Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13

265

has been the object of papacy's most venomous and mendacious attacks. This at least proves that next to Luther he delivered to Rome the most devastating blow. Luther's attack dealt the main death blow to Rome's doctrinal power over the people; Cranmer's attack dealt the main death blow to Rome's political power over the nations. We miss in Cranmer the natural genius, religious depth, heedless straightforwardness, genial companionableness and defiant heroism that made Luther one of the twenty greatest men of history. But in Luther we miss the tact and teamwork ability that characterized Cranmer. Each in his own sphere was a noble and efficient instrument of the Lord to forward his own peculiar work. Luther could no more have done Cranmer's work as a subject of Henry VIII than Cranmer could have done Luther's work as a subject of Charles V. Let us thank God for the distinct, yet complementary, work of each of these great servants of God!

 

(43) The main crown-lost leaders who perverted the movement inaugurated by Cranmer into or kept it as the Episcopal Church, are Queen Elizabeth, Parker, Grindal, Whitgift, Hooker, Taylor and Barrow, though previously Cranmer and other Little Flock leaders, like Ridley, Latimer, Ferrar and Hooper, all bishops, and all burned for their faith by "Bloody Mary" at the stake, had done considerable toward sectarianizing Cranmer's movement toward the Episcopal Church. Under Parker, the first Archbishop of Canterbury after the end of the Catholic restoration under "Bloody Mary," the Episcopal Church received its present creed, the 39 articles, which were confirmed by Convocation in 1562 and legalized as a fundamental statute by Parliament in 1572. Thus the Episcopal Church was set up by law, receiving an Episcopal constitution with apostolic succession as its doctrinal basis, under the Royal supremacy, as the established Church. Its sectarian character received greater development later,

 

266

especially through the writings of Hooker and the administration of Whitgift as primates. They receded from Cranmer's position that the Royal supremacy meant that the king had authority over both laymen and clerics, to the position of Henry VIII, which Cranmer had to suffer, but did not endorse, to the effect that under God the ruler was the Head or Governor, i.e., ruler of the Church, as well as of clerics and laymen—quite a distinction. This in effect made the English ruler the pope of England. The crown-lost leaders introduced many other errors. But on one thing they stood firm—that the civil power is over all laymen and clerics, and that the Church is subject to, not the ruler over, the civil power; and by their defending and applying this doctrine they offered antitypical Eliasaph's charger, bowl and spoon. And such activity, combined with the excess of power that they ascribed to the civil ruler, is typed in the meaning of the names Eliasaph (increase [beyond what is due] of power) and Deuel (acknowledgment of power).

 

(44) While Cranmer's movement was yet in operation as such, i.e., before the crown-lost leaders perverted it into the Episcopal Church, a great controversy was waged over Henry VIII's taking over, at Cranmer's advice, the authority over all clerics and cutting off the pope from all authority whatsoever in England. The pope's subserviency against his own convictions to Charles V on the question of the validity of Henry's marriage and his years' long-drawn-out temporizing on the matter thoroughly disgusted Henry. The papal acts in violation of the ancient Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire angered Henry still more: The clergy's and monks' violations of the Statute of Mortmain made him furious. At Cranmer's advice be determined to enforce, and did enforce, these three laws, which precipitated him into an intense warfare with the pope. All England sided with Henry, who thus stripped the pope of all power over the English

 

267

Church and State; and, against Cranmer's views, which he could not emphasize, because he considered himself bound to obey the king as supreme, Henry in effect made himself pope in England. Henry was guilty of much wrong, which, however, cannot be saddled upon Protestantism, as partisan papists never weary of doing; for despite his rejecting the pope's authority, political and spiritual, in England, he lived and died a Catholic in doctrine, and killed many Protestant martyrs in his efforts to prevent the entrance of Protestantism into England; though he doubtless prepared the soil for Protestantism by his rejection of the pope's supremacy in Church and State.

