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


is another effort to meet our presentations, and quiet an increasingly troublesome situation. In view of this we will give friendly, but plain replies and seek to set forth our understanding of the Lord's mind on the subjects at issue, criticizing not the private conduct of the brethren, which we never do in print; but only their official wrong acts and false teachings, which our duty as a general elder in the Church requires us to do in the interests of the flock.


The central point in the article under review is the subject of the channel. As on other erroneous views of its writer, so on this subject the article is very vague, e.g., not precisely defining the channel's supposed powers connected with its claimed successorship to "that Servant." The chief confusion in the article is its combining the Society with the Church in a real union, partly like that of state and church, and partly like that of the papacy and the Catholic Church. This thought permeates the article from beginning to end. For the present, limiting our remarks to the similarity in the relation of the papacy and the Catholic Church, we would say that as the Catholic hierarchy combines its organization with that Church, so does the article under review combine the Society with the Church, as it were, in wedlock. The argument clarified and supplemented by other Tower utterances is the following: As the hierarchy is the channel between God and the Church for its instruction and for the management of its general work; so the Society is the channel between God and the Church for its instruction, and the management of its general work. Above we pointed out that the official publications of the Society claim for it that it is "the one and only channel which the Lord has used in dispensing His Truth continually since the beginning of the Harvest period." (Z '19, 105, col. 2, par. 1; 107, last par.; G 145.) How could this be true, among other reasons, since the Society did not come into existence, until years after the



Harvest began? This proposition involves the thought, as it does in the case of the pope, that there be especially "one mind," J.F.R.'s, that God specially illuminates with the light as due, and that the Society, J.F.R., by special illumination sees and presents this special light for the friends, e.g., in such articles as Blessed are the Fearless, Worthies, Ancient and Modern, Justification and the one under review, etc., all contradicting the Divinely illuminated views of him who was as "that Servant," the true channel, not as the Society's President, but as that Servant.


The channel proposition under review clarified by other authorized Society publications, is also exactly like that of the papacy in a second respect, i.e., as the pope is not only the specially illuminated teacher of the Church through the hierarchy, but also the specially guided executive through the hierarchy for the Church; so J.F.R., through the Society, is not only the specially illuminated teacher of the Church, but also the specially guided executive, "the Steward," through the Society for the Church! This is the view underlying the article and is veiledly expressed (Z '20, 104, col. 1, par. 2) and is the general view of the Society's mouthpieces (Z '17, 327, par. 1; Z '16, 390, col. 2, etc.; G 227; Harvest Siftings, 10, col. 2, par. 4). All will admit that this is the official as well as the common view among Society adherents, e.g., as championed in Clayton Woodworth's tract on the Penny and its Steward, which was published in the Swedish Tower, perhaps in others also. The claim that the Society is the successor of that Servant is in line with this thought, as all will grant; and as our Pastor used the term Society of himself, so J.F.R. has used the term of himself. Such a view makes the Society under the headship of its president in its relation to the Church exactly what the Roman Catholic view makes of the Catholic hierarchy through the headship of the pope in its relation to the Catholic Church.



Hence the Society is in little Babylon, the confused condition prevailing among Truth people, exactly what the Romish hierarchy is in the confused condition among the Nominal Church people. To seat such air institution with such claims in the true Church is to seat a little Antichrist in the temple of God (2 Thes. 2: 1-9). There can be no successful denial of this proposition. The new doctrine of the Society that has been made to prevail since about the time of out Pastor's death is exactly like the doctrine (of apostolic succession of bishops and the primacy of the pope as Peter's successor) that was with the falling away, in the beginning of the Age made to prevail in the nominal Church. Some day in minute detail we will, D.v., trace the correspondence between the papacy's history, doctrines, practices and constitution on the one hand, and the Society's history, policy-doctrines, practices and constitution on the other hand.


But one may say, Is that not the relation that that Servant had to the Church, as the one whose mind was specially illuminated with the light as due, whose mouth and pen set this light forth, and whose hand guided the general work of the Church? We answer: by no means; for not as president of a "dummy corporation" with "dummy directors and shareholders" did he have the above-mentioned official functions; but as an individual, apart from any corporation, Divinely chosen to be for the Church the special eye, mouth and hand of the Lord for the Parousia. As the Lord's Special Representative, as an individual, and not as the president, or special representative of the Society, did he function as above. How do we know this? Because he took executive charge of the Harvest work in 1875 as the Lord's choice, when he published his tract on The Object And Manner Of Our Lord's Return, continued it when in 1876 he directed Mr. Barbour to edit a paper, with our Pastor as its publisher, and as one of its associate editors; and in 1879,



when the light on the Tabernacle was given him, the storehouse was put into his charge; while the Society was not formed as an association until about Sep., 1881, and as a corporation until Dec., 1884. Hence he was that Servant before the Society was formed; and received none of his powers as that Servant from, on account of, or through it. Rather he controlled it absolutely until his death, which proves that it was not "the channel" for years, but was only a "dummy corporation" with "dummy directors and shareholders," as all people who know the facts are aware. J.F.R. knows and said this, when he wrote that there was but little use for the "so-called Board" during that Servant's life (Harvest Siftings, 10, col. 2, par. 4).


