Epiphany Truth Examiner


View All ChaptersBooks Page


Num. 7:66—Num. 8:4 


THE tribe of Dan was the first tribe of the three on the north side of the tabernacle. All three of the tribes located there were descendants of Jacob through the maids of Rachel and Leah: two of them—Dan and Naphtali—being descendants of Jacob through Rachel's maid, Bilhah, while Asher was a descendant of Leah's maid, Zilpah. The standard of the camp to the north of the tabernacle had presumably on it a human face, typical of love as the quality pictured forth by the north side of the tabernacle (Rev. 4:7). The chronological order of the birth of Jacob's sons proves that the tribe of Dan types the Baptist denomination, as we have shown in Chap. I; for as Dan was next in time of birth after Judah, so the movement that was perverted into the Baptist Church was the next to form after Zwingli's movement. The word Dan means judge and is used to show that the product of better truths (antitypical Bilhah) than those of antitypical Leah and Zilpah was a vindication of antitypical Rachel—the spiritual elective truths (Gen. 30:6). Thus the Baptists are nearer in spirit and teachings to the Little Flock and Great Company movements than the eight denominations coming front antitypical Leah and Zilpah. Our Pastor frequently, e.g., in the B. S. M. on Baptism, expressed the thought that the Baptist Church was nearer the Truth than any other denomination, even as the type would lead us to expect. 



(2) The prince of Dan was Ahiezer, the son of Ammishaddai. Ahiezer means brother (ahi) of help (ezer) and is used to characterize the brotherly and helpful disposition of the crown-lost leaders of the Baptist Church. The Baptist leaders had very little of the clerical feeling in them. They were regarded, not as a clergy class, but as elder brothers of the others. Hence they were on intimate terms of brotherliness with the non-official members of the Baptist Church. This good relation was also helped along by the fact that the Baptists have had the congregational order of church government as against the presbyterial, episcopal or papal form of church government. Thus they were the helpers of their brethren's faith and not lords over God's heritage (1 Pet. 5:3). So, too, the name Ammishaddai fits them in their relation to the Baptist people. This name means people (ammi) of the Almighty (shaddai). From the outstart of the movement that was later perverted into the Baptist Church, the involved brethren spoke of themselves as God's people. Hence the crown-lost leaders of the Baptist Church were helpful brothers to them as God's people in many good deeds. 

(3) The main crown-lost leader of the German-speaking Baptists (for it was among the Germanic peoples that the pertinent Little Flock movement that was perverted into the Baptist sect originated) was Menno Simonis. And for nearly a century this denomination was almost entirely limited to the Germanic peoples. John Smith, who with his church early in the seventeenth century had to leave England for Holland in order to find religious liberty, started the Baptist denomination among English-speaking peoples, though he did this in Holland. A little later one of the members of his church, Thomas Helwys, returning to England started the General (Arminian) Baptist Church, and toward the middle of the seventeenth century a Brother Spilsbury started the Particular

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


(Calvinistic) Baptist Church. Roger Williams started the Baptist Church in America. In the eighteenth century the General Baptists in England became almost entirely Unitarian, and Dan Taylor reorganized the few remaining non-Unitarian Baptists into the General Baptist Church. In addition to the above-named crown-lost leaders of the Baptist Church, we might mention Charles H. Spurgeon, the great London preacher and writer, as a prominent crown-lost leader of the Particular (Calvinistic) Baptists. 

(4) The stewardship doctrine of the Baptist Church is not, as many suppose, exclusive adult baptism. Nor is it water immersion. While these two doctrines are somewhat related to its stewardship doctrine, and are certainly much emphasized by it, they are not its stewardship doctrine. Its stewardship doctrine is much more central to Christian faith and life than these two doctrines. Its stewardship doctrine is this: The Lord's people consist of those only who have separated themselves from sin, error, self and the world, and who have taken Christ alone as their Savior and Lord. They did not believe that those were Christians who merely repented of sin and believed that Jesus died for them. They insisted on more than these two things as constituting one a member of God's people. Including these two things they added what was in reality consecration. And their first adversaries—the Lutherans and Zwinglians—were so insistent that membership in a state-church and justification by faith alone made one a Christian that the Baptists went to the extreme of denying that by faith alone came justification, which they did because their adversaries mistakenly held justification to imply entitlement to the heavenly salvation. And from that standpoint they were right in their opposition—it does not entitle to heaven, but reckons restitution to its possessor. What the Baptist stewardship doctrine really is may be stated like this: The Lord's real people consist of the 



justified and the consecrated only. This is undoubtedly a truth. Justification by faith makes one no more than a nominal Christian. It does not entitle one to the heavenly inheritance; and the Baptists are right in denying justification by faith as entitling one to heaven, though they are mistaken in their denying it as a truth. They meant the right thing by their denial of it; but not seeing the two salvations or the two steps of salvation in the Gospel Age, they could not properly teach justification by faith with the implications claimed for it by their opponents, and at the same time hold to their stewardship doctrine. Indeed it was not yet due to harmonize these two doctrines. This point, too, was a harvest matter, when it was properly harmonized. 

(5) Our Baptist brethren would not say that their stewardship doctrine is consecration alone, nor do we mean to be understood as teaching that they do so hold. Rather they set forth the thought that their central—stewardship—doctrine is conversion. But by conversion they do not mean what is popularly meant by conversion, i.e., the teaching that the Methodist Church has so greatly stressed as conversion—repentance of sin and acceptance of Christ as Savior. The Baptist includes these two things in conversion, but adds more than these, i.e., turning from self and the world and taking Jesus as Lord, which is consecration. Conversion as Biblically taught is even more extensive than the Baptist idea of it. It includes all they assign to it, plus all the parts of the Christian life implied in conforming one's character to the Lord's. In other words, Biblical conversion implies all of one's acts of turning from sin, error, self and the world, unto God until one has become crystallized in God's image. From this we can see that the Baptist view of conversion, though not complete, is nearer right than that of the Methodist Church. From their view we see that disinterested love, as well as faith,

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


was involved in their stewardship doctrine; for the two qualities that prompt consecration are a faith that trusts while it cannot trace God and a disinterested love toward God. Therefore the Baptists are properly typed by a tribe to the north of the tabernacle—typical of Love as the fourth Divine attribute. And they are properly the first denomination at the North of the antitypical Tabernacle, because love is central to consecration and consecration is basal to all future development of love. Similarly, the Presbyterians are the first on the East side of the antitypical Tabernacle, because their stewardship doctrine—Christ's death for us and our appropriating it by faith, as symbolized in the Lord's Supper—is, chiefly of the teachings of the tribes to the antitypical East, the power of God for us—"Christ crucified … the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:23, 24). So, too, the doctrine of the office of our Lord as God's special Representative—pre-human, human and post-human—the stewardship doctrine of the Greek Catholic Church, is the chief doctrine of those forming the mystery, as the main expression of God's wisdom, and thus gives the Greek Catholic Church the first place among the denominations to the South of the antitypical Tabernacle. Finally, the doctrine of justification by faith, the stewardship doctrine of the Lutheran Church, being the chief one of those occupying the antitypical West of the Tabernacle to exhibit God's justice, gives the Lutheran Church the first place among the denominations to the West of the antitypical Tabernacle. 

(6) A clear recognition of the stewardship doctrine of the Baptists will at once enable us to see why they have so greatly stressed the baptism of adults only, and why they in later years came to stress immersion as the proper form of water baptism. Self-evidently an infant could not experience conversion in the Baptist sense of that word; for such a course as is implied in their use of the term conversion requires considerable



maturity of head and heart, which an infant does not have. It is, therefore, self-evident that only one who has experienced conversion in their sense of the word could really symbolize it. Hence they taught that only the converted should undergo water baptism, which principle voids infant baptism. Hence from the outstart of the Little Flock movement that was later perverted into the Baptist denomination, infant baptism was denied; yea, it was denied even by some who preceded that movement, "the Zwikau prophets," in 1520, whereas the Little Flock movement that was perverted into the Baptist denomination began in March, 1523. Nor did the brethren in that movement insist on immersion as the proper symbol, but allowed the choice to each individual as to whether he would be sprinkled, effused or immersed. Immersion as the sole symbol was, and that first in England, required from about 1642 onward, after the pertinent Little Flock movement had for over a century been sectarianized. Furthermore, the two great contributions that the Baptist denomination has made to Christendom are an outflow of their stewardship doctrine—religious liberty and foreign missions; for since conversion was a heart matter not produced by external force, it was not to be sought by the use of external force like persecution, but by the preaching of the Word; and since the conversion of others is the great commission, foreign missions and domestic evangelistic work should be prosecuted. Roger Williams brought to America the principle of religious liberty and William Carey, the Baptist cobbler preacher of Moulton, England, started the foreign missionary crusade and himself began in India the foreign missionary work which became associated with the sign that preceded the Lord's return—the preaching of the Gospel by word of mouth and Bible translation in all the world as a witness to all nations (Matt. 24:14). Doubtless the fact, too, that the Little Flock movement 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


under consideration and its denominational perversion were more persecuted than any other Protestant Little Flock movement or Protestant denomination, had something to do with their advocacy of religious liberty, though apart from persecution their principle of conversion made its advocacy a doctrinal as their persecutions made it a practicable necessity. 

(7) Before describing the member of antitypical Jacob who initiated the Little Flock movement that crown-lost leaders perverted into the Baptist Church, we should call attention to the fact that in starting each Little Flock movement which was later turned into a sectarian system, while the Lord used one special brother most prominently, He always supplied him with an able assistant, apparently on the principle exemplified in the Gospels in Jesus' sending out His messengers two by two. Thus St. John was assisted by Polycarp, Irenaeus by Tertullian, Luther by Melanchthon, Zwingli by Oecolampadius, Hubmaier by Blaurock, Servetus by Laelius (not Faustus) Socinus, Cranmer by Latimer, Browne by Harrison, Fox by Barclay, John Wesley by Charles Wesley, Stone by Thomas (not Alexander) Campbell, and Miller by Wolf (in Europe). And these assisting brothers were no negligible helpers, by any means. In almost all cases they wrought almost as fruitfully as their more fully used leading brothers. 

(8) The Little Flock brother who was used to start the movement that was later perverted into the Baptist Church was Dr. Balthasar Hubmaier. He was born in 1480 near Augsburg, Germany, and died at the stake as a martyr in 1528, at Vienna, Austria. He was a learned man, and while yet a Catholic was considered, next to Dr. Eck, Luther's ablest Catholic opponent as a debater. He was a priest and professor at Ingolstadt, 1512-1516. In the latter year he became chief preacher at the Regensburg Cathedral. In 1521 he became the leading priest at Waldshut, Lower



Austria, where a more liberal atmosphere prevailed than at Regensburg. In March, 1523, he publicly went over to Protestantism and immediately began to announce that only the truly converted—those who separated themselves from sin, error, self and the world, and who accepted Christ alone as their Savior and Head—constituted God's people—the Church. In that same month he visited Zurich and converted Zwingli to his idea with the consequent nullity of infant baptism. But two years later Zwingli, having seen that this would practically empty the state-church in which he was doing his reform work, receded from this position, and later became its most forceful opponent. In October, 1523, Hubmaier attended the second Zurich Conference and supported Zwingli in the debate with the Catholic theologians. At Pentecost, 1524, the city of Waldshut embraced Hubmaier's doctrines, agreeing to defend him and them against the opposition of the Austrian government, which would brook no "heresy." After a few months this opposition forced him to leave the city, but he returned again in October as the acknowledged leader of the religious and political policy of the city. 

(9) He deeply sympathized with the wrongs that the German peasants suffered; and he had to do with the preparation of the 12 articles embodying their grievances. These were worthy of a Solon and were presented to the German nobility and public. But he counseled against the violence into which the fanatical Thomas Munzer misled them with such fatal consequences to them in the Peasants' War of 1525, in which over 100,000 of them perished in the first Protestant war for religious and civil liberty. At Easter, 1525, Hubmaier received adult baptism and later administered it to hundreds of others, which made a breach between him and Zwingli over his special doctrine and its consequent antipedobaptism doctrine. His example of receiving adult baptism was

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


followed by almost the entire citizenry of Waldshut. Soon he and Zwingli entered into a literary controversy in which he wrote several books against the latter, who replied. Waldshut having supported the revolting peasants (yea, beginning this apart from Hubmaier's advice while he was in flight from the city for fear of Austria) against whose excesses Hubmaier protested, it was occupied by the imperial troops in December, 1525, and Hubmaier was again compelled to flee, this time to Zurich, where he was arrested. Here, from fear of being delivered to the Austrians, who wanted to burn him as a heretic, weakened by a serious sickness, and under stress of the rack's torture, he recanted, somewhat after the manner of Cranmer, and, like him, he recanted his recantation, charging that it was extorted by torture from a sick man. His recantation of his recantation greatly angered Zwingli, who, sad to say, was in part responsible for his torture. 

(10) In July, 1526, Hubmaier found refuge in Nikolsburg, Moravia, where he gained the protection of the leading noblemen of the vicinity. Here he soon converted to his special teaching the entire population, including the ministers and Von Lichtenstein, the political head of the region. And for awhile Moravia, and particularly Nikolsburg, became a refuge and the center of activity for the sorely persecuted brethren, whom Protestants and Catholics alike persecuted with relentless cruelty—antitypical Leah and her children envious of the prospective child of antitypical Rachel's Bilhah. Here, too, Hubmaier entered into the most active period of his literary work, elaborating from various standpoints and into various directions his stewardship doctrine. His clearness and thoroughness as a thinker, writer and debater, enabled him to present his position on its central doctrine and its main related doctrines in such a way as has left almost nothing, except the arguments on immersion, for 



succeeding Baptists to add in favor of their views. He was the most sober and amiable of all of the reformers of the 16th century, though not so heroic as Luther, nor so influential as Luther, Zwingli and Cranmer. Early in July, 1527, he was, with his wife, captured by the Austrian authorities, and, refusing to recant, was, on March 10, 1528, burned at the stake at Vienna as a martyr. His loyal wife, the faithful companion of his many persecutions and exiles, was, three days later, drowned in the Danube and her body was burned to ashes. Thus perished the member of antitypical Jacob who started the movement that crown-lost leaders perverted into the Baptist Church. 

(11) The history of the persecution of the adherents of this movement and of the earlier Baptist sectarians is one of the saddest, yet most triumphant, of Protestantism. Unjustly the excesses of the Peasants' Revolt were charged against them. The travesty on religion enacted in the Muenster Millennial fanaticism was laid at their door. The excesses of all radicals were used against them, because their opposition to a state-church and infant baptism marked them as religious radicals, especially as they advocated religious liberty and, consequently, sympathized with political and social liberty. Lutheran, Catholic, Zwinglian and Cranmerian rulers hounded them to the limit. So severe was the persecution in Switzerland under Zwingli's advocacy that in a few years, though for a while almost all Protestant Switzerland sympathized with the movement, there were very few "Anabaptists," i.e., re-Baptists, found in Switzerland, where some of their leaders were killed, others tortured and the rest banished. The law in Zurich exiled any family that would not, within eight days, have an infant baptized. By 1530 in Germany 2,000 of them had been led to martyr deaths. Very few of them recanted. Usually they went joyfully to their death, singing psalms and hymns of praise. By 1531 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


over 1,000 of them suffered martyrdom in Tyrol and Goertz and 600 in Ennisheim. Later, thousands more were killed in Tyrol. Also Austria proper had its multitudes of these martyrs, and even Moravia added some to the many thousands of these slaughtered brethren. We doubt not but among these were not a few who symbolically under the altar cried out, "How long, O Lord God, holy and true, etc." (Rev. 6:9-11)! As in the case of the early Church, the blood of the martyrs proved to be the seed of the Church, and persecution made the bulk of these brethren all the firmer in their purpose to be faithful, which in most cases they proved to be. 

(12) The Muenster Millennial fanaticism, which was not germane to this movement, but was a grotesque parody on it, by its excesses, lawlessness, wickedness and vindictiveness, made the name "Anabaptist" one of the most shameful of appellations. It gave the blackest kind of an eye to the movement, and almost exterminated it in Germany. God's people, as these dear brethren were wont to call themselves, were so unpopular in Germany after the storming of Muenster in 1535, that they dared not show themselves in public. They were leaderless and in their hour of direst distress some of them found a degree of toleration in Holland, where arose Menno Simonis as a leader, and organized them, first, there and then in Germany, his followers henceforth being called Mennonites. He is the first crown-lost leader who perverted a spontaneous and very wide flung Little Flock movement into the Baptist denomination. His activities as such a leader began in 1537, on his being entreated by many Anabaptists to undertake this leadership. He began to write in defense of their central doctrine and besought the magistracy and people not to confound the quiet God-fearing brethren with the wild Muenster fanatics. Soon the authorities were hounding him, thirsty for his blood. His life



was spent in tireless labors amid scenes of frequent danger, not free from some errors and some foolish practical opinions. He banded the Germanic Anabaptists into a denomination which remains to the present freighted with not a few unhappy peculiarities. The sectarianizing of this movement in England and America, in which latter country the bulk of the world's Baptists are found, has been sufficiently described. These people being greatly persecuted, the persecution being resented by their leaders and the assertion of their right to tolerance are in part typed by Rachel's claim to vindication at Dan's birth. 

(13) Let us repeat a former remark—the stewardship doctrine of the Baptist Church is not the exclusive baptism of believers, nor immersion, the latter not being made a denominational test until more than a century after the Little Flock movement under Hubmaier began; but it is this: God's people consist of the converted only. This position is undoubtedly true, understanding conversion in the limited sense of turning from sin, error, self and the world, to Jesus as one's Savior and Lord. Without these steps no one could get the Holy Spirit, whose possession is indispensable to one's becoming a Christian (1 Cor. 12:12, 13). Later, Baptists, seeing that there was something of a death, burial and resurrection in conversion as they understood it, could see in immersion something of a symbol of these and, therefore, stressed immersion as a sign of it. But not seeing clearly our death with Christ in the Sin-offering and our rising with Him as New Creatures, they could not see the fitness of the real and symbolic baptism, though they approached the Truth on this subject nearer than any other sect. Thus the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Dan were in a good position to offer their charger, bowl and spoon to the Lord. 

(14) Accordingly, we find that antitypical Ahiezer did offer his charger, bowl and spoon, and we here 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


with proceed to the discussion of these acts, beginning with his offering of his charger. Like all chargers, his was correction of misconduct, in this instance from the standpoint of conversion as being separation from sin, error, self and the world, and accepting Jesus as one's Savior and Lord. As shown above, conversion includes further steps, even everything that is implied in turning the character into a crystallized image of God and Christ. But as the fullness of the doctrine of conversion was not entrusted to the Baptist Church as its stewardship doctrine, its charger, bowl and spoon could go no further than to cover the points involved in their stewardship doctrine. Antitypical Ahiezer, therefore, offered as his charger, correction of conduct against conversion as he viewed the subject. This gave him a vast field to survey in his corrective work; for it involved every breach as to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, as well as every neglect of Jesus' Saviorhood and Headship. His field of correction was even wider than that of the crown-lost leaders of the fanatical sects, since the latter could rightly correct sin only as the violation of justice, duty love. Therefore, all the corrections that antitypical Abidan offered as his charger, antitypical Ahiezer offered as a part of his charger. Having given details on this above, when treating of antitypical Abidan's charger, we will not repeat them here as a part of antitypical Ahiezer's charger, but will limit our discussions to those that are peculiar to the latter's charger—corrections of misconduct. 

(15) Therefore he corrected the misconduct which was produced by errors, in so far as he could see them, on the subjects not only connected with his stewardship doctrine, but with some others. Therefore, he frequently denounced and corrected the evils of the clergy, in their power-grasping, lording it over God's heritage, debasing their subjects, exploiting them to their own profit, lack of interest in the spiritual



interests of their dupes, fostering superstition, setting aside God's teachings, practices and organization and introducing contrary ones, seeking not the welfare of the sheep, but their fleece, using force in their favor and against God's servants, uniting church and state, regarding all members of state-churches as Christians, fostering formality, etc. All of these features of priestcraft they rebuked and corrected as flowing out of the error of the Divine right of the clergy. They also rebuked and corrected as flowing out of the error of the Divine right of rulers the course of kingcraft as it expressed itself in absolutism, chicanery, land hunger, extreme taxation, market hunger, protecting the rich and powerful as against the poor and weak, corruption, oppression, militarism, squandering state funds and resources, dishonest diplomacy, breaking solemn treaties, exploiting and despoiling weak nations, exercising might as against right, supporting corrupt favorites, persecuting God's people, supporting false religions, etc. They likewise rebuked and corrected as flowing out of the error of the Divine right of aristocrats the abuses of the officials and aristocrats, such as corruption of judges, legislators and ministers, election frauds, the spoils system, graft, boss rule, land frauds, crooked finance, stock and price gambling, watering, manipulating and frauds, legal technicalities and delays, monopolies, underselling, adulterations, subsidizing selfish propaganda, landlordism, bribery, dishonesty, tax dodging, favoritism, high finance, misusing trust funds, panic manufacturing, luxury, oppression of the laboring and peasant classes, etc. All the above abuses flowed more or less from the errors of the Divine right of the clergy, kings, and aristocrats. It was through suffering from many of the above-mentioned abuses that the fanatical and unconsecrated hangers-on among the early "Anabaptists" were goaded on to desperation and to the consequent taking up of the sword to wreak vengeance on their 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


oppressors, resulting in the fateful uprising at Muenster in 1535a solemn warning to all Christians. 

(16) In addition to rebuking and correcting the above-mentioned abuses flowing out of the error of the Divine rights' doctrine and of other errors, antitypical Ahiezer rebuked and corrected the various forms of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness that hindered accepting Jesus as one's Savior and Lord. The pride that felt itself too exalted to repent of sin and to bear the cross he exposed and corrected. The love of human approval that shrank from the shame of the cross, or acknowledging one's sins he rebuked and corrected. The love of ease and comfort that shunned the self-denials incidental to the toil and hardship of the Christian worker and soldier he rebuked and corrected. The love of life that sought to save the person from the dangers of sickness, torture or death, frequently called for by Jesus' Lordship he exposed and sought to set aside. The contentiousness that would destroy the peaceableness of the true disciple he rebuked and corrected. The vindictiveness that would exact an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth from their injurers and persecutors he frowned upon and set aside. The hypocrisy that would hide one's allegiance to Christ amid threatening enemies he treated likewise. The covetousness that would keep back possessions when needed for the spread of Christ's cause he also rebuked and corrected. The love of luxury that hindered self-giving in hard service of the Truth he rebuked and corrected. Any putting of the opposite sex, husband or wife, parents or children, brethren or relatives, friends or neighbors, home or native land, calling or station, human learning or attainment, above loyalty to Christ as Lord, he corrected, as well as rebuked. Thus he offered his charger—correction of sins, error-produced conduct, selfishness and worldliness that acted against his stewardship doctrine—for the cleansing of many. 



(17) He likewise offered his bowl, refutations of errors held against his stewardship doctrine. These errors were sometimes used to combat his stewardship doctrine and sometimes he used his stewardship doctrine to refute opposing errors. Accordingly, he made a defensive and aggressive use of his stewardship doctrine against error, even as every other one of the twelve stewardship doctrines had to fight its way against opposing errors and defend itself against their attacks. Perforce the claims of the solifidians (the proponents of justification by faith alone) had to be opposed by antitypical Ahiezer, because they claimed that faith-justification made one a member of God's real people and was the passport to heaven. He, therefore, proved from the Word that nobody could be of God's people unless he gave up sin, error, self and the world, and took Christ as his Savior and Lord, all of which things were not done by those who merely repented of sin and believed that Jesus died for them. (Matt. 7:14; 16:24-27; Mark 8:34-38; Luke 14:26, 27; Acts 14:22; John 14:15-17, 21-24; Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 Thes. 3:3, 4; 2 Tim. 2:10-12; Heb. 12:1-3, 14; 1 Cor. 9:24-27; Gal. 6:7-10; Rom. 8:12-14; etc., etc.) While he taught that repentance and faith were conditional for forgiveness, he contended that this was not enough to make one a member of God's people and insure him heaven. He was herein right and to this extent by the above passages refuted the use of justification by faith as an alleged refutation of his stewardship doctrine, though not seeing the two steps of the Gospel-Age salvation, nor that justification merely reckons restitution so that one may be thereby acceptable for sacrifice, he was quite lame in assigning a proper place to justification by faith alone, even if he was able to refute its use against his stewardship doctrine. In this he was, from another standpoint, handicapped, like the crown-lost leaders of the Lutheran Church, who, as we saw, while able to refute attacks

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


against their solifidianism as true, were not able to meet arguments that proved that holiness is an indispensable condition for the heavenly inheritance, claiming that faith-justification was sufficient for it, which their adversaries disproved. 

(18) To the claim that all members of national churches were Christians, antitypical Ahiezer replied that national churches were quasi-civil institutions and to be born in one of these no more made a person a Christian than being born in a state that was united with a church made a person a Christian. To the claim advanced by Zwingli, that the sprinkling of an infant made it a participant in the Abrahamic Covenant, just as circumcision made an Israelite infant a participant of that Covenant, because baptism has now taken the place of circumcision, he answered that Abraham's descendants by circumcision did indeed become partakers of that Covenant, but one must be a son of antitypical Abraham—God—and be baptized before he can become a partaker in that Covenant during the Gospel Age—a thing that only an adult can become, because only an adult can turn from sin, error, self and the world, unto Christ as his Savior and Lord, and then symbolize this course of conduct by baptism. Powerfully did he use his view of death, burial and resurrection of the Christian in defense of immersion as the proper mode of baptism, against the sprinklers and effusionists, even if he did not understand clearly the real baptism and immersion as its symbol. His insistence that a heart's conversion was the only way to become a Christian he used to refute all physical force as a means to make people accept or renounce certain opinions and religions; and he thereby strongly vindicated religious liberty against religious coercion. To the claim that infant baptism cleansed from original sin and worked faith in Christ in the infant he replied that faith cometh by hearing (understanding and obeying) the Word of God (Rom. 10:9, 10, 14, 17), a 



thing that an infant cannot do, and not by water, which is to be applied only after one has already come to faith (Mark 16:15, 16). Similarly he applied his stewardship doctrine to the refutation of the entire sacramentarian system of the Greek, Roman and Anglican Catholic, and the Lutheran Churches, implying as it does a magical effect in the sacraments. Thus his stewardship doctrine refuted every opposing doctrine and set aside every magical work in religion and rightly claimed that the personal character and attitude of the head and heart toward sin, error, self, the world and Christ, counted exclusively in real conversion, without which, he victoriously contended, no one could belong to God's people. 

(19) Antitypical Ahiezer, finally, offered his spoon—instructions in righteousness, as a logical outflow of his stewardship doctrine. As a logical conclusion his idea of conversion as having two parts: (1) a separation from sin, error, self and the world, and (2) a taking of Christ as Savior and Lord, implied that he would instruct along the lines opposite to sin, error, selfishness and worldliness and unto faith in Christ as Savior and obedience to Him as Lord. From these standpoints we see how it was his province to instruct and exhort as to every virtue and every grace, as well as to every good word and work. And he has done this, as his writings and oral teachings prove. Therefore he held up, as things that should be developed, carried into action and made to overflow: faith, hope, self-control, patience, piety, brotherly love, charity, humility, simplicity, industriousness, self-sacrifice, peaceableness, longsuffering, forbearance, forgiveness, candor, liberality, temperance, self-respect, winsomeness, agreeableness, peace, self-defense, aggressiveness, self-preservation, tactfulness, providence, patriotism, domesticity, the family spirit; friendship, chastity, meekness, obedience, zeal, moderation, magnanimity, gentleness, joy and faithfulness. These, as the opposites

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


of the effects of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, in their various forms, of necessity he negatively encouraged in his hearers as he urged their turning away from sin, error, self and the world; and he positively inculcated them as he insisted on the acceptance of Jesus as Savior and Lord. His insistence on accepting Jesus as Savior enabled him to bring to faith-justification many people, despite his questionable attitude toward justification by faith alone. 

(20) From another standpoint his stewardship doctrine enabled him to offer his spoon—instruction in righteousness. His emphasis on the character element in religion, as necessitated by his view of conversion's relation to membership among God's people, made him offer certain features of his spoon. We refer, among other things, to the spirit of tolerance that he inculcated in his advocacy of religious freedom. Knowing that if one's religious views are not a matter of his personal conviction, his religiousness is worthless before God and an evil influence to himself and others, he was by his views kept back from intolerance. Not only so, but this view of things made him winsome, tactful and persuasive, because he sought to win unto conversion. Consequently he inculcated these qualities in others as he prepared them for evangelistic work. Thus his stewardship doctrine made him inculcate the art of soul-winning and aroused to the evangelistic spirit. This likewise led him to encourage others to spread Bibles and other conversionist literature. His position, for example, naturally caused John Bunyan, one of the most famous of all Baptists, to make his book, Pilgrim's Progress, which, next to the Bible, has had the widest circulation of any book, the greatest piece of conversionist literature, in the Baptist sense of conversion, in all Christendom. It has converted, in the Baptist sense of that word, millions in its ministry of about 250 years. Similar remarks are applicable to antitypical Ahiezer's exhortations to love for souls and 



self-denial in their interest that have made the Baptist Church the pioneer in the modern foreign missionary crusade. Thus in these respects the central position of the doctrine of conversion in the Baptist system of thought has been very fruitful as an instruction in righteousness. Surely in antitypical Ahiezer's spoon there has been much sweet incense—an offering acceptable to the Lord. 

(21) The above study is another evidence that we have properly understood the Gospel-Age camp and the twelve denominations of Christendom to be the Gospel-Age antitype of Israel's twelve tribes. This study has also given us further evidence that we have understood the Gospel-Age antitypes of Leah, Rachel, Bilhah and Zilpah. The persecutions that the Baptists and Unitaro-Universalists have suffered from the pertinent eight other denominations of Christendom—the descendants of antitypical Leah and Zilpah—certainly corroborate our thought as to the relation of Bilhah to Rachel—type and antitype—in the family of typical and antitypical Jacob. The more the details are brought forth, the more we can see that the Lord has favored us with the light on the book of Numbers. Let us in thought, motive, word and act reflect credit upon Him for this expression of His love and favor toward us; for He certainly richly deserves it! 

(22) Asher was the second son of Zilpah, Leah's maid, Gad being her first son. The name Asher means happy, in the sense of joyous and fortunate. In the type Leah, as the mother of six sons (for her maid's sons were legally hers), could naturally consider herself happy and fortunate, and therefore naturally gave the sixth son the name Asher (Gen. 30:12, 13). Antitypical Asher, as we have already seen, is the Methodist Church, and the servants of the stewardship truth of that Church, just because of the character and effects of that truth, were joyous and fortunate, and very much stressed their joy and good fortune. Perhaps the 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


leaders of no other denomination have stressed joy as a state of mind and as an evidence of God's blessing and favor more than they. Indeed, they have stressed these two things to such a degree as to question the Christian standing of those who did not feel the exuberance and prosperity that they have felt. "Shouting Methodists" came to be no uncommon appellation for people of this denomination. Thus we see that this typical tribe came to the name Asher with propriety, and that the antitypical tribe came into the possession of happiness in both senses of the word in propriety with its stewardship doctrine. 

(23) Unlike the children of antitypical Bilhah, who were greatly abhorred and persecuted by the children of antitypical Leah and Zilpah, antitypical Asher was held at arm's length by the children of antitypical Leah and the other child of antitypical Zilpah only to that degree necessary to show that he was another antitypical tribe than they. Therefore we do not hear of any of these using gross forms of persecution against the servant of the Truth that begat the pertinent Little Flock movement nor against his colaborers nor against the crown-lost leaders nor against their followers. It is true that the more or less non-church-going rabble sometimes mistreated the Methodists, especially charging them with a "holier than thou" spirit, and in various ways showing their contempt even unto riotous demonstrations against them; yet the denominations as such did not engage in gross persecution, and none mistreated them as the Congregationalists, Quakers, Baptists and Unitarians were treated by the other denominations. One illustration that shows the contempt of the more or less non-church-going rabble and the protection of the civil officials will suffice to clarify this point: In a certain place in England the rabble seized on about 20 Methodists and, putting them into a wagon, drove them to the justice. Their accusers, being asked by him to prefer their charge against them, were unable 



to express one for a long time. Finally one of the rabble cried out: "Why, they pretend to be better than other people; and, besides, they pray from morning to night." The magistrate asked if they had done nothing else. "Yes, sir," said an old man, "they have converted my wife, an't please your worship. Till she went among them, she had such a tongue! And now she is as quiet as a lamb." "Carry them back, carry them back," said the magistrate, "and let them convert all the old scolds in town! " 

(24) The prince who offered for Asher was Pagiel, the son of Ocran. The name Pagiel means interventions of God. This significance found its antitype in the fact that God's providences were very marked in the experiences and works of the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Asher, as well as in those of this antitypical tribe itself. Many are the anecdotes related of these leaders illustrating their marked deliverances from danger, the supply of their needs, their manipulation into scenes and environments where they did much good or forestalled evil that otherwise would have wrought much havoc. The world would call them lucky; but the pious Methodists knew how to ascribe these interventions to the Lord's special care, and counted themselves fortunate therein, and were accordingly happy. Indeed, they went to extremes in these matters, often thinking that God intervened for them in the casting of lots and in making their eyes fall on the Scripture that solved their perplexity in a chance opening of the Bible to an appropriate passage while searching for the Lord's intervention in this way. They learned to use these methods from the brother who started the Little Flock movement that was later perverted into the Methodist Church; for he resorted at times to such things in seeking to find out the Lord's will. The name Ocran means troublesome, and seems to apply to the crown-lost leaders under consideration, because their spontaneous religiousness, insisted upon 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


as against the indifference of a skeptical, sophistical and artificial age like the 18th and the early part of the 19th centuries, made trouble for the formalistic professors of the then current Churchianity. 

(25) The Methodist Church is one filled with the spirit of propaganda, which has resulted in its far-flung and numerous members and adherents. There are perhaps now 20,000,000 Methodist members and adherents in the world. This implies a very large membership in its prince. The founder of the Little Flock movement that was perverted into the Methodist Church remaining on earth over 50 years after he began his movement, crown-lost leaders did not get a chance to sectarianize this movement until very late in his life—at the time that they finally succeeded in getting him to make (1784) a deed of declaration which gave the annual conferences that he had been holding with his preachers since 1744 a legal constitution, and which gave, after his death, to a board of 100 ministers the controllership over the work that he supervised from 1738 until his death in 1791. This, of course, sectarianized the noble Little Flock movement begun by John Wesley. The following are the leading members of antitypical Pagiel: Dr. Coke, whom, first of all, John Wesley ordained, and that as a superintendent (bishop) for the American field; Francis Asbury, "the John Wesley of America," whom John Wesley charged Dr. Coke to ordain as his fellow-bishop in America; Adam Clarke, the Commentator; Richard Watson, D. D. Whedon, Bishops Simpson and Hurst. Before 1784 the Wesleyan movement was an independent movement almost exclusively within the Church of England; but with the deed of declaration separation was a foregone conclusion; and from that time on, though Wesley, after the same manner as our Pastor, continued to control the general work, the sectarianizing of the Methodist movement gathered momentum; and immediately after Wesley's death Methodism was



recognized as separate and distinct from the Church of England. Thus, through his control of the movement until his death, the complete sectarianizing of the movement was delayed longer than that of any other Protestant Little Flock movement. Wesley's concessions to the sectarianizers was his part in antitypical Samson's blindness and captivity. 

(26) Because of the strong emphasis that Methodists place on several doctrines, its peculiar stewardship doctrine, in a manner similar to that which we pointed out among the Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Baptists, has not been recognized by the usual student of the Methodist body. Some will say that what they style conversion—contrition for sin and assurance of forgiveness, culminating in a triumphant victory over sorrow for sin through faith in Christ's death, amid much emotion—is the central or stewardship doctrine of Methodism. Others would say that the great stress that they place on peace and joy in a consciousness of sins forgiven proves that the feeling of peace and joy for sins forgiven is their stewardship doctrine. While these things are stressed by Methodists, as they also were by John Wesley, and that because somewhat related to their stewardship doctrine, they are, neither of them, their stewardship truth. This will at once be recognized, if we keep in mind that the place of the Methodists is at the North of the antitypical Tabernacle—love. Hence their stewardship doctrine must in some way be connected with love. From this point of view, as we look at John Wesley's teachings, we find very little difficulty in locating the stewardship doctrine of the Methodist Church. While he stressed "conversion" as he understood it, and also the feeling of peace and joy in the consciousness of sins forgiven through faith in Christ's death, this was from his standpoint merely a means to an end. 

(27) And what was that end? The answer to this question brings us face to face with what is his stewardship 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


doctrine—the Divine love as the heart of sanctification is the Divine ideal for the Lord's people. The reason why he emphasized "conversion" and the feeling of peace and joy in the consciousness of sins forgiven, is that they, in his view, constituted "the first blessing" that had to be experienced preparatory for the advance toward "the second blessing," as the introduction to a life of sanctification in the Divine love as the ideal of the Christian life. Hence the great stress that Wesley laid on such a sanctification as has perfect love as its heart. He usually called this, "Christian perfection," which expression his theological enemies perverted into meaning absolute perfection in the flesh. This was not his thought, though Wesley did not always guard his explanations sufficiently to refute the charge that he taught that some Christians, i.e., those who experienced this second blessing, came into a sinless condition. His most extended presentation of his teachings on this subject is in a 24 mo. book of 175 pages, entitled, A Plain Account Of Christian Perfection. Repeatedly he states in this book that by Christian perfection he does not mean faultlessness, nor absence of weaknesses and mistakes, but such disinterested love to God and man as conquers sin, self and the world. For this love he claims that it takes away sinful, selfish and worldly inclinations and makes the heart pure and full of goodness. As we have seen in all other cases (except St. John) of the members of antitypical Jacob who started Little Flock movements, later perverted into sectarian systems by crown-lost leaders, Wesley failed to see clearly the full light on his stewardship truth. And, as was the case with them, so this was due in his case to the full Truth not yet in his time being due on the subject in its various relations, the due time for this being reserved by the Lord for the Harvest. But his central thought that the Divine love as the heart of sanctification is the Lord's ideal for His people, was undoubtedly true. 



(28) Keeping in mind what was his stewardship truth, and realizing that his heart was filled with such a love, we are prepared to see why he devoted so much of his time to evangelistic work; for he is undoubtedly the greatest evangelist that ever lived. Seeing so many Church members about him who, while they should have been enjoying "the second blessing," were not even enjoying "the first blessing"—justification by faith—his love for them, combined with the error that they were liable to eternal torment, prompted him of necessity to seek to bring them to justification. Therefore he and his associates so greatly stressed repentance in the sense of contrition, and faith in the sense of the assurance of sins forgiven through Christ's death. Hence, also, after the consciousness of remorse for sin had crushed the heart and faith in the death of Christ had received forgiveness for sin, he and his associates insisted on a contrasted feeling of peace and joy possessing the heart freed from the sense of remorse by the assurance of forgiveness. However, these brethren stressed such teachings in order that these teachings, bringing people through the first blessing, might furnish them candidates for them to lead onward to "the second blessing." Thus we see that these two doctrines—repentance and faith, peace and joy in forgiveness—while not being their stewardship doctrine, were so related to it as to force the brethren to preach them, as well as their stewardship doctrine, to make the latter workable. 

(29) This doctrine with its two preparatory doctrines were due at that time. The 18th century was a period of religious decline. In international relations there were much friction, envy, land grabbing, wars of conquest and oppression, culminating in the War of Independence between the American Colonies and Britain and in the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars in Europe. The aristocracy of Britain had become especially power, money and pleasure lovers. The clergy

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


of the Church of England were as a rule aristocratic in feeling, worldly in their ambitions and clericalistic in their religion, to whose hearts the religious welfare of the common people meant but little. The religiousness of the middle class was as a rule purely formal, as can be seen, e.g., in the decision of a magistrate who felt that, having in his town Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists and Quakers, there were enough ways to get to heaven to suit any reasonable man, and that if any one in his town was not satisfied to go to heaven by one of these, he would not allow him to go there by any other, and therefore forbade the Methodists to live or propagate their faith there! The unutterable poverty, in religious respects, of England's lower class was extreme. The basest and most bestial conduct, surroundings and mental outlook were theirs. And the deplorable religious condition of all these classes, as sheep scattered and fainting without real shepherds, touched the hearts of Wesley and his colaborers to do, to dare, to sacrifice and to suffer for these lost souls. Having such sad conditions facing them on all sides, and having hearts filled with Divine love, and fearing eternal torture for the unbelieving, is it any wonder that their stewardship doctrine, as a living power in their hearts, made revivalists of them, that they might lead their converts to the saintliness of Divine love in sanctification, as their privilege as God's people? Accordingly, we see that their stewardship doctrine in itself was meat in due season, and led them to help others through "conversion" to come into a condition in which it would be meat in due season for them. 

(30) We now desire to give some general thoughts on John Wesley, whom Divine providence raised up to be the part of antitypical Jacob used in the begettal of antitypical Asher. He was born in 1703 at Epworth, England, and died in his 88th year in 1791 at London. His father was a Church of England clergyman and a 



noted writer on Biblical subjects, and his mother was an especially able helpmeet to her husband. The children of this couple are a splendid illustration of how good parents may raise good children. John and Charles were the most gifted and saintly of these children, the former becoming one of the foremost members of the Philadelphia star, and the latter the greatest hymn writer of all ages, giving the Church upward of 6,000 hymns, some like, Jesus Lover of My Soul, being among the finest ever composed. But as great as Charles was, John was even greater, though the former's inferior as a poet. At six, John barely escaped cremation in the burning of his father's home, set on fire by "some of those of the baser sort" who resented his father's preaching. He was educated until twelve by his gifted, wise and saintly mother, then was taught for six years at Charterhouse, London, whence in 1720 he entered Oxford University. In 1725 he was ordained a deacon, and in 1726 was elected a fellow of Lincoln College at Oxford and ordained a presbyter. In Oct., 1726, he became Greek lecturer and moderator of the classes at Oxford, acquired the title of M.A. in 1727, and then for two years became his father's assistant in the Epworth parish. In 1729, returning to Oxford, he became the leader of "The Holy Club," a company of pious students who devoted themselves, apart from their regular studies, to the Greek New Testament, fasted Wednesdays and Fridays, communed every Sunday and visited the sick, the poor and the imprisoned. The members of this club, because of their methodical religious practices, were nicknamed "Methodists," and because most of them later became sympathetic with Wesley's great religious movement, the name "Methodist" went over to the movement and the people of that movement as a nickname. From 1729 to 1735 Wesley taught at Oxford University; then he, accompanied by Charles as Gov. Oglethorpe's secretary, went to Georgia as a missionary to the Indians

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


and pastor of the colonists, remaining until 1738 with but poor success, ending in his flight to England. 

(31) On May 24, 1738, in a London meeting, occurred what he called his "conversion." After telling that it occurred at a service where Luther's introduction to the Epistle to the Romans was read, he describes it as follows: "About a quarter before nine [P. M.] while he [Luther in this introduction] was describing the changes which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strongly warmed, I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death." Mr. Lecky points out the significance of this event as follows: "It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the scene which took place at that humble meeting in Aldersgate St. forms an epoch in English history. The conviction which then flashed upon one of the most powerful and most active intellects in England is the true source of English Methodism." (History of England in the Eighteenth Century, Vol. 2, 588.) It was through the Moravian Brethren that this change occurred in Wesley. We think that Wesley was mistaken in using the word "conversion" in his sense of that word to describe this experience; for he had for years been, not only a justified, but also a consecrated man. The true explanation of this experience is that it was the quickening of his New Creature, which gave him a deeper and more vivid conviction than he had ever had before of his justification and of his new-creatureship, which in an unquickened manner he had for years had. But, call it what one might, from that time forward Wesley entered a new activity wherein he for nearly 53 years remained until a few days before his death—Mar. 2, 1791. 

(32) At first he preached justification and sanctification in perfect love in churches of the Church of England as an ordained presbyter of that Church; but 



his pointed preaching offended the worldly clergy and soon most of the churches were closed to him. On April 2, 1739, he began preaching in fields and other open-air places, the churches becoming closed to him and his congregations becoming too large for any church building. He not infrequently, even in his eighties, addressed audiences of 30,000, and was at that age heard by listeners with perfect ease 140 yards from him, so clear and penetrating was his voice. One of his historic open-air series of services was conducted at Epworth, June, 1742. Being refused the use of his father's and his own former pulpit by the then time-serving rector, he stood on his father's grave and, filled with the solemnities of the sacred associations of his surroundings, preached with superhuman power to several thousands who gathered to hear him. The effect was electrical; hundreds were converted; and the one service was increased to several. As a preacher Wesley did not attempt the tricks of oratory. His language was simple; his style was argumentative; his manner and speech were direct and quiet, almost conversational; his appearance was not awesome, he being under average size, though his face was distinguished looking and his eye attention-arresting. But there was a power in his voice, thoughts and words that was generated by the dynamo of his wonderful character that made him one of the most persuasive preachers that ever lived. He preached about 900 times a year for about 53 years, traveled about 5,000 miles a year, until in his seventies on horseback, reading and studying as he rode, and from then on until in his 88th year by horse and carriage. Often he would arrive in a town, go to the market place, begin to sing a hymn, which attracted the people to him, offer a prayer and then preach to the assembled crowd. Earlier in his crusade he met much opposition from the rabble, which was usually stirred up by some fanatical cleric. Sometimes he was struck, frequently pelted with stones, mud, ancient 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


eggs and vegetables, and filth. But he never flinched, he always faced the crowd and usually so overawed them by his strong character, fearless manner and kind words as to disarm their opposition. 

(33) Many are the stories told of his encounters with mobs bent on mischief, and of his successful handling of them. The house where he was at Warsal was beset by a crowd which cried out: "Bring out the minister; we will have the minister!" He asked one of his friends to invite the captain of the mob to come into the house. The captain with several companions entered and was either so soothed or awed by Wesley's words and manner that he seemingly changed into an entirely different person; moreover, two or three of this man's companions were so won by Wesley's kind words and gentle manner as to experience the same change of feeling. Thereupon Wesley went out to the mob, stood on a chair and addressed them. His words changed the attitude of the mob. Changing their cries, the mob began to call out: "The gentleman is an honest gentleman; and they that seek his blood must spill ours first!" At another time, at Walsal, he had been seized and bruised by a mob. He appealed to them to give him a hearing, and finally gaining silence for a brief space, he began to pray in that clear and moving voice of his. A former prize fighter was the mob's leader; and so greatly was he moved that he turned to Wesley saying: "Sir, I will spend my life for you! Follow me and not one here shall touch a hair of your head." At Plymouth, amid his sermon, the rabble became grossly violent. He left the platform, walked to the midst of the most violent, went up to their leader and courteously took his hand in greeting. The leader immediately said: "Sir, I will see you safe home. No man shall touch you. Gentlemen, stand back. I will knock down the first man that touches him." "And so," says Wesley, "he walked to my lodgings; and we parted in much love." 



(34) At Penfield the rabble sought to force a bull through his audience up to the platform. At Whitechapel they drove cows among the congregation. At other places they blew horns, rang church bells, sent the town crier to howl in front of him, hired fiddlers and ballad singers to drown his voice. Sometimes people in his audiences defended him against attacks, e.g., in Bawden, Ireland, a clergyman, a little drunk, made for him with a big stick; but two or three resolute women by main strength pulled him through the house into the garden, where he attempted to make love with one of them, who gave him such a ringing cuff that it sent him sprawling to the ground. Another assailant came on in great fury, but the town butcher, not a Methodist, knocked him down as he would an ox. "This," says Wesley, "cooled his courage, and so I quietly finished my discourse." These experiences were accompaniments of many of his services from 1740 to 1745. These are only few examples among very many of Wesley's earlier experiences. But in later years, especially in old age, conditions greatly changed. The utmost respect was increasingly accorded him; and his comings became the occasions of holidays for entire towns. At the time of his death he was perhaps the most influential, respected and loved man in England, Scotland and Ireland. 

(35) One might think that Wesley's traveling and preaching were more than enough for one man; but they were only a part of his work. He spent much time in pastoral visiting while riding his circuits. He wrote many thousands of helpful and thoughtful letters that are even yet edifying. Moreover, he did much work as an author. Twenty years before his death his works were collected and published in thirty volumes. And many more were added afterwards. His Journal, his Notes on the New Testament and his four volumes of sermons, are his best known literary productions. He wrote not only on religion; but he also produced 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


good text books, used in schools, and a book on medicine that was in his days in the forefront of works on the healing art for home use, going through some thirty editions during his lifetime. He also edited several magazines, the ablest being the Arminian Magazine, for which he wrote much. Moreover, he published what he called, The Christian Family Library, which included several hundred of the best books of religion, morals, literature, history and philosophy, compiled from the pen products of the world's best pertinent writers. This proved a very fruitful piece of work and actually educated his followers as the followers of few other religious leaders have been. He founded and fostered special schools and colleges. He raised money for and supervised the building of hundreds of chapels. He directed the work and appointments of his preachers. He had the care of all the churches. He organized and conducted the annual conferences of his preachers, and gave much time to advising people who sought his counsel in their difficulties. He founded and fostered orphanages and homes for the aged. His charities were manifold. He would not spend on himself more than £50 a year, and the rest he gave to the poor and needy, as he gave to them the profits of his publications, giving away of his own means in the course of his life about £100,000 (about $500,000.00). To do the above-mentioned mass of work he seldom retired before 10 P. M., and arose at 4 A. M. daily. When he died there were 100,000 Methodist members and perhaps 400,000 others who were counted adherents. Perhaps his genius shone the brightest as an organizer; and the results he attained, while coming from a combination of his activities, were under God mainly due to his ability as an organizer. As a genius he has been favorably compared with Napoleon, who was about to begin his career as Wesley ended his. 

(36) The brethren associated with Wesley were colaborers and co-sufferers with him in the early years of



his movement. Whitefield, the peerless orator, and Charles Wesley, the peerless poet, had their persecutions to meet as they toiled side by side with him. Another of Wesley's finest associates was the saintly Fletcher, the rector at Madeley, whose able and mild pen defended the principles of Wesley even better than Wesley himself was able to do. His preachers labored and suffered in the same self-denying love of the truly sanctified; and there were gathered about him multitudes who, like him, gloried in the cross and its saving work and self-denying services. Their view of sanctification as centering in disinterested love made them godlike in character and burning and shining lights amid a crooked and perverse generation. The effect of this great demonstration of the Lord's Spirit was deep and widespread. This movement quickened the religious life of England as no other movement before or afterward. Their emphasis on the Divine love made it the natural thing that they would espouse Arminianism—God's love for all for salvation, Christ's death for all for salvation and the Spirit's work for all for salvation—as against Calvinism. This stress produced a split among Methodists, resulting in a small minority becoming Calvinistic Wesleyans. But the glowing love of the many gave them greater access to the multitudes than that of their Calvinistic brethren. King George III, who very much appreciated Wesley, remarked to a nephew of his, Charles Wesley, Jr., that John and Charles Wesley, Whitefield and Fletcher did more good for religion in England than the entire clergy of the established Church. This was quite an impressive testimony for "the head" of the Church of England to give to the movement that most of his clergy held in disdain and wished anathema. 

(37) Wesley lived to within four months of being 88 years of age. Very few persons ever accomplished more than he did. His health remained good almost to the end, and only in the last few years of his life did 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


his eyes begin to weaken. His marriage was a most unhappy one, due to the ugly disposition of his wife. He said his married experiences enabled him to sympathize with Job and Socrates! It seems almost impossible to believe, yet it is true that on one occasion his wife dragged him, unresisting, about the house by his hair until she had pulled one of his locks out, when Charles Wesley, entering the house, saw the happenings, which put an end to her disgraceful act. She took some of his letters and interpolated flagrantly some of her own inventions to his disparagement, and sold them to a newspaper which published these interpolated letters as his. After a number of years she deserted him; but her children, his step-children, took his side against their own mother, blaming her as a shrew. Wesley shed no tears over her death, of which he received no word until after her burial; for he received the news without any visible emotion and went, unconcerned, right on with his work. Before their marriage she promised him that she would put no hindrance in the way of his itinerant work; then after tiring of accompanying him therein, and failing in a prolonged effort to make him give it up, she turned into the most spiteful and oppositional enemy imaginable. His experiences in this particular were much like our Pastor's. 

(38) If he was hated by the shrew whom he took as his wife, he was all the more generously loved by the brethren. As he approached and was in old age, he was, indeed, a venerable person. His unchilled cheerfulness, unfailing courtesy, self-denying service and holy life, gave him a most noble, distinguished and benevolent countenance, especially an unforgettable eye. On one occasion, in his 87th year, when so weak as to be unable to stand, he yet insisted on preaching, which he did, while two of the circuit riders supported him, one on each side, holding him up under the arms, and thus this brave warrior of God preached his sermon. The effect of this was most impressive and edifying 



to the audience. Children loved him and thronged him for his caresses, smiles, encouragements and blessing. He continued to preach until but a week before his death. His last sermon was delivered Feb. 23rd. He wrote his last letter the next day, to Wilberforce, the great anti-slavery advocate, encouraging him in his work, a work that Wesley was one of the first to begin. His death-bed scene is one of the most marvelous in history. All night this dying man led eleven devoted watchers, who were with him to the end, in an informal prayer, praise and testimony meeting, which perhaps never had, nor ever will have an equal, and which ended at his last breath. Very often he repeated the words, "The best of all is, God is with us." Repeatedly he led them in a brief prayer and joined them in their prayers. Repeatedly he cried out, "Praise God,'' and then they joined in a hymn of praise. Repeatedly, as death was gaining ground, he called out: "I'll praise; I'll praise," unable to say more. Repeatedly he called out: "Pray and praise," and the little company, sinking on its knees complied. At 10 A. M., March 2nd, he cried out, as his last word, "Farewell," and gathered up his feet in the presence of his brethren and died, without a groan or a sigh. Joseph Bradford, the devoted traveling companion and helper of his latest years, and the mouthpiece of the other ten watchers, just as Wesley died, said: "Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and this heir of glory shall come in." Thus passed away from this earth one of the very best and greatest of God's servants and sons, full of years and good works. 

(39) On the basis of such a glorious stewardship doctrine as sanctification centering in disinterested love, the Divine ideal for God's people, we should expect the crown-lost leaders of antitypical Asher—the Methodist Church—to offer a splendid antitypical charger, bowl and spoon; and therein we are not disappointed. Their charger, therefore, consists of corrections 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


of anything contrary to entire sanctification as centering in disinterested love. Everything selfish or worldly would come under the rebukes and corrections that they had to offer, as well as everything sinful; for sin, while primarily an offense against duty love, of necessity is an offense also against disinterested love, since the latter implies the former. This stewardship truth will, among other things, account for the singularly unworldly life of the early Methodists. Worldly amusements, like sports, prize fights, games, gambling, dancing, card and other parties, theatre attendances, racing, etc., were strictly forbidden in the Methodist discipline; and the writings of antitypical Pagiel abound in rebukes and corrections of conduct on these lines. And when they were not desisted from, disfellowshipment set in; for he reasoned that for the brethren to become worldly was death to the sanctification that centered in disinterested love, in which reasoning he was doubtless right. Therefore he also inveighed against all acts that implied a panting after human applause, reputation, honor, approval and glory, with their accompanying pomp, show and ostentation, especially if this took the form of desire for man's praise for one's religiousness. Therefore, to live for vainglory and popularity was taboo with antitypical Pagiel, and met his outspoken disapproval, rebuke and correction. If any of the Methodists sought after titles and other human distinctions, antitypical Pagiel corrected them. If they began to show hankering after riches or highly esteemed positions and offices, antitypical Pagiel was sure to rebuke and correct them. If any of them began to show an over-weaning devotion to earthly relatives, even of the family circle, rulers, friends, associates or native land, they were sure to hear from antitypical Pagiel in correction. He treated panting after human knowledge in the same way. Thus he rebuked and corrected worldliness in every form in which he saw



it, because it was a violation of that sanctification that works by disinterested love. 

(40) The same course marked his activities toward expressions of selfishness, as distinct from worldliness. Wherever he saw pride parading as arrogance, haughtiness, disdain, conceit, self-assertiveness or self-assurance, he rebuked and corrected it, as opposed to disinterested love. All shams, pretenses and hypocrisies were sure to meet his disapproval and correction, because at variance with true sanctification. All indolence was, for the same reason, rebuked and corrected by him. Whoever betrayed that he loved his life more than God, Christ or the brethren, was corrected as sinning against disinterested love. Inordinate anger, stubbornness, wrath, implacability, unforgiveness, harshness, hardness of heart, as opposed to Divine love, were rebuked and corrected by antitypical Pagiel. Cowardice, especially in the presence of attacks on the Truth, was set forth in its true colors by him. Over-indulgence of appetite, whether along lines of food or drink, fared the same way at his hands. He acted the same way as to sin in all its forms, which, having in connection with antitypical Abidan been described, need not here be repeated. It was his use of that part of his office which required him to correct all—especially sinful—things contrary to his stewardship truth, that made him so mighty in leading many to the "mourner's bench" and to "conversion." He, therefore, certainly suitably offered his charger for the correction of many. 

(41) He also offered his bowl—refutative teachings against all teachings opposed to his stewardship doctrine. In his over-emphasis of his stewardship truth in a way that represented the fully sanctified as sinless, he was weak and certainly met defeat in controversy; but in every conflict on the reality of the second state of grace—sanctification, as a thing entirely separate from and beyond justification—and that its heart was disinterested love, he successfully met and refuted all

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


attacks. On the basis of the separate and distinct Scriptural uses of the words justification and sanctification, he proved that they were not two words for the same thing, as some contended. He showed it also from the fact that the former was by faith alone, while the latter was by faith and good works. He showed it on the basis of the contrast between the two experiences of Rom. 5:1, 2. He showed it from the fact that the former is an instantaneous work of God for us, and that the latter is, after its beginning, a life-long work of God in us. He showed that the former is one of the foundational matters for the Christian, while the latter pertains to perfection of a Christian, as shown in Heb. 6:1, 2. He showed that justification is to do away with the condemnation and power of sin, while sanctification has to do with the sacrifice of the humanity and the perfection of the New Creature; that the former gives peace with God and the latter gives the peace of God; that the former implies giving up sin and doing right and the latter implies giving up self and the world and becoming in all things like Christ. These clear-cut distinctions enabled him to refute all arguments that fused these two acts and later two states into one. While, on the other hand, he showed that disinterested love is the heart of sanctification, because it is the indispensable, all-permeating, always-enduring and greatest grace (1 Cor. 13:1-13); because its attainment is the purpose of all God's dealings with us, and because its support is in the other great graces (1 Tim. 1:5); because it witnesses to our begettal of the Spirit (Rom. 5:5; 1 John 4:7), to our having life (1 John 3:14), to our sonship with God (1 John 4:7), and to our perfection of character (1 John 2:5; 4:12), when it is crystallized in us (Phil. 3:13-16; 1 Pet. 5:10). Thus, against all opponents he was able to defend refutatively his stewardship truth against all attacks that were launched against it. 

(42) Antitypical Pagiel offered his spoon—ethical



teachings, instructions in righteousness. In this respect he had the finest of all ethical teachings to set forth, even more pervasive than the Baptists had, whose disinterested love feature was toward God in its earlier stages; for the greatest of all graces is all-embracing love (1 Cor. 13:13). He therefore exhorted that it be given to God, to Christ, to saints, to justified ones and to sinners, whether friendly or inimical. He showed how it produces joy (Ps. 5:11), is given in answer to prayer (Ps. 116:1), leads to hatred for sin and practice of obedience (Ps. 97:10; 1 John 5:2), gives courage and casts out fear (1 John 4:17, 18), brings God's approval, constant care, mercy, deliverance and protection (Deut. 7:9; 1 Cor. 8:3; Ps. 145:20; 91:14; Ex. 20:6), makes all things work for its possessors' good (Rom. 8:28), is a proper subject for prayer (2 Thes. 3:5) and receives God's and Christ's special love (John 14:21, 23; 16:27). He encouraged to it by adducing examples of it as it worked in Joseph of Arimathaea (Matt. 27:57-60), in the penitent woman (Luke 7:47), in the women at the cross (Luke 23:28), in Thomas (John 11:16), in Mary Magdalene (John 20:11), in Peter, John and Paul (John 21:15-17; Acts 21:13). He commended it to his hearers because it is of God (1 John 4:7), was commanded by God and Christ (1 John 4:7; John 13:34; 15:12), was taught by God (1 Thes. 4:9), is worked by faith (Gal. 5:6), is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22), purifies the heart (1 Pet. 1:22), is pertinent to saints (Col. 3:14), should be abounded and continued in (Phil. 1:9; Heb. 13:1), should be encouraged in others (Heb. 10:24), should be fervent (1 Pet. 4:8), and all things should be done through it (1 Cor. 16:14). In giving these instructions, exhortations and encouragements, antitypical Pagiel certainly offered his spoon and a precious one it was; and his instructions therein should do all of us the Divinely intended good; and they surely will if we permit ourselves to be rightly exercised thereby. 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


(43) We now will study the offerings of the prince of Naphtali, the last tribe on the north of the tabernacle. Naphtali was the second son of Rachel's maid, Bilhah. The name means wrestling, and was given to Bilhah's second-born by Rachel, because of the great wrestlings that she had with her sister Leah, and because of her prevailing amid them (Gen. 30:8). Naphtali represents the Unitario-Universalists. Perhaps it would be better to use for this compound name the single name Unitarians, because Universalists of the sect so called are all Unitarians, though all Unitarians are not Universalists, nor members of the sect so called. So considered, the Universalist sect is to be regarded as a sect of the Unitarian denomination. Therefore in this chapter we will use the name Unitarian to cover both, remarking that, as in the case of the Congregationalists with their principles of church government, the Unitarians have succeeded in convincing many ministers and laymen remaining in other denominations of the correctness of their stewardship doctrine. It is because the Unitarians have had to wrestle in doctrinal controversy so greatly with the exponents of other denominations that the typical name Naphtali so well fits them as the antitype of Naphtali and the tribe of Naphtali. Not having the full truth on their stewardship doctrine and its related doctrines, they are not represented by a child of Rachel—the type of the elective Truth and its servants; but being in the pertinent teachings so nearly right, they are appropriately represented as a child of antitypical Bilhah, the maid of antitypical Rachel. So greatly are the Unitarians despised and disfellowshipped by the "orthodox," as not to be counted as evangelical, hence "wrestling." 

(44) The prince of Naphtali was called Ahira, the son of Enan. The word Ahira is a compound composed of the words Ah and ra with i inserted between them for euphony's sake. Ah, means brother and ra means



badness or evil. The name, therefore, means brother of badness or evil. This name primarily designates typically the crown-lost leaders of the Unitarian Church from the standpoint of their so-called "orthodox" theological opponents, who, because the former deny the trinity, human immortality and eternal torment, consider such deniers as the worst of heretics, and most of them even deny that they are Christians. To those who think that trinity, immortality and eternal torment are the foundation truths of the Bible, as the so-called "orthodox" do, naturally the leaders of the Unitarians would be very evil indeed. But to those who are children of antitypical Rachel, the matter appears far otherwise. On the other hand, some of these leaders have gone far into real error, denying, as they have done, the ransom as a corresponding price to satisfy justice, affirming that the atonement does not imply that God must by Christ's merit be made pleased with man, and that God does not hold man off at arm's length in displeasure for his sin, but that man by sin is displeased with God and that atonement implies only this—that man become pleased with God, which, they say, Jesus proposes to work in man. As a matter of fact, the truth on atonement includes both of these ideas. How one-sided and extreme the average religious man is: the "orthodox" stressed one side of the atonement, the Unitarians the other, and each fought the other as in error, while each had the truth that the other lacked! The name Enan means springy, fountain-like, being an adjective derived from the word ayan, meaning spring, fountain, well. This likely types the thought that their denial of the three chief teachings of the "orthodox" denominations points out these as the source, spring, of the so-called orthodox teachings. 

(45) The man who first of all perverted the Little Flock movement on the unity of the God of Love into a sect was Faustus (not Laelius) Socinus, shortly after the middle of the sixteenth century. Faustus 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


Socinus was a nephew of Laelius, and got his inspiration in religious life and belief from Laelius Socinus, the latter being the chief assistant of Michael Servetus, the member of antitypical Jacob that started the Little Flock movement on the unity of the God of Love. Faustus, like his uncle before him, had, because of his faith, to flee from the terrors of the Italian inquisition. He first went to Switzerland, thence to Poland, where he found a responsive hearing, and organized a large following. But presently persecution by the Catholics and Calvinists wrought havoc among the Polish Unitarians, and their gradual suppression followed until it was completed there, about the middle of the seventeenth century. In Hungary, about the same time, Unitarianism flourished and later finally outlived persecution. The chief leader of Hungarian Universalists was Franciscus Davidis, able, efficient and a martyr. The next considerable Unitarian movement was organized in England and won over to its stewardship doctrine some of the ablest men of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most of whom, however, remained in the Church of England or among Dissenters. A goodly number of Baptist and Presbyterian churches and ministers joined the English Unitarians. The leading English Unitarian was the distinguished scientist, publicist and theologian, Dr. Priestley. The chief leaders of American Unitarianism were William E. Channing, Andrew Norton and Ezra Abbott. The first was a very able preacher and writer; the second and third were Harvard University professors of worldwide recognized scholarship. 

(46) As the name Naphtali implies, these Unitarian leaders have had to deal much in controversy and to bear considerable contempt from their "orthodox" opponents. Very much of Socinus' activities were devoted to polemics, and his writings gave the "orthodox" more than they could handle on antitypical Naphtali's stewardship doctrine, human immortality and eternal



torment. Norton's Statement of Reasons for Unitarian Beliefs, is considered an especially forceful treatise. Ezra Abbott's careful examination of the Biblical texts in the original, pertinent to their stewardship doctrine, on account of his minute and exact scholarship, have made his publications on those texts classics indeed. Despised as they were, the Unitarian leaders, because of their stress on love to God and man, were very kind and mild-mannered in their polemics. So much was this the case that, by contrast with the bruskness of their usual "orthodox" opponents, they were very winsome. Said the learned and respected Archbishop Tillotson of the Church of England of these: "To do right to the writers on that side, I must own that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing and debating matters of religion, without heat and unseemly reflections upon their adversaries. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity and that freedom from passion and transport, which becomes a serious and weighty argument; and for the most part they reason closely and clearly with extraordinary guard and caution; with great dexterity and decency and yet with smartness and subtility enough; with a very gentle heart and few hard words; virtues to be praised wherever they are to be found, yea, even in an enemy, and very worthy of our imitation." He goes on to say that in comparison with them most controversialists were blunderers and bunglers, and that they did not lack logic, acuteness and feeling, but lacked a good cause. This was quite a compliment from a theological opponent like Archbishop Tillotson. 

(47) There has always been a spirit in most Unitarian leaders akin to that of higher critics. Many of them deny our Lord's personal pre-existence; many of them deny His virgin birth, claiming that Joseph or some other man was His father. All of them seem to deny the ransom as a corresponding price for the purchase of the race. We have already shown that they 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


deny the need of satisfying justice by the corresponding price. Their attitude to the Scriptures is likewise an infidelistic one. The majority of them deny that the Scriptures are inerrant and fully inspired, but hold that while they are not a Divine revelation they contain a Divine revelation, and that what in them is revelatory, and what is not so, must be decided by human reason. Revolting against the Calvinistic error of man's total depravity, they have gone to the opposite extreme, denying man's mental, moral and religious corruption by nature, and claiming that he is by nature goodness itself, only undeveloped. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that almost all Unitarians are higher critics as to the Bible and modernists as to our Lord Jesus. But their emphasis on love in God has moved them to stress love to man; and they are, therefore, very forward in works of benevolence and beneficence. Hence many among them have been very philanthropic, active in reform work of every kind and generous contributors to every humanitarian cause. Their being so much despised by the "orthodox" has hindered their taking a more prominent part in general movements in Christendom, wherever they have wrought. 

(48) There is no difficulty in locating the stewardship doctrine of the Unitarians. Their name suggests it. It is, of course, related to the unity of God. It might be stated in the following terms: God is the one supreme Person, whose central attribute is love. They might also state it as follows: God is the one supreme Being, whose central attribute is love. It is because the nominal church, playing hocus-pocus with the word being, claims that God is one in being, but three in person, that, to avoid a misunderstanding, they use preferably the term person instead of being in the definition. The Unitarians, therefore, deny that Jesus is God or a part of God. They likewise deny that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God. To them God is a single, not a compound, unity. This single Divine Person 



is, according to them, the supreme Being, whose supreme attribute is not wisdom, or power, or justice, but love. This quality of God that they so greatly stress, more than any other of the qualities of God, proves that by right they are on the North side of the antitypical Tabernacle. Indeed, some of them so one-sidedly emphasize love as an attribute of the Divine character as to teach that He will save all beings—men and devils, yea, Satan himself. They rightly reason that a God of love would not torture any being forever. And this has moved those of them who have not become Universalists to deny that the soul is indestructible, all of them denying eternal torment. Hence, such of them teach that in the future probation, which all of them teach, those who will not reform will be annihilated. The future probation of all of them is not Millennial, as the Bible teaches, but during the death state, which they consider to be a conscious one, but not eternal in duration either for the good or the evil. Thus their soul doctrine was not pure. 

(49) It is remarkable that Unitarianism is a protest against the three oldest and most foundational errors of the nominal church—trinitarianism, human immortality and eternal torment. These errors arose in the *Smyrna [PT '50, 64] period of the Church, 70-313 A. D. Justin Martyr, who died about 150 A. D., was the introducer of the error of the soul's indestructibility and eternal torment. He was a Platonic philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and he continued as a Christian to hold Plato's view of the soul. He began the work of amalgamating Christian doctrine and Greek philosophy. He was also the one who began to teach the deifying of Christ in such a way as to start the first tendency of thought toward the doctrine that developed gradually during the next two centuries into the God-man theory as the basis of trinitarianism. While he was one of the earliest apologists of the second century, his philosophy—worldly wisdom—was responsible

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


for much doctrinal evil, though his two apologies are very useful in proving that all four Gospels were in general use among Christians early in the second century, John's having been written close to the end of the first century. That Unitarians should be the ones to set aside the first and foundational errors of the nominal church should not at all surprise us when we remember their relation to antitypical Rachel. Their stewardship doctrine logically led to their rejecting and refuting these first three, the foundational errors of the nominal church. We are right in calling these three errors the foundational errors of the nominal church, because most of her doctrinal errors and many of her practical errors flow out of, or are supported by these, even as all the true doctrines flow out of, or are supported by the ransom—the hub of the wheel of revelation. 

(50) The member of antitypical Jacob whom God used to start the Little Flock movement that crown-lost leaders perverted into the Unitarian Church, was Michael Servetus, who was born at Tudela, in Spain, in 1511, and died at the stake at Geneva in 1553. Very little is known of his early life. His father sent him to Toulouse to study law, and there, in 1528, he began to study the Bible. From 1525 to 1530 he found in Juan de Quintana, a Franciscan monk, a patron. When the latter was, in 1530, promoted to be the confessor of Charles V, the German emperor and Spanish king, Servetus accompanied him as a courtier. He witnessed Charles' crowning at Bologna, Italy, in Feb., 1530, was the same year at the diet of Augsburg, where the Augsburg Confession was read, and probably visited Luther at Coburg, which city was the nearest to the emperor that Luther, as an outlaw and excommunicate, dared approach, while advising the Protestant princes and theologians at Augsburg. The adoration of the pope witnessed by Servetus at Bologna, in 1530, started the latter in an antipapal direction. 



He left Quintana, visiting in turn Lyons, France, and Geneva, Switzerland. From Geneva he went to Basel to visit Oecolampadius, and from there went to Strassburg to confer with Bucer and Capito. His first publication, issued in 1531, was entitled, On The Errors Of The Trinity. With this book he began the Little Flock movement antitypical of Jacob's begetting Naphtali. At the date of its publication he was only 20 years of age, and for his age and the times the book was indeed very remarkable. The treatment of the subject was serious and original, and proved that his preparatory reading was on a vast scale. The subject matter was so unusual and logical that the ablest thinkers of the day were compelled to give it careful attention, and were at great pains to meet his arguments. Melanchthon said of this book: "I read Servetus much." Quintana, his former patron, spoke of him as of a very great genius and a great sophist, declaring that the sentiments were doubtless those of Servetus, but he thought that the book was too well written to be his. In 1532 Servetus set forth a revised presentation of his views in the form of a dialogue. To write against the trinity was at that time an extremely dangerous thing, and Servetus was compelled to flee for safety from Germany to France, where he was little known. 

(51) Servetus next turned up at Lyons, France, in 1535, using as his surname, not Servetus, but Villanovanus, based on the name of his father's birth place. By this name he continued to call himself until he was arrested at Geneva in 1553. At Lyons he busied himself by editing scientific works for the Trechsel firm. Here he found another patron, Dr. Champier. This association with Champier led him to decide to study medicine. To this end he resorted to Paris (1536) and studied under the most able medical professors there. Here, too, in 1536, he met Calvin, who was giving a hurried and final visit to Paris, his Protestantism making

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


it dangerous for him to remain longer in France. Calvin sought, to use his own expression, to set Servetus right on the trinity. To this end he challenged the latter to a debate; but fear that he would be delivered by Calvin to the authorities as a heretic moved Servetus not to put in an appearance at the place of debate. Servetus became the assistant of his chief professor. The latter highly praised his learning and his skill in dissection and said that he was in his knowledge second to none of the greatest medical authorities. He graduated in arts and medicine, published six lectures on syrups, lectured at the University on geometry and astrology. For the latter he was sued by the medical faculty. In 1538 he was at the Louvain University as a student. His studies there were theology and Hebrew. Thereafter, for a short time, he practiced medicine at Avignon, France, and for a longer time at Charlieu. In Sept., 1540, he entered, as a student, the medical school at Montpellier for further development in his professional studies. To illustrate to what proficiency he attained in the medical profession, it should be stated that he discovered the fact of the lesser circulation of the blood—the passage of the blood from the right to the left side of the heart through the lungs by the pulmonary artery and vein, and its further transmission from the left ventricle of the heart to the arteries of the body, two facts that were basal to Harvey's discovery of the full circulation of the blood nearly a century later. 

(52) While he lectured at Paris, one of his students was Pierre Paulmier, who was since 1528 the Archbishop of Vienne, France. In 1541 he invited Servetus to come to Vienne as his private physician, which he was from 1541 to 1553. Here he engaged in the general practice of medicine as well, and also in editorial work for publishers in Lyons. While, to all outward appearance, he was a Catholic, he continued privately his study of the Scriptures. Rejecting infant baptism, 



and believing that as Jesus was baptized at 30 so he also should be then baptized, he underwent this symbol in 1541. Late in 1545 or early in 1546 he began the correspondence with Calvin that was to have so tragic an ending for Servetus. He sent Calvin an enlarged revision of his former publications. Their letters were long debates. Servetus offered to visit Calvin at Geneva. The latter declined (Feb. 13, 1546), saying that it would be harder than he could bear. The same day he wrote to his preacher friend, Farel: "If he should come, if my authority may avail, I will never suffer him to go away alive." Similar sentiments he expressed in a letter to Pierre Viret, another of his preacher friends. Servetus was warned by someone not to trust himself in Calvin's hands at Geneva; for, writing to his friend, Abel Pouppin, about 1547, he complains that Calvin would not return his manuscript, adding: "I know of a certainty that I would have to die for this matter." Again, recasting his book, he offered it to two Basel publishers who, at Calvin's instance, refused to publish it. The book was entitled, The Restoration Of True Christianity. Servetus finally, at Vienne, found a publisher who was willing to print it secretly. It was ready for circulation Jan. 3, 1553; and the bulk of the copies were privately sent to Lyons and Frankfort. Servetus made the mistake of sending Calvin a copy of the book, and the latter, after giving, in 1550, incriminating information to the Catholic Inquisition at Lyons, against Servetus, fully betrayed to that tribunal its author, even furnishing samples of Servetus' handwriting to the inquisitors, and upbraiding them for their lack of zeal in suffering so great a heretic to live, after they had received proofs of his guilt three years before. The inquisitor-general of Lyons took up the case, March 12th, questioned Servetus, March 16th, arrested him, April 4th, and examined him the two following days. Knowing that he was sure to be condemned to be burned, he arranged for and succeeded

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


the early morning of April 7th in making his escape from the prison where he was held. For four months he was in hiding in France, not daring to show himself anywhere. 

(53) On Sunday, August 13, 1553, he entered Geneva, expecting to leave that day by boat on his journey toward Zurich, on his way to Naples. No boat being that day available, he went to Church, where he was recognized by Calvin, who had not seen him for 17 years, and who immediately caused his arrest and imprisonment. His trial on the charge of heresy was begun Aug. 14th, under the Justinian code, which was not legally operative at Geneva, it having been some time before abolished as the law of Geneva, and there being no law operative in Geneva at the time applicable to such a case. Moreover, he was not a citizen of Switzerland, but merely a traveler passing through to another destination. Furthermore, he had committed no offense on Swiss soil. These facts show the gross violations of law and justice involved in his arrest, trial and sentence. At first a servant of Calvin appeared as the accuser and prosecutor; then, throwing away the mask that he wore, Calvin openly stood forth as his accuser and prosecutor. The trial lasted until Oct. 26—about 2½ months, and consisted almost exclusively of theological debates between Servetus and Calvin. On the subject of God's being but one person and of Christ's not being God, Servetus thoroughly refuted Calvin; but the latter as thoroughly refuted Servetus on Christ's pre-human existence, Servetus denying our Lord's personal pre-existence. As Christians, we deplore the bloodthirsty spirit that Calvin betrayed throughout this trial. There was a considerable minority party among the judges, who favored Servetus' acquittal. A number of the Swiss Reformed churches were requested for their opinion as to whether Servetus was a heretic. While passing unfavorable judgment, all these churches thought that banishment would 



be the sentence. Calvin had no such thought. He deliberately planned to secure Servetus' death, even as in 1546 he had told Farel that he would exert his authority to the utmost to secure it, if he would ever lay hand on him. The majority of the judges, at Calvin's insistence, rendered a capital sentence under a law not operative in their land, for an act not committed in their country and on a person not subject to their authority. Calvin weakly interceded to have the sentence of burning changed into beheading; but the majority of the court would not change it, assured that it was not greatly desired. 

(54) On Oct. 27, 1553, the day after the condemnation, Servetus was burned. Farel, who was absent from the trial, at his home, was sent for, and was appointed to minister to, and accompany Servetus to the stake in an effort to secure his recantation, and to prepare him for death, all the Genevan ministers, as implicated in securing his condemnation, being considered unfavorable persons for such a task. Farel, of course, failed in his efforts; but at the end of the melancholy affair, overcome by the heroic and Christ-like spirit of the martyr, he remarked that he considered that Servetus was perhaps a Christian and saved. First Servetus was brought before his judges, who had the sentence read in his and a great multitude's presence. They then rejected his plea to change the sentence to beheading. Then he was taken some distance from the city to a field at Campel, where he was secured to a block on which he was made to sit, amid the execrations of the multitude. Instead of securing well-dried fagots, which would quickly burn and soon put the victim out of his misery, green timber was used. Furthermore, instead of piling these fagots closely around him to insure speedy death, they were placed at some distance from him, with the result that he was designedly subjected to a slow roasting of over a half hour's duration. In mockery—like the crown of thorns 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


that was placed on the Lord's brow—a chaplet of straw and green twigs, besprinkled with brimstone, was made to encircle his head. The flame was first applied to the fagots and then flashed in his face, which ignited the brimstone on his head and drew forth such a cry of anguish from the victim as to strike terror to the hearts of the spectators. This was his only cry. For the rest he suffered in silence with a courage born of his faith. His last words were, "Jesus, Thou Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me!" These words were a confession of his faith, maintained unto the end of a horrible martyr death. Mark well: he did not pray, Jesus, Thou Eternal Son of God, as a trinitarian might pray; but his final prayer was a confession of the faith that he held and taught—that the Father alone is God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son, not God Himself. 

(55) We have already in Chapter III shown what Servetus' encounter with Calvin antitypes, from the standpoint of the test put upon a guilty suspected woman. The Reformed—Presbyterian—Church, by this encounter, was demonstrated to have been untrue to the heavenly Bridegroom, by the antitypical swollen belly—error—and the shrunken thigh—wrong action. The errors on the trinity in Calvin and his colaborers, as representatives of that Church, were manifest in his debate with Servetus, and were the antitypical swollen belly; and his and their bringing Servetus to the stake and approving it was the wrong conduct antitypical of the shrunken thigh. The union of church and state at Geneva, etc., was the act of infidelity in the Reformed Church. Doubtless Calvin's zeal for his teachings was a moving cause of his persecuting Servetus; but he, himself, confessed that if Servetus had spoken more respectfully to him, he would not have insisted so perseveringly on his being capitally punished. Thus religious intolerance and personal spite animated Calvin, and proved his part in the shrunken thigh of the church 



that he dominated. Its justifying his acts proves its shrunken thigh. Calvin, having been so long accustomed to the obsequious deference of all with whom he came in contact, could not bear Servetus' very plain characterizings of him and his refusal to defer to him. When we keep the type in mind we are sure the Lord desired no such deference shown to Calvin, a crown-loser, by Servetus, a crown-retainer, while the former stood and acted as the chief representative of one espoused to the Lord and guilty of infidelity. Doubtless, the persecuting spirit of the age, from which Calvin could not wholly free himself, palliates his conduct; but we must not forget that for years he had been a denouncer of the papal spirit of persecution, and had addressed a noble publication, in defense of religious tolerance, to the king of France. Alas, for human inconsistency! The advocate for tolerance while persecuted, when in power, tested on that question, forgot his eloquent and logical pleas and blackened his character and reputation with one of the greatest individual examples of intolerance and cruelty in Protestant annals. We close this melancholy subject with rejoicing in the Lord for Servetus' loyalty, and with tears for Calvin's fall. 

(56) We have given enough on Servetus to show his place in the Lord's arrangement. We now proceed to show how, on the basis of his teaching that God is but one person, whose central attribute is love, antitypical Ahira offered his charger, bowl and spoon. His charger was the correction of all conduct against this teaching. It, therefore, rebuked and corrected the conduct of all who make any other being or thing equal to the Father, which all Trinitarians do with the Son and with the Holy Spirit. He designated this a violation of the first commandment. And because in the practice of the nominal church, our Lord is actually loved more than the Father, he rebuked and corrected this practice. This charger consisted of corrections 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


of Mariolatry, which in practice, though not in theory, exalts Mary to superiority in love to the Son and the Father. He corrected the insult offered the Father by those who from the trinitarian viewpoint degraded the Father to equality with an inferior—a thing that was one of Satan's purposes in inventing the trinity doctrine. He corrected the conduct of those who by hocus-pocus methods befuddled the heads and hurt the hearts of their followers, by teaching them the mystifications of trinitarianism. He also rebuked and corrected such teachers for making people credulous of unexplainable, unprovable and self-contradictory teachings. This led him to correct the superstition and superstition-developing propensity of belief in such a doctrine. It, likewise, occasioned his correcting the conduct of those who taught the doctrine of the soul's immortality, as a violation of the love of God. He charged them with blasphemy in setting forth that teaching. He warmly corrected the conduct of those who taught eternal torment, charging them with glaring blasphemy against the one God of perfect love. He corrected their pertinent blasphemy, charging that their theory makes the one God of love act more cruelly than the devil himself. Thus, they forcibly repudiated and corrected the slanders, blasphemies, misrepresentations and caricatures of God's character for which trinitarianism is responsible. 

(57) Not only so, but he corrected all conduct in man that did not imitate, but violated the love that the Father exercises and cherishes. God's disinterested love is a delight in good principles, a delight in and a sympathetic oneness with those whose characters are in harmony with good principles, a pity for all whose characters are out of harmony with good principles or who are treated out of harmony with good principles and a sacrificing spirit exercised for the advancement of good principles. Thus, love is involved in the stewardship doctrine of Unitarianism. Consequently, 



antitypical Ahira's charger corrects all human conduct violative of such love—disinterested, as distinct from duty love. This fact made him correct every feature of selfishness and worldliness that we pointed out as being corrected by antitypical Pagiel, as well as every feature of sin that the latter pointed out. By so doing he showed that his place was properly at the North side of the antitypical Tabernacle. It will not be necessary to give the details on his corrections of the various phases of selfishness, worldliness and sin; for that would be merely repeating what we have already pointed out in the chargers of the three preceding princes. But this activity should, as a part of antitypical Ahira's charger, be mentioned here in a general way, that we may properly see how extensive his charger has been. 

(58) Antitypical Ahira offered his bowl—refutative teachings against opposing doctrines used to attack his. He first showed that the doctrine of the trinity is a contradiction in terms of that of God's unity—three cannot be one! Then he showed that the doctrine that Christ is both God and man is also a contradiction in terms. And he showed that neither doctrine is claimed to be taught in express words of Scripture, but is based on inference contradictory to clear Scripture. He then proved from Scripture that Christ is not God: (1) from the passages that the "orthodox" quoted to prove that He is (John 17:5; 1:1, 2; Col. 1:15; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:1-4, 8, 9); (2) from passages where Jesus denies that He is God (John 8:28, 29, 54; 5:19, 26, 36; 6:57; 12:49, 50; 14:24, 10; 10:37); (3) from the whole tenor of the Bible, which puts God above Him and Him below God; (4) from the source of the doctrine being, not Scripture, but Platonic philosophy. The "orthodox" claim that prayer offered to Christ proves Him God, they answered by showing that His exaltation to God's right hand as His Vicegerent justifies our praying to Him as God's representative. The

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


"orthodox" claim that His pre-existence proves that Christ was God, the few Unitarians who have held Christ's personal pre-existence have answered by pointing out that He was subordinate to God before He became the man Christ Jesus. The "orthodox" refer to passages that refer to His authority, power, attributes and works, as proofs of His being God. Antitypical Ahira showed that these were His as God's Vicegerent and, therefore, do not prove Him to be God. He then took up the passages used to prove the trinity and showed that they did not prove it: (1) Some were interpolations or corrupted passages (Acts 20:28; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:7); (2) Some were mistranslations (Phil. 2:5; John 1:1, 2); (3) Some refer to God and are incorrectly applied to Christ (Rom. 9:5; 1 John 5:20); (4) Though some refer in the same connection to the Father, Son and Spirit, they do not speak of them as a trinity (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:4-6; 2 Cor. 13:13). Thus antitypical Ahira met and refuted arguments adduced to prove that Christ is God and that God is a trinity. It will not be necessary to set forth his refutation of the soul's immortality and eternal torment, which arguments our readers well know. In so doing, he offered his bowl—refutative teachings, and successfully defended his stewardship doctrine. 

(59) He, likewise, offered his spoon—instructions in righteousness—ethical teachings. His stewardship doctrine ably lent itself to instructions in righteousness, because God's love is the great example set before the Lord's people for their imitation. This enabled antitypical Ahira to stress love toward God, Christ, the brethren, the world and enemies. God's great love to saint and sinner became the ground of his exhortations to love the brethren, the world and enemies. This will also account for the great efforts that Unitarians have made to express practically their love to their fellows. As we set the details of this forth in connection with



the spoon of the preceding two princes, we will not elaborate on it further here, as the remarks would be largely repetitions of those expressed earlier in this chapter. 

(60) Hitherto we have studied the offerings of the twelve groups of crown-lost leaders—one group for each of the twelve denominations of Christendom—as these are typically set forth in Num. 7:1-83: At first we gave details of their united offerings (vs. 1-11), then a discussion treating of their separate offerings (vs. 12-83). We now purpose to study vs. 84-89. These verses give us a summary combination of their separate offerings as a whole. Accordingly, an explanation of these verses will partake more or less of the character of a summary of vs. 12-83. The first clause of v. 84 were better rendered as follows: "These were the dedication-gifts of the altar," i.e., what follows gives us a summary of the dedication gifts that the twelve princes brought. The altar here referred to is the golden altar, representing the Church as New Creatures during the Gospel Age, comforting, strengthening, encouraging, etc., the sacrificing Priesthood. Its anointing types the bestowment by God, upon the comforting, strengthening, encouraging, etc., Church, of the qualities of heart and mind fitting it for its pertinent service. The completion of such anointing before the princes offered represents the thought that the Little Flock brethren in each of the twelve Little Flock movements, later perverted into twelve sects by the crown-lost leaders, had in each of the twelve movements experienced their anointing to a completion before the crown-lost leaders perverted the pertinent movement into a sect. Thus, e.g., the Little Flock brethren led by Ulrich Zwingli started a movement on the basis of the stewardship doctrine that the Lord's Supper symbolizes our appropriation of Christ's merit by faith and our fellowship with one another; and all the Little Flock's participants in this movement had 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


their anointing completed for that movement's work before it was perverted into the denomination variously called, the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church, etc. So was this the case with the Little Flock brethren in the other eleven Little Flock movements later perverted into sects by the eleven crown-lost groups of brethren. 

(61) Grouping the antitypes according to the order of the tabernacle picture, we now enumerate each of the twelve involved stewardship doctrines, its leading Little Flock proponent and the chief crown-lost perverter, as follows: (1) The Lord's Supper is a symbolic representation of faith appropriating Jesus' merit, and the common-union of the saints. This doctrine was made by Ulrich Zwingli the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, chiefly by John Calvin, perverted into the Reformed or Presbyterian Church. (2) The Bible as the Christian's faith is the center of unity for God's people. This doctrine was by Barton Stone made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, chiefly by Alexander Campbell, was perverted into the Christian or Disciple Church. (3) The Bible times and seasons mightily work along the lines of prophetic chronology. This doctrine was by William Miller made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Joshua Hines, perverted into the Second Advent Church. (4) Christ in His pre-human, human and post-human conditions has been God's official Special Representative in God's works. This doctrine was by the Apostle John made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, mainly by Origen, was perverted into the Greek Catholic Church. (5) The one entire Church is the steward of God's Truth, to preserve it from error and to minister it to the responsive. This doctrine was by Irenaeus made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, mainly by Augustine, was perverted into the Roman Catholic Church. (6) The Church in the flesh is subject to the civil powers. This doctrine was 



by Thomas Cranmer made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, especially by Queen Elizabeth, was perverted into the Episcopal Church. (7) Justification is by God's grace through faith alone in Christ's merit. This doctrine was by Martin Luther made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by John, the Steadfast, the Elector of Saxony, perverted into the Lutheran Church. (8) Each ecclesia is, under Christ, the mistress of its own affairs, independent of all outside religious control, but one in the sevenfold tie of Christian unity with other Christian ecclesias and individuals. This doctrine was by Robert Browne made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Henry Barrows, perverted into the Congregational Church. (9) True religion is supreme love to God and equal love to the neighbor. This doctrine was by George Fox made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by William Penn, perverted into the Quaker or Friends' Church. (10) The Lord's people are those only who are justified and consecrated. This doctrine was by Balthasar Hubmaier made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Menno Simonis perverted into the Baptist Church. (11) Disinterested love, as the heart of sanctification, is the Divine ideal for the Lord's people. This doctrine was by John Wesley made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Dr. Thomas Coke, perverted into the Methodist Church. (12) The one God is love. This doctrine was by Michael Servetus made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Faustus Socinus, perverted into the Unitarian Church. 

(62) Above we have given a summary of the twelve stewardship doctrines of the twelve denominations, together with the names of the twelve main Little Flock brothers who used them to start Little Flock movements, and the names of the twelve main crown-losers in the twelve antitypical princes. As there were more

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


than one Little Flock brother working in each of the pertinent movements, so there were more than one crown-loser in each antitypical prince. All of such Little Flock brothers in each movement were the antitypical altar (v. 84). As they faithfully served in, and during the time of the pertinent movement, they received their anointing to a completion (in the day when it was anointed). The dedication gifts of twelve chargers (v. 84) type the twelve sets of teachings, each of which were corrective of misconduct, and which suggested such correctives of misconduct. They constituted a very large body of corrections, covering in their aggregate almost every phase of wrong behavior. The dedication gifts of twelve bowls (v. 84) type twelve sets of teachings, each of which were refutative of all attacks made on the pertinent stewardship doctrine, which attacks occasioned a very large body of refutations, covering in the aggregate almost every phase of opposition to the pertinent stewardship doctrine. The dedication gifts of twelve spoons (v. 84) type twelve sets of ethical teachings, upbuilding to the characteristics suggested by the pertinent stewardship doctrine and growing into a large body of ethics covering almost every phase of character building. 

(63) V. 13 and corresponding verses in Num. 7 show that the chargers and bowls were silver, and v. 14 and corresponding verses in this chapter show that the spoons of all the princes were gold. As we have long since learned, in Biblical symbols silver represents Truth, and gold represents that which is Divine. The thought with reference to the chargers and the bowls is, therefore, that truth characterized the corrections of wrong qualities and conduct and the refutations of errors, made by the teachings of the antitypical princes in their pertinent views; while the thought with reference to the golden spoon is that the antitypical princes' ethical teachings were Divine in that they came from God, in that they inured to developing a Divine character,



in that they tended to glory, honor and immortality, and in that they enhanced the Divine glory. The weight of these three vessels—the charger 130, the bowl 70, and the spoon 10 shekels of the sanctuary—totaled 210 shekels. It will be noted that each vessel's weight in shekels was in the denomination of ten or its multiples—130, 70, 10. This symbolizes the fact that they were offerings of those who would ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, ten and its multiples symbolizing natures lower than the Divine. But their sum, 210, being a multiple of both 7 and 10, suggests the thought that though their offerers will ultimately be of a nature lower than the Divine, they once were begotten to the Divine nature as New Creatures, having had crowns assigned to them. The weight of the spoon—10 shekels—suggests typically the new-creaturely powers of its offerer as being less than Divine; the weight of the bowl—70 shekels, the product of 7 and 10—suggests typically that Divine New Creatures in reckonedly perfect human bodies were its offerers; and the weight of the charger—130 shekels, 130 being the sum of 70 and 60, the later a multiple of 6, the symbol of evil and imperfection, and of 10, the symbol here of human nature, 60 thus representing corrupt human nature—typically represents that it would be double-minded (Jas. 1:8), Spirit-begotten persons who would offer the antitypical charger. Thus embedded in the weights of these vessels are typical allusions to various outstanding features of the crown-losers. Thus in another way than that of their sharing in the Sin-offering, does the Lord show us that the princes type crown-lost leaders. The silver charger and the bowl in contrast with the golden spoon seems also to represent the thought that the value of the corrective and refutative teachings was inferior to that of the ethical teachings for Divine purposes—the development of God's people! 

(64) V. 85 not only gives the weight of each charger 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


(130 shekels) and of each bowl (70 shekels), but also gives their total weight in the offerings of the twelve princes. This is 2,400 shekels. Now 2,400 is 12 times the sum of 6 x 10, 7 x 10 and 7 x 10, i.e., 200. The thought seems to be that the things symbolized by these figures as given in the preceding paragraph are found in all the crown-losers of all the tribes combinedly. These things are a totality for all the denominational good and imperfection. Each and all of them in the princes have the same advantages and disadvantages, the same good things and evil or imperfect things, 2,400 being a multiple of six, while in some of its component combinations the numbers 7 and 10 are found, types the fact that all of the offerings of all the antitypical princes fall short of the degree of sacrificial excellence required in those of the Little Flock, this thought also being derived from the fact that 2,400 is not a multiple of 7. The expression, shekel of the sanctuary, implies the sacred use to which the things symbolized were put. 

(65) In v. 86 the only new thought given beyond what had previously been set forth in Num. 7 is that of the combined weight of the twelve spoons. While the ten shekels' weight of each spoon implies that the offerers will be of a lower nature than the Divine, the total weight of all twelve spoons—120 shekels—suggests several things: As a multiple of six, the thought of evil or imperfection in the offerers is implied in this number; again, the thought that the aggregate of the princes' offering falls short of the sacrificial excellence of the Little Flock's work, is evident from the fact that 120 is not a multiple of 7. It will be noticed that the weight of all 12 bowls, chargers and spoons is 2,520 shekels. This might be intended to suggest the thought of the Times of the Gentiles—2,520 years—from the standpoint that after the end of the Gentile Times no more offerings of the crown-lost leaders would be accepted by God as belonging to their Gospel-Age offerings. 



If this is true, our answer to the first question in P '26, 173, will have to be so understood as limiting the time of the acceptableness of such offerings to 1914 as its end, though, of course, they have still been giving forth the pertinent teachings, without God's accepting them after 1914. This seems necessitated by the fact that the Great Company as such began to be dealt with Sept. 20, 1914. The fact that the Little Flock workers in the twelve movements in which they shared, though consisting of different individuals in each movement, are represented by one, and not twelve altars, types the oneness of their antitypes in these several works; while the crown-losers, as princes of the twelve denominations, being represented by twelve princes, types the fact that the antitypical princes would not be one in spirit, but would differ in spirit somewhat as their respective denominations so differ. 

(66) The following repetition of a former explanation will serve to clarify our comments on the twelve-fold burnt-offerings, sin-offerings and peace-offerings. Vs. 15-17 show the animal sacrifices of the princes in three forms: the burnt-offering, the sin-offering and the peace-offering. As our dear Pastor has shown us, the burnt-offering represents the manifested acceptableness of the sacrifice to Jehovah; the sin-offering, the atoning character of the sacrifice; and the peace-offering, the covenant obligations which were assumed, and which were fulfilled by the sacrifice. We understand the young bullock in the burnt-offering to type our Lord as the one whose merit is the basis of the manifested acceptableness of the sacrifice; the ram to type the Church as the one whose sacrifice includes that of the crown-losers before 1917, and thus is instrumental in making the crown-losers' sacrifice available as a part of its own; and the lamb to type the manifested acceptableness of the crown-losers to Jehovah through Christ's merit and their inclusion in the Church. In the first part of Chapter IV, discussing the 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


individual offerings of the Gospel-Age princes, we explained the antitypical significance of the kid of the goats as a sin-offering (v. 16). V. 17 names a number of the beasts sacrificed in the peace-offering. We understand the antitype to be: Through Christ's merit (the two oxen) and on account of their inclusion in the Church (the five rams) as a part of the sin-offering (the five he goats), the sacrifices of the crown-losers are a fulfilment of their consecration vows (the five lambs). The fact that the lamb in the burnt-offering and in the peace-offering was of one year in each case, types the maturity of the crown-losers for the sacrificial work that they performed. We have already used the fact of the princes bringing the sin-offering as proving that certain Gospel-Age sacrificers, and hence crown-lost new creatures, are typed by them. The same thought flows from the fact that they bring a burnt-offering; for the only sacrifice manifested as acceptable to Jehovah, and made during the Gospel Age, is that of the Christ. So, too, the same conclusion follows from the fact that they brought the peace-offering; for the only sacrificial covenant made and fulfilled during the Gospel Age is that of the Christ. The same thought flows from the fact that a special animal in the burnt- and peace-offerings types them as distinct from Jesus and the Church. Thus we have found seven arguments which prove that the princes represent the crown-lost sectarian leaders in the Gospel-Age picture: (1) they offered a sin-offering; (2) they offered vessels whose shekel weight was of ten or its multiples, and whose total shekel weight was 210 shekels, and whose separate weights and combinations type reckonedly perfect human beings, Spirit-begotten human beings and double-minded new creatures; (3) they offered gold and silver vessels; (4) these vessels belonged to the golden altar; (5) they brought a burnt-offering; (6) they brought a peace-offering; and (7) they are typed in the burnt- and peace-offerings by an



animal separate and distinct from the animals that type the Christ. 

(67) Wherever in vs. 87 and 88 the twelve-foldedness or the multiple of twelve-foldedness as including the number 6 in the sacrifices typing Christ's sacrifice (12 and 24 oxen) is given, it is not to indicate any imperfection in our Lord's sacrifice, but that His sacrifice made acceptable the twelve imperfect sacrifices of the twelve sets of crown-losers. Wherever the twelve-foldedness or its multiples as including the number 6 (12 rams and goats; 60 rams and goats) in the sacrifice of the Church is indicated in these verses, not imperfection in the Church's sacrifice is thereby typed, but the imperfect sacrifices of the twelve sets of crown-losers, as included in the Church's sacrifice, is thereby represented. The last sentence of v. 88 emphasizes the fact that the princes' offerings were brought after the altar was anointed. This is to show us that in the antitype the Little Flock brethren who served in the twelve movements that were perverted into sects by the crown-losers in every case had gotten their complete anointing before their respective movements were sectarianized by the crown-losers. 

(68) Our present study is mainly a brief summary of the preceding twelve, as that summary is typically set forth in vs. 84-88. It, therefore, serves mainly as a review of our study on The Offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes. As such we trust it will refresh our minds on the things already learned. Surely Num. 7 is a remarkable type-prophecy of a wonderful series of Gospel-Age events and is another evidence to Epiphany-enlightened saints of the depths of wisdom and foreknowledge that God has placed in His Word. And this wisdom and foreknowledge becomes all the more remarkable when we consider that these types have an Epiphany and a Millennial application. "O depth of riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! " 

(69) Between the account of the Princes' offerings 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


and the account of the cleansing and consecration of the Levites, the Lord has set forth two items that show how God revealed His will to Moses (Num. 7:89), and how He arranged for Aaron to light the candlestick (Num. 8:1-4). We are told in v. 89 that Moses went into the Most Holy whenever he desired information from God and that God spoke to him by an audible voice from between the cherubim and above the mercy seat, i.e., from the glory similitude which represented Him. This account shows that God did not speak to Moses as He did to the high priest—by means of the urim and thummim (Num. 27:21; 1 Sam. 28:6). Nor did He speak to Moses by dreams, visions, dark speeches and similitudes, as He did to the prophets; but He spoke to him face to face (Num. 12:6-8). Thus we see that God and Moses carried on audible conversations with one another (Ex. 25:22). It was during and through these conversations that God revealed His will and word to Moses for Israel. This account of v. 89, being a part of the Law, was, like every other thing connected with the Law, a type of coming good things (Heb. 10:1). Moses, among other things, was a type of Christ (Heb. 3:1-6; 11:26; 1 Cor. 10:2). As the leader of Israel, in contrast with Aaron as high priest, for the Gospel Age he types our Lord as God's Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader of spiritual Israel to antitypical Canaan. Such is his typical use in Num. 7:89; for here he appears as Israel's leader, acting as God's executive and mouthpiece, in contrast with Aaron as high priest, who is treated of in this connection as such. 

(70) Moses' being in the holy of holies, as v. 89 shows him to have been, types our Lord in His Spirit-born condition in heaven (Heb. 9:24). Moses' being in the most holy in order to inquire as to God's will or word with reference to Israel in its various relations, types our Lord's getting from the Father whatever His will or thought may be in connection with every interest



of God's people. This implies that our Lord gets all of the Truth and works for Jehovah's plan and its execution from the Father. It is still true of Him, as it was in the days of His flesh, that whatever He reveals to us or does for us is not invented by Himself, but is received by Him from the Father (John 14:10; 5:12; 7:16). He does not, like many others, boast of originating His thoughts and acts. Just as Moses always had access to the most holy and got a hearing from the Lord whenever it was necessary for His office work as God's executive, mouthpiece and leader for Israel, so our Lord always can approach the Father at every requirement of His office as God's Gospel-Age Executive, etc. As the Voice of God always answered Moses upon such occasions, so the Father always speaks to the Son in the antitype. As Moses always gave the Lord's responses to others whenever this was due to be given them, so does our Lord in the antitype do with Jehovah's responses. Sometimes Moses was given information for his exclusive use, e.g., when he asked to see God (Ex. 33:18—34:9), when he was instructed as to how to deal with Korah, Dathan and Abiram (Nom. 16:5-33), etc. In such cases he did what he was told, without explaining his actions to Israel, the Levites, or priests. So, too, our heavenly Father directs our Lord to do certain things in the carrying out of the Plan, and to let us know nothing of them. Frequently, some things have never been explained to those who observed the facts. But all things that are contained in the types, prophecies and dark sayings of the Bible, will, before the Epiphany will have ended, be made known to us. Thus we see that our Lord in His capacity as being antitypical Moses, as God's Gospel-Age Executive, etc., has gotten all of the Truth that He has revealed to us, and all of the works that he has done in the carrying out of God's Plan, from the heavenly Father. This is one great truth that we learn from Num. 7:89. 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


(71) Very meaningful is the typology as to how God spoke to Moses. It is stated that the Voice spoke from above the ark's mercy seat and from between the cherubim. Properly did our Pastor teach that the mercy seat types justice—righteousness. This is very apparent from the fact that the propitiating blood was sprinkled upon it, i.e., justice was the thing that was given propitiation, as it necessarily should have been, since it was dissatisfied with letting the sinner live and could only then let Him live, if propitiation was made for him, which the blood on the mercy seat wrought. It is also evident from the fact that our Lord in His human perfection, righteousness, is called the propitiatory (not "propitiation"), mercy seat, in Rom, 3:25. Additionally, in this connection his [human] faithfulness, righteousness, is shown to be the thing that propitiates—His perfect justice satisfied justice; and it is also called God's righteousness, because God provided it, and because it is the same in principle as God's righteousness. The two cherubim overshadowing the mercy seat are also mentioned. Our Pastor has rightly defined these as God's power and love. The symbolism of their eyes being directed to the blood-sprinkled mercy seat and of their wings outstretched, suggests this, because as soon as, and only as soon as, power and love recognize justice as satisfied with it can and do they fly to deliver the pertinent reconciled ones. It is further evident from the name, cherubim of glory, that St. Paul gives them (Heb. 9:5). In the Bible the word glory has, among other things, a very fine meaning for this line of thought; for it refers to perfection of character. When we speak of the glory of God, we are not to understand a literal light or splendor, but the spiritual splendor of His holy character to be meant (Num. 14:21; Ps. 96:3; Is. 40:5; 60:1; Rom. 3:23; 1 Cor. 11:7; Tit. 2:13). Repeatedly is the word glory used in the sense of a character like God's (Rom. 2:7, 10; 5:2; 2 Cor. 3:18; 1 Pet. 1:7; 4:14).



These considerations prove that the expression, cherubim of glory, refers to two of the leading attributes of God. The two leading attributes of God that wait on, and act after propitiation is made are, of course, power and love. When we shall shortly show how the wisdom of God is symbolized in connection with the ark, the proof conclusive that the two cherubim represent God's power and love will be given, we trust. 

(72) The fourth thing that was above the chest of the ark—the mercy seat and the two cherubim being three of the four—was the Shekinah, a non-Biblical Hebrew word meaning, that which dwells, used to designate the glory, as the representation of God, dwelling between the cherubim (Num. 12:8; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 6:2; Ps. 99:1). Some have mistakenly taken this glory to represent wisdom. But repeatedly the Bible speaks of God as dwelling between the cherubim, and by this expression evidently means this glory as the representation, "similitude, of the Lord" (Num. 12:8). Hence it does not represent wisdom. Certainly, we are not to understand that God in His body dwelt between the cherubim; for His body was in heaven. Evidently the expression, "similitude of the Lord," means a representation of the Lord. Thus the glory between the cherubim and above the mercy seat was a representation of God. This use of language is very much like that connected with our Lord's appearing to Saul of Tarsus near Damascus. Saul did not really see our Lord's glorified body, which "no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Tim. 6:15); but he did see a vision, a representation (Acts 26:19), of it in the glory that, shining out of it, blinded him before his eyes could penetrate it to the body out of which it came, and which it represented. So we are not to understand that the Shekinah was God; rather that it was a representation of God. But if the Shekinah does not represent wisdom, is not wisdom represented in

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


connection with the upper part of the ark, where justice, power and love, as we have just seen, are represented? We answer, Yes. The light which that glorious Shekinah radiated represents wisdom (Ps. 80:1; 97:11; John 1:9; comp. 1 Cor. 1:30). Thus we see that above the chest part of the ark, which represents the Christ, God is represented in the Shekinah and His four main attributes are represented in the mercy seat, the cherubim and the light which shone out of the Shekinah. It will be noticed that v. 89 shows that the Voice of God speaking to Moses came out of the Shekinah—"speaking unto him from above the mercy seat … and from between the two cherubim." The things uttered by the Voice also represent wisdom—when God's wisdom expresses itself to our Lord in speech, as true wisdom. 

(73) In this piece of symbolism there are weighty truths. Not only does it picture forth the great Jehovah, but also His character. And not only so, but the Voice coming forth from the representation of God, encompassed as it was with the symbols of His four chief attributes, suggests the thought that God's words and acts flow out of, are uttered or done in harmony with, and bring forth fruits in keeping with, His character. It also suggests that our Lord, as Jehovah's Executive, speaks and performs nothing but what is in harmony with Jehovah's character and commands. It also teaches His subordination to Jehovah in all things, more particularly as to getting information, arrangements and works for executing God's Plan. It proves God to be the Source of the Plan, its arrangements and works, as it also proves Jesus to be His Executive. It suggests that neither the Father nor the Son do or say anything contrary to God's character. Our Lord's loyalty in His office work is also implied in the symbol of Moses' always coming loyally to God for direction and performing His will learned in hearing the Voice. As in the type Moses was greatly honored in the prerogative 



of his office privileging him to enter the presence of God on every needed occasion; so in the antitype is our Lord highly honored in the pertinent antitypical prerogative. Surely, the Father has highly honored and exalted His Son in this feature of His office, as the Truth Receiver and Dispenser for God's Plan and people. These facts should give us very great confidence in our Lord as God's Executive and Mouthpiece, leading us to the heavenly Canaan. In God's and Moses' conversing together in matters of their personal interests and God's purposes for Israel, etc., what a remarkable type we have of the communion and cooperation of the Father and Son in all their personal interests and in the matter of God's Plan and people! 

(74) The foregoing remarks complete our study of Num. 7, the next longest chapter in the Bible. Certainly, the chapter, from the standpoint of its antitypical teachings, is a most remarkable one. And our long-drawn-out study of it should have the effect of enhancing God in our hearts and minds, whose wondrous wisdom foreknew the twelve leading Little Flock movements between the two Harvests and the relations of the crown-lost leaders to these movements and their pertinent teachings. The narrative in v. 89 is a fitting close to this wonderful chapter, since it shows antitypically how our Lord received from the Father the teachings with which the Little Flock leaders started the twelve movements, and how He also received from the Father the pertinent corrective, refutative and ethical teachings which He gave the crown-lost leaders for their Divinely-pleasing service toward the stewardship teachings of those twelve movements. Furthermore, when the antitype of Num. 8:1-4 is understood, it will be seen that these verses should be in the same chapter with Num. 7:89; for, from the standpoint of the priestly figure, Num. 8:1-4 shows how the Scriptural information that God gives our Lord as His Executive in the Most Holy is given to the rest of the 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


Priesthood. Thus, as seen to be logically connected, Num. 7:89—8:4 should be in the same chapter. It is for this reason that we are discussing them together in the same chapter. So far as these verses in themselves are concerned, the antitypical distinction between them is the following: Num. 7:89 shows how our Lord gets all the information He needs for His office as God's Executive, Mouthpiece and Leader for God's people; while Num. 8:1-4 shows how He gives as much of this information as is contained in the Bible to the Priesthood. Some "secret things" that are not revealed in the Bible constitute a part of the information that Jehovah gives our Lord. These He does not make known to the Priesthood. Such "secret things" are for His exclusive guidance, as the Lord assures us in Deut. 29:29. 

(75) Num. 8:1 tells us of a separate message which, according to the method of revelation outlined in Num. 7:89, God gave to Moses; and v. 2 tells us the contents of this message. It was a charge as to where Aaron was to stand when he would light the seven lamps of the candlestick. As worded in the A. V., this fact is not recognized. Indeed, the A. V. rendering of vs. 2 and 3 is almost unintelligible and meaningless. The A. R. V. renders these much better: "When thou lightest the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front of the candlestick, And Aaron did so; he lighted the lamps so as to give light in front of the candlestick." This charge was given in order that Aaron should so stand while lighting the candlestick as not to darken by his shadow the space between the first vail and the candlestick; for this is the space that was in front of the candlestick. Hence in lighting the candlestick Aaron was to stand between it and the second vail, i.e., back of the candlestick. This charge was given typically so that if any under-priest should enter the holy while Aaron was lighting the candlestick, having a clear vision of the space between the first vail



and candlestick, the first thing at which he would look after coming up from under the first vail, would be the candlestick, with no obstructing object between. It was done, also, to indicate that the lampstand got its light from the Most Holy, toward which the high priest stood. Furthermore, it was done so that the high priest should be somewhat in the shadow behind the lampstand, so far as it concerned a priest entering the Holy and standing before the lampstand. It will thus be seen that, not only did the high priest supply all the oil to the lampstand and exclusively trim its wicks and keep the lampstand polished (Lev. 24:2-4), but, also, he was the only one to light it. All these things are typical. 

(76) We will now consider the antitype. We have indicated the main feature of the antitype by the expression used above in this chapter reading as follows: The Gospel-Age Aaron as Truth Giver. Some explanations will make this clear. Our Lord, Himself, explains that the candlestick types the whole Church, seven of them being used to represent the whole Church in its seven epochs (Rev. 1:20). The under-priests also represent the Church (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). These two facts puzzle not a few brethren who think that the above two antitypes contradict each other. The following will reconcile the seeming contradiction: The lampstand, giving light to the priest in the holy, types the Church in its capacity of causing the light to enlighten—teaching the Truth to—the brethren; while the priest, seeing the light of the lampstand, types the brethren getting enlightenment (getting the Truth) from their Truth-teaching brethren. Thus whenever we teach any of our brethren a Biblical truth, we are in that activity represented in the light-dispensing lampstand; and whenever we are enlightened on any Biblical truth by our brethren, we are in such activity represented in the priest as he saw the light of the lampstand. The wicks in the lampstand represent the humanity of the brethren in their capacity of enlightening 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


their brethren. The high priest's trimming the wicks represents our Lord ridding us, in our capacity of enlightening one another, from sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, by teaching and disciplining us. As the trimmed wicks gave a brighter and steadier light, so we teach the Truth more clearly and strongly, the more effectively such teaching and disciplining are received by us from our High Priest. This results in our better enlightening one another. This was the first work in the high priest's ordering the lampstand. 

(77) The work of filling the candlestick with oil was the second activity that belonged to the ordering of the lampstand, with which duty the high priest alone was charged. As already seen in some detail, oil in this connection represents the spirit of understanding the Truth (Matt. 25:3, 4, 8-10). This definition implies two things: (1) the Truth and (2) its proper understanding. Both of these our High Priest gives us in our capacity of teaching and understanding the Truth (1 Cor. 1:30). The carbon parts of the oil would represent the Truth and the parts of the oil containing these carbon parts would represent the spirit of understanding which embraces the Truth. The burning of the carbon parts of the oil caused the light to radiate in the holy. This represents that the service of the Truth is that which causes the Truth to shine forth and give enlightenment. Thus our Lord poured this antitypical oil—the Truth and its understanding—into our hearts and minds; and we, by teaching one another the Truth, hold up to them the light which gives them insight into spiritual things. Under a somewhat different use of this general figure of the lampstand, some differing details are brought out in Zech. 4:2, 3, 10-13, not so symbolized in Num. 8:1-4. In both passages the lampstand represents the Church. In Num. 8 our Lord is represented by Aaron, while in Zech. 4 He is represented by the bowl into which the oil flowed and by the two pipes connecting the bowl with the olive 



trees, the bowl representing Him as the depositary of the Truth and its understanding for the Church and the two pipes representing Him in His mental powers, through which the Truth is drawn into His mind from the Old and New Testaments, the antitypes of the two olive trees (Rev. 11:3-12). In both passages the seven branches of the lampstand represent the seven stages of the one Church; and the seven pipes represent the Lord's special mouthpieces to the Church, i.e., the seven angels of the seven churches (Rev. 1:20). These seven messengers are called (Zech. 4:10) the Lord's eyes, because the Lord sees for the Church through them. The olive tree to the right of the lampstand represents the New Testament and the one to the left represents the Old Testament. The Zechariah passage shows that our Lord is the depositary of the Church's Truth and its understanding, drawn to Him (the bowl) through His mental powers (the two pipes) from the Old and New Testaments (the two olive trees) and given by Him to the Church through seven composite messengers (seven pipes), one of such for each of the seven stages of the Church. Thus the set of symbols connected with Aaron's ordering the lampstand, so far as the oil is concerned, shows that, under God, our Lord is the depositary and dispenser of the Truth to the Church. 

(78) A third thing associated with the ordering of the lampstand was to keep it well polished. This, too, the high priest must have done, as it is implied in such lampstand ordering, which he was commissioned to do. This would represent our Lord by God's Spirit, Word and providences, developing, strengthening, balancing and perfecting the brethren in their capacity of shining the Truth upon one another, and while they are engaged in such activity. Thus as they are engaged in helping one another with understanding the Truth, He so adapts His teachings, Spirit and providences to them as to enable those faithful in such teaching of 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


their brethren to develop in every good word and work and to become strengthened, balanced and perfected therein (1 Cor. 1:30; Heb. 13:20, 21). 

(79) Another exclusive function of the high priest was to light the lampstand. This is apparent from Lev. 24:2-4 and Num. 8:1-4. This brings us to a special consideration of the antitypes of Num. 8:1-4. Aaron's lighting the lampstand types our Lord, after He has given us the necessary enlightenment thereto, putting us into circumstances wherein we have opportunities to enlighten our brethren and arousing us by His Spirit, Word and providences to give them such enlightenment. Nobody but the high priest having the right to light the lampstand types the fact that nobody but our Lord is to put himself or others into circumstances wherein they have opportunities to enlighten the brethren, and to arouse them to such activity. This shows the evil of attempting "to set" oneself as a (supposed) enlightener of the brethren and the evil of any one, apart from the Lord's clearly manifested will, attempting "to set" and support another as a (supposed) enlightener of the brethren. It also implies the evil of a private attempt to become or help others to become a (supposed) enlightener of the brethren, apart from the Lord's manifest will, indicating such an activity. The most crying evils of error now so widespread among the Lord's people are in part due to our High Priest's prerogative in this particular having been ignored. The light being made to shine before the lampstand—between it and the first vail—types the facts that all Divinely-approved enlightenment of the brethren comes from the Church and that it is given to those only who humbly, meekly, desirously, honestly and holily dispose themselves to the Church in its capacity of being the Divinely-constituted enlightener of the brethren under Christ. Such an attitude is typed by the priest standing before the lampstand. His first of all seeing the light on coming up from under the 



first vail types the fact that the first privilege of the newly-begotten New Creature is to see the Truth. His seeing that it comes from the lampstand types the fact that he recognizes that he gets the Truth from his brethren. 

(80) The high priest's not lighting the lamps while standing in front of them types the fact that our Lord's personal visible ministry, without human instrumentality, is not given us in our enlightenment. The shadow that the high priest would have made for a priest coming up to the lampstand, had he stood before it when he lit it, types the fact that for our Lord to teach us visibly, without human instrumentality, would have the effect of bewildering instead of enlightening us. The high priest's standing behind the lampstand when, among other things, in ordering it he lit it, types our Lord's hiding Himself behind His mouthpieces while teaching us, giving us the light, not directly, but through others. His being a spirit being while the pertinent light is being given is typed by the semi-shadow in which the high priest stood, relatively to our approaching priest, while engaged in any part of the ordering of the lampstand. Furthermore, this position was taken by the high priest to type the fact that lighting the lamps came from the direction of the Most Holy—heaven, and thus pointed to God as the final Source of the light which enlightens the Priests. Thus the Gospel-Age Aaron as Truth Giver is set before us from many standpoints in this type. 

(81) There is another high-priestly type that represents our High Priest as God's Truth Dispenser to the Church. We refer to the high priest's activity in getting from God responses to Israel's inquiries by the Urim and Thummim. We have in The Present Truth explained that the Urim (lights) represent the Scriptural teachings and that the Thummim (perfections) represent the four great attributes of God: power, wisdom, justice and love. Since we gave that 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


explanation, the Lord has given us a little further enlightenment on both the type and the antitype. Hitherto it has been an unanswered question as to what were the typical Urim and Thummim. The following are all the passages in which this expression, Urim and Thummim, occurs: Ex. 28:30; Lev. 8:8; Num. 27:21; Deut. 33:8; 1 Sam. 28:6; Ezra 2:63; Neh. 7:65. It will be noticed that the breastplate is called such before the 12 precious stones were placed in it, yes, even before the settings for the stones were made in it (Ex. 28:15-17). It was also called such before the Urim and Thummim were given to it (Ex. 28:30). They are spoken of as being upon Aaron's heart (Ex. 28:30), just as the names of the tribes, engraved on the precious stones, and these stones themselves were said to be upon his heart (Ex. 28:29). Furthermore, as our study of the offerings of the Gospel-Age princes suggests, the twelve stewardship doctrines had connected with them ethical teachings which correspond to the twelve stones on which the names, typical of teachings and characteristics, of the twelve tribes were inscribed (Ex. 28:21). The proper translation of the pertinent parts of Ex. 28:30 and Lev. 8:8 is as follows: "Thou shalt give to the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim [give it the office of acting as such]" and "He gave the breastplate the Urim and the Thummim [gave it the office of acting as such]." These facts, coupled with the antitypical meaning of Urim (teachings) and Thummim (attributes) seem to identify the Urim and the Thummim with these stones as to their lights (Urim) and as to themselves in their beauties (perfections—Thummim). Hence we are inclined to think that the Urim were the lights that these precious stones radiated when in the light of the most holy and that the Thummim were the precious stones in their beauties brought out perfectly by that same light. Perhaps the answers yes were given by the light shining in one direction, and the answers no by the light shining



in another direction—up or to the right for yes, down or to the left for no; but on this the Bible is silent. 

(82) While the exact nature of these items is not demonstrable, we do know it to be a fact that our High Priest in answering our queries by the antitypical Urim and Thummim does give His answers by and according to the Bible's teachings and its Divinely prescribed chief graces. Hence the antitype of the Urim and Thummim is clear. The former are the Bible doctrines and the latter are the chief graces. These graces are twelve in number and are the threefold elaboration of the four great attributes of God, which are typed as such by the four right angles of the breastplate and the four-foldedness of the rows in which the typical stones were arranged (Ex. 28:17). The typical high priest, therefore, by the harmoniousness of the typical lights radiated from the twelve precious stones and the twelve stones in the breastplate in their beauties was given to understand God's answers to his queries for Israel. This types our Lord getting from God the answers to the queries of spiritual Israel from the harmonious blending of the Bible doctrines and the twelve main graces that the Bible inculcates. Here we have another type of how our Aaron is the Dispenser of God's Truth to us. We should here add that, as we saw in the case of the seven pipes, so with the answers by the antitypical Urim and Thummim, our Lord usually has given His answers through those symbolized by the seven stars. How these facts should exalt Him in our appreciation! How these facts should cure us of the pride that seeks the glory of man as the supposed originators ("original thinkers") of the Truth. Our highest privilege in this connection is to be parts of the lampstand that shines with a borrowed light that Another—our great High Priest—lit. Thus the praise is God's, not ours. 

(83) Num. 8:4 gives a brief description of how the candlestick was built. Its gold represents the

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


divinity of the Church as New Creatures and light bearers to the brethren. Its being of beaten work represents the molding of heart and mind into beautiful and useful qualities and attainments in the light-bearers by the Spirit, Word and providences of God, more particularly by the last in their tribulatory aspects. The expression, "unto the base thereof and unto the flowers thereof," as our Pastor explained, types that the Church as light-bearer to the brethren is throughout beautiful in thought and character and fruitful in good works. This is the way God designed the Church to be made ("according unto the pattern which Jehovah had shown Moses"), since all of us who are of Her "are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained [arranged] that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10). With this reflection we may well close our study of the Gospel-Age Moses and Aaron as Truth Receiver and Giver. Certainly its lessons have been deep, clear, refreshing and upbuilding. Certainly they are calculated to increase our love and reverence for God and Christ, and our appreciation of the great privileges that they give us as Truth receivers and dispensers, and that because God is the Source and Jesus is the Agent of these privileges, as this typical study proves. "Praise God from whom all blessings flow … and always in His Son rejoice!" 


(1) What was Dan's position in relation to the tabernacle? What was an ancestral peculiarity in the three tribes to the north of the tabernacle? What was it as respects Dan and Naphtali? What figure was presumably on the standard of the camp of Dan? Why? What proves that Dan types the Baptists? What does the word Dan mean? Why was it given—type and antitype? How, compared with other denominations, do the Baptists stand related to the Little Flock? How is this typed? 

(2) Who was the prince of Dan? What does his name mean? How does this apply antitypically? What conspired to make antitypical Ahiezer one of brotherly helpfulness? 



What was the name of Ahiezer's father? What did this name mean? How did it apply antitypically to the crown-lost leaders of the Baptist Church? 

(3) Among what people did the pertinent Little Flock movement originate and become sectarianized? Who was its main crown-lost leader? How long did it remain among that people? Who was its first English-speaking leader? Into how many and what parties did its English branch divide? Who were their respective leaders, and who was the reorganizer of one of them? Who was its American organizer? Who was a more recent crown-lost leader of British Baptists? 

(4) What two doctrines are not the stewardship doctrines of the Baptist Church? Why are they sometimes so regarded? What feature did the stewardship doctrine have, superior to any in these two doctrines? What was its stewardship doctrine? What do they not think that repentance and faith do? What did they insist was necessary to membership among God's peoples? Against what two doctrines did they protest as related to their stewardship doctrine? In how far were they right? Why? What did their stewardship doctrine really mean? What characteristic did this doctrine have? What does faith-justification really make one? What mistake do Baptists make on it? What was the reason for this mistake? When only could the entire subject be properly seen and fully explained? 

(5) What are not the stewardship doctrine of the Baptists? What do they designate as their central—stewardship—doctrine? What definition of conversion did they reject as incomplete? What do they regard as a complete definition? What is in reality its complete definition? What two graces are involved in the Baptist view of conversion? Which is chiefly so? How is this related to the North of the antitypical Tabernacle? Why are they the first denomination in that position? Why are the Presbyterian, Greek Catholic and Lutheran Churches the chief denominations on their respective sides of the antitypical Tabernacle? 

(6) Why did the stewardship doctrine of the Baptist Church lead to the emphasis on adult baptism and immersion? Who only should undergo symbolic baptism? 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


What effect does this have on infant baptism? From what two times was infant baptism denied? What was not at first insisted upon as the exclusive symbol? When and where did this insistence begin? How long after the Baptist sect was organized was this? What two great contributions has the Baptist Church made to Christendom? How so? Who brought the first of these to America? Who started the second? When? What prophecy and sign did this fulfill? What other consideration led to the advocacy of the first of these contributions? 

(7) What phenomenon do we find in the Lord's dealings as to the use of servants in starting the twelve Little Flock movements which were later perverted into sects? What are the names of these twelve pairs of Little Flock servants? How did the assisting brothers compare with the twelve leaders? 

(8) Who was the Little Flock leader of the movement that was perverted into the Baptist Church? What were his birth and death places and dates? What was he as a scholar, cleric and professor? Where did he function as a cleric? When did he become a Protestant? What did he immediately begin to preach? What city did he shortly visit and what reformer did he temporarily convert to his view? When and why did the latter recede from this position? What did he then become? What were Hubmaier's subsequent activities at Zurich and Waldshut? What did the Austrian government do as to his Waldshut activities? What two things did he then do? 

(9) What were his attitude and work as to the German peasants' grievances and their violence? What resulted to them through their disregard of his advice? What did he receive at Easter, 1525, and shortly thereafter administer to others? How did this affect his relations with Zwingli? What did they do to one another? What event happened at Waldshut in December, 1525? What was its effect on Hubmaier? Whither did he flee? What did he there do? Under what influences? What did he do on being freed? What part did Zwingli have in this affair? 

(10) Whither did Hubmaier go in July, 1526? What did he find here and accomplish? What did Moravia and Nikolsburg become to his disciples? Why did they go there? Of what were their persecutors antitypical? What



special work did Hubmaier here do? What was the character of his writings and of himself as a reformer? How was he in comparison and contrast with Luther, Zwingli and Cranmer? What happened to him and his wife in July, 1527, and March, 1528? 

(11) What is the character of the persecution that he and his brethren experienced? With what evils, and why, were they blamed? What kind of rulers persecuted them? What are the features of their persecution in Switzerland? Germany? How did they for the most part suffer? How many were martyred in various dependencies of Austria and in Austria itself? What kind of brethren were undoubtedly among these martyrs? What effect did these persecutions have? 

(12) What Muenster evils brought the Anabaptists into great disrepute? Where did some of them find a refuge? Who here became their leader? What did he do with them? When did he begin this? What did he do in their defense? What followed thereupon? Describe his subsequent activities. Where else were the Baptists sectarianized? What, as to these, did Rachel's cries for vindication type in this history? 

(13) What are not the Baptists' stewardship doctrine? What is it? What is its characteristic? Why? How did they later view this doctrine in relation to immersion? Why did they not see the full Truth on these matters? How do they stand relatively to the other denominations to the Truth on this matter? What advantage did this give their crown-lost leaders? 

(14) What did Ahiezer offer? What did his charger represent? From what standpoint? What, more than in their doctrine on it, does conversion imply? What limited the compass of his charger, bowl and spoon? What did his charger correct? How extensive were his corrections? How did they compare as to extension with those of antitypical Abidan's corrections? What does this consideration prompt us to omit in this article? To what will we limit our discussion of antitypical Ahiezer's charger? 

(15) What is meant by his offering his charger? What clerical evils flowing out of the doctrine of the Divine right of the clergy did he correct? What kingcraft evils flowing out of the doctrine of the Divine right of kings

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


did he correct? What evils of officials and aristocrats, flowing out of the doctrine of Divine right of the nobility and capital, did he correct? What was the doctrinal source of these evils? How did these evils affect certain fanatical and unconsecrated hangers-on among the early Anabaptists? 

(16) What other classes of evils did he correct? From what standpoint? How did he do this as to pride? Love of human approval? Ease? Life? Contentiousness? Vindictiveness? Hypocrisy? Covetousness? Luxury? The social relations? 

(17) What is meant by his offering his bowl? From what two standpoints did he, as well as all other Gospel-Age princes, refute error? Who are meant by the solifidians? Why did antitypical Ahiezer oppose them? What argument did he use against them? With what Scriptures did he make his refutations? What was cogent and what was not cogent in his stand on justification by faith alone? Who paralleled him in a related matter? 

(18) How did he refute the argument that all members of state churches were thereby Christians? The argument that infant baptism made one a subject of the Abrahamic Covenant? How did he use against the arguments of the sprinklers and effusionists his viewpoint as to conversion being a death, burial and resurrection, symbolized by immersion? How did he refute the impropriety of using physical force in producing religious belief or recantation? How did he refute the claim that baptism cleansed from original sin and worked faith in infants? How did he refute the entire sacramentarian system of the four sacramentarian denominations? What were the main Scriptures therein used? What should be our judgment as to the outcome of his refutational activity? 

(19) What is meant by his offering his spoon? What is implied logically in his stewardship doctrine? How wide was the sphere of his instructions in righteousness? In what ways did he do this? What are the graces to which he exhorted? How are these related to the various forms of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness? How did he necessarily encourage in a negative way to these graces? How did he positively encourage thereto? What



effect did this have, not to be expected from his stand on solifidianism? 

(20) From what other standpoint did he also offer his spoon? How was this effected as to tolerance? Religious freedom? The evangelistic spirit? What celebrated author and book show this? How did this encourage foreign missionary work? What must our judgment be as to antitypical Ahiezer's spoon? 

(21) The correctness of what two things is shown by the above study? What is evidenced by the persecution of the Baptists and Unitario-Universalists by the other pertinent eight denominations? What does this study further confirm? To what should this move us? 

(22) What were Asher's relations? What two meanings has the word Asher? How came Leah to give him this name? What does he type? What characteristics did the antitypical mother have and stress? Comparatively how did they stress joy and good fortune? To what degree did they stress these? How did the typical and the antitypical tribe come to its name? 

(23) What kind of experiences of certain other sects did they not have? What degree of discomfort only did they have to experience? Why? What did this mean for the leaders? What kind of discomforts came to them? Unlike certain others, what did they wholly lack? Give an illustration showing the opposition of the rabble and its outcome. 

(24) Who was the prince of Asher? What does Pagiel mean? Why, antitypically, was the name given? What kind of experiences of antitypical Pagiel are narrated widely among Methodists? What would the world call these experiences? What did the pious Methodists call them? Into what extremes, as to God's interventions, did such often go? From whom did they learn these methods? What does the name Ocran mean? How does this meaning apply in antitype? 

(25) What spirit permeates the Methodist Church? In what has this resulted? What does this imply for its prince? How long did Wesley live and work after beginning his movement? What effect did this have on the activity of Methodism's prince? In what year and by what act did sectarianism in Wesley's movement get an 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


impetus? Describe that act. How long did Wesley lead his movement? Who are the seven main members of antitypical Pagiel? What were some of the activities of the first three of these? What was the character of the Wesleyan movement before 1784? What followed with it after that year? Despite what circumstance? When did it become a sect? What did Wesley's control of it effect as compared with other Little Flock movements? What do Wesley's concessions imply? 

(26) Why is not the stewardship doctrine of the Methodist Church not recognized by many students of it? What similar thing prevails as to Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Baptists? What two doctrines are mistakenly advanced as Methodism's special teaching? Why so? What will enable us to see the mistake of these claims? With what must their stewardship doctrine be connected? How, from this, can we point it out? Why did Wesley stress "conversion" and the feeling of peace and joy? 

(27) What is Methodism's stewardship doctrine? How do Methodists distinguish the two activities connected with their three most stressed doctrines? As what did Wesley stress sanctification? What did he usually call it? How was his view misrepresented? In what way was he partly to blame for this misrepresentation? In what publication did he give the most elaborate account of his stewardship doctrine? How did he define Christian Perfection, negatively and positively? What effect did he claim for it? What imperfection in his presentation, in principle present in the pertinent explanations of other similar brethren, do we find in his explanation of his stewardship doctrine? Why was this so? When was the matter properly explained? Why? What was the character of his central thought? 

(28) What will enable us to account for his evangelistic work? What made him active toward inconsistent Church members? What resulted therefrom? Why did he and his associates stress teachings related to faith justification? What is the relation of the two doctrines connected with faith justification to the stewardship doctrine? What did this effect in their preaching? 

(29) What can be said as to the suitability of these doctrines to the times? What was the 18th century as to



religion? What were its chief international activities? To what revolutions and wars did they lead? What were the leading characteristics of its aristocrats? Of its clergy in England? Of its middle class? What illustrates this? Of the lower class? How did the condition of these classes affect Wesley and his co-laborers? What was the result of these conditions on Wesley and his co-laborers? What were the results of these conditions as to their stewardship doctrine? 

(30) Who was the brother who started the Little Flock movement perverted into the Methodist Church? When and where was he born? When and where did he die? Describe his parents. What did they exemplify? Who were their most distinguished sons? Wherein did they excel? What were the chief events of John Wesley's boyhood? Youth? Young manhood? What were the activities of The Holy Club? Who was their leader? What nickname did they receive? Why? What were Wesley's activities from 1729 to 1738? 

(31) When, where and what were the circumstances of John Wesley's "conversion"? How does he describe it? What is the historian Lecky's estimate of this event? Who were the human instruments of it? Instead of its being his "conversion," what really was this experience? What did it begin? 

(32) What henceforth became his message? Where did he first preach it? What result did it have with the clergy? What did he begin on April 2, 1739? Why did he do this? What were his largest audiences? How far did his voice clearly carry? Describe one of his most historic open-air series of services. What were not, and what were his main qualities as a speaker? How often did he preach? How did he travel and how far yearly? What did he do while riding? Describe his typical town services. How was he in his earlier years as an open-air preacher treated by the rabble? 

(33) Describe his first experience with the Walsal mob. His second experience. His experience at Plymouth. 

(34) Describe his experiences with mobs at Penfield and Whitechapel. Describe the two defenses of him at Bawden. Within what period were these experiences?

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


How in number are these related to other similar experiences? What change later set in? 

(35) How was his preaching as related to other work? What was his work as a pastor? As a correspondent? As an author? What are his most noted works? On what subjects even did he write? What was his work as an editor? As a publisher? As an educator? As a builder? As a trainer of preachers? As an organizer and overseer of churches? As a conference leader? As an adviser? As a philanthropist? How, among other ways, did he accomplish so much? How numerous were his followers and adherents at his death? Wherein was he at his height of genius? With whom as such has he been favorably compared? 

(36) Describe his three chief associates and his colaborers. What did their view of sanctification effect in themselves? In others? What other doctrine constructively and refutatively did their stewardship truth lead them to stress? What are the three parts of that doctrine? With whom did this make controversy? With what result to the few and the many? What was the opinion of King George III on the then four great leaders' efficiency? What does this judgment bespeak? 

(37) Describe Wesley's age, his comparative achievements, his physical condition and married life. Why was his married life unhappy? What were some of its main unhappy experiences? What did it work in him? How did it end? How did his step-children stand toward his and his wife's difficulties? How did he take the news of her death? What premarital promise did she make, and then break after their marriage? What did she attempt to do? What did her failure therein effect in her? 

(38) What made up for Wesley's marital woes? What was his appearance in age? What qualities contributed to his worthy appearance? How was he in his weakness supported while preaching once in his 87th year? How did this affect his hearers? How did children feel and act toward him? Until when did he continue to preach? When and to whom and why did he write his last letter? Describe his death-bed experience. 

(39) What should we expect of antitypical Pagiel? Why? Of what does antitypical Pagiel's charger consist?



Along what three lines did it especially move? Why is correction of sin included in his charger? What did such correction effect in the early Methodists? What worldly amusements came under his corrections? What did he do when his corrections were disregarded? What second group of offenses did he correct? What third group of offenses did he correct? What fourth group? What fifth group? What sixth group? Why did he inveigh against these six forms of worldliness? 

(40) Toward what other line of evil against his stewardship truth did antitypical Pagiel inveigh? What was the first expression of this evil to meet his rebukes? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? What other line of evils did he also rebuke? Why are not details thereon here given? What did antitypical Pagiel especially effect by his corrections?' 

(41) What was antitypical Pagiel's bowl? Wherein was he weak in connection with his stewardship truth? Why so? Wherein was he strong? What ten lines of distinction did he present to refute the fusing of justification and sanctification? What did they enable him to do? In what seven ways did he refute the teaching that disinterested love is not the heart of sanctification? 

(42) What was antitypical Pagiel's spoon? How did it compare with other antitypical spoons? To whom did he exhort that love be given? What things did he show regarding it? Through what things did he encourage to its practice? For what did he commend it to his hearers? In doing these things what did he accomplish? How should his spoon affect us? 

(43) Who was Naphtali? What does the name mean?, Why was it given? Whom does Naphtali represent? What name had better be given these? Why? How thus would the Universalists be regarded? What have Unitarians succeeded in doing with ministers and laymen of other churches? Why does the name Naphtali fit as a typical name for them? Why are they not a child of antitypical Rachel? Why are they represented as a child of antitypical Bilhah? To what extent are they set at naught by the so-called orthodox? 

(44) Who was Naphtali's prince? From what words was this name compounded? What do they mean? What 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


does the word Ahira mean? How does this name typically designate the crown-lost leaders of the Unitarians? What three teachings do they deny? How does this affect the opinion and attitude of their opponents toward them? How do antitypical Rachel's children view them? What true teachings have some Unitarian leaders denied? What is their view of the atonement, negatively and positively? How does the Truth treat the two views of atonement that the Unitarians and the "orthodox" oppose to one another? What does this situation reveal of the average man? What does the word Enan mean? What does its meaning typify in the Unitarian leaders? 

(45) Who first sectarianized a Little Flock movement into Unitarianism? How were Laelius and Faustus Socinus related in flesh and in spirit? Whose co-laborer was Laelius Socinus? What like thing did the two Socini do? To what two countries did Faustus go? What did he do in the second of these two countries? Describe the history of Polish Unitarianism. Hungarian Unitarianism. Its chief leader. English Unitarianism. Who was the chief English Unitarian? Who were the chief three American Unitarians? Briefly describe each of these. 

(46) What does the name Naphtali imply of these leaders? What were the character and effects of Socinus' writings? What is the character of Norton's Statement of Reason? Abbott's exegesis of pertinent Greek Scriptures? What was their manner in controversy? How did they in this contrast with their usual opponents? What effect had this? How did Archbishop Tillotson characterize the spirit of their debating? The manner of their debating? The words of their debating? How does he compare them with other controversialists? What did they have and lack, according to the archbishop? 

(47) What kinship of spirit have the majority of the Unitarian leaders had? What do many of them deny as to our Lord's pre-existence? As to the virgin birth? As to the ransom? As to Scriptural inspiration? How do they regard the Scriptures? To what do they subordinate the Scriptures? What is their attitude on total depravity? To what extreme has this led them? What do these stands make of them now? What has their stressing God's love led them to teach? What effects has this wrought in



them? What has hindered their taking a more prominent part in many general humanitarian movements? 

(48) How can the stewardship doctrine of the Unitarians be located? To what is it related? In what two ways may it be stated? Which is the preferable of these? Why? What do they deny of Jesus? Of the Holy Spirit? What, according to them, is God, and His supreme attribute? What does their stressing this attribute prove of their place about the antitypical Tabernacle? What teaching have some of them held through a one-sided emphasis on this quality? How do they reason from this attribute as to eternal torment? What has emphasis on this attribute of God moved them to do with the doctrine of the soul's immortality? What do they teach as to a future probation and its outcome for the impenitent? 

(49) Against what three errors is this stewardship doctrine, a protest? When did these errors arise? Who introduced the doctrines of the soul's immortality and eternal torment among Christians? How did he come to do this? To what other error did he give a faint start? How? What evils and good did his apologies effect? Why should Unitarians fight these three errors? Why are we right in calling these three errors the fundamental errors of the nominal church? What is the fundamental doctrine of the Truth? 

(50) Who begat antitypical Naphtali? When and where was he born? When and where did he die? What were the chief facts in his life until 1530? What were his experiences during 1530? What was the name and date of his first publication? What did it begin? What was his age at its publication? What is a proper estimate of this book? How were he and it regarded by Melanchthon and by Quintana? What did he do with it in 1532? What did writing against the trinity then involve? In consequence, what did Servetus have to do? 

(51) Where did he turn up in 1535? Under what name? How long did he continue with this name? What did he do at Lyons? What did he find there? What did this association lead him to do? Where did he go to study medicine? Whom did he meet there? Why was Calvin there? What did Calvin seek to do with Servetus? What was arranged between them? Why did Servetus fail to 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


appear? Into what relation did he enter with his chief teacher? What was the latter's estimate of him? What were his activities until 1538? Where did he then go? Why? What did he do at Avignon and at Charlieu? What did he do in Sept., 1540? 

(52) Who was one of his students? To what did this lead in 1541? How long did he continue there as such? What else did he there do? What was he to outward appearance? What did he do privately? What was his view and practice as to baptism? What things did he do with Calvin? What did Calvin do as to his suggestion of a visit to Geneva? How did Calvin reply to him and express himself to others on Servetus? What was given to Servetus as to Calvin's attitude? Of what did he complain? What happened with his efforts to secure publishers for his book, The Restoration Of True Christianity? Why was this? Where did he finally get a printer? How was it printed and sent away? What mistake did Servetus make? What did Calvin do about this? What did the inquisitor-general then do? What did Servetus then do? Why? Where and how did he spend the next four months? 

(53) When did Servetus enter Geneva? With what purpose? How was it frustrated? What then occurred? With what was he charged? What three great injustices did he suffer in being tried? Who first appeared as his prosecutor? Who then did this? How long did the trial last? Of what did it largely consist? Wherein was Servetus, and wherein was Calvin victorious in the debate? What must we deplore in Calvin? What relative number of the judges sided with Servetus? Who also pronounced Servetus a heretic? What sentence did they expect? What was Calvin's plan? What sentence was pronounced? What three things should have prevented the entire action, beginning with Servetus' arrest? What change in the sentence did Calvin half-heartedly seek to secure? 

(54) What is the date of Servetus' burning? Why was Farel introduced into the final scenes? With what effect on Servetus and on himself? What did the judges do on Oct. 27th? Where was Servetus then taken? What was done on arrival at the place of execution? What kind of 



fagots were used? How were they placed? In what did this result? What mockery was indulged in? How was his burning begun? What did its first pains produce? How did he thereafter suffer? What were his last words? What did they imply? 

(55) Of what was Servetus' encounter with Calvin and his churches the antitype? What two evils were manifested in the antitype? What two motives animated Calvin? What do they prove in him personally and as a representative of his church? What injury to Calvin's character is revealed by the deference shown him? What did Servetus not show him? Why did the Lord not desire it? What palliates Calvin's conduct? What must be held against him? How did his theory and practice on persecution agree? How did his inconsistency affect his character and reputation? How should we feel on this? 

(56) From what and to what should we proceed? What was antitypical Ahira's charger? What do all Trinitarians do? What did his charger do to this? What did he designate this? What practice of trinitarianism did he correct? What did he do with Mariolatry? Why? What insult to the Father did he correct? Who purposed this insult? What hocus-pocus did he correct in trinitarianism? What other evil does teaching trinitarianism involve? What did he do with this? What third evil does teaching trinitarianism involve? What did he do with this? For teaching what two other errors did he correct them? With what did he charge them for such teachings? Worse than whom did they represent God thereby? What is a summary of antitypical Ahira's charger on trinitarianism? 

(57) What else did antitypical Ahira correct? What is God's disinterested love? In what is this love involved? What kind of conduct, accordingly, does his charger correct? What three lines of conduct did he correct? With whom in common did he correct in these three respects? What did he thereby show? Why do we not here study the details of these three forms of corrections? What is necessary to point out here? 

(58) What else did antitypical Ahira offer? What did he show the doctrine of the trinity and of the God-man to be? What did he further show of them, negatively and positively? What did he disprove of Jesus? How do the 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


passages that the "orthodox" use to prove Jesus' deity disprove it? How do Jesus' statements disprove it? How does the tenor of the Bible disprove it? How does its source disprove it? How is the argument for His deity based on prayer offered to Him disproved? How is the argument based on His pre-existence disproved? How is the argument based on His powers, authority, attributes and works disproved? What did antitypical Ahira do in answer to arguments that the "orthodox" base on various Scripture passages as allegedly proving the trinity? In what four ways did he meet these arguments? What will not be necessary to set forth here? 

(59) What else did antitypical Ahira offer? What is it? To what did his stewardship doctrine naturally lend itself? Why? What did it enable him to do? Of what did God's love to saint and sinner become? What will this also explain? Why are details not here given? 

(60) How many sections does Num. 7 contain? How may the offerings of the princes be grouped? What verses are to be studied as the final section on the princes? What does Num. 7:84-88 give? Of what would a summary of them consist? What is a preferable rendering of v. 84? What is the altar of v. 84? What is its antitype? What is the antitype of its anointing? What is typed by the anointing of the altar before the princes offered? What illustration shows this? How did this matter stand with the Little Flock members in the other eleven movements? 

(61) How will the summary of the twelve offerings be given in this study? What is the summary as to the first offering? The second? The third? The fourth? The fifth? The sixth? The seventh? The eighth? The ninth? The tenth? The eleventh? The twelfth? 

(62) What special points did the preceding paragraph bring to our mind? Relatively how many Little Flock members partook in each movement? Relatively how many crown-losers partook in each sectarianizing work? Who were the antitypical altar? What was the condition on which they received their anointing? What do the twelve sets of dedication gifts type in their three kinds? What did they constitute in their three cases? 

(63) Of what materials were the chargers, bowls and



spoons of all the princes made? What do silver and gold symbolize? What does this imply as to the antitypical chargers, bowls and spoons? What does this imply as to the antitypical princes' chargers, bowls and spoons? What was the weight of each charger, bowl and spoon? What is the total of the weight of each charger, bowl and spoon? What thoughts are typed by the weight of each vessel and the three vessels? Why? What is typed by the fact that their total weight is a multiple of both seven and ten? What is typed by the weight of each vessel? What is the antitype of the contrast between the silver and the gold vessels? 

(64) What does v. 85 give as to weights? What are they? What is the total of its weights? What is typed by their total? What do they indicate in all the crown-losers? How is this symbolized? How does this contrast with the Little Flock's sacrifice? How is this indicated? What does the expression, shekel of the sanctuary, imply? 

(65) What new thought is given in v. 86? What is typed in the ten shekels' weight? What are two things typed by the 120 shekels' weight? How so? What was the weight of all the vessels? What does this seem to suggest? What seems to be implied by this? In view of this, how should an answer in P '26, 173, be understood, and how not understood? How in this connection is the unity of the crown-retainers set forth? How the disunity of the crown-losers? 

(66) What do verses 15-17 show? In how many forms were the animal sacrifices brought? What do the burnt-offerings type? The sin-offerings? The peace-offerings? What do the bullock, the ram and the lamb type in the burnt-offering? The kid of the goats in the sin-offering? The oxen, the rams, the he goats and the lambs in the peace-offering? What is typed by the lamb in the burnt-offering and in the peace-offering being one year old? What seven things prove that the crown-lost leaders of the twelve denominations are typed by the twelve princes? How do they prove this? 

(67) What is not, and what is typed by the twelve-foldedness or the multiple of twelve-foldedness as including the number 6 in the types of Christ's sacrifice in this connection? What is not, and what is typed by the twelve-foldedness 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


or multiples of twelve-foldedness as including the number 6 in the types of the Church and its sacrifice in this connection? What is emphasized in the last sentence of v. 88? What does this type? 

(68) What is the main character of our present study? What does it mainly serve? What should it effect in its student? How should we regard Num. 7? Of what is it another evidence? What gives this evidence added emphasis? To what should it lead us? 

(69) What records are placed between the accounts of the princes' offerings and the Levites' consecration? Of what does Num. 7:89 treat? Wherein did God's manner of giving revelations to Moses differ from that of those given to the high priests and prophets? What did this imply that God and Moses did to one another? What occurred in their conversations? What character has Num. 7:89? Among other things, in what way did Moses type Christ? How did he type Him in Num. 7:89? 

(70) What does Moses in the most holy type? What does his seeking information there type? What is our Lord's relation to His teachings and works? What is typed by Moses' having access to the most holy for every need in his office? What is typed by God's always answering Moses? What is typed by Moses' always giving the needed responses as due? What kind of other information did Moses sometimes get? What did this type? What kind of things of Christ's acts will be made fully known to the Faithful of the Epiphany? What does this account teach as to the Source of all our Lord's acts and teachings? 

(71) Whence came the Voice that spoke to Moses? What does the mercy seat type? What two things prove this? What do the two cherubim type? What two things prove this? What does the word glory, as applied to God, signify? What Scriptures prove this? How do they give this proof? How can we prove from Scripture that this word means a character like God's in us? What conclusion flows from these thoughts as to the meaning of the expression, cherubim of glory? What seals this proof? 

(72) What were the four things above the chest of the ark? What was the Shekinah? Where is the word not found? What does it mean? What was its relation to



God? How do the Scriptures prove this? What has it been mistakenly taken to represent? What proves that it represents God? In what sense was it not God? In what sense was it God? What case is somewhat parallel to this? How is wisdom represented in connection with the top of the ark? How are God and His main attributes represented above the chest of the ark? What does that chest type? Out of what did the Voice come? How is this proved? What else types wisdom? 

(73) What is the character of the symbolism of Num. 7:89? What are the chief three things thereby represented as to God? What two things as to our Lord does it type? What does it type as to their relations to the Plan, its arrangements and works? What does it deny of the Father and the Son? What quality in our Lord does it suggest? What degree of honor for Him does it suggest? What effects in us should these considerations produce? What is the chief thought of this study? 

(74) What is the antitypical character of Num. 7? What should its study effect in us? For what facts? How should we characterize v. 89? Why? How are Num. 7:89 and 8:1-4 related? A part of what should they form? What is the antitypical distinction between them? How is the distinction between the secret and the revealed things brought out in them? 

(75) What does Num. 8:1 imply? What charge was given Aaron in v. 2? Where is this obscure? And where clear? How does the clear rendering read? Why, firstly, was this charge given? What space was in front of the candlestick? Why, secondly, was Aaron to stand behind the lampstand when "ordering it"? Why thirdly? Why fourthly? Why fifthly? What four things in the ordering of the lampstand were exclusively Aaron's charge? What is the character of all these things? 

(76) Wherein is the main antitype of Num. 8:1-3 given What does the candlestick type? How is this proved? Whom does the under-priest type? What distinction harmonizes the seeming contradiction between these two antitypes? What example clarifies this? What do the wicks represent? What is represented by the high priest's trimming the wicks? What is typed by the brighter and 

Offerings of Gospel-Age Princes (Concluded). 


steadier light of the trimmed lamps? What results in the antitype? 

(77) What was the second high-priestly activity in ordering the lampstand? What does the oil in this type represent? How is this proved? What two things does this imply? What is our High Priest's relation to them? What do the carbon and non-carbon parts of the oil represent? What does the burning of the carbon parts of the oil type? What is the process in the antitype? What are the distinctions in the view-points of Num. 8:1-4 and Zech. 4:2, 3, 10-13? What do the two olive trees represent? What are some of the similarities in these passages? What is the distinction between the seven pipes and the seven eyes? What is represented by the olive tree to the right? To the left? What is a brief summary of the antitype of the Zech. passage? Of the Num. passage? 

(78) What was the third feature in ordering the lampstand? Whose exclusive function was this? What four activities of our Lord toward the light-bearers does this type? How does He accomplish them? In connection with what does He do these things? 

(79) What was the fourth exclusive high-priestly function toward the lampstand? What proves this? What is typed by Aaron's lighting the lampstand? What is typed by this as an exclusive high-priestly function? What two evils does this condemn? What has resulted from its disregard? What two things are typed by the light being made to shine before the lampstand? How does the priest type the second of these things? What is typed by the priest's first sight in the Holy? What is typed by his seeing the light coming from the lampstand? 

(80) What is typed by the high priest's not lighting the lampstand from its front? What would have been typed by his shadow, had he stood there? What is typed by his standing behind it when lighting the lampstand? What does his being relatively in the semi-shadow type? What further was typed by this position? 

(81) What other high-priestly type is related to our subject? What do the Urim and Thummim type? What question has hitherto been unanswered? What Scriptures refer to them? What considerations seem to associate



them with the precious stones in the breastplate and their lights? What seemingly were they? How were the answers yes and no perhaps given? 

(82) While their identity is not demonstrable, what is demonstrable of their antitypes? How do we prove the nature of their antitypes? What are they? How many graces answer to the Thummim? How are they related to God's four great attributes? How is this typed? How did the typical high priest recognize God's response by the Urim and Thummim? What does this type? What does this type reveal? Through whom does our Lord usually give God's answers to our inquiries? What three effects should these considerations work in us? 

(83) What does v. 4 give? What does the candlestick's gold type? Its being beaten work? The expression, "Unto the base thereof and unto the flowers"? For what did God create the Church as the antitypical lampstand? What is the character of this study? What are its intended effects? Why? To what should this lead us? 

In the wondrous breastplate golden, 

Safely on His bosom holden, 

See the jewels from the mine! 

Amethyst and onyx wearing 

Mystic marks, and each one bearing 

Traces of the hand Divine. 

Sapphires 'mid the gorgeous cluster 

Sparkle with celestial luster, 

Like the crystal dome above; 

Ruby rare and topaz blending 

In that glory never-ending, 

Safe upon the breast of love. 

Emerald and beryl throwing 

Chastened hues, the fairer growing, 

As the jasper blends the rays; 

Chrysoprase, like king's attire, 

Glowing like a star of fire, 

Or a soul that loves to praise. 

Who the love and pain can measure, 

Ere revealed this hidden treasure, 

One by one in dazzling light? 

On His breast our High Priest wears them, 

On His shoulder, see, He bears them, 

Ever in our Father's sight.