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

27

and Uzzielites, and two of which were Merarites—Mahlites and Mushites (Num. 3: 17-20). Accordingly, we are to look for eight subdivisions among the three general groups of antitypical Levites; and these we certainly find. Above we showed that certain of the antitypical Levites—those who do not believe in organizations controlling their work—are the antitypes of the Kohathites. These antitypical Kohathites consist of four subdivisions, antitypical of the four divisions of the Kohathites. The Sturgeonites are the antitypical Uzzielites; the Ritchieites are the antitypical Hebronites; the Olsonites are the antitypical Izeharites and the Hirshites are the antitypical Amramites. None of these, as antitypical Kohathites, have organizations in control of their work. Above we have seen that the Mahlite Merarites type those who gained control of our Pastor's organizations, which were three antitypical wagons: (1) The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society, (2) The People's Pulpit Association and (3) The International Bible Students' Association. The Society adherents gained control of these at the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha in 1917. The next year the Society adherents split into two parts: (1) those who endorsed the military compromises of the Society leaders after their arrest, by remaining with the Society, and (2) those who disapproved of these by withdrawing from the Society—the Standfasters. The latter then formed an organization as a committee which functioned for awhile, but finally disappeared to be followed by the Elijah Voice Society, a branch of the Standfasters. The Society adherents correspond antitypically to the Mahli Merarites and the Standfasters to the Mushi Merarites; and the four above-mentioned organizations correspond antitypically to the four wagons given to the Merarites. Above we showed that those revolutionists who believe in organizations controlling their work, but who failed to get control of our

 

28

Pastor's organizations, are the antitypical Gershonites. In England the Shearno-Crawford movement tried, but failed to get control of the I.B.S.A., and in America those who later first functioned as the Fort Pitt Committee and afterward as the P.B.I. sought, but failed to gain control of all three of our Pastor's organizations. These two groups then formed organizations of their own: (1) the former the Bible Students' Committee—the B.S.C. for short, and (2), the latter the Pastoral Bible Institute—the P.B.I. for short. The former correspond to the Libnite Gershonites and the latter to the Shimite Gershonites. Thus we find the main divisions and subdivisions of the revolutionists to correspond as antitype to the main typical divisions and subdivisions of the Levites. Thus we find just what we should expect, if the Levites are now being developed as a whole and in their main divisions and subdivisions. This is highly confirmatory of the correctness of our viewpoint of these events. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times" in these many things?

 

(27) But some may object to this setting of things, saying that while there are these three main divisions, there are more than these eight main subdivisions among the revolutionists. To this we assent, and add that according to the type we should expect more: for the three sons of Levi through their eight sons had many children, who in turn had other children until there were in the Levitical genealogies 60 heads of families recorded. These type 60 divisions into which the eight subdivisions will develop by the time the Levites are through with their divisions! The 60 pillars in the Court type the same thing. Allusions are also made to these 60 groups from two different standpoints in Cant. 3: 7; 6: 8. So we see in the subdivision of the three divisions and eight subdivisions the antitype working unto a sixty- fold division. This is not yet complete [written in 1925], but will in due time

 

29

be completed; and its progressing toward a completion should increase our faith in the correctness of the above setting [it is now complete]. "Can ye not discern the signs of the times" in these things?

 

(28) These three signs of the times are what we had for years been expecting to be enacted after the reaping was finished. We have elsewhere given 63 reasons proving that the reaping ended by Oct. 1914, and the gleaning in April 1916. Hence these things are now in order. Nor can they be explained Scripturally, reasonably and factually from any other standpoint, as is evident from the complete failures of all other explanations. These events, therefore, prove the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha, the leading of Azazel's Goat to the Gate and fit man by the World's High Priest, and the separation of the Levites into their divisions, subdivisions and sub-subdivisions to have been enacted. This is the Voice of these signs, and therewith agree all the Scriptures.

