NOTE I FOR PAGE XXII

IT WAS in 1880 that our Pastor forecast the coming of the Federation of Churches and its getting life as the fulfilment of Rev. 13:14, 15. He understood the two-horned beast to represent the Church of England and Ireland, the vivified image to be the Federation of Churches vitalized by the Episcopal Church. He understood the two-horned beast's giving life to the image to represent the Episcopal Church conferring ordination on the ministers of the Federation of Churches. Before the fulfilment he saw that such vitality could be conferred in two ways, either by a blanket ordination that by one act would confer Episcopal ordination on all the ministers of the Federation, or by an individual ordination of each one of them. While conceding its possibility, he doubted that it would take place as an individual ordination. From 1880 onward he watched closely for the fulfilment of Rev. 13:14, 15 until 1908 when he saw the giving of life taking place by a blanket ordination conferred by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in America.

It gave this ordination in the following way: It sanctioned the appearance of non-Episcopalian ministers of the Federation of Churches in Episcopal pulpits as properly qualified ministers of the Gospel. Details on this action of the House of Bishops and of the consequent controversy thereon led by the high churchists in the Episcopal Church can be found in Z '08, 196, 13-197, 2. In 1909 the Bishops of the Church of England accepted a law that was passed by Parliament, and that did a similar thing as to the non-Episcopal Protestant Ministers of the British Empire. For details, please see Z '09, 163, 12-164, 1. Writing on the subject in Z '13, 342, 9-344, 1, our Pastor shows that the House of Bishops authorized Episcopal missionaries in the foreign field to exchange pulpits with the missionaries sent out by denominations associated with the Federation, which again was a blanket ordination of such missionaries.

The Day of Vengeance.

658

Our Pastor concluded that the above-given facts would constitute giving life to the image. Whether more would yet follow, he was not sure. Since that time the carrying out of this policy of the Episcopal Church has increasingly continued. The image now has life. It is also prohibiting the Lord's people to exchange religious ideas in its midst. It will before long stop their work altogether—Salome demanding and getting the head of John the Baptist.

NOTE II FOR PAGE 614

It will be recalled that in THE PRESENT TRUTH No. 20, reprinted in No. 176, we suggested to the Society's Board, Editorial Committee, Sisters' Committee and Shareholders that they deprive J. F. Rutherford of all his authority and positions of service in the Society, informing them that, if we did not by a certain time get word that this suggestion, except dismissal from the Society's Board of Directors; had been carried out, we would take a step that in due time would effect the execution of, the suggestion. Hence we sent in an envelope by mail a marked copy of the issue containing the suggestion to each member of the Society's Board of Judgment. The time limit passed, and we did not hear from any one of the Board of Judgment. Hence we issued the first of three publications that in due time with the backing of other articles, coming out as due, will, we are confident, create such a situation as will force J. F. Rutherford out of all positions of power and influence in the Truth. In this note we give a condensation of the first of the three. We believe it to be unanswerable proof that he is "that evil servant" of Matt. 24:48-51.

The Lord's people are familiar with the thought that prophecies and types referring to experiences that test God's people cannot be understood clearly, until the pertinent test has been faithfully met by them. Every attempt to open such a passage before it is due to be understood ends in mistakes. This fact, we recall, our dear Pastor illustrated by the chestnut-burr motto card, "In Due Time." This is manifest from many examples, as we can see from his different treatment of the subject of "that Servant" before and after 1896, of the parable of the Penny before and after 1909, of Tentative and Vitalized Justification

Appendix.

659

before and after 1909, of the Advocate and Mediator before and after 1906, of the parables of the Talents and the Pounds before and after 1905, etc., etc., etc. The Scripture that we are about to discuss—Matt. 24:48-51—on that evil servant, literally, that wicked servant, is a warning and a prophecy connected with trying experiences, and therefore in its various parts could not have been understood before the trial connected with each part was met by the faithful. Until somewhat over twenty years ago there have been among Truth people three interpretations offered to Matt. 24:48-51: (1) Those who hold that Matt. 24:45-47 refers to a class, of course would apply vs. 48-51 to a class. Since 1896 only Truth opponents or weak brethren give a class application to Matt. 24:45-47. Hence it is only such who give a class application to vs. 48-51.

