Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing (epiphany) of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Titus 2:13
and we deem it necessary and proper that the Watch Tower now [italics are ours] consider it." The obvious impression given by this quotation is that the Tower has not previously considered this subject. This impression is an untrue one, as the subject was set forth quite correctly in Z '18, 355-357 with quotations from "that Servant's" pen. But the two articles flatly contradict one another, that of Z '18, 355-357 plainly affirming, and that of Z '20, 21-28 flatly denying our dear Pastor's thought that those who consecrating and proving faithful in the interval between the close of the General Call in 1881 and the inauguration of the earthly phase of the Kingdom, and finding no crowns available for themselves, will become associated in reward and service with the Ancient Worthies in the Kingdom. (F 156, pars. 1, 2; Z '11, 181, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 6, 7, 11, 12; Question Book, pp. 151, 152.) Those who believe that the Society is "the channel" for giving the seasonal meat to the priests, it would seem to us, must be perplexed by this as well as by other pointed contradictions appearing in the Tower during the last twenty-one years.
(39) The question before us for discussion is not a subject of comparatively minor importance, such as varying interpretations of isolated verses, all such interpretations being in harmony with the general Plan; but it is a doctrinal question, and one of no small importance, affecting as it does the standing of thousands of people now consecrated, and that of hundreds of thousands that will yet consecrate. For the benefit of those who may not have read the article under review we give the following brief analysis of it. First, it lays down three requirements that the Lord makes as precedents of obtaining His approval: (1) Faith leading to justification, (2) consecration, (3) faithfulness amid the Divinely applied tests. Second, it refutes the claim that unconsecrated people interested in, and measureably serving the Truth are to be associated in reward
and service with the Ancient Worthies. Third, it refutes the thought that the following passages teach that there will be a Modern (Youthful) Worthy class: (1) Zeph. 2: 3; (2) Ps. 41: 1, 2; (3) Zech. 13: 8, 9; (4) Amos 9:13; (5) Matt. 8: 11; (6) John 8: 51. Fourth, it quotes and explains partially, and then repudiates totally our Pastor's view of the subject as stated in F 156, pars. 1, 2 and Z '15, 269, col. 2, pars. 6, 7, etc. Fifth, it sets forth the claim that the doctrine of the Modern (Youthful) Worthies as taught in the foregoing references of "that Servant's" writings contradicts the doctrines of the Ransom, the Advocate and Mediator, the Covenants and the Church's Commission. We are glad to express our hearty agreement with some of these positions; but the Scriptures and "that Servant's" "well reasoned" expositions compel us to dissent from others. We of course are not positive of the authorship of the article; but its style, manner of reasoning and underlying error, the denial of Tentative Justification as now operating, are those of J.F.R. At any rate as one of the Editors of the Tower at headquarters, he has doubtless given the article his endorsement.
(40) We begin first with the pleasurable task of expressing our agreement with the claim of the article that those friends who assent to the Truth, and who render it some service, but who do not consecrate, are not to be the associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service in the Millennium. And the reason why they will not be such is, because they are not in character like the Ancient Worthies. To be the latter's Millennial Associates certain people will have to exercise the same kind of justifying faith, the same kind of consecration to the Lord, and the same kind of faithfulness amid similar trials as were theirs. Hence no matter what relation some may hold to the Truth and the Truth people, if they do not do the three things that the Ancient Worthies did, they will not be
their Millennial Associates in reward and service. Nor did our Pastor ever intimate that they would so be. In the places where he treats of the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies, e.g., F, 156, pars. 1, 2; Z '11, 187, pars. 5-10; Z '15, 269, pars. 11, 12, etc—he (expressly in F 156, pars. 1, 2) shows that he is discussing the Millennial reward and service of those unbegotten consecrators who from 1881 onward act in the above three mentioned particulars, just as did the Ancient Worthies. Nor have we nor anybody else in harmony with that Servant's thought on the subject ever taught such a reward and service for such unconsecrated Truth friends. Hence though the article under review, in denying such honors for such unconsecrated Truth friends, sets forth the Truth with reference to them; yet it sets forth such Truth as does not answer the question with which the article begins, and to which it proposes to give an answer: "Do the Scriptures teach that at this time the Lord is developing a class which can be properly designated as a 'modern [Youthful] worthy class?"' If such error on the subject is taught, it is of course in the province of the Tower, while treating on the subject of the Youthful Worthies to correct it; but it should, it seems to us, do so in a way as not naturally to leave some people under the impression that such persons are meant by the term Modern (Youthful) Worthies; for they are not meant by that term by those who are in harmony with our Pastor's thought.