 

(29) If the above setting is correct, as the Bible, reason and facts prove, the work of the Editor of The Present Truth and of the Studies In The Scriptures and the author of The Epiphany Studies In The Scriptures, must have a totally different character from what it has been represented to be by those whom the Bible, reason and facts prove to be revolutionists. They have represented him to be an insane, ambitious, self-seeking, fraudulent and mischievous power- grasper. But if the above setting of things be true, these charges are gross misrepresentations, and his work and efforts among the Lord's people against the revolutionists since our Pastor's death are Divinely sanctioned, directed and supported, i.e., our opposition to the revolutionism of the British managers, of the "present management," of the P.B.I., etc., was authorized by the Lord, directed by the Lord and supported by the Lord, who of His abounding grace, despite our weaknesses and mistakes, has been pleased

 

30

to use us in this work to encourage our fellow priests and to oppose the revolutionism of Azazel's Goat in Satan's attempts through it to subvert and pervert the Truth and the arrangements that the Lord has made for conducting the Truth work. And if this is true, the revolutionists whom we sought first with loving and private persuasion to  draw back from their wrongs, and whom we opposed with increasing rigor, only as they increased their willfulness in persisting in their revolutionisms, are the ones who should be repudiated by God's people. The events and the Scriptures prove that they have been the ambitious, self- seeking, fraudulent and mischievous power graspers, who, caught red-handed by us in wrongdoing, used on us the fraudulent stop-thief cry of the pursued wrong-doer to divert attention from their evil deeds and teachings.

 

(30) They have accused us of bitterness; but we challenge the production of one bitter sentence from our writings. Our plainness and clearness of exposure required by Epiphany purposes they have misrepresented as bitterness. Some of them have accused us of betraying them to the officials, whereas we sought to shield them when questioned by one of their prosecutors. Some of them have charged us with being of the Judas class, whereas we have faithfully served the brethren at constant self-sacrifice and loss of our human rights. Some of them have publicly proclaimed that we were of the Second Death class, whereas our retention and service of the Truth prove the contrary. They have whispered many defamations of our personal character all of which are gross misrepresentations. Their perversion of various truths and the Truth arrangements and their introduction of errors and wrong arrangements prove that they have measurably fallen away from the Lord, while our retention and defense of the Truth and its arrangements, combined with being given the advancing light for the

 

31

support of the brethren and our self-denying service of the Lord and the Truth and the brethren, and that despite the persecutions heaped upon us, prove that the Lord has approved of our general course, while disapproving of their general course. Brethren, beloved in the Lord, examine our teachings, our service and our life, as they are in deed and in truth, and you, barring the inevitable weakness of our earthen vessel, will find them to be in harmony with those of God's loyal servants. Not many of you are in a position to examine our life apart from what you see in our writings; but you are in a position to examine our teachings. If you give them an honest, hungry, humble, meek and holy examination, you will find them in accord with, based upon, and flowing out of, those which God gave us through "that faithful and wise Servant." In view of this and the terrible errors and repudiations of Truth on the part of our opponents, "can ye not discern the signs of the times" as witnessing of our teachings and work that they are given and done in the Truth and Spirit of God, and that the revolutionisms against the Lord's teachings and arrangements on the part of our traducers originate in Azazel—Satan—and are done in his spirit?

 

(31) A fourth sign of the times is that the Truth advances along Epiphany lines; but at the same time, as against it, much error is presented as advancing light. In Z '26, 115- 119, is an article on, "The Shining Light." It uses Prov. 4: 18, 19 as the text of the article, which furnishes another illustration of how the pope of little Babylon, in the spirit and manner of the pope in great Babylon, applies to himself and his followers, the counterfeit faithful, the things that  the Bible applies to the real faithful; and the things that the Bible applies to the unfaithful, the counterfeit faithful, like himself and his partisan followers, he applies to the real faithful. Therefore, to him the part of the passage that speaks of increasing light coming to the

 