 

(45) Greatly angered at Henry's course, Pope Paul III already in Aug., 1535, prepared a bull for Henry's excommunication from the Church and deposition from his throne; but friendly European sovereigns succeeded in dissuading the pope from publishing the bull until 1538. In August, 1538, however, the pope, despite the protests of European sovereigns, published it. This pope as cardinal had been one of the most zealous members of the papal court, which was almost unanimously in Henry's favor, in urging his predecessor to declare Henry's and Catharine's marriage null and void from the outstart, as against Scripture and canon law. Now as pope he pretended that Henry's course toward Catharine was the chief reason for his anathematization and (attempted) deposition of Henry, well knowing that it was Henry's rejection of his usurpations on England's liberties, power and wealth, and finally of all his claims to authority in England's State or Church, that made him curse Henry and order his deposition.

 

(46) We will state the main contents of this bull, which had 22 sections, that our readers may see what modern popes would do, if they could. After a preamble setting forth the pope's claim as Christ's vicegerent to be over Church and State in Christendom,

 

268

he sets forth in sections 1-3 Henry's alleged offenses. Section 4 exhorts Henry and his party to desist from and undo his alleged wrongs. Section 5 forbids all to support him; section 6 anathematizes all impenitent in this matter; section 7 charges his supporters with rebellion, declares the forfeiture of Henry's kingdom, cites all to appear before various tribunals within certain times, and cites Henry in person or representative to appear at the Roman Court within 90 days, failing in which things excommunication unto damnation would set in at the end of three days following. Section 8 puts the interdict on England (which forbade all public religious services, sacraments, masses, etc., commanded all Catholic clerics, with certain few exceptions, to leave England; in other words, let the kingdom, with few exceptions, deprived of the grace of God from the pope's standpoint, go to the devil unto damnation). Section 9 disinherits Henry's children and all his supporters and deprives them of all previous privileges, even of citizenship, declaring them infamous. Section 10 absolves all subjects of England from their oath of allegiance to the king and his supporters and commands them to sever themselves from all relations with them. Section 11 declares their forfeiture of all legal rights, even of the right to be witnesses in court, of making bequests or of executing any other legal paper, of owning property, etc. Section 12 forbids all dealings of whatever kind with them—an absolute boycott. Section 13 forbids all conversation with them by the clergy and monks on pain of excommunication and deprivation, and again commands all but a few of these to leave England. Section 14 calls upon all Englishmen, by promise of possession of all seized properties, to arise in rebellion and drive Henry and his supporters out of authority and out of the kingdom, and forbids under above penalties all to fight for them. Section 15 calls on the princes of Christendom to invade England and take

 

269

it from Henry and cancels all their treaties with, and obligations to Henry. Section 16 commands all soldiers and (naval) sailors to take up arms against Henry and his supporters and to seize for their own possession all their property, including such as may be in foreign lands. Section 17 confirms the captors in the possession of their seizures and charges them to make slaves of their captives, and forbids their supplying food to Henry and his supporters. Section 18 orders all the clergy of all orders and all monks on pain of excommunication and deprivation within three days to pronounce with cross, bell and candle the anathema on Henry and his supporters as publicly as possible, and to affix the bull on the churches and monasteries. Section 19 pronounces the same penalties on all impeding such publicity and upon all state officials who will not further such publicity. Section 20 claims that Henry and his supporters would have sufficient knowledge of the publication of this bull, if it were affixed to certain mentioned churches—all outside of England, which affixture the section authorizes. Section 21 sanctions for notification purposes any copy of the bull signed by a notary and a prelate. Section 22 forbids anyone from infringing or contradicting the bull on pain of angering Almighty God and Sts. Peter and Paul. Aug. 30, 1535, is given as the date of the bull in its last sentence, though as said above, pressure from European sovereigns prevented its publication for three years—until August, 1538.

