P.B.I. REVOLUTIONISMS AGAINST GOD'S ARRANGEMENTS. SALIENT POINTS OF P.B.I. HISTORY. 

‍

SINCE that Servant's death there have been worldwide siftings among the Truth people. These siftings, so far as they concern the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company, have, generally speaking, been along the lines of what may be called Clericalism, for which a near Biblical term is Nicolaitanism. By this term the theory and conduct of certain leaders among the Lord's people are meant, whose peculiar activities are grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage. There would perhaps not have been such marked siftings, if the clericalists (the Nicolaitanes, Rev. 2:6, 15), had not attacked those who, standing for the Lord's arrangements as given through that Servant, resisted the former's revolutionism against these arrangements. After the Revolutionists had violated a number of these, certain brethren, taking note of it, meekly and lovingly sought to win them from their wrong course. Instead of the latter appreciating these loving efforts, and amending their ways, they with deeper schemes, sad to think and say, conspired to attain or retain their ambitious purposes, among other ways by misrepresenting first through a private, then later through a public political campaign, the former as ambitious and power-seeking persons, who must be resisted by all the brethren, it being claimed that the latter's liberty was being subverted by those whom the Revolutionists were pleased to call conspirators. In this the Clericalists acted somewhat after the manner of the fleeing thief, who, pursued down a busy street by a crowd that was crying

Gershonism. 

184 

out to the people ahead, "Stop the thief!" also joined in their cry, pointing toward and beyond the crowd ahead who were about to intercept him, and who, thus deceived, immediately turned and started in pursuit of the imaginary culprit, while the real culprit hid himself among the deluded crowd until it was wearied and gave up the chase. Tactics somewhat similar to these were pursued by the English managers, by "the present management" in the Society, and by the Group in the P.B.I. Only after the wrong-doers by such tactics had made matters public in a misleading but plausible light, did those who were faithful to the Lord's arrangements speak of the conditions with appropriate expostulations, and then only as they actually existed. 

The clericalists have been active as Revolutionists, grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage through violating the Lord's arrangements as given by that Servant in two spheres of activity: (1) in the general work as conducted from headquarters, and (2) in the local work as conducted in the local Ecclesias. In Britain all three British managers as counselors (not directors) of the I.B.S.A., which is a purely British, not an American, corporation, and in America the "present management" of the W.T.B.&T.S., and the Group of the P.B.I., we are grieved to be compelled to say, are among the clericalists who have by usurpation and trickery gotten control of the general work. It will be noticed that these three groups, as far as concerns their conflicts with one another, are divided into two groups. J. Hemery in British matters stands with "the present management" as against H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford, and in world-wide matters with "the present management" as against the so-called "opposition" among the old Board's members, whose successors are the P.B.I. 

That there is a growing sympathetic oneness between the P.B.I. and H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

185 

and their supporters, is evidenced, among other things, from F.G. Guard's letter in the Feb. 1, 1919, "Herald," page 48. This will become manifest from the following remark: F.G. Guard, the leading elder of the Forest Gate Church, which 22 years ago was the second largest of our English Churches, and which is now in violent opposition to the Society's policies, especially as administered by J. Hemery against H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford, is the leading British Brother supporting H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford, and is the latter's father-in-law. As a step in the controversy the Forest Gate Church as such has withdrawn its support from the Society, which fact has caused a number of its members to join the London Tabernacle congregation. Thus, on the one hand, there is world-wide conflict between the two groups of corporationists among the Lord's people. These two groups, which have symbolic wagons (Num. 7:1-8), seem to antitype the Gershonite and Merarite divisions of the Levites. Therefore we need not be surprised to see a world-wide drawing together of the "opposition" corporationists, as against "the channel" corporationists. On the other hand, since Levites are more sympathetic with one another than they are with Priests, we need not be surprised to see both groups of corporationists drawn together against the author and those who see eye to eye with him, even as Herod and Pilate on a certain fateful day became friends against Jesus, though previously they had been enemies. 

F.H. McGee's language is pregnant with a different thought from what he understood when in a "Brief Review," p. 1, col. 2, par. 4, he wrote the following words: "The friends are requested in considering these accusations of Brother Johnson [in Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed'] to bear in mind how many points are made of similarity, as to accusations against himself and his conduct. In so far as these parallels may be correct, is it not singular that these 

Gershonism. 

186 

brethren who are now accused, and who formerly sympathized with Brother Johnson and supported him, should be guilty of these same offenses? [It is singular to those only who, failing to realize that all the Great Company leaders, as graspers for power and lords over God's heritage, have the same spirit, and, like their kindred-spirited brethren, prominent in the nominal Church (Lot seated at Sodom's gate, place of prominence, Gen. 19:1) all through the Gospel Age, when their power was threatened, have found fault with the faithful shepherds of God's flock (Abraham's shepherds found fault with by Lot's shepherds, Gen. 13:5-13), and persecuted them because of their interfering with their selfish plans and works against God's Little Flock]. Is it not singular that they should have the same impression of him as others have had with whom he dealt in the past? [when he sought to keep them from violating the Lord's arrangements given through that Servant. No, not strange! it is to be expected of kindred spirits.] The brethren throughout the world will be called upon to decide these matters, not only from what has happened in the past [e.g., the Committee's course at Asbury Park, their August Bulletin and connected matters], but also by what they are now experiencing and by their future experiences as time shall reveal them," e.g., F.H. McGee's "Brief Review," "Letter of Importance," and his Charter, so grossly violative of that Servant's. Yea, verily! And when all the brethren have definitely taken their stand on the matters of controversy among the Lord's people since that Servant's death, until the controversy shall be over, it will no doubt have been found that all the Great Company will have been separated from the Little Flock; that the former's leaders will have been reproved by the Lord in his displeasure; and that the brother and those who see eye to eye with him whom they have persecuted and misrepresented the world over will stand vindicated by the Lord be 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

187 

fore the brethren, and will, when the former have repented, with a loving and forgiving heart and with willing hands bless them in the name of the Lord! Amen! "The zeal of the Lord of Hosts," we believe, "shall accomplish this!" 

In Vol. VI, Chap. I and Chapters I, II and III of this volume, and in Harvest Siftings Reviewed, we exposed some of the violations of that Servant's charter and will arrangements, as well as some violations of office and field-working arrangements committed by the three British managers, the present management and the Group in the P.B.I. In charity, until it became necessary to publish them, we held back details of the British managers' offenses, giving details on the scheme only in which all three of them co-operated to overthrow almost entirely that Servant's office and field arrangements. When the necessity arose we gave added proof that they are revolutionists against that Servant's other office and field arrangements from the very full evidence on these matters in our possession. 

That the Board of Directors of the P.B.I. have the same spirit as the three British managers and the Present Management we stated above, giving as proof, under twelve heads, 150 particulars, every one of which is thoroughly true. The Aug. "Bulletin" and F.H. McGee's answers, i.e., "A Brief Review," "A Letter of Importance," and his printed letter to J.D. Wright accompanying his "Letter of Importance," have the same spirit and use the same methods as J.F.R.'s "Harvest Siftings," i.e., on matters of fact they omit essential things that, if told, would give a wholly different setting to things from what they give. They change things so as to give them a false setting and they invent things to make their theory of things seem plausible, even as they grossly misrepresent our doctrinal views, as was proven in The Present Truth, No. 1, etc. Sad to say, their thorough Rutherfordism 

Gershonism. 

188 

was proven in the 150 particulars above. In that paper we intimated, with a sad heart and a hesitating hand, that the guilt of the Group was even greater than that of J.F.R., because despite his warning example against which they made a world-wide protest in the various papers they published, they in an amazingly short time (one year to the day) imitated his course. And now the charter that they themselves have published as that of their Institute changes that Servant's charter arrangements in more and worse ways than J.F.R. did, and makes at least one of his will arrangements a dead letter, as can readily be seen. And these charter changes are not among the least of their acts of revolutionism, we are sorry to say. 

[The charters of the Society and the Institute, the former in the first column, with the order of the Institute's charter changed to parallel its sections with corresponding sections of the Society's Charter, are herewith given side by side to facilitate comparison, additions to and omissions from the Society's Charter being indicated by blanks in brackets in the opposite column, and non-essential and essential changes from the Society's Charter being respectively indicated by italics and by capitals.] 

Be it known, That the subscribers, having assoc-iated themselves together for the purpose of dissem-ination of Bible Truths in various languages and being desirous of becoming incorporated agreeably to the provisions of the Act of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania entitled "An Act to Provide for the Incorporation and Regu-lation of certain Corpora-tions," approved 

"We, the undersigned, of full age, being desirous of associating ourselves together for the purpose hereinafter mentioned, pursuant to and in conformity with Article III of the Membership Corporation Law, do hereby certify [ ] and declare that we are all of full age, two-thirds of us are citizens of the United States, and three of us residents of the State of New York.

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

189 

the twenty-ninth day of April, Anno Domini, one thousand and eight hundred and seventy-four, and its supplements, do hereby declare, set forth and certify that the following are the purposes, objects, articles and conditions of their said association for and upon which they desire to be incorporated: 

1. The name of the Corporation shall be Zion's Watch Tower Tract Society. [In 1896 the name was changed to W.T.B.&T.S.] 

2. The purpose for which the Corporation is formed is the dissemination of Bible Truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious docu-ments, and by the use of all other lawful means which its BOARD OF DIRECTORS, duly constituted shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purposes stated. 

3. The place where the business of the said Corporation is to be transacted is the City of Allegheny, in the County 

of Allegheny, and State of Pennsylvania. 

We do further certify and declare as follows: 

"Second: That the name of said corporation shall be Pastoral Bible Institute, Inc. 

"First: The purpose for which the corporation is formed is the dissemination of Bible Truths in various languages by means of the publication of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means which its Board of Directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purposes stated. 

"Fourth: That the principal office of said corporation will be located in the Borough of Brooklyn, County of Kings. 

Gershonism. 

190 

4. The Corporation is to exist perpetually. 

5. The names and residences of the subscribers are as follows: [Names omitted here; they are the same as those under section 6].

The Corporation has no capital stock. Each donation of Ten Dollars to the funds of said Corporation shall entitle the contributor, or his assigns, to one non-forfeitable, non-assessable and non-dividend-bearing share, and to one vote for every such share in said Corporation. Certificates of membership, so acquired, shall be issued by the Secretary, countersigned by the President, to the persons entitled thereto. 

6. The Corporation is to 

"Third: That the territory in which the operations of said corporations are to be principally conducted is New York City; but it may conduct its operations elsewhere in the United States and various countries of the world. 

"Fifth: That the corporation has no Capital Stock EACH CONTRIBUTOR to the funds of the [ ] corporation to the extent of Five Dollars ($5.00) OR MORE WHEN SUCH CONTRIBUTION SHALL HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADMISSION TO MEMBER-SHIP AS PROVIDED IN THE BY-LAWS shall entitle the said contributor [ ] to one [ ] non-assessable and non-dividend-bearing CERTIFICATE OF MEMBERSHIP, AND TO ONE VOTE. Certificates of membership, so acquired, will be issued by the Secretary [ ] to the persons entitled thereto. 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

191 

be MANAGED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS consisting of seven members, and the names and residences of those already chosen Directors are as follows: 

President—Charles T. Russell, Allegheny City, Penna., 

Vice President—William I. Mann, Benwood, W. Va., 

Secretary and Treasurer—Maria F. Russell, Allegheny City, Penna., William C. McMillan, Latrobe, Penna., Simon O. Blunden, New York City, N.Y., J.B. Adamson, Allegheny City, Penna., Joseph F. Smith, Pittsburgh, Penna. 

7. The said Corporation by its Board of Directors, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, shall have full power and authority to make and enact by-laws, rules and ordinances, which shall be deemed and taken to be the law of said Corporation, and do any and everything useful for the good government and support of the affairs of said Corporation; provided that the said by-laws, rules and ordinances, or any of them, shall not be repugnant to this charter, to the constitution 

"Sixth: That the number of Directors of said corporation shall be seven (7). 

"Seventh: That the names and places of residence of the persons to be the Directors of said Corporation UNTIL ITS FIRST ANNUAL MEETING ARE: 

J.D. Wright, 972 Broadway, Bayonne, N. J 

Ingram L. Margeson, West-wood, Mass. 

P. L. Greiner, 874 Sedgwick Ave., Brooklyn, N.Y. 

H. Clay Rockwell, 13 Middagh St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 

I.F. Hoskins, 119 Schemerhorn St., Brooklyn, N.Y. 

F.H. McGee, 107 Broad St., Freehold, N. J. 

E.J. Pritchard, 29 Morton St., Andover, Mass. 

"Eighth: The said corporation, by its Board of Directors, a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, shall have full power and authority to make and enact by-laws, rules and ordinances which shall be deemed and taken to be the law of said corporation, and do any and everything useful for the good government and support of the affairs of said corporation; provided, 

Gershonism. 

192 

and laws of the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania, and to the Constitution of the United States. 

8. The said Corporation shall have as officers a President, who shall preside at the meeting of the Board of Directors, a Vice President, who shall preside in the absence of the President, and a Secretary, who shall also be Treasurer; and these officers shall be chosen from among the members of the Board of Directors annually on the first Saturday of each year, by an election by ballot to be held at the principal office of the Corporation in Allegheny City, Pennsyl-vania. The members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices for life, unless removed by a two-thirds vote of the shareholders, and vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation or removal, shall be filled by 

THAT THE SAID BY-LAWS, RULES AND ORDINANCES OR ANY OF THEM MAY BE AMENDED OR REPEALED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CORPORATION. 

The said corporation shall have as officers and AGENTS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, a chairman who shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors, a Vice Chairman who shall preside in the absence of the Chairman, a Secretary AND A Treasurer, and these shall be chosen from the members of the Board of Directors by THEM, ANNUALLY AT A DIRECTORS' MEETING TO BE CALLED AND HELD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ANNUAL ELECTION OF DIRECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED IN THE BY-LAWS. The members of the Board of Directors shall hold their respective offices FOR ONE YEAR [ ] and vacancies in the Board occasioned by death, resignation, or removal, shall be filled by vote of a majority of the remaining directors.

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

193 

vote of the majority of the remaining members of the Board, who shall meet for that purpose within twenty days from the time that such vacancy, or vacancies, shall occur, and in the event of a failure to fill such vacancy or vacancies, in the manner aforesaid, within thirty days from the time when such vacancy, or vacancies, shall occur, then the said vacancy, or vacancies, shall be filled by the appointment of the President, and the person, or persons, so appointed shall hold his, or their, office, or offices, until the next annual election of officers of the Corporation, when such vacancy, or vacancies, shall be filled by election, in the same manner as the President, Vice President, and Secretary and Treasurer are elected. 

"Ninth: That annually on the first Saturday of the MONTH OF JUNE, provided that should such first Saturday be a legal holiday, then on the next succeeding business day, the meeting for the purpose of the election of directors shall be held at the principal office of the Institute in the City of Brooklyn, N.Y., or at other suitable nearby building, as provided in the

Gershonism. 

194 

The persons entitled to vote at annual elections of the Corporation shall be those who hold certificates of membership acquired in the manner aforesaid. 

9. The said Corporation, under the name, style and title aforesaid, shall have full power and authority to make, have and use a common seal, with such device and inscription as they may deem proper, and the same to alter and renew at their pleasure; and by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall be able in law and equity to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in any Court or Courts, before any Judge or Justice of the Peace, in all manner of suits and complaints, pleas, causes, matters and demands whatsoever, and all and every matter or thing therein to do in as full and complete a manner, and as effectually, as any other person, or persons, bodies politic, or corporate within the Commonwealth of Penn-sylvania, may or can do. 

by-laws. Special meetings of the members or of the directors for the purpose of transacting any necessary business may be called and held as shall be provided in the by-laws. 

"The persons entitled to vote at annual elections of the corporation shall be those who hold certificates of membership acquired in the manner aforesaid.

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

195 

10. The said Corporation, by the name, style and title aforesaid, shall have the right, power and authority to take, receive and hold in fee simple, or any less estate, all such messages, lots, lands, buildings, tenements, rents, annuities, franchises and hereditaments as may be necessary and proper for its purposes; and sell, lease, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof; and it shall have the same right, power and authority to take, receive and hold, and to sell, lease or dispose of any and all kinds of personal property and money. 

