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


suggest that it be restudied before proceeding with the following.


(51) Our tentative forecast on the probable date of the final betrayal implied that the Gethsemane experience, which lasted but one hour (Matt. 26: 40, 45), would begin in Nov., 1927, and end in April, 1928; for that hour ended at the time of the betrayal, as the preceding references prove. Thus, without the data being given us in the time features of the history of our Lord's typical Friday, it was correctly inferred from Scriptural data elsewhere given. This also implies that, while the Gospel record shows that feasting on the Truth, typed as given by our Lord's famous discourse of His last evening with the disciples, began at antitypical 6 P.M., i.e., Oct., 1924, that discourse would end taperingly at about April, 1928; for in the type the discourse began as the Lord and the disciples sat down at the paschal feast (Matt. 26: 20, 21; Luke 22: 14, 15), was continued throughout the time they were in the upper room, was kept up from the time they left the upper room until they reached Gethsemane (John 14: 31; 15; 16; 17; 18: 1) and was brought intermittently to an end by the few things that at intervals He spoke to Peter, James and John during the Gethsemane hour (Matt. 26: 38, 40, 41, 45, 46). Thus at various times the forecasts were made of the antitypes of the main events of our Lord's last day on earth, the last two of the forecasts being made in writing over a year before the antitype was due, and the others from two to eleven years before.


(52) The following, then, were the main events that were forecast, sixteen in number: (1) A feast of Truth would, from Oct., 1924, to April, 1928, be given to the three general Levite groups (antitypical Peter, James and John, i.e., the antitypical Merarites, Gershonites and Kohathites), the eight sub-Levite groups (the eight disciples outside Gethsemane's gate, i.e., the two antitypical Merarite groups [Mahlites and Mushites], the



two antitypical Gershonite groups [Libnites and Shimites] and the four antitypical Kohathite groups [Amramites, Izeharites, Hebronites and Uzzielites]) and temporarily to the antitypical Judas class; (2) the antitypical Gethsemane experience from Nov., 1927, to April, 1928; (3) the antitypical betrayal at Passover, 1928; (4) the arrest shortly afterwards; (5) the large Jesus' three hearings, before antitypical Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, by Oct., 1929; (6) the clergy sentencing the large Jesus to a symbolic death; (7) the delivery to antitypical Pilate, Oct., 1929; (8) Pilate's declaring Jesus guiltless before Aug., 1930; (9) the antitypical crucifixion beginning between Aug. and Dec. 31, 1930; (10) the antitypical rabble and thieves beginning their railing between Aug. and Dec. 31, 1930; (11) the symbolic darkness beginning between Nov., 1931, and March, 1932, and lasting into the antitypical ninth hour—Feb. to July, 1933; (12) the death of the Large Jesus between Feb. and July, 1933; (13) [So far these forecasts have been fulfilled (written Oct., 1933). The following belong to the future] the spear thrust as the end  of the ending of our public work; (14) the antitypical taking down from the cross; (15) the preparation of the body for burial and (16) the burial itself, these last five to set in sometime between now [The part of this chapter treating of large Friday was completed Oct. 5, 1933] and Oct., 1934, when large Friday ends. It will be noted that these forecasts (1) not only involved certain events, but (2) also quite a variety of classes of people and (3) required those classes to take part in these events at certain specified times. A forecast is quite a test of one as a teacher. The test is all the more crucial, if it involves various humanly unmanipulatable classes. But the test is in cruciality magnified to the extreme, if these events as performed by these classes are limited to certain specified times.


