NO. 45: THE SPIRIT OF A SOUND MIND

No. 45

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

In 2 Tim. 1:7 we have the inspired assurance that “God did not give us a cowardly spirit, but one of Power, and of love, and of a sound mind” (Dia.). And St. Paul tells us in v. 6 that this Holy Spirit is a “free gift of God” which we should not fail to “stir up” in ourselves and in others of like precious faith. To the fully faithful, those who have due regard for this “free gift”, there is the sure promise of the “peace of God which passeth understanding”; whereas, to the unfaithful and measurably faithful there is also the affliction of a “cowardly spirit.” Such shall “flee when none pur­sueth,” (Prov. 28:1) and “have sorrow of heart.” (Lev. 26:16,17) It should be kept clearly in mind that the condition of these various classes is purely a state of mind; the “spirit of power” is will power – mental power – not physical brawn. And the fully faithful who have this “spirit of power” have the same blessed assurance as did St; Paul himself ­“I can do all things through Christ who strengtheneth me.” To the unbelieving world such a statement from Paul would almost certainly cause smiles, and even ridicule. After he had received this “spirit of power” he had changed his name from Saul to Paul. It will be recalled that Saul, the first king of Israel, was head and shoulders above his fellows; thus, parents of that time would readily accept the name as a popular one for their sons, their hope being that their offspring would also “from the shoulders and upward be taller than any of the people” (1 Sam. 9:2). But Saul of Tarsus came to manhood just the re­verse of such hopes. He was a very small man, ascetic in appearance, frail of body, with a head much too large for the physique that supported it; and probably with a nose too large for his abnormally large head. Now it will be seen why he changed his name from Saul to Paul – Paul meaning “little one.” His mental brilliance and unusually forceful and logical thinking – coupled with the “spirit of power, and of love” – ­gave him a “sound mind” that invariably crushed all gainsayers. But it was these su­perb mental qualities that made him a “savor of life unto life” to many; and not in any physical, masculine appeal, so that those not “of the Truth” would find in him no attrac­tion, but rather the reverse.

We offer the foregoing introduction in the hope it may be a firm and sound founda­tion for the thoughts we now present. The pronounced trend of the times throughout Chris­tendom, and even among many Truth people, is to forsake the formula that gave to St. Paul his mental strength; and to seek rather the shady consolation of such as have “familiar spirits,” despite the clear instruction that such a course is forbidden to Truth people: “Do not turn to mediums, nor make search for oracles, to render yourselves unclean with them” (Lev. 19:31, Rotherham). Of course, such people do not in our day title themselves as mediums, oracles, necromancers, and such like. The great majority in Christendom would not pay any attention to them if they did; but experience has taught them to use the terms “hypnotist, psychiatrist,” etc. Certainly, we would not wish it considered that we be­lieve all such to be afflicted with demonism, or that they are spiritualist mediums – ­although we do believe that many of them who have not this power would like to have it, and quite a few delude themselves into believing that they do have it.

But prominent and widely-read magazines today are publicizing this practice with such captions as “HYPNOSIS – An Old Science” – “Out of Ancient Magic Comes New Medical Tool: Hypnosis,” etc. So prevalent and appealing has this teaching become that it has engulfed many members of the ministerial profession; and, as one prominent Evangelist recently observed: Psychiatry is becoming so popular that psychiatrists are calling upon each other for help. A line in one magazine says this: “The ‘modern’ minister is learning to obtain psychiatric help in handling deep-seated problems.” During this past sum­mer one minister in a very prominent Washington, DC, church hanged himself in a high tower of his own chapel; and the news comment said “he had a nervous breakdown in 1948, had been under treatment by a psychiatrist.” If the psychiatrist could not cure the preacher, just how much chance, think you, would the preacher have of curing his flock that came to him for counsel and solace?

In another instance a minister was asked: “Do you think it is wrong – against God’s will – for man to seek out hidden powers like hypnosis,” etc.? Answer: “Certainly, it is not wrong, or against God’s will to develop all powers of the mind.” In contrast, hear Isa. 8:19 – “When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spir­its, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God?” And in Isa. 47:13, 14 – “Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee.  Behold, they shall be as stubble...they shall not deliver themselves.” Here is a clear inspired answer given about 3,000 years ago; and we consider it as sound today as it was then. The “art” was a “science falsely so-called” at that time; and it is just as much so today.

THAT SERVANT’S OPINION

That Wise and Faithful Servant was well alerted to the evils set out above; and, if his warnings were pertinent in 1909, how much more are they wise and sound counsel today. We set out something from him, taken from p. 4311 of the Reprints: “‘My help cometh from the Lord.’“...The text reminds us that those who need help and who realize it should look to the Lord for it – not relying upon their own strength or wisdom, nor upon the assistance of their fellows. We are not to despise assistance from any quarter, but our chief reason for receiving any assistance should be our conviction that it has come from the Lord ... We have the assurance of the Lord that there is but one place of safety at this time... under the shadow of the Almighty.” Then further on p. 4313: “Peter and John were God’s instruments in effecting an instantaneous cure... The only power exercised was the power of faith on the part of the Apostles, for the healed, so far as we know, had no knowledge of Jesus... Nor should we understand the apostolic command, ‘look upon us,’ to mean the exercise by them of any hypnotic influ­ence....... Perhaps there never was a time in the world’s history when humanity man­ifested more desire for physical healing than today. Nor can we blame the poor groan­ing creation for desiring relief... Note the fact that some of the strong delusions are supported by their claim to relieve physical pain. This is the claim of Spiritism ­that disease can be relieved through mediumistic powers, under another’s control..... This is the claim of Christian Science, Mind Cure, Faith Cure people, Divine Healers, etc. Same of these names are used merely as a cover and a pretense.... The attitude of the public seems to be: Give us healing. Give us relief from our aches and pains. If it is of God, we are glad. If it is of the adversary, as you claim, we still take it.

“Such great inroads have been made in the churches of all denominations by these mind cures, hypnotic cures, that ministers of all denominations are perplexed what to do.... We do not dispute that cures are accomplished, nor that some of the theories and proceedings are legitimate enough. What we do claim is that the truth and rationality connected with these systems are the sugar-coating which covers the poison. The poison connected with all of them is the poison of the Adversary, the power of the fallen angels exercised in its most subtle form, namely, mental suggestion – hypnotism... The doctrine of ‘Peace, troubled soul!’ is certainly a good and wise one, particularly when based up­on a Scriptural faith in Jesus..... The spirit of restfulness and ‘peace with God,’ if built upon false doctrines and erroneous suggestions and hypnotic influences, but hind­ers the soul from a proper approach to the Life-Giver.... Trouble will largely result from the intrusion of the evil spirits into human affairs, through the entanglement of human wills, weakened by Hypnotism. We warn all to be on guard against these modern miracle-workers and we call attention to the fact that their operation is entirely dif­ferent from anything recorded in the Scriptures.”

And further from page 3181: “We are already passing into these very fires of this day of trial. We are already in the time when the wood, hay and stubble are being consumed, and when Higher Criticism, Evolutionary Theory, Christian Science, Hypnotism, under its own name and known as Mind Cures, etc., are devouring as a flame all that are not fully devoted to the Lord, and therefore, specially kept by His power through His Word and providence.”

If any would ignore the “wise and faithful” counsel aforegoing, they should not be surprised if anguish of soul overcomes them. That many of the Measurably Faith­ful do ignore it is clear when we consider the type of their leaders – King Saul. His disobedience went from a small beginning to an extremity which caused his death. In 1 Sam. 13:8-14 he offered a burnt-offering, contrary to Divine arrangement, and was reproved by the Prophet Samuel. Then in chapter 15 we have the record of his gross disobedience and lying tongue when confronted once more by Samuel; and v. 23: “Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord He hath also rejected thee from be­ing king.” ‘‘And the spirit of the Lord departed from Saul” (1 Sam. 16:14). In due course he sought the Witch of Endor; then his ignominious and disgraced death in battle – a tragic instance and a sober warning to all that “To obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams,” Here is perhaps the outstanding example in all Biblical history of a man one time beloved of God – “a choice young man and of noble appearance... not a man in Israel more noble than he” – who went from nothing to the very highest pinnacle in Israel; then back to nothing again – ­his end much worse than if he had remained “little in his own sight” (1 Sam. 15:17), had never become king in Israel. Then there is his pathetic pleading in v. 30 – ­“Honour me now before the elders of my people” – the Lord’s favor gone, the kingdom to be taken from him in disgrace, he implores Samuel yet once more for that very empty and most worthless of possessions, “the praise of men.” But even this was denied him in the end, an end perpetrated by his own hand with his own sword – opportunity sub­lime (“the pearl of great price”) ignominiously and willfully desecrated.

BROTHER JOHNSON’S OBSERVATIONS

On page 145 of the October 1940 Present Truth there is an interpretation of 1 Sam. 28, which relates Saul’s visit to the Witch of Endor: “This moved them (the crown-lost leaders) to charge some of their supporters to find out some practicers of spiritism and occultism... from whom they could make inquiries on pertinent matters... For a long time prominent church leaders, like the Revs. Dr. I. K. Funk and Dr. Heber Newton, and Mr. W. E. Gladstone, Sir Oliver Lodge, Conan Doyle, etc., had become believers in spiritism and occultism... And certainly since 1914 large numbers of ministers and prominent laymen have accepted it as a proof of the consciousness of the dead... large numbers of the Church of England clergymen... reported favorably on it to the Archbishop of Canterbury. By him they were commissioned to continue their investigations and report again thereon to him,” etc.

And, if the fourth paragraph of the Vow was timely in the early part of this 20th century, how much more timely is it now, with sleight-of-hand performers increasing on every hand with the approval of those in high places, the same being termed a “science” by magazines with wide circulation.

“ONE MANNER OF LAW”

We can harbor some measure of sympathy for the crown-lost leaders in Big Babylon in their desperate effort for answers to questions which have never been clear to them. “The Lord answered them not, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets” (l Sam. 28:6) They have had no “prophets” (Star Members) in their midst for almost a hundred years ­rather, “an evil spirit from the Lord” has troubled them (1 Sam. 16:14) since many years before 1914. But we can find little excuse for crown-lost leaders or Youthful Worthies following in their steps, who have been blessed with Present Truth and the beneficent instruction of the last two Star Members, because these have been well instructed in the Truth, “Cursed is the man that trusteth in man, that maketh flesh his arm.” If the soothing and uplifting influence of Present Truth, and the intimate association with the Star Members have had such slight influence upon them that they must resort to psychiatrists, hypnotists, etc., then sad indeed is their condition. We are re­minded of St. John’s statement in 1 John 1:1, concerning Jesus – “We have seen with our eyes, we have looked upon, and our hands have handled the Word of Life.” Such proximity with Jesus was enough for the Apostle – he had seen Him, had walked arm in arm with Him, had reclined in His bosom, had handled Him with his own hands. Should he then turn to hocus-pocus as relief for his distresses? The very suggestion would insult his intelligence; and we should think the same would be true of any and all who have had the same intimacy with the Star Members during the Harvest time.

But, sad to relate, this has not been the case. We know of at least one very prominent crown-lost leader – one we had come to love and respect – who sought solace from the “science” of psychiatry in his hour of distress, rather than resort to “the angel of the Lord” for his help. Nor should we be surprised to see such an one hazy and vague on other important truths, ready enough to pervert the truths which sancti­fied him – those truths so clearly explained by the Star Members. And it should occa­sion no surprise either if such fall deeper and deeper into the quagmire of error!

“Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country.” (Lev. 24:22). The “stranger” in this text is the present-day Youthful Worthies; and a little reflection will reveal the soundness of this observation. Those of them that have been fully loyal have been blessed with the intimate associ­ation of the Star Members; have feasted upon Present Truth. Such faithful ones are under the same law – in modified respects – as have been the Saints, and they have been similarly blessed with a clear understanding of Present Truth. Several times did we hear Brother Johnson state that some of the fully faithful Youthful Worthies in our group had a clearer understanding of Present Truth than did many of the Saints in our midst; and we believe it will not arouse much argument to declare that many of the LHMM Youthful Worthies and Great Company members had a broader understanding of Present Truth – in its generalities – than any and all of the Saints outside our group, the reason being the benign, uplifting and energizing influence of the eighth Princi­pal Man’s intimate ministry with which we were all blessed. But just as these all had the most light of Present Truth, so the perversions that have been promulgated since 1950 would place such within the scope of the Berean Comment on 2 Thes. 2:11 – “Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.” It now becomes apparent that those sectarians in the LHMM now embrace some errors not found anywhere else in Christendom (campers “Consecrated” – Last Saint Gone, and many others). Thus, the measurably faithful Youth­ful Worthies are receiving experiences in like fashion to their crown-lost counterparts depending, of course, upon the degree of their deflection. Some of them are still in Big Babylon; some of them are still in Little Babylon, and subject to the various per­versions of Parousia and Epiphany Truth that their crown-lost leaders proffer them. Such are not members of Azazel’s Goat; but we may be certain they will have the same relative experiences if they eventually win that which they profess to believe will be theirs under the Great Mediator’s beneficent reign. And by the same rule of measure the fully faithful Youthful Worthies are likely to have much the same experiences and blessings as come to the Lord’s Goat – although not members of that Goat.

“OUR FRAME – WE ARE DUST” (Psa. 103:14)

Man has four physiological qualities, of which we may sometime write in the future; but for now we shall consider briefly his four appetites, the first and most-compelling being the Alimentive – the desire for food and drink; second, the Procreative – the af­finity for the opposite sex; third, the Acquisitive – the urge to buy, sell and get gain, to lay house to house and field to field; fourth, the Religious – the desire to worship a higher being. The extremes of the Alimentive are the glutton and the ascetic, the drunkard and teetotaler; of the Procreative, the extremes are the pervert and the celibate; of the Acquisitive the extremes are the miser and the spendthrift; of the Religious the extremes are the spiritualist and the gross materialist. The variations between these extremes are legion, so that the truth is well given, “I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14 – a truth primarily applicable to the Christ Company, but true also of man as a physical organism. All lower animals have the first two of these appetites; some of them have the third; but none of them have the fourth – none of them have any urge to worship a Divine Being.

