My dear Brethren:
Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
As stated in the letter of October 29, this letter will present an analysis of the faithful and the measurably faithful.
As a proper foundation, it should be stated that the word Faith is used in the Bible in three senses: (1) It is what we believe – Jude 3: Ye should earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints (the Truth, what we believe); (2) It is the quality by which me believe – Mark 11:22: Have faith in God (trust); (3) Faithfulness – Gal. 2:20: I live by the faith of the Son of God, who gave Himself for me (Paul did not live by what Jesus had believed, or how He had believed it; but he lived because of the Faithfulness of Jesus in providing the ransom price).
The next question in order is – Who are the faithful? In the broad sense it includes all justified believers, because Paul addresses the tentatively justified as “Brethren” (Rom. 12:1). Therefore, the word “faithful” is relative, and must so be considered. In Vol. E-4, page 96 on, when discussing Leviticus 12, Brother Johnson was discussing the Little Flock and the Great Company. There has now arisen a conflict of opinion in the proper understanding of his thoughts, so this presents another question to be answered before a true analysis of the Faithful and Measurably Faithful can be undertaken; namely,
IS BROTHER JOLLY PASTOR and TEACHER, as he now claims to be? He relies heavily upon a statement in the September Present Truth, page 84: “Brother Johnson as the constructive executive expounder and antitypical Hiram (Brother Jolly) his special helper... whose antitypical office and work did not cease in 1950”. Is there anything other than Brother Jolly’s word to substantiate this statement re 1950? Is there any Scripture or combination of Scriptures that even remotely supports his contention? On the other hand, there is clear Scriptural contradiction of it. In the type did Hiram continue his work after the death of Solomon? Hiram is no longer mentioned shortly after completion of the Temple and the House, although Solomon is still given considerable comment; so Hiram passes out of the picture first. As all of us must realize, many mediocre characters in history are given quite some space simply because of their proximity to some outstanding person. This is certainly true of Hiram. Had he not aided David and Solomon it is reasonably certain that none of us would know today that he had ever lived. He ruled insignificant Tyre, which in those days was little more than a “suburb” of Israel; so Hiram’s place in the Bible is totally and completely due to his association with David and Solomon. They towered over him as a Giant towers over a dwarf! Perhaps it should be stated, too, that the same situation existed during the Parousia with the special helpers of Brother Russell. Had it not been for their association with him, would any of us today be likely to know anything at all about Barber, Paton, Von Zech, Mrs. Russell, etc.? Hardly! Here again it may be properly stated we would probably not know they had ever lived. But, did being his special helpers qualify them for the Office of Pastor and Teacher? Does the question need any answer? Surely, Brother Russell towered over all of them combined even as David and Solomon overshadowed Hiram.
However, it may be claimed that the foregoing is simply the writer’s own biased reasoning; so let us take a close look at the type. What did Hiram receive for helping Solomon build the Temple and the House? Why, Solomon gave him twenty cities in Galilee (1 Kings 9:11-13); but did not so much as give him one guest room in Jerusalem where Solomon held court. Inasmuch as Jerusalem types the position of sole executorship for Parousia and Epiphany purposes, this Scripture becomes most significant. Had the Lord intended that antitypical Hiram should succeed as Pastor and Teacher, would He not have given at least some little hint of it in the type? But, “for our admonition and learning”, He has given just the reverse! Verse 12 says the “cities pleased Hiram not”. Should not one who becomes Pastor and Teacher at the Lord’s hand be highly pleased? The office of Pastor and Teacher may not be everything, but it is almost everything! “Know” ledge is power”, and knowing how to use such knowledge makes one wise. A true Pastor and Teacher would possess knowledge of the Bible, combined with that “wisdom which is from above”; and these combined with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit gives one about everything – in fact, the Executive Office usually follows such a gifted person. But Hiram was given twenty cities in Galilee, and nothing in Jerusalem. Twenty is two times ten; ten having to do with natures lower than Divine, with the two natures involved being the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And the cities being located in Galilee, with nothing in Jerusalem, very well pictures antitypical Hiram receiving a keen and bitter disappointment, although the Epiphany Solomon did eventually salve the wound by asking the brethren to vote Brother Jolly into the office of Executive Trustee, AND NOTHING MORE! “And it pleased Hiram not”. “And Hiram called the cities the land of Cabul” (dirty, see margin); a “dirty trick” had been played on him, he said. But, so far as the Sacred writing reveals, Hiram did nothing but resign himself to his unsatisfactory compensation. But not so with the one now claiming to be antitypical Hiram, he’s going to be Pastor and Teacher even if he has to vote himself into that sacred office. There is more here than meets the eye, and further comment may be offered in due course. Later on D.v., the writer expects to produce an article on the Epiphany Solomon, which will make clearer yet than the foregoing why things are as they are now; but this should be sufficient for the present. This much has simply been given here to prepare for what follows. If Brother Jolly were Pastor and Teacher, then his various claims on the Faithful and the Measurably Faithful should not be met with undue acerbity; but, if his claims are simply so much fraud, then their exposure should be in clear and unmistakable terms.
