GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS. THE HIGH PRIEST'S LAST WORK IN THE FLESH TOWARD HUMANS. CONFESSING THE SINS OVER AZAZEL'S GOAT. LOOSING THE GOAT. LEADING THE GOAT TO THE GATE. MEMBERS OF THE HIGH PRIEST UNTIL MANIFESTED AS LEVITES. WITHDRAWING PRIESTLY FELLOWSHIP AND DELIVERING TO THE FIT MAN. LEADING THE GOAT TO THE WILDERNESS. ABANDONING IT TO AZAZEL. IN AZAZEL'S HANDS. WITHDRAWAL OF PRIESTLY FELLOWSHIP. JUDGING BEFORE AND AFTER THE TIME. MISREPRESENTATIONS. AZAZEL'S GOAT IN THE NOMINAL CHURCH. JOHN'S REBUKE. BEREAN QUESTIONS.
IT SEEMS to be the Lord's will that the entire subject of Azazel's Goat be presented to the whole Church. D.v., we will do this as it is treated in Lev. 16:20-22, etc.
(2) Ordinarily, but, we believe, not happily, Azazel's Goat is spoken of as the Scapegoat. The word "scape" is an abbreviation of the word "escape"; and the thought of a runaway goat is given by that expression. This evidently is not the thought of the original word. In the Hebrew, the A.R.V., etc., one of the goats of Lev. 16 is called Jehovah's Goat, the other Azazel's Goat. The words Jehovah and Azazel are proper nouns, the one being a name of God, and the other being a name of the Devil. We believe it would be well for us to accustom ourselves to the expression Azazel's Goat rather than scapegoat, as a help for us better to understand what this class has done and is doing. The thought connected with the two antitypical Goats seems to be the following: One of them furthers God's interests, and the other, temporarily, those of the Devil. Throughout the Gospel Age the antitypical Goat of the Lord by reason of its faithfulness has built up the true Church (Matt. 7:24, 25), and thus has served Jehovah; while the antitypical Goat of Azazel by reason of its measurable unfaithfulness has throughout the Gospel Age built up the Nominal
The Epiphany's Elect.
Church (Matt. 7:26, 27, see Berean Comments); and therefore has served Satan's interests. Such also are the thoughts of 1 Cor. 3:11-15 (see vs. 4-10), though this passage like the preceding one has also a personal application. Even in our day the antitypical Goat of Azazel is building up a little Babylon, which claims to be the Little Flock, while like Great Babylon it persecutes the Little Flock.
(3) The name Azazel's Goat is very appropriate to the class that it designates; for the word Azazel means averter, perverter, and designates Satan as a Revolutionist, who, grasping for power, and lording it over others, averts Truth and Righteousness, and perverts them into subtle errors and wrongs. And this is what Azazel's Goat throughout the Gospel Age, including the Epiphany, has been doing. As revolutionists grasping for power and lording it over others, they have averted Truth and Righteousness, and perverted the ways of the Lord into error and wrong, and thus have advanced Satan's interests. However, it has not been to their eventual pleasement that they have followed such a course. Rather Satan has always given individuals of this class very buffeting experiences, which through the goodness of God have inured to the destruction of their flesh.—1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20.
(4) The Scriptures teach that there is a class of saints who revolutionize and support revolutionists against the Lord's ways (Ps. 107:10, 11; typed by certain Baal worshipers and kissers); sin more or less grievously, thereby spotting their garments (1 Cor. 5:1-13; Jude 23; Rev. 7:14; symbolized by the Levites in Ezekiel 44:10-13); through fear of the sacrificial death fail to carry out their consecration (Heb. 2:15; Jude 22; typed by Azazel's Goat); fellowship, but unsatisfactorily to themselves, with the worldly (Gen. 13:11-13; 2 Pet. 2:7, 8; 2 Tim. 4:10; James 1:8; typed by Lot); accept and introduce various
errors (1 Cor. 3:12, 15; Matt. 25:3, 8; typed by Eli); develop sectarian and erroneous systems (1 Cor. 3:3, 4, Matt. 7:26, 27; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; typed by the builders of the Tower of Babel); gain the Faithful's office by wrong (Is. 66:5; typed by Elisha's rending his garments, when about to pick up Elijah's mantle); persecute their faithful brethren (Is. 66:5; typed by Miriam and by Lot's shepherds); serve as slaves by these things Satan's interests (Heb. 2:14, 15; typed by servants at Pharaoh's court); receive from him the destruction of their flesh and works (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20; Matt. 7:27; 1 Cor. 3:15; typed by Lot's and Rahab's loss of all things); finally escape with their lives only (1 Cor. 3:15; Heb. 2:15; Jude 22, 23; typed by the deliverance of Lot and Rahab); will meet a great disappointment (Cant. 5:6, 7; Matt. 25:11, 12, 30; typed by the ten spies); will cleanse themselves (Rev. 7:14; typed by the Levites, Num. 8:7, 12); thereafter have a successful ministry (Cant. 5:9—6:1; Rev. 19:6; typed by the Levites); will share a subordinate spiritual glory (Ps. 45:14, 15; 1 Cor. 5:5; Rev. 19:9; typed by the Levites); and will be, as parts of the firstborns, Levites and Noblemen. (Rev. 7:15; Ezek. 44:10-14; Heb. 12:23.) These in their humanity are the antitype of Azazel's goat.
(5) Important parts of God's plan are many sided, and are therefore set forth in the Scriptures by a variety of pictures, as well as by copious literal passages. As one of the features of God's plan the manifestation of the sins of God's nominal people is set forth by various Scriptures. All of the Prophets, particularly Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and John, tell of these, sometimes in symbolic, sometimes in literal passages. Ps. 149:5-9 gives us, partly in literal, partly in symbolical language, a description of how the Little Flock in the end of the Age would punish the kings and princes, as well as their supporters, by stating the facts, and giving the proofs of their wrong-doings
The Epiphany's Elect.
before the whole world, the proofs being compared to fetters and chains. From a somewhat different angle the same general thought of spiritual punishment being meted out to the Rulers, Aristocrats, Clergy, Labor leaders and their supporters in their organizational capacities through a manifestation of their wrongs is given us in Elijah's smiting Jordan. The incident of the angels declaring to Lot Sodom's wickedness and overthrow tells the same story from a still different viewpoint. Samuel declaring to Eli the wrongs and punishments of his sons, etc., gives us another view of the same general event. So, too, something of this thought is typed in the spies at Jericho telling of Jericho's sins and impending destruction. Perhaps the clearest of all these pictures is that of Aaron's confessing Israel's sins over Azazel's goat; and as such it will be discussed in this article.
(6) Better to understand our subject it is necessary for us to keep in mind whose High Priest it is that confesses the sins over Azazel's Goat. It is not the Church's High Priest, Jesus; but the World's High Priest, Jesus and the Church, that does this, as Aaron, in the atonement day type, represents the World's High Priest. This we recall was thoroughly proven to us in Tabernacle Shadows. Another thing that will also prove helpful to us better to understand our subject, type and antitype, is to remember that the transaction with Azazel's Goat is the last High Priestly act before the change of the Sacrificial Garments; hence His dealing with this Goat before changing His garments proves that it would occur while members of the World's High Priest would yet be in the flesh. While such was not our dear Pastor's thought while writing Tabernacle Shadows, seemingly he later was coming to see it in this way, as the following quotation implies: "In this picture of the robes of the Priest, we understand that the High Priest typified the entire Priesthood, the Under Priests as well as the Head;
that the Head did not need the covering but that the covering of the linen garments represented the merit of Christ imputed to us, the members of His Body, whom the Father accepts and justifies, and whose imperfections are covered through Him. We understand that the white robe represents especially our share in the picture; [and] that the High Priest going forth in [garments of] glory typifies in large measure the glory of the Church in connection with her Head, as we read: 'It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.' Another Scripture declares that we shall be His glorious Body, or His Body in glory, and that 'we shall be glorified together with Him'" (Z '10, 136, col. 2). Both the Tabernacle symbolisms and the facts of the case require this change of thought. This is another evidence of our dear Pastor's gradual growth in knowledge. See Vol. III (Elijah and Elisha, Chap. II) for the proof of this thought.
(7) That our Pastor was uncertain on the matter of sprinkling the blood of the Lord's antitypical Goat, before the dealing with Azazel's Goat began, and suggested that certainty could be reached only when the fulfilled facts were before the brethren, appears from the following quotations from the book, "What Pastor Russell Said," under the last questions on pages 289 and 689. The former reference we give first. It begins with the 12th line of page 290: "Then in Leviticus it shows us the place where the Scapegoat is dealt with, after the Lord's goat has been dealt with, but that is not proof positive [italics ours] that it will be entirely after [italics ours] the Lord's goat has been slain, and after its blood has been offered, because these types could not all take place at the same time, and there would naturally be an order for it,—this first, and that second, and so on; but the fact that the bullock is dealt with first, and that the Lord's goat
The Epiphany's Elect.
is dealt with second, and then the Scapegoat is dealt with third, seems to imply that the tribulation of this class will come more especially at the end of the Gospel Age, after all of the elect shall have gone in [to the Spirit-begotten condition at least]; notwithstanding, we think there is room in the Scriptures to suppose that there have been some of this Great Tribulation class all through the Age, while the great mass of them probably belong in this end, because of the peculiar circumstances now prevailing." So far the first reference. The second begins in the 7th line of the page 690, reading as follows: "It would seem to be after the satisfaction of Justice in respect to all of these [the Church], the full offering of the Lord's merit, and the full acceptance of the whole matter, that then the dealing would take place with the live goat. The teaching of the type would seem to be that the tribulation that will come upon the Great Company will not come upon them in this official manner until after this dealing with [the imputation of the merit for] the Little Flock has been completed. While the Great Company may be sharing in the tribulation of the past, yet this special dealing at the end of this Age would seem to be after the Church had gone beyond the vail. Yet we must say this, dear friends—that every feature of this type and prophecy belong to the future and is more or less uncertain until it is fulfilled. In other words, God did not give prophecy and type in advance for us to speculate upon, but so that when due we might know it. Just as our Lord said of Himself at the First Advent, that when they would see certain things fulfilled then they would know they were the fulfillment of the things written. So as we come down to the beginning of the Time of Trouble [italics ours], those who would then be living and witness the dealings of the Lord with the Great Company class would see in it something which would be helpful to them—
perhaps more than you and I see now." [Italics ours.] So far the quotation.
(8) What do the fulfilled facts prove? That Azazel's Goat is dealt with before the last member of the Priest's Body leaves the world, and thus before the blood of the Lord's Goat is antitypically sprinkled. We believe that our Pastor's uncertainty on the subject was raised by the fact that the priest was in sacrificial robes while dealing with Azazel's goat. We do not recall a clear expression from him on this point of chronology. But certainly our thought on it is implied in his teachings as to three things: (1) in his thought that the sacrificial robes represent the Church's condition during her sacrificing time (Z '10, 136); (2) in his thought that the blood of the antitypical Bullock is continued on the antitypical Mercy Seat for atonement purposes until the last of the Great Company leave the earth (Z '10, 201, col. 2, pars. 1-3; Z '15, 103, par. 5); and (3) in his reason for proving that the Great Company will precede the Ancient Worthies in the resurrection, because the former are granted the covering of the antitypical Bullock's blood until death, while the latter are later, as the first ones so favored, granted the benefit of the antitypical Goat's blood, each use of the merit respectively preceding the resurrection of each class respectively (Z '16, 312, col. 2, pars. 1, 2; "What Pastor Russell Said," p. 15, ques. 3; p. 16, ques. 1). Hence the blood of the Lord's antitypical Goat is not applied until after the Great Company leaves the earth.
(9) Doubtless, as in the case of the time parenthesis as to antitypical Elijah's and Elisha's separation and the former's ascent to heaven, the Lord did not allow our Pastor to see clearly on this matter, because such clearness would have hindered the sore trial that He wished His people to undergo in connection with the separation (Vol. III, Chap. II); so for the same reason the Lord did not allow him to see clearly the time
The Epiphany's Elect.
relation between the sprinkling of the blood of the antitypical Goat and the dealing with Azazel's Goat. Nevertheless the extracts from and references to his writings just given demonstrate that his doctrinal, typical and prophetical views as to this matter logically force us to the conclusion that the Little Flock must be in the flesh during the High Priest's dealing with Azazel's Goat. This is another instance proving that prophecies and types connected with a trial of character cannot clearly be understood until the trial is met by the Faithful.
(10) The fact that the High Priest's dealing with the second goat was his last general ministry as High Priest toward humans before leaving the world convinces us that this transaction began after the last one of His members consecrated himself and was Spirit-begotten, an event that seems to have occurred on Sept. 16, 1914. The forehead sealing of this one and some others, of course, was completed later. That the last one of The Christ was begotten on that date seems to be proven by Elijah's coming to the Mount of God at that time (1 Kings 19:8; Rev. 14:1; Z '08, top of p. 223), and by his being thereafter represented in a type picturing events occurring entirely after September 16, 1914—as seated on a hill (2 Kings 1:9)—and by the fact that the floor line of the Grand Gallery, projected through the step, meets the vertical line of the south wall at the place indicating September 16, 1914. It also is proven by the facts that the reaping ceased on that date; and that the rest of the Harvest work was of a gleaning character. Thus the winning of the last member of The Christ would very properly terminate the general reaping, and give the rest of the work this gleaning character. Furthermore, the High Priest's dealing with Azazel's Goat being His last priestly work in the flesh toward humans, we should expect that every one of His members in the flesh would share in confessing the sins of antitypical Israel
over the antitypical Goat of Azazel, which would imply that the last one of them had had the satisfaction of Justice made for him previously. These considerations, as well as the facts of the case, which will be given later, prompt us to conclude that the confession of these sins in the antitype began the Fall of 1914.
