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

459

jurisdiction, and who by refusing to accept J.F.R.'s recall of him protected himself against being symbolically killed (v. 5). Thus the directors of the Society and the directors of the Peoples Pulpit Association made J.F.R. the executive and manager, the former by adopting his by-laws and the latter by electing him president with the assumption that this gave him controlling powers for life, whereas the Peoples Pulpit Association's charter gave such to that president alone who was elected at its first meeting; and they did this as setting him up as quasi-equal of Bro. Russell (v. 6). When J. learned of this action, in the exercise of his office as the Epiphany messenger he reviewed the connected matters in the hearing of the Board, desiring that God might hearken to them (v. 7).

 

J. pointed out that a movement had been launched to elect him president of the Society (v. 8), but that he had refused to leave the service that God had given him to become president of the Society (v. 9). Next a movement had been afoot to have the Board act, not only as controller, but also as executive and manager in the Society (v. 10), and it refused after trying it for about a week (v. 11). Then its executive committee was asked to take the executive and managerial authority as a fixed matter (v. 12), and at the end of the two months it likewise refused (v. 13). Then the offer was made from Jan. 7 to Jan. 19 to J.F.R. (v. 14). Then he by act told the brethren that they must not only accept, but be subject to him as, controller, executive and manager, else destruction would go out from him against all who were leaders (v. 15). Recounting what the two Boards had done as to J.F.R., and what they had thereby done as to the arrangements of Bro. Russell, who deserved much of them because of his great sacrifices for their deliverance from error (vs. 16, 17), and what they had done to Bro. Russell's pilgrims on the basis of that power-granting by-law (v. 18), J. said that if these things were faithful and sincere dealings with Bro. Russell and his pilgrims, then they, the two

 

460

Boards, and J.F.R. would have reason to rejoice in their mutual benefits (v. 19); but if not, then destructive trouble would come out from J.F.R. to the injury of the two Boards, and destructive trouble would go out from them to his injury (v. 20). Thereupon J. betook himself to the Lord's Word pertaining to these conditions, as a refuge from J.F.R. (v. 21).

 

For about three months of J.F.R.'s reign, i.e., Jan. 19April 10, there was comparative peace between J.F.R.'s control of matters and the attitude of the two Boards thereon (v. 22). On the afternoon of April 10, 1917, J.'s so-called first hearing before the Board was held; and one of the results of that so-called hearing was that several members of the Board became sympathetic with J.'s viewpoint of the British situation. This started the difference between J.F.R. and the Board (it was really the Lord who, through that afternoon's happenings, started that difference); for J.D. Wright, I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh, Society Board members, and Menta Sturgeon, a member of the Association's Board, began to see the real light on the British situation; and from that time onward, unconsciously at first, they began to react against J.F.R. (v. 23), the Divine purpose thereby being to render retribution for the wrong done Bro. Russell's pilgrims by both J.F.R. and the Board members, the first named as the actual wrong-doer and the others for aiding and abetting the wrong by voting him the powers wrongly desired and used by him (v. 24).

 

The Board members and certain of their sympathizers watched him in all his official acts to detect usurpations; and they took advantage of those whom they found aiding him therein, and this was made known to J.F.R. (v. 25). J. and certain sympathizers of his, Menta Sturgeon, Srs. Hamilton, Ritchie, (Edith) Hoskins, etc., took up Society conditions and the Board's majority trusted him (v. 26). These Board brothers went about their work, gathering in the fruitage of their labors, and made it available for teaching matters joyously; and, entering into their plans for

 

461

obtaining for the Board controllership against J.F.R.'s usurpations, they appropriated whatever came to hand for their purpose, and copiously spoke against J.F.R. among themselves (v. 27). J. joined with individual Board members, never in any of the four directors' meetings, in this denunciation of J.F.R.'s usurpations, calling in question his right to control, and advocating the right of the Society through its Board by unanimity or majority to control in the Society's affairs. Of J.F.R. he said that he had no more claims on Society control as by right than any other pilgrim. Likewise he claimed of A.H.M. that he had no more right to authority than as a representative of J.F.R. He advocated that the Society's representative should be subject to the charter as the state source of the Society, declaring that there was no reason for the Board and the brethren to be subject to J.F.R.; the abrogation of his executive and managerial powers he advocated, because J.F.R. used them to usurp control (v. 28). Knowing from Ezra and Esther that the Lord had given him the executive and teaching office in the Society's affairs, J. desired this, and said that when he would get it he would remove J.F.R. from his executive powers; and by his course he challenged him to battle on the points at issue (v. 29).

