UZZIAH. JOTHAM. AHAZ. SHALLUM. MENAHEM. PEKAHIAH. PEKAH. AHAZ. HOSHEA.

WITH THE passing away, in 1692, as shown above, of the Friends' movement from being that of God's more favored people's movement, what has been called the Pietism movement took its place as such a movement. It had its main field of work in Germany, but overflowed its bounds and gave refreshment to God's consecrated people in England, Holland, Switzerland, Russia and Denmark, as well as encouraged the later Quietist movement in France and Belgium. All the more faithful consecrated people of God, first in Germany, then in the rest of these countries, united in spirit, not organizationally, to support this as the more favored movement of God's people in successorship of the Friend's movement (all … Judah took Azariah [help of Jehovah] … Uzziah [strength of Jehovah] … made him King … father, 14:21; 2 Chro. 26:1). This occurred after this movement had been active in Germany in the work of its leader, Philip Jacob Spener, which had its special beginning as the nicknamed movement of Pietism in 1676, just 16 years before this movement became the successor of the Friends' movement (sixteen years old, 21:1). In order to understand the circumstances of its rise it is necessary to take a short look at the condition of the Lutheran Church somewhat before and during the time of Pietism's rise and progress. A dead orthodoxy then reigned in the Lutheran Church, whose almost exclusive activities consisted of setting forth dry dogmatics, of engaging in constant controversies on most minute points and of a formalistic partaking in lifeless church

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

528 

services, its clergy being largely worldly and in not a few cases drunkards and adulterers, and its laity in vast bulk being like their clergy. 

(2) The Lutheran Church from shortly after the reformation onward had undergone a course of misdevelopment along the same general lines as the Church from shortly after the Apostolic times to the times of the reformation had undergone. The Apostles' times and Luther's times from 1512 to 1525 were periods of intense productivity. From 100 to 325 A. D. was a period of the rise of sectarianism and fundamental error, including union of state and church in the Catholic Church; and from 1525 to 1530 sectarianism and error, including union of state and church, arose in the Lutheran Church. From 325 to 799 increase of error, creedism, sectarianism, headship of the pope in the church and his temporal power and great controversies arose in the nominal Catholic Church; and from 1530 to 1580 more error, creedism and sectarianism, great controversies, the practical obliteration of the priesthood of all consecrated Christians in favor of a graded hierarchy (called prelates and superintendents, the latter really bishops), with the church yielded temporal power in the secular rulers as chief bishops or superintendents, arose in the Lutheran Church. From 799 to 1215 was the Antichrist period of great error, creedism and persecution in a worse form than previously, with the pope ruling in all things; and in the Lutheran Church from 1580 to 1610 the Book of Concord, the Confessions of the Lutheran Church, became in reality a paper pope, and dissenters were unfrocked, banished and imprisoned as peace-disturbers. Next came the cut-and-dried scholastic period of Romanism, which reduced theology to almost mathematical formulas and which continued until the reformation, 1215-1500; and from 1610, when John Gerhard published his great dogmatical and polemical work, Common Theological Topics, to 1692 the scholastic period, with dead formalism marking its later years, prevailed. But as 

Later Parallels. 

529 

mysticism accompanied the period of scholastics in the Romanist Church from 1215 to 1500, so there was a mysticism (culture of the emotions, often in more or less unhealthy ways, of ecstatic excitement, quietism and self-satisfaction, amid much of good feeling and piety by contemplation of God, Christ, the Spirit, oneself, etc.) in the Lutheran Church accompanying the scholastic period, represented in its more or less questionable forms by Jacob Boehme and in its best forms by John Arndt, while John Gerhard united both the mystical and scholastic in his character and writings. 

(3) Spener, who was born in 1635 in upper Alsace and died in Berlin in 1707, united in his character a strong intellect and a pious heart. Pious parents by heredity and training gave him a good start in religion; and his pious godmother, Agathe von Rappolstein, added to this good start. Good books, like Arndt's True Christianity, written in German, and Bayly's Practice of Piety, translated from English into German, deepened this good start. Good pastors and theological professors also contributed toward it. He became a very learned scholar and prolific author, and had to engage in much controversy in defense of consecrated living, which he championed. His real work as the leader of Pietism, after preliminary activities stretching over years of earnest efforts to cultivate Christian living in his parishioners in various pastorates, began in 1676, a year after he published his epoch-making work entitled, Pious Desires, in which reformatively he depicted the spiritual deadness of the then Lutheran Church, set forth the hope for better times, recommended more earnest Bible study on the part of the people under the guidance of their pastors, advocated a revival of the doctrine of the priesthood of all the consecrated, as against the idea that the clergy were the priesthood, and of Christlikeness as the mark of such priests, combated the idea that knowledge of doctrine was the whole sum of piety, advocated a change in university teaching to make its chief object 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

530 

the cultivation of true Christianity in those preparing to be pastors, and called for a change in sermons to make their main object be the cultivation of godliness in the hearers. In about a year, 1676, these ideas sinking in, Spener was accepted as the leader of those who favored the reformation that he advocated. His reiterated stress in this book on prayer, praise, testimony and study meetings, whose attendants he would restrict to the consecrated, made a deep impression, and in 1676 these were introduced into many churches. This was the date of the start of the Pietist movement proper, though if did not become the more favored movement of God's people until 16 years later, 1692 (sixteen, 21; 1). In 1691, as we have shown in EJ, 276, 1, Spener brought out the long forgotten doctrine of the Millennium (he built Elath [palm grove], in allusion to the Millennium's being the period of righteousness' flourishing, Ps. 72:7; 92:12); and by the next year this doctrine was accepted by the Pietist movement (restored … king [Amaziah] slept, 22; 2). True enough, as these texts indicate, the doctrine was developed prior to the end of antitypical Amaziah's demise as the more favored movement of God's people, but became generally accepted by the antitypical Uzziah, or Azariah, very soon after the latter started as such to be the more favored movement of God's people. This movement was the longest-drawn-out executive movement in antitypical Judah (52 years in Jerusalem, 15:2; 3) and began to operate during the longest reign in antitypical Israel; for antitypical Jeroboam II's reign also lasted 52 years, 1678-1730 (Jeroboam, 1;). The planning and founding of the Halle University by Spener and Franke began its symbolic reign. The parallel years were, accordingly, 829-777 B. C. and 1692-1744 A. D.—2520 years apart. The doctrine that mothered this movement is that of Jehovah's ability in executive matters (Jecholiah [Jehovah is able] of Jerusalem, 2; 3). 

(4) The character of this movement's ideal and acts was righteous in matters pertaining to the Lord (did

Later Parallels. 

531 

… right … Lord, 3; 4), in imitation of that of the good in the Friends' movement; but it did not do according to the latter's evils (according … Amaziah did, 3; 4). Indeed, the main course of this movement was among the most righteous of antitypical Judah's symbolic kings. It sought to know and do God's will (sought God, ; 5) during the entire period of its leaders' remaining faithful (Zechariah [remembrancer of Jehovah]). These were Spener, Franke, Breithaupt, Anton, Lange (Halleians), Jaeger, Bengel (Wuerttembergers), Zinzendorf, David (Herrnhuters), etc. And as long as they remained faithful they were gifted with a deep understanding of matters pertaining to justice and love—reverence for the Lord (understanding in the visions [the better reading is reverence; the two words are spelled much alike; thus the misreading arose] of the Lord). Of these, Zinzendorf later went wrong and was the main one to partake of the evils typed in vs. 16-21. Of these undoubtedly Spener and Franke, as the foremost, were the ablest and most developed in head and heart, as they were also the most fruitful in their ministries. And as long as the movement sought earnestly to know and faithfully to do the Lord's will, God prospered it in its undertakings, which is especially manifest in the life and work of Spener and Franke (sought the Lord, God made him to prosper). But during its entire period of preeminence as the more favored movement of God's people sectarian demoninations were not by it removed (high places were not removed, 4;) and the nominal people of God consecrated themselves to, and served sectarianism (sacrificed) and used up their choice human powers in its service (burnt incense still on the high places); for even the leaders attached themselves to sectarian systems, though opposing the sectarian spirit and work, Spener, Franke and their colaborers maintaining that they were true to the Lutheran creed and church, only were seeking to reform Christian life in that church. 

(5) But they had to maintain a continual controversy 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

532 

with the dyed-in-the-wool sectarians. Of these there were very many among the Lutheran theological professors and pastors, who for the most part, through their worldly and sinful lives, felt the stings of the Pietist leaders' reproofs for sin, righteousness and judgment to come, and greatly resented the reformation that they advocated in clergy and laity (warred against the Philistines, ; 6). They refuted the formalistic theories and practices of Romanists' sectarianism as its powers (brake down the wall of Gath, winepress), the formalistic theories and practices of Calvinistic sectarianism (Jabneh, he builds) and the formalistic theories and practices of Lutheran sectarianism (Ashdod, fortress), and set up prayer, praise and testimony meetings, catechetical classes and sermons and adult Bible classes throughout the Lutheran churches (built cities about Ashdod) and among the sectarians of the Calvinistic and even among Romanist churches (among the Philistines). In the years' long controversies with such sectarians God helped the Pietist movement (God helped him against the Philistines, ; 7) and against the treachery (Arabians, desert, wasters) of power-graspers (Gur [sojourn]-baal [lord]) and autocrats in state and church (Mehunims, dwellers). Under the anti-clericalist blows that this movement gave the clergy by its emphasis on the sole priesthood of the consecrated, the clericalists (Ammonites [from one's people], ; 8) gave manifestation of subjection to it by introducing the called-for reforms (gave gifts to Uzziah). By the fruits of righteousness developed by their preaching, teaching and writings, and the benevolent institutions in the form of the Halle University, colleges, schools, meetings for edification, orphanages, old folks' homes and missionary activities that they founded, this movement's fame (his name) was broadcast, not only among Christians, but also among the nobility, rulers of the present evil world (even to the entering in of Egypt); for it activities made it very strong (strengthened himself exceedingly). 

Later Parallels. 

533 

(6) This movement did much to strengthen its executive powers (built towers in Jerusalem, ; 9). This was particularly done as to those who had an evangelistic, a conversionist, work to do toward outsiders (corner gate [the same as the gate of Ephraim, Neh. 12:39, implied in Neh. 3:7, EJ, 154, 155]), for whom special schools and schooling as strengtheners were conducted as symbolic towers, fortifications, as it also strengthened those powers of its executiveness that were occupied with second-deathers (valley gate, Neh. 3:13, EJ, 156, 1); and it likewise strengthened its executive powers on lines of turning from evil to good (turning); and it made all these activities and arrangements strong (fortified them). This movement made many strong arrangements for foreign missionary work, through the Halleians' sending out laborers to India, where Schwartz and Ziegenbalg worked very fruitfully, and to America and South Africa, where especially the Pietists of Herrnhut, the Moravian missionaries, labored fruitfully. Moreover, the Halle Pietists sent forth missionaries who worked in Denmark, Switzerland, Russia, etc. They even did Jewish missionary work, for which they had a special training institute (built towers in the desert, ; 10). The Halleians founded beneficent homes, schools, colleges and one university, that of Halle, which were veritable fountains sending out the waters of Truth from their midst. The Wuerttembergers got control of the Tuebingen University and founded colleges and schools and made them a fountain of Truth for Wuerttemberg, etc. (digged many wells). By these they gave the Truth, not only to their inmates and students, but through the graduates of these colleges and these universities they sent forth over 5,000 Truth servants, who watered God's numerous flock (had much cattle), both among the lower classes and the middle classes (low country … plains). It had many who planted and watered the seed of the Word (Husbandmen) and many who gave special attention to developing the fruits of the Spirit

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

534 

(vine dressers), scattered throughout various kingdoms, e.g., Germany, Denmark, Russia, Holland and Britain (mountains) and many other fruitful fields of labor in heathen countries (Carmel, fruitful field); for this movement delighted in the works of God's husbandry, in bringing forth the Truth and the Spirit of the Truth (loved husbandry). 

(7) The Pietist movement had to fight for every inch of territory that it gained and had to fight to keep it. Therefore it had to have and train many warriors to fight the Lord's battles, in which they zealously took part (Uzziah had an host … to war, ; 11). They were divided into various kinds of fighters (by bands). There were especially three groups of such warriors, who corresponded to the three great groups of the Pietists: (1) those who were trained at the Halle University and at its various institutes, schools and colleges and who constituted the largest part of the warriors (Jeiel [removed by God, in allusion to their separation from the spirit of Lutheran formalism]), their leaders being the scholars of this movement (the scribe); (2) the Wuerttemberg Pietists, who were more conservative and less aggressive in controversy and practical measures for the advancement of Pietism, for which reason it was more favored by the civil and church rulers; nevertheless they did effective work as a distinct group of Pietists (Maaseiah [work of Jehovah] the ruler [literally, officer]); and (3) the Herrnhut, or Moravian Brethren, whose leader was Count Zinzendorf, these, like the Halle section, being eminent for their missionary activities at home and abroad; while these were the least aggressive of the three groups in controversy they produced some very able hymn writers, e.g., in English, Montgomery, and in German, Zinzendorf; and these are aptly typed by Hananiah (Jehovah is gracious). These groups had able controversialist leaders. The main ones of the Halle wing of the Pietists were Spener, Franke, Breithaupt, Baier, Anton, Mechaelis, Lange and Hernschmied. The main

Later Parallels. 

535 

controversialists of the Wuerttemberg wing of the Pietists were Jaeger, Hochstetter, Reuchlin, Weismann, Rieger. The ablest representative of this section of Pietism as text critic, commentator and student of Prophecy (Dan. 12:5) was J. A. Bengel. Zinzendorf was almost the only outstanding controversialist of the Moravian Brethren wing of the Pietists (chief of the fathers of the mighty men, ; 12); yet the great and his great main controversialists were no inconsiderable number (number … two thousand and six hundred). But under their leadership (under their hand, ; 13) there was an unusually large number of ledlings who were armed controversially and fit to fight in defense of the principles of Pietism and in attack on the dead orthodoxy against which Pietism was an energetic protest (an army, three hundred thousand … five hundred). These fought continually with strong and victorious power in defense of the principles of the movement (made war with mighty power) as they advanced its interests (to help the king) against its many foes (against the enemy). 

(8) The movement, especially in its Halle and Wuerttemberg adherents, through their educational institutions, prepared for its warriors every kind of thorough armor for their warfare (prepared … all the host, ; 14). This armor consisted of arguments that defended the warriors from their enemies' attacks (shields), that, contained in controversial writings, made them strong to attack their enemies (spears), that defended their intellectual grasp of the controversial truths (helmets), that defended every vital part of their teachings (habergeons; literally, coats of mail), that gave them the proofs which enabled them to shoot sharp teachings at their enemies (bows) and that equipped them to cast controversial questions with deadly effect at their opponents (slings to cast stones), thus equipping them thoroughly for defensive and aggressive warfare. Moreover, in executive respects (in Jerusalem, ; 15) this movement made armorial weapons

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

536 

of war (engines) as a defense of its fortifications (towers) and its strong points (bulwarks). These were constructed by brethren, like Spener, Franke, Canstein, etc., as able developers of the practical means of defense against attack (invented by cunning men). The chief of these armorial weapons were the Halle publishing house, the Halle and Tuebingen theological faculties, which by lectures and publications mightily defended this movement, the Canstein Institute, which saw to the publication of Bibles, defenses of Christianity in the form of tracts, etc., the Home Missionary Institute, the Foreign Missionary Institute and the Jewish Missionary Institute. All of these combined did a marvelous work in defense of this movement and in attack of error and wrong. Particularly did its short attacks in the form of tracts (to shoot arrows) and its larger publications in the form of aggressive and defensive questions and answers (great stones) deal hard blows at its enemies. The many institutions of practical usefulness that the Halle Pietists operated wonderfully helped it to success (marvelously helped), until on all sides it was strong in itself and in the influence that it exerted (till he was strong). 

(9) As can be inferred from the above, its two greatest and most influential exponents were Spener and Franke, men of the fullest spirit of consecration, the former giving it mainly its theoretical form, the latter cooperating therein, giving it mainly its practical form, the former dying 15 years (1707) after it became the more favored movement of God's people, and the latter dying 35 years (1727) thereafter. Much like our Pastor, Franke was a marvel of theoretic knowledge, high organizing powers, tireless activity and practical executiveness, and was the all-influential spirit in the Halle form of Pietism up to the time of his death; and for nearly ten years afterward his works were carried on much in his spirit and forms by able adjutants. But about ten years after his death pride, especially in the form of arrogance, conceit, and 

Later Parallels. 

537 

self-sufficiency, began to set in, in small part in the Halle and Wuerttemberg wings of Pietism, and in large part in the Herrnhut, or Moravian Brethren, wing of Pietism. Count Zinzendorf, a zealous and philanthropic spirit, ran well for years; but later his place as the main leader of these, the natural arbitrariness of his hereditary aristocracy, his dictatorial use of power and the conceit that his success brought increasingly manifested themselves, until he became a liability to the movement and was mainly responsible for its decline in real usefulness. Especially was this true of the last six years of the movement's preeminence, his followers supporting him unquestioningly (his heart was lifted up, ; 16); and the final outcome was its setting aside as the more favored movement of God's people (to his destruction). The following is the way that he wrote of himself: "We, Lewis, by Divine providence, Bishop, Liturgist and Ordinary [executive] of the churches known by the name of the Brethren, and under the auspices of the same, Advocate during life, with full power over the hierarchy of the Slavonic Unity, Guardian of the circuits and President both of the General Synod and of the teaching leadership, by these presents declare, etc." Spangenberg, his biographer, enumerates the titles that Zinzendorf appended to his name on certain papers, as follows: Count and Lord of Zinzendorf and Pottendorf, Lord of the baronies of Freydeck, Schoeneck, and Thurstein and of the vale of Wachovia, Lord of the Manor of the Upper, Middle and Lower Bertholdsdorf, Hereditary Warden of the Chase to his Imperial Roman majesty, in the Duchy of Austria, below the Ens, and at one time Aulic [courtier] and Justicial Counsellor to the Elector of Saxony." Enough said! 

(10) The evil of busybodying in priestly matters that Uzziah did is typical of the busybodying that the Moravian brethren, especially Count Zinzendorf, exercised in the priestly work of our Lord and the consecrated brethren in the Wesleyan movement. A few 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

538 

explanations are necessary to clarify the situation. John and Charles Wesley and a few kindred spirits already in their under-graduate days at Oxford University were nicknamed Methodists, because of their strict and methodical practice of religion. Both Wesleys had for years been consecrated before in 1738 they met Peter Bohler, a Moravian preacher, who conducted a fruitful ministry in London. He led them to "conversion," as they called it; but we believe, so far as John and Charles Wesley were concerned, it was their quickening as 2 of the 70. John, deeply interested in the Moravians' religiousness, desired to become better acquainted with them, and, therefore, journeyed to Germany, where he met Count Zinzendorf, who, to test his humility and simplicity, set him to work in a garden. To ease his work Wesley removed his coat and vest and worked at his task. After a while Zinzendorf suggested that the former go with him to visit a neighboring count. Wesley acceded, asking for a short delay to wash his muddy hands and perspiring face and put on his coat and vest. The count demurred, saying that he should go exactly as he was, as a proof of his sincerity and simplicity, to which Wesley also consented. This occurred in Marienborn, Germany. Thence Wesley journeyed 350 miles eastward to the Moravian headquarters at Herrnhut where he spent a few weeks and learned to appreciate the Moravians more and more, though he saw some things that met his disapproval, which, being minor matters, did not disturb his fellowship with them. Returning to England, he shortly began what is called the Evangelistic Revival, in which he greatly stressed repentance toward God, faith in the Lord Jesus unto justification and a life of entire consecration or sanctification. The matter of "conversion," as beginning in a series of great mental perturbations and outward groanings for sin, and culminating in a sudden outburst of the full assurance of faith that one's sins are forgiven and of resultant peace and joy, often accompanied with outbursts of 

Later Parallels. 