(41) But perhaps it was the purpose of The Tower editors in part to correct the erroneous thought that the children of the consecrated would become Ancient Worthies, which some got from Clayton Woodworth's letter entitled, "A Father's Letter to his Son," in Z '08, 263, 264. If such was their purpose, it is worthy of all praise. It may prove further helpful to the friends to learn that that letter was through a mistake inserted in The Tower to fill up space by another
than our Pastor, during the latter's absence from the Bible House on a prolonged Pilgrim trip, and that "that Servant" on being questioned on the subject denied the general teaching of the letter, and the mistaken conclusion that some drew from it as to the Truth people's children as such becoming Ancient Worthies, as well as deplored its appearance in the Tower.
(42) Again we are pleased to agree with the article under review in its denial that the following Scriptures apply to the Youthful Worthies: Zeph. 2: 3; Ps. 41: 1, 2; Zech. 13: 8, 9; Amos 9: 13; Matt. 8: 11; John 8: 51. It quotes them as being applied by some to prove that there will be a Youthful Worthy class to be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service. None of these passages has any specific reference to such a class; our dear Pastor never so applied them; neither have we ever so applied them; nor have we ever heard of their being so applied, before we read the article under review. These passages being, therefore, inapplicable to the subject, it is not necessary for us to discuss them on this point, remarking however in passing that we do not understand Zeph. 2: 3 and Zech. 13: 9 to apply to the Israelites alone, and that during Jacob's trouble, as The Tower now claims. Rather, we understand them as "that Servant" has expounded them. So, too, we think our Pastor's later thought on Matt. 8: 11; Luke 13: 29, that those coming from the East, West, North and South are the Little Flock (Ps. 107: 3; Acts 15 14; Z '14, 59, col. 2, pars. 1, 2), is better on account of its closer agreement with the connection than that which the article under review quotes from Z '04, 335. However, as these points are not relevant to our subject, we pass them by without further comment.
(43) In discussing another's teaching it is always well to find out what the real basis of his position is; for this enables one the more readily to test its truth
or error. Some writers for varying reasons keep their basic principle more or less out of sight; and this has been done in the article under review. Usually such a course is pursued because, if the basic principle, of the argument were clearly recognized, the reader would the more likely be turned against it. The following considerations on this point are here worthy of note: (1) From December, 1909, until his death, as can be seen from many Towers published from December 15, 1909, until that of September 15, 1916 (Z '09, 360; Z '10, 12, 13; 93, col. 2, pars. 3-6; 246, col. 2, pars. 1-4; Z '11, 394; Z '12, 152, col. 2, par. 4; Z '13, 92-94; Z '14, 67; Z '15, 103, 104; 292, 293; Z '16, 281), and from the Foreword of F. written Oct. 1, and finally approved for the press Oct. 16, 1916 (P '22, 192, 6), our Pastor taught Tentative and Vitalized Justification, separate and distinct, as operative during the Gospel Age; (2) The Truth people believe in Tentative Justification as operating during the Gospel Age, in harmony with the Scriptures, e.g., Rom. 4: 1-25 and our Pastor's teachings. (3) J.F.R., the leading spirit among The Tower editors, and at least one of his editorial associates, W.E. Van Amburgh, deny the doctrine of Tentative Justification as operative during the Gospel Age.