(2) Some who apply Matt. 24:45-47 to our Pastor have applied vs. 48-51 to Mr. Barbour, who in 1878 renounced the Ransom, the thought of these being that he was the first "that Servant," who, becoming wicked, was cast off. But the facts of the case are decisive against this view: (a) he never was put over the household; for from 1876 onward, i.e., from our Pastor's and his first working together, the former had the executive charge of the Harvest work, as the following quotation from Z '16, 171, col. 2, pars. 3, 4, proves: "I therefore resolved upon a vigorous campaign for the Lord and the Truth. I determined to curtail my business cares, and give my time as well as my means to the great Harvest work. Accordingly, I sent Mr. Barbour back to his home with money and instructions to prepare in concise book form the Good Tidings," etc. Thus we see the household was never in Mr. Barbour's charge. (b) While before he and Brother Russell met, Mr. Barbour had certain time features, which he learned from others, and which after they met he explained to our Pastor, the latter gave him decidedly more Truth, which he learned by direct illumination from the Lord—Truth on the Ransom and Restitution and the Object and Manner of our Lord's Return. Thus we see that the meat was never placed in Mr. Barbour's charge; hence Matt. 24:45-48 could not apply to him as the supposed first "that Servant," who became wicked. (c) Moreover, the account of that evil servant, following that of "that faithful and wise Servant,"

The Day of Vengeance.

660

unless cogent reasons could be given to prove that that evil servant was the same person as that faithful and wise Servant—a contradiction in terms, for how could he be called faithful, which means loyal to the end, if he became wicked?—and unless cogent reasons could be given to prove that "that evil servant" acted before or during the activity of "that faithful and wise Servant," it is proper to conclude that in time his activity followed the close of that faithful and wise Servant's ministry. These three reasons prove that Mr. Barbour was not that evil servant.

(3) All of us are aware of the fact that our Pastor applied Matt. 24:48-51, as he did Luke 12:45, 46, not as a prophecy, but as a warning that he do not do certain things (D 614). We all fully agree that Matt. 24:45-47 and Luke 12:42-46 do apply to him, and that Luke 12:45, 46, is not a prophecy, but is a warning addressed to him by the Lord. Having nothing better we accepted his explanations of Matt. 24:48, i.e., if that servant become wicked, though for ourself, as was the case with others, we had difficulty with it, because we knew that Greek grammar forbids rendering the words for "that evil servant" as he did: "If that servant become evil" (D 614). The Diaglott marginal translation, which misled him, "if that servant shall wickedly say," is incorrect, because it changes an adjective that modifies the noun "servant" into an adverb that modified the verb "say." No Greek scholar would sanction the Diaglott's marginal rendering as a true translation, but its word for word rendering is correct. We are not faulting our Pastor on this point. No better interpretation than his could have been given before the passage was due to be understood. Its fulfilment being associated with a severe trial, it was not understandable before the trial connected with the fulfilment was faithfully met by the Lord's people. It was, therefore, quite natural for our Pastor under the circumstances to seek to apply Matt. 24:48-51 as a warning to the same person as Luke 12:45, 46, warned. But since his death a series of events have occurred in which we do find a clear fulfilment of Matt. 24:48-51, in the person of J. F. Rutherford. And in the light of these events, connected with a sore trial, the passage has been demonstrated as not applying as a warning to our Pastor, but as a warning against, and as a prophecy of, the course of J. F.

Appendix.

661

Rutherford. Hence we do with this passage what our Pastor did with some prophecies, which before their fulfilment he interpreted in a certain way, but which, after their fulfilment, finding they applied differently, he accordingly interpreted differently. We thus follow his method and example in this case, and by no means disparage him thereby, any more than we would disparage Jesus by saying that He did not understand the time of the Judgment Day before due time.

But one may ask, Why not be content to accept the thought that our Pastor first gave? We answer, He gave up his first thought, i.e., that the evil servant was a class, even as he at first thought that "that Servant" was a class. Changing the question, then, we ask, Why should we not hold to his second thought? Our answer is, The Scriptures, reason and facts forbid this—a thing which he, however, could not see, because not yet due, the trial connected with the fulfilment of the passage not yet having taken place. Surely he could not have been called faithful, if he did not remain loyal to the end; hence, morally, he could not have become a wicked servant; nor could he have been wise, if he were to become wicked. Therefore, it is unreasonable and unscriptural to apply the passage to him as a prophecy. Nor can it be applied to him as a warning, as was the case in Luke 12:45, 46, because in seven respects that passage differs from Matt. 24:48-51. These differences prove that they refer to different persons.

