My dear Brethren: - Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
On pages 40-48 of this May-June 1963 Present Truth R. G. Jolly offers a weak and perverted (Azazel means Perverter) attempt to answer those Eleven Questions contained in our March paper No. 93, in which he reverts to his usual name-calling and reviling slanderous technique. He accuses us of “trickery,” so we shall point out what he himself has done in his answers; then allow our readers to determine for themselves who is guilty of “trickery” here. Our June 1 paper No. 96 had already been mailed May 18, four days before we received the May Present Truth; and our June paper offers enough in itself to demonstrate clearly to all R. G. Jolly's folly; but we now offer further refutation to make doubly apparent just how “crafty” and befuddled by Azazel he has become since he was abandoned to that Evil One in October 1950 – a teaching by the Epiphany Messenger that he now refuses to accept (the abandonment process for all Great Company Members, whether they are the ones who have lost Little Flockship by the 'skin of their teeth' or whether they escape Second Death by a similar margin–See E-15:525).
“NEW DOCTRINES BY LEVITES”
He begins by quoting from E-7:138, “If the antitypical Levites seek to teach the Priests.... nor are they to seek to discover new light and spread it before the Church.” and there he stops! Consider now the rest of it; “As this would be attempting to go into the Holy, from which they have been excluded, and would result in their offering strange fire.” This last portion makes a shambles and mockery of his whole attempt here. Brother Johnson places no limitations on this truth – whether before or after his death – and for self-evident reasons. Once a Great Company member is excluded from the Holy, he could just as easily regain his crown and his priestly anointing as he could to go back into the Holy. And clearly enough, from Brother Johnson's reasoning, the only place from which a new doctrine can be obtained is from the lampstand in the Holy. For some years now R. G. Jolly has been adroitly attempting to put himself into the “Light” Class, the “Salt” Class, etc. Is he now becoming so bold that he is working himself back into the Holy? Let R. G. Jolly point out the “dead fly in this ointment” – if he can! Let him reveal our 'trickery' here – if he can! All during the interim when there were no Star Members, and crown-losers were then also forced to serve themselves, no Great Company leader was ever privileged to bring forth a new doctrine. Some of them ably defended some of the Truths given to them by the Star Members, although all of them perverted the Stewardship doctrine entrusted to them – some more, some less; but none of them had a 'cup' (produced a new doctrine). Some of these Great Company leaders were among the highest and best intellectual examples of all Great Company leaders, and had to be cleansed in character if they kept their Great Company Class standing; so in the case of some of them, at least, had such a privilege ever been possible for Great Company leaders, when they were cleansed in character God would have given them “advancing new doctrinal light,” if such had been in order for them. Certainly, it would be more in harmony with the “spirit of a sound mind” to assume they could regain their crowns after such character cleansing, than to teach they could gain a place to which they wouldn't have been called had they been faithful and never lost their place in the Holy – namely, the office of Pastor and Teacher! It may be that some of them lost their crowns by so doing ('gazing') while in the Holy; and we believe that has been true of quite a few here in the end of this Age: They did considerable 'gazing' under Brother Russell. As to R. G. Jolly, we have his own admission in his Nov. 15, 1910 letter that he had been guilty of making types and pictures of about everything until a pilgrim persuaded him it was wrong. It could be that even then he was restrained from. further 'gazing' by That Wise and Faithful Servant – because such persistent, 'gazing' would have caused him the loss of his standing in the Household altogether. And we all know that he again presumed upon the Lord's Goodness to such an extent that he and others “presumed to ask God's mouthpiece to be silent, and to let them become his teacher.” (See E-10:588, top) It could be that the Last Star Member also retrained him at that time sufficiently enough to save him from losing his standing in the Great Company. If R. G. Jolly were cleansed, as he claims to be, then we believe that he would be very reluctant to make any loud claims for himself for fear that he might just be repeating what has caused him such great loss in the past. But, as Brother Johnson so ably teaches, when they are fully abandoned to Azazel (without any restraint from the Star Members) they are controlled by Azazel more than they are by the Lord – and they are permitted to do their worst. (Please see E-15:519, par. 1 for further description.)