(11) The thought that the begettal of the last member of The Christ was on September 16, 1914, seems to be implied in the type of Lev. 16:16, 18-20, i.e.: immediately after the imputed merit was accepted by Divine Justice for the last member of Christ's Body, the High Priest began to deal with Azazel's Goat. We will quote these verses and give our comments on the antitype in brackets as follows: "And He [Jesus, our High Priest] shall make an atonement [satisfy God's Justice] for the Holy [the word place is in italics, therefore the Court is not meant. Unlike most other sections of the Scripture this chapter uses the term Holy exclusively for what we usually call the Holy of Holies (vs. 2, 20, 23, especially 33). Since 1878, beside our Lord, there are many brethren in the Most Holy. For our High Priest to have made atonement for the Most Holy seems to mean that those persons that are now in the Most Holy had, while in the flesh, Justice satisfied for them by Christ's merit] because of the uncleanness [sins resulting from the Adamic sin] of the children of Israel [common to Adam's children] and because of their transgressions in all their sins [additionally much of the depravity that these saints had while in the flesh was inherited from the depravity of their ancestor's wilful sins]. And so shall He do for the Tabernacle of the Congregation [the new creatures while in the flesh have had Justice satisfied toward their humanity by the High Priest's merit] that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness" [which they inherited from their ancestors].
(12) "And He shall go out unto the altar [sacrificed humanity of Jesus and the Church] that is before the
The Epiphany's Elect.
Lord [in the justified condition, and used for His special purposes] and make an atonement for it [please God with them by the imputation of His merit to those, His own excepted, whose consecrated humanity is typed by the brazen altar] and [in addition to and after imputing His merit to our humanity] shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns [powers] of the altar round about [after Jesus imputed His Merit to us, the High Priest, Head and Body, 'thus points out that the altar of earthly sacrifices is acceptable to God by reason of the shed blood (the life given), and that all who will realize the power of the altar (horns are symbols of power) must first recognize the blood that sanctifies it.' T. 42.] And he shall sprinkle the blood [impute Jesus' life-rights] upon [to] it [the antitypical altar in so far as it includes the humanity of the Church, but not that of Jesus] with his finger seven times [make a complete work of it], and cleanse it [by washing His prospective members in the water of the Word before the merit is imputed] and hallow it [set apart through working in His prospective members repentance and faith before the cleansing takes place, thereby separating them from those who remain servants of sin] from the uncleanness [depravity] of the children of Israel [those under Adamic condemnation]." When was this work of reconciling the altar finished? When on September 16, 1914, His merit covered the humanity of the last one who came into His Body. [In v. 19 the various steps are traced in reverse chronological order from that of their antitypical fulfillment.] "And when [on September 16, 1914] He hath made an end of reconciling the [Most] Holy, and the Tabernacle of the congregation [the Holy], and the altar [those in the Court who consecrate, consequently immediately following September 16, 1914] He shall bring the live goat" [the High Priest at that time began to deal with Azazel's Goat].
From this explanation we readily see that the Atonement day services teach that Azazel's Goat would be dealt with immediately after the last member of the World's High Priest through the imputation of Jesus' merit became pleasing to the Lord. Accordingly, this picture also is in harmony with the thought that the reaping ended September 16, 1914. This picture therefore proves that the entire World's High Priest was in existence at that date.
(13) From the quotation made above from page 690 of "What Pastor Russell Said," we see that he was in doubt as to whether he saw clearly the time relationship of the Body of Christ leaving this earth and of the High Priest's dealing with Azazel's Goat, and suggested that when the type would be fulfilling, it could be more surely known. The fulfillment having been in our midst now for 24 years, we now know from the facts that Azazel's Goat is dealt with before all of the Body members leave this earth. The work with Azazel's Goat and the Levites is the last work of the World's High Priest as such before in His last members He leaves this earth, and was undertaken immediately after September 16, 1914, when Christ's last member was begotten of the Spirit. Thus the entire Priesthood was in existence.
(14) This entire chapter is a splendid illustration of the fact that the time order of the type frequently is different from that of the antitype, not only as is manifest in the sprinkling of the blood of the Lord's Goat before Azazel's Goat was dealt with, as just shown in v. 19; but as also can be seen from the following considerations: In v. 6 Jesus' consecration is typed; in v. 7 the consecration of the Church is typed; and in vs. 11-13 and 27, the 3½ years of Jesus' sacrificial dying from the standpoint of the three burnings, i.e., in the Holy, Court and outside the Camp, is set forth, these burnings, typing Jesus' dying
The Epiphany's Elect.
from three viewpoints, in the type follow the consecration of the type of the Church.
(15) If the entire Priesthood was in existence Sept. 16, 1914, the last one who would become a member of the Great Company had by this date lost his crown; for God would beget no one of the Spirit for Gospel-Age purposes after the last one of the Little Flock was begotten of the Spirit, as none thereafter would lose his crown. Hence all of those over whom the sins were to be confessed were in existence as such, though not yet as a class, by Sept. 16, 1914; and therefore the sins could be confessed over them.
(16) Nor was it a forced or unnatural matter that such confession should have begun at that time. On the contrary, it was then the most appropriate time in human history to have begun this work; for the World War, having but recently begun, the desire of the whole world was aroused for an answer to the questions: What caused the War? And whose fault was it? And taking advantage of such widespread interest, the High Priest began to declare the sins of Christendom that for centuries led step by step to that war—so far, the world's worst calamity. The work began at that time, because it was then due, as the conditions that called for it, and that guaranteed its success were present in the earth. Thus the sins of antitypical Israel and their effect, the class to do the confessing, the persons in whose hearing the confessing was to be done, and the occasion calling for it were all in existence. Hence everything was, on Sept. 16, 1914, in readiness for the confession to begin. How like God to take prompt advantage of circumstances favorable to His plan!
(17) We desire to consider every thought describing this work of the High Priest as it is given in Lev. 16:20-22. The first of these thoughts is given in the words: "He [Aaron] shall bring [literally bring near]
the live [Azazel's] goat." This expression seems to mean that Aaron took his goat in hand in order to use it in connection with an atonement service before the Lord. It was thus to be given special attention by the High Priest. Henceforth His services were to be directed mainly toward it in the interests of the people before the Lord, until such services were completed. This would also imply that there would be something for it to do in connection with such services. Hence this picture represents a general change in the activity of the World's High Priest. It would imply, antitypically, that at that time the High Priest would begin a line of work, not so much in the interests of the Little Flock, as in those of the Great Company, for the ultimate benefit of the world. Such a work would require that the High Priest give special attention to matters more or less related to the Great Company, its needs and its interests. It would for the good of the world necessitate His bringing this class more and more into prominence, using them in special ways and ministering toward them before the Lord in a particular manner, all of which were to be a benefit to the Great Company, and ultimately to the world.
(18) What were the acts in the antitype whereby the High Priest brought near those who were represented by the live goat? The first was the activity whereby large numbers of the Lot class were drawn out of Babylon. This seems in a fair measure to have been done by the Fall of 1914, resulting from the intensified public work which began in the Fall of 1910, and progressed especially in the Photo-drama work, beginning January, 1914. By the Fall of 1914 a great many of the Lot class had come into the Truth, and began to come forward before the Lord. Another thing that served to "bring near" the antitypical live Goat was the Lord's arranging subtle zeal-testing conditions in the Church from the Fall of 1914 to that of 1916, whereby more and more this class showed itself
The Epiphany's Elect.
not to be possessed by the zeal that enabled the faithful to prove more than conquerors; and thus the live goat class was becoming more and more marked by prominence in lack of all-conquering zeal. If we read the annual reports in The Tower for the years 1914, 1915 and 1916 we will see in the continually decreasing figures a continually increasing evidence of lack of zeal in large numbers of Truth people. This served to "bring near" the less zealous ones, i.e., made them especially noticeable as not sharing markedly in the High Priest's work. A third thing whereby the High Priest brought near the live Goat was in His emphasizing various teachings pertaining to the differences between the Little Flock and the Great Company; especially was this done from the standpoint of the Elijah and Elisha type. The Towers, Convention Reports and Sermons of those years abundantly prove this. A fourth thing whereby the High Priest brought near the antitypical live Goat was His emphasizing a future smiting of Jordan. His repeatedly warning against pointing out those who lacked zeal at that time as members of the Great Company was still another way of bringing near the antitypical live Goat, for it emphasized the presence of such a class of brethren in the Truth. Still further, his emphasizing before the public the signs of the times during those years brought near many who had lost their crowns in Babylon, by arousing them to give more attention to the Truth message. Some of these as the rest of the Lot class then came into the Truth. A seventh way of doing this was by the emphasis given during those years to "the Penny."
(19) "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat." We have read in other connections of Aaron and his sons laying their hands upon the head of the bullock of the sin-offering and upon the head of the ram of the burnt offering and upon the head of the ram of consecration (Ex. 29:10, 15, 19; Lev. 8:14, 18, 22). We recall that this means
that these animals represented them, and thus this action types that it would be the humanity of Jesus and of the Church that would be offered (T. 41, par. 3). The High Priest's laying both hands upon the head of Azazel's Goat types that those who were as a finished picture represented in their humanity in that goat were at the time of the confession, as new creatures, members of the High Priest. But we imagine some will say, Does not this goat type the humanity of the Great Company? We answer, Yes, in the finished picture; but no new creature is to be regarded as a member of the Great Company, as such, until during the Epiphany he is manifested as such. God has counted every new creature as a part of the High Priest until he is manifested as a Levite, a thing that takes place as Azazel's Goat is led from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court; for while the humanity of the Great Company is being thus led forth, their new creatures are being forced out of the Holy into the Court, as antitypical Levites. Since this took place only after the confession of the sins over them was completed, they were, of course, parts of the High Priest before the confession of the sins began, i.e., at the time that the High Priest put both hands on the head of the antitypical Goat of Azazel. Thus this type proves what our dear Pastor repeatedly taught us, viz., that no one would be a member of the Great Company until the separation of the Little Flock and the Great Company would set in, a thing that had its first beginnings from late in November, 1916, to about the middle of January, 1917, in England, i.e., over two years after the confession of the sins began. Hence when the High Priest laid both of His hands on the head of the antitypical Goat of Azazel, there was no Great Company as such, though there were many individuals who had already lost their crowns, and were shortly to become members of the Great Company. And the live goat at this particular juncture
The Epiphany's Elect.
of the service was used to represent the humanity of just such individuals, who as new creatures, however, were members of the High Priest, a fact that is proved by the High Priest's laying both hands upon the live goat's head. This explanation enables us to see the fallacy of those who, leaving the Truth during the sin-offerings' controversy, 1908-1911, claimed that the fact that the High Priest laid his hands on the head of the live goat proves that it represented Jesus' humanity, and not that of the Great Company.
(20) Having seen what is represented by the High Priest's laying both hands on the live goat, we inquire, How did He do it in the antitype? We reply, by the teachings emphasized over and over again during those years, that there was not yet a Great Company; that we were all called in the one hope of our calling; and that we should not before the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company say of any individual that he was a member of the Great Company. Thus the High Priest antitypically laid His hands upon the live Goat's head declaring that all of those who would later be remanded to the Great Company were then His members.
(21) A consideration of the sins that the High Priest confessed will help to clarify our subject. Not all kinds of sins were confessed over Azazel's Goat. The Adamic sins were not confessed over this Goat; because the Great Company does not atone for the Adamic sins. This is done solely by the blood of the antitypical Bullock and Lord's Goat, without any additions from the sufferings of Azazel's Goat. What other sins then remain for which atonement must be made? We answer, willful sins; not indeed all willful sins, but the willful sins of a certain class. Surely Azazel's Goat does not atone for willful sins of the Second Death class; for that would imply their return from the Second Death—a thing that will not occur. What class is it, then, for whose willful sins Azazel's
Goat atones? We reply: Those of the world, especially of the Nominal People of God. This is taught in the following language: "And [Aaron shall] confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel [those in the Camp, typical of Nominal Spiritual Israel] and all their transgressions in all their sins." We notice that the last clause does not read, "all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions," and "all their sins"; but it reads "in all their sins." This seems to mean that they had more than sins simply; rather that in their sins there was special guilt, which is here spoken of as the iniquities and transgressions in their sins. In Ps. 107:17, Israel and its wrong-doings are described as follows: "Fools because of their transgression [rejection of Christ] and because of their iniquities [sins against the Law Covenant] are afflicted" [from 607 B. C. and 33 A. D. onward]. This passage gives us the clue to the one that we are explaining. It shows us that willful violations of the moral law and willful wrongs against The Christ are meant by the iniquities and the transgressions of the antitypical Camp (Nominal People of God) in all their sins. Accordingly, we understand that the Great Company atones for those sins against God's Law and His saints that are sins against knowledge and ability, the purpose of such atonement sufferings being to enable the whole world to be free from the claims of Justice against willful sins, and thus to have a clean slate with which to begin the Millennial opportunities, since the blood of The Christ atones for all their Adamic sins.
(22) The children of Israel in their Camp were in an organized condition, and therefore type the Nominal People of God in its organized capacities, i.e., in state, church, aristocracy and labor. Accordingly, the rulers, clergy, aristocrats and labor leaders and the supporters of these various great ones are typed by the children of Israel whose sins were confessed over
The Epiphany's Elect.
Azazel's goat. Every one of these leading groups has claimed its power by Divine right. What does this mean? The doctrine of the Divine right of kings, summed up in the proposition, "The king can do no wrong," means the following things: That the rulers are God's direct appointees and vicegerents; that they do exactly what God wants them to do; and that He sanctions all their acts. The doctrine of the Divine right of the clergy, summed up in the proposition, "The cleric is God's mouth and hand," means the following things: In religious matters God speaks and acts through the clergy; therefore the laity are obligated to believe and practice with blank and unquestioning minds whatever the clergy bind upon them. The doctrine of the Divine right of the aristocracy, summed up in the proposition, "The aristocrats are the stewards and almoners of the Almighty," means that it is the Divine good pleasure that the aristocrats own and control practically the whole earth, and that all others are to be subject to them as slaves, serfs or employees. The doctrine of the Divine right of labor, summed up in the proposition, "The earth's products belong to their producers," means the following: God gave the earth to all mankind for development and enjoyment; hence its wealth belongs to its producers—the laborers.
