Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;  Titus 2:13







THE Apostle Paul, in 1 Tim. 6: 14, 15, indicates that the Epiphany as a period is divided into various seasons, as can be seen quite clearly in Rotherham's rendering: "Keep the commandment without spot, free from reproach, until the forthshining of our Lord Jesus Christ, which in its own fit times the happy and only Potentate will show." The I.V. renders these verses even more clearly, as follows: "Keep the commandment spotless, unrebukable, until our Lord Jesus Christ's Epiphany, which in its own seasons He, the blessed and only Potentate, will manifest." That the Epiphany is a period of time is not only evident from the statement of the passage just quoted on its having seasons, but is also manifest from 2 Tim. 4: 1: "I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick [fallen angels and New Creatures] and the dead [Adam's fallen race] at His appearing [Epiphany] and kingdom." Accordingly, Adam's fallen race will be judged during the Millennium, during the Kingdom, and the fallen angels and New Creatures during the Epiphany. The other four occurrences of the Greek word epiphaneia in the New Testament use it in the sense of an activity, bright shining, i.e., manifestation of persons, principles and things by the bright shining of the Truth. Such an activity can take place at any time, e.g., in the Jewish Harvest (2 Tim. 1: 10), during the Epiphany as a period (2 Thes. 2: 8) or during the entire period of our Lord's Second Presence, i.e., during the Parousia, Epiphaneia and Basileia (2 Tim. 4: 8; Tit. 2: 13).



The Scriptures show that so far as the world is concerned, the Epiphany is divided into four distinct periods: i.e., (1) the War and its aftermath, (2) the Revolution, or Armageddon, and its aftermath, (3) Anarchy and its aftermath, and (4) Jacob's Trouble and its aftermath. But so far as God's people are concerned, it is divided into two periods: (1) the time in which the Priesthood deals with Azazel's Goat, and (2) the time in which the Priesthood deals with the cleansed Levites. In this chapter, from the standpoint of their relation to God's people, we will deal with the first of these two periods alone. The Bible and fulfilled facts prove that of this first period there are at least eight seasons, more or less touching on or reaching into one another, as the case may be.


The first of these to be considered may fittingly be called the parallel annual days. This period was recognized by the author as he viewed certain fulfilled facts. In his dealing with various Levite leaders he noted that when a Levite leader in one of the three Levite groups—antitypical Gershonites, Merarites and Kohathites—would do a certain revolutionary thing, a Levite leader of another Levite group would do a parallel revolutionary thing exactly one year to the day later. E.g., exactly a year from the time that H.J. Shearn and Wm. Crawford (Libnite Gershonite Levite leaders) did certain revolutionary things, J.F. Rutherford and J. Hemery (Mahlite Merarite Levite leaders) did respectively similar revolutionary things. Then, exactly a year after the latters' pertinent revolutionisms I.F. Hoskins and I.I. Margeson (Shimite Gershonite Levite leaders) did respectively similar revolutionary things. And still exactly a year later C.E. Heard and W.M. Wisdom (Mushite Merarite Levite leaders) did respectively similar revolutionary things. Please note that the first year (parts of 1915 and 1916) the Libnite Gershonite Levite leaders did revolutionary things; and exactly two years later (parts of 1917 and 1918) the Shimite Gershonite Levite leaders did similar revolutionary



things. Again, please note that the second year from the start of these cycles (parts of 1916 and 1917) the Mahlite Merarite Levite leaders did certain revolutionary things; and exactly two years later (1918, 1919) the Mushite Merarite Levite leaders did similar revolutionary things. Thus as between the two older subdivisions (Libnites and Mahlites) of the antitypical Gershonites and Merarites respectively, their parallel revolutionisms were exactly a year apart; but as between the older and the younger subdivisions, viz., the Libnite and Shimite Gershonites as one set of these, and the Mahlite and Mushite Merarites as the other set of these, the parallel revolts were two years apart.


As there are two subdivisions among the Gershonites and also two among the Merarites, thus four subdivisions in all, so are there four subdivisions among the Kohathites. The first leader of a subdivision of these to become active was Menta Sturgeon (parts of 1916 and 1917), whose movement corresponds to the Uzzielites; the next was A.I. Ritchie (parts of 1917 and 1918), whose movement corresponds to the Hebronites. These two movements died, the Scriptural proof of which will be given in Chapter IX. There have, however, been successor movements to these. The leader of the third group—the Izeharites—is Carl Olson, whose first activities were in parts of 1918 and 1919. The leader of the fourth group—the Amramites—is R.H. Hirsh, whose first pertinent activities were during parts of 1919 and 1920. It will be seen that the Uzzielite Kohathites, in Menta Sturgeon, began their activities a year after the Libnite Gershonites began theirs, in H.J. Shearn. This resulted in Menta Sturgeon's doing parallel things at the same time as J.F. Rutherford. Accordingly, also, the first activities of the Amramite Kohathites, in R.H. Hirsh, came exactly a year after the parallel acts of the Mushite Merarites, in C.E. Heard. After in 1918 we recognized these annual parallels, we watched various ones who acted as revolutionary leaders and always



found their similar revolutionisms coming on the anniversaries. We could do this only imperfectly in the cases of C.E. Heard and Carl Olson, being able to secure information on comparatively few of their revolutionisms and the dates of the same. But in the cases of H.J. Shearn, J.F. Rutherford, I.F. Hoskins, Menta Sturgeon, A.I. Ritchie and R.H. Hirsh, with whom we had intimate and personal dealings, we were able to note many of such. We have in Vol. VII, Chap. III, under the twelfth set of evils there exposed, given very many of these, and we refer our readers to them in proof of the statements of this and the preceding paragraph. These facts prove that the annual parallels involving the revolutionisms of the leaders of the subdivisions of the Gershonite, Merarite and Kohathite Levites furnish us with one of the Epiphany seasons.


In Vol. IX, Chap. III, Scriptural proof is given that during the Epiphany we are living over on a small scale the Gospel Age, in that we showed that the 1874-1914 unbelief of nominal Spiritual Israel as to entering and conquering antitypical Canaan, the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit, as the second application of the type of Num. 13 and 14, occasioned a second wilderness wandering—the Epiphany wandering—just as the 29-69 A.D. unbelief of the Jewish Harvest's nominal people of God in the first application of Num. 13 and 14 occasioned the first wilderness wandering—the Gospel-Age wilderness wandering of God's people. Accordingly, we see that in the Epiphany we are living over the Gospel Age on a small scale. In contrast with one another, we may designate the involved periods: the Large Gospel Age and the Miniature Gospel Age. And the facts of the case prove that there are three of such miniature Gospel Ages. This is due to the fact that the real Little Flock of Spiritual Israel deals with the nominal Little Flock of Spiritual Israel, i.e., the Great Company, in three distinct groups: (1) the unclean Truth Levites manifested under bad Levite leadership; (2) the good Truth Levites



manifested under good Levite leadership; and (3) the nominal-church Levites manifested under Foolish Virgin leadership. The largest miniature Gospel Age, which covers the whole Epiphany, 1914-1954, is the period of the manifestation of the third class mentioned above, and may be called the Large Miniature Gospel Age; the next smaller miniature Gospel Age, which covers the period from the Summer of 1918 to late 1937, is the period of the manifestation of the second class mentioned above, and may be called the Medium Miniature Gospel Age; and the smallest miniature Gospel Age, which is the period from the Spring of 1915 into the Summer of 1920, may be called the Small Miniature Gospel Age.


In time the Small Miniature Gospel Age compares with the Large Gospel Age as a day to a year, i.e., the Divinely designated events, acts and persons of one year in the Large Gospel Age appear on the stage of the Small Miniature Gospel Age in a day. In other words, there are as many days in the Small Miniature Gospel Age as there are years in the Large Gospel Age. In time the Medium Miniature Gospel Age compares with the Large Gospel Age as a year to a century, i.e., the Divinely designated events, acts and persons of one century in the Large Gospel Age appear on the stage of the Medium Miniature Gospel Age in a year of the Medium Miniature Gospel Age. In other words, there were as many centuries and a fraction in the Large Gospel Age as there were years and a fraction in the Medium Miniature Gospel Age. In time the Large Miniature Gospel Age compares with the Large Gospel Age as 25 months compare with a century, i.e., the Divinely designated events, acts and persons of a century in the Large Gospel Age appear on the stage of the Large Miniature Gospel Age in 25 months. In other words, there are as many 25-month periods in the Large Miniature Gospel Age, 1914-1954, as there are centuries in the Gospel Age. This does not mean that every event, act or person of



the Gospel Age had parallels in these three miniatures. Rather, it means that only such events, acts and persons as have been connected with the outworking of God's Gospel-Age Plan and the relation of God's people to that Plan, and such as have had an appreciable influence on the outworking of that Plan and God's people as related to it, have parallels in these miniatures. Of these three miniatures the Small one first, then the Large one next, and, finally, the Medium one, came to our attention, and became clear to us.


The evening of Feb. 16, 1918, the anniversary of our Pastor's birthday, we delivered a lecture to the Philadelphia Epiphany Church on That Faithful and Wise Servant; and at the end of the service we offered to lecture on the morrow on That Evil Servant, if the Ecclesia desired it. Thereupon it voted unanimously that we should so do. Just after we left the meeting place, R.G. Jolly remarked to us that A.I. Ritchie had told him that there were as many days from the day of Bro. Russell's death, Oct. 31, 1916, to the day J.F. Rutherford ousted the four directors, July 17, 1917, as there were years from 539 to 799 A.D. Nothing was said as to this suggesting a Gospel Age re-enacted on a small scale. This thought of A.I. Ritchie, as stated, struck us as remarkable. But upon investigation we found that A.I. Ritchie's figures were one day short, hence that from the day of the toga scene, Oct. 30, 1916, when Bro. Russell in reporting his part of the inkhorn man's work as finished thereby resigned his office as that Servant, to the day of the four directors' ousting there were as many days as there were years from 539, when the papacy began its civil rule as distinct from its ecclesiastical rule, until 799, when the papal Millennium began. We had already recognized that the Society was a Little Babylon; and as we studied over this matter and compared it with Church history (Kurtz, Vol. I, 487) we learned that Pope Leo III (795 to 816) in 799 had for his power-grasping a great struggle with an opposition



party at Rome, in which he nearly lost his life, and from which he fled to Charlemagne in France for protection. The result of Charlemagne's intervention was the pope's being made in 799 secure in his position and his beginning the papal Millennial reign. The great similarity of these events to the power-grasping of J.F.R., his severe verbal beating by six brothers in the Bethel dining room, July 17, 1917, in protest at his power-grasping in attempting to oust the four directors, and his fleeing to his new Board for protection, which that day installed him firmly in power, raised the question in our mind, Have we in Little Babylon a little Roman Catholic Church, with a little pope, J.F.R., as its head?


We then instituted a comparison of Church historical persons, events and acts from 539 to 799 with those among the Lord's people from Oct. 30, 1916, to July 17, 1917, and found a remarkable set of correspondencies between the pertinent persons, events and acts of the former set of years and corresponding latter set of days. Next we worked out a table of corresponding years backward from 539 to B.C. 2, the year of our Lord's birth, and days backward from Oct. 30, 1916 to the day corresponding to B.C. 2, making each day correspond to the proper year from the standpoint of a day in the small period standing for a year in the large period, and thus found that from this standpoint May 9, 1915 corresponded to 2 B.C. Then we worked forward these two periods, comparatively a day for a year, and found that the year in which this matter was worked out, 1918, corresponded with Aug. 9, 1920. Then these two comparative sets of chronology were placed in a large loose-leaf book, the Gospel-Age years on the left-hand pages of the book when open and the Small-MiniatureGospel-Age days on its right-hand pages, the corresponding years and days on the parallel lines of the pages. Then followed a comparison of Church historical events, acts and persons, with their pertinent years,



with the events, acts and persons, with their pertinent days in the Small Miniature, as we had these recorded in our diaries and other sources of pertinent information. We found, as should be expected from God's way of keeping time, that the days of this Miniature began at 6 P.M. It was about 10 P.M., Feb. 16, 1918, when Bro. Jolly told us of

A.I. Ritchie's statement, that there were as many days from Oct. 31, 1916 (actually from Oct. 30, 1916) to July 17, 1917, as there were years from 539 to 799. Accordingly, from God's standpoint we heard of this matter first, Feb. 17, 1918, and this date in the Small Miniature corresponds to the year 1014 A.D.


This date made it possible for this matter to be subjected to an acid test: If it were true it would enable us to know beforehand, from early in 1918, what in a general way, but not in detail, would happen among God's people until Aug. 9, 1920, and the dates on which the pertinent things would occur. Many, many times it was subjected to just such a test; and it always stood the test. Thus, e.g., we anticipated events connected with the Fort Pitt Committee and the P.B.I. during the Spring, Summer and Fall of 1918. Among others, the following may be cited: During early May, 1918, we told R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and two other friends of the Philadelphia Ecclesia that these two brothers and ourself would on July 27, 1918, meet a severe defeat at the hands of the other four members of the Fort Pitt Committee, whom in Vol. VII, Chap. III, we called the group, but that on July 29 (which began at 6 P.M., July 28) we would turn upon them and give them a crushing defeat. Of course, we did not know beforehand the details, but we did foreknow the generalities as just given. How did we know these events over two months ahead of time? By certain events of the years 1174 and 1176. The forecast events occurred at the Asbury Park Convention, which was held July 26-29, and that on the dates forecast over two months beforehand. The circumstances were



these: The people of Lombardy, Italy, in their love for freedom were for centuries in conflict with the Holy Roman Empire, which sought their subjugation. At the time in question Frederick Barbarossa was the emperor of that empire. He was determined to crush the liberty-loving Lombards. Hence he invaded Lombardy with a large army, and in 1174 severely defeated the Lombards; after defeating them he went to Rome and other parts of Italy, and did not return to Lombardy for two years. In the meantime the Lombard leader reorganized his forces; and when Frederick Barbarossa returned war broke out again, resulting in the complete crushing of the emperor, in 1176.


The corresponding days in the Small Miniature were July 27 and 29, 1918. On July 27 the group, through H.C. Rockwell, began to attack the other three Fort Pitt Committee members, more particularly ourself. H.C. Rockwell's savage attack of us was recognized as such by the friends in general, and, among others, aroused the sympathy of F.H. McGee, one of the group's members, toward us. Contrary to their promise of July 18 not to bring up the Committee's disagreements in the presence of the convention, I.F. Hoskins and I.I. Margeson the afternoon of July 27 called a meeting of the elders and deacons, to which many others came, and presented a misleading account of the Fort Pitt Committee's doings, accusing the three brothers, especially us, of obstructing the Lord's work. They called for the dissolution of the Fort Pitt Committee and the election of a new committee free of the alleged obstructers. Many indeed were the misrepresentations by which they secured the support of the bulk of the conventioners to favor the dissolution of the Fort Pitt Committee late that afternoon. That night they secured the election of the four members of the group and three other brothers, as a new committee. Sunday A.M., while the new committee was holding a meeting to organize itself, etc., we were the convention speaker. And, true to the notice that we



gave the group, that if it would bring up the trouble in the Fort Pitt Committee before the convention, we would give a full exposure of the group's course throughout the existence of that committee, we laid bare the real situation in that committee. This we did, not only to reply to the misrepresentations of the day before, whereby the group's spokesmen secured the overthrow of the Fort Pitt Committee, but also to give our sympathizers the facts necessary to arm them for the onslaught that we were planning to make on the group at the convention business meeting July 29.


Against the group's plan to organize a corporation to control the general work of the Church, which was the main cause of the dissension in the Fort Pitt Committee, and which led to a deadlock there, we determined to launch our counter attack. Our speaking against the group's purpose of forming a corporation to control the general work of the Church led to many desiring to hear the question debated and consequently to the convention's appointing I.F. Hoskins as the defender of that view and us as the opponent of that view, to debate the question as to whether a corporation should be formed to administer the work of the General Church. We were appointed to speak first and discussed the question along the lines laid down in Vol. VI, Chap. II, on the Church completely organized. Then I.F. Hoskins spoke, but his defense of his position was so weak as to make him appear ridiculous. Asked later why he and his fellow committee members declined to appear and discuss the Fort Pitt Committee's affairs at the Sept. and Dec., 1918, conventions at Philadelphia, he said of the only two set debates ever held by him and us with each other, "Every time I appear on a platform to debate with Bro. Johnson he makes me look like thirty cents." This was due to the fact that his side of the question looked like thirty cents in contrast with our side of it. After that debate (the evening of July 28, July 29 God's time) there was a general repudiation of the



group's viewpoint by the conventioners on the subject and an endorsement of our viewpoint.


The morning of the 29th was by the convention devoted to business. The new committee brought in its recommendations, which were; to publish a regular semimonthly magazine, for which it had already appointed an editorial committee of five, and to form a corporation. Both of these recommendations we opposed and they were voted down almost unanimously. If our memory serves us right, its editorial committee was by the convention's vote dissolved. The P.B.I. Committee was by the convention permitted to publish a monthly bulletin, which was to be devoted to giving merely news-items of general interest to the Church, and which, contrary to the convention's instruction, they misused for propaganda purposes, e.g., to advocate the formation of a corporation. They also went beyond their instruction, by having F.H. McGee and J.D. Wright publish several attacks on us, to which we replied in the first issue of The Present Truth. The group left that convention completely defeated and greatly discredited. Indeed, their leader, I.F. Hoskins, was reduced to great abjectness by F.H. McGee for his Asbury Park Convention course toward us, even as Frederick Barbarossa was greatly humiliated by Pope Alexander III. F.H. McGee was so shocked at the gross breach of faith against us on the part of I.F. Hoskins, I.I. Margeson and H.C. Rockwell and their unfair attacks on us that with great difficulty was he persuaded to withdraw his tendered resignation from the P.B.I.

Board. Thus the forecasts that we had made over two months before for July 27 and 29, 1918, were fulfilled, P.B.I. leaders forcing the course of the pertinent events.


Some general remarks on the Small Miniature Gospel Age should be made here, in order better to clarify it. As shown above, it began on May 9, 1915, as the day corresponding to the year 2 B.C., our Lord's birth year. The way the events developed, it appears that, after our Pastor's



death, corresponding to 540, we were privileged to play a twofold role in it (in fact, we have been privileged to play the same two roles in the other two miniatures). On the days following Oct. 31, 1916 and corresponding to the Large-Gospel-Age years, we were privileged: (1) in matters of teaching to set forth teachings that correspond with the doctrines that the Lord's special mouthpieces, star-members, were privileged to set forth in the corresponding years; and (2) in matters of arrangement for the Lord's work (executive matters) to stand for the things corresponding to the thing for which civil rulers stood in opposition to the wrong policies of Greek Catholicism, the papacy and Protestant sectarianism, and for the things for which Bro. Russell stood against the policies of the sifters of the Harvest. On the other hand, the Libnite Gershonites (those following H.J. Shearn and Wm. Crawford) corresponded to the Greek Catholics, especially from the second to the ninth centuries, they in their executive deputyships corresponding to the Roman emperor. The Societyites nearly up to the Society election, Jan., 1918, corresponded to the Roman Catholics, i.e., nearly up to the end of the tenth century, with J.F. Rutherford corresponding to the pope and the Board corresponding to the changing rulers of the West. Then, beginning before the functioning of the Fort Pitt Committee, the Shimite Gershonites correspond chiefly to the Roman Catholics from near the end of the tenth century until about the Reformation time, F.H. McGee corresponding to the pope, and the P.B.I. Committee to the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. But during this time, as a subordinate feature, the Societyites, etc., continued their previous role as little papists, etc. Sometime before the time of the Society's convention, May 29–June 1, 1919, at Brooklyn, the Societyites again assumed the chief role of the little Roman Catholic Church, with J.F.R. as the little pope and the Board as rulers, corresponding to the Roman



Catholic Church, with its pope and Romanist rulers, especially the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, until he was made powerless, as controller. This in general continued to the end of the Small Miniature.


Thus we see that the larger roles of the Small Miniature correspond to the larger roles played during the Gospel Age proper. The parts that H.J. Shearn and his followers played up to the time of the Summer of 1917 corresponded to the part that the Greek Church and its leaders, who were always more or less opposed by the papal party, played. The part that J.F.R. and his followers played from early in 1916 to late in 1917, corresponded to the chief part that the pope and his supporters played from about 250 A.D. to the end of the tenth century. The part that F.H. McGee and his supporters played from about Dec. 1, 1917, to about May 1, 1919, corresponded to the chief part that the papal party played from near the end of the tenth century until well into the fifteenth century, the Societyites during this period playing a subordinate part as the little papal parties of these times; and then from that time onward to about Aug., 1920, the part that J.F.R. and his supporters played corresponded to the chief part that the papal party played from about the middle of the fifteenth century until the end of the Small Miniature. During all these times, beginning with Constantine the Great, the rulers favoring the apostasy corresponded to executive officials as deputies of the above-mentioned groups.


During all these movements among Truth people minor movements were led by various Kohathite leaders who, while more or less opposing the Merarite and Gershonite chief leaders, were more or less affiliated with them. Thus Menta Sturgeon was more or less opposed to the little papal parties and was more or less in spirit related to the form of opposition that the Libnite movement represented. Hence he corresponds more or less to certain deputized executives and leaders among the Greeks. And A.I. Ritchie was more



or less opposed to the papal parties, yet was more or less affiliated with the Mahlite Merarite and the Shimite Gershonite movements. Hence we find him corresponding, as a deputized executive, to certain rulers of the Ostrogoths and Franks. Also, Carl Olson, as a teacher, seems to correspond to certain protesting Romanist theologians in England; R.H. Hirsh, as a teacher, corresponds to crown-lost leaders in the Protestant sects, while C.E. Heard, as a teacher, corresponds to Romanist theologians not quite loyal to the papacy, but nearer so than those protesting Romanist theologians who correspond to Carl Olson. These general outlines will help us to have a better view of the details to be given later. These details we will give in parallel columns, with the correspondencies set over against one another. We cannot give many of these details, for that would make this chapter almost the size of a book. But we will trace the main ones connected with the more important epochs of the two respective periods. We will date each set of events, beginning with the events of the Smyrna period toward the end of John's life. In a few cases we construe sometimes the date in the Gospel Age from the corresponding date of the Small Miniature and sometimes vice versa, and that because of some uncertainty as to the exact date in one or the other of the cases. We will give the Gospel-Age events in the first column and those of the Small Miniature in the second column. We repeat the fact that the days in the Small Miniature begin at 6 P.M., not at midnight, which must be kept in mind in the following.



90 John's first Epistle influences

certain brethren to give him some

relief in his burdensome service.



8/8 Bro. Russell's pertinent letter

induces the London Tabernacle to

relieve him of some of his

financial burdens in the Lord's

work, by assuming its current

mortgage-interest and other

current expenses.



95 John's third Epistle and Revelation, written in an anticlerical sense, curtails clericalism somewhat.

8/13 Bro. Russell's letter to the London Branch managers curbs J. Hemery's clericalism, by appointing the other two managers each to preach once a month, and other elders occasionally, in the London Tabernacle.


103 The attitude of clericalists begins to convey the thought that they were developed enough to be able to sustain the Church without the supervision of the Apostles and star-members.

8/21 The London managers' informing Bro. Russell that the Tabernacle had assumed all current expenses was their first intimation that it could get along without Bro. Russell's supervision.


165 The king of the Longobards, allied with the Marcomani (both Germanic nations), is defeated by the Romans on the Danube.

10/22 Bro. Johnson and his host and hostess at New Berlin, Ohio, receive a setback from the usurping majority in their efforts to reunite the divided Church there.


166 First Asiatic synod is held which presumes to legislate for the Asiatic churches.

10/23 The London Tabernacle elders discuss their taking control of all Tabernacle affairs.


173 A very large Asiatic Synod is held; it seeks to get control of the Asiatic Church; but interested leaders effect a restraint on its plans.

10/30 Joint meeting of the London Tabernacle elders and deacons discusses ways and means of getting control of the Tabernacle's affairs. J. Hemery and sympathizers put restraint on this effort.


202 Pantaenus' (leader in the Alexandrian Church) and Irenaeus' deaths become the  occasion for clericalism's advancement.

11/28 Clericalism in the London Tabernacle advances through H.J. Shearn's and W. Crawford's efforts to have its pulpit open to all elders of that church.



205 Tertullian sets forth the thought of the Father's supremacy, the Son's creation by, and subordination to the Father and the Spirit as the channel for God's work.

12/1 Bro. Russell in Z '15, 359, pars. 7-17, sets forth the thought of the W.T.B. & T.S. being the absolute controller of the I.B.S.A. and the P.P.A., through which two latter corporations the former one does its work.


208 Epigonus, a Noëtian, identifies the Father and the Son, manifested, however, in two different modes.

12/4 H.J. Shearn's resolution, unanimously passed by the Tabernacle elders, to form separate Sunday night classes in N.E. London, is based on the thought of the identity of the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A., working in different modes.


208-243 The controversy on Modalism (the identity of the Father, Son and Spirit, manifested under three different forms) results in the defeat of Modalism.

12/4-1/8, 1916 The controversy on the N.E. London evening meetings, based on the thought of the identity of the W.T.B. & T.S., P.P.A. and the I.B.S.A., results in the defeat of that idea, by a majority of the Tabernacle elders' claiming that the manner of holding those meetings disagrees with the identity of the three corporations.


238 Beryllus of Bostra, Arabia, teaches a sort of Modalism and is fought by the first outcropping of trinitarianism in the theologians [extremes of error fighting one another].

1/3, 1916 First separate meeting of the N.E. London friends, its dependency on the London Tabernacle being opposed by the Crouch End elders, supported by H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford, which was the first step taken toward separating the identity of the three corporations while stressing their unity.



243 Anti-Beryllian views, are widely circulated among the clergy, resulting in their rejecting the views of Beryllus.

1/8 The corporational implications of the N.E. London first meeting are discussed by the Tabernacle elders, resulting in further appointments made there.


244 Under Origen's teachings an Arabian synod rejects the views of Beryllus, who recants; and it accepts Origen's view of the separate personalities of the Father and the Son and the Son's being without a beginning.

1/9 Under W. Crawford's influence some of the Tabernacle elders, by implications as to the N.E. London meetings, take the view that the two corporations are separate and distinct, with the I.B.S.A. being always implied in the existence of the W.T.B. & T.S.


251 Cyprian of Carthage and Cornelius of Rome strongly advocate the doctrine of the apostolic succession of bishops and the subordination of the elders and laity to them.

1/16 H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford strongly advocate that all Tabernacle elders have the right of regular access to its pulpit as our Pastor's representatives and that the deacons and ecclesia should be subject to this course.


254 Origen's death.

1/19 W. Crawford changes his view into more independence of the I.B.S.A. from the W.T.B. & T.S.


258 Cyprian's death.

1/23 H.J. Shearn increases his convictions on the right of the London elders to access to the Tabernacle pulpit.


262 Dionysius of Rome teaches the separate, eternal and consubstantial [pertaining to oneness of being] existence of the Logos as to the Father, whose view is endorsed by Dionysius of Alexandria.

1/27 J.F. Rutherford sets forth the substantial identity of the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A., and H.J. Shearn sets forth the corporational implications of the separate and unauthorized existence of the Crouch End meetings as involving the separate and equal existence of the I.B.S.A. as always involved in the existence of the W.T.B. & T.S.



262-325 The controversy over the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, quiescent for awhile, breaks out afresh in 262 and continues increasingly until settled officially at the Nicean Council in 325

1/27–3/30 The controversy on the corporational implications of the meetings of N.E. London and Crouch End friends, quiescent for awhile, breaks out  1/27 with more vigor, increasingly carries on and ends officially  3/30 in favor of the substantial unity of the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A., by the decision of a smaller committee of the Tabernacle elders on the relation of the Tabernacle and the Crouch End meetings, qualifiedly accepted by the elders.


264 A synod at Antioch debates, in a trinitarianistic-developing sense, the unitarianistic non-preexistence of our Lord held by Paul of Samosata, who by keenness and equivocal terms nonplussed his adversaries for several years.

1/29 Some Tabernacle elders, led by H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford, debate with others, led by J. Hemery, the formers' corporational implicationary views on the Crouch End meetings and were by J. Hemery nonplussed for awhile.


269 Paul of Samosata, an ancient unitarian, is condemned by a synod of trinitarianistic developing members.

2/3 The Shearno–Crawfordistic Tabernacle elders condemn the Hemeryistic elders' view as extreme.


271 The holders of trinitarianistic developing views condemn the view that separates the Father and the Son as persons without holding to the unity of their being.

2/5 In an elders' meeting the holders of the corporational implications of the separate N.E. London meetings condemn the view of those who hold that the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A. are separate corporations, and are not in actuality one and the same thing.



272 Paul of Samosata, as an ancient unitarian, is expelled from his office by the trinitarianistic developing groups.

2/6 J. Hemery and his supporting elders are temporarily displaced in their stand by the Shearno-Crawfordistic elders' securing the authorizing of the corporational implications in the Crouch End meetings, by the said meetings' being held under a temporary authorization from the elders.


275 Porphery, the ablest infidel of ancient times, begins his work of 15 books against Christianity.

2/9 Bro. Eddington, a Tabernacle elder, begins a letter to the Tabernacle elders in favor of textbookism.


276 Porphery completes the above-mentioned work against Christianity.

2/10 Bro. Eddington completes his letter to the Tabernacle elders in favor of textbookism.


278 Indecisive discussions on the relations of the Father and the Son, as to the Latter's alleged coeternity, consubstantiality and coequality with the Father, assume a more questioning aspect.

2/12 After lengthy discussion, in which half of the Tabernacle elders favor scheduling all Crouch End meetings, it is agreed to appoint a committee to investigate this subject and report at least a week before the elders should vote on it, this entire course showing the elders' uncertainty as to the implications of the Crouch End meetings on the question of relations of the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A. as to the latter's existence, essential unity and equality as always implied in that of the former.


299 Christian bishops discuss Porphery's books against Christianity; and various of them decide to reply, e.g., Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, Apollinarius of Laodicea.

3/4 Bro. Eddington's letter, objecting to Dawn studies, etc., is read to the Tabernacle elders, who as a body decline to discuss it, and send him word that individual elders will reply to his extreme textbookism.



318 The Arian controversy begins on the Father and the Son, as one being in two persons, the majority taking sides against Arius.

3/23 Controversy in the Tabernacle elders' committee on essential unity and on the separateness of the Tabernacle and the Crouch End ecclesias is reported to the elders, with the majority favoring this view—a thing implying the essential unity, separateness, coexistence and equality of the W.T.B. & T.S. and the I.B.S.A.


325 The Council of Nice sanctions the view of the Father's and the Son's coeternity, consubstantiality [oneness of being] and coequality.

3/30 The Tabernacle elders' committee qualifiedly approve of the relation of the Tabernacle and Crouch End ecclesias as being essentially one yet separate and equal—a thing that implies the essential unity, and actual separateness, coexistence and equality of the I.B.S.A. with the W.T.B. & T.S.


334 Ulfilas, an Arian, prepares himself to be a missionary to the Visigoths.

4/8 J., as a supporter of Bro. Russell's methods, arranges for his follow-up work to be done at Louisville, Ky., by a Sr. Wilson.


339 Julian the Apostate, through the murder of his relatives by Constantine's three sons, begins his hatred of Christianity.

4/13 Bro. Eddington, through his supporters' being set aside by J. Hemery's main supporters, begins to write a paper renouncing the I.B.S.A. under Bro. Russell.