Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
Priest was pleased to use us to initiate the work of fulfilling His good pleasure as to the Goat, as well as to arouse the other Under-priests to co-operate therein. Our first opposition, expressed Nov. 25, 1916, at a Managers' meeting, to Bro. Shearn and his Tabernacle plans, which would have made a premature division in the Society and Tabernacle, started him toward the Gate; and our mailing (in an answer to his Jan. 11 letter) on Jan. 14, 1917, a letter that we signed that day, but dictated the day before, and that gave him up to his plan to resign, landed him on our part in the fit man's hand; while Bro. Thackway, supported by certain of the other seven elders who opposed Bro. Shearn, preparing against his plan certain resolutions which he presented to the Tabernacle Congregation Jan. 8, 1917, started him, on the part of the Church in its faithful elders, toward the Gate; while the Ecclesia landed him in the fit man's hands, when, against his opposition, it passed these resolutions Jan. 22. Our remonstrating March 1, 1917, with Jesse Hemery for his rebuking us for our course, by his adding an unfriendly postscript, Feb. 26, 1917, to his friendly letter of Feb. 25 (Harvest Siftings Reviewed, see Vol. VI., Chap. I.), after the "absolutely without authority" cable reached him, A.M. of Feb. 26, started him toward the Gate, and our suspending him as Manager the evening of March 11 landed him on our part in the fit man's hand; while Bro. Housden and the majority of other Bethelites resenting his repeated snubbing of us started him, on their part, March 3, to the gate, and landed him in the fit man's hands the evening of March 13, when they sided with us, against him, on the Board's authority as above J.F.R.'s; and they showed it by absence from his new dining-room, where his supporters, at first only 3 in number, would eat, while all the other Bethelites ate with us, until March 18. Our declining, Feb. 19, 1917, in a cable to J.F. Rutherford, to reinstate at his command the dismissed Managers,
started him toward the Gate; and our conversations with, and actions toward him, June 23 (see Vol. III, Chapter VII), landed him on our part, in the fit man's hands. What became the Board's majority, beginning April 13, 1917, by disapproving his course of ignoring the Board in our appeal from him to it on the British matter, at our so-called second "Two hours' hearing (?) before the Board," started him, on their part, toward the Gate; and their giving him up in their speeches, July 17, 1917, at the ousting, was a withdrawal of priestly fellowship from him, putting him on their part into the hands of the fit man, even though they did not know they did it.
(52) Our disapproving Nov. 25, 1918, of Bro. Sturgeon's plan, advocated by him and Sister Henderson, to force a premature division in the Brooklyn Tabernacle Congregation, started him toward the Gate; and our publicly charging him as seeking through Sr. Henderson to divide the New York Ecclesia, now partly with the P.B.I., as well as charging him with other things, giving cogent proofs, and that before that Ecclesia, the evening of March 11, 1918, put him into the fit man's hands; while the New York Ecclesia, March 3, resenting his mouthpiece, Sr. Henderson, circulating her printed attack on us in his defense, as the first public evidence of his divisional and other works, started him, on their part, toward the Gate, and their voted disapproval of his mouthpiece the evening of March 13 for his divisional and other wrong activities put him on their part into the fit man's hand. Our resenting, July 27, 1918, Bro. Ritchie's favoring, contrary to his principles, the power-grasping group of the Fort Pitt Committee, as against us, at the Asbury Park Convention, started him in a public way on our part toward the Gate, and August 27 our giving him up as a hopeless case in our answer to his typewritten attack on Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed, on our part put him into the hands of the fit
man; while the Philadelphia Ecclesia, September 1, calling upon him to justify his insinuations of its unfairness as to the P.B.I. leaders, on its part started him to the Gate, and it and the Mizpah Convention, September 10, accepting our refutation of his attacks and our exposures of his course (in co-operating with J.F.R. and W.E. Van Amburgh in some of their usurpations, while on the Executive Committee of the Society), and of his weakness, especially in the Board meeting of June 20, 1917, landed him in the fit man's hands. Thus was it done by our supporters.
