A SHEARNO-CRAWFORD CONSPIRACY. THE COVERING LETTER, REPORT AND RESOLUTION OF ELEVEN TABERNACLE ELDERS. THE CONSPIRACY BE COMES PUBLIC. EXPERIENCES IN, AND FINDINGS ON, THE LONDON BETHEL AFFAIRS. MANAGERIAL OFFENSES. A DECEITFUL LETTER. RELATIONS OF THE MERARITES AND THE GERSHONITES. THE BIBLICAL SETTING OF THE GERSHONITES. 

‍

THE LEADING of Azazel's Goat from the door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court had its beginning in Britain in the work of the World's High Priest toward H.J. Shearn and his partisan supporters; for the sixth sifting, whose slaughter weapon is Revolutionism, was started by him and Wm. Crawford. This cannot be properly understood without an understanding of their revolutionism, both in the London Tabernacle and in the London Bethel affairs. For along time we refrained from giving the general Church an account of their revolutionisms, because we did not see that it was the Lord's due time to set forth these matters in so public a manner. However, we have lately [written in June, 1920] received many indications from the Lord that it is His due time that it be set forth; and, accordingly, it is done here, not as a matter of wreaking vengeance because of a personal grudge, which we do not have, but for the necessary enlightenment of the Church; so that the Faithful, especially in Britain, may be enabled better to take their stand on Shearno-Crawfordism, which we understand is the theory and practice of the bad section of the Libnite (free, wilful) branch of the Gershonite Levites. The P.B.I. having, in the year 1920, endorsed them, the American and other brethren should be guarded against them, especially since Wm. Crawford is writing tracts repudiating some of our Pastor's teachings. In this chapter we shall set forth their revolutionism 

Gershonism. 

8 

both with respect to the Tabernacle and the Bethel; and shall show that their wrong-doings as to the Tabernacle, leading up to the trouble in Britain following our arrival there, began in the summer of 1915. Their specific activities during that time may be summarized as follows: the agitation connected with their effort to change "that Servant's" Tabernacle arrangements was originated, and then engineered, by Wm. Crawford and H.J. Shearn, the former supplying the ideas, and the latter setting into activity the executive processes. It was an effort made by two of our Pastor's representatives, who knew that he opposed their views, and who, as his representatives, should have sought to conserve his powers: (1) to intimidate him into giving up his controllership in Tabernacle affairs by the thinly-veiled threat that things would go radically wrong unless he surrendered such control; (2) to withhold such control from the Ecclesia, if surrendered by "that Servant"; (3) to lodge it with the elders (Presbyterianism); (4) to decrease J. Hemery's influence and activities in the Ecclesia, despite the voted resolution of its overwhelming majority to the contrary; (5) to divide the Ecclesia into small, uninfluential groups, especially if their clericalistic plan failed of success; (6) to gain for themselves the ascendency over the other elders, and thus control all. Hereafter we will refer to the three managers by their initials. 

Their efforts to gain controllership over the general British work through controlling the London Bethel were of several years' standing, and had success so far as J.H. was concerned, whom by their votes and intimidations they had shorn of the priority of influence among the managers arranged for by "that Servant." In this sphere of their activity they ignored many of "that Servant's" arrangements for the direction of the general work, J.H. co-operating with them, whenever it was to his interests so to do; others they set aside; others they modified; they introduced some of their

Libniism. 

9 

own without his knowledge or consent, and retained some of them despite his written disapproval. Their wrong activities as to the London Tabernacle and Bethel were parts of a conspiracy having two branches: (1) presbyterianizing the entire British Church under their controllership; and (2) securing freedom from the controllership of the W.T.B.&T.S. for the British work, and gaining it for themselves. To secure these ends they resorted to intrigue, deception, collusion with various parties opposed to some of "that Servant's" policies, hypocrisy, "dishonest and secret diplomacy," depriving opposers of, or limiting them in, and rewarding supporters with opportunities of service, all the time posing as "that Servant's" representatives and supporters. Small wonder that the Lord so arranged matters that H.J.S., W.C. and their partisan supporters were the first agents of the sixth sifting, and the first section of Azazel's Goat to be led to the gate of the Court, and to be delivered to the fit man. 

The letters of the three British managers and other British brethren in the Towers from 1914 to 1916, describing the handicaps and sufferings of our beloved British brethren, most deeply wrought on our sympathy, appreciation and desire to sacrifice in their interests. These qualities moved us to speak to the Lord on our having an opportunity of serving and comforting them. Twice before—in 1908 and in 1913—our dear Pastor had arranged for our taking the European trip; but Providence in each case hindered it. The Lord was pleased to indicate in the summer of 1916 that we suggest to our dear Pastor that, if he contemplated sending an American pilgrim to Britain, and that if he thought it to be the Lord's will for us to be that pilgrim, we should be glad to go; but that if he thought it not to be the Lord's will, we should be glad not to go. In this spirit of loving trust we left the matter in the Lord's hands, assured that He would 

Gershonism. 

10 

indicate His will through His Steward. The night of Aug. 26, 1916, at Nashville, Tenn., we mentioned the matter to our Pastor. Though he had previously told Bro. MacMillan of his intention of sending us to Europe, he first informed us of his decision at Dayton, O., Oct. 7, 1916. 

As previously told, we arrived at Liverpool, England, Nov. 19, where at the wharf we were met by J.H. and others; and after a service at Liverpool, in which we discoursed on our Pastor's last days, with J.H. we left the same evening for London, where we arrived about 10 P. M., and were met by six members of the Bethel family, including H.J.S. Once on the way to London J.H. started to tell us of the trouble at London; but before he could utter much over a half-dozen words, divining his purpose we interrupted him with the remark, "Not a word about that." Nothing more was attempted on that line during the rest of the journey; so that we could honestly answer "No," to the question, which we felt sure we would be asked, and which, true enough, we were asked, "Did Bro. Hemery at Liverpool or on the way to London tell you of the difficulties between the managers?" In Harvest Siftings he said we spoke very much of things in general, and much of ourself in particular while in Britain. This is true. And the Lord evidently used this activity of ours to win our way into disarming the suspicions of those with whom we had especially to deal in a way that a silent or taciturn person could never have done. Our very frankness and sociability gained for us information that, humanly-speaking, never would have become ours, had we acted otherwise. If we talked much we listened and watched more, gaining much needed information for our work as investigator, executive and pilgrim. 

W.C. being absent on a pilgrim trip until Nov. 21, we had no formal meeting with the managers until 

Libniism. 

11 

the afternoon of that date. Nor did we let them know anything of our special powers, nor of our special intentions as to the British Tabernacle and Bethel before our first formal meeting with them. However, we kept our eyes and ears open, and gained much information on conditions at Bethel, and the atmosphere toward our Pastor, his arrangements and the Society. We saw that quite a different spirit prevailed among some, especially H.J.S. and his family, from what we were accustomed to see among brethren: The censorship having delayed the arrival of the Executive Committee's letter to the managers on our visit, at our first meeting with them we showed them our copy of it; then we showed them our letter of appointment; and then our credentials. They thus at once recognized that we came as a special commissioner of the Society with full powers "in the business and affairs of the Society." We then laid before them our suggestions on advertising our public meetings. J.H. was given by the Executive Committee the work of arranging for our pilgrim services. The announcement of this fact visibly and unfavorably affected H.J.S., who had charge of the Pilgrim department. Our suggestions on our pilgrim activities were accepted, and we then encouraged the three brothers to join heartily with us in giving an impetus to the waning work, and the discouraged hearts of the British brethren. There was almost nothing being done in the Pilgrim, Colporteur and Volunteer work, when we arrived in Britain. The Photo-Drama was not being exhibited; the Pastoral work, of course, had not yet started; and the newspaper work was dwindling. Almost everything was at a standstill; and the Lord put it into our heart to seek to arouse the British brethren to new life and zeal; and to set into vigorous operation the various branches of the work; and by God's grace this was accomplished in a large measure in spite of many hindrances, until J.F.R., 

Gershonism. 

12 

with his habitual capacity to blunder, and J.H., with his smooth tongue to deceive, busybodies, whereby confusion came on all hands. 

As soon as H.J.S. and W.C. learned of our powers they made extraordinary efforts, including on the former's part our entertainment every night for over a week with a 9 o'clock dinner, to win our favor toward them, and to turn us against J.H. Their course resulted in the opposite of their purpose. They began to speak against him to us, which made us sympathize with him, because we saw their unbrotherly course toward him. They had for years intimidated him, until he had become almost a zero among the managers. This course of theirs made us at first unopen to some of their charges against him that later we found in good part to be true. Accustomed to treat our fellow-pilgrims with great respect and deference, we were hurt at their conduct toward him; and thus by their actions were turned more and more into believing them to be systematic evil-doers. This, of course, made us look with increasing disfavor upon their plans, as also the character of their plans worked this effect on us. 

