Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page


Num. 7:30-47 


AFTER treating of the offerings of the princes of the three tribes east of the tabernacle, Num. 7 proceeds to describe the offerings of the princes of the three tribes south of the tabernacle—Reuben, Simeon and Gad. The prince of the first of these tribes was Elizur (my God is a rock), the son of Shedeur (light-spreader). Our study on the Gospel-Age Israelites (Chap. I) showed us that the tribe of Reuben represents the Greek Catholics and their Church, that Jacob begetting Reuben of Leah represents Little Flock leaders starting by the pertinent Truth the Little Flock movement that was by crown-lost leaders perverted into the Greek Catholic Church. Had there been no other sectarian movement later, we would call this sect the Catholic Church, which it was called until it was divided into the Greek and the Roman Catholic Churches. Thus its adherents originally embraced those who were under the eastern patriarchs—those of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem—and those under the western patriarch—the one of Rome; the first four after the division presiding over the Greek, and the last one over the Roman Catholic Church. It is partly because the pertinent controversies in the main broke out and were mainly fought out by the Orientals that we give the name Greek Catholic to the first Christian sect. The Greek Catholic Church has, above all other churches, developed and advocated the doctrines of the trinity and of the God-man. These doctrines as a whole and in many of their phases being grossly erroneous, cannot be the doctrines with



which Little Flock leaders began the movement that was later perverted into the Greek Catholic Church by crown-lost leaders. Thus we see evidenced in the Greek Catholic Church the main stress laid on false teachings not given by the Little Flock leaders starting the movement that changed into the Greek Catholic Church. This same perverse phenomenon is manifest in the Presbyterian Church, where principal stress is laid on absolute predestination and reprobation of individuals instead of on the symbolic teaching of the memorial bread and wine, in the Christian Church where immersion for forgiveness of sins is mainly stressed instead of the unity of the Church based on the Bible alone as creed, and in the Adventist Church where Christ's return visibly in the flesh is the prominent teaching instead of chronology. 

(2) What, then, is the teaching that Little Flock leaders gave as the vitalizing spark of the movement that was later perverted into the Greek Catholic Church by its crown-lost leaders? It was the doctrine of the office of Christ before, during and after the days of His flesh, as God's Special Representative. The Little Flock member who primarily gave by this teaching the impetus to the movement that was later perverted into the Greek Catholic Church was no less a personage than the Apostle John. All of his writings were composed in the tenth decade of the first century—between 90 and 100 A. D. In the office of Christ, they stress the Logos' existence and work of Christ as God's Representative in Creation (John 1:1-3; 3:13; 6:62; 8:56-58; 16:28; 17:5; Rev. 3:14). They stress His carnation to become man's Savior (John 1:14; 3:16; 1:17; 1 John 4:2, 3). They stress His giving Himself as man's propitiation in His office work (1 John 2:2; 4:10). They stress His ministry for the deliverance of the Church now and of the world by and by (1 John 2:1; 3:2; John 17:21, 23). Thus we see that in these and in many other passages John stressed our Lord's office work before, during and 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


after the days of His flesh. There were between 90 and 100 A. D. special errors that required John to stress the office work of our Lord from these three standpoints. Some—especially Jewish heretics—denied His pre-existence. Gnostics denied His exclusive preexistence work as God's Special Representative in Creation. Still others—the Docetists—denied the actuality of His death and resurrection as our Savior. Still others denied His present office work toward the Church and His future office work toward the world. There was a fifth set of errors by reason of which John stressed the office work of the Lord—the developing teachings of Antichrist, culminating several centuries later partly in the God-man and trinity doctrines. John's main helpers in this teaching were Ignatius of Antioch, who died at the mouth of lions about 108 or 115 A. D., and Polycarp of Smyrna, who died at the stake about 153 or 165 A. D., after 85 years of consecrated living, whose death occurred when he was over 100 years old. The office work of Christ as God's Special Representative was, therefore, the doctrine whose stewardship God entrusted to the Greek Catholic Church. 

(3) The fact that the crown-lost leaders in the Greek Catholic Church more or less corrupted this doctrine accounts in part for the fact that they, like the other eleven crown-lost groups, are not represented in the type as bringing a silver or gold cup as a part of their offerings, the other reason being this, that Little Flock members, John, etc., presented this doctrine, offered this cup. These crown-lost leaders are typed by Elizur (my God is a rock, or a mighty rock), because Christ's office as the central work of the Lord's plan is a symbolic rock—a mighty truth (Matt. 16:18), whose stewardship was committed to them. In this office our Lord is the wisdom, as well as the power of God (1 Cor. 1:24; 2:7). He and His office are the chief part in the mystery (Col. 1:27). The name Shedeur (light



spreader) is appropriate to them antitypically, because the office work of Christ makes Him the light of the world (John 1:9; 9:5), and those ministering to that doctrine of necessity are light-spreaders. Having the doctrine of Christ's office work as their stewardship teaching, Christ in this respect being the concentration of God's wisdom, the Greek Catholic Church is appropriately represented as one of the three denominations (the Roman and Anglican Catholic Churches being the other two) that stand for the wisdom of God, typed by Reuben, Simeon and Gad, whose camp was to the south of the tabernacle. But the Greek Catholic crown-lost leaders corrupted more or less the doctrine of the office work of our Lord by their doctrine of the trinity and of Christ's alleged God-manhood. These corruptions apply to the relation of His office work to the Father before, during and after the days of His flesh. Origen, one of the ablest of the Church fathers, a theological professor at Alexandria, Egypt, about 240 A. D. introduced the first great corruption, alleging the Logos' eternity, though still holding to His subordination to the Father. Dionysius of Rome about 262 A. D. introduced the idea of His consubstantiality and equality with the Father; and Athanasius of Alexandria about 320 became their champion as against Arius, who from 318 onward fought these errors. Despite these, antitypical Elizur offered his charger, bowl and spoon. 

(4) Antitypical Elizur ministered the doctrine of the office of Christ before, during and after the days of His flesh, as a means of correction of unrighteousness—offered the antitypical charger. They used it to rebuke and correct disobedience by showing how Jesus in exercising His creative office as Logos shunned disobedience and thus kept Himself from disregarding the Father's creative plans, and thereby kept Himself from injuring their execution. They used His Logos activity in revealing the Word to the Old Testament writers

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


and the accompanying arrangements, to correct the conduct of those who sought to introduce into the Christian Church errors of doctrine and life and wrongs of arrangement. They used His carnation as a correction of power-graspers who desired to exalt themselves instead of abasing themselves for the advancement of God's cause and people. They used His overcoming Satan's temptations in the wilderness and elsewhere as a rebuke to those who succumbed to his temptations. They used His humbly sacrificing Himself daily in the interests of God's plan as a correction of those who, claiming to be God's servants, were living a life of proud self-indulgence. They used His faithful giving up of Himself unto death for sin as an argument to make its terrible nature and awful effects hateful, and thus rebuked and corrected all who loved sin for prizing that which slew our Lord. They set forth His humbling Himself unto death and His exaltation unto the right hand of God as a corrector of all who sought exaltation apart from loyalty to God, His cause and people. They taught His intercessory work as a correction of impenitence, in order that such work might be obtained on one's behalf. They held up His present loving ministry as a rebuke and correction to those who by sin were despising His ministry on their behalf. They preached His zeal to cleanse by the Spirit, Word and providence of God the Lord's people from filthiness of the flesh and spirit, as a corrector of error, sin, selfishness and worldliness. 

(5) Nor were such teachings in vain as to their effects. They proved to be a first-class means of helping many to correct their wrong lives. Remembering that centuries of heathenism had depraved the European, African and Asiatic peoples where the Greek Church labored, we at once recognize that there was much need of such cleansing work among the converts from heathendom. Such preaching helped them to put aside the awful corruption of morals incident to ancient



heathenism. Such teaching put away from home life infanticide and the exposure of the aged and of the weak and deformed infants. It put aside the custom of treating wives as slaves and slaves as beasts. Parental tyranny was given up. The exploitation of the poor was ameliorated, and their sufferings assuaged. The blood-thirstiness of the populace was reformed. The terrible crimes of the arena were set aside. Cruel and unusual tortures were abrogated. Social vice was greatly decreased. Business dishonesty was reformed. Enmities were healed. Feuds were broken up. Debauchery greatly declined. Disregard for human life was largely overcome. Cruelty to the unfortunate was softened. The grind of poverty was eased. Profanity was largely banished. Conjugal infidelity greatly decreased. Slander and false-witnessing received setbacks. Plundering one's neighbor and over-reaching him in bargains greatly decreased. Thus the doctrine of the office of Christ was so presented as to correct much misconduct. Thus antitypical Elizur offered his charger, and that with much fruitfulness. 

(6) He likewise offered his bowl—refutative teachings. Many and varied were the attacks that Satan made through his servants on our Lord's office work in His pre-human, human and post-human activities. In meeting some of these attacks, antitypical Elizur sometimes went to the opposite extreme and taught errors. In this way he developed the trinity and God-man doctrines. Nevertheless, he defended our Lord's office work in its threefold aspect against many and varied attacks. We will do well to note these attacks and the refutations that antitypical Elizur offered to them. About 170 A. D. the first decided opposition to our Lord's pre-human office as the Father's Special Representative in Creation was made, and that by a sect called the Alogians—No-Wordians. They denied that there ever was such a being as the Word—the Logos—that our Lord ever had any pre-existence. To maintain

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


their position they were forced by antitypical Elizur's quotations from John's writings against them to deny the genuineness of the fourth Gospel and of the Revelation as coming from John, or from any other inspired writer. Thus they were driven away from faith in vital parts of the Bible, so successfully did antitypical Elizur refute them. About 190 a certain Theodosius, the tanner, who, to escape death denied Christ, began to teach that Christ was not the Lord's agency in Creation, alleging that He first came into existence when conceived by Mary from the Holy Spirit. He was refuted by antitypical Elizur with quotations like John 1:1-3, 14; 3:13; 6:62; 8:56-58; 16:28; 17:5; Rev. 3:14, as well as with some from Paul's writings, like Phil. 2:5-8; Col. 1:15-17. 

