Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed

"Every man’s work shall be made manifest; for the DAY shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is." -1Co 3:13.

August 22, 1918 PHILADELPHIA, PA 1222 Moris St.

TO ASSOCIATED BIBLE STUDENTS

MY BELOVED BRETHREN: —Grace and Peace! A year and a half ago the wrong-doings of certain leading British brethren, who refused to desist from their course at private exhortation, and who, in hopes of crushing me, published misrepresentations abroad, forced me to appear before the British Church as the exposer of their evil course. Within a year the wrong-doings of the Society’s leaders, who also refused to desist from their course at private exhortation, and who, in hopes of crushing me, also published misrepresentations abroad, forced me to appear before the whole Church as the exposer of their evil ways. And now, for the third time, I am forced to appear before the Church as the exposer of the wrong-doings of certain leaders among us who have refused to desist from wrong ways at private exhortation, and who in part, to crush me, published misrepresentations against me at the Asbury Park Convention after having, for some time past, carried on a "political" campaign of "whispering" against me, the fruit of which campaign it was designed to reap at the Convention in the ousting of three brothers (Brothers Hirsh and Jolly, who stood with me, and myself) from the Pastoral Bible Institute Committee, etc.

Doubtless the hearts of many of you were deeply grieved at the attacks made upon me by Brothers Rockwell and Hoskins, the former in his sermon, the latter as Secretary-Treasurer, officially reporting without the Committee’s authorization, the majority of whom repudiated his utterances in his address to the Elders and Deacons, and in his address before the whole Convention, Saturday, July 27, 1918, and then again the next day. Their general charges and spirit were so much like those of Brother Rutherford that for the most part those of you who witnessed these, and heard my answer, were by Monday convinced that I was being harvest- siftinged and unbetheled anew. Therefore, I consider this third attempt to crush me the same in spirit as the other two, and therefore call it "Another Harvest Siftings."

Therefore, this paper, which is a brief review of this third movement, is called "Another Harvest Siftings Reviewed."

In brief, my loyalty to "that Servant’s" ideals, arrangements, charter and will, and to the interests of the Church against the efforts of certain leaders to put some of them aside, has made me the target of this, a third widespread attack.

Earnestly and long, but, of course, not perfectly, have I, by kindness, long-suffering and reasoning, sought to hold these brothers back from their course; but seemingly it was all in vain! The responsibility of foisting this trouble on the Church is wholly theirs. As by the British and American "Society" leaders, the troubles were set afloat by a campaign of "whispering," and then by public attacks before large numbers of brethren, myself keeping silent all the time, and trying to persuade them to keep matters secret; so has it been in this trouble, which was rudely thrust upon the recent Convention according to well-thought-out preparations, despite the promises of the one mainly responsible for the publicity to keep the trouble from the Convention.

EARLY GENERAL CONVENTION NECESSARY

Had the evil been limited to the Convention, I would, so far as exposures are concerned, rest content with what I answered there; but alas! the matters have been spread broadcast, and the wrongs and evil effects connected with them are so great, that duty to God and the Church forces me to place before the Church a brief summary of the wrongs that have been committed. If conditions would permit, gladly would I bury the evils out of sight; for they are not told with pleasure, but with profound grief that such things could he privately and publicly committed among us. They are told in the hope that their recital will arouse in the Church the spirit of repentance; for the evil qualities out of which these wrongs have flown are, alas! not limited to the Committee members more or less involved. These qualities (of which the following are examples: grasping for power, lording it over God’s heritage, the spirit of fear and compromising, assassinatory slander, contentiousness, partisanship, arbitrariness, legality and worldliness seeking to corrupt the Church’s organization) are quite widespread among us, and the Lord calls upon us to set them aside.

My motive in reciting these things, believe me, my Beloved Brethren, is not to chastise anyone, but to arouse the Church to a sense of danger from Santanic working on our weaknesses to our spiritual injury, to earnest, humble prayer and heart- searchings as preparatory to assemblying in solemn Convention to investigate these things, and to devise ways and means of helping all concerned to put these evils aside. Abundant are the evidences of God’s displeasure upon us for these wrongs. Abundant are the 1b.evidences of His withholding blessings from us for the same wrongs. In God’s name, therefore, let us assemble ourselves in Convention that unitedly we may learn to understand the spiritual diseases that are working havoc in our midst, and the treatment and remedy for their cure. If, in His spirit, we make the effort, He will surely bless us therein.

