Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
(43) We now will study the offerings of the prince of Naphtali, the last tribe on the north of the tabernacle. Naphtali was the second son of Rachel's maid, Bilhah. The name means wrestling, and was given to Bilhah's second-born by Rachel, because of the great wrestlings that she had with her sister Leah, and because of her prevailing amid them (Gen. 30: 8). Naphtali represents the Unitario-Universalists. Perhaps it would be better to use for this compound name the single name Unitarians, because Universalists of the sect so called are all Unitarians, though all Unitarians are not Universalists, nor members of the sect so called. So considered, the Universalist sect is to be regarded as a sect of the Unitarian denomination. Therefore in this chapter we will use the name Unitarian to cover both, remarking that, as in the case of the Congregationalists with their principles of church government, the Unitarians have succeeded in convincing many ministers and laymen remaining in other denominations of the correctness of their stewardship doctrine. It is because the Unitarians have had to wrestle in doctrinal controversy so greatly with the exponents of other denominations that the typical name Naphtali so well fits them as the antitype of Naphtali and the tribe of Naphtali. Not having the full truth on their stewardship doctrine and its related doctrines, they are not represented by a child of Rachel—the type of the elective Truth and its servants; but being in the pertinent teachings so nearly right, they are appropriately represented as a child of antitypical Bilhah, the maid of antitypical Rachel. So greatly are the Unitarians despised and disfellowshipped by the "orthodox," as not to be counted as evangelical, hence "wrestling."
(44) The prince of Naphtali was called Ahira, the son of Enan. The word Ahira is a compound composed of the words Ah and ra with i inserted between them for euphony's sake. Ah, means brother and ra means
badness or evil. The name, therefore, means brother of badness or evil. This name primarily designates typically the crown-lost leaders of the Unitarian Church from the standpoint of their so-called "orthodox" theological opponents, who, because the former deny the trinity, human immortality and eternal torment, consider such deniers as the worst of heretics, and most of them even deny that they are Christians. To those who think that trinity, immortality and eternal torment are the foundation truths of the Bible, as the so-called "orthodox" do, naturally the leaders of the Unitarians would be very evil indeed. But to those who are children of antitypical Rachel, the matter appears far otherwise. On the other hand, some of these leaders have gone far into real error, denying, as they have done, the ransom as a corresponding price to satisfy justice, affirming that the atonement does not imply that God must by Christ's merit be made pleased with man, and that God does not hold man off at arm's length in displeasure for his sin, but that man by sin is displeased with God and that atonement implies only this—that man become pleased with God, which, they say, Jesus proposes to work in man. As a matter of fact, the truth on atonement includes both of these ideas. How one-sided and extreme the average religious man is: the "orthodox" stressed one side of the atonement, the Unitarians the other, and each fought the other as in error, while each had the truth that the other lacked! The name Enan means springy, fountain-like, being an adjective derived from the word ayan, meaning spring, fountain, well. This likely types the thought that their denial of the three chief teachings of the "orthodox" denominations points out these as the source, spring, of the so-called orthodox teachings.
(45) The man who first of all perverted the Little Flock movement on the unity of the God of Love into a sect was Faustus (not Laelius) Socinus, shortly after the middle of the sixteenth century. Faustus
Socinus was a nephew of Laelius, and got his inspiration in religious life and belief from Laelius Socinus, the latter being the chief assistant of Michael Servetus, the member of antitypical Jacob that started the Little Flock movement on the unity of the God of Love. Faustus, like his uncle before him, had, because of his faith, to flee from the terrors of the Italian inquisition. He first went to Switzerland, thence to Poland, where he found a responsive hearing, and organized a large following. But presently persecution by the Catholics and Calvinists wrought havoc among the Polish Unitarians, and their gradual suppression followed until it was completed there, about the middle of the seventeenth century. In Hungary, about the same time, Unitarianism flourished and later finally outlived persecution. The chief leader of Hungarian Universalists was Franciscus Davidis, able, efficient and a martyr. The next considerable Unitarian movement was organized in England and won over to its stewardship doctrine some of the ablest men of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most of whom, however, remained in the Church of England or among Dissenters. A goodly number of Baptist and Presbyterian churches and ministers joined the English Unitarians. The leading English Unitarian was the distinguished scientist, publicist and theologian, Dr. Priestley. The chief leaders of American Unitarianism were William E. Channing, Andrew Norton and Ezra Abbott. The first was a very able preacher and writer; the second and third were Harvard University professors of worldwide recognized scholarship.