32

just, means that he and his followers are getting the increasing light; while the part of the passage which speaks of the darkness as being the portion of the wicked and of their stumbling unawares, he applies to the Truth people who have left the Society. Especially do his readers understand him thereby to mean the Epiphany-enlightened brethren. While doubtless many of those who left the Society, like the partisan Society adherents themselves, are Levites, and therefore like themselves have stumbled unawares into various errors because of their measurable unfaithfulness, some who have left the Society have not gone into darkness, but have been getting the advancing Truth as due. The proof that they have so fared is that they retain all that our Pastor gave them and have received as advancing Truth such things only as are based upon, in harmony with, and developed out of what he taught. The advancing Truth must agree with the past Truth. It does not repudiate the formerly received Truth, but makes it clearer and brings out further details that project the same Truths into greater elaborations. But that which leaves part of the former foundations, tears down other parts of them and builds on other and contrary running foundations, cannot be a part of the former house. It must be a part of another house.

 

(32) Therefore we say that the Epiphany teachings, standing squarely on the Parousia Truth and being built higher thereon, must be the advancing Truth; while what the Society's president is giving as advancing Truth, leaving as it does parts of the Parousia foundations and breaking other parts of them down to put contrary-running foundations in their place, must be deviating error, not advancing Truth. Hence the little pope of little Babylon and his partisan followers, like the great pope in great Babylon and his partisan followers, are stumbling unawares into increasing darkness as their portion (Prov. 4: 19), while the Epiphany-enlightened brethren are walking in the

 

33

increasingly shining path of the just (Prov. 4: 18). Nor does it make any difference how much the little pope of little Babylon, like his prototype, the great pope of great Babylon, struts, boasts and speaks swelling words in his claims of Divine mouthpieceship, the channel, he is none the less, yea in part for that very reason, the head of the little Antichrist; and the works that he is continually exhorting his followers to do as the sacrifices of the real sin-offering, are but works of the little abomination that maketh desolate—little Babylon's counterpart of the mass in great Babylon; while his so-called light is in little Babylon real darkness—the counterpart of the darkness of great Babylon in its Roman Catholic quarter. But, wholly given over to Satan, the little pope of little Babylon will continue, like his prototype, the great pope in great Babylon, to strut, to boast and to speak swelling words until the judgment of God forever strikes him down, as it will his prototype in great Babylon; for strong is the Lord God that judgeth him; for having bowed the knee to Baal—Satan— when he, Satan-like, grasped for power and began to lord it over God's heritage, using hundreds of Azazelian falsehoods to blacken the faithful and to deceive the unwary, he turned God into his Opponent, who is only letting him, the little pope, like the great pope, be raised higher and higher that his fall may be all the deeper; and when he lights he will be symbolic pulp, leaving, like the great pope, behind him the memory only of his atrocious sins against the Lord, the Truth and the brethren (Matt. 24: 48, 49).

 

(33) In par. 14, in the article under review, the Society's president reiterates, for perhaps the hundredth time, a falsehood that he knows to be a falsehood, i.e., that our Pastor for years taught that a person could be justified before consecration and then later gave up this thought. We will prove in Volume VI such a statement of our Pastor's view to be an error, and as presented by the Society's president to be a falsehood;

 