Companion to the foregoing is the premise that the human head has seven distinct features, five of which are to be found in the lower mammals – two eyes, two ears, two nostrils, one mouth, one skin, these functioning to produce the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch. The remaining two are exclusive to man, the one be­ing physical; namely, his chin. None of the lower animals has any chin, the possession of which by man lends a certain distinction to his face – even among the very ordinary humans. Then the seventh feature is mental – the spiritual and benevolent qualities, which give man his Religious appetite. In none of the brutes do we find this quality; in some human beings it is so lacking that it is impossible for them to exercise faith under the reign of evil (2 Thes. 3:2); but we should expect to find it predominant and increasing in strength in the Lord’s Household – among the fully faithful.

With such myriad of combinations, mentally and physically, we are able to under­stand more clearly the words of Jeremiah 17:9 – “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” But, having arrived at a certain sound foun­dation in the foregoing paragraphs, we should be the better enabled to understand the full meaning of the “spirit of a sound mind.” If any should have eye trouble, they seek out an oculist – a specialist; if they have other various physical ills, they consult a Doctor of Medicine if drugs are indicated; or one skilled in physical therapy and the like if drugs are not needed. This all seems simple enough to us; but why shouldn’t the same formula be followed if one has mental distress? If the disturbance comes from physical failure, then have the proper physical practitioner attend it. But, if it be purely a mental deflection – distress of mind, etc. –then the child of God should just as readily seek those best qualified to help him – the same being the Star Members personally, or their teachings, or those of lesser prominence who are qualified for the task. Note the Advice of the Apostle – James 5:14,15: “If any one among you is sick, let him call for the elders of the congregation, and let them pray over him... and the prayer of faith shall save the sick person” – the morally or spiritually weak (see Be­rean Comments).

Psychology, Psychiatry, and such like, are high-sounding words that carry a cer­tain appeal to the “unstable and the unlearned”; but let us analyze them a bit. “Psy­chology” means the doctrine of understanding life or the soul. Now just how well qual­ified is a Psychologist to treat the soul when he does not even know what the soul is? Would we think to call in a carpenter if the furnace is out of order? Or a plumber if the electric lights are out? And should the lord’s people seek after those with “fa­miliar spirits,” necromancers, or hawkers of hocus-pocus, when the prescription is clearly outlined in the Scriptures? It is well stated, “You can always tell a man from Yale; but you can’t tell him much.” It is reported that one in every ten persons in the United States today is a mental case of some kind.  That means about 17 million of them in this country alone. And many of those who attempt to qualify to treat such cases must themselves resort to others of their kind to receive help for themselves.  Consider the tragic case of the minister related earlier in this paper: He ignored the Word he had vowed to teach others, thus coming to ruin himself. Yet he was being paid, and paid well, to supply to the members of his congregation what he could not supply for himself. How many, think you, would receive the “peace of Gad which passeth understanding” from such a ministry? And of the crown-lost leaders – especially those who claim to under­stand Present Truth – who are forced to seek out a psychiatrist, what should we expect of them? The answer seems simple enough – to us, at least: we should expect only “an energy of delusion for them” (2 Thes. 2:11).

Without reservation, we are wholeheartedly at one with the science of Christian­ity. Science is “classification of facts,” says Webster; and the “facts” of Chris­tianity are indeed ‘‘meat and drink” to us.  But we are equally averse to “science falsely so-called.” By the same rule, we are in complete accord with sound effort to influence the minds of others; and St. Paul gives precedent for this in his effort to influence the minds of the brethren at Philippi: “Whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, any virtue, any praise, think on these things.” If any think on such things, he is certain to be blessed with the “spirit of a sound mind” – he will possess the real science of Christianity – nor is he likely to incur the ‘‘wee’’ of those who “go down to Egypt for help” (Isa. 31:1).  But those who do “go down to Egypt for help” will not be admonished to seek the “sound doctrine,” the Truth the “true, honest, just,” etc.; they are more likely to receive a balm for “itching ears” – to be told what they want to hear, rather than what they should hear.

Over the centuries the pseudo pastors and teachers in Big and Little Babylon have played upon the “itching ears” – just as have the politicians – by telling them what they want to hear. And what is it that people desire above all things? That they will not die! So they are told they don’t actually die; they just appear to be dead, Even the Chaldean soothsayers employed the technique on Nebuchadnezzar: “O king, live for­ever.” (Dan. 2:4) And the words of Jesus are beyond dispute – “All that a man hath will he give for his life.” Nor has “Millions Now Living Will Never Die,” or survival through Armageddon been devoid of appeal; it explains in large part the great increase in adher­ents of the group that promises such. And a close approach is made to this in the prom­ise that “Campers Consecrated” may live right on into the Millennial Kingdom. But the real science of Christianity has never been popular.  Jesus was crucified because of it; and Paul became the enemy of erstwhile brethren “because I tell you the truth.” (Gal. 4:16) All the Star Members have had the same experience; and we are witness of it especially as respects the last two of them. Therefore, we need “think it not strange” if the same experiences come to us. About the last thing the multitude wishes to hear is the Truth. Of this fact Jesus was well aware, as he offered the observation, “When the Son of Man cometh, will He find the faith in the earth?” When controversy arises, the truth usually comes forth – and the Truth is the last thing false teachers and their partisan supporters wish to hear.

“They that seek the lord shall not want any good thing” (Psa. 34:10); “Blessed are they that... seek Him with the whole heart” (Psa. 119:2).

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

LETTER OF GENERAL INTEREST

Dear Brother Hoefle: – Christian greetings!

Mailing my cards early, for I don’t like to be in a last-minute rush, and it is all I can do these days to write .... I have all I can do to remember the Truth and be ready to help those I meet to tell them the Truth as they ask. This week I have had the pleasure of explaining God’s Plan and the value of Patience to my neighbor and landlady.........

With Christian prayers for your good health and wisdom in God’s Word for as long as necessary in the Service of the Wonderful Work you have done. I remain your Sister in His Word, Sr. ---------

NO. 44 NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 1958 PRESENT TRUTH

No. 44

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

Concerning the November‑December 1958 Present Truth which reached us Dec. 9 ­about three months since receiving the previous one. On p. 89 there are Convention Reports containing the usual falsehoods and snide comments which we sadly note are chronic with R. G. Jolly. He says the “sifters” were “brazen enough to again attend our conventions”; and we observe he is well qualified to define brazenness – just as Brother Johnson said That Evil Servant was well qualified to define hypocrites, be­cause he himself was chiefest among them. In the Question Meeting on Sunday morning at Chicago on Nov. 2 some one, unknown to us, asked R. G. Jolly if he had made the statement the “sifters” now attribute to him about the tracts of Brother Russell and Brother Johnson being “timeworn and threadbare.” He not only unreservedly denied the charge, but went further to brand as liars the “sifters” who accuse him of doing so –­ their purpose being only “self‑exaltation.” Immediately after that meeting we had de­livered to him a letter, a part of which we reproduce below:

“I now inform you that you made that statement at the Chicago Convention in the Y.M.C.A. at 826 E. Wabash, in 1953 – right after I had delivered the discourse at 3 p.m. that afternoon on the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers; and I have the proof for my statement. Therefore, I am calling upon you now to correct this injustice before the brethren here assembled, and thus erase the ’sin that lieth at the door.’ If you do not do this, then you may find yourself proven doubly guilty and humiliated in the Lord's due time.

“You know full well we are not sifters, and I again emphasize – as I did in Philadelphia two months ago – that I write this letter in a kindly and brotherly effort to help you; and the matter now rests squarely upon your shoulders, with no one to blame but yourself for the future disposition of it.” (Signed: John J. Hoefle)

It will be noted from the Present Truth now being reviewed that R. G. Jolly not only does not correct his sin in this matter, but heaps further abuse upon those he has so flagrantly wronged. He looked the Lord's people directly in the face that morning to deceive them with his foul falsehood; he yet stands boldly guilty in that falsehood; and this is the man who accuses us of being “brazen,” and of being “false accusers”! He is also the same man who is “glad to admit and correct his mistakes“! It is so very clear why he does not desire our presence at his conventions: If we were absent he would then have no restraint in his untruthful statements such as the one we now expose. The Scribes and Pharisees treated Jesus in identical fashion because they, too, were “offended” at His exposures of their falsehoods, their thievery, and their depraved deception of God's sheep. We know His reception in the synagogue was equally as cool as ours; yet He hesi­tated not to go there. But it should be noted, too; that – although He had perfect sancti­fied courage – He had none of that depraved gall by which He would brazenly stand before God's people and falsely brand others as liars – and we are genuinely grateful that we have never been “brazen” enough for that!

Nor has this “sifter” (JJH) ever been “brazen” enough to conduct a “whispering campaign” against a destitute and defenseless widow – in open defiance of the Eighth Principal Man. But R. G. Jolly was brazen enough to do it – the same R. G. Jolly who now accuses us of being “brazen.” Yes, the very same! (For details about this see E‑10‑585 –bottom)

Nor has this “sifter” (JJH) ever been “brazen” enough to attempt to seize control of the last Star Member in a course of open revolu­tion­ism. But R. G. Jolly was brazen enough to try it – the same R. G. Jolly who now accuses us of being “brazen.” Yes, the very same! (For details see E‑10‑645,bottom.)

Nor did Brother Johnson ever label this “sifter” (JJH) as a “false accuser”; but he did charge that to R. G. Jolly. (See E‑10‑591, par. 1.) Nor did he ever charge JJH with having a “bad conscience”; but he did charge that to R. G. Jolly. (See E‑10‑585, top.) And it now becomes very apparent that R. G. Jolly is yet ever ready to be the “false accuser” – that he does not now have a “bad” conscience, he has a “worse” conscience, if indeed he now has any conscience at all!

We doubt not that he would be ready enough to deny he tried to eliminate the Manna texts and comments altogether from his convention Testimony Meetings if the written evi­dence of this were not in the hands of so many brethren. In fact, at that very 1953 Chi­cago Convention he ignored the Manna text completely for Testimony Meetings, and substi­tuted Psa. 100:4 for Oct. 30, Heb. 13:7 for Oct. 31, and 1 John 5:14,15 for Nov. 1. Of course, none of these had any Star Member comments, being purely R. G. Jolly's per­sonal substitu­tions. Therefore, it should not require argument that R. G. Jolly clearly revealed there by his act – if not specifically by words –that the Manna texts had be­came “timeworn and threadbare” to him, just as he had expressly stated in words about the tracts at that very Convention (giving praise to his new tract as being “up‑to‑the minute” – his “Flying Saucer” tract). This gives his denial a very unsalutary taint, wouldn't you think? And we are convinced it was only our exposure of his revolution­istic course that restrained him. He would probably have followed the course of That Evil Servant to eliminate the Manna completely because the comments so often condemn his present evils. Can this be the reason he selected his own texts (without Star Mem­ber comments)? And what about the regularly Wednesday‑night Testimony Meetings – Does he face those comments? But in all this, and similar items, we shall be “brazen” enough to point the accusing finger at R. G. Jolly – just as did Jesus against the “cleansed” Levites of His day, as He determined to be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren.” in all of this it is indeed laughable to note his slighting comment about the “few exceptions” who give us recognition. If our presence has so very little influence, why raise so much hue and cry about it?

It is clear enough now that it was truly the hand of the lord that moved The Epi­phany Messenger to record as he did the evil characteristics of R. G. Jolly – evils that are now even more glaring since his abandonment to Azazel by the Fit Man. At the time Vol. 10 was written he was having only the first part of his fit‑man experiences ­– unfavorable circumstances – and we now state for the record that the humiliations he received in 1938 will appear as a picnic frolic in comparison with what he will yet re­ceive – if he remains in the Household of Faith and eventually cleanses himself. And be it remembered that his 1938 experiences were so drastic that they drove him to seek the mercenary consolation of “the children of disobedience” for mental relief – of which much more anon.

“Bungling is the natural and usual activity of the Great Company,” says Brother Johnson; and it need occasion no surprise that such bunglers are “brazen” enough to charge others as instigators of their bungling. During 1953 R. G. Jolly had produced his latest brain‑child, “The Flying Saucer”; and it was during his prolific and vola­tile eulogy of that tract that he tossed in the remark about the Star Members' tracts being “timeworn and threadbare.” But those tracts were Present Truth; and sifters have never succeeded in crushing Present Truth during the Star Members' ministry. However, five short years have pretty well determined The Flying Saucer to be “timeworn and threadbare,” because it had no sound foundation at the outset – just as the $5 corre­spondence course is also “timeworn and threadbare.” But true to his kind – as Saul found fault with David –he now blames the “sifters” for his aberrations. Ahab did the same to Elijah: “Art thou he that troubleth Israel?” And we now use Elijah's reply to answer R. G. Jolly's kindred accusation against us: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou has followed Baalim.” (1 Kgs‑ 18:17,18)

Right here it is pertinent, too, to inquire about his successes at the “chop suey” conventions of other conglomerate groups. It will be recalled he regaled the brethren at our own conventions with “profusion of words” about the “great blessings” he was receiving by his attendance at those gatherings. But we have heard just nothing from him now for several years. Can it be those people got their fill of his “loquacious, repetitious, effusive” technique much quicker than the generous and long‑suffering brethren of our group? Or is he “brazen” enough to blame the “sifters” for this col­lapse of another of his many abortive efforts? Brother Johnson's treatise in PT '26, P. 132, col. 2, re That Evil Servant is so very applicable in this instance that we present some of it, with variations by this writer to suit the occasion: One would think that brazenness would be about the last subject R. G. Jolly would select to ac­cuse others, lest people's attention might be attracted to his own colossal “brazen” hypocrisy. Yet he may have done this on the principle of the _stop thief’ cry, in the hope of diverting attention from himself. At any rate he ought to be better qualified in “brazen” analysis than any other person, because, from the standpoint of his own un­enviable preeminence in that sin, he should understand its workings more fully than others.