(7) Sabellius, an Egyptian, after 215 A. D. began to teach modalism, which denies Christ's pre-human existence as the Logos and God's Special Representative in Creation. He taught that there is but one God—one person—who appeared in three modes. Hence his theory was called modalism. According to him this one God as the Father was the Creator, and the Law Giver in the Old Testament. Then this one God, the Father, became the Son by carnation, and as the Son, died for man. Thereafter this one God who first existed as Father, afterward as Son, became the Holy Spirit to do the work of sanctification for the Church. Sabellius denied that there were three Gods or three persons in God, but taught that there were three manifestations or modes of revelation of the one God. This, of course, did away with the Logos' existence and work as that of a person separate from the Father. Antitypical Elizur refuted this by showing the contrasts in John 1:1-3 between God and the Logos, and by presenting the Latter as the Agent of God in Creation. Some of his members did this by showing that the Logos was created by God before all other creatures (Rev. 3:14; Col. 1:15); and all of them taught 



that He then was used as God's Agent to create all other things (Col. 1:15-17). He refuted the idea that there was no Father during the days of Christ's flesh, by quoting passages where Christ prays to the Father, like Matt. 11:25-27; 26:39-44; John 17:1-26; and by stressing his sacrifice as being made to God by Christ as a Priest in atonement for sin, etc. (Heb. 9:13-23; 7:27; 2:17, 18, etc.). He refuted the thought that there was no Christ and consequently no High-priestly ministry since the Spirit has been sanctifying the Church, by quoting passages proving such a ministry, like John 14:16; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 2:18; Heb. 3:1; 4:14, 15; 6:17; 8:1, 2, 6; 9:24; 10:11-14; 1 John 2:1, 2; etc. He likewise refuted this view by showing that Christ comes again on the Last Day, though he did not clearly see the object of our Lord's return. 

(8) Another attack was made on our Lord's office as God's Special Representative by a doctrine called Patripassionism (the doctrine that the Father suffered and died), which began to be taught about 190 A. D. According to this doctrine there is no Son at all. There was only the Father, who came into the world and suffered and died for man. This view would require God's non-existence for three days. It was refuted in a manner similar to that used against Sabellius' modalism. The three main exponents of this error were Praxeas, a confessor (one who refused to deny Christ before his persecuting judges, and who succeeded in escaping martyrdom without compromising himself), who began his errors in Asia Minor, Beryllus of Arabia and Noëtus of Smyrna. Tertullian (who died 230 A. D.) refuted the first, Origen (who died 254) the second, and Hyppolitus (who died about 235 A. D.) the third. Beryllus accepted Origen's views and publicly thanked him for his helping him out of error—an unusual outcome of a theological controversy. 

(9) Paul of Samosata, to whom our Pastor refers (B 292), was a staunch and powerful opponent of our 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


Lord's office, especially as Logos. His view of Christ was much like that of the modern Unitarians and Christadelphians, and he treated the Scriptures relating to our Lord's pre-human existence and office in the same torturous manner as they do, i.e., The Logos existed as God's wisdom in God's mind only, until He was born of Mary. He, therefore, taught that there was no personal Logos, which, of course, did away with His office as God's Special Representative in Creation and in Old Testament revelation. Paul of Samosata was an able debater and a resourceful politician, and he used both of these powers to defend himself against the members of antitypical Elizur who attacked his error. The controversy raged for years (263-272 A. D.), and three large synods were held in which the subjects at issue were exhaustively debated, before it was ended in the complete defeat and dislodgement of the doughty Paul. 

(10) There have been many other attacks made on our Lord's office in its three times of exercise, both before and since the Reformation; but antitypical Elizur has been able to meet and defeat all of them. The arguments that he framed have frequently been used by theologians of other denominations than the Greek Catholic Church, but with very little additions to those that antitypical Elizur offered as his bowl. E.g., when Servetus, who taught the Truth on the unity of God, but error on the Logos, presented his errors against Calvin, the latter, unable to meet his arguments on the unity of God, did use Elizur's arguments against Servetus' errors on the Logos, and with these certainly refuted them. Had Servetus the Truth on this subject and the whole Truth on the Holy Spirit, Calvin would have been hopelessly outmatched in his argument with Servetus, as he was in the argument on the unity of God, and in part on the Holy Spirit. Even in our day antitypical Elizur continues to refute attacks against Christ's office as God's Special Representative before, 



during and after the days of His flesh. So doing, antitypical Elizur has nearly throughout the entire Gospel Age been offering his bowl. 

(11) So, too, has he been offering his golden spoon—instructions in righteousness—connected with Christ's office before, during and after the days of His flesh. Here a rich field of instruction in righteousness was opened up for antitypical Elizur's use. From Christ's pre-existent joy in creating all things they drew the lesson of our rejoicing in the Lord's work. From His doing the work of creation exactly as God outlined, they drew the lesson of obedience to God's will for their hearers' benefit. From His successful accomplishment of creation and the Old Testament revelation by using God's instrumentalities in harmony with His will they drew the lesson of efficiency as resulting from our using God's instrumentalities in His ways to fulfill His will. From Christ's willingness to leave heaven and become a human being to please the Father and carry out His plan they exhorted their hearers to abase self in order to please God and further His purposes. 

(12) From Christ's consecrating Himself at Jordan to sacrifice Himself to God on behalf of God's plan they encouraged their hearers to consecrate themselves unto God in His interests. From Christ's faithfully serving God's cause they preached that their hearers should faithfully serve God's cause. From Christ's developing and manifesting in His office work faith, hope, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly love, charity, humility, simplicity, industry, self-sacrificingness, long-suffering, forbearance, liberality, temperance, frugality, peace, joy, meekness, obedience, zeal, gentleness, faithfulness, etc., they encouraged their hearers to cultivate all these fruits and graces of the Spirit. In these respects they held Him up as an example for imitation as to these graces, and this was a powerful instruction in righteousness. When they stressed the death of 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


Christ for man's sin, they drew the lesson of laying down life for God on behalf of His plan. His readiness and His promptness and devotion to fulfill His office work afforded them lessons to apply to their hearers for obedience. His trustfulness at death in committing His future to, and in depositing His life-rights with, the Father served as a splendid text to encourage their hearers to do likewise. Christ's death as an expression of God's and His love they held up as an exhortation to show similar love. 

(13) Many, too, are the instructions in righteousness that antitypical Elizur has drawn from His ministry since He left the flesh. His willingness to receive all that come to Him they applied to their hearers to use as an inspiration to receive all that come to them for such help as His office warrants their giving. His faithfulness in appearing in the presence of God for us they used to stimulate faithfulness in their hearers' calling. His interceding for them they used in urging their hearers to imitate by praying for others. His teaching people as to God's plan they used to encourage their hearers not only to respond to the call, but also to encourage others to respond to it. His justifying the repentant and believing they used as a means of helping them to encourage others to repentance and faith. His sanctifying the Church they presented in such a way as to help their hearers to stimulate others to consecrate their humanity to God, faithfully to lay it down unto death and to develop a Christlike character while laying down life for God. His bringing the Faithful to victory in the daily battles of the Christian life they applied in ways to incite their hearers to fight the good fight of faith. His promising the Faithful ultimate victory and the glorious heavenly inheritance they used to arouse their hearers to faithfulness unto death. In these and other ways they presented many instructions in righteousness from the Biblical teachings on Christ's pre-human, human and post-human



office. Thus antitypical Elizur offered the antitypical golden spoon full of sweet incense. 

(14) We have now finished our study of the fourth prince's offering—type and antitype. Antitypical Elizur had as a doctrine in connection with which he offered corrective, refutative and ethical teachings, the richest of the four doctrines so treated by the four princes whose Gospel-Age offerings we have so far studied; for Christ's office as Jehovah's Special Representative is one of the richest doctrines of the whole Bible. In it the wisdom of God finds one of its highest expressions. No wonder the antitypical tribe that has received this doctrine as its stewardship teaching is placed on that side of the antitypical Tabernacle that exhibits the Divine wisdom. Antitypical Elizur fulfilling the type of Num. 7:30-35, was an unconscious witness to God's Book; for his activities are a fulfillment of prophecy, given in typical form in Num. 7:30-35. 

(15) The next set of crown-lost leaders that are brought to our attention by the type (Num. 7:36-41) is that which perverted into the Roman Catholic Church a Little Flock movement based on the truth that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity (entirety) is the steward of the Truth, to preserve it from error and attacks of errorists and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. The starter of this Little Flock movement was Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of St. John, the Apostle. Irenaeus was born between 115 and 125 A. D. at or near Smyrna, Asia Minor, where he became an apt pupil of Polycarp, from whom he imbibed a rich fund of Truth and of the Spirit of the Truth, as well as some accounts of St. John's life not set forth in the Scriptures. Later he was sent as a missionary from Smyrna to Gaul (now France) and was stationed at Lyons and Vienne, where he first became a presbyter and later (in 178 A. D.) the bishop. Here and elsewhere he labored by voice and pen with perseverance

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


and success. After 190 A. D. no certain trace of him can be found, though a tradition that originated several hundred years later—an almost certain evidence of its untrustworthiness—says that he died a martyr in 202 A. D. 

(16) The Greek word eirenaios, Latinized as irenaeus, means peaceable; and certainly this was a marked characteristic of Irenaeus, who seemingly is the third member of the Smyrna Church star, St. John and Polycarp being his predecessors as parts of that star. He mediated between the Oriental and Occidental Church in the controversy on the Memorial date, the Roman bishop, Victor, sectarianly disfellowshiping the Oriental brethren, because they clung to Nisan 14 as against the innovation of the Roman Church. Thus Irenaeus preserved them as a united whole—catholic—as against a division. But Irenaeus' main work was to teach the truth on the one Church as a whole in its stewardship of the Truth against the separation of the false teachers of Gnosticism, which was a combination of heathen (Persian, Indian, Egyptian and Greek) views with various perversions of Christian views. His chief literary product was a work against all heresies, in which he vindicated the Christian Truth against every error that had arisen up to his time, and that had come in contact with Christianity. It was while engaged in oral and literary work of this kind that he gave the truth—the one Church entire is the steward of the Truth—that started a Little Flock movement to preserve the catholicity—wholeness—of the Church as against separatistic movements from within and without the Church. He speaks of the Church as "the haven of rescue, the means of salvation, the entrance to life, the paradise in this world, of whose trees, to wit, the Holy Scriptures, we may eat, excepting the tree of the knowledge of good and evil." "Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is, there is all grace." "Who separates



himself from the Church renounces the fellowship of the Spirit." "Only at the breast of the Church can we be nursed to life." "To her must we flee to be made partakers of the Holy Spirit." "Heretics are enemies of the Truth and of the catholicity of the one Church." 

(17) But to understand clearly the particular part of the Truth that Irenaeus gave as the impulse to the movement to preserve from separatism the one Church in its wholeness, as the steward of the Truth, and as the administrator of the Lord's grace, we must recognize the twofold sense of the use of the word church in the Bible—the Real and the Nominal Church. Primarily and fundamentally the Real Church is the Body of Christ alone—those justified and Spirit-begotten ones who are Christ's faithful members—"the Church which is His Body." Secondarily, the Real Church consists of all new creatures, both the crown-retainers and the crown-losers—"the Church of the firstborn." In these two parts the Real Church has been called invisible, in the sense that no one could be absolutely certain of any other particular individual's present membership therein, apart from himself. In these two parts, up to 1917, the Church has properly been called the Real Church. But the word church is used in another sense—the nominal church—the whole company of those who profess to be the Lord's, whether they are so in reality or not. In this sense of the word not only are the Little Flock and the Great Company, but also the justified and those unjustified who profess to be Christ's—hypocritical professors—are included. Locally, such found a local organization called a church, representative of the whole Church. When Irenaeus speaks of the Church in its wholeness—catholicity—he does not mean only the Little Flock and the Great Company, i.e., the Real Church, but also all other professed Christians, i.e., he means the nominal church. But he speaks of the nominal church as the Church because of the Real Church's presence in

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


it as a part of it. To leave the nominal church before the cleansed Sanctuary and harvest time, therefore, actually meant to leave the Real Church, if one was of it. So viewed, his advocacy of their being but one Church, which is the steward and administrator of the Truth, was the advocacy of a Scriptural doctrine. It was in this way that Irenaeus set in operation the movement to preserve the Truth as to the office of the one Church, i.e., that as a part of antitypical Jacob he begat antitypical Simeon. 

(18) Experience and observation prove that there is a Real and a Nominal Church, which must be so defined as to make the Real a part of the nominal church up to the destruction of the church systems; for while the Little Flock left Babylon—the systems—by April 18, 1916, there will be Great Company members, who are a part of the Real Church, in the systems until they are destroyed. The Scriptures so teach. The wheat and the tares were to grow together until the Harvest (Matt. 13:28-30, 41, 42). The tares are all the unconsecrated professors of Christ. No new creature is a tare. The field is the world in the sense of the nominal church, even as Jesus called the Jewish church the world (John 15:18, 19). This is more especially manifest in some of the Epistles, which were written to special churches, e.g., like that at Rome, etc., as well as to the General Church. Thus Rom. 12:1 is addressed primarily to the justified and, secondarily, to the consecrated; Gal. 6:1 deals with both classes (the natural and the spiritual) as of the church; Jas. 5:1-6 is evidently addressed to nominal as distinct from real Christians at the end of the Age. This is also true of Jas. 4:4, 5 and part of 8. Fleshly Israel is a type of Spiritual Israel, Real and nominal (Heb. 3:7—4:2; 1 Cor. 10:5-11). This truth is also shown in the seven churches of Rev. 1-3; for in these chapters, as parts of the Church sometimes the Lord addresses His real followers and sometimes those who merely profess



to be His followers, but who are not such, e.g., certain ones who have not had their justification vitalized, i.e., unconsecrated persons (Rev. 3:18). All of these Scriptures show that as God called both nominal and Real Israel His chosen people, so He has also called nominal and Real Spiritual Israel His Church. 

(19) Up to 1878 God always used the nominal church as the steward of the Truth after it was given to it (Rev. 3:10). While He always first gave the meat in due season through the Apostles and the special-mouthpiece secondarily prophets to the nominal church, the Truth was made the stewardship of all professed Christians to the extent that they could receive it, i.e., of the whole one nominal church. This stewardship implied (1) that the Church as custodian of the Truth preserve it and defend it against error and (2) that the Church as administrator of the Truth teach and spread it to the blessing of the responsive. Let us not lose sight of the thought that it was the nominal church to whom this stewardship of the Truth was given, as the seven letters to the seven churches abundantly prove. The nominal church as the container of the Real Church in each epoch of the Church is the antitypical candlestick in each epoch of the Church, according to Rev. 1—3. On this point many labor under the mistaken impression that the terms nominal and real are mutually exclusive terms. They are not: for the Real Church has been a part of the nominal church. It is to the nominal church what the hub is to the wheel. It is the most important part of the nominal church; for the nominal church consists of all who profess to be Christ's, both those who are really His and those who are not really His, though claiming to be His, i.e., the Little Flock, the Great Company, the justified and the unjustified professors of Christ. Accordingly, the thoughts set forth in the preceding and in this paragraph enable us to see how Irenaeus, by unweariedly teaching that there is but

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


one church catholic—entire—i.e., the nominal church, which is the steward and administrator of God's Truth, set into operation a movement to preserve it from all separatistic teachers of error who would break up the Church and disable it as steward and administrator of the Truth from guarding and administering it to the blessing of the responsive. 

(20) It was certainly an active movement, and was called into being especially on account of the efforts of the various Gnostic sects to pervert the Truth of God committed to the one Church and to break up the Church as the steward of the Truth. By Irenaeus' labors above those of any other individual was Gnosticism given its death blow. It had made considerable headway within the Church; but its overwhelming refutation by Irenaeus, whose arguments proved to be a veritable arsenal to the other teachers in the Church, very shortly drove it out of the Church altogether, and it shortly afterwards died. But Irenaeus used this truth against false teachers in the Church. He used it, e.g., to confute the Alogians, proving that their doctrine was contrary to that handed down by St. John and Polycarp on the pre-existence of the Logos. He used it to show that minor questions like the date for the Memorial should not be permitted to destroy the fellowship between the Eastern and Western Church. In fact his activities in the movement that he created deepened the conviction in the Church that the entire Church is but one and should preserve its entirety—catholicity—by faithfully acting as the steward and administrator of the Truth against all separatism of error and in favor of helping the helpable. But this movement was given a bent that perverted it into the Roman Catholic Church. And to this Church, as distinct from the papacy, which by usurpation has gotten control of it, the Lord committed as a stewardship the doctrine that there is but one Church—nominal—which is the steward and administrator of the 



Truth, to preserve it against errorists and to administer it for the blessing of the responsive. And while the Roman Catholic Church has gone woefully wrong on the doctrine of the Real and nominal Church, ignoring this distinction altogether, and claiming that it, a sect, is the only true Church, it has through all its vicissitudes maintained the truth that there is but one Church, which is the steward of God's Truth, to preserve it against error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. 

(21) This particular truth, like all other truths, is a stewardship of the True Church, the mystery of God; for in ultimate analysis it is the Real Church, as teacher, which is the one Church, and which is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it for the blessing of the responsive. And it is because the Real Church is included in the nominal church that the nominal church has charge of the Truth, to preserve and administer it. Therefore, in reality, the teaching that the Roman Catholic Church has as its special truth is that of the office of the Real Church, which with its Head, as the hidden mystery of God, is the greatest expression of God's wisdom found in His plan. Thus the Roman Church as antitypical Simeon is properly typed by a tribe that dwelt to the south of the tabernacle, where that which symbolized God's wisdom was the standard. The Greek Catholic Church stressing as its special truth the office of Christ, who in His office with the Church is the highest expression of God's wisdom, had at its side on the antitypical South of the antitypical Tabernacle the Roman Catholic Church stressing the office of the Church, which with its Head is the highest expression of God's wisdom. Thus the Roman Catholic Church is very properly to the South of the antitypical Tabernacle, i.e., its special mission is to defend in reality a truth in which God's wisdom is centrally expressed. 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


(22) In a Church of so many centuries' standing, like the Roman Catholic Church, there would of course be a very large number of crown-lost leaders, who would constitute the antitype of Shelumiel (peace of God), the son of Zurishaddai (my rock is almighty), the prince of Simeon. Among these in the earlier days are especially two crown-lost leaders who were very influential in turning into the Roman Catholic sect the Little Flock movement inaugurated by Irenaeus on the line of maintaining the one Church catholic as the steward and administrator of God's Truth. These were Cyprian of Carthage and Augustine of Hippo, both thus being of Pro-consular Africa, now called Tunesia, to the east of Algeria, then called Africa for short. Both did much in developing Roman Catholicism along the line of apostolic succession of bishops, and both of them have in many of their main positions been repudiated by the later papacy, which however outwardly professes the highest regard for them as great lights. But these two men doubtless did much to vindicate and apply to correction and instruction in righteousness the truth given through Irenaeus, that there is but one Church which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Truth. Into this doctrine they wove the errors of apostolic succession and of the one Church as being based in its unity on its bishops. Cyprian came from a celebrated pagan family living at Carthage, and, at first, was a teacher of rhetoric, was converted to Christianity in 245 A.D., became a presbyter shortly afterwards and was made bishop of Carthage in 248 A. D. In 250 A. D. he had to flee before the Decian persecution to the desert, where he by letter fulfilled his office to his church. The circumstances of his times and church led him into the elaboration of the doctrine of the apostolic succession of bishops and of the unity of the Church as being based on them. Thus he is the father of the Episcopal doctrine and system of church government. The



schism of Felicissimus of Carthage and of Novatian at Rome influenced him to write much on the truth that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Divine Truth. He was martyred by being beheaded at Carthage in 258 A. D. He so opposed the Roman bishop as to have been disfellowshiped by him, even dying in that condition, despite which he is a Romanist saint. 

(23) Augustine was undoubtedly the greatest and ablest of the Church fathers. He was born in 354 A. D. at Tagaste, Numidia. His mother was the pious Monica, the classic example of pious mothers of wayward sons whom their prayers pursue unto conversion. By many very able men outside the Roman Church he is considered as having had greater intellectual powers than any other fallen member of the human family. He tasted the depth of iniquity while pursuing the learning of the schools of his day. Later he became a teacher of secular branches. After a checkered career he was converted about 385 A. D. in Milan, Italy, and in 388 returned to Africa. He became a presbyter at Hippo, Africa, in 391 A. D., bishop there in 396, and for 34 years acted as the oracle of the entire Western Church, dying in 430 A. D. He carried on three far-reaching and long-drawn-out controversies: (1) against Manicheans, (2) against the Donatists and (3) against the Pelagians, besides many less important ones. It was particularly in his controversy with the Donatists that he did the most effective work of all the members of antitypical Shelumiel on behalf of the truth that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of God's Truth, i.e., offered antitypical Shelumiel's charger, bowl and spoon. This controversy lasted for eleven years (400-411) and was brought to a fairly successful issue at a conference held by 287 Donatists and 279 Catholic bishops at Carthage, Augustine being the main mouthpiece of the latter, and 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


Petilian of the former. Shortly after this conference Donatism began slowly to decrease until it finally died out. 

(24) It will be helpful to us better to appreciate the offerings of antitypical Shelumiel, if we note briefly the salient features of the Felicissimian, Novatian and the Donatist schims, which furnished the occasions of the main offering of antitypical Shelumiel's charger, bowl and spoon. These three schisms were very much alike in their origins, principles and accompaniments. The Felicissimian and Novatianion schisms arose in 251 A. D. Felicissimus and Novatian were presbyters in the church at Carthage and Rome respectively. The latter was a talented theological writer. Decius, the Emperor, initiated a severe persecution of the whole Church of the Roman Empire in 250 A. D., death being usually meted out to all apprehended Christians who did not renounce Christ, sacrifice to the gods and surrender the Church's Bibles and other books to the civil authorities for burning. Many weak Christians became apostates, sacrificing to the gods and delivering the Bibles, etc., to the authorities for destruction. Among others, at Rome, Fabian, bishop of Rome was martyred, 250 A. D. After a year's lapse without a successor being elected, two of his presbyters, Cornelius and Novatian, were candidates for his office, the former winning the election. What to do with those who weakly sacrificed to the gods and delivered up the sacred books to save their lives, and who after the persecution was over sought the fellowship of the brethren became a problem. Cornelius, the bishop of Rome, advocated their reinstatement after a season of penance. Novatian advocated their perpetual disfellowshipment from the Church, but left them hope that a lifetime of penitence might secure for them Divine forgiveness. Controversy arose between the adherents of these two opinions. The dispute became fierce and resulted in a split in the church at Rome, 



Novatian being elected the bishop of the schismatic church. In harmony with the custom of those days, the head of each party wrote to the most influential bishops of the Christian world seeking their support. In this way Cyprian, who at Carthage was having difficulty with the Felicissimus schism in which the schismatics went to the extreme opposite to that of Novatian, i.e., advocating the reception of the lapsed without any notice being taken of their having renounced Christ, was the recipient of letters from Cornelius and Novatian. For two reasons Cyprian took Cornelius' side: (1) because as an apostolic (?) bishop Cornelius should be obeyed by his presbyters and laity, and (2) because he agreed with Cornelius' views as against those of Novatian. This led Cyprian to write, as condemnatory of the division, on the truth given by Irenaeus, that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Truth, attaching to this truth the error of apostolic succession of bishops, as the principle which proves that to be separate from one's bishop is to be outside of the one Church, since according to the doctrine of apostolic succession the one Church is based on the bishops as the center of its unity. But despite these errors Cyprian certainly, as a part of antitypical Shelumiel, offered his part in the latter's charger, bowl and spoon. 

(25) The Donatist schism set in toward the end of the Dioclesian persecution, 311 A. D., out of the same problem as that which occasioned the Novatian schism, i.e., as to what should be done with those Christians who to save their lives sacrificed to the gods and delivered up the sacred books, and who now sought reconciliation with the Church. The answer was given in the same two ways in which it was given at the end of the Decian persecution sixty years before. And as on the former occasion, so on this, the advocates of each view became very combative, the trouble starting

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


at Carthage. The controversy was referred in 313 A. D. to Constantine, the first Christian Emperor. He appointed first, in 313, a commission of bishops under the presidency of Melchiades, bishop of Rome, and then, in 314, a great council at Arles, Gaul (France), to investigate and decide the involved questions. Both decided against those who advocated the permanent disfellowshipment of the lapsed. Constantine in 316 personally heard the case and confirmed the former decisions. In 313 Donatus became the leader of the strict party. The schism spread all over Africa, and, because the civil authorities sided with the Catholics, many of the schismatics, particularly begging and traveling monks, committed many acts of revolution and anarchy. For years, despite attacks by the army, confiscation, torture, closing of churches and exile, the Donatists held out. In 400 A. D. Augustine began his eleven years' unwearied attacks on them. Fearing his skill as a debater, they refused to meet him in synodical discussion. Finally they were compelled by the Emperor Honorius, 411 A. D., to hold a three-day discussion with the Catholic party at Carthage, at which 279 Donatist bishops and 287 Catholic bishops were present, Petilian being the chief debater for the former and Augustine for the latter. The Emperor's legate—a Catholic—was to decide on the merits of the points. He, as was expected, decided for the Catholics. 

(26) Both sides failed to distinguish between the Real and the nominal Church, and debated the question from resultant wrong standpoints. Both believed the True Church to be an external organization. Augustine contended for the catholic (not papal) view of the True Church, that it is but one, that in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of the Truth, and that all belonged to it who united themselves with the bishops as the Apostles' successors. This last view, of course, shows that Augustine was contending for a sect—the Roman Catholic Church— 



as the true Church. The Donatists claimed that only the bishops who were saints were successors of the Apostles, and that only the saintly ones who were united with them were the true Church, which they claimed their sect to be. Thus both sides were in error as to what was the Real Church. But the Catholic view was on the whole nearer the truth than that of the Donatists; and on the subject of their being but one (nominal) Church, which in its catholicity was the steward and administrator of the Truth, to guard and administer it for the blessing of all the responsive, it was decidedly in the right as against the Donatist view, according to which only the saintly were benefited by its administration of the Truth, and according to which the least unsaintly act meant disfellowshipment. Such [Donatist] views accorded with the mission of and membership in neither the Real nor the nominal Church. The Catholic idea of treating with the human weaknesses of the responsive was certainly an outflow of the thought of the Church as administering the Truth for the blessing of the responsive; while the Donatist view made the Church a cold, unsympathetic institution that held out no hope, comfort nor encouragement for "those who are weak and out of the way." For varying reasons, from 429 onward Donatism was gradually given up, the Donatist bishops and churches joining the Catholic Church, their bishops retaining their official standing. The Novatian and Donatist controversies were prophesied in Matt. 13:28, 29, the Lord's answer being given through Cyprian, Augustine, etc. 

(27) Apart from the Novatian and Donatist schisms, the Roman Catholic Church has had many other opportunities to offer through her crown-lost leaders—antitypical Shelumiel—the antitypical charger, bowl and spoon; but it is unnecessary to give further details on the involved historical facts. We have given a summary of controversy connected with the Novatian 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


and Donatist schisms, because they help us better to see two things: (1) how the Roman Catholic crown-lost leaders, as antitypical Shelumiel, offered their charger, bowl and spoon, and (2) how they turned into a sect the Little Flock movement begun by Irenaeus through the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to defend it from error and to administer it for the blessing of the responsive. What we have said above on Cyprian's and Augustine's longsuffering labor to minister peace of heart and mind to those who were weak and out of the way, and who repented and sought reconciliation with the Lord helps us to see the appropriateness of the name Shelumiel (peace of God) as typical of the character of the Roman Catholic crown-lost leaders, of whom Cyprian and Augustine were splendid examples. The truth that they taught emphasized the thought of God's almighty love and forgiveness to those who are weak and out of the way. The word, Zurishaddai (my rock is almighty), gives this thought. 

(28) Now we will proceed to show how antitypical Shelumiel offered his charger, i.e., ministered the special truth committed to the Roman Catholic Church as a means of correcting misconduct. Their emphasis of the truth that there is one Church as a whole was a mighty correction to all who tried to introduce sectarian divisions. This emphasis corrected the party spirit as a wrong spirit. It stressed the danger and disastrous effect of error, and the wrong of being a teacher or supporter of error. It rebuked the pride that sought to differ from the brethren. It also rebuked the narrow spirit that despised and cast aside those who would show a spirit of variance. It condemned a harsh spirit that apparently took pleasure in rebuffing the weak. The exclusive spirit it corrected by the thought of the catholicity of the one Church. The censorious spirit that would make beams of motes and 



mountains of molehills it certainly chastised with a whip of small cords. The holier-than-thou attitude of the Gospel-Age Pharisees who thanked God that they were better than the poor publicans who smote their bosoms in contrition for their weaknesses and sins and pled for forgiveness for Jesus' merit certainly received a needed correction from the way antitypical Shelumiel emphasized the Church's stewardship as the administrator of the Truth for the blessing of the responsive; for he showed that the Church in administering the Truth to such was a nurse for the sick, a haven for the storm-tossed and shaken mariner on sin's sea and a mother to the prodigal returning to his father's house. He rebuked the stern and repelling spirit of a Novatian and a Donatus, as foreign to the spirit of Jesus, the friend and receiver of sinners. 

(29) On this point the fine sentiments of Cyprian that reveal a real pastor's heart in him may well be quoted. Pointing out how the repellent spirit of Novatianism is out of harmony with the true pastoral heart and would bring a shepherd in the Lord's flock condemnation, he says: "At the day of judgment it will be laid to our charge that we took no care of the wounded sheep, and on account of one that was diseased left many sound ones to perish; that while our Lord left the ninety-nine whole sheep, and went after the one that had wandered and become weary, and, when He had found it, brought it away Himself on His shoulders, we not only do not seek after the fallen, but even reject them when they return to us." In another place he rebukes this spirit in the following language: "The case stands differently with the philosophers and stoics, who say all sins are alike, and that a sound man should not easily be brought to bend. But the difference is wide betwixt philosophers and Christians. We are bound to keep aloof from what proceeds, not from God's grace, but from the pride of a severe philosophy. Our Lord says in His Gospel, 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


'Be ye merciful, even as your Father is merciful,' and 'The whole need not a physician, but the sick'; but such a physician he cannot be who says, 'I take care only of the sound' who need no physician. Behold, yonder lies thy brother wounded in battle by his enemy. On the one hand, Satan is trying to destroy him whom he has wounded; on the other, Christ exhorts us not to leave him to perish whom He has redeemed. Which cause do we espouse? On whose side do we stand? Do we help the devil finish his work of destruction? Do we, like the priest and the Levite in the Gospel, pass by our brother lying half dead? Or do we, like the priests of God and of Christ, following Christ's precept and example, snatch the wounded man from his enemy; that having done everything for his salvation, we may leave the final decision of his case to the judgment of God?" Such statements were certainly sharp corrections of the spirit that did not administer the Truth for the blessing of the responsive. These are only samples of many corrections that antitypical Shelumiel gave in serving the truth that there is but one Church, which in its catholicity is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to defend it from error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. 

(30) Let us now consider how antitypical Shelumiel offered his antitypical bowl—refutations of errors against the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety—catholicity—is the steward and administrator of God's Truth, to preserve it from and against error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. But let us not forget that what antitypical Shelumiel understood by the one Church is not the Real Church. He meant by it, first the nominal church, then later the Roman Catholic Church; thus he was not clear on this point; for he fell into the double error (1) that the Church is the organization connected with the bishops as successors of the Apostles, and 



(2) that it is identical with the Roman Catholic Church. In other words, as all other crown-lost leaders corrupted the truth underlying the Little Flock movements that they turned into sects, so antitypical Shelumiel measurably corrupted the truth given by Irenaeus when the latter started the pertinent Little Flock movement. But in spite of these corruptions, which prevented his offering an antitypical cup, he was able to defend the pertinent truth from attacks which he refuted. Thus, while he could not refute all attacks made on apostolic succession and the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church, he could refute attacks on the doctrine that there is but one Church, which in its entirety is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it to the blessing of the responsive. This shows his strength and weakness. 

(31) Thus antitypical Shelumiel has refuted the claim of every sect that it (that sect) is the one Church, as contradictory to the truth entrusted to the custody of the Roman Catholic Church. He refuted their claims by pointing out many errors that they taught, many truths that they rejected, the wrong organizations that they formed, the exclusion of many Christians from fellowship—a thing of which they have been guilty, the recency of their origin, the separatistic movement in which they were born, and the fractional part of Christians that they contain and the multitudes of Christians that they exclude. Therefore antitypical Shelumiel has rightly concluded that none of them is the one Church in its entirety—catholicity. But be it noted that by these very proofs antitypical Shelumiel unwittingly demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one Church catholic, i.e., that it also is a sect. So, too, has antitypical Shelumiel proved that not one of these sects is the exclusive steward of God's Truth, as each one of them claims; for he proved everyone of them to be guilty of lacking 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


some Truth; therefore they could not have preserved the Truth, whatever they may have done to preserve some of the Truth. Again, he proved each of them not to be the preserver of the Truth from error; for each of them has rejected more than one truth and taught various opposing errors. Again, he proved each one of them not to have administered many truths for the benefit of the responsive; for he proved each one to have failed to emphasize various truths. But, again, by these very proofs he unintentionally demonstrated that the Roman Catholic Church is also not the Church catholic, but a sect; for in each of these points it also had sinned by omission or commission. But in all these refutations antitypical Shelumiel was refuting attacks on the truth that there is but one Church, which in its entirety is the steward and administrator of the Truth, to preserve and defend it from error and to administer it for the benefit of the responsive. Thus he offered his bowl—refutative teachings. 

(32) Antitypical Shelumiel likewise offered his spoon—ethical teachings, instructions in righteousness, connected with the pertinent truth of his denomination. The peculiar truth to which he ministered made him stress right living as becoming to the Christian. It also required him to stress the Church's recognition of Christ's headship, which implies a life of consecration. The principle of Christian brotherhood and fellowship likewise was a thing insisted upon by antitypical Shelumiel, as flowing out of the idea of the catholicity of the Church. Faithfulness in exercising stewardship was also an instruction in righteousness featured by him in stressing the Church as God's steward. Love for Truth and hatred for error were instructions that he gave as he ministered to the one truth committed to the Roman Catholic Church. Keeping the unity of the faith and the Church was an instruction in righteousness that he stressed as naturally flowing out of the special truth committed to the 



antitypical tribe of Simeon. Sympathy for those who were weak and out of the way was another ethical teaching that antitypical Shelumiel presented. He inculcated love for the brethren as an outflow of the truth for which he stood. He encouraged a pastoral heart in the ministry and a loving meekness in the laity on behalf of those who fell into sin. He emphasized longsuffering and forgiveness in dealing with the weaknesses of the brethren, and that because of the character of the special truth of his denomination. He inculcated a love for the Church as the benefactor of all the Lord's people. He inspired zeal for the defense of the Truth, for the attack of error and for the application of the Truth to uplifting the responsive. He inculcated a conciliatory spirit and a magnanimity toward all brethren in relation to the special truth committed to his denomination. He inspired many a campaign to win back the fallen. From the above specifications we can readily see how his special truth gave a practical bent, as to Christian study, living and service, to his ethical teachings. And in teaching these things he offered the golden spoon for the tribe of antitypical Simeon. 

(33) We now come in our study of the offerings of the Gospel-Age princes to the offering of the sixth set of the crown-lost leaders—those of the Episcopal Church. These are the antitype of Eliasaph, the son of Deuel (Num. 7:42), since the Episcopal Church is the antitype of the tribe of Gad, as we have seen. In Num. 1:14 Deuel is likewise called Deuel; but in Num. 2:14 he is called Reuel. The Hebrew letters, daleth (equivalent to our d) and resh (equivalent to our r), look very nearly alike; and they have been interchanged in Num. 2:14; for many manuscripts give daleth instead of resh in Num. 2:14, whereas all manuscripts give daleth only in Num. 7:42 and 1:14. Hence we think that Deuel, and not Reuel, is the right name for the father of Eliasaph, prince of 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


Gad, though both can have the same meaning—knowledge of power, sight of power, i.e., recognition of power. Gad, as we know, was the third tribe to the south of the tabernacle (Num. 2:10-16) belonging to the camp of Reuben. 

(34) The special doctrine that God entrusted to the Episcopal Church is this: The Church in the flesh, like Jesus in the flesh, is subject to the civil power. This is certainly a Scriptural doctrine (Matt. 22:17-21; Rom. 13:1-6; Titus 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:13-17). One of the reasons that God has subjected the Christ, Head and Body, while in the flesh, to the civil power is that through such obedience they could be all the more thoroughly tested by the things that they would suffer from the civil power incidental to their carrying out their sacrifice as Sin-offerings; for in the vast majority of the cases their being put to death without the camp was ostensibly as rebels against the civil power, which they obeyed faithfully in all things within the sphere of the State's right to command. Only such obedience as conflicted with God's Word did they refuse to render (Acts 5:29); and even in this they showed a willing obedience to suffer uncomplainingly the consequences of such a course. To the natural man their subjection to the State, with the concomitants of suffering at its hand, seemed sure proof that they were not God's prospective kings and priests; and thus it proved one of the means of hiding the Christ class, as the hidden mystery, from human ken. Thus in two ways the subjection of the Christ class in the flesh to the civil power was connected with them as the mystery of God: (1) to effect a part of their sufferings as Sin-offerings and (2) to hide them as the mystery. 

(35) Thus the doctrine that was the stewardship teaching of the Episcopal Church was connected with the Christ class as the special mystery of God, which mystery is the greatest expression of God's wisdom. Hence in the type the tribe of Gad dwelt on the south 



of the tabernacle, whose camp had as its standard that which represented God's wisdom; and it is appropriate that the Episcopal Church should take its stand, as for its stewardship truth, on the antitypical South of the antitypical Tabernacle—God's wisdom. Now we are in a better position to see why the south of the tabernacle stood for God's wisdom. The three doctrines championed by the three denominations, antitypical of the three tribes on the south of the tabernacle, center in Christ and the Church as the mystery of God in their office work, i.e., (1) Christ's office work as Jehovah's Special Representative; (2) the office work of the Church as God's representative in the world; and (3) the subjection of the Christ to the civil power in the days of their flesh, bringing in part upon them their sacrificial sufferings, not understood by the world. Thus the Christ, the hidden mystery, as the chief expression of Jehovah's wisdom, is the line of thought championed by the three denominations on the antitypical Tabernacle's South, just as God's wisdom was represented by the standard of the camp on the south of the tabernacle in the type. 

(36) The Little Flock member who started the movement which crown-lost leaders perverted into the Episcopal Church, with the doctrinal principle that the Christ, Head and Body, in the flesh, is subject to the civil power, was Thomas Cranmer, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury, and thus "primate of all England." He was born July 2, 1489, and died at papal hands by fire at the stake on March 21, 1556. He was educated at Cambridge University, where he later became a professor. In 1529 he obtained the favor of Henry VIII by advising that the question of the legality of the latter's marriage with his brother's widow be submitted to the universities of Christendom, to avoid its longer submission to the pope's decision. In the controversy with Rome he held that, not to the pope, but to the king all persons, lay and clerical, 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


in England were subject, i.e., that the Lord wills that the Church be subject to the civil power, and not that the civil power be subject to the Church, i.e., the pope. His stand on the illegality of Henry's marriage and his authority over all Englishmen, lay or clerical, brought him into violent conflict with the pope, who for year's favored Henry's marriage annulment, but feared the wrath of Charles V, the nephew of Henry's wife, and who therefore temporized on the question. Cranmer boldly claimed that the pope had neither civil nor religious power over England and its inhabitants, that all his claimed powers were usurpations, and that his claims to civil authority over England fundamentally contradicted the teachings that the Church is by God made subject to the civil power, and not vice versa as the pope claimed. In 1533 Cranmer became as Archbishop of Canterbury, all England's primate. In 1535 he abjured allegiance to the pope, was at Henry's death made one of the regents during the minority of Edward VI, was the most influential leader in the Reformation work of what later became the Episcopal Church—the Church of England. Required against his advice and opinion by King Edward VI to sign the patent settling the succession to the throne on Lady Jane Grey, as against Mary and Elizabeth, who were in succession; so nominated by Henry VIII, he was on Mary's accession in 1553 imprisoned on the charge of treason, was for it sentenced to death by beheading, but later was pardoned in order that he might suffer a severer punishment. Thereupon he was charged with heresy for rejecting transubstantiation, was condemned and kept in a filthy prison under grave severities for nearly three years. Weakened in mind and will by his long-drawn-out sufferings in prison, he was, on promise of pardon, induced to sign a mild recantation, which by papal forgeries was elaborated into six; for the story of his signing six recantations, each successive one more stringent than its alleged



predecessor, rests on the sole claim of his persecutor, "bloody Bonner." Left under the impression that after a public recantation he was to be freed, he went to the place where it was to be made—St. Mary's Church at Oxford. But, deeply penitent for his recantation, and knowing that what he was about to do would bring him certain death at the stake, he expressed deep sorrow for his cowardice, solemnly abjured his recantation and said that when he would be burned he would first hold his right hand that had signed the recantation in the fire as a proof of his hearty abjuration of it. Angered to the quick, the papists, who had falsified to him as to his release, and who had from the start intended to burn him, as soon as he had made his public recantation, hurried him to the stake, where he steadfastly held his right hand to the fire, which first consumed it before it much affected the rest of his body, saying that by it he had sinned and by it he would first burn. His burning, together with the burning of his colleagues, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper and Ferrar, all bishops, filled England with a horror that arose to still greater heights as Protestant victim after victim was burned to the number of 286, when, by what seems a Divine judgment, "Bloody Mary," the pope's legate and England's primate, and 14 bishops, the sixteen chief persecutors, died within an incredibly short time of one another, most of them by plague. Then Elizabeth ascended the throne and the persecution ended. 

(37) The better to understand the movement that from its Divine side Cranmer aroused on the authoritative relation of the State to the Church, as against the pope's claims and usurpations, it will be well for us to glance briefly at the gradual growth of the papal power in England as it used sometimes fraud, sometimes flattery, sometimes usurpation and sometimes force to establish itself there. England received Churchianity first from churches in France, and not from

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


Rome, several centuries before Augustine, a monk, in 597, with colaborers was sent there on a mission as the representatives of Gregory I, one of the three greatest popes. Augustine's claim of the pope's authority over the English clergy and laity the British bishops firmly denied as an unheard-of thing, they holding that loyalty to God and their king forbade their subjection to a foreign bishop. It is certain that Alfred the Great, 849-901, exercised authority over all English persons, lay or clerical, while the pope claims in the canon law that the clergy are subject in all things to him alone. And this position of Alfred, with occasional vacillations, was held by practically all kings of England down to Cranmer's times. When Gregory VII—Hildebrand—one of the three greatest popes, sought to obtain fealty from William the Conqueror, 1078, the latter refused it, claiming that this was against all English precedents. The kings claimed the right to nominate all English bishops and archbishops, because these exercised more or less of civil power under the king. William Rufus, the Conqueror's son and successor, not only followed his father's course, but forbade Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his first attempt to appeal to Rome, from so doing, all the bishops and barons joining him in the contention that such a thing was unheard-of in England and contrary to English usage. Henry I, his successor, told the pope that he would not at papal demand relinquish any of the crown's prerogatives to the pope. Further to outlaw appeals to the pope, Henry II, 1164, summoned a council of British nobles and clergy. The earls and barons passed, as the eighth of the Constitutions of Clarendon, a prohibition of any appeals outside of England, the king being the final court. 

(38) However, there were sly and gradual encroachments of papal power from the death of William Rufus, 1100, until after the accession of King John, called Lackland, because of his shameful surrender of 



his kingdom to Pope Innocent III, the greatest of the three greatest popes, and his receiving it back under shameful conditions as a vassal of the pope. This pope, one of the greatest power-graspers of all times, well knowing that it was a prerogative of the English king to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1205 took it upon himself to do this by forcing a chapter of monks, fraudulently created by himself for this very purpose, to elect his nominee at Rome, without the king's knowledge. This greatly enraged the king, who on their return impeached these monks for high treason, banished them, seized the estates of the see and chapter of Canterbury for himself and defied the pope, who answered by an interdict, and two years later by anathema. The clergy and laity sided with the pope. After much strife, the pope commanded Philip Augustus, King of France, to take possession of England as his own kingdom. A crusade against the excommunicated king was ordered by the pope, at the hands of the French king. John finally surrendered unconditionally to the pope, securing his kingdom back as a vassal of the pope, May 15, 1213. That autumn the pope's legate forced John to renew the surrender. The primate of England, Steven Langton, and the barons, seeing that the ancient liberties of England, clerical and lay, were being destroyed by the pope, resisted John as his representative and forced from him the Magna Carta, the first charter of liberty, which guaranteed to every order in England its ancient liberties, and some fresh ones, and which the papal tyrant, Innocent III, declared void. Innocent's usurpations were for some time maintained despite English objections. Henry III, from 1216 to 1272, let the pope's usurpations in State and Church have free course and abound in England. The next king, Edward I, 1272 to 1307, by the people's co-operation in making laws, hindered the clergy from getting land so freely as they had, especially by fear-enforced bequests; though 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


through evasion of the law—the statute of Mortmain—they by the times of Henry VIII gained possession of very large parts of English property. Edward I, with Parliament's help, refused subjection to Boniface VIII, another very powerful and power-grasping pope. In the reign of Edward III Parliament declared null and void the grant of the kingdom to the pope. In the reign of Richard II, 1377 to 1399, the Statute of Praemunire was enacted, which prohibited all appeals to powers outside of England. On the accession of Henry IV, the pope and all other foreign princes were forbidden to meddle in England's affairs. During the reign of Henry VI, 1422 to 1461, England successfully resisted the pope's efforts to make void the Statute of Praemunire. In the reign of Edward IV, 1461 to 1483, it was forbidden any cleric to sue another cleric in the pope's court. While in these struggles the pope's claims were often acceded to by the private acts of ministers and counselors or weak monarchs, never was even one of their usurpations legalized by statute; but, on the contrary, every one of them was in time resisted and declared by statute as criminal. This proves that the doctrine of the Royal supremacy was not invented at the time of the Reformation, as papists claim; but that at that time, as in times past, it was used in fighting the claims of papal supremacy in State and Church, which almost always the papal English clergy claimed as against the Royal supremacy. 

(39) Cranmer was led to announce that contrary to papal claims, according to God's law, all clerics as well as laymen are subject to the civil power. He did not teach that the king under God was the head of the Church of England, as the king claimed, though he had to put up with this doctrine, but that Christ only was the Head of the Church, which implied that the pope was not the head of the Church, and that all were nevertheless obligated by the Scriptures to obey the king. This struck a fatal blow at the papal doctrine 



of the pope's supremacy over all people, clerical and lay, and his doctrine that clerics are not amenable to the laws of the State, but to the canon law—the pope's law—alone. Cranmer contended that the Statute of Provisors (which forbade clerics to accept appointment from foreigners, or to pay certain fees to foreigners for such appointment, which consequently prevented the pope from appointing to office in the English Church and from deriving certain revenues therefrom) and the Statute of Praemunire (which forbade appeals to courts outside of England) were just and Scriptural in respect to the powers of the State in relation to the Church. He taught that the pope's doctrine on these matters violently contradicted the Scriptures and resulted in robbing the English king, nobles, clergy and people of their rights, powers, honor and wealth. Such teaching pierced as with a knife the very heart of the papacy's purposes, which have always been lust for honor, power, dominion and wealth. Over 150 years before Cranmer, Wyclif, with greater ability, but in less favorable times, set forth the same teachings; but his was the time of Reformation by individuals, while Cranmer fell on times when the Reformation by sects was due. Hence the difference in the results of the teachings of each of these reformers. 

(40) There was a variety of causes leading up to Cranmer's teaching on this subject. First was the venial course of the pope (who, favoring the marriage annulment, was in fear of Charles V holding back his decision for a more favorable time) in delaying the declaration of the invalidity of Henry VIII's marriage with his brother's widow, a thing against which the latter protested at the time of the espousal's being forced on him by his father—a thing that both the Bible (Lev. 18:16, 6-18; comp. 1 Cor. 5:1) and the canon law forbade, but for which a venial pope, Julius II, had granted a dispensation, and a thing that leading Universities of Christendom declared was beyond 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


the power of a pope to validate, since it implied that a pope could set aside God's law. Cranmer advised Henry VIII that, not only God's law, but the laws of his own land required the dissolution of an incestuous marriage, and that the English civil and clerical courts had all the authority necessary in the premises. The pope denied this claim. Cranmer answered that marriage, being a secular thing, was a matter under the control of the State, not under the control of the Church; and this led him to emphasize the subjection of the Church to the State as a clear teaching of God's law. Second, Cranmer was led to announce this teaching by the pope's claim of control over the State by the Church, i.e., by the pope, and the direct subjection of all the clergy in all things to the pope, and the direct subjection of the laity in spiritual matters to the pope, and the indirect subjection of the laity in secular things to him through the subjection of their rulers to him. All of this Cranmer rejected, because it contradicts the Scripture on the subjection of every soul to the higher [civil] powers. The third thing that led Cranmer to announce this teaching was Rome's despoiling England of its national honor, liberties and wealth, in an alleged subjection of England to the pope. 

(41) The circumstances of the times made the movement aroused by Cranmer's teaching on this subject nation-wide, yea, world-wide ultimately. The condition of the king, the clergy, the nobility and the common people of England, made this doctrine just the one needed to give the pope the next hardest blow delivered him during the Reformation, Luther's blow being the only harder one. The English people almost to a man rallied to this doctrine, stood manfully by its implications and defended it successfully against the power of the pope and popish States in storm and stress such as seldom have tried men's souls. The excesses of Henry VIII in other respects, the mistakes



and weaknesses of Cranmer in some matters and the wrongs of others who co-operated, cannot militate against the Divine origin of the movement which Cranmer instrumentally inaugurated, and which antitypes Jacob's begetting Gad of Zilpah. The movement grew and abounded until it extirpated in England every product of the papal doctrine of the subjection of the State to the Church. And overflowing the home of its birth, the movement has spread through Christendom until every Christian nation has rejected the papal doctrine of the subjection of the State to the Church, and has made to prevail more or less that doctrine which Cranmer announced as Biblical on the subject. 

(42) We now meet with a phenomenon which in the case of the Christian and Adventist Churches was present, but which was not particularly brought out, and which we will meet in the case of most other Protestant denominations, i.e., the one—Cranmer—who started the movement that was later perverted into the Episcopal Church co-operated with crown-lost leaders in acts tending to pervert that movement into a sectarian system. Those Little Flock brethren who started Little Flock movements and later cooperated with crown-lost leaders in perverting them into denominations and as such served them, are in such activity typed by captive and blinded Samson grinding out the grain for the Philistines. This same phenomenon, as parts of the same antitypes, we witness especially in Luther, Hubmaier, Wesley, Stone and Miller. It was rather faint in Zwingli, and almost entirely absent in Servetus. Most of Cranmer's mistakes, which the papists and some secular historians have very grossly exaggerated, e.g., exaggerating his one signed recantation into six, each succeeding fraudulent one being made more glaring and abject than its predecessor, were committed while unawares (typed by Samson's blindness) he was serving sectarianism. Next to Luther, Cranmer, of all Protestant Reformers, 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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



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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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

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



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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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



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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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



In so doing he offered antitypical Eliasaph's charger. 

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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



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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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

(53) For various reasons the Catholic monarchs of 



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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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



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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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



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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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

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



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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


With what Scriptures was he refuted by antitypical Elizur? 

(7) When was the next attack launched? By whom? What was his doctrine called? What did he deny? What did he teach as to the Father, Son and Spirit? How did antitypical Elizur refute the errors as to their being no Logos and no Logos' work before the carnation? By what two arguments did he refute the error that there was no Father during the days of Christ's flesh? By what two ways did he refute the thought that there is no Christ since Pentecost? 

(8) When was another attack on our Lord's office made? By what theory? How was it refuted? Who were its three main teachers? What was creditable in Praxeas? Who was his opponent? Who was Beryllus' opponent? What creditable thing did Beryllus do? Who was Noëtus' opponent? 

(9) Describe Paul of Samosata according to Studies, Vol. Il. How was he an opponent to the Logos doctrine? Like what moderns did he think on the Logos? How, like them, did he treat the Logos Scriptures? What was his view? With what did it do away? What were his talents? What did he do with these talents to antitypical Elizur? Describe antitypical Elizur's controversy with him. What was its outcome? 

(10) What has since been done with Christ's office before and after the Reformation? What has antitypical Elizur done with them? What has been done with his arguments by members of other denominations? What have these not done to his arguments? Give an illustration of such use of his arguments. What does antitypical Elizur still do? What did he antitype in these controversies? 

(11) What else has he offered? Of what was this the antitype? What was the character of his instructions in righteousness? What lesson did he draw from Christ's pre-existent joy in creative works? His obedience in them? His efficiency in them and in the Old Testament revelation? His willingness to be carnate? 

(12) What lesson did he draw from Christ's consecration? From His faithfulness? From His graces and fruits of the Spirit manifest in His office works? As what



did he hold Him up? What lesson did he draw from His laying down life? From His readiness, promptness and devotion in His office? From His trustfulness in the Father at death? From His death as an expression of the Father's and His love? 

(13) What has he done as to Christ's post-human ministry? His willingness to receive those coming to Him? His faithful appearance before the Father for them? His intercession for them? His teaching them? His justifying them? His sanctifying them? His delivering them? What did he offer in teaching these things? What is a correct estimate of his offerings? 

(14) What do the above explanations do with Elizur's offering? What is the character of the doctrine given the Greek Catholic Church as her stewardship? How does God's wisdom find expression in Christ's office? What does this have to do with the place of the Greek Church about the antitypical Tabernacle? What did antitypical Elizur unconsciously do while acting out the antitype of Num. 7:30-35? What are due God for the understanding of Num. 7:30-35 antitypically? 

(15) Who is the next prince whose offerings are to be considered? What Little Flock movement did he pervert? Into what did he pervert it? Who started this movement? What were the main events and activities of his life? 

(16) What does the Greek word eirenaios mean? How did it characterize Irenaeus? What was he as to the Smyrna star? Who were his predecessors in this star? What did he do between the Oriental and Occidental Church? What were the circumstances of this activity? What was his main work? Against what was it? Of what was Gnosticism a compound? What was Irenaeus' chief literary work? What did he do by it? What special truth did he emphasize in it? What did such emphasis of it do? How does he describe the Church in its office? 

(17) To understand the movement that he started, what must we remember as to the Church? Generally speaking, in how manifold a sense is the Church to be understood? What is the Real Church in its strictest sense? In its general sense? What has the Real Church been called? Why? What is the Church in its second general sense? As such, of whom does it consist? What did Irenaeus not 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


mean by the Church catholic? What did he mean by it? Why did he speak of the nominal church as the Church? What would leaving the nominal church before the Harvest imply? How should we regard his advocacy of but one Church? Why? What did it introduce? 

(18) What do experience and observation prove as to the Church? How must the nominal church be defined? Up to what event? How is this proved by the parable of the wheat and the tares? What are some of the proofs for this in the Epistles? How is this proven by the seven churches of Rev. 1-3? What typical fact proves it? 

(19) What did God always do up to 1878? Through whom and to whom did He always give the seasonal Truth? What was it made after it was given? What two things are implied in the Church's stewardship of the Truth? In this connection what thought must not be forgotten? What has the nominal church been to the Real Church in the seven Church epochs? As such what has she been, according to Rev. 1-3? What mistake is often made in the understanding of the terms nominal and Real Church? What is their relation? Of what two classes does the Real, and of what four classes does the Nominal Church consist? How does this make intelligible Irenaeus' teaching as true, whereby he started a special Little Flock movement? What was the purpose of that movement? 

(20) What kind of a movement was it? On account of what was it called into being? Who above all others gave Gnosticism its death blow? What did his arguments against it do? How otherwise did he use his special truth? Against what two movements? What conviction did his teaching deepen? What bent was given his movement? To what Church did the Lord give the pertinent truth as its stewardship? What is the difference between this Church and the papacy? On what distinction has this Church gone wrong? What false claim does it make for itself, a sect? What truth has it nevertheless maintained? 

(21) What, also, has this truth as a stewardship? What is the office of the true Church as teacher? This being so, how can the nominal church have this office? What truth in fact has the Roman Catholic Church as its stewardship? How is this related to the hidden mystery? Of what is that mystery the greatest expression? By what



is the Roman Catholic Church and people properly typed? By the standard of what side of the tabernacle is God's wisdom symbolized? Show the relation of the Greek and Roman Churches to one another from the standpoint of this antitypical standard. How is this relation typed? 

(22) Relatively, how large is the number of the crown-lost leaders of the Roman Church? Why is this? By whom were they typed? What two Church fathers were especially influential in turning Irenaeus' movement into a sect? From what country were they? What special error did they develop? What has later papacy done with their doctrine of the episcopate? Despite this, how does papacy speak of them? What did they do as parts of antitypical Shelumiel? What errors did they weave into the stewardship truth? What are the main facts and acts of Cyprian's life? How was he related to the Episcopal system of church government and to the Roman bishop? As what is he regarded in the Roman Church? 

(23) What is Augustine's standing among Church fathers? What are the main facts of his life? What were his intellectual powers? His position in the Church of his day? Among others, in what three controversies was he the leader? In what controversy did he especially offer as a part of antitypical Shelumiel? How long did it last? By what was its settlement much advanced? How many bishops took part on each side? Who was the leader on each side? What followed it? 

(24) What will help us better to appreciate antitypical Shelumiel's offerings? Why? In what ways were the Novatian and Donatist schisms akin? Who was Novatian? Describe the Decian persecution. Amid it what did weak Christians do to save their lives? What was done with Fabian of Rome in this persecution? Who stood for election to his office? Which was elected? What problem presented itself at Rome as a result of the persecution? How was it solved by Cornelius? By Novatian? What two things resulted? Who was made bishop of the schismatic Church? What did the head of each party do? How was Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, brought into the controversy? What was the situation at Carthage on the same problem? Whose side did Cyprian take? What two reasons led him to do this? Into what activity was Cyprian 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


led by the Novatian schism being referred to him for his opinion? What truth did he emphasize? What errors did he connect with it? How did he reason on this truth and these two errors as against Novatian? Despite these errors, of what was Cyprian's work actually a part? 

(25) When did the Donatist schism set in? Out of what problem? What two answers were given? How were the Donatist and Novatian schisms related? What were the events of the controversy, in relation to Constantine, the first Christian Emperor? What was the cause of the schism in Africa? What did the schismatics, especially the begging and traveling monks, do? Why? What state measures were taken against the Donatists? What did Augustine do in the debating part of the controversy? How did the Donatists treat him? What are the main facts in connection with the three-days' Carthage meeting? 

(26) What oversight obscured the discussion on both sides? What error did both sides hold? For what mixture of truth and error did Augustine contend? What did he claim as the true Church? What errors did the Donatists teach on the nature, the bishops and the members of the true Church? What did they claim as the true Church? Which side was on the whole nearer the truth? On what truth was the Catholic side right and the Donatist side wrong? What views of the Donatists did not agree with the true view of the Real or of the nominal Church? With what truth did the Catholic way of treating the weak accord? What were the character faults of the Donatist view? What was the end of Donatism? Where were these controversies forecast? Through whom did the Lord give His answer? 

(27) On how many other occasions did antitypical Shelumiel offer his charger, bowl and spoon? How will we deal with these? For what two reasons has a summary of the Novatian and Donatist schisms been given? Why are the Roman Catholic crown-lost leaders fittingly antitypical Shelumiel? How is their activity further indicated by the name Zurishaddai? 

(28) What is typed by Shelumiel's offering a charger? How did it correct sectarianism? The party spirit? Teaching error? The pride of variance? The narrow spirit that casts off others for small differences? The harsh



spirit? The exclusive spirit? The censorious spirit? The Pharisaic spirit? How did it correct the stern and repellent spirit of a Novatian and a Donatus? 

(29) Whose fine sentiments are quoted to show antitypical Shelumiel's corrections on the above bad qualities? What is a summary of the first quotation from Cyprian? What are the main points of the second quotation from him? What do both quotations prove? Are they the only examples of antitypical Shelumiel's corrections? 

(30) What next in antitypical Shelumiel's offerings should engage our attention? What is his bowl? What should be kept in mind while studying his refutations? What did he first mean by the Church? What did he later understand by it? Into what two errors did he fall on this subject? According to whose course in this matter did he act? What did this course prevent him and all other crown-lost leaders from offering? Despite this, what could he do? What could he not do with attacks on his teaching on apostolic succession and the Roman Church? What attacks did he refute? 

(31) By what seven arguments did he refute the claims of the defender of each sect that it was the true Church? By these seven arguments what did he unwittingly prove of the Roman Catholic Church? By what three arguments did he disprove the exclusive stewardship of the Truth on the part of each sect? What did these three arguments prove with reference to the Roman Catholic Church? By these ten arguments what was antitypical Shelumiel refuting? What did these activities antitype? 

(32) What is meant by antitypical Shelumiel's spoon? How did he stress righteousness? Consecration? Christian brotherliness and fellowship? Faithfulness to one's stewardship? Love for Truth? Hatred for error? Keeping the unity of the faith and the Church? Sympathy? Love for the brethren? A pastoral heart in the leaders and loving meekness in the other brethren? Longsuffering and forgiveness? Love for the Church? Zeal for the Truth and against error? Conciliatoriness and magnanimity? Zealous efforts to rescue the fallen? What kind of a bent did the special truth committed to the Roman Catholic Church give to his ethical teachings? What did his teaching these things antitype? 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


(33) How many Gospel-Age princes in their offerings have we studied hitherto? What denominations did they develop? What denomination did the sixth Gospel-Age prince develop? Who in this respect typed him? What denomination does Gad type? Explain the discrepancy between the names, Deuel and Reuel. Which is the correct name? Why? What was Gad's place about the tabernacle? 

(34) What special doctrine was committed to the stewardship of the Episcopal Church? What Scriptures prove it true? What is the first reason for God's subjecting the Church to the State? How was this reason connected with the Sin-offerings? When is the Church exempt from obedience to the State? What is the second reason for God's subjecting the Church to the State? How is this so? What is the connection between such a relation and the hidden mystery? 

(35) With what Divine attribute does the hidden mystery especially connect itself? By what in the camp Was this attribute typed? What Divine attribute does the south of the tabernacle type? As Gad's antitype with what Divine attribute is the Episcopal Church connected? How, from the standpoint of the stewardship doctrines of the Greek, Roman and Anglican Churches, are these denominations typed by the three tribes to the south of the tabernacle? What is the central thought of these three doctrines? By what was it typed? 

(36) Who was the Little Flock member that started the movement later perverted into the Episcopal Church? Give an outline of his life up to his meeting Henry VIII. What did he advise Henry VIII as to procedure on determining the status of his marriage? What doctrine did he shortly thereafter announce? In what did his stand on these two matters result, in relation to the pope? What was the pope's course as to the validity of Henry's marriage? What further advance did Cranmer make in the controversy? What are the leading events in Cranmer's life as primate of England? What occurred to him at the accession of Mary? How was he treated in prison? What effect did his severe imprisonment have on his mind and will? What was he on promise of pardon induced to do? Describe the character of five alleged recantations of his. 



How did his recantation affect him? Under what impression and circumstances did he abjure his recantation? Describe his heroic and martyr death. What effect did Cranmer's, Latimer's, Ridley's, Hooper's, Ferrar's and 281 other martyrs' burning have on the English people? What calamity overtook their chief persecutors? What ended the persecution? 

(37) What will help us better to appreciate the Cranmer-aroused movement? How did papacy encroach on England's prerogatives, etc.? From where did England not first receive Churchianity? Who was the first Roman missionary to England? What pope sent him? Who were the three greatest popes? What did the British bishops do with Gregory's demand? What was the position of Alfred the Great toward papal claims of power in England? How was his position generally maintained in England, until Cranmer's time? What did William the Conqueror do with the demands of Gregory VII? What did his son and successor do with papal demands? Henry I? Henry II? 

(38) Despite such vigilance, what was accomplished by the pope from 1100 to 1205? What happened in 1205? Describe the various stages of the conflict between King John, the Lackland, and Innocent III. How did Innocent's usurpations affect the primate and the barons of England? What did they extort from John? What did the pope do with it? What was the course of Henry III toward the pope and his clergy? Of Edward I? Edward III? Richard II? Henry IV? Henry VI? Edward IV? Despite unauthorized concessions, what was never done in England with the pope's claims? What was eventually done against all of them? What does this prove as to the papal claim as to the time of the origin of the Royal supremacy in England? How long was it actually used? 

(39) What was a feature of the doctrine that Cranmer championed? What was not and what was his teaching on his great doctrinal contribution to Truth? What was the contrary papal doctrine? What was the Statute of Provisors? Of Praemunire? Who defended them as just and Scriptural? How did he characterize the contrary papal doctrine? In what did papacy's pertinent teaching result? What did Cranmer's teaching do with papacy's 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


purposes? Why? Who over 150 years before taught the same doctrine as Cranmer now taught? What was the difference in the effect of their teaching? Why? 

(40) What was the first cause of Cranmer's teaching on this subject? Describe the steps of progress in the investigation of the status of Henry VIII's marriage. How did the special doctrine of Cranmer's movement affect this matter? What resulted from this relation? What other papal teaching occasioned Cranmer to announce this doctrine? What third thing led Cranmer to announce this teaching? 

(41) What did the circumstances of the times do with Cranmer's movement? What did English conditions do with Cranmer's doctrine? How did it affect the pope? How did the English nation act in connection with it? What cannot militate against this movement? What did it accomplish in England? In every country of Christendom? 

(42) What peculiar phenomenon meets us in most sectarian developments in Protestantism? In harmony with this what did Cranmer do? What in this did he and other Little Flock leaders antitype? When did Cranmer make most of his mistakes? What have papists done with them? Next to whom does Cranmer rank in effectiveness as a Reformer? What proves this? Compare their works. Contrast their Reformation sphere, their qualities and their political surroundings. What should we do for these servants of God? 

(43) Who were the main crown-lost leaders of the Episcopal Church? What Little Flock leaders before them did some sectarianizing work with Cranmer's movement? How was it perverted into a sect? Under what primate? What are some of its leading sectarian features? What was later done with its sectarian development? Under whom? How did they pervert the truth that Cranmer gave? What did this error do with England's rulers? On what truth given by Cranmer did they stand firm? What did this enable them to do? How is this typed in the meanings of the names, Eliasaph and Deuel? 

(44) What occurred while Cranmer's movement was in operation? What principles caused it? What three things turned Henry against the papacy? On whose advice did 



he act? What did he determine to do? In what did this result? Who supported the king? What did he do to the pope? Whom did he place over the English Church? How did Cranmer stand on this? Why is Protestantism not chargeable with Henry's wrongs? What were his relations to Protestantism? How did he further it? 

(45) What did Pope Paul III do as to Henry VIII? What hindered him for three years from publishing it? What was this pope's stand while yet a cardinal toward Henry's marriage? Of what hypocrisy was he guilty in this bull? What was his real reason for it? 

(46) How many sections did the bull have? What is the tenor of its preamble? Of its first three sections? What are the main penalties of this bull? 

(47) What quality does this bull have? What qualities of the papacy are revealed in it? What should its mere reading do? How must it be regarded by papists? Why? What does it prove of modern popes? Give illustrations where it would have been duplicated, if practical? What did Henry do as to this bull? How did he retaliate and secure himself and country? What did Cranmer and his colleagues do with the bull? What was the result for 15 years? What then set in? What did Mary do for Rome and to Protestants? What is she justly called? Why? What did she claim? On what did she ground her claim? 

(48) What is antitypical Eliasaph's charger? What class of religionists did he especially rebuke? For what at first? Especially in whose reign? For what four offenses did he rebuke English Catholics? For what five wrongs did he rebuke the pope? For what sins of omission and commission did he rebuke the nobility and common people of England? What classes were included in his rebukes? 

(49) What will help in the understanding of antitypical Eliasaph's bowl? What were Elizabeth's main qualities as a ruler and woman? What was England's condition religiously at her accession? How did she meet the resultant difficulties? What were her main acts to change England from papacy to Protestantism? What were the effects? What did she do with the clergy? What did the law do, leave undone and forbid? What was the result as to persecution for one's faith? What Church did she favor? 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Continued). 


What was the result of her policy? How long did she reign? 

(50) What did the popes seek to do with her at first? How did she meet these advances? Why? What did her love for and devotion to her subjects' welfare effect for her? What was the effect of her policy in about 12 years? 

(51) What papal bull was issued in 1570? What does its preamble set forth? What does its first section set forth? Its second? Its third? Its fourth? Its fifth? Its sixth? 

(52) What was the effect of the bull on England? What did Parliament do? What three things did some of her Catholic subjects do? What was done with them? What does Rome count them? What considerations refute this estimate? What did a fair sized body of Catholics do? What resulted? Who were the instigators? What law was passed as to such persons? 

(53) How long did Catholic monarchs delay carrying out the pope's sentence on Elizabeth and her supporters? What made the pope insistent on their acting? Who undertook it? What two preparations did he make for it? What was his plan with these? How did England meet the situation? What effect did the queen have on the army? What did the pope do in anticipation of a victory? What did he do with the Armada and the whole enterprise? For what five things did the papal clergy and people pray? What happened as to answers? Compare and contrast the opposing fleets and commanders. When did the Armada enter the English Channel? What were the features of the first battle? What was the result? What then occurred? What happened the night of Aug. 7, 1588? What resulted? How long did the British pursue the Armada? What then happened to it? What were its losses in ships and men? What happened to Parma and his army? 

(54) What was repeated? What was the eventual outcome? What other popish plots were fomented? What does papacy's course in these events prove as to Rom. 13:1-6, etc.? Amid what events did antitypical Eliasaph offer his bowl? Why has so much space in this chapter been devoted to political history? How have papal theologians 



sought to vindicate the papal course in these and similar events? What did antitypical Eliasaph do with his arguments? Who were his chief three representatives in this? What was his chief anti-papal book? Describe it. From what three sources did he take his arguments? What are the seven papal proofs on the pope's supremacy? 

(55) What did antitypical Eliasaph concede as to Peter's primacy? By what seven lines of argument did he disprove the papal arguments on Peter's supremacy and jurisdiction over the Apostles and the Church? How did he refute the other six papal propositions on papal supremacy in the Church? 

(56) What follows from his disproof of these seven propositions? How did he disprove the papal supremacy in State from history? What did this also destroy? How did he disprove it from the Bible? From reason and natural right? 

(57) How did he offer his spoon? How did he show our obligation to obey even a tyrannical ruler? What graces did his spoon further? What general steps of the Christian life? Where especially did he produce good fruits? 

A mighty Fortress is our God, 

A trusty Shield and Weapon; 

He helps us free from every need 

That hath us now o'er taken. 

The old bitter foe 

Means us deadly woe: 

Deep guile and great might, 

Are His dread arms in fight. 

On earth is not His equal. 

With might of ours can naught be done, 

Soon were our loss effected; 

But for us fights the Valiant One 

Whom God Himself elected. 

Ask ye, Who is this? 

Jesus Christ it is, 

Jehovah's mighty Son, 

And there's no other One; 

He holds the field forever.