34

and now we charge the Society's president, who has repeatedly said that our Pastor gave up tentative justification before he died, with deliberately, and therefore wickedly, misrepresenting our Pastor's position on the subject, which he doubtless does the more easily to palm off a false doctrine. The item in the above mentioned paragraph is introduced to illustrate allegedly how the (supposed) advancing Truth clarifies previous obscurities. And what actually took place in our Pastor's experience as to his teaching on justification in its time relation to consecration was a case of an advancing truth clarifying obscurities; but note the fact that the truth of justification before consecration at no time was repudiated by our Pastor. We repeat it: Our Pastor never denied or repudiated his teaching that one was justified before his consecration; for up to within a few days before his death, in his last printed statement on the subject [The Foreword of Vol. VI], he still taught that one is justified before his consecration, because numerous Scriptures teach it, notably Rom. 3 and 4 and Gal. 2, and, as for years he had been doing, he called such justification up to the very end a tentative one. But in 1909 he began, by contrast, to call attention to a twofold distinction in justification, a thing that he did not with the distinctiveness of a striking contrast, with suitably differentiating terms, bring out before. He came to see distinctly that justification is exercised in two ways  by God: (1) tentatively, which is its mode of operation before consecration, and (2) vitalizedly, which is its mode of operation after consecration. While he taught both of such justifications years before 1909, yet then for the first time he brought them out by differentiated terms in striking contrast with one another, and clearly showed when each of them operated. But the Society's president repudiates tentative justification, claiming that there is no justification at all operating before consecration, and belies our Pastor's view by claiming

 

35

that he, like the Society's president, gave up tentative justification, i.e., the justification that operates before consecration. Our Pastor truly did advance with the advancing light on the subject, and therefore when the due time came he clarified the subject wherein it before had been obscure, by explaining and proving that tentative justification during the Gospel Age, and in keeping with its purposes, operates exclusively before consecration, and that after the priesthood's consecration vitalized justification operates exclusively. The error of the paragraph under review lies in the fact that it silently ignores the existence of tentative justification and denies the existence of justification in any sense for Gospel-Age purposes before consecration. The stubbornness, perversity and dishonesty of the Society's president on this subject is a strong proof that he either has not "developed character," or, after having done so, he corrupted it grossly. The latter we believe to be true of him.

 

(34) Par. 15 rightly inveighs against the error of those brethren who deny that the light has been advancing since Bro. Russell's death. Such dear, bewildered brethren are to be congratulated, however, for holding to the Parousia Truth. In this they do better than the Society's partisans, who repudiate much of it; but they would do still better, if they would accept the Truth that has in the Epiphany been given in harmony with, as based upon, and as a further development of, the Parousia Truth. Certainly we are not yet in the perfect day, for then error will no more raise its head; hence more light is to be expected for the path of the just (Prow. 4: 18). But not everything that is offered as light should be accepted as such; since Satan as of yore is still putting darkness for light and light for darkness. By what criteria then may we judge as to what really is light and what really is darkness among the things offered to us as light? Since light agrees with light, and darkness and light disagree, i.e., since

 

36

Truth agrees with Truth and Truth and error disagree, such things as are based upon, in harmony with, and flow out of the Parousia Truth must be the advancing light, and what contradicts it or sets it aside or does not flow out of it must be error. These criteria as to Truth and error are certainly true and safe. Hence what the Society's president has been presenting as light in contradiction and repudiation of the Parousia Truth must be error—it is Azazelian darkness set forth as light. But the Epiphany teachings, being in harmony with, based upon, and elaborated out of the Parousia Truth, must be the advancing light, which Satan is, by antitypical Jambres, whose chief leader is the Society's president, setting for darkness. Therefore, it is not true, as the paragraph under review claims, that those who accept the Society's "new views" are walking in the light, and that those who reject them are necessarily wicked, are walking in darkness and know not at what they stumble. The facts and the Scriptures prove that "that evil servant" is the great stumbler and walker in darkness, and knows not at what he stumbled. (Matt. 24: 49); and he has occasioned the stumbling of more New Creatures and Youthful Worthies than any other man that ever lived. From this we can construe measurably how overwhelmingly great his guilt before God must be. Beloved brethren, especially you of the Society who had the Truth in Bro. Russell's days, we beseech you to distrust, as from Satan, every teaching that repudiates the teachings that our Lord gave through him whom He placed over the household and the storehouse (Matt. 24: 45-47; Luke 12: 42-44), the antitypical Eleazar  at the end of the Gospel Age, who had as his charge the antitypical Tabernacle, furniture, vessels, oil, sweet incense and the daily meat offering (Num. 4: 16). Therefore, in the interest of your own souls, distrust the contrary teachings of the Society's president,

 

37

"that evil servant" of Matt. 24: 48-51, and the "foolish and unprofitable shepherd" of Zech. 11: 15-17.

