No. 24
My dear Brethren: Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!
In accordance with the statement in our June 1 writing, we now present some thoughts on The Last Saint.
As some of our readers know, we one time held the view that Brother Johnson was the last Saint; but we have now forsaken that position because of certain compelling conclusions that time and research have forced upon us. Aside from this one point, our general teachings should not have been affected at all by this controversy. Thus, we originally took a detached and impartial view of it -. although we have always endeavored to "know the Truth" in the love of it; and that is our position in this matter, too. Our only reason for this presentation is an honest effort to be "faithful to the Lord, the Truth and the brethren"; and we hope all will accept this as an honest statement of fact.
When we returned to Detroit in October 1950 - after conducting Brother Johnson's funeral - we said then that nothing we thought or wished would place any one in the Body of Christ, or take anyone out of it, because - "God hath set the members in the Body.” Therefore, we scrupulously avoided heaping any abuse upon those who held an opinion contrary to ours. That also is still our position. But we believe it now in order to state that we were overmuch and too easily influenced by the conclusions of R. G. Jolly on this subject, because we held him in high esteem and confidence in 1950. Had we known him then as we know him now, we would have taken a narrower and much more critical view of anything he presented as "advancing Truth"; but it should be observed that we are always most easily misled by those we trust. Even Jesus learned this by His own bitter experience - "mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted" (Psa. 41:9). According to his own admission the evening after the funeral, R. G. Jolly had himself held the view for sometime after Brother Johnson's death that there were still Saints among us, which belief left him suddenly in a flash as he lay awake in the early morning hours (just as he received a sudden "illumination" on his new Millennial princes on his way to the Grand Rapids Convention in 1955). We have always been wary of manifested crown-losers who made claim to special illumination; but our confidence in R.G. Jolly at that time submerged a caution which we ordinarily maintain.
As stated above, we took a detached view of the controversy because we clearly realized at the time that whether the answer be Yea or Nay it in nowise affected the status of any winlings that might attach themselves to us; this was not even remotely related to the issue such as Brother Johnson advocated early in the Epiphany when he declared the High Calling should no longer be presented to newcomers. After 1950 the work as respects newcomers was exactly the same as it had been before; nothing at all had been changed there. Nor, in the final analysis, would anything whatever be changed with respect to the status of Saints, should there still be some among us. However, that fatal event October 22, 1950 did most mightily affect 'the status of one individual - Namely, one R. G. Jolly (a manifested crown-lost leader). If there are still Saints on earth, then the claims he has made since that date can be only the babble of a gross perverter - claims such as paralleling Brother Russell, the claim of Pastor and Teacher, the claim that he now represents the "Lord's Arrangements", etc. As some of our readers already know, Brother Johnson had seen thirty-three reasons for the High Calling closed when we first became acquainted with him early in the Epiphany (the acquaintance being only through his writings; we had not then yet met him personally). So we wrote him thirty-three reasons why he was wrong. But did he answer us with abusive imprecations? Not at all! Rather, he suggested we visit him for a personal talk, which invitation we accepted immediately; and at which he gave us the counsel one might expect of him whom God gave "largeness of heart" (1 Kings 4:29) - the counsel being that he and this writer continue as brethren in the love of the Truth, leaving the ultimate rewards with the Lord, but resolve to meet the covenants we had made. And we present this generous view of the beloved Epiphany Solomon in striking contrast to the baleful revilings and actions after October 1950, when many brethren were disfellowshiped simply because of their honest belief in their Saintly standing. For Shame!! Certainly, this could be no Scriptural cause to disfellowship anyone; but the Epiphany is a time for "making manifest the counsels of hearts" - a truth which must apply to all in the Household of Faith. Hence, what happened after 1950 "made manifest" the uncleansed condition of many Great Company and Youthful Worthy members; and be it observed that those most blindly partisan in their support of the present Executive trustee have been those most ready to reveal that "instruments of cruelty are in their habitation." For all this there must eventually come a fearful reckoning!
As this controversy developed into a most serious and painful disturbance in 1951, we did then in that year ask R. G. Jolly what answer he had for the large Gospel-Age Samson -- considering Brother Russell's statement in the Berean Comments on Judges 16:30, "With the death of the last member of' the Church, the Body of Christ, will surely come the downfall of Churchianity and the present system of world power." He offered the very reasonable observation that God's estimate of "immediate" would not necessarily be a day, a week, or even months - with which we agree; but, now that almost seven years have elapsed, this item certainly requires a more scrupulous appraisal. At that time R. G. Jolly asked that we keep silent on this point in order not 'to aid the "opposition" in their arguments against him, because it was indeed a premise which could not be conclusively overthrown; and the weight of argument might easily appear to favor the other side.