(53) When we appeared before the Little Flock, the



Great Company and the Youthful Worthies with these forecasts, we put ourself into a position in which it could be easily demonstrated whether we were a Divinely illuminated teacher of the Lord's Word or whether we were a false prophet, and whether our traducers were one or the other of these. It has been a favorite pastime of Levites, especially of their leaders, to accuse us far and wide of being a false prophet. In our Nov. 1933, issue we pointed, out their efforts to prove us a false prophet as to the hour of Rev. 17: 12 and exposed their failure therein. So in that effort they failed to prove their accusation; and their accusation is reverting with stunning effect on their own heads. They have also been charging us with being a false prophet on the matter of the large eight wonderful days, especially with reference to the forecasts that we made as to the sixth, seventh and eighth large wonderful days. Their wish, of course, is father to the thought. They have been waiting with illy concealed impatience for the time to come when they could pounce upon us as a factually proven false prophet. The fulfillments coming in unexpected ways, as the trialsomeness of the involved experiences suggested that they would come, and our traducers' Divinely blinded eyes (Is. 28: 13) being unable to see the actual fulfillments, they have been making the air blue with their united croakings, "Johnson is a false prophet!" And, doubtless, the Lord arranged for our making these forecasts, that, among other reasons, the question as to the kind of a teacher that we are among the Lord's people may be brought to the most crucial kind of a test. In other words, our forecasts have providentially put us as to these Levite leaders into somewhat the same relation as Elijah's Divinely ordained challenge of the priests of Baal put him in relation to them. Here, then, through our forecasts and their pertinent charges of our being a false prophet, the situation has been created wherein the answer can be readily



given as to whether the Epiphany meat in due season is being given by the Lord through them or us. At the time we made the forecasts such a providential overruling of the situation was not thought of by us. It was, doubtless, Divinely arranged. How has it turned out?


(54) A study of the twelve forecasts so far due for fulfillment, the other four pertaining to yet future events, will give to the properly disposed a convincing answer on this question. By this study we do not hope to convince the blind Levite leaders whose railings continued into the ninth hour, and who are thus proven to be parts of the large impenitent thief. Such we can have no hope to convince. Their unholy course of power-grasping has made them in word and deed sin presumptuously (Ex. 20: 26; Num. 15: 30, 31; Deut. 18: 20-22). But with this study we do desire to serve and bless the meek (Ps. 25: 8, 9), whom to serve and bless is our delight. The first of these forecast events is, that by the Large Jesus, the priesthood, there would be given a feast to the Truth and Nominal Church Levites in their three large divisions and eight subdivisions and also part of the time to the large Judas. We have in these columns already explained the three divisions and eight subdivisions of the Truth Levites to which the Nominal Church Levites will later be added and are thus now reckoned as such, and will not here again explain them, our purpose being to show the feasting that these received from Oct., 1924 to April, 1928. It was especially by the articles of The Present Truth of those years, backed by pertinent discourses, lessons and conversations, that the Truth Levites (both good Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren) were feasted in those years. And it was especially through the articles of The Herald Of The Epiphany of those years, including the Extras volunteered during those years, through discourses public and private, lessons and conversations, that the



Nominal Church good Levites, Great Company and Youthful Worthy brethren, were feasted in those years. A comparison of the pertinent articles, etc., with the sayings of Jesus during the typical feast will show he close similarity of the involved thoughts, e.g., the foretold persecutions, lessons on the graces, prayer, God's Father- love, Jesus' ministry for us, the Spirit, etc. Accordingly, the first forecast has been fulfilled.


(55) The second forecast in the time order of its type was that the Church would have a Gethsemane experience from Nov., 1927 to April, 1928—the symbolic hour before the symbolic betrayal. A day of ten years, or 120 months, gives us as an hour 1/24 of 120 months, 5 months. The Gethsemane scene is described in Matt. 26: 36-46; Mark 14: 32-42; Luke 22: 40-46. The record shows that the eight were entirely unaware, and that the three were almost entirely unaware of Jesus' Gethsemane experience. This experience consisted in part of His fear that He had perhaps not hitherto done perfectly and in part of His fear that He might be unable to meet the approaching sufferings perfectly, and thus would have to go into the Second Death. This moved Him with loud cries and tears to pray to have the cup, not His death, but the special rigors of that death, removed, knowing that if He did not amid them do perfectly, He would die the Second Death (Heb. 5: 7). Did the antitype set in at the forecast time—Nov., 1927 to April, 1928? Our answer is, yes, and, as typically indicated, in a way that the Great Company and Youthful Worthies did not understand that it was taking place. Our correspondence and our interviews with various brethren show that at that time many brethren feared that they had lost out in the race or would by the coming trials be made crown-losers, and therefore in deepest distress sought an amelioration of the coming experiences. To these testimonies we can add our own; for we were then in great fear of being a castaway or of becoming one. Do the