 

(35) Prov. 4: 18 shows, among other things, that the light must be advancing, because we are not yet in the perfect day, and that, accordingly, there must have been new features of Truth coming due since our Pastor's death. But only such things should be regarded as the advancing Truth as agree with the Parousia Truth, which the Lord gave through the Parousia Servant, "that faithful and wise Servant," because Truth agrees with Truth, and does not contradict it. But there are brethren who neither believe the Lord's Word in Prov. 4: 18, nor our Pastor's explanation of it (A 20-28)—that until the perfect day would come the Truth would increase: They claim that no more light has or can come after his death, since, they argue, the storehouse was in his charge. Undeniably we are not in the perfect day; for the empire of Satan is still here, and the operation of the two phases of the Kingdom is years in the future. These brethren think that they are standing by our Pastor's teachings in their contention; but they evidently are not; for he himself repeatedly taught that the light would continue to shine until the perfect day, which is sometime in the future. The fact that errorists use the principle of the advancing light to effect an entrance for their errors, as the supposed advancing light, does not justify the opponents of their errors in denying the truth that the light does advance unto the perfect day, any more than counterfeit money proves that there is no genuine money. We gave above the criteria by which we can know what is and what is not advancing light.

 

(36) Nor does the fact that our Pastor had charge of the entire storehouse prove that no advancing Truth would come after his death by another. Even while he was alive the Lord gave some new features of the Truth first to other brethren, whose duty in such cases

 

38

was, not first to present it to the brethren in general, but to him, and let him present it first either directly, i.e., by himself, or indirectly, i.e., by them, to the brethren in general. The cases of the Edgar Brothers on the chronology and on the Pyramid, of Bro. Barton on Is. 18 (Z '04, 230- 232), and on the individual Satan's binding (Z '10, 315, 316), of Bro. Bundy on the parable of the lost piece of silver, etc., etc., are facts to the point. And this is true because the Lord Himself promised that every able and faithful servant of the Truth would by Him be favored with bringing something new out of the storehouse (Matt. 13: 52). Such a giving of some new Truth by the Lord to other servants of the Church than our Pastor was certainly not in disharmony with the fact that our Pastor during his life had charge of the entire storehouse. And if it was not then, we may be certain that now, since our Pastor does not have any more the charge of the storehouse, for someone else to bring forth things new and old from the storehouse is not in contravention to the thought that the storehouse was formerly in our Pastor's charge. The very figure used by the Lord on this subject, when understood, proves this. This figure implies that there was a certain householder, having a steward who had charge of his storehouse, and that there were other servants co-operating with and under this steward in the ministering of the things in the storehouse to the household. The steward did not put the goods into the storehouse. They were placed there by his lord. Usually his lord told him the new things that he was to bring forth for the household, he not knowing what and where they were until his lord told him. Exceptionally, and without at all displacing him as steward, his lord would tell other faithful servants of the nature and location of some new things in the storehouse, and tell them to bring them out and show them to the steward, who would then arrange for them to be given to the household.

 

39

But when that householder's steward died, the householder was not thereby estopped from having his household fed with other new things, hitherto kept unused, in the storehouse, just because that steward formerly had charge of the storehouse. Nay, on the contrary, even though he should not have appointed another steward, he would yet use someone to bring forth such new things as he desired his family to eat. Just so has our Lord been doing before and since His special steward died, and thus ceased being His steward. This disproves the contention under consideration, supposedly based on the fact of our Pastor's having charge of the storehouse.