As companion to the Samson picture we have the words of Jesus, "Ye are the salt of the earth ... ye are the light of the world" (Matt. 5:13,14); and here is the Berean Comment on vs. 14: "When the lights have all been extinguished, the great time of trouble will follow." Just prior to Brother Johnson's death, the Korean war had commenced; the financial structure seemed to be tottering; the antitypical, Assyrians were definitely on the march; "all faces were gathering blackness"; gloom was prevalent in all quarters. In contrast, we believe an unbiased view would declare the "earth" to be in better state of preservation today than it was in 1950 -- on the surface, at least. Thus, there is no secular physical evidence that the "salt of the earth" has been removed to bring about its "spoiling"; the "lights" have not yet all been extinguished.
In the same line of argument is the David-Saul type, the latter typing the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon. In the type Saul died first -- he and his sons "that same day" (1 Sam. 31:6) --, of which David was witness. Brother Johnson certainly thought the antitype would follow the time order of the type, his mistake in this matter being only that he thought he himself would be one of the David class who will be here to witness the "funeral" of antitypical Saul in the Armageddon collapse of the social order. In line with this, we have his statement in E-3-446 (middle): "It will, therefore, not be manifest who will be the eventual Little Flock members, until all the Truth Levites have been manifested, have cleansed themselves (Num 8:7), have recognized themselves as Levites (Num. 8:9,10), have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb (Num. 8:12), have been set apart for the true Levitical service (Num. 8:11), and are set before the Priests as their servants (Num. 8:13)". Certainly, no one will contend that the foregoing has yet occurred!
Aside from the Apostles and Brother Russell, it was not necessary at any time during the Gospel Age for Saints to accept instruction from Star Members who lived contemporaneously with them. Thus, the Saints with Luther did not receive instruction from Zwingli, and vice versa; the same with Stone and Campbell, etc. And it was Brother Johnson's clear teaching that Saints living in the Epiphany were not required to receive instruction from him; so the question would seem properly in order: If the Saints were not required to accept instruction from him while he lived, why should 'they have to die just because he is dead?
Following on, we consider Amos 9:13: "The plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed." A careful reading of 'this text will reveal it is written in reverse of the natural order because the "sower of seed" must precede the "reaper" in the usual agricultural process. And Bible students have long since learned that inspired Scripture is not written in loose or careless manner in construction or choice of words. Brother Russell has shown that this is a Harvest Truth; and the words of Jesus apply in the Harvest of the Gospel Age, just as they did in the Jewish age: "The fields are already white to harvest .... I sent you forth to reap whereon ye bestowed no labor," (John 4: 35 -38) Thus, the harvesters of the Gospel Age were enjoined, "Thrust in thy sickle, and reap" (Rev. 14:15) -- reap with the sickle of Present Truth; the wheat into the barn, the tares into bundles for the burning -- reap the fields which they had not sown. Therefore, the "plowman" (the time of trouble – see Berean Comment) would overtake "the reaper", putting a stop to the harvest work in 1914. By that time the wheat (the Faithful) and the barley (the Measurably Faithful) harvest were complete in their reaping features -- the night had come wherein no man could work.
In the Jewish economy the land had been divided by lot, and each man tilled his own plot of ground. Barring unusual circumstances, the same person sowed and reaped the same field. Inasmuch as Amos 9:13 was written upon that premise, we believe it is logical to conclude that the same Class is meant by the "reaper" and the "sower of seed" in both parts of the text - the same being primarily the Little Flock under supervision of the Star Members. Once the reaping ceased, a new work began - -the work of sowing seed to win Youthful Worthies. In the case of reaping, all Classes joined in the work, as they have also done in the sowing of seed; but the Little Flock predominated in the reaping to its completion; and the construction of our text would cause the logical conclusion that they should do the same with the "sowing of seed."