In the September 1955 PT Brother Jolly cites Vol. E-4, page 96 on, where Brother Johnson explains Leviticus 12. In his article in the July 1954 PT, pages 54-9, he tries the sleight-of-hand that the Faithful in this discussion must mean the cleansed Great Company, because there have been no Priests here since 1950. Note carefully how he states it (July 1954 PT, P. 54, col. 1, last par.);
“And who are the ‘Faithful’ and the Measurably Faithful’ servants mentioned here? Since Brother Johnson frequently and correctly used the expressions ‘the faithful’ and ‘the measurably faithful’ when contrasting the Little Flock with the Great Company, it might at first glance appear that he intended the same meaning to be understood in this instance; however, a more careful study of the context and fulfillment’s indicates that this meaning is not to be understood here.”
It’s just too bad he did not first read the top of page 96 instead of starting at the bottom of that page. At the top Brother Johnson says: “The Great Company suffer the loss of the prize – the Divine Nature and joint-heirship with Christ, which the Faithful obtain”. Could this leave the slightest doubt in the mind of any one whom Brother Johnson considered the Faithful? This one statement should be enough; but it is probably well that the analysis be carried to its finality.
Vol. E-4, page 99, par. 14: “The crown-retaining and crown-losing... servants will minister ... throughout these periods (1874-1954), and that tobothclasses”. Thisstatement is in answer to Question 14 on page 151, as follows: “Inwhatactivitieshavethe Faithful and the Measurably Faithful servants of the Truth shared?” Here again, can this leave the slightest doubt as to what Brother Johnson wanted us to believe?
The crown-retaining (Faithful) and the crown-losing (Measurably Faithful) are indisputably his thought! When the judges in our courts interpret the laws, one of the cardinal points they consider is the “intent” of those who wrote the law. As an example, one Amendment to our Constitution says “there shall be no involuntary servitude”; and some have plead that as a ground for refusing service in our armed forces. But that Amendment was adopted right after the Civil War, and was intended to abolish forever human slavery in the United States. Therefore, the “intent” was certainly not to allow evasion of civil duties. So, is it not a logical question to ask, What was the INTENT of Brother Johnson when he wrote pages 96 and on in Vol. E-4? We all know what it was; he intended and fully expected to be here at the future time of which he was writing. Therefore, to say it must mean something else just because he is not here is simply a sophistical twist not becoming any one claiming to be Pastor and Teacher.
Now, had Brother Johnson been still living, could it be that he intended to include in the Faithful the cleansed Great Company members? No! In Vol. E-10, page 663, he says “J. in Nazarite consecration was separate from the Great Company.” Furthermore, the Great Company must be considered forever unfaithful insofar as the High Calling is concerned, so they could never be included in the same term as “Faithful” with the Little Flock. Also, it should not need argument to declare that “uncleansed” Great Company members are not even faithful when the faithful Great Company members are being considered, so that point likewise needs some analysis herein.