Verbose ‑ Repetitious ‑ Effusive

Then follows more than a full page of comments on “Stating Errorists' Names.” He first considers Jesus' silence on Judas' name in John 13:21) 22. He includes “Wrongdoers” in his heading to allow himself plenty of opportunity for jugglery; but even this is not sufficient to allow him to conceal his unclear thinking. Of course, Judas was teaching no error; he had not even committed the wrong to which Jesus al­luded; but this doesn't bother R. G. Jolly. In this affair Jesus was exercising only reasonable senctified secretiveness –just as He maintained silence at His trial later that same night. Had He audibly and unmistakably announced Judas, it is quite probable the other disciples would have restrained him in his evil course; and this Jesus did not want – any more than He wished to talk His way into Pilate's good graces, so He “held His peace.” R. G. Jolly's injection of the Judas affair here is akin to his non­sense on “Judas not a thief” – another perversion he has not yet been “glad to admit and correct.”

Comes next his account of the “damsel” in Acts 16:16‑18. In this incident the maid is not teaching any error; she is actually stating a truth by the demon who possessed her. The real lesson for us in this matter is that we should decline the help of unrighteousness, even though it might seem to help us – the maid's identity be­ing only secondary. However, Paul looked directly at her, leaving no doubt in others' minds with whom he was dealing. Nor is there the slightest hint that Paul even knew her name; so a sound analysis of this episode just reveals some more Jolly nonsense, as he tries to “make” a case for himself. As Brother Johnson has so aptly observeds when these people fall into the bands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and R. G. Jolly's attempts in this instance simply provided additional proof that Brother Johnson knew whereof he spoke. Of course, to him, his aberrations in these two examples are nothing more than “fly‑specks”; and any one who sees more is just a “sifter.”

But the prize piece of bungling in his attempted answers is to be found in (3) col. 1, p. 91 – where he apparently refers to us (without giving any name). He uses one sentence here to cover a whole paragraph – about 300 words in one sentence, plus copious quotations, and reference to at least six different subjects. Maybe his motive in offer­ing such a jumble is to be sure his readers will not understand those various subjects any better than he does – just as Catholics are often subjected to latin ceremonies by their priests to be “sure” they'll understand them. When Brother Johnson wrote of R. G. Jolly that he is “loquacious, repetitious, false‑accusing .... partly foolish effusions ... condemning truth and righteousness, etc.;” he surely gave us no exaggerations of this crafty perverter (Azazel means Perverter!).

Probably his effusive, verbose and repetitious harangue here is just a tricky at­tempt to have his readers forget his nonsense about “Restitution accomplished by 2874” – which we annihilated in our September paper; and the crushing defeat we also gave him in that same paper about “due Truth being for all the consecrated to discern by the use of the Holy Spirit.” Since he talks in reverse on so many things, this may be his meth­od of being “glad to admit a mistake, and to correct it.” We are still waiting for some­thing more from him an both these items.

But while we are waiting, we shall present some more for him to include in his answers: Brother Russell repeatedly stated prior to 1914 that the Kingdom had not been set up. One such place is vol. 3, P. 116, top. He confirmed this on p. 4799 of the Reprints, col. 1, middle: “God's kingdom, Messiah's kingdom... is not yet set up.” But note his changed viewpoint on p. 5631, col. 2, middle (Feb. 15, 1915):

"To our understanding the first step in the setting up of this kingdom was the raising of the sleeping saints... in the spring of 1878. (Note: R.G.Jolly con­tends “the first step” was in 1874 – to harmonize with his “the” thousand years) ... This does not signify that there may not be a part of the kingdom work begun while some of the members of Christ are still in the flesh... We believe the Times of the Gentiles ended just on time... that the time for setting up of the kingdom was on Sept. 21, 1914.”

And here's confirmation of the above by Brother Johnson in E‑16‑174, last par.: “The testing time will be the Millennium in its widest sense, in which the little season at its close is included ... at the and of the Millennium – in the little season.” (P. 175, bottom) – Let R. G. Jolly harmonize the foregoing from both Star Members with his own contention of “Restitution accomplished by 2874” – if he can! And let him ex­plain, too, how the “stone” of Dan. 2:44,45 could do its smiting before the “stone” was complete namely, in 1914. When the Gentile lease expired in 1914, the “stone” could and did proceed to do the “smiting”, to “execute the judgments written”; but not be­fore. Clearly enough, the Star Members taught the thousand‑year reign of the 144,000 is from 1914 to 2914.

At the bottom of p. 89, col. 2, R. G. Jolly says he re‑emphasized at Chicago that the Little Flock has finished its share in Gideon's second battle on this side the veil. Yes, he re‑emphasized it in typical Jolly fashion – offering his own perversion (Azazel means Perverter) in direct contradiction to the Star Member's teaching. Note E‑5‑159:

“These type the two conflicts of the final victory of the Little Flock... the first smiting of Jordan... in which all of the last members of the Christ took part unto a completion.... the second battle... wherein the Little Flock participates unto a completion.... the two battles of the 300 as typing the two parts of the final conflict of the Very Elect.”

And R. G. Jolly again “re‑emphasizes” his opposition to the above, while yelling be is “in harmony” with the Star Members, but the “sifters” are not. Let him prove – if he can – his harmony and our dis‑harmony with the foregoing. Here again his only answer will be to cry “evil surmisings, false accusations and caustic invectives”! He treats antitypical Gideon's Second Battle in the same fashion he treats the “Salt” class, the Little Flock wilderness refuge vs. Great Company wilderness exposure (abandonment to Azazel), etc., etc,

On page 91, col. 2 there is a Question – very apparently inspired by R. G. Jolly himself, because it starts by stating a false premise; namely, “the Epiphany period... in the restricted, 40‑year, sense.” The only “sense” in which we can locate the per­iod he describes is in R. G. Jolly's “non”‑sense. In no place can he find any proof from Brother Johnson's writings or the Scriptures that the Epiphany “in its restricted sense” ended in 1954. Brother Johnson taught, with indisputable Bible proof, that the Epiphany in its narrow sense is the Time of Trouble. Here is a quotation from E‑4 – page 53 (51): “In its narrow sense (the word _narrow’ means the same as _restricted’ –JJH) it covers the period from the beginning of the World war in 1914 until the end of anarchy and of Jacob's trouble... It is in the narrow sense of that term that we use it in our subject... the special tribulation period and the Epiphany as a period are one and the same thing.” And on p. 65 (63) “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age.”

These quotations clearly state Brother Johnson's view: The Gospel Age continues with us so long as the Epiphany is with us; and the Epiphany in its narrow (or re­stricted) sense is with us so long as the time of trouble is with us. If we accept this terse teaching of the Star Member, then we may evaluate the balance of pages 91‑94 by R. G. Jolly as just so much drivel. He bases his whole argument upon a parallel which isn't there – not one shred of tangible or intangible evidence to prove his point; while he tosses aside the teaching just quoted, as well as the Star Member's interpretations on Psa. 46, Rev. 19:5‑10, 1 Thes. 4:17 and Zech. 8:10. Thus, we have a whole battery of invincible Scriptures to be pitted against a parallel with no proof to support it; and, true to his Class, (Azazel means Perverter) R. G. Jolly seizes upon a nebulous nothing in preference to the solid and sound Bible. Let all follow him into his mirage who wish to do so; “as for me and my house” we shall cleave to the inspired writings.

But we shall proceed: At the bottom of p. 91 he offers E‑5‑420, but this very citation defeats him: “Vol. 1 ... will be the substance of the Great Company's message after they are cleansed (Rev. 19:5)... after the earthquake has destroyed the beast and his image.” This very citation negates all his claims about 1954 and thereafter. He says “darkness is more and more settling over us”; but we adhere to the Star Members' teaching, as he does not, so his remark is simply some more of his empty talk.

The same applies to his other citation here from E‑10‑209: “The Gospel‑Age Camp is the condition of the unjustified people of God, while the Epiphany Camp in the fin­ished picture is the condition of truly repentant and believing, but not consecrated Jews and Gentiles.” If we are in the “finished picture,” then his Campers “Consecrated” has no place here; and if we are not in the “finished picture,” then he's still talking nonsense!

He follows with three more paragraphs of rank perversion on p. 92. Regardless of the time element, Brother Johnson taught – and we agree – that Jesus' Executorship operates only in the Court; it never extends into the Camp during the Faith Dispensa­tions – at least not so long as any of the elect classes remain on earth. This sort of twisting is typical of Azazel's Goat – “profusion of words to no purpose.” All the more do we understand why Brother Johnson told us R. G. Jolly is “loquacious, repetitious, effusive,” etc. Here again he tries to make a “parallel” between 1914 and 1954; but let us not forget that in 1914 – when the High Calling closed – the new Class that then developed (the Youthful Worthies) had their justification in the court, just where every other member of the Household of Faith has had it – from Abel to Restitution. Thus, when he suggests we “apply the same principles” in 1954, let him be con­sistent and make a full “application.” Also, up to now, at least, he's made no appli­cation of the laver to his Camp. Why not? It's impossible to have any acceptable consecration without first washing at the laver; but this fact he avoids with continued silence.

And on p. 93, par. 2, he offers the inane premise about Youthful Worthies coming in right up to the Kingdom. When did we ever present such nonsense? Here again he must talk to becloud the real issue. Brother Johnson emphatically stated some Youthful Worthies would be won after Armageddon. Why not conclude from that, then, that Brother Johnson taught they would be won right on through Jacob's Trouble? We believe, however, that once more Brother Johnson's teaching is most apropos – “When these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense”!

That Attestatorial Service

There is much more to be said about Campers “Consecrated”; and in dull time we plan to say it. But let us examine further his Attestatorial Service. At the bottom of P. 93 he says this service “continues for an indefinite time beyond Oct. 1954”; but he offers Just nothing in corroboration of that statement. He also tries to make a point that the “gleaning” in 1914‑1916 was done by the “poor and the stranger.” We have not contradicted this, as he would like to have it appear. Regardless of who did the “gleaning”, it was certainly the direct result of the Little Flock's Attestatorial Service and the chronology and the signs of the times were there to corroborate it ­just as those “two witnesses” have accompanied every feature of prophetic unfolding. “Millions Now Living Will Never Die” wasn't corroborated by the chronology or the signs of the time either – and has now been “forgotten” by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Let R.G. Jolly show such corroboration for 1954‑56! Let him show when and where he had the slightest shred of such corroboration for 1956. Let him show if the Great Company were all won for Present Truth by Passover 1956 – as was true of the Little Flock in 1916! Regardless of who did it in 1914‑16, it was done. But once more, in 1956 the “parallel!” that isn't there leaves him bruised; but not sufficiently bruised, we are grieved to note, to retard the “loquacious, repetitious, effusive” products of his “bad conscience” – all these quotes being the words of Brother Johnson written into the record about R. G. Jolly.  And in the face of all this he yet stoops to explain – at this late period – “why so much criticism and refutation” (?) by him.

It should be remembered that in many of these errors we are now refuting R. G. Jolly's “cousin”, J. W. Krewson, was the primary guiding hand; the “power behind the throne” –­ the same “cousin” he now vehemently castigates. If “John's Beheading,” – “Campers Conse­crated,” – “Last Saint Gone,” are Present Truth now – as R. G. Jolly so emphatically con­tends – then they were Present Truth when he collaborated about them with J. W. Krewson. And it needs no argument that R. G. Jolly was then unwittingly accepting him as the “Teacher.” This also is something really new in Gospel‑Age dealings – to find the “Teacher” repudiated, but his teachings championed by a crown‑lost leader who now labels his former “teacher” a “sifter.” Strange happenings have passed before our eyes since October 1950! Such a “Comedy of Error” can be nothing more than the spawn of a ludicrous Levite in the hands of Azazel. In wonderment we inquire – How can brethren instructed in the sober teach­ings of the Star Members now accept such a foolish contradiction?

To such as do not perceive these “strange acts” we simply say, “Sleep on now and take your rest.” But to those who are awakened we say, “Be ye therefore strong and im­movable”; “continue in the things thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou has learned them.” We them all herein if space permitted.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Question of General Interest

QUESTION: – Brother Jolly teaches the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” will be more honorable and have a higher position than any of the quasi‑elect. Isn't this a direct contradiction of the Scriptures that tell us the Jew will be the first to be blessed after all the elect are in?

ANSWER: – Yes, such a doctrine is in violation of Scriptural teaching and is a gross revolutionism of both Parousia and Epiphany teachings. Brothers Russell and Johnson both taught that the Jews would be the first to receive the Millennial blessings ­and all would have to become Jews to receive those blessings. This is only reasonable, as the Jews will be in Jerusalem when the Worthies return. Brother Johnson gave us the true teachings on the Epiphany Camp – which is to consist of the loyal faith‑justified (the formerly tentatively justified) and the converted Jew. This fifth class is a Restitution Class – the sons of Joel 2:28 – which includes all the quasi‑elect. Brother Johnson points out that the Miriam Class (the quasi‑elect) would be the chief – or first ­to receive the blessings (the believing Jews,and Gentiles –but not consecrated). This teaching is very similar to Jehovah's Witnesses' claims that those who come with them will be “chief.” The Epiphany Campers “consecrated” and the J.W.'s claims have no Scriptural basis. We will have more to say on this in a future writing.

NO. 43: RETROSPECT AND PROSPECT

No. 43

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

Since February, 1958, we have been in the third hour of the large Parousia Day, as detailed in our paper of January 1, 1957. As an indication of the rapidity with which events are transpiring, we offer some further comment on the financial condi­tion of the civilized world, because it becomes increasingly apparent that the de­cadence of capital itself will eventually cause the collapse of the capitalistic system as we observe the “wisdom of their wise men perish, and the understanding of their prudent men to be hid.” The American coins still carry the inscription “In God we trust”; yet, as we view the mad rush by all classes for the elusive and rapidly­ shrinking dollar, it were now better expressed, “In THIS God we trust.”