Who is the "'treader of grapes" that shall overtake "him that soweth seed”? It is the violent features of the time of trouble. It should be noted that after the earth is plowed it still has the appearance of earth, and, given reasonable time, will revert back to substantially the same appearance it had before the plowing. But not so when grapes are trodden. In Palestine this usually occurred about August by placing the grapes in a stone or wooden trough, when the husbandman tramped them out with his bare feet, thus allowing the juice to flow into a second trough -- after which the remaining pulp was cast away as refuse. And be it noted that once this was done, the grapes never again had the appearance of grapes, never again reverted to grapes, as is the case with earth after it is plowed. Thus, the symbolic earth now still retains its original appearance - - a thing that will never again be true of the grapes once they are trodden out.
And what are the grapes? They are "the clusters of the vine of the earth ... fully ripe ... cast into the great winepress of the wrath of God." (Rev. 14:18,19). The "treader of grapes" is the same thing Daniel saw (Dan. 7:11): "I beheld till the beast was slain... and given to the burning flame." This has not yet occurred; therefore, the "treader of grapes" has not overtaken him that soweth seed" (the Little Flock in their endeavors to win Youthful Worthies). Therefore, "him that soweth seed" must still be with us. This is in harmony with the clear, direct and emphatic teachings of the Star Members -- both of whom repeatedly stated, from Scriptural authority that some of the "feet members" would remain at least until the "treader of grapes" had begun to do his work. So we are presented here with the teachings of two Star Members - the last two "Principal Men" - as against the teachings of an uncleansed Levite, one who has clearly demonstrated time after time that the "oil in his lamp" has gone out. Therefore, let each one determine which teaching he will accept and follow.
Next we analyze Eph. 4:11-13. The five classes of servants here named – the Apostles (12), the Prophets (Star Members), the Evangelists, Shepherds and Teachers –for the work of the ministry, etc., are given to the Church for two specific reasons: "Till we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, (and No.2) to a full grown man, to the measure of the full stature of the Anointed One." (Diaglott) - So we ask first, What is meant by "the unity of the faith"? If any are inclined to believe it means understanding the entire Bible, then we must admit that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson never came to the unity of the faith, because they freely admitted they did not understand the entire Bible -- nor does anyone else yet understand it, so far as we know. But, if we define "unity of the faith" to be a clear and harmonious understanding of the "ten strings of the Harp of God", then we must conclude Brother Russell and all who came into and clearly understood Harvest Present Truth indeed came to "unity of the faith". That this is the position God wishes his people now to accept is shown in Isa. 52:8, "Thy watchmen ... shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion." Note the Berean Comments on this: "In the harvest of the Gospel Age, clearly, harmoniously." Our purpose in distributing the June 1 article on Revelation 16 was to prepare our readers for these present remarks; because it was Brother Russell's Stewardship Doctrine centering about Restitution that brought "unity of the faith" for the first time in history to God's people as a collective group. It is true that St. Peter preached Restitution (Acts 3:19-23); and it is true that St. Paul was "caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter" (2 Cor. 12:1,); but it is also true that the General Church of that time had not come to the "unity of the faith", had not come to a clear understanding of Restitution. Note the Berean Comments on verse 4: "unspeakable words" (the message of Present Truth) - - "it is not lawful" (because not yet due). Thus, Brother Russell is in agreement that, though St. Paul himself may have arrived at "unity of the faith", he made no attempt to convey that knowledge to the General Church then. In support of this, note 2 Tim. 2:18, where some were "saying that the resurrection is past already"; also 1 Cor. 4:8, where some apparently thought they were already "reigning". Certainly, in these two instances there could have been no clear concept of Restitution - no "unity of the faith."
Therefore, a "Prophet" (a Star Member) did accomplish the first of the two purposes for which the servants of the Church were appointed -- "till we all attain to the unity of the Faith." And we in Epiphany Truth believe he also accomplished the second of these purposes -- "the measure of the full stature of the anointed one." When the last one was reaped in September 1914 - when they had all come to antitypical Mount Horeb - there also for the first time was reached "'the full stature of the anointed one" in that the Body was then fully and irrevocably complete unto that unity which "every joint supplieth, to the effectual working in the measure of every part." (Eph. 4:16) And, be it noted that once the "unity of the faith" and the "full stature" had been reached, neither Brother Johnson nor a hundred more Star Members could add one iota to that "full stature". Therefore, when it be argued that Eph. 4:11-13 teaches a Star Member must be the final Saint, we answer there is nothing in this text to support that contention; all the requirements of the text were met before Brother Russell finished his ministry. We remind our readers that the large majority of the Saints received no personal ministry from a Star Member after Brother Russell's death, as Brother Johnson himself so freely and often admitted. However, those who attached themselves to Brother Johnson did receive growth in knowledge and opportunities , of service not permitted to those in the various Truth groups; but it did no more for them than just that -- they all maintained their place in the completed Christ regardless of their locale of activity. The Little Flock developing Truths were all presented by October 1914; all the Saints had come into Present Truth by Passover 1916 -- which then brought them all into "unity of the faith", although they were not then, or by October 1916, or at any time on earth thereafter, endowed with the same degree of knowledge.
We now proceed to a consideration of the Zechariah type of 2 Chron. 24:20, 21. Zechariah was high Priest in Israel; therefore, he was a link in the continuation of a Tabernacle type -- and it should be emphasized at this point that every type pertinent to the Tabernacle service had to continue until its antitype appeared. This was true of all the Aaronic types that centered in the Tabernacle -- chief of which was the office of High Priest. In the strict sense, Israel had only one High Priest – just as Spiritual Israel has only one "Apostle and high priest of our profession" (Heb. 3 :1). Aaron was the only High Priest directly called of God and direct1y anointed into the Priest's office by God through Moses (Ex. 29:7) -- just as Jesus was the only one selected to fill His office, and -- "no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God as was Aaron" (Heb. 5:4,5). All the High Priests that followed Aaron came to that office by succession, as a matter of birth -- just as the ruling monarchs of England reach their position as a matter of birth. Thus, some of them were weak - as was Eli; and some were sinful - as was Caiaphas. But all of them were probably reasonably accurate in their performance of the Atonement-Day service and similar ceremonies; and, so far as we can recall, none of them ever lost their priestly anointing - the type continued unbroken until the antitype appeared.
It should be observed, too, that the Aaronic Priesthood was the only all-inclusive type of the Gospel-Age Priesthood. All other types pertinent to the Christ had certain limitations - lacked some one or more of the features to be found in the Aaronic order. And just as Aaron was the special eye, hand and mouth of Moses (Ex. 11:10-17; 7:1) -- (Moses typing Christ) -- so also was each priest that followed Aaron the special eye, hand and mouth of God in Israel. (See Berean Comments on John 18:13) Reasoning back from the antitype, had any High Priest violated his anointing, he would have been forever rejected from the priesthood -- just as all who lose their priestly anointing in the Gospel Age are barred forever from returning to that office, or of exercising the powers of that office. Losing their anointing is identical to losing their crowns; and any who attempt to exercise the office of eye, hand and mouth of the Lord, once they lose their priestly anointing, would simply be power-graspers of the worst order. We present this detail to demonstrate the extreme folly of any crown-loser who would attempt to set himself up as Pastor and Teacher before the Lord. Saul typed the crown-lost leaders up to Armageddon; and, once Saul had been rejected by the Lord, "the Lord answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets." (1 Sam. 28:6)
It is stated Zechariah was "stoned in the court of the house of the Lord"; and Jesus said this occurred "between the temple and the altar" (Matt. 23:35). Certainly, this addition by Jesus was not without purpose. We know the brazen altar in the court types the humanity of the entire church. And Zechariah was slain between the altar and the temple. Thus, while it is logical enough to conclude that Zechariah types the last eye, mouth and hand (the last Star Member of the Church), it is clear enough from this type that he would pass from the picture while some were still in the sacrificing condition (the brazen altar), with others already in the glorified state (Solomon's Temple). Therefore, instead of this type proving antitypical Zechariah would be the last Saint, it proves just the reverse -- that there would still be some sacrificing Saints after he had gone. It proves also, that those Saints remaining after antitypical Zechariah's death would never again be served by a special eye, hand and mouth -- that God would "supply all their needs" through other sources by His Word and Providences.
In support of this conclusion, we have Brother Johnson's analysis of Rev. 19.1,2 as given in E-3-132-3-4. In verse 1 it is stated John "heard a great crowd in Heaven "; and the words in verse 6 are substantially the same - "heard the voice of a great crowd." Brother Johnson says verses 1 and 2 refer to the Great Company in the Society smiting Jordan the second time; and at the bottom of page 133 he says: "Whenever John is said to hear this or that the reference always is to the things transpiring at the time of hearing." Then on page 134: "Therefore, the John Class hears the message of the Great Company delivered While the Little Flock is yet in the flesh" (emphasis by Brother Johnson). Either Brother Johnson is wrong in his analysis of vs. 1 and 2; or others are wrong in their conclusions re vs. 6-9. John "heard" the message of the Great Company in vs. 6-9. Therefore, both messages must occur while the John Class is in the flesh if we are to accept Brother Johnson's teaching on this matter.
We present this analysis of The Last Saint for such as care to receive it; but we caution our readers against abusing those who do not agree with us. Such a course would simply place us in the same uncleansed condition as those who malign and denounce such as do believe our presentation; thus, our condition would be no better than theirs --a state to be devoutly avoided. We ourselves do not wish to come under the curse of Luke 17:1,2: “It is impossible but that offenses will come: but woe unto him through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." If others wish to incur this risk, that is their concern. However, we wish to emphasize that our thoughts herein deal only in generalities; we do not contend that all who say, "Lord, Lord", will enter in. That is a matter between the Lord and the individual claimants -- and we are content to leave it there. If any belie their claims by their "bad fruits" (by gross Revolutionism against Parousia or Epiphany Truth - or arrangements), we shall be ready enough to conclude that such are crown-losers; but we shall be equally ready to take notice of the "good fruits" of those who still retain their saintly hopes. Nevertheless, it should be clearly understood that we here do not charge Revolutionism to any who may have mistakenly classified themselves as crown-losers because of Levitical pressure and perversion after 1950, if they continued to maintain their integrity in a "good and honest heart." As we said on page 1, mere opinion changes the status of no one -- any more than the strong cryings and fears of Jesus in Gethsemane detracted one whit from His final destiny.
In this connection, we believe it well to note the striking similarity in the technique of Azazel from first to last of the Gospel Age. Jesus had said, "Simon, Simon, behold, the Adversary has asked for you, that he may sift you like wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail". -Luke 22 :31 (Dia.) Here is a clear statement that Satan would attempt to destroy the Christ Company at its very outset by snaring the one to whom was committed "the Keys of the Kingdom." And what was his modus operandi? Why, he used "a certain maid-servant"- Luke 22:56 (Dia.) in his attempt to topple over and destroy Peter; but he failed because Jesus had specially prayed for him that his "faith fail not." And in keeping with his attempt against the first members of the Christ Company at the beginning of the Age, he proceeded in identical fashion at the end of the Age by using a "handmaid" (Joel 2:29) - a Great Company member - to "bruise the heel" of the Body in an effort to destroy the grand Plan of the Ages. This same "handmaid" is actually typed by a maid in his Pilgrim office (see E-14-282). All just happenstance, you think? Yes, Satan is a wily deceiver; but "we are not ignorant of his devices" (2 Cor. 2:11) "lest he should get an advantage of us."
May the Spirit of Grace and understanding abide with each one) may each be blessed with that "wisdom from above, which is without partiality, and without hypocrisy."
Sincerely your brother,
John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim
………………………………………
Questions of General Interest
Question: - Do you believe Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine was "The Last Saint Gone"?
Answer: - No we do not; we consider this premise to be definitely in error. Recently we exchanged some letters with a brother who believes "The Last Saint Gone" was Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine; and we quote some parts of it for the benefit of all:
(from our letter of June 15, 1957) - "You say ‘the stewardship Truth of the Good Levites is to be the proclamation that the Bride is complete'. Sometime back you said 'The last Priest gone' was Brother Johnson's Stewardship doctrine. Are you now reversing your position, or is there some other explanation for this discrepancy?"
(from his letter of June 18) - "There is no discrepancy. As the Stewardship Doctrines or Truths of the twelve denominations of Christendom were each brought forth by a star-member but were developed by crown-lost princes, thus we speak of the stewardship Truth Luther brought forth or the stewardship Truth of the Lutheran Church. Same with Brother Johnson and Good Levites after his death. With a 1ittle thought I would think you could have harmonized these so called discrepancies."
(from our letter of June 22) - "You inform me a ‘little thought' on my part would harmonize these so-called discrepancies.' Well, in this instance I'm pleased I don't need even a little thought; all I need is to be able to read - read what Brother Johnson has written, which writing I find thoroughly disharmonizes your contention and catalogs it with some of R. G. Jolly's nonsense."
If we assume that the Saints are really all gone, this teaching would still be in error, because it would mean Brother Johnson had perverted his own Stewardship Doctrine - a thing he could not have done without losing his position in the Body of Christ. He was very emphatic that they would be here until 1956; therefore, if 1950 is the correct date, as some now claim, he would have perverted his own Doctrine - an impossible thing for a faithful Star Member to do. As many of us know, Brother Johnson was troubled for sometime about Luther's status - until he finally came to see that he never perverted or revolutionized against those truths he clearly saw, principal of which was his Stewardship Doctrine "Justification by Faith." The mistakes which we can now see he made were due to the irresistible pressure of the deeply-entrenched errors of that time which were just too much for dear Brother Luther.
Brother Johnson ably treats of these various doctrines in Volume 8 in connection with the "offerings of the Gospel-Age Princes". We should have clearly in mind that all the Stewardship Doctrines are involved with the fourfold purpose of inspired Scripture as set forth in 2 Tim. 3:16 - "profitable for teaching (doctrine), for conviction (refutation), for correction (of character blemishes), for discipline in righteousness (ethics)"-Dia. But the Gospel-Age Princes (crown-lost leaders) are shown in the Numbers 7 type as offering only their bowls, chargers and spoons, these vessels typing only three of the four purposes of inspired writing - respectively, the refutative, corrective and ethical features. But none of them offered any cups, which would type the teaching or the main truth of the doctrine itself. Why is this? Because the Star Member himself offered the cup (the truth teaching), which the crown-lost leaders later PERVERTED -- which is the very antithesis of DEVELOP. This helps us understand why "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand" (Jer. 51:7) up to the Harvest. She was privileged to be the "golden cup" because she was the repository and custodian of the various truths expounded by the Star Members in her midst - although the perversion of many truths by the crown-lost leaders did cause "all nations to become drunken" because of those perversions.
These perversions of the various Stewardship Doctrines are perhaps the classic example of Great Company doublemindedness for the entire Gospel Age. those leaders displayed unusual zeal, valiance and skill in preaching refutation, correction (of character evils) and ethics with one hand - in service to God; while they perverted with the other hand the very Truth they were teaching - in service to Azazel (Azazel means Perverter). In our June writing we showed how the crown-lost leaders had done just that same thing with Brother Russell's Stewardship Doctrine; and, D.v., we shall eventually show how the crown-lost leaders have done just that same thing with Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine. But, be it noted now that if Brother Johnson's Stewardship Doctrine was "The Last Saint Gone", we would be forced to conclude it would be perverted - in keeping with past performance throughout the Age. Also, we should note that the absence of cups in the offerings of any and all of them is proof positive that none of them would be favored with Advancing Truth by God once they lost the restraining and teaching influence of a Star Member. Instead, they actually perverted what had been committed to their trust.
This Numbers type is sublime in its penetrating revelation for our guidance at this time.
Question: - How do you explain that so much has gone awry as respects 1954-56?
Answer: - A blind person should be able to see much indeed has gone awry. Nor are we to score this against our beloved Brother Johnson, any more than we should do with Brother Russell for the failure of some of his expectations. If God's people could chart their course from a blueprint, then we would be walking by sight, and not by faith - but we are still in the Age of Faith. And, when much of this became apparent in 1954, why did not R. G. Jolly see it - just as Brother Johnson would have done had he been here? Instead he plunged right into his Attestoria1 Service - a forced attempt to bend things to his own wishes. Why did he not also bring on Armageddon in 1954; and Anarchy by 1956? At the end of his service he had less of his Class in it than he had at the beginning - just the reverse of the Faithful Little Flock, which found everyone of them in theirs by its close. But his service was not a complete failure; it did attest one thing - his miserably uncleansed condition.
Secondly, the Epiphany is a time for "manifesting the counsels of hearts." And, without allowing sufficient time for it, how could that possibly be accomplished - particularly with those in the LHMM? During Brother Johnson's life we accepted the claims of all at face value - just as was done during Brother Russell's life; and only since 1950 has come the shocking realization that many among us are "in the Truth", but the Truth is not in them. And this "manifesting of the counsels of hearts" must continue to a completion - which will take yet some time. The final destiny of these people we leave with Him who is their Judge. We shall help them if we can; but, if we cannot help them, that will not remove our determination to "fulfill my Vows and my Resolves unto the Lord"; and we urge all our readers to this same conclusion. "Deal valiantly, and the Lord will be with the good.” And may we eventually be found among the "good”!