In Vol. IV., Chap. III, we described how the correspondence on the Tabernacle arrangements was by H.J.S. and J.H., on Nov. 23, put into our hands. At our second meeting with the managers (Nov. 23) we recognized that our task in the Tabernacle was not to be an easy one; for we could see the set purpose of H.J.S. and W.C. to carry through their manifold designs, if possible. Armed with the correspondence of both sides, after the meeting of Nov. 23, we went to our room; and kneeling in prayer, we told the Lord that of ourself, we, a stranger in a strange land, were unequal to the task before us; that if He would give us the necessary wisdom and strength, we would faithfully seek to be an eye, mouth and hand for Him in the British work. We have every confidence that 

Libniism. 

13 

the Lord answered that prayer. A series of most remarkable providences surrounded us during our stay in Britain, until after we had under our Lord, and in co-operation with other priests, delivered the British Libnite Gershonite and Mahlite Merarite sections of Azazel's Goat to the fit man, when every door to further usefulness began to close, and shortly was completely closed; then the only thing for us to do was to return to America. We are very confident that in Britain we accomplished the good pleasure of our Lord. Our Levitical brethren would not, of course, agree with this; and they have succeeded in bewildering a considerable section of the British Priests on the subject, our mistake on the Steward giving a measure of color to their claims. But our record is on High; and we feel confident that in due time God will bring forth our righteousness as the light, and our judgment as the noonday. Until then we can, amid Levitical misrepresentations, quietly wait on the Lord; nor will we wait in vain! 

In order to clarify the Tabernacle situation we should explain the unique position of our Pastor to that Ecclesia. In others than the Ecclesias connected with the various headquarters he had no further powers in local affairs than that of an advisor; but at the Brooklyn and London Tabernacles, at the New York Temple, etc., not only from financial considerations, but more especially because the Lord so willed it, he controlled their general arrangements. The reason that the Lord willed this is that He desired His special eye, mouth and hand free from the control of everybody except Himself, that thus unhampered he might fulfill his duties as that Servant. For him to have been subject to the particular Ecclesias of which he was a member would contain dangerous probabilities, which, becoming actual, would have resulted in injury to the general work, and would have seriously interfered with His office functions as that Servant. 

Gershonism. 

14 

Therefore the Lord, who was the Head of those Churches, arranged to control their affairs through His personal representative, that Servant. Hence in such Ecclesias the latter did not conduct matters exactly as Vol. VI shows should be done in all other Churches. 

H.J.S. and W.C. led a movement to change the Divinely ordained arrangements for the London Tabernacle, especially in so far as they concerned our Pastor's controllership therein; and by their course greatly sinned against the Lord, whose Headship in that Church they in unholy ambition sought to set aside in the peculiar form in which He was pleased through "that Servant" to exercise it. This in brief is the heart of their offenses as to the Tabernacle. But connected with their general plan was a number of details bearing plain evidence of Satanic activity. It was the partial knowledge of their purpose that caused our Pastor, Oct. 21, 1916, at Dallas to warn us against certain responsible British brethren, and to promise us details after both of us would meet in Brooklyn, Nov. 6, 1916. His delaying telling us these details was doubtless due to his wishing first to read the Tabernacle correspondence from London, which he expected there. 

After reaching London, and reviewing carefully the correspondence on the Tabernacle, Nov. 23-25, we drew up eight questions on which we based many others, and thoroughly questioned the three managers for about three hours on the afternoon of Nov. 25. As a result of this examination the conspiracy of H.J.S. and W.C. stood out so plainly as treachery to our Pastor that in sheer shame they hung their heads, and then, disowning their child, they threw the blame for the whole matter on the other nine signatory elders. Of course we knew this was untrue; but tactfully took the occasion to administer a verbal beating to the two erring managers over the backs of 

Libniism. 

15 

the other nine elders. Apart from disapproving the wishes of the other nine elders (?!) we refrained from giving a decision that day, believing that we had better await further developments. Within a week, however, we told the two managers that their plan was pure Presbyterianism; and that standing for the congregational order of Church government, we could not give it our approval. At first we refrained from pointing out the worst features of their course, hoping to bring them to repentance by easier methods. We herewith submit the eight questions that were the basic ones of those that we asked them Nov. 25: (1) What is your individual position in the matter of the Society's relation to the Tabernacle congregation? (2) What is meant in the resolution by the expression "Tabernacle arrangements"? (3) When and how did this discussion of "Tabernacle arrangements" among the elders originate? (4) Exactly what is desired to be done, and, through the thing done, achieved, by those who have passed the resolution? (5) Are all 11 elders who voted for the resolution a unit as to what they want, or do some desire more than others? (6) Have you any tangible ground in an action of the congregation that it desires the changes desired by the 11 elders who passed the resolution? (7) What is your individual position as to the desirability of the changes sought by the majority of the elders? (8) What would be the effect of the changes on the relations of the Society and the Church? 

We continued our investigation of the agitation culminating in the sending of the correspondence to Brooklyn, fact after fact coming to light, until we had an accurate knowledge of the entire movement. We learned from many sources, especially from the minutes and notes of the Secretary of the Ecclesia, and from Bros. Hemery, Thackway, Cronk, Guard, Jr., and others, the background out of which the entire movement arose, as well as the various ramifications 

Gershonism. 

16 

through which it passed, and found it to be sinister indeed! There was some dissatisfaction among some of the elders, especially H.J.S. and W. C., that they had very little opportunity to discourse before the Tabernacle congregation, our Pastor guarding the pulpit against amateurs, because he did not wish to give the impression to the British public that immature speakers were the recognized public exponents of the Truth. Hence J.H. in our Pastor's absence almost always filled the pulpit. To allay this discontent the latter, Aug. 12, 1915, sent a letter to each manager distributing the services as follows: J.H. to speak twice a month, and each of the other Managers once a month, with an occasional opportunity for other qualified elders to speak. But the two did not edify the congregation so well as did J.H., hence not a few remained away when they spoke. For this H.J.S. and W.C. blamed J.H.! The two then began quietly to inoculate the other elders with the thought that they—the other elders—ought to have more opportunity to speak to the Ecclesia; and thus they set themselves forth as the champions of a freer pulpit. This elicited a favorable response from a number of elders who thought that they ought to have had more opportunities to appear before the Church. The two continued to set forth the claim that the Tabernacle arrangements were not Scriptural, and that, if they were, the elders would be on more of an equality—as though God organized His Church with all elders having equal talents, spirit and opportunities! Matters continued to go on in this way, until the time was thought ripe to discuss the Ecclesia's arrangements in an elders' meeting, H.J.S. and W.C. claiming that, the Ecclesia having very lately assumed its current expenses, the elders and deacons should control its affairs. Accordingly, the evening of Oct. 22, 1915, and an elders' meeting, were considered the proper time and place to consider the matter, as the

Libniism. 

17 

following quotation from a letter of H.J.S. shows: "At an elders' meeting held on Oct. 22, 1915, the question was discussed, in view of the Church now paying its own expenses, as to whether the limitations now upon the Elders and Deacons should be withdrawn—leaving the congregation free to place the control of its services and activities in their hands!" Real, clericalistic logic—that which infers that, because the Ecclesia pays its own expenses, its board of elders and deacons should control all its services and activities! 

The ball thus started rolling, it was, Oct. 29, 1915, at a joint elders' and deacons' meeting given another push, when through a "packed" deacon "a suggestion was made that the affairs of the Church should be entirely in the hands of the Elders and Deacons, SINCE THE CONGREGATION WAS BEARING THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY." Some more Levite Logic! We quote further: 

"On Sunday, Nov. 28, 1915, at a Church meeting (not annual business meeting) the feeling was expressed [by some other "packed" brothers!] that some change of policy might be desirable in respect to the appointment of the speakers for the Tabernacle Sunday services. It was moved:—'that in view of the congregation now paying the Tabernacle expenses [what a fine hobby to ride to self-exaltation was the thought that—in view of the congregation now paying the Tabernacle expenses, etc.!'] the Church suggests [the sequel shows whether the Church or certain elders filled with unholy ambition did the suggesting] that the services of the elders be extended to the filling of Sunday Tabernacle appointments."' Our Pastor did not wish the Truth to be given a black eye before critical London by the sample Truth-Church of Britain having its pulpit filled by incompetent speakers. Hence he arranged differently from what his two misrepresentatives tried to put into 

Gershonism. 

18 

vogue by their revolutionism. To the credit of the congregation, which believed in its keeping faith with our Pastor as it had agreed, the Shearno-Crawford motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote, which proved that they, not the Ecclesia, desired the change. Our quotations are from H.J.S.'s letter of Jan. 11, 1917. 