The article under review claims that "the Society published all the writings of Brother Russell," and that "the Society was the channel for the beginning of these publications." We beg leave to differ. In our quotation above from his booklet, A Conspiracy Exposed, published in 1894, it can be seen that up to 1894, it published nothing; this remark applies also to later years; that the Tower Publishing Co. ("which," our pastor writes, "in a financial way represents myself") owned everything and published everything, and filled the Tract Society's (his) orders for Dawns and Tracts, etc. In that same booklet, as can be seen in our quotation, he called it a financial channel, absolutely under his control, a means whereby he received donations which he expended for the work, as he saw fit. His putting his copyrights, which he took out for only a part of his writings, The Studies, and all his other possessions, apart from most of his publications, in the name of the Society about 1903, was putting them from one of his pockets into another; for he controlled them, just the same after as before so doing, as per his express stipulation with the board. The transfer was made, not to give the Society added powers, but to protect what was his stewardship from the



unholy ambitions and covetous designs of Mrs. Russell. J.F.R.'s statement that our Pastor was an editor, not a publisher, which he says the Society was, is wholly out of harmony with the facts. It is true that from April 15, 1909, for the first time he used the name of the Society as publisher of the Tower; but even from then onward this was merely nominal, and occurred for the first time 6 years after he put his book copyrights in the Society's name. He was the real publisher, i.e., controller; and when in the foreword on the inside page of each Tower he spoke of the Tower as a trust of his to be administered according to his judgment of the Lord's will, he proved that he was both publisher and editor; for an editor who is not a publisher must follow the publisher's orders, unless by definite understanding he can do otherwise. That the Watch Tower was not at all times the official organ of the Society, as J.F.R. claims, is evident, among other things, from the fact that it was published years before the Society came into existence. During our Pastor's life the Tower was his mouthpiece, though nominally for his last 7 years it was published as that of the Society, a "dummy corporation."


Again J.F.R. is mistaken when he thinks that the Society now controls all our Pastor's writings. Those writings that he for a longer or shorter duration published without copyrights anybody can reprint without the Society's permission, and this includes almost everything that he wrote. Hence the Society cannot control reprints made from copies of his writings that were issued without copyrights. The Tower was first copyrighted after his death, as can be seen from the absence of the words or initials claiming the copyright before his death. Hence the P.B.I. or anyone else is safe legally and morally in republishing literary products from our Pastor's non-copyrighted or expired copyrighted editions. Our Pastor, therefore, as the



Lord's eye, mouth and hand for His Church was, as he taught, the Lord's channel. In this sense the Society never was and never will be the channel. In its claims, actual, implied or presumed, to these functions of that Servant it is a counterfeit channel, as the papacy is. As we showed above, it is a channel, Divinely instituted for that branch of the Great Company alone typed by Mahlite Levites and Elisha.


The Society leaders and their partisan supporters seek hard in many ways to bolster up their claims on Society powers. On some of their other claims thereon we will make a few remarks. First as to their claim that our Pastor was appointed that Servant for the duration of the Laodicean Church, and hence is still acting as that Servant from beyond the vail! This claim among other things is too broad. He was appointed that Servant for the Parousia period of the Laodicean Church (Luke 12: 37, 42-47; Ezek. 9: 11), not for the Epiphany period, whose peculiar mission and trials required his vacating the office of that Servant and the non-existence of this office. There is no evidence in Scripture, Reason, Fact and his Writings that his office as that Servant persisted after his passing beyond the vail. The reason for the office precludes such an idea; being invisible, while present serving His prospective Bride with the Parousia Truth, our Lord for the best interests of the Parousia Truth and work toward His prospective Bride, had to have a special visible eye, mouth and hand through which He could see for, speak to, and work toward and through Her, until He would accomplish His Parousia mission to Her. For these purposes exclusively the office of that Servant was created; and it lasted until these purposes were realized, i.e., until the end of the Parousia, during which all the watching servants were fed with the Truth, and led in the work of harvesting (Luke 12: 37, 42-44; Ezek. 9: 11). The purposes of the office having been realized, the office



ceased to exist, God ending it when the man with the writer's inkhorn began through his chief member, that Servant, in the toga scene on the Pullman Car, Oct. 30, 1916, the day before the latter's death, to report the completion of that symbolic man's work (Ezek. 9: 11). The Lord the next day gave us the unanswerable proof of the completion of the Reaping and Gleaning work ("I have done as Thou hast commanded me": "put the mark on the foreheads," etc.), and the present nonexistence of that office by making invisible through death the only one for whom the office was created; since his functions for the reaping and gleaning work as the visible eye, mouth and hand of the invisible present Lord of necessity ceased, when on that day he by his change of nature ceased to be visible. The Lord would never have had a that Servant, except that as an invisible Spirit He needed a that Servant as a visible special representative, through whom to see for, speak to, and act toward His prospective Bride during and only during the Parousia for its special work. Hence neither an individual nor a corporation is his successor, i.e., has and uses his office powers as the Lord's eye, hand and mouth for His prospective Bride for the Harvest, whose end, having set in, proves our proposition with redoubled force.


The duration of that Servant's office being limited to the Parousia period of the Laodicean Church, and all the goods being put into his charge for the period of that office only, we being now in the Epiphany period of the Laodicean Church, evidently he could no longer be that Servant, nor could the storehouse be any longer in his charge; nor could he have a successor, the office which he held passing out of existence with its necessity and its period of duration; hence there is no necessity for his having a visible agency (either in the form of the Society, or in the form of J.F.R.) for giving the meat in due season. Moreover, if a channel somewhat like our Pastor were now



necessary, it would be the Lord's direct channel, and would not be our Pastor's channel. The Society's claim that our Pastor is now "from beyond the vail directing every feature of the Harvest work," is contradictory to our Lord's prerogatives as the Director of the work from beyond the veil, and is in Little Babylon the counterpart of the papal claim that St. Peter manages the Church through the pope.


