Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
commission that its King, Artaxerxes, gave Ezra (Ez. 7: 1-28) furnished very especial support to God's real people and their hopes—the Covenant—and provided for their help especially along religious lines according to the Word of God. While previously this empire favored Israel with respect to their return and the building of their temple, it made no such generous provision for their religious needs as was done in connection with Ezra's commission. Here the antitypical Ark, the Abrahamic Covenant, rested—was borne up—supported—by the kingdom (mountain) that consisted of many kingdoms (mountain peaks). In this connection we might remark that if we should accept the P.B.I. chronology for Ezra's commission, 457 B.C., our date, April 464 B.C., would be seven years too early for Ezra's commission; and if we accepted their theory of the first five Flood months as being 150 days, Ezra's commission would be skipped altogether. Nor could we fix any other event of outstanding importance within the proper period as an antitype of the Ark's resting on the mountains of Ararat. This type is, like the Pyramid, another corroboration of the Scripturalness of our chronology.
(64) In the type the next day-period mentioned—the beginning of the water's subsiding—ended 150 days from the beginning of the Flood (Gen. 8: 3), or three days after the Ark rested on Ararat. These three days represent 32.26438356+ years, and ended July, 432 B.C. Accordingly, the last of these antitypical days began Oct., 443 B.C. What occurred during the period between Oct., 443 B.C., and July, 432 B.C.? In Israel Nehemiah in Oct., 443 B.C., finished the first twelve years of his reformatory and defensive work for Israel; and leaving on a brief visit for Persia he shortly afterward returned, and completed his reformatory activity on behalf of Israel (Neh. 13: 6-31). This reformation very ably freed Israel from many evils formerly in their midst, and so firmly established
them in their peculiar covenant relations—both in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants—as largely secured them against the demoralizing effect of heathen fellowship and dealings. For centuries from that time onward Israel enjoyed peace and security as a result of the recession of the curse of heathenism from their midst, and remained very largely free from the contaminations of heathendom. Yea, this curse began to abate for them.
(65) The next period in the type (Gen. 8: 5) lasted seventy days and on its last day the tops of the mountains were seen. The antitypical seventy days lasted 752.83561640+ years, ending in May, 322 A.D., as its last symbolic day began Aug., 311 A.D. What events occurred between Aug., 311 A.D., and May, 322 A.D., corresponding to the appearance of the mountains from under the Flood? We answer that during those years, e.g., in 313 A.D., the last of Pagan Rome's persecutions ended, after continuing ten years (Rev. 2: 10); Constantine made his various edicts of religious toleration, which gave both true and counterfeit Christians religious freedom; and both the true and the false Christianity used their freedom to do what each considered best. During this time, 318 A.D., Arius began his very fruitful work for Truth. Thus religious freedom was for the first time in history proclaimed by earth's mightiest kingdoms, both in the eastern and in the western parts of the Roman Empire, which at that time consisted of two equally authoritative kingdoms, united in one Empire (the mountains of Gen. 8: 5). Certainly for the Empire to grant religious freedom to the Christians was a marked stage in the subsidence of the curse, so far as it concerns the Abrahamic Covenant and all therein, howsoever related thereto.
(66) The next period in the type came to an end forty days after its preceding period, and on its last day a raven and a dove were sent forth, the dove, but not the raven, returning in the evening to Noah (Gen. 8: 6-9).
These forty days type 430.19178080+ years and bring us to July, 752 A.D., its last symbolic day beginning Oct., 741 A.D. What events occurred during this period corresponding to the sending forth of the raven and the dove? We have already a number of times seen (Vol. III, Chapter II) that a raven is used to represent sectarianism. On the other hand, the dove is used to represent the Holy Spirit, especially of Truth and Love (Matt. 3: 16). We understand the raven of these verses to represent Papal sectarianism, especially as it was carried on in Germany and France by Boniface as the representative of Pope Zacharias, who reigned A.D. 741-752, the exact period of the antitypical fortieth day of Gen. 8: 6. While previously to 741 Boniface sought to convert German heathen, it was especially after the death of Charles Martel, 741 A.D., that Boniface, instead of seeking to convert the heathen, sought to subject all converted Germany and France to the Pope, and wrought unweariedly to this end for over ten years, and succeeded in Romanizing these countries, driving out all who would not submit to Rome's organization, doctrines and practices. If ever a sectarian lived, it was surely Boniface, whom Romanists call the Apostle of the Germans. Certainly this sectarian's activity brought none of his followers and works to the Abrahamic Covenant (the raven returned not to the Ark). But he did fight to the end, by means fair and foul, every one who would not submit to the Romanizing of their Irish, British, French or German forms of Christianity. His work, especially in France and Germany from A.D. 741-752, more than anything else made these countries bow down at the feet of the pretended successor of St. Peter.