(23) Every one of these four doctrines is erroneous, and the practice of them during the Christian Era has produced the terrible violations of the Golden Rule, and the wrongs against the Lord's saints, with which the history of Christendom is replete. When we view the acts that have flowed as a logical consequence from the doctrines of the Divine right of state, church, aristocracy and labor, we will readily recognize both the erroneousness of these doctrines and the willful sins of those holding and practicing them, i.e., sins against better knowledge and ability, contrary to God's laws and saints. The following is a partial list
of the wrongs resulting from the doctrine of the Divine right of kings: claims of unjust "prerogatives," gross oppression of their subjects, ruthless and cruel suppression of rivals, real and imaginary, the rule of might as against right, unjust and cruel wars, robbery of one another's territory and subjects, national hatred, revenge, envy, suspicion, etc., violation of the rights of other nations, violation and repudiation of solemn and binding treaties, support of false religions, union of governments and special religions, persecution of religious dissenters, debauchery and exploitation of weaker nations, traffic in human slavery, favoritism of the classes as against the masses, gross hypocrisy, dishonest and selfish diplomacy, etc., etc. Every one of these things is a violation of the Golden Rule, professedly accepted by these rulers, rests under God's disapproval, and is a demonstration of the falsity of the Divine right of kings.
(24) The following is a partial list of the wrongs resulting from the doctrine of the Divine right of the aristocracy: Exploitation, slavery, serfdom, legal technicalities, evasions, delays and violations, frauds, dishonesty, special privilege, monopolies, manufacturing financial and military panics and wars, indifference to the masses, gambling, wanton luxury and waste, unfair and destructive competition, corruption of politics, morals and government, support of oppressive and persecuting governments, etc., etc. Every one of these is a violation of the Golden Rule, professedly accepted by these aristocrats, rests under the Divine disapproval, and is a demonstration of the falsity of the doctrine of the Divine right of the aristocracy.
(25) The following is a partial list of the wrongs resulting from the doctrine of the Divine right of the clergy: Priestcraft, pride, intolerance, hypocrisy, superstition, error, persecution of dissenters, blasphemy of the Divine Person, Character, Plan and Works, sanction of the wrongs of rulers and aristocrats, union of
The Epiphany's Elect.
religions and states, secularization of religion, fomenting wars and national hatreds, rivalries, distrust and revenge, destruction of real religion, etc., etc. Every one of these things is a violation of the Golden Rule, professedly accepted by the clergy, rests under the Divine disapproval, and is a demonstration of the error of the Divine right of the clergy.
(26) The following is a partial list of wrongs resulting from the doctrine of the Divine right of labor: Class discontent, envy, hatred and violence, repudiation of contracts, limitation of production, unjust strikes, coercion, riots, revolutionism, incendiarism, etc., etc. Every one of these things is a violation of the Golden Rule, professedly accepted by labor, rests under the Divine disapproval, and is a demonstration of the falsity of the doctrine of the Divine right of labor. Of these four social groups, manifestly the last is the least guilty.
(27) Looking back to the time from the Fall of 1914 into that of 1916, we immediately recall that the World's High Priest did then declare these sins in the hearing of consecrated people, both in the nominal church and in the Truth, and therefore declared them in the hearing of Azazel's Goat. When we consider the subjects treated of before the public at that time this is also manifest. Our Pastor's sermons in the papers repeatedly referred to such sins; so, too, did the lectures for the public declare the same things. The volunteer tracts evidenced the same wrongs; and best of all, Vol. IV, The Battle of Armageddon, specialized in by the colporteurs during those years, manifested these gross sins. There can be no doubt of the fact that at that particular time Christendom's sins were held up before the public in the hearing of Azazel's Goat as never before in the Harvest. The reason for this is simple enough. The war aroused interest in just such subjects, and made it timely to declare Christendom's sins as the cause of the
terrible war, the first feature of the Great Tribulation. Thus we see that fulfilled facts proved that the World's High Priest confessed the willful sins of the nominal people of God, i.e., wrongs that they knew to be wrongs, and were able to avoid, in the hearing of those who had lost their crowns, and who as a result were shortly to be put into the Great Company.
(28) The recital of these sins and the teaching of a future smiting of Jordan stirred up powerfully those in the Truth who were about to be placed into the Great Company, to do a work of smiting the peoples. By the Lord's permitting our Pastor during 1916 sometimes to teach that the smiting of Jordan was then going on, and at other and later times to speak of it as future, the prospective Great Company was impressed deeply with the thought that the future would see the first smiting of Jordan, and hence with great zeal and noise did what they thought was the first, but what proved to be the second smiting of Jordan! But if we keep in mind that the High Priest's confessing antitypical Israel's sins during 1914-1916 over Azazel's Goat was what by another picture is called the first smiting of Jordan, we will have no difficulty in seeing that that was the second smiting of Jordan, which began in the Fall of 1917, starting a year after antitypical Elijah had finished Jordan's first smiting, i.e., a year after the High Priest had finished confessing the above-mentioned sins.
(29) The account of the High Priest's confessing the sins of Israel over Azazel's goat is closed with the statement of His "putting [laying] them [Israel's iniquities, etc.] upon the head of the goat." Thereafter the goat would "bear upon him all their iniquities." In the light of other Scriptures (Is. 53:4, 5, 6, 11, 12; Ezek. 18:20; 1 Pet. 2:24, etc.), to bear iniquity and sin means to suffer punishment for iniquity and sin. Hence we would understand the "putting of them [Israel's iniquities and transgressions in all their
The Epiphany's Elect.
sins] upon the head of the goat" to mean that the High Priest would authoritatively as God's mouthpiece declare that the privilege of suffering for the willful sins of the people was given to Azazel's Goat, and that therefore in the antitype the Lord would privilege the World's High Priest as His Mouthpiece authoritatively to teach in the hearing of these brethren that it is the privilege of the Great Company to suffer the punishment of the world's willful sins. And as we look back to the teachings of those years we find that from 1914 to 1916 it was repeatedly explained to the brethren that the Great Company would be privileged to suffer for mankind's willful sins.
(30) It should not be forgotten that Azazel's Goat consists of the humanity of the entire Great Company. The Scriptures show us that a part of this class would during the Parousia be in the Truth, and that the rest would be in the nominal church. Thus Elisha and Miriam type those Great Company members who during the Parousia have been in the Truth. Lot types a part of the Great Company which, toward the end of the Parousia, from 1910 onward until just before the tribulation involved each country separately, left, in each country, the nominal people of God, and came in among the Truth People, the last one of this particular part of the Great Company coming into the Truth shortly before America declared war on Germany, as is suggested by Lot's leaving Sodom before the fire and brimstone fell upon the city. Abihu and Jambres seem to represent Great Company sifting leaders in and out of the Truth during the early stages of the Epiphany. The Virgin of Cant. 5 represents those Great Company members who, after the escape of the Lot class, but before its complete destruction (v. 7), leave Babylon. Rahab, Eli and the Foolish Virgins represent those Great Company members who remained in the nominal church until the Parousia ended, some of them remaining there until
some considerable part of the Epiphany shall have passed. Some of these seem to be the ones especially referred to as getting their deliverance amid Nominal Zion's travail (Is. 66:8; Ps. 107:10-16). Unless we keep in mind these different pictures and note the chronological relations of the different sections of this class to their coming into the Truth, we will fail to see clearly the various views as to certain groups and activities of the Great Company, and will become confused on various Scriptural lines of thought regarding their activities.
(31) In order clearly to understand the High Priest's dealing with Azazel's Goat it is necessary for us to keep in mind that while the confession of the sins was made over the entire class, whether in or out of the Truth during the same period, 1914-1916, the other steps with Azazel's Goat are taken at two different periods, the Lord dealing first with that section of it which has hitherto been in the Truth. Then, after He had begun to deal with its last section among the Truth People, the steps following the confession of the sins were taken by Him with the part of Azazel's Goat not yet in the Truth. Up to July 18, 1920, only that portion of Azazel's Goat which is in the Truth had been dealt with in the steps subsequent to that of confessing the sins and loosing Azazel's Goat; for the fulfilled facts of the antitype prove that only Truth People as parts of Azazel's Goat had been led to the Gate and delivered to the fit man, by him taken into the Wilderness, there let go, and there falling into Azazel's hands. After the last Truth section of Azazel's Goat under bad Levite leaders had entered into the antitype of all of these steps, the Lord began to lead to the Gate Azazel's Goat in the nominal church. We now see that the public testimony that the Little Flock has been giving against Eternal Torment and the Consciousness of the Dead is connected with the leading of the nominal-church section of Azazel's
The Epiphany's Elect.
Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court. Additionally, John's Rebuke, Elijah's Letter, etc., are leading the Catholic section of the Goat to the Gate. The Great Company section in the Truth doubtless tried to fulfill this type; but we are certain that the faithful will be the only ones to persevere therein (1) unto a completion (2) in the true spirit of the High Priest; and therefore they alone will antitype the High Priest's Body under the Head leading the Goat to the Gate of the Court.
(32) Since that part of Azazel's Goat not yet in the Truth has not [This was written in 1920] been dealt with in the steps beyond its leading to the Gate, we will do well to avoid all speculation as to details as to the subsequent steps, since such details cannot be clearly seen before they set in. Therefore in the subsequent parts of this article we will limit [in 1920] our study to the steps taken with the Truth section of Azazel's Goat following the confession of sins over the entire Goat. These steps are the following: (1) loosing the Goat; (2) leading it to the Gate of the Court; (3) passing it through the Gate; (4) delivering it to the fit man; (5) leading it forth to the wilderness; (6) letting it go into the wilderness, i.e., delivering it to Azazel for his using it and destroying its flesh. These six steps, plus the confession of the sins over it, complete the seven (perfect number) things done to Azazel's Goat.
(33) It will be noted that the Authorized Version does not say that Azazel's goat was tied at the door of the Tabernacle, nor does its wording imply it. Yet the Hebrew does imply that this goat, as well as the Lord's goat, was tied at the Tabernacle's door. The word translated "present" (Lev. 16:7) should be rendered "to place," "make stand," "set," "station," or "fix." Azazel's goat was brought into the Court with the Lord's goat. Therefore it must have been secured at the door of the Tabernacle during the time the High
Priest dealt with the Lord's goat, which must have lasted at least an hour. No normal goat would have remained "stationed" that long unless artificially secured. Hence our Pastor was right in speaking of its being "tied" at the door. Furthermore, the antitype seems to prove this. The figurative rope by which Azazel's Goat has been tied to the antitypical Door is the spirit of consecration knotted by the Word and the Providence of God. Such a condition restrained the natural mind of the Great Company and hindered them from doing as they pleased, typed by the goat's being unable to loose itself. This, of course, applies to the class as such; for such individuals as ceased being of the Great Company by becoming of the Second Death class are not pictured in the goat.
(34) We may be sure that the typical goat, because it was a goat, did not relish remaining bound at the door; rather that it longed for freedom, and consequently jerked repeatedly at the rope in its efforts to gain liberty, especially, we fancy, as the Priest passed in and out the door, and as time wore slowly on for the goat, "stationed" in such an unusual place. This illustrates how the Great Company because of its double-mindedness has not been submissive to the terms of consecration; but has repeatedly sought, "through fear of death," to obtain freedom from the painful experiences of consecration, especially when the High Priest would be more or less in evidence to them as working sacrificially with them. However, through the power of the Divine Word, one of the figurative knots, and especially through that feature of His providence which placed controllership in "that Servant's" hands—the second knot—the Lord hindered this class from indulging in its characteristic waywardness, as to the general Truth work. The High Priest, in both the Head and members, especially in "that Servant," continually interfered with the selfish and worldly plans of this class.
The Epiphany's Elect.
(35) Remembering that His dealing with this Goat followed September 16, 1914, we are to look for some events which would begin when the confession of sins was about half completed, and which would end after the High Priest would finish confessing the sins over the Goat. These events we believe to be (1) the truth becoming dim on "that Servant's" powers as to his corporations and the various headquarter churches; (2) the death of our dear Pastor, who as "that Servant," the Lord's special eye, mouth and hand, controlled the general work, and held the Levitical leaders, and through them the other Levites, in subjection to himself (Num. 3:32), as long as he lived, even though for a long time they were very restive under his restraints, as can be seen in America, in the experiences of (1) Bro. Rockwell on the one hand and Bros. Rutherford and MacMillan on the other hand; and (2) Bros. Shearn and Crawford in Britain on the one hand, and Bro. Hemery on the other hand; as well as in the case (3) of Bro. Sturgeon in America on the one hand, and Bro. Holmes on the other hand. Bro. Ritchie also had his little troubles over Bro. Martin's being promoted above him as Manager. However, they were held down until our Pastor's death as a sacrifice was accomplished by the Lord, which completely untied the second knot, when they gained a freedom of action not had before. This lingering death is typed by the High Priest's untying the second knot of Azazel's goat. The steps taken in Britain to take control (1) of the I.B.S.A., and (2) of the Tabernacle away from our dear Pastor and lodge it in British hands, antitype some of the goat's jerkings, as it was being untied, as false views as to our Pastor's powers respecting his three corporations and respecting the ecclesias at the Society's various headquarters gradually grew; and as he was for quite a long time a dying man (for months he was actually dying, but would not give up), under the sacrificial
work of the High Priest. Similarly the quarrels of Bros. Rockwell, MacMillan and Rutherford for pre-eminence in the general work of the Society, those of Bros. Sturgeon and Holmes for pre-eminence at Bethel; and Bro. Ritchie's personal feelings and Bro. Martin's air of triumph over him as to the Tabernacle Management before our Pastor's death antitype the goat's jerkings while it was being untied. The scramblings for power that set in immediately after the death of "that Servant" correspond to the first jerkings of the goat before the High Priest began to lead it to the gate of the Court.