As to the attempted distinction which some Society friends make between the office of "that Servant" and that of "the Steward," with our Pastor retaining the former, and giving J.F.R. the latter, we would remark that there is no difference either in nature, personnel or function, in the office designated by these terms; for Jesus, both in Greek and English (Luke 12: 42-46) uses the words interchangeably. The reason why a different word is used in the Greek of Matt. 20: 8 is due to the fact that different figures with pertinent names are used in the two passages: the figure of a household and its appurtenances is used in the former, while that of a vineyard and its appurtenances is used in the latter passage; but both words translated "steward" mean an administrator, an executive. Our Pastor now retains no part of this office indicated by these words, and this office now no longer existing, he cannot have a successor therein. Hence neither the Society nor J.F.R. is his successor in this peculiar office. In Vol. V, Chap. II, we proved our Pastor was the steward of Matt. 20: 8, and disproved J.F.R.'s being such. There are, however, strong factual reasons for believing that the latter in his work and office as the leader of the Great Company is typed by the power-grasping, money-loving, truth-denying and falsehood-telling Gehazi, the unworthy servant of Elisha (Vol. III, Chap. V).


To another of their claims, i.e., that that Servant always used the Society as the channel, we would reply that being the channel (1) of controlling the work



and (2) of giving the Truth in due season, which he received by special illumination as that Servant, and not as the Society's president, he never in these two ways used the Society, which term properly means the directors with their agents in their organized capacity, or the shareholders, or both. Whenever he spoke of "the Society," or "The Tower," or "The Studies" as being "that Servant" and "the channel," as he did in some places, e.g., Z '09, 292-294, he did it modestly to hide himself behind these names, as is usual with editors, authors, and corporation controllers, and thus he tactfully prevented opponents from using the matter of that Servant to the injury of the lambs in the flock, as they sought to do. All of us understood the subject and that article in this way for years, until just lately, when in the interests of themselves as power-graspers the Society leaders introduced a perverted and misleading thought thereon (Acts 20: 30). We were astounded to find that the article in Z '09, 292-294 was quoted in Z '19, 54-57 in full, and again in part in the article that we are reviewing (Z '20, 100), to prove that the Society always was during the Harvest that Servant and the channel for giving the meat and conducting the work. In that same article The Tower and The Studies are also called that Servant and the channel. This fact should be sufficient to prove even to babes in the Truth that our Pastor, an individual, not a Society, and not as its president as such, was modestly hiding himself behind all three of these names, and by them meant himself, as he sometimes said: "I am the Society." The fact that in Z '09, 292-294, he refers as explanatory of his understanding of that Servant and the channel to D 613, 614 and Z '96, 47, where he speaks (modestly, of course) of himself as that Servant and the channel, should have kept back the Tower Editors from such manifestly deceitful use of the article in question. What a fearful responsibility these Editors are heaping



upon themselves for using that article as Catholic writers frequently use writings of Church Fathers. We warn them in God's name to desist from such fraudulent use of that article! Further similar use of it they will make at their own peril (Gal. 6: 7, 8).


Above we proved that the Society was not that Servant during our Pastor's life, nor has it become his successor as that Servant since his death. The Tower, deceitfully handling that Servant's writings (Z '09, 292-294), has since his death set up the claim that the Society had during his life always been that Servant, quoting Z '09, 292-294 in full in Z '19, 54-57 and in Z '20, 100 in part, to prove this claim. This deceitful use of our Pastor's article we exposed and showed above to be false and deceitful. In the March 1, 1923, Tower in an article entitled, "Loyalty The Test," with characteristic Rutherfordian jugglery of words, The Tower Editors surrender the claim that the Society was that Servant during our Pastor's life, but set up the claim that since his death it has become his successor as that Servant; that such was our Pastor's intention when he formed the Society; that Jehovah had him organize it for that purpose; and that hence—"and this is the kernel in the nut"—to be out of harmony with that thought and the Society's work is to be out of harmony with the Lord as "murmurers" against his arrangements and to be disloyal to Him, to be loyal to whom, one must accept and work under the Society as that Servant! This theory and its outworking the Society sets up as a test of loyalty to God. Where is this test of loyalty set forth in the Scriptures—the mouth of God that contains for the child of God everything pertaining to faith and practice (2 Tim. 3: 15-17)? Above we proved that our Pastor finished the work (Ezek. 9: 11) for which the office of that Servant was created. Hence he could have no successor in that office, since, the work and need of such



an office existing no more, the office itself has ceased to be.


But let us see how The Tower Editors try to prove their proposition. As the proof they offer a quotation from Z '84, Oct. 2, which they claim proves that by Divine intention our Pastor formed the Society to become his successor as that Servant at his death. The quotation follows: "It seems tolerably certain that some of the saints will be in the flesh during a great part at least of the 'time of trouble'; and if so, there will be need of printed matter, tracts, etc., [italics ours] as much then, perhaps, as now, and possibly will be more needed; for 'when the judgments of the Lord are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness' (Is. 26: 9). Should those at present prominently identified with the work not be the last to be 'changed,' some interruption of the work might result; but this may be obviated by having a legal standing, granted by a State Charter." So far the quotation. Above we gave a much longer quotation on the reason for forming the Society, from our Pastor's booklet, published in 1894, and entitled, "A Conspiracy Exposed." It elaborates his reason for organizing the Society given above and adds, among other things, what is not stated in the paragraph quoted above—that the Society was to serve as a depository for funds to send out Truth literature. But to return to the quotation from Z '84, Oct., we remark by way of a preliminary, that Jesus (Matt. 24: 45-47; Luke 12: 42-44) states the office functions of "that Servant" to be two: (1) to expound the Parousia Truth as due to the Church; and (2) to act as executive of the Parousia work of the Church. Now we ask, Does the above quotation—or any other writing of our Pastor—state or imply that the Society, in the event of his death before the Reaping was finished, would serve in either or both of these capacities? Certainly not! Hence the quotation does not state



or imply that the Society at his death would become his successor as that Servant—the Lord's mouth, eye and hand for the Parousia. He did not then, in Oct., 1884, even know that he was that Servant, having first learned of it between 1894 and 1896, let alone arrange for a successor in that capacity. The quotation under consideration proves that the Society was organized to publish in the event of our Pastor's death printed matter like tracts and other Truth literature (which the Will says should consist exclusively of our Pastor's writings, apart from articles appearing in the Tower). The Charter agrees with this, showing that the Society was organized to furnish only inanimate instrumentalities for the spread of the Truth. The last clause of the quotation shows that the Society was organized so that, especially in case of our Pastor's death, the work— that referred to in the preceding part of the quotation: publishing printed matter—tracts and kindred literature— be not interrupted. The quotation does not refer directly or impliedly to interrupting the work of acting as the Lord's mouth in giving the Parousia Truth and as the Lord's hand in administering the Parousia Work. To what desperate straits must one be reduced when in poverty of argument he is forced to quote the above paragraph in an effort to prove that the Society, since his death, is our Pastor's successor as that Servant! All that the paragraph proves is that in the event of Bro. Russell's death, the Society might exercise a very subordinate feature of power, one not restricted in use to the office of that Servant—that of publishing printed matter—tracts, etc., which apart from the Tower must consist of his writings according to the Will. In inheriting such a power, the Society has received from the Lord a power that any Gospel-Age Merarite Levite might have performed. And in moving our Pastor to arrange for the Society to do such a work, the Lord indicated what the



antitypical fulfillment actually shows has taken place—that the Society would be an antitypical wagon (organization) of the Epiphany Merarite Levites! Hence this quotation, instead of proving that the Society would be our Pastor's successor as that Servant after his death, implies, when compared with the work of the Gospel-Age Merarites, that it would after his death become one of the antitypical Merarite Levites' symbolic wagons, which is far removed from successorship to his office!


Nor must another thing escape our memories: When our Pastor wrote the article in 1884, from which the Tower quotes, he believed that both the Harvest and the Time of Trouble would end by Oct., 1914. Indeed it was not until 1904 (Z '04, 197-199) that he came to see that the trouble could not begin until the lease of power to the Gentiles had expired—1914. Fearing that he might die before the Harvest would end in 1914, and desiring the Truth literature to be available for Harvest purposes until 1914, he arranged for the Society so that it could furnish the literature up to that date in the event of his death before. But he lived until not only the reaping (1914) but also the gleaning (1916) was finished. Thus he finished the work that God gave him to do—the work of giving the Harvest Truth and superintending the Harvest work unto a completion (Ezek. 9: 11). We have (in the Appendix of Studies III, 387-404) given 56 reasons from the Bible and the Pyramid proving that the reaping ended by Oct., 1914, and the gleaning by Passover, 1916. Hence the work going on since the latter date is not the HarvestReaping and Gleaning—work. Accordingly, the Society's work is not Harvesting—gathering the Little Flock. Hence it cannot have our Pastor's official functions as the channel and therefore is not his successor as that Servant.


Repeatedly and boldly the Tower (Z '23, 68, 72)



throws out the challenge to others to state what is the channel, if the Society is not such. We would be disloyal to the Lord, if we permitted this repeated, public and bold challenge to remain unanswered. Therefore we answer it as follows: Since our Pastor's death there has been no channel in the sense in which he was the channel. We pointed out above the fact that the Society is a channel of the Lordfor certain features of the Epiphany Merarites' work. If it were the channel as that Servant's successor, its mouthpiece— The Tower—would not in almost every issue bring forth some new erroneous interpretation or teaching contradictory of the interpretations and teaching of the channel—Bro. Russell. Its partisan supporters as antitypical Elisha are also a channel of the Lord—His mouthpiece to nominal Spiritual Israel. But there are other channels than the Society and antitypical Elisha. The Pastoral Bible Institute, the Bible Student's Committee, the Standfasts' Committee, etc., are, each in its way, channels of the Lord as Levitical organizations. The members of the World's High Priest yet in the flesh are also a channel of the Lord— to lead Azazel's Goat to the Gate and to deliver it to the fit man, and indirectly—through the latter—to Azazel (1 Cor. 5: 3-5). The Scriptures prove, and facts and the Pyramid corroborate the thought that the privilege of giving the Epiphany Truth pertinent to, and of overseeing the general Epiphany work toward—not the Priests, but—Azazel's Goat, was shortly after our Pastor's death given to us, who amid many tribulations have and will continue to exercise these functions, and will by God's grace complete the ministry toward Azazel's Goat, and shortly thereafter, through the tribulations coming on the Levitical leaders, will be recognized by God's Priests and Levites as the Lord's special representative among the Priests in giving the teachings for, and in overseeing the work toward and of—not the priests, but—the Epiphany Levites.



In answer to the claim that we violate the Will by publishing The Present Truth we would say: the Charter and Will were given exclusively for the regulation of controlling corporations and associations among the Truth people, and not to suppress the existence, nor to regulate the mission of an independent periodical whose publication is necessary for the defense of the Truth against its "channel" and other perverters, and for the defense of the obligatoriness of the Charter and Will against revolutionists (who use or set them aside as it suits their unholy ambitions) in the affairs of controlling corporations and associations among Truth people.


If the Tower Editors had not so greatly lost the Truth on the organization of the Church as complete, when God originally realized and described it in Apostolic times (for details see above), they would never set forth such claims as they do of the Society in its relation to the Church of the Living God, which as constituted by Him did not contain a business corporation that claimed the specific right of controlling a general ministry toward and for the Church, involving the general teaching office in pilgrim, periodical and convention work, and the control of the literature for the Church's edification and distribution. Such claims with their corresponding acts are like those of the two great Antichrists, the Papacy and the Federation of Churches.


We do not have to use our imaginations, and indulge in various unprovable, unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactful assumptions as those of the Tower Editors on Society powers on the subject under discussion. All that we need to do is to go to the source and rule of faith and practice for controlling corporations among Truth people: The Charter, Will and those arrangements of our Pastor that are directly stated or implied in the Will and Charter, but not those exclusive arrangements for the Little Flock that flowed out



of his powers toward the Little Flock as that Servant; and we will know what the Divinely intended powers and purposes of the Society are. Certain facts on their claims on Society powers for pilgrim and convention work and for authorizing new literary products, apart from Tower articles, deserve our study in the light of the Bible, the Charter and Will. J.F.R. has arranged a pilgrim service, appointed pilgrims, additional to those who were pilgrims at the time of that Servant's passing beyond the vail and has called conventions. Where is there Scriptural warrant that he, a board of directors, a collection of individuals, or of churches, or all of them combined has a right to make such arrangements in the Church which is His Body? God and Jesus never gave him or them such authority. Our Pastor never formed a corporation that exercised such powers during his life, nor was it the Divine intention that he should, nor did he intend it. Above we gave dozens of facts, as well as many Scriptures, that prove that in our Pastor's day, never did a Society institute or control such a general ministry toward and for the Church which is Christ's Body; for God did that through that Servant alone. Since the pilgrim office is that of the non-apostolic general elders (F 244, 251, 253, 273 and 274), the only servants of the Truth now living that have the right to address the general Church on matters of faith and practice; and since God alone has the power to appoint such teachers in the general Church, which during the Harvest of the Jewish Age He did by Jesus, especially while the Latter was in the flesh, which during the Harvest of the Gospel Age He did by that Servant, and which during the intervening time He usually did entirely apart from human agents; unless others can show, as an authorization for their claim, a specific command from God, we will emphatically deny their right to appoint pilgrims to minister to the Church which is His Body. As the respective



parallels of Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah; Marsiglio, Wyclif and Huss (Z '05, 182-185) were, as general overseers, somewhat like our Pastor, put in charge of those "secondarily prophets" who were not general overseers. We did not until recently see that such general overseers were active between the Harvests. The above references distinguish between those two classes of "secondarily prophets." These brethren claim that they are appointing pilgrims to minister to the Little Flock as its general elders. We ask them before God and the Church to show us their authority from the Word of God or from the Will or Charter for such an exercise of power? Furthermore, they have exercised this, their claimed power, which the article under review also asserts, to exclude Divinely set pilgrims from serving as pilgrims in what they claim is the Church which is His Body. We ask them for Biblical proof for such exercise of authority on their part. Such acts are emphatically lording it over the Church, and smiting the brethren. Will they pass these vital points by in silence, as they have others against their unscriptural assumptions of power? Where in the Bible is the board or Society's president authorized to call general conventions? With the above-stated limitations those who were "Secondarily Prophets" in the Church which is His Body had by the powers of their office as teachers in the general Church, the power to call general conventions (provided they lived in a time in which such power was not lodged in an individual exclusively, i.e., when there were no general overseers like Marsiglio, Wyclif, Huss, etc., and that Servant especially) but no other servants of the Truth have had such power. Those who were once Secondarily Prophets, and who are now in the Great Company have neither part nor parcel in the Church which is His Body; hence cannot do anything implying membership therein, let alone do pilgrim work, and appoint pilgrims and general



conventions for it. Nor as corporational members of the Great Company have they the right to appoint pilgrims and arrange for general conventions for the Great Company; for God never gave them such powers to exercise.