(53) We mention the above dealing with Bro. Ritchie as one that is publicly known, and as an example of what was done with him as to his general act of supporting against his principles the P.B.I. revolutionists, and that against us, who opposed them from the standpoint of the principles that he endorsed. We might mention another general act of his wherein on the dates immediately to be given in connection with Isaac Hoskins, and for revolutionistic acts of busy-bodying in the Fort Pitt Committee's policies through Bro. Margeson, against the instructions of the Fort Pitt Convention, he was by us, and then by the majority of the Committee, started toward the Gate, and given to the fit man by the very acts that were done toward Isaac Hoskins in starting him toward the Gate and delivering him to the fit man; for these acts opposed Bro. Ritchie's intrigues. We call the dear ones' attention to the many anniversaries indicated in these dates, remarking that with 6 P.M. God begins the new calendar day.
(54) Our slight disapproval (February 19, 1918) of certain acts of Isaac Hoskins connected with his course toward Bro. Margeson, as to substituting another letter for that which the Fort Pitt Committee was considering, started Isaac Hoskins toward the Gate; and through our offering a series of motions which were all presented and passed a little after 6 P.M.,
June 22, 1918, as to headquarters, the managing editor, the salaries for the secretary and managing editor, and publishing The Bible Standard before the Asbury Park Convention, Isaac Hoskins was on our part put into the fit man's hands; while the majority of the Committee sympathizing, April 13, 1918, with our protest against the "doctrinal-clearing-house" resolution of February 23, started him toward the Gate, and their insisting on carrying out their program of June 22 despite his opposition gave him, July 17, to the fit man for suitable experiences, which he got.
(55) The act of conducting the leaders to the fit man involves leading their partisan supporters to him. The fulfilled facts seem to imply that conducting individual leaders with their supporters to the fit man is not done merely once in each case. Apparently in every general act of revolutionism the leader and his supporters therein, which supporters are not always the same individuals in the different general acts, are led to the Gate and to the fit man, as often as they engage in general acts of revolutionism. By a general act we mean a course on one point of policy consisting of many single deeds. Their sum total constitute the general act, e.g., J.F.R.'s many deeds of busybodying in our British work, and his many deeds of usurping power over the Board constitute what we mean by general acts. He began his busybodying first by a letter dated February 2, 1917, and second by the following cable which was received by us February 6, 1917, i.e., before his letter of February 2 came to hand (Harvest Siftings, p. 3, par. 1): "Have contending sides sign agreed statement of facts [Bros. Shearn and Crawford refused to do this] and send for my decision." This he presumed to do in the case of the Board's Special Representative clothed with full powers. Our being the Board's, not the Executive's, Special Representative made J.F.R.'s course, unknown to the Board, and increasingly protested against by us, one
of busybodying in the Board's and our business. A certain Scripture, which, D.v., we will in due time expound to the Church, sets forth his course in this matter as gross busybodying, reaping fearful consequences.
(56) In our earlier writings we used the term, "dragging Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court." We believe it preferable to use our later term, "leading," etc., though we have to do some hard pulling at the wayward Goat!
(57) Above we referred several times to the World's High Priest putting certain leaders into the hands of the fit man. We now desire to give explanations and proofs. Our dear Pastor has given us two definitions for the fit man, both of which the antitype so far fulfilled proves to be correct: (1) Unfavorable circumstances (T 70, par. 3) and (2) persecuting persons (T 68, par. 1; 75, par. 5). Certainly the Scriptures teach these definitions, and the fulfilled facts corroborate them. In I Cor. 5: 3-5 a charge is given whose execution put the evil-doer into a position like that in which Azazel's Goat now is. In this passage it will be noted that there are three actors: (1) our Lord, in whose name the action is done; (2) a special representative of the Lord, the Apostle Paul, and (3) a part of the under-priesthood, the Ecclesia at Corinth, which was fully authorized to act in the matter at hand. Then there was a brother whose great sin required the special activity of a part of the World's High Priest against him. That activity was a withdrawal of fellowship, which put the person concerned into the unfavorable circumstances involved in being out of harmony with the Lord, with His special representative, and with the Ecclesia, to which the brother was subject in the Lord. As a result of falling into these unfavorable circumstances that brother suffered doubtless from persecuting persons; and the passage clearly implies that through his unfavorable circumstances he fell into the
clutches of Satan, Azazel, for the destruction of the flesh, the purpose being to deliver his new creature, which purpose seems to have been effected (2 Cor. 2: 5-11). While the passage does not expressly mention the fit man, it implies his activity in the sense of unfavorable circumstances. Similar cases without the details of 1 Cor. 5: 3-5 are given of certain ones who did not keep a good conscience, and who made shipwreck of faith—faithfulness (1 Tim. 1: 19, 20). Then the type of Lev. 16: 8, 10, 26, particularly the last verse, shows that persecuting persons also are meant by the fit man; for unfavorable circumstances could not wash their garments, conduct, and flesh, their weaknesses, not having any, because of not being persons. Humans, therefore, also must be meant by the fit man. Below we will give facts that will prove this. Azazel is not the fit man because he neither belongs to the camp, nor will he wash his garments, nor will he ever be forgiven.
(59) It should be emphasized that the High Priest who delivers the Goat to the fit man is the World's High Priest, and not simply the Church's High Priest. Above we gave the Scriptural proof as to whose High Priest it is who acts as to Azazel's Goat. As in the Corinthian case, the Lord Jesus functioned chiefly, using a special representative, St. Paul, and then other Under-priests, the ecclesia, who had the authority to act, so the antitype indicates this has been done thus far in dealing with the class typed by Azazel's goat in its various parts.
(60) As was manifest in the Corinthian case the delivery to the fit man occurred as a result of the withdrawal of priestly fellowship from the impenitent wrong-doer, so in dealing with the Great Company as a class in its various sections Jesus, the brother whom He has been pleased to use as a representative member of the Under-priesthood toward this class, and the other involved Priests, have given up the impenitent
wrong-doers; have ceased to labor with them longer as with Priests; have dealt with them correctively; and have withdrawn priestly, but not brotherly fellowship, which should to the extent that it is helpful be given, while they are in the fit man's hands, though not with the former cordiality, for the rescue of the wrong-doer
(2 Cor. 2: 5-11); for we should seek to save the lives of these brethren; but must take heed that we do not violate Truth and Righteousness while so doing (Lev. 10: 6, 7). As we look over the events wherein we, co-operating with and under our Head, and with our fellow Under-priests, delivered Bros. Shearn, Hemery, Rutherford, Sturgeon, Ritchie, Hoskins, etc., to the fit man, it was in every case done by a withdrawal of priestly fellowship. Hence the withdrawal of priestly fellowship (1 Cor. 5: 2-5) is the process immediately preceding the delivery of Azazel's Goat to the fit man. The difference between the two in the type is this: Aaron made the goat pass through the gate, typing withdrawal of priestly fellowship, and then put the rope into the fit man's hand, and then let go his hold thereon immediately, these two acts typing, putting the Goat into unfavorable circumstances and into the hands of persecuting persons, which two things are the antitypical fit man.
(61) But there is in one respect a difference in the delivery of Azazel's Goat as done by our High Priest, and as done by the Under-priests. Both our High Priest and ourselves as Under-priests withdraw priestly fellowship and deliver this class to the fit man, in so far as the fit man is unfavorable circumstances; but only our High Priest delivers this class to the fit man in so far as the fit man consists of persecuting persons. There is good reason for this distinction in the actions of the Head and Body of the World's High Priest. The Head knows just what persons and afflicting experiences will destroy the flesh and save the spirit, while we do not. Therefore He is, but we are
not capable of fruitfully delivering them to persecuting persons. Moreover, if we should do this, we would destroy our ability to help them to repentance; for they would unchangeably resent our help under such circumstances. It is therefore to the glory of God and the good of all concerned that the Under-priests do not give these over to persecuting persons. Hence let none of the Under-priests betray these brethren to affliction. And we are sure that they have not done, nor will do this, despite false accusations hurled at some of them on this score. "Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which was inflicted of many" (2 Cor. 2: 6), and which brought him under the disapproval of God's very Elect. Yea, this is a most unfavorable circumstance. But we have no right to go beyond making such resistances to, and exposures of their revolutionism, and such efforts to rescue them, as will bring upon them (1) the disapproval of the Under-priesthood; (2) undo their activities among the Priests; and (3) encourage them to reformation, locally, if their wrong is limited to a local ecclesia, generally, if their wrong affects the General Church. To go beyond such a course would cause us to disobey the injunction of Lev. 10: 6, 7. We are to leave it to the Levites to drag them away from the Priests, their beliefs, their services and their fellowships, into beliefs, activities and fellowships that are unpriestly (Lev. 10: 4, 5). Of course the Priesthood is not to deal with them as Priests, nor in any sense co-operate with them as Priests. All priestly fellowship should be withdrawn from them upon convincing proof of their Leviteship. The brethren should be cautioned both against a precipitate judgment, and a too lenient treatment of such persons. Scriptures, Reason and Facts should control our course in so responsible an act. We stand ready to help the brethren in handling difficult cases, if our help is desired by the brethren.
(62) We will henceforth in this article use J.F.R.
and his partisan adherents as examples to illustrate the varied experiences of Azazel's Goat from its delivery to the fit man, until considerable of their experiences at Azazel's hands are set forth. This is done, because they, so far [June, 1920], afford the clearest illustrations of these various steps; but doubtless many more of such experiences are yet future. So far as we are concerned we delivered J.F.R. to unfavorable circumstances June 23, 1917. From that time things went from bad to worse with him so far as concerns his relations with the Priests. The caption (Harvest Siftings, 10): "Would force his return to Great Britain" is certainly an example of a lawyer's method of inoculating a jury with a thought without giving any proof of it; for not one word explanatory of the heading is given in that section. This method was frequently used in his Harvest Siftings, the instrument of a real harvest sifter, and the most deceitful piece of literature ever published by a sifter. We refer to the section so subheaded because some correspondence between the Board's majority and J.F.R. is given thereunder pertaining to our line of thought. Any experienced person will at once see the Lawyer's evasions in the way he treated the communications of the four brothers. This correspondence shows how these four brothers who were then Under-priests, with full authority as Directors to act, were forced to come to the conclusion that he was incorrigible, and with that conclusion to put him into unfavorable circumstances, into the fit man's hands. This occurred July 17, the date of the four brothers' public protest. That his circumstances were then most unfavorable as respects his relation to the priests is evident from what he did from June 23, onward. As he said, shortly after answering their letter he left for a two weeks' trip. During that trip, forced thereto by his unfavorable circumstances, through his unholy ambition and at Satan's suggestions, he began a campaign of misrepresentations
against the Directors and ourself, until he succeeded in persuading prominent brethren to sanction his taking drastic steps, in which they promised and gave him help. Additionally, during that time and during the next week, the following things, the majority of them, at his instance, were done by him and his partisan followers in his support: circulation of petitions in Bethel and the Tabernacle in his support as against those who opposed his usurpations; his personal representative, A.H. MacMillan, through R.J. Martin, calling a policeman to eject from the Tabernacle the majority of the Society's directors, its legal controllers; J.F.R's. perjuring himself by declaring under oath that there were four vacancies on the Board, when there were none; appointing four pseudo-directors on whose support he could depend, a support gained by colossal misrepresentations; ousting four legal directors; forced before the Bethel family, July 17, 1917, to listen for about four hours to protests by six priests, supported by others in the Bethel family, all of whom unanswerably proved him to be a sinner and a usurper against human and Divine laws; unauthorizedly, publishing Vol. 7; procuring from his Board (thereby deceiving Bro. Pierson, the vice-president, as the latter declared) its sanction of thrusting, without inquiry from the churches, the Board situation upon the Church, which was begun July 19 by his sending broadcast to the churches as a letter what he afterward used as the inset on the first page of his Harvest Siftings; being forced to face Bro. Magee (Asst. Attorney General for N.J.), who utterly defeated him on the legal points at issue before the Philadelphia Church, July 19; and worst, because most wicked of all, writing Harvest Siftings. A person forced to such acts as these to justify his usurpations certainly had been put into most unfavorable circumstances—the fit man.
(63) We cite as illustrative of the second stage in the journey to the wilderness the experiences of the
Society adherents connected with the restrictions put upon them by the Government on account of the espionage act, as examples of experiences as the fit man's hands, in so far as the fit man types persecuting persons. We have already (P '19, 95, par. 4, etc.) given our thought on this subject, and answered their false charges against us as betraying them to the officials. (P '19, 161, 162.) On this point we might remark that the fit man as persecutor need not be officials; any persecutor, public or private, fits the picture.
(64) We noted above in connection with leading the Goat to the Gate that every new general act of revolutionism is resisted by the World's High Priest, and by such resistance the revolutionists are led anew to the Gate and fit man. Hence as often as they are led to the Gate and fit man are the leaders, and the groups whose leaders they are, given suffering experiences at the fit man's hands. The facts of the antitype seem to suggest that while the type is but a single act in each step, each antitypical step, e.g., loosing the Goat, leading it to the Gate, passing it through the Gate, delivering it to the fit man, etc., consists of a number of general acts. The parts of each step will apparently be as many as are the general acts connected with each step.
(65) Letting the Truth section of Azazel's Goat go in the wilderness seems to mean the part of the fit man's course whereby he puts Azazel's Goat into a condition of isolation from the Faithful, whose measurable favor and help they enjoyed previously to this step—a condition in which they are not even given brotherly fellowship (1 Cor. 5: 11, 13). To Azazel's Goat in the nominal church the thought will be similar, except they will also lose the favor and help of the nominal people of God (T, 70-72). In describing in Tabernacle Shadows the wilderness experiences of this class, our dear Pastor explained them from the
standpoint of that part of Azazel's Goat that is yet in Great Babylon; but as we said in the first part of this article, we will leave details as to that part of Azazel's Goat for treatment until after their fulfillment's have set in. There is a difference between the World's High Priest's withdrawing priestly fellowship just before delivering Azazel's antitypical Goat to the fit man, and the fit man's letting this class go into the wilderness, i.e., putting them into a condition wherein they experience the full loss of the Priesthood's favor and personal help, by their withdrawal of brotherly fellowship. The former act naturally occurs before the latter. Again we will refer to J.F.R's. case to illustrate this point. As shown above, from June 21 to June 23, 1917, we were withdrawing priestly fellowship from him, completing it by the conversation referred to in Vol. I, Chapter VIII and in Vol. VI, Chapter III. But this did not end our loving efforts to help him. It will be recalled (Vol. VI, Chapter I) that we mediated, July 18-25, 1917, between the Board's majority and J.F.R. Before, during and after this mediation he was in very unfavorable circumstances. The night of July 17, Bro. Pierson, in a meeting of J.F.R's. Board, insisted on his restoring the ousted Directors; and his threat of resignation, if it was not done, somewhat halted J.F.R. in his course. The next morning the latter made a very humble prayer, confessing some of his weaknesses before the Bethel family. This prompted us to express appreciation and to offer him help. Just before, Bro. Hoskins asked us for our advice on the situation, and we offered a proposition, which he accepted, and which we then offered to J.F.R. This led to a meeting of most of his Board and ourself, and later to certain conversations. The outcome was our becoming a mediator. Throughout the mediation, with loving practical proposals for a cure of the situation, we kept steadily to our purpose that Truth and Righteousness
must prevail. When from July 19 to July 24 he broke a number of his agreements as to a settlement; when July 24 he went back on his final agreement to submit the case to a Board of Arbitration of three lawyers; when July 25 we gave him our kind, but firm and unchangeable offer that he must surrender, both by accepting the ousted Directors as proper Board members, and by accepting two other brothers elected by the Board as forming with him an executive committee; when he refused to accept this proposition, and countered it with a demand that the four harmoniously submit to his Board, coupled with the threat that, if they would not, he would publish the British and Board matters; and when at our expostulation—that this would be to the great injury of the Church—he would not relent; we therefore and thereupon withdrew all favor and help, and all brotherly fellowship, from him as to the British and Board matters. Thus his giving such a refusal, ultimatum and threat, which his hard circumstances forced one of his character to give, became the occasion of his losing the favor and help of our brotherly fellowship; and thus he was proven to be in the wilderness, i.e., without the favor and help of the first priest whose favor and help he lost as far as the British and Board matters were concerned. The fit man—his unfavorable circumstances—began thus to let him wander in the condition of isolation from our brotherly favor and help. When, July 27, the four Directors refused to submit to his new Board or to discuss matters further without advice from their legal counsel, he was in the condition of isolation, as far as their brotherly favor and help were concerned as to their ousting. In due time we will give the Scripture that indicates July 25 as the date of his first being let go in the wilderness. Similar experiences we could trace in connection with Bros. Shearn, Hemery, Sturgeon, Ritchie, Hoskins, etc., but the above case is sufficient to illustrate how the fit man, unfavorable
circumstances, brought them to a condition where (without the brotherly favor and help of the priests that delivered them to unfavorable circumstances, and that sought for a time in brotherly fellowship to help them while they were therein) they are isolated from all favor and help of those priests who led them to the fit man.
(66) Our course of loving brotherly favor and help toward J.F.R. and his seven accused companions before their trial (see pars. 80-83) illustrates how as a brother we sought to help them, while they were in the fit man's hands in the second sense of that term—persecuting persons; but when J.F.R's. letter was published accusing us of betraying the eight convicted brothers to the authorities, we did nothing further for him; for we withdrew from him even brotherly fellowship, which we will gladly give him, should he ever be cleansed; but we did not in any way seek to prevent his release, as we have been falsely accused of doing. Thus in this respect persecuting persons led him into a condition in which his actions, conformable to his perverted character, put him into utter isolation from the favor and help of ourself as a brother. Every new general act would repeat for the leaders and their followers experiences like the above.
(67) To deliver this class to Satan is done in two ways: (1) indirectly, by the Priest putting them into the hands of the fit man, and (2) directly, by the fit man letting them go into the condition of isolation from the brotherly fellowship of the Priests, when Satan lays hold on them to use them for his unholy purposes (Lev. 16: 10, "to send him away for Azazel," A.R.V.; 1 Cor. 5: 3-5; 1 Tim. 1: 19, 20). The Lord's design in this is a twofold one: (1) He permits them to be used by Satan in carrying out the latter's plans, i.e., to build up Little Babylon, as their kindred spirited brethren built up Great Babylon during the Gospel Age, that it may be unanswerably
demonstrated, by the wrongs of teaching and practice into which Satan leads them, that they are not Little Flock members; and (2) He permits them to have such buffeting experiences at Satan's hands as are designed to break their willfulness, and bring them to repentance, when their new creatures can be saved through the destruction of their fleshly minds (1 Cor. 5: 5; 1 Tim. 1: 20; Ps. 107: 10-16). So far none of the Great Company groups have finished their experiences at Azazel's hands; therefore only a part of such experiences can be given. Again we will refer to J.F.R.'s. experiences in Azazel's hands to illustrate a part of what is typed here. We stated above that on July 25, 1917, when he refused a just peace, and insisted on an unjust one, and threatened unless his ultimatum were accepted he would publish the British and Board matter, we stopped in a brotherly way favoring and helping him amid the unfavorable circumstances that his unrepented usurpations as to the British and Board matters brought upon him from June 23 onward. Satan immediately seized him July 25, as we left him, according to a Scripture that in due time, D.v., we will expound to the Church, and on July 27 caused him, according to the same Scripture, to do certain things by the influence of four sets of persons: (1) fallen angels, (2) his submissive P.P.A. members, (3) his executive committee— Bros. Van Amburgh, MacMillan and Hudgings—appointed that day, (4) his partisans in the Bethel, all of whom influenced or supported him in taking (1) the steps that marked his conduct in the Bethel dining room culminating in his committing physical violence against our person in plain sight of the Bethel family, and (2) the steps that culminated in our eviction from Bethel that day, July 27. See Vol. VI, Chapter I.
(68) When the ousted Directors that morning in the P.P.A. meeting, after he refused to permit us to speak in their defense, refused to submit to his proposals
as above given, or to discuss matters further with him without legal advice, he was left by unfavorable circumstances, the fit man, in a condition isolated from their brotherly favor and help. So far as they were concerned he immediately fell into Satan's clutches. Their answer greatly angered him. Jumping from his chair and jumping backward with a dramatic gesture he shouted in great wrath, "Then it will be war!" After the noon meal, July 27, he began war, on us, then on them, for after first ordering us to leave Bethel immediately, he ordered them to leave by July 30. July 29 he sent out for the first time his Harvest Siftings, which Bro. Pierson characterized as a production of Satan, and which is a Satanic misrepresentation of the British and the Board affair; for on that date, a date which the Scriptures also mark as the one on which Satan appointed J.F.R. to that work, he sent W.F. Hudgings with a number of copies of Harvest Siftings to Boston, where that evening it was read to the Boston elders and deacons. In that paper, first us, and afterward the four ousted Directors, he most flagrantly misrepresented in a way that only a new creature who was under Satanic control could do. August 8, a date Scripturally marked for this deed, he completed his series of wrongs against the ousted Directors by forcing them out of Bethel, another act that could not under the circumstances have been done by a new creature, unless he was under Satanic control. And what has been his history ever since? It has been largely one of iniquity, false teachings, blunders and troubles, wrecking one thing after another, until it is only his blind partisans that do not recognize his woeful, Satan-directed condition. Will he continue going from bad to worse, or submit to the three things of Num. 8: 7? If not the latter, he will reap the full penalty of sin (Rom. 6: 23; Gal. 6: 7, 18; Heb. 6: 4-8; 10: 26-31; 2 Pet. 2: 1-22; John 5: 16; Jude 4-19). 0 what a fearful thing is revolutionism
in the forms of Clericalism, Sectarianism and Abihuism as exemplified in him!
(69) Experiences similar to his, though on a less marked scale, characterize the lives of Bros. Shearn, Hemery, Sturgeon, Ritchie, Hoskins, Heard, Olson, Hirsch, etc., while in Azazel's hands. As we previously saw that each new general act of revolutionism brought anew to these brothers experiences in being (1) led to the Gate; (2) passed through it; (3) delivered to the fit man; (4) led to the wilderness; and (5) let go in the wilderness; so at the end of these five stages in each general act of revolutionism Azazel's Goat falls anew into Azazel's hands for experiences suitable to the new sins of revolutionism. In other words, the experiences of the antitypical Goat in these stages or steps are repeated as often as there is a general act of revolutionism committed by this class. Hence as often as we see revolutionism in any leader among the Truth People, we begin to lead him and his supporters to the Gate of the Court, and exhort our fellow-priests to co-operate with us therein. This explains our Divinely commanded activity toward the Levites. Those who think that in doing so we are nursing a grudge totally misunderstand our work and motives. We cannot hope for the present to make them understand; but we comfort ourself with the reflection that the Lord and our enlightened fellow Priests understand, and that by and by our dear Levitical brethren will understand. Then all will be peaceful and lovely again among God's people, separated into their respective places. God speed that glad day! O let us pray and work for it in harmony with the Lord's Word, beloved! And the Lord will answer our prayers and prosper our work in this respect; for "the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall accomplish it" "in due time"! Amen.
(70) We will summarize our foregoing discussion by defining the seven stages or steps in the experiences
of Azazel's Goat, in order that the dear brethren may have them together for comparison and contrast.
(1) Confessing the sins: a declaration of the willful sins of organized Christendom by the World's High Priest.
(2) Loosing the Goat: The World's High Priest giving the Great Company a measure of liberty: (1) by taking away certain truths through permitting errors to blind their former understandings of those truths, and (2) by removing Providential hindrances to their measurable freedom of action.
(3) Leading to the Gate: The World's High Priest their resisting revolutionism.
(4) Passing it through the Gate: The High Priest with-drawing priestly fellowship.
(5) Delivering to the fit man: The High Priest delivering them up to unfavorable circumstances and persecuting persons.
(6) Leading to the wilderness: Unfavorable circumstances and persecuting persons giving them distress.
(7) Letting go in the wilderness: Unfavorable circumstances and persecuting people putting them, through occasioning them to commit willful sins, into a condition of utter loss of the favor and help of God's Real or Nominal people, i.e., the loss of their brotherly fellowship, because of their coming in matters of faith and practice into the control of Azazel, who uses them to further his purposes.
(71) Those Levites who submit to the three things of Num. 8: 7 and to the one thing of Num. 8: 12 (see also Rev. 7: 14), are rightly exercised by these experiences, and will gain life as well as atone for the world's willful sins, a blessed privilege; and those Levites who do not submit to these things lose life and all else. O Lord! save thy endangered Levites for Jesus' sake; for they are Thy children, bought by Jesus' precious blood! Amen.
(72) Years before the fulfillment of this type occurred, our beloved Pastor, in Tabernacle Shadows, etc., gave us the general outlines of the antitype which we have just studied, though, of course, he could not give the details of the fulfillment. And now we find them to have been remarkably fulfilled according to his outline given about sixty years ago. The details of the antitype belong to the Epiphany; and, as a part of its light, are now due to be understood, and as such we present them to the Church. Let us all praise our Father and our God for, and properly use this glorious light!
(73) Inasmuch as the Great Company as a class did not exist before their separation from the Little Flock, it was impossible before their separation to distinguish the Little Flock members from the prospective members of the Great Company; and for this reason the Lord strictly forbade our judging that this or that individual was a member of the latter class. All the consecrated were to be received and treated as members of the former class until the separation. Before the separation, therefore, all were regarded as Priests, and no distinction could be made between priestly and brotherly fellowship among New Creatures. However, by the separation a change was made; for those who were remanded to the Great Company, by becoming Levites, ceased to be Priests; nevertheless they remained brethren because of participation in the Holy Spirit. When one is manifested to the Priests as a Levite he no longer is to be treated by them as a Priest. During 1917 certain ones, together with those who heartily supported them by revolutionism against the Divine arrangements given by "that Servant," and against his Will and Charter, became manifest as members of the Great Company; for such revolutionism is, in part, the murmuring of Matthew 20: 11-15, and is, in part, the swaying of the sixth slaughter weapon of Ezekiel 9: 2, 5-10. And whether all of us have been
conscious of the meaning of our acts or not, as a matter of fact we who stood out against, and withdrew from these revolutionists have withdrawn priestly fellowship from them. What are the forms of such fellowship wherein no one else shares? Do they not consist of the exclusive use of the privileges of the antitypical Lampstand, Table of Shewbread and Incense Altar, while the Church is in the flesh? This being true, have we not refused to see as light coming from the true Lampstand the delusions that the Society leaders have taught? Assuredly! Therefore we have withdrawn priestly fellowship from them as respects the privileges associated with the antitypical Lampstand. Further, have we not refused to accept for ourselves and to give to our fellow Priests for strength for our journey Heavenward what these offer as Shewbread, which as additions to, and misrepresentations of the real "loaves of presence" their leaders have prepared for spiritual food? Certainly! Therefore we have withdrawn priestly fellowship from them as respects the privileges connected with the antitypical Table of Shewbread. And have we not refused to share with them in the sore afflictions brought upon them, in part, by their errors of interpretation and wrongs of conduct, as being the fiery trials of the Priest offering incense at the antitypical Golden Altar? Positively! Therefore we have withdrawn priestly fellowship from them as respects the privileges belonging to the Golden Altar. Manifestly, therefore, we have withdrawn priestly fellowship from them. But have we withdrawn brotherly fellowship from them? Assuredly not until they fell into Azazel's hands! Do we not, as new creatures, in common with them use, in as many particulars as their repudiations do not prevent, the same truths that they and we had together before they were cast out of the Holy? Do we not have access with them to the antitypical laver to wash away with them the filthiness of the flesh? And