 

(47) This bull in many respects is a remarkable one, even among the more remarkable of papal bulls. Above all it is remarkable for what it reveals of papal hypocrisy, pride, affrontery, usurpatoriness, brazenness, mischievousness, wickedness, recklessness, arbitrariness, lawlessness, folly, lovelessness, cruelty, implacability and reprobativeness. The mere reading of that bull should convince every law-abiding and liberty-loving person of the unmitigated impossibility of the

 

270

papal Antichrist. Let us remember that such a bull is infallible, according to papal doctrines; for it was addressed to all Christendom ex cathedra. Let us also remember that the modern popes hold the same sentiments, e.g., toward anti-Catholic French, German and Mexican statesmen, but do not declare them, because they lack the power of even an attempted enforcement, which they did not lack in Henry's day. Supported by his people Henry forbade as high treason the introduction or publication of the bull in his dominions. He retaliated by a partial spoliation of papal and monastic property, acquired by clerical and monastic evasion of the Statute of Mortmain, and used part of the proceeds to equip the army, navy and his fortresses, to resist the threatened invasions aroused by the papal bull. Cranmer and his colleagues by Scripture and history demolished the entire foundation upon which the pretensions underlying the bull were based; and papal legates and other papal representatives were no more seen in England until after 15 years, when Mary, Henry's daughter by Catharine, mounted the English throne, and by reintroducing papacy and papal methods and by fiendishly murdering saints and martyrs of Jesus deservedly inherited the epithet "bloody" as belonging to her name—"Bloody Mary." She claimed to be God's favorite on earth, on the ground that she was more like Him than anyone else, since, she alleged, God tormented heretics eternally, and she tormented them all she could!

 

(48) Antitypical Eliasaph offered his charger— correction of misconduct toward the civil power, especially in acts based upon the error that the Church is not subject to the civil power, but vice versa. He rebuked those English Catholics who accepted benefices from the pope and paid him certain fees, their first year's income, annual taxes, etc., as violating the law of the land. He rebuked those Catholics who in Elizabeth's day gave obedience to the pope rather than to

 

271

their queen. He rebuked the Catholics for harboring the Jesuits and Catholic priests—"Seminary priests"—who, as the pope's emissaries seeking to stir up a revolt against Elizabeth, were forbidden the land. He corrected the misconduct of those who intrigued with Mary, Queen of Scots, to lead a revolt in order to gain Elizabeth's throne. He rebuked the conduct of the Jesuits and priests who surreptitiously entered the land contrary to law and sought to stir up a rebellion against the State. He rebuked papal plotters on the queen's life. He rebuked the pope for his declaring Elizabeth a usurper, a slave of wickedness, and a fraudulent holder of the English throne. He rebuked his declaring the forfeiture of her throne, absolving her subjects from their oath of allegiance and calling upon them to dethrone, dispossess and drive her from England. He reproved him for calling upon the Catholic nations to make a crusade against her and take possession of England as their own territory. He rebuked him for stirring up Philip of Spain to send the Spanish Armada against England, and for attempting to incite Scotland and France to war on England. He rebuked him as a violator of God's laws as to rulers and people, which require all Christians to obey their rulers, which in England he forbade, which require all Christians to honor their rulers, which in England he forbade, which require all Christians to pray for their rulers, which in England he forbade, and which require all Christians to support their rulers, which in England he forbade. He rebuked the conduct of those nobles and common people who failed to obey, honor, pray for and support their rulers, as well as those who disobeyed, dishonored, prayed against and opposed their rulers. In short, every breach of conduct against the rulers coming from clerical or lay people, from nobles or common people and from natives or foreigners he rebuked as sin against God's law as to the relation of the State and Church, and rulers and subjects.

 

272

In so doing he offered antitypical Eliasaph's charger.

 

(49) Before writing of antitypical Eliasaph's bowl it would be helpful to consider one of the main sets of affairs which first occasioned its offering—the events of Elizabeth's reign as related to the Catholic attempts to overthrow her and restore Catholicism to the throne. Elizabeth amid the extremely hard conditions in which she was placed proved herself one of the very ablest and most successful rulers that ever occupied a throne. While there were not a few things in her that came far short of highest Christian ideals, she was a good woman, as well as a very remarkable ruler. Her tactfulness and management of affairs amid greatest difficulties were of the highest order; and she had the wisdom to select and keep with her some of the ablest ministers (particularly Cecil) of England's long history—and this means some of the ablest statesmen of all times; for the English undoubtedly excel all others in statesmanship. Remembering that at Elizabeth's accession, 1558, England was by law under the papacy, an evil which "Bloody Mary" had reintroduced, and that all the clergy, and almost all the nobility and people were Romanists, the difficulties of her position may be readily visualized. Extreme tact was required on her part as a Protestant at heart, though outwardly constrained to conform to the papacy by "Bloody Mary," when she came into power. Acting on Cecil's advice, for some time she made not the slightest changes; then slowly and by degrees she let her stand be known, and that not by word, but by enactments. She first had an act passed restoring to the crown its ancient jurisdiction in State and Church and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant to the same, with affixed penalties in case of disobedience, i.e., repealed the laws that Mary had passed repealing all anti-Roman laws, particularly those of the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI. This legislation of Elizabeth's destroyed again the pope's temporal and spiritual