Witness our hands and seals this 12th day of November A. D. 1884: 

(Above seven names follow.) 

"In testimony whereof, we have made and signed this Certificate in duplicate this 20th day of November, one thousand nine hundred and eighteen." 

(Above seven names follow.) 

As indicated above, there are four classes of changes in the P.B.I.'s charter from that of the W.T.B.&T.S.; i.e., omissions, additions, merely verbal substitutions and material alterations. We submit some remarks on these: 

(1) If the provisions of the Charter of the W.T.B.&T.S., as the P.B.I. claims in various publications, e.g., the August "Bulletin," page 6, were the Divine arrangement for controlling corporational work among the Truth people, then we should agree that beyond the change of the name and address of the corporation and of the law and State under which the charter would be granted, no change, even in the wording of the charter, should have been made, unless there was

Gershonism. 

196 

a refusal by the authorities of many States to grant them a charter exactly like that of the W.T.B.&T.S., apart from the above exceptions. Such a refusal was not at all likely to be made; because, and nobody knows that better than F.H. McGee, the examination of corporation charters, especially of non-profit business corporations doing a religious work, is more or less superficial. For this reason the illegal clause of the P.P.A.'s charter giving its first President his office and the controllership of the P.P.A. for life, passed the examiner uncorrected. In some of the P.B.I. Committee discussions on this phase of the subject, this condition was pointed out by us; but it bore no fruit, because of arbitrariness and of disloyalty to that Servant on the part of the Group. Had these presented such a charter to the proper authorities, if necessary in various States, and then failed to secure its legal sanction, alterations might have been considered. But F.H. McGee's advocacy of certain changes at Asbury Park and in his "Letter of Importance" proves that they did not want a charter with all its provisions exactly like those of the W.T.B.&T.S. F.H. McGee's plea in his "Letter of Importance" that the clause giving the Directors office for life caused the trouble in the Society is as untrue as his charging the trouble in the Committee on us. That clause did not have any bearing whatever on the trouble in the Society; rather the ambition of J.F.R. found hindrance to its gratification in that clause; and therefore he declared that clause illegal, to get rid of the Board's majority for resisting his unjustified aspirations and usurpations; just as the Group succeeded in getting rid of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself for the same reason. Nor can F.H. McGee's advice in his "Letter of Importance," that another lawyer should be consulted, so that his word alone should not be followed, remove from him the responsibility of instigating and carrying through the Group's plan as to

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

197 

changes in the charter. Their course in claiming that that Servant's arrangements, will and charter were the Divine will for controllership of the work, and their claims that they were seeking to carry these out, while at the same time they were conspiring to change in certain vital respects various provisions of the charter, arouse such distrust of their sincerity as calls on God's people to repudiate their leadership. To follow such leaders can result only in evil to the leaders and the led (Isa. 30:1-3; 31:1-3; Matt. 15:14). But those who insist on having such leaders may have them. 

(2) Some of these charter changes are merely verbal, making no difference in the sense. However, proper reverence for God, and a wholesome respect for that Servant, it seems to us, would have forbidden even such changes as unbecoming. 

(3) Some of these changes are unnecessary additions and omissions. A meek spirit would have refrained from such officiousness, changing what they claim were the Divine arrangements. 

(4) The fact that in some clauses they adopt the exact wording of the W.T.B.&T.S. Charter and in others change the sense proves that the changes were deliberately and wilfully made. 

(5) The fact that in some clauses they change the wording without changing the sense, and in others change the wording and the sense, may prove that they were practicing known trickery to hide from the unwary amid the multiplicity of changes gross violations of the provisions of that Servant's charter. 

(6) Some of these changes violate the spirit and purpose of that Servant's charter, as well as a number of its necessary provisions. 

(a) While the fifth clause of the Society's charter gives any contributor whomsoever of ten dollars voting membership in that corporation, the fifth clause of the P.B.I.'s Charter gives only such contributors of five dollars, or more, membership in the Institute as

Gershonism. 

198 

the Directors see fit to admit to membership. The clause in which the P.B.I.'s Charter gives this power is ungrammatical; and it seems that this mistake in grammar was caused by their changing the thought and yet trying to keep the expression of the Society's charter as much as possible: They make it say that "each contributor … shall entitle said contributor," etc. This change in this clause makes the Board of the P.B.I. sole judges as to who shall, and who shall not be members of the P.B.I. They can be depended upon to keep out all whom they do not want as members; and they will want none as members on whose support for themselves they could not depend. Logically the power to admit into, implies the power to expel from membership. This shows that they are founding an institution in which they will control, however much they have sought to give the friends the thought that they and not the P.B.I. Board would control the corporation's affairs. This also proves that their institution is not a business corporation financing a religious work, as that Servant formed the Society to be, but is a religious body, which is contrary to that Servant's purpose in forming the Society. (See the next volume, Chap. II.) This feature of their charter evidences grasping for power and lordship on the part of the P.B.I. 

(b) Whereas $10 were the minimum contribution entitling its giver to voting powers in the Society, $5 contributions will insure their donors of voting powers, if the P.B.I. Board should decide to accept them as members. The higher amount is little enough for such membership, though in that Servant's time all of it needed not to be given at one time; any contributions given within a year's time and totaling $10 entitled their donor to voting powers. J.F.R. changed this (Z '17, 329, col. 1, par. 3). 

(c) Whereas each additional $10 would entitle the contributor to one additional vote in the Society, no

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

199 

matter how much more than $5 one might contribute, he could have but one vote in the P.B.I. At least three evils flow from this change: (1) This makes the P. B. L, not a business corporation, but a religious body; i.e., an Antichrist. While it would be wrong for us to give voting powers, and much more so varying voting powers in a religious body such as an Ecclesia, a Convention, a Church committee, etc., for any financial consideration, in a business corporation people should be limited or enlarged in their voting powers in proportion to the amount of their financial contributions. This is a matter of such elementary justice that even worldlings recognize its propriety. The P.B.I.'s course in giving all contributors the same voting powers shows that their institution, unlike the Society, as that Servant intended it to be, is a religious body, controlled as to membership admission and dismission by its Board of Directors. (2) This provision makes a Sister's Committee as created by that Servant's will a powerless thing; for it would give but one vote to such a committee, whereas that Servant arranged by this provision to bequeath all his voting powers to such as he reasonably felt sure would vote his shares according to his desires, and thus perpetuate his voting powers in the Society. The provision of a Sister's Committee should be arranged for in the P.B.I., by its Board of Directors and Editorial Committee, as provided in the will, electing such a committee as we suggested above, if they have not yet elected one. (3) Since the P.B.I. Directors have the power of admission into, and dismission from the P.B.I., this provision is dangerous, for it gives them controllership powers beyond anything that that Servant intended the Directors of the Society to have and that also with few votes to object to their course. A few voters could be more easily manipulated than a larger number, against having which the P.B.I. could use its powers of admitting into and dismissing from 

Gershonism. 

200 

the corporation. Further, usually the larger contributors, by reason of larger business experience, can see through manipulatory methods better than the average small contributor; but having no more power than the latter, could not use their understanding of official trickery to checkmate it with more effectiveness in votes than those who were not so likely to see such trickery. The fifth clause of the P.B.I.'s Charter is a marked evidence of the spirit of grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage, with which unhappily its Board of Directors is contaminated. 

(d) The fifth clause gives the Secretary too much power by giving him alone the power of issuing the certificates of membership without the chairman countersigning them. The present Secretary, both by his prejudices and his favoritisms, cannot in the judgment of many be trusted in every case to use this power aright. There are cases possible wherein, even if ordered by the Board to give a certificate of membership, he could and from past experiences we infer likely would evade the order, an evasion made more difficult, if the chairman, knowing of the order having been given, were expected to countersign the certificate. This possibility becomes apparent from the fact that the Secretary probably controls the incoming and the outgoing mails. 

(e) Clause five, somewhat after the manner of J.F.R., omits the words "or his assigns." This is a further evidence that they do not consider the P.B.I. to be merely a business corporation doing a religious work, but a religious body. This same theory of J.F.R. moved him to do away with the voting power of the Sister's Committee, on the ground that it is illegal to bequeath voting powers in a religious body; and to introduce among his by-laws, recommended by I.L. Margeson, and passed at Pittsburgh, Jan. 6, 1917, one defining the expression "or his assigns" as meaning such persons for whom one contributed money to the 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

201 

Society and asked that the voting shares be made out in their names! This omission prevents one from willing his voting powers to others. This omission is another way in which the P.B.I. Directors can keep (to them) undesirable persons from membership in the P.B.I., after the manner of J.F.R. 

(f) Clause five omits the word "non-forfeitable." By this omission they secure to themselves the power to dismiss from membership in their "religious body." These Directors seem "wise in their own generation"; "but He taketh the wise in their own craftiness!" Since they in hundreds of particulars have imitated J.F.R., they would doubtless in matters of dismission imitate him, if their necessities called for it, even as they secured the overthrow of the Fort Pitt Committee, because they wanted to rid themselves of three non-pliant Committee members. In Z '17, 329, col. 1, par. 4, J.F.R. sought to nullify the "non-forfeitable" feature of Society voting shares. 

(g) Clause eight gives the members the right to amend or repeal the by-laws of the P.B.I. Directors. It leaves the right of initiating by-laws in the hands of the Directors. Therefore, what it offers with one, it can take away with the other hand; for the Directors could immediately afterward pass other by-laws for the amended or rescinded ones, slightly changed in form, and act on these for another year. And who would be the wiser, if they desired to keep it secret? Again, if they desire they can conceal the existence of their by-laws, which thus would escape the danger of being amended or rescinded. That they can be depended upon to circumvent an adverse decision of the members on by-laws, if it is to their interests so to do, is evident from the fact that the Asbury Park Convention tabled the matter of passing on the formation of a corporation for six months; yet within four months they not only had their convention (held against a former understanding, in a section of the 

Gershonism. 

202 

country where their supporters were in a majority) authorize a corporation, but also had the charter signed in duplicate! Another fact will prove the same thing: The Asbury Park Convention ordered that the "Bulletin" contain only matters of news; they made it an organ of propaganda for a corporation, of misrepresentation of what occurred in the Committee and at Asbury Park, and a cloak to send out such misleading supplements authorized by the Committee (see September "Bulletin," p. 2, col. 2) as "A Brief Review," "Letter of Importance," etc. Persons who so acted would likely take away with one hand the gift of amending and repealing their by-laws which they give with the other. That Servant's way on this subject was honest and above board. Let none think that in pointing out these defects we are surmising evil: the past course of these Directors, sad to say, betrays such attributes to be characteristic of them. Under present conditions we would not be acting circumspectly if we ignored the existence of such characteristics in them, against which it is our duty to guard the Church. 

(h) Clause six omits the provision that the Board of the P.B.I. should control its affairs. In express language nothing in their charter states who shall control these. Certain it is that it is impossible for the members as such to control them, as any person of experience well knows. The various powers that the charter gives the members of its Board, as well as the absence of mention of any one else having any powers in the P.B.I., except annually to elect the Directors and to amend and to repeal by-laws, shows very clearly that the Directors are to control. And as far as through that Servant's arrangements, charter and will such control is provided for, this is exactly what should be the case. Therefore our criticism of their course is not intended to undermine their controllership limited to the things of that Servant's charter and will, but to undermine (1) their extending their

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

203 

power beyond these limitations and (2) their seeking to spread the impression that they have less power than the Directors of the W.T.B.&T.S. charter, while actually giving themselves, and arranging to exercise, more powers than the latter have. In the Aug. "Bulletin," p. 4, col. 1, they say that the Group advocated forming a membership corporation in which no one except the shareholders could control, "just as Brother Russell had organized the W.T.B.&T.S. on the same basis, with the understanding that the controllership would be in the hands of the shareholders, particularly after his death," and that R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself immediately announced our opposition to such a plan. Nothing in "Harvest Siftings" is more misleading than the presentation of matters throughout the entire first column of page 4 of the August "Bulletin." Never was there any objection raised by the Group to the seven brothers controlling the work given them to do by the Fort Pitt Convention, though in evil surmising they repeatedly accused us of seeking to control the Committee and its work. Never did they or anyone else in the Committee advocate that the work be controlled by all the shareholders, an impossible thing; never did R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself oppose such a proposition (because it was never presented; but speaking for ourself, we are frank to say that had it been presented we would have opposed it, as contrary to that Servant's arrangements). And never did that Servant arrange for the shareholders to control the Society's work after his death, is in Light After Darkness, p. 22, col. 2, next from last paragraph, some of the Group, quoting from his booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, prove that the Directors were to exercise his controllership of the business and affairs of the Society after his death. The evident purpose of the Group throughout the column in question, to represent themselves as the defenders, and the other three

Gershonism. 

204 

brothers as the despoilers of the liberty of the Church, is totally false to the facts of the case. The reverse is the case, as the friends are more and more learning. The article on the Object of an Organization, in the August "Bulletin," pp. 6 and 7, which we reviewed above, and the charter of their Institute, which we now are reviewing, ought to satisfy any reasonable person that it is the P.B.I. that plotted to subvert the liberty of the Church; and that because R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself unalterably opposed them therein, they plotted and secured the overthrow of the Fort Pitt Convention Committee, in order to rid themselves of the three opposing members, first by a "political campaign," and then by pulling the wool over the eyes of the unwary sheep on the matter. But by the time this controversy is over the whole Church will know this to be the truth of the case. The politics of the P.B.I. reduplicates that of J.F.R. of the year before, and proves, sad to say, the propagandists of the P.B.I. to be like him in character He who treats the prospective Bride of Jesus as politicians do the public is in a most dangerous sin, personally offending Him. 

(i) Their charter has put away the office of President and Vice-President, as provided in that Servant's charter, and has substituted a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman. Of course, a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman have less power than a President and a Vice President; and accordingly the other five members of the Board have more power than they would have, if they had a President and Vice-President with the proper powers of the corresponding Society officers. Two of the powers that the Society President has they have withheld from their Chairman, both of which powers would be advantageous for the work, if had by the Chairman: (1) countersigning the certificates of membership, (2) appointing a director to a vacant directorship until the next annual election, if the Board fails to elect one within thirty days after the vacancy

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

205 

occurs. By depriving their Chairman of the former power they open the door to abuses on the part of an untrustworthy Secretary; and by depriving him of the second power they increase their own power. 

(j) Whereas that Servant's charter makes one person both Secretary and Treasurer, the P.B.I. charter makes two persons fill these offices. It is in many ways advantageous for the one person to fill both these offices, provided that he is competent, and no other should be elected. Perhaps the exposures of I.F. Hoskins' incompetency may have caused the P.B.I. to remove him from the Treasureship. Of course, we do not expect them to acknowledge this any more than F.H. McGee would acknowledge in his Brief Review that to R.H. Hirsh and ourself he severely censured H.C. Rockwell and I.F. Hoskins for publicly attacking us, and that by name, before the Asbury Park Convention. Rather by using ambiguous terms, he gave the impression that he approved their course in that part of the Brief Review where he answered our charge that the majority of the Old Committee, himself and R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself, disapproved of the course of H.C. Rockwell and I.F. Hoskins in foisting the committee troubles on the convention; and by representing us as charging that the New Committee was in disharmony, and then denied the charge! 

(k) Whereas that Servant's charter arranged for the Directors to hold office for life, subject to dismissal by two-thirds votes of the shareholders, the P.B.I.'s charter arranges for their election annually. On this point please see Vol. VI, Chap. I. By this change the P.B.I. show their character kinship to J.F.R., the champion Revolutionist among God's people, and their insincerity in waging a world-wide fight against him for his revolutionism, on the ground that he was violating the Divine arrangements in the charter and will by his course in this very particular. It is our 

Gershonism. 

206 

opinion that only blind and prejudiced partisans and undiscerning innocents can believe them sincere, after what they have done in altering the charter under the circumstances. 

(1) Whereas that Servant's charter made it possible at any time to remove incompetent or unfaithful Directors by two-thirds of the voting shares, the P.B.I.'s charter omits this provision. Thereby it effects two evils: (1) it takes a useful power away from the voting members and (2) it secures to the Directors more power and protection, which they may be expected in self-interest to abuse, if "past events cast their shadows before." 

(m) As they have decreased the powers of their Chairman so have they increased the powers of their Secretary as such, making him alone the actor in signing certificates of membership, which power can easily be misused by an intriguing Secretary. 

