Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
Petilian of the former. Shortly after this conference Donatism began slowly to decrease until it finally died out.
(24) It will be helpful to us better to appreciate the offerings of antitypical Shelumiel, if we note briefly the salient features of the Felicissimian, Novatian and the Donatist schims, which furnished the occasions of the main offering of antitypical Shelumiel's charger, bowl and spoon. These three schisms were very much alike in their origins, principles and accompaniments. The Felicissimian and Novatianion schisms arose in 251 A. D. Felicissimus and Novatian were presbyters in the church at Carthage and Rome respectively. The latter was a talented theological writer. Decius, the Emperor, initiated a severe persecution of the whole Church of the Roman Empire in 250 A. D., death being usually meted out to all apprehended Christians who did not renounce Christ, sacrifice to the gods and surrender the Church's Bibles and other books to the civil authorities for burning. Many weak Christians became apostates, sacrificing to the gods and delivering the Bibles, etc., to the authorities for destruction. Among others, at Rome, Fabian, bishop of Rome was martyred, 250 A. D. After a year's lapse without a successor being elected, two of his presbyters, Cornelius and Novatian, were candidates for his office, the former winning the election. What to do with those who weakly sacrificed to the gods and delivered up the sacred books to save their lives, and who after the persecution was over sought the fellowship of the brethren became a problem. Cornelius, the bishop of Rome, advocated their reinstatement after a season of penance. Novatian advocated their perpetual disfellowshipment from the Church, but left them hope that a lifetime of penitence might secure for them Divine forgiveness. Controversy arose between the adherents of these two opinions. The dispute became fierce and resulted in a split in the church at Rome,
Novatian being elected the bishop of the schismatic church. In harmony with the custom of those days, the head of each party wrote to the most influential bishops of the Christian world seeking their support. In this way Cyprian, who at Carthage was having difficulty with the Felicissimus schism in which the schismatics went to the extreme opposite to that of Novatian, i.e., advocating the reception of the lapsed without any notice being taken of their having renounced Christ, was the recipient of letters from Cornelius and Novatian. For two reasons Cyprian took Cornelius' side: (1) because as an apostolic (?) bishop Cornelius should be obeyed by his presbyters and laity, and (2) because he agreed with Cornelius' views as against those of Novatian. This led Cyprian to write, as condemnatory of the division, on the truth given by Irenaeus, that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Truth, attaching to this truth the error of apostolic succession of bishops, as the principle which proves that to be separate from one's bishop is to be outside of the one Church, since according to the doctrine of apostolic succession the one Church is based on the bishops as the center of its unity. But despite these errors Cyprian certainly, as a part of antitypical Shelumiel, offered his part in the latter's charger, bowl and spoon.
(25) The Donatist schism set in toward the end of the Dioclesian persecution, 311 A. D., out of the same problem as that which occasioned the Novatian schism, i.e., as to what should be done with those Christians who to save their lives sacrificed to the gods and delivered up the sacred books, and who now sought reconciliation with the Church. The answer was given in the same two ways in which it was given at the end of the Decian persecution sixty years before. And as on the former occasion, so on this, the advocates of each view became very combative, the trouble starting
at Carthage. The controversy was referred in 313 A. D. to Constantine, the first Christian Emperor. He appointed first, in 313, a commission of bishops under the presidency of Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and then, in 314, a great council at Arles, Gaul (France), to investigate and decide the involved questions. Both decided against those who advocated the permanent disfellowshipment of the lapsed. Constantine in 316 personally heard the case and confirmed the former decisions. In 313 Donatus became the leader of the strict party. The schism spread all over Africa, and, because the civil authorities sided with the Catholics, many of the schismatics, particularly begging and traveling monks, committed many acts of revolution and anarchy. For years, despite attacks by the army, confiscation, torture, closing of churches and exile, the Donatists held out. In 400 A. D. Augustine began his eleven years' unwearied attacks on them. Fearing his skill as a debater, they refused to meet him in synodical discussion. Finally they were compelled by the Emperor Honorius, 411 A. D., to hold a three-day discussion with the Catholic party at Carthage, at which 279 Donatist bishops and 287 Catholic bishops were present, Petilian being the chief debater for the former and Augustine for the latter. The Emperor's legate—a Catholic—was to decide on the merits of the points. He, as was expected, decided for the Catholics.
