NO. 7: THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL

No. 7

My Dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

It would seem appropriate to follow Brother Johnson’s custom at this season of the year to offer some

“THOUGHTS FOR THE MEMORIAL”

The first of which will be a quotation from Brother Johnson, which he published in March 1919:

It is not our thought to write in detail on the Memorial. We believe the dear ones will do best of all if they make a careful and prayerful study of the chapter on the Passover of the New Creation in “Studies in the Scriptures”, Series 6. There is nothing on the subject so good to be found elsewhere. We believe the dear ones will do well every year just before the Memorial to study this chapter. Its depth and truthful­ness of thought, and its Purity and holiness of feeling will be good means of preparing us better for participating in the Lord's Supper.

We will this year miss many with whom in former years we kept this holy feast. We wish them one and all God's rich blessing both in their preparation for, and participation in, the Memorial. The sense of fellow­ship with fewer will furnish us with an opportunity of drawing nearer to the Lord, whose unfailing fellowship we crave and are privileged to share all the more, as our loyalty to Him in this testing time separates us from some with whom we formerly had sweet fellowship. As this is the Lord's way for us, we gladly take it, assured that “His way is best; it leads to rest; our Father planned it all.”

Since our beloved Pastor's passing beyond the veil many evil quali­ties have been at work among the Lord's people to the injury of many, and to the grief of all. As we are approaching the Mem­orial, would we not do well earnestly to seek, find and cast out the old leaven? (1 Cor. 5:7‑8) Should we not, especially the leaders among us, examine ourselves to see whether grasp­ing for power, lording it over God's heritage, the spirit of fear and com­promise, evil surmising, bitter accu­sa­­tions, murder­ous slander, conten­tious parti­san­ship, injurious arbitrar­iness, leg­al­­istic worldliness unto an exten­sive pollution of the Truth people are qualities more or less active in us? (1 Cor. 11:27‑32) And find­ing more or less of these, will we not wash away this filthi­ness? (2 Cor. 7:1) Is this not a good time to seek recon­cil­ia­tion with those, especially if they are breth­ren, with whom we may not be at peace? (Col. 2:12,13) Ought we not ser­iously ponder the words of 1 Cor. 11:23-32? Will not some of us find fast­ing, especially on Nisan 14, a means of impressing more deeply the solem­nities and realities suggested by the season, upon our minds and hearts? Will not these means greatly help the consecrated heart to prepare for and keep, not only the annual symbolic, but also the daily real feast? Yea, verily! Thus will we worthily par­take of the symbols. Let us be faithful in our Justification, and in our Sanctification, appro­priating our Lord's merits and partaking in His suffering in the interests of the Lord, the Truth and the brethren for the ultimate blessing of the world. (Phil. 3:9,10) So “let Us keep the feast!”

At this season of the year do the forces of darkness so often seem to prevail “Now is your hour and the power of darkness”, – Luke 12:53. Therefore, at the Memor­ial Season is the text specially appropriate. “Watch and pray lest ye enter into temptation.” To Peter Jesus had said, “Satan hath desired to have thee, that he may sift thee as wheat” (Luke 22:31); and Peter fell under the temptation. His failure is a warning to all not to trust too much to “the arm of flesh” – Jer. 17:5.

One of the chief weapons used by the Adversary against the Faithful has been ex­communication. This was pronouncedly ap­par­ent in the case of Jesus Himself: “We hid as it were our faces from him”. When “He came to His own, His own received Him not”; even His natural brothers and sisters wanted none of Him. They had grown up in the same house with the “Lord of Glory”; had romped, wrestled and played with Him after the manner of children; had eaten at the same table, probably slept in the same bed, labored at the same carpenter's work bench, had found “no fault in this man” who was ready enough to give them freely of His blessings (Matt. 13:54‑8; Mark 6:1‑6). Yet their rejection of Him was so determined that in His final hour He committed the care of His aging mother to one not related to Him by blood, the Disciple whom He loved. The question would here seem properly placed: How do you think those brothers and sis­ters will feel when they emerge from the prison house of death and are told that the Voice that called them forth was the same, the very same, whom they had cast from their presence as an undesirable “black­sheep” of their family in “the days of His flesh”? It was indeed no idle saying that “Reproaches have broken my heart”.

I wonder what He charged for chairs at Nazareth!

And did men try to beat Him down,

Then boast about it round the town –

I bought it cheap for half a crown

From that mad Carpenter?

And, did they promise and not pay,

Put it off another day?

Oh, did they break His heart that way,

My Lord, the Carpenter?

I wonder, did He have bad debts,

And did He know my fears and frets?

The Gospel writer here forgets

To tell about the Carpenter.

But, that's just what I want to know;

Ah., Christian Glory! Here below

Men cheat and lie to each other so –

It's hard to be a Carpenter.

And, “As He is, so are we in this world”– l John 4:17. Excommunication has been the choice weapon against the Faithful all during the Age. The self‑styled “Pastors and Teachers”, who sat in Moses' seat, were ready enough to disfellowship the “Faith­ful and true witness” when He exposed their sins and their errors. “That woman Jezebel”, too, used it to the full in her determination to order even the thinking of the “heretics” in her claim as “Pastor and Teacher.” “Reading is doubt; doubt is heresy; and heresy is Hell!” Her excommmications consigned the “heretics” to the “vengeance of eternal fire”. So also, “the image of the beast executes all the authority of the first beast... he makes fire to come down from Heaven” (Rev. 13:12‑13 Dia.) – also claimed authority to disfellowship and consign to “fire” those that dared offer criticism to his errors and sins. And That Evil Servant was ready enough to embrace the tools of his soulmates of the past; most freely did he disfellowship and commit to the Second Death the faithful Protestants of Little Babylon “made fire come down from Heaven.”

As we contemplate a cool calm apprai­sal of the outrages of the past, the force of St. Paul's words cannot but penetrate the inner­most recesses of the heart, “Let a man examine himself” – l Cor. 11:28,29. And this text means exactly what it says; the Lord's people are not to examine each other; each is to examine himself. There are just two reasons why any should be disfellow­ship­ed – gross immor­ality, or gross doc­trinal deflection. Aside from these two reason, none are to be debarred from the Lord's Memorial. The other position of the text quoted above permits reasonable lib­erty toward all who partake – “he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself.” The justice of God is grandly demonstrated in Paul's words. We may not like the personal habits of others; we may consider them un­couth in appearance, speech, or mannerisms; but we are not to pass judgment upon such to disfellowship them from the Memorial assembly. We may be seated next to such a person; may be acutely cognizant of his limitations in the fruits and graces of the Holy Spirit; but we have the clear assurance that none of that will “rub off” onto us. If we have perhaps been overly liberal in admitting some to that solemn feast, we have the written word that such “eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself” – ­just as each one must examine himself. So the matter is pretty much an individual one as regards the general run of human frailties: The Faithful should examine himself; the unfaithful imbibes condemnation to himself. Therefore, we are justi­fied in erring toward the liberal viewpoint, as against too rigid a viewpoint.

With this comes the Christian love of the writer and the prayer that our good Heavenly Father may “bless thee and keep thee” to the end that “no plague may come nigh thy dwelling”.

NO. 6: PRESENT TRUTH JANUARY 1956

No. 6

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Inasmuch as Psalms 27:1‑4 has been suggested for the 1956 Motto Text, it seems proper and desirable to offer some few additional comments to those al­ready presented in the January Present Truth. This Psalm is from the writings of David, one of the greatest Jews of all time. He was King, General, Admin­istrator, Poet and Musician – “a man after God's own heart” –, although the first mention we have of him in Sacred Writing is the Son of Jesse, a lowly shepherd boy. At the time of writing the 27th Psalm he had come a long way up the trouble­­some and trying pathway of life; and his own life's experiences along that way undoubtedly prompted and measurably ordered the inspired words which now refresh, inspire and counsel us. Such were his experiences, that from the very marrow of his bones could he plead with the Lord – “Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me” (Psa. 27:12). Well was he aware that he was to be King in Israel; yet he patiently waited out the years until God's “due time” had arrived to make the throne vacant by removal of the long‑disgraced Saul. But, in full assurance that he was to “sit upon the throne of the Lord in Israel”, yet little did he realize that his waiting upon the Lord was enabling God to perfect in King Saul a type “for our admonition and learning” some three thousand years after David had “gone the way of all the earth” – a type which he would have destroyed had he slain King Saul when the opportunity was there (1 Sam. 24:10). Here we have a striking instance when a man's failure to “wait upon the Lord” would not only have been to his own imme­diate disadvantage, but which would actually have voided God's purposes for the future interests of His people.

But of all David's accomplishments, that of Poet seems to have brought him the grandest and most complimentary appellation; he is fondly described as The Sweet Singer of Israel. He was the greatest religious Poet ever to arise in the Jewish nation. And, as in all his titles does he so pointedly and aptly type the Parousia David, yet as The Sweet Singer of Israel does he most appropriately type That Wise and Faithful Servant – who also was the sweetest singer of all Gospel Age Israel, except the One whose headship he so admirably and nobly ac­cepted. His harmonious blending of the ten strings of the Harp of God have truly been “sweeter than honey from the honeycomb”, melody sublime to every ear that is “of the Truth.” Therefore, his expressions on Psalms 27, as well as on all Scrip­ture on which he wrote, are well‑nigh impossible to equal, and certainly none have surpassed them. Little wonder is it that some brethren so often affection­ately referred to him as “That Wonderful Man of God.” As a “good soldier,” he often waited on the Lord “thru evil report and good report.” Hence, the mere quoting of his writings are certain to embellish in most ornate fashion any pages on which they appear –whether those pages emanate from the Pope of Rome or from the most confused Parousia or Epiphany errorists, many of whom mingle his writ­ings with theirs to add color, substance and appeal to their “sleight‑of‑hand”.

And praise akin to the foregoing may be sung for the writings of the Epiphany Mes­senger also, whose article on Psalms 27:14 in the May 1, 1945 Present Truth is reproduced almost in its entirety in the January 1956 Present Truth, and composes about 95% of the article to be found on pages 2‑6 of this last issue. Thus, it is not our thought to supplant that article; rather do we accept Brother John­son'scounsel that his Epiphany writings form a base on which we may elabor­ate and enlarge, as and when expedience may direct. With that thought in mind, the following comments are addressed to all God's faithful Israel. There are two reasons why we should “wait upon the Lord”. First, we must know His will for us. When we are “young men” in God's family, we may often think we know His will for us quite clearly; but the experience, training, and growth in grace and knowledge that can come only with the years cause us to re­flect that much of our judgment in those early days was sadly mingled with “wish­ful thinking” – that our waiting on the Lord then avoided much chagrin and heart­ache for us later on. And, as we may find ourselves waiting on the Lord now, we may five, ten or fifteen years hence realize full well that our waiting on the Lord in 1956 was truly in the nature of sound judgment. However, St. Paul, in his great consecration text of Rom. 12:1‑2, informs us that years faithfully applied in the study, spread and practice of the Truth will give us “the spirit of a sound mind”, which will enable us more readily and accurately to evaluate God's leadings and intentions for us: “Transform yourselves by the renovation of your mind, that you may ascertain what is the good, and well‑pleasing, and perfect will of God” (Dia.). Such “renovation” comes in but one way – our faithful and honest‑hearted application to the study, spread and practice of the Truth. As all God's faith­ful servants grow old in His service, they realize with increasing force the truth of Paul's admonition in Rom. 12:2.

Secondly, even though we may certainly be convinced that we know God's will in a given circum­stance, we may yet need to wait for strength sufficient to carry out His purpose. The providences of God's people vary widely; therefore, it is properly written, “They also serve who only stand and wait”. Thus, God exalts whom He will exalt, and – “do not be in a hurry about it either” is the counsel of That Wise and Faithful Servant, as expressed in the December 22 Manna comment.

Perhaps the outstanding Old Testament example of “waiting on the Lord” is Moses. From Pharaoh's house, with its “soft raiment” (Matt. 11:8), with its “foods pleasant to the taste” (Luke 7:25), and the “pleasures of sin” that were there (Heb. 11:25), it was a far, far step to the Wilderness of Midian, with its raiment of goatskin, its course diet and rugged terrain. And in this latter cir­cumstance did Moses wait on the Lord for forty years. Probably it is that wait­ing that gained for him the sublime compliment, “The meekest man in all the earth”. He was the meekest – most leadable, most teachable – because it is quite probable no other living man would have waited on the Lord for full forty years in Midian as did Moses. In addition to the humdrum monotony of such a life, there was most certainly no intelligence there capable of giving Moses anything approaching warm intimacy of soul – even though Jethro be titled a “prince of Midian” (See Ex. 2:16, margin). His thoughts had to be pretty much his own – even as Jesus had “meat to eat that ye know not of” (Jno‑ 4:32). Most of God's people today live a common­place work‑a‑day existence, certainly far removed from regal or courtly surround­ings. Yet, how many of them could be transferred from these ordinary and modest circumstances to the rigors of Midian for even one year without much murmuring and complaining against God and His providences? This is truly a sobering thought; and poses a question which each may properly ask himself with a view to that true self‑examination which “searcheth the reins and the heart”. Certainly, timely and good is the counsel of St. James – “Take, my brethren, the prophets for an example” (Jas. 5:10).

And a fitting partner for Moses in waiting upon the Lord may be found in the New Testament in “that disciple whom Jesus loved”. The Apostle John attended the General Convention of Apostles and brethren at Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15. That was about the year 50 A.D.; and that is the last record we have of him for about 40 years – until he gave us his inspired writings during the last years of his life. This is not to suggest that he lived anything approaching the iso­lat­ed life for those 40 years as did Moses in Midian. But, surely, God did seem to for­get him by withholding inspired writings from him until long past the time when the majority of men would be “sleeping with their fathers”. Yet, in his old age, after such a long wait on the Lord, he was given some of the most important, intri­cate and sublime of all Bible writings.

But an acceptable waiting on the Lord must most certainly be coupled with a true humility – a proper self‑estimate. Having a correct estimate of self, none will deign to “wait on the Lord” to make him something for which he does not have the capacity; or give to him powers of wealth or position beyond his ability to manage and still “hold the head”. Many have yearned to be Elders, Pilgrims, Star Members, not realizing their incapacity; nor understanding clearly that “no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron” (Heb‑ 5:4). Therefore, “Not by power (natural human will‑power or determination), nor by might (natural muscle and brawn), but by my spirit, sayeth the Lord”. No amount of will‑power (determination) will put any one into the Body of Christ, because “God hath set the members in the body”; and no amount of determination will qualify one for Elder, Pilgrim or Pastor and Teacher, if he be not endowed with a qualified heredity that has been quickened “by my spirit”. It is for each to improve his “talents”, because it is indeed “required of stewards that a man be found faithful”; and thus purging himself he will be found a “vessel unto honor” as it pleaseth the Father and our Beloved Lord Jesus to bestow upon him. If we do our part, and that with a fully sanctified will power, then God will most certainly do His part toward us as we wait upon Him, for –“He is faithful that promised”.

