No. 100
My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
In the May-June 1963 PT, p. 47, col. 2, the comments there presented have prompted a number of questions to us, one of which being fairly representative, we quote:
“In the May-June PT Bro. Jolly says the linen curtain will become a ‘wall of faith’ to those in the Camp. Will you please explain this?”
In those comments R. G. Jolly also accuses JJH of “spiritual blindness” in connection with this matter; but the accusation applies pointedly to him, which we shall proceed to prove herein.
CHRIST OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
On p. 18 of Tabernacle Shadows there is this: “The curtain of white linen, representing to those within, a wall of faith, but to those without, a wall of unbelief which hindered their view of and access to the holy things within.”
The above is simply telling us in clear language that all within that linen curtain have accepted – and received – Christ as their righteousness, which has made them “acceptable to God”Rom. 12:1. From the time of the Apostles to the Gospel-Age Harvest the High Calling only was understood to be synonymous with the acceptance of Christ’s Righteousness, the same being motivated by our Lord’s words in Matt, 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Actuated by this faulty translation, and the misunderstanding that came with it, tremendous efforts in time and money were expended on foreign missions in an earnest effort to bring the poor heathen to accept Christ as their righteousness if they would avoid an eternity of torment in flaming fire. Note now the Diaglott rendering of this text: “Go, disciple all nations, immersing them into (not “in,” but “into”) the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This correct rendering of the text tells all who preach Christ in “sincerity and in Truth” that they are to win disciples “into the name” – that is, they are to enroll them in consecration that they may learn the heart and mind – the disposition – of the Father and the Son, thus developing in them a Christlike character.
Not understanding the two salvations, the foregoing was all that the interim preachers knew of the Righteousness of Christ, as they attempted by strenuous effort to remove the ‘‘wall of unbelief” – that “darkness that covereth earth,” even “darkness that may be felt” (Ex. 10:21). Nor was this activity materially changed during the Parousia Harvest time, although it was decidedly modified by the understanding that the non-elect were also to have a full opportunity for salvation – even though That Servant and the reapers engaged with him still were acutely aware that they had done – or could do – very little to reform the world, to remove that gigantic ‘‘wall of unbelief’’ which engulfed all but a few of the human race.
CHRIST AS SAVIOR AND KING
Nor did Brother Johnson expect that “wall of unbelief” to be removed by the efforts of those with him; that “wall” remained in the Epiphany Tabernacle, although the Epiphany Messenger realized that the blast of the Seventh Trumpet would become increasingly effective until the full end of the Little Season. However, the promulgation of the Harvest Truth, stressing restitution, did awaken a considerable minority that did not wish to consecrate themselves to do God’s will under the strenuous and sacrificial exactions of “the narrow way” – although some of those good people were grateful enough for Restitution Truth that they contributed some time and money toward its prosperity. As they stated it, “Restitution is good enough for me.” Thus, to such, even during the Parousia, Christ became to them “Savior and King.” And we may expect an ever-increasing number to adopt that position, especially after Armageddon cleanses the Great Company, at which time Brother Johnson predicted they will have a “fruitful ministry.” (See E-4:49, etc.) But to none of such will Christ become their Righteousness unless they enter inside the linen curtain in the Court Condition; in fact, even those of them who do so enter, but refuse consecration, their final position receives this summation in E-4:406 – “They (the Youthful Worthies) are somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith, having used the Grace of God in vain.”
From the foregoing the conclusion is clear enough: Those inside the linen curtain who consecrate, and remain faithful therein, embrace the elective salvation; but those who refuse are eventually forced into the Camp, losing their tentative justification in the process, and their standing in the Household of Faith. But, so long as they remain repentant and accept Christ as “Savior and King,” they constitute the true quasi-elect. Nevertheless, let us not lose sight of the fact that, while such are not actually unbelievers, they are still counted in with the unbelief class, and will receive their resurrection by judgment, the free-grace restitution along with all others in the Mediatorial reign – having, of course, a better starting point in character.