(4) They do not deny it in The Tower expressly in so many words; but they repeatedly, as in the article under review, deny the thought contained in the expression, Tentative Justification. (5) When writing of Gospel-Age Justification, they not only uniformly ignore both (a) mentioning the term, Tentative Justification, and (b) explaining the idea involved in that term; but also uniformly use language that is true of Vitalized Justification only, and that is untrue of Tentative Justification. (6) This same method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discussion of that doctrine occurred,
was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age. (7) If Truth People generally knew that this method was being used by at least two of the Tower editors, they would be more on their guard against various errors that J.F.R. and some of his associates have been holding, and are "privily" bringing in among the unsuspecting' sheep. If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower's denial of Tentative Justification during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting for Gospel-Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual thinking completely to overthrow every argument that the article under review presents to defend its thesis; for through Tentative Justification alone can God now deal with this class in preparing them for association with the Ancient Worthies.
(44) The main difference between Tentative and Vitalized Justification is the following: In the former God reckons the merit of Christ as imputed to and for a believer, whereas it is not actually so imputed; in the latter God actually had Christ's merit imputed for and to a believer whose consecration God was about to accept by the begettal of the Spirit. Now to the Scriptural proof of the former: Very briefly would we note some of the thoughts that St. Paul in Rom. 4: 1-12 gives us on Tentative Justification. Having in the preceding section demonstrated Justification by faith alone, he in Rom. 4: 1-12 proceeds to prove that the same kind of a faith Justification as operated in the Patriarchal and Jewish Ages also operates during the Gospel Age. This he proves by citing (1) the experience of Abraham, and a Scripture (Gen. 15: 6) with reference to him (vs. 1-3), as an
example and proof for a Gospel-Age Justification (vs. 4, 5); and (2) the experience and statement of David (vs. 6-8, compare with Ps. 32: 1-5) as an example and proof for a Gospel-Age Justification. This must, therefore, refer to Tentative Justification; for that was the only kind experienced by Abraham and David. Then he proceeds to prove that such a Tentative Justification is during the Gospel Age applicable to ALL believers. We call particular attention to verses 11, 12, which we quote from the Diaglott: "And he [Abraham] received the symbol of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness [Tentative Justification is here meant, because the merit that by imputation vitalizes Justification was not yet in existence] of that faith which he had while in uncircumcision; in order that he might be  the FATHER OF ALL [whether they are consecrated or not] uncircumcised [Gentile] BELIEVERS [hence not only consecrated, but also unconsecrated believers], that righteousness [Tentative or Vitalized Justification, dependent on the non-imputation or the imputation of merit for them] may be accounted unto them ["ALL uncircumcised BELIEVERS"]; and (2) a father of Circumcision [Jews] not only to those who are of Circumcision [those Jews who do not accept Christ] but to those also who tread in the footsteps [those Jews who accepting Christ left all to journey to Heavenly Canaan, as Abraham left all to journey to earthly Canaan] of the faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision." Undoubtedly these twelve verses, as well as the rest of the chapter, especially verses 21-24, prove Tentative Justification as operative during the Gospel Age. The distinction between the faith of a tentatively justified believer and that of a consecrated believer is among other ways brought out in the Greek through the prepositions epi, on, for the faith of a tentatively justified believer, and eis, into, for the faith of a consecrated believer, as can
be seen in the use of the former in Rom. 4: 5, 24; Acts 16: 31 and of the latter in John 3: 36; Acts 10: 43. The latter kind of a faith is a consecrating faith which puts one into Christ; for a faithful justified believer continues to believe until he believes into (comes into) Christ. Among others, the following Scriptures prove Tentative Justification: 1 Cor. 7: 14; Rom. 12: 1; 8: 29, 30; 1 Cor. 1: 30; Lev. 9: 9, 12, 18. The following, among others, treat of Vitalized Justification: Heb. 9: 24; 10: 14; Jas. 2: 14-26; 1 John 2: 2; 1 Cor. 6: 11. If the writer of the article under review believed in Tentative Justification as now operating, and thought logically on it, he never would have written that article; for it is based on the denial of Tentative Justification as now operating, whereas Tentative Justification furnished a basis for the Old Testament Faithful to have such relations with God as resulted in their qualifying for their Millennial reward and service; and whereas similar results for the Youthful Worthies are now possible from the same kind of a Justification.
(45) As we are aware, every important feature of God's plan, illustrative from the standpoint of the At-one-ment, is symbolized in connection with the Tabernacle; hence the Lord has taken care to symbolize Tentative and Vitalized Justification by that curtain of the goats' hair (Ex. 26: 7-9) which was doubled "in the forefront of the Tabernacle," the part visible to those in the Court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The following considerations will make this clear. The covering of badger (seal) skins, clearly visible to those in the camp, types The Christ class as they appear to the world, i.e., as unattractive and repulsive. The rams' skins dyed red, hidden under the first covering, represent the merit of Jesus' humanity. The ten curtains of goats' hair covered by the rams' skins dyed red represent the justified humanity
of the Church as covered by Christ's merit. The eleventh, the uncovered curtain, i.e., that which was doubled "in the forefront of the Tabernacle," represents not the Church's justified humanity, but Justification by faith, the part (as stated above) visible to those in the court typing Tentative Justification, and the part visible to those in the Holy typing Vitalized Justification. The linen curtains type The Christ as new creatures, in whom as such there is no sin (1 Pet. 2: 22; Rom. 8: 1-4; 1 John 3: 6, 9). This curtain as doubled was first antitypically brought to our attention in The Tower of December 15, 1909, in the article on the Wedding Garment, and was repeatedly so brought to our attention since that time, by the true channel for the seasonal meat, our dear Pastor, in the distinction between Tentative and Vitalized Justification; but the part visible in the antitypical court is now denied by the counterfeit channel for giving seasonal meat to the priests, which, as a corporation, was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites.
(46) The main differences between Tentative and Vitalized Justification are: (1) As concerns God's Justice, the former operates without, the latter with its being satisfied by Christ's merit; (2) as concerns Christ's merit, the former acts without, the latter with the imputation of His righteousness in the interests of the person concerned; (3) as concerns the recipient's activity, the former operates by the sole instrumentality of faith in the teachings of the Word on pertinent subjects without consecration, the latter by the instrumentality of such a faith with consecration; (4) as concerns the things imputed, the former has its faith actually, and Jesus' merit reckonedly (Rom. 3: 21-28; 4:3-8, 21-25; 10: 4), the latter its faith and Jesus' merit actually, imputed as righteousness (1 Cor. 1: 30; Gal. 2: 16-20; 3: 22; Phil. 3: 9) [the term, "the faith of Jesus" means the faithfulness,
righteousness, of Jesus]; (5) as concerns the Adamic sentence, the former is without, the latter with its cancellation; (6) as concerns fellowship with God, the former is partial, the latter is full; (7) as concerns opportunities for entering covenant relations with God, while the former always gives opportunity of entering a grace-covenant relation with God, it does not always open an opportunity of entering into the Sarah-Covenant relation with God, as can be seen in the case of the Ancient and Youthful Worthies; the latter always gives access to the Sarah-Covenant relation with God.
(47) The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch and Noah (Heb. 11: 4-7), until restitution begins, is a Scriptural one, and will remain so despite the denials of the counterfeit channel for seasonal meat for priests, which was the true channel for the work of the antitypical Mahlite Merarites, developed since the death of the true channel for giving seasonal meat to the household, "the Steward," "that Servant," our beloved Pastor. As long as Rom. 4: 1-25, etc., remain parts of the Bible, that doctrine will stand despite the attacks that the counterfeit channel for giving seasonal meat to the priests makes upon it.
(48) But some may ask, How does the article under review deny Tentative Justification as now operating? We answer, not only by its entire basis and its main general lines of argument by which it seeks to set aside the doctrine of the Youthful Worthies; but by specific statements which imply such a denial. Additionally many brethren know that J.F.R. and W.E. Van Amburgh deny Tentative Justification, e.g:, the former often doing it before the Bethel Family in the Spring and Summer of 1917, the latter doing this not only then and there, but also before the Class at New Britain, Conn., December, 1919, in answering a question as to whether "that Servant" taught it. We
will quote only one statement among many that prove that they deny, not the express term, which would result in their arousing opposition to their efforts, but the idea implied in the doctrine of Tentative Justification as now operating. Z '20, 26, col. 2, par. 2, opens as follows: "Stated in other phrase, justification since the resurrection of Jesus results only (italics in both cases are ours. St. Paul thought differently, Rom. 4: 1-25; so did "that Servant") to those who have imputed to them the merit of Jesus' sacrifice." This statement is true of Vitalized, but untrue of Tentative Justification. And because of the exclusive emphasis on the idea of Vitalized Justification, and the absence of the idea of Tentative Justification (perhaps the omission of both of these terms is not unintentional as conducive to making their readers forget the distinction!) the article, like other recent Tower articles on Justification is grossly misleading. Half-truths are more misleading than whole errors, as the course of every erroneous system proves. And the half-truth that the article under examination sets forth as the whole truth on Gospel-Age Justification will prove to be so on the subject of the Youthful Worthies, if the brethren do not keep in mind the other half-truth on Gospel-Age Justification. The antitypical curtain as doubled is necessary for us to keep in view to see daylight on Gospel-Age Justification; as the fog in the article under examination exists largely, because The Tower editors teach only one-half of such truth.
(49) There is another point in the article under review in connection with which only half of the Truth is told, and that in such connections as results in the accumulation of more fog on the subject that it professes to elucidate. We refer to the treatment of the justification of the Ancient Worthies and of that of the Gospel Church. As far as it speaks of the justification of the former its language is correct enough; but it befogs the subject by what it leaves unsaid as
to the nature and privileges of their justification, which need consideration in order to estimate properly the relation of their justification to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit, and the similar relation of the justification of the Youthful Worthies to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit. The article under examination, to prevent its readers from concluding (as the article certainly gives that impression) that the justification of the Ancient Worthies was complete, vitalized, should have mentioned the following facts: (1) Their justification was of a kind in which the satisfaction of Justice did not take place; (2) that they lived and died under the Adamic sentence; (3) that they were justified to fellowship only; (4) that their trial was of faith and obedience only, proved by Samson's case especially, and not of love, without a trial and possession of which no one will ever gain everlasting life; and (5) that their trial for life, unlike that of the Vitalizedly Justified, who are tried for life now, was not in this life; but is to be in the Millennium (Heb. 11: 40). None of these five thoughts is true of the Vitalizedly Justified. Hence the article, by the way it links all justification previous to the Millennium, leaves the reader under the impression that the Ancient Worthies' being pleasing to God in their justification was in the same sense as is the privilege of the Gospel Church in its justification to be pleasing to God. These important omissions put such great blemishes into the article as becloud the points which should be emphasized, and which, when clearly set forth, prove for the Youthful Worthies the same relation to the Divine Justice and the Ransom merit as that of the Ancient Worthies. Surely all of us recall how "that Servant" stressed the differences between the nature and privileges of the justification of the Ancient Worthies, which was tentative, because not made through the actual imputation of Jesus' merit, and that of the Gospel Church, which is vitalized,
because made through the actual imputation of Jesus' merit to the consecrated.
(50) We see, then, that the justification of the Ancient Worthies was not to life, which requires the satisfaction of Justice by the actual imputation of Christ's merit (Rom. 3: 21-26; 5: 18, 19); for they remain until the present under the Adamic sentence. Whatever Covenant favors God gave them, instead of setting this sentence aside, were given them conformably with Justice exacting from them the Adamic death. Hence they were not as Ancient Worthies put on trial for life. Their trial was of faith and obedience, and that from Abraham onward in connection with Grace Covenant (Rom. 4: 13-16; Gal. 3: 18). This Grace Covenant neither ignored, nor set their Adamic sentence aside; but recognized its justice; and did not interfere with its execution; but meantime operated toward them as an unconditional promise, made possible through their Tentative Justification (Rom. 4:13-16), in view of the fact that a Ransom would some day, satisfy Justice and cancel the Adamic sentence for them. Hence God dealt with them as a kind prison warden would with a worthy convict in view of his future lawful freedom. He could do this in harmony with Justice and the Ransom, by leaving them suffer the former's sentence, and in the meantime give them opportunities of demonstrating their faith in, and loyalty to Him, as a preparation for their future lawful freedom. Thus He arranged in their interests as Millennial works: (1) the application of the Ransom as a seal of the New Covenant for the cancellation of their Adamic sentence, (2) their awakening from the dead, and (3) their reward, not everlasting life, for which they must first stand trial, and that under the New Covenant (Heb. 11: 40), but human perfection and princeship (Heb. 11: 39, 35; Ps. 45: 16). Their Tentative Justification, i.e., justification to fellowship (Jas. 2: 23) by their faith, which faith in
due time was proven to be genuine by their consecration faithfully maintained under sore trial (Jas. 2: 21, 22), made it possible for God to give them such promises as gave them the hope of a reward in the future (Heb. 11:10, 13-16), and as left them under the curse, while they exercised hope in the promises. Without such a Tentative Justification God's Covenant dealings with them could not have taken place; with it they could; for thus in harmony with the curse and His Justice God has always drawn near to those who have drawn near to Him. Praised be His Holy Name for such wondrous grace!
(51) These are the second set of things that the article under review omits mentioning, and thereby befogs the question that it professes to clarify. The two sets of things, (1) Tentative Justification with what it implies as the basic one, and (2) the exact position of the Ancient Worthies as to Justice, the sentence, their covenant standing, their trial and future relations to the Ransom and the New Covenant, clarify the situation as to the Youthful Worthies; for the latter's relation to God is now precisely the same as was that of the Ancient Worthies in all essential respects, i.e., as to (1) repentance, (2) faith, (3) justification, (4) consecration, (5) faithfulness in hard tests of faith and obedience apart from a trial for life, (6) environment inconducive to righteousness and conducive to sin, (7) satisfaction of Justice, (8) the Adamic sentence, (9) the earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant, (10) God's gracious Love, (11) the merit of Christ, (12) the New Covenant, (13) a trial for life, (14) the impossibility of entering the High Calling because of its unopened door, which is no fault of theirs. The fact that one class lived, when it was too soon for Divine Justice to be satisfied for it on the basis of the imputed merit, and the fact that the other lives, when it is too late for the Divine Justice to be satisfied for it on the basis of the imputed merit, by
which alone access to the High Calling is possible, are facts that are equalized before the bar of Justice and the Ransom by the consideration that both lived, when it was too soon for Divine Justice to be satisfied for them by the applied merit. Hence giving the Youthful Worthies under the same conditions the opportunity of becoming the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service is no more contrary to the Divine Justice and the Ransom than was giving the Ancient Worthies the opportunity of qualifying for their Millennial reward and service. St. Paul and "that Servant" were among the deepest and sharpest reasoners on the Ransom that ever lived, by far more able as such than the Tower editors; and they neither saw nor made a denial of the Ransom in their teaching Tentative Justification (Rom. 4: 3-12) as giving Youthful Worthies (Gal. 3: 6-9; Rom. 4: 11-16; 2 Tim. 2: 20; Joel 2: 28) a standing of fellowship with God and a trial of faith and obedience, but not a standing in a trial for life, even as was the case of their teaching of the Ancient Worthies.
(52) The mere fact that the Youthful Worthies are living since the resurrection of Jesus is not determinative as to the principles of exact Justice and the Ransom. Divine Justice can never, either before, or after the Resurrection of Jesus, consent to its violation, which dealing with the Youthful Worthies exactly as with the Ancient Worthies no more does than did Dealing with the Ancient Worthies; and since it is the merit of Jesus alone that propitiates Justice, and not the time in which once lives, any time argument truly based on Justice and the Ransom that would disprove the harmony between Divine Justice and the Ransom on the one hand, and the opportunity of qualifying for Youthful Worthiship on the other (since it is given them, while under the sentence, in view of the future application of the Ransom, as was the case with the Ancient Worthies), would equally disprove the harmony between
Divine Justice and the Ransom on the one hand, and the opportunity of qualifying for Ancient Worthiship on the other; for it is not the difference of time, as the article under review claims; but the essential nature of Divine Justice and of the Ransom in their relation to the Tentatively Justified and unbegotten consecrated, in view of a future application of the Ransom merit, that determines the question. Hence the argument of the article under review that such an opportunity operating now is contrary to Justice and the Ransom is unscriptural, unreasonable and unfactual—fog!
(53) To sum up in the form of a question and answer: What made the Old Testament Faithful available for Ancient Worthiship? Answer: Tentative Justification, consecration and faithfulness in their trial of faith and obedience, in view of a future application of the Ransom for them. What now makes the Unbegotten Consecrated available for Youthful. Worthiship? Answer: In view of a future application of the Ransom for them, the same three things. In other words through Tentative Justification God has given both of these classes, in view of the future application of the Ransom for them, an opportunity to gain a reward that will glorify His name, and hence their trial is, in each case alike, in harmony with the Ransom.
(54) The article under review claims that, when our dear Pastor taught for the Youthful Worthies Millennial association with the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, he meant those unbegotten consecrators only who would live in the interval between the begettal of the last member of the Little Flock and Restitution times; and then the article proceeds to deny this half-truth. The article to prove that such was his thought quotes only a part of what he said; and lets the part unquoted that shows that he included all such as could not be provided with crowns, and
be begotten of the Spirit, from the time of the close of the General Call in 1881 until Restitution sets in. Both of these lines of thought, among other places, he expounds in the two paragraphs of F 156. The opening sentence of the first of the two paragraphs proves that he refers to both "Another point arises here: In view of the fact that the High Calling [the General Call] is closed [in 1881 it ended; he does not say, "In view of the fact that the High Calling will be closed"], etc. Here is another case of the editors telling half of the truth only; and then unwilling to let us enjoy this half, they even proceed to deny IT!
(55) The claim of the article that the Harvest began 1878 and ended 1918 will be found refuted in Volumes V and VI of this work, to which we refer our readers for details. The Pyramid's corroboration of this refutation as pertaining to 1918 is found in Vol. III, Chapter VII. The last member of the Little Flock having been begotten by the Fall of 1914, and the last member of the Little Flock having been sealed in the forehead Passover, 1916, shown as above indicated, all persons consecrating since the first of these two dates cannot Scripturally hope for Little Flockship, and should not be encouraged so to hope. Their hope is in Youthful Worthiship. To arouse them to false hopes now will only give them greater disappointment by and by.
(56) Further, the article under examination claims that: "No one of the human race can stand before God without a Mediator or an Advocate," and hence reasons that there can be no opportunity of qualifying for Youthful Worthiship before the New Covenant is in operation; because they are under neither an Advocate nor a Mediator. We quote the above sentence as an example of sweeping statements and half truths that abound in the article. The following corrections must be made to make the sentence tell
the truth: (1) In order that Adam and Eve before their fall and Jesus be not ruled out from having had a standing before God, the word "fallen," or its equivalent, must be inserted between the words "the" and "human." The editors would grant this, as a later statement of theirs proves. (2) In order that the standing of the Ancient Worthies in covenant relation with God as justified to fellowship, while on trial of faith and obedience, but not on trial for life, be not ruled out, the sentence must be corrected somewhat as follows: "No one of the fallen race can stand in covenant relation before God's Justice in a trial for life without a Mediator or an Advocate." So corrected the sentence tells the truth; but so corrected the sentence destroys The Tower editors' argument based on its half-true sentence, as the following considerations prove: God did without a Mediator or Advocate enter into covenant relation with the Ancient Worthies as such, not indeed as freed by His Justice from the sentence in a trial for life (for they had no such standing and trial before Him); but without being on trial for life, and while suffering the Adamic sentence under the demands of Justice, they stood without an Advocate or Mediator before God's Love in covenant relation, a relation made possible in virtue of their Tentative Justification, which God's Wisdom planned for, and which His Love gave to them (in view of the fact that the Ransom would in the Millennium be applied for them and thus satisfy Justice for, and release them from the Adamic sentence) before they would or could obtain the blessings that Divine Justice stopped them from receiving until the Ransom would be applied for them (Heb. 11: 39, 40). Hence under the same conditions God could without an Advocate or a Mediator have the same covenant dealings with the Youthful Worthies. Hence the editors' argument against there now being Youthful Worthies from the standpoint of their not having an Advocate or Mediator falls to the
ground. This argument is not, as they claim, "another point that is controlling in this question, and settles it beyond peradventure of a doubt." Rather, it is only some more fog! Moreover, the Youthful Worthies are tentatively under an Advocate through their Tentative Justification.