(n) Whereas that Servant's charter gives the shareholders the power to elect the officers of the corporation, the P.B.I.'s charter takes away this power from its members, and by lodging this power with the Directors gives them a power that that Servant's charter does not give the W.T.B.&T.S. Directors. This is another case of grasping for power on the part of the P.B.I. This particular change is to the disadvantage of the other members of the corporation, because it makes the officers dependent on the Board, and not on the voting members. This fact will lead men of the spirit of the P.B.I. Board to stand by the Board as against the other members of the corporation in a clash of interests, as they would know that the opposite course would cost them their official heads, and like years ago would likely result in a "political campaign," causing them to lose their place on the Board altogether. As that Servant arranged matters, "playing politics" would have been quite restrictable; the brethren in general would have been 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

207 

spared much agitation; and faithful Directors would have become more and more efficient by years of experience, undisturbed by keeping one eye on the next annual election; while incompetent or unfaithful Directors could at any time on proof of incompetency or unfaithfulness be dismissed by two-thirds of the voting shares. On the other hand, by the Board's by-laws and vigilance, as that Servant arranged matters, the Directors could prevent ambitious officers elected by the corporation's members, gaining unauthorized powers, etc. 

We could point out other evils in the omissions, additions and material changes of the P.B.I.'s charter, but the fourteen given above, being the most important and flagrant, are enough to prove our proposition that the P.B.I. are in truth revolutionists against that Servant's arrangements, charter and will; and that this particular form of revolutionism, in view of their published claims on the Divine origin and obligatoriness of that Servant's charter, makes them forfeit our belief in their sincerity, and our support of their leadership. 

We feel that in addition to their violation of the will by their charter depriving a Sister's Committee (if they elect one at all) of the amount of power that that Servant's will arranged that it should have, we ought to mention that in announcing in the Feb. 1, 1919, P.B.I. Herald that the first article, "Perilous Times at Hand," was written by that Servant, they violated that injunction of his will that forbade indicating his authorship of any future publication of his writings with those of the editors. The Present Truth, beginning with No. 3, has generally in each issue published an article from that Servant's pen; and while that provision of his will applies to those papers only that are issued by controlling corporations, and therefore does not apply to an individually controlled paper

Gershonism. 

208 

like The Present Truth, yet we respect the spirit of his will by not indicating his articles as such. 

We ought to say that, contrary to the P.B.I. Herald announcement, that Servant did not write that article in 1910, nor as a forecast of events particularly coming after 1910, as the "Herald" affirms, for the article in question was published in the Sept., 1891, "Tower" word for word as it is published in the Dec. 15, 1910, "Tower" and quoted in the Feb. 1, 1919, "Herald," except in the last two papers a clause of four lines occurring in the 1891 "Tower" is omitted. Its publication in 1891 at the opening of the call, and just before the sifting of the sixth hour (Matt. 20:5; 1 Cor. 10:8-11), was providentially directed to warn God's children against the Second-death sifters of that hour (1891-1894), of the ninth hour (1901-1904) and of the eleventh hour (1908-1911); and its publication at the ending of the eleventh-hour sifting was providentially intended to warn against the last of the Second-death sifters and the future Great Company sifters (2 Tim. 3:8). Jannes means "he deceives," and represents the Parousia Second-death sifters who spoke, and taught, as Satan's mouthpiece, anti-ransom and anti-sin-offering, etc., doctrines against our Lord teaching the Parousia Truth through His people, just as Jannes at Pharaoh's command withstood Moses speaking through Aaron. Jambres means "he revolts." Jambres represents the Epiphany sifters who mislead as revolutionists the Great Company, speaking and acting against God's teachings and arrangements given through that Servant, and thus acting as Satan's mouthpiece to withstand Christ speaking through His people the Parousia and Epiphany Truth, and defending that Servant's arrangements for controlling corporations. While the type represents Jannes and Jambres acting on the same occasion, we are not to understand this, as we are not to understand the like cases of Nadab and Abihu, to mean that in the antitype 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

209 

the two classes would work together in time. The antitypical Jannes does his anti-ransom and anti-sin-offering, etc., speaking first; and then the antitypical Jambres does his revolutionistic speaking and acting later, i.e., during and since 1917, as in the cases of the antitypical Nadab and Abihu. The article, "Perilous Times at Hand," strikes the Society and the Institute leaders squarely in the eyes, and makes them see imaginary "wandering stars." A clearer description of their wrong-doings is difficult to imagine than St. Paul gives in 2 Tim. 3:1-8 and that Servant gives in "Perilous Times at Hand," and in Z 1899, pages 99-104. Of course, we are perfectly aware of the fact that they published it against us, just as the Second death sifters applied to that Servant passages that described them. We know that they meant to point us out by the article, because Dr. S. N. Wiley, one of the "Herald" editors, told the Philadelphia Church, Nov. 17, 1918, when he tried to read this article to the Church, that it applied to us, asking the brethren to read it as against us. 

We ought to announce to the general Church that for gross defiance of various of its resolutions the Philadelphia Church, by a vote of 92 to 9, dismissed Dr. S. N. Wiley and two other like-acting elders from its elderate, and not because of what they misrepresent in the general letter that they are widely circulating, as a part of the underhanded, whispering and misleading campaign of the P.B.I. against us. Instead of an underhanded campaign why do they not "be manly," as their year's motto says, and come out openly against us in the "Herald"? Let them publish truth, not their misrepresentations and evil surmises about our official conduct, if they know any to our disparagement. 

Hitherto we have described the revolutionism of the P.B.I. clericalists against that Servant's charter and will arrangements for conducting the general work. Additionally they have been active in attempting to 

Gershonism. 

210 

usurp and in actually usurping the rights of various local congregations and causing divisions in many churches. It was the attempt to grasp for power and to lord it over God's heritage in the London Tabernacle on the part of H.J. Shearn and W. Crawford (who deceived nine other elders into believing that that Servant wanted the Tabernacle arrangements changed, and thus secured their support) that precipitated the trouble in England. J.F.R. manipulated through the Brooklyn and New York Ecclesias (before, but in anticipation of his election to the Presidency of the Society) resolutions that he drafted and that gave him more power therein than that Servant had. The whole Church knows something of his divisional work to get the support of the various Churches for himself as the Society. We are now witnessing a similar course on the part of the P.B.I. We will give an account of its interfering with the affairs of the Philadelphia Church as an illustration of some of its activities elsewhere. We want to suggest to the Churches everywhere to stand fast in the liberty that the Lord gives each Church and not to become entangled in the web of the P.B.I.'s weaving. 

Above we quoted a letter that I.F. Hoskins wrote to a sister of the Philadelphia Church. A just and capable Secretary would have followed that Servant's arrangements and defended instead of blaming the accused pilgrim. At the same time he wrote a similar letter to another sister whose husband announced some of its (to us) disparaging contents in a Berean meeting. Surely he should have waited for the Church through its Secretary to enter a complaint, if one were to be entered, before he acted. Unfortunately for himself and themselves, he had certain partisan friends in this Church, who, as spies, misinformed him on various matters, and thereby made trouble not only for the Evil Servant Sermon, but also over the Passover date of 1918. In the Spring of 1918 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

211 

F.H. McGee and I.L. Margeson visited Philadelphia and learned that Dr. S. N. Wiley disfavored us; and the latter professed not to have understood at the time (though he admitted to have understood later), what the drift of their remarks against us was. In April H.C. Rockwell visited Philadelphia, and on three points so preached as to impress a number of the Philadelphia friends, some of whom knew nothing of the Committee's differences, that he was warning the Church against us. Later to the Committee he disclaimed such intentions. In June, I.F. Hoskins came to Philadelphia preaching, as elsewhere, and that in our hearing, against those who he said were giving "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." Privately he named us among them, but he also before the Committee disclaimed meaning us, though later admitting that he did mean us. A little later he by busybodying interfered directly with an appointment that we as an elder of the Philadelphia Church had to preach to that Church, July 7. The Group's stand and propaganda in this Church had made some of its supporters, especially three elders, evident and growing opponents of us, and encouraged them as such. Repeatedly we cautioned (I.F. Hoskins in particular) against this course, but apparently to no effect. One of his sister-favorites here knew before the convention what we did not know; i.e., that there was to be a rehearsal of the Committee's troubles at Asbury Park, and therefore sought to induce others to go to the convention and support her side, i.e., the Group. 

All this time we were silent on the trouble. Though we knew for several months of their "political campaign" against us, it was not until the Asbury Park Convention, after the Group made their "political campaign" against R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself more open by public attacks, even mentioning our names, that we spoke of the situation and that in defense of ourself against the Group's attacks. A

Gershonism. 

212 

week afterward we told a few of the evils in the Committee for the information of those of the Philadelphia congregation who had not been at Asbury Park, but who meantime heard of the Committee's differences. One of the P.B.I.'s talebearers in the Philadelphia Church quickly misinformed its Secretary as to what we said and at a P.B.I. meeting a resolution based on this misinformation was passed and sent to the Philadelphia Church, accompanied by the Secretary's request, approved by the P.B.I., that he be given an opportunity to disprove some alleged misrepresentations that R.G. Jolly and ourself were said to be spreading against the P.B.I. in the Church. The request was granted for Aug. 25. Aug. 18 the Church decided that we should answer him, having as long a time for our answers as he had for his statements, and that then any member of the Ecclesia might ask either of the two speakers two questions, the brother being asked the questions answering first, the other answering afterward. This fair arrangement the P.B.I. sharply resented; yet five of them, with supporting elders from several Churches, were present Aug. 25 to prove to the Philadelphia Church that R.G. Jolly and ourself were misrepresenters of the P.B.I. But alas for them! The facts were all against them. Repeatedly I.F. Hoskins was proven to be the misrepresenter and everyone of our statements then discussed was proven true, in several cases even by his own supporters. The P.B.I. members, in addition to I.F. Hoskins, wanted the privilege of making speeches, and even of making motions! They complained when they were not at once given the first, and throughout were denied the second liberty. Then they tried through one of their partisan Philadelphia elders to have the motion to invite us to call the Mizpah Convention rescinded, but this attempt also came to grief. The P.B.I. members in both sessions of the debate were given the same privilege as the Philadelphia 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

213 

Church members, i.e., to ask two questions, but not to vote or make motions as they desired. The reason why they were, apart from I.F. Hoskins, refused the privilege of making speeches in the first session of the debate on Aug. 25 was because, at their request I.F. Hoskins was their mouthpiece, while we were the mouthpiece of the other side; and it was not thought fair to let one side have more speakers than the other. Alas! that brethren trying to fasten themselves upon the Church of God as a doctrinal clearing house should so conduct themselves, officially, and at the same time attempt to violate well-established order by insisting upon making motions in a Church where they were for the day merely guests. In the second session, after one address each by I.F. Hoskins and ourself, F.H. McGee and I.L. Margeson for the P.B.I., and R.H. Hirsh and R.G. Jolly for the other side, made fifteen-minute addresses. Then I.F. Hoskins and ourself closed the discussion. We believe that the P.B.I., making as complete a failure of their case before the Philadelphia Church on that occasion as J.F.R. did on a similar occasion a year before, like him learned to avoid debates with the so-called "opposition"; for they have ever since acted out the "avoid them" policy; e.g., they would have nothing to do with the Mizpah or the Hebron Conventions, which were called especially to discuss the P. B.I., nor with other meetings for the same purpose, as a letter quoted below proves. 

Their talebearers and supporters were on hand at these conventions, as well as before each of them in congregational meetings, to serve the P.B.I. against the almost unanimous votes of the Philadelphia Church, seeking to block every motion and then, when passed, to make inoperative every resolution calculated to bring about an adjustment of matters. The same is true of their conduct during the four sessions of the Investigating and Curative Committee's activity in the

Gershonism. 

214 

Philadelphia Church; and in all this they were acting in the interests of, and in co-operation with the P.B.I. Of course, the Philadelphia Church knew that these three elders with their supporters were working for the P.B.I. as against the congregation, whose elders they were. All these things were longsufferingly borne by all the rest of the elders and Church, until the Church in almost its entirety felt that these elders forfeited the trust that the Church gave them; and therefore it declared their office vacant, Jan. 5, 1919. Now they claim that they should have had a trial. Their course was so violative of repeated motions to the contrary after they were passed that their misconduct, recognized as such by almost the whole Church, made the Church feel that they were unfit to be elders any longer in its midst. The Church gave them the same kind of a trial before it dismissed them as it did before it elected them; a watching of their conduct as it saw it, and an acting in harmony with what it observed; nor can they justly claim any other kind of a trial for dismissal from eldership. Next, in co-operation with "headquarters," they formed another Church, holding a meeting for this purpose a week after they ceased to be elders. 

Now some of their supporters are spreading the false report that they were put out of the Philadelphia Church; and they are seeking to work mainly on those who did not attend the meetings very regularly with this and other misrepresentations to induce them to leave the Church and join them. They, numbering about twenty, now claim that they are the original Philadelphia Church! And they then addressed the Church of 150 members from which they withdrew as separating from THEM! We wish them the Lord's blessing. We trust that they and their brethren will win all the other Great Company members of their kind that there may yet be in this city, inside and outside the Philadelphia Church, and get as great a 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

215 

blessing as they can receive in their separation; for we feel that the Lord has separated them from His faithful people in the Philadelphia Church. They and the P.B.I., whom they claimed to represent, and whose spirit they have, sought in the Philadelphia Church to do with us what the P.B.I. sought to do with us before the general Church, ruin us in our reputation and usefulness. But here they failed. They will succeed eventually with their brethren of the Great Company only. They frankly acknowledge in their circular letter that they want to be under the seven brothers of the P.B.I. Board members. They may have this little pope's over lordship! The Philadelphia Church wants none of it, and none of any other lordship except that of Jesus our Lord. Throughout this conflict these divisionists acted as the acknowledged supporters and representatives of the P.B.I., from whom they received aid and comfort. 

The P.B.I. sent a special delivery letter to the Philadelphia Church, Dec. 28, a week after the Hebron Convention, in response to three resolutions for a discussion of differences at that Convention, giving its idea of how peace could be made. The letter, we regret to say, is as patronizing, impudent, arrogant, insincere and misleading as a papal bull. It is as follows: 

DEAR BRETHREN: At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Pastoral Bible Institute, held Dec. 28, the two resolutions recently passed by the Philadelphia Church were considered, inviting the members of this Institution to attend the meetings [they would not call it a Convention!] held in Philadelphia, Dec. 20-22—one of the objects being to engage in a conference with that Church, looking in the direction of establishing harmonious relations between that body of people and the Pastoral Bible Institute. We would briefly explain that prior to this meeting of the Board of Directors, the resolutions could not be acted upon by the Secretary alone, nor even by certain other individual members of the Board of Directors active, without 

Gershonism. 

