NO. 8: "THE CASE OF JOHN J. HOEFLE" REVIEWED - PART ONE

NO. 8

March 17, 1956

My dear Brethren:

Grace and peace through our Beloved Master!

Herewith is presented

“The Case of John J. Hoefle” Reviewed

In the March Present Truth our Executive Trustee “finds it necessary to say and do things that are very unpleasant” in exposing the “unruly, oppositional and revo­lutionistic” course of John J. Hoefle – a brother whom he has “esteemed highly and loved dearly.” Then at the top of page 20 his “dear love” prompts him to relate a request “for a loan of a large sum of money” – although he fails to reveal which “un­ruly”, which “oppositional”, or which “revolutionistic” act is exposed by his little recital. Why didn't he say the “large sum of money” was $5,000? And why didn't he quote the letter of November 27, 1952 which dealt with the item? One short paragraph would have been sufficient for the purpose. Any time we have discussed him, his letters have been reproduced in full – word for word – so the brethren could freely judge for themselves which cause had true merit. In his loud and profuse contention that the “Great Company is and forever will be” a Class higher than the Youthful Worthies, he would be well advised to start now in this life to show just a little of his “class” in his conduct and ethics.

The letter of November 27 was simply a penciled note (of which no copy was kept), telling him of a profitable investment which was certain to return to him in a short time the $5,000 “well padded with interest.” This note was much the same as others we had written to Brother Johnson over the years, so it never occurred to us to keep a copy of it. Little did we realize in 1952 with whom us were dealing; little did we realize there had arisen a “Pharaoh who knew not Joseph.” Incidentally, the invest­ment for which we wished the $5,000 has since tripled in value, in addition to paying a good return on the amount in the meantime; so it would seem in order to ask how well he himself has handled that money over the same period of time?

Now that he himself has injected money into his “exposure”, it is considered proper to state that on at least three occasions during Brother Johnson's life he en­trusted to us each time – for business ventures – many times $5,000 – without even once asking for as much as a receipt for his money. It was such transactions that prompted him to tell other brethren that he “knew he could trust Brother Hoefle.”

Lest the foregoing be challenged as just a mere fabrication, some provable facts and figures are now presented. Much of what follows is being made public for the first time, not even members of our immediate family having ever heard it before this date: In 1931 this “Sifter” contributed $18,000 to the work. The total financial receipts that year were $22,014.15, which left a balance of $4,014.15 to come from all other supporters of Brother Johnson. He told us personally that had it not been for our large contribu­tions in 1931 the work that year would have come to a halt. Here are a few sentences from his report for that terrible depression year:

“Particularly one brother, whose Epiphany knowledge helped him financially, very generously came to the relief of our treasury, and that in time to guarantee financially the European and Trans‑Mis­sissippi trips. Had his large contribution not come to hand, the other contributions would not have sufficed to finance both trips, though they would have financed the European trip. Later in the year this same brother more than doubled his first large contribution. Accordingly, the year, which at first threat­ened to be disastrous to us financially, became our banner finan­cial year.”

This year 1931 is discussed here because the figures can be verified – not nec­essary to take this “Sifter's” word for anything; because the figures are recorded in Docket No. 75350 of the United States Court of Tax Appeals in the case of Hoefle vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. It was the fighting of this case through the Courts – all at this “Sifter's” personal expense – which does not include contributions here­tofore mentioned – that forced the Commis­sion­er of Internal Revenue to recognize the laymen's Home Missionary Movement as an organization within the law, contributions to which must be recognized as deductible expense on Income Tax returns. Any one wishing to verify the foregoing need only refer to the legal records.

Then, in the years following 1931 Brother Johnson insisted upon this “Sifter” accepting a mortgage for $35,000 on all the assets at Philadelphia. After holding this mortgage for some time, it was eventually discharged without this “Sifter” re­ceiving one dollar when the release was finally made. This case is mentioned, too, because it can be verified in the records of the Court House at Philadelphia.

Also, in the year 1933 Brother Johnson informed this “Sifter” that the property at 1327 Snyder Avenue (which he had been renting on a monthly basis) was to be sold, and it would seriously disrupt the work if he had to move. So this “Sifter” pur­chased the property, and delivered to Brother Johnson a deed “clear, free and unencumbered” – another contribution to the good work Brother Johnson was doing. At Brother Johnson's death, our Executive Trustee suggest­ed it seemed expedient to dis­pose of 1327 Snyder Avenue, to which this “Sifter” readily agreed, and which was eventually accomplished in 1952. Thus, at the very time of the request “for a loan of a large sum of money”, the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement bank account had been enriched by about $11,000, and our Executive Trustee was “eating my bread” (Psa. 41:9) at the time. And now, for him to begin his “Brief History” with his cheap recita­tion, simply reveals his desperation for a suitable weapon of “exposure” after all these years – and clearly manifests his malevolent character.

But, to give the brethren a complete and clear picture here, another incident should be mentioned. During 1930‑31 a situation not involved in any may with the $18,000 already mentioned, came to this “Sifter's” attention. A worthy brother in Cincinnati, Ohio became penniless and bedfast; so this “Sifter” went to his aid, too – provided for him suitable living quarters, hired a nurse and a physician, then gave him a respectable burial – all at his own expense. This item is also mentioned because it can be proven. After the funeral, came the following letter from a Sister we had never met (which accounts for her incorrect reference to a Saint):

Covington, Ky.