But we imagine we hear some one ask: Did not "that Servant" arrange for the Society to appoint pilgrims and general conventions? We answer no; for both the Will and Charter, which are the source and rule of corporational faith and practice for controlling corporations among Truth people, are silent on such subjects, nor do they imply these rights. The Charter by Divine intention empowers the Levites to "disseminate [sow broadcast] Bible truths in various languages by means of the publication [not by means of arranging for the authorship] of tracts, pamphlets, papers and other religious documents, and by the use of all other lawful means [not "agents," animate beings, but "means," inanimate things, like the Photodrama, the Angelophone, etc.], which [not whom] its board of directors, duly constituted, shall deem expedient for the furtherance of the purposes stated." Of course this implies the use of such "agents" as are necessary to operate these means, but no others than such. Hence appointing pilgrims and conventions are not powers conferred by the Will and Charter; and it is usurpatory in the Society or its president to appoint them. Additionally the Will authorizes a self perpetuating editorial committee and a sisters' committee, in which vacancies were to be filled by it, the directors and the editors acting jointly. It authorizes no other class of mouthpieces or agents. Therefore the Society is not a religious body; it is a body (not to provide new literary products apart from the Tower, but) to publish and distribute Bible truths by inanimate means alone, through corresponding agents only. In other words, according to the Lord's and that Servant's intention, apart from the Tower, which he



intended should consist partly of posthumous and reprinted articles of his own, the only literature that the Society may publish is what was produced by that Servant, or what was published by him, though produced by others. Hence all of the other productions that they have published have been issued in usurpation of the Will and Charter. This includes The Finished Mystery, Golden Age, The Harp, etc., etc. Let not, therefore, the Levites act on the principle of the papacy, as they have done; and thus add to, or subtract from the source and rule of corporational faith and practice for the controlling corporations among Truth people! In this connection we desire to recall our statement (P '19, 160, col. 2, par. 2) to the effect that the Charter and Will authorized pilgrim work to be conducted by the Society. We like the rest of the brethren took this for granted from what existed in our Pastor's day; but now recognize such arrangements, as far as that Servant was used to make them, to be the Lord's for the Little Flock alone.


We do not mean by the remarks foregoing to be understood as teaching that the Lord will not give the Great Company pilgrim privileges; for we believe the Word of God will yet unfold a way in which this will be done; but when it will be unfolded, we rather opine that such pilgrim service will not be authorized by, nor be under the auspices of Great Company Corporations and Associations. However, we can safely wait on the Lord for the clear manifestation of His will on this point. In the meantime let us have done with the Society's claiming more powers than God granted to it; and this means that it should put an end to its pilgrim and convention services and to its meddling in the affairs of the ecclesias. In a word, neither the Society nor any other Truth corporation has a right to engage in publishing activities outside of being a publishing agency of Bible truths in the



form of that Servant's pen products, Tower articles and pen products of others which he published being the only exceptions to this rule. Additionally it may distribute Bibles, especially the Bible Students' edition, Concordances, etc., as per that Servant's example. Therefore we appeal to all of the Society's adherents who are loyal to the Lord's Charter, Will and those arrangements of His that are directly stated and implied in the Charter and Will, as all of these were by Him given through that Servant, to work to the end that the Society restrict its mission to its Divinely authorized activities. And this means that they put an end to every activity of the Society not thus Divinely authorized, e.g., busybodying in the affairs of the ecclesias, appointment of pilgrims and their service, conventions, writing or causing to be written for their publication new literature, apart from the Tower.


The three questions that the article asks, as to whether we believe (1) our Lord's presence, (2) that Servant's office, and (3) his arrangements in re the Society, in the event of his death, do not necessitate the conclusion that the Society has the powers (his powers as his successor) that the article overtly or covertly claims for it, far from prove their claims of powers. These questions like almost everything else in the article under review do not bring out specifically what should be brought out for a proper answer to their claims. We will state them as the facts require their statement: (1) Do you believe that Jesus, present in His Second Advent, did the reaping and gleaning completely from Oct., 1874, to April, 1916? Answer: Yes. (2) Do you believe that He used that Servant as His special eye, mouth and hand toward and for His Church during and for the entire reaping and gleaning period? Answer: Yes. (3) Do you believe that the Lord had him give proper directions for the Society's work, in the event of his death, through the Charter, Will and those arrangements for



its work directly stated and implied in the Charter and Will? Answer: Yes. (4) Do you believe these three answers prove that the Society is our Pastor's successor and as such is the inheritor of his office functions as the channel? Answer: No; for there is absolutely no connection between the premises in the first three questions and the Society's answer to the fourth question. Nothing in the Scriptures, Reason, Facts, our Pastor's writings, Charter and Will imply such successorship and powers. Hence the argument of the article under review is entirely without foundation from the standpoint of these three questions—it is mere assumption, as logical as papacy's claims to the successorship and powers of St. Peter—no more and no less. In only one very limited sense can we properly call the Society a successor of our Pastor, but in no other sense: its board, not its president, has inherited only that fractional part of his powers which is to see to the publication and circulation of such literature only as the Will, Charter and their pertinent arrangements prescribe. He could produce original literature; while apart from articles for the Tower, the Society has no right to prepare, or to have new literature prepared! If they insist that they have, we ask for their authority. The Charter says they may disseminate Bible truths by publishing (not by authorizing the writing) of tracts, pamphlets, etc. The Will restricts them to use as tracts that Servant's writings; nor have they a right to institute other arrangements or means than his; nor to change the Charter and Will.


The article denies that other channels have its specific work. To this we give several answers. Its specific work, as a Levitical one, is not at all toward the Priests, whom it should help, not hinder, as it has done. Nor is its specific work to direct a general ministry in literary, periodical, pilgrim and convention work, for and toward the Church which is



Christ's body. It can in harmony with the Will and Charter publish the Tower alone as containing new materials; but its proper ministry is that of Mahlite Merarites, and its main work is toward the nominal people of God, typed in Elisha's office powers. No other corporation has the right to invade its province as antitypical Elisha and antitypical Mahlite Merarites. Nor has it the right to invade the province of the Mushite Merarites, nor those of the Libnite and Shimite Gershonites, nor those of the four groups of the Kohathites, much less the province of the Priests. We hope in due time to set forth just what these limits are; but we agree with the article in the claim that the Society has a specific work in which no other body should busybodythe work of the Mahlite Merarites; but it has not the work of the Priests nor that of other Levites. Hence it should not busybody in their work, as it has done.


Now briefly will we answer the seven general propositions on the first page of the article, using language as nearly like theirs as the Truth will permit. (1) Our understanding is that the W.T.B. & T.S. should be a servant to the Church only as one of the wagons of the Mahlite Merarites (Num. 7: 3-8) served the typical priests; that it should not only not exercise control over the Little Flock and Great Company, but not even over Mahlite Merarites, except its officers and agents; and should keep its hands entirely off of local churches; but its course for years has been a constant effort to control both Priests and Levites in the general Church and in local ecclesias. Its work should be almost entirely toward the public! (2) The soul of fellowship and unity in Christ through Justification and Sanctification is the one spirit, hope, work, Lord, faith, baptism and God (Eph. 4: 4-6) enjoyed in Christ Godward, Christward and Churchward; and such fellowship and unity are wholly apart from any corporational arrangement, which cannot affect the



relation of the Priests of God. The Society in numerous cases by breaking up classes, and forcing an endorsement of "the present management," the Society's policies and Vol. VII has most violently sinned against this fellowship and unity. (3) There should be full liberty of conscience, with no attempt to coerce the views of one by another. But the Society through the spirit of fear that it has aroused by its threats of the Second Death, Judas Class, outer darkness, loss of crowns, etc., has coerced most disastrously many of the weak brethren and weak ecclesias to the dishonor of God, the persecution of the faithful and the injury of all. (4) Church government should be maintained according to the Word of the Master and the Apostles, and all should be willing to submit to the majority, unless the majority should require violation of Truth and Righteousness, in which event the minority should not submit to, but resist the majority. But this principle of majority rule applies to local ecclesias alone. The majority or minority of other ecclesias have no business in the affairs of local ecclesias other than their own, nor in the affairs of individuals not of their classes. Nowhere in the New Testament do we find the churches legislating for one another, or unitedly legislating in religious matters for the whole Church through a corporation, board, committee or individual. To do this is pure Roman Catholicism. Christ through the Apostles did all the necessary legislating for the general Church. Only respecting a deacon work may two or more congregations join through a committee in a work toward brethren in other ecclesias (2 Cor. 8: 16-24), but never in a spiritual work. The violation of this principle led to the external union of the nominal church, a union of which the Society adherents have become examples, even as the Bible sets forth the Society as a little nominal church. (5) The Society has no authority from God's word, the Will and Charter to conduct a pilgrim work. If they think



they have, let them set forth the facts and proofs. That Servant's example does not apply to the Society; for it does not have his peculiar powers. (6) The Society, while having no authority to determine the qualification of officers of the various ecclesias, has in many cases assumed the right so to do; and in not a few cases to win its point in this very respect has forced divisions on the brethren, stirred up enmity and spread sorrow broadcast where before there were none. In harmony with the limitations of the Word of God, the Will, Charter and the Divine arrangements, directly stated and implied in these, the Society has the right to determine the qualifications of those who shall constitute her officers or servants; and with the same limitations has the sole authority to elect her officers, but cannot give them powers not conferred by God's Word, the Charter and Will, which three things it has no authority to change in any respect. (7) The motives governing all actions in the Church or between the individual members should be wisdom, justice, love and power, re-enforced by such other motives as are under their control. Love, not balanced by wisdom, justice and power, is not enough. The history of the success of Society usurpations proves this. The peace and unity that the article under review asks are not a peace and unity that are Divinely pleasing. In God's time peace will come with many unities, one of the Priests and sixty of the Levites.


The greatest obstacle to such a Divinely pleasing peace and unity is (1) the Society's priestcraft, its practiced theory (a) as the channel of the seasonal meat for the Church, (b) as the channel of controlling the general work of and for the Church; and (2) the Society's kingcraft, if not the professed theory, surely the actual practice, whereby (a) through deceitful "politics" and "wire pulling" in waging and winning Society election campaigns, "the present management"



perpetuates its autocracy and forms the policies of the Society, and whereby (b) through busybodying in the affairs of the local ecclesias by the Tower, letters, pilgrims and trusted local agents, it seeks to rule all churches, and by warfare divides such as oppose its control and policies, if it can. Therefore in view of such priestcraft and kingcraft, and the multiplied evils that they have produced for years, we call upon all Society adherents who are loyal to the Lord's interpretations, Charter, Will and their properly pertinent arrangement, as these were given through that Servant, to rise as God's children and servants in His might, and by an absolute divorce put an end to the union of little papacy and the little catholic church as manifested in the Society's priestcraft; and by such a divorce put an end to the union of the little state and church in little Christendom as manifested in the Society's kingcraft—both of these evils being introduced primarily by J.F.R., and secondarily by his trusted underlings since about the time of that Servant's death. For such priestcraft and kingcraft are the greatest foes of true Christian liberty, equality and fraternity among God's children! Let us take a single-hearted stand for such liberty, equality and fraternity, which are guaranteed by the Bible, which are safeguarded by the Charter, Will and their pertinent arrangements, and which are the indispensables for true Christian peace and unity! And since true Christian liberty, equality and fraternity are impossible under the controllership of little Babylon's priestcraft and kingcraft, let us as God's freemen repudiate the yoke of little Babylon's bondage (Gal. 5: 1)! How may this be accomplished in the Society? By limiting its functions, apart from the Editors' work on the Tower, to printing our Pastor's writings and publications alone and to distributing them with Bible helps consisting of various Bible editions,



