NO. 97: A FURTHER ANSWER TO R.G. JOLLY

No. 97

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)

NO. 96: PROGRESSIVE TRUTH

No. 96

My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Many of our readers are familiar with Brother Johnson's superb analysis of 2 Tim. 3:16,17, as embracing all purposes of the Word of God: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for cor­rection, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” A very casual examination of this King James translation will reveal that it is faulty in several respects. Certainly, all scripture is not given by inspiration of God, because the dictionary defines “scripture” in its broad sense as “anything written,” and in a more limited sense as “any sacred writing” (such as the Sanskrit, the Koran, etc.), while it is limited to our Bible only in its narrowest meaning. In measured contempt, Solomon declares, “Of making many books (various writings) there is no end.” (Eccl. 12:12) Certainly, no one would contend that all books written have been “by inspiration of God.” The first “is” in the King James text being an interpolation, drastically perverts St. Paul's words of all sound meaning. Note now the Diaglott rendering: ''All Scripture, divinely inspired, is indeed profitable for teaching, for conviction (refuting), for correction, for that discipline which is in righteousness; so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly fitted for every good work.”

A more lucid concept is obtained by stating the first clause, “All Scripture that is God-enbreathed”; that is, all Scripture that is vitalized by the energizing force emanating directly from the Almighty. This is most emphatically affirmed in 2 Pet. 1:21—Dia.: “Not at any time was prophecy brought by the will of man (it is not the product of human thought), but men from God spoke, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” Thus, the Old Testament prophets' writings were “God-enbreathed”–brought forth by an energy not their own. Therefore, St. Paul states that “All Scripture (not only that in the Old Testament, but that in the New Testament as well) that is God-enbreathed is profitable.” Many have been the false prophets who would make such claim for their writings, perhaps the most outstanding in “the time of the end” being Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon cult, who claimed he was inspired by a dream to seek out the golden plates which contained an added revelation to the inspired writ­ings already in our possession. But his golden plates directly contradicted and vitiated so much of the Biblical “God-enbreathed” writings that the very ordinary student may readily realize that those plates are not “progressive truth,” but are in fact grossly “progressive” error.

When That Servant appeared on the scene he wrought mightily in removing the accumulated rubbish heaps of centuries past, presenting a system of truth which was truly harmonious with itself and with all “God-enbreathed” writings contained in the 66 books of our Protestant Bible. If we accept the premise that he really did give us “The Present Truth” (2 Pet. 1:12) as contained in those 66 “God-enbreathed” books, then we appear ridiculous indeed if we attempt to set that structure aside with any “progressive truth” now.  Truth must forever be the Truth; nor can it ever be annulled by any manner or profusion of added writings. If such attempt is made, we may immediately conclude that such claim is simply fraud, and should be immediately cast away. Brother Johnson emphasizes this in E-9:19 – “The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach.” Therefore, what was doctrinal Truth two thousand years is still doctrinal Truth today (the ten strings of the Bible “harp of God” are eternal and unchanging), and will be doctrinal Truth a thousand years hence – “Jesus Christ the same yesterday (the Jewish Age), and today (the Gospel Age), and forever (“for the Ages” to come—Heb. 13:8). Of course, it is symptomatic of all errorists that they claim to be presenting “progressive” or advancing truth, thus “deceiving and being deceived,” (2 Tim. 3:13) And St. Paul tells us in this same chapter that such errorists would become pronouncedly worse as we approach the end of the Age. With such warning from the “God-enbreathed” Word, it behooves us to be on the alert against such “deceivers” if we would maintain our own standing in God's Household.

Early in the Epiphany some of us were witness to That Evil Servant's efforts to foist his “progressive truth” upon us; and we were much blessed in escaping that diabolical system of nebulous error that enmeshed his partisan adherents. Brother Johnson expended much effort and multiplied pages of The Present Truth in exposing – “refuting” – his errors (that which we should not believe) – so much so that many com­plained about “too much controversy”; but, as he himself explained, a careful read­ing of those refutations would also impart much of “doctrine” (that which we should believe) to all who read them with an understanding mind. And, as he also explained, God's people should be fundamentally peaceable – in harmony with St. Paul's words, “As much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men” (Rom. 12:18); but, in harmony with James 3:17, the “wisdom from above” is not primarily peaceable – it is “first pure.” Thus, if we would develop and maintain that “purity of heart” which will enable us to see God (Matt. 5:8), we would break the peace rather than to become defiled with impurity of teaching, regardless of who that teacher might be. This also is our own attitude with respect to those with whom we once lived peaceably, but were forced to break the peace through their perversions of teaching and practice.

In this, as in all Scriptural analysis, we sometimes err greatly if we do not consider all texts that bear on a given subject. In the present consideration there are two statements by our Lord which some might say directly contradict each other; but they do not do so at all if considered in the light of sanctified reason. One of these is Luke 10:5—Dia.: “Into whatever house you enter, say first Peace to this house. And if a son of peace is there, your peace shall rest on him; but if not, it shall return to you.” These words had particularly impressed us when we were early in the Truth and engaged in the colporteur work, so we always made it a point to repeat Jesus' words to ourself as we approached the door. And with that approach, never once in all our experience did we ever have a door slammed in our face, although on many occasions “a son of peace” was not the inhabitant,

Consider now the seeming conflict of Jesus' statement in Matt. 10:34-37—Dia: “Think not that I am come to send forth peace on this land; I am come not to send peace, but war. For my coming will set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother .... so that a man's enemies will be found in his own family. He who loves father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me, is not worthy of Me,” The reconciliation of these two seemingly conflicting statements is readily made when we consider that it is not to be our improper conduct, but the Truth, that is certain to arouse the animosity of all gainsayers and errorists: This is emphasized in Heb. 4:12—Dia.: “The word of God is living, and energetic, and more cutting than any two-edged sword, cutting through even to a separation of life and breath, and of joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intents of the heart,”

A large portion of so-called Truth people today seem to believe the three texts aforegoing are now just past history, not applicable at all to this our day. This is a sad fallacy, of course; for so long as “evil men and impostors will make progress for the worse” (2 Tim. 3:13—Dia.), then all the more is it necessary for those who would be “faithful to the Truth” to wield the “sword” (sharp refutative Truth) against them – just as did “That Faithful and Wise Servant” and the Epiphany Messenger so long as they remained with us. So we say to all, “Go and do thou likewise!”

KINDRED ERRORS

Therefore, it is now our purpose to examine some of the teachings that forced Brother Johnson to break the peace in order that he might remain “first pure”; and compare them with some of the present-day teachings that have forced us also to break the peace. In E-6:177 Brother Johnson explains that That Evil Servant “cut off” certain members of the Little Flock “from the fellowship of the majority of God's people.” And all of us know that he consigned Brother Johnson, the leader of those “cut off,” to the second death. Since 1950 R. G. Jolly and J, W. Krewson have done substantially the same thing with many who still retain their high-calling hope.

Continuing in par. 1, p. 178: “He likewise has failed to seek the young one, the Youthful Worthies. Denying that there can be such a class ... he, of course, does not seek to win people for Youthful Worthiship.” Have not R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson done exactly the same thing since 1954, as they claim the time is past to win new ones to this class? And in cleaving to this teaching, along with the one aforegoing, do they not once more offer conclusive evidence that they are indeed “cousins”?

Further we read: “Nor does he feed – strengthen – that that standeth still, the Tentatively Justified.  These evidently constitute the company that 'standeth still,' for they do not progress to consecration.” In a limited sense the “cousins” also follow the footsteps of that Unprofitable Shepherd here, J. W. Krewson actually denies (as did JFR) that there are any new ones coming to tentative justification since 1954 – his “quasi-elect consecrated” are a “faith-justified” class in the Camp; whereas, R. G. Jolly places his tentatively justified in the Camp – a place where none ever appeared before – purely a product of his own invention, because neither Star Member ever taught such a thing (and we find no Scripture or combination of Scripture to support such a contention). And note also at top of page 180, “All crown-losers will eventually drop out of the Epiphany Movement,” Substantially, this was also true of the crown-losers with respect to the Parousia Movement (if we allow that the Parousia Movement and the Parousia Truth are inseparably related), who remained under the leadership of That Evil Servant. ONLY THOSE of the Great Company who became associated with the Epiphany Messenger retained Parousia Truth, being described by him as the “good Levites.” And just as J. F. Rutherford fell primarily from the Parousia Truth, leading others with him, so has R. G, Jolly now fallen from much of the Epiphany Truth, leading others with him; as is also the case with his “cousin” J. W. Krewson, who has done substantially the same thing,

THE CAMP CLEARLY DEFINED

In E-6:195 Brother Johnson presents a very lucid definition of the Camp, type and antitype, some of which we now quote:

“'Outside the Camp' means a condition of disfavor with, and rejection from among the rebellious nominal people of God. The Camp means, as above passages imply, the rebellious nominal people of God who, while desiring some relation to God, do not desire it sufficiently to be approved by him, even for fellowship with Him.  In the Harvest of the Jewish Age they were the about-to-be-rejected or the rejected house of Israel. During the Gospel Age they have been those professed Christians that have not heartily repented toward God and heartily exercised faith toward Jesus, or those who have not remained in these conditions of heart and mind, though desiring some fellowship with God, i.e., those who have not even been tentatively justified, or those who did not retain Tentative Justification, though loud in their professions .... in the finished picture, those who are less than tentatively justified.”

Certainly, here is another teaching by the Epiphany Messenger that is diametri­cally opposed to the “cousins,” one of whom (R.  G. Jolly) has his Consecrated Campers possessing Tentative Justification, while the other one (JWK) has his Campers with a “faith justification” (less than tentative), but has them consecrated in the Camp, which teaching also violently contradicts the above quotation, because Brother Johnson teaches that those in the Camp he describes are there because they have failed to consecrate, Nor need we be uncertain about the time setting here, because Vol. 6 was published in 1938, but Brother Johnson is discussing a picture yet in the future-­“THE FINISHED PICTURE.”

On several previous occasions we have directed attention to Brother Johnson's teaching in E-11:591 to the effect that only one Tabernacle antitype operates at one time; and we have asked the “cousins” to declare which antitype they consider to be now operating. Each time our question has been met with unclear statements, or silence by the both of them. Why? Are they afraid of the question? Afraid to make a clear declaration of what they wish their partisan adherents to believe? We opine they will both continue their silence on this important teaching (the Tabernacle is basic for all Parousia Truth, and for much Epiphany Truth) – just as they have also done on those 27 Pyramid “mis”-calculations which they presented in the January 1, 1947 Present Truth.

As “the sword” (sharp controversial Truth) was upon That Unprofitable Shepherd, so it has also been upon the “cousins,” forcing them to accept “new errors to take the place of the opposing truths.. “Instead of the Truth that opposes their errors being permitted by them to set aside their errors, they cling to their errors unto the repudiation of one truth after another contradictory to those errors.” (See E-6:186) And in all of this J. F. Rutherford kept insisting upon his “progressive development” of the Truth presented and clarified by That Servant (See E-6:190, middle) – just as R. G. Jolly now speaks of the “progressive development” of his tabernacle, Rev. 22:11, etc.

As Brother Johnson has so aptly stated, When crown-losers fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense. And one of the crowning bits of nonsense exuded by R. G. Jolly since 1950 is to be found in his Jan-Feb.  PT, p. 7, col. 1, par. 1, when he speaks of “the Epiphany work God has placed into our charge.” And this choice piece of flummery comes from one who stoutly contends we are now into the Basileia for some nine years – since the 'overlapping' began in 1954. If we are now in the Basileia, just what of Epiphany work can there possibly be left to do? Will he answer this question? And will he also point out to us where Brother Johnson ever once, after 1917 (when the Parousia overlapping had been fully completed), spoke of the Parousia work that had been placed into his charge? Here is indeed nonsense and confusion extreme! And how his readers can accept such hocus-pocus would be unbelievable were we not witness to it.

CONFUSION ON FAITH CLASSES

Nor is this all. He insists that his Campers Consecrated are a “faith class,” along with the other four real faith classes of the Gospel Age and Ages past. Now, note the clear and annihilating contradiction given to this perversion (Azazel means Perverter) by Brother Johnson in E-12:517, par. 1:

“The Land's two parts symbolized the two great doctrinal features of God's plan: (1) Election and (2) Free Grace. The Land of Israel was and is divided into two parts, with the River Jordan and its system of lakes and seas as the boundary between them.  The Land east of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Election, i.e., that God during the period of the ascendancy of sin selects out of the world the faith classes; and the Land west of the Jordan represents the doctrine of Free Grace, i.e., that during the Millennium God will give all passed over during the elective period, the non-elect, the unbelief classes, the opportunity to gain restitution.... It will be recalled that Rueben, Gad and the half Tribe of Manasseh received the Land east of the Jordan as their inheritance on condition of their crossing Jordan and helping the rest of Israel conquer the Land west of Jordan, which they did. Thus God offers the Elect, the Little Flock (Rueben), the Great Company (Gad), and the Worthies (the half Tribe of Manasseh) a heavenly inheritance, with the understanding that they will help the non-elect to obtain restitution, the non-elect salvation.”

Let the “cousins” fit their Consecrated Campers into this picture if they can, thus proving to all the validity of the “progressive truth” they are now advocating. In fact, when R. G. Jolly teaches the half Tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan types his Consecrated Campers, he offers direct contradiction to the foregoing (another Epi­phany perversion by him – Azazel means Perverter); as does also J. W. Krewson when he tries to antitype Manasseh with his repentant fallen angels, who are neither a faith class nor a restitution class. When we see so much of sound doctrine lost in twelve short years since the Epiphany Messenger's death, we come to a ready under­standing of how great parts of the “faith once delivered to the Saints” were lost in the Interim between the two Harvests.

Viewing once more R. G. Jolly's statement on p. 9, col. 2, bottom, of this Jan-Feb. PT – “Many are brought to the Lord and to a better knowledge of the Truth at the hands of brethren in their groups, both in Little Babylon and in Big Babylon” – ­we quote some of the Manna comment for February 4 from each Messenger: “Babylon and her blasphemous doctrines” (Brother Russell);  and “Where has more light been sinned against than in these sects (of Big Babylon), and upon what will God's plagues come with more severity than upon these sects?....In a secondary sense this  passage  well applies to the Lord's people coming out of the sects of Little Babylon” (Bro.  Johnson).

THE NAZARITE COVENANT

Let us now turn to a resumé of Num. 6:3 (the Nazarite obligations) in its relation to 2 Tim. 3:16,17, as explained by Brother Johnson in E-8:137-140:

'In the Timothy text the four things are set forth that God's people are to do with “God-enbreathed” Scripture – (l) For doctrine (that which we should believe); (2) For refutation of error (that which we should not believe); (3) For correc­tion of misconduct (that which we should not do); and (4) For instruction in right­eousness (that which we should do). As contrasted with this, Numbers 6:3 commands the Nazarite to abstain from (1) wine, (2) strong drink, (3) vinegar of wine, and (4) vinegar of strong drink.  The “wine” herein types ethical errors – the “strong drink” doctrinal errors – the “vinegar of wine” false corrections of misconduct and supposed corrections of right conduct – the “vinegar of strong drink” attempted refutations of Truth attacks on errors, and attempted refuta­tions of truths. In Isa. 28:1-7 there is a scathing denunciation of the “drunk­ards of Ephraim” in Big Babylon, who have imbibed to the full of all four of the things specifically prohibited the true Nazarite; and the setting is “In that day,” which began in 1874, in which “wicked men and seducers shall wax worse and worse,” until the “beast is slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” (Dan. 7:11)

Consequently, Brother Johnson states on page 139: “If they (the servants of the Truth in the Church) should accept (drink) Babylon's ethical, doctrinal, correctional and refutative errors, they would not only injure themselves, but also the Church.... Such errors should be shunned by the entire priesthood .... especially its teachers .... These grapes represent the false principles upon which Babylon's errors are built.”

Comparing the foregoing with R. G. Jolly's conclusion in this Jan-Feb. 1963 P.T., we readily perceive the violent contrast between his own reasoning and that of the Epiphany Messenger; makes crystal clear why any one holding such views would lose his crown, and why he was a ready prey to the errors of Campers Consecrated, John's Behead­ing, Brother Russell's Epiphany Parallels (with himself as parallel of Bro.  Russell), the Tabernacle errors, etc., which were fed to him by his “cousin” (J.  W. Krewson) im­mediately the true Nazarite (Brother Johnson) was taken from us. It explains also why we are so pronounced and persistent in wielding “the sword” (sharp refutative Truth) upon him, and why we shall continue to do so for the protection of “the flock, over which the Holy Spirit hath made us an overseer” (Acts 20:28). Nor could we do other­wise if we would continue to be faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren. We do this, not of delight, but because “necessity is laid upon me .... this I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.” (I Cor. 9:16,23) And to the foregoing we add from Tower Reprints 4851:

THE BIBLE LOST TODAY

It may amaze some when we say that to the masses of the people today God's Book is lost.  What! do you say, Have we lost over a hundred million Bibles in Christendom, and are we not printing more than a million copies every year? How can you say that the Word of the Lord is lost today?

Alas! Bibles we have, but to the majority of the specially cultured they are Bibles no longer – they are the inspired Word of the Almighty no longer! They are studied, believed and obeyed no longer. It is still fashionable to have Bibles; it is still customary to take texts from them – this is done by ministers, who privately confess that they have no faith in the Bible – that they have no more faith in the Bible than in Shakespeare. And the number of religious teachers who have thus rejected the Word of God as the divinely inspired Message is much greater than the majority of people surmise.  Nearly all ministers graduated during the past twenty years from nearly all of the universities, colleges and sem­inaries of Christendom, in Great Britain, Germany, the United States and Canada, are really infidels, unbelievers. (Note: This was written in 1911 by Brother Russell. Self-evidently, the people are much better today than they were then – ­even though the Scriptures tell us they will “wax worse and worse” – without even having received the scourging of Armageddon, according to R. G. Jolly's teaching!)

And to all “rooted and grounded in the Faith, as ye have been taught” we com­mend likewise –”Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy: for by faith ye stand” (2 Cor. 1:24) – “Wherefore, my beloved Brethren, be you settled, unmoved, abounding in the work of the Lord at all times, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.” (1 Cor, 15:58—Dia.)

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle,  Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION  OF  GENERAL  INTEREST

QUESTION: – Brother Johnson taught that the Epiphany is a 40-year period, the same as the Parousia period. Therefore, are you not revolutionizing against Epiphany Truth when you teach that we are yet in the Epiphany since 1954?

ANSWER: – No, we are not revolutionizing against the teaching of the Epiphany period. A simple question should resolve this matter: Shouldn't the interpretation of the pertinent Scriptures determine all in this teaching? Most certainly IT IS THE INTERPRETATION! Brother Johnson clearly demonstrated from Scriptures such as 2 Tim. 4:1, 2 Thes. 1:7,8, etc., that the Epiphany is a period of time – THE LAST SPECIAL PERIOD OF THE GOSPEL AGE. The Dawn and others, we are told, dispute this teaching – there is no Epiphany as a period, according to them. Those of us who still believe there is an Epiphany period in the end of this Age base our belief on such passages as those just cited, as well as the interpretation given them by Brother Johnson. Therefore – very clearly – if we cast aside the interpretation, then the period automatically falls with­out further ado.

Which, then, shall we accept? Brother Russell gave us “The Times of the Gentiles” from his interpretation of certain Bible passages – saying they would end in 1914. The “signs of the times” clearly corroborated his understanding of the matter; but the times themselves also just as clearly disputed some of the conclusions he gave us without Bible texts to support them. Very early in the Parousia he taught a complete collapse at 1914; then later modified that by declaring it might take a year – to 1915 – to accomplish so much. By 1912 he himself saw that his predictions could never all be realized in three short years, so he modified his opinion still further. By 1915 he realized that he had no further date to indicate the complete downfall of Gentile institutions, and he ceased making predictions – other than to state it would be only a short time. As late as 1910 one prominent and gifted pil­grim made a statement something like this: Don't you know that in the closing of 1914 the present arrangements of things is going to be wiped out? And, when the Czarist regime in Russia toppled in late 1917 prominent brethren said to us person­ally – We're not walking by faith any more; we now walk by sight; and some of them confidently believed that the Little Flock would all leave the earth by Passover of 1918. At that late date, had any then just hinted that present institutions would still be operating in 1963, he would have been held in derision by all – and we be­lieve this would include Brother Johnson himself. However, we would call attention to a remarkable article by That Servant, entitled “The Great Day of Judgment – Its Nature and Object” in which he reveals a very clear understanding of what should take place during the period following 1914:

“The earlier part of the judgment upon Christendom will be especially upon the antitypical sons of Levi, the silver class. These made a consecration of themselves to the Lord, as did the gold class, the faithful overcomers, 'more than conqueror,’ This silver class we understand to be the great company, who are to 'come up' out of the great tribulation, and to 'wash their robes (which have become spotted and soiled) and make them white in the blood of the Lamb.' Rev. 7:9-17.......

“The fire of this great day shall 'try every man's work, of what sort it is.' It will prove who of the professed disciples of Christ have built upon him as their foundation with gold, silver, and precious stones of divine Truth, and thus have constructed a true, strong, worthy character, unswervingly loyal to the Lord; and it will prove who have built with wood, hay and stubble. It will likewise discover who have built upon a foundation of sand. – 1 Cor. 3:11-15” (April 15, 1914 Watch Tower, Reprints 5442)

It is clear enough that all who embraced Epiphany Truth from a “good and honest heart” did so because the Epiphany Messenger upheld and defended Parousia Truth, and upon which all his faithful Scriptural Epiphany advancing Truth was based.

Are we now to conclude that Brother Johnson revolutionized against Parousia Truth when he corrected the over-enthusiastic expectations of Brother Russell as to time features? Certainly not! As he himself put it, he gave highest respect to Brother Russell's opinions until time itself – or clear Bible passages – demonstrated those opinions to be untenable and wrong. That is also our attitude with respect to the teachings of Brother Johnson. We are in full accord with his interpretation of those Scriptures which bear on the Epiphany – just as we set aside his opinions which time itself has clearly demonstrated were wrong. The “signs of the times” gave not the least iota of corroboration for the Epiphany to end in the year 1954 –­ either in the world, or among the Truth sections of the General Church. Nor does the type of Lev. 12 (the purifying of the Little Flock and Great Company developing truths) have any bearing whatever on this matter. Therefore, we do not preach – or accept – 1954, except as it applies to the interpretation of Lev. 12 – although we cleave to the Scriptural interpretations for the Epiphany period. The “cousins” (Jolly-­Krewson) take just the reverse position; each of them clings to the one thing wrong –­ the opinion that 1954 would witness the beginning of the end of the Epiphany – as they ignore the clear Scriptural interpretations. We now quote just one of the very many pointed expressions by Brother Johnson, the same being at top of page 15, Epiphany Vol. 4:

“The epiphaneia, the apokalypsis, of our Lord means, not Jesus making Himself visible, nor simply Jesus making Himself known, but His making every other person and every principle and everything known in the end of the Age. (Note: Has this yet been accomplished? If not, then we must still be in the Epiphany!—JJH) Apokalypsis, like epiphaneia, also means the Epiphany period (I Cor. 1:7; 2 Thes. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, 13; 4:l3). Accordingly, epiphanizing and apokalypsizing, and the Epiphany and the Apokalypse, being respectively identical, we can see that the special time of such epiphanizing, apokalypsizing, is the time of trouble – the time from 1914 onward for a considerable number of years yet. The following Scriptures prove this thought: Luke 17:29,30 (Sodom's destruction typing Christendom's—Rev. 11:8); Matt. 26:64 (the troubles of ecclesiasticism are symbolically set forth here as the clouds of Heaven); 2 Thes. 1:7,8. These passages in their order refer respectively to the war, revolution and anarchy of the Time of Trouble. Hence we see that the Epiphany is the special Apokalypse time and is the same as the time of Trouble.... by the time it is completed the whole Church (the Little Flock and the Great Company—JJH) will be with the Lord. (Note: There is nothing said here about a 'restricted' or a 'narrow' sense – no hint that the Epiphany-Time of Trouble will be waning after 1954 – before the real violence of the Time of Trouble has even begun in 1963—JJH) Accordingly, the words epiphaneia and apokalypsis, in the sense of an action, and in the sense of a period, are synonymous .... So far as the world and the Great Company are concerned, this epiphanizing, revealing, has been gradually going on since the tribulation began – 1914, and will increase and finally come to a climax at the end of the Epiphany – the end of the Time of Trouble. This is the reason why the Time of Trouble is emphatically the Epiphany, the Apokalypse, for it clearly with more distinctness than the preceding period (the 1874-1914 Parousia period—JJH), manifests pertinent persons, principles and things.” (All emphasis ours—JJH)

Hence, it is the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson) – and not JJH – who have revolutionized against the teachings of the Epiphany Messenger regarding the Epiphany period, because the Epiphany period is identical with, and inclusive of, all phases of the Great Tribulation – War, Armageddon (Revolution), Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble – as the per­tinent Scriptures clearly teach. Note, however, that R. G. Jolly has the overlapping of the Epiphany into the Basileia at 1954, with Armageddon, Anarchy and Jacob's Trouble still future, even in 1963; while the “Apokalypsis Messenger” (J. W. Krewson) starts a new period altogether at 1954 – without citing one Scripture that speaks of an apokalypse period. This is in direct contrast to the Truth given us by Brother Johnson; he gave us clear Bible texts that specifically speak of an epiphaneia – a special period of time. Therefore, time itself has clearly demonstrated that it is now ''wresting the Scriptures” given us by St. Paul (See 2 Pet. 3:16) – such as 2 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thes. 1:7; etc. – to attempt any sort of ending to the Epiphany period at 1954.

When Brother Johnson thought and taught that the Epiphany would end lappingly in 1954, he also taught on that basis that the violent features of the Tribulation would be here, at least in the initial phases – much the same as when Brother Russell taught that those violent features would come with 1914. Both were wrong in their expectations, but they were right in their Scriptural analysis regarding the Epiphany. Therefore, any who desire to remain in harmony with the Epiphany Messenger must agree that the Epiphany period is still with us – and will continue with us until all features of the Time of Trouble have been measurably accomplished. In other words, if we are to “continue in the things we have learned, and been assured of” – from clear Bible texts – then we must conclude that the overlapping into the Basileia cannot even begin at least until we reach the initial stages of Anarchy, with Jacob's Trouble soon to follow – because the Epiphany period and the Time of Trouble (the Great Tribulation) are identical. After that, we can expect the Kingdom proper –the true Basileia period –­ which will inaugurate the “blessing of all the families of the earth.” At that time all in Little Babylon, who have retained any vestige of Parousia-Epiphany Truth, and are still in the Household of Faith, will know – without need of elaborate persuasion – ­that we have come to the true ending of the Epiphany period.

---------------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS  OF  GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Loving greetings through our dear Redeemer!

Your remarks in your letter, “The Lord's promise is sure,” if we continue in what we have learned and been assured of, is of great importance. The monthly papers we receive are a real blessing – and the questions in the last paper (April) Are very interesting. You are able to give the brother sound answers.

It would be good if you could give the answers in one of your papers. It seems that you are the only one the Lord has raised up to carry on the work of the Star Members – the doctrines and arrangements and refuting the error. It is a great work to assist the Levites in their cleansing.

We are sending --lbs. to Jamaica next week. Brother ----- joins me in warm Christian love to you both and all with you. Yours by His Grace ------- (ENGLAND)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in our Redeemer's Name! We would like to have some tracts –Where are the Dead, The Resurrection, etc. We have already distributed those that you sent and would like to continue to do so. As you know, dear Brother, we are not rich in this world's goods, but we would like to send a small contribution to assist with the expenses.

We look forward to receiving your papers. May the Heavenly Father continue to use you to assist us. We all join in sending Christian love to you, Sister Hoefle and all the dear friends. Yours by His Grace -------- Sec/Treas. (TRINIDAD)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings! I just received the notice that Mr.------- ­sent you from Williamstown about the tracts Mrs. ------- received. I am glad I am one of those base and foolish ones that had the privilege to confound the wise. No doubt Mr. ------- placed Mrs. ------- husband in the heavenly realm at his funeral, as did a minister at my brother's wife’s funeral. After the services at the grave he turned to the friends and said, “Now as we are here together I will take this oppor­tunity to tell you, dear friends, that she is not here, but gone home to be with the Lord.” .........

Please send me some more tracts, Where are the Dead and The Resurrection.

Christian love to all the friends, Sister  ------- (CONNECTICUT)

...........................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and Peace in Jesus' Name! I hope this finds you both well. All is going quite well with me. ...I have heard from Sister ------- and Sister -------. There are other brethren not so sectarian. Do you have Sister ------- address? Here are several names for your mailing list.......

I also met Brother Eschrich in Tel Aviv. I heard about his wife's passing. We talked on Campers Consecrated, but we didn't make any progress on that line. I also met Sr. ------- I understand she still lives there ....

Please let me know how much it costs to print and mail ---- tracts to me. Thank you very much! Daily I long so much for God's blessed Kingdom. I do want to be more pure and loving in heart and mind, and more in my actions. God be with you both in this New Year, and all the brethren there with you.

“The Lord thy God, He it is that doth go with thee;

He will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.” (Deut. 31:6) With Christian love to you both, Your sister by faith in Jesus our Savior, by the Grace of God,

-------  (CALIFORNIA)

............................................................

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n –

Dear Sirs: – Greetings in our dear Lord's Name! Your literature came to hand – one, Where are the Dead and What is the Soul. I am happy to say I know the Lord. God is good and I don't know what we would do without Him. It is wonderful to know His love and Grace. May this Peace rest upon you.

Yours in Him, ------- (KANSAS)

NO. 95: THE MARCH-APRIL PRESENT TRUTH REVIEWED

No. 95

My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

On p. 26, col. 2 of this March-April P.T. there is a caption “False Accusations Exposed,” which once more reveals the cunning trickery of those in Azazel's clutches. (See E-10:646) And, if that was R. G. Jolly's intent toward the Epiphany Messenger himself, it should cause no surprise that he accords us the same treatment. He says we insert the word “ Jewish” in his statement that appears in his Nov-Dec. P.T., p. 93, col, 2, par. 4. We suggest all go back and read what he has said there. He says there isn't “any notice of this thirteenth month given in the Bible.” We are in full agreement with that statement; then he proceeds to explain how “ the modern Jewish calendar” reconciles the lunar and the solar years by the metonic cycle which they adopted in 360 A.D.

Does R. G, Jolly know exactly how that reconciliation was effected when Jesus was on earth – 360 years before the Jews adopted the Meton recon­ciliation? But, if he was discussing two different years in the same paragraph, why didn't he make that clear? He says it would be “foolish” to use the present “heathen-based Jewish calendar” for our own calculation – and we agree in certain respects; but, if he rejects the present method, it is most elemental to expect he would state precisely what authority he does use. Does he know? We repeat, DOES HE KNOW?

He once more accuses us of “the tactics of a shady lawyer” in this matter. It was not here – and never has been in any instance in the past – our intent to mis­quote or distort his statements. We have plenty of Truth to use against him without stooping to ''Azazelian'' methods, as he himself has done (See E-10:646). In the paragraph following the one herein under scrutiny he quotes “Fausset's Cyclopedia”; but there is nothing in that quotation that even hints at thirteen months in the year, so what is he trying to prove by that? It is common knowledge today there are about seven more lunar months in every nineteen years than there are solar months – exactly the same as it was in Jesus' day; therefore, the only question now before us is what method was used then. If R. G. Jolly knows that method, he hasn't said so.

He who discerns clearly, teaches clearly; but Brother Johnson says it is impossible for those in Azazel's clutches to think clearly on any Scriptural subject; and we have repeatedly proven in the past how befuddled R. G. Jolly's thinking has become since his abandonment to Azazel in 1950. Here is just another illustration of it – even as he yells “shady lawyer” at us to conceal his own bungling. Brother Johnson's clear statement is that the Passover must be “ never before the Vernal Equinox.” We now accept that unequivocally, regardless of what sort of year R. G. Jolly was discussing on p. 93 of the Nov-Dec. P.T.; but we now advise, too, that henceforth he make himself clear, without “profusion of words.” Then he won't have any complaint with us – or any one else –misunderstanding him. Let him now state clearly exactly how the calculation was made in Jesus' day, if he knows.

Let us not forget that a Levite (R. G. Jolly) has offered now another of his “new” ideas on the Memorial: He is the first among Truth people during the entire Parousia­ Epiphany ever to hold the service in the winter, so far as we know – before the Vernal Equinox. Let us remember, too, that it was the “cousins” (Jolly-Krewson) who opened the attack upon us; we originated no charges whatever against them. J. W. Krewson showed himself so ridiculously weak that he was silenced in short order; and R. G. Jolly is now crying “false accusations.” Note he makes it plural; then proceeds to discuss “a” statement we made, We are ready enough to withdraw and apologize for any statement any time against him if it becomes clear that statement does him any injustice. He insists our insertion of the word “Jewish” in his statement was the “tactics of a shady lawyer.” Clearly enough, we did add the word “Jewish” because we concluded that was his thought. Now, with all his “profusion of words” to dis­credit our inadvertence, he still hasn't made clear just what he did mean.

However, when he accuses us of “shady lawyer” tactics, he is simply attempting a cover-up for his own weak position and the conduct which is inherent in his Leviti­cal character. (See E-10:646), as cited aforegoing; also, E-10:585, where Brother Johnson tells us R. G. Jolly has a “bad conscience” – a charge Brother Johnson never made against JJH). This is further confirmed in the very harangue he now offers to justify himself – and he does so in identical “shady” fashion to what he now berates in us. Note p. 27, col. 1, par. 5: “The false accuser, with his (JJH's) appeals to Josephus.” It was Brother Johnson who first appealed to Josephus; we merely accepted the conclusion he reached after he cited Josephus: “Never before the Vernal Equinox.” Therefore, it was Brother Johnson – not JJH – who originally “appealed” to Josephus; we knew nothing about the Josephus record until Brother Johnson referred us to it. Who, then, is the “shady” character here? And, if R. G. Jolly does not wish to accept Josephus, as did Brother Johnson, for the method in use in Jesus' day, let him cite some other authority who knew the method then in use. Will he do this? We very much doubt it!

However, while we are waiting for him to make himself clear, we shall proceed to make our own position unquestionably clear; so we quote from the Jewish Encyclo­pedia:

“ There is no mention of an intercalary month in the Bible, and it is not known whether the correction was applied in ancient times by the addition of one month in three years, or by the addition of ten or eleven days at the end of each year... The fixing of the lengths of the months and the intercalation of months was the preroga­tive of the Sanhedrin.”

And be it noted that the High Priest was automatically the President of the Sanhedrin. Therefore, the uncle of Josephus, who was High Priest, was also President of the San­hedrin; and it was this body that fixed the date for the Passover at the time of Jesus. Thus, Josephus, himself a priest of the first course, would be as well qualified as any one then living to tell us when the Passover should be kept – which he says was “ while the sun is in Aries,” which motivated Brother Johnson's conclusion that the Passover (Nisan 14) must be after the Vernal Equinox. Therefore, R. G. Jolly's snide remarks about “appeals to Josephus” are simply some more of his symbolic witch­craft (especially deceptive false teachings). On the other hand, Brother Johnson's “ appeals to Josephus” are sound and time-honored, because we cannot find a single instance in the entire Gospel Age where the Jews ever observed the Passover before the Vernal Equinox, which, coupled with the Josephus record of the custom in Jesus' day, adds indisputable corroboration to Brother Johnson's conclusion – “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX.”

Lest we be misunderstood, we are in full agreement with both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson that the present-day Jewish calendar is inaccurate; but that is no justification for assuming they do not understand the proper “ season” for their festivals, particularly for the Passover, even as Brothers Russell and Johnson both kept within the proper season (“ALWAYS AFTER THE VERNAL EQUINOX” ) when they were wrong many times in the exact date for the Memorial: They never celebrated the Passover BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX! Self-evidently, the Jews have clung with typical Jewish tenacity to the teachings of the Fathers that their Passover must be observed after the Vernal Equinox – or, “NEVER BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX,” as taught by Brother Johnson for Spiritual Israel. Therefore, we now charge R. G. Jolly and his “cousin,” J. W. Krewson, before all, with observing the Memorial thirty days too early in 1962 – ­and no amount of name-calling or loud “profusion of words” will absolve them from that responsibility.

            Even though the last two Star Members made mistakes in their exact dates for the Memorial, neither of them ever went so far wrong that they kept it “out of season” – ­before the Vernal Equinox – as R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson have done. Not even Big Babylon has been so far wrong in all the records we can find. They, too, always observe Easter AFTER THE VERNAL EQUINOX – during the Spring Season! The “cousins” (R. G. Jolly and J. W. Krewson) hold a unique position in their celebration of the Passover BEFORE THE VERNAL EQUINOX! And these two hold this close harmony on this error (as they do on many other errors), even as they attempt to resist the true Epiphany teachings, while suing each other for the name (Laymen's Home Missionary Movement) bequeathed to us by the Epiphany Messenger. “Only let us be called by thy_name to take away our reproach.” (Isa. 4:1)

Furthermore, if Brother Johnson was correct in his conclusion in the February 1933 Present Truth, that his presentation there was a “Great Company developing Truth,” then we are all forced to the conclusion that Brother Russell never saw clearly how to calculate the Memorial date, because he was at least one day wrong on almost every one he observed – just as Brother Johnson also was probably one day wrong in every date he published prior to 1933. Thus, the “cousins” – and more specifically R.G.Jolly – ­have loosed quite an uproar with a very weak foundation under their feet, We opine the both of them have simply made this attempt to divert attention from the many humi­liating defeats we have otherwise administered to them, and others yet to come to them on the errors they are advocating. Specifically, this present outburst by R. G. Jolly is probably an adroit attempt to have his readers – particularly those in Trinidad –­ forget those eleven questions we proposed for Fred Blaine while he was there. “they hate him that rebuketh in the gate (place of prominence), and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly” ; (Amos 5:10) – and “anoint themselves with the chief ointments (such as the title of Pastor and Teacher): but they are not grieved for the afflic­tions of Joseph” (those true teachings of Brother Johnson which they both have set aside). (Amos 6:5,6)

“ CAMPERS CONSECRATED” AGAIN

On pages 27-30 of this same March-April paper R. G. Jolly resorts to more of his “profusion of words,” subject as above; but here again he ignores Item No. 1 in his discussion, the same being his authority to present a new doctrine (whether he is 'cleansed or uncleansed'). In E-10:XXIV Brother Johnson states:

''All brethren, except the star-members, are forbidden direct Biblical study on new doctrines, types and prophecy, which is 'gazing' for them.”

In the paper under review R. G. Jolly offers great elaboration of “types” to substantiate his teaching – some of which were never given us by either the Parousia or Epiphany Messengers. This he does in clear violation of the aforementioned teach­ing, and in direct contradiction to much that has been given us by the Messengers. Brother Johnson also emphasizes the above quotation in E-7:138 and in E-11:495. Therefore, before he attempts to offer “proof” of his new doctrine, let R. G. Jolly first give us a clear Scripture, or “group of Scriptures,” as his authority to set aside the Epiphany Messenger's teaching as quoted aforegoing. There is just no point at all in presenting extended discussion on any matter that is clearly illegal at its very inception, and thus on a false foundation.

A LOOK AT NUMBERS 7

But, while gaiting for him to do that, we now offer a convincing type in proof that Brother Johnson was correct in his teaching – the same being the type set forth in Numbers 7, wherein the twelve princes of Israel typed twelve groups of crown-lost leaders in the Gospel Age. This is most clearly and convincingly expounded in Epiphany Volume 8, pages 169 through 461.

            Among other things, each prince offered a bowl, charger and spoon, the same typifying respectively those three sections of inspired Scripture described by St. Paul as “refuting, correction and instruction in righteousness.” (See 2 Tim.3:16) On p. 192 (29) Brother Johnson tells us “there was no offering of cups” by the princes, thus attesting that none of their antitype were permitted to bring forth new doctrines. Rather, “the crown-lost leaders in all cases perverted some doctrinal feature in the teachings given by the Little Flock crown-retaining leaders.” While this type stresses the good and commendable work done by the crown-lost leaders in their Gospel-Age service for God, it does not overlook the evils of those “double­minded” men (See p. 197, top), as evidenced by the figure six being prominent in the weights of the vessels offered, six being a symbol of evil or imperfection. And by their perversion of the symbolic “cups” (doctrines) that were entrusted to them, they in that part of this type reveal the antitypical service to Azazel (Azazel means Perverter). And every one of them was guilty of such perversions.

Be it noted we are not here teaching that the crown-lost leaders in the Epiphany are a part of this antitype; but we do stress their identical conduct to their kins­men of the interim epochs of the Gospel Age. We have already explained in our paper No. 22, June 1, 1957: “ To substantiate this conclusion it becomes necessary first of all to offer an analysis of Brother Russell's Stewardship Doctrine, which we believe to be:

“A correct understanding of the Atonement as portrayed in Leviticus 16, the central teaching of which is Restitution,” (copy of this article free upon request)

And R. G. Jolly himself is commendably among the foremost in declaring how the Society leaders have so atrociously perverted that doctrine, so that they are now actually denying the Ransom, ignorant though they may be of the fact. Their ignorance, however, does not change the fact.

And the present leaders, and some erstwhile leaders (J.W. Krewson, et al), in the L.H.M.M. have also grossly perverted the Stewardship Doctrine entrusted to them by the Epiphany Messenger, the same being,

“The Epiphany in its Relation to the Epiphany Elect,”

as set out in our No. 26, October 1, 1957 paper, p. 4 (copy free upon request). Their perversions – as has been true of all their kinsman of the past – have taken from the Truth and added their own errors to the “ cup” (doctrine) entrusted to them. And this is just what we should expect from those abandoned to Azazel; 2 Thes. 2:11 emphatically states that all such persons would experience “an energy of delusion.” Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both taught tentative justification only in the Court; the present L.H.M.M. leaders teach it in the Camp. Neither Messenger ever taught a consecrated class in the Parousia or Epiphany Camp – nor did they teach con­secration available for Restitutionists during the large Gospel Age or in its last special stage (the Epiphany period). The present leaders do teach that consecration is available for Restitutionists before the Highway of Holiness is opened up for them. The Epiphany Messenger described the quasi-elect as those who failed to consecrate; the present L.H.M.M. leaders now have some of them among the consecrated. Nor did the Epiphany Messenger himself ever speak of the Epiphany period in the end of the Age in a “ narrow” or “restricted” sense. That has been added by R. G,-jolly to give some semblance of plausibility to his many other Epiphany perversions. As stated aforegoing, R. G. Jolly definitely “is not grieved for the afflictions of Joseph.” (Amos 6:5-6)

Let us keep in mind also that R. G. Jolly has never presented a “progress report” for his Campers Consecrated – and for good cause: He hasn't any to offer! Consider now – in contrast – the orderly progress report given by the Messengers for every New Creature of the Gospel Age. Aside from those born in tentative justification (in the Court condition), every New Creature made orderly progress from the Camp (some few, perhaps, even from outside the Camp) to the Gate of the Court, entering which he immediately experienced a change in his standing once he stepped through the Gate: He became tentatively justified. Thereafter, he made orderly progress past the brazen altar (noting in limited degree the sacrificing of the Christ Company), washing at the Laver, until he reached the first veil of the Tabernacle proper. Passing through that veil in consecration he immediately experienced another change in his standing: He became a New Creature in the Holy.

Here is surely a story of orderly progress not to be found in any feature of R. G. Jolly's Campers Consecrated. Note he now admits he has them mixed right in with those ejected from the Court in 1954, and with the nominal people of God (See p. 30, col. 2, par. 2), and with the quasi-elect unconsecrated! Thus, his Campers Consecrated experience no change whatever in their standing by their consecra­tion –­ the Camp types only one condition, just as the Court, the Holy and Most Holy type only one condition; we have no way of discerning his Consecrated Campers from the other Campers! And this latter statement is probably about as close to the real Truth as anything he has presented on the subject!

On p. 30 he says there are now “three (emphasis by R. G. Jolly) classes in the post-1954 Epiphany Camp: (1) the Gospel-Age nominal people of God; (2) the loyal unconsecrated quasi-elect.... (3) the Consecrated Epiphany Campers.” In the face of this conglomeration, just what condition is now typed by his Camp? We offer the only logical answer: It types a condition of CONFUSION – confusion worse confounded! And this one teaching by him of itself clearly places him and his partisan supporters right where we have repeatedly contended they are – in LITTLE BABYLON (Babylon means Confusion). Let us ever remember that a place in the tabernacle type pictures a con­dition in the antitype. Thus, the Court types only one condition – JUSTIFICATION. Even though there be several different classes of people in the Epiphany tabernacle Court, each one of them is in a justified condition. Contrast that now with R.G.Jolly's “post-1954 Epiphany Camp,” in which he has tentatively justified, ex-tentatively justi­fied (those remanded from the Court since 1954), non-tentatively justified (the quasi­elect unconsecrated), and those without any justification of any kind (the nominal people of God). Confusion? Babylon? Yes, indeed; and in obnoxious extreme! This is graphically described by Brother Johnson in E-6:369 (top):

“They have run ahead of the Lord... even as Saul failed to wait for the sacri­fice until Samuel came to make it ... They became teachers of error (symbolic sorcery), even as Saul took to witchcraft.... This is the large type–that of the Gospel Age. But there is a smaller type, which is confined to the Epiphany, and which has been fulfilling and has yet sometime to run.” (Published in 1938)

We are now witness to some of its fulfillment right at our own doorstep. Saul is taking to symbolic witchcraft (especially deceptive false teachings), with conse­crated, unconsecrated, nominal unjustified people, others once tentatively justi­fied who “ received the grace of God in vain” – all in a confused jumble in one place (R. G. Jolly's Camp). It is little wonder that Brother Johnson made the observation, When these people fall into the hands of Azazel, they talk all sorts of nonsense.

And in the face of all these perversions R. G. Jolly is crass enough to declare on P. 29, col. 2, par. 2, that they “walk in the light” ... We remember very distinctly how C. A. Wise, Vice-President of the Society under That Evil Servant, came to the Dayton, Ohio Class early in the Epiphany, and gave a discourse on “Walk in the Light.'' In that talk he emitted much harangue about “Paul S. L. Johnson and his deluded followers falling behind the Light” – because they were adhering to and defending that Truth that had been entrusted to them by the Parousia Messenger, and were not accepting the new teachings then coming from the Unprofitable Shepherd whose “ right eye shall be utterly darkened.” (Zech. 11:17)

At that time the Society leaders were introducing many new erroneous types, as they also cast aside the Truth (in similar fashion as we see today from R. G. Jolly) that had once made them clean (John 15:3); and it was a spectacle to behold as those potent orators – of strong lungs and big mouth – tore down the Truth given by the Lord through the Parousia Messenger – and built up the error with their “profusion of words” that started the Little Babylon sects of Confusion. At that time That Evil Servant ''whispered'' privately to brethren how Brother Russell received most of his teachings by intuition; whereas, he, being a lawyer accustomed to think in hard and clear fashion, reached his conclusions by sound logic (?). And this was swallowed by his trusting followers unto a complete perversion of the tabernacle types, until eventually, they threw out the entire Tabernacle Shadows book. All this had a small beginning, of course, starting with their denial of tentative justification. The L.H.M.M. leaders have not yet perverted to that extreme; so far, at least, they have just moved tenta­tive justification from behind the linen curtain out in front of the “ wall of unbelief.” And in making this change, they are “walking in the light.” In exasperation at such twaddle, Brother Johnson simply said, “Nonsense!” And we join with him in similar expression at what passes before us now! We shall offer much more on this in our June paper.

“For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” (Psa. 1:6) And with this comes the prayer that “The Lord will give strength unto his people (the fully faithful of all classes); the Lord will bless his people with peace.”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

 ----------------------------------------------------------

QUESTION OF GENERAL INTEREST

QUESTION: – Do you believe a Youthful Worthy can lose his tentative justification and again regain it?

ANSWER: – We know of no Scripture to support such a view. It is clear enough that those who are ejected from the Holy because of measurable unfaithfulness can never regain entry to the Holy – tears and strong cryings availing nothing. Also, those New Creatures who are ejected from the Court (Second-deathers) nevermore regain their standing in God'[s Household. With this precedent before us, we believe it is unreasonable to conclude any other procedure for those who lose their Youthful Worthy Class standing for similar reasons. In fact, if they would be able to do so, it would seem to us to encourage indolence, which is a trait contrary to all Scriptural teaching. We can well fancy many saying, Why exert ourselves to sacrifice and toil now when we can do so later and attain the same results?

Therefore, it is our conclusion that the Youthful Worthies who lose their Class standing because of unfaithfulness, also lose their tentative justification and are ejected from the Court – a re-entry to which is forever barred to them. The Court is the only place in the Tabernacle picture that types justification; and the entrance to the Court is a GATE – not a revolving door for any one to enter into tentative justi­fication, then go back into the unjustified worldly condition from which they came; then back again into the Court condition at will (although there is a Gate to enter, and a Gate through which those who are in the Court can be ejected). We believe when one is ejected from the Court (once loses his tentative justification standing), that he has lost his standing as a Youthful Worthy forever and cannot regain it – anymore than the Great Company can regain their standing among the Little Flock and again enter the Holy, the place from which they have been ejected because of unfitness therefor.

-----------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dearly Beloved Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our Lord!

I have the Present Truth of March-April 1963, and it would seem that Brother Jolly is replying to part of my letter of January 5. Before going further, I would draw attention to a statement of Brother Russell in Z-5347, col. 1, par. 6. I must now ask, What death did Brother Johnson die to antitype Matt. 23:35? Was he slain or did he die a peaceful and quiet death? Has he not shown in his own correction of 1 Thes. 4:17 that the last member, or members, of the Little Flock would be taken away in violence –''violently seized away''?

In E-5 (Miscellany), p. 297 (44), also same book p. 442, where Brother Johnson expected Anarchy in 1954, which has not materialized even yet. (Which proves we are still in the Epiphany, and not in the 'overlapping' Epiphany period – JJH) Is not Brother Johnson in harmony with Brother Russell when he says in E-3:213 (21):

“Thus the Little Flock here proves to be the salt of the earth and the stayer of the second phase of the Great Tribulation?” (written in 1938)

One cannot take from the Star Members' writings what suits him and throw the rest aside unless facts are to the contrary. Another case: Brother Russell produced the Photo Drama in 1914 as an attestatorial work. (See Z-5479, col. 2, last par.) Who produced Bible in Films in 1954 – Merchants?

Christian greetings to dear child Sister Hoefle and all the others your way.

                        I am (signed) L.F. Roach (BELMONT – PORT OF SPAIN – TRINIDAD)

(Now follows a postcript by Brother Roach to his open letter to R. G. Jolly Jan. 5 – JJH)

When I wrote to you about your meeting with Bro. Nelson at Piarco on your return to Trinidad that day, you denied what I said that it was a dirty plot between you both. I am quite satisfied now that this very Bro. Nelson went and knocked at Bro. Peters' home to the surprise of Bro. Peters, between the last week of January and the first week in February, boasting that through your directions he has successfully managed to cause the separation of the Trinidad Ecclesia (also that it is he and not I who did it), by telling you of the separate Memorial.

Under the guidance of our Lord through Bro. Johnson I brought the (Epiphany) Truth to Trinidad, and I am prepared to defend the Truth and to defend Jehovah's character. I notice that Rom. 8:28-35 is operating now on my behalf. It is a very crucial test for me. Bro. Hoefle has given me a very helpful thought that some of us get our severest trials early in life and some of us at the closing days of our life; but in all of our trials God overrules according to E. Vol. Eight, page 642, first 18 verses.

I can now see why, though you and Bro. Johnson lived together, yet he passed you over and sent 600 miles away to Bro. Hoefle to conduct his funeral service.

Signed: L. F. Roach

(This postcript is part of open letter to R. G. Jolly from Bro. Roach, which appeared in our No. 92, Feb. 1, 1962 paper, pp. 6-7 – JJH)

.......................................

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle: – Peace be multiplied!

Excuse my brevity. I am fighting against my physical weakness. Yesterday morning I discovered in one of my old books the accompanying letter from Brother Johnson, which I would like you to publish along with my reply to Brother Robertson's and R. G. Jolly's accusing letters of clericalism.

I think it necessary to tell you something about Brother McBarnett. He came into the Truth about 1923, during the separation of the Little Flock and Great Company in Trinidad. He was among the first ones I brought into the Epiphany Truth in 1931 – an eloquent preacher, he went to Venezuela in 1949 to get a job. While there he preached and used to draw hundreds to hear him, even some of the Watch Tower people. He made enemies of Roman Catholic priests and was slowly poisoned. The British people rushed him back to Trinidad where he was hospitalized for about four days and died. In such cases there should have been a Coroner's inquiry. In this case there was none because there was no union between Trinidad, a British colony, and Venezuela, a Spanish Republic. I reported everything to Brother Johnson, who was grieved over the situation. He told me to probe the matter, but Trinidad Police have no power in a foreign country. Brother McBarnett died in Sept. 1950.

I am improved from sickness about 75%.

Christian love and greetings to Sister Hoefle, the others and yourself.

By His Grace, (Signed) L. F. Roach (date, March 7, 1963 – TRINIDAD)

My dear Bro. Roach: Grace and peace!

Yours of Sept. 6 with your report and some book orders was appreciatively received. I want to tell you, my dear Brother, that I greatly appreciate the work you are doing and that I am glad to see that you are doing the work and having it done in harmony with the Parousia and Epiphany arrangements, for example, the many Home-Gatherings and meetings for the public that you have been conducting as indicated on your report. May the Lord bless you in your endeavors to serve Him and His cause. The literature which you ordered has been sent to you. I am announcing the death of Bro. H. McBarnett in the October PRESENT TRUTH and await further word from you on the subject.

As to appointing someone else to take Bro. McBarnett's place, I would do it if I knew of someone qualified. (Unlike crown-lost leaders who rush to appoint brethren to fill a vacancy, Brother Johnson – the true Pastor and Teacher – sought to abide by the Scripture, “Lay Hands hastily on no one and be not a partaker in Others' Sins; keep Thyself pure.” 1 Tim. 5:22–Dia. – JJH)

Sending you my hearty Christian love and the assurance of my prayers which also applies to yours and the other dear ones, I remain

Your brother and servant, (Signed) Paul S. L. Johnson

(date, Sept. 13, 1950 – PHILADELPHIA, PA.)

...........................................

Our dear Brother Roach: Greetings of love in our Lord's Name! We regret delay in writing before now.

The reason is we have been flooded through burst pipes, etc. However, we are hoping the worst is over, and that the warmer days and longer daylight with the life­giving sunshine will help us get over the long and extremely cold weather we have had here in England. Of course, we do comfort ourselves in the thought that “Grace and Strength” sufficient for our needs is daily given us. Also the promise given us in Rom. 8:28; Isa. 30:15; Psa. 46, etc.

We appreciate the privilege of reading your letter to R. G. Jolly, containing the Truth so valuable and vital to those of us who love the Truth “above Rubies,” or anything else in this world, which is something these Azazelian Levite Brethren – especially the leaders – have yet to learn and appreciate more than life itself. This continual stubborn­ness, self-will and arrogance, will prove very costly indeed to quite a few brethren. “How are the mighty fallen” ! Spiritual pride, like any other kind of pride, truly “goeth before a fall.” And how much we have desired to help the brethren! So often have efforts been made by us, but they “ desire none of us yet.” But in the Lord's “due time” they will be glad to hear – indeed even ­anxious to have help from those of us who have humbly accepted the Lord's deliverance from Little Babylon's wrong teachings and practices. See Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 360, bottom of page – “as the brethren arose in resistance to revolutionism in the groups to which they had adhered, and from which loyalty forced them to separate themselves.” Compare with page 643. It would seem clear that this last group in the form of the L.H.M.M., though no worse than some other groups, which explains why Brother Johnson could call them and others, “good Levites” – though requiring cleansing. See p. 274: “The ten good Levite groups... the cleansing of these is a thing to be devoutly hoped for.” God bless you!

Accept our united love in the Lord, with assurance of our prayers that His richest blessings be yours daily.

From your Brother and Sister in Him, The Baxendales (ENGLAND)

 (date, Feb. 11, 1963)

..................................................

Dearly beloved Bro. and Sr. Baxendale:

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! Your letter of Feb. 11, 1963 received with much appreciation. I read about the disastrous weather which occurred in England. My sympathy was with you. We all do know our dear Heavenly Father is faithful and has never failed one of all His promises.

As concerning my letters to Bro. Jolly, he has my sympathy. I was evidently used of the Lord to rebuke him when he was in Trinidad (Z-5184, col. 1, par. 9) (2) Not observing the Memorial with him in obedience to E. Vol. XI, p. 208. (I never thought it would be so far-reaching!) (3) Now this quotation of yours – “How are the Mighty fallen” has drawn more sympathy for him (RGJ). However, let us pray, watch and see.

At this moment I am a sick man, and have to get some one to write for me. With respect to your references in The E. Vol. 10, I prefer to refer those to Brother Hoefle who seems to be set aside for that purpose – and has the strength and ability. I know that you are in touch with the latest. I would not like to delay reply to your good letter one day longer.

Warm Christian love and greetings to Sister Baxendale and yourself, I remain in His Service. (Signed) L. F. Roach –TRINIDAD – (date, March 7, 1963)

........................................

To Bible Students,

Please do not send me any more literature. I am one of Jehovah Witnesses! I understand the Holy Bible.

Yours sincerely ------- ENGLAND

.........................................................

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n

Dear Sir:

Will you please send me a copy of What is the Soul, The Resurrection of the Dead. I have a copy of Where are the Dead. I like this very much, as it is exactly as I believe. I am a Bible Student and would like to get all the right advice I can on these matters. My minister this past Sunday preached a sermon contrary to this teaching.....

Yours truly ------- CALIFORNIA

.......................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian Greetings!

As I have stated in former letter concerning the young man who is so earnest in the Truth, I have given to him my back issues of your publica­tions. There are four missing.......... May I ask, When, what month and year did you start printing these letters? Thanks...

I will not write much here, but refer to the letters written to you by other brethren that cover my thoughts on your work more and better than I can put in words. We three here love all you and your dear family in God's Truth send us, and we pray the dear Lord's care always for you, for his work to be done as necessary.

With Christian love and prayers from each of us ------- CALIFORNIA

.............................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Greetings in our dear Savior's Name! I was glad to hear from you. I wanted to write before, but I am not as good this winter as other winters. Thank you for your letter – also for the papers. The dear Lord surely is with you! They could not be better. He surely is preparing a “Table” for us and has led us thus far – and may we be faithful to Him and the Faith!

Your Questions for Fred Blaine are just wonderful. You can't know what blessings I get from them, so I study them over and over.... I hope this finds you and Sister in health and very happy in the Lord.

Yours in the one Faith, ------- PENNSYLVANIA

.................................................................

Epiphany Publishing Company

We would like for you to send us the following tracts: The Herald of the Epiphany, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul, Resurrection of the Dead, the Three Babylons, and any others which you might have.

------- KANSAS

NO. 94: "CONSIDER HIM"

No. 94

My dear Brethren: - Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

As the passion of our Beloved Lord comes once more acutely to our attention because of “the Cross,” it is well that we meditate again upon St. Paul's words in Hebrews 12:1-3 (Dia.): “Consider Him attentively who has endured such opposition from sinners, so that you may not be wearied, being discouraged in your souls.” The specific primary grace accentuated by this text is our Lord's perfection in Patience – His cheerful continuance in well doing amid excruciating trials – His “narrow way” finished in His death at Calvary.

In these first three verses of Hebrews 12 St. Paul is offering in summation his discussion in Hebrews 11 of the faith of many of the Ancient Worthies – “For by this (faith) the ancients were attested.” (Heb. 11:2,Dia.) By this Faith Abel ''was attested to be righteous” (v. 4); Enoch ''had been attested to have been well-pleasing to God”; Noah's “Pious fear” was attested (v. 7); Abraham's “obedience” was attested (v. 8); Moses' sense of values was attested (vs. 23-29), as he “appointed the Pass­over” (the type of “Christ our Passover,” whose memory we once more cherish and re­vere), departed from Egypt (type of the world in sin), “passed through the Red Sea as though a dry place”; Rahab was attested “having received the spies in peace” (v. 31); others were attested by “a trial of mockings and scourges, and also of bonds and im­prisonment, were stoned, sawn asunder, tempted, died by slaughter of the sword, went about in sheepskins and in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated.... all “attested by means of faith” (vs. 36-39).

Clearly enough, by means of just one of the virtues or graces many of the Ancients ''were attested”; and in none of them could it be said that they reflected in perfection those sterling qualities St. Paul attributes to them. But, as we “con­sider Him,” we are reminded that not just one, but all, of the virtues and graces com­bined perfectly in Him–nothing lacking, whether we “consider” one or all of the “beauties of holiness” as our Lord reflected them in perfection of character.

Thus “considered,” we are most forcefully impressed as to why the record tells us He was the one “altogether lovely” – lovely in perfection of “faith, fortitude, self-control, patience, piety brotherly-kindness, love” (2 Pet. 1:5-7, Dia.); and why He was “anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows” – “made a little lower than the angels” (Heb. 2:9). Hence, we need not ''consider Him” only viewed “on the cross”; let us also “consider Him” in His “glory and virtue” that we may “know Him, and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being made conformable unto His death.... thus minded.... our conversation in Heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ .... fashioned like unto His glor­ious body.... to subdue all things unto Himself.” (Phil. 3:10-21)

SOME THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

Let us ponder now the Memorial of His death, a service commonly described through­out Christendom as the Lord's Supper–this and Baptism being regarded as the two Sacraments of the Christian religion. Over the years it has been one of the most controversial of subjects; and it is said there are now in existence about two hun­dred different variations in time of keeping, manner of keeping, and significance of keeping. This, as with so many other essential Christian doctrines, has been debated by able scholars and intellects–so severe at times as to cause them to overlook com­pletely that this teaching above all others should designate the Prince of Peace and bring God's people to peace with each other. In fact, in 1 Cor. 10:16 St. Paul states that the participation in the bread and wine of this service is a “common union”; and this intimate relationship becomes accentuated when we consider that the indivi­dual grapes which produce the cup, and the individual grains of wheat which produce the bread, lose completely their divers identities and are fully fused or merged into one common whole.

THE DATE

As stated, the time for keeping this service is violently in dispute. The Roman Catholic Church attempts observance of it every day in early morning Mass; and the service is often repeated that same day at weddings and other special occasions. They also pronouncedly stress it at the deathbed, requiring a priest to perform it except in very extreme instances. others among the Protestant sects keep the service once a week; others once a month; others three or four times a year. But it remained as a feature of Harvest Truth to eliminate all of the confusion in the emblem significance, and largely so as respects the time of observance. When Jesus said, “This is my body; this is my blood,” it should be elemental that those items could not possibly have been His actual body and blood, because he was still alive with His Disciples, ministering to them, and teaching them. Therefore, He could have meant none other than that the bread and the wine represented His flesh and blood. The Harvest Truth also clearly proved the service To be an annual one–just as is true of Christmas, or a birthday, or a wedding remembrance, or a death day. Therefore, to celebrate one's birthday as whim or occasion arose would be just as proper–or improper–as remembering the day of our Lord's death; the Scriptures clearly state that, ''As oft as ye do this, ye do show forth the Lord's death till He come.” (1 Cor. 11:26)

But even among those who thought they had imbibed clear understanding of time and significance from That Servant there arose extended controversy about the time element after his death; and it remained for the Epiphany Messenger to clarify still further the calendar accounting. And even with those who had sat at his feet for many years the time feature again came into dispute last year – a regrettable incident, be­cause it seems all Truth people clearly perceive the significance of the service, and it would be to the blessing of all if the exact time of service might also be established We are clearly told in Exodus 12 that the observance of the typical Passover must be on Nisan 14; and it is clearly established also that “Christ our Passover” was offered up as the antitypical Lamb of God on Nisan 14. Thus, “He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Heb. 10:9,10)

If, then, there be no dispute on the day of the month, the same being the 14th of Nisan, there leaves but one other consideration – How do we determine when Nisan begins? Unfortunately, the Bible is silent on this matter, from which we may conclude it is not vital to our present spiritual state or our eternal salvation. Therefore, we can but do the best we can with what we have outside the Bible; and from Josephus and other Jewish records it would seem reasonably certain that the original Passover in Egypt was kept after the sun had crossed the Equator on its way north, thus definitely establishing the Passover as a Spring festival. And so the Jews have maintained it over the centuries – even as Brother Johnson has also stressed it in E-7:366, and as elaborated in our paper No. 85.

It should be clearly understood that when Brother Johnson made the positive state­ment in his 1933 Present Truth that we should “never observe the Memorial before the Vernal Equinox,” he was not there quoting from Josephus, or from any one else; it was not even a paraphrase from Josephus or any other writer; it was his own firm convic­tion, with full support for his belief in the statement by Brother Russell to the same effect in the 1907 Watch Tower. We ourselves are in full harmony with what they deter­mined; and we believe all of us should be firm in contending for what the Star Members gave us, because there is nothing anywhere to dispute their position. once this became clear to us a year ago, we node haste to correct what we would now consider a grievous mistake.

WHO MAY PARTAKE

This question also has been subject to much heated contention throughout the Gospel Age. In the Roman Church only members in good standing may do so; and even those may not do so unless they first make confession before their priest the day before, and neither eat nor drink the next morning before the actual service. The Roman Church has used this as a cruel weapon of punishment over the years, as they “ex”-communicated various and sundry dissenters, with the dissenters often right, and the Church body wrong. This extreme of severity in the Roman Church is offset on the other hand by an extreme of laxity in some Protestant Churches, some allowing the man on the street to walk in and partake, without even asking what his professions may be.

Among Truth people we attempt to arrive at a healthy medium between these two extremes, although both Star Members in our time stressed that the service is only for those who have covenanted to “follow in His steps.” of course, even this has been set aside by the Jehovah's Witnesses, as they have also perverted so many other clear Harvest Truths. While there is a certain rigidity in our own exactions for the ser­vice, there is also a healthy liberality, leaving it in large measure to the indivi­dual conscience. Therefore, St. Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 11:28, “Let a man examine himself”–nothing hinted here about a priest or any other person examining us – ”he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.” From this it is clear enough that the righteousness of some will not avail for the evils of others; nor will the evils of others contaminate the righteous. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both accepted that premise, while making straight paths for their own feet–even as we also should do. Thus, Brother Johnson at no time sought out the companionship of those whom he knew to be uncleansed Levites; on the other hand, when such came into his service, he did not command them to leave. His attitude was in true keeping with that of our Lord, “Behold my servant, whom I have chosen, my Beloved ... A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench.” (Matt. 12:18-20) Thus did both Messengers of our time minister to the weak and fallen, as well as to the strong and upright, lest the weak “should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.” (2 Cor. 2:7)

However, we make definite note of Brother Johnson's teaching that it is far better to observe the Memorial alone than it would be for us to congregate with those who have appointed a “leprous” Levite leader to conduct the service. And, if we clearly recognized the condition of such a leader, yet sat at his feet to “show forth the Lord's death,” it would be repellant to all good principle. “Better is a dry morsel, and quietness therewith (possessing the 'peace of God which passeth understanding'), than an house full of sacrifices with strife.” (Prov. 17:1) At the Memorial season the Adversary is usually most active to discourage, belittle, betray, abuse and falsely accuse the fully faithful; and his best tools for such occasion are almost always 'leprous' Levites leaders; but the advice of St. Paul is most appropriate at such time–”from such turn away!”

And, while extending leniency to those who must have leniency, each one should strive for himself to consider St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 11:31, “If we judge our! selves, we should not be judged”–let each use that rigidity of self-estimation which is in keeping with “the spirit of a sound mind.” Along this line Brother Russell has offered excellent counsel:

“To be of this class requires fulness of consecration; and these are and will be the overcomers, who shall be deemed worthy of joint heirship with Christ Jesus their Lord in His kingdom. To this class, obedient and watchful, the Lord says, 'I will guide thee with mine eye'– 'Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel and afterward receive me to Glory,” Those who can be guided only by continual scourging are not of the overcoming class, and will not be accounted worthy to be of Jesus' Bride, and have such a witness from the Lord through the Spirit of the Truth – contrast Ps. 32:8, 73:24 with Rev. 7:9,14.” Therefore, let us keep the feast in simplicity of deportment, with sincerity of purpose, with malice toward none but with charity toward all.

With this comes the writer's prayer for the Lord's rich blessing to all our readers in their preparation for, and observance of this year's Memorial. we our­selves shall participate at 1507 N. Donnelly, Mount Dora, Florida, at 7:30 p.m., April 6; and cordial invitation is extended to any and all in this vicinity then who are of 'like mind' to join with us. “Sanctify the Lord of Hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.” (Isa. 8:13)

Sincerely your brother,

John J, Hoefle, Pilgrim

---------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings in our Master's Name!

A week ago I received the Nov-Dec. 1962 P.T. In that paper Bro. Jolly is still trying to justify himself in the eyes of his readers, and so adding falsehood to falsehood, he refers to me as a new disciple of “this sifter.” In my letter I was pointing out the charge Bro. jolly layed against Brother Roach as “highly clericalistic”–but which fits him (Bro. jolly) – when he said Brother Roach acted contrary to Church rule. He is quite right in saying every local Church is mistress of her own affairs; but there's no truth when he said that this Church did appoint a Chairman for the Memorial service for 1962 (see P.T. July-Aug. p. 60, top of col. 2, and other places, too).

The brother in question only got to know that he was to be Chairman of that meeting the same-evening when he arrived for the service (that is what the Brother Told me sometime later); then it was Bro. Jolly said to the Brother, “I understand you are the Chairman,” and asked him if he had any special preparation. He then handed him a program – and it was the only one of its kind that evening!

He said I accuse the Chairman of clericalism in the exercise of his proper chairmanship. He said some latitude must be given the Chairman – which is quite true; but I say no latitude was given to him when he had to go according to the dictates of the program given to him by Bro, Jolly at the beginning of the meeting. I happened to see the program as the service was in progress, as I did not even know what passage of the Bible to read when I was called upon to read the lesson for the service. Then for the first time I saw against my name what I was to read. Where, then, is the latitude given to the Chairman, as Bro. jolly claims in the Nov.-Dec. P.T., P. 90, par. 2?

Sometime in 1959 the funds of our local Class were very low, due to sending one of our local elders to St. Vincent, and by Bro. Jolly sending other representatives of the West Indies to use. He had then intended to send a pilgrim to us the next year, but the friends then requested Brother Roach to notify Brother Jolly that we could not entertain a pilgrim the next year because of lack of funds – that if one must be sent, his stay with us must be only four or five days. Now, without Bro. Jolly giving any reason at all, he sent a pilgrim the next year for ten days! That does not look like a Church is mistress of her own affairs at all. I say it is Clericalism! (And we agreeJJH)

Also, he said J, like “this sifter”, used the same designation of Epiphany Campers Consecrated. Well, to put it the other way – Epiphany Consecrated Campers – would not extinguish his “strange fire. The only way to extinguish his “strange fire” is to teach according to the Star Member's presentation on the subject. Brother Johnson in E. Vol. 10, p. 209, states that in the finished picture the Camp “is the condi­tion of truly repentent and believing, but NOT consecrated Jews and Gentiles,” Bro. Jolly, who is not a Star Member, teaches just the contrary. In the same book, p. 672, Brother Johnson also offers a contradiction to Campers Consecrated. As for me, I prefer to accept the Star Member's teachings on the subject – and not that of a Levite.

Yours by His Grace, Brother George Martin (dated Jan. 28, 1963 – TRINIDAD)

 P.S. Please. send us some more tracts.

.................................................

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace through our Lord!

I received your letters; also the stickers and all the tracts in good shape. Thank you. I could not put them out as yet.... We've had a hard winter, and I have been sick...... Thanks for letting me know about the lawsuit, for I do not get the P.T., but your writings prove that they both are wrong* It does not matter whether I read their errors. Anyway, they are just words, words, words. Praise the Lord for His Truth. I look forward to the articles, and just sit down and read them as soon as they come. The Lord surely spreads a table without 'vomit' – and how we praise Him and thank Him! Now wouldn't that be something if the Lord had 'vomit' on His table the same as the Levite groups! Where would we go?

The answer to your question re the crown-losers in the Epiphany Movement being a part of Little Babylon is in Epiphany Vol. 10, p. 588, twelve lines down. I believe the Youthful Worthies are part of Little Babylon, too (those who stay with them).

Love to you all and all with you  -------  (Pennsylvania)

.................................................

Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n

Mount Dora, Florida – Gentlemen: Please send me the following literature which you offer in your booklet ''The Resurrection of the Dead”: – What is the Soul; Where are the Dead; The Three Babylons. Thank you!

Yours very truly ------- (NEW JERSEY)

.....................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I have received your letters, as well as the literature you have sent, and have thoroughly enjoyed all. To say it was enlightening would be putting it very mildly. This literature has cleared up many points troubling my mind concerning the Epiphany Truth. I realize now that instead of doubting Brother Johnson, as the Epiphany Messenger, with his many types and antitypes, and his mis­taken expectations in connection with 1954-56, I should have paid more attention to the way Bro. Jolly tried to force their fulfillments. How clear now when one sticks to Brother Johnson's expositions of the Epiphany Truth. In short, most all my con­fusion lay in trying to harmonize Brother Johnson with Bro. Jolly–when I should have done the opposite.

Thanks to you I now feel I can go back to the Epiphany volumes with renewed vigor and interest, as if reading them for the first time. There are several short questions I'd like to ask you: (1) Is the Epiphany Bible Students Ass'n considered to be the Priestly organization? (2) Wherein lies the goal of the E.B.S.A.? And do you plan any large witness work to either group? (3) In the Appendix of Studies Vol* Three (pp. 382-386) are ten Scriptural reasons pointing to 1954 as a prophetic date. Now I realize quite well what did not take place at this time (or in 1956). Could you tell me what did take place during the period of 1954-56? (4) I noticed in one of the letters you sent in the “Interested Letters” section someone asked you about the use of the name “Jehovah.” I would appreciate your comments on this. (5) Brother Johnson stated several times in his writings that all the Bible would be interpreted before his death. This, we know, failed to materialize. Do you think it will be before the EPiphany is over–and/or the Kingdom is established? (6) In a couple of your letters you mentioned a $5 Correspondence Course put out at one time by Bro. Jolly, but later dropped. What were the details on that? Also, his “entertaining” methods at several of the Conventions.....

As you probably noticed in the latest Bible Standard ------- visited B'ham last week........ I did not push any particular point, but after the meeting was over I did mention to the group that I had been corresponding with you. you could actually see Bro. and Sr.------- eyebrows raise. They didn't speak unkindly of you, tho. The only thing he committed himself upon was that he “believed” that originally some personal conflict was behind yours and Bro. Jolly's “estrangement.” I tried to press that a little further, but he dropped it and would not renew.........

If You and Sister Hoefle are ever in our vicinity, I would consider it an honor and pleasure if you would stay with us ....

Hoping this finds you and Sr. Hoefle in the very best of health, and with the assurance of our love and prayers as you pursue your ministry, I am Your Bro ------- BIRMINGHAM

NO. 93: TRINIDAD AND FRED E. BLAINE

No. 93

My dear Brethren: – Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

On page 8 of our January paper we proposed that Fred E. Blaine meet with us on the same platform in Trinidad for a question-and-answer debate on Campers Consecrated and related subjects. This was before we had any intimation whatever that he was already scheduled to be there February 9 to 17. In our proposal we agreed to pay our own expenses, and his, too, if necessary – although his plans to be there would make the latter part unnecessary. However, as might be expected from a big, brave “pilgrim” (by R. G. Jolly's appointment), who has the “courage” to revile us as a “proven sifter” in the columns of The Present Truth – while he himself remains at a safe distance away from us – we have had nothing but silence from Fred E. Blaine. Therefore, we set out below some of the questions we had planned to ask him in Trinidad, questions which we have scrupulously designed to be without “guile or hypocrisy”; and we offer them now openly in the hope they will commend themselves to all our readers in that same manner;

(1)  In E-7:138, in E-10:XXIV, and in E-11:495, Brother Johnson teaches that no Levite is ever permitted to teach a new doctrine to the Lord's people – that any attempt by them to do so makes them guilty of “gazing” and offering “strange fire.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If you do, why, then, have you accepted and teach the new doctrine of Campers Conse­crated as presented by R. G. Jolly?

(2)     In E-11:591 Brother Johnson gives this: “There is a threefold set of antitypes of the tabernacle type: (1) The Gospel-Age antitype, (2) the Epiphany antitype and (3) the Millennial-Age antitype. only one of these three antitypes operates at a time, i.e., only one of them can be visible as working at any one time, and the other two are kept out of sight at such a time.”

Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, which taber­nacle is operating now, and how does your Campers Consecrated fit into it?

(3)     In E-10:672 Brother Johnson offers this: “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.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, why did you stop trying lo win Youthful Worthy brethren, when Babylon is not yet destroyed?

(4)        In E-10:209 Brother Johnson presents this: “The Epiphany Camp in the finished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, why are you now trying to place consecrated people in the Camp, contrary to that teaching?

(5)        You say in your letter published in the Nov-Dec. Present Truth, p. 95, that Campers Consecrated is based upon the teachings of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson. Please show where either of them taught that Tentative Justi­fication ever has been – or ever will be – represented in the Camp, as you now teach it with respect to your Campers Consecrated.

            6)         R. G. Jolly teaches that the half Tribe of Manasseh west of Jordan types his Campers Consecrated. Please show where Brother Johnson ever taught that.

            (7)        In 1962 Present Truth, p. 79, col. 2, bottom, R. G. Jolly says, “MANY are affiliated with the L.H.M.M. who are not consecrated.” What classification do you give those people? And where do you place them about your present tabernacle with relation to your Campers Consecrated?

(8)        Brother Russell teaches that no one can make an acceptable consecration without first washing at the laver. Do you believe this teaching by the Parousia Messenger? if you do, then please explain how your Campers Consecrated can make their consecration acceptable in the Camp, where there is no laver.

(9)        In E-6:199 Brother Johnson states: “One's journey from the Camp to the Gate cannot at any stage represent a real faith in Christ as Savior, inasmuch as the Court curtain represents things connected with faith–the outside of it a 'wall of unbelief' in Christ's righteousness to those outside, the inside of it a 'wall of faith' in Christ's righteousness to those inside.”

Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, how do you fit your Campers Consecrat­ed into this picture, who are outside the linen curtain?

(10)      In E-9:19, bottom, Brother Johnson has this: “The advancing Truth does not set aside the Truth formerly received, as some deceivers teach.” Do you believe this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If you do, then please explain why you now set aside the Truth you formerly held on the curtain as set out in Question No. 9–why you now teach tentative justification in the Camp when both the last star members denied such teaching – why you now teach acceptable con­secration without a Laver when you once believed otherwise?

(11)      In E-10:114 we find this by Brother Johnson: “1954 is the date that the last member of the Great Company will get his enlightenment that will bring him into the Truth by Passover, 1956; after 1954 no youthful Worthies will be won; and after 1954 no more persons will enter the tentatively-justified state. Hence the exhortation (Rev. 22:11): 'He that is unjust (the tentatively justified who are not actually justified, not just), let him be unjust still (remain tentatively justified, and not consecrate); and he that is filthy (the impenitent sinners, who in no sense are clean–those outside the Camp – JJH), let him be filthy still (remain in his then condition); and he that is righteous (Levites of the Great Company and Youthful Worthies, who, being in the Court, are righteous), let him be righteous still; and he that is holy (Priests are holy, since they are in the Holy), let him be holy still.' Certainly when we come to the time that 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; hence only at such a time could the first and second exhortations of v. 11 be given, but, of course, the exhortation for the Great Company, Youthful Worthies and Priests to remain faithful will remain appropriate as long as they are in the earth.”

Do you believe any part of this teaching by the Epiphany Messenger? If so, please point out which part of it you believe, and how it justifies your present teaching respecting Campers Consecrated.

In running away from an open hearing on their “strange fire” of Campers Conse­crated, Fred Blaine is simply revealing he is of like character to his leader, R. G. jolly, who meets the question the same way. In 1957 he had agreed in writing to make a special trip to Crofts Hill, Jamaica for a verbal question and Answer meeting. But that was before he knew we were going to be there, a fact he did not learn until he saw us on the same plane with him Jamaica-bound, Then he declared from the plat­form he would not entertain any questions from us or Sister Hoefle; but he carried on a “profusion of words” for four solid hours – from about 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. After such an exhaustive ordeal we did not wish to burden the weary brethren with further prolonged talk from us, so we used only about fifteen minutes. But in that short time we asked R. G. Jolly if he would then entertain questions from us on our own time, which he refused. We then asked if he had any questions he wished to ask us, to which he shouted, “I don't want to talk to you at all!” Then, the Detroit Ecclesia invited R. G. Jolly specifically to have an open discussion with us there on Campers Consecrated and other subjects; but he ran away from that invitation, too.

Did R. G. Jolly or Fred Blaine ever run away from the “gainsayers,” when they were fortified with the real Epiphany Truth under our Beloved Brother Johnson? But now, because of their many perversions, they are experiencing that chastening the Lord promised such in Lev. 26:14-17: “If you will not hearken unto me.... despise my statutes (by of f ering 'strange fire' such as Campers Consecrated, and the likeJJH) ....... shall flee when none pursueth.” Indeed, if these two–and others of their kind–had even a smattering of self-respect, they would be so ashamed that they would never again look another congregation of the Lord's people in the face.

But,

Hollow men, like horses hot at hand,

Make gallant show and promise of their mettle;

But, when they would endure the bloody spur,

They fall their crests, and, like deceitful jades,

Sink in the trial.

Clearly enough, the precious promise of the Lord in Luke 21:15 (Dia.) is no longer theirs: “I will give you eloquence and wisdom, which all your opponents will not be able to gainsay, or resist.”

All this is in decided contrast to the attitude of the beloved Epiphany Messenger early in the Epiphany, at which time – so far as we know – he was ever ready to meet the loud and profuse Levite leaders at every opportunity–a situation which must be very clear in R. G. Jolly's memory, because he was there himself and was witness to it. It is also in decided contrast to the clear instruction of St. Paul in Acts 20:28-30 to the elders (leaders) at Ephesus: “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock .... grievous wolves shall enter in among you.” But the “cleansed” Levites of our day regard only the first part of this admonition, “take heed unto YOURSELVES”; and allow the flock to face the “grievous wolves” as best they can. From the Convention platform in Philadelphia next Labor Day – if past precedent is any criterion – we shall hear loud and profuse words from R. G. jolly about “the sifters in our midst” (where he's sure he'll be safe, with no one to answer); and we'll probably hear from Fred Blaine about his “pilgrim” trip to the tropics and his 'very interesting and refreshing stay in Trinidad' – where he also will be safe. But in all this it is hardly likely that either of them will quote our Lord's words, “The Good Shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”

THE JAN-FEB. PRESENT TRUTH

Complement to the foregoing, we take notice of R. G. Jolly's comments on page 9, col. 2, last par., of this Jan-Feb. PT, where he is profuse in his praise of ''many, measurably faithful brethren ... with the Jehovah's Witnesses, who are serving the Lord.” We suggest our readers read his commendations carefully about these people who are bending every energy to build up ''Little Babylon”; then compare it with Brother Johnson's own analysis of this same situation in E-13:744 – “Their respective attitude toward Great and Little Babylon, which are to be annihilated, was that they who would treat them as they treated God's true people would be favored by God; and that they who would dash the sects of Little Babylon against the doctrines of the Truth would be favored by God.”

Our Three Babylons tract was designed for the very purpose of carrying out the Epiphany Messenger's counsels on this matter, and in attempting to follow the foot­steps of St. Paul, as he himself describes his course in Acts 20:17-38: “Ye know from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind...and how I kept back nothing. that was profitable unto You .... and have taught you publicly, and from house to house.... neither count I my life dear unto myself.... For I have not shunned to declare unto YOU all the counsel of God.... I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my neces­sities, and to them that were with me.” This has also been our own attitude over the years.

Further, at the bottom of page 9, there is this statement by R, G. Jolly: “Hany are brought to the Lord and to a better knowledge of the Truth at the hands of brethren in other groups, both in Little Babylon and in Big Babylon” (specifically does he name here the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Little Catholic Church, which is akin to giving the same praise to the Roman Catholic Church in Big Babylon). To a “better knowledge” of what Truth? jer. 51:9 states, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed”; and St. John tells us in Rev. 18:23: “The light of a candle (the sancti­fying Truth) shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee .... for by thy sorceries (that 'better knowledge of the Truth' now praised by R. G. Jolly) were all nations deceived.” All of us blessed with Parousia and Epiphany Truth know that the two Messengers said that even the heathen would be worse off than they now are should they imbibe the spirit and erroneous teachings of Big Babylon; and our Lord Himself said the same of their counterparts in His day: ''make the proselyte twofold more the child of Hell (Gehenna – type of the second death) than yourselves,” (Matt. 23:15). But now, Behold! The “cleansed” Levite sees these things in a much clearer and more favorable light than did Jesus and the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers! “Let him that thinketh he stand@ take heed lest he fall.”

THE JOLLY-KREWSON LAWSUIT

The decision in this litigation has gone against J. W. Krewson, which does not surprise us. Whether he will be “properly exercised” remains to be seen; but the altercation has forced at least one improvement in R. G. Jolly: He has not hesitated to name clearly J. W. Krewson as the one whom he is discussing. Aside from this, it will be recalled we mentioned our own patent-law experience some forty years ago, at which time copyrights were issued by Washington for a fee of $1. We have no way of knowing what arguments were advanced by opposing counsel in this case; but we do know that patent law is a very complicated and exclusive profession–a law unto itself-­so that the ordinary civil or criminal lawyer knows almost nothing about it. When J. W. Krewson thought he was making a 'coup' by registering the L.H.M.M. name in Pennsylvania, he was simply deceiving himself; because the federal law is very clear that authors have just as much protection for their work without copyrights as they do with them, so long as their product has gone through interstate commerce. Therefore, the only good that results from a copyright is that it eliminates the necessity of proving the interstate-commerce action. Therefore, J. W. Krewson's registry of the name was an action to accomplish nothing. Our Government has established some rigid rules to discourage thievery among the writing and publishing section of our fellow­countrymen.

On the other hand, “The Present Truth” is not invention by R. G. Jolly or by Brother Johnson, having been at public disposal for the past nineteen centuries as it appears in 2 Pet. 1:12 – “Ye Know and are established in the Present Truth.” (See Contents block on page 2 of The Present Truth) In such cases the courts are very liberal in their interpretations; and we believe it probable the judge would not have ruled against J. W. Krewson had his address been elsewhere than in Pennsyl­vania, and not right on the front doorstep of R. G. Jolly. As an illustration, some twenty years ago the Coca-Cola Company brought suit against the Pepsi-Cola Company for infringement of name. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which tribunal ruled against Coca Cola, saying there was not enough similarity to mislead any one in ordering one drink when he had intended to have the other. The general rule seems to be to 'wink' at plagiarism so long as it causes no injury to the one bringing the complaint – much the same as in criminal law, where the rule is, Without injury, there can be no crime. Thus, R. G. Jolly was required –and was able to prove to the Court's satisfaction – that he was suffering injury by the course of J. W. Krewson. Inasmuch as Appeals Courts usually do not permit further evidence, but rule only on points of law, it would seem J. W. Krewson is due for another defeat in his appeal.

While we have offered this detail for the interest and enlightenment of our readers, let us keep in mind that the fight is not ours; ours is “the good fight,” and none other, And for this good fight “God hath not given us the spirit of fear (to run away when “grievous wolves” attempt to ravage the flock), but of (will) power, and of (agape) love, and of a sound mind.” And with this comes our prayer that this may ever be the blessed portion of all our readers.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

-------------------------------------------------------

LETTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dearly beloved Brother Hoefle – Greetings in our Lord's service!

All your letters and papers received. With respect to that gentleman. I sent Bro. ------- to pay him a visit. He has shown some interest....

Enclosed are two letters I would like you to publish (see belowJJH).

Though tired, I must say this, Bro. Jolly would never allow Bro. Blaine to meet you..... Warm love to both of you and the others of the Household in your locality. In His service, L. F. Roach (P.S. – Bro.------- is the man I rescued out of the possession of evil spirits in 1941. That's why reference is made. – L.F.R.)

Dear Brother Roach:

I have been receiving pamphlets by Bro. Hoefle, and he mentioned his trip to Trinidad. I am the daughter of Brother ------- of Jamaica, and I am wondering if you knew him, as he was a very active worker in the Movement.

I have a picture taken when Bro. Russell was in Jamaica. You may be in it. My father came to America several times. He died here in 1924. There is too much controversy among the people who are carrying on the work Bro. Russell started. You seem to be a target right now. Hope you can withstand the pressure being waged against you. Would like to hear from you. I left Jamaica in 1901, and through my father's influence met with those of 'like precious faith' – got your address from Bro. Hoefle. Sincerely ------- (Enclosed addressed envelope for answer)

Answer from Brother Roach to above Letter

Dearly beloved Sr -------

Greetings in our dear Redeemer! I received a letter from you on the 8th of January 1963, which has emotionally touched me; but, as you know, after you have made a consecration which is accepted, you no longer exercise a will of your own. After having under the Epiphany Messenger (Bro. Johnson) constructed that part of L.H.M.M. in Trinidad (he died in 1950), naturally I got associated with Bro. Jolly, a Levite. I learned much from The Epiphany Messenger in many places in his writings, some of which I quote from Epiphany Vol. 7, p. 138 –”Gershonism”: “Nor are the Levites to seek to discover 'new light' and spread it before the Church, as this would be attempting to go into the Holy, from which they have been excluded, and would result in their offering “strange fire.” Now I have been asked to cooperate with a Levite to spread the false doctrine of “Campers Consecrated” before the Church. Whom do you think I should obey? Acts 5:29. Well, my dear Sister, that and that alone is the cause of all the trouble. Everything else emanates from that. Yes, I am Bro. Jolly's target today, but I Am learning a lot from it, for from the many letters I am getting from various countries I can more clearly see what is meant by “Love – Making a difference” – Jude 21:231 Whereas before I would get such letters as yours from those whom I knew personally, today it is not so.

You know if you are walking in a way one has already walked, and that person tells you what you are going to meet, and you are meeting it, you feel certain that you are on the right way (John 16:2). Certainly, if our Lord had fraternized with the Scribes and Pharisees, they would not have put Him out of their synagogue. My dear Sister, are not the experiences of today giving positive evidence our Captain is in our midst? Surely!

Now as concerning your father, I did not know him. You see Jamaica was blessed with the Reaping Work before Trinidad. The reaping reached Trinidad in 1912, and I was among the first ones to be then blessed. Having chucked away sectarianism then, you think I will please any man to pick it up again? Keep on reading Brother Hoefle's papers and you will get the latest. 1 Thes. 5:21

Brother Johnson once told me when a forecast and the fulfillment turn out differ­ent to expectations that you should re-adjust your understanding to suit the facts. You must be hearing the term “clericalist” being hurled at me. Why? Because I refused to associate with the false doctrine, “Campers Consecrated.” And (2) to memorialize with uncleansed Levites (see Epiphany Vol. 11, page 208). I was charged and condemned by an illegally constituted Court of Elders (see “What Pastor said” on p. 233, Question 1910, middle on; also Epiphany Vol. One – “God,” page 138, par. 1) on the instruction of the Controller of L.H.M.M. for the alleged offenses stated above. The Class knew nothing about it and (2) I was not summoned to attend the trial. I ignored the Court and its unjust decision when I was informed. Result: Division in Trinidad. (This proves very clearly who the real 'clericalists' are in this Trinidad divisionJJH)!

With true Christian love to you, my dear Sister. I abide with you in our dear Redeemer. – L. F. Roach (TRINIDAD)

Our beloved Brother Hoefle: Jas. 1-17 – Greetings through our dear Redeemer!

Received your dear card for which I thank you. It is a long time since I last wrote. This is due to having lost some questions which I noted as they came to mind; and also by doing some overtime work for school – ­and also searching around for a comfortable place to buy ....

Can you please send us the name and address of that Sister in Texas whose letter is the first to appear on your Dec. 1, 1962 paper? .....Enclosed is a tract printed by Pilgrim Tract Society .... Do you think it worthwhile attacking?.......

I do not believe that R. G. Jolly ever read Epiphany Vol. 11, page 208. If he did, and understood what he read, he and his colleagues could not be charging Bro. Roach with keeping a separate Memorial. The Lord is giving us ample proof of Bro. Roach's standing in the Household of Faith. The Lord knoweth them that are His.

What an amount of shameful, barefaced lies R. G. Jolly tells about his presence and actions on the night of the Memorial. How can he face those followers of his here who know (that he does not fear God in this his last chance as a new creature), that they are assisting him with lies to clear himself, Surely the Epiphany is the time of manifesting persons, principles and things! Maybe R. G. jolly knows that his followers are the ones who are to give him eternal life, and not Jehovah – so he has to make straight his way in their sight, or estimation, and set the Lord aside without remorse of conscience.

I have not yet got the picture of the group. I hope to have it as soon as I can. I have already asked someone to do so. Please give our warmest Christian greetings to Sr. Dunnagan and Sr. Wells and the dear brethren, especially those who in distant countries bear up Bro. Roach in their prayers. To you both Heb. 13:20,21.

Your sister through Him ------- (TRINIDAD)

.......................................................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Grace and peace be multiplied!

We were pleased to have your letter.... and also your card. We are enclosing a flash photo taken by our son in our old home.... where memories of our dear Brother Johnson still linger.

It would be grand to meet you, and we know that there are few in numbers in Britain scattered about – yet, you understand, as did Brother Johnson and also Bro. Russell in the early days, numbers are not great. We with you realize the Lord was with us in the fight. “The sword of the Lord and of Gideon” in the two stands taken. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit,” for the battle is the Lord's. As Brother Johnson says in E. Vol. 5, p. 201, God has impressed this lesson by limit­ing the privilege of engaging in the battle to a very small number, compared with the number of their adversaries. Thus, there could be no doubt that the victory was of the Lord. His glory, the Lord will not give to another. Isa. 48:11; Isa. 42:8 God decided that the test should be the attitude of each individual toward the Truth. J Judges 7:4-7; E. Vol. 5, p. 203, p. 206; E. Vol. 4, p. 449 (51). One's consecration is shown by our love for Him and His written word – a desire to be obedient and a desire to grow in His favour, and a delight in meditation, study and practise. Sr.–-joins me in Christian love to you and all the dear ones with you. The Lord's blessing be upon you all. Numbers 6:24-26. Your brother by His Grace ------- (ENGLAND) P.S. Our love to the faithful in Jamaica and Trinidad –

.......................................

 Dear Brother Hoefle:

May the dear Lord abundantly bless you and keep you is my earnest prayer. I do ask Him to guide you in the work you are doing, and that it may all redound to His honor and glory and praise.

I have attended the combination Class here a few times. They bend over back­ward to avoid controversy, and so leave many questions half answered – saying we can't hope to see eye to eye. How are they ever going to get the Truth? They study Vol. 5 and Vol. 1, and of course get most things straight. But when some one gets it wrong he is only half corrected. With Christian love ------- (CALIFORNIA)

........................................

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Greetings of Christian love!

I would be glad to have Brother –- call on me if he is ever in this vicinity..... I received a nice letter from Sister ------- I am glad she doesn't believe in Campers Consecrated; also, I hear from Sister ------- now and then. We used to attend the same class in El Sereno, California. Sister ------- also lived here for awhile ....

I hope this finds you both well, and I wish for you and the brethren in your vicinity a good New Year in the Lord.

With Christian love and prayers ------- (CALIFORNIA)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

ANNOUNCEMENT OF GENERAL INTEREST

The Memorial is Saturday, April 6, after 6:00 p.m., this year. Therefore, in harmony with Brother Johnson's Arrangements for the Epiphany, we are suggesting that the friends participate in antitypical Gideon's Second Battle beginning March 24 through April 21, for our Special Effort. Our tracts, Where are the Dead, What is the Soul, and Resurrection are specially designed for this work. We shall be happy to supply these tracts free of all cost to all the brethren who desire to participate with us in this “good fight.” Also, the Three Babylons tract is specially prepared for witness work against the groups in Little Babylon.