In the September 1955 PT, page 70, col. 1, par. 3, Brother Johnson is quoted as saying that by October 1924 “The beginning of the presentation of certain ‘cleansed’ Levites” occurred. The writer has no exception to make of this statement; but it is certainly logical to ask if one R. G. Jolly was included in that presentation? Brother Jolly does not definitely say so, and Brother Johnson does not say so at all. In fact, what Brother Johnson said of Brother Jolly back there was that he was arrogant, untruthful and given to garrulous gushings of words in an overweening effort to win applause. (If any one is prone to criticize harsh words here, please be assured the description is Brother Johnson’s and not mine.) But, for any to claim such a character to be cleansed, must we not attribute such a claim to “strong delusions” doubly strong? Of course, we should hardly need to remind you that Brother Jolly did not in 1923-24 consider himself a cleansed Levite (regardless of what he may now think of it) because at that time he was still befuddled with the “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) that he was a Priest (not a Levite in any sense, cleansed or uncleansed). in fact, Brother Jolly was so strongly deluded back there he even considered himself at least the equal – if not superior – to Brother Johnson. It is certainly an elemental conclusion to declare that one must first determine his malady before he can prescribe a curative; and this obtains in spiritual as well as in physical ailments. If an uncleansed Levite labors under such a “strong delusion” that he is a Priest in whom “there is now no condemnation”, he is hardly likely to be seeking the “why” or the “wherewith” to cure his leprosy, which he doesn’t even know he possesses – just as Uzziah could not see the leprosy in his forehead, although it was clearly visible to the Priests and others (2 Ch. 26:19-21). Brother Jolly’s untruthfulness and ambition to sit in “Moses’ seat” are still glaringly present in him, as evidence his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1, of the November PT as follows:
“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we now so control it.”
Brother Jolly was put into office by vote of the brethren; and he can be deposed by vote of the brethren, which was in no sense of the word true of Brother Johnson. Even if Brother Jolly were all he claims (Pastor and Teacher), his Executive Trusteeship would still be at the discretion of the brethren; he has not inherited the LHMM, any more than Brother Johnson inherited the Society by being true Pastor and Teacher. His statement quoted above would unmistakably label him as the Miniature Pope if he has not misstated himself. It is the sincere prayer and hope of the writer that he has made just a slip, which he will correct in all haste.
But, assuming Brother Jolly was then cleansed in 1924, he must have again become uncleansed, because he stated from the platform at the Jacksonville Convention on February 27, 1955 that he had been completely abandoned to Azazel from December 1937 to February 1938. Of course, that statement could not possibly have been true, as will be shown further on; but let us accept it at its face value for the present; then ask, Why does God abandon the Great Company into the hands of the Fit Man? Is it not for their CLEANSING, and for nothing else? Our Father is not as some earthly fathers, who sometimes pound their children unmercifully at little or no provocation. He gives them the extreme of chastening (Fit-Man experiences) only after all other corrections have failed.
For the more-than-conquering faithful Little Flock it would have been wrong for them to pray, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”. Why? Because “There is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ... Who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”. (Rom. 8:1-4) But note the qualification – “not after the flesh but after the spirit”. During the Gospel Age the “large crowd” have walked “after the flesh”, thus bringing them more and more under “condemnation” until they eventually lost their position “in Christ, the Church which is His body”. They then received a new name SINNERS. They are the only class in God’s Christian Household who are specifically styled Sinners (despite Brother Jolly’s emphatic and repeated statements at this last Philadelphia Convention that we are all Sinners, by which he includes Faithful Youthful Worthies, of course); – and a few Scriptures follow to prove the point: 1 Pet. 4:18 – If the righteous (Little Flock) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (Second Deathers) and the Sinner (Great Company) appear? James 1:8 (see Berean Comments) and 4:8 – Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded. James 5:20 – He which converteth the sinner (Great Company ) from the error of his way shall save a soul from death. The comment in the Cambridge Bible on this text says, “Those that miss the mark”. (It is most remarkable how any one not in Present Truth could have arrived at such an exact statement of fact!)