Baffled by the Ecclesia's stand, they next thought of dividing up the large congregation into a number of small ones, as this arrangement was more in harmony with their purposes, and could be given an appearance of great concern for the brethren living quite a distance from the Tabernacle. Our Pastor wanted as a sample British Church a large Ecclesia at Britain's and the World's metropolis, because, the British public being always favorably impressed by numbers, our public work would thereby be advantaged. This advantage was no concern to the two conspirators; for rule or ruin seemed to be their policy; or as Milton puts the sentiment into Satan's mouth: "Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven!" Accordingly, they manipulated matters so that at elders' meetings held Dec. 3, 1915, Jan. 7, 1916, Feb. 4, 1916, and Feb. 11, 1916, lengthy discussions occurred, first on a resolution offered by H.J.S., and then on others springing out of it, advocating two such separate churches. During these discussions text-bookism was advocated and in part sanctioned. H.J.S. and W.C. giving their influence to the side of text-bookism, against our Pastor's and the Ecclesia's known policies. Ultimately the text—bookistic phase of the matter led to a deadlock among the elders, as to what should be done with scheduling the meetings of the two separated ecclesias; but the final aim and result of policies of the two was the creation of two text-bookistic ecclesias as separate and distinct from the London Tabernacle. By this course they decreased as per their plan the influence of our Pastor and J.H. It is

Libniism. 

19 

illuminating to note that in all their moves they were favored loyally by four elders who were quite out of harmony with our Pastor's policies in the Tabernacle and the Berean Studies. This is quite apparent from the action of these four, who not only favored, with the two, the above—mentioned separated ecclesias, but who in an elders' meeting, May 5, 1916, tried to set aside Berean Lessons and a resolution favoring their continuance. Thus we see that a sectarian, text-bookistic and clericalistic revolutionism characterizes their theories, acts and fruits. 

Still they continued their efforts to change that Servant's arrangements. Toward midsummer of 1916, H.J.S. approached Bro. Thackway, one of the leading elders of the Ecclesia, on his plan to have a freer pulpit. Bro. Thackway expressed substantial agreement with H.J.S. This fact H.J.S. tried to utilize for his plan. Phoning about midsummer to Bro. Thackway that he wanted to discuss with him a plan whereby he hoped to secure the former's exemption from the draft, Bro. Thackway agreed to the consultation, as he desired the exemption. But the exemption matter seemed to be a decoy; for little was said on exemption, except at the end of the conference Bro. Thackway was informed it could probably not be gotten; and much was said on changing Tabernacle arrangements, so as to give other elders than the managers frequent access to the pulpit. Bro. Thackway being sympathetic, H.J.S. asked him whether he would introduce a resolution to the effect that the elders discuss the desirability of changing them, remarking that he did not want to introduce the resolution because of his official relations to that Servant! Bro. Thackway consented; whereupon H.J.S. drew forth from his desk a typewritten resolution treating of the matter. This motion was presented by Bro. Thackway at an elders' meeting Sept. 1, 1916. Criticisms of our Pastor's arrangements then followed,

Gershonism. 

20 

especially by four elders as to the restricted pulpit, one central meeting place for Sundays, the assistant pastorate, and our Pastor's concern for the public. Then W.C. presented a "muzzling" motion, which he originated, and got the Advisory Committee, of which he was chairman, to recommend, to the effect that none of the elders should individually inform Bro. Russell of the elders' deliberations. It was finally decided to hold another meeting Sept. 16 for further discussion. Bro. Thackway again opened the discussion covering the above four points anew. Then H.J.S. began to reel off by the yard supposed arguments against the arrangements of him whose representative he was. Some of his claims were that the arrangements complained of were "unscriptural," injurious to both Ecclesia and elders, clericalistic as to J.H., degrading as to the other elders, insufficient as to the needs of the brethren, etc., etc., etc. As is manifest in this case, it is remarkable how many sophistries a clericalist can invent to gain his ends! Following H.J.S.'s long speech, the thought was expressed that our Pastor would not agree; but he said he had a letter from him (dated Oct. 22, 1915) that showed that he would agree. Getting the letter he read a little of it, which made all present conclude that our Pastor would agree. But failing to read the next sentence, which, with what had been read, proved that unless the congregation would assume all of the Society's Tabernacle obligations, e.g., the debt on the building, etc., he would not agree, H.J.S. deliberately deceived the elders, as we proved to the Ecclesia at the time that we found out the trick that he played on his brother elders. Later the resolution to embody the matter in a letter to Bro. Russell was offered by H.J.S. and seconded by W. C.; and the Secretary was instructed to meet with them and work up the matter with them, they doing the work, and he writing a brief letter. They requested of the Secretary

Libniism. 

21 

that their names as mover and seconder be withheld from our Pastor, saying that they "did not know how Bro. Russell might take it." They likewise asked him to conceal how the section of his letter was read to the elders; but at a later elders' meeting, Oct. 20, H.J.S.'s course of writing into the letter to Bro. Russell the statement that J.H. first brought that letter to the elder's attention was challenged and changed. 

Sept. 20, 1916, another elders' meeting was held to work on the letter, report and resolution that were proposed to be sent to our Pastor. Some of the elders began to see through the scheme. Several had written to our Pastor since the last meeting, telling of the movement and its purposes. W.C. proposed and H.J.S. seconded a motion that each elder be asked to tell whether he had written Bro. Russell. J.H. refused to put the motion. On his declaring that he wrote him Sept. 17, H.J.S. and W.C. were beside themselves with rage, the former bursting out with: "All confidence between us is lost!" and threatening to resign. Sept. 29 and Oct. 6 other meetings occurred to revise the proposed correspondence, and other elders began to get their eyes open. Between Oct. 6 and 13 Bro. Thackway, recognizing that H.J.S. was using him as a catspaw, withdrew from the whole matter, so informing each elder by letter. Oct. 13 the final draft of the correspondence was signed by 11 of the 18 elders. Oct. 14 (Saturday) H.J.S. wrote a letter to the other seven asking them to sign. Monday, Oct. 16, this letter reached them, and all refused, making a deadlock. Oct. 20 another meeting was held, but no converts either way were made. Bro. Seeck, the Secretary, wrote his accompanying letter Saturday, Oct. 21; but despite the intention of H.J.S. and W.C. to send it Oct. 21, according to the Secretary's notes the correspondence was not mailed until the following week, perhaps Monday, Oct. 23. Thus the correspondence left the London Bethel about 8 days 

Gershonism. 

22 

before our Pastor's death; and the British censorship delayed its arrival at Brooklyn until after his burial. 

A "covering letter" of the most deceitfully flattering kind, and a report, calculated to intimidate our Pastor by hints of a threatening disaster to the Ecclesia, unless the suggested program was accepted by him, were sent with the resolution, which we herewith give: "It is RESOLVED as follows: The elders consider it to be in the best interests of the Church meeting in the London Tabernacle that [1] the arrangements governing its affairs be organized on the lines laid down in Volume VI, which they accept as the Scriptural method [thus they told our Pastor that his arrangements were unscriptural], [2] and they desire to submit this suggestion to Bro. Russell for his opinion and advice before bringing the matter forward at the annual church meeting shortly to be held [thus they persisted in a course that they knew our Pastor would disapprove, and that the Church had almost unanimously disapproved, as shown above]. [3] At the same time the elders especially put on record their earnest desire that Bro. Russell continue as Pastor [yes, indeed, but shorn of his pastoral powers!], and [4] that the unique standing of the London Tabernacle in relation to the Society's work remain unchanged [an impossible thing, since the Ecclesia's unique relation to the Society's (his) work was due to his unique relation to it]. [5] Further that all the speakers at the preaching services be periodically selected by the board of elders [this meant that not the Ecclesia, but the elders, should determine who should speak to it! Clericalism!], [6] and that the names of the brethren selected be submitted to Bro. Russell, so that (in view of the responsibility of the service) they may hope to receive such pastoral advice as he might think appropriate to offer." [Henceforth our Pastor was to be reduced to an adviser, not controller, in Tabernacle affairs!]

Libniism. 

23 

The resolution did not ask that J.H., our Pastor's and the Ecclesia's choice as assistant Pastor, be as such set aside; for that would have been dangerous to suggest. This was to be taken care of after "all of the speakers at the preaching services" were "periodically selected by the board of elders!" The covering letter, report and resolution of H.J.S. and W. C., next to Harvest Siftings, constitute the most hypocritical piece of literature that we have seen turned out by any Levitical leader during the time of the present Levite ascendancy. 

Our secret opposition to their Tabernacle plans provoked their secret and later open opposition to us. Dec. 24 we addressed the Tabernacle congregation as the Society's special representative, suggesting that they elect and assign whom they wished as speakers, whom they should select only from the standpoint of Scriptural qualifications, just as they pleased, without any further advice from the members of the Bethel family, adding, however, that they should not give to the elders, but reserve to themselves, the power of selecting and appointing all elders to their respective services. However, we did not in any way reveal the activities of the 11 elders to the Ecclesia. We then strictly charged the managers and other Bethelites to abstain from efforts to influence the election in any manner, specifically cautioning them to refrain from speaking on the subject to any one in the congregation. This we did in order to give the Ecclesia the freest opportunity of expressing its preferences. We refrained from doing that from which we asked others to refrain. H.J.S.'s violation of this charge was the direct means of letting the Ecclesia know, what we had thoroughly concealed from it, only a few elders knowing of our stand, i.e., our opposition to the plan of the 11 signatory elders. Thus in spite of our efforts to keep the trouble secret, he brought it into

Gershonism. 

24 

the open by disregarding the charge of the Society's special representative. 

Of the two erring managers, H.J.S. was by far the better-hearted and more reasonable. W.C. was, we believe, the most stubborn Levite with whom we have had to deal. Our loving efforts to bring them to repentance failed utterly in the case of the latter, but did in part succeed with the former, until W.C. got hold of him, when he changed for the worse. Christmas afternoon in Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, H.J.S. and ourself took a walk. During this walk, which lasted several hours, we made perhaps the most loving effort of our life to rescue a brother from a wrong course. At the end of our conversation he acknowledged his wrong-doing, promising betterment, among other ways, by the expression: "You will see, dear brother, that I can eat humble pie." We embraced him in our joy of heart (Jas. 5:20), assuring him that we felt sure he would do the right thing. A few days later W.C. had changed him, and he contended that he had done no wrong. This prompted us to advise the former Dec. 31, and the latter Jan. 1, not to stand for election to eldership in a Church against whose liberties they had so greatly sinned. Both refused to stand aside, the former giving as his reason that he would thereby become liable to conscription, both offering not to serve, if permitted to stand for election. We consented to such an arrangement on condition that they would to us as the Society's representative privately acknowledge their wrongs, and promise to abstain from such wrongs in the future. Both refused to make such acknowledgments. Their refusal caused us to give them up as hopeless cases, i.e., deliver them to the fit man, Jan. 14, 1917, being the date of this act. 

In the meantime Bro. Thackway became busy with a set of resolutions that were directly contradictory to the plan of H.J.S. He wanted our advice; but 

Libniism. 

25 

we refrained from speaking either way, because of our above-mentioned suggestion to the Bethel family. Had H.J.S. and W.C. apologized, we would have intervened in a way to prevent their exposure, but not prevent these resolutions from being voted on. Their refusal to apologize, and H.J.S.'s bringing out the trouble before the Church prompted J.H., who acted as our representative and at our suggestion, to state that if H.J.S. should defend his course, as to his clericalistic activity, he (J.H.) should express to the Ecclesia, Jan. 21, 1917, our disapproval, as the Society's commissioner, of the whole movement culminating in the above-quoted resolution; and he suggested that, if the Ecclesia desired it, we would as the Society's representative give our thought on the entire movement. The Ecclesia voted to hear us the following Sunday, Jan. 28. While addressing the Ecclesia we, through the answers given to a series of our questions, learned how, in reading part of a letter of our Pastor, through suppressing the sentences following, H.J.S. made the nine elders believe the letter to mean the opposite of what it did mean, thereby enlisting their support of his plan. The knowledge of this deliberate deception of his fellow elders, coming on the heels of that of many others of his wrong-doings in the Bethel and Tabernacle, of which we had but recently learned, filled us with righteous indignation. And we administered to him before the Ecclesia the severest rebuke that we have ever given a human being. This rebuke was in a sense premature, because, contrary to our impression that the full facts had been laid before the congregation the Sunday before, the Ecclesia knew but little of the facts of the case. The majority of them, however, had learned to know that more or less wrong had been done, especially by the two managers. About 30 to 40 were much dissatisfied at our rebuke of the two. Some 

Gershonism. 

26 

of these wrote and cabled J. F. R. and aroused his opposition to us. 

In H.J.S.'s answer to us, Jan. 28, he asked the Ecclesia to "disregard the statements of this stranger in their midst." This prompted us to have our letter of appointment and our credentials read to the Ecclesia that evening by the Secretary of the Church, that the Church might know what powers "this stranger in their midst" had. This deepened the unfavorable impression against H.J.S. and W. C. 

Feb. 4 the Ecclesia passed an anti-textbookism resolution and required each of the signatory elders to promise submission to the arrangements of the Ecclesia. Thus before the Ecclesia the clericalistic movement was killed; and its two prime movers were not to be voted on as elders, until we should be heard again, and that on the facts of the case, which, contrary to our impression on. Jan. 28, had been but meagerly given to the Ecclesia. It was voted that we be invited to give the facts to the Ecclesia Feb. 18. Accordingly, we then appeared a second time before the Church on this subject. For three hours we spoke, first clearing away the dust that our opponents had thrown into the eyes of many; then accusing them of seven general wrongs, consisting of many particulars, against various ones concerned. They were the following: I. They engineered the whole clericalistic movement by inaugurating and then advocating it, making the rough draft of the letter, report and resolution, moving and seconding the resolution, seeking to secure the signature of all the elders, holding it for signature, and sending it to Brooklyn. II. Disloyalty to their Fellow-elders, in that they deceived them into signing the resolution, and then gloated over it. III. Disloyalty to J.H. as Assistant Pastor by seeking to set him as such aside, and by seeking equality with him in the Ecclesia, both of these things being against the known wishes of that Servant and of the Ecclesia.

Libniism. 

27 

IV. Disloyalty to the Ecclesia, by seeking to get control over it, and by seeking to set aside its almost unanimously voted wishes against having a "wider pulpit platform." V. Disloyalty to that Servant by designating his arrangements as unscriptural, by seeking to take away his controllership of Tabernacle arrangements, including his appointment of speakers, and by seeking, contrary to his known policy, to divide the Tabernacle congregation into a number of small and uninfluential churches. VI. Disloyalty to the Truth, by seeking to practice clericalism, by countenancing text-bookism and by encouraging and co-operating with the advocates of these. VII. Conscious disloyalty to their office, by asking Bro. Thackway to introduce a resolution which H.J.S. said was against his office functions; by objecting through fear of the consequences to their names appearing in the communication to Bro. Russell as mover and seconder of the resolution; by seeking to muzzle the elders from communicating individually to our Pastor on their activities as to the resolution; by severely rebuking J.H. for informing our Pastor of their doings; by reading the garbled section of Bro. Russell's letter, whereby the elders were deceived into believing that our Pastor favored their objects; and by objecting to Bro. Russell's being informed as to how his letter of Oct. 22, 1915, came to be shown the elders. Every one of these particulars coming under the general heads above given were proven by witnesses on whom we called from among the congregation as we proceeded. When we finished, W.C. made a short reply, and two weeks later, in our absence, made a long reply. The congregation unanimously voted us confidence, thanks and appreciation for our labors on its behalf; and in spite of every pressure to the contrary from "the channel," has maintained its stand that the two were unworthy of being elders. J. F. R.'s Investigative Committee was unanimous

Gershonism. 

28 

in its decision that they were unworthy of eldership in the Tabernacle congregation. We believe that this decision is the Lord's mind on the subject. 

Against the mass of facts that we marshaled against them they took refuge in the usual plea of wrongdoers against their exposers: "He was too severe on us." After over 21 years' removal from the events connected with the Tabernacle trouble we are of the opinion that, while we did deal severely with them on Jan. 28, 1917, there was full justification for our severity in the gross and wilful sins of which they were guilty. Had we to do it over again, we would, in view of the evil use that they have made of our severity, proceed more mildly than we did, not that they deserved it, nor that we did wrong in being so severe as their conduct drove us to be, but not to give them an occasion to deceive guileless people into believing that they were martyrs at our hands; for the Scriptures most severely arraign them, and justify us in the entire transaction. Do the Levites condemn us? Well, we can bear this; for without fail in due time the Lord will bring forth our righteousness as the light and our judgment as the noonday. Until then faith, hope, love and obedience can wait; and when that time comes the Priests and the Levites will rejoice together, recognizing that our work as to the Tabernacle affair was that of co-operating under our Head with some of the Under-priests in leading a section of Azazel's Goat to the Gate of the Court and to the fit man, and that it was a means in God's hand finally to lead to the cleansing of many (Num. 8:7). 

We will now briefly set forth our experiences connected with, and our findings in, the London Bethel matter. At our second meeting with the managers, Nov. 23, we saw the unconcealed and ill-tempered efforts of H.J.S. and W.C. to discredit J.H. in our estimation. This was continued privately at our 9 P. M. dinners as well as in the managers' meeting of 

Libniism. 

29 

Nov. 25, though for the most part in that meeting the two managers were on the defensive, in view of our detailed questioning on Tabernacle conditions. Whereas before hearing our decision adverse to their Tabernacle plans, they sought hard to win us to their program, treating us in every way as having powers of attorney in "the business and affairs of the Society"; after hearing our decision they began a whispering campaign against us; especially did W.C. do this, among others with his father-in-law, F. G. Guard, Sr., a prominent British brother. They pointedly defied us on arranging the program for the Manchester Convention. In this J.H. co-operated, though he pled ignorance of their intentions on the subject, a plea which we accepted. We will give a brief description of the controversy on the program. H.J.S. late in November showed us the program which he had arranged for the Manchester Convention, Dec. 30 - Jan. 1. It was a program very different from those that our Pastor arranged, both here and in Britain. First, the Society's representatives occupied on the program less time by far than elders of various Classes. The only British pilgrim of the Society apart from the managers was left off the program entirely. Nor was H.J.S. on the program. In other words, additional to elders as leaders of the Convention Testimony Meetings, thirteen talks on the program were given to local elders, and three, including the chairman's address, were given to the Society's representatives. We suggested that less addresses be given to local elders and more to the Society's representatives. Second, the Convention baptismal service was to take place the evening before the Convention began, depriving the candidates of the inspiration of the Convention uplift prior to their symbolizing. Third, there was no place on the program for Harvesters' Day. We suggested that in these particulars the program be altered in harmony 

Gershonism. 

30 

with our Pastor's arrangements. These we were told were not suitable for Britain, though, on our request to see programs of conventions held while our Pastor was in Britain, we were shown a number that were just as we suggested Convention programs should be. We even wrote to them emphasizing the necessity of making the changes that we suggested. Later the managers held a meeting in which, according to a letter that H.J.S. wrote us Dec. 11, and that we received Dec. 14, apart from putting himself and ourself on the program, they declined to follow our suggestions. At once we saw that the managers were defying us, and were asserting their authority as superior to ours. Thus they challenged us to battle. 

Remembering what our Pastor, Oct. 21, at Dallas, Tex., had told us about responsible British brethren refusing to follow his directions as to the British work, and remembering the wrongs that we were day by day learning, we decided, after most careful and prayerful consideration of their action, that we must not allow such a defiant course to stand; otherwise our mission in Britain, so far as the Bethel and Tabernacle matters were concerned, would end in total failure; for we saw that, if we should weaken on this point, we would be weaker to resist them on their next point, while they thereby would be made stronger to resist us. Hence we decided to act energetically, which we did to their surprise; for as H.J. S told our secretary, they thought us a weakling. Our decision, confirmed by the principles of the Word and a number of Providences, was reached Dec. 19, and on Dec. 20 in a managers' meeting, after the pertinent part of H.J.S.'s letter was read to them, we told them that by their action they had set aside our credential-powers, and hence we insisted on their reversing their decision, and printing the program exactly as we had suggested. To H.J.S.'s reply that the matter would have to be discussed first, we answered to the effect

Libniism. 

31 

that not one word of discussion would be permitted, that it was for them to carry out the suggestion of the Society's Special Representative, who had full charge of its "business and affairs in every country to which he was sent," and not to discuss whether it should be done or not. Then W. C., contrary to many an act of his before we announced our opposition to their Tabernacle plans, pretending ignorance, said he did not understand that we had such authority. When we reminded them of our credentials and some of their acts in harmony therewith, he said he did not remember such powers to be mentioned in the credentials. These were then again read to the managers. Then telling them that our suggestions must be carried out we left the room. They discussed matters a while; then H.J.S. and W.C. came to us, seeking to change our mind, which they could not succeed in doing. We took the program out of H.J.S.'s hands, and gave it to J.H. to carry out as we suggested; for we feared that H.J.S. would not change it as we desired. This experience with the managers made us miss the afternoon meeting at Oxford, as the dear ones there will doubtless remember that we failed to come in time. 

Saturday evening, Dec. 22, we had another meeting with the managers, at which W.C. being defiant, but H.J.S. making a half apology and promising to follow our suggestions in the future, as a token of our forgiveness we asked him to attend to the program, which we then revised, making it as much like our Pastor's program as the circumstances of a Convention just 8 days ahead would permit. A letter was to be dispatched by H.J.S. immediately to Manchester to secure the place for the baptismal service for the changed time. This letter for some reason that we could not certainly learn, but that we fear was due to H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s manipulations, failed to reach Manchester until the day before the Convention, Dec. 

Gershonism. 

32 

29, too late to secure the baptismal place for the changed service; for technicalities relating to the renting of such places prevented changes on such short notice. W.C. by a whispering campaign sought to injure us with certain prominent British brethren for our action as to the program, of course following the usual Levitical propensity of misrepresenting the facts; and he succeeded with certain of these, as several of them later on told us. 

Another matter that affected us against these brothers was their attempt through our secretary, F. G. Guard, Jr., a brother-in-law of W. C., to divert us from our duty and unduly to influence us in their favor. After it became known to them that he was to travel with us as a helper, H.J.S. asked him to seek to influence us favorably to themselves as against J: H.! They also sought through him the afternoon of Dec. 22 to change our mind on the Convention program. As their mouthpiece he sought earnestly but unsuccessfully to induce us to accept their view of the program, and to keep our hands off Bethel and Tabernacle matters, warning us that, if we did not confine our efforts to the pilgrim work, they by a secret campaign would undermine our influence. Among other things he said with reference to the program: "Brother, surely you would not foist an American institution on British brethren." We replied, "We are neither British nor American; we are Spiritual Israelites, and this is an arrangement of Spiritual Israelites." F. G. Guard, Jr., was a thorough example of the double-mindedness of the Great Company. For awhile after he had been with them he would side with them; then after our explanations he would take our side against them. This double-mindedness continued until he ceased being our secretary, when partly under family influence he went over entirely to their side. Next to J.H. he gave us more information on the Bethel wrong-doings of the two than any one else; 

Libniism. 

33 

while Bro. Seeck, the Secretary of the Ecclesia, gave us the most information on Tabernacle matters. Indeed, the latter gave us a well arranged documentary history of the Tabernacle trouble that has been of invaluable help to us in tracing the work of the two during their several years of activity against our beloved Pastor's Tabernacle arrangements. 

We asked J.H. to draw up a list of the Bethel offenses committed by the two. This he did and presented them in a managers' meeting the evening of Jan. 8, 1917. Most of those against himself H.J. S admitted. To most of those against himself W.C. gave very evasive replies, which under our questioning became apparent as sophistries. H.J.S. for his part promised that he would not do such things in the future. W.C. would promise nothing. His attitude, however, was less defiant than at the managers' meeting the evening of Dec. 22. The charges that J.H. brought against them impressed us deeply. We learned after the meeting that H.J.S.'s answers before the Ecclesia to Bro. Thackway's resolutions, offered Jan. 7 to the Ecclesia, publicly divulged the trouble; and thus their offenses, their secret whisperings for weeks and his public statement began to create an acute condition outside of Bethel. This prompted us to awaken the two early Jan. 9—early because we had to leave early on a pilgrim trip—and to tell them frankly that their influence would be destroyed, if their course became clearly known to the British Church. We assured them that we would help them out of their predicament, if they would promise betterment. When the evening before W.C. asked us to withdraw our advice that he do not allow his name to be voted on as elder, claiming that as an elder he could better secure exemption from military service, we, in view of his offenses and impenitence, refused to agree, telling him that his course was one that doubtless required some such corrective experience. The morning 

Gershonism. 

34 

of Jan. 9 he renewed the request. H.J.S. asked also to be permitted to stand as a candidate for elder, both offering, without our suggesting it, to abstain from occupying the pulpit, if elected. Reminding them of their grave offenses against the Ecclesia, we yet promised that we would reconsider the matter. This we did with the result that we offered to accept their proposition, if they would privately to us as the Society's representative acknowledge and apologize for their wrong-doings in Tabernacle and Bethel matters, and promise betterment for the future. As to this W.C. wrote us to the following effect: that while he did not see any wrong-doing on his part in the matters charged against him, nevertheless, since we, as the Society's representative, required an apology from him, he was sorry for the whole affair. His letter, clothed in the most evasive language, was an insult instead of an apology. This caused us to drop him as hopeless, Jan. 14, 1917—delivered him to the fit man. 

H.J.S. wrote a long letter Jan. 11, which will be quoted in part later on, defending himself as righteous altogether, in a false argument based on false premises, among other things, telling us that on the following Monday, Jan. 15, he would send to Brooklyn a copy of his letter of Jan. 11, with his "formal resignation." This letter prompted us to give him up as a hopeless case, Jan. 14, as we have already shown. 

We herewith submit a list of their wrong-doings in Bethel matters, together with their offenses against us as the Society's representative, remarking that J.H. and F. G. Guard, Jr., gave us decidedly the most of the information thereon. Some of the charges are in J.H.'s own language. All three managers will remember that he brought and read them as charges against the two in the managers' meeting the evening of Jan. 8. In his handwriting he gave us a copy of them, which we yet have. 

Libniism. 

35 

The following are W.C.'s managerial offenses: 

1. "He paid all household accounts contrary to the regulations that call for two managers to sign the cheques and put them into the hands of Sr. Hemery for payment." 

2. "He pays little attention to instruction of the regulations that no money be paid except by the voucher system." 

3. "Without authority from Brooklyn or vote of other managers, he appointed his wife housekeeper." 

4. He opened privately addressed mail of others. 

5. He had a key which he knew opened J.H.'s roller top desk: J.H. missed things therefrom. 

6. Created an unfavorable atmosphere at Bethel. 

7. Taught the Ecclesias, contrary to the Scriptures and Bro. Russell, that the Church is actually, not reckonedly, purchased, i.e., that there is not now an imputation of Jesus' merit, but an outright purchase. 

The following are H.J.S.'s managerial offenses 

1. "Kept I. B. S. A. things as a private matter." 

(1) Correspondence unsubmitted to other managers. 

(2) Association books kept in his private safe. 

2. "Gradually all things pertaining to Classes and meetings came under his care, including Class difficulties." 

3. "Assumed the right of making all arrangements for Conventions." 

4. "Kept back from J.H. some doctrinal matters, e.g., question box." 

5. "Chose and rejected work at will, without authority," e.g., 1. Military matters; 2. Colporteur work. 

6. Foisted the boarding of his whole family upon the Society, contrary to Bro. Russell's arrangements. 

7. With his family helped make an oppressive atmosphere at Bethel. 

The following are their combined offenses: 

1. They disregarded Bro. Russell's desire that J.H. have priority of influence. 

Gershonism. 

36 

A. Bro. Russell desired J.H. to have priority of influence, as can be seen from his offices: 

(1) Secretary of the Society in Britain. (2) Vice-president of I.B.S.A. (3) Chairman of the managers. (4) Bro. Russell's private Secretary. (5) Assistant Pastor. (6) His signature necessary on all cheques. (7) Commended above others in Bro. Russell's letter to Congregation. 

B. Their contention for equality and crowding him out of some of his rights prove this charge. 

2. "Came into office to carry out programs of their own." 

3. "Persistently refused to give J.H. supervision of mails," which Bro. Russell charged should be done. 

4. Attempted financial control. 

(1) Secured power with J.H.'s consent, against our Pastor's arrangements, to make cheques valid for I. B. S. A. money without J.H.'s signature. 

(2) Began to make the I.B.S.A. banking account large instead of nominal, contrary to our Pastor's instructions, which limited the deposits to the value of the shares issued, i.e., £23, £1 for each of the 23 shares issued. 

(3) Sought to make the I.B.S.A. independent of the W.T.B.&T.S., through the "scheme," which we exposed and published in Harvest Siftings Reviewed. 

5. Worked in collusion against J.H. 

6. Disregarded Bro. Johnson in his official capacity. 

(1) Set aside the amendments he made to the Manchester Convention program. 

(2) Privately and publicly disparaged him. 

(3) W.C. sought to entrap him into accusing W.C. of opening one of Bro. Johnson's letters.

Libniism. 

37 

(4) Disregarded his advice to refrain from standing for election as elders. 

(5) Disregarded his advice to acknowledge wrong-doing against Bro. Russell and the Tabernacle Congregation as to the Resolution and Bethel matters. 

(6) Attempted to use the first and second steps of Matt. 18:15 - 18 against Bro. Johnson for an official act against their wrong-doing, even arranging for the witnesses of the second, before taking the first step. 

(7) W.C. sought to discipline a Bethel Sister for giving Bro. Johnson information as to a letter of his that she said she saw unopened, after it came to the office, but that W.C. said came to the office opened by the string that bound the package of letters containing it, the torn edges of the letter indicating that it was opened, not by a string, but by hand. 

(8) Kept up an espionage system on Bro. Johnson and those who were helping him. 

(9) Falsified to and against him. 

(10) In general were oppositional to him. 

In a long letter dictated Jan. 11, 1917, in answer to ours of Jan. 9, to the effect that we would withdraw our advice against his standing for election as elder, if he would apologize as above set forth, H.J.S. attempted to prove himself a faithful representative of "that Servant," endeavoring to carry out his desire (?) to be relieved of non-financial Tabernacle responsibilities, and by inference blaming us as the troublemaker. H.J.S. tried in that letter to twist our Pastor's correspondence, through which he suggested various ways of relieving the Tract Fund of expenses, into meaning that our Pastor desired to be relieved of his non-financial obligations to the Tabernacle Congregation. A few familiar facts will show all how grossly 

Gershonism. 

38 

H.J.S. in his letter distorted the entire situation. All of us recall how greatly the financial support of the Tract Fund decreased during 1915 and 1916, necessitating in the former year the borrowing of $100,000.00. To keep the work going our dear Pastor had to curtail expenses right and left. Among other ways of saving, instead of the Tract Fund being longer responsible for the finances of the London Tabernacle, he asked, June 10, 1915, the Tabernacle Congregation to assume all current expenses, and the interest of the $20,000 mortgage on the Tabernacle, for which he had been bearing responsibility. This fact and that of giving H.J.S. and W.C. each opportunity to preach in the Tabernacle once a month—despite his having J.H. occupy the pulpit twice a month, and having him act as his pastoral representative in the Ecclesia; despite his advising other strenuous economies; and despite his not mentioning such a purpose—H.J.S. distorted into being a part of a new policy whereby our Pastor was, supposedly, seeking to surrender all his Tabernacle responsibilities. All of H.J.S.'s agitational acts leading up to the resolution movement prove that he had no such thought of our Pastor's purpose about certain changes that the latter made as to Tabernacle speakers and finance, until some time between Sept. 1 and 16, 1916, when he used it as so much propaganda. Surely, if our Pastor did not wish to maintain his control of Tabernacle arrangements, he would have mentioned it; and surely there would have been no occasion for H.J.S. and W.C. to conspire for over a year to create such sentiment as was calculated to win support for their scheme and to intimidate our Pastor into surrendering to their wishes, all the time being fearful that he would learn of their acts! H.J.S.'s letter, like Harvest Siftings, is an illustration of how Levites will distort the plainest facts to gain their selfish ends and justify their patent wrongs. The letter consists of five typewritten pages, each one 11x8 inches, single spaced,

Libniism. 

39 

and, of course, our limited space prohibits our publishing it entire. However, we will with bracketed comments give entire that part of the letter that seeks to prove that in his activity against our Pastor's Tabernacle arrangements, he was seeking to carry out our Pastor's supposed wish to be relieved of all controllership in Tabernacle matters! This part of the letter follows in its entirety: 

"I must now endeavor to show you what were the factors which, consciously or subconsciously, controlled my action. 

"28, April, 1915. A letter from Bro. Russell dated April 28, 1915, and addressed to this Office, made very clear and emphatic the necessity for retrenchment; in the last clause he states—'Curtail all expenses accordingly. If this means the stopping the printing of B. S. Ms. entirely, do so.' 

"22, May, 1915. A further letter to the managers in Bro. Russell's handwriting and dated May 22, 1915, ends up as follows:— 'Surely avoid debt, if it necessitates closing down every department. Use judgment.' 

"10, June, 1915. In a letter dated June 10, 1915, and signed by Bro. Russell himself, he says:—'The fixed charges of interest on mortgage and light and heat and janitoring [of the Tabernacle] should be computed and laid before the Congregation. Congregational work and the Society's work should be kept separate and apart. The Congregation should be able now, without any solicitation or effort, to pay more than the interest and running expenses, and for the Sunday evening teas, etc. This would leave the Society the care of the Bethel and its expenses, which should be cut down to the lowest reasonable figure.' Surely, this means that Bro. Russell desired the Society to be relieved of the responsibility of the Tabernacle. The foregoing impressed me with the view that Bro. Russell thought it wise for the Society's affairs in Great Britain to be so ordered and conducted as to enable a 

Gershonism. 

40 

closing down to be effected quite readily at any time, and this thought was endorsed by Bro. Russell's action in reference to the lease on these premises, which he tried hard to be relieved of at this same time. [He desired only relief from financial responsibility to avoid debt, as the tenor of all letters so far quoted, in the light of decreasing gifts to the Tract Fund, proves.] 

"12, Aug., 1915. Towards the end of Aug. the three managers received a letter (a copy sent to each) dated Aug. 12, 1915, and signed by Bro. Russell, in which he said, among other things:—'I have reason to believe that by now Bro. Hemery would find efficient assistance in Bros. Shearn and Crawford for the preaching services at the Tabernacle. I would not wish the pulpit there ever to be occupied except in a very decorous manner and by some one reasonably qualified in the use of the English language and of some natural ability. For the time being, I would like still to continue Bro. Hemery as my representative in that pulpit and to know that he would be occupying it one-half the time, leaving the other half to Bros. Shearn and Crawford, or occasionally some other Brother from the Congregation upon whose qualifications you three Brethren managers would unitedly agree.' And later on Bro. Russell says:—'I think, dear Brethren, that the right time has come for us to set our house in order.' [Not one word in the quotations refers to his desiring to be relieved from controlling the Tabernacle arrangements. The reverse is proven in the first of these two quotations; for therein he arranged for its appointments.] 

"20, Aug., 1915. On Aug. 20, 1915, a letter was sent from the managers in which we stated: 'The Tabernacle Congregation very heartily fell in with the suggestion that it should take responsibility for the finances incurred in the regular running. Enclosed is a copy of the resolutions passed by the Congregation on the suggestion of the elders. [True, but this does not 

Libniism. 

41 

imply that he wished to be relieved from controlling the Ecclesia's arrangements. It shows, on the contrary, that the Ecclesia came to the relief of the depleted Tract Fund by "doing its bit."]' 

"22, Oct., 1915. The next word upon the matter was from Bro. Russell in a letter dated Oct. 22, 1915, and reads as follows:—'In respect to the Tabernacle arrangements being turned over to the Congregation, we reply that if they are ready to take up all the obligations of the Society connected with the Tabernacle [this included its assuming the mortgage, which it has not assumed], including interest payments, etc., we will be very happy indeed to turn over the entire management of the Tabernacle to the Congregation. Kindly advise us if you believe this to be the thought. Until such time [italics ours], of course, the Society [himself] will continue the management of the Tabernacle according to its [his] judgment.' Here, again, Bro. Russell made known his wish for the Society to be relieved of the Tabernacle responsibilities. This important information was never made known to the Congregation, or in any way acted upon, but it showed to me that Bro. Russell contemplated a different policy for the Tabernacle, and was ready for it so soon as the Congregation was ready. [The last quotation proves a number of things: (1) That someone, whose identity we were never able to establish, suggested to our Pastor that the Congregation have charge of its arrangements, since it was paying its current expenses. How like H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s contentions on the same subject this contention is. (2) Our Pastor offered the Ecclesia that privilege, if it would shoulder all the financial obligations that the Society (himself) had assumed for it. This, of course, included the mortgage, and perhaps the past payments on the building, and the past interest on the mortgage, none of which the Ecclesia had yet assumed; (3) that our Pastor instructed the three managers to find out 

Gershonism. 

42 

whether the Ecclesia wished to assume such obligations, which it had not dreamed of doing; (4) that if the Ecclesia was not willing to assume these, the Society (himself) would continue to manage the Tabernacle as hitherto. H.J.S. complains that this offer was never made known to the Ecclesia. If not, he was as much responsible for it as anyone. Deep down in his heart he knew that such an offer would have caused consternation to the Ecclesia, for two reasons: (1) It wished our Pastor to continue to control its arrangements; (2) it could not well have assumed such heavy financial obligations. On his having been told that the Ecclesia wanted to assume all its financial obligations and thereafter take control of its arrangements, financial stress prompted our Pastor to make the offer in order to obtain relief from the stress, if such was the Ecclesia's thought. The first sentence of the quotation on which we are commenting is that part of one of our Pastor's letters which H.J.S. and W.C. read to the elders Sept. 16, 1916, and by which they deceived the other elders into believing that our Pastor wished to rid himself of controllership of the Tabernacle arrangements. The rest of the quotation, which gives the reverse impression from the one that they wished to convey to the elders, they concealed from the other elders, on the plea that the rest of the letter was private! It was while we were addressing the Ecclesia, Jan. 21, 1917, on the course of the two, that we discovered and then exposed this trick, to the complete rout of the two managers. This foiled their plot.] 

"At an elders' meeting held on Oct. 22, 1915, the question was discussed, in view of the Church now paying its own expenses, as to whether the limitations now upon the elders and deacons should be withdrawn—leaving the Congregation free to place the control of its services and activities in their hands. [Italics ours.] The matter was deferred for consideration of the new board of elders. In the event of the question being 

Libniism. 

43 

raised at the business meeting, it was decided to tell the Church that the elders had the position under consideration, and their decision would be sent Bro. Russell. 

"The action you now take exception to was really the fulfilment of this obligation. [There was no obligation imposed on anybody by the fact that the elders at H.J.S.'s and W.C.'s instance discussed that question and deferred action thereon. Had these two brothers been true to their duty, they would have felt obliged to report to our Pastor that they, his representatives, were trying to betray him. Their obligation was the reverse of the course they took; while such a discussion on the part of the elders put them under no obligation. Even had the elders commissioned them to betray our Pastor, would such a commission have obligated them to carry out the commission? How shallow is his reasoning!] 

"29, Oct., 1915. The next expression of desire on the part of any of the Congregation for a change in policy was expressed by one of the deacons at a joint elders' and deacons' meeting, held Oct. 29, 1915, when a suggestion was made that the affairs of the Church should be entirely in the hands of the elders and deacons [italics ours], since the Congregation was bearing the financial responsibility. The Chairman, Bro. Hemery, in reply, stated that an entire change of policy would be involved, and the Church had not asked for it at the time it took over the finances. Such a change would need more discussion and thought. The elders were already considering the proposition, and it would be further considered by the new board.' 

"28, Nov., 1915. On Sunday, Nov. 28, 1915, at a church meeting (not annual business meeting), the feeling was expressed that some change of policy might be desirable in respect to the appointment of speakers for the Tabernacle Sunday services. It was moved:—'That in view of the Congregation now paying 

Gershonism. 

44 

the Tabernacle expenses the Church suggests that the services of the elders be extended to the filling of Sunday Tabernacle appointments.' [This was one of our Pastor's functions, as a quotation given above proves.] 

"'The Chairman, Bro. Hemery, stated that to a limited extent the alteration was in operation. Bro. Russell, as Pastor, reserved to himself the appointment of the speakers at the Tabernacle services, but recently expressed that Bros. Shearn and Crawford should serve more frequently in this way, giving Bro. Hemery opportunity to serve provincial classes.' [This he also did increasingly.] 

"This motion was lost by a considerable majority and the Chairman intimated that the feeling of the minority would be expressed to Bro. Russell. [J.H. denied that he ever made such a promise.] 

"The result of the vote on this occasion would have been very different, in my estimation, had the expression of Bro. Russell's mind—as given in his letter of Oct. 22—been made known to the Congregation. [Different, we opine, in that its vote would have been about unanimous.] 

"I have no knowledge of Bro. Russell's having been informed even of the feeling of the minority, and nothing which has transpired since would indicate that this was done. [We much doubt the statement as to our Pastor not having been told the sentiment of the minority.] 

"March and April, 1916. The next thing of interest bearing upon this matter was the raising of the sum necessary to pay off the mortgage upon the Tabernacle by debenture bonds, which were fully subscribed for by the friends in Great Britain. This took place in March and April, 1916. [This was another step of our Pastor to relieve the depleted Tract Fund.] 

"1, Sept., 1916. The feeling that the time had come for some alteration in the arrangements governing the 

Libniism. 

45 

Tabernacle greatly increased during the year [in the hearts of a few ambitious elders and deacons, seemingly with almost no others], so much so that when the subject was approached at the elders' meeting, held on Friday, Sept. 1, 1916, it was unanimously agreed to hold a special elders' meeting on Saturday afternoon and evening, Sept. 16, to go fully into the question. [Above we showed how H.J.S. used Bro. Thackway as a catspaw to arouse the elders' interest.] 

"16, Sept., 1916. At this meeting, Bro. Hemery suggested that, as the question of the office of Assistant Pastor was involved, he would willingly retire during part of the proceedings, but at the unanimous request of the elders he remained in the chair. A resolution submitted to the meeting was carried UNANIMOUSLY—the chairman not voting. It was suggested that a majority and minority report be drawn up for submission to Bro. Russell for the expression of his mind upon the matter. [This proves that the elders were not unanimous on changing matters.] 

"21, Oct., 1916. A majority Report, including a Resolution proposed by myself and seconded by Bro. Crawford and signed by eleven out of eighteen elders, was sent to Bro. Russell, a copy of which you have seen. 

"If you will kindly note carefully the various dates mentioned in the present communication, you will observe that—so far as is known to me—[?] the first suggestion of alteration in policy came from Bro. Russell himself in his letter dated Oct. 22, 1915. [This statement is out of harmony with the facts of the case; for before his letter was received, the elders, as H.J.S. above showed, discussed the question Oct. 22, 1915.] The obligations referred to in that letter could not be the financial obligations, as these were all [?] undertaken by the Congregation on Aug. 8, 1915, and Bro. Russell advised. [Above we showed that there were financial obligations, e.g., the mortgage, that the 

Gershonism. 

46 

Ecclesia had not assumed; and that undoubtedly our Pastor wished the Ecclesia to assume this so as to relieve the Society amid its heavy financial obligations, while contributions were decreasing.] Had I not been aware of the foregoing facts, I should not have acted as I did, but in the circumstances I feel I was entirely justified. 

As we read this letter we saw at once through its sophistries: and H.J.S.'s attempt to palm himself off as a faithful representative seeking to carry out the supposed wishes of "that Servant"—to be freed from controllership of the Tabernacle arrangements—while actually betraying him, disgusted us. This made us give him up as unhelpable by us; for the hypocrisy of the letter was too transparent to have any other effect. From that time on we expected one evil thing after another from him, and our expectations were not unrealized. 

The Bethel and Tabernacle offenses of the two and their persistent opposition to us in our loving efforts to right British matters, culminating in their attempt to apply Matt. 18:15-18 to us for our official acts against them, as the Society's special representative, finally forced us to dismiss them as managers, as a necessary remedy for the British situation. The Church knows the rest: How J. F. R. busy-bodied, among other things, appointed, to judge on the facts as between them and us, an Investigation Commission, that justified us and condemned the two managers respecting both the Bethel and Tabernacle matters; how J. F. R. with characteristic arbitrariness and self-opinionatedess rejected his own Commissioner's findings; how he sided with the dismissed managers as against us; how he sought to reinstate them; how the Lord prevented his setting aside our solution of the British situation; and how J. F. R., as a smoke screen to hide his own usurpations, misrepresented the British situation in Harvest Siftings, to the whole Church. Does anyone 

Libniism. 

47 

wonder how J. F. R., who knew the above-stated facts as to the wrong-doings of these two managers, could have taken sides with them as against us, whom, next to our Pastor, he once considered his best friend? The answer is simple: "Birds of a feather flock together." He was guilty of similar wrongs; therefore as their soul-mate he instinctively felt his heart kinship to them and his hostility to us, who opposed the usurpations of him and them alike. Hence, in the battle that we were waging for Truth and Righteousness against Revolutionists in their rebelling against the Lord's arrangements given through "that Servant" (Ps. 107:11), he instinctively felt that we must be crushed, if he would retain the fruits of his usurpations, and, of course, took the side of his like-minded and like-acting fellow-revolutionists! In this spirit he wrote Harvest Siftings, which, because of its gross wickedness, will be an eternal monument to his infamy; for it is one of the main features of that smiting referred to in Matt. 24:48-51. 

The bulk of the British Church, from its knowledge of the facts of the case, despite J. F. R.'s efforts at whitewashing the two managers, steadfastly rejected them as proper representatives of the Lord and of the Church. By them our solution of the British situation has been accepted, though the majority of them adhere to the Society. Does one wonder why our Pastor's solution of the trouble between A. H. MacMillan and J. F. R. on the one hand and H. C. Rockwell on the other hand; and our solution of the quarreling British managers' claims, have both resulted in the antitypical Mahlite Merarites in both America and Britain gaining control of the Society's affairs? We answer: God evidently designed the antitypical Mahlites to control three of the four Corporations, or Associations (symbolic wagons, Num. 7:1-8), which were to fall to the lot of the antitypical Merarite Levites i.e., Elisha was to get Elijah's mantle. Hence, He used our Pastor to

Gershonism. 

48 

solve the American situation, and us to solve the British situation in ways that providentially resulted in the achievement of His purpose, though neither our beloved Pastor nor ourself at the time understood the uses the Lord was making of each of us. 

But the antitypical Gershonites were to get two symbolic wagons, or chariots (Num. 7:1-8). So we should expect to find these in evidence. Nor have our expectations been in vain; for in America the P.B.I. is the corporation of the antitypical Shimite Gershonites, and in Britain a Committee of seven growing out of, and acting in sympathy with, Shearno-Crawfordism, having the two as members, is the Association that corresponds to the wagon of the typical Libnite Gershonites. As Gershon was the eldest son of Levi, and as Libni was the elder son of Gershon, so in Shearno-Crawfordism the antitypical Libnite Gershonites as the first set of antitypical Levites were manifested. The spiritual kinship of the P.B.I. (two of whose directors, I. Hoskins and J.D. Wright, knew of the wrongs of Shearno-Crawfordism, as can be seen from the findings of the Board's majority, June 20, 1917, given in Vol. III, Chap. VII) and "The Bible Students' Committee" (the name of the Shearno-Crawfordistic Committee in Britain) can be recognized from the very hearty endorsement that the P.B.I. gave the British Committee in the Herald of July 15, 1919, 210. Its sending I. Hoskins and R. E. Streeter to Britain to give them pilgrim and perhaps other help is also to the point. The sympathy of H.J.S. and W.C. with the P.B.I. can be seen in the first and third letters in the Herald '19, 112. Notice how in his letter W.C., i.e., Wm. Crawford, approves getting back to "the Old Paths." As an evidence of his insincerity as to the "Old Paths," we need only mention the fact that at about the time of writing that letter he published a tract against our Pastor's view of the Church being under the cover of Jesus' imputed 

Libniism. 

49 

merit, claiming that the Church is actually purchased—the heresy with which we charged him before the Board on our return from Britain. The initials H.J.S. at the end of the third letter on that same page stand for H.J. Shearn, ex-manager of the London in Bethel. We believe that the P.B.I. and the "Bible Students' Committee" are well mated in their mutual sympathy; for no other Corporation has so grossly sinned against "that Servant's" Charter arrangements as the P.B.I.; and the members of no other Committee have so grossly sinned or justified sins against "that Servant's" Bethel and Tabernacle arrangements as these two of the "Bible Students' Committee." 

This Committee published a number of circulars, one in May, 1919, another in July, 1919, and a third in Aug., 1919, making as a Committee, an offer of service to Non-Society-Adherents in Britain, somewhat after the manner of the Fort Pitt Committee's open letter of Mar., 1918. In these circulars, instead of a confession of their gross sins and a promise of amendment, on the part of H.J.S. and W. C., they complain that the Golden Rule was generally violated in what the connection implies was the course of the bulk of the British brethren and ourself toward them. Then, in their circulars, with gross hypocrisy, they offer to serve the brethren in harmony with "that Servant's" arrangements, which their main leaders, H.J.S. and W.C., so grossly violated. This is an illustration of the hypocrisy of the Libnite Gershonites, in their seeking to "draw disciples after them," even as the P.B.I's similar offer, accompanied with their agitating for and their making a charter different from "that Servant's" charter, is an example of the hypocrisy of the P.B.I., the Shimite Gershonites. It is because of such hypocrisy, revolutionism and other gross wrong-doings on their part that as a mouthpiece of the Lord we invite all God's Priests to sever themselves from these two institutions as parts of Little Babylon. 

Gershonism. 

50 

The Bible Students' Committee is seeking to get together as many British brethren as they can, even as the P.B.I. is trying to get together as many brethren as they can the world over. Additionally, the Bible Students' Committee is flirting with the Society for a reunion, even as the Greek Catholic Church has been flirting with the Roman Catholic Church for a reunion. In both sets of Babylon, not principle, but expediency, is the moving factor for reunion. In fact, we expect a co-operation of all the Levites against the Epiphany-enlightened Priests and against The Present Truth. Such a co-operation of Levites will act in the same spirit as the Papacy and the Federation have worked and will work against the Faithful. We understand that in Aug., 1920, fruitless efforts were made to bring about a reunion in Britain. It did not materialize in any other way than in the way the Prophet tells us those will be united who are folded together as full dry thorns fitted for the fire. 

The British and American Gershonites, as the firstborn of antitypical Levi, had the opportunity of becoming the chief antitypical Levites. But ambition to be somebodies and revolutionism as the grossest Levitical rebellion have hindered this, resulting in their becoming the lowest in honor and usefulness in service among the antitypical Levites, as was the case with the typical Gershonites.