What the situation requires is much humility, candor, honesty, love, and a clear view of the nature of the evils and means of putting them aside, combined with persistent determination, by God’s grace, faithfully to use His spirit, Word and Providence to make the diagnosis, prescribe the remedies and accept the treatment.

Since the Convention some of you have, with distress, learned what took place there. You have learned that there were, to put it mildly, questionable acts committed. You have heard that the old Committee appointed by the Fort Pitt Convention was dissolved; because a group of four of its members wanted to get rid of the other three, who blocked their unscriptural, papistical and revolutionary course in certain particulars. You have learned that this was accomplished by questionable acts and methods; you have learned that the supporters of the Group, as well as some of the Group, used methods like those that Brother Rutherford used before and at the shareholders’ meeting last January.

You have learned that these same methods prospered unto the undoing of the old Committee, and unto the electing of a Committee consisting of about six members slated for the Committee by the Group. You have learned that some exposures were made Sunday, July 28; and as a result, the Convention, refusing longer to be bossed and driven by the Group and some of their partisans, and, becoming apprehensive that all was not gold that was given a glitter, not only refused to be clotured and stampeded into forming a new society and into adopting a program for what would be another spurious first smiting of Jordan; but also withdrew from the new Committee powers that the old one had, i. e., the power to publish a periodical and to have an Editorial Committee. Thus, those who came to the Convention seemingly to discredit others, left the Convention with their own credit far from being enhanced, and besides shorn of much of their power. Alas! that against these foretold results they refused to take kindly forewarning, which would have been heeded, if they had exercised the necessary meekness.

By the Group are meant the following persons: Brothers Hoskins, Margeson, Magee and Wright, the first of whom committed in his attacks the added wrong of disparagingly mentioning names, i. e., of Brothers Hirsh, Jolly and myself, though Brother Rockwell started the attack with an attempt at assassination of me. Both in justice and charity I am glad to say of Brother Magee that he, both to others and to me, expressed strong disapproval of the attacks of Brothers Hoskins and Rockwell. I will not, I cannot, believe of Brother Wright that he approves of their course.

While not presuming to judge the hearts, in justice to all concerned, I ought to state on whom it seems to me the varying degrees of external responsibility rest. From my knowledge of the facts, the most guilty of the Group seems to be Brother Hoskins, with Brother Margeson as a close second. These two seem to have done the main part of the planning, whose climax and purpose were reached in the Convention 2a business meetings, July 27. It is but fair to say of Brother Magee that he is too honest a man, and too noble a Christian, knowingly to have entered into the plots of the other two brothers. It seems to me that he has been measurably deceived into a course favorable to the plans of the other two, and has been skilfully used as a tool in the furtherance of their plans under the influence of some false impressions, which he honestly believed to be true. I do not believe that Brother Wright entered into the plotting at all. But, unfortunately, like Brother Magee, he generally supported the policies of the two on the vital questions of principle that divided the Committee. Of these four brothers, I use the word Group, not disparagingly, but to have a brief term to designate them in their working together.

After he came on the scene, Brother Rockwell seems to be almost on a par in the plotting and wrongdoing with Brothers Hoskins and Margeson. Brothers Hoskins, Margeson and Rockwell, in not a few particulars, closely resemble Brothers Rutherford, Van Amburgh and MacMillan respectively, in the roles they played. The cunning and brutality of Brother Rockwell’s attack on me, on the Convention platform at Asbury Park, lasting over a half hour, and made Saturday morning in his sermon on "The Sevenfold Mission of the Church," with Isaiah 61:1, 2, as text, were in spirit and in main accusations, i. e., in charging "insanity," selfish ambition for leadership, etc., a reproduction of Brother Rutherford’s "Harvest Siftings." This attack was a part of a deliberate plan to drive me out of the Pastoral Bible Institute Committee, and to destroy my influence among the brethren.

These brothers and some of their supporters, by their words and acts, for quite a while before the Convention, gave Brothers Hirsh, Jolly and myself enough clues of their plans to enable us to understand their main purposes in having called a Convention, though not before the Convention was voted for. The three main purposes of their arranging for the business features of the Convention were, first, to get rid of Brothers Hirsh, JoIly and myself; second, to stampede the Convention into endorsing their policies of forming a Society with a Charter different from that of "that Servant" and of organizing the Church for what would be another spurious first smiting of Jordan; and third, to obtain from the Convention for their Committee all the Powers of the Society’s Board of Directors; whereas the old Committee was limited in its sphere of activity, according to the instructions of the Fort Pitt Convention, to those features of work that the friends in general, by their responses to the Committee’s letter, stated to be their understanding of the Lord’s will as to the kinds of general service necessary for the Church, i. e., Pilgrim service, which, of course, includes conventions and a periodical..Deeply do I deplore the necessity of using names. I will not plead in my defense for mentioning names the fact that some of the Group and some of their supporters did this first, both before and during the Convention. All will bear me record that I did not speak of the facts and names until after they had told their interpretation of facts and mentioned names publicly at the Convention. The names, thus being made widely public through the course of these brethren themselves, to use their names here will now do them no wrong. Then again, not to use names would work injustice, especially to Brothers Magee and Wright, as that would in the setting given to matters below impliedly set forth that they are as guilty as some others, whereas they are not.

Then, again, the matter cannot be presented with the necessary clearness without giving names; still further, the right of publishing this paper, whose object is the calling of a diagnosal and remedial Convention, which all sober minds, after reading this paper, will recognize as a crying need, cannot reasonably be demonstrated without mentioning names. All will recall that under similar conditions last year, the brothers who constitute the Group strongly advocated the calling of an investigative and curative shareholders’ meeting. Therefore, they cannot consistently object to such a Convention under similar conditions now; nor were they blamable for using names and stating the acts of the Society’s wrongdoers under like circumstances last summer. In fact, the use of names and the mention of evil deeds of those who wrong the entire Church is a duty, and is not to be confused with evil speaking.

See "Manna" comments for July 14.

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY -RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

In obedience to the decision of the majority of the old Committee, and also in obedience to the majority of the Convention Committee, that sample copies of "The Bible Standard" be distributed Friday night, July 26, at the Convention, Brother Hirsh announced to the conventioners the fact that he had the long-desired first issue of the paper for them. He then left it to a vote as to whether they desired it then. After an almost unanimous affirmative vote of the Convention, he invited them forward to receive the paper. This course greatly angered Brothers Hoskins and Margeson, whose rage almost caused them to make a counter-announcement, for they had for a long time been delaying the publication, partly for reasons known to themselves. Then, in the little back room, they fell upon me, upbraiding me for my part in the matter. Among other uncomplimentary remarks, by which they characterized the course of the majority of both Committees in this matter, Brother Hoskins used, several times with heated emphasis, the expression. "This is Rutherfordism." Quickly seeing the similarity, but in another sense than he meant, I replied to the following effect: "Yes, Brother Hoskins, it is Rutherfordism, just as two Board members, Brothers Rutherford and Van Amburgh, and one not on the Board, Brother MacMillan, sought to set aside the voted decision of the Board’s majority, so you and Brother Margeson, two members of the Committee, with the assistance of one not on the Committee, Brother Rockwell, 2b are now doing. It is Rutherfordism, indeed." In fact, it was Rutherfordism repeating itself; but, strange to say, this time it is among ourselves.

The comparison was so complete and apparent that Brother Hoskins did not answer me. Since that night, with his statement, "This is Rutherfordism," in my mind, I have made a careful study of the history of our Committee since its appointment on January 6, 1918, comparing it with the history of Rutherfordism in the Society. As a result of my study I have gathered together, under twelve divisions, or heads, one hundred and fifty particulars (to which I could add more, if necessary), wherein Rutherfordism in the Society finds its counterpart in Rutherfordism in the Committee. In this comparison Brother Rutherford, or his representatives, correspond to the Group, or their representatives. It is sad to contemplate these points of comparison; because they prove that some of those who protested against Brother Rutherford’s wrongdoings have, in spite of having his example before their eyes as a warning, and in spite of their protest against it, imitated it so closely, as these twelve divisions and one hundred and fifty particulars indicate.

Could these brothers have fallen into the same evils as Brother Rutherford while living close to the Lord? Do not their knowledge of and protest against his wrongdoings increase their own guilt? He at least did not have a similar example as a warning before his eyes. How are the mighty fallen! Let the daughter of Zion weep for the iniquity of the children of her people! In these correspondencies, not the number of persons involved, but the nature and quality of the acts are the points of comparison. Arranged in parallel columns these twelve divisions, placed as heads over the one hundred and fifty particulars, are presented to the brethren for consideration, as follows:.

THE DEADLY PARALLEL

[After Reading Number 1 in the First Column Then Read Number 1 in the Second Column, Etc.]

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY I.

Brother Rutherford persisted in taking up and acting on subjects outside of the sphere of an executive and manager in the Society’s affairs to the disruption of the Board of Directors.

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE I.