It is now contended that the Good Levites in the Epiphany Truth were cleansed by October 22, 1950. Has any attempt been made to fit this in with the parallel of the Little Flock as of September 16, 1914? No, because it can’t be done. Nor was the 80-year purification of the Mother completed by 1950, which in the parallel would logically not be done until September 16, 1954 – that is, all things being equal. Early in 1954 the writer was able to discern, from Scripture, reason and facts that the last of the Truth section of Azazel’s Goat was given over to the Fit Man on October 22, 1950; and, so far as he knows, this is the last developing truth to appear before the 80 years were completed. If this is a statement of fact – that is, that delivery to the Fit Man was accomplished October 22, 1950 –, then self-evidently, the Great Company as a Group in the LHMM could not possibly have been cleansed then (although it may have been true of some individuals); because, as stated above, God would do this to them only as an extreme chastening for their cleansing (reference here is to their character cleansing, of course; not to their cleansing from error). And, if this is the Truth, and they have not yet accepted it, they could not possibly be cleansed even yet! “By their fruits ye shall know them”. From the previous correspondence that has already been sent to you, all of you know that the leprous sin of slander has been placed at the feet of some of our leaders, while others have been accused of ‘aiding and abetting’ or at least trying to cover up for them. If Brother Johnson were here, would any of us suppose he would countenance such treatment of one of his Pilgrims by others of his Pilgrims? Yet, the writer has done not the slightest wrong to any of them. Their conduct is in exact style with their type, King Saul, who attempted to hurl his javelin through David without even the slightest cause. And the whispering still goes on: “Brother Hoefle is not the same Brother he once was; he’s showing a bad spirit” (of course, the slanderers and those who are trying to hush-hush for them are not showing a bad spirit; just the one who resents being maligned, and exposes their sins, is showing the bad spirit). Almost these identical wards were spoken to me back in 1917-18-19-20 about Brother Johnson. During the Parousia Brother Johnson had been known as the Pilgrim of love, because he had loved the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. But when duty forced him to expose the sins of leprous Levitical Truth leaders, it was freely gossiped: “He’s just not the same loving Johnson any more”. The honey of the Scriptures is always much more appealing then the sharp cutting sword of the Word; but inspired Scripture is given for four different reasons (2 Tim. 3:16), and its use for “refuting” is placed second by Paul in his statement of the matter. Therefore, if we would be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, the Brethren”, there must come occasions when “refuting” is of necessity laid upon us, unpleasant though the task may be. And would any of us be so foolish as to claim “cleansed Levites” for those who slandered Brother Johnson for what he did during the Epiphany? Only those, perhaps, who were the evildoers against him! It is well stated that before one can successfully fool others he must first fool himself. And so here again since Brother Johnson died (just as it was after Brother Russell died), the “whispering campaign” of slander has not been “ashamed to show its dangerous brow by night (the Epiphany night) when evils are most free”. When Brother Johnson was here, such slanderers in our midst would not have dared to do what they have done since he is gone; and this may be taken as pretty conclusive evidence that much of their seeming obedience to him was in great part ‘lip service’. But the Epiphany is a time for revealing Persons, Principles and Things; and the only way such flaws in the Levitical characters could have been “brought to light” was by the removal of the one who was holding them in check. Certainly, many of us were fooled; we thought them to be Saints who were not; and it now develops that some of them were very wretched specimen even of the Great Company. And must we not again repeat that for such to intrude themselves into the select company of the “FAITHFUL” can be attributed only to “strong delusions” doubly strong! What do you think Brother Johnson would be saying of such if he were here today?
It has been profusely stated that these Levites needed to be manifested only to the Priests, and not to every self-assertive Youthful Worthy; that none can say whether or not Brother Johnson knew Who was Who, and that he was under no obligation to reveal all he knew to us. When I was helping Brother Johnson in 1947, quite often an individual was injected into our conversation because of conditions that arose. On occasion, when I would ask him, “Is so-and-so a Saint?” he would say: “I’m not real sure, but I am inclined to think he is; but if he isn’t, he is one of those hairline cases, who just missed the Little Flock”. From such experiences, I knew of my own knowledge that he did not know them ALL in 1947. And, as his physical forces slowly drained away over the next three years, is it reasonable to believe that in his weakened condition ALL of them were revealed to him? Brother Jolly himself explained away Brother Johnson’s announcement not many months before his death, that Sister Johnson had made the grade (was of the Saint class) due to his illness and weakened condition. How does that tally with Brother Jolly’s later statement as mentioned herein? This might (I say, might) have been true of Brother Johnson’s knowledge of the Saints and the Great Company in the United States; but how about the rest of the world, where he had almost no chance of first-hand observation of the brethren in the various countries? Is not such a claim slightly on the fantastic side; and may it not be a clear indication of the desperate position of one who would advance such a theory?