216 

a conference at a properly convened meeting; and there was not sufficient time and opportunity for such meeting between the time the resolutions were received and the date of the Philadelphia meeting. [They had from December 10th to December 20th, when the Convention met; sufficient time for real peace lovers.] The Pastoral Bible Institute desires to state that it sincerely appreciates the attitude of the Philadelphia Church in recognizing that there are serious difficulties in its midst, and that it realizes that the present situation in which that Church finds itself, practically separated from the Church at large [?], is an exceedingly unhappy one. We appreciate sincerely the fact, too, that the Philadelphia Church is anxiously looking for some remedy for the present unfortunate situation, and that the Pastoral Bible Institute is appealed to for assistance in this connection. We assure the friends of the Philadelphia Ecclesia that our attitude can be none other than that of an earnest desire to do all in our power to establish harmony between that Church and the Church at large. Kindly permit us to say, however, as bearing upon the subject, that so far as the Pastoral Bible Institute is concerned, there exists no unbrotherly feeling, no inharmony, no grievances toward the Philadelphia Church; nor has our Institute ever taken any action or passed any resolutions disfellowshiping the Philadelphia Church in any sense or even looking in the direction of any disturbed conditions. The whole difficulty is within the borders of that Congregation. Practically all the other Ecclesias are laboring together harmoniously with the Pastoral Bible Institute. Will the Philadelphia Church therefore permit us to touch on the heart of the difficulty, viz.: that for the past six months a majority of that Congregation seem to have endorsed the forced grievances, charges and resolutions which originated with the three brethren formerly members of this Committee, against the Pastoral Bible Institute. These grievances, charges and resolutions have caused the Philadelphia Church to sever its connections with the Pastoral Bible Institute, as well as with the Church at large. [?] So long as these three brethren are encouraged and upheld by the Philadelphia Church in this policy of propagating their grievances, and spreading contention and strife, the Pastoral Bible Institute believes

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

217 

that nothing could be accomplished by a conference with that Church. This fact has already been demonstrated at the conference held there August 25th, when members of our Institute endeavored to enlighten that Congregation with regard to the real status of affairs, but were not permitted to do so [?], largely due to failure on the part of the Philadelphia Church to understand how to properly and effectively bring out the truth on the subjects discussed [?], whereby a great deal of matter was stated to be facts which was impossible to correct, and reply to, and thus enlighten the friends. [?] Finally, we ask the Philadelphia Church to permit us to suggest what we believe to be the only remedy, viz.: an emphatic renouncement and repudiation on the part of the Philadelphia Church of these aforesaid grievances, charges and resolutions which have caused the separation. This procedure on the part of that Congregation will solve the entire problem, and there will then exist full harmony between the Philadelphia Ecclesia and our Institute, and, in fact, with the Church at large. Until this important step is taken by that Congregation there can be no grounds for harmony, and we consider further discussion unprofitable, because until then, there is no common basis for a harmonious understanding. In the meantime, the Pastoral Bible Institute stands ready and willing to assist and minister to any of the Lord's people in Philadelphia as may be desired. [To gratify which they encouraged a division.] Assuring you of our hearty good wishes and prayers that the spirit of the Lord may guide and direct to bring about the desired end, we are 

Your brethren and servants in Christ, 

[Signed] PASTORAL BIBLE INSTITUTE. 

The impression that this letter made on the Church, which knew the conditions very thoroughly, can better be imagined than described. The first thought of the Church was to ignore if as unworthy of further consideration; then it was thought that for the sake of principle and as a matter of record to answer the main points only of the letter. The answer, made in the form of a resolution that one of the Philadelphia 

Gershonism. 

218 

Elders was commissioned to draft and was adopted by a vote of 89 to 7, is as follows: 

Whereas, The Board of the P.B.I. (after deliberating Dec. 28 on two resolutions from the Philadelphia Church and one from the Hebron Convention, inviting the P.B.I. to attend said Convention to set itself right before the entire Church as well as the Philadelphia Church, and to seek ways and means to heal the breach in the Church at large) in a properly called meeting ordered on the same date to be sent to the Philadelphia Church a letter in which the positions assumed by the P.B.I. seem to be partly out of harmony with, and partly inapplicable to, the facts of the situation; and 

Whereas, The Philadelphia Church feels that, both as a matter of principle, and as a matter of record, it is necessary for it to express in the form of certain statements the main grounds and features of its dissent from the main positions of the said letter; be it herewith 

Resolved, That the said Church expresses its said dissent in the following statements: 

1. The Hebron Convention and the Philadelphia Church did not invite, nor does the Philadelphia Church desire the P.B.I. to assist it in adjusting any of its internal affairs, which it believes itself, by the Lord's Spirit, Word and Providence in Christ, able to solve without uninvited assistance or interference from outside persons or bodies; but the said Convention and Church by the said three resolutions did invite the P.B.I. to attend the Hebron Convention to set itself right before the entire Church, and especially the Philadelphia Church, as an indispensable step preparatory to its negotiating with the P.B.I. for the said Ecclesia's co-operation, which it understood the P.B.I. 's Providence Convention appointed a Committee to secure. 

2. The Philadelphia Ecclesia denies that there are serious difficulties in its midst; but believes that the difficulties that do exist there have been largely caused by the P.B.I.'s past course, and its influence over a small minority of the Philadelphia Church, which small minority is as partisan to the P.B.I. as ardent Society supporters are to "the Channel." 

3. The Philadelphia Church denies that the underlying 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

219 

assumption of the P.B.I.'s position in its said letter, i.e., that it speaks and acts for "the Church at large"—is true; denies that it is out of harmony with "the Church at large"; denies that it is by any means the only Church dissatisfied with the course of the P.B.I. and denies that the P.B.I. would be a proper body to heal a breach of peace between the Philadelphia Church and "the Church at large," if such a breach existed; but said Church does recognize that it is out of harmony with the P.B.I. and its staunch supporters, which disharmony the said Church on its part stands ready, and has sought, to end, in harmony with that "wisdom that cometh from above" (Jas. 3:17). 

4. Neither the Philadelphia Church collectively, nor its members individually, have withdrawn either priestly or brotherly fellowship from the P.B.I. and its supporters, a thing which it and they hope may not be necessary; rather pending the P.B.I. clearing itself from the grave charges against it, for which, to put it mildly, there seem to be weighty grounds, the Philadelphia Church has withheld and still withholds its support, asked and still asks the return of a certain proportion of its donations, and declined and still declines to receive pilgrim appointments from the P.B.I. 

5. While open to conviction to a contrary view, under demonstration from Scripture, Reason and the History of the case, the Philadelphia Church up to the present has not seen that the three former Committee members, who are Elders in its midst, have personal feelings in the matters at controversy between them and the P.B.I.; nor that they have presented to said Church any "FORCED grievances, charges and resolutions"; but that, so far as said Church is able to judge from the Scripture, Reason and the History of the case, these three former Committee brothers seem to have real grounds for charging four members of the Fort Pitt Convention Committee and all the members of the Asbury Park Convention Committee with what seems to be wrong-doings, some of which seem to be of a serious character. Without expressing any positive judgment on the matters at controversy, the Philadelphia Church feels that it ought to say that, if the P.B.I. has Scripture, Reason and History to disprove these seemingly well grounded charges; instead of seemingly avoiding 

Gershonism. 

220 

a frank and public discussion of these matters that affect the whole Church in general and the Philadelphia Church in particular, the P.B.I. as brothers who should "seek peace and ensue it," ought gladly to give welcome to, and not seemingly seek avoidance of, such a discussion, which seeming avoidance, recalls to mind J.F.R.'s similar course of last year (objected to by all the members of the P.B.I.), and which seeming avoidance, if persisted in by the P.B.I. will as firmly make the same impression as his course of last year made upon the mind of the Philadelphia Church. But if at any time the P.B.I. recedes from its present attitude on the said discussion, the Philadelphia Church will be ready to co-operate, as indicated by its two previous resolutions and by the additional resolution of the Hebron Convention of December 21st, all three of which resolutions were caused to be brought to the attention of the P.B.I. 

6. The Philadelphia Church feels that it must express its dissent from the statements respecting matters of fact and respecting the criticism of the Philadelphia Church as contained in the P.B.I.'s letter of Dec. 28 on the discussion of Aug. 25, which was held in its presence, between the three former members of the Fort Pitt Convention Committee and three of the other four members of the said Committee, reminding the P.B.I. that it early in August charged by letter that Bros. Jolly and Johnson were misrepresenting the P.B.I. to the Philadelphia Church; that the P.B.I.'s Secretary with its approval requested of the Philadelphia Church an opportunity to correct the alleged misrepresentations, and to set forth the facts in their alleged true light; that as charges of the above-mentioned brothers as misrepresentors, the P.B.I. and its Secretary put themselves in the place of the accusers, and these brothers in the place of the accused, with the consequent propriety for the latter by their mouthpiece speaking last in answer; that the P.B.I.'s Secretary was sent a letter by the Philadelphia Church's Secretary, Aug. 20, to this effect; that the P.B.I. Secretary and two others of its members and not a few of its supporters replied to all of Bro. Johnson's addresses except his last, in which the latter confined himself exclusively to answering statements made in the addresses of

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

221 

P.B.I. officials and supporters; that when Bros. Hoskins and Johnson answered questions propounded by their hearers, the former spoke last on at least as many questions as the latter, and used more time than the latter both in the addresses and in the answers to questions, and was not interrupted in his addresses to the consuming of his time so much as was the latter, that the collapse of the P.B.I.'s points and vindication of the other brother's points, so far as the issues in controversy were discussed Aug. 25, seemed to be as complete as the collapse of J.F.R.'s and his supporters' points and the vindication of the four ousted Directors' and their supporters' points were at a similar discussion held before the Philadelphia Church July 19, 1917; and that the seeming weakness of the P.B.I.'s cause, and the seeming strength of the former Committee members' cause has given the Philadelphia Church strong doubts as to the merits of the P.B.I.'s cause, which doubts the subsequent course of the P.B.I. to put it mildly, has by no means weakened. 

7. The Philadelphia Church can see neither Wisdom, Justice nor Love in the remedy that the P.B.I. suggests in its letter of Dec. 28 for the present disturbed conditions. Rather, such a course as the P.B.I. suggests as a remedy would seem to misrepresent past and present, and to open the flood gates to future evils. 

In conclusion, the Philadelphia Church must express its disapproval of, and regret at, the general positions of the P.B.I. 's letter of Dec. 28, with almost every sentence of which it finds itself in disagreement, its hope that wiser counsels than those contained in said letter may yet prevail, its readiness to co-operate in efforts for a peace preceded by a frank public discussion of the activities of the Fort Pitt and Asbury Park Conventions' Committees, with a righting of proven wrongs by whomsoever committed, and the assurance of its hearty good wishes and prayers that the Spirit of the Lord may guide and direct to bring about the Lord's good pleasure in this controversy. 

THE PHILADELPHIA ECCLESIA. 

Given at Philadelphia, Jan. 5, 1919. 

Jan. 10, 1919, the P.B.I. acknowledged receipt of this resolution and accompanying letter, and promised to consider it; but to date no further communication

Gershonism. 

222 

from it has been received by the Philadelphia Church. But H.C. Rockwell by P.B.I. appointment preached to the then organized P.B.I. Class here, that for months it had sought to separate from the Philadelphia Church. The fruit of its divisional labors has not proven large. We sincerely trust that they will get every antitypical Shimite Gershonite Levite member that may yet be in the Philadelphia Church, and that with their Mahlite brethren of the Society's Philadelphia Church get thousands of antitypical Gershonite and Merarite Levites from "Great Babylon." God bless them richly in this work! We believe that it is properly theirs. Therefore, with a sincere and loving heart we pray God's blessing upon it as such. 

A third form that clericalism assumes is: Local elders individually and collectively grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage in local Ecclesias. The sifting above described worked along this line of revolutionism against the Lord's arrangements as interpreted by that Servant; e.g., in the chapters of Studies, Vol. VI, on Order and Discipline, etc. The Lord, through one of the last messages of that Servant, warned the Church against these Nicolaitanes, in Z 1916, p. 327, "The Hour of Temptation." We suggest that the brethren read that article as especially illuminating the course of the revolutionistic Nicolaitanes in the local Ecclesias. In our world-wide conflict with them, we had special battles with them in the London Tabernacle, Brooklyn Tabernacle and the Philadelphia Church. At the first meeting that we had with the Philadelphia elders we had to oppose the three elders' Nicolaitanism, which increased their opposition to us, already aroused in part by the P.B.I. We stand and have stood for Ecclesiaism, i.e., the right of the churches to control under Christ their own affairs, as against Clericalism. In defense of Ecclesiaism we are waging a world-wide battle as against Clericalism among the Truth people, nor will we cease from this

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

223 

battle until the Clericalists surrender. Revolutionism in the form of Clericalism, local and general, is the separating practice of the Great Company sifters. In some future issue we will give details on local clericalists as distinct from general clericalists, of whom this article treats especially, rather than of the former. 

In every general sifting the Second-death sifters have been active; and they are, therefore, active in this present sifting in the form of Revolutionism against the Truth and its arrangements. Some of them claim that they stand for direct Bible study apart from all human books, a practice which among Truth people is especially directed against that Servant's writings. They treat the Bible as a text book, which it is not, and not as a book of texts, which it is. A text book is an orderly, clear, systematic, progressive and complete treatise on a topic. All Bible Students know that the Bible is not constructed as a text book; on the contrary it is by Divine design, we say it reverently, more complicated, unsystematic and ambiguous than any other book in the world (Is. 28:9-13). Since it is not a text book, it should not be treated and studied as such. It should be studied topically with its texts topically arranged, e.g., according to the Berean Method (Acts 17:11). It is so arranged in the Studies In The Scriptures, which God's people of the Little Flock, Great Company and Youthful Worthies will gladly study by the Berean Method. These will avoid Text Bookism, i.e., the use of the Scriptures as a text book, and will use Topical Textism, i.e., the topics of the Bible arranged in an orderly, systematic, clear, progressive and complete manner with proof texts taken from the Scriptures, the Book of texts. Extreme Text Bookism repudiates the Truth, and thus brings one into the Second Death class. This class is now active, and their Revolutionism against the Lord's arrangements of indoctrinating God's people as Scripturally taught by that Servant, leads them step by 

Gershonism. 

224 

step out of the Truth into total darkness with the world. Text Bookism has appeared side by side with Clericalism in the present sifting, beginning in Britain, where so-called "open Bible study," i.e., study of Biblical books chapter by chapter and verse by verse as they occur, is, or at least years ago was, quite general. It has appeared here and in other countries. In its extreme form it leads to the Second Death. We will have more to say on this subject later. Let us avoid Revolutionism in both its forms, Clericalism and Text Bookism, as highly dangerous, the latter in its extreme form being more dangerous than the former. 

In 1 Kings 19:18 we have a passage that applies at this time, and shows that there will be an antitypical 7,000, who will, by not worshiping or kissing Baal, be found worthy to escape the symbolic swords of Hazael, Jehu and Elisha. Those who so escape will doubtless be the Very Elect, the ones that according to this passage (see Rom. 11:4) Jehovah reserves to Himself. In the 1912 Convention Reports and later in a booklet, our dear Bro. Morton Edgar has given us an able discussion of the Bible and Mythology. Among other things, he shows that Satan was worshiped as the Sun, the chief God of the ancient heathen, under varying names in various nations. In Canaan and in some other countries as the Sun he was worshiped under the name of Baal, Lord. Satan, Baal, has as his central characteristics envy of one's superiors, grasping for power and lording, Baaling, it over others (Is. 14:12-14). To worship Satan as Baal, means to be subject to Satan in envying one's superiors, in grasping for power and in tyrannizing over others. Since the kiss in ancient times, like the clasping of hands now, was a pledge of loyalty, to kiss Baal, as distinct from bowing the knee to him, seems to represent loyal support given to those who envy their superiors, who grasp for power, and who lord it over others. Hence, power-graspers are meant by those who bow the knee 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

225 

to Baal, their partisan supporters are meant by those who kiss Baal. Those among God's people who do these two things, according to this passage, cannot be in the Little Flock. If tentatively justified they lose their tentative justification. If consecrated and Spirit-begotten and escaping the Second Death, they are of the Great Company. Accordingly, we see that the new-creaturely Clericalists and their loyal supporters, rebelling against the Lord's arrangements, are not members of the Little Flock. Rather they are of the Great Company. Baal, as the Sun God, "the Lord of the Day," arose in the East, progressed to the South and set in the West. Promotion does not come among God's people from worshiping and kissing Baal, the Sun God (Ps. 75:6, 7), whose course is in the East, South and West, it comes from God, who is in the North, and who "sets each one in [and in some cases out of] the Body as it hath pleased Him" (1 Cor. 12:18). The British Clericalists, the Society Clericalists and the P.B.I. Clericalists, etc., with their loyal supporters, as antitypical Baal worshipers and kissers, have forgotten this, and by their getting their supposed promotion from worshiping the Sun God, Baal, i.e., Satan, they receive from God a casting out from the Body of Christ as a just recompense for evil doing. Alas! how are the mighty fallen, whom we would but could not help! 

After what we have seen above to be the Antichrist character and purposes of the P.B.I., and their clericalistic revolutionism, especially against the charter of the W.T.B.&T.S., given by the Lord through that Servant, and once so recognized by them, can there be any further doubt that they are graspers for power and lords over God's heritage? If any doubt still lingers among non-partisan and faithful brethren, the Lord will, in due time, dissipate it, we are sure. 

Some tasks are disagreeable; and when duty does not call for their execution, they would better be left 

Gershonism. 

226 

undone; but he who refuses to do a disagreeable duty lacks moral courage. All must admit that it is a disagreeable task to bare the errors of which the W.T.B.&T.S. and the P.B.I. leaders have been guilty. And if these brothers alone were to be considered, apart from private and personal correction, we would not have been heard from as disapproving their ways. But, unfortunately, their course involves many others, especially the dear, unwary sheep among God's flock; and no faithful shepherd can be silent, when he sees them misled. Faithfully to perform our duty as an under-shepherd in God's general flock has forced us, with a bleeding heart, to oppose before the Church some of our brethren that we have loved most fervently and above all other living brethren. There were two courses open for us, when we faced the conditions that came to the front shortly after our dear Pastor's death: (1) By letting brotherly and intimate friendship close our eyes to principle, and by supporting certain leaders, float on the crest of popularity and power among the leaders in the Society, and later in the P.B.I. Committee; or (2) suffer the keen sorrow of falling out with dearly loved ones in defending Truth, Righteousness and God's dear children. These leaders seem to place self above God, Truth, Righteousness and the Lord's people in envious grasping for power and lording it over God's people. Therefore, we hesitated not a moment as to our choice. First, we faithfully and lovingly for months sought privately to bring the wrong-doers to recognize and put aside their wrongs. Apparently, it was "love's labor lost." Then, by the principles of God's Word, the leadings of His providences and the needs of His people through the aggressive course of the wrong-doers themselves, we were forced, in open resistance to them, clearly to uncover their wrongs of teaching and practice before the whole Church. With a sad but determined heart we have taken up this disagreeable task, fully persuaded

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

227 

that it is to the glory of God, the blessing of the faithful and the ultimate good of the wrong-doers and their supporters. Why, then, should we be blamed for this? And since such exposures are for the good of all concerned, all of us ought surely desire them to be made and to inform ourselves on them, to the end that all of us may act wisely and properly amid the present sifting conditions. Therefore, let all bear with us as we give some salient points of P.B. I. history. There are quite a number familiar with some of these things, but the nature of much of our widespread correspondence convinces us that the true situation has been so grossly misrepresented in the minds of many that it would be wrong to withhold the true information from them any longer than it has been. 

In the background of its history lie the troubles in the Society's affairs in Britain and in America during 1916 and 1917. Out of these troubles came a number of leaders styled by the Society leaders as "usurpers" and as "the Opposition." On closer examination it will be found that these so-called "Opposition" leaders represented at least seven shades of thought and characteristics. (1) Menta Sturgeon, who for a while kept himself quite aloof from the Society and "the Opposition" leaders, though always sympathetically inclining toward and encouraging the latter as against the former. This position kept him at Bethel until about Nov. 1, 1917, three and a half months after the ousting of the four Directors. (2) A.I. Ritchie, and at first J.D. Wright, both of whom were not pronounced enough in their stand on the trouble in the Board and both of whom, weakening in the Board meeting June 20, 1917, opened the door for the defeat of the program of the Board's majority, the former balking altogether at a suit, and not being very sanguine for the publication of "Light After Darkness" and "Facts For Shareholders"; (3) A. N. Pierson who, both by heredity and training, stood so strongly for peace that he finally

Gershonism. 

228 

gave up the "Opposition" altogether; (4) R.H. Hirsh, the only one of the four ousted Directors who had nothing to gain, but probably everything to lose from opposing J.F.R., and who did not vote on the Board's compromising resolution on our British activity; (5) 1. F. Hoskins, with whom J.D. Wright is to be counted after the ousting of the Board's majority; (6) F.H. McGee, whose interest in the Board's situation was entirely unselfish, and that of a brother, a Shareholder and a lawyer; (7) ourself, whose position was that of a friend of both parties, but whose knowledge of the situation clearly recognized the evils of the Society leaders in Britain and America and whose constant effort was to have these righted, first, through personal and moral suasion and, failing in this, then through the proper body, the Board of the W.T.B.&T.S. F.H. McGee, writing for the Directors in the Fall of 1917, was right when he said that our case was apart from, though somewhat related to, that of the deposed Directors. These remarks about the seven shades of thought and characteristics in the "Opposition" leaders apply to the time previous to Jan. 1, 1918. 

We begin our narrative with our experiences with Menta Sturgeon, with whom we had been on terms of most intimate brotherly friendship. One of the sad features of this present sifting is its breaking of so many tender ties! After our dear Pastor's death, next to J.F.R. and J. Hemery, we loved Menta Sturgeon above all other brethren. Before we saw that the antitypical Elisha had received antitypical Elijah's Mantle (but after we heard in Oct., 1917, that Menta Sturgeon was thinking of leaving Bethel), we counseled him against this course, (1) because the "Present Management" controlled the Truth literature, which, we knew, in every other sifting remained in the control of antitypical Elijah, and (2) because we hoped that a reconciliation in harmony with the Lord's arrangements, charter and will might yet be effected. This suggestion 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

229 

we made while the large majority of the ousted Directors' sympathizers, goaded on by the course of the Society's leaders, were urging a division in the New York Church, which by the above reasons we succeeded in delaying, until after Elijah and Elisha became clear to us, when we heartily favored the division. On the point of this division, which Menta Sturgeon favored in Oct. before he left Bethel, he and we did not see eye to eye at first; on almost all other important matters we throughout were in harmony; e.g., (1) that there was a separation going on between the Little Flock and what seemed to be the Great Company; (2) that J.F.R. was that Evil Servant of Matt. 24:48-51, and the foolish Shepherd of Zech. 11:15-17; (3) that Vol. VII was the seventh vial of Rev. 16:17 in a vile condition, etc.; but we could not endorse his view that Vol. VII was a part of the Penny. Such was our doctrinal agreement on current conditions before the latter part of Nov., when he left Brooklyn for a Pilgrim trip in New England, from which he did not return until about the time of the election of the Society's officers—Jan., 1918. In Oct., before "Harvest Siftings Reviewed" appeared, he remarked that he did not want to be identified with a movement in which we shared, because he thought that we believed ourself Bro. Russell's successor as teacher. When "Harvest Siftings Reviewed" appeared, showing that we did not consider ourself as that Servant's successor in any sense, he seemed to recede from his view, though subsequent events prove that he had not been able to shake himself loose from his distrust of us. 

During his New England trip he developed radical views on current conditions whereon we before agreed; for at Pittsburgh early in Jan., 1918, he told others and us that "the Present Management" and all its ardent supporters were in the Second Death Class; that Vol. VII and the Big Drive were entirely of the Devil; that the first smiting of the Jordan began July 17, 1917, in 

Gershonism. 

230 

Bethel dining room, when the four deposed Directors, F.H. McGee and ourself protested at the ousting of the four Directors; and that these six were the six men with the Slaughter Weapons of Ezek. 9, who, he said, in the Bethel dining room, July 17, 1917, began the first smiting of Jordan. Since he and we parted late in Nov. we continued to make harmonious progress in his and our common views on current conditions; and thus early in Dec. we became convinced that the separation among the Truth people was the antitype of Elijah's and Elisha's separation as set forth in Vol. III, Chap. II. Before learning of his change of views, feeling sure that he would be pleased with the logical unfolding of our common views of the preceding Fall, we expounded to him, in about an hour's conversation, held in part in R.H. Hirsh's presence, our understanding of Elijah and Elisha. He sharply showed resentment, setting forth his radical change of views, adopted since we last saw him. We, of course, took exception to these. From that day forth (it was Jan. 3 or 4, 1918) we drifted further and further apart. His attitude and manner became changed. Those love lit eyes, those smiling lips, and that winning countenance with which he was wont to greet us changed into decided unfriendliness of expression. Impatience, opposition and disdain seemed to take the place of his former sweet spirit. Lovingly and meekly we sought to heal matters; but they became worse. Doubtless the weaknesses of each brother were more or less active; our too eager efforts to help him stirring up his increasing resentment, disdain and seeming envy. Him as well as other erring leaders during this sifting, our meekness and loving exhortations seemed to harden rather than to mellow. Our final break occurred Feb. 24, 1918. 

It soon became known during the Pittsburgh Convention, even by some of the Society leaders, that he and we were in interpretational disagreement. This 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

231 

prompted us to seek harmony on Elijah and Elisha by a discussion before the Pilgrims and elders of "the Opposition" without others being present; and therefore, we suggested holding for this purpose a meeting, which proved to be the first session of the Fort Pitt Convention-Saturday night, Jan. 5, 1918. Others being present, we suggested a special meeting the next morning for pilgrims and elders alone, when our interpretational differences might, we hoped, by discussion be overcome. He objected, saying that all should have a chance to hear, and therefore we gave way. Our reasons for wanting the discussion before the leading brothers only were: (1) Not to let the differences become more widely known than necessary; (2) not to do anything that might tend to humiliate this dear brother, whose position we knew, and who we felt satisfied would fail to make a favorable impression for his view contrasted with what we felt and knew was the Scriptural view; (3) our desire not to make it harder for him to receive the Truth than absolutely necessary; for the pride that we and others felt he was clearly manifesting we feared would, if hurt before others, make it harder for him to accept the Truth. Sunday morning each of us presented our view on Elijah and Elisha in 45-minute addresses, he speaking second. Almost everybody present, though more familiar with his than with our view, regarded ours more favorably. The resentful effect on him of the unfavorable reception of his view, that we feared and sought to avert by a more private discussion, was quite manifest; and in spite of our efforts to lift him above it we failed. In the afternoon session, after a number of consultations between him and I.L. Margeson, the latter proposed the appointment of the Fort Pitt Convention Committee, which later took the name P.B.I. Between the afternoon and evening sessions the Committee met to elect officers. We proposed Menta Sturgeon as both temporary and permanent 

Gershonism. 

232 

Chairman. He was elected. Then silence ensued, which we broke by nominating A.I. Ritchie as Secretary and Treasurer. He also was elected. Then another similar pause occurred. Seeing no one else seemingly would propose a Vice-chairman, we then proposed R.H. Hirsh for that office, who also was elected. Our proposing Menta Sturgeon for the chief place proves our appreciation of him. Our activity in proposing him and others for offices proves that we were not seeking position for ourself. It seems that our course of presenting "meat in due season" impressed him with the thought that we were assuming controllership of the Lord's work, a view that the Group afterward adopted, as their remarks indicated during the discussion of our Philadelphia Evil Servant discourse the afternoon and night of Feb. 23, 1918. 

Two days after the Fort Pitt Convention we went home to Columbus, following our delivering (in the hearing, among others, of Menta Sturgeon) a lecture on the Calls, Siftings and Slaughter Weapons (Matt. 19:27-20:16; 1 Cor. 10:1-14; Ezek. 9). This discourse sets forth a different view of the six men with slaughter weapons from that of Menta Sturgeon, who after the Committee's election, in harmony with his view wanted F.H. McGee to settle at Washington, D.C; A.I. Ritchie at Toronto, Canada; R.H. Hirsh at Pittsburgh, Pa.; I.F. Hoskins at Philadelphia, Pa.; J.D. Wright at Boston, Mass., and ourself at London, England, himself, presumably, to direct things from New York, his thought being that these, his six slaughter weapon men, do their smiting at and from these places. He went shortly afterward back to New York, and very actively sought to turn various members of the New York Class against our view of Elijah and Elisha; and succeeded in doing so with not a few who had not heard our understanding of this subject. Thus when we returned to New York, Jan. 20, to attend the first Committee meeting, after

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

233 

the Convention, we found that he had created a hostile atmosphere against us among not a few members of that Church, some being forward to show it. 

At this Committee meeting he, A.I. Ritchie and ourself were appointed a Committee to draft a letter that the large Committee wanted to send to the brethren throughout the world. A.I. Ritchie by Menta Sturgeon's and our request was to work out the rough draft for the smaller Committee to be presented to the larger Committee in two days; i.e., Jan. 22. Jan. 21 he asked us to do this, saying he had not time. With this request Menta Sturgeon was agreed. We wrote out a rough draft, and presented it at the proper time to the large Committee, when to our surprise, A.I. Ritchie also offered one. The Committee decided that our letter be accepted, with such additions taken from A.I. Ritchie's letter as were not in ours. In our letter we suggested, Menta Sturgeon concurring, seven lines of service to submit to the general Church for their consideration and opinion. At this meeting A.I. Ritchie opposed not only the five proposals which were not especially emphasized at the Fort Pitt Convention, but also the one with reference to a periodical, which was favorably considered at that Convention. He wanted nothing but Pilgrim work to be suggested to the brethren in the letter. Two evenings later (Jan. 24, 1918) we presented our letter revised, so as to incorporate the points in A.I. Ritchie's letter, as well as some that occurred to us meantime. At this meeting A.I. Ritchie resigned from membership in the Committee, saying he was not in harmony with the effort to give a general service to the brethren, apart from Pilgrim work. His resignation was accepted. Two days later we sought to regain him by cutting out all except the two recommendations that were generally favored at the Fort Pitt Convention for a general service. He reconsidered the matter, but decided to stand apart from the Committee. Later he told others

Gershonism. 

234 

and us that we sought to run a cut-and-dried program through the Committee, and wanted to control things, and that partly for these reasons he resigned, though he said nothing of this kind at the time of his resignation. The reason that he gave the Committee should have made him decline election to the Committee. The reasons that he later gave amount to this: He resigned, because, he claimed, that we seemed inclined to control the Committee's affairs. If we had really sought to do this we went the wrong way about it, when we moved the election of others to fill all the offices. 

At the same meeting Menta Sturgeon also resigned, alleging that we had the Committee under our influence, and that he suspected anything with whose start we had anything to do. He complained to the Committee that our having made a more favorable impression on the Fort Pitt Conventioners on Elijah and Elisha than he did was due to our taking advantage of him. This claim was promptly and completely refuted. Then he tried to undermine us with the Committee on the Medad matter in the same spirit as J.F.R. did with the Steward matter at Bethel. His spirit on this occasion impressed the whole Committee as being envious of us. In substance, his charge against us was somewhat similar to A.I. Ritchie's later statement as to the cause of his resigning: Brother Johnson was trying to run things. Seemingly our giving out different interpretations from theirs impressed them with the thought that we wanted to control matters! We did not think their giving different interpretations from ours meant their trying to control the Committee. Seemingly our conduct presented to them a riddle whose solution they insisted on being given them on pain of what was in reality a threat to destroy the Committee. It seemed not to strike them that it was their course that in substance meant this: We will bring the Committee to the brink of destruction, unless we have our way about the 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

235 

matter of undoing Paul S.L. Johnson in the Committee. This sad turn of events occurred within three weeks after the Fort Pitt Convention! About ten days later Menta Sturgeon's resignation was accepted. But the thought that he uttered to the effect that we had the Committee under our influence, did not end there. "Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!" It remained to the great injury of the Committee, as little by little it was allowed to work like a leaven in the minds of some of the Committee members. It is a peculiarity of human nature that it resents the thought of being considered under the influence of another, and that it goes out of its way to disprove such a thing. Apart possibly from A.I. Ritchie, we feel sure that none of the Committee members believed this charge at the times that it was made; but very shortly, from a number of events, it was quite manifest that the effort was being made by certain Committee members to prove that the Committee was not under our influence, the effort becoming the stronger, the wider the two former Committee members spread their reports. The influence of this charge was spiritually corrupting in the minds of several Committee members. Alas, how little did these two brothers realize the world of evil that they would cause the Church through supporting that charge! What a lesson to God's people to guard their tongues! 

Before leaving Menta Sturgeon it would be in place to point out briefly how he finally broke with the Committee and the New York Church. Contrary to our Pastor's advice he was teaching along the lines of text-bookism, i.e., a study of Revelation verse by verse at one of the week night meetings of the New York Church. The elders of the Church, ourself among them, after a discussion in which we took part, though not so prominently as several others against this text-bookistic practice, Menta Sturgeon also participating, recommended to the New York Church that such a 

Gershonism. 