(46) As the name Naphtali implies, these Unitarian leaders have had to deal much in controversy and to bear considerable contempt from their "orthodox" opponents. Very much of Socinus' activities were devoted to polemics, and his writings gave the "orthodox" more than they could handle on antitypical Naphtali's stewardship doctrine, human immortality and eternal
torment. Norton's Statement of Reasons for Unitarian Beliefs, is considered an especially forceful treatise. Ezra Abbott's careful examination of the Biblical texts in the original, pertinent to their stewardship doctrine, on account of his minute and exact scholarship, have made his publications on those texts classics indeed. Despised as they were, the Unitarian leaders, because of their stress on love to God and man, were very kind and mild-mannered in their polemics. So much was this the case that, by contrast with the bruskness of their usual "orthodox" opponents, they were very winsome. Said the learned and respected Archbishop Tillotson of the Church of England of these: "To do right to the writers on that side, I must own that generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing and debating matters of religion, without heat and unseemly reflections upon their adversaries. They generally argue matters with that temper and gravity and that freedom from passion and transport, which becomes a serious and weighty argument; and for the most part they reason closely and clearly with extraordinary guard and caution; with great dexterity and decency and yet with smartness and subtility enough; with a very gentle heart and few hard words; virtues to be praised wherever they are to be found, yea, even in an enemy, and very worthy of our imitation." He goes on to say that in comparison with them most controversialists were blunderers and bunglers, and that they did not lack logic, acuteness and feeling, but lacked a good cause. This was quite a compliment from a theological opponent like Archbishop Tillotson.
(47) There has always been a spirit in most Unitarian leaders akin to that of higher critics. Many of them deny our Lord's personal pre-existence; many of them deny His virgin birth, claiming that Joseph or some other man was His father. All of them seem to deny the ransom as a corresponding price for the purchase of the race. We have already shown that they
deny the need of satisfying justice by the corresponding price. Their attitude to the Scriptures is likewise an infidelistic one. The majority of them deny that the Scriptures are inerrant and fully inspired, but hold that while they are not a Divine revelation they contain a Divine revelation, and that what in them is revelatory, and what is not so, must be decided by human reason. Revolting against the Calvinistic error of man's total depravity, they have gone to the opposite extreme, denying man's mental, moral and religious corruption by nature, and claiming that he is by nature goodness itself, only undeveloped. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at that almost all Unitarians are higher critics as to the Bible and modernists as to our Lord Jesus. But their emphasis on love in God has moved them to stress love to man; and they are, therefore, very forward in works of benevolence and beneficence. Hence many among them have been very philanthropic, active in reform work of every kind and generous contributors to every humanitarian cause. Their being so much despised by the "orthodox" has hindered their taking a more prominent part in general movements in Christendom, wherever they have wrought.
(48) There is no difficulty in locating the stewardship doctrine of the Unitarians. Their name suggests it. It is, of course, related to the unity of God. It might be stated in the following terms: God is the one supreme Person, whose central attribute is love. They might also state it as follows: God is the one supreme Being, whose central attribute is love. It is because the nominal church, playing hocus-pocus with the word being, claims that God is one in being, but three in person, that, to avoid a misunderstanding, they use preferably the term person instead of being in the definition. The Unitarians, therefore, deny that Jesus is God or a part of God. They likewise deny that the Holy Spirit is a person and is God. To them God is a single, not a compound, unity. This single Divine Person
is, according to them, the supreme Being, whose supreme attribute is not wisdom, or power, or justice, but love. This quality of God that they so greatly stress, more than any other of the qualities of God, proves that by right they are on the North side of the antitypical Tabernacle. Indeed, some of them so one-sidedly emphasize love as an attribute of the Divine character as to teach that He will save all beings—men and devils, yea, Satan himself. They rightly reason that a God of love would not torture any being forever. And this has moved those of them who have not become Universalists to deny that the soul is indestructible, all of them denying eternal torment. Hence, such of them teach that in the future probation, which all of them teach, those who will not reform will be annihilated. The future probation of all of them is not Millennial, as the Bible teaches, but during the death state, which they consider to be a conscious one, but not eternal in duration either for the good or the evil. Thus their soul doctrine was not pure.
(49) It is remarkable that Unitarianism is a protest against the three oldest and most foundational errors of the nominal church—trinitarianism, human immortality and eternal torment. These errors arose in the Smyrna period of the Church, 70-313 A. D. Justin Martyr, who died about 150 A. D., was the introducer of the error of the soul's indestructibility and eternal torment. He was a Platonic philosopher before his conversion to Christianity, and he continued as a Christian to hold Plato's view of the soul. He began the work of amalgamating Christian doctrine and Greek philosophy. He was also the one who began to teach the deifying of Christ in such a way as to start the first tendency of thought toward the doctrine that developed gradually during the next two centuries into the God-man theory as the basis of trinitarianism. While he was one of the earliest apologists of the second century, his philosophy—worldly wisdom—was responsible
for much doctrinal evil, though his two apologies are very useful in proving that all four Gospels were in general use among Christians early in the second century, John's having been written close to the end of the first century. That Unitarians should be the ones to set aside the first and foundational errors of the nominal church should not at all surprise us when we remember their relation to antitypical Rachel. Their stewardship doctrine logically led to their rejecting and refuting these first three, the foundational errors of the nominal church. We are right in calling these three errors the foundational errors of the nominal church, because most of her doctrinal errors and many of her practical errors flow out of, or are supported by these, even as all the true doctrines flow out of, or are supported by the ransom—the hub of the wheel of revelation.
(50) The member of antitypical Jacob whom God used to start the Little Flock movement that crown-lost leaders perverted into the Unitarian Church, was Michael Servetus, who was born at Tudela, in Spain, in 1511, and died at the stake at Geneva in 1553. Very little is known of his early life. His father sent him to Toulouse to study law, and there, in 1528, he began to study the Bible. From 1525 to 1530 he found in Juan de Quintana, a Franciscan monk, a patron. When the latter was, in 1530, promoted to be the confessor of Charles V, the German emperor and Spanish king, Servetus accompanied him as a courtier. He witnessed Charles' crowning at Bologna, Italy, in Feb., 1530, was the same year at the diet of Augsburg, where the Augsburg Confession was read, and probably visited Luther at Coburg, which city was the nearest to the emperor that Luther, as an outlaw and excommunicate, dared approach, while advising the Protestant princes and theologians at Augsburg. The adoration of the pope witnessed by Servetus at Bologna, in 1530, started the latter in an antipapal direction.
He left Quintana, visiting in turn Lyons, France, and Geneva, Switzerland. From Geneva he went to Basel to visit Oecolampadius, and from there went to Strassburg to confer with Bucer and Capito. His first publication, issued in 1531, was entitled, On The Errors Of The Trinity. With this book he began the Little Flock movement antitypical of Jacob's begetting Naphtali. At the date of its publication he was only 20 years of age, and for his age and the times the book was indeed very remarkable. The treatment of the subject was serious and original, and proved that his preparatory reading was on a vast scale. The subject matter was so unusual and logical that the ablest thinkers of the day were compelled to give it careful attention, and were at great pains to meet his arguments. Melanchthon said of this book: "I read Servetus much." Quintana, his former patron, spoke of him as of a very great genius and a great sophist, declaring that the sentiments were doubtless those of Servetus, but he thought that the book was too well written to be his. In 1532 Servetus set forth a revised presentation of his views in the form of a dialogue. To write against the trinity was at that time an extremely dangerous thing, and Servetus was compelled to flee for safety from Germany to France, where he was little known.
(51) Servetus next turned up at Lyons, France, in 1535, using as his surname, not Servetus, but Villanovanus, based on the name of his father's birth place. By this name he continued to call himself until he was arrested at Geneva in 1553. At Lyons he busied himself by editing scientific works for the Trechsel firm. Here he found another patron, Dr. Champier. This association with Champier led him to decide to study medicine. To this end he resorted to Paris (1536) and studied under the most able medical professors there. Here, too, in 1536, he met Calvin, who was giving a hurried and final visit to Paris, his Protestantism making
it dangerous for him to remain longer in France. Calvin sought, to use his own expression, to set Servetus right on the trinity. To this end he challenged the latter to a debate; but fear that he would be delivered by Calvin to the authorities as a heretic moved Servetus not to put in an appearance at the place of debate. Servetus became the assistant of his chief professor. The latter highly praised his learning and his skill in dissection and said that he was in his knowledge second to none of the greatest medical authorities. He graduated in arts and medicine, published six lectures on syrups, lectured at the University on geometry and astrology. For the latter he was sued by the medical faculty. In 1538 he was at the Louvain University as a student. His studies there were theology and Hebrew. Thereafter, for a short time, he practiced medicine at Avignon, France, and for a longer time at Charlieu. In Sept., 1540, he entered, as a student, the medical school at Montpellier for further development in his professional studies. To illustrate to what proficiency he attained in the medical profession, it should be stated that he discovered the fact of the lesser circulation of the blood—the passage of the blood from the right to the left side of the heart through the lungs by the pulmonary artery and vein, and its further transmission from the left ventricle of the heart to the arteries of the body, two facts that were basal to Harvey's discovery of the full circulation of the blood nearly a century later.
(52) While he lectured at Paris, one of his students was Pierre Paulmier, who was since 1528 the Archbishop of Vienne, France. In 1541 he invited Servetus to come to Vienne as his private physician, which he was from 1541 to 1553. Here he engaged in the general practice of medicine as well, and also in editorial work for publishers in Lyons. While, to all outward appearance, he was a Catholic, he continued privately his study of the Scriptures. Rejecting infant baptism,
and believing that as Jesus was baptized at 30 so he also should be then baptized, he underwent this symbol in 1541. Late in 1545 or early in 1546 he began the correspondence with Calvin that was to have so tragic an ending for Servetus. He sent Calvin an enlarged revision of his former publications. Their letters were long debates. Servetus offered to visit Calvin at Geneva. The latter declined (Feb. 13, 1546), saying that it would be harder than he could bear. The same day he wrote to his preacher friend, Farel: "If he should come, if my authority may avail, I will never suffer him to go away alive." Similar sentiments he expressed in a letter to Pierre Viret, another of his preacher friends. Servetus was warned by someone not to trust himself in Calvin's hands at Geneva; for, writing to his friend, Abel Pouppin, about 1547, he complains that Calvin would not return his manuscript, adding: "I know of a certainty that I would have to die for this matter." Again, recasting his book, he offered it to two Basel publishers who, at Calvin's instance, refused to publish it. The book was entitled, The Restoration Of True Christianity. Servetus finally, at Vienne, found a publisher who was willing to print it secretly. It was ready for circulation Jan. 3, 1553; and the bulk of the copies were privately sent to Lyons and Frankfort. Servetus made the mistake of sending Calvin a copy of the book, and the latter, after giving, in 1550, incriminating information to the Catholic Inquisition at Lyons, against Servetus, fully betrayed to that tribunal its author, even furnishing samples of Servetus' handwriting to the inquisitors, and upbraiding them for their lack of zeal in suffering so great a heretic to live, after they had received proofs of his guilt three years before. The inquisitor-general of Lyons took up the case, March 12th, questioned Servetus, March 16th, arrested him, April 4th, and examined him the two following days. Knowing that he was sure to be condemned to be burned, he arranged for and succeeded
the early morning of April 7th in making his escape from the prison where he was held. For four months he was in hiding in France, not daring to show himself anywhere.
(53) On Sunday, August 13, 1553, he entered Geneva, expecting to leave that day by boat on his journey toward Zurich, on his way to Naples. No boat being that day available, he went to Church, where he was recognized by Calvin, who had not seen him for 17 years, and who immediately caused his arrest and imprisonment. His trial on the charge of heresy was begun Aug. 14th, under the Justinian code, which was not legally operative at Geneva, it having been some time before abolished as the law of Geneva, and there being no law operative in Geneva at the time applicable to such a case. Moreover, he was not a citizen of Switzerland, but merely a traveler passing through to another destination. Furthermore, he had committed no offense on Swiss soil. These facts show the gross violations of law and justice involved in his arrest, trial and sentence. At first a servant of Calvin appeared as the accuser and prosecutor; then, throwing away the mask that he wore, Calvin openly stood forth as his accuser and prosecutor. The trial lasted until Oct. 26—about 2½ months, and consisted almost exclusively of theological debates between Servetus and Calvin. On the subject of God's being but one person and of Christ's not being God, Servetus thoroughly refuted Calvin; but the latter as thoroughly refuted Servetus on Christ's pre-human existence, Servetus denying our Lord's personal pre-existence. As Christians, we deplore the bloodthirsty spirit that Calvin betrayed throughout this trial. There was a considerable minority party among the judges, who favored Servetus' acquittal. A number of the Swiss Reformed churches were requested for their opinion as to whether Servetus was a heretic. While passing unfavorable judgment, all these churches thought that banishment would
be the sentence. Calvin had no such thought. He deliberately planned to secure Servetus' death, even as in 1546 he had told Farel that he would exert his authority to the utmost to secure it, if he would ever lay hand on him. The majority of the judges, at Calvin's insistence, rendered a capital sentence under a law not operative in their land, for an act not committed in their country and on a person not subject to their authority. Calvin weakly interceded to have the sentence of burning changed into beheading; but the majority of the court would not change it, assured that it was not greatly desired.
(54) On Oct. 27, 1553, the day after the condemnation, Servetus was burned. Farel, who was absent from the trial, at his home, was sent for, and was appointed to minister to, and accompany Servetus to the stake in an effort to secure his recantation, and to prepare him for death, all the Genevan ministers, as implicated in securing his condemnation, being considered unfavorable persons for such a task. Farel, of course, failed in his efforts; but at the end of the melancholy affair, overcome by the heroic and Christ-like spirit of the martyr, he remarked that he considered that Servetus was perhaps a Christian and saved. First Servetus was brought before his judges, who had the sentence read in his and a great multitude's presence. They then rejected his plea to change the sentence to beheading. Then he was taken some distance from the city to a field at Campel, where he was secured to a block on which he was made to sit, amid the execrations of the multitude. Instead of securing well-dried fagots, which would quickly burn and soon put the victim out of his misery, green timber was used. Furthermore, instead of piling these fagots closely around him to insure speedy death, they were placed at some distance from him, with the result that he was designedly subjected to a slow roasting of over a half hour's duration. In mockery—like the crown of thorns
that was placed on the Lord's brow—a chaplet of straw and green twigs, besprinkled with brimstone, was made to encircle his head. The flame was first applied to the fagots and then flashed in his face, which ignited the brimstone on his head and drew forth such a cry of anguish from the victim as to strike terror to the hearts of the spectators. This was his only cry. For the rest he suffered in silence with a courage born of his faith. His last words were, "Jesus, Thou Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me!" These words were a confession of his faith, maintained unto the end of a horrible martyr death. Mark well: he did not pray, Jesus, Thou Eternal Son of God, as a trinitarian might pray; but his final prayer was a confession of the faith that he held and taught—that the Father alone is God, and that Jesus Christ is His Son, not God Himself.
(55) We have already in Chapter III shown what Servetus' encounter with Calvin antitypes, from the standpoint of the test put upon a guilty suspected woman. The Reformed—Presbyterian—Church, by this encounter, was demonstrated to have been untrue to the heavenly Bridegroom, by the antitypical swollen belly—error—and the shrunken thigh—wrong action. The errors on the trinity in Calvin and his colaborers, as representatives of that Church, were manifest in his debate with Servetus, and were the antitypical swollen belly; and his and their bringing Servetus to the stake and approving it was the wrong conduct antitypical of the shrunken thigh. The union of church and state at Geneva, etc., was the act of infidelity in the Reformed Church. Doubtless Calvin's zeal for his teachings was a moving cause of his persecuting Servetus; but he, himself, confessed that if Servetus had spoken more respectfully to him, he would not have insisted so perseveringly on his being capitally punished. Thus religious intolerance and personal spite animated Calvin, and proved his part in the shrunken thigh of the church
that he dominated. Its justifying his acts proves its shrunken thigh. Calvin, having been so long accustomed to the obsequious deference of all with whom he came in contact, could not bear Servetus' very plain characterizings of him and his refusal to defer to him. When we keep the type in mind we are sure the Lord desired no such deference shown to Calvin, a crown-loser, by Servetus, a crown-retainer, while the former stood and acted as the chief representative of one espoused to the Lord and guilty of infidelity. Doubtless, the persecuting spirit of the age, from which Calvin could not wholly free himself, palliates his conduct; but we must not forget that for years he had been a denouncer of the papal spirit of persecution, and had addressed a noble publication, in defense of religious tolerance, to the king of France. Alas, for human inconsistency! The advocate for tolerance while persecuted, when in power, tested on that question, forgot his eloquent and logical pleas and blackened his character and reputation with one of the greatest individual examples of intolerance and cruelty in Protestant annals. We close this melancholy subject with rejoicing in the Lord for Servetus' loyalty, and with tears for Calvin's fall.
(56) We have given enough on Servetus to show his place in the Lord's arrangement. We now proceed to show how, on the basis of his teaching that God is but one person, whose central attribute is love, antitypical Ahira offered his charger, bowl and spoon. His charger was the correction of all conduct against this teaching. It, therefore, rebuked and corrected the conduct of all who make any other being or thing equal to the Father, which all Trinitarians do with the Son and with the Holy Spirit. He designated this a violation of the first commandment. And because in the practice of the nominal church, our Lord is actually loved more than the Father, he rebuked and corrected this practice. This charger consisted of corrections
of Mariolatry, which in practice, though not in theory, exalts Mary to superiority in love to the Son and the Father. He corrected the insult offered the Father by those who from the trinitarian viewpoint degraded the Father to equality with an inferior—a thing that was one of Satan's purposes in inventing the trinity doctrine. He corrected the conduct of those who by hocus-pocus methods befuddled the heads and hurt the hearts of their followers, by teaching them the mystifications of trinitarianism. He also rebuked and corrected such teachers for making people credulous of unexplainable, unprovable and self-contradictory teachings. This led him to correct the superstition and superstition-developing propensity of belief in such a doctrine. It, likewise, occasioned his correcting the conduct of those who taught the doctrine of the soul's immortality, as a violation of the love of God. He charged them with blasphemy in setting forth that teaching. He warmly corrected the conduct of those who taught eternal torment, charging them with glaring blasphemy against the one God of perfect love. He corrected their pertinent blasphemy, charging that their theory makes the one God of love act more cruelly than the devil himself. Thus, they forcibly repudiated and corrected the slanders, blasphemies, misrepresentations and caricatures of God's character for which trinitarianism is responsible.
(57) Not only so, but he corrected all conduct in man that did not imitate, but violated the love that the Father exercises and cherishes. God's disinterested love is a delight in good principles, a delight in and a sympathetic oneness with those whose characters are in harmony with good principles, a pity for all whose characters are out of harmony with good principles or who are treated out of harmony with good principles and a sacrificing spirit exercised for the advancement of good principles. Thus, love is involved in the stewardship doctrine of Unitarianism. Consequently,
antitypical Ahira's charger corrects all human conduct violative of such love—disinterested, as distinct from duty love. This fact made him correct every feature of selfishness and worldliness that we pointed out as being corrected by antitypical Pagiel, as well as every feature of sin that the latter pointed out. By so doing he showed that his place was properly at the North side of the antitypical Tabernacle. It will not be necessary to give the details on his corrections of the various phases of selfishness, worldliness and sin; for that would be merely repeating what we have already pointed out in the chargers of the three preceding princes. But this activity should, as a part of antitypical Ahira's charger, be mentioned here in a general way, that we may properly see how extensive his charger has been.
(58) Antitypical Ahira offered his bowl—refutative teachings against opposing doctrines used to attack his. He first showed that the doctrine of the trinity is a contradiction in terms of that of God's unity—three cannot be one! Then he showed that the doctrine that Christ is both God and man is also a contradiction in terms. And he showed that neither doctrine is claimed to be taught in express words of Scripture, but is based on inference contradictory to clear Scripture. He then proved from Scripture that Christ is not God: (1) from the passages that the "orthodox" quoted to prove that He is (John 17: 5; 1: 1, 2; Col. 1: 15; Phil. 2: 5-8; Heb. 1: 1-4, 8, 9); (2) from passages where Jesus denies that He is God (John 8: 28, 29, 54; 5: 19, 26, 36; 6: 57; 12: 49, 50; 14: 24, 10; 10: 37); (3) from the whole tenor of the Bible, which puts God above Him and Him below God; (4) from the source of the doctrine being, not Scripture, but Platonic philosophy. The "orthodox" claim that prayer offered to Christ proves Him God, they answered by showing that His exaltation to God's right hand as His Vicegerent justifies our praying to Him as God's representative. The
"orthodox" claim that His pre-existence proves that Christ was God, the few Unitarians who have held Christ's personal pre-existence have answered by pointing out that He was subordinate to God before He became the man Christ Jesus. The "orthodox" refer to passages that refer to His authority, power, attributes and works, as proofs of His being God. Antitypical Ahira showed that these were His as God's Vicegerent and, therefore, do not prove Him to be God. He then took up the passages used to prove the trinity and showed that they did not prove it: (1) Some were interpolations or corrupted passages (Acts 20: 28; 1 Tim. 3: 16; 1 John 5: 7); (2) Some were mistranslations (Phil. 2: 5; John 1: 1, 2); (3) Some refer to God and are incorrectly applied to Christ (Rom. 9: 5; 1 John 5: 20); (4) Though some refer in the same connection to the Father, Son and Spirit, they do not speak of them as a trinity (Matt. 28: 19; 1 Cor. 12: 4-6; 2 Cor. 13: 13). Thus antitypical Ahira met and refuted arguments adduced to prove that Christ is God and that God is a trinity. It will not be necessary to set forth his refutation of the soul's immortality and eternal torment, which arguments our readers well know. In so doing, he offered his bowl—refutative teachings, and successfully defended his stewardship doctrine.
(59) He, likewise, offered his spoon—instructions in righteousness—ethical teachings. His stewardship doctrine ably lent itself to instructions in righteousness, because God's love is the great example set before the Lord's people for their imitation. This enabled antitypical Ahira to stress love toward God, Christ, the brethren, the world and enemies. God's great love to saint and sinner became the ground of his exhortations to love the brethren, the world and enemies. This will also account for the great efforts that Unitarians have made to express practically their love to their fellows. As we set the details of this forth in connection with
the spoon of the preceding two princes, we will not elaborate on it further here, as the remarks would be largely repetitions of those expressed earlier in this chapter.
(60) Hitherto we have studied the offerings of the twelve groups of crown-lost leaders—one group for each of the twelve denominations of Christendom—as these are typically set forth in Num. 7: 1-83: At first we gave details of their united offerings (vs. 1-11), then a discussion treating of their separate offerings (vs. 12-83). We now purpose to study vs. 84-89. These verses give us a summary combination of their separate offerings as a whole. Accordingly, an explanation of these verses will partake more or less of the character of a summary of vs. 12-83. The first clause of v. 84 were better rendered as follows: "These were the dedication-gifts of the altar," i.e., what follows gives us a summary of the dedication gifts that the twelve princes brought. The altar here referred to is the golden altar, representing the Church as New Creatures during the Gospel Age, comforting, strengthening, encouraging, etc., the sacrificing Priesthood. Its anointing types the bestowment by God, upon the comforting, strengthening, encouraging, etc., Church, of the qualities of heart and mind fitting it for its pertinent service. The completion of such anointing before the princes offered represents the thought that the Little Flock brethren in each of the twelve Little Flock movements, later perverted into twelve sects by the crown-lost leaders, had in each of the twelve movements experienced their anointing to a completion before the crown-lost leaders perverted the pertinent movement into a sect. Thus, e.g., the Little Flock brethren led by Ulrich Zwingli started a movement on the basis of the stewardship doctrine that the Lord's Supper symbolizes our appropriation of Christ's merit by faith and our fellowship with one another; and all the Little Flock's participants in this movement had
their anointing completed for that movement's work before it was perverted into the denomination variously called, the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church, etc. So was this the case with the Little Flock brethren in the other eleven Little Flock movements later perverted into sects by the eleven crown-lost groups of brethren.
(61) Grouping the antitypes according to the order of the tabernacle picture, we now enumerate each of the twelve involved stewardship doctrines, its leading Little Flock proponent and the chief crown-lost perverter, as follows: (1) The Lord's Supper is a symbolic representation of faith appropriating Jesus' merit, and the common-union of the saints. This doctrine was made by Ulrich Zwingli the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, chiefly by John Calvin, perverted into the Reformed or Presbyterian Church. (2) The Bible as the Christian's faith is the center of unity for God's people. This doctrine was by Barton Stone made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, chiefly by Alexander Campbell, was perverted into the Christian or Disciple Church. (3) The Bible times and seasons mightily work along the lines of prophetic chronology. This doctrine was by William Miller made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Joshua Hines, perverted into the Second Advent Church. (4) Christ in His pre-human, human and post-human conditions has been God's official Special Representative in God's works. This doctrine was by the Apostle John made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, mainly by Origen, was perverted into the Greek Catholic Church. (5) The one entire Church is the steward of God's Truth, to preserve it from error and to minister it to the responsive. This doctrine was by Irenaeus made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, mainly by Augustine, was perverted into the Roman Catholic Church. (6) The Church in the flesh is subject to the civil powers. This doctrine was
by Thomas Cranmer made the basis of a Little Flock movement which, especially by Queen Elizabeth, was perverted into the Episcopal Church. (7) Justification is by God's grace through faith alone in Christ's merit. This doctrine was by Martin Luther made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by John, the Steadfast, the Elector of Saxony, perverted into the Lutheran Church. (8) Each ecclesia is, under Christ, the mistress of its own affairs, independent of all outside religious control, but one in the sevenfold tie of Christian unity with other Christian ecclesias and individuals. This doctrine was by Robert Browne made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Henry Barrows, perverted into the Congregational Church. (9) True religion is supreme love to God and equal love to the neighbor. This doctrine was by George Fox made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by William Penn, perverted into the Quaker or Friends' Church. (10) The Lord's people are those only who are justified and consecrated. This doctrine was by Balthasar Hubmaier made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Menno Simonis perverted into the Baptist Church. (11) Disinterested love, as the heart of sanctification, is the Divine ideal for the Lord's people. This doctrine was by John Wesley made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Dr. Thomas Coke, perverted into the Methodist Church. (12) The one God is love. This doctrine was by Michael Servetus made the basis of a Little Flock movement which was, mainly by Faustus Socinus, perverted into the Unitarian Church.
(62) Above we have given a summary of the twelve stewardship doctrines of the twelve denominations, together with the names of the twelve main Little Flock brothers who used them to start Little Flock movements, and the names of the twelve main crown-losers in the twelve antitypical princes. As there were more