 

(37) The brethren who err on the meaning and implications of our Pastor's having charge of the storehouse do not understand the functions of his office. He was the Parousia messenger, appointed by the Lord over the storehouse and the household for Parousia purposes— giving the Parousia Truth and superintending the Parousia work. Thus he gave the Church the full Parousia Truth, and superintended the full gathering of the Church (hence he can have no successor), and thereby gave the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work; for the Parousia Truth and work are the foundation of the Epiphany Truth and work. But, as our Pastor's work was not that of gathering the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies as such, the truths that he gave on these subjects were not full enough for the work of gathering these as such. Their gathering as such is an Epiphany work, for which special Epiphany truths also, not due to be seen in his day, are needed. Therefore "things new and old" are needed for the Epiphany work. The facts of the case prove that our Pastor did not understand these new Epiphany things, e.g., the time of the deliverance of the Church, the length of the Time of Trouble, the time of Israel's deliverance, the duration of the dealing with the Great Company and the

 

40

Youthful Worthies, the time relation between the sprinkling of the Goat's blood and the dealing with the Great Company, etc., all of which and other things too are Epiphany matters. Hence he made mistakes on these subjects. This we say without the slightest disparagement of him; for though used more markedly than any other servant of God, except our Lord (for of these, except our Lord Himself, he is undoubtedly the greatest), he could not see things before due. Hence, whenever he attempted to explain things not yet due, he made mistakes on them, as the above-enumerated things, as well as other things, prove, e.g., his premature explanation of the meaning of the pounds, of the parable of the penny, of the honor given to all saints, etc.

 

(38) All of us are familiar with the fact that our Pastor taught, up to about 1909, that everything in the Bible, which is given for the saints' understanding (1 Pet. 1: 12; Rom. 15: 4), would be understood by the Church before leaving the world, i.e., by 1914, as he then supposed. Later, in view of the fact that he saw that there was not time enough by 1914 for about ¾ of the Bible that were not yet commented on to be made clear, he gave up the thought that all things in the Bible would be understood before all new creatures would leave the world (supposedly by 1914). Had he known the length of the Epiphany, he would not have given up that thought; for it is evidently a Biblical one; for the Bible expressly teaches that everything in it would be understood while the Church would yet be in the flesh (Rom. 15: 4). What follows from this? That the Bible passages which he did not explain before his death—about 66 per cent of the Bible—will be explained during the Epiphany, and that correctly. Moreover, he himself said just before he died that it was to be expected that the true explanation of Ezekiel and Revelation, which he had expected to give, would be given by another brother

 

41

after his death. In the summer of 1916 he told the Bethel family that there were in the Revelation four things that he did not yet understand—the number of the beast (he evidently had by then concluded that the Adventist view, which he had once endorsed, i.e., the numerical value of the letters on the pope's crown, was wrong), the 1600 furlongs of Rev. 14, Rev. 17: 9-11, and above all the key of the book. At the Dallas Convention, Oct. 21, 1916, he told the brethren in answer to a question as to when he would write on Revelation that there were certain matters therein, especially its key, that he did not understand and that until he would understand them he would not think it due for him to write thereon. His not understanding these things, coupled with his statement, nine days later—the day before his death—that another was to be expected to give the true explanation of Revelation and Ezekiel implies that he held that the Truth would advance after his death. Moreover, when he expressed his doubts as to the time relationship of the deliverance of the Church and of the sprinkling of the Goat's blood on the one hand and the dealing with the Great Company on the other hand, he expressly stated that the brethren who would be living at their fulfillment would understand them more clearly than he did (Vol. IV, Chapter III). These facts prove that he expected increased light to come after he gave up his stewardship over the storehouse. Thus the Bible, the teachings of our Pastor, facts and reason, all prove that the light was to advance, even after our Pastor's death. Therefore those are in error who teach that, in view of his having had charge of the whole storehouse, no new light could first come through another, and that none should be expected after his death.