(57) The same remark that it is only fog applies to the editors' argument that the doctrine of the three Covenants, typed by Abraham's three wives, estops there being a Youthful Worthy class before the inauguration of the New Covenant; because they are not children of antitypical Sarah or Hagar. It is true that the Youthful Worthies are not children of the Sarah, or of the Hagar Covenant; neither are the Great Company; nor were Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc., nor any of the preceding and subsequent Ancient Worthies, as such, as is manifest from the fact that some of them died, before either of these Covenants produced seed. For their argument to be binding, it must be proven that no other Covenant than these two has either operated hitherto or is now operating. But such an alleged proof is false; for the Covenant, certain earthly features of the Oath-bound Covenant (Gen. 22: 16-18), that operated between God and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the subsequent Ancient Worthies, and that anticipatorily operated between God and Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc. (Heb. 11: 3-7, 39, 40), is the Covenant that operates now between God and the Youthful Worthies; for if it could operate anticipatorily in the case of Abel, Enoch, Noah, etc., it could now operate in the case of the Youthful Worthies, as the whole trend of Scriptures, Reason and Facts implies that it does. If any doubt still lingers on this subject, Gal. 3: 6-9 and Rom. 4: 16 ought to dissipate it; for they teach that all who have the same kind of Faith that Abraham had will, each in his own class, with Abraham be blessed with the privilege of blessing all the families of the earth! This promise is the
Covenant! It now operates toward the Youthful Worthies; for they "are of the faith of Abraham," i.e., "they trust where they cannot trace" (2 Cor. 4: 13; 5: 7)—and "are therefore blessed with faithful Abraham." It is true that the earthly features of the Oathbound Covenant do not now give life; for life will be given both of these classes by the Keturah Covenant; but it does give them a certain kind of a standing before God, even as previously defined. The Covenant that during this life operated toward Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the other Ancient Worthies was not typed by any of Abraham's three wives. Nor are those of its features that cover the Great Company and fleshly Israel (Rom. 11: 28, 29). But as the very identical condition does not unmake the Great Company's and fleshly Israel's Oath-bound Covenants, this Covenant's not being typed by any of Abraham's wives does not make it non-existent; for many passages testify of its existence; and this is the Covenant that is similar to the one that covers the Youthful Worthies.
(58) Hence The Tower editors' reasoning that, since the Youthful Worthies are not developed by Sarah or Hagar, and that, since Keturah is not yet operating, there is no such a class now, presupposes the proposition that there is no other Covenant than these three, which presupposition is untrue. Therefore their argument on this point is built upon quicksand; and if we keep in mind that the Covenants which operate between God and the Ancient and Youthful Worthies do not now give them life, but leave them under the Adamic sentence, from which they will be delivered by the Ransom, the Godward seal of the New Covenant, the future mother of their humanity, all of the figurative fog raised by their argument about the three Covenants disproving the existence of Youthful Worthies vanishes before the sunrays of Truth!
(59) Finally, the commission of the Church is appealed to by the article under review as a proof that