At the bottom of col. 2, p. 41 of this Present Truth, he makes quite some ado about Brother Johnson's statement that “the Great Company would have to serve itself” after the Star Member is gone – as though that were some deep and weighty truth. Brother Johnson could likewise have added: “Because that's all that will be left to them.” (Surely we all know that the Great Company characteristics won't permit them to be restrained or instructed by anything less than the “Mighty Hand of God” through His Star Members – although not completely by them; although Abraham, et al, who type the Little Flock would receive correction from those of a “lower class” – even from a worldling when they were in the right and the Faithful, because of the fallen humanity might be wrong in an act, although not wrong in heart intention.) But in the case of the Great Company having to “serve themselves,” a twelve-year-old boy could reason as much: If his parents died, he also would have to look out for himself unless he were fortunate enough to find a benefactor. And, while Brother Johnson did say the Great Company would have to serve 'itself' after his departure – a truth self-evident even if he had not spoken it – at no time, or in no place, did he offer the slightest hint that they would be expected – or permitted – to bring forth a new doctrine while doing their 'serving'; because he knew, perhaps more acutely than any of us, that any attempt by them to re-enter the Holy to gain new light (a new doctrine) from the Lampstand would be offering “strange fire” by them, and would result in death if persisted therein – just as it did “bring forth death” to the Society leaders.
From the type of Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10:1-7 Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both realized the inclination - and danger - of crown-losers offering “strange fire” (false doctrine) – such as they have done all during the Gospel Age. Brother Johnson issued copious warnings; Brother Russell even attempted in his will to restrain them, but to no avail. The Society leaders immediately concluded they, too, must “serve themselves” after the Star Member had gone; and what a “service” they have presented! R. G. Jolly has been loud in his criticisms of his kinsmen in Little Babylon; but he just learned just nothing from their unholy course; Both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson have warned us that we would find the most evil from those who have had more opportunity. And who has had more opportunity than those who have basked under the benevolent influence and teaching of both Messengers – the Parousia and Epiphany Truth! We need not think it strange from the Measurably Faithful when the restraining hand of the Star Member is removed from them – because at that time they are fully abandoned to Azazel: They are privileged to “serve themselves.” However, there is a brighter picture for them when they seek to “turn from the error of their way”; at that time the Lord will assist them as they seek in true humility to retrace their steps. (PLease see E-15:527, par. 1 for details by Brother Johnson.)
Lest any should conclude we are attempting to becloud this important teaching, we now quote from E-7:277, bottom:
“The Great Company's selfish propensities, especially exercised in self-will, grasping for power, lording it over God's heritage, dividing the Flock (even dividing the Classes of the Tentatively Justified Consecrated into Youthful Worthies and Campers Consecrated! – JJH), and desiring to shine before others as able teacher and executives are so uncurbed by themselves that not one of them (and this would include R. G. Jolly – JJH) alone can be trusted with an unrestricted General Ministry.”
So we now propose Question 12 for Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? Again we urge R. G. Jolly to point out the “dead fly in this ointment” – if he can!
Also, further from E-9:134 – “While God has given the non-star-membered teachers of the General Church and the more prominent local elders visions and dreams, He has never given them to see a thing new a doctrine.”
Note that Brother Johnson is here discussing the Fully Faithful Little Flock, and not crown-losers; yet even the lesser lights of the Very Elect have never been favored with bringing forth a new doctrine! In the face of this, let R. G. Jolly resort to his usual “profusion of words” to justify his sinning ways – and let all become involved with him who are of his same mind – and let all who see clearly his unholy course accept St. Paul's counsel: “From such turn away.” We now behold a crown-loser – a person who has been excluded from the Holy for lo these many years – a person who lost his anointing (the spirit of understanding) some fifty years ago – repeatedly directing our attention to the “advancing Truth” (new light) he has presented since 1950! Once this is viewed in its proper perspective, we are forced to give his contention the same description Brother Johnson gave to similar perversions by That Evil Servant: Instead of 'new light,' his effusions are simply new mud splashes of error; also his presentations by J. W. Krewson are in the same category, such as “Brother Russell's parallels,” “John's Beheading,” etc.