But, the most eloquent appeal to wait on the Lord would be measurably stinted unless it be stated – and in forceful and clear language – that once we learn what God's will is for us in any given situation, and if the necessary strength be available, then it would be just as wrong to longer wait as it would have been to run ahead of Him before we knew His will. After Moses had waited in Midian for 40 years, and once the Lord had made clear to him he must then return to Egypt, he would have incurred only the Lord's strong displeasure had he determined to wait longer in the house of Jethro. And so with Jesus, when he was come to manhood, He delayed not to “do thy will, 0 God”. Also, He did no waiting on the Lord when His “times” on earth had been filled to the full. “When the days of His retirement were completed, He resolutely set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51, Dia.). And so with each of us, if our surroundings become Godless or our providential circumstances clearly indicate a change of course, we should ever have our “sandals on our feet” if we would faithfully do the will of God. Thus, where one may wait on the Lord, another perhaps should be moving on to the battle.

            Nor should any faithful Pastor and Teacher “wait on the Lord” to defend the Truth when the Truth is attacked or errors are introduced to contaminate God's people. Rather, in such cases he should proceed to the battle even at the cost of life itself, because “The good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (Jno. 10:11). And such errors should be attacked boldly and openly, and not by “private expla­nations” or by a depraved and undercover whispering campaign. Anytime we see the latter methods used, we may reasonably conclude that such a “Pastor and Teacher” is in reality not honestly attempting to defend the Truth, not “waiting on the Lord”; rather, he is attempting to defend himself. These were the methods em­ployed by That Evil Servant and his henchmen against faithful Brother Johnson, when so often they quoted Prov. 6:19, “God hates him that soweth discord among brethren”. When one attacks error and sin, as did Brother Johnson against lep­rous Levitical leaders, it was not he who was guilty of sowing discord; rather the errorists and evildoers were the real culprits; and the very Scripture they quoted was the one by which the Lord judged them. They complain­ed, too, about the hard and rough words that were used against them; were they not showing a better spirit by their soft words and their wounded feelings? So often did Brother Johnson quote Psalms 55:21, “The words of his mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in his heart”. Yes, the “twin brother” of earth's most repre­hensible charac­ter, one Judas Iscariot, soothed his peace‑loving followers with “buttered words”; and those who craved the buttered words of error and deceit in­stead of the plain talk of Brother Johnson, got what they ordered – Jehovah's Witnesses. And here the question would seem timely and pertinent: How do you like what they got? It would seem appropriate to quote here a sample of those buttered words, taken from the March 1918 Watch Tower:

“With deep regret we here mention that the practice of some is to go about the classes and at first, by soft and smooth speech, assure the dear sheep that they have deeply the interest of the Lord's work at heart; and then suddenly they bring a tirade against the work as the Lord is conducting it through the channel he has used for the past forty years... This is just another evidence of the great shaking now in progress... It would seem that any one who is loyal to the Lord and his cause and the brethren would not seek to disrupt his work; at least, if they could not see eye to eye with the manner in which it is being conducted, the proper spirit would prompt such to remain quiet or quietly to withdraw. Any other spirit would not seem to be the spirit of the Master.”

The foregoing are the “buttered words” of That Evil Servant – a person to whom thousands referred as “Dear Brother Ruther­ford”; and this they were do­ing at the very time he was attempting to assassinate Star Member Brother John­son (1 John 3:15, see Berean Comment). He had been quite prominent during the Parousia, probably second in prominence and prestige to Brother Russell in the publicity given him as “The Judge”; he had done valiantly for the Truth and the Brethren; had rendered Brother Russell excellent personal service – so much so that Brother Russell named him as one of the Society's Board of Directors and a member of the Editorial Committee of the Watch Tower. It should be specially noted that some of his most notable works – for instance, A Battle in the Eccle­siastical Heavens – was accomplished after 1914, after he had lost his crown, but while the restraining hand and priestly guidance and protection of Star Mem­ber Brother Russell were still upon him. But, just as “Satan as lightning fell from Heaven” (Luke 10:18) – very swiftly and precipitately – so also fell this erstwhile shining Little Flock Member; and his is a tragic example and a sombre warning to all of us, of the depths to which one may possibly sink once he loses his crown, then becomes separated from the sanctifying influence of a Star Mem­ber and does “despite unto the spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29). “If the light that is in thee become darkness, how great is that darkness” (Matt. 6:23). “When the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned; in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die” (Exek. 18:24). One of the three sins specific­ally attributed to That Evil Servant was his failure to “wait on the Lord” – “said in his heart, My Lord delayeth” (Matt. 24:48). Perhaps at another time there will be much more to say about this, d.v.

Inasmuch as this writing has been induced by Brother Johnson's article in the May 1945 Present Truth, which article is reproduced in the January 1956 Present Truth, it would seem fitting and respectful to conclude this presenta­tion by quoting from Vol. E‑5, page 18 (16); which quotation offers a refreshing contrast to the above excerpt from the 1918 Watch Tower, and clearly reveals it was never Brother Johnson's attitude to “wait on the Lord” once the Lord had re­vealed to him clearly and indisputably the Truth necessary to “refute the gain­sayers”:

“In every instance we and our supporters have resisted these revolutionisms. The columns of The Present Truth contain many articles exposing these errors of doctrine and wrongs of practice. The Lord has enabled us in every case successfully to refute these errors of doctrine and to reprove these wrongs of practice..... Our course in this respect has been misrepresented as a contentious and cantankerous one by the revolutionist, who at first attempted to answer our presentations. But our replies so completely crushed their answers that they have ceased attempting replies, alleging that they stand for peace and will have nothing to do with contro­ver­sy, thereby pretending great meekness in contrast with what they allege to be our contentious spirit! When did our Lord, our Pastor and other faithful servants of the Truth keep silent when their presentations were attacked and errors were introduced (Micah 5:5.,6)? Certainly they acted as we do in similar condi­tions, and not like the revolutionists.”

And may our Good Heavenly Father grant to each of His people the refreshment and strength of heart and mind that will bring to one and all that “blessing that maketh rich”, indeed!

Sincerely your brother

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 5: CONFUSION ON THE STAR MEMBERS

No. 5

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

In accordance with the letter of October 29, an elaboration of Items 2 & 3 on page 5 of the August 13 letter to Brother Jolly is submitted here.  Parts of my let­ter of March 20, 1954 to Brother Jolly on his “Confusion on the Star members” are quoted below to enlarge on this item:

“At the top of page 25 of the March Present Truth you quote Bro­ther Johnson regarding Star Members, to which you add your own conclu­sion - ‘it follows that with the taking away of the final Star Member there would be no Little Flock members left on the earth’. Your conclusion is superficial and easily refuted. At the time the Apostle John died about the year 100 there had been at least twelve Star Members – almost certainly more than twelve. That would leave not more than 37 at the most for the remaining 1850 years, or one for each 50 years. But many of them were contemporary; e. g., Luther and Zwingli, Stone and Campbell, Brothers Rus­sell and Johnson. Others did not minister for anything like 50 years; e. g., Wil­liam Miller served only 18 years.  These considerations would put the average time for the others at much more than 50 years; and it is quite unreasonable to assume that ALL could have served for such a long period, and that they interlocked per­fectly in each succeeding one beginning Immediately when the previous one died. If you have any argument with this logic, then I ask you to give me the name of the Star Member that lived from 1849, when William Miller died, to the time that Brother Russell began his ministry.......

“Sometime ago you told me you are very meticulous to have only TRUTH in the Present Truth, with which I am heartily in harmony; so I ask you now to correct your erroneous conclusion, because the opposition will make you look pretty fool­ish if they stumble onto this – as indeed they could have done on numerous oc­casions already had they not been so intent upon proving themselves Priests.”

Much more could be said on the foregoing; but, for the present this one con­clusion will suffice: After the passing of the twelve Apostles, it was generally not necessary for Saints to receive instruction from the Star Members who lived during their lives (Brother Russell being the only exception). Even during the Epiphany and the ministry of the “Eighth Principal Man” it was not necessary for the living Saints to accept instruction from him to maintain their position in the Body of Christ. This being true, it will readily be seen how completely without foundation is Brother Jolly’s statement (when taken of itself) – “it follows that with the taking away of the final Star Member there would be no Little Flock members left on the earth.” Enough for this just now.

Going on now to Brother Jolly’s confusion on “Judas not a thief”, the following is from my letter of November 18, 1954:

“On Page 92 of the November Present Truth you say the statement of J. & E. D. that C.S. is not a thief because he did not spend the money on himself is ‘puerile reasoning... forced, absurd, arbitrary, ridiculous’. Then you proceed to demonstrate to your readers that your own nonsense is at least as good as the nonsense of J. & E.D. by stating that ‘according to his newly-invented ridiculous defini­tion Judas was not a thief at all... because he returned the money’ (received for the betrayal). John 12:6 says “he was a thief, and had the bag”. This is past tense, and has not the slightest reference to his future sale of his Lord for thirty pieces of silver, which act was not a theft, but a betrayal – a traitor selling the confidence of his bosom friend for personal gain.....

“In view of your past behavior, I assume these corrections of your errors will probably be unappreciated and ignored, as was my reference on March 20 to your erroneous and ‘illogical logic (?) on the Star Members, which correction you have not had the moral stature even to acknowledge – much less correct in the Present Truth. However, in brotherly love I remind you again – and shall con­tinue to remind you – of your own precarious position in ministering error to trusting brethren, distasteful though the task be to me. ‘If I had not spoken unto them, they had no sin:  Butnowthey have no cloak for their sin.’”

And it would here seem fitting enough to add to the foregoing his nonsense on “Antitypical John’s Beheading”, as set out in PT 1951, P. 115 – which he claims was accomplished by enactment of the McCarran Act about a month before Brother Johnson’s death.  If Brother Jolly’s conclusion be true in this instance, then John’s Beheading was the mildest and most unique beheading “ in all history – one that did not pre­vent the use of even one postage stamp or make as much as a pin scratch on Antitypi­cal John; in fact, it is quite probable that Brother Johnson did not even know the McCarran Act had been passed before he died. Did any such doubt exist when John was beheaded, and was there the slightest doubt in the minds of all Israel that it had been done? Truly, this attempt by Brother Jolly to ‘bend’ a prophecy into place can properly be defined only as just so much more nonsense. Nonsense on the Star Members; nonsense on Judas; nonsense on John’s Beheading! Here is at least one department in which Brother Jolly excels exceedingly: He has effused more nonsense in his oral and written statements than any other ‘Pastor & Teacher’ in all history!!! “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?”

And in the face of the foregoing, what shall we say about “Brother Russell’s Epiphany Parallels”, as written in the 1952 PT, page 9? Here to have an uncleansed Levite attempting to fit himself into paralleling the No. 1 Saint of the entire Gos­pel Age. Is NONSENSE a word strong enough for this situation? Surely, “He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh”. Here is a brother who attempted in 1937 to gain control of star Member Brother Johnson, and was so severely humiliated for that debacle that he sought seclusion at Gulrock for many years. Yetheapparentlylearnedso little from that “chastening from the Lord” that he needed little over a year after that same Star Member’s demise to boldly and openly announce himself as paralleling the No. 1 Saint of the entire Gospel Age. (How long he had considered this privately before making public announcement we cannot know.)

As a fitting companion to this “strong delusion”, perhaps it is in order to sum­mon from the archives Brother Jolly’s letter to Brother Russell, which was published in the Nov. 15, 1910 Watch Tower, some of which reads like this: “I sought to make pictures and draw types from nearly every chapter of the Bible... The Bible I loved was thus becoming quite barren to me... Instead of using it to supply my much-needed armor, I was enjoying it more as one would enjoy a picture book or Grimm’s Fairy Tales.. I am endeavoring, dear Brother, to retrace my steps; to learn again to discern between fact and theory.” Surely, in that admis­sion by Brother Jolly we have one strikingly clear confirmation of St. Paul’s words in 2 Thes. 2:10,11 – “Because they received not the love of the truth...God shall send them strong delusion.” In 1937 he had a similar “strong delusion” when he thought himself big enough to gain control of Bro. Johnson. However, in both these instances he seemingly recovered himself from the clutches of the Adversary, if we accept his admissions of wrong in both cases. So we may hope, and all of us pray, that he may recover himself now from this his third “strong delusion” of “making” parallels, instead of “making” pictures and types, as he did in 1910.

Apparently, back in 1910 he was wearing his crown very lightly – if he still re­tained it. Let us hope he is not now balancing his LIFE with equal carelessness and foolishness; and all of us should be impressed with the solemn truth that if we en­courage him in his present folly we do not help him, we hurt him – hurt him possibly to his eternal loss. Therefore, if any are inclined to resent the writer for his critical attitude of these “strong delusions”, perhaps they would do well to consider James 5:20 – “He who turns back a Sinner (Great Company) from his path of error, will save his soul from death”; and we should face the naked truth that never do we turn one from evil or error by encouraging him in it, but rather should we “speak the truth in love” – just as Nathan spoke to David, “Thou art the man” (2 Sam. 12:7). And it should be noted here that David immediately repented of his sins, instead of accusing Nathan of having a “bad spirit”. If Brother Jolly’s “foolishness is not yet very plain to all”, it shall indeed be so when the article on the Epiphany Solomon is pre­sented to the brethren “in due time”.  D.v.

It is the sincere regret of the writer that the New Year must be welcomed with the foregoing presentation; but be assured this is not an attempt to destroy, but rather to save Brother Jolly. From the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral I did all in my power to “support the arms” of Brother Jolly, telling him at that time that I acutely realized how trying his position would be; and I encouraged him to be faith­ful to the Trust that had been reposed in him. As his first deflections made their appearance I took a generous and charitable view of them, going to him privately in person “in the spirit of meekness” in an effort to help and correct him; but to no avail. At no tine did I hold him up to public attack or ridicule, although I did go to him repeatedly in person and in writing in “defense of the truth”; even though it is probably to my discredit that I delayed so long in making this known to the General Church. Even so, had Brother Jolly not adopted such an unscriptural attitude in the slander disgrace, which is now open to all, these writings would probably not yet be forthcoming; and I can only conclude that it has been “from the Lord, and I shall let Him do as seemeth Him good”. Had he not so flagrantly flaunted the Scriptural teachings, and the interpretations of those teachings by “That Wise and Faithful Servant”, I prob­ably would have continued to bear with him and his errors privately, as I had been do­ing; but his bold and contemptuous disregard for truth and righteousness forced me to the course I am now following, because I myself would have been counted an unfaithful steward to the obligations placed upon me as a Pilgrim by Brother Johnson’s appoint­ment, and would have become a partaker of Brother Jolly’s sins had I continued silent after such an acute realization of his unfitness to teach and direct the Lord’s people. Presumably, his “sins have found him out”, just as did Saul’s falsehoods, rebellion (revolutionism) and iniquity. Let us all hope and pray he will be better exercised by his exposures than was his type. (To this end, a careful reading of Brother Johnson’s exposition of Great Company sins in Vol.  E-15, Page 525, is earnestly suggested to all.)

Winsome words over the past four years have had no influence upon him; but it is the hope and prayer of the writer that sharper statements may yet bring him, and those of the Great Company in our midst whom he dominates and encourages to continue in their ‘leprosy’ to a shocking and clear realization that they do indeed “sit in darkness and the shadow of death”.

To all of the Lord’s people everywhere – especially to all faithful Youthful Worthies – does the writer extend New Year’s greetings of Christian love. May it be a good year for growth in grace and in the knowledge of our blessed Lord Jesus. As Brother Johnson taught – It is not required of Youthful Worthies that they come to perfection in Agape love; but they should do so if they can do so. And it is the writer’s appeal to all to do so if at all possible, because the possession of such love is the “bond of perfectness”, to whose possessor the promise is sure and stead­fast, “There shall no evil befall thee”. Such love causes one to “be established in the Present Truth”, to continue therein “immovable”, because it not only blesses with Present Truth but also blesses with the SPIRIT OF THE TRUTH. Those who are so blessed have truly possessed goodly Canaan Land in this present life, and are assured of their inheritance in the life to come if they hold firm “the confessing of their faith with­out wavering”. Therefore, “think it not strange – Beloved, be not surprised at the fire among you, occurring to you for a trial”—1 Pet. 4:12 (Dia.).

The many Holiday greetings and good wishes are gratefully acknowledged and re­ciprocated, as well as the numerous letters of approval and encouragement and other support that have come to hand over the past months. May our good Heavenly Father Who brought again our beloved Lord Jesus from the dead grant you that wisdom and strength of the Holy Spirit that will enable you to “do all things through Christ, which strength­eneth us”

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 4: THE FAITHFUL AND THE MEASURABLY FAITHFUL

No. 4

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

As stated in the letter of October 29, this letter will present an analysis of the faithful and the measurably faithful.

As a proper foundation, it should be stated that the word Faith is used in the Bible in three senses: (1) It is what we believe – Jude 3: Ye should earnestly con­tend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints (the Truth, what we believe); (2) It is the quality by which me believe – Mark 11:22: Have faith in God (trust); (3) Faithfulness – Gal. 2:20: I live by the faith of the Son of God, who gave Himself for me (Paul did not live by what Jesus had believed, or how He had believed it; but he lived because of the Faithfulness of Jesus in providing the ransom price).

The next question in order is – Who are the faithful? In the broad sense it in­cludes all justified believers, because Paul addresses the tentatively justified as “Brethren” (Rom. 12:1). Therefore, the word “faithful” is relative, and must so be con­sidered. In Vol. E-4, page 96 on, when discussing Leviticus 12, Brother Johnson was discussing the Little Flock and the Great Company. There has now arisen a conflict of opinion in the proper understanding of his thoughts, so this presents another question to be answered before a true analysis of the Faithful and Measurably Faithful can be undertaken; namely,

IS BROTHER JOLLY PASTOR and TEACHER, as he now claims to be? He relies heavily upon a statement in the September Present Truth, page 84: “Brother Johnson as the con­structive executive expounder and antitypical Hiram (Brother Jolly) his special helper... whose antitypical office and work did not cease in 1950”. Is there anything other than Brother Jolly’s word to substantiate this statement re 1950? Is there any Scripture or combination of Scriptures that even remotely supports his contention? On the other hand, there is clear Scriptural contradiction of it. In the type did Hiram continue his work after the death of Solomon? Hiram is no longer mentioned shortly after completion of the Temple and the House, although Solomon is still given considerable comment; so Hiram passes out of the picture first. As all of us must realize, many mediocre characters in history are given quite some space simply because of their proximity to some outstand­ing person. This is certainly true of Hiram. Had he not aided David and Solomon it is reasonably certain that none of us would know today that he had ever lived. He ruled insignificant Tyre, which in those days was little more than a “suburb” of Israel; so Hiram’s place in the Bible is totally and completely due to his association with David and Solomon. They towered over him as a Giant towers over a dwarf! Perhaps it should be stated, too, that the same situation existed during the Parousia with the special helpers of Brother Russell. Had it not been for their association with him, would any of us today be likely to know anything at all about Barber, Paton, Von Zech, Mrs. Rus­sell, etc.? Hardly! Here again it may be properly stated we would probably not know they had ever lived. But, did being his special helpers qualify them for the Office of Pastor and Teacher? Does the question need any answer? Surely, Brother Russell towered over all of them combined even as David and Solomon overshadowed Hiram.

However, it may be claimed that the foregoing is simply the writer’s own biased reasoning; so let us take a close look at the type. What did Hiram receive for helping Solomon build the Temple and the House? Why, Solomon gave him twenty cities in Galilee (1 Kings 9:11-13); but did not so much as give him one guest room in Jerusalem where Solomon held court. Inasmuch as Jerusalem types the position of sole executorship for Parousia and Epiphany purposes, this Scripture becomes most significant. Had the Lord intended that antitypical Hiram should succeed as Pastor and Teacher, would He not have given at least some little hint of it in the type? But, “for our admonition and learn­ing”, He has given just the reverse! Verse 12 says the “cities pleased Hiram not”. Should not one who becomes Pastor and Teacher at the Lord’s hand be highly pleased? The office of Pastor and Teacher may not be everything, but it is almost everything! “Know” ledge is power”, and knowing how to use such knowledge makes one wise. A true Pastor and Teacher would possess knowledge of the Bible, combined with that “wisdom which is from above”; and these combined with the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit gives one about every­thing – in fact, the Executive Office usually follows such a gifted person. But Hiram was given twenty cities in Galilee, and nothing in Jerusalem.  Twenty is two times ten; ten having to do with natures lower than Divine, with the two natures involved being the Great Company and Youthful Worthies. And the cities being located in Galilee, with noth­ing in Jerusalem, very well pictures antitypical Hiram receiving a keen and bitter dis­appointment, although the Epiphany Solomon did eventually salve the wound by asking the brethren to vote Brother Jolly into the office of Executive Trustee, AND NOTHING MORE! “And it pleased Hiram not”. “And Hiram called the cities the land of Cabul” (dirty, see margin); a “dirty trick” had been played on him, he said. But, so far as the Sacred writing reveals, Hiram did nothing but resign himself to his unsatisfactory compensation. But not so with the one now claiming to be antitypical Hiram, he’s going to be Pastor and Teacher even if he has to vote himself into that sacred office.  There is more here than meets the eye, and further comment may be offered in due course. Later on D.v., the writer expects to produce an article on the Epiphany Solomon, which will make clear­er yet than the foregoing why things are as they are now; but this should be sufficient for the present. This much has simply been given here to prepare for what follows. If Brother Jolly were Pastor and Teacher, then his various claims on the Faithful and the Measurably Faithful should not be met with undue acerbity; but, if his claims are simply so much fraud, then their exposure should be in clear and unmistakable terms.

In the September 1955 PT Brother Jolly cites Vol.  E-4, page 96 on, where Brother Johnson explains Leviticus 12. In his article in the July 1954 PT, pages 54-9, he tries the sleight-of-hand that the Faithful in this discussion must mean the cleansed Great Company, because there have been no Priests here since 1950. Note carefully how he states it (July 1954 PT, P. 54, col. 1, last par.);

“And who are the ‘Faithful’ and the Measurably Faithful’ servants mentioned here? Since Brother Johnson frequently and correctly used the expressions ‘the faithful’ and ‘the measurably faithful’ when contrasting the Little Flock with the Great Company, it might at first glance appear that he intended the same meaning to be understood in this instance; however, a more careful study of the context and fulfillment’s indicates that this meaning is not to be under­stood here.”

It’s just too bad he did not first read the top of page 96 instead of starting at the bottom of that page.  At the top Brother Johnson says: “The Great Company suffer the loss of the prize – the Divine Nature and joint-heirship with Christ, which the Faith­ful obtain”. Could this leave the slightest doubt in the mind of any one whom Brother Johnson considered the Faithful? This one statement should be enough; but it is prob­ably well that the analysis be carried to its finality.

Vol.  E-4, page 99, par. 14: “The crown-retaining and crown-losing... servants will minister ... throughout these periods (1874-1954), and that tobothclasses”. Thisstatement is in answer to Question 14 on page 151, as follows: “Inwhatactivitieshavethe Faithful and the Measurably Faithful servants of the Truth shared?” Here again, can this leave the slightest doubt as to what Brother Johnson wanted us to believe?

The crown-retaining (Faithful) and the crown-losing (Measurably Faithful) are indisput­ably his thought! When the judges in our courts interpret the laws, one of the cardinal points they consider is the “intent” of those who wrote the law. As an example, one Amendment to our Constitution says “there shall be no involuntary servitude”; and some have plead that as a ground for refusing service in our armed forces. But that Amendment was adopted right after the Civil War, and was intended to abolish forever human slavery in the United States. Therefore, the “intent” was certainly not to allow evasion of civ­il duties. So, is it not a logical question to ask, What was the INTENT of Brother John­son when he wrote pages 96 and on in Vol.  E-4? We all know what it was; he intended and fully expected to be here at the future time of which he was writing. Therefore, to say it must mean something else just because he is not here is simply a sophistical twist not becoming any one claiming to be Pastor and Teacher.

Now, had Brother Johnson been still living, could it be that he intended to include in the Faithful the cleansed Great Company members? No! In Vol.  E-10, page 663, he says “J. in Nazarite consecration was separate from the Great Company.” Furthermore, the Great Company must be considered forever unfaithful insofar as the High Calling is con­cerned, so they could never be included in the same term as “Faithful” with the Little Flock. Also, it should not need argument to declare that “uncleansed” Great Company members are not even faithful when the faithful Great Company members are being consid­ered, so that point likewise needs some analysis herein.

In the September 1955 PT, page 70, col. 1, par. 3, Brother Johnson is quoted as say­ing that by October 1924 “The beginning of the presentation of certain ‘cleansed’ Levites” occurred. The writer has no exception to make of this statement; but it is certainly log­ical to ask if one R. G. Jolly was included in that presentation? Brother Jolly does not definitely say so, and Brother Johnson does not say so at all. In fact, what Brother Johnson said of Brother Jolly back there was that he was arrogant, untruthful and given to garrulous gushings of words in an overweening effort to win applause. (If any one is prone to criticize harsh words here, please be assured the description is Brother John­son’s and not mine.) But, for any to claim such a character to be cleansed, must we not attribute such a claim to “strong delusions” doubly strong? Of course, we should hardly need to remind you that Brother Jolly did not in 1923-24 consider himself a cleansed Le­vite (regardless of what he may now think of it) because at that time he was still be­fuddled with the “strong delusion” (2 Thes. 2:11) that he was a Priest (not a Levite in any sense, cleansed or uncleansed). in fact, Brother Jolly was so strongly deluded back there he even considered himself at least the equal – if not superior – to Brother John­son. It is certainly an elemental conclusion to declare that one must first determine his malady before he can prescribe a curative; and this obtains in spiritual as well as in physical ailments. If an uncleansed Levite labors under such a “strong delusion” that he is a Priest in whom “there is now no condemnation”, he is hardly likely to be seeking the “why” or the “wherewith” to cure his leprosy, which he doesn’t even know he possesses – ­just as Uzziah could not see the leprosy in his forehead, although it was clearly visible to the Priests and others (2 Ch. 26:19-21). Brother Jolly’s untruthfulness and ambition to sit in “Moses’ seat” are still glaringly present in him, as evidence his statement on page 87, col. 1, par. 1, of the November PT as follows:

“Brother Johnson controlled fully the LHMM until the day of his death, even as we now so control it.”

Brother Jolly was put into office by vote of the brethren; and he can be deposed by vote of the brethren, which was in no sense of the word true of Brother Johnson. Even if Brother Jolly were all he claims (Pastor and Teacher), his Executive Trusteeship would still be at the discretion of the brethren; he has not inherited the LHMM, any more than Brother Johnson inherited the Society by being true Pastor and Teacher. His statement quoted above would unmistakably label him as the Miniature Pope if he has not misstated himself. It is the sincere prayer and hope of the writer that he has made just a slip, which he will correct in all haste.

But, assuming Brother Jolly was then cleansed in 1924, he must have again become uncleansed, because he stated from the platform at the Jacksonville Convention on February 27, 1955 that he had been completely abandoned to Azazel from December 1937 to February 1938. Of course, that statement could not possibly have been true, as will be shown further on; but let us accept it at its face value for the present; then ask, Why does God abandon the Great Company into the hands of the Fit Man? Is it not for their CLEANSING, and for nothing else? Our Father is not as some earthly fathers, who some­times pound their children unmercifully at little or no provocation. He gives them the extreme of chastening (Fit-Man experiences) only after all other corrections have failed.

For the more-than-conquering faithful Little Flock it would have been wrong for them to pray, “Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner”.  Why? Because “There is now there­fore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ... Who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit”. (Rom. 8:1-4) But note the qualification – “not after the flesh but after the spirit”. During the Gospel Age the “large crowd” have walked “after the flesh”, thus bringing them more and more under “condemnation” until they eventually lost their position “in Christ, the Church which is His body”. They then received a new name ­SINNERS. They are the only class in God’s Christian Household who are specifically styled Sinners (despite Brother Jolly’s emphatic and repeated statements at this last Phila­delphia Convention that we are all Sinners, by which he includes Faithful Youthful Worthies, of course); – and a few Scriptures follow to prove the point: 1 Pet. 4:18 – If the right­eous (Little Flock) scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly (Second Deathers) and the Sinner (Great Company) appear? James 1:8 (see Berean Comments) and 4:8 – Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded. James 5:20 – He which con­verteth the sinner (Great Company ) from the error of his way shall save a soul from death. The comment in the Cambridge Bible on this text says, “Those that miss the mark”. (It is most remarkable how any one not in Present Truth could have arrived at such an exact statement of fact!)

It is now contended that the Good Levites in the Epiphany Truth were cleansed by October 22, 1950. Has any attempt been made to fit this in with the parallel of the Little Flock as of September 16, 1914? No, because it can’t be done. Nor was the 80-­year purification of the Mother completed by 1950, which in the parallel would logically not be done until September 16, 1954 – that is, all things being equal. Early in 1954 the writer was able to discern, from Scripture, reason and facts that the last of the Truth section of Azazel’s Goat was given over to the Fit Man on October 22, 1950; and, so far as he knows, this is the last developing truth to appear before the 80 years were completed. If this is a statement of fact – that is, that delivery to the Fit Man was accomplished October 22, 1950 –, then self-evidently, the Great Company as a Group in the LHMM could not possibly have been cleansed then (although it may have been true of some individuals); because, as stated above, God would do this to them only as an extreme chastening for their cleansing (reference here is to their character cleansing, of course; not to their cleansing from error). And, if this is the Truth, and they have not yet accepted it, they could not possibly be cleansed even yet! “By their fruits ye shall know them”. From the previous correspondence that has already been sent to you, all of you know that the leprous sin of slander has been placed at the feet of some of our leaders, while others have been accused of ‘aiding and abetting’ or at least trying to cover up for them. If Brother Johnson were here, would any of us suppose he would coun­tenance such treatment of one of his Pilgrims by others of his Pilgrims? Yet, the writer has done not the slightest wrong to any of them. Their conduct is in exact style with their type, King Saul, who attempted to hurl his javelin through David without even the slightest cause. And the whispering still goes on: “Brother Hoefle is not the same Brother he once was; he’s showing a bad spirit” (of course, the slanderers and those who are trying to hush-hush for them are not showing a bad spirit; just the one who resents being maligned, and exposes their sins, is showing the bad spirit). Almost these identi­cal wards were spoken to me back in 1917-18-19-20 about Brother Johnson.  During the Parousia Brother Johnson had been known as the Pilgrim of love, because he had loved the Lord, the Truth and the Brethren with all his heart, mind, soul and strength. But when duty forced him to expose the sins of leprous Levitical Truth leaders, it was freely gossiped: “He’s just not the same loving Johnson any more”. The honey of the Scriptures is always much more appealing then the sharp cutting sword of the Word; but inspired Scripture is given for four different reasons (2 Tim. 3:16), and its use for “refuting” is placed second by Paul in his statement of the matter.  Therefore, if we would be “faith­ful to the Lord, the Truth, the Brethren”, there must come occasions when “refuting” is of necessity laid upon us, unpleasant though the task may be. And would any of us be so foolish as to claim “cleansed Levites” for those who slandered Brother Johnson for what he did during the Epiphany? Only those, perhaps, who were the evildoers against him! It is well stated that before one can successfully fool others he must first fool him­self. And so here again since Brother Johnson died (just as it was after Brother Russell died), the “whispering campaign” of slander has not been “ashamed to show its dangerous brow by night (the Epiphany night) when evils are most free”.  When Brother Johnson was here, such slanderers in our midst would not have dared to do what they have done since he is gone; and this may be taken as pretty conclusive evidence that much of their seem­ing obedience to him was in great part ‘lip service’. But the Epiphany is a time for re­vealing Persons, Principles and Things; and the only way such flaws in the Levitical char­acters could have been “brought to light” was by the removal of the one who was holding them in check. Certainly, many of us were fooled; we thought them to be Saints who were not; and it now develops that some of them were very wretched specimen even of the Great Company. And must we not again repeat that for such to intrude themselves into the se­lect company of the “FAITHFUL” can be attributed only to “strong delusions” doubly strong! What do you think Brother Johnson would be saying of such if he were here today?

