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

CHAPTER III.

 

EARLIER DOINGS AND ERRORS OF THE

SHIMITE GERSHONITES.

 

ANOTHER HARVEST SIFTING REVIEWED. TWO PROPOSED CONVENTIONS. IN DEFENSE OF PEACE AMONG GOD'S PEOPLE. THE PURPOSES OF THE P.B.I. EXAMINED.

 

A YEAR and a half ago [written Aug., 1918] the wrong-doings of certain leading British brethren, who refused to desist from their course at private exhortation, and who, in hopes of crushing us, published misrepresentations abroad, forced us to appear before the British Church as the exposer of their evil course. Within a year the wrong-doings of the Society's leaders, who also refused to desist from their course at private exhortation, and who, in hopes of crushing us, also published misrepresentations abroad, forced us to appear before the whole Church as the exposer of their evil ways. And now, for the third time, we are forced to appear before the Church as the exposer of the wrong-doings of certain leaders among us who have refused to desist from wrong ways at private exhortation, and who in part, to crush us, published misrepresentations against us at the Asbury Park Convention after having, for some time past, carried on a "political" campaign of "whispering" against us, the fruit of which campaign it was designed to reap at the Convention in the ousting of three brothers (R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly, who stood with us, and ourself) from the Pastoral Bible Institute Committee, etc. Doubtless the hearts of many friends were deeply grieved at the attacks made upon us by H.C. Rockwell and I. Hoskins, the former in his sermon, the latter as Secretary-Treasurer, officially reporting without the Committee's authorization, the majority of whom repudiated his utterances in his address to the Elders and Deacons, and in

 

90

his address before the whole Convention, Saturday, July 27, 1918, and then again the next day. Their general charges and spirit were so much like those of J.F.R. that for the most part those who witnessed these, and heard our answer, were by Monday convinced that we were being harvest-siftinged and unbetheled anew. Hence we consider this third attempt to crush us the same in spirit as the other two, and, accordingly, call it "Another Harvest Sifting." Therefore this chapter, which is a brief review of this third movement, is called "Another Harvest Sifting Reviewed." In brief, our loyalty to that Servant's ideals, arrangements, charter and will, and to the interests of the Church against the efforts of certain leaders to put some of them aside, have made us the target of this, a third widespread attack.

 

Earnestly and long, but, of course, not perfectly, have we by kindness, long-suffering and reasoning, sought to hold these brothers back from their course; but seemingly it was all in vain! The responsibility of foisting this trouble on the Church is wholly theirs. As by the British and American "Society" leaders, the troubles were set afloat by a campaign of "whispering," and then by public attacks before large numbers of brethren, ourself keeping silent all the time, and trying to persuade them to do likewise; so has it been in this trouble, which was rudely thrust upon the recent Convention according to illy-thought-out preparations, despite the promises of the one mainly responsible for the publicity to keep the trouble from the Convention. Had the evil been limited to the Convention, we would, so far as exposures are concerned, rest content with what we answered there; but alas! the matters have been spread broadcast, and the wrongs and evil effects connected with them are so great, that duty to God and the Church forces us to place before the Church a brief summary of the wrongs that have been committed. If conditions would permit, gladly would we bury

 

91

the evils out of sight; for they are not told with pleasure, but with profound grief that such things could be privately and publicly committed among us. They are told in the hope that their recital will arouse in the Church the spirit of repentance; for the evil qualities out of which these wrongs have flown are, alas! not limited to the Committee members more or less involved. These qualities (of which the following are examples: grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, the spirit of fear and compromising, assassinatory slander, contentiousness, partisanship, arbitrariness, legality and worldliness seeking to corrupt the Church's organization) are quite widespread among us, and the Lord calls upon us to set them aside.

 

Our motive in reciting these things is not to chastise anyone, but to arouse the Church to a sense of danger from Satanic working on our weaknesses to our spiritual injury, to earnest, humble prayer and heart-searchings as preparatory to assemblying in solemn Convention to investigate these things, and to devise ways and means of helping all concerned to put these evils aside. Abundant are the evidences of God's displeasure upon us and of His withholding blessings from us for these wrongs. In God's name, therefore, let us assemble ourselves in Convention that unitedly we may learn to understand the spiritual diseases that are working havoc in our midst, and the treatment and remedy for their cure. If, in His spirit, we make the effort, He will surely bless us therein. What the situation requires is much humility, candor, honesty, love, and a clear view of the nature of the evils and means of putting them aside, combined with persistent determination, by God's grace, faithfully to use His Spirit, Word and Providence to make the diagnosis, prescribe the remedies and accept the treatment. Since the Convention some, with distress, learned what took place there. They have learned that there were, to put it

 

92

mildly, questionable acts committed, that the old Committee appointed by the Fort Pitt Convention was dissolved, because a group of four of its members wanted to get rid of the other three, who blocked their unscriptural, papistical and revolutionary course in certain particulars, that this was accomplished by questionable acts and methods, that the supporters of the Group, as well as some of the Group, used methods like those that J.F.R. used before and at the shareholders' meeting last January, that these same methods prospered unto the undoing of the old Committee, and unto the electing of a Committee consisting of about six members slated for the Committee by the Group, that some exposures were made Sunday, July 28; and as a result, the Convention, refusing longer to be bossed and driven by the Group and some of their partisans, and, becoming apprehensive that all was not gold that was given a glitter, not only refused to be clotured and stampeded into forming a new society and into adopting a program for what would be another spurious first smiting of Jordan; but also withdrew from the new Committee powers that the old one had, i.e., the power to publish a periodical and to have an Editorial Committee. Thus, those who came to the Convention seemingly to discredit others, left the Convention with their own credit far from being enhanced, and besides shorn of much of their power. Alas! that against these foretold results they refused to take kindly forewarning, which would have been heeded, if they had exercised the necessary meekness.

 

By the Group are meant the following persons: I.F. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson, F.H. Magee and J.D. Wright, the first of whom committed in his attacks the added wrong of disparagingly mentioning names, i.e., of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself, though H.C. Rockwell started the attack with an attempt at assassination of us. Both in justice and charity we are glad to say of F.H. Magee that he, both to others and to us,

 

93

expressed strong disapproval of the attacks of I.F. Hoskins and H.C. Rockwell. We will not, we cannot, believe of J.D. Wright that he approves of their course. While not presuming to judge the hearts, in justice to all concerned, we ought to state on whom it seems to us the varying degrees of external responsibility rest. From our knowledge of the facts, the most guilty of the Group seems to be I.F. Hoskins, with I.L. Margeson as a close second. These two seem to have done the main part of the planning, whose climax and purpose were reached in the Convention business meetings, July 27. It is but fair to say of F.H. Magee that he is too honest a man, and too noble a Christian, knowingly to have entered into the plots of the other two. It seems to us that he has been measurably deceived into a course favorable to the plans of the other two, and has been skillfully used as a tool in the furtherance of their plans under the influence of some false impressions, which he honestly believed to be true. We do not believe that J.D. Wright entered into the plotting at all. But, unfortunately, like F.H. Magee, he generally supported the policies of the two on the vital questions of principle that divided the Committee. Of these four we use the word Group, not disparagingly, but to have a brief term to designate them in their working together.