Nov. 9, 1931

Dear Bro. Hoefle: – I am writing you thanking you for all you did for Dear Bro. S ‑‑‑‑‑. Had it not been for you he would have suffered. A few of the Brethren did for him minor kindness but it was you who financed him, your money buried him. It was you who eased his dying body, and I know you are numbered among the Saints.

I wrote Bro. Johnson telling him of all your kindness to our Dear Brother S‑‑‑‑‑‑. You certainly must be numbered with the Little Flock. Your love for the Brethren has taught the Cincinnati Class a lesson. Ever praying God's richest blessing upon you, I am your Sister in Christ, Sr. ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

Now, alongside the foregoing it would seem proper and timely to give Brother Johnson's statement about one R. G. Jolly in Vol. E‑10, page 585 bottom and top of page 586:

“Another incident illustrative of antitypical Elihu's unfair and unkind criticisms of J. occurred in connection with J.'s advo­cating the Ecclesia's giving financial help to an aged Youthful Worthy widow who was both sick and penniless. Certain ones not pleased with her carried on a whispering campaign against her and against J. for advocating her being helped by the Ecclesia, resulting in such feeling being aroused as almost made a divi­sion in the Ecclesia; and R. G. Jolly again was J.'s main oppon­ent before the church on the subject. Actually the sister by a combination of starving and cancer died; and the hospital blamed the ecclesia to J.'s face therefor.”   

It should be noted that a “whispering campaign” was carried on against this de­fenseless Sister and against Brother Johnson, which enabled one R. G. Jolly to come out boldly as the last Star member's chief opponent – much the same as a “whisper­ing campaign” has been carried on against this “Sifter” for the past five years, the same having been intensified over the past year, thus enabling R. G. Jolly finally to come out boldly into the open in this last Present Truth. It seems “whispering campaigns” are R. G. Jolly's choice “secret weapon” against the Lord's faithful; and Brother Johnson's recorded statement that he – R. G. Jolly – had a “bad conscience” was undoubtedly overruled by the Lord for the protection and help of His people after Brother Johnson's demise. (Please see also 1 Jno. 3:17.)

                Behold, your Pastor and Teacher, Brethren; behold, the leader of the “Faith­ful”, the leader of the “cleansed” Great Company and “good” Youthful Worthies (self ­admitted cham­pion of slanders, liars, etc.); behold the “Epiphany Parallel” of That Wise and Faithful Servant!! Behold, too, the “Sifter” whom he is “exposing”! Take a good look at both of us – A REAL GOOD LOOK!!

He also makes a reference to “J. F. Rutherford, who delivered Brother Russell's funeral oration”, although he doesn't say whether or not he is “making” a parallel here. However, in case any of the brethren may have gained such impression, here are the facts: Faithful Brother Johnson and other Pilgrims and prominent Truth Brethren officiated and spoke at the afternoon services for Brother Russell – just as was done for Brother Johnson. And J. F. Rutherford had almost complete charge of the night service, just as R. G. Jolly had almost complete charge of the night meeting in Philadelphia. Then, immediately after Brother Russell's services, JFR took charge of the Society and its arrangements, subsequently disfellowshiping “Sifter” Brother Johnson. So also, our Executive Trustee took full charge after Brother Johnson's funeral, eventually disfellowshiping “Sifter” Brother Hoefle. So, if he is thinking of “making” a parallel here, it would seem he would be well ad­vised to try elsewhere, as a pretty good one already exists – without him or any one else trying to “make” one.

There are some other things about the funeral, too: During the months before his death, Brother Johnson repeatedly had said he wanted Brother Hoefle to conduct his funeral if he should happen to die. But not a word was said about this by the Executive Trustee or other Brethren at the Bible House – altho at least three breth­ren knew about it. Therefore, when the telephone call came that Sunday afternoon that “Brother Johnson died this afternoon, and you are to handle the funeral”, it was such a blow that we almost collapsed. Our relationship and love for each other had been so close that his death hurt worse than did the death of our own natural father. So, if any of you should receive a completely unexpected telephone call that your father had died and you are to conduct his funeral, you would have some idea of just how we felt that afternoon. And during the next five days the assignment seemed just more than we could accept – what with coming to Philadelphia and preparing the funeral discourse, too. Without the Lord's help, it could not have been done; but with grateful heart do we know that the promise is sure, “The Lord will give strength to His people.”

And all the more so is this true in view of our Executive Trustee's absolute re­fusal to occupy the platform with us during the services – although we repeatedly and pleadingly urged him to do so. But he was adamant; he would not take “any of the honor from us”! For a few years we were greatly puzzled that Brother Johnson would request us to conduct his funeral service, with the Executive Trustee right there in the house. Events of the past few years have clarified this somewhat; and causes much conjecture – did Brother Johnson see in those last few months that all was not the polished “silver” he had supposed it to be?

The funeral service was to commence at one p.m.; and the writer arrived at the Tabernacle about 12:45. Probably through the Lord's prompting, he casual­ly asked if all was in preparation. Imagine the surprise when it was divulged that nothing had been done – the loud speaker on the rostrum' had not even been connected, much less tested; and not a single hymn book was to be found anywhere. Just think of it! The writer immediately put on all pressure to have things in order; but it could not possibly be completed by one o'clock. Such a solemn service, and that was the uproar just before it started – and then started late, of course. And, then of all things, when the writer went to the rostrum to take charge of the service, there was even then not a hymn book anywhere on the platform; and, rather than cause any more commotion, he went through the entire service without one – joining in the hymns as best he could from memory. At the time we made generous allowance for human weakness in the mat­ter; but subsequent happenings would certainly seem to cast a different interpreta­tion upon it. Can it longer be attributed to happenstance – unless one be very gullible? At the risk of more “evil surmising” and “ascribing more evil motives”, the suggestion is here made and recorded that there was far more to it than meets the eye – much more!

Next we shall consider his complaint of “hard and abusive words” used against him. Here is a person who publicly called three different people a “Thief” over the past seven years – each time in violation of the criminal laws of the United States. In two of those cases, had the maligned ones wished to enforce their legal rights, they could have had him thrown into jail for criminal slander. And is this now the same person who is complaining about “hard words” against him? The very same person? “People who live in glass houses”!!

Then on page 20 he again takes up the slander case – confusing it with his us­ual profusion of words. He says, “JJH claimed a slander was being circulated far and wide about him”. Just what does he mean by “claimed”? He himself admitted the truth of this “claim” in his May 1955 Present Truth; his statements there show there was absolutely no doubt in his own mind of it having been done. Also, Brother Esch­rich admitted he repeated it; but denied doing so to Brother Gavin. At the Jackson­ville Convention in February 1955 “on the Convention floor between meetings” Brother Gavin, in the presence of witnesses accused Brother Eschrich of repeating it to him, “in Springfield, Mass., on September 12, 1954, and you said Brother Jolly had told it to you.” Here, then, were two Pilgrims placing the lie upon each other; and no one knows to this day – aside from those two brothers – which one of them is lying. And into such a situation does our Executive Trustee inject himself by offer­ing a defense of both those brethren, claiming that should be sufficient to silence this “Sifter”. Just where does he receive his authority to settle “by proxy” the sins of his Pilgrims – or any other brethren for that matter? In the Berean Com­ments for Luke 17:3‑4 Brother Russell says sinning brethren should be rebuked – “to fail to do so means to injure him.” And “if he repent, forgive him, but not otherwise.” Also, in Vol. E‑9, page 150 (top) Brother Johnson writes: “God does not forgive the impenitent, since such a course would encourage sin.” Also in Vol. E‑13, page 34: “Too much leniency with evildoers in an executive position encour­ages them in their wrong ways.” At the Philadelphia Convention in 1950 this writer expressed these thoughts in his discourse, saying it is wrong to forgive those who do not repent, although we should always have our hearts in the attitude of forgive­ness. This brought forth quite an extensive wail of criticism from numerous persons especially a group of Sisters –; and R. G. Jolly was quick to silence these pro­tests from the platform, supporting the speaker who has “given the Truth on the mat­ter.” Now, because of his delicate and embarrassing position, he is revolutioniz­ing against that Parousia and Epiphany Truth.

And, as so often happens in such cases when one revolutionizes against a Truth, he must accept other errors or commit other sins to support his position. This was conspicuously true in the course of That Evil Servant in his downward course. In Brother Gohlke's letter on page 34 (which will receive further attention later on) the idea of “no punishment for wrong” is stressed; and this position is approved by our Executive Trustee in his publication of that letter. This contention by the two of them is simply an improved modern counterpart of the old Papal sale of in­dulgences. We say “improved” because not even money is necessary now to gain per­mission to sin. Go right ahead and slander your brother, steal his money, seduce his wife, manhandle his children – until he catches up with you; then just quickly and loudly yell – “I've stopped wronging you; and that stops you from further pur­suit of the matter; just go home, lick your wounds, and SHUT UP!” Just how blind to Truth and Righteousness can we become — especially those of us who have claimed to understand Parousia and Epiphany Truths?

It should not require further explanation to convince just a very casual ob­server that Jolly‑Eschrich‑Gavin trio is now engulfed in a sullied atmos­phere of falsehood, which apparently accounts for R. G. Jolly's urgent and hasty move to “cover up” for the other two. It should be noted that when King Saul was trapped in his rebellion (Revolutionism), he immediately added sin to sin by resorting to ly­ing (1 Sam. 15:13). What abundant cor­roboration we have here of Brother Johnson's statement that R. G. Jolly was untruthful! What a clear type we have here of the crown‑lost leaders, of whom Saul was a type! And what a cogent affirmation we have for the abject failure of the “Attesta­tor­ial Service”, and other efforts over the past five years. “I am against them that cause my people to err by their lies, saith the lord” – Jer. 23:32. “The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the lord troubled him.” – 1 Sam. 16:14.

Coming now to his “Bible in Films”, which he claims “the Lord has richly blessed”, and for which this “Sifter” did indeed predict failure more then two years ago. Why doesn't he offer some support for his statement, other than just his word? Let us take a look at the figures for 1955: In 486 Public Meetings there was an attendance of 15,914 – an average of about 33 to the meeting. Of course, the Bible in Films was not shown at nearly all these meetings; and some of the meetings where they were shown had almost no strangers. If we hark back to the Photo Drama during the Little Flock's Attestatorial Service, it's certainly not much exaggeration to say that in any one city where they were shown there was a larger public attendance than in all meetings combined with the Bible in Films. Our Executive Trustee certainly has the figures for total number of showings, total attendance, how many Truth people and how many strangers, and how much money was spent for the Films, advertising, halls, etc. Why doesn't he give these figures to the Brethren; then let them determine how much truth there is in his statement that the effort has been “richly blessed”? Does he have the courage to do it?

In addition to the foregoing, he lost again last year 170 subscribers to the Present Truth — a decrease of about 12% from 1954. He also lost 108 subscribers to the Bible Standard — a decrease of 6.5% from 1954. And this should be a “paral­lel” to 1915, which was just about Brother Russell's peak year! Probably influenced by the results of 1914‑16, our Executive Trustee had, early in 1954, predicted “large numbers” coming into the Epiphany Truth; whereas, this “Sifter” predicted abject failure for his “Attestatorial Service.” Well, the facts are given here, Brethren – ­the truth‑telling relentless facts. Let each one now determine who had the wisdom and mind of the lord in the matter, our garrulous superficial Executive Trustee, or this “Sifter”. Those of you who were at the Philadelphia and Chicago Conventions will certainly remember his loud and prolonged explanations about the “new ones who are coming in to take the places of those that have left.”

Here it should be stated once more: Brother Johnson clearly taught that after the Great Company are “cleansed” they will have a fruitful ministry; so the foregoing figures are ONE CLEAR VISIBLE PHYSICAL PROOF THAT THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY NOW BE CLEANSED. More about this later on. Yes, the Great Company would have “to serve themselves” after Brother Johnson's demise; and what a service this “Higher Class” has been re­ceiving! When we write on the Epiphany Solomon, the reason for this will become crystal clear; but it is proper to observe here that the last years of Solomon's life were evil, so they could not possibly be antityped by a Saint. Those years would have to be antityped by an “uncleansed” person, possibly, even, by an evil person (note we say “possibly evil”). As the Parousia David ruled for 40½ years, so the Epiphany Solomon must rule 40½ years, to the Passover of 1957; and no other person than R. G. Jolly could possibly fit into this picture – he now sits in Sol­omon's seat. Here is another clear reason why the Lord removed Brother Johnson on October 22, 1950. When the Lord blessed us with an understanding of this type, it was no problem at all, no exhibition of superior wisdom or unction as a prophet, that enabled us to predict abject failure for R. G. Jolly's efforts. We had hoped it would not be necessary to make public this antitype; but this last Present Truth clearly reveals that the expostulations and failures of the past five years have sobered R. G. Jolly not at all. There­fore, harsher truths will be necessary; and they will appear shortly, D.v.

On page 8, col. 2 of his Annual Report for 1955, bottom, he states he “served no camp meeting or other comparatively large assembly during 1955.” Here, then, another of his efforts has resulted in abject failure. Or, was this effort so “rich­ly blessed” that he just could hold no more of it?

Next we consider his defense of his “Faithful and Measurably Faithful Servants”, on page 25. He tries to ridicule our citation of the “Faithful and Measurably Faith­ful” at the top of page 96, saying that article ended with par. 10. Anybody who can read the English language would know that; but any one who knew Brother Johnson would know, too, he was not such a bogus teacher as to use an expression at the top of a page, then use the identical expres­sion in an article begun at the bottom of that same page, without clearly stating that he did not mean that expression in the same way the second time – if that was his thought. But the Question we cited on page 151, which has to do with par. 14 on page 99, leaves no doubt whatever as to what he was think­ing. “In what activities have the faithful and the measurably faithful servants of the Truth shared?” The answer on page 99: “Facts prove that both crown‑retaining (the “faithful”) and crown‑losing (the “Measurably Faithful”) servants have ministered, are, and will yet minister both of these kinds of Truth”. How much clearer could this be?

Then he tries to make a point that the “Faithful” at the top of page 96 is cap­italized. When he makes such ridiculous comments, it causes us to wonder where this “professor” received his education – this “professor” who has on different occasions tried to belittle his opponents and overawe his readers with his “superior” knowledge of the English language? (Please understand this matter is not cheapened by mention of belittling his construction; it is treated only because his grammatical observa­tions tend to bury the unmistakable Truth.) On page 96 “Faithful” is a noun, a syno­nym to “Bride” in line 1, and in conjunction with Christ, both of which are capital­iz­ed; while “faithful” on page 151 (14) is an adjective, not used in relation to a capital­ized noun. By the same process of absurdity, perhaps we should conclude that “crown ­retaining” on page 99, which is not capitalized, cannot mean the sane thing as the “Bride” and the “Faithful” on page 96, which are capitalized. And when Brother John­son says the “faithful” (not capitalized) “are ministering”, was he not certainly re­ferring to himself and other Little Flock brethren? R. G. Jolly makes the observa­tion on page 26, col. 1, par. 1 that “we do not know precisely what Brother Johnson had in mind when he wrote the pertinent statement in E Vol. 4, P. 99, line 19 (and who can say positively?)”. Well, R. G. Jolly may not know; but the statements are so clear‑cut that a beginner in the Truth would have no difficulty in knowing what Bro. Johnson “precisely had in mind.” Nor was Brother Johnson ever such a hypocrite that he expressed himself in such garbled words as to lead astray even the “unstable and the unlearned”; and his statements in Vol. E‑4, pages 96‑115 are no exception. R. G. Jolly's treatise in 1954 on the “Faithful and the Measurably Faithful” was pure non­sense to start with; and his defense now simply accentuates and further manifests his deplorable confusion on the matter.

We now consider Azazel's Goat and relevant thoughts: R. G. Jolly says this writer “fails to take into account the great variation between groups and individuals in the Great Company.” Well, we'll try to take that into account sufficiently right now to convince our readers that we have at least “taken it into account” for all immediate purposes. He quotes Brother Johnson's expres­sion that some “have lost Little Flockship only by the skin of their teeth.” He seems to like this expression; quotes it quite often; nor do we dispute it. Presumably, tho, he includes himself in that Class, so we'll take a close look at his case: He was closely associated with Star Member Brother Johnson right from the start of the Epiphany; had his Saintly example and benign influence and teachings for a good twenty years; but was so little influ­enced by such favorable circumstances that he resorted to bold Revolutionism in 1937 by trying to usurp power and control of the true Pastor and Teacher. But, even after the harrowing humiliations of 1937‑38, Brother Johnson clearly revealed that R.G.Jolly had not yet cleansed himself in 1943 – 27 years after the Epiphany had begun. If 27 years could not do that for him, who claims to have lost out “only by the skin of his teeth”, then we can only conclude that the “skin on his teeth” must be pretty thick indeed! And what shall we say of those who missed the second death just by the skin of their teeth? How many times 27 years will be required to cleanse them?

Then, let us consider the withdrawal of brotherly fellowship – and here we em­phasize again we are discussing “brotherly fellowship” and not “priestly fellowship”, which are decidedly two different things. He says that “At the February 1955 Jackson­ville Convention Question meeting many hypercritical and oppositional questions were turned in.” Here again, why doesn't he publish those questions instead of asking his readers to accept his word for it? It is easily understandable that those questions would appear that way to him. But those questions were asked for information, with a definite purpose in view; and his answers clearly revealed his confused state of mind at that time. He very definitely declared he had been abandoned to Azazel from December 1937 to February 1938; then in answer to the Question, “Did Brother Johnson ever withdraw brotherly help and favor from you”, his answer was a flat denial, with no intimation or slightest hint of “attenuated withdrawal”. He has since had a be­lated awakening that his answer at Jacksonville placed him in a ridiculous and unten­able position for some of his other claims, so he now embraces his “attenuated with­drawal of brotherly fellowship.” We hope from statements which follow to show con­clusively that Brother Johnson did not withdraw brotherly help and favor from the Good Levites in the LHMM in an “attenuated sense”, or any other sense, except R.G. Jolly's “non”‑sense!

He asks how “JJH knows exactly how Brother Johnson dealt with the Good Levites, since he was not even present in 1937‑38?” JJH knows it from what Brother Johnson wrote; and experience has taught him that is vastly to be preferred over any­thing uncleansed Levites may say or write. In Vol. E‑10, page 398 (middle) Brother Johnson wrote:

“As long as the Priesthood does not abandon crown‑losers, Azazel cannot possess himself of them. ... Azazel could not get them fully into his control.”

If the above was true of That Evil Servant, who eventually “went to his place”, how much more would it be true of R. G. Jolly, even if he was only ten per cent then in 1937‑38 of what he now claims to be! And that shall we say of those others in the LHMM who had never even had PRIESTLY fellowship withdrawn from them and who were im­movably convinced right up to October 22, 1950 that they were of the Elect? At least two of such are now staunch supporters of R. G. Jolly; and one of them was so crestfallen after Brother Johnson's death that he was not himself for weeks. Was it this that caused him to stay away from the funeral of one whom he claimed to love and hon­or so highly?

The statement quoted above from Vol. E‑10 was published in 1941 – at the time when Brother Johnson was at the pinnacle of his sanctified reasoning powers –; is a direct contradiction to the basic premise of this last Present Truth; and proves much of that premise to have been spun wholly and completely from the ethereal cobwebs of Azazelian jugglery.

Brother Russell clearly, and properly, counseled that the spirit of love would not allow us to let go the hand of an erring brother until we had exhausted every ef­fort to reform him. This was just another way of saying he should not be abandoned to Azazel until we had done all to save him from such. Quite clearly, Brother John­son was motivated by this principle when he exerted every possible angle to avoid abandoning That Evil Servant to Azazel. So the question now quite properly appears:

IS R. G. JOLLY CONTENDING – OR ADMITTING – THAT BROTHER JOHNSON HAD EXHAUSTED EVERY EFFORT TO REFORM HIM, BUT HAD FAILED TO DO SO, SO THAT HE WAS EVENTUALLY FORCED TO ABANDON HIM TO AZAZEL?

Will R. G. Jolly have the courage to answer the above question? Also, will he please explain what “sense” Brother Johnson withdrew brotherly help and favor from Brothers Gavin and Eschrich when he did not even withdraw PRIESTLY FELLOWSHIP from them? It should now be quite apparent that it was not merely an attempt to be facetious when labelling his “attenuated sense” as “non”‑sense. It would indeed be a solemn obliga­tion from the Lord to every Priest, and especially to Star Members, to resist Azazel to the full in such cases. As both Star Members repeatedly stated, it was the avowed purpose of Azazel to destroy all New Creatures, so their understanding as true Priests would force them to exert every effort at reformation before withdrawing brotherly help and favor before the Lord had clearly demonstrated that He Himself had abandoned them to Azazel in a final effort to reform them. Such abandoned ones do indeed “sit in the shadow of death”; and it has been this “Sifter's” acute realization of their condition that has prompted five years of long‑suffering attempts to help R. G. Jolly by many private conversations and letters, etc. – which instead of helping him seemed only to prompt him to the use of his “secret weapon”, the “whispering campaign”, of the “hard and abusive” charges which he has refused even to acknowledge in Many instances.

Then he proposes another question: “Is it possible that JJH has lost sight of the distinction between Azazel and the Fit Man?” Well, just so the Brethren could know that he himself clearly understands the “distinction”, why didn't he explain it?

Of course, we readily admit there is indeed a distinction – along the same lines as the distinction between vitalized justification and spirit‑begettal: The “distinc­tion” is so pronounced that it's just impossible to have one without the other. The extreme phase of “Fit‑Man” experiences is “persecuting persons”, who are in turn the tools of Azazel, and are instigated, motivated and directed by him. By comparing this explanation with R. G. Jolly's question, it prompts us to wonder if he himself knew what he was talking about when he placed his question.

And in the same paragraph, col. 2, page 26, with the above question, he belit­tlingly states re our statement of the last Great Company developing truth to appear in the 80‑year period – “it is appearing rather late – in his Nov. 15, 1955 cir­cular.” Well, well!! He loudly and repeatedly has contended – and correctly so – that “classes of individuals are frequently represented in their leader or leaders.” But now – with his usual sleight‑of‑hand – he tosses that teaching out the window because it seems to suit his convenience. On January 18, 1954 the following state­ment was sent to him by this “Sifter”:

“When you recognized that the last Priest had left the earth, you should also have recognized that the last act of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, before removing his linen garments, was to deliver Azazel's Goat into the hands of the Fit man (Lev. 16:20‑24). It seems to me that the awful realization of your appalling position should have caused you to prostrate yourself before God and the breth­ren. But, instead, you began to assert yourself with emphasis; those who could not immediately agree with you were ‘stubborn and self­willed' I know of my own knowledge that your attitude caused some to leave us. Perhaps their leaving was `for good'; perhaps `they went out from us because they were not all of us'. I say, Perhaps! But, perhaps the words of Jesus should be considered here, too: Offenses indeed must come, but woe unto that man by whom the offense cometh. Seemingly, you learned little or nothing from observing the terrible course of That Evil Servant, who immediately began `to smite his fellow‑ser­vants' (his equals).”

On page 34 is quoted in full “a letter from Bro. A. Gohlke”. Here again R. G. Jolly gives lurid evidence of his "Higher Class" by failing even to mention that a clear‑cut and unevasive answer had been given to that letter. And of course his "Higher Class" just wouldn't permit him to quote that answer; so a copy of it is en­closed along with copies of two other letters.

R. G. Jolly says he “may treat later” some others of this “Sifter's” errors; and he is here extended a cordial invitation to do so. It is suggested, too, that the brethren write him, urging him to do so, but reminding him at the same time to dis­pose of the “unfinished business” before us before he opens up anything new. Some of the “unfinished” items are:

(1) His nonsense on the Star Members; (2) his nonsense on “Judas not a thief”; (3) John's Beheading; (4) the Faithful and measurably Faithful; (5) Matt. 18:15; (6) the Slander Case; (7) Bro. Russell's Epiphany Par­allel; (8) “Attenuated” withdrawal of brotherly help and favor.

The foregoing pages still leave several outstanding items of difference to be analyzed; and we here offer the assurance they shall receive clear and unevasive recognition in due course, D.v. With this comes the prayer of the writer that each recipient may be blessed with “the spirit of a sound mind” in evaluing the Truth for the Truth's sake to the Glory of our Beloved Lord and Master.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle, Pilgrim

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

2020 Witherell Avenue

Detroit 26, Michigan

February 18, 1956

Dear Brother Gohlke:

You say you do not expect an answer to your letter of February 8, but you do expect me to have the moral stature to give public approval to a number of your foolish conclusions. I freely admit I do not have that kind of moral stature. Also, you say my November 18 letter “did not request, nor seem to require any ack­nowledgment”; but I did tell you were now faced with an obligation. Obligation to whom – R. G. Jolly, The King of England, or to me?

You say you were “sorry to see, and could not approve” what I had done in Aug­ust, yet you had not disfellowshiped me on Labor Day, although you had several weeks to think it over. Therefore, your action at Chicago in October could hardly hark back to what I had circulated in August.

And your other comments on Page 1 with respect to Matt. 18:15 are simply so much nonsense. If a brother in Philadelphia stole a thousand dollars from you, then said to you, “Now, Brother, I'm not stealing from you any more, so the wrong has been stopped; and that stops you from taking any action against me”, what would you think of that arg­ument? And, if he should steal your good name, instead of the trash in your pocket, he would be guilty of a much more heinous offense; he would then be guilty of murder (See Berean Comments on 1 John 3:15). Brother Russell's teachings for this situation are to be found in his article of November 15, 1908, which article R. G. Jolly has been avoiding as though it were poison; and you now seem to be doing the same thing. Why? The trouble with you here is that you are confusing “punishment” with “restitution” (an undoing of the wrong to the extent of ability). I realize, my Brother, that you are keeping leprous company, which is being sadly reflected in your warped spiritual per­ceptions. You say “the brethren in general know your stand with respect to Truth and Righteousness”, but I wonder if they do; in fact, I wander if you know it yourself. I am assuming your heart is right, that it is simply your head that is so pathetically off balance; and that is my sole reason for writing this letter to you. I think the obligation rests upon me.

On Page 3, par. 2, you try to plead the cause of Brother Gavin with respect to his error on the Tabernacle, and you “naturally look for some explanation or public correction from me”. Having heard just one side of this, it seems that was enough for you to reach pretty definite conclusions. Well, here's the other side of it: He very clearly taught that there was a pewter pitcher at the base of the laver, with which the High Priest drew water on the Day of Atonement, etc., to wash the blood off his hands after sacrificing the animals. He said he had received this from some remote brother somewhere. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible to sup­port either the pewter pitcher, or the High Priest's use of it; but there is certain­ly good clear Reason in dispute of it. Our God is not inefficient or bungling, and He certainly never instructs His people to be that way. If the High Priest had a pitcher of water in one hand, just how effectively could he wash the blood off his other hand? “One hand washes the other” is an old axiom. There is not the slight­est analogy in Brother Gavin's teaching and your citation of Numbers 5. The High Priest washed himself at the laver; but in Numbers 5 his only part in that “bitter water” was the preparing and handling of it – the suspected sinner had to drink it, and not the Priest. Also, the vessel was wood, not pewter; Numbers 5 does not call it a pitcher; the capacity of the human stomach is about one quart, and it seems hardly likely the Lord would require the drinking of even that amount, since the woman might possibly be innocent. Here you have my side of the argument; do you still think I owe Brother Gavin some “public explanation”?

Then Page 3 (2) you cite 1 Tim. 1:15, “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief”. A little reflection – just a very little reflection by you – should have caused you to realize your misapplication of this Scripture. If St. Paul was “chief among sinners”, that put him into substantial­ly the position of a murderer, an adulterer, a drunkard, a robber, etc. Now honestly, Brother, do you think that was Paul's condition at the time he wrote that letter to Timothy – when he was an Apostle of Him who knew no sin? Do you? Do you think that could be the con­dition of any one in the Body of Christ?

Then on Page 4 (3) You cite my “seemingly unloving course” re the Gavin-Krewson matter. You say you “don't believe” the statements I have made; so you are conclud­ing I am a liar before you have heard even a good fraction of the case. Perhaps I'll now seem even more “unloving” when I quote you the words of Solomon, “He that judg­eth a matter before he heareth it is a fool”. I have written proof for my statement – ­plenty of it. You try to make some excuse for Brother Gavin – he did what he did be­fore the “sifter had been exposed”. I can go along with you on this to a certain ex­tent; we all make mistakes, and “to forgive is Divine”. But here is a brother, sup­posedly in the Truth before Brother Krewson was even born, who wholeheartedly encour­ages this younger man in a wrong course; then forsakes him and flees when the battle gets too warm. If he had just a little self‑respect – just a little of the Spirit of the Truth –, don't you think the obligation would rest heavily upon him to undo the wrong he has done? Or do you consider this another case where “Let's just forget it, Brother” is all that's required of him? And what about his obligation toward others than John Krewson, to whom he recommended him so highly? Don't you think he has a duty before the Lord – a most solemn duty – to advise each one of his change of heart to­ward John Krewson? Come, now Brother, give me an honest answer here, won't you? If I saw you attempting to drink from a glass in which I knew there was deadly poison, wouldn't the “love of Jesus” compel me to tell you about it – even though you might be my bitter enemy? But those people he encouraged to “drink” of the Krewson brew are still receiving his writings; yet Brother Gavin does nothing about it. I do indeed wonder what interpretation you give to the text, “We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren”?

But aside from the foregoing, a number of people told me at Philadelphia Conven­tion – after John Krewson was “exposed as a sifter”, and while Brother Gavin was standing on the Convention platform eulogizing “dear antitypical Baanah” – that Brother Gavin was even then wholeheartedly for Brother Krewson. I realize, of course, that they could all be liars; but I know of my own knowledge that Brother Gavin lied most despicably at Winter Park last March 15 – and others know it, too. I have here in my possession my shorthand record of the profuse conversation I held with Brother Gavin here in Detroit in the Fall of 1954. I may show it to you sometime; it'll sur­prise you. Therefore, I want more than just Brother Gavin's word for it that all these others are liars. So, when you say the situation “is down‑right mean”, I won't quarrel very much with your choice of words; but you ought to realize by now that you have hung that label on the wrong party. Yes, you are embracing leprous companions, Brother; and they are truly giving you a rough time. As Brother Johnson so well taught – Once the “plague comes nigh thy dwelling” of uncleansed levites, they come up with the worst sort of nonsense! All the other points in your letter could be shown up in the same deplorable category; but let R. G. Jolly handle those that per­tain to him. You may be willing enough to let him use you as his “beard”, but I am not; let him speak for himself – openly in the public marketplace, as I have done toward him.