This is quite succinctly stated by St. Paul in Rom. 12:1-3 – “Brethren... present your bodies.... acceptable to God.... be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God.” Thus St. Paul is telling his readers in concise fashion that they can be “Acceptable to God” ONLY so long as God’s will is acceptable to them. This point we stressed in our Baptism discourse at Trinidad in August; and it is the only term on which any of the fallen race can ever regain favor with God during the ascendancy of sin. Therefore, those who in the end of this Age fail to follow St. Paul’s counsel, must be counted in with the restitution class, even though they are specifically classified as the quasi-elect. That is why the tentatively justified who do not consecrate must self-evidently be forced from the Court into the Camp: They are not of the Household of Faith in the final analysis, although they have had a tentative standing in the Household before their ejection from the Court.
“WALL OF FAITH” – “WALL OF UNBELIEF”
In the Parousia and Epiphany Tabernacle pictures revealed to us through both Messengers, never once did either of them even as much as hint that the ‘‘wall of unbelief” would pass away at any time, so long as this Gospel-Age remains with us – and so long as the “reign of sin and evil” continues. However, are we to conclude from this that this ‘‘wall of unbelief” has been intentionally forced upon unbelievers by those within who hold up the linen curtain of righteousness – that such people actually intend to teach ‘‘unbelief” to those without? CERTAINLY NOT! It is sad to note, nevertheless, that many who have preached Christ have done exactly that. It is a true observation that some of the Bible’s most outspoken friends have been its most conspicuous enemies through the God-dishonoring doctrines they presented. The more arduous became their efforts to bring all within the “wall of faith,” the higher and deeper the “wall of unbelief” became to men such as Robert Ingersoll and others, who could not bring themselves to believe that a God of love could deliberately design an eternity of torment for creatures who are here through no planning or choosing of their own. Let us ever keep in mind that, during the Harvest, or earlier, those who preached Christ – by word of mouth or the printed page – were in fact “holding forth the Word of Life” in loving appeal to those without to enter and join with them. An insignificant few have accepted; a larger portion saw and understood rather dimly, some even rather clearly, but refused the invitation; while a third section paid little or no attention at all – “some seeds fell by the road; and the birds came and picked them up” (Matt. 13:4, Dia.). But from this we are not to conclude that those in the Court uphold such unbelief, merely because their ministry manifested the unbelief class; it simply means that their own faith and belief were not understood or appreciated by such unbelievers. Thus, what is Christ our Righteousness to those within, is unbelief, ridicule and scorn to many without, with “God concluding them all in unbelief” (Rom. 11:32) so long as they refused that “only name under Heaven” – refused to accept God’s will as their own – “that He might have mercy upon all” (Restitution blessings under less exacting requirements).
Be it noted that the outstanding result of preaching “Christ our Righteousness” was to instigate persecution upon the Faithful. With that ‘‘wall’’ now removed by R. G. Jolly, where and how are his converts to realize St. Paul’s prediction, “All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution”? His activities since Brother Johnson’s death have been decidedly toward Combinationism (the most devastating of all the six Slaughter-Weapon Men – Ezek. 9:2); and he has now succeeded in effecting Combinationism in full measure in his merger of his Campers Consecrated with Big Babylon. And such Combinationists never persecute each other. Instead, he now claims Big Babylon is aiding in bringing him new Campers Consecrated – by bringing many “to the Lord and to a better knowledge of the Truth....in Big Babylon” (See Jan. 1963 PT, p. 9). He and his partisan supporters are indeed being given the figurative “blood to drink” (Rev. 16:6), as they also “gnaw their tongues for pain” (Rev. 16:10), because of their errors; and the Truth will continue to afflict them thus until they “turn back from their path of error,” such afflictions being stripes for correction, and not persecutions for righteousness. Clearly enough, he no longer has regard for Jer. 51:9 – “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed. Forsake her (just the reverse of combining with her) .... for her judgment reacheth unto Heaven. and is lifted up even to the skies.” And his “cousin” J. W. Krewson also contends the same for Big Babylon – they still ‘agree’ on many points, as they seek to build up their “camps.”
R. G. JOLLY’S NEW CAMP
R. G. Jolly now contends he is not casting aside previously accepted Truth when he tells us that now that same curtain, which aforetime was a “wall of unbelief’’ to those in the Camp has now become a “wall of faith” to his Consecrated Campers. If that be true, where, then, is his ‘‘wall of unbelief” in his present Tabernacle? Does he have a clear answer to this? While he has not said so in so many words, yet when he now says the linen curtain is a ‘‘wall of faith” to those within and to those without, where are we now to look for his “wall of unbelief’’? Does he now have any wall of separation at all between belief and unbelief? We know he has attempted to remove the wall (veil) of separation between the Holy and the Court, as he freely enters the Holy now to secure a new doctrine. And in attempting this palmistry he is telling his trusting adherents that he hasn’t changed anything – just as King Saul (a type of crown-lost leaders—E-14:5) also said, “I have Performed the Commandment of the Lord.” He himself admits that there are millions upon millions yet in his Camp (Big Babylon is there, he says – and we agree with this!) who are still in measurable or total unbelief. Just what conclusion, then are we to reach from this jumble? Both Messengers taught during their entire lives that no one could make an acceptable consecration without entering the embrace of that curtain; but R. G. Jolly says they can now do this without coming inside. But he isn’t changing previously accepted truth; oh, No!
Furthermore, there is now no separation – according to him – between those consecrators in the Court and those in the Camp – the linen curtain means the same on both sides, which is precisely the attitude Big Babylon has followed all during the Age. This is well expressed in Poems of Dawn, p. 19:
“Half shyly the Church approached the World
And gave him her hand of snow.”
We now ask, Who is afflicted with spiritual blindness in this analysis? Let us remember that he now has tentatively justified Youthful Worthies within his curtain, and tentatively justified Campers along with the tentatively justified unconsecrated quasi-elect Campers outside his linen curtain. And he tells us that any one who can’t understand such a picture is “spiritually blind.”
The fact that Brother Johnson taught that the linen curtain would represent Christ as Savior and King in the extreme end of the Epiphany does not set aside Brother Russell’s teaching that it represents Christ’s righteousness to those within – nor does it nullify the “wall of unbelief” to those outside, or the “wall of faith” to those within (the ‘wall’ of separation between the Household of Faith and the Restitution Class still exists).
R. G. Jolly’s jumble on the linen curtain is just one more of his many perversions of Parousia and Epiphany Truth. Let him show one word from either Messenger that the curtain would at any time before this Age ends mean a “wall of belief” to those within and to those without. And, as we have so repeatedly inquired, Since a place in the Tabernacle type represents a condition in the antitype, what condition is now represented in his Camp? Will he answer this? And by what symbol is the consecration of his Campers shown in his Camp? Of course, this Campers-Consecrated perversion was fed to him by his “cousin,” J. W. Krewson; and, He who says “A” must eventually say “B.” Thus, he must offer one perversion after another to support this error, ever sinking deeper in the quagmire of error – losing more and more of the Truth he once saw clearly. As Brother Johnson has so well stated in E-11:278, “Truth is an uplifter of the faithful, and a stumbler of the unfaithful.” Also, he has stated that a clear understanding of the Tabernacle and Tentative Justification will prevent the faithful from losing the Truth, That Evil Servant eventually was forced to give up entirely Tabernacle Shadows, because of his many perversions of that book, and the sharp and unanswerable refutations of these errors by Brother Johnson. His (JFR’s) advice to his readers to study his “new light” that was appearing in the Watch Towers could not occupy the same program with Tabernacle Shadows.
R. G. Jolly still attempts to reconcile his errors with that book, but it will remain to be seen how long he can continue to do so. Therefore, we urge all our readers to study Tabernacle Shadows, as basic for all Parousia Truth and much Epiphany Truth; and we suggest for Epiphany studies The Epiphany Elect, Volume 4. as basic for Epiphany Truth and doctrines. As Brother Johnson states, those who pervert Tabernacle Shadows and Tentative Justification will eventually lose the Truth; and we have seen this actually demonstrated among the various sects in little Babylon over the post forty years – and we are now witness to this same course in the LHMM. We call upon such to turn from their “path of error” before it is too late for them – ever keeping in mind that this Campers Consecrated perversion was taught to R. G. Jolly by his “cousin” J. W. Krewson. Now with the sharp differences between them on so many points (primarily precipitated by which of them should be “greatest” – the “Pastor and Teacher” yet beholding the spectacle of them walking “arm in arm” as they attempt to uphold and defend this Campers Consecrated false doctrine (“strange fire”), while setting the Truth aside “once delivered unto the Saints” – the Star Members – we are forcefully reminded of Nahum 1:10, “They be folden together as thorns.” (See Berean Comment) As things stand now, R. G. Jolly has his Campers Consecrated with Tentative Justification (a faith justification), but the only evidence he offers that they have such justification is that they are looking in the general direction of the linen curtain. This is the kind of “logic” we should expect from one who has been building upon “Christ as the sand.”
RESPECTING THE ANCIENT WORTHIES
Inasmuch as Tentative Justification in the Tabernacle is shown only in the Court (inside the linen curtain – Christ our Righteousness), some may inquire concerning the status of the Ancient Worthies, since their sacrifice was burned “without the Camp,” as explained by the Red Heifer sacrifice on pages 105-112 of Tabernacle Shadows (the Red Heifer Class representing the Ancient and Youthful Worthies). Most of the Ancient Worthies were under the Law Covenant, and were, therefore, in the Court, even as were the quasi-elect Jews, as evidenced in E-11:504:
“Israel’s typical justification put them typically in the antitypical Court. The typical Court’s curtains correspond to the walls of the typical Holy City (Neh. 11:1).”
We realize, of course, that some of the Ancient Worthies lived before the typical Tabernacle was erected; and, from the standpoint of their time, they could not be in the Tabernacle Court at the time they lived (such as Abel, Abraham, and others), but they were anticipatorily counted there (just as some were thus counted in the Ark before it was erected—E-5:75), because they, too, were of the Household of Faith, and the Household of Faith is pictured in one place – IN THE COURT. All the Ancient Worthies were a fully-faithful Class, so the standing would be the same for all of them.
Brother Russell tells us this: “It is our understanding that, ultimately, they may be granted a place with, and as a part of, the Great Company, the antitypical Levites of the antitypical court condition.” So the only difference in those Ancient Worthies and the Youthful Worthies in the end of this Age is that some of the Ancient Worthies lived before the Tabernacle was erected, typically or antitypically, therefore could not be pictured in something that did not exist in their time; but the Youthful Worthies are won while that antitypical Tabernacle is in existence (from 1881 onward), at a time when all the Tentatively Justified are in the Court condition, and this Court will be available for all to enter who have sufficient heart desire – so long as Tentative Justification is available for them. As Brother Johnson tells us: “If our dear readers will keep in mind that The Tower’s denial of Tentative Justification during this Age is the foundation of its rejecting the Scriptural doctrine that those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in (and it will not set in yet for a number of years – JJH), for whom there are no crowns available, and hence no Spirit-begetting for Gospel-Age purposes possible, will be the Millennial Associates of the Ancient Worthies in reward and service, they will be able by Scriptural, reasonable and factual thinking completely to overthrow every argument....” And this sage summation by Brother Johnson applies with equal force to the erroneous presentations of R, G. Jolly and J, W. Krewson on their Campers Consecrated and Quasi-elect Consecrated. Therefore, let each one decide if he wishes to adhere to the “faith (Truth) once delivered unto the Saints” – Star Members (Bro. Russell & Bro. Johnson), or if they wish to become defiled by the “faith” (?) – actually, Error – now being offered by the “cousins.” Manifestly, we ourselves are still adhering to and earnestly contending for that “faith once delivered unto the Saints” – those who faithfully built upon “Christ as the Rock,” as opposed to R. G. Jolly, et al, who have built upon “Christ as the sand,” To offer a living illustration of this Truth by Brother Johnson in E-5:473/529, we cite the experience of a beloved Brother who entered a used-book store in Detroit in search of certain literature, and was told this by the proprietor: “Pastor Russell’s books are usually gobbled up in a hurry; but Rutherford’s books, we can’t give them away.” Those of the JW’s who joined JFR in building upon “Christ as the Sand” should by such facts be shocked into a realization of their own past mistakes, and resolve to correct them “while it is called today.” And the same applies with equal force to those who have been “building” in like manner with R. G. Jolly.
If it be argued that the Ancient Worthies are not anticipatorily counted in the antitypical Court because they are represented in a sacrifice “without the Camp,” we may with equal logic present the same case for Azazel’s Goat, which was typical of the Great Company. It was “sent away by the hands of a fit man into the wilderness” (Lev. 16:21); but no one with even a smattering of Present Truth would contend that the Class represented in Azazel’s Goat did not have their justification standing in the Court – even though they violate their justification and consecration during their uncleansed condition; and the Ancient Worthies and the Little Flock have always lived above and beyond the nominal masses, by whatever name we designate those masses. The offering of the Ancient Worthies “without the Camp” was to stress typically (See our paper No. 82 – These Things For Types”) that they are no part of the Sin Offering, as was true of the Bullock and the Lord’s Goat, which were the only Atonement-Day sacrifices offered in the Court, and their blood sprinkled in the Most Holy.
None of the three elect classes (AW, YW and GC) are shown in that Court picture of ‘sacrifice’ because there was only one Sin-Offering in two parts: Jesus and the fully Faithful Church, “which is His body.” But all who offer themselves to “do the will of God” under conditions of evil must separate themselves from the nominal masses “Go to Him without the Camp” (not remain in condition with the nominal masses within the Camp, as R. G. Jolly now tells his Campers Consecrated); and the standing of such is shown in only one place – THE COURT. While the Elect are divided into four classes, they are all grouped in the Household of Faith, with their standing inside the linen curtain – Christ our Righteousness. Therefore, if the quasi-elect were a faith class, as R. G. Jolly claims for some of them, they, too, would logically appear in the Court in the finished picture – with their faith-class brethren – to have their standing inside the linen curtain. However, Brother Johnson states clearly and emphatically of those who fail to consecrate that their justification and standing in the Household of Faith will lapse (See E-4:406, aforegoing).
If any should contend that the Youthful Worthies are not represented in the Epiphany Court (the Household of Faith), but are in the Camp with the nominal people, they are forsaking the Epiphany Messenger’s clear Scriptural teaching on Youthful Worthies; and, if persisted in, will lose their class standing and eventually lose the Truth. Instead of “contending for the faith once delivered unto the Saints,” they would be setting aside that “faith” (Truth) that once sanctified them. (Please see “The Fourfold Tabernacle Picture” in Jan. 1940 PT, p. 13, in which Brother Johnson describes the elect and quasi-elect in their respective places in the Epiphany Tabernacle, which is still with us.)
CONSECRATION ALWAYS IN ORDER
Repeatedly does R. G. Jolly offer this caption in proof of his present course; but this statement is simply a half-truth until properly qualified. Was it always “in order” for Cornelius to consecrate? Certainly, it was not “in order” as an operative condition until the “due time” (until the ‘way’ was opened up for him – although it is always proper for any to be in a submissive and consecratable condition) – that his “prayers and his alms came up for a memorial before God” (Acts 10:4); and Cornelius was in much the same position then as would be true of those now wishing to consecrate to restitution blessings (‘unto life’) before the Highway of Holiness is available for them (their ‘way’); as there is no ‘way’ yet open for Restitutionists. There are two parts to consecration – the offer by the consecrator, and the acceptance by God; and such acceptance must always be predicated upon the agreement to do “the will of God” – which is now, as it has been all during the Age, an offering “by faith,” and not “by works” (it is for the Household of Faith only).
Many are those who have consecrated themselves to good works; to attempt to glorify God by ascetic monastic life; to bind up human wounds, etc.; and, while many such have been working for God, they have not been doing God’s work – which mainly toward others for this Age, has been the gathering of the various elect classes. Aside from perfecting ourselves in every good word and work to the extent of our ability, this we still consider our most important work; whereas, the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson twosome) have now busily locked hands with their elder “Brother” in Little Babylon, and have joined the JW’s in attempting to win an uppercrust restitution class – seeking to perfect (develop) them in consecration now. Therefore, we are the only ones formerly associated with the Epiphany Messenger who still teach, and are being motivated by his Stewardship doctrine – “The Epiphany in its relation to the Epiphany Elect.”
Many of those failing to see God’s purposes will eventually be found among the quasi-elect, because they failed “rightly to divide the Word of Truth.” We do not discount such in toto, because we are in sympathy with every good work, with every heart that “is feeling after God,” although we still are acutely cognizant that God has provided a “better resurrection” for us (a reward for all who have done His will in faithful consecration during the “reign of sin and evil” of the non-spirit-begotten classes); and our advice to all consecrators yet to accept Christ as Righteousness is to come inside the linen curtain (not outside in a conglomerate tabernacle jumble, as described by R. G. Jolly), and seek the “better resurrection” that is yet available to those who covenant to do “God’s will” – “until Restitution sets in” (See E-4:342). And to such we commend that “wisdom from above” which maketh truly wise unto salvation.
Some may wonder why we are so persistent and detailed in our refutations of the various errors appearing all about us, so we quote just a few lines from Brother Russell on the subject (written in 1914):
“The days that are almost upon us (the Epiphany period – the Great Tribulation—JJH) will surely bring ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth’ to many of the Lord’s people; for whoever stands for error (as the leaders and many ledlings are doing in the various sects of Little Babylon—JJH) will be in opposition to God. They are about to go into a great Time of Trouble (about to enter the Epiphany period—JJH), and it will be their own fault.... It is the desire further to sound-out this present message.... It represents the voice of God, telling them their present duty as Christians.
Thus, we counsel all to “buy the Truth, and sell it not.” (Prov. 23:23)
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
----------------------------------------------------------
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace! It gives me pleasure to express my appreciation of your papers, as I note that you continually refer to Brother Johnson’s writings for proof of your presentations; and you usually hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I feel sure that Fred Blaine now regrets that he wrote that letter that was printed over his name in the Present Truth last fall. It is a great tragedy in his life, and I hope this mistake will lead to his recovery. He certainly started something he could not finish when he wrote that letter. Most likely R. G. Jolly asked him to write it, and had expected to gain a little confidence from his followers. But it boomeranged for both Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly. I think your letters are having a good influence.
The more I study Brother Johnson’s writings, the more I realize there has been a prophet among us. Brother Russell’s writings are truly wonderful, and Brother Johnson’s writings are based upon, and elaborate Brother Russell’s thoughts ... At present I am studying Epiphany Volume 12, and I am lost in wonder, love and praise. I don’t feel any need of R. G. Jolly’s writings. Your writings are very good, because you follow closely Brother Johnson’s teachings ....
The Lord’s people that are watching can truly see the Combinationism sifting working all around.... Greetings to you and to all in your Class.
Your brother by His Grace ------- (PENNSYLVANIA)
...........................................................................
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied unto you!
It has been quite awhile since I have written you – nevertheless my prayer for you is always at the Throne of Heavenly Grace. I heard from Bro. ------- sometime ago and received ----- lbs. on your account. Yes, dear Brother, the fight is still strong and the battle long yet, but victory is not for the swift and strong but for those who endure to the end. Psa. 92 is my comfort for you. Oh! how we do enjoy your papers ... although the unfaithful cannot see or appreciate them. Accept my love for you, Sr. Hoefle and the dear brethren with you.
Yours by His Grace, Brother ------- (JAMAICA)
-----------------------------------------------
TRINIDAD EXPERIENCES
Accompanied by Sister Hoefle, we effected another pilgrimage to Trinidad over the period August 13-19; and we believe our presence there refreshed and strengthened those brethren individually and collectively, even as we ourselves were also blessed as they in turn reciprocated to us in warm-hearted and hospitable manner in “the spirit of the Truth.’’ Thus, ‘‘He that watereth is himself also watered”! There is indeed a very healthy zeal in evidence in that Ecclesia for the Lord, the Truth and the brethren, which we believe was encouraged by the ministry we extended to them. In addition to a Baptismal service, it was also our privilege to visit an aged blind brother in Manzanilla who received the Parousia Truth under Brother Russell, and who is now filling out his years in a very remote and isolated section of the country. Thus, our visit – accompanied by six others – was a welcome surcease to this aging “good soldier.”
All was harmony and good will among those with whom we met, which for the various meetings constituted about three-fourths of all in Trinidad who are now influenced by “Present Truth.” However, we were once more engaged in considerable degree with the turmoil and division there, and the flimsy and profuse charges of Clericalism which are still directed at our dear Brother Roach and others. In all of this we were sharply reminded of Brother Johnson’s observation that it has always been the crown-losers and malcontents who stir up the strife among brethren by their errors and false conceptions of order, etc.; then they blame the trouble upon the Faithful. From all we could learn, this seems to be repeated in Trinidad now.
At the outset, let us note (if we are correctly informed, and we would not take space for this if we were not fully convinced of its veracity) that the name Hoefle had never been mentioned to the Trinidad Ecclesia individually or collectively by Bro. Roach until R. G. Jolly himself addressed two typewritten pages of his usual “foolish effusions” to that Class in typical tirade against JJH early in 1962. And in this effort by R. G. Jolly we again see where “He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” (1 Cor. 3:19) That letter was the real beginning of the division there last year – and that Brother Roach had been Brother Johnson’s faithful representative for many years – and he had served in the same capacity with R. G. Jolly for about twelve years – with never once a clericalistic charge raised against him until he (Brother Roach) made it clear he would have no part of R. G. Jolly’s “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated. This is strongly reminiscent of the hypocritical Pharisees who “watched Jesus, whether He would heal on the Sabbath Day.” (Luke 6:7) They, too, would be meticulously correct in observing the Law, all the while they were the very worst of Clericalists themselves. Very odd, is it not, that Brother Roach’s clericalism was never before noticed until he refused to go along with R. G. Jolly’s errors and false doctrine of Epiphany Campers Consecrated? May the Lord bless others with this kind of clericalism!
R. G. Jolly’s present representative in Trinidad – Errol Robertson – wrote Brother Roach eleven closely-packed typewritten pages on June 22, 1963, filled with charges of clericalism. We have never met Errol Robertson, so we may only gauge him by what he has written. However, in the hope that he and R. G. Jolly may both profit, we now quote from Parousia Volume 6, p. 475, par. 1:
“The duty of arranging and ministering this Memorial devolve upon them (the Elders) as a service to which they have already been selected by the Church.”
The reason for this special responsibility finds full support in our Lord’s words, “This do in remembrance of Me.” Therefore, if 90% of the Class voted to have no service at all, it would be the obligation of the Elders to ignore their edict and proceed to arrange the service regardless. This means they would determine the time, place and manner of the service without any previous consultation with the Class. As we understand it, this is all Brother Roach ever did during years past. But, we believe it in order here to declare also that a General Elder would likewise be fully subject to the local Elders in this matter, unless such local elders should specifically give him erroneous charges – in which case the General Elder should present the Truth and refuse to concur. With this exception, a General Elder such as R. G. Jolly would not be privileged to conduct such a service to the complete, or even partial, exclusion of the duly elected Elders of the Class.
Although Brother Roach requested that the Robertson 11-page letter be published in Present Truth, not so much as a comment has been forthcoming about it (we write this on August 21, 1963—JJH). Therefore, we shall treat of just a paragraph or so of that letter, with our own observations – although we expect eventually to publish Brother Roach’s answer to it, D.v. Note now the quotation from Errol Robertson to Brother Roach:
‘‘Your first marked divergence from the Truth teachings was in connection with Youthful Worthies in relation to the Narrow Way. For years you stoutly resisted the Truth that the Youthful Worthies are on the Broad Way, and persistently held to the error that they are on the Narrow Way.... You reasoned also that “The Elect” are on the Narrow Way, and because the Youthful Worthies are an elect class, they therefore must be on the Narrow Way also. On one occasion you went so far as to apply Heb. 10:20 to them, in support of your erroneous view .... You held that the Great Company were on the Narrow Way. But the mere fact that they will not attain to the Divine Nature (A 214:1) – the only prize to which the Narrow Way leads (A 211:1) – is in itself positive proof that the Great Company are not on the Narrow Way.”
Let us now examine some comments from R. G. Jolly on this subject, set forth on page 57, col. 2 (bottom) of the July 1955 Present Truth, and top of page 58:
“The Youthful Worthies (and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers) also consecrate unto death.... in their opposition to sin and in their service of righteousness (The Campers “service to righteousness” is outside the linen curtain of Righteousness, according to R. G. Jolly—JJH). The evil conditions that must be opposed in such a course wear out and take away life. Thus they also walk A narrow way of deadness to self and the world and aliveness to God....; as members of the Household of Faith (The Court only contains the Household of Faith—JJH) they partake of the antitypical Passover Lamb.... Thus the Youthful Worthies (and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers), like the Great Company, are surely traveling A narrow way, of which also it may truthfully be said: ‘And few there be that find it.’” (Yet he tells his adherents that there are many quasi-elect to be found and become Epiphany Campers Consecrated, which is one of their main services since 1954—JJH)
From the foregoing, it would seem — if both have stated themselves as they believe – that R. G. Jolly and his present Trinidad representative, Errol Robertson, are not even “in harmony” with each other (They “agreed not together”!); they don’t even agree on the errors they now teach – to say nothing about the Truth on the various items. In this same connection, when Fred Blaine was in Trinidad last February we actually advised some of our readers to attend his meetings, because we were persuaded that the more they heard of his bungling attempts to defend the Jolly-Robertson errors, the more fully would they be persuaded to cleave unto the Truth teachings of the Star Members as we have been presenting them. Did Errol Robertson direct any of the brethren in his Ecclesia to attend any of our meetings August 13-19? Thank God, dear Brethren, that “God hath not given US the spirit of fear.” At every turn it becomes more apparent that the LHMM is not only in Little Babylon, but they are also actually in Babylon (confusion) among themselves. It is a sorry spectacle indeed when those who once tasted of the Good Word of God (the Truth) come to such bedlam, and it should serve as a sober warning to all – not only in Trinidad, but to the entire Household of Faith throughout the earth,
There will probably be more on the Trinidad situation in due course. We now observe, however, that the reason for their confusion is this: Just as in the above quotation from R. G. Jolly, the very Scriptures he quotes to support his errors, actually defeat him.