But, assuming for argument’s sake, that Brother Johnson did know every Priest and every Great Company in every spot on earth, had he withdrawn all brotherly help and favor from the latter? As Brother Johnson so clearly taught, this must be done before their final character cleansing can be effected; so, if it had not been done, they could not possibly have been cleansed in their character (i. e., of sin, selfishness and worldliness) by the time of his death. The office of a Priest is to forgive and bless; and, as a true Priest, Brother Johnson could not in the very nature of things have withdrawn brotherly help and favor from the Great Company in our group. Why? Because he would have to follow the teachings of Jesus, his Head, of \Whom it was said (Matt. 12:20), ‘‘A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench”. Brother Johnson knew of some of the extreme and obnoxious frailties of some of the Great Company in our midst, but he never hesitated to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” so long as they were willing to listen to his pleadings. On occasion, when he was expecting the writer to call at the Snyder Avenue residence, he would open the door himself with the statement, “Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; why standest thou without?” And with that came his hearty laugh. But invariably at parting there would be his admonition in all sobriety, “Keep up the good fight, Brother”. And similar treatment did he give to all who would hear him, regardless of how undone their characters might be! No., he certainly did not withdraw brotherly help and favor from the Great Company in our group.
It should now be appropriate to ask, Did Brother Johnson’s death change one jot or tittle of God’s time calculations for the work and destiny of His people, or the Plan in general? If not, had Brother Johnson continued, as he had expected, would he have injected the alterations in his work that have been done since his death? For instance, would he have issued six Present Truths per year instead of twelve? When this change was suggested in 1951, the writer went to Brother Jolly during the Chicago Convention “in the spirit of meekness” to protest the folly of this move, telling him his first obligation was to “feed the Church of God” which had been committed to his trust. But he would not be dissuaded; he was going to do “great works, win great numbers” – just as had his Soulmates of the past. After the turn of the century the Federation of Churches said if the Lord would give them $30,000,000 they could convert the world to Christianity. So they beat the drums, gave out the loud and profuse talk; and they raised the thirty million. Then they asked for a man big enough to do the job; and the Lord gave them Billy Sunday. But, instead of converting the world to Christianity, there came the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, and with it the worst blot against Christianity since its Beloved Founder initiated it. Then, after the war came That Evil Servant. He could do what his predecessors had not been able to do. “If the Lord will give me one billion dollars (not thirty million), I’ll break the devil’s back in one year’s time.” I heard him make that statement myself. He started the Golden Age Magazine, for which he would have 4,000,000 subscribers the first year. If 2,500 workers would just go out and each one write five subscriptions a day at $l each, that would give about 4,000,000 subscribers (and, incidentally, $4,000,000). And who would argue that that was a difficult assignment? Certainly none, at least of his blind sectarian followers, who were aiding and abetting him to slander dear Brother Johnson, and who thought they night go into the Second Death if they tried any thinking for themselves. Well, it was such a flop that the newsstands over the country threw it out because there was no call for the magazine. So That Evil Servant eventually “went to his place”, as Judas had also done; but the Devil’s back seems about as rigid and strong as ever.
And shall we now take a look at the results of the past five years? In the January 1, 1950 PT, which carries the last Annual Report given out by Brother Johnson, we find 1899 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1972 subscribers to the Herald of the Epiphany. In the last Annual Report submitted by Brother Jolly he shows 1423 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1648 subscribers to the Bible Standard – a net loss of 476 PT subscribers and a net loss of 324 Bible Standard subscribers. And the $5 Correspondence Course has been such a complete flop that it isn’t even mentioned any more. A sorry tribute indeed, in view of all the loud talk to have heard! “And the Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets.” So desperate has the situation become that Brother Jolly is now attempting to give the Bible Standard away as a “premium” with other sales – a sort of “bargain-day” deal. “But what about the Bible in Films”, you say, “doesn’t Brother Jolly say they are receiving ‘wonderful blessings’ therefrom, showing them in Salvation Army Halls, Old Peoples’ Homes, Penitentiaries, etc.?” Well, in spite of the “great blessings”, the foregoing figures would convince an average second-grade school boy that the “great numbers” are not attaching themselves to us; so the slogan has to be revised a little bit (not much, just a little bit)! “We’re not looking for quantity, we’re looking for quality”! Indeed! And to what better place could we go for “quality” – real superb quality – than to a penitentiary!! It is most lamentable that Faithful Brother Johnson could not visualize the “great blessings” of “going slumming” that the Faithful (?) are now able to see through their new Pastor and Teacher. That Evil Servant and his seven cellmates received and dispensed “great blessings” to their fellow prisoners at Atlanta Federal Prison during their involuntary stay there (Fit Man experiences) in 1918-19; their testimonies were loud, long and detailed about it.