We will now compare and contrast these two passages. From a careful heed given to their differences we can readily see that they do not apply to the same person. A careful study of these passages will show that Luke 12:45, 46, is a warning to Bro. Russell not to do certain wicked things, and that Matt. 24:48-51 is both a warning to J. F. Rutherford and is a prophecy that he would do certain wicked things, and consequently undergo certain punishments. The first difference between the two passages is this: whereas Luke 12:45, 46, uses our Pastor's Scriptural title, "that Servant," Matt. 24:48 does not do so; but in contrast with his titles "that faithful and wise Servant" and "that Servant," calls the person to which it refers, "that evil servant." No Greek scholar would give as a literal rendering of the expression: ean de eipee ho kakos doulos ekeinos,

The Day of Vengeance.

662

"But if that servant shall wickedly say," which is the marginal rendering of the Diaglott. Our dear Pastor's paraphrase of it in D 614 is, of course, not given as a translation. One might give it in that way as a paraphrastic statement of his understanding of the verse; but not as a correct translation. Our Pastor with the correct thought of Luke 12:45, 46, in mind tried to paraphrase Matt. 24:48 so as to make it refer to the same person, and to give the same thought as Luke 12:45. In so doing he introduced two words into the English not having corresponding words in the Greek, i.e., the word "become" and the word "and," "if that servant become evil and," etc. Furthermore, he made a predicate adjective of the word kakos, evil, which the Greek clearly shows is an attributive adjective, a course on his part that the testful fulfilment, not occurring until after his death, and therefore not understandable during his life, shows cannot now be followed. The Greek forbidding the Diaglott translation, and our Pastor's paraphrase, based on his understanding of Luke 12:45 just referred to, we should conclude that the expression "that evil servant" is proof positive that the verse is neither a prophecy of, nor a warning to, our dear Pastor; for he was in no sense a wicked servant, and therefore God would not call him one. The expression, therefore, must apply to another.

Vs. 48-51, which describe that wicked servant, following the verses that describe "that Servant," refer to one who would come into power over the whole Church after our Pastor would after death no longer have that office (Ezek. 9:11). Hence the activity of that wicked servant occurs in the Epiphany. He must be J. F. Rutherford: for he is the only person since our Pastor's death that has at any time had charge of the work of the entire Church. Thus the expression "that Servant" in Luke 12:45 and the expression "that evil servant" of Matt. 24:48 prove that our Pastor is not meant in Matt. 24:48-51. J. F. Rutherford is the only one whom the description fits. Undoubtedly he is called evil because he is wicked, as the events in the Church abundantly prove, since December 29, 1916, the date, when according to the Bible he began to make by-laws for his aggrandizement, after he was sure he would be elected President.

Appendix.

663

The second marked difference between the texts, Luke 12:45-46, and Matt. 24:48-51, is the fact that in the former passage "that Servant" was warned not to deny the Lord's second presence: "If that servant shall say in his heart, My Lord delayeth His coming"; while in the latter passage "that evil servant" is warned not to "say in his heart, My Lord delayeth." Both the Sinaitic and the Vatican, the oldest and best MSS., omit the expression "His coming" in Matt. 24:48, and that for good reason; for it is not the Lord's Second Presence that "that evil servant" would be in danger of denying, nor has he denied it. But his special wrong-doing, due to his headiness and wilfulness, has been, instead of waiting on, to rush ahead of, the Lord, taking things out of the Lord's hands; and without waiting for the Lord to manifest His will by His Spirit, Word and providence, to do what seems good in his own sight. The Lord's ways were too slow to suit him; they would not give him quickly enough what he wanted; hence he would hurry along things according to his own will. Thus every time he was disinclined to wait on the Lord, and as a result rushed ahead according to his own will, he said in his heart, "My Lord delayeth: He does not do things fast enough to suit me: His principles, Spirit and providences impede me in my plans; therefore I will thrust them aside and hurry up things to suit myself. 'My Lord delayeth!'" This then is the second difference between Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51.

The meaning of this will become clearer, if we look at the main things that have characterized J. F. Rutherford's course from shortly after he became a member of the Society's Executive Committee, November 7, 1916. His course in re Vol. 7 is to the point. Because some of the friends were clamoring for Vol. 7, and others of the friends wished to write it, and still others wished to write a life of our Pastor, which books J. F. Rutherford told the other members of the Executive Committee would result in $50,000 being diverted from the Society's treasury to the pockets of the would-be writers, he decided to forestall them by getting out Vol. 7! Instead of seeking the Lord's will on the subject in the ways the Lord was likely to manifest it, i.e., through sore trials testing and proving its writers as worthy of the task in His own time and way,

The Day of Vengeance.

664

J. F. Rutherford himself selected the writers and arranged the plan of procedure, especially aided therein by a certain Sister. His desiring and pursuing such a course made him "say in his heart, 'My Lord delayeth.' His way and time of providing Vol. 7 are too slow to suit me, I must hurry it along. I will take it out of His hands and take it into my hands!" His hurrying Bros. Woodworth and Fisher, wiring them to hurry one another up, was another way of saying, "My Lord delayeth." This hurrying of these Brothers is one reason why Vol. 7 is so full of mistakes, the most being easily avoidable!

Another case to the point. After J. F. Rutherford was well assured that he would be elected President of the Society, he drew up his by-laws to secure for himself executive and managerial power in the Society, somewhat as our Pastor had it, who, however, had it, as well as controllership, by right, because his pen products were of more value to the Society than all possible donations could give voting shares to all others. The Lord through His Word and that Servant's Will warned against any one seeking headship in the Church. If any one were to have the chief place and power, he should wait until the Lord through His Spirit, Word and providence would manifest this. J. F. Rutherford did not wait on the Lord in this respect; for the Lord's way of promotion to, and of reward with, such power comes only after long and proven faithful service in the use of lesser powers, e.g., with associates on an Executive Committee. To desire and plan for such promotion and reward before the Lord's time and way of giving it, is to say in one's heart, "'My Lord delayeth'; He does not hurry things along quickly enough to suit me and my ambitions. Therefore I will run ahead of Him, and will grasp for such power for myself, and with it will lord it over others; for 'My Lord delayeth.'"

He acted in the same way at the Shareholders' meeting, January 6, 1917, when he arranged through Bro. Ritchie to appoint the Resolutions Committee; through Bro. Van Amburgh to give the Resolutions Committee his by-laws, with the suggestion that they recommend them to the Shareholders; and through himself coercively requiring of the Committee, against their own judgment, to report them unamended. The Lord's Spirit, Word and providence

Appendix.

665

forbade this course. By his desiring to have his own way in the affair, and by his being restive at the delay that the Lord was making in the matter, he was saying in his heart, "'My Lord delayeth.' I will take the thing into my hands and will by force hurry it through."

This saying in his heart, "My Lord delayeth," is manifest in his grasping for controllership, after the Board gave him executive and managerial power. Our Lord Jesus by the principles of His Word, Spirit and providence forbade such a course. If He were ever to give such powers to J. F. Rutherford, it would be after the latter by long and faithful service in exercising the minor managerial and executive powers had proven worthy of having the greater controllership powers. But such Divinely arranged waiting did not work fast enough for "that evil servant"; for to him, very desirous of lordship, the Lord would by His course be delaying matters. Therefore his grasping for more power and for lording it over the Board and the entire Church said, "'My Lord delayeth' giving me the power that I lust for."

This same form of conduct marked his course in the British affair. Instead of waiting, as the Lord's Word, Spirit and providence directed, to hear details on the specific troubles that led up to the dismissal of the two British Managers (for while we wrote the Executive Committee details of their past shortcomings, dictating our last communication thereon January 20 and 21, 1917, at S. Shields, England, we cabled him the fact of the dismissals the day of their occurrence, February 3, 1917, asking him to await details, which would follow), without hearing from us he cabled February 19, insisting on their reinstatement. February 22 he appointed his investigative Committee to investigate the acts of one who with "full powers in the business and affairs of the Society in every country to which he was sent" was the Board's, not his special representative, and therefore was not subject to him; February 26 he attempted to recall us without consulting the Board; and in busybodying in our affairs created a set of conditions that necessitated our returning to America to present the case to the Board. By these acts he proved that he said, "'My Lord delayeth' giving me my will in re British matters. I will take them out of His hands, and deal with them in a

The Day of Vengeance.