 

(39) We have written the foregoing on the occasion of a letter which one of our correspondents has written us. We will quote the letter a little later on. Our readers know that we stand whole-heartedly for that

 

42

great body of Truth that our Pastor gave us. The Present Truth and the Epiphany Studies in the Scriptures are the only publications among Truth people that do this. Our stand on this subject was stated in P '19, 103, pars. 1 and 2, and has faithfully been carried out to the best of our knowledge. We believe our candid readers will support us in this statement. We will quote these paragraphs

 

(40) "The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany stands squarely and sincerely for the Parousia Truth, as basic for all further development of the Truth. Thus it heartily embraces the system of Truth which is presented in the writings of our beloved Pastor, as well as holds to its principles and spirit. Whenever he gives two or more harmonious views of a Scriptural passage or doctrine, we accept all; whenever, as in a few instances in the great system of Truth which he presented, these cannot be harmonized, we accept the latest expressions, unless they are manifestly not so harmonious with the Scriptures, Reason and Facts as earlier ones. In all cases of unfulfilled types and prophecies we hold to his thought as the one along whose lines we look for their fulfillments. And as he in many cases rejected a former interpretation of a type or prophecy after its fulfillment proved that he misunderstood it, e.g., the deliverance of the Church, the restoration of Israel, the [complete] destruction of organized evil in the world and the establishment of the earthly phase of God's kingdom at certain times; so only after a type or prophecy is fulfilled differently from his understanding of it, would we attempt to set aside his interpretation in favor of what the fulfillment of the type or prophecy proves to be its proper interpretation. Thus it will be seen that we honor him as God's appointed channel for the Parousia Truth [and for giving the foundations of the Epiphany Truth]; but like him do not believe him to have been infallible, and therefore make only such

 

43

changes as in principle he made; i.e., such as clear fulfillments force us to make. All sober and non-partisan brethren and friends of his will agree to the propriety of this course. It was his own method under such circumstances, and we follow it.

 

(41) "As to things new: The Present Truth and Herald of Christ's Epiphany, as it is given by God to understand, rejects whatever new views it discerns to be 'fanciful interpretations, wild speculations and frenzied delusions,' and will to the best of its ability keep all such things out of its columns, unless it is to state them for purposes of refutation. Further, it recognizes that, while many new things presented to the Church belong to the realm of fanciful interpretations, wild speculations and frenzied delusions, there are many new features of Truth pertaining mixedly to the Little Flock, Great Company and the Youthful Worthies, as well as to various worldly classes that are, have been and will be unfolding from literal and symbolic passages. As these become clear to us and due for the Church, The Present Truth will be pleased to announce and explain them, not dogmatically, but suggestively, with the supporting Scriptures, that each may be helped to judge for himself, and thus build for himself an independent faith structure. The Present Truth will endeavor to subject all its teachings to the Word, on the basis of the Parousia Truth, in harmony with the seven axioms of Biblical interpretation Every Scriptural passage or doctrine must be interpreted harmoniously, (1) with Itself, (2) with all Scriptures, (3) with all Scriptural Doctrines, (4) with God's Character, (5) with the Ransom and Sin-offerings, (6) with Facts and (7) with the purposes of the Bible, and will reject everything contrary to any of these axioms."

 

(42) Above we referred to a letter which we promised to quote later. The writer of the letter has, among other letters, written us four in which he strenuously

 

44

insisted that we were teaching contrary to our Pastor, and therein were doing as badly as The Tower and P.B.I. Herald, without even specifying in the first three letters wherein he thinks we do so. To the first and second letters we replied, stating that we were unconscious of so doing, and asked him to give instances of such teachings. To our two letters we received no answers. After the Sept., 1926, Truth appeared, which, among other things, mildly pointed out as erroneous the claim of those who say that the light has not been advancing since our Pastor's death, he wrote us, blaming us severely for our understanding, and again, without particulars, accused us of teaching contrary to our Pastor's views. We did not answer the third letter, because of its harsh, condemnatory tone and its reiterating charges on which its writer withheld specifications twice before asked for by us. On Oct. 31 he mailed us what he calls a supplement to his third letter. This supplement we quote as his fourth accusing letter:

 