Levites say that such one-sided evidence proves nothing to them? Our answer is: Neither did the typical experience of Jesus mean anything to the types of those Levites. The only way they could get the proof was from Jesus' testimony thereon. Similarly in the antitype, the drowsy Levites can get the proof of these antitypical experiences only from the testimony of the Large Jesus. And as cleansed Levites they will accept this testimony. That this experience was to take place between Nov., 1927 and April, 1928 is evident from the fact proven above on the betrayal setting in, in April, 1928 and the Gethsemane experience lasting one hour (5 months) and ending at the betrayal.


(56) The third forecast in the time order of the type is that the betrayal of the Large Jesus would take place at about the Passover of 1928. We have above quoted The Truth statements showing apart from the Gospels' accounts, which are silent as to what hour the typical betrayal occurred, that the betrayal would likely set in about the Passover of 1928. The antitypical betrayal was the delivery of the Large Jesus into the hands of the Romanist clergy by members of antitypical Judas. It occurred in connection with the probating of the will of a certain sister, Sr. McCleary of Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A. She in 1924 made a will that was to dispose of her estate as follows: $6,000.00 were to go to a niece, $1,000.00 to the Truth Fund, and the balance of her estate, about $20,000.00, after inheritance taxes, etc., were deducted, was to be held in trust during the life of her brother and sister-in-law, the income thereon to be given to them, and then at their death the principal, about $20,000.00, was to go to the Truth Fund. As long as her brother, who expressed satisfaction with the will, lived, the sister assured us that no one made efforts to have her change her will; but after he died she told at least six of the brethren, ourself among them, that her sister-in-law, an Amramite Levite, who was much opposed to the



Epiphany movement, and her niece, who never was in the Truth, were destroying her peace of mind to the degree that her sleep was almost ruined by their efforts, extending over a couple of years, to make her change her will, which she said she did not wish to change; and through these two years she repeatedly told them, so she said, that she did not desire to change her will. The last time we saw her was after the middle of July 1927—after our return from our trans-Mississippi pilgrim trip. On this occasion she, by that time about 88 years of age, not only repeated to us the complaints that she often before had made to us, to the effect that her sister-in-law and her niece were ruining her peace and thus her nerves and sleep, by insisting on her changing her will more in their favor, but also said that her health was so broken by their course toward her in the matter of the will that she was unable to resist them any longer, that she must have relief from her troubled state of mind', even if it meant that she make a will more to the pleasing of her sister-in-law and niece, that if, after her death, another will than the one she had made in 1924 were presented for probate, we were to understand that she had made it against her will, in order to purchase peace for her remaining days, and that she desired us to fight such a will and secure the probating of the 1924 will, which, she said, was a will fair to all interests concerned.


(57) As the sequel proved, she on Aug. 5, 1927, about two weeks after we last saw her, signed a will that bequeathed to the Truth Fund $5,000.00, and the balance of her estate to her sister-in-law and niece in equal parts, and in case of the death of either of these, the other was to get her share. This dear sister died toward the end of Dec., 1927. We learned of her death the night before her funeral. Remembering her last charge to us as an executor and trustee under the 1924 will, we presented the matter to the lawyer who had drawn up that will; and in harmony with her charge