(36) Above we said that (1) the Word of God and (2) the Providence of God, centering in the powers of "that Servant," were two symbolic knots firmly holding by the spirit of consecration (rope) the Great Company to the door of the antitypical Tabernacle. The antitype moves us to assume that, as is usual with firm knots, the goat was secured by two knots. Above we pointed out that these two symbolic knots were untied gradually: (1) by the Lord's permitting the spread of errors on our Pastor's powers, e.g., as to his three corporations and the Brooklyn and London Tabernacles; and (2) by the latter's gradual death. We will offer a few facts to prove that the Lord allowed the Truth as to our Pastor's powers toward his three corporations and the headquarters' churches to be dimmed by the gradual spread of errors on the subject: After (1) Bros. Shearn and Crawford with confederates and (2) Bro. Hemery with confederates had for some time discussed the matters pro and con, at a meeting of the Tabernacle elders the evening of October 22, 1915, the subject was brought up as to whether efforts should not be put forth to secure for the elders "the control of all its [the London Tabernacle's] services and activities." On October 29, 1915, a joint meeting of the elders and deacons discussed the same subject. It was agreed that, if
The Epiphany's Elect.
the congregation should hear of the matter, they should be told that the elders had the subject under advisement, and were going to refer it to our Pastor. This agitation increased among the elders until the evening of October 13, 1916, when 11 of them signed a report, a petition, and a resolution that were calculated to intimidate Bro. Russell (1) into giving up his controllership of the Tabernacle by the implied threat, that things would go to pieces, unless the desired changes were made; and (2) into letting the elders have such controllership (clericalism). The letter of the 11 elders written October 14 (Saturday) as a last attempt to procure the signature of the other 7 elders, reached them October 16 (Monday), and made a deadlock between the two sets of elders, as on the same day Bros. Rockwell, MacMillan and Rutherford came to a deadlock on the occasion of our Pastor's last day at Bethel during his effort to reconcile them. These 11 British elders had the secretary write a letter to our Pastor on the evening of October 21, to accompany their communication. The date, October 21, was the very day that our Pastor during the evening told us that responsible brethren in Britain were disregarding his arrangements! What a significant coincidence! Thus, when the confession of the sins was about half over, the High Priest began untying the first knot and completed it in a year, their communication reaching Brooklyn just after our Pastor's funeral, and before our going to Britain.
(37) The second knot, our Pastor's control of the work, was by his gradual dying untied, until its untying was completed by his death. It was in the Spring of 1916 that he remarked that the British managers, supported by other influential British brethren, were so grossly disregarding his directions that he, as a protest, felt like severing himself entirely from responsibility for the British Branch; for they wanted the I.B.S.A. to be British controlled, as a British corporation.
Perhaps it was at that time that the Lord began to untie the second knot; and we know that He completed its untying on October 30, 1916, in the toga scene on the Pullman car, after which our Pastor lay down to die. Details on these matters we have treated elsewhere. Simultaneously agitations were going on in the Brooklyn Tabernacle to reduce our Pastor's influence there; and false claims were being set forth as to the powers of the I.B.S.A. and the P.P.A. relatively to the W.T.B.&T.S. (our Pastor in reality, while he was alive), in America, especially by J.F.R.; and after our Pastor's death his course as to the P.P.A. and the I.B.S.A. proves that he felt that they were more or less independent of the W.T.B.&T.S., i.e., of our Pastor, who voiced his objections to these perversions in Z '15, 359, par. 7. We here remark that on that page, and wherever else he refers to the Society as controlling the work, he meant himself by the term Society, and did not mean the Directors, nor the Shareholders, nor both of them.
(38) Because of the uses that the Lord has been pleased to make of us, from the time the High Priest had untied the Goat, until the present, in connection with its various sections, we will have to write of ourself, which we assure our readers we do not do to boast nor to set ourself forth "as some great one." God forbid! Our so doing is necessary to clarify our subject. We trust that all will understand our motive. As far as we are personally concerned we were not only free from quarreling for power or pre-eminence with any other leader among Truth people (though we have since learned that our continually increasing advancement by our dear Pastor in the service, particularly from 1912 onward, more particularly from 1914 onward, and most particularly from early 1916 onward, made us an object of envy to certain leaders); but we were also not even aware that any of the Bethel brethren were quarreling for power and pre-eminence,
The Epiphany's Elect.
until A.H. MacMillan, at the Milwaukee Convention (Sept. 16-24, 1916), told us of Bro. Rockwell's envying, etc., his promotion by our Pastor to be the latter's representative at the Tabernacle and Bethel. We knew nothing of Bros. Sturgeon's and Holmes' quarrels, or of Bro. Ritchie's hurt, and Bro. Martin's elated feelings, until after our return from Britain. Then, too, it was only from Oct. 21, 1916, onward that we learned (and that first from our Pastor at Dallas, 10 days before his death) that the English Managers and other prominent British brethren were not submissive to "that Servant."
(39) Thus when through God's Grace it fell to our lot to be selected by Him to take a prominent place among the Body members in the work of co-operating under our Head in leading Azazel's Goat from the Door of the Tabernacle to the Gate of the Court, we, unconscious of the use the Lord was making of us, were put into a most unusual position, in some respects somewhat like that of a sheep among wolves. In our guilelessness we never suspected that brethren could be guilty of duplicity, trickery, fraud, treachery to "that Servant" and to fellow servants, envious grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, and dividing the Flock in their own interests, unless like former sifters they ceased to be brethren, and were put into the Second Death class. Hence the gross wrongs of the Levitical leaders, brought by the Lord to our attention, filled us with deepest grief at their sad condition, horror at the deep guilt of their sins, righteous indignation at their wrongs against the Lord, the Church and "that Servant," pitying love for their dangerous condition, combined with loving efforts to rescue them, and energetic measures to shield the Flock from their injurious ways. These things have characterized our dealings and attitude toward (1) Bros. Shearn and Crawford, (2) Bros. Hemery and Thackway, (3) Bros. Rutherford and MacMillan, (4) Bro. Sturgeon
and Sr. Henderson, (5) Bro. and Sr. Ritchie, (6) Bros. Hoskins and Margeson and (7) Bros. Hirsh and Kittinger; and will, please God, we hope, characterize us in our future dealing with other Levitical leaders. While we by no means desire to imply that we did not make mistakes in this work, we did the best we knew how to do under most stressful conditions; but we do know that we accomplished the Lord's will in the work He gave us to do, and trust His grace to cover our weaknesses, and to overrule wherein we failed of perfection.
(40) May we again be permitted to say a word as to our writing of our work. Modestly to speak of the use that the Lord makes of one, when it is necessary in the interests of the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren, is not only not forbidden, but is approved by the Lord, as can be seen from the course of Jesus (John 8:12-59, etc.), St. Paul (2 Cor. 11:1-12:13) and "that Servant." (Z '16, 170-175; Z '06, 211-239; Z '96, 47; D 613, 614.) We make this explanation because the Levites are likely, as they have in the past, to accuse us of pride in our writing of our activities as to Azazel's Goat. Some Levites claim that we are nursing a grudge, and that this explains our activities toward them, even as Catholic theologians have said the same things of antitypical Elijah. We pity these poor brethren who so surmise evil. They object to our referring to events of the past twenty-two years, claiming that we should forget the past, while they forget that the Catholic Church objects to her past history of nearly 1700 years being urged against her. For the same reason as our Pastor wrote against the Papacy for ancient wrongs do we write against similar past wrongs.
(41) When in August, 1917, we wrote Harvest Siftings Reviewed, we still hoped that a healing of the breach in the Church could be accomplished; therefore we held back some facts that would have been greatly to our advantage to have been told, but that, if told,
The Epiphany's Elect.
would have hindered, we thought, a healing of the breach. Therefore in the hope of benefiting the entire Church we suffered the disadvantage of withholding certain facts that, if told, would have advantaged us by proving unanswerably our claim that our authorization papers on November 10, 1916, the day the credentials were dictated, were by the Executive Committee declared to be bonafide. To hold back these facts now will injure the Church, and benefit proven wrongdoers; and as nothing now obligates us to withhold them, and believing that it is the Lord's will, we will, for the good of the Church, and eventually of all concerned, tell certain facts that the Executive Committee, Nov. 10, 1916, asked us to conceal from the British brethren, because they thought it better for and during the work of adjusting the Tabernacle trouble, if the British Managers and the London Tabernacle Congregation did not learn that we knew these facts, before we left for Europe. We give it in a nutshell: Before leaving for Britain we had read, Nov. 8, 9 and 10, 1916, the full correspondence from both sides of the controversy among the Managers and the elders of the London Tabernacle, telling (1) of Bro. Shearn, supported by ten other elders, seeking to secure the annulment of our Pastor's controllership and arrangements in Tabernacle matters; and (2) of Bro. Hemery, supported by six other elders, seeking to prevent it. Bro. Hemery, we are convinced by his course in other matters, opposed Bro. Shearn's plan because it involved his dismissal from the assistant Pastorship. His course in other matters suggests that he would have favored the plan, if it had been in his interests so to do. However, we did not suspect such a thing, until his evil acts became proven to us after our recall, e.g., his suggestion that we favor his becoming the Pastor of the London Tabernacle, and his course as to the scheme of shearing the Society of controllership over the I.B.S.A., a British corporation.
(42) We will here set forth a few facts to clarify the situation. The letter of appointment, given us Nov. 3, 1916, to secure passports, was sent to Washington Nov. 3, 1916. Nov. 4 the passports were granted, according to the government stamp on the application, which we have in our possession, a fact which unanswerably proves that the credentials dictated Nov. 10 were not given us to obtain passports, as J.F.R. falsely asserted in Harvest Siftings. Nov. 6, on the way to our Pastor's funeral at Pittsburgh, Bro. Pierson suggested to us that we visit Finland, for entrance into which our passport application did not ask. Hence, Nov. 8, Bro. Thomson of Washington, D.C., accompanying us to the passport department, we made request that the passports be made out for entrance into Finland. The clerk informed us the passports had been granted and sent to New York, where they awaited us. To grant our request he had them returned to Washington for correction, and we did not get them until Nov. 11, just before our departure, as Bro. Stephenson knows. We arrived in New York Nov. 8, from Washington. Between 5 and 6 P.M. Bro. Ritchie handed us the full correspondence as to the Tabernacle trouble for our study. We studied it carefully, and recognizing the course of Bro. Shearn and his 10 confederate elders as treachery to our Pastor, reported it as such Nov. 9 to the Executive Committee. Justice and charity, however, prompt us to say that 9 of them were by a base trick deceived by Bros. Shearn and Crawford to support his plan. A certain sister Nov. 10 showed us a long letter from Bro. Hemery, in which he pled with her to present his view of the matters to our Pastor. It was this correspondence that moved the Executive Committee, Bros. Ritchie, Van Amburgh and Rutherford, to make, Nov. 10, 1916, our authorization papers bonafide!
(43) Some may claim that our authorization papers not having been given us by an express order of the
The Epiphany's Elect.
Board were not binding as between the Board and ourself. This claim we deny; because what one does through authorized agents he does himself. The Board, Nov. 2, 1916, in harmony with our Pastor's decision, voted to send us to Europe, charging Bros. Ritchie, Rutherford and MacMillan to make the necessary arrangements with us, not restricting them as to what these arrangements should be, i.e., it gave them discretionary powers. A majority of these brothers, Bros. Ritchie and Rutherford, with Bro. Van Amburgh, the Society's Secretary and Treasurer, in carrying out this charge of the Board, declared, Nov. 10, 1916, that our authorization papers were bonafide. Bro. MacMillan, who was not present at the time, offered no objections, so far as we know, and if he did, he would nevertheless have been bound by the action of the majority of the three brothers appointed Nov. 2 by the Board to make arrangements with us. Hence our authorization papers were binding as between the Board and ourself. And since we were sent by the Board, and it did not authorize these or anybody else to make arrangements for our return, we could not be recalled except by direct action of the Board, whose special representative exclusively we were. If anyone objects that it was the Executive Committee that gave us our authorization papers, and not the Committee of Nov. 2, we reply: (1) There was no Executive Committee as such for the Society until Nov. 7; (2) the work given the Committee of Nov. 2, in so far as our going to Europe is concerned, was executive in character; hence (3) when the Board gave the Executive Committee executive charge of all the work, the latter inherited from the Nov. 2 Committee, whose majority, however, made the authorization papers valid, its one and only executive work. Because of the fact that the latter committee had not finished its work as to ourself, it had to surrender to the Executive Committee, for its disposal, its unfinished work, i.e., necessary
arrangements for our going to Europe. Thus from every standpoint the validity of our authorization papers is vindicated. It was a mere fabrication, contradicted by all the evidence, that we left for Europe with non-bonafide authorization papers. See Vol. VI, Chapter I.
(44) The following fact ought to convince Bro. Hemery that before our departure we read his correspondence as to the matter: After the Executive Committee had bonafided our authorization papers, and had asked us to handle the Tabernacle matter, we remarked to them that Bro. Hemery among other things had sent two 1916 Tabernacle schedules, one being without, and one with, various signs before the names of the 18 elders, indicating their varying stands on the issue. We told the Committee that we wanted the one with the signs on it, so as to have a record of the stand of each elder. J.F.R. then spoke for, and in the presence of the Committee to this effect: We, too, will want one; please copy on the clean one Brother Hemery's signs and the key to them, and thus both we and you will have a line-up on the elders, and will know best how to deal with each one. (We still have this schedule, Bro. Hemery overlooking it, when he rifled our portfolio!) They charged us not to let any one in Britain know that we had seen the Tabernacle correspondence; and of course we kept the charge. When Bro. Crawford the evening of Nov. 22 asked us whether the correspondence on the Tabernacle had reached Brooklyn before we left, well knowing what he meant, we asked, "What correspondence?" We used the same method that our Lord did with the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, when He, well knowing what they meant, answered their query with the question, "What things?" And as the two proceeded to tell Jesus what He knew, so Bro. Crawford told us what we knew; and the next day Bro. Shearn, after conferring with Bro. Crawford, handed us the
The Epiphany's Elect.
full correspondence of his side for our decision on the case. Bro. Hemery also gave us the correspondence of his side. Thus without any breach of confidence toward the Executive Committee, or duplicity towards the Managers, on our part, we left the latter under the impression which they, after the manner of the two disciples, inferred, but which we did not give them, that they were the first to inform us of the Tabernacle situation. The Lord undoubtedly overruled to effect this result.
(45) Above all things else it was the knowledge of this correspondence, coupled with the sense of grave responsibility imposed upon us by our authorization papers, that weighed so heavily upon us as to disable us from making a comforting speech to the Bethel family, when called upon to do so at our last meal before sailing to Britain. On the way to Britain we gave the most prayerful and careful thought to the British situation. By Nov. 17, two days before we landed, our plan of procedure was in general outline made up, and our usual cheerfulness returned, for we fully believed that we could shortly convince Bros. Shearn and Crawford of their mistake, and thus looked forward with pleasure to being a peacemaker. We deeply loved them, the latter for his defense of the Covenants very early in 1909 against the sifters, when the light on the subject was dim; the former because of his helping the conscripted brethren legally and otherwise. Remembering Bro. Hemery's wrong course on the Vow and the New Covenant in 1908 and 1909, we balanced the latter's wrongs of those years with the former's wrongs as to the Tabernacle; and the latter's right stand on the Tabernacle with the former's good deeds just mentioned; and thus on our arrival in England we were thoroughly impartial in our love to all three Managers, and faithfully sought the good of all; and were most deeply disappointed, as we later told the Tabernacle congregation, that our hopes that
our visit would be one of glad service in helping and comforting the brethren, one and all, had not been fully realized in every case, on account of the incorrigible course of Bros. Shearn and Crawford, which we did not at all expect. Details on the trouble with these two brothers we did not give in Harvest Siftings Reviewed. This we did later, on becoming convinced it was the Lord's will that these be given. [See Vol. VII, Chapter I.] Here we desire to give only such general statements as are necessary to show how our conduct toward them was a part of the work of the World's High Priest in leading a part of Azazel's Goat to the Gate.
(46) In every one of the experiences connected with leading various sections of the Goat to the Gate, as the Lord has been pleased to use us, the following things, we are fully persuaded, we did under His manipulation without in the first cases realizing that we were dealing with Azazel's Goat: (1) We had a clear insight into the revolutionism of all the persons involved; (2) we lovingly and plainly showed them the wrongs that they were committing; (3) we made most loving, gentle efforts privately to win them from their wrong course; (4) in the discussion of the principles and facts involved, in every case we refuted the reasons that they advanced in their own justification; (5) we found every one of them guilty of revolutionism, some guilty of error, and all of falsehoods, told to hide the character of their acts; (6) we only then took the aggressive after their unrepentant wrongs resulted, or were resulting, in injury to the Lord's cause; and (7) we with increasing strictness, first privately and then publicly, after they spoke of it publicly, resisted their increasing revolutionism, until we became uncompromisingly opposed to them because of their violations of Truth and Righteousness. We are fully convinced that in these seven activities our Lord used us to accomplish His good pleasure in leading the Goat to the
The Epiphany's Elect.
Gate of the Court, and in putting it into the fit man's hands, in the first definition of that term—"unfavorable circumstances." These seven acts constituted our part under Jesus in leading the Goat out.
(47) It goes, of course, without saying that in the work of leading the Goat to the Gate and the fit man, we did not among the priesthood in the flesh act alone toward the various sections of Azazel's Goat. Under our Head we always have had as colaborers a majority of those who by right had power over the involved section of the Goat, until each section arrived at the Gate, and was put into the hands of the fit man, understood as unfavorable circumstances; and then we were in every case forsaken by the majority, and were left with a small minority, which, however, would increase, until there were gathered to us many brethren, the majority of whom in the next shaking would be manifested as another section of Azazel's Goat, and would be led to the Gate and the fit man. The following facts will illustrate these remarks: As against Bros. Shearn and Crawford we had the support of the Board in our authorization papers, Bro. Hemery and the majority of the Tabernacle Congregation, until they were not only by us, Jan. 14, 1917, but by them, Jan. 22, put into the fit man's hand. The majority of the Board in our authorization papers and the majority of the Bethel family stood with us as against Bros. Hemery and Thackway, until not only we, but also they, had led them to the Gate and placed them in the fit man's hands. The majority of the Board, despite the compromise resolution on the British affair, supported us as against J.F.R. and A.H. MacMillan, until not only we, but they, led them to the Gate, and put them into the fit man's hands. The majority of the Fort Pitt Committee and the New York Ecclesia stood with us as against Bro. Sturgeon and Sister Henderson, until they were in the fit man's hands. Until Bro. and Sr. Ritchie were put into the fit man's hands the majority
of the Mizpah Convention stood with us. The majority of the Fort Pitt Committee as respects carrying out the charge that it received from the Fort Pitt Convention stood with us, until Bros. Hoskins and Margeson fell into the fit man's hands. This is true of the majority of the Philadelphia Church in our dealing with Bros. Hirsh and Kittinger. We opine this will continue to be the case, until all Truth sections of Azazel's Goat will be in the fit man's hands. Thus others of the Body members co-operated with us under our Head in leading Azazel's Goat to the Gate of the Court, in each case the Lord using us first, and then afterward our supporters, to deliver the Goat to the fit man.
(48) The set of facts just referred to also proves that those New Creatures who have lost their crowns are in the High Priest's Body and share in His work until they are manifested as Levites, when they cease acting as a part of the High Priest, and are represented in their humanity as a part of Azazel's Goat, e.g., Jesse Hemery while co-operating with us as against the revolutionism of Bros. Shearn and Crawford was yet in the High Priest's body; but as soon as he became manifest as a revolutionist, which was March 1, 1917, he ceased co-operating with us, and we began with the co-operation of others under our Head to lead him to the Gate. This will account for the fact that has so often been exemplified since the Fall of 1916, that brethren who stood right for a while fell later into revolutionism. We are surely living in a solemn time! It is, among other reasons, because parts of Azazel's Goat in the Truth have not yet been led to the Gate that no one can yet be sure that he will prove to be a "more than overcomer" in the finished work.
(49) Some have asked how we know that the World's High Priest led the Goat to the Gate, since the type does not expressly state it? We answer, We know it for three reasons: (1) 1 Tim. 1:20; 1 Cor. 5:3-5 indirectly prove this by showing that the High
The Epiphany's Elect.
Priest in His members indirectly delivers the Goat to Azazel, by cutting it off from their protecting care, which indirectly results in its falling into Azazel's hands; (2) as there was no one but Aaron in the Court during the entire Atonement Day service; and (3) as the fit man belonged to the camp (Lev. 16:26), evidently Aaron led the goat to the gate of the Tabernacle; and there, as we have pictured it on The Present Truth's cover, delivered the goat to the fit man.
(50) Again, looking at the character of a goat under the circumstances of the Atonement Day, we can readily see that it must have tugged away at the rope, unwilling to be led to the gate; that it jerked repeatedly at the rope in hope of deliverance from the high priest; and that it would not be surprising, if it butted the high priest; for such acts comport well with a goat's disposition! Even if the type does not expressly tell of such acts of the goat, it is a reasonable inference that such acts were committed by it. Certain it is that in the antitype things illustrated by tuggings, jerkings and buttings have set in. The tuggings suggest the steady efforts of the antitypical Goat in revolutionism to go in another direction than toward the Gate and the fit man, as they are led on by their ambitions to work out schemes of their own; the jerkings fittingly picture the repeated efforts of this class to get away from being led and delivered to the fit man, by defending itself against its steady leading by the High Priest toward the Gate; while the buttings correspond to the attacks that the revolutionists make upon the High Priest in His members, e.g., J.F.R.'s pettifogging tactics against us during the first so-called "two hours' hearing before the Board," April 11, 1917, after our return from Britain.
(51) Briefly would we mention the dates and the acts whereby the leaders of the Azazel's Goat class were started toward the Gate, and were put into the fit man's hands. In all these dates and acts our High
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,
The Epiphany's Elect.
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.,
The Epiphany's Elect.
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 1 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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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 at 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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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 [Correction: Vol. III, Chapter VII and in Vol. VI, Chapter I]. 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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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). O 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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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 resisting their revolutionism.
(4) Passing it through the Gate: The High Priest withdrawing 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 circum-stances and persecuting persons giving them distress.
(7) Letting go in the wilderness: Unfavorable circum-stances 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
The Epiphany's Elect.
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
do we not with them share in the merit of the antitypical Bullock's blood shed on the antitypical Brazen Altar? Most assuredly! Therefore, while withdrawing priestly fellowship from them, we have retained brotherly fellowship with them under the above mentioned limitation, and thereby not only did no forbidden judging, but did a Divinely ordained and pleasing act; for God does not desire the Priests to fellowship the Levites as Priests, but simply as Levites.
(74) In the increasing light of the Epiphany period, we have been privileged to see that, since the Levites represent for the Epiphany the Great Company, their three divisions—the Gershonites, the Merarites and the Kohathites (Num. 3:17, etc.)—represent the three divisions of the Great Company. We understand that those new creatures who ardently support "Rutherfordism" and Standfastism are antitypical Merarite Levites. Since the P.B.I. and its ardent supporters in many particulars acted like J.F.R. and his ardent supporters, even to doing many similar things exactly a year to the day afterward; and since it and its ardent supporters advocate for the Charter of their Society certain changes from the W.T.B.&T. Society's Charter (in spite of the writer's warnings, oral and in print, to the contrary, they still persist in supporting changes from that Charter which they once considered a part of the Divine arrangements for the Lord's work), it and its partisan supporters are antitypical Gershonite Levites.
(75) All must admit that some day, by Divine direction, the Priests will withdraw priestly, not brotherly, fellowship from those who, ceasing to remain Priests in the Holy, become, as the Great Company, Levites in the Court. The only question now remaining to be answered is: Has the time come for such a withdrawal of priestly fellowship? All of us have by our conduct answered this question affirmatively, so far as the upholders of "Rutherfordism in the Society"
The Epiphany's Elect.
and Standfastism are concerned; and all of us have been forced to do this with the P.B.I. revolutionists who have mistaught doctrinally and have revolutionized against the Lord's arrangements. Accordingly, the time for such a course on our part has come—now in the Epiphany, when their manifestation as Levites has come (2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 7:9).
(76) Levites strenuously condemn an activity of the Epiphany priesthood as a forbidden judging when we announce God's judgment as to new creatures that repudiate various features of the Truth and its arrangements, and teach errors and set up wrong arrangements in their stead, that they are of the Great Company. They dogmatically announce that no one has authorized any such judging. God in Lev. 13 and 14 about 20 times commanded the typical priest to pronounce the spotted leper unclean; and the spotted leper types the unclean Great Company, while Aaron and his sons, so announcing, represent Jesus and His body members announcing Great Company errorists as such. They misapply the forbidden judging of Matt. 7:1, 2 to such announcing, whereas it is a sanctioned judging of John 7:24 and the commanded judging of 1 Cor. 4:5. In 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:18, 19 God authorized certain of His priests to make such announcements. Especially in 1 Cor. 4:5 the Word, among other things, commands such judging. Frequently opponents of such announcements quote 1 Cor. 4:5 as though it taught that we are not to judge until we are on the throne. This passage does not forbid judging before we are on the Throne, but before our Lord's Second Advent. In misusing this passage to teach that it forbids our judging until we are on the Throne Levites charge that we are usurping God's exclusive function of judging and that we are judging before the time. We never have, in our pertinent work, attempted to exercise God's exclusive prerogative. It is His prerogative to retain one in, or dismiss one
from, the high calling; we have never attempted the latter. We have always waited until He had by the revolutionism of crown-losers (Ps. 107:10, 11) manifested His judgment of them to Leviteship; then, as His providences indicated it to be necessary, we have simply announced His manifested judgment, and never have made nor could make such a sentence. No one can point out a single case in which we attempted to sentence an individual to the Great Company, though after God manifested them as such, we have so announced them. With reference to such we have always waited until God manifested His sentence through the revolutionism of the pertinent individual before we announced his Leviteship.
(77) Neither have we announced the Lord's judgment of them before the time. 1 Cor. 4:5 as fully commands such announcement after the time, as it forbids its announcement before the time. The following will, we trust, clarify the subject: There are three periods in our Lord's Second Advent, in each of which He brings to light the hidden things of darkness and makes manifest the counsels of hearts; but in each He does so with regard to different classes: (1) In the Parousia He did such a work with respect to the tares and the Second-Deathers. Before He manifested such it was wrong to announce this one as a tare, or that one as a Second-Deather; but after He had manifested them as such, it was no longer a prohibited activity to announce the pertinent ones as such, as need called for it, even as our Pastor spoke of Messrs. Barbour, Paton, Williamson, McPhail and Henninges, as Second-Deathers, and often mentioned by name prominent worldly nominal-church members as tares, as his article in Z '11, 120-122 [Z-4728], quoted in P. '34, 27, entitled, Judging Nothing Before the Time, shows. During the Parousia it was wrong to announce anyone as of the Great Company, because the Lord at that stage of His Second Advent had not yet proceeded to manifest
The Epiphany's Elect.
the Great Company as such. All of the passages from our Pastor that Levites cite in disapproval of such an announcement properly apply to the Parousia and previously. For use of them at that time we say to them a hearty, Amen! But to apply them to the Epiphany is a violation of the right division of the Word of Truth (2 Tim. 2:15). While quoting from our Pastor so many passages that forbid in the Parousia the announcing of anyone as being of the Great Company, why do not Levites quote Z '16, 264, par. 1 and Convention Report 1916, 198, col. 2, par. 2, Question 10, in which passages our Pastor said that after the separation of antitypical Elijah and Elisha and before the former would leave the world these classes would be separate and distinct; and that after their separation it would be in order to point out manifested members of antitypical Elisha as such? Many of them know of these quotations. Why do they not refer to them instead of applying Parousia things to the Epiphany?
(78) The separation of the Great Company and the Little Flock occurs in the second stage of our Lord's Second Advent—the Epiphany (2 Tim. 4:1), which is the same as the Time of Trouble, when the Great Company is developed (Rev. 7:14). Accordingly, our Lord Jesus has since 1914 begun to deal with the Great Company and is (2 Tim. 4:1) now judging them, bringing to light their hidden things of darkness and manifesting their hearts' counsels. These, by their revolutionism (Ps. 107:10, 11), He is now manifesting to us as crown-losers. Hence, when to protect the Flock it becomes necessary to announce them as Levites, it is no more a forbidden work to make such announcement. Why not? Because it is after the time; for we have waited until the Lord manifested their hidden things of darkness and their hearts' counsels. Not only are we not now forbidden, but are commanded by 1 Cor. 4:5 to announce them as such when need so requires. Thus it is proper now, in the Epiphany
to announce the Lord's manifested judgment (2 Tim. 4:1) as to Great Company members. And this is our Pastor's thought too; for he taught that the Epiphany began in 1914. He further taught that the Great Company would be developed in the Time of Trouble, i.e., the Epiphany. Moreover, in the Epiphany, in 1916, as the two above references prove, he taught, that it would after the separation be proper to point out Great Company brethren as such, this to be done by the Little Flock before its leaving the world, which (on the basis of Col. 3:4) he taught would be during the Epiphany. Hence he did not condemn, but approved Epiphany announcements of Great Company members. But in the Epiphany it would be wrong, as being before the time, to announce some as sheep and others as goats, which judging is Millennial.
(79) In the Millennium, Basileia, the third stage of our Lord's Second Advent, the Lord will bring to light individually the world's hidden things of darkness and manifest their hearts' counsels, and thereby will manifest the sheep and the goats as separate and distinct (Matt. 25:31-33). Before He does this it will be wrong to point out any as goats; but after He does it, it will no longer be wrong so to do. To sum up: Before the Parousia it was wrong to point out any as tares or as Second-Deathers; but after the Lord's Parousia manifestations of them as such it was no longer wrong so to do; before the Epiphany it was wrong to point out any as Great Company members; but after their Epiphany manifestations by the Lord it is no longer wrong so to do; before the Basileia it is wrong to point out any as of the goat class; but after the Basileia manifestations by the Lord it will be no longer wrong. Hence 1 Cor. 4:5 no longer forbids, but commands, as necessity demands, pointing out Great Company brethren as such. This, then, overthrows the pertinent Levite contention on "judging."
(80) Our readers will recall that in the letter that
The Epiphany's Elect.
he wrote the night before he was taken to Atlanta, and that has been published in "The Tower," "St. Paul Enterprise" and the "Labor Tribune," the latter being distributed widely as volunteer matter, J.F.R. intimates that the seven leaders of those who disapproved of his efforts to control the Society as "that Servant" did, were present at the trial, and aided the prosecution against the eight accused brothers. This letter, backed by corresponding teaching, makes many of the supporters of the Society believe these seven brothers to be of the antitypical Judas. Recently we received a letter in which the following occurs: "Sunday evening Brother G.H. Fisher addressed our class, and among other things openly accused the [seven] brethren who had been active in the Society of betraying the eight convicted brethren … and of scheming later to keep them in prison."
(81) These charges move us to make the following statement: The news of their arrest greatly grieved us. Before the arrest we had never spoken or written to any one directly or indirectly connected with the prosecution of the accused brothers. Afterward in and out of meetings we counseled the brethren to take the side of, and pray for the accused; because the issue was a battle between Israelites and Egyptians; and in such an event all of us should take the side of the former, however much evil they may have done us. All agreed with this view. Before the trial the prosecutor subpoenaed us, among others, to gain information from ourself against the brothers. In every way we could we defended them, giving no information that could be used against them, telling everything that we reasonably could in their favor, and refuting everything that he brought up against them, except four irrefutable lines of acts to which we will refer later, but for which we made excuse pleading their inexperience. So strongly did we defend them that the prosecutor, knowing that we would be a witness unfavorable
to him, did not subpoena us to be present at the trial; while he did subpoena the ousted Directors, several of the Society supporters and others. Through Pilgrim Brother Herr we sent J.F.R. word revealing to him the prosecution's lines of attack, and did this expressly to help him forearm himself. Despite his knowing of our efforts to help him, he accused us of betraying him to the prosecution. We designedly remained away from the trial, so as to secure ourself from being placed on the stand. Our stand, so favorable to them, was reported by Brother Herr and others to many of the Society brethren, some of whom then wrote to us expressing their appreciation. Between the arrest and trial, and before we were subpoenaed to appear before the prosecutor, we met Brothers Cole and Van Amburgh on a Brooklyn street, and extended our hand to, and were about to express our sympathy with the latter, but he disdainfully refused our hand, and turned his face away. However, we did not allow such and worse treatment to interfere with our love and well doing toward the accused brothers.
(82) It was not, humanly speaking, in any sense the disagreement in the Society that brought these brothers into trouble, as some mistakenly believe. We are reliably informed that, among others, the following acts, proven against them, effected their conviction, the judge doubtless arousing additional feeling against them: (1) Their denunciation of patriotism in Vol. VII [had C.J. Woodworth followed "that Servant's" known interpretation of the frog coming out of the mouth of the dragon, given, e.g., in the Armageddon Tract, as the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings, and then properly applied it against the Kaiser, and omitted his denunciation of patriotism, which, though often abused, is a good quality, instead of Vol. VII bringing them into, it would have helped them out of their trouble. It would not surprise us, if the Lord, in disapproval, allowed this trouble to come upon them as
The Epiphany's Elect.
a direct consequence of their deviating from "that Servant's" known interpretation of the frog coming out of the dragon's mouth, etc.]; (2) their writing letters into the camps, which letters fell into the censor's hands, advising the drafted brothers not to put on the uniform, nor to drill, nor to wash dishes, pare potatoes, clean the barracks, etc.; (3) their furnishing affidavits and other instruction to Truth people and others whereby to claim exemption on the ground of conscientious objection; (4) writing the brethren unpatriotic letters, which were intercepted by the censors, and delivering unpatriotic speeches. These were the main things that effected their sentences, we are reliably informed. We surely rejoice in their release; but their unbrotherly course in accusing us so falsely is regrettable. Of course, these accusations fit into their scheme that they are of the Little Flock, and that the seven brothers are of the antitypical Judas; but they do not fit into the facts of the case, nor into the Bible teaching with reference to the convicted brothers as undergoing Great Company experiences. To ourself it seems that their imprisonment was due to two things, one commendable, the other not: (1) the second smiting of Jordan and (2) wrong-doing against the Lord's Saints and arrangements. In other words, as the Great Company suffers in part for righteousness and in part for unrighteousness, so these, as of such, do.
(83) So far we have answered for ourself. As for the other six brothers we can say this much: We do not believe that they aided the prosecution, though one of them (Brother Ritchie) under subpoena was forced to go on the witness stand; but while there, we are reliably informed, did nothing else than identify A.H. MacMillan's handwriting, which the latter himself also recognized and acknowledged. We do know of all of them that they endorsed our view as expressed above—i.e., standing by Israelites as against Egyptians; and we are reliably informed that Brother Hirsh not only
told Pilgrim Brother Cole, who was present at the trial, that he both deeply sympathized with the accused brothers, and had taken advantage of the opportunity that his own arrest had afforded to defend the accused brothers, but also expressed himself similarly to Brother DeCecca, one of the accused brothers, the day the trial began, the unapproachableness of the other accused brothers preventing a similar course on his part toward them. Furthermore, we did nothing by motive, word or act that in any way was calculated to hinder their release, nor do we know or believe it of the others. How inconsistent such charges coming from the Society leaders are appears from the following: At the trial they sought through their counsel, after failing to get their own indictment quashed, to prevent the indictment against Brother Hirsh from being quashed, who (charged as a co-defendant, because his name appeared in "The Tower" as an Editor, contemporaneously with some of their alleged offenses against the espionage act) was recognized by the prosecution as not guilty; because it was found that he ceased to act as an Editor before the alleged offending "Tower" article appeared. The prosecution therefore moved that the indictment against him be set aside, a thing which was stoutly resisted by the counsel of the convicted brothers. By seeking to prevent the quashing of his indictment the accused brothers sought through their counsel to have Brother Hirsh tried with them, and, if convicted, sent to prison with them, while he did everything he could to shield them and to discourage the prosecution in the things with which they charged the brothers. This shows who really have the spirit of delivering up their brethren, as they have also shown in many other ways. [The foregoing four paragraphs were written in May, 1920.]
(84) Satan is the most cunning being in the Universe. Hence, among others, he seeks to enlist on his side those who like him are more or less cunning. In
The Epiphany's Elect.
working against the Truth servants he always studies how best to overthrow their influence. He therefore uses against them their religious, moral, mental, or social weaknesses, if he can find any of these; or failing to find them, he invents fictitious weaknesses along these lines. If, therefore, he can represent a servant of the Truth as an errorist or a madman, or a sinner, or an offender against society, he will do so, whether the charges are true or false. This accounts for his charging through his dupes our Lord as being illegitimately born, as a madman, as a demoniac, as a blasphemer and as a rebel. It is for this reason that he caused St. Paul to be accused of sedition, insanity and heresy. In the same way he caused "that Servant" to be falsely slandered as a heretic, as an immoral man, as a swindler, and as an unkind and unfaithful husband. Whenever religious errorists and frauds cannot meet the exposures of their false doctrines or evil practices by argument, Satan fills their mouths with false and malicious slanders against their exposers. For this reason Satan, knowing that both in Britain and in America we were exposing and thwarting the evils that he desired to introduce among the Lord's people, misrepresented our British and American work through those who have since been manifested as bad Levite leaders. Then to destroy our influence he caused his main mouthpiece among Truth people to publish abroad these misrepresentations, with the false addition that we were insane. When our reply proved the falsity of both sets of charges, the same chief mouthpiece of Satan among Truth people, and others of his kind, began to misrepresent us as having devoured our companion's patrimony, as having deserted her, and as not having provided for our own. When these false charges no longer deceived others, and we began to show Scripturally the evil character, teachings and practices of "that evil servant," and "foolish, unprofitable shepherd," Satan gave his partisans another list
of falsehoods to spread—falsehoods which are calculated to give the impression that we are a blasphemer, a demoniac and a madman, this propaganda being united with oral warnings not to read our writings. Among other things that such scandal-mongers, whose literary mouthpiece Clayton Woodworth became in a communication to the New Era Enterprise of St. Paul, Minn., are peddling about are the stories that we permit no one to testify in prayer meetings whom we do not desire to have testify, and therefore, when leading a prayer meeting, call by name on those only whom we desire to testify, and thus suppress others; that in a prayer meeting we made the claim that we had power to call down fire from heaven and destroy our enemies, as Elijah did with the two companies of fifty; that we stated in a meeting that we were the "World's Great High Priest"; and that we commanded a rebellious brother to drop dead, which to our confusion the brother failed to do! Those who know us and our writings know, of course, that these stories are falsehoods. But Satan's and his agents' purpose in circulating them is apparent; for such claims as these misrepresentations put into our mouth could emanate from an insane person only; and Satan and they doubtless seek to give the impression that we are insane, in order to hinder the spread of the Epiphany message. Of course, he finds the bad Levite leaders just the persons to be his ready mouthpieces in this work. So far as we are concerned we rejoice in these experiences. They are so much like those which the Lord, the Apostles, "that Servant" and all other faithful servants of the Lord have undergone because of their faithfulness (Matt. 5:10-12), that we feel ourself to be very highly favored indeed to have fellowship with them in such misrepresentations. Let us, dear brethren, rejoice that thus we may together drink this cup with the Lord and with others of His Priesthood. It is necessary that such experiences come, that
The Epiphany's Elect.
the approved may be manifested, that the partially approved may be manifested, and that the totally disapproved may be manifested. And such will indeed be the result of such experiences; for we are living in the Epiphany! "And who shall stand when He maketh manifest?"
(85) In the foregoing we have discussed Azazel's Goat, in so far as the subject concerns its Truth people members. But there are members of it—by far the larger section of it—in the nominal church. Some of these are in the Protestant denominations; and some of them are in the Catholic denominations. The one and same confession of antitypical Israel's sins and loosing of the Goat served for the Truth and nominal church sections of Azazel's Goat. But after those parts of the work were completed, shortly after our Pastor's death, the next step, leading to the Gate, was taken with its Truth section for two years and eight months before it was taken with its Protestant and Catholic sections. On Nov. 8, 9, 1916, in the reading of the correspondence on the London Tabernacle trouble sent to the Brooklyn office by the two opposing groups of its elders, we took an inner stand against the Libni Gershonite (British) section of that Goat, and on Nov. 25, 1916, at the London Bethel, we took an external stand against it, while at the public meeting in Philadelphia, Pa., held July 18, 1920, the first open resistance was made to the Protestant and Catholic sections of that Goat, and in the Double Herald of September 15, 1922, which, among other articles, contained one that is antitypical John's Rebuke, it, for the first time, worked on the Catholic section alone. The two king errors of the entire nominal church, the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment, were the main subjects on which especially the common revolutionisms of the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat were resisted—leading them to the Gate. This activity, as the antitype of Gideon's second
battle with the Midianites, the Amalekites and the Children of the East, we call, antitypical Gideon's Second Battle. This battle was waged by public lectures on the part of pilgrims, auxiliary pilgrims, evangelists, extension lecturers and local elders, by colporteur and sharpshooter work, by volunteer work and, of course, by conversations.
(86) The literature used by the colporteurs and sharpshooters consisted of a book called, Life-Death-Hereafter, and of its various chapters published separately as five Herald Extras (tracts), Herald No. 19 and the Hell and Spiritism booklets, sold as a combination or separately from house to house. The volunteers used the five Extras, distributing them Sundays to the worshipers at Protestant churches, as these left after the morning service. In some cases they were distributed from house to house, sent through the mails to the bereaved, given out in trains, buses, trolleys, etc., and handed to interestable persons as these were met. In the chapter on Gideon, Type and Antitype, in Vol. V, this matter is explained. True to the type, almost no effort was made to defend the two involved errors by the nominal-church exponents under the attacks of antitypical Gideon's Second Battle; for these fled from the attacks in mortal fear. However, in not a few cases they saw to it that volunteers were jailed and fined; and they succeeded in securing the taking away of second-class P.O. rates from our Extras. In this work tens of thousands of the above-mentioned book and booklets and millions of the above-mentioned Extras were distributed. There is scarcely a town in America, Canada, Jamaica, Canal Zone, Trinidad, British Guiana, certain countries of Europe, India and Burma, where we have ecclesias, where pertinent lectures were not delivered; in all of them (and in many others) the Extras were circulated; and in those where English, Polish and French are the languages used the colporteurs and sharpshooters distributed our
The Epiphany's Elect.
pertinent book and booklets. However, as shown by the fear of Gideon's firstborn to kill Zeba and Zalmunna, the Epiphany-enlightened brethren failed to wage this warfare sufficiently zealously and courageously to destroy faith entirely in the doctrines of the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment, which will be accomplished later by our Lord, perhaps with the co-operation of all Truth people.