 

273

power in England at one blow. She required the clergy to obey this law, and dismissed from office all who refused. This law made no doctrinal change. By another act the Church service, with some minor changes, adopted by Edward VI was reintroduced, which abolished the Latin Romish service. Later by the act of Uniformity the people were allowed freedom of faith, but not of worship—all had, under penalties, to attend the services of the State Church. Elizabeth never forced any Catholics on matters of faith, but did on matters of worship; but there were no Romish martyrs in her days as there had been Protestant martyrs in Mary's days. Her whole course; however, was in favor of the Episcopal Church, which she had established as the State Church. And gradually the laity was weaned away from the Roman creed until, by the end of her 45 years' reign, almost all England was Protestant in faith.

 

(50) Repeatedly the popes sought to win her away from Protestantism to them and their ways. These advances she met with her usual tact that gave the popes just enough hope to hold them back from interfering with the loyalty of Elizabeth's Catholic subjects, she using these respites with good effect to the strengthening of her position in England. Beset at home and abroad with difficulties that would have crushed the average great man, Elizabeth with consummate tact and wonderful success pursued her course. In turn she wrought, she staid, she suffered with almost superhuman tact, as occasion demanded, that her beloved subjects might be furthered. As queen and woman she certainly sacrificed herself for her people. And her devotion to their interests won their ever increasing love for her to a degree that few rulers ever enjoyed the love of their subjects. But few Englishmen of her day that would not have counted it a joy to die for her. To this day she, with Alfred the Great, is probably England's most loved and honored

 

274

sovereign, as in her day the strong love of her people prompted them to call her "good Queen Bess." And she lifted England from a low rated power to the foremost rank among European nations. The period of her reign is all in all probably the greatest in all England's history. By her tact she held back three successive popes' open opposition for nearly 12 years, until the third saw that they had been completely outwitted throughout that period by her tactfulness, in winning most of her subjects from Romanism to Episcopalian Protestantism.

 

(51) In 1570 Pope Pius V caused the papal artillery to thunder forth a bombardment in the form of a bull on her condemnation and excommunication. We will give a summary of this bull also: The preamble sets forth the papal claim to sovereignty over the Church and all nations, on account of which the action of the bull is undertaken. Section 1, calling Elizabeth "the pretended Queen of England," accuses her of usurping England's throne and headship of its Church and of being chiefly responsible for England's second forsaking of the pope. Section 2 charges her with uprooting Mary's work, with heresy, abasing Catholics, elevating Protestants, abolishing Catholic doctrines, practices and organizations, substituting Protestant ones, hindering and prohibiting Catholicism, furthering Protestantism, shutting papacy out of England, persecuting its adherents, requiring acknowledgment of her supremacy, etc. Section 3, declaring her irreformable, and therefore amenable to papal punishments, pronounces anathema upon her. Section 4 declares the forfeiture of her kingdom and all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever. Section 5 absolves all her subjects from their oath of allegiance and obedience, and prohibits all from obeying her on pain of anathema. Section 6 declares equally authoritative with the original bull any notarized copy of the bull signed by

 

275

a prelate or his court. The bull closes with the statement of its date, May 5, 1570.

 

(52) At the issuance of this bull most Englishmen rallied to their queen. Parliament legislated that it was high treason in an Englishmen to attempt to enforce any part of the bull or in consequence of it to act against the queen or the country, and also forbade its importation or any other "writings, instruments and other superstitious things of the See of Rome." Some of her Catholic subjects, induced thereto by their "faith," sought to assassinate her. These, when apprehended, were beheaded for treason, Rome falsely calling them martyrs. Some of them, for the same reason, intrigued with Mary, Queen of Scots, then in England, to kill Elizabeth. These, likewise, as well as Mary, were beheaded for treason, Rome falsely calling them martyrs. Some Jesuits, notably the Englishman, Campion, and some priests, seeking to arouse the Catholics to revolt, were likewise beheaded as traitors, Rome again falsely calling them martyrs. Their death for treason Rome misrepresents as persecution for their "faith." Their faith made them traitors by their intended assassinations and revolutions. Had they been executed for heresy, the law would have required their burning. This one fact disproves the papal claim of religious persecution. They were executed for crimes against the State and its head, not for their religion as distinct from political treason. The Roman plea proves their faith to incite its believers to assassination and rebellion—in England to treason. There was a fair-sized body of Catholics who were ready to rise in rebellion, and they actually did so; but they were defeated, their leaders executed for treason; and that ended the affair. The instigators were Jesuits and "Seminary priests," who were ordered to leave the realm within 40 days, unless they would swear to the queen's supremacy.

 

(53) For various reasons the Catholic monarchs of

 

276

Europe delayed for 18 years invading England at papal instigation to overthrow Elizabeth and possess the country for Rome. But after six Catholics (who with Mary, Queen of Scots, plotted, at the direct instigation of the pope; the murder of Elizabeth) were with Mary executed for treason—all six confessing their purpose to murder the Queen, the pope became insistent on the invasion of England. Philip II of Spain, "Bloody Mary's" widower, consented to undertake the enterprise. He arranged for the Duke of Parma, the ablest general of the day, to bring an army of 40,000 in the Netherlands to a suitable embarking place. He then prepared 132 large warships, an immense fleet for those days, called the Invincible Armada, for the invasion. It was to sail from Spain up the Channel, embark Parma's troops, and then sail for England and the Thames, where they were to land and begin the work of bringing back England by force to the pope. All England arose to the occasion. Huge contributions of money and ships were made to the queen for the national defense. Almost every Englishman volunteered for the fleet or army. About 100,000 picked soldiers, all eager to do, to dare and to die for their queen, were accepted and trained for the army, and a considerably smaller number for the navy. The queen's appearance on horse among the soldiers, and her address to them, raised their enthusiasm and determination to the highest pitch. The Spanish preparations were so great that the pope, feeling sure of success, appointed as the primate of England, Father Allen, a fugitive English priest, the head of an English seminary in France where the seminary priests were trained, and a chief instigator of Catholics against Elizabeth. He also sent 600 priests, monks and Jesuits and their attendants with the Armada to take suitable possession of the English churches. The pope blessed the Armada and the whole enterprise. Special prayers were made by the priests throughout Europe to God for five things—

 

277

to avert storms, to grant victory, to make foolish the English plans, to make the Catholic plans wise and to restore England to the pope. And the very opposite of each of these five things occurred. The English fleet was decidedly inferior in strength to the Spanish, but was decidedly better officered and manned than the Armada. In late July, 1588, the Armada came up the English Channel. The English fleet, slipping out of Plymouth harbor at night, took a position west of the Spanish fleet, with a sharp wind coming from the west. This made the sides of the British ships toward the Spaniards lie low in the water and the sides of the Spanish ships toward the English stand high above the water. Moreover the wind prevented the Spaniards from approaching the English, while the latter could move as they pleased. The result was that the Spanish fire went high above the English ships, while the latter had splendid targets in the former's ships. To the Spanish came a most unexpected and humiliating defeat. They withdrew from the battle, driven eastward by a storm. The British pursuing, sunk some and took other Spanish ships. Aug. 7, the Spanish fleet cast anchor off Boulogne, France, the British fleet pursuing, being but two or three miles in the rear. That night the latter loaded 8 ships with all the inflammable material at hand and, towing them very near to the anchored enemy, set them on fire and drove them among the Spanish ships. Consternation seized the Spaniards, their ships fled in great disorder in all directions to escape the fire and were pursued by the English, who destroyed and captured many Spanish ships. The English kept up the pursuit until they had exhausted their ammunition. So demoralized were the Spaniards that they decided to return to Spain; but the English ships and a storm prevented their going down the Channel directly home. So they sailed northward around Scotland and Ireland; but storms pursued and dispersed them and destroyed most of them. Only 54 shattered ships out of the 134,

 

278

and only 10,000 disheartened and exhausted men out of the 31,000 reached Spain (most of the 10,000 dying shortly thereafter), leaving Parma bottled up in the Netherlands by the English fleet. England ascribed the victory to God, striking a medal on which were inscribed the Psalmist's words, "He sent His winds and scattered them."

 

(54) A few years later another Armada was sent by Philip, which met an almost like fate. In the end Elizabeth won and papacy failed. We might speak of further popish plots against the English civil power, e.g., the gunpowder plot, whereby they sought to blow up at the opening of Parliament the whole royal family, the whole British nobility, Commons and all the visiting local officials, i.e., destroy almost every influential English man and woman; also the efforts of Charles II, and more especially James II, to reintroduce papacy to the undoing of the civil power, all of which was frustrated by the vigilant and liberty-loving English. In these matters we have set forth papacy's efforts to overthrow the State and rulers whom it could not control. All of this was in violation of God's law (Rom. 13: 1-6; etc.)—"let every soul be subject to the higher powers." It was amid, and occasioned by these events that antitypical Eliasaph in large part offered his bowl—refutative teachings—against those who in the interests of the pope's supremacy denied the State's authority over all citizens; and it is precisely for this reason that we have given so much of the history of these conflicts. Romanist theologians have sought, on the basis of the pope's alleged rulership over all nations as Christ's vicar, to vindicate their pope's course toward civil rulers who have thrown off the pope's yoke. But antitypical Eliasaph met and refuted their every argument. His three ablest representatives on this refutative line were Jeremy Taylor, Isaac Barrows and Richard Hooker, who form the trio of antitypical Eliasaph's ablest representatives. To this day Barrow's

 

279

book entitled, "A Treatise On The Pope's Supremacy," remains the classic on that subject, and is a most overwhelming and unanswerable refutation of the errors of the papacy on its supremacy in Church and State, as against the Scriptural teaching that every soul is to be subject to the higher power, i.e., to civil authority. From Scripture, reason and history, antitypical Eliasaph attacked and refuted the seven propositions by which papacy seeks to prove its claims to supremacy over Church and State as Christ's vicar. The seven propositions are these: (1) St. Peter had a primacy over the other Apostles; (2) St. Peter's primacy, with its rights and prerogatives, was not personal, but derivable to his successors; (3) St. Peter was bishop of Rome; (4) St. Peter continued bishop of Rome after his death, and was so at his decease; (5) the bishops of Rome (according to God's institution and by original right derived thence) should have a universal supremacy and jurisdiction over the Church and State; (6) the Roman bishops continually from St. Peter's time have enjoyed and exercised this sovereign power over the Church and from later centuries onward over the State; and (7) this power is indefectible and unalterable according to Divine intention.

 

(55) As to the first proposition, antitypical Eliasaph conceded that Peter among the original twelve had a primacy of talent, personal excellence, zeal, reputation, time of appointment to apostleship (Matt: 10: 2) and of certain services; but he denied totally that he had a primacy of supremacy and jurisdiction over the other Apostles: (1) because the Scriptures nowhere teach it; (2) because the passages (Matt. 16: 17-19; Luke 22: 31, 32; John 21: 15-17) which the papacy interpreted for its supremacy give no such thought; (3) because the Scriptures disapproved and forbade such a primacy among the Apostles (Acts 10: 25, 26; Matt. 18: 18; 20: 2-28; 23: 8, Luke 22: 24-30; Rev. 21: 14; John 21: 20-22; Eph. 2: 19-21; 1 Pet. 5: 1-3); (4)

 

280

because if such a primacy of St. Peter had been intended it would have been clearly stated in the Scriptures; (5) because there is no Scriptural example of St. Peter's exercising such a primacy over the Apostles and the Church, let alone over the State; (6) because such a primacy of St. Peter would contradict Christ's headship over the Church and the Apostles and the office of the Spirit as Christ's representative in the Church; and (7) because there was no such doctrine taught or practiced in the first centuries after the Apostles. Antitypical Eliasaph used other arguments than these against the first proposition on papal supremacy; but these were his chief ones and with their proof the disproof of the other six papal supremacy propositions follows as a matter of course. Additionally, they offered other refutations to the other six propositions. By the silence of the Scriptures and of the first centuries following the Apostles they denied that Scripturally or traditionally St. Peter was to have a successor in his alleged supremacy. Had antitypical Eliasaph himself not been in the error of Apostolic succession, he would have denied from the Bible's silence on the subject that Scripturally St. Peter or any other Apostle was to have a successor of any kind. From the silence of the Scriptures and of the first and second centuries he showed that it could not be proved that St. Peter was ever in Rome, let alone was the bishop of the Roman Church. He contended that had St. Peter had such an office there, St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, and Luke in the Acts in connection with Paul's stay there, would certainly have made an allusion to it, while writing to or of the Roman brethren. He also contended that St. Peter being made the special Apostle of the Jews and St. Paul being made that of the Gentiles, disprove St. Peter's so-called Roman bishopric. Further, he showed that only in the third century did the fertile imagination of the rising

 

281

Antichrist invent the story of St. Peter's bishopric in Rome, and that later this was elaborated into such a bishopric for 25 years preceding his death! The only evidence, he taught, for the fourth proposition was the baseless claims of the popes and their advocates; for he showed that neither Scripture nor authentic history proves it or alludes to it. The fifth proposition he showed has not the slightest Scriptural, reasonable or authentic historic basis. He proved that the Roman bishop gradually grew into his power over a period of many centuries by all sorts of propitious events, frauds, usurpations, support from various kings, etc., who in their contentions, needing the pope's favor, in turn granted favors, powers, territories, etc., to him. Antitypical Eliasaph denied totally the truthfulness of the sixth proposition and gave numberless facts to show that the Roman bishop in the first centuries of the Church did not exercise supremacy over the whole Church, nor that he has always done so even over the whole Western Church since the first centuries. From the disproof of the preceding six propositions, nothing can be said in defense of the seventh.

 

(56) By disproving the papal supremacy in the Church, antitypical Eliasaph, of course, disproved it in the State. He further disproved papal arguments for the pope's authority over all civil power by proving that it was never claimed as a power in the Church until long after the pope got civil power in the sixth century; that the pope's temporal power was gotten by quiet usurpation, favorable circumstances and the favor of compliant and necessitous princes; that, e.g., the pope was in truth a vassal of Charlemagne; that in the ninth century, through the now papally admitted fraudulent Isodorian decretals and Constantinian donation (the latter first hinted at in 788 in a letter of Pope Hadrian I to Charlemagne), the absolute supremacy of the pope as Christ's vicar over the

 

282

Western nations was set forth as an ancient doctrine; that it remained until the days of Hildebrand in the eleventh century for this claim to be elaborated dogmatically as of world-wide application; and that it remained until the days of Innocent III in the thirteenth century for it to be put into almost universal practice. Thus antitypical Eliasaph proved that both phases of the papal supremacy were matters of centuries long growth, and not of Scriptural origin. Thus its Scripturalness was destroyed. He also showed in many ways its repugnance to reason and natural right. Furthermore, he proved from the teachings and example of Christ, the Apostles and the early Church, that the Head and members of the Church were while in the flesh to be subject to the civil power. In an earlier part of this chapter we cited the pertinent passages and will not, therefore, cite them here. Thus antitypical Eliasaph offered his bowl.

 

(57) So, too, did he offer his spoon, i.e., ethical teaching—instruction in righteousness, on his line of teaching. He showed how the worst tyranny in the State was better than anarchy; and therefore God's people were by the benefits received from the worst governments obligated to obey its laws which did not command violation of Scripture—in which case they were obediently to suffer its penalties as parts of their suffering for righteousness. He showed that such a course of obedience would cultivate self-denial, order, peace, contentment, faith, hope, love, meekness, faithfulness and strength of character. He showed that it would help others in these lines, and would ultimately commend the Lord's Word to froward officials. He showed that in all this the Lord's people would be advancing their hearts and minds in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service, as their preparation for the kingdom. Thus he used this teaching to further righteousness. Thereby he has advanced political peace, contentment and prosperity; and in

 

283

this did much good, especially in Great Britain, in its dependencies and in America, and accordingly offered his spoon.

 

(1) What so far have we studied in Num. 7? Give a summary of these studies. To what tribes did the three princes belong whose offerings are next to be studied? On what side of the tabernacle were these? What is the name of the prince of Reuben? What do the names Elizur and Shedeur mean? Whom did the tribe of Reuben type? What does Jacob begetting Reuben type? To what was it perverted? By whom? What was this denomination first called? Whom did it embrace? Why and when was its name changed? What two great errors has the Greek Catholic Church invented and taught? What can these errors not be? What phenomenon is thus manifested in the Greek Catholic Church? What similar phenomena are present in the Presbyterian, Christian and Adventist Churches? What doctrines respectively should each of these Churches mainly have stressed?

 

(2) What was the doctrine Divinely committed as a stewardship to the Greek Catholic Church? In what three conditions was Jesus God's Special Representative? Who was the Little Flock leader who gave the impetus to the movement centering in Christ's office? When did he produce his writings? How and in what passages did he stress Christ's pre-human office? Human office? Post-human office? What five special errors called for such teachings from John? Name and describe two of John's colaborers in such teaching.

 

(3) Why was no cup offered in the type as typical of the work of antitypical Elizur? In whose cases does the same thing apply? Why does the name Elizur typically suggest the crown-lost leaders of the Greek Catholic Church? What is Christ in His office? Of what is He the chief part? What is Christ in His office to the world? How is this fact typically set forth in the name of Elizur's father as to the crown-lost leaders in the Greek Church? For what Divine quality did the camp to the tabernacle south stand? What is typed by this fact? How does the Greek Catholic Church stand for this quality? What evil thing did its crown-lost leaders do? By what did they do it? By whom and through what was

 

284

the first great error on the Logos introduced? To what truth on the Logos did he hold? By whom and through what were two other errors on the Logos introduced? By and against whom were these three great errors championed? Despite these errors what did antitypical Elizur offer?

 

(4) As what kind of a means did antitypical Elizur minister the doctrine of the pre-human, human and post-human office of Christ? Of what was this the antitype? How did they use its pre-human aspect to rebuke and correct disobedience? Heresy? How did they use His carnation to rebuke and correct power-grasping and self-exaltation? Its human aspect to correct succumbing under temptation? Self-indulgence? Pride? To make sin appear hateful? To correct self-exaltation apart from God's ways? Impenitence? Despising Christ's present ministry? Error, sin, selfishness and worldliness?

 

(5) What did such teachings effect? What had centuries of heathendom effected in the human family? Where did the Greek Church work? Of what was there need? What did such teaching do with immortality? Infanticide? Exposure of the aged and the weak and deformed infants? The treatment of wives and slaves? Parental tyranny? Exploitation of the poor? Popular blood-thirstiness? Crimes of the arena? Torture? Social vice? Business dishonesty? Enmities? Debauchery? Disregard for life? Cruelty? Poverty? Profanity? Conjugal infidelity? Slander and false-witnessing? Plundering and over-reaching one's neighbor? In effecting these things what did antitypical Elizur do?

 

(6) What else did he offer? What does a bowl type? What did Satan do as to our Lord's office in its threefold forms? What evil did antitypical Elizur sometimes commit in counteracting these Satanic attacks? What did this evil effect? What did he do to these attacks? When was the first of these attacks decidedly made? By whom? In what form? To what did their error lead them under antitypical Elizur's attacks? What forced them to this? When was the next decided attack launched against our Lord's pre-human office? By whom? What cowardly thing did he do? What did he teach on Christ's preexistent work? With what did he begin our Lord's existence?