and his advice, the 1924 will was by its executors and trustees presented for probate. Then we learned from a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Wills, as we had reason to expect, that a later will was in existence, Against probating this new will we had a caveat entered, which naturally resulted in the necessity of a hearing on the two wills. This hearing was held before the deputy of the Registrar of Wills. Various circumstances interfering, the case did not come to a hearing until March 22, 1928, when the other side presented its case. Then occurred an adjournment until April 18, when our side presented its case. Another adjournment was made until April 24, when the final, i.e., rebuttal testimony of both sides was given. Eliminating from the betrayal the hearings of April 18 and April 24, which are the antitype of the scene of John 18: 4- 8, and considering the betrayal to be the acts of the sister- in-law and her Levite supporters in their representatives before the registrar's deputy from 10:00 A.M., March, 22, onward to 10:00 A.M., April, 18, all of which acts were then before him for his attention, until our answer came at 10:00 A.M., April, 18, the time the Lord's Supper at Philadelphia ended, i.e., 10:00 P.M., April, 4, was exactly midway between the beginning of the first hearing, 10:00 A.M., Mar., 22, when the betrayal began, and the beginning of the second hearing, 10:00 A.M., April, 18, when the betrayal acts had ended, and the Large Jesus was called on to speak (John 18: 4-8) as to the betraying act. This shows that the completed Passover supper was the point of time exactly in the middle of the betrayal act, which proves the accuracy of our forecast's fulfillment as of the Passover of 1928. The gentleman who, heard the case, we learned after the first hearing began, was a Romanist. We also learned that the sister-in-law was encouraged in her course by other Amramite Levites, who also stood ready to assist her with their testimony. The above course of events necessarily



arising out of what the sister charged against her sister-in- law and niece, i.e., she charged them with unduly influencing her into making the new will, and out of what she charged us to do as an executor and trustee under the 1924 will, under the given circumstances, forced the matter to come to a hearing; and this created a situation that resulted in putting the Large Jesus into the hands of the Romanist clergy. Thus the antitypical betrayal was being enacted with the 1928 Passover's end as its exact middle, a date forecast for it orally several years before, written out for publication 14 months before and published 13 months before. Of course, this forecast, made on as yet many non- existent factors, coming true, was neither a matter of accident nor of manipulation on our part. Indeed, we did not interpretationally associate this course of events with the antitypical betrayal until a few days before the hearing began, Mar. 22, 1928. Hence the forecast can be explained alone on the basis that its maker was Divinely illuminated on the meaning of the type. It might be remarked that the sister-in-law died before the bequests could be legally paid out and thus she and her encouraging Amramite supporters got no benefits under the will, her part going to her daughter and son-in-law, and will buy an antitypical burial for these and their unbegotten helpers as antitypical strangers.


(58) The next forecast event (the fourth) as given in the order of the type was to be the arrest of the Large Jesus. No definite time in the type is given for this occurrence. It is merely presented as coming shortly after the Passover, when the betrayal was to be enacted, and considerably before Oct., 1929, when the type, after many intervening events would occur, shows the Large Jesus would be delivered to antitypical Pilate. To make one a prisoner in Bible types does not mean antitypically to imprison him literally, but to put him under restraint. Thus the imprisonment



of John the Baptist does not type the literal imprisonment of the Church, but her restraint in her public work, which began with our being cut off from second-class mailing rates for John's Rebuke and Elijah's Letter, and has continued with various other restraints, especially by Romanist non-official persecutors, and by Romanist policemen and prosecutors, with the assistance of magistrates, hindering the circulation of these two papers, and literally arresting and securing the fining of some of their distributors. Hence Jesus' arrest restraining Him in the exercise of His powers types restraint put upon the Large Jesus. The antitypical arresting began through the decision of the Registrar of Wills handed down on May 10, 1928, and was completed by the paying over of the bequest of $5,000.00, instead of $21,000.00, on Feb. 5, 1929. He decided the contest in favor of the other side, which resulted in our receiving $5,000.00 instead of $21,000.00. Certainly, losing $16,000.00 put quite a restraint upon our activities; for with that money we could have published millions of Extras for free distribution, printed tens of thousands of books and booklets and financed many pilgrim trips, which we could not do through losing this amount. Thus it restrained our powers of activity and came within the time forecast. The arrest [restraint] of the two brethren, later to be dealt with, on Nov. 18, 1928, was as will shortly appear also a part of the arrest of the Large Jesus. This fulfillment could not be explained as an accidental coincident to our forecast; nor, of course, would we for obvious reasons have manipulated such an issue of events. Our pertinent forecast must have been due to Divine illumination on the type, as in the other cases.


(59) The next three sets of events, the fifth, sixth and seventh, forecast for the sixth large wonderful day were the three hearings of the Large Jesus, antitypical of the hearings (1) before Annas, (2) before Caiaphas and (3) before the Sanhedrin, the Large



Jesus' condemnation and His delivery by them to antitypical Pilate. In the antitype of these, three hearings were to take place between the Large Jesus' antitypical arrest and the delivery to antitypical Pilate, i.e., between sometime after the antitypical arrest was completed, which, as above shown, began May 10, 1928 and ended Feb., 5, 1929, when the bequest of $5,000.00 instead of $21,000.00 was paid over, and sometime early in the first hour of large Friday A.M.—Oct., 1929 to March, 1930—corresponding to Jesus' delivery to Pilate early during the first hour of typical Friday. All that we can get from the type, as such, unassisted by the data furnished by the previously fulfilled antitypes, is that, the arrest coming sometime after Passover, 1928 and the antitype of the delivery to Pilate coming early in the five months' period of Oct., 1929 to March, 1930, the three antitypical hearings were due sometime between after the Passover of 1928 and early in the period between Oct., 1929 and Mar., 1930. But the antitype of the arrest occurring during the entire period between May, 10, 1928 and Feb., 5, 1929, we were to expect the three hearings to come after Feb. 5, 1929 and several months before Mar., 1930; because, the Sanhedrin condemning Jesus and binding and leading Him to Pilate early in the first hour (Matt. 27: 1, 2; Mark 15: 1; John 18: 28), we are to expect that early in the five months' period, Oct., 1929 to March, 1930, the antitypical Sanhedrinal condemnation and delivery to antitypical Pilate would occur. Hence the run of events would put these three hearings between sometime after Feb. 5 and sometime, say in Oct. 1929. And the fulfilled facts prove this setting to be true. We will now give some explanations and set forth the pertinent facts.


(60) Here in Philadelphia Romanist laymen, egged on by their priests, incited papal policemen to arrest our brethren who volunteered Extras Nos. 18 and 23 (Elijah's Letter and John's Rebuke). Among others



who were thus arrested, locked up and fined, were a brother and sister who were arrested Nov. 18, 1928. This, accordingly, was between May 10, 1928 and Feb. 5, 1929, during which time the antitypical arresting was going on. They were falsely charged by the Romanist district attorney with inciting to riot, despite the fact that they were entirely alone during the distribution and at the time of the arrest. An incitation to riot implies the presence of a number of persons, whom the inciter seeks to arouse to rioting. Such a condition did not prevail on this occasion; hence there could be no incitation to riot. Every one connected with the prosecution was a Romanist—the accusing women, the arresting policeman, the district attorney, his deputy, the witnesses and the trial judge during the first three hearings. These three hearings occurred April 16, 1929, May 21, 1929 and Oct. 24, 1929 respectively. Of course the Romanists were not particularly aiming at these two brethren. Their aim was through their condemnation to secure a Court decision against the Epiphany work, and thus to close it up. Accordingly, the Epiphany priesthood was the real accused and was merely represented through the two accused brethren. We are not to understand that the judge in these three hearings was the antitype of Annas, Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin. Rather we are to understand his part as a mere winding up of the pertinent antitypical hearings, a sort of court crier of these three antitypes. The first antitypical hearing began and progressed before the lower priests as antitypical Annas, who examined our movement in its writings and work and thus ended their investigation in not coming to a decision, the end coming by the Romanist judge announcing the postponement of the hearing for another occasion. This brought to an end the antitype of Annas' examination of Jesus. The Romanists in their eagerness to secure a verdict against the two brethren gave the latters' attorney a copy of the charge



and a notice of the trial just about two hours before it was scheduled to begin, and the said attorney, not having had time enough to study the charge, prepare his brief and secure his witnesses, moved the case be postponed, which the judge under the circumstances had to grant as a matter of elementary justice.


(61) For five weeks more, apparently a higher set of the Romanist clergy examined the case, whose examination also was not final, a fact that was implied by the case being again postponed by the judge, May 21, 1929, the external reason being that, the attorney of the accused having a case in a higher court at the same hour, the lower had to give way to the higher. This five weeks' examination corresponds to the Lord's hearing before Caiaphas. Antitypical Caiaphas thought the Large Jesus worthy of a cutting off from access to the public, but made no final decision, announcing a postponement through his "court crier," the judge. The third examination thereafter set in, corresponding to the hearing before the Sanhedrin; and its decision was announced through their "court crier," the trial judge, who after hearing part of the testimony, stated he would not try the case further, that he would leave the accused under indictment to be tried by an impartial, a non- Romanist, judge. This antitypes the Sanhedrin's announcement that they were to deliver Jesus bound to Pilate. The judge gave as his reasons for his course the following: This case involves the Catholic Church, of which I am a humble member. If I should decide the case against the accused, the newspapers of the country would censure me; and if I should decide the case in favor of the accused, my church would be displeased with me. By this latter remark he let the Romanist cat out of the bag, clearly revealing that, not only was his church back of the prosecution, but also that he knew that it wanted the condemnation of the accused. We have very good reasons to surmise that his decision not to try the case



to the end was made at clerical advice, to spare his church from exposure as a persecutor, which would explode the hollowness of the hierarchy's claim to tolerance. He, therefore, said that he would decline to hear the case further, in order that an impartial, a non-Romanist, judge, might hear it. By this remark he disclosed the fact that he was not in such a case an impartial judge, which we believe is true of every Romanist judge in cases affecting his church. The remarks that he made on what would happen, if he decided the case pro or con, likewise seem unsound. It was, of course, not for him to decide whether the accused were guilty or not; this was the jury's business. His only work was to see that a fair trial was given according to the rules of evidence, and then pronounce sentence according to the jury's decision and his view of its desert, if the accused were found guilty. His remarks seem to betray the thought that he was in a bad position from which he sought to retreat.


(62) Above we remarked that we have good reasons to surmise that at clerical advice, to spare his church, he declined to hear the case to an end. We, of course, are not certain thereon and desire our remarks on this phase of the case to be considered no more than a reasonable surmise in view of the circumstances and his above-described utterances. A record of how the case was developed on  both sides will show the reasonableness of this surmise. On the Romanist side the case showed manipulation of the entire pertinent judicial machinery. Neither the arresting police, the station police who gave the case to the magistrate, nor the magistrate, brought a specific charge against the accused. Secondly, after the magistrate's hearing, the station police had a deputy of the district attorney study John's Rebuke some days; and the latter then formulated the charge of inciting to riot. Thirdly, the same Romanist judge sat to hear the case in April, May and October, 1929 (court not being held in July



and August), while the rules of the Philadelphia Court require each class of cases to be heard in the court room assigned for its kind of cases and also arrange for the judges generally to rotate monthly from one to another of these rooms, so that each judge will every so often hear every kind of case. Without manipulation this Romanist judge, according to this rule, could not have been in the room where and when that case was heard oftener than during one month. It would not surprise us, if his being there even one month in those particular months was due to manipulation; for during July and August, court not having been in session, he was in that room during all four of the involved court months; the third hearing was originally set for September, but by the prosecution was postponed, partly because of the room undergoing repairs, and partly because of there being too many cases on hand. The same judge was there also in September, when it was expected for a while to be heard. Each time a Romanist deputy of the Romanist district attorney appeared as prosecutor. The juries each time had a liberal sprinkling of Romanists. All of their witnesses were Romanists. Of course, the times of calling the case were always in control of the Romanist district attorney, who used that control to gain Romanist advantages against the accused. When all of this is considered in connection with the judge's admission that  his church would be displeased, if he should free the accused, i.e., his church wanted them condemned, we have good ground for surmising that the judge likely was clerically advised to get rid of the case, in order to spare his church from unfavorable publicity. This surmise becomes still more strongly grounded when certain other things are considered. The fact that it is Rome's settled, but more or less hidden policy to crush by boycott and court prosecution all criticism of it in the press and on the radio, evidenced



by a large number of facts that we have elsewhere presented in our Signs Of The Times is in line with the clergy's surmised advice in this case.


(63) Because Rome seeks to hide her hand while crushing opponents, some of the brethren were determined to make an exposure of her hands and methods in this case. There lives in Chicago an Epiphany brother who is a newspaper man and a friend of influential statesmen. He decided to take a hand in the defense. On of the accused, knowing that the Romanists were seeking illegally to railroad him to prison, wrote to this Chicago brother, who was from boyhood days onward a close friend of the then Governor of Pennsylvania. He wrote to his Governor friend what the Romanists were seeking to do in this case. The latter replied that he would keep his eye on the case and see that justice was wrought thereon. Whether the Governor, who as such had the right to unseat an unjust judge, warned the Romanist judge to act justly in this matter, we do not know; but he probably did. If so, that may have had something to do with his course. The correspondence between our Chicago brother and the Governor was just before the third calling of the case. Our Chicago brother as a newspaper man advised a further matter: that a letter be sent from the Bible House to the editors of Philadelphia's newspapers, informing them that the case was one that involved the freedom of the press, in which each of them was vitally interested, and requesting them to have their reporters make extensive reports on the case and give it wide publicity. A letter to this effect went out of our office to the Philadelphia newspaper editors. If Rome fears anything, it is publicity on her plots against the public welfare. Practically every large newspaper of the country is encumbered in its staff with Jesuits placed at strategic points in Rome's interests. Quite likely into the hands of some



of these a copy of this letter fell; and, if so, the character and objects of Jesuits could be depended on to forestall a course fraught with possibilities of much unfavorable publicity for Rome. Since Jesuits are pastmasters in plots cunningly and secretly devised and executed, we are doing them no injustice by such a surmise. The combination of the above facts and probabilities make our pertinent surmise reasonable. And the type and antitype give us on the matter the assurance of faith, but not the demonstration of facts such as would be accepted as evidence in a court of civil justice.


(64) It would be well for us to note the time feature in the threefold hearing before the condemnation and delivery of the Large Jesus by the Romanist clergy to antitypical Pilate. The arrest of the two brethren occurring Nov. 18, 1928, came during the period of the antitypical arrest (May 10, 1928 to Feb. 5, 1929). The three hearings, the condemnation and the delivery to antitypical Pilate, were to come between Feb. 5, 1929 and early in the five months' period from Oct. 1929 to March, 1930. As shown above, the first hearing ended at the court session on April 16, 1929; the second at the court session on May 21, 1929; and the third, the condemnation and the delivery to antitypical Pilate, at the court session on Oct., 24, 1929. Thus all came within the forecast period. This forecast was made over five years before the fulfillment. It cannot be explained on the ground of accident. The factors in the case are so varied, embrace forces so antagonistic to one another and concern so many various classes, that it cannot be explained on the ground of manipulation on our part, as Levites have sought to dispose of some of our fulfilled forecasts. This set of fulfillments forms a most impressive proof that the forecast was a result of Divine illumination on the type.


(65) The eighth thing forecast for the large sixth wonderful day was typed by Pilate's saying, "I find no



fault in this man." This was fulfilled by the civil power, through a Protestant judge, declaring the Epiphany work lawful, which was done on May 23, 1930, when said judge, after hearing the case, took it out of the hands of the jury and declared the two accused brethren not guilty and freed them. The case was clearly proven to be a Romanist attempt against the freedom of the press. Special parts of John's Rebuke, Extra No. 23, were read to the jury by the prosecutor. The main Romanist witness, the arresting policeman, since the last hearing (in which the accused brethren stated he perjured himself by claiming that a riot was narrowly averted at the time of, and by the  arrest, while as a matter of fact nobody, except the policeman and the two brethren, was then present, nor was about the two brethren before the arrest) had committed so gross an offense against the law as to be dismissed from the police force, and hence dared not appear as a witness. The two Romanist women who had the policeman arrest the brethren also failed to appear. This was perhaps at hierarchical advice, since the hierarchy now feared unfavorable publicity. The testimony of the station policemen who appeared as the only witnesses against the brethren was hearsay, since they were not actual witnesses of the alleged offence. The result was that all the Romanist prosecutor could urge was that the contents of John's Rebuke were of a character to incite to riot.


(66) Thus the charge simmered down to an accusation against a part of the Epiphany literature, and consequently was a charge against the whole priesthood. Thus in reality, not only the two accused, but the whole priesthood were on trial, as the picture of the Large Jesus requires. The judge read over the parts of John's Rebuke most inveighed against by the Romanist prosecutor, declared that such statements would not cause normal people to riot, moreover were entirely lawful and were uttered on patriotic and



religious grounds. The result made the Romanists leave that court room crestfallen, like beaten dogs running away with their tails between their legs. It will be noticed that the Gospels do not state the hour time that Pilate declared our Lord faultless, but place it between the beginning of the first hour, when the delivery to Pilate set in, and the beginning of the third hour, when the crucifixion set in. In all likelihood, this declaration of Jesus' innocence occurred in the second hour; for the hearing of the accusation and its grounds against Jesus and the examination of Jesus by Pilate took about an hour before Pilate declared Jesus innocent. In the antitype the declaration of the Epiphany movement's innocency did take place during the second hour of antitypical Friday morning—March to August, 1930. Here again, the forecast, made nearly seven years before, could not have been of accidental fulfillment, nor could the fulfillment be explained as having been manipulated by us. The only reasonable explanation of the fulfillment is that the forecast was of Divine illumination. And it was fulfilled during the period in which the Bible shows it should have been fulfilled, viz., on May 23, 1930, which was during the second hour—March to August, 1930.


(67) The ninth forecast was that the antitypical crucifixion would set in during the third hour of antitypical Friday—Aug., 1930 to Jan., 1931 (Mark 15: 25). In our Lord's crucifixion nails were driven through His hands and feet. In Bible symbols the hands are used to represent one's service and the feet one's conduct (Rev. 13: 16; 14: 9; Ex. 40: 31; Ps. 40: 2; 116: 8; 119: 59, 101, 105). As a result of a judicial sentence, to drive nails through the hands would represent the treating of one's work as penal; and to drive nails through one's feet would represent the treating of one's conduct as penal. Despite the County Court of Philadelphia giving our work a clean bill of health, first in this city, then in Jersey City and then in other



cities, Romanist policemen, egged on by priest-driven Romanists, arrested our volunteers who distributed John's Rebuke and Elijah's Letter. But knowing that they could gain nothing by taking these before the county courts, where our pertinent activities were declared legal, which courtfinding made it legal everywhere in Penna., unless a higher court would repeal it, which it did not do, they took the arrested brethren to lower courts, magistrates' courts, where the Romanists succeeded in getting them jailed and fined. Thus our work and conduct were judicially condemned as penal, i.e., a symbolic crucifixion set in. The tongue lashings that the courts' attendants, etc., gave the arrested brethren, and in them the entire priesthood, correspond to the scourging of Jesus. These arrests,  jailings, tongue lashings and finings began on time, in August, 1930, and continued for several years afterward. Here is a forecast, made about eight years ahead of time, and its fulfillment on time cannot be explained as accidental or as manipulated by us. The only honest explanation of this fact is that we were Divinely  illuminated to understand and explain the type.


(68) The tenth forecast event was the railing at the Large Jesus on the part of the antitypical rabble, clerics and the two large thieves (Matt. 27: 39-44; Mark. 15: 29-32; Luke 23: 35-37, 39-43). As the record shows, the railing set in immediately after the crucifixion, hence in the antitype between Aug., 1930 and Jan., 1931. And, true enough, the railing set in at the time forecast. The antitypical thieves are those leaders of Truth movements who have stolen spiritual prerogatives, and their partisan supporters, e.g., J.F. Rutherford's stealing, we should call it pirating, the controllership of the Society from its board and the editorship from the Tower Editors, and others, like G.K. Bolger, C. Olson, R.H. Bricker, the St. Joseph, Brooklyn, Brockton (Eagle's) and Kearney Ecclesias,