(43) "Dear Brother: Will you please read an article under heading, Mind the Same Things? The article is found in Watch Tower 1909, page 233. Especially we would be glad to have you note in this article pars. 1, 2 and 3, col. 1, page 234. Having done so, please read and note the last par., col. 2, page 234, on Dawn Studies, etc. If the Dawn Studies are but the Bible rearranged, and we believe this to be true, then I ask you whether you are doing injury to the cause prosecuted [advanced] by the Lord through His faithful servant. If there is anything that puts the successors of Pastor Russell, as they call themselves, to real test, it is this very article. If the Dawns are the Bible rearranged, as above, it surely needs no additions or subtractions, for the Bible is complete. Again, on pages 265-268, 1909 Tower, subject, The Will of the Lord be Done, note on page 266, bottom of col. 1, under sub-heading, Sons and Daughters

 

45

Shall Prophesy. Note especially col. 2, pars. 2 and 3. Having done so, ask yourself the question whether you differ in your teachings from our dear Pastor. Having done this, will you please read the letter which was published in the Sept. 1st Watch Tower [1926], then ask yourself the question whether or not these 'would-be' up-to-date teachers are doing more injury to the cause—Up-to-date— the path of the just is as a shining light, etc., etc. My dear brother, it is very easy to deceive yourself and others in your teachings, but you cannot deceive God. He is not mocked. No, He knows what is going on in the offices of these up-to-date teachers. If I were these men, I would never mention the name of that 'Great man of God,' for each time they do so they thus add more condemnation to that which they already have. It is no surprise at all to me that you do not seek to defend your stand, for you are wise enough to know that in doing so you will only do injury to your own propaganda. I am writing this supplement with no animosity in my heart against you as an individual at all. However, I promised the Lord more than 30 years ago that I would defend the Truth against any who would assail it, even if I had to stand alone. However I am glad to say that the Lord has many, more who are standing loyal. May God help you to get your eyes open is our prayer. Yours in Him."

 

(44) We will leave it to the Lord to judge the letter's general condemnatory spirit against the one who defends our Pastor's teachings as no one else in the Truth does. We have covered the main points of the writer's misunderstandings above, but will add some other items. We read the articles that the letter requests us to do, and enjoyed them immensely. We are in heartiest sympathy with them, and have time and again re-echoed their principles in print and orally. We believe that the Six Volumes are "the Bible arranged topically" just as our Pastor meant. But we

 

46

do not believe that he by the expression, "the Bible arranged topically," meant what the writer of the above letter claims he meant by it, i.e., that everything in  the Bible is in those Six Volumes, and that hence there is no need of additional light beyond that given in the Six Volumes; for our Pastor, both by word and act, held otherwise. If he thought that all of the teachings of the Bible were given in the Six Volumes, why did he prepare to write a seventh? Why did he give us booklets like those on the Tabernacle, Spiritism, Hell, Bible and Evolution, and Our Lord's Return, explaining some matters not explained in the Dawns? Why did he give us sermons explaining many things not touched on in the Six Volumes?  Why, after writing the last of the Six Volumes, did he for 13½ years give us the Towers, which contained many things new, not treated of in the Six Volumes? Why did he on dying say that the new things of Revelation and Ezekiel, that he had expected to write, are to be expected from another hand than his? Why did he hold, for a number of years after 1903, when the Sixth Volume was completed, that all things not yet understood in the Bible would be understood before the Church left the world? Why did he write new things in the scenario of the Photo-Drama of Creation if all the Bible's light was in the Six Volumes? Evidently these things prove that the brother does not understand what the expression, "the Dawn Studies" are "the Bible topically arranged," means. We understand it to mean that they explain systematically the main subjects of the Bible, but not everything in it, nor everything in it that the Lord means for us to know, for the Bible teaches that  all the Bible will be understood before the Church passes from the earth (1 Pet. 1: 12; Rom. 15: 4); while the Six Volumes do not explain even 15% of the verses of the Bible, and while in his other writings our Pastor comments on