Now, lest you misunderstand me, I am expecting an answer to this letter. You said you are not expecting a response to yours of February 8; but you did not say you did not want to hear from me. However, any time you think you have had enough of me, please tell me so in plain language. I will then concede to you the “last word” and will take your name off my mailing list for future writing I expect to cir­culate. However, if you do answer this, I ask that you please tell me how much help R. G. Jolly gave you in composing yours of February 8. It is difficult for me to be­lieve you would write such a foolish letter if left to your own quiet reflections. You will note I still address you as “Brother”, and I have gone to some considerable labor herein to do unto you as I would have you do to me. With this comes my prayer for you and Sister Gohlke for that “wisdom from above” which will guide you into all Truth.

Sincerely your brother,

John J. Hoefle

……………………………

February 8, 1956.

Mr. John J. Hoefle

2020 Witherell Ave.,

Detroit 26, Mich.

Dear Mr. Hoefle:

By your advocacy and continued wide­spread dissemination of teaching in contra­diction of the scriptures, and the teachings of the Parousia and Epiphany Messengers (some of which have been pointed out to you by correspondence, etc.), and addition­ally by your attacks upon the work that the Lord has through the Scriptures and the Epiphany Messenger indicated for the Good Levites to do since Oct. 1950 and Oct. 1954, you have made it evident that you are no longer a suitable person to serve in the Pilgrim office. It becomes, therefore, my unpleasant duty to dismiss you as a Pilgrim for the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement.

Additionally, I feel it to be my duty before the Lord and the brethren to with­hold brotherly fellowship from you and your wife (who I understand is thorough­ly supporting you in your present wrong course), until such time as you turn from your present wrong course and bring forth fruits meet for repentance, if and when that time ever comes.

I have not been desirous of taking the above action, and therefore have de­layed the matter, but, under the circumstances, I believe it to be the Lord's will that I now do so, both if possible, to aid in your recovery, and for the sake of the Lord's people in general.

Regretfully yours,

(Signed) R.G. Jolly Executive Trustee

NOTE: When R. G. Jolly ignores in toto those that have been disfellowship­ed, and ad­vises others to follow his example, he is once again declaring his own person­al sentiments to be superior to the clear teachings of the Scriptures and of That Servant, the latter having written on page 303 of Vol. 6 as follows: “He (the disfellowshiped brother) should not be passed by on the street un­noticed by the brethren, but be treated courteously... ‘Let him he unto thee as an heathen man and a publican!’ Our Lord did not mean we should do injury to a heathen man or a publican, nor to treat either in any manner un­kindly.”

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

2020 Witherell Avenue

Detroit 26, Michigan

February 23, 1956

To Raymond G. Jolly:

Your letter of February 8, in which you formally disfellowship me has at least one redeeming aspect – evidently you have de­termined no longer to play the hypocrite with me and to thus rid yourself of one of your besetting sins. During the past years when you were addressing me as “Dear Brother Hoefle”, all the while belying your “buttered” words with your acts at every opportunity to destroy my good name in the Lord's House, it was most evident to me that you were being actuated by Azazel, in whose hands you have been for so long. When you say you “have not been desirous of taking this action”, I can only conclude that you have in mind the putting of yourself on record by writing your letter, because you had shown by your acts way last fall that you had unequivocally disfellow­ship­­ed me when you refused to give me even a civil greeting while brushing elbows with me at the Chicago Convention. I hope and pray that your accepting what appears to be an honest position in the matter now may be a step in the right direction, which will lead to your ultimate cleansing.

And, when you speak of me “bringing forth fruits for repentance,” you should have made yourself plain here. “Repentance” for what? For publicly exposing your errors, your revolutionisms, your falsehoods, and your doubleminded and unstable floundering? And for publicly exposing your unfaithfulness as Executive Trustee, and your colossal blunders of the past fiveyears?

My wife Emily wholeheartedly joins me in the above sentiments. She, too, remembers most vividly your “DEAR Sister Hoefle” greeting at Winter Park last March 15, and how she had scarcely turned her back until you were directing your efforts to berate and destroy our good names by insinuations and falsehoods. At least, we need no longer concern ourselves with your Judas kiss.

It is the sincere hope of both of us that your letter of February 8 is at least the beginning of a real determination on your part to free yourself from the clutches of Azazel – that thereafter you may “offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness”. Please be assured that immediately we see any sincere effort on your part to forsake your sins and to “pursue that true Holiness without which no man shall see the Lord”, we shall be most happy once more to give you that brotherly fellowship and affection which are the blessed privilege of all the faithful and honest hearts in God's Household.

Sincerely,

John J. Hoefle

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