especially the Bible Students' Edition, various good Bible translations, dictionaries, concordances, etc., even as he pursued this policy. In a word, the only way that this can be done in the Society and other corporational and associational bodies among God's people is by limiting the Society's and other controlling corporations' activities to the sphere prescribed in the Charter and Will, and those arrangements of our Pastor that are directly stated and implied in the Charter and Will. Will we not stand for such Christian liberty, equality and fraternity among our corporational brethren? Many of the principles of the article, "Let Us Dwell In Peace," are fundamentally opposed to Christian liberty, equality and fraternity! And when we consider the policies and practices of J.F.R., and see them stated in part, and for the rest subtly imbedded in the article under review, and when we consider his known double-mindedness, unholy ambition, and persistent opposition to, and persecution of those who stand for the Lord's Charter, Will and their pertinent arrangements given through that Servant, even if he makes an offer of peace, it is but a wooden gift horse (corruptible doctrine). Like the discerning Trojan who, fearing the treachery of the Greeks in giving the Trojans the wooden horse, warned his countrymen: "I distrust the Greeks, though they bring a gift"; we say to one and all, We distrust J.F.R., though he offer a gift, the symbolic wooden horse set forth in his article, "Let Us Dwell In Peace." We will be like the Trojans who spurned the warning and accepted the gift horse containing hidden Greek soldiers who ruined the city after the horse was taken into Troy, if we accept J.F.R.'s gift horse filled with hidden treacherous schemes, which emerging from their hiding place, when taken into the city of God, would destroy it! We will not accept his kind of a peace offer, if, alert to the situation, we love, cherish



and defend the principles of true Christian liberty, equality and fraternity imbedded in the Lord's interpretations, Charter, Will and their pertinent arrangements, as given through that Servant. The article under review is both an overt and covert attack upon all of these; hence offers us bondage under priestcraft and kingcraft with pretended liberty, peace and unity with the certainty of future strife and division. It seems to us the final issue, in a word, is this: Shall we be J.F.R.'s bondsmen or God's freemen? Which? The Priests of God will choose freedom in Christ; the Levites more or less bondage; but thanks be to God the days of the oppressor's power are numbered, and will be cut short in Righteousness! And let all lovers of Truth and Righteousness say, Amen!


We now suggest what we think will bring real Scriptural peace and unity with their liberty, equality and fraternity among both the Priests and Levites. This is indicated for the Priests alone in Eph. 4: 3-6, which applies to them in their relations to one another, and not to them in their relations to Levites. For the Levites it is indicated in Num. 8: 7. Let the Levites (1) submit to their being sprinkled with the water of separation, the Epiphany truths on the divisions of the Lord's people in their respective groups. This means: Let them accept the Epiphany; the separating truths, in part literally and in part typically and antitypically set forth in the seasonal meat on the Little Flock, Great Company, Youthful Worthies, Second Death class, the World and the Chronology, as these lines of Truth are now going forth; (2) let them by the sharp razor of Epiphany truths and exposures shave themselves clean of their symbolic hairs, powers that do not belong to them, and that they have unjustly grasped; and (3) let them wash their robes, both in the blood of the Lamb and in the water of the Word (Rev. 7: 14; Num. 8: 7, 12). This threefold



process will cleanse them; and will greatly inure to a peace and unity that will be pleasing to God and helpful to the brethren. It will spread the Christian spirit of true liberty, equality and fraternity in real peace and unity. Will the Levites do these things? Not now, but later; for they need more experiences both at the hands of the fit-man, and of Azazel, for the destruction of their flesh. And while we know that this means sufferings for them, in which they have our sympathy and prayers; yet as the indispensables of their cleansing we pray the Lord to give them such experiences, that their spirits might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 5: 5). Increasingly will this enable them to appreciate and spread Christian liberty, equality and fraternity in Christian peace and unity. Grant it in Thy Grace and Mercy, O Lord!


Be not men's servant: think what costly price

Was paid that thou might'st His own bondsman be,

Whose service perfect freedom is. Let this

Hold fast thy heart. His claim is great to thee.

None should thy soul enthrall to whom 'tis given

To serve on earth, with liberty of Heaven.


All His are thine to serve: Christ's brethren here

Are needing aid, in them thou servest Him.

The least of all is still His member dear,

The weakest cost His life-blood to redeem.

Yield to no "party" what He rightly claims,

Who on His heart bears all His people's names.


Be wise, be watchful, wily men surround

Thy path. Be careful, for they seek with care

To trip thee up; see that no plea be found

In thee thy Master to reproach. The snare

They set for thee will then themselves enclose

And God His righteous judgment thus disclose.