666

way to show my superiority over the Board and its special representative, and will even set aside the findings of my own Investigative Commission. 'My Lord delayeth!'"

In ousting four undoubtedly legal Directors, contrary to both Divine and human law, as well as to the Will and Charter, he again said, "My Lord delayeth." If he really believed the Board's majority were seeking to do that with which his unholy ambition moved him to charge them, he should either have called a special meeting of the Shareholders, or have waited until the annual meeting, and reported it to them, recommending the dismissal of the four Directors. Not doing this, which the Lord's Spirit, Word and providence indicated should be done, if they were doing what he claimed, but taking the law into his own hands and ousting them, he again said, "My Lord's way of settling this matter is too slow for me; I will hurry it along in my own way, for 'my Lord delayeth.'"

The same kind of conduct marked his thrusting the British and the Board's controversy upon the Church through his letter of July 19 to class secretaries, and through his Harvest Siftings, as it also marked his political campaign for reelection in 1917, his ousting with unauthorized proxies Bros. Hoskins and Hirsh from the People's Pulpit Association, his Big Drive, his printing and publishing Vol. 7 without the Board's knowledge and consent, and his attempt, while in prison, in defiance of the Government, and without letting the Executive Committee of the Society know of his plans, to have the 2,000,000 paper bound copies of Vol. 7 circulated by the Society friends on one certain Sunday, a thing that a secret-service man working in the printing plant, found out, and a thing that would have led to the imprisonment of many guileless brethren, had not Bro. Spill learned of it just in time to prevent its execution. In other particulars too numerous to mention, he showed the same spirit as said in his heart, "My Lord delayeth." How different was the course of "that faithful and wise Servant" in heeding the warning of Luke 12:45 not to "say in his heart, 'My Lord delayeth His coming'," from the course of "that evil Servant," who gave no heed to the admonition not to say in his heart, "My Lord delayeth," i.e., to do what I want done! The thoughts of the two texts, Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51, differing as

Appendix.

667

they do in the particulars just given is a second proof that they apply to two different persons.

A third difference between the two texts, Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51, is the following: Whereas the former warns "that Servant," as the Lord's steward over the domestics, not to smite his subordinates: "If … he shall begin to beat the menservants (who, therefore, were under "the Steward") and the maidens (who, therefore, were under "the Steward"); the latter passage warns "that evil servant" not to smite his equals: "If … he shall begin to smite his fellowservants [equals]." None of us as menservants or maidens were the equals of "that Servant" in office functions; for he was placed over us. But a number of the Lord's servants were J. F. Rutherford's equals in office functions toward the Church (the office of the President of a business corporation not being an office in the Church) and these he smote. This third difference between these two texts proves that they do not refer to the same person.

While our dear Pastor heeded the warning not to beat (mistreat with grievous charges) his subordinates, the menservants and maidens, whom for the general work the Lord put under his charge, "that evil servant" did not heed the Lord's warning to him to refrain from smiting with grievous charges his equals, his fellow servants. He even went further; for he misrepresented some of them more grossly than any other sifter ever misrepresented any of the Lord's servants. February 26, 1917, the date his "absolutely without authority" cable reached Bros. Hemery, Shearn and Crawford, was the date he began the smiting; and true enough he smote one of his equals, one of his fellow servants, in our person. He followed it with publicly smiting us before the British Church, the Board and the Bethel family at Brooklyn. In May, 1917, he repeatedly smote Bros. Ritchie and Sturgeon and ourself before the Bethel family. July 17, in connection with their ousting, he smote the four Directors and ourself before the Bethel family. And in Harvest Siftings, which he wrote under Satanic influence, he smote, before the entire Church, these five brothers who were his equals. He has since continued the same course of smiting, e.g., in his letter written before he was sent to Atlanta, and published in 1919 as a part of

The Day of Vengeance.

668

widely circulated Volunteer literature, he with gross misrepresentation so far as we, and, we believe, so far as the others are concerned, smote seven of the brethren before the American public as betraying him to the prosecution. He has surely fulfilled the part of the prophecy that tells of his smiting his fellow-servants. Thus the third difference between these two passages proves that they refer to two different persons, Luke 12:45, 46, referring to our Pastor, and Matt. 24:48-51 to J. F. Rutherford.

A fourth difference between the two texts under consideration is the following: If that Servant should even begin to eat and drink and be drunken, he would be cut off, "If he shall begin to eat," etc. (Luke 12:45); while such a swift punishment is not threatened against "that evil servant" at his beginning to eat and drink with the drunken. See Diaglott and Revised Versions, etc., on difference in the translation: "and shall eat and drink." Our pastor heeded the warning; J. F. Rutherford did not. He more than began, he has continued to be an errorist.

A fifth difference between the two texts is the following: "that Servant" was warned not "to eat and drink and be drunken"; while "that evil servant" is warned not to eat and drink with the drunken. What is the difference? The former was warned to guard himself very carefully that in his studies he hold to the past Truth and accept advancing Truth only, and not to let error enter his faith and teachings, causing him like a drunken man to reel to and fro in doctrine and practice; while the latter is warned not to become a companion of those who are drunk with error. The former heeded the warning; the latter did not. The main companions of the latter in this symbolic drunkenness are, first, C. J. Woodworth, in the Finished Mystery, which literally overflows with intoxicating drinks; second, W. E. Van Amburgh, F. H. Robison, J. Hemery, etc., as his associates on the Tower Editorial Staff; third, the Society's Pilgrims, and fourth, the partisan Society-adherents in general.

Under six heads we will enumerate some of J. F. Rutherford's errors which prove him to be eating and drinking with the drunken. First, we give some of his doctrinal errors: (1) No tentative justification; (2) consecration is made at the Gate of the Court; (3) the merit of Christ was deposited after He ascended to Heaven and not on

Appendix.

669

Calvary (Z '20, 183, par. 2; 184, par. 1; 185, par. 2; Luke 23:46); (4) Christ's death on the cross not necessary to satisfy Justice for the Jews (Gal. 3:13); (5) the Church becomes part of the High Priest only after glorification (Z '20, 185, par. 1, 2); (6) a Mediator in the Bible sense of the word reconciles those at variance with one another (Z '20, 186, par. 1) whereas that is a Priest's work between God and men; while a Mediator brings persons together in covenant, contract, relations with one another regardless of whether they were previously friendly with one another or not; (7) The Christ becomes Mediator only at the time that He seals the Covenant; whereas The Christ became Mediator as soon as He began to prepare the seal of the Covenant, i.e., sacrifice the antitypical bullock and goat; (8) the first-born of Egypt represent the clergy; whereas our Pastor rightly taught that they represent the second death class (Z '15, 68, pars. 6, 7); (9) "merit means value gained"; whereas it means value retained, so far as Christ's merit is concerned; (10) there can be no Youthful Worthies before the New Covenant is inaugurated, if then, etc., etc., etc. Of recent years he has been teaching error on practically everything connected with the high calling.

A second set of errors we might group under the head, typical and symbolical errors: (1) Antitypical Elijah becoming Antitypical Elisha, with all the perversions resulting therefrom; (2) hundreds of misinterpretations in Revelation, Ezekiel, etc.; (3) confusion worse confounded on Jeremiah as typing the Society adherents; (4) confusion on the Joseph type with its seven years of plenty and seven years of famine; (5) confusion on the final testimony, imprisonment and beheading of John the Baptist; (6) confusion on the Slaughter Weapons and their wielders; (7) confusion on the Parable of the Penny, especially on its hours, steward and penny; (8) confusion on the smiting of Jordan; (9) confusion on the antitypical Judas; (10) confusion on the end of the 70 Jubilee cycles, etc., etc., etc.

A third set of his errors may be grouped under the head of prophetical and chronological errors: (1) the end of the war in 1917; (2) the deliverance of the Church in 1918; (3) the close of the door to the High Calling in

The Day of Vengeance.

670

1918; (4) later, the door still open; (5) the deliverance of the Great Company in 1921; (6) the end of the Time of Trouble in 1924; (7) the return of the Ancient Worthies in 1925; (8) the beginning and ending of the 390 symbolic days of Ezek. 4:1-8; (9) the beginning and ending of the 40 symbolic days of Ezek. 4:1-8; (10) the deliverance of the Church and Great Company before 1925, etc., etc., etc.

A fourth set of his errors may be grouped under the term, exegetical errors, i.e., misinterpretations of multitudes of Scriptures, of which we submit a few examples: (1) the star of Bethlehem; (2) the point of the sword; (3) the refining fires of Zech. 13:9; (4) the bound-ones and prisoners of Isa. 61:1; (5) the Gospel of the Kingdom and the end of the Age of Matt. 24:14; (6) the time and character of the message of Isa. 52:7; (7) confounding the Slaughter Weapons of Ezek. 9, which are the sifting errors and practices of the six classes of sifters, with the sword of Elisha (1 Kings 19:17), which is the Society's message toward Nominal Spiritual Israel, whereby they will refute (slay) clericalists and their sectarian supporters (Baal worshipers and kissers) in the nominal Church. Such confusing of these two things can be seen from the fact that the Slaughter Weapons slay (infect with death-producing error) all without the ink mark; while antitypical Hazael's and Jehu's symbolic swords slay (refute) many whom antitypical Elisha's symbolic sword, which is not error, will not slay (refute), not Elisha alone, but all three slaying all the non-elect; but in a different sense from the slaying of Ezek. 9. Seldom indeed do he and his drunken co-partners attempt to interpret a prophetic and symbolic verse not hitherto understood without grossly misinterpreting it, as they often twist passages previously properly understood. For twenty years he has been increasing in symbolic drunkenness, so that now he holds very little of the high calling Truth, which once he saw clearly.

A fifth set of errors with which his writings and teachings abound are those that pertain to Society policies, the Will, Charter and arrangements that our Pastor left for the work, as well as legal and by-law errors, which he introduced among the brethren.

Appendix.

671

A sixth set of errors that he has been teaching consists of factual errors, i.e., falsehoods and misrepresentations. In Harvest Siftings he published about 225 of these against us, and about 100 against the Board's majority. While some of the factual errors of Harvest Siftings were written by others, over two-thirds of them were written by himself. So unreliable is he on matters of fact that he can be depended upon to twist matters to make them suit his purposes.

We know of two instances in which he has perjured himself: (1) when, July 12, 1917, he made affidavit to the effect that there were four vacancies on the Board, when there were none; (2) when, he, October 3, 1917, told the Brooklyn Tabernacle Congregation at its annual nomination business meeting that God was his witness that he "Would not turn his hand over to 'put it over' on any one, much less an Ecclesia," as he had then been accused of seeking to do. But before that business meeting was over he was publicly proven by Bro. Sturgeon to have done the following things to prevent the defeat of himself and Bros. Van Amburgh, MacMillan, Martin and Hudgings, etc., for re-election to Eldership in that Ecclesia; and to prevent the nomination of the four ousted Directors for Eldership: (1) he told the congregation the falsehood that our Pastor taught that the Society's Pilgrims without any election were Elders in our Ecclesias; therefore it was not necessary that the Pilgrims, especially those at the Brooklyn Bethel, be voted on as Elders in the Brooklyn Ecclesia, they being such already, because they were Pilgrims; (2) he encouraged Bro. David Cohen, who, he knew, was denying the Church's share in the Sin-offering and our Pastor's office as "that Servant," to introduce a resolution that was intended to debar the four ousted Directors from being nominated for Elders; (3) he had another of his partisans present a list of nominees for Elders and deacons, from which list there were omitted the names of the Bethel Pilgrims, a previously unheard-of thing, who, however, according to the plot, were to be Elders without an election; from which list there were omitted the names of the four ousted Directors, who not being then Society Pilgrims, could not "be Elders without an election," and on which list the name of the partisan who presented J. F.

The Day of Vengeance.

672

Rutherford's list of nominees was read off by himself as a nominee! The scheme was so transparent that it was completely defeated that night. As its main plotter, J. F. Rutherford, in carrying out one of his parts of the plot, perjured himself! At a meeting, held a week later, the minority that was against him, Brothers Van Amburgh, MacMillan, Martin, Hudgings, as Elders, etc., being so large as would defeat their election on a 75 per cent. basis, as soon as J. F. Rutherford, from a test vote, announced the proportion of votes for and against him and his fellow-conspirators, another of his partisans, seeing that they could not be elected, moved that the election be postponed until after the Society Election of January 5, 1918! Having a majority, though not a 75 per cent. majority on his side, the postponing of the election was carried through; and thus his "face was saved." The "opposition" left the Church before the election in January, 1918, and thus he got in as Elder. He was proven to have been the main conspirator in the three features of the plot above outlined; and while in the act of seeking to carry it out, unblushingly called upon God to bear witness with him that he "would not turn over his hand 'to put it over' on anybody, much less on an Ecclesia"! On matters of fact the Tower is often so full of twists that with sorrow we must confess that we consider it now to be unreliable. Surely in the details of the six lines of thought above presented he is shown to be both drunk himself and to be a companion of drunkards.

CUT OFF FROM THE HIGH CALLING.

V. 50 tells us that he would be cut off (from the Little Flock) without expecting or knowing it. V. 49 says it would be done when he would begin to smite his fellow servants, his equals, a thing that occurred February 26, 1917, when his "absolutely without authority" cable reached London. Two books of the Bible that give typically a detailed account of his doings from November 3, 1916, to August 8, 1917, show February 26 to be the date, when for and amid gross busybodying in our British work he began to be manifested as cut off from the Lord's special favor, i.e., cut off from the Little Flock. These books in due time we will, D. v., expound to the Church. We had

Appendix.

673

them in mind when we told him June 23, 1917, that we knew him like a book, that we knew not only his main past deeds, but also many of his future deeds, because certain books of the Bible typically described them. We declined to tell him what they were, when asked so to do.

A sixth difference between Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51, is found in the punishment threatened to each one in case of failure to heed the warning. "That Servant" was warned that, if unfaithful, he would be given a portion with unbelievers, literally "with the unfaithful," i.e., he would as an unfaithful steward be deposed from his office; for dismissal is the usual experience, portion, of unfaithful stewards; while "that evil servant" was warned that he would be given the portion of hypocrites. A hypocrite is a deceitful, dishonest person who talks, especially in religious matters, as though he were good, while in thought and motive, and frequently in word and conduct he acts insincerely. J. F. Rutherford's course is the most hypocritical one of which we have ever heard or read. And he has been receiving and will continue to receive the portion of hypocrites, i.e., ever increasing exposures of his hypocrisy, with the ever increasing abhorrence and distrust of good people which come with such exposures, as they come to recognize his gross and unexampled hypocrisy, until finally the exposures will become so complete as to destroy utterly their respect for, and confidence in him. Then abhorred and forsaken by all honest and good people, he will be drinking the portion of the hypocrites to the utmost.

The seventh difference between Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51 is the following: Matt. 24:51 gives a prophecy that is not even conditionally given in Luke 12:45, 46, with reference to "that Servant," i.e., "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." This expression is not a part of the warning, it is a prophecy of a fact; hence could not be given in Luke 12:45, 46, since "that Servant," the Lord knew, would heed the warnings given; but it is given to Matt. 24:48-51, because God thereby prophesied the fact that would occur in the experience of "that evil servant." He surely has suffered much chagrin and disappointment as the prophesied weeping and gnashing of teeth; but worse chagrin and disappointment are

The Day of Vengeance.

674

yet in store for him. We are sorry for him; but are unable to help him. Faithfully and lovingly did we seek to change his evil course, but we failed; and we failed because he is "that evil servant."

The seven differences that we find in the two texts under the examination above given prove conclusively that Luke 12:45, 46, and Matt. 24:48-51 do not refer to the same person. Rather that the former is a warning to, but not a prophecy of, our dear Pastor, and that the latter is both a warning to, and a prophecy of, J. F. Rutherford. The evidence that the latter is "that evil servant" is at least as strong as the evidence that the former was "that faithful and wise Servant." The reason why our Pastor, though warned against taking an evil course, is so highly commended by God is that throughout his course he was both "faithful and wise"; and the reason why J. F. Rutherford is so greatly condemned by the Lord is that he is "that evil servant," who says in his heart, "My Lord delayeth"; who smites his fellow-servants, and who eats and drinks with his drunken companions in evil.

‍