by Epiphany Bible Students

No. 159

In the May-June Present Truth is to be found a number of Epiphany truths per­verted (Azazel means Perverter) and half truths juggled in a desperate effort to make a case against “the sifter” – the reference being to us, of course. On p. 47, col. 2, par. 1, the statement is made: “Bro. J. gave many proofs from the Bible that thoroughly establish the Epiphany in its narrow or restricted sense as ending in 1954.” As we have so often pointed out, Brother Johnson never in any of his writings states the Epiphany ends “in its narrow or restricted sense” in 1954. In fact, in E-4:53, bottom, he teaches just the contrary:

“The expression, The Time of Trouble, is used in two senses. In its wide sense it covers the period from 1874 until the end of anarchy and Jacob’s trouble. In its narrow sense it covers the period from the beginning of The World War in 1914 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob’s trouble. It is in the narrow – the second – sense of that term that we use it in our subject. We under­stand that the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing.”

It is thus clear enough from the foregoing that Brother Johnson unequivocally con­tradicts RGJ’s statement. Nowhere does Brother Johnson teach an Epiphany period in a “narrow or restricted” sense – although he does use that expression about the beginning of The Time of Trouble in its “narrow sense” in 1914 – but the ending of The Time of Trouble in both its wide sense (from 1874) and in its narrow sense (beginning with the Epiphany in 1914) ends with the end of Jacob’s Trouble. The Time of Trouble in its wide sense and in Its restricted sense END AT THE SAME TIME – the end of anarchy and Jacob’s trouble. The Epiphany ends also with Jacob’s Trouble: The Epiphany and The Time of Trouble in its restricted sense are one and the same.

But, in Hitler-like manner, RGJ repeats, repeats, repeats his contradiction of the clear teaching of the last Star Member as a necessary corollary to some of his other errors – believing that by his “much speaking” (Matt. 6:7) he will persuade the “unstable and the unlearned.”


This question is raised on p. 46, and part of the comment by RGJ reads like this: “And if they are exposed as errorists and sifters, they object strenuously and retaliate by misrepresentations, false accusations, vituperations, etc.” Here again, as Brother Johnson has so clearly taught, those guilty of such offenses often accuse others of those very things in an effort to whitewash themselves. Our older readers will recall Brother Johnson’s treatment of JFR’s treatise on hypocrisy, in which he stated JFR was well-qualified to define hypocrites, because he himself was one of the worst hypocrites in the entire Gospel Age. Note now Brother Johnson’s description also of RGJ in E-10:591:

“A loquacious, repetitious and false-accusing Epiphany crown-loser pouring out partly wise and partly foolish effusions” – almost the identical words RGJ now uses against us. And on p. 594 Brother Johnson makes this comment on Job 38:2: “The good Levites (of which RGJ was a part at that time—­JJH), the crown-losers in the Epiphany Movement, darken the Truth by their teachings without proper knowledge.” He freely admits he is one of those there described, so no one in good conscience can accuse JJH of “misrepresentations or false accusation” when we quote his own admissions. He is now “darkening the Truth” without proper knowledge even more than he did then.

He presents this theory on p. 46: “Bro. Johnson called JFR and others like him sifters, and they in turn called him the same; and now you speak of certain ones as sifters and they accuse you of being like JFR, who accused Bro. Johnson of being a sifter. It is rather confusing. Who are the sifters?” Any time we make state­ments concerning RGJ we offer copious proof of our statements – just as we have done in the statement quoted above from Volume 10. And when we say he is like JFR – ­is taking a similar course – we offer proof for that, too. JFR was open in his criticism of Brother Russell as being impractical; and he immediately began to dem­onstrate his “practical” mind after Brother Russell’s death. He ‘outsmarted’ the opposition and made his position secure as President of the Society. RGJ did the same after Brother Johnson’s death – and often accused him of being impractical while he was still with us. JFR immediately denied Tentative Justification altogether once he came to power. RGJ perverts Tentative Justification by placing it in the Camp – something neither Messenger taught or ever hinted. JFR invented a new earthly consecrated class – first the Jonadabs, now his Large Company; RGJ has invented a new earthly consecrated class – his Campers Consecrated – in direct contradiction of the teaching to be found in E-10:209 and other places.

JFR did not hesitate at all to use unscrupulous methods to gain his ends. The same may be said for RGJ – one outstanding example of record being in E-10:585:

“Another incident illustrative of antitypical Elihu’s unfair and unkind criti­cisms of J. occurred in connection with J.’s advocating the ecclesia’s giving finan­cial help to an aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless. Certain ones not pleased with her carried on a whispering campaign against her and against J. for advocating her being helped by the ecclesia, resulting in such feeling being aroused as almost made a division in the ecclesia; and R. G. Jolly again was J.’s main opponent before the church on the subject. Actually the sister by a combina­tion of starving and cancer died; and the hospital blamed the ecclesia to J.s face therefor.”

Note now Brother Russell’s comments in Parousia Vol. 6, p. 469 concerning just such a situation:

“As our Lord was for three and a half years breaking His body, and for three and a half years giving His blood, His life, and only finished these sacrifices at Calvary, so with us: the laying down of our lives for the brethren is in small affairs of service, either temporal or spiritual, the spiritual being the higher, and hence the more important, though he who would shut up his compassion toward a brother having temporal need would give evidence that he did not have the Spirit of the Lord ruling in his heart in any proper degree.”

The above-quoted statements by both Messengers apply directly to RGJ by his own admission; and we now invite him to produce any such statement against JJH. All who have known us at all over the years know that our purse strings were always open to the Truth and to those in need – or to any personal service we could render. Thus, RGJ’s statements in the present instance are simply some more of his “beating the air” with his “profusion of words to no purpose” (other than to falsify - even his own pre­vious statements, for his present needs).

The article under review, however, continues: “In Bro. R.’s day some boasted of the financial support they had given him... The same condition prevailed during Brother Johnson’s ministration .... and we also have had to face the same problem since his death. It seems that some have given as to the LHMM instead of as to the Lord, even though their personal service may be comparatively small.” If any of our readers heard about JJH’s financial help to Brother Johnson during his lifetime, they found it out from others aside from JJH. And since his death we have made mention about it only in rebuttal of accusations against our sincerity and integrity. Be it noted here that Brother Johnson never made any exposures of JJH, either in writing or in conversation, such as he has left in his writings concerning RGJ; so we say: Let the established record speak for both of us.

However, such picayune tactics of RGJ are best exposed by quoting from his Present Truth of 1952, p. 70, col. 2: “Bro. John J. Hoefle.... probably the largest financial contributor to the Lord’s Epiphany work.... made possible the purchase of plates and other materials for various books that were published, donating the Bible House property free from debt to the work, and additionally donating thousands of dollars to the exhaustion of his finances... ably helped Bro. Johnson in legal and general executive matters.... In 1947 ‘at a most opportune time’ he left everything to serve at Bro. Johnson’s bedside, assisting in correspondence work, etc. Bro. John­son spoke of him as ‘my real son Timothy’ and later wrote him: ‘I love you because of your personal good qualities, which I appreciate, and because of the great service you have been to the Epiphany Truth’...... Bro. Johnson made special request that he serve at his funeral.” We have underscored certain parts of the foregoing to empha­size RGJ’s falsehood in his present writings that “our personal service may be comparatively small.”

All of this is a pointed example of the Truth of St. James’ statement that “a doubleminded man is unstable in all his ways”; and it offers open and indisputable proof of RGJ’s brand of integrity and just how much reliance may be placed upon any­thing he says or does. That statement in 1952 was entirely without any prompting from us; it was his own voluntary and unbiased expression then. He did not even learn directly from us that we had donated the Bible House; nor did any of our read­ers learn about it from us. Brother Johnson told a few, and the gossip quickly pyra­mided. RGJ repeatedly impugns our motives in our present activities – all the while his own credibility stands glaringly exposed in the Epiphany Volumes, of whose publi­cation we exerted not the slightest influence other than our financial support and faithfulness to the Epiphany Truth contained therein. And for those who are gullible enough to believe that the Lord would bless such a character with any advancing truth, we would simply remind them that thousands also blindly accepted the ‘advancing truth’ of JFR; and note the grand outcome – We have Jehovah’s Witnesses! And with the re­versal of his opinion of us under Brother Johnson in his published commendation of us in 1952, and his statement now in this Present Truth, we realize that his position upon anything, the Truth or the brethren, is subject to change to fit his present errors – just as is true with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We never know from one year to another what he may want his sectarian devotees to think. We wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him doing the same thing to others with him now – who are held in high esteem by him – if they resist his errors openly. Yes, his question is very timely: Who are the sifters?!!


It is well to consider here that RGJ has been very liberal in his bestowal of the “sifter” designation since Brother Johnson’s demise. At the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral he related how it had came to him “in a flash” at 4 a.m. the morn­ing after his death that there were then no more saints left on earth. And for those who openly objected to accepting his “flash” as Present Truth he immediately labeled them as “sifters,” and designated some of them as second-deathers. At that time some of the brethren asked us if we considered certain dissenters to that “flash” as second-­deathers; and we gave them then – while we were still very friendly, and brotherly and cooperative with RGJ – what we still consider the correct answer to the question: At best, if those believing themselves to be saints are not so, then it would simply be one Levite sassing another levite; and there’s nothing worthy of death in that un­less the argument should eventually produce a deadly-working of animosity toward each other. It may be, of course, that RGJ was told of our position, which prompted his desire to get rid of us – hence the slander and the whispering campaign against us.

As we said then, our own position in the argument was a detached one, and we had no intention of heaping abuse upon those who disagreed with RGJ. It is not our province to put any one into the Body of Christ, or take any one out of it; and we saw no occasion for hurling violent epithets because of it. But of all those who disa­greed with RGJ, we met not one who consigned him to the second death because of that disagreement – although RGJ was ready enough, “loquacious and repetitious” enough, to bestow the label of death upon those who had the courage to resist him. As Brother Johnson so aptly declared respecting uncleansed Levites back in 1917-1920, they were the real trouble makers, but were vociferous in blaming the faithful for the differ­ences.

And has It not been thus all during the Age? Consider just a few: Augustine, a crown-loser, was very dramatic and oratorical toward those who disagreed with him. Crown-loser John Calvin succeeded in the burning of Michael Servetus because he could not meet the truth of Star Member Servetus. Crown-losers succeeded in banishing the saintly and gifted Arius to Africa, when they themselves were the guilty errorists. And the same thing happened with Star Member John Wessel, who was forced to seek refuge in Holland by the errorists who could not “gainsay nor resist” the truths he taught. Much the same can be said of Martin Luther and his flight to Wartbury Castle. During That Servant’s lifetime, the rack, the stake, etc., were not permitted, so they did the next best thing – they slandered him maliciously when they could not “gainsay nor resist” the truths he taught. And when we were in Jamaica in 1957, RGJ hurled invectives at us from the platform. One faithful sister made the remark that he would also burn us at the stake if he had the power. So why should we, or any one else, be overly disturbed at the slander of “sifter” by an uncleansed levite today! “Take, my brethren, the prophets (both Old and New Testament prophets) as an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.” We have no record of the fully faithful ever resorting to the tactics of the Great Company – the crown-lost leaders.


On p. 34 of this same paper is an article entitled, “The Epiphany Messenger’s Death Date in the Parallels,” in which the editor attempts to “make” a parallel be­tween the last day of Brother Russell’s life and the last eleven months and 22 days of Brother Johnson’s life. And in a desperate attempt to synchronize this abnor­mality he cites E-10:302 to “prove helpful in a somewhat similar manner.” The ref­erence he gives has to do with Esther type and antitype, and the word ‘parallel’ is not even mentioned by Brother Johnson. And for very good reason: According to Webster’s dictionary, a parallel is, “Anything equal to or resembling another in all essential particulars; a counterpart”; whereas, in type and antitype the two must correspond in every detail. “Every detail” refers to performance and character only, and in no sense involves the time features. To Illustrate, the typical Day of Atonement was one 24-hour day, but the antitypical Atonement Day is the entire Gospel and Millennial Ages. Again, Elijah’s 3½–year drought in Israel is antityped by 1260 years in the Gospel Age. But such divergence cannot exist in a properly-­constructed truth parallel; and for RGJ to attempt to force a “parallel” between one day for Brother Russell and eleven months and 22 days for Brother Johnson – by juggling a type interpretation into a parallel – simply reveals once more his desper­ation and the confused condition of his mind since he was abandoned to Azazel in 1950. Some ‘parallel’! Some nonsense! As Brother Johnson so aptly observed, When these crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense. And here’s just another sample of it – still manufacturing the same Grimm’s Fairy tales that he did in 1910 under Brother Russell (see his letter in the Nov. 15, 1910 WT).


As stated previously, we only display our own spiritual blindness if we anticipate any advancing truth from such uncleansed Levites. This is so clearly shown in the case of King Saul of Israel, who was a type of the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. Let us consider just a few of his descriptive acts. In 1 Sam. 15:23 Samuel told him (because of his disobedience with the Amalekites) that he had been rejected from be­ing King in Israel – just as the Gospel-Age crown-losers have been rejected from their kingly Inheritance. The reason: “Rebellion (revolutionism) is the sin of witchcraft”; and witchcraft is typical of especially deceptive false teachings – such as RGJ’s “parallel,” his distortion of the type in Leviticus 12, and his “revised” pyramid fig­ures to fit 1950, instead of 1956, as he had it “figured” in 1947. Brother Johnson records similar actions by him in E-10:646, when he revolutionized (rebelled) by attempting to foist his views upon the Philadelphia Church – “so Azazelianly constructed (antitypical witchcraft--JJH), as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect” – just as his “parallel” will now deceive many.

And proceeding further to 1 Sam. 16:14, we are told that “the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” The “evil spirit” causes RGJ to go into one error after another, and resort to falsehood whenever it suits his convenience – as instance his “Present Truth” (?) we are now describing. Continu­ing to 1 Sam. 28:6: “The Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams (does not give these crown-lost leaders clear views on difficult Bible subjects), nor by Urim (does not give them harmonious blending of truth teachings, as note RGJ’s confusion now on Leviticus 12), nor by prophets (takes from them even those truths they once received from the Star Members, and gives them instead “strong delusion,” confusion, error – ­“blood to drink”—Rev. 16:6; 2 Thes. 2:11).

Let us not forget that to none of the errorists did God ever give any advanc­ing truth. Instead, every one of the crown-lost leaders during the Age perverted the fundamental truths that were presented by the faithful Star Members, and pro­duced the sects In Big Babylon – just as the crown-lost leaders in the Epiphany have perverted parts of the Parousia Truth and produced the sects in Little Babylon – the last one is the crown-lost leader of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. And it is well to emphasize here that the average church member during the Age did not realize what was going on – that they were being slowly and deftly led into error (antitypical witchcraft) – just as RGJ has been doing with his sleepy adherents since 1950. The Epiphany is specifically a time for “making manifest the counsels of hearts” (“who shall stand when He maketh manifest?”—Mal. 3:2); and all of us are certainly witness to the fact that the major portion of this “manifesting” is still future; thus, we must still be in the Epiphany – without any “narrow or restricted sense.” And one attempting to establish a “narrow or restricted sense” is simply speaking some more “non” sense.

But the real monstrosity of this ‘advancing truth’ is to be found on p. 36, col. 2, par. 1, where he states: “The above considerations cause us once again to marvel at God’s great wisdom... we rejoice also that the antitypical mother of the maid child (Lev. 12) thus experienced an additional feature of her 80 years’ cleansing (E Vol. 4, p. 100).” For those who may not be too familiar with Brother Johnson’s interpreta­tion of Lev. 12, we simply summarize by saying that the 40 days’ purification for the male child types the cleansing from all error of the Little Flock developing truths in the 40 years from 1874 to 1914; and the 80 days’ purification for the female child types the cleansing from all error of the Great Company developing truth from 1874 to 1954 – 1954 ending the 80 days. And there is no leverage in this – the interpre­tation stands as an established fact in fulfillment if Brother Johnson knew whereof he taught. Now comes a Levite – a “loquacious, repetitious” Levite – who would add 14 years to the type, without offering the slightest explanation for the change, and without explaining how his 94 years (from 1874 to 1968) will harmonize with the 80-day type. And he offers this type to prove he is producing “advancing truth”! But he offers an entire paragraph of “rejoicing” in this new “advancing truth” he has just seen. As Brother Johnson said of RGJ’s kinsmen earlier in the Epiphany, their ‘new light’ is simply “mud splashes.” And RGJ is the one who now yells loudly ‘errorist, sifter’ etc. – all the while emphatically contending that Lev. 12 “proves” the end of the Epiphany in its “restricted sense.” As we have said of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, he is certainly consistent in his Inconsistencies!

Let all understand that we hold to the teaching that the Great Company as a Class are not yet cleansed. But we hold equally firm to the conviction that their cleansing will not come from ‘advancing truth’ (?) produced by Great Company leaders; it will come from applying those truths already clarified and cleansed from all error prior to 1954. And when RGJ says he “stands ready with a yearning heart and open arms to receive any who would humbly desire to return to the green pastures of the Epiphany truth,” it is apparent he is once more “walking in the counsel of the un­godly,” because J. F. Rutherford often made similar appeal to his erstwhile Society brethren to return to his “green pastures” – while he himself was the main offender in forsaking Parousia Truth (the real “green pastures”).


Let us now consider a statement on p. 46, col. 2, bottom: “The sifter who teaches what Brother Johnson termed ‘sophistry’ on the saints’ reign.” And right along with this we offer a statement from p. 56, col. 1, bottom, of the July-Aug. 1967 PT:

“The errorist (meaning us) who teaches what Bro. Johnson termed ‘sophistry’ on the saints’ reign claims that the ‘end’ in 1 Cor. 15:24 refers to the end of the Little Season.” This second statement then continues to offer some consider­able elaboration on the “sifting errorist creating confusion in the minds of some.”

We direct our readers’ attention to the fact that 1 Cor. 15:24 is not even mentioned in this May-June 1968 Present Truth – and for very good reason: Our paper No. 148 of Sept. 1, 1967 so thoroughly and clearly devastated RGJ’s erroneous position on this text that he has not dared mention it even once in the Present Truth since that date. And the ‘sophistry’ of which he speaks in the second instance is exactly the same as the ‘sophistry’ mentioned in the first Instance – with 1 Cor. 15:24 in­separably linked to both. But, RGJ, realizing the crushing defeat he experienced in our paper No. 148, dares not mention that text any more. Thus, when he attempts his present technique by omitting the text, he is doing exactly the same thing of which Brother Johnson accuses him in E-10:646: “so Azazelianly constructed as, if possible, to have deceived the very Elect” – he is now offering some more antitypical witchcraft to his readers (witchcraft being especially deceptive false teachings).

In a desperate effort to bolster his “house built upon the sand,” RGJ offers quite some detail about himself as antitypical Hiram. Certainly, the parts of this type which Brother Johnson has expounded we accept without argument; but it is well to consider here that the typical Hiram died about twenty years after completion of Solomon’s Temple, and about seven years after completion of Solomon’s house. Thus he died about nine years before Solomon died. Nine years before the Good Epiphany Solomon died would be 1941 – in which year Brother Johnson published Volume 10, in which is related the various evils of RGJ that we have discussed herein. From that published record it should not be at all difficult for any unbiased mind to reach a sound perspective of RGJ, and just what value to place upon anything he says about himself – or about JJH either.

And if any are a mind to elevate RGJ because Brother Johnson selected him to act as Executive Trustee (which is a business trust, and nothing more), we would remind them that Brother Russell selected J. F. Rutherford for a trusted position in the Society, and Brother Johnson cast his vote at the first election for JFR as Presi­dent of the Society. Thus it is in order here to quote from E-9:556:

“We often seek to do one thing for the Lord and He works something entirely different from our efforts. The best of us are not qualified to select God’s special servants, as such reject God’s choice and choose otherwise.”

When electing RGJ to be the business manager of the LHMM after his death, the Epiphany Messenger stressed that we were not authorized or qualified to elect a Pastor and Teacher for God’s people; we should let that be from the hands of the Lord. Clearly enough, then, RGJ is not strengthening his name-calling efforts when he tries to eulogize on himself as antitypical Hiram – especially so when we consider it in the light of the funereal ‘eulogy’ Brother Johnson gives him in Epi­phany Vol. 10.


Pertinent to our present discussion is something written by Brother Russell in the Jan. 15, 1915 WT, p. 24-25 (Reprints 5615): “In the morning Eli (type of the Great Company in the nominal Church—JJH) inquired of Samuel whether or not the Lord had spoken any further, and what He said. It was a trial to Samuel to tell his friend and benefactor, who was like a father to him, respecting the Lord’s criticism and pro­nouncement of judgment against himself and his family; but Eli demanded to know the full particulars, and we read that ‘Samuel told him every whit.’ Thus it is often with the Lord’s faithful servants; their tenderness of heart, their sympathy, might prompt them to hide, to cover, matters which their sense of duty may require them to speak boldly. In every case the individual’s conscience must be educated, and of course the Word of God is the educator. When Eli heard what the Lord had declared respecting his family, he answered most loyally, ‘It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good.’ But however faithful and submissive he may thus appear to be, we know that his character was not satisfactory to God.”

The foregoing is certainly our own attitude in the events that have transpired since 1950. The critical role which “of necessity has been laid upon me” does not give us fleshly pleasure; the only satisfaction we do receive from it is the con­viction that we thus are “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren.” And we are sure that this was true of the Epiphany Messenger when he realized he had to record the Azazelian practices of RGJ, if he would be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren. Undoubtedly he took no pleasure in it, except the pleasure of be­ing faithful, even though the duties were unpleasant, when he recorded RGJ’s being his main opponent in the cancerous widow case, the Resolution before the Philadelphia Church (see E-10, p. 646), etc.

As previously stated, we had thought to ignore this Present Truth, but later consideration convinces us we should issue this witness against RGJ and against all his supporters who are “wandering from the Truth.” And in this connection, we would once again quote from Brother Russell for all who have “an ear to hear”:

“If, therefore, we love and obey the Lord and desire to grow in His favor, His written Word is our daily meditation and study; and thus we grow in knowledge: not, however, by finding out each year that what we learned last year was false (such as finding out that six saved classes from the human family as taught by the Messengers, is false – and that seven saved classes from the human family as now taught by a crown-lost leader, is true; and finding out that Tentative Justification can extend to the Camp, while the Star Members taught that the Court is the only place for Tentative Justification, and is a type of Tentative Justification – their teaching being false, and the crown-lost leader’s “new views” true!—JJH), but by adding to what we learned last year, by putting on more and more of the armor of God until we realize its glorious completeness in the full discernment of the Divine Plan of the Ages.”

And, as Brother Johnson states in E-15:629: “God declared that His teaching will not by His servants always carry on controversies with the wicked (Gen. 6:3). His servants say that by His teachings God testified against sinners (Neh. 9:30). Speaking of the creed idols, God says there is not the truth in their mouthpieces—­Ps. 135:17 (the “mouthpieces” – those crown-lost leaders who have always opposed the faithful by producing their “advancing truth”—JJH).”

“For these things who is qualified? For we are not like the many, traffick­ing the Word of God; but really from sincerity, and as from God, in the presence of God, we speak concerning Christ.”—2 Cor. 2:16, 17 – Dia.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim



Beloved Brother and Sister Hoefle:

I am enclosing a letter from a Jewish Christian that I used to write to, but lost her address. This is all I know of her. She met a Christian Jew and they were married. She embraced his Christian faith – and this aroused her zeal to bless and help her own people.

I am no longer able to do much, and you may be too busy to engage in a corres­pondence with her. But it is encouraging to know of her zeal. I also have a book­let claiming a large work, and a successful one, for the Jews. When Joseph and Mary brought their 8-day old child to the Priest for certain rites to be done, the Priest told them, “This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel.” Great service may lie ahead in “God’s due time.”


Sr. Fowler (May 30, 1968) (MASS.)



Just three days after writing the above letter, our beloved Sister L. L. Fowler departed this earth; and it will be noted that she was “abounding in the work of the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58). It is our fond hope for her that her “labor was not in vain in the Lord,” and that she gained victory in full measure of her “glorious hope.” She had been our good friend and faithful yokefellow for many years.