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


who were almost entirely Presbyterian, and succeeded in foisting on them quasi-bishops. In the Church of England three parties developed: (1) the ritualistic party, which gained ascendancy, especially under Archbishop Laud, who tried to introduce a set of rites and doctrines, with persecution of dissenters, like those of the modern Anglo-Catholics. This so aroused Parliament as to lead Laud to the block; (2) the evangelical party, which, as Puritans, more and more became Presbyterian, Congregational or Baptist in their views and aims; and (3) the broad church party, which paved the way to the spread of skepticism, deism and secularism following. Thus formalism, dogmatism, legalism and rationalism spread throughout the religious atmosphere of England and Scotland a veritable miasma. The result was that all classes of society—the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the poor—lost more and more of the spirit of religion and went off on one or the other aberration of ritualism, dogmatism, legalism or rationalism, with the resultant loss of piety toward God and benevolence toward man. Thus in Britain and on the Continent there was great need of a revival of real religion, such as marked every reformation movement. And this made the truth that God raised up George Fox to preach meat in due season. Man's extremity became again God's opportunity to help and bless with the meat in due season: that the true religious life does not consist in ritualism, dogmatism, legalism and rationalism, but in a heart that loves God supremely and man as self.


(56) As said above, George Fox was the Lord's instrument in announcing this phase of Truth and in inaugurating the movement that stressed piety toward God and brotherly love toward man. He was born in 1624, the year before James I died, and his formative period fell within the tumultuous times of Charles I, about a year and a half before whose execution he began to preach his special message, when 23 years of



age. As a boy he was serious and upright: as a youth he began to hunger for the right way, which he sought first from the Ritualists, then the Presbyterians, the Congregationalists and Baptists, but found no rest of heart and mind from these. Great were his grief and uncertainty. He undertook journeys to persons and places where he thought he could get help; but human helpers he found not. He then sought solitude and a wandering life. Some recommended as a cure marriage; others, enlistment in Parliament's army against that of Charles I, offering him a captaincy in the infantry; an old minister "bade him take tobacco and sing psalms and another bade him to take physic and blood-letting." In 1647, after years of uncertainty, he says: "I heard a voice which said, 'There is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.' And when I heard it, my heart did leap with joy." His final reaching of peace shows a somewhat fanatical bent in the way it was reached—his hearing a voice. In the same year he first began to preach his message in the neighborhood of Dukinfield and Manchester.


(57) Henceforth he went from city to city and town to town, preaching (not without his error on the inner light given to all men, as a supposed proof of which he quoted the restitution passage, John 1: 9) his stewardship truth— true religion is, not a matter of the head, but is an entire heart's love to God with all the mind, soul and strength and an equal love to one's neighbor. He invariably testified against the head religion of his day as it was exemplified in ritualism, dogmatism, legalism and rationalism. He sometimes interrupted the ministers in their discourses in protest against their "head religion" and their "book religion." He preached in market places, in the fields, in the churches, in church yards, on the streets, in private homes, on board ships—everywhere that he could get a hearing. He impressed the lesson of God's goodness to man on his hearers as the reason why they should love Him with all the heart, mind, soul and



strength, testifying against sins contrary to such love, like putting anything in the place of God in one's affections, blasphemy, perjury, unbelief, etc. He likewise impressed the lesson of equal love to fellow man, witnessing against sins against such love, like sins against parents and children, rulers and subjects, teachers and pupils, employers and employees, pastors and the flock, against murder, war, the cruel penal laws of England (which at that time sanctioned the execution of one who was convicted of stealing even a chicken), hatred, envy, implacability, against marital infidelity and the gross licentiousness of his age, against stealing, robbery, cheating in goods, in weights, in measures and in property values, oppression of the poor, paying scant wages and slavery, against lying, perjury (he even went to the extreme of denying the right of courts to require oaths of witnesses, applying Matt. 5: 32-37 to all oaths and not to such as are used in private conversation, as the passage limits the prohibition), slander, evil speaking, evil surmising, etc., Thus he faithfully, amid not a few errors, preached his stewardship truth.


(58) Not only did he do "pilgrim" work in England, but also in Scotland. In 1671 he visited Barbados and Jamaica on a preaching trip. Thence he went to America, preaching all the way from Georgia to Rhode Island, exposed to all the hardships of an unsettled or sparsely settled country, his experiences being much like certain of those of St. Paul described in 2 Cor. 11: 23-28. He spent two years in this trip and accomplished much good. In 1677, with his helpers, Barclay and Penn, he visited Holland, and again in 1684, with five helpers, preaching as he had opportunity. His persecutions for his preaching were of the most trying kinds. He was imprisoned nine times, spending in all several years in jails and dungeons. While there, like St. Paul, he wrote much to spread his doctrine. By the trickery of the judges, more than once he was sentenced to jail. One of their favorite



ways of bringing charges of disloyalty against him and his followers was this: English law required the oath of allegiance from all who dissented from the established church, who were also forbidden to hold meetings in private houses—conventicles; and Quakers, rejecting all oaths as forbidden, on refusing to take the oath of allegiance, though willing to affirm their allegiance, were accused of sedition and sentenced to prison as harboring sedition supposedly proved by their refusing to take the oath of allegiance. Their holding meetings in private buildings—"conventicles"—also brought them under charges as violating the laws of uniformity of worship. This meant imprisonment and at one time as many as 4,000 Quakers were in prison and were kept there indefinitely because of refusing to take the oath and to agree to give up their conventicles. Several thousands of them died from the rigors of their imprisonments; and George Fox was broken in health by his nine imprisonments. So treated by officials, their treatment by the rabble may be better imagined than described. Their doctrine of non-resistance and their honesty made them the more easy victims of the injustices under which they suffered so greatly and submissively. On his release from prison, George Fox preached prison reform, as required by the golden rule, and tolerance to dissenters; and his advocacy had much to do with securing the passage of the act of tolerance for Quakers by Parliament, at the advice of Charles II, whereby at once 1,800 Quakers were freed from prison. The passage of this law secured John Bunyan's release from a twelve years' imprisonment on account of holding conventicles and refusing to promise to refrain therefrom, because, while the writer of Pilgrim's Progress was a Baptist, not a Quaker, some of his friends included his name on the list of Quakers' names drawn up for their release from imprisonment in pursuance of the toleration act.


(59) The later life of Fox was more tranquil. His



looks, truly patriarchal and benevolent, inspired respect. His evident honesty, simplicity and self-sacrifice increased this respect. His consistency, that could not be undermined by threats, imprisonments and offers of release, gradually wore away the great enmity exercised against him. His practical measures to relieve the poor, to mellow the opposers and to spread real duty love among the people, in the long run told in his and his followers' favor; and his last years were attended by considerable honor from multitudes that formerly were extremely hostile. Only one act that indicated the fanaticism that has been widespread among his followers can be charged up against him. This was done immediately after he underwent a rigorous six months' imprisonment. It was the following: Mindful of the fact that four martyrs were burned at the stake at Lichfield he, whose mother was "of the stock of martyrs," on market day went barefoot through the streets of Lichfield crying, "Woe to the bloody city of Lichfield." He spent his last years mainly in London, continuing his preaching until a few days before his death, which occurred Jan. 13, 1691, in his 67th year. He was loved by thousands of disciples and more or less held in esteem by multitudes as a righteous man, interested in God's cause and man's welfare as life's chief aim.


(60) The character of the stewardship truth committed to the Quakers and the other fanatical sects constituting antitypical Benjamin has made all of them a righteousness-loving people, interested in heart-religion and in philanthropies of all kinds. The influence of their example and teachings quickened the religious life of British Protestants out of more or less of ritualism, dogmatism, legalism and rationalism; and thus this reform in a religious way did the religious and social life in Britain great good. But it went further. In Holland it lent aid to men like Arminius and Grotius, and in Germany to men like Arndt, Spener and Franke, who as the despised "Pietists" had a wholesome effect against the evils of ritualism, dogmatism



and legalism there and an upbuilding effect on piety and brotherly love. In Belgium and France it made itself felt in such as Jansenius, Quesnel, Pascal, Arnauld, Fenelon and Madame Guyon, who stayed in part these evils in those countries and revived a heart-religion among many Romanists. Certainly their kindly treatment of the Indians in America made for brotherly love, e.g., Penn in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia [brotherly love], as their dealings religiously with others softened the dogmatism and legalism of Puritanism, etc., even if it was won at the cost of four Quaker martyr deaths on Boston's Commons. Much of the alleviation of the hardness of war and of calamities (Elizabeth Fry, etc.) on the wounded and noncombatants and on calamity-sufferers is due to the Quakers, as much of the cruelties of penal life has also been set aside through their efforts. They were the earliest and most consistent advocates of the abolition of slavery and the saloon traffic, and the continual supporters of hospitals, orphanages and other benevolent institutions.


(61) In all the sects of antitypical Benjamin—Quakers, Latter Day Saints, Irvingerites, Dowieites, Holinessites, Christian Alliancists, etc.—the leaders—antitypical Abidan—have used their stewardship doctrine for correction of sin—their charger (for the opposite of duty love or justice is sin), for refutation of attacks of opposing error—their bowl, and for instruction in righteousness— their spoon. Hence Abidan's charger—correction of misconduct—was a witness against sin in all its forms, with pertinent rebukes and corrections; his bowl was a defense of justice against attacks and his spoon was a setting forth of the claims and qualities of justice as duty love. It will be found that antitypical Abidan cultivated learning less than the crown-lost leaders of any other denomination. Indeed, as a rule, they decried book learning and "book religion," by which latter term they meant religion based on a study of the Bible. In this slighting



estimate of Biblical and non-Biblical study we see one of the faults of antitypical Abidan, and consequently of antitypical Benjamin. But this blemish did not much interfere with their offering their charger, bowl and spoon; for the correction of sin (Abidan's charger), the defense of a heart-religion based on duty love (Abidan's bowl) and instruction in righteousness (Abidan's spoon), do not call for much learning. Hence, with more or less unlearned members—Penn, Pennington and Irving, their best read men, were only moderately educated men—antitypical Abidan could yet offer his charger, bowl and spoon.


(62) Accordingly, we find that he did offer well his charger. His sermons and writings are filled with correction of misconduct. He corrected every idolatrous affection and object which the sinful heart is prone to serve instead of God—self, the world, rank, position, popularity, safety, ease, life, health, anger, wrath, possessions, hypocrisy, stomach, the opposite sex, work, office, husband, wife, parents, children, friends, home, country, society, superiors, pleasure, pomp, etc., etc. These he rebuked and corrected as an injustice against God, which proved that God was not loved supremely. He inveighed against and corrected all irreverent, false and blasphemous uses of God's person, character, word and works. Unbelief and irreligion found corrections of their wickedness at his hands. The formalism of ritualism, whether Episcopalian or Catholic, met rebuke and correction at his hands. The neglect of Christ's sheep and lambs by hireling shepherds met his rebuke and correction. The legalism of Puritanism found him ever ready to correct its externalizing religion. Scholastic doctrinarianism was shown by him to be little better than human philosophy that should be put aside. And none the less did he chastise the rationalistic concessions that the latitudinarians made to infidelity. Agnosticism and deism felt the sting of his rebukes and the appeal of his corrections.



(63) And none the less thorough where his corrections of man's sins against his fellows. The abuses of civil officers met his correction. He spoke out plainly against the bribery of judges, ministers and legislators, against the tyranny of rulers, against the cruelty of judges, constables, sheriffs and prison officials, against the warlike temper of rulers, politicians, officers and soldiers, and against their disregard or neglect of the duties that their positions called upon them to fulfill, and that because these were violations of equal love to the neighbor. He likewise corrected the sins committed against the family relations. Husbands' sins against their wives—failure to love, respect, cherish, provide for and to be faithful to their wives—he denounced and corrected. Wives' sins against their husbands—failure to love, to respect, to obey, to care for and to be faithful to their husbands—he treated in the same way. Parental failure to love, companion, support and train their children for this life and the next, he also rebuked and corrected. He sought to set aside children's disobedience, disrespect, lovelessness and distrustfulness toward parents. He corrected peace-destroying conduct between man and man, between citizens and rulers, between parties and parties, and between nations and nations. All injuries to life, health and limb he corrected. The murderer, the hater, the injurious, the implacable, the unforgiving, the angry, the vindictive and the malicious were, one and all, corrected by him. The adulterer, the fornicator, the white slaver and inciter to unchastity received his rebuke and correction. The robber, the thief, the cheat, the counterfeiter, the usurer, the plunderer, the briber and the devastator, were all rebuked and corrected for doing against brotherly love. The falsifier, the perjurer, the slanderer, the evil-surmiser and the scandalmonger, were corrected unto brotherly love. The covetous, the over-reacher, the hard-bargainer, the ruthless creditor and dishonest debtor, alike, felt his rebukes and corrections, as not acting as they would be acted by. Hence, antitypical Abidan offered his charger, in



correction of sin in general and of sins in particular.


(64) So, too, did he offer his bowl. He defended his stewardship doctrine from attacks. The many errors that he cherished on various subjects laid him open to many attacks which he could not answer, but when he was attacked on his stewardship doctrine, that true religion is the heart going out in supreme love to God and equal love to man, he was invincible. When the ritualist said that without forms and ceremonies the unlearned could not express religious devotion, nor worship God with propriety, he pointed out that the spirit made intercession with unuttered groans and that the true worship was that given in spirit and in truth, as the only thing desired by God in the way of prayer and worship (John 4: 23). When the ritualist required worship to be given in churches, as consecrated places, antitypical Abidan reminded him that the Spirit was not restricted to time and place (John 4: 20, 21). He likewise told the ritualist that a service not understood and appreciated by the participant was no Divine worship (John 4: 22). When the ritualist insisted on clerical regalia, incense, etc., he answered that all the Faithful were God's priesthood and that they needed nothing more than Christ's embroidered robe as their garments and the incense of the graces as their prayers to God. Thus he refuted the ritualist with unanswerable argument.


(65) When the dogmatist came with his philosophizing on religion, he answered that his was a science falsely so called that hid God from view and left the heart cold Godward and manward; that what was needed for the Christian life was a heart full of love to God and man, against which there was not only no law, but no philosophy. The legalist who attacked his heart-religion, as consisting of supreme love for God and equal love for man, was refuted by the statement that one could do all kinds of good works and perform all sorts of external moralities, without the heart being touched with love, hence such works would be unprofitable



(1 Cor. 13: 3). He was shown that the strictest punctuality in observing precepts often left the heart untouched in its selfishness, worldliness and hardness, while the religion of the heart and of the spirit made the life new indeed. The rationalistic attacks of the latitudinarians fell to the ground by the assertion of the superiority of the spiritual heart to the rationalistic head of the skeptical. The latter left the heart cold to God and man, the former made it a living fire, burning perpetual incense as a sweet-smelling savor to God. Certainly this stewardship doctrine refuted every objection that was urged against it; and it today overthrows the objections of the so-called fundamentalists and modernists. Its principle taken into the heart would care for the chief evils now prevalent in Laodicea, as it can refute all arguments brought against it by modern ritualism, dogmatism, higher criticism, legalism and infidelity.


(66) He also offered his spoon, and it was one full of the antitypical sweet incense; for it contained all of the graces in so far as they flow out of justice and many that flow out of charity. What earnest pleas he made for the love that goes out toward God with all the heart, mind, soul and strength! He taught the grace of putting God first, cost what it may. He magnified the life that trusts God where it cannot trace Him. He held out the hope of a better time coming than this evil day which the Faithful must undergo. He encouraged the persecuted, tried and distressed by this hope. He taught all to submit quietly to injustice, and to exercise forgiveness to enemies and inflictors of evil. The meeting of evil, not by evil, but by good, he commended at all times. He commended peaceableness to individuals, officials and nations, as against war. He preached tolerance of others' religious opinions as against intolerance, and benevolence instead of persecution. He held up kindness to man and beast as against cruelty and oppression. He advocated mercy for the fallen, the imprisoned, the war-wounded, the impoverished and the enslaved, as against inhumanity.



He upheld square dealings, honesty and truthfulness as against over-reaching, defrauding and deceiving the neighbor. He showed the blessedness of self-control and patience in thought, motive, word and act. He preached (and practiced) the exercise of righteousness, even when it led to loss of liberty, and so prevailed as to make the word of a Quaker as good as a bond, as can be seen from the fact that in moving them from one prison to another, they, on their promise to go to the other, were often let go there alone of their own accord, without the need of a guard to convey them. To this day the people of the fanatical sects, so greatly have they been influenced to practice these virtues by antitypical Abidan, are recognized as a God-fearing and man-loving people, who can be depended upon to fulfill the requirements of righteousness Godward and manward. Thus, not only has antitypical Abidan offered his spoon with sweet incense, but has been fruitful in securing the practice of all virtues.


(67) This chapter closes our consideration of the offerings of the Gospel-Age princes on the antitypical West of the Tabernacle. The stewardship doctrines of all three show that the camp to the west of the tabernacle typifies those denominations that stand for the principle of justice as one of God's attributes. For the idea of justice underlies the doctrine of justification by faith—the stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church; the doctrine of the ecclesia as, humanly considered, the ruler in her midst as an assembly of brethren, each conceding equal—just—rights to others, the stewardship doctrine of the Congregational Church; and the doctrine that true religion is a heart's love to God supremely and to the neighbor as self—duty love, or justice—the stewardship doctrine of the fanatical sects. Thus we have another confirmation of the correctness of our understanding of the twelve tribes about the tabernacle as typical of the twelve denominations of Christendom about the true Church: with the standard of the east camp typing power; of the south camp, wisdom; and of the west camp, justice.



(1) How many chapters on the present subject have we had? Give a brief description of these. How many princes' offerings yet remain for treatment? In what order are the offerings of the tribal princes to the tabernacle's west described? What were the pertinent tribes? What did their standard type? What symbol did it likely have? What Churches were respectively typed by Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin? What are the stewardship doctrines of these three Churches? How are they related to justice? What does this prove as to the standard of the tribes west of the tabernacle—type and antitype?


(2) In the Gospel-Age picture by what one of Jacob's sons were the Lutheran Church and people typed? Why does this thought not fit the tabernacle setting? Why does the tabernacle setting yield a different type in connection with Joseph and Benjamin than the Jacob picture? Explain the differences of viewpoint in the antitype as applicable to the tribes to the tabernacle's west. Why should we take Ephraim, Manasseh and Benjamin to type the three Churches respectively to the antitypical Tabernacle's West? What results from this setting?


(3) Whose offerings are to be discussed in this installment? Who types them? What do the names of Elishama and Ammihud mean? How do their meanings suggest the Lutheran crown-lost leaders? Who are the main representatives of these? Who were the main ones responsible for sectarianizing Luther's Reform movement?


(4) What, briefly stated, is the special stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church? What is a more ample statement of it? What seven things are implied in this doctrine? What is the source and efficient cause of justification? Its meritorious cause? Its instrumental cause? What are some characteristics of this doctrine? What did its nature cause it to do to the papacy?


(5) Of what and in what respects is the papacy a counterfeit? What does such counterfeit make it? By whom was it so made? In what particular pertinent to our subject did he make a counterfeit? How will salvation be obtained in the next Age? With what kinds of acts will the Christ assist? What is the difference between Gospel-Age and Millennial-Age justifications? Of what is papal



justification a counterfeit? What proves it an error? Wherein is the counterfeit in papacy's baptism, its offices, its mass, its purgatory, its penance, its monasticism, the latter's vows, asceticism, its beatification, its canonization, its good works, invocation of saints, especially of Mary and Peter, its indulgences, its confirmation, its Lord's Supper, its ordination, its extreme unction, its matrimony, its tradition as part of the source and rule of faith, its idea of faith, its relic, picture and image worship and its feasts? How are these things related to papal justification? How is papacy's scheme of things related to faith justification? What is the contrast between its and the Bible justification? What strategy is manifest in the Reformation's striking papacy with the truth on justification?


(6) Who mainly acted as antitypical Jacob in the begetting of antitypical Levi? What was his position in the Reformation? What are the chief events of his early life? What university did he enter and pass through? What did he do on his graduation? What else did he do that year? What were his chief activities until he became a Reformer? When and by what did he begin the Reformation? With whom and on what did he debate in 1519? What are the titles of two of his leading reformatory works? What did he do in 1520? What are the main events in his life connected with the Diet of Worms? What did the emperor do? What happened to Luther immediately thereafter? What did he do during the next ten months?


(7) What would have been the character of Luther's work, had he died at the Wartburg? To what reactionary view did he there surrender himself? With what result? What did he do with the Reform movement that he began? Of what is he the hero? What were some of his leading characteristics? How does he rank among the world's twenty greatest men? What have his reactionary and sectarian sprit and errors from 1522 onward raised? To what great truth was he loyal? How does his work on it compare with the work of other Reformers as to their stewardship truths? What did he give to the other Reformers? How does he rank in comparison with them?


(8) What in Luther will help us to appreciate his relation to faith justification? What were two marked characteristics of his, predisposing him to lay hold on justification



by faith as a psychological necessity for him? How did papacy's legalism affect his feeling toward God? How did the papacy propose to satisfy his heart's cravings? What did he first do in harmony with papacy's method of salvation? What papal exercises did he perform to attain justification? What did they fail to give him? Why? What effects did this have on him? How did a brother monk seek to help him? How long did his distress last?


(9) What brought him relief? What Scriptures especially instructed and blessed him? What truths did he thereby see? What did they move him to do? What was the effect on him? What did his experience prove? What position did this doctrine take in his life and teaching? What was the result of the impingement of Tetzel's sale of indulgences against this doctrine, as to Luther? In what work of his is his probably ablest exposition, application and defense of this doctrine found?


(10) As a figurative stump-rooter what has this doctrine done? What does not the average person do with his principles? How did Luther do on this point? When did he attain peace with God through faith justification? How long was it before he began to draw conclusions from this doctrine against papal error? Under what circumstances? What did Luther as a confessor require? How did he act toward his penitents who demanded absolution on the basis of Tetzel's indulgences? What is the papal theory of indulgence? What was the origin and degeneration of indulgences? For what kind of sins were indulgences sometimes granted? What was Tetzel's experience on this line with a certain nobleman?


(11) Of what are indulgences characteristic and revelatory? How did Tetzel's course affect Luther? What occasioned him to reject the idea of indulgences? Why was this? How was Luther advanced in the Truth in debates with Dr. Eck? How did faith justification lead Luther to reject the mass, purgatory, the meritoriousness of "good works," monasticism, celibacy, the availability of the saints' merits for canceling sin, their invocation and intercession, superstitious reverence for their relics, images and pictures, the exaltation of Mary as queen of heaven and intermediary of believers and God and Christ, "satisfaction of works," papal priesthood and hierarchy, papal sacramentarianism, the papal idea of the Church



and the Romish Church as the Church? Briefly what did it do with the papal system? What does this use of it reveal as to God's methods?


(12) What was the quality of Luther's insight into justification by faith? On what four special features of it did he not see clearly? What should not be done to him for this? Why? How should we do regarding his insight into the doctrine?


(13) What great mistake did Luther make? Under whom did he make it? How did he come to make it? How did he begin this mistake? What did Carlstadt and his followers do? How did they therein act? How did their course affect Luther? What did he do in opposition? How did this affect Frederick the Wise? What was his course? How did Luther thenceforth proceed in Reform matters? How successful was he in winning people from Rome? What did he do to keep his following? Under whose supervision? With whose co-operation? What resulted from this course toward other Reformers and his ruler? What lines did his activities follow? What was their comparative immensity? In this of what antitype was he a part? What were-his parts in three of such activities? How did his slavery affect his character and work? How should we do as to Luther?


(14) What is a proper estimate of the abilities of the Lutheran theologians? Who were the three greatest of Lutheran crown-lost leaders? How do they compare with the leading crown-lost leaders of other Churches? Briefly describe Chemnitz, Gerhard and Calov, in their writings and activities. How were Chemnitz, Bellarmine and Gerhard active toward one another? Who are some of the other Lutheran crown-lost leaders? What did these do as to the doctrine of justification by faith? Describe Gerhard's treatise on this subject. How did Catholics find it?


(15) What was the charger of these crown-lost leaders? How did it correct misconduct along lines of pride, self-righteousness, self-confidence, self-atonement, selfjustification, self-sufficiency, self-development unto perfection, insults to Christ, God-dishonoring views, arrogance of priestcraft and hierarchism, tempting God by



sin, unbelief, despair, lovelessness, despising others, the spirit of fear and ingratitude, indifference toward others, unkindness, covetousness and love of sin? In doing this, what did they offer?


(16) What kind of foes did antitypical Elishama have to meet? Who were the three ablest of these foes? In what sphere did each of these work? Who was the ablest of them? What were his leading characteristics as a controversialist? What did Sextus VI do with his "Disputations"? How is his "Disputations" regarded by both Catholic and Protestant scholars? What error did the Lutherans hold as to a purpose of faith justification to their disadvantage against the Roman controversialists? What did antitypical Elishama achieve in his controversies with Rome?


(17) How did antitypical Elishama refute the following arguments of papal controversialists: (1) Justification means to make right and, therefore, is by good works; (2) The works of the law, whose justifying possibilities St. Paul denies, mean those of the ceremonial law, not the moral law; (3) The very nature of good works is to justify; (4) God would not have given a law with the offer of life, unless man could realize its offer; (5) Faith does not have a sufficient content to justify; (6) One's righteousness could not justify another?


(18) How did antitypical Elishama refute the following claims of papal controversialists: (7) God would not allow the Church to err on justification; (8) Good works are the condition of entering heaven; (9) Christ's merit does not satisfy justice and secure forgiveness, but it is the infusion into the heart of charity, which makes just; and (10) The Catholic doctrine on justification is true, coming as it does from God's infallible "channel"? What was the character of antitypical Elishama's refutations?


(19) What finally did he offer? How did he use the doctrine of justification by faith to incite to glorifying God and Christ? To faith, hope, love and obedience? To comfort? To self-control and patience? To consecration? To strength? To peace? To joy? To forgiveness? To parental kindness and longsuffering and evangelistic compassion? To longsuffering and forbearance? To love for sinners? To humility? To liberality? To



righteousness? To courage? In the presence of death? To brotherly love? To hatred for sin? In so doing, how did he use the doctrine of justification by faith?


(20) What place did this doctrine fittingly give the Lutheran Church? Why? How should we feel toward the services of antitypical Elishama?


(21) What is the next set of princely offerings to be considered? Who types its offerers? What do the words, Gamaliel and Pedahzur, mean? How do their meanings apply antitypically? From what type is the Congregational Church omitted? Where does it belong in that type? Why? In what denominations it its special teaching held? In what type is it indicated? By what tribe?


(22) What figure illustrates the Church organizationally? What is the Church from this standpoint? What is illustrated by the human spine? The seven cervicals? The twelve dorsals and their sets of ribs? The five lumbars? The one sacrum and one coccyx? The right arm and hand? The left arm and hand? The right leg and foot? The left leg and foot? The feet apart from the legs?


(23) Who governs the Church? What classes of servants does He use in the Church? What are their separate functions? Those of the Apostles and that Servant? All others? What is not their function? What cannot a local church do to another local church or to the general Church, or vice versa? How are they related to one another? Who is the Head of a local church? Who under Him is the manager of its affairs? What three things are implied in this? Define the authority of the Twelve and of that Servant on this head, and the privileges and limitations of all others.


(24) Summarize the thoughts of the two preceding paragraphs. How are these things related to the stewardship doctrine of the Congregational Church? Define that doctrine. What three things does it imply? How does an ecclesia stand related to all other Christians and ecclesias? What terms designate this doctrine?


(25) of what is this doctrine capable? Who sanctioned this doctrine? What seven things prove its truth, so far as a congregation's managing its own affairs is concerned? What conclusion should be drawn from these proofs? What other fact is compatible with this conclusion? What



illustrates this compatibility? Why does the Congregational Church stand on the antitypical Tabernacle's West?


(26) Who initiated the movement later perverted into the Congregational Church? What are the salient features of his history and activities up to 1578? From 1578 to 1580?


(27) What did his activities provoke? Why? In how many jails was he confined? What did his persecution occasion? What were his activities and misfortunes in Holland? What things did he do in 1583? What seems to explain his strange course? What was done in England with his followers and books, and that for many years?


(28) Against what errors did he protest in general and in particular? What did he restore? Against what? What were the root, the trunk and the branches of the great apostacy? What was the apostasy's point of departure? What is, and what is not, the Scripturally designated office of an elder? What was the condition of the elders during the Ephesus period? Why? What effect had these things on the power-hungry elders? What did the Apostles, especially St. Paul, do as to the apostacy? What was the result? In whose days did it first work openly? Explain the case. How were the activities of the Jewish Harvest sifters related to this apostacy? Prove this answer.


(29) Prove that the apostolic churches as a rule had more than one elder or bishop. How did these differ? How is this to be regarded? How did the elders regard this difference? How is this to be justified? To what did this usually lead? How is this to be regarded? What would have been a preferable way of doing for the chairmanship of elders' and congregational meetings? How did the brethren early in the Smyrna period begin to speak of this elder or bishop? How does the New Testament use the terms, elder and bishop? Prove it. What name gradually began to be applied exclusively to the leading elder? What did this bring with it? What variations occurred in this misdevelopment? When was this viewpoint general? Why was such an officer considered necessary? Describe the epistles of Ignatius. Of what character is their authenticity? If authentic, what view of bishops and elders would they prove to have been held by Ignatius by 116 A. D.? What was the character of the prevalence of this



error? What view did Cyprian advocate in 251 A. D.? About what time did this view prevail everywhere?


(30) What other error accompanied this one? In Cyprian's time what kind of bishops functioned and what kind did not yet function? What wrong did the bishops do to the elders? What similar wrong did the elders do to the ecclesias? How and by what means did they do this? What distinction did they make between themselves and their brethren? In what did this result? Especially when?


(31) What was the first means of accomplishing this end? What was the second means? What was the third? In what did this result for the clergy, the quasi-clergy and the laity? How did this work in point of time in the different localities? When was it fairly general? In connection with what event?


(32) What was the next misdevelopment? Through what stages did it advance? What was its point of departure? Give an apostolic example of the right use of neighborly congregational help in time of need. Wherein did the misdevelopment differ from this case in principle? How did the bishops feel in relation to this misdevelopment? Why? What did they do? What did this do with the Lord's order as to the independence of each ecclesia? What assemblies did the bishops hold? What did these assemblies do toward the churches? Where do we not find such a union of churches and such synods or councils? When and why were the first synods held? Describe the development of these councils. What two sets of things did they determine for the churches? Where and when was the first ecumenical council held? What doctrines especially did it decree? On what pain were they enforced? What qualities did such a council supposedly have? What was the theory underlying it? What special two things resulted from this phenomenon?


(33) Summarize the apostacy so far studied. What other misdevelopment set in? How was it justified? How did it come about? Describe the bishop's sphere before this misdevelopment set in. Give several illustrations picturing various aspects of the pre-diocesan bishop.


(34) How does the diocesan bishop stand as to the ecclesial bishop? How did the diocesan bishop originate? What was a diocese? What in this connection was a country bishop? How did he become a pastor in a church?



(35) What was the next stage of the apostasy in organization? Who were the metropolitans? When did they originate? When and where did they get their name, metropolitan? What were their powers and the extent of their jurisdiction? Cite an example to the point.


(36) Into how many prefectures did Constantine divide the empire? What one was a little later added to these? What title was given to the metropolitans of these prefectures' capital cities? What positions were three of these considered to hold? What council therefore gave them these titles? How did the Roman bishop act toward this title? Why? What did he take instead? When and where was a fourth patriarchate created? How did its incumbent rank? When was a fifth patriarchate created? What patriarchates were within three years' time destroyed? By whom? What was the jurisdiction and powers of the patriarchs? What metropolitans were exempt from the authority of the patriarchs?


(37) What controversy for equality set in? What 18 reasons led to the pope's emerging from this controversy as the head of all the churches. In what century?


(38) How did the pope's civil power originate, increase and come to a climax? How did it wane and end? How did his religious power wane over many people?


(39) How was retribution for power-grasping wrought on the presbyters, bishops, metropolitans, cardinals, patriarchs and popes? How is the stewardship doctrine of the Congregational Church related to every phase of the organizational apostacy? What must be kept in mind properly to appraise the Browne movement? Why?


(40) When, by whom and by what teaching did the sectarianizing of this movement set in? Who a little later advocated this new view? Who transplanted it to America? Who here were its chief American advocates? What two men restored pure congregationalism in America? What later advocate of it wrought in the 19th century? Who is their type? What congregational principles did they vitiate in making an organized denomination of the Browne movement and in making a written creed?


(41) What did antitypical Gamaliel have to do in offering his charger? How did he offer this charger toward power-grasping and lording elders, bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, cardinals and popes? How does it correct



clerical pride, unholy ambition, usurpation, tyranny, priestcraft, superstition, self-exaltation, oppression and error? The spoliation, degradation, ignorance, weakness, formalism, worldliness and servility of the people produced by clericalism? Position-seekers and power-graspers in a local ecclesia? Scheming to run the church in its various functions? Unbrotherliness? Covetousness? Contentiousness? Ruthlessness? Vanity? Insubordination? Unelderly and undeaconly conduct? Laziness? Negligence? Indifference? How does it act disciplinarily in offenses, disfellowshipment and restoration? In summary, what did antitypical Gamaliel do by such activity?


(42) What else did antitypical Gamaliel do? In what respects? How did he answer the objection to ecclesiaism on the irresponsibility of an ecclesia? On its need of abler and more efficient helpers, available in clericalism's variations? On its need of the orderliness of these other polities? On the supposed Scripturalness of the aristocracy of Presbyterianism in local and synodal elders? On the Presbyterians' arguments as to Scriptural names and words descriptive of elders and their work?


(43) In what four ways did antitypical Gamaliel refute the Episcopal arguments on apostolic succession as against ecclesiaism? In what five ways did he Scripturally disprove the bishops' claims that as rulers over the presbyters they were rulers over the ecclesias? In what three ways did he refute the claims of metropolitans (archbishops), cardinals and patriarchs? What answers did they give to the pope's pretentions to powers? What did he accomplish by these refutations?


(44) What is meant by his offering his spoon? How did he show that ecclesiaism is conducive to righteousness toward God? Christ? The brethren? The ecclesia's officers? In the ecclesia's officers? To humility? To increase the sense of individual responsibility in the ecclesia's affairs? To brotherly love and care? To meekness? To longsuffering? To patience? To love and defense of liberty? To sacrifice? To proper relations in the Body? To faith? To love and obedience to law and order? To unworldly methods? To holiness? To witnessing at home and abroad? (What were some of the results of the latter activity?) To the mutual relations of the elders and the ecclesia? What is a summary of antitypical Gamaliel's offering his spoon?



(45) In what other denominations has ecclesiaism found acceptance and wrought blessings? What did it do to that Servant? What did he do with it? Who since his death have militated against it? What organization is the chief offender? How? What special error advanced this misdevelopment?


(46) Describe the various forms of clericalism as it works among many Truth people. What have they done with ecclesiaism? What counteractive movements are abroad among some Truth people? How have others submitted to clericalism? Of what does this remind us? How long will clericalism reign among Truth people?


(47) What exhortation is appropriate to Epiphany-enlightened brethren? To their elders? To their ecclesias as to faithful elders? As to power-grasping elders? To all alike? What will result from heeding these exhortations?


(48) How much of Num. 7 has been hitherto studied? What is the subject of this installment on Num. 7? Over what antitypical tribe do the crown-lost leaders now to be studied preside? Where are the antitypical Benjamites discussed? What is the force of the word fanatical as applied to antitypical Benjamin? Who furnish special examples of this? Explain various features of these examples. What evil thing attends these manifestations?


(49) What should be kept in mind in studying antitypical Benjamin and Manasseh and Ephraim? Explain the distinction between the Jacob and the tabernacle pictures of these, type and antitype. What notable thing is connected with the three tribes west of the typical and antitypical tabernacle? Why were the changes made? What does this probably signify?


(50) Who was the prince of Benjamin? What do the names Abidan and Gideoni mean? What does their meaning type?


(51) What is the stewardship truth of the fanatical sects? What is the peculiarity of their view of true religion? To what does this expose them? Among whom is this manifest? What is wrong and right in this view? How is a happy balance in this matter obtained? What is the sore spot in the religiousness of the fanatical sects? What do they call that which is this "sore spot"?


(52) What is a general estimate of their view of their



stewardship truth? What does it need as a supplement? Why could they not furnish it? How is this typed by their tabernacle location? What kind of a truth did God give them? Who are their main crown-lost leaders? To which sect did each belong? What do they exemplify? What is good in them?


(53) What made their truth meat in due season? What were the conditions in Continental Europe in the times of George Fox: in state? church? society?


(54) What were the conditions and the rulers in Scotland and England at that time in the state?


(55) What were the conditions in the church in Scotland and England in the times of George Fox? What were the three parties in the Church of England? What four evils resulted from these parties? In what did these evils result? What religious need was there then throughout Europe? How did God meet this need?


(56) Who was used to bring out the needed truth? When was he born? Over what period did his formative years stretch? What was his character as a boy? As a youth? What did he do to obtain religion? Whom did he consult thereon? What was the result? What did he then do? What was he advised to do to still his heart's hunger? How and when did he find peace? What did he do the same year?


(57) What did George Fox henceforth do? Against what did he testify? To what extreme did he go at church services? Where did he preach? What did he specially stress? Against what sins did he witness?


(58) In what foreign countries did he preach? Like whose were many of his experiences? Who accompanied him on two trips to Holland? In what ways was he persecuted? What did he do while in prison? To what trickery did English judges resort to jail him and his brethren as disloyal? On what other charge were they frequently imprisoned? How many of them were at one time in prison? What happened to several thousand of them there? What conduced to their conviction? For what did Fox agitate after his releasings from prison? What resulted therefrom? What great writer benefited from their good fortune? How so?


(59) What was the character of Fox's later life? What caused this? Of what act of fanaticism was he guilty?



Where were his last years spent? What did he continue to the end of life? When and at what age did he die? How has he come to be regarded?


(60) What has made antitypical Benjamin a righteousness-loving denomination? In what are they especially active? What influence did they exert on the religious and social life of Britain? Of Holland and Germany? Through whom? Of Belgium and France? Through whom? Of America? At what cost? Among whom? What effects did they work as to war, prison life, slavery and the saloon? What very celebrated Quakeress was active in philanthropy, especially in war?


(61) For what did antitypical Abidan use his stewardship doctrine? What is his view as to human learning and even Biblical learning? What did this betray? What did it not prevent? Who were their best read men?


(62) What did he first offer? What does this mean? How wide a sphere did his stewardship doctrine permit him to cover in his corrections? What forms of idolatry did he correct? What did he correct as to sins against God? Ritualism? Pastoral conduct? Legalism? Dogmatism? Rationalism? Agnosticism and Deism?


(63) What did he do as to man's sins against man? In the state? In what particulars? In the family? In what particulars? As to peace? As to sins of violence? Unchastity? Dishonesty? Untruthfulness? Covetousness?


(64) What else did antitypical Abidan offer? What does this mean? What handicapped him therein? On what did he refute well? In what four ways did he refute the attacks of ritualists?


(65) In what four ways did he refute the dogmatist? The legalist? The rationalist? What does he do with the contrary errors of our day?


(66) What else did he offer? What does this mean? What ground did it cover: as to God? Man? Love? Faith? Hope? Courage? Meekness? Forgiveness? Doing good for evil? Peaceableness? Tolerance? Benevolence? Kindness? Mercy? Honesty? Self-control and patience? Right? With what fruits was this accompanied? In what has this resulted?


(67) What does this chapter do? What is the central thought of the camp to the West of the antitypical Tabernacle? How do their stewardship truths prove this? What does this confirm?