The group persisted in taking up and acting on subjects outside of the sphere of activity prescribed by the Fort Pitt Convention, even to the disruption of the old Pastoral Bible Institute Committee.

(1) Brother Rutherford persisted in discussing the suppression of certain interpretations of the Lord’s Word, e. g., "that Servant’s" interpretation of the Parable of the Penny.

3a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(2) He sought to combine in various acts the board of the Society and the Board of the People’s Pulpit Association.

(3) Brother Rutherford planned securing legal action to drivethe Board’s majority and Brother Johnson from Bethel.

(4) Brother Rutherford advocated a spurious first smiting of Jordan as an indispensable thing in the first book-publication of the Society, as the chief part of its program of work.

(5) For months Brother Rutherford insisted on dissolving the Society, i. e., making a one-man affair of the Society, despite the fact that "that Servant’s" writings, will and charter made what, during his life, was a Society in name only, a Society in fact, at his death.

(6) These acts side-tracked the consideration and accomplishment of some of the work that Brother Rutherford was authorized to do.

(7) The obtrusion of these matters divided the Board into two parts.

II. False and wrong motives were charged, especially against Brother Johnson, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of aspiring to control the work and the Board, whereas, he pushed Brother Rutherford ahead and advised against himself being made a Board member and President.

(2) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of being led by the spirit of ruling or ruining.

(3) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of trying to delay the work of the Society.

(1) The Group persisted in discussing the suppression of certain interpretations of the Lord’s Word, e. g., "The Evil Servant," Elijah and Elisha, etc.

3a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(2) Brothers Hoskins and Rockwell, immediately after the conviction of the Society leaders, introduced, for the Committee’s favorable action, a plan to make overtures to effect a reunion with the Society.

(3) These two brothers planned securing legal action (through a firm of New York corporation lawyers) to recover control of the Society after the conviction of the Society’s leaders.

(4) Some of the Group and some of their supporters advocated, as an indispensable thing that our first periodical number set forth what would be a spurious first smiting of Jordan as a chief part of the Committee’s future work.

(5) For months these four brothers insisted on forming a Society, i. e., dissolving the Committee, despite the fact that the Fort Pitt Convention voted down a motion to form a Society.

(6) These acts side-tracked the consideration and accomplishment of some of the work that the Committee was authorized to do.

(7) The obtrusion of these matters divided the Committee into two parts.

II. False and wrong motives were charged, especially against Brother Johnson, to the disruption of the old committee.

(1) Brother Johnson was accused falsely of aspiring to control the work and the Committee, whereas, he pushed others to the front and advised against his being elected an officer.

(2) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of being led by the spirit of ruling or ruining.

(3) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of trying to delay the work of the Committee, e. g., the publication of "The Bible Standard"; whereas, he pushed it at least as much as any other member of the Committee..

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(4) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of being in a clique with certain members of the Board (whereas, the accuser was thus guilty) to disrupt the work of the Society.

(5) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of seeking to divide the Church by the one who later did divide it.

(6) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of seeking a following by the one who won a following.

3b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY III.

Brother Rutherford attempted to suppress the presentation of any Biblical thoughts to the Church, unless he favored them.

(1) Brother Rutherford did this among the Pilgrims by a resolution of his own to suppress what was new, apart from Volume VII and what he favored, on pain of their being out of harmony.

(2) This Brother Rutherford did among the Elders by requiring them to submit to the seventh volume and Society policies’ tests.

IV. Brother Rutherford insisted on setting up false Standards of teaching authorization to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) Brother Rutherford advocated that nothing be taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings except what the Churches (frightened into believing by his propaganda) had first approved, thus making the Church, not the Lord, at the mouth of the teachers "set in the body," the arbiter of what was meat in due season.

(2) Brother Rutherford advocated and decided that nothing be taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings except what he sanctioned.

(3)brother Rutherford advocated that nothing be anywhere taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings, except what the Editorial Committee first approved.

(4) Brother Rutherford advocated that nothing be taught that might occasion disagreement among Truth people, despite the fact that he admitted that we were in a sifting, which, of course, means that God wants, by disagreements, to separate the classes, i. e., Little Flock, Great Company, etc.

(5) Brother Rutherford attempted to boycott in Pilgrim work those Board members and others who stood for Biblical principles in these matters.

RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(4) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of being in a clique with Brothers Hirsh and Jolly (whereas the accuser, with the Group, was thus guilty), to disrupt the work of the Committee.

(5) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of seeking to divide the Church by those who are now dividing it.

(6) Brother Johnson was falsely accused of seeking a following by such as seem to be seeking that very thing.

3b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE III.

Led by Brother Hoskins, the group attempted to suppress the presentation of Biblical thoughts to the Church, unless they favored them.

(1) This was done by a resolution of the Committee forbidding Committee members to teach anything new, particularly on types, symbols and prophecy, not set forth in "that Servant’s" writings, unless agreed to by the Committee, on pain of their being out of harmony with the Committee.

(2) In harmony with this resolution, Brother Hoskins largely created such a sentiment among a number of the Elders of one of our largest Churches as led to the presentation of two resolutions in Elders’ meetings, and also one in the Church, calculated to prevent the presentation of uncensored new thoughts to that Church, which very wisely rejected the resolution.

IV. The Group insisted on setting up false standards of teaching authorization to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) The Group advocated that nothing be taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings except what the Churches had first approved, thus making the Church, not the Lord, at the mouth of the teachers "set in the body," the arbiter of what was meat in due season.

(2) The Group advocated and decided that nothing be taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings except what the Committee sanctioned.

(3) Several of the Group allocated that nothing be anywhere taught additional to "that Servant’s" writings, except what the Editorial Committee first approved.

(4) The Group advocated that nothing be taught that might occasion disagreement among Truth people, despite the fact that they admitted that we are in a sifting, which, of course, means that God wants, by disagreements, to separate classes.

(5) Several of the Group attempted to boycott in Pilgrim work those Committee members and others who stood for Biblical principles in these matters..

4a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(6) Reliable information proves that by July 29, 1917, Brother Rutherford had discussed boycotting in Pilgrim work Members of the Old Board and others.

(7) Later information proved that he did boycott in Pilgrim work members of the Old Board and others.

V. Brother Rutherford greatly exceeded his authority in grasping for power, largely treating the Society’s work as though it were his private business, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) Brother Rutherford signed his own name instead of that of the Society to the Society’s correspondence with which he was charged.

(2) Unauthorized by and unknown to the Board, Brother Rutherford made contracts, in some cases using donated private funds, of whose existence he said nothing to the Board, to meet the expenses.

(3) Brother Rutherford accepted some donations which he kept as a private fund, apart from the Society’s funds, to meet expenses, unauthorized by the Board; all this being unknown to the Board as such, until about July 26, 1917, when some of them, by a seeming accident, found it out.

(4) Apart from one time, Brother Rutherford gave, and recquired to be given, no exact report of receipts, expenses and balance on hand; and when asked at various times to give or furnish information on these matters, he gave the Board no exact information.

(5) Long after the Board had asked for such an accounting Brother Rutherford continued to keep some of the Society’s money deposited in his own name.

(6) Brother Rutherford insisted on signing some contracts in his own name.

(7) Without authorization of the Board Brother Rutherford paid for work which he was not authorized to have done.

(8) Brother Rutherford assumed authority to deal with Class matters not given him as his duty.

4a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(6) Reliable to information proves that by July 29, 1918, some, if not all, of the Group discussed boycotting in Pilgrim work two of the ousted Committee members.

(7) Later information proves that they have boycotted in Pilgrim work some members of the old Committee.

V. Brother Hoskins greatly exceeded his authority in grasping for power, largely treating the committee’s work as though it were his private business, to the disruption of the old committee.

(1) Brother Hoskins signed his own name, instead of that of the Committee, to the Committee’s correspondence with which he was charged.

(2) Unauthorized by, and not reporting it to, the Committee, Brother Hoskins rented, and in part furnished, a room for office purposes, seemingly using a private fund, of whose existence he said nothing to the Committee, to meet expenses.

(3) Brother Hoskins accepted some donations, as treasurer, which he kept as a private fund, apart from the Committee’s funds, to meet expenses unauthorized by the Committee; all this being unknown to the Committee as such, some of whom first found it out July 26, 1918, by a seeming accident.

(4) Apart from one time, Brother Hoskins has given the Committee no exact report on receipts, expenses and balance on hand; and when asked at various Committee meetings on these matters, gave the Committee no exact information. (While claiming to make a report to the Convention as Secretary-Treasurer, unauthorized to do so by the Committee, he told the Convention that he did not have the figures with him, and therefore could not give more than an approximate report of the finances on hand, nor did he say anything of the amounts received and expended.) (5) Months after the Committee instructed Brother Hoskins to transfer its funds in the bank to its name, he continued to keep the Committee’s money in his own name in the bank.

(6) Brother Hoskins insisted on having the Committee’s telephone taken out in his own name.

(7) Without authorization of the Committee Brother Hoskins paid for work which he was not authorized to have done.

(8) Brother Hoskins assumed authority to deal with matters in a Class not given him as his duty..

4b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(9) In pursuance of such unauthorized acts Brother Rutherford set Board members in an unfavorable light and caused injury to nearly all concerned.

(10) Brother Rutherford withheld from the Board important communications addressed to the Board.

(11) Against repeated remonstrances Brother Rutherford continued to control Pilgrim appointments without consulting the Board; and sought to prevent other than his Pilgrims from addressing Classes.

(12) Brother Rutherford appointed many persons to the Pilgrim office without authorization of the Board.

(13) Brother Rutherford advocated and did things calculated to injure prominent brethren with the Church, including public attacks on them, mentioning their names.

(14) In many instances he interfered in the private affairs of the Churches.

(15) Brother Rutherford seems to have used his office to make for himself a place in the Church.

(16) Brother Rutherford became the chief opponent of the brother who most favored him.

(17) Brother Rutherford publicly disparaged the presentations of Pilgrims with whom he did not agree.

(18) Brother Rutherford even publicly mentioned their names as the holders of opinions from which he dissented.

(19) Brother Rutherford continued to speak against them after being warned against the injustice.

(20) Brother Rutherford indulged in sarcasm at the expense of one of these.

(21) He winked knowingly to his sympathizers and sneered in disparagement of others.

(22) Brother Rutherford wrongly told of his disagreement with the Board and Brother Johnson to others.

(23) At first for months in his public utterances, without mentioning names, Brother Rutherford said things calculated to undermine various brethren.

4b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(9) Through the preceding act, through a letter which he wrote, and which was read in a Class meeting, Brother Hoskins set one of the Committee members in an unfavorable light to the injury of nearly all concerned.

(10) Brother Hoskins withheld from the Committee a communication (and information respecting it until it was eked out of him) addressed to it by one of our largest Churches inviting the Commtttee to establish its headquarters in the city of that Church.

(11) Against repeated remonstrances Brother Hoskins continued alone for two months to make Pilgrim appointments without consulting the brother who jointly with him was charged with the duty of making these appointments; and he sought to prevent at least one Church from having Pilgrim service unless he made the appointments.

(12) Brother Hoskins appointed persons to act as Pilgrims Without authorization of the Committee.

(13) Brother Hoskins advocated and did things calculated to injure prominent brethren with the Church, including public attacks on them, mentioning their names.

(14) In more than one case he interfered in the private affairs of one of our Churches.

(15) Brother Hoskins seems to have used his office to make for himself a place in the Church.

(16) Brother Hoskins became the chief opponent of the brother who most favored him.

(17) Brother Hoskins publicly disparaged the presentations of Pilgrims with whom he disagreed.

(18) Brother Hoskins even publicly mentioned their names, as the holders of opinions from which he dissented.

(19) Brother Hoskins continued to speak against them after being warned against the injustice.

(20) Brother Hoskins in one instance at least indulged in sarcasm at the expense of one of these.

(21) He winked knowingly to his sympathizers and sneered in disparagement of one of them.

(22) Brother Hoskins wrongly told of his disagreement with Brothers Hirsh, Jolly and Johnson to others.

(23) At first for months, in his public utterances without mentioning names, Brother Hoskins said things calculated to undermine various brethren..

5a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(24) These underhanded attacks also came out in "The Tower."

(25) Brother Rutherford tried to force through the Board cut-and- dried programs.

(26) Brother Rutherford doctored the minutes to suit himself, e. g., those of the People’s Pulpit Association, so as to make them sanction the holding of an annual meeting adjourned from early in January, 1917, to July 27, 1917, the date on which he sought to expel Brothers Hirsh and Hoskins from the Association and its Board.

(27) Brother Rutherford unnecessarily used from the Society’s contributions extravagant amounts of money to put up himself and some of his fellow conspirators at high-priced hotels.

VI. Brother Rutherford sought to lord it over God’s heritage, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) Brother Rutherford sought to withhold from the Church the discussion of timely Scriptural subjects.

(2) Brother Rutherford sought to withhold a properly authorized and revised Volume VII from the Church by disregarding the rights of the Board to control and of the Editors to revise, and by disregarding the needs of the Church.

(3) Brother Rutherford claimed and sought to obtain for himself practically all the power of the Society’s Board to control in the general work, which means that he could introduce any feature of work that he desired.

(4) Brother Rutherford claimed and sought to obtain for the Editorial Committee, which he dominated, more power in the teaching office than "that Servant" received from the Lord, or ever used; i. e., power to exclude from the Church any teaching not sanctioned by "The Tower" Editorial Committee.

(5) By forbidding the teaching of things unsanctioned by the Editorial Committee (dominated by himself), Brother Rutherford arrogated to himself more power than "that Servant" received from the Lord, or ever used.

(6) Brother Rutherford attempted to withhold, and succeeded in withholding, the service of faithful Pilgrims from the Church, as far as he was able.

5a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(24) These underhanded attacks also came out in "The Bible Standard."

(25) Brother Hoskins tried to force through the Committee cut-and-dried programs.

(26) Brother Hoskins doctored the Committee minutes so as to make motions favor things that he wanted, contrary to the majority’s intentions in passing them, which procedure the Committee had repeatedly to correct.

(27) During the Convention Brother Hoskins unnecessarily used from the Committee’s contributions extravagant amounts of money to put up himself, Brother Rockwell and others of his supporters at a hotel where for each of them he had to pay $6 a day.

VI. A number of the Committee, usually the Group, sought to lord it over God’s heritage, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) The Group sought to withhold from the Church the discussion of timely Scriptural subjects. (It is but fair to state that later Brothers McGee and Margeson voted to rescind the objectionable resolution.) (2) Brothers Hoskins, Margeson and Rockwell sought to withhold the properly authorized and revised "Bible Standard" from being published by disregarding the rights of the Committee’s majority to control in the matter, and disregarding the needs of the Church.

(3) They claimed and sought to obtain for the Committee (which would usually mean the Group) all the power of the Society’s Board to control the general work, which means that they could introduce any feature of the work that they desired.

(4) They claimed and sought to obtain for the Editorial Committee more power in the teaching office than "that Servant" received from the Lord, or ever used; i. e., the power to exclude from the Church any teaching not sanctioned by "The Bible Standard" Editorial Committee.

(5) By forbidding the teaching of things unsanctioned by the Committee, they arrogated to themselves more power than "that Servant" received from God, or ever used.

(6) They attempted to withhold, and now are succeeding in withholding, the service of faithful Pilgrims from the Church, as far as they are able..

5b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

VII. Brother Rutherford sought, in several "business" matters, to prevent carrying out the decision of the Board’s majority, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) With the assistance of Brothers VanAmburgh and McMillan, Brother Rutherford sought to prevent the publication of the first reply of the Board’s majority, wherein they defended themselves against their ousting, and Brother Rutherford’s circular letter of July 19, 1917, to the Class Secretaries.

(2) With the assistance of these same brothers he sought to prevent the distribution of this same reply, July 26, 1917.

(3) With the assistance of the same two brothers, Brother Rutherford sought to disparage the Board’s majority relative to the publication and distribution of the reply, as well as to disparage the reply itself.

VIII. Through misrepresentation and violation of confidence faithful and prominent brethren, refusing to countenance wrong principles and acts, were, by Brother Rutherford and his supporters, privately and publicly discredited in the Church, to the disruption of the Society’s old Board.

(1) One of these was publicly and privately represented as an insane and fanciful speculator on types, symbols and prophecy, and as insanely aspiring to leadership.

(2) Certain Directors were falsely represented as dominated by him.

(3) These and he were falsely accused of obstructing the work of the Church.

(4) These and he were falsely accused of dividing the Church.

(5) These and he were falsely accused of advocating radical Scriptural teaching.

5b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

VII. Brothers Hoskins and Margeson, supported by Brother Rockwell, sought in several "business" matters, to prevent carrying out the decision of the Committee’s majority, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) These three brothers sought to prevent the publication of "The Bible Standard" before the Asbury Park Convention, despite the votes of four members of the Committee, who voted that the paper be published in time to announce the Asbury Park Convention.

(2) The same three brothers sought to prevent the distribution of "The Bible Standard" at the time that the majority of the large Committee and of the Convention Committee decided that it be distributed, July 26, 1918.

(3) These three brothers, through Brother Hoskins, their leader, sought publicly to disparage the course of the Committee’s majority relative to the publication and distribution of "The Bible Standard," as well as to disparage the paper itself.

VIII. Through misrepresentation and violation of confidence faithful and prominent brethren, refusing to countenance wrong principles and acts, have, by some of the group and some of their supporters, been publicly and privately discredited in the Church, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) One of these was privately and publicly represented as an insane and fanciful speculator on types, symbols and prophecy, and as insanely aspiring to leadership.

(2) Certain Committee members were falsely represented as dominated by him.

(3) These and he were falsely accused of obstructing the work of the Church.

(4) These and he were falsely accused of dividing the Church.

(5) These and he were falsely accused of advocating radical Scriptural teaching.

6a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(6) Without foundation in fact one of them was habitually accused of seeking to lord it over God’s heritage.

(7) Things that one of the five had told in sacred confidence were scattered broadcast.

IX. Brother Rutherford and his supporters, July 27, 1917, tried to force through the People’s Pulpit Association and the Bethel Family several matters without proper discussion, to the disruption of the old Board.

(1) He accepted the program of a spurious first smiting of Jordan from a brother whose key and many other views of Revelation, etc., are vagarious and contrary to those of "that Servant"; and he insisted that all swallow his program and labor in harmory with it.

(2) From the false viewpoint that "that Servant" clearly taught a future first smiting of Jordan, he sought with almost no discussion to commit to this program the People’s Pulpit Association under the new Board, which he was really organizing as the directorate of a new Society with what was in effect an altered Charter as indispensable for a future first smiting of Jordan.—July 27, 1917.

(3) He resorted to parliamentary evasions and other questionable things to prevent discussing questions fundamental to his whole plan.—July 27, 1917.

(4) He also resorted to cloture methods to prevent in the People’s Pulpit Association and before the Bethel family sufficient discussion of his progam.—July 27, 1917.

X. Privately and publicly he advocated what was in fact setting aside some of, and adding others to, the clauses of "that Servant’s" charter for "his new society," unto the disruption of the old Board.

(1) His advocacy of the principle contained in the letter of Brother Dabney that all the Church ought to have a vote in the election of the Directors proves that he preferred not to have shareholders.

(2) His holding the "straw vote" proves that he wanted the Directors elected by "The Tower" subscribers in the Truth.

(3) By campaigning for and manipulating proxies he proved that he wanted the officers elected by the Directors of the Society.

(4) He wanted the directors to be elected annually, contrary to "that Servant’s" arrangements.

6a RUTHERFORDISM IN THE COMMITTEE

(6) Without foundation in fact one of the three was habitually accused of seeking to lord it over God’s heritage.

(7) Things that one of the three had told in sacred confidence were scattered broadcast.

IX. The Group and their supporters, July 27, 1918, sought to force through the Asbury Park Convention several matters without proper discussion, to the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) They accepted a program for a spurious first smiting of Jordan from a brother whose key and many other views of Revelation, etc., are vagarious and contrary to those of "that Servant"; and they insisted that all swallow their program and labor in harmony with it.

(2) From the false viewpoint that "that Servant" clearly taught a future first smiting of Jordan they sought to commit with almost no discussion the Convention to the policy of forming a Society with an altered Charter as indispensable to a future first smiting of Jordan.—July 27, 1918.

(3) They resorted to parliamentary evasions and other questionable things to prevent discussion of questions fundamental to their whole plan.—July 27, 1918.

(4) They also resorted to cloture methods to prevent, in the Convention, sufficient discussion of their program.—July 27, 1918.

X. Privately and publicly the Group advocated setting aside some of, and adding others to, the clauses of that Servant’s charter in the charter of their proposed society, unto the disruption of the old Committee.

(1) They asked that there be no shareholders in the proposed new Society.

(2) They advocated that the Directors be elected by the subscribers of "The Bible Standard."

(3) They advocated that the officers be elected by the Directors.

(4) They wanted the Directors to be elected annually, contrary to "that Servant’s" arrangement..

6b RUTHERFORDISM IN THE SOCIETY

(5) In his oration, written early in November, 1916, and published in the Memorial "Tower," he professed the highest regard for "that Servant’s" charter.

(6) He was repeatedly entreated not to advocate these changes as disloyal to "that Servant’s" charter.

(7) He was forewarned that for such advocacy thoughtful persons would be given good reason to fear that his published praise of the Charter would be open to the charge of insincerity and self-seeking.

XI. Brother Rutherford arranged for and conducted, in the interests of his plan for three days, January 3-5, 1918, a thoroughly "bossed" convention.

(1) He announced his plan beforehand.

(2) He carried out much of his plan; and was prevented from carrying it out entirely, e.g., a unanimous re-election, by some, previously unenlightened, becoming enlightened as to his purposes and methods.

(3) One of the avowed purposes of the Convention was to unseat the four Directors who sought to hold in check his unscriptural and dangerous plans.