(67) But what corresponded to the dove that was sent out at the same time as the raven was sent out by Noah? We answer that there was an anti-Romanizing movement, led by a Frank named Adalbert, by a
Scotchman named Clement, and by an Irishman named Virgilius, during this antitypical fortieth day. They opposed the worship of angels, saints and relics, pilgrimages and auricular confession, insisted on the priesthood of all the consecrated, and the worship of God in spirit and in truth, as against Rome's formalism. They also rejected the Romish canon law, the obligatoriness of the decrees of the synods, and of the teaching of the Roman Church Fathers, as well as the celibacy of the priesthood. They insisted on the Scriptural teaching of a hope for the dead heathen, and of the selection of a "Little Flock" as the Lord's Bride. These teachings these three men and their followers set forth with clearness and love, and their activity was evidently of the Holy Spirit; and hence it would properly be symbolized by the dove. Boniface secured their condemnation and imprisonment by the civil power, and their ecclesiastical condemnation at a synod at Soissons, France. Soon they recovered their liberty. Then Boniface persecuted them before Pope Zacharias, and secured their condemnation, unheard, at a Lateran Council, A.D. 745. For several years they were persecuted and before 752 they were entirely suppressed and their movement ceased (the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot). Yea, antitypical Noah stretched forth His power and drew back this movement as being premature for the conditions then prevailing.
(68) Seven days later, in the type, Noah sent forth the same dove, and in the evening it returned with an olive leaf in its mouth plucked from an olive tree. These seven days represent 75.28356164+ years, which ended Oct., 827 A.D., the seventh symbolic day beginning Jan., 816 A.D. What movement that was pervaded by the spirit of Truth and Love was active A.D. 816-827? We reply, the anti- Papal Absolutism and anti-Idolism movement led by Claudius of Turin, the principal man of the Thyratira Church, "the first
Protestant Reformer," and, his special helper, Agobard of Lyons. We have already explained the main features of this movement (Vol. III, Chapter II), and refer our dear readers to it for a fresh study. This movement gave more promise than the former, that of 741 to 752, and gave out more Truth, which was by far more widely spread and assimilated. The fuller Truth and greater prosperity of this movement above the former one are represented by the plucked-off olive leaf in the mouth—Holy Spirit utterances—of the dove. This gave our Lord—antitypical Noah—assurance that the waters of the curse were more and more subsiding for the Lord's purposes. Noah's receiving it again into the Ark types the fact that since conditions were not yet fully ripe to let a Holy Spirit movement take its free course in the world, it had again to be withdrawn from work amid the evils of the curse.
(69) Seven days later Noah sent forth a third time the dove, which did not return again to him (Gen. 8 12). These seven days represent 75.28356164+ years, which ended Feb., 903 A.D., the seventh antitypical day beginning May, 892 A.D. What events (A.D. 892-903) correspond to the third sending forth of the dove and its not returning? We reply that during this period Alfred the Great, King of England, was especially active in the interests of Christianity, Law, Order and Education in his realm. Alfred was one of the noblest of rulers, and one of the best men that has ever lived. To his people he was a genuine David, planted in a Christian soil; and it was especially through the educational and religious work that he set into operation in England that the antitype of the dove's being sent forth the third time was realized. He personally and through others translated valuable books from Latin into English, that his people might have the best of literature then obtainable. He founded schools and colleges for the people; he strove to instill the true principles of Christianity in his people; and
among other things translated the Psalms into English, and was the first one during the Dark Ages to render a considerable portion of God's Word into the living language of a European nation. In his noble life and in the movement along religious and educational lines that he brought into being we see the dove spirit, the Holy Spirit of Truth and Love. And the movement so started continued more or less to the present—the dove returned not again to the Ark.
(70) The next date mentioned in the type is the first day of the first month, in the 601st year of Noah (Gen. 8: 13). This date came 35 days after the preceding date, and these 35 days type 376.41780820+ years. The antitypical 35 days ended July, 1279 A.D., the thirty-fifth day beginning Oct., 1268, A.D. What corresponding events occurred A.D. 1268-1279? During this time the zeal for anti-Saracen Crusades died out, and Louis IX of France, 1269 A.D. obtained for the French Church many valuable privileges wrung from the Papacy, insuring the French more liberty than the Catholic Church of any other country had. Crusades were encouraged among Christian rulers by the popes to wrest the Holy Land from its Mohammedan rulers. The popes promised full indulgence to the Crusaders who would deliver the holy sepulcher from the infidel Mohammedans. Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont, France, 1095 A.D., roused France to the first Crusade, and thereby started a movement that soon spread over all Christendom, lasting nearly two hundred years, and dragging down to death millions of men who under the banner of the Cross went forth with carnal weapons to battle supposedly for the Lord with the Saracens. In all, seven Crusades were organized and led against the infidels. The last of these was organized and led by Louis IX of France in 1270. Half of his army, including himself, was that year carried away with pestilence, which ended what proved to be the last anti-Saracen Crusade.
All subsequent efforts of the popes to arouse such Crusades ended in failure. The kings and people had had enough of them; and Acre, the last Christian stronghold in Palestine, was taken by the Saracens in 1291 A.D. Surely the Crusades were a curse, and their ceasing—the waters of the curse drying up—was a blessing to mankind, a distinct relief from some of the rigors of the Adamic curse.
(71) The Crusades ended just 25 years before God, by Philip the Fair, of France, in A.D. 1295, began a great and long series of acts stretching over centuries, whereby He gradually by civil rulers, religious and political reformers and worldly educators and scientists dried up the features of the curse centering in the Papacy, and working against the Covenant and God's people; and by the time Oct., 1881, was reached this drying up process was so complete that mouthpieceship had been (1878) wholly taken away from the Nominal Church, both in Catholic and Protestant sects. This is the period typed by the 56 remaining days of the Flood year. This period of 56 days typed 602.26849312 years, which ended Oct., 1881. The last day of these antitypical 56 days began Jan., 1871. During this antitypical day our Lord returned, raised the sleeping Saints, cast off Babylon, ended the General Call, and began to develop the Youthful Worthies, who were from God's viewpoint anticipatorily in the antitypical Ark with all its other classes from the beginning of the antitypical Flood year. The going forth from the Ark types the entrance of the various classes into the conditions where they will no more need the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., the eternal conditions of blessedness—beyond the period of imperfection— secured by God's rainbow promise that there will be no more curse, and given when the sacrifices offered to God will be eternally pleasing, in the new heavens and in the new earth (Gen. 8: 15-23). Praise be to God for light on the Flood year!
(72) The foregoing raises some questions that we will state and answer:
Question: Why do we say above that the first five Flood months were 147 days and not 150 days?
Answer: The months of the Flood year, like all literal Bible months, were, of course, lunar months. A lunar month averages 29.53059 days; hence the lunar calendar is adjusted to take care of the actual time of each lunation as follows: The odd-numbered months, with occasional exceptions to make up the fraction over 29½ days, and to harmonize the added thirteenth month, are months of 30 days, while the even-numbered months are months of 29 days. The Flood began on the seventeenth day of the second month of the lunar year, hence in an even month. Its first five months ended on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. In addition to covering the end of the second month, these five months covered two other even months, i.e., the fourth and sixth months. Hence these five months consisted of three months containing 29 days each, and of two months containing 30 days each, and therefore lasted 147 days. This fact, as well as others, corroborated by the event—Ezra's commission—on the last one of these 147 days in the antitypical Flood year, proves that the P.B.I. Editors and nominal-church writers in general are wrong in their claim that God, apart from designating the prophetic months in the Old Testament, counted the months as containing 30 days and the years as containing 360 days.
(73) The second question follows: Question: Is it not self-contradictory to teach that the antitypical Flood year began 2045 B.C., and that persons, typical of classes which began to exist thousands of years later, entered the Ark before the Flood began, while these antitypical classes entered the antitypical Ark long after the antitypical Flood year began?
Answer: We are to remember that the antitype of
the days before the Flood year (Luke 17: 20, 27) consists of conditions in the world before and especially during the Parousia; while the Flood year represents the time during which the elect classes by consecration entered into covenant relations with God (1 Pet. 3: 20 [last clause], 21). Entering the Ark was a part of the former picture. As God in the cases of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., anticipatorily gave them the benefits of the Abrahamic Covenant, i.e., treated them as being in that Covenant centuries before it was made, so He anticipatorily considered classes to be in the antitypical Ark—the Abrahamic Covenant—centuries before these classes came into being, on the principle that God "calleth those things that are not as though they were," in view of His plan respecting them (Rom. 4: 17). Again, as our Pastor held and as a number of types prove, this type is one that sets forth the Youthful Worthies as a part of the Ancient Worthies; hence they are included in them as entering the Ark before the Flood began. This will harmonize the apparent discrepancy. The reason that no typical reference is made to our Lord's death in the Flood picture is because it would have had to be typed by something done inside the Ark, while the various Flood stages refer to happenings outside the Ark.
(74) Our third pertinent question is: Since Alfred the Great's reform work is pointed out in the antitypical Flood year, should we consider him as one of the Little Flock reformers?
Answer: We rather think he was, because his movement was typed by the dove—a symbol of the Holy Spirit. The other two reform movements—that of Adalbert, Clement and Virgilius (741-752) and that of Cladius of Turin (816- 827)—typed by the first and second doves sent forth, were Little Flock movements. And this fact, combined with the fact that a dove represents each of the three reform movements, favors our answer. Moreover, Alfred's character was
certainly that of a Little Flock member. He is probably the noblest and best king that ever sat on a throne. By having the Holy Spirit he was in a position to better even David as a king. There will in all likelihood be representatives of every calling and condition of humanity in the Little Flock, in order sympathetically to assist others of the same calling and condition in life; and we know of no other king who has been so Christlike as was Alfred—one of the very few earthly monarchs who has really deserved the title, the Great.
(75) Our last question is: Why were some lesser reform movements typed in the Flood year, while many greater ones were not?
Answer: Several answers will clarify the question (1) One of the methods that the Lord used in revealing His purposes in the Bible, is to give "here a little, there a little." In no one passage or place in the Bible do we find everything stated pertinent to any of the more important features of Biblical revelation. It is for this reason that all the reform movements typed in the Scriptures are not represented in the Flood year type, or in any other one type. Hence only certain of them should be expected to be represented in the Flood picture. (2) It seems that this type rather represents the subsidence of the secular features of the curse on the race as such; hence the amelioration of secular evils of the curse, rather than the amelioration of religious evils of the curse, is most prominently emphasized in the Flood year type. This will account for the fact that the more important Little Flock movements are not emphasized in this type, since they were occupied with coping with the religious evils of the curse upon man.
(1) What does our theme require? Of what words in it is this especially true? What is meant by the words, "it all," in the theme? What does our subject mean? What does our theme imply? What does our text mean in connection with our theme? What is implied in denying
special significance in the implied events? How does our understanding of these events advantage us?
(2) What kind of events has happened among us since our Pastor's death? What were our condition and privileges while he lived? What has since set in? What two evil activities have set in since then?
(3) What kind of a significance do some attach to these events? What do they not see in them? Why should we expect to find Scriptural significance in them? How unique are some of these events? Why must they be Scripturally marked? Quote and explain a proof text on this point. What heart condition is necessary to receive the Biblical explanation of them? At least how many lines of Biblical thought are evidenced in these events?
(4) What is the first of these? Into how many and into what divisions were the Lord's people separated in 1917? To what does this separation correspond? How does it do so? What is typed by Elijah's and Elisha's coming to Jordan? By Elijah's smiting Jordan? By Elisha's not smiting? By his walking along with Elijah across the river's bed? By their crossing dry shod? When did the antitypes occur? What is typed by Elijah's and Elisha's walking and talking beyond Jordan? What is typed by their ceasing from these two acts? When did the antitypical separation set in? Who forecast its time quite accurately? When and where?
(5) What proves the correctness of this setting? What four things do facts force all to admit? Of what must these events be the antitypes? Why? What things agree with this view?
(6) What events accompanied the separation—type and antitype? What do chariots symbolize Biblically? What is the chariot of antitypical Israel? Why it rather than two other organizations? What does the fieriness represent? What does the fiery chariot represent? What events made the antitypical chariot fiery? What do horses symbolize Biblically? What do the horses under consideration type? What made the antitypes fiery? Whom do the horsemen type? How did they drive the antitypical chariot and horses? Among whom did they drive these? What resulted there from? Explain the division—type and antitype. What were the approximate numbers on both
sides? Of what is this division undoubtedly the antitype?
(7) Why must this division be this antitype? What do all the connected facts imply? How have these facts affected the Tower editors? The P.B.I. editors? What conclusion do their courses corroborate?
(8) What third line of events corroborate the same thought? What is typed by the cry, "My Father, my Father"? "The chariot of Israel"? "The horsemen thereof"? Were there antitypes of these three cries?
(9) What is the proper word to insert after the words, "He saw," in verse 10? Why? What is the force of the word saw in verses 10 and 12? Why is it stated in verse 10, "He saw him"? What is meant—type and antitype—by the expression of verse 12, "He saw him no more"? State some of the facts of the antitype.
(10) What is typed by Elisha's rending his garments in twain? By Elijah's mantle falling? Elisha's picking it up? His return to the Jordan? His standing at Jordan His smiting Jordan? By what instrumentalities was this done? When did the three last mentioned acts set in? What did they follow? What kind of events associated with Elijah's and Elisha's separation have we hitherto examined? What do they manifest? What does this prove?
(11) How can we prove who antitypical Elisha is? What is the proof? Why is it conclusive? What does the mantle type? What are the three chief powers typed by the mantle? Who controlled these powers after the separation? What does this prove?
(12) What did the perfect correspondence between the type and the antitype force the Tower editors to do? Why? What did it force the P.B.I. editors to do? Why? How did the Society's president act at the separation and in attempting to explain it Scripturally? What conclusion is favored by these logically forced repudiations? Where are these matters, here summarized, set forth in detail? What kind of an explanation does our view give of the 1917 separation?
(13) What is the second set of remarkable events among the Lord's people since "that Servant's" death? What is the certainty of these events? What are some, of the details in both sets of events in Britain? In
America? How do, both sets of events appear in both countries? What were two smaller sets of events after the chief one first described?
(14) Who did some prominent revolutionizing in 1918? What are some of the correspondencies of their acts with those of the 1917 revolutionists? In what particulars did they revolutionize? With what did this revolutionism meet? Who gave it? To what extent? Who followed the P.B.I. in revolutionism? In what especially did they revolutionize? What revolutionistic movement followed the Standfast movement? In what especially did it revolutionize? What was the last of these general revolutionistic movements? In what did its revolutionism consist? To what did it lead the Faithful?
(15) What is set forth in the two preceding paragraphs? What else did the revolutionists do? What did the Tower editors, especially their leader, do as to our Pastor's teachings? What are some of the particulars on this head? What has the Society's president done with many of our Pastor's arrangements? With what results? What have the P.B.I. done beyond their initial revolutionism? In what particulars? What have other revolutionists above mentioned further done?
(16) What occurred in every case of revolutionism? Through what journal was this especially done? What is the source of its refutations? What have the revolutionists been forced to admit? What two things have they done to the resisters? With what success? Whose examples justify the course of the resisters?
(17) What do such revolutionism and its resistance mean? Where is this matter treated of in greater detail? How can we prove that the Great Company's sin and means of manifestation is revolutionism? Give a summary of Ps. 107. What is meant by darkness in Ps. 107: 10? By the shadow of death? By affliction? By iron? By the expression, the words of the Lord, in verse 11? By the counsel of the Most High? Of what does God's Plan consist? How does rebellion against any of its arrangements mean rebellion against the whole Plan of God?
(18) Of whom does Ps. 107: 10, 11 treat? With what two things does it charge them? According to it, what is
their manifestating sin? When only can we know that a new creature is of the Great Company? Why can we not be sure of this in connection with other sins? By what does the Lord manifest to the Priesthood the forfeiture of a crown? What passage proves this? Who only judges them unto Great Companyship? What is the Priests' function as to their Great Companyship? Who taught that while in the flesh the Priests would recognize the Great Company as such? Where did he teach it? In what words in the two quotations did he teach it?
(19) What thought must be repeated here? Why must the Priests now be able to recognize the crown-losers as such in their humanity? What three of their ministerial acts toward their humanity require this? What ministerial act toward their new creatures requires this? In what blemished condition would the Priests now be, if they could not discern the Great Company as such? Show this—type and antitype. From what should these considerations restrain us?
(20) What type forecasts the above facts as to the revolutionisms of the Great Company and the Priests' resistance thereof? What does Azazel mean? What proves that Azazel's Goat was tied to the door of the tabernacle? When did the last begettal of the Spirit occur? What was thereafter immediately done by the World's High Priest? In what other ways is this work set forth in the Bible? What was greatly emphasized from Sept. 18, 1914, onward? By what means was it done? Who did and who did not do this? What did those new creatures do who did not declare Christendom's sins?
(21) What in the type and the antitype followed the confession of the sins over Azazel's goat? By whom was it done? In what two ways was it done? What new thing did these two things furnish the antitypical Goat? Where did it begin? When did the first loosening act begin in England? With what did the spurt for liberty begin in England? Who was by the Lord and our Pastor selected to handle the British revolutionistic brethren? What did they do after our Pastor's death? What interfered with their dash for liberty? Who successfully resisted their revolutionism and withdrew priestly fellowship from them? What are the types of these two acts?
(22) What error among the brethren was being practiced in America while the English trouble was on? In what ways was it manifesting itself? What did the brother who led the English brethren against the revolutionists do toward the American revolutionists? What effect did this have on the present management and their partisan supporters? In what ways did this effect express itself? What did the World's High Priest do to counter this effect? Through what means? What else did the arbitrariness of the present management prompt the Priesthood to do?
(23) Through what periodical did the World's High Priest continue to resist the revolutionists? What groups and their mouthpieces were such revolutionists? How often was this resistance given? Of what characteristics did this resistance not partake? Of what did it partake? Why? Why is this resistance invincible? How has this been manifested? Who is not and who is the source of this victorious resistance?
(24) What is the third set of remarkable events among the Lord's people since our Pastor's death? To what do these events correspond-type and antitype? Who forecast the manifestation of the Levites in their various groups after the reaping? What is happening before our eyes with this forecast? How many general classes of Levites were there? What were they called? Who among the sons of Levi had no chariots for their work? Who among them had them? How many did each of these groups have? What do wagons or chariots type? Who are the antitypical Levites who have no organizations to control their work?
(25) How many groups of organized antitypical Levites are there? What is the difference between them? To whom do each of them correspond? To what do the three classes of revolutionists correspond?
(26) Into how many subdivisions were these three Levite groups separated? How many subdivisions were there among the Gershonites? The Merarites? The Kohathites? What should this lead us to look for among the three antitypical Levite groups? What do we find in this respect? How many subdivisions have the antitypical Kohathites? What are these, and how do they correspond
to the four Kohathite subdivisions? What do they not have and use? Whom do the Merarites type? What organizations did our Pastor form? Who got control of these at the 1917 separation? How did the Society divide in 1918? What did the Standfasters form? To what did it give place? Of whom are the Society adherents and the Standfasters the respective antitypes? To what do their four organizations correspond? Who are the antitypical Gershonites? What did their British branch seek, but fail to gain? Their American branch? What did these two groups then proceed to do? What are these two organizations? To what does each of these groups correspond antitypically? What has our investigation on this line brought to light?
(27) What objection is offered to this setting of things? How is it to be answered? How many heads of families did the Levites ultimately develop? What do these heads of families type? What, in the Tabernacle, pictures the same thing? What do we see progressing along this line? Is it yet complete? How should this affect our faith in this setting of things?
(28) What had we for years been doing as to the three signs discussed in this article? When did the reaping end? The gleaning? How many reasons have been given in proof? How only can they be explained Scripturally, reasonably and factually? What is in line with this thought? What do they therefore prove? What is the voice of these events? What agrees with this?
(29) What follows as to the character of the Editor's work since our Pastor's death? How have the revolutionists represented him? What does the above setting do to these representations of him? What has the Lord done to his work? What uses has the Lord made of him? What does this setting of things prove should be done to the revolutionists? Describe the progress of the Editor's treatment of them. What are they proven to be? What tactics have they been using on the Editor?
(30) How have they misrepresented his plainness of speech? How has his conduct when being questioned by their prosecutor been misrepresented by them? How has his defense of the brethren against their revolutionism been misrepresented by them? How have they misrepresented
his standing before Justice? What disproves this charge? What have they done as to his character? What does their revolutionism prove of them? What do his retention of the Truth and its arrangements and his giving of the meat in due season prove of him and of them? How should his course be treated? What will best help the bewildered ones to recognize his place and work in the Lord? What qualities are necessary for such a recognition? What do the signs of the times say as to him and his opponents?
(31) Of what does the article of Z '26, 115-119 give an illustration? To what perversions did the illustrated course lead? Whom especially do the sympathizers with the view set forth in the article understand to be meant disapprovingly by it? What standing, similar to that of many Societyites, do some who left the Society have? What similar experience do both have? Why? How, on the contrary, have others fared? What proves this answer to be true? How does advancing Truth stand related to past Truth? What must be the character of the alleged Truth which antagonizes the past Truth?
(32) What proof have we that the Epiphany teachings are true? That J.F.R.'s are erroneous? What two conclusions follow from these two facts? Despite what is J.F.R. the head of the little Antichrist? What is the real character of the sacrifices of his followers? Of his alleged advancing light? What parallel will he continue to fulfill? What guarantees his overthrow? Why will God overthrow him? Why is he now being allowed to attain higher and higher elevation? What will result as he lights from the fall?
(33) What to him known falsehood does he reiterate? Where will this be proven? With what is he charged? Why does he in this matter misrepresent our Pastor? How is this item introduced by him? In our Pastor's case of what is his progress in teaching justification by faith an illustration? What statement is repeated in the text? What proves this? Why did he so teach? What did he begin to do in 1909 on this subject? While teaching both tentative and vitalized justification before 1909, how did he thereafter teach them as not before? What does J.F.R. do with tentative justification? By what
claim? How does he belie our Pastor therein? How did the latter clarify the pertinent Truth? Wherein does the article under review teach falsely? What is to be said of J.F.R. in this connection?
(34) Against what does paragraph 15 of the reviewed article rightly inveigh? For what are those inveighed against to be congratulated? Than whom do they do better? By what would they do still better? What day have we not yet reached? Why not? What results from this? What should not be done with everything offered us as light? Why not? By what criteria may we judge as to what is advancing light and what is darkness? Why are these proper criteria? What do they prove J.F.R.'s alleged advancing light to be? As to the Epiphany teachings? How does Azazel set it forth? Through whom? What flows from these things as to the pertinent claims of the article under review? What do the pertinent facts and Scriptures prove as to J.F.R.? What has he occasioned? What may be construed there from? To what appeal should these things lead? Why should this appeal be heeded? In what interests should its contrasted appeal be heeded? Why?
(35) What does Prov. 4: 18 show? Why is this true? What only should be accepted as the advancing light? Why? How do some stand on Prov. 4: 18 and our Pastor's explanation of it? What is that explanation? What is the theory of such brethren as to the matter of the advancing light? What proves that we are not yet in the perfect day? What proves that such brethren are not in harmony with our Pastor's pertinent thought? What fact does not disprove that the light still advances? What comparison illustrates this? What was given above?
(36) What does the fact that our Pastor had charge of the storehouse not prove? What fact occurring while he was yet alive would not be against the view that is here opposed? What was, and what was not the duty of such finders of new features of Truth? What are some facts proving that not all new features of Truth became clear to him first? How does Matt. 13: 52 prove such facts as of Divine origin? In disharmony with what fact do these facts not stand? If not then, how about now, since he no more has charge of the storehouse? How
does the pertinent figure prove this? What are the pertinent facts implied in this figure? How do the facts of this figure apply to the case at hand? What do these considerations prove as to the point under review?
(37) What should be said as to the pertinent errorists' view of our Pastor's office functions? As what did he function? As such how did he function? What flows from this as to his having a successor? While acting as the Parousia messenger what did he also give? Why is this? What work as such did our Pastor not have? What results from this as to his pertinent teachings? To what period does the gathering of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies belong? For this work what kind of truths also are needed? What follows from this? What do the facts of the case prove? What are some of these facts? What kind of matters are these things? What did he make when dealing on these undue things? In what are these remarks not made? Despite what could he not see things not yet due? What resulted from this fact when he attempted to explain undue things? What are some illustrations on this point?
(38) Based upon 1 Pet. 1: 12; Rom. 15: 4, what view did our Pastor hold up to 1909 as to the understanding of the Bible by 1914? What, after 1909, induced him to change his mind on this thought? What knowledge, not had by him, would have prevented this change of view? Why? What follows from this? What did he say while dying, as to the true explanation of Revelation and Ezekiel? What four things in the book of Revelation did he tell the Bethel family were not understood by him? What pertinent thing did he tell the convention at Dallas, Oct. 21, 1916? What is implied in the two above-mentioned facts? How is the same thing implied in his saying that what was uncertain to him as to the time relation of sprinkling the Goat's blood and dealing with Azazel's Goat would be clearly understood by those who would witness the latter? What do all these facts imply? What four general things, accordingly, prove that the light would advance after our Pastor's death? What results there from as to the view under examination?
(39) What occasioned the foregoing discussion? What do the readers understand? What are the only publications
that do this? Where is this stand set forth? What has been done with it? Who will support this statement?
(40) What is this stand? What does it, accordingly, embrace? As to two or more different, but harmonious interpretations of his on the same point? As to such as are not harmonizable? With what exception? As to unfulfilled types and prophecies? When only would we set aside an interpretation of his on such types and prophecies? In this whose example do we follow? What are some cases to the point? What two things does this stand prove of the author? Hence, what kind of changes alone in principle will he make as to our Pastor's teachings? Who will agree to this stand? Why?
(41) What is the author's stand as to unsound new things? While recognizing that many unsound things are presented, what does he nevertheless recognize? To whom do these new things pertain? From what kinds of passages do these come? What will the writer do with such things? Why? To what things will such new things be subjected? What are these axioms? What will be done with things contradicting these?
(42) To what was reference made above? How many, among others, has the writer oppositionally written to the author? What specifications were omitted in the first three? What pertinent reply was made to the first two? How were these replies treated? What in the Sept. 1926, Present Truth induced the brother to write a third oppositional letter? What accusations did the third letter contain? How was the third treated? Why? What did the brother mail Oct. 31, 1926? What is here done with this fourth letter?
(43) What is a summary of the argument of the letter quoted as paragraph (43), as to all new light ceasing at our Pastor's death? What is the general tone and object of the letter?
(44) What will be left to the Lord in this letter? What was done with the articles referred to in the letter for reading? What are the author's attitude and activities toward their principles? What is his belief as to the Dawns' being the Bible arranged topically? What does the letter claim as to the meaning of that expression? Why? What is the first disproving fact against its claim?