JOASH (OF JUDAH). AMAZIAH.WAR BETWEEN AMAZIAH AND JOASH (OF ISRAEL). 

‍

HAVING studied the overthrow of the anti-separatist Congregationalist movement, as antitypical Athaliah, by the Separatist Congregational movement, as antitypical Joash, or, Jehoash (Jehovah supports), and the installation of the latter as the more favored movement of God's people, we are now ready to study the further history of this latter movement, whose forty years' period of preeminence in Congregationalism was from 1623 to 1663, paralleling the reign of typical Joash, 898-858 B. C. (2 Kings 11:21—12:1; 2 Chro. 24:1). Separatism's preeminence was divided into two parts, the first of which consisted of its period of loyalty to the principle of separatism (1-16), and the second of which consisted of its period of disloyalty to that principle (17-21; 17-27). During this time it exercised its preeminence in the sphere of executiveship among God's more favored people (Jerusalem, 12:1; 1) and began it properly (seven years, 11:21; 1). The doctrine of consecration mothered this movement, which doctrine is closely related to the truth of the Oath-bound Covenant (Zebiah [deer], Beersheba [well the oath]). As long as this movement recognized and accepted Jesus as its High-priestly Leader and Teacher it did right in the Lord's service (right … Lord … Jehoiada [Yahweh knows] … instructed him, 2; 2). Our Lord enlisted in its support non-sectarian consecrated Anglicans and nonsectarian consecrated Puritan Presbyterians (Jehoiada … two wives, ; 3), by whom it developed various 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

472 

movements, e.g., movements against sectarian Anglicanism, Puritan Presbyterianism, Romanism, in the activities of Christianizing the parliamentary army and of civil and religious liberty as against Charles I's and the Anglican hierarchy's tyranny (begat sons) and various powers toward parliament, its army and its church and for the rights of existence, conscience, propaganda and controversy (daughters). Nevertheless it permitted without remonstrance denominations to flourish in its sphere of executiveship and in the sphere of its teachings (high places Were not taken away, 3;); and it allowed its adherents to minister therein (people still sacrificed) and to offer their choice powers in the interests of denominationalism (burnt incense). Marked illustrations of these things are seen in its parliamentary members' working on forming a new national church and some of its leaders, 11 able men, as members of the Westminster Assembly, helping to form parts of the Westminster Confession and its two catechisms, the main creed of English-speaking Presbyterians. 

(10) The Separatist movement shortly after overthrowing antitypical Athaliah (after this, ; 4) was determined to repair the damages done to God's people as His temple (minded to repair the house of the Lord), which damages were made by the followers of the movement that John Robinson led as the leader of antitypical Athaliah; for the followers of that evil movement (sons … wicked woman, ; 7 [as the wife of Jehoram of Judah and the mother of his children; all of Athaliah's children, except Ahaziah (also called Jehoahaz), were slain during Jehoram's lifetime by the Arabians (2 Chro. 21:17; 22:1); accordingly, we understand the word sons here to mean certain subordinates of Athaliah, those who had her spirit]) had by the evils, introduced among God's people and set forth in our discussion of 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chro. 22:10-23:21, done untold harm to God's people as His temple (broken up the house of God) and had 

Other Middle Parallels. 

473 

perverted the things consecrated to God by His people to the use of power-graspers and lords over God's heritage (dedicated things … bestow upon Baalim [lords]). Accordingly, the Separatist movement attracted the attention of the main and subordinate leaders of the movement (gathered … priests and the Levites, ; 5) to the work of getting for the repairing of God's people as His temple (repair the house of your God) the things of God's people as classes (cities of Judah) and individuals (all Israel) adapted to such work—the things of their humanity and of their new-creaturely possessions and abilities applicable to such work. Included among such latter things were the pertinent Scripture passages and their new-creaturely pertinent oral and written teachings (money). These they were to assemble at all opportune times (year to year). This antitypical money was the applicable things of God's people's consecrations given for temple uses (dedicated things … house of God, 4;), i.e., their applicable abilities (passeth the account) according to the Lord's and His people's judgment (every man is set at), even everything that was freely and willingly devoted to the purpose at hand (cometh … heart … house). These were the things that the main leaders were to take into their charge (Let the priests take it to them, 5;) from all whose abilities the main leaders knew (of his acquaintance); and they were to use these as available to repair the damages done the Church (repair breaches), regardless of where these damages existed (wheresoever … found). They were charged to do this work expeditiously (hasten, ; 5); but the subordinate leaders did not hasten therein (Levites hastened not). The work dragged along from shortly after 1623 until 1646, the year of Charles I's complete defeat and the time that the dissenting Congregationalist leaders withdrew from the Westminster Assembly (three and twentieth year … not repaired … house, 6;).

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

474 

(11) Varifold were the reasons why this work dragged on. The first of these was the persecution that the Congregationalists in England had to endure at the hands of James I and Charles I, goaded on by the Anglican hierarchy, especially by Archbishop Laud and his Star Chamber Court and High Commission Court. The second of these was their preoccupation in the debates that then agitated the British people between the civil and religious liberty-lovers in and out of parliament and the tyranny-exercisers, especially Charles I and the Anglican hierarchy. The third of these was the years-long revolution between parliament and its supporters, on the one hand, and Charles I and his supporters, on the other hand. The fourth of these was the participation of eleven among ablest Congregationalist leaders in the Westminster Assembly, working for years on the Westminster Confession and its two catechisms. The five main leaders among these eleven were Nye, (Thomas) Goodwin, Bridge, Simson and Burroughs, called the dissenting brethren, who had as Congregationalists a most strenuous debate with the Presbyterian majority in that Assembly, and who finally withdrew from it shortly before it was at long last adjourned, because they would not endorse its majority-adopted Presbyterian order of church government. Other able Congregationalists then active, though not members of that Assembly, were Howe and (John) Owen, the latter being perhaps the greatest one of all of Congregationalist theologians. The fifth reason for their delay was that very many Congregationalist ministers were chaplains in the parliament's army, which increasingly became Congregationalist, until the vast bulk of it was such by the end of the fighting part of the revolution, 1646. Oliver Cromwell increasingly became a main lay Congregationalist leader, until he became, through his victories and elevation to be head of the English Commonwealth, their lay leader by preeminence, despite the fact that the puritan Presbyterians

Other Middle Parallels. 

475 

were the leaders of the less favored movement of God's people (Levites hastened it not, ; 5). 

(12) This delay to repair the damages wrought among God's people as His temple by antitypical Athaliah and her supporters greatly weighed upon Separatism and its leaders and ledlings (king Joash, 7; 6) and moved it to appeal to Jesus as High Priest and to the main leaders under Him (called for Jehoiada … priests, 7 ;, the chief, ; 6), asking why they did not repair these damages (Why … breaches, 7;) and why Jesus did not have the subordinate leaders make available for this work, of the human and new-creaturely abilities, etc. (Why … Levites, ; 6), of God's more favored people and those of them in their executive sphere (Judah … Jerusalem, ; 6), those things (collection) adapted to restoring temple breaches, even as Jesus and God's people had charged throughout the Gospel Age to be done for the erection of the antitypical Gospel-Age Tabernacle (commandment of Moses … congregation … tabernacle, Ex. 35:4-29; 36:3-6). The main Congregational leaders had appropriated to themselves for their uses, as indicated in their activities set forth in the preceding paragraph, things in the human and new-creaturely abilities, etc., consecrated by their supporters to the Lord. This antitypical Joash forbade to be done any more (receive no more money of your acquaintance, 7;) but commanded them to cause these things to be made available to restore the Church as God's temple (deliver … breaches). Recognizing the propriety of this charge, the main leaders agreed to make no more these consecrated things available to their own uses (consented to receive … people, 8;), except to make them available to restore God's people as His temple to an orderly condition (neither [literally, except, as the connection clearly shows] to repair … the house). Thereupon at the recommendation of antitypical Joash (king's commandment, ; 8) and by Jesus' cooperation (Jehoiada, 9;) a committee, as a school of the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

476 

prophets, was suggested to be appointed in each ecclesia (chest, 9; 8), suitable to receive (bored a hole, 9;) by its leaders (lid, 9;) whatsoever offerings in money, Scripture passages, talents, discourses, pen-products, etc., were presented. These were made available for use to repair the aforesaid damages done God's people as His temple. This arrangement was decided on for every ecclesia (set beside [to the east, at the gate not to the north or south side in the court] the altar, 9;) in relation to consecration, so that it would include those about to consecrate, as well as those already consecrated (set it without at the gate, ; 8, as one cometh into the house, 9;). These committees, as schools of the prophets, it was planned, were to be dominated by love (to the right side, 9;—in the type the chest was located east of the altar, not in the court, but outside the gate that corresponds to the tabernacle's gate of the court, but so located that if a straight line were drawn eastward along the north side of the altar and projected to and outside the gate, the chest, at the right, would be north of that line, i.e., toward the north side of the temple, which symbolizes love). And those main leaders who did evangelistic work were planned to be used to supervise the offering made in each committee as a school of prophets (priests … door … put … brought, 9;). These schools of prophets were, as decided on, conducted in a manner similar to our suggestions in these columns as to how schools of prophets should be conducted in Epiphany ecclesias. 

(13) These arrangements having been decided on, everywhere among God's more favored people (through Judah, ; 9) and in their sphere of executiveship (Jerusalem) it was widely advocated (proclaimed) to make available such offerings as their schools of prophets had prepared (collection) for the Lord's service (bring in to the Lord), even as Jesus had taught personally and by His special mouthpieces, the Apostles and other star-members, should be done during the 

Other Middle Parallels. 

477 

Gospel Age with the consecrated people's human all and their new-creaturely attainments, etc. (Moses … laid … wilderness). This work of agitation heard by all the leaders and all the ledlings (princes … people, ; 10), first, made them very glad indeed (rejoiced), and, secondly, in the spirit of joyful cooperation they arranged for such committees, as schools of the prophets, in all the ecclesias, many offering themselves as trainees (brought in), making in them the pertinent human all and new-creaturely attainments available by training to be fruitfully used to restore the Church from its damages (cast into the chest); and this good work was continued to a completion with remarkable success as to a fine spirit shown and a great increase of members won (made an end), e.g., even the privates, as well as the officers, in the parliamentary army became through this method of training for God's service so well developed in their ability to explain and defend their truths and to refute the opposing errors that they confounded all opponents, puzzling even Richard Baxter, the ablest Presbyterian divine of his and most other times. These soldiers became very able preachers and expounders of the Word, using much of their time in its study and proclamation. The same is true of the non-military members of the Congregational ecclesias of England. Their propaganda resulted in an immense increase of Congregationalists in Britain. 

(14) When it, was brought to the administrative attention of antitypical Joash (saw, 10 ;, brought unto the king's office, ; 11) that a very generous response was made in volunteering their pertinent human all and their new-creaturely abilities and possessions in the school of prophets (much money in the chest, 10 ;, much money, ; 11), ministered to by the subordinate leaders as leaders in such schools (the Levites), Separatism's scholarly representatives (king's scribe, 10;) and the Lord Jesus' representatives (high priest's officer, ; 11) saw to the graduation of fit ones from such schools of prophets (emptied the chest, ; 11) and

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

478 

gave them diplomas to the branches of service to which each was specially fitted, e.g., some as teachers, some as evangelists, some as catechists, some as extension workers, etc. (put up in bags, 10;) and described the available talents, etc. (told [counted] the money), usable for and in the Church (house, 10;); and then installed these into their places of service in the Church (carried it to his place, ; 11). This was repeatedly done, whenever these sons of the prophets were fitted for their several places of service (did day by day, ; 11). These schools of prophets proved to be an abundantly fruitful means of providing the necessary talent for the Lord's pertinent service (gathered money in abundance, ; 11). Antitypical Joash and our Lord (they, 11 ;, the king and Jehoiada, ; 12) put these talents so described (told, 11;) into the charge of their leading brethren in the service (gave … did the work … oversight). These put these talents into the hands of those who worked along lines of justification (laid it, 11 ;, hired, ; 12, carpenters and builders) and of new-creatureship (masons and hewers of stone, 12 ;, masons, ; 12), in order that they might win new justified ones and new consecrated ones (to buy timber and hewed stones, 12;). This was done to replenish the Church (repair the breaches of, 12 ;, repair the house of the Lord, ; 12). Especially did they employ these talents to put the workers into a position to make strong those justified ones that they had won (such as wrought iron and brass, ; 12, all laid out … to repair, 12;); and so did they seek to restore the Church unto a sound condition (mend the house, ; 12, repair it, 12;). 

(15) Accordingly, the involved pastors, the teachers, ruling elders, teaching elders, and their helpers, worked upon the Church and repaired completely the damages that were wrought upon it by antitypical Athaliah and her subordinates (wrought … perfected, ; 13). According to the view of the Congregationalists, not seeing that Eph. 4:11, as the Greek indicates, uses the

Other Middle Parallels. 

479 

terms pastors and teachers synonymously, and taking them to mean two different kinds of officers in the ecclesias, such officers among Congregationalists were: first, pastors; second, teachers; third, ruling elders (the word ruling in passages that suggest such elders is a mistranslation; it should be given as presiding, in the sense of administering officially); fourth, teaching elders (here, again, they were not clear, for all elders were pastors, or teachers); fifth, deacons, and sixth, deaconesses. From among the ruling elders, as a rule, the secretary and treasurer were appointed. They developed the Church into a good condition in grace, knowledge and service (set … in his state) and then strengthened it therein (strengthened it). But up to this stage of the work they had not prepared refutative writings (bowls of silver, 13;), corrective writings (snuffers), doctrinal writings (basons) or other, i.e., ethical, writings (vessels) of Divine Truth (gold … silver) and the announcements of special teachings by lecturers (trumpets), from the talents made available for such work for the Church (money … house), since up to this time the main and great stress was laid as to the use of these talents on the Truth workers to repair the damages that the Church had sustained (gave … workmen, and repaired … house, 14;). There was such fidelity (dealt faithfully, 15;) shown by those supervising brethren who were commissioned to oversee the work of placing these talents into the hands of the pastors, teachers, etc., under appointment by antitypical Joash and our Lord Jesus, that they needed not censoriously to be rebuked, nor suspiciously to be overseen (reckoned not with the men … delivered … bestowed on workmen). And after the work on the Church was completed (finished) they made available the remaining and pertinent talents (brought the rest of the money, ; 14), before the Separatist movement and Jesus as High Priest (king and Jehoiada); and by these were made doctrinal, refutative, corrective and ethical writings, even teachings 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

480 

(vessels) to advance the Church in every good word and work (for the house). These written and oral teachings served to advance the brethren (vessels to minister), to delight the Lord as antitypical censers to burn acceptable incense before the Lord (to offer) and especially to help all along ethical lines (spoons); for they consisted of Divine truths. The main workers on these antitypical vessels were John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, who were the leading professors and executives of the Oxford University at that time. Other able assistants of these were Philip Nye, William Bridge, Sydrach Simson and John Howe. Especially did John Owen and Thomas Goodwin do extraordinarily able work as authors. 

(16) The advantages that came from the reformatory deeds of those that had to make good for wrong-doing (trespass money, 16;) and the advantages that arose from the privilege of sharing with the Lord in the sin-offerings did not accrue to the generality of the Congregationalists (was not … house); for these fell to the lot of the Congregationalist main leaders; for the wrong-doers (trespass), among other things, had to give up their positions, which fell to the lot of the main leaders among the Congregationalists, e.g., Owen and (Thomas, not John) Goodwin were given the highest positions at the Oxford University, that the former wrong-doing incumbents had to give up for their wrong-doing. So, too, were similar changes made in favor of able Congregationalist preachers as to important pulpits for the wrong-doings of former incumbents. And because certain Congregationalist leaders suffered much persecution in the sin-offering (sin money) they were promoted in those days following the ascendancy of the Puritans and Independents (it was the priests'). And as long as the Congregationalists continued to enjoy the approval of Jesus (all the days of Jehoiada, ; 14), they served in ways that received the manifestation of God's approval in the blessings that He bestowed upon them (offered burnt offerings 

Other Middle Parallels. 

481 

… Lord). And Jesus exercised an approving ministry for many years among the Congregationalists, i.e., from 1582 to about 1652 (waxed old … an hundred and thirty years old, ; 15). And during about 60 years of this period, for the most part poor, few and persecuted, they held up the light of Truth as due and lived exemplary lives. But their apostasy, typed further on in this chapter, made Jesus withdraw from them His special favor (died). Nevertheless, the earlier and more holy days of Congregationalism were held in great esteem and reverence as being closely apostolic (buried … City of David, ; 16), even as days in which it enjoyed the privilege of being God's most favored movement (among the kings), because those days were such as contained much good done to God's people (done good in Israel), toward God (God) and the Church (house). 

(17) As we saw above, so long as antitypical Joash (the policy of Separatism in its adherents) was loyal to God, Jesus supported it, but after it had proved fully disloyal, He forsook it entirely. This disloyalty was a gradually increasing one; and as it progressed Jesus' abandoning it progressed; and both of them progressed unto their separate completions (after the death of Jehoiada, ; 17). Antitypical Joash degenerated proportionately as it increased in popularity with the people and with great ones (; princes of Judah) who became more and more affiliated with it and rendered it subservience (; made obeisance to the king); for the leading men in the English government, e.g., Cromwell, the Lord Protector of the Commonwealth, his leading assistants in parliament, on the bench and in the council, as Congregationalists, did so. The leading men in the army and in commerce were mainly Congregationalists, and as such were also subservient to Separatism for a while. But mainly on account of the majority of Englishmen not being Congregationalists these leaders thought it good politics to blunt the edge of Separatism, and accept all Protestants into

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

482 

membership in the state church, which, accordingly, they desired to consist of Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists, but all holding to their own peculiar views and not engaging in controversy with one another. These leaders sought to persuade Separatism in its members to cooperate as parts of such a unionistic and compromising state church. It in them submitted to such persuasion (; hearkened). In this we see the danger of worldly popularity coming to, and of great ones coming among, God's people. It was an expression of the old Satanic trick repeated from Greek and Roman Catholicism in every Protestant sect, as it became popular, as witness Lutheranism in Germany and Scandinavia, Zwinglianism in Zurich, Calvinism in Switzerland, Holland, England and Scotland, Episcopalianism in England, etc. The Church has always been purest when unpopular and persecuted! God's people should avoid worldly popularity and the favor of worldly great ones as evil. 

(18) As a result Congregationalists neglected building up God's people (; left the house … God, v. 18) along the lines of the Congregational principles held from the earliest days of Congregationalism up to that time (; fathers). Thus they entered into a combinationistic alliance, which is symbolic fornication (Rev. 2:20-23; 17:3-6, 15, 16, 18; 18:3, 9; 19:2, 3), with Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism and Baptistism and the English Commonwealth, as the English government, people and country were then called, to all of which it and its members ministered (; served groves,—Asheraism, where in the type fornication and adultery were committed as parts of the religious rites of heathenism); and they also served the creed idols of these denominations, as well as made a new one of their own (; idols). E.g., Congregationalists, like John Howe, an exceedingly eloquent and learned man and Cromwell's court preacher, and John Owen and Thomas Goodwin, very able theologians, advocated a corporate union of the four above-mentioned denominations. 

Other Middle Parallels. 

483 

And had the Lord not interfered, this purpose would probably have been effected. But this disloyalty aroused God's displeasure (; wrath) against the Congregationalist people (; Judah) and the sphere of Separatism's executiveship (; Jerusalem). This wrath expressed itself in giving them up to various hallucinations, strifes, divisions and losses, thus marring the Spirit of the Lord which had been so richly apparent among them. This strife also affected their connections with other churches and with the arrangements of the state within itself and in its relations to Separatism and these churches, e.g., changes from some to other legislative organizations in the Commonwealth. Thus their disloyalty met with a deserved retribution. But amid wrath God remembers mercy, and, accordingly, raised up preachers who lodged protests against this apostasy (sent prophets … testified against them, ; 19), with entreaties to reformation and a return to truth, righteousness and holiness (; to bring … Lord). But these were not heeded (; would not give ear). 

(19) Only one of these protesting preachers is typed as an individual (Zechariah [remembrancer, reminder, of Jehovah, in allusion to his constantly reminding the people of God's relations to them], ; 20), though other preachers also protested (; vs. 19, 25). This special protester was George Fox, the Little Flock member who started the Little Flock movement later perverted by crown-lost leaders into the Quaker sect. From early years of youth he sought to come into close fellowship with the Lord, and began as early as 1647, when 23 years of age, to preach and teach consecration and heart religion as opposed to dead formalism, mouth religion and unsanctified living. He traveled as a real pilgrim from place to place, preaching in churches whenever permitted, in open fields, in cemeteries, in the market places of towns and cities and in private homes. His godly life, simple speech and fearlessness amid much persecution attracted consecrated people, mainly of the humbler walks of life, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

484 

to his movement, which gained increasing numbers of people. Classes of believers were organized and a new ministry of itinerants like himself arose; and soon the Friends, as they were called, became a great influence for consecrated living; and as their influence increased their persecution, egged on by the clergy, increased. Everywhere jails were filled with these godly confessors of Christ and the life hidden with Christ in God. Fox himself was repeatedly jailed and whipped, experiences undergone by many of his brethren also. They were surely "a sect everywhere spoken against." In general they were persecuted for righteousness, though, as in all Little Flock movements, some fanatics associated themselves with them and by their follies brought upon all of them needless reproach. Everywhere the real Friends were recognized as exemplary Christians. Their conscientious objection to bearing arms, to taking oaths and to indulging in polite forms of speech and in forms of etiquette toward the great, like refusing to address them by their honorary designations, like, Your Worship, My Lord, Your Honor, etc., to take off their hats, kneel and then stand up and remain standing in their presence, made them much reproached, and in not a few cases led to their imprisonment, charged with contempt of court. At one time there were 12,000 of them in prison. They rebuked sin in the high and low alike; they protested against the dearth of true religion, so general at that time; they inveighed against a paid ministry, especially one supported by tithes levied by the state, as was the case then in England. Particularly did they attack union of state and church as symbolic fornication. 

(20) In all of this George Fox led the way, as was proper in the case of a star-member; for as such there rested a large measure of the Lord's Spirit upon him (Spirit of God came [literally, clothed] upon, ; 20). True to the antitype of the meaning of his typical name, he, as Jesus' special representative (; Zechariah the son of Jehoiada), continually kept reminding the 

Other Middle Parallels. 

485 

people of Jehovah and the things of Jehovah's Word, as far as he understood that Word, in order to turn them away from their creed idols and their combinationism. In this he occupied high spiritual grounds, far above those occupied by the nominal people of God in those days (; above the people). Many were his Bible grounded expostulations as God's mouthpiece against the evils of his day (; said … saith God). He reasoned with them against their evil course (; Why transgress ye), proving from Scriptures, reason and facts that they were by their deeds violating God's Word (; commandments of the Lord). He pointed out that because of their creed idolatry and their combinationism they were not prospering, nor could they prosper, in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service (cannot prosper). Then he pointed out the facts, that they had forsaken the Lord, in that instead of being faithful to the principles of Separatism they had given these up in the interests of a union of state and church, which was symbolic fornication, and that instead of holding in all simplicity and faithfulness to the teachings of God's Word, as formerly, they had resorted to creedal sectarianism, which was idolatry, and that instead of holding fast to the Lord's people as God's temple and to their services of Truth as such, they were giving their all to building up the nominal people of God in a service that advanced false religion. By these charges repeatedly made and factually, reasonably and Scripturally proven, he charged them with forsaking God (; forsaken the Lord). He then pointed out that because of this forsaking of God by the abovementioned sins God had forsaken them, which he proved by the facts that God had given them up to ever-increasing sins, errors, false worship, an evil organization and bad practices (; forsaken you). 

(21) Unless humble and meek, wrong-doers resent rebuke and correction, however lovingly intended and kindly made. And those wrong-doers with whom Fox had to deal were neither humble nor meek; hence they 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

486 

greatly resented his rebukes and corrections. Above 1652-1654 were given as the time of the full fall of Separatism; but we are not to understand that it was a sudden thing. It began about 1648, but very subtly, almost imperceptibly, and progressed slowly by increasing compromises, until such compromises were full, during 1652-1654. Its increasing falling progressed with the increasing political power of Congregationalist secular leaders, especially that of Oliver Cromwell. The Spirit of the Lord in Fox perceived varying situations at the beginnings, progress and fulness of this apostasy. And his rebuke and correction of it were also progressively increasing ones, having a very small beginning and gradual progress unto a completion, increasingly accommodating themselves to the progress of the apostasy. In other words, while the type was progressive in fulfilling, the antitype was also progressive and long-drawn-out. Usually while types are quickly enacted, antitypes almost invariably are long-drawn-out matters. Already late in 1648 he mildly began his rebukes and corrections; but as the apostasy increased his rebukes and corrections increased in their vigor and severity, until he was most uncompromising in them. Such has always been the course of God's mouthpieces toward the unfaithful leaders and ledlings among God's nominal people, as we can see in the course of Jesus, Paul, Arius, Claudius of Turin, Marsiglio, Wessel, Luther and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. In this they simply reflected God's increasing displeasure of the wrong-doers. And as these rebukes and corrections increased, so did the persecutions with which they were answered. They started with contradictions, proceeded to minor violences at the hands of individuals, later by mobs rioting against him, hurling literal stones, garbage, foul eggs and refuse at him. They came to a head in arresting, trying, sentencing and imprisoning him often, the first time in 1649, at Nottingham. He was also beaten at the order of various officials, especially of magistrates and judges.

Other Middle Parallels. 

487 

(22) Mayors, aldermen, sheriffs, magistrates, judges and army officers were his special accusers and persecutors. Going up and down the country, somewhat after the manner of a pilgrim, except that he traveled by foot, preaching and teaching in rebuke and correction of the above-mentioned sins, errors, formal worship, union of state and church, state tithing for the support of ministers, creed idols, among which he counted churches, called by him "steeple houses," false church organization and discipline, he was very offensive to the church and civil officers. These put their heads together (conspired against him, ; 21) to cut him off from his ministry. Not accepting clerical ordination at the hands of any ecclesiastical body, he was considered as a usurper of the clerical office by the adherents of the sects then in more or less power. Hence this, added to his rebukes and corrections, made him a target of every strict sectarian who felt himself wronged by him. Usually "rude fellows of the baser sort" brought charges against him almost everywhere he went. And the civil officials were only too glad to jail him in vile prisons, where he was treated as the worst of criminals with great cruelty and neglect. There was an understanding reached by such civil officers to treat him with rigor wherever they could lay hands on him. They raised against him the worst of charges, e.g., blasphemy, accusing him when he spoke of "the Christ in you," as claiming to be a reincarnation of Jesus. A certain fanatic at that time did claim such for himself, and was worshiped as such; but despite Fox's rejecting, preaching and writing against him as such, he himself was charged with, and sentenced to prison for, that blasphemy. His trials before magistrates and judges were the grossest travesties of justice. He was indeed "crucified without the city." 

(23) We are not to understand the antitype of Zechariah's stoning to be a literal stoning, even though a part of it was literal stoning, but rather the hurling of religious, civil and social teachings at him in contradiction

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

488 

of him, until he was entirely cut off from the fellowship of the nominal people of God—dead in their sight (; stoned him with stones); for the typical stonings charged by Moses represent the Lord's people hurling at wrong teachers and doers Biblical teachings, until the evil ones were cut off from God's people; but the wrong stonings, like that of Naboth, type hurling of false charges, wrong secular and religious teachings and perverted representations of the Truth teachings of the faithful against them. Such was the antitype of the stoning of Zechariah; for it was just such things that were hurled against Fox, until he was entirely cut off from the fellowship of God's nominal people. Accordingly, the death of Zechariah did not type Fox's death, which did not occur until Feb., 1691, 28 years after the antitypical Joash ended; but, as just indicated, his cutting off from all fellowship with the nominal people of God, which made him dead in their sight. A sad feature of this matter is that it was corrupted Separatism, unfaithful to its principles and the principles of the former phases of Congregationalism, that instigated this symbolic martyrdom of Fox, one of the finest characters of the Gospel Age (; at the commandment of the king). And it caused this to happen while he was ministering in the antitypical court—his condition and activities as to matters of justification in relation to the right way of living—duty love to God and man (; court of the house of the Lord). It certainly was an act of gross ingratitude to the Lord Jesus, who spoke through him, for corrupt Separatism to have instigated such persecution against one who reproved at the Lord's charge in the gate—publicly before the nominal people of God. It shows how unfaithfulness makes one forget formerly held and practiced principles; for Congregationalism in its faithful days protested against similar sins, errors and wrong practices and suffered persecution thereover and therefore received great blessings from the Lord Jesus (; remembered not … Jehoiada … slew his son). 

Other Middle Parallels. 

489 

(24) All the while this persecution of Fox and his brethren continued he cautioned the persecutors against their course. He told them that God Almighty was taking note of this persecution; that there was not one feature of its injustice but aroused His attention (; the Lord look upon it). Here is a wrong translation. It should be rendered: The Lord sees it. Certainly this richly developed child of God did not pray that God take a hostile view of his persecutors; for this would be a violation of the Lord's charge that His people wish and pray blessings upon their persecutors (Matt. 5:44). The facts of the case prove that he did not pray vengeance upon his persecutors; for they show that he entreated them to recognize that the Lord could not but take cognizance of such evil, and that He could not but mete out condign punishment therefore (; require it [literally, will require it]). It was Fox's custom lovingly to caution his persecutors that he was a servant of God, who must take note of their mistreating His servant, and who must mete out deserved retribution therefore. This was his course also as to the persecutors of his brethren. Orally and by writings he cautioned persecuting magistrates, judges, mayors, sheriffs and military officers, as well as private persons, that God was speaking through him and his brethren, and that He considered the treatment that they gave His servants as the treatment that they bestowed upon Him, and would react to it accordingly. He even wrote to this effect to Oliver Cromwell, and in his interview with him spoke of the same two things. But while Cromwell gave orders to the officials to cease the persecution, the latter heeded not his charge. Such expostulations and warnings continued for years, even as the cutting off proceeded for years. 

(25) The forecast punishment came when the cup of wrath became full (at the end of the year, ; 23). Romanism was the agent used by God to bring the punishment (Hazael, 17;). It acted therein through Charles II, who was at heart a Romanist, though 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

490 

outwardly, for policy's sake, conforming to the Anglican Church, who was also its legal head, who for years pursued a policy of favoring Rome and persecuting its British opponents, and who on his death bed received its sacraments of communion and extreme unction, as shown heretofore in our discussion of antitypical Jehoash and Jeroboam II in their dealings with Charles II. Invited to become England's king by military leaders, especially by Gen. Monk, commander of the army, then mainly Congregationalist, by the Presbyterian Puritans, who were deceived into believing him a Presbyterian, as he professed to be when made king of Scotland, by Episcopalians, who believed him a loyal member of their church, and by parliament, which was disgusted with the inefficiency of Richard Cromwell, the successor in the Protectorship of his very efficient father, Oliver. Charles returned to England from Holland in 1660 as king. His' restoration was a matter of prolonged and secret intrigue, engineered initially by Jesuits, Louis XIV of France and the Romanist hierarchy. In this intrigue Gen. Monk took a large share, without, however, suspecting that Rome was its instigator. Hence Charles' return was a real papal victory, though concealed as such from the English people of all non-Romanist parties. Thus secretly Rome conquered England as a country and government (fought against Gath (winepress) and took it, ;). Thereupon Romanism, working through Charles II, sets its face against the sphere of the executorship of God's more favored people, the apostate Congregationalists (Hazael set … to Jerusalem, ;). At that time apostate Congregationalists were subject to disloyal Separatism, its ruling policy. And against it Romanism in Charles II turned its hostile attention (; Syria came up against him). It invaded the sphere of the apostate more favored people of God, and worked against apostate Separatism (; came to Judah and Jerusalem), in the sense that it planned through Charles II to undermine their influence before the public. This was not hard to 

Other Middle Parallels. 

491 

do, because those mainly responsible for bringing Charles II's father, Charles I, to trial for tyranny, dishonesty and treason, and for condemning and beheading him were the Congregationalist lay leaders, and, the Episcopalians and Presbyterians opposing it, the odium for the regicide fell upon the Congregationalists. It was a stipulation of Charles II, as a condition of his accepting the throne of England, that the main ones implicated in the regicide be punished. This was done by exhuming the bodies of the dead leaders, including that of Oliver Cromwell, and hanging and quartering them and giving them infamous burials, by executing the main living regicides and imprisoning and fining less prominent ones (; destroyed all the princes … the people). All this turned the sycophantic public against disloyal Congregationalists and their disloyal policy of Separatism and made them very unpopular. 

(26) Their spirit of disloyalty in the face of the popular disfavor, of the rule of the restored Charles II taking the place of the rule of the Commonwealth that had favored them, of the manipulation of his determined Romanist mother and brother, of his own secret Romanist leanings and obligations making disloyal Separatism its special object of attack, and of the opposition of the restored Episcopate and of the Puritan Presbyterians, moved Separatism in its disloyal adherents to retire to seclusion from all public activities. Its leaders, like Owen, (Thomas) Goodwin, Nye, Howe and the rest of their formerly influential brethren, bereft of the support of its political leaders, who had their hands full with their efforts to preserve their own personal safety, and deprived of their positions, sank into obscurity. There were none of disloyal Separatism's leaders who would venture in public to defend its principles held from 1582 until the period of 1652-1654. Hence the principles of the pure Congregationalism of antitypical Jehoshaphat (hallowed things that Jehoshaphat … dedicated, 18;), the slightly tarnished Congregationalism of antitypical Jehoram 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

492 

(Jehoram … dedicated), the largely tarnished Congregationalism of antitypical Ahaziah (Ahaziah … dedicated), and the partly restored pure Congregationalism of antitypical Joash's faithful days (his own hallowed things), were all given up, so far as defending them in public was concerned, which were the things required to be given up, in their yielding to antitypical Hazael as represented in Charles II (sent to Hazael). Moreover, it in disloyal Congregationalists, in the face of the above-mentioned obstacles, by ceasing to advocate the Divine principles belonging to God's people as His temple, i.e., the principles of freedom of conscience, assembly and propaganda and separation of state and church, gave these up to plunder-seeking Romanism, which in Charles II suppressed these for it (gold … house of the Lord … sent it to Hazael;). Finally, it in the disloyal Congregationalists, in the face of the same obstacles, gave up the Divine principles belonging to the state, e.g., democracy, the independence, coordination and cooperation of the executive, legislative and judicial departments of the state (gold … in the king's house … Hazael; sent all the spoil unto the king of Damascus). Having thus despoiled the antitypical Joash of all that was distinctively its, as well as of Divine principles applicable to the Church as God's temple and to the state to be enjoyed by it in its most highly developed form, according to God's highest ideal for the state under conditions of the curse, Romanism in Charles II left Congregationalism alone as it was thus reduced to impotency. Thus by default unfaithful Separatism surrendered the abovementioned principles to what was really Romanism. 

(27) Those who invited him to return to England and to mount England's throne made a great mistake in not putting him under the stringent conditions necessary to preserve the democratic gains of the struggle between parliament and Charles I. They should have known the statecraft of the house of Stuart enough to distrust it for its tyrannical and arbitrary propensities.

Other Middle Parallels. 

493 

Doubtless the confusion and disorder then existing in England made them think that haste to bring him back was the one indispensable thing to secure the order for which the English people as a whole then longed. The result was that Charles II and family with a small retinue of supporters, as more or less conscious representatives of Romanism, made an invasion into the sphere of Congregationalism's domain and of its executiveship (the Syrians came with a small company, ; 24); and because of their disloyalty to the principles of Separatism the millions of English Congregationalists, including the army, which in its bulk was Congregationalist, were by God delivered over to what was actually Romanism masking under the person of Charles II, his mother, brother and a few supporters, who were aware of the secret Romanist purposes of these (; delivered a very great host into their hand). This all befell apostate Separatism and its apostate supporters, because they had in their unfaithfulness forsaken the Lord in the particulars of the stewardship of doctrine and practice that God had committed to the preceding phases of Congregationalism (; forsaken the Lord God of their fathers). How terrible the judgments of the Lord upon unfaithful individuals and churches are, can be seen, not only in the case under study, but even more impressively in the case of the entire nominal church: Greek, Romanist and Protestant, both of great and little Babylons. The case under study is certainly one of Divine judgment, as shown above (; executed judgment against Joash). 

(28) Certainly, when the executors of these judgments left unfaithful Separatism, it in its adherents was afflicted with many spiritual diseases (left … diseases, ; 25); for impenitence, indecision, cowardice, discouragement, inactivity, shame, over-reticence and supineness characterized it in its leaders and ledlings. Not only so, but former supporters turned against it in its supporters (his servants arose, 20;) and then among themselves conspired to cut the unfaithful 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

494 

Separatists off from fellowship with the rest of the real and nominal people of God (made a conspiracy; conspired against him), a thing that God sent as a punishment for their mistreatment and disfellowshipment of Fox and his brethren (; blood of the sons of Jehoiada); and they did cut them off from such fellowship (slew Joash; slew him … died), as they rested on their creed bed (on his bed;), while they were engaged in the work of bringing their full number (Millo [filling];) in a public way (goeth down to Silla [highway];) unto endorsing their newly made creed. Those that conspired against them and cut them off from the aforesaid fellowship were of two classes: those liberty loving Presbyterian Puritan clericalists that had formerly kept them in mind, supported them and given them public favor (Jozachar [Jehovah remembers], Shimeath [fame], 21; Zabad [endower] … Ammonitess, 26) and Romanizing autocratic Episcopalians that had also formerly supported and carefully guarded them (Jehozabad [Jehovah is endower], Shomer [guarding], Shimrith [careful], a Moabitess). Because of its former good course it was held in respectful memory as having had apostolic teachings and practices (buried him with his fathers in the city of David, 25), but because of its later unfaithfulness none hold this phase of Congregationalism in the respect due to a movement of God's more favored people (; not in the sepulchres of the kings). Other details concerning this movement than those brought out as the antitypes given above are given in the writings of Congregationalists (rest of the acts … written in … Chronicles … Judah); and the movements that it set into action (sons, ; 27) and its great work in developing God's people as His temple (; burden … repairing the house of God) are described in the writings of both Congregationalist and Puritan Presbyterian histories and biographies (; book of the kings). The end of this movement is also the end of Congregationalists as in the most favored movement of God's people. The 

Other Middle Parallels. 

495 

Friends, nicknamed Quakers, operated as the next movement of God's more favored people (; Amaziah … reigned in his stead). Our study of antitypical Joash should teach us to imitate it in its faithfulness, and to avoid imitating it in its unfaithfulness. 

(29) In discussing antitypical Joash we made some comments on the Friends, nicknamed Quakers, first by a judge who threatened to make a certain fearless Friend quake, after the latter had told him to quake before God's Word, and then by others. These comments were necessitated by the fact that George Fox, their leader, was the antitype of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, and his followers were the antitype of Jehoiada's other sons, all slain by apostate Israelites at Joash's command. As we saw, the apostasy of the final phase of the Congregational movement, the antitype of Joash as God's more favored movement, caused God to cast it off as such and to accept the Friends' movement as such (reigned Amaziah [strength of Jehovah] … Judah, 2 Kings 14:1;). It was by God accepted as such, before crown-lost leaders had succeeded in perverting it fully into a sect. Its period of ascendancy as the more favored movement of God's people was from 1663 to 1692 A. D., corresponding to the 29 years of Amaziah's reign, 858-829 B. C. (twenty and nine years, 2; 2 Chro. 25:1). Born of pious parents, 1624, and pious from his earliest childhood, George Fox consecrated probably in 1638, 25 years (twenty and five years old … reign, 2; 1) before his movement became God's more favored movement in the sphere of its executiveship (Jerusalem, 2; 1). The doctrine of the joyousness of fellowship with God mothered this movement (Jehoaddan [Jehovah is delightsome], 2; 1). Generally speaking, this movement acted righteously (right, 3; 2), but not completely so (not with a perfect heart, ; 2); for it did not fully follow Apostolic example and practice, e.g., it would not practice water baptism, the Lord's Supper and the Apostolic organization of an ecclesia with elders and deacons as the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

496 

servants of the ecclesia (not like David his father, 3;). Rather, it followed a course similar to that of antitypical Joash, the last phase of the Congregational movement (according … Joash, 3;), in sectarianism (high places … away, 3;) and more or less of combinationism (sacrifice and burnt incense … places, 4;). As this movement became firm (kingdom was confirmed … established, 5; 3), it thoroughly refuted those Presbyterian Puritan and liberal Anglican supporters who gave the death blow to antitypical Joash's ascendancy (slew … the king, 5; 3). But innocent movements founded by these traitors it did not include in these refutations (children … slew not, 6; 4), even as Jesus in the New Testament charged that a good work even of evil-doers be not set aside because done by evil-doers (law of Moses … Lord commanded, 6; 4; Mark 9:38, 39; Phil. 1:15-18). He likewise charged that the innocent or weak maker of an evil movement or action be not, with it, destroyed (father shall not … for the children, 6; 4; Matt. 12:31, 32); for it is for personal totally wilful sins that one goes into the second death (every man … own sin, 6; 4; Heb. 6:4-6; 10:26-29). Antitypical Korah's movement in its children, the Levite movements under bad leaders and textbookistic movements under good but mistaken leaders illustrate this principle. 

(30) The Friends' movement was surrounded by enemies that attacked it on all hands; particularly did civil and Anglican Church authorities so do. These attacked it and its supporters with legal and ecclesiastical charges, almost without exception unjustly and falsely. This moved it to take defensive measures, by which it assembled (gathered Judah, ; 5) and trained its adherents to war against their attackers in their legal and religious arguments, making the ablest of these warriors the leaders of large numbers (captains over thousands) and able leaders, but less able than the former of these warriors, the leaders of smaller numbers (captains over hundreds), brethren like Fox, 

Other Middle Parallels. 

497 

Barclay, Fell, Pennington, Keith, Penn, etc., among the former and their itinerary speakers among the latter. All were organized as such warriors according to their spirit of consecration, talents and providential situations (according … fathers). This was done as to the mightier (Judah) and the weaker (Benjamin) among all of antitypical Amaziah's adherents (throughout). These truth warriors included the unconsecrated (twenty years) and the consecrated (upward); and the zeal of the Friends aroused practically every one of them to be warriors of truth, righteousness and holiness and to corresponding action (choice men able … war). They were trained to aggressive (handle spear) and defensive warfare (shield). The Friends' movement worked on the hearts as distinct from the heads with little of heart. They insisted on entire consecration, not merely expressed by words, but lived first in heart, and then in words and acts. The bulk of the Anglicans were dead formalists and rigid ritualists; and the bulk of the Presbyterian Puritans had degenerated into head religion; but there were many consecrated ones among the Presbyterian Puritans who sought to live out their consecration; and these, persecuted, like the Friends, and by the same enemies, were favorably disposed toward the Friends' spirit of consecration. The latters' movement, to attract these more closely to itself, made slight compromises in the way of treading softly on their toes. These were along the lines of a small sectarianism and combinationism (He hired, 6); and thus it enlisted in its defense numerous of such consecrated and persecuted Presbyterian Puritans (hundred thousand). Such Presbyterians were, as a rule, better educated secularly and Biblically and thus, as a rule, were abler controversialists than the Friends, who, as a rule, went to an extreme in neglecting secular and religious education (mighty men of valor). Thus they drew to themselves numerous brethren who were adherents of the less favored movement of God's people. Their small compromises gave up, at least, advocacy

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

498 

of teachings that were unacceptable to these from antitypical Israel (hundred talents of silver). 

(31) But George Fox, who would not in the least compromise what he held to be true, disapproved of support coming from anyone who sanctioned the sectarianism and clericalism of the less favored movement of God's people (man of God, ; 7). He, therefore, declared to the Friends' movement (saying, O king) that these Presbyterian Puritans, though able warriors against their enemies, should not be given a joint share in the warfare of the Friends' movement (not … Israel go with thee), giving as his reason that Jehovah did not give His special favor and help to the sectarian and clericalistic Presbyterian Puritans (not with Israel … Ephraim). George Fox did not seek to over persuade the Friends' movement to do as he thought was the Lord's will, but cautioned against its purposed course, warning it that, if it was determined to go (if thou wilt go, ; 8), let it do so (do it); let it be ever so strong for battle (strong for battle), God would cast it down in defeat before its adversaries (fall before the enemy), since the omnipotent Jehovah had the ability to help unto victory (help) and cast down unto defeat (cast down). Thinking of the small compromises of Truth that it had made to enlist the support of the consecrated Presbyterian Puritan warriors, the Friends' movement (Amaziah, ; 9) asked Bro. Fox (the man of God) what its adherents should do as to the concealed truths, which were concerned with matters pertinent to natures lower than the Divine nature (one hundred talents [of silver, v. 6]), yielded up by the movement to the Presbyterian Puritan warriors (given … Israel). Bro. Fox assured the Friends' movement that the Lord by His forgiving grace would more than make up the loss, on repentance being experienced for the wrong; for Fox knew that it was done in human weakness, which on repentance and faith would be made good for by Jesus' merit (much more than this). Thereupon the Friends as a movement 

Other Middle Parallels. 

499 

renounced their compromises and advocated the teachings before compromised, which drove away from the Friends the consecrated Presbyterian Puritans (separated them … come … Ephraim, ; 10). These went to the sphere of their fellow Presbyterian Puritans (go home again). But they were highly displeased at their being thus cut off from the warfare with the Friends against the adversaries of both (anger was greatly kindled against Judah); and they persevered in this anger, not only until they reached their own sphere (returned … anger), but long afterward. 

(32) The Friends' movement then thoroughly drilled and thus strengthened its adherents for the controversary against the civil and ecclesiastical tyrants who persecuted them so relentlessly that, all told, over 14,000 Friends had been imprisoned, 369 of them dying in jail from hunger, cold and neglect; 10,000 of them at one time were in prison, in 1689, when a general indulgence from William III freed all prisoners who were held for religion's sake (strengthened himself, ; 11). The movement directed them in this conflict (led, ; 11), which was waged in the sphere of the desolation where the civil and (Anglo-) ecclesiastical tyrants held sway (valley of salt, 7; 11). Charles II, to overthrow all dissenters (Presbyterian Puritans, Congregationalists, Baptists and Friends), caused the Conventicler Law to be passed, forbidding all assemblies of five persons or more above 16 years of age, except the household amid which the meetings were held, outside of Anglican churches, where, of course, these dissenters as such were not allowed to meet. While the dissenters, except the Friends, held very secret meetings of a few, very carefully guarded by their own sentinels, the Friends held their meetings openly, protesting vigorously against the tyrannous law; and in the ensuing arguments thereover they from legal, Biblical, factual and reasonable arguments refuted the civil and ecclesiastical tyrants who oppressed them. Some of the Friends, like Fell, were judges and used their legal

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

500 

knowledge triumphantly to defend their oppressed brethren. George Fox wrote many a letter to judges and magistrates in protest against their evil course. But the controversy was not only one on legal questions, but also one on religious grounds, and that from two standpoints: (1) religious arguments in favor of freedom of speech, conscience, assembly and propaganda against the laws that denied these and imprisoned their practicers and (2) religious arguments against the dead formalism and ritualism of the Anglican Church, which favored and, in their bishops in the House of Lords, voted for the persecuting laws. In this way they refuted both the legal tyrants (slew of Edom [red], 7; smote … Seir [hairy], ; 11) in their legal secular totality (ten thousand, 7; 11), and in time by this controversy (war, 7;) won over both parliament and the king (Selah [rock, the capital and fortress of Edom], 7;), and subdued them into making just laws (called … Joktheel [subdued of God], 7;), which laws hold them in subjection even to the present (unto this day). The clerical tyrants in their entirety as thoroughly secularized men (the other ten thousand) in their full vigor (alive, ; 12) by the Friends' controversialists (children of Judah, ; 12) were through their arguments bound hand and foot as captives (carried away captive, ; 12); and these brought them as such to the highest part of England as a church state, which highest part was the Anglican Church (brought them unto the top of the rock, ; 12) and from the hierarchy downward to the lowest of the laity cast them down unto complete disruption as the alleged true church (broken into pieces, ; 12). 

(33) While the Friends were engaged in their controversy with the tyrannical English civil and Anglican Church rulers, the Presbyterian Puritans, who for a while cooperated with, and were later dismissed by the Friends' movement from cooperation in the contemplated controversy with the antitypical Edomites (soldiers … sent back … battle, ; 13), enraged at such

Other Middle Parallels. 

501 

dismissal, made inroads upon the Friends' ecclesias (fell upon the cities of Judah), starting out from church politics (Samaria) and proceeding to take up the ill-founded views (Beth-horon [house of hollowness]) of the Friends on political, social and religious subjects, and wrought much devastation thereon. The Friends as a fanatical sect cherished many vagaries; and these, kept compromisingly by them in abeyance, for the sake of said cooperation, were the ones that those Presbyterian Puritans attacked. They refuted their anti-oath-before-courts view, by pointing out that Jesus (Matt. 5:33-37) and James (5:12) referred not to oaths before courts, but to oaths in private conversations, which prevailed very widely among the Orientals in those days. They refuted their view that respect should not be shown judges and magistrates by standing in their presence with their hats off and addressing them as, Your honor, etc., by pointing out that the Bible teaches that respect and honor be given civil officials (1 Pet. 2:13-17; Rom. 13:1-7), citing the respect given with Divine approval to Joseph, David, Solomon, etc., and by Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah to kings, by Jacob to. Pharaoh, by Israel to Moses, etc. They also refuted their conscientious objection when urged as binding on the unconsecrated. In justification of social civilities, like addressing single individuals with the plural personal pronoun you, instead of the singular thou, and using polite language and conduct socially, all of which the Friends refused to engage in, they quoted St. Paul's statement that all things be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40) and cited his example in making himself all things to all men, in order to win some (1 Cor. 9:19-22) and in his addressing Festus as most noble, which was a title (Acts 26:25). They especially refuted the Friends' claim that the light of nature, particularly conscience, which was in fallen man as a vestige of God's image surviving the fall, was Jesus Christ in them enlightening every man that entereth the world, as Friends interpreted John 1:9 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

502 

to mean, which was a view entertained by some of the church fathers and evidently invented to evade the support that it gives to future probation, when this passage will be fulfilled in the Millennial universal enlightenment of the race, dead and living. But the refutation that they gave was not the application of this passage to future probation, but from the standpoint of man's depravity and God's leaving the race as such in darkness under the curse unhelped by Him with enlightenment (John 1:5; 3:19, 20; Acts 26:18; Rom. 1:21; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6; Eph. 5:8, 11; 1 Thes. 5:4, 5; 1 Pet. 2:9; 1 John 2:8-11). They from Christ's command and the Apostolic practice refuted the Friends' denial of the obligatoriness of water baptism and the Lord's Supper. These arguments refuted all Friends against whom they were used (smote three thousand of them) and resulted in influencing great numbers of them to give up their refuted views and to join the Presbyterian Puritans (took much spoil). 

(34) While the Friends' movement was victorious in its theory-controversy with the tyrannous civil and ecclesiastical rulers, despite the physical power used against it in whipping and imprisoning its members, it received more or less injury as a result of it (come from … Edomites, ; 14). It was by its success perverted into a sect, into which its crown-lost leaders misled it and which blunted the edge of its rebukes of sectarianism. It also led it into compromising its principles of separatism into a measure of combinationism, and thus it fell into the evils into which antitypical Joash had fallen, as we read in 3, 4; (brought the gods … Seir). These two evils were given a more or less strong position amongst the Friends (set them up to be his gods). Henceforth they served these two evils (bowed himself before them) and used more or less of their choice human powers in advancing them, their party consciousness as fellow laborers and sufferers strengthening their sectarian spirit, and the desire of support from the other persecuted non-conformists 

Other Middle Parallels. 

503 

strengthening their combinationism, and thus enlisting their choice human powers in advancing these two evils (burned incense unto them). These evils, though not so gross as antitypical Joash's commission of them, displeased God (anger … against Amaziah, ; 15). But in His displeasure God remembered mercy, and therefrom sent George Fox (sent … prophet) to rebuke and remonstrate with the Friends' movement for these sins (Why … after the gods). He gave them a good reason against their course: these evils were not able to save the antitypical Edomites out of its hands (not deliver … out of thine hand?). Thus did this godly star-member reason with the former Little Flock movement now perverted into a sect; and he received an answer like that which other star-members received from their movements after they were perverted into sects—a rebuke (as he talked with him, ; 16). Like them he was interrupted amid his expostulations with an impudent rejoinder, in the form of a question: "Have we made thee of the king's counsel?"—A.R.V. Thus he was charged with officiously arrogating to himself powers that were not his by right (Art thou made of the king's counsel?). He was as impudently commanded to cease, even as proud wrongdoers usually charge those who rebuke at the gate (forbear). We can easily imagine how candid George Fox felt at this impudent and ungrateful charge. But the now sectarianized movement did not stop at impudence and ingratitude. It threatened to cut him off from fellowship as it argued against his course (why shouldst thou be smitten?) Seeing the uselessness of further efforts at dissuading the evil-doing movement from its course, he desisted from further remonstrance (Then the prophet forbare). This was perhaps the beginning of this star-member's being made a captive as a part of the large antitypical Samson by the antitypical Philistines (sectarians) of his movement. But as he ceased remonstrating, he uttered a warning to the effect that it was a matter of knowledge with him that 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

504 

God purposed to destroy the Friends' movement as that of God's more favored people (know … determined to destroy thee). He gave two reasons for this course on God's part: (1) because it had sectarianized and compromised its separatism, and (2) because it would not follow the advice that he had given it (not … counsel). 

(35) Perhaps the dismissed Presbyterian Puritans' attacks on various teachings of the Friends' movement and its resultant loss of many members moved it to take counsel on whether it should enter into a controversy with the reviving Presbyterian Puritan movement. We do not know this of a certainty, the Bible being silent thereon. But whether this or some other reason impelled it so to do, it nevertheless discussed among its leaders the question of whether it should enter into this attack (Amaziah … took advice, ; 17) and it sent messengers to that phase of the Presbyterian Puritan movement (sent … messengers to Joash, 8; 17). This revived movement had succeeded the weak and discouraged Presbyterian Puritan movement (son of Jehoahaz, 8; 17), which in turn had succeeded the energetic revolutionary Presbyterian Puritan movement (son of Jehu, 8; 17), all three of which were movements of the less favored people of God (king of Israel, 8; 17). The antitypical messengers were controversialists whose controversial tactics were a challenge to engage in a controversy (see … look one another in the face, 8; 17). This was indeed a presumptuous thing for the Friends' movement to do, since they had only four real scholarly men: Barclay, Keith, Pennington and Penn, on their side, while the reviving Presbyterian Puritan movement had many of such, including the redoubtable Richard Baxter, who was one of the most able and prolific authors of the whole Gospel Age, not only on controversial and theoretical, but also on practical theology, a man who was as eminent in practical piety as he was in theoretical learning. Having its hands quite full in its controversy with Romanism disguised in the person of Charles II, the reviving Presbyterian

Other Middle Parallels. 

505 

Puritan movement, knowing its superior equipment in controversialists, sought to restrain the controversial aims of the Friends' movement (Joash … sent to Amaziah … saying, 9; 18). This it did by comparisons and contrasts. It called attention to the fact that it was the Friends' movement (the thistle that was in Lebanon, 9; 18) that asked the army of antitypical Israel (cedar that was in Lebanon) to send it some of its warriors to become united with the army of antitypical Judah (thy daughter to my son to wife, 9; 18). And after this was done they were unceremoniously dismissed, which was an affront to the army of antitypical Israel. Then the reviving Presbyterian Puritan movement showed what the result of the controversy would be upon the Friends' movement—full defeat (wild beast … trod down the thistle, 9; 18). 

(36) Then the reviving Presbyterian Puritan movement read the falling Friends' movement a much needed rebuke and lesson. The former reminded the latter of its victory over the civil and ecclesiastical tyrants in England (hast smitten Edom, 10; 19), and then charged the latter with becoming puffed up over its victory, which charge was true (heart lifted thee up … to boast, 10; 19). The, former gave the latter the much needed advice to be contented with attending to its own affairs (abide now … tarry at home, 10; 19). Expostulatingly the former reasoned with the latter to abstain from a course that would surely result in its injury (why … meddle to thine hurt, 10; 19); for that course would result in the Friends' movement's complete defeat (shouldst fall, 10; 19) and in the Friends' as supporters of that movement going down to defeat (and Judah with thee, 10; 19). It is written: "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall" (Prov. 16:18). And this, as seen in many other cases, we see exemplified in this case. Few, indeed, can bear prosperity and retain humility and meekness. Those inclined or addicted to fanaticism are especially inclined or addicted to pride and stubborn 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

506 

ness; and the Friends, the chief sect of the fanatical sects, were exposed to these two evil qualities; and this was the case with the Friends' movement at the particular time now under study (Amaziah would not hear, 11; 20). This attitude, as well as its sins of sectarianism and combinationism, moved God to adjust its circumstances in a way that its pride and stubbornness would incline it to a course that would bring retribution upon it for its aforesaid sins at the hands of the Presbyterian Puritans (enemies … gods of Edom, ; 20). 

(37) As indicated in the meaning of the name Bethshemesh, house of the sun, God as the indweller of the Bible is a symbolic sun, the controversy was over the question of the God-indwelt source and rule of faith and practice, between the Presbyterian Puritans' movement and the Friends' movement. The correct way of presenting the Bible in its relation to the God-indwelt source and rule of faith and practice is this: The Scriptures are the sole source of faith and usually the sole source of practice and always the main rule of practice, with the Spirit and the providences of God as subordinate rules thereof, i.e., the true Christian faith always and practice usually are to be derived from the Bible alone; and while the Christian's conduct should usually be derived from the Bible principles and examples alone, there are special times and circumstances in which he from those principles and examples alone cannot decide which one applies to those times and circumstances; for two or more apparently conflicting Bible principles and examples seem equally to apply to them. In such cases usually the Spirit of God in him, i.e., the New Creature, God's holy mind, heart and will in him, will enable him to decide which ones of two or more apparently conflicting Bible principles and examples apply to the case at hand. And in this sense of its assisting him to a proper recognition of the applicable Biblical principles and examples the Spirit of God is as God's disposition in him a secondary rule of practice. But there are cases in which the Christian

Other Middle Parallels. 

507 

cannot by the Spirit alone decide on apparently conflicting duties and privileges from Bible principles and examples. In such cases he must, if he would learn to know the applicable ones, wait upon the Lord to reveal these to him by His providences, which in due time the Lord will so exercise as to clarify the applicable ones to the waiting child of God. And in this sense God's providences are a tertiary rule of practice. Moreover, when no Bible principle or example seems to apply, the Spirit and providence can be a source of practice, e.g., what, when or how we shall do as to matters of whether we should eat rolled oats, shredded wheat for breakfast, etc., arise at 5 or 7 A.M., eat at 12 noon, or earlier or later, etc. In the controversy under study each side went to an extreme, the Friends' movement to the more evil of the two extremes. The extreme of the Presbyterian Puritan movement was this: While the Bible is the sole source of faith (which is entirely true) and sole source of practice (which is not entirely true), it is also the sole rule of practice (which is an error; for it denies the secondary and tertiary rules of practice, as interpretative rules helping one to judge in complicated cases what Bible principles and examples apply to the case, and when no Bible principle or example applies). But, except in very rare cases as to at times the what, when and how, it will be seen that the Spirit and providences do not furnish the applicable principles and examples; they simply assist us to understand usually which are the applicable ones, because usually the Bible furnishes the principles and examples that determine or rule the case. It is the main rule of practice, the other two being as interpreters respectively the secondary and tertiary rules of faith. We should here remark that examples from secular and religious experience that at times help us to decide are to be considered as belonging under the providences of God in others' lives. 

(38) God often uses some of His children to draw back others of them from an extreme; and frequently 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

508 

this is accompanied by the former themselves going into the opposite extreme. The Friends were used by God to emphasize the fact that the Bible is not the sole rule of practice, but that the Spirit is also a rule of practice. The Presbyterian Puritans got their one-sided rule from Calvin, while the Friends' view was somewhat akin to Luther's, who taught that while the Bible is the sole source of faith and the main source of practice, and usually is the sole one, it, the Spirit and God's providences are rules of practice, the Bible being its main rule. However, the Friends up to the time of the controversy stressed the Spirit in this matter to such an extreme as to set aside the Bible both as the sole source of faith, the main source of practice and the main rule of practice, alleging that the Spirit is now to the children of God the primary source of faith and rule of practice, the Bible being merely a revelation of what the Spirit gave to God's people in former ages. The following is a brief view of their understanding of the matter: While they mistook the vestiges of God's image in fallen man to be Christ in the fallen man, they understood this to be something quite different from the Christ in the consecrated. Their thought on the latter point was that this was the same Spirit as animated the Prophets and Apostles to write inspiredly the Bible. Thus they confounded the Spirit as God's power that inspired the writing of the Bible with the New Creature that enables one to understand, appreciate and be conformed to, the Holy Bible. Of course, if these two Spirits were the same, the Friends' depreciating the Bible as the dead letter and esteeming the present enlightenment of the Spirit, as opposed to the letter, a better thing, a more up-to-date thing, than the Bible, whose highest use to them was an instruction on how ancient generations of God's people experienced the Spirit's enlightenment, their view would be nearly right; but, as it was, their view of the identity of the two was wrong, and in the hands of unbalanced brethren made them think that their strong impressions and 

Other Middle Parallels. 

509 

high-strung feelings were the thoughts and affections of the Spirit. It moved them, not only to fanaticism, but also to ascribe infallibility to these impressions and feelings as being the expressions of God's Spirit. From this arose all sorts of vagarious notions and false views, to which they ascribed infallibility. Thus their second ablest controversialist, Isaac Pennington, speaking of the Spirit in the consecrated, says: "Every way of it is infallible and every step of the creature after it is infallible." And Barclay, their ablest scholar and controversialist, said that "the Spirit in the consecrated is the primary rule of faith and practice," which, of course, would make one by "one's own inward and therefore private and individual illumination, so far as he follows the Spirit, an infallible oracle of Divine Truth." 

(39) Handicapped by such a palpable error, and by the fact that they despised sacred learning, which only a few of them, e.g., Barclay, Penn, Keith, etc., had to any fair degree, and by the fact that they had no regular local ministry, they were no match for pious, able and learned men like Richard Baxter and John Bunyan, the Baptist author of Pilgrim's Progress, who joined the Presbyterian Puritans in the controversy. Seeing that they entered the controversy with such handicaps, they knew not what to do with the many Scriptures, reasons and facts that proved the Bible to be the sole source of faith and usually the sole source of practice and the main rule of practice (though their antagonists were not clear on this latter point, nor on the Bible as the main source of practice). Their opponents were particularly trenchant on forcing the issue into questions like this, What shall decide the question as to who is right when two claiming the Spirit's illumination teach directly contrary to each other on the same question? This question forced Barclay to give up the Friends' position on such (alleged) Spirit's illumination as infallible; and it also forced him to give up the position that the Spirit in the consecrated is the sole source of faith and practice and to accept the thought 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

510 

that the Bible would have to decide questions of faith and practice. Thus he surrendered the three chief involved errors of the Friends. Had the Friends had the full pertinent light, which became clearly due only in the Harvest, though Luther saw it clearly to some degree, they would have won out in the controversy; but having only a part of it, and that pushed to a mischievous extreme, and being in error on the chief features of the controversy, on which the Presbyterian Puritans were largely right, the Friends went down to a disastrous defeat in the controversy, as the type forecast of them. The foregoing explanations will make the correspondence between type and antitype easier to understand. We now proceed to a discussion of them. 

(40) Not waiting to be attacked, the Presbyterian Puritans advanced to the attack (Joash … went up, 11; 21), and both sides joined the battle (saw … looked … face, 11; 21), even both of them in sharp contrast (he and Amaziah, 11; 21). Be it noted that it was the viewpoint of the Friends on the office of the Bible, a dwelling place of God, the symbolic Sun, as to faith and life that was attacked (Beth-shemesh, which belongeth to Judah [not Israel], 11; 21). And the outcome of the controversy was a great victory for the Presbyterian Puritans and a crushing defeat for the Friends as a movement and as individual warriors (Judah … worse before Israel, 12; 22). So great was the defeat that the Friends as individuals fled from the field of controversy (fled every man, 12; 22) and disbanded in disunion as a fighting group on the subject at controversy (to his tent, 12; 22). The Presbyterian Puritan movement got control of the Friends' movement, so far as the questions at controversy (at Bethshemesh, 13; 23) were concerned (Joash … Jehoash … took Amaziah, 13; 23), the latter in its capacity of being the successor movement (son, 13; 23) of the Separatist Congregational movement, faithful and unfaithful (Jehoash … Joash, 13; 23), which succeeded (son, 13;) the autocratic Congregational movement

Other Middle Parallels. 

511 

(Ahaziah, 13;), the former in its capacity of succeeding the weak Puritan movement (son of Jehoahaz, ; 23). It brought captive the Friends' movement to the latter's sphere of executiveship (came … brought him to Jerusalem, 13; 23), and overthrew the powers, the chief exponents and defenders, that supported the sphere of the Friends' movement (brake down the wall of Jerusalem, 13; 23). Its refutation of the above-described views of the Friends' movement was the means of destroying in large measure the influence of its leaders and changing certain of its pertinent practices as to the Bible. This included the overthrow of its drawing by its leaders to itself followers from the ten-tribed kingdom of the north (gate of Ephraim, 13; 23) and of its keeping by its leaders for itself those who were on the verge of apostasy (corner gate, 13; 23; this gate was close to Gehenna), exceedingly trialsome and weakening things to the involved crown-lost leaders (four hundred cubits, 13; 23; 40 being the symbol of trial and 10 of natures lower than the Divine 40 x 10 = 400). The Presbyterian Puritan movement appropriated to itself whatever was good in the religious teachings of the Friends, e.g., their Divine truths on consecration and character building (gold and silver, 14; 24), together with their pertinent doctrinal, refutational, correctional and ethical teachings, as these were in charge of the pertinent Gospel-Age Levites (vessels … with Obed-edom [servant of Edam], 14; 24), and the good principles of executorship prevailing in the Friends' movement, like the emphasis on the priesthood of all the consecrated as against clericalism, testimony meetings and zeal in propaganda (treasures of the king's house, 14; 24). It required of the Friends' movement guarantees of submission to the demands implied in what it took from it (hostages, 14; 24), and worked on its own affairs (Samaria, 14; 24). 

(41) The controversy between the Presbyterian Puritan movement and the Friends' movement was waged for several years and came to its climax in 1675. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

512 

George Fox took almost no part in it, being absent in Barbados and America from about its beginning until May, 1673. While he had much insight into the practical religion of the heart, he was no theologian in the sense of having scholarly reasoning equipment for controversy. Moreover, God's enlightening him against and on it, he abstained from participating therein (; 15, 16). He, therefore, even after his return to England, about May 1, 1673, abstained from it and let the four Friends' theologians: Barclay, Pennington, Keith and Penn, do the arduous work of defending the Friends' position, which defense, as we have seen, resulted in defeat. Even Barclay, their ablest theologian, whose Apology is considered the ablest exposition and defense of their position, was in the controversy forced to give up the main position of the Friends, that the ideas, impressions and views that they had from what they called the Spirit were infallible and were the primary source and rule of faith, and not the Scriptures, to accept the position that the Bible is the final source of faith, and to approximate their opponents' error on its being the sole rule of practice, instead of taking it to be the usual sole source and main rule of practice. This controversy hardened the Friends' movement into a real sect, to which they had been approaching for a number of years. Henceforth George Fox as a part of blind antitypical Samson, like the rest of the Philadelphia star-members from Luther onward, became a slave of the antitypical Philistines (sectarians), grinding out the flour from the wheat of the Word for these antitypical Philistines. In their interests he continued to travel, preach, converse and teach throughout Britain. In 1674 he was imprisoned [in Worcester], the tenth time that he had such an experience. He suffered much in his imprisonments, and while they prevented his preaching, he could nevertheless edify his visitors and keep his pen busy in writing. He did considerable writing, the chief of which was his journal. His other writings were collected into a large Quarto. Indeed, 

Other Middle Parallels. 

513 

the last two things that for him the Friends' movement did before it ceased to be in the ascendancy as antitypical Amaziah was to publish, 1692, his journal, which in its eighth edition appeared in 1891 in two octavo volumes, at the 200th anniversary of his death, March, 1691, and to begin arranging to collect his other writings in the above-mentioned Quarto, which appeared in 1706, fifteen years after his death. In 1692, it also through Penn published the works of Barclay, its ablest exponent, as its last work. 

(42) In 1677, and again in 1684, Fox visited the Friends in Holland. The following are brief characterizations given of him by various Friends: "Graceful in countenance, manly in personage, grave in gesture, courteous in conversation" (Elwood, Milton's friend); "civil beyond all forms of breeding" (Penn). It has been said of him that he was "plain and powerful in preaching, fervent in prayer," "a discerner of other men's spirits and very much master of his own," skillful to "speak a word in due season to the conditions and capacities of most, especially to them that were weary and wanted soul's rest," "valiant in asserting the Truth, bold in defending it, patient in suffering for it, immovable as a rock." He was the mainstay of even the sectarianized Friends' movement as the more favored one of God's people. And small wonder that it ceased to be such a year after his death, its last year being largely devoted to the work described in the last part of the preceding paragraph. The movement dragged on a prosaic existence for 17 years after the climax of its controversy with the Presbyterian Puritan movement and 15 years after the latter ceased to be predominant in its Jehoash (Joash) aspect (Amaziah … lived after … Jehoash … Joash … fifteen years, 17; 25). The history of this phase of the more favored people of God is given in greater detail in the writings of the Friends' historians than in those of others' writings (acts of Amaziah … written … Chronicles … Judah, 18;); yet they are also 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

514 

described, though less detailedly, in the writings of non-Friends' historians (acts of Amaziah … written … kings of Judah and Israel, ; 26). After this movement became thoroughly sectarian, i.e., some time after 1675, more and more disgruntlement set in against it, which it for years sought to avert, and which broke out in efforts to hinder it in its sphere of executiveship (after … did turn … conspiracy … Jerusalem, 19; 27). It set itself against this stubbornly (fled to Lachish [obstinate], 19; 27). But the conspirators, 1692, led by George Keith, then in America, joined by numerous British co-conspirators, pursued it even unto exercising similar stubbornness (sent to Lachish, 19; 27) and overthrew its controllership in Friends' affairs (slew him there, 19; 27). By their teachings they did this (brought him on … upon horses, 20; 28). Nevertheless, this movement has been kept in respect as to its executiveship (Jerusalem … city of David … city of Judah, 20; 28), like the former ones of God's more favored people (with his fathers, 20; 28). 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(9) Of what did our previous study treat? For what are we now ready? What was its period of time? Paralleling what? Where is it typically described? Into how many parts was its preeminence divided? Of what did each part consist? Where typed in each case? What did it then exercise? How typed? How did it begin? How typed? What mothered it? How typed? How long did it do right? How typed? What did Jesus give it as supports? How typed? What did it thereby develop? How typed? Yet what two things did it without remonstrance permit to flourish? How typed? What are marked illustrations of this? 

(10) What was it determined to do? When? How typed By whom was the damage done? As what? How are we to understand her sons here mentioned? Why? How proved? How are these things typed? What perversions did they make? How typed? What did this movement do? How typed? For what work? How typed? Gathered from whom? How typed in each case? What were the things desired? What were also included among these? How typed? When were they to do this? How typed? What 

Other Middle Parallels. 

515 

were these things? How typed? Expressly what were they? How typed? According to what? How typed? What should prompt it? How typed? Who were to take them in charge? How typed? From whom? How typed? For what use? How typed? Regardless of what? How typed? What were the subordinate leaders charged to do? How typed? What did they do as to the charge? How typed? How long and until what two events did the work drag on? 

(11) Giving each in turn, what were the five reasons for the delay in repairing the Church? 

(12) How did the delay affect antitypical Joash? How typed? What did it move it to do? How typed? What did it ask? How typed? Especially of Jesus? How typed? From whom particularly? How typed in each case? What things? How typed? By whom charged? When? For what? How typed in each case? How proved? What had the main Congregationalist leaders done? What did antitypical Joash do as to this? How typed? What did he charge? How typed? How did these leaders react to this? How typed? What exception was made therein? How typed? What correction in translation is here made? What was thereupon done? How typed? By whose endorsement? How typed in each case? For what suitable? How typed? For what purpose? How typed? For what was this arrangement made? How typed? What are the details? How typed? By what were these committees to be dominated? How typed? How is this proved as to the type and antitype? What was planned as to the main evangelistic leaders? How typed? Like what were these schools of the prophets? 

(13) Following this decision what was widely advocated? Where? How typed? For whose service? How typed? According to whose personal and instrumental instruction? How typed? By whom was this advocacy heard? How typed? With what effect first? How typed? Secondly? How typed? What two things did many do? How typed in each case? With what result? How typed? Who even took up this work? With what results? Even with whom? What did they become? Of whom else was this true? In what did this propaganda result? 

(14) What was brought to the administrative attention of the Separatist movement? How typed? By whom ministered? How typed? What two things were as a result

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

516 

done? By whom? How are these two things typed? What did they do with the available talents? How typed? In what respect? How typed? What did they do with the talents' possessors? How typed? How was this done? When? How typed? What did the schools of the prophets prove to be? How typed? Who assigned the possessors of the described talents to their positions of service? How typed? In charge of whom? How typed? To whom did these assign them? For what two works? How are these things typed? For what purpose? How typed? Why was this done? How typed? Why especially was this done? How typed? What did they by these measures seek to do? How typed? 

(15) Who, accordingly, worked on the Church? How typed? What, according to Congregational views of the ecclesia's organizations, were the kinds of officers of the Congregational ecclesias? What three mistakes did they make as to an ecclesia's officers? Why in each case were these mistakes made? From among whom were the secretary and treasurer usually taken? Into what did they develop the Church? Along what three lines? How typed? What did they then do? How typed? What five things had they not, up to this stage of the work, prepared? How typed in each case? From what? How typed? Why not? How typed? What characteristic did the works' and workers' supervisors exercise? How typed? With what result on antitypical Joash and Jesus? How typed? What was finally done with this work? How typed? What did they do after completing the repairs? How typed? Before whom? How typed? What did they make therewith? How typed? For what? How typed? What three purposes did these teachings further? How typed in each case? Of what did they consist? How typed? Who were the main workers on these teachings? Especially who as authors? 

(16) What two kinds of advantages did not accrue to the generality of Congregationalists? How typed? Who obtained these? What did the wrong-doers have to forfeit? How typed? To whom did the first kind of advantages fall? What examples illustrate this as to Oxford University executive offices? In what other positions did this also occur? To whom did the second kind of advantages fall? How are these things typed? How long were the Congregationalists favored by Jesus? How 

Other Middle Parallels. 

517 

typed? What did they receive? How typed? How long did Jesus exercise an approving ministry on the Congregationalists? How typed? What was their condition during most of the 70 involved years? Despite these conditions what did they do? What effect did their apostacy have on Jesus? How typed? Where typed? How were the first 60 years of Congregationalism conducted? As a result how regarded? How typed? As what? How typed? Why? Toward what three sets of persons was this good done? How typed in each case? 

(17) How long did Jesus support Separatism? How typed? After it proved entirely disloyal what did He do? How typed? What kind of a disloyalty and abandonment were they? How typed? In what two proportions did its disloyalty increase? How typed in the second feature? What did these render it? How typed? For example in government circles? In what other circles? What two things did these leaders do? Why? Of what did they make the state church consist? Under what conditions? What did the leaders seek to do? What response did it in them make? How typed? What danger is here seen? Of what was such yielding an example? What examples further manifest it? When has the Church always been purest? What in this respect should God's people avoid? 

(18) What resulted from this practice? How typed? Along what lines? How typed? Into what did they enter? How proved? What did they serve? With what four things? How are these things typed? What else did they serve? How typed? Who advocated this evil course? What prevented the realization of their purpose? How did this disloyalty affect God? How typed? Against whom? How typed? Against what? How typed? How did this wrath express itself? What did these evils effect? What did the accompanying strife effect? In what relations? What did their disloyalty meet? What did God do to win them back? How typed? With what did they mingle their protests? How typed? What was the response thereto? How typed? 

(19) What is typed as an individual? By whom and in what respect is he typed? Despite what fact? Who was he? What marked him from early youth onward? When and at what age did he begin to preach? What was the main burden of his preaching and teaching? Opposed to what? As a real pilgrim what did he do? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

518 

Where? By what did he attract consecrated people? Mainly from what walks of life? What did his movement do? In what ways? As they grew what increased? What everywhere was filled with them? What in three ways happened to Fox? Who shared with him in this? What things in them brought much reproach upon them? To what in many cases did their course in court lead? At one time above what number were in jail? In whom did they rebuke sin? Against what did they protest? Inveigh? Especially under what condition? Against what did they particularly protest? 

(20) Who was the leader therein? Why? For this what rested upon him? How typed? What did he do as antitypical of the name of his type? As what? How typed? Why did he do this? In this what did he occupy? How typed? As God's mouthpiece what were his expostulations? How typed? What did he do with them? How typed? What did he prove? How? How typed? What, did he point out? Why was this so? How are these things typed? What three facts did he then point out? Wherein? In contrast with what? What did he thereby prove? What did he then point out? By what facts did he prove this charge? 

(21) What will wrong-doers usually do with rebuke and correction? Unless what? Despite what? What qualities did those wrong-doers lack with whom Fox had to do? What did they, accordingly, do? What was the period of the full fall of Separatism? What are we not to understand as to it? When did its fall begin? How? Proceed? Culminate? With what did its increasing fall keep pace? Especially whose? What did the Lord's Spirit in Fox perceive? With what did his rebukes and corrections keep pace? How? How can the matter be stated otherwise as to type and antitype? How does this contrast with the usual enactment of type and antitype? When did Fox begin his pertinent rebukes and corrections? How? How did he proceed? Come to a full? With whom is this the usual course? What cases illustrate this? In it what did they reflect? What kept pace with the rebukes and corrections? How did they start? Proceed? Come to the full? When and where was he first imprisoned? What else was done to him? At whose orders? 

(22) What officials were his special accusers and persecutors? Like whom did he travel and serve? With what

Other Middle Parallels. 

519 

exception? For what evils did he rebuke and correct? How did his course affect church and civil officials? What as a result did they do? How typed? What was their intention? Why and in what was he considered a usurper? By whom? What three things made him a target? At whose hands? What was the character of his accusers? Where? How did the civil officials react to these charges? How was he there treated? What understanding was reached by these officials? What did they raise up against him? What particular one? What did a fanatic then do and receive? What did Fox do as to him? Despite this what did his accusers do to him? What was the character of his trials? What did he undergo? 

(23) What is not the antitype of Zechariah's stoning? Despite what? What was it? How typed? Why so? What would wrong stoning type? As shown in what case? What then was the antitype of Zechariah's stoning? Why so? Accordingly, what did Zechariah's death not type? What proves this? What did it type? What was a sad feature of his cutting off? How typed? When did it cause this to happen? In what respects was he then serving? How typed? What is the character of the act? What does it show? Why? How are these typed? 

(24) Simultaneously with this persecution what did Fox do? What two things did he tell them? What error in translation is here pointed out? What is the correct translation? For what would Fox not have prayed? Why not? How proved? What do the facts prove? Why so? What was Fox's pertinent custom? In what else was this his course? What did he do to persecuting officials and private individuals? In what two ways? On what lines of thought? To whom even did he write and speak to this effect? Thereupon what did Cromwell do? How did the officials react to it? How long did such expostulations continue? Apace with what? 

(25) When did the forecast punishment come? How typed? What was its agent? How typed? Through whom did it act therein? What were his attitude, office, years' long policy and course? Where was this shown? By whom was he invited to become England's king? When and from where did he return to England? As what? Of what was his restoration? Engineered by whom? Who took a large part in this intrigue? Without suspecting what? What was his return? Unsuspected by whom? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

520 

What did Rome thereby do? How typed? What did Romanism through Charles II then do? How typed? At that time to what were apostate Congregationalists subject? What did Romanists then do? Through whom? How typed? What did it invade? How typed in each case? In what sense did they do this? Why was this not hard to do? Who opposed their course? On whom consequently did the odium for these acts fall? What stipulation did Charles II make as conditional for his accepting the kingship of England? In what three ways was this punishment meted out? How typed? What resulted? 

(26) What five things acted hostilely toward their spirit of disloyalty? What did they move it to do in its unfaithful adherents? Who were its main leaders then? Why could they not overcome these five things? What did they do? What could they not venture to do? What resulted as to the four sets of their principles? How typed in each case? In what sense were they given up? By whom required? How typed? What first set of principles did it cease to advocate? How typed? Second? How typed? In summary, of what did antitypical Hazael despoil it? Thereafter what did Romanism in Charles II do to it? Why? What did it do by default? 

(27) What great mistake did those make who invited Charles to mount England's throne? In the face of what was this mistake made? What occasioned the mistake? What was the result? How typed? What resultantly did the disloyalty of the multitudinous Congregationalists undergo? At whose decision? Why had all this befallen them? How typed? How can the terribleness of God's judgments on the unfaithful be seen? In what three cases particularly? Of what was the case under study? How typed? 

(28) How did the executors of these judgments leave Separatism? How typed? What were some of these diseases? What other evil fell to its lot? How typed? What else did they do? How typed? In punishment of what did God send this? How typed? What was the punishment? How typed? While it did what in its adherents? How typed in these particulars? Of how many classes were these conspirators and assassins? Who were they? How typed in the details of each class? What was done to it because of its former good? As being what? How typed? What was withheld from it because of its later evil?

Other Middle Parallels. 

521 

How typed? Where are details other than the above-given antitype to be found? How typed? Its movements? How typed? Its great work of developing God's people as His temple? How typed? What end did the end of the Joash phase mark? What movement next became that of God's more favored people? How typed? What two lessons should our study of antitypical Joash teach us? 

(29) What was done as to the Friends while discussing antitypical Joash? How did they get the nickname Quakers? Why were these comments necessitated? What two things did antitypical Joash's apostasy move God to do? How typed? In what condition was it when so accepted by God? What was the period of its ascendancy? Corresponding to what? How typed? What marked his early life? Probably at what age did he consecrate? Typed probably by what? How long before what? How typed? What doctrine mothered him? How typed? How did this movement act? How typed? With what qualification? How typed? Why so? What example proves this? How typed? What course did it follow? How typed? In what first respect? How typed? Second respect? How typed? How did it become? How typed? What did it then do? How typed? What did it exclude from this course? How typed? According to what charge of Jesus? How typed and proved? What likewise did Jesus charge? How typed and proved? Why so? What illustrate these principles? 

(30) By whom was the movement attacked? Particularly by whom? With what and how did they attack? With what result? How typed? What did it do with its leaders? Who were the five main ones? Into how many kinds were they divided? How typed in each case? How were they organized? How typed? How were the warriors differentiated? How typed in each case? How as to members? How typed? As to maturity? How typed? To what did their zeal arouse them? How typed? In what two ways were they trained? How typed in each case? On what did the Friends work? As distinct from what? On what did they insist? How not merely expressed? How expressed? What was the condition of the bulk of Anglicans? Into what had the bulk of the Presbyterian Puritans degenerated? Many of whom were among them? How did these stand toward the Friends? What was a common experience of these two groups of believers? What did 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

522 

the Friends' movement do to these? Why? Along what lines? To what degree? How typed? With what result? How typed? How did these compare with the Friends as to qualifications for controversy? How typed? To what pertinent extreme did the Friends go? What did they thus draw to themselves? To what degree did their small compromises go? How typed? 

(31) What was George Fox's attitude toward these compromises? What made him so? How typed? To what did he speak thereon? How typed? What did he say? How typed? What reason did he give? How typed? What did he not seek? What caution did he give? What warning did he give, if it was determined on its course? How typed? Despite what would the evil come? How typed? What issues, said he, remained with God? How typed? Of what did the Friends' movement think and thereon ask? How typed? Whom did it ask this? How typed? To what did the concealed truths pertain? How typed? To whom yielded up? How typed? What assurance did Bro. Fox give? Why did he give it? How typed? What did the Friends do? As what? With what effect? How typed? Where did the rejected ones go? How typed? In what mood? How typed? How long did they keep this anger? How typed? 

(32) What did the Friends' movement then do? To what degree did their enemies persecute them? How typed? What directed them in the conflict? How typed? Where was it waged? How typed? What special law was enacted by Charles II? Why? What did it forbid? How did the dissenters, except the Friends, react to this law? The Friends? What did they do in the ensuing arguments? What did some, like judge Fell, do? What did George Fox do therein? On what other grounds than legal was the controversy carried on? In what two respects? With what two effects? How typed in each case? What did they in time accomplish? How are these things typed? How long have these laws prevailed? How typed? What happened first to the clerical tyrants? How are the details typed in each case? Second? How are its details typed? 

(33) What had the Friends' movement done to certain former cooperators? How typed? What in anger did these do? How typed? Whence did they start out? How typed? To what did they proceed? How typed? On what kind of subjects? With what effect? As a fanatical sect

Other Middle Parallels. 

523 

what did the Friends cherish? What had they done with these? Why? What did the Presbyterian Puritans do with these? What was their position on court oaths? How did the former refute these from the passages supposed by the Friends to teach their thought? Their views on respect given to the great? How did these refute them? One of their views on conscientious objection? How did these refute them? Their views on social amenities and polite forms? How did these refute them? What special doctrine of the Friends did they refute? When was this view first entertained? Why? How did these not refute the pertinent Friends' view? How did they refute it? What Scriptures did they cite? What ordinances did the Friends refuse to practice? How did these refute them thereon? What did these arguments do to the Friends? How typed? With what results? How typed? 

(34) Despite their victory over their oppressing tyrants, what did they also get from it? How typed? What did their success first effect in them? Who misled them thereinto? What did this effect? What was the second evil into which they were led? After whose example? Where read? How are these things typed? What kind of a position was given these two things? How typed? What two things did they do to them? How typed in each case? How did their course therein compare with that of antitypical Joash? How did it affect God? How typed? Though displeased, what did God yet do? Through whom did He offer it? How typed? In what ways was it offered? How typed? What good reason did he give against their course? How typed? What in fact was the pertinent course of George Fox? What answer did he get? Like whom else? Like them to what was he subjected? When? How typed? In what form was the rebuke given? What was the question? With what was he charged? How typed? What was then done to him? After what usual course? How typed? What can we easily imagine? At what did the sectarian movement not stop? To what did it proceed? How typed? What did Fox see? What as a result did he do? How typed? Of what was this perhaps the beginning as to Bro. Fox? What warning did he utter? How typed? What two reasons on God's part did he give? How typed? 

(35) What were perhaps the motives that prompted the Friends' movement to seek a controversy with the reviving Presbyterian Puritan movement? Why are we uncertain

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

524 

thereon? Nevertheless, what was discussed among its leaders? How typed? What consequently did they do? How typed? What were the two preceding Presbyterian Puritan movements? What was the relation and the characteristic of the third as to these? How is each typed? Whose movements were all three of them? How typed? What were the antitypical messengers and their tactics? How typed? What was the character of the challenge? Why? Who was the main controversialist on the side of the Presbyterian Puritans? What kind of a man was he? How was the Presbyterian Puritan movement occupied? What in addition to this moved it to decline the challenge? How typed? How did it decline it? To what did it call attention first? Second? Third? How typed in each case? 

(36) Then what did it do? How typed? Of what did it remind the Friends' movement? What did it then truly charge? How typed? What needed advice did it give? How typed? What reasoning did it give? How typed? Why did it so reason first? Secondly? How typed in each case? Upon what Scripture did such reasoning argue? How has this proven true? What can few stand? What is a special propensity of the fanatical? As such to what were the Friends exposed? Why? With whom was this proneness then present? How typed? How did God react to the conditions? Why? How typed? 

(37) What as a type does Beth-shemesh mean and type? Over what, therefore, was the controversy? What is the correct way of presenting the Bible as to the source of faith? Practice? What is the secondary rule of practice? The tertiary one? What is meant by the Bible being the sole source of faith? Main rule of practice? What at times arises in special times and circumstances? Why? What usually enables him to decide them? In what sense is the Spirit a secondary rule of practice? What other cases sometimes arise? What should the Christian do at such times? Why? What does this make of providences at such times? When do we find the Spirit and providences to be a source of practice? As to what things? What in this controversy did each side do? Which went to the worse extreme? What were the right view and the extreme view of the Presbyterian Puritan movement? Why was its view on the rule of practice wrong? Why is the Bible the main rule of practice? The Spirit and providences respectively the secondary and tertiary ones? What 

Other Middle Parallels. 

525 

will sometimes give assistance in these matters? As what in such cases are they to be considered? 

(38) What does God often do? With what is this often accompanied in the used agents? What did God use the Friends to emphasize on this matter? From whom did the Presbyterian Puritans get their one-sided view? Somewhat akin to whose view was that of the Friends? What was Luther's pertinent rule? To what extreme did the Friends up to the time of this controversy go? What did they allege? What is a brief view of their understanding? What was their thought on the relation of the Spirit as Inspirer of Prophets and Apostles and the Spirit in the consecrated? What error did they thereby commit? What followed in the Friends the adoption of this error? What to them was the Bible's highest use? What did this view effect in unbalanced brethren? To what two evils did it move them? Appositely, what did Pennington hold? What did Barclay appositely hold? What conclusion did another draw from this? 

(39) Under what three handicaps did they labor? For whom did this make them no match? With what were they unable to cope? Despite what two errors in their adversaries' view on the source and rule of practice? On what were their opponents particularly trenchant on forcing? What did this force Barclay to do? To accept contrary to the Friends' position? What did he thus surrender? Under what conditions would the Friends have won in this controversy? Who before the Harvest saw the matter fairly clearly? What was the cause of their defeat? What will the foregoing explanation do? 

(40) How did the Presbyterian Puritan movement act as to the attack? How typed? What did both sides do? How typed? How contrasted? How typed? What should be noted? How typed? What was the outcome of the battle? How typed? What was the battle's double effect on the defeated? How typed in each case? Of what did the victors get control? How typed? The defeated in what capacity? How typed as to the three features? The victor in what capacity? How typed in two features? What did the victor do to the defeated? How typed? What did they do there? How typed? By what means was this done? To what effect? What did this first include? How typed? Secondly? How typed? How are those near apostasy typed? How did this affect the crown-lost leaders?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

526 

How typed? What did the Presbyterian Puritan movement appropriate to itself? How typed? Together with what? In whose charge? How typed? What else in detail? How typed? What did it finally require? How typed? What did it then do? How typed? 

(41) How long was this controversy waged? When did it come to a climax? What was George Fox's relation to it? During a large part of it where was he? What other two things also account for his non-participation? Even after what did he abstain from it? Whom did he let partake therein? With what result? Even who was forced to give up the main position? What was his and the Friends' chief exposition and defense? What were the three main surrendered positions? What two positions of their opponents did they accept? What final effect did this controversy have on the Friends' movement? What resulted therefrom to George Fox? Like the rest of what from Luther onward? What did he continue to do for them? When and where for the tenth time was he imprisoned? With what effect? What did it prevent? What did it not prevent? What was the chief of his much writing? What sized book did his other writings make? What were the last two things that the movement did for him? What facts are here given on his journal? On his other writings? What was the last thing it did? Through whom? 

(42) What did Fox do in 1677 and 1684? What is the comment on him of Milton's friend, Elwood? That of Penn? What other things were said of him? Of what was he the mainstay? Even when? What should cause small wonder? For what was its last year mainly devoted? What else did it do that last year? How long did it drag out a prosaic existence after its controversy with antitypical Joash How long after the latter ceased? How typed? Where are its acts mainly described? How typed? Less described? How typed? What set in after antitypical Amaziah became thoroughly sectarianized? Sometime after what year? How did it react thereto? Into what did it break out? How typed? How did it set itself against this conspiracy? How typed? What did the conspirators then do? Led by whom? Where? Joined by whom else? How typed? What did they accomplish? How typed? By what did they do this? Nevertheless, what has been accorded it? How typed? Like what? How typed? 

‍