It has been profusely stated that these Levites needed to be manifested only to the Priests, and not to every self-assertive Youthful Worthy; that none can say whether or not Brother Johnson knew Who was Who, and that he was under no obligation to reveal all he knew to us. When I was helping Brother Johnson in 1947, quite often an individual was injected into our conversation because of conditions that arose. On occasion, when I would ask him, “Is so-and-so a Saint?” he would say: “I’m not real sure, but I am in­clined to think he is; but if he isn’t, he is one of those hairline cases, who just missed the Little Flock”. From such experiences, I knew of my own knowledge that he did not know them ALL in 1947. And, as his physical forces slowly drained away over the next three years, is it reasonable to believe that in his weakened condition ALL of them were revealed to him? Brother Jolly himself explained away Brother Johnson’s announcement not many months before his death, that Sister Johnson had made the grade (was of the Saint class) due to his illness and weakened condition. How does that tally with Brother Jolly’s later statement as mentioned herein? This might (I say, might) have been true of Brother Johnson’s knowledge of the Saints and the Great Company in the United States; but how about the rest of the world, where he had almost no chance of first-hand observa­tion of the brethren in the various countries? Is not such a claim slightly on the fan­tastic side; and may it not be a clear indication of the desperate position of one who would advance such a theory?

But, assuming for argument’s sake, that Brother Johnson did know every Priest and every Great Company in every spot on earth, had he withdrawn all brotherly help and favor from the latter? As Brother Johnson so clearly taught, this must be done before their final character cleansing can be effected; so, if it had not been done, they could not possibly have been cleansed in their character (i. e., of sin, selfishness and world­liness) by the time of his death. The office of a Priest is to forgive and bless; and, as a true Priest, Brother Johnson could not in the very nature of things have withdrawn brotherly help and favor from the Great Company in our group. Why? Because he would have to follow the teachings of Jesus, his Head, of \Whom it was said (Matt. 12:20), ‘‘A bruised reed He will not break, and a smoking flax He will not quench”. Brother John­son knew of some of the extreme and obnoxious frailties of some of the Great Company in our midst, but he never hesitated to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” so long as they were willing to listen to his pleadings. On occasion, when he was expecting the writer to call at the Snyder Avenue residence, he would open the door himself with the statement, “Come in, thou blessed of the Lord; why standest thou without?” And with that came his hearty laugh. But invariably at parting there would be his admonition in all sobriety, “Keep up the good fight, Brother”. And similar treat­ment did he give to all who would hear him, regardless of how undone their characters might be! No., he certainly did not withdraw brotherly help and favor from the Great Com­pany in our group.

It should now be appropriate to ask, Did Brother Johnson’s death change one jot or tittle of God’s time calculations for the work and destiny of His people, or the Plan in general? If not, had Brother Johnson continued, as he had expected, would he have injected the alterations in his work that have been done since his death? For instance, would he have issued six Present Truths per year instead of twelve? When this change was suggested in 1951, the writer went to Brother Jolly during the Chicago Convention “in the spirit of meekness” to protest the folly of this move, telling him his first obligation was to “feed the Church of God” which had been committed to his trust. But he would not be dissuaded; he was going to do “great works, win great numbers” – just as had his Soulmates of the past. After the turn of the century the Federation of Churches said if the Lord would give them $30,000,000 they could convert the world to Christianity. So they beat the drums, gave out the loud and profuse talk; and they raised the thirty million.  Then they asked for a man big enough to do the job; and the Lord gave them Billy Sunday. But, instead of converting the world to Christianity, there came the end of the Gentile Times in 1914, and with it the worst blot against Christi­anity since its Beloved Founder initiated it. Then, after the war came That Evil Ser­vant. He could do what his predecessors had not been able to do. “If the Lord will give me one billion dollars (not thirty million), I’ll break the devil’s back in one year’s time.” I heard him make that statement myself. He started the Golden Age Maga­zine, for which he would have 4,000,000 subscribers the first year. If 2,500 workers would just go out and each one write five subscriptions a day at $l each, that would give about 4,000,000 subscribers (and, incidentally, $4,000,000). And who would argue that that was a difficult assignment? Certainly none, at least of his blind sectarian followers, who were aiding and abetting him to slander dear Brother Johnson, and who thought they night go into the Second Death if they tried any thinking for themselves. Well, it was such a flop that the newsstands over the country threw it out because there was no call for the magazine. So That Evil Servant eventually “went to his place”, as Judas had also done; but the Devil’s back seems about as rigid and strong as ever.

And shall we now take a look at the results of the past five years? In the January 1, 1950 PT, which carries the last Annual Report given out by Brother Johnson, we find 1899 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1972 subscribers to the Herald of the Epiphany. In the last Annual Report submitted by Brother Jolly he shows 1423 subscribers to the Present Truth and 1648 subscribers to the Bible Standard – a net loss of 476 PT sub­scribers and a net loss of 324 Bible Standard subscribers.  And the $5 Correspondence Course has been such a complete flop that it isn’t even mentioned any more. A sorry tribute indeed, in view of all the loud talk to have heard! “And the Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams, nor by urim, nor by prophets.” So desperate has the situa­tion become that Brother Jolly is now attempting to give the Bible Standard away as a “premium” with other sales – a sort of “bargain-day” deal. “But what about the Bible in Films”, you say, “doesn’t Brother Jolly say they are receiving ‘wonderful blessings’ therefrom, showing them in Salvation Army Halls, Old Peoples’ Homes, Penitentiaries, etc.?” Well, in spite of the “great blessings”, the foregoing figures would convince an average second-grade school boy that the “great numbers” are not attaching themselves to us; so the slogan has to be revised a little bit (not much, just a little bit)! “We’re not looking for quantity, we’re looking for quality”! Indeed! And to what better place could we go for “quality” – real superb quality – than to a penitentiary!! It is most lamentable that Faithful Brother Johnson could not visualize the “great bless­ings” of “going slumming” that the Faithful (?) are now able to see through their new Pastor and Teacher.  That Evil Servant and his seven cellmates received and dispensed “great blessings” to their fellow prisoners at Atlanta Federal Prison during their involuntary stay there (Fit Man experiences) in 1918-19; their testimonies were loud, long and de­tailed about it.

Brother Johnson clearly taught – “After the Great Company are cleansed, they will have a fruitful ministry”. Conversely, then – Until they are cleansed they won’t have a fruitful ministry. Can it be that the realization of this situation prompts Brother Jolly to state in his Annual Reports – “The work at the Philadelphia Bible House con­tinues to progress” (despite the fact that the quantity and the quality are sadly lack­ing), and why he loudly and repeatedly tries to give the impression on every occasion that all is just rosy and prosperous – even though such statements are just nonsense and an insult to the intelligence of his listeners? Should the brethren start thinking about it, they will be forced to the conclusion expressed herein – namely, The colossal failures of the past five years are one sure visible physical proof that the Great Com­pany cannot possibly be cleansed, regardless of all the loud talk to the contrary.

By now it should be indisputably clear that Brother Johnson was not writing about the Great Company as the “Faithful” when he wrote page 96 and on of Volume 4; and that Brother Jolly himself took only a “first glance” at Brother Johnson’s analysis, instead of the readers of the Present Truth whom he suggests may have done so. And, if this conclusion is correct, then a large part of the July 1, 1954 Present Truth article on page 54 is not ADVANCING TRUTH, but ADVANCING ERROR – a clear case of REVOLUTIONISM against the Epiphany Truth as given through the Epiphany Messenger. Hardly to be expected from a true Pastor and Teacher, would you say? The articles, “Solomon’s Building Ac­tivities” and “Truths Hidden in the Years of Noah’s Age”, etc., in the March, May and July Present Truths of 1954 all “follow a pattern”; and that “pattern” and the errors in those articles will be scrupulously ana­lyzed in due course, D.v.

And, if any are inclined to wail “rough words” at this conclusion, may you be re­minded that H. J. Shearn (whom Brother Johnson described as “one of the most cunning hypocrites he had ever met”) accused Brother Johnson of showing a “bad spirit” – “You see, Brethren, the spirit that he shows” (Vol. 10, page 377, bottom). It is always an evidence of extreme weakness when any one begins to criticize an opponent’s grammar, or attempts to meet Scriptural analysis with the old Satanic brush-off, “There must be something wrong with the man”. If any are inclined to such conclusions, then the sug­gestion is made that we just forget personalities completely in this discussion, and accept the bare points of Bible analysis herein submitted. That is a most excellent rule for any to employ if they are big enough to rise above partisanship and sectarian­ism; it enables one to place the finger of truth where it properly belongs. The prayer of the writer comes to each reader that he may be able to do so in the present instance.

But some may say, If all the foregoing is sound doctrine, then there should be some outstanding Scripture to support it. Well, let us take a look at a type. Brother Johnson gained tremendous amounts of knowledge just by looking at types. There is only one portion of Scripture – and only one – that deals with “one goat for the Lord, and one for Azazel”. and that is Leviticus 16.  There in the 21st verse we are very clearly told that the last thing the High Priest did before renewing his linen garments of sacri­fice was to deliver Azazel’s Goat into the hands of the Fit man. This picture was progressive throughout the Epiphany, of course; but it was not accomplished in its fullness until the Truth section of the Great Company in the LHMM was thus delivered by the with­drawal of the last Priest on October 22, 1950. If this statement be true – and the type clearly indicates that it is true –, then they could not possibly have been cleansed at that date, because deliverance into the hands of the Fit man is the extreme of chastise­ment by our Heavenly Father in an effort to cleanse them by destroying their fleshly minds in order to save their New Creatures from death. Surely, slander and malicious gossip can only be designated as “works of the flesh”. And, when we see such losing any part of the Truth they once accepted (although they may have accepted such truths only tacit­ly), we may accept it as CONCLUSIVE PROOF FROM THE LORD that they are not “continuing in His word”, regardless of what their self-serving denials “to be seen of men” may be (See Matt. 6:5-7). There is quite some Scriptural doctrine to establish this statement, which, D.v., the writer hopes to present “in due time”.

In conclusion, it is fitting to state that NO FAITHFUL YOUTHFUL WORTHY is under any obligation to become a partaker of any Great Company Fit-man experiences; and our Heavenly Father will not require it of any Youthful Worthies unless they are in the same relative condition as their Great Company brethren to whom they cling in partisan blind­ness. As previously stated, our Father does not chastise to the extreme without CAUSE; FIT-MAN experiences are meted out only because of gross wrongs in teaching or practice. Let each determine in earnest prayer before the Lord what his personal course should be.

May the God of all Grace grant to each that sanctified reason which will guide you into all Truth, stablish, strengthen and settle you. The writer is beholden to none (regardless of slanderous reports to the contrary) except to love and pray for one and all; and this much he is entitled to receive from each of you. May our good Heavenly Father dispense His blessing with this writing!

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

NO. 3: MALICIOUS SLANDER CIRCULATED

No. 3

 

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Inasmuch as quite a number of requests have come to hand for more information about the malicious slanders that have been circulated about the writer, it is deemed expedient to send you some more of the correspondence. My prayer for you is that you may read it slowly, carefully and thoughtfully, with that “wisdom from above, which is without partiality”.

In due course, Dv., I shall prepare some elucidation on the items listed on Page 5, beginning with Item 1 – The Faithful and The Measurably Faithful. Thus each may determine for himself who has the wisdom and mind of the Lord in the matter.

May our Good Shepherd grant you the wisdom and strength to possess and retain your blessed inheritance in goodly Canaan Land, which is, for Gospel Age purposes, the Truth and the spirit of the Truth.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

Philadelphia 48, Pa.

August 20, 1955

Mr. John J. Hoefle

2020 Witherell Avenue

Detroit 26, Michigan

Dear Brother Hoefle:

Your registered letters of August 8 and 13 received. From the last sentence of the latter, in which you tell me to consider myself free to expose your errors and your oppositional course, I see that apparently you do not understand my posi­tion. I have no desire to expose you before the brethren, and will not do so, un­less you make it necessary. My desire is not to bring any reflection against you. I therefore expect to make an announcement like the following, either in the Nov. PT, or in our annual report:

 “We have recently appointed Bro. Roy Ekroth as an Auxiliary Pilgrim, and Bro. Gerald Herzig as an Evangelist for the L.H.M.M.; and by mutual agree­ment Bro. John J. Hoefle is no longer available for Pilgrim service for the L.H.M.M.”

I still long for you, and look forward to the time, D.v., when our mis­understandings may be cleared away and our former sweet fellowship in the Spirit of the Lord be restored. Let us both pray the Lord to help us toward this end. Faithfully yours by His grace,

(Signed)  R. G. Jolly

RGJ/ab

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

Philadelphia 48, Pa.

June 25, 1955

Dear Brother Hoefle: Christian greetings!

 Your letter of May 20 arrived May 24, as I was in the midst of last-minute prepar­ations to leave on my pilgrim trip to the West coast. I have now returned and, hav­ing attended to a few matters demanding immediate care, I am able to give your letter my attention.

You start by saying: “Your letter of May 17 makes no mention that you are send­ing a copy to the Winter Park Ecclesia, so I shall send them one from here”. You are correct in thinking that I did not mail them a copy of my May 17 letter to you. The only copy I mailed them was that of my letter of March 24, for only it directly con­cerned them, since certain charges had been made before them, in which Brother Gavin, Brother Eschrich, you and I were each involved. Since I was in the presence of the Winter Park Ecclesia (and visitors) charged by Sister Hoefle with circulating certain reports about you, which I did not do, I was glad to deny said false accusations and to exonerate your name to the extent of my knowledge in the matter, and that to the Ecclesia before whom the charges were made. To my knowledge my letter of March 24 is correct in every detail. It was not my intention to send the Winter Park Class car­bon copies of any further correspondence between us, unless it became necessary. Be­cause you have taken it upon yourself to send them a copy of my letter of May  17, be­cause you have written Brother and Sister Stanford a later letter containing many false and misleading statements and because I feel I have a responsibility before the Lord to protect them, as well as to clarify for them some points which are not clear, I am sending them a copy of this letter.