R. G. Jolly even has the unmitigated gall to bring in Joel 2:28,29 and the “inspired deeper revelations” that will come through physically perfect Levites in the Kingdom reign. If their writings are “inspired,” is he now claiming that his perverted jumble is a similar comparison and justification for his present course and acts? Says Brother Johnson, “When these crown-losers fall into Azazel's hands, they talk all sorts of nonsense!” Witness now another corroboration of this sage conclusion by Brother Johnson in E-6:180 –
''All crown-losers will eventually drop out of the Epiphany Movement”
Based on the foregoing, we now present Question No. 13 to Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? And, while we are waiting for the answer, we advise our readers that this statement by Brother Johnson has alerted us to view with a very critical eye any 'changes' or 'advancing Truth' proposed by R. G. Jolly, because we know he, as a crown-loser, will not drop out of the Epiphany Movement until he has first dropped out of Epiphany Truth. Again we urge R. G. Jolly to point out the “dead fly in this ointment” – if he can!
MORE ON CAMPERS CONSECRATED
On pages 42-43 and 44 R. G. Jolly offers more “profusion of words” re his campers Consecrated – no Youthful Worthies after 1954, etc. – with his conglomeration in the Camp. In the same reference he cites in E-10-114 he omits the very words that makes a shambles of his entire presentation:
“Certainly, when we come to a time when no more consecrations are possible for Gospel-Age purposes, it would be useless to exhort the tentatively justified to consecrate and sinners to repent, for the tentatively justified and sinners could arise no higher from their standings before God under such a condition.”
Why does R. G. Jolly tacitly omit this part of Brother Johnson's statement? We answer, Because R. G. Jolly's teaching doesn't agree with the Epiphany Messenger. R. G. Jolly believes sinners can “arise to a higher standing before God, and that the tentatively justified can consecrate and have a higher standing than others of their class when 1954 arrived” – the time R. G. Jolly claims Rev. 22:11 applies (to which Brother Johnson had specific reference when he said they could arise no higher before the Lord). If the entire interpretation of Rev. 22:11 be accepted at 1954, as Brother Johnson outlines, then R. G. Jolly has no more justification for attempting to win sinners to tentative justification, and for the tentatively justified to consecrate, than any one has to continue inviting the tentatively justified to consecrate with Youthful Worthy prospects. But our position is that so long as sinners may repent, and tentative justification is available for them, it is our privilege and duty to invite them to consecrate with Youthful Worthy hope yet in order; and we take this position because the Epiphany Messenger taught that so long as Tentative Justification is available, there is such a class (Youthful Worthy) open for such aspirants, who would be rewarded, if faithful, with the Ancient Worthies.
To make our own position entirely clear, we accept word for word the interpretation of Rev. 22:11 just as Brother Johnson gives it on p. 114; but we contend his date of 1954 is wrong for this interpretation to operate – because Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble are still future (and Brother Johnson firmly believed Anarchy would be here, in its initial stages, at least, by 1956). R. G. Jolly follows just the reverse of our position, contending for the 1954 date (whether the Scriptural events predicted for the Epiphany period had transpired or not. In this he follows the course of That Evil Servant after 1916 – “My Lord Delayeth” – as he proceeded to invite Restitutionists to consecrate to have a superior (higher) standing in the Kingdom.), but vitiating substantial and vital portions of the interpretation. As we have stated previously, if the interpretation of this and kindred Epiphany Scriptures is wrong, then the date itself has absolutely no foundation on which to rest. We have gone into considerable detail on this important feature in our June paper, so we shall not repeat it here; but we now offer once more a contention and question we have often presented, and which R. G. Jolly has just as persistently ignored: In the Tabernacle type a plane represents a condition in the antitype. Therefore, what condition in the antitype is now represented by his Camp?
RESPECTING TENTATIVE JUSTIFICATION
On pages 44 and 45 there is more “profusion of words” re tentative justification in the Camp. R. G. Jolly even goes so far that he accuses Brother Russell of teaching tentative justification in the Millennial Camp – although he does now, since our annihilative refutations on his previous positions, modify this as “a tentative actual justification.” Either R. G. Jolly does not understand the meaning of tentative justification, and its purpose, does not clearly understand the teachings of both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on this vital doctrine, or he is now willfully perverting their teachings as a cover-up for his Campers Consecrated. For his sake, it is our earnest hope that it is only a question of ignorance with him – and not willful perversion. Tentative Justification – or even vitalized Gospel-Age Justification – does not make one right; it merely reckons him right; whereas, a works justification in the Kingdom reign does not merely reckon one-right; it will actually make right... This is so elemental that any one not in the clutches of Azazel will need no argument to understand it. And, clearly understood, it just brands as more of his nonsense R. G. Jolly's effort to teach Tentative (faith) Justification under the Mediatorial reign. Certainly, it was not Brother Russell's thought, although we must admit his choice of words was faulty; it would have been much clearer had he specified an anticipated justification, or a progressive justification, because one will become a little closer to actual justification each day he faithfully applies himself in works accompanied by faith to his Kingdom opportunities. We now follow with quotations from both Star Members to prove conclusively just what they did believe and teach:
(1) Question Book, page 312, “At the close of this Age there will no longer be a tentative justification.”