Brother Johnson clearly taught – “After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry”. Conversely, then – Until they are cleansed they won’t have a fruitful ministry. Can it be that the realization of this situation prompts Brother Jolly to state in his Annual Reports – “The work at the Philadelphia Bible House continues to progress” (despite the fact that the quantity and the quality are sadly lacking), and why he loudly and repeatedly tries to give the impression on every occasion that all is just rosy and prosperous – even though such statements are just nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of his listeners? Should the brethren start thinking about it, they will be forced to the conclusion expressed herein – namely, The colossal failures of the past five years are one sure visible physical proof that the Great Company cannot possibly be cleansed, regardless of all the loud talk to the contrary.
By now it should be indisputably clear that Brother Johnson was not writing about the Great Company as the “Faithful” when he wrote page 96 and on of Volume 4; and that Brother Jolly himself took only a “first glance” at Brother Johnson’s analysis, instead of the readers of the Present Truth whom he suggests may have done so. And, if this conclusion is correct, then a large part of the July 1, 1954 Present Truth article on page 54 is not ADVANCING TRUTH, but ADVANCING ERROR – a clear case of REVOLUTIONISM against the Epiphany Truth as given through the Epiphany Messenger. Hardly to be expected from a true Pastor and Teacher, would you say? The articles, “Solomon’s Building Activities” and “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age”, etc., in the March, May and July Present Truths of 1954 all “follow a pattern”; and that “pattern” and the errors in those articles will be scrupulously analyzed in due course, D.v.
And, if any are inclined to wail “rough words” at this conclusion, may you be reminded that H. J. Shearn (whom Brother Johnson described as “one of the most cunning hypocrites he had ever met”) accused Brother Johnson of showing a “bad spirit” – “You see, Brethren, the spirit that he shows” (Vol. 10, page 377, bottom). It is always an evidence of extreme weakness when any one begins to criticize an opponent’s grammar, or attempts to meet Scriptural analysis with the old Satanic brush-off, “There must be something wrong with the man”. If any are inclined to such conclusions, then the suggestion is made that we just forget personalities completely in this discussion, and accept the bare points of Bible analysis herein submitted. That is a most excellent rule for any to employ if they are big enough to rise above partisanship and sectarianism; it enables one to place the finger of truth where it properly belongs. The prayer of the writer comes to each reader that he may be able to do so in the present instance.
But some may say, If all the foregoing is sound doctrine, then there should be some outstanding Scripture to support it. Well, let us take a look at a type. Brother Johnson gained tremendous amounts of knowledge just by looking at types. There is only one portion of Scripture – and only one – that deals with “one goat for the Lord, and one for Azazel”. and that is Leviticus 16. There in the 21st verse we are very clearly told that the last thing the High Priest did before renewing his linen garments of sacrifice was to deliver Azazel’s Goat into the hands of the Fit man. This picture was progressive throughout the Epiphany, of course; but it was not accomplished in its fullness until the Truth section of the Great Company in the LHMM was thus delivered by the withdrawal of the last Priest on October 22, 1950. If this statement be true – and the type clearly indicates that it is true –, then they could not possibly have been cleansed at that date, because deliverance into the hands of the Fit man is the extreme of chastisement by our Heavenly Father in an effort to cleanse them by destroying their fleshly minds in order to save their New Creatures from death. Surely, slander and malicious gossip can only be designated as “works of the flesh”. And, when we see such losing any part of the Truth they once accepted (although they may have accepted such truths only tacitly), we may accept it as CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM THE LORD that they are not “continuing in His word”, regardless of what their self-serving denials “to be seen of men” may be (See Matt. 6:5-7). There is quite some Scriptural doctrine to establish this statement, which, D.v., the writer hopes to present “in due time”.
In conclusion, it is fitting to state that NO FAITHFUL YOUTHFUL WORTHY is under any obligation to become a partaker of any Great Company Fit-man experiences; and our Heavenly Father will not require it of any Youthful Worthies unless they are in the same relative condition as their Great Company brethren to whom they cling in partisan blindness. As previously stated, our Father does not chastise to the extreme without CAUSE; FIT-MAN experiences are meted out only because of gross wrongs in teaching or practice. Let each determine in earnest prayer before the Lord what his personal course should be.
May the God of all Grace grant to each that sanctified reason which will guide you into all Truth, stablish, strengthen and settle you. The writer is beholden to none (regardless of slanderous reports to the contrary) except to love and pray for one and all; and this much he is entitled to receive from each of you. May our good Heavenly Father dispense His blessing with this writing!
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim