trial before a packed court and jury and had executed five innocent nobles as alleged participants in that plot. And when about to die he had his Romanist brother bring a Romanist priest to hear his confession and administer extreme unction to him. 

(38) His last three years of favoring Rome and quenching Protestant liberty were followed by three years of stubborn effort by his brother and successor as James II to destroy English liberty and Protestantism, to make Romanism the state religion and to pervert the English people to Romanism. He was a most arbitrary, stubborn and unreasonable ruler, and by his course brought about what is called the "Glorious Revolution," whereby civil and religious liberty for Protestantism and the repression of Romanism became dominant British policies. These six years, the last three of Charles' and the three of James' entire reign (1682-1688) were antitypical Ben-hadad's time of strenuous fight against antitypical Jeroboam II, a fight that resulted in undoing everything as to the Presbyterian Puritan revolutionaries that antitypical Hazael and Ben-hadad had done against them throughout the reigns of the first four Stuarts: James I, Charles I and II and James II. When the last named succeeded Charles II, he by oath promised the King's Council that he would reign according to the English constitution and laws, and would support and uphold the Anglican Church, whose head he became on becoming king; but during his three years' reign he defied public sentiment, trampled on the constitution and laws and became very malignant to all who would not favor his scheme of Romanizing England religiously, politically, educationally, diplomatically and socially.

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

424 

(39) Three days after his accession, without the authorization of parliament and against the earnest advice of his council, he lawlessly levied customs. He carried his first parliamentary election by violence and fraud. He had his Scotch representatives make laws against, and fiendishly persecute the Covenanters. Most brutally he suppressed a Scotch revolution and an English revolution against his Romanist schemes. Not content with executing their leaders, he, against their followers and alleged followers, had the most infamous of judges, Chief Justice Jeffries, hold court, who had 300 of them hanged, in many cases on the flimsiest or no evidence; and he commissioned Col. Kirke with his ruthless soldiers, ironically called Kirke's Lambs, to execute without trial anyone against whom suspicion was raised. Rewards to informers induced such, to secure them, to accuse hundreds of innocent persons, who were ruthlessly executed by Kirke's Lambs, they beating drums in harmony with the "dancing" of the toes of those being hanged. Thus Romanist James II introduced the second English "reign of terror," Romanist "Bloody Mary" having introduced the first, in burning at least 283 Protestants and putting into prison and starving there thousands of other Protestants. He, determined to make Romanism the state religion, defied parliament's protests at his filling offices with Romanists against the Test Act, and prorogued it for refusing to vote him supplies, until he set aside his violations of that Act. He dismissed four judges of the King's Court who refused to justify his illegalities. 

(40) Thereupon he packed the court and got it to decide that he could override any law. Then he greatly increased his filling civil, military and naval offices with Romanists, including the appointment of four Romanist lords to the Privy Council. He ignored the law forbidding Romanist priests, monks, especially Jesuits, and nuns to live in England. He caused, against the law, Romanist churches and chapels to be opened and public Romanist worship to be therein held. He 

Some Middle Parallels 

425 

opened a gorgeous chapel for his own Romanist worship in St. James Palace, and sought to force his Protestant officers to attend him there, dismissing those who refused. Riots being aroused through his lawless act, he had 13,000 soldiers stationed in London to overawe the objecting London populace. He set out vigorously to stamp out Protestantism in Scotland and Ireland by cruel persecutions. In Ireland all Protestant officers were dismissed from the army. In a short time every privy councilor, judge, mayor and alderman in Ireland was a Romanist. Then he set out to overthrow the Anglican Church in England. Against the law he set up again the Court of High Commission, under the name of Ecclesiastical Commission, appointing thereto seven commissioners, with the infamous Jeffries at their head. Then he forbade Protestant ministers to preach or speak against Romanism, and suspended the Bishop of London for refusing to suspend a dean who ignored this prohibition. Pressure from his Ecclesiastical Commission aroused bolder Protestant defiance, which asserted itself in numerous anti-Romanist pamphlets and sermons. Next, contrary to law, James II sought to Romanize the English universities, by appointing Romanist presidents and professors and fellows therein, which led to determined professorial and student resistance, which he arbitrarily and stubbornly fought with manifold schemes and acts. By 1687 his lawless, pro-Romanist and anti-Protestant course aroused nation-wide resistance. His wilfulness paid no heed to the advice of moderate Romanists, including that of the pope, all of whom had good reason to fear that he was pulling down the house upon himself and them. He silenced the protest of parliament by frequent prorogations and finally dissolved it. He removed every Protestant who refused to sanction his lawlessness and installed Romanists in their places, even doing this in the case of his cabinet members and privy councilors. He made the Jesuit Petre, who had no legal right to be in England, a privy councilor, received the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

426 

papal nuncio in state at Windsor, and dismissed the Protestant Duke of Somerset, who refused to do the lawless act of presenting him in the Chamber of Presence. Truly, it may be said of his course: Whom God is about to destroy He first makes mad. 

(41) Discerning from his pro-Romanist and anti-Protestant lawless acts and words that his purposes were anti-English, the English people in all ranks set up a determined resistance. Despite his recommending and commanding by letter the governors of the Charter House, containing among them some of the greatest nobles of England, they refused to receive Romanists among their number. Even his most devoted Tories rebelled when he required of them as an evidence of loyalty that they renounce the Anglican and join the Romanist Church. He issued in the beginning and then toward the end of his reign Declarations of Indulgence, allegedly in the interests of all non-Anglicans, but intended, of course, to help Romanists, annulling all laws to the contrary; but Protestants of all parties, e.g., Presbyterian Baxter, Congregationalist Howe, Baptist Bunyan and Quaker Fox, refused to accept or become beneficiaries of this illegal act. This failure made him seek the repeal of the Test Act. He caused such voting regulations to be set up as he thought would return only such parliamentary candidates as would vote to repeal this Act. On the magistrates' and Lord Lieutenants' refusing to lend themselves to such corruption of the ballot, he dismissed them and appointed compliant ones. But the voters elected a parliament that refused to rescind the Test Act. 

(42) Thereupon he published a new Declaration of Indulgence, ordering every Anglican clergyman to read it from the pulpit to their congregations on two successive Sundays. Only about 200 out of 10,000 obeyed this order. In only four London churches was this attempted; but on the reading's beginning the four congregations arose and rushed out of the churches. The bishops supported their clergy in this refusal. The

Some Middle Parallels 

427 

primate, Archbishop Sandcroft, called the bishops together to form a protest at, and petition against such reading. But due to the shortness of the time only six bishops got to Canterbury, the primate's seat, in time. These seven ecclesiastics drew up a mild protest and humble petition and took them together in a body to James II. On receiving it the king cried out: "It is a standard of rebellion," and had the seven committed to the Tower, which in those days was used as a prison for noble political prisoners, they refusing to furnish bail against such an unheard-of act of arbitrariness. All London and England supported them. The people knelt in the streets begging their blessing, both as they were taken to the Tower and from it to court for trial. Again the king rejected counsels of caution and mildness. Brought to the bar as criminals the bishops were, June 30, 1688, by the jury acquitted. This decision was celebrated throughout London with greatest demonstrations of joy and by parades, speeches and bon-fires. Horsemen departed from the city on the rendering of the verdict and published the news broadcast throughout England, everywhere demonstrations of joy and triumph occurring, as in London. Even the army of 13,000 troops, stationed in London to overawe the populace, joined with them in the celebrations, for which James removed it and broke up its companies and incorporated these soldiers into other companies at distant points, thus dispersing his special guard. These demonstrations convinced him that he was deserted by all ranks, callings and stations in England. 

(43) Almost all English officials had by him been illegally appointed, which made their acts null and void; and to reestablish law in England a reversal of practically every public act, arrangement and appointment of his had to be made. He sought to punish by dismissal from office, etc., all who sided with the protesting and petitioning seven bishops. He sought to foist upon England an Irish army, which aroused further English resistance. Englishmen were patient and

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

428 

longsuffering with him, since he was old and might soon die, and his two Protestant daughters were next in line for succession to the throne. But the birth of a Prince of Wales in 1688 as the next heir to the throne, which engendered the fear that they would have another Romanist as king, convinced them that to save Protestantism and British liberty and to repel Romanism they must dethrone him. Leading statesmen, nobles, bishops, military and naval officers invited his son-in-law, William of Orange, the ruler of Holland, and his daughter, Mary, William's wife, to deliver England from James II and become England's king and queen. William and Mary, aware of James' plan to extirpate Protestantism and British liberty and enthrone Romanism, accepted this invitation. Seeing the drift of things James sought to reverse his course, but none trusted him, feeling sure that he was bending to the storm from necessity, and not conviction, and that as soon as the storm would subside he would re-embark on his former course. William landed with a Dutch army, which was quickly and hugely reinforced by English soldiers; for regiment after regiment forsook James and joined William. Panic-stricken, James fled London, but was, contrary to William's wishes, who felt that the simplest solution would be his flight to France, captured and brought back. To the relief of all the Protestant leaders, who did not desire his death, but his riddance, he again fled and this time reached France. Parliament declared that his oppressions, lawlessness and flight made his throne vacant. After William and Mary had promised to respect the English constitution and laws and preserve English liberty and Protestantism and had accepted a bill of rights for Englishmen, they were crowned king and queen. 

(44) James' Romanist organization of Ireland's government made Ireland loyal to his cause. His Irish army plundered and slew Protestants right and left in the war that resulted in Ireland from his overthrow in England. In several sieges of Protestant cities, Londonderry

Some Middle Parallels 

429 

especially, their defenders and inhabitants were reduced to extreme famine, but held out until relieved by an English army that came to Ireland. James in an un-British spirit brought from France a French army to reinforce his Irish army. An indecisive campaign was carried on during 1689, but on William's arrival with reinforcements in 1690 the tide turned against the Irish and French army. The two armies came into battle at the River Boyne, July 12, and the Irish and French army was completely routed. Witnessing from a neighboring hill the battle and the defeat of his Irish and French army, James in cowardly flight escaped and left Ireland for France. In this battle William was wounded, but his generals followed up his victory with others and pacified the country. In the peace terms they allowed 15,000 Irish Romanist officers and soldiers to leave Ireland and enter the army of Louis XIV. Following this war the rebelliousness of the Irish Romanists against English rule was responsible for many repressive measures; and for a full century Romanist Ireland was thereby made a poverty-stricken and backward country, while Ulster became a prosperous and orderly Protestant country. In harmony with their promise not to keep a standing army in times of peace, except by parliament's consent, not to suspend any law without parliament's consent and not to rule without it, to call parliament in frequent session, faithfully to execute the law, to grant tolerance to all Protestants of whatsoever sect, to allow free and honest elections to, and debate in parliament, to enforce all anti-Romanist laws, to grant the right of petition, free speech, free press and assembly and to respect the bill of rights, William and Mary ruled in England as efficient king and queen. 

(45) Indeed, William, called the III, was the rallying center and leader, not only of Protestant England and Holland, but also of all Protestant Europe, against Louis XIV, who sought to subjugate all Protestant countries under the Roman yoke. To this day his memory is kept green as the deliverer of British and European 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

430 

Protestantism; particularly in Ulster and wherever Ulstermen have emigrated he is held high as the deliverer of Protestant Ulster; and the names of his house, the house of Orange, and of the Battle of the Boyne are perpetuated by the Order of Loyal Orangemen. The constitutional reforms of the day of William and Mary undid all the Romanist and Romanizing measures of James I, Charles I and II and James II. And thus as a result they undid the autocracies of the Tudor and Stuart kings and reintroduced with marked additions the English liberties enjoyed by Englishmen during the days of the Plantagenets, from John Lackland's days, 1199-1204, to the first Tudor, Henry VII, 1485. The revolution of 1688 was accomplished in England without shedding one drop of blood and in contrast with "the bloody revolution" of 1616-1646, particularly in its violent form, 1641-1646, it is in English history called "the Glorious Revolution." 

(46) The main part of the fight in England between antitypical Jeroboam and Ben-hadad was from 1678 to 1688. The struggle, however, afterward took on international forms, due partly to the intrigues of James II and his son, whom his followers called James III, conducted mainly in France, and partly through the intrigues and wars of Louis XIV in his efforts to overthrow English, Dutch, Scandinavian and German Protestantism and to enthrone Romanism. The general results were the victory and strengthening of Protestantism and the general defeat and weakening of Romanism internationally. In 1701 the Act of Settlement excluded forever Romanists from the English throne. Throughout his reign William III opposed religious persecution, rightly reasoning that to force religious opinion benefits religion none at all and injures its enforcers and victims. During his reign, 1688-1702, the rights of the king, parliament and people were strictly defined and secured by law against usurpations of the king and lawlessness of the people. From then on the cabinet was not appointed by, and made responsible to the king, 

Some Middle Parallels 

431 

but by and to the House of Commons. Indeed, the reforms of this and the subsequent period of antitypical Jeroboam are the basis of America's Declaration of Independence and its constitution; and the Common Law of England, developed from many centuries of English experience, became the Common Law of the U. S. From these standpoints and those of the individual's "inalienable rights" [before human law] of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" England is very properly the mother country to America, even as for long she was generally thus called. Louis XIV's severe persecution of French Protestants, called "Huguenots," especially after his revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which had guaranteed their liberty and other rights, solidified Protestant countries against his Romanist course. When at the death of James II, in 1701, Louis XIV proclaimed James' son king of England as James III, parliament for Louis' busy-bodying in English affairs declared James III and his descendants forever incapable of sitting on Britain's throne. During the war of the Spanish Succession, 1702-1714, caused in part by the Romanist ambitions of Louis XIV, he suffered an almost continuous succession of defeats from the Protestant powers, including England, Holland, parts of Germany and Scandinavia, which further weakened political Romanism. 

(47) To the further strengthening of political Protestantism and weakening of political Romanism, England and Scotland (1707) united as the one kingdom of Great Britain, with religious liberty made operative in both countries, Anglicanism and Presbyterianism remaining the state churches in them respectively. During 1714-1716 the Jacobites, the name given to the supporters of James II and his son, the so-called James III, were very active in agitating for the latter's enthronement in Britain after the death of his stepsister, "Good Queen Anne," the sister of William's Mary, and the last Stuart to sit on England's throne, who was in 1714 succeeded by George I, a German

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

432 

Protestant prince and the first British king of the Windsor family, still the reigning house of the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Jacobites sought to dethrone him in favor of James, so-called III. First they demanded his enthronement instead of that of George I. In fact the Tory (Conservative) ministry plotted his enthronement, which led to its dismissal and the choice of a Whig (Liberal) ministry as the faithful upholders of the settlement of 1688. 

(48) Tory riots followed in the Pretender's (James II's son) interests, which grew into revolutionary uprisings in England and Scotland, and which was marked by the Pretender's landing in Scotland from France; but in both countries the revolutions were squelched, and the kingdom was saved the evil of another Romanist Stuart as king. Charles XII of Sweden plotted to invade Scotland and put the Pretender on the Scotch throne, but his plot came to an end through his death, Dec. 11, 1718. During 1718-1720 Britain waged war against Romanist Spain for its plots to put the Pretender on its throne. Spain's defeat resulted in the collapse of the plot, and the disappointment of the Pretender. In 1719 a bill passed parliament relieving Protestant dissenters from certain evils of the Test Act, still enforcing the fines of the Act, but returning the fines after they were paid. In 1723 Bishop Atterbury of the Rochester diocese, the leader of the Jacobites, was discovered in a plot to restore the Stuarts in the person of the Pretender and was deprived of his see and banished to France, where he continued without fruitage his Jacobite plots. He was on British soil their last able leader. During 1727-1729 Romanist Spain, again at war with Britain, sought to seat the Pretender on Britain's throne and arranged for an invasion, but its fleet was defeated, and Romanist James Stuart again failed to become Britain's king. By the next year (1730) he gave up all personal efforts to gain that throne, and with that the triumph of antitypical Jeroboam was fully realized over 

Some Middle Parallels 

433 

antitypical Ben-hadad, though his son without his father's cooperation, in 1745, led a futile insurrection in Scotland and England to instate him as Britain's king. 

(49) Briefly will the foregoing discussion be connected as antitype with the type set forth in 2 Kings 14:16, 23-29. Antitypical Jeroboam (II; strife of the people; 14:16) certainly fittingly by the significance of the name led the great conflict of the Presbyterian Puritan revolutionaries as fighting the people's battles for freedom from Romanist autocracy. They were occupied with politics in their religious and liberty applications (reign in Samaria). But his course in many ways was evil, compromising in overmuch longsuffering, especially from 1683 to 1688; with antitypical Ben-hadad in the last three years of Charles II and the full three years of James II (did … evil, v. 24). Like the rest of the less favored movements of God's real people he followed the course of the first Lutheran movement in sectarianism and clericalism (sins of Jeroboam [I]). Nevertheless all of the conquests of antitypical Hazael (predominately religious Romanism) and Ben-hadad (predominately political Romanism) against antitypical Jehu, Jehoahaz and Jehoash he undid, and restored everything that they had undone throughout Protestant England (Hamath [fortress] unto the sea of the plain, the Dead Sea, v. 25). This was prophesied by Jonah (dove), the son of Amittai (true, Jonah 1:1), of Gath-hepher (winepress of the pit), in a prophecy not recorded by him, though here mentioned. The Lord wrought this deliverance for His people in England, Scotland and Ireland out of deep sympathy for their oppressions (Lord saw the affliction … very bitter, v. 26), since no crown-loser (shut up) nor crown-retainer (any left) was able to deliver them (any helper for Israel), and God would not yet cast them off (blot out … Israel, v. 27). 

(50) Hence He delivered them by the victorious revolutionaries of the Presbyterian Puritans, whose principles were adapted thereto (saved them by … 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

434 

Jeroboam), the successors of the revived revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans (son of Joash). The acts of antitypical Jeroboam (acts of Jeroboam, v. 28), their conflicts and victories (warred … recovered) in restoring to antitypical Israel all their belongings acquired by the Church as antitypical David of antitypical Judah (Damascus and Hamath … Judah), are described by very many historians, the ablest for the period of 1678-1702 being Lord Macaulay in his five-volumed History of England, entirely devoted to this period (written … chronicles … Israel). After a period of 52 years, 1678-1730, this phase of revolutionary Presbyterian Puritanism ceased to be the ascendant movement (slept, v. 29), and was succeeded for a short period by a Presbyterian Puritan movement that sought to have the Test Act, which was no more actually and finally enforced against them, repealed, 1730-1731 (Zachariah [remembrance of Jehovah] his son reigned in his stead). 

(51) As shown above, in 1719, as a part of antitypical Jeroboam's activity, the non-Anglican sects—Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists and Quakers—received an amelioration of certain disadvantages that they incurred through the operation of the Test Act, which allowed only those to be civil, military and naval officers who conformed to the Anglican Church. Some members of these sects to have such offices rendered an occasional conformity, i.e., occasionally attended Anglican services, occasionally communed there and did other acts of occasional conformity. Strict Anglicans objected to this course, and had a bill passed fining such occasional conformity. Without annulling the Test Act a bill had in 1719 been passed returning these fines after they were imposed and paid. The antitypical Zachariah movement in 1730 began an agitation to set aside the Test Act altogether in its application to them, though they desired it to continue to operate against Romanists. They truly set forth as inducements to such an annulment the fact that they had 

Some Middle Parallels 

435 

always staunchly defended the principles of the 1688 revolution, "the Glorious Revolution," and therefore should have its full benefits. The Whigs, then in power, under the leadership of Sir Robert Walpole, agreed with their view of the matter, but urged delay, as, they affirmed, conditions were not ripe for the change. This discussion went on for years, but by 1731 the Whigs were determined not to make the change; and all they would do was to soften the application of the Occasional Conformity Act, the government asserting that the Puritans had all the liberties and privileges extant, except their being the state church. And with this decision the antitypical Zachariah phase ended and with it ended the Presbyterian Puritan revolutionary movements as the most prominent movement among God's less favored people, i.e., the antitypical Jehu dynasty ceased to operate, after winning for Britain some of its most prized and cherished features of liberty, and after crushing in Britain Romanist religious and political oppressions and other Romanist evils. 

(52) The antitypical Zachariah phase lasted but a year, 1730-1731, the parallel year of typical Zachariah being 791-790 B. C. For the data on this phase see pages 275-277 (Zachariah … reigned over Israel, 15:8). Briefly will we connect the type with the facts presented in the preceding paragraph: The coming into the ascendancy of this phase of the antitypical Jehu dynasty as active in religio-political aspects is typed (Zachariah reigned … Samaria [watch tower]). It was guilty of the evils inherent in every phase of the antitypical Jehu dynasty (he did … evil … as his fathers had done, v. 9), and that while engaging in matters pertinent to the Lord (before the Lord). Nor did this movement give up the evils that the first Lutheran movement introduced, i.e., it was guilty of sectarianism and clericalism, evils of which every one of the movements of God's less favored people were guilty and caused such people to commit (sins of Jeroboam … who made Israel to sin). The Whigs, especially 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

436 

their leaders, purposely kept putting these Puritans off as to fulfilling their requests to have the Test Act annulled so far as Protestants were concerned (Shallum [retribution] … Jabesh [dry] conspired against him, v. 10); and their decision fully made not to grant it was the public act that ended antitypical Zachariah (smote him before the people) and they briefly exercised the power of the most prominent movement in this aspect of their activity (reigned in his stead). The acts of antitypical Zachariah are recorded in the histories of this movement as those of this aspect, the last one of the house of antitypical Jehu (acts … written … chronicles … Israel, v. 11). Thus was fulfilled a forecast that God made, probably through antitypical Elisha, that there would be four dominant policies carried out by those who had succeeded antitypical Jehu and worked for their principles (2 Kings 10:30). Antitypical Elisha did use antitypical Jehu's revolutions as an application and an arousement to the revolution that, beginning in 1616, came to a successful issue in 1646. It is therefore probable that they promised these four descendent policies to operate through the Presbyterian Puritans, though we do not know the writings or sayings in which this prophecy was made (word … spake … sons … throne … unto the fourth generation, v. 12). So was it fulfilled (so it came to pass), as are all of God's prophecies. 

(53) After having studied the parallels of Israel's kings of the Jehu dynasty, we now return to a consideration of the parallels of Judah's kings. A very brief review of the parallels of Judah's kings, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram and Ahaziah, will help us better to consider the Athaliah and Joash or Jehoash, parallels to which this study will be devoted. Jehoshaphat (939-914 B.C.) parallels the Congregational movement benevolent and helpful to the second phase of the Anglican movement (1582-1607). It began with Robert Browne, progressed through Henry Barrowe and came to an end in Francis Johnson before he became thoroughly reactionary, 

Some Middle Parallels 

437 

though the last seven years of the antitypical Jehoshaphat phase, from its becoming confederate with the second phase of the Anglican movement against the Romanists as antitypical Syrians, were accompanied by Francis Johnson's brand of Congregationalism reactionary as paralleling Jehoram's coregency with Jehoshaphat. Jehoram (of Judah, not Jehoram of Israel, 914-906 B.C.) parallels the Congregational movement thoroughly reactionary (1607-1615), wherein, misled into a quasi-Presbyterianism through Francis Johnson's aberrations and, into a quasi-unionism with apostate churches through John Robinson's compromises, it showed a decidedly reactionary spirit. Ahaziah (906-905) parallels the Congregational movement autocratic (1615-1616), and as such associated with the fourth phase of the Anglican movement. Francis Johnson and John Robinson headed this phase of Congregationalism in Holland, and practically all England's Congregational leaders exemplified this phase of Congregationalism in England, where they battled side by side with the fourth Anglican movement (antitypical Jehoram of Israel) against the antitypical Hazael movement (Romanism) and the antitypical Jehu movement. In the conflict with the latter it came to an end, 1616. This is a brief review of the first three Congregationalist movements and brings us up to a fourth Congregational movement, which was, strange to say, that of a church, a symbolic woman, the Congregational Church at Leyden, Holland, presided over by John Robinson who was injuriously active in three Congregational movements: that of reactionism, that of autocracy and that of anti-separatism, the latter typed by Athaliah (afflicted by Jehovah). The parallel dates are 905-898 B. C. and 1616-1623 A. D. 

(54) When the Leyden Congregational Church saw that both in England and in Holland autocracy was overthrown as a bad Congregational movement, it under the leading of John Robinson embarked on an anti-separatism movement. The faithful Congregationalists

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

438 

were Separatists, i.e., they avoided all fellowship with the Anglican and other denominational movements. Their idea was that only that was a true church which was separate and distinct from all sectarianism, and which was united in justification and sanctification by a covenant Godward and fellowmemberward. Into this covenant they solemnly entered by the entire assembly clasping hands and binding themselves to obey the Lord, to put away evil and to walk in the light already had and yet to come. Hence they refused to fellowship with those not so covenanting with the Lord and one another, and holding membership in apostate churches, from which they had separated themselves. Hence they were called Separatists, and their theory and practice Separatism. During the seven years, 1616-1623, the Leyden Church, on seeing that Congregational autocracy was refuted, which it had mothered (Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah, 2 Kings 11:1; 2 Chro. 22:10), repudiated this theory and practice and their involved principles and practices (destroyed … royal). But the covenant, in its keepers, that Congregationalists had made (Jehosheba [oath of Jehovah], 2; 11, Jehoshabeath, a phonetic variation of the same name), which even Congregationalism reactionary held as a power of its own (daughter of king Jehoram), yea, which even Congregationalism autocratic cherished (sister of Ahaziah), resting in its adherents, laid hold on (took … stole), from among the repudiated policies (sons … slain), protected; even in secrecy, among God's people the principle and practice of Separatism (hid him), as well as those who ministered thereto (nurse), and kept them in the sphere of faith (bedchamber), against the repudiating activities of the Leyden Congregational Church (from Athaliah). Thus this covenant in its adherents, as a feature of Christ's Bride (wife of Jehoiada, Jehovah knows), shielded the principle and practice of Separatism from repudiators (hid … him). 

(55) The following are 16 of the principles and practices that the Leyden Church under John Robinson's 

Some Middle Parallels 

439 

leading repudiated, as can be seen in his and their theories and practices (sons … slain). He and they joined with the Dutch Reformed Church in fighting Arminianism in public debate, thus rejecting some advancing light, contrary to the covenant; he became a religious teacher in their university (combinationism), also against the covenant; they fellowshipped with the Dutch Reformed Church, which was also against the covenant; they took with them the Lord's Supper; advocated attendance reciprocally at church together; joined in prayer with them, though recognizing that they were not consecrated; in private and public they accepted God's nominal people as their brethren; offered fellowship to the Church of Scotland (a state church, thoroughly sectarian and sharply opposed to the covenant); offered church fellowship to the Church of England, the bitter persecutor of Congregationalism, and the executor of some of its leading lights; asserted that they would not have separated from the Church of England, if it had allowed them liberty to teach and preach their convictions and not bound them to its ceremonies and its creed; advised Congregationalists to attend Anglican Church services, taking part devoutly therein; advocated that elders be elected for life; to get sanction from James I to colonize New England with the pilgrim fathers, even agreed to accept the Anglican Episcopacy, as not of Divine but human right; as a church engaged in the secular business of colonization, etc.; encouraged forming a Congregational denomination; and encouraged and practiced clericalism of a quasi-Presbyterian kind. Thus they repudiated vital Congregational principles flowing out of their idea of the nature of the Church as a company of saints separate and distinct from nominal churches and those owning fealty to them. Certainly, they repudiated the distinctive thing in the idea of the ecclesia as a company of God's saints that under Christ was mistress in her own midst, and that while fellowshipping with like ecclesias as brethren, yet remained

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

440 

free from all external union with them, and thus avoided constituting a denomination. The Leyden Church certainly repudiated these principles and practices and therein antityped Athaliah in murdering her grandchildren, but failing to kill Separatism's type. 

(56) This teaching of Separatism was held secretly among the faithful for six full years, from 1616 to 1622 (hid in the house … six years, 3; 12). And all this time the Leyden anti-separationist movement was the chief influence in the six involved years in the sphere of God's most favored people (Athaliah reigned over the land). But from April, 1622, to April, 1623, our Lord (seventh year Jehoiada, 4; 23:1), first, strengthened Himself in His faithful (strengthened himself, ; 1), and, secondly, aroused the leaders in the four Amsterdam churches and the one London church (rulers over hundreds), especially the error-refutative leaders (captains [literally, Cherethites, executors], 4;) and the Truth-defending leaders (guard [literally, the runners, i.e., the Pelethites], 4;). These were the leaders of the Ainsworth ecclesia (Azariah [help of Jehovah] … Jeroham [cherished]), those of the Johnson ecclesia (Ishmael [God hears] … Jehohanan [Jehovah favors]), those of the White ecclesia (Azariah [help of Jehovah] … Obed [servile]), those of the Smyth ecclesia (Maaseiah [deed of Jehovah] … Adaiah [ornament of Jehovah]), all four being ecclesias in Amsterdam, Holland, and those of the Jacob (London) ecclesia (Elishaphat [God judges] … Zichri [remembering]). These He bound to Himself by vows (made a covenant with them) with great solemnity (oath, 4;). This He did among God's people secretly (house of the Lord), and clarified and stressed to them the truth on Separatism (shewed them the king's son, 4;). These leaders busied themselves in the sphere of God's more favored people (went about in Judah, ; 2) and gathered therefrom to their support the other leaders (Levites [here used of all descendants of Levi], those technically called priests and Levites, ; 2), as

Some Middle Parallels 

441 

well as all others of special influence but not leaders (chief of the fathers of Israel, ; 2). These they brought to the executive sphere of God's more favored people (Jerusalem, ; 2). All of the faithful of God's more favored people in their assemblies vowed loyalty to Separatism (all … covenant with the king in the house of God, ; 3). Jesus made clear to them that Separatism as a truth of the Lord would continue and prevail (king's son shall reign, ; 3), even as the Bible teaches of the principles of Apostles (Lord hath said of the sons of David, ; 3). Our Lord, according to their differing abilities, spirit and providential situations, gave them a fourfold work (a third part … a third part … a third part … two parts, 5-7; 4-6). The first of these activities was that of helping winnable people to come among the brethren (sabbath … porter of the doors, ; 4 … gate behind the guard, 6;); a second was to defend Separatism against attacks as a matter of practice (king's house, ; 5 … watch of the king's house, 5;); a third was to attack the error as it would seek entrance among God's people (gate of Sur [entrance], 6; … gate of the foundation, ; 5); and the fourth was the regular work of the ministering priests to defend God's people in relation to Separatism as a matter of doctrine (two parts … sabbath … watch of the house … king, 7;). And all of the other brethren, the non-official and non-influential brethren were mutually to defend one another against error and sin unto truth and righteousness as supporters of their abler brethren (people shall keep the watch of the Lord, ; 6). But none but the leaders were to do public service (none … save the priests … Levites, ; 6). These should do their consecrated service as public ministers of the Word (go in … holy, ; 6). 

(57) The subordinate leaders (Levites, ; 7) and the warriors (ye, 8;) were controversially (weapons in his hand) to serve in defense of Separatism in every phase of it (compass the king round about). Any one coming among God's people inimically disposed on the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

442 

subject should be refuted forthwith (cometh … slain). They were especially to support and defend Separatism in every activity into which it might come (with the king … in … out). The warrior leaders of all the five involved ecclesias (captains, 9;), the subordinate ministering leaders (Levites, ; 8) and all of the rest of the Congregational movement (all Judah, ; 8) did as our Lord Jesus charged (Jehoiada … commanded) and the main sacrificing leaders also cooperated (in … and out on the sabbath); for the Lord Jesus kept the main leaders active in their varied services without intermission (dismissed not the courses, ; 8). Our Lord saw to it that all the main leaders were provided with controversial pen-products (spears, 10; 9) and immovable (bucklers, ; 9) and movable (shields, 10; 9) defensive armor, contained in the writings of the Apostles (king David, ; 9) and placed in the Church (house of God, 10; 9). These all came to our Lord for His present purposes (came to Jehoiada, 9;). Taking their positions as upholders of the sacrificing Christ and the Church (along by the altar, 11; 10) and of the brethren (temple) in support of Separatism on all sides (round about the king), the trained defenders (guard, 11;) and all other brethren (all the people) stood ready to defend the entire Church (right … temple … left … temple), fully armed for all eventualities (weapons in his hand). Then they began publicly to expound, prove and refute as to Separatism (brought forth the king's son, 12; 11), set it forth as the Divinely-authorized teaching (put the crown upon him), gave God's attestation to their act (testimony), and thus set it forth as the prevailing pertinent teaching (made him king). Jesus as High Priest and the Church as under-priests (Jehoiada and his sons, ; 11) gave to the teaching and practice of Separatism in its maintainers the full qualification of the necessary wisdom, power, justice and love for their pertinent work (anointed him). Then all the faithful demonstrated their approval and praise

Some Middle Parallels 

443 

(clapped their hands, 12;) and prayed God's support upon Separatism as the prevailing Congregational teaching and practice (God save the king). 

(58) When the Leyden Church Congregational anti-separatist movement perceived the demonstrations in favor of the separatist movement (Athaliah … noise, 13; 12), both of the official and non-official loyal ones (guard … people), by conduct and propaganda supporting Separatism (running and praising the king, ; 12), coming among them in the Church, it intervened among the demonstrators (came … into the temple). Their discussions revealed to its inquiring eyes of understanding in its adherents the doctrine and practice of Separatism (looked … king, 14; 13) as its position, as propounded by Robert Browne, its introducer (stood … pillar), who started the Little Flock movement (at the entering in, ; 13) later sectarianized by Henry Barrowe, etc., even as was the case in such matters (as the manner was, 14;). The leaders and lecturers stood, advocating the Separatist movement (princes … king). And all Congregationalists, apart from those belonging to the Leyden Church, were very glad over the situation (all … rejoiced). All lecturers and conversationalists joined in such advocacy (blew the trumpets). Their preachers (singers, ; 13) orally and by pertinent literature (instruments of music, ; 13) and those who acted as instructors in the school of prophets (taught to sing, ; 13) joined in the propaganda. 

(59) On the Leyden Church movement's seeing what was going on, it as the anti-separatist movement did great violence to its graces in seeking to defend its position (rent her clothes), accusing the faithful as its betrayers and maligners (Treason, Treason). Jesus as High Priest then brought the leaders of the five above-mentioned churches in their warrior aspects into special and official prominence (brought out … set over the host, 15; 14) and charged them (charged … said) to attack it on its secular wrongs, those connected with 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

444 

its concessions on policies and practices of church and state toward James I in their compromising efforts to have him sanction their emigrating as pilgrim fathers to what became New England (Have her forth without the ranges [outside the temple]). He also charged these leaders to refute all who would defend it (followeth her kill … slain with the sword, 15; 14). He prohibited that it be attacked on special religious grounds (Slay her not in the house of the Lord). Taking this as the line of their attack, they in argument seized that compromising church (laid hands on her, 16; 15); and, avoiding special religious arguments, they led it forth (went by the way) to the teachings (horses came into the king's house … entering of the horse gate) pertaining to royal prerogatives and powers, in connection with which it compromised the Truth, and revealed its compromising and treasonable acts as against the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, and thus thoroughly refuted it (there was she slain … slew her there, 16; 15). The movement championed by the Leyden Congregational Church took its place as a decadent one; and in less than two years after its death-thrust, its chief spirit, John Robinson, died; and the quasi-Presbyteriano-Congregationalism that he through the pilgrim fathers transplanted to New England got a real Congregational teaching and practice nearly a hundred years later, through John Wise of Ipswich, Mass. During the first part of this brand of quasi-Congregationalism it was guilty of great evils in persecuting dissenters unto banishment, e.g., if Roger Williams, and even unto death, e.g., Quakers; and its witch huntings, trials and executions have made, among others, Salem, Mass., a blot on Massachusetts' early reputation. Certainly these facts prove that the Leyden brand of Congregationalism was decadent and ceased to be the most prominent movement of God's more favored people. 

(60) Our Lord Jesus effected an agreement between Himself as God's Representative, and thus between 

Some Middle Parallels 

445 

God (made a covenant between him … the Lord, 17; 16), and the separatist movement and the loyal Congregationalists. On God's part this was an acceptance of the separatist movement as the more favored movement of God's people, and of the people as adherents of that movement. On the movement's and the people's part it was an agreement to believe and practice according to the responsibilities and privileges of being the more favored movement of God's people in Congregationalism (people … king … Lord's people). It also implied on the part of the movement and its adherents that they be loyal to one another as to Separatism as a teaching and practice (king … people, 17;). These brethren in loyalty to their agreement entered the sphere of power-grasping and lording it over God's people as it was exemplified in Romanism, Anglicanism and Presbyterianism (went to the house of Baal [lord], 18; 17); and, first, utterly refuted these as spheres of Biblical theories and practices (brake it down) and refuted the ideas of their adherents that their respective churches were the true Church (brake his altars) and refuted their false creeds (images in pieces) from top to bottom (thoroughly, 18;); and, secondly, utterly refuted their hierarchy and clergy (slew Mattan, gift) as they were exercising their offices in the interests of their respective churches (before the altars). Our Lord arranged for the public ministrations in the Church (appointed … offices … Lord, 18; 18) through the main leaders (by the hand of the priests the Levites [here the priests are set forth as descendants of Levi, not their assistants who are technically and usually called Levites]), according to the arrangements of the Apostles as set forth in the Bible (whom David had distributed [in 24 courses] … Lord, ; 18). Their work was to offer sacrifices manifesting God's approval of Jesus' sacrifice (burnt offerings), as Jesus indicated in the New Testament writings (as … law of Moses, ; 18). These offerings were administered as a joyous privilege (with rejoicing, ; 18)

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

446 

and with preaching of the Word (singing, ; 18), even as the Apostles had arranged (by David). They also arranged for evangelists to lead new ones through repentance and faith unto justification (porters at the gates, ; 19), that they might admit no unjustified, impenitent and disfellowshipped ones into the courts of the Lord's house (unclean … should enter, ; 19). 

(61) These arrangements for a proper ecclesiaism having been set into operation, another thing was done to make complete the reformation initiated by our Lord among Congregationalists: To put Separatism into its proper place as the prevailing policy and movement among God's more favored people; for separatism was not to be merely a prevailing theory; it was also to be made a prevailing practice. And this is set forth in 19, 20; 20, 21. This work was participated in by all, but in an orderly way, i.e., with all in harmony with their places in the Church. First, the main leaders in each of the five involved ecclesias as controversialists, both in parrying off attacks and in refuting the errorists (rulers … captains of hundreds [instead of the translation, "and captains" (19;), it should be, "even captains"], 19; 20), took the most prominent part in putting Separatism as a principle and a practice into operation. Next, the less prominent defenders acted to the same end (guard, 19;). Following these, thirdly, the most prominent unofficial brethren contributed their share in this good work (the nobles, ; 20). Strangely enough, fourthly, the elders in these five ecclesias, who in zeal for this work we would think should have preceded the more prominent unofficial brethren, came after the latter in support of this work (governors of the people, ; 20). And, finally, the non-prominent brethren of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit gave their cooperation to the work at hand (all the people of the land). All of these cooperated to make Separatism the prevailing Congregationalist movement among God's more favored people (brought down the king) as a thing that operated

Some Middle Parallels 

447 

not simply in religious relations (from the house of the Lord). They exalted (came through the high gate, ; 20) the teaching and practice of Separatism by means of those who defended the pertinent teaching and practice (way … guard) and put it into the sphere of polity controllership (king's house), and constituted it as the Divinely-authorized separationist movement (set the king upon the throne, ; 20); and in its adherents the separatist movement among Congregationalists exercised this Divinely-authorized power as it did also among other movements of God's more favored people internally and externally (sat on the throne of the kings, 19;). This condition made all loyal Congregationalists very glad (people … rejoiced, 20; 21); and peace reigned in the sphere of Separatism's executiveship (the city was quiet) after they had thoroughly refuted the Leyden Congregationalist Church's anti-separatist movement (slain … slew Athaliah) with the Word of Truth (sword) on prevailing policy matters (king's house, 20;). 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What did the autocratic later course of the fourth phase of the Anglican movement provoke? Especially through what teaching and practice? To whose attention did this come? Who were some of their main members from 1616-1646, the period now to be discussed? What did they decide? From what? Whom does Jehu type? What pertinent thing did God's mouthpiece do? How typed? After such preparation what exhortation did they give these? How typed? What further exhortation did they give these? What were the energetic Presbyterian Puritans doing in the fight for power-preeminence? How typed? What characteristics were theirs? How typed? What third exhortation did God's mouthpiece give their hangers-on? How typed? Fourth instruction? How typed? 

(2) What did the hangers-on then do? How typed? What did their manner and teachings do? With what effect? How typed? What answer did the hangers-on give to this question? How typed? What was desired and secured? For, what? How typed? What privately did they give the revolution-tending Puritans? With what assurance? How typed? What were the first and second charges

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

448 

as God's will that they gave? How typed? What were the third and fourth charges? How typed? What was God's intention as to all four Anglican movements? After what examples? How typed? What was His intention as to the Anglican Church? How typed? What did the hangers-on then do? How typed? Who were some of the main secular members of antitypical Jehu? Religious members? 

(3) What would it be well to do before proceeding further? What is the chronology involved in Jehu's reign? That of the antitype? How only is chronology stated as to Jehu's reign? What exception is there to this statement? For what in his reign are no Biblical dates given? Why is this fact important to keep in mind? Of what did the small revolutionary acts at first consist? Against what? By whom? In the second place? In what cases? In the third place? In what two things did parliament's protests repeatedly result? By whom at first and afterward? What was the character of the second result? What things do Biblical types and antitypes usually mark? What can we see from this? Despite what fact? What two events mark the end of antitypical Jehu's revolution? What did the Scots do with Charles I after his surrender? What will this enable us to see? What will the involved principle enable us to see? 

(4) What was the ecclesiastical event that marked the religious phase of the revolt against tyranny in state and church? The political event? What reception from the Puritans did James I's Book of Sports receive? His disfavoring Calvinism and favoring Arminianism against his former views? His prohibition of parliament to interfere with his government? His negotiations for the marriage of his heir with the Spanish king's daughter? Leaving his son-in-law in the lurch in the Thirty Years' War? Securing his heir's marriage with the bigoted Romanist Henrietta, daughter of France's king? Why? His ruling for years without parliament's meeting? 

(5) When did Charles I become king of England? What two things encouraged his tyranny? How did he compare as king with his father as to parliament and people? What did his tyranny arouse? What was the first cause of provocation against himself and the episcopate? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? The eighth? The ninth? The tenth? 

Some Middle Parallels 

449 

The eleventh? The twelfth? E.g. The thirteenth? The fourteenth? The fifteenth? The sixteenth? The seventeenth? The eighteenth? The nineteenth? The twentieth? Whom did these events, as main provocations, arouse? What will now be done? 

(6) What did each of these tyrannies effect in the hangers-on at the instigation of God's mouthpiece? What did each of such arousings effect in the Puritans? How typed? What classes constituted these associates? How typed? What did they ask of the Puritans? How typed? What did they deny? How typed? What did the Puritans answer after each arousing? How typed? What response was made at each stage of the Puritans' declaration of the facts? How typed? What did they offer? How typed? What did they announce? How typed? What did the revolutionary Puritans then do? How typed? Under what time and circumstance? How typed? What form had Anglican prelacy by then assumed? How typed? What had it received? Through what? How long did these compromises last? What effect did this have on prelacy? How typed? What effect did this have on many and upon the energetic Puritans? How typed? Recognizing their increasing support, what did they require? How typed? 

(7) Assured of sufficient support, what did the energetic Puritans then do? How typed? In what twofold condition was autocratic prelacy then? How typed? Who noted the progress of the revolutionary Presbyterian Puritans? How typed? What did they tell? How typed? In suspicion what did the prelacy command? How typed? In response what was done? How typed? How did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans respond to the insincere inquiries as to their intentions on peace? How typed? How did they act thereon? How typed? What did the sentinels do at this outcome? How typed? What was then ordered? Why? How typed? How did this investigation result? How typed? How often were these investigations made? What did the sentinels do on observing the effect of the second set of investigations? How typed? What two things did they announce? How typed? On hearing this, what two classes acted? What did they do? How typed? What did they, so organized, do? How typed? Over what did the opposing forces become involved in strife? How 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

450 

typed? How long were the antitypical events in enacting? 

(8) What did arbitrary prelacy demand? How typed? How often? What reply did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans give? How typed? How often was the answer given? What caused arbitrary prelacy to seek security in flight? How typed? What did they charge? On what ground? How typed? Before whom? How typed? What three things did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans then do? How typed? What and by what means did they ask parliament? How typed? What had parliament individually and as a body been doing during the involved 30 years? How typed? As the fulfilment of what was this done? What reason did they give for this outcome? How typed? Accordingly, what did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans ask parliament? How typed? What was then done? How typed? 

(9) What did the revolting Puritans then do with the autocratic Congregational movement as cooperator with arbitrary prelacy? Where is this typed? What will show the harmony of the two accounts? For what did God arrange? In connection with what? How typed? Through whom? How typed? What did autocratic Congregationalism seek to do? How? How typed? After this what two things did supporters of the revolting Puritans do? How typed? Wherein did they find them? How typed? What did they then do? What did the former then do? How typed? What did the latter then do? How typed? Under what circumstances? How typed? What was the character of the refutation? How typed? What did the partially refuted then do? How typed? When did the refutation become complete? How typed? What did their supporters do to refuted autocratic Congregationalism? How typed? How long did their office power last? How typed? 

(10) What is typed in vs. 30-37? By what two means did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans effect the destruction of the Anglican Church? In desperation what did Charles I do April 13, 1640? When did it assemble? What for years, before the Long Parliament, had the Puritans been doing as to the Anglican Church? By Charles I's support how were the Anglican prelates and the clergy conditioned? When? Thereafter what did the revolutionists do? Who noted this? How typed? What did she do 

Some Middle Parallels 

451 

with herself? As to what? To whom? How typed? So conditioned what did she do? How typed? What did she perceive? How typed? What did she do? How typed? Ask? How typed? Stung by the sarcasm, what two things did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans do? How typed? What three groups had supported her? How typed? What had undermined their loyalty to her? What resulted there from? Up to the assembling of the Long Parliament what had been their attitude toward her? 

(11) What did the Presbyterian Puritans increasingly demand? How typed? What kind of an increased response was made by the three pertinent groups? Resulting in what? How did this affect her? In the end what 12 things did they do to her? How is all this typed? What did she do in her destruction? How typed? How did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans then treat her? How typed? Who constituted the revolting Puritans? What did these then do as to her powers, etc.? How typed? While so engaged, what did they charge? Why? Despite what? How typed? What only did those so charged find of her? How in each case typed? What did they then do? How typed? What did the revolting say thereover? How typed? Anent what was the forecast made? What were the contents of the forecast? How typed? What of hers did the sectarians not appropriate? What of hers did they appropriate? As what did they forecast that she would be regarded? With what results? How typed? 

(12) What does 2 Kings 9 give us? As what? In what? What two things does 2 Kings 10 give us? What else do these two chapters give? What will come out as we discuss 2 Kings 10? What was the most autocratic of the four Anglican movements? What did it develop? In what two ranks? How are these typed? Of what were they more responsible? What did these abuses become? To what determination did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans come? What course did they pursue? What did their conduct gradually become? To whom? In what? Especially to whom? What did it suggest? Why? How are these things typed? What kind of a movement did it suggest? What did it tell them to do for it? How typed? What two things should we not forget? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

452 

(13) What things moved these people not to accept the suggestions? How typed? Through whom did they become subject to the revolting Presbyterian Puritans? How typed? What is a pertinent, remarkable fact of those times? How typed? Who were the revolutionary leaders in parliament? After the supporters of Anglicanism became subject to the revolting Presbyterian Puritans, what did they do as to parliament's laws on Anglicanism? To what extent? To what did they become subject? How typed? What peculiarity is here presented? Within what time limit? How typed? To what did they force the Anglican episcopate and clergy to be subject? How was this brought about? To what limits did they enforce the laws? How are these things typed? 

(14) What came to the revolting Puritans? How? For how long? How typed? How and in what ways did the revolting Puritans have the Anglican leaders set forth? By what means? More particularly through whose writings? Less particularly through whom? How voluminously? How are these things typed? When this was in each part done, who appeared on the scene? How? How typed? What did they ask? Who had done it? What did they acknowledge? Whom did they acquit of the deeds? How are these things typed? What did the revolting Puritans tell the people? When and under what circumstances was the forecast made? How were these things typed? What did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans continue? Against whom? To what extent? How typed? 

(15) To what did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans then give attention? At first particularly to what? How typed? How were not and how were the 42 related to Ahaziah? How proven? Who were the antitypical 42 allegedly? How typed as such allegedly? What was their actual character? How typed? What proves this? How did they act toward God's people? How were they overtaken? Of what two things were their captors apprized? How typed? What did they charge as to these? What was, accordingly, done to them? How typed? 

(16) What did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans then do? How typed? Of whom did the Long Parliament largely consist? What were its powers? How did it use these? How are these things typed? How long had there 

Some Middle Parallels 

453 

previously been no parliament in session? What did the Long Parliament become? In what spirit did it approach the revolting Presbyterian Puritans? How typed? How numerous among the English people, especially among the Londoners, were the Puritans? What did they seek to do with parliament? How typed? What kind of a response did parliament make? How as to time? What did they pledge mutually? How are these things typed? What was then done? How typed? What did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans desire? How typed? What henceforth did the two do together? On entering the sphere of church politics, what did they do? Even to what extent? In a word, what? In fulfilment of what? How typed? 

(17) To what do we now come? Where typed? Through what two forms of agitation did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans assemble the British people? Along what lines? What gave the people the idea that the revolting Presbyterian Puritans were going to act more autocratically than even the second Anglican movement? How typed? Of what were these acts a charge? What two impressions did their conduct give? How typed? While giving these impressions, what did they do? How typed? What did they cause to be proclaimed? How typed? What did these agitations and proclamations arouse and bring about? In what two fronts? What did the stress of partisanship effect? How are these things typed? How was this assembling? How typed? 

(18) How did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans come to this assembling? How did they therein appear? How typed? To what degree did they press matters? How typed? What did the lawyers and judges then do? What example shows this? How typed? Who then came together to the sphere of autocracy? In what way did they agree and differ therein? How are these things typed? What two things did their course charge? How typed? To what three extremes did autocratic Charles I proceed? How typed? How even at this stage did the revolutionists act? How typed? For what did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans arrange? Under what conditions? How typed? What did they charge these? How? How typed? What warning did they give against a lack of zeal in refutation? How typed? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

454 

(19) What did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans finish? How typed? What did they immediately thereafter charge? How typed? What instances are illustrations of these refutations? How did the debate result? What resulted from the agitation to Lord Stratford and Archbishop Laud? How are these things typed? What was done with all autocrats? With the Anglican Church? How typed? With all theories and practices of autocracy? How typed? Its whole structure, Through what? How did they treat and leave it? How are these things typed? In what condition was it left? How typed? 

(20) While overthrowing autocracy, what two evils without deviation did the revolting Presbyterian Puritans foster? By whom had they been introduced? Unto what even? What facts prove their fostering these two evils? How are these things typed? What did God do with the Presbyterian Puritans' pertinent works? By what did He show that He approved of them? What did He, accordingly, promise them? How are these things typed? In what two things did they fail to give heed? How typed? Instead, what did they do? After whose example? How typed? What occurred in the first phase of revolutionary Presbyterian Puritanism? How did it occur? How typed? 

(21) Failing in paternal marriage negotiations with the Spanish king, what did James I next do in such marriage negotiations? What compromises with Romanism did success therein bring? How was this related to certain British laws and the convictions of most Britons? What was the first Romanism-favoring act committed by the bigoted Romanist wife of the crown-prince of England? With what consequences in Ireland? Her second act? Her series of acts goading Charles I to favor Romanists and absolutism? What effect did this have on Romanists? Where did these compromises advance Romanism against Protestantism? Of what are these Romanism-favoring acts the antitype? How typed in detail? What should Britain have done in these matters? What effect on universal Protestantism and Romanism did these acts have? How typed? Where are these acts of revolting Presbyterian Puritanism described? How typed? How have the acts of revolting Presbyterian Puritanism been regarded by the rightly informed? In unison with whom? How typed? 

Some Middle Parallels 

455 

By whom were they succeeded? After what? How typed? 

(22) Who succeeded Jehu? When? What does the name Jehoahaz mean? In allusion to what? How long did he reign? Where and how is this proved? Until when did he reign? What parallels his reign? From when to when? How proved? What kind of a policy did antitypical Jehoahaz pursue? How briefly are this policy and antitypical Jehu's policy contrasted? By whom and how was antitypical Jehu supported? What occurred after the antitypical Jehu phase ended? Wherein lays the main power of the Presbyterian Puritan revolutionists? Who was its ablest and most successful leader? How does he rank as an Englishman? In what particulars? What was his character? Against what enemies was he successful? What did he do in some cases to gain his end—England's welfare? 

(23) What as a whole was the character of antitypical Jehoahaz? To what degree did it favor sectarianism? Even what extreme measures did its majority favor? How did these measures stand as to Congregational principles? What did they arouse? How did they seek to organize religion in England? How did this affect Congregationalists? Why? Cromwell in particular? Of what two sins did antitypical Jehoahaz thus become guilty? After what movement's example? How are these things typed? How else did they act? What was one of these things? To the antagonism of whom? What evil did they do shortly after Charles I's capture? Why? What effect would their kind of a reconciliation with Charles I have had on the objects and effects of antitypical Jehu's revolution? What did they seek to do with the army? Why? How did Cromwell act in the premises? What effect did the clashes between parliament and the army have on antitypical Jehoahaz? Why? 

(24) What two things did Col. Pride at Cromwell's charge do? What two evils did these two things prevent? How did it in number and faith leave the membership of parliament? What were the remaining members called? What did they do as to antitypical Jehoahaz? With what effects on him? Why did great differences arise between Presbyterian Puritans and the army? Why? What did Charles I's deceitfulness toward both move the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

456 

army and the Rump Parliament to decide? On his being found guilty what was done to him? Upon whom did the main odium therefore fall? Why? Who clamored for his death? Upon whom did the minor odium therefore fall? With what result? Despite what? Why did their efforts therein fail? What else undermined some of antitypical Jehoahaz's influence? In what did Cromwell's absolutism result? How did antitypical Jehoahaz work in this matter? What did their pertinent course give them? Why? What two other things contributed to a return of the Stuart later called Charles II? How did they contribute to this effect? 

(25) How did the various acts of antitypical Jehoahaz described in the preceding two paragraphs affect the Lord as to them? With what result? How are these things typed? What did the Lord's anger bring? Upon whom? Were these the only things contributory thereto? What wars and two battles contributed thereto? Why? Whom did three Cromwellian victories arouse against England? In what countries was Romanist anger aroused against both parties of the English revolution? In what did this anger result? What acts of Charles stirred up trouble against both of these revolutionary parties? In what two ways? How typed in each case? How long did these troubles last? How typed? 

(26) To what did the earlier calamities of antitypical Jehoahaz lead? How typed? What did the Lord accordingly do? How typed? What did the Lord do for them? Where in each case? How typed? With what result? How typed? Through whom? To whom? From what? Despite this, what did the delivered not give up? By what were these introduced? How typed? How did they affect succeeding movements? How typed? What other evil in a feebler form persisted? How typed? What did God do for these evils? Until what effect was wrought? How was it brought about? How typed? How so? How typed? What was the ultimate effect on antitypical Jehoahaz How typed? 

(27) Who have discussed this period (1646-1660) and antitypical Jehoahaz? How typed? Through what did they come to an end? Despite what? How typed? What did they become during the next 18 years? How typed? 

Some Middle Parallels 

457 

What occurred throughout their period? In what two ways? How typed? What did they receive? Why? How typed? By whom? How typed? What two things did God not do? Yet what did He do to them? How typed? 

(28) To what does our study now bring us? In what respects does Jehoash or Joash type his parallel? How as movements do antitypical Jehoahaz and Joash compare or contrast with one another? What are the parallel periods? Where is this proved? Where are the Biblical or typical events given? What will be here omitted? Why? When did Hazael die? How proved? How do antitypical Hazael and Ben-hadad compare or contrast with one another? Whence do we get this thought? Who was Charles II? When did he reign? What was he invited to do? By whom generally? Particularly? What was his character? What in part proves his depravity? How and where did he spend most of his youth and young manhood? On his return what did he head? What flowed from his court? How and by whom was he trained? What did he do to gain Scotland's crown? England's crown? In both reigns what did he do to dissenters? What two evils marked his whole course? All the time of his English reign how did he act the hypocrite? How was his ingratitude shown? 

(29) Scarcely enthroned, what did he order? Of what elementary right did he deprive them? How did he have them punished? What did he do to this scene? How many were so executed? How many did he imprison? How did he treat the dead bodies of Cromwell, Ireton and Bradshaw? Those of Pym and Blake? The bodies of Cromwell's mother and eldest daughter? Despite what? What did he restore to all royalists, whenever possible? To the Anglican Church? By what Act? What other things did the Act require? What evil effect did it work? Why was the effect evil? What Act did he have passed in 1662? What were the effects of this Act? What Act did he make follow this one? What was its effect? To this what Act did he add? What did it forbid? In what did these two Acts result? What did he in 1660 order? In whose imprisonment did this result? How long? Where? What did he there write? Including what book? Whose frequent imprisonment did it also effect? What 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

458 

did parliament and the people force him to do with his first Declaration of Indulgence? Why? 

(30) While persecuting all Puritans, whom did he especially single out? Within a few years how many did he have in prison? When was that number released? Through what? Who else at that time and by that declaration obtained his freedom? What did he do with the Scotch Covenanters? Contrary to his oath what two things did he do to the Scotch? With what did he meet resistance to these two measures? What Act did he put into effect as to all Scotch Presbyterian ministers? With what result to 350? By what did he greatly outrage English feelings? What illegal thing did he permit? By what other act did he as a national humiliation outrage English feeling? By a secret treaty to what three things for an annual pension of 3,000,000 francs did he agree? What two effects followed this treaty? What subtle act did he do in 1672? Why were Protestants favored thereby? With what results? Knowing his intent, what did parliament do in opposition? Until what? What was the primary purpose and effect of all the acts referred to in this and the preceding paragraph? The nature of most of them? What was the purpose of those of them that were not blows on Protestantism? When only did he favor it? What corroborates this? 

(31) What should we now see? What was the character of some of these acts? Hence are covered by what type? The character of most of them? Hence covered by what type? What was their intention in all cases? As what does Jehoahaz stand as a type? What was the main character of his antitype's works? How typed? What evils did they continue? How typed? What did he do in other ways? What are three examples? How typed? Wherein are their acts set forth? How typed? When did the Jehoash policy cease acting as predominant? How typed? By what policy was it succeeded? What two things did the successor achieve? How typed? What was the main feature of the Joash phase? What two kinds of mouthpieces did God use during the Puritan period so far considered? Who typed each kind? How long combinedly did they function? Who was the Elijah leader at the beginning? Who were the Elisha representatives

Some Middle Parallels 

459 

in the four sects chiefly involved as weakening toward its end? How typed? How and through what did this weakening set in? When did it cease to function? How typed? What did antitypical Joash do at that period? Why? How typed? How did they act? How typed? What three things did they express? How typed in each case? 

(32) What was the time character of the symbolic visit? When and through what did it begin? When end? With what four things did antitypical Elisha arm antitypical Joash How was the first type? The second, third and fourth? What were these to do with the first? What response did antitypical Joash make? How typed? What did antitypical Elisha then do? How typed? What was the response? How typed? What did antitypical Elisha then do? How typed? What was their next instruction? How typed? What was the response? How typed? What charge and response was then made? How typed? What was the nature of this scene so far enacted? When was it fulfilled? What were the incidences antecedent and connected with its fulfilment? What was the trickery connected with Charles' pertinent course? How did antitypical Elisha perceive and do on this matter? With what effect in and out of parliament? On Charles? As what is this matter set forth? How did antitypical Elisha prophesy this event? How typed? What did they add prophetically? How typed? Unto what result? How typed? Why was the fulfilment of this forecast given above? What course is followed as to the threefold smiting with the arrows, type and antitype? 

(33) In continuing the pantomime forecast what did antitypical Elisha then do? How typed? What response followed? How typed? Thereupon what did antitypical Elisha charge? How typed? What pantomimic response followed? How typed? What followed? How typed? In connection with what will the antitypical facts be given? What effect on antitypical Elisha did the mere threefold smiting have? How typed? What did they tell them? How typed? What did they say should have been done and resulted? How typed? What did they say would be the result of the threefold smiting? How typed? What are we to understand preceded each of the three antitypical smitings? What chronological conclusion is drawn 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

460 

from this fact? What pertinent thing occurred in 1674? What is the approximate date of antitypical Elisha's ceasing to function? How typed? What infamous treaty did the Cabal ministry make? What were to England its main degrading provisions? Of what and in what was it guilty? How typed? When did they so act? How typed? 

(34) What occurred in 1672? What did it force? In the Cabal's and the bulk of its supporters' cast-off condition what did they continue to do? With what exception? As reformed what did they become to the rest of the Cabal and its supporters? Accordingly, what did they do to these? How typed? What attracted their attention? How typed? What effect did their noting these measures have on them? How typed? What did they do with the Earl of Shaftesbury and his supporters? How typed? What resulted therefrom? How typed? What counteractive measure did he and his supporters cause to pass through parliament? How long did its provisions operate? How was this activity typed? What is here done with vs. 22, 23? Why? What was shown above? How was the thing shown above typed? In this changed phase of the conflict whom did antitypical Joash draw to his side? As religious bodies what did they become during antitypical Jehoahaz's days? Through what? How typed? 

(35) Through what did this occur? How typed? In what did Charles II persist? What did he resultantly make? When? Ostensibly aimed at what? In the meantime what did the Presbyterians gain? What did they recognize? What counteractive steps did they take? With what results? Thereupon what did parliament do on the subject of Charles' Declaration? Of what were these Protestant successes the antitype? What did this victory first accomplish? Second? What was the antecedent of antitypical Joash's second victory? To break up this condition and free England from betrayal to Rome, what did antitypical Joash do? What were the three pro-Protestant and anti-Romanist provisions of the Test Act? What did this law force? Including even whom? What was it of a certainty? What was their third great victory over antitypical Ben-hadad? What were the three worst and to England greatest humiliating features? How did the bulk of Englishmen feel over it? What did antitypical 

Some Middle Parallels 

461 

Joash in, out of and by parliament do in 1674 with this treaty? And what three things to Charles? What had been done with that treaty? From when to when? What did an outraged public sentiment force? As well as what other three things? What succeeded the Cabal ministry? What did it do to Charles? Until when? What happened in that year? To what kind of a phase did it give way? 

(36) What were the first and last years of the Jeroboam phase? What were the parallel years? Where proven? What did it witness? In so far as what is concerned? What else did it witness? How did it grow? What will here first be set forth? Thereafter what? What do these events form? When? By 1678 of what four things had the bulk of the English people become convinced? In view of this state of public opinion, what did Titus Otis do? What kind of a man was he? What did he spread? How did his stories affect the populace and parliament? What did he do in parliament? 

(37) What anti-Romanist measure did the resultant agitation make a law? What other unhappy things did it effect? To what did this agitation and the desire to prevent the exposure of the worst feature of Charles' bargain with Louis move him to agree? What was the period and the general work of the Cavalier Parliament? What was the character of the new parliament? What great Act in 1679, preservative of freedom against tyrants' arbitrariness and selfishness, did it pass? What did Charles do three times? How long apart? Why? What occurred in 1682? In what two ways did Charles exercise autocracy? As an excuse for what did he use the Rye House Plot? When about to die what did he do? 

(38) By what four evils were his last three Rome-favoring and Protestant-opposing years followed? Through whom? What was his character as ruler? What did his course effect? What did the Glorious Revolution effect? What characterized the involved six years? What did this fight undo? What two things on beginning his reign did James II swear to do? Despite his oath, what three things did he do throughout his reign? What was his scheme? 

(39) What lawless thing did he do three days after he became king? Despite what two things? How did he carry

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

462 

his first parliament? What two things did he have done in Scotland? What two things did he brutally suppress? What did he do with their leaders? What did he do through Chief Justice Jeffries? Through Col. Kirke and Kirke's Lambs? How did he suborn witnesses? How did his Lambs mock the "dancing" of those hanged? What did James II introduce? Who introduced the first one? On what did he determine? On what did he defy parliament's protests? Why did he prorogue parliament? What did he do to four judges of the King's Court? Why? 

(40) What did he then do? What did he do as a result? Including what? What law did he ignore? How? What illegal thing did he next do? Next after this? What did he in connection therewith seek to enforce? How did he treat non-compliance therewith? What did these lawless acts arouse? Against these what did he do? What did he then do? What did he do to Protestant officers in the Irish army? What condition set in shortly? What did he then set out to do? Against the law what did he re-establish? Under what name, number and head? What did he then forbid? How in London did he seek to enforce this prohibition? What did pressure from this Commission arouse? How did it assert itself? What next did he seek to Romanize? By what acts? Who resisted? How did he treat them? What by 1687 was aroused? How did he treat advice to be moderate? Even whose advice? Why did they give it? How did he silence parliament's protests? What did he do with remonstrating Protestants? Whom did he put in their places? Even in what cases? To what extreme did he go with the Jesuit Petre? Why was this an extreme step? With the papal nuncio? How did he treat the Protestant Duke of Somerset for refusing to break the law by leading him into the Presence Chamber? What may truly be said of his course? 

(41) What did the English people discern as his purposes? What, accordingly, did they do? Despite his recommendations and commands, what did the governors of the Charter House refuse to do? Who were found among them? What produced rebellion in his most devoted Tories? What in the beginning and toward the end of his reign did he issue? What were their ostensible and real purposes? What did he do with the contrary laws? What 

Some Middle Parallels 

463 

was the Protestant reaction? Whose, for example? What did his pertinent failure prompt him to seek? What kind of voting regulations did he set up? Who refused to enforce them? Against this what two things did he do? What did the voters do? 

(42) What did he then do? How many read it? Refused to read it? How many started to read it in London churches? How was their compliance frustrated? What did the bishops do as to the clergy's refusal to read it? What did the primate do about it? How many bishops had time sufficient to reach Canterbury? What did the seven bishops do? What did the king answer? Do? What did they refuse to give? Who supported them? How did the people show their attitude? What again did the king reject? What was the jury's verdict on them, charged as criminals? How did the London populace celebrate the acquittal? What was done for those outside London throughout England? How did such respond? Even who celebrated the acquittal? How did James react to their attitude? Of what did these demonstrations convince him? 

(43) How had he made his appointments to office? What did this make their acts? Accordingly, what had to be done to reestablish law in England? How did he treat officials who sided with the seven bishops? What did he seek to foist upon England? With what result? For what three reasons did the English put up with him? What put an end to their longsuffering? Why? What three motives determined them to dethrone him? Who acted to this end? What did they do? What prompted William and Mary to accept the invitation? How did James react to this? How were his reactions received? Why? With what did William come? Who in great numbers joined it? How did James react to this? Contrary to William's desire what happened? Why did William not desire it? What happened again? To whose relief? What did parliament declare of him? What conditions were imposed upon William and Mary? On their promising to observe this what was done to them? 

(44) What did James' Romanist organization of Ireland effect for him? How did his Irish army treat Irish Protestants? In what? What occurred in several sieges of Protestant cities? Especially in that of Londonderry? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

464 

Until when did they hold out? What un-British thing did James then do? What was carried on in 1689? What in 1690 occurred that changed the course of events? Where and when did the two armies join battle? With what result? Where was James during the battle? How did he react to the defeat? What happened to William in this battle? What did his generals do thereafter? What did he allow in the peace terms? What conditions followed the war? With what results in Romanist Ireland? In Protestant (Ulster) Ireland? 

(45) What twelve promises were made by William and Mary in England? Keeping these promises, how did they rule? To what high position did William III attain? How and by what and where is he held in high honor? What did the constitutional reformers of William and Mary's day undo? With what result? Without what was the revolution of 1688 accomplished in England? How is it called? In contrast with what? 

(46) Where and when was the main part of antitypical Jeroboam's and Ben-hadad's fight? What aspect did it take on afterward? Due to the intrigues of what two sets of agents? What did Louis XIV seek to do? By what? What were the two general results? What English Act was passed in 1701? What did William always oppose? Why? When did he reign? What were strictly defined and secured during his reign? What cabinet reform was then introduced? Of what are the reforms of this and the subsequent period of antitypical Jeroboam the basis? How are the Common Laws of both countries related? From these standpoints and those of the individual's inalienable rights before human law, what is England to America and what was she long called? What solidified Protestant countries against Louis XIV's Romanist course? What did he do at James II's death in 1701? How did parliament react to this busybodying in Englands' affairs? How did the war of the Spanish Succession proceed and result for Protestantism and Romanism? 

(47) What in 1707 further strengthened Protestantism and weakened Romanism? Under what conditions did this take place? What did the Jacobites do during 1714 to 1716? Anent what circumstances? What did the Jacobites attempt to do? Who joined the plot? Its result? 

Some Middle Parallels 

465 

(48) What followed? In whose interests? Into what did they grow? Where? What marked it? What was the final result? What did Charles XII of Sweden plot? What put an end to it? What did Britain, 1718-1720, do? Why? With what result? What bill was passed in 1719 helpful to Protestant dissenters' sects? How was it helpful? What occurred in 1723 as to Bishop Atterbury? How did he stand among Jacobites? What did Spain at war with Britain, 1727-1729, seek to do? What were the things it did to secure the Pretender's enthronement? What was the outcome? What did the Pretender give up in 1730? What was thereby realized? Despite what? 

(49) What will now be done with the foregoing discussion? What do the meaning of Jeroboam and his acts imply as to the antitype? How typed? With what were they occupied? How typed? What in many ways was the character of their acts? Especially when? How typed? What course did they follow? Like whom? How typed? Despite this what good did he do? How typed? By whom was this prophesied? What peculiarity does this prophecy have? Who accomplished this deliverance? Why? How typed? Who were unable to do it? How typed? 

(50) Through whom did He work the deliverance? How typed? How were they related to the antitypical Joash? How typed? Where are the various features of their works recorded? How typed in each feature? Whose pertinent work is the ablest? How long and when was this the ascendant movement? When did it end? How typed? By what was it succeeded? What did it seek to have rescinded? How typed? 

(51) As shown above, what amelioration of the Test Act was given the British non-Anglican sects? Under what disadvantages did they yet suffer by it? What did some members of dissenting sects do as to the Test Act? Why? What did strict Anglicans do as to occasional conformity? Without annulling the Act what kind of an ameliorating bill as to it had been passed? What in 1730 did antitypical Zachariah do? With what proviso? In favor of their object what did they set forth? What party was then in power? Under whose leadership? How did they view the involved principles? Yet what did they 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

466 

urge? Why? How long did the discussion go on? What had the Whigs determined by 1731? What was the only concession that they would make? What reason was given therefore? With this decision what took place? With it what also ended? As what? What does this imply? After achieving what two general effects? 

(52) How long did the antitypical Zachariah phase last? What are the parallel years? Where is this shown? How typed? What will now be briefly done? What is Scripturally done as to the coming of this phase into activity? In what language is it typed? Of what was it guilty? How typed? Under what circumstances did Kt become thus guilty? How typed? What did it not give up, introduced by the first Lutheran movement? What were these evils? Who else was guilty of them? What did the Whig leaders do as to the Presbyterian Puritans' request? How typed? What did their full decision end? How typed? What did they briefly do? How typed? What was done as to the acts of antitypical Zachariah? How typed? What was thus fulfilled? Through whom was it probably given? What did the prophecy say? Where is it recorded? How did antitypical Elisha use Jehu's revolution? When did that revolution begin and end successfully? What is therefore probable? Of what in this matter do we not know? How is this matter typed? What occurred with the prophecy? How typed? 

(53) What study is now taken up? After what? What will prove helpful at this point? For what? What does Jehoshaphat parallel? How? What are the parallel years? Through whom did it develop as such? Despite what during its last seven years? Jehoram? How? The parallel years? Ahaziah? How? How did the Congregationalists in England react thereto? The parallel years? When and how did it end? What was the peculiarity of the fourth Congregational movement? Which was this church? Who was its leader? In what three movements was he injuriously active? What typed the anti-separatist movement of the Leyden Congregational Church? What are the parallel years? 

(54) What did the Leyden Church see? What thereupon did it do? Under whose lead? What were the faithful

Some Middle Parallels 

467 

Congregationalists? What does this mean? What was their pertinent idea? How did they enter this covenant? To what did they bind themselves? What did they refuse? With whom? What resultantly were they called? What church took another attitude? On seeing what? During what period? How typed? In this attitude what did it do? How typed? What did the Congregationalists make? In whom? How typed? How did Congregationalism reactionary stand toward it? Congregationalism autocratic? How typed in each case? What did this covenant in its adherents do secretly? How typed in detail? In what did it keep them? How typed? Against what? How typed? What is a summary of its activities in its adherents? How typed? As a feature of what? How typed? From what did it give this protection? How typed? With what result? How typed? 

(55) How many principles and practices of Congregational separatism did they repudiate? Under whose leadership? How typed? Wherein does this appear? What is the first of these repudiations? The second? Third? Fourth? Fifth? Sixth? Seventh? Eighth? Ninth? Tenth? Eleventh? Twelfth? Thirteenth? Fourteenth? Fifteenth? Sixteenth? What vital principle did they repudiate? From what did it flow? What are some more details involved in their repudiations? In repudiating these things what did the Leyden Church become? In what act? What did she fail to do? 

(56) How long was this principle held secretly? What were the years? How typed? During this time what prevailed? Where? How typed? When did our Lord take charge of counteractive measures? How is the time typed? What did He first do? How typed? Secondly? How typed? Especially what two classes? How typed in each case? How is each of the five ecclesias' leaders typed separately? What did our Lord do as to these? How typed? How? How typed? How and where did He do this? How typed? What did He clarify and stress? How typed? In what did these leaders busy themselves? How typed? What did they do there? How typed? Whom else? How typed? Where did they bring these? How typed? What did all the faithful do? When? How typed? What did Jesus make clear? How typed? According to 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

468 

what? How typed? What work did He give them? How differing? How is the fourfoldness of the work typed? What was the first of these activities? How typed? The second? How typed? The third? How typed? The fourth? How typed? What were the rest of the brethren to do? How did they differ? How typed? Who were alone to do public service? How typed? How should these do their service? How typed? 

(57) What were two of these sets of brethren to do? How typed in each case? How were they to act? How typed? What were they to do? How typed? What should be done to the inimically disposed? How typed? What were they especially to do? How typed? What four groups were involved? How typed in each case? What did they do? How typed? What particular work did He have the fourth group do? How typed? What three things did our Lord provide? For whom? How typed in each case? Where found? How typed? Where placed? How typed? To whom did they come? Why? How typed? Where did they take their position? As what? How typed? In support of what? How? How typed? What two classes were involved? How typed? How did they stand? For what? How typed? How were they equipped? For what? How typed? What three things did they begin to do? How typed? As what did they set it forth? How typed? What did they give to it? How typed? As what did they set it forth? How typed? Who especially now acted? How typed? What did they do? How typed? What did all the faithful then do? How typed? For what did they pray? How typed? 

(58) Who took cognizance of the demonstration? How typed? Who were the demonstrators observed? How typed? How were they supporting Separatism? How typed? What did it first do? Secondly? How typed? What did their discussions reveal? To what? How typed? How formed? By whom? How typed? What had he done? How typed? Who perverted it into a sect? What was the pertinent custom? How typed? What did the leaders and lecturers do? How typed? What was the attitude of the others? Except whom? How typed? Who all joined in such advocacy? How typed? What did 

Some Middle Parallels 

469 

their preachers do? How? How typed? Who else joined in the propaganda? How typed? 

(59) Seeing the happenings, what did the Leyden Church movement do? As what? Seeking to do what? How are these things typed? Of what did it accuse the faithful? How typed? Whom did Jesus bring into extra prominence? How typed? What did He charge? On what were the concessions made? How were these things typed? Toward whom were they made? In what compromising efforts? How typed? What also did He charge as to its defenders? How typed? What did He prohibit? How typed? Taking this cue, what did they do? How typed? What did they avoid? What did they do? How typed? To what teachings? How typed? What had it done as to these teachings? What did they reveal? And thus do? How typed? What did the pertinent movement do? What occurred in less than two years thereafter? What happened about 100 years later to the quasi-Presbyterio-Congregationalism transplanted by him to New England? During the first part of those about 100 years of what was it guilty? With what effect on Massachusetts' early reputation? What do these facts prove of the Leyden brand of Congregationalism? 

(60) What did our Lord effect? Between whom? How typed? On God's part what did it do? On the movement's and the people's part what did it do? How typed? What else did it imply? How typed? In loyalty to their agreement what did they enter? How typed? What did they therein do first? How? How typed? Secondly? How typed? While how engaged? How typed? For what did our Lord arrange? How typed? Through whom? How typed? According to what? How typed? What was their work? How typed? According to what? How typed? In what spirit did they sacrifice? How typed? Doing what? How typed? According to whose arrangements? How typed? For what did they also arrange? How typed? For what precaution? How typed? 

(61) What arrangements were made to operate? Why was another thing done? What was it? Why? Where is this set forth? Who participated in this? In what order? What was the first in order? What was their work? The second? To what end? How typed? The third?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

470 

What did they do? How typed? The fourth? What unexpectable thing marked these? How typed? The fifth? What did they do? How typed? To what end did all these cooperate? How typed? As a thing not simply operating in what way? How typed? What did they do with Separatism? How typed? By whose means? How typed? Into what sphere did they put it? How typed? As what did they constitute it? How typed? In its adherents what did it exercise? According to what example? How typed? What was the effect on all loyal Congregationalists? How typed? What resultantly reigned? Where? How typed? After what? How typed? With what was it accomplished? How typed? On what subject? How typed? 

‍