236 

study be not a recognized meeting of that Church. This motion was carried, but greatly resented by Menta Sturgeon and some of the members of the class that he led. Seemingly under his influence, Hattie Henderson published a more bitter attack on us than "Harvest Siftings," blaming us mainly, among other things, for the removal of the text-bookistic meeting held in her home from the schedule of the New York Church, and of enviously opposing Menta Sturgeon. Her course resulted in a Church trial, in which evil surmising of a very gross kind on her part was recognized as transforming thoroughly innocent matters into terrible evils. After two long hearings of her charges a vote was taken on a resolution of confidence in our Christian Character, loyalty to principle, and clearness of Scriptural knowledge, proposed by H.C. Rockwell, seconded by J. L. Cooke and defended by I. H. Hoskins, W. Hollister, A.I. Ritchie, etc. The resolution, in a well-attended meeting of that large Church, was passed unanimously, except for three votes; while excepting three votes a resolution of censure was unanimously passed on Hattie Henderson for her course and charges against the New York elders in general and against ourself in particular. Thereupon a few of the members of the New York Church, under the oversight of Menta Sturgeon, separated from that Church. He influenced other Churches to separate from, or not to cooperate with, the Committee. Later, on our motion, a Committee of New York elders, consisting of Pilgrims, was appointed to meet and seek a reconciliation with him; but so changed had this dear brother become that he sent this Committee word that he had nothing in common with them and the New York Church, and therefore refused to meet them. In various places, both in preaching and private conversation, he talked against us, stirring up sentiment against us on the Medad matter, a matter which in a Board meeting,

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

237 

just after our return from Europe, he heard in a confidential way, just like the others present at that meeting. He began this course of public attacks on us the night of Jan. 20, 1918, before he resigned from the Committee, by a sermon which practically everyone in the New York Church understood to be aimed at us, who being in the audience, of course, knew what he was doing. We took this meekly. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence going to show that our meekness in bearing repeated attacks and our kindness to the attackers hardened their hearts, even as Jehovah's kindness toward Pharaoh hardened his heart. Later, Menta Sturgeon found that pointed attacks on us reverted against himself. Whether this caused him to change his tone in referring to us or not, we do not know; but certain it is that he changed his way of referring to us, though still telling disparagingly the Medad matter, which he must have known would prejudice people against us, unless it was properly explained, a thing that he did not do, as he gave the thought that we considered ourself Bro. Russell's successor as teacher. We are very sure that at first he did not intend the extensive pollution of the Church that his course set into operation. As against him and his supporters the Committee took our side; but the effect of his extended propaganda began and then increased doubt of our usefulness among some of the Committee. We have given details on A.I. Ritchie and Menta Sturgeon with a sad heart, not to injure them, but to show from what seed the plant of P.B.I. trouble sprang. 

The Committee felt it a genuine blow to lose these two, both of whom all of us made fruitless efforts to induce to withdraw their resignations. The following Sunday (Jan. 27) R.H. Hirsh, J.D. Wright and ourself (I.F. Hoskins being absent on a Pilgrim trip) met with F.H. McGee at his home to consider the situation. J.D. Wright had to leave early on 

Gershonism. 

238 

account of his work. Already on that day we noticed the first small effect of the inoculation of some Committee members with Menta Sturgeon's charge, i.e., that Bro. Johnson was exercising undue influence in and over the Committee—a thing we were not doing, nor did we even try to do. If a majority of the Committee up to this time favored some views we had, this was not our fault. J.D. Wright showed by what he advocated, as well as by his manner, that he was proving that Bro. Johnson was not influencing him. After his departure we discussed the election of a chairman, during which, using a process of elimination, we remarked as a statement of our opinion, and not, as F.H. McGee misrepresents us, as asking a question, that we would not do for the office, because of the suspicions that "Harvest Siftings" aroused against us. R. H. Hirsh, as well as F.H. McGee, heard this remark, and agrees with our version of the statement. Months later at a Committee meeting F.H. McGee, anxious now to prove that we were aspiring to controllership in the Committee, expressed to our surprise his perversion of our statement, which we immediately corrected. His referring to the matter in his "Letter of Importance" proves that he did not believe our correction of his misunderstanding, whose origin is difficult for us to explain apart from his characteristic of evil surmising, a characteristic that his legal training seems to have developed in him. 

Menta Sturgeon and A.I. Ritchie made it widely known that they had resigned, the responsibility being laid at our door, which, however, all five Committee members denied. Of course, this publicity raised doubts, and letters began to be received, some of which blamed us, and asked for our resignation. I.L. Margeson, who was especially friendly with both of these brothers, wrote and advised that the Committee should dissolve, since, in his opinion, its most important members had resigned. The Committee feared that 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

239 

he had been influenced by the two brothers to take this position. More and more sentiment was being stirred up against us by agitation, the Committee defending us because of a knowledge of the facts, yet feeling the weight of the criticism, and beginning, therefore, to doubt our usefulness on the Committee. Fearing that Menta Sturgeon and A.I. Ritchie and I.L. Margeson might turn the Boston Class against the Committee, it was thought wise to ask I.L. Margeson to accept one of the vacancies. R.G. Jolly was at the same time asked to fill the other. These two on Feb. 11 met with the Committee to discuss the question of their acceptance of the offer to fill the vacancies on the Committee. Three times during this meeting I.L. Margeson turned to us, and asked us whether we considered ourself as the one who was to act as the head of the Committee; and three times we assured him that such was not our thought; and that the experience in the Society had taught all of us an unforgettable lesson on one-man power in a Board or Committee. Both of these brothers were assured by the whole Committee that it considered that it, not an individual, had under the Lord the controllership over the work given the Committee by the Fort Pitt Convention, in the same way as the Society's Board should have control over the Society's work. At this meeting, these two brothers were assured by the entire Committee that it considered membership on the Committee to be for life, just like membership on the Society's Board, subject to removal by two-thirds votes of the 31 persons that had voted on the appointment of the Committee at the Fort Pitt Convention. This understanding continued in the Committee until the Group decided to rid itself of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself, claiming through F.H. McGee, June 8, that no one ought to serve on the Committee unless the Church desired him to serve thereon. To this all of us agreed, three of us, however, not knowing 

Gershonism. 

240 

at the time why the Group advanced this thought in the Committee. We understood later when we learned of this as a part of their "political campaign." 

Next to Menta Sturgeon, under whose influence I.L. Margeson seemed to be at the time of his election to the Committee, nobody more than he was responsible for the Group's inoculation with the thought that we were a dead weight on the Committee, and were desirous of controlling its affairs. He began to work on this line immediately after his election to the Committee; and before the next Committee meeting had caused these thoughts to prevail to such an extent as to influence a number of its members to refuse to sign the letter that we had prepared—even making a special trip from his home near Boston to New York for this purpose—and that all seven had expressed willingness to sign at the meeting in which he was elected and to send forth to the Church. The brother even threatened to resign, if the rest insisted on sending out the letter, claiming that he feared the letter was too strong. I.F. Hoskins, influenced by him, without authority of the Committee, prepared another letter, incorporating about half of the one that we by authority of the Committee had prepared, and enlisted the support of some others for the revised letter. The revised letter, in proportion as it omitted parts of the other letter, was admittedly a weaker one than the other on the trouble in the Society and in appealing power. But the spirit of fear and compromise had gained such ground among the brothers that later formed the Group that the weaker letter was substituted for the stronger one, which had already been "set up" by the printer. After the Committee had somewhat emasculated our letter, we also preferred the weaker one in some respects. 

We ought to say that I.L. Margeson was more responsible for spreading suspicion in the Committee against us, for working up manipulatory schemes to 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

241 

put the Group's program through the Committee, and for spreading the spirit of fear and compromise than anyone else on the Committee. He found in I.F. Hoskins a ready ally, whose desire for controllership was repeatedly shown and exercised, as we showed in "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed," and these so subtly worked on F.H. McGee's weakness of evil surmising as to enlist him, whose mind was brighter than theirs, as the usual mouthpiece of the developing Group. A marked difference between the four members of the Group was this: F.H. McGee, unlike the other three whom almost no argument ever could change from their purposes, was usually convincible, and at times under reasoning acknowledged and apologized for evil surmises that he expressed; as well as changed his opinions, when he saw matters more clearly after thorough discussion. Such a course on his part won our appreciation; and our longsuffering and forgiveness bore with many a remark and act of his that would have worn out the generosity of a less longsuffering and forgiving person. Especially did his attitude against I.F. Hoskins' and H.C. Rockwell's course at Asbury Park touch our heart, and our generous praise of him amid certain limitations in "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed" was given in the spirit of that charity that covers all things that justice permits to be covered, and not because we approved of his general course in the Committee. 

So far we have seen the beginning of the corrupting influence of certain qualities in the Committee, i.e., the spirit of envy, evil surmising, fear, compromise, arbitrariness and craft. Other evil qualities began about this time to manifest themselves, especially in I.F. Hoskins, whom we proposed as Secretary and Treasurer when A.I. Ritchie resigned and who was unanimously elected. It became habitual with the Group to nag at and reproach us. Of course, we saw I.L. Margeson back of this, who ever since coming

Gershonism. 

242 

into the Committee, both in and out of the meetings, was creating an atmosphere hostile to us in what became the Group. He continued to support the thought that our presence on the Committee was to its detriment, all the time doing it with sanctimonious facial and verbal expressions. Increasingly the spirit was growing "to set down on" and repress us. This we bore quietly, not even remonstrating against it until April 29, when principle forbade more longsuffering. 

"That Evil Servant" Discourse, that was heard with appreciation by the bulk of the Philadelphia Church Feb. 17, gave the growing Group an eagerly seized opportunity; and the situation created by two letters from two sisters, one of whom was unduly influenced to write, the other of whom was a special friend of I.F. Hoskins, was laid hold on with alacrity by him, who discussed it with several members of the Committee between Feb. 19, when he received the first of these letters, and Feb. 23, when the Committee met, and who wrote of our address disparagingly to the sisters, but who never intimated anything of the matter to us, until he brought it up at the Committee meeting. Just as the reading of the minutes was finished he and we asked for the floor. But his determined, sharp and repeated calls for the floor won it for him. With set face, firm lips, flashing eyes and unsympathetic words he made a speech against us for what he accused us of doing at Philadelphia the Sunday before. The day before, for the first time, we learned at Philadelphia that some in the Church there did not approve of our discourse. This was from S.N. Wiley, who over the phone assured us that he agreed with the contents and spirit of the talk, but not of the time and service at which it was delivered, because about twelve outsiders were present at that meeting, which, however, was not advertised for the public. S.N. Wiley felt hurt, because the afternoon before, in response to his inquiry, we told him that 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

243 

outsiders could come to the meeting with profit. We did not consider this as a promise to give a public service, but merely thought that our talk, whose subject we had not yet selected, would be on general high calling lines. That night, Feb. 16, Brother Russell's birthday, however, it was announced to the meeting that as we had just spoken on "that Wise and Faithful Servant," we would the following afternoon give a lecture on "that Evil Servant," if the brethren desired it. A unanimous vote requested us so to do. Most of the feeling against that discourse at Philadelphia was worked up by objections from Society sources, some of whose supporters were present at the meeting, or by the fear of the effect on them. Both R.G. Jolly and ourself assured the Committee, after I.F. Hoskins' speech, that Society agitation was in part back of the feeling, and most of the rest was due to fear of it. The discourse was delivered as kindly and as wisely as we knew how. March 17, both sisters as well as others, before the Church apologized for what they did, acknowledging that the discourse was edifying and meat in due season and, excepting one contrary vote, the Church unanimously passed a resolution approving of the discourse. Doubtless several, including S.N. Wiley, lacked the courage to vote against it in the face of the sentiment at that meeting. Seven months later eight members of the Philadelphia Church, under the influence of the predominate P.B.I. Committee, voted disapproval of the discourse, all the others voting approval. Seemingly these eight would in all likelihood have voted approval or disapproval of anything, accordingly as their P.B.I. partisanship dictated, as they unanimously did for months on every matter affecting the P.B.I. 

To return to the Feb. 23 Committee meeting: For three hours in the Committee meeting that afternoon, with many recriminations aimed at us, the question was discussed as to whether Committee members

Gershonism. 

244 

were to preach on any new matters not approved by the Committee. Then the meeting adjourned for supper. Supper finished, F.H. McGee presented a resolution stating that nothing—especially types, prophecies and symbols—not interpreted by that Servant should be preached by Committee members on pain of being out of harmony with the Committee. Another discussion of at least three hours then set in. During this discussion I.F. Hoskins affirmed the following propositions: that the Committee had all the power in the work that that Servant had had, and that for any member of the Committee to preach things not approved by the Committee proved that that person acted as head of the Committee! He then said that he would resign from the Committee, if anyone of its members preached things not sanctioned by the Committee. The doctrinal clearing house proposition in his mind was very apparent, therefore, Feb. 23; and the claim that the Committee had all of that Servant's powers explains why I.F. Hoskins faulted in his letter of Feb. 21 (quoted above) the Philadelphia Church for presuming to arrange for a Pilgrim to preach to it without consulting the Committee. We would, however, say that before we accepted the invitation to speak to the Philadelphia Church, we in R.H. Hirsh's presence spoke of it to I. F, Hoskins, who was then making the Committee Pilgrim appointments, and obtained his sanction, a thing that he failed to state in his letter. Our course therein was not due to our thinking that a Church could not in good order ask a Pilgrim to serve it without the consent of the P.B.I., but out of a proper courtesy to the body of whose Pilgrim staff we were a member. I.F. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson and J.D. Wright wanted F.H. McGee's resolution made so strong as to forbid answering questions on such subjects, even in private conversation or by letter! Four disapproving of this, it failed to pass. Finally 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

245 

the Group, near midnight of Feb. 23, just about 16 hours less than seven full weeks from the time of the Committee's appointment Jan. 6, passed the resolution that they thought put, as far as Committee members were concerned, controllership of the Lord's Word in their hands, a papistical resolution that unanswerably proves that they were seeking headship and not ourself, as they continually charged. 

A resolution fraught with greater evils, actual and potential, against the Little Flock has scarcely ever been passed! I.L. Margeson cried out immediately after its passage: "Now we are safe!" They claim that our course in the Committee on this matter and on several others, which in each case was resisting their clericalism and not foisting a policy on the Committee, proves that we wanted headship. Our answer is that their course on this and on the other matters that they claim prove that we wanted headship, unanswerably proves that they wanted a headship that set aside our Lord's headship! We desire to say that what they read (surmised) in our conduct to be headship, i.e., insisting that the proclamation of God's Word must be free—was not headship, but was such a loyalty to God, His Word and His people as every faithful servant of the Truth has had to exercise against clericalists throughout the whole Gospel Age! Our attitude on this matter is one of the things which F.H. McGee, according to his "Letter of Importance," "viewed with growing concern." Let the impartial reader judge whether he had a right to feel a growing concern on this and kindred matters. Truthfully the Committee can point to nothing in our conduct that proves to a sober mind that we sought headship. They cannot point to even one act, where there was no principle involved, in which we did not accept and cooperate with the voted resolution of the majority, even though before the passing of the motion we advocated something else. While on the Committee,

Gershonism. 

246 

and being continually reproached for wanting to control it, we asked them to point to anything that was not forbidden by the Word and that was passed by the majority of the Committee, even though we had spoken or voted against it, that we did not support after it was passed. They were unable to point out even one, whereas we pointed out a number of things in which we cooperated against our vote with the majority's decision, a thing that cannot truthfully be said of I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson, and of the editorial committee, except R.H. Hirsh. 

More and more the Group advocated suppressing everything that would likely stir up any opposition. They were constantly like politicians, on the lookout to see what was popular, and then cater to those that wanted that thing; while whatever was unpopular, like pointing out from the Lord's Word the meaning of the trouble in the Church, they wanted hushed. This spirit of compromise led to the resolution above discussed, though every member on the Committee believed J.F.R. to be "that Evil Servant" of Matt. 24:48-51. It is utterly untrue that we promised not to speak on this subject, or on Elijah and Elisha, either before or after the Philadelphia discourse of Feb. 17. There were some typical matters of which we spoke to the leading brethren only, and which we at their suggestion agreed to withhold for the time being from the brethren in general; but they were not among the things mentioned by us. 

After Feb. 23 we had no Committee meeting until April 13. In the meantime J.F.R.'s article on Elijah and Elisha in the Feb. 15 Tower began to stir up a number of weaker brethren, and influenced some of them to return to the Society. Among other Churches feeling the effect of this article were two in which we served as Pilgrim between the above dates. At other places we did not preach on any subjects coming within the scope of the Group's resolution, because

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

247 

there seemed to be no need therefore, though we did privately speak of Elijah and Elisha, etc., at Boston and elsewhere. But when at Jersey City and Newark we learned that some of the brethren were disturbed by J.F.R.'s article, and when we were requested by the first, and by the elders of the second, Class to discuss this subject, feeling that the interests of God's flock were to be put above an unscriptural resolution passed by a spirit that gave prima facie evidence of not being the Lord's, we hesitated not a moment to "feed the flock," as commanded by the Lord, and to disregard the traditions of men forbidding our obedience to this charge. 