 

Some one, before J. had, early in June, 1917, requested to be sent back to England to finish his work there, brought to A.H.M., as J.F.R.'s manager and right-hand man, a report of J.'s views and attitude, which angered the former (v. 30). Accordingly, he sent word to J.F.R. to the effect that J. and his supporters were giving their attention to Society matters, and were stirring up the Society in its directors against J.F.R. (v. 31), advising him to take measures secretly to set a trap to catch J. (v. 32), and suggesting that it be done quickly, as soon as J. and his supporters would take an oppositional stand toward him, and that he do what seemed the best way to meet it (v. 33). Accordingly, J.F.R. took secret measures and laid a trap to catch the Society as

 

462

represented in the Board, by appointing the four Board directors instead of the full Board to examine J.'s British work, and by opposing to J. (1) three members of the Board, (2) "the present management," (3) certain workers at the Tabernacle and (4) certain workers at Bethel (v. 34). It was while the four directors were investigating the British matter that the fourfold combination under J.F.R.'s lead arose to oppose J. (v. 35).

 

J. noted the start of the Board's pertinent movement, and called thereto the attention of A.H.M., who told J. that he misunderstood as its movement an unclear course of it on another subject (v. 36). Then J. perceived the activities of "the present management" in trying to send him away on a pilgrim trip, to land him at his home, where he would then be safely shelved away from Bethel, and to send I.F. Hoskins on a lengthy pilgrim trip, so as to break up the majority of the Board at the proposed July 20 meeting, where the vote was to be taken on canceling J.F.R.'s bylaws granting him executive and managing authority. At this A.H.M. made no reply. Later J. perceived the Tabernacle and Bethel workers massing against him (v. 37). Then A.H.M. rebuked J. for his attitude and words against J.F.R. and told him that all the brethren at headquarters had been set at naught by him and told him defiantly now to go out and contend with them (v. 38). J. met this challenge that noon, June 22, by asking J.F.R. that they have a brotherly discussion of their differences, reminding him of their former good relations. It was agreed to have this conference at 3 P.M., but at that time J.F.R. sent his secretary to J., telling him that it could not be held then, because he was then to see some men on repairs at Bethel. The next A.M. they had a brief conversation, which resulted in J.'s leaving him as holder of the field and in J.'s supporters being scattered (vs. 39, 40; for details please see EF 76, 77).

 

J.F.R. took a high position as his; and A.H.M. saw to it that no more newly arranged work was given J, in the Society after his pilgrim appointment on the afternoon and

 

463

evening of June 24 was filled and the report thereon given, June 26, which also was done a little later with his supporters (v. 41). Thereafter J.F.R.'s supporters went about their work at Bethel, and informed him of everything that they could against those who were now being called "the Opposition" (v. 42). He divided his followers into three groups: (1) "the present management," (2) Tabernacle workers and (3) Bethel workers, all of whom watched for opportunities to pounce upon "the Opposition"; and when the four directors' and J.'s supporters went to their various activities J.F.R. and his supporters arose against them and gave them verbal beatings (v. 43). J.F.R., with the rest of "the present management," took control of the public part of the battleground; and the Tabernacle and Bethel workers pounced in a more private way upon "the Opposition," and cut them off from brotherly privileges and service (v. 44). All that period, June 26-July 6, J.F.R. was assaulting the Society: he left in J.'s room the night of June 26 the Board's resolution that cast a shadow upon J.'s British work; he stirred up his headquarters' partisans against J. and his supporters, and manipulated them against what actually was the Society, since the four as the Board's majority really were the Society representatively. Thus J.F.R. fought against the Society, took control of it, cut off from their places in it "the Opposition," in fact dissolved and gave over the Society to desolation as represented in its charter and its Board acting as a majority (v. 45). When the four directors, who as the majority were the Board actually and stood for its charter, learned of what J.F.R. was doing, they entered into and took their stand in the sphere of power, the charter (v. 46). This stand was told J.F.R. (v. 47). Then he and his supporters resorted to the realm of ambiguous law (Zalmon [unclear, shady]); and, taking as a refutative instrument a law which expressly stated that it was not retroactive, and therefore did not apply to the previously-granted Society's charter, by his legal arm and

 

464

that of his hireling lawyer, who later in effect acknowledged that he knew his points were not legal, but who said he formulated them as J.F.R., his client, desired, J.F.R. cut down an opinion from the tree of this law that, if valid, undid his directorship and consequently nullified his election as president, and laboriously carried it to the sphere of the Society, urging his supporters to do likewise (v. 48), which they did, following him in applying this to the charter, and destroyed it in its directorship-appointment and officer-election features, and thus ousted the Board's majority and annulled the rights of their supporters, (v. 49).