Two years ago we stated that the overall debt in the United States – Federal, state, municipal and private – was about 750 billions of dollars. In the two years since elapsed it has now increased to about 850 billions of dollars, with the end nowhere in sight. Be it noted that this colossal debt is almost twice as much as the entire country is worth if it should be sold to the highest bidder; so there exists at present a state of abject insolvency despite the tremendous prosperity that appears an the surface. And this situation continues to be aided and abetted by the ridicu­lous premise that ''We can spend our way into prosperity.” This is contrary, of course, to all established precedent, both secular and biblical; it is a sound and indisputable saying that “The borrower is servant to the lender”; and the lord's people do well if they take heed to this bit of Truth.

If all the monetary gold in the world's treasuries today were placed in one heap, it could be buried in a hole 41 feet wide, 41 feet deep and 41 feet high, the approxi­mate worth thereof being 40 billion dollars. And it should be kept in mind that gold is yet the only international money of universal acceptance. Of this amount the United States has a little more than half, or about 21 billions. Against this the federal debt is about 280 billions – and we are presumably the richest (?) country on earth today. Just consider for a moment the others in the light of this! The “hour of wasting” (Rev. 18:17-Dia.) began in 1916, and the ''wasting'' has proceeded at an ever-increasing acceleration as a snowball rolling downhill. It is truly a great tribute to the viril­ity of the United States that it has continued so far on this spending spree without complete stagnation and collapse overtaking us. Our situation is identical in every respect to a young wastrel who inherits a vast fortune from a frugal and sagacious forbear, which he is unable to dissipate before death overtakes him, regardless of how improvident he may be, so large is the inheritance that comes to him. It is a true observation, “A fool and his money are some party”! And the fate of all the other nations hangs in the balance with our own financial imbalance, as was shown by the worried statements of a number of them when our economy showed signs of depression during the past year. Here is a small excerpt from one international financial pub­lication:

“Reports from well-informed sources in Washington suggest that the United States Administration is beginning to become concerned over the develop­ment. The dollar is not as popular as it was and European experience sug­gests that a flight of capital can develop very quickly if any doubt arises over a currency's stability. Imagine what would happen if the U.S. were to decline to redeem its obligations to foreign holders in gold. The dollar would fall right out of bed. The rush to get out of pure-paper dollars would shred them into confetti.”

One prominent citizen here has said the principal American export at present is Money; our vast productive capacity has overtaken the demand for our products, and this is apparent in the intensity of the competition now appearing in so many indus­tries. Our wheat crop for 1958 was almost 50% larger than the one in 1957; yet the surplus was already so large it is bursting the seams of our granaries. It is little wonder many starving countries harbor hatred for us, although the blame is leas with the United States than with some others. Canada and other countries who export wheat stren­uously protest our suggestions that we give some of our surplus to needy peoples, as that would destroy their market and distress their wheat growers.  It is a proper ob­servation that we are in the best of times and the worst of times. The vicious circle will not permit use of the very cures that are available; and our officials are deserv­ing of our sincere sympathy as they find themselves unable to extricate themselves and others from the vortex of collapse. They have attempted to bolster the International Monetary Fund with another four or five billion dollars; but that is only a “drop in the bucket” against the staggering debts everywhere prevailing. From January 1956 and up to the time General DeGaulle took charge in France, that country had been going back­wards to the extent of about 100 million dollars per month, so that the treasury was so completely drained the government could no longer pursue international trade.

UNITED NATIONS.....HOLY ALLIANCE

The United Nations continues to function, but its main accomplishment is publicity talk of what will be done. Of course, this organization is nothing new. There was the League of Nations after the first world war, but it collapsed very shortly under its own weight.  But the only thing new about that attempt was just the name, as its twin was to be found in the Holy Alliance of 1815 – after the defeat of Napoleon at Water­loo. It seemed then that all Europe would collapse, and a certain Baroness Von Kruden­er (a Russian mystic) induced Alexander 1 of Russia to sponsor her idea of a sort of holy (?) confederation of European States in a grand union of brotherhood and good will toward each other, with the high-sounding name of “The Holly Alliance.” It lasted just a little longer than it is now taking to write about it.

“JEHU DRIVETH CRAZILY”

In 2 Kings 9:20 we are told, “Jehu (type of present-day conservative labor)... driveth furiously.” The Hebrew word translated “furiously” means ''with madness''; or, as Brother Johnson stated it, “Jehu driveth crazily.” But the madness that Brother Johnson observed is indeed very tame compared to the antics of Jehu now. The determi­nation of Labor Leaders to enforce their will is very much an imitation of Hitler's tactics. At know personally of one instance in Detroit (of which nothing was ever re­lated in the newspapers) where labor ruffians broke both arms and both legs of one em­ployer as an example to others to “cooperate”; and much more of the same could be re­lated.  But perhaps the outstanding and most recent instance of “driving crazily” is to be found in a Canadian company of international repute that employs about 15,000 persons.  The average hourly wage of these people is $2.69, or $21.52 per day.  In this company, as elsewhere, competition and production overtook the demand for its products; it was forced to retrench. In an effort to do this equitably and to the detriment of as few as possible, it determined to keep all employees on a four-day week of $86.08, rather than lay off some and continue the remaining employees on six days.  But the labor leaders objected to this method, demanding that the entire force be re­tained an a four-day week, but be paid for six full days the same as always. The Com­pany could not meet such demands, so a strike was called and is in its third month at this writing (Nov. 25). Same of this writer's business associates who have contact with officials of the company involved inform us the Company will never accede to these demands, that they could not do so and continue in business. Surely, “Jehu driveth crazily.”

Such thinking as the foregoing makes for strange ana violent changes in government; and we consider it a strong probability that a Roman Catholic President will be elected in the United States in 1960. We do not make this as a prediction, but it seems very probable, and would be in keeping with the general trend of the times.

IN RELIGION

Not to be outdone by antitypical Jehu, many religionists also “drive crazily” ­and this is true among Truth people as well as others. One prominent magazine recently carried an article, “A New God for The Space Age”, of which we offer a few extracts:

“The most amazing event of modern history is the petering out of Christianity. Not only are the Bible stories going by the board, but a deeper side of religion seems also to be exiting.  This is the mystic concept of the human soul and its survival after death. Parsons are still preaching away on this topic and congre­gations are still listening. But congregation and parson both seem to have moved from church to museum....Religion today is a touchy subject, not because people be­lieve deeply and are ready to defend such belief with emotion, but because they do not want to hear it discussed.... Painting, once a major ally of the divines, has done with holy subjects long ago. And the composing of religious music is a lost activity. Even religious criticism, long the hallmark of the advanced thinker, is mainly out of print...The two forces that robbed man of his long-treasured soul are Science and the loss of respect for Life. As a result of the findings of Science, 1958 man is back among the brutes with no more divine breath in him than a tree toad.... All this re­modeling of mankind in one generation has taken place almost without complaint.”

A small part of the above is applicable to Truth people also. The only religion Jehovah's Witnesses care to hear discussed is their own; they have no ear or time for the opinions of others – in like spirit to their “Big Brother.” Of course, with the Roman Church “reading is doubt, doubt is heresy, and heresy is Hell”; they are not to read the Bible, as they may become confused; and the Mass is always recited or sung in Latin – to be certain the average member will be “sure” to understand it.

It has been a common weakness over the centuries to criticize others for the very vagaries of which we ourselves are guilty. So often do we hear Scripture quoted at “that man” across the street, while the speaker himself is more guilty of its viola­tion than the one at whom he is pointing. As instance – at the 1958 Chicago Conven­tion of the LHMM this fall quite some merriment was aroused by one relating how a cer­tain sectarian was determined to remain ignorant because he refused to read the tract that had been left with him; yet that very one who gave the testimony about this bigot­ted attitude was actually testifying against their own sins of conduct toward these writings, as they refuse our efforts to enlighten them. The conversation went about like this – after the man had handed back the tract that had been left with him: “Have you read this tract? No! Then how can you pass judgment upon it if you have not even read it?” At this recitation many smiled who are passing identical Judement ­without reading – upon our writings; and R. G. Jolly is instructing his own adherents to simulate this very depraved sectarian spirit in our own group. From the platform at several Conventions he has called our writings “poison”, which is much the same as “reading is doubt”, etc., because he himself knows if his adherents were to read in an honest effort to “discern” for themselves, they would indeed begin to doubt his many perversions and “newly-conceived” doctrines. The Papacy does the same; That Evil Ser­vant did the same; it is an adroit way to maintain a superiority of “educated” ignor­ance, while appearing to know whereof one speaks. “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee”, sayeth the Lord.

Yes, in this R. G. Jolly persistently lends his encouragement and approval. “Don't read the writings of the Sifters”, he tells them – just as Big and Little Papacy instruct their devotees.  It is little wonder there is so little real Christian spirit and charac­ter manifested among so many of his supporters. Nor does it appear to bother him how much lacking they may be in sound principles so long as they are applauding him. once again we counsel our readers to compare the Present Truth with our presentations; then determine for themselves where lies the “spirit of understanding.”

When wealth is lost, nothing is lost;

then health is loot, something is lost;

When character is lost, everything is lost!

At this same Chicago Convention R. G. Jolly offered the lame excuse that the lord's business meetings (meaning his own, of course) are to be viewed differently than worldly business meetings; these “require haste”, so they are not conducted with open discussion, formal motions, etc. This also is only R. G. Jolly's own interpretation of such gath­erings. When Brother Johnson conducted his Convention business meeting at Detroit in 1948, at which R. G. Jolly was elected Executive Trustee in prospect, there was a for­mal motion – drawn by skilled minds other than Brother Johnson – with open discussion about it. But R. G. Jolly will have none of this sort of thing, the real reason being that his business meetings are nothing more than “service” meetings, with testimonies by various ones about their successes to further his methods. As one of his more prominent representatives told us personally sometime back – R. G. Jolly is not con­ducting business meetings to dicuss our business; he is simply asking those present to approve what he is doing – much the same as is done at the JW Service Meetings.

At the Philadelphia Convention over labor Day he had fourteen speakers in his Symposium on Love, some of them just babes in the Truth. One of the speakers was once relieved from the Bible House by Brother Johnson because of his incompetence, Brother Johnson referring to him as the Great Pretender because he “pretended” to know so much about some things of which he knew almost nothing. Yet, with speakers of that calibre R. G. Jolly told the Convention their discoursing on Love was even better than Brother Russell's Pilgrims had presented on the same subject at a certain Convention Symposium back in the Farousia! The responsibility for order in the Church, and for the spiritu­al health of the members, rests squarely upon the leaders, as the Apostles Peter and Paul, and the last Star Members so clearly teach.

Such experiences bring us to a more acute understanding of Jesus' parable in Matt. 13:47-51, in which the great Truth fishing net is cast among the masses of hu­manity, bringing hosts of bad along with the good, with the undesirables cast back into the sea “at the end of the age.” This was evident after Brother Russell's death, when so many went their various ways, some in worse condition than when the Truth had found them. Thus, the Epiphany has made manifest the counsels of hearts; and it still continues to do so. It would be folly supreme to assume that this same situation should not now apply to the LHMM group. “Judgment must begin at the house of God”; and the time since Brother Johnson's death is very sadly manifesting the counsels of hearts – the Epi­phany is revealing persons, principles and things. Therefore, we should “think it not strange”! But it is well to consider that “He that hath much, of him much shall be re­quired”; and those that have basked in the rich Epiphany Truth for these many years must surely have a correspondingly greater responsibility before the Lord. “He that knew his Lord's will, and did it not, shall be beaten with many stripes”! Of course, so many now in the LHMM have imbibed the fallacy that they will be saved by “works.” Works surely are necessary (“Faith without works is dead”); but it should be kept clearly in mind that works are the result – and not the cause – of salvation. At are informed that Brother Russell predicted that most of the Truth people would be back in Babylon before the Age fully ended; and we are witness to his wise foresight – most of them are there, and more will undoubtedly yet be there.  In fact, this will be true of all who have not “received the Truth in the love of it”; and it seems quite fitting here to present the Berean Cam­ments on 2 Thes. 2:10, 11:

“Love of the Truth” ...If we do not cultivate love for the truth until it out­weighs all other things, we will not be fit for the kingdom.

“Shall send them”...All, in the end of the Gospel Age, who, having been favored with the Word of God, have failed to appreciate and use it.

“Strong delusion”...Giving them over to error, which they prefer to the Truth.  Great delusions are just before us, and some of these may come closest upon those possessing the most light of Present Truth.

In due time we shall have more to say on the above; but suffice now to say we are witness to further “strong delusions” since Brother Johnson's death, perhaps the chief of which are Campers “Consecrated” and the “salt of the earth” now including all of the Household of Faith – even these Campers (a Restitution Class) – while de­nying that the real “Salt” is still with us. Nor should it surprise us that persecu­tion comes to any and all who do not embrace these “strong delusions.” As true now as ever are the Poet's words:

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, --

Yet that Scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,

Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His Own.

We see dimly in the present what is small and what is great;

Slow of faith, how weak an arm may turn the iron helm of fate,

But the soul is still oracular; amid the market's din,

List the ominous stern whisper from the Delphic cave within,

“They enslave their children's children who make compromise with sin.”

Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,

Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and 'tis prosperous to be just;

Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,

Doubting in his abject spirit, till his Lord is crucified,

And the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

Therefore, let us be “not as tin many, who corrupt the word of God”! For 1959 we extend to our readers the fond hope of God's Goodness and Mercy, and that individ­ually and collectively all may grow in Grace and in the Knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Questions of General  Interest

QUESTION: – Are the Jews still typically in the antitypical Tabernacle Court?

ANSWER: – No, indeed! When the 70th week was expired, all individual favor was with­drawn from them, which means those who had rejected Christ up to that time had received “the grace of God in vain.” Of course, they could be reinstated into God's favor by accepting Christ (coming through the Gate into the Court). Their situ­ation was analagous to those in the end of the Epiphany who fail to use their tenta­tive justification, and are forced out into the Camp at the Epiphany's end. Some of such will be of the quasi-elect, as Brother Johnson has taught; but this will not be­come clearly manifest until the Millennial Highway is opened after all the Faith Classes (elect classes) have finished their course – at the time Joel 2:28 applies. However, those ejected from the Epiphany Court at its end could not again return to the Household of Faith, as has been true of Gospel Age Jews who may have come into Christ after the 70th week. The rejects at the Epiphany's end could then secure nothing more than Millennial restitution. The above is the Epiphany Messenger's faithful teachings, and is in harmony with all fundamental Parousia and Epiphany Truth – which cannot be true of R. G. Jolly's newly-conceived doctrine which he designates as Epiphany Campers “Consecrated:” We hope, D.v., to offer more on this in a future writing.

QUESTION: – Will you please give us a little more on the Epiphany-Apokalypse?

ANSWER: – These words are not synonymous, but they are so closely interlocked that it is impossible to separate them for this time in which we are living. They accomplish the same thing in some respects without meaning the same thing – much the same as if a man should be hanged or shot. Either would result in his death, thus ac­complishing the same thing; yet shooting and hanging certainly do not mean the same thing.

It is the Parousia, or presence, that accomplishes the Epiphany, or bright shin­ing; and it is the Epiphany that accomplishes the Apokalypse, or uncovering. Thus, it is impossible to have an Apokalypse without an Epiphany; and it is equally impossible to have an Epiphany without a Parousia. At the first Advent “the people that sat in darkness saw great light” (Matt. 4:16).  At that time Jesus “brought life and immor­tality to light”; that is, His presence then epiphanized immortality, as the Old Testa­ment reveals just nothing about immortality as respects any human being. In 2 Tim. 1:10 St. Paul says that the “appearing (Epiphaneia) of Jesus .... brought life and immortality to light.” After the Apostles there developed what we now term “The Dark Ages”; they were not only “dark” in secular aspects, they were also “gross darkness” viewed reli­giously, so that the Old and New Testaments “prophesied in sackcloth” (Rev. 11:3). During that time the various Stewardship Doctrines propounded by the Star Members were simply a revival of truths lost after the first presence; there was no advancing Truth during that time.

Of course, it has always been true that “the entrance of thy word giveth light” (Psa. 119:30); and, while the word “light” in this text does not stem from Epiphaneia, the thought is much the same. Wherever God's word enters, there an Epiphany also oc­curs – not as a period of time, but as an act. This is one of the principal reasons that the Protestant countries of the world are the most enlightened – the result of the great distribution of and freedom in study of the Bible. Substantially all the progress in invention, literature, art, etc., is to be found in these Protestant coun­tries; and it is a sound observation that the intelligence of any country may be gauged by its artistic and inventive genius.

There can be no question that Brother Johnson inseparably linked the Epiphany with the Apokalypse – they are The same in point of time. In E-7-263, top, he says, “as surely as we are in the Epiphany, so surely will they...fail ... the lord is now sub­jecting their works of wood, hay and stubble to the fires of this apokalyptic day (1 Cor. 3:11-15).” Surely, this quotation in this book that was published in 1938 can leave not the slightest doubt that he used the words interchangeably, viewed them as accomplishing the same things during the same period of time; and Brother Johnson had clear Scriptural proof for this teaching.

QUESTION: – Brother Krewson says “error must be defended, Truth can stand for itself.” Is this Scripturally sound?

ANSWER: – No! The statement has no Scriptural support. If it were right, then the Apostles Paul and Jude were wrong. Phil. 1:17 says, “I am set for the de­fense of the Gospel”; and Jude 3 tells us, “Ye should earnestly contend for the faith (the Truth).” Actually, it is not possible properly to defend error because it has no sustaining foundation, being symbolized by the “bottomless pit.” Thus it is only the Truth that can be defended, because it is built upon “the rock”, the same as good and true character. Furthermore, Micah 5:5 states ''When the Assyrian (the errorists) shall tread in our palaces, then we shall raise up against him seven shepherds.” Cer­tainly, those “seven shepherds” (the various Star Members) were not raised up during the Gospel Age to defend error; they were specially raised up to defend the Truth against error - and which they did. Eventually, truth will prevail under the capable administration of righteousness – when the “knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters cover the great deep and it may not then be necessary to defend it.' Early in the Epiphany Brother Johnson spent much of his effort toward defending the Parousia Truth. If it did not need defending, then he was simply “beating the air.” We, too, have been endeavoring to defend the Parousia and Epiphany Truth as every faithful servant must do if he would keep his Vow and Resolve. On page 5 of the very same paper which states “the truth can stand for itself” he speaks of Brother Johnson's ability to “defend the Parousia Truth.” J. W. Krewson's “consistency” is so inconsist­ent that he cannot even teach the same thing in the same way twice in the same paper.

Continued repetition of an error does not make it into a truth, nor does repeated denial of a truth make it into error; but the Jolly-Krewson twosome often resort to this technique.  Multiplied repetition of Campers Consecrated, the Iast Saint Gone, etc., does not form those errors into truths – even though such methods may influence “the un­stable and the unlearned”, even as Hitler awayed his partisans who allowed him to do their thinking for them. These “cousins” reverse their positions as frequently as does the weather. At one time J. W. Krewson told R. G. Jolly that he, as antitypical Zerub­babel, would be called upon to defend every feature of Parousia and Epiphany Truth against all attacks. The statement contained in his Do-You-Know is just the reverse of this; his new view says “Truth can stand for itself” – which is a neat alibi for ignoring the devastating exposures of his ''new truths” (actually gross errors). This is a new formula by both these “cousins”, who flee from, or ignore, the “gainsayers”, instead of refuting them in harmony with Scriptural obligation upon all teachers of Truth. Our previous Mouthpieces refuted the errorists with Scriptural proof – while these two “Mouthpieces” (?) repeat their errors and declare the Scriptural refutations presented against them are error, all the while ignoring the Scriptures used against them. All Truths must harmonize with fundamental Truths – thus they can be defended.

QUESTION: – Why do you object to a class in the Camp  at  the  end  of  this age fitting themselves for Mellennial Conditions – such as the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated”?

ANSWER: – We do not object to any one seeking to live in accordance with right principles so far as they are able. We do object to a pseudo class of Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” believing they are on “a narrow way”, because there is no “narrow way” opened for them in the Camp. The only way for Restitutionists is the Highway of Holiness, and that hasn't been opened for them yet. “And an high­way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The Way of holiness; the un­clean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring man, though fools, shall not err therein.” The “way” here referred to is Christ – the only way for all mankind to get life. His merit is now on embargo for the Household of Faith, and this embargo will not be lifted until the last one of the Household has finished his course – which includes the Little Flock, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies. So the “way” is not provided in the Camp at this time; it is only in the Court that the “way” is available for any one – and that by the way of a “narrow way” and not the Highway of Holiness at this time.

Christ's righteousness is shown only in the linen curtain about the Tabernacle Court; and without that righteousness it is impossible for any one to offer an ac­ceptable sacrifice to God.  There is absolutely nothing outside that curtain that even hints of a righteousness – no more so in the Camp than in the expanse outside the Camp. In the type a heathen could talk into the Camp at his discretion; but it was never permitted for him to enter the Court. Many Campers may even yet be seeking after righteousness – and may yet find it – but only if they enter the Gate into the Court, which is the only place where Christ's righteousness may be found now – the only place over which his Executorship extends (See E-11-473).

NO. 42: THE SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER P.T. REVIEWED

No. 42

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

In accordance with previous promise, we now offer some comments regarding “A Refutation” that appears on pages 73–79 of the Present Truth cited above. R. G. Jolly accuses us (without mentioning our name, as is his custom – contrary to both Brother Russell and Brother Johnson in such cases – although he shouts quite loudly his “in harmony” with them). He says we “club Brother Russell and Brother Johnson over his head”; but this is simply some more of his own subterfuge in a desperate effort to cover up for himself. As we have so often stated, the exact date at which John’s Baptism was no longer efficacious is only an unimportant date in ancient history – insofar as our present observance of the ritual is concerned. It is decidedly non–essential to our correct understanding and practice of Baptism now; and R. G. Jolly himself concurred in this conclusion back in 1954 when he attempted to berate us with his “whispering campaign” that JJH is ‘’out of harmony” on the doctrine of Baptism. Some of our brethren then – knowing JJH quite well, and not so gullible as R. G. Jolly had hoped – asked him pointedly how we were “out of harmony.” His answer was: “It’s not fundamental.” This indeed was the truth – and still is the Truth – his reason for now trying to make it appear “fundamental” is our crushing refutations of his own perversions on “The Faithful & Measurably Faithful”; on Hab. 3:17,18; for whom is “due Truth”; Restitution accomplished by 2874; ”Epiphany Campers Consecrated, Tentative Justification moved to the Camp”, etc.

We have never been out of harmony with the Star Members on any fundamental doctrine, and this includes Baptism – although R. G. Jolly himself is admittedly out of har­mony on a number of fundamental doctrines. Our only difference with them is a matter of opinion on the 12 men of Ephesus in Acts 19:1–6, which R. G. Jolly now attempts to magnify out of all proportion to its truth worth. We accept Brother Johnson’s position regarding That Servant: He always accepted his opinion unless time or clear Scripture disproved his opinions. Such is our attitude now. Had R. G. Jolly adhered to this principle with respect to Epiphany arrangements (had not “contemned the counsel of the most High”, Psa. 107:11), he would not now be engulfed in the quagmire of confusion on so many fundamental doctrines. But, just as we have completely silenced him on so many other subjects, we shall now proceed to silence him on this present difference; and to prove that the “oil in his lamp has gone out” (Matt. 25:8) – that he cannot even read the clear and direct English of the Star Members, and understand what he has read after he reads it.

After indulging in his usual “profusion of words” by way of introduction, he pro­ceeds to comment on the “gifts of the spirit” in the early Church; then proceeds to say the “early Church applies to the entire time in which the Apostles practiced the lay­ing on of hands.” So far as we know, the Apostle John was the last Apostle to leave this world – about 100 A.D. But for quite a few of his last years John was a prison­er on Patmos. This doesn’t seem to bother R. G. Jolly one bit; but we now ask him: During John’s imprisonment how did newcomers into the Christ Company obtain this “lay­ing on of hands”?

Of course, in this matter, as in his “refutation” of J. W. Krewson on “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he gives again a half truth; and half truths are more mis­leading than whole errors. He cites 1 Cor. 12:7 – “The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal,” and he stresses the word “every.” Here is where he should have offered some explanation to teach his readers clearly, and enable them “rightly to divide the word of Truth.” Of course, being in the bog of confusion himself, we should not expect this of him since he was abandoned to Azazel in October 1950 – although he is crass enough to accuse JJH of being befuddled. Well, after com­paring his dissertation with this writing, our readers will have no problem to deter­mine who is “befuddled”, who is in Azazel’s hands.

Had R. G. Jolly been clear himself on this subject, he would have explained that St. Paul’s statement quoted above, “The manifestation of the spirit is given to every man”, is just as applicable now as it was when he wrote it. But it has a limitation now that it did not have then, because there are two kinds of gifts of the Spirit – ­the acquired and the miraculous. The acquired gifts are the fruits or graces developed over a lifetime by “every man” possessing the Holy Spirit. The miraculous gifts were an instantaneous matter – the gifts of healing, tongues, etc.– and were much more readily discernible to the natural man than the acquired gifts. Brother Russell offers the sound opinion (but it is just an opinion – no direct Scripture to prove it) that all those present at Pentecost received one or more of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. The same was probably true an the outpouring upon Cornelius. However, aside from these two instances, none could receive the miraculous gifts except hands were laid on them by an Apostle; and none of such recipients had the power to pass those gifts on to others. This explains why those gifts died out at substantially the same time as did the Apostles.

As we reflect upon the foregoing, we must conclude either that not nearly all in the Church after Pentecost received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, or that none came into the Body unless an Apostle were present to lay hands on them. Let R. G. Jolly offer a clean comment on this premise – if he can: Of course, this premise passed clear over his head, although we hinted at it without offering details. We pur­posely withheld the details to determine, if possible, just how befuddled Azazel has made him. Here is another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here – if he tries to offer one – will be to yell loudly, “Sifter, Errorist, Sophist!”

Another still more pointed instance that we called to his attention along this line is that of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26–39. Any one in R. G. Jolly’s deli­cate and difficult position would have grasped the plain implications here; but the real point apparently completely escaped him – another proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” His only answer here also will be to yell loudly, “Sifter–Errorist”, etc. It is very clear from verse 7 in this chapter that Philip (the Deacon) had the miraculous gifts of the spirit – “cast out unclean spirits: and many paralytic and lame persons were cured” (Dia.). Verse 12 says Philip baptized them (the Samaritans) – ­certainly not with John’s Baptism, any more than he gave the Eunuch John’s Baptism. But verse 16 says the Spirit “was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,” Then v. 17: “They (Peter and John, the Apostles) laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit”– undoubtedly received the miraculous gifts, which Philip was unable to bestow upon them. And, if Philip could not bestow those Gifts of the Spirit upon the Samaritans, no more could he do so for the Eunuch; so we have in this Eunuch a case of at least one “in Apostolic times” who came into the Christ Company without receiving the miraculous gifts of the Spirit. Whether he ever later on came into contact with an Apostle and received those gifts by the laying on of hands we do not know; and we shall not attempt to be wise above that which is written. But the Eunuch “went on his way rejoicing”, although certain it is he did not receive the miraculous gifts of the spirit that day, nor likely for many days thereafter – if at all – , because he returned to “Candace, Queen of the Ethi­opians.” Do you think R. G. Jolly will ever attempt to harmonize this incident with his contentions? We may be sure he’ll do nothing more them yell, “Sifter”, etc.

In connection with the foregoing, R. G. Jolly makes this observation: “Since the Eunuch’s case is a very peculiar one, nothing conclusive in this connection can be drawn from what was said or not said at his baptism.” No, we shouldn’t expect any clear con­clusions to be drawn here – or anywhere else – by one abandoned to Azazel, and to wham Cod is sending “an energy of delusion, to their believing the falsehood.” (i2 Thes. 2:11––Dia.) When there is nothing to say, the Bible says nothing – quite the reverse of R. G. Jolly. With him, when there is nothing to say, he’ll find plenty of words with which to say it. It’s as clear as the noonday sun: Philip had not the power to bestow the miraculous gifts; the Bible makes this very clear in vs– 7, 15–17, as we pointed out aforegoing. Any one not befuddled by Azazel would see this without diffi­culty—especially so, since the Star Members have taught that only the Apostles were able to confer the miraculous gifts. Therefore, why should the record say unnecessarily that the Eunuch did not receive those gifts at Philip’s hands, when we are already clear­ly informed it was not within Philip’s power to bestow them?

It goes without saying that very shortly after Pentecost the “early church” con­sisted of Little Flock and Great Company members. Therefore, if the foregoing were not enough to prove him “foolish”, we cite the case of the one in 1 Cor. 5:1–5, who had been disfellowshiped. Even before the Ecclesia had cast him out, would R. G. Jolly now con­tend that that member of the early Church was blessed with the miraculous gifts of the Spirit?

R. G. Jolly then proceeds to say “this errorist (meaning JJH) gives no proof” that the two Baptisms never operated at the same time after Cornelius. No, of course not! The burden of proof here is on R. G. Jolly, because he is the one contending that two Baptisms did operate at the same time. We have repeatedly asked him for just and in­stance in the Bible to prove his position; but he hasn’t done so because he can’t. He may have nothing to say, but he’s always certain to find plenty of word to describe it! In this he shows again the close relationship to his “cousin” J. W. Krewson, who also demands “proof” that his erroneous dreams are not directly disputed by the Bible. These two “cousins” are able to crowd more words into fewer ideas than any one we know!

And in much the same fashion as just mentioned he says we offer no proof from Acts 18 that Apollos did not preach to the Gentiles. The burden of proof here again rests upon R. G. Jolly, since he is so loudly contending there were Gentiles in that group at Ephesus. His contention in several instances that JJH does not offer proof is akin to the argument of the moron who insists the moon is made of green cheese because there’s no place in the Bible that disputes the idea. Of course, as is common with his kind, he insists we contend those men of Acts 19 were Jews. Our readers know this is just a falsehood on his part, induced undoubtedly by his desperation to talk when he has nothing to say. We repeat again – We don’t know what they were; R. G. Jolly insists they were Gentiles, so we ask for his proof – nothing more or leas than just that. And, even if he could prove his point – which he has not done – it still would not change our present view of Baptism. But the Bible clearly states that Apollos was living with Jews who had been won to Christianity. If R. G. Jolly wants to include Gentiles in that arrangement, let him produce his proof for it; the burden is on him.

He next attempts something on 1 Pet. 3:21. He says we “give no proof” that the Apostle was there not discussing John’s Baptism. Certainly he is treating of water immersion; and it was water immersion by John the Baptist, plus repentance by the re­cipient, that wrought forgiveness for the Jews – cleansed them of their sins against the law of Moses. As we have said, most of the Apostles needed no water immersion of any kind. The text itself offers all the proof necessary to any one not befuddled by Azazel. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson both considered this Scripture as treat­ing ONIY of Christian Baptism – with not the slightest hint in any of their writings that “proof” was needed to show it was not John’s Baptism. In fact, when R. G. Jolly published a summary of our Grand Rapids discourse on 1 Pet. 3:21 in the 1953 P.T. he himself then needed no “excuse” that it treated exclusively of Christian Baptism. But with him, if he accepted our position then, that’s no reason why he should do it now—although our position was then, and still is, in full “harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” on this Christian baptism text.

We have previously stated that 1 Pet. 1:1 and the Berean Comment show this Epistle was written to the Jews. R. G. Jolly now offers the moronic objection that “Peter was addressing consecrated Christians, so the premise of this errorist falls to the ground.” Too bad Brother Russell didn’t think of that when he allowed the Berean Comment to be circulated! As Brother Johnson has so ably stated, when these people fall into the hands of Azazel they talk all sorts of nonsense; and the nonsense in this instance by R. G. Jolly is pathetic in the extreme. Without leaning on Brother Russell here (who says they were Jews), we’ll go back to Acts 18:2, where Paul was associated with a “Jew named – Aquila.” Would even the veriest novice in the Truth want to contend from this that Aquila was not also a Christian? Certainly not! And it’s clear enough from 1 Pet. 1:3,4 and 5:4 that those Jews whom Peter was addressing were already in the Body of Christ: “hath begotten us again to a lively hope... an inheritance incorruptible.” There­fore, those Jews (by birth), having already come into the Christ Company, were included in the “us” class (the Saints, as Brother Russell so often stressed). Then, they needed no further water immersion of any kind; and by no stretch of a foolish imagination could they possibly need John’s Baptism. For one who sat at the feet of the brilliant Star Members for over forty years to offer such nonsense now would be unbelievable were we not witness to it.

But the question is properly in order here: Thy, then, did St. Peter write them as he did? He did so because they had never seen Jesus in person; had probably never seen John the Baptist. Thus, their understanding of Baptism and other doctrines might well require some inspired instruction; and that’s what Peter gave them. We do not know whether Peter was ever immersed; but, if he ever was immersed, it would of necessity have had to be John’s Baptism. Yet he states to those Jews to whom he is writing: “Im­mersion, a representation of this, now saves us.” He is saying that Noah in the ark completely surrounded by water is a type of entrance into the antitypical Ark, Christ; and that this would be the only reason for them at that late date in the Jewish Harvest to teach and perform any Baptism. If this were not true, then the inspired Apostles would certainly have clarified the subject further to those converted Jews to whom he was writing. If R. G. Jolly’s contention is now correct, those Jews needed no Baptism of any kind if John’s Baptism were still to be practiced – unless they were conscious of sin against the Law, which Baptism would have been administered to them prior to their entrance into the Christ Company, while Christian Baptism is always after full consecration. Rather odd, isn’t it, that St. Peter would write them about something that concerned them not in the least, and would fail to mention the very fact that would be vital to Jews then (if R. G. Jolly is now right)? As a clear and inspired teacher, St. Peter would certainly have told those Jews which Baptism to offer to newcomers if two were in vogue. Certainly, it should not require argument that Peter is describing Christian Baptism – the same Baptism we understand and practice now. Those Jewish con­verts whom St. Peter was addressing would most likely contact their Jewish brethren and friends in an effort to win them for Christ. If John’s Baptism was the one they should have used for those Jews, again we ask – Isn’t it most strange that the inspired Apostle would explain the Baptism they should not use but ignore completely the Baptism they should use? It should be kept in mind that up to the time of Cornelius Christian Bap­tism meant no more to the Jews than John’s Baptism meant to the Gentiles. Neither was applicable to the other class of people. Of course, prior to Cornelius, Jesus was the only One to receive Christian Baptism.

A number of times in the past R. G. Jolly has lifted certain statements from Bro. Russell and Bro. Johnson without using quotation marks; and he now makes quite some ado because we criticized those statements. This in itself is perverse enough, and demon­strates clearly his stature; but quite often when he lifts a sentence or two in that manner he actually perverts the general thought of the Star Members. Azazel means Perverted; and we have often proven him to be a most guilty perverter. But perhaps the prize piece of nonsense is to be found at the bottom of P. 77, col. 2, where he presents a revolting perversion of Brother Johnson’s statement, “Baptism signifies our induc­tion into the Church of the Firstborn”, and proceeds to say Brother Johnson often used the word “our” as referring only to the Priests; and R. G. Jolly now follows his example by meaning only the Great Company when he says ‘our.” If we go back to P.T. ‘57, P–34, we’ll find R. G. Jolly also uses the words “all of us.” Let him show where Brother John­son ever did that in addressing the General Church, while he referred only to the Saints.

But this is a small part only of our objection to his lame excuse here. In his jumble on the item, ‘’For whom is Due Truth”, he did the same thing with the word “all”; then contended any one should know he didn’t mean “all” when he said “all”, that he actually meant only less than one percent. Here he does the same thing: When he says “all of us” he means only the Great Company among his readers. How cheap can he get? As we have said, we should think the man would be ashamed, but it seems there is no shame in him, He read here a statement by Brother Johnson without understanding what he read – another cogent proof that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” Brother John­son has Biblical prerogative and precedent for using words “our”. “US”, etc., when re­ferring only to the Saints, because the Bible itself does just that. A classic example of this is our quotation in this paper of 1 Pet. 1:3,4, where the Apostle uses the word “US”, thus including those Jewish converts right in with himself as a part of the “us” the Christ Company. In fact, his Epistle, along with all the other Epistles, was pri­marily written only for the ‘Is” class. However, right here we should keep clearly in mind Brother Russell’s statement: “If they lose the spirit of sonship, they cease to be sons, cease to be under this law of liberty,” Here’s another point that has passed right over R. G. Jolly’s head—proving once again, if we need any more proof – that the “oil in his lamp has gone out.” The Great Company is no longer under the law of liberty because their sacrifice becomes one of constraint, a forced termination to their consecration. But R. G. Jolly would like to forget this—and have his sectarian supporters forget it, too – as he attempts to seize Little Flock prerogatives for himself. Thus, he labors under many “strong delusions.”

Now, let R. G. Jolly show any such precedent for the Great Company. He has re­peatedly tried to take Little Flock, and even Star Member, prerogatives and fit himself into them, which proves he often reads without understanding what he has read. A po­tent illustration was his contention that the great Company is in the wilderness condi­tion just as the Little Flock had its Wilderness experience. We say this was his con­tention until we showed how ridiculous was his position; and we have since heard no more of it – just as we’ll probably hear no more from him now on this subject of Bap­tism. But we invite him to try again if he is inclined, as we have by no means ex­hausted the refutations that could have been presented herein, our absti­nence being due to the length already of this writing.

The Great Company is indeed a part of the Gospel–Age Firstborn, the reason being that they are among the first–begotten. Thus, all the first-begotten of the Gospel Age must eventuate into the firstborn, or go into the Second Death. But, as we recently wrote a Brother, God never calls any one to be unfaithful; hence there is no call to the great Company (no call to any Measurably Faithful class) – their final position is just an act of mercy by God to save them from eternal extinction. Therefore, this Class is accorded only secondary notice in the Scriptures; and it is only an act of Azazelian impudence when any of them try to fit themselves into the “us” Class. It is indisputably testimony to their uncleansed condition, and that they are in the hands of Azazel and cannot think clearly while in that condition. And for one of them to set himself forth as a teacher of “advancing truth”, while attempting such a course, as R. G. Jolly now does, is a clear warning to all that his claims should be viewed with acute suspicion.

It should be kept in mind that all the Great Company had entered the Gospel–Age Church of the Firstborn more than 44 years ago – that they then entered as a part of the “us” Class – and we know of a certainty that many of them have never had water immersion. Yet R. G. Jolly states in the preceding sentence – addressing all the Great Company, according to his own present contention – that “baptism signifies our consecra­tion.” Is he there telling those of his Great Company brethren that have had nothing more than a sprinkling in infancy – that were never immersed that that sprink­ling (their only water baptism) signified their consecration and induction into the Church of the Firstborn? Another loose statement akin to this is to be found on P. 75, col. 1, bottom: “Many Jews...late in the Jewish Harvest ... were baptized with John’s Baptism, just as in the case of those at Pentecost.” A Sister wrote to ask us if he is saying here that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit that day was John’s Baptism; so we pass the question right on to him. Certainly there were two distinct and different baptisms that day, one performed by God, and one by men. When he says “those at Pentecost” is he in­cluding both groups in his statement? If not, why didn’t he say which group he meant if this Baptism matter is so clear to him as he would have his readers think?

In due course we hope to explain a certain type having to do with this situation; but for now we commend the foregoing to all for careful comparison with his presenta­tion – just the reverse of his advice to his readers. And may the “blessing that maketh rich, and addeth no sorrow therewith”, Abide with all who read in a “good and hon­est heart.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – Can you show by the signs of the times that the salt has left the earth?

ANSWER: – The foregoing is the gist of a question some one whom we do not know put in at this last 1958 Chicago Convention. R. G. Jolly, after his usual “profu­sion of words” said the “salt of the earth” as applied to the Little Flock is gone, but that the “salt” would still be here in the persons of the Great Company, the Youth­ful Worthies and the Consecrated Epiphany Campers. Jesus clearly stated, “Ye are the salt of the earth”, and it was a clear designation ONLY of the Little Flock the “us”, the ‘’we’’, the “our” class of the New Testament. Note the Berean Comments on Matt. 5:13: “Salt of the earth ... In proportion as you have given heed to the Lord’s Word and culti­vated its spirit. God’s people have had a preservative influence for quite a consider­able space around them.” And in Z 106–75: “Before very long we expect that all of the overcoming members of the body of Christ will be changed, glorified, and the body completed on the other side the veil will be without members on this side. The nights will have gone and the darkness will hold fuller away than ever; the salt will be gone and the corruption will take hold swiftly, and the result will be the great time of trouble such as was not since there was a nation.” Berean Comments on Matt. 5:14: “Ye are the light ... phos, the same word applied to our Lord.”

Thus, R. G. Jolly’s answer is a gross revolutionism of Parousia Truth (with which he claims to be “in full harmony”); and he is forced to this error by his other error that the true salt (the Saints) have all left the earth. Here is another illustration of Brother Johnson’s clear Epiphany teaching that the embracing of one error always forces those errorists to embrace other errors in a desperate effort to uphold their first error. Just as he tried to transfer the Measurably Faithful into the “Faithful”, and the “wilderness condition” of the Great Company (their abandonment to Azazel ­a condition where all brotherly fellow­ship and favor of the World’s High Priest has been removed!) into the “wilderness experience” of the little Flock (the “ye” class ­the more than overcomers who needed no enforced condition to destroy their fleshly minds), he now seeks to pervert the clear Scriptural teachings on the “Salt” Class to include the Great Company and other classes.

If his Campers “Consecrated” are a part of the “salt” – and the “earth” will not be dissolved until the “salt” (the preserving influence) is removed—then we need not expect dissolution of the present earth at all, as some of his Campers “Consecrated” will continue with us right up to the beginning of Restitution, according to R. G. Jolly’s own contention. It is worthy of note that neither the ‘signs of the times” nor the chronology point out October 1950 as the passing of the Last Saint; whereas, both of the important indicators do verify every other feature of God’s Plan, many of them of much lesser import than the passing of the “salt of the earth” (the last mem­ber of the “ye” Class, the Saints).

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

QUESTION: – We are informed that Brother Jolly stated at the 1955 Philadelphia Convention that the ‘sifters’ could them­selves be sifted out of the L.H.M.M. before another year had passed – and would not be seen there anymore. Do you know anything about that?

ANSWER: – Yes, your information is substantially correct; he was his usual positive self about it, too. And during that same time J. W. Krewson also gave us assurance in like positive manner that Pilgrim Gavin and other prominent brethren would publicly take their stand for him before 1955 had expired. But just the re­verse has occurred with the prophecies of both these ‘Pastors and Teachers.’ Now we can only wonder whether they then thought they were students of prophecy, and based their predictions upon some “strong delusion” that they had special illumination to ex­pound some biblical type or prophecy. Regardless of what they thought in 1955, time has clearly proven that their predictions were prompted solely by the wishes of their fleshly minds, at the instigation of the Adversary. And we can expect to see much more of this as certain developments unfold more fully.

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

QUESTION: – Do we understand you to accept Brother Jolly’s teachings on the Epiphany Campers Consecrated, except that the time is not yet; that this doctrine will be proper enough in the “Finished Picture” of the Epiphany?

ANSWER: – Certainly not! There never was, is not now, and never will be such a Class. As Brother Johnson has so often stressed, any interpretation must be in harmony with God’s character attributes; and this Campers Consecrated is decid­edly contrary to Cod’s Justice. This in itself should brand it for what it is – a Le­vitical vagary. As we have said, there is no Scripture anywhere to support it; and the Star Members never taught it. So there are at least two things to stamp it as error. During the Gospel Age all were called “in the one hope of their calling” – all who were faithful in “the narrow way” received the reward of that way – Immortality. Also, now, those who walk ‘a narrow way” will receive the same reward as all who con­tinue faithful in that way, Worthyship – just as those of the Great Company who even­tually receive the “palm” will all have the same reward of that way which they traverse. The only difference amongst any of the Classes will be one of honor – “star differeth from star” – ; but each will receive the nature pertinent to his Class.

Faith justification is only for the Faith Dispensation, in which we still are. And there is only one place that pictures such justification, and that is the Court. There is not the slightest hint in any Scripture, type or prophecy of a “narrow way” in the Camp. In the finished Epiphany picture those who have not improved their faith justification will have “received the Grace of God in vain” – be remanded to the Camp for another opportunity during the works justification under the New Covenant.

At present there is an embargo on the Ransom merit until all the faith–justified finish their course – as parts of the Bride, the Bridesmaids or the Worthies; and it cannot possibly be available for any other Class until that embargo is lifted. Of course, there are Epiphany Campers now, just as there have been such all during the Epiphany; but, not having come through that “one way”, the Gate (Christ), they do not now have faith justification any more than they did twenty years ago – nor will they ever have faith justification so long as they remain in the camp. And in the finished pic­ture those forced out of the Court into the Camp will actually lose the justification they had while in the Court.

J. F. Rutherford revolutionized against Parousia teachings only in his newly found doctrine, but R. G. Jolly revolutionizes against both Parousia and Epiphany teachings in his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated.’’ When Brother Johnson gave us the Epiphany teachings on the Epiphany Tabernacle it was harmonious with the Parousia teachings and with Tabernacle Shadows. Any honest–hearted parousia–enlightened brethren who had opportunity to look into Epiphany Teachings readily accepted Advanc­ing Truth as a part of the whole, because it did no violence to any Parousia funda­mental doctrine. This cannot be said about R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” – because it does violence to both Parousia and Epiphany teachings: It is a sin against greater light.

 Brother Johnson has this to say in E–4–406: “The Little Flock, the Ancient Worthies, the Great Company and the Youthful Worthies will be the Millennial Household of Faith (2 Tim. 2:20).” No room here for R. G. Jolly’s Epiphany Campers “Con­secrated” (his ‘Household of Faith’) that he now says are walking “a narrow way” with the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And further: “The Priests and Levites dwell­ing about the Tabernacle type this Household of Faith (Num. 1;3:4). The Youthful Wor­thies, of course, are not of the New Creature Household of Faith, because they are not new creatures. But from the standpoint of having “the faith of Abraham” (Gal. 3:7,9) they are, of course, like him, of the Household of Faith..... They are, however, somewhat different from the tentatively justified who do not now consecrate. The latter during the Epiphany cease altogether to be of the Household of Faith, hazing used the grace of God in vain; while the former, consecrating and proving faithful, retain their Tentative Justification, and are thus of the Gospel–Age Household of Faith who persist into and during the Epiphany. The reason why they are of the Household of Faith is that they are a faith class; for all that are of the faith of Abraham are of the Household of Faith.” And those of the “faith of Abraham” are certainly pictured forth in the Court and not in the Camp – whether the Jewish Camp, the large Gospel–Age Camp, or the Epiphany Camp. Yet, R. G. Jolly claims his Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” are of the Household of Faith!’

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Bro. & Sr. Hoefle: – Grace and peace!

I just received your October letter, and enjoyed reading every bit of it, and to tell you the truth I was going over the same subject in my meditations this morning. In most particulars I had arrived at the same conclusions you had, and I can’t for the life of me see how any Truth person can do any different. I can well remember when I first heard Bro. Jolly’s lecture on the “Queen of Sheba” class I couldn’t quite agree with him, as I thought it was too premature, and also could not see much advantage for any one to consecrate now for such a purpose, in view of the final rewards offered... You sure gave Bro. Jolly something to think about in your last letter; as you say, he, like J.F.R., will have to deny Tabernacle Shadows.

I do not think much of Bro. Krewson’s blast at Bro. Alger’s character. He shows his kinship to his twin Jolly...

The Lord will richly bless you, Bro. Hoefle, as you defend the Truth. You have done too much for the Truth to back down now. You greatly helped Bro. Johnson during the depression, when the rest of us were not able to do much; and you have one friend in the Truth that hasn’t forgotten it, but, – sad to say, there are many that have.

This last blast of Bro. Jolly in the Sept–Oct. P.T. about disfellowshiped members not being welcome was about the last straw. Any one with any intelligence ought to know his purpose ... You have him on the run, in my opinion ... The present movement will never get anywhere until they are cleansed, and I’m beginning to lose hope they ever will be cleansed. I look forward to your letters.. With much Christian love. Your Brother .....

NO. 41: THREE FEATURES OF OUR WORK

No. 41

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

In this September‑October Present Truth, page 69, col. 2, there is quite some elaboration on “this glorious witnessing work” – with another slur at the “sift­ing leaders”, although he does not mention our name. Answering for JJH and his house, we cling to the teachings of both Star Members that there are three features to our work: First and most important, to perfect ourselves in every good word and work. Second, and next important, to assist others in doing the same thing. Third, and last, to witness to the world “of sin of righteousness, and of judgment to came.” We call attention to the Manna Comment for February 5: “We find that the great work which God asks of us is not work for others, but work in ourselves.”

And another quotation from E‑6‑352: “This teaching of a supposed opposition between character development and covenant keeping, which is treated by J.F.R. as though it meant only serving the Truth, witness­ing, is doubtless the basis of his ex­treme emphasis on service and his comparative neglect an the other six features of covenant keeping: (1) deadness to self and the world, (2) study of the Word, (3) watchful­ness and (4) prayer according to the word, (5) practicing the word and (6) suffering for loyalty to all six previous parts of our covenant keeping. This extreme emphasis injures many. We certainly believe in service. It is surely one of the seven features of our covenant obligations; but to stress it one‑sidedly and extremely to the comparative neglect of the other six features of our covenant obligations results in a one‑sided and consequently narrow and insufficient devel­opment. A well-rounded development, embracing all features of our covenant obli­gations, is needed If we would be conformed unto the image of God's son.”

The foregoing is clear enough, and fully expresses our own stand; we are in full accord with the quotations above. R. G. Jolly complains that the “sifters” have retarded his witnessing effort; but he has no one to blame but himself if the more alert ones are becoming discouraged with him and his “great works.” Time itself has proven the folly of his Flying Saucer tract – just as time has demonstrated the failure of his $5 Correspondence Course. What with Sputniks and other devices of dazzling speed, any one would now appear quite ludicrous to offer a Flying Saucer tract in explanation; and some of his erstwhile supporters have the sagacity to realize that. The same goes for his DYK, which not a few now clearly realize to be error since reading our devastating refutations of views on the Last Saint, etc. Had he followed with the Epiphany work as arranged by the Epiphany Messenger (instead of “contemning the counsel of the Most High”– Psa. 107:11), he would certainly have had no opposition from this writer; and we doubt he would have had any from any one else associated with the LHMM. The “timeworn and thread­bare” tracts used by The Epiphany Messenger in Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle are still the most “up‑to‑date” Truths for witnessing work, to those in darkness concerning them. There is a special reason why R. G. Jolly has had so little to say about Antitypical Gideon's Second Battle, on which we will have more to say in a future writing. But for now we felt it expedient to express our “in harmony” with That Wise and Faithful Servant, as well as with the Epiphany Messenger, on their fundamental teaching regarding “service.”

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

Questions of General Interest

QUESTION: – What is meant by the text, “Let us go unto him, without the camp, bear­ing the reproach with him”?

ANSWER: – To go to Him “without the camp” would mean to do His will at all costs whether with the approval of the Nominal People of God or not. And to do His will we are not likely to receive the approval of the sects and sectarians of our day anymore than our Lord received the approval of the Jewish System of His day. Brother Russell says:

“For our lord in his day to have gone outside the camp would have been to go outside the nominal church system of his time and to do the will of the Father irrespective of their support; and for us now to follow him thus outside the camp would be to go outside of present environments, viz., outside of Christendom, in the sense of ignoring the views and teachings, the approval, the snares, of Christendom.”

And so it was after the death of That Wise and Faithful Servant, those who went to Him “without the camp” (without the approval of the “Channel”) did in­deed bear the “reproaches with Him.” And so it is today, if we “continue in His word” we will be His disciples indeed; but if we compromise the Truth for the present advantages and approval of the Nominal People in order that we might “sacrifice” (“services”), we cannot “go unto him, without the camp, bearing the reproach with him.” King Saul thought, too, he would compromise in order to “sacrifice” (serve contrary to the,Lord's arrangements). “For I bear them rec­ord that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” (Rom. 10:2) And our Lord says of them –  “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”

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

QUESTION: – In Lev. 9:24 we are told “there came out a fire from before the Lord.. and consumed the burnt offering”; and in Lev. 8:32 Aaron and his sons are commanded to “burn with fire” what was left of the offering. The Berean Comments on 9:24 say this fire showed God's acceptance of the sacrifice; and the Comments on 8:32 say it shows “we are completely and entirely consumed.” Inas­much as fire in the Bible usage usually types destructive influences, will you please harmonize this with the Comments on these verses?

ANSWER: – It is quite true that fire usually does typify destruction in the anti­types, and we believe it is true in these two instances also – there being a twofold significance here. We are in full agreement with Brother Rus­sell's conclusions; but we think there is a pointed antitypical significance of a destruction character, too.

The Sin‑Offering was tentatively and individually complete in September 1914; and the destructive influence that began then most remarkably demonstrated God's ac­ceptance of that Sin‑Offering. This destructive force is still at work, and will culminate with Jacob's Trouble, at which time The Christ will be revealed in the “fire of that day.” We think we have here a strong corroboration of our belief that the High Calling closed in September 1914 by the very fact that destructive forces be­gan right on time to demonstrate God's acceptance of the Gospel Age offering for sin. This is confirmed in 1 Cor. 3:13 – “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.” Certainly, it was the “fire” of the Epiphany day that manifested God's acceptance of the offering of the Fully Faithful, while at the same time manifesting persons, principles and things among all classes of Society. We think this explanation harmonizes fully with Bro. Russell's conclusions as given in Tabernacle Shadows on this matter. God manifested His acceptance of the type by fire; God manifested acceptance of the antitype by anti­typical fire. Brother Russell could not see the antitype in its fullness, because he never realized that before his death the Sin Offering was tentatively and individu­ally complete in 1914.

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

QUESTION: – Do we understand you to teach that all Justified Believers, including the Tentatively Justified, are typified by the Levites?

ANSWER: – Yes, that is the way we understand the types. All those in the Court condition are counted as Levites until their faith‑justifi­cation lapses and they are forced out of the Court at the end of the Epiphany. Brother Johnson clarifies this when he tells us in the Epiphany the Great Company are also counted in with the Levites. But that doesn't mean there are no others counted in the levitical picture during the Epiphany. Certainly, the Youthful Worthies are among the Levites, and the unconsecrated Tentatively Justified are also counted in with the Household of Faith so long as they are in the Court condition – because the Court still contains the levites. Brother Russell in Tabernacle Shadows makes this very clear: “As we now pass to the consideration of the inauguration of the typical priest­hood, we notice that the tribe of the Levites (typical of all the justified believers) existed before the priesthood was instituted. So in the antitype the “Royal Priesthood” began with the anointing of Jesus, the High Priest (at bap­tism, Luke 3:22; Acts 10:38); but be­lievers, justified by faith in Christ, had lived long before that. For instance, Abraham believed God, and was justified by his faith (Rom. 2:2,3). Though even the type had not yet come in his day, Abraham, as a justified believer, was a member of the 'household of faith’, typified by the Levites.” (p. 27)

We should note from the above that those who came before the selection of the Church were typified by the Levites – i. e., if they were counted in the Household of Faith; and so it is since the Church has been completed – those who come to the Lord must came through the GATE: they must be in the Court Condition and counted as Levites if they are of the Household of Faith.

R. G. Jolly contends that the “Household of Faith” has now extended to his Epi­phany Camp, but Brother Johnson nowhere teaches such an oddity. There is only ONE Household of Faith, and that one is pictured forth by the Levites who are in the Court. The quasi‑elect are not pictured in are not of the Household of Faith in the final analysis. In the final adjustment they are remanded to the Camp for Millennial‑Age purposes.

At this last Philadelphia Convention, R. G. Jolly said if they didn't have the understanding regarding his Epiphany Campers, that the lord's people would still be bringing the “tentatively justified” into the Court Condition. But the Court is the only place that types the condition of the Tentatively Justified. If R. G. Jolly has opened up another way, the lord does not recognize it – anymore than He recognized the “sacrifices of King Saul” when done in disobedience to His commands. (1 Sam. 15:13‑23 In his effort to withstand the devastating Truth that has been presented against the Campers Consecrated, R. G, Jolly has stressed the Star Members' explanation as presented above to be “for Gospel‑Age purposes.” But in his refuta­tions of J. W. Krew­son he unqualifiedly (and correctly) contends that the Epiphany is still with us.

How note Brother Johnson's comment in E‑4‑65 (63): “The Epiphany is the last special period of the Gospel Age; and therefore it will continue at least until the last mem­ber of the Little Flock leaves this earth, and probably nearly until about the estab­lishment of the earthly phase of God's Kingdom. This probability is due to the fact that the Epiphany implies a revelation (apokalypsis, uncovering) of the lord's Second Advent.”

From the above it is clear enough that Brother Johnson teaches that the Epiphany “for Gospel‑Age purposes” is still with us, regardless of whether the Saints are all gone or not; and that the Epiphany and the Apocalypse are one and the same in point of time. Also, in E‑11‑473 Brother Johnson says Jesus' executory work pertains to the antitypi­cal Tabernacle Court for all who remain in that Court until the end of the Epiphany. Is R. G. Jolly now also moving Jesus' executory work into the Camp – just as he presumably has done with the laver? – or is he contending that Jesus' executory work does not extend to, and dominate, his Campers Consecrated?

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

QUESTION: – Will you please offer some comment on Brother Krewson's statement on p. 18 of his No. 22 paper that you “are apparently unable to recognize slander when you see it”?

ANSWER: – Any one making the claims J. W. Krewson does should certainly define slander for the benefit of his readers. In this instance, of course, he wouldn't want them to know the true meaning, because even his most prejudiced adherents would then recognize his fraudulent contention as another attempt by him to lie his way out of his previous lies. Here's the legal definition of slander:

Malicious publication of false tales or suggestions tending to injure the reputation of another. (See also Manna Com­ments for September 10.)

It will be noted from the above that “intent” is largely present in slander; and J. W. Krewson specifically wrote letters to brethren stating it was his “intent” to cast suspicion upon us, and he hoped to do this in the minds of many brethren. It should be kept in mind that when he first began to malign us, he contended he had learned from a “reliable witness” (just hearsay evidence, and thus clearly evil sur­mising) that Brother Johnson had never given us a Pilgrim appointment – that we had boldly advanced ourselves after Brother Johnson's death by dropping the word “Aux­iliary” from what Brother Johnson had given us. After we annihilated his slanderous charge by publishing our Pilgrim Certificate, he now offers the twist that we are not “up enough on Epiphany teachings” to know the office Brother Johnson gave us. Well, he is in effect making that charge against the Epiphany Messenger himself, be­cause the Epiphany Messenger gave us the Pilgrim appointment, and clearly stated in his covering letter that the Pilgrim office was superior to the Auxiliary Pilgrim office. We have only accepted the Epiphany Messenger's Epiphany teaching on this matter. Even if J. W. Krewson now thinks he knows more than the Epiphany Messenger himself knew (“deceiving and being deceived”) when he wrote us as he did with our Certificate, this would still be no excuse whatever for J. W. Krewson to impugn our integrity as he has maliciously attempted to do. Clearly enough, the truth has not been a motivating force with him in this instance; and one sin readily leads to other sins – as it has done in his case. If J. W. Krewson had the least semblance of Christian ethics, he would have apologized for his wrong course in the falsehood he circulated, as he himself declared it in his public and private utterances. Like his “cousin” R. G. Jolly, he has great ability to reverse himself whenever it seems ex­pedient. J. W. Krewson himself stated – without reservation – that one of Brother Johnson's Pilgrims attended his New England meeting in June 1955 (we refer to Pilgrim Daniel Gavin). Certainly, any and all of J. W. Krewson's readers who are of “a good and honest heart” will not endorse, or even condone, his falsehoods and evasions in this matter. If J. W. Krewson knew Brother Johnson was making a mistake to give us a Pilgrim appointment, he should have told Brother Johnson about it. Did he do it? Did he ever protest to R. G. Jolly for publishing our Pilgrim status after Brother Johnson's death? Or has the Lord, by special illumination, Just now whispered the Truth to him about it? “An hypocrite with his mouth destroyeth his neighbor: but through knowledge shall the just be delivered.” (Prov. 11:9)

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

QUESTION: – How may we determine who are sifters, and who are God's true mouthpieces?

ANSWER: – Perhaps we should first approach this question from a negative viewpoint. Exposing the sins and errors of false teachers or Great Company leaders does not make one a sifter; otherwise, every Star Member would have been a sifter. It should be noted, too, that their “brethren who cast them out” have been only too ready to yell “Sifter” at the Star Members when they could not meet the Truth they presented. We all know how this was done to Brother Johnson by the crown‑lost lead­ers, and especially so by That Evil Servant. “By their fruits ye shall know them”, is a primary and excellent measuring rod for the true and the false. “The works which I do testify concerning me that the Father has sent me”, says Jesus (Jno. 5:36‑‑Dia.); and none who are “following in His steps” will need to resort to falsehood to prove they are “of the Truth.”

God's true servants teach Truth to enlighten,

While false teachers use error to frighten.

At the recent Philadelphia Convention R. G. Jolly read a statement by Brother Russell concerning sifters; then proceed­ed to state some rank falsehood about the “sifters” who were present. We called this injustice to his attention after the meeting; but his only comment was, “I don't care to argue it.” Of course, there was one salient difference between Brother Russell and R. G. Jolly, which the latter was only too glad to ‘overlook’: When Brother Russell called any one a sifter he also proceeded vigorously to refute that sifter's errors with sledge‑hammer force. Now the situa­tion is just the reverse – this ‘sifter’ (JJH) is refuting R. G. Jolly with such force that his only remaining weapon is name‑calling. In view of our own recent analysis of his “Due Truth for all the Consecrated”, he dared not even mention it from the Convention platform. It is very evident he would like to resort to That Evil Servant's method of forcible ejection, as was done with Brother Johnson after he had completely closed their mouths with the force of his Truth presentations. Yes, R. G. Jolly would like to do the very same thing now; but he's just a little afraid of the consequences. Of course, name‑calling is the weakest and one of the most depraved of weapons; it is the last resort of the weakling and the perverter. As we predicted re his “Due Truth” conten­tion, he is only too glad to forget it and to hope and pray that his sectarian followers will forget it, too. “How are the mighty fallen!”

On P. 79 of this last September‑October Present Truth R. G. Jolly makes quite some ado about the 'sifters’ who attended the Philadelphia Convention, his remarks being directed at us without mentioning our name, of course. His comments are almost word for word what That Evil Servant so unjustly published about R. G. Jolly himself early in the Epiphany (R. G. Jolly receiving the personal help and brotherly fellowship of the last Star Member, and being under the influence of his restraining hand at the time R. G. Jolly went from Class to Class among Society adherents in a commendable effort to open their eyes in identical fashion as we now do. And Brother Johnson gave the cor­rect analysis of JFR's attitude then, saying he is forced to warn against the Epiphany Truth, because any who read Brother Johnson's analysis of the Watch Tower errors with an open mind would then be forced to forsake JFR. Thus, JFR conducted a campaign of fear and intimidation among his servile supporter –  his action being the railing of the “impenitent thief” – and he, the real sifter then, succeeded in developing Jehovah's Witnesses, just as his ‘Big Brother’, the Number One Sifter of the entire Gospel Age, succeeded in developing the Papal System. In the very near future we hope to analyze other parts of this last PT, at which time we shall prove that R. G. Jolly has “lost the oil in his lamp.” We make this statement without malice or boasting, our only purpose being an earnest effort to help those that can be helped, allowing those enslaved by fear and ignorance to cleave to R. G. Jolly – just as Brother Johnson did with the Society sectarians.

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

QUESTION: – Why do you insist that the Azazel Goat Class (all the Great Company) will have to have all brotherly fellowship and favor withdrawn from them, as distinct from Priestly Fellowship, before they can receive their wilderness exper­ience necessary for their cleansing?

ANSWER: – We insist upon this procedure because it is a clear Scriptural Epiphany teaching repeatedly taught to us by the Epiphany Messenger, and because it is gross revolutionism to substitute any other method than the Lord's. We have quoted Brother Johnson's clear statements regarding this abandonment process, which are to be found in E‑15‑525 and other similar statements in several articles – ­“As in none of the Great Company do these two forms of the rod prove Suffic­ient to fully free their Holy Spirit from the bondage of developed world­liness, selfishness, error.....

“Their delivery to Satan implies that they come into such a condition as the priests disfellowship them, and thus withdraw all brotherly help and favor from them. It also implies that God temporarily abandons them.”

And haven't we witnessed that God has abandoned these Great Company leaders, particularly in the chief one among us – R. G. Jolly – when he receives no help in the perilous condition he finds himself with his errors on the Epiphany Campers “Consecrated” and many other errors he has inherited from J. W. Krewson's escapade in fantasy.

And we quote from E‑4‑203: “Letting the Truth section of Azazel's Goat go in the wilderness seems to mean the part of the fit man's course whereby he puts Azazel's Goat into a condition of isolation from the Faithful, whose measurable favor and help they enjoyed previously to this step – a condition in which they are not even given brotherly fellowship (1 Cor‑ 5:11,13).” And on page 204 of E‑4: “There is a dif­ference between the World's High Priest's with­draw­ing priestly fellowship just be­fore delivering Azazel's antityp­ical Goat to the fit man, and the fit man's letting this class go into the wilderness, i. e., putting them in a condition wherein they experience the full loss of the Priesthood's favor and personal help, by their withdrawal of brotherly fellowship.” It was only through the Lord's removal of Brother Johnson that the Azazel Goat Class in the L.H.M.M. lost the brotherly fellowship and personal help and favor of the World's High Priest, because so long as The Epiphany Messenger was with us he gave personal help and favor to the Great Company members in our group, and continued to give them brotherly fellowship, even though same were manifested crown‑losers.

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

Letters of General Interest

Dear Brother Hoefle:‑ Grace and peace in Jesus our dear Master!

I received your most comforting letter.... I appreciate your prayers very much, for I know that God heareth His faithful children at all times, and is answering them even while they are calling on Him...

On Sunday 17th the L.H.M.M. had a filmstrip show here...... Two brethren from Bartons came to carry on. They had service at Brother ‑‑‑‑‑‑ home .... during the day, and later in the evening they went to the more popular part .... out an the road and there put up the filmstrip, having a public meeting on the road just as any other sect would have done – a thing that I had never seen in Brother Russell's or Brother Johnson's time. We are now able to see how flat they have fallen, and how much they think of this precious Truth. I suppose they think a wonderful work has been done. The brethren here with us are strong and pray for you that the Lord bless and keep you steadfast to the end, with much courage amid the varied opposi­tion you are having to meet. Accept warm love for you both and all the other dear

ones. God bless you! Sister ---------, Jamaica

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

Dear Brother Hoefle: –  Christian Greetings!

You will no doubt have read in the May‑June Present Truth a letter written by the British Representative R. E, Armstrong to the leader of the LHMM, Brother Jolly. On reading this letter my mind went at once to a letter sent by R.E.A. to yourself Sept. 30, 1955, a copy of which you sent me to read. In this letter he claims to be among those brethren who are “reasonable and charitably disposed.” Surely, here R. E. A. is manifesting a doublemindedness of a very peculiar brand when he in his letter to R.G.J. says that, “Some people just don't know when to fade out.” What a very wrong spirit indeed for a brother representative of the LHMM to possess! Whoever would desire such a thing to happen to a brother such as yourself – a brother whom R.E.A. has correctly conceded as a fact that you have proved your­self to be a brother beyond reproach; and that Brother Johnson's love and confi­dence toward you was of the highest. In R.E.A.'s correspondence to you in 1955‑56 how often he proves himself to be of a grievously wrong spirit In putting words in­to your letters which you had not used. This is misrepresenting you. 0, how I do hope that this brother will meditate much and often upon his own closing words to you in the last letter he sent you on March 12, 1956 as follows: “Praying always that we may have Divine wisdom, which is first pure, free from evil surmising, and then peaceable, and with Christian love.”

Surely, dear Brother, one is entitled to ask – Is it in keeping with Divine wisdom – “which is first pure” – to have such an unholy desire for certain breth­ren to “fade out”? Again would it not seem that R.E.A. has proved himself once more to be guilty of “evil surmising” in regard to a brother such as yourself who has already given much evidence of being used by the Lord? And, as a Man of God I firmly believe you will continue to acquit yourself as a valiant Soldier of Christ, having the true interest of God's people at heart. Such uncharitable statements by R.E.A. show a poor kind of Grace when one remembers that he himself “faded out” of the Epiphany Truth and ceased to be active therein from about 1924 to 1941. and, whilst we were glad to witness his return to the Truth, we cannot but very much re­gret his “power‑grasping” and “lording” activities since his coming again into the Epiphany Truth.

Sincerely your brother in the Lord ---------, England

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

Dear Brother & Sister Hoefle: – Grace and peace! Received your letter and notes re the 1958 Philadelphia Conven­tion. As to the four cigar­ette butts found in the Bible House basement, if Bro. Jolly doesn't find anything worse than cigarette butts there, he may consider himself lucky. I would much rather be a “smoking” Christian than a lying one anytime. One is a weakness of the flesh – weaknesses we all have more or less – and lying a weakness of the mind, or spirit – much more dangerous, I should say. It may be that Bro. Jolly will change. I hope and pray so.

I want to say again I enjoyed the October article on Campers Consecrated very much. The people accepted and approved J. W. Krewson at one time, and that includes R. G. Jolly – and now they are stuck with it. They made a mistake and hate to ad­mit it. Why can't they be honest? It doesn't cost too much to tell the truth – and it would mean their blessing... might perhaps help J. W. Krewson, but I am a little doubtful of that. As ever my Christian love to all, Brother ---------.

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

And may each grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Beloved Lord Jesus!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim