Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
positions—capitals—that Omri had. Dec. 12–Jan. 2 he fulfilled the Ahab phase and during this time, like Ahab, he became guilty of the worst opposition that he made to J., both in the latter's teaching, etc., office, as the little parallel of Elijah, and in the latter's executive phase, as representing the Board, and thus in a sense as representing J.F.R., i.e., as a member of the Board and its executive. After sending word, Dec. 12, declining in the name of all three managers to revise the convention program as corrected by J. (W.C. [and his followers] here standing as the little parallel of Jezebel, and J.H., the straddler [and his supporters], here standing as the little Obadiah, who protected the prophets and yet served Ahab and Jezebel, half-heartedly, of course), he entered the Ahab phase (1 Kings 16: 28–22: 40). Actually H.J.S. and W.C. were the real deciders on this challenge. As the small Ahab H.J.S.'s first great wrong was in becoming one with the W.C. party as the little Jezebel.
And certainly W.C. did during this period oppose J. and those who took his side, as Jezebel through the hierarchy persecuted Elijah and his fellow prophets. J. and his supporters during this time had to work rather secretly, as did Elijah and his supporting prophets. H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s challenge corresponds to the persecuting attitude of antitypical Ahab and Jezebel from 539 to 1324 A.D. And, corresponding to these about 9 centuries, it was about 9 days from the time that H.J.S. sent his challenging letter until J., Dec. 20, in a managers' meeting met the challenge. From the day Dec. 13 or 14, when J. received the letter, until Dec. 19, when he decided that faithfulness to his mission required him to call the managers' challenge, J. gave this matter the most earnest and prayerful consideration. Satan plied him with all sorts of compromises, all of which he set aside, recognizing that it was God's will that he be faithful to his credentials-charged powers, else, if he compromised, his whole British work would be compromised;
for if he should weaken in the face of this challenge, he would do so in the face of others. Hence, as Elijah challenged the Ahab-and-Jezebel-supported priests and prophets of Baal and Astaroth, J. challenged the whole leadership supporters of H.J.S. and W.C. in the managers' meeting of Dec. 20. In Chapter IV the details of this encounter are given.
J. took, Dec. 20, the Manchester Convention program out of the hands of H.J.S. as its executive, and put it into the hands of J.H. to carry out, leaving immediately thereafter the managers' meeting and refusing at repeated request to return. Then he went to Oxford for a night meeting and the next day to Hull, and returned to London and met the managers the evening of Dec. 22. In this meeting H.J.S. softened and apologized for his course, just as Ahab softened toward Elijah (and in the large antitype just as about 1550, over two centuries later, the civil powers softened toward the Reformers). But W.C. was very defiant to J. at that meeting, just as Jezebel through the hierarchy remained very defiant to Elijah. As an expression of forgiveness J. at that meeting gave back to H.J.S. the privilege of carrying out executively the convention program, and in other ways encouraged him to reform, particularly during a walk in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens Dec. 25, just as Elijah feasted Ahab. (In the large antitype the Reformers gave the civil powers great feasts from the 16th into the very late 18th century, corresponding to the over 2½ days that J. was encouraging by the principles of the Lord's Word H.J.S. to reformation, which the latter promised.) Never did J. make a more earnest and loving effort to rescue an erring brother than he did with H.J.S. during those over 2½ days, particularly during their walk the afternoon of Dec. 25 in Kensington Gardens and Hyde Park. But W.C. persuaded H.J.S. to go back on his promised reformation, just as antitypical Jezebel by the hierarchy dissuaded antitypical Ahab from reformation during the 19th century in the large
antitype of typical Jezebel and Ahab in this matter. H.J.S. cut off brethren from service at W.C.'s plotting, because they favored Bro. Russell's arrangements, for which J. very severely denounced both of them, as Ahab at Jezebel's plotting had Naboth stoned, for which Elijah severely denounced them. (It will be noted that in this phase W.C. corresponds to the Romanist hierarchy in the large antitype, while he and his supporters correspond to the hierarchy and the Romanist Church, which usually acts through the hierarchy.) As during the Ahab period there were three wars that Ahab had with Ben-hadad, Ahab being victorious in two of them, so H.J.S. had three conflicts with the radicals. Those with the two radical churches that separated from the London Tabernacle resulted in victories for H.J.S.; but in his third conflict, which occurred during the Manchester Convention, the radicals from outside of London worsted him completely, in the reports against him that they gave J., so that J. as the Board's representative (and thus in a measure J.F.R.'s representative as a Board member and its executive), who for a while supported him against these radicals, had to give up that support, even as Ben-hadad defeated and slew Ahab, and compelled Jehoshaphat to leave the conflict defeated. And certainly from every standpoint of his opposition to J. as the Board's special representative, H.J.S. (and W.C. too) left the Manchester Convention, Jan. 2, 1917, thoroughly defeated and frustrated, even as Ahab left the first battle of Ramothgilead defeated and mortally wounded. It was during the little Ahab phase of H.J.S. that J.F.R. began to build his religious government, which proved to be a little Babylon, represented by Hiel of Bethel rebuilding Jericho (1 Kings 16: 34); and thereby he underwent the little antitype of the curse that Joshua put upon the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh. 6: 26), i.e., in making power-grasping and lording the foundation to his religious government J.F.R. alienated J. and thereby lost him as his
chief supporter among those closest to him; and in putting the kind of persons into the chief offices of his religious government that he did, J.F.R. alienated M. Sturgeon, and thereby lost him as his least supporter among those nearest to him. Later on it will be shown that J.F.R. in his little Jehoram phase as co-regent of the little Jehoshaphat started to build his little Babylon (Jericho), Dec. 28, 1916, by preparing the resolutions that were designed by him to give him control in the Society; thus, his little Jericho's start was in the days of the little Ahab, as typed, even as in the large parallel the papacy began to develop its Jericho, great Babylon, during the days of autocracy, great Ahab.
Next H.J.S. for two days, Jan. 2, 3, 1917, entered the Ahaziah (of Israel) phase (1 Kings 22: 49–2 K. 1: 18). During these two days H.J.S. continued his lording and sectarian ways, encouraged therein by W.C., as Ahab did, encouraged thereto by Jezebel. He tried to induce J.F.R. representatively in J. to let him join with him in I.B.S.A. and W.T.B.&T.S. works that would subordinate the latter to the former, which J.F.R. in J. refused to do. In H.J.S.'s "political" venture against the Lord's arrangements in the Tabernacle he came to a great fall, and sought betterment by power-grasping, for which J. rebuked him and twice refuted his letters and finally sent him word of his complete defeat, even as Ahaziah fell, injured himself, sought pertinent word from Satan, for which he was rebuked by Elijah, who destroyed his two captains with their fifties and finally gave him the Lord's sentence of death for his sin. H.J.S. fulfilled the Jehoram (of Israel) phase, Jan. 3-14, 1917 (2 Kings 3: 1–9: 26, intermittently). The miscarrying of his power-grasping, lording and combinationistic plots moved him to give them up, even as Jehoram gave up Baal and Ashtaroth worship. But he and W.C. entreated J. to allow them to stand for election as elders, even if they should not serve, because they wanted exemption from the draft. The night of Jan. 8, at a meeting
of J. with the managers, J.H. brought charges against them for their Bethel revolutionisms. J. severely rebuked them therefore, after which they made the above-mentioned request. It showed that they had given up their small Baal and Ashtaroth worship, but that they still were contaminated with some clericalism and sectarianism, as will appear later. Very shortly after H.J.S. entered his Jehoram phase the British military party sought to force conscientious objectors to take up arms. This course of that party led H.J.S. to enlist J.F.R. (in J., the Board's and thus in a sense J.F.R.'s representative) and nominal-church conscientious objectors to enter an agreement to oppose this purpose and in the resultant difficulties these three were nearly defeated. J. (as teacher), when their discouragement was at the lowest ebb, assured them of victory, through arguments that he furnished them, despite H.J.S.'s evils, because God would regard J.F.R.'s position (represented in J. as executive). The military party thought the others were in helpless conflict with one another and charged on them in full hope of victory, but its arguments were refuted, and it was driven from the field of debate, as Jehoram, Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom, discouraged, were ready to give up, when Elisha encouraged them and helped them to defeat the attacking Moabites.
J.'s transition from the Elijah aspect of his British work to its Elisha aspect occurred Jan. 3, 1917. On Jan. 3 there occurred in J.'s mind various discussions pro and con on certain questions as to the British situation, corresponding to the last related acts of Elijah and Elisha. And amid these he changed from the Elijah aspect of a sterner to the more lenient view of the Elisha aspect as to the British situation, which resulted gradually in his more public opposition to H.J.S. and W.C., whereas in the Elijah aspect his sterner opposition was exercised in private. Some urged him to return to the sterner opposition, from which he sought to dissuade them. He finally told
them by the conditions to seek to restore it, but they failed, as the sons of the prophets sought and did as to Elisha on searching for Elijah. He did his part in making the Society's work in Britain more appreciable and fruitful, as Elisha healed Jericho's waters. He gave his attention to the Tabernacle situation, for which he was derided by the Shearno-Crawfordites, for whom he forecast evils, which came through the contentions between the two groups rallying about the two sets of Tabernacle elders, even as was the case of Elisha, the mocking children and the two she-bears. After a fruitful trip in Ireland and at Sheffield, England, J. returned to London, where Tabernacle policies required his attention, as Elisha returned by way of Carmel to Samaria. By this time J.'s work was gaining in the hearty support of the British churches, as the Shunammite provided for Elisha. He forecast a vigorous public work movement for them, which set in, but due to H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s whispering campaign against it and him, it withered for a while. J.H. sought in vain to restore it to vigor, but J., laying hold on the situation, was enabled to restore it to life and present it as an energetic thing to the British churches, these things being the small antitype of 2 Kings 4: 8-37; while the small antitype of 2 Kings 4: 1-7 occurred in connection with J.'s suggesting measures that ameliorated the severity of the situation created by conscription and conscientious objection in Britain. Various errors circulated among the British brethren which caused spiritual illness. J. prescribed refutative and constructive teachings that healed the evil (2 Kings 4: 38-41). He was also privileged to set before the ecclesias various teachings on the harvest siftings and gatherings, to which J.H. opposed some objections, but J.'s course thereon prevailed, to the blessing of the ecclesias in the small antitype of 2 Kings 4: 42-44. The story of Naaman (2 Kings 5: 1-27) had its small fulfillment in the radical leaders' demanding of H.J.S. that he provide remedies that would heal certain radical public workers
from faults that injured their public work and the subsequent pertinent events. These radical leaders were referred to J., who showed them that by showing more of a spirit of helpfulness and friendliness for the public they would cure this evil. At first rejecting, then under persuasion acting out this advice, they received the cure, and desired unduly to honor and empower J., who rejected the effort, and then advised them on the course that their obligation to their party required of them in their individual ecclesias. But in connection with this episode J.H. showed a power-grasping spirit that took to himself some of the powers that the radical leaders offered J., a thing that brought a rebuke upon J.H. from J. This rebuke was especially emphasized Jan. 8, 1917, at a managers' meeting, when J.H. brought charges against H.J.S. and W.C.
The episode of 2 Kings 6: 1-7 had its small antitype in the desire of some to engage in public work along pilgrim, colporteur, volunteer and newspaper work; but due to the war the instruments of this work were lost to the brethren. J. offered suggestions to improve the condition, which was thereby remedied. 2 Kings 6: 8–7: 20 found its antitype in a sharp fight between the radical party and the conservative party among the British brethren. There were three parties among the British brethren: a radical party, headed by a number of London elders; a conservative party, led by H.J.S. and W.C.; and a middle-of-the-road party, led by J.H., J. siding mainly and at first with the last as against the conservative party, but supporting both of these against the radical party. Because of J.'s counseling the conservative party against the radical party's moves, to the defeat of these, the radical party, convinced that J. was bringing about their various frustrations, sought to gain him over to them by capture through fear and power. Their maneuvers frightened J.H., who was calmed by J.; and then J. led them into the position of the conservatives, who, desiring to do them severity, were restrained by J. This resulted in
a conciliatory course being followed, with better feelings resulting on both sides. Thus was fulfilled the small antitype of 2 Kings 6: 8-23. However, this did not end the strife among the radicals and conservatives, the strife beginning among these two parties of the 11 signatory elders, from them then proceeding to their partyites in the London Tabernacle and from these spreading among the supporters of these two parties throughout Britain. The matter of the nomination and election of the Tabernacle elders and deacons set off the explosion. On account of the conservative party's being curbed and cramped by the middle-of-the-roadsters, they were put to great disadvantage in their conflict with the radicals, and were reduced to great straits in their battlings. Various of their adherents entered into compromise with one another, and in one case after one of the parties thereto had fulfilled its part of the agreement, the other refused, and they complained to the party as a whole, which exposed the situation to all the more grief. H.J.S. blamed J. for the situation and planned to destroy his influence, which he, among other things, attempted by his protest on J.'s pertinent course in the ecclesia's business meeting of Jan. 7, 1917. J. expressed his thoughts on this to J.H. and his own private secretary.
This was followed by the managers' meeting of the night of Jan. 8. While in this meeting most of the time was devoted to a consideration of the charges that J.H. brought against the managerial offenses of the other two managers, some of the time was devoted to a discussion of their standing for eldership, against which J. advised, because of their sins against the ecclesia. They asked J. to let them stand for election, agreeing, if elected, not to occupy the pulpit. They desired such election so that they could claim exemption from military service as elders [pastors] of the ecclesia. And for them not to be elders endangered their pertinent position. J. felt that their wrongs against the ecclesia being so flagrant, they did not deserve the office,
and at first declined to consent to withdraw his pertinent advice, but upon reconsideration decided to withdraw it, if they would admit their wrong and promise amendment. This relieved the situation of their being crowded to the wall by the radicals, who, thinking they would not be elders, and thus be unable to help themselves, let alone others, opposed them; but on hearing that these would have J.'s support, and thus the support of the middle-of-theroadsters, as well as of the conservatives, the former fled from the field of conflict, deserting all their positions and arguments. There were four groups of British brethren who were outside of the conflict, but much pressed by it, who decided to fall away to the radicals, but found them to have given up the siege of the conservatives. After being themselves refreshed they broke the news to H.J.S., who with his supporters were, after some skepticism, assured that relief had come. When J. had assured him of the coming of relief, his main supporter, W.C., doubted it. J. told him that he would see it, but would get no good from it, which happened in this way: The brethren in their eagerness to obtain relief crushed him while he was superintending the work of supplying the others with refreshment. In these ways the events of 2 Kings 6: 24–7: 20 had their small antitypes.
The episode of 2 Kings 8: 1-6 received the following as its small antitype. J.'s conflict with H.J.S., who had charge of the colporteur, volunteer, newspaper and pilgrim work (except J.'s), influenced H.J.S. to cease a zealous prosecution of these branches of service. J., seeing that this presaged a diminishing of opportunities of service, advised the British brethren to seek fields of service as best they could until this condition would be fully ended. Under J.'s vigorous resistance to H.J.S.'s pertinent course opportunities of service through the Bethel family's cooperation set in. At that time J.H. and H.J.S. were discussing J.'s public work and H.J.S. desired information thereon.
J.H. praised J.'s work as exceptionally successful, instancing his resuscitating a public work movement among the British brethren. In the meantime their sphere of service had fallen into disuse and other activities supplanted it. They began at the time of the above-mentioned conversation between J.H. and H.J.S. to demand the opening up of their former methods and opportunities of service. On being apprized by J.H. that these were those who were aroused to the public work by J., H.J.S., on inquiry being satisfied of the facts, arranged for the public work to go ahead at full speed.
The radical movement contained two parties: a more unwise one and a less unwise one. The former had lost considerable ground, especially since their disastrous retreat from their encounter with H.J.S. typed in the preceding chapter. This conflict occasioned J. to give more attention to these more unwise radicals, who, hearing of J.'s pertinent activities, sent some of the less unwise radicals, with expressions of honor and respect, to inquire of him whether they would recover from their weakness. J.'s answer was that they could, but would not. Then, realizing that a sifting was on, and that in this sifting the wiser of the radicals would work much havoc on the other brethren, J. was greatly saddened by the prospect, and foretold the evil course of these less unwise radicals, who protested against the forecast. These returned to the more unwise radicals, promising recovery, but shortly suppressed these from controllership among the radicals. Thus was fulfilled the small antitype of 2 Kings 8: 7-15. The rest of 2 Kings 8, together with 2 Chron. 20: 1-20, will now be explained in the small antitype, for which we will now return to a consideration of certain of the kings of Judah, as well as of certain of the kings of Israel, so far as concerns their small parallel.
Above it was remarked that in the case of J.F.R. the good parts of his mind, generally speaking, were expressed in his acts as the little Asa and Jehoshaphat. It was
also remarked that the bad side of his mind showed itself, and that in a doubling of both of these parts of his mind. The bad part began to work markedly at the time, Dec. 28, 1916, typed by the beginning of Jehoram's co-reign with his father, Jehoshaphat, nine years before the latter's death, i.e., in the year 16 of Jehoshaphat's reign and two years before Ahab's death. It was on Dec. 28, 1916, after J.F.R. knew that he had enough proxies to insure his election as the Society's president, that he began to prepare such resolutions as, if passed by the Board at the recommendation of the voting shareholders, would give him executive and managerial powers in the Society's business and affairs. This self-exalting ambition—a sore temptation—was yielded to, just as the big pope in great Babylon yielded to self-exalting ambitions. Accordingly, J.F.R. drew up these resolutions and, additionally, planned every detail of the procedure of the voting shareholders' meeting. Eight days before the time of the shareholders' meeting, which was held Jan. 6, 1917, he sent a report of its proceedings, including his unanimous election, the appointment of a resolutions committee to present resolutions to the meeting (recommending the resolutions that he drew up), the names of his nominators, etc., to various papers, e.g., the New York World, the Los Angeles Times, etc. Among J.F.R.'s published falsehoods was the following: He said that the resolutions were by A.I. Ritchie, as if they were his own, taken to Pittsburgh and recommended by him to the resolutions committee, whereas A.I. Ritchie stated that W.E.V. took them there. One of the members of the resolutions committee, its chairman, I.I. Margeson, corroborated to the writer A.I. Ritchie's account to the following effect: After the resolutions committee, consisting of Bros. Bricker, Ostrander and Margeson, was appointed, they asked one another as to what was expected of them. As they were so engaged, W.E.V., as if by accident, sauntered up to them, and they asked him as to what
was expected of them. Taking from his pocket a copy of the resolutions that J.F.R. had drawn up, he handed them to the committee, remarking that they might recommend these to the voting shareholders.
Retiring to a room to study these resolutions, they found that they were calculated to make a one-man affair of the Society, and proceeded to revise them in a way that the Board should not be ignored. This took some time; and, impatient at the delay, and suspecting that the committee desired to revise his resolutions, J.F.R. presumptuously stopped them as they were about to report to the meeting, and asked them, if they had revised them. They told him that they found that the resolutions would make a one-man affair of the Society, and that, opposed to this, they had revised them. Thereupon J.F.R. held them up for an hour, insisting that they must report those resolutions just as drawn up, or he would fight them before the full meeting of the voters. Instead of telling him in a polite way not to busybody in their, but to attend to his own business, and let them attend to theirs, they tamely submitted and recommended those power-grasping and lording resolutions as by-laws to the shareholders' meeting. These passed, J.F.R. was elected; but since the Society's charter empowered the Directors alone to make by-laws, J.F.R. had to leap over another hurdle, i.e., get the Board to pass them and spread them over their minutes, which would give them the force of valid by-laws. He accomplished this feat of his power-grasping by intimidating the Board with the thought that the voting shareholders having passed the resolutions, they were duty bound to accept them, a claim that was untrue. Under this threat the Board meekly and wrongly submitted to his power-grasping, a thing that should have influenced them to reject his by-laws; and thus he became legally the executive and manager of the Society's business and affairs, as long as the Board did not rescind those resolutions. Any sober-minded and Biblically informed
new creature at once must, on these facts being presented to him, recognize the pertinent course of J.F.R. as power-grasping; yea, they were little Hiel building further his little Jericho. But he did not leave matters at giving him executive and managerial authority. That was not enough for the evil part of his double mind. He must magnify his executive and managerial authority into controllership, so that he would have the same power and authority in the Lord's work as our Pastor had. It is this evil part of his mind that in its first 17 days of operation, 9 contemporaneously with the Jehoshaphat phase and 8 after that phase ended, acted out the little parallel of Jehoram of Judah.
The general details of the last 8 of these 17 days will now be described, as typed in 2 Kings 8: 16-24; 2 Chron. 21: 1-20. The resolutions were by J.F.R. intended to nullify the other six Board members as such and other prominent brethren, which their passing and their subsequent misuse by J.F.R. accomplished, even as Jehoram on becoming king killed his six brothers and certain Judahite princes. He was autocratic, as the house of Ahab was, because he became one with certain autocratic organizational arrangements, his resolutions, etc., and thus did evil before the Lord as Jehoram did; but for Bro. Russell's sake the Lord did not set him aside in this phase at once, as the Lord for David's sake bore with Jehoram. The British nominal-church conscientious objectors fell away from subordination to the Society as represented by J.F.R. and never returned thereto, despite discussions with them in which they were worsted by J, as the Board's and thus in a sense J.F.R.'s representative, as explained above, as the Edomites did to Judah. Certain clear-seeing priests also turned against him, as did Libnah, a priestly city. He misled the brethren by a union of religious and secular, particularly legal views, as Jehoram did with the high places, etc. For at this time J. wrote J.F.R. letters in the little Elijah, not in the little Elisha spirit, remonstrating with him for his
wrong course, and warning him of evils coming as a result thereof, as Elijah by his letter did to Jehoram. It should be here remarked that events of an earlier phase coming to knowledge and leading to action during the time of a later phase are referred to typically as occurring in the earlier phase. The act just referred to is one of many coming under this explanatory remark. As a result J.F.R. suffered from sectarian and treacherous brethren who despoiled him of power, supporters, arrangements and internal order, as Jehoram suffered the types of these things. This phase of him was not desired or respected at its end, as Jehoram was not desired or respected in death.
Let us not forget that, beginning with the sole Jehoram (of Judah) phase, Jan. 6, 1917, as pointed out above, we have a series of phases of J.F.R. as the little parallel of the following kings of Judah: Jehoram, Ahaziah, Athaliah (a queen), Joash and Amaziah, who represent, generally speaking, the evil part of his double mind, while they operated contemporaneously with, generally speaking, the good part of his double mind, represented by the Judahite kings Uzziah, Jotham and Ahaz, the last going over into the bad part of his mind. We first will discuss his evil-minded acts as represented by the second of the first set of the foregoing kings (2 Kings 8: 25-29; 9: 21, 22, 27, 28; 2 Chron. 22: 1-9), having already discussed his acts as the little Jehoram of Judah. We will here begin with Ahaziah, who co-reigned one year with his father, and reigned one year alone, typing Jan. 12, 13, in the little parallel. On Jan. 13 he sided with H.J. S, in his conflict with the wiser radicals; and he ended this phase as J.H. girded himself to fight H.J.S. in the matter of the election of elders. During this time he was under the influence of the party that advanced him to his place as executive and manager, and that led him into an autocratic course; and this brought him to begin what eventually resulted in a clash between him and J.H. in the Jehu phase,
which brought him to the end of this arbitrary phase.
H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s course on the resolution and J.'s opposition thereto became known to many in the ecclesia during H.J.S.'s Jehoram (of Israel) phase, Jan. 3-14, 1917. J., by letter, as well as by conversation, had aroused J.H., and the latter his fellow non-signatory elders, into opposition to H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s election as elders (2 Kings 9: 1-10); and this was done secretly; and secretly these worked against their election among those of the ecclesia who knew of the resolution. This aroused more or less criticism in the meeting held for the election. H.J.S. briefly protested his loyalty to the ecclesia, which led to more sentiment being aroused, still secretly, against him. The first election occurred Jan. 14, 1917, resulting in the election of all the non-signatory elders and the defeat of several of the signatory elders, including H.J.S. and W.C. Thus this election proved to be J.H.'s revolution, as the little parallel of Jehu's, against H.J.S., as the little parallel of Jehoram (of Israel), and against W.C., as the little parallel's leader (the hierarchy) of the little Jezebel (2 Kings 9: 11-37). This defeat ended the little Jehoram (of Israel) and Jezebel phase, and turned H.J.S. and W.C. and their followers from little antitypical Israelites into little antitypical Syrians; and the group became subjects of little Hazael and later of little Ben-hadad, H.J.S., the leader of the radicals, who included quite a number of brethren. These fought J.H. and his supporters for a long time, in fact throughout the five phases of the little Jehu dynasty (Jehu, Jehoahaz, Jehoash, Jeroboam II and Zachariah). Thus Jan. 14, 1917, witnessed the overthrow of the last phase of H.J.S. as the little parallel of certain of Israel's kings and the beginning of J.H.'s course as the little parallel of the rest of Israel's kings. It is also significant that it was on Jan. 14, 1917, that J. withdrew priestly fellowship from H.J.S., but at the time he knew nothing about the little parallel, in fact did not at the time, Jan. 14,
1917, when he gave H.J.S. up as an unhelpable case, realize that this act meant J.'s withdrawing priestly fellowship from, and delivering him to the fit man. It was about that time, perhaps a day or two before, that he reacted toward W.C. in the same way. In both cases it occurred after they, following J.'s repeated efforts to reclaim them, had turned down with hypocritical letters his above-mentioned offer on their standing for election, without his protesting it, if they would acknowledge their pertinent wrong and would reform.
Now J.H. appears as the little parallel of Israel's kings from Jehu onward to Hoshea, their last king. As everyone of these kings did evil with here and there some good, so they typed J.H.'s usually bad course with some good interspersed: for J.'s experiences with him revealed him to J. as one of the most cunning hypocrites with whom he ever dealt. So completely successful was he as a hypocrite that J. did not suspect this of him until after J.F.R. threw J. down, when J.H. threw off the mask and acted out his real character. It is true that several times previously J. had to correct him, especially when he suggested to J. that he, J.H., be made pastor of the London Tabernacle, and when he acknowledged that he had succumbed to H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s power-grasping him out of his place as chief manager, without persevering resistance, into almost a figure-head among the managers. He, with his supporters, by their election tactics, brought to an end J.H. S. as the little parallel of certain Israelitish kings, and also brought to an end W.C. as the little hierarchy representing little Jezebel. In his Jehu aspect his acts are typed in 2 Kings 9; 10; 2 C. 22: 8, 9. By his course in the election he also brought to an end J.F.R. as the little Ahaziah who supported H.J.S. and W.C. for eldership. During the 28 days, Jan. 14 to Feb. 10, 1917, J.H. cooperated to set aside every feature of H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s control in the Bethel and Tabernacle, destroying their lording and power-grasping and
those of their supporters. As the little parallel of Bidkar and Jehonadab J. supported him throughout therein. Learning that H.J.S. had made some defense of himself to the ecclesia, Jan. 14, before the vote on officers, J. wrote to J.H. that if at the second election, which gave the defeated ones a chance of standing again for election, and which was to occur Jan. 21, he should seek to justify himself, J.H. should as J.'s mouthpiece express to the church J.'s disapproval of H.J.S. J. also wrote that he stood ready to appear before the church to give his opinion on the resolution, if desired.
On Jan. 21 H.J.S., contrary to J.'s urgent advice, did seek to justify himself as faithful to the church. Thereupon, as requested by J., J.H. made a statement to the ecclesia as J.'s mouthpiece on J.'s opposition to H.J.S. He was to give the reasons for J.'s view, but failed so to do. However, the church voted that J. be requested to give, as the Society's commissioner, his view of the resolution's movement. In the preceding chapter the details of what occurred on Jan. 28 are given. This led to the extirpation of the little Baal worshippers in the house of little Baal; for it exposed and blasted the whole Baalistic course on the resolution's movement. J.'s severe handling of H.J.S. before the London Tabernacle Church was in a sense premature, for J.H. failed to state J.'s reasons for disapproving the resolution movement, as asked by J. to do; and J., assuming that he had done it, spoke on the matters in a way that presupposed that the church knew the facts, which warranted J.'s rough handling of H.J.S. on Jan. 28 before the church. This condition resulted in some members of the ecclesia and in some members of other ecclesias who were present taking H.J.S.'s side as being seemingly unjustly treated; and some of these showed their dissent emphatically. Many of these dissenters remained so, and influenced others to be the same, with the result that the H.J.S. party was formed, and took away
from J.H. quite a number of supporters. This result is the small parallel of Hazael's taking the whole territory east of the Jordan from Jehu and doing him other mischief. When J. left Bethel Feb. 10 for his Edinburgh pilgrim visit, J.H. ended his phase of the little Jehu, in which he did well in helping to overthrow the Baalism and Ashtarothism of H.J.S. and W.C.; but he acted out in the little parallel certain clericalistic and sectarian principles, typed by Jehu's serving the calves at Bethel and Dan.
We now return to the parallel of Judah's kings. On Jan. 13, 1917, the little parallel of Athaliah set in; and it lasted until Jan. 19, 1917. This period was the time of the co-reign of J.F.R. and a clique of his supporters, hence represented by a queen; it ended when the Board, Jan. 19, adopted the by-laws voted on by the shareholders Jan. 6. These seven days witnessed the murder of the democratic policies by which the charter directed that the Society's work should be done, except the one that the Board retained, i.e., its controllership in Society matters. Its passing the shareholders' voted by-laws put an end to the joint rulership of J.F.R. and his clique, and established the principle of the Board's supremacy in the Society, with J.F.R. as its authorized executive and manager. And with this J.F.R. entered the Joash phase of the little parallel. It was an energetic action of the Board, led on thereto by our Lord, that put an end to the little Athaliah and let a democratic feature operate without the union of J.F.R. and a clique in control (2 Kings 11: 1-20; 2 Chron. 22: 10-23: 21). In the Joash phase (Jan. 19-Feb. 27), which, generally speaking, was evil, J.F.R. did well exceptionally for a while. He encouraged the brethren to build up the breaches in the Church. He enlisted the service of the main and subordinate leaders in this work, and, despite the zealless response, succeeded in the end in arousing a genuine zeal in the work (2 Kings 11: 21–12: 16; 2 Chron. 24: 1-14). But A.H.M. and W.E.V. in America and H.J.S., W.C. and
F.G. Guard, Sr. (Geshem), pretending great subserviency to J.F.R., moved him to enter into a forbidden alliance with these clericalists and sectarians against the reform work that J. was doing in England. This led to J.'s protesting and to J.F.R.'s ordering him cut off from his work by recalling him, which recall was sent Feb. 26 and reached the London Bethel Feb. 27, 1917, on which date J.F.R. ceased to act in the Joash phase. J.F.R.'s course in this matter led H.J.S., W.C. and their followers to do immense damage to J.F.R.'s interests in Britain, even as Hazael did Joash much damage, while the pertinent course that J.H. and A.H.M. took killed him in his Joash aspect (2 Kings 12: 17-21; 2 Chron. 24: 15-27).
There remains yet of Judah's kings that in the doubling picture forth the evil side of J.F.R.'s mind mainly, but one more, Amaziah, whose little parallel will be presented before we return to the little parallel of Israel's kings (2 Kings 14: 1-19; 2 Chron. 25: 1-28). J.F.R. made large preparations for public work against the nominal-church conscientious objectors in America, and enlisted certain ones who proved to be sifters in Britain, against whose cooperation J. advised, even as Amaziah made preparations against Edom, and arranged for certain Israelites to cooperate, against which the prophet advised. In both cases the advice was followed, though the rejected warriors avenged themselves for their alleged injury. This American public work prospered in its refutations and in its winning of many new ones for the Truth, especially opponents of war, nominal-church conscientious objectors. But J.F.R. from this campaign took over nominal-church methods, which displeased the Lord, who raised up a protesting brother, as Amaziah took Edomite idols as his gods and incurred God's disapproval, expressed by a prophet. J.F.R. charged him with busybodying and ordered him to be silent, which the brother did, with the remark that the Lord would cut him off from that phase, even as was done in the
large part of the parallel. J.F.R.'s course toward J. was in reality an interference with, and a challenge of J.H. in his stand against H.J.S. and W.C.J.H. tried to dissuade him from that part of this course, which in reality favored H.J.S. and W.C. as against J.H.'s purposes. J.H. finally accepted this challenge in the battle before the Investigative Commission that J.F.R. appointed to investigate the Bethel and Tabernacle situation, and therein thoroughly defeated J.F.R.'s purpose, which was to secure J.'s condemnation and H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s exoneration. However, in taking up the challenge and in defeating J.F.R.'s purpose he entered into a course that undermined J, with J.F.R., to the great injury of the powers of the Society, for which J. stood in Britain, even as Amaziah challenged the unwilling Joash, was defeated by him and suffered the overthrow of 400 cubits of Jerusalem's walls. In Britain the Investigative Commission planned measures against him, because of his wrongs against J. as the Society's special representative, and sent him a report that refuted him on the matter and justified J. in his work as done in harmony with his credentials, and thus on these carried him as a symbolic corpse to the Society. With the Amaziah phase of the little parallel the doubling of the little kings of Judah ends. The successor phase, Uzziah, also called Azariah, returns to Jan. 6, 1917.
But we will now return to the little parallels of the Israelitish kings. Having finished with the Jehu phase, we will now take up the Jehoahaz phase: Feb. 10 to Feb. 26, which is typed in 2 Kings 10: 35; 13: 1-9, 22, 23. Throughout the Jehoahaz phase J.H. continued to practice sectarianism and clericalism, and in this displeased the Lord. The little Hazael, led by H.J.S., gained considerable ground against him the first week of J.H.'s Jehoahaz phase, pressing, as they did, the thought that J. and J.H., especially the former, had done him wrong on Jan. 28 before the Tabernacle church; and many of those who were not present, Feb. 18,