539 

intense excitement and exultation, was stressed in this evangelistic work. This they called the first blessing. 

(11) They called the experience of entire consecration or sanctification, which they identified with Christian perfection, the second blessing. These teachings brought Wesley and his colaborers into collision with the Moravians, especially with Zinzendorf, all of whom identified justification and sanctification, and so stressed justification by faith as to claim entire freedom from obligations to the moral law, they claiming that Christ's imputed righteousness was the only righteousness needed and had by the Christian. They did not believe that Christ imputed only so much of His merit as brought one up to perfection. Hence they tended to antinomianism, literally, against legalism, i.e., opposition to the thought that the moral law had any rule over the justified, while Wesley properly insisted that the justified are to obey the Divine Law, not thereby to be justified, but to evidence their justification as genuine. Moreover, he insisted that in consecration one seek to fulfill the law of disinterested love, while in justification he seek to fulfill the law of duty love, the former as an evidence of the genuineness of consecration. These two opposing views led to a head-on collision between the Evangelical Revival movement and the Pietist movement as represented in the Moravians and championed by Zinzendorf. The fellowship between the Evangelistic Revivalists and the Moravians had been so close before this controversy broke out that they all met and worked together, especially at London, where the latter had a number of able and influential preachers. Zinzendorf and his preachers began to attack the Revivalists on their differences above mentioned and excluded the Wesleys and their colaborers from the meetings at Fetters Lane, London, after the debate had assumed large and decided proportions. This led Wesley to read a paper on the subject at the London Church, and he followed that reading by inviting those who held with him to withdraw from the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

540 

London Church. About 75 arose and followed Wesley out of the meeting. Similar actions occurred elsewhere, the Moravians excluding Wesley's colaborers, and they resultantly withdrawing those agreeing with them. This greatly enraged the Moravians, especially Zinzendorf, who strove to subjugate the Wesleyans to his and their sway, alleging that they were right, but the Wesleyans proving them to be wrong. The result was division where before there had been unity. It is this situation that is the antitype of; 16-20. 

(12) Now will be traced the connection between the type and antitype of these verses. The course of the Moravians under Zinzendorf's leading was a gross impingement against the priestly work of the Evangelical Revival, or the Methodist movement, as it is more popularly called; for Moravianism was in reality a sectarianizing of the priestly Pietist movement; hence it was a crown-lost leaders' movement; and for it to attempt priestly work was a sin against God's order (transgressed … God, ; 16). This in God's sight made that movement busybody in the priestly work of the Evangelical Revival; for the latter was led by John Wesley, a star-member, and by Charles Wesley, his special helper as such. It means that the Pietist movement, no more a priestly movement, was attempting to offer the choice human powers of a no-longer priestly movement as antitypical incense (to burn incense … of incense); for it actually entered into the priestly condition, where it had no right to be (went into the temple of the Lord). Jesus (Azariah), followed first by John Wesley, then by Charles Wesley and then by their now increasing number of priests, followed after them in the ensuing controversy (the [high, ; 20] priest went after him … fourscore priests … valiant men, ; 17), and opposed their usurpations and power-grasping, whereby they sought to subject the priesthood to themselves; for they sought to set aside the Scriptural work of the Evangelical Revival and put their mistaken work, their antinomian work, in its 

Later Parallels. 

541 

place. Their busybodying was just like that of that evil servant's busybodying in the priestly work of the Epiphany messenger and his colaborers in England in the small parallel (EJ, 385-390). And certainly Jesus and the valiant Wesleyans withstood the Moravians, led by Zinzendorf, to their face in vigorous protest at their usurpation (withstood … the king, ; 18). By their proofs of the erroneousness of the Moravian teachings involved in the controversy, i.e., by act, they remonstrated with them (not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense). And by their right teaching on the subject in controversy, i.e., by act, they declared that the Moravians were busybodying in a priestly function (to the priests, the sons of Aaron). Their act of teaching the pertinent Truth also showed that they were the consecrated priesthood (consecrated to burn incense). By act, i.e., their controversy, they also charged them to go out from the priestly condition (go out of the sanctuary). Furthermore, by their proving the erroneousness of the Moravians' and the truth of their view, they charged them of being guilty of sin (thou hast trespassed) and that they would not be honored by the Lord for it (neither … thine honor … God). 

(13) This course of the Lord Jesus through Wesley and his colaborers greatly incensed the Moravians, particularly Zinzendorf, who said of the obligatoriness of the Divine Law, "I trample upon it." He said the same of Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification, Christian perfection. They, especially he, became very angry, yea, full of wrath at the opposition of the faithful priests, as though the latter were the intruders (Uzziah was wroth, ; 19). Zinzendorf became furious over Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification, exclaiming, "This is the error of errors. I pursue it through the world with fire and sword. I trample upon it. I devote it to utter destruction. Christ is our sole perfection. Whoever follows inherent perfection denies Christ. All Christian perfection is faith in the blood of Christ, and is wholly imputed, not inherent [he here confused sanctification 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

542 

with justification]." In the debate Wesley forced him to make the following admission: "A believer is altogether holy in heart and life … he loves God with all his heart, and serves Him with all his powers." To this Wesley replied, "I mean nothing else by perfection, or Christian holiness." To this Zinzendorf rejoined: "But this is not the Christian's holiness. He is not more holy, if he loves more, or less holy if he loves less. In the moment he is justified, he is sanctified wholly; and from that time he is neither more, nor less holy, even unto death [here, again, he confused sanctification with justification; what he said is true of our reckoned perfection in justification; it certainly is false as to sanctification]. Our whole justification and sanctification are in the same instant. From the moment any one is justified, his heart is as pure as it ever will be." Thereupon Wesley asked, "Do we not, while we deny ourselves, die more and more to [self and] the world and live to God?" Zinzendorf answered, "We reject all self-denial. We trample upon it. We do, as believers, whatsoever we will, and nothing more. We laugh at all mortification. No purification precedes perfect love." An unclean crown-loser, of course, he could not see the pertinent truth. Speaking of St. James' epistle, he said: "If it were thrown out of the canon [Bible], I would not restore it." His popish autocracy aroused much opposition among some of his English followers, which made him furious. He expressed his wrath as follows; "I will have nothing more to do with those English brothers … I disapprove of the absolution that is given to such Korah spirits. I laugh at the English national self-righteousness … I desire to be erased from the list of English laborers, and not to be named among them until … [they] make acknowledgment in writing of their being deceived." 

(14) Such teachings, arrogance and wrath were manifest while the Moravian movement was using Bible passages to justify its errors (a censer in his hand, ; 19), in an attempt to use all their choice human powers 

Later Parallels. 

543 

in a religious service (to burn incense). How could it have been otherwise than that their wrath, arrogance and the popish spirit of Zinzendorf made apparent crown-losing errors in their views (leprosy … forehead), which appeared before these priests in God's house (priests … Lord), as they were standing beside the Church in its capacity of comforting, strengthening, encouraging, warning, correcting, etc., their brethren (beside the incense altar)? Jesus and the cooperating underpriests attentively viewed these (Azariah, and all the priests, looked upon him, ; 20) and recognized that they were afflicted with a spiritual error indicative of their having as individuals lost their crowns, and of the sectarian, crown-lost, teaching condition of their movement (behold, he was leprous in his forehead). By their Truth opposition these priests quickly cast the crown-losers and their movement out from the true Church, as unclean crown-losers and as a crown-lost movement (thrust him out); and by their defenses of their errors they hastened their exit (hasted also to go out), because the Lord Himself had smitten their evil course with crown-losers' blindness (smote the king … smitten him, 5; 20). This busybodying began late in 1738, about 5½ years before Pietism ceased to be the more favored movement of God's people, even as J.F.R.'s small parallel's busybodying began about 5½ days before he ceased to be the small antitype of Uzziah. At the same time the Halle and Wuerttemberg wings of the Pietist movement kept deteriorating in sectarianism, antitypical crown-lost leprosy, all three of them remaining in this condition until the movement as a whole ceased being the more favored one (leper unto … death, 5; 21). They pursued their own separate work (dwelt … house), severed from the loyal brethren (cut off … Lord). During these 5½ years the Evangelistic Revival, or Wesleyan movement, presided over the affairs of the Lord's work and of the Lord's people (Jotham [Jehovah is upright] … was over the king's house, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

544 

judging). The history of the Pietism movement has been recorded by Church historians and biographers, and particularly by John Wesley (acts of Azariah … Uzziah … chronicles … Isaiah, 6; 22). The memory of this movement is kept as one of the more favored movements of God's people (buried … fathers in the city of David … field … kings, 7; 23). And the Evangelical Revival movement, or the Wesleyan movement, succeeded it as that of the more favored people of God (Jotham … stead). From this history let us learn to remain humble amid successful and exalted service, if God gives it to us. 

(15) In the foregoing, on the basis of 2 Kings 15:7 and 2 Chro. 26:23, it was pointed out, with the assistance of the facts of the fulfilment in the large and small parallels, that Jotham (Jehovah is upright) acted as Uzziah's deputy in ruling over the land for about 5½ years before Uzziah's death. These 5½ years' activities of antitypical Jotham should be given more attention than was given them above. The parallel years of typical and antitypical Jotham's reigns were 777-761 B. C. and 1744-1760 A. D., 1845 years apart, as the parallel periods require. Antitypical Jotham was the good Wesleyan Methodist movement (2 Kings 15:32; 2 Chro. 27:1). It began its special individual or separate period of activity later in the same year of our counting, as the Calvinistic Methodist movement (second year of Pekah … king of Israel, 32, ;) began its separate course, the latter starting before April 1, hence in an earlier year of God's reckoning, the former after April 1 in the early part of another year, but in the same year as we count years. The harmony of the involved chronologies proves this [P. '40, 182, (6)]. This movement had the germ of its beginning 25 years before, 1719, in John Wesley's beginning to yearn after God, while yet a scholar at the Charter House School or Academy in London, a year before he entered Oxford University. In his later years, from 1729 onward, as a fellow at the university, which he became in 

Later Parallels. 

545 

its Lincoln College, 1726, he expanded his spirit of consecration as the leader of a number of consecrated students, who because of their holy lives of loving service to the poor, needy and fallen, and because of their methodical ways of living to fulfill their aspirations for godliness, were in that year, 1729, nicknamed Methodists. In that year he read William Law's epoch-making book on holiness, called, Serious Call, and by it his aspirations for holiness were very greatly deepened. In 1732 he visited Law and for six or seven years had fruitful fellowship with him; but the latter then becoming a vagarious mystic and not teaching justification by faith, Wesley broke with him. Ordained in 1725, from 1727 to 1729 he assisted his father as vicar in clerical duties, and in Nov., 1729, he returned to his duties as fellow (teacher, but not professor) in Lincoln College, Oxford University, where he remained until 1735, increasing in grace, knowledge and fruitfulness in service. In 1735 Wesley went to Georgia as minister to the English in the colony and missionary to the Indians. On the voyage to Georgia the calmness and resignation of some Moravians on his ship during a storm that momentarily threatened to sink the ship greatly impressed him. In Georgia his ministry was unsuccessful, due to his too great strictness. He first met the Moravian Peter Bohler, who greatly influenced him toward deeper faith in 1738 in London, beginning the third day after Wesley's return; for he had left Georgia in the fall of 1737 and reached London on Feb. 3, 1738. During the years from 1719 to 1738 Wesley developed more and more, until, May 24, 1738, he experienced what he called his conversion, but what we believe was the quickening of his new creature accompanying his being made a star-member—his beginning to share in that bestowal of the Spirit on the antitypical 70, typed in Num, 11:16, 17, 25-30. Then followed his visit to Germany to see Count Zinzendorf at Marienborn, Southwestern Germany, and the Moravian headquarters at Herrnhut, Southeastern Germany. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

546 

(16) In the Fall of 1738, he began to see the first encroachments of Pietism on him, as exemplified in the Moravians; and since it was the beginning of antitypical Uzziah's attempting to offer incense, his resistance was the beginning of antitypical Jotham's judging the people of the land as antitypical Uzziah's regent (15:5; 26:21). Above we traced these busybodying acts, so need not repeat them here. Here we need only to stress the thought that they began about 5½ years before the good Wesleyan movement became the ascendant more favored movement of the people of God; but during these 5½ years the movement did much good. At first its three main leaders were John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, one of the greatest pulpit orators of all times. The preaching of these three being too trenchant for the dead orthodoxy of the Anglican Church, the Anglican clergy of London and Bristol, their first evangelistic fields, closed their church doors to them, which led them to preach in the fields, where their immense audiences, sometimes reaching 80,000 people, found ample space, whom none of the churches were large enough to accommodate, and where they were free from churchly restrictions. Another important step of Wesley's was to organize the justified into small groups called bands, which served to strengthen them, especially in right living. While Wesley's stewardship doctrine was the teaching, Perfect love is God's ideal for the consecrated, the wickedness of the lower middle and the lower classes in England, to whom the Wesleyan movement primarily appealed, made him lay great stress on repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus for justification by faith. While Whitefield preached eternal torment as the main motive of bringing people to repentance and faith, Wesley made the love of God and Christ for man and the evils of sin and the blessings of righteousness the motive to produce such effects. Whitefield depended mainly on oratory and dramatics to influence his hearers. Wesley used for these effects a friendly, loving 

Later Parallels. 

547 

and logical exposition of Biblical doctrines as the substance of his preaching, speaking in an earnest and not loudly pitched voice. So penetrative was his voice that though speaking slightly louder than a conversational voice he could be distinctly heard by 60,000 people. The result was that Wesley influenced his hearers more deeply and lastingly than did Whitefield. In 1740, Whitefield stressing Calvinistic predestinarianism with its particularistic merit of Christ's death, and Wesley stressing Arminianism with its universalistic merit of Christ, a controversy broke out between them, resulting in a division, out of which emerged two kinds of Methodists: Arminian and Calvinian Methodists, the former being the movement of antitypical Jotham, as the more favored movement of God's people, and the latter becoming antitypical Pekah, as the less favored movement of God's people. The former's work increasing, Methodist laymen began to preach; but not being ordained they did not administer baptism and the Lord's supper. Societies of believers began to be formed; and amid these, classes consisting of the consecrated were formed; and thus the good work progressed until the Wesleyan movement became in 1744 the ascendant more favored one of God's people. 

(17) The thing that was the inauguration of antitypical Jotham's sole reign was the creation and meeting of the conferences (began to reign, 32; 1). Wesley had a number of clerical supporters from late 1738 onward in his movement; and to these ere long were added the laymen who became qualified and active as evangelistic lay preachers. These to the number of six clergymen and four lay preachers held in June, 1744, for five days the first good Methodist movement's conference. It was here decided to have them annually. Here were discussed doctrinal, ethical and practical matters, and in time these conferences under Wesley's direction became the highest and most authoritative body in the movement. Elaborate minutes of each conference were kept and were published, so that all the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

548 

movement's adherents might learn to know of its deliberations and decisions. Wesley's decisions were accepted as the authorized expressions of each conference. It was Wesley's firm but kindly control of this movement that kept it as one of the very best of the more favored movements of God's people. He held the same kind of teaching and executive control over this movement as our Pastor maintained over the Parousia movement. This movement began its ascendancy just 25 years after Wesley began to seek after the Lord in 1719, at the age of 17 years (twenty and five, 33; 1); and it lasted 16 years, 1744-1760, in executorship for God (sixteen years in Jerusalem, 33; 1). The movement was mothered by the possession or heritage of truth, righteousness and holiness with which Wesley was endowed and with which he under God endowed the movement (mother's … Jerusha [h] [possession, or inheritance], 33; 1); and this endowment was one begun by the righteousness of faith (daughter of Zadok [righteous], 33; 1). This movement in matters pertaining to God (in the sight of the Lord, 34; 2) acted in harmony with the Lord's Word as then due (did … right, 34; 2), treading the footsteps of the Pietistic movement in all that it did righteously (according … Uzziah, 34; 2). But it did not do the evil that the Pietistic movement did in seeking to dominate a star member by attempting to undertake priestly functions; for the good Methodist movement did not attempt to subjugate Wesley to its will, as did the Moravian section of antitypical Uzziah, especially in Count Zinzendorf (entered not into the temple, ; 2). 

(18) However, there were great evils practiced by the people in high, middle and low society; for much unbelief, misbelief, blasphemy, disregard of parental, school and civil authority, murder, robbery, immorality, slander, perjury and political corruption prevailed (people did corruptly, ; 1). Moreover, sectarianism in the form of Romanism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Baptistism, Congregationalism, Quakerism and Moravianism, 

Later Parallels. 

549 

instead of being set aside, prevailed in sharp rivalry between its sects (the high places were not removed, 35;); and the sectarians in each of these sects served the several interests of these sects by seeking their prosperity, instead of that of the true Church (sacrificed … high places, 35;), and used up their choice human powers for each one's particular sect (burned incense … high places, 35;). The good Methodist movement did much work in teaching consecration and entire sanctification, as well as sought to bring the justified to consecration and to carrying it out in holy living, self- and world-denying service and joyful endurance of evil (built the high gate … Lord, 35; 3). Moreover, it wrought much in its executive powers in the way of building chapels, orphanages and schools and of printing Christian literature and school literature (on the wall of Ophel [hill; the ridge in the south-east corner of Jerusalem, where the king's palace from the time of David onward stood, and where the kings ordinarily exercised their executive authority and works] he built much, ; 3). The title to these chapels, orphanages, schools and the printed literature was vested in Wesley, until late in his life by the Deed of Declaration he vested it in 100 brethren whom he chose to take over things at his death, even as our Pastor did as to his belongings that he put in the name of the Society. The religious literature that he published was partly his own writings and partly extracts from the writings of the most helpful authors since the Apostolic times, especially those of the best Christian authors of the preceding 150 years, including extracts from German writers, like Luther and Arndt. These books in the second edition consisted of 30 octavo volumes, entitled, The Christian Library. Wesley furnished these extracts to bring to the poor Christian families some of the best pen-products of this Age; for, an able scholar himself, he sought also the spiritual intellectual elevation of the masses among whom chiefly he worked. An admirer of good, secular literature, both in prose and 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

550 

poetry, he also published, years after the movement ceased being ascendant, in many volumes a library for uneducated Christian families, for their improvement in good secular things, consisting of extracts from some of the best secular literature of the world. He, himself, made these two sets of extracts, at inns, at friends' homes, in his study and on horseback; he read through these books, drawing heavy lines through what he desired omitted, and then handed what was left of the books over to printers to print. The work on The Christian Library was done in his scant spare time from 1749 to 1755. For his schools he wrote most of the textbooks there used, like English, German, French and Spanish Grammars, and textbooks on arithmetic, orthography, psychology, rhetoric, logic, science, etc. These books were almost always abridgments of larger works. During this period his notes on the New Testament appeared, mainly extracted from good authors, especially from Bengel's Gnomon (Register), one of the ablest of the short commentaries on the New Testament, which, despite its 200 years' age, is still useful. 

(19) This movement gathered and organized what they called societies, actually churches, consisting of its converts and consecrated ones, throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (built cities in the mountains of Judah, ; 4). As developers and strengtheners of its work it organized a series of circuits (built castles, ; 4), into which its working districts in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland were divided, ministered to by preachers (forests [trees representing leaders or great ones]) appointed by Wesley, called circuit riders, who usually traveled horseback, an institution something like that of our pilgrims. It also established a local ministry (towers) consisting of laymen called local preachers (forests), who ministered locally and in nearby suburbs and villages, but did not serve circuits. These two sets of helpers were a mighty buttress to the movement. From the outstart this movement's more public work, in 1738, had almost constant

Later Parallels. 

551 

conflicts with the bishops and clergy of the Anglican Church, who complained mainly and bitterly against the movement's spokesmen as busybodying in their dioceses and parishes, as stealing their sheep, and disregarding order in the Church. Especially three of the bishops wrote against the good Wesleyan movement, particularly against Wesley,—Gibson, bishop of London, Lavington, bishop of Exeter and Warburton, bishop of Gloucester. Wesley answered each one of them. Even bishop Butler, author of the Analogy, forbade his speaking in his diocese, that of Durham. Numerous clerics wrote against him, especially the Rev. Mr. Thomas Church of London; and he replied. He was too good a logician and Biblicist not to have refuted them well. Against their complaint that he had no right to enter their dioceses or their parishes he replied that the only reason that he had for it was that they neglected the work of evangelizing the people of their dioceses and parishes, and that for a matter of mere order he would not allow souls for whom Christ died to perish, as long as he had the means in his hands for their rescue. It was in this controversy that he answered their charge that he was a busybody in their dioceses and parishes by the epigram that has become a proverb, "The world is my parish," basing it on the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20 and Mark 16:15, 16. The clergy were the main inciters of vicious mobs and great riots against this movement's preachers and adherents. This controversy was a war between clericalism and the good Wesleyan movement (he fought … Ammonites, ; 5). And, certainly, it gained the victory in the warfare; for not only were the bishops and clergymen not able to justify their neglect of the people, which was one of the great causes of the reign of gross wickedness in Britain and Ireland at that time—a neglect that this movement not only rubbed in hard on them, but that was one of the best of justifications for its existence. Its, especially Wesley's use of Scripture, reason and facts, so completely refuted these sticklers

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

552 

for church order and these neglectors of souls, to the detriment of God's work and of the salvation of many, that in time they had to keep silence and could find no mobs that would riot against the Wesleyan preachers and adherents (prevailed against them). 

(20) To evade their arguments the clericalists had to give up to them their doctrine of justification by faith alone, as the truth fitted for justified humans, i.e., a perfect nature lower than the Divine nature (hundred talents of silver), and began to teach justification by faith and works. Indeed, out from among their own number many clergymen embraced the Wesleyan movement. Many more, while remaining in the Anglican Church, imbibed the spirit of this movement and evangelized their parishes and some of them did evangelistic work in circuits of their own, for the Wesleyan movement did much to reform clergy and laity in the Anglican Church. The King, George III, once remarked that Wesley and his associates did more good to the generality of the English people than did the hierarchy and clergy of the entire Anglican Church. Besides Wesley's brother, Charles, and Whitefield, he counted Vincent Perronet and William Grimshaw among some of his best clerical friends, both of them out-and-out Methodists. But best and highest of all, he counted the saintly John Fletcher, incumbent of the parish at Madeley, his best friend and ablest controversialist supporter. He had counted on his mantle falling on Fletcher, who, however, died a few years before Wesley's death. But the most valuable things that the clericalists had to yield the good Methodist movement were the many new creatures who, uncomfortable and out of place in the dead formalism of the Anglican Church, came into the loving and saintly atmosphere of the warm Methodists, who, like the Parousia brethren, were certainly a saintly people during the ascendancy of antitypical Jotham. These new creatures that came into this movement from the Anglican Church were of two classes: crown-retainers (measures of wheat) and

Later Parallels. 

553 

crown-losers (measures of barley). Their justification is also here typed—by the ten thousand, a multiple of ten, in each case typing that perfect natures lower than the Divine were meant, in this case reckonedly perfect men, justified without works by faith alone; and their justified human all was taken away from uses for the Anglican Church (ten thousand). These were the great losses that the bishops and the clergy underwent: (1) the loss of the truth on justification by faith alone without works, and their accepting of the Romanist error of justification by faith and works, at the same time accepting Rome's pertinent error on faith's being merely belief; (2) the loss of new creatures as crown-retainers from their midst; (3) the loss of new creatures as crown-losers from their midst; and (4) the loss of the human all of such new creatures from uses for the benefit of Anglicanism. This certainly impoverished the Church of England. Points (2)-(4) imply that these generally absented themselves from attendance at, and support of the Church of England, despite Wesley's urgent advice to the contrary; for he struggled all his life against his followers' seceding from the Church of England, designing his societies in each parish to be a part of the local Church of England—a church within a church, as it were, and himself remaining a minister of it until death (so much … pay unto him), to its lasting loss (second year, and the third). 

(21) It was because the good Methodist movement was whole-souled in its devotion to the Lord, the Truth, as then due, the brethren and all others with whom it had to do, on the lines of justification by faith alone and entire consecration unto the Lord (prepared his ways before … God, ; 6), that it became stronger and stronger. In these matters it was as faithful to the Lord as any of the other more favored movements of God's people from antitypical Rehoboam's time until its own time, if not more so. The zeal, self-sacrifice and labors of Wesley and his ordained and unordained circuit and local preachers and the generality of the rest of the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

554 

adherents of this movement was perhaps unexcelled since the days of the Apostles, up to their time. No wonder that they became as a movement mighty for God, truth, righteousness and holiness (Jotham became mighty). In externals they grew mightily in the number of the societies and membership therein, in the number of classes and members therein, in the number of the local preachers and circuit riders, in the number of ordained ministers, in the number of their chapels and in the attendances thereat, in the number of their schools and pupils therein and in the number and importance of their publications and institutions of benevolence. The bulk of their preachers and ministers were men of such characters as wrought mightily for the spread of truth, righteousness and holiness. Filled with the idea of the priesthood of the consecrated, the bulk of those who professed consecration among the general membership of the movement were burning and shining lights in their own communities and often beyond them. The number of adherents ran into the tens of thousands, and of general and local preachers into the hundreds, by 1760. Their hymnology greatly increased as especially the two Wesleys, particularly Charles, the greatest of hymn-writers, who left behind him between 6,000 and 7,000 hymns, all of good quality, some of supreme quality, e.g., Jesus, Refuge of My Soul, poured out their sentiments in fine rhyme and rhythm. Another feature of the strength of this movement was its uplifting effects upon ministers and laymen, not only in the Anglican Church, but also in the Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Baptist, Quaker and Moravian Churches. This was due to the fact that the movement was wholly non-sectarian; for Wesley, though an Anglican clergyman, required no doctrinal or creedal tests from his adherents. All that he required for membership in his societies was repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, with a life in harmony therewith; in his classes, entire consecration reasonably lived out; in local officers, stewards and local

Later Parallels. 

555 

preachers, and in his other preachers and circuit riders and clerical assistants, in addition to clearness in the truth, consecration attested by a life of self- and world-denial, sacrificial zeal and that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. The strength of character in the leaders and ledlings is evident from their meekly bearing mistreatment at the hands of mobs, as they were taught by Wesley to do. No wonder that it grew strong, since thus it prepared its ways before God. 

(22) During this period, apart from repelling the attacks of the bishops, clergy and others that these influenced to attack them, they had no theological controversies. Wesley's experience with his local and circuit preachers, mainly laymen, convinced him of the fact that there was no difference in the office designated by the Scriptural terms, bishops, or overseers, and elders, or presbyters. He saw this from the facts: (1) that the Greek terms for elders and bishops mean the same office, the former meaning its honor, the latter its toil; (2) that they are used interchangeably in Acts. 20:17, 28, of the leaders of the church at Ephesus, and of leaders in general, in Tit. 1:5, 7; (3) that in addressing the Philippians, not using the Greek word for elders at all, he uses instead of it the plural of the Greek word for overseers, i.e., bishops, and speaks of the officers of the church at Philippi as bishops and deacons [the plural of bishop here, as in Acts 20:28, of course, proves that Paul did not use the word in the modern sense of bishops, of whom there is not a number in one church, but used it in the sense of elders]; and (4) that in 1 Tim. 3:1-13 Paul mentions only two offices in local ecclesias, calling the first bishops and the other deacons. Therefore Wesley, not a bishop in the Anglican sense of the word, had no compunction in appointing lay local and circuit preachers. For a while he did not have them administer baptism and the Lord's supper, but later came to do it. All his life he resisted the increasing pressure to make the Methodist societies churches and to separate them

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

556 

from the Anglican Church into a Methodist Church. And as long as he lived he succeeded therein; but not long after his death, 1791, this separation was made. Foreseeing such an event he made such arrangement as when the break would come, it would be accomplished with a minimum of disorder and ill-will. The three leaders of the movement, John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield, especially the first, have been the subjects of biographies; for which their journals have been the chief sources. Some lesser lights in this movement have also been made the subjects of biographies, while the movement in its 16 years' duration holds a prominent place in histories of Methodism. These biographers and historians have been Methodists and non-Methodists (acts of Jotham … written … chronicles … Judah … Israel and Judah, 36; 7). V. ; 8, having in substance been explained in our comments on vs. 33; 1, where almost the same words and the same thoughts are given, needs no more comment here. This good movement ceased operating as the ascendant one in 1760 (Jotham slept with his fathers, 38; 9); but it was held in loving remembrance as being quite apostolic in character (was buried … in the city of David), as worthy of being among the more favored movements of God's people (with his fathers, 38;), to be succeeded by an evil Methodist movement. 

(23) There remain for our present study a consideration of 2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chro. 28:1-4, on part of the career of Ahaz, the son and successor of Jotham. We will not here discuss the whole of his career, because it touched on that of Pekah of Israel. Hence we will study here only that part of it until Pekah came on the scene. Thereafter we will return to a study of the kings of Israel following Zechariah, the last king of the Jehu dynasty, before resuming with Ahaz. Ahaz represents the bad Methodist movement, which became the more favored movement of God's people from 1760 to 1776, paralleling the reign of Ahaz, 761-745 (Ahaz … began to reign … in Jerusalem, 2 Kings 16:1; 

Later Parallels. 

557 

2 Chro. 28:1). One of the proofs of human depravity is the rise of corruption after a season of good development in most human movements; and such a procedure we witness in the Methodist movement, a procedure that almost always sets in, in the case of those new creatures who for a time run well and then later lose their crowns. We see this in the Parousia movement, changing in most cases to more or less corrupt Great Company movements during the Epiphany. This is also typed by the good Jotham being followed by the evil Ahaz. The bad Methodist movement was twenty years in existence before it came into the ascendancy as that of the more favored one of God's people. This movement first began to come into existence in 1740, at the occasion of the temporary break between Wesley, who was an Arminian, and Whitefield, who had shortly before become a Calvinist, during his first trip in America, under the influence of Jonathan Edwards. This breach was accompanied by an exchange of controversial pamphlets between the two, in which Whitefield was decidedly defeated; for he was no match for Wesley as a theologian and logician; and to make matters worse, the former descended to personalities. But after a short time he apologized for this; and a reconciliation between them took place; but Wesley did not again take him into the same complete friendly confidence as formerly. They remained friends for life, but differed on election and free grace permanently. And while friendly dispositions existed between Wesley and the good Methodist movement and Whitefield and his movement, which in 1744 became antitypical Pekah of antitypical Israel, the same year, but a little earlier in the year, as the good Methodist movement became antitypical Jotham of antitypical Judah, certain of the adherents of the latter movement began to develop a series of characteristics and do a series of acts in 1740 and onward that by 1760 put them into the ascendancy in the Methodist movement and that made them the bad Methodist movement (twenty years old, 2; 1). This 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

558 

movement was in the ascendancy of the more favored ones among God's people for 16 years executively (sixteen years in Jerusalem, 2; 1). 

(24) But the bad Methodist movement did not do right in matters pertinent to the Lord (not … right … Lord, 2; 1); for it disregarded certain of the teachings of the Apostles as set before them by Wesley (not … like David his father, 2; 1). Instead, this movement acted out the two main sins of the less favored movements of God's people—clericalism and sectarianism, two sins to which God's people, including the Levite movements of the Epiphany, are much tempted and into which most of them have fallen (walked … kings of Israel, 3; 2). This bad Methodist movement became guilty of sectarianism, not only as over against the older sects in England, but also over against the Whitefield movement, and of clericalism, inasmuch as increasingly certain of the ordained ministers in the movement felt themselves above the lay preachers, and the latter increasingly sought more of the clericalistic powers of the former. These two evil developments gave Wesley much concern and trouble, especially as his brother, Charles, was the leader of the ordained ministers in this unhealthy practice (in the ways, 3; 2). Even worse than this, the bad Methodist movement, both in its ordained and unordained preachers, sought to make forms of offices that without the names sought to grasp for and exercise the powers of the Anglican hierarchy and clergy (molten images for Baalim [lords], ; 2). His unordained preachers sought long, but in vain, to make Wesley claim and exercise the powers of a hierarchical bishop and ordain them; and these unordained ministers were by Charles Wesley and other bishop-ordained ministers of this movement made to feel that they were of a lower order of Truth servants than the former. These evils grew increasingly, especially from 1760 to 1776. An even worse sin did this movement commit: As we saw above, while Whitefield used the dread horrors of eternal torment

Later Parallels. 

559 

as a cudgel with which to beat men to repentance and faith, Wesley used the love of God and the love of Jesus as expressed in His death as the main motive to lead men to repentance and faith. But many of Wesley's preachers did not follow his, rather they followed Whitefield's example, as to the motive that they offered sinners as the way to salvation. Hence they pictured God as filled with rage against sinners—so enraged as to hold, according to some of these preachers, sinners in great wrath over the yawning abyss of eternal torment, suspended on a hair, and that ready to be singed with torment's fires. This threat they used to drive men by fear to what they called repentance and faith; and they labored long, using up their choice human powers in such a service (burnt incense in the valley … Hinnom [Gehenna], ; 3). 

(25) Not only so, but they went even further than this abominable practice. They sought with the same fear to keep their converts in line; yea, whenever they saw any becoming cooled in their fervor they threatened them with their view of hell fire; and in the most lurid colors they described the eternal torture of those who backslid (made his son to pass through the fire … burnt his children in the fire, 3; 3). Thus the bad Methodist movement worshiped antitypical Moloch, as the antitype of Ahaz, who put his living children in the red hot arms of typical Moloch until they were roasted unto death. The spokesmen of antitypical Ahaz have used eternal torment more perhaps than any other class of preachers as a means of frightening people unto their kinds of repentance and faith and unto keeping them therein. In this they have furnished the antitype of the sorriest of all caricatures of our Heavenly Father, the God of all mercy and of all grace. In this they outdid the greatest of all heathen abominations known in the Old Testament (abominations of the heathen). As Moloch worship was one of the sins for which God drove the seven nations out of Canaan, so is its antitype—the service given to Satan in serving 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

560 

the doctrine of eternal torment—the great sin of Christendom for which God during the interim, the Parousia and the Epiphany has been driving its cherishers out of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit (whom the Lord cast out before the children of Israel). As though these abominations were not a sufficient filling of the bad Methodist movement's cup of iniquity, they added to these sins by using their human all in wrong ways, (sacrificed, 4; 4), even using their reckonedly perfect choice human powers (burned incense), doing all of this in the interests of nominal-church systems (high places), of the civil governments of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales (hills) and of the great ones of this world, the British royalty, nobility and officials (under every green tree). Certainly, antitypical Ahaz committed gross abominations, more of which will be shown later. What a warning lesson he is to us who have followed the good movement of the Parousia to abstain from participation in the evil movements of the Epiphany. Let us be faithful to the teachings and arrangements of that wise and faithful servant, the antitypical small David, and thus we will be immune from the evils of bad movements following in time, but not in spirit, the good Parousia movement, and will be kept in the good movement following the Parousia movement, i.e., the Epiphany movement. 

(26) As intimated above, an interruption of our description of the reign of antitypical Ahaz will here set in, in order to discuss the reigns of four of the last five movements of antitypical Israel—antitypical Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah and Pekah, the last of which reigns was in part contemporaneous with part of antitypical Ahaz's reign. The last king of antitypical Israel studied was antitypical Zechariah, who reigned one year [P '40, 182 (6)], i.e., from April, 1730 to April, 1731 A.D., paralleling Zechariah's reign (791-790 B.C.). With antitypical Zechariah the antitypical Jehu dynasty, Presbyterian Puritan movements, came to an end. Sir Robert Walpole's ministry killed the last phase

Later Parallels. 

561 

of the Presbyterian movements (Shallum … slew him, 2 Kings 15:10), by refusing their adherents fullest religious liberty as dissenters, free from the few disabilities that the Anglican Church succeeded in putting on them in the settlement following the revolution of 1688. For a full month that ministry through Walpole, the prime minister, in control of parliament, manipulated religious matters in the Anglican Church as a barren political matter (Shallum [requital], … Jabesh [dry], 13;) and as an Anglican movement in antitypical Israel (Samaria). But the Anglican hierarchy and higher clergy in a controversial movement designed to comfort (Menahem [comforter], 14;) its adherents against infidelistic attacks from without and from within, resented this political interference, and put an end to it so far as concerned the management of that Church's internal affairs; for this movement in the hierarchy and the higher clergy in its good fortune (Gadi, fortunate) left its pleasures, ease and delights (Tirzah, delight) and gave its attention to executive matters (Samaria, guard), and put an end to the Walpole ministry's meddling with the administration of the Anglican Church's internal affairs (smote Shallum). English Church and secular historians (chronicles … Israel, 15;) have described that ministry's participation in church affairs (acts of Shallum), especially in that part of it wherein they hypocritically denied the Presbyterian Puritans complete freedom from the few disabilities under which they suffered disadvantages as to the Anglican Church (conspiracy which he made). 

(27) Typical Menahem reigned from 790 to 779 B. C.; and antitypical Menahem reigned from 1731 to 1742 A. D. (17;). This Anglican movement conducted two great controversies against infidelistic movements, one within the Anglican Church and one outside that Church. The first was with what were called the Latitudinarians, who correspond to the present Broad Church Party in the Anglican Church. Archdeacon 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

562 

Francis Blackbourne was their most influential leader. At that time, as at the present, they were infidelistically inclined. While contending against certain errors of antitypical Menahem, who opposed full religious and civil liberty, they went to the extreme of denying many partial truths held by that movement, questioning the full inspiration of the Bible, and tolerating almost any denial of its main teachings imperfectly held as they then were. These Latitudinarians despised antitypical Menahem, who sought to maintain the Divine authority of the Scriptures against them. The latter fought it at every turn and refused to submit to its authority as it was exercised by the bishops. They opposed and sought on infidelistic grounds to reduce the bishops to nonentities. They were rationalists, who certainly would give the bishoply and high clericalistic orthodox movement, antitypical Menahem, no access (Tiphsah, opening) to them, and as a result antitypical Menahem for the comfort of its adherents entered into a sharp controversy with, and refuted them completely (smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, 16;), and did this with all who held with them (coasts thereof). To do this antitypical Menahem had to leave the pleasures, ease and delights in which then its hierarchy and higher clerics reveled. It did this refutative work so thoroughly that it utterly overthrew the various companies or groups of the Latitudinarians (women) and destroyed their embryonic movements and powers (with child he ripped up). This controversy occurred in the outstart of antitypical Menahem's reign. 

(28) The reign of antitypical Menahem began in 1731 (nine and thirtieth year of Azariah [Uzziah], 17;) and lasted 11 years (P '40, 182 (6); years in Samaria). Despite some good it was as a whole an evil reign, and that because it was a typically hierarchical and higher clerical one. Hence it abounded in the evils of hierarchism and clericalism and sectarianism (did evil, 18;). Despite protests to the contrary, it adhered to the clericalism and sectarianism that the Lutheran 

Later Parallels. 

563 

movement as antitypical Jeroboam introduced and used to mislead antitypical Israel (departed not … Jeroboam … made Israel to sin). It had a by far more important controversy with Deism than with the Latitudinarians (Pul [elephant], 19;). Deism is the belief that, despising the Divine Revelation, the Bible, bases its religion on its view of nature and reason unassisted by revelation. Hence its adherents call it natural religion, or natural theology. Deists are often called freethinkers, another name for infidelity. Its beginner was Lord Herbert of Cherbury (died 1648). Thomas Hobbes (died 1679) gave it a further push into more error, claiming that all religion is the product of fear and of reason reflecting on the universe. Charles Blount (died 1693) fused Herbert's and Hobbes' views. John Toland (died 1722) developed his Deism further, requiring that Revelation to be true must be deduced from reason, which made reason the source of faith. The Bible, rightly understood, certainly is in harmony with sanctified reason, but it, and not reason, is the sole source of faith. Anthony Collins (died 1729) and William Whiston (died 1752) developed their Deism into a theory that claimed that the Old and New Testaments were irreconcilably contradictory, and spent their efforts in seeking to point out such alleged contradictions. They and Thomas Woolston (died 1733) denied that the Old Testament contained prophecies, while the last sought to set aside the miracles of the New Testament. Matthew Tindal produced the standard textbook of Deism. He denied the fall and the curse and claimed that among all nations God revealed Himself, though giving more revelations to Jews and Christians than to heathen. 

(29) While up to this time Deists usually held that the Law of Moses and the law of nature were identical, with Thomas Morgan (died 1743) they began to deny this. Peter Annet (died 1769) carried their infidelity further, denying Jesus' resurrection, claiming that Jesus had not died, but had merely swooned away and 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

564 

recovered from His alleged swoon, which recovery the disciples allegedly set forth as His resurrection. The spear thrust into Jesus' heart thoroughly disproves this swooning theory. He also roundly denied the actuality of miracles. By the time of antitypical Menahem (1731-1742) Deism had shot its full broadside of infidelism into the world. Thus it claimed that only the religion derived from a study of nature by reason could be true. This made it deny the Bible as an inspired Revelation, reject its prophecies, deride its miracles and reject the fall, and consequently the atonement, the virgin birth, ransom sacrifice, resurrection and glorification of Jesus. In a word, everything essential in Christianity Deism denied. The full impact of its attack came in the time of antitypical Menahem against the Truth and its spirit (king of Assyria came against the land). Against this attack the hierarchy and higher clergy of the Anglican Church, acting as antitypical Menahem, rallied their forces and especially by three works ably refuted the main positions of Deism. The first of these works was Bishop Walburton's two-volumed treatise entitled, The Divine Legation of Moses (1738), which overthrew Deists' anti-Mosaic and anti-Prophetic views. The second refutative work was really a series of writings by Dr. Waterland, the ablest English theologian of his day, who certainly decimated Deism; and the greatest work of all was Bishop Butler's Analogy (1736), which met Deists on their own ground of nature and literally pulverized their viewpoints. To this day, over 200 years later, Deism has attempted no reply to the Analogy. There were lesser pen-products sent forth to refute Deism; for the anti-Deistic literature is a vast one. The defeated Deists, like our Higher Critics, kept repeating their refuted arguments long after antitypical Menahem ceased to be the main movement in antitypical Israel; and the controversy dragged on until Paley brought it to an end, early in the 19th century, by a refutation that Deists have not attempted to answer.

Later Parallels. 

565 

(30) But while antitypical Menahem refuted Deism, it did not do it so well, e.g., as antitypical Jotham refuted clericalism; for in two particulars it was somewhat lame against the Deists. In the first place, it defended some erroneous doctrines against the attacks of Deism, e.g., trinity, God-manship, eternal torment, damnation to eternal torment of the heathen, etc. This particular feature of the controversy, however, is not typed in vs. 19, 20. The other lameness of antitypical Menahem in this controversy is, however, brought out in these verses: its too much stress on reason. For a hundred years before this controversy there had arisen in the Anglican Church an unhealthy view as to reason in its relation to the Bible as the sole source of faith, for it was held to be a subordinate source and rule of faith. And this view further depraved was one that Deists made the main principle of their system, i.e., that human reason is the sole source of religious belief. This, of course, fitted in with their nature religion—religion derived by reason alone from the study of nature. The Anglican errorists on reason in its relation to faith, of course, did not go so far into error on the subject as the Deists did. Whereas Deists made reason their sole source of faith, the Anglican errorists, particularly Bishop Walburton, made it an almost equal source of faith with the Bible; for these, somewhat as the Romanists make the Bible and tradition the source of faith, made the Bible the main source of faith and reason a subordinate source and rule of faith. 

(31) The word, reason, is so ambiguous a term that it actually becomes what each one's views make him think things ought to be, and therefore it means a different thing to each person. It amounts to each one's understanding of things, backed by his rational or irrational intuitions. Hence things that some think reasonable others think unreasonable. Sanctified reason, the holy mind of God in His people, is not a source of faith; it is a vessel that contains the things of faith that the Scriptures as their sole source give; and it is

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

566 

an interpretative rule of faith. Sanctified reason sees everything Scriptural as reasonable; for it is the understanding of Divine things that God from the Scriptures as their source gives His people. These things never contradict its understanding of things viewed from the standpoint of true rational intuitions, hence never contradict their sanctified reason. So-called Orthodoxy has accepted so many things contradictory of sanctified reason, and contradictory of the reason, one's understanding of things in the light of rational intuitions, of the natural man, that such views are justly counted unreasonable, both to sanctified reason and to the dimly enlightened reason of the natural man, who additionally thinks some Divine truths to be unreasonable to him. The unhealthy view that many Anglicans accepted on reason's being a subordinate source and rule of faith made them concede entirely too much to Deists' claim as to reason's being the sole source and rule of faith. This dangerous concession of these Anglican apologists is what is typed by Menahem giving Pul 1,000 talents of silver, conceding as human truth (1,000, being a multiple of 10, types things belonging to a nature lower than the Divine nature) a part of the claims of Deists on reason being the sole source and rule of faith (a thousand talents of silver, 19;). This evil concession was made in order that antitypical Menahem might get that much of Deism's support as was necessary for antitypical Menahem to keep its power as a dominating movement in antitypical Israel (hand … confirm the kingdom in his hand). 

(32) Antitypical Menahem exacted these concessions as teachings of God's people (money of Israel) from the Anglican controversialists, especially from the ablest from among them (mighty men of wealth [teachings being the wealth of teachers], 20;). The concessions of each controversialist were not complete; they were merely partial, which is indicated by the 50 in the shekels. Had the shekels been 100 (10 X 10), the concessions would have been all-out; but as they 

Later Parallels. 

567 

were 50 (5 X 10) they were only partial (fifty shekels of silver). But as such they were yielded to Deism (give to the king of Assyria). Bishop Walburton was the main sinner in this respect, though as a whole his work, The Divine Legation of Moses, ably refuted the main objections of the Deists against the Mosaic Law and prophecy as being against nature. In reading Bishop Butler's Analogy one can see that he, too, yielded too much to human reason in its office as a student of nature; for he used reason in studying nature as being a quasi-sourcel prover of faith, whereas he should have used it only as offering corroborations to things of faith. It is very unwise, yea, wrong in a Truth controversialist to yield more to an adversary than the principles involved require. Deism would have been more soundly beaten had these concessions not have been made. As it was, they left the field of battle (turned back) feeling that they had gained a partial victory, though suffering a greater defeat. And they left off the controversy with antitypical Menahem, leaving the field in its hands (stayed not … land). English church historians especially, though others cooperated therein, have given the record of antitypical Menahem's acts, especially as to its controversies with Latitudinarians and Deists, and have given many of them not typed in the Bible record of Menahem's acts (acts … book … kings of Israel, 21;). In the year 1742 antitypical Menahem ceased to be the most prominent movement of the less favored people of God (slept with his fathers, 22;), after following the evils of the Lutheran movement (evil, 18;); and a pleasure- and society-loving movement of the hierarchy and clergy of the Anglican Church, begotten by antitypical Menahem, succeeded it as the most prominent movement of the less favored people of God (Pekahiah [whom Jehovah exposes] his son reigned in his stead). 

(33) Already before and increasingly during the days of antitypical Menahem the Anglican hierarchy and clergy loved leisure, ease, fashionable society, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

568 

learned pursuits, pleasure and worldly occupations and diversions. Of the clergy Archdeacon Blackbourne, the Latitudinarian leader, in a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury said that they were "courtiers, politicians, lawyers, merchants, usurers, civil magistrates, sportsmen, stewards of country squires, tools of men in power." "Nonresidence and disregard of the claims of duty prevailed among the bishops and lower clergy. Watson, Bishop of Llandaff (Wales), lived in the Lake district, and visited Wales once in three years. Hoadly, Bishop of Bangor, never visited his diocese during his six years' occupation of it; Warburton at Gloucester complained of the inconvenience of that public station as hindering his studies; while Secker at Oxford looked upon his summer visit at Cuddesdon as giving him a delightful retirement for his favorite studies. In the view of statesmen some bishoprics were preferments suitable for men of ability and learning, some mere places of ease, suitable for men of family and fashion." The hierarchy and the clergy were pleasure- and society-mad. Hilarious gatherings, social calls and musicals attracted them. Parties were in great favor with them; masquerades were an attraction to them. Some of them loved to follow the hounds in fox hunting; and afternoon teas in wealthy houses were dear to them. They were a pleasure- and money-loving set in very many cases. So much was this mode of life their pursuit that their spirit became characteristic of the most prominent movement among God's less favored people—antitypical Pekahiah, whose reign was from 1742 to 1744, typical Pekahiah reigning from 779 to 777 B.C. (fiftieth year of Azariah … reigned … Samaria, and reigned two years, 23;). This movement naturally grew out of antitypical Menahem (son of Menahem) and exercised the place of chief prominence in executorship in antitypical Israel (over Israel in Samaria). In addition to committing the above-mentioned evils, antitypical Pekahiah (evil … Lord, 24;) was guilty of the sins of sectarianism

Later Parallels. 

569 

and clericalism, which were introduced by the first Lutheran movement, and which became the evils of all the movements of the less favored people of God (Jeroboam … made Israel to sin). 

(34) Calvinistic Methodism, under the lead of George Whitefield, was a party in the Anglican Church (Pekah [exposer] … a captain of his, 25;). It was a party that practiced rigid self-denial and world-denial and naturally was much offended by and opposed to the selfishness and worldliness of the Anglican hierarchy and clergy acting in antitypical Pekahiah, and consequently agitated much against them (conspired against him) and publicly and privately witnessed against antitypical Pekahiah, exposing the selfish and worldly lives of its leaders and their executorship neglect of the salvation of Britishers in general and of their church members in particular (smote him in Samaria). Particularly did Calvinistic Methodism excoriate the special evils, those set forth above, of their selfish and worldly lives (palace … house). In this attack Calvinistic Methodism singled out the earthly minded members of the hierarchy (Argob, cloddy) and the most powerful of the higher clergy (Arieh, lion) for the special targets of their sharp shafts; and so thoroughly did they do this work that they put an end to antitypical Pekahiah as the most prominent movement among those of God's less favored people (killed him). Calvinistic Methodism was in these attacks supported by tentatively-justified members of the Anglican Church who occupied a rough and hard position on the subject, e.g., many of the outspoken nobility, parliamentarians, judges (fifty … Gileadites [rough, hard, 50 = 10 X 5, hence not vitalizedly, but tentatively justified ones. If 100 = 10 X 10 had been the number, vitalizedly justified ones would have been meant]). This course met very general approval; for the selfishness and worldliness of antitypical Pekahiah was the greatest obstacle in Britain to godliness in high and low, as it was also indirectly responsible for the

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

570 

many evils that marred British society in all classes—high, middle and low. As a result of Calvinistic Methodism's pertinent course it became the most prominent movement of God's less favored people (reigned in his room). In the writings of church and secular historians of Britain and other countries are found accurate accounts of the above-described and other acts of antitypical Pekahiah, which certainly were unpastoral (acts … chronicles … Israel, 26;). 

(35) As in describing antitypical Jotham's reign we devoted some space to a study of the life and work of John Wesley, its chief leader, so now in describing the reign of antitypical Pekah, which became the most prominent movement in antitypical Israel in 1744 (two and fiftieth year of Azariah, 27;) and continued to be such until 1772, the parallel dates being 777-749 B. C. [P '40, 182 (6)], we will devote some space to a study of the life and work of George Whitefield, the main leader of the Calvinistic Methodist movement. He was born in 1714 and died in 1770. He was a son of an inn-keeper, and in adolescence served drinks in the inn to customers to help his mother, who was widowed when he was but two years old. He studied at St. Mary de Crypt and later at Pembroke College, Oxford, where he fell in with John and Charles Wesley, joined the "Holy Club," faithfully kept its rules, professed "conversion" in 1735, was ordained deacon in 1736, spent much time helping prisoners in Oxford, began to preach and became a pulpit orator of the highest order, probably as great a pulpit orator as ever lived. He preached throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Protestant Ireland and visited America on evangelistic work seven times and finally died during his seventh visit there. In 1738 he was ordained an Anglican priest. His pointed preaching occasioned many of the London church doors to close to him, though he was allowed to preach in some others. Like the Wesleys, he worked a while among the Moravians. In 1739, the church doors of Bristol being closed against him, he resorted 

Later Parallels. 

571 

to preaching in the open air and soon induced John Wesley to do the same. This gave the Methodists opportunities to reach great multitudes that they never could have reached in churches. Thereupon he began his career as an itinerant evangelist, one of the greatest that ever lived. He sometimes addressed audiences of 80,000. His denouncing leading members of antitypical Pekahiah, calling them, among other things, "blind guides," made the latter oppose him. His association with American Calvinists, particularly Jonathan Edwards, deepened the Calvinism that he had earlier espoused. Above we pointed out his controversy with Wesley on predestination, which led to a temporary alienation between them, but which was soon healed, and they remained friends for life, though their paths diverged, because of their leading different movements. 

(36) Whitefield left the work of organizing his movement to others, especially to Lady (Countess) Huntingdon, his most devoted helper, and gave himself to preaching as his specialty, even preaching for two hours at Exeter, Mass., the day before his death, he being accustomed to preach every day, often three and four times daily. Like our pilgrims, he preached his sermons over and over again. His journals, sermons and letters have been published. His success was due to his dramatic delivery; for his published sermons are tame and do not rise above the commonplace. Lady Huntingdon sought through him to interest members of the nobility. On one occasion when he was addressing some of them, his description of the lost sinner as being like one blindfolded and walking toward, and falling over a precipice was so realistic that Lord Chesterfield, of politeness' fame, cried out, in great excitement, "Why! he has fallen over the precipice!" Benjamin Franklin describes the effect of one of his appeals for a charitable fund as moving him from a determination to give only a penny to successive determinations to give ever-increasing amounts, until finally he emptied his entire purse into the collection basket!

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

572 

Whitefield and Wesley undoubtedly excel all other non-apostolic evangelists, not even excepting Moody. Like the Wesleyan Methodists, the Calvinistic Methodists built chapels, founded schools and even instituted a theological seminary at Trevecca, Wales. The movement failed to achieve the same degree of fruitage as the Wesleyan movement, and that largely because the former did not preach Biblical doctrines as much as the latter, nor did it seek to indoctrinate its adherents as much as did the latter. Most contemporaries placed Whitefield above Wesley, because of his greater oratorical abilities. Wesley's greater scholarly and organizing ability, his greater pastoral character and his star-membership made his movement a far better one than Whitefield's. However, under the antitypical Ahaz phase of the Wesleyan movement matters were almost as bad in it as in antitypical Pekah. Doubtless Countess Huntingdon's great influence in antitypical Pekah imparted to it an aristocratic savor that did not give it the popular appeal that the Wesleyan movement exerted. 

(37) Note the difference in the expressions characterizing antitypical Ahaz, which, though a Wesleyan movement, was much degenerated from antitypical Jotham the Wesleyan movement at its best, and antitypical Pekah: "did not that which was right" (; 28:1) and "did that which was evil" (15:28). Even evil antitypical Ahaz was not so bad as antitypical Pekah! Some of the latter's evils will come out when its controversies with antitypical Ahaz are described. It was certainly a more contentious movement than the former, having all its faults and lacking some of its virtues. It was a very sectarian movement, seen in its strict Calvinism and in its taking away temporarily from antitypical Ahaz many of its followers. It, too, was a decidedly clericalistic movement, since it stressed clericalistic powers decidedly more than did antitypical Ahaz. These two faults are typed by the Scripture statement made of all but one, antitypical Hoshea (17:2;), of the movements of the less favored people of 

Later Parallels. 

573 

God: "He departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin" (28;). Certainly, the first Lutheran movement wrought much mischief in its establishing clericalism and sectarianism. Nor was God's punishment slack as to antitypical Pekah; for though Whitefield had wrought very much and effectively in the American colonies, having visited and evangelized all eight of them, as these were in his days organized, the preliminary acts of the American revolutionists, 1764-1772 (days of Pekah … Tiglath-pileser [mighty lion of the Tigris], 29;), took from antitypical Pekah in Britain almost all that Whitefield had accomplished for it during his seven evangelistic trips in America (and took). In his days the American colonies were from certain standpoints organized into eight groups: (1) New England, (2) New York and New Jersey, (3) Pennsylvania and Delaware, (4) Maryland, (5) Virginia, (6) North Carolina, (7) South Carolina and (8) Georgia (Ijon [ruin], and Abel [mourning]-beth [house]-maachah [oppression], and Jenoah [he rests], and Kedesh [holy], and Hazor [court, village], and Gilead [rough, hard], and Galilee [circuit] … Naphtali [wrestling]. From another standpoint there were, of course, 13 colonies. Henceforth the American revolutionists in their strength took over the fruitage and members of these colonies as theirs from antitypical Pekah, carried them captive to Assyria [step, going]). The British state-church, deliberately pursuing an anti-Calvinistic policy, worked against the Calvinistic Methodists as the most prominent movement of God's less favored people (Hoshea [deliverance] … Elah [oak, strength] made a conspiracy, 30;); and in spite of this movement's having much riches of grace from God (Remaliah, wealth of Jehovah), attacked its Calvinism and refuted it (smote him and slew him) and took its place as the most prominent movement of the less favored people of God, in 1772 (17:1; reigned in his stead). The acts of this movement are described in the writings of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

574 

church historians, especially those written by Britons, Americans and Germans (acts of Pekah … written … chronicles … Israel, 31;). 

(38) We now return to antitypical Ahaz, whose acts as described in 16:1-4; and; 28:1-4 we have already studied. For its wickedness the Lord aroused the so-called Evangelical [Calvinistic] Party in the Church of England to attack it on the subject of election (Rezin [firm] … Syria [highland] … delivered … mote him, 16:5; 28:5); and by this controversy these Anglicans won many Wesleyan Methodists back to the Anglican Church (carried … multitude of them captive … Damascus). Antitypical Rezin's leading representatives (not all taking part in the controversy about to be described) were James Hervey, William Grimshaw, William Romaine, Henry Venn, John Newton, Thomas Scott, Richard Cecil, Joseph Milner, Isaac Milner, Samuel Walker, Thomas Adam, Thomas Robinson and William Richardson, men of great piety and zeal, and some of them of considerable learning. At that time antitypical Rezin attacked the Methodist Millennial doctrine [blessings for the then living only] and moved the Wesleyan Methodists, who for a while held it in the form just stated in brackets, to give it up, and a false nominal-church view of the Millennium as a reign of the Church before Christ's Return was by it given to this doctrine (drove the Jews from Elath, 6;), and this has been accepted since by the so-called Evangelical Anglicans (Syrians came to Elath, and dwelt there unto this day). The main Anglican evangelical controversialists against the Wesleyan Methodists on predestination and the Millennium as a time of blessing the then living only, were Henry Venn, John Newton, Thomas Scott, Richard Cecil and Joseph Milner. Others, whose names will be omitted because of their bitterness, were very rude in their treatment of the Wesleyan Methodists in this controversy. But by far more bitter than antitypical Rezin in this controversy against antitypical Ahaz was 

Later Parallels. 

575 

antitypical Pekah (delivered into … Israel, ; 5); but both of them sought to overthrow the former in its executiveness (came up to Jerusalem to war, 5;); and while they did it much injury, especially did antitypical Pekah so do (great slaughter, ; 5), they were unable to conquer it (could not overcome him, 5;). The chief controversialists of antitypical Pekah were Augustus Toplady, author of the hymn, Rock of Ages, John Berridge and the brothers, Sir Richard and Roland Hill; and the chief warriors of antitypical Ahaz were John Fletcher, Thomas Olivers and Walter Sellon. Wesley did very little writing in this controversy, being too busy with more important matters. The four above-named warriors of antitypical Pekah were most bitter in the abusive epithets that they, especially Toplady, hurled at Wesley, who in a truly Little Flock spirit bore it, without answering in kind, in a most sweet spirit, Toplady's spirit being far from that of our Lord, especially considering that he was only 30 years old, while Wesley was 70. The same sweet spirit marked the saintly John Fletcher's pertinent writings. But Thomas Olivers descended to almost the same depth of abuse as the four antitypical Pekahites. Sellon's part was in spirit midway between Wesley's and Fletcher's spirit and that of Olivers. 

(39) The main questions at issue were those of election and free grace. The Bible teaches both, election operative pre-Millennially and free grace operative Millennially. The result of the controversy was that each side presented many Biblical arguments in its favor, and neither was able to refute the main arguments of the other. Antitypical Ahaz labored under the difficulty of having the facts of the Church's and the world's experience up to the present against it; for both the Bible and the Church's and the world's experience prove that up to the present election, and not free grace, has been operating savingly. Antitypical Ahaz, denying future probation, was in great difficulty in maintaining free grace as now operating savingly. 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

576 

Antitypical Rezin and Pekah had the greatest difficulty with the passages that prove free grace—God's love for all, Christ's death for all and the Spirit's work for all for salvation. Both sides were thus greatly hampered in the controversy; but the predestinarians won many more proselytes from antitypical Ahaz than the latter won from the former. Involved in the main question at issue were questions like the following: What is the relation of good works to justification by faith? Are certain ones predestinated to eternal life? Are all others destined to eternal torment? Have all a chance to gain life? Is justification a result of sanctification, or does it precede it, or are the two identical? Is Christ's righteousness imputed or imparted to the believer, or both? Is it possible to attain a state of sinlessness in this life? Is grace irresistible and unloseable? Are there two justifications, one in this life by faith, and one by the evidence of works at Christ's judgment seat? Do we work for life or from life? Does the expression, a finished salvation, mean more than a finished redemption? Is the liberty of will compatible with Divine grace? Did Christ die for the elect only, or for the whole world? Is God's saving love limited to the elect, or does it extend to the whole world? Is the Spirit's work limited to the elect, or will it operate to the whole world? Other questions were also involved, which we will here pass by. From the viewpoint of the Divine plan we may say, in summarizing the controversy, that both sides had much of truth and much of error, but all in all antitypical Ahaz had more of truth and less of error than antitypical Rezin and Pekah, as we should expect of the movement of the more favored people of God. Neither side understanding future probation, the high calling as distinct from justification and the difference between tentative and vitalized justification, they could not conclusively refute each other, a stalemate resulting. 

(40) However, because of the apostasy (forsaken the Lord, ; 6) of antitypical Ahaz, it lost refutatively

Later Parallels. 

577 

to the other side decidedly more, and brave, crown-retainers and crown-losers than it gained from that side (Pekah slew … one hundred and twenty thousand [12,000, a Little Flock number, a multiple of 10 fitting the Great Company] … all valiant men, ; 6). Toplady, the ablest but most vituperative warrior of antitypical Pekah (Zichri [memorable]), on certain lines of argument refuted John Fletcher, a very great favorite of antitypical Ahaz (Maaseiah [work of Jehovah]), Walter Sellon, one of antitypical Ahaz's leaders (Azrikam [help arises]) and Thomas Olivers, one in very high place with antitypical Ahaz (Elkanah [God is maker], ; 7). Antitypical Pekah won over to his side very many of the less informed adherents of antitypical Ahaz (captive … two hundred thousand women, sons and daughters, ; 8); additionally they took over from the other side not a few lines of thought, e.g., they would not say that anyone is predestinated to eternal torment (much spoil … Samaria). But there were some teachers in the domain of antitypical Pekah who disapproved of the unbrotherly course of antitypical Pekah (Oded, setter up, ; 9). They appeared in the sphere of antitypical Pekah's executorship (Samaria) in public before the warriors as they were returning from the field of controversy (before the host), severely blaming them for the unbrotherly way the Divine wrath against antitypical Ahaz had permitted them to war with their brethren (Lord … wroth … your hand … lain). They pointed out that their rage was heaven-crying for vengeance (rage … heaven). Then they blamed them for their proselyting purpose whereby they sought to enslave their brethren (purpose … children … bondmen and bondwomen, ; 10), charging that there were sins in them against God (sins). Therefore they exhorted the warriors to return their winlings to their own brethren (deliver … brethren, ; 11), threatening them with special wrath from the Lord (wrath … upon you). Thereupon the leading brethren of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

578 

antitypical Israel (heads of Ephraim, ; 12), those of England (Azariah [help of Jehovah] … Johanan [Jehovah is gracious]), of Scotland (Berechiah [blessed of Jehovah] … Meshillemoth [retributions]), of Wales (Jehizkiah [Jehovah strengthens] … Shallum [peaceable, requital]) and of Ireland (Amasa [burden] … Hadlai [forbearing]), set themselves in opposition to the course of the warriors (stood up against … war), declaring that the warriors should not retain these pertinent captives (not bring … hither, ; 13), asserting that what they had already done was offensive to God (offended) and that what they further purposed would be adding to the sin of all Israel (add … trespass) and that Israel's sin was already great (sin … great), and was bringing special wrath upon Israel (wrath against Israel). 

(41) This remonstrance led to the warriors' giving up their prey to the will of the protesters (left … spoil … congregation, ; 14). Thereupon certain Israelites were elected (expressed by name, ; 15) to see to the supplying of the needs of these winlings. They put upon them as garments the bootied truths (rose up … clothed … naked … hod), set truths before them as symbolic food (gave them to eat and drink), aroused them to exercise their good qualities (anointed them). Then, secondly, they supported the feeble among them with suitable helps (carried … asses) and led all of them back as crown-losers to their proper condition as such (Jericho … palm trees), to the antitypical Judahites (to their brethren). Those who had treated them in brotherliness then returned to the sphere of executorship of God's less favored people (returned to Samaria). In its extremity antitypical Ahaz betook itself for succor to the revolutionists in America and to those who favored them in the United Kingdom (messengers to … Assyria … help, 7; 16). The protests of the American colonies against the tyrannies of George III, his ministers and parliament aroused much sympathy in Britain, and, 

Later Parallels. 

579 

among others, the Wesleyan Methodists favored their cause. Indeed, there were kindred thoughts and spirit among them (thy servant and thy son, 7;); for antitypical Ahaz, standing for universal redemption and the freedom of man's will as against Calvinistic coercion of the human will in "conversion," found itself in sympathy with the freedom-advocating Americans. Hence both mutually sought each other's support, especially was this the case with antitypical Ahaz (save me … hand … Syria … Israel, which rise up against me). Not only was antitypical Ahaz attacked by antitypical Rezin and Pekah, but the civil magistrates mistreated it at the instigation of the clergy and clergy-raised mobs and frightened weak ones into leaving the movement and into becoming captives of secularists (Edomites … mitten … captive, ; 17). Moreover, sectarians made inroads (Philistines also had invaded, ; 18) among their weaker members (low … south), in America (Beth-shemesh, house of the sun), in Ireland (Ajalon, oakland), in England (Gederoth, fortress), in Scotland (Shocho, hedging), in Wales (Timnah, portion) and in the West Indies (Gimzo, sycamore plantation). They also made inroads in the subordinate classes in these countries (villages … villages … villages). Thus the Lord abased His more favored people (brought Judah low, ; 19), because of antitypical Ahaz's sins; for it stripped the more favored people of God of their real adornment of graces (naked) and, sinning greatly against the Lord, alienated Him (transgressed sore). But the sum total of the efforts of the secular liberty-lovers was of no real help to antitypical Ahaz, rather it added to its distress (Tilgath-pilneser [a euphonic change in the spelling] … distressed him, but strengthened him not … helped him not, ; 20, 21). 

(42) To gain the support of the secular liberty-lovers antitypical Ahaz gave up to them some of its Divine religious teachings (silver and gold … house of the Lord), e.g., the right of subjects to resist, and even

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

580 

to rebel against religious (hierarchical) tyranny, some of its civil teachings (in the treasures of the King's house … portion), e.g., the right of subjects to resist and rebel against civil tyranny, and some of its aristocrats' teachings (of the princes), e.g., "all men created equal," "taxation without representation is tyranny," "consent of the governed, etc.," for their comforting and supporting (sent … Assyria, 8; 21). This induced the secular liberty-lovers to take its side (hearkened unto him, 9;) and they attacked the Anglican Church in its Evangelical Party for supporting the secular powers in their tyranny (went up against Damascus) and captured its theories on subjects' obeying the civil powers in all things and being subject to aristocratic powers (took it) and changed the opinions of their supporters into accepting their own (captive to Kir [city]) and refuted antitypical Rezin's pertinent views (slew Rezin). Above we showed how these liberty-lovers took away from Britain the American colonies in eight divisions as to giving them their, as against Britain's theory on liberty. Antitypical Ahaz gave his attention to the executorship of antitypical Rezin (went to Damascus, 10;), in order to fellowship with the British and American liberty-lovers (meet … Assyria), and, considering the Anglican Church as an organization, as set forth by antitypical Rezin in its executorship (saw an altar … Damascus), commended it to the leading consecrated ones in its movement (sent Urijah [light of Jehovah]) as a model for the Wesleyan Church as an organization (fashion … pattern) in its various details (workmanship). These leading consecrated ones, including both Wesleys and John Fletcher, began from then on to develop the Methodist Church as an organization according to the theory of the Anglican Church as an organization. This development was one that took years to complete; in fact it was not completed until after the Ahaz phase ceased to be the most prominent one in antitypical Judah; yet, as it is usual in prophecy and prophetic 

Later Parallels. 

581 

types to fix as to time the forecast events at their beginnings, since it was begun and developed in part during the Ahaz phase, it is set forth as made during it (Urijah … built an altar according … Ahaz … Damascus, 11;), and that by the time antitypical Ahaz ceased giving special attention to the matters of antitypical Rezin's executorship (Ahaz came from Damascus), and attended to matters at home. 

(43) After ceasing such attention antitypical Ahaz made a careful study of the thus developing Methodist Church as an organization (saw the altar, 12;), and made its sacrifice in the interests of, and according to that Church (approached … offered). Thus in its critical situation it added to its past sins by starting to build a sect as the true Church, after the model of the Anglican Church, as set forth by its Evangelical Party (distress did he trespass, ; 22). Its pertinent ministries were a sacrifice in the interests of sectarianism and clericalism (sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, ; 23), despite their having hitherto attacked it (smote him), it thinking that, as the various parties of the Anglican Church had gotten help from sectarianism and clericalism (gods … Syria help them), by thus serving them they would help it, too, (help me). Instead of these helping it, they brought ruin upon what once had been a priestly movement (ruin of him … Israel). It presumed to give in sacrifice to this developing sect ministries that it had formerly given the Church for God (burnt, 13;), sacrifices allegedly manifesting God's acceptance of Christ's sacrifice (burnt offering), in the form of preaching, teaching and writing on the deep (meat offering) and surface things of the Word (drink offering), and all this as a counterfeit fulfilment of consecration vows made to the Lord (peace offerings, upon the altar). The next great evil that antitypical Ahaz did was to displace the true Church in the Methodist movement, brethren like the Wesleys, Fletcher and those of the same spirit, from its position as the true Church, as 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

582 

viewed by the justified, in its capacity of comforting, strengthening, etc., the sacrificers (brought also the brazen altar … Lord, 14;), from its place of prominence before God's house (forefront of the house), and gave it a position inferior to the sectarian Church that it was developing (north … altar). It charged the prominent consecrated ones (commanded Urijah, 15;), thus taking the two Wesleys as parts of antitypical Samson into captivity after blinding them, to do their sacrificing, from the viewpoint of the justified, in the interest of the developing Methodist sect (upon the great altar [the counterfeit altar]), those sacrifices of Jesus in manifesting God's acceptance of it (morning burnt offering), those of the Church in the form of giving out the deep things (evening meat offering), the movement's sacrifices to God as manifesting that it was acceptable by Jesus' merit (king's burnt sacrifice), in the form of its giving out the deep things (his meat offering), and the same features, plus the giving out of surface things, in the common people's sacrifices (burnt offering … people … meat offering, and their drink offerings), and to make a public use of such sacrifices as manifesting God's acceptance and as made for the developing sect (sprinkle … burnt offering … blood of the sacrifice). It further charged that the true Church in its midst be used only for it to learn God's will (brazen altar … me to enquire by). The leading consecrated ones did accordingly (thus did Urijah … Ahaz commanded, 16;), a bad example. 

(44) Antitypical Ahaz added still another evil: it gathered the doctrinal, refutational, cleansing and ethical teachings that the Lord's people had and defiled every one of them by its false teaching of sinless perfection of the most advanced of the consecrated, calling this error Entire Sanctification. By this error it undermined overtly or covertly every doctrinal, refutational, cleansing and ethical teaching of the Word (vessels … God and cut in pieces the vessels … God, ; 24). This teaching and practice (1) in its estimation closed

Later Parallels. 

583 

the entrance into the true Church to those who did not profess sinless perfection; and (2) it actually closed it to those who made such profession (shut up the doors … Lord); and at the same time it changed the societies of the Church of England, as the local groups of the Methodists were called, and made churches of them wherever its executiveship extended (altars … Jerusalem). This had the effect of making all these churches of God's more favored people sectarian churches (city … high places, ; 25), where the consecrated choice human powers were sacrificed to sectarianism and clericalism (burn incense unto other gods), which, of course, increased God's displeasure with antitypical Ahaz (anger the Lord God). These evils, set forth in; 24, are described typically in another way in 17, 18;. By its teaching of the sinless perfection of the sanctified it severed the connection between the doctrine of man's fall and the Bible (cut off the borders of the bases, 17;) and thus overthrew the basic necessity of the Bible (removed the laver) and removed from the Old Testament as the basis the New Testament (took down the sea … brazen oxen) and left the New Testament standing on justification without a real basic necessity (put … tones), all of which grossly militated against the fall and the ransom and was very untrue (1 John 1:8). And the proven doctrine of reckoned and actual justification as the antitypical rest (covert [place] for the sabbath, 18;) and the teaching that effected the entrance of the movements of God's more favored people into the antitypical court it gave up (turned … house), because of its fellowship with the secular liberty-lovers (king of Assyria). The acts of antitypical Ahaz are described in the histories of the movements of God's more and less favored people (acts … written in the book … kings of Judah and Israel, 19; 26). The movement finally ceased to be the most prominent of the more favored people of God (slept, 20; 27). It has been honored as such a movement (buried … in the city); but not as worthy of 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

584 

the respect given to other more favored movements of God's people—by an effigy burial with the movements of God's less favored people (not into sepulchres … Israel, ; 27), because the movement was evil. 

(45) We now come to the study of Israel's last king, Hoshea (deliverance) son of Elah (oak), as the parallel of the last movement of God's less favored people. The parallel years were 749-739 B. C. and 1772-1782 A. D. For the proof of this please see P '40, 180 (6). The date of the end of antitypical Hoshea was April, 1782, as will be shown when we come to study the end of the last movement of God's less favored people. As we saw above, antitypical Pekah, the Calvinistic Methodist movement, was displaced as such by the combined British state-church movement, April, 1772, because of the latter's disapproval of the former's Calvinism and of its more or less approval of the Wesleyan Methodist movement by contrast in their controversy with each other. Antitypical Hoshea was the British state-church movement in its capacity of seeking to enforce absolutism, especially in the state, and particularly in relation to the 13 American Colonies, claiming that absolutism was a matter of Divine right; and it began its reign in 1772, in its requiring the Colonies to pay the tea tax, all other taxes being by it at that time remitted, at the insistence of the secular liberty-lovers (reign … Israel, 2 Kings 17:1). It was an evil reign (did evil, 2). While sectarianism and clericalism were present, they were not so prominent in this movement as in the former movements of God's less favored people (not as the kings … before him). Its main sin was absolutism by alleged Divine right, especially in the king, George III; and this led to its tyrannizing over the secular liberty-lovers in the Colonies and in Britain. In Britain these liberty-lovers restrained somewhat the autocrats who sought to tax the Colonies without representation, a thing that secular liberty-lovers everywhere denounced as against the British constitution (against him came up Shalmaneser, 3).

Later Parallels. 

585 

Tea shipped to America was not by these liberty-lovers allowed to be landed in Boston, New York and Philadelphia; and in Charleston, S. C., it was purposely stored in musty cellars and was thus ruined, while in Boston the Boston Tea Party, disguised as Indians, cast overboard the contents of 340 chests of tea. 

(46) Thereupon antitypical Hoshea redoubled his efforts at oppression and was met by such determined resistance as forced on the War of Independence on the part of the Colonies against Britain; and Britain's concessions to liberty-lovers in Britain and America and its heavy expenditures were the price that it paid to the secular liberty-lovers to stall off matters' coming to a climax (became his servant … presents). The secular liberty-lovers in Britain and America as the War of Independence in America continued faulted the absolutist movement (found conspiracy in Hoshea, 4), because it sought to hire time-serving mercenary troops from other European nations, especially from the Hessians (sent … So [devoted to Chronos]), to fight against the 13 Colonies. In view of such help, actual and anticipated, it made no further concessions to the secular liberty-lovers in Britain and America (no present … Assyria), but waged relentless war on them. Of course, these fought back, those in Britain by arguments and efforts to block antitypical Hoshea's plans and measures, and those in America by battles and campaigns. Success fluctuated from one side to the other, with these liberty-lovers restraining the oppressors more and more (Assyria shut him up … prison), until April, 1780, when the war turned more and more in favor of the secular liberty-lovers, both in Britain and America (Assyria … all the land … besieged it, 17:5; fourth year of the king Hezekiah … year … Israel, 18:9), when the secular liberty-lovers began to press hard the autocratic movement in its executorship. 

(47) This turn of affairs came about by the secular liberty-lovers in Britain, especially in parliament, waging a more vigorous and successful opposition to the 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

586 

autocratic movement, and by the liberty-lovers in America waging a vigorous and successful campaign against Cornwallis' army in South Carolina and North Carolina. And by 1781 they forced him to leave the Carolinas and to advance northward into Virginia, whence he planned to go to New York and join forces with the British there. But the Americans and their French allies under Washington's command besieged him at Yorktown, Va., and compelled him to surrender, Oct. 19, 1781. After the news of this defeat reached England and was digested by the English, the autocratic ministry of Lord North resigned, March 20, 1782, and was succeeded by a secular liberty-lovers' ministry, which forthwith set into operation measures calculated to bring about a treaty of peace. Thus by April, 1782 (sixth year of Hezekiah, 18:10) the state-church autocratic movement received its death-blow (king … Samaria, 17:6; they took it, 18:10). This proved to be the end of movements of God's less favored people (carried Israel away into Assyria, 17:6; unto Assyria, 18:11). The less favored people of God were thus made captives of the secular liberty-lovers, who from 1782 to the present have required them to favor and work for liberty movements (Assyria). Henceforth the less favored people of God, especially in Britain, mentally dwelt, busied themselves, in such movements (placed them; put them). 

(48) These liberty movements were of three kinds: (1) Political liberty movements (Halah, strength), which liberated America, Southern Ireland, withdrew oppressions from dominions and colonies, established freedom of the press, especially to criticize the government, of assembly, of free speech and conscience, gave universal suffrage, including that of Romanists and Jews, with power to hold political office, stripped the crown's autocratic power unto its becoming a mere symbol of power, took away from the House of Lords the power to abrogate the decisions of the Commons, made the ministry subject, not to the king, but to

Later Parallels. 

587 

Commons, gave the right of discussion of political subjects to all, granted equality of all before the courts, gave dominion status to colony after colony, softened the penalties of the law, e.g., no more imprisonment for debts, no more capital punishment, except for murder and treason, whereas before they hanged even chicken thieves, etc., etc. (2) Social freedom (Habor [union], Gozan [refuge]). Class distinctions were made much less rigid, and are becoming yearly more fluid, so that the masses mingle more and more with the classes in Britain. It is now possible for royalty and nobility to wed with commonality, which before 1782 was almost an impossibility. All social distinctions based on race, color and religion are more and more being abrogated. Slavery has been abolished throughout the empire, etc., etc. (3) Economic liberty (cities of the Medes, midland). These liberties include for all the privilege of getting an education, wages sufficient to support self and family, living conditions suitable for comfort, working conditions free from extreme exactions, privilege of belonging to unions, cooperative bargaining and the right to strike. In our times this kind of liberty is bringing a mild socialism into vogue in Britain. Certainly, since 1782 these three kinds of liberty have been on the increase, and they prove that a degradation set in for the less favored people of God from religious to secular privileges. 

(49) Thus from great religious privileges the less favored people of God have become captives serving these three forms of secular liberty instead of religious privileges as formerly, all of this resulting in their becoming very much secularized—worldly. This is because they did not live out the principles of God's Word (obeyed not … God, 18:12), but violated the principles of justice, the law of the New Covenant, whose blessings with the obligation of justice were reckoned to them in justification, and the principles of the covenant of sacrifice and the Oath-bound Covenant, under which they were (sinned … God, 17:7; 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

588 

transgressed his covenant, 18:12). Jesus' charges they disregarded and disobeyed (Moses … commanded … hear them, nor do them). And they so acted despite God's delivering them from the present evil world and Satan's control as the god of this present evil world into the Kingdom of God's dear Son (Egypt … Pharaoh king of Egypt) and reverenced creeds, rulers, sectarianism, clericalism, movements, etc. (feared other gods). Instead of following the Divine principles of justice and love they conducted themselves after the examples of worldlings in the various forms of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness that they committed (walked … heathen, 17:8), after God had enabled them to drive out of their hearts and minds such evils (whom the Lord cast out from before … Israel). They also conducted themselves in the ways of living that were pursued by the movements that the less favored people of God had made (of the kings … had made). When we consider the evils of the various Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, Puritan Presbyterian movements and the five succeeding movements of God's less favored people, we will have to admit that they were guilty of following in the ways of these evil movements. They were guilty of secret sins, i.e., in hypocrisy they hid from others the evils that they in secrecy practiced, all of which God's all-seeing eye beheld (did secretly … against … God, 9). In every denomination they developed sects (high places … cities). They did this in turning Little Flock movements (tower of the watchmen) into denominationalism (to the fenced city). They developed creeds, e.g., the various Lutheran, Calvinistic, Anglican, Presbyterian Puritan, etc., creeds (set them up images, 10), formed unions of state and church with every great state (groves) and served under the energetic work of great sectarian leaders, especially crown-lost leaders (every green tree). In and for these sects they offered up their choice human powers in service (burnt incense … high places, 11), after the example of the evil characteristics

Later Parallels. 

589 

which God had purged out of their heads and hearts (heathen … carried away before them), and did so evilly as to arouse God's displeasure against them (wrought … provoke … anger). 

(50) They gave themselves up to serve the idols of various forms of sin, error, self and the world (served idols, 12). In the Bible time and again God forbids such idolatry to His people (said … not do this thing). God sent teachers among them, testifying against these deeds, e.g., he sent to the Lutherans Hubmaier by writings and lectures, Bucer in his lectures, sermons, Spener in sermons and writings, and John Arndt in his book, True Christianity; He sent Michael Servetus in his Restitution of True Christianity and Gisbert Voet in his Exercise of Piety, to the Calvinists; Jeremiah Taylor to the Anglicans in his Holy Living and Holy Dying, and Robert Browne, George Fox and John Wesley in their preaching and writings to the Anglicans and Presbyterians. John Bunyan in Pilgrim's Progress, William Law in his Serious Call, George Whitefield in sermons and John Wesley in sermons and writings, etc., testified against the evils of all of these denominations. Many others took part in such testifying (testified against Israel … prophets … seers, 13), exhorting the apostates in the less and more favored movements of God's people to reform and keep their covenant vows as to faith and practice (turn … evil ways, and keep … statutes) accordingly as God had given His Word to their predecessors by His mouthpieces (law … fathers … sent … prophets). Despite all of these they did not give heed, but became very wilful, like their ancestors (not hear, but hardened … fathers, 14), who were unbelieving and consequently disobedient (not believed in … God). Thereby they cast off God's precepts (rejected his statutes, 15) and abandoned the reckoned covenant of justification by faith and its implications of righteous living, and the actual covenant of sacrifice and the actual Oath-bound Covenant (his covenant), made by 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

590 

Him with their predecessors (made with their fathers), and gave up the protesting antitypes (testimonies … against them). Instead they followed error, an empty and unprofitable thing (vanity), and as a result became empty and unprofitable (became vain) and imitated the teachings and practices of the neighboring worldlings (heathen … about them), concerning imitating whom God had warned them (charged … not do like them). They forsook all of God's teachings (left all the commandments, 16), generally speaking, instituting for themselves wicked practices (made them molten images), specifically speaking, even the two main evils of God's apostate less favored people, clericalism and sectarianism (two calves), entered a union of state and church, symbolic fornication (grove), and served all the evil qualities typed by the heathen personifications of the heavenly bodies, singly and as constellations, to which the heathen had given the names of their gods (host of heaven), especially power-grasping and lording, the symbolic sun (served Baal, lord). 

(51) Additionally they taught the God-blaspheming doctrine of eternal torment (caused their sons and daughters to pass through the fire, 17,—an allusion to Moloch worship), taught false prophecies (used divination) and deceitful doctrines, especially in the form of ununderstandable doctrines, like trinity, absolute predestination, the real presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, the omnipresence of Christ's humanity, etc., etc. (enchantments), and gave themselves unto spiritual slavery as the wages of indulgence in sin (sold themselves to do evil), and that in matters pertinent to the Lord (sight of the Lord), which, of course, resulted in displeasing Him (provoke him to anger). As a result God became highly displeased with His less favored people (very angry with Israel, 18) and cast them off entirely from being His less favored people (removed … sight), with the result that He had no other favored people than His most favored people alone (none left … Judah only). Moreover, His more 

Later Parallels. 

591 

favored people (Judah, 19) were not true to God's teachings (kept not the commandments … God), but at times followed the example of His less favored people in clericalism and sectarianism, which the latter had arranged for themselves (which they made). Hence God rejected the whole of God's less favored people (rejected all … Israel, 20), sent from time to time various punishments upon them (afflicted them) and allowed them to fall into the power of plundering nations (delivered … spoilers), which, not resulting in their reformation, came to a climax in His casting them entirely from His favor (cast them out of His sight). His wrath against antitypical Israel was a gradually rising one in which much forbearance was exercised. It began at the time that the less favored people of God were by Him broken away in revolution from the more favored people of God in the Zwinglian movement (sent Israel from … David, 21) and at the time when they made the Lutheran movement the less favored movement of God's people (made Jeroboam … king), which movement drove the less favored people of God into apostacy from the Lord (Jeroboam drave … Lord) and made them sin greatly, especially in clericalism and sectarianism (sin a great sin), since they conducted themselves as the Lutheran movement directed, not only in clericalism and sectarianism, but also in creedism, unbrethrenliness, unjustified disfellowshipment, secularism, persecution of dissenters, union of state and church, etc. (walked … sins of Jeroboam, 22); neither did they give these up (departed not from them). So strongly and long did they adhere to these evils that finally God cast them off entirely from His favor (removed … sight, 23), even as He had threatened by all His messengers to them (said … prophets). Thus were the less favored people of God taken out of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit into the teachings and sphere of secular liberty (carried … land to Assyria), where they remain until now and will continue until this Age ends (unto this 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

592 

day). These effects were wrought out in all European Protestant countries, additionally to Britain. 

(52) The secular liberty-lovers aroused adherents of five movements to make the hearts and minds of God's less favored people, which hearts and minds were once the sphere of a measure of the Truth and its Spirit in their various denominations, their sphere of teaching and spirit (king of Assyria … placed them … Samaria, 24). And the adherents of these movements in their teachings and spirit filled such hearts and minds, formerly the sphere where new creatures were, moved and had their being (instead … Israel), and made such hearts and minds the sphere of their teachings and spirit (possessed Samaria). The adherents of these five movements that filled such minds and hearts were those of: (1) the Combinationist movement (Babylon, mixture, confusion), (2) the Contradictionism movement (Cuthah, hiding place), (3) the Reformism movement (Ava, ruin), (4) the Infidelistic movement (Hamath, fortress) and (5) the No-ransomism movement (Sepharvaim, borderers). These occupied the various denominations of God's less favored people in all European Protestant countries (dwelt in the cities thereof). These movements' adherents, as one after another was set into activity, in the beginning of each (at the beginning, 25), several years intervening after one started before the next started, had no reverence for Jehovah (feared not the Lord). As punishment God opened the way for Romanism and Anglo-Catholicism in Britain and Romanism and elsewhere a revived Lutheran and Calvinistic orthodoxism which continued (sent lions) to make inroads upon them (among them); and these refuted them as such and won some of them over to their views (slew some of them). These adherents by their attitudes apprized the secular liberty-lovers (spake … Assyria, 26) of the fact that they who were put by them into the sphere of a measure of the Truth and its Spirit (removed … cities of Samaria) were without a proper knowledge 

Later Parallels. 

593 

of the way that Jehovah was to be served (know not … God of the land), which resulted in God's loosing Romanism and Anglo-Catholicism upon them (sent lions among them), to the continued overthrow of some of them (slay them). All this, their conduct showed, was due to their not knowing how they were to serve Jehovah (know not … God). The secular liberty-lovers by their attitude opened the way for prominent Protestant sectarians (Assyria … thither one of the priests, 27) made captives by the secular liberty-lovers (brought from thence) to help these adherents, requiring by their attitude that the adherents of the five movements continue where they had been transplanted (dwell there) and receive Protestant sectarian teachings from the prominent Protestant sectarians as to how they should serve Jehovah (God of the land). 

(53) These teachers certainly occupied themselves with Protestant sectarianism, as against Romanism and Anglo-Catholicism and revived Lutheran and Calvinistic orthodoxism (dwelt in Bethel—as the counterfeit House of God, i.e., sectarianism, 28), as the literature of the times shows; for they republished the main English and continental Reformation attacks on Rome, e.g., the Parker Society republished the controversial writings of Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Jewel, Parker, etc. Others republished Foxe's Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs, Chillingworth's Religion of the Protestants, Barrowe's The Pope's Supremacy, etc., etc., etc. Moreover, many new anti-Romanist and anti-Anglo-Catholic and pro-Protestant works of great ability were published by these Protestant sectarians. Public debates were held between them and Romanists, e.g., that held at Hammersmith, England, between John Cummings, D. D. (Protestant) and Daniel French, Esq., Barrister-At-Law (Romanist) (taught them … fear the Lord). In Continental Europe similar pertinent literature was republished and pertinent new literature was published. The five movements typed in v. 24 were reduplications of the five Gospel-Age forms of No-ransomism,

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

594 

Infidelism, Combinationism, Reformism and Contradictionism, and not the five forms of the two Harvests' sifting movements, e.g., their No-ransomism was not a verbal, but a logical denial of the ransom; for in their teaching human immortality, eternal torment and the trinity they logically, not verbally, contradicted the ransom, even as the No-ransomers of the Smyrna period did. And so with the others; for the Infidelism of that time consisted in displacing God's plan by the plans of the creedists and others; their Combinationism consisted in a union of state and church; their Reformism consisted in an effort to rid their sects of certain evils in state, church, aristocracy, labor and society, and construct in their stead a reformation in these spheres of action; and their Contradictionism consisted in their fighting unfolded reformation truths. Their contradictions were their creedal disagreements with the stewardship truths of other Protestant bodies, they making creeds their creed-gods (every nation [the five of v. 24] made gods of their own, 29) and establishing them in the bodies or groups of their own sects (put them in … high places) which these five movements constructed (Samaritans had made) in each denomination; for there have been the following Protestant denominations in Britain since 1782: Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, Baptist, Quaker and Methodist Churches, besides numerous sectlets and religious movements and on the Continent the Lutheran, Calvinistic, Unitarian denominations and many sects (cities … dwelt). 

(54) It is from names of the gods set forth in vs. 30 and 31 that we were able to see the antitypes of the peoples of the five parties that according to v. 24 were settled in the territory of the ten-tribed kingdom. It will be noted that neither in v. 24 nor in vs. 30, 31 are the five movements given in the order of the parallel movements of the Harvests and the Interim. The Combinationists made the union of state and church their creed-god (Babylon [mixture, confusion, in allusion to their combining things that should have

Later Parallels. 

595 

been kept separate], Succoth [tents], benoth [daughters, in allusion to symbolic fornication, implied in combinationism], 30). The Contradictionists made theological strife their creed-god (Cuth [strength, in allusion to the power of these contradictionists], Nergal [Mars, the god of war, in allusion to the controversialist activities of these]). The Infidelists, who consisted in part of the Broad Church party in the Anglican Church and of deists, rationalists and higher critics in all the churches, made their theories their god (Ashima [high, heavenly, in allusion to their high theories on God, virtue and the hereafter, in which they showed strength], Hamath [fortress, in allusion to the strong rationalistic arguments by which especially the deists and higher critics buttressed their views]). The rationalistic Reformers, who consisted of critics of evil conditions and of erectors of alleged cures of the evils (Avites [ruin, in allusion to their working ruin instead of reformation]) made a god of their destructive (Nibhaz [barker, in allusion to their barking at, i.e., criticizing, evil conditions]) and constructive measures of reform (Tartak [binder, in allusion to their seeking to unite into one whole their constructive measures of reform]). The No-ransomers (Sepharvaim [borderers, in allusion to their standing just outside the borders of Christianity]) constructed their ransom-denying theories of human immortality and eternal torment into their creed-gods, which were a logical not verbal denial of the ransom (Adrammelech [king's majesty, in allusion to the No-ransomers' king doctrine of human immortality, which they considered a very honorable teaching], Anammelech [woe's king, in allusion to their No-ransomer king doctrine of eternal torment]). These logically not verbally denying no-ransom teachings they made their king errors (gods of the Sepharvaim). 

(55) Thus these practiced a form of reverence for God (feared the Lord, 32). They also appointed in their sects as their clergy those who were, generally speaking, time-servers, popularity-lovers, ease-lovers, 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

596 

money-lovers, power-lovers, etc., and thus the lowest of themselves (made … lowest … priests of the high places). These ministered on their behalf in the offices of their sects (sacrificed … high places). They were a double-minded set, showing on the one hand a kind of reverence for God yet exercising a ministry on behalf of their creed-gods (feared … served, 33). This service was performed in the same way as the depravity that had reigned in the natural hearts, and that had been driven out by the new creatures of God's people (manner … whom … from thence). Even to the present time these apostates live as they lived before they became justified, and especially before they became new creatures (do after the former manners, 34): They neither really reverence God (fear not the Lord), nor do they live as their predecessors did as sectarians as to precepts and arrangements from 1521 to 1782 (after their statutes … ordinances), nor do they live according to the Oath-bound Covenant (the law), nor the covenant of sacrifice (commandment) that God gave to those who were produced by the star-members and their special helpers (commanded the children of Jacob [supplanter]), whose two final Parousia representatives God turned into the special warriors of God (named Israel—in allusion to these two being made special warriors for God). With these consecrated ones individually God had made a covenant, the Oath-bound Covenant (made a covenant, 35), with the implications of the covenant of sacrifice as binding them not to reverence the gods of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in their various forms (fear other gods), nor to honor them (nor bow yourselves to them), nor to yield themselves up to further them (nor serve them), nor to yield up their human all in their interests (nor sacrifice to them). But they should give Him supreme duty and disinterested love (him shall ye fear, 36) and further His interests (him shall ye worship) and yield up in service to Him their human all (to him … sacrifice). This is fitting because He

Later Parallels. 

597 

had delivered them from the present evil world of Satan's empire into the Kingdom of God's dear Son (brought you … Egypt), through justification and consecration, which God had operated toward them by the great power of His Word (great power) and the efficient ministry of Jesus (stretched out arm). 

(56) God had set forth for these very clearly (he wrote for you, 37) precepts (statutes), arrangements (ordinances), the Oath-bound Covenant (the law), with its implication, the covenant of sacrifice (the commandment). These He charged His consecrated people carefully to heed in practice always (observe to do for evermore) and prohibited them to give supreme duty and disinterested love to the various gods of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness in any of their forms (not fear other gods). God emphasized these thoughts, particularizing that they forget not the Oath-bound Covenant, which, given by God to them, implies that they had made the covenant of sacrifice (covenant … made … not forget, 38); and He stressed by repetition their not giving supreme duty and disinterested love to the gods of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, in any or all their forms (fear other gods). He charged them to give supreme duty and disinterested love to God, the self-existent One of perfect wisdom, power, justice and love (God ye shall fear, 39), which if they would do, He would give them victory over every power of every form of sin, error, selfishness and worldliness, as these would be manipulated against them by the devil, the world and the flesh (deliver … hand … enemies). But the unfaithful less favored people of God would not obey the Lord as He thus charged them (not hearken, 40), but lived after the depravities according to which they lived before their justification, consecration and Spirit-begettal (did after their former manner). Hence the tribes of God's less favored people (these nations, 41) continued to live double-mindedly, giving God some reverence and yielding service to No-ransomism, Infidelism, Combinationism, Reformism and 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

598 

Contradictionism (served their graven images), in all the successions of those whom they produced in their apostate condition (children … children). In this they have been close imitators of those who produced and developed them (as did their fathers, so do they), and this has continued up to this time and will continue unto the end of the extreme limit of this Age (this day). 

‍

BEREAN QUESTIONS

(1) What took the place of the Friends' movement? When? Where was its main field of work? To whom did it overflow and give refreshment? What did all the more faithful people of God do as to it? How typed? How do its two typical names apply to it? What preceded its start? Where? In whose activity? How was it nicknamed? When did it have its special start? How typed? What will help to understand its rise? What reigned then in the Luthern Church? What three evils marked its activities? A part of its clergy and laity? 

(2) From shortly after the reformation what had it undergone? Along the same general lines as what? How do the Apostles' times and Luther's earlier times as reformer compare? What characterized the periods 100-325 A. D. and 1525-1530? 325-799 and 1530-1580? 799-1215 and 1580-1610? 1215-1500 and 1610-1692? What accompanied these two scholastic periods? What is mysticism? By whom were its better forms represented? Who combined mysticism and scholasticism? 

(3) When and where were Spener's birth and death? What did he unite in his character? What four agencies helped him to good starts? What two things did he become? In what did he engage? Why? After what preliminary activities did his real work begin? As what? When? A year after what? What was the title of an epochal book of his? What seven points did it stress reformatorily? How long after its publication was it when its lessons sank in? With what result? What effect did its stressing devotional and study meetings restricted to the consecrated have? What did this effect start? How much later was it before this became the more favored movement of God's people? What did Spener bring forth in 1691? Where shown? How typed? How long before this doctrine was accepted? How typed? Before what occurred was it developed? After what was it accepted? How long did antitypical Uzziah (Azariah) last? What

Later Parallels. 

599 

did this make it in antitypical Judah? How typed? In this how does it compare with the length of antitypical Jeroboam II's reign? What activity began its reign? What were the involved parallel years? How long apart were they? What mothered it? How typed? 

(4) What was its character? How typed? In imitation of what? In what not? How typed? What can be said of its course? What did it seek? How typed? During what period? How typed? Who were these leaders, the Halleians, Wuerttembergers and Herrnhuters? As long as faithful with what were they gifted? How typed by the better reading? Of these leaders which one later went wrong? What bad eminence did he achieve? Where typed? How did Spener and Franke stand among these? In what way did each excel? What did God do to this movement? Especially in whom? How long? How typed? What three things did it not prevent? How typed in each case? Even who failed in this? What did they maintain? 

(5) What did they have to maintain? With whom? Who and what kind of men were their main opponents? Why? What did such resent? How are these things typed? Among such sectarians whom did they first refute? How typed? Secondly? How typed? Thirdly? How typed? What did they set up in the last one? How typed? Even among whom? How typed? What did God in these long controversies do? How typed? Against whom else? How typed? And still against whom else? How typed? What effect did these blows have upon the clericalists? By what were these blows given? How are these things typed? By what means was its fame spread abroad? How typed? Among what two classes? How typed? 

(6) What did it strengthen? How typed? In what three directions? How typed in each case? What did it do as to these things? How typed? What else did it strengthen? Into what country did the Halleians send missionaries? What two in particular? In what countries did the Herrnhuters work? Where else did the Halleians work? Even for whom? What university came into the control of the Wuerttemberg Pietists? What did they make of it? How are these things typed? What did it do with these institutions? How typed? Among what classes? How typed? What two kinds of laborers did it have? How typed in each case? In what two classes of countries? How typed in each case? What did it love? How typed? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

600 

(7) For what did it have to fight? What did this move it to do? How did they fight the Lord's battles? How are these things typed? Into what were they divided? How typed? How many special groups of these warriors were there? Which was and what is said of the first? How typed? The second? How typed? The third? How typed? What did these three groups have? Who were the main Halleian controversialists? Wuerttembergers? Herrnhuters? How are these typed? What can be said of these, great and less great, as to numbers and fighting power? How typed? Who fought under them? For what were they fit? How are these things typed? How did they fight? How typed? For and against whom? How typed? 

(8) What did the movement do for its warriors? How typed? With what six kinds of armor did it equip them? What was the use of each one? How typed in each case? What else did it make? Why? How typed? By whom made? How are these things typed? In detail, what were these armorial weapons and the ways that they defended it? What kind of a work did they do in general? In particular? How are these particulars typed? What did the many Halle institutions effect for the Pietists? How typed? To what degree? How typed? 

(9) What can be inferred from the above? What did each mainly contribute to this movement? When did each die? In relation to the movement's age? How was Franke much like our Pastor? What did these qualities make him in the Halle wing of this movement? To what two periods did this influence extend? What began to set in about ten years after his death? Where in small part? In large part? What characteristics marked Zinzendorf at first? Later? For what was he mainly responsible? Especially during what period? How typed? With what final outcome? How typed? What are two written illustrations of his pride and immodesty? 

(10) Of what is the busybodying of Uzziah typical? What will clarify the situation? Who already at Oxford were nicknamed Methodists? Why? What was their standing before meeting Peter Bohler in 1738? Who was he? To what did he lead them? What really was it? What prompted John Wesley to investigate Moravianism? Where? Whom did he there meet? By what things did he test Wesley's humility and simplicity? How did the latter respond? Where did this occur? Whither did Wesley 

Later Parallels. 

601 

then go? What did he learn at Herrnhut? Shortly after returning to England what did he begin? What were the chief points stressed by it? How was "conversion" stressed therein? What was this process called? 

(11) What did they call consecration, or sanctification? What was effected by these teachings? Especially with whom? How did they view and stress justification? What did they give as the basis of their claim? What did they not believe as to the imputed merit? To what, therefore, did they tend? What is antinomianism? How did Wesley stand on it? How did he view duty and disinterested love? To what did these opposing views lead? Before this what was the character of the fellowship between the Moravians and Wesleyans? What did Zinzendorf and his preachers resultantly begin to do? What else did they do? After what? How did Wesley meet the exclusion act? With what effect in London? What occurred elsewhere? How did this affect the Moravians, especially Zinzendorf? What did he seek to do? What did he allege? They prove? What was the result? Where is this situation typed? 

(12) What will now be traced? What was the Moravians' course as to the priestly work of the Evangelical Revival? What in reality was Moravianism? Accordingly, what kind of a movement was it? What was its attempt to do priestly work? How typed? In God's sight what was the character of such an attempt? Why so? What did the Moravians' pertinent course mean? How typed? Why so? How typed? What followed? How typed? What did they do as to such busybodying? What did the busybodies actually seek to do? Like what was their busybodying? In what in each case? What did Jesus and the underpriests do to the Movarians? How typed? How did they make their remonstrances? How typed? By what did they declare that the Moravians were busybodying? How typed? What else did their acts show? By act what did they charge? How typed? How did they prove them guilty of sin and dishonor? How typed in each case? 

(13) What effect did Jesus' course through the underpriests have on the Moravians, especially Zinzendorf? What did he say of obligatoriness of the Divine Law and Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification? With what did they and he become full? As if what were the case? How typed? How did the furious Zinzendorf characterize Wesley's doctrine of entire sanctification? In the debate

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

602 

what admission did Wesley wring from Zinzendorf? What was Wesley's reply? What did Zinzendorf answer? What comment belongs here on Zinzendorf's view? What did the latter add? Thereupon what did Wesley ask? Zinzendorf answer? Why did he not see the truth at issue? How did he express himself on James' epistle? How did he in fury express himself as to certain English Moravians who rejected his popishly lording tactics? 

(14) What was thus manifest? While what was done by the Moravians? How typed? While attempting what? How typed? Under these conditions what became apparent? How typed? In whose presence? Where? How typed? While the crown-lost ones were doing what? How typed? What did Jesus and the underpriests do? How typed? What did they recognize? How typed? What did they then do? How typed? How did they hasten their own exit? How typed? How did they come to make such poor defense of their position? How typed? When did this busybodying commence? In likeness to what? At the same time what was happening to the Halle and Wuerttemberg wings of Pietism? How long did this condition last? How typed? As such what did they do? How typed? How were they related to the faithful? How typed? During this time what did the Evangelical Revival movement do? How typed? Who have given a history of this movement? Who particularly? How typed? As what is its memory kept? How typed? What succeeded it? What should we learn from this history? 

(15) What was pointed out above? On what grounds? How long? What should be given them? What are the parallel years? Why so? What was antitypical Jotham? How typed? When relatively to the Calvinistic Methodist movement did it come into ascendancy? How is that movement typed? When did the good Methodist movement start as such? In whom? When, where and as what did he expand his spirit of consecration? As what? What were they nicknamed? Why? What did Wesley in 1729 read? With what effect? What did he do in 1732? How did Law affect him? How long? When was Wesley ordained? When did he assist his father as vicar? What did he do in 1729? How long did he there remain? With what effects? What did he do in 1735? As what? What greatly affected him during the involved voyage? What unfavorably affected his ministry there? Whom did he first meet

Later Parallels. 

603 

in London? With what effect? When did he leave Georgia? Reach London? What was his course from 1719 to 1738? What did he think that he experienced May 24, 1738? What was it in reality? Where, among others, is it typed? What visit followed this? 

(16) What about Sept. 21, 1738, did he see? What was this encroachment? How did he react to it? How may this be otherwise worded? How typed? What should here not be stressed? What stressed? What did the movement do during these 5½ years? Who at first were its three main leaders? What was Whitefield's rank as a pulpit orator? What effect did their trenchant preaching have on the Anglican clergy? Where? To what did this lead? How many did they sometimes reach in field preaching? What were its advantages? What was another important step taken by Wesley? With what effect? What was Wesley's stewardship doctrine? Despite this, on what did he lay great stress? What led to this? What marked contrast was there between the motives that Whitefield and Wesley offered to lead to repentance and faith? On what did Whitefield mainly depend for influencing his hearers? Wesley? What kind of a voice did he use? What was its reach? What were the contrasted results of the preaching of the two? What did Whitefield in 1740 stress? Wesley? With what two results? What did the divided movements become? What resulted from the increase of antitypical Jotham? What two things were formed? How did they differ? What marked the good work? Until what? When? 

(17) What inaugurated antitypical Jotham's reign? How typed? Whom did Wesley have in his movement from late 1738? What was added to these ere long? How many of each of these met in the first conference? When? How long? What was here decided? What were here discussed? What did these conferences become? Under whose direction? What were kept? What was done with them? Why? Whose decisions were accepted as authoritative expressions of the conferences? What was the effect of his firm and kindly control over the movement? Like whose teaching and executive control was his? How old was this movement when it began its ascendancy? By what act was it begun? How typed? How long did it last? From what to what year? How typed? What mothered it? How typed? What was the character of this endowment? How

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

604 

typed? In what matters did it deal? How typed? How did it act? How typed? In whose footsteps? How typed? What of the Pietists did it not imitate? How typed? 

(18) What was practiced? Where? In what forms? How typed? What other evil prevailed? In what forms? How typed? What did the sectarians severally do? To the neglect of what? How typed? What other evil did they do? How typed? What special thing did this movement do? What else? How typed? How did it use its executive powers? How typed? How do we get this antitype from Ophel? Who held the title of the movement's property? Until when and what? Who else did similarly? Of what did Wesley's published literature consist? From whose writings generally and particularly were these extracts taken? Including whom? What were these books called? In how many octavo volumes was the second edition printed? Why did Wesley furnish these extracts? How came he so to do? What else did he publish? What two things moved him thereto? Who selected the two kinds of extracts? Where? How did he indicate his choices and rejections? How long was he engaged in compiling The Christian Library? What did he write for his schools? For example? Of what were they usually abridgements? What else appeared in this period? Of what consisting? Especially from what? What is said of Bengel's Gnomon? 

(19) What did this movement gather? Of what did they consist? Where? How typed? What else did it organize? Where? How typed? By whom were they served? How typed? What is a description of these preachers? What else did it establish? How typed? What is a description of it? What did they not serve? What were these two sets of workers to the movement? What did it have from its outstart as a public movement? Of what did the Anglican bishops and clergy mainly and bitterly complain? What did they consider the representatives of this movement to be? How many bishops especially wrote against it and Wesley's pertinent activities? Who were they? What did bishop Butler, author of the Analogy, do to Wesley? Who else wrote against him? Especially who? What did he do? What guaranteed good answers from him? In what two ways did he answer their objection that he had no right to enter their dioceses and parishes? What famous saying did he utter in this controversy in reply to the charge of busybodying? On what did he base the reply? Of what 

Later Parallels. 

605 

evil were the clergy the main movers? Of what was this controversy a war? How typed? Who gained the victory? What could the bishops and clergy not do? What resulted from their neglect? What uses did the good Methodist movement make of this neglect in the controversy? By using what did they refute their opposers? What were these opponents really? In what two things in time did their defeat result? How typed? 

(20) To evade their arguments, what were the clericalists forced to do? How typed? What error did they then teach? What was another result of this controversy? A third result? How was this brought about? What was George III's view of the situation? Whom, besides his brother Charles and Whitefield, did Wesley have as intimate friends among the Anglican Church's clergy? Whom of such did he esteem the highest? For what? On what did he count? What prevented its realization? What were the most valuable things that the bishops and clergy had to yield to the good Methodist movement? How did they feel in the Anglican Church? Into what kind of an atmosphere did they come? Why was it such? Of how many kinds were they? How is each kind typed? How is their justified humanity typed? From what was it taken away? What were these to the bishops and clergy? Of how many kinds were these losses? What was each kind? What effect did their loss have upon the Church of England? What do points (2)-(4) imply? Despite what? What lifelong struggle did Wesley make? What was his design with his societies? As to his relation thereto? How are all these things typed? What kind of a loss was it to the Anglican Church? How typed? 

(21) What was the attitude of the good Methodist movement? Toward what things? How typed? With what result? How in these respects did it compare with the other good more favored movements of God's people? From which to which one? How outstanding were its zeal, self-sacrifice and labors? Especially whose? With what result? How typed? In what did it grow? In what particulars? What was the character of the bulk of its preachers and ministers? Of the consecrated? Why? Into what figures did the adherents run? The general and local preachers? What is to be said of its hymns and hymn-writers? Especially what two? Particularly what one? What was another feature of its strength? Why was this?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

606 

How so? What did Wesley require for membership in its societies? Classes? Officials? With what results? Why? 

(22) What did not mark this period? Apart from what? Of what did Wesley's experience with his lay preachers convince him? What was the first thing giving him this thought? The second? The third? The fourth? Therefore, what did he do as to lay local and circuit preachers? Despite what? Temporarily what did he not have them do? Later what? What did he do lifelong? With what success? When did he die? What happened shortly afterward? What did his foreseeing this prompt him to do? What has been written of the three main Methodist leaders? Especially of which one? What furnished materials for these? What in this connection was done with some of its lesser lights? With it itself? What have these biographers and historians been? How typed? What need not be done with v. 8? Why? When did it cease operating? How typed? In what was it held? How typed? As worthy of what? How typed? With what was it succeeded? 

(23) What remains of our present study? What will not here be discussed? Why not? What only of antitypical Ahaz will here be studied? What will then be done? Before what? What does Ahaz type? During what years was it the more favored movement of God's people? Paralleling what? How typed? What is one of the proofs of man's depravity? Among others, in what three cases do we see this illustrated? By what is this typed? How long did this evil Methodist movement exist before coming into the ascendancy as that of the more favored one of God's people? In what year did it come into existence? In connection with what? What occasioned the break? How was it accomplished? What was the first result of the controversy? Why? What made matters worse? What things shortly thereafter happened? What did not set in? What was the final outcome of this affair? How were these two movements disposed toward each other? What did the Whitefield movement become early in 1744? Later the same year what similar thing happened? What did certain adherents of the good movement do, despite these things? In what did this result in 20 years? How typed? How long did its pertinent ascendancy last? How typed? 

(24) What did this movement not do? How typed? What did it disregard? How typed? Instead, what did it first do? What do God's people find to be their experiences

Later Parallels. 

607 

as to these two sins? How have most of them done as to these sins? How typed? What did it become? Over against whom first? Secondly? How did it become guilty of clericalism? What did these two evil developments occasion Wesley? Especially why? How typed? What worse sins did many of these ministers commit? How typed? What did some of his unordained preachers seek to have Wesley claim and do? How were they made to feel? By whom? What did these evils do? Especially during what period? What greater evil did they commit? Who gave and who did not give encouragement to this evil? Whose example did many of Wesley's preachers follow in this matter? Hence how did they picture God? What did they do with this threat? How typed? 

(25) In what did they go further? In what three particulars? How typed? What worship was this? As the antitype of whom? In what? What bad eminence have the spokesmen of the bad Methodist movement achieved? Thereby what have they furnished? Whom even did they outdo? How typed? What result did Moloch worship effect? Of what is Moloch worship the type? What result did its antitype effect? How typed? For what should these sins have been sufficient? What two sins did they add thereto? How typed in each case? In interests of what systems did they do these things? How typed? In the interests of what persons? How typed? What did antitypical Ahaz commit? When will more of them be shown? What warning lesson does he give to those who have followed the good Parousia movement? What exhortation is hereover given? What will result from following it? 

(26) What was intimated above? Why the interruption? What was a time relation between the reigns of Pekah and Ahaz? Who was the last Israelite king, type and antitype, so far studied? When was this reign, type and antitype? What ceased with this reign? What did Sir Robert Walpole's ministry do to it? How? How typed? What did that ministry do? How long? As what? How typed? By what, how and why was it ended? How typed? From and to what did it proceed in its good aspect? How typed? To what did it put an end? How typed? Where are this ministry's acts described? How typed? Especially what part of its acts? 

(27) When did antitypical Menahem reign? How typed? What did it conduct? Where? With whom was the first? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

608 

Who was their main leader? What was and is their characteristic? What was good and bad in both? How did they stand toward antitypical Menahem? What did they do to it? What did they seek to do to the bishops? What did they refuse antitypical Menahem? How typed? What resulted? Why did antitypical Menahem act? How typed? What did it do with their adherents? How typed? To accomplish this what did it leave? How thoroughly did it do this refutative work? How typed? When did the controversy occur in antitypical Menahem's reign? 

(28) When did it begin and end? How typed? Why was its reign evil, despite some good? In what two evils did it abound? How typed? Despite protests what did it do? How typed? With whom was its more important controversy? How typed? What is Deism? What, accordingly, do its adherents call it? What are they often called? Who began it? What did Hobbes add to it? Blount? Toland? What should be said against his view? What did Collins and Whiston add to their predecessors' views? Woolston? Tindal? 

(29) Up to this time what did Deists hold as to the Law of Moses and the law of nature? What did Morgan do as to this? What did Annet add to Deism? By antitypical Menahem's time what had Deism done? What was a summary of its claims? What did this make it do? In a word what did it deny? When did the full impact of its attack come? How typed? In whom did antitypical Menahem rally its forces? Especially by what did it refute Deism? What was the first of these three works? What of Deism did it overthrow? The second? The third? What is a brief description of it? What else appeared against Deism? How and how long did the Deists react toward these refutations? When did the controversy end? How? 

(30) Inferior to whose refutations were those of antitypical Menahem? In how many particulars was it lame? What was the first of these? What does the type do with this feature? What verses treat of its lameness in this controversy? What for a hundred years had pertinently arisen in the Anglican Church? Further depraved, what did Deists do with this view? How did their view of reason fit in with their general position? How did these two erroneous views compare? The Anglican and Romanist theologians' views?

Later Parallels. 

609 

(31) What does the ambiguity of the word reason result in? To what does it amount? With what result? What in this connection is not, and is sanctified reason? How does it see Biblical things? Why? What do they never do? What has so-called Orthodoxy accepted? With what result? To whom? How does the natural man regard some Divine things? What did the pertinent unhealthy view of many Anglicans move them to do to Deists? How is this typed? How do the figures of the type show this? Why was this evil concession made? 

(32) As what did it exact these concessions? How typed? From whom? Especially from whom? How typed? What was not, and what was the character of these concessions? How typed? To what were they yielded? How typed? Who was the main sinner herein? Despite what? What does Butler's Analogy reveal? Why is this said? How should he have used it? What in this connection is unwise, yea, wrong in a Truth controversialist? What would have insured a sounder refutation of Deism? What was the result? How typed? What did the Deists then do? How typed? Who especially have recorded the acts of antitypical Menahem? Especially in what particulars? How typed? When did it cease to be the most prominent movement of God's less favored people? After what? How typed? What succeeded it? How typed? 

(33) What did the Anglican hierarchy and clergy love? Even when? What did Archdeacon Blackbourne say of the clergy? To whom did he write this? What prevailed among the bishops and lower clergy? What are four illustrations of this among bishops? How did the statesmen view bishoprics? In what ways were the hierarchy and clergy mad? What attracted them? What were in favor with them? Into what other things did they enter? What did their spirit become? What were the parallel years of typical and antitypical Pekahiah? How typed? Out of what did antitypical Pekahiah naturally grow? How typed? What did it exercise? How typed? In addition to these evils, of what was it guilty? How typed? 

(34) What was Calvinistic Methodism? How typed? Who was its leader? What was its character? What resulted therefrom as to antitypical Pekahiah? What did it witnessingly expose? How typed? What did it particularly expose? How typed? In this attack what did it single out? 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

610 

For what? How typed in each class? In what did this result? How typed? By whom was it supported in these attacks? What was their position? Of what classes of people were they? How typed? What did this course meet? Why? What was the result of Calvinistic Methodism's course? How typed? Where are antitypical Pekahiah's acts set forth? 

(35) What was done in describing antitypical Jotham's reign? What similar thing will be done in describing antitypical Pekah's reign? What were the pertinent parallel dates? How typed? What are the years of Whitefield's birth and death? What was his early work? Why did he do it? Where did he study? With whom did he fall in at Oxford and what did he there do? What year did he profess "conversion"? When ordained deacon? What two works did he then undertake? How did he rank as a pulpit orator? Where did he labor? Die? What was done to him in 1738? What resulted from his pointed preaching? With whom, like the Wesleys, did he temporarily work? What two things happened to him in 1739? Whom did he induce to do the same? What door did this open to the Methodists? What did he thereupon begin? How did he rank as such? What was his largest sized audience? How did he denounce antitypical Pekahiah? With what result? How was his Calvinism affected by association with American Calvinists? Particularly by whom? What was pointed out above? In what did it temporarily result? What occurred shortly afterwards? How long did their friendship last? Despite what? 

(36) What did he leave to others? Especially to whom? To what did he devote himself? Even doing what the day before his death? To what was he accustomed? What did he, like our pilgrims, do? What of his writings have been published? To what was his success due? Why is this said? What through him did Lady Huntingdon seek? What was the effect of one of his sermons on Lord Chesterfield? Benjamin Franklin? Who were the greatest non-apostolic evangelists? Not excepting whom? What in their works were similar? How was it inferior to the Wesleyan movement? Why the difference? What three things made Wesley's movement far better than that of Whitefield? How do the antitypical Ahaz and Pekah phases compare? Whose influence had some effect on their relative appeals to the people? 

Later Parallels. 

611 

(37) What is to be here noted? What is the difference in the expression and its force? Which was the worse of the two movements? When will some of antitypical Pekah's evils be brought out? In what respects was it the worse of the two? Wherein is its sectarianism apparent? Its clericalism? Of all of whom, except one, were these two evils characteristic? In what words are these evils set forth? What movement established these two evils? With what effect? What was not slack as to antitypical Pekah? Despite Whitefield's work in the then organized eight American colonies, what did the preliminary acts of the American revolutionists do to antitypical Pekah in Britain? How are these things typed? What were the eight American colonies organizationally in those days? How is each one typed? From another standpoint how many colonies were there? What did the American revolutionists henceforth do? How typed? What worked against antitypical Pekah as being the most prominent movement of God's less favored people? How typed? Despite what, what did it do to it? How typed? What did it then do? When? How typed? Who have described the acts of antitypical Pekah? How typed? 

(38) To what will we return? What of its acts have already been described? For its wickedness what did God arouse to attack it? On what subject? How typed? With what results? How typed? Who were the leading representatives of antitypical Rezin? On what other subject did antitypical Rezin attack antitypical Ahaz? What did it move the Wesleyan Methodists to do thereon and to accept instead? How typed? What has it done on this subject since? How typed? Who were antitypical Rezin's main warriors against the Wesleyan Methodists on predestination and the Millennium? Whose names will be omitted here? Why? What did they do? What was even more bitter and rude? How typed? What did both of these movements seek to do to antitypical Ahaz? How typed? What did they do? Especially which one? How typed? In what did they fail? How typed? Who were antitypical Pekah's main warriors? Antitypical Ahaz's? What did Wesley do in this controversy? In what spirit did he take the abuse of antitypical Pekah's four main warriors, especially Toplady's? What marked Fletcher's pertinent writings? Who sank nearly to the level of the four? How did Sellon act in it?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

612 

(39) What were the main questions at issue? How does the Bible harmonize them? What was the result of the controversy? Under what difficulty did antitypical Ahaz labor? Why so? What did its denial of future probation give it? What was antitypical Rezin's and Pekah's difficulty? How did each side's difficulties affect it? Which side won from the other more proselytes? What were the main questions involved in the main question? From the standpoint of the Divine plan what may we say? 

(40) In what state was antitypical Ahaz? How typed? What resulted from this? How typed? Whom in certain phases of the question at issue did Toplady refute? How typed? Whom did antitypical Pekah win over to his side? How typed? What else did it win? Who in its domain disapproved of its course? How typed? Where did they appear? How typed? In what manner? How typed? For what did they blame it? How typed? What did they point out? How typed? For what else did they blame them? How typed? What did they charge? How typed? To what did they exhort? How typed? What threat did they make? How typed? What did the leading antitypical Israelites do? How typed? Nationally of whom did they consist? How typed in each of the four? What did they declare? How typed? Assert first? How typed? Secondly? How typed? Thirdly? How typed? Fourthly? How typed? 

(41) To what did these remonstrances lead? How typed? What was first done? How typed? What three things did they first do? How typed in each case? What two things secondly did they do? How typed in each case? To whom did they lead them? How typed? What did these elected antitypical Israelites then do? How typed? In its extremity what did antitypical Ahaz then do? How typed? What effect had the American colonies' protest against tyranny aroused? Where? Who, among others, favored their cause? What thoughts and spirit were among them? How typed? How so? What resulted? What resulted therefrom? Especially in what? How typed? Who else mistreated it? At whose instigation? With what results? How are these things typed? Who else made inroads? How typed? Among what kind of adherents? How typed? In what six countries? How typed in each case? What other classes did this invasion affect? How typed? What did God do to antitypical Judah? How

Later Parallels. 

613 

typed? Why? What two bad effects had antitypical Ahaz wrought? How typed in each case? What were the two effects of liberty-lovers on antitypical Ahaz? How typed? 

(42) What did antitypical Ahaz give up to the secular liberty-lovers? Why? How typed? What were some of such religious teachings? How typed? Civil teachings? How typed? What were some of these? How typed? Aristocrats' teachings? How typed? What was one of these? Why did it do these things? What effect did these concessions have? How typed? What did the secular liberty-lovers then do? How typed? With what result? How typed? What did they do with the opinions of these? How typed? Of antitypical Rezin's? How typed? What was shown above? Thereupon what did antitypical Ahaz do? How typed? Why? How typed? What did it therein consider? How set forth? How typed? What did it do therewith? How typed? As what? How typed? Wherein? How typed? What response was made? How typed? Who were among the responders? How long did this development take? Not completed until after what event? Why is it set forth as occurring in the Ahaz phase? How are these things typed? When was the misdevelopment begun? How typed? 

(43) Thereafter what did antitypical Ahaz do? How typed? What did it then do? What did it add to its past sins? How typed? What were its pertinent ministries? How typed? Despite what? How typed? What did it think as to these evils? How typed as to antitypical Rezin? As to itself? Instead, what occurred? How typed? What did it presume to do? How typed? What kinds? How typed in each kind? What were these sacrifices actually? How typed? What great evil did it next do? How typed? From what place? How typed? To what did it relegate the true Church? Whom did it then charge? How typed? What did this involve? What did it charge? How typed? What eight features of sacrifices were by it charged? How typed in each case? What was to be publicly used? As doing what? How typed? What did it further charge? How typed? What did the charged ones do? How typed? 

(44) What further evil did it do? What did it thereby do? How typed? In its estimation what did the error close? What did it actually close? How typed? What did it change? Where? How typed? What did this effect?

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

614 

How typed? With what result? How typed? How did this affect God? How typed? How and where are these evils otherwise typed? What did its doctrine of sinless perfection of the sanctified sever? How typed? What did it thereby overthrow? How typed? What did it remove from the Old Testament? How typed? How did this leave the New Testament stand? How typed? What did it do to the proven doctrine of reckoned and actual justification as the antitypical rest? How typed? To the doctrine that justified the entrance of God's more favored movements into the antitypical court? How typed? Why did it do these things? Where are its acts described? How typed? What finally happened to it? How typed? How has it been honored? How typed? But not how? How typed? 

(45) To the study of whom does this bring us? Who was he, type and antitype? What are the parallel years? How is this proved? What is the date of antitypical Hoshea's end? Where will this be shown? What was antitypical Pekah? By what was it displaced? When? Why? Wherein? What was antitypical Hoshea? In what capacity? Particularly in what? In relation to what? What did it claim? In what did it begin its reign? When? After remitting what? At whose insistence? How typed? What was its character? How typed? In what was its character contrasted with its predecessor movements? How typed? What was its main sin? Especially in whom? To what did this sin lead it? What did the British liberty-lovers do as to its autocratic efforts toward America? Why? How typed? What did the liberty-lovers do as to tea shipped to America? 

(46) How did this affect antitypical Hoshea? How was it met? With what result? What price did it pay to the liberty-lovers? How typed? What did the liberty-lovers do as the Revolutionary War continued? How typed? Why? How typed? In view of this what did it no more do? How typed? On the contrary, what did it do? With what result? In what way in Britain? In America? What fluctuations occurred? With what result? Until when? How typed? What then occurred? How typed? Thereupon what did the liberty-lovers do? 

(47) How did this turn of affairs come about in Britain? In America? Where? When? By 1781 what did the American liberty-lovers force Cornwallis to do? What 

Later Parallels. 

615 

was his plan? What did the Americans, helped by their French allies, under Washington then do? With what result? When? What occurred March 20, 1782? Shortly after what? By what was it succeeded? What did it immediately set into operation? How typed? In what did this result? When? How typed? What did this prove to be? How typed? In what did this result to the less favored people of God? What did the liberty-lovers require of them? From when on? How typed? Henceforth where did they mentally dwell? How typed? 

(48) Of how many kinds were these liberty movements? What was the first? How typed? What liberties did it effect? What was the second kind of liberty movements? How typed? What liberties did it effect? What was the third kind? How typed? What liberties did it effect? What has set in since 1782? What do these prove? 

(49) What result is thus shown to have occurred? In what did these outcomes result? Why these consequences? How typed? What was the first set of principles that they violated? The second? How typed? What did they do as to Jesus' charges? How typed? Despite what did they so act? How typed? What did they reverence? How typed? What principles did they not follow? How did they conduct themselves? How typed? After God had done what? How typed? How else had they conducted themselves? How typed? What four sets of movements did evil? How many successive movements did evil? What admission as to the course of the less favored people of God does a consideration of the evils of these compel us to make? Of what other kind of evils were they guilty? How typed? What was developed in every denomination? How typed? From what to what did they do this? How typed in each case? What else did they develop? How typed? What did they form? How typed? Under whom did they serve? How typed? In and for sects what did they offer? How typed? After what example? How typed? To what extreme? How typed? 

(50) To what did they give themselves up? How typed? What does God in the Bible do as to such a thing? How as to time? How typed? In remonstrance what did God do? Whom and in what to the Lutherans? Whom and in what to the Calvinists? Whom and in what to the Anglicans and Presbyterians? Whom and in what to all

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

616 

denominations? How about others? How are these things typed? What did they do? How typed? In accordance with what? How typed? Despite these how did they do? How typed? In what evils did they indulge? How typed? What did they cast off? How typed? What did they abandon? How typed? With whom made? How typed? What did they give up? How typed? Instead, what did they do? How typed? In what did this result? How typed? What did they imitate in the worldly? How typed? Against what? How typed? What did they forsake? How typed? What, generally speaking, did they institute? How typed? What, specifically speaking? How typed? Into what evil did they enter? How typed? What evil qualities did they serve? Typed by what and why? What special evils did they serve? Typed by what? 

(51) What blasphemous doctrine did they also teach? How typed? What else? How typed? Especially what? How typed? To what did they give themselves up? How typed? In what matters? How typed? With what first result? How typed? Second result? How typed? With what third result? How typed? Who else was at times untrue to God's teachings? How typed? Whose example did these at times follow? In what particulars? How typed? What resulted from this? How typed? What from time to time did He send? How typed? Into what did He permit them to fall? How typed? These not resulting in their reformation, what did God finally do to them? How typed? What quality did His wrath have? In it what was exercised? When did it begin? How typed? What did they then make? How typed? Into what did the Lutheran movement drive the less favored people of God? How typed? What else did it make them do? In what respects? How typed? What did they not do with these sins? How typed? In what did their strong and long indulgence in these sins result? How typed? In harmony with what? How typed? What does this mean? How typed? How long have they remained in the sphere of secular liberty teachings and spirit? How typed? Where wrought out? 

(52) What did the secular liberty-lovers arouse adherents of five movements to make? How typed? What did they do to these? What had their hearts and minds formerly been? How typed? What did they make them? How typed? What was the first of these movements?

Later Parallels. 

617 

How typed? The second? How typed? Third? How typed? Fourth? How typed? Fifth? How typed? What did these occupy? How typed? How in time did these originate? How typed? What quality did they not at first exercise? How typed? As punishment what did God send? How typed? To whom did these report the situation? How typed? What four things did their attitude say? How typed in each case? What did it say was the cause of their trouble? How typed? What did the liberty-lovers do as to it? How typed? How are these described? How typed? What did their attitude require of the former and the latter? How typed in each case? 

(53) With what did these teachers occupy themselves? How typed? How is this proved? What did they, generally speaking, republish? Particularly speaking, what did the Parker Society republish? Others? What were published as new books? What was held pertinent to the conditions? Where else were similar things done in this matter? How are these things typed? Of what were and of what were not the five movements, typed in v. 24, reduplications? What illustration is to the point? How did this find illustration in the other four? How typed? What did they make as their gods? How typed? Wherein did they establish these? How typed? In what were these? What were they? How typed? 

(54) What suggests the five movements to be given as above? What is here to be noted? What did the Combinationists make to be their god? How typed? The Contradictionists? How typed? The Infidelists? How typed? The Reformers? How typed? The No-ransomers? Typed? 

(55) What did these practice? How typed? What did they appoint? Of what characters? How typed? How did these minister to them? How typed? What kind of a mind did they have? How did it manifest itself? How typed? How was this service performed? How typed? How do they yet do? How typed? What was the result of this double-mindedness? How typed? According to what do they not live? How typed? Nor what else? How typed? How is it summed up? How typed? Into what were their two Parousia representatives turned? How typed? With whom individually had God made a covenant? How typed? What was its implication? What four things did it bind them not to do? How typed in each case? What three 

Samuels—Kings—Chronicles. 

618 

things did it bind them to do? How typed in each case? Why were these requirements fitting? How typed? Through what two things was the deliverance wrought? By what two agencies? How typed in each case? 

(56) What four things had God set forth clearly? How typed in each case? What did He charge as to these? How typed? What did He prohibit? How typed? What did He emphasize? What does it imply? How typed? What did He stress by repetition? How typed? What did He charge? How typed? In what would it result? How typed? How did the people act as to these things? How typed, positively and negatively? In what did this result? How typed? How successively? How typed? As imitators of whom? How typed? How long? How typed?