It was not I who invited the Winter Park Ecclesia into the matter. They appar­ently had been informed about the matter before my arrival there on March 15, and the reception I received by some was not as cordial as usual, though I am glad to say this was not so on the part of all. The charges made by Sister Hoefle in a dis­orderly way against Brother Gavin and against me in the presence of the class and visitors came as a shock to me, as I then heard of them for the first time. It was not clear to me as to just what the charges against Brother Gavin were, nor what all was involved, though obviously it centered about a conversation between him and Bro. Eschrich, concerning which he was accused of having said that Brother Eschrich had told him that I was the source of the slander in question (see my letter of March 24). Brother Gavin denied this charge against him repeatedly, saying that, so far as he was able to recall, my name had not been mentioned in said conversation. In spite of this, strenuous efforts were made by Sister Hoefle to involve me in the matter, though I denied the charge. Also, Brother Eschrich denies that I was the source of the slander that he heard about you, or that he told Brother Gavin that I was the source of it.

  You say: “Your attempts of March 24 to plead Matthew 18 is simply so much non­sense”.  I do not think that the holding up of the Lord’s standards and the obeying of His commandments should be called nonsense. Instead, you should realize that you are sinning against the Lord if you are upholding your wife’s disobedience to the Lord’s commands, as manifested at that Winter Park meeting.

As to “a public defense of my character and my ministry” I realize that you and Sister Hoefle have collectively made a public attack on both my character and my ministry and have written and circulated letters containing false charges against me. I trust you will not make it necessary for me to handle this matter before the breth­ren at large. I made no “refusal” to answer your questions, as you falsely state, nor did I refrain from answering them because of any fear to do so, nor did I self-evidently show contempt of Matthew 18, as you charge, for I had already in my letter of March 24 assured you that I had not spread any such reports as I was (in violation of Matt. 18:15) publicly accused of doing, by Sister Hoefle in Winter Park, and con­cerning which you had not previously approached me. I even went beyond the require­ments of justice to seek to remove the slander from your name. I take it that you are in harmony with the presentation on the proper application of Matt. 18 given in the May 1955 PT, P. 44, though it is possible you have not seen it, for I notice that, according to our records, your subscription lapsed last January.

You claim that my May 17 letter to you is a “flimsy evasion” and “untenable” and can mean only one of two things: that either I am “disgustingly guilty and fear the truth” or am “tragically shallow and weak” in my handling of this situation. I reply that you are wrong in both of these conclusions. In my letter of March 24 I assured you that I was not guilty of spreading the reports in question and that I had denied doing so before the Winter Park Ecclesia, in whose presence the charges were made, apparently without the class having arranged for such a hearing. If you disbelieve me – you say that thus the guilt would be shifted to you. Be that as it may, I have given you full assurance that I have not circulated the slander against you as charged.

Nor was there anything shallow or weak (let alone “tragically”) in my writing you on May 17 that in view of paragraph 2, sentence 2, of your letter of May 22, 1954 (in which you said: “You never hesitate to tell a lie when it suits your convenience”), and in view of other considerations, I could see nothing of benefit to you or others that would be accomplished by my writing to you further at that time. Your attitude seemed clearly to manifest a determined attempt to disparage and to undermine the in­fluence of Brother Gavin and Brother Eschrich, as well as myself, despite assurances given you from all three against your accusations; and in view of this and “other considerations”, I could not see that anything of benefit to you or to others would be gained by my writing to you further at that time. You apparently ignored the “other consider­ations”. spoken of in my letter of MAY 17, for you do not refer to them; but these (as well as your accusing me of never hesitating to tell a lie whenever it suits my convenience and then inconsistently asking for my answers to your questions – as though they would have any weight with you) forced me to the conclusion that nothing of benefit to you or to others would be accomplished by my writing to you further at that time and under such conditions.  Some of the “other considerations” (which mani­fest your antagonism in general) are as follows:

(1) Your persistent opposition to some of the teachings of both the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers on baptism, despite the many Scriptures and Scriptural reasons they gave for these teachings, E.g.:

(a) You have persistently opposed Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s teach­ing (E 178-180; F 284; P 142, p. 52, col. 2, par. 1, lines 14,15) that all in the early Church had the gifts of the Spirit. You make the following unretracted statement against their viewpoint: “We know, too, that they did not all receive the gifts of the Spirit,” despite the fact that they gave Scriptures to support their Truth presenta­tions on this subject, such as Acts 8:17; 1 Cor. 12:7, 11; 14:26, etc.

(b) You have persistently opposed their teaching that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews after John the Baptist’s death, which teaching you counter with such questions as “Do I understand you to insist that after John’s death, and after the inauguration of Christian baptism, that John’s baptism was still of avail for the Jews? If so, who would take John’s place in performing it?” – as though only John the Baptist could administer John’s baptism, which was for the washing away of sins against the Law and therefore of avail for Jews only, who were under the Law, hence was administered, not only by John the Baptist, but also by others, e.g., by Ananias to Paul (Acts 22:l6) long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian bap­tism (Tower Reprints 2825, column 2; P ‘21, pp. 131-133).

(c) You have persistently opposed the Truth teaching of Brother Russell (e.g., in F 428; Z 3152, par. 7; Z4420, pars. 4,5) and Brother Johnson (e.g., in E Vol. 7, P. 467, bottom; P ‘42, pp. 51 - 53) that John’s baptism was not valid for the twelve Ephesians (Acts 19:1-7) because of their being Gentiles. Brother Russell and Brother Johnson reasoned most clearly and convincingly from the Scriptures on this subject (F 428; P ‘42, P. 51, etc.), and yet you ask for “just one verse of Bible” to prove their position correct. You have persisted in fighting against the Truth as they gave it on the above and other items connected with the doctrine of baptism, despite my laboring hard and long in brotherly love to help you get back into harmony with the teachings of the two Messengers.

(2) Your overbearing, officious attitude in general, your name-calling and abusive language and your many false and unfounded accusations relative to my direction of the work, etc.  E.g.:

(a) You question my authority to appoint pilgrims, etc., and you claim that my article, “Promotions in Service,” in the Sept. 1953 PT, smacks strongly of That Evil Servant’s course of ‘making merchandise’ of the brethren by his book-selling drives, etc..” whereas my exhortations to faithful services are not similar to his, wherein he engaged in great drives, reaped personal profit, etc. Furthermore, my exhortations are meager indeed compared with those of Brothers Russell and Johnson. Nor did I ad­vocate “sell books to get a promotion” as you falsely charge. You repeatedly asked of me: “Revise your Promotions In Service or publish my letters in the Present Truth.” Your oppositional letters were very false and misleading in many of their statements, and to revise the PT article to suit your ideas would have been to violate a true and helpful presentation that was of assistance to many; therefore I could not comply with your request (E Vol. 4, P. 108, lines 12-16), even as I could not revise Bro. Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s Scriptural teachings on baptism and publish your con­trary views instead.

(b) You accuse me of not being “motivated by a proper humility.” How can you judge the motives of my heart and what motivates my actions? From the very beginning of my course as a manifested Levite I have endeavored to humble myself before the Lord in harmony with my lowered position in the Court as instead of in the Holy. E.g., I at once resigned as an elder in the Philadelphia Church. When Brother Johnson said I might serve in meetings where Priests were present, but that I should not offer the closing prayer, I did not tell him that I would deliver discourses only where I could offer the closing prayer and insist on his respecting my wishes in the matter, but I complied humbly and willingly, even refusing to lead in prayer when called on at the next Philadelphia Convention and thereafter. You also have plenty of evidence in THE PRESENT TRUTH of my further humbling myself before the brethren. I can truly say before the Lord that I feel no pride in my heart, that I realize my fallen and undone condition, the sin which doth so easily beset me, and my insufficiency for the service the Lord had placed upon my shoulders, and that I look only to Him for strength to render that service and for my eternal salvation. I feel, therefore, that your accusation is false.

(c) You make many false accusations against me as the executive trustee of the L.H.M.M., accusing me of squandering the Lord’s money, “namely, the many thousands of dollars you have squandered in preparing the Tabernacle for a mark which, up to now, cannot register one single success in any department... Even in the original purchase of the Tabernacle you threw away at least a thousand dollars.” Surely you must know that it was Brother Johnson, not I, who purchased the Tabernacle. I know of no thous­and dollars that was thrown away in its purchase. And how do you know that there is not one single success in any department? How are you going to measure the success of a spiritual work? If you think outward results are needed in order to be success­ful, I have but to remind you that man looks on the outward appearance, but not so with God. If we consider outward success as the important thing, then Judge Ruther­ford was quite a success, for he won quite a following.

(d) You accuse me of immediately (in 1950) plunging into the Basileia work six years ahead of time, whereas I have merely continued the general work as directed by Brother Johnson, e.g., in P ‘50, pp. 7, col. 2, top 192, 193.  I have given in P ‘51, P. 74, last question, and P. 75, and elsewhere the reasons why this work was not to be delayed until 1954 or 1956. Certain features of this work were to begin with Bro. Johnson’s demise, as he instructed, and the initial Basileia work was to start in October 1954, as he indicated (see P ‘54, pp. 54-59, especially page 57), and not in 1956 as you have set forth. The period for the cleansing of the antitypical mother of a daughter was 80 years, ending in 1954. Therefore the attestatorial service had to begin at that time. I do not see how it could allow for any extension until 1956 or thereafter for its beginning. Your faultfinding in this connection is really against Brother Johnson.

(e) You say that the work I am doing is “abortive” in large part, and is sure to result in failure.” Those who opposed the Lord, Brother Russell and Brother John­son predicted similarly of their work, and, indeed, to outward appearances it looked as though their work was a failure. it is easy for some, instead of zealously co­operating in and furthering the Lord’s work in their times, to condemn it and pre­dict its failure. I am seeking faithfully to do my part in pursuing the work as indicated in the Scriptures and, as directed by the Epiphany Messenger, and I contentedly leave the results, which are really the Lord’s business, in His hands (1 Cor. 3:6,7).

(f) You say: “I am still able to find very little that you have done right.” You predict failure for practically everything I do or encourage others to do, even saying that “the same will prove true of your movie campaign, too.” I leave the results in God’s hand. So far it is doing a good work, both in America and in Britain, despite the negative influence of a few faultfinders.

(g) You impugn motives and indulge in abusive language and name-calling, using such terms as “profuse folderol,” “imbecilic,” “liar,” “hypocrite,” “colossal gall,” and speaking of me as “whimper­ing,” “whining”. and a “crackpot.” You seem intent on raking up everything you can find on unfaith­ful leaders and trying to apply it to me. I realize my imperfections and have freely admitted them to you and others, though I fail to find a single instance in our entire correspondence where you have acknowledged making any mistakes, despite my calling your attention to many of them.

(3) The disturbance and the discord (Prov. 6:14,19) you and Sister Hoefle have caused among the brethren.

(a) This was especially apparent at the Jacksonville Con­vention when instead of speaking to Brother Eschrich, the chairman, privately, you accosted him in an excited and disorderly conversation at the back of the convention room, with brethren passing in and out of the Convention room and of necessity having to pass near you, and thus naturally wondering why there should be a commotion and dissension between you and Brother Eschrich and Brother Gavin, whom you say you called into the discus­sion. Your letter of April 1 indicates that you held Brother Eschrich in this dis­orderly discussion until ten minutes past time for him to open the meeting. Brother Eschrich did not inform me what the conversation was all about, though he did tell me that the spirit shown there was so bad (and this was manifest to other brethren also) that he thought best to open the meeting (which you indicate was already ten minutes late) and put an end to it. My statement to this effect is in no sense of the word or to any degree a “direct contradiction” to my letter of March 26, Wherein I stated: “the charges made against Brother Gavin and against me before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors (Sister Gavin and Sister Wilson, of Lakeland, Fla.), were news to me, as I then heard them for the first time.” Both statements are true.

(b) It is manifest in the letters that you and Sister Hoefle have been sending out among the brethren, including some carbon copies of your own letters to me, to­gether with slighting and slurring remarks against me, and many prying questions. This has caused a number of the brethren to be amazed at your conduct.

(c) Also, it was manifest in the nature of the antagonistic questions put in at the question meetings at Winter Park and elsewhere, apparently intended to discredit me and put me into as bad a light as possible before the brethren. This has caused considerable comment not at all favorable to those asking such questions, for some remember the course of those who similarly asked Brother Johnson oppositional ques­tions.

(4) Your and Sister Hoefle’s neglect of, disobedience to, misapplication of and misuse of Matt. 18:15-17. I mentioned her course briefly in paragraph 3 of this let­ter.  When I wrote to you on March 24 about the Winter Park meeting, I stated in con­nection with Sister Hoefle’s coarse there that “apparently the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed.” You now write that “Your attempt of March 24 to plead Matt. 18:15 is simply so much nonsense.” I leave this in the Lord’s hands. It certainly was evident that in her disorderly course at Winter Park on March 15 Sister Hoefle was not following Matt. 18:15. You were admittedly not even present at the Winter Park meeting on March 15, and yet you are the one whose grievance was being aired there in the presence of the class, and that apparently without the class hav­ing arranged for such a hearing. I do not see where any Scriptural teaching or prin­ciple could give Sister Hoefle the right to seek to carry out Matt. 18:15 on your behalf. Your calling my reference to Matt. 18:15 in connection with Sister Hoefle’s course “simply so much nonsense” seems to show clearly that you are supporting her in her neglect of and disobedience to the Lord’s injunction in Matt. 18. Instead of man­ifesting the Lord’s spirit, Sister Hoefle in that Winter Park meeting allowed herself to become quite angry and lost her self-control to such an extent that one of the sisters told her to calm herself.

The premise on which the Lord gave His instruction in Matt. 18:15-17 was: “If thy brother trespass against thee.” This does not warrant one in sitting as a judge in a court of judgment and hailing different brethren before him against whom he nay have suspicions and demanding that they all answer whatever prying questions he may choose to ask, in order that he may find out, if possible, something against a brother or brethren. The Lord’s people have “strict instructions from their Lord and Head on this important subject. His spirit of love is to fill them as they go alone, privately, to the injuring person without previous conference or talking with anyone. They go not to make him ashamed of his conduct, nor to berate him or other­wise punish, but to secure a cessation of the wrong and, if possible, some recompense for injury already received” (F 291-292). Notice, our Lord does not say: “If you sus­pect that your brother trespass against you,” but “If thy brother trespass.” Further­more, the purpose given is not to berate, slander or persecute one’s brother, but to secure a cessation of the wrong and to “gain thy brother.” If the injury has been stopped, we should stop pursuing the matter.

Furthermore, your expressed desire to summon Brother Eschrich before the General Church, supposedly in following Matt. 18:17, is in pursuit of another violation of the Lord’s arrangements, for (E Vol. 6, pp. 735, 736) it is “unscriptural” to advo­cate “General Conventions’ assuming the power to legislate for the General Church” and to advocate and practice “the use of Matt. 18:15-18 by Conventions. Matt. 18:15-­18 applies to individuals within an Ecclesia and to individual ecclesias, but not to sins that affect the entire Church. The Old Catholic error that what applies to an individual applies to the General Church has crept in among Truth people”. You should surely know better than to advocate or pursue such an unscriptural course!

The above are some of the “other considerations” that prompted (not a “refusal” to answer, as you have falsely written to others, but) my refraining from answer­ing your questions, as I recognized the impropriety in them, especially in view of your expressed purpose. I expected that you would make merchandise of my not answer­ing your questions, but I did not think you would stoop to such unjust and untrue methods and statements, even calling my citing Sister Hoefle’s violation of Matt. 18 “simply so much nonsense.”

While I cannot agree that your conduct and course of action is in harmony with the spirit of Brother Russell’s teachings, including his article in Z Nov. 15, 1908 348-52, I see no harm in answering your two questions: (1) “Who gave the slander to you about Sister Barger and me?” The first I heard it was when Sister Hoefle made her charges against me publicly before the Winter Park Ecclesia and visitors there present, as stated in my March 24 letter to you, paragraph 2. This is the first I heard of such a scandal being circulated about you. I understood that a certain widow asked you to invest money for her, on my recommendation of you, but as to any rumor to the effect that you had defrauded a Truth sister,, a widow, in the handling of $1,000 for her, I knew of no such rumor prior to the time of Sister Hoefle’s accusa­tions at Winter Park. (2) “Did you repeat it to Brother Eschrich, or any one else?” No. As just stated, I did not even know of it, hence I could not repeat it to others.

Another false accusation which you have made against me lately in a letter to Brother and Sister Stanford should have attention here. You claim that I have been “most unfaithful to the Lord’s people in willfully withholding from them the unpub­lished literature.” You will have to answer to the Lord for charging me with willfulness in this matter, thus trying to read my heart. You try to make it appear that the three books which Brother Johnson said he hoped to publish in 1950 (P 149, P. 175; P ‘50, pp. 10,11) were ready to be published at that time. There is quite a difference between what one hopes to do and what one is able to do, and our dear Bro. Johnson did not have sufficient strength and time left in 1950 to get those books ready. Any­one who has done any publishing of books knows that it takes considerable time and effort, and I feel sure that, apart from a few faultfinders like you, the brethren in general will be content to wait on the Lord in the matter. I wonder if you recall one year’s Motto Text of Brother Russell, showing the opening chestnut burr and underneath it the words IN DUE TIME? Two of the above-mentioned books have already been published, and the third is in the process. As to withholding the third book from the brethren, your charge can easily be shown to be false as to this volume also, for many of the articles which are to appear in this volume have been appearing in our magazines preparatory to their being made up into book form.

You try to make it appear that I am withholding Brother Johnson’s unpublished literature “because those writings undoubtedly (!) contain information which would put a direct contradiction on much Brother Jolly has been doing – as, for instance, Brother Johnson being in harmony with Brother Russell on Rev. 19:1-6 (See Berean Com­ments on this and Rev. 22:10). If you believe that you have such ability to tell “undoubtedly” what unpublished writings of Brother Johnson contain you should also know what his published writings contain on this subject. In his very first P.T., in the article, “The Last Related Acts of Elijah and Elisha (see P 118, P. 13; re­printed in E Vol. 3, p. 132), “Brother Johnson shows that Rev. 19:1, 2 does not apply to Babylon’s destruction, but to the Society section of the Great Company giving a message pertaining to Babylon’s future destruction. In E Vol. 10, P. 113, Brother Johnson says “Vs. 1, 2 symbolize the Society’s big drive in Jordan’s second smiting, in which they forecast (emphasis mine), as vs. 1, 2 show, Babylon’s destruction.” See also P ‘‘50 P. 192. Thus Brother Johnson showed that he did not agree with Bro. Russell’s view on these verses, because the fulfilled facts showed that Brother Rus­sell’s view was untenable.

If, as stated above, you had been more concerned with Brother Johnson’s published writings, instead of trying to tell others what his unpublished writings “undoubtedly” contain, you would have noticed also how Brother Johnson makes it clear in P 131, P. 156, col. 2, that Rev. 19:1-9 does not refer to the Great Company in Babylon. You will note that Brother Johnson here was replying to the attacks of G. K. Bolger, an independent revolutionist who, Brother Johnson says (p. 159) “casts aspersions on our loyalty to our Pastor’s teachings and seeks to palm himself off as loyal to them.” Brother Johnson further characterizes him as “a symbolic wolf.” It seems you are definitely squinting in the direction of teaching the same as G. K. Bolger did on Rev. 19. Think it over, dear brother. Note carefully what Brother Johnson says on P. 156, col. 2, especially the following sentence, “as a matter of fact, then, we find that Rev. 19:1-9 does not refer to that section of the Great Company that remains in Babylon until it is destroyed and thereby gets its freedom, but to the Truth section of the Great Company (emphasis mine).”

Furthermore, another matter which requires attention in this letter is in connec­tion with your seeking independently to serve the Muskegon Ecclesia on April 16 with discourses, etc. The Muskegon Ecclesia, after telling you they would be very happy to have you serve them in the gospel ministry, also expressed their desire to you to have the appointment confirmed by the Bible House, thus endeavoring to preserve the Epiphany arrangement to the effect that “If any of the classes or individuals de­sire Pilgrim or Evangelistic service, please tell them to clear the appointments with the Bible House or our representatives in other countries, if time permits. (See P ‘50, P. 30) This was nearly a month before the time of the service you were seeking inde­pendently to arrange for April 16, so you had plenty of time to grant the ecclesia’s reasonable request. Instead of granting their request, you wrote them as follows: “There is no occasion now to seek confirmation from the Bible House – and I shall not attempt to do so. I assume you must realize full well that I am completely free to go whithersoever I will, and to preach the Word as I have opportunity, without account­ing to or securing permission from any one for it.” Your course in thus spurning the ecclesia’s reasonable request and refusing to have the appointment confirmed by the Bible House seems to show clearly that you have committed yourself to a course independent of, and antagonistic to, the Bible House. This is the very attitude taken by R. H. Hirsh, W. S. Stevens, and S. A. Cater, when they went astray.

 The Muskegon Class then wrote you again, assuring you thatthey would like very much to have you serve them, but that it had always been their course to have confir­mation by the Bible House for class talks, and that they would like to have it in this instance also, in the usual way. Surely this was not clericalistic, nor sectarian, but in your reply to them you read them quite a lecture, accusing them of clericalism and sectarianism, and, among other things, condemning their proper efforts to maintain the Lord’s Epiphany arrangements by saying: “When you insist that the Bible House pass ap­proval before you accept service from a brother in our midst – or one from elsewhere, for that matter, you affirm your approval of the Pope in Large Babylon, who also in­sists that his ledlings receive only such to minister to them as have been ordained by the ‘laying on of hands,’ etc.” It is astonishing how closely you follow the course of R. H. Hirsh, W. S. Stevens, S. A. Cater, C. A. Zielinski, etc., who accused Brother John­son of being a pope! Also, many similarly accused Brother Russell!

Your conduct for some time now has been very similar in many ways to that of R. H. Hirsh (P ‘20, pp. 142-148, 172-181, 192-194) in his working independently of the one whom the Lord had placed in charge, in opposition to the work then due to be done, in his opposition and secret propaganda by word of mouth and writing of letters in an ef­fort to disparage the Lord’s Epiphany executive and leader while himself posing as a martyr much abused, in his accusing Brother Johnson of clericalism and sectarianism, and in his misrepresentation of the facts of the case. Your oppositional course has been very similar also to that of W. S. Stevens as described in P ‘35, pp. 97-100, 119, 120, 151-154, e.g., in his letters of misrepresentation and false accusation, his independent and oppositional attitude, his much faultfinding, his course regarding Pil­grim service, his characterizing of the Lord’s Epiphany executive as a sectarian and a clericalist, and his threat of court action against him. In your veiled threat of court action, your practice regarding Pilgrim service, etc., your course has been much along the same lines.

I have long-sufferingly endured your abuses and underhanded campaign of opposition and misrepresentation, and I have not exposed your wrong teachings and rebellions con­duct before others, hoping that in time you might recover yourself, nor shall I expose you further, except as you make it necessary for me to protect the Lord’s sheep against your adverse influence. I now have something very unpleasant to do. In view of your continued oppositional course, I now find it necessary as the Lord’s appointed leader for the good Levites and the good Youthful Worthies, and as executive trustee of the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, in faithfulness to the Lord and the brethren, to suspend you as a Pilgrim of and for the Laymen’s Home Missionary movement. I am not dismissing you finally, as I am still hoping and praying for you that you may recover yourself and come back into harmony with Brother Russell’s and Brother Johnson’s teach­ings and arrangements, but meanwhile kindly do not consider or represent yourself any further as a Pilgrim of or for the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement. However, as just explained, the door is still open for you to recover yourself from your oppositional course and to come back into harmony with the teachings and arrangements of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers. It grieves me that I am forced to take this temporary action against you, for I still love you as a brother and I still earnestly pray for you and wish you well in the Lord. I remain as ever,

Faithfully your brother and servant in the Lord,

(Signed) R. G. Jolly

RGJ/ab P.S. Kindly excuse delay in this letter, due to intervening matters.

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

August 8, 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

This is to inform you that I cannot longer accept supervision from you in my Pilgrim activities. This decision comes after much sober thought and struggle in prayer before the Lord; but your gross sins of teaching and practice leave me no other course. I ask that you please publish this letter in the Present Truth, and that you let me know within five days whether or not you intend to do so.

For many months now I have been “waiting upon the Lord” to be certain of His will before taking such a serious step; and I am now relieved that your own action provides me with the answer, which I accept as clearly indicative of our loving Father’s oversight and good pleasure toward me. I have been fully aware all along of Brother Johnson’s teachings of the course I should follow under the conditions; and I suppose I am rather open to criticism for my delay in making such a far-reaching decision. I pray, however, that I may not be subject to overmuch “chastening” for deferring so long such an unpleasant step, because

I have hesitated to touch

Things that involve so much.

Please understand this does not mean I am forsaking my brethren in the Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement; it simply means I cannot longer be “faithful to the Lord, the Truth, and the brethren” if I appear to condone your Revolutionisms against Parousia and Epiphany teachings and arrangements – against which I have repeatedly protested to you over the past several years, but to no avail. Under the circumstances, your writing of June 25, in which you “suspend me as a Pilgrim”, is nothing more than a flimsy gesture from my viewpoint, as I had long since concluded – had you made request for my services – that my acceptance of any recognition by you would be conditional that no farcical “outward” approval of your evils should attach to me. Certainly, my letters to you over the past few years could have left no doubt in your mind about my opinions concerning you.

My heart bleeds for you, Brother, as you “sit in darkness and the shadow of death”, because I realize your precarious position from certain Biblical types and Brother Johnson’s statements; and I once more appeal to you to forsake your ruinous course and to faithfully and honorably administer the Trusteeship which has been committed to you. I pray for you that you may cleanse yourself while “it is yet today”, and that the “wisdom from above” may guide you into right paths, that thus you may “dwell in the House of the Lord forever”.

                                                 Sincerely your brother,

                                                 John J. Hoefle

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

August 13, 1955

Dear Brother Jolly:

Your letter of June 25, Postmarked July 7 at Philadelphia, arrived during my ab­sence from Detroit. Your statement that you are sending the Winter Park Ecclesia a copy of your letter because you have a “responsibility before the Lord to protect them” meets with my full approval; and I have the same reason for sending them a copy of this letter. They are about to become much better acquainted with both of us. It seems you were not too impressed by your “responsibility”, though, if you could leave your let­ter lying about your office for a full twelve days before mailing it.

On Page 1, Par. 2 you say that “only your letter of March 24 directly concerned them” (the Winter Park Ecclesia). Don’t you agree, Brother Jolly, that your faithful­ness, and mine, to “the Lord, the Truth, and the Brethren” is a direct concern of ALL the Lord’s people everywhere, and not only of those at Winter Park? And, having writ­ten them the sort of letter you did, certainly they had a right to expect – and did expect – a further statement from you and me to help them determine the truth in this matter. Again I say to you – These contentions are not prompted by any personal dis­like of you; they have a direct concern for all God’s people. So I repeat once more – ­consider yourself free to publish anywhere and any time ALL I have ever written to you. It also concerns ALL God’s people when you suspend any of Brother Johnson’s appoint­ments; they all have a right to be put on guard against self-seekers, schismatics, power-graspers, and the like.

Page 1. Par. 3, you say Brother Eschrich “denies that you were the source of the slander”. Since you have been in contact with him about it, did you ask him why he didn’t tell me that when I wrote him about it last October; and why he didn’t tell it to me at Jacksonville when Brother Gavin accused him of saying that you did do it? In your last sentence of this paragraph you state very clearly that Brother Eschrich ad­mitted to you he had slandered me.  Did you ask him if he had done anything about rec­tifying his wrong? Did you advise him – in accordance with Brother Russell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony” – to come to me at once and give me the name of his informant? Did you? In Brother Russell’s words – “mark those persons who request you to keep secrets from those to whom they properly belong”. At the tine you received this confession from Brother Eschrich I was an official Pilgrim of the L.H.M.M.; yet you receive such a confession from him about me; then you have the unmitigated gall to scold me as the wrongdoer here! Note some more of Brother Rus­sell’s words: “If evil speakings come to our knowledge without our being in any sense a party to them... we will always and promptly bring the matter to the attention of the brother whose name is traduced... tell him the name of our informant, etc., accord­ing to the instructions of Matt. 18:15-17”. Are you still “in full harmony” with Bro. Russell’s article? If so, did you instruct Brother Eschrich in accordance with it? Or are you in desperation trying to browbeat me into silently nursing the “wounds I have received in the house of my friends”? Once more I am forced to the painful conclusion that your avowal of “full harmony with Brother Russell” is just so much empty talk – ­effusion of words – “sounding brass”!!

Yes, I fully realize, according to Page 1, Par. 4, that I would be “sinning against the Lord in upholding my wife’s disobedience to the Lord’s commands”; but I want more than just your word for it that she has done so. Impartial brethren in attendance at that meeting of March 15 do not confirm your statement. You certainly know that Bro. and Sister Stanford upheld you against their own blood relatives in the 1951 sifting; and those relatives were very near to them in natural and Truth ties. Why don’t you ask them if they agree with you? Also, I have read Page 44 of the May Present Truth; and I concluded three months ago that your statement “You have no authority to punish him” is only a half truth and very misleading – because any honest repentance by the wrongdoer should include restitution or undoing of his wrong in addition to simply say­ing he is sorry. Do you agree with that? If you do, why didn’t you put that on Page 44, too?

Page 2, Par. 2 you say my statement of May 20 is wrong. I asked you seven ques­tions in my letter of April 1, most of which were prompted by your Winter Park visit. Did you answer ALL those seven questions in your letter of June 25, or just two of them? And why haven’t you answered them in the seven pages you have taken to say so many other things now?

Page 2, Par. 3, you say “assurances were given by all three against your accusa­tion”. This is just another falsehood by you. I told you in my letter of April 1 that Brother Eschrich admitted repeating the slander to his wife; that Brother Gavin accused him of telling it to him; and you now freely admit that he confessed it to you. Just what “assurances”, then, did he give me? Are you now contending that I am “deter­mined to disparage” a confessed slanderer because I went to him in full accordance with Matt. 18, and he “refused to hear me”? Are you? Doesn’t it make any difference to you if your Pilgrims admit to heinous wrongs without repenting or offering restitution – ­so long as they remain “in harmony” with the “Lord’s Appointed”? It seems you accept Matt. 18 only as a convenient cover-up for you and your “yes-men” – to be quoted to others, but to have no force whatever upon you and your “house”. I am informed you yourself gossiped quite freely about me in derogatory fashion at Winter Park March 15-­17 – when I was not present. Yes, “the principle laid down in Matt. 18:15 had not been followed” (your letter of March 24, Par. 1); it was shamelessly ignored there by YOU!

Now, you come again on Page 2, Item (b) with John’s Baptism! You say it was ad­ministered “long after John’s death and the inauguration of Christian Baptism”; but the Tower Reprint, Page 2825, does not confirm your statement, nor have you offered any Scripture to confirm it. Paul was baptized by Ananias before – not after – the inauguration of Christian Baptism, as it has applied all during the Gospel Age; and I wish you would cite me one instance where the Scriptures record one performance, accepted by the Lord, of John’s Baptism after the inauguration of Christian Baptism – that is, after the Baptism of Cornelius (Acts 10:48). I am interested only in the Truth on this subject; and I think it is high time for you to contribute something more than you have to it, or now forever hold your peace. The occurrence of Acts 19 was sometime between 50 and 60 AD, according to the best information we have; and Paul’s letter to that same Ecclesia at Ephesus was purportedly written around the year 60. In that let­ter Paul states there is “one baptism” (Eph. 4:5); so, if you are right in claiming two Baptisms at the time of Acts 19, Paul must have changed his mind in the few interven­ing years. Do you have any idea when and why he changed his mind?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, then I submit to you that St. Peter wrote his first epistle within a few years of the Acts 19 matter. That letter was written expressly to the Jews; and he tells those Jews that Baptism is not for the forgive­ness of sins in 1 Pet. 3:21 (You yourself agreed with this interpretation). There­fore, if John’s Baptism was of avail for the Jews in Acts 19, as you claim, and Peter tells the Jews it was of no avail to them, you are self-evidently advocating the idea that the two leading Apostles of the Jewish Harvest were contradicting each other on the subject of Baptism. What is your answer to this?

And, if the foregoing is not enough, I have something concrete from Brother Johnson to prove beyond any doubt that the men of Acts 19 could not possibly have been Gentiles.

Please understand I have the highest respect for Brother Russell and Brother John­son, but I realize they were not infallible. They both repeatedly told us to prove from the Scriptures everything they wrote; and here is one item with which I cannot do that. And, from everything you have said up to now, you can’t do it either – your only argument being – They said so, which makes it right. I consider your contention about this item to be quite childish, because it affects our present teaching on Bap­tism in not the slightest degree; it is more or less a technicality. It should make very little difference between you and me at the close of the Age; and your continued yelling “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson” would seem to be only an excuse to berate me in a “whispering campaign” as you have been doing for some time, and particularly since 1953. You assured them at Winter Park that this was only a technicality, although you there elaborated in your discourse on the brother who is “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson on Baptism”; then later “emphati­cally stated ‘It is not a fundamental doctrine’“. Just how do you rate their intelli­gence by again profusely making an issue of it and sending them a copy of your letter of June 25 “for their protection”? You pounced on this “not fundamental doctrine” in 1953 as an excuse to shout “out of harmony with Brother Russell and Brother Johnson”; and you continue to do so despite my repeated requests to you to confirm your position from the Scriptures, or at least to disprove my scriptural analysis of it, based upon Acts 18, – neither of which you have been able to do –, although at no time have you been man enough to say so. Again I say, my only interest in this matter is the Truth!

Page 3, 2 (a). Yes, I did – and do – question your authority to “appoint Pil­grims”. Only a General Teacher and Pastor could do this; and you have given no evi­dence whatever of having this appointment from the Lord, or the qualifications for it. You say you could not publish my contrary views in the Present Truth, but you well know that Brother Russell and Brother Johnson often published contrary views; then gave their own, to teach the Brethren the Truth. You have done this yourself with some of the writings of others, so why make an exception with me?

You offer quite a piece of self-praise for your humility back in 1937, “resign­ing at once as an elder in the Philadelphia Church” after your sins had found you out after you were trapped in your Revolutionism that had been designed in azazelian cun­ning behind Brother Johnson’s back and you were forbidden to appear as an elder be­fore the Philadelphia Ecclesia. Did your great humility cause you to abnegate your­self before or after you were forbidden to appear there as elder? However, I approve of what you eventually did do; it was commendable and proper of you to resign – ­especially, since your physical forces were so depleted and the “spirit of a sound mind” had so forsaken you that you in desperation sought the services of a Psychiatrist. The Lord apparently was not enough to give you peace of heart and mind. “The Lord answered Saul not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets” – 1 Sam. 28:6. The Lord has always been – and is yet – my helper and Strong Tomer; for which I offer a prayer of thankfulness in real humility at least twice each day, and usually more than twice. The only thing that has overtaken me is the slimy ogre of slander; but I do not feel impelled to resign anything because of that, or to consult a Psychiatrist – any more than did Brother Russell or Brother Johnson in similar circumstances.

When you ask how I can “judge what motivates your actions”, I can only repeat the Lord’s words, “By their fruits ye shall know them”; and Paul’s words, “The Holy Spirit is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” Perhaps I should say, too, that I am familiar with the rating various capable brethren gave your humility back in Brother Russell’s day. You state, “I did not tell him (Brother Johnson) that I would deliver discourses only where I could offer the closing prayer, and insist on his re­specting my wishes in the matter, but I complied humbly and willingly, even refusing to lead in prayer”, etc. Is this another one of your sophistical insinuations, against which Brother Russell so bluntly warned all the Lord’s people in his saintly article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony”? If you had me in mind, why are you not man enough to say so? Your “sleight of hand” here is just too weak and clumsy to hoodwink the Winter Park Ecclesia, I am sure. I am informed that you made some such remark when you were there in March. Did you? Did you go behind my back, too, as you did with Brother Johnson in 1937 in your humility? The difference between you and me, Brother Jolly, (with all my “abusive language and name-calling”) is that I came to YOU FIRST OF ALL with my complaints; whereas, YOU have done just the reverse! Whatever I have had to say to or about Brother Johnson I said directly to him – as I also have been doing with you; and on no occasion did I ever try to enter into a conspiracy to usurp his authority – as you did in your great humility. That is one of the reasons why Brother Johnson and I always were the closest of friends; why he confided in me in a manner that he did with none other. Too, he fully agreed with my thoughts about the speaker of a discourse delivering the closing prayer; we were in complete harmony about it – so much so that he asked me in June, 1950, to deliver two discourses, with closing prayers for each, at the approaching Convention in Chicago in November. Aside from the Los Angeles Convention in 1942, where I de­livered several discourses, his invitation to me for Chicago is the only instance in the United States where he knowingly arranged for a Youthful Worthy to deliver more than one discourse at a Convention. After you were trapped in your conspiracy to usurp his authority in 1937, did he offer you increased opportunities of service, and his full approval of your evil course, or did he announce you as an uncleansed revo­lutionistic Levite?

At the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral I gave you all the encouragement I knew how to do, telling you I realized what a trying position yours would be; offered you all the brotherly help I could at any time you might need it – and my subsequent acts proved the sincerity of those assurances. Can you offer any proof whatever, other than words, that you carried the same sentiments toward me?

Page 4 (d). You say my “faultfinding is really against Brother Johnson”. You would certainly like to give it that twist, wouldn’t you? Why don’t you quote some more here from Brother Johnson, as, for instance, that the Great Company developing truths would continue to be purified and enlarged until the 80 years were up? Were the 80 years up in October 1950? What purifying or enlarging have you produced in the five years since he died? A truth has become quite clear since then, namely, that Brother Johnson’s death delivered completely into Azazel’s hands ALL Great Com­pany members – a truth you are now trying desperately to evade. So embattled are you by this clear Epiphany revealment, that you not only resort to open Revolutionism against it, but you indirectly encourage others of your Great Company brethren to do so by encouraging them in their evil ways, thus preventing them from proceeding to that cleansing which will enable them to “offer unto the Lord an offering in Righteous­ness”. Great is your guilt in this matter,, and your “foolishness will be very plain to all”.

Page 4 (e). You say “those who opposed the Lord, Brother Russell and Brother Johnson predicted failure for their work”. Do you know of any one instance where any one who had the Truth and its spirit did this to them? Or, wasn’t it just “dogs and the Sifters who made those accusations? Surely, if I belong to either of these two classes, you would have broadcast it in the Present Truth long ago, because, as you say, you “have an obligation to protect the Lord’s people” – and which indeed you do!! Can it be that your “Dear brother” salutations, and then again your harangue and subtle whispering “out of harmony” insinuations which have come to me from many sources, are simply the workings of your “double mind”? And, when people flocked by the thousands in every large city to view Brother Russell’s Photo Drama, how did his critics appear in comparison with the critic who is now writing you? Harking back to that Photo Drama, are you not again stating a rank falsehood when you say that “to outward appearances it looked..... a failure”?

Page 4 (g). You complain about my language having the savor of that applied to “unfaithful leaders”. What other language could I use? If one is a liar, the epi­thet would apply whether the name be Jolly, Rutherford, Cater, Zielinski or Smith; and many of the terms I have used are pretty much a take-off from what Brother John­son said about unfaithful leaders. You say you have freely admitted your mistakes, so I am setting out some of those you have not admitted (How does it compare with those you have admitted?):

1. Your confusion on the “Faithful” and the “Measurably Faithful”.

2. Your confusion on Judas and the thirty pieces of silver in relation to John 12:6, as set forth in the November 1954 P.T., page 92, per my letter to you of Nov. 18, 1954, which you have never acknowledged.

3. Your confusion on the Star Members, as stated in the March 1954 P.T., page 25, per my letter to you of March 20, 1954, which you have never acknowledged.

4. Your confusion on John 21, repeatedly called to your attention by me. Your answer to my question at Jacksonville on Feb. 27 was so nebulous and incoherent that it is evident you do not yet understand this section of Scripture,.

5. Your misleading statements that Brother Johnson said he would not publish all his books until after Armageddon.

6. The complete failure of your $5 correspondence course (which reeked of commercialism – making merchandise of God’s word).

7. Failure to admit your falsehoods told to the Winter Park Ecclesia the night of March 15.

8. Failure to admit many other falsehoods called to your attention.

9. The selecting of “appropriate” texts other than the Daily Manna Texts, for “Service Testimonies” at Conventions.

10. Starting a 90-minute “special business” session at the Chicago Convention October 31, 1953 without a prayer or opening hymn.

11. Prating about your fraternizing with antitypical sons of Eli (preachers of Babylon) – strongly smacking of Combinationism.

12. Cutting the Present Truth down to Six (6) copies annually instead of Twelve (12) formerly issued by Brother Johnson (Revolutionism against the Epiphany Arrangements).

13. Taking time to publish your Flying Saucer tract, your DYK, High Calling Closed, Israel’s Return, a letter to the brethren regarding a worthless (Italian)  coin, and attending numerous “Chop Suey” Conventions; also your visit to Rome and Switzerland – all of which you were able to do in lieu of the first obligation placed upon your Trusteeship to feed the flock by pub­lishing the manuscripts of Brother Johnson – claiming you “do not have time” to do the latter.

14. Your statement at the Chicago Convention in October 1953 that the solid truths as given in Brother Johnson’s tracts (also used by Brother Russell) were “time-worn and threadbare” (an expression similarly used by JFR; and to this day the J.W.’s claim Brother Russell’s books were all right for HIS DAY), while claiming “up-to-the minute” praise for those printed by R. G. Jolly.

15. Your refusal and failure to account for the $20,000 which disappeared from the Book Fund ... which was committed to your trust when you became Trustee.

16. Your refusal to give an analysis of your Sinking Fund in your Annual Report. You have both a legal and moral obligation to give us this report. An Exe­cutive Trustee is not an owner in this instance; neither are you the Founder of this Movement.

17. Using the appellation Good Levites and Cleansed Levites in your publications inter­changeably, as though they were one and the same – despite your knowledge that Brother Johnson said the “cleansing of these Good Levites” was a thing devoutly to be hoped for (in the future).

I am pleased to note you did correct some of the above after they were called to your attention by me – (e.g., Nos. 9, 11, 14); although you have never so much as men­tioned them to me.

Page 4, 3 (a).  You say I “accosted Brother Eschrich in an excited and disorderly conversation”. This is just another one of your falsehoods. I did not accost him, he approached me. I told you that in my letter of April 1, so yon have no excuse for making this false statement. Even granted that Brother Eschrich gave it the twist you now state, it is still his word against mine, so your proper Scriptural course should be one of neutrality. And when you say that “Brother Eschrich thought the spir­it shown was so very bad”, didn’t it occur to you to ask him what was back of it? You knew you were coming to Winter Park yourself within a few weeks. Didn’t you have enough “brotherly love” to give you any urge at all to try to “provoke to love and good works” on March 15-17? I asked you in my letter of April 1 what conversation you had and what conclusions you reached. Why have you sidestepped that question? And when you say the “bad spirit was manifest to other brethren”, are you by any chance referring to your wife or other “yes-men” that you brought with you to Jacksonville?

Page 4, 3 (b). You say “a number of the brethren are amazed at my conduct”. From this statement, it would seem our differences must have had a pretty wide discussion already – behind my back – which hardly fits in with your continued determination to keep it quiet. The brethren who thus expressed themselves to you must have received their information from you when I was not present to offer explanation or defense – ­just one more evidence of your “whispering” campaign against me. At every opportunity you demonstrate striking similarity of character to King Saul – of whose antitype you are a part. Behind Brother Johnson’s back; behind my back; behind Sister Hoefle’s back! Such sneaking underhand tactics are the unmistakable technique of a moral bankrupt. It was such methods against David, coupled with rebellion (Revolutionism), that eventu­ally drove Saul to the Witch of Endor and – to DESTRUCTION!

Page 5 - 4. You speak about the “disorderly course” of Sister Hoefle at Winter Park on March 15. You Yourself had complete charge of that meeting. Why didn’t you keep order? Didn’t you think it was certainly your obligation in that position? And, if she showed a “bad spirit”, did you reprove her for it, in harmony with Paul’s coun­sel, “He that sinneth before all,, rebuke before all, that others may fear”? Or did you wait until the erring (?) one had left before you began to berate her behind her back? When I came to you about a similar failing on your part – “in the spirit of meekness” –, after the 1952 Philadelphia Convention, and pointed out your Scriptural obligation in the matter, you disagreed with my conclusions, and I did not press the point; although I am informed that you gave the erring one such a verbal beating the following week-end in the Tabernacle that he had tears in his eyes. So, it would seem that by now you should know your Scriptural obligation in such matters. If you do not know what to do to keep order with eleven people in a meeting – where you are in com­plete charge –, it is little wonder you show such incapacity for handling the general work. Did you ever hear Brother Johnson cry about being abused by “disorderly” people when he had complete charge? And so far as I can learn, you are the only one who com­plains of an accusation being made there anyway; you were simply asked a direct ques­tion which you could easily have answered Yes or No. Perhaps it is in order here to quote an old axiom – A guilty conscience needs no accuser! According to your own admissions, you were the most disorderly person at that meeting, because you were in position to keep order, and should know how to keep order, yet you did not do so. But, since you are trying to make wives the cause of much of this trouble, why do you completely over­look the one whose husband admits she made trouble? I refer to Sister Eschrich. Bro. Eschrich admits she circulated the slander; so, according to his own admission, he is not even qualified to be a Deacon in the Church if we accept St. Paul’s standards in 1 Tim. 3:11. Yet you are upholding him as an “abused” man – after he has confessed to repeating the slander, and has confessed that his wife is a slanderer also. Thus, when you say I “manifest a determined attempt to disparage and undermine the influence of Brother Eschrich despite assurances given me against my accu­sations” – even after he confessed guilt to my accusations, and after Brother Gavin himself before you and the Winter Park Ecclesia on March 15, stated that Brother Eschrich should correct his wrong – you give just another evidence of your woeful incompetence, of your flagrant lack of veracity, and of your uncleansed condition.

Brother Johnson was often accused of having a “bad spirit” – as you well know.  And, when Peter accused Ananias of “lying to the Holy Spirit”, he must have shown con­siderable emotion. St. Paul showed great indignation and emotion in Acts 13:10: “O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness”.... Jesus, too, in Matt. 23, labeling the Scribes and the Pharisees “hypocrites, blind guides, children of Hell, serpents and vipers”, probably showed considerable indignation and emotion; as He also did in Matt. 21:12 where He “overthrew the tables”.  According to your inter­pre­tations, He must have been “out of order”, too! Your standards of righteousness and order are indeed grotesque. Why do I seek to “de­stroy the influence of Brothers Eschrich, Gavin and Jolly”? Because our Lord Jesus, St. Paul, Martin Luther, Brother Russell, Brother Johnson and other faithful servants of the Truth hesitated not to denounce evildoers in the Lord’s House – in positive, direct language that brought “howls” and cries of “bad spirit” from the traducers. And I am not at all moved to apologize to you for my course in faithfully following the examples set before me.

Page 5 - 3. This whole paragraph is a depraved piece of jugglery. You say, “We should stop pursuing the matter”. This is in direct contradiction with Brother Rus­sell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908, with which you are “in full harmony”. As pointed out before, I did go to Brother Eschrich alone, privately, as evidenced by my letter of October 30, 1954. That letter is clear enough, isn’t it? Can you offer any crit­icism whatever of it? When Brother Gavin came to me with what Brother Eschrich had told him, it became more than just a matter of my personal well-being; it placed an obligation upon me to “pursue the matter”, as Brother Russell so clearly stated.

Are you trying to say now that that is not sufficient for me to come to you, in accordance with Matt. 18, to learn whether you are guilty? Are you contending I would have to wait until you yourself say to me “I am slandering you”, before I could follow Matt. 18? Also, your last sentence in that paragraph – “If the injury has been stopped, we should stop pursuing the matter”, is a Jesuitical twist again closely allied to the perversions of That Evil Servant. Does the article in the Present Truth give me any “assurance” that the “injury has been stopped”? Does your letter give me any “assur­ance” in your protection of the wrongdoers that the “injury has been stopped”? When you soothe the wounded feelings of the wrongdoer and berate the one wronged, do you think that method will correct the evil? If a brother should steal money from you (instead of your good name, as the slanderers have done to me) and should admit his guilt – say he is sorry and promise never to steal from you again – but would make no effort at all at restitution – would you consider yourself “stopped from pursuing the matter”? Would you? You seem obsessed with the delusion that volume of words will impress some, regardless of the nonsense those words may express; and this is just another evidence of your desperation in this vicious and sordid crime against one of the Lord’s House! In 1950 you were very pronounced in defending the truth, “Without repentance, there is no forgiveness by the Lord; and there is no obligation on us to forgive a brother who does not repent”. Are you now revolutionizing against that Parousia and Epiphany Truth?

So Brother Eschrich complains that some one shook a finger in his face at Jackson­ville! A self-admitted slanderer (to you and to me) who wants to brush off his leprous Levitical crime with a “let’s just drop it” complains that the one he has wronged shook a finger in his face! Poor Fellow; he was truly abused there!! Do you think Brother Russell or Brother Johnson would stand complacently by – as you are doing – if they heard of a case of ONE PILGRIM slandering another Pilgrim? Do you? Do you think either of them would “suspend” the slandered one, while ardently upholding the evildoer – as you are now doing in the case of Brother Eschrich? You yourself announce the fact in the PT that this slander was done against me; thus you automatically obligate your­self – if you are honestly “in full harmony” with Brother Russell’s article of Nov. 15, 1908 – to do all in your power to identify the Real Source of this “leprosy” in our midst, as an object lesson for ALL toward proper application of the Golden Rule.

Page 5, Par. 4. You say such things are for “individual Ecclesias”. Will you tell me in which Ecclesia I should carry out this matter with Brother Eschrich? As you well know, this leprous Levitical crime has become widespread in the General Church; they have heard the liars’ side of it – but you now tell me I “should know better” than to want them to hear the truth about it. Nice reasoning; very nice, indeed! The only conclusion one could draw from such “reasoning” is that the one presenting it has truly “lost the oil from his lamp”.

Page 5, Par. 5. The “other considerations” mentioned here were all present when you called upon me publicly to support you in prayer at Jacksonville on Feb. 26; they were present when you wrote your letter of March 24, wherein you “wished I could have been present” at Winter Park on March 16, in which letter you greeted me with “Chris­tian love” and sent your “continued best wishes”; they were present on May 28 at Muskegon(even after you had my letter of May 20), when you came across the dining hall to greet me as I sat at the table with four others. Indeed, your double-minded conduct here once more painfully reminds me of That Evil Servant, who hypocritically shed crocodile tears before Society brethren in his great “grief” over that “evil” Brother Johnson and others, who had “shaken off the dust of their feet” against him. And, when I described your “citing Sister Hoefle’s violation of Matt. 18 as simply so much nonsense”, I repeat that again with double emphasis; your confusion here – as in so many other instances – ­is certainly most lamentable. How could she possibly be involved with Matt. 18, when you yourself admit she did not come to you regarding herself, but simply asked you a question about me? Will you make clear just how Matt. 18 would be binding upon her under such circumstances, when she mentioned no differences between you and her? She asked you about a third person. Other members of the Winter Park Ecclesia had expressed an intention of asking you about this matter. Since they have received this and other hints and warnings which strongly indicated that you were conducting a “whispering” campaign against me, they were desirous of having the Truth and facts come out. Would they have been violating Matt. 18 to ask you about it? Your befuddled thinking here, as elsewhere, is so glaringly ridiculous I would consider it unbelievable were I not personal witness to it.

And I can but answer “nonsense” to you. Par. 2, Page 5, where you speak of my “prying questions” based upon my “suspicions”, etc. Brother Gavin categorically told me Brother Eschrich had slandered me – based upon what he had heard from you; and others involved you in vicious gossip that had come to them. You had been specifically involved in the general content of all the questions I asked you in my letter of April 1; and your profuse play on words here can mean nothing more than a smoke screen in an ef­fort to cover up for the evildoers in this leprous Spiritual debauchery! With all those “other considerations” present on March 15-17 – coupled with your refusal even to write me a letter since June 15, 1954 – not even asking for a report of my Pilgrim ac­tivities for 1954 –, you proceed to write me a character recommendation on March 24, 1955 followed by a special article in the May PT denouncing the injustice that had been done me – all of this while you plead “I am not sure what it was all about”. Need I suggest that this requires much more explanation than you have given to it?

And, though you may not have “known what it was all about” on March 24, you certainly did know “what it was all about” when you had your conference with Brother Gavin on May 7 and 8; and you did know “what it was all about” when Brother Eschrich, you and I were at Muskegon May 28-30. And, having been fully informed by then of “What it was all about”, did you even hint that you and I talk over such a serious matter? Did you sug­gest to Brother Eschrich that he talk to me, at least to tell me what you claim he told you? O, no, nothing like that from you! Instead, a month later you write me seven pages, which contain the vague comment that you talked it over with Brother Eschrich – ­once more behind my back; and you offer quite some elaboration that I must be a dis­gruntled troublemaker with a “bad spirit” if I do not agree with your unscriptural course. At every utterance from you it becomes clearer and clearer that the one goat of Leviticus 16 was “for Azazel”; “his servant ye are to whom ye render service”.

Page 5, Par. 6. Your statement here is in direct conflict with others I have. I am told you were specifically asked about the Sister – slander, and that your con­versation plainly showed that you knew about it; but that you tried to give it the brush-off that you were “too busy” to be concerned with such small items. Then, later in pri­vate conversations, I am told you freely admitted that “every one that came to you with the slander about me you had informed them it was not true, told them not to spread it; and you would continue to do that.” Now, which place are you telling the truth – here in your letter or when you were at Winter Park? Since you admit in the May Present Truth that you knew of “magnified slander” from “mouth to mouth”, it must be your winter Park statements are the truth. Therefore I ask – Did you ever once advise me that my good reputation among Truth people was being assassinated – in accordance with Brother Rus­sell’s article, and the requirements of the Golden Rule? Did you ever once advise any who came to you with it that they should come to me with it – in accordance with Bro. Russell’s article and the Golden Rule? Or, did you wait until the matter became much too warm for your personal comfort before you even generalized about it in the May Present Truth and attempted a belated and lame cover-up with your letter of March 24?

Page 6, Par. 1. You ask if I “recall when this Motto Text”....in “due time” was used by Brother Russell. Yes, I recall it. in my letter of Jan. 18, 1954, Page 2, par. 2, I said: “I repeat that your abortive efforts can result only in failure. I wonder if you recall one year’s Motto Text of Brother Russell, showing the opening chest­nut burr and underneath it the words IN DUE TINE?” I’m glad you brought that up, though – ­very glad! Brother Johnson plainly and emphatically said his idea of “due time” for having all the unpublished literature into the hands of the brethren was October 1956 at the very latest – a date now but a scant fourteen months future. Yet you have brazenly and openly declared – by your acts, at least – that you have no respect for his “due time” date; at the rate you are going, you won’t have half the remaining books in the hands of the brethren come this fall a year. You have raised a great hue and cry about my “out of harmony” on “not a fundamental doctrine”; yet you yourself are boldly declaring your own “out of harmony” with Brother Johnson on a matter that is fundamental and of great importance to all God’s people – while you state from the other side of your mouth how you are “in full harmony with dear Brother Johnson”. This is simply another instance of Revolutionism by you! When you say “two of the above mentioned books have already been published”, you are simply stating another falsehood. Brother Johnson had said he was preparing to publish Vols. Nos. 15, 16 and 17 in 1950. He published No. 15; then you came along and published No. 18. Furthermore, when you say “many of the articles which are to appear in this volume (your mis-numbered 17) have been appearing in our magazines”, I wish you would please refer me to just one ar­ticle that has appeared since Brother Johnson’s death on the real Vol. 17 – “Numbers, Vol. 2”. It would seem here is another falsehood to be charged against you.

Page 6, Pars. 2 & 3. I may not be 100% versed in everything Brother Johnson has written; but when some one such as you tries to give me some instruction or correction, I expect you yourself to know what you are talking about. I am quite familiar with what Brother Johnson says in Vol. 10, P. 113; and I agree with his explanation of Heb. 19:1-2.  When the Bible states that work would be done by a “great crowd” I think that fits in pretty well with the “great crowd” in the Society giving Jordan its second smiting. But why didn’t you go on and discuss Verse 6? That speaks also of a “great crowd” saying “The Lord God Omnipotent Reigneth”. Brother Johnson states in the very 1941 citation you give that that fulfillment was future; and he stated often enough in other places that the “great crowd” would have a fruitful ministry “after the fires of armageddon” (Rev. 7:14). Why didn’t you say something about that? Are you contending that a “great crowd” has been proclaiming this message since October 1950? By generous count, could you possibly show a hundred? It is little wonder you repeatedly and loudly proclaim your “love for your dear Youthful Worthy brethren”! And do you consider that slanderers and scandalmongers have “cleansed” themselves in harmony with Heb. 7:14? Do You? I may as well quote your own words here, “This it over, dear brother”. Also, you are con­spicuously silent on Heb. 22:10 and Berean Comments. Why?

Page 6, Par. 4. Here you say I was “seeking independently to serve the Muskegon Ecclesia on April 16 with discourses”. This is just another one of your falsehoods! At no time did I approach the Muskegon Ecclesia; my first letter of March 19 was to Brother and Sister Seebald, who had given me perhaps a dozen warm invitations over the years to visit them, as Brother Schmidt of Detroit, a faithful Pilgrim under Brother Johnson, had so often done over week-ends when he was alive (and without asking Brother Johnson’s permission). If Brother Seebald referred the matter to the Ecclesia, that is his concern – not mine. His invitations over the past always seemed warm and genuine; and I am sorry I misunderstood him. However, he told me at Muskegon May 28-30 that you had told him there was nothing wrong if they wanted me to serve them without clearing with the Bible House. Did you tell him that? If so, why all the dust-throwing about it now in your letter of June 25? To protect whom? Is this for the “protection” of the Winter Park Ecclesia – or is it for YOURSELF? It is quite clear that you are try­ing to bury in an effusion of words those pertinent and proper questions I asked you on April 1. This has been a common procedure with you in the letters you have written me over the past three years. It’s not surprising you are swamped with work at the Bible House – while the place swarms with help!

Also, I was told you informed Brother Seebald that my chronological confirmation of Brother Johnson’s statement re the 70 years desolation of Christendom was just “no good”. Inasmuch as I was only enlarging upon Brother Johnson’s statement – and nothing more – do you still want to contend that the 70-year idea is just “no good”’

Furthermore, you say I “for sometime now have been working independently of the one whom the Lord placed in charge”. Do you know of a single instance where I attempted to even offer my services to an Ecclesia? Do you? And, when writing the Muskegon Ec­clesia (after they had officially written to me), I said in my letter of March 26 that “my letter of March 19 to Brother Seebald was purely personal to them (Brother and Sister Seebald), and not in my capacity as a Pilgrim”. You must be pretty hard-pressed when you give this matter the twist you do. And, when you bring in Hirsh, Stevens, Cater, Zielinski, etc., I note you give the Present Truth reference where Brother John­son exposed them all. are you “in full harmony” with him on such matters?

Page 7, last Par. You now come to “something very unpleasant... to suspend me as a Pilgrim”. The only “unpleasantness” in this for you so far as I can see, is you’re now being forced out into the open and admitting what you had already done in fact back in 1953. In fact, it would seem you had already decided on this course at the time of Brother Johnson’s funeral – because I received no hint from you of any requests from you to serve brethren anywhere. When I arrived at Philadelphia Convention in 1951 (al­most a whole year after Brother Johnson’s death), you offered the lame alibi that you would have given me a place on the program had you known I would be there, to which I answered – “You could have found out by asking me, couldn’t you?” and as for dismiss­ing me as a Pilgrim, you cannot do any more than you have done: you cannot add to or take away from what the Epiphany Messenger has established, although I realize you have been attempting strenuously to arrogate the office of “Pastor and Teacher”, to yourself. I am convinced your course is clearly marked in certain Bible Types, so your “profuse words to no profit” impress me not at all. Therefore, I repeat, Consider yourself free to publish this letter – ALL of it or NONE of it – and expose my “errors” and my “oppo­sitional course”.

                Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

(Copy to Winter Park Ecclesia)