 

After he came on the scene, H.C. Rockwell seems to be almost on a par in the plotting and wrong-doing with the two. These three, in not a few particulars, closely resemble J.F.R., W. E. Van Amburgh and A. H. MacMillan, respectively, in the roles they played. The cunning and brutality of H.C. Rockwell's attack on us, on the Convention platform at Asbury Park, lasting over a half hour, and made Saturday morning in his sermon on "The Sevenfold Mission of the Church," with Is. 61: 1, 2, as text, were in spirit and in main accusations, i.e., in charging "insanity," selfish ambition for leadership, etc., a reproduction of

 

94

J.F.R.'s "Harvest Sifting." This attack was a part of a deliberate plan to drive us out of the Pastoral Bible Institute Committee, and to destroy our influence among the brethren. These three and some of their supporters, by their words and acts, for quite a while before the Convention, gave R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself enough clues of their plans to enable us to understand their main purposes in having called a Convention, though not before the Convention was voted for. The three main purposes of their arranging for the business features of the Convention were: first, to get rid of R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and ourself; second, to stampede the Convention into endorsing their policies of forming a Society with a Charter DIFFERENT from that of that Servant and of organizing the Church for what would be another SPURIOUS FIRST SMITING OF JORDAN; and third, to obtain from the Convention for their Committee all the Powers of the Society's Board of Directors; whereas the old Committee was limited in its sphere of activity, according to the instructions of the Fort Pitt Convention, to those features of work that the friends in general, by their responses to the Committee's letter, stated to be their understanding of the Lord's will as to the kinds of general service necessary for the Church, i.e., Pilgrim service, which, of course, includes conventions and a periodical.

 

Deeply do we deplore the necessity of using names. We will not plead in our defense for mentioning names the fact that some of the Group and some of their supporters did this first, both before and during the Convention. All will bear us record that we did not speak of the facts and names until after they had told their interpretation of facts, and mentioned names PUBLICLY at the Convention. The names, thus being made widely public through the course of these three themselves, to use their names here will now do them no wrong. Then, again, not to use names would work

 

95

injustice, especially to F.H. Magee and J.D. Wright, as that would in the setting given to matters below impliedly set forth that they are as guilty as some others, whereas they are not. Then, again, the matter cannot be presented with the necessary clearness without giving names; still further, the right of publishing this paper, whose object is the calling of a diagnosal and remedial Convention, which all sober minds, after reading this paper, will recognize as a crying need, cannot reasonably be demonstrated without mentioning names. All will recall that under similar conditions last year, those who constitute the Group strongly advocated the calling of an investigative and curative shareholders' meeting. Therefore, they cannot consistently object to such a Convention under similar conditions now; nor were they blamable for using names and stating the acts of the Society's wrongdoers under like circumstances last summer. In fact, the use of names and the mention of evil deeds of those who wrong the entire Church is a duty, and is not to be confused with evil speaking. See "Manna" comments for July 14.

 

IN OBEDIENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE MAJORITY OF THE OLD COMMITTEE, AND ALSO IN OBEDIENCE TO THE MAJORITY OF THE CONVENTION COMMITTEE, that sample copies of "The Bible Standard" be distributed Friday night, July 26, at the Convention, R.H. Hirsh announced to the conventioners the fact that he had the long-desired first issue of the paper for them. He then left it to a vote as to whether they desired it then. After an almost unanimous affirmative vote of the Convention, he invited them forward to receive the paper. This course greatly angered I.F. Hoskins and I.L. Margeson, whose rage almost caused them to make a counter-announcement, for they had for a long time been delaying the publication, partly for reasons best known to themselves. Then, in the little back room, they fell upon us, upbraiding us for our part in

 

96

the matter. Among other uncomplimentary remarks, by which they characterized the course of the majority of both Committees in this matter, I.F. Hoskins used, several times with heated emphasis, the expression, "This is Rutherfordism." Quickly seeing the similarity but in another sense than he meant, we replied to the following effect: "Yes, Brother Hoskins, it is Rutherfordism, just as two Board members, J.F.R. and W. E. Van Amburgh, and one not on the Board, A. H. MacMillan, sought to set aside the voted decision of the Board's majority, so you and I.L. Margeson, two members of the Committee, with the assistance of one not on the Committee, H.C. Rockwell, are now doing. It is Rutherfordism, indeed." In fact, it was Rutherfordism repeating itself; but, strange to say, this time it is among ourselves.

 

The comparison was so complete and apparent that I.F. Hoskins did not answer us. Since that night, with his statement, "This is Rutherfordism," in mind, we have made a careful study of the history of our Committee since its appointment Jan. 6, 1918, comparing it with the history of Rutherfordism in the Society. As a result of this study, we have gathered together, under twelve divisions, or heads, one hundred and fifty particulars (to which we could add more, if necessary), wherein Rutherfordism in the Society finds its counterpart in Rutherfordism in the Committee. In this comparison J.F.R., or his representatives, correspond to the Group, or their representatives. It is sad to contemplate these points of comparison; because they prove that some of those who protested against J.F.R.'s wrong-doings have, in spite of having his example before their eyes as a warning, and in spite of their protest against it, imitated it so closely, as these twelve divisions and one hundred and fifty particulars indicate. Could these brothers have fallen into the same evils as J.F.R. while living close to the Lord? Do not their knowledge of, and protest against his wrong-doings increase

 

97

their own guilt? He, at least, did not have a similar example as a warning before his eyes. How are the mighty fallen! Let the daughter of Zion weep for the iniquity of the children of her people! In these correspondencies, not the number of persons involved, but the nature and quality of the acts are the points of comparison. Arranged in parallel columns, these twelve divisions, placed as heads over the one hundred and fifty particulars, are presented to the brethren for consideration, as follows:

 

THE DEADLY PARALLEL.

[After reading number 1 in the first column, please read

number 1 in the second column, etc.]

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

I. J.F.R. persisted in taking up and acting on subjects outside of the sphere of an executive and manager in the Society's affairs to the disruption of the Board of Directors.

(1) He persisted in discussing the suppression of certain interpretations of the Lord's Word, e.g., "that Servant's" interpretation of the Parable of the Penny.

(2) He sought to combine in various acts the Board of the Society and the Board of the People's Pulpit Association.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

I. The group persisted in taking up and acting on subjects outside of the sphere of activity prescribed by the Fort Pitt Convention, even to the disruption of the old Pastoral Bible Institute Committee.

(1) The Group persisted in discussing the suppression of certain interpretations of the Lord's Word, e.g., The Evil Servant, Elijah and Elisha, etc.

(2) I.F. Hoskins and H.C. Rockwell, immediately after the conviction of the Society leaders, introduced, for the Committee's favorable action, a plan to make

 

 

98

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(3) He planned securing legal action to drive the Board's majority and Bro. Johnson from Bethel.

(4) He advocated a spurious first smiting of Jordan as an indispensable thing in the first book-publication of the Society, as the chief part of its program of work.

(5) For months he insisted on dissolving the Society, i.e., making a one-man affair of the Society, despite the fact that "that Servant's" writings, will and charter made what, during his life, was a Society in name only, a Society in fact, at his death.

(6) These acts sidetracked the consideration and accomplishment of some of the work that he was authorized to do.

(7) The obtrusion of these matters divided the

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

overtures to effect a reunion with the Society.

(3) These two planned securing legal action (through a firm of New York corporation lawyers) to recover control of the Society after the conviction of the Society's leaders.

(4) Some of the Group and some of their supporters advocated, as an indispensable thing that our first periodical number set forth what would be a spurious first smiting of Jordan as a chief part of the Committee's future work.

(5) For months these four insisted on forming a Society, i.e., dissolving the Committee, despite the fact that the Fort Pitt Convention voted down a motion to form a Society.

(6) These acts sidetracked the consideration a n d accomplishment of some of the work that the Committee was authorized to do.

(7) The obtrusion of these matters divided the Board into two parts.

 

99.

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

II. False and wrong motives were charged, especially against Bro. Johnson, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of aspiring to control the work and the Board, whereas, he pushed

J.F.R. ahead and advised against himself being made a Board member and President.

(2) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of being led by the spirit of ruling or ruining.

(3) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of trying to delay the work of the Society.

(4) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of being in a clique with certain members of the Board (whereas, the accuser was thus guilty) to disrupt the work of the Society.

(5) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of seeking

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

Committee into two parts.

 

II. False and wrong motives were charged, especially against Bro. Johnson, to the disruption of the old committee.

(1) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of aspiring to control the work and the Committee, whereas, he pushed others to the front and advised against his being elected an officer.

(2) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of being led by the spirit of ruling or ruining.

(3) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of trying to delay the work of the Committee, e.g., the publication of "The Bible Standard"; whereas, he pushed it at least as much as any other member of the Committee.

(4) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of being in a clique with R.H. Hirsh and

R.G. Jolly (whereas the accuser, with the Group, was thus guilty), to disrupt the work of the Committee.

(5) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of seeking

 

100

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

 to divide the Church by J.F.R., who later did divide it.

(6) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of seeking a following by J.F.R., who won a following.

 

III. J.F.R. attempted to suppress the presentation of any Biblical thoughts to the Church, unless he favored them.

(1) He did this among the Pilgrims by a resolution of his own to suppress what was new, apart from Vol. VII and what he favored, on pain of their being out of harmony.

(2) This he did among the elders by requiring them to submit to Vol. VII end the Society policies' tests.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

to divide the Church by those who are now dividing it.

(6) Bro. Johnson was falsely accused of seeking a following by the Group that is winning one.

 

III. Led by I.F. Hoskins, the Group attempted to suppress the presentation of Biblical thoughts to the Church, unless they favored them.

(1) This was done by a resolution of the Committee forbidding Committee members to teach anything new, particularly on types, symbols and prophecy, not set forth in that Servant's writings, unless agreed to by the Committee, on pain of their being out of harmony with the Committee.

(2) In harmony with this resolution, I.F. Hoskins largely created such a sentiment among a number of the elders of one of our largest Churches as led to the presentation of two resolutions in elders' meetings, and also one in the Church, calculated to prevent the presentation of uncensored new thoughts

 

101

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

IV. J.F.R. insisted on setting up false standards of teaching authorization to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) He advocated that nothing be taught additional to that Servant's writings except what the Churches (frightened into believing by his propaganda) had first approved, thus making the Church, not the Lord, at the mouth of the teachers "set in the body," the arbiter of what was meat in due season.

(2) He advocated and decided that nothing be taught additional to that Servant's writings except what he sanctioned.

(3) He advocated that nothing be anywhere taught additional to that Servant's writings, except what the Editorial Committee first approved.

(4) He advocated that nothing be taught that might occasion disagreement among Truth people,

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

to that Church, which very wisely rejected the resolution.

 

IV. The Group insisted on setting up false standards of teaching authorization to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) The Group advocated that nothing be taught additional to that Servant's writings except what the Churches had first approved, thus making the Church, not the Lord, at the mouth of the teachers "set in the body," the arbiter of what was meat in due season.

(2) The Group advocated and decided that nothing be taught additional to that Servant's writings except what the Committee sanctioned.

(3) Several of the Group advocated that nothing be anywhere taught additional to that Servant's writings, except what the Editorial Committee first approved.

(4) The Group advocated that nothing be taught that might occasion disagreement among Truth people,

 

102

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

despite the fact that he admitted that we were in a sifting, which, of course, means that God wants, by disagreements, to separate the classes, i.e., Little Flock, Great Company, etc.

(5) He attempted to boycott in Pilgrim work those Board members and others who stood for Biblical principles in these matters.

(6)Reliable information proves that by July 29, 1917, he had discussed boycotting in Pilgrim work members of the Old Board and others.

(7) Later information proved that he did boycott in Pilgrim work members of the old Board and others.

 

V. He greatly exceeded his authority in grasping for power, largely treating the Society's work as though it were his private business, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) He signed his own name instead of that of the Society to the Society's

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

despite the fact that they admitted that we are in a sifting, which, of course, means that God wants, by disagreements, to separate classes.

(5) Several of the Group attempted to boycott in Pilgrim work those Committee members and others who stood for Biblical principles in these matters.

(6) Reliable information proves that by July 29, 1918, some, if not all, of the Group discussed boycotting in Pilgrim work two of the ousted Committee members.

(7) Later information proves that they have boycotted in Pilgrim work some members of the old Committee.

 

V. I.F. Hoskins greatly exceeded his authority in grasping for power, largely treating the Committee's work as though it were his private business, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) I.F. Hoskins signed his own name, instead of that of the Committee, to

 

103

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

Correspondence with which he was charged.

(2) Unauthorized by and unknown to the Board, he made contracts, in some cases using donated private funds, of whose existence he said nothing to the Board, to meet the expenses.

(3) He accepted some donations which he kept as a private fund, apart from the Society's funds, to meet expenses, unauthorized by the Board; all this being unknown to the Board as such, until about July 26, 1917, when some of them, by a seeming accident, found it out.

(4) Apart from one time, he gave, and required to be given, no exact report of receipts, expenses and balance on hand; and when asked at various times to give or furnish information on these matters, he gave the Board no exact information.

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

The Committee's correspondence with which he was charged.

(2) Unauthorized by, and not reporting it to, the Committee, I.F. Hoskins rented, and in part furnished, a room for office purposes, seemingly using a private fund, of whose existence he said nothing to the Committee, to meet expenses.

(3) I.F. Hoskins accepted some donations, as treasurer, which he kept as a private fund, apart from the Committee's funds, to meet expenses unauthorized by the Committee; all this being unknown to the Committee as such, some of whom first found it out July 26, 1918, by a seeming accident.

(4) Apart from one time, I.F. Hoskins has given the Committee no exact report on receipts, expenses and balance on hand; and when asked at various Committee meetings on these matters, gave the Committee no exact information. (While claiming to make a report to the

 

104

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

(5) Long after the Board had asked for such an accounting he continued to keep some of the Society's money deposited in his own name.

(6) He insisted on signing some contracts in his own name.

(7) Without authorization of the Board he paid for work which he was not authorized to have done.

(8) He assumed authority to deal with class matters not given him as his duty.

(9) In pursuance of such unauthorized acts he set Board members in an unfavorable light and caused

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

Convention as Secretary-Treasurer, unauthorized to do so by the Committee, he told the Convention that he did not have the figures with him, and therefore could not give more than an approximate report of the finances on hand, nor did he say anything of the amounts received and expended.)

(5) Months after the Committee instructed I.F. Hoskins to transfer its funds in the bank to its name, he continued to keep the Committee's money in his own name in the bank.

(6) I.F. Hoskins insisted on having the Committee's telephone taken out in his own name.

(7) Without authorization of the Committee I.F. Hoskins paid for work which he was not authorized to have done.

(8) I.F. Hoskins assumed authority to deal with matters in a class not given him as his duty.

(9) Through the preceding act, through a letter which he wrote, and which was read in a class meeting

 

105

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

injury to nearly all concerned.

(10) He withheld from the Board important communications addressed to the Board.

(11) Against repeated remonstrances he continued to control Pilgrim appointments without consulting the Board; and sought to prevent other than his Pilgrims from addressing classes.

(12) He appointed many persons to the Pilgrim office without authorization of the Board.

(13) He advocated and did things calculated to injure prominent brethren with the Church, including

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

I.F. Hoskins set one of the Committee members in an unfavorable light, to the injury of nearly all concerned.

(10) I.F. Hoskins withheld from the Committee a communication (and information respecting it until it was eked out of him) addressed to it by our largest Church inviting the Committee to establish its headquarters in the city of that Church.

(11) Against repeated remonstrance's I.F. Hoskins continued alone for two months to make Pilgrim appointments without consulting the brother who jointly with him was charged with the duty of making these appointments; and he sought to prevent at least one Church from having Pilgrim service unless he made the appointments.

(12) I.F. Hoskins appointed persons to act as Pilgrims without authorization of the Committee.

(13) I.F. Hoskins advocated and did things calculated to injure prominent brethren with the Church,

 

106

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

public attacks on them, mentioning their names.

(14) In many instances he interfered in the private affairs of the Churches.

(15) He used his office to make for himself a place in the Church.

(16) He became the chief opponent of the brother who most favored him.

(17) He publicly disparaged the presentations of Pilgrims with whom he did not agree.

(18) He even publicly mentioned their names as the holders of opinions from which he dissented.

(19) He continued to speak against them after being warned against the injustice.

(20) He indulged in sarcasm at the expense of one of these.

(21) He winked knowingly to his sympathizers and sneered in disparagement of others.

(22) He wrongly told of

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

including public attacks on them, mentioning their names.

(14) In more than one case he interfered in the private affairs of one of our Churches.

(15) I.F. Hoskins used his office to make for himself a place in the Church.

(16) I.F. Hoskins became the chief opponent of the brother who most favored him.

(17) I.F. Hoskins publicly disparaged the presentations of Pilgrims with whom he disagreed.

(18) I.F. Hoskins even publicly mentioned their names, as the holders of opinions from which he dissented.

(19) I.F. Hoskins continued to speak against them after being warned against the injustice.

(20) I.F. Hoskins, in one instance at least, indulged in sarcasm at the expense of one of these.

(21) He winked knowingly to his sympathizers and sneered in disparagement of one of them.

(22) I.F. Hoskins

 

107

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

his disagreement with the Board and Bro. Johnson to others.

(23) At first for months in his public utterances, without mentioning names, He said things calculated to undermine various brethren.

(24) These underhanded attacks also came out in "The Tower."

(25) He tried to force through the Board cut-and-dried programs.

(26) He doctored the minutes to suit himself, e.g., those of the People's Pulpit Association, so as to make them sanction the holding of an annual meeting adjourned from early in Jan., 1917, to July 27, 1917, the date on which he caused to be expelled R.H. Hirsh and I.F. Hoskins from the Association and its Board.

(27) He unnecessarily used from the Society's contributions extravagant amounts of money to put up himself and some of his fellow conspirators at high

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

wrongly told of his disagreement with R.H. Hirsh, R.G. Jolly and P.S.L. Johnson to others.

(23) At first for months in his public utterances, without mentioning names,

I.F. Hoskins said things calculated to undermine various brethren.

(24) These underhanded attacks also came out in "The Bible Standard."

(25) I.F. Hoskins tried to force through the Committee cut-and-dried programs.

(26) I.F. Hoskins doctored the Committee minutes so as to make motions favor things that he wanted, contrary to the majority's intentions in passing them, which procedure the Committee had repeatedly to correct.

(27) During the Convention I.F. Hoskins unnecessarily used from the Committee's contributions extravagant amounts of money to put up himself,

 

108

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

SOCIETY.

priced hotels.

 

VI. J.F.R. sought to lord it over God's heritage, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) He sought to with-hold from the Church the discussion of timely Scriptural subjects.

(2) He sought to withhold properly authorized and revised Volume VII from the Church by disregarding the rights of the Board to control and of the Editors to revise it, and by disregarding the needs of the Church.

(3) He claimed and sought to obtain for himself practically all the power of the Society's Board to control in the general work, which means that he

 

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE

COMMITTEE.

H.C. Rockwell and others of his supporters at a hotel where for each of them he, had to pay $6 a day.

 

VI. A number of the Committee, usually the Group, sought to lord it over God's heritage, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) The Group sought to withhold from the Church the discussion of timely Scriptural subjects (It is but fair to state that later F.H. McGee and I.L. Margeson voted to rescind the objectionable resolution.)

(2) I.F. Hoskins, I.L. Margeson and H.C. Rockwell sought to withhold the properly authorized and revised "Bible Standard" from being published by disregarding the rights of the Committee's majority to control in the matter, and disregarding the needs of the Church.

(3) They claimed and sought to obtain for the Committee (which would usually mean the Group) all the power of the Society's Board to control the