(26) Both sides failed to distinguish between the Real and the nominal Church, and debated the question from resultant wrong standpoints. Both believed the True Church to be an external organization. Augustine contended for the catholic (not papal) view of the True Church, that it is but one, that in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of the Truth, and that all belonged to it who united themselves with the bishops as the Apostles' successors. This last view, of course, shows that Augustine was contending for a sect—the Roman Catholic Church—
as the true Church. The Donatists claimed that only the bishops who were saints were successors of the Apostles, and that only the saintly ones who were united with them were the true Church, which they claimed their sect to be. Thus both sides were in error as to what was the Real Church. But the Catholic view was on the whole nearer the truth than that of the Donatists; and on the subject of their being but one (nominal) Church, which in its catholicity was the steward and administrator of the Truth, to guard and administer it for the blessing of all the responsive, it was decidedly in the right as against the Donatist view, according to which only the saintly were benefited by its administration of the Truth, and according to which the least unsaintly act meant disfellowshipment. Such [Donatist] views accorded with the mission of and membership in neither the Real nor the nominal Church. The Catholic idea of treating with the human weaknesses of the responsive was certainly an outflow of the thought of the Church as administering the Truth for the blessing of the responsive; while the Donatist view made the Church a cold, unsympathetic institution that held out no hope, comfort nor encouragement for "those who are weak and out of the way." For varying reasons, from 429 onward Donatism was gradually given up, the Donatist bishops and churches joining the Catholic Church, their bishops retaining their official standing. The Novatian and Donatist controversies were prophesied in Matt. 13: 28, 29, the Lord's answer being given through Cyprian, Augustine, etc.
(27) Apart from the Novatian and Donatist schisms, the Roman Catholic Church has had many other opportunities to offer through her crown-lost leaders—antitypical Shelumiel—the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon; but it is unnecessary to give further details on the involved historical facts. We have given a summary of controversy connected with the Novatian
and Donatist schisms, because they help us better to see two things: (1) how the Roman Catholic crown-lost leaders, as antitypical Shelumiel, offered their charger, bowl and spoon, and (2) how they turned into a sect the Little Flock movement begun by Irenaeus through the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to defend it from error and to administer it for the blessing of the responsive. What we have said above on Cyprian's and Augustine's longsuffering labor to minister peace of heart and mind to those who were weak and out of the way, and who repented and sought reconciliation with the Lord helps us to see the appropriateness of the name Shelumiel (peace of God) as typical of the character of the Roman Catholic crown-lost leaders, of whom Cyprian and Augustine were splendid examples. The truth that they taught emphasized the thought of God's almighty love and forgiveness to those who are weak and out of the way. The word, Zurishaddai (my rock is almighty), gives this thought.
(28) Now we will proceed to show how antitypical Shelumiel offered his charger, i.e., ministered the special truth committed to the Roman Catholic Church as a means of correcting misconduct. Their emphasis of the truth that there is one Church as a whole was a mighty correction to all who tried to introduce sectarian divisions. This emphasis corrected the party spirit as a wrong spirit. It stressed the danger and disastrous effect of error, and the wrong of being a teacher or supporter of error. It rebuked the pride that sought to differ from the brethren. It also rebuked the narrow spirit that despised and cast aside those who would show a spirit of variance. It condemned a harsh spirit that apparently took pleasure in rebuffing the weak. The exclusive spirit it corrected by the thought of the catholicity of the one Church. The censorious spirit that would make beams of motes and
mountains of molehills it certainly chastised with a whip of small cords. The holier-than-thou attitude of the Gospel-Age Pharisees who thanked God that they were better than the poor publicans who smote their bosoms in contrition for their weaknesses and sins and pled for forgiveness for Jesus' merit certainly received a needed correction from the way antitypical Shelumiel emphasized the Church's stewardship as the administrator of the Truth for the blessing of the responsive; for he showed that the Church in administering the Truth to such was a nurse for the sick, a haven for the storm-tossed and shaken mariner on sin's sea and a mother to the prodigal returning to his father's house. He rebuked the stern and repelling spirit of a Novatian and a Donatus, as foreign to the spirit of Jesus, the friend and receiver of sinners.
(29) On this point the fine sentiments of Cyprian that reveal a real pastor's heart in him may well be quoted. Pointing out how the repellent spirit of Novatianism is out of harmony with the true pastoral heart and would bring a shepherd in the Lord's flock condemnation, he says: "At the day of judgment it will be laid to our charge that we took no care of the wounded sheep, and on account of one that was diseased left many sound ones to perish; that while our Lord left the ninety-nine whole sheep, and went after the one that had wandered and become weary, and, when He had found it, brought it away Himself on His shoulders, we not only do not seek after the fallen, but even reject them when they return to us." In another place he rebukes this spirit in the following language: "The case stands differently with the philosophers and stoics, who say all sins are alike, and that a sound man should not easily be brought to bend. But the difference is wide betwixt philosophers and Christians. We are bound to keep aloof from what proceeds, not from God's grace, but from the pride of a severe philosophy. Our Lord says in His Gospel,
'Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful,' and 'The whole need not a physician, but the sick'; but such a physician he cannot be who says, 'I take care only of the sound' who need no physician. Behold, yonder lies thy brother wounded in battle by his enemy. On the one hand, Satan is trying to destroy him whom he has wounded; on the other, Christ exhorts us not to leave him to perish whom He has redeemed. Which cause do we espouse? On whose side do we stand? Do we help the devil finish his work of destruction? Do we, like the priest and the Levite in the Gospel, pass by our brother lying half dead? Or do we, like the priests of God and of Christ, following Christ's precept and example, snatch the wounded man from his enemy; that having done everything for his salvation, we may leave the final decision of his case to the judgment of God?" Such statements were certainly sharp corrections of the spirit that did not administer the Truth for the blessing of the responsive. These are only samples of many corrections that antitypical Shelumiel gave in serving the truth that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to defend it from error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive.
(30) Let us now consider how antitypical Shelumiel offered his antitypical bowl—refutations of errors against the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of God's Truth, to preserve it from and against error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. But let us not forget that what antitypical Shelumiel understood by the one Church is not the Real Church. He meant by it, first the nominal church, then later the Roman Catholic Church; thus he was not clear on this point; for he fell into the double error (1) that the Church is the organization connected with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, and
(2) that it is identical with the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, as all other crown-lost leaders corrupted the truth underlying the Little Flock movements that they turned into sects, so antitypical Shelumiel measurably corrupted the truth given by Irenaeus when the latter started the pertinent Little Flock movement. But in spite of these corruptions, which prevented his offering an antitypical cup, he was able to defend the pertinent truth from attacks which he refuted. Thus, while he could not refute all attacks made on apostolic succession and the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church, he could refute attacks on the doctrine that there is but one Church, which in its entirety is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. This shows his strength and weakness.
(31) Thus antitypical Shelumiel has refuted the claim of every sect that it (that sect) is the one Church, as contradictory to the truth entrusted to the custody of the Roman Catholic Church. He refuted their claims by pointing out many errors that they taught, many truths that they rejected, the wrong organizations that they formed, the exclusion of many Christians from fellowship—a thing of which they have been guilty, the recency of their origin, the separatistic movement in which they were born, and the fractional part of Christians that they contain and the multitudes of Christians that they exclude. Therefore antitypical Shelumiel has rightly concluded that none of them is the one Church in its entirety—catholicity. But be it noted that by these very proofs antitypical Shelumiel unwittingly demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one Church catholic, i.e., that it also is a sect. So, too, has antitypical Shelumiel proved that not one of these sects is the exclusive steward of God's Truth, as each one of them claims; for he proved everyone of them to be guilty of lacking
some Truth; therefore they could not have preserved the Truth, whatever they may have done to preserve some of the Truth. Again, he proved each of them not to be the preserver of the Truth from error; for each of them has rejected more than one truth and taught various opposing errors. Again, he proved each one of them not to have administered many truths for the benefit of the responsive; for he proved each one to have failed to emphasize various truths. But, again, by these very proofs he unintentionally demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is also not the Church catholic, but a sect; for in each of these points it also had sinned by omission or commission. But in all these refutations antitypical Shelumiel was refuting attacks on the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it for the benefit of the responsive. Thus he offered his bowl—refutative teachings.
(32) Antitypical Shelumiel likewise offered his spoon— ethical teachings, instructions in righteousness, connected with the pertinent truth of his denomination. The peculiar truth to which he ministered made him stress right living as becoming to the Christian. It also required him to stress the Church's recognition of Christ's headship, which implies a life of consecration. The principle of Christian brotherhood and fellowship likewise was a thing insisted upon by antitypical Shelumiel, as flowing out of the idea of the catholicity of the Church. Faithfulness in exercising stewardship was also an instruction in righteousness featured by him in stressing the Church as God's steward. Love for Truth and hatred for error were instructions that he gave as he ministered to the one truth committed to the Roman Catholic Church. Keeping the unity of the faith and the Church was an instruction in righteousness that he stressed as naturally flowing out of the special truth committed to the
antitypical tribe of Simeon. Sympathy for those who were weak and out of the way was another ethical teaching that antitypical Shelumiel presented. He inculcated love for the brethren as an outflow of the truth for which he stood. He encouraged a pastoral heart in the ministry and a loving meekness in the laity on behalf of those who fell into sin. He emphasized longsuffering and forgiveness in dealing with the weaknesses of the brethren, and that because of the character of the special truth of his denomination. He inculcated a love for the Church as the benefactor of all the Lord's people. He inspired zeal for the defense of the Truth, for the attack of error and for the application of the Truth to uplifting the responsive. He inculcated a conciliatory spirit and a magnanimity toward all brethren in relation to the special truth committed to his denomination. He inspired many a campaign to win back the fallen. From the above specifications we can readily see how his special truth gave a practical bent, as to Christian study, living and service, to his ethical teachings. And in teaching these things he offered the golden spoon for the tribe of antitypical Simeon.
(33) We now come in our study of the offerings of the Gospel-Age princes to the offering of the sixth set of the crown-lost leaders—those of the Episcopal Church. These are the antitype of Eliasaph, the son of Deuel (Num. 7: 42), since the Episcopal Church is the antitype of the tribe of Gad, as we have seen. In Num. 1: 14 Deuel is likewise called Deuel; but in Num. 2: 14 he is called Reuel. The Hebrew letters, daleth (equivalent to our d) and resh (equivalent to our r), look very nearly alike; and they have been interchanged in Num. 2: 14; for many manuscripts give daleth instead of resh in Num. 2: 14, whereas all manuscripts give daleth only in Num. 7: 42 and 1: 14. Hence we think that Deuel, and not Reuel, is the right name for the father of Eliasaph, prince of
Gad, though both can have the same meaning—knowledge of power, sight of power, i.e., recognition of power. Gad, as we know, was the third tribe to the south of the tabernacle (Num. 2: 10-16) belonging to the camp of Reuben.
(34) The special doctrine that God entrusted to the Episcopal Church is this: The Church in the flesh, like Jesus in the flesh, is subject to the civil power. This is certainly a Scriptural doctrine (Matt. 22: 17-21; Rom. 13: 1-6; Titus 3: 1; 1 Pet. 2: 13-17). One of the reasons that God has subjected the Christ, Head and Body, while in the flesh, to the civil power is that through such obedience they could be all the more thoroughly tested by the things that they would suffer from the civil power incidental to their carrying out their sacrifice as Sin-offerings; for in the vast majority of the cases their being put to death without the camp was ostensibly as rebels against the civil power, which they obeyed faithfully in all things within the sphere of the State's right to command. Only such obedience as conflicted with God's Word did they refuse to render (Acts 5: 29); and even in this they showed a willing obedience to suffer uncomplainingly the consequences of such a course. To the natural man their subjection to the State, with the concomitants of suffering at its hand, seemed sure proof that they were not God's prospective kings and priests; and thus it proved one of the means of hiding the Christ class, as the hidden mystery, from human ken. Thus in two ways the subjection of the Christ class in the flesh to the civil power was connected with them as the mystery of God: (1) to effect a part of their sufferings as Sin-offerings and (2) to hide them as the mystery.
(35) Thus the doctrine that was the stewardship teaching of the Episcopal Church was connected with the Christ class as the special mystery of God, which mystery is the greatest expression of God's wisdom. Hence in the type the tribe of Gad dwelt on the south
of the tabernacle, whose camp had as its standard that which represented God's wisdom; and it is appropriate that the Episcopal Church should take its stand, as for its stewardship truth, on the antitypical South of the antitypical Tabernacle—God's wisdom. Now we are in a better position to see why the south of the tabernacle stood for God's wisdom. The three doctrines championed by the three denominations, antitypical of the three tribes on the south of the tabernacle, center in Christ and the Church as the mystery of God in their office work, i.e., (1) Christ's office work as Jehovah's Special Representative; (2) the office work of the Church as God's representative in the world; and (3) the subjection of the Christ to the civil power in the days of their flesh, bringing in part upon them their sacrificial sufferings, not understood by the world. Thus the Christ, the hidden mystery, as the chief expression of Jehovah's wisdom, is the line of thought championed by the three denominations on the antitypical Tabernacle's South, just as God's wisdom was represented by the standard of the camp on the south of the tabernacle in the type.
(36) The Little Flock member who started the movement which crown-lost leaders perverted into the Episcopal Church, with the doctrinal principle that the Christ, Head and Body, in the flesh, is subject to the civil power, was Thomas Cranmer, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury, and thus "primate of all England." He was born July 2, 1489, and died at papal hands by fire at the stake on March 21, 1556. He was educated at Cambridge University, where he later became a professor. In 1529 he obtained the favor of Henry VIII by advising that the question of the legality of the latter's marriage with his brother's widow be submitted to the universities of Christendom, to avoid its longer submission to the pope's decision. In the controversy with Rome he held that, not to the pope, but to the king all persons, lay and clerical,
in England were subject, i.e., that the Lord wills that the Church be subject to the civil power, and not that the civil power be subject to the Church, i.e., the pope. His stand on the illegality of Henry's marriage and his authority over all Englishmen, lay or clerical, brought him into violent conflict with the pope, who for year's favored Henry's marriage annulment, but feared the wrath of Charles V, the nephew of Henry's wife, and who therefore temporized on the question. Cranmer boldly claimed that the pope had neither civil nor religious power over England and its inhabitants, that all his claimed powers were usurpations, and that his claims to civil authority over England fundamentally contradicted the teachings that the Church is by God made subject to the civil power, and not vice versa as the pope claimed. In 1533 Cranmer became as Archbishop of Canterbury, all England's primate. In 1535 he abjured allegiance to the pope, was at Henry's death made one of the regents during the minority of Edward VI, was the most influential leader in the Reformation work of what later became the Episcopal Church—the Church of England. Required against his advice and opinion by King Edward VI to sign the patent settling the succession to the throne on Lady Jane Grey, as against Mary and Elizabeth, who were in succession; so nominated by Henry VIII, he was on Mary's accession in 1553 imprisoned on the charge of treason, was for it sentenced to death by beheading, but later was pardoned in order that he might suffer a severer punishment. Thereupon he was charged with heresy for rejecting transubstantiation, was condemned and kept in a filthy prison under grave severities for nearly three years. Weakened in mind and will by his long-drawn-out sufferings in prison, he was, on promise of pardon, induced to sign a mild recantation, which by papal forgeries was elaborated into six; for the story of his signing six recantations, each successive one more stringent than its alleged
predecessor, rests on the sole claim of his persecutor, "bloody Bonner." Left under the impression that after a public recantation he was to be freed, he went to the place where it was to be made—St. Mary's Church at Oxford. But, deeply penitent for his recantation, and knowing that what he was about to do would bring him certain death at the stake, he expressed deep sorrow for his cowardice, solemnly abjured his recantation and said that when he would be burned he would first hold his right hand that had signed the recantation in the fire as a proof of his hearty abjuration of it. Angered to the quick, the papists, who had falsified to him as to his release, and who had from the start intended to burn him, as soon as he had made his public recantation, hurried him to the stake, where he steadfastly held his right hand to the fire, which first consumed it before it much affected the rest of his body, saying that by it he had sinned and by it he would first burn. His burning, together with the burning of his colleagues, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper and Ferrar, all bishops, filled England with a horror that arose to still greater heights as Protestant victim after victim was burned to the number of 286, when, by what seems a Divine judgment, "Bloody Mary," the pope's legate and England's primate, and 14 bishops, the sixteen chief persecutors, died within an incredibly short time of one another, most of them by plague. Then Elizabeth ascended the throne and the persecution ended.
(37) The better to understand the movement that from its Divine side Cranmer aroused on the authoritative relation of the State to the Church, as against the pope's claims and usurpations, it will be well for us to glance briefly at the gradual growth of the papal power in England as it used sometimes fraud, sometimes flattery, sometimes usurpation and sometimes force to establish itself there. England received Churchianity first from churches in France, and not from
Rome, several centuries before Augustine, a monk, in 597, with colaborers was sent there on a mission as the representatives of Gregory I, one of the three greatest popes. Augustine's claim of the pope's authority over the English clergy and laity the British bishops firmly denied as an unheard-of thing, they holding that loyalty to God and their king forbade their subjection to a foreign bishop. It is certain that Alfred the Great, 849-901, exercised authority over all English persons, lay or clerical, while the pope claims in the canon law that the clergy are subject in all things to him alone. And this position of Alfred, with occasional vacillations, was held by practically all kings of England down to Cranmer's times. When Gregory VII— Hildebrand—one of the three greatest popes, sought to obtain fealty from William the Conqueror, 1078, the latter refused it, claiming that this was against all English precedents. The kings claimed the right to nominate all English bishops and archbishops, because these exercised more or less of civil power under the king. William Rufus, the Conqueror's son and successor, not only followed his father's course, but forbade Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his first attempt to appeal to Rome, from so doing, all the bishops and barons joining him in the contention that such a thing was unheard-of in England and contrary to English usage. Henry I, his successor, told the pope that he would not at papal demand relinquish any of the crown's prerogatives to the pope. Further to outlaw appeals to the pope, Henry II, 1164, summoned a council of British nobles and clergy. The earls and barons passed, as the eighth of the Constitutions of Clarendon, a prohibition of any appeals outside of England, the king being the final court.
(38) However, there were sly and gradual encroachments of papal power from the death of William Rufus, 1100, until after the accession of King John, called Lackland, because of his shameful surrender of
his kingdom to Pope Innocent III, the greatest of the three greatest popes, and his receiving it back under shameful conditions as a vassal of the pope. This pope, one of the greatest power-graspers of all times, well knowing that it was a prerogative of the English king to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1205 took it upon himself to do this by forcing a chapter of monks, fraudulently created by himself for this very purpose, to elect his nominee at Rome, without the king's knowledge. This greatly enraged the king, who on their return impeached these monks for high treason, banished them, seized the estates of the see and chapter of Canterbury for himself and defied the pope, who answered by an interdict, and two years later by anathema. The clergy and laity sided with the pope. After much strife, the pope commanded Philip Augustus, King of France, to take possession of England as his own kingdom. A crusade against the excommunicated king was ordered by the pope, at the hands of the French king. John finally surrendered unconditionally to the pope, securing his kingdom back as a vassal of the pope, May 15, 1213. That autumn the pope's legate forced John to renew the surrender. The primate of England, Steven Langton, and the barons, seeing that the ancient liberties of England, clerical and lay, were being destroyed by the pope, resisted John as his representative and forced from him the Magna Carta, the first charter of liberty, which guaranteed to every order in England its ancient liberties, and some fresh ones, and which the papal tyrant, Innocent III, declared void. Innocent's usurpations were for some time maintained despite English objections. Henry III, from 1216 to 1272, let the pope's usurpations in State and Church have free course and abound in England. The next king, Edward I, 1272 to 1307, by the people's co-operation in making laws, hindered the clergy from getting land so freely as they had, especially by fear-enforced bequests; though
through evasion of the law—the statute of Mortmain—they by the times of Henry VIII gained possession of very large parts of English property. Edward I, with Parliament's help, refused subjection to Boniface VIII, another very powerful and power-grasping pope. In the reign of Edward III Parliament declared null and void the grant of the kingdom to the pope. In the reign of Richard II, 1377 to 1399, the Statute of Praemunire was enacted, which prohibited all appeals to powers outside of England. On the accession of Henry IV, the pope and all other foreign princes were forbidden to meddle in England's affairs. During the reign of Henry VI, 1422 to 1461, England successfully resisted the pope's efforts to make void the Statute of Praemunire. In the reign of Edward IV, 1461 to 1483, it was forbidden any cleric to sue another cleric in the pope's court. While in these struggles the pope's claims were often acceded to by the private acts of ministers and counselors or weak monarchs, never was even one of their usurpations legalized by statute; but, on the contrary, every one of them was in time resisted and declared by statute as criminal. This proves that the doctrine of the Royal supremacy was not invented at the time of the Reformation, as papists claim; but that at that time, as in times past, it was used in fighting the claims of papal supremacy in State and Church, which almost always the papal English clergy claimed as against the Royal supremacy.
(39) Cranmer was led to announce that contrary to papal claims, according to God's law, all clerics as well as laymen are subject to the civil power. He did not teach that the king under God was the head of the Church of England, as the king claimed, though he had to put up with this doctrine, but that Christ only was the Head of the Church, which implied that the pope was not the head of the Church, and that all were nevertheless obligated by the Scriptures to obey the king. This struck a fatal blow at the papal doctrine
of the pope's supremacy over all people, clerical and lay, and his doctrine that clerics are not amenable to the laws of the State, but to the canon law—the pope's law—alone. Cranmer contended that the Statute of Provisors (which forbade clerics to accept appointment from foreigners, or to pay certain fees to foreigners for such appointment, which consequently prevented the pope from appointing to office in the English Church and from deriving certain revenues therefrom) and the Statute of Praemunire (which forbade appeals to courts outside of England) were just and Scriptural in respect to the powers of the State in relation to the Church. He taught that the pope's doctrine on these matters violently contradicted the Scriptures and resulted in robbing the English king, nobles, clergy and people of their rights, powers, honor and wealth. Such teaching pierced as with a knife the very heart of the papacy's purposes, which have always been lust for honor, power, dominion and wealth. Over 150 years before Cranmer, Wyclif, with greater ability, but in less favorable times, set forth the same teachings; but his was the time of Reformation by individuals, while Cranmer fell on times when the Reformation by sects was due. Hence the difference in the results of the teachings of each of these reformers.
(40) There was a variety of causes leading up to Cranmer's teaching on this subject. First was the venial course of the pope (who, favoring the marriage annulment, was in fear of Charles V holding back his decision for a more favorable time) in delaying the declaration of the invalidity of Henry VIII's marriage with his brother's widow, a thing against which the latter protested at the time of the espousal's being forced on him by his father—a thing that both the Bible (Lev. 18: 16, 6-18; comp. 1 Cor. 5: 1) and the canon law forbade, but for which a venial pope, Julius II, had granted a dispensation, and a thing that leading Universities of Christendom declared was beyond
the power of a pope to validate, since it implied that a pope could set aside God's law. Cranmer advised Henry VIII that, not only God's law, but the laws of his own land required the dissolution of an incestuous marriage, and that the English civil and clerical courts had all the authority necessary in the premises. The pope denied this claim. Cranmer answered that marriage, being a secular thing, was a matter under the control of the State, not under the control of the Church; and this led him to emphasize the subjection of the Church to the State as a clear teaching of God's law. Second, Cranmer was led to announce this teaching by the pope's claim of control over the State by the Church, i.e., by the pope, and the direct subjection of all the clergy in all things to the pope, and the direct subjection of the laity in spiritual matters to the pope, and the indirect subjection of the laity in secular things to him through the subjection of their rulers to him. All of this Cranmer rejected, because it contradicts the Scripture on the subjection of every soul to the higher [civil] powers. The third thing that led Cranmer to announce this teaching was Rome's despoiling England of its national honor, liberties and wealth, in an alleged subjection of England to the pope.
(41) The circumstances of the times made the movement aroused by Cranmer's teaching on this subject nation-wide, yea, world-wide ultimately. The condition of the king, the clergy, the nobility and the common people of England, made this doctrine just the one needed to give the pope the next hardest blow delivered him during the Reformation, Luther's blow being the only harder one. The English people almost to a man rallied to this doctrine, stood manfully by its implications and defended it successfully against the power of the pope and popish States in storm and stress such as seldom have tried men's souls. The excesses of Henry VIII in other respects, the mistakes
and weaknesses of Cranmer in some matters and the wrongs of others who co-operated, cannot militate against the Divine origin of the movement which Cranmer instrumentally inaugurated, and which antitypes Jacob's begetting Gad of Zilpah. The movement grew and abounded until it extirpated in England every product of the papal doctrine of the subjection of the State to the Church. And overflowing the home of its birth, the movement has spread through Christendom until every Christian nation has rejected the papal doctrine of the subjection of the State to the Church, and has made to prevail more or less that doctrine which Cranmer announced as Biblical on the subject.
(42) We now meet with a phenomenon which in the case of the Christian and Adventist Churches was present, but which was not particularly brought out, and which we will meet in the case of most other Protestant denominations, i.e., the one—Cranmer—who started the movement that was later perverted into the Episcopal Church co-operated with crown-lost leaders in acts tending to pervert that movement into a sectarian system. Those Little Flock brethren who started Little Flock movements and later cooperated with crown-lost leaders in perverting them into denominations and as such served them, are in such activity typed by captive and blinded Samson grinding out the grain for the Philistines. This same phenomenon, as parts of the same antitypes, we witness especially in Luther, Hubmaier, Wesley, Stone and Miller. It was rather faint in Zwingli, and almost entirely absent in Servetus. Most of Cranmer's mistakes, which the papists and some secular historians have very grossly exaggerated, e.g., exaggerating his one signed recantation into six, each succeeding fraudulent one being made more glaring and abject than its predecessor, were committed while unawares (typed by Samson's blindness) he was serving sectarianism. Next to Luther, Cranmer, of all Protestant Reformers,