(2) Question Book, p. 402, “Now, in the world's case in the next age, justification will not be by faith (tentative justification – JJH) but by works.”
(3) E-11:169 (27) “There will be no more faith justification working during the Millennium.”
(4) E-11:170, bottom: ''When this Age ends Christ's Merit will cease to be an imputable thing.”
(5) E-11-167(25): “Only during the Gospel Age can our Lord's merit be appropriated by faith alone.” (faith justification)
(6) E-7:65 – ''Hence Christ, owning this deposit, has it available for an actual purchase of the world, which He will make, to cause the works justifying process of salvation to operate” – (par. 10): ''Faith is the only instrumental cause of justification, i. e., the only agent that lays hold on and appropriates justification.”
(7) E-8:384 – “Justification by faith makes one no more than a nominal Christian.”
(8) E-6:199,202: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior” (although R. G. Jolly now bequeaths such a faith to his Campers – JJH)... JFR's new view allows for no symbolization for the tentatively justified condition.” (Up to now R. G. Jolly has offered no symbolization for the condition of his Campers Consecrated and justified.) Top of P. 202: “Passing through the antitypical Gate puts one into Tentative Justification.”
(9) E-6:195–”In the finished picture (the end of the Epiphany for those in the Camp – JJH) those who are less than tentatively justified.”
We propose now Question 14 for Fred Blaine and R. G. Jolly: Do you believe this teaching of the Epiphany Messenger in E-6:195? Let R. G. Jolly point out “the dead fly in this ointment”–if he can!
R. G. Jolly appeals to Epiphany Volume 4 repeatedly to support his “strange fire” of Campers Consecrated – “The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, Enoch and Noah (Heb. 11:4-7), until restitution begins, is a Scriptural one.” (E-4:346)
Doesn't R. G. Jolly know that Brother Johnson was here teaching that Abel, one of the Ancient Worthies, was at the beginning – therefore, the Youthful Worthies here in the end of this Age would also have opportunity so long as tentative justification is available? We believe he once understood this teaching very clearly; or he was merely giving 'lip' acceptance of Epiphany Truth.
However, just to support the above contention, we now follow with more from Brother Johnson in the same Epiphany Volume, just a few pages apart from R. G. Jolly's oft-repeated quotation:
“Those faithful consecrators from 1881 until Restitution sets in, 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.” (E-4, p. 342 (7)
Could any one, just any one, but those who are so befuddled by Azazel they can't understand what they read when they read it, mistake Brother Johnson's purpose and teaching on “The doctrine of Tentative Justification as operating from the time of Abel, etc. until restitution begins?” It is clearly manifest why Brother Johnson said, “Youthful Worthy brethren, and new ones not yet consecrated, are to be won for the Truth, some of whom will be won before Babylon is destroyed and, others of them afterward.” He said this because he taught that so long as Tentative Justification was available, then Youthful Worthies could be won – BEFORE BABYLON IS DESTROYED AS WELL AS AFTER. He made no room, or mention of Restitutionists consecrating while Tentative Justification was in operation; Consecrated Epiphany Campers found no lodging in his teachings,
We now propose to R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine our Question No. 15: Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger on p. 342(7) of Volume 4? We inquire further, Are these two people (Fred Blaine and R. G. jolly) “willingly ignorant” of this clear conclusion and teaching by Brother Johnson, or are they just ignorant? We await their answer with much interest. But for now we add for the further elucidation of our readers another conclusion by Brother Johnson:
“This method of making people forget certain phases of a doctrine by ignoring them, and by talking as the purpose in view required on others of its phases exclusively, whenever discussion of that doctrine occurred, was characteristic of, and conducive to the great falling away in the beginning of the Age.” (E-4:341)
In due time we shall present some Scripture Re G. Jolly is now forced “to ignore” – just as is true of the Jehovah's Witnesses in their treatment of Tentative Justification and their “strange fire,” as well as others in their treatment of their errors. This fault has been general with all those who fall into Azazel's clutches all during the Age, and especially in the Epiphany period – and more especially at this present time by those who have sinned against greater light (those who have had opportunity to receive Epiphany Truth and been under the benevolent influence of the Epiphany Messenger). The statement on page 342 (7) leaves just no room at all for Campers Consecrated – but it does still allow for us to continue to win new Youthful Worthies; and we are fully persuaded that all those who are “of the Truth” will recognize this Truth, and be protected by the faithful and correct teaching of the Epiphany Messenger.
Also, lest we appear to quote the Star Members in parrot-like rote, we now proceed to a Scriptural definition of Tentative Justification – its necessity and purpose; and we appeal first of all to Martin Luther's text for reliance in producing his stewardship doctrine: “Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand.” (Rom. 5:1,2) Clearly enough, it is this justifying faith that makes peace with God for the sinner; and it thus makes way for St. Paul's appeal in Rom. 12:1 – “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God.” If the one having “peace with God” hearkens to St. Paul's appeal and offers his body in sacrifice, he then acquires the “peace of God, which passeth understanding.” However, if he declines the invitation to present himself, he eventually loses “this grace wherein we stand,” and in process of time is relegated to the Camp, or even beyond the Camp, as the case demands. St. Paul makes it very clear, however, that this is a faith justification made possible “through our Lord Jesus Christ.” If now Campers Consecrated be a sound doctrine, let R. G. Jolly show where and how in the Camp his Consecrators come into this “grace through Jesus Christ.” There should certainly be something somewhere to point out to such people the source of their “grace.”
The question now is proper: Why must any one during the reign of sin first be justified before he can present himself? This answer is to be found in the Tabernacle types in the animals offered. In every instance the animal must be perfect – “a lamb without blemish,” Ex. 12:5. Since every antitype is not only equal, but greater than its type, it logically follows that the “better sacrifices” of this Gospel Age must also be perfect, in addition to possessing other superiorities over the type. God cannot look upon sin with any degree of allowance; and, since among fallen men “there is none righteous, no not one – none able to redeem his brother, or give to God a ransom for him” –, it would be contrary to God's fundamental law of Justice to enter into a Covenant with sinners. This difficulty is then removed by the “one able to open the book”; His merit is tentatively offered to cover the imperfections of those wishing to come to God through faith, thus making their sacrificial offering “acceptable unto God.” That is why Brother Johnson concludes in E-6:713 (top): “Faith justification (tentative justification–JJH) ceases to operate after the Gospel Age.”
Thus viewed, it becomes readily apparent how ridiculous it would be to teach a faith justification during a works dispensation, or vice versa. In fact, the Pope in Big Babylon does just that – justification through works; and it was this that caused the rupture with Martin Luther. We assume R. G. Jolly considers the tentative justification he now attempts to confer upon his Campers Consecrated is a faith justification. If he does so believe, then the process of faith justification must ever remain constant. Brother Johnson teaches that the consecrated Jews were tentatively reckoned in the antitypical Court, even though they lived too soon for the antitypical Gospel-Age Tabernacle to be in operation. But, since the time that Tabernacle was tentatively erected, there can be no justification outside the “righteousness of Christ.” So we ask once more – Where Is the Righteousness of Christ shown in the Camp? We are specifically informed by Brother Johnson (a harmonious and reasonable Epiphany teaching) that Christ's executorship does not extend to the Camp during the end of this Age.
All during the Epiphany it was shown in only one place – inside the linen curtain in the Court. If that was changed in 1954, there should be some proof of it. If we are to accept only the word of a Levite (even permitting for the question's sake that this Levite is “cleansed”), then we expose ourselves on all sides to the “cunningly devised fables” of men; others could claim the same privilege, and bedlam would certainly follow. Let R. G. Jolly, then, present some inspired proof from the Word of God for his present contention, or let him forever hold his peace! If he cannot provide his proof, who, then, is the real trickster, the real “shady lawyer” in this controversy? In due time we shall have more to say on this Campers Consecrated subject.
THE “ATTESTATORIAL SERVICE”
Once more R. G. Jolly has the temerity of the “foolish” to focus attention upon his 1954-56 “Attestatorial Service” – a fiasco which anyone not befuddled by Azazel should be only too glad to forget. That service was to have been a parallel – on a larger scale – of the 1914-16 Service; but here are some of the essentials in which it proved just the reverse: (1) Brother Johnson expected to be here, and give that Service his own personal supervision – just as the 1914-16 Service was supervised by a Star Member. Instead, the 1954-56 affair was supervised by an uncleansed Levite; and it was a dismal failure in every respect in which the 1914-16 service was a huge success.
(2) The 1914-16 Service brought every member of the Little Flock into Present Truth. That is why Brother Johnson said in E-10:114 that “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his first enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover of 1956.” Did this expectation materialize? It is indeed no surprise that R. G. Jolly would fail to quote this vital point in his reference to E-10:114 – even as he yells “stop thief” at us for omitting nonessential parts of our quotations from Brother Johnson. It is a safe conclusion that there were less Great Company members in the L.H.M.M. in October 1956 than there were in September 1954. Thus, the real feature “attested” by that service was the uncleansed condition of those leading that service. Brother Johnson repeatedly stated that “after the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry.”(E-4:49) And, whereas, every member of the Little Flock joined in the 1914-16 service, there was merely a very feeble minority of the Great Company in the 1954-56 service.
On p. 48 R. G. Jolly attempts a pathetically weak alibi for Fred Blaine's refusal to meet us before the brethren at Trinidad. He cites E-10:117-120, and Bro. Johnson's encounter with M. L. McPhail; and he does his usual work of perverting this item, too. He says Brothers Russell and Johnson “never arranged to debate with willful sifters.” Where did any willful sifters challenge them to a debate? Sifters usually realize where they can't appear (Azazel is that well informed); sifters always hide behind some thing or somebody! Here's what Brother Johnson himself says about that situation in Chicago on April 18-19, 1909: “After much thought and prayer J. decided to make a special effort to win him, and in case of failure to destroy, if possible, his sifting influence in that Church,” In the encounter that followed M. L. McPhail was so thoroughly beaten that he, “crestfallen, immediately went away, exhibiting to about 125 brethren his complete defeat.” (This is what would happen to all sifters when pitted against those skilled in handling the Truth! – JJH) By any stretch of the imagination, can there be any analogy whatever with the present attitude of R. G. Jolly and Fred Blaine toward us? The only analogy we can think of is the similarity of their attitude with those who are perverting the Truth and misrepresenting those who defend the Truth –such as J. F. Rutherford, et al. That Evil Servant also was “too polite” to engage Brother Johnson (or even R. G. Jolly at the time he was submitting to Brother Johnson's teaching, and restraining hand) and others in debate – after he lost the Truth. He didn't hesitate at all to debate with errorists when he was still under the benign influence of That Servant. If they had the Truth, wouldn't they be willing to face this “sifter” (?) under any condition in order to destroy his influence with the brethren in Trinidad – realizing that JJH is influencing a large number there, and will surely go there again to strengthen and bless them? In fact, under the benign influence of the last Star Member, both of them waged good warfare against sifters (when the Truth was with them they didn't exhibit cowardly retreat) in the 1948 division; and in 1951 R. G. Jolly strongly urged JJH to attend the Detroit Dawn Convention, and other meetings there, “to protect the sheep,” as he himself stated it. You may be sure that none of the leaders at that Convention would be so “foolish” as to engage in a debate with this “sifter” – JJH – an attitude and method R. G. Jolly has been forced to join, because of his own perversions and derelicions since the demise of the last Star Member; nor would they even engage in very much conversation with him – warning others to avoid him (just as does R. G. Jolly since he has joined the ranks of those who “serve themselves”). But R. G. Jolly was so well pleased with the result that he invited JJH to recount his experiences to the Philadelphia Labor Day and the Chicago October Conventions in 1951.
Not only was he so well pleased with the results of our efforts toward the Dawn brethren at that time, that he wanted us to give a resume of it, but he also himself, at least on one occasion, gave this experience as his own, just as we had experienced it. We overlooked this episode, because we realized it had impressed him so much that he wanted to tell an interesting recital to the Convenioners – and, knowing he is in the hands of Azazel, this little incident was to be expected and understood. We have our notes on this if by any chance R. G. Jolly is inclined to challenge this statement. However, we realize that R. G. Jolly may have his own recordings of these Conventions. And R. G. Jolly also knows now (befuddled by Azazel, though he is) what would happen to Fred Blaine if he should attempt a similar course with JJH – because those abandoned to Azazel still realize where the Truth is, and they “avoid !em” (although they also seem to realize their superiority over other errorists, when they themselves have the Truth against them). Nor is this due to JJH's “sharp mind” about which R. G. Jolly has warned his adherents, because even all the shrewdness of the Adversary cannot outwit the Lord and His Truth in the humblest of brethren. M. L. McPhail was next to Brother Russell in intellect during the Parousia. The promise is sure: “For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist.” (Luke 21:15) Therefore, this “double minded man, unstable in all his ways” (Jas. 1:8 – see especially the Berean Comment) now attempts the whining technique of the chastened politician: “Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's be gentlemen!”
Also, a year or two after 1951 we engaged an errorist in written controversy on the correct date for the Memorial ; and R. G. Jolly was so pleased with our refutation that he asked for our file on the case – and which he has never returned. We now call upon him to send it back to us; and he will do so if he has even onehalf the gentility and ethics he attempts to assume in this May Present Truth.
Furthermore, we are told Fred Blaine was asked in Trinidad to define a sifter. His answer – if we are correctly informed – “A sifter is one who perverts the Truth.” If that was his answer, it is more, misleading than right. Most Great Company members all during the Gospel Age – and especially so here in the Epiphany – have perverted the Truth that once sanctified them. Would any of us want to contend that every Great Company member has been a sifter? Of course, his answer is simply a clear revelation of Fred Blaine's shallow and irresponsible thinking under his present leader; and offers further confirmation of R. G. Jolly's efforts to alibi him from the battle front.
As for ourselves, “we have confidence, Because we have a good conscience (not a “bad conscience” ascribed by Brother Johnson to some who oppose us), wishing to conduct ourselves well among all.... Now may that God of peace, who brought up from the dead that Shepherd of the sheep.... knit you together in every good work, in order to do his will.” (Heb. 13:18-21, Dia.)
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST
(Memorial reports, etc.)
Dear Brother Hoefle: - Greetings in the Master's Name! Your kind and encouraging letter was received with much joy and appreciation....
We celebrated the Lord's Memorial with peace and solemnity, unlike the unrest which was so disturbing last year. Twenty-three (23) friends partook, and three (3) unavoidably absent (they partook 30 days later). Brother Martin officiated and Brother Roach gave the principal address.
We recall with pleasure the visit from you and Sr. Hoefle.... May the Lord bless you for the encouragement you gave us. We join in sending warm Christian love to you, Sr. Hoefle and all the dear friends there.
Yours by His Grace, TRINIDAD ECCLESIA Sr. ------- Sec.
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings through our Beloved Lord!
We here at W. S. are thankful for your prayers and thoughts during the Memorial season. There were six of us to participate..... On Sunday April, 7 meeting we had our first study in the First Volume with 14 people attending...... Please do pray for our First Volume study and our new participants.
With Christian Love, The W. S. Ecclesia
per Sec. ------- (NORTH CAROLINA)
Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our blessed Lord and Head!
Yours of the 30th March has been duly received. It was accepted with much love and appreciation, and we can assure you, dear Brother, that your loving instructions and help are always welcome.
Our blessed privilege in participating in the Memorial of our Redeemer's death was fully met, Eight of us met at our usual assembly hall. We are striving daily to appropriate to ourselves the blood and flesh of our loving Savior...... With this comes our warmest love to you, Sister Hoefle and the dear brethren with you.
Sincerely your brethren - Crofts Hill Ecclesia - per ------- Sec, (JAMAICA)
NOTE: We have other reports from Classes, as well as from individuals which we are omitting because of space at this time. Although we have not publicly requested the brethren to give us these reports, it is most encouraging to receive them; and we do thank all who have given us these reports – the Classes as well as the individuals. (Brother Hoefle)