 

Then he betook himself to overcome the exposures (Thebez [brightness]) of his power-grasping of control in the Society, by issuing his grossly untrue letter of July 18 (later made the inset of his Harvest Siftings) to the ecclesias, by his two grossly mendacious papers, Harvest Siftings (Part I and Part II), his illegally using proxies not intended for such a purpose to oust I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh from the Peoples Pulpit Association, his countrywide convention campaign of misrepresentation of "the Opposition," his straw-vote campaign, his demanding that the shareholders' proxies be sent to the Society before election, Jan. 6, 1918, and his encouraging C.J. Woodworth to preach his silly interpretation of the penny parable with J.F.R. as its steward—all of which reeked to the heavens with wickedness, and which, however, externally triumphed (v. 50). But "the Opposition" resorted to the strength of truth in various publications, like the two brief legal and factual statements of the Board's majority: one late in July and the other early in August, at the Boston Convention, Light After Darkness, Harvest Siftings Reviewed and Facts For Shareholders, on which they took their stand (v. 51). But J.F.R. fought these, seeking to effect an entrance so as to destroy this tower of truth (v. 52). While he was so engaged, a paper which consisted of an open letter and a petition to J.F.R. and the four ousted directors, signed by many members of

 

465

the New York Temple, Brooklyn Tabernacle and a few other brethren, in all 156 in number, which made it practically a Church action, was widely circulated. The petition asked that a committee be appointed as follows: three to be chosen by J.F.R., three by the ousted directors, which six were to elect a seventh and the seven elect eight others, these constituting a committee of 15 who should give a searching and impartial investigation of all of the involved matters of the Society since the death of Bro. Russell and report their findings to the voting shareholders' meeting of Jan. 4, 1918, so that these might have the report for their guidance in the election of Jan. 6. This letter and petition, lighting upon J.F.R.'s theory of things from the height of the applicable true principles, cracked irretrievably his view of the situation, i.e., that his arbitrary decision should stand (v. 53). It began to have this effect Dec. 1, 1917, and completed this effect by Dec. 28.

 

An investigation was the last thing J.F.R. desired, since he knew that he would under it have been proved the gross wrong-doer, though the Board would have had to be censured for voting his suggested by-laws into effect and thus giving him unjustly coveted and plotted-for powers, which can, from the parallels of the Gospel Age and its small Miniature, proving his acts to be the parallels of the popes up to 963, be seen to have been evilly gotten and used. Sensing that his view of settling the matter was utterly broken by the proposal of the petition, he appealed to A.H.M. to invent an argument that would refute his view, in order that he might be saved the disgrace of being refuted by what was in effect and later actually became a Church; and A.H.M. did this by claiming that the [deceived] shareholders had gotten sufficient information to decide, which, of course, was untrue, since a very large majority of them had not gotten to read "the Opposition's" replies to J.F.R.'s misrepresentations, their addresses being unavailable to "the Opposition," who had only 17,000 of the more than 55,000 Tower addresses to which Harvest Siftings had been mailed.

 

466

However, in God's view the blow of this open letter and the theory thrust of A.H.M. ended the primary little popedom's career of J.F.R. for over a year (v. 54). And from God's and facts' standpoints the change in the small Miniature, occurring gradually from Dec. 1 to Dec. 28, from J.F.R. as the primary little pope to F.H. McGee as such made J.F.R.'s partisan supporters recede into his own obscurity, he only occasionally appearing as a little anti-pope until the picture reverted to him as primary one (v. 55).

 

Thus God recompensed upon J.F.R. his wickedness in power-grasping and lording, despite the arrangements that God gave through Bro. Russell, against his fellow-pilgrims, Bro. Russell's symbolic sons, in making them subordinate to himself, i.e., in exalting himself above them as their controller (v. 56); and thus God recompensed upon the seven directors the evil that they committed in making J.F.R. the ruler in the Society. It will be noted that no condemnation is passed on J. for his part in this matter; rather in teaching respects, as typed by Jotham, he is represented as being the Divine mouthpiece in announcing punishment upon the wrongs of both sets of wrong-doers; and, so far as his executive functions are concerned, he, like his large parallel, Desiderius, king of the Lombards, in his unsuccessful fight against the involved popes' power-grasping against the star-members, whose small parallel J. was, led an unsuccessful fight against the power-grasping little pope, J.F.R. In this type also J.F.R. is represented as committing the evils with which J. in EF, Chapter I, charged him. This type further proves that J.'s statement of the situation in that chapter is thoroughly true in those parts of it that treat of the evils of J.F.R. The other parts of that chapter are proven to be true by other types, some of which, those of Nehemiah, Ezra, Mordecai and Judah's and Israel's kings, have already been given and others of which will be given in types yet to be presented. The Board in this type is blamed for its weakly having yielded to J.F.R.'s unholy ambition the powers enumerated in

 

467

his own invented and by the Board's passed by-laws. Thus God has given us in Judg. 8: 22-25, 27–9: 57 an inspired and, therefore, true forecast of the troubles at the Brooklyn Tabernacle and Bethel from the death of our Pastor, Oct. 31, 1916, to the end of the first phase of J.F.R.'s primary little papacy, Dec. 28, 1917.

 

Judg. 10 immediately connects in time with the events of Judg. 9, a fact evident in the type and in the large and small antitypes; for as in the large antitype the powers of the pornocratic popes began to end with the accession of Otto I as the Emperor of the Holy German Roman Empire, in 936, through the reformatory efforts of the German clergy, and completely ended in 963, so J.F.R.'s primary little papacy gradually came to an end from Dec. 1 to Dec. 28, 1917. We must look for the large and small antitypes of Tola (purple, royal) the son of Puah (mouthpiece), the son of Dodo (love), as arising sometime within these periods, which would make their rise occur after the symbolic stone struck the symbolic pate of the large and small symbolic Abimelechs. The facts prove that the large Tola was the star-member, Dunstan, of England, who in 949 began a great work of reformation in the British Church by preaching and acting against great papal abuses there. He was a thorn (Shamir) in the flesh of wrong-doers, and acted as a true mouthpiece full of Divine love; and the special reformatory part of his ministry was from 949 to 972, when he humbled the wicked Eadgar, king of England. His memory was honored, because he was a thorn to the wicked (vs. 1, 2). After him arose, 972, Hugh Capet, who had since 956 been Duke of France, who in 987 became the first king of France, and who in 994 established institutions helpful for the empire.

 

It was in the period, 972-994, that his work of ordering a reformation, in France went on both in state and church and also toward the Holy Roman Empire, of which France was then no longer a part. His policy was one of special righteousness and truth (Jair [he shines, gives light]). He had

 

468

under him thirty feudal lords, all insisting on exercising the ordinances of feudal lords, and maintaining, thirty separate principalities, which owned him as their sovereign, and which for centuries remained feudal principalities (vs. 3, 4). The facts of the small antitype prove that J. became the little Tola, Dec. 14, 1917, which was after the gradual loss of J.F.R.'s absolutism set in, Dec. 1, and continued as such until 10 A.M., Jan. 6, 1918. During this period, beginning with J.'s going to Philadelphia, Dec. 14, to strengthen "the Opposition's" supporters there, J. preached at Philadelphia, Pa., Hampton, Va., Norfolk, Va., Brooklyn, N.Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., on The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha, Calls-Siftings-Slaughter Weapons, etc., and thereby greatly strengthened the opposition to J.F.R. and confirmed faith in the cause of "the Opposition." This he did as a member of the royal priesthood (Tola), the Lord's Epiphany messenger (Puah), in much love (Dodo), proving a thorn in the flesh of the partisan Societyites (Shamir), and was thereafter respected as such (vs. 1, 2). In his set debate before the Fort Pitt Convention the morning of Jan. 6, 1918, with M. Sturgeon, on the separation of Elijah and Elisha, he as small parallel of Hugh Capet so seriously worsted the latter in causing the Truth to shine forth (Jair [he gives light]) as to raise him in the estimation of the conventioners to the degree of displacing M. Sturgeon as the teaching leader of "the Opposition." That afternoon thirty brethren, a list of whose names and addresses F.H. McGee gave J., and which is yet in his possession, appointed the Fort Pitt Committee. These thirty exercised their prerogatives as such appointers, and through the Committee formed thirty separate groups, which for a while remained loyal to J., who ceased acting in this capacity on Jan. 28, when he gave the Fort Pitt Committee his draft of the letter to the Bible Students worldwide that it had commissioned him to draw up, and that, after A.I. Ritchie and M. Sturgeon had, because of J.'s greater influence in the Committee, resigned therefrom (vs. 3-5).

 

469

The rest of the chapter in the large picture types the evils in church, state and society that set in with the closing years of the tenth century and continued until and into the long-drawn-out repentance from the 13th to the 16th centuries. The power-graspings of the pope and his hierarchy and of the emperor and his court, the intrigues and chicanery that marked these, the unholy alliance of state and church, the hatreds and envies of the leaders, resulting in many terrible wars, including the crusades, the autocracies of the leaders, the clericalisms of the higher and lower clergy and the party spirit of all of these, involving, of course, their followings, marked these centuries (v. 6). This resulted in the Lord in displeasure giving up His people into the power of the church and state partisans and of the clericalists (v. 7). This resulted in much grief and weight coming upon the Lord's people, especially upon those who were reformatorily inclined, led by Berengar of Tours, Peter Abelard, Arnold of Brescia, Peter DeBrys, Henry of Lausanne and Peter Waldo (v. 8); and it even reached those who were not so inclined (v. 9). The reform movements started repentance and confession of sins among the Lord's people in various branches of Christendom (v. 10).

 

But God refused them speedy deliverance, reminding them of His past deliverances from the worldings, errorists, clericalists, sectarians, avaricious, sinners and disfellowshipped (vs. 11, 12), despite which they had forsaken Him (v. 13), and ironically suggested by their experiences that they seek deliverance at the hand of their evil qualities (v. 14). But they persisted in their confession of sins and expression of submission to His chastisements, pleading for deliverance (v. 15). Beginning early in the 14th century, and continuing to the late 15th century, through the ministries of Marsiglio, Tauler, Wyclif, Hus, Wessel and Savonarola, the Lord's people set aside from themselves the evil qualities mentioned above and served truth and righteousness which, appealed to God's compassion on their sufferings (v. 16).

 

470

Then the clericalists, beginning 1459, entered a new feature of oppression, led by the wicked popes of the second half of the 15th and the early part of the 16th centuries; for they made an invasion into the sphere of the reforming brethren; and these, under the lead of Wessel and Savonarola, rallied about watchful teachings (v. 17). The reforming brethren discussed the question as to who should battle for them against the papal clericalists as a suitable one at their head (v. 18).

 

The small picture of vs. 6-18 had its fulfillment in the period from Jan. 21, 1918, when M. Sturgeon attacked J. before the Brooklyn "Opposition" Ecclesia, to June 30, 1919. Here envy marked M. Sturgeon's and A.I. Ritchie's course toward J., prompting them to resign from the Fort Pitt Committee. Soon power-grasping, strife, power-bartering, autocracy, clericalism and partisanship began to set in among four members of the Committee, who constantly accused J. of what they themselves were guilty. As a result, divisionism set in, in the Committee and power-grasping on the part of the four; and they introduced the same spirit among the majority of their followers, agitating against J. verbally and by mail (v. 6). For details please see EG 89-131, 225-268. This moved the Lord to displeasure; and He allowed His people to fall into oppression, captivity to these evil doings and evil leaders, from the standpoint of this picture from Jan. 21, 1918, to June 30, 1919 (v. 7), which oppression affected the reforming brothers, R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and J., who had very stormy experiences with the others during most of this period (v. 8). The clericalistically minded group in the Committee went beyond the reforming brethren and oppressed the pilgrims, elders and ecclesias, and thus distressed all the brethren (v. 9). This led the faithful to confession of their recognized sins, especially their share in power-grasping and lording (v. 10). Thereupon the Lord by the circumstances reminded them of His having delivered them at their repeated prayers from the present evil world, from the errorists, from the clericalists, from the

 

471

partisans, from the bargain-compromisers, from the sinners and from the disfellowshipped (vs. 11, 12). He further reminded them of the fact that; despite all these mercies and goodnesses, they nevertheless, not only ceased living in harmony with His principles, but also became guilty of the evils of power-grasping, lording, combinationism, envy, strife, selfish compromises, absolutism, clericalism and partisanship; hence He was no more delivering them, which answer He gave them by His acts, not by His words (v. 13).

 

Then by leaving them a long time without relieving them of their oppressions, He ironically told them, by act, not by word, to get relief through the evil qualities that they had developed and exercised (v. 14). Of course, they knew that this was impossible, which led them to a renewal of their acknowledging their sins; and they pleaded with Him to mete out to them any punishment for their wrong-doing that He thought necessary for their correction, only they pleaded for immediate deliverance from the tyranny of their evil qualities and the oppressions and oppressors that these brought upon them (v. 15). A reformation set in, beginning in its first phase at the Asbury Park Convention, July 28, 1918, and lasting until late November, and then in its second phase running on through the following months until early in May, 1919, i.e., until the fifth number of The Present Truth appeared and had its effect. This moved the Lord to mercy; for He felt deeply with His people. This oppression in its first two phases lasted through most of the period of the ascendancy of the Fort Pitt Committee and that of the P.B.I., i.e., from Jan. 21, 1918, until May 8, 1919 (v. 16); and its third phase began May 8, 1919, when the small Miniature changed from the papal primacy of F.H. McGee back to that of J.F.R., who began to assemble his forces against the reforming brethren, and oppressed them until the period of June 30-July 6, when the Lord's people prepared to and actually did assemble at the Philadelphia Convention in watchful waiting to counterattack J.F.R. (v. 17).

 

472

From May 28 to June 30 search was made on the part of the Epiphany and certain non-Epiphany leaders and friends for a leader against the Society, whom they would make their warrior and teaching leader (v. 18).

 

We now will take up the study of Judg. 11 and will very briefly give its large antitype and thereafter will give its small antitype in a little more detail. The reformers who were cast out by their Romanist brethren were, in their capacity of being cast out, especially Marsiglio, Tauler, Wyclif and Hus, all Sardis star-members, as expounders (Jephthah [he opens, expounds]), and their special helpers, who were mothered by certain truths that were foreign to the Romanists. It should be here remarked that the word zonah, translated harlot in v. 1, may mean an harlot or an inn-keeper, an hostess, a store-keeper; and here it evidently does not mean an harlot, for it was the Truth that mothered the Sardis star-members and their special helpers. Innkeeper here, as in Judg. 16: 1, is evidently the right translation. These reformers were able controversialists, developed by certain anti-papal truths through God's people (v. 1). God's people also developed others, like the hierarachy, civil rulers, clergy, monks, professors, etc., who as they matured cast out the reformers, the Sardis star-members and special helpers, declaring that they were not to enjoy the blessings of the Lord's people, for they were developed by foreign teachings (v. 2). Therefore the anti-papal reformers fled from their Romanist brethren and dwelt in a good sphere of the Truth and its Spirit; and certain unprofitable ones, like the humanists and doubleminded theologians, associated with these; especially later representatives of these, like John of Goch (1401-1475) and John Wesel (1402-1481), joined themselves with them and contended for their principles (v. 3).

 

Beginning with 1459, under Pius II, the Romanist Church in their popes started a war on the reforming brethren, using their theologians, politicians and inquisitors as their chief warriors, e.g., when John Wesel had attacked indulgences and the corruption of the hierarchy

 

473

the inquisition laid hold on him, Feb., 1479, and compelled him to recant. The same inquisition sought a few weeks later to seize John Wessel, who later became the principal man of the Philadelphia Church; but from Germany he fled to Holland, where in safety and fruitfulness he spent the rest of his life, dying Oct. 4, 1489. In 1490 Savonarola began his reformation in Florence and in 1498 he was strangled and burnt by order of Alexander VI, perhaps the most evil of all popes (v. 4). And this war continued. The reforming brethren, seeking for a leader, hit in turn upon the Philadelphia star-members, Luther, Zwingli, Hubmaier, Servetus, Cranmer, Browne and (George) Fox (v. 5), asking them in turn to lead them in the fight against the clericalists (v. 6). After discussion between these and the reforming party leaders as to each one's rejection or acceptance as leader, each agreed to lead the fight, under solemn assurance of loyalty to him (vs. 7-10), was accepted by all the reforming party, and spoke as in the Lord's service (v. 11).

 

Thereupon each one of these star-members in turn preached and published to the hierarchy expostulations against their invasion of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit (v. 12). The hierarchy replied that the reform party had invaded, captured and possessed itself of its sphere of teaching and spirit and had perverted these, and, therefore, demanded a restoration of these (v. 13). The star-members in their publications, preaching, etc., denied this, by proving that their doctrines and practices were taught in the Bible and were distinctly different from those of Christendom and the papacy (vs. 14-18), as they were antagonistic to Satan and sin in victorious battles against them (vs. 19-22); hence they declared that they would maintain what the Lord had given them (v. 23), and told the hierarchy to keep within their own sphere, and that they should keep what their God had given them (v. 24). Furthermore, they disparagingly contrasted the hierarchy's pertinent course with Satan's autocratic course in leaving the Truth and its Spirit with the Lord's people in

 

474

the Jewish Harvest, when the falling away did not take it from the Lord's people (vs. 25, 26). Hence the star-members reasoned that they had not wronged the hierarchy, but that it had wronged them in warring upon them, and that the Lord would decide the issue, to which expostulation it gave no heed (vs. 27, 28).

 

Thereupon God's Spirit moved the star-members to enlist the reform party in church and state with watchfulness to fight the hierarchy and its supporters (v. 29). These star-members vowed to give anything of their dearest possession to the Lord in acceptable sacrifice after victory (vs. 30, 31). Then the fight set in on the Bible as the sole source of faith and main rule of practice, justification by faith alone, the sole headship of Jesus to the Church, the sole priesthood of the consecrated, the Lord's Supper as a symbolic feast, baptism for adult believers only, the unity of God, the Church subject in earthly matters to the state, the ecclesia under Christ the sole mistress in her midst and true religion as consisting mainly of supreme love to God and equal love to man. While these were the ten main doctrines in dispute, there were ten others involved with these also in dispute, and the star-members and their supporters prevailed (vs. 32, 33).

 

As the seven star-members returned from their part in the conflict, which lasted from 1512 to 1692 (Judg. 12: 7, where the six years stand for six prophetic months, or 180 years, i.e., from the year that Luther at Rome saw justification by faith as distinct from works righteousness, his first assault on Rome, until the year following the death of George Fox, the last of the above-mentioned seven star-members, whose works progressed until his posthumous writings appeared, 1692), the victory acquired an undue influence for them over the brethren; and, distressed over its loss, yet seeing the danger of its abuse, from the example of power-grasping crown-lost leaders, they yielded this up in sacrifice to the Lord, after a wise delay, amid the sorrow of the brethren (vs. 34-40). But various crown-lost leaders, in envy at the

 

475

star-members' victory and resultant prominence, withstood them for not giving them a commanding share in the battle, and by their sectarian activities threatened to destroy their work (Judg. 12: 1). The star-members expostulated with these that they were in great strife, and these had refused to help them (v. 2); and noting this, they had risked the encounter without them; and, therefore, they demanded as to why they fought against them (v. 3). They then gathered their supporters against these, because these accused them as having been Romanist fugitives in Rome and in the Protestant sects (v. 4). The reforming party took possession of the truths that were fords for the people over Christendom, and required as a sign that one had the right to pass over it his holding the Truth, which the errorists were unable to present, and they, a huge multitude, were refuted by the reforming party (vs. 5, 6). All of these star-members remained to the end in the sect into which their movements were perverted (v. 7).

 

The next star-member to arise was John Wesley, who had in the fulness of his supporters strong and weak ones; the former he increased from among outsiders and the latter he dismissed to outsiders, both of these things occurring during the many siftings of the Wesleyan movement, which he ruled unto a Divine completion, ending his ministry in Biblical teachings and good influence (vs. 8-10), while crown-lost leaders perverted this movement into the Methodist Church. The next star-member to arise was Thomas Campbell, who aroused a movement which Alexander Campbell perverted into the Disciple Church. His ministry was fruitful, but he yielded chief place in it to the sectarian leader, Alexander Campbell, and his memory as a teacher was eclipsed by the high regard in which Campbellites held their leader (vs. 11, 12). The final one of the Philadelphia star-members to arise was William Miller (v. 13). He had trialsome strong supporters and a fulness of humans who were not so strong supporters, all of these being accustomed to foster views of their own (v. 14). He ended his

 

476

ministry fruitfully, despised by sectarians (v. 15).

 

Now for the small antitype of Judges 11, 12. J. was one of the reforming party and a warrior of the Truth, but the Epiphany Truth that developed him was not the same as the teachings that the reforming party as a whole used to develop most of its other leaders, who after developing as P.B.I. leaders cast J. out as one who should have no part nor lot with them, because thoughts strange to those that developed them had developed him (Judg. 11: 1, 2). J. fled from these and occupied the goodly sphere of the developing Truth and its Spirit; and certain pilgrims, like R.H. Hirsh and R.G. Jolly; and certain elders, like B.M. Kittinger and E.D. Mellow, gathered to and supported him (v. 3). Shortly after the Society leaders were released from prison, the Society by them, beginning May 8, 1919, started to press its claim that it was the channel of the Lord's Truth and work, and demanded of the reforming party that it surrender what was actually the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit to the Society, claiming these as their own. It was at this date that the little primary papacy changed from F.H. McGee to J.F.R. (v. 4). The leaders of the reform party concluded that J. was the one best qualified to lead it against the Society's clericalistic course and demands; and they sought to bring him back to them in the sense that many had left the P.B.I. who while there opposed and rejected J., but now desired his association and leadership in the controversy (v. 5). This effort began shortly after Present Truth, No. 7, appeared, announcing the Epiphany Convention for Philadelphia, July 4-6, 1919. This issue, delivered May 28, began to be mailed the evening of May 29 (30, God's time), and by the middle of June J. was receiving many requests by mail and orally from leading brethren to resist the Society clericalists' attacks. These requests increased when it became generally known that Bro. G.H. Fisher, at New Haven, Conn., the evening of June 15, 1919, charged the seven

 

477

"Opposition" leaders with betraying the Society leaders to the U. S. authorities (v. 6).

 

J.'s reaction by act, not by word, questioned these requesters as to whether they did not remember that they had in dislike rejected and cast him out, and as to why in their need they turned to him (v. 7). Their reply was that they desired to reverse their rejection of him by making him their leader as warrior and executive (v. 8). Remembering his former experiences at their hands, J. required more assurance that they would make him the executive of the reform party, if as warrior he would lead them to victory over the Societyites (v. 9). Thereupon these leaders of the reform party solemnly pledged their support and loyal cooperation (v. 10). These matters were finished before June 30, when J. agreed to undertake as leader a defense of the reform party against the Society attacks; and the appointment of him as such by the brethren, generally, occurred just before he began to conduct the Convention Question meeting, Saturday afternoon, July 5, as follows: R.G. Jolly asked for the floor and addressed the Convention, briefly telling of the Society claims and proposed a vote of confidence in J. as a defender of the Truth and a promise of support of him as long as he remained humble and loyal to the Truth. Thereupon the Convention of several hundred brethren, assembled from at least a dozen states, gave J. a unanimous standing vote of confidence and support in his defense of the Truth. J. made a short speech of acceptance of the vote, and did this as a service of the Lord, in a time of watchfulness. This date corresponds to 1517, the year that Luther published his 95 theses (v. 11). The first copies of Present Truth, No. 6, were mailed on July 10. Its main article, The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha, by its proving that the Little Flock had officially been separated from the Great Company, was a demand on J.F.R., in view of the separation of these classes as such (the words, "What hast thou to do with me," should read, "What is there [in common] between me

 

478

and thee), as to what right J.F.R. had to invade the sphere of the Little Flock's Truth and Spirit (v. 12). J.F.R.'s reply was his doctrine that to his party as the channel belonged the sphere of the Little Flock's Truth and Spirit, which he claimed had been usurpatorily taken by the reform party from his party (v. 13).

 

This claim J. had answered in the same article (v. 14), denying that the reform party had taken any of the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit from the Society autocrats or Society clericalists (v. 15), and explaining that when the Lord's people in the Parousia came out of the world and lived separate from it and beyond the Second Death siftings in the consecrated condition (v. 16), they desired a free unmolested passage through Christendom and the religious autocrats and were refused this while in the consecrated condition (v. 17). Hence they skirted their sphere of teaching and spirit, and pitched in spheres of teachings and spirit other than theirs (v. 18). They also sought a peaceable passage through the realms of error (v. 19), which Satan refused to give, but fought with them and was refuted, so that his possession of that sphere was ended, so far as crowding out of it the Truth and its Spirit was concerned (vs. 20-22): God having given the sphere of the Truth and its Spirit to the Little Flock, should J.F.R., as the Great Company leader, be allowed to take it (v. 23)? The article suggested that J.F.R. possess the sphere of teaching and spirit that Azazel had given him, and that the Little Flock keep what the Lord through their battles had given them (v. 24). Speaking of J.F.R. in terms that implied that he was the little pope of little Babylon, the article asked whether he was to be superior to the autocratic great pope of Great Babylon, who did not seek to possess himself of the Little Flock's sphere of the Truth and its Spirit in the Parousia (v. 25). The article also asked, Why during the Parousia did not the (new) channel argument assert itself to get control of the Little Flock's sphere of Truth and its Spirit (v. 26)? It clearly proved that the Little Flock had