(87) While toward the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat there has been no exclusive work done without involving its Catholic section, i.e., nothing has been done in resisting its revolutionism, which is the antitype of leading the Goat to the Gate, without involving its Catholic section, there has been exclusive work done toward the Catholic section of Azazel's Goat. This is due to the latter's greater and more embracing revolutionism. Both sections of Azazel's Goat in the nominal church have been guilty of the revolutionism of teaching the consciousness of the dead and eternal torment; at least in America the Protestant denominations have not been guilty of a practical union of state and church, though the Lutheran Church in Germany, Scandinavia and the Baltic provinces, the Episcopal Church in England and the Presbyterian, or Reformed, Church in Scotland, Germany, Holland and Switzerland, have been guilty thereof, while the Romanist Church has been guilty of an actual union of church and state in many European and Latin American states and of a practical union with the state in America. Hence an exclusive attack has been made on her in America for her pertinent almost worldwide wrongs, especially in America. This attack has been by lectures, booklets, Herald Extras and the regular editions of the Herald since September 15, 1922, and that by the same kind of agents as were used in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle.
(88) The literature used by colporteurs and sharpshooters has been the Double Herald—Herald No.
14—which, if published in the same form as the Hell and Spiritism booklets, and in the same sized type as that of this book, would make a booklet of about 140 pages. Drawn up in the form of questions beginning with the words, "Do you know," in three articles it gives a general view of the papal Antichrist, and in another it gives a general view, under 14 heads, of the American hierarchy's political working understanding with the state. There have been 100,000 of these circulated. The pertinent literature used by the volunteers has been Elijah's Letter, which we reproduced in Vol. III, Chapter IV, and John's Rebuke, which we reproduced in its Chapter VII. Just short of 2,000,000 of each of these have been circulated, and that mainly from house to house in the form of Herald Extras. Some of these have been distributed at Protestant church doors and, of course, many from hand to hand and by "wholesale" use of Rural Route delivery. Then, ever since Nov. 15, 1922, The Herald of The Epiphany has been published, each issue of which has carried under the caption, Signs Of The Times, drawn up as "Do you know" questions, an article exposing the worldwide political meddling of, and its consequences to, the papacy, particularly in America. Thus there has been a years-long and widespread protest against Rome's symbolic harlotry. And Rome's reaction to this protest has been characteristically Romanist: among others, denunciations, arrests, jailings, magisterial and juridical trials, finings, mob violence, threats even of death to the author and the bombing of the Bible House, police intimidation, vile, threatening and anonymous letters and telephone calls, spyings, securing the removal of second-class privileges from Elijah's Letter and John's Rebuke and threats of the same against the regular issues of The Herald Of The Epiphany, etc. Despite these the protests go right on. The civil power's part in the above forms of restraints we recognize as the antitype of John's imprisonment.
The Epiphany's Elect.
(89) Immediately after starting the above-described resistance to the nominal-church section of Azazel's Goat, priestly fellowship was withdrawn from it—putting it through the Gate, since we then knew that all new creatures who remained in Babylon after Passover, 1916, were crown-losers; and thereupon it was delivered to the fit man in the sense of unfavorable circumstances. We can see that the Romanist Church is in the hands of the fit man in both senses of the term: in the worldwide criticism and disadvantageous position that she must endure, in making her desolate, naked and eating of her flesh, in Mexico, Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, Jugo-Slavia, etc., and shortly in the rest of the European ten-languaged nations' forecast doing of these things (Rev. 17:16). We can see this in the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat undergoing similar treatment in Germany, in the movement to disestablish the Episcopal Church in England, in the drying up of the support of antitypical Euphrates (Rev. 16:12), etc. That both sections are in Azazel's hands we can recognize in the overspreading of abominations in doctrine and practice everywhere in Babylon, in the losing fight of the Fundamentalists with the Modernists, in their continued efforts to gain influence, support, etc., from the world, particularly from the state, which in due course brings them into increased trouble. These are only primary ills that the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat are receiving from the fit man and Azazel. The climax of their trouble at the hands of both will come in Armageddon, when their denominations, together with the beast and its image, will be destroyed (Rev. 18:19), combined with much mental and physical sufferings for them (Rev. 14:9-11). The shock and other ills that these experiences will bring to them will finally destroy their fleshly minds, primarily paving the way to their rescue from Babylonian doctrines and arrangements, and preparing them to receive the Truth, which,
secondarily, will thereafter cleanse them (Num. 8:7, 21), and furnish them opportunities to serve God in spirit and Truth, and finally fit them to stand before the Throne and serve God in His Temple (Rev. 7:9, 15).
(1) What is purposed in this article?
(2) What wrong view, derived from the expression, Scapegoat, is associated with this Goat? What Hebrew names are given the two Atonement Day goats? What do these names imply as to the uses of these goats? Cite and explain some Scriptures proving these uses.
(3) Explain the meaning and appropriateness of the name Azazel as associated with the antitypical second Goat. How has its course resulted for it?
(4) Explain the following Great Company acts and attainments with their pertinent Scriptures: (1) revolutionizing and supporting revolutionists, (2) spotting their garments, (3) failing to sacrifice thoroughly, (4) fellowshipping with the worldly, (5) accepting and teaching errors, (6) developing Babylonish systems, (7) usurping the Faithful's office, (8) persecuting the Faithful, (9) serving Satan, (10) having their flesh and works destroyed, (11) delivering their lives only, (12) meeting great disappointments, (13) cleansing themselves, (14) succeeding in their work, (15) gaining a subordinate spiritual nature and (16) becoming Levites and Noblemen.
(5) In what five books and five acts is the manifestation of the sins of God's nominal people especially described and typed?
(6) Whose High Priest confesses the sins over Azazel's Goat? What two facts prove this? Read corroborations of this from T. 49, par. 2; 51, par. 1; Z '10, 136, col. 2, par. 2; P '19, 89, col. 2, par. 4.
(7) What was "that Servant's" mental attitude on the time relation between the sprinkling of the blood of the antitypical Lord's Goat and the dealing with Azazel's Goat? Read two quotations in proof of this.
(8) What do the fulfilled facts on the subject prove? Why was "that Servant" uncertain on this subject? What three lines of his thought prove the truth on the subject? Read his expressions on these lines of thought.
The Epiphany's Elect.
(9) Why was he not permitted to see clearly on this point? What two parallel cases were veiled to conceal the chronology of the antitype? Why were they veiled? How do they prove the rule that types and prophecies connected with a trial cannot be clearly understood until the trial is met?
(10) What event occurred before the World's High Priest began to confess the sins over Azazel's Goat? Why should we expect this event to occur first? What six facts in this paragraph corroborate this thought?
(11) Additionally, what other fact corroborates this thought? What is typed in Lev. 16:16, 18, 19 by making atonement for the Holy, the Tabernacle and the Altar?
(12) Explain the antitype of the three things done to the altar? How does this passage prove that the confession of the sins over Azazel's Goat began in the Fall of 1914?
(13) When did our Pastor say certainty would be had on this question of related chronology? How may we now answer the question? What is the last work of the World's High Priest while yet in the flesh? And what does this imply as to His last member?
(14) What three types in Lev. 16 show a different time order from that of their antitypes?
(15) What conclusion respecting all Great Company members may we draw from the fact that by the Fall of 1914 all the members of Christ were in existence? Why is this conclusion valid? What work could then be undertaken?
(16) What conditions existed making the Fall of 1914 the appropriate time to begin to confess the sins over Azazel's Goat?
(17) What is meant typically and antitypically by the expression, Aaron "shall bring the live goat"?
(18) In what seven ways did the World's High Priest bring Azazel's Goat near before the Lord?
(19) What was typed by Aaron's laying his hands on the head of the live goat? What parallel acts prove this? How may we answer the objection that the goat typed the Great Company's humanity? What teaching is corroborated by this type? What class did not exist as such when the World's High Priest laid His hands on the head of
Azazel's Goat? What had they lost by that time? How do these considerations refute the claims that Azazel's goat represents our Lord's humanity?
(20) How did the World's High Priest antitypically lay His hands upon the head of the live Goat?
(21) What kinds of sins were not, and what kind of sins were confessed over Azazel's Goat? How is this proven in Lev. 16:21? How does Ps. 107:17 corroborate this? What is the purpose of the atoning work of Azazel's Goat?
(22) In what condition was Israel in the Camp? and what does this type? What peculiar doctrines have the four organized groups of Christendom claimed? Define and explain the right claimed by each of these four groups.
(23) What are the inherent character and practical results of these four doctrines? What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of kings? What must we conclude with reference to each of these wrongs?
(24) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of the aristocracy? What must we conclude with reference to each of these wrongs?
(25) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of the clergy? What must we conclude as to each of these wrongs?
(26) What are the leading wrongs flowing from the doctrine of the Divine right of labor? What must we conclude with reference to each of them? Which of these four classes is the least guilty?
(27) What did the World's High Priest from 1914 to 1916 do with these wrongs? By what means was this done? How did His work of that time on this line compare with it at other times? Why was this so? What do the fulfilled facts of that time prove?
(28) What effect did this confession have on the prospective Great Company? What re-enforced this effect? What was the final impression made upon the prospective Great Company by our Pastor's later teaching on the smiting of Jordan? As a result, how did they act? How can we prove that theirs was the second smiting of Jordan?
(29) What is meant, type and antitype, by putting the
The Epiphany's Elect.
sins upon the head of Azazel's Goat? Cite and explain corroborative passages. How was this done in the antitype?
(30) How many of the Great Company are represented by Azazel's Goat? In what two religious spheres do we find these? Point out from the standpoint of the time of their coming into the Truth the antitypes of Elisha, Miriam, Lot, Abihu, Jambres, the Virgin of Cant. 5, Rahab, Eli and the Foolish Virgins. Why is it necessary to understand these time distinctions?
(31) What is the time difference in dealing with these two sections of Azazel's Goat: (1) from the standpoint of confessing over it the sins of the people and (2) from the standpoint of all the subsequent steps? With what section only until July 18, 1920, have these subsequent steps been taken? When and with what did the work toward the other section begin? Who would seek to fulfill the type? Who only would fulfill it?
(32) Why should we avoid speculating on these subsequent steps in the case of Azazel's Goat in the nominal church? To which section of Azazel's Goat will we in the rest of this article limit our study? Why? From what six standpoints will we view it?
(33) What thought is neither stated nor implied in the A. V. respecting the live goat? In what is that thought implied? Give some definitions of the word translated "present," "presented." (Lev. 16:7, 10.) What typical and antitypical facts prove these definitions? To whom does and to whom does not the antitype apply? Why?
(34) How did the typical and antitypical Goat act while tied at the door of the Tabernacle? How and by whom was this Goat class hindered from obtaining its liberty?
(35) When was the loosening of the Goat class due to begin and end? By what acts was it loosed? What prevented its loosing previously? What groups showed restiveness before being loosed, in America and in Britain? What antitypical jerkings in Britain and America accompanied the loosing of the Goat? What antityped the first jerkings of the Goat just before the High Priest began to lead it to the Gate?
(36) Why do we assume that the live goat was tied by two knots? What were the antitypical rope and knots?
How were the two antitypical knots untied? What are the main historical facts connected with the loosing of the first knot holding the antitypical Goat, in Britain? What two coincidences occurred on the same dates as two of those historical facts? When during the confessing of the sins did the first part of the antitypical loosing begin and when did it end?
(37) By what was the second antitypical knot untied? Under what circumstances and when did it begin and end? How did the untying of the first knot proceed in America? What warning was raised against the error accompanying the loosing of the first knot, and how was the warning stated?
(38) What did clarifying the subject from this loosing of Azazel's Goat onward require of its expounder? What was his relation to the leaders' contentions for power? When and how did he first learn of American and British brethren contending for power?
(39) Into what kind of a position was he put when first set to work in co-operating under the Lord with others in leading the Goat to the Gate? Of what did he not surmise brethren to be capable? How did their wrongs affect him? Toward what sets of leaders was he so affected? How does he not and how does he think of his work?
(40) Under what circumstances may one with the Lord's approval modestly speak of his work? What facts prove this? What reasons required the writer of "Azazel's Goat" to write of his work?
(41) How could the writer of Harvest Siftings Reviewed have unanswerably proven his credentials bonafide? Why did he then withhold, and why did he three years later give this proof? What were the facts then withheld and since given? What seems to have put Bro. Hemery against Bro. Shearn's plan as to control of Tabernacle arrangements? What seems to prove this?
(42) Give the occurrences from November 3 to November 11, 1917, which prove that the credentials were not given to obtain passports, but were bonafide.
(43) What principle and facts prove the credentials to have been binding as between the Society's Board and their recipient? How do this principle and these facts hold as to the act of the Executive Committee? What
The Epiphany's Elect.
judgment should be passed on the claim that his credentials were neither valid nor bonafide?
(44) What facts as to the Tabernacle schedules prove that he saw the Tabernacle correspondence before leaving for Europe? How did he refrain from violating the Executive Committee's charge to keep secret the matter of his having seen and read the Tabernacle correspondence before leaving for Europe?
(45) How did the knowledge of the Tabernacle correspondence affect him? How did he overcome this? How did he balance his attitude toward the three managers? How were his hopes as to making peace disappointed? How only had the conduct of Bros. Shearn and Crawford been set forth up to and including the article on Azazel's Goat?
(46) What seven things were done with respect to the revolutionism of Azazel's Goat? Who directed in these seven things? What did they accomplish?
(47) By what proportionate number of the pertinent Under-priests in the flesh and in the Epiphany work were the various sections of Azazel's Goat led to the Gate and fit man? Show how with six groups of leaders this was done.
(48) How are unmanifested crown-losers related to the World's High Priest? Give an example in proof. How does this consideration explain the contradictory conduct of certain brethren? When only will it be certain whether one will remain in the World's High Priest?
(49) By what three ways can we prove that the World's High Priest leads Azazel's Goat to the Gate?
(50) What three things may we reasonably infer the live goat did as it was led to the Gate? For what two reasons may we draw this inference? What things have occurred in the antitype suggestive of tuggings, jerkings and buttings?
(51) What have been the two stages in the beginning and in the ending of leading Azazel's Goat members to the Gate and delivering them to the fit man? What have been the acts and dates of these two startings and deliverings in the cases of (1) Bro. Shearn, (2) Bro. Hemery, (3) J.F. Rutherford, (52) (4) Bro. Sturgeon, (53) (5) Bro. Ritchie, (54) and (6) Bro. Hoskins?
(55) What is involved in conducting leaders to the fit man? What do the fulfilled acts imply as to frequency of conducting individuals of Azazel's Goat to the fit man? What is meant by a general act? What does each general act require to be done to its doer? Give an illustration.
(56) What two terms have been used with reference to conducting Azazel's Goat to the Gate? Which is the preferable one?
(57) What are the two definitions of the fit man? In what two ways are these definitions proven correct? Explain 1 Cor. 5:3-5 as showing the activity of three groups of the World's High Priest delivering a Great Company member to the fit man as unfavorable circumstances and to Azazel. Show how 1 Tim. 1:19, 20 gives the same line of thought. Show how Lev. 16:8, 10, 26 shows the fit man to represent persecuting persons. Why is Satan not the fit man?
(59) Whose High Priest delivers Azazel's Goat to the fit man? How can this be proved by Scriptures and facts?
(60) By what act is Azazel's Goat passed through the antitypical Gate? By what acts is it delivered to the fit man? What does and what does this not imply? What Scriptures and facts prove these things?
(61) Wherein do and wherein do not the Head and Body cooperate in delivering Azazel's Goat to the fit man? Why should our Lord alone deliver them to the fit man as persecuting persons? Of what have some of the Under-priests been falsely accused in this respect? How far may these go in delivering the Goat to the fit man? After doing these things, to whom should they leave them? What should they not give them? How should they act in so responsible a matter?
(62) What is meant by leading the Goat to the wilderness? Who serve as marked examples of being led to the wilderness? When did J.F. Rutherford's fit-man experience begin? How did this manifest itself from the Board's correspondence with him and the circumstances of his trip? What additional things did he and his supporters do showing them to be in unfavorable circumstances?
(63) What in their careers shows fit-man experiences from the standpoint of the fit man as persecuting persons? How did they seek to represent these experiences? And
The Epiphany's Elect.
what false charge did they bring against others on this point? What need the fit man as persecutors not be?
(64) In what respect are all of the stages of the antitypical Goat's experiences similar?
(65) What is typed by letting Azazel's goat go in the wilderness? How does 1 Cor. 5:11, 13 prove this? What will this experience mean to the nominal-church section of Azazel's Goat? What is the difference between the Priesthood's part in delivering Azazel's Goat to the fit man and its being let go in the wilderness? How does the history of the effort to mediate between the Board's majority and J.F. Rutherford illustrate this difference so far as the dealings with the latter are concerned? How was this illustrated in the dealings of the Board's majority with him from July 27 onward? How has he been ever since from the standpoint of the British and Board matter? In what other brothers' experiences were the same lines of thought in evidence?
(66) How was this principle exemplified in the experience of the Society leaders in bonds? How often and in what connection are we to expect to see this same principle exemplified?
(67) In what two ways does Azazel's Goat fall into Azazel's hand? Prove this. What are the Lord's two purposes in this? Why can this stage of the experiences of Azazel's Goat not be given in detail? How does J.F. Rutherford's course on July 25, 1917, illustrate this?
(68) On July 27 and 29 and August 8? How has his course since that time illustrated this? What alternative is before him and all others like him?
(69) Who else have undergone similar experiences? How often will the individuals of the Great Company fall into Azazel's hands? What should the Priests do at each general act of revolutionism on the part of members of Azazel's Goat? What effect should the Levites' misunderstandings and imputations of evil motives have on the Priests? What is to be the outcome, and what should we do with respect to it?
(70) What are the seven typical stages in the experiences of Azazel's Goat? Briefly define the antitype of each of these stages.
(71) What must the antitypical Levites do to share in
suffering for the willful sins of the world, and to gain life? What will result from a failure to do this? What should the sense of their danger prompt us to do for them?
(72) When and by whom was an outline of our study given? How do the outline and the detailed fulfillment agree? Who is privileged to see these things now? How should this knowledge affect us?
(73) Before what did the Great Company not exist as a class? What followed from this fact? What, accordingly, did God forbid? How were all the consecrated, accordingly, to be regarded and received? What distinction was then not made? What occurred through the separation? What did the Great Company yet remain? How should they no longer be treated? What occurred in this respect in 1917? Why? How do the cited passages show this? Whether consciously or unconsciously, what did those do who withdrew from the revolutionistic brethren? Of what forms does priestly fellowship consist? How have we, accordingly, refused to regard the Society's new light? What does this imply? How have we refused to regard their alleged strengthening food? What does this imply? How have we refused to regard and co-operate in their sufferings connected with their works? What does this imply? What is implied from the three standpoints just presented? What have we not withdrawn from them? How is this shown as to some teachings? As to the antitypical laver? As to the antitypical Bullock's blood? What follows as to both kinds of fellowship? What results therefrom? Why is God pleased with our pertinent course?
(74) What has the increasing Epiphany Truth enabled us to see as to the Great Company? Who are the antitypical Merarites? Who are the antitypical Gershonites?
(75) What must all admit? What question remains? How is it to be answered as to the Societyites and Standfasts? The P.B.I.?
(76) What priestly activity do the Levites condemn? What do they dogmatically announce? What refutes their claim? How so? What forbidden judging do they misapply? What passages sanction Epiphany judging? How in each case? Which of these passages does so especially? How is this passage frequently misapplied? To what kind
The Epiphany's Elect.
of judging does this passage not apply? What kind of judging does it forbid? While misapplying this judgment to be delayed until we are on the Throne, what do Levites charge that we usurp by our present judging? As to time what do they claim of it? With what kind of judgment is the priesthood not charged? Why not? For what has the priesthood always waited? Then what did it do? When? What cannot be pointed out? Why not? For what has the priesthood always waited? After that what has it done?
(77) What else has the priesthood not done, though accused thereof? What kind of judging does 1 Cor. 4:5 command? What will clarify this subject? What kind of manifestation did the Lord make during the Parousia? Before such Parousia manifestation what would have been pertinently wrong? What not so afterward? What was our Pastor's pertinent Parousia course? How does the pertinent article read, as abridged in The Present Truth, No. 180? What announcement would have been wrong, if made during the Parousia? Why? When do the passages quoted by Levites from our Pastor's writings against such judging apply? What is violated by applying them to the Epiphany? What passages from that Servant's writings on judging as proper apply to the Epiphany? What does he say therein? What is wrong in the pertinent Levites' course as to these passages and those applying to the Parousia?
(78) When does the separation between the Little Flock and the Great Company occur? How do the cited passages show this? What has our Lord Jesus been doing with the Great Company since 1914? By and for what is He manifesting them as crown-losers? Why and under what circumstances is it no longer forbidden, but commanded to announce them as such? What is proper to do now? What were our Pastor's pertinent thoughts? Hence what did he not condemn, on the contrary approve? What judging would be wrong in the Epiphany?
(79) What will our Lord bring to light in the Basileia? What stage of His Second Advent is it? What will He thereby manifest? What would be wrong before He does this? When will it be no longer wrong? How should this discussion on judging be summed up for the Parousia?
For the Epiphany? For the Basileia? What conclusion do we draw as to the application of 1 Cor. 4:5 as to judging? What does this do with the Levites' pertinent contention?
(80) By what was J.F.R.'s letter, written just before he was sent to Atlanta, circulated? Against whom was it written? Of what did it accuse them? What was the natural effect of such charges on his adherents? Who repeated them before a class?
(81) What statement was first made in answer to these charges? What was the author's course before the pertinent arrest? Afterwards among the brethren? Before the prosecutor? What was the effect on the prosecutor? What message was by the author sent to J.F.R. through Bro. Herr? Despite this, what did J.F.R. do? What was the author's course as to attendance at the trial? What effect did Bro. Herr's reporting his pertinent activities have on many Societyites? What is the story of a pertinent meeting on a street? With what was this discourtesy not allowed to interfere?
(82) Humanly speaking, what did not bring the Society leaders into trouble with the government? What four acts precipitated them into this trouble? How could the first and main one of these causes have been avoided? Despite their false accusations, what made the author rejoice? Into what did their accusations fit? Into what do they not fit? What, seemingly, were the causes of their imprisonment? What, in other words?
(83) What was the pertinent course of the other six accused brothers? What view of the author's did they endorse? To whom did R. H. Hirsh express sympathy during the trial? What pertinent thing did he do for the accused? What prevented his expressing sympathy with all of them during the trial? What did the author not do as to their release? What inconsistent course did the indicted leaders pursue as to R. H. Hirsh during the trial? What does this prove that they sought to do with him? What does this show of them?
(84) What is characteristic of Satan and of many of his servants? What does he do to overthrow the influence of Truth servants? What does he, accordingly, do? For what does this account as to his course against our
The Epiphany's Elect.
Lord, Paul and that Servant? How does Satan use those false teachers and frauds who cannot meet the exposures of them? For what will this account? What did he add thereto? On these falsehoods being proven to be such, what did Satan's mouthpieces falsely charge? On the refutation of these falsehoods and the author's proof that J.F.R. was that evil servant and the foolish, unprofitable shepherd, what did Satan give them to spread? What falsehoods, under the lead of Clayton Woodworth, did Satan then give them to spread? What was Satan's purpose therein? Whom does he find as ready mouthpieces for such falsehoods? What should be the effect on God's people who for righteousness' sake suffer such evils? Why are such Epiphany experiences allowed as to the three involved classes?
(85) What have we discussed foregoing? Where is the larger section of Azazel's Goat? How are they distributed? What confession of antitypical Israel's sins and loosing of the Goat applied to the whole of Azazel's Goat? When was that work completed? What then set in? How long did this work continue before it began to turn to the Protestant and Catholic sections of Azazel's Goat? With what and when did resisting the revolutionisms of its Truth section begin internally? Externally? When and with what did it begin toward its Protestant and Catholic sections? Its Catholic section alone? What are the two king errors of the nominal church? How and against whom were these errors pertinently used? Of what is this activity an antitype? What three special forms of work characterize it? Who engaged in the lecture work?
(86) What literature has been used by the colporteurs and sharpshooters? What was used by the volunteers? What methods of distribution did they use? Where will details on this work be found? True to the type, what did the exponents of the two king errors fail to do? How did they act in the battle? What did they do in lieu of answering? How much literature has been distributed in this battle? How widespread has the lecture work been? The volunteer work? The colporteur and sharpshooter work? What, as typed by the course of Gideon's firstborn, have the Epiphany brethren failed to do? When
will the work be completed against the two king errors? Through whose co-operation perhaps?
(87) What kind of work has not been done toward the Protestant section of Azazel's Goat that has been done toward its Romanist section? Why so? Of what have both of them been guilty? Of what has its Protestant section not been guilty in America? Where has it been guilty thereof? Of what has Rome been guilty? Where in general? In particular? What has resulted therefrom? Especially where? What forms have these attacks assumed? By what means?
(88) What literature has been used by colporteurs and sharpshooters therein? How large a booklet would it make? Of what does it consist? How many have been circulated? What pertinent literature has been used by the volunteers? Where are these reproduced? How many of each of these have been circulated? In what three ways mainly? What has The Herald Of The Epiphany done in this matter in each issue since Nov. 15, 1922? What, accordingly, has been done in this respect? What has Rome's reaction been to this activity? Despite this, what has continued? What is to be recognized in the civil authority's part in some of these reactions?
(89) What set in immediately after starting the above described resistance to Azazel's Goat in the nominal church? Why immediately thereafter? What occurred thereupon? Wherein do we see that the Romanist part of Azazel's Goat is in the fit man's hands in both senses of the fit man? The Protestant part? What indicates that both sections of Azazel's Goat in the nominal church is in Azazel's hands? What kind of ills are these to them? Wherein will the climax of their sufferings come? Of what will they consist? What primary effects will these have upon them? Secondary effects? Final effects?
DAVID'S LAMENTATION OVER SAUL AND JONATHAN.
Thy beauty, Israel, is gone
Slain in the places high is he:
The mighty now are overthrown;
O thus how cometh it to be!
Let not this news their streets throughout,
In Gath or Askalon, be told;
For fear Philistia's daughters flout,
Lest vaunt the uncircumcised should.
On you, hereafter, let no dew,
You mountains of Gilboa, fall:
Let there be neither showers on you,
Nor fields that breed an offering shall,
For there with shame away was thrown,
The target of the strong (alas),
The shield of Saul, e'en as of one
That ne'er with oil anointed was.
Nor from their blood that slaughter'd lay,
Nor from the fat of strong men slain,
Came Jonathan his bow away,
Nor drew forth Saul his sword in vain.
In lifetime they were lovely fair,
In death they undivided are.
More swift than eagles of the air,
And stronger they than lions were.
Weep, Israel's daughters, weep for Saul,
Who you with scarlet hath array'd;
Who clothed you with pleasures all,
And on your garments gold hath laid.
How comes it he, that mighty was,
The foil in battle doth sustain!
Thou, Jonathan, oh thou (alas)
Upon thy places high wert slain!
And much distressed is my heart,
My brother Jonathan, for thee;
My very dear delight thou wert,
And wondrous was thy love to me;
So wondrous, it surpassed far
The love of women (every way).
Oh, how the mighty fallen are!
How warlike instruments decay!