The Committee's Secretary and others of the Group were quickly informed of this, and at the next meeting, i.e., April 13, we were severely reprimanded; and then we made a solemn protest in the name of God, our Father, and Jesus Christ our Savior against the resolution on which these strictures against us in particular were based, asking that our protest be formally entered upon the minutes, a request that J.D. Wright wanted disregarded. At this meeting the editorial committee was elected. Against no other's candidacy was anything said, though several Committee member candidates failed of election, except against our own. I.L. Margeson, speaking for the Group, urged that we be not elected an editor, because it would prove that we controlled the P.B.I. Committee! F.H. McGee objected to our election on the ground that he feared we would control the editorial committee! During the course of his speech he said that he believed that we were better equipped with ability as a Scriptural interpreter than anybody else in the Truth, yet he believed that we, with what he called our stronger mind, would over-influence the others on the Committee if elected! We know, of course, that such was the Group's policy respecting us, and therefore did not expect to be elected. We assured the Committee

Gershonism. 

248 

that if it were the Lord's will for us to be one of the editors, He would see to our election; if not, He would prevent it; and in either case we would be content, and were; never intimating anything to the contrary. We were defeated, every one of the Group, of course, voting against us. They also sought to justify their course by our preaching on Elijah and Elisha contrary to their resolution. After the election we told the Committee that we accepted the result of the election as an indication of the Lord's will for us, and said not a word to the contrary, despite F.H. McGee's contrary statement in his "Letter of Importance," where, judging our motives, and perverting our statement of April 29, to which we will refer later, he makes it appear that we did; and where the central thought of its first few pages is to prove his evil surmises to the effect that we wanted to control the Committee, and that we became resentful, because we were not elected an editor, and because he claimed we thought that I.L. Margeson had our place as an editor! All of his propositions on this subject are false, and are evil surmises, even as he indicates in that part of his letter: "I feel certain." Evil surmisers usually "feel certain." But they feel more certain than they know. 

In the meeting of April 13, after the election of the editors, I.F. Hoskins advocated what before that meeting several times he sought unsuccessfully to make us believe was proper; i.e., that the Committee do not wait for word from foreign brethren in response to our letter, as to what the brethren thought to be the Lord's will on the Committee's furnishing a Pilgrim and Periodical service, etc. He brought up this matter just after the editors were elected, urging that the Committee decide that the paper be forthwith published. We and others objected on the ground that the Fort Pitt Convention instructed us to get the thought of the "Opposition" Truth people the world 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

249 

over on these matters; and that to go ahead without waiting for the responses of the British and Australasian brethren was a discourtesy to them, as well as contrary to our instructions, and running ahead of, instead of waiting for, the Lord. We suggested, therefore, that the editors get the first number ready for the press, so that the copy could be given to the printer as soon as we would hear favorably from these brethren, from whom, on account of the distance and censorship, it took at least from seven to twelve weeks to hear. This thought prevailed, as all unpartisan minds will recognize it should have prevailed. We can account for F.H. McGee ambiguously using this incident as a proof that we on one occasion held up the paper from being published on no other ground than that of poverty of materials from which to construct substantial charges against us. 

By this time and henceforth the Group, when unable to unite on any one proposition, could always be depended on to rally to the slogan, "Brother Johnson is seeking control!" Whenever some of them could not rally enough support for some of the measures that the fertile conspirators, I.L. Margeson and I.F. Hoskins, had concocted and were trying to work through the Committee, and that we were opposing, they would declare that if our thought prevailed, it would be sure proof to the brethren that we were "controlling the Committee!" This argument always convinced J.D. Wright and F.H. McGee; and they rallied to the formers' support. For example, a good house and lot were offered as a gift for headquarters at Philadelphia, and we were given powers of attorney over the property. Until late in March the Committee was unanimous for establishing headquarters in this city. Then certain influences began to work for New York as headquarters. Gradually all of the Group, two for unjustifiable reasons, except F.H. McGee, were won to favor New York, the others continued to 

Gershonism. 

250 

favor Philadelphia. F.H. McGee was won over to the Group as follows: The motion was about to be put establishing headquarters at Philadelphia, and four had spoken in its favor. Then I.F. Hoskins, supported by I.L. Margeson, said: "If we establish headquarters at Philadelphia everybody will say that Brother Johnson controls the Committee!" As though given an electric shock, F.H. McGee straightened up in his chair, saying, "That is so; I had not thought of that; we would better table this motion for further consideration!" Said and done! And somewhat later F.H. McGee was nicely lined up with the Group in favor of New York as against Philadelphia for headquarters! Time and again questions that should have been decided on the principles of the Lord's Word and indications of His Providences applicable to them were decided by the simple formula that became the Group's ultimate axiom: Everything must be done or left undone, as the case might require, to prove that Brother Johnson does not "control the Committee." The scarecrow thought of our "headship" sometimes became a veritable bugaboo to the Group, and at other times affected them as a red rag does a pugnacious bull; and many a time they tossed us on their horns at the cry, "Brother Johnson is seeking to control the Committee!" Seemingly I.F. Hoskins, whose conduct proves that he was seeking controllership, made use of this "stop-thief" cry to divert attention from himself to us; and he always found I.L. Margeson a ready helper, and between them they manipulated with almost undeviating success the other two members of the Group into harmony with their will. Despite the seriousness of the situation it had its comic aspects! 

Is it any wonder that we who must, figuratively speaking, be knocked down before we can think brethren capable of trickery, finally through the events of the meeting of April 13 were completely disillusioned, as we began to be disillusioned by the events 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

251 

of Feb. 23? In unmistakable ways the Group repeatedly showed that our room was more welcome than our presence on the Committee. Their habitual reproaches and naggings made things far from pleasant. We were faulted for practically everything that did not succeed as the Committee desired. In our relations with them we were undergoing a set of experiences that were at least as disagreeable as those that we had had with the British managers and the Society leaders. It usually took us several days to recover from the shocks experienced in the Committee meetings. Some Epiphany Scriptures were beginning to become clear to our mind, showing that it was the Group that were desirous of controllership contrary to Scriptural principles, as their acts repeatedly showed this to be the case. Not desiring to be where we were not wanted we decided to withdraw from the Committee; and noticing that R.H. Hirsh and R.G. Jolly usually, and that without any prearrangement, or even discussion, viewed matters of teaching and practice as we did, we communicated to them our thought of withdrawing from the Committee. This was between the meetings of April 13 and 29. Both of them, though appreciating our feelings and recognizing the continued injustice and unbrotherliness of the Group toward us, nevertheless advised as against this step, as that course would lead to the election of a member favored by and in sympathy with the Group, which by this time was quite a compact party, and thus leave the Church all the more to their mercy. Moreover, they reasoned that our experience with the General Church's problems, contrasted with the Group's inexperience with these, made our remaining on the Committee all the more necessary in the interests of the General Church. These arguments induced us to change our mind on the question of resigning, being willing to endure the continued and ever-increasing mistreatment of the Group in the interest of Christ's 

Gershonism. 

252 

Body. Therefore, we did not resign as we expected to do at the next Committee meeting, April 29. 

At this meeting J.D. Wright objected to our protest against the resolution of Feb. 23 being continued on the minutes. We claimed it as a right that it be kept there. At this juncture F.H. McGee asked us, if we would be satisfied to have the protest taken off the minutes, provided the resolution was rescinded. We replied affirmatively. He then moved and I.L. Margeson, we believe, seconded the motion to rescind the action, all except I.F. Hoskins and J.D. Wright voting for its rescinding. Several events had conspired to change the views of the former two on the resolution. They found that something had to be done to counteract the influence of J.F.R.'s article in the Feb. 15 "Tower" on Elijah and Elisha; that not a few were falling away through it to the Society; that the only weapons available against it were our understandings of Epiphany truths; and that the latter had effectively been used against "the channel" argument, etc., at not a few places, notably the week before at Providence, where in the presence of the bulk of that Church, not yet separated by the troubles in the Society—I.L. Margeson being also in the audience—we delivered three lectures: (1) Fiery Trials, (2) Five Calls, Six Siftings and Slaughter Weapons, and (3) The Final Related Experiences of Elijah and Elisha. Before we came the Society supporters, under the influence of "Headquarters," were forcing matters to a division, which was to be voted on the night after our last lecture. R. E. Streeter and I.L. Margeson concluded that it would be most advantageous for "the Opposition," if we were to deliver several lectures giving the Scriptural view of the difficulties among the Truth people during 1917. Accordingly, our appointment for April 21 was changed, so that we could serve Providence the nights of April 21-23. On our arrival R. E. Streeter told us that if we would be especially

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

253 

careful, our side might be able to reduce the Society's majority somewhat, though they would doubtless still retain a majority in the division. The majority of the extreme "Societyites" remained away from our lectures. After the last lecture R. E. Streeter, whose praise of the clearness and convincing power of our presentation was warm, unmodified and generous, assured us that nine of those who had been "on the fence" told him that they were now on our side, and that doubtless others who had not expressed themselves were for us. As an illustration of how partisanship can warp the candor of one even so mild as R. E. Streeter, we would here remark that at Asbury Park he sought to disparage the effect of the Lord's Word at our mouth at Providence by saying that only one person was convinced at that time! April 24, the night after our course of lectures closed, the division came, and we had a majority of three on our side in the test votes. And the next Sunday over 25 more came to our meeting than to the Society's meeting. After hearing these lectures I.L. Margeson, who was the main objector to our presenting such views, remarked that if they could have had these lectures at Boston, when the division was taking place, they would have gotten larger results as against the Society. 

The results at Providence undoubtedly had much to do to change the attitude of F.H. McGee and I.L. Margeson on the effectiveness of "Epiphany Light" as we gave it against the Society's position. Undoubtedly this and the conviction that our presentations were Scriptural, moved them to vote to rescind the papal resolution of Feb. 23, though to a less degree their desire to have unity in the Committee was doubtless also active therein; but sad to say, in part their doctrinal clearing house proposition and partisanship caused them later to rechange their opinion. At the Committee meeting April 29 the Group sought to elect F.H. McGee chairman, having at a previous meeting

Gershonism. 

254 

failed to elect I.L. Margeson. Convinced that their whole policy was to gain controllership in the interests of partisan ends, and not in the interests of the Truth, R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and ourself (not, however, by prearrangement, not even discussing it) voted against him, and, of course, a tie resulted, F.H. McGee not voting. Before the vote was taken for the first time we expressed to the Committee our disapproval of the (for months continued) naggings with which we were being regaled by the Group, saying that until we saw a change of conduct for the better on the part of the Group, we believed it a mistake to go ahead on further elections in the Committee; that we were convinced that the Lord would withhold blessing from the Committee, unless certain evil qualities at work in its midst were put away; and that as soon as we saw these put aside, we would gladly vote for F.H. McGee for chairman, but not before, since conditions demanded this course. 

At this meeting we brought up the matter of I.F. Hoskins and H.C. Rockwell (who was present as a guest, and who had just before abused the Committee's hospitality by sharply rebuking us) preaching against us in ways that the friends understood them to mean us. Both said they did not mean us, the latter even appealing to God as his witness. During the discussion at Philadelphia, Aug. 25, the former finally admitted that he did mean us; and the latter, denying that he meant us in his sermon at Asbury Park, where those present who understood the conditions did clearly understand him to mean us, many said they did not believe that he told the truth on either occasion, but rather he seems to have perjured himself on this subject, April 29. At that time, while giving instances of such preaching against us, we forgot to mention a special particular on this point in his talk at Philadelphia in April, i.e., his warning the congregation to be on their guard against anyone who 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

255 

would advise them to keep the Memorial on a different date from what the Jews kept, we having done that very thing to his knowledge in that Church but a few weeks before! Whom could he have meant but us? However, we charitably accepted (April 29) his and I.F. Hoskins' statements and apologized. We herewith withdraw that apology as having been prematurely and unwarrantedly given, since falsehoods accepted as truth occasioned it. 

At that meeting, April 29, before, and as the occasion of our bringing up the matter of their preaching against us, H.C. Rockwell, to the pleasement of several of the Group, made a sharp attack on us before the Committee for preaching on types, etc., not interpreted by Bro. Russell. By this time I.F. Hoskins had already begun his propaganda against us before brethren not on the Committee on what he was pleased to call our "fanciful interpretations and wild speculations." H.C. Rockwell's attack on us without naming us before the Philadelphia Church in April, and now before the Committee, was one of the fruits of this unbrotherly propaganda. But worse was to follow. 

Feeling sure that the Committee's majority was hostile to us, and would oppose almost anything that we presented, we decided not to advocate any new measure, unless it was absolutely necessary, and let those who now were fairly solidified into a partisan Group direct matters with less objection from us than formerly, unless they should embark on an unscriptural course involving the Church or ourself. Hence we ceased to urge going ahead with the paper. Judging our motives, F.H. McGee in his "Letter of Importance," by evil surmising, gives his readers to understand that this was in resentment at our not being elected an editor! At the end of the April 29 meeting F.H. McGee, the usual spokesman of the Group, wanted to know whether we considered ourself as the

Gershonism. 

256 

Committee's controller, as Bro. Russell was that of the Board. We replied, "No." Then he asked what we thought our powers were. We replied that apart from moral suasion our power on the Committee was represented by one vote, just like that of every other member. Then he said, "I do not think that it is necessary that you should be at the head, or on the Committee at all." Believing that our previous answer sufficiently covered the first part of his statement, we answered the last clause only—"or on the Committee at all"—to the effect that we did not know about that. The reason for our so answering was: the Providence of the Lord putting us there, we thought there was some necessity for it, i.e., that as the Lord put us into a position where He revealed to us the evil doings of the British managers and the American Society leaders, in order to enable us for Epiphany purposes to defend the flock, so He had, we concluded from certain Scriptures, placed us on that Committee for the same reason. This conviction prompted our answer, which lawyer-like and characteristically F.H. McGee perverted into meaning that we confessed to wanting to be head! Why did he not in the connection tell our preceding remark, which disproves the impression that he aimed to make? So, too, by telling only a part of our remarks about the Group becoming sorry for their combining to keep us off the editorial staff, he misrepresented the whole import of our remarks. Several of the Group said that they voted to keep us off the editorial staff, because a number of brethren desired it. We answered that for one that thereby they would please, they in all likelihood would displease five, and that this fact would probably result in their being made sorry for their course in not electing us. We still believe our remark will ultimately prove true. But Lawyer McGee characteristically in motive reading and evil surmising twisted this statement into meaning that we in 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

257 

resentment would make the Group feel sorry for not electing us to editorship! The Lord seems in this to have taken the wise in their own craftiness: their seeking to squelch us not only in this particular, but in many others, He has manipulated into making us the editor and publisher of a journal as a channel for Epiphany Truth (whose proclamation they would not permit) entirely free from the control of other human beings! This ought to be a lesson to the Group not to seek to "set" or unset anyone "in the Body as it hath pleased" them! God, not man, "sets" such. 

After that meeting some of the Group, as well as R. E. Streeter and H.C. Rockwell, suggested that we furnish articles for "The Bible Standard." In harmony with the decision that we had reached before, i.e., that it would be better all around if those who were aspiring and attaining to partisan controllership be permitted to learn some needed lessons, and that these could be best learned as far as we were concerned, by our leaving them largely to their own resources—we told them something to that effect, declining to submit manuscript. Immediately our evil surmising F.H. McGee exclaimed, "So, if you cannot rule, you will ruin! That is just like you." Surely our not writing for the paper would not ruin it! We replied that we would without any counter effort at all let them learn some needed lessons; and since they had only too plainly given us to understand that we were not a person acceptable to them, we would without helping directly on the paper let them do their own will! This, like other things, F.H. McGee perverted into our being resentful at not being elected an editor! Their evil surmisings only prove the more strongly their spiritual ill health. The Group's nightmare about our seeking control seems to be an example of some foibles of our fallen human nature—suspecting others of desiring what one wants for himself, and judging others by oneself. 

Gershonism. 

258 

Our suggestion of April 13, that the Committee prepare the first number of the paper, was not heeded, apart from an article that I.F. Hoskins prepared, and which was published as the first article of both "The Bible Standard" and "The Herald." The spirit of fear, instilled by I.L. Margeson, prompted the Group to hold up the paper after the Society leaders were arrested, before which sufficient responses from our foreign brethren had arrived to warrant going ahead, they claiming that the P.B.I. might become involved with the Government. We in harmony with our resolution previously stated made only a slight objection to their course. Then they blamed us for holding up the paper; we denied this, giving them the above explanation, which they knew to be the truth. The spirit of fear also prompted I.L. Margeson to seek to set aside the name Pastoral Bible Institute. It is unnecessary to give here again the particulars that were given in our Feb., 1919, issue, as to how the Group, during five Committee meetings, through F.H. McGee, tried to force a corporation on the Committee, against the Scripturally enlightened consciences of R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and ourself. Our stand against this, as against the papistical resolution of Feb. 23, was charged against us as wanting to "control the Committee." In both cases we simply resisted their wrong course, and did not try to foist a policy on them. Their papistically forcing (for the Little Flock) unscriptural policies they do not see to be the real effort at lordship. Brethren whose spiritual vision is keen will have no difficulty in recognizing who were the real aspirers for lordship. 

The Group was more and more becoming filled with the idea that we must be gotten rid of. This spirit prompted them more or less in their whispering campaign against us to follow a course calculated to undermine our influence with the Church. We have sufficiently above exposed their reputation-assassinating

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

259 

tactics, working up sentiment against us among credulous brethren, who ought to have been aroused against this reputation-assassination by the nature and quality of their acts. We gently remonstrated individually, and in the Committee against this wrong course, especially of I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson. The former claimed early in July that the Boston and New York elders and Churches were solid against us, and others were becoming so, the Providence Church being mentioned as one. We plainly saw the nature and the logical effect of their unbrotherly and unChristian course; but apart from remonstrating with the Committee members, kept silent all the while on their deeds. For these remonstrances in the Committee meetings we were told by I.F. Hoskins, the main offender, that we were surmising evil; that the brethren were turning against us because of what we were preaching on Elijah, etc., though before the Philadelphia Church, Aug. 25, he was forced to admit that he had warned various Churches against us without naming us publicly, but doing so privately. 

F.H. McGee admitted the wrong being done by himself, at Freehold, his home. Of course, I.L. Margeson would admit nothing. This unholy campaign of reputation-assassination they continued, until by the opening of the Asbury Park Convention they had convinced many brethren that R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and particularly ourself were attempting to divide the Church, while it was they by their "political campaign" who were doing this very thing. They were by talking against us among the P.B.I. supporters creating sentiment among them against us, and then they pointed to this sentiment against us as a reason why we were a dead weight on, and a hindrance to, the Committee! To what injurious evils will envious grasping for power and lording it over others lead their possessors! Now that we are exposing their wrong-doings and teachings, they quote against 

Gershonism. 

260 

us from that Servant's writings statements on evil speaking. These apply to their course, not to ours. As Jesus (Matt. 23) publicly reproved the Pharisees; as Paul reproved Peter publicly (Gal. 2:11-15); as the Prophets in innumerable places and the Apostles in many instances as God's mouthpieces spoke against the wrong acts of evil-doers, even mentioning their names (2 Tim. 3:8; 1:15; 4:14; 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Pet. 2:15; 3 John 9, 10; Jude 11); and as all Reformers, e.g., our dear Pastor, spoke against the clericalists, frequently mentioning their names, so in cases like the present, where guarding the flock against leaders who are "deceiving and being deceived" is necessary, it is not only not wrong, but our bounden duty as servants of the Truth, to expose the clericalists in our midst. 

That Servant's view reproving their slanderous course against us, and justifying our exposures of their wrongs against the Church and their three colleagues on the Committee, is found in the Manna comment for July 14. If we should keep silence, God would raise up another servant to warn His people against their false teachings and wrong practices. Let no one think, as F.H. McGee surmises and then imputes as our motive, that resentment at our not being elected an editor (!) or on the Committee at Asbury Park (!) prompts our exposures. The desire (1) to guard God's Flock, (2) to preserve the Lord's arrangements given through that Servant, (3) to rescue eventually the P.B.I. and their supporters from their wrong course, a thing that private and loving admonition failed to achieve, and (4) to discharge the duties of our office, are the leading motives that prompt our course. The P.B.I. are responsible for the motive reading that assigns other motives for our actions in this matter. By this forbidden act of motive reading they have also defiled many in the Church of God. 

Without at the time informing us of their motives 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

261 

for desiring a General Convention, the Group, apart from J.D. Wright, through F.H. McGee, June 8, advocated holding a General Convention. Accordingly, his motion on this point was carried. After this session, I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson told us that one of their objects in wanting a Convention was to have the brethren elect a new Committee, thus giving the Church the opportunity of deciding whether it favored the Group's course, which they called a conservative policy, or whether it favored our course, which they called a radical policy, the reverse, of course, was the case. 

Of course, their widespread preaching, teaching and agitation against us was now, according to their plans, to yield them the fruits for which they had so long plotted, and so grossly misrepresented one of the "Secondary Prophets." R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and ourself understood now the reason for their desire for a Convention! Then before these brothers and I.L. Margeson we warned 1. F. Hoskins that, if he did not change his wrong course the Lord would surely take him in hand and deal with him! An hour later we repeated this warning to him privately. The gross wrongs of this brother who, declaiming against us as a "lord," was most pronouncedly grasping for power and lording it over God's heritage, as in great detail we pointed out above, made him more than anyone else responsible for the troubles in the Committee. 

While favoring the submission of the question of the election of a new Committee to the whole Church, we were not in favor of doing this to a packed and politically campaigned convention. Therefore, at our next meeting, June 22, we proposed that in the first number of our paper an announcement should be made calling for nominations, in which all of the Committee's supporters could participate; and that nominations be not closed until the foreign brethren had time to offer nominees by mail; and that then the

Gershonism. 

262 

candidates' names should be published; and that following this the voting be done by mail. This would by Jan. 1, 1919, provide a Committee elected by the whole Church. Against this fair proposition, I.F. Hoskins and F.H. McGee, especially the former, strenuously objected. I.L. Margeson, not then present, made known his objection later. Finally, all except I.F. Hoskins agreed on the following compromise that the nominations should be made at Asbury Park and the election by mail as we proposed. Further, it was agreed in the interest of peace and good fellowship, that the Committee's troubles should not be brought up in the Convention, we telling the brethren that we would make a candid exposure of what had been done in the Committee, if they would bring up the trouble. Both of these agreements were violated by the Group, particularly by I.F. Hoskins, even as all at the Convention know that he after H.C. Rockwell's attack upon us, brought up the trouble and denounced the course of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself, even mentioning our names and that he and those on his side by "playing politics" created such a situation at the Convention as morally forced the Fort Pitt Committee to resign. Therefore, in harmony with our warning to the Group that, if they would bring up the trouble at the Convention, we would make an exposure of Committee conditions, we very mildly uncovered some of its more crying evils Sunday morning, July 28. This exposure undoubtedly began to change the predominating influence of the Group over the convention; our debate with I.F. Hoskins that night on the question of whether the Little Flock could Scripturally do its work through a corporation or Society undoubtedly added to the further undoing of the Group's control over the Convention; and on Monday morning the Group's control was not only broken but they were so completely discredited that their whole program, not yet voted on, in part was 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

263 

disapproved almost unanimously, and for the rest was almost unanimously put on the table for six months. We believe that had the dismissal of the new Committee been proposed then, this would have been carried almost unanimously, even as the proposal that their unauthorized election of an editorial committee be rescinded was carried almost unanimously. The Group left that Convention sadder, if not wiser than they came. They sought to counteract their defeat by their misleading Aug. "Bulletin," which, according to A Brief Review, was delivered to them by their printer before our "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed" came to them, Aug. 22, and by F.H. McGee's three publications; but as surely as we are in the Epiphany, so surely will they, the wrongdoers and misrepresenters, fail in this; for strong and all knowing is the Lord that is now subjecting their works of wood, hay and stubble to the fires of this apocalyptic day (1 Cor. 3:11-15). O! how earnestly did R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and ourself try to help them while yet with them; but we could not! "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem!" "How oft would I … but ye would not"! 

It is not necessary for us to describe beyond what we have done above the events of the Group's course in turning in our absence brethren, elders and even Churches against us months before we ceased being a member of the Committee, nor will we describe here the details of the proceedings in the meeting of July 18, and the course of the four editors and the Group on that day. That last Committee meeting is unforgettable. As we left the meeting room I.L. Margeson assured us that the Committee's trouble would not be mentioned to the Convention, though it might be mentioned to some of the leading brethren there in a private way-for propaganda! 

It never was the policy of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly 

Gershonism. 

264 

and ourself to force matters, nor to obstruct matters, where there was no principle involved; rather we waited as far as possible on unanimity. All the forcing came from the Group! For example, we did not force establishing headquarters at Philadelphia when a clear majority favored that city. But when the majority changed and favored New York, we proposed establishing temporary headquarters there; and this was immediately carried. F.H. McGee, R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself not only passed that motion (in the absence of two of the Group, however), but also passed on the same date (June 22) the motions to publish "The Bible Standard" before the Asbury Park Convention, and to put I.F. Hoskins and R.H. Hirsh on a stated salary, so that they could give their whole time to the Committee work; and to rent an office for headquarters. These things were done to carry out the purposes of the Committee's election, a course which the entire Group hindered after the Society leaders' arrest, until they were sentenced; and even then I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson, later reinforced by H.C. Rockwell and R. E. Streeter, tried to block the appearing of "The Bible Standard," though I.F. Hoskins early in July agreed to the making of the plate for the first page of "The Bible Standard" and to the printing of its first number, if it would not be circulated before the next Committee meeting, which proved to be its last meeting, i.e., July 18. With their plan completed, at this meeting the editors (except R.H. Hirsh), speaking through H.C. Rockwell, made a number of insistent recommendations, one being the election of a new committee at the Asbury Park Convention, in order to get rid of R.G. Jolly, R.H. Hirsh and ourself. F.H. McGee offered to oppose this proposition and to adhere to the one agreed to by all except I.F. Hoskins (I.L. Margeson being absent June 22), if R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

265 

would agree to the formation of a corporation, which the three refused to do. Nothing was done July 18 in the way of rescinding the motion of June 22 (nor did the Committee without voting come to an understanding not) to publish "The Bible Standard" before the Asbury Park Convention. Therefore, R.H. Hirsh, who was elected Managing Editor, June 22, and whose duty it therefore was to go ahead with publishing the paper, faithfully carried out the order of the Committee of June 22 to publish the paper before the Asbury Park Convention. We, of course, favored his going ahead, because the commission from the Fort Pitt Convention and the Committee's motion of June 22 to that effect warranted it. The complaints of the majority of the Group against this only furnish corroborative evidence that they did hold up the paper, however much F.H. McGee, who before the Convention in and out of the Committee charged two of them with it, tries lawyerlike by false accusations and insinuations against us to hide this fact, which, of course, is against his client. Seemingly the majority of the Group wanted to get rid of the three before publishing a paper. Later developments favor this view. 

Filled with horror at the wrongs of the Group, culminating in the Asbury Park Convention, and fully persuaded as to what the Lord wanted us to do in the situation, we published "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed"—a paper that is throughout true—while the "August Bulletin" and F.H. McGee's three published replies contain in the neighborhood of 100 misrepresentations. How could he have lent himself to such a course, a course so contrary to all that we would have expected of him? Our answer is: Partisanship and evil surmising, combined with the lawyer's jugglery of truth, when necessary in the interests of his clients. These qualities overcame his usual honesty and candor; and then the Lord let him choose his own

Gershonism. 

266 

way. To this day, despite his denial at Asbury Park, we cannot believe of him other than that he was a deceived agent, entrapped in the devious schemes of I.L. Margeson and in the ambitious toils of I.F. Hoskins and used by them as a catspaw to pull their chestnuts out of the fire! People of his usual kindness, fairness and candor are especially liable to be the unsuspecting instruments of others' schemes. Most deeply do we sympathize with these four for the great calamity that has come into their lives! Doubtless the prominent part that we took in the Committee's deliberations, in part by their suspicious dispositions or selfish ambitions, as the qualities of each may have been, influenced him to think that we wanted to control, as also their ambition to control matters partisanly, and their inexperience contrasted with our experience in dealing with general Church matters, blinded them to our real motives. They had not in practice learned, among other lessons, that the Lord's mind must always be decided from the standpoint of principle and not of compromise and selfishness. The low spiritual plane on which they were living left them undefended against the temptations that our Lord in the wilderness repelled by "A thus saith the Lord" faithfully obeyed. As we write this our heart aches for them! O how have the mighty fallen! We cannot forget that for awhile we had sweet fellowship with them! How unutterably sad the whole affair is! What lessons of watchfulness and prayer it contains! 

But we imagine some will say how is it possible, Brother Johnson, that you can love them, and yet expose them so pointedly before the Church? Our answer is: It is our love that causes it. We would explain: Num. 8:5-20, in its Epiphany aspect, seems now to be fulfilling: We believe the Law's exposures of evils among God's people are the razor (v. 7) that their conduct "causes to go over all their flesh" for their cleansing. In due time many of their supporters 

Other Earlier Doings of Shimite Gershonites. 

267 

will recognize this and feel differently about our course. How glad we will be, when such will be cleansed, and then we will no more have to write of the evils of their leaders; but will be able to instruct them in the good things that the Lord wants them to learn and do. In the meantime we will, as occasion arises, have to furnish the sharp razor which their leaders' wrongs of envy, of grasping for power, of lording it over God's heritage, of the spirit of fear and compromise, of evil surmising, of bitter accusations, of assassinating slander, of contentious partisanship, of injurious arbitrariness and of legalistic worldliness "cause to go over all their flesh" for their cleansing. If the brethren would look upon our exposures as parts of this razor, and realize the ultimate good for all concerned, our course will appear in its true light, and will be recognized as being expressions of faith hope, love and obedience. These and these only are our motives in doing as we have in this whole sad affair. Let us pray for our erring brethren that they may be rescued from the snare of the Adversary, into which they have gone with measurable wilfulness. "Alas, 'tis sad, 'tis true!" 

Some may ask, Why is it that so many of the leaders have turned against Brother Johnson, and attacked him so publicly, both in Britain and America, and in their attacks question his motives, and without furnishing Biblical proof assign evil motives as the wellspring of his acts? Our answer to this question is the following: Satan knows that the Lord has given us much of the Epiphany Truth. This Truth is opposed to certain schemes that Satan is working against the Lord's people; he therefore must discredit it to prevent its general acceptance—knowing that an efficient way of discrediting a message is to discredit its mouthpiece, Satan has been discrediting us to prevent the Epiphany message from gaining a proper hearing at our mouth and pen. He finds in the ambition and 

Gershonism. 

268 

envy of certain leaders qualities that are responsive to his evil suggestions against us, and to the schemes that he is seeking to work out among God's people, and works on these qualities, and thus elicits their possessors' service to caricature us before the brethren, that the Epiphany Truth be prevented from having a proper hearing! Their ambition finds in us an obstacle to its gratification; and their envy, a supposedly dangerous rival who must be overthrown, if their plans and ambitions are to succeed: in a word, Baal worship backed by "the devil, your adversary" causes the opposition of Levite leaders to us (1 Kings 19:18; 1 Peter 5:8, 9). 

This is a long chapter dealing more or less with the evils of the P.B.I., particularly of four of its leaders. This chapter shows the progressive development of the main evils which the Group has committed. In view of all of these things, many of which are in their own publications, can there be further any reasonable doubt that the Group, and the present P.B.I. Board and Editors, siding as they do with the Group, have been side-tracked by Satan, just as J.F.R. and his associates were a year before? A negative answer to this question seems to be the only one possible in the light of the Scriptures, of Reason, of the Facts and of their own publications. "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee," saith the Lord! If other proof of this were required, the P.B.I. since shortly after 1918 going wrong on many doctrinal, chronological and prophetical matters furnishes it; for these errors prove that their leaders as sifters have by God been cast off and are by Azazel led into outer darkness. Such results, combined with our retaining the Truth and being used to give its advancing aspects, prove that we